Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2012-04-17 COUNCIL MEETING
r AGENDA CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS APRIL 17, 2012 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA IV. ADOPTION OF CONSENT AGENDA All agenda items listed on the consent agenda are considered routine and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of such items unless requested to be removed from the Consent Agenda by a Member of the City Council. In such cases the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered immediately following the adoption of the Consent Agenda. (Favorable rollcall vote of majority of Council Members present to approve.) A. Approval of Minutes — Regular Meeting of April 3, 2012 and Work Session of April 3, 2012, B. Receive Payment Of Claims As Per: Pre -List Dated 04/05/2012, TOTAL $1,266,681.77 and Per Pre -List Dated TOTAL $706,912.78 C. Resolution No. 2012 -57 Redistricting Corrections D. Public Meetings and Religious Observances Policy /City Council Meeting Date Change E. 2012 Commodities Purchase — Sand, Rock, Bituminous Materials, Concrete, and Water Treatment Chemicals F. Request for Purchase —Contract No. ENG 12 -3 Countryside Neighborhood Reconstruction G. Resolution No. 2012 -61 Setting May 15, 2012 Hearing Date For Bike Boulevard Improvement BA -238 H. Resolution No. 2012 -63 Cable TV Franchise Extension I. Resolution No. 2012 -64 Setting May 15, 2012 Hearing Date For Gallagher Drive Roadway and Nine Mile Creek Regional Improvements, Imp. BA -382 V. SPECIAL RECOGNITIONS AND PRESENTATIONS A. Resolution No. 2012 -60 Recognizing Foreign Exchange Students VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS Agenda/Edina City Council April 17, 2012 Page 2 During "Public Hearings, the Mayor will ask for public ' testimoony after City staff members make their presentations. If you wish to testify on the topic, you are welcome to do.so as long as your testimony.is relevant to the discussion. To ensure fairness to all speakers and to allow the efficient conduct of a public hearing, speakers must observe the following guidelines: • Individuals must limit their - testimony. to three minutes. The Mayor may modify times, as deemed necessary. • Try not to repeat remarks or points of view.made by prior speakers and limit testimony to the matter under consideration. • In order to maintain a respectful environment for all those in attendance, the use of signs, clapping, cheering or booing or any other form of verbal or nonverbal communication is not . allowed. A. PUBLIC HEARING — Grandview District Development Framework (Favorable vote of Members Present to Approve) B. PUBLIC HEARING - Considering Modifications To Southeast Dining Redevelopment District And Establishing Southdale 2 Tax Increment Financing District, Considering Approval of Southdale Limited Partnership Business'Subsidy and Proposed Spending Plan For Centennial Lakes TIF Finance District, Resolution No. 2012 -58, Resolution No. 2012 -66 and Resolution No. 2012 -67 (Favorable vote of majority of Members Present to Approve) C. PUBLIC HEARING — 50TH & France Parking Structures And Streetscape Improvements Nos. A- 242, P -21 & P -22, Resolution No. 2012 -65 (Favorable rollcall vote of four Members .Present to Approve) D. PUBLIC HEARING — Preliminary Plat With Lot Area and Lot Width Variances, 6120 Brookview Avenue, JMS Custom Homes, Resolution No. 2012 -62 (Favorable vote of Members Present to Approve) VII. COMMUNITY COMMENT During "Community Comment," the City Council will invite residents to share new issues or concerns that haven't been considered in the past 30 days by the Council or which aren't slated for future consideration. Individuals must limit their comments to three minutes. The Mayor may limit the number of speaks on the same issue in the interest of time and topic. Generally speaking, items that are elsewhere on tonight's agenda may not be addressed during Community Comment. Individuals should not expect the Mayor or Council to respond to their comments tonight. Instead the Council might refer the matter to staff for consideration at a future meeting. VIII. REPORTS /RECOMMENDATIONS: (Favorable vote of majority of Council Members present to approve except where noted) A. Resolution No. 2012 -59 Accepting Various Donations IX. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS A. Correspondence f Agenda/Edina City Council April 17, 2012 Page 3 X. MAYOR AND COUNCIL COMMENTS XI. MANAGER'S COMMENTS XII. ADJOURNMENT EDINA HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY I. CALL TO ORDER II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF HRA -Regular Meeting of March 20, 2012 III. PUBLIC HEARING — Considering Modifications To Southeast Dining Redevelopment District And Establishing Southdale 2 Tax Increment Financing District, Considering Approval of Southdale Limited Partnership Business Subsidy and Proposed Spending Plan For Centennial Lakes TIF Finance District Resolution No. 2012 -4, Resolution No. 2012 -6 and Resolution No. 2012-7 (Favorable vote of majority of Commissioners Present to Approve) IV. ADJOURNMENT The City of Edina wants all residents to be comfortable being part of the public process. If you need assistance in the way of hearing amplification, an interpreter, large -print documents or something else, please call 952- 927- 886172 hours in advance of the meeting. SCHEDULE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS /DATES /EVENTS Tues Apr 17 Joint Work Session /Edina Transportation Commission 5:00 P.M. COMMUNITY ROOM Tues Apr 17 Regular Meeting 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS Mon Apr 23 Annual Volunteer Reception 5:00 P.M. WARREN HYDE CLUB HS Tues May 1 Work Session — Personnel Section of City Code 5:30 P.M. COMMUNITY ROOM Tues May 1 Regular Meeting 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS Tues May 15 Joint Work Session —Art Center Board 5:30 P.M. COMMUNITY ROOM Tues May 15 Regular Meeting 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS Mon May 28 MEMORIAL DAY HOLIDAY OBSERVED — City Hall Closed Tues Jun 5 Work Session - 5:30 P.M. COMMUNITY ROOM °s Jun 5 Regular Meeting 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS ..es Jun 19 Joint Work Session — Edina Community Health 5:30 P.M. COMMUNITY ROOM Tues Jun 19 Regular Meeting 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS Tues Jul 3 Joint Work Session — TBD 5:30 P.M. COMMUNITY ROOM Tues Jul 3 Regular Meeting 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS Wed Jul 4 INDEPENDENCE DAY HOLIDAY OBSERVED — City Hall Closed I I MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL -HELD AT-CITY HALL APRIL 3,, 2012 7:00 P.M. 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Hovland called the meeting to order at 7 :03 p.m. 11. ROLLCALL Answering rollcall were Members Bennett, Brindle, Sprague,, Swenson and Mayor Hovland. III. MEETING AGENDA APPROVED Member Swenson made a motion, seconded by Member Sprague, approving the meeting agenda. Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland . Motion carried. IV. CONSENT AGENDA ADOPTED Member Brindle made a motion, seconded by Member Bennett, approving the consent agenda as revised to remove-item ,IV.I. Request to Purchase, Contract ENG 12 -4,, Richmond Hills Neighborhood Reconstruction; and, Item IV.L. Consultant Engineering Services, France Avenue Pedestrian Crossing Improvements, as follows: W.A. Approve regular, closed, and work session meeting minutes of March 20, 2012, and special work session meeting minutes of March 27, 2012 IV.B. Receive payment of the following claims as shown in detail on the Check Register dated March 22, 2012, and consisting of 27 pages; General Fund $170,511.46; Police Special Revenue $104.80; Working „Capital Fund $4,361.87; Art Center Fund $2,780.83; Golf Dome Fund $10,257.40; Aquatic . Center Fund $45.96; Golf . Course Fund $49,329.90; Ice Arena Fund $25,267.98; Edinborough Park Fund $9,654.30; Centennial Lakes. Park Fund $4,961.68; Liquor Fund $133,266.47; Utility Fund $44,723.62,• Storm Sewer Fund $227.27; PSTF Agency.Fund $1,625.76; TOTAL S4S7,119.30 and for approval of payment of claims,dated March 29, 2012, and consisting of 31 pages; General Fund $287,635.12; Police Special Revenue $3,682.94; Working, Capital Fund $56,924.36; Equipment Replacement Fund $66,278.76; Art Center Fund $11,293.65; Golf Dome Fund $5,429.71; Golf Course Fund $48,966.8.9; Ice Arena Fund $6,950.69; Edinborough Park Fund $6,146.38; Centennial Lakes Park Fund $4,461.70; .Liquor Fund ,$317,674:13; Utility Fund $331,199.00; Storm Sewer Fund $3,068:93; Recycling Fund $80.17; PSTF Agency Fund $106,536.87; Payroll Fund $10,646.70; TOTAL S1.266.976.00 IV.C. Request to Purchase, Cushman Turf Truckster - Park Maintenance Department, awarding the bid to the recommended low bidder, Turfwerks at $21,957.05 IV.D. Approve Board & Commission By -Laws: Art Center Board, Community Health Committee, Energy & .Environment Commission, Heritage Preservation Board, Human Rights & Relations Commission, Park Board, and Transportation Commission IV.E. Adopt Resolution. No. 2012 -53, authorizing . participation in Hennepin County Housing & Redevelopment Authority funds for Yorkdale Townhomes IV.F. Request to Purchase, Black Top Roller — Street Division, awarding the, bid to the recommended low bidder, Ruffridge4ohnson Equipment Company, Inc. at $29,493.23 -. IV.G. Request to Purchase, Well No. 7 Rehabilitation, awarding the bid to the recommended low bidder, E.H. Renner & Sons, Inc. at $60,783.00 IV.H. Adopt Resolution No. 2012 -56, setting public hearing for May 15,:2012, for Gallagher Drive Roadway and Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail Improvement, Improvement No. BA -382 i `/I Request We �Y�trF1a5e, - wircrvvc 14,a- rve6nv9rrrvvarrTeevn>•ererccivrr IV.J. Request to Purchase, About Town Paper, awarding the bid to the recommended low bidder, Anchor Paper at $29,415.21 Pagel Minutes /Edina City Council /April 3, 2012 IVX Consultant Engineering Construction Phase Services — Richmond Hills Reconstruction Project IV.M. Adopt Resolution 2012 -54, Safe Routes to School — Edina Transportation Advisory Rollcall: Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA 111.1. REQUEST TO PURCHASE, CONTRACT ENG 12-4 — RICHMOND HILLS NEIGHBORHOOD RECONSTRUCTION — APPROVED Public Works Director /City Engineer Houle asked if the Council would like to offer Richmond Hills residents the same option offered to Minnehaha Woods residents to sign an agreement to upgrade water and sanitary sewer service lines so those costs could be added to the special assessment roll. The Council asked questions of Mr. Houle and reached consensus to support this option since it would provide property owners the ability to finance payments over the term of the assessment roll should they t-he Fesident determine to have that work done. Member Sprague made a motion, seconded by Member Swenson, approving Request to Purchase, Contract ENG 12-4 — Richmond Hills Neighborhood Reconstruction, awarding the bid to the recommended low bidder, Palda & Sons, Inc. at $3,931.944.13, and allowing #property owners the option, of replacing their water and /or sewer utilities service lines, which might provide a cost savings. Noma Property owners may also at their option finance the additional work by having the utility service replacement cost specially assessed against their property. Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. IV.L. CONSULTANT ENGINEERING SERVICES — FRANCE AVENUE PEDESTRIAN CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS — APPROVED Mr. Houle described the improvements proposed for three France Avenue pedestrian crossings that would be financed by a $1 million federal transportation enhancement grant and matching local funds and advised of the high number of stakeholders involved. He indicated this project would incorporate the livable streets philosophy and devel^^ a cencept. to addressing accessibility issues on ass France Avenue. It was noted the City had received a one -year sunset date extension to secure this $1 million grant. Mr. Houle reviewed staff's rationale to recommend the consultant engineering services of WSB. WSB ;ins -4 had already deueleped prepared the requests for the project rescoping and sunset date extension, cest+ng at a cost of about $20,000 and made the initial agency contacts. WSB af4- drafted the southeast area traffic model. in addition, the pFajeet The France Avenue project memorandum needed to be signed and approved by the new sunset date of March 31, 2013, to receive the $1 million grant. Mr. Houle explained that an RFP was required for federally funded projects but staff anticipates using the City's matching funds #ef to pay WSB, not federal funds. The Council discussed the importance of this project and need for its design to be groundbreaking, a catalyst for future transportation infrastructure upgrades and realization of the City's vision for of the Southdale area. In addition, the project needed to incorporate emerging urban design elements beyond landscaping. The Council acknowledged that this funding had been almost lost once, requiring the sunset date extension, and concern was expressed that delaying the schedule to accommodate an RFP might once again put the grant in jeopardy. Chuck Rickart, WSB, agreed the urban design elements were an important piece of this project and offered to bring extraordinary urban design firms to a May meeting for introduction and presentation before the Council. Member Sprague made a motion, seconded by Member Swenson, approving consultant engineering services for France Avenue Pedestrian Crossing Improvements with WSB in the amount of $265,070.00, understanding the importance for this project, high expectations for ew the final product, and expected involvement by an innovative urban design firm. Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. Page 2 Minutes /Edina City Council /April 3. 2012 V. SPECIAL RECOGNITIONS AND PRESENTATIONS V.A. EARTH DAY PROCLAMATION —ADOPTED Mayor Hovland read in full a proclamation declaring April 22, 2012, as Earth Day in the City of Edina. Member Bennett made a motion, seconded by Member Brindle, approving proclamation declaring Earth Day in the City of Edina. Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. Paul Thompson, 4244 Crocker Avenue, Environment & Energy Commission, thanked the Council for this recognition and support of their efforts and announced the April 19, 2012, Edina Dialogue Event. V.B. DAYS OF REMEMBRANCE PROCLAMATION —ADOPTED Mayor Hovland read in full a proclamation recognizing the Days of Remembrance in the City of Edina. Member Brindle made a motion, seconded by Member Swenson, approving proclamation recognizing the Days of Remembrance in the City of Edina. Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. Jessi Kingston, 5801 Brookview Avenue, Human Rights & Relations Commission Chair, thanked the Council for recognizing Days of Remembrances and advised of related educational events. V. C. PATRIOTAWARD PRESENTATION Mayor Hovland commented on the purpose of Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve (ESGR) and the City's efforts to support the deployment of Police Officers Kevin Rofidal and Brandon Kusske. Chris Campbell, 3517 Fourth Avenue. S., Minneapolis, representing the Department of Defense and Secretary of Defense, thanked the Council for supporting the deployment of Officers Rofidal and Kusske. Mr. Campbell read and presented the Patriot Award plaque recognizing the City as a patriotic employer. He described the competitive nomination for the national Freedom Award and advised that on May 21, 2012, the City of Edina would be presented with the State's highest employer recognition, the Pro Patria Award which will be presented by the ESGR. Vl. PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD — Affidavits of Notice presented and ordered placed on file. VI.A. MUNICIPAL CONSENT 1-494 AUXILIARY LANE —RESOLUTION NO. 2012-55 —ADOPTED Mr. Houle advised the Edina Transportation Commission recommended approval of the municipal consent. Scott Pedersen, Mn /DOT Metropolitan District Right -of -Way Engineer, presented three 1 -494 auxiliary lane projects and schedule to let bids June 8, 2012, start of three construction phases in July of 2012, and complete construction the fall of 2013. He described the project components to increase capacity and raise the bridge profile to enhance safety. Mayor Hovland opened the public hearing at 7:51 p.m. Public Testimony No one appeared to comment. Member Sprague made a motion, seconded by Member Swenson, to close the public hearing. Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. Member Swenson introduced and moved adoption of Resolution No. 2012 -SS, approving municipal consent for the improvement of 1 -494 auxiliary lane. Member Sprague seconded the motion. Page 3 Minutes /Edina City Council /April 3. 2012 Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. V11. COMMUNITY COMMENT Loretta Knab, 5008 Richmond Drive, requested guidance on how to include the cost of optional sewer and water service reconstruction. as part of the special assessment. Mr. Houle stated he would provide that information to Ms. Knab. Joe Jellen, 5221 Minnehaha Boulevard, expressed concern about safety at the Southdale Center during evening hours. VIII. REPORTS/ RECOMMENDATIONS VIII.A. SPORTS DOME FEASIBILITY STUDY— AUTHORIZED Park Director Keprios presented the recommendation of the Park Board to authorize consultants to conduct Phase 2 of the Edina Sports Dome Feasibility Study. The Council had previously directed staff to ask the consultant to address the feasibility of the site immediately south of the South Metro Training Facility. The consultant would also address the feasibility of the golf dome area and had agreed to a time and materials contract, rather than a flat fee, with a not -to- exceed figure of $12,000. The Council indicated it wanted to determine feasibility of the golf dome site for a joint project with one entrance prior to proceeding with additional study of any other sites. Member Brindle made a motion, seconded by Member Sprague, authorizing Phase Two, location phase, of the Edina Sports Dome Feasibility Study. Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. VIII.B. SKETCH PLAN REVIEW — 7171 FRANCE AVENUE FOR LUND FOOD HOLDINGS Community Development Director Presentation Community Development Director Teague presented the request of Lund Food Holdings to build a new 52,000 sq. ft. Byerly's with a 96 -unit 7 -story apartment on top and a second 19,000 sq. ft. retail building with a 67 -unit apartment on top at 7171 France Avenue. This building would be constructed just to the south of the existing Byerly's store and once constructed, the existing store would be torn down. Mr. Teague reviewed areas of parking and noted the loading areas behind the buildings facing the Promenade. He also noted primary access points to the site off Hazelton Road with a secondary access off France through the Macy's site to the south. Mr. Teague indicated the request was for a PUD rezoning, noting a variance and amendment to the Comprehensive Plan would be required for height and consideration given to a floor area ratio of 69 percent and parking shortage. Mr. Teague advised the Planning Commission supported the proposed mixed use and was not concerned with the building height, but made many comments on the site plan including the need to create gathering/staying places by enhancing the pedestrian environment and connections to the store and promenade. Proponent Presentation Greg Anderson, 4212 Oakdale Avenue, Anderson Builders representing Lund Food Holdings, introduced the design team and indicated the new store location was placed to allow the existing Byerly's to remain open during construction, to maintain a westerly facing door, and place the parking field between France and the main entrance to retain familiarity for of patrons. Mr. Anderson indicated many details remain to be worked out including access points and location of the loading dock facing the Promenade. Paul Holmes, Pope Architect, presented the sketch plan for this multi -use project and advised of the client's requirements. He indicated the proponent tried to arrange the site so the residential use and its pedestrian and vehicular traffic were separated from the retail use, placing them to face the Promenade. Phase 1 would construct 96 units of housing over the retail and Phase 2 would construct an additional 19,000 sq. ft. of retail and 67 units above that. Page 4 Minutes /Edina City Council /April 3. 2012 The Council discussed the site plan and consensus was reached that while it supported the proposed mixed use and was willing to consider the height deviation, site plan enhancements were needed in the following areas: • Providing at -grade pedestrian interaction and connection to France Avenue and transportation opportunities • Loading dock orientation would negatively impact pedestrian experience and aesthetics of the Promenade • Minimizing impact to the Promenade • Incorporation of Living Streets philosophy and design elements • Increased integration with France Avenue • Providing pedestrian access from France Avenue without having to navigate through the cars • Creation of protected, lighted, pedestrian walkways or greenway within parking areas from grade level to the store that incorporated lighting, landing pads, landscaping, and overstory trees • Modify grass strip on south side of the building to create connectivity feature to the Promenade • Incorporation of landscaping and placement so it does not blunt pedestrians access to the Promenade aecess to pedestFians • Improvements along Hazelton Road such as a roundabout and /or living street features • Creation of quasi - public places to gather • Enhanced sustainability features including stormwater management elements such as buried cisterns to capture stormwater for irrigation The Council supported the proposed water feature, noting it would extend and create linkage with Centennial Lakes. The Gewneil iMember Sprague suggested the proponent consider a land swap with Szechwan Star, providing Szechwan Star with an outlot on the corner of Hazelton and France. Mr. Anderson indicated the proponent had held discussions with the ownership of Szechwan Star; however, the property values had to be much closer to consummate such a deal. He added Byerly's had many partners within the store which would not want a competing use on the corner, and it would be daunting to meet the parking requirements for a restaurant in addition to housing and retail. Mr. Anderson stated the proponent also has had conversations with Macy's regarding a licensed access across both properties. Mr. Teague confirmed that redevelopment of this site would require the proponent to install sidewalks along France Avenue and Hazelton Drive. The Council indicated it had created the PUD zoning to facilitate enhanced creativity and good development that met the needs of the developer and City. However, while the current site plan incorporated elements to meet the goals of the developer, it does not meet the goals of the City Thus, GFeating and would create PUD with one -sided benefits and no public benefits. The Council indicated that to make it worthwhile to consider a PUD zoning and variances, the proposed site plan would need to address the issues raised and the City's goals. It was mentioned the Council preferred the orientation and integration of housing near the St. Louis Park Byerly's with the Wolfe Park area as well as the University Avenue Lund's integration with residential use above. The Council encouraged the proponent to consider the comments of the Planning Commission and Council and create an iconic project in this location. Mr. Anderson indicated he respects the Council's comments, acknowledged the development team had a lot of work to do, and would continue discussions with respect to the City's input. VIII.C. REQUEST FOR PURCHASE— CONTRACT ENG 12 -1 VALLEY ESTATE IMPROVEMENT— APPROVED Mr. Houle presented the street and utility improvements proposed for the Valley Estates neighborhood and staff's recommendation to install sidewalks adjacent to a4e44g -Creek Valley School, along Creek Valley Road from Gleason Road to Nordic Circle, as discussed during the feasibility phase. He indicated staff was reviewing the special assessment policy; however, this $14,000 portion of the project was proposed to be special assessed in 2013 with 50% to the School District and 50% divided W among neighborhood properties at $101 /REU. The sidewalk installation was recommended to improve pedestrian safety since there was a fair amount of traffic on the roadway and the sidewalk would tie into the Gleason Road Page 5 Minutes /Edina City Council /April 3. 2012 sidewalk system. Mr. Houle explained this project was approximately $100,000 over budget, which would be paid from the Storm Water Fund, because the amount of drain the needed to address issues with stormwater drainage had been under estimated. He confirmed installation of the additional drain tile would address the concern expressed by residents at the public hearing relating to drainage issues. It was noted the special assessment would be lower than presented at the feasibility study. The Council emphasized it did not want this sidewalk to become a de facto pick -up or drop -off location for school buses. Mr. Houle advised there were no student pick -up locations on public streets and staff would communicate with the School District to assure this does not occur or that it does not become a parent drop- off /pick -up location. The Council acknowledged a bus was already parking in this area and directed staff to resolve that issue with the School District. Member Swenson made a motion, seconded by Member Sprague, approving award of contract, Contract No. ENG 12 -1, Valley Estates Neighborhood Reconstruction, to the recommended low bidder, Midwest Asphalt Corporation at $1,148,414.50. Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. VIII. D. RESOLUTION NO. 2012-52 —REDISTRICTING CHANGES —APPROVED City Clerk Mangen advised of the requirement to physically describe polling locations and the recommended redistricting changes. The Council asked questions of Ms. Mangen about the redistricting and the location of specific new precinct boundaries. petential f9F Fesidents to ,.h-.Rge distFi *° Ms. Mangen advised that precinct notices would be mailed this summer and staff would concentrate on and send a second notice to residents who had a different polling location. Member Bennett introduced and moved adoption of Resolution No. 2012 -52, approving election boundaries and polling locations. Member Swenson seconded the motion. Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. IX.A. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS — Mayor Hovland acknowledged the Council's receipt of various correspondence. IX.B. RECEIVE PETITION REQUESTING: SIDEWALK NOT BE INSTALLED, LOWERED SPEED LIMIT, BIKE /PEDESTRIAN LANE & PARKING, NORMANDALE ROAD EAST BETWEEN 70TH & 66TH STREETS IX.C. RECEIVE PETITIONS EDINBOROUGH PARK POOL Member Sprague made a motion, seconded by Member Bennett, receiving petitions and asking staff to verify duplicate signatures. Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. X. MAYOR AND COUNCIL COMMENTS — Received XI. MANAGER'S COMMENTS — Received XII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business on the Council Agenda, Mayor Hovland declared the meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk Minutes approved by Edina City Council, April 17, 2012. Video Copy of the April 3, 2012, meeting available. James B. Hovland, Mayor Page 6 MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HALL APRIL 3, 2012 S:3S P.M. Mayor Hovland called the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m. in the Community Room of City Hall. Answering rollcall were Members Bennett, Sprague, Swenson and Mayor Hovland. Member Brindle entered the meeting at 5:37 p.m. Members of the Neighborhood Identification Steering Committee (NISC) in attendance included: Hope Melton, Chair, Dick Brozic, Vice Chair, Bruce Carlson, Bright Dornblaser, Laura Ericksen, Paula Harter, Bob Miller and Gene Persha. Staff attending the meeting: Jennifer Bennerotte, Communications and Technology Services Director; Karen Kurt, Assistant City Manager and Debra Mangen, City Clerk. Mayor Hovland explained the purpose of the meeting was to receive a progress report from the Neighborhood Identification Steering Committee. NISC Chair Melton reviewed the progress the Committee has made to date. She gave an overview of neighborhood associations that included the purpose and benefits, identified as fostering two -way communication between neighborhoods and City government and building community through cooperative action. Ms. Melton reviewed a tentative schedule for a public engagement process that included: 1) Written Survey, 2) Introduction and information gathering meeting, 3) Meeting to review options by quadrant and gather feedback, 4) Meeting to present city -wide recommendations and gather feedback and 5) NISC makes recommendation to the City Council. This rigorous timeline would culminate with the NISC recommendation in November of 2012. Committee members asked directions of the Council relative to the City's expectations /reasons for contemplating neighborhood associations including: what would the next steps be after neighborhood boundaries are established; what does the city envision as the scope and purpose of neighborhood associations; and how would communication be handled and support from the City administered. The discussion included a development of overall structure such as sample bylaws, budgeting for neighborhood associations, training, reaching multi - family housing buildings, community building process and how to handle areas that choose not to participate in a formal association. Considerations for neighborhood boundaries included geography, size (housing vs. population), taking care not to divide existing neighborhoods peeple, and areas with already established associations. Concern was expressed that care be taken not to establish a framework that sets neighborhoods against other neighborhoods. The Council thanked the Committee for the work to date and asked for updates as they begin the information gathering phase of work. They indicated they saw neighborhood associations as a means of communication, Associations would be conduits of information, fostering neighborhood security and community building. The associations will be a #vehicle to share information leading to better- informed participation and public decision - making. Mayor Hovland declared the meeting adjourned at 6:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Minutes approved by Edina City Council, April 17, 2012. Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk James B. Hovland, Mayor R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register 4/5/2012 -4/5/2012 Check # Date Amount Supplier /. Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No 357818 41512012 105696 3CMA 375.00 DUES 284738 2012 1130.6105 375.00 357819 41612012 125324 3M 32.50 PRESCRIPTION SAFETY GLASSES 00005067 284426 02822078 1301.6610 130.50 284427 02822072 1301.6610 92.50 284428 02822075 1301.6610 181.00 284429 02826494 1646.6610 61.25 284430 02822059 1646.6610 122.50 284431 02822066 1553.6610 620.25 357820 41612012 101833 A.T.O.M. 65.00 TRAINING - KENNA DICK 284432 ID 42067674 1400.6104 65.00 357821 41512012 103173 ACCOUNTEMPS 895.44 UB TEMP 284433 35142157 5910.6103 895.44 357822 4/612012 102971 ACE ICE COMPANY 105.20 284660 1555293 5862.5515 86.40 284661 1556075 5822.5515 133.20 284852 .1556080 5842.5515 324.80 357823 41512012 122066 ADVANCED GRAPHIX INC. 472.00 TFI HELMET DECALS 00003772 284789 185354 421480.6710 472.00 367824 41512012 129469 AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES INC. 57,490.62 NEW WTP #6 PROJECT 284615 37219511 05473.1705.21 57,490.62 357825. 41612012 103367 ALPHA VIDEO & AUDIO INC. 3,548.47 AV EQUIPMENT INSTALLATION 284434 SYSINV11429 1130.6103 3,548.47 357826 41512012 127365 AMERICAN FLEET SUPPLY 90.12 DEF FLUID 00005021 284435 AFS- 220830038 1553.6530 90.12 Subledger Account Description DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS SAFETY'EQUIPMENT SAFETY EQUIPMENT SAFETY EQUIPMENT SAFETY EQUIPMENT SAFETY EQUIPMENT SAFETY EQUIPMENT CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT CONSULTING INSPECTION PROFESSIONAL SERVICES REPAIR PARTS i I 4/5/20,12; 7:26:54 Page - 1 Business Unit COMMUNICATIONS i I GENERAL MAINTENANCE GENERAL MAINTENANCE GENERAL MAINTENANCE BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUILDING MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN ' I I POLICE DEPT. GENERAL GENERAL (BILLING) i VERNON SELLING 50TH ST SELLING YORK SELLING SPECIAL OPS FIRE EQUIPMENT' WM-473 NEW TREATMENT PLANT 96 COMMUNICATIONS I EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 4/5/2012 7:26:54 Council Check Register Page - 2 4/5/2012 - 415/2012 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 357827 41612012 101479 AMERICAN SERVICES CORP. 192.32 BALER MAINTENANCE 284810 2674 5861.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS VERNON OCCUPANCY 192.32 BALER MAINTENANCE 284811 2675 5821.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS 50TH ST OCCUPANCY 58.73 BALER TWINE 284812 2676 5841.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES YORK OCCUPANCY 192.32 BALER MAINTENANCE 284812 2676 5841.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS YORK OCCUPANCY 635.69 357828 41512012 102109 ANCOM TECHNICAL CENTER 638.75 DISPATCH SERVICE 284436 28410 1400.6230 SERVICE CONTRACTS EQUIPMENT POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 638.75 357829 415/2012 102172 APPERrS FOODSERVICE 634.12 FOOD 284437 1710945 5421.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD GRILL 174.50- CREDIT 284438 1709107 5421.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD GRILL 20.75- CREDIT 284439 1708410 5761.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD CENTENNIAL LAKES OPERATING 21.46- 284440 1708409 5761.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD CENTENNIAL LAKES OPERATING 75.37- CREDIT 284441 1708408 5761.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD CENTENNIAL LAKES OPERATING 176.75- 284442 1708407 5761.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD CENTENNIAL LAKES OPERATING 165.29 357830 4/512012 100634 ASPEN EQUIPMENT CO. 1,327.31- CREDIT 284542 10095291 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 496.97 REMOTE CONTROL 00005832 284543 10095951 1553.6556 TOOLS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 252.98 PUMP 00005961 284544 10097580 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 1,036.66 VIBRATOR KIT 00005076 284545 10096600 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 1,036.66 VIBRATOR KIT 00005077 284546 10098601 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 1,495.96 357831 41512012 126019 B & B PRODUCTS / RIGS AND SQUA 130.99 SQUAD REPAIRS 284443 3686 1400.6215 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 130.99 357832 4/512012 125300 BAUMAN, DOUG 93.80 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 284813 033012 5510.6107 MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE ARENA ADMINISTRATION 93.80 357833 4/5/2012 101355 BELLBOY CORPORATION 115.88 284349 72393000 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 263.54 284350 72648000 5822.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING 646.40 284351 72668800 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 27.00 284352 86531300 5822.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 50TH ST SELLING R55CKREG LOG20000 122688 BMK SOLUTIONS 14.73 CITY OF EDINA OFFICE SUPPLIES 40.35 OFFICE SUPPLIES Council Check Register OFFICE SUPPLIES 11.61 OFFICE SUPPLIES 4/5/2012 - 415/2012 Check # Dale Amount Supplier/ Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No 81.33 284352 86531300 5822.5515 196.55 284353 72670500 5822.5512 269.10 284354 72576700 5862.5513 148.65 284355 72477500 5862.5513 305.30 284356 72668700 5862.5513 108.70 284357 6164100 5862.5515 99.31 284358 86531200 5862.5515 36.55 284662 72477400 5862.5515 1,828.55 284853 72803800 5842.5513 942.45 284854 72803700 5842.5512 404.45 284855 72808000 5842.5512 109.65 284856 72803600 5842.5515 253.49 284857 86557500 5842.5515 35.06 284858 86557400 5862.5515 361.10 284859 72808100 5862.5512 36.55 284860 72803500 5862.5515 609.30 284861 72803400 5862.5513 6,878.91 357834 41512012 100648 BERTELSON OFFICE PRODUCTS 55.29 OFFICE SUPPLIES 284814 OE- 281305 -1 5860.6513 55.29 357835 41512012 00001437 284547 75897 00001437 284547 75897 00001437 284547 75897 00001437 284548 76002 00001437 284548 76002 00001437 284548 76002 00003770 284549 75991 357836 41512012 105367 BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC 961.69 AMBULANCE SUPPLIES 00003753 284790 87346580 1,822.70 00003766 284791 87348770 2,784.39 357837 41512012 119351 13OURGET IMPORTS 764.20 284663 107335 799.00 284664 107334 1,563.20 1646.6406 1260.6406 1552.6406 1552.6406 1646.6406 5913.6406 1470.6513 Subledger Account Description COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX COST OF GOODS•SOLD MIX COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE OFFICE SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES 4/5/2012 7:26:54 Page- 3 Business Unit 50TH ST SELLING 50TH ST SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING i YORK SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON LIQUOR GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE ENGINEERING GENERAL CENT SVC PW BUILDING CENT SVC PW BUILDING BUILDING MAINTENANCE DISTRIBUTION FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 1470.6510 FIRST AID SUPPLIES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 1470.6510 FIRST AID SUPPLIES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 122688 BMK SOLUTIONS 14.73 OFFICE SUPPLIES 17.73 OFFICE SUPPLIES 40.35 OFFICE SUPPLIES 9.62 OFFICE SUPPLIES 11.61 OFFICE SUPPLIES 121.88 OFFICE SUPPLIES 214.39 OFFICE SUPPLIES 430.31 00001437 284547 75897 00001437 284547 75897 00001437 284547 75897 00001437 284548 76002 00001437 284548 76002 00001437 284548 76002 00003770 284549 75991 357836 41512012 105367 BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC 961.69 AMBULANCE SUPPLIES 00003753 284790 87346580 1,822.70 00003766 284791 87348770 2,784.39 357837 41512012 119351 13OURGET IMPORTS 764.20 284663 107335 799.00 284664 107334 1,563.20 1646.6406 1260.6406 1552.6406 1552.6406 1646.6406 5913.6406 1470.6513 Subledger Account Description COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX COST OF GOODS•SOLD MIX COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE OFFICE SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES 4/5/2012 7:26:54 Page- 3 Business Unit 50TH ST SELLING 50TH ST SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING i YORK SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON LIQUOR GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE ENGINEERING GENERAL CENT SVC PW BUILDING CENT SVC PW BUILDING BUILDING MAINTENANCE DISTRIBUTION FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 1470.6510 FIRST AID SUPPLIES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 1470.6510 FIRST AID SUPPLIES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 4/5/2012 7:26:54 Council Check Register Page - 4 4/5/2012 - 4/5/2012 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 367838 41612012 100669 BOYER TRUCK PARTS 36.17 SCREWS 00005092 284444 617014 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 7.50 PEDAL PAD 00005013 284445 P9972 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 39.27 ANTENNA 00005014 284550 P9191 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 82.94 357839 41512012 100667 BROCK WHITE COMPANY 516.92 DETACK CRAFCO, EDGER 00001963 284792 12181863-00 1301.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL MAINTENANCE 516.92 357840 4/512012 101430 BROWNELLS INC. 268.23 GUN CLEANING PARTS 00003195 284446 07419362.00 1400.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 268.23 357841 41512012 119826 BRYANT GRAPHICS INC. 765.89 NEWSLETTER 00008270 284739 27492 1628.6575 PRINTING SENIOR CITIZENS 765.89 357842 41512012 100144 BUREAU OF CRIMINAL APPREHENSIO 135.00 BACKGROUND CHECKS 284851 040212 1550.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 135.00 367843 41612012 103244 BURTIS, ROBERT 150.00 EP ENTERTAINMENT 4/12/12 284740 033012 5710.6136 PROFESSIONAL SVC - OTHER EDINBOROUGH ADMINISTRATION 150.00 357844 41512012 121518 BUSHNELL OUTDOOR PRODUCTS 289.02 GOLF CLUB - BRAEMAR GC 00006302 284841 721714 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 289.02 357845 41512012 119455 CAPITOL BEVERAGE SALES 2,722.95 284665 67611 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 60.50 284666 67612 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 2,783.45 357846 4/512012 118883 CAT & FIDDLE BEVERAGE 459.50 284359 92778 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 520.00 284360 92737 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 93.33- 284361 #91074 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 886.17 R55CKREG LOG20000 r 415/2012 7:26:54' I ,r Page - 5 - CITY OF EDINA GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL STORM SEWER GENERAL SUPPLIES STREET RENOVATION I Council Check Register i CENT SVC PW BUILDING HEAT - CENT SVC PW BUILDING HEAT 4/512012 - 4/5/2012 Check # Date Amount Supplier I Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No 357847 41612012 TELEPHONE 101615 CEMSTONE PRODUCTS CO. TELEPHONE CENTRAL SERVICES' GENERAL TELEPHONE POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 46.96- MIXING PAIL 00001849 284447 1279328 5932.6406 YORK SELLING 378.87 LINE MARKERS, BROOM 00001924 284551 1279329 1314.6406 YORK SELLING 425.83 .. VERNON SELLING 357848 41512012 112561 CENTERPOINT ENERGY 1,727.34 8034001 -1 284552 8034001 -3/12 1552.6186 19.24 5528973 -0 284553 5528973-0 1552.6186 1,731.63 5546504 -1 284554 5546504 -1 1470.6186 4,045.56 5591458 -4 284555 5591458 -3/12 1551.6186 83.48 5596524 -8 284556 5596524 -3/12 5430.6186 7,607.25 357849 41512012 102804 CENTURY COLLEGE 2,685.00 ACLS RECERTIFICATION 00003748 284793 00455878 1470.6014 2,685.00 357850 41512012 123898 CENTURYLINK 121.45 952 831 -0024 284557 0024 -3/12 1552.6188 114.49 952 920 -8166 284558 8166 -3/12 1550.6188 60.80 952 922 -2444 284559 2444 -3/12 1550.6188 40.32 952 922 -9246 284560 9246 -3/12, 1400.6188 337.06 357851 41512012 119725 CHISAGO LAKES DISTRIBUTING CO 158.95 284362 468919 5822.5514 496.55 284667 469147 5842.5514 125.00 284668 469134 5842.5514 780.50 357852 41512012 122084 CITY OF EDINA - UTILITIES 85.05 0112920000 - 00102561 284815 112920000 -3/12 5841.6189 85.05 357853 41612012 103040 CITY PAGES 291.66 MAGAZINE ADVERTISING 284816 D10051739 5822.6122 291.66 MAGAZINE ADVERTISING 284816 D10051739 5842.6122 291.68 MAGAZINE ADVERTISING 284816 D10051739 5862.6122 875.00 357854 , 41512012 100689 CLAREYS SAFETY EQUIP. 48.99 STANCHION CENTER, HANDRAIL 00005071 284448 143588 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN r 415/2012 7:26:54' I ,r Page - 5 - Subledger Account Description Business Unit GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL STORM SEWER GENERAL SUPPLIES STREET RENOVATION I HEAT i CENT SVC PW BUILDING HEAT - CENT SVC PW BUILDING HEAT FIRE DEPT. GENERAL HEAT CITY HALL GENERAL HEAT RICHARDS GOLF COURSE SALARIES OT TEMP EMPLOYEES i FIRE DEPT. GENERAL TELEPHONE CENT SVC PW BUILDING - TELEPHONE CENTRAL SERVICES- GENERAL TELEPHONE CENTRAL SERVICES' GENERAL TELEPHONE POLICE DEPT. GENERAL COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING SEWER & WATER YORK OCCUPANCY ADVERTISING OTHER 50TH ST SELLING ADVERTISING.OTHER YORK SELLING ADVERTISING OTHER VERNON SELLING REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN R55CKREG LOG20000 707.27 MERCHANDISE CITY OF EDINA 92029603 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES Council Check Register 4/5/2012 -415/2012 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 104.09 FLOOR CLEANER 48.99 2439572 1552.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENT SVC PW BUILDING 357855 41512012 100692 COCA -COLA REFRESHMENTS 357861 41512012 181.20 102478 DAY DISTRIBUTING CO. 284669 0178087508 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 181.20 2,113.00 284363 643916 5842.5514 357856 4/512012 129820 COLLIERS INTERNATIONAL 74.80 284364 643915 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 800.80 APR 2012 MAINTENANCE 284561 APR2012 5841.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 643912 5862.5515 800.80 VERNON SELLING 1,826.60 357857 4/512012 5862.5514 101329 CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS INC. VERNON SELLING 817.75 284672 133.59 INSULATION 00001822 284449 0076151 -IN 1314.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 4,920.85 133.59 357858 4/512012 121267 CREATIVE RESOURCES 1,652.60 DRAWSTRING BACKPACKS 284784 15022 5720.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES TOOLS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 1,231.55 UNIFORMS 284817 14658 5511.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 1646.6556 TOOLS 2,884.15 75.58 357859 41512012 102514 CUTTER & BUCK 357863 41512012 122135 DENFELD, SCOTT 4/5/2012 7:26:54 Page - 6 Business Unit VERNON SELLING YORK OCCUPANCY STREET RENOVATION EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS ARENA BLDG/GROUNDS 707.27 MERCHANDISE 284450 92029603 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 707.27 367860 41512012 104020 DALCO 104.09 FLOOR CLEANER 00001454 284451 2439572 1552.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENT SVC PW BUILDING 104.09 357861 41512012 102478 DAY DISTRIBUTING CO. 2,113.00 284363 643916 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 74.80 284364 643915 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 88.70 284670 643912 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 1,826.60 284671 643913 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 817.75 284672 643914 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING 4,920.85 357862 41612012 100718 DELEGARD TOOL CO. 33.46 OIL PRESSURE GAUGE KIT 00005018 284452 675473 1553.6556 TOOLS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 42.12 WRENCH SET 00001786 284453 675458 1646.6556 TOOLS BUILDING MAINTENANCE 75.58 357863 41512012 122135 DENFELD, SCOTT 59.94 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 284842 032812 1130.6107 MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE COMMUNICATIONS R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 4/512012 7:26:54 Council Check Register Page- 7 4/5/2012 - 4/5/2012 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 59.94 _357864 41512012 100720 DENNYS 5TH AVE. BAKERY 118.63 BAKERY 284454 404696 5421.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD GRILL 118.63 357865 4/512012 129191 DICK & RICK'S AUTO INTERIORS 311.79 UPHOLSTERY REPAIRS 00005120 284562 26866 1553.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 311.79 - 357866 '41512012 123996 DICK'S /LAKEVILLE SANITATION IN 3,847.85 REFUSE 284455 1360118 4095.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 50TH STREET RUBBISH 2,414.75 REFUSE 284456 1355118 4095.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 50TH STREET RUBBISH 6,262.60 _ 357867 415/2012 100094 DMX INC. 241.96 MUSIC SYSTEM REPAIRS 284818 3084404 5861.6215 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE VERNON OCCUPANCY 241.96 - 357868 41512012 129157 DO -GOOD.BIZ INC 223.87 PREPARE POSTCARDS FOR MAILING 284785 4683 -02 1140.6575 PRINTING PLANNING '223.87 357869 4/612012 116926 DONOVAN, EDITH 54.00 TRIP REFUND 284741 032812 1628.4392.07 SENIOR TRIPS SENIOR CITIZENS 54.00 357870 4/512012 130109 DOUGHTY, MARY 65.00 BASKETBALL CAMP REFUND 284742 032612 1600.4390.15 GEN ADAPTIVE REC PARK ADMIN. GENERAL 65.00 357871 41512012 100744 EDINA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 20.00 EMERGING LEADERS 284457 31495 1130.6106 MEETING EXPENSE COMMUNICATIONS 20.00 357872 41512012 101630- EDINA PUBLIC SCHOOLS 270.00 GOLF DOME AD IN CATALOG. 284743 AS /S-03 5410.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER GOLF ADMINISTRATION 177.50 EDINA LIQUOR AD IN CATALOG 284820 AS /S -05 5822.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER 50TH ST SELLING 177.50 EDINA LIQUOR AD IN CATALOG 284820 AS /S-05 5842.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER YORK SELLING 177.50 EDINA LIQUOR AD IN CATALOG 284820 AS /S-05 5862.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER VERNON SELLING 802.50 R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register 4/5/2012 -4/5/2012 Check # Date Amount Supplier/ Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 357873 41512012 103594 EDINALARM INC. 780.33 REINSTALL STORE ALARMS 284819 72197 5800.1720 BUILDINGS 5910.6103 1554.6160 1553.6530 1553.6530 1553.6530 1553.6530 1553.6530 1646.6406 1470.6406 1550.6121 1400.4120 5842.5514 5440.5511 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES DATA PROCESSING 4/5/2012 7:26:54 Page - 8 Business Unit LIQUOR BALANCE SHEET GENERAL (BILLING) CENT SERV GEN - MIS REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION 780.33 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 357874 415/2012 GEN 117375 ESRI EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION 3,000.00 ARCINFO MAINTENANCE 284563 92460219 3,924.14 ARCVIEW MAINTENANCE 284563 92460219 6,924.14 357875 41512012 100146 FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY 43.09 ANTIFREEZE 00005695 284458 70- 093060 190.27 STARTER 00005965 284459 69-062219 92.60 SILICONE SEAL 00005965 284564 1- 860185 345.66 MOTOR & FAN ASSEMBLY 00005965 284565 69- 061916 35.74- CREDIT 284794 1- 3860945 635.88 357876 41512012 101848 FC ORGANIZATIONAL PRODUCTS LLC 41.58 OFFICE SUPPLIES 00001761 284460 80806561 41.58 357877 41512012 120329 FIRE EQUIPMENT SPECIALTIES INC 29.82 STRAP 00003773 284795 7481 29.82 357878 4/5/2012 119211 FIRSTLAB 39.00 PRE - EMPLOYMENT PHYSICAL 284461 00508444 39.00 367879 41512012 130115 FISCHER, LAURA 10.00 LICENSE OVERCHARGE REFUND 284912 032612 10.00 357880 41512012 129500 FLAT EARTH BREWING CO. 614.00 284862 4408 614.00 357881 41512012 101475 FOOTJOY 499.44 SHOES 284616 4196634 499.44 357882 41512012 102727 FORCE AMERICA 5910.6103 1554.6160 1553.6530 1553.6530 1553.6530 1553.6530 1553.6530 1646.6406 1470.6406 1550.6121 1400.4120 5842.5514 5440.5511 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES DATA PROCESSING 4/5/2012 7:26:54 Page - 8 Business Unit LIQUOR BALANCE SHEET GENERAL (BILLING) CENT SERV GEN - MIS REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN GENERAL SUPPLIES BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL ADVERTISING PERSONNEL CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL DOG LICENSES POLICE DEPT. GENERAL COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register 4/5/2012 - 4/5/2012 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No 490.21 JOYSTICK 00005017, 284462 01381707 1553.6530 490.21 357883 41512012 104446 FORM RESERVATIONS INC. 900.00 RESERVATION SYSTEM 00006433 284463 47317 5410.6103 1,350.00 RESERVATION SYSTEM FOR FR GCOOD06445 284566 47318 5410.6103 2,250.00 367884 41612012 100764 G & K SERVICES 20.96 SHOP TOWELS 284617 1006626796 5422.6201 18.50 284618 1006648668 5422.6201 39.46 367886 41612012 105155 GARLOCK FRENCH CORP 147.49 PERMIT REFUND 284744 ED113286 1495.4111 147.49 357886 41612012 101931 GEAR FOR SPORTS 378.00 MERCHANDISE 284619 40566347 5440.5511 378.00 367887 41612012 100773 GENERAL PARTS INC. 55.50 FAN MOTOR 00006467 284464 1295873 5420.6530 55.50 357888 4/612012 118941 GLOBALSTAR USA 264.60 REMAINDER OF 2012 OPAYMEN1284796 3747152 1470.6188 264.60 367889 4/612012 101103 GRAINGER 17.54 SAFETY GLASSES 00005061 284465 9781105326 5913.6610 124.87 SAW, TAPE. 00001848 284466 9781105318 5913.6406 48.08 PRESSURE GAUGE 00005012 284567 9785443533 1553.6530 74.08 V -BELTS 00001949 284620 9786354713 1552.6406 244.61 INDUSTRIAL THERMOMETERS 00001949 284620 9786354713 1551.6406 11.10 COUPLERS 00006154.284621 9780616984 5422.6406 97.27 RAKES 00006364 284622 9775625149 5422.6406 24.49 RANGE LIGHTING 284745 9789794675 7412.6406 365.52 REGULATOR, AIR HOSE REEL 00001937 284797 9782443312 1470.6530 1,007.56 357890 41612012 102217 GRAPE BEGINNINGS INC Subledger Account Description REPAIR PARTS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES LAUNDRY LAUNDRY BUILDING PERMITS COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP REPAIR PARTS TELEPHONE f SAFETY EQUIPMENT GENERAL SUPPLIES REPAIR PARTS GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES REPAIR PARTS 4/5/2012 7:26:54 Page- 9 Business Unit - - EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN GOLF ADMINISTRATION GOLF ADMINISTRATION MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS INSPECTIONS PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES CLUB HOUSE FIRE DEPT. GENERAL DISTRIBUTION DISTRIBUTION EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN, CENT SVC PW BUILDING CITY HALL GENERAL MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS, _ MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS' PSTF RANGE _ FIRE DEPT. GENERAL R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 4/5/2012 7:26:54 Council Check Register Page - 10 415/2012 —4/512012 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 2,751.00 284365 137318 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 244.50 284366 137551 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 1,424.50 284863 137850 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 4,420.00 357891 41512012 101518 GRAUSAM, STEVE 250.86 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 284843 040212 5840.6107 MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE LIQUOR YORK GENERAL 250.86 367892 4/612012 102126 GREG LESSMAN SALES 227.97 MERCHANDISE 284467 46259 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 227.97 357893 41512012 100786 GREUPNER, JOE 12,699.00 2ND QUARTERLY PAYMENT 284568 032812 5410.6132 PROFESSIONAL SVCS - GOLF GOLF ADMINISTRATION 12,699.00 357894 41612012 100786 GREUPNER, JOE 1,213.00 GIFT CERTIFICATES FOR LESSONS 284746 032912 5201.4543 GOLF DOME RECEIPTS GOLF DOME REVENUES 1,514.00 GIFT CERTIFICATES FOR LESSONS 284746 032912 5401.4602 LESSONS GOLF REVENUES 2,727.00 357895 4/612012 100787 GRUBER'S POWER EQUIPMENT 38.09 FUEL PUMP 00005091 284569 105652 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 38.09 357896 41512012 104482 GUNNAR ELECTRIC CO. INC. 578.83 ELECTRICAL WORK IN TOWER 284747 12 -2 -54 7413.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PSTF FIRE TOWER 578.83 357897 41612012 102320 HAMCO DATA PRODUCTS 58.95 THERMAL RECEIPT PAPER 284468 106324 5822.6512 PAPER SUPPLIES 50TH ST SELLING 117.89 THERMAL RECEIPT PAPER 284468 106324 5842.6512 PAPER SUPPLIES YORK SELLING 176.84 367898 41612012 106371 HENNEPIN COUNTY MEDICAL CENTER 2,475.08 MEDICAL DIRECTOR SERVICES 284821 OB20379 1470.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 2,475.08 357899 41512012 116680 HEWLETT - PACKARD COMPANY 467.74 PC /LAPTOP 00004307 284748 50863210 1600.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PARK ADMIN. GENERAL 1,634.35 LAPTOPS 00004307 284748 50863210 1554.6710 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT CENT SERV GEN - MIS R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 4/5/2012 7:26:54 Council Check Register Page - 11 4/5/2012 - 4/5/2012 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 32.06 MEMORY FOR PC 00004317 284749 50906566 1554.6710 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT CENT SERV GEN - MIS 646.44 PC 00004317 284750 50921349 1554.6710 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT CENT SERV GEN - MIS 3,853.00 PCS 00004317 284751 50925776 1554.6710 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT CENT SERV GEN - MIS, 144.28 MONITOR FOR FSI CARD ACCESS 00004319 284752 50955480 1470.6530 REPAIR PARTS FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 6,777.87 357900 4/512012 103753 HILLYARD INC - MINNEAPOLIS 19.29 GASKETS 00002115 284753 700020415 5720.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS' 19.29 357901 41512012 104375 HOHENSTEINS INC. 743.00, 284367 594306 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING 1,639:00 284673 594987 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 1,232.50 284674 594258 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 28.00 284675 594259 5862.6515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 2,063.50 284864 595131 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 5,706.00 357902 41512012 103302 HONEYWELL CONCERT BAND 100.00 EP ENTERTAINMENT 4/15/12 284755 033012 5710.6136 PROFESSIONAL SVC - OTHER EDINBOROUGH ADMINISTRATION 100.00 357903 41512012 100417 HORIZON COMMERCIAL POOL SUPPLY 822.15 POOL CHEMICALS 284754 .12031227 5720.6545 CHEMICALS EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS 822.15 - i 357904 41512012 103869 HOTSY EQUIPMENT OF MINNESOTA 154.83 HOSE 00005989 284469 39775 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 154.83 _ - 357905. 41512012 112628 ICEE COMPANY, THE 207.23 CONCESSION PRODUCT 284756 17946089 5730.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD EDINBOROUGH CONCESSIONS 207.23 357906 41512012 129508 IMPACT PROVEN SOLUTIONS 3,505.02 MAIL WATER BILLS 284757 61498 5910.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES GENERAL (BILLING) . 3,505.02 357907 41512012 100814 INDELCO PLASTICS CORP. 12.57 PVC, ELBOWS 00001833 284470 697325 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 12.57 ' R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 4/512012 7:26:54 Council Check Register Page - 12 4/5/2012 - 4/5/2012 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 357908 41512012 128368 INDEPENDENT STATIONERS 96.90 IMAGE TRANSFER KIT 00001932 284570 IN- 000157980 1552.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENT SVC PW BUILDING 96.91 IMAGE TRANSFER KIT 00001932 284570 IN- 000157980 1260.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES ENGINEERING GENERAL 193.81 357909 41612012 104572 INVISIBLE FENCE CO. OF MN 333.72 4814 GOLF TERR - FENCE REPAIR 284571 150618 01355.1705.21 CONSULTING INSPECTION BA -355 GOLF TERRACE N'HOOD 333.72 357910 41512012 101861 J.H. LARSON COMPANY 1,896.69 LAMP AND PHOTO CELL 00001625 284572 5100058094.007 1322.6530 REPAIR PARTS STREET LIGHTING ORNAMENTAL 1,896.69 357911 41512012 101400 JAMES, WILLIAM F 100.00 POLICE SERVICE 284573 040112 1419.6102 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES RESERVE PROGRAM 100.00 357912 41612012 100741 JJ TAYLOR DIST. OF MINN 5,024.15 284368 1731523 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING 63.30 284676 1731565 5822.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 50TH ST SELLING 3,879.66 284865 1731572 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 6,431.35 284866 1731566 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 39.05 284867 1731573 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 15,437.51 357914 4/512012 100835 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO. 5,856.65 284369 1257840 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 798.27 284370 1257843 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 203.08 284371 1259048 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 1,030.43 284372 1257845 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 66.24 284373 1259050 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 2,317.91 284374 1257842 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 395.60 284375 1257829 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 142.00 284376 1258477 5822.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING 100.00 284377 1258478 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE BOTH ST SELLING 594.78 284378 1557824 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 394.64 284379 1257827 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 384.62 284380 1257830 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 17.32- 284381 525954 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 42.72- 284382 529244 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 31.37 284677 1262900 5822.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 50TH ST SELLING 328.41 284678 1262897 5822.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR BOTH ST SELLING R55CKREG LOG20000 Check # Date 367916 41512012 367916 41512012 Amount Supplier / Explanation 741.58 1,164.35 2,584.33 159.36 4,013.36 435.42. 35.37 116.81 1,281.90 114.62- 20.99 3,176.57 3,028.76 5,999.47 50.14 1,873.59 136.00 2,234.19 947.35 7.42 - 28.00- 40,433.46 0 130111 JOHNSON, CAROL 15.00 DOG LICENSE OVERCHARGE REFUND 284758 032612 1400.4120 15.00 102113 JOHNSTONE SUPPLY 29.50 BELTS 00001954 284574 140031 5913.6406 34.18 BELTS 00001954 284574 140031 5431.6406 63.68 357917 41512012 130112 KEY TITLE TRUST 534.01 UTILITY OVERPAYMENT REFUND 284759 7740 MARTH CT 5901.4626 534.01 367918 4/612012 124002 KIMLEY -HORN AND ASSOCIATES INC 1,278.74 ENGINEERING SERVICES 284575 4718159 01242.1705.20 96.20 284576 4744955 01237.1705.21 1,374.94 357919 41512012 130108 KLECKNER, BARB Subledger Account Description COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF: GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST.OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE DOG LICENSES GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES, SALE OF WATER CONSULTING DESIGN CONSULTING INSPECTION 4/5/2012 7:26:54 Page 13 Business Unit 50TH ST SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING 50TH ST SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING -- YORK SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING - VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING POLICE DEPT. GENERAL DISTRIBUTION RICHARDS GC MAINTENANCE, UTILITY REVENUES A -242 50TH & FRANCE STRTSCAPE A -237 50TH &FRANCE RENOVATION. CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register 4/512012 - 4/5/2012 PO # Doc No Inv No Account No 284679 1262899 5822.5512 284680 .1262913 5862.5513 284681 1262917 5862.5513 284682 1262893 5862.5513 284683 1262912 5862.5513 284684 1262914 5862.5512 284685 1262916 5862.5515 284686 1262918 5862.5512 284687 1257822 5822.5512 284688 529670 5842.5512 284868 1262910 5842.5513 284869 1262909 5842.5513 284870 1262902 5842.5513 284871 1262903 5842.5512 - 284872 1262904 5842.5515 284873 1262907 5842.5512 284874 1263407 5842.5513 284875 :1262905 5842.5513 284876 1262911 5842.5512 284877 528226 5862.5513 284878 529028 5862.5513 130111 JOHNSON, CAROL 15.00 DOG LICENSE OVERCHARGE REFUND 284758 032612 1400.4120 15.00 102113 JOHNSTONE SUPPLY 29.50 BELTS 00001954 284574 140031 5913.6406 34.18 BELTS 00001954 284574 140031 5431.6406 63.68 357917 41512012 130112 KEY TITLE TRUST 534.01 UTILITY OVERPAYMENT REFUND 284759 7740 MARTH CT 5901.4626 534.01 367918 4/612012 124002 KIMLEY -HORN AND ASSOCIATES INC 1,278.74 ENGINEERING SERVICES 284575 4718159 01242.1705.20 96.20 284576 4744955 01237.1705.21 1,374.94 357919 41512012 130108 KLECKNER, BARB Subledger Account Description COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF: GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST.OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE DOG LICENSES GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES, SALE OF WATER CONSULTING DESIGN CONSULTING INSPECTION 4/5/2012 7:26:54 Page 13 Business Unit 50TH ST SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING 50TH ST SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING -- YORK SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING - VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING POLICE DEPT. GENERAL DISTRIBUTION RICHARDS GC MAINTENANCE, UTILITY REVENUES A -242 50TH & FRANCE STRTSCAPE A -237 50TH &FRANCE RENOVATION. R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 4/5/2012 7:26:54 Council Check Register Page - 14 4/5/2012 -415/2012 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 70.00 BASKETBALL CAMP REFUND 284760 032612 1600.4390.15 GEN ADAPTIVE REC PARK ADMIN. GENERAL 70.00 357920 4/512012 122515 KOPLOS, GERALD 64.48 WORKSHOP SUPPLIES 284761 033012 7411.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES PSTF OCCUPANCY 110.00 AIR VENT BARRIERS 284761 033012 7413.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES PSTF FIRE TOWER 174.48 367921 41512012 100852 LAWSON PRODUCTS INC. 435.06 DRILL BITS, HEX CAP SCREWS 00005057 284471 9300699909 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 22.84 WIRE ROPE SLEEVE 00005057 284577 9300709753 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 383.94 DRILL BITS, SCREWS 00005070 284798 9300716772 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 841.84 357922 41512012 116576 LIFE LINE INC. 113.18 PEDIATRIC PADS FOR AED 00005066 284472 LL -4172 1552.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENT SVC PW BUILDING 113.18 357923 4/512012 130106 LIFELINE TRAINING LTD 179.00 TRAINING - DEREK TOLL 284623 1473 1400.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 179.00 357924 41512012 124810 LIFT BRIDGE BEER COMPANY 140.00 284879 5672 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 140.00 284880 02498 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 280.00 357926 41512012 130014 LIGHTING HOUSE USA INC. 128.73 LED TUBE LIGHTS 00001643 284822 20014 1322.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES STREET LIGHTING ORNAMENTAL 128.73 357926 41612012 106301 LOFFLER COMPANIES INC. 20,161.97 EDINA 911 UPGRADES 284624 1378240 2310.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES E911 2,115.00 MAINTENANCE/SOFTWARE CONTRACT 284625 1378550 2310.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES E911 22,276.97 357927 4/512012 101792 LURE -TECH 421.34 OIL 00005990 284578 2028136 1553.6584 LUBRICANTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 70.88 GREASE 00006166 284626 2026873 5422.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS 492.22 367928 41612012 112577 M. AMUNDSON LLP R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 415/2012 7:26:54 Council Check Register Page - 15 4/5/2012 — 4/5/2012 Check # Date Amount Supplier I Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 1,819.04 03 284881 128301 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 1,819.04 I 357929 41512012 129667 M.S. INDUSTRIES INC. 1,198.80 APPLICATION BLADES 00001967 284799 8171 1301.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL MAINTENANCE 1,198.80 _ 367930 4/6/2012 122168 MACMAGIC 142.50 PC SUPPORT 284762 4786 7410.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PSTF ADMINISTRATION 142.50 - '- 357931 41512012 100864 � MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT INC. 181,328.40 ELGIN SWEEPER 00005611 284579 1120076 421305.6710 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT STREET EQUIPMENT 93.24 COUPLERS 00005118 284580 2122231 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN, 150:45 BALL VALVES 00005027 284800 2122395 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN, 181,572.09 367932 41512012 119209 MASTER TECHNOLOGY GROUP 175.00 PAGING SYSTEM REPAIR 284581 464424 1470.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 175.00 357933 41512012 122554 MATHESON TRI -GAS INC. - 32.06 OXYGEN 00003649 284582 04367394 1470.6510 FIRST AID SUPPLIES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 229.31 OXYGEN 00003649 284583 04367436 1470.6510 FIRST AID SUPPLIES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 80.77 OXYGEN 00003649 284801 04382159 1470.6510 FIRST AID SUPPLIES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL _ 342.14 357934 4/512012 101146 MATRIX 235.92 284763 607937186 1550.6188 TELEPHONE CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 235.92 357935 41512012 100875 MCCAREN DESIGNS INC. 1,611.68 PLANTS 284764 54257 5720.6620 TREES, FLOWERS, SHRUBS EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS 1,611.68 357936 41512012 125133 MCLAUGHLIN, DIANE i 65.00 BASKETBALL CAMP REFUND 284765 032612 1600.4390.15 GEN ADAPTIVE REC PARK ADMIN. GENERAL 65.00 357937 41512012 103944 MED COMPASS 210.00 FIT /FUNCTION TESTING 284627 19202 5422.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS 210.00 R55CKREG LOG20000 171.50 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 284544 CITY OF EDINA 5510.6107 MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE ARENA ADMINISTRATION Council Check Register 357942 4/5/2012 - 4/5/2012 102007 MINNCOR INDUSTRIES Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No . Subledger Account Description 357938 41512012 SOI -000365 105603 MEDICINE LAKE TOURS GENERAL SUPPLIES CENT SVC PW BUILDING 155.50 1,098.00 MACY S FLOWER SHOW TRIP 284766 032612 1628.6103.07 TRIPS PROF SERVICES 415/2012 1,098.00 100913 MINNEAPOLIS & SUBURBAN SEWER & 357939 41512012 101483 MENARDS REPLACE WATER SERVICE 00001856 284478 34041 5913.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS DISTRIBUTION 58.71 HINGES, RATCHET 00001819 284473 31295 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS 19.22- RETURN 00001819 284474 31671 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS 12.03 NAILS 00001914 284475 34495 1301.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 921095092 57.65 WRENCHES, RATCHETS 00001917 284476 34634 1325.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 71.16 SOCKET SET, EXPANSION JOINTS 00001940 284477 36807 1646.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 212.68 SECURITY CAB CONVERTER 00003198 284584 39648 1400.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 28.44 SAWSLADE, LUMBER 00001928 284585 36306 1301.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 34.91 DRILL BIT, LUMBER 00001931 284586 36750 1344.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 22.19 GLOVES, WIRE 00001930 284587 36725 1301.6556 TOOLS 478.55 357940 41512012 102602 METRO CASH REGISTER 122.06 CARTRIDGE, RECEIPT PAPER 00006466 284767 72446 5430.6513 OFFICE SUPPLIES 122.06 357941 4/512012 102873 MILLER, SUSAN 4/5/2012 7:26:54 Page - 16 Business Unit SENIOR CITIZENS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN GENERAL MAINTENANCE STREET NAME SIGNS BUILDING MAINTENANCE POLICE DEPT. GENERAL GENERAL MAINTENANCE RETAINING WALL MAINTENANCE GENERAL MAINTENANCE RICHARDS GOLF COURSE 171.50 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 284544 040112 5510.6107 MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE ARENA ADMINISTRATION 171.50 357942 4/612012 102007 MINNCOR INDUSTRIES 155.50 HAND SOAP, FLOOR CLEANER 00001962 284802 SOI -000365 1552.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENT SVC PW BUILDING 155.50 357943 415/2012 100913 MINNEAPOLIS & SUBURBAN SEWER & 980.00 REPLACE WATER SERVICE 00001856 284478 34041 5913.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS DISTRIBUTION 980.00 367944 4/512012 127062 MINNEHAHA BLDG. MAINT. INC. 5.34 WINDOW CLEANING 284823 921095092 5821.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS 50TH ST OCCUPANCY 5.34 367945 41612012 102089 MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF COMMER 500.00 CALIBRATION SERVICES 284768 FILE 910313147 1400.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 500.00 357946 4/6/2012 106193 MINNESOTA HIGHWAY SAFETY AND R55CKREG LOG20000 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 5862.5513 CITY OF EDINA 100916 MUZAK LLC 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 239.54 Council Check Register 284481 A936509 82.50 PAGING HOOK UP FOR PHONES 4/5/2012 - 415/2012 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No 439.00 TRAINING - DEREK TOLL 284769 629430 -2731 2340.6104 439.00 284689 72616 776.00 357947 415/2012 284690 100122 MINNESOTA LICENSED BEVERAGE AS 593.00 284691 75.00 TRAINING COURSES 284628 3281201 5421.6103 75.00 357948 41612012 126914 MINUTEMAN PRESS 373.82 ANNUAL EVENTS BROCHURES 284479 11044 1130.6575 373.82 357949 415/2012 100906 MT1 DISTRIBUTING INC. 298.70 BUSHINGS 00001775 284480 830149 -00 1553.6530 1,050.74 BOOM VALVES 00006163 284629 830009 -00 5422.6530 1,276.57 TRIAC BOARDS 00006159. 284630 826937 -00 5422.6611 173.35 NOZZLES 00006468 284631 831066 -00 5422.6530 135.66 NOZZLES 284632 831067 -00 5422.6530 5,961.82 NARROW BAND BASE 00006450 284633 827866 -00 5422.6611 6,896.64 357950 41612012 101576 MUNICIPALS 840.00 WORKSHOP REGISTRATION 284824 - WORKSHOP 2012 1550.6104 840.00 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 5862.5513 357951 41612012 100916 MUZAK LLC 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 239.54 MUSIC SERVICES 284481 A936509 82.50 PAGING HOOK UP FOR PHONES 284482 E543B6 2,144.42 MUZAK SPEAKERS. 00007511 284825 E38181 2,466.46 357952 4/512012 100076 NEW FRANCE WINE CO. 1,597.00 284689 72616 776.00 284690 72112 593.00 284691 72617 357953 4/612012 101620 NORTH SECOND STREET STEEL SUPP 715.96 PIPE 00001948 284588 227740 715.96 357954 41512012 121497 NORTHWEST ASPHALT INC. 698.35 PARTIAL PAYMENT NO. 9 284770 031612 5760.6105 5841.6215 5800.1720 Subledger Account' Description CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS 415/2012 7:26:54' Page - '17 Business Unit DWI FORFEITURE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES GRILL PRINTING COMMUNICATIONS REPAIR PARTS REPAIR PARTS IRRIGATION EQUIPMENT REPAIR PARTS REPAIR PARTS IRRIGATION EQUIPMENT CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE BUILDINGS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS' MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS MAINT OF COURSE &' GROUNDS CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL CENTENNIAL LAKES ADMIN EXPENSE YORK OCCUPANCY LIQUOR BALANCE SHEET 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 1325.6531 SIGNS & POSTS STREET NAME SIGNS 03457.1705.30 CONTRACTOR PAYMENTS SS-457 W70TH TS IMPLEMENTATION R55CKREG LOG20000 237,576.36 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register 4/512012 103578 OFFICE DEPOT 4/5/2012 - 4/5/2012 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 4,686.21 PARTIAL PAYMENT NO.9 284770 031612 05503.1705.30 CONTRACTOR PAYMENTS 9,405.47 PARTIAL PAYMENT NO.9 284770 031612 06043.1705.30 CONTRACTOR PAYMENTS 10,166.39 PARTIAL PAYMENT NO. 9_ 284770 031612 08057.1705.30 CONTRACTOR PAYMENTS 11,615.50 PARTIAL PAYMENT NO.9 284770 031612 06044.1705.30 CONTRACTOR PAYMENTS 23,258.43 PARTIAL PAYMENT NO.9 284770 031612 04369.1705.30 CONTRACTOR PAYMENTS 177,746.01 PARTIAL PAYMENT NO. 9 284770 031612 01367.1705.30 CONTRACTOR PAYMENTS OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES REPAIR PARTS GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES CONTRACTED REPAIRS GENERAL SUPPLIES 415/2012 7:26:54 Page - 18 Business Unit WM -503 W70TH ST TRAFFIC STUDY TS-43 W 70TH ST RECON L -57 W 70TH ST RECON TS-44 W 70TH ST RECON STS -369 W 70TH STREET BA -367 W70TH TRAFFIC IMPLEMENT GOLF ADMINISTRATION GOLF ADMINISTRATION ARENA BLDG/GROUNDS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN DISTRIBUTION COLLECTION SYSTEMS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN PSTF OCCUPANCY COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING BANK SERVICES CHARGES GENERAL (BILLING) COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 237,576.36 357955 4/512012 103578 OFFICE DEPOT 78.34 THERMAL PAPER 284483 602297528001 5410.6513 159.39 OFFICE SUPPLIES 284484 1452060213 5410.6513 23.31 OFFICE SUPPLIES 00008033 284826 602146460001 5511.6406 261.04 357956 415/2012 100936 OLSEN COMPANIES 106.10 LATCHES 00005083 284485 676336 1553.6530 40.08 WRENCH, TAPE MEASURE 00001845 284486 675715 5913.6406 29.96 WIRE ROPE, SLEEVE 00001852 284487 676316 5923.6406 176.14 357957 4/512012 103624 P & L AUTOMOTIVE INC. 133.59 INTERIOR CLEAN UP 00005117 284589 224675 1553.6180 133.59 357958 41512012 129485 PAPCO INC. 384.31 CLEANING SUPPLIES 284771 70279 7411.6406 384.31 367959 41612012 100347 PAUSTIS & SONS 957.18 284383 8342665 -IN 5862.5513 539.00 284692 8343571 -IN 5862.5513 1,853.68 284693 8343564 -IN 5842.5513 75.00- 284882 8341736 -CM 5862.5513 3,274.86 357960 41512012 125492 PAYPAL INC. 39.95 VSV0002830598 MONTHLY FEE 284827 16179344 5910.6155 39.95 357961 41512012 100945 PEPSI -COLA COMPANY 107.40 284694 75754693 5862.5515 107.40 OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES REPAIR PARTS GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES CONTRACTED REPAIRS GENERAL SUPPLIES 415/2012 7:26:54 Page - 18 Business Unit WM -503 W70TH ST TRAFFIC STUDY TS-43 W 70TH ST RECON L -57 W 70TH ST RECON TS-44 W 70TH ST RECON STS -369 W 70TH STREET BA -367 W70TH TRAFFIC IMPLEMENT GOLF ADMINISTRATION GOLF ADMINISTRATION ARENA BLDG/GROUNDS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN DISTRIBUTION COLLECTION SYSTEMS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN PSTF OCCUPANCY COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING BANK SERVICES CHARGES GENERAL (BILLING) COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register 4/5/2012 - 415/2012 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No _ Account No 357962 4/612012 100743 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS 33.12 284384 2213562 5822.5513 745.72 284385 2213563 5822.5513 315.09 284386 2213564 5862.5513 373.40 284387 2213569 5862.5513 1,574.50 284388 2213570 5862.5513 294.72 284389 2214336 5862.5513 114.24 284390 2213571 5862.5515 89.92 284695 2217051 5822.5512 1,096.05 284696 2217053 5862.5513 566.22 284697 2217060 5862.5513 1,508.80 284698 2217061 5862.5513 77.82 284699 .2217059 5862.5512 463.29 284883 2217057 5842.5512 1,884.20 284884 2217050 5842.5513 2,488.52 284885 2217055 5842.5513 1,510.18 284886 2217058 5842.5513 57.12 284887 2217056 5842.5515 280.00 284888 2217377 5842.5513 160.00 284889 2217378 5862.5513 13,632.91 357963 41512012 100953 PHYSIO -CONTROL INC. 2,073.00 BATTERY CHARGERS 00003694 284803 112104660 1470.6510 2,073.00 357964 41512012 130110 PIERCE, MARY 65.00 BASKETBALL CAMP REFUND 284772. 032612 1600.4390.15 65.00 357965 41512012 124176 PINNACLE DISTRIBUTING 140.80 284391 14865 5862.5515 229.20 284890 .14917 5842.5515 370.00 357966 . 41512012 123725 'PITNEY BOWES INC. 1,105.00 48762224 SERVICE AGREEMENT 284488 669545 1550.6235 1,105.00 367967 41612012 119620 POMP'S TIRE SERVICE INC. 474.62 TIRES 00005966 284507 212450 1553.6583 Subledger Account Description Business Unit COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE FIRST AID SUPPLIES GEN ADAPTIVE REC COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX POSTAGE TIRES & TUBES 4/512012 I 7:26:54 Page - 19 50TH ST SELLING 50TH ST SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING 50TH ST SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING VERNON SELLING FIRE DEPT. GENERAL PARK ADMIN. GENERAL VERNON SELLING YORK SELLING CENTRAL SERVICES'GENERAL . i EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN. R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 4/5/2012 7:26:54 Council Check Register Page - 20 4/5/2012 - 4/5/2012 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 723.84 TIRES 00005966 284508 191258 1553.6583 TIRES & TUBES EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 592.22 TIRES 00005966 284509 200814 1553.6583 TIRES & TUBES EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 1,790.68 357968 41512012 119498 POWERBILT GOLF 236.13 MERCHANDISE 00006405 284634 63192 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 236.13 357969 41512012 101811 PREMIER FLEET SERVICES 1,873.52 VEHICLE REPAIRS 00005988 284590 21686 1553.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 1,873.52 357970 4/512012 102642 PRESTIGE FLAG 755.63 GOLF FLAGS 00006114 284635 346670 5422.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS 755.63 357971 415/2012 103094 PROTECTION ONE 176.43 APR - JUNE 2012 SERVICE 284828 127436543/12 5511.6250 ALARM SERVICE ARENA BLDG/GROUNDS 176.43 357972 4/5/2012 100971 QUALITY WINE 211.20 284392 587507 -00 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 320.00 284393 587508 -00 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 1,643.15 284394 587506 -00 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 3,217.23 284395 587505 -00 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 19.00- 284396 583523 -00 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 153.20- 284397 587133 -00 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 382.41 284700 590197 -00 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 2,088.15 284701 590138 -00 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 1,168.17 284702 590058-00 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 2,282.95 284703 590057 -00 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 725.60 284704 590136 -00 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 385.60 284705 590137 -CO 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 208.80 284706 590196 -00 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 1,005.15 284707 590046 -00 5822.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING 13.61- 284891 579335 -00 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 39.48- 284892 587752 -00 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 13,413.12 357973 41512012 106807 RAY ALLEN MANUFACTURING CO. IN 77.95 K9 HARNESS 284510 276891 4607.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES EDINA CRIME FUND K9 DONATION 77.95 R55CKREG LOG20000 100995 SEH CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register 862.54 ENGINEERING SERVICES 284591 254280 4/5/2012 - 4/5/2012 CONSULTING INSPECTION Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 254281 367974 41612012 CONSULTING DESIGN 102408 RIGID HITCH INCORPORATED . 13,213.09 ENGINEERING SERVICES 26.38 BREAKAWAY SWITCH 00005024 284804 1345192 -01 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS RICHMOND HILLS PK 26.38 16,516.37 ENGINEERING SERVICES 284637 357976 4/612012 04387.1705.20 101634 SAINT AGNES BAKING COMPANY RICHMOND HILLS PK 25,104.88 47.16 BAKERY 284636 339000 5421.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD CONSULTING DESIGN 47.16 66,928.01 4/5/2012 7:26:54 Page- 21 Business Unit EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN GRILL 357976 4/512012 100995 SEH 862.54 ENGINEERING SERVICES 284591 254280 01334.1705.21 CONSULTING INSPECTION BA -334 MINNEHAHA WOODS RECON 11,231.13 ENGINEERING SERVICES 284637 254281 03471.1705.20 CONSULTING DESIGN RICHMOND HILLS PK 13,213.09 ENGINEERING SERVICES 284637 254281 05525.1705.20 CONSULTING DESIGN RICHMOND HILLS PK 16,516.37 ENGINEERING SERVICES 284637 .254281 04387.1705.20 CONSULTING DESIGN RICHMOND HILLS PK 25,104.88 ENGINEERING SERVICES 284637 254281 01388.1705.20 CONSULTING DESIGN WESTCHESTER KNOLLS NEIGHBORHOO 66,928.01 357977 41512012 105664 SIMPLEX GRINNELL LP 200.57 ANNUAL INSPECTION 284511 75069493 5841.6250 ALARM SERVICE YORK OCCUPANCY 200.57 367978 41612012 101000 SIR SPEEDY 103.13 BUSINESS CARDS 284512 71996 1550.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 103.13 357979 41512012 123905 SNIPERCRAFT INC. 595.00 TRAINING - RYAN SCHULTZ 284773 032212 1400.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 595.00 357980 4/612012 127878 SOUTHERN WINE AND SPIRITS 1,759.50 284398 1710574 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 718.50 284399 1750029 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 1,213.50 284400 1750030 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 1,397.50 284401 1710560 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 796.50 284402 1710556 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 493.00 284403 1744445 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 180.50 284404 '1626199 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 850.50 284708 1726404 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING _ 727.96 284709 1745414 5822.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING 1,717.00 284710 1726405 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 10.37- 284711 1745410 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 1,035.41 264712 1745412 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 4/5/2012 7:26:54 Council Check Register Page - 22 4/5/2012 - 4/5/2012 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 40.62 284713 1745408 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 2,337.00 284714 1726406 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 129.48 284715 1710416 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 279.50 284893 1745420 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 3,254.76 284894 1745407 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 136.50 284895 1726407 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 108.50- 284896 1726406REV 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 156.00- 284897 1684230 5062.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 16,792.86 357981 415/2012 101462 SPORT HALEY INC. 1,299.56 MERCHANDISE 284513 PSI- 204622 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 1,299.56 357982 41512012 130021 SPRING LAKE PARK FIRE DEPT. IN 2,590.00 BLUE CARD TRAINING 00003750 284805 BC -0023 1470.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 2,590.00 357983 415/2012 104672 SPRINT 9.99 284592 873184124 -112 1240.6188 TELEPHONE PUBLIC WORKS ADMIN GENERAL 17.34 284592 873184124 -112 1180.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ELECTION 20.25 284592 873184124 -112 1554.6230 SERVICE CONTRACTS EQUIPMENT CENT SERV GEN - MIS 38.61 284592 873184124 -112 7411.6168 TELEPHONE PSTF OCCUPANCY 51.53 284592 873184124 -112 5841.6188 TELEPHONE YORK OCCUPANCY 53.48 284592 873184124 -112 1490.6188 TELEPHONE PUBLIC HEALTH 53.59 284592 873184124 -112 1190.6188 TELEPHONE ASSESSING 54.27 284592 873184124 -112 4090.6188 TELEPHONE 50TH &FRANCE MAINTENANCE 56.66 284592 873184124 -112 1140.6188 TELEPHONE PLANNING 79.79 284592 873184124 -112 1120.6188 TELEPHONE ADMINISTRATION 85.32 284592 873184124 -112 1553.6188 TELEPHONE EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 88.02 284592 873184124 -112 5720.6188 TELEPHONE EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS 114.81 284592 873184124 -112 1260.6188 TELEPHONE ENGINEERING GENERAL 129.87 284592 873184124 -112 5422.6188 TELEPHONE MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS 141.77 284592 873184124 -112 1470.6188 TELEPHONE FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 169.75 284592 873184124 -112 1301.6188 TELEPHONE GENERAL MAINTENANCE 171.72 284592 873184124 -112 1495.6188 TELEPHONE INSPECTIONS 211.41 284592 873184124 -112 1640.6188 TELEPHONE PARK MAINTENANCE GENERAL 238.10 284592 873184124 -112 1322.6188 TELEPHONE STREET LIGHTING ORNAMENTAL 479.88 284592 873184124 -112 1470.6151 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 496.05 284592 873184124 -112 5910.6188 TELEPHONE GENERAL (BILLING) 1,957.44 284592 873184124 -112 1400.6188 TELEPHONE POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 4,719.65 R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register 415/2012 - 4/5/2012 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No 357984 4/612012 102251 ST. ANDREWS PRODUCTS CO 142.80 MERCHANDISE BAGS 284514 0000670224 5440.6406 142.80 357985 41512012 103265 STAN MORGAN & ASSOCIATES INC 375.13 SHELF BRACKETS 00007512 284829 56742 5800.1720 927.67 PRICE TAG MOLDING 00007512 284830 56743 5800.1720 1,302.80 357986 41512012 101007 STAR TRIBUNE 145.60 SUBSCRIPTION 284774 493121 -3/12 1500.6103 145.60 357987 4/512012 101015 STREICHERS 14,300.00 TAG VESTS 00003135 284593 1910338 2320.6406 20,000.00 TAG VESTS 00003135 284593 1910338 421400.6710 2,132.16 AMMO 284638 1916108 1400.6551 36,432.16 357988 41512012 101017 SUBURBAN CHEVROLET 626.78 VEHICLE REPAIRS 00005068 284515 607102 1553.6180 119.13 LOCK 00005090 284594 385822 1553.6530 803.00 VEHICLE REPAIRS 00005119 284595 607649 1553.6180 278.00 BUMPER REPAIR/REFINISH 00005128 284913 605784 1553.6180 1,826.91 357989 41512012 101910 SUNGARD PUBLIC SECTOR INC. 308.93 SHIPPING CHARGES FOR SERVER 284639 48058 2310.6406 308.93 357990 4/512012 121161 SUPER MEDIA LLC 42.26 380007460384 PHONE LISTING 284831 030412 5821.6188 42.26 380007460384 PHONE LISTING 284831 030412 5841.6188 42.28 380007460384 PHONE LISTING 284831 030412 5861.6188 126.80 357991 41512012 120998 SURLY BREWING CO. 702.00 284405 000291 5822.5514 600.00 284716 000382 5862.5514 1,302.00 Subledger Account Description GENERAL SUPPLIES BUILDINGS BUILDINGS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES GENERAL SUPPLIES EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT AMMUNITION CONTRACTED REPAIRS REPAIR PARTS CONTRACTED REPAIRS CONTRACTED REPAIRS GENERAL SUPPLIES TELEPHONE TELEPHONE TELEPHONE COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 4/512012.1 7:26:54 Page - .23 . Business Unit PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES LIQUOR BALANCE SHEET LIQUOR BALANCE SHEET CONTINGENCIES FED DRUG FORFEITURE POLICE EQUIPMENT POLICE DEPT. GENERAL EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN E911 50TH ST OCCUPANCY YORK OCCUPANCY VERNON OCCUPANCY I 50TH ST SELLING VERNON SELLING R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 4/5/2012 7:26:54 Council Check Register Page - 24 415/2012 - 4/5/2012 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 357992 4/512012 101027 TARGET BANK 292.84 X- XXX -XX9 -840 SUPPLIES 284516 031812 5420.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CLUB HOUSE 292.84 357993 41512012 104932 TAYLOR MADE 1,823.40 RENTAL CLUBS 284640 17427410 5410.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES GOLF ADMINISTRATION 821.73 MERCHANDISE 284641 17442577 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 642.39 MERCHANDISE 284642 17442578 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 157.34 MERCHANDISE 284643 17451480 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 1,131.00 MERCHANDISE 284644 17462968 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 455.35 MERCHANDISE 284645 17462970 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 439.00- CREDIT 284646 17723439 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 2,381.40- CREDIT 284647 17723677 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 472.02 GOLF CLUBS 284845 17427411 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 368.68 GOLF CLUBS 284846 17442579 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 3,051.51 357994 4/512012 101029 TESSMAN COMPANY, THE 1,521.01 BENCHES 00006169 284648 5154614 -IN 5422.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS 1,521.01 357995 41512012 101035 THORPE DISTRIBUTING COMPANY 72.65 284717 682108 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 2,625.43 284718 682107 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 2,698.08 357996 41512012 103277 TITAN MACHINERY 37.47 ENGINE OIL 00005019 284517 9C05267 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 37.47 357997 41512012 101474 TITLEIST 635.28 MERCHANDISE 284649 0326449 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 1,038.59 MERCHANDISE 284650 0327167 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 323.61 DEMO CLUBS 284651 0327168 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 1,694.50 MERCHANDISE 284652 0331839 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 93.75 MERCHANDISE 284653 0338939 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 2,208.92 GOLF BAGS 284654 0343058 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 84.00- CREDIT 284775 6051763 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 5,910.65 357998 41512012 127360 TODD HOFFMAN DESIGN INC. 660.00 INTERIOR ADA SIGN 00001969 284832 17435 1552.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENT SVC PW BUILDING R55CKRE6 LOG20000 STREET EQUIPMENT CITY OF EDINA TRAFFIC SIGNALS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES - YORK OCCUPANCY Council Check Register 4/5/2012 -4/5/2012 Check # Date Amount Supplier I Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No 660.00 357999 41512012 101038 TOLL GAS'& WELDING SUPPLY 496.67 FILTER 00005080 284596 387641 1553.6584 496.67 358000 41512012 101693 TOTAL SYSTEMS 14.25 MONTHLY FTP FOLDER 284833 27597 5820.6160 14.25 MONTHLY FTP FOLDER 284833 27597 5840.6160 14.25 MONTHLY FTP FOLDER 284833 27597 5860.6160 83.04 PLASTIC SHELF LABELS 284834 27562 5862.6406 166.09 PLASTIC SHELF LABELS 284834 27562 5842.6406 291.88 358001. 41612012 123649 TOWMASTER 102,579.69 TRUCK BODY, PLOW EQUIPMENT 00005083 284518 337365 _ 421305.6710 102,579.69 358002 4/512012 103982 TRAFFIC CONTROL CORPORATION 615.60 INTERFACE UNITS 00001915 284597 0000053152 1330.6215 615.60 358003 4/512012 105243 TUSHIE MONTGOMERY ARCHITECTS 2,551.15 YORK REMODEL 284835 211035A -9 5841.6103 2,551.15 358004 4/612012 101047 TWIN CITY GARAGE DOOR CO 840.00 SERVICE ON CAR WASH DOOR 00001961 284806 366189 1552.6406 213.09 SHOP DOOR REPAIR 00001960 284807 366465 1552.6406 1,053.09 358005 4/512012 129105 TWIN SOURCE 346.10 MOPS, DUST PADS 284836 00425527 5841.6406 346.10 358006 4/512012 103048 U.S. BANK 900.00 TRUSTEE FEE 284837 3089545 3201.6103 900.00 358007 4/512012 103973 ULINE 412.45 POLYBAGS 00001942 284598 43183388 1325.6406 412.45 Subledger Account Description LUBRICANTS DATA PROCESSING DATA PROCESSING DATA PROCESSING GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES i 4/5/2012, 7[26154 Page - 25 Business Unit EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 50TH STREET GENERAL LIQUOR YORK GENERAL VERNON LIQUOR GENERAL VERNON SELLING YORK SELLING EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT STREET EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT-MAINTENANCE TRAFFIC SIGNALS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES - YORK OCCUPANCY GENERAL SUPPLIES CENT SVC PW BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIES CENT SVC PW BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIES YORK OCCUPANCY i PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CITY HALL DS REVENUES -- GENERAL SUPPLIES STREET NAME SIGNS R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 4/5/2012 7:26:54 Council Check Register Page - 26 4/5/2012 - 4/5/2012 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 358008 4/512012 122221 UNITED RENTALS NORTHWEST INC. 2,416.79 GENERATOR, WHEEL CART 00001965 284848 101979741 -001 1301.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL MAINTENANCE 2,130.82 CUT -OFF SAW, LASER LEVEL 00001966 284849 101980087 -001 1301.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL MAINTENANCE 663.31 ELECTRIC HAMMER REPAIR 00001964 284850 101836130 -002 1301.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS GENERAL MAINTENANCE 180.18 VALVES 00001845 284914 101886597 -001 5913.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES DISTRIBUTION 203.08 DIAPHRAGM 00001845 284915 101807243-001 5913.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES DISTRIBUTION 70.42 VALVE WEIGHT RETAINERS 00001845 284916 101807417 -001 5913.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES DISTRIBUTION 5,664.60 358009 4/512012 119476 USPCA REGION 12 60.00 K9 TRIALS 284776 032712 1400.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 60.00 358010 41512012 101058 VAN PAPER CO. 62.75 UTENSILS, TISSUE 284519 22964400 5862.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES VERNON SELLING 319.54 LIQUOR BAGS 284519 22964400 5862.6512 PAPER SUPPLIES VERNON SELLING 125.76 ROLL TOWEL, TISSUE 284838 230776-00 5840.6513 OFFICE SUPPLIES LIQUOR YORK GENERAL 508.05 358011 4/512012 101063 VERSATILE VEHICLES INC. 175.69 BUMPER, SHOCKS 284655 59653 5423.6530 REPAIR PARTS GOLF CARS 175.69 358012 4/512012 102377 VIETNAM VETERANS ORGANIZATION 150.00 GOLF DOME AD 284777 031212 5410.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER GOLF ADMINISTRATION 150.00 356013 41512012 101066 VIKING ELECTRIC SUPPLY 156.53 WIRING FOR LIGHTS 00001929 284520 6218439 1646.6578 LAMPS & FIXTURES BUILDING MAINTENANCE 40.58 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES 284839 6178201 5841.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES YORK OCCUPANCY 197.11 358014 4/512012 101067 VIKING INDUSTRIAL CENTER 46.17 SAFETY GLASSES 00005069 284808 293262 5913.6610 SAFETY EQUIPMENT DISTRIBUTION 46.17 358016 41512012 119454 VINOCOPIA 261.00 284406 0053842 -IN 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 184.88 284407 0053843 -IN 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 98.50 284719 0052816 -IN 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 544.38 R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register 4/5/2012 - 4/5/2012 Check # Date Amount °Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No 358016 41512012 102542 WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS INC 50,962.61 RAMPS FEASIBILITY STUDY 284656 21380800002 44008.1705.20 .50,962.61 358017 41512012 103211 WALT DISNEY WORLD RESORT 1,597.50 SUNG_ ARD CONFERENCE 284778 LODGING 2310.6104 1,597.50 358018 4/5/2012 123616 WATER CONSERVATION SERVICE INC 884.77 LEAK LOCATES 00001862 284521 3099 5913.6103 884.77 358019 41512012 101033 WINE COMPANY, THE 1,064.50 284408 295067 -00 5862.5513 802.85 284720 295553 -00 5842.5513 338.30 284721 295550-00 5822.5513 236.20 284722 295551 -00 5862.5513 136.00 284723 295664 -00 5862.5513 104.00- 284898 295702 -00 5862.5513 2,473.85 358020 41512012 101312 WINE MERCHANTS 7,226.40 284409 401081 5862.5513 194.24 284410 402095 5862.5513 192.74 284411 402096 5862.5513 1,151.76 284412 401897 5862.5513 1,179.74 284413 '401895 5862.5513 2,903.12 284414 401083 5862.5513 3,784.32- 284415 57199 5862.5513 1,105.51 284416 401894 5822.5513 105.12- 284417 57198 5842.5513 4,061.84 284724 402802 5862.5513 806.40 284899 402855 5842.5513 289.12 284900 402859 5842.5513 1,297.42 284901 402801 5842.5513 406.72 284902 402974 5862.5513 .09- 284903 56111 5842.5513 86.03- 284904 56972 5862.5513 16.00- 284905 57132 5862.5513 16,823.45 Subledger Account Description Business Unit CONSULTING DESIGN CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 4/5/2012 7:26:54 Page - 27 P21 50TH &FRANCE CENTER RAMP E911 DISTRIBUTION VERNON SELLING YORK SELLING 50TH ST SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING ' VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING 50TH ST SELLING YORK SELLING VERNON SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING VERNON SELLING YORK SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 4/5/2012 7:26:54 Council Check Register Page - 28 4/512012 - 4/5/2012 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 358021 41512012 117482 WINECONNECT INC. 159.24 WEB - APR 2012 284840 957 5842.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES YORK SELLING 159.24 358022 4/512012 124291 WIRTZ BEVERAGE MINNESOTA 2,495.03 284418 719036 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 71.95 284419 721046 5642.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 863.95 284420 721045 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 1,477.64 284421 720701 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 8,165.34 284422 719032 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 94.52 284725 722172 5822.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 50TH ST SELLING 123.55 284726 722175 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 2,363.53 284727 722168 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 9,108.83 284728 722174 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 5,800.47 284729 722177 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 1,494.78 284730 722744 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 1,215.33 284731 722171 5822.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING 13,652.09 284732 722170 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 1,919.20 284906 724287 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 888.45 284907 723843 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 175.50- 284908 854970 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 103.56- 284909 856888 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 49,455.60 358023 4/512012 124528 WIRTZ BEVERAGE MINNESOTA BEER 2,438.79 284423 876676 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING 48.00 284424 876677 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING 2,460.40 284425 877760 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 1,472.00 284733 877188 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 2,554.32 284734 876886 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 43.00 284735 877189 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 690.75 284910 879845 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 460.50 284911 879818 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 10,167.76 358024 41512012 105740 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC. 12,006.50 FRANCE AVE RESCOPING 284599 2- 01686 -270 01404.1705.20 CONSULTING DESIGN FRANCE AVE PEDESTRIAN CORRIDOR 4,913.50 70TH ST CONSTRUCTION SERVICES 284600 17 -01686 -160 01367.1705.21 CONSULTING INSPECTION BA -367 W70TH TRAFFIC IMPLEMENT 2,352.50 TRACY AVE @ 62 INTERCHANGE 264601 3- 01686 -260 01399.1705.20 CONSULTING DESIGN TRACY AVE 3,806.00 FRANCE AVE RESCOPING 284602 3 -01686 -270 01404.1705 CONSTR. IN PROGRESS FRANCE AVE PEDESTRIAN CORRIDOR 9,538.00 PROJECT MGMT 284657 17- 01686 -170 01383.1705.21 CONSULTING INSPECTION BA -383 W44TH ST 1,177.19 PROJECT MGMT 284658 4 -01686 -250 05526.1705.20 CONSULTING DESIGN TRACY AVE R55CKREG LOG20000 Check # Date Amount Supplier [Explanation 2,186.21 PROJECT MGMT 3,195.23 PROJECT MGMT 10,258.37 PROJECT MGMT 3,933.00 - 6500 FRANCE TRAFFIC STUDY 137.00 6996 FRANCE TRAFFIC STUDY 274.00 6996 FRANCE PARKING STUDY 53,777.50 CONSULTING DESIGN 358026' 4/512012 60.88 207.53 186.33 60.96 256.99 10.17 963.41 35:69 417.01 9,137.75 97.97 49.68' 1,778.15 45.32 62.25 23.13 84.60 684.71 10.17 8,578.57 36.95 28.10 42.60 96.32 20.39 2,861.27 33,022.87 451.10 37.89 7,855.05 67,203.81 101726 XCEL ENERGY 51- 4420190 -3 51- 8987646 -8 51- 9337452 -8 51- 6692497 -0 51- 6223269 -1 51- 65410842 51- 5107681 -4 51- 68922245 51- 8324712 -5 51- 6644819 -9 51- 8526048 -8 51- 8997917 -7 51- 5547446 -1 51- 9422326 -6 51- 89760049 51- 0193479-4 51- 9608462 -5 51- 9011854 -4 51- 60501842 51- 9603061 -0 51- 0194596 -8 51- 0160483 -1 51- 0223133 -2 51- 97701647 51- 9770163-6 51. 4159265 -8 51- 4621797 -2 51- 4827232 -6 51- 8102668 -0 51- 6955679 -8 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register 4/5/2012 -4/5/2012 PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger, "Account Description 284658 4 -01686 -250 03472.1705.20 CONSULTING:-DESIGN 284658 4 -01686 -250 04388.1705.20 CONSULTING DESIGN 284658 4 -01686 -250 01368.1705.20 CONSULTING DESIGN 284786 1- 01686 -290 1140.6103 PROFESSIONAL, SERVICES 284787 5- 01686 -230 1140.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 284788 4 -01686 -240 1140.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 284522 318870758 284523 319256451 284524 ,319265447 284525 319224832 284526 319051366 284527 319057444 284528 319028350 284529 319067151 284530 319108950 284531 319059432 284532 319084740 284533 319092999 284534 319203800 284535 319278960 284536 319256527 284603 319117062 284604 319270703 284605 319278535 284606 319061311 284607 319267892 284608 318959715 284609 318958652 284610 318959381 284611 319104996 284612 319106326 284780 319027092 284781 319368130 284782 319372268 284783 319427360 284847 319761337 1321.6185 1321.6185 1321.6185 1460.6185 5210.6185 1646.6185 5111.6185 1321.6185 1321.6185 5720.6165 1322.6185 1321.6185 1628.6185 1322.6185 1321.6185 5934.6185 5921.6185 5913.6185 4086.6103 1552.6185 1321.6185 1330.6185 1322.6185 .1321.6185 1321.6185 7411.6185 1321.6185 5311.6185 1321.6185 1551.6185 LIGHT & POWER LIGHT & POWER LIGHT & POWER LIGHT & POWER LIGHT& POWER LIGHT & POWER LIGHT & POWER LIGHT & POWER LIGHT & POWER' LIGHT & POWER LIGHT & POWER LIGHT & POWER LIGHT & POWER LIGHT & POWER LIGHT & POWER LIGHT & POWER LIGHT & POWER LIGHT & POWER PROFESSIONAL SERVICES LIGHT & POWER LIGHT & POWER LIGHT & POWER LIGHT & POWER LIGHT & POWER LIGHT & POWER LIGHT & POWER LIGHT,& POWER LIGHT & POWER LIGHT & POWER LIGHT & POWER 4/5/2012 7:26:54 Page - 29 I ' Business Unit TRACY AVE TRACY AVE I BA -368 TRACY AVE RECON PLANNING PLANNING PLANNING STREET LIGHTING REGULAR . STREET LIGHTING REGULAR STREET LIGHTING REGULAR CIVILIAN DEFENSE i GOLF DOME PROGRAM BUILDING MAINTENANCE 1 ART CENTER BLDG/MAINT STREET LIGHTING REGULAR STREET LIGHTING REGULAR - EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS STREET LIGHTING ORNAMENTAL' STREET LIGHTING REGULAR SENIOR CITIZENS STREET LIGHTING ORNAMENTAL STREET LIGHTING REGULAR STORM LIFT STATION MAINT SANITARY LIFT STATION MAINT DISTRIBUTION AQUATIC WEEDS CENT SVC PW BUILDING STREET LIGHTING REGULAR TRAFFIC SIGNALS STREET LIGHTING ORNAMENTAL STREET LIGHTING REGULAR STREET LIGHTING REGULAR PSTF OCCUPANCY STREET LIGHTING REGULAR POOL OPERATION - STREET LIGHTING REGULAR CITY HALL GENERAL R55CKREG LOG20000 284737 10972 CITY OF EDINA 124960 ZAHL • PETROLEUM MAINTENANCE C Council Check Register GASBOY SYSTEM REPAIRS 00005049 284614 0177279 -IN 633.16 4/5/2012 — 4/5/2012 101572 ZARNOTH BRUSH WORKS INC Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 358027 41512012 101089 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE 129844 YOGA CENTER OF MINNEAPOLIS 54.16 FIRST AID SUPPLIES 00006472 284659 54068362 54.16 85.00 FITNESS TRAINING 284809 033012 1470.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS 85.00 358028 41512012 130107 YOUNG, CONNIE 65.00 BASKETBALL CAMP REFUND 284779 032612 1600.4390.15 GEN ADAPTIVE REC 65.00 358029 41512012 104324 YOUNGBLOOD LUMBER CO. 43.95 PLYWOOD 00001947 284613 673705 1552.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 43.95 358030 41512012 120099 Z WINES USA LLC 358031 41512012 358032 41512012 358033 41512012 1 142 00 284736 10968 58.50 284737 10972 1,200.50 124960 ZAHL • PETROLEUM MAINTENANCE C 633.16 GASBOY SYSTEM REPAIRS 00005049 284614 0177279 -IN 633.16 101572 ZARNOTH BRUSH WORKS INC 4,770.90 ELGIN BROOMS 00001968 284917 0137760 -IN 4,770.90 101089 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE 54.16 FIRST AID SUPPLIES 00006472 284659 54068362 54.16 1,266,681.77 Grand Total 5842.5513 5862.5513 1553.6180 1310.6523 4/512012 7:26:54 Page - 30 Business Unit FIRE DEPT. GENERAL PARK ADMIN. GENERAL CENT SVC PW BUILDING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING CONTRACTED REPAIRS BROOMS 5422.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES Payment Instrument Totals Check Total 1,266,681.77 Total Payments 1,266,681.77 EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN STREET CLEANING MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS R55CKSUM LOG20000 Company Amount 01000 GENERAL FUND 140,104.80 02300 POLICE SPECIAL REVENUE 38,922.40 03200 CITY HALL DEBT SERVICE 900.00 04000 WORKING CAPITAL FUND 335,989.38 04200 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND 304,380.09 04800 CONSTRUCTION FUND 862.54 05100 ART CENTER FUND 963.41 05200 GOLF DOME FUND 1,469.99 05300 AQUATIC CENTER FUND 451.10 05400 GOLF COURSE FUND 42,814.76 05500 ICE ARENA FUND 1,696.59 05700 EDINBOROUGH PARK FUND 13,788.72 05750 CENTENNIAL LAKES PARK FUND 54.79- 05800 LIQUOR FUND 234,497.14 05900 UTILITY FUND 102,651.03 05930 STORM SEWER FUND 43,040.12 07400 PSTF AGENCY FUND 4,204.49 Report Totals 1,266,681.77 CITY OF EDINA 415/2012. 7:27:57 Council Check Summary Page 1 4/5/2012 - 4/5/2012 We confirm to the best of our,knowledge and belief, that these claims comply in all material respects with the requirements of the City of Edina purchasing poi ies nd procedures Financector City Manager- - R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register 4/1212012 — 4/12/2012 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation _ PO # Doc No Inv No Account No 358034 411212012 105696 3CMA 300.00 SAVVY AWARD ENTRIES 285299 040212 1130.6104 Subledger Account Description CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS 4/10/2012 10:48:55 Page - 1 . -- — - Business Unit COMMUNICATIONS 5761.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 300.00 5761.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENTENNIAL LAKES, OPERATING' 358035 4/1212012 CENTENNIAL LAKES OPERATING 100612 A.M. LEONARD LICENSES & PERMITS i EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 5800.1720 BUILDINGS 553.32 LOPPERS, BLADES, GLOVES 00002069 285301 C112020746 1648.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 24.78 SCREWS, NUTS 00002069 285302 C112027023 1551.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2.70 PINS FOR LOPPER 00002069 285303 C112027920 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 580.80 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 358036 411212012 100613 AAA 5;541.59 LICENSE / PLATES 285300 040612 5,541.59 358037 4/1212012 130124 AARON CARLSON WOODWORK 17,470.46 YORK REMODEL 00007518 285422 W02657 17,470.46 358038: 4/1212012 130124 AARON CARLSON WOODWORK 15,718.45 YORK REMODEL 00007519 285423 W02693 15,718.45 368039 4/12/2012 101971 ABLE HOSE & RUBBER INC. 45.26 VINYL TUBING, BRASS; FERRULE 00001877 285057 1- 838629 45.26 358040 4112/2012 124613 ABM JANITORIAL - NORTH CENTRAL 2,782.41 MAR 2012 285114 3626790 2,782.41 APR 2012 285115 3731497 5,564.82 358041' 4/1212012 103173 ACCOUNTEMPS 887.45 UB TEMP 284918 ,35190538 887.45 358642 411212012 102971 ACE ICE COMPANY 82.80 285187 1557737 112.40 285188 1557733 195.20 358043 411212012 100614 ACE SUPPLY CO. INC. 23.53 HVAC PART 285116 136470 Subledger Account Description CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS 4/10/2012 10:48:55 Page - 1 . -- — - Business Unit COMMUNICATIONS 5761.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENTENNIAL LAKES OPERATING 5761.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENTENNIAL LAKES, OPERATING' 5761.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENTENNIAL LAKES OPERATING 1553.6260 LICENSES & PERMITS i EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 5800.1720 BUILDINGS i LIQUOR BALANCE SHEET _-- I 5800.1720 BUILDINGS LIQUOR BALANCE SHEET 1648.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES SKATING RINK MAINTENANCE - 1551.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CITY HALL GENERAL .' 1551.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CITY HALL GENERAL 5910.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES GENERAL (BILLING) —_- 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 1551.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CITY HALL GENERAL R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA Council Cheek Register 4/12/2012 - 4/12/2012 Check # Date Amount Supplier/ Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 23.53 358044 4/1212012 100576 ALL SAFE INC. 103.51 NEW FIRE EXTINGUISHERS 00007515 285304 112918 5800.1720 BUILDINGS REPAIR PARTS REPAIR PARTS GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES REPAIR PARTS GENERAL SUPPLIES COST OF GOODS SOLD GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES RUBBISH REMOVAL RUBBISH REMOVAL RUBBISH REMOVAL RUBBISH REMOVAL 4/10/2012 10:48:55 Page - 2 Business Unit LIQUOR BALANCE SHEET EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS SENIOR CITIZENS SANITARY LIFT STATION MAINT CENT SVC PW BUILDING GRILL CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL PSTF OCCUPANCY ART CENTER BLDG/MAINT 50TH ST OCCUPANCY YORK FIRE STATION FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 103.51 358045 4/1212012 127365 AMERICAN FLEET SUPPLY 192.25 CARTRIDGES, PIGGYBACKS 00005094 284919 AFS- 220900005 1553.6530 122.53 LIGHTS 00005934 285117 AFS- 220790002 1553.6530 314.78 358046 411212012 119210 AMERICAN LOCKER SECURITY SYSTE 150.01 DOOR SPRINGS, SCREWS, NUTS 285305 481243 5720.6406 150.01 358047 4/12/2012 101478 AMSTERDAM 184.25 KEYCHAINS 285387 3144039 1628.6406 184.25 358048 411212012 120088 ANCHOR SCIENTIFIC INC. 251.51 LS FLOAT 00001866 284920 195398 5921.6530 251.51 358049 4/1212012 101874 ANCOM COMMUNICATIONS INC. 604.00 MULTI UNIT CHARGER 00001869 284921 28253 1552.6406 604.00 368050 4/1212012 102172 APPERTS FOODSERVICE 462.41 FOOD 285306 1714494 5421.5510 462.4.1 358051 4/12/2012 103680 ARAMARK REFRESHMENT SRVCS 263.94 COFFEE 285118 1013978 1550.6406 434.30 COFFEE 285119 1012248 1550.6406 98.94 COFFEE 285414 423232 7411.6406 797.18 358052 4/1212012 102774 ASPEN WASTE SYSTEMS 24.91 285058 040112 5111.6182 33.00 285058 040112 5821.6182 33.28 285058 040112 1481.6182 46.49 285058 040112 1470.6182 REPAIR PARTS REPAIR PARTS GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES REPAIR PARTS GENERAL SUPPLIES COST OF GOODS SOLD GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES RUBBISH REMOVAL RUBBISH REMOVAL RUBBISH REMOVAL RUBBISH REMOVAL 4/10/2012 10:48:55 Page - 2 Business Unit LIQUOR BALANCE SHEET EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS SENIOR CITIZENS SANITARY LIFT STATION MAINT CENT SVC PW BUILDING GRILL CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL PSTF OCCUPANCY ART CENTER BLDG/MAINT 50TH ST OCCUPANCY YORK FIRE STATION FIRE DEPT. GENERAL R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register 358053 411212012 411212012 - 411212012 Check # Date Amount Supplier/ Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 48.86 285058 040112 1628.6182 RUBBISH REMOVAL 59.90 285058 040112 5861.6182 RUBBISH REMOVAL 64.44 285058 040112 1645.6182 RUBBISH REMOVAL 73.92 285058 040112 5430.6182 RUBBISH REMOVAL 99.58 285058 040112 5511.6182 RUBBISH REMOVAL 110.08 285058 040112 5841.6182 RUBBISH REMOVAL 128.89 285058 040112 1551.6182 RUBBISH REMOVAL 211.25 285058 040112 1645.6182 RUBBISH REMOVAL 261.69 285058 040112 1645.6182 RUBBISH REMOVAL 285.91 285058 040112 1301.6182 RUBBISH REMOVAL 285.92 285058 040112 1552.6182 RUBBISH REMOVAL 335.07 285058 040112 5422.6182 RUBBISH REMOVAL 359.58 285058 '040112 5420.6182 RUBBISH REMOVAL 461.86 285058 040112 5720.6182 RUBBISH REMOVAL 4/10/2012 10:48:55 Page- 3' Business Unit SENIOR CITIZENS VERNON OCCUPANCY LITTER REMOVAL RICHARDS GOLF COURSE ARENA BLOG/GROUNDS YORK OCCUPANCY CITY HALL GENERAL LITTER REMOVAL LITTER REMOVAL GENERAL' MAINTENANCE CENT SVC PW BUILDING MAINT OF COURSE 8 GROUNDS; CLUB HOUSE EDIN60ROUGH OPERATIONS' RUBBISH REMOVAL PSTF OCCUPANCY _ -- TOOLS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT TOOLS GENERAL SUPPLIES REPAIR PARTS REPAIR PARTS GENERAL SUPPLIES POLICE EQUIPMENT BUILDING MAINTENANCE STREET NAME SIGNS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN I i SANITARY LIFT STATION MAINT 2,924.63 358053 411212012 102774 ASPEN WASTE SYSTEMS 213.09 285416 4/01112 7411.6182 213.09 358054 411212012 101195 AUTO ELECTRIC OF BLOOMINGTON I 181.63 TOOL REPAIR 00005979 285120 110088 1553.6556 181.63 358055 411212012 126019 B & B PRODUCTS I RIGS AND SQUA 2,461.02 TRAVERSE BUILDUP 285121 3694 421400.6710 2,461.02 358056 411212012 102196 BATTERIES PLUS 53.41 REBUILD KIT 00001081 285307 018 - 264466 1646.6556 118.50 BATTERIES 00001957 285308 018- 263854 1325.6406 171.91 368057 4/1212012 102448 BATTERY WHOLESALE INC. 454.81 BATTERIES, CORE CHARGES 00005132 285309 #15682 1553.6530 20.00- CREDIT 285310 C21908 1553.6530 434.81 358058 411212012 124494 BECC. CORP 1,277.26 TRANSDUCERS 00001395 284922 1155 5921.6406_ 1,277.26 4/10/2012 10:48:55 Page- 3' Business Unit SENIOR CITIZENS VERNON OCCUPANCY LITTER REMOVAL RICHARDS GOLF COURSE ARENA BLOG/GROUNDS YORK OCCUPANCY CITY HALL GENERAL LITTER REMOVAL LITTER REMOVAL GENERAL' MAINTENANCE CENT SVC PW BUILDING MAINT OF COURSE 8 GROUNDS; CLUB HOUSE EDIN60ROUGH OPERATIONS' RUBBISH REMOVAL PSTF OCCUPANCY _ -- TOOLS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT TOOLS GENERAL SUPPLIES REPAIR PARTS REPAIR PARTS GENERAL SUPPLIES POLICE EQUIPMENT BUILDING MAINTENANCE STREET NAME SIGNS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN I i SANITARY LIFT STATION MAINT R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register 4/12/2012 - 4/1212012 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No 358059 4/1212012 117379 BENIEK PROPERTY SERVICES INC. 658.57 LAWN CARE 285419 138925 7411.6136 658.57 358060 4/1212012 130134 BERMAN, KARI 77.34 UTILITY OVERPAYMENT REFUND 285403 5324 BLAKE RD 5900.2015 77.34 358061 411212012 125139 BERNICIVS WINE 366.90 284988 48300 5842.5513 366.90 358062 411212012 100648 BERTELSON OFFICE PRODUCTS 90.85 OFFICE SUPPLIES 285122 WO- 743201 -1 1550.6406 64.53 285123 OE- 281340 -1 1550.6406 55.53 285124 WO- 759460 -1 1550.6406 160.78 285125 WO- 760716 -1 1550.6406 13.56 285126 WO- 761243 -1 1550.6406 40.36 285127 WO- 761892 -1 1550.6406 29.13 285128 WO- 763415 -1 1550.6406 65.50 285129 WO- 764652 -1 1550.6406 520.24 358063 411212012 122688 BMK SOLUTIONS 143.74 FRAMES 00001437 285130 76036 1552.6406 143.74, 358064 411212012 130129 BOHLANDER, JOHN 71.93 UTILITY OVERPAYMENT REFUND 285393 6109 OAKLAWN 5900.2015 71.93 358065 4/1212012 100659 BOYER TRUCK PARTS 25.65 ANTIFREEZE 00005097 284923 619509 1553.6530 6.32 HOSE 00005916 285131 610155 1553.6530 31.97 358066 411212012 103239 GRIN NORTHWESTERN GLASS CO. 2,564.99 REPLACE BROKEN WINDOW 284924 518142S 5841.6180 401.54 LAMINATED WALL BOARD 00001975 285132 5181575 4090.6406 2,966.53 358067 411212012 103264 BRO -TEX INC. 4/1012012 10:48:55 Page - 4 Subledger Account Description Business Unit SNOW & LAWN CARE PSTF OCCUPANCY CUSTOMER REFUND UTILITY BALANCE SHEET COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL GENERAL SUPPLIES CENT SVC PW BUILDING CUSTOMER REFUND UTILITY BALANCE SHEET REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN CONTRACTED REPAIRS YORK OCCUPANCY GENERAL SUPPLIES 50TH &FRANCE MAINTENANCE R55CKREG LOG20000 285189 71315 CITY OF EDINA COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 49.05 .285190 71314 Council Check Register COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 63.40 285191 71312 4/1212012 - 4112/2012 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 50TH ST SELLING 1,397.45 110.41 SPILL MATTING 00005073 285059 416176 1646.6610 SAFETY EQUIPMENT 50TH ST SELLING 7,240.35 110.41 284927 8861 -3/12 1550.6188 358068 411212012 952 929 -0297 130055 BURNSVILLE ELECTRIC INC. 0297 -3/12 4090.6188 TELEPHONE 107.70 9,077.25 YORK REMODEL 00007524 285424 8270 5800.1720 BUILDINGS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 83.86 9,077.25 285061 1019 -3/12 7411.6188 368069 4/1212012 102149 CALLAWAY GOLF 0146 -3/12 5911.6188 TELEPHONE 58.84 1,163.73 RENTAL CLUBS 284925 923259549 5410.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES TELEPHONE 117.74 1,163.73 285062 0146 -3/12 1470.6188 358070 411212012 122888 CAP AMERICA INC. 0146 -3/12 5841.6188 4/10/2012 10:48:55 Page- 5 Business Unit BUILDING MAINTENANCE LIQUOR BALANCE SHEET GOLF ADMINISTRATION 378.07 CAPS 284926 645215 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 314.38 STAFF HATS 285311 645523 5410.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES GOLF ADMINISTRATION 692.45 358071 411212012 119455 CAPITOL BEVERAGE SALES 4,79920 285189 71315 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 49.05 .285190 71314 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 63.40 285191 71312 5822.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 50TH ST SELLING 931.25 285192 71313 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING 1,397.45 285312 67610 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING 7,240.35 952 927 -8861 284927 8861 -3/12 1550.6188 TELEPHONE 358072 411212012 116683 CAT & FIDDLE BEVERAGE 200.00 284990 92837 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 757.00 284991 92827 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 957.00 358073 4112/2012 123898 CENTURYLINK 321.08 952 927 -8861 284927 8861 -3/12 1550.6188 TELEPHONE 55.88 952 929 -0297 284928 0297 -3/12 4090.6188 TELEPHONE 107.70 952 826 -7398 285060 2012 -3/12 7410.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 83.86 952 941 -1019 285061 1019 -3/12 7411.6188 TELEPHONE 56.14 285062 0146 -3/12 5911.6188 TELEPHONE 58.84 285062 0146 -3/12 1628.6188 TELEPHONE 117.74 285062 0146 -3/12 1470.6188 TELEPHONE 121.67 285062 0146 -3/12 5841.6188 TELEPHONE 140.67 285062 0146 -3/12 5821.6188 TELEPHONE 166.66 285062 0146 -3/12 1622.6188 TELEPHONE 224.61 285062 0146 -3112 5511.6188 TELEPHONE 235.58 285062 0146 -3112 1646.6188 TELEPHONE VERNON SELLING YORK SELLING CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 50TH &FRANCE MAINTENANCE PSTF ADMINISTRATION PSTF OCCUPANCY WELL PUMPS SENIOR CITIZENS FIRE DEPT. GENERAL YORK OCCUPANCY 50TH ST OCCUPANCY SKATING & HOCKEY ARENA BLDG/GROUNDS BUILDING MAINTENANCE R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 4/10/2012 10:48:55 Council Check Register Page - 6 4/12/2012 - 4/1212012 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 267.25 285062 0146 -3/12 5932.6188 TELEPHONE GENERAL STORM SEWER 1,554.35 285062 0146 -3112 1550.6188 TELEPHONE CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 3,512.03 358074 411212012 117187 CHEM SYSTEMS LTD 2,172.23 CHEMICALS 00008038 285063 517001 5511.6511 CLEANING SUPPLIES ARENA BLDG/GROUNDS 2,172.23 368076 4/1212012 100684 CITY OF BLOOMINGTON 8,885.00 PHEP / CRI CONTRACT SERVICES 284929 PH1052 4204.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES HEALTH ALERT NETWORK 8,885.00 368076 411212012 122317 CITY OF EDINA - COMMUNICATIONS 31.94 TAPING OF AR &LE EVENT 284930 COM1117 1629.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES ADAPTIVE RECREATION 31.94 358077 411212012 100687 CITY OF RICHFIELD 412.71 % XCEL STORM LS 00001871 284931 5162 5934.6185 LIGHT & POWER STORM LIFT STATION MAINT 412.71 368078 411212012 100692 COCA-COLA REFRESHMENTS 244.20 285193 0178088020 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 244.20 358079 4/1212012 101119 COCKRIEL, VINCE 44.40 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 285396 040612 1600.6107 MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE PARK ADMIN. GENERAL 44.40 368080 4/12/2012 120433 COMCAST 4.52 8772 10 614 0023973 285133 23973 -2/12 1551.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CITY HALL GENERAL 4.52 8772 10 614 0023973 285134 23973 -3/12 1551.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CITY HALL GENERAL 13.53 8772 10 614 0373022 285135 373022 -2112 1551.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CITY HALL GENERAL 90.44 8772 10 614 0164959 285313 164959 -3/12 5430.6188 TELEPHONE RICHARDS GOLF COURSE 96.12 8772 10 614 0177449 285314 177449 -3/12 5420.6188 TELEPHONE CLUB HOUSE 82.46 8772 10 614 0165667 285315 165667 -3/12 5424.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES RANGE 291.59 958081 4/12/2012 120826 COMCAST SPOTLIGHT 440.41 CABLE TV ADVERTISING 284932 410135 - 410140 5862.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER VERNON SELLING 440.42 CABLE TV ADVERTISING 284932 410135 - 410140 5822.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER 50TH ST SELLING 440.42 CABLE TV ADVERTISING 284932 410135 - 410140 5842.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER YORK SELLING 1,321.25 R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA I 4110/2012 10:48:55 Council Check Register Page - 7 . 4/12/2012 - 4/12/2012 Check # Date Amount Supplier/ Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit _ 358082 411212012 130066 COMMERCIAL SYSTEMS LLC 9,889.50 YORK REMODEL 00007516 285425 31210 5800.1720 BUILDINGS LIQUOR BALANCE SHEET 9,889.50 358083 4/1212012 100696 CONTINENTAL CLAY CO. 836.50 CLAY 00009132 285064 INV000067514 5120.5510 .COST OF GOODS SOLD ART SUPPLY GIFT GALLERY SHOP- "- 836.50 358084 4112/2012 101704 COOK, BARBARA 150.57 , - ADAPTIVE PROGRAM SERVICES 285065 12 -1594 1629.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ADAPTIVE RECREATION 150.57 358085 411212012 100699 CULLIGAN BOTTLED WATER 90.48 114-09855685 -4 285418 033112 7411.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES PSTF OCCUPANCY 90.48 368086 4/1212012 130131 CUSTOM HOME BUILDERS TITLE 115.01 UTILITY OVERPAYMENT REFUND 285397 5845 BEARD AVE 5900.2015 CUSTOMER REFUND UTILITY BALANCE SHEET S 115.01 358087 4/1212012 104020 DALCO 95.65 DEGREASER 00005120 284933 2443514 1646.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES BUILDING MAINTENANCE 95.66 DEGREASER 00005120 284933 2443514 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 281.47 HAND TOWELS 00001454 285136 2444930 1552.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENT SVC PW BUILDING - 24.58- CREDIT 285137 2445085 1552.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENT SVC PW BUILDING 448.20 - . - - -- -- 368088 411212012 100710 DAVE'S DAIRY 159.27 DAIRY 285316 032612 5421.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD GRILL 159.27 358089 411212012 103182 DAVIS & STANTON 110.00 UNIFORM COMMENDATION BARS 284934 23633 1400.6203 UNIFORM ALLOWANCE POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 110.00 358090 4/1212012 102478 DAY DISTRIBUTING CO. 22.40 284992 644878 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 2,472.40 285194 644879 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 4,997.27 285195 644882 5642.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 2,799.95 285196 644880 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS.SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register 4/12/2012 - 4/12/2012 Check # Date Amount Supplier/ Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 64.00 285197 644881 5822.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX TOOLS COST OF GOODS SOLD COST OF GOODS SOLD COST OF GOODS SOLD SURCHARGE TELEPHONE TELEPHONE TELEPHONE ADVERTISING OTHER POSTAGE AMBULANCE FEES ADVERTISING OTHER ADVERTISING OTHER ADVERTISING OTHER 4/10/2012 10:48:55 Page- 8 Business Unit 50TH ST SELLING EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN GRILL GRILL GRILL INSPECTIONS 50TH ST OCCUPANCY YORK OCCUPANCY VERNON OCCUPANCY CENTENNIAL LAKES ADMIN EXPENSE POOL ADMINISTRATION FIRE DEPT. GENERAL VERNON SELLING 50TH ST SELLING YORK SELLING WATER TREATMENT SUPPLIES WATER TREATMENT 10,356.02 358091 411212012 100718 DELEGARD TOOL CO. 91.91 HOSE REEL 00005026 285138 677481 1553.6556 91.91 368092 411212012 100720 DENNYS 6TH AVE. BAKERY 50.76 BAKERY 284935 405453 5421.5510 106.49 BAKERY 285317 405869 5421.5510 40.30 BAKERY 285318 406402 5421.5510 197.55 358093 411212012 100899 DEPARTMENT OF LABOR & INDUSTRY 4,768.88 SURCHARGE - MAR 2012 285139 13850053060 1495.4380 4,768.88 358094 411212012 102831 DEX MEDIA EAST INC. 20.00 284936 110312148 -3/12 5821.6188 20.00 284936 110312148 -3/12 5841.6188 20.00 284936 110312148 -3/12 5861.6188 101.80 285319 650243624 -3/12 5760.6122 161.80 358095 411212012 129157 DO- GOOD.BIZ INC 908.40 POSTAGE FOR POSTCARDS 285405 040912 5310.6235 908.40 358096 411212012 130135 DOLL, ALICE 1,440.10 AMBULANCE OVERPAYMENT 285411 040912 1470.4329 1,440.10 358097 411212012 112663 DOLLARS & SENSE 683.32 DIRECT MAIL COUPON 285320 29205 5862.6122 683.34 DIRECT MAIL COUPON 285320 29205 5822.6122 683.34 DIRECT MAIL COUPON 285320 29205 5842.6122 2,050.00 358098 411212012 100731 DPC INDUSTRIES 4,651.78 CHEMICALS 00001840 285321 82700348 -12 5915.6586 4,651.78 TOOLS COST OF GOODS SOLD COST OF GOODS SOLD COST OF GOODS SOLD SURCHARGE TELEPHONE TELEPHONE TELEPHONE ADVERTISING OTHER POSTAGE AMBULANCE FEES ADVERTISING OTHER ADVERTISING OTHER ADVERTISING OTHER 4/10/2012 10:48:55 Page- 8 Business Unit 50TH ST SELLING EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN GRILL GRILL GRILL INSPECTIONS 50TH ST OCCUPANCY YORK OCCUPANCY VERNON OCCUPANCY CENTENNIAL LAKES ADMIN EXPENSE POOL ADMINISTRATION FIRE DEPT. GENERAL VERNON SELLING 50TH ST SELLING YORK SELLING WATER TREATMENT SUPPLIES WATER TREATMENT R55CKREG LOG20000 4/10/2012 10:48:55 Page - 9 CITY OF EDINA Business Unit CAR WASH EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN - - MAGAZINE/NEWSLETTER EXPENSE. COMMUNICATIONS Council Check Register POLICE DEPT. GENERAL ADVERTISING OTHER ,i 50TH ST SELLING ADVERTISING OTHER YORK SELLING 4/12/2012 - 4112/2012 Check # Date Amount Supplier/ Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No 358099 4112/2012 FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 129080 DUBOIS CHEMICALS INC. FIRE DEPT. GENERAL REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN - REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN' 2,556.98 CAR WASH 00005985 284937 IN- 1110418 1553.6238 2,556.98 358100 4112/2012 104086 DUFFEY PAPER COMPANY 9,223.51 ABOUT TOWN PAPER 00004006 285322 ,.341523 -00 1130.6123 9,223.51 358101 411212012 130133 EAST AFRICAN ASG 240.00 TRAINING CONFERENCE 285399 2012 1400.6104 240.00 358102 411212012 100744 EDINA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 265.00 CHAMBER DIRECTORY AD 285323 31611 5822.6122 265.00 CHAMBER DIRECTORY AD 285323 31611 5842.6122 265.00 CHAMBER DIRECTORY AD 285323 31611 5862.6122 785.00 358103 4112/2012 130120 EDINA COUNTRY CLUB 140.53 ADMIN MEETING 285140 934700 1120.6106 140.53 358104 4112/2012 101630 EDINA PUBLIC SCHOOLS 942.00 GYM PERMITS 284938 12838 4077.6102 660.00 GYM PERMITS 284939 12839 4077.6102 75.00 MAILING LABELS 284940 12814 4077.6102 1,677.00 368106 4/12/2012 101956 EMERGENCY APPARATUS MAINTENANC 220.42 T -90 REPAIRS 285324 61023 1470.6180 220.42 358106 4112/2012 104733 EMERGENCY MEDICAL PRODUCTS INC 123.48 AMBULANCE SUPPLIES 00003726 285325 1452496 1470.6510 123.48 . 358107 411212012 127590 ETTERMAN ENTERPRISES 29.74 MARKER LIGHT 00005883 285141 181271 1553.6530 143.71 BULBS, BEAMS 00005926 285142 181272 1553.6530 173.45 358108 411212012 100018 EXPERT T BILLING 4/10/2012 10:48:55 Page - 9 Subledger Account Description Business Unit CAR WASH EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN - - MAGAZINE/NEWSLETTER EXPENSE. COMMUNICATIONS CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS POLICE DEPT. GENERAL ADVERTISING OTHER ,i 50TH ST SELLING ADVERTISING OTHER YORK SELLING ADVERTISING OTHER VERNON SELLING MEETING EXPENSE ADMINISTRATION CONTRACTUAL SERVICES i EDINA ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION CONTRACTUAL SERVICES EDINA ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION CONTRACTUAL SERVICES EDINA ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION CONTRACTED REPAIRS FIRE DEPT. GENERAL FIRST AID SUPPLIES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN - REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN' R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 4110/2012 10:48:55 Council Check Register Page - 10 411212012 - 4/12/2012 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 6,318.00 MARCH 2012 TRANSPORTS 285066 040312 1470.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 6,318.00 358109 4112/2012 100146 FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY 102.63 FILTERS 00005126 285143 69-063049 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 454.72 MODULE, SENSOR KIT 00005126 285144 69- 062865 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 19.30 OIL 00005965 285145 69-062107 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 576.65 358110 411212012 106035 FASTENAL COMPANY 10.67 HARDWARE 00001882 285067 MNTC2110797 1646.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES BUILDING MAINTENANCE 10.67 358111 411212012 130136 FADS, SUSAN 77.26 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 285410 040612 1600.6107 MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE PARK ADMIN. GENERAL 77.26 358112 411212012 130022 FELDMAN, HARVEY 169.34 SPORTS DOME PRINTING 282254 022112 1500.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTINGENCIES 169.34 358113 411212012 126004 FERGUSON WATERWORKS 90.39 COUPLINGS 00001855 284941 S01353438.002 5917.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES METER REPAIR 4,960.31 METERS, FITTINGS 00001855 284942 S01353438.001 5914.5516 COST OF GOODS SOLD METERS TANKS TOWERS & RESERVOIR 2,037.69 METERS, FLANGES 00001854 284943 S01353249.001 5914.5516 COST OF GOODS SOLD METERS TANKS TOWERS & RESERVOIR 7,088.39 358114 4/1212012 116492 FINANCE AND COMMERCE 245.61 AD FOR BID 285326 22299126 1120.6120 ADVERTISING LEGAL ADMINISTRATION 248.30 AD FOR BID 285327 22300103 1120.6120 ADVERTISING LEGAL ADMINISTRATION 140.85 AD FOR BID 285328 22300158 1120.6120 ADVERTISING LEGAL ADMINISTRATION 634.76 358115 411212012 129500 FLAT EARTH BREWING CO. 240.00 284993 4426 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 92.00 285198 4425 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING 332.00 358116 411212012 124798 FLESCH, SHIRLEY 84.96 AMBULANCE OVERPAYMENT 285413 040312 1470.4329 AMBULANCE FEES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 84.96 R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 4/10/2012 10:48:55 Council Check Register Page - 11 4/12/2012 - 411212012 Check # Date Amount Supplier I Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 358117 411212012 102015 FLOWERS OF EDINA 101.86 BUD VASES FOR MEETING 285146 7232 1100.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CITY COUNCIL. 101.86 358118 411212012 106351 FOSTER, REBECCA 39.96 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 285408 040212 1260.6107 MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE ENGINEERING GENERAL 39.96 358119 411212012 120776 GAGE, NATHALIE 25.31 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 285407 040512 1130.6107 MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE COMMUNICATIONS 25.31 358120 411212012 130121 GARBO GRABBER LLC 703.60 TRASH BAG HOLDERS 00001785 285329 1207 1645.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES LITTER REMOVAL 703.60 368121 411212012 105959 GARFIN, JEFFREY 422.94 MN IAAI SEMINAR 285402 040212 1470.6104 CONFERENCES &SCHOOLS FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 422.94 358122 411212012 103185 GERTENS i 32.05 BRUSH CHEMICALS 00001774 285147 244496 1644.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES TREES & MAINTENANCE 32.05 358123 4/1212012 124541 GEYEN GROUP 507:66 CARPET CLEANING 00006471 285330 21865 5420.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS CLUB HOUSE 507.66 358124 411212012 100780 GOPHER STATE ONE -CALL INC. _ 900.10 MARCH 2012 TICKETS 00001873 285331 36316 5913.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES DISTRIBUTION 800.10 368125 4/1212012 102645 GRAFFITI CONTROL SERVICES 283.22 GRAFFITI REMOVAL 00001908 285068 717 1647.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS PATHS & HARD SURFACE 283.22 358126 4112/2012 101103 GRAINGER 361.66 PAINT 00001864 284944 9787087031 5913.6532 PAINT DISTRIBUTION 209.23 FIRST AID SUPPLIES 00001796 285069 9784046428 1646.6610 SAFETY EQUIPMENT BUILDING MAINTENANCE 196.12. DEGREASER, GLOVES 00001888 285070 9788098581 1646.6610 SAFETY EQUIPMENT . BUILDING MAINTENANCE 492.87 ATHLETIC FIELD SUPPLIES 00001894 285071 9790857131 1642.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES FIELD MAINTENANCE - 88.35 ALL WEATHER RADIO 00001944 285072 9784046444 1646.6610 SAFETY EQUIPMENT BUILDING.MAINTENANCE R55CKREG LOG20000 1,705.25 CITY OF EDINA 138087 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING Council Check Register 1,134.50 285199 138079 4112/2012 — 4/12/2012 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE Check # Date Amount Supplier/ Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 79.64 GLOVES 00005122 285148 9790713532 1301.6610 SAFETY EQUIPMENT 79.64 GLOVES 00005122 285148 9790713532 5913.6610 SAFETY EQUIPMENT 79.66 GLOVES 00005122 285148 9790713532 1553.6610 SAFETY EQUIPMENT 1,587.17 137919 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 358127 4112/2012 102217 GRAPE BEGINNINGS INC 509.50 285203 137851 4/10/2012 10:48:55 Page - 12 Business Unit GENERAL MAINTENANCE DISTRIBUTION EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 1,705.25 284994 138087 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 1,134.50 285199 138079 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 2,751.00 285200 137921 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 304.50 285201 138089 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 2,688.00 285202 137919 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 509.50 285203 137851 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 9,092.75 358128 4/12/2012 100784 GRAZZINI BROTHERS AND CO. 5,861.50 YORK REMODEL 00007522 285426 132353 58000720 BUILDINGS LIQUOR BALANCE SHEET 5,861.50 358129 4112/2012 100787 GRUBER'S POWER EQUIPMENT 186.75 WHEEL KIT, SHAFT, ARMS 00001878 285149 105865 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS, EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 186.75 358130 4112/2012 129108 HAAG COMPANIES INC. 55.58 BLACK DIRT 00001415 285073 4- 156463 1643.6543 SOD & BLACK DIRT GENERAL TURF CARE 55.58 358131 411212012 102320 HAMCO DATA PRODUCTS 117.46 THERMAL REGISTER PAPER 285332 106390 5822.6512 PAPER SUPPLIES 50TH ST SELLING 117.46 358132 411212012 102618 HARDWOOD CREEK LUMBER INC 1,068.62 LATH 00001740 285386 8837 1325.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES STREET NAME SIGNS 1,068.62 358133 4/1212012 130116 HARRIS CONTRACTING COMPANY 6,185.00 CAR WASH AUGMENTATION 00001304 284945 160001543 1552.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CENT SVC PW BUILDING 6,185.00 358134 411212012 125270 HARTFORD -PRIORITY ACCOUNTS 3,385.50 PREMIUM 285074 5828304 -5 9900.2033.16 LTD - 99 PAYROLL CLEARING 3,385.50 R55CKREG LOG20000 4112/2012 YORK SELLING 103838 HENNEPIN TECHNICAL COLLEGE CITY OF EDINA Business Unit COST OF GOODS SOLD GRILL 4,500.00 Council Check Register 285421 00259759 EDUCATION PROGRAMS 'PSTF ADMINISTRATION' 4/12/2012 - 4/12/2012 Check # Date Amount Supplier/ Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No 358135 411212012 115377 HENRICKSEN PSG 101209 HEIMARK FOODS 153.12 MEAT PATTIES 284946 023789 5421.5510 153.12 877.07 358136 411212012 368139 105436 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER 103763. HILLYARD INC = MINNEAPOLIS 160.31 TIER 2 BUNDLED SERVICE 285333 1000015379 1400.6160 BASE ASSEMBLY MOTOR 00002116 160.31 700021083 285334 1000015380 1190.6105 368137 4112/2012 YORK SELLING 103838 HENNEPIN TECHNICAL COLLEGE Subledger Account Description Business Unit COST OF GOODS SOLD GRILL 4,500.00 FIREARMS INSTRUCTOR COURSE 285421 00259759 EDUCATION PROGRAMS 'PSTF ADMINISTRATION' 4,500.00 i CITY HALL BLDG IMPROVEMENTS i GENERAL SUPPLIES EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS 358138 4/1212012 115377 HENRICKSEN PSG 877.07 REMODELING 285150 491442 877.07 368139 4112/2012 103763. HILLYARD INC = MINNEAPOLIS 109.97 BASE ASSEMBLY MOTOR 00002116 285335 700021083 255.85 MOPS, PADS 00002120 285336 600176867 365.82 368140 411212012 100806 HOBART SERVICE 159.09 DISHWASHER REPAIR 00006336 285337 30406750 159.09 368141 4/1212012 104375 HOHENSTEINS INC. 2,543.10 284995 595851 624.00 285204 596000 84.00 285205 596001 833.00 285206 595181 4,084.10 368142 411212012 126816 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 45.56 TOOLS 00001749 285338 . ,031312 103.37 BRACKETS 00001749 285338 031312 148.93 358143 411212012 101697 HORIZON GRAPHICS INC 528.51 POSTCARDS, INSERTS 285339 31425 528.51 7410.6218 44005.6710 5720.6406 5720.6511 5421.6102 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES GRILL 5842.5514 4/10/2012 10:48:55 YORK SELLING Page - 131, - Subledger Account Description Business Unit COST OF GOODS SOLD GRILL DATA PROCESSING POLICE DEPT. GENERAL DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS ASSESSING EDUCATION PROGRAMS 'PSTF ADMINISTRATION' EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT i CITY HALL BLDG IMPROVEMENTS i GENERAL SUPPLIES EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS CLEANING SUPPLIES EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS CONTRACTUAL SERVICES GRILL 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 5822.5514 COST, OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING 1301.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL MAINTENANCE 1400.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 5710.6575 PRINTING EDINBOROUGH ADMINISTRATION R55CKREG LOG20000 50TH ST SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE CITY OF EDINA 50TH ST SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING Council Check Register 411212012 - 4/1212012 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No 358144 411212012 100808 HORWATH, THOMAS 355.00 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 285075 040212 1644.6107 355.00 358145 4112/2012 112628 ICEE COMPANY, THE 159.08 CONCESSION PRODUCT 285340 1684006 5730.5510 159.08 358146 411212012 129508 IMPACT PROVEN SOLUTIONS 504.37 MAIL LATE NOTICES 284948 61595 5910.6103 504.37 358147 411212012 102223 IMPERIAL HEADWEAR INC 367.80 MERCHANDISE 284947 0880870 5440.5511 367.80 368148 411212012 106198 INTERNATIONAL ASSOC. FOR PROPE 325.00 TRAINING CONFERENCE 284949 040312 1400.6104 325.00 368149 411212012 100741 .JJ TAYLOR DIST. OF MINN 176.80 284996 1759402 5862.5515 15.35 284997 1685303 5842.5514 2,891.04 285207 1759401 5862.5514 3,721.50 285208 1731564 5822.5514 130.00 285209 1759405 5862.5514 7,428.50 285210 1759411 5842.5514 60.55 285211 1759412 5842.5515 1,350.70 285212 1759400 5822.5514 492.00 285213 1759421 5842.5514 16,266.44 358150 411212012 103959 JOHN NAGENGAST DOORS LLC 250.00 DOOR REPAIR 285341 4554 1470.6180 250.00 358152 411212012 100836 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO. 1,016.73 284998 1262896 5822.5512 1,034.63 284989 1262892 5822.5513 320.16 285000 1262895 5822.5513 526.72 285001 1262901 5822.5513 7,885.90 285002 126291.5 5862.5512 Subledger Account Description MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE COST OF GOODS SOLD 4/10/2012 10:48:55 Page - 14 Business Unit TREES & MAINTENANCE EDINBOROUGH CONCESSIONS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES GENERAL (BILLING) COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS POLICE DEPT. GENERAL COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING YORK SELLING VERNON SELLING 50TH ST SELLING VERNON SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING 50TH ST SELLING YORK SELLING CONTRACTED REPAIRS FIRE DEPT. GENERAL COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register 4/12/2012 - 4/12/2012 Check # Date Amount Supplier I Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No 3.36 285003 1262898 5862.5512 80.77- 285004 530232 5862.5513 91.12- 285005 529671 5862.5512 5.60 285214 1262894 5842.5512 9,298.48 285215 1262908 5842.5512 494.82 285216 1262906 5842.5512 5,684.27 285217 1267995 5862.5512 128.71 285218 1267983 5862.5512 595.40 285219 1267998 5862.5512 731.14 285220 1268001 5862.5512 1.12 285221 1267984 5862.5513 1,588.22 285222 .1267986 5862.5513 994.33 285223 1267999 5862.5513 2,119.38 285224 1267994 5862.5513 396.72 285225 1267979 5862.5513 51298.71 285226 1267990 5842.5512 552.72 285228 1267977 5822.5513 792.09 285229 1267989 5842.5512 1,962.75 285230 1267993 5842.5512 32.12 285231 1268000 5862.5515 41.12 285232 1267997 5862.5515 135.66 285233 1268259 5842.5513 20.99 285234 1267992 5842.5513 1,218.80 285235 1267978 5842.5513 1,957.82 285236 1267987 5842.5513 1,588.43 285237 1267988 5842.5513 1,907.48 285238 1267991 5842.5513 20.80- 285239 530481 5842.5513 13.33- 285240 530482 5862.5512 8.17- 285241 530483 5862.5512 7.01- 285242 530480 5842.5512 9.75- 285243 530604 5842.5512 736.90 285342 1267980 5822.5513 48,842.33 368153 .' -' 4/1212012 130128. KLEEBERGER, BRUCE 150.00 GOLF DOME REFUND 285391 040412 5201.4543 150.00 358154 411212012 118456 KNOLLMAIER, LAURA 58.95 PETTY CASH 285392 040512 5760.6406 Subledger Account Description COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE. COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE GOLF DOME RECEIPTS GENERAL SUPPLIES 4/10/2012 10:48:55 Page -, 15 Business Unit VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING - - - VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING _ VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING YORK SELLING SOTH ST SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING -- YORK SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING 50TH ST SELLING GOLF DOME REVENUES CENTENNIAL LAKES ADMIN EXPENSE R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register 4/12/2012 - 4/12/2012 Check # Date Amount Supplier/ Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 238.71 PETTY CASH 285392 040512 5761.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIE 4/10/2012 10:48:55 Page - 16 Business Unit CENTENNIAL LAKES OPERATING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES SENIOR CITIZENS 297.66 EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 358155 4/1212012 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 105887 KOESSLER, JOE COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE CENT SERV GEN - MIS BUILDINGS LIQUOR BALANCE SHEET 336.00 FEB/MAR 2012 FEES REPAIR PARTS 285151 030112 1628.6103 GENERAL SUPPLIES ADMINISTRATION 336.00 - 358156 411212012 100852 LAWSON PRODUCTS INC. 11.42 CABLE LUGS 00005057 284950 9300723746 1553.6530 11.42 CABLE LUGS 00005070 284951 9300723747 1553.6530 11.53 LUGS 00005028 285152 9300730143 1553.6530 210.43 ELBOWS, RIVETS, DRILL BITS 00005028 285153 9300733570 1553.6530 244.80 358157 4/12/2012 124810 LIFT BRIDGE BEER COMPANY 108.00 285006 02398 5862.5514 56.00 285244 5671 5822.5514 164.00 358158 411212012 126208 LOVEJOY, NICHOLAS 105.28 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 285409 040512 1554.6107 105.28 358159 4112/2012 130125 M.R. BRICK & STONE 10,625.75 YORK REMODEL 00007517 285427 548 5800.1720 10,625.75 358160 411212012 130130 MACH, JOHN 314.65 CREDIT BALANCE REFUND OUTILITY 285394 159013027 5900.2015 314.65 358161 411212012 100864 MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT INC. 344.94 VALVE BUTTERFLY 00001981 285154 2122278 1553.6530 344.94 368162 411212012 124000 MARTIN, KAYLIN 81.40 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 285406 040912 1130.6107 81.40 356163 411212012 100875 MCCAREN DESIGNS INC. 38.48 PLANT 285155 54243 1120.6406 38.48 4/10/2012 10:48:55 Page - 16 Business Unit CENTENNIAL LAKES OPERATING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES SENIOR CITIZENS REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE CENT SERV GEN - MIS BUILDINGS LIQUOR BALANCE SHEET CUSTOMER REFUND UTILITY BALANCE SHEET REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE COMMUNICATIONS GENERAL SUPPLIES ADMINISTRATION R55CKREG LOG20000 4/10/2012 10:48:55 CITY OF EDINA Page- 17 Subledger Account Description Business Unit SERVICE CONTRACTS EQUIPMENT Council Check Register CONTRACTED REPAIRS EDIN60ROUGH OPERATIONS - - CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 4/1212012 - 4/12/2012 Check # Date Amount Supplier/ Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No 358164 411212012 REPAIR PARTS 126941. MCQUAY INTERNATIONAL GENERAL SUPPLIES FIELD MAINTENANCE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES EDINA ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION 1,504.00 INSPECTION CONTRACT 285343 51199 5720.6230 PAPER SUPPLIES - CITY.HALL GENERAL 783.46 BOILER SERVICE/REPAIR 285344 2564249 5720.6180 METER REPAIR _ 2,287.46 358165 411212012 101292 MED27S, ANDREW 422.94 MN IAAI SEMINAR 285401 040212 1470.6104 422.94 358166 411212012 113023 MEGGITT TRAINING SYSTEMS INC. 15.13 BULB CARTRIDGE 285415 0053970 7412.6406 15.13 358167. 411212012 101483 MENARDS 11.95 ELBOWS, UNION, BUSHING 00001891 285076 40168 1646.6530 6.27 HARDWARE 00001795 285077 37329 1646.6530 3:66 BUILDING MATERIALS 00001875 285078 37629 1646.6406 17.39 TOGGLE BOLT 00001952 285156 39635 1301.6406 7.76 .PLUMBING PARTS 00001901 285345 43024 1646.6530 47.03 358168, 411212012 101891 METRO ATHLETIC SUPPLY 5,920.88 SOCCER GOALS 00001909 285079 139497 1642.6406 5,920.88 358169 4112/2012 102507 METRO VOLLEYBALL OFFICIALS 55.00 OFFICIATING FEES 264952 4142 4077.6103 55.00 358170 4/1212012 100886 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL 18,993.15 MARCH 2012 SAC. 285080 033112 1495.4307 18,993.15 358171 4/1212012 101161 MIDWEST CHEMICAL SUPPLY 424.00 KITCHEN /BATH SUPPLIES 285157 32743 1551.6511 700.47 KITCHEN/BATH SUPPLIES 285157 32743 1551.6512 493.71 TOWELS, TISSUE, SOAP 00003768 285346 32801 1470.6406 1,618.18 358172 411212012 118464 MIDWESTTESTING 315.00 METER TEST 00001546 284953 2336 5917.6180 4/10/2012 10:48:55 Page- 17 Subledger Account Description Business Unit SERVICE CONTRACTS EQUIPMENT EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS CONTRACTED REPAIRS EDIN60ROUGH OPERATIONS - - CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS FIRE DEPT. GENERAL GENERAL SUPPLIES PSTF RANGE REPAIR PARTS BUILDING MAINTENANCE REPAIR PARTS BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES BUILDING MAINTENANCE 1 GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL MAINTENANCE REPAIR PARTS BUILDING MAINTENANCE -- - GENERAL SUPPLIES FIELD MAINTENANCE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES EDINA ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION SAC CHARGES INSPECTIONS.- i CLEANING SUPPLIES I CITY HALL GENERAL PAPER SUPPLIES - CITY.HALL GENERAL - - GENERAL SUPPLIES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL CONTRACTED REPAIRS METER REPAIR _ R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 4/10/2012 10:48:55 Council Check Register Page - 18 4112/2012 - 4/12/2012 Check # Date Amount Supplier/ Explanation PO # Doe No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 315.00 358173 4/12/2012 100913 MINNEAPOLIS & SUBURBAN SEWER & 1,960.00 REPLACE WATER SERVICE 00001870 284954 34049 5913.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS DISTRIBUTION 1,960.00 REPLACE WATER SERVICE 00001870 284955 34045 5913.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS DISTRIBUTION 857.50 REPAIR STANDPIPE 00001870 284956 34048 5913.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS DISTRIBUTION 4,777.50 358174 411212012 103216 MINNEAPOLIS FINANCE DEPARTMENT 14,348.29 WATER PURCHASE 284957 431 - 0005.300 -4/ 5913.6601 WATER PURCHASED DISTRIBUTION 12 14,348.29 368175 4112/2012 101684 MINNESOTA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASS 375.00 TRAINING CONFERENCE 284958 040312 1400.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 375.00 368176 4/1212012 100908 MINNESOTA WANNER CO. 50.33 SPRAYER PARTS 00001790 285081 0092761 -IN 1643.6530 REPAIR PARTS GENERAL TURF CARE 51.30 ROOTFEEDER 00002075 285347 0092866 -IN 5761.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENTENNIAL LAKES OPERATING 101.63 358177 411212012 100898 MINVALCO 159.24 ACTUATOR 00001955 284959 844188 5912.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES WELL HOUSES 159.24 358178 4/1212012 104477 MN STATE BOARD OF ASSESSORS 520.00 LICENSES RENEWAL 285404 040312 1190.6105 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS ASSESSING 520.00 358179 4112/2012 108668 MORRIS, GRAYLYN 150.00 EP ENTERTAINMENT 4/26/12 285390 040112 5710.6136 PROFESSIONAL SVC - OTHER EDINBOROUGH ADMINISTRATION 150.00 368180 411212012 100908 MTi DISTRIBUTING INC. 147.88 IRRIGATION PARTS 00001874 285082 831494 -01 1643.6530 REPAIR PARTS GENERAL TURF CARE 200.65 IRRIGATION PARTS 00001890 285083 832082 -00 1643.6530 REPAIR PARTS GENERAL TURF CARE 687.20 IRRIGATION PARTS 00001874 285084 831494 -00 1643.6530 REPAIR PARTS GENERAL TURF CARE 27.78 IRRIGATION PARTS 00001874 285085 831494 -02 1643.6530 REPAIR PARTS GENERAL TURF CARE 59.50 IRRIGATION PARTS 00002080 285348 833710-00 5761.6530 REPAIR PARTS CENTENNIAL LAKES OPERATING 1,123.01 R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register 4/12/2012 - 4112/2012 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account•No 358181 4112/2012 130126 MULTIPLE CONCEPTS INTERIORS 35,882.45 YORK REMODEL 00007523 285428 1 5800.1720 35,882.45 368182 4/1212012 105066 NATURAL REFLECTIONS LLC 518.16 COMPRESSOR REPAIRS 00001003 285086 1620 4086.6103 1,714.81 MAINTENANCE CONTRACT 00001001 285087 1607 4086.6103 1,723.89 MAINTENANCE CONTRACT 00001002 285088 1608 4086.6103 3,956.86 358183 411212012 100076 NEW FRANCE WINE CO. 211.00 285245 72619 5822.5513 211.00 358184 4/1212012 130119 NIEBUR TRACTOR & EQUIPMENT INC 17,126.58 4WD TRACTOR 00006149 285089 20105 5400.1740 17,126.58 368185 411212012 115616 NORTH IMAGE APPAREL INC. 57.52 UNIFORM PURCHASE 00005604 285400 NIA5560C 1646.6201 57.52 358186 411212012 101620 NORTH SECOND STREET STEEL SUPP 61.21 BAR STOCK FOR REPAIRS 00001789 285090 227680 1648.6530 192.57 PIPE FOR HOCKEY NETS 00001783 285091 227681 1648.6406 192.57 PIPE FOR HOCKEY NETS 00001883 285092 228041 1648.6406 663.62 STEEL 00005096 285158 228568 1553.6530 1,109.97 358187 4/1212012 100933 NORTHWEST GRAPHIC SUPPLY CO. 160.78 PENS, CANVAS PANELS, FOAM 00009136 285093 42076900 5120.5510 160.78 358188 4112/2012 105007 ,NU- TELECOM 557.72 APR 2012 SERVICE 254960 80655845 1400.6230 557.72 358189 4/12/2012 103578 OFFICE DEPOT 9.10 REGISTER PAPER 285094 1453399664 5110.6513 74.12 OFFICE SUPPLIES 00006034 285349 1454331769 5410.6513 6.89 SOAP 00002078 285350 603800972001 5760.6406 177.99 OFFICE SUPPLIES 00002078 285351 603798035001 5760.6406 Subledger Account Description BUILDINGS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES i COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE MACHINERY & EQUIPMENT 411012012 10:48:55 Page - 19 Business Unit LIQUOR BALANCE SHEET AQUATIC WEEDS AQUATIC WEEDS i AQUATIC WEEDS 50TH ST SELLING GOLF BALANCE SHEET LAUNDRY BUILDING MAINTENANCE REPAIR PARTS GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES REPAIR PARTS COST OF GOODS SOLD SERVICE CONTRACTS EQUIPMENT OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES SKATING RINK MAINTENANCE SKATING RINK MAINTENANCE, SKATING RINK MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN ART SUPPLY GIFT GALLERY SHOP POLICE DEPT. GENERAL ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION GOLF ADMINISTRATION CENTENNIAL LAKES ADMIN EXPENSE CENTENNIAL LAKES ADMIN EXPENSE R55CKREG LOG20000 VERNON SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE CITY OF EDINA VERNON SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING Council Check Register YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 4/12/2012 - 4/12/2012 Check # Date Amount Supplier/ Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No 268.10 358190 4/12/2012 124675 OKEE DOKEE BROTHERS 300.00 EP ENTERTAINMENT 4/19/12 285388 040112 5710.6136 300.00 358191 4/12/2012 130127 OLD TOWNE GLASS COMPANY 18,202.00 YORK REMODEL 00007502 285429 120051 -1 5800.1720 18,202.00 356192 4112/2012 101659 ORION PEST CONTROL 253.12 PEST CONTROL 285159 72759834 1551.6180 253.12 358193 4/12/2012 129485 PAPCO INC. 106.14 CAN LINERS, TOWELS 285417 70959 7411.6511 106.14 358194 411212012 129824 PARK AND RECREATION CONSULTANT 600.00 SPORTS DOME CONSULTING 284961 3 -2012 1500.6103 600.00 358195 411212012 100347 PAUSTIS & SONS 39.07 285007 8344479 -IN 5862.5512 4,762.77 285008 8343971 -IN 5842.5513 6,393.95 285009 8343572 -IN 5862.5513 1,433.01 285010 8344474 -IN 5862.5513 33.25 285011 8344472 -IN 5862.5515 33.25 285246 8344471 -IN 5842.5515 2,520.81 285247 8344461 -IN 5842.5513 293.00 285248 8344477 -IN 5822.5513 3,431.99 285249 8343573 -IN 5822.5513 187.25 285250 8343563 -IN 5822.5513 19,128.35 358196 411212012 100945 PEPSI -COLA COMPANY 358197 4/1212012 100743 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS 1,474.74 247.73 4/10/2012 10:48:55 Page - 20 Subledger Account Description Business Unit PROFESSIONAL SVC - OTHER EDINBOROUGH ADMINISTRATION BUILDINGS CONTRACTED REPAIRS CLEANING SUPPLIES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES LIQUOR BALANCE SHEET CITY HALL GENERAL PSTF OCCUPANCY CONTINGENCIES COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 285352 71093290 5421.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD GRILL 285012 2217054 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 285013 2217052 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 4/10/2012 10:48:55 Council Check Register Page - 21 4/12/2012 - 4/12/2012 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No. Account No Subledger. Account Description Business Unit -- - 1,992.60 285014 2217376 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 1,438.96 285251 2220635 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 646.60 285252 2220638 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 2,751:39 285253 2220641 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 57.12 285254 2220642 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX : YORK SELLING 379.98 285255 2220643 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 2,639.59 285256 2220644 5662.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 326.72 285257 2220636 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 1,295.52 285258 2220645 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 165.72 285259 2220640 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 661.56 285260 2220637 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 86.14 285261 2220639 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 14,184.37 i 358198 411212012 100953 PHYSIO-CONTROL INC. 645.00 AMBULANCE SUPPLIES 00003755 285095 112107439 1470.6510 FIRST AID SUPPLIES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 620.50 AMBULANCE SUPPLIES 00003737 285353 112093665 1470.6510 FIRST AID SUPPLIES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 1,265.50 356199 4/12/2012 100958 PLUNKET rS PEST CONTROL 46.30 PEST CONTROL 285420 3081214 7411.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PSTF OCCUPANCY _ -..- 46.30 358200 4/12/2012 - 119620 POMP'S TIRE SERVICE INC. 130.00 SCRAP TIRE DISPOSAL FEE 00005966 285160 223693 1553.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 207.29 TIRES 00005127 285161 231804 1553.6583 TIRES & TUBES EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 194.19 TIRES, TUBES 00005029 285354 221584 1553.6583 TIRES & TUBES EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 531.48 358201 411212012 100966 PRINTERS SERVICE INC 126.00 BLADE SHARPENING 285096 258733 5521.6215 EQUIPMENT. MAINTENANCE ARENA ICE MAINT 126.00 358202 .411212012 106322 PROSOURCE SUPPLY 125.25 MOPS, LINERS 00008042 285097 '5567 5511.6511 CLEANING SUPPLIES ARENA BLDGIGROUNDS 1 1,864.89 NITRILE GLOVES, TISSUE, LINERS 285355 5523 5720.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS 1,990.14 35820.3 411212012 100971 QUALITY WINE - 1,528.60 285075 590045 -00 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 309.44 285262 590139 -00 . 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 81.60 285263 590198 -00, 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 4/10/2012 10:48:55 Council Check Register Page - 22 4/12/2012 — 4/12/2012 Check # Date Amount Supplier/ Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 510.00- 285264 591117 -00 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 8.90- 285265 591228 -00 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 54.86- 285266 590866 -00 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 5.33- 285267 590835.00 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 1,340.55 358204 411212012 117692 R & B CLEANING INC. 2,538.28 RAMP STAIRWELL CLEANING 00001980 285162 1097 4090.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 50TH&FRANCE MAINTENANCE 2,538.28 358205 411212012 100972 R&R SPECIALTIES OF WISCONSIN I 1,276.80 ZAMBONI REPAIRS 285098 0049887 -IN 5521.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS ARENA ICE MAINT 79.89 ZAMBONI REPAIRS 285099 0049895 -IN 5521.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS ARENA ICE MAINT 1,356.69 358206 4/12/2012 130132 ROBINETTE, CAROL 61.00 SHOWBOAT TRIP REFUND 285398 040512 1628.4392.07 SENIOR TRIPS SENIOR CITIZENS 61.00 358207 411212012 100981 ROCHESTER MIDLAND CORP. 498.56 REST ROOM SANITIZER 00006470 285356 916758 5430.6511 CLEANING SUPPLIES RICHARDS GOLF COURSE 498.56 358208 4/1212012 122470 RTL CONSTRUCTION INC. 1,907.05 YORK REMODEL 00007501 285430 12 -107 -2 5800.1720 BUILDINGS LIQUOR BALANCE SHEET 1,907.05 358209 411212012 101963 S & S TREE SPECIALISTS 513.00 CONSULTATION SERVICES 00001004 285100 57486 1644.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TREES & MAINTENANCE 513.00 358210 411212012 100988 SAFETY KLEEN 113.07 RECYCLE PARTS WASHER 00001982 285163 926315573 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 113.07 358211 411212012 104788 SANDY'S PROMOTIONAL STUFF 387.60 MAGNETS 285101 SH2O09 5511.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES ARENA BLDGIGROUNDS 387.60 358212 4/1212012 101431 SCAN AIR FILTER INC. 827.11 FILTERS 00001591 285164 120147 1551.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CITY HALL GENERAL 2,911.11 FILTERS 00001591 285165 120424 1551.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CITY HALL GENERAL R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY HALL GENERAL GENERAL SUPPLIES CITY OF EDINA GENERAL SUPPLIES CITY HALL GENERAL GENERAL SUPPLIES CITY HALL GENERAL CONTRACTED REPAIRS Council Check Register GENERAL SUPPLIES CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL I RANGE RENTAL FIRE DEPT. GENERAL RANGE RENTAL 4/12/2012 — 4/12/2012 Check # Date Amount Supplier/ Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No 3,738.22 358213 4/1212012 104161 SCHINDLER ELEVATOR CORP. 545.04 PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE 285166 8103159547 1551.6180 545.04 358214 411212012 100991 SCHWAB- VOLLHABER- LUBRATT 2,248.00 REPLACE COMPRESSOR 00001206 264962 120105 -033 1552.6180 2,248:00 358216 4112/2012 101687 SENIOR COMMUNITY SERVICES 23,056.00 2012 SERVICES 285167 032312 1504.6103 23,056.00 358216 4/1212012 104689 SERIGRAPHICS SIGN SYSTEMS INC. _ 169.86 SIGNAGE 285168 42786 1551.6406 45.00 285169 42764 1551.6406 201.92 285170 42788 1551.6406 1,605.04 285171 42693 1551.6406 2,021.82 358217 4/1212012 105654 SIMPLEX GRINNELL LP 469.00 ALARM REPAIRS 00001943 285172 67597737 1551.6180 469.00 358218 4/1212012 101000 SIR SPEEDY 135.20 BUSINESS CARDS 285357 72057 1550.6406 135.20 358219 4/1212012 122368 SOUTH METRO PUBLIC SAFETY 4,609.00 2ND QTR DUES 284963 8716 1470.6221 6,229.00 2ND QTR DUES 284963 8716 1400.6221 10,838.00 368220 4/1212012 117819 SOUTH OF THE RIVER COMMUNITY B. 50.00 EP ENTERTAINMENT 4/22112 285389 .040112 5710.6136 50.00 358221 411212012 127878 SOUTHERN WINE AND SPIRITS 936.28 285016 1745434 5662.5512 1,202.00 285017 1750079 5862.5513 4,337.88 285018 1745411 5862.5512 Subledger Account Description 4110/2012 10:48:55 Page - !23 Business Unit CONTRACTED REPAIRS CITY HALL GENERAL CONTRACTED REPAIRS CENT SVC PW BUILDING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES HUMAN RELATION COMMISSION GENERAL SUPPLIES CITY HALL GENERAL GENERAL SUPPLIES CITY HALL GENERAL GENERAL SUPPLIES CITY HALL GENERAL GENERAL SUPPLIES CITY HALL GENERAL CONTRACTED REPAIRS CITY HALL GENERAL GENERAL SUPPLIES CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL I RANGE RENTAL FIRE DEPT. GENERAL RANGE RENTAL POLICE DEPT. GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SVC -OTHER EDINBOROUGHADMINISTRATION COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING R55CKREG LOG20000 25,774.12 CITY OF EDINA COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING Council Check Register VERNON SELLING 101004 SPS COMPANIES 4112/2012 - 4/12/2012 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No 7,844.65 285019 1745406 5842.5512 1,161.50 285020 1750087 5842.5513 2,806.83 285021 1780007 5862.5513 571.50 285022 1726459 5842.5513 157.00 285023 1726412 5842.5513 1,138.00 285268 1780001 5822.5513 84.50 285269 1750080 5822.5513 2,290.75 285270 1745439 5842.5512 3,243.23 285271 1745426 5842.5512 5913.6406 1646.6530 5720.6406 5720.6406 1550.6406 1400.6203 1400.6203 1552.6103 1120.6120 1120.6120 1120.6120 1120.6120 1120.6120 1120.6120 1509.6103 4/10/2012 10:48:55 Page - 24 Subledger Account Description 25,774.12 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 358222 411212012 VERNON SELLING 101004 SPS COMPANIES YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 39.57 THREAD SEAL, TAPE 00001860 284964 S2522358.001 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 110.78 PLUMBING PARTS 00001899 285102 S2527003.001 148.45 FLOW CONTROL SPINDLES 285358 S2524380.002 46.57 SHOWER HEADS 00002117 285359 S2524380.001 345.37 358223 4/12/2012 117685 STAPLES ADVANTAGE 657.92 CARTRIDGES 285173 112622578 657.92 368224 411212012 101015 STREICHERS 10.67 BELT CLIPS 284965 1917809 48.08 HOLSTER 284966 1917063 58.75 368225 4/1212012 113841 SUMMIT FIRE PROTECTION CO. 490.00 ANNUAL INSPECTION 00001758 284967 35267 490.00 358226 4/1212012 100900 SUN NEWSPAPERS 113.91 AD FOR BID 285360 1366062 31.47 OPEN HOUSE NOTICE 285361 1367142 41.97 ASSESSMENT NOTICE 285362 1367143 17.99 POLICE AUCTION NOTICE 285363 1367145 68.94 2012 COMMODITIES 285364 1367144 31.47 PUBLISH NOTICE 285365 1367141 305.75 358227 411212012 114800 SUPERIOR WHITETAIL MANAGEMENT 3,600.00 DEER REMOVAL 00001005 285366 040112 5913.6406 1646.6530 5720.6406 5720.6406 1550.6406 1400.6203 1400.6203 1552.6103 1120.6120 1120.6120 1120.6120 1120.6120 1120.6120 1120.6120 1509.6103 4/10/2012 10:48:55 Page - 24 Subledger Account Description Business Unit COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING GENERAL SUPPLIES REPAIR PARTS GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES UNIFORM ALLOWANCE UNIFORM ALLOWANCE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ADVERTISING LEGAL ADVERTISING LEGAL ADVERTISING LEGAL ADVERTISING LEGAL ADVERTISING LEGAL ADVERTISING LEGAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES DISTRIBUTION BUILDING MAINTENANCE EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS EDINBOROUGH OPERATIONS CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL POLICE DEPT. GENERAL POLICE DEPT. GENERAL CENT SVC PW BUILDING ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATION DEER CONTROL R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 4/1012012 10:48:55 Council Check Register Page - 25'. 4/1212012 - 4/12/2012 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 3,600.00 _ 358228 4/7212012 120998 SURLY BREWING CO. 652.00 285024 000609 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING - 1,380.00 285025 000560 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 2,032.00 358229 4/12/2012 105982 T.P.C. LANDSCAPE 96.50 SNOW REMOVAL 285174 416987 1551.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CITY HALL GENERAL 69.00 285175 416988 1551.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES - CITY HALL GENERAL 165.50 358230. 411212012 106673 TAPCO 755.22 BARRICADES 00001720 284968 1390437 5913.6610 SAFETY EQUIPMENT DISTRIBUTION i 947.77 BARACADE LIGHTS 00001828 285176 1390531 1325.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES STREET NAME SIGNS 1,702.99 - 358231, 41/212012 104932 TAYLOR MADE 472.02 MERCHANDISE 284969 17435136 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 490.64 284970 17451481 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 102.88 284971 17462969 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 1,065.54 358232 411212012 113549 TENNIS WEST . 1,290.00 FENCE REPAIRS 00001905 285103 113549 1647.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS PATHS 8 HARD SURFACE 1,290.00 358233 411212012 101035 THORPE DISTRIBUTING COMPANY 131.40 285026 682559 5421.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER GRILL 3,425.40 285027 663267 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 181.85 285272 683268 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 166.00 285367 00772639 5421.5514 COST OF GOODS,SOLD BEER GRILL 110.00 285368 683516 5421.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER GRILL 4,014.65 358234 411212012 101826 THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR CORP. 444.29 ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE 285104 3000138248 5511.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS ARENA BLDG/GROUNDS 444.29 358235 4112/2012 104347 TIERNEY BROTHERS INC. 612.22 VIDEO CONFERENCE REPAIR 285105 627752 1470.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 612.22 R55CKREG LOG20000 Business Unit ADVERTISING OTHER VERNON SELLING CITY OF EDINA 50TH ST SELLING ADVERTISING OTHER YORK SELLING Council Check Register 4112/2012 - 4112/2012 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No 358236 4/1212012 120700 11GER OAK PUBLICATIONS INC. 366.66 MAGAZINE ADVERTISING 285369 2012 -70916 5862.6122 366.67 MAGAZINE ADVERTISING 285369 2012 -70916 5822.6122 366.67 MAGAZINE ADVERTISING 285369 2012 -70916 5842.6122 1,100.00 368237 4112/2012 123129 TIMESAVER OFF SITE SECRETARIAL 157.50 VET MEM COMMITTEE MINUTES 00007102 285106 M18967 1600.6103 106.25 DRAFT 3120/12 MINUTES 285370 M18969 1120.6103 356.25 DRAFT 3/6112 MINUTES 285371 M18939 1120.6103 620.00 368238 4/1212012 103277 TITAN MACHINERY 232.41 TUBE ASSEMBLIES 00005131 285177 9C05435 1553.6530 232.41 358239 411212012 101038 TOLL GAS & WELDING SUPPLY 296.29 WELDING TOOLS 00001784 285107 387470 1646.6556 30.17 WELDING GAS 00001080 285178 439500 1553.6580 76.71 GAS CYLINDER 00005089 285179 387953 1553.6581 42.04 WELDING CYLINDERS 285372 439501 5761.6406 445.21 358240 4/1212012 116536 TRAVELERS 2,716.50 DEDUCTIBLE 285108 000406417 1550.6200 2,716.50 358241 4/12/2012 130066 TRUSIGHT 8,992.50 EMPLOYEE EVALUATIONS 285109 212953 4412.6103 8,992.50 358242 411212012 118190 TURFWERKS LLC 2,911.29 FILTERS, CHAIN, WHEELS 00001794 285180 S129811 1553.6530 2,911.29 358243 4112/2012 123969 TWIN CITIES OCCUPATIONAL HEALT 55.00 PRE - EMPLOYMENT PHYSICAL 285181 101899868 1550.6121 224.40 FITNESS FOR DUTY EXAM 285181 101899868 1301.6103 279.40 368244 411212012 102150 TWIN CITY SEED CO. 4/10/2012 10:48:55 Page - 26 Subledger Account Description Business Unit ADVERTISING OTHER VERNON SELLING ADVERTISING OTHER 50TH ST SELLING ADVERTISING OTHER YORK SELLING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PARK ADMIN. GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN TOOLS BUILDING MAINTENANCE WELDING SUPPLIES EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN GASOLINE EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN GENERAL SUPPLIES CENTENNIAL LAKES OPERATING INSURANCE CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COMP STUDY PROJECT REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN ADVERTISING PERSONNEL CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES GENERAL MAINTENANCE CITY OF EDINA 4/10/2012 10:48,55 R55CKREG LOG20000 Council Check Register Page - 27 4/12/2012 - 4/12/2012 Check # Date Amount Supplier-/ Explanation PO # Doe No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 80.16 GRASS SEED 00001881 285110 27064 1643.6547 SEED GENERAL TURF CARE 80.16 358245 411212012 115379 U.S. BANK 17.90 NET ZERO 285376 040312 1500.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTINGENCIES 141.80 INTERNET 285376 040312 1550.6155 BANK SERVICES CHARGES CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 159.70 358246 411212012 101053 UNITED ELECTRIC COMPANY i 162.49 PLUGS 00001958 285373 068083 1552.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES . CENT SVC PW BUILDING 115.44 CREDIT - RMA 043868 00001234 285374 890895 5912.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES WELL HOUSES 47.05 i 368247 411212012 122221 UNITED RENTALS NORTHWEST INC. 131.06 NUTS, BOLTS 00001845 285375 101807417 -002 5913.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES DISTRIBUTION 131.06 - -- 358248 411212012 103298 UPS STORE #1715, THE 16.45 SHIPPING CHARGES 284972 TRAN:6947 1646.6406 GENERALSUPPLIES BUILDING MAINTENANCE 13.54 284973 ITRAN:6938 1400.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 29.99 358249 4112/2012 101908. US FOODSERVICE INC 52.86 FOOD TRAYS 285377 040112 5421.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES, GRILL 93.05 DETERGENT 285377 040112 5421.6511 CLEANING SUPPLIES GRILL 2,598.68 FOOD 285377 040112 5421.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD GRILL 2,744.59 358250• 411212012 101058 VAN PAPER CO. 200.00 CUPS, SOAP 285378 231465 -00 5424.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES RANGE 200.00 TISSUES, TOWELS 285378 231465 -00 5430.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES RICHARDS GOLF COURSE - _ 535.11 TOWELS, CAN LINERS 285378 231465 -00 5421.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES GRILL 541.73 CAN LINERS 00001900 285379 231467 -00 1645.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES LITTER REMOVAL 96.23 CAN LINERS 00001085 285380 231237 700 1552.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENT SVC PW BUILD, ING 1,573.07 - 358251 411212012 128680. VIDACARE CORPORATION 1,492.88 AMBULANCE SUPPLIES 00003771 285381 37122 1470.6510 FIRST AID SUPPLIES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 1,492.88 358252 4112/2012 101067 VIKING INDUSTRIAL CENTER 789.10 GLOVES, LENSES, WIPES 00001889 - 285111 293947 1640.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES PARK MAINTENANCE GENERAL R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 4/10/2012 10:48:55 Council Check Register Page - 28 4/12/2012 - 4/12/2012 Check # Date Amount Supplier/ Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 789.10 358253 4117/2012 125327 VINOANDES 572.35 285028 WEB000546 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 572.35 358254 411212012 119464 VINOCOPIA 122.50 285029 0054549 -IN 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 5.00 285030 0054547 -IN 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 162.00 285031 0054548 -IN 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 97.06 285273 0054544 -IN 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 162.00 285274 0054545 -IN 5822.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING 5.00 285275 0054546 -IN 5822.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 50TH ST SELLING 553.56 358255 411212012 100423 WACONIA FARM SUPPLY 121.83 MOWER PARTS 00001884 285112 75756 1641.6530 REPAIR PARTS MOWING 121.83 358266 411212012 106699 WALSER CHRYSLER JEEP 861.88 VEHICLE REPAIRS 00001079 285182 17904 1553.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS EQUIPMENT'OPERATION GEN 861.88 358257 411212012 123616 WATER CONSERVATION SERVICE INC 242.95 LEAK LOCATE 00001156 285382 3127 5913.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES DISTRIBUTION 242.95 358258 4/12/2012 101078 WESTSIDE EQUIPMENT 320.63 FUEL KEYS 00001983 285183 0044246 -IN 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 320.63 358259 4/1212012 127768 WIGLEY AND ASSOCIATES 231.25 ONLINE CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT 285383 0000042 1130.6124 WEB DEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATIONS 231.25 368260 411212012 129843 WILDER, JENNY 12.97 ART WORK SOLD 285395 032712 5101.4413 ART WORK SOLD ART CENTER REVENUES 12.97 358261 411212012 101033 WINE COMPANY, THE 1,885.70 285032 296029 -00 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 1.356.52 285033 296142 -00 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING R55CKREG LOG20000 Check # Date 358262 411212012 Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # 845.20 - 4,087.42 101312 WINE MERCHANTS 362.40 269.03 499.36 234.03 1,302.01 5,959.14 8,625.97 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register 4/12/2012 - 4/1212012 Doc No Inv No Account No 285276 296022 -00 5822.5513 4/10/2012 10:48:55 Page - 29 Subledger Account Description Business Unit COST OF GOODS'SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 285034 402803 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 285277 403746 5822.5513 'COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 285278 403750 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 285279 403748 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 285280 " 403747 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 285281 403749 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 358263 4/1212012 124291 WIRTZ BEVERAGE MINNESOTA 65.55 285035 725912 2,947.86 285036 725911 39.95 285037 725914 5,563.61 285038 725913 1,429.80 285039 724418 8,407.23 285040 722169 13,236.75 285041 722176 565.75 285042 724419 2,032.65 285043 725918 110.55 285044 725919 203.15- 285045 857226 1,131.50 285282 724422 5,673.62 285283 725920 4,014.66 285284 725917 3,920.05 285285 - 724420 1,249.70 285286 725916 2,891.41 285287 725915 1,347.23 285288 722173 54,424.72 358264 4/1212012 124529 WIRTZ BEVERAGE MINNESOTA BEER - 731.20 285046 879639 5,727.50 285047 879819 21.50 285048 881207 3,030.75 285049 881205 2,020.50 285050 880460 168.00 285051 879847 .02 285052 879844 64.50 285053 879848 5862.5515 5862.5512 5862.5515 5862.5513 5862.5513 5862.5512 5842.5512 5822.5513 5842.5512 5842.5515 5862.5512 5842.5513 5842.5513 5842.5512 5842.5512 5822.5513. 5822.5512 5822.5513 5421.5514 5842.5514 5842.5515 5842.5514 5862.5514 5862.5514 5862.5514 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING YORK SELLING 50TH ST SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING VERNON SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING 50TH ST SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER GRILL COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING - COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING - R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 4/10/2012 10:48:55 Council Check Register Page - 30 4/1212012 - 4/12/2012 Check # Date Amount Supplier/ Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 360.00 285054 879849 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 1,314.20 285055 880459 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 2,599.37 285056 879846 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 21.50 285289 879625 5822.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 50TH ST SELLING 1,905.92 285290 879624 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING 96.00 285291 879626 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING 2,245.00 285292 880458 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING 6,432.40 285293 881206 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 3,685.05 285294 882613 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 28.80 285295 882614 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 40.00 285296 882589 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 52.36- 285297 91334 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 30,439.85 358265 4/1212012 101082 WITTEK GOLF SUPPLY 319.50 MINI GOLF BALLS 00002079 285384 273412 5761.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENTENNIAL LAKES OPERATING 319.50 358266 4/1212012 112752 WPS 368.48 AMBULANCE OVERPAYMENT 285412 RORY SCHMIDT 1470.4329 AMBULANCE FEES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 368.48 368267 4/1212012 101726 XCEL ENERGY 1,170.33 51- 9251919 -0 284974 319626530 5765.6185 LIGHT & POWER PROMENADE EXPENSES 208.38 51- 5938955-6 284975 319571371 4086.6185 LIGHT & POWER AQUATIC WEEDS 149.10- 51- 6229265 -9 284976 319578052 1330.6185 LIGHT & POWER TRAFFIC SIGNALS 481.70 51- 6229265 -9 284976 319578052 1481.6185 LIGHT & POWER YORK FIRE STATION 1,448.93 51- 6229265 -9 284976 319578052 1470.6185 LIGHT & POWER FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 230.87 51- 6046826 -0 284977 319571686 5422.6185 LIGHT & POWER MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS 63.02 51- 5634814 -2 284978 319564813 5934.6185 LIGHT & POWER STORM LIFT STATION MAINT 1,479.45 51- 6621207 -1 264979 320053265 5913.6185 LIGHT & POWER DISTRIBUTION 753.12 51- 5847121 -5 284980 320040181 5914.6185 LIGHT & POWER TANKS TOWERS & RESERVOIR 198.85 51- 9013604 -6 284981 320086163 5913.6185 LIGHT & POWER DISTRIBUTION 18,898.89 51- 4888627 -1 284982 320024977 5511.6185 LIGHT & POWER ARENA BLDG/GROUNDS 36.62 51- 7567037 -0 284983 319922189 1321.6185 LIGHT & POWER STREET LIGHTING REGULAR 1,032.48 51- 6979948 -4 284984 319914108 5821.6185 LIGHT & POWER 50TH ST OCCUPANCY 1,081.82 51- 6979948 -4 284984 319914108 5841.6185 LIGHT & POWER YORK OCCUPANCY 1,230.63 51- 6979948 -4 284984 319914108 5861.6185 LIGHT & POWER VERNON OCCUPANCY 326.63 51- 6137136 -8 - 284985 320046548 5430.6185 LIGHT & POWER RICHARDS GOLF COURSE 18.55 51- 4151897 -6 284986 319869966 1646.6185 LIGHT & POWER BUILDING MAINTENANCE 2,933.23 51- 4966303 -6 284987 319551212 1330.6185 LIGHT & POWER TRAFFIC SIGNALS 31,444.40 R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 4/10/2012 10:48`.55 Council Check Register Page - .31 4112/2012 — 4/12/2012 Check # Date Amount Supplier/ Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 368268 411212012 100568 XEROX CORPORATION 80.31 COPIER USAGE 285184 060814990 1628.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES SENIOR CITIZENS 80.31 i 358269 411212012 129844 YOGA CENTER OF MINNEAPOLIS 85.00 FITNESS TRAINING 285385 040512 1470.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS, FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 85.00 358270 411212012 120099 Z WINES USA LLC 197.00 285298 10973 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 197.00 _. .... 358271 4/1212012 129406 ZIEBART OF MINNESOTA INC 435.00 RHINO BED LINER 00001078 285185 92418 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 435.00 368272 411212012 101091 .73EGLER INC 450.00 GENERATOR MAINTENANCE 285186. E6395936 1551.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS CITY HALL GENERAL 450.00 358273 411212012 102500 MMMERMAN TIM 55.00 SAFETY SHOE ACCESSORIES 285113 040312 1640.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES PARK MAINTENANCE GENERAL 55.00 706,912.78 Grand Total Payment Instrument Totals Check Total 706,912.78 Total Payments 706,912.78 i R55CKSUM LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 4/1012012 10:49:54 Council Check Summary Page - 1 4/12/2012 - 4/12/2012 Company Amount 01000 GENERAL FUND 162,809.58 04000 WORKING CAPITAL FUND 27,647.51 04200 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND 2,461.02 05100 ART CENTER FUND 1,044.26 05200 GOLF DOME FUND 150.00 05300 AQUATIC CENTER FUND 908.40 05400 GOLF COURSE FUND 29,820.11 05500 ICE ARENA FUND 23,835.14 05700 EDINBOROUGH PARK FUND 6,512.65 05750 CENTENNIAL LAKES PARK FUND 2,807.81 05800 LIQUOR FUND 399,145.47 05900 UTILITY FUND 39,722.04 05930 STORM SEWER FUND 742.88 07400 PSTF AGENCY FUND 5,920.21 09900 PAYROLL FUND 3,385.50 Report Totals 706,912.78 We confirm to the best of our knowledge and belief, that these claims comply in all material respects with the requirements of the City of Edina purchasing policies a9d procedures REPORT /RECOMMENDATION To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL Agenda Item Item No. IV.C. From: Debra Mangen City Clerk ® Action ❑ Discussion ❑ Information Date: April 17, 2012 Subject: Resolution No. 2012 -57 Redistricting Correction ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt Resolution. INFORMATION /BACKGROUND: The City has received one more technical correction from the Secretary of State's Office as required by MS 2.91 Subd 3 (e). The boundary between Edina Precincts 15 and 19 must follow the School District boundary line. Staff has prepared a resolution and map depicting the requested changes. The resolution has been attached with the changes to the legal descriptions highlighted. The attached map shows the new boundaries for 2012. Staff is following legislation requesting the change to the boundary between House Districts 49A/B. At the time of this writing legislation was pending final reading in both the Senate and House. It is hoped it will be acted upon before the session ends. ATTACHMENT: Resolution No. 2012 -57 2012 Precinct Map WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statute 20413.14 the governing body'of each municipality shall establish the boundaries of the election precincts in the municipality; and WHE-REAS,_ precinct boundaries must be reestablished within -60 days of the time when the legislature has been redistricted or at least 19 weeks before the state primary in a year ending in two, whichever comes first; and, WHEREAS, following the establishment -.of the boundaries by local entities, the Minnesota Secretary of State must review and correct any irregularities in said precinct boundaries. BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Edina, Minnesota, that it hereby establishes boundaries for the following PFeeiGnt&precincts as illustrated on the updated precinct map presented at the regular meeting of April 17, 2012, and defined as follows: Precinct No. 15 - Commencing at the intersection of Valley View Road and West 66th Street; thence easterly along the centerline of West 66th Street to the centerline of Tracy Avenue; thence southerly along the centerline of Tracy Avenue to the centerline of West 70th Street; thence easterly along the centerline of West 70th Street to the centerline of Cahill Road; thence southerly along the centerline of Cahill Road to the centerline of Dewey Hill Road; thence westerly along the centerline of Dewey Hill Road to the west line of School District 273 (SD273), thence northerly, westerly, southerly, and westerly along SD273 southerly extensieA %yPO Unpr Rf I At; 10-17- RInrk :1 Af 9r=hey's Park Viev.o Third Add-WAR tp thp ;ntArgPr#iAA ef the Par# 16A along the Seuth line ef the neFth half of the nbr-theast quarter ef Saffid SeetieR 7; thepe-en AN�-.st to the centerline of Valley View Road; thence north and easterly along the centerline of Valley View Road to point of beginning. Precinct No. 19 - Commencing at the intersection of State Highway 100 and West 70th Street; thence southerly along the centerline of State Highway 100 to the southern boundary of the City of Edina; thence westerly along the southern boundary of the City of Edina to the western boundary of the City of Edina; thence northerly along the western boundary of the City of Edina to the. centerline of Vallev View Road; thence easterly along the centerline of Valley View Road to the intersection of the seuth line of the neFth half of the neFthwest n aFteF ref Section 7 Tewnship 116, Range 21; thenee easteFly aleRg the sreuth URe Aef the An-14 h;4,f kqf th ReFthwest quaFteF ef said Seetien 7, thence seuth aleng the east line of saidd Seretien 7 to the Resolution No. 2012 -57 Page Two Th;rd Ad Third A.dd +h. nt r f �seuth 1 to n-sie n of saiel let 10- rl + r�Tma- rcvcrr�F6ir�9�Trc- iiTC2Fse6�f8ii -vr� vvvcrra- ny'- cicccr» ra�ri- vr�a�a- �vz- sv�'r"razsOUtil line O School District 273(SD273); thence easterly, northerly, easterly, and southerly along SD273 to the centerline of Dewey Hill Road; thence easterly along the centerline of Dewey Hill Road to the centerline of Cahill Rd; thence north along centerline of Cahill Road to the centerline of West 70th Street; thence easterly along centerline of West 70th Street to point of beginning. Passed and adopted this 17th day of April, 2012 Attest: Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk James B. Hovland, Mayor 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 was duly adopted by the Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of April 17, 2012 and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this day of , 20_ City Clerk IES JU Z /1 CITY OF EDINA 2012 PRECINCT MAP April 10, 2012 EDINA SCHOOL DISTRICT 273 BLOOMINGTON SCHOOL DISTRICT 271 HOPKINS SCHOOL DISTRICT 270 EDEN PRAIRIE SCHOOL DISTRICT 272 RICHFIELD SCHOOL DISTRICT 280 ST. LOUIS PARK SCHOOL DISTRICT 283 CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT 31 Pcts, IA,IB,2,5,6,7,10,11,12,13,15 CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT 51 Pcts. 3,4,8,9,14 SENATE DISTRICT 49, All Precincts REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 49Ai Pcts, 1A,1B,2, 3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,14,15,16,17 REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 49Bt Pcts. 12,13,18,19 CITY OF EDINA POLLING LOCATIONS PRECINCT 1A Shepherd of the Hills Church 500 Blake Road PRECINCT 1B Chapel Hills Church 6512 Vernon Avenue PRECINCT 2 Edina Senior Center 5280 Grandview Square (36) PRECINCT 3 Covenant Church of Edina 4201 W. 50th Street PRECINCT 4 Weber Park Building 4115 Grimes Avenue PRECINCT 5 Highlands School 5505 Doncaster Way PRECINCT 6 Countryside School 5701 Benton Avenue PRECINCT 7 Normandale Lutheran Church 6100 Normandale Road PRECINCT 8 South View Middle School 4725 South View Lane PRECINCT 9 Concord School 5900 Concord Avenue PRECINCT 10 Creek Valley School 6401 Gleason Road PRECINCT 11 Creek Valley Baptist Church 6400 Tracy Avenue PRECINCT 12 Arneson Acres Park 4711 West 70th Street PRECINCT 13 Centennial Lakes Hughes Pavilion 7499 France Avenue So. PRECINCT 14 St. Peter's Lutheran Church 5421 France Avenue So. PRECINCT 15 Valley View Middle School 6750 Valley View Road PRECINCT 16 Cornelia School 7000 Cornelia Drive PRECINCT 17 Southdale Hennepin Library 7001 York Avenue So. PRECINCT 18 Edlnborough Park 7700 York Avenue So. PRECINCT 19 Calvary Lutheran Church 6817 Antrim Road FOJ •1vv�. REPORT /RECOMMENDATION To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL Agenda Item Item No. IV.D. From: Debra Mangen City Clerk ® Action ❑ Discussion ❑ Information Date: April 17, 2012 Subject: Public Meetings and Religious Observance Policy /City Council Meeting Date Change ACTION REQUESTED: Approve the change to the Public Meetings and Religious Observance Policy observing Diwali on its third day each year and change the September 18, 2012 City Council meeting to September 19, 2012. INFORMATION /BACKGROUND: At their meeting of March 20, 2012, the City Council adopted a policy for Public Meetings and Religious Observance. After further research, it appears that the third day of Diwali best fits the City's definition of "day of religious observance with significant work restrictions" For this reason, staff suggests that the policy be clarified to identify the third day of Diwali as the date of religious observance This aligns our observance more closely with holidays such as Passover. The policy has been attached with the change highlighted. Under the new policy, Rosh Hashanah falls on the 18th of September which is the third Tuesday in September and the night of a regularly scheduled City Council meeting. Staff is suggesting that this Council meeting be moved to Wednesday, September 19, 2012. ATTACHMENT: Public Meetings and Religious Observance Policy i 1 11 o e CITY OF EDINA r o PUBLIC MEETINGS AND RELIGIOUS OBSERVANCES POLICY NCO ::y;s .by • NC}y „yyt� Purpose It is the policy of the City of Edina to encourage public engagement during decision - making processes. This includes attending or participating in City Council and board /commission meetings. The purpose of this policy is to provide a framework for avoiding significant days of religious observance that may preclude participation. At the same time, the City acknowledges that it is not possible to recognize all days of religious observance without significantly impacting the City's ability to conduct business or restricting participation by holding multiple public meetings at the same time. Restrictions for Public Meetings Due to Religious Observances In addition to the holidays on which city offices are closed, City Council and board /commission meetings will not be scheduled on the following days of religious observance that include significant work restrictions: • Good Friday (Christian) • Christmas Eve (Christian) • Evening before and day of Yom Kippur (Jewish) • Evening before and two days of Rosh Hashanah (Jewish) • Evening before and first two days of Passover (Jewish) • Eid al Fitr (Muslim) • Eid al Adha (Muslim) • The thl d,day_of Diwah (Hindu) Special meetings called for emergency purposes would be exempt from this restriction. City staff and committee /working group chairs are also encouraged to avoid scheduling public meetings or other forums on these dates. Setting Meeting Schedules Prior to the start of a new year, the City Clerk will develop a calendar with the restricted dates noted above and identify any conflicts with regularly- scheduled meetings. When a conflict exists, the City Council and boards /commissions will be asked to identify an alternative date prior to the calendar being published at the beginning of the year. When setting the calendar, boards and commissions have the option of rescheduling additional meetings at the request of individual members due to conflicts with days of religious observance not included in the list above. Adopted by City Council (March 20, 2012, Amended April, 17, 2012) Page 12 REQUEST FOR PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $20,000 /CHANGE ORDER To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL Agenda Item No. IV. E. From: Wayne D. Houle, PE City Engineer Date: April 17, 2012 Subject: 2012 Commodities Purchase — Sand, Rock, Bituminous Materials, Concrete, and Water Treatment Chemicals Date Bid Opened or Quote Received: Bid or Quote Expiration Date: March 28, 2012 MaV 28, 2012 Company Amount of Quote or Bid 1. See attached tabulation 1. See attached tabulation RECOMMENDED QUOTE OR BID: Award to companies as listed on attached page. GENERAL INFORMATION: This is the bid establishing prices for certain materials used in public works projects. The prices are firm for a period of one year (April 1, 2012 to March 31, 2013). The funds for the purchases come from the money allocated to the operating section of the budget (1300, 1500, and 5900 accounts). Prices of previous year are compared where applicable. Many of the items did not receive bids this year — staff will be purchasing products that are available through other purchasing groups or will rebid these items. Public Works Signature Department 2 The Recommended Bid is c within budget not wi judge John Wallin, Finance Director V?/ eal, Ci a ;Pgr G ,.\PW\CENTRAL SVCS \ENG DIV\PROJECTS \CONTRACTS \2012 \PW 2012 Commodity \ADMIN \MISC \Item IV E 2012 Commodities Purchase - Sand, Rock, Bituminous Materials, Concrete, and Water Treatment Chemicals.docx -- - - - -- - - - - -- - - - -- -- -- --- - - - - -- - - - -- - - -- - -- 2_012_ _ _ COMMODITIES BID RESULTS: SAND, ROCK, BITUMINOUS MATERIALS, CONCRETE, WATER TREATMENT CHEMICALS & HYDRANTS BID ITEM NO UNIT ITEM COMPANY 2012 2011 Comparison Of % +Or- 1 Ton Coarse Washed Sand Del SA -AG $ 8.50 $ 8.84 -3.85% 1 Ton Coarse Washed Sand PU NO BID $ - 2 2 Ton Ton Cl. 2 Limestone Del Cl. 2 Limestone PU NO BID 3 3 Ton Ton FA -2 Seal Coat Chips Del FA -2 Seal Coat Chips PU NO BID $ 40.95 - 100.00% $ 27.20 - 100.00% 4A *Ton SWPEA340B MnDOT Non -Wear Spec 2360 CS McCrossan PU $ 54.50 $ 42.80 27.34% 46 *`Ton SPNWB330B MnDOT Wear Spec 2360 CS McCrossan PU $ 50.00 $ 47.00 6.38% 4C *Ton SPWEB340B MnDOT Wear Spec 2360 CS McCrossan PU $ 50.00 $ 43.40 15.21% 5A CY Delivered Concrete 3+ Yds. AVR, Inc. $ 114.00 $ 96.00 18.75% 513 CY Delivered Concrete 1 -3 Yds. AVR, Inc. $ 104.00 $ 109.00 -4.59% 6 Ton Emulsified Asphalt CRS -2 NO BID $ - 7 Ton Emulsified Asphalt CRS -2P NO BID $ - 8 Gal Emulsified Tack Oil NO BID $ 3.35 - 100.00% 9 LB Crack Joint Sealer #3725 NO BID $ 0.62 - 100.00% 10 CWT H drofluosilicic Acid Hawkins, Inc. $ 31.64 $ 35.87 - 11.79% 11 CWT Liquid Chlorine Hawkins, Inc. $ 34.66 $ 36.60 -5.30% 12 Gal. Water Treatment Chemical (Poly) Hawkins, Inc. $ 5.90 $ 6.25 -5.52% 13 Gal Tonkazorb 3% Hawkins, Inc. $ 9.17 $ 8.72 5.16% 14 CWT Caustic Soda Hawkins, Inc. $ 27.00 $ 47.25 - 42.86% 15A Ton Red Ball Aggregate Del NO BID $ - 15B Ton Red Ball Aggregate PU $ - 16 SF Lannon Stone Wall Repair Blackstone Contractors $ 24.00 $ 26.00 -7.69% 17A EA San. Sew. R1733 Cover Complete NO BID $ 240.00 - 100.00% 17B EA Storm Sew. Rnd. R2548 $ 395.00 - 100.00% 17C EA Storm Sew. Rect. 3067V $ 377.00 - 100.00% 17D EA Curb Box $ 95.00 ivotes: x These items are awarded on basis of total cost per ton incl. trucking & labor, and past year's performance. This is a summation of bids taken for commodities used by Public Works and Parks. Typically, there are one to four bidders on each item. However, we did not see this on this years bids. ✓ Item 9, 10 and 11 are awarded together as a tied bid of Vu REQUEST FOR PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $20,000 /CHANGE ORDER To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL Agenda Item No. IV. F. From: Wayne D. Houle, PE City Engineer Date: April 17, 2012 Subject: Contract No. ENG 12 -3 — Countryside Neighborhood Reconstruction Date Bid Opened or Quote Received: Bid or Quote Expiration Date: April 3, 2012 June 3, 2012 Company Amount of Quote or Bid 1. Palda & Sons, Inc. $ 2,275,770.53 2. Midwest Asphalt Corporation $ 2,278,534.25 3. Northwest Asphalt, Inc. $ 2,374,139.85 4. Hardrives, Inc. $ 2;609,863.42 RECOMMENDED QUOTE OR BID: Palda & Sons, Inc. $ 2,275,770.53 GENERAL INFORMATION: This project is for street and utility improvements in the Countryside Neighborhood. The project includes reconstructing the existing roadways, installing concrete curb and gutter, sanitary sewers repairs, watermain and water service replacements, and upgrading the storm sewer system. The project was ordered by the Edina City Council at the January 3, 2012 Public Hearing. This project will be funded by special assessments and respective utility funds. The Feasibility Study project cost estimate was $2,833,725; staff anticipates a reduction in assessments, but will not have that data available until after the project is completed. Staff recommends awarding the project to Palda & Sons, Inc. Signature The Recommended Bid is \ within budget not withi G: \PW \CENTRAL SVCS \ENG DIV \PROJECTS \CONTRACTS \2012\ENG 12 -3 Count ryside \AL,.....,,.,.. . , n Engineering Department budget John Wallin, Finance Director '4 -Z � REPORT /RECOMMEN DATION To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL Agenda Item Item No: IV.G. From: Wayne D. Houle, PE City Engineer ® Action F-1 Discussion 11 Information Date: April 17, 2012 Subject: Resolution 2012 -61 Setting May 15, 2012 Hearing Date for Bike Boulevard Improvement Public Hearing ACTION REQUESTED: Approve attached Resolution No. 2012 -61, setting public hearing date of May 15, 2012, to consider approval of proposed Bike Boulevard Project. INFORMATION /BACKGROUND: City staff is requesting a public hearing for the proposed TLC Bike Boulevard project. As you will recall the City of Edina was granted $250,000 for a bike boulevard project through the Transit for Livable Communities (TLC) grant program. Staff along with our consultant, Alliant Engineering has been working very diligently with MNDOT to gain approvals of some newer pavement markings for this project. Staff and consultant have hosted two public informational meetings; the first meeting on October 6, 2011 and the second on April 12, 2012 to share the proposed design. Staff and consultant will also be presenting the project to the Edina Transportation Commission on April 19, 2012. Proposed plans will be provided to the City Council prior to the public hearing. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution 2012 -61 G:\PW\CENTRALSVCS\ENG DIV\PROJECTS \IMPR NOS \A238 TLC Bike & Ped Way Phase I \ADMIN \MISC \Item IV.G. Resolution 2012 -61 Setting May] 5, 2012 Hearing Date for Bike Boulevard Improvement Public Hearing.doc n RESOLUTION NO. 2012 -61 SET PUBLIC HEARING FOR MAY 15, 2012 FOR BIKE BOULEVARD IMPROVEMENT IMPROVEMENT NO. A -238 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF EDINA, MINNESOTA, that a public hearing shall be held on the 15th day of May, 2012, in the Council Chambers at City Hall at 7:00 p.m. to consider approval of the Bike Boulevard Improvements; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk shall give mailed and published notice of such hearing and improvements as required bylaw. Dated: April 17, 2012 Attest: Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) SS CITY OF EDINA ) James B. Hovland, Mayor 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 was duly adopted by the Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of April 17, 2012, and as recorded. in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this day of , 20_ ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 7450 Metro Boulevard • Edina, Minnesota 55439 - wwwEdinaMN:gov a 952 -826 - 0371,• Fax 952- 826 -0392 - ., City Clerk r_� ^ REPORT /RECOMMENDATION To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL Agenda Item Item No. IV. H. From: Scott Neal City Manager ® Action ❑ Discussion ❑ Information Date: April 17, 2012 Subject: Resolution No. 2012 -63 Cable TV Franchise Extension Action Requested: Adopted Resolution 2012 -63 Info /Background: The City Council has been requested by the Board of the Southwest Suburban Cable Commission to adopt this temporary cable franchise extension. The extension will continue the current cable television franchise until July 31, 2012. Attachment: Resolution 2012 -63 Moss & Barnett A Professional Association MEMORANDUM To: Scott Neal, City Manager, City of Edina From: Brian T. Grogan, Esq. Client: 40092.19 Date: March 20, 2011 Re: Cable Television Franchise Agreement Extension Resolution — City of Edina In 1997 the City of Edina ( "City") granted a Cable Television Franchise ( "Franchise ") that is currently held by Comcast. The Franchise initially extended for a period of fifteen years through January 1, 2012. Comcast has requested renewal of the Franchise and the City (via the Southwest Suburban Cable Conunission) has been engaged in informal renewal negotiations with Comcast in an effort to reach a mutually acceptable provisions for a new franchise. In November 2011 the City, in an effort to provide additional time to the negotiating teams, extended the term of the Franchise through April 17, 2012. The attached Extension Resolution is needed to provide additional time to complete drafting a new cable franchise. The City is one of five member cities of the Southwest- Suburban Cable Commission ( "Commission ") — Eden Prairie, Hopkins, Minnetonka and Richfield are the others. In 2010 the Commission drafted a Needs Assessment report that outlined the future cable - related needs and interests of each member city for the next franchise tern. The Commission also drafted a model franchise which incorporated those needs. These documents were sent to Comcast for review and comment. Throughout 2011 the Comcast negotiation team (Lance Leupold, Emmett Coleman and Steve Holmes, Esq.) and the Commission negotiation team (Patty Latham, Minnetonka; Steve Devich, Richfield and Brian Grogan, Esq.) have been engaged in good faith negotiations to reach agreement on a new franchise. While the general provisions of the model franchise have been discussed, the focus of the negotiations have been on public, educational and governmental ( "PEG ") issues. The PEG issues include: 1) channel capacity; 2) connectivity between schools and City facilities; 3) equipment/studio needs; and 4) PEG capital funding. Since November 2011 Comcast's local government relations team has undergone changes. Lance Leupold is no longer with Comcast and new employees have now been hired to take over local government relations. In addition, in late 2011 Comcast backtracked on certain commitments for PEG capital funding which resulted in delays in the negotiations as the Commission maintained its position regarding required funding. The parties most recently exchanged written proposals and agreement appears to be close on the key financial provisions. While a number of open issues must still be resolved, the Commission now anticipates that franchise renewal negotiations may be complete in May 2012. If negotiations break down the Commission will update the City and present alternative options for consideration. The Commission's negotiating Team recolmnends that each member city adopt the attached Extension Resolution granting Comcast the right to continue operating the cable system pursuant to the existing Franchise through July 31, 2012. The Commission is hopeful that this additional time will allow the parties time to complete renewal negotiations. Among the tasks to be completed during this extension are: 1) finalize the drafting of a new franchise; 2) present the franchise to the Commission for a recommendation; 3) allow each member city time to review and comment on the new franchise; and 4) present the final franchise document to each member city for review and adoption. 4800 WELLS FARGO CENTER 1 90 South Seventh Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 P:612- 877 -5000 F:612- 877 -5999 W:moss- barnett.com 1971996v1 RESOLUTION NO. 2012 -63 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA GRANTING COMCAST OF ARKANSAS / FLORIDA / LOUISIANA / MINNESOTA / MISSISSIPPI / TENNESSEE, INC. A FRANCHISE EXTENSION TO JULY 31, 2012 WHEREAS, effective January 1, 1997, the City of Edina, Minnesota ( "City ") granted a Cable Television Franchise Agreement ( "Franchise ") to Time Warner Cable, Inc.; and WHEREAS, the Franchise is currently held by Comcast of Arkansas / Florida / Louisiana / Minnesota / Mississippi / Tennessee, Inc. ( "Comcast "); and WHEREAS, the City adopted Resolution No. 2011 -117 on November 15, 2011 extending the term of the Franchise, as amended by the Resolution; and WHEREAS, Comcast executed said Resolution No. 2011 -117 and agreed to continue complying with the Franchise, as amended by the Resolution; and WHEREAS, the City and Comcast, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. §546(h), are currently conducting informal franchise renewal negotiations in an attempt to reach a mutually acceptable terms for franchise renewal; and WHEREAS, the City and Comcast are interested in continuing informal renewal negotiations and desire to extend the current Franchise term from April 17, 2012 to July 31, 2012; and WHEREAS, both the City and Comcast desire to expressly reserve all of their respective rights under state and federal law; and WHEREAS, the City and Comcast continue to be governed by the formal renewal process pursuant to 47 U.S.C. §546(a -g) and nothing contained herein shall in anyway diminish either party's rights under the formal renewal process. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota hereby resolves as follows: The Franchise is hereby amended by extending the term of the Franchise from April 17, 2012 through and including July 31, 2012. Except as specifically modified hereby, the Franchise shall remain in full force and effect. The City and Comcast hereby agree that neither waives any rights either may have under the Franchise or applicable law. 4. This Resolution shall become effective upon the occurrence of both of the following conditions: (1) The Resolution being passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Edina; and (2) Comcast's acceptance of this Resolution. Adopted by the City Council of Edina, Minnesota, this 17`h day of April' 2012. CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA By: Its: ATTEST: City Clerk ACCEPTANCE Comcast of Arkansas / Florida / Louisiana / Minnesota / Mississippi / Tennessee, Inc. hereby acknowledges the City of Edina, Minnesota Resolution No. _ and hereby accepts the terms, provisions and recitals of the Resolution and agrees to be bound by the Franchise to the extent consistent with applicable laws. DATED: COMCAST OF ARKANSAS /FLORIDA/ LOUISIANA /MINNESOTA/ MISSISSIPPI /TENNESSEE, INC. By: Its: Sworn to before me this day of Notary Public r - - of (1 AM Vu �%.Jev� REPORT /RECOMMEN DATION To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL Agenda Item Item No: IV.I. From: Wayne D. Houle, PE ® Action City Engineer F-1 Discussion 11 Information Date: April 17, 2012 Subject: Resolution 2012 -64 Setting May 15, 2012 Hearing Date for Gallagher Drive Roadway and Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail Improvements, Imp. BA -382 ACTION REQUESTED: Approve attached Resolution No. 2012 -64, setting public hearing date of May 15, 2012, for the Gallagher Drive Roadway and Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail Improvements, Imp. BA- 382. INFORMATION /BACKGROUND: City staff is requesting a public hearing for the proposed Gallagher Drive Roadway and Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail Improvements. As you will recall Gallagher Drive Roadway Improvements was included in the 2011 -2015 Capital Improvement Plan. This project includes resurfacing Gallagher Drive from Parklawn Avenue to France Avenue. The project includes reducing the roadway width to accommodate the Three Rivers Park District's Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail. Staff and consultant hosted an open house on March 27, 2012. Staff and consultant will be presenting the project to the Edina Transportation Commission on April 19, 2012. The feasibility report will be provided to the City Council prior the Public Hearing. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution 2012 -64 G: \Pw\CENTRAL SVCS \ENG DIV\PROJECTS\IMPR NOS \BA382 Gallagher France & Parklawn (Petitloned) \ADMIN \MISC \Item IV.I. Resolution 2012 -64 Setting May15, 2012 Hearing Date for Gallagher Drive Roadway and Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail Improvements, Impr BA382.doc RESOLUTION NO. 2012 -64 SET PUBLIC HEARING FOR MAY 15, 2012 FOR GALLAGHER DRIVE ROADWAY AND NINE MILE CREEK REGIONAL IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVEMENT NO. BA -382 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF EDINA, MINNESOTA, that a public hearing shall'be held on the 15th day of May,. 2012, in the Council Chambers at City Hall at 7:00 p.m. to consider Gallagher Drive Roadway and Nine Mile Creek Regional Improvements; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk shall give mailed and published notice of such hearing and improvements as required by law. Dated: April 17, 2012 Attest: Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) SS CITY OF EDINA ) James B. Hovland, Mayor 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 was duly adopted by the Edina City 'Council at its Regular Meeting of April 17, 2012, and as recorded in the Minutes of said - Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this day of —120 City Clerk ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 7450 Metro Boulevard • Edina, Minnesota 55439 _ _ •._. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ wwwEdinaMN.gov • 952 - 826 70371_•. Fax 952- 826 -0392_ Item V. A. Res. 2012 -60 Recognizing Foreigh Exchange Students RESOLUTION NO. 2012 -60 RECOGNIZING YOUTH EXCHANGE STUDENTS WHEREAS, youth exchange programs promote understanding and tolerance between cultures; and WHEREAS, Edina High School welcomes foreign exchange students from around the world to spend one academic year learning in its classrooms; and WHEREAS, Edina High School student travel abroad as exchange students to spend an academic year learning in classrooms and homes of various countries around the world, and WHEREAS, various youth exchange organizations promote international study and support these students through mandated and voluntary programs that enrich the students' cultural experience; and WHEREAS, Edina families and Edina students' host families open their homes and welcome these students to live as part of their family for one year; and WHEREAS, these foreign exchange students embark upon a unique and exciting journey, arriving with just a suitcase and a passport. These amazing young people bravely carry their heritage and values across the world with the hope of living, learning and sharing with an American host family. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Edina City Council formally recognize these exchange students, host families, Edina school administrators and your exchange organizations for their dedication to peace and understanding through international cultural sharing, to encourage the sharing of ideas, values and experience among today's youth by exposing young scholars to leadership, civil society principles and community service. Dated: April 17, 2012 CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street • Edina, Minnesota 55424 wmv.EdinaMN.gov • 952- 927 -8861 • Fax 952 - 826 -0390 James B. Hovland, Mayor ow e 0 REPORURECOMMEN DATION To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL Agenda Item Item No. VI.A From: Cary Teague, Community ® Action Development Director ❑ Discussion Information Date: April 17, 2012 Subject: PUBLIC HEARING — Grandview District Development Framework Deadline No Deadline for a City Decision: ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt the Grandview District Development Framework as recommended by the GrandView Steering Committee and the Planning Commission. INFORMATION /BACKGROUND: Planning Commission Review: On April 11, 2012, the Planning Commission reviewed the GrandView District Development Framework and unanimously recommended approval. GrandView Steering Committee Review: On January 19, and March 29, 2012, the GrandView Steering Committee unanimously recommended approval. ATTACHMENTS: • GrandView District Development Framework • Revisions made to the Framework • Draft minutes from the April 11, 2012 Planning Commission meeting • Minutes and notes from the February 22, Planning Commission meeting • Draft minutes from the January 19, and March 29 Steering Committee meetings • Supplemental information regarding height (5 options) • Note cards from the vote on the 5 options MINUTES CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS APRIL 11, 2012 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Grabiel called the meeting of the Edina Planning Commission to order at 7:00 PM. II. ROLL CALL Answering the roll call were Commissioners Scherer, Forrest, Schroeder, Rock, Potts, Platteter, Cherkassky, Fischer, Carpenter, Grabiel Absent from the roll: Staunton III. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA Meeting Agenda was approved as submitted. IV. APPROVAL OF CONSENT ITEMS Commissioner Carpenter moved approval of the March 28, 2012, meeting minutes. Commissioner Scherer seconded the motion. Commissioner Schroeder suggested a change to the minutes on page 7. All voted aye; motion carried. V. COMMUNITY COMMENT Art Heiam, 5205 Richwood Drive, addressed the Commission with concerns on access /egress scenarios depicted on the Grandview District Development Framework for his neighborhood. Heiam said any changes to the access and egress of his neighborhood would have impact. He concluded that any changes to the "Grandview" area would impact their neighborhood. VI. REPORTS /RECOMMENDATIONS Commission Fischer told the Commission on February 22 "d they heard and discussed a presentation on the Grandview District Development Framework, he invited the public to view that presentation on Edina channel 16. Fischer said action by the Commission on the Framework was continued to allow the "comment period" to expire on March 28th and to provide adequate time for revisions to be made to the Framework. Page 1 of 3 Commissioner Fischer said what's important to remember is that the Framework is a vision for the future and would provide a guide to property owners who may want to redevelop. Fischer reiterated that this Framework is a vision or guide. Fischer said the Steering Committee met numerous times to formulate this Framework, all have been public meetings, including "open houses ", etc. to get the word out on this process. Fischer acknowledged that committee members also worked closely with the Richmond Hills neighborhood on their concerns with traffic circulation into and out of their neighborhood. The committee also worked closely with Washburn McReavy on their concerns. Commissioner Fischer asked the Commission to refer to their copy of the Framework, adding at this time he would be highlighting revisions and asking the Commission to accept the Framework and forward it to the City Council for their April 17th meeting. Fischer noted the following changes to the Framework as follows: • Page 3 of the Executive Summary. Number 3. The word voluntary was added after "encourage ". • Page 30 Public Realm. Add #5. This addition was extremely important to the Richmond Hills neighborhood. • Page 35. Note that the road south of the Washburn McReavy site was moved farther south. This was in response to a concern by McReavy. • Page 51 under Implementation. Add #18 under Public Realm. This addition was also very important to the residents of the Richmond Hills neighborhood. • Page 52 under Implementation. Numbers were reordered • Page 65 & page 66 Design Alternatives. Note alternatives. Commissioner Carpenter said that it's fair to say that the future outcome may not look anything like what's presented in the Framework, adding there's no way a specific outcome can be guaranteed. Redevelopment would occur on a case by case basis. Fischer agreed; however, the final outcome would be closer to what was envisioned in the Framework because of this process. Chair Grabiel asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak to this topic. Public Comment Joe Hoover, 2627 Harriet Avenue, Richfield, MN asked if any low income housing was planned for this area. Hoover said this Framework should be seen as an opportunity to provide affordable housing for the work force. Chair Grabiel thanked Mr. Hoover for his comments. Page 2 of 3 Motion Commissioner Carpenter moved to accept the Grandview District Development Framework and to forward it to the City Council for their action. Commissioner Forrest seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. Chair Grabiel and Commissioners thanked everyone involved for all their hard work on the Framework. Special thanks were given to Commissioners Staunton, Fischer, Schroeder, Potts and Platteter. Page 3of3 MINUTES CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS February 22, 2012 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Grabiel called the meeting of the Edina Planning Commission to order at 7:00 PM. II. ROLL CALL Answering the roll call were Commissioners Scherer, Forrest, Schroeder, Rock, Potts, Platteter, Cherkassky, Fischer, Carpenter, Staunton, Grabiel III. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA Meeting Agenda was approved as submitted. IV. APPROVAL OF CONSENT ITEMS Commissioner Fischer moved to approval of the February 8, 2012, meeting minutes. Commissioner Scherer seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. V. COMMUNITY COMMENT No comment. VI. PUBLIC HEARING GrandView District Development Framework Chair Grabiel told the Commission that at this time Kevin Staunton, Mike Fischer and Chris Rofidal would present the Grandview District Development Framework for public comment. Grabiel said testimony would be taken this evening; however, the Planning Commission would not act on the Framework this evening. Kevin Staunton informed the Commission he along with Mike Fischer and Chris Rofidal; members of the Executive and Steering Committees would be presenting for discussion and public comment the Grandview District Development Framework. Page 1 of 10 Staunton began his presentation by thanking everyone who participated in the process. A special thank you was given to the consultants; Mike Lamb and Bruce Jacobson of Cunningham Group and Griff Wigley, Edina Citizen Engagement. Staunton stressed that this process was community led; a grass roots project that included 52- steering committee members and 9 of those members acting as the executive committee. Continuing, Staunton gave a brief overview of the district pointing out that the district is 27 acres that contains 18 parcels with 1/3 of those parcels publicly- owned. Staunton noted that the Grandview District is a neighborhood center with regional ties. Staunton stated that the process followed seven guiding principles that were established when the City Council approved a Grandview District Guide Process Report which was triggered by the move of the old public works facility to a new site. With graphics Staunton gave a brief history of the area and the process so far. Chris Rofidal addressed the Commission and outlined for them the communications outreach and efforts used to "get the word out ". Rofidal noted that the communications efforts did not have a budget. Rofidal highlighted the following: • Used "in house" experts at the City of Edina • Used numerous volunteers • Numerous press releases • Use of the City of Edina website — creating a fully transparent process with a central depository for all information • Edina Citizen Engagement website • City Extra, email changes, Facebook, twitter • Board and commission interaction • Displays, mailings, posters, stuffers, About Town, Webinars, Channel 16, articles, "Do Town ", stump speeches, on -foot flyer distribution were also tools implemented to "get the word out" Mike Fischer addressed the Commission and focused on what the "Committee" envisions for future development and redevelopment of the Grandview area. Fischer stressed that the GrandView District Development Framework was a futuristic vision of the area. With graphics Fischer tracked the evolution of the area from the 1950's to present day. In summary Fischer presented the following vision: • Create a place with a unique identity. • Completely rethink and reorganize the transportation infrastructure. This includes making the District inviting and accessible for pedestrians, cyclists, and vehicles. • Better management of vehicle traffic. • Preserve future transit opportunities • Ensure connectivity by creating connections within the district. • Make incremental value- creating changes that encourage private development. Page 2 of 10 • Enhance the public realm to encourage private development. Fischer acknowledged the residents from the Richmond Hills neighborhood and added as previously discussed with them; the plan(s) would be modified to address their concern with neighborhood access. In conclusion Staunton explained that at this time the City would be taking public comment via e -mail, comment sheets (found at City Hall and Library) and of course through the U.S. mail. The public comment period runs through March 91h. Staunton summarized for the Commission the public comments received on the process so far. Staunton also noted that on the 28th of March the Planning Commission would be concluding their review of the Edina Grandview District Development Framework and forwarding it to the City Council for their meeting and review on April 17th' After adoption by the City Council the implementation phase would begin. Concluding Staunton thanked everyone for their participation in the process. Chair Grabiel opened the public hearing. Public Testimony Bill McReavy, Washburn McReavy, 5000 West 50th St /Hwy 100, addressed the Commission and informed them his family owns and operates the Washburn McReavy Funeral Chapel. McReavy said that he appreciates the comments from the presenters this evening and all the great work they have done so far, but would like to go on record about the depicted road extension through their, building. Continuing, McReavy said that while he recognizes that the different development "scenarios" presented aren't blue prints and can be adjusted and changed, it was a bit disconcerting to see a road running right through the chapel. McReavy informed the Commission that his family made a significant investment in this property. The building was entirely remodeled both inside and out and the hope is that the chapel will be in its present location for years and years to come. Concluding, McReavy noted that this chapel is one of the highest serving funeral chapels in the state. John Meneke, 5301 Pinewood Road, told the Commission his concern is the opposite from McReavy's. He explained that one of the "vision" scenarios completely eliminated the road into his neighborhood. Meneke said that in reaching out to the Steering Committee with this concern his neighborhood was assured the drawings would be revised. Concluding Meneke said he was very impressed with the process so far and thanked Staunton and Fischer for listening to the concerns of the Richmond Hills neighborhood. Meneke suggested that in moving forward with other "small area plans" one thing to consider would be to notify the immediate neighborhood via US mail; similar to what they do for rezoning's, etc. Stephen Ullom, 5229 Richwood Drive, told the Commission he was impressed with the scope of changes envisioned for the neighborhood and reminded everyone that although this area has regional overtones it is "our" neighborhood. Page 3 of 10 Eric Hoegger, 5257 Richwood Drive, said his main concern was with the elimination of Sherwood Rd, adding he was pleased to hear that the committee will be revising that aspect of the "plans ". Chair Grabiel thanked everyone for their input and emphasized that the Task Force will take under advisement all input from Mr. McReavy and residents of the Richmond Hills neighborhood. Kevin Staunton thanked everyone for their comments and asked that residents continue to share their comments during the comment period. Staunton reported that comment cards can be found at City Hall and Edina Library and comments can be made by e-mail or through the regular mail. Staunton also thanked the Met Council for providing the monies that enabled the process to hire consultants. Staunton stated the City appreciates Met Council's investment in our community. Motion Commissioner Carpenter moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Platteter seconded the motion. All voted aye; public hearing closed. Discussion Commissioner Carpenter commented that he recalled conversations on "cleaning up the southbound access" of Highway 100. Kevin Staunton responded that access is referred to as the "danger ramp" and has been a topic of discussion throughout the process. Staunton said future visions include redesign of the frontage road that includes removal of the danger ramp currently present; however, much depends on MnDOT. Commissioner Carpenter asked if during the process there was input from the school district (leverage public assets). Staunton introduced Peyton Robb; former member of the Edina School Board, adding that Robb was involved in the process from the beginning; and continues to be active with school district concerns. Mike Fischer stated that Robb was fantastic and the school districts approach to the bus garage has been consistent. While the district does not object to moving the bus garage their mission is teaching kids. Continuing, Fischer said that the district has indicated if they relocate the bus garage financial tools would need to be implemented. Concluding, Fischer said the topic of potential redevelopment of the bus garage was a constant during the process. Staunton agreed and added that any relocation of the garage needs to be turn -key. The District cannot go without transportation for its students. Commissioner Carpenter said it has been amazing for him to watch the small area plan process unfold. Carpenter thanked and complimented those in leadership roles, the Executive Committee and the Steering Committee. Page 4 of 10 Commissioner Potts echoed Commissioner Carpenters comments, adding in his opinion the Committee was remarkable and took a balanced approach to the process and casted a wide net to ensure public input on every level possible. Concluding Potts said the decisions that have been made are very sound and flexible. A job off to a great start and a job well done! Commissioner Platteter stated he concurs with the comments from both Carpenter and Potts; especially calling out a special thanks to Kevin Staunton for all his hard work in keeping the process going for the last couple years. Thanks to all and keep up the great work! Chair Grabiel again thanked everyone in attendance. Chair Grabiel said the next topic of discussion was a sketch plan review for 6500 France Avenue Planner Planner Teague infor d the Commission the Plann' g Commission has been asked to consider a sketch plan proposal to edevelop the property a 6500 France Avenue. The applicant is proposing to tear down the xisting office build! and build a new four -story medical office building with retail use on the 'rst level. Acces to the site would be from 65thStreet, with a secondary shared access from th property to he south Teague explained that the applicant uld ike to request a rezoning of this site from Planned Office District -1, (POD -1) to Planned Un evelopment (PUD). The request is generally similar in size and scale to the Twin City Ortho di TCO) building that received nine variances and a rezoning to Regional Medical District f r its co truction. The PUD option was not available at the time the TCO project went throu h the plann' g process. Teague noted that this property is ocated within an a a of the City that is designated as a "Potential Area of Change" with! the 2008 Comprehen 've Plan. The Comprehensive Plan states that within thePotential reas of Change, "A devel ment proposal that involves a Comprehensive Plan Amendm nt or a rezoning will require Small Area Plan study prior to planning application. Howev , the authority to initiate a Sma Area Plan rests with the City Council." The site is guided i the Comprehensive Plan for "Regi al Medical — RM." Therefore, the proposed use would b consistent with the existing Compreh sive Plan designation. Commissioners asked PI nner Teague the number of variances grante to TCO to build their new medical facility. T ague responded that TCO was granted nine var! nces. Commissioner Platteter questioned a FAR (floor area ratio) for TCO. Teague said that CO's FAR met code. Stephen Michals, Mount Development Company Page 5 of 10 MEETING MINUTES Grandview Small Area Guide Plan Process Thursday, January 19, 2012, 7:00 PM Grange Hall Edina, MN Staff Present: Cary Teague Kris Aaker Jackie Hoogenakker Steering Committee Present: Ken Potts Brice Martinson Andrew Brown Gene Persha Greg Comke Linda Masica Bright Dornblaser Lisa Diehl Peter Sussman Ellen Jones Kim Montgomery Mike Plateter Ricvhard Borland Michael Schroeder Ron Erhardt Bill McReavy Linda Urban Paul Nelson Tom Bonneville Facilitators Present: Kevin Staunton I. Agenda Overview, Welcome and Review of Final Draft The discussion on review and edits of the final draft concluded. Staunton reiterated that any changes mentioned this evening or future changes can be e- mailed or handed to Lamb or Jacobson. Staunton asked for a motion to approve the final draft of the Development Framework and accept the changes and edits. Motion Chris Rofidal moved approval of the Final Draft of the GrandView District Development Framework subject to edits and changes per group. Ken Potts seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. Lisa Diehl thanked everyone for their hard work on this process. Kevin Staunton concurred. Meeting adjourned. MEETING NOTES Grandview Small Area Guide Plan Process Thursday, January 19, 2012, 7:00 PM Grange Hall Edina, MN Staff Present: Cary Teague Kris Aaker Jackie Hoogenakker Steering Committee Present: Ken Potts Brice Martinson Andrew Brown Gene Persha Greg Comke Linda Masica Bright Dornblaser Lisa Diehl Peter Sussman Ellen Jones Kim Montgomery Mike Plateter Ricvhard Borland Michael Schroeder Ron Erhardt Bill McReavy Linda Urban Paul Nelson Tom Bonneville Facilitators Present: Kevin Staunton I. Agenda Overview, Welcome and Review of Final Draft Kevin Staunton welcomed everyone to the Grange Hall. A. Overview of Changes Mike Lamb and Bruce Jacobson gave a brief overview of changes made to the small area plan. Lamb said the plan would now be called the "Grandview District Development Framework. Lamb said that another added piece was pg. 7 history and noted Peter Sussman would address that piece. Continuing, Lamb said an "Executive Summary' was added at the beginning of the Framework. Lamb and Jacobson continued outlining the changes and asked that if anyone had any further changes typo or edits to the final draft to e-mail those changes to them or hand them to them at the end of the meeting. Kim Montgomery referred to pages 49 & 50 of the draft framework and commented that there were inconsistencies between those pages that need to be rectified. Lamb responded that pg. 49 is a general overview; big picture and pg. 50 was more specific. Lamb said those pages would be reviewed. Ellen Jones suggested that they consider moving pg. 24 & 25 to the implementation section of the framework. There was a discussion that 25 was redundant; however no formal action was taken. Kim Montgomery said she observed that drive thru was mentioned, adding that concerns her. Montgomery suggested eliminating drive thru. She stated that was critical. Montgomery also said she would be happy to see somewhere in the document that "big box" retail was prohibited in this area. The Committee agreed to eliminate drive thru. Lamb said that the reference to drive through would be removed. Ellen Jones noted that all references to the plan should use the same "name ". She pointed out that this area has also been referred to as Grandview Heights. Staunton responded that the official name was the GrandView District (Development Framework). Staunton said using the correct "name" was important for branding. Ellen Jones commented that the Framework didn't contain an actual definition or description of the area. She also stated that creating a map that encompasses the area would be helpful visually. She noted it may be important to have a description of the GrandView District with map. There was a discussion on building height noting that maintaining the proper building height was an important element in any redevelopment of the district. It was noted that any reference to building height must support past discussions that height was established from the "human scale" — height directly adjacent to sidewalk/street must maintain the human scale — if building height exceeds two /three stories it must be stepped back. Ellen Jones referred to page. 4 and bullet 2. reading "a determination of how residential development in the District will help achieve the affordable housing goals in the Comprehensive Plan" — Jones expressed concern that the word "affordable" wasn't discussed enough throughout this process and wasn't mentioned in the guiding principles. Jones expressed concern that the wording could possibly derail the plan or become a "hot button ". Jones suggested removing that bullet. A discussion ensued on bullet point 2 — Staunton pointed out the Comprehensive Plan encourages affordable housing; along with affordable housing goals established by the Met Council. Staunton noted that the inclusion of "affordable" housing in the District Plan could be part of the solution. Kim Montgomery pointed out "affordable" or "range of housing" is mentioned in the Plan on pages 14 and 50, adding it may not need to be mentioned on pg. 4.as written. Bruce Jacobson pointed out that the word "achieve" in bullet 2 may be the stumbling block and suggested that the word achieve be stricken and the words contribute to /to address be used instead of achieve. No formal action was taken on if bullet point 2 was removed or amended. Ellen Jones referred to the public works site and recommended that somewhere in the Framework it be added that further study needs to be done before redevelopment of the public works site occurs. Tom Bonneville said in his opinion the key to everything would be the redevelopment of the public works site. A discussion ensued on the public works site. Ellen Jones suggested that on page 3. Under 1. Bullet 1 after the word with, add public and in sentence two remove the word unmet. Jones reiterated that on page 3 last bullet that height and density not be prescriptive. It was also suggested by Jones that on pg. 50 it should be mentioned that "In addition, a community building /public green programming group should work to determine appropriate program and uses. Jones said she believes that a group needs to be formed to track and continually study any changes presented in the Grandview District that relates to the Framework. With regard to parking and transit it should be noted that parking was also to serve the GrandView Commons area. This could include a Metro Transit park and ride facility as a way to provide a parking structure that could also serve as the Grandview Commons green space. Tom Bonneville said that everything should be done to maximize parking. Michael Schroeder pointed out the Comprehensive Plan already addresses these issues and the language in the Comp Plan could be implemented into policy language for the GrandView District noting that the expectation is that "things are going to happen" in this area. Bill McReavy, Washburn McReavy told the group that he appreciates everying they have done; however was disturbed to see in the Plan that a street was running right through where his building was. McReavy said he would not support that change. Kevin Staunton responded that the GrandView District Development Framework was a guide and explained the business community would need to be involved with any future changes. Staunton reiterated it was important to remember that the GrandView District Development Framework was a guide. Kevin Staunton suggested that they wrap up the discussion on edits and changes to the Development Framework and reiterated that any changes mentioned this evening or future changes be e- mailed or handed to Lamb or Jacobson. Staunton asked for a motion to approve the final draft of the Development Framework and accept the changes and edits. Motion (see minutes) Chris Rofidal moved approval of the Final Draft of the GrandView District Development Framework subject to edits and changes per group. Ken Potts seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. II. Next Steps Chris Rofidal addressed the group and explained the Final 2012 Communications Plan highlighting the following: • Meet with Jennifer on press release • Blog Posting on the ECE website • Planned Webinar with the public • Update a new poster; poster /flyer could be distributed everywhere in the District; volunteers needed. • Mailing of Grandview Area poster to Grandview Area business's • Try to get center door at Jerry's • Consider displays; City Hall, Library, Senior Center • Sun Current, About Town • Highlight 45 -day comment period — • Consider comment cards Lamb referred to the Framework's "history" element and asked Peter Sussman to briefly address the history. Sussman suggested that the "public green" be named in honor of Beverly and Ellen Yancey. Sussman said the Yancey's were Edina's most prominent black pioneer family. Sussman gave a brief history of the Yancey family and suggested that the name of the green be Yancy Green. The group agreed with the significance of the Yancey family to the area. Lisa Diehl said there will be opportunities to rename areas within the Grandview District if /when redeveloped to retain the District's significant history. Ellen Jones suggested that historical names and places be recommended by the Steering Committee or future "oversee" committee. Kevin Staunton said this could be weaved into pg. 7. Ken Potts informed the group that an application was submitted for a SCDA grant which is a nonprofit arm of the American Arch. Foundation. If selected would get underwritten tH —April 11 -13 Mike Lamb said he would find out more about the Met Council #587 grant ( ?)— due Feb 15th — Lisa Diehl thanked everyone for their hard work on this process. Kevin Staunton concurred. Meeting adjourned. MEETING MINUTES Grandview Small Area Guide Plan Process Steering Committee Thursday, March 29, 2012, 7:00 PM Senior Center Edina, MN Staff Present: Cary Teague Jackie Hoogenakker Steering Committee Present: Gene Persha Tom Bonneville Richard Borland Kim Montgomery Jack and Eileen Abrahamson Bruce Kieffer Michael Fischer Peter Sussman Ellen Jones Bruce Langford Thomas Raeuchle Lisa Diehl Randy Halvorson I. Review and Approve Changes to the Framework Facilitators Present: Kevin Staunton Larry Chestler Joni Bennett Rusty Golfis Pat Olk Dick Crockett Linda Urban Kevin Staunton welcomed everyone and said that this evening the Committee would approve changes to the Framework and discuss supplemental requests from the City Council. The discussion ensued. Motion Richard Borland moved to approve the revisions to the final draft of the Grandview District Development Framework. Randy Halvorson seconded the motion; all voted aye; motion carried. Staunton said the Framework would be presented to the Planning Commission on April 11th and City Council on April 17st for their comments and approval. Staunton thanked everyone for attending and reminded the Committee of the following dates: April 11th — Planning Commission April 12th — Steering Committee meeting (final one) April 17th — City Council presentation The meeting adjourned at 9:20 PM Page 1 of 1 MEETING NOTES Grandview Small Area Guide Plan Process Steering Committee Thursday, March 29, 2012, 7:00 PM Senior Center Edina, MN Staff Present: Cary Teague Jackie Hoogenakker Steering Committee Present: Gene Persha Tom Bonneville Richard Borland Kim Montgomery Jack and Eileen Abrahamson Bruce Kieffer Michael Fischer Peter Sussman Ellen Jones Bruce Langford Thomas Raeuchle Lisa Diehl Randy Halvorson I. Review and Approve Changes to the Framework Facilitators Present: Kevin Staunton Larry Chestler Joni Bennett Rusty Golfis Pat Olk Dick Crockett Linda Urban Kevin Staunton welcomed everyone and said that this evening the Committee would approve changes to the Framework and discuss supplemental requests from the City Council. Framework Staunton asked everyone to refer to their handout signifying the changes made to the Framework in response to comments from the Committee. Staunton noted the following: Page 3. Add the word voluntary to item 3. It will now read: 3. Leverage public resources to make incremental value- creating changes that enhance the public realm and encourage voluntary private redevelopment consistent with the vision that improves the quality of the neighborhood for residents, businesses, and property owners. Page 1 of 4 Page 30. Change #1 and add a #5 #1 — Conversion of this portion of Eden Avenue would provide 50 additional parking spaces. 5. Any additional street and block improvements (including curb cuts and /or traffic signals) should be considered after improvements have been made to Vernon and appropriate traffic and parking studies have been completed (also refer to potential alternatives in the appendix) Page 35 Note the graphic has changed at the Washburn McReavy site. The road has been moved farther to the south. Page 36 Note road realigned to Highway 100. Page 38 Note the graphic has changed near the Washburn McReavy site. Again, the road was moved to the south. Page 51 Under Transportation /Infrastructure move number 24 from page 51 to page 52.as new number #44. Rename road Eden Avenue; not Sherwood. Page 52 Note new #44 under Transportation /Infrastructure (see page 51) On the pages depicting Alternatives add a number 4. #4 keeps Eden /Sherwood as is. Staunton directed the Committee to review a sentence to be added to the Framework. The sentence will read as follows: Zoning revisions, including the potential use of a form -based code and design guidelines, will be addressed concurrently with other implementation activities. Staunton asked for a motion approving the revisions to the Framework. Motion (see minutes) Richard Borland moved to approve the revisions to the final draft of the Grandview District Development Framework. Randy Halvorson seconded the motion; all voted aye; motion carried. Staunton said the Framework would be presented to the Planning Commission on April 11th and City Council on April 17St for their comments and approval. Page 2 of 4 II. Consider Supplemental Requests from City Council Height — Other Kevin Staunton addressed the Committee and referred to a message from the City Council via Scott Neal. The message was in response to a letter submitted to the City Council by the CN /PR group and subsequent conversation that occurred at a City Council meeting on March 6th. Continuing, Staunton said at this time the Council is asking the Steering Committee to discuss the topic of building height in the GrandView District. Staunton said the Council wants comments from the Committee on building height as well as other development features and restrictions before they make their decision at their April 17th public hearing on the Framework. A discussion ensued on building height. With Committee members offering the following comments: • Building height can't be taken in the abstract. Other factors need to be considered when discussing building height. • Tie building height to the Comprehensive Plan. • Maximum building height tied to the altitude of the Jerry's office tower. • Use "stepping back" the building height as another tool. Height near the street lower and as the building gets higher step it back from the street. Staunton said in response to the Council's request a number of Committee members submitted responses to the height question. Staunton highlighted aspects of each response adding he would submit the responses in their entirety to the City Council. Excerpts of the responses follows: 1) "We agree with height limits consistent with the Comprehensive Plan (as envisioned by the Framework document.) We further acknowledge need for the change of the Comprehensive Plan to allow for density as envisioned by the Framework document. 2) Excerpt "The plan should set the bar high; allowing taller buildings for superior design and aesthetic contributions. Perhaps transferable development rights can be considered so that a master developer has more flexibility to vary the height from site to site in ORDER to achieve a better project. In any case, development on this site should go through the PUD process so that the community retains some control of the buildout." 3) Excerpt "The maximum height for buildings in the GrandView area should not exceed the :altitude" of the current Jerry's office building. The number of stories could vary depending on the location of the site relative to topography. For example, buildings on the lower (South East) portion of the area nearer Eden Avenue and Highway 100 could possibly have more stories than building nearer Vernon and still be within the overall building height parameter. 4) Excerpt Height: Currently, we have to estimate the height of Jerry's Tower (6 stories) at about 12 -feet per floor and the base elevation at 956.0. Adding this together is 1028.0 the highest part of Grand View. That building also has a stair tower on top„ with the large signed address number as seen from the east. It may be 20 -feet high, nor reaching to 1048:0 -feet. Page 3 of 4 The Committee agreed that Staunton should forward those comments to the Council; however, Council Member Bennett was asked to clarify the position of the City Council, adding it was rather "late in the game" for them to receive this direction. Member Bennett noted the end of the process is near and the Council wants to make sure that everyone's opinion was heard, especially on such matters as building height. Bennett explained that there is no money in the budget to continue another phase of planning. Continuing, Bennett reiterated that the Council wants to make sure that everyone on the Committee felt they were heard and that the Council had a complete picture of the Framework before they make their decision. Bennett said her feeling was that there was a piece missing to "bridge" the Framework. Bruce Jacobson agreed adding that transportation, sustainability, and implementation need further refinement. Implementation The discussion focused on implementation of the Framework. It was recognized that some members of the Steering Committee wanted to continue their involvement on Grand Views redevelopment. In was noted that many Committee members had been involved since the beginning (Public Works plan), adding their interest is to "follow this through" ensuring that the "vision" as outlined in the Framework is followed; along with other planning tools. A discussion ensued on how the implementation phase would proceed after the Council receives and approves the Framework in April. - Again, it was reiterated that some members of the Steering Committee want to continue their involvement with Grand View. After further discussion Steering Committee members said that it would be up to the City Council on how to proceed with implementation. The Committee noted that within the GrandView District Development Framework implementation is addressed and the Council can decide on the process. Staunton thanked everyone for attending and reminded the Committee of the following dates: April 11th — Planning Commission April 12th — Steering Committee meeting (final one) April 17th — City Council presentation The meeting adjourned at 9:20 PM Page 4 of 4 Options Considered by the Steering Committee Regarding Height Message from the City Council The City Council is interested in the collective and individual opinions of steering committee members regarding future developments in the GrandView District, with particular attention to the limits of permitted building heights. There are limits to the permitted height of buildings in the City of Edina. Those limits depend on the zoning and location of the buildings and property in question. The new development framework process provides a good opportunity for community and neighborhood dialogue about what the permitted building heights ought to be in the future GrandView District. While the ultimate decision about building height limitations, as well as other development features and restrictions, for the GrandView District will be made by the City Council with consultation from the Planning Commission, the Council would like to hear and consider the individual and collective opinions of the members of the steering committee before they make their decision on this important subject. The Council is asking for task force members to discuss this topic at the steering committee meeting on April 12. It's important to the Council that the steering committee discuss and resolve a position, or positions, at the April 12 steering committee meeting in order for the Council to have sufficient time to consider the steering committee thoughts prior to the Council's consideration of the issue(s) at the April 17 public hearing. The Council is looking forward to your input. Thank you. Scott Neal Response to City Council Request Regarding Building Height in the Grandview District From the very beginning of the Grand View planning process, the strategy has been to include as many people as are willing to participate and to move forward incrementally by focusing what we agree on, not what we disagree on. As individuals, we would all make different decisions on certain items in the Grand View framework document, but together, we feel good about our shared vision for this "Grand" opportunity. We hope that a unified vision for this area will give present and future city councils greater confidence in guiding the development community. The issue of building heights is a good example where we generally agree on the overall parameters, but still need more detailed discussion about the specifics of height in particular locations. Everyone has an opinion regarding building height based on their personal background and interests. However, decisions on building height should not be subjective or arbitrary and should not be based on popular opinion. Instead, decisions should be based on impacts to the neighborhood and community as a whole. Impacts could include traffic, human scale, shadows, view sheds, open space, and the economic viability of redeveloping particular parcels. To fully understand these types of impacts by parcel requires a more advanced level of study then we were able to accomplish within our budget or timeline. Even though the steering committee did not articulate specific height limits for each parcel, we do agree on some general parameters for the district as follows: Option 1 We agree with height limits consistent with the Comprehensive Plan (as envisioned by the Framework document.) We further acknowledge need for the change of the Comprehensive Plan to allow for density as envisioned by the Framework document. Option 2 Regarding building height, we are of the mind that taller buildings add to the uniqueness visibility and financial feasibility of creating Great Places While sight lines and shadow infringement are real, we believe that the Grandview Plan should take a bold stance to create a vibrant new place that adds to the uniqueness of Edina The plan should set the bar high; allowing taller buildings for superior design and aesthetic contributions. Perhaps transferable development rights can be considered so that a master developer has more flexibility to vary the height from site to site in Order to achieve a better project. In any case, development on this site should go through the PUD Process so that the community has retains some control of the buildout Option 3 The maximum height for buildings in the Grand View area should not exceed the "altitude" of the current Jerry's office building. The number of stories could vary depending on the location of the site relative to topography. For example, buildings on the lower (South East) portion of the Grand View area nearer Eden Avenue and Highway 100 could potentially have more stories than buildings nearer Vernon and still be within the overall building height parameter. With our maximum parameter set, we do not believe all locations should be able to achieve the maximum height. For instance, Arcadia is imagined as a pedestrian oriented street, so taller buildings would be best stepped back from Arcadia. In addition, we do not envision allowing a wall of tall buildings along Eden Avenue just because the grade would allow it. As with other aspects of the framework plan, the key to a successful Grand View District will be variety of building heights, textures and uses. We could also suggest that in order to build to the maximum height, certain criteria must be met in areas such as sustainability, mix of affordability levels, etc. Option 4 HEIGHT: Currently, we have to estimate the height of Jerry's Tower (6 stories) at about 12 feet per floor and the base elevation at 956.0. Adding this together is 1028.0, the highest part of the Grand View. That building also has a stair tower on top with the large signed address numbers seen from the east. It may be 20 feet high, now reaching to 1048.0 feet. There is no written code that the 72 feet of tower limits all buildings in the area. If we were to add up the PW site buildings we might get: the base at 918.0 (2 feet above Eden near the south most entry) plus 1 level to 928.0, a second level to 938.0 (matching perfectly with the Arcadia entrance at the off ramp from the frontage road at 937.4) ... then one more level from 938.0 up by 12 feet for this floor to 950.0, working nicely with the entrance off Arcadia next to Eden Avenue Grill at 948.0. Now, we set the buildings 0.5 feet above the deck at 950.0 starting at 950.5. If we were to set a kind of "limit" for the buildings on this deck at 7 floors of 12 feet each, the roof, without parapet would be 950.5 +7x12= 1034.5. there may not be a need to create a rule other than what our fire department requests or has capability for protection. When applications for developments are made the City still has rights to approve. For guidelines, maybe 1050 is ok. Developers may argue that Edina has the Westin building and want that height. Height datum points of significance: a. center of Arcadia /Eden intersection ..........................914.7 b. Arcadia at Hwy100 mid -block off - ramp ...................... 937.4 c. Arcadia @Eden Ave Grill entrance and GVC entrance..948.0 d. Eden Ave entrance to our major parking deck .............916.0 e. RR track elevation below GVC bridge .........................932.0 f. Clearance from a above to GVC bridge botto ..............955.0 g. Bridge deck on GVC above ............. ..........................959.0 h. GVC ramp down to west side next to West Deck......... 956.0 i. Estimated Jerry's Tower main roof .. .........................1028.0 j. Estimated Jerry's Tower stair /elevator rooftop .......... 1048.0 Option 5 Proposal The Steering Committee endorses the height restrictions contained in the City's Comprehensive Plan [pgs. 4- 29,52]. The Plan allows for a maximum of 6 stories, including a maximum podium height of 2 stories, in the GrandView District. The conceptual drawings contained in the Grandview District Framework Document illustrate buildings consistent with this height restriction. Further arguments in support of following the Comprehensive Plan height restrictions include: 1. The Steering Committee's vision for the character of the District matches the height specifications for this District stated in the Comprehensive Plan. The city should not allow buildings with a height greater than six stories in the GrandView District. The Framework drawings depict a neighborhood center. If the City allows buildings greater than six stories, GrandView becomes more of an urban or corporate center, a concept never embraced by the Steering Committee. The Steering Committee intends to create a specific character for the District. They intentionally chose words and images to describe this desired character. Human scale, Neighborhood Center, Neighborhood feel, pedestrian friendly, and safe and connected describe the desired character for the District. [Framework pgs. 4,13] Bruce Jacobsen pointed out at the March 29`h Steering Committee meeting that the Montreal park photo illustrates the character that the Committee embraces for the District. This scene is shown in the Framework on pgs. 26,28 and on the right above. The building height represented in this photograph is within the six story limit stated for this District in the Comprehensive Plan and also aligns with the Comp Plan policy on visual impacts, aesthetic scale, light access, shadow impacts and density. It further addresses the Framework document goal to have buildings of human scale. Most suburban neighborhood centers with demographics similar to Edina limit height to 2 -5 stories. Minneapolis has set 6 stories as a height limit in some areas, such as their North Loop Small Area Plan. Aligning the steering Committee vision for the District with height limitations is critical to the success of the GrandView design. 2. The Comprehensive Plan was created as a guide for future development and specifies height recommendations based on the needs of the community. The Comprehensive Plan was adopted just three years ago, in 2008. As the product of a great deal of public process and neighborhood input, the Plan created a holistic, unified vision for the City, meant to be used as a guide for years to come. In part, it called for distinctive neighborhoods throughout the City as a means of defining individual areas. It does identify districts within Edina where buildings can be taller than 6 stories; GrandView is not one of them [Comp Plan pg 4 -51 and 4 -51]. This may be because GrandView has existing residential neighborhoods right across the street, and therefore does not have an adequate number of blocks for the requisite transition of "stepped down" stories between high -rise buildings and existing residential neighborhoods or parks [Comp Plan pg. 4 -51]. In this way, the Comp Plan takes the "big picture" approach to designing Edina to meet the various needs of our community. 3. Changing height specifications in the Comprehensive Plan must be part of a public process. The Framework drawings have been available for public comment (public comment period January 31, 2012 to March 29, 2012) and nearly all buildings depicted are no taller than six stories. These drawings must be consistent with the Steering Committee's recommendations for height in order to allow public participation and representation. If the Steering Committee is to recommend higher heights and more density, then a new set of drawings should be created and the public should have the opportunity to respond to these new drawings. Additionally, the public was never asked whether they would support changing the Comprehensive Plan with respect to height at any of the several public workshops during this planning process. In a letter addressed to the Steering Committee (3/20/12), Manager Scott Neal asked for community and neighborhood dialogue regarding height issues. However, neither before nor since that date has there been any public notice that the GrandView Plan might deviate from the Comp Plan's height restriction. Therefore, there has been no opportunity for a public process to discuss this possibility. 4. Maintaining current Comprehensive Plan height specifications will enable the City to move forward quickly with redevelopment. Keeping height specifications to the Comprehensive Plan would give developers a clear picture of what is allowable in this area. The Steering Committee was not aware until after the Framework was approved that Form -Based Code does not currently exist in Edina or anywhere in Minnesota. The complexity and lead -time necessary for the development of this code, specified within the first year in the implementation section of the Framework, was never discussed by the Steering Committee. By maintaining the current Comprehensive Plan height specifications, the City could pursue a two - pronged development process: give potential developers the Comprehensive Plan height restrictions they would need to meet, and create form -based code within the height restrictions set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. Additionally, maintaining the current Comp Plan height specifications would avoid the lengthy and time - consuming processes of informing all neighborhoods of potential changes to the plan and of allowing for public discourse of the new potential height specifications for living, learnin , raisin families & doing husiness 2000 Comprehensive Plan �. S 8 8 8 Nonresidential and Description, Land Uses Development Density Mixed Use Guidelines Guidelines Categories MXC Established or emerging mixed Maintain existing, or Mixed -Use Center use districts serving areas larger create new, Floor to Area than one neighborhood (and pedestrian and Ratio -Per Current examples: beyond city boundaries). streetscape current • 50 "' and France Primary uses: Retail, office, amenities; encourage Zoning Code: • Grandview service, multifamily residential, or require structured maximum of Institutional uses, parks and parking. Buildings 1,5 open space. "step down" in height 1 -2 Vertical mixed use should be from intersections. units /acre encouraged, and may be 4 stories at 50'h Et required on larger sites. France; 3 -6 stories at Grandview CAC The most intense district in Form -based design Community Activity terms of uses, height and standards for building Floor to Area Center coverage. placement, massing Ratio -Per Example: Greater Primary uses: Retail, office, and street -level current Southdale area (not lodging, entertainment and treatment. Zoning Code: including large multi. residential uses, combined or in Buildings should be maximum of family residential separate buildings. placed in appropriate 0.5 to 1.0' neighborhoods such Secondary uses: Institutional, proximity to streets to 2.3 as Centennial Lakes) recreational uses. create pedestrian scale. Buildings "step units /acre Mixed use should be encouraged, down at boundaries and may be required on larger with lower - density sites. districts and upper stories "step back" from street. More stringent design standards for buildings > 5 stories. Emphasize pedestrian circulation; re- introduce finer - grained circulation patterns where p feasible. Applies to existing predominantly Performance Industrial industrial areas within the City. industrial, standards to ensure Floor to Area compatibility with Primary uses: Ratio- Per manufacturing. Secondary usm: I adjacent uses; Zoning Code: limited retail and service uses. screening of outdoor 0.5' activities. Farina Camp Pan Update 2008 Chapter 4. lend use and Community Ve�� 4 -29 2008 comprehellsive Plan fol living• lem ning, raising Limfliv% & doing busi,14— , I I i I � � i 7T a Ij ti 11,"" Louts Imes !-r nri 36 49 .2, f +414k4 t♦ City of Edina 2008 Comprehensive Plato Up(Lale Futtire Land Use Plan with Building Heights fkwmeii,t QuAviw Fiesta I.GA 0 f --- I Edm Orwip Pbn 14mble 2" ClxaW.r I Livid Use aW GMIOM110 mly 000911 4-52 I 'It -errs w I tcloes 4S 41*0es S sg"Wi, 10:Sklf"'S 1: Slcmm 14-r W99111 C—j Pd. ti.,OA -.1. 1- t)l( IIUK C" of Edina 2008 Comprehensive Kin UjAite OAS lids Na 3-5 12 OFM I= M a � Zx Future Land Use Plan with Building Heights ;'Ek F4 N� -2 4 12 OR Aam SA"Ies 'It -errs w I tcloes 4S 41*0es S sg"Wi, 10:Sklf"'S 1: Slcmm 14-r W99111 C—j Pd. ti.,OA -.1. 1- t)l( IIUK C" of Edina 2008 Comprehensive Kin UjAite OAS lids Na 3-5 12 OFM I= M a � Zx Future Land Use Plan with Building Heights ;'Ek F4 N� City Hall • Phone 952 - 927 -8861 Fax 952 - 826 -0389 • www.CityofEdina.com Date: April 17, 2012 To: City Council From: Cary Teague, Community Development Director MEMO w9SN�1r� o e `� iN U) �yc � e Re: Response to the City Council Request Regarding Building Height in the ' Grandview District The City Council has requested that the Steering Committee members express their individual and collective opinions on building height within the Grandview District. At their April 17, 2012, Steering Committee meeting, members discussed and voted on 5 options j when considering building height for the district, (see attached options). The Steering Committee also included comments on the cards to give the City Council individual opinions on building height, (attached for reference are scanned copies of the tally /comment cards). The Steering Committee ranked the options in the order of preference and had the option of excluding those options they felt were unacceptable. The ranked order gave the first choice 5 points down to the last choice that received 1 point. The following is a tally of the five height options voted on by the Steering Committee at their April 17, 2012, Steering Committee Meeting: Option # 1.) 30 points Option # 2.) 46 points Option # 3.) 65 points Option # 4.) 36 points Option # 5.) 46 points City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St_ • Edina, MN 55424 le� q1n� `�, v4 IC ► sA �5 ,(� -I- Z Cc�-� t��V' ��Pn r ► 0 ��� 6,1611 /�Z' c,L nJ Q PI) Uri a-4� /lio r oa r� s-r�rn.�,v6- c0 141 /r► I rr't-LAC", .320c6:"- Df T(O Al S OrRCYL :r- w o u l- o /Zp-7 -H O S No ro - T7l 45:— pi.STa �1a�,- W1e,�1�,P1r; �. �. �. b i n rA L vie Meer' w00 �vt in c7 2 . CO (D :. S QL7O,Q S on�oN Z 2 ►�� f���� r ?�- N,�111� !T 15 A - MMO- 7H T 1� 2 • Y� C�JN���S - f3 � 15l otjwG PgocfaSs' JusT .5ND rzp wrrH A Robazr k UCT 06 S 5&SI LAN P,ui t,T,�i t-s af2g ���A - - - -- - -- - - - - -- -- -- � - ����, h // Y 1 9rR�OL-�. QF )P&vft,acNcE �o n,rh S�A.rt�,p w+,� •H��N 1'1�X ++� \�-1 Z-1 1"��'�i-r wow ��w► 1T 7'1}�r¢ 12. Get r D t c L- �('o.,..� ti ['c a "'.�✓ti. c c�r+��1 cc Ks►s.r� -�1' w tn± 1-it% QF A- �:. L, � f .- 0 PLO fiC,E, °rzS ors S T�- l orL rw� fi-ep ®� ft's of Tl -S' 15 L_ln `T15T77b MAJL Er Z r t 3 , Ll � Z� w I' vo PIN �oi(� 4�r T\.q �t January 31 Draft Executive Summary The Development Framework presented here is part of a small area planning process required by Edinas Comprehensive Plan for those parts of our community (like the Grandview District) designated as Potential Areas of Change. It follows the 2010 GrandView District Small Area Guide Plan process. That process — led by a group of community residents and business and property owners — resulted in adoption by the Edina City Council of seven Guiding Principles for the redevelopment of the GrandView District. The process of crafting this Development Framework has been led by a 52- member Steering Committee made up of residents of the community and owners of area businesses and properties. The 52 members of the Steering Committee have dedicated countless hours since April of 2011 listening to community members, considering options, and debating alternatives for the future of the District. Thanks to a grant from the Metropolitan Council, we have had the good fortune to be supported in our efforts by a talented group of consulting experts. We have also been fortunate to have the patient support of City staff throughout the process. Our objective in creating this Development Framework is to build upon the seven Guiding Principles adopted by the City Council. In the pages that follow, we share a vision of how to bring those Guiding Principles to life. While there are many details essential to fulfilling that vision, our goals can be summarized as efforts to: 1. Create a place with a unique identity announced by signature elements like: • A central commons on the Public Works site with indoor and outdoor public space that connects the civic cornerstones of the District and serves the neighborhood and community needs; • A "gateway" at Highway 100 that announces the District as a special place, using elements like an iconic pedestrian and bicycle bridge spanning Highway 100; and • An innovative, cutting -edge approach to 21st - century sustainability. 1/31/12 Proposed Revision - March 27 Executive Summary 2. Completely rethink and reorganize the District's transportation infrastructure to: • Make the District accessible and inviting to pedestrians and cyclists; • Create connections between the different parts of the District; • Maintain automobile - friendly access to convenience retail; • Create separate pathways for "pass - through" and "destination" automobile traffic; and • Preserve future transit opportunities provided by the rail corridor in a way that ensures that the kinds of opportunities pursued in the future are consistent with the character we envision for the District and provide benefit to the surrounding neighborhood. 3. Leverage public resources to make incremental value - creating changes that enhance the public realm and encourage private redevelopment consistent with the vision that improves the quality of the neighborhood for residents, businesses, and property owners. This Development Framework makes substantial progress in charting the path to be followed in redeveloping the GrandView District. By creating a vision that meets the seven Guiding Principles, it provides guidance to city officials, residents, business and property owners, and developers as opportunities for change emerge in the District. To ensure that the future redevelopment of the District is consistent with the vision articulated in this Framework, we recommend that it become part of the City's Comprehensive Plan. We want to be clear, however, that we recognize that the Framework (like the Comprehensive Plan) provides broad direction rather than detailed requirements. This Framework is intended to be a vision of the future rather than a blueprint. Achieving the vision will require, among other things: • A feasibility study that examines the costs and resources available to bear those costs; The Development Framework presented here is part of a small area planning process required by Edina's Comprehensive Plan for those parts o�our community (like the GrandView District) designated as Potential Areas of Change. It follows the 2010 GrandView District Small Area Guide Plan process. That process — led by a group of community residents and business and property owners — resulted in adoption by the Edina City Council of seven Guiding Principles for the redevelopment of the GrandView District. The process of crafting this Development Framework has been led by a 52- member Steering Committee made up of residents of the community and owners of area businesses and properties. The 52 members of the Steering Committee have dedicated countless hours since April of 2011 listening to community members, considering options, and debating alternatives for the future of the District. Thanks to a grant from the Metropolitan Council, we have had the good fortune to be supported in our efforts by a talented group of consulting experts. We have also been fortunate to have the patient support of City staff throughout the process. Our objective in creating this Development Framework is to build upon the seven Guiding Principles adopted by the City Council. In the pages that follow, we share a vision of how to bring those Guiding Principles to life. While there are many details essential to fulfilling that vision, our goals can be summarized as efforts to: 1. Create a place with a unique identity announced by signature elements like: • A central commons on the Public Works site with indoor and outdoor public space that connects the civic cornerstones of the District and serves the neighborhood and community needs; • A "gateway" at Highway 100 that announces the District as a special place, using elements like an iconic pedestrian and bicycle bridge spanning Highway 100; and An innovative, cutting -edge approach to 21st - century sustainability. 3/27/12 2. Completely rethink and reorganize the District's transportation infrastructure to: • Make the District accessible and inviting to pedestrians and cyclists; • Create connections between the different parts of the District; CUNINGHAM G N O U F • Maintain automobile - friendly access to convenience retail; • Create separate pathways for "pass- through" and "destination' automobile traffic; and • Preserve future transit opportunities provided by the rail corridor in a way that ensures that the kinds of opportunities pursued in the future are consistent with the character we envision for the District and provide benefit to the surrounding neighborhood. 3. Leverage public resources to make incremental value- creating changes that enhance the public realm and encourage voluntary private redevelopment consistent with the vision that improves the quality of the neighborhood for residents, businesses, and property owners. This Development Framework makes substantial progress in charting the path to be followed in redeveloping the GrandView District. By creating a vision that meets the seven Guiding Principles, it provides guidance to city officials, residents, business and property owners, and developers as opportunities for change emerge in the District. To ensure that the future redevelopment of the District is consistent with the vision articulated in this Framework, we recommend that it become part of the City's Comprehensive Plan. We want to be clear, however, that we recognize that the Framework (like the Comprehensive Plan) provides broad direction rather than detailed requirements. This Framework is intended to be a vision of the future rather than a blueprint. Achieving the vision will require, among other things: • A feasibility study that examines the costs and resources available to bear those costs; C'JNINGh1.4M G n 0 U r January 31 Draft Public Realm Vernon, Eden, Sherwood, Library The plan here is to focus on improving pedestrian connections between the Library/Senior Center and Jerry's, via a more street -like character that extends north from GrandView Square Street, including a well- defined pedestrian crossing at Eden. Sherwood is shown as a conversion for additional parking and may still allow movement through the area, though at a very reduced rate of speed. This conversion allows a small green space to connect the Library to Vernon. 1. Conversion of Sherwood would provide 50 additional parking spaces. 2. A small green space connects the Library to Vernon giving the civic building an "address" on Vernon. 3. Pedestrian crossings are created or enhanced to provide safe and visible locations (51st, 52nd, and 53rd Streets) on Vernon and to the west of the bus garage site on Eden to cross the street. 4. The GrandView Square area is connected to Jerry's and beyond through the use of a streetscape that provides a well- defined pedestrian system as well as a more organized parking and circulation pattern. 1/31/12 Proposed Revision - March 27 Public Realm Vernon, Eden, Sherwood, Library The plan here is to focus on improving pedestrian connections between the Library/Senior Center and Jerry's, via a more street -like character that extends north from GrandView Square Street, including a well- defined pedestrian crossing at Eden. Sherwood is shown as a conversion for additional parking and may still allow movement through the area, though at a very reduced rate of speed. This conversion allows a small green space to connect the Librra�^to V r�O`. vh 1. Conversion of-Sho— oadwould provide 50 additional parking spaces. 2. A small green space connects the Library to Vernon giving the civic building an "address" on Vernon. 3. Pedestrian crossings are created or enhanced to provide safe and visible locations (51st, 52nd, and 53rd Streets) on Vernon and to the west of the bus garage site on Eden to cross the street. 4.The GrandView Square area is connected to Jerry's and beyond through the use of a streetscape that provides a well- defined pedestrian system as well as a more organized parking and circulation pattern. 5. Any additional street and block improvements (including curb cuts and /or traffic signals) should be considered after improvements have been made to Vernon and appropriate traffic and parking studies have been completed (also refer to potential alternatives in the appendix) 3/27/12 52nd St 53rd SF 52nd St 53rd St— 3. Patterns For a Neighborhood Center I 1 I 3 2 3. Patterns For a Neighborhood Center t N r � J / 7 �I 1 4 �I 1 1,. 1� ti II ' it r CUNINGHAM , 0 0 U CUNINGHAM c n o u r January 31 Draft Transportation District Street Framework The movement framework for the District begins with addressing policy issues like the adoption of the Living Streets principles and applying Hennepin County's Complete Streets policy, as well as considering larger and more long term ideas like reconstructing the Highway 100 interchange using a "split diamond" configuration. This approach accomplishes a number of objectives that meet the District Principles and provides an incremental approach to addressing change over time. The existing slip ramp location off the southbound ingress ramp would be retained but would be combined with an additional connection to Gus Young as part of the one way frontage road system. Traffic would be controlled at fodr signalized intersections. In the short term, there is an opportunity to begin implementing streetscape, bike, and pedestrian improvements. Another important recommendation is to implement the Grandview Crossing /Gus Young one -way street pair that will help manage traffic access and circulation in the upper core of the District. 1/31/12 Proposed Revision - March 27 Transportation District Street Framework The movement framework for the District begins with addressing policy issues like the adoption of the Living Streets principles and applying Hennepin County's Complete Streets policy, as well as considering larger and more long term ideas like reconstructing the Highway 100 interchange using a "split diamond" configuration. This approach accomplishes a number of objectives that meet the District Principles and provides an incremental approach to addressing change over time. The existing slip ramp location off the southbound ingress ramp would be retained but would be combined with an additional connection to Gus Young as part of the one way frontage road system. Traffic would be controlled at four signalized intersections. In the short term, there is an opportunity to begin implementing streetscape, bike, and pedestrian improvements. Another important recommendation is to implement the Grandview Crossing /Gus Young one -way street pair that will help manage traffic access and circulation in the upper core of the District. 3/27/12 3. Patterns for a Neighborhood Center ry ■ Complete /Living Streets improvements Private streetscapes ■ Split diamond interchange New / Improved bridges T -I 3. Patterns for a Neighborhood Center u L9 t r -'P a ! 1� 1 - I�..'' 7j ■ Complete/Living Streets Improvements Private streetscapes ■ Split diamond interchange New / improved bridges i� CUNINGHAM G n o u F road moved south I .t i'1 I i1 - - 1 FJ } ry ■ Complete /Living Streets improvements Private streetscapes ■ Split diamond interchange New / Improved bridges T -I 3. Patterns for a Neighborhood Center u L9 t r -'P a ! 1� 1 - I�..'' 7j ■ Complete/Living Streets Improvements Private streetscapes ■ Split diamond interchange New / improved bridges i� CUNINGHAM G n o u F road moved south r/ rn N�NGIIAM G 0. 0 u > I• I � i .t - - 1 } r/ rn N�NGIIAM G 0. 0 u > January 31 Draft 3. Patterns for a Neighborhood Center Transportation District Street Framework Existing Proposed CUNING HAM 1/31/12 G a O U r Proposed Revision - March 27 Transportation District Street Framework 3. Patterns for a Neighborhood Center Existing 3/27/12 road moved south road realigned to Highway 100 CUNiNGHAM G a o u P U. �t 1 L J-L r �L =yen. G ' i Existing Proposed CUNING HAM 1/31/12 G a O U r Proposed Revision - March 27 Transportation District Street Framework 3. Patterns for a Neighborhood Center Existing 3/27/12 road moved south road realigned to Highway 100 CUNiNGHAM G a o u P �t 1 =yen. G ' i Existing Proposed CUNING HAM 1/31/12 G a O U r Proposed Revision - March 27 Transportation District Street Framework 3. Patterns for a Neighborhood Center Existing 3/27/12 road moved south road realigned to Highway 100 CUNiNGHAM G a o u P January 31 Draft Transportation Parking • Consider the use of the current city parking ramp (located behind Jerry's) to accommodate future park and ride patrons and general parking district supply; increase the capacity of this structure in the future if economically possible/ practical. • The public works site should be considered as a location for a Metro Transit park and ride facility as a way to provide parking to weekly commuters and to provide parking for a community/civic building, public green, residences and other uses. In addition, the top level (deck) of this structure is intended to serve as the GrandView Green, the major public realm amenity in the district. • Additional parking (structure) is proposed to the south and contiguous to Jerry's grocery store to provide better service access to the loading area and provide additional parking supply. 1/31/12 Proposed Revision - March 27 Transportation Parking • Consider the use of the current city parking ramp (located behind Jerry's) to accommodate future park and ride patrons and general parking district supply; increase the capacity of this structure in the future if economically possible/ practical. 'Ihe public works site should be considered as a location for a Metro Transit park and ride facility as a way to provide parking to weekly commuters and to provide parking for a community/civic building, public green, residences and other uses. In addition, the top level (deck) of this structure is intended to serve as the GrandView Green, the major public realm amenity in the district. • Additional parking (structure) is proposed to the south and contiguous to Jerry's grocery store to provide better service access to the loading area and provide additional parking supply. 3/27/12 3. Patterns for a Neighborhood Center I' J�_+ a _ '� l ,} r` - 1 'I \ L -� Parking beneath buildings New access to existing ■ Surface lots P Existing ramp -+ Direction of traffic 38 3. Patterns for a Neighborhood Center P u il l l r I j -Al Parking beneath buildings New access to existing ■ Surface lots P Existing ramp —P Direction of traffic l jI 1� •4 y i —4 i ' 1 CUNINGHAM c n n u P road moved south CUNINGHAM G e 0 u P January 31 Draft 4. Moving Forward with a Purpose Implementation Major Recommendations Immediate < 1 year 1 Development Framework approval 2 Policy for implementation/financc 3 Create Implementation Committee 4. Implementation Committee should address programming of community / civic building 5 Create sustainability guide from GreenStep 6 TIF District 7A Design Guidelines 7 Form -based code for mixed use center 8 Green building standards required for district 9 Prepare Phase 1 Master Plan 10 Address Lifecycle and affordable housing 1/31/12 Proposed Revision - March 27 Implementation Major Recommendations Immediate < 1 year 1 -5 Years Land Use 11 Bus Garage site redevelopment 12 Townhouse units on public works site 13 Residential on Warner site /OLG 14 Community / Civic building Public Realm 15 Grandview Green over parking structure 16 Arcadia Steps /and streetscape 17 CP Rail bike path from Eden to Brookside 18 Library green space fronting Vernon Transportation /Infrastructure 19 Park n ride structure /green roof @public works site 20 Additional parking south of Jerry's 21 Grandview Crossing bridge & street 22 Eden Living Streets /streetscape /3 lane section 23 Eden Living Streets /Arcadia/Normandale 24 Reconfigure Sherwood as parking street 25 New access from Eden to city ramp parking 26 Jerry's parking Streetscape 27 Implement one -way pairs /remove left to G. Young 28 Reservation on public works site for rail transit use Sustainability 29 Grandview Works /Organics recycling center 30 Stormwater reuse & management policy 31 Solar pilot project for public lighting 4. Moving Forward with a Purpose 1 Development Framework approval 2 Policy for implementation/finance 3 Create Implementation Committee 4. Implementation Committee should address programming of community / civic building 5 Create sustainability guide from GreenStep 6 TIF District 7A Design Guidelines 7 Form -based code for mixed use center 8. Green building standards required for district 9 Prepare Phase 1 Master Plan 10 Address Lifecycle and affordable housing 3/27/12 1 -5 Years Land Use 11 Bus Garage site redevelopment 12 Townhouse units on public works site 13 Residential on Warner site/OLG 14 Community / Civic building Public Realm CUAtNG HAM G n 0 U P 15 Grandview Green over parking structure 16 Arcadia Steps /and streetscape 17 CP Rail bike path from Eden to Brookside 18 Add tree lined streetscape and monument signs into Richmond Hills neighborhood Transportation /Infrastructure 19 Park n ride structure/green roof @public works site 20 Additional parking south of Jerry's 21 Grandview Crossing bridge 8c street 22 Eden Living Streets /streetscape /3 lane section 23 Eden Living Streets /Arcadia/Norman dale 24 Recan 25 New access from Eden to city ramp parking 26 Jerry's parking Streetscape 27 Implement one -way pairs /remove left to G. Young 28 Reservation on public works site for rail transit use Sustainability 29 GrandView Works /Organics recycling center 30 Stormwater reuse & management policy ff 31 Solar pilot project for public lighting CUNINGHAM G n o u P January 31 Draft Implementation Major Recommendations 5 -10 Years Land Use 32 Arcadia site redevelopmcnt/include pocket park 33 Apt/condo units on public works site 34 Residential on Warner site /OLG/Phase 2 Public Realm 35 Small civic green at City Hall 36 Arcadia streetscape improvements Transportation /Infrastructure 37 Vernon Living Streets /streetscape/3 lane section 38 Dedicate right turn from Vernon to Interlachen 39 Reconfigure Eden as parking street @City Hall 40 Eden bridge pedestrian/bike enhancements 41 Vernon as primary bike route to GrandView Crossing 42 Consider 'turn-back! of Vernon from County Sustainability 43 Stormwater collection/treatmcnt system 44 Grey water reuse /irrigation, etc. 45 GrandView Works /geothermal at OLG fields 1/31/12 Proposed Revision - March 27 Implementation Major Recommendations 5 -10 Years Land Use 32 Arcadia site redevelopment/include pocket park 33 Apt/condo units on public works site 34 Residential on Warner site/OLG/Phase 2 Public Realm 35 Small civic green at City Hall 36 Arcadia streetscape improvements Transportation /Infrastructure 37 Vernon Living Streets /strcetscape/3 lane section 38 Dedicate right turn from Vernon to Interlachen 39 Reconfigure Eden as parking street @City Hall 40 Eden bridge pedestrian/bike enhancements 41 Vernon as primary bike route to GrandView Crossing 42 Consider'turn- back'of Vernon from County 43 Complete Streets: Library green space fronting Vernon Sustainability 44 Stormwater collection/treatment system 45 Grey water reuse/irrigation, etc. 46 GrandView Works /geothermal at OLG fields 3/27/12 4. Moving Forward with a Purpose 10+ Years Land Use 46 East frontage road site redevelopment 47 Civic development on excess MNDOT land Public Realm 48 Hwy 100 pedestrian/bike bridge 49 Green roof/space over underground parking 50 Add green space to Tupa Park 51 Include gateway walls/landscape w /interchange Transportation /Infrastructure 52 Hwy 110 split diamond interchange 53 Realignment of Grange Rd/Eden 54 Add Gus Young extension to frontage road Sustainability 55 Closed loop water supply system 56 GrandView Works /Alternative energy sources 4. Moving Forward with a Purpose 10+ Years Land Use 47 East frontage road site redevelopment 48 Civic development on excess MNDOT land Public Realm 49 Hwy 100 pedestrian/bike bridge 50 Green roof/space over underground parking 51 Add green space to Tupa Park 52 Include gateway walls/landscape w /interchange Transportation /Infrastructure 53 Hwy 110 split diamond interchange 54 Realignment of Grange Rd/Eden 55 Add Gus Young extension to frontage road Sustainability 56 Closed loop water supply system 57 GrandView Works / Alternative energy sources CUNINGHAM G R O U P CUNINGHAM G R O U P January 31 Draft oo Alternatives - March 27 4' Z-A I 477 KA 3 N ---------- �YJS�M C�oll -aa� �) 0 L January 31 Draft Alternatives -March 27 OWN �i�' -.� +� n•���,• ice'' 2 i u- ,ZNA, owe � Cn `bieea REPORPRECOMMEN DATION To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL Agenda Item Item No. VI. B. From: Scott Neal ® Action City Manager ❑ Discussion Information Date: April 17, 2012 Subject: PUBLIC HEARING - Considering Modifications To Southeast Dining Redevelopment District And Establishing Southdale 2 Tax Increment Financing District, Considering Approval of Southdale Limited Partnership Business Subsidy and Proposed Spending Plan For Centennial Lakes TIF Finance District, Resolution No. 2012 -58, Resolution No. 2012 -66, and Resolution No. 2012 -67 ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt the three attached resolutions. INFORMATION /BACKGROUND: The City Council and City Housing & Redevelopment Authority will both hold public hearings on April 17, 2012, to receive public comment on a proposed development agreement between the City and Simon Properties concerning the redevelopment of Southdale Center Mall. The City Council met in special session on March 27, 2012, to provide feedback to staff and consultants on the proposed agreement. Staff and consultants have communicated the Council's feedback to representatives from Simon Properties, which has resulted in material changes to the draft agreement reviewed by the Council at the March 27 meeting. The terms and conditions of the proposed revised agreement are attached to this cover memorandum. Staff and consultants will review the agreement with the Council at the April 17 Council meeting. ATTACHMENTS: • Resolution No. 2012 -58 • Resolution No. 2012 -66 • Resolution No. 2012 -67 • TIF Plan, Summary and Supporting Documentation Councilmember introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 2012-58 RESOLUTION ADOPTING A MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE SOUTHEAST EDINA REDEVELOPMENT _PROJECT AREA; AND ESTABLISHING THE SOUTHDALE 2 TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT THEREIN AND ADOPTING A TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN THEREFOR. BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the "Council ") of the City. of Edina, Minnesota (the "City "), as follows: Section 1. Recitals. 1.01. , The City Council and the Board of Commissioners of the Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority (the. '.'HRA ") have heretofore established the. Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area and adopted the Redevelopment Plan therefor. It has been proposed by the HRA .and the City that the City adopt a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan (the "Redevelopment Plan Modification ") for the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area (the "Project Area ") and establish the Southdale 2 Tax Increment Financing. District (the "District ") therein and adopt a Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "TIF Plan ") therefor (the Redevelopment Plan Modification and the. TIF Plan are referred to collectively herein as the "Plans" ); all: pursuant to and in conformity with applicable law, including Minnesota Statutes, Sections. 469.001 to 469.047 and Sections 469.174 to 469.1799, all inclusive, as amended, (the "Act ") all as reflected in the Plans, and presented for the Council's consideration. 1.02. The. HRA and City have :investigated the facts relating to the Plans and have caused the Plans to be prepared. 1.03. The HRA and City have performed all actions required by law .to be performed prior to the establishment of the District and the adoption and approval of the proposed Plans, including, but not limited.to, notification of Hennepin County, Independent School District No. 280 and Independent School District -No. 273 having taxing jurisdiction over the property to be included in the District, a review of and written comment on the Plans. by the City Planning Commission on March 28, 2012, approval of the Plans by the HRA on April 17, 2012, and the holding of a public hearing upon published notice as required by law.. 1.04 Certain written reports: (the "Reports ") relating to the Plans and to the activities contemplated therein have heretofore been prepared by staff and consultants and submitted to the Council and/or made a. part of the City files and proceedings on the Plans. The Reports include data, information and/or substantiation constituting . or relating to the basis for the other findings and detenninations made in this resolution. The Council hereby . confirms, ratifies and adopts the Reports, which are hereby incorporated into and made as fully a part of this resolution to the same extent as if set forth in full herein. 1.05 The Council recognizes that, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, Subd. 3, clause b, there is a mandatory fiscal disparities contribution for the District, an economic development district. 1.06. The City is not modifying the boundaries of the Project Area, but is modifying the Redevelopment Plan therefor to include activities related to the District. Section 2. Findings for the Adoption and Approval of the Redevelopment Plan Modification. 2.01. The Council approves the Redevelopment Plan Modification, and specifically finds that: (a) the land within the Project area would not be available for redevelopment without the financial aid to be sought under this Redevelopment Plan; (b) the Redevelopment Plan, as modified, will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the needs of the City as a whole, for the development of the Project by private enterprise; and (c) that the Redevelopment Plan, as modified, conforms to the general plan for the development of the City as a whole. Section 3. Findings for the Establishment of the Southdale 2 Tax Increment Financing District. 3.01. The Council hereby finds that the District is in the public interest and is an "economic development district" under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subd. 12 of the Act. 3.02. The Council further finds that the proposed development would not occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and that the increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in the market value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of the District permitted by the Tax Increment Financing Plan, that the Plans conform to the general plan for the development or redevelopment of the City as a whole; and that the Plans will afford maximum opportunity consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the redevelopment or development of the District by private enterprise. 3.03. The Council further finds, declares and determines that the City made the above findings stated in this Section and has set forth the reasons and supporting facts for each determination in writing, attached hereto as Exhibit A. Section 4. Findings for Use of the District to Provide Assistance Pursuant to Section 469.176, Subd. 4c(d) of the Act. 4.01. The Council further expects that the District will meet the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.476, Subd. 4c(d) (exempting the District from manufacturing, warehouse, and distribution use restrictions), because: (i) the proposed development will create or retain jobs in the State (including construction jobs), and construction of the project would not have commenced before July 1, 2012 without the assistance provided through tax increment under the TIF Plan; (ii) construction of the project will begin no later than July 1, 2012; and (iii) the City and HRA will request certification of the District by no later than June 30, 2012. 4.02. If construction does not commence by July 1, 2012 (unless this date is extended by state i law), the proposed project will need to meet the criteria of Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.176, Subd. 4c(a) and must satisfy the finding required under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469:174, Subd: 12. Section 5. Public Pumose. 5.01. The adoption of the Plans conforms in all respects to the requirements of the Act:and will result in increased employment in the state, and will result, in preservation and enhancement of the tax base of the State and thereby serves a public. purpose:- For.the reasons described in Exhibit A, the City believes these benefits directly derive from the tax increment assistance. provided under. the T1F Plan A private mall.owner.wil.l receive only the assistance. needed to make this development financial ly.feasible. As such,. any private benefits received by a mall owner are incidental and do not outweigh .the primary public benefits: Section 6. Approval and Adoption of the Plans. 6.01. The Plans, as presented to the. Council on this date, including without limitation the findings and statements of objectives contained therein, are hereby approved, ratified, established, and adopted and shall be placed on file in the office of the Executive Director: 6.02. The staff of the City, the City's advisors:and legal counsel are authorized and directed to proceed with the implementation of the Plans and to negotiate, draft, prepare and present to this Council for its consideration all further plans, resolutions, documents.and contracts necessary for this. purpose. 6.03 The Auditor of Hennepin County is requested to, certify the original net tax capacity of the District, as described in the Plans, and to certify in each year thereafter the amount by which the original net tax capacity has increased or decreased; and the Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority is authorized and directed to forthwith transmit this request to the County 'Auditor in such form and content as the Auditor. may specify, together with a list of all properties within the District, for which building pen-nits have been issued during the 18 months immediately preceding the adoption of this resolution. 6:04. The Executive. Director is further authorized and directed to file a. copy of the Plans with the Commissioner of Revenue and the Office of the State Auditor pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 469.175, Subd. 4a. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council member and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NO. 2012-58 The reasons and facts supporting the findings for the adoption of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Southdale 2 Tax Increment Financing District as required pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 3 are as follows: Finding that the Southdale 2 Tax Increment Financing District is an economic development district as defined in M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 12. The Southdale 2 Tax Increment Financing District (the "District ") is a contiguous geographic area within the City's the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area, delineated in the TIF Plan, for the purpose of financing economic development in the City through the use of tax increment. The District is in the public interest because it will facilitate renovations to the common areas of Southdale Mall and exterior improvements to the shopping center, which will increase employment in the state, and preserve and enhance the tax base of the state. Furthermore, the assistance being provided meets the requirements for assistance under Section 469.176, subd. 4c(d) of the Act, because: • The private development to be assisted pursuant to the TIF Plan will create or retain jobs in the state, including construction jobs; • the development consists of improvements to interior and exterior common areas, and construction will commence no later than July 1, 2012; • construction of the proposed development would not have commenced before July 1, 2012, without the tax increment financing assistance to be provided pursuant to the TIF Plan; and • the City will file the request for certification of the District by June 30, 2012. 2. Finding that the proposed development, in the opinion of the City Council, would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and that the increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in the market value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of the Southdale 2 Tax Increment Financing District permitted by the TIF Plan. The proposed development, in the opinion of the City, would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future. This finding is supported by the following facts: • Southdale Center is a 1.2 million square foot indoor mall originally constructed in 1956. Portions of the mail have an obsolete configuration that makes it difficult to attract retail tenants. • Retail property in general has experienced declining property values and lease rates as evidenced by successful tax appeals at Southdale Center and other retail establishments in the City. • Southdale Center is the hub of economic development, retail activity, office space, and high density housing in the City of Edina. A decline in the value and retail traffic at the mall will negatively impact the value and economic development activity on the property surrounding the mall. Conversely, a vibrant mall will spur economic development for mall tenants, other mall owners such as Macy's and JC Penny's and the surrounding property within the District. • The costs of the proposed improvements to the common areas of the mall cannot be passed on to tenants and is therefore a long -term investment on the part of the mall owner, Simon Properties. In the short-term they will not, in and of themselves, increase the market value of the property. However, they are being undertaken to increase retail traffic at the mall, and improve occupancy and lease rates which, over time, will increase the value of the mall and surrounding properties, as well as spur additional development in the District. Best Buy is closing the retail store located within the District. Successful redevelopment of this site will depend on a financially viable Southdale Center that attracts more retail traffic. The City and HRA, as a condition to tax increment assistance, will be requiring the mall owner to invest at least $ 14,000,000 in interior and exterior improvements to the common areas of Southdale Center. The amount of tax increment will increase if the mall owner increases improvement investments up to $15,000,000. Without the assistance, the mall owner has submitted statements that it would limit the renovations to approximately $7.34 million in basic improvements. Without the tax increment assistance, the mall property would not generate sufficient returns to the mall owner to undertake the full $14,000,000 to $15,000,000 in improvements. With the tax increment, the mall owner has indicated that the Southdale Center renovations will result in a return on investment under the normal thresholds for Simon Properties for a third year return, but is expected to achieve the corporate minimum investment threshold in the fifth year with the tax increment assistance. The mall owner has provided the City and HRA evidence that without assistance, the mall owner would be unable to construct the full level of proposed renovations. The increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in market value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of the TIF District permitted by the TIF Plan: The City supported this finding on the grounds that the assessed market value of Southdale Center has declined 32% in the last five years. Best Buy recently announced it will be closing its retail store in the District. The declining values and declining or stagnant retail lease rates evidenced by successful tax appeals at Southdale Center, the current obsolete configuration of the existing Southdale Center that was constructed over fifty years ago, and the internal competition for resources within the 350 mall portfolio of Simon Properties all make it unlikely that the full level of mall renovations will be constructed in the next 9 years without public assistance of some kind. The City further determines that these same challenges suggest that no other development of similar scope could reasonably be expected to occur on this site without similar assistance being provided to the development. Therefore, the City concludes as follows: a. If the proposed development occurs, the total increase in market value will be $119,112,310 (see Appendix D and F of the TIF Plan) b. The present value of tax increments from the District for the maximum duration of the district permitted by the TIF Plan is estimated to be $7,873,815 (see Appendix D and F of the TIF Plan). C. The Council finds that no alternative would occur that would produce a market value increase greater than $111,238,495 (the amount in clause b less the amount in clause c) without tax increment assistance. 3. Finding that the TIF Plan for the Southdale 2 Tax Increment Financing District conforms to the general plan for the development or redevelopment of the municipality as a whole. The Planning Commission reviewed the TIF Plan on March 28, 2012 and found that the TIF Plan confonns to the general development plan of the City. 4. Finding that the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Southdale 2 Tax Increment Financing District will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the development of the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area by private enterprise. The project to be assisted by the District will result in increased employment in the City and the State of Minnesota, increased tax base of the State and the redevelopment of currently underutilized land by a private business. RESOLUTION NO. 2012 -66 RESOLUTION APPROVING A SPENDING PLAN FOR THE CENTENNIAL LAKES TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the "City Council ") of the City of Edina (the "City "), Hennepin County, Minnesota as follows: Section 1. Background; Findings. (a) The City and the Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority (the "HRA ") have previously established the Centennial Lakes Tax Increment Financing District (the "TIF District ") and adopted the tax increment financing plan therefor (the "TIF Plan ") pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 to 469.1799 (the "TIF Act ") and certain special legislation. (b) Section 469.176 Subd. 4m of the TIF Act (referred to as "Temporary Authority ") authorizes the City and HRA to spend available tax increment from any existing tax increment financing district, notwithstanding any other law to, the contrary, to provide improvements, loans, interest rate subsidies, or assistance in any form to private development consisting of construction or substantial rehabilitation of buildings and ancillary facilities, if certain terms and conditions are met. (c) In accordance with the Temporary Authority, the City and HRA have caused to be prepared a spending plan (the "Spending Plan ") authorizing the City to use existing tax increment revenues from the TIF District in order to stimulate construction or rehabilitation of private development in a way that will also create or retain jobs in the renovation of the Southdale Mall. (d) The City has performed all actions required by law to be performed prior to the approval of the Spending Plan; including, but not limited to, causing notice of a public hearing to be published and holding a public hearing on the date hereof on the adoption of the Spending Plan. Section 2. Approval of the Spending (a) The Spending Plan is hereby approved in substantially the form on file in City Hall. (b) The City makes all the findings set forth in the Spending Plan, which are incorporated herein by reference. (c) City staff and consultants are hereby authorized to take actions necessary to carry out the terms of the Spending Plan. Resolution Approving a Spending.Plan for Centennial Lakes TIF District Dated: April, 17, 2012 Dated: April 17, 2012 Adopted: Mayor ATTEST: Resolution Approving a Spending Plan for Centennial Lakes TIF District Dated: April 17, 2012 Councilmember CITY OF EDINA HENNEPIN COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 2012-67 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN INTERFUND LOAN FOR ADVANCE OF CERTAIN COSTS IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOUTHDALE 2 TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT. BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners (the 'Board ") of the Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority (the "HRA ") and the City of Edina (the "City ") that City Council (the "Council ") of the City of Edina, Minnesota (the "City"), as follows: Section 1. Background. 1.01. The City and HRA intend to establish the Southdale 2 Tax Increment Financing District (the "TIF District ") within the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area (the "Project "), and will adopt a Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "TIF Plan ") for the purpose of financing certain improvements within the Project. 1.02. The City and HRA have determined to pay for certain costs identified in the TIF Plan consisting of site improvements, other qualifying improvements, interest and administrative costs (collectively, the "Qualified Costs "), which costs may be financed on a temporary basis from City or HRA funds available for such purposes. 1.03. Under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.178, Subd. 7, the City and HRA are authorized to advance or loan money from its general funds or any other fund from which such advances may be legally authorized, in order to finance the Qualified Costs. 1.04. The City and HRA intend to reimburse themselves for the Qualified Costs from tax increments derived from the TIF District in accordance with the terms of this resolution (which terms are referred to collectively as the " Interfund Loan "). Section 2. Terms of Interfund Loan. 2.01. The City and HRA hereby authorize the advance of up to $5,100,000, or so much thereof as may be paid as Qualified Costs, from the Centennial Lakes Tax Increment District fund or such other fund identified by the City or HRA. The total advances of City and HRA, when added together, shall not exceed $5,100,000. 2.02 The City and HRA shall reimburse themselves such advances together with interest at the rate stated below. Interest accrues on the principal amount from the date of each advance. The maximum rate of interest permitted to be charged is limited to the greater of the rates specified under Minnesota Statutes, Section 270C.40 or Section 549.09 as of the date the loan or advance is authorized, unless the written agreement states that the maximum interest rate will fluctuate as the interest rates specified under Minnesota Statutes, Section 270C.40 or Section 549.09 are from time to time adjusted. The interest rate shall be 4% and will not fluctuate. 2.03. Principal and interest ( "Payments ") on the Interfund Loan shall be paid semi - annually on each August 1 and February 1 (each a "Payment Date "), commencing on the first Payment Date on which the Authority has Available Tax Increment (defined below), or on any other dates determined by the Finance Director, through the date of last receipt of tax increment from the TIF District. 2.04. Payments on this Interfund Loan are payable solely from "Available Tax Increment," which shall mean, on each Payment Date, tax increment available after other obligations have been paid, or as determined by the Finance Director, generated in the preceding six (6) months with respect to the property within the TIF District and remitted to the City and HRA by Hennepin County, all in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 to 469.1799, all inclusive, as amended. Payments on this Interfund Loan may be subordinated to any outstanding or future bonds, notes or contracts secured in whole or in part with Available Tax Increment, and are on parity with any other outstanding or future interfund loans secured in whole or in part with Available Tax Increment. 2.05. The principal sum and all accrued interest payable under this Interfund Loan are pre- payable in whole or in part at any time by the City and HRA without premium or penalty. No partial prepayment shall affect the amount or timing of any other regular payment otherwise required to be made under this Interfund Loan. 2.06. This Interfund Loan is evidence of an internal borrowing by the City or HRA in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.178, Subd. 7, and is a limited obligation payable solely from Available Tax Increment pledged to the payment hereof under this resolution. This Interfund Loan and the interest hereon shall not be deemed to constitute a general obligation of the State of Minnesota or any political subdivision thereof, including, without limitation, the City. Neither the State of Minnesota, nor any political subdivision thereof shall be obligated to pay the principal of or interest on this Interfund Loan or other costs incident hereto except out of Available Tax Increment, and neither the full faith and credit nor the taxing power of the State of Minnesota or any political subdivision thereof is pledged to the payment of the principal of or interest on this Interfund Loan or other costs incident hereto. The City and HRA shall have no obligation to pay any principal amount of the Interfund Loan or accrued interest thereon, which may remain unpaid after the final Payment Date. 2.07. The City may amend the terms of this Interfund Loan at any time by resolution of the City Council, including a determination to forgive the outstanding principal amount and accrued interest to the extent permissible under law. Section 3. Effective Date. This resolution is effective upon the date of its approval. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council member and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: ADOPTED: April 17, 2012 James Hovland, Mayor (Seal) ATTEST: Scott Neal, City Manager Tax Increment Financing District Overview City of Edina Southdale 2 Tax Increment Financing District The following summary contains an overview of the basic elements of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Southdale 2 Tax Increment Financing District. More detailed information on each of these topics can be found in the complete TIF Plan. Proposed action: Establishment of the Southdale 2 Tax Increment Financing District ( "District ") and the adoption of a Tax Increment Financing Plan. ( "TIF Plan") Modification of the Redevelopment Plan for the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area to include activities related to the District. Type of TIF District: An economic development district Parcel Numbers: See Appendix C of the TIF Plan Proposed The District is being created to facilitate renovations to the common areas of Development: Southdale Mall in the City. Please see Appendix A of the TIF Plan for a more detailed project description. Maximum duration: Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. lb, the duration of the District will be 8 years after receipt of the first increment by the EDA or City. The date of receipt by the City of the first tax increment is expected to be 2014. Thus, it is estimated that the District, including any modifications of the TIF Plan for subsequent phases or other changes, would terminate after 2022, or when the TIF Plan is satisfied. If increment is received in 2013, the term of the District will be 2021. The EDA or City reserves the right to decertify the District prior to the leg_ ally required date. Estimated annual tax increment: Up to $1,615,874 � I Authorized uses: I The TIF Plan contains A-budgeG that authorizes the maximum amount that may be expended: Land/Building Acquisition ................................................. I........................ 0 Site Improvements / Preparation .......... ..... .... ... .. .................. ........... $2,274,296 Utilities......................................................................... ............................... $0 Other Qualifying Improvements ................... ............................... $5,000,000 Administrative Costs (up to 10%) ................ : ....................... ...:.... 1 100,000 - PROJECT COSTS TOTAL; .................. ; ...................................... $8,374,296 Interest........................................................... .......I....................... 3 5 7 PROJECT COST AND INTEREST COST TOTAL............ $11,952,217 See Subsection 2 -10, page 2 -5 of the TIF Plan for the full budget authorization. Form of financing: The project is proposed to be financed by an interfund loan(s) not to exceed $5,100,000. Administrative fee: Up to 10% of annual increment, if costs are justified. Interfund Loan The City and HRA approved interfund loan resolutions authorizing a total Requirement:. loan of $5,100,000, of which $100,000 is expected to be available for administrative expenditures. 4 Year Activity Rule After four years from the date of certification of the District one of the (§ 469.176 Subd. 6) following activities must have been commenced on. each parcel in the District: u 'Demolition o Rehabilitation o Renovation o Other site preparation (riot including utility services such as sewer and water) If the activity has not been started by approximately April 2016, no additional tax increment may be taken from that parcel until the commencement of a qualifying activity. 5 Year Rule Within 5 years of certification revenues derived from tax increments must be (§ 469.1763 Subd. 3) expended or obligated to. be expended.. Any obligations in the District made after approximately April 2017, will not be eligible for repayment from tax increments. The reasons and facts supporting the Findings -for the adoption of the TIF Plan for the District, as required pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 3, are included in Exhibit F of the TIF Plan Page 2 MAP OF THE SOUTHEAST EDINA REDEVELOMENT PROJECT AREA AND THE SOUTHDALE 2 TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT J 1. 1-4 N-C 5 -F r Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area and Southdalle 2 TIF District Project Area Southd ale 2 Ti F District 2012 Page 3 19 EHLERS As of April 11, 2012 Draft for Public Hearing Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area and the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the establishment of the Southdale 2 Tax Increment Financing District (an economic development district) within the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority City of Edina Hennepin County State of Minnesota Public Hearing: April 17, 2012 Adopted: This document is in draft form for distribution to the County and the School District. The TIF Plan contains the estimated fiscal and economic implications of the proposed TIF District. The City and the HRA may make minor changes to this draft document prior to the public hearing. Prepared by: EHLERS &ASSOCIATES, INC. EHLERS 3060 Centre Pointe Drive, Roseville, Minnesota 55113 -1105 651 - 697 -8500 fax: 651 - 697 -8555 www.ehlers- inc.com Table of Contents (for reference purposes only) Section 1 - Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area .......................... 1 -4 Foreword.............................. ............................... 1 -4 Section 2 - Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Southdale 2 Tax Increment Financing District ........................... 2 -1 Subsection 2 -1. Foreword ................... ......................... 2 -1 Subsection 2 -2. Statutory Authority ........ ............................... 2 -1 Subsection 2 -3. Statement of Objectives .... ............................... 2 -1 Subsection 2 -4. Redevelopment Plan Overview ............................... 2 -1 Subsection 2 -5. Description of Property in the District and Property To Be Acquired 2 -2 Subsection 2 -6. Classification of the District . ............................... 2 -2 Subsection 2 -7. Duration and First Year of Tax Increment of the District .......... 2 -3 Subsection 2 -8. Original Tax Capacity, Tax Rate and Estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity Value /Increment and Notification of Prior Planned Improvements ............... 2 -3 Subsection 2 -9. Sources of Revenue /Bonds to be Issued ..................... 2-4 Subsection 2 -10. Uses of Funds ........... ............................... 2 -5 Subsection 2 -11. Fiscal Disparities Election .. ............................... 2 -5 Subsection 2 -12. Business Subsidies ....... ............................... 2 -6 Subsection 2 -13. County Road Costs ....... ............................... 2 -7 Subsection 2 -14. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions ................ 2 -7 Subsection 2 -15. Supporting Documentation .................. ............ 2 -9 Subsection 2 -16. Definition of Tax Increment Revenues ........................ 2 -9 Subsection 2 -17. Modifications to the District ............................... 2 -10 Subsection 2 -18. Administrative Expenses .. ............................... 2 -10 Subsection 2 -19. Limitation of Increment ... ............................... 2 -11 Subsection 2 -20. Use of Tax Increment .... ............................... 2 -12 Subsection 2 -21. Excess Increments ..................................... 2 -12 Subsection 2 -22. Requirements for Agreements with the Developer ............. 2 -13 Subsection 2 -23. Assessment Agreements .. ............................... 2 -13 Subsection 2 -24. Administration of the District .............................. 2 -13 Subsection 2 -25. Annual Disclosure Requirements .......................... 2 -13 Subsection 2 -26. Reasonable Expectations . ............................... 2 -13 Subsection 2 -27. Other Limitations on the Use of Tax Increment ................ 2 -14 Subsection 2 -28. Summary .............. ............................... 2 -14 Appendix A Project Description ..................................................... A -1 Appendix B Map(s) of the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area and the District ........ B -1 Appendix C Description of Property to be Included in the District ........................... C -1 Appendix D Estimated Cash Flow for the District ........ ............................... D -1 I Appendix E Minnesota Business Assistance Form ................... ...... ......... E -1 Appendix F Findings Including But/For Qualifications .. . .... ..... .... ...... F -1 Appendix G Prior Improvements ................ .. ..... ... ... ......... G -1 A Section 1- Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area Foreword The following text represents a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area. This modification represents a continuation of the goals and objectives set forth in the Redevelopment Plan for the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area. Generally, the substantive changes consist of the establishment of the Southdale 2 Tax Increment Financing District within the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area. For further information, a review of the Redevelopment Plan for the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area, most recently modified on February 21, 2012, is recommended. It is available from the Executive Director at the City of Edina. Other relevant information is contained in the Tax Increment Financing Plans for the Tax Increment Financing Districts located within the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area. Edina HRA Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area 1 -1 r Section 2 - Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Southdale 2 Tax Increment Financing District Subsection 2 -1. Foreword The Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority (the "HRA "), the City of Edina (the "City "), staff and consultants have prepared the following information to expedite the establishment of the Southdale 2 Tax Increment Financing District (the "District "), an economic development tax increment financing district, located in the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area (the "Project Area "). Subsection 2 -2. Statutory Authority Within the City, there exist areas where public involvement is necessary to cause development or redevelopment to occur. To this end, the HRA and City have certain statutory powers pursuant to Minnesota Statutes ( "M.S. "), Sections 469.001 to 469.047, inclusive, as amended, and M.S., Sections 469.174 to 469.1799, inclusive, as amended (the "Tax Increment Financing Act" or "TIF Act "), to assist in financing public costs related to this project. This District is being created pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4c(d). This section contains the Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "TIF Plan") for the District. Other relevant information is contained in the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area. Subsection 2 -3. Statement of Objectives The District currently consists of 300 parcels of land and adjacent and internal rights -of -way. The District is being created to facilitate renovations to the common areas of Southdale Mall in the City. Please see Appendix A for further District information. The HRA and City are considering entering into a redevelopment agreement that would designate Southdale Limited Partnership as the developer. This TIF Plan is expected to achieve many of the objectives outlined in the Redevelopment Plan for the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area. The activities contemplated in the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan and the TIF Plan do notpreclude the undertaking of other qualified development or redevelopment activities. These activities are anticipated to occur over the life of the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area and the District. Subsection 2 -4. Redevelopment Plan Overview 1. Property to be Acquired -Selected property located within the District maybe acquired by the HRA or City and is further described in this TIF Plan. 2. Relocation - Relocation services, to the extent required by law, are available pursuant to M.S., Chapter 117 and other relevant state and federal laws. 3. Upon approval of a developer's plan relating to the project and completion of the necessary legal requirements, the HRA or City may sell to a developer selected properties that it may acquire within the District or may lease land or facilities to a developer. Edina HRA Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Southdale 2 Tax Increment Financing District 2 -1 4. The HRA or City may perform or provide for some or all necessary acquisition, construction, relocation, demolition, and required utilities and public street work within the District. 5. The City proposes both public and private infrastructure within the District. The proposed improvements to private property within the District will be for a renovation to a retail mall, and there will be continued operation of the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Proj ect Area after the capital improvements within the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area have been completed. Subsection 2 -5. Description of Property in the District and Property to be Acquired The District encompasses all property and adjacent rights -of -way and abutting roadways identified by the parcels listed in Appendix C of this TIFPlan. Please also see the map in Appendix B for further information on the location of the District. The City currently owns parcels to be included in the District and intends to acquire land easements and/or additional property within the District. The HRA and City are authorized to use tax increments to acquire any parcel listed in Appendix C of this TIF Plan. Subsection 2 -6. Classification of the District The District is an economic development district as defined in M.S. 469.174, Subd. 12, as modified by M. S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4c(d). In order to create an economic development district under general law (M.S., Section 469.174 Subd. 12), the HRA or City must find that the District is in the public interest because: (1) it will discourage commerce, industry, or manufacturing from moving their operations to another state or municipality; or (2) it will result in increased employment in the state; or (3) it will result in preservation and enhancement of the tax base of the state. In addition, M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4c provides that assistance from an economic development district may not be used to provide assistance to development if more than 15 percent of the buildings and ancillary facilities (determined on a square footage basis), are used for other than certain specified purposes (largely manufacturing, warehousing and distribution facilities). However, M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4c(d) provides a limited -time exception to these general law rules. Under this provision (originally enacted in 2010 legislature and extended in 2011 legislature), a City may establish an economic development of any kind, notwithstanding the normal findings required under M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 12, and notwithstanding the limitation on types of assisted development under M. S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4c. To satisfy the requirement of M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4c(d), the City finds that: (I) the project will create or retain jobs in this state, including construction jobs and that construction of the project would not have commenced before July 1, 2012, without the City and HRA providing assistance under the provisions of this paragraph; (2) construction of the project will begin no later than July 1, 2012; and Edina HRA Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Southdale 2 Tax Increment Financing District 2 -2 (3) the request for certification of the district is made no later than June 30, 2012; and In meeting the statutory criteria the HRA and City rely on the following facts and findings: The City's findings in creating the District is pursuant to M.S. Sections 469.176, Subd. 4c(d) in order to assist in the renovations to the common areas of Southdale Mall. If construction does not commence on or before July 1, 2012, the proposed facility will need to meet the criteria in M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4c(a), and must satisfy the findings required under M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 12. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 7, the District does not contain any parcel or part of a parcel that qualified under the provisions of M.S., Sections 273.111 or 273.112 or Chapter 473H for taxes payable in any of the five calendar years before the filing of the request for certification of the District. Subsection 2 -7. Duration and First Year of Tax Increment of the District Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 1, and M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 1, the duration of the District must be indicated within the TIF Plan. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 1b., the duration of the District will be 8 years after receipt of the first increment by the HRA or City. The date of receipt by the City of the first tax increment is expected to be 2014. Thus, it is estimated that the District, including any modifications of the TIF Plan for subsequent phases or other changes, would terminate after 2022, or when the TIF Plan is satisfied. If increment is received in 2013, the term of the District will be 2021. The HRA or City reserves the right to decertify the District prior to the legally required date. Subsection 2 -8. Original Tax Capacity, Tax Rate and Estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity Value /Increment and Notification of Prior Planned Improvements Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 7 and M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, the Original Net Tax Capacity (ONTO) as certified for the District will be based on the market values placed on the property by the assessor in 2011 for taxes payable 2012. Pursuant to M. S., Section 469.177, Subds. 1 and 2, the County Auditor shall certify in each year (beginning in the payment year 2014) the amount by which the original value has increased or decreased as a result of: 1. Change in tax exempt status of property; 2. Reduction or enlargement of the geographic boundaries of the district; 3. Change due to adjustments, negotiated or court- ordered abatements; 4. Change in the use of the property and classification; 5. Change in state law governing class rates; or 6. Change in previously issued building permits. In any year in which the current Net Tax Capacity (NTC) value of the District declines below the ONTC, no value will be captured and no tax increment will be payable to the HRA or City. The original local tax rate for the District will be the local tax rate for taxes payable 2012, assuming the request for certification is made on or before June 30, 2012. The ONTC and the Original Local Tax Rate for the District appear in the table below. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174 Subd. 4 and M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, 2, and 4, the estimated Edina HRA Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Southdale 2 Tax Increment Financing District 2 -3 Captured Net Tax Capacity (CTC) of the District, within the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area, upon completion of the projects within the District, will annually approximate tax increment revenues as shown in the table below. The HRA and City request 100 percent of the available increase in tax capacity for repayment of its obligations and current expenditures, beginning in the tax year payable 2014. The Project Tax Capacity (PTC) listed is an estimate of values when the projects within the District are completed. Southdale 2 Tax Increment District Parcels in School District No. 273 Project Estimated Tax Capacity upon Completion (PTC) $4,714,500 Original Estimated Net Tag Capacity (ONTC) $4,457,873 Fiscal Disparities Reduction $65,592 Estimated Captured Tax Capacity (CTC) $191,035 Original Local Tax Rate 1.08160 Estimated g Pay 2012 Estimated Annual Tax Increment (CTC x Local Tax Rate) $206,623 Percent Retained by the HRA and City 100% The tax capacity included in this chart is the estimated tax capacity of the District in year 9. The tax capacity of the parcels located in School District 273 in year one is estimated to be $4,458,0,33.The fiscal disparities reduction will vary from year to year. Southdale 2 Tax Increment District Parcels in School District No. 280 Project Estimated Tax Capacity upon Completion (PTC) $5,858,175 Original Estimated Net Tax Capacity (ONTO) $4,121,297 Fiscal Disparities Reduction $504,487 Estimated Captured Tax Capacity (CTC) $1,232,391 Original Local Tax Rate 1.14351 Pay Estimated Estimated Annual Tax Increment (CTC x Local Tax Rate) $1,409,251 Percent Retained by the HRA and City 100% The tax capacity included in this chart is the estimated tax capacity of the District in year 9. The tax capacity of the parcels in the District located in School District 280 in year one is estimated to be $4,887,371. The fiscal disparities reduction will vary from year to year. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 4, the HRA shall, after a due and diligent search, accompany its request for certification to the County Auditor or its notice of the District enlargement pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 4, with a listing of all properties within the District or area of enlargement for which building permits have been issued during the eighteen (18) months immediately preceding approval of the TIF Edina HRA Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Southdale 2 Tax Increment Financing District 2 -4 Plan by the municipality pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 3. The County Auditor shall increase the original net tax capacity of the District by the net tax capacity of improvements for which a building permit was issued. The City has reviewed the area to be included in the District and has found building permits that were issued in the past 18 months prior to the public hearing. Please see Appendix G for the building permits that were issued. Subsection 2 -9. Sources of Revenue /Bonds to be Issued The costs outlined in the Uses of Funds will be financed primarily through the annual collection of tax increments. The HRA or City reserves the right to incur bonds or other indebtedness as a result of the TIF Plan. As presently proposed, the projects within the District will be financed by an interfund loan. Any refunding amounts will be deemed a budgeted cost without a formal TIF Plan Modification. This provision does not obligate the HRA or City to incur debt. The HRA or City will issue bonds or incur other debt only upon the determination that such action is in the best interest of the City. The total estimated tax increment revenues for the District are shown in the table below: SOURCES OF FUNDS TOTAL Tax Increment $11,702,217 Interest $250,000 Land Sale Proceeds/Lease Revenue L0 TOTAL $11,952,217 The HRA or City may issue bonds (as defined in the TIF Act) secured in whole or in part with tax increments from the District in a maximum principal amount of $8,374,296. Such bonds may be in the form of pay -as- you-go notes, revenue bonds or notes, general obligation bonds, or interfund loans. This estimate of total bonded indebtedness is a cumulative statement of authority under this TIF Plan as of the date of approval. Subsection 2 -10. Uses of Funds Currently under consideration for the District is a proposal to facilitate renovations to the common areas of Southdale Mall. The HRA and City have determined that it will be necessary to provide assistance to the project(s) for certain District costs, as described. The HRA has studied the feasibility of the development or redevelopment of property in and around the District. To facilitate the establishment and development or redevelopment of the District, this TIF Plan authorizes the use of tax increment financing to pay for the cost of certain eligible expenses. The estimate of public costs and uses of funds associated with the District is outlined in the following table. Edina HRA Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Southdale 2 Tax Increment Financing District 2 -5 USES OF TAX INCREMENT FUNDS TOTAL Land/Building Acquisition $0 Site Improvements/Preparation $2,274,296 Utilities $0 Other Qualifying Improvements $5,000,000 Administrative Costs (up to 10 %) $1,100,000 PROJECT COST TOTAL $8,374,296 Interest 12IL7.921 PROJECT AND INTEREST COSTS TOTAL $11,952,217 The total project cost, including financing costs (interest) listed in the table above does not exceed the total projected tax increments for the District as shown in Appendix D. Estimated capital and administrative costs listed above are subject to change among categories by modification of the TIF Plan without hearings and notices as required for approval of the initial TIF Plan, so long as the total capital and administrative costs combined do not exceed the total listed above. Further, the HRA or City may spend up to 20 percent of the tax increments from the District for activities (described in the table above) located outside the boundaries of the District but within the boundaries of the Project Area (including administrative costs, which are considered to be spend outside the District), subject to all other terms and conditions of this TIF Plan. Subsection 2 -11. Fiscal Disparities Election Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 3, clause b, the HRA or City must calculate fiscal disparities using the following method of computation: (1) The original net tax capacity shall be determined before the application of the fiscal disparity provisions of Chapter 276A or 473F. The current net tax capacity shall exclude any fiscal disparity commercial - industrial net tax capacity increase between the original year and the current year multiplied. by the fiscal disparity ratio determined pursuant to M.S., Section 276A.06, subdivision 7 or M.S., Section 473F.08, subdivision 6. Where the original net tax capacity is equal to or greater than the current net tax capacity, there is no captured tax capacity and no tax increment determination. Where the original tax capacity is less than the current tax capacity, the difference between the original net tax capacity and the current net tax capacity is the captured net tax capacity. This amount less any portion thereof which the authority has designated, in its tax increment financing plan, to share with the local taxing districts is the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority. (2) The county auditor shall exclude the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority from the net tax capacity of the local taxing districts in determining local taxing district tax rates. The local tax rates so determined are to be extended against the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority as well as the net tax capacity of the local taxing districts. Edina HRA Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Southdale 2 Tax Increment Financing District 2 -6 The tax generated by the extension of the less of (A) the local taxing district tax rates or (B) the original local tax rate to the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority is the tax increment of the authority. Subsection 2-12. Business Subsidies Pursuant to M.S., Section 116J.993, Subd. 3, the following forms of financial assistance are not considered a business subsidy: (1) A business subsidy of less than $150,000; (2) Assistance that is-generally available to all businesses or to a general class of similar businesses, such as a line of business, size, location, or similar general criteria; (3) Public improvements to buildings or lands owned by the state or local government that serve a public purpose and do not principally benefit a single business or defined group of businesses at the time the improvements are made; (4) Redevelopment property polluted by contaminants as defined in M.S., Section 116J.552, Subd. 3; (5) Assistance provided for the sole purpose of renovating old or decaying building stock or bringing it up to code and assistance provided for designated historic preservation districts, provided that the assistance is equal to or less than 50% of the total cost; (6) Assistance to provide job readiness and training services if the sole purpose of the assistance is to provide those services; (7) Assistance for housing; (8) Assistance for pollution control or abatement, including assistance for a tax increment financing hazardous substance subdistrict as defined under M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 23; (9) Assistance for energy conservation; (10) Tax reductions resulting from conformity with federal tax law; (11) Workers' compensation and unemployment compensation; (12) Benefits derived from regulation; (13) Indirect benefits derived from assistance to educational institutions; (14) Funds from bonds allocated under chapter 474A, bonds issued to refund outstanding bonds, and bonds issued for the benefit of an organization described in section 501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended through December 31, 1999; (15) Assistance for a collaboration between a Minnesota higher education institution and a business; (16) Assistance for a tax increment financing soils condition district as defined under M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 19; (17) Redevelopment when the recipient's investment in the purchase of the site and in site preparation is 70 percent or more of the assessor's current year's estimated market value; (18) General changes in tax increment financing law and other general tax law changes of a principally technical nature; (19) Federal assistance until the assistance has been repaid to, and reinvested by, the state or local government agency; (20) Funds from dock and wharf bonds issued by a seaway port authority; (21) Business loans and loan guarantees of $150,000 or less; (22) Federal loan funds provided through the United States Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration; and (23) Property tax abatements granted under M.S., Section 469.1813 to property that is subject to valuation under Minnesota Rules, chapter 8100. Edina HAA Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Southdale 2 Tax Increment Financing District 2 -7 The HRA will comply with M.S., Sections 116J.993 to 116J.995 to the extent the tax increment assistance under this T1F Plan does not fall under any of the above exemptions. Subsection 2- 13.County Road Costs Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. M, the county board may require the HRA or City to pay for all or part of the cost of county road improvements if the proposed development to be assisted by tax increment will, in the judgment of the county, substantially increase the use of county roads requiring construction of road improvements or other road costs and if the road improvements are not scheduled within the next five years under a capital improvement plan or within five years under another county plan. If the county elects to use increments to improve county roads, it must notify the HRA or City within forty - five days of receipt of this TIF Plan. In the opinion of the HRA and City and consultants, the proposed development outlined in this TIF Plan will have little or no impact upon county roads, therefore the TIF Plan was not forwarded to the county 45 days prior to the public hearing. The HRA and City are aware that the county could claim that tax increment should be used for county roads, even after the public hearing. Subsection 2-14. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions The estimated impact on other taxing jurisdictions assumes that the redevelopment contemplated by the TIF Plan would occur without the creation of the District. However, the HRA or City has determined that such development or redevelopment would not occur "but for" tax increment financing and that, therefore, the fiscal impact on other taxing jurisdictions is $0. The estimated fiscal impact of the District would be as follows if the "but for' test was not met: IMPACT ON TAX BASE FOR PARCELS LOCATED IN SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 273 Estimated Estimated Captured 2011/Pay 2012 Tax Capacity (CTC) 'Percent of CTC Total Net Unon Completion to Entity Total Tax Capacity Hennepin County 1,253,423,199 191,035 0.0152% City of Edina 96,048,515 191,035 0.1989% Edina ISD No. 273 81,542,007 191,035 0.2343% Edina HRA Tax Increment Financing Plan for the 5outhdale 2 Tax Increment Financing District 2 -8 IMPACT ON TAX BASE FOR PARCELS LOCATED IN SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 280 Estimated 2011/Pay 2012 Total Net Tax Capacity Hennepin County 1,253,423,199 City of Edina 96,048,515 Richfield ISD No. 280 29,902,478 Estimated Captured Tax Capacity (CTC) Percent of CTC Upon Completion to Entity Total 1,232,391 0.0983% 1,232,391 1.2831% 1,232,391 4.1214% IMPACT ON TAX RATES IMPACT ON TAX RATES Estimated Pay 2012 Percent Potential 2012 Percent of Total Potential Taxes Extension of Total CTC Taxes Rates 0.487770 42.66% 1,232,391 Hennepin County 0.487770 45.10% 191,035 93,181 City of Edina 0.259080 23.95% 191,035 49,493 Edina ISD No. 273 0.224280 20.74% 191,035 42,845 Other 0.110470 10.21% 191,035 21,104 Total 1.081600 100.00% - 206,623 IMPACT ON TAX BASE FOR PARCELS LOCATED IN SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 280 Estimated 2011/Pay 2012 Total Net Tax Capacity Hennepin County 1,253,423,199 City of Edina 96,048,515 Richfield ISD No. 280 29,902,478 Estimated Captured Tax Capacity (CTC) Percent of CTC Upon Completion to Entity Total 1,232,391 0.0983% 1,232,391 1.2831% 1,232,391 4.1214% IMPACT ON TAX RATES The estimates listed above display the captured tax capacity when all construction is completed. The tax rate used for calculations is the estimated Pay 2012 rate. The total net capacity for the entities listed above are based on estimated Pay 2012 figures. The District will be certified under the actual Pay 2012 rates, which were unavailable at the time this TIF Plan was prepared. Edina HRA Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Southdale 2 Tax Increment Financing District 2 -9 Estimated Pay 2012 Percent Potential Extension of Total CTC Taxes Rates Hennepin County 0.487770 42.66% 1,232,391 6011123 City of Edina 0.259080 22.66% 1,232,391 319,288 Richfield ISD No. 280 0.282900 24.74% 1,232,391 348,643 Other 0.113760 9.95% 1,232.391 140,197 Total 1.143510 100.00% 1,409,251 The estimates listed above display the captured tax capacity when all construction is completed. The tax rate used for calculations is the estimated Pay 2012 rate. The total net capacity for the entities listed above are based on estimated Pay 2012 figures. The District will be certified under the actual Pay 2012 rates, which were unavailable at the time this TIF Plan was prepared. Edina HRA Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Southdale 2 Tax Increment Financing District 2 -9 Pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175 Subd. 2(b): (1) Estimate of total tax increment. It is estimated that the total amount of tax increment that will be generated over the life of the District is $11,702,217; (2) Probable impact of the District on city provided services and ability, to issue debt. An impact of the District on police protection is expected. The Edina Police Department does track all calls for service including property -type calls and crimes. With increased traffic at Southdale Center mall, police calls for service will be increased. However, the proposed mall renovations include changes to common areas designed, in part, to reduce security concerns and police calls, such as the relocation of the transit facility to mall property outside of the mall itself. In addition, proposed housing developments will generate increased police calls. The City does not expect that the proposed development, in and of itself, will necessitate new capital investment in vehicles. The probable impact of the District on fire protection is not expected to be significant. Typically new buildings generate few calls, if any, and are of superior construction. Several of the existing buildings, proposed to be replaced or renovated, have public safety concerns that include several unprotected old buildings with issues such as access, hydrant locations, and lack of sprinkling. The impact of the District on public infrastructure is expected to be minimal. The development is not expected to significantly impact any traffic movements in the area, and is expected to enhance the flow of public transit vehicles in and around the Southdale area. The current infrastructure for sanitary sewer, storm sewer and water will be able to handle the additional volume generated from the proposed development. Potential housing development will generate in excess of $180,000 in sewer and water access charges. Based on the development plans, there are no additional costs associated with street maintenance, sweeping, plowing, lighting and sidewalks. The developer will negotiate maintenance of the proposed transit hub with the Metropolitan Council. The probable impact of any District general obligation tax increment bonds on the ability to issue debt for general fund purposes is expected to be minimal. It is not anticipated that there will be any general obligation debt issued in relation to this project, therefore there will be no impact on the City's ability to issue future debt or on the City's debt limit. (3) Estimated amount of tax increment attributable to Edina ISD No. 273 Ievies. It is estimated that the amount of tax increments over the life of the District that would be attributable to school district levies, assuming the school district's share of the total local tax rate for all taxing jurisdictions remained the same, is $293,548; (4) Estimated amount of tax increment attributable to Richifled ISD No. 280 levies. It is estimated that the amount of tax increments over the life of the District that would be attributable to school district levies, assuming the school district's share of the total local tax rate for all taxing jurisdictions remained the same, is $2,544,966; (5) Estimated amount of tax increment attributable to county levies. It is estimated that the amount of tax increments over the life of the District that would be attributable to county levies, assuming the county's share of the total local tax rate for all taxing jurisdictions remained the same, is $5,026,701; Edina HRA Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Southdale 2 Tax Increment Financing District 2 -10 I (6) Additional information requested by the county or school district. The City is not aware of any standard questions in a county or school district written policy regarding tax increment districts and impact on county or school district services. The county, or school, district must request additional information pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175 Subd. 2(b) within 15 days after receipt of the tax increment financing plan. No, requests for additional information from the county or school district regarding the proposed development for the District have been received. Subsection 2- 15.Supporting Documentation Pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175, Subd: 1 (a), clause 7 the TIF Plan must contain identification and description of studies and analyses used to make the determination set forth in M.S. Section 469.175, Subd. 3, clause (b)(2) and the findings are required in the resolution approving the District. Following is a list of reports and studies on file at the City that support the BRA and City's findings: • Greater Southdale Area Land Use and Transportation Study, December 2005 • Edina Comprehensive Plan Update 2008 •. Developer correspondance and Summary of Renovation Costs, February 2011 Subsection 2 -16. Definition of Tax Increment Revenues Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174,'Subd. 25, tax increment revenues derived from a tax increment financing district include all of the following potential revenue sources: 1.. Taxes paid by the captured_ net tax capacity, but excluding any excess taxes, as computed under M.S., Section.469.177; 2. The proceeds'from the,sale or lease of propert y, tangible or intangible, to the extent the property was purchased by the Authority with tax increments; 3. Principal and interest received .on loans or other advances made by the Authority with tax increments; 4.. Interest or other investment earnings on or from tax increments; 5. Repayments or return of tax increments made to the Authority under agreements for districts for which the request for certification was made after August 1, 1993; .and 6. The market value homestead credit paid to the Authority under M.S., Section 273.1384. Subsection 2- 17.Modifications to the District, In accordance with M.S.; Section 469.175, Subd. 4, any: 1. Reduction or enlargement of the geographic area of the District; if the reduction does not meet the requirements of M.S.; Section 469.175, Subd. 4(e); 2. Increase in amount of bonded indebtedness to be incurred; 3. A determination to capitalize interest on debt if that determination was not apart of the original TIF Plan;. 4. Increase in the portion of the captured net tax capacity to be _retained by. the HRA or City; 5. Increase in the estimate of the cost of the District, including administrative expenses, that will be paid or financed with tax increment from the District; or Edina HRA Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Southdale 2 Tax Increment. Financing District 2 -11 6. Designation of additional property to be acquired by the HRA or City, shall be approved upon the notice and after the discussion, public hearing and findings required for approval of the original TIP Plan. If the District qualifies for certification only under M.S. Section 469.176, Subd. 4c(d), than the District boundaries may not be enlarged after July 1, 2012. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175 Subd. 4(f), the geographic area of the District may be reduced following the date of certification of the original net tax capacity by the county auditor, but shall not be enlarged after five years following the date of certification of the original net tax capacity by the county auditor. The requirements of this paragraph do not apply if (1) the only modification is elimination of parcel(s) from the District and (2) (A) the current net tax capacity of the parcel(s) eliminated from the District equals or exceeds the net tax capacity of those parcel(s) in the District's original net tax capacity or (B) the HRA agrees that, notwithstanding M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, the original net tax capacity will be reduced by no more than the current net tax capacity of the parce](s) eliminated from the District. The 14RA or City must notify the County Auditor of any modification to the District. Modifications to the District in the form of a budget modification or an expansion of the boundaries will be recorded in the TIF Plan. Subsection 2- 18.Administrative Expenses In accordance with M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 14, administrative expenses means all expenditures of the HRA or City, other than: 1. Amounts paid for the purchase of land; 2. Amounts paid to contractors or others providing materials and services, including architectural and engineering services, directly connected with the physical development of the real property in the District; 3. Relocation benefits paid to or services provided for persons residing or businesses located in the District; or 4. Amounts used to pay principal or interest on, fund a reserve for, or sell at a discount bonds issued pursuant to M.S., Section 469.178; or 5. Amounts used to pay other financial obligations to the extent those obligations were used to finance costs described in clauses (1) to (3). For districts for which the request for certification were made before August 1, 1979, or after June 30, 1982, and before August 1, 2001, administrative expenses also include amounts paid for services provided by bond counsel, fiscal consultants, and planning or economic development consultants. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 3, tax increment may be used to pay any authorized and documented administrative expenses for the District up to but not to exceed 10 percent of the total estimated tax increment expenditures authorized by the TIF Plan or the total tax increments, as defined by M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 25, clause (1), from the District, whichever is less. For districts for which certification was requested after July 31, 2001, no tax increment maybe used to pay any administrative expenses for District costs which exceed ten percent of total estimated tax increment expenditures authorized by the TIF Plan or the total tax increments, as defined in M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 25, clause (1), from the District, whichever is less. Edina HRA Tax Increment Financing Plan for the 5outhdale 2 Tax Increment Financing District 2 -12 Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4h, tax increments may be used to pay for the County's actual administrative expenses incurred in connection with the District and are not subject to the percentage limits of M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 3. The county may require payment of those expenses by February 15 of the year following the year the expenses were incurred. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469. 177, Subd. 11, the County Treasurer shall deduct an amount (currently .36 percent) of any increment distributed to the HRA or City and the County Treasurer shall pay the amount deducted to the State Commissioner of Management and Budget for deposit in the state general fund to be appropriated to the State Auditor for the cost of financial reporting of tax increment financing information and the cost of examining and auditing authorities' use of tax increment financing. This amount maybe adjusted annually by the Commissioner of Revenue. Subsection 2 -19. Limitation of Increment The tax increment pledged to the payment of bonds and interest thereon may be discharged and the District may be terminated if sufficient funds have been irrevocably deposited in the debt service fund or other escrow account held in trust for all outstanding bonds to provide for the payment of the bonds at maturity or redemption date. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 6: if, after four years from the date of certification of the original net tax capacity of the tax increment financing district pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, no demolition, rehabilitation or renovation of property or other site preparation, including qualified improvement of a street adjacent to a parcel but not installation of utility service including sewer or water systems, has been commenced on a parcel located within a tax increment financing district by the authority or by the owner of the parcel in accordance with the tax increment financing plan, no additional tax increment may be taken from that parcel and the original net tax capacity of that parcel shall be excluded from the original net tax capacity of the tax increment financing district. If the authority or the owner of the parcel subsequently commences demolition, rehabilitation or renovation or other site preparation oil that parcel including qualified improvement of a street adjacent to that parcel, in accordance with the tax increment financing plan, the authority shall certify to the county auditor that the activity has commenced and the county auditor shall certify the net tax capacity thereof as most recently certified by the commissioner of revenue and add it to the original net tax capacity of the tax increment financing district. The county auditor must enforce the provisions of this subdivision. The authority must submit to the county auditor evidence that the required activity has taken place for each parcel in the district. The evidence for a parcel must be submitted by February 1 of the fifth year following the year in which the parcel was certified as included in the district. For purposes of this subdivision, qualified improvements of a street are limited to (1) construction or opening of a new street, (2) relocation of a street, and (3) substantial reconstruction or rebuilding of an existing street. The HRA or City or a property owner must improve parcels within the District by approximately April 2016 and report such actions to the County Auditor. Edina HRA Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Southdale 2 Tax Increment Financing District 2 -13 Subsection 2 -20. Use of Tax Increment The HRA or City hereby determines that it will use 100 percent of the captured net tax capacity of taxable property located in the District for the following purposes: 1. To pay the principal of and interest on bonds issued to finance a project; 2. to finance, or otherwise pay public redevelopment costs of the the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area pursuant to M.S., Sections 469.001 to 469.047; 3. To pay for project costs as identified in the budget set forth in the TIF Plan; 4. To finance, or otherwise pay for other purposes as provided in M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4; 5. To pay principal and interest on any loans, advances or other payments made to or on behalf of the HRA or City or for the benefit of the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area by a developer; 6. To finance or otherwise pay premiums and other costs for insurance or other security guaranteeing the payment when due of principal of and interest on bonds pursuant to the TIF Plan or pursuant to M.S., Chapter 462C. M.S., Sections 469.152 through 469.165, and/or M.S., Sections 469.178; and 7. To accumulate or maintain a reserve securing the payment when due of the principal and interest on the tax increment bonds or bonds issued pursuant to M.S., Chapter 4620, M.S., Sections 469.152 through 469.165, and/or M.S., Sections 469.178. These revenues shall not be used to circumvent any levy limitations applicable to the City nor for other purposes prohibited by M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4. Tax increments generated in the District will be paid by Hennepin County to the HRA for the Tax Increment Fund of said District. The HRA or City will pay to the developer(s) annually an amount not to exceed an amount as specified in a developer's agreement to reimburse the costs of land acquisition, public improvements, demolition and relocation, site preparation, and administration. If the request for certification of the District was made after June 30, 2009 and no later than June 30, 2012 and construction commenced in the District by July 1, 2012, tax increments from the District may also be used to provide improvements, loans, subsidies, grants, interest rate subsidies, or assistance in any form to developments consisting of buildings and ancillary facilities. Remaining increment funds will be used for HRA or City administration (up to 10 percent) and for the costs of public improvement activities outside the District. Subsection 2 -21. Excess Increments Excess increments, as defined in M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 2, shall be used only to do one or more of the following: 1. Prepay any outstanding bonds; 2. Discharge the pledge of tax increment for any outstanding bonds; 3. Pay into an escrow account dedicated to the payment of any outstanding bonds; or 4. Return the excess to the County Auditor for redistribution to the respective taxing jurisdictions in proportion to their local tax rates. The HRA or City must spend or return the excess increments under paragraph (c) within nine months after the end of the year. In addition, the HRA or City may, subject to the limitations set forth herein, choose to modify the TIF Plan in order to finance additional public costs in the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area or the District. Edina HRA Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Southdale 2 Tax Increment Financing District 2 -14 Subsection 2 -22. Requirements for Agreements with the Developer The HRA or City will review any proposal for private development to determine its conformance with the Redevelopment Plan and with applicable municipal ordinances and codes. To facilitate this effort, the following documents may be requested for review and approval: site plan, construction, mechanical, and electrical system drawings, landscaping plan, grading and storm drainage plan, signage system plan, and any other drawings or narrative deemed necessary by the HRA or City to demonstrate the conformance of the development with City plans and ordinances. The HRA or City may also use the Agreements to address other issues related to the development. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 5, no more than 10 percent, by acreage, of the property to be acquired in the District as set forth in the TIF Plan shall at any time be owned by the HRA or City as a result of acquisition with the proceeds of bonds issued pursuant to M.S., Section 469.178 to which tax increments from property acquired is pledged, unless prior to acquisition in excess of 10 percent of the acreage, the HRA or City concluded an agreement for the development of the property acquired and which provides recourse for the HRA or City should the development not be completed. Subsection 2- 23.Assessment Agreements Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 8, the HRA or City may enter into a written assessment agreement in recordable form with the developer of property within the District which establishes a minimum market value of the land and completed improvements for the duration of the District. The assessment agreement shall be presented to the County Assessor who shall review the plans and specifications for the improvements to be constructed, review the market value previously assigned to the land upon which the improvements are to be constructed and, so long as the minimum market value contained in the assessment agreement appears, in the judgment of the assessor, to be a reasonable estimate, the County Assessor shall also certify the minimum market value agreement. Subsection 2- 24.Administration of the District Administration of the District will be handled by the Executive Director. Subsection 2- 25.Annual Disclosure Requirements Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subds. 5, 6, and 6b the HRA or City must undertake financial reporting for all tax increment financing districts to the Office of the State Auditor, County Board and County Auditor on or before August 1 of each year. M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 5 also provides that an annual statement shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City on or before August 15. If the City fails to make a disclosure or submit a report containing the information required by M.S., Section 469.175 Subd. 5 and Subd. 6, the OSA will direct the County Auditor to withhold the distribution of tax increment from the District. Subsection 2-26. Reasonable Expectations As required by the TIF Act, in establishing the District, the determination has been made thatthe anticipated development would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and that the increased market value of the site that could reasonably be Edina HRA Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Southdale 2 Tax Increment Financing District 2 -15 expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in the market value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of the District permitted by the TIF Plan. In making said determination, reliance has been placed upon written representation made by the developer to such effects and upon HRA and City staff awareness of the feasibility of developing the project site(s) within the District. A comparative analysis of estimated market values both with and without establishment of the District and the use of tax increments has been performed as described above. Such analysis is included with the cashflow in Appendix D, and indicates that the increase in estimated market value of the proposed development (less the indicated subtractions) exceeds the estimated market value of the site absent the establishment of the District and the use of tax increments. Subsection 2- 27.Other Limitations on the Use of Tax Increment 1. General Limitations. All revenue derived from tax increment shall be used in accordance with the TIF Plan. The revenues shall be used to finance, or otherwise pay public redevelopment costs of the the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area pursuant to M.S., Sections 469.001 to 469.047. Tax increments may not be used to circumvent existing levy limit law. No tax increment maybe used for the acquisition, construction, renovation, operation, or maintenance of a building to be used primarily and regularly for conducting the business of a municipality, county, school district, or any other local unit of government or the state or federal government. This provision does not prohibit the use of revenues derived from tax increments for the construction or renovation of a parking structure. 2. Pooling Limitations. At least 80 percent of tax increments from the District must be expended on activities in the District or to pay bonds, to the extent that the proceeds of the bonds were used to finance activities within said district or to pay, or secure payment of, debt service on credit enhanced bonds. Not more than 20 percent of said tax increments may be expended, through a development fund or otherwise, on activities outside of the District except to pay, or secure payment of, debt service on credit enhanced bonds. For purposes of applying this restriction, all administrative expenses must be treated as if they were solely for activities outside of the District. Five Year Limitation on Commitment of Tax Increments. Tax increments derived from the District shall be deemed to have satisfied the 80 percent test set forth in paragraph (2) above only if the five year rule set forth in M.S., Section 469.1763, Subd. 3, has been satisfied; and beginning with the sixth year following certification of the District, 80 percent of said tax increments that remain after expenditures permitted under said five year rule must be used only to pay previously committed expenditures or credit enhanced bonds as more fully set forth in M.S., Section 469.1763, Subd. 5. Subsection 2 -28. Summary The Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority is establishing the District to preserve and enhance the tax base, redevelop substandard areas, and provide employment opportunities in the City. The TIF Plan for the District was prepared by Ehlers & Associates, Inc., 3060 Centre Pointe Drive, Roseville, Minnesota 55113, telephone (651) 697 -8500. Edina HRA Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Southdale 2 Tax Increment Financing District 2 -16 Appendix A Project Description The City and HRA will be facilitating improvements to the 1.2 million square foot Southdale Center mall which was original ly constructed in the 1960's. The redeveloper plans to renovate the interiorcommon area and make exterior improvements to the shopping center. The renovations will consist of new entrance structures, flooring, lighting, signage, restrooms, parking deck lighting, and exterior seating, columns and interior wall treatments. Improvements are planned to be substantially completed by December 31, 2012. The City and HRA intend to finance a portion of the total renovation costs. The HRA will be loaning $5 million to Southdale Center, $250,000 of which is forgiven if a transit station is constructed. Tax increments collected from the Southdale Center parcels will be used to write down principal of the loan and adjacent development will pay for interest on the loan and for the transit station improvements. Appendix A -t Appendix B Map(s) of the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area and the District Appendix B'1 4 J1 1 1� I � ` 1` i;I�f. �;, 1�Y -7 % IVAt I r Mull V111ttAtIll I'll H A w Li II Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area K 71; - and Southdale 2 TIF District N w + E Project Area S . . . . . . . . . . Engineering Dept. Southdale 2 TIF District March, 2012 I Ij - - - - Appendix ..0 Description of Property to be Included in the District The District encompasses all property and adjacent rights -of -way and abutting roadways identified by the parcels) listed belo,.i,. Parcel ID Address 29- 028 -24.33 -0001 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 29- 028 -24 -33 -0004 3500 69TH ST W 29- 028.24.33.0014 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 29- 028 -24 -33 -0021 3503 GALLERIA 29 -028 -24 -33 -0022 3460 GALLERIA 29 -028 -24 -33 -0023 3501 GALLERIA 29 -028 -24 -34 -0002 6825 YORK AVE S 29- 028 -24 -34 -0007 3100 70TH ST W 29- 028 -24 -34 -0010 6975 YORK AVE S 29- 028 -24.34 -0019 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 29- 028.24 -34 -0020 6775 YORK AVE S 29- 028 -24 -34 -0021 6803 YORK AVE S 29 -028 -24-34 -0022 6805 YORK AVE S 29. 028 -24 -34 -0024 3210 GALLERIA 29- 028- 24- 34 -OD25 6905 YORK AVE S 29- 028 -24 -34 -0026 3121 69TH ST W 29 -028 -24 -34 -0033 3209 Galleria 29 -02B -24 -34 -0034 3209 Gallerla 29-028 -24 -34 -0035 3209 Galleria 29 -028 -24.34 -0036 3209 Gallerla 29- 028 -24.34 -0037 3209 Galleria 29- 028 -24 -34 -0038 3209 Galleria 29- 028.24.34.0039 3209 Galleria 29-028 -24 -34 -0040 3209 Galleria 29 -028.24 -34 -0041 3209 Gallerla 29- 028 -24 -34 -0042 3209 Gallerla 29- 026 -24 -34 -0043 3209 Gallerla 29 -028 -24 -34 -0044 3209 Gallerla 29- 028.24 -34 -0045 3209 Galleria 29 -028.24 -34 -0046 3209 Galleria 29 -028 -24 -34 -0047 3209 Galleria 29 -028.24 -34 -0048 3209 Galleria 29- D28 -24 -34 -0049 3209 Gaileria 29- 028 -24 -34 -0050 3209 Galleria 29- 028 -24 -34 -0051 3209 Gaileria 29- 028 -24. 34-0052 3209 Galleria 29. 028.24 -34 -0053 3209 Galleria 29 -028 -24 -34 -0054 3209 Galleria 29- 028 -24- 34.0055 3209 Galleria 29- 028 - 24-34 -0056 3209 Gallerla 29 -029.24 -34 -0057 3209 Gallerla 29 -028 -24 -34 -0058 3209 Galleria 29- 028.24 -34 -0059 3209 Galleria 29 -028.24 -34 -0060 3209 Galleria 29 -02824 -34 -0061 3209 Galleria 29 -028.24 -34 -0062 3209 Galleria 29- 028 -24 -34 -0063 3209 Galleria 29- 028 -24 -34 -0064 3209 Galleria 29- 028 -24.34 -0065 3209 Galleria 29. 028.24 - 34.0066 3204 Galleria 30- 028 -24 -44 -0003 3950 70TH ST W 30- 029 -24 -44 -0004 4040 70TH ST W 30- 028.24 -44 -0005 6950 FRANCE AVE 5 30 -02B- 24- 44.0006 3910 70th Street West 30- 028 -24 -44 -0057 6900 FRANCE AVE S 30- 028 -24- 44.0058 3905 69TH ST W 30- 028 -24 -44 -0059 3939 69TH ST W 29- 028.24 -23 -0001 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 29- 028- 24- 23 -OD07 6533 Drew Avenue South 29 -028 -24 -23 -0008 6525 Drew Avenue S 29 -028 -24 -23 -0009 6517 DREW AVE 5 29- 028 -24 -23 -0010 3625 65TH ST W 29- 028 -24 -23 -0011 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 29- 028 -24-23 -0012 3400 66TH ST W 29 -028 -24 -23 -0167 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 29 -028 -24 -23 -0172 6545 FRANCE 29- 028 -24 -23 -0173 6525 FRANCE AVE S 29 -028 -24 -24 -0001 3316 66th Street West 29- 028 -24 -24 -0002 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 29- 028.24 -24 -0004 Thrivent Financial - No Address 29- 028.24.24 -0005 3250 66th Street West 29- 028 -24 -24 -0007 6550 York Avenue 29.028.24.24 -0025 6515 Barrie Road 29- 028 -24 -24 -0026 6525 Barrie Road 29- 028 -24.24 -0027 6519 Berrie Road 29 -028 -24.24 -0030 3330 66th Street West 29- 028 -24 -24 -0031 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 29 -028 -24 -24 -0032 6500 BARRIE RD 29- 028 -24 -24 -0120 6444 Xerxes Avenue South 29 -028.24.24 -0121 6500 Xerxes Avenue 29 -028 -24 -24 -0223 6525 YORK AVE S 29- 028- 24- 31 -D002 3101 66TH ST W 29- 028 - 2431 -0003 6725 York Avenue South 29- 028 -24.31 -0005 3425 66TH ST W 29- 028 -24 -31 -0006 3230 SOUTHDALE CIR 29- 028 -24 -31 -0007 3220 SOUTHDALE CIR 29- 028 -24 -31 -0008 3210 SOUTHDALE CIR 29- 028 -24 -31 -0009 3200 SOUTHDALE CIR 29- 028 -24.31 -0010 3240 SOUTHDALE CIR 29- 026 -24 -31 -0011 6612 XERXES AVE S 29- 028 -24 -31 -0012 6616 XERXES AVE 5 29 -028 -24 -31 -0013 6620 XERXES AVE S 29- 028 -24 -31 -0014 6624 XERXES AVE5 29 -026 -24- 31.0015 6628 XERXES AVE S 29- 028 -24 -31 -0016 6700 XERXES AVE 5 29- 028 -24 -31 -0017 6704 XERXES AVE 5 29 -028 -24 -31 -0018 6708 XERXES AVE 5 29- 028 -24 -31 -0019 6712 XERXES AVE 5 29 -028 -24.31 -0024 300 SOUTHDALE CENTER 29 -028 -24 -31 -0025 6636 YORK AVE S 30 -028 -24 -14 -0073 6566 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0074 6566 France 30- 028.24 -14 -0077 6566 France 30 -028 -24 -14 -0078 6566 France 30 -028.24 -14 -0079 6566 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0080 6566 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0001 6566 France 30. 028 -24 -14 -0082 6566 France 30- 028- 24- 14 -OOB3 6566 France 30- 028.24.14 -0084 6566 France 30 -028- 24 -14 -0085 6566 France 30- 028.24 -14 -0086 6566 France 30- 028 -24.14 -0087 6566 France 30- 028 -24- 14-0088 6566 France 30 -028 -24 -14 -0089 6566 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0090 6566 France 30- 028.24 -14 -0091 6566 France 30 -028 -24 -14 -0092 6566 France 30 -028 -24 -14 -0093 6566 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0094 6556 France 30 -028 -24-14 -0095 6566 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0096 6566 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0097 6566 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0098 6566 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0099 6566 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0100 6566 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0101 6566 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0102 6566 France 30. 028 -24 -14 -0103 6566 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0104 6566 France 30- 028 -24.14 -0105 6566 France 30 -028 -24 -14 -0106 6566 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0107 6566 France 30 -028- 24 -14 -0108 6566 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0109 6566 France 30 -028 -24 -14 -0110 6566 France 30 -028 -24 -14 -0111 6566 France 30 -028 -24 -14 -0112 6566 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0113 6566 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0114 6566 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0115 6566 France 30 -028 -24 -14 -0116 6566 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0117 6566 France 30 -028- 24-14 -0118 6566 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0119 6566 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0120 6566 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0123 6566 France 30 -028 -24 -14 -0125 6566 France 30 -028 -24 -14 -0127 6556 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0128 6566 France Parcel ID Address 29- 028 -24- 34.0057 3209 Galleria 29- 028 -24 -34 -0068 3209 Gallerla 29- 028 -24 -34 -0069 3209 Galleria 29- 028 -24 -34 -0070 3209 Galleria 29- 028 -24 -34 -0071 3209 Galleria 29- 028 -24 -34 -0072 3209 Galleria 29- 028 -24 -34 -0073 3209 Gallerla 29- 028 -24 -34 -0074 3209 Gallerla 29 -028 -24 -34 -0075 3209 Gallerla 29 -028 -24 -34 -0076 3209 Gallerla 29 -028 -24 -34 -0077 3209 Galleria 29- 028 -24 -34 -0078 3209 Galleria 29 -028 -24 -34 -0079 3209 Galleria 29-028 -24 -34 -0080 3209 Galleria 29- D28 -24 -34 -0081 3209 Galleria 29- 028 -24 -34 -0082 3209 Gallerla 29 -028 -24-34 -0083 3209 Gallerla 29 -028- 24-34 -0084 3209 Gallerla 29- 028 -24 -34 -0085 3209 Gallerla 29 -028 -24 -34 -0086 3209 Gallerla 29 -028 -24-34 -0087 3209 Galleria 29 -028- 24- 34 -0OBS 3209 Galleria 29- 028 -24 -34 -0089 3209 Galleria 29 -028 -24 -34 -0090 3209 Galleria 29 -028- 24- 34.0091 3209 Galleria 29- 028 -24 -34 -0092 3209 Gallerla 29 -028 -24 -34 -0093 3209 Galleria 29- 028- 24- 34 -0D94 3209 Galleria 29 -028 -24 -34 -0095 3209 Galleria 29 -028 -24 -34 -0096 3209 Galleria 29 -028 -24 -34 -0097 3209 Galleria 29- 028 -24 -34 -0098 3209 Galleria 29- 028 -24 -34 -0099 3209 Galleria 29- 028 -24 -34 -0100 3209 Galleria 29- 028 -24.34 -0101 3209 Galleria 29- 028 -24 -34 -0102 3209 Galleria 29- 028 -24 -34 -0103 3209 Galleria 29- 028 -24 -34 -0104 3209 Gallerla 29 -028 -24 -34 -0105 3209 Galleria 29- 028 -24 -34 -0106 3209 Gallerla 29- 028 -24 -34 -0107 3209 Gallerla 29 -028 -24 -34 -0108 3209 Galleria 29- 028 -24 -34 -0109 3209 Galleria 29- 028 -24 -34 -0110 3209 Gallerla 29- 028 -24 -34 -0111 3209 Galleria 29 -028- 24-34 -0112 3209 Gallerla 29 -028 -24 -34 -0113 3209 Galleria 29- 028 -24 -34 -0114 3209 Galleria 30 -028 -24-41 -0001 6500 France Avenue South 30-028 -24 -44 -0001 6995 France Avenue South 29 -028 -24 -31 -0026 6755 YORK AVE 5 29- 028 -24 -31 -0027 6775 YORK AVE S 29- 028 -24.32 -0001 3501 66TH ST W 29- 028 -24 -32 -0003 200 SOUTHDALE CENTER 29- 028.24- 32 -OD08 100 SOUTHDALE CENTER 29- 026 -24 -32 -0009 10 SOUTHDALE CENTER 30 -028 -24 -14 -0007 4005 65th Street 30. 028 -24 -14 -0008 6500 France Avenue South 30 -028- 24- 14 -DO09 6566 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0010 6566 France 30 -028 -24 -14 -0011 6566 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0012 6566 France 30- 028.24.14 -0013 6566 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0014 6566 France 30 -028 -24 -14 -0015 6566 France 30 -028 -24.14 -0016 6566 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0017 6566 France 30- 028.24 -14 -0018 6566 France 30- 026 -24 -14 -0019 6566 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0020 6566 France 30 -028 -24 -14 -0021 6556 France 30-028 -24 -14 -0022 6566 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0023 6566 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0024 6566 France 30 -028.24 -14 -0025 6566 France 30-028-24-14-0026,6566 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0027 6566 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0028 6566 France 30 -028 -24 -14 -0029 6566 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0030 6566 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0031 6566 France 30 -028 -24 -14 -0032 6566 France 30 -028 -24 -14 -0033 6566 France 30 -028 -24 -14 -0034 6566 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0035 6566 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0036 6566 France 30 -028 -24 -14 -0037 6566 France 30 -028 -24 -14 -0038 6566 France 30 -028 -24.14 -0041 6566 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0042 6566 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0043 6566 France 30 -028 -24 -14 -0044 6566 France 30 -028 -24 -14 -0045 6566 France 30 -028 -24.14 -0046 6566 France 30 -028 -24 -14 -0047 6566 France 30 -028 -24.14 -0048 6566 France 30 -028- 24- 14 -0D69 6566 France 30 -028 -24 -14 -0070 6566 France 30 -028 -24.14 -0071 6566 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0072 6566 France 30- 029.24 -14 -0129 6566 France 30 -028.24.14 -0130 6566 France 30 -028.24 -14 -0131 6566 France 30.028 -24.14 -0133 6566 France 30 -028.24 -14 -0135 6566 France 30 -028- 24-14 -0137 6566 France 30-028 -24.14 -0139 6566 France 30 -D28 -24-14 -0140 6566 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0141 6566 France 30 -028 -24-14 -0142 6566 France 30- 028.24 -14 -0147 6566 France 30 -028 -24-14 -0149 6566 France 30 -028 -24 -14 -0151 6566 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0152 6566 France 30- 026 -24 -14 -0153 6566 France 30- 028.24 -14 -0154 6566 France 30 -028 -24 -14 -0155 6566 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0156 6566 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0157 5566 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0158 6566 France 30- 028.24 -14 -0159 6566 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0160 4015 65th Street West 30- 02B -24 -14 -0161 6566 France 30 -028 -24 -14 -0162 6566 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0163 6566 France 30- 028.24.14 -0164 6566 France 30 -028 -24 -14 -0165 6566 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0165 6566 France 30 -028 -24 -14 -0167 6566 France 30 -028 -24 -14 -0168 6566 France 30 -028 -24 -14 -0049 6566 France 30 -028- 24 -14- 0050 6566 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0051 6566 France 30- D28 -24 -14 -0052 6566 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0053 6566 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0054 6566 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0055 6566 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0056 6566 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0057 6566 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0058 6566 France 30- 028.24 -14 -0059 6566 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0060 6566 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0061 6566 France 30- 028.24 -14 -0062 6566 France 30- 028.24 -14 -0063 6566 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0064 6565 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0065 6566 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0066 6566 France 30 -028 -24 -14 -0067 6566 France 30 -028 -24 -14 -0068 6566 France Appendix D Estimated Cash Flow for the District Appendix D -1 DistriclType: Mr District Name/Number: County District 8: First Year Construction or Inflation on Value Existing District - Specify No. Years Remaining Inflation Rate - Every Year. Interest Rare: Present Value Date: First Pared Ending Tax Year District was Certified: CashOow Assumes First Tax Increment For Development Years of Tax Increment Assumes Lost Year of Tax Increment Fiscal Otspanties Elotdon (OuL>ae (A). beside (B). Or NA) Incremental or Total Fiscal Iksaan.'= Fstl1 DG;amles Conmouven FL1oo Fr.SGtl DsD3diies wvo-Wxia rax Raw Southdale Mall Renovation and Mixed Use Development City of Edina Southdale Mall Renovation and Adjacent Development I ASSUMPTIONS AND RATES 2012 0.00% 550% 1- Feb -12 1- Aug -12 Pay 2012 2014 9 2022 Inside(B) Incremental 34.7413% Pay 2012 Prelim. 1419450% Pay2012 Pretm. Maximum/Frozen Local Tax Rate: Current Loral Tax Rate: (Use lesser of Current or Max.) Stale -wide Tax Rate (CommJMd. only used for total lazes( Market Value Tax Rate (Used for total taxes) PROPERTY TAX CLASSES AND CLASS RATES: Exempt Class Rate (Exempt) Commercial Industrial Preferred Class Rule (CA Prof.) 11151 3150,000 Over 3150.000 Commercial Industrial Class Sale (CA) Renal Housing Class Rate (Rental) Affordable Homal Housing Class Rate (Ail. Rental) Non - Homestead Resid nVal (Non H Res.) Homestead Residenlal Class Rate ( Hmstd. Res.) first 5500.000 Over 5500,000 Agdurllural Non- Homastead 108.160% SO 273 108.160 ro Pay 2012 Prelim. 52.0000% Pay 2012 Prelim. 0.16532% Pay 2012 Prelim 000% 1.50% 20056 200% 1.25'6 0.75% 125% 1.00% 125% 1.00% Mall Me8 M Land Building Total Of Value Used Original Original Tax Martell VV 6�xa Original Tax Co act After Conversion Conversion Or , Tax Cap. SID PID Address Markel Value Market Vafuo titorltei Value for Disukl Market.Vrdue 273 b 29 -026 -24 -33 -0004 350069TH ST 571000 0 571,800 10D% 100% 571,800 32.90.2 OOD Pay 2012 CA Pay 2012 Gil 11,436 658,076 ch CA It,436 658.076 273 ADDRES UNA 29-02`8- 24.33 -0014 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 14,995,000 17,908,800 32,903,800 100% 7,SBB,100 Pay 2012 GI 151,762 GI 151,762 273 29. 028 -24 -33 -0021 2,273,100 5,31%,000 42.005,400 7,588,100 56,710,000 100% 56,710.000 Pay 2012 G7 Pref. 1,133,450 GI Prel- 1,133,450 273 29-028 -24 -33 -0021 3460 GALLERIA 14,624,600 3,287,100 2,112 5,400,000 100Y, 5,400.000 Pay 2012 CA 108,000 G9 108.000 58,292 273 29 -028 -24 -33 -0023 3501 GALLERIA 2,851,200 -900 100,900 2.952,100 IGD% 2,952,100 Pay 2012 CA Pref, 58,292 GI Prof. 273 29- 028 -24-34 -0002 6825 YORK AVE S 1,382,700 943,300 2,326,000 100% 2,326.000 Pay 2012 GI Prel. 4S,770 CA Prof. 45,770 52,162 273 2902 &24 -34 -0007 3100 70TH 5T W AVE 5 1,586,20U 1,059,400 2,645,600 101A. 2,645.800 Pay 2012 GI Prel. 52,162 CA Prel. 35,655 273 29 -028 -24 -34 -0010 6975 YORK ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 2,852,400 0 2,852.00 100% 2.852,400 Pay 2012 CA 57,048 Rental a 23.254 273 23028 -2434 -0019 1,162,700 0 1.164700 100% 1.162,700 Pay 2012 lit 23,254 119,144 273 29 -028 -24 -34 -0020 6775 YORK AVE 5 5 2,932,400 3,024,800, 5,957,200 100% 6,967,200 Pay 2012 CA 119,144 G1 19,460 273 273 29 -028- 7.4 -34 -0021 6903 YORK AVE 29 -028 -24 -34 -0022 6805 YORK AVE 5 725,200 247,800 973,000 10096 079,000 4,650,000 Pay 2012 CA Pay 2012 CA Prof 19.460 92;150 GI CA Prof. 92,250 273 29 -028 -24 -34 -0024 3210 GALLERW 2,532,200 2,117,800 0 4.650,000 2,004,400 100% 100% 2,094,400 . Pay 2012 GI Prof. 40,938 Gl Prof. 46,938 273 29 -028 -24 -34 -0025 6905 YORK AVE 5 W 2,084,400 1,402.100 10,202,900 11,6&5,000 1009: 11,6135.000 Pay 2012 Rental 146,063 Rental a 148,063 7.718 273 29 -028.24- 34 -002E 312169TH 5T 617,400 617,400 100% 617,400 Pay 2012 Non -H Res. 7,718 Non -H Res. 273 29 -028 -24 -34 -0033 3209 Gallerla 1.179,000 100% 1,179,000 Pay 2012 Non-H Res. 14,738 Non -H Res. 14,738 273 29 -028 -24 -34 -0034 3209 Gallerla 1.179,000 620,000 620,000 100% 670,000 Pay 2012 Non-H 7,750 Non-H Res. 7,750 273 29 -028- 24.34- 0035 3209 Galleria 779,000 779.000 100% 779,000 -Res. Pay 2012 Non-H 9,738 Non -H Res. 9.738 273 29 -028- 24- 34 -003E 3209 Galleria 591.000 1001/ 591,000 Pay 2012 No" Res. 7,388 Non -H Res. 7,388 273 29 -028 -24 -34 -0037 3209 Galleria 591.000 589.000 100% Sfi9,000 Pay 2012 Non•H Res. 7,363 Non4-1 Res. 7,363 273 29- 028.24- 34-0038 3209 Galleria 589,000 417,000 100% 417,000 Pay 2012 Non -H Res 5,213 Non-H Res. 5,213 273 29 -028- 24- 34-0039 3209 Galleria 417,000 1,012,000 100% 7p12,000 Pay 2012 Non-H Res. 12,650 Non-H Res. 12,650 273 29 -028- 24 -34-MC 3209 Gallerla 1,012,000 671.100 100% 071,100 Pay 2012 Non -H Ros 8,389 Non-H Res. 6,389 273 29-028 -24- 34-0041 3209 Gallem 571.100 1,179.000 1,179,000 10096 1,179,000 Pay 2012 Nmr-H Res. 14,738 Non-H Res, 14,738 273 29028 -24- 34-0042 3209 Galleria 626,000 626.000 100% 626.000 Pay 2012 Non -H Res. 7,825 Non-H Res. 7,825 273 29 -028 -24- 34-0043 3209 Galleria 639.000 639.000 100% 608,000 Pay 2012 Hmstd. Ras. 6,738 I-Ims ,Res 6,738 273 44 Z9 -028 -24- 34-00 3209 Galleria 567,000 567,000 100% 567,000 Pay 2012 Non-1i Res. 7,088 Non-H Res. 7,088 273 29 -028- 24- 34-0045 3209 Galleria 565,500 565,500 1Dow. 665,600 Pay 2012 Hmsid Res. 5,819 Hmstd. Res. 5,819 273 29- 028- 24- 34 -004E 3209 Gallen 395,100 396,100 10096 M%100 Pay 2012 Hmstd. Res. 3.961 Hmstd. Res 3,961 273 29- 026 -24 -34 -0047 3209 Galleria 1,179,000 1,17g,ono 100% 1.179,000 Pay 2012 Non -H Res. 14,738 Non -H Res. 14,738 273 29- 028.24 -34 -0048 3209 Galleria 1,005,400 0 1,OD5,400 100% 1,005,400 Pay 2012 Hmstd. Res. 11,318 Hmstd. Res 11,318 273 29 -028 -24 -34 -0049 3209 Galleria 1,179,000 1. 179,000 100% 1,179,000 Pay 2012 Hmsld. Res. 13,488 Hmstd -Res. 13,488 273 29 -028- 24- 34-0(15C 3209 Galleria 680,100 600.1 Go 1rr0% 680,100 Pay 2012 Hmstd. Res. 7,251 Hrnsid. Res. 7,251 273 29- 028 -24- 344)051 3209 Galleria 768,000 766,000 100% 760.000 Pay 2012 Non -H Res. 9,600 Non -H Rea 9,600 7,389 273 29-02Z-24-34-0052 3209Galkria Galkria 591,000 591.000 100% 691,000 Pay 2012 Non-H Res. 7,388 Non -H Res. 273 29 -028.24 -34 -0053 3209 550.000 560,000 100% 66 0.0DO Pay 2012 Non -H Res, 7,000 Non-H Res. 273 29 -028.24 - 34.0054 3209 Galleria Galleria 3B9.400 389.400 100°/ 389,400 Pay 2012 Non-H Res. 4,868 Non -H Res. 4,868 273 273 29. 028.24 -34 -0055 3209 29 -028- 24- 34-0OSE 3209 Galleria 1,219,000 1. 219,000 100% 1219,000 Pay 2012 Non -H Res. 15,238 10,203 No" Res. Hmstd. Res. 15,238 10,203 273 29- 028 -24 -34 -0057 3209 Galleria 910200 916,200 1,226.900 100% 10D% 916200 1,-26,0170 Pay 2012 Hmstd. Res. Pay 2012 Hmstd. Res. 14,086 Hrnskt. Res. 14,006 273 29 -028 -24 -34 -0058 3209 Galleria 1226.900 668,000 668.000 100-6 WIL000 Pay 2012 HmsltL Res. 7.100 Hrr and. Rea. 7,1 DO 273 29 -0Za- 24- 34-0OSS 3209 Galleria 754,000 754,000 10D% 764,000 Pay 2012 Hmsld. Rag- 8,175 Hrmild. Res. 8,175 273 29 -028 -24 -34 -00603209 Galleria 591,000 591,000 1004: 591= Pay 2012 Non -H Res. 7,386 Non -H Res. 7,388 273 29 -0ZB.24 -34 -0061 3209Gallerla 478,300 478,300 1009: 470,900 Pay 2012 Non-H Res. 5.979 Non -H Res. 5,979 4,038 273 29 -028 -24 -34 -0062 3209 Galleria 323,000 323.0110 100% 323,000 Pay 2012 Non-H Res. 4,038 Non-H Res. 273 29- 028- 24- 34 -00Sa 3209 Gallerfa 109 Galleria 1,268,300 1,268,300 1001..6 126BAIXI Pay 2012 Hmsld. Res. 14,604 limstd. Res, 14,604 273 29 -028.24 -34 Galleria 1,047,000 1,047,000 100% 1,047,000 Pay 2012 Non-H Res 13,088 Non-H Res. 13,088 273 273 29. 028 -24 -3r )9 29-028.24 -34 J9Galleria 1,225.000 1,225.000 100% 1,225,000 Pay 2012 Non -H Rea. 15,313 Non -H Res. 15,313 Mall Me8 M -273- a• 09 Wllery vrr,'vu 746.000 °' """ 746,000 .r..- 100% 146�ODD Pay 2012 Non -H Ras. 9,325 No H Res. 9,325 273 29 -02 &24 -34 -0068 3209 Galleria 615.000 100Ys 61SAM Pay 2012 Non-H Res. 7,688 Non-H Res. 7,888 273 29 -028. 24.34 -0069 3209 Gallerla 615.000 534,500 100% 531,500 Pay 2012 Non -H Res. 6,681 Non-H Res. 6.681 273 29 -02 8-24 -34 -0070 3209 Gallerla 534,50D 380,200 100% 380,200 Pay 2012 Non-H Res. 4,753 Non-H Res. 4,753 273 29 -028.24- 34-0071 3209 Galleria 380,200 1,392,100 100% 1,382,100 Pay 2012 Non-H Res. 17,401 Non -H Res, 17,401 273 29 -02 &2a- 3x0077 3209 Gallerla 1.392,100 1,005,000 100% 1,005,000 Pay 2012 Non-H Res 12,563 NwrH Aes. 12,563 273 29 -02 &24-34 -0073 3209 Galleria 1,005,000 1,179,000 1DO% 1,178,000 Pay 2012 Non -H Res. 14,738 Non-H Res. 14,736 273 29-02 8-24 -34 -0074 3209Galleria 1,179,000 773,400 100% 773,400 Pay 2012 Non-H Res. 9,658 Non-H Res. 9.668 273 29 -028 -24 -34 -0075 9209 Gallerla 773,400 776,000 100% 776,050 Pay 2012 NOn-H Ras. 9,700 Non -H Res 8,700 273 29 -028- 24.34 -0078 3209 Gallerla 778,000 593,000 100% 509,000 Pay 2012 Non-H Res 6,288 No0-H Res. 6,2BB 273 29- 028 -24- 34.0077 3209 Gallerla 503,D00 565,000 100% 565,000 Pay 2012 Non-H Res. 7,063 Non-H Res. 7,053 273 29 -028- 24- 34-0078 3209 Gallerla 565,000 380,000 1OOV. 3BDA00 Pay 2012 Non-H Res. 4,750 Non-H Res. 4.750 273 29 -028 -24-34 -0079 3209 Gallerla 380,000 1,270,800 100% 1,270,800 Pay 2012 Hmstd. Res. 14,633 Hnuld. Res. 14,635 273 29 -02 8-24- 34-008C 3209Galleria 1,270,BDO 1,005,000 100% 1ADS.00D Pay2012 Non-H Res 12,563 Non -H Res- 12563 273 ?9 -02 &24-34 -0081 3209 Gallerla 1,005,000 1,307,700 100% 1,307,700 Pay 2012 Hmstd. Res. 15,096 Hmstd. Res. 15,096 273 29 -028 -24-34 -0082 3209 Gallerla 1,307,700 669.600 100% 1x'68,500 Pay 2012 Non-H Res. 8,370 Non H Res. 8,370 273 29-0213 -24- 34-0083 3209 Gallena 669,600 791500 1 DO% 701,600 Pay 2012 Non-H Ras. 9.894 Non-H Res. 9,884 273 29 -028- 24- 34-0084 3209 Galleria 791,500 648,400 100% 64%450 Pay 2012 Hmstd. Res 6,855 Hmstd. Res. 6,855 273 29-028 -24 -34 -0085 3209 Gallerla 648,400 543,500 100% 543,500 Pay 2012 Non-H Res. 6,794 Non-H Rea. 6,794 273 Z9 -02 &24- 34 -0OBE 3209 Gslleria 543500 380.000 100% 980-000 Pay 2012 Non-H Res. 4,750 Non-H Res 4,750 273 29-02 &24 - 34-0087 3209 Gallerla 380,000 1,303,900 t00Y. 1,903,000 Pay 2012 Hmstd. Res. 15,049 Hmstd. Res. 15.049 273 29. 028 -24 -34 -0088 3209 Gallerla 1,303,900 1,00,000 100% 1,005ADD Pay 2012 Non-H Res. 12$63 Non-H Res, 12583 273 29 -02 &24 -34 -0089 3209 Gallerla 1.005.000 1,260,000 100% 1280,000 Pay 2012 Non -H Res. 15,750 Non -H Res. 15.750 273 29 -02 &24- 34-0090 3209 Galleda 1,260,000 713,400 100% 713,400 Pay 2012 Hmstd. Res 7,668 Hmstd. Res. 7,868 273 29 -028- 24.34-0091 3209 Gslleria 713,400 977,300 100% 977,300 Pay 2012 Non -H Res. 12,218 Non-H Res. 12,216 273 29 -02 &2431 -0092 3209 Gallaria 977,300 591,000 100'6 SDI ADD Pay 2012 Non -H Res. 7,308 Non-H Res. 7,388 273 29 -028 -24-34 -0093 3209 Gallerla 591,000 522,900 1 DIP/. 672,900 Pay 2012 Non-H Res. 6,636 Non -H Res. 6,536 273 29 -02 &24 -34 -0094 3209 Galleria 522,900 380,000 10D% 350,000 Pay 2012 Non-H Res. 4,750 Non -H Res. 4,750 273 29- 028 -24 -34 -0095 3209 Gallerla 380.000 1,337,000 1,337,000 100% 1,3uA50 Pay 2012 Hmstd. Res. 15,463 Hmstd. Res. 15,463 273 29- 028- 24- 34-009E 3209 Gallerla 999,900 999,900 1001/6 988x00 Pay 2012 Non-H Res. 12.499 Non-H Res. 12,499 273 29- 028 -24-34 -0097 3209 Gallaria 1,989,300 1,988,300 100% 1,989,3011 Pay 2012 Hmstd. Res. 23,616 Harald. Rea. 23,616 273 29-02 &24 -34 -0098 3209 Gslleria 765,800 765.800 10016 765,500 Pay 2012 Non-H Res. 9.573 Non-H Res. 9,673 273 29 -028 -24- 340099 3209 Galleria 1,192,800 1,192,800 100% 1,192.800 Pay 2012 Hmstd Rea. 13,660 Hmssl. Res. 13,660 273 29- 02&24- 34.010C 3209 Galleris 1,052,000 1,052,000 100% tAszAM Pay 2012 Non -H Res. 13,150 Non-H Res. 13,150 15,318 273 29 -028 -24- 34-0101 3209 Gslleria 1,325.400 1,325,400 100% 1,825,400 Pay 2012 Hmstd. Rea. 15.318 Hmstd. Res. 273 29.02 &24.34 -0102 3209 Galleria 1,288,300 1,288,300 100% 12BBAO0 Pay 2012 Non -H Res. 16,104 Non -H flea 16,104 273 29-028 -24 -34 -0103 3209 Gslleria ' 1,900,000 1,900,000 1OEM 1AO0,OM Pay 2012 Non -H Res. 23,750 Non -H Res. 23,750 9,113 273 29 -028 -24 -34 -0104 3209 Gslleria 729,000 729,000 100% M= Pay 2012 Non -H Res. 9,113 Non-H Res- 273 29. 028 -24 -34 -0105 3209 Galleria 931,000 100°,6 831,000 Pay 2012 No" Res. 11,638 Non -H Res. 11,638 273 29 -02&24 - 34.010E 3209Galleria 931.000 1,093,000 10D% 1,0901000 Pay 2012 Non-H Res. 13,663 Non-H Res. 13,663 273 29-02 &24 - 34-0107 3209 Gallerla 1,093,000 1,660,100 100% 1A50,1f70 Pay 2012 Non -H Res, 20,751 Nan -H Res. 20.751 273 79 -02 &24-34 -0108 3209 Gallerla 1,660,100 893,000 100% 890,000 Pay 2012 Non-H Rea 11,163 Non -H Res. 11.183 273 29 -02 &24-34 -0109 3209Gallaria 893,000 2,322,400 2,322,40D 1 OD% 2,973,400 Pay 2012 Non-H Res. 29,030 Non -H Res. 28,030 273 29. 028 -24 -34 -0110 3209 Galleria 647,000 647,000 100% 547,000 Pay 2012 Non -H Ras. 6,0813 Non-H Res. 8,088 273 29 -028 -24 -34 -0111 3209 Gallaria 1,100,600 1,100,600 100% 1,1110.800 Pay 2012 Non -H Res. 13,750 Non -H Flee. 13,758 273 29 -028 -2434 -0112 3209 Gslleria 29 -028.24-34 -0113 3209 Galleria 1,214,ODO 1314,000 100% 1214,000 Pay 2012 Non -H Res 15,175 Non-H Res. Non+(Res. 15,175 15,040 273 273 29 -028- 2434.0114 3209 Galleria 1,203,200 1,2032DO 100°,6 1,203,200 94,312,600 Pay 2012 Non-H Res, Pay 2012 G'I PmJ, 15,040 688,102 GI Prof. 886,102 273 30- 028.24.41.0001 6600 France Avenue South 18,914,100 15,428,500 34,342,600 1005E 100% 40DAD0 Pay 2012 GI Prof. 7350 G9 Pre1. 7,250 273 3D- 028 - 24-440001 6996 France Avenue South 360.000 40,000 400,000 1,643,100 100% 1,849,100 Pay 2012 GI Prof, 32,112 CA Prof. 32,112 273 30-028 -24 -04.0003 395070TH STW 1,021,100 622,000 1,376,900 2,457,900 100% 2A57A00 Pay 2012 GI Prof. 48,408 CA Prat 48,400 273 3D-028 -24 -44.0004 4040 70TH ST W 1,081,000 789,700 1,208.300 1,998.000 100% 1288-000 Pay 2012 Cn Prel. 39,210 CA Prof. 39310 273 30- 02 &24 -04 -0005 6950 FRANCE AVES 139.900 2.13,100 353,000 100% =000 Pay 2012 Cn PmJ. 6,310 Cr1 Prel. 8,310 273 30- 02 &24A4-MOS 3910 70th Street West 498.100 239,600 737,700 100% 797,700 Pay 2012 CA Prof. 14,004 CA Prof. 14,004 273 30- 028 - 24-44.0057 6900 FRANCE AVE5 847,200 392,600 1.239,800 100° .6 18,800 ,29 Pay 2012 CA Prof. 24,046 CA Prof, 24,048 273 30- 028-24-04.0058 3905 69TH ST W 912,5017 912,500 t00% 912,500 Pay 2012 GI Pref. 17,500 CA Prel. 17,500 273 30-02 &24-04 -DOSS 3939 69TH ST W 0 100°/. 0 Pay 2012 - M,603,500 d Nl1ss 4,457.M Note: 1. Bass values arts based upon review of County wabslle an 377/12 of values asseascd IMI for taxes payable 2012. 2 Parcels are located within School district 273 and Watershed District 1. Southdale Mall Renovation and Mixed Use Development City of Edina Soulhdale Mall Renovation and Adjacent development Note: 1, Renovated mall market value based upon tax estimates from mail owner. 2. Other development values based an proposals received by the City of Edina and estimates from City Assessor. CALCULATIONS TAX PROJECT ` • • M•lY U•• elect Apartments Office Retail Condominiums ore Tax acid 436,250 719,250 2,049,250 909.750 nsw Disparities Tax Ce ail 43,1 9 0 249,977 711,936 0 ace Tax C c 456, 1 436,250 469,373 1,337,314 909.750 ocal Property Taxea ,097 471,649 507,674 1,446,439 975 6 Estimated Taxable er el Value Taxes 64,862 64,677 66,715 169,953 135.247 Total Taxable Property Pereentajf• P•rcenl•ge Perceft" Percentage Furst; Year M&zo 521.453 Market value Market Value Total Market Tax Project Project Tam Completed Completed Completed Completed Fun Taxes Aro4lPhos• New Use Per Unit Per . F1JUnit . F1JUnks Value Class Tnm t• Gat lllnh 2012 2013 2014 2015 Pa able Mao 0104, 7_ 000. / .000. 700.000 9'�. 974. 'T. 1W16 2U1 Apartments Apartments .000. 34.900.000 34,900,000 1 34,900,000 Rental 430-50 70% 96% 70% 100% 75% 100% 100% 100`.1 2017 2015 Office Retail Office Retail 36,000,000 102.500,000 36.000,000 102.500,000 1 1 36,000,000 102,500.000 CA Pmt. G1 Prof. 719,2.50 2.049.250 961/6 96% 100% 100°1. 2016 Calla t5 "Thum4 MAW 890000 _ 72-400.000 rans:d. Res. 80.750 100!' 100% 100% 100! 2014 •74 uDt0141 Residential 87 107.880.000 Dtatal mnwfcraN d. 3 1735001)00 -468 Note: 1, Renovated mall market value based upon tax estimates from mail owner. 2. Other development values based an proposals received by the City of Edina and estimates from City Assessor. .0 ; 1. Taxes and tax increment will vary 5ignticanlly from year to year depending upon values, roles, stele law, fiscal disparities and other factors which cannot be predicted. 2. If lax increment is received in 2013 then the district will be one year shorter. CALCULATIONS TAX M•lY U•• elect Apartments Office Retail Condominiums ore Tax acid 436,250 719,250 2,049,250 909.750 nsw Disparities Tax Ce ail 43,1 9 0 249,977 711,936 0 ace Tax C c 456, 1 436,250 469,373 1,337,314 909.750 ocal Property Taxea ,097 471,649 507,674 1,446,439 975 6 lsca Disparities Taxes 345,1 0 354,669 1,010,556 0 - race -m0e Property T 364,000 0 374,010 1,065,610 er el Value Taxes 64,862 64,677 66,715 169,953 135.247 Total Toren 1,266,143 536,625 1,303,087 9,712,559 1011.072 M&zo 521.453 .0 ; 1. Taxes and tax increment will vary 5ignticanlly from year to year depending upon values, roles, stele law, fiscal disparities and other factors which cannot be predicted. 2. If lax increment is received in 2013 then the district will be one year shorter. 3/23/2012 EHLERS U401, AOI R S IN PUet I C I INANU City of Edina Southdale Mail Renovation and Adjacent Development Base Value Assumptions - Pay_ . Prepared by Ehlers R Associates, Inc - Estimates Only NAMImmotWEDINA114ousing Economic RedevelopmenpMRMF DlstddelSoUthdala 21TIF Run clown B aD 2731c School District 273 Southdale Mail Renovation Project Original Fiscal Captured Local Annual Semi - Annual State Admin. Semi - Annual Semi - Annual PERIOD % of Tax Tax Disparities Tax Tax Gross Tax I Gross Tax Auditor at Net Tax Present ENDING Tax Payment OTC Capacity Capacity Incremental Capacity Rate Increment Increment 0.36% 10% Increment Value Yrs.- Year Date _ 08!07 /72 02/01/13 08/01/13 . 02/01/14 100% 4,458,033 (4,457,873) - 160 108.1601/0 173 86 (0) (9) 77 66 133 0.5 1 2014 2014 08/01/14 02/01/15 86 (0) (9) 77 100% 4,480,655 (4,457,873) 22,782 108.160% 24,641 12,320 (44) (1,228) 11,048 9,271 1.5 2015 08/01/15 12,320 (44) (1,228) 11,048 18,164 2 2015 02/01/16 100% 4,584,438 (4,457,873) (20,346) 106,218 108.1600/6 114,886 57,443 (207) (5,724) 51,512 58,517 2.5 2016 08/01/16 57,443 (207) (5,724) 51,612 97,790 3 2016 02/01/17 100% 4.714,600 (4,457,873) (27,642) 228,985 108.1600/6 247,670 123,835 (446) (12,339) 111,050 180,186 3.5 2017 08/01/17 123,835 (446) (12,339) 111,050 260,382 4 2017 02/01/18 100% 4,714,500 (4,457.873) (65,592) 191,034 108.160% 206,623 103,311 (372) (10,294) 92,645 325,494 4.5 2018 08/01/18 103,311 (372) (10,294) 92,645 388,863 5 2018 02101/19 100% 4,714,500 (4,457,873) (65,592) 191,034 108.160% 206.623 103,311 (372) (10,294) 92,645 450,536 5.5 2019 08/01/19 02/01/20 103,311 (372) (10,294) 92,645 510,559 6 2019 100% 4,714,500 (4,457,873) (65,592) 191,034- 108.1601/6 206,623 103,311 (372) (10,294) 92,645 568.975 6.5 2020 08/01/20 02/01/21 103,311 (372) (10,294) 92,645 625,828 7 2020 100% 4,714,500 (4,457,873) (65,592) 191,034 108.160°4 206,623 103,311 (372) (10,294) 92,645 681,159 7.5 2021 2021 08/01/21 02/01/22 103,311 (372) (10,294) 92,645 735,009 8 100% 4,714,500 (4,457,873) (65,592) 191,034 108.16D96 206,623 103,311 (372) (10,294) 92,645 787,418 8.5 2022 08/01/22 02/01123 103.311 1372) (10.294) 92.645 836.424 9 2022 Total 1;420,483 ((5114) ID41,55q� 1-273,632 Present Value From =012012 Present Value Rate 5.50% 934,948 (314) t93,158) 830,424 Prepared by Ehlers R Associates, Inc - Estimates Only NAMImmotWEDINA114ousing Economic RedevelopmenpMRMF DlstddelSoUthdala 21TIF Run clown B aD 2731c Southdale Mall Renovation and Mixed Use Development City o1 Edina Southdale Mail Renovation and Adjacent Development DistrklType: Economic Development District Name/►krmber. County District 4: First Year Construction or Inflation on Value Existing District - Speciy, No. Years Remaining Inflation Rate - Every Year. nieresl Rate: Present Value Date: First Period Ending Tax Year District was Certified: Cashllow Assumes First Tax Increment For Development: Years of Tax Increment Assumes Lest Year of Tax Increment Fiscal Disparities Election [Outside (A), Inside (8), or NA1 Incremental or Total Fiscal Di5padties Fiscal DisparKties Contribution Ratio Fiscal Disparities Metro -wide Tax Rate IF :, ASSUMPTIONS AND RATES 2012 0.00% 5.50% 1- Feb-12 1- Aug -12 Pay 2012 2014 9 2022 tnside(B) Incremental 34.7413% Pay 2012 Prelim. 141.9450:6 Pay 2012 Prelim. Maximum/Frozen Loral Tax Rate: Current Local Tax Rate: (Use lesser of Current or Max.) Stale -wide Tax Rate (CommAnd. only used for total taxes) Market Value Tax Role (Used for total taxes) PROPERTY TAX CLASSES AND CLASS RATES: Exempt Class Rate (Exempt) Commensal industrial Preferred Class Rate (CA Pret.) First 3150,000 Over 5150,000 Commercial Industrial Class Rate (CA) Ramat Housino Class Rate (Rental) Aflordabie Rental Housing Class Flab (All. Renal) Non - Homestead Residential (Non -H Ras.1 Homestead Residental Class Rate (Hmstd. Res.) Firsl 3500,000 Over $500,000 Agricultural Non - Homestead 114.351% SID 280 114.351% Pay2012Pre11M. 52.00007. Pay 2012 Prelim. 0.158607. Pay 2012 Prelim. 0.00% 150% 2.00Y. 2.00Y. 125% 0.75% 125% 1.00% 125% 1.00% Lend Building Total Of Value Used OrwnW Original Tar Original After Conversion SID -POD Address Martel Value f firRCt Value 6larket Value for Dlstr4l Market Vet 64arket Valuo Class Tax Ca ConwrYJen re. O . Tox Ca adu 200 29 -028 -24- 23-0007 6533 Drew Avenue South 531,900 502,000 1,033,900 100% 1,031,900 565,700 ay c Pay 2012 Pay 2012 re. CA Prel. CA Prel. 19,928 10,564 Gil Pre[. C/I Prof. 19,928 10.504 280 29- 028.24- 230008 6525 Drew Avenue 5 445,000 120,700 565,700 100% 100116 1,765.000 Pay 2012 CA Piet. 34.550 CA Pref- 34,550 280 29 -0ZB -24 -23 -0009 6517 DREW AVE S 529,500 1,235,500 1,765,000 2.566,000 100 a 2¢88,000 Pay 2012 CA Prel. 517,570 C/l Prel. 55.716 2B0 29 -028 -24 -23 -00113 3625 65TH ST W 525,300 2.040,700 0 285,800 100% 265,800 Pay 2012 CA 5.716 1371 5,716 280 29 -028- 24- 23-0011 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 285,800 2,363,600 5,354.000 100% 5,354,000 Pay 2012 GI Piet. 106,330 CA Prel. 106,330 280 29 -02 8-24-23-0012 3400 66TH ST W 2X0.400 0 0 100% 0 Pay 2012 Exempt - Exempt 280 29. 028 -24- 23-0167 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 0 5,118,000 24,202,500 29,320,500 100% 29,320.600 Pay 2012 CA PreL 585,660 CA Prof- 585,860 260 29 -028.24.23.0172 6545 FRANCE 1.107,600 11,092,400 12,200,000 1DO% 12,200.000 Pay 2012 CA 244,000 CA 244,000 280 29 -023 -24.23 -0173 6525 FRANCE AVES 2,205,400 3,700,000 100 °6 3.70.000 Pay 2012 CA Prof. 73.250 Rental 46,250 200 29-02 8-24.24 -0001 3316 661h Street West 1,494,600 0 403,100 100% 403.100 Pay 2012 G4 8.062 CA 8,062 280 29 -02 &24-24 -0002 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 403,100 535,600 IGO% 535,800 Pay 2012 CA 10,712 Rental 6,695 280 29 -02 &24 -24 -0004 Thrlvem Financial - No Address 535,600 0 755,900 2,847,700 100% 2,847,700 Pay 2012 CA Pre[. 58,204 Rental 35.596 280 29 -028 -24 -24 -0005 3250 66th Street West 2.091,800 2,611,700 4,888,000 100% 411186.000 Pay 2012 CA Prel. 96,970 Rental 61,075 280 29 -028- 24-24. 0007 6550 York Avenue 2,274,300 675,000 979,300 1,654,300 100% 1,864,900 Pay 2012 CA Prel. 32,336 Rental 20,679 250 29 -02&24 -24- 0025 6515 Barrie Road 480,000 006,000 1,286,000 100 % - 1286,000 Pay 2012 CA Prel. 24,970 Rental 16,075 280 29102 &24 -24 -0026 6525 Barrie Road 827 400 289.500 1,116,900 100% 1,116.800 Pay 2012 CA Pret. 21,688 Rental 13,961 2BO 28.02 8-24 -24 -0027 6519 Berrie Road west 917,900 428,500 1,347,400 100% 1.3471400 Pay 2012 CA Piet. 26.198 Rental 16.8338 280 29-02 &24 - 240030 3330 66th SReel UNASSIGNED 36,900 0 36 900 100% 98.800 Pay 2012 CA 738 CA 23.250 280 29- 028.24 -24 -0031 ADDRESS BARRIE RD 478,400 721,600 1,200.000 100: 1=ADD Pay 2012 CA Prof. 23,250 CA Pref. 7,500 280 2B0 29 -028.24 -24 -0032 15500 29 -028 -24 -24 -0120 6444 Xerxes Avenue South 271,800 378, 00 600,000 100% WD= Pay 2012 CA Pref- 11,250 Rental Rental 5,631 280 29 -028 -24. 24-0121 6500 Xerxes Avenue 244,100 206.400 450,500 100% 450,500 3,316,400 Pay 2012 Pay 2012 CA Piet- CA 8,260 66,328 13/1 fi6,32B 280 29-028.24 -24 -0223 6525 YORK AVE S 1,671.000 1,645,400 1,000 3,318.400 1242,200 100% 100% 1,242200 Pay 2012 CA Prof. 24,094 CA Pret. 24.094 280 280 29 -02 8-24 -31 -0002 310166TH ST W 29.02 8-24-31 -0003 6725 York Avenue South 1.241,200 2,674,000 1,000 2,675,000 100% 2,875,000 Fay 2012 C/I Pref. 52.750 GI Pref. CA 52,750 20,664 280 29-02 &24.31 -0005 3425 66TH ST W 369,500 663,700 1,033,200 100% 1,033200 936,900 Pay 2012 Pay 2012 GI Gn Pie[. 20,664 17,956 CA Pref. 17,956 280 29-028.24- 31 -0OOE 323D SOUTHDALE OR 714,700 220.600 125,400 935,300 1,250,200 100% 100% 1250,200 Pay 2012 CA Prel. 24.254 CA Prat. 24,254 280 29. 028.24 -31 -0007 3220 SOUTHDALE OR 1,124,800 467,500 Sg,000 525,500 100% 525,500 Pay 2012 CA Prel, 9,760 CA Pref. 9,760 280 260 29. 028.24 -31 -0008 323.0 SOUTHDALE OR 29. 028.24 -31 -0009 3200 SOUTHDALE OR 672,500 7,700 680,200 100% 680,200 Pay 2012 CA Prel. 12.854 CA Pref. CA Pref- 12,654 10,532 260 29- 02 &24 -31 -0010 3240 SOUTHDALE OR 563,100 1,000 564,100 100% 100`/. 584.100 lee,90D Pay 2012 Pay 2012 CA Pref. Hmstd. Res 10.532 1.883 Hmstd. Res. 1,883 280 29-028.24 -31 -0011 6612 XERXES AVE 5 131,400 56,900 108,100 188,300 239,500 100% 239,500 Pay 2012 Hmstd. Res. 2.395 Haisld. Res. 2,395 280 29-02 9-24 - 31.0012 6616 XERXES AVE 5 131,400 131,400 72.400 203.800 1001- 20.7,800 Pay 2012 Hmstd. Res. 2.038 Hassid. Res, 2,038 260 280 29- 028 -24- 31-0013 6620 XERXES AVE S 29 -02 8-24- 31-0014 6624 XERXES AVES 131,400 68,200 189.600 100% 1e8,600 Pay 2012 Hmstd. Ras. 1,9% Hnrsid. Res. 1,996 2,726 280 29-02 &24 -31 -0035 6628 XERXES AVE5 145,300 72,700 218.000 100% 218AO1D 224,800 Pay2012 Pay 2012 Non -H Res. Hmstd. Res. 2,725 2.249 Non -H Res. Hmstd. Res. 2249 280 29 -028- 24- 31-001E 6700 XERXES AVE5 145,300 131,400 79,600 46.800 224,900 178.200 100% 100% 178.200 Pay 2012 Herold. Res. 1,702 Hmsid. Res. 1,782 2B0 280 29 -02 8-24 -31 -0017 6704 XERXES AVE 5 29 -028 -24 -31 -0018 6708 XERXES AVES 131,400 74,300 205.700 100% 205,70D Pay 2012 Hmstd Ras. 2057 Hmsid. Res. 2,057 2,143 280 29 -028.24 -31 -0019 6712 XERXES AVE S 131,400 62,900 214.300 100% 214,800 Pay 2012 Hmstd. Res. 2.143 Hmstd. Res. CA Pre[. 84.722 200 29 -028- 24.31- 0024 300 SOUTHDALE CENTER 4,272.600 1,000 4,273,600 100% 100% 4$i GW 950 800 Pay 2012 Pay 2012 CA Pret. CA 84,722 19,376 CA 19,376 280 29 -028.24-01 -0025 6636 YORK AVE S 967,800 1,000 968,800 0 1009: 0 Pay 2012 Exempt - Exempt 280 280 29 -028 -24 -31 -002( 6755 YORK AVE S 29 -028. 24-31 -0027 6775 YORK AVE S 0 3 464,000 0 2,467,600 5,951.600 100% 5,951,000 Pay 2072 Ul Pref. 118,282 CA Pref 118.282 280 29 -02 8-24-32 -0001 3501 66TH ST W 616,600 0 616,600 100% 616,600 4,438.000 Puy 2012 Pay 2012 CA CA Piet. 12.332 68,010 GI CA Prof . 12.332 88,010 280 29 -02 &24-32 -000.7 200 SOUTHDALE CENTER 1479500 2958300 7. 193,300 4.438,000 9,077,000 100. 100% 9,077,000 Pay 2012 CA Pref. 180.790 CA Pref. 180,790 200 280 29- 02 8-24 -32 -M" '00 SOUTHDALE CENTER 29- 028 SOUTHDALE CENTER 1.883,700 27,696.600 45. 616,200 73. 313,000 100% x,313,000 Pay 2012 CA Pail. 1.465.510 CA Prof . 1.465510 280 -24 -32 30-028.24.14 5 65th Street 9226.400 558,100 1,484,500 100% 484,500 Pay 2012 CA Piet. 28,940 CA Pref. 28,940 80 30.028.24.14.0008 1150!1 Franw Avwwc SWII t,t2D,DOV 1.4se,6w c,aoo.ew 16,200 100% 116,200 Pay 2012 Hmsid. Res. 1,162 Hmsid, Res. 1,162 280 30 -028-2414.OWS 6566 France 116,200 1 229200 100% 22%M Pay 2012 Hnsld. Res 2,292 Hmstd. Res- 2.292 280 30 -02 8-24-14 -0010 6566 France 229.200 178,900 1001/6 178.900 Pay 2012 Hmsid. Res. 1,789 Hmsid. Res 1.789 280 30 -02 8-24 -14 -0011 6566 France 170,900 178,900 100% 178.900 Pay 2012 Hmsid. Res. 1,789 Hrnsld. Res. 1,789 280 30-028 -24 14-0012 6566 France 170,900 229,200 100% 279,200 Pay 2012 Hmsid. Res. 2,292 Hmsid. Res. 2.292 280 30 -028 -24-14 -0013 6566 Franca 229,200 115,200 1007. lie= Pay 2012 Hmstd -Res. 1,162 Hrlssld. Res. 1,182 280 30 -02 8-24.14 -0014 6566 Franca 116,20D 151,800 100% 151.800 Pay 2012 Hmsid. Res. 1,518 Hmsid. Res. 1,518 280 30 -028 -24.14 -0015 6566 France 151,800 116,200 100% 1164200 Pay 2012 Hmstd. Res. 1,162 Hmstd. Res. 1,162 280 30 -02 8-24 -34 -0016 6566 France I iS.200 21 8,500 10011 210AM Pay 2012 Hmstd. Res. 2,185 Hmsid. Res. 2,185 280 30 -028 -24 -14 -0017 6556 France 218,500 224,300 100% 724,900 Pay 2012 Hmsid. Res. 2,243 Hmsid. Res. 2.243 280 30 -028 -24-14 -0018 6566 France 224,300 170,400 100% 170000 Pay 2012 Hmsid. Res. 1,704 Hnssld. 1,704 260 30 -02 &24 -14 -0019 6566 France 170,400 183,800 1DO% 108,600 Pay 2012 Non-H Res. 2,298 es- Non -H Res- 2.298 280 3D -02 &Z4 -14 -0020 6566 France 187,800 170,400 100% 170A00 Pay 2012 Hmstd- Res 1,704 Hmstd. Res. 1,704 280 30 -028- 24- ]4.002] 6566 France 170,400 183,800 100% 183.800 Pay 2012 Hmstd. Res 1,838 Hmsid. Res. 1,838 280 30 -028 -24- 14-0022 6566 France 183.600 218500 100% 218,000 Pay 2012 Hmsid. Res. 2,185 Hm91d. Res- 2,188 2BO 30 -028- 24- 14-0023 6566 France 210,500 229,200 100 °16 229200 Pay 2012 Hmsid. Res. 2,292 Hmsid. Res. 2,292 280 30 -028- 24.14.0024 6566 France 229,200 151,800 151,800 100% 151,800 Pay 2012 Hmstd. Res. 1518 Hmsid. Res. 1,518 280 30-028 -2414 -0075 6566 France 118,200 116.200 100% 116.200 Pay 2012 NmrH Res. 1,453 NarrH Res. 1.453 280 30 -028- 24- 14 -002E 6566 France 151,800 151 ADD 100% 151,800 Pay 2012 Hmstd. Res. 1.518 Hrosld. Res. 1,518 280 30 -028 -24 -14 -0027 6566 Francs 116,200 116,20D 1001/6 119200 Pay 2012 Hmstd Res. 1,162 Hmstd Res. 1,162 280 3o -028 -24- 14-0028 6566 France 213,600 213,600 100% 218.600 Pay 2012 Hmsid. Res- 2,135 Hmsid. Res. 2.136 280 30-028-24- 14-0029 6566 France 224;300 224,300 100% 724,900 Pay 2012 Hmsid -Res. 2,243 Hmstd. Res. 2,243 280 30 -02 8-24 -14 -0030 6566 France 170,400 170,400 1Ow. 170,400 Pay 2012 Hmsid. Res. 1,704 Hmstd. Res. 1.704 280 30 -028 -74 -14 -0031 65611 France Franca 176,900 178,900 10D% 178 900 Pay 2012 NorrH Res. 2,236 Non -H Res. 2,238 280 30-02 8-24 -14 -0037 6566 170,400 170,400 100% 17DAW Pay 2012 Nan-H Res. 2.130 Non-H Res. 2.130 280 30 -02 8-24-14 -0033 6566 Fromm 183,800 183,800 100% 189,800 Pay 2012 Hmsid. Res. 1,838 Hmstd. Res. 1.638 280 30 -02 8-24 -14 -0034 6566 France 213,500 213,600 100% 21' M/ Pay 2012 Hmsid. Res. 2,136 Hmsid. Res. 2.136 280 30 -02 8-24 -14 -0035 6556 France 229200 229,200 100% 228200 Pay 2012 Hmsid. Res. 2,292 Hmsid. Res. 2292 280 30 -02 8-24.14 -003E 6566 France 156,700 156,700 100% 159,700 Pay 2012 Non-H Res. 1,859 NmrH Ras. 1.959 260 30 -028 -24 -14 -0037 6566 France 116,200 116.200 100% 116800 Pay 2012 Non-H Res. 1,453 Non-H Res. 1,453 280 3D-028 -24 -14 -0038 6568 France 213,600 213.600 100% 219900 y 12 Hmstd. Res. 2,136 Hmsid. Res. 2.136 260 30 -020 -24-14 -0041 6566 France 224,300 224,300 100% 224,900 Pa y 20 12 Nan-H Res. 2,804 NorFH Res. 2,804 280 30-02 &24 -14 -0042 6556 France 170,400 170,400 100% 17DAM Pay 2012 Hmsid. Rea 1,704 Hmsid. Res. 1,704 2BO 30 -02 8-24.14 -0043 6566 Fran- 183,BDO 183,800 100% 183AW Pay 2012 Hmsid. Rea 1,038 Hmstd- Res. 1,836 280 30 -028 -24 -14 -0044 66566 France 170,400 170,400 1007. 170AM Pay 2012 Hmsid Rea 1,704 Hmsid. Ras. 1,704 280 3D -02 8-24 -14 -0045 6566 France France 178,900 178,900 1ODY. 176,900 Pay 2012 Hmsid. Res 1,789 Hmsid. Rea 1,789 280 30-029-24.14-004E 6566 213,600 213,600 100% 213AM Pay 2012 Hmsid. Res. 2,136 Hmstd. Res. 2.136 280 30 -02B -24- 14-0047 6566 France _ 229,200 229200 100°/6 229,200 Pay 2012 Hmstd. Res- 2,292 Hmsid. Res. 2.292 280 3D-02B -24 14-0048 6566 France 170,400 170,400 100% 170A00 Pay 2012 Hmstd- Rea 1,704 Hmstd. Res. 1,704 280 30-028- 24- 14 -006S 6566 France France 183,800 183,800 1DD% 193900 Pay 2012 Hmstd Res 1.638 Hmsid. Res 1.838 280 30 -02 &24-14 -0070 6566 213,600 213,600 100-. 218900 Pay 2012 Hmstd- Res. 2,136 Hmstd. Res. 2,136 280 30 -028 -24 -14 -0071 6566 France France 229,200 229,200 1 DO% 729200 Pay 2012 Hmstd. Res, 2,292 Hmstd. Res 2.292 280 30 -028.24.14 -0077 6566 France 156,700 156,700 1 DO% 1681700 Pay 2012 Hmsid. Rea 1,567 Hmsid. Res. 1.567 280 30 -02 8-24- 140073 6566 Fran- 116,200 116200 100-. 116200 Pay 2012 Hmsid Res- 1,102 Hmsid. Res. 1,162 200 30 -02 8-Z4 -14 -0074 6565 France 224,300 224,300 100% 724AW Pay 2012 Hmstd. Ras. 2,243 HmSld. Res. 2,243 280 30 -02 8-24 -14 -0077 6566 France 235.000 235,000 100% 295,000 Pay 2012 Hmstd- Res. 2,350 Hmsid. Res, 2,350 280 30-028.24 -14 -0078 6566 176,900 176.900 100% 179900 Pay 2012 Hmsid. Res. 1,789 Hmsid. Ras. 1,789 280 30 -028-24.14 -0079 6566 France France 187,400 187,400 10D% 167AW Pay 2012 Hmsid Res. 1,874 Hmsid. Res. 1,874 280 30 -02 &24 -14 -0080 6560 France 183,800 163,800 tOD% 19%SDD Pay 2012 Hmsid. Rea 1,838 Hmsid. Res. 1,838 280 30 -02 8-24- 14-0081 66566 France 187,40D 187,400 1001/. 187ADD Pay 2012 Hmsid- Res. 1,874 Hmsid. Res. 1,874 280 30 -028 -24 -14 -0032 6565 6566 Fran- 224,300 224,300 10096 224.900 Pay 2012 Hmsid. Res. 2,243 Hmstd. Res. 2,243 280 30 -02 82444 -0003 France 239,900 238,900 10096 239,900 Pay 2012 Hmsid. Res. 2,399 Hmsid. Res. 2.399 280 30-028 -24.14 -0084 6565 6566 159,400 159,400 100% 159A00 Pay 2012 limstd. Res. 1.594 Hrnsld. Res. 1594 280 30-02 8-24 - 14-0065 Franca 6566 Franca 126,900 126,900 100% 126.800 Pay 2012 Hmstd. Res- 1269 Hmsid. Rea. 1,269 280 30-02 8-24 - 14.008E France 159,400 159,400 100% 159000 Pay 2012 Hmstd. Res- 1.594 Hmsid. Res- 1,594 280 30-02524.14 -0087 6566 France 126,900 128,900 100. 126900 Pay 2012 No" Rix 1,586 Non -H Res. 1,586 280 30-02 8-2414 -0088 6566 France 229,200 229,200 100% 228200 Pay 2012 Hmsid. Res. 2292 Hrnstd. Res. 2.292 280 30-02 8-24.14 -0065 6566 235,000 235,000 100% 22SAM Pay 2012 Hmsid. Res 2,350 Hmsid. Res. 2,350 280 30-028 -24 -14 -0090 6566 France 178,900 178,900 100% 178900 Pay 2012 Hmsid. Has. 1,789 Hmsid. Ras. 1,789 280 3D -028- 24144)091 6566 France 187.400 187,400 100% 197A00 Pay 2012 Hmsld. Res. 1,874 Hmstd. Res. 1,074 280 30 -02B- 24- 14.0092 6566 France 178,900 178,900 100% 178900 Pay 2012 Hmstd, Ras. 1,789 Hmsid. Res. 1,769 280 30 -02 8-2414 -0093 6566 France 192,300 192,300 100% 182,300 Pay 2012 Non -FI Res. 2,404 Non-H Res. 2,404 280 30 -028 -24-14 -0094 6566 France 224,300 224,300 100% 220,800 Pay 2012 Hmsid. Res. 2,243 Hmstd. Res. 2,243 280 30-02 6-24 - 14-0095 6566 France 235.000 235,000 100% 295,000 Pay 2012 Hmstd. Res. 2,350 Hmstd. Res. 2,350 200 30 -02 8-24- 14-0096 6566 France France 164,300 164,300 100,11. 184,300 Pay 2012 Hmsid. Res. 1,643 Hmstd. Res. 1.643 280 30 -028 -24- 14-0097 6566 122,000 122,000 100% 122,000 Pay 2012 Hmstd. Res. 1220 Hmstd. Res. 1,220 280 30 -02 8-24 -14 -0098 6566 France 159,400 159,400 100% 159AGO Pay 2012 Nom Res. 1,993 Non-H Res. 1,993 280 30-02 &24. 14-0095 6566 France 122,000 122000 100% 122,000 Pay 2012 No" Res. 1,525 Non -H Res. 1,525 280 30-02 8-24 -14 -0100 6566 France 224,300 224,300 100Y. 224000 Pay 2012 Hmsid. Res. 2,243 Hmsid. Figs. 2,243 280 30-02 9-2414 -0101 6566 France 239,900 239,900 100% 239900 Pay 2012 Non-H Res. 2,999 Non -H Res. 2,999 280 30-02 8-24 -14 -0102 6566 France 165,700 165,700 100°.6 165.700 Pay 2012 Non-ti Res- 2,071 Non -H Res. 2,071 280 3D-02 &2414 -0103 6566 France 192.300 192,300 1 DO% 1920300 Pay 2012 Hmsid. Ras 1,923 Hmsid. Res. 1,923 280 30 -02 8-24 -14 -0104 6566 France 165,700 165,700 1 DO% 185,700 Pay 2012 Hmsid. Ras. 1.657 Hmsid. Res. 1,857 280 30 -02 8-24 -14 -0105 6566 France 192,3D0 192,300 100% 192900 Pay 2012 Hmstd. Res 1,923 Hmsid. Ras. 1.923 2.292 280 30-028- 24- 14-010E 6566 Franca 229,200 229.200 100% 229200 Pay 2012 Hmsid. Res. 2292 Hrnsid. Res. 280 30-02 &24 - 14-0107 6566 France France 244,800 244,800 100% 244900 Pay 2012 Hmsid. Res. 2,440 Hmstd. Res. 2.448 2.133 280 30 -02 &24 -14 -0108 6566 170,600 170,600 100% 170,600 Pay 2012 Non-H Res. 2,133 Non -H Res. 280 30 -028 -24 -14 -0109 6566 Fran- 129,400 129,400 10D% 129A00 Pay 2012 Nan-H Res. 1,618 Non-H Res. 1.818 200 3D -029-24.14 -0110 6566 France 159,400 100% 169,400 Pay 2012 NorrH Res. 1,993 Non-H Res. 1.993 280 30 -02 9-24.14 -0111 6566 France 159,400 122,000 100% 122AW Pay 2012 Hmsid. Res. 1,720 Hmsid. Res. 1.220 280 34028 - 24.14.0112 6566 France 122,000 229,200 229,200 1 DO% 729200 Pay 2012 Hmstd Res. 2,292 Hmstd. Res. 2.292 280 30 -02 8-24 -14 -0113 6566 France 239,900 100% 239900 Pay 2012 Hmstd Res. 2,399 Hmsid. Ras. 2,399 280 30 -028 -24- 14-0114 656fi France 238,900 178,900 100% 178,900 Pay 2012 Hmstd. Res. 1,789 Hmsid Res. 1.788 280 30-023-24-14-013.5 5566 France 178,900 187.400 187 400 100% 187AM Pay 2012 Nan -H Res. 2.343 Non-H Res. 2.343 260 30 -028- 24.14 -0ilE 6565 France 178,9DO it]O% 1781900 Pay 2012 Hmsid. Ras. 1,789 Hmsid. Ras. 1,789 280 30 -028 -24- 14-0117 6566 France 178.900 187,400 100% 187A00 Pay 2012 Non-H Res. 2,343 Non-H Res. 2,343 280 30 -02 8-24 -14 -0118 6566 France 187,400 100% 224,800 Pay 2012 Hmstd. Res. 2,243 Hrisid. Res. 2.243 280 30. 028 -24.14 -0115 6566 Fran- 224. 300 224,300 •1 12C-o+b8Fiarce rsa.ow 159.400 159,400 100% 159,400 _ _ ___ P8y.2012 Hmstd. Res. - 1,584 Hmsld Rae. 1.594 280 30. 028 -24- 14-0123 6566 France 234.100 234,100 100% 234.100 Pay 2012 Hnsld. Rea 2.341 Hmstd. Rea 2.341 280 30-028-24- 14-0225 6566 France France 188.200 168200 100% - 1881200 Pay 2012 Hmstd. Res. 1,882 Hmvld Rea 1.882 200 30-028 -24. 14.0127 6566 France 192.300 192,300 100% 192,300 Pay 2012 Hmstd. Flee. 1,923 Hmsld. Res. 1.923 280 30 -028 -24.14 -0128 6566 6566 France 188,200 188,200 100% 188200 Pay 2012 Hmstd. Res. 1,802 Hmsld Res. 1.892 280 30-028 - 24- 14- 0229 6566 France 187.400 187.400 100% 187,400 Pay 2012 Hmstd. Rea. 1.874 Hmstd. Res. 1.874 280 30 -028- 24- 14.013(1 France 229.200 2202W 100% 229,200 Pay 2012 Hmstd. Rea 2.282 Hmstd. Res. 2.292 280 30. 028.24 - 14.0131 6566 164,300 164,300 100% 184.900 Pay 2012 HravW. Rea 1,643 Hmstd. Rea 1.643 280 30-028.24.14 -0133 6556 Fiance Fiance 159,400 15914W 100% 1897100 Pay 2012 Non-H Ras. 1,993 Non-H Res. 1.883 280 30428. 24.14-0135 6566 France 229.200 229200 100% 229200 Pay 2012 Non-H Res. 2.865 Non -H Res. 2.865 280 30-028 -24- 14-0137 6566 France 179,900 178,1100 100% 179700 Pay 2012 Nan -H Res 2,236 Non -H Res. 2236 280 30-028 -24- 14-0139 6566 6566 Fiance 187.400 187.400 100% 187AW Pay 2012 Hnsfd Ras. 1.974 Hrretd. AeL 1.874 280 30 -028 -24- 14-0140 183.600 1 B3.BW 100% 1133,800 Pay 2012 HrmW. Res 1.838 Hmstd. Ras. 1.838 200 280 30-028.24- 14-0141 6566 France 30. 028 -24-14 -0142 6566 France 1 87.400 187,400 100% 187,400 Pay 2012 Non -H Res 2.343 Non-H Rea 2.343 1,794 250 50-028.24- 14-0147 6566 Franca 179,400 179,400 100% 100% 179ADD 914,200 Pay 2012 HmsuL Rea Pay 2012 Non -H Ras. 1.794 3,928 Hmstd. Ras. Non -H Res. 3,92(1 200 30. 028 - 24.14-0149 6566 France 314200 196,000 314,200 186,000 100% 189,000 Pay 2012 Hmstd. Rea 1.960 Hmstd. Res. 1.960 280 30.028 -24- 140151 6566 France France 209.400 209,400 100% 209.400 Pay 2012 Ncn•H Res 2.618 No" Res. 2.618 28D 30-028.2414-0152 6566 France 198.000 196,000 100%' 1GG,009 Pay 2012 Non-H Res. 2.450 Non-H Res. 2,450 - 28D 3D -028 -24- 14.0153 6566 214.300 214,300 100% 214,900 Pay 2012 Hmstd. Rea 2.143 Hmstd. Rea 2,143 280 30. 028.24. 14.0154 6566 France 250.500 250 100% 250400 Pay 2012 HffmUL Res. 2.505 Hnwd. Res. 2.505 280 30-028 -24- 14-0155 6566 France France 261 ,500 281200 100% 261200 Pay 2012 Hmstd. Rea 2.612 Hmstd. Res. 2,812 280 30-028 -24- 14-01% 6566 6566 .200 179.400 179.400 100% 179A011 Pay 2012 Non-H Rea 2.243 NmrH Res. 2.243 200 30-028.24- 14-0157 Fiance Frame 138.500 138,500 100% 138,MD Pay 2012 HrtsItLRes. 1.385 Hmstd.ROL 1,385 260 30-02 8-24.14 -0158 6566 6566 France 372.500 372,50D 100% 312,500 Pay 2012 Non-H Res. 4,656 Non-H Res, 4.656 280 280 30-028 - 2414-0159 30-028.24- 14-0160 4015 65th Street West 3,032.400 6.631.300 11,663,700 100% 11,683,700 Pay 2012 Rental 145.796 Rental 145,796 2.996 28D 30-0211.24- 140161 6566 Frame 299.600 299,000 100 a 100% 299,800 MAW Pay2012 H.. Res. Pay 2012 Hmstd Res. 2.996 3.999 Hmstd. Re3. MOM. Ras. 3,989 280 30-028- 2414 -0162 6566 France 399.9W 367,600 399AM 367,600 100% 367,60D Pay 2012 Non -H Res. 4.595 Non-H Rev. 4.595 280 30 -028- 24- 14-0163 6556 France France 367.600 367,600 100% W1.60D Pay 2012 Hmstd. Res. 3,676 Hmstd. Rea 3,676 280 30 -0I &2414 -0164 6566 272,800 272800 100% 272.800 Pay 2012 Non-H Rev. 3.410 Non -H Res. 3,410 280 30 -028.7A -14 -0165 6566 France France 387.600 367.600 100% 361,600 Pay 2012 Non-H Res 4.595 Non -H Ras. 4.595 280 30 -0I3-24. 14.0166 6565 414,300 414,300 1009. 414.000 Pay 2012 Havild. Res. 4.143 HMSId. Rea 4,143 280 30 -028.2414 -0167 6556 France 286200 109% 286,200 Pay 2012 No" Res 3,578 Non-H Res. 3.578 280 - 30 -028.2414-0168 6566 France 26%200 151,800 151.800 100% 161,400 Pay 2012 Hmsld Rea. 1,518 Hmstd. Rea. 1,518 26D 30 -028 -24- 14-0049 6566 France 116,200 118200 100% 116200 Pay 2012 Hmstd. Rea 1,192 Hmstd. Res. 1.162 280 30-028.24- 14-0050 6566 France 151,000 151.800 100% 161,000 Pay 2012 Hmstd. Rec. 1,518 Hmstd. Rea 1,518 280 30-028 -24- 14-0051 6565 France France 116,200 - 116~200 100% 116200 Pay 2012 Hmstd. Res 1,182 Hmstd. Res. 1.162 280 30 -02224 - 14-0052 6566 213,600 213,600 100% 213,600 Pay 2012 Hmstd. Rea 2,136 Hmstd. Res. 2,136 280 30 -028.24- 14-0053 6566 France 224,300 224,300 100% 224,300 Pay 2012 Hmstd Res. 2.243 Hmstd. Res. 2.243 280 50 -028.24 -14 -0054 6566 France 170.400 100% 170AN Pay 2012 Hmstd. Res. 1.704 Hmstd. Res. 1.704 280 30 -028- 24- 140055 6566 France 170,400 183.800 100% 183,800 Pay 2012 Non -H Res. 2,298 Non -1-1 Res. 2,298 260 30 -029-24 - 14-0056 6566 France 183.800 170,400 170.400 100% 170AOD Pay 2012 Hmstd. Rea 1,704 Hnisld. Rea. 1.704 280 30 -028- 24.14 -0057 6566 France 178,900 178,900 100% 178= Pay 2012 Hmstd. Rea 1.789 Mmsld. Res. 1,789 280 3D- o28 -24 -14 -0058 6566 France 213.600 213.600 100% 213.600 Pay 2012 Hmstd. Res 2,136 Hasid Res. 2036 280 30-028.24144059 6556France 229 100% 229201) Pay 2012 Hmstd. Rea 2,292 Hmstd. Rea 2.292 280 30-028.2414-0060 6566 France 228.200 151,600 .200 151.600 1097. 161,800 Pay 2012 Non-H Res. 1.898 Non -H Rea 1.898 280 30 -028- 24- 14-0051 6565 France 116.200 100% 116200 Pay 2012 Non-H Res 1,453 Non-H Res. 1,453 280 30-028-24140062 6566 France 116,200 151,800 100% 161.8011 Pay 2012 Non-H Res 1,898 Non-H Rea 1,898 280 30-028. 2414-0063 6566 France 151.800 116200 100% 116200 Pay 2012 Hmstd. Res. 1,162 Hmstd Rea 1,162 260 30. 028 -24 -14 -0064 6566 France 118.200 213,600 213.600 100% 213.600 Pay 2012 Non-H Res 2,670 Non -H Ras. 2.670 280 30.028.24 -14 -0065 6566 Fiance 229.200 229.200 100% 229.200 Pay 2012 Hmstd- Res 2,282 Wnsld. Res 2282 280 30-02&24- 14 -006E 6566 France 170,400 170,400 100-6 170,400 Pay 0012 Hmsld Rea 1.704 Hmstd. Rea 1,7134 280 30. 028.24- 14-0067 6566 France 183,800 103.800 100% 183.800 Pay 2012 Hmstd Res- 1,838 Hmsld.Res. 1.838 280 30 -023-24.14 -0063 6565Fianm 0 100% 0 Pay 2012 232,056.700 4252.730 41111211 7 Note. 1. Base values are based upon review of County wobslte on 377/12 of values assessed 112111 for taxes payable 2012. 2. Parcels ere located within School district 260 and Watershed District I and 3. The tax rate used for this projection Is for Watershed 3 Southdale Mall Renovation and Mixed Use Development City of Edina Southdele Mall Renovation and Adjacent Development Note. 1. Renovated mall market value based upon tax estimates from mall owner. o nm,., eased on oroaosals received by the City of Edina that will increase existing values and estimates from City Assessor. PROJECT a• • omt Tax rscW Disparities Estimated Tasablo rsc Olsp•riltes ToWTaxabfe Properly Taft Perean" percentage Percentage Percentage First Year Taws Martel Value Market Value Total Metrical Tax Project Project Tax Completed Completed Completed 2014 Compkffid 201 Full P Aroa/Pha•o New Una Per . FUUrik Par . F11Urd1 S . FIJUnitO VMde pass Tax C• C acil 1Unk 2012 90'7, 2013 .• ` tble Neva! 125.000.000 t25.00U.000 1 125.OW.OW 67.000.01)(3 C11 Prel. 2.4W.250 1,999250 90% 92% 95% 100% 2017 0 1 lice Office 67.000,000 67,000.000 130.000 1 420 54,60.000 Ramat 002,600 25% 25% 45% 100% 2017 66th 8 York Apartments Rela11 Retail 130.000 53,000,000 53,000,000 1 53.W11,000 C/l Prel. 1,059250 93% 100% 961/6 100% 98% 100% 100% 100% 2017 2014 Condos Condominiums 215,000 197,110 141 27,792,510 Hmsid. Res. 277,925 ubtalal aManhol 10 4 4 5ubtotol omtnarcln n . T45.000 000 897750 Note. 1. Renovated mall market value based upon tax estimates from mall owner. o nm,., eased on oroaosals received by the City of Edina that will increase existing values and estimates from City Assessor. 1. Tares and tax increment will vary signlicontly from year to year depending upon values, rotes, state law, fiscal disparities and other letters which cannot be predicted. 2. It tax increment is received in 2013 then the district will be one year shorter. TAX CALCULATIONS omt Tax rscW Disparities tenet Tax oca Property rsc Olsp•riltes leteivld. Property ar e1 Value Taft New Uw Caunfly Tax.Councity aci Taws Taxes Taxes Taxes Teas Retail 2,499,250 868,272 1,630,978 1,865,040 1,232,469 1,799,610 198,250 4 Office 1,339,250 465,273 073,977 999,402 660,432 696,410 105,262 2AC?A 6 807.041 Apartments Retail 682,500 7,059,250 0 367,997 682.500 691,253 760,446 790,454 0 522,354 0 550,810 06,596 04,058 1,9.7,676 Gemdem 277925 0 277.925 317.810 0 0 44.079 361889 1. Tares and tax increment will vary signlicontly from year to year depending upon values, rotes, state law, fiscal disparities and other letters which cannot be predicted. 2. It tax increment is received in 2013 then the district will be one year shorter. 3/2312012 OmA EHLERS LEWIS IN th11UC ntuNta City of Edina Southdale Mall Renovation and Adjacent Development School District 280 Base Value Assumptions - Page 1 % of OTC Project Tax Capadty Original Tax Capacity Fiscal Diawfi a Incremental capflaed Tax capacity Local Tax Rafe Annual I Gross Tax Increntard Semi - Annual Gross Tax Increment State Auditor 02616 Adrrrtin. at 10% SernFAnnual Net Tax Increment Semi- Annual Present Value PEHIOD ENDING Yrs. Tax Year Payment Date - 08101/12 • - - 02101/13 • 08!01/13 - - 02/01/14 100% 4,887,371 (4,121,297) (350,521) 415,553 114.351% 475,189 237,594 (855) (23,874) 213,065 166,039 0.6 2014 0801/14 237,694 (855) (23,674) 213,065 367,098 1 2014 02/01/15 100% 5,007,847 (4,121,297) (392,052) 494,497 114.351% 565,463 282,731 (1,018) (28,171) 253,542 576,788 1.5 2015 08/01115 282,731 (1,018) (28,171) 253,542 780,866 2 2015 02/01/16 100% 5,294,683 (4,121,297) (444,281) 729,105 114.351% 833,738 416,869 (1,501) (41,537) 373,832 1,073,712 2.5 2016 08/01 /16 416,869 (1,501) (41,537) 373,832 1,358,721 3 2016 02/01/17 100% 5,856,175 (4,121,297) (509,635) 1,227,243 114.351% 1,403,354 701,682 (2,526) (69,916) 629,240 1,825,613 3.5 2017 08/01/17 701,682 (2,526) (69,916) 629,240 2,280,009 4 2017 02/01/18 1009'0 5,858,175 (4,121,297) (504,487) 1,232,391 114.351% 1,409,252 704,825 (2,537) (70,209) 631,880 2,724,099 4.5 2018 08/01/18 704,626 (2,537) (70,209) 631,880 3,156,303 5 2018 02101/19 100916 5.858,175 (4,121,297) (504,487) 1,232,391 114.351% 1,409,252 704,626 (2,537) (70,209) 631,880 3,576,940 5.5 2019 06/01/19 704,626 (2,537) (70,209) 631,880 3,986,319 6 2019 02101/20 100% 5,856,175 (4,121,297) (504,487) 1,232,391 114.351% 1,409,252 704,626 (2,537) (70,209) 631,680 4,384,742 6.5 2020 08/01/20 704,626 (2,537) (70,209) 631,680 4,772,501 7 2020 02101121 100% 5,858,175 (4,121,297) (504,487) 1,232,391 114.351% 1,409,252 704,626 (2,537) (70,209) 631,880 5,149,882 7.5 2021 08101121 704,626- (2,537) (70.209) 631,880 5,517,163 8 2021 02/01/22 100% 5,858,175 (4,121,297) (504,487) 1,232.391 114.351% 1,409,252 704,626 (2,537) (70,209) 631,880 5,874,614 8.5 2022 08101/22 704,626 (2.537) (70,209) 631.880 6,222.498 9 2022 OP/01/23_ Total '10,324,014 (37,166) (1,028,665) 9,258,163 Present Value From 0210112012 Present Value Rote 5.50% 6,938,866 (24,980) (691,389) 6,222,498 Prepared L. 8 Associmm. Inc. - Estimates Only ! m- dc2NdataVA[nrisotaWDINAWousing EoDnomlc RedeveloMenAlIKTiF DlalrlctMouthdals 2ttlF Run OpUon a SD Appendix E Minnesota Business Assistance Form (Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development) A Minnesota Business Assistance Form (MBAF) should be used to report and/or update each calendar year's activity by April l of the following year. Please see the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) website at httr): / /www.deed. state. mn. us / Community /subsidies/MBAFForm.htrn for information and forms. Appendix E-1 Appendix F Findings Including But./For Oualifications But -For Analyds Current Market Value 489,660,200 New Market Value - Estimate 608,772,510 Difference 119,112,310 Present Value of Tax Increment 7,873,815 Difference 111,238,495 Value Likely to Occur Without TIF is Less Than: 111,238,495 Appendix F -1 Councilmember CITY OF EDINA HENNEPIN COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ADOPTING A MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE SOUTHEAST EDINA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA; AND ESTABLISHING THE SOUTHDALE 2 TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT THEREIN AND ADOPTING A TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN THEREFOR. BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the "Council ") of the City of Edina, Minnesota (the "City "), as follows: Section 1. Recitals. 1.01. The City Council and the Board of Commissioners of the Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority (the "HRA ") have heretofore established the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area and adopted the Redevelopment Plan therefor. It has been proposed by the HRA and the City that the City adopt a Modification to the Redevelopment PIan (the "Redevelopment Plan Modification ") for the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area (the "Project Area ") and establish the Southdale 2 Tax Increment Financing District (the "District ") therein and adopt a Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "TIF Plan") therefor (the Redevelopment Plan Modification and the TIF Plan are referred to collectively herein as the "Plans "); all pursuant to and in conformity with applicable law, including Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047 and Sections 469.174 to 469.1799, all inclusive, as amended, (the "Act ") all as reflected in the Plans, and presented for the Council's consideration. 1.02. The HRA and City have investigated the facts relating to the Plans and have caused the Plans to be prepared. 1.03. The HRA and City have performed all actions required by law to be performed prior to the establishment of the District and the adoption and approval of the proposed Plans, including, but not limited to, notification of Hennepin County, Independent School District No. 280 and Independent School District No. 273 having taxing jurisdiction over the property to be included in the District, a review of and written comment on the Plans by the City Planning Commission on March 28, 2012, approval of the Plans by the HRA on April 17, 2012, and the holding of a public hearing upon published notice as required by law. 1.04. Certain written reports (the "Reports ") relating to the Plans and to the activities contemplated therein have heretofore been prepared by staff and consultants and submitted to the Council and/or made a part of the City files and proceedings on the Plans. The Reports. include data, information and/or substantiation constituting or relating to the basis for the other findings and determinations made in this resolution. The Council hereby confirms, ratifies and adopts the Reports, which are hereby incorporated into and made as fully apart of this resolution to the same extent as if set forth in full herein. 1.05 The Council recognizes that, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, Subd. 3, clause b, there is a mandatory fiscal disparities contribution for the District, an economic development district. 1.06. The City is not modifying the boundaries of the Project Area, but is modifying the Redevelopment Plan therefor to include activities related to the District. Section 2. Findings for the Adoption and Approval of the Redevelopment Plan Modification. 2.01. The Council approves the Redevelopment Plan Modification, and specifically finds that: (a) the land within the Project area would not be available for redevelopment without the financial aid to be sought under this Redevelopment Plan; (b) the Redevelopment Plan, as modified, will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the needs of the City as a whole, for the development of the Project by private enterprise; and (c) that the Redevelopment Plan, as modified, conforms to the general plan for the development of the City as a whole. Section 3. Findings for the Establishment of the Southdale 2 Tax Increment Financine District. 3.01. The Council hereby finds that the District is in the public interest and is an "economic development district" under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subd. 12 of the Act. 3.02. The Council further finds that the proposed development would not occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and that the increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in the market value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of the District permitted by the Tax Increment Financing Plan, that the Plans conform to the general plan for the development or redevelopment of the City as a whole; and that the Plans will afford maximum opportunity consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the redevelopment or development of the District by private enterprise. 3.03. The Council further finds, declares and determines that the City made the above findings stated in this Section and has set forth the reasons and supporting facts for each determination in writing, attached hereto as Exhibit A. Section 4. Findings for Use of the District to Provide Assistance Pursuant to Section 469.176. Subd. 4c(d) of the Act. 4.01. The Council further expects that the District will meet the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.476, Subd. 4c(d) (exempting the District from manufacturing, warehouse, and distribution use restrictions), because: (i) the proposed development will create or retain jobs in the State (including construction jobs), and construction of the project would not have commenced before July 1, 2012 without the assistance provided through tax increment under the T1F Plan; (ii) construction of the project will begin no later than July 1, 2012; and (iii) the City and HRA will request certification of the District by no later than June 30, 2012. 4.02. If construction does not commence by July 1, 2012 (unless this date is extended by state law), the proposed project will need to meet the criteria of Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.176, Subd. 4c(a) and must satisfy the finding required under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subd. 12. Section 5.. Public Purpose. 5.01. The adoption of the Plans conforms in all respects to the requirements of the Act and will result in increased employment in the state, and will result in preservation and enhancement of the tax base of the State and thereby serves a public purpose. For the reasons described in Exhibit A, the City believes these benefits directly derive from the tax increment assistance provided under the TIF Plan. A private mall owner will receive only the assistance needed to make this development financially feasible. As such, any private benefits received by a mall owner are incidental and do not outweigh the primary public benefits. Section 6. Approval and Adoption of the Plans. 6.01. The Plans, as presented to the Council on this date, including without limitation the findings and statements of objectives contained therein, are hereby approved, ratified, established, and adopted and shall be placed on file in the office of the Executive Director. 6.02. The staff of the City, the City's advisors and legal counsel are authorized and directed to proceed with the implementation of the Plans and to negotiate, draft, prepare and present to this Council for its consideration all further plans, resolutions, documents and contracts necessary for this purpose. 6.03 The Auditor of Hennepin County is requested to certify the original net tax capacity of the District, as described in the Plans, and to certify in each year thereafter the amount by which the original net tax capacity has increased or decreased; and the Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority is authorized and directed to forthwith transmit this request to the County Auditor in such form and content as the Auditor may specify, together with a list of all properties within the District, for which building permits have been issued during the 18 months immediately preceding the adoption of this resolution. 6.04. The Executive Director is further authorized and directed to file a copy of the Plans with the Commissioner of Revenue and the Office of the State Auditor pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 469.175, Subd. 4a. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council member and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: Dated: April 17, 2012 Mayor (Seal) ATTEST: City Clerk EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NO. The reasons and facts supporting the findings for the adoption of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Southdale 2 Tax Increment Financing District as required pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 3 are as follows: Finding that the Southdale 2 Tax Increment Financing District is an economic development district as defined in M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 12. The Southdale 2 Tax Increment Financing District (the "District ") is a contiguous geographic area within the City's the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area, delineated in the TIF Plan, for the purpose of financing economic development in the City through the use of tax increment. The District is in the public interest because it will facilitate renovations to the common areas of Southdale Mall and exterior improvements to the shopping center, which will increase employment in the state, and preserve and enhance the tax base of the state. Furthermore, the assistance being provided meets the requirements for assistance under Section 469.176, subd. 4c(d) of the Act, because: • The private development to be assisted pursuant to the TIF Plan will create or retain jobs in the state, including construction jobs; • the development consists of improvements to interior and exterior common areas, and construction will commence no later than July 1, 2012; o construction of the proposed development would not have commenced before July 1, 2012, without the tax increment financing assistance to be provided pursuant to the TIF Plan; and • the City will file the request for certification of the District by June 30, 2012. 2. Finding that the proposed development, in the opinion of the City Council, would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and that the increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in the market value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of the Southdale 2 Tax Increment Financing District permitted by the TIF Plan. The proposed development, in the opinion of the City, would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future. This finding is supported by the following facts: • Southdale Center is a 1.2 million square foot indoor mall originally constructed in 1956. Portions of the mall have an obsolete configuration that makes it difficult to attract retail tenants. • Retail property in general has experienced declining property values and lease rates as evidenced by successful tax appeals at Southdale Center and other retail establishments in the City. • Southdale Center is the hub of economic development, retail activity, office space, and high density housing in the City of Edina. A decline in the value and retail traffic at the mall will negatively impact the value and economic development activity on the property surrounding the mall. Conversely, a vibrant mall will spur economic development for mall tenants, other mall owners such as Macy's and JC Penny's and the surrounding property within the District. • The costs of the proposed improvements to the common areas of the mall cannot be passed on to tenants and is therefore a long -term investment on the part of the mall owner, Simon Properties. In the short-term they will not, in and of themselves, increase the market value of the property. However, they are being undertaken to increase retail traffic at the mall, and improve occupancy and lease rates which, over time, will increase the value of the mall and surrounding properties, 'as well as spur additional development in the District. Best Buy is closing the retail store located within the District. Successful redevelopment of this site will depend on a financially viable Southdale Center that attracts more retail traffic. The City and HRA, as a condition to tax increment assistance, will be requiring the mall owner to invest at least $ 14,000,000 in interior and exterior improvements to the common areas of Southdale Center. The amount of tax increment will increase if the mall owner increases improvement investments up to $15,000,000. Without the assistance, the mall owner has submitted statements that it would limit the renovations to approximately $7.34 million in basic improvements. Without the tax increment assistance, the mall property would not generate sufficient returns to the mall owner to undertake the full $14,000,000 to $15,000,000 in improvements. With the tax increment, the mall owner has indicated that the Southdale Center renovations will result in a return on investment under the normal thresholds for Simon Properties for a third year return, but is expected to achieve the corporate minimum investment threshold in the fifth year with the tax increment assistance. The mall owner has provided the City and HRA evidence that without assistance, the mall owner would be unable to construct the full level of proposed renovations. The increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in market value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of the TIF District permitted by the TIF Plan: The City supported this finding on the grounds that the assessed market value of Southdale Center has declined 32% in the last five years. Best Buy recently announced it will be closing its retail store in the District. The declining values and declining or stagnant retail lease rates evidenced by successful tax appeals at Southdale Center, the current obsolete configuration of the existing Southdale Center that was constructed over fifty years ago, and the internal competition for resources within the 350 mall portfolio of Simon Properties all make it unlikely that the full level of mall renovations will be constructed in the next 9 years without public assistance of some kind. The City further determines that these same challenges suggest that no other development of similar scope could reasonably be expected to occur on this site without similar assistance being provided to the development. Therefore, the City concludes as follows: a. If the proposed development occurs, the total increase in market value will be $119,112,310 (see Appendix D and F of the TIF Plan) The present value of tax increments from the District for the maximum duration of the district permitted by the TIF Plan is estimated to be $7,873,815 (see Appendix D and F of the TIF Plan). The Council finds that no alternative would occur that would produce a market value increase greater than $111,238,495 (the amount in clause b less the amount in clause c) without tax increment assistance. 3. Finding that the TIF Plan for the Southdale 2 Tax Increment Financing District conforms to the general plan for the development or redevelopment of the municipality as a whole. The Planning Commission reviewed the TIF Plan on March 28, 2012 and found that the TIF Plan conforms to the general development plan of the City. 4. Finding that the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Southdale 2 Tax In.crennen.t Financing District will afford maxin :um opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the developnnent of the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area by private enterprise. The project to be assisted by the District will result in increased employment in the City and the State of Minnesota, increased tax base of the State and the redevelopment of currently underutilized land by a private business. CITY OF EDINA HENNEPIN COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Councilmember introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN INTERFUND LOAN FOR ADVANCE OF CERTAIN COSTS IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOUTHDALE 2 TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT. BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners (the "Board ") of the Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority (the "HRA ") and the City of Edina (the "City ") that City Council (the "Council ") of the City of Edina, Minnesota (the "City "), as follows: Section 1. Background. 1.01. The City and HRA intend to establish the Southdale 2 Tax Increment Financing District (the "TIF District ") within the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area (the "Project "), and will adopt a Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "TIF Plan ") for the purpose of financing certain improvements within the Project. 1.02. The City and HRA have determined to pay for certain costs identified in the TIF Plan consisting of site improvements, other qualifying improvements, interest and administrative costs (collectively, the "Qualified Costs "), which costs may be financed on a temporary basis from City or HRA funds available for such purposes. 1.03. Under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.178, Subd. 7, the City and HRA are authorized to advance or loan money from its general funds or any other fund from which such advances may be legally authorized, in order to finance the Qualified Costs. 1.04. The City and HRA intend to reimburse themselves for the Qualified Costs from tax increments derived from the TIF District in accordance with the terms of this resolution (which terms are referred to collectively as the " Interfund Loan "). Section 2. Terms of Interfund Loan. 2.01. The City and HRA hereby authorize the advance of up to $5,100,000, or so much thereof as may be paid as Qualified Costs, from the Centennial Lakes Tax Increment District fund or such other fund identified by the City or HRA. The total advances of City and HRA, when added together, shall not exceed $5,100,000. 2.02 The City and HRA shall reimburse themselves such advances together with interest at the rate stated below. Interest accrues on the principal amount from the date of each advance. The maximum rate of interest permitted to be charged is limited to the greater of the rates specified under Minnesota Statutes, Section 270C.40 or Section 549.09 as of the date the loan or advance is authorized, unless the written agreement states that the maximum interest rate will fluctuate as the interest rates specified under Minnesota Statutes, Section 270C.40 or Section 549.09 are from time to time adjusted. The interest rate shall be 4% and will not fluctuate. 2.03. Principal and interest ( "Payments ") on the Interfund Loan shall be paid semi - annually on each August 1 and February 1 (each a "Payment Date "), commencing on the first Payment Date on which the Authority has Available Tax Increment (defined below), or on any other dates determined by the Finance Director, through the date of last receipt of tax increment from the TIF District. 2.04. Payments on this Interfund Loan are payable solely from "Available Tax Increment," which shall mean, on each Payment Date, tax increment available after other obligations have been paid, or as determined by the Finance Director, generated in the preceding six (6) months with respect to the property within the TIF District and remitted to the City and HRA by Hennepin County, all in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 to 469.1799, all inclusive, as amended. Payments on this Interfund Loan may be subordinated to any outstanding or future bonds, notes or contracts secured in whole or in part with Available Tax Increment, and are on parity with any other outstanding or future interfund loans secured in whole or in part with Available Tax Increment. 2.05. The principal sum and all accrued interest payable under this Interfund Loan are pre- payable in whole or in part at any time by the City and HRA without premium or penalty. No partial prepayment shall affect the amount or timing of any other regular payment otherwise required to be made under this Interfund Loan. 2.06. This Interfund Loan is evidence of an internal borrowing by the City or HRA in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.178, Subd. 7, and is a limited obligation payable solely from Available Tax Increment pledged to the payment hereof under this resolution. This Interfund Loan and the interest hereon shall not be deemed to constitute a general obligation of the State of Minnesota or any political subdivision thereof, including, without limitation, the City. Neither the State of Minnesota, nor any political subdivision thereof shall be obligated to pay the principal of or interest on this Interfund Loan or other costs incident hereto except out of Available Tax Increment, and neither the full faith and credit nor the taxing power of the State of Minnesota or any political subdivision thereof is pledged to the payment of the principal of or interest on this Interfund Loan or other costs incident hereto. The City and HRA shall have no obligation to pay any principal amount of the Interfund Loan or accrued interest thereon, which may remain unpaid after the final Payment Date. 2.07. The City may amend the terms of this Interfund Loan at any time by resolution of the City Council, including a determination to forgive the outstanding principal amount and accrued interest to the extent permissible under law. Section 3. Effective Date. This resolution is effective upon the date of its approval. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council member and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: ADOPTED: April 17, 2012 James Hovland, Mayor (Seal) ATTEST: Scott Neal, City Manager Spending Plan for Centennial Lakes Tax Increment Financing District J$ EHLERS LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE a� Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority City of Edina Hennepin County State of Minnesota Authority Adoption: April 17, 2012 City Council Approval: April 17, 2012 Prepared by: EHLERS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 3060 Centre Pointe Drive, Roseville, Minnesota 55113 -1105 651- 697 -8500 FAX: 651 - 697 -8555 WWW.EHLERS- INC.COM Spending Plan For Centennial Lakes Tax Increment Financing District Section 1. Purpose The City of Edina and the Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority. (the "HRA "), the administrative authority for Centennial Lakes Tax Increment Financing District (the "TIF District ") in the City of Edina, Minnesota (the "City"), propose to adopt a Spending Plan for the TIF District in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.176 Subd. 4m (the "Act "). The City and HRA has determined to authorize expenditures of tax increment from the TIF District under the Temporary TIF Authority Act as further described in this Spending Plan. The purpose of the Spending Plan is to develop or redevelop sites, lands or areas within the City in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan by using available tax increments from the TIF District to provide improvements, loans, interest rate subsidies, or assistance in any form to private development consisting of the construction or substantial rehabilitation of buildings and ancillary facilities, which will create or retain jobs in this state, including construction jobs, if the following conditions exist: (1) Such assistance will create or retain jobs in the State of Minnesota, including construction jobs; (2) Construction commences before July 1, 2012; (3) The construction would not have commenced before that date without the assistance; (4) The City Council approves a written spending plan (after a duly noticed public hearing) that specifically authorizes the City to take such actions; and (5) The tax increments authorized under the Spending Plan are spent by December 31, 2012. Section 2. Plan Under this Spending Plan, the City and HRA intend: (a) To use available tax increments from the TIF District to provide improvements, loans, interest rate subsidies, or assistance in any form to private development consisting of the construction or substantial rehabilitation of commercial, industrial, housing and/or mixed -use buildings and ancillary facilities (the "Projects "). The assistance authorized under this Spending Plan expressly includes, but is not limited to, assistance to Southdale Limited Partnership (the "Developer ") in the amount of not more than $5,000,000 to make a no- interest loan to the Developer to finance common area renovations to the 1.2 million square foot City of Edina Spending Plan for Centennial Lakes TIF District Southdale Mall (the " Southdale Renovation Improvements "). The Southdale Renovation Improvements include new entrance structures, flooring, lighting, signage, restrooms, parking deck lighting, exterior seating, columns, and interior wall treatments. The Projects shall commence before July 1, 2012, (unless a later commencement date is authorized by law) and shall constitute Projects that would not commence by such date without the assistance provided pursuant to this Spending Plan. (b) To amend this Spending Plan at any time in accordance with the procedures for approval of the Spending Plan under the Act. (c) To authorize and direct staff to maintain a copy of this Spending Plan with the City's records for the TIF District, and to file a copy of the Spending Plan with the Office of the State Auditor. In connection with such assistance, the City expressly finds that: 1. Construction of the Southdale Renovation Improvements will create or retain new full -time equivalent construction jobs that would not otherwise exist elsewhere in Minnesota, or would not be retained in Minnesota, based on estimates provided by the Developer. 2. The Developer will be required to commence construction of the Southdale Renovation Improvements no later than July 1, 2012. Construction of the Southdale Renovation Improvements would not have commenced before July 1, 2012 without the assistance under this Spending Plan, because the Developer has represented that the portion of the mall renovation project financed by the City and HRA, herein referred to as the Southdale Renovation Improvements, would not be undertaken absent the no- interest loan provided under this Spending Plan. The assistance provided pursuant to this Spending Plan shall be subject to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 116J.993 to 116J.995 (the 'Business Subsidy Law "), unless the assistance provided to a specified recipient is exempt from the Business Subsidy Act under the terms of that statute. City of Edina Spending Plan for TIF Districts No. 15, No 16 and No. 18 Page 2 CITY OF ED1NA HENNEPIN COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING A SPENDING PLAN FOR THE CENTENNIAL LAKES TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the "City Council ") of the City of Edina (the "City "), Hennepin County, Minnesota as follows: Section 1. Backgrround, Findings. (a) The City and the Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority (the "HRA ") have previously established the Centennial Lakes Tax Increment Financing District (the "TIF District ") and adopted the tax increment financing plan therefor (the "TIF Plan") pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 to 469.1799 (the "TIF Act ") and certain special legislation. (b) Section 469.176 Subd. 4m of the TIF Act (referred to as "Temporary Authority") authorizes the City and HRA to spend available tax increment from any existing tax increment financing district, notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, to provide improvements, loans, interest rate subsidies, or assistance in any form to private development consisting of construction or substantial rehabilitation of buildings and ancillary facilities, if certain terms and conditions are met. (c) In accordance with the Temporary Authority, the City and HRA have caused to be prepared a spending plan (the "Spending Plan") authorizing the City to use existing tax increment revenues from the TIF District in order to stimulate construction or rehabilitation of private development in a way that will also create or retain jobs in the renovation of the Southdale Mall. (d) The City has performed all actions required by law to be performed prior to the approval of the Spending Plan, including, but not limited to, causing notice of a public hearing to be published and holding a public hearing on the date hereof on the adoption of the Spending Plan. Section 2. Approval of the Spending (a) The Spending Plan is hereby approved in substantially the form on file in City Hall. (b) The City makes all the findings set forth in the Spending Plan, which are incorporated herein by reference. (c) City staff and consultants are hereby authorized to take actions necessary to carry out the terms of the Spending Plan. Resolution Approving a Spending Plan for Centennial Lakes TIF District Dated: April 17, 2012 Dated: April 17, 2012 Adopted: Mayor . x- .y _..` Resolution Approving a Spending Plan for Tax Increment District 4 -1 Dated: June 27, 2011 Date: April, 17 2012 To: ..Board of County Commissioners From: ,David J. Hough, Deputy County Administrator Subject: Southdale 2 Economic Development District Public Hearing: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 7:00 PM Proposal: The HRA and the City of Edina propose the creation of an Economic Development Tax Increment Financing District within the existing Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area. The site of the proposed TIF District consists of 79 parcels of land and adjacent right -of- ways listed in Appendix C of this memo. Increments collected from the District are proposed to be used to facilitate improvements to the 1.2 million square foot Southdale Mall property. The HRA and City are considering entering into a development agreement with Southdale Limited to Partnership. The redevelopment plans are to renovate the interior common area as well as exterior improvements. Renovations will consist of new entrance structures, flooring, lighting, signage, restrooms, parking; deck lighting, and exterior seating. The City and HRA intend to finance a portion of the total renovation costs and improvements should be substantially complete by December 31, 2012. Use of Tax Increment: The TIF District is projected to generate $11,757,510 of total tax increment through 2021. These funds will be used for pay -as- you -go payments to the redeveloper, for improvement costs; redevelopment, and administrative expenses. The District's fiscal disparities election is pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd 3, clause b. contribution from within the District. SUMMARY: The HRA and the City of Edina propose an Economic Development TIF District that will facilitate interior and exterior improvement to the Southdale Mall. To.satisfy M.S., section 469.176, Subd 4c(d), the City finds that: the project will create jobs in this state, including construction jobs and that construction of the project would not have commenced before July 1, 2012, without the City and HRA providing assistance under provisions of this paragraph. This TIF District satisfies the preference of the Hennepin County Board of.Commissioners for use of tax increment financing, as identified in Resolution 92- 10 -017R1 adopted. 10 /27/92; because the focus is on redevelopment projects, creation of jobs, and will-result in increased employment. A copy of this report will be sent to the Edina City Council with a request that if be entered into the public record of the public hearing to be held on Tuesday, April 17, 2012, to reflect the county's position on this proposal. o1Ve REPORT /RECOMMEN DATION To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL Agenda Item # VI. C. From: Wayne D. Houle, PE City Engineer ® Action ❑ Discussion ❑ Information Date: December 20, 2011 Subject: Public Hearing — 50th & France Parking Structures and Streetscapes Improvements Nos. A -242, P -21, and P -22, Resolution No. 2012 -65 Recommendation: If the City Council determines the project to be necessary, cost effective, and feasible, the Council shall adopt attached Resolution No. 2012 -65 receiving feasibility study, authorizing plans and specifications to be completed, acquire proper approvals through the Edina Planning Commission, and bids be taken for the 50th & France Parking Structures and Streetscapes Improvements Nos. A -242, P -21, and P -22. Info /Background: Attached is a Feasibility Study for the 50th & France Parking Structures and Streetscapes Improvements Nos. A -242, P -21, and P -22. The feasibility study outlines the project and recommendations as well as the funding for the project. The Public Hearing is being held under the requirements of State Statute Chapter 429, meaning that this is a project hearing to look at the merits of the project and not to determine the final assessments for the project. The final assessment hearing is proposed to be schedule for the fall of 2014. However, staff believes it is important to give more detailed information on the financing portion ,of the project; this information is being finalized by our financial consultant and will be submitted prior to the City Council meeting. The Middle Parking Ramp proposed reconstruction will require approvals from the Edina Planning Commission for height (comprehensive plan amendment) and setback variances along with a site plan approval. Staff is also recommending that the project be split for bidding purposes between the parking structure improvements and streetscape improvements. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution No. 2012 -65 Feasibility Study 50th & France Parking Structures and Streetscape Improvements g: \pw \central svcs \eng dlv \projects \Impr nos \p21 center ramp \prelim design \feasibility \public hearings \item vl.c. pblc hrg 50th n france parking structures and streetscapes Imp. no x242 p21 p22.docx RESOLUTION NO. 2012-65 RECEIVING FEASIBILITY STUDY AND ORDERING IMPROVEMENT FOR 50TH -& FRANCE PARKING STRUCTURES AND STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVEMENT NOS. A -242, P -21 &,P -22 WHEREAS, a resolution of the city council, adopted the 20th day of March, 2012, . fixed a date for a council hearing on Improvement Nos. A -242, P -21 and P -22, the proposed improvement of ;50th and France Parking Structures and Streetscape Improvements; and WHEREAS, ten days' mailed notice and two weeks' published notice of the hearing was given, and the hearing was held thereon on the 17th day of April, 2012, at which all persons desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard thereon; and NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA: 1. Such improvement is necessary, cost - effective, and feasible to update aging infrastructure. 2. Such improvement is hereby ordered. 3. The city engineer is hereby designated as the engineer for this improvement. The engineer shall prepare plans and specifications for the making of such improvement. 4. The city council declares its official intent to reimburse itself for the costs of the improvement from the proceeds of tax exempt bonds. Dated: April 17, 2012 Attest: Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk James B. Hovland, Mayor 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 was duly adopted by the Edina _City Council at its Regular Meeting of April 17, 2012, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this day of City Clerk A FEASIBILITY STUDY 0 9e 50th & France Parking Structures and Streetscape Improvements - <<��• Improvement No. A -242, P -21, P -22 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The 50th and France Parking Structures and Streetscape Improvements were initiated by staff in late 2007 and early 2008, due to the issues of parking shortages and aging streetscape corridors. Staff worked with the 50th and France Business Association, 50th & France property owners' group, and neighboring property owners to reach a solution that enhances the district and surrounding neighborhoods. The attached feasibility reports. provide details and costs for the options that have been analyzed. Staff and consultants are,recommending replacing the Middle Ramp with a six -level parking structure; this provides a parking space gain of 258 spaces.. We are also proposing to allow .public parking in the lower level "Contract. Only" parking area of the South Ramp; this provides a public parking ,gain of 88 spaces. :The following is a .summary of recommended improvements: Parking Structure Improvements: • Add vehicle counting and guidance system to all three ramps • New 6- Level Middle Ramp • South Ramp restoration to include two pedestrian elevators, enhanced facade at the France Avenue pedestrian alley, solid waste room remodel, structural restoration, relighting, and replacement of internal drain system. Streetscape Improvements:' • Replace concrete paver sidewalks where needed. • Replace trees and planting materials where needed. • Install new irrigation to tree wells and landscape areas. e Install seasonal lighting poles if successful with Edina Rotary Grant. Total project cost for these improvements is $11,970,000. The improvements will be funded' with special assessments to the district property owners. The overall financing will be split between General Obligation Bonds and City loan. INITIATION / PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT / & ISSUES: The 501h & France Parking Structure and. Streetscape Improvement project was initiated by the Engineering. Department in 2008, following conversations with the districts' business and property owner groups. These groups identified capacity issues with public parking and stressed streetscapes. Staff continued to meet with the property owner group; however the project was placed .on hold during the economic downturn, which occurred from 2009 thru 2011. . Staff and consultants met on March 22, 2012 with the adjacent neighborhood regarding the project. Different options for solving the parking shortage along with the streetscape improvements were discussed. Some of the neighboring property owner's comments Page 1 of 4 April 2, 2012 w9tA )ol� FEASIBILITY STUDY o� e 50th & France s )o Parking Structures and Streetscape Improvements Improvement No. A -242, P -21, P -22 included allowing for more green space along West 51St Street and traffic speeds at Halifax Avenue and West 51St Street is very fast and unsafe, see Appendix B for a summary of the comments. Prior to the economic downturn staff had contracted with Walker Parking to study the parking demands. A Shared Parking Model Study was conducted that identified the need for an additional 140 to 247 parking stalls during peak demands, see Appendix B. COSTS: The following is a summary of the costs for the project. Details of these costs can be found in the respective feasibility studies. Streetscape Improvements: Item Construction Costs Paver Replacements $ 281,200 Irrigation System $ 225,000 Landscape Replacements $ 68,658 Seasonal Lighting $ 45,000 Total Streetscape Improvements $ 619,858 Parking Structure Improvements: Item Construction Costs Middle Ramp $ 7,070,000 South Ramp $ 3,205,000 Total Ramp Improvements $ 10,275,000 Project Soft Costs: Item Costs Design / Soil- Material Testing / Survey $ 700,000 Construction Administration & Public Relations $ 200,000 Temporary Parking and Shuttle Service $ 175,000 Total Project Soft Costs $ 1,075,000 FUNDING / FINANCING: This project is proposed to be funded through special assessment to properties defined by the 50th and France Maintenance District. The financial firm of Ehlers, Inc. is analyzing four potential options of financing the project. The four options as described by Ehlers, Inc. are: Page 2 of 4 April 12, 2012 w9tN� \rte FEASIBILITY STUDY o� e 50th & Frances ' )o Parking Structures and Streetscape Improvements Improvement No. A -242, P -21, P -22 1. City General Obligation Bond (G.O.) only. Current market rates for 15 year debt are about 2.5% and are 3% for 20 year debt. 2. City G.O. Bond and a 0% loan from the Centennial Lakes TIF District with the TIF repaid faster than the G.O. Bond to enable TIF dollars to be spent on other activities in the City earlier. The payments on the G.O. Bond are interest only until the 0% loan is repaid. 3. City G.O. Bond and a 0% loan from the Centennial Lakes Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District amortized equally. This option yields the most proceeds for the project but it does delay the return of TIF to the Centennial Lakes TIF District for up to 20 years. 4. A fourth option of .an internal loan only could also be considered or a mixture of loan and, grant from the TIF District.` A discussion on what interest rate, if any, would be charged is. necessary before these options are considered. The overall assessable square footage of the district is 355,953 square feet. The anticipated total special assessed. cost is $33.628 per square foot based on a project cost of $11,969,858, which does not include the cost of bonds and interest to borrow money during the construction phase. It is staffs intention for a property owner to have a repayment option spreading the special assessment over 20- years, with the average cost of two dollars per square foot per year. PROJECT SCHEDULE: The following schedule has been identified for this project: City Council Receives Feasibility Proposal .............. .......................December 20, 2011 Council Orders Public Hearing .................................. ............................... March 20, 2012 Public Hearing .............. ....................................................................... April 17, 2012 Application to Planning Commission for Site. Plan and variances ............... May 2, 2012 Planning Commission Meeting .............. :. *. .... **.. ............................... May 23, 2012 City Council: Approve Site Plan and Variance ............... ............................... June 5, 2012 BidOpening .......................................................... ............................... July 24, 2012 . Award Contract ...................................................... ............................... August 7, 2012 Construction Start............ ...............Late Summer of 2012 Construction Complete ........ ............................... ..........................Late Summer 2014 Final Assessment Hearing ............. ............................... .......................October, 2014 The following will also be incorporated into the project documents • No construction during holiday shopping time: mid- October to January, and during Art Fair • Construction of the ramps will be phased. This will minimize loss of parking spaces during construction • Off -site shuttling of employees will be provided during the demolition and construction of the Middle Ramp. Page 3 of .4 April 12, 2012 �SNA' r FEASIBILITY STUDY p . 50th- &.France Parking Structures and Streetscape Improvements ., Improvement No. A -242, P -21, P- 22^"� FEASI BI LTIY, STATEMENT: Staff and its. consulting engineers believe that the implementation of the recommended option is necessary, cost effective, and feasible from an engineering stand point. APPENDIXES: A. Certification Page` B. 50Th & France Parking Ramp Expansion Feasibility Report - Walker Parking Consultants C. 50th'& Franc_ a District Streetscape Improvements Feasibility Report - Kimley -Hoorn and Associates, Inc: D. Proposed Assessment Roll. E. March 22,.2012 Neighborhood Meeting Comments F. Public Hearing.Notices and Certificate of Mailings Page 4 of 4 April 12, 2012 FEASIBILITIY REPORT MIDDLE AND SOUTH RAMP 50TH AND FRANCE PARKING RAMP EXPANSION EDINA, MINNESOTA Prepared for: WAYNE HOULE APRIL, 2012 v WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS FEASIBILITY STUDY w9e 50th & France /y Parking Structures and Streetscape Improvements Improvement No. A -242, P -21, P -22 APPENDIX B: 50th & France Parking Ramp Expansion Feasibility Report - Walker Parking Consultants Page 1 of 1 April 12, 2012 FEASIBILITY STUDY 9�Al� tA w�� 50th & France s, ) Parking Structures and Streetscape Improvements Improvement No. A -242, P -21, P -22 APPENDIX A: Certification Page I hereby 'certify that this forward portion of this report was prepared by me under my direct supervision, and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. L�'� lito Wayne D. Houle, PE City Engineer Reg. No.: 25057 Date: .4 / L z l Z— I hereby certify that Appendix B of this report was prepared by me under my direct supervision, and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Reg. No.: 22529 Scott R: Froemming, PE Director of Operations Walker Parking Consultants Date: 4 I l L I 1 L hereby certify that Appendix .0 of this report was prepared. by me under ;my direct supervision, and that I am a duly Licensed Landscape Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Thomas R. Harrington, RLA. Project Manager Kimley -Horn & Associates, Inc. Reg. No.: 20349 Date: l z I l Z PROJECT NO. 21- 3808.00 FEASIBILITIY REPORT- MIDDLE AND SOUTH RAMP 50T" AND FRANCE PARKING RAMP EXPANSION EDINA, MINNESOTA Prepared for: WAYNE HOULE APRIL, 2012 WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS 50TH AND FRANCE PARKING RAMP EXPANSION WALKER FEASIBILITY STUDY - MIDDLE AND SOUTH RAMPS PARKING CONSULTANTS APRIL, 2012 PROJECT # 21- 3808.00 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................... ............................... 1 PROJECTLOCATION .................................................................................. ............................... 1 EXPANSIONSCOPE .................................................................................... ............................... 2 REFERENCEINFORMATION ...........................:.......................................... ............................... 2 MIDDLEPARKING RAMP ...................................................................................... ............................... 3 DESCRIPTION.............................................................................................. ..............................3 EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS ........................................................................ ............................... 3 DISCOVERIES.............................................................................................. ..............................4 ARCHITECTURAL .......................................................................... ............................... 4 STRUCTURAL .............................................................................. ............................... 6 ELECTRICAUMECHANICAL .......................................................... ............................... 7 CIVIULANDSCAPING .................................................................... ............................... 7 RESTORATION ............................................................................ ............................... 8 VEHICULAR GUIDENCE .................................................................. ............................... 8 SOUTHPARKING RAMP ....................................................................................... ............................... 9 DESCRIPTION.............................................................................................. ..............................9 EXISTINGIMPROVEMENTS ...................................................................... ............................... 10 DISCOVERIES............................................................................................. .............................10 ARCHITECTURAL ...................................................................... ............................... 11 STRUCTURAL ............................................................................ ............................... 13 ELECTRICAUMECHANICAL ........................................................ ............................... 15 CIVIL / LANDSCAPING .................................................................. ............................... 15 RESTORATION .......................................................................... ............................... 15 VEHICULARGUIDENCE ....................................................:........... ............................... 16 RECOMMENDATION CONSULTANT AND STAFF ............................................. ............................... 17 DESCRIPTION............................................................................................ ............................... 17 CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE ............................................................................. ............................... 21 PROJECT COST SUMMARY MIDDLE AND SOUTH GARAGE ........................... ............................... 22 CONSULTANT / STAFF RECOMMENDED SOLUTION ....................................... ............................... 23 APPENDIX A - PROJECT PROBABLE COSTS RJM SOUTH MIDDLE One Level Two Level RESTORATION APPENDIX B - COMBINED CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE APPENDIX C - CHLORIDE ION DETERMINATION TEST MIDDLE B 0 50TH AND FRANCE PARKING RAMP EXPANSION WALKER FEASIBILITY STUDY - MIDDLE AND SOUTH RAMPS PARKING CONSULTANTS APRIL, 2012 PROJECT # 21- 3808.00 SOUTH APPENDIX D — 50"'& France Middle Ramp Pricing Plans APPENDIX E — 50th & France South.Ramp Pricing Plans APPENDIX F — Parking Concept'Design Report APPENDIX G — Shared Parking Model, Up -Date LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES Figure 1: 50th and France Business.. District ..................:.......................................... ............................... 1 Figure 2: Middle Parking Ramp Existing Conditions ................................................ ............................... 3 Figure 3: Middle Ramp, Existing Site Plan ............................................................. ............................... 5 Figure 4: Middle Ramp Addition; Exterior Concepts ............................::.......:.......... ............................... 6 Figure 5: Vehicular Guidance Sign Examples .............................:........................... ............................... 8 Figure 6: South Ramp. Existing Conditions .............................................................. ............................... 9 Figure 7: South Ramp Horizontal Expansion ........................................................ ............................... 10 Figure 8: South Ramp Expansion Elevation Study ...... ............................... ......................... 11 Figure 9: South Ramp Elevation Study .... ............................... ............. .....................:......... 12 Figure 10: South Ramp Elevation . ............................... ...... ................................... ............................... 12 Figure 11: 50th District South Ramp Horizontal Expansion Massing Model ........... ............................... 13 Figure 12: 50th District South Ramp Horizontal Expansion Massing Model ........... ............................... 13 Figure 13: South Ramp Horizontal Expansion Streetscape Model ........................ ............................... 14 Figure 14: Vehicular Guidance Sign Examples ...................................::................ ............................... 17 Figure 15: New Middle Ramp, Site Plan ............................................................... ............................... 18 Figure 16: New Middle Ramp, Exterior Concepts....... ....................................:....... ............................... 19 Figure 17: New Middle Ramp, Exterior Concepts .................................................. ............................... 19 Figure 18: South Ramp, No Expansion ................................................................. ............................... 20 50TH AND FRANCE PARKING RAMP EXPANSION WALKER FEASIBILITY STUDY - MIDDLE AND SOUTH RAMPS PARKINGCONSULTANI'S APRIL, 2012 PROJECT # 21- 3808.00 INTRODUCTION Pursuant to your request, Walker Parking Consultants (Walker) is pleased to present our 50 I and France Parking Ramp Expansion Feasibility Report. This report has been prepared in conjunction with previous (2011) Parking Concept Design Report. The Parking Concept Design Report takes a quick conceptual look at several concepts including complete garage replacements, vertical, horizontal, underground and multi- story above ground plaza forming parking garage expansion for Middle and South existing garage sites within the 50th and France district. Similarly, Walker conducted a (2011) Shared Parking Model report to identify the current parking demands generated within the 50th and France business district. The results of these reports, along with input from the 50th and France Owner Group and Business Association, provides the basis for the scope selection for the present 501h and France Parking Structure Additions Feasibility report. See APPENDIX F for Parking Concept Design Report. PROJECT LOCATION The district location is described as the 2 square block area of 50th & France business district. The proposed Feasibility Study parking improvements include the MIDDLE parking facility located at 3935 49 1/2 Street West, and the SOUTH parking facility located at 4050 51St Street West. District limits are typically bounded by Halifax Avenue on the west, France Avenue Sotuh on the east, 49 1/2 Street West on the north and 51 St Street West on the south. Figure 1 : 50th and France Business District 50TH AND FRANCE PARKING RAMP EXPANSION WALKER FEASIBILITY STUDY - MIDDLE AND SOUTH RAMPS PARKING CONSULTANTS APRIL, 2012 PROJECT # 21- 3808.00 EXPANSION SCOPE Feasibility Study scope was limited to the Middle and South parking facilities as the North parking facility has been expanded to the limits of the available site and height. A basic requirement for the parking facilities expansions is the, - ability to maximize additional' parking on the existing building sites and maximize the; future accessibility of the building through addition of an appropriately located elevator for each facility. The additional parking stall capacity goal of the District is to achieve stall quantities equivalent to the current peak parking demand, or an additional 247° stalls. Additional enhancement.. desired beyond stall capacity and accessibility includes; enhancing exterior aesthetics, pedestrian connection, interior lighting, vehicular guidance, accessory space functional enhancements, and building restoration. See APPENDIX G for Shared Parking Model Up -Date Report. REFERENCE INFORMATION Substantial effort has been put forth to find existing building information for the Middle and South parking ramps. In addition to identified sites, historical plans, specifications, and soils information, new geotechnical reports and site surreys were commissioned for the Feasibility Study /Construction Document preparation. Also, previously commissioned historic restoration reports and City of Edina Parking Facility Capital Improvement and Protection Plan provide valuable information to quantify scope for the preparation of this Feasibility Report. The following is a listing of the primary historic and new project information resource documents utilized. Middle Parking Facility 1975: Parking Ramp P 7-3 City of Edina HRA Construction Documents /Specs 1975 Parking Ramp P -3 Spancrete. Midwest Shop Drawings 1975 Braun Testing 17= 137 Addendum to soils report 1975 Chloride Ion Content Determination Certifications 2001, 2005, 2007 Edina Parking. Facilities 50 year maintenance Budget 2008 Braun Intertec Soils Report 2012 Sunde Site Survey. 2012 South Parking Facility 1969: Addition Parking Ramp P -1A City of Edina CD's 1977 Parking Facility Addition "South 4th tier' 1988 Chloride Ion Content Determination Certifications 2001, 2008 City of Edina Plans-3911, 3917, 3922 50th street W. Various Edina Parking Facilities 50 year maintenance Budget 2008 Braun Intertec Soils Report 2012 Sunde'Site Survey 2012 2 50TH AND FRANCE PARKING RAMP EXPANSION v WALKER FEASIBILITY STUDY - MIDDLE AND SOUTH RAMPS j4 PARKING CONSULTANTS APRIL, 2012 MIDDLE PARKING RAMP DESCRIPTION PROJECT # 21- 3808.00 The Middle parking ramp is a 3 level, 274 stall precast concrete parking facility originally constructed in 1975. Since original construction, minor modifications to the facility have been performed including adding grade level unfinished trash and recycling rooms. The building is founded on shallow spread footings of various sizes, typically place approximately 6-0 below grade on granular soils. The parking operation of the facility is "free" public parking available 19 hours daily with some business district employee contract parking located on the upper floors. The City of Edina provides parking enforcement in support of the parking operations. The facility is not access controlled and the future operation of the facility is not anticipated to change. Figure 2: Middle Ramp NORTH RAMP CLANCY LOT :r Public Parking Stalls: 274 EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS PHARMACY MIDDLE RAMP Primary parking improvements requested to be considered in the Feasibility study include adding a one or two level vertical precast additions and a pedestrian elevator. The net quantity of additional stalls contained within the addition area includes 90 standard plus 2 accessible stalls for a one level addition and 160 standard plus 4 accessible stalls for a two level addition. Both additions would utilize a similar strategy for the placement of the elevator on the south fagade along the midpoint of the buildings length. The elevator will service all floors of the facility and reach grade at the exterior of the facility. This elevator location was selected to facilitate accessible pathway from newly created accessible stalls to the new core. The entry and exit locations and vehicular traffic flow through the existing camel back helix is proposed to remain unchanged with the proposed vertical expansion improvements. The 3 50TH AND FRANCE PARKING RAMP EXPANSION WALKER FEASIBILITY STUDY - MIDDLE AND SOUTH RAMPS PARKING CONSULTANTS APRIL, 2012 PROJECT # 21- 3808.00 n existing structural clearance is approximately 7' -0 clear not meeting the minimum code prescribed 8' -2" clearance required for Accessible Van access. DISCOVERIES Site surveys were not included in the existing construction documents, therefore, building proximity to adjacent property lines and utility service and availability was not known. The 2012 Sunde survey identifies approximate property lines of the subject and adjacent properties. The proposed new building footprint including new stairs and stair /elevator tower layouts provides minimum 10' -0 property line offset for "Open" S -2 parking structures: The owner should review Sunde 2012 . survey for Utility Easement Doc. No.4150500 as the new stair elevator tower is constructed within its bounds. Major building code scope modifications were identified via a field walkthrough with the City of Edina fire and building authority. Review of the as -built conditions and .construction documents identify code deficient egress stairs and fire suppression systems. The existing egress stairs are constructed without sufficient stair tread depth and handrails. Modification of these systems to rectify the condition to satisfy the code requirements within existing enclosures is geometrically impossible. The architectural solution applied includes demolition of the non - conforming elements, replacing them with compliant egress stair towers. Similarly, the existing facility does not have a fire suppression system (Class I dry stand pipe). Addition of interconnected standpipe system located at all stairways is therefore required and anticipated in the design. See Sheet M201. ARCHITECTURAL The primary architectural modification of the facility, beyond correcting the .discovered items, .includes providing pedestrian elevator, upgrading exterior aesthetics, and improving accessory room function. The new stair elevator tower is an enclosed, insulated, environmentally conditioned space with large amounts of glass to augment passive security and display pedestrian activity. See Sheet A301 & A400. The exterior fagade metal screen enhancements will appear internally, transparent for light, sound and ventilation of existing spaces while adding texture and modern appearance to the unfinished precast concrete materials of the existing fagade. 0 50TH AND FRANCE PARKING RAMP EXPANSION WALKER FEASIBILITY'STUDY = MIDDLE AND SOUTH RAMPS PARKING CONSULTANTS APRIL, 2012 PROJECT# 21- 3808:00 Figure 3: Middle Ramp, Existing Site Plan 44 1IJ 71ltl 11 W1 al y I j 1 �i A Existing Public Parking Stalls: 274 Added Public Parking Stalls: 92 TOTAL PUBLIC PARKING STALLS: 366 The bronze and stainless steel panelized screens are maintenance free and anticipated to be bolted to the existing building structure. See` Sheet, A301. The architectural fagade metal panels are not conceptualized to be enlarged should a two level facility be constructed. A new 670 square foot recycle /trash room enclosure with exterior automatic overhead doors is proposed. See Sheet A201. 5 50TH AND FRANCE PARKING RAMP EXPANSION WALKER FEASIBILITY STUDY - MIDDLE AND SOUTH RAMPS PARKING CONSULTANTS APRIL, 2012 PROJECT # 21- 3808.00 Figure 4: Middle Ramp Addition, Exterior Concepts t LW b i t STRUCTURAL I ,C-;o +..r The primary structural program requirement is to provide a one or two level precast concrete structure parking area expansion. A new soils report was commissioned in an attempt to improve soil bearing values to assist in expansion viability. A new Braun Intertec geotechnical report was favorable providing higher soil bearing values to be utilized for the footing design. The bearing values were increased from approximately 4000 P.S.F. to 6000 P.S.F. This bearing increase satisfies the required footing bearing requirement for a one -level addition without footing augmentation. To expand the parking structure vertically, the existing structure must add a lateral load resisting system that is not present in the previous design. The resisted lateral loads include code required wind loads. The lateral restraint system will be required to be installed for one or two level additions. The system will consist of small masonry shear walls integrated into the perimeter of the existing floor plates extended to the highest floor. The associated footings for this system would also be provided to transmit the forces into the soil. See Sheet S100 keynotes 4 & 5. Driving surface and elevator tower expansion will also require removal of existing bearing precast spandrels. Spandrels will be required to be removed, shored and replacement with inverted tee beams to allow vehicles and pedestrian to travel through previous bumper walls spandrels. See Sheet S203 keynote 1 & 6. Similarly, existing columns were not design for future additions. Additional bolted metal 50TH AND FRANCE PARKING RAMP EXPANSION WALKER FEASIBILITY STUDY - MIDDLE AND SOUTH RAMPS PARKING CONSULTANTS APRIL, 2012 PROJECT # 21- 3808.00 haunches and column top dowels will be drilled and through bolted for future expansion column and bearing spandrel support. The two level vertical addition program requires substantial additional structural foundation augmentation to support the required loads. Underpinning of the existing footings utilizing 6" diameter micro piles driven to bedrock at elevation ( -) 60' -0 is prescribed by the geotechnical engineer. To utilize the added capacity of the micro piles, an existing column footing collar is required to prevent punching shear failure of the existing column through the existing footing. See Sheet S100 keynote 1, 2, 6 and Sheet S500 detail B3. To install the micro piles and construct the footing collar substantial ground tier excavation will be required reducing building parking access. The ground floor disruption will have the effect of extending work schedule for phased parking access and substantial increase project costs. We believe these effects have been accommodated within project schedules and budgets. ELECTRICAL/MECHANICAL Replacement of existing electrical service and transformers serving the facility is anticipated. The transformer; keynote 5 on sheet E101 is relocated due to proximity to future stair construction. Main building service transformer is located west of facility in the parking island. This transformer is to be replaced in existing location to accommodate additional building load. New electrical service with 480 volt is proposed as replacement. Re- lighting of entire facility is proposed due to end of life of existing fixtures, lack of code compliant emergency lighting. Proposed replacement is LED fixture in nominal one for one placement utilizing time clocking and daylight harvesting control for 40% energy efficiency upgrade. Code required emergency lighting will require addition of solid state inverter system for servicing all pedestrian egress walking surfaces and stairways. Mechanical scope includes adding storm drains to the future roof levels and providing a sanitary drain within the future elevator pit. Gravity ventilation is provide in stair towers and forced air heating and air - condition is provided for the elevator shaft and elevator equipment room to meet code environmental requirements to maintain approximately 55- 90degree temperature extremes. Existing facility does not have a fire suppression system. Fire department connection and standpipes shall be provided at all stairways within facility. Standpipes shall meet requirements for class I dry standpipe and be interconnected. See Sheet M201. CIVIL /LANDSCAPING The existing utility connections for this facility include storm and sanitary sewer, electric, and the availability of gas and communications. Water is not supplied to the site and is not anticipated to be connected for the scope of the vertical addition. To minimize utility connection scope mop sinks and hose bibs will be not be provided. Entry and exit access points and existing grading will remain with only construction disruption replacement required for adjacent roadways and sidewalks. A landscape retaining wall will be truncated and repaired adjacent to the new stair tower. One illuminated site pedestrian wayfinding kiosk sign and two street lamps may be removed and. reinstalled. Subsequent landscaping design and installation scope will be provided under separate contract by the Owner. 7 50TH AND FRANCE PARKING RAMP EXPANSION WALKER FEASIBILITY STUDY - MIDDLE AND SOUTH RAMPS PARKING CONSULTANTS APRIL, 2012 PROJECT # 21- 3808.00 RESTORATION The existing parking facility has been in service exposed to de -icing salts since first constructed 37 years ago. The expected lifespan of the precast components is approximately 50 years. The parking structure has been reasonably maintained and inspected during its lifespan. For this project Walker is budgeting $500,000 for deferred maintenance restoration. This scope includes concrete floor, tee flange, floor sealants, traffic topping, and floor drain repair and /or replacement. Additional historic certification testing information is provided within this report to assist in substantiating remaining lifespan of existing structure. Chloride Ion Content Determination test from 2001, 2005, and 2007 identify concrete chloride content at varying depths. Chloride ion content is important as once the chloride ions reach a threshold of approximately 500 Parts Per Million (PPM) steel reinforcing will reach the corrosion threshold. Historic test results identify chloride content levels at the depth of structural steel reinforcement have reached corrosion threshold values in test conducted for 2007 certification. Steel corrosion is anticipated to rapidly advance for the existing precast structural components without a cost effective method for mitigation. Traffic membranes and sealers effectiveness are minimized as humidity and ambient moisture will be available for corrosion regardless of material application. The anticipated useful remaining lifespan of the facility is estimated at 20 years. See APPENDIX C for Chloride Ion Content test results. VEHICULAR GUIDANCE The design program includes vehicular car counting system with car counting loops imbedded in the pavement of all vehicular access points to the parking facility. The system would have the ability to count each car entering and exiting the building to monitor "open" / "full" status. The parking garages are conceptualized with communications between NORTH, MIDDLE and SOUTH facilities to share and display parking occupancy status. Each facility will have a remote monument/wall sign at the primary entrance locations to alert parkers to "open" / "full' status for each parking facility effectively providing vehicular guidance to facility with available stalls. Interconnection of the system between ramps provides single system hardware configuration and local area vehicular guidance. System requires daily maintenance consisting of car inventory counting and counter resetting for system output confidence. 50TH AND FRANCE PARKING RAMP EXPANSION WALKER FEASIBILITY STUDY - MIDDLE AND SOUTH RAMPS PARKING CONSULTANTS APRIL, 2012 SOUTH PARKING RAMP DESCRIPTION PROJECT # 21- 3808.00 The South parking ramp is a 4 level, 407 stalls, mild reinforced concrete pan joist and post- tension concrete parking facility originally constructed in 1969. Since original one supported level parking area construction in 1969, two major vertical and stair tower additions were constructed in 1978 and again in 1987. These additions were apparently constructed to minimize capital costs through minimization of existing building system improvements. Existing transformers were kept in place and additional electrical capacity was incorporated through application of newer independent transformers and switch gear, creating a multiple combined system not consistent with current practice. Other accessory use room and tunnels have been subsequently added immediately adjacent to or interior of the building limits. On the north end of the facility is a retrofitted trash and recycling room and service tunnel for the City Liquor store and adjacent retail facilities identified as 3911 & 3917 50th Street West. Figure 6: South Ramp Existing Conditions S„RF�:1E LUNDS r V --*. Public Parking Stalls: 319 Contract Parking Stalls: 88 THEATER SOUTH RAMP BAI X The building was discovered to be founded on a combination of deep steel piles and shallow spread footing. Deep piles for parking areas and shallow footing for stair elevator tower expansions. The existing building appears to be located primarily on a single parcel (Lot 44) with portions of the building and east alley on easements of adjacent lots. The parking operation of the facility is "free" public parking available 19 hours daily with some business district employees contract parking located on the upper floors. The City of Edina provides parking enforcement in support of the parking operations. The facility is not access controlled and the future operation of the facility is not anticipated to change. G% 50TH AND FRANCE PARKING RAMP EXPANSION WALKER FEASIBILITY STUDY — MIDDLE AND SOUTH RAMPS PARKING CONSWANTS APRIL, 2012 PROJECT# 21- 3808.00 EXISITING IMPROVEMENTS Primary parking improvements requested to be considered in the Feasibility study include adding a four level horizontal parking area addition to the south and a pedestrian elevator tower at north east corner, and a new south east corner code required stair. The 501h and France Business Association has requested an Alternate, second internal convenience stair elevator tower to enhance pedestrian access east towards France Avenue. The net quantity of additional stalls contained within the addition area is 92 standard stalls without Alternate elevator tower and 82 with Alternate tower `C'. Proposed elevator tower A would service all exterior grade connections and all interior floors except ground floor contract parking area. Alternate elevator would access all floors of the parking facility with connection to grade provided at level one interior of the building on the vertical vehicular circulation bay. Elevator A location was selected to facilitate accessible pathway from accessible supported structure stalls to accessible public way connection to 50`" Street and France Avenue. The entry and exit locations and vehicular traffic patterns through the existing structure are proposed to remain unchanged with the proposed horizontal expansion scope. The existing structural clearance of the facility is 6' -8 ", not meeting the code required 7' -0 minimum or 8' -2" clearance required for accessible vans. Figure 7: South Ramp Horizontal Expansion i II ... ..f i a NEW STAIR NEW ELEVATOR tt CORE & STAIR CORE z EXISTING = i i t NEW ELEVATOR i & STAIR CURE i~ • Existing Public Parking Stalls: 3J9 •+ Existing Con#raot Parking•Stalls: 88 .Added Public Parking Stalls: 92 - 10 =.82 .i TOTAL PARKING STALLS: 489 •i GROCERY STORE DISCOVERIES NEW 0 Site surveys were not included in the existing construction documents therefore building proximity to adjacent property lines and utility service and availability was not known. The Sunde survey identifies approximate property lines of the subject and adjacent properties. The existing and proposed new stair 001 50TH AND FRANCE PARKING RAMP EXPANSION WALKER FEASIBILITY STUDY - MIDDLE AND SOUTH RAMPS PARKING CONSULTANrs APRIL, 2012 PROJECT # 21- 3808.00 elevator Tower A layout solution footprint crosses over existing property lines. Property lines for the 3911, 3917and 3922 50 th Street West building should be reviewed by City of Edina. Minimum 10' -0 property line offset required for "Open" S -2 parking structures have not been maintained in the existing facility adjacent to the Lund's grocery building, 3911 501h street west building and cannot be maintained in the new stair elevator tower A solution. The balance of the exterior perimeter of the proposed South parking facility improvements can be constructed on City of Edina property with code required property line offsets. Major building code scope modifications were identified via a field walkthrough with the City of Edina fire and building authority. Review of the as -built conditions and construction documents identify code deficient egress stairs located at Grids D -E and 4.5. See Sheet A201. The existing egress stairs are constructed without sufficient stair tread depth and handrails. Modification of these systems to rectify the condition to satisfy the code requirements within existing enclosures is geometrically impossible. Architectural solution is inclusion of new stair tower B located in the parking addition area south east corner. Restoration of the existing stairways without any improvement is anticipated for aesthetic concerns, not to provide code required egress system. Currently an owner requested Alternate stair /elevator tower solution is provided to augment pedestrian circulation to France Avenue. See Detail 2 Sheet A201. It should be noted this new stair elevator tower cannot be made code compliant for building egress because of its internal building location. Another existing building improvement discovery is the lack of a sanitary sewer connection. Sanitary sewer connection not provided to the site. All site drainage currently goes to the storm sewer. ARCHITECTURAL The primary proposed architectural modifications of the facility include providing a pedestrian elevator, upgrading exterior aesthetics, and improving accessory room function. The new stair elevator tower is enclosed; insulated environmentally conditioned spaces with large windows to augment passive security and display pedestrian activity. See Sheet A301. The exterior facade thin set brick enhancements are intended to cover the entire building facade as viewed traversing 51 sl Street west. The building facade then extends along the eastern building expansion northward to approximately the midpoint of the east facade. Figure 8: South Ramp Horizontal Expansion Elevation Study tom � ■■■ 0 ■ mmm Now OEM No 01 ; SOUTH FACADE 50TH AND FRANCE PARKING RAMP EXPANSION FEASIBILITY STUDY - MIDDLE AND SOUTH RAMPS APRIL, 2012 44 . WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS PROJECT # 21- 3808.00 Wall light fixtures and signage is anticipated to be applied to enhance the pedestrian destination from France Avenue South towards the central internal stair. The facade of Stair tower A project beyond the parking area facade integrating a pedestrian canopy to shelter the doorways into Stair A and provide location for doorway down lighting. Figure 9: South Ramp Horizontal Expansion Elevation Stu � s i EAST FACADE The north facade of Stair A integrates the existing 3917 building canopy into the facade and provides connections to all existing grade connections see Sheet A301. Building facade materials typically include brick, thin set brick clad precast with colored bands to emulate cast stone horizontal banding. Window systems are currently identified as metal frames with firelight glass for accommodation of fire barriers to nearby property lines. Architectural enhancements to accessory rooms include unifying Figure 10: South Ramp Elevation the floor elevation of the Trash /Recycle room 106, moving the stairway and relocating the loading ramp down into the existing tunnel space. The tunnel will also provide access to the elevator - equipment room 104 for stair elevator tower A. Similarly the electrical room serving the building will be enhanced. Two new electrical rooms 107 & 108 are shown on first floor. See Sheet A201. These rooms are created to house new electrical service panel and emergency electrical inverters for emergency lighting. NORTH FACADE 12 50TH AND FRANCE PARKING RAMP EXPANSION WALKER FEASIBILITY STUDY - MIDDLE AND SOUTH RAMPS PARKiNG CONSULTANTS APRIL, 2012 PROJECT # 21- 3808.00 STRUCTURAL The primary structural program requirement is to provide a four level post tension concrete horizontal addition over the south quarter of the existing site. The fourth tier addition expansion floor plate extends two bays onto the existing structures to enhance stall quantities make a vehicular turn around. The existing site addition area improvements include landscaping, snow dump pavement and entrance drives. The horizontal addition follows the limit of 51St Street west right -of -way maintaining the existing pedestrian sidewalk. Figure 11: 50" District South Ramp Horizontal Expansion Massing Model Figure 12: 50" District South Ramp Horizontal Expansion Massing Model 17A 13 50TH AND FRANCE PARKING RAMP EXPANSION WALKER FEASIBILITY STUDY - MIDDLE AND SOUTH RAMPS PARKING CONSULTANTS APRIL, 2012 PROJECT# 21- 3808.00 Figure 13: South Ramp Horizontal Expansion Streetscape Model °_ A new soils report was commissioned to determine allowable bearing capacities for shallow and deep foundation systems. New soil report identifies the ability to place lightly loaded pedestrian facilities on shallow footings and the more heavily loaded parking improvements on driven 9 5/8" diameter steel pipe piles. See keynote 2 & 8, Sheet S100. Lateral load resisting systems of the existing parking expansion will be resisted by the rigid structural concrete frame. The new expansion area will be constructed to support the existing south grid line of the existing facility. The south bumper wall is currently the structural beam supporting the parking floor. This configuration will require unique project construction detailing. See structural details S500. Project phasing and new /existing construction expansion joints locations will be critical for successful future structure serviceability. The new precast concrete skin is proposed to be ground supported from grade beams adjacent the new parking addition areas and supported by steel haunches supported off existing structure elsewhere see keynote 2 Sheet S203. New stair towers are to be constructed using masonry enclosures and steel stairs. These systems allow scheduling flexibility, minimize fieldwork, and reduce construction limits footprints by reducing crane sizes. Alternate internal stair `C' as identified on architectural Sheet A201 can be accommodated structurally. Demolition of the floor penetration for the stair /elevator will require cutting existing post tensioned floor slab components. The existing floor slab structural reinforcement tendons are unbonded. Unbonded structural concrete reinforcing tendons will require specialty contractor termination prior to floor slab demolition. Additional project expense, schedule and contingency are reflected in the budget and schedule for the performance of this work. After demolition the new stair and elevator tower will be primarily supported by the existing concrete superstructure beams with infill concrete masonry walls N 50TH' AND FRANCE PARKING RAMP EXPANSION WALKER FEASIBILITY STUDY - MIDDLE AND SOUTH RAMPS PARKING CONSULTANTS APRIL, 2012 PROJECT # 21- 3808.00 between floors. Foundation systems for Alternate stair elevator will be a combination of shallow spread footing and existing pile support. ELECTRICAUMECHANICAL Replacement of existing electrical service and transformers serving the facility and adjacent facilities is anticipated. See keynote 1& 5 Sheet E101. New electrical service with 480 volt is proposed as replacement. Re- lighting of entire facility is proposed due to end of life of existing fixtures, lack of code compliant emergency lighting. Proposed replacement is LED fixture in nominal one for one placement utilizing time clocking and daylight harvesting control for 40% energy efficiency upgrade. Code required emergency lighting will require addition of solid state inverter system for servicing all pedestrian egress walking surfaces and stairways. Mechanical scope includes adding storm drains to the future parking roof and lower levels. Also a sanitary drain should be provided within the future elevator pit(s). Sanita'T sewer is currently not provided to site. Sanitary sewer service is available north of the site within 50 Street west, or possibly through the existing tunnel structure into 3911 50th Street west basement. No sanitary sewer service has been identified in 51St Street west. Gas fired forced air heating and air - conditioning will be provided for the stair elevator tower A and elevator equipment room meeting code environmental requirements. Design parameters for system are ability to maintain facility temperature extremes of approximately 55- 90F degrees. Gravity ventilation or open stairway is anticipated for new S.E. stair tower. Fire department connection and standpipes shall be provided at all stairways within facility. Standpipes shall be meet requirements for class I dry standpipe and be interconnected. See Sheet M201. CIVI ULAN DSCAPING The existing utility connections for this facility include storm sewer, electric, and the availability of gas and communications. Water is not supplied to the site and is not anticipated to be connected. Therefore no mop sink or hose bibs will be provided for facility maintenance. Entry and exit access points for the facility from the south will require regarding and the removal of an existing 4' site retaining wall. The south entry drives will be reconfigured with generally similar roadway connection locations. 51St Street west roadway grades will be maintained however the alley connection to this roadway will be reconfigured. A pedestrian sidewalk will be provided from new S.E stair B to 51St Street West right -of -way enhancing pedestrian connectivity. Bike lockers will be placed where six existing alley accessed surface stalls and existing transformers for the garage and local area buildings had been located. To accommodate additional site hard surface a storm water retention vault is anticipated to be provided below the floor slab of the parking addition area. Additionally, one manhole and approximately 150' of 24" RCP storm sewer shall be re- constructed to allow new south wall foundation construction. See Sheets C100 & A005. Subsequent landscaping design and installation will be provided under separate contract by the Owner. RESTORATION The existing parking facility has been in service exposed to de -icing salts since first constructed 43 years ago. The expected lifespan of the cast in place components is approximately 50 years. The parking structure has been reasonably maintained and inspected during its lifespan. For this project Walker parking is budgeting $750,000 for deferred maintenance restoration. This scope includes concrete pan joist slab, concrete P/T floor, floor sealants, traffic topping and floor drain repair and /or replacement. The existing pan joist slab of the original 1969 construction is of greatest concern. See 15 50TH AND FRANCE PARKING RAMP EXPANSION WALKER FEASIBILITY STUDY - MIDDLE AND SOUTH RAMPS PARKiNC CONSULTANTS APRIL, 2012 PROJECT # 21- 3808.00 Sheet S202. Approximately one quarter of the pan joist slab is scheduled for replacement within the project scope. Portions of the replacement will be full and /or partial. depth. These repairs are - critical to extend the life of the structural system. The subsequent post tensioned additions from '78 and '87 have fewer requirements for concrete repairs. Additional historic certification testing information is provided within this report_to assist in substantiating remaining lifespan of existing structure. Chloride Ion Content Determination test from 2001, and 2008 identify concrete chloride content at varying:; depths. Chloride ion content. is important as once the chloride ions reach a. threshold of approximately 500 Parts Per Million (PPM) steel reinforcing will reach the corrosion threshold. Steel corrosion will then more rapidly advance: Historic test results identify chloride content levels at the depth of structural steel reinforcement have not reached .corrosion threshold values in test conducted for 2008 certification. Traffic topping to protect the parking floors in drive aisles and turning bays will be applied in substantial portions of the existing facility. Traffic membranes and sealers reapplication effectiveness can help minimized chloride ion penetration as chloride ion contents have not .yet reached corrosion threshold values but continue to increase. The intended effect of the restoration effort is to protect the existing structural system prolonging service life. Service life projections for'this facility can effectively be extended substantially beyond 20 years with proposed improvement mitigations. See APPENDIX C for Chloride Ion Content test results. VEHICULAR GUIDANCE The design program includes vehicular car counting system with car counting loops imbedded in the pavement of all vehicular access points to the parking facility. The system will have the:ability to count each car entering and exiting the. building to monitor "open "/"full" status. The parking garages are conceptualized with communications between NORTH, MIDDLE and SOUTH facilities to share and display parking occupancy status. Each facility will have a remote monument/wall sign at the primary entrance locations to alert parkers to "openvfull" status for each parking facility effectively providing vehicular guidance to available stalls. Interconnection of the system between -facilities provided single system hardware configuration and local area vehicular guidance. Car counting system will require daily maintenance consisting of car inventory and counter resetting for.system output confidence. L 50TH AND FRANCE PARKING RAMP EXPANSION WALKER FEASIBILITY STUDY - MIDDLE AND SOUTH RAMPS PARKING CONSULTANTS APRIL, 2012 PROJECT # 21- 3808.00 RECOMMENDATION CONSULTANT AND STAFF DESCRIPTION The following is a summary of the 50th and France parking ramp expansion feasibly report consultant and staff recommendation. The recommended solution provides maximization of adding parking stalls within the business district while enhancing accessibility, pedestrian connection and traffic mitigation. In reviewing the desires of the district it is apparent cost, temporary loss of parking stalls during construction and minimization of ongoing building maintenance is of high importance. The consensus agreement of all considerations has led the study recommendation towards a complete demolition and replacement for the Middle parking facility. Similarly, the South parking facility scope has been modified to include only stair elevator tower 'A' & 'C' additions, architectural enhancement and structural restoration. Horizontal southward expansion of the South parking facility towards 51St Street allowing proper pedestrian safety buffers for sidewalk placement could not be efficiently resolved. As a result the South facility scope shall focus on enhancements for accessibility, pedestrian connection, and deferred maintenance. Figure 14: Vehicular Guidance Sign Examples The recommended improvements include a car counting system with counting loops imbedded in the pavement of all vehicular access points to the facility. The system would have the ability to count each car entering and exiting the building to monitor "open" /"full" status. The parking garages are conceptualized with communications between NORTH, MIDDLE and SOUTH to share and display parking occupancy status. Each facility will have a remote monument/wall sign at the primary Garage and District roadway entrance locations to alert parkers to "open" / "full" status for each parking facility effectively providing vehicular guidance to facility with available stalls. Interconnection of the system between ramps provides single system hardware configuration and local area vehicular guidance. NEW MIDDLE RAMP New Middle ramp improvements include demolition of the exiting 3 story 274 stall parking facility with a replacement 5 or 6 level precast parking facility. The new parking facility is conceptualized to contain 434 stalls 5 Levels, and 532 stalls 6 Levels. The program provides net stall additions of 160 and 258 stalls respectfully. 1 50TH AND FRANCE PARKING RAMP EXPANSION FEASIBILITY STUDY - MIDDLE AND SOUTH RAMPS APRIL, 2012 -4 WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS PROJECT# 21- 3808.00 Figure 15: New Middle Ramp, Site Plan E /S7RC ARLY.G I GGC1 �O r.tAV1b /W►' I f1]IUe rl,44u7r E�677�(7 A![ant� _ T it .0 &V smear 4 CHANCY LOT— H t� y •..........•... Yl. tTR. . STOR. REC.' TR. • 1QO�YlY S y • c v s 31iO3C.'h 3� n' • - ....•....... .......•......... ...... Existing Public Parking Stalls: 274 Added Public Parking Stalls: 160 TOTAL PUBLIC PARKING STALLS: 434 .i A new central stair elevator tower and east and west stair towers serving all levels are proposed. The new facility would be located in the existing ramp footprint with a small south building limit expansion of about 6 -0. The additional building width accommodates two -way internal traffic affording the use of a single sloped parking bay adjacent 49 Y2 Street. This layout will provide flat parking floors adjacent destination retail for increased accessibility and pedestrian safety. Additional facility enhancements include an aesthetically upgrade exterior fagade, relocated and enlarged trash and recycle rooms, increase vehicular access on and off 49 % street, landscaped street turning lane islands and vehicular guidance stall counting systems. V 50TH AND FRANCE PARKING RAMP EXPANSION WALKER FEASIBILITY STUDY - MIDDLE AND SOUTH RAMPS PARKING CONSULTANTS APRIL, 2012 PROJECT # 21-3808.00 Figure 16: New Middle Romp, Exterior Concepts _4v JT -Mal NORTH ELEVATION - 49 Y2 STREET WEST SOUTH ELEVATION - PEDESTRIAN ALLEY Figure 17: New Middle Ramp, Exterior Concepts L4 ulij- WEST ELEVATION - CLANCY LOT —71 NORTH ELEVATION - 49 Y2 STREET - 6 LEVEL RAMP �7 L& 50TH AND FRANCE PARKING RAMP EXPANSION WALKER FEASIBILITY STUDY - MIDDLE AND SOUTH RAMPS PARKING CONSULTANTS APRIL, 2012 PROJECT # 21- 3808.00 Structural systems for the new facility would include a complete precast building structure and fagade. The use of a single material system for the fagade and structure enhances construction coordination, supports cost efficiencies, minimizes site disruption, and project construction duration. SOUTH RAMP South Ramp improvements include demolition and replacement of the existing northeast and central stair towers with new stair elevator towers 'A' and 'C'. The existing facility has a stall capacity of 407 stalls with the building elevator tower enhancements removing 10 stalls from this capacity. Figure 18: South Ramp, No Expansion. NEW ELEVATOR �1 & STAIR CORE . ®..( A NEW ELEVATOR AND STAIR CORE C I Existing Public Parking Stalls: 319 Existing Contract Parking Stalls: 88 5 Existing Total Parking Stalls: 407 -10 = 397 TOTAL PARKING STALLS: 397 1 1. The new elevator towers will provide access from all level of the existing facility. Additional building functional enhancements include electrical and lighting systems replacements accommodating new elevator. Additionally functional improvements will be made to trash and recycle rooms and access tunnel. Also building fagade enhancements will occur for 50U' Street West and France Avenue pedestrian portals. A major portion of the South facility construction will focus on the capital improvements of deferred maintenance. The existing facility has building system components that are in need of restoration. Pan joist concrete floor systems, post tensioned concrete, cracks, expansion joints, traffic topping and storm drainage piping are examples of the primary scope items for restoration. The restoration repairs are designed to provide capital improvement protection to extend the life of the existing facility as well as improve the space serviceability and aesthetically. 20 50TH AND FRANCE PARKING RAMP EXPANSION FEASIBILITY STUDY - MIDDLE AND SOUTH RAMPS APRIL, 2012 CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE 4;�iWALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS PROJECT # 21- 3808.00 Summary of probable construction schedule has been identified as starting in late summer 2012 with completion of the project expected in fall 2014. Schedule is dependent upon confirmation of the parking expansion scope by the City of Edina and final Scope definition agreement with the 50th and France Business Association. Agreeable proposed construction schedule milestones and temporary stall loss contractual limits will be written into project biding documents. Construction schedule may be made a construction bid review selection committee criteria. Final construction schedule will be provided by construction general contractor after bid award. Schedule framework includes the following limitations: 1. No construction during holiday shopping season October 22 through January 7, 2013 & 2014. 2. Construction will be phased to minimize loss of parking spaces during construction. 3. Construction will have public relations personnel on site to communicate parking situation, traffic, work schedules, etc. 4. Offsite shuttling of employees shall be considered during Middle ramp demolition and reconstruction. For more complete preliminary construction schedules providing estimate of lost stall estimates see Appendix B. 21 50TH AND FRANCE PARKING RAMP EXPANSION WALKER FEASIBILITY STUDY - MIDDLE AND SOUTH RAMPS PARKING CONSULTANTS APRIL, 2012 PROJECT # 21- 3808.00 PROJECT COST SUMMARY - MIDDLE AND SOUTH GARAGE Additional due diligence cost estimating was provided for the recommended design solutions. RJM construction was contracted to provide independent cost estimates as requested by Owners Group. RJM construction utilized design information from consultant conceptual plans. Cost estimate6 followed by initials RJM denote contractor cost estimates. Walker Parking Consultants also provided engineering cost estimates for the described work with general agreement between entities for estimated costs. MIDDLE GARAGE ADDITION: ONE level precast parking area addition with replacement of southeast and northwest stair towers, central stair /elevator addition, and structural restoration. NOT RECOMMENDED Stalls within Addition: 90 Standard 2 Accessible 366 Stalls Total Construction Cost $3,905,000 MIDDLE GARAGE ADDITION: TWO level precast parking area addition with replacement of southeast and northwest stair towers, central stair /elevator addition, generator, foundation /column augmentation, and structural restoration. NOT RECOMMENDED Stalls within Addition: 160 Standard 4 Accessible 438 Stalls Total Construction Cost $5,538,000 SOUTH GARAGE HORIZONTAL ADDITION: Four level horizontal cast - in -place concrete parking area addition, replacement northeast stair elevator tower, southeast stair tower, refurbishment central stair, precast architectural skin south elevation, and structural restoration. NOT RECOMMENDED Stalls within Addition: 92 Standard( -) 10 stalls. Elevator 'C' 489 Stalls Total Construction Cost $5,595,000 RJM NEW MIDDLE GARAGE: 6 Level new precast parking garage with central stair /elevator tower, east and west stair towers, generator, and accessible parking. RECOMMENDED Consultant /Staff Stalls_ added: 252 Standard 6 Accessible 532 Stalls Total Construction Costa $7,070,000 RJM 5 Level new precast parking garage with central stair /elevator tower, east and west stair towers, generator, accessible parking. NOT RECOMMENDED Stalls added: 156 Standard 4 Accessible 434 Stalls Total Construction Cost $5,936,000 RJM SOUTH GARAGE ARCHITECTURAL ENHANCEMENT: Replacement northeast stair. elevator tower, new replacement alternate stair elevator tower 'C', architectural . enhance France pedestrian access, and structural restoration. RECOMMENDED Consultant /Staff Stalls within enhancement: ( -).10 Standard 397 Stalls Total Construction Cost $3,205,000 RJM 22 50TH AND FRANCE PARKING RAMP EXPANSION WALKER FEASIBILITY STUDY - MIDDLE AND SOUTH RAMPS itv PARKING CONSULTANTS APRIL, 2012 PROJECT # 21- 3808.00 CONSULTANT / STAFF RECOMMENDED SOLUTION: PROJECT COST SUMMARY - MIDDLE AND SOUTH GARAGE Recommended solution achieves parking garage expansion goals for increasing stall capacity, improving accessibility and completing deferred maintenance repairs. Additional 248 stalls will meet additional parking stall goal of 247 stalls meeting current parking Peak Demand. Elevators will be provided in NEW MIDDLE GARAGE and SOUTH GARAGE ARCHITECURAL ENHANCEMENT solutions providing improved accessibility. Restoration of the SOUTH GARAGE is incorporated into the scope to provided required deferred maintenance, enhance asset lifespan and improve aesthetics and public safety. NEW MIDDLE GARAGE: 6 Level new precast parking garage with central stair /elevator tower, east and west stair towers, generator, accessible parking. RECOMMENDED Consultant /Staff Stalls added: 252 Standard 6 Accessible 532 Stalls Total Construction Cost $7,070,000 RJM SOUTH GARAGE ARCHITECTURAL ENHANCEMENT: Replacement northeast stair elevator tower, new replacement alternate stair elevator tower 'C', architectural enhance France pedestrian access, and structural restoration. RECOMMENDED Consultant /Staff Stalls within enhancement: ( -) 10 Standard Total Construction Cost 397 Stalls $3,205,000 RJM Additional Walker Parking Consultants and RJM Construction Cost estimates located in Appendix A 23 v o' 0 m l7 0 a APPENDIX A - PROJECT PROBABLE COSTS rI March 29, 2012 9 ? I MkT I Wayne Houle, PE CONSTRUCTION Director of Public Works / City Engineer City of Edina 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 Re: 50th & France - South & Middle Ramps Dear Wayne, RJM Construction is pleased to present an estimate for the 50th & France - South & Middle Ramp project located in Edina, MN. Together with City of Edina and Mohagen Hansen, we can work as a team to deliver the project goals of cost, schedule and quality. Our estimate is based upon drawings dated February 21, 2012. South Ramp Total Base Estimate: $4,845,328 Middle Ramp Total Base Estimate: $5,936,107 ALTERNATES: No. 1: Add Stair C and Elevator to South Ramp. Add $749,966 No. 2: Add 6th Floor to Middle Ramp. Add $1,134,457 No. 3: 4 - Story addition at the South Ramp. Deduct $2,390,879 CLARIFICATIONS: No. 1: This estimate assumes that all work will be done during regular business hours. No. 2: Architectural and engineering fees are not included. No. 3: Our estimate does not include any SAC and WAC fees. No. 4: Phone, data, AV and security are all excluded. No. 5: Middle Ramp includes generator. No. 6: Snow Melt is excluded from the Middle Ramp. No. 7: Middle ramp is a 5 - story precast parking structure. No. 8: South Ramp includes removing all above grade piping and replace with new. RJM reccommends to camera below grade piping to verify in good condition. No. 9: Moving Transformers are not included in Base Estimates. Thank you for the opportunity to provide this estimate. Our team is experienced and competent in your market; this applied knowledge will assist the team in obtaining the best HWY.7 CORPORATE CENTER possible project value. Please feel free to contact RJM if you have any questions or need 7003 W. LAKE ST. SUITE 400 additional information. ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55426 PHONE 952-837-8600 Sincerely, FAX 952- 832-9600 REGIONAL OFFICES 7TH STREET 17TH S SUITE SUITE 605 DENVER, CO 80202 PHONE 720-898-4488 FAX 720- 898 -5888 Randy Disrud 9375 EAST BELL RD. SUITE 202 PHOENIX, AZ 85260 PHONE 602-325-1450 FAX 952- 893-8152 Estimator cc: Ted Beckman TV CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE DATE: March 29, 2012 PROJECT: 50th & France - South Ramp ARCHITECT: Mohagen Hansen Architectural Group DRAWING DATE: March 20, 2012 ESTIMATE SUMMARY DESCRIPTION t Notes Base Estimate $ /sf 176,250 Construction Costs Structural/ Selective Demolition $203,498 $1.15 Concrete / Masonry $1,210,701 $6.87 Restoration $750,000 $4.26 Precast $710,000 $4.03 Structural Steel $83,000 $0.47 Roofing $9,279 $0.05 Joint Sealants / Expansion Joint $25,500 $0.14 H.M. Doors, Frames & Hardware $7,748 $0.04 Overhead Doors $2,500 $0.01 Aluminum Entrances & Storefront $187,000" $1.06 Traffic Coating $83,324 $0.47 Painting $104,628 $0.59 Signage $15,000 $0.09 Elevators $66,950. $0.38 Fire Protection $23,000 $0.13 Plumbing $118,000 $0.67 HVAC $11,350 $0.06 Electrical $175,150 $0.99 Driven Piles $138,000 $0.78 Earthwork $70,735 $0.40 Asphalt Paving $18,266 $0.10 Site Concrete $25,610 $0.15 Landscaping & Irrigation $4,118 $0.02 Site Utilities $130,000 $0.74 General Conditions $196,008 $1.11 General Liability Insurance $43,694 $0.25 Builders Risk Insurance $0 $0.00 Building Permit $45,490 $0.26 Bond $0 $0.00 Subtotal Construction Costs $4,458,549 $25.30 Contingency $222,927 $1.26 Contractor's Fee $163,852 $0.93 Total Construction Estimate $4,845,328 $27.49 PAGE 2OF3 CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE DATE: March 28, 2012 PROJECT: 50th & France - Middle Ramp ARCHITECT: Mohagen Hansen Architectural Group DRAWING DATE: March 20, 2012 ESTIMATE SUMMARY DESCRIPTION Notes Base Estimate $ /sf 149,428 Construction Costs Structural Demolition $250,000 $1.67 Concrete / Masonry $620,000 $4.1S Precast $2,750,000 $18.40 Structural Steel $149,700 $1.00 Canopy Feature $12,800 $0.09 Roofing $8,001 $0.05 Joint Sealants $7,471 $0.05 H.M. Doors, Frames & Hardware $7,748 $0.05 Overhead Doors $7,500 $0.05 Aluminum Entrances & Storefront $126,000 $0.84 Traffic Coating $72,000 $0.48 Louver /Vision Screens $328,704 $2.20 Signage $15,000 $0.10 Elevators $79,000 $0.53 Fire Protection $38,000 $0.25 Plumbing $140,000 $0.94 HVAC $0 $0.00 Electrical $344,856 $2.31 Earthwork $126,037 $0.84 Asphalt Paving $23,430 $0.16 Site Concrete $24,985 $0.17 Landscaping & Irrigation $0 $0.00 Site Utilities $35,000 $0.23 General Conditions $187,668 $1.26 General Liability Insurance $53,539 $0.36 Builders Risk Insurance $0 $0.00 Building Permit $54,817 $0.37 Bond $0 $0.00 Subtotal Construction Costs $5,462,256 $36.55 Contingency $273,113 $1.83 Contractor's Fee $200,738 $1.34 Total Construction Estimate $5,936,107 $39.73 PAGE 3OF3 WALKER Parking.Consultants /Engineers, Inc. 1600 South Highway 100, Suite 350 Minneapolis, MN. 55416 Exist Sq FT 144,000 OPINON OF PROBABLE COST 100% Feasibility 1 of 4 PROJECT: Edina 50th District SOUTH Area Slab -on- grade: 46,250 Date: March, 2012 Area Supported Deck: 125,000 Foundation Type: Spread /Deep WALKER #: 21- 3808.00 Total Square Feet 176,250 Type of Frame: Post- tensioned cor OWNER City of Edina Construction Cost $4,124,623 Number of Tiers: 4.0 Const Cost / Car: $8,316 Capacity: In Structure 496 LOCATION: Edina, MN Const Cost FSq.Ft.: $23.40 Add Stalls 89 Efficiency: Of Structure 355 PERCENT COST PER COST:PER QUANTITY UNIT COST ITEM COST TOTAL SQ. FT. CAR 01000 GENERAL CONDITIONS $522,300.00 12.66% 2:96:- 1053.02 00100 Bond tot 0.50% $18,000.00 00110 Insurance tot: 0.50% $18,000.00 00120 Building Permit tot 0.50% $18,000.00 00130 Mob /Overhead /Super mo 7.50% $270,200.00 00200 Contractor Profit tot 5.50 % $198,100.00 00300 Civil Engineering (owner) 0.00. 0.01 $0.00 PERCENT COST PER COST PER QUANTITY UNIT COST ITEM COST ..TOTAL SQ. FT. CAR 02000 SITE WORK $888,400.00' 21.54% 5.04 1791.13 1311000 Civil Work 1:00 $ 35,000.00 $35,000.00 311000 Removals 1.00. $3,500.00 $3,500.00 311000 Utility relocation (Trans) 1.00 $ 65,000.00 $65,000.00 312200 Excavation cy 750.00 $ 14.00 $10,500.00 312323 Fill cy 300.00 $ 20.00 $6,000.00 321216 Paving yds 150.00. $ 12.00 $1,800.00 321140 Curb In It 200.00 $ 8.00 $1,600.00 26340 Site Lighting 1.00 $ 5,000.00 $5,000.00 27450 Fencing 0.00. $ 27660 Barricades roadway 1.00 $ 10,000.00 $10,000.00 02776 Relocate Gas Line 0.00 $ 5,000.00 $0.00. 02826 Relocate Power Line 0.00 $ 125,000.00 $0.00 02842 Landscape (see civil) 0.00 '$ 8,000.00. $0.00 200000 Restoration 1.00- $ 177,500.00 $177,500.00 200000 Pan Joist Repair 6250.00 $ 50.00 $312,500.00 200000 Traffic Toppiing 42000.00, $ 3.75 $157,500.00 200000 Stair Tower landing, tread, risers 1.00 $ 71,000.00 $71,000.00 200000 Drain Bodies 21.00 $ 1,500.00 $31,500.00 PERCENT COST PER COST PER QUANTITY UNIT COST ITEM COST TOTAL SO. FT. CAR 03000 CONCRETE $934,187.50 22.65% 5.30 1883.44 03301 Slab-On-Grade sf 10775.00 $ 4.50 $48,487.50 03302 Retaining Walls sf 200.00 $ 25.00 $5,000.00. 03303 Supported Deck sf 29000.00 $ 22.50 $652,500.00 03304 Pile Caps'cy 50.00 $ 570.00 $28,500.00 03305 Grade Beams cy 75.00 $ 400.00 $30,000.00 03306 Conc Filled Pipe Pile 70 46.00 $ 3,200.00 $147,200.00 03307 Fig Fnd cy 75.00 $ 300.00 $22,500.00 03308 PERCENT COST PER COST PER QUANTITY .. UNIT COST ITEM COST, TOTAL SQ. FT., CAR 04000 MASONRY /PRECAST $653,500.00 15.84% 3.71 1317.54 04400 CMU + CMU Brick tower sf 4000.00 $ 30.00 $120,000.00 04200 Fagade. precast sf 117.00.00 $ 45.00 $526,500.00 . 04300 Stair special sf 0.00 $ 18.00 $0.00 WALKER Parking Consultants /Engineers, Inc. Exist Sq FT 144,000 1600 South Highway 100, Suite 350 2 of 4 Minneapolis, MN. 55416 OPINON OF PROBABLE COST 100% Feasibility 04400 Stair Tower special sf 0.00 $ 14.00 $0.00 04500 Misc. Masonry elec sf 500.00 $ 14.00 $7,000.00 PERCENT COST PER COST PER QUANTITY UNIT COST ITEM COST TOTAL SQ. FT. CAR 5001.00 ORNAMENTAL RAILING $8,000.00 0.19% 0.05 16.13 05101 Railing and Cast stone If 40.00 $ 200.00 $8,000.00' 05201 Security Screen sf 0.00 $ 20.00 $0.00 QUANTITY UNIT COST ITEM COST PERCENT COST PER COST PER 08000 DOORS,WINDOWS,GLASS QUANTITY UNIT COST ITEM COST TOTAL SQ. FT. CAR 05000 METALS 1600.00 16.00 $ 85.00 $ 500.00 $192,000.00 4.65% 1.09 387.10 05500 Bollards ea 15.00 $ 600.00 $9,000.00 PERCENT TOTAL COST PER SQ. FT. COST PER CAR 5700 Roof Decking sf 1100.00 $ 5.00 $5,500.00 1.64% 0.38 136.01 05600 Stairs riser 140.00 $ 575.00 $80,500.00 05600 Landings sf 1100.00 $ 70.00 $77,000.00 PERCENT TOTAL COST PER SQ. FT. COST PER CAR 05700 Canopy Is 2.00 $ 10,000.00 $20,000.00 1.82% 0.43 151.21 10440 Signs incl electronic Is 1.00 $ 75,000.00 $75,000.00 PERCENT COST PER COST PER QUANTITY UNIT COST ITEM COST TOTAL SQ. FT. CAR 07000 MOISTURE PROTECTION $47,900.00 1.16% 0.27 96.57 07421 Roofs sf 1100.00 $ 15.00 $16,500.00 07910 Expansion Joints If 380.00 $ 75.00 $28,500.00 PERCENT COST PER COST PER 07920 Caulk and Sealants sf 29000.00 $ 0.10 $2,900.00 QUANTITY UNIT COST ITEM COST PERCENT TOTAL COST PER SO. FT. COST PER CAR 08000 DOORS,WINDOWS,GLASS $144,000.00 3.49% 0.82 .290.32 08110 08710 08911 Curtainwall sf Door Hardware ea 1600.00 16.00 $ 85.00 $ 500.00 $136,000.00 $8,000.00 QUANTITY UNIT COST ITEM COST PERCENT TOTAL COST PER SQ. FT. COST PER CAR 09000 FINISHES $67,460.00 1.64% 0.38 136.01 09920 09950 09990 Floor Striping sp Staining Bms & Clg sf Misc. Painting Is 496.00 125000.00 0.00 $ 10.00 $ 0.50 $ - $4,960.00 $62,500.00 $0.00 QUANTITY UNIT COST ITEM COST PERCENT TOTAL COST PER SQ. FT. COST PER CAR 10000 SPECIALTIES $75,000.00 1.82% 0.43 151.21 10440 Signs incl electronic Is 1.00 $ 75,000.00 $75,000.00 QUANTITY UNIT COST ITEM COST PERCENT TOTAL COST PER SQ. FT. COST PER CAR 11000 EQUIPMENT $0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0.00 PERCENT COST PER COST PER WALKER Parking Consultants /Engineers, Inc. Exist Sq FT 144,000 1600 South Highway 100, Suite 350 3 Of 4 Minneapolis, MN. 55416 OPI NON OF PROBABLE COST 100% Feasibility QUANTITY UNIT COST ITEM COST TOTAL SQ. FT. CAR 14000 ELEVATORS $68,000.00 1.65% 0.39 137:10 142400.00 Hydro (Landing 4.00 17000.00 $68,000.00 PERCENT COST PER COST PER QUANTITY UNIT COST ITEM COST . TOTAL SQ.' FT. CAR 15000 MECHANICAL $127,313.00 3.09 %. 0.72 256.68 15200 General Plumbing sf. 176250.00 $ 0.45 23000.00 HVAC 1.00 $ 48,000.00 $79,313.00 $48,000.00 PERCENT COST PER COST PER QUANTITY UNIT COST ITEM COST TOTAL SQ. FT. CAR 16000 ELECTRICAL $396,562.50 9.61% 2:25 799.52 16100 Electrical Package sf 176250.00 $ 2.25 $396 :562.60 WALKER Parking Consultants /Engineers, Inc. 1600 South Highway 100, Suite 350 Minneapolis, MN. 55416 Exist Sq FT 144,000 OPINON OF PROBABLE COST 100% Feasibility SUMMARY PROJECT: Edina 50th District SOUTH Area Slab -on- grade: 4of4 46,250 Date: March, 2012 Area Supported Deck: WALKER #: 21- 3808.00 Total Square Feet OWNER City of Edina Construction Cost 496 $23.40 Of Project Const. Cost / Car: LOCATION: Edina, MN Const. Cost/ Sq.Ft.: 1791.13 65% Cost Estimate 22.65% 5.30 1883.44 DIVISION 15.84% 01000 General Conditions ........................ ....... ............................... 02000 ' Site Work /Restoration ................ .... ............................... 03000 Concrete ................. .... ............................... 40000 Masonry/Precast ......... .... ............................... 50001 Ornamental Railing .... ............................... 05000 Metals ................... .... ............................... 07000 Moisture Protection...... .... ............................... 08000 Doors,Windows,Glass...... .... ............................... 09000 Finishes ................. .... ............................... 10000 Specialties .............. .... ............................... 11000 Equipment ................ .... ............................... 14000 Elevators ................ .... ............................... 15000 Mechanical ............... .... ............................... 16000 Electrical ............... .... ............................... 4of4 46,250 Date: March, 2012 125,000 Foundation Type: Spread /Deep 176,250 Type of Frame: Post - tensioned cor $4,124,623.00 Number of Tiers: 4.0 $8,315.77 Capacity: Of Structure 496 $23.40 Of Project 89 Efficiency: Of Structure 355 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $4,124,623 100.00% $23.40 $8,316 Contingency ................ ............ 10.00% $412,000 $4,536,623 NOTES: 1. Since the Engineer has no control over the cost of labor, materials, or equipment, or over the contractor's methods of determining prices, or over competitive bidding or market conditions, opinions of probable cost, as provided above, are made on the basis of experience and qualifications of the Engineer and represent the best judgement as a design professional familiar with the construction industry. However, the Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals, bids, or the construction cost will not vary from opinions of probable cost as shown above. PERCENT COST PER COST PER ITEM COST TOTAL SQ. FT. CAR $522,300 12.66% 2.96 1053.02 $888,400 21.54% 5.04 1791.13 $934,188 22.65% 5.30 1883.44 $653,560 15.84% 3.71 1317.54 $8,000 0.19% 0.05. 16.13 $192,000 4.65% 1.09 387.10 $47,900 1.16% 0.27 96.57 $144,000 3.49% 0.82 290.32 $67,460 1.64% 0.38 136.01 $75,000 1.82% 0.43 151.21 $0 0.00°x6 0.00 0.00 $68,000 1.65% 0.39 137.10 $127,313 3.09.% 0.72 256.68 $396,563 9.61% 2.25 799.52 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $4,124,623 100.00% $23.40 $8,316 Contingency ................ ............ 10.00% $412,000 $4,536,623 NOTES: 1. Since the Engineer has no control over the cost of labor, materials, or equipment, or over the contractor's methods of determining prices, or over competitive bidding or market conditions, opinions of probable cost, as provided above, are made on the basis of experience and qualifications of the Engineer and represent the best judgement as a design professional familiar with the construction industry. However, the Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals, bids, or the construction cost will not vary from opinions of probable cost as shown above. WALKER Parking Consultants /Engineers, Inc. 1600 South Highway 100, Suite 424 Minneapolis, MN. 65416 PROJECT: WALKER #: OWNER : Exist Sq FT 86,000 OPINON OF PROBABLE COST 100% Feasibility 1 of 4 Edina 50th District MIDDLE Area Slab -on- grade: One Additional Level 21- 3808.00 City of Edina LOCATION: Edina, MN Area Supported Deck: Total Square Feet Construction Cost Const. Cost / Car: Const. Cost / Sq.Ft.: 32,000 Date: March; 2012 85,900 Foundation Type: Spread /Deep 128,700 Type of Frame: Precast concrete $3,905,635 Number of Tiers: 4.0 $10,730 Capacity: In Structure 364 $30.35 Add Stalls 92 Efficiency: Of Structure 354 PERCENT COST PER COST PER QUANTITY:,_ UNIT.COST ITEM COST TOTAL SQ. FT. CAR 12.67% 3.84 00100 Bond tot 0.50 %0 $17,100.00 00110 Insurance tot 0.50% $17,100.00 00120 Building Permit tot 0.50% $17,100.00' 00.130 Mob /Overhead /Super mo 7.50% $255,800.00 00200 Contractor Profit tot 5.50% $187,600.00 PERCENT COST PER COST PER PERCENT COST PER QUANTITY UNIT COST ITEM COST TOTAL SO. FT. CAR 02000 SITE WORKIRESTORATION ITEM COST TOTAL $647,400.00 16.58% 5.03 1778.57 ;3111000 Civil Work 1.00 $ 15,000.00 $15;000.00 311000 Removals - 1.00 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 311100 Utility relocation 1.00 $ 15,000.00 $15,000.00 312200 Excavation cy 850.00 $ 14.00 $11,900.00 312323 Fill cy 100.00 $ 20.00 $2,000:00 321216 Paving yds 100.00 $ 12.00 $1,200.00 321400 Curb In k 100.00 $ 8.60 $800.00 02634 Site Lighting 1.00 $ 5,000.00 $5,000.00 02745 Fencing 0.00 $ - $0.00 02766 Barricades roadway 1.00 $ 6,000.00 $6,000.00 02776 Relocate Gas Line 1.00 $ 5,600.00. $5,000.00 , 02826 Relocate Power Line 1.00 $ 6,000.00 $6,060.00 02842. Landscape (granite wall) 1.00 $ 4,500.00 $4,500.00. 200000 Restoration 1-.00 $ 250,000.00 $250,000.00 200000.: Floor Repair conc wash 1.00 $ 250,000.00 $250,000.00 200000 Tee Flange 1.00 $ 50,000.00 $50,000.00 COST PER QUANTITY UNIT COST PERCENT COST PER COST PER QUANTITY UNIT COST ITEM COST TOTAL SQ. FT. CAR 63000 CONCRETE $1,035,450.00 26.51% 8.05 2844.64 03301 Slab -On -Grade sf 3600.00 $ 4.50 $16,200.00 03302 Retaining Walls sf 300.00 $ 25.00 $7,500.00 03303 Precast Decorative sf 0.00 $ 45.00 $0.00 03304 Mini Piles soil solidify 0.00 $ 2,200.00 $0.00 03305 Foundation Correction 5.00 $ 4,000.00 $20,000.00 03306 Stair Tower frame sf 1850.00 $ 15.00 $27,750.00 03400 Precast spandrel replacement 3.00 $ 12,000.00 $36,000.00 03308 Supperstructure Precast sf 32000:00 $ 29.00 $928,000.00 PERCENT COST PER COST PER QUANTITY UNIT COST ITEM COST TOTAL SQ. FT. CAR ,4000 MASONRY.. $287,400.00 7.36 %' 2.23 789.56 04400 CMU sf 2600.00 $ 14.00 $36,400.00 04200 Precast wall panel sf 3200.00 $ 40.00 $128,000.00 04300 Stair CMU +Brick sf 2000.00 $ 45.00 $90,000.00. 04400 Staii. Tower special sf 0.00 $ 14.00 $0.00 r WALKER Parking Cons ultants /Eng[nears, Inc. Exist Sq FT 86,000 1600 South Highway 100, Suite 424 2 of 4 Minneapolis, MN. 55416 OPINON OF PROBABLE COST 100% Feasibility 04500 Masonry shear wall sf 1100.00 $ 30.00 $33,000.00 PERCENT COST PER COST PER QUANTITY UNIT COST ITEM COST TOTAL SQ. FT. CAR 5001.00 ORNAMENTAL METAL $266,000.00 6.81% 2.07 730.77 05101 Railing with Concrete If 0.00 $ 200.00 $0.00 05201 Fagade Screen sf 7000.00 $ 38.00 $266,000.00 PERCENT COST PER COST PER QUANTITY UNIT COST ITEM COST TOTAL SQ. FT. CAR 05000 METALS $151,375.00 3.88% 1.18 415.87 05500 Bollards ea 15.00 $ 600.00 $9,000.00 5700 Roof Decking sf 1400.00 $ 5.00 $7,000.00 05600 Stairs riser 155.00 $ 575.00 $89,125.00 05600 Landings sf 1050.00 $ 25.00 $26,250.00 PERCENT COST PER COST PER 05700 Canopy Is 2.00 $ 10,000.00 $20,000.00 TOTAL SQ. FT. CAR 09000 FINISHES $47,640.00 PERCENT COST PER COST PER 09920 Floor Striping sp QUANTITY UNIT COST ITEM COST TOTAL SQ. FT. CAR 07000 MOISTURE PROTECTION 88000.00 $ 0.50 $45,100.00 1.15% 0.35 123.90 07421 Roofs sf 1400.00 $ 15.00 $21,000.00 07910 Expansion Joints If 150.00 $ 75.00 $11,250.00 PERCENT COST PER COST PER 07920 Caulk and Sealants sf 128500.00 $ 0.10 $12,850.00 TOTAL SQ. FT. CAR PERCENT COST PER COST PE QUANTITY UNIT COST ITEM COST TOTAL SQ. FT. CA, 08000 DOORS,WINDOWS,GLASS $382,775.00 9.80% 2.97 1051.58 08110 Curtainwall sf 4415.00 $ 85.00 $375,275.00 08710 Door Hardware ea 15.00 $ 500.00 $7,500.00 08911 PERCENT COST PER COST PER QUANTITY UNIT COST ITEM COST TOTAL SQ. FT. CAR 09000 FINISHES $47,640.00 1.22% 0.37 130.88 09920 Floor Striping sp 364.00 $ 10.00 $3,640.00 09950 Staining Bms & Cig sf 88000.00 $ 0.50 $44,000.00 09990 Misc. Painting Is 0.00 $ - $0.00 PERCENT COST PER COST PER QUANTITY UNIT COST ITEM COST TOTAL SQ. FT. CAR 10000 SPECIALTIES $50,000.00 1.28% 0.39 137.36 10440 Signs incl electronic Is 1.00 $ 50,000.00 $50,000.00 PERCENT COST PER COST PER QUANTITY UNIT COST ITEM COST TOTAL SO. FT. CAR 11000 EQUIPMENT $0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0.00 PERCENT COST PER COST PER QUANTITY UNIT COST ITEM COST TOTAL SO. FT. CAR WALKER Parking Consultants /Engineers, Inc. Exist Sq FT 86,000 1600 South Highway 100, Suite 424 3 of 4 Minneapolis, MN. 55416 OPINON OF PROBABLE COST 100% Feasibility 14000 ELEVATORS $85,000.00 2.18% 0.66 233.52 . 142400.00 Hydro (Landings) 5.00 17000.00 $85,000.00 PERCENT COST PER COST PER QUANTITY UNIT COST ITEM COST TOTAL SQ. FT. , CAR 15000 MECHANICAL $123,220.00 3.15% 0:96 338.52 15200 General Plumbing sf 128700.00 $ 0.60 $77,220.00 23000 hvac 1.00 $ 46,000.00 $46,000.00 PERCENT COST PER COST PER QUANTITY UNIT COST ITEM COST TOTAL SQ. FT. I CAR 16000 ELECTRICAL $289,575.00 7.41% 2.25 795.54 16100 Electrical Package sf 128700.00 $ 2.25 $289,575.00 WALKER Parking Consultants /Engineers, Inc. Exist Sq FT 86,000 1600 South Highway 100, Suite 424 4 of 4 Minneapolis, MN. 55416 OPINON OF PROBABLE COST 100% Feasibility SUMMARY a....__. PROJECT: Edina 50th District MIDDLE Area Slab -on- grade: Area Supported Deck: WALKER #: 21- 3808.00 Total Square Feet OWNER City of Edina Construction Cost Const. Cost / Car: LOCATION: Edina, MN Const. Cost/ Sq.Ft.: TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 32,000 Date: March, 2012 85,900 Foundation Type: Spread /Deep 128,700 Type of Frame: Precast concrete $3,905,635.00 Number of Tiers: 4.0 $10,729.77 Capacity: Of Structure 364 $30.35 Of Project 92 Efficiency: Of Structure 354 DIVISION 01000 General Conditions ........................ ....... ............................... 02000 Site Work /Restoration ................ .... ............................... 03000 Concrete /Precast ................. .... ............:.................. 40000 Masonry .................. .... ............................... 50001 Ornamental metals .................. .... ............................... 05000 Metals ................... .... ............................... 07000 Moisture Protection...... .... ............................... 08000 Doors,Windows,Glass...... .... ............................... 09000 Finishes ................. .... ............................... 10000 Specialties .............. .... ............................... 11000 Equipment ................ .... ............................... 14000 Elevators ................ .... ............................... 15000 Mechanical ............... .... ............................... 16000 Electrical ............... .... ............................... TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 32,000 Date: March, 2012 85,900 Foundation Type: Spread /Deep 128,700 Type of Frame: Precast concrete $3,905,635.00 Number of Tiers: 4.0 $10,729.77 Capacity: Of Structure 364 $30.35 Of Project 92 Efficiency: Of Structure 354 $3,905,635 100.00% $30.35 $10,730 Contingency ................ ............ 10.00% $391,000 $4,296,635 NOTES: 1. Since the Engineer has no control over the cost of labor, materials, or equipment, or over the contractor's methods of determining prices, or over competitive bidding or market conditions, opinions of probable cost, as provided above, are made on the basis of experience and qualifications of the Engineer and represent the best judgement as a design professional familiar with the construction industry. However, the Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals, bids, or the construction cost will not vary from opinions of probable cost as shown above. PERCENT COST PER COST PER ITEM COST TOTAL SQ. FT. CAR $494,700 12.67% 3.84 1359.07 $647,400 16.58% 5.03 1778.57 $1,035,450 26.51% 8.05 2844.64 $287,400 7.36% 2.23 789.56 $266,000 6.81% 2.07 730.77 $151,375 3.88% 1.18 415.87 $45,100 1.15% 0.35 123.90 $382,775 9.80% 2.97 1051.58 $47,640 1.22% 0.37 130.88 $50,000 1.28% 0.39 137.36 $0 0.00% 0.00 0.00 $85,000 2.18% 0.66 233.59 $123,220 3.15% 0.96 3381 $289,575 7.41% 2.25 795.54 $3,905,635 100.00% $30.35 $10,730 Contingency ................ ............ 10.00% $391,000 $4,296,635 NOTES: 1. Since the Engineer has no control over the cost of labor, materials, or equipment, or over the contractor's methods of determining prices, or over competitive bidding or market conditions, opinions of probable cost, as provided above, are made on the basis of experience and qualifications of the Engineer and represent the best judgement as a design professional familiar with the construction industry. However, the Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals, bids, or the construction cost will not vary from opinions of probable cost as shown above. WALKER Parking Consultants /Engineers, Inc. 1600 South Highway 100, Suite 424 Minneapolis, MN. 55416 PROJECT: Edina 50th District MIDDLE Two Additional Level WALKER #: 21- 3808.00 OWNER City of Edina LOCATION: Edina, MN Exist Sq FT 86,000 OPINON OF PROBABLE COST 100% Feasibility Area Slab -on- grade: Area Supported Deck: Total Square Feet Construction Cost Const. Cost / Car: Const. Cost / Sq.Ft.: 32,000 Date: March, 2012 119,000 Foundation Type: 151,370 Type of Frame: $5,538,555 Number of Tiers:, $12,308 Capacity: In Structure $36.59 Add Stails Efficiency: Of Structure 1 of 4 Spread /Deep Precast concrete 5.0 450 180 336 02826 Relocate Power Line QUANTITY UNIT COST PERCENT COST PER COST PER ITEM COST TOTAL SQ. FT. CAR 01000 GENERAL CONDITIONS SITE WORK.. $701,400.00 12.66% 4.63 . 1558.67 00100 Bond tot 0.50% $24,200.00 00110 Insurance tot 0.5061. $24,200.00 00120 Building'Permit tot 0.50% $24,200.00 00130 Mob /Overhead /Super mo 7.5061.- $362;800.00 00200 Contractor Profit tot 5.50% $266,000.00 02826 Relocate Power Line QUANTITY UNIT COST PERCENT COST PER COST PER ITEM COST .TOTAL SQ. FT. CAR 02000 SITE WORK.. 02842 $641,400.00 11.58% 4.24 1425.33 1131100 Civil Work 1.00 $ 15,000.00 $15,000.00 311000 Removals 1.00 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 311000 Utility relocation (Trans) 1.00 $ 15,000.00 $15,000.00 312200 Excavation cy 850.00 $ 14.00 $11,900.00 '312323 Fill cy 100.00 $ 20.00 $2,000.00 321216 Paving yds 100.00 $ 12.00 $1,200.00 321140 Curb In It 100.00 $ 8.00. $800.00 02634 Site Lighting 1.00 $ 5,000.00 $5,000.00 02745 Fencing 0.00 $ - $0.00 02766 Barricades roadway 1.00 $ 6,000.00 $6,000.00 02776 Relocate Gas Line 1.00 $ 5,000.00 $5,000.00 02826 Relocate Power Line 0.00 $ 6,000.00 $0.00 02842 Landscape (granite wall): 1.00 $ 4,500.00 $4,500.00 200000 Restoration 1.00 $ 250,000.00 $250,000.00 200000 Floor Repair conc wash 1.00 $ 250,000.00 $250,000.00 200000 Tee Flange 1.00 $ 50,000.00 $50,000.00 PERCENT COST PER COSTPER QUANTITY UNIT COST ITEM COST TOTAL SQ. FT. CAR 03000 CONCRETE $2,060,250.00 37.20% 13.61 4578.33 03301 Slab -On -Grade sf 16600.00 $ 4.50 $74',700.00 03302 Retaining Walls sf .300.00 $ 25.00 $7,500.00 03303 Supported precast Deck I sf 53550.00 $ 29.00 $1,552,950.00 03304 Mini Piles 60.00 $ 2,900.00 $174,000.00 03305 Fnd Correction Collar, Excav, Core 24.0.0 $ 6,900.00 $165,600.00 03306 Stair Tower frame sf 2500.00 .$ 15.00" $37,500.00 03400 Precast Fagade spandrel 4.00 $ 12,000.00 $48,000.00 03308 Decorative Precast 0.00 $ 45.60 $0.00 PERCENT COST PER COST PER QUANTITY UNIT COST ITEM COST TOTAL SQ. FT. CAR '4000 MASONRY $359,300.00 6.49% 2.37 798.44 A400 CMU sf 3200.00 $ 14.00 $44,800.00 04200 Precast wall panel sf 4000.00 $ 40.00 $160,000.00 04300 Stair CMU + Brick sf 2500.00 $ 45.00 $112,500.00 04400 Stair Tower special sf 0.00 $ 14.00 $0.00 04500 Masonry shear wall sf .. 1400.00 $ 30.00 $42,000.00 WALKER Parking Consultants /Engineers, Inc. Exist Sq FT 86,000 PERCENT COST PER 1600 South Highway 100, Suite 424 QUANTITY UNIT COST ITEM COST TOTAL Minneapolis, MN. 55416 CAR OPINON OF PROBABLE COST 100% Feasibility FINISHES 2 of 4 $64,000.00 1.16% 0.42 142.22 09920 Floor Striping sp 450.00 $ 10.00 $4,500.00 PERCENT COST PER COST PER Staining Bms & Clg sf QUANTITY UNIT COST ITEM COST TOTAL SQ. FT. CAR 5001.00 ORNAMENTAL METAL Misc. Painting Is 0.00 $266,000.00 4.80% 1.76 591.11 05101 Railing with Concrete If 0.00 $ 200.00 $0.00 PERCENT 05201 Fagade Screen sf 7000.00 $ 38.00 $266,000.00 QUANTITY UNIT COST ITEM COST TOTAL SQ. FT. CAR 10000 PERCENT COST PER COST PER $50,000.00 QUANTITY UNIT COST ITEM COST TOTAL SQ. FT. CAR 05000 METALS $50,000.00 $194,200.00 3.51% 1.28 431.56 05500 Bollards ea 25.00 $ 600.00 $15,000.00 COST PER COST PER 5700 Roof Decking sf 1400.00 $ 5.00 $7,000.00 TOTAL SQ. FT. CAR 05600 Stairs riser 206.00 $ 575.00 $118,450.00 $0.00 0.00% 0.00 05600 Landings sf 1350.00 $ 25.00 $33,750.00 0.00 $0.00 05700 Canopy Is 2.00 $ 10,000.00 $20,000.00 0.00 0.00 $0.00 PERCENT COST PER COST PER QUANTITY UNIT COST ITEM COST TOTAL SQ. FT. CAR 07000 MOISTURE PROTECTION ITEM COST TOTAL $51,100.00 0.92% 0.34 113.56 07421 Roofs sf 1400.00 $ 15.00 $21,000.00 07910 Expansion Joints If 200.00 $ 75.00 $15,000.00 07920 Caulk and Sealants sf 151000.00 $ 0.10 $15,100.00 PERCENT COST PER COST PE' QUANTITY UNIT COST ITEM COST TOTAL SQ. FT. CA 08000 DOORS,WINDOWS,GLASS $476,500.00 8.60% 3.15 1058.89 08110 Curtainwall sf 5500.00 $ 85.00 $467,500.00 08710 Door Hardware ea 18.00 $ 500.00 $9,000.00 08911 PERCENT COST PER COST PER QUANTITY UNIT COST ITEM COST TOTAL SQ. FT. CAR 09000 FINISHES $64,000.00 1.16% 0.42 142.22 09920 Floor Striping sp 450.00 $ 10.00 $4,500.00 09950 Staining Bms & Clg sf 119000.00 $ 0.50 $59,500.00 09990 Misc. Painting Is 0.00 $ - $0.00 PERCENT COST PER COST PER QUANTITY UNIT COST ITEM COST TOTAL SQ. FT. CAR 10000 SPECIALTIES $50,000.00 0.90% 0.33 111.11 10440 Signs incl electronic Is 1.00 $ 50,000.00 $50,000.00 PERCENT COST PER COST PER QUANTITY UNIT COST ITEM COST TOTAL SQ. FT. CAR 11000 EQUIPMENT $0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0.00 0.00 0.00 $0.00 PERCENT COST PER COST PER QUANTITY UNIT COST ITEM COST TOTAL SQ. FT. CAR WALKER Parking Consultants /Engineers, Inc. 1600 South Highway 100; Suite 424 Minneapolis, MN. 55416 Exist Sq FT 86,000 OPINON OF PROBABLE COST 100% Feasibility 3 of 4 14000 ELEVATORS. $102,000.00 1.84% 0.67 226.67 142400.00 Hydro (Landing 6.00 17000.00 $102,000.00 PERCENT COST PER COST PER QUANTITY UNIT COST ITEM COST TOTAL SQ. FT. CAR 15000 MECHANICAL $146;822.00 2.65% 0.97 326.27 15200 General Plumbing sf 151370.00 $ 0.60 $90,822.00 23000 HVAC 1.00 $ 56,000.00 $56,000.00 PERCENT COST PER COST PER QUANTITY UNIT COST ITEM COST TOTAL SQ. FT. CAR 16000 ELECTRICAL $425,582.50 7.68% 2.81 945.74 16100 Electrical Package sf 151370.00 $ 2.25 $340,582.50 23300.00 Generator 1.00 $ 85,000.00 $85,000.00 WALKER Parking Consultants /Engineers, Inc. Exist Sq FT 86,600 1600 South Highway 100, Suite 424 4 of 4 Minneapolis, MN. 65416 OPINON OF PROBABLE COST 100% Feasibility PROJECT: Edina 50th District MIDDLE WALKER #: 21- 3808.00 OWNER : City of Edina LOCATION: Edina, MN 65% Cost Estimate. DIVISION SUMMARY Area Slab -on- grade: 32,000 Date: March, 2012 Area Supported Deck: 119,000 Foundation Type: Spread /Deep Total Square Feet 151,370 Type of Frame: Precast concrete Construction Cost $5,538,554.50 Number. of Tiers: 5.0 Const. Cost/ Car: $12,307.90 Capacity: Of Structure 450 Const. Cost / Sq.Ft.: $36.59 Of Project 180 50601 Ornamental Metal .................. .... ............................... Efficiency: Of Structure 336 1.76 591.11 PERCENT COST PER COST PER $194,200 ITEM COST TOTAL SQ. FT. CAR 01000 General Conditions ........................ ....... ............................... $701,400 12.66% 4,.63 _ 1558.67 02000 Site Work /Restoration .............::. ..... ............................... $641,400 ; 11.58% 4.24 1425.33 03000 Concrete /Precast ................. . .... ............................... $2,060,250 37.20% 13.61 4578.33 40000 Masonry ......... .... ............................... $359,300 6.49% 2.37 798.44 50601 Ornamental Metal .................. .... ............................... $266,000 4.80 °k 1.76 591.11 05000 Metals ..............:..:. :....................... $194,200 3.51% 1.28 431.56 07000 Moisture Protection...... .... ............................... $51,100 0.92% 0.34 113.56 08000 Doors,Windows,Glass...... ... ............................... $476;500 8.60% 3.15 1058.89 09000 Finishes ................. ................................... $6000 1.16% 0.42 142.22 10000 Specialties .............. .... ....::.:....................... $50,000' 0.90% 0.33 111.11 11000 Equipment ................ .... ............................... $0 0.00% 0.00 0.00 14000 Elevators ................ .... ................:.............. $102,600 1.84% 0.67 226.6'- 15000 Mechanical ............... ... .........................:..... $146,822 2.65% 0.97 326.2: 16000 Electrical ............... .... .....:......................... $425,583 7.68% 2.81 945.74 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $5,538,555 100:00% $36.59 $12,308 Contingency ................ ............ 10.00% $554,000 $6,092,555 NOTES: 1. Since the Engineer has no control over the cost of labor, materials, or equipment, or over the contractor's methods of determining prices, or over . competitive bidding or market conditions, opinions of probable cost, as provided above, are made on the basis of experience and qualifications of the Engineer. and represent the best judgement as a design professional familiar with the construction industry. However, the Engineer cannot and does not guarantee . that proposals, bids, or the construction cost will not vary from opinions of probable cost as shown above. WALKER � SIO�AI�OV CON$I;IIANI� REPAIR SUMMARY OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST - March 9, 2012 City of Edina South Parking Ramp Item Descri tion Units Total 4th Tier I 3rd Tier 2nd Tier 1st Tier Cost 1.10 Project Mobilization LS 1 $68.200 3.04 Floor Repair -'Curb - SF 33 33 $1,000 3.10 Floor Re air - P/T Slab SF 239 172 28.. , •. 39 $10,800 3.20 Fbor.Re air - Slab -On- Grade SF 105 105 $3,700 5.10 Beam Re air. SF 10 10 $1,100 6.10 Column Re . air - Shallow . SF 63 9 12 42 f' $5,000 7.09 Wall Repair L. Bumper - Shallow SF 15 5 10 $1,200 7.10 Wall Re air SF 20 20 $111000 8.90 Pan / Joist'Re air - Joist: LF 50 50 ;$5000 8.91 Pan / Joist;Re air -. Pan Slab/ Full Depth :. SF 4,920 4,920 $246,000 9.12 Expansion Joint - Preparation - Blockout Replacement LF 255 255 1 $19,100 10.01 Ex ansion Joint - Premolded (Floor to Floor LF 335. 60 20 255 $25,100 10.02 Expansion Joint - Premolded Floor•to Vertical LF 25 10 1 15 $1,900 10.03 Ex ansion.Joint - Elastomeric Edge, LF 172 28. 56 56 32 $17200 11.10 Seal Random Cracks LF 200 100 .100 $900 11.11 Seal Wide -Joint LF 15 15 $100 11.201 Seal Construction Joint LF 500 500 $2,300 11:70 Cove Sealant. LF 1 -002 668 334 $4,000 12.01 Asp halt Repair . SF 50 50 $2,000 13.02 Overlay - Latex 'Modified Concrete SF 20 20 $400 14.20 Supplemental Adhesive Anchor EA 140 20 20 100 $5,600 14.30 Supplemental Reinforcement LBS 400 50 50 300 $1,600 15.10 1 Floor Sealer SF 139.500 26,400 13,100 $19,8001 16.11 Traffic Topping -'Heavy Duty SF 20.739 1.000 81064, 11 675 $72,600 16.13 Traffic Topping - Heavy Du w /Additional Wear Coat SF 21,280 10,640 :10 640 $85,100 19.80 Floor Drain Repair - Drain Replacement EA 21 2 7 7 5 $31' 500 22.10 Protect P/T Sheathing EA 25 10 5 10 .: $300 22.15 P/T.Tendon Replacement EA 5 5 $29,000 28.10 Barrier Cable Repair LF 450 450 $13,500 35.01 Tuck pointing SF 32; = 32 $600 35.07 Masonry Unit Replacement - Block EA 18 18 $1,400 41.04 Replace Landin frread/Riser /Fill /Paint LS 1 $75,000 45.06 Paint Structural Steel LS 1 1 p I V 1 2 000 i otai construction *I5u,uuu Notes: No new drain lines or NE stairtower rehab, general painting, lighting, or exterior sealants included. WALKER rtCSfCi /.,OV CONSU.VJJ -S REPAIR SUMMARY OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST - March 9. 2012 City of Edina Middle Parking Ramp Item Description Units Total 3rd Tier 2nd Tierl 1st Tier Cos 1.10 Project Mobilization LS 1 $45,500 3.07 Floor Repair - Concrete Wash SF 6,290 3,145 3,145 $188,700 3.20 Floor Repair - Slab -On -Grade SF 132 132 $4,600 3.90 Floor Repair - Stair Tread Repair EA 30 12 18 $2,300 4.12 Ceiling Repair - Cast -in -Place SF 3 1 3 $200 4.40 Ceiling Repair - Tee Flange SF 65 45 20 $7,200 5.30 Beam Repair - Shallow P/C SF 30 20 10 $3,000 6.10 Column Repair -Shallow SF 10 10 $800 7.10 Wall Repair SF 40 20 20 $T000 7.71 Panel Connection Pocket Repair EA 1 1 $500 7.90 Wall Repair - Lift Loop Plus EA 32 32 $800 8.10 Tee Stem Repair - Shallow LF 24 12 12 $1,200 8.40 Floor Repair - Full Depth SF 644 212 312 120 $38600 8.80 Tee Stem Bearing Pad Replacement EA 18 3 6 9 $-9-.0-0-0- 8.81 Tee Stem Bearing Grout Replacement EA 18 3 6 9 $9,000 9.10 Expansion Joint - Preparation - Blockout Re lacerhent LF 32 32 $3,200 10.03 Expansion Joint - Elastomeric Ede LF 32 32 $3,200 10.06 Expansion Joint - Silicone Seal LF 120 60 60 $1,800 11.08 Seal Tee Flange Joint LF 6,510 3,255 3,255 $26,000 11.10 Seal Random Cracks LF 880 440 440 $4,000 11.20 Seal Construction Joint LF 3,298 1,634 1 634 30 $14,800 12.01 Asphalt Repair SF 100 100 $4,000 14.20 Supplemental Adhesive Anchor EA 70 50 20 $2,800 14.30 Supplemental Reinforcement LBS 140 100 40 $600 15.10 Floor Sealer SF 5F40 25,000 25,000 $25,000 16.06 Traffic Topping - Tread/Landing/Risers SF 200 200 200 $4,500 16.11 Traffic Topping - Heavy Duty SF 1 5,048 5,048 $35,300 16.13 Traffic Topping - Heavy Duty w /Additional Wear Coat SF 420 420 $3,400 19.80 Floor Drain Repair - Drain Replacement EA 8 8 9 $37,500 22.20 Install Shear Connectors EA 30 10 $14.00 22.30 Re -weld Shear Connectors EA 70 50 20 $3,500 35.01 Tuck pointing SF 80 80 1 $1,600 35.07 Masonry Unit Replacement - Block EA 18 18 $1400 i otai construction *5uu,ouu Notes: No new drain lines, NW /SE stairtowers rehab, general painting, lighting, or exterior sealants included. APPENDIX B COMBINED CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS n k0 S Nx a C N G J EDINA 50TH DISTRICT Parking Structure Addition Feasibility Project Schedule April 10, 2012 New Middle Lai t Final Completion Completion ■ ®■■ ■ ■ ■■ ®■ ■■■ ■ ® ®r.�� ■ ®■ ■r �■■■ ■■ ■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■ ■ ■■� ■ ■r. ®�■■ New Middle New Middle - Substantial - Final Completion Completion U Project Final Completion n S O O. N O N APPENDIX C - CHLORIDE ION DETERMINATION TEST J 40 WALKER RESTO.MON CONSULTANTS CHLORIDE ION CONTENT DETERMINATION LABORATORY ANALYSIS RESULTS FORM Sample Sample No. Identification CHLORIDE ION CONTENT -PPM- De p1h Increment Tested 0" — 1 " 1"-2" 2" - 3" Comments CL-1 Drive Lane 7 (omO 3(o Level 2, North B9L Grid .CL-2 Drive Lane 62!40 O 0 Level 3, North Ba Grid American Information Date Received: 12-12D 1n:3 Test Required: Acid Soluble Chloride Content Samples Tested By: l ,*C-6 AHRRICAN 1 RNGINBBRING SESSTINM�INt J: \213 477 -0OfancL2007:CedlRcaHon \chforidg lnfo\3477chforldefomLcenrer. doc Walker Information Project Name: Project Number: Samples Taken By: Date Sampled: Number Submitted: Date Submitted: Center Parkina Ram 21- 3477.00 JCL M11010--t- 6 1Zza%-4- . Page ^1._ of _1 s6 WALKER 4 PARKING CONSULTANTS CHLORIDE ION CONTENT DETERMINATION LABORATORY ANALYSIS RESULTS FORM Sample Sample No. Identification CHLORIDE ION CONTENT -PPM - De th Increment Tested off_ in 1"- 2" 211-311 Comments CL -1 Drive Lane 1190 Z 90 200 level 2, North B ,Grid 'G J-C. CL -2 Drive lane (off e -+*!)5 CM Level 3, North Boy, Grid°r,.S10'x . American Information Date Received: Test Required: Water Soluble Chloride Content Samples Tested By: R _ 'by10 1 RQ AMERICAN 1 ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. St. Paul, MN J: \21.323900- 20Q<EdincLCert\ Reports \3239L00_Chloride center.doc Walker Information Project Name: Project Number: Samples Taken By: Date Sampled: Number Submitted: Date Submitted: Center Ram 21- 3239.00 JC.L ca o ►/ t a /o� Page -1_ of _1_ 0B WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS CHLORIDE ION CONTENT DETERMINATION LABORATORY ANALYSIS RESULTS FORM Sample Sample No. Identification CHLORIDE ION CONTENT -PPM - Depth Increment Tested 0" - I' 1" -2' 2" - 3" Comments CL -1 Drive Lane Samples Tested By: ji' Level 1, North Bay, Grid 7 -8 CL -2 Drive Lane TESTING, INC. Level 2, North Bay, Grid 6 -7 Cen 4,�,y 291 p I Ll5'- .c 6-1) American Information 10.01 -410 Date Received: � - U - Q 1 Test Required: 1WeteF Seluble Chloride Content Samples Tested By: ji' AMERICAN 1 ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. St. Paul. MN 121- 3015-00 - City_ of- Edrno_CertlReports13015_center chlodde.doc Walker Information Project Name: Project Number: Samples Taken By: Date Sampled: Number Submitted: Date Submitted: Center Ram 21- 3015.00 JER 03 Aug 2001 6 03 Aug 2001 Page _1_ of —I— J., WALKER .. - SEl1CiA *K}NCCNL'ti1LV1(5 CHLORIDE ION'CONTENT'DETE MINATION LABORATORY ANALYSIS'RESULTS FORM Sample Sample No. Identification CHLORIDE ION CONTENT -PPM- De Ih Increment Tested 04- 1" 1'- 2" 21- 3" Comments CH Drive lone .10.3 rJ 2 3 145 B.5-3.5 CL -2 Drive lane 3 3 t Q Iq dQ 13.5-5 American Information Date Received: rld to [- Test Required: Acid Soluble Chloride Content Samples Tested By: •tee AMERICAN 1 INGINEERING TESTING, INC. Sr. Paul. MN J- \21- 3477-Wfd no_2007 Certificarian \rhbdde_inro \Semi Od0608 doc Walker Information Project Name: Project Number: Samples Taken By: Dote Sampled: Number Submieed: Dote Submitted: Edina South Rom 21- 3477:00 !Michael Stevens 08/06/2008 6 68766/20os Page 1 of WALKER - PARIGNGCONSWANTS CHLORIDE ION CONTENT DETERMINATION LABORATORY ANALYSIS RESULTS FORM American Information Date Received: g } - ? , Test Required: Water Soluble .Chloride Content Samples Tested By: AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. St. Paul. MN J.'121- 3015- 00- CNy_of Edina CertlReponSI3015 southchlodde.doc Walker Information Project Name: Sample Sample No. Identification CHLORIDE ION CONTENT -PPM - Depth Increment Tested 0.-1. 1"-2" 2" - 3" Comments Samples Taken By: CL -1 Drive Lane -5-5r Z 7,3S- Level 4, Center Bay, Grid 3-5 08 Au 2001 CL -2 Drive Lane `fS / /.S-� o Level, East Ba , Grid 5-6 American Information Date Received: g } - ? , Test Required: Water Soluble .Chloride Content Samples Tested By: AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. St. Paul. MN J.'121- 3015- 00- CNy_of Edina CertlReponSI3015 southchlodde.doc Walker Information Project Name: South Ramp Project Number: 21-3015.00 Samples Taken By: JER Date Sampled: 08 Aug 2001 Number Submitted: 6 Date Submitted: 08 Au 2001 Page _1 _ of _1_ APPENDIX D - 50T" & FRANCE MIDDLE RAMP PRICING PLANS WALKER N, PARKING CONSULTANTS A 3 v 0 50 th & FRANCE MIDDLE RAMP WALKER PARKING STRUCTURE EXPANSION PARKING CONSULTANTS 1660 South Highway 100 Suite 424 Minneapolis, MN 55416 EDINA , MINNESOTA 952.595.9116 Ph 952.595.9518 Fax 21- 3808.00/ FEASIBILITY DESIGN ACTIVITY ID: 02- 2012 -001 www.walkerparking.com SHEETINDEX Men Hans GENERAL Hansen C100 CIVIL PLAN / CONSTRUCTION LIMITS Architectural ARCHITECTURAL DEMOLITION Group 1000 Td. Oaks Censer Or. rtl 952.�26.7,p0 A005 CONTEXT SITE PLAN MIDDLE RAMP Smte 200 Fax 952.t26.7u0 A101 DEMOLITION PLAN LEVEL 1 Waynto MN 55391 1—moho9ohon —co, A102 DEMOLITION PLAN LEVEL 2 A103 DEMOLITION PLAN LEVEL 3 ARCHITECTURAL A201 FLOOR PLAN LEVEL 1 A202 FLOOR PLAN LEVEL 2 A203 FLOOR PLAN LEVEL 3 A204 FLOOR PLAN LEVEL 4 A300 EXISTING EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS _- ;^ y ` A301 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS -- A400 ENLARGED FLOOR PLANS A401 ENLARGED FLOOR PLANS 4 F rY A402 ENLARGED FLOOR PLANS STRUCTURAL `J, • •�'"'� _ Y_ -'? S100 FOUNDATION PLAN ` _ �_ I'f r - ,;." ! i�• S201 FIRST LEVEL PLAN -- - .- 5202 SECOND LEVEL PLAN S203 THIRD LEVEL PLAN _ _ •� -Y` ! �; - - _ _ S204 FOURTH LEVEL PLAN -.L.. �_ S500 FOUNDATION DETAILS - - ELECTRICAL E100 ELECTRICAL SCHEDULES, ONE -LINE El01 FIRST LEVEL ELECTRICAL PLAN E102 SECOND LEVEL ELECTRICAL PLAN E103 THIRD LEVEL ELECTRICAL PLAN E104 FOURTH LEVEL ELECTRICAL PLAN Et FIRST LEVEL ELECTRICAL PLAN E2 SECOND & THIRD LEVEL ELECTRICAL PLANS MECHANICAL M201 FIRST LEVEL MECHANICAL PLAN M202 SECOND LEVEL MECHANICAL PLAN M203 THIRD LEVEL MECHANICAL PLAN M204 FOURTH LEVEL MECHANICAL PLAN NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION FEASIBILITY PRICING FEBRUARY 2012 I= ' s i I I I I � I I I I � I � I I 4 5 6 I a- - - -- - - /!nom_- —_ -_ 494, `- \lam �� " gyp — (��/ 4th /72 Si7�'EEi — 3�mwE NEHICLULAR , GUIDANCE !/ •., II IliAA AV 1 ` ' �\�V V A� A . \�. 1 _ Lei MONUMENT SIGN NEW TRA'SHI 6'xto' ,�� - - - - - -I '` ,I i• i l" ,6' -O" ROOM DEMOLISH AND J �. MIDDLE RAMP RECONSTRUCT LL o STAIR TOWER i> /J /^ cj Tii i CONSTRUCTION o LIMIT z z Lu Z �I DEMOLISH AMD _j`� 0 Lu i. — 1�� - "_ RECONSTRUCT STAIR TOWER ✓ .'..0 r ^-� '1 _.. U-1111 LLB C{ INE / / '9J.p:�✓.Y �I m /� .. � /� / -_�. -1 { _ � � y I /I..;G.� I j � l / �/ ''/ / // LL CONSTRUCT NEW /- -ij o w STAIR /ELEVATOR //{ `J Lo TOWER j j g ELITE PLAN � � r- '°°°°°s .,w CIVIL PLAN Cop,+lghl 2011. NI'righla ra rwE.. NO part of. Nla EowmeWmoy. Ce,repraE�aA'Ih any loan or by any m<ana wiNOUt pennlaa{m hom Walk<r Pprkinq Conaultpnla/Engin<en,.lnc - C100 i 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 a AM 11 - 3 tR 13 „� FIRST LEVEL PLAN � a mgQ , f 8 3�i3 ;eai FIRST LEVEL PLAN S201 a s Z w o J w u, uj v z v~i z LL Ir a FIRST LEVEL PLAN S201 Ilm s X zz 4 I 5 I 6 �K; ���° �";E„a �LECOND LEVEL PLAN nu .ea •m e• nP.m,•.e i. 2 t D UT N iesrw ea6l. lo. lql :llME..110.•OC.WarrKFra.fVINM Q Z Y MIDOLE�P �INW tlwlr �rEw.mfol COAIIE �I�MR..Y.61V.1111 N LLLLLL Q Z 3 ril dj t IL �_ \awr 1fR.C.\iNfYPEaIFD m..0 LU Z a H m Pe ,.wEE,s.MC:�sw\,noP.omelEaaf.xr wawcr000ure nE.mm*u t � cD N iesrw ea6l. lo. lql :llME..110.•OC.WarrKFra.fVINM Q Z Y Rl R.wOf NI.ECUE� � Li.11B6W16 .Y.IpF1S. cnuN. N LLLLLL Q Z '.G.eK4111.up WrYW t IL �_ \awr 1fR.C.\iNfYPEaIFD m..0 LU Z S m Pe ,.wEE,s.MC:�sw\,noP.omelEaaf.xr wawcr000ure nE.mm*u J d .awoMwa.,.e,wow.ure... � X W W ® uurMC Sr�ro.MPx ro.c c 7 m �..W..o.M . LLJ SECOND LEVEL PLAN 5202 cD LL- Z Y t IL `Q S SECOND LEVEL PLAN 5202 � 8 Q �8 i; dig ,o . — III � L o I I aeo e I I I ;N y mccr raw s*/n ❑xcw.wnlw �� MI�nLE RI1MP D i I � I 1 ❑Mtw6iNYleuev.noa R t I yl •I bl y el 41 I I ^ I I e e e I e I Z IiJD� I z o O c —s u ® ne.ore awerew�a�an.rcEe.Mraw rwecvr LU Z LY' 0 wro.E.ro.rwxrm.e,can X y I 0 e�enwov,wml�w. OQ C yl ,-I yl yl M yl yl •I I ® wtiaaeMeeMO.'aewwowevine lJJ `s a � ! � 0 er- ee.,arwex.�.waamcna e F 0 w� .wECww.mrAOO��in.re.a�wco.�..iro V r—Af b I I I e[e.ere.m . n.noero,M000wwioP. eesewaem,wyrecyer raeew �.ee.ua.00 neri eae.�ccwuwnM z 0 n.eo.wm...snn.ewmwwr. cede .raan.r�o�rc�o,a,,,,�,m��n.o. � iueenaem werawNeeweewMn Z E _ � Y s 3 Z Q D y W b 8 �E „� THIRD LEVEL PLAN r as 5 THIRD LEVEL PLAN wa14M PvLNq Cansw[ann/Enryneen S203 , N 5 s � 8 �yp�eyp d Y iea JE` 3tagE I I � L ! I I I 1 I gam_ �ooia.c R/�F1P ® xlw,iM � �mMro�4FV.rq, � xew ��� a I LNL 0 Z Z IT/ Lu J a C k ,I !I " E !I 41 y I •I 'I F m Raax xNaxA, mwru, xNO'In IE,E x w,rux�EiFV.rgl uj Q di ' ry`E' I I I I — O rOwF0. I� E Lo U- ca Q s a $ p a � � B A��FOURTH &FIFTH LEVEL PLAN g 3 . c r` A rma ti FOURTH & FIFTH LEVEL PLAN O igh] 2011 u1 h •«. Im. u,n,x2 o r es •...oa�Fn «, ^^Y Iom « er ax r m j .stn «I o mx hom ww Vh9 Cwlxl,/inpm . n, n S 204 3 4 5 6 7 B � E | D .� � .5 r . . i/ \ �) .�/ B. ) � �§ \ ^ I! \) , , ! i WEST ELEVATION "pte ___,._ __ 'Tay ©__., w_._._, _ _ __. 6 .;, . , . LLI ; 2(2| � \ jig lu / ! a � ) \ LLJ .o \ O 2 } k / ƒ Y Y C45 EXIST. EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS MIDDLE RAMP A3 O 4 5 6 7 e ELEVATION NOTES a6n[ PwP01 w Y tl\.1 S.GE 0.r .C�� „M-A pmla aBt y.P.0 1.n11YI[l �'p � mac srsms ra wn[ cmw sry uswa na s.PC n. r �,..xox jjj ."'�"a. v�wrs .a .�uc sr r .o� q s:rm E -: , : � �� � - vs-x .sons, w,r cia rtaws eiq r sawx wrtPri sne ce. , Jill In i SOUTH ELEVATION -0 mrarww w. v ifill ==iFL — a_ li,r . ,<- .oP. wn.r w.n as' .e.um C ~o uP.r ..oa Z W w Q mn,aam riv acr.sas.m .eaa I J (j)Mg ELEVAn ON x :• � Pio � Haw � "M 0 L U v Z F .R.L a PQl wo /a)YlrJ[ / M 4awM w*K M.w. tt.�..c a mq f%9.G COt (n u4x( cc[ mw5 a,9i u Id aw.. IrP. LL Y f 2 oes Q u") moos naa m own( nR �w¢S, m-i aw ,umiuis a�[w.io Doors Kwumi rEU�'r�u r Hula wn a.u¢ M WP4 a ona a sum Mro Cat SM 1A. N¢ I.Yi NORTH ELEVAnoN *M6,— — — Ito <.� . aP.na EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS MIDDLE RAMP STAIR BUILDING SEQTON A301 Cwfrgbt 2011. N1 Hybl. n..r..e. NO P4 If w. Joo t rgy b..w.oa.e.d F .y 1.,,,, „ by .�r r+,}.�• .+lnwl o.r,M n.., w.n. vu.op co�wunn,./cr�yn. .. �.. 5 6 7 a 50 th & FRANCE NEW MIDDLE RAMP PARKING STRUCTURE EXPANSION EDINA , MINNESOTA 21- 3808.00! FEASIBILITY DESIGN ACTIVITY ID: 04- 2012 -001 SHEETINDEX ARCHITECTURAL S201 FIRST LEVEL PLAN S202 SECOND THRU FIFTH LEVEL PLANS S203 SIXTH LEVEL PLAN MIDDLE RAMP FIVE STORY EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS MIDDLE RAMP SIX STORY EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 1517: 19 V2 St N it 4 51Z., St V611 CapyrlpM MII. AY ngnU rvw' Mo part IX NY am.n�l may Ee raawuC n my lam n oy my man MNaut 4�vm han xas FaNn9 fmWlmla/G9'mr., Nc WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS 1660 South Highway 100 Suite 424 Minneapolis. MN 55416 952.595.9116 Ph 952.595.9518 Fax www.walkerparking.com Mohagen Hansen Architectural coup Group 1000 Twelve Oaks Center Dr. Tel 952.426.7400 Suite 200 F. 952.426.7440 Wuymta 4N 55791 — .— ha9eManse -- NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION FEASIBILITY PRICING APRIL 03 2012 AM it 3 C � 1 f n FIRST LEVEL PLAN ww,.row.uww.owrz� nm P .my by q Cnwml. M c 5 .A mil /!!1�I E -7- I 8 i i a N J cr � U CY W m U z Z ? a LL 06 C) L W U-) 17R �T LEVE PLAN mooao© ��ooaoo 000awwso �.>!�>,o��oo 000aoo o ©o��o© ©e000wa ®ooaoo � ©a ©oo mo °oaao a x 3 4 5 6 7 g 1989 ptH.P�� W ; � ■ {f. SY$yp ?F?AI�iE F I F 1 I P� nnnnnnnnrnn�nr�nnnnnnnnn s e Y Y,Y e l Q_ c C O Q W of Z ui W J � in F w co U z Z Y Q of a e � � 06 O S Lo a B L ° — g� IL__� rte\ SECOND THRU FIFTH LEVEL PLAN � "° ;;°00 SECOND THRU FIFTH LEVEL PLANS //� S202 Cgpyy.t 2011. All ripnla ,asarved No pprt of tlw Eowmm[ moY Iw reprpq�cM in mY loon a py mY mama .iNOUI Permiaaion kom YIdtM Pvknq ConaultanlA/Eryviven. Inc F I F 1 I P� nnnnnnnnrnn�nr�nnnnnnnnn ! |! IL � LU § c 2 § ! \ | d 9 z @ � J { -- k � , { . ! w &jln HLEv\PLAN c- , aV;� LEVEL | PLAN ! - ._ — � SO �_ � , s ! B SOUTH ELEVATION 11i 7 TT r WEST ELEVATION -SIT. I- �. 1i1f i l FIVE STORY NORTH ELEVATION MIDDLE PARKING RAMP - EDINA - ELEVATIONS r EDINA, MN WALKER °" March 22, 2012 SIX STORY NORTH ELEVATION [- [ Ll . MIDDLE PARKING RAMP - EDINA - ELEVATION EDINA, MN WALKER March 22, 2012 APPENDIX E 501H AND FRANCE SOUTH RAMP PRICING PLAN A 3 O WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS 50 th & FRANCE SOUTH RAMP PARKING STRUCTURE EXPANSION EDINA , MINNESOTA 21- 3808.00/ FEASIBILITY DESIGN ACTIVITY 10: 02.2012 -001 SHEETINDEX GENERAL C100 CIVIL PLAN / CONSTRUCTION LIMITS ARCHITECTURAL DEMOLITION A005 CONTEXT SITE PLAN A101 FIRST LEVEL DEMOLITION PLAN A102 SECOND LEVEL DEMOLITION PLAN A103 THIRD LEVEL DEMOLITION PLAN A104 FOURTH LEVEL DEMOLITION PLAN ARCHITECTURAL A201 FIRST LEVEL PLAN A202 SECOND LEVEL PLAN A203 THIRD LEVEL PLAN A204 FOURTH LEVEL PLAN A300 EXISTING EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A301 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A400 ENLARGED FLOOR PLANS A401 ENLARGED FLOOR PLANS A402 ENLARGED FLOOR PLANS STRUCTURAL 5100 FOUNDATION PLAN 5201 FIRST LEVEL PLAN 5202 SECOND LEVEL PLAN 5203 THIRD LEVEL PLAN S204 FOURTH LEVEL PLAN 5501 STRUCTURAL DETAILS ELECTRICAL E100 ELECTRICAL SCHEDULES, ONE -LINE E101 FIRST LEVEL PLAN E102 SECOND LEVEL PLAN E103 THIRD LEVEL PLAN E104 FOURTH LEVEL PLAN E7 ELECTRICAL 1 ST TIER PLAN E2 ELECTRICAL 3RD 8 4TH TIER PLAN MECHANICAL M201 FIRST LEVEL PLAN M202 SECOND LEVEL PLAN M203 THIRD LEVEL PLAN M204 FOURTH LEVEL PLAN Jj S is Sr v: WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS 1660 South Highway 100 Suite 424 Minneapolis, MN 55416 952.595.9116 Ph 952.595.9518 Fax www.walkerparking.com Mohagen Mrs Hansen Architectural mL Group 10D0 TWeln Oaks Center Dr. Tei 952426.7400 Suite 200 F. 952.426.74/0 Wgzata ,N 55391 ..r.mohogenhansen.cam NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION FEASIBILITY PRICING '^'�• u�r r..� ^^^ rcu. v�.p cmww�hr+ i�F FEBRUARY 2012 E N F. 1 4 w Nz- ' 2 Va W Kk IR p� AkRESS I FROM n I -, '- I i \� 1 1\ � 'i \ a FRANCE \aL _j REGRADE AREA V --j III 1 RECONSTRUCT STAIR PEI OR A..'T N CONSTRUCTION LIMITS 0 J,'l FEET GRlol.E/ NEW K CHANGE/ DEMOLISH ND' C ISO- HORIZONTAL GUIDANrF MONUMENT NEW VEHII ULAR BORING SANITARY SEWER V js IR, S9 T 2 DEMOLISH D 16 REC?NSTRU I Z , wi f O. q CL. < L X UY c/5 LU of I'A% P I C 0 KUWlVN LIMITS MITS j STORM WATER LL RETENTION VAULT I JI co �e of < OL < Ni L0 T Mw q 11 RCP ANDIMANHC LE '130 24-DIA! iWELOCATEI - � �q J L\ 0 iv J 1Y N." , N If CIVIL MY ahtl I-- N, part of W, document may b, reproduced In p f— or by -y J�wt pj..J. k— Wd- Parking Consullonla/Engineen. Inc 3 4 PLAN , cloo Z ©■ 7■ c.. 0 ■ I I rn I -- I 4I lNu PA N_aH_HI_ I i H -I H_4 -T�l STAIR C -s ,HlHlH- H-- Hi-- H- lH- iH- -4-H -. . rynl. I.— N. n- .l I— A -, �ZFIRST LEVEL PLAN Q 2 3 lsom RIC ® WraHl.¢CpXGNlrc wwwn. @bs]!M k _ l e .mlO..INK.YMrtlll � N m � �wYR:I1FLVeL Elii1MOCMOETlII1.WwnYLIfEWL QQ Z W m ^a'R Nl.ralLrO GOli�erc N.uwuINQNw.NNal N1Ma r./ Q Z Z OFNttN ,IliNngCW.NTNCAPIpE,lwMllCltrz CUW.NTGNpNIN LLLL (n � H a x 0 LU Lb m wn,zwa,.ru,.v.mn aweww um.ecw �.rzu n.rn ® v�o .F�.uv.walauoaNwWgiawomnuwaam� U D.. o. NxwDivaun .M.na�Nq..I,owrllwlNpNlN.vwar. Z � 8 .IlPgniwli COMGltt NUNrOrwwlL (n Q wiwwlo Rwrlr.n uNrNY acv�n..oqun.apNl.clYNa Z rw >a wNe roMrfivrt .�wac3uNY.YrlMNn6o WYgaf LL CM.I.� F.nu Na01VMLVM ,MN6Y.INYlBMw16l lMMln./IOFYU6ol a,n..uGwfEa 06 cr Q � w o�oa�m X00000 0 ®0000 o ®000® ooaaoo m0000v FIRST LEVEL PLAN S201 R E I 2 I 3 I q I I 7 C 3„ 0�F Itl �_ � WYJIOED r,w.p ,I. I SOUTHTHFt I]F1�rtlorM�i162 �� ISOMETRIC { - -_ f 1 :.'.'.': f�:.:.... � Inu rosxru®rncoxcll[rk. mark carltrtlllcrknroE �C � 1 I 1 I 11 1 ..... 1,.. . :.. V.4rMM.l<arltr¢,EMUP ] ul4 n'YJpF�Y'OFH F.v.JMruur C O 11... , r � ta: r{rsMtic,or {roar wnrrn. w,uws Z I ...... Ij ♦rt�I . Y� "���'�'���"�j1 �Z ' �GOKAFIEMYYIG,O1 pY+E. � in � JI': .�� � kMia.xes.nc Cleo r�o wnrrt; rgvyt,.Y,wxfl.n GNbun e{w T 1 r... wC ' - - - -�/]�] 3 1 :' V aP4M tW Orw wsr wo NpNpEb awcro Gush FOUFn. �O/) W � _- �•�. 1 ' .�. !fw�wa{n.WYW rotOUrµYJIM1iv. V/ - - - -- 2! m" .E{m+.cawn%nraro.n.oJ.�.. U S 1 �TRwHCrErEaw6.ua .{J.ery fJp 1- ' U) - _ - - _ - - - ��� -..d -- Y wow�.rlcankmamornw,oeu rwl.erauraxwawc �y4 I- - rJar.anwtrowut..o%k . relr. �% Ll-. Z y I 1 I I 1 I I II I k w 1 + O Z ------ - - w 2 A6 SECOND LEVEL PLAN f''""°` I �rt y rtrnelox .� rw�oir'row.coa�ief�tlowawernlu r,4 Tm os+l®IJUn tnw.nrJ. tn..lrua - - -_ _ -- Jan %rca�ie.IrJarrr � d tlM wJ., � I I wtmiou �JmJ� a SECOND LEVEL PLAN .mm Al PLAN ELEVATION KEY a m n TYPICAL BAY PLAN 3 EXPANSION JOINT DETAIL AT COLUMN AL/T SLAB MILD REINFORCEMENT DETAIL Capyiplil 2011. MI rfpkb rurwL. Ilo sort al Ulr Geawnmt maY M rgoEUpU N a,y lama %Y a,Y mame e1Uw1 o.m1e{1on ham Welka Caking I'.enwltwle/Englnw{, Mu "' S202 1 2 3 4 5 8 7 8 1 n 3„ 0�F Itl �_ � WYJIOED r,w.p ,I. I SOUTHTHFt I]F1�rtlorM�i162 �� ISOMETRIC { - -_ f 1 :.'.'.': f�:.:.... � Inu rosxru®rncoxcll[rk. mark carltrtlllcrknroE �C � 1 I 1 I 11 1 ..... 1,.. . :.. V.4rMM.l<arltr¢,EMUP ] ul4 n'YJpF�Y'OFH F.v.JMruur C O 11... , r � ta: r{rsMtic,or {roar wnrrn. w,uws Z I ...... Ij ♦rt�I . Y� "���'�'���"�j1 �Z ' �GOKAFIEMYYIG,O1 pY+E. � in � JI': .�� � kMia.xes.nc Cleo r�o wnrrt; rgvyt,.Y,wxfl.n GNbun e{w T 1 r... wC ' - - - -�/]�] 3 1 :' V aP4M tW Orw wsr wo NpNpEb awcro Gush FOUFn. �O/) W � _- �•�. 1 ' .�. !fw�wa{n.WYW rotOUrµYJIM1iv. V/ - - - -- 2! m" .E{m+.cawn%nraro.n.oJ.�.. U S 1 �TRwHCrErEaw6.ua .{J.ery fJp 1- ' U) - _ - - _ - - - ��� -..d -- Y wow�.rlcankmamornw,oeu rwl.erauraxwawc �y4 I- - rJar.anwtrowut..o%k . relr. �% Ll-. Z y I 1 I I 1 I I II I k w 1 + O Z ------ - - w 2 A6 SECOND LEVEL PLAN f''""°` I �rt y rtrnelox .� rw�oir'row.coa�ief�tlowawernlu r,4 Tm os+l®IJUn tnw.nrJ. tn..lrua - - -_ _ -- Jan %rca�ie.IrJarrr � d tlM wJ., � I I wtmiou �JmJ� a SECOND LEVEL PLAN .mm Al PLAN ELEVATION KEY a m n TYPICAL BAY PLAN 3 EXPANSION JOINT DETAIL AT COLUMN AL/T SLAB MILD REINFORCEMENT DETAIL Capyiplil 2011. MI rfpkb rurwL. Ilo sort al Ulr Geawnmt maY M rgoEUpU N a,y lama %Y a,Y mame e1Uw1 o.m1e{1on ham Welka Caking I'.enwltwle/Englnw{, Mu "' S202 1 2 3 4 5 8 7 8 A= el_ a s I n I n I I I ' �ZRD LEVEL PLAN we Dort a ua a«r,rat mar a •w�oe�«e h ar roan a. by mr T= .� t c.r�wioa ,.on. 2 3 I THIRD LEVEL PLAN S203 PEI 11 ;NTH; ® ISOMETRIC m �; ra,x.na,.ra�o,eucoxcrcr,.aarua ar„a�,ro„ro., g a r cn m „a,.r.oar.wwau.,r o.ww,woworos< M F— X rwcr rev,nraw..u.on,wmen..wenx . o,wn. w Lu ® wFiwr.xo a.w.e„rra� newrno rrcoiurra.ro.mr.,,wao�n,muc,u„a .,00..,...,o O .....u.a.w. �..a...Y, .�,.�. ,mr�.w,a.,a,..us.wnaaaa isran�..uow.w LU `i t- rrure,, ew.rna..nov....7uo . a. Z m w.wcm,anar,w rau,vo w..�r. to m rnwrre.irovo, �.w.,.wmw „w rare U, m.rrow,r,nva..c. r.,c., ca„ne =rnr1a,.rnurn,�aanm �e..caaw.er�rare..rocvr.narmcrw LL Z ® nowoe�a•enc>•wc.�a.oav<„r,a,rno axuwc�vaiw•ra.u,u� od Y ce .cw aa.w w uv,... a.ov ova iar cau,«...�aaru nroms,wonwc.uac . r.o.or rEw.rn.w.c„aaw.uxawwc � Q a a OZ Id) W THIRD LEVEL PLAN S203 E D C F B O m p 1 ■I iii\ I �Ok�ax���^,^ ?q I 4 I I I I I I I 1 I I e -I— - I s I I I I I II I 1 I ' Ai�L RTH LEVEL PLAN � 2 FOURTH LEVEL PLAN �] A Capyiplit 2011. Au rip�4 r�wwE. Ro port o/ Wa Cwumcnl mOT W rop,000ey N wy b,m > OY alY mm,� MOaOt pwmYOien holn Wnm PO .q Conrtllonb/EnONwa. Inc. SLOP +or.,vY �� 9omr- m OIeOlalp ISOMETRIC ce x V , a la m 4f M1 MM}- 1WIU®fvILwET[MiloacYnWCnONTOBE tiVTiMIIiW,CgRNTMfitaN. N".aa4aal•O�iMa g o W Q O MDSULY 211MMAllpMfM1llal au YNll�fgC/q TOaFBOn 2 2_ CGTFO. I'.ttllMta KM -nYIC i1a1(:IY LNL Z �d ® POi,- rWP�WYn�a.S IDRfTN'af. � Q m ...f a wcwn.a ro.ua x w LIJ U Z L ®xTUwmntwmElaav aTalxhuv ronropex Z p wvloearnarun.v w.mwcm.raoauarnralna .PO.Ypo.+t routannlnuwlwta noluwavrouua. ptf 2' o � ' Ai�L RTH LEVEL PLAN � 2 FOURTH LEVEL PLAN �] A Capyiplit 2011. Au rip�4 r�wwE. Ro port o/ Wa Cwumcnl mOT W rop,000ey N wy b,m > OY alY mm,� MOaOt pwmYOien holn Wnm PO .q Conrtllonb/EnONwa. Inc. SLOP | ' � ECEVATiON ?Ll,��I�S.EAST ELEVATION ` - r PIP Lij LL 06 x if E ECEVATiON ?Ll,��I�S.EAST ELEVATION ` - r PIP Lij LL 06 x if 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 ortn v.cc 1^9) \ s. wcn. nu caan wre _ Y*Pfitr, nocaaia no - MEN mom on ■ WNW a oowf�p — nsouTH ELEVAnoN D - , — ■ .. ■ - �— C [_x \ E45T ELEVATON E Y �wLtt u9 NPR S Icy j flR r.LP PYO: F as [i1 N�ORn•I ELEVATION not v,.• . r-e Al M .tpnt. • «r.w. wu peat of fn. d--1,2,, E. nPOEUUd F y r<.m ,. er <�y ,�j„�..unf wYm� wa... v„wgf 5 6 8 I ELEVATION NOTES �. 4 -�: nar<LY so¢ 41...Y muE .p11 i' ip. T •eum ws. w.. ro L w1. -2 w00. MGk 4F¢ .wi6 wr.. /- i- .yyt{p tlwi pIb[ ra: 7m p `jb �Y Hal p gill ,11 0 te�� !1�6 'ill i I pip FM.! ilia} i Z z 0 2 Z � F=— a M w O LU cry � LU v U 4L U) LL = Y EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A301 8 APPENDIX F PARKING CONCEPT DESIGN REPORT 0 A m m o'o 9 � ' WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS PARKING CONCEPT DESIGN REPORT CITY OF EDINA 50'" AND FRANCE DISTRICT APRIL, 2011 April 19, 2011 Mr. Wayne D. Houle Director of Public Works City of Edina 4801 West 50" Street Edina, Minnesota 55424 -1394 Re: Parking Concept Design Report City of Edina, Minnesota Walker Project No. 21- 3732.00 Dear Mr. Houle: WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS 21-3732.00 Pursuant to your request, Walker Parking Consultants (Walker) is pleased to present our 50" and France area parking conceptual design report. To complete the project, Walker analyzed the existing Middle and South parking ramps to evaluate their existing parking efficiency. Secondly, we utilized the City of Edina 50" and France District Improvements Plan as provided by City for conceptualization of parking stall quantity enhancement improvements for the Middle and South parking ramp sites. The Middle ramp is considered with a one level vertical, and two level horizontal addition strategies. The South ramp is considered for a small triangular horizontal four level additions as well as complete replacement. Both Middle and South ramps are anticipated to be required to include pedestrian vertical transportation improvement of a new elevator. Locations for the conceptual elevator cores are provided in the ramp concept diagrams. PROJECT OBJECTIVE The primary objective of the study is to analyze the existing parking ramp improvements to more completely understand the opportunities to add parking stall capacities and elevator service for each site. Providing elevator service to all levels of each parking structure may be required per current building codes if substantial construction occurs. Complete architectural, structural, electrical, mechanical, building code or constructability studies of the displayed conceptual options are beyond the scope of this report. PARKING CONCEPT DESIGN REPORT WALKER CITY OF EDINA 50TH AND FRANCE DISTRICT 'ARKINO CONSUETANTS APRIL, 2011 21- 3732.00 PARKING EFFICIENCY ANALYSIS Parking efficiency metric provides numerical quantification for insight into reconfiguring the existing parking ramps for increased stall capacities. Parking efficiency for the context of this report is identified as the ramp square footage required for each parking stall. The calculation is gross building square footage divided by observed stall quantities. Multiple geometric parking ramp layout possibilities can be evaluated quickly using this metric. A modern high efficiency parking structure is anticipated to provide a parking efficiency value of 300 — 320 square feet /parking stall. Parking efficiency above approximately 350 sqft /stall indicates a facility layout that may have the possibility for efficiency improvement. PARKING EFFICIENCY - MIDDLE RAMP The Middle ramp existing conditions parking efficiency of 317 is clearly within the expectations for an efficient ramp layout. Reconfiguring the site layout for this facility will not improve stall capacity improvements. To successfully add stall quantities on this site a vertical expansion or horizontal expansion beyond existing site limits will be required. Vertical and horizontal expansions of the Middle ramp are considered later in this report. PARKING EFFICIENCY - SOUTH RAMP The existing South ramp parking efficiency of 346 sqft /stall shows limited possibility for stall quantity improvements through reconfiguration of the existing parking ramp layout. Substantial existing site access locations and differing access point elevations constrain conceptual options for ramp layout. A small additional south east corner site area addition is thought to be a design consideration for ramp expansion. Ramp provided access points on Level 1 for the 5000 France property and Level 2 entry access from the Lund's surface lot are vital to the local area parking functionality and are expected to remain. RAMP EFFICIENCY SUMMARY Based on the existing ramps small size, existing access constraints and relative efficiency, large stall quantity additions are not anticipated to be realized through ramp reconfiguration within existing facility footprints. Age, repair condition, accessibility, and suitability for future vertical or horizontal additions may be of greater importance than efficiency. Below find attached Table 1 tabulating the parking efficiency and number of added stalls per study Concept. 2 PARKING CONCEPT DESIGN REPORT WALKER CITY OF EDINA 50'" AND FRANCE DISTRICT PARKING CONSWANTS APRIL, 2011 21- 3732.00 Table 1: Parking efficiency and stall quantities Stall Data Stalls Efficiency Added (sf /stall) Stalls Existing Middle Ramp 274 317 Existing South Ramp 407 346 Middle - Concept 1 364 318 90 Middle - Concept 2 414 326 140 South - Concept 3 501 329 94 South - Concept 4 516 338 109 3 PARKING CONCEPT DESIGN REPORT WALKER CITY OF EDINA 50'" AND FRANCE DISTRICT PARKING CONSU!7ANT5 APRIL, 2011 PARKING CONCEPTUAL DESIGN 21- 3732.00 The existing Middle and South parking ramps were originally constructed in 1975 and 1969 respectively. The two Study ramps are considerably older than the other 50" and France District North ramp constructed in 1991, and are currently projected for replacement in City of Edina Parking Facility 50 year Budget Forecast. The Middle ramp is forecast for replacement in the years 2035 -39, and South ramp years 2030 -34. Middle : and South ramps therefore are assumed to have similar useful life expectancies. Review of the City of Edina Parking Facility 50 year Budget Forecast for maintenance repairs indicates the relative serviceability of the ramps until reaching end of useful life. The opinion of annual capital budgets shows similar values for Middle and South ramps. No clear indication of a less serviceable facility is indicated therefore neither is considered a. preference for earlier replacement within the use of this study. With efficiency, lifespan and serviceability conditions of Middle and South ramps generally on similar levels, we analyzed the possibility of expansion for the existing ramps. Site use and basic proximity to adjacent buildings are displayed in City of Edina 50th and France District Improvements plan provided for our use. We have used this document for conceptually locating sites limits, adjacent existing buildings, existing building limits and access points for study sites. MIDDLE RAMP - CONCEPT 1 The Middle ramp is an existing three storey facility accessed from west 49 '/2 street with 274 parking stalls, three stairways located in the "dead" parking corners, with internal vehicular path utilizing one - way traffic flow. The ramp geometry would be described as a single treaded helix with a "Camelback" layout. Very limited flat parking floor areas are provided where accessible stalls can be located. The existing ramp design does not meet the current accessibility requirement for parking areas and does not provide accessible path for the parking area to the public way (2% max slope parking area; 5% maximum slope on pathway). In Middle ramp future addition Concept 1 has been conceived to capitalize on the ability of this site to accommodate a one level vertical addition. A one level addition will raise the height of the facility to four stories by adding one parking floor. A new elevator for this concept is identified in the existing stairway shaft of the southwest building corner preserving stalls. The concept maximizes stall capacity while not improving internal accessible stall parking. The stair core could be moved to the south center of the Concept to provide minimum accessible stall access to all floor levels at the expense of stall loss (8 est.) and building footprint expansion. See Figure 1. E PARKING CONCEPT DESIGN REPORT CITY OF EDINA 50"' AND FRANCE DISTRICT APRIL, 2011 Figure 1: Middle Ramp - Concept 1 Isometric. STAIR 411 LEVEL .4 3RD LEVEL / 2ND LEVEL SOG W 49 1/2 STREET Z4 WALKER ANTS STAIR MIDDLE RAMP — CONCEPT 1 ® EXISTING LOOKING SOUTH 90 ADDITIONAL STALLS ADDITION MIDDLE RAMP - CONCEPT 2 21- 3732.00 Middle ramp future addition Concept 2 provides a one level parking floor vertical expansion and horizontal two story addition beyond current site limits. The horizontal addition projects over the adjacent Clancy's surface lot. The horizontal project is limited to approximately the center of the Clancy's surface lot to maintain the external view out of existing second story office occupancy. The primary advantage of this concept is to provide the largest stall capacity increase of 140 stalls Table 1). A conceptual stair elevator tower is located in the southwest portion of the proposed addition providing accessible path to ground from accessible stalls located on the new horizontal expansion Levels 3 and 4. See Figures 2 and 3. 5 PARKING CONCEPT DESIGN REPORT WALKER CITY OF EDINA 50TH AND FRANCE DISTRICT = :,Rr.iNCCON:u. -iN APRIL, 2011 21- 3732.00 Figure 2: Middle Ramp - Concept Sketch 2 Isometric STAIR—, 4th LEVEL 3RD LEVEL 2ND LEVEL �y SQG W 49 1/2 STREET ELEVATOR r STAIR --" MIDDLE RAMP - CONCEPT 2 (D EXISTING LOOKING SOUTH 140 ADDITIONAL STALLS 4 F.Th ADDITION Figure 3: Middle Ramp - Concept 2 Image PARKING CONCEPT DESIGN REPORT WALKER CITY OF EDINA 50TH AND FRANCE DISTRICT 44 -.A-KING( ()N , i N APRIL, 2011 21- 3732.00 SOUTH RAMP - CONCEPT 3 The South ramp is an existing four story facility with 407 parking stalls, four stairways with main entry/ exit access from West 51" Street and entry from Lund's surface lot. One and two -way traffic patterns are effectively used to distribute and organize traffic flow. The ramp has been constructed during three building efforts utilizing varying building grids and parking bay geometries. Because the building is currently four stories in height a vertical expansion was not considered. Below grade expansion was also not considered based on highest first cost. South ramp future addition Concept 3 has been conceived to capitalize on the ability of this site to allow a small triangular addition on the ramp's south side facing West 51" street. This concept increases stall capacity without interrupting existing site access points to /from West 51 " Street, Lund's surface lot, and 5000 France. New elevator core is located in existing northeast stair location at building corner connecting to ground and all four building levels. Accessible path from accessible stalls from floor levels 2, 3, and 4 could be achieved with this new elevator tower location. Elevator lobby interconnection with the existing covered north -south walkway to 50" street could be maintained. See Figures 4 and 5. Figure 4: South Ramp - Concept 3 Isometric STAIR 4TH LEVEL 3RD LEVEL 2ND LEVEL SOG STAIRCTAIO SOUTH RAMP — CONCEPT 3 EXISTING LOOKING WEST ®ho'� 94 ADDITIONAL STALLS ADDITION IA PARKING CONCEPT DESIGN REPORT WALKER CITY OF EDINA 501H AND FRANCE DISTRICT -, Kir,c coreu ;..rrs APRIL, 2011 21- 3732.00 Figure 5: South Ramp - Concept 3 Image A EZA SOUTH RAMP - CONCEPT 4 _ 40 South ramp future addition Concept 4 has been conceived considering a complete demolition of the entire ramp. This concept has minor stall efficiency gains from slightly re -sized parking bay geometries and column locations. This concept includes similar south triangular footprint expansion as identified in South Ramp - Concept 3. Existing site access points to /from West 51" Street, Lund's surface lot, 5000 France are maintained in existing configuration. New elevator core is located in existing northeast stair location at building corner connecting to ground and all four building levels. Accessible path from accessible stalls from floor levels 1, 2, 3, and 4 may possibly be achieved with proposed new elevator tower location. Elevator lobby interconnection with the existing covered north -south walkway to 50'h street would be maintained. See Figure 6. F-11 PARKING CONCEPT DESIGN REPORT WALKER CITY OF EDINA 501" AND FRANCE DISTRICT -AjK. Nc, C(,WlJ ;,N APRIL, 2011 21- 3732.00 Figure 6: South Ramp - Concept 4 Isometric STAIR / -- ELEVATOR STAIR STAIR 4TH LEVEL 11 If 3RD LEVEL 2ND LEVEL �. sac h == SOUTH RAMP -- CONCEPT 4 EXISTING LOOKING WEST 109 ADDITIONAL STALLS ADDITION Ci PARKING CONCEPT DESIGN REPORT WALKER CITY OF EDINA 50'" AND FRANCE DISTRICT PARKING CONSULTANTS APRIL, 2011 21- 3732.00 CONCEPT PROJECT COST Estimate of probable construction cost have been tabulated for the use of this study. As important as project cost, the Project cost identified in a cost per additional stall is equally important. Below find Table 2 - Project Costs - for the study concepts. Table 2: Project Costs Project Costs Cost Efficiency Efficiency Estimated Lil ($ /added stall) ($ /stall) (years) Middle - Concept 1 $2,414,000 $26,800 28 Middle - Concept 2 $3,367,000 $24,100 28 South - Concept 3 $2,520,000 $26,800 23 South - Concept 4 $9,610,000 $88,200 $18,600 60 CONCLUSION The provided parking conceptual design solutions provided contain varying quantities of additional stalls within the four Concepts. Maximizing the limits of the available site area,. and maximizing the vertical expansion of the site provides the largest number of added stalls at the lowest cost per added stall. Should substantial construction be performed on a ramp improvement some anticipation of up- grading accessibility should be included. We hope this study 7contains the required information to make informed parking ramp improvement planning decisions. We look forward to discussing the Parking Conceptual Design Study with you and the stakeholders should you,request. Respectfully submitted, WALKER PAR NG CONSULTANTS Scott R. Froemming, P.E. Project Manager 10 WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS WALKER 1660 South Highwdy 100, Suite 424 PARKING CONSULTANTS Minneapolis, MN 55416 Voice:952.595.9116 Fax: 952.595.9518 www.walkerporking.com April 12, 2011 Mr. Wayne D. Houle Director of Public Works City of Edina 4801 West 50" Street Edina, Minnesota 55424 -1.394 Re: City of Edina, Minnesota Shared Parking Model Up -Date Walker Project No. 21- 3492.10 Dear Mr. Houle: Pursuant to your request, Walker Parking Consultants (Walker) is pleased to present an updated Shared Parking Model report for 2011. Walker originally developed a shared parking model that was used for this report to estimate demand under future conditions. The shared parking model is based upon updated land use data provided by the City and was used . to calculate the unadjusted and shared parking demand under existing and future conditions. In addition, the enclosed Excel spreadsheet model can be utilized to assess the shared parking demand under future scenarios, assuming new developments are constructed that impact the City parking system. The primary objective of this update is to ascertain the approximate number of spaces required to meet the peak parking demand conditions when they occur in the City of Edina. To. best assess the current peak parking demand we updated the previously developed simple "Shared Parking" demand analysis model. SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS Shared parking is defined as the use of a parking space to serve two or more individual land uses without conflict or encroachment'. The ability to share parking spaces is the result of two conditions: variations in the accumulation of vehicles by hour; by day, 'or by season at the individual land uses, and relationships among the land uses that result in visiting multiple land uses on the same vehicle trip. Sharing parking spaces typically allows 20 -40% more users compared with assigning each space to an individual motorist, since some potential users are usually away at any particular time. 1 For example, 100 employees can typically share 60 -80 parking spaces, since typically some employees are on leave, away on _business, or using an alternative mode of commuting. Even greater reductions are possible with. mixed land uses, since different activities have different peak demand times. For example, a restaurant can share parking with an office complex, since restaurant parking demand peaks in the. evening while office parking demand peaks during the mid -day hours. Smith, Mary S. Shared Parking, Second Edition. Washington, D.C.: ULI — the Urban Land Institute and the International Council of Shopping Centers, 2005. 1: \21- 3492- 10- Edina_Demand— Study_Updote \Reports \Final RPT Houle 041211.doc WALKER Mr. Wayne Houle PARKING CONSULTANTS April 12, 2011 Page 2 The tables and figures shown in the Appendix are itemized and discussed in detail below: • Table 1: Ciy of Edina. MN - Land Use Data, contains information that was provided by the City and used to develop the latest shared parking model. All tables included herein were developed utilizing the information contained in Table 1 and changes made to this table are reflected automatically in each of the tables that comprise the report. • Figure 1: Study Area — Depicts the approximate study area used to develop the shared parking model. All of the parking structures and lots owned and operated by the City as well as any private parking lots utilized within the study area to meet the parking demand are identified. The map also shows the locations of the various land uses and includes locator numbers that can be cross - referenced with the locator numbers shown in Table 1. • Table 2: Ciy of Edina, MN - Shared Parking Model — Depicts the weekday and weekend unadjusted and shared parking demand generated by the various land uses served by the City parking system. The weekday and weekend models are based upon gross leasable office, retail, convenience retail, bank, grocery and restaurant space as well as the number of residential units and the number of seats within the local multiplex theatre. The model assumes driving ratios that range from 88% for employees to 100% for customers and visitors. The 88% driving ratio for employees assumes that 12% of the employees utilize other forms of transportation (i.e. bus, rail, taxicab, motorcycle, bicycle, walk or work from home, as shown in the chart on the right). The model also assumes non - captive ratios that range from 50% for fast food customers to 100% for other land uses. Non - captive ratios identify the percentage of customers or employees frequenting the various land uses that are not already present on the site. For example, if 60% of the customers frequenting a fast food location were already on -site for work or to shop, the non - captive ratio for the fast food location would be 40 %. Utilizing the land use information provided by the City, the weekday model depicts that a peak unadjusted demand of 2,222 vehicles will occur during the month of December at 1:00 p.m. When the peak weekday demand is adjusted to show the effects of shared parking, the weekday shared parking demand is reduced by 28% to 1,594 vehicles. The weekend model depicts that a peak unadjusted demand of 2,163 vehicles will occur during the month of December at 7:00 p.m. When the peak weekend demand is z hffl2://facginder.census.gov/servlet/QTFroble QT-P23. Journey to Work: 2000, Minneapolis — St. Paul Area WALKER Mr. Wayne Houle PARKING CONSULTANTS April 12, 2011 Page 3 adjusted to show the effects of shared parking, the weekend shared' parking demand is reduced by 27% to 1,576 vehicles. Parking peak demand has increased approximately 19% from our previous demand model prepared in the summer of 2008. Parking capacity increase of 5% or 64 stalls is included in the up -dated study as a result of more accurate stall counting .within study area. • Table 3: City of Edina, MN - Supply Model — The table depicts the existing supply of parking spaces that are available for the various land uses contained in the model. The spaces are itemized by owner, type (structure or lot) and number of spaces by location. The total number of available spaces including both City and private parking facilities is 1,347 spaces. In order to show the most accurate model we applied;,an effective supply adjustment of - 76/o to the existing space count; reducing the total available spaces to an effective supply of 1,253 spaces: The effective parking supply accounts for spaces within the system that are either lost :to mis- parked vehicles, snow cover or other maintenance projects that may occur from time to time that reduce the number of useable spaces within the parking system. The results obtained from the shared parking model show that during the peak weekday demand period at 1:00 p.m. in December a deficit of 969 t spaces will occur in the City system (unadjusted demand of 2,222 compared'to the effective supply of 1,253 spaces). When the demand is adjusted to show, the effect of shared parking a deficit of 342 t spaces will exist (shared demand of 1,594 compared to the effective supply of 1,253 spaces). If the total parking supply is unaffected by snow cover, mis - parked vehicles or maintence projects, the deficit with shared parking would be .reduced. to approximately 247 t spaces during peak periods (shared demand of 1,594 compared to the existing capacity of 1,347). TableA Shared Parking Demand by Time of Day — Weekdays - Peak Month (December -=The table - depicts demand on the peak weekday.day in December by hour and by land use beginning at 6 :00 a.m. through 12:00 midnight. This table also shows how the shared parking demand_ is calculated by land use and confirms how the shared parking demand represents a more accurate calculation than the unadjusted demand when evaluating the number of spaces required during peak demand periods. • Table 5• Shared Parking Demand by Time of Day — Weekends - Peak Month (Decembed - The table depicts the demand on the peak weekend day in: December by hour and by land use showing the percentage of the daily demand that will be generated by hour beginning at 6:00 a.m. through 12:00 midnight. WALKER Mr. Wayne Houle PARKING CONSULTANTS April 12, 2011 Page 4 • Figure 2: Shared Parking by Time of Day - Weekdays - Peak Month (December) — Figure 2 is a graphic illustration of the peak weekday demand in December compared to the total capacity of the City system of 1,347 spaces. • figure 3: Shared Parking by Time of Day - Weekends - Peak Month (December) - Figure 3 is a graphic illustration of the peak weekend day demand in December compared to the total capacity of the City system of 1,347 spaces. CONCLUSION The shared parking analysis shows that under current conditions the total supply of parking spaces is inadequate to meet the peak demand at 1:00 p.m. in December (247 t deficit compared to the total capacity (1,347 spaces); additionally, a 340 t deficit is noted when compared to the effective supply (1,253 spaces). However, most days throughout the year, the City system contains capacity that meets the 95" percentile of weekday demand. In addition, the peak month shared weekend evening 95" percentile parking demand will exceed total capacity. To address deficit conditions that may exist on peak days, we recommend that consideration be given to providing additional parking supply. Adding approximately 140 - 200 parking stalls would bring parking supply .and peak demand ratios back to 2008 levels. Additionally, a parking management plan could be developed that would entail the use of off-study area parking for employees. Employee parking would occur out of the study area with employee shuttle service provided to and from the core study area to the employee parking area. Valet parking for study area guests during peak demands will also mimic employee shuttle demand reduction with valet parking storage outside of the study area. In addition to remote employee parking and shuttling, the City is already exploring the implementation of facility counters that will show the number of spaces available in the structures during peak occupancy periods. Once implemented, the facility counters should assist in traffic management during peak demand. While not completely eliminating the supply problem, our recommendations provide multiple strategies that will ensure that more premium spaces are available during peak periods and also alleviate customers navigating the structures looking for an open space, as occurs today. We look forward to discussing the shared parking model and our proposed management strategies. for the City of Edina parking system with you at your earliest convenience. Respectfully submitted, Walker Parkin Consultants Scott R. Froemming, P.E. Project Manager APPENDIX WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS Table 1: City of Edina, MN - Land Use Data Location Descri for Locator Office (s.f.) Retail (s.f.) Retail (s.f.) flank (s.f.) (s.f.) ._..�._. .- . .............. ..o.,..,.,.., , - (seats) (units) Casual (s.f.) -uuium - Family (s.f.) naauurum - rasr Food (s.f.) Total (s1.) 3948 W. 49 Y2 Stress I Post Office I 1 1 I 2,450 ! 1 3944 W.49Y2 Street Dry Cleaner 2 1,855 ) ! ! I 2,450 -- 3930 W. 40 2 Street Realty 3 13,400 1,855 3918 W. 49 V2 Street Office 4 3,707 13,400 4916 France Avenue Drug Store 5 4,809 3,707 4924 France Avenue Florist 6 2,316 4,809 930 France Avenue Clothing 7 3,274 2,316 4936 France Avenue Spa 8 16,241 3,274 4948 France Avenue Retail 9 4,986 16,241 3902 W. 50th Street Off /Ref 10 4,747 8,867 4,986 3906 W. 50th Street 11 20,980 7,500 0 0 13,614 3922 W. 50th Street 12 10,362 2,500 28,480 3924 W. 50th Street 13 12,960 12,862 3930 W. 50th Street 14 29,760 29,767 0 0 12,960 4100 W. 50th Street Bank 15 10,000 9,176 0 59,529 3939 W. 50th Street 16 7,000 10,497 19,176 3939 W. 50th Street Uquor 17 5,143 6,000 3,000 3,500 29,997 3917 W. 50th Street 18 9,924 13,000 5,143 3911 W. 50th Strenc et r _ Multiplex 19 1,300 22,924 5000 Frame Avenue 2 Mixed 20 14,130 23 3,000 7,000 24,130 5000 France Avenue Mixed 20 503034 France Avenue Rest 21 1,158 1,158 5036 France Avenue 22 0 13,168 13168 , 5050 France Avenue Bank 23 6,600 6,000 6,835 6,835 3945 W. 50th Street Grocery 24 12,226 12,600 2,000 14,226 Insert New Location Insert New Location 0 - Insert New Location - 0 Insert New Location 0 Insert New Location Insert New Location 0 Insert New Location Insert New Location 0 uuaau upvn no numaer or sears, nor rtse s.r. Residential demand acommodated in a 46 space private garage; demand based on the number of units, not s.f., retail demand based upon s.f. Source: Walker Parking Consultants Appendix 7 WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS Figure I: Study Area Private � 24 Spaces � 3 17 f s � 1 42 w Private 1 � , .. c CQ 124 spaces li t • 8 -i 9 �, u� 24 �r Source. City of Edina, MN 22 r paces p� A 23 < . :. - _ Appendix 2 WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS Table 2: City of Edina, MN - Shared Parkinq Model Source: Walker Parking Consullont5 Appendix 3 Mo. Peak Hour Non. Shared Mo. Peok How Non- Shared Land Use Unadjusted Adjustment Adjustment Captive DrneRatio Parking Unadjusted Adjustmerd Adjustment Captive DrrceRatio Parking ce - Employees Qt 95,500 Unit Bose Rolm Unit Demand Decembe I 00F7t Dav une Da une Demand Base Ratio Unit Demand Latember 7WPM Eveninq Evenma Demand Visitors s. /k GU 301 100% 90% 100% 88% 238 032 Asf GLA 31 100% 0% 100% 88% 0 0.25 Asf GLA 24 100% 45% 100% 100% 11 0.03 /ksf GLA 3 100% 0% 100% 100% 0 Retail. Customers Employees 128,243 s.f. 2.90 /ksf GLA 372 100% 100% 97% 100% 361 3.20 /ksf GLA 410 100% 75% 98% 100% 301 0.70 Asf GLA 90 100% 100% 100% 88% 79 0.80 /kd GLA 103 100% 80% 100% 88% 73 Convenience Relol - Customers Employees 25,532 s.f. 4.90 Asf GLA 125 1001/ 95% 98% 100% 116 4.00 /ksf GLA 102 100% 100% 99% 100% 101 110 Asf GLA 31 100% 100% 100% 88% 27 1.00 /ksf GLA 26 100% 100% 100% 88% 23 Bank - Customers 15,176 s.f 3.00 A4 GLA 46 100% 50% 98% 100% 23 3.00 /ksf GLA 46 100% 0% 98% 100% 0 Employees 1.60 /ksf GLA 24 100% 100% 100% 88% 21 1 60 /ksf GLA 24 100% 0% 100% 88% 0 Grocery - Customers Employees 12,226 s 2.90 Asf GLA 35 95% 63% 98% 100% 21 320 Asf GLA 39 95% 58% 98% 100% 21 0.70 Asf GLA 9 100% 100% 100% 88% 8 080 /ksf GLA 10 100% 40% 100% 88% 4 Cinema - Customers Employees 1,300 seats 019 /seat 247 23% 4511 98% 100% 25 0.26 /seat 338 67% 80% 98% 100% 178 0.01 13 50% 60% 100% 88% 3 0.01 13 80% 100% 100% 88% 9 Residential Residential Visitors 23 units 1.70 /unit 39 100% 70% 100% 100% 27 170 /unit 39 100% 97% 100% 100% 38 - 015 3 100% 20% 100% 100% 1 0.15 3 100% 100% 100% 100% 3 Restaurant - Casual - Customers Employees 36,503 s f 15.25 /ksf GLA 557 100% 75% 97% 100% 405 17.00 /ksf GLA 621 100% 95% 98% 100% 578 2.75 /ksf GLA 100 100% 90% 100% 88% 79 3.00 /ksf GLA 110 100% 100% 100% 88% 97 Restaurant - Family. Customers Employees 10,000 s.f 9.00 Asf GLA 90 100% 90% 98% 100% 79 12.75 /ksf GLA 128 100% 70% 99% 100% 89 160 /ksf GLA 15 100% 100% 100% 88% 13 2.25 /ksf GLA 23 100% 95% 100% 88% 19 Restaurant . Fast Food - Customers 6,658 s.f. 1275 Asf GLA 85 100% 100% 50% 100% 43 12.00 /ksf GLA 80 100% 80% 50% 100% 32 Employees 2.25 Asf GLA 15 100% 100% 100% 88% 13 2.00 /ksf GLA 13 100% 90% 100% 88% 10 Sub-Total - Employees 637 510 Sub-Total - Cust./YisAors 1,584 1,084 392 1,770 1,303 Source: Walker Parking Consullont5 Appendix 3 WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS Table 3: City of Edina, MN - Supply Model Source: City of Edina and Walker Parking Consultants Appendix 4 Supply Model Location - Edina, MN Owner Type Spaces South Ramp City Structure 415 Middle Ramp City Structure 274 North Ramp City Structure 262 Lund Lot City Surface Lot 84 Clancy Lot City Surface Lot 36 5050 France Avenue Private Surface Lot 25 4100 West 50th Street Private Surface Lot 124 3948 West 49 1/2 Street Private Surface Lot 24 5000 France Avenue Private Indoor 46 4916 France Avenue Private Surface Lot 17 France Avenue City On- Street 40 Input new location Input new location Input new location Input new location Sub - Total Spaces 1,347 less effective supply admustment of: -7% -94 Effective Supply 1,253 Unadjusted Demand (Peak) 2,222 Deficit vs. Unadjusted (Peak) (969) Shared Parking Demand (Peak) 1,594 Deficit vs. Shared Parkin (Peak) 342 Source: City of Edina and Walker Parking Consultants Appendix 4 v WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS Table 4: Shared Parking Demand by Time of Day — Weekdays - Peak Month (December) Source: Walker Parking Consultants Appendix 5 �hndrv'9d F„okuml6 ,-t 10? J U.. W.1 pM D•:.mI, 60DAM 700 AM 100AAA 900AAA 100D AM 1100 AM 1200M IUOM 2WM 300 FM "OPPA SODM 6AOM 700M 9W- 9GDM I000M II OOM I2M AAS hn Employw•. Ali ICd' 3% 30% 75% 95% 100% 100% LOX 904 103% IO arA 50% 211 V�"'°^ •21 IC7. OX 1% 201f. 60% 100% 16% WA a5% I00% 45% IS% 10% 5% 10% 2% 1% 1% 3% I% OX Gllg'EmplWee, 8 79 IW 252 20 20 238 238 265 26S 238 132 66 26 0% 0% 0% V111pr' q 0 0 5 Id 21 II 4 II 2A II A 2 1 0 19 0 B 0 3 0 O O 2,2 229 /9 US 242 IA v p R•.I. C..bm.n Empk M 100% I% 5% 15% 30% 55% 75% Rl% 100% 100% 100% 95% 85% BOX 75% 65% 50% 30% Iq. ry 90 I03% 10% 15% 40% 75% 85% q% 00% 100% 100% 103% 100% M 95% 95% 90% 75% 10% 15% bbl -C.. —, Em l 16 51 108 100 V, 325 361 361 361 34 AY 289 271 235 Ip IOB 36 B 12 32 59 67 75 7 7 79 79 79 75 75 75 71 59 JT IT A6 • I N AB roe Ywbl- C.,bm•r, Emplryw, 125 100% 5% 10% 26% 4S% 66% BO% 904 95% 1OM 95% IOCM 97A 70% 10% 30% 31 100% 2R/lf. 35% 50x 75% IC0% IOD% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 76% 50% 35% 1Q15 25% IS% 20% 20% 20% C.n..nwrcw R.bl. C.,kmar, Emplow., 6 12 31 55 111 9B I10 116 113 116 123 110 86 dD Aa 3] TS 1— b 5 10 2D 21 T] 2 2 27 27 2) 77 20 IO 7 B 5 I1 5 I2 5 0 Bonk. C.:—" Fmpbn., 46 IN% M 0% 50% 90% 100% 50% SOY• 70% .SQ% 00% 100% O% 0% O% 0% 21 100% 0% 0% 40% 100% lON 'SOX 00% 100% 100% 100% 107% ICUA 100% Ox 0A O% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Bank. C.,rom.r. Em 0 0 23 11 15 17 23 17 32 23 36 IS 0 0 0 0 0 OX 0 0% 0 0 13 TI 21 21 21 TI 21 21 21 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 AA Al 1 p ry C.mm.r. Employee. 35 95% 9% 17% 3A 71% 92% 103% 88% 03X 12% 35% 56% 70% 54% 31% 18% 9 100% 10% 20% 10# 90% 90% 100% 1074 100% IOM IOM ION 90% 80% 50% 35% 20% 1% 15% 0% 10% G—,.C.mown 3 6 II 23 30 33 2 21 1B 11 5 Em mry m0 . k 1 2 3 6 7 8 8 B B e II B IB 7 23 6 18 10 3 6 2 I 1 0 1 EmCumm•r' pty, 20 13 23% 50% 0% 0% 0% 0x 0% 0% 20% dS% ssY ssx ssx td% OOK BPA 100% lOp% 90% S5% 65% fi% 0% 0% O% 0% O% 50% 60% 60% 75% 75% 103% I00% 100% 10 01G 100% 1074 e0% S0A C�amoCummer, 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 25 EmF17yw, 0 O 0 0 0 0 3 3 31 3 31 d 31 1 33 6 33 6 15 0 56 6 56 6 as 6 36 d 22 3 R..d.xol dd•nml. Vi.IC�: 39 3 100% 100% '.00X LO% 85% B0% ]5% AIX 65% 70% 704 70% 75% BS% 90'15 97% 98% 99% 100% 1004 I00% 0% 104 20% 10% 20% 20% 204 20x 20% 20% 20% 1D% 60A 104 100% 100% lop% OVA SOX 4••d•nnol ¢eedrnnolV..r,r. 39 35 33 31 29 2] 25 2 27 T7 29 3J JS 38 38 39 39 9 0 O 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 2 3 3 3 J 39 J 3 2 4•m.mm. Ca,aolC.,am.n Emp6ry., SS7 10A O% 0% 0% 0% 15% dD% 75% 75% 65% d3% 50% 75% 95% 100!{ 10014 100A 95% 42 11 100 104 0% 20% 50% 75% K!% Lpit 90% 9C% 90% 76% 75% 100% 100% 104 1XI% IOM 1%% 75% BS% 251 35% R.mum�i- CO�wI. Cu,m..w�' fm w 0 O 0 0 BI 216 106 IC6 351 216 270 105 $13 5tl Stl Stl 513 415 e4o.gN .w10.mm ,I 0 IB 11 66 79 70 7 7 79 ae BB 88 BB BB Be BB 75 135 31 d . 628 We We wl Ago -j 66 Rem.mnl.4uniy. Cumm.r. Empbyaa, 9p IOOL 25% SO% 20% 75% 85% WI% 100% 90% 50% l5X 45% ]5X BO% BJ55 00% IS 100% 50% 75% W0% 90% 104 100% 100% 100% 100X 75% 75% 957. 95% 95% 95% l0% 8015 55% O5% 50% 65% 25% 35% Emdon+,- Faniy_C.rom.� 22 4A 53 66 75 79 BB 7 11 AO 10 66 71 71 71 .ow9n1 0'. q 10 12 13 76 I3 IJ 13 13 17 10 10 13 13 13 I) 53 11 d9 9 AA 9 22 5 2 101 7 S7 50 50 11 I 1 2 R..— F.. Fwd. Cumm.r, es 100% 5% 10% 20% 30% $5% BS% 100% 100% arA 00N. ssx 6pX Empb/p, Is 100% lsx 201( 30% 1UA 75x 100X 1001( ICaA 95% 70% 60% 70% BS% BO% s0% 3015 10A lOA 5% R•m.mmFan FOOd. C.m 2 1 9 13 23 36 a3 43 38 90% 90% 60K 10% A715 10% 20°4 Em 2 3 1 5 10 13 13 26 23 26 J6 34 21 13 9 2 .9wo1u . q 1 . lJ 1] 9 B 9 12 12 B 5 3 3 5 5.6iw1- Emplo,w•.6 /w.kl.nr, Sub icbl Curbmer�8Ylabr, 70 10 35A V2 SIB 510 506 508 575 510 d9p dll "I 321 Y6 256 225 IA7 37 BI 107 311 321 SSB 766 I ON 1085 I OT] B]v OB2 t 1051 1031 973 076 716 IIB SIO A 195 1,312 a se Source: Walker Parking Consultants Appendix 5 WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS Figure 2: Shared Parking by Time of Day - Weekdays - Peak Month (December) 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 N m s 800 m 600 400 200 0 Shared Parking Demand by Time of Day - Peak Month (December) - Weekdays 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:0011:00 12:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 AM AM AM AM AM AM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM AM Time of Day --o- Employees- Residents f Customers- Guests Peak Vehicles — Capacity --* -95th Percentile Source: Walker Parking Consultants Appendix 6 �' WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS table �): Shared Parking Demand by Time of Day — Weekends - Peak Month (December) ource: Walker Parking onsu tams Appendix 7 ur VA,1d, 60D" 7004%1 &OD M4 900" 1000" JIM 12:ODBM IOD IM 2,10) PM 3ODIM 100 BM SOOIM 6OD7 7:008 B'.OD7M 9:ODIM 10NI%1 IIOO IM 12.00 AM OMn.Emgbp.v 31 100% 0% 20% 60% 80% 90% 100% 90% 80% 60% IOX 20% 10X It 3 100% 0% 20% 60% BOX 9C% 100% 90% 809E wX 40% 20% 104 0% 0% 076 0% O% O% 0% 04 0- 011— - Enpb1•as 0 5 16 22 25 27 2S 22 16 II 5 3 1 Yiub" 0 1 2 1 3 3 7 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 O e coal- Cavbm•n 410 100% 1% 5% 10x 35% 60% 7M 85% 95% 100X 100'K 95% 90% ) 65% 50X 35% IS% Em54:9ees 103 100% 10% 15% AM 75% 85% p5% 100% 1004 IOOIr. IOD% 1M,% 95% 75% 65% 15% 15% 0 4.1- Cabman 4 20 40 141 241 281 342 382 102 102 382 367 321 301 261 201 1.1 60 Em ec '1 9 14 1 3d 68 77 86 01 p1 p 1 pl B6 n 77 O8 59 11 6 ] 8 b 43 1 4 All . 4 Cen.anaca U., Cu— 102 INK 5% 10% 25% 45% 66% 804 601. )5X 65% SSx 60% 70% Em9gw+ 26 IOM IOx 10% 30% 504 90% 10016 100% 100% 100% INK 100% 75% 1 I 1 1004 100% IX% INK 95X ION 75% 75% 35X 50% v rFai C,—,, 5 10 25 45 e7 BI 61 76 66 50 61 Ema .•nrc• as M Iv q 2 2 7 II 56 21 23 23 23 23 23 23 71 I] 91 23 101 73 101 77 101 2] 90 27 76 I] 56 II 1 0 Bonk. Cuaxen 46 100% 0% 0% 23% 40% 75% 100% 90% O% 0% 0% O% 04 Fmplgwv 24 100% OX 0% q7% 100% 100% 100% 100% O% O% 0% O% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 04 0% 0'K 3p ^k'C'•'�'°r+ Em' O 0 II IB L 45 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 eo • 4 0 0 19 Ti 21 55 21 21 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 Gwry.Cwbman 29 95% 7% 23% A6% 78% 100% 94% 75% 51% 47% 33% 2M 48% 02% Empbryav 10 100% I5% 35% 7CM 85% 1004 1004 IN% 100% 85% TS% 60% 55% 45 SBfG� 40k, 7M 30% 32% 20K IJX 10% 4X 104 D% 5 CnoeryCuBawn 3 8 I7 28 36 31 27 19 17 13 10 IT 23 711 12 Em M 1 3 II e 3 7 35 p AS 9 A3 9 36 70 I > 5 5 4 4 3 B 7 5 I 6 1 1 mo. uvkm•n 338 6M O% 04 CM 04 OX OX 70'X 45x SS% SS% 55% 601E Em,Iy-v 13 80X 04 0% 04 0% 04 0% 504 60% 60% 75% 7S% 100% I SOYA 100% 1004 ICO% IOOX 100% 100% 100% BO'% 70% SM Cuomo. C.— Em w 0 O 0 0 0 0 u IN 122 137 122 133 133 17& 222 222 222 178 111 mo (V. h.6,) 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 5 7 7 p 0 9' p 0 p 6 5 4 I 6 Lvdnrd 39 1004 1004 90% 85% BOX 75% 704 65k 70% ]O% 704 75% BS% PA.6 .a -1—. 3 1X% O% 204 X'% 20% 2p% 20% 20% 20% NK 20% 20% 40% 60X 97•ry�I 100K1 99% 100% D9% 10]% 100% I0% 100% Box 1004 50% c4sdmd Bevdnld��bn•e 3D 0 35 1 33 31 29 27 23 27 27 2] M 3] JS 3811 38 A 3D N 39 1 I I 1 I 2 3 3 3 3 3 BllbnaMlCnwo1- Cushman 621 100% 0% 0% Ox 0% M 16% 50% $5% 45% 45% 45% 60% Emplgws 110 100% 0% 2 04 30% M% 75% 75% 75% 75X 75x 75% 75% 100% 1 9 I 100% INX 90% 100% 90% 100% p0 % 85% 5 04 504 A-- Cabmen Fm 0 0 0 0 0 91 301 335 274 274 271 MS SIB 578 60D 548 SIB SIB ]O4 gwaw• N• q 0 29 SB T3 73 73 73 73 73 73 97 9 9] 97 9] 91 B2 de a 3+ 34 6 4vbunnl_F -1, Cabmn 128 10% 10% 25% 1.5% 704 9018 90% 100% 86% 65% 40% 15% 6C% 70%1 EmD'" 23 10•M 50% 75% 90% 9174 100% 100% 100% 10 04 ICC% 75% 75% 95% 95 95% 65x 95% 30K BM 25% 65% 15% 65% 35% cwbmnl. Fpm•y -C-- 13 32 57 69 114 114 127 106 82 51 57 N Em 6WY961 IY sl 10 3 15 17 IB 11 18 107 20 134 20 1. 20 IA7 20 M 15 IS 10 BD 10 191 82 19 38 16 32 13 ID I7 13 7 i�vnunnl. for Emo. Guwmnn BV 100% Sx IG% 20% 30X 55% BSX IOOX 1004 90% 6G% 55% Empbywv 13 100% 15% 20X 304 40% 75% 100% IX% 100X 95% X'% 604 60% 704 BS D04 BOK'1� p0A.1 50% 60% 30% AM 201: 30% ID% 20K S% 2(M RA--, . I9a Fmd. C.— 2 1 8 12 22 L 40 a 36 24 22 Emplw••+ Wuonl 1 2 A 2 6 3 11 5 9 11 II 11 II B ] 24 B 34 1 721 1 ]0 7 12 $ 8 7 a 2 2 2 Su63ab1. Fmph •arBBe+usni 63 95 167 11 211 31 2W AS 297 51 303 51 20I A7 273 32 262 w 255 2n • 4 Sub iod Cuu 27 76 161 336 518 681 990 1063 1002 9u 930 1,010 275 1,211 273 2W 250 226 1]4 112 46V�sitss C .71 378 6 1.303 1310 1 1,133 1,055 88D 7 IBB ource: Walker Parking onsu tams Appendix 7 v WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS Figure 3: Shared Parking by Time of Day - Weekends - Peak Month (December) 1,800 1,600 1, 400 1,200 „ 1,000 m U s > 800 600 400 200 0 Shared Parking Demand by Time of Day - Peak Month (December) - Weekends 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:0012:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 AM AM AM AM AM AM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM AM Time of Day +Employees- Residents —f— Customer* -Qvc s Peak Vehicles -- Capacity - a-95th Percentile Source: Walker Parking Consultants Appendix 8 FEASIBILITY STUDY 50th & France /y Parking Structures and Streetscape Improvements Improvement No. A -242, P -21, P -22 APPENDIX C:_ 50th & France District Streetscape Improvements Feasibilitv Report - Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. Page 1 of 1 April 12, 2012 M <imley -Horn M771 and Associates, Inc, City of Edina 50 "" and France District Streetscape Improvements Feasibility Study April 12, 2012 A. Project Limits: The limits of this feasibility study are generally described as the 2 -block area of the 50th and France commercial and residential district. It is defined by the public streets of Halifax Avenue to the West and France Avenue to the east; West 49 -1/2 Street to the north and W. 51St Street to the south. The limits of improvements are generally contained within the street rights -of -way, but are also proposed for the shared public access ways and pedestrian alleys within the district. (See Figure 1) B. Initiation & Issues: The City of Edina 501h and France District Streetscape Improvement project was initiated by the City Engineering Department following conversations with the districts' business owner group, who identified two general categories of work; 1) repair existing Streetscape elements, and 2) install new streetscape elements. The overall purpose of the request and this project is to make the necessary improvements to help maintain this unique, high - quality commercial and residential community asset. The specific purpose of the repairs is to address both safety and aesthetic concerns, and the specific purposes of the new elements is to reduce maintenance time and costs, enhance customer and resident experience, and improve aesthetics. c� r. FM J , Y i r ugh r �001 tv Figure 1: Project Area and Improvement Delineation IM Ar- Limits of Seasonal Lighting 10 Limits of Streetscape Improvements The following are issues related to the existing streetscape and pedestrian alleys which have been identified in determining the feasibility of this project, and are addressed within this report: ■ Deterioration of the existing concrete paver sidewalk pavers ■ Continued care and long term viability of plant materials ■ Replacement of plant materials due to condition and appropriateness ■ Consideration for upgraded facilities that enhances customer experience C. Existing Conditions: Many of the district's streetscape and pedestrian access way improvements were either reconstructed or newly installed in 1990, making them nearly 20 years old. These elements include street and pedestrian lighting, bollards and bollard lighting, specialty entrance monuments and wayfinding signage, raised planters, movable planters, a fountain, raised planters with trees and shrubs, at -grade foundation plantings of trees and shrubs, street trees planted in pits with tree grates, benches, trash receptacles, bicycle racks, newspaper corrals, concrete paver sidewalks, decorative handrails and fencing systems. A majority of these improvements can generally be described as being in good condition. As addressed within this report, the following items fall under category 1) repair existing streetscape elements: 1. Concrete Paver Sidewalks: Approximately 35% of the current total sidewalk area is in need of replacement for primarily safety reasons. Pavers in these areas are in varying stages of failure, but in general present an unsafe surface for pedestrians. The failure is most likely attributed to an underlying drainage issue. The existing pavement section includes concrete pavers on 1" of leveling sand and a 6 " +/- concrete underslab. There are no drains or means to remove water that accumulates on top of this concrete underslab. Therefore, deicing salt in combination with standing water has resulted in paver decomposition, from the bottom of the paver up. Over the last few years, Edina staff has either replaced pavers or temporarily patched the voids with asphalt at the removed pavers. (See Figures 2 and 3). 1 f K WAid ROMW Figures 2 and 3: Typical Concrete Paver Sidewalk Areas in Need of Repair 2. Street Trees: For the purposes of this report, street trees are identified as trees located within the street boulevard or within the pedestrian alleys, and planted in pits with tree grates. These trees are watered primarily by rainfall, but sometimes watered manually by 2 of 10 city staff during drought conditions. The district does not have an automatic irrigation system for these trees or any other plantings within the public rights of way. There are approximately 80 street trees within the project. A majority of the trees are in reasonable condition, but approximately 15% require replacement due to damage from vehicles and vandalism, disease, sun scald, insects, lack of moisture and air, and a combination of all of these factors. Some street trees have reached the capacity of their tree grates ring openings, others have split trunks or large areas of bark removed, deformed, in general decline, or damaged in some way. Other trees are growing irregular and leaning towards buildings. (See Figures 4, 5 and 6) Figure 4: Damage at Trunk Figure 5: Damaged Leader Figure 6: In Decline 3. Other Landscaping: Other plantings exist within the district beyond street trees, and for this report are identified as those in raised planters or at -grade (building foundation) planting beds. The plants in these areas, like street trees, are only watered by rainfall and the occasional manual watering by city staff. Many of the trees in these planting areas are in reasonable condition. However, approximately 25% require replacement because they have either outgrown their location and usefulness in their location, are leaning toward a building or pedestrian area, or have damage in some way. A majority of the ground plane plantings are shrubs, with some perennial plantings. While most are in reasonable condition, they have either outgrown their location or been damaged and need replacement. It is estimated that all shrubs and perennials will require replacement. (See Figures 7, 8 & 9). Figure 7: Outgrown Location Figure 8: Trees Leaning 3of10 Figure 9: Shrub Replacement D. Business Owner and Community Involvement: Edina staff has met with the 50th and France district business owner group a number of times to review these issues and opportunities for improvements. Also, a neighborhood meeting was held on March 22, 2012, where the project was also reviewed by adjacent residents. E. Proposed Improvements: Two streetscape improvement design options were explored. The primary difference between the options center around the provisions of an automatic irrigation system in lieu of manually watering plantings. The first option included the installation of conduits through directional boring methods, where irrigation lines and potential future system audio wires are routed. The second option provided the audio system through a less protected wire - routing system and irrigation that required manual watering at multiple times during the growing season. Because of long term maintenance and overall cost effectiveness, the first option (automatic irrigation system) was the preferred option by both city staff and representatives of the 50th and France business owner group and is therefore included within this feasibility report. Based on a draft feasibility study dated August 25, 2009, the first project for landscape improvements was implemented in 2010. The four raised planters along 50th Street were replanted with shrubs and perennials, and a few of the existing trees were replaced. Drip irrigation tubing was installed within the beds along with temporary irrigation plumbing connections provided. This project has established the landscape design character for future work within the district. (See figures 10, 11 and 12). Figure 10: Irrigation Provisions Figure 11: Planting Operations Figure 12: Completed Planters Considering parking ramp reconstruction timing issues, the landscape improvement project may need to be installed in multiple phases, in multiple years. It is anticipated that the next phase could be installed in summer of 2013. This would primarily include the landscaping surrounding the middle parking ramp. The following describes the improvements, by categories of work, in the areas as shown on the project master plan: 4 of 10 Repair Existing Streetscape Elements 1 Paver Sidewalks: Replace approximately 35% of the existing sidewalk paver areas which have a high priority need of replacement, per the master plan. It should be noted that this feasibility report only considers the replacement of the pavers within the high priority replacement areas, as shown within the master plan. ® Paver Sidewalks: Provide concrete underslab drainage for all concrete paver areas (see attached detail) Street Trees: Replace approximately 15% of the existing street trees (see attached plant material list) ® Other Landscaping: Replace approximately 25% of the existing trees and all of the shrubs and perennials in the planting beds. Provide new planting design that includes a combination of shrubs and perennial plantings, for increased seasonal color and interest. (See attached plant material list). Install New Streetscape Elements Irrigation System: Install an automatic underground irrigation system to all landscape areas within the district. This will require directional boring under sidewalks and driveways to access irrigated areas with electric valve wires and water supply piping. To provide for potential future audio systems, a conduit will be provided as a. part of this directional boring work. (see attached detail) ® Seasonal Lighting:: Install lighting assemblies for seasonal and possibly year -round interest. Three different design options were explored: 1) pole mounted fixtures, 2) garland and light strings between light poles, and 3) string lights between buildings. The preferred option is a combination of three above, which includes installing new dedicated poles on opposing sides of the street on 75 foot centers, on which strings of lights would be mounted spanning the roadway. The current proposed location is at West 501" Street only, which includes nine pairs of poles and light strings. The City of Edina has applied for funding of the seasonal lighting through the Edina Rotary. If successful, it will then be recommended that this improvement be added to the project. ® West 49 -1/2 Street Medians: To facilitate traffic movements to and from the north parking ramp and the proposed reconstructed middle parking ramp, and to introduce additional streetscaping, additional . medians are proposed. Street trees, shrubs, perennials and irrigation systems will be included within the curbed roadway medians. ® Miscellaneous: The existing granite -clad raised planters on the south side of the middle ramp will require removal, salvage and reinstallation due to ramp reconstruction work. It is anticipated that this work will be included within the ramp reconstruction project. Landscape and irrigation renovations are included within this feasibility study, however. F. Project Costs: The opinion of probable costs for the total project is $831,815, which includes a combined 30% contingency and soft cost factor. 5of10 G. Project Schedule: A project start of early August 2012 is currently anticipated, with a partial completion by mid - October 2012. The remainder of the work will be completed after the Edina Art-Fair, in the summer of 2013. H. Attachments: 1. Opinion of Probable Costs 2. Landscape Materials List 3. Preliminary Design Details.: ■ Pavement Drains ■ Street Tree Irrigation 4. District Streetscape Improvements Master Plan 6 of 10 '50th and. France District April 12, 2012 Feasibility Study Streetscape Improvements Opinion of Probable Costs . City of Edina K=IV j 16rnleyHorn , 1=1 , and Assoaates, Inc. ® QTY PRICE TOTAL ITEM UNIT DIRECTIONAL BORING / CONDUITS 1 4'= 4112' diameter bore, pulled conduits: LF 5,000 30 . 150,000 (1).1 -IrZ dia. PVC for irrigation piping; (2) 314' dtia. Poly - (1) for Audio cable; (1) for Irrigation wire Subtotal 150,000 IRRIGATION SYSTEM 2 Drip irrigationsystem, plumbing and electrical connections, and LS 1 75,000 75,000 controller for irrigating all street trees, "at grade and raised planters Subtotal 75,000 LANDSCAPE 3 50th Street Raised Planters (work completed in 2010) LS 1 25,783 25,783 4 49 -112 Street Median Landscape and Irrigation LS 1 20,000 20,000 5 Street Trees (assumes 15% of existing require replacement) EA 10 500 5,000 6 Trees in Planters (assumes 250% of existing require replacement) EA 8 500 4,000 7'` ` Shrubs EA 300 35 10,500 8 ' Perennials EA 650 15 9,750 9 Groundrover EA 575 15 8,625 10 Miscellaneous Removals, lvluloh LS 1 5,000 5,000 Subtotal 88,658 PAVERS & PAVER SLAB THROUGH-DRAINAGE 11 4'X8' Concrete Paver, High Priority Replacement Area SF 21,900 8 175,200 12 2' PCV, 2 -3' long; filled, with pea rock, @ 7 OC in paver areas EA 2,650 40 106,000 (5,300' length / 2' interval = 2650) Subtotal 281,200 SEASONAL LIGHTING 13 Seasonal Light Poles (50th Street only): EA 18 2,500 45,000 pair on roadway 31 76 OC = 9 pairs Subtotal 45,000 SUB TOTAL 639,858 30% Soft Costs and Contingency 191,957 • Assumes all planters (except 50th St raised planters) shown on plan are replanted. Total area = 4,850 SF TOTAL 831,815 7of10 50th and France Streetscape Improvements Landscape Materials List Trees ■ Skyline Honeylocust ■ Discovery Elm ■ Common Hackberry Ivory Silk Lilac Shrubs ■ Dwarf Korean Lilac Viburnum ■ Yew ■ Rose Fragrant Sumac ■ Spirea Perennials and Ornamental Grasses • Daylily (mix) : Baja, Stella de Oro • Black -Eyed Susan • Purple Coneflower • Aster • Sedum • Yarrow • Lavender • Feather Reed Grass • Little Blue Stem • Pachysandra • Jolly Bee Geranium • Hosta • Little Bluestein • Prairie Dropseed Miscellaneous Landscape Materials • Mulch — shredded hardwood • Planter soil — Mn /DOT select topsoil borrow with amendments (compost and fertilizer) • Weed control — Preen or equivalent pre- emergent (in lieu of weed barrier fabric) 8of10 EXISTING CONC. PAVER EXISTING SAND SETTING BED EXISTING CONC. UNDERSLAB FILTER FABRIC COVER 2"0 SCH. 40 PVC DRAIN 2' OC, FILLED w/ PEA ROCK 0 PAVEMENT DRAINS (To Resolve Existing Concrete Underslab Drainage) City of Edina MW 50th and France District Improvements�� April 11, 2012`''' ° °" . 9 of 10 _OOP DRIP LINE TREE GRATE FOR i, REINSTALL JLLY EXCAVATE AROUND TO ACCESS IRRIGATION NECT TO MAIN & WIRES Y LATERAL 0 I CV 4 ° -4 N' BORE I \�— 4"–W BORE, (SEE INSET DETAIL) I ALIGN CENTER OF DIRECTIONAL -Y4" POLY CONDUIT BORE W /EDGE OF TREE GRATE (FOR FUTURE AUDIO SYSTEM) POLY CONDUIT (IRRIGATION) 1 X" PVC CONDUIT W /1" POLY (IRRIGATION MAIN) DIRECTIONAL BORING /CONDUIT (INSET DETAIL) r1 STREET TREE IRRIGATION DETAIL (At Existing Trees in Tree Grates) City of Edina �. ago o e °" 50th and France District Improvement _In. J �� .! ...e....W Improvements April 11, 2012 10 of 10 FEASIBILITY STUDY 50th &. Fran.ce y Parking $tructures.and Streetscape Improvements Improvement No. A -242, P -21, P -22 APPENDIX D: Proposed Assessment Roll Page 1 of 1 April 12, 2012 SOTH FRANCE BUSINESS DISTRICT IMPROVEMENT NO. A242, P21, P22 PROPOSED ASSESSMENT ROLL PID NAME 1 NAME 2 PROP. ADD. CITY STATE ZIP PROP. NO PROP ADDRESS GBA - SF TOTAL ASSESSABLE SF ASSESSMENT 18- 028 -24 -14 -0016 WILLIAM C KNAPP WILLIAM C KNAPP ATTN: ACCTNG 4916 France Edina, MN 55434 4916 France 11,105 4,809 $161,715.39 18- 028 -24 -14 -0129 FRANK HOLDINGS LLC FRANK HOLDINGS LLC 4936 France Edina, MN 55434 4936 France 16,557 18,557 $624,028.40 18- 028 -24 -14 -0020 FRANCE AVE PARTNERSHIPS FRANCE AVE PARTNERSHIPS C/O K.C.S. MANAGEMENT CO. 4948 France Edina, MN 55434 4948 France 8,280 4,968 $167,062.19 18- 028 - 24-14 -0118 OMG PROPERTIES LLC OMG PROPERTIES LLC 4930 France Edina, MN 55434 4930 France 4,199 3,274 $110,103.67 18- 028 -24-41 -0055 FRANCE AT 50TH LLC FRANCE AT 50TH LLC 503015034 France Edina, MN 55434 5030/5034 France 16,368 13,168 $442,808.96 18- 028 -24 -41 -0066 5036 FRANCE AVE S LTD. PTNRSP. 5036 FRANCE AVE S LTD. PTNRSP. 5036 France Edina, MN 55434 5036 France 6,835 6,835 $229,845.02 18- 028 -24-41 -0383 5000 FRANCE COMPANY 5000 FRANCE COMPANY 5000 France Edina, MN 55434 5000 France 24,130 24,130 $811,435.32 18- 028 - 2441 -0237 AMERICANA BANK OF EDINA EXCEL BANK OF EDINA 5050 France Edina, MN 554341 5050 France 19,102 12,600 $423,695.00 18- 028 -24 -14 -0024 49.5 LLC 49.5 LLC C/O JOHN GROSS 3918 W 49 1/2 Edina, MN 55434 3918 W 49 1/2 5,307 3,707 $124,657.72 18 -028- 24 -14 -0026 3930 BUILDING LLC 3930 BUILDING LLC clo JAMES W. NELSON 3930 W 49 1/2 Edina, MN 55434 3930 W 49 1/2 15,800 13,400 $450,610.58 18- 028 -24-14 -0035 SOON YONG PARK/JUNG JA PARK SOON YONG PARKIJUNG JA PARK 3944 W 49 1/2 Edina, MN 55434 3944 W 491/2 5,061 1,855 $62,392.75 18- 028 -24 -14 -0108 1905 PARTNERSHIP LLP 1905 PARTNERSHIP LLP C/O KLEINMAN REALTY CO 3948 W 491/2 Edina, MN 55434 3948 W 49 1/2 12,084 2,450 $82,401.21 18- 028 -24 -14 -0021 FRANCE AVE PARTNERSHIP FRANCE AVE PROPERTIES Go K.C.S. MANAGEMENT CO. 3902 W 50th Edina, IMN 554341 3902 W 50th 13,614 13,614 $457,806.90 18 -028 -24-14 -0022 EDINA PROPERTIES INC EDINA PROPERTIES INC 3906 W 50th Edina, MN 55434 3906 W 50th 31,680 28,480 $957,715.62 18- 028 -24-14 -0046 FIRST BUILDING CORP. FIRST BUILDING CORP. Go US BANK N.A. 4100 W 50th Edina, MN 55434 4100 W 50th 44,776 19,176 $644,843.91 18- 028 -24 -14 -0121 JSG COMPANY LLP JSG COMPANY LLP 3924 W 50th Edina, MN 55434 3924 W 50th 12,960 12,960 $435,814.41 18- 028 -24 -14 -0122 PROPERTY ADMINISTRATION CO. PROPERTY ADMINISTRATION CO. 3922 W 50th Edina, MN 55434 3922 W 50th 12,862 12,862 $432,518.90 18- 028 -24 -14 -0126 L.A. REAL ESTATE GROUP ETAL L.A. REAL ESTATE GROUP ETAL 3930 W 50th Edina, MN 55434 3930 W 50th 80,330 59,527 $2,001,746.70 18- 028 -2441 -0049 EDINA PROPERTIES INC EDINA PROPERTIES INC 3917 W 50th Edina, MN 55434 3917 W 50th 31,260 22,924 $770,880.37 18 -028 -24 -41 -0052 JSG COMPANY LLP JSG COMPANY LLP 3911 W 50th Edina, MN 55434 3911 W 50th 27,290 27,290 $917,698.71 18 -028 -24-41 -0178 LUND REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS LLC LUND REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS LLC 3945 W 50th Edina, MN 554341 3945 W 50th 28,026 14,226 $478,387.02 18-028 -24-41 -0181 CITY OF EDINA CITY OF EDINA 3939 W 50th Edina, MN 55434 3939 W 50th 8,572 5,143 $172,953.76 18- 028 -2441 -0182 A K LARSON FAMILY LLC A K LARSON FAMILY LLC 3939 W 50th Edina, MN 55434 3939 W 50th 39,242 29,997 $1,008,735.50 Note: This proposed assessment roll does not include the interest to borrow money Assessable Units: 355,953 $11,969,858.01 during the construction phase and any other financing costs. I Cost: $ 11,969,858.00 Assessable Cost $ 33.6277 1 OF 1 'M 4/12/2012 '9tNA11 FEASIBILITY STUDY o e 50th & France Parking Structures and Streetscape Improvements Improvement No. A -242, P -21, P -22 APPENDIX E: March 22, 2012 Neighborhood Meeting Comments 50th and France; Parking Ramp and Landscape Improvements Public Open House Questions and Comments.Summary March 22, 2012 1. How many stalls are proposed to be added to each of two ramps? 2. Can parking stalls be added to the south ramp within expanding /projecting so far to .the south into the existing landscaped areas? There were concerns about the expansion being close to the residences without landscape a buffer /screen. 3. Concern was expressed about the-south ramp expansion, specifically additional parking spaces and more vehicles on .51st Street which will increase traffic. Has increased traffic been studied? 4. Concern was also expressed about increased traffic accessing ramp and pedestrian safety at crossings at Halifax and France. 5. Concerns about the proposed parking ramp count /signing systems, and that this will bring more vehicles when people see available spaces on the signs, and this system may not be a viable solution. 6. Why haven't the Lanterns residents been more involved in the planning and design phase of the project? It seems that business owners have been consulted more. This is only more apparent given the graphics prepared for this open house did not show the Lantern's driveway. 7. Removing landscaping on the south ramp by adding building and more concrete for ramp expansion is not sensitive - there is a lack of sensitivity to 'environmental concerns', which is opposite of what this resident has heard at City Council meetings on other projects. 8. Safety needs to be the top priority. 9. Has there been a study on the middle ramp west access? Vehicle waiting and access would be in conflict with pedestrians - a safety concern. 10. Has there been a consideration for putting a roof over south ramp? This would eliminate the need to move snow - heavy equipment in the early morning hours is disturbing to adjacent residents. Page 1 of 2 April 12, 2012 4,91NA1r� ,. . FEASIBILITY STUDY o s 50th & France Parking Structures and Streetscape Improvements Improvement No. A -242, P -21, P -22 11. Has there been a consideration for expanding the middle ramp to the west to fully or partially cover the surface (Clancy) lot? 12. Is there a code for building` height limitations for parking ramps and other buildings in this district? FEASIBILITY STUDY w9�f� ow � vi 50th & France, Parking Structures and Streetscape Improvements `''��:� j In Improvement No. A -242, P -21, P -22 APPENDIX F: Public Hearing Notices and Certificate of Mailings Page 1 of 1 April 12, 2012 STATE OF MINNESOTA) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) SS CITY OF EDINA ) CERTIFICATE OF MAILING NOTICE I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified acting City Clerk of the City of Edina, Minnesota, hereby certify that on the following date April 5, 2012, acting on behalf of said City, I deposited in the United States mail copies of the attached Notice of Public Hearing for 50th & France Parking Structures and Streetscape Improvements, Improvement Nos. A -242, P -21 & P -22 (Exhibit A), enclosed in sealed envelopes, with postage thereon duly prepaid, addressed to the persons at the addresses as shown on the mailing list (Exhibit B), attached to the original hereof, which list is on file in my office, said persons being those appearing on the records of the County Auditor as owners of the property listed opposite their respective names, as of a date 11 days prior to the date of the hearing; and that I also sent said notice to the following corporations at the indicated addresses whose property is exempt from taxation and is therefore not carried on the records of said County Auditor. NAME ADDRESS WITNESS my hand and the seal of said City this sday of 20�. April 5, 2012 NOTICE OF. PUBLIC HEARING PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTNO& A, 242 P -21 & P -22 50 & FRANCE.PARKING STRUCTURES AND STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS The Edina City Council will meet at Edina City Hall, on Tuesday, April 17, 2012, at 7:00 p.m., to consider the public hearing for 50th &France Parking Structures and Streetscape Improvements. This hearing is being conducted under the authority granted by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429. This hearing has been called as a recommendation from staff. The proposed project construction would begin summer of 2012 and be completed by late summer of 2013 with the anticipated final assessment hearing occurring in the fall of 2014. The estimated project cost is $12 million. The cost of the project will be funded by special assessment. The estimated cost per property is $33.628 per square foot. The assessments can be divided over a ten -year period with interest accumulating on the unpaid balance. The area proposed to. be assessed the cost of the proposed improvement includes the following: 4916 to 5050 France Avenue; 3918 to 3948 W. 49th Y2 Street; 3902 to 4100 W. 501h Street Your receipt of this notice is an indication that property whose ownership is listed to you is among those properties which are considered to be benefited by the improvement. The City Council can authorize the proposed project immediately upon the close of the . hearing. (ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 7450 Metro Boulevard o Edina, Minnesota 55439 mvw.EdinalvlKgov o 952 - 826_0371 a Fax 952- 826 -0392 i i 18-028-24-14-0016 WILLIAM C KNAPP ATTN:ACCTNG 4949 WESTOWN PARKWAY #200 WEST DES MOINES, IA 50266 18- 028 -24 -14 -0118 OMG PROPERTIES LLC 4930 FRANCE AVE S EDINA, MN 55410 18- 028 -2441 -0383 5000 FRANCE COMPANY 5850 OPUS PARKWAY, SUITE 108 MINNETONKA, MN 55343 18- 028 -24 -14 -0026 3930 BUILDING LLC c/o JAMES W. NELSON 7790.LOCHMERE TERR EDINA, MN 55439 18- 028 -24 -14 -0021 FRANCE AVE PROPERTIES c/o K.C.S. MANAGEMENT CO 8100 12TH AVE S #200 BLOOMINGTON, MN 55425 18- 028 -24 -14 -0121 JSG COMPANY LLP 5850 OPUS PARKWAY, SUITE 108 MINNETONKA, MN 55343 18- 028 -24-41 -0049 EDINA PROPERTIES INC 4100 50TH ST W, #2100 EDINA, MN 55424 18- 028 -24-41 -0181 CITY OF EDINA 4801 50TH ST W EDINA, MN 55424 18- 028 -24 -14 -0129 FRANK HOLDINGS LLC 5223 EDINA INDUSTRIAL BLVD EDINA, MN 55439 18- 028 -24-41 -0055 FRANCE AT 50TH LLC 7800 METRO PKWY, STE. 300 BLOOMINGTON, MN 55425 18- 028 -24-41 -0237 AMERICANA BANK OF EDINA EXCEL BANK OF EDINA P.O. BOX 1509 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55480 18- 028 -24 -14 -0035 SOON YONG PARK/JUNG JA PARK 5275 GRANDVIEW SQ. #3308 EDINA, MN 55436 18- 028 -24 -14 -0022 EDINA PROPERTIES INC 4100 50TH ST W, #2100 EDINA, MN 55424 18- 028 -24 -14 -0122 PROPERTY ADMINISTRATION CO 3922 50TH ST W EDINA, MN 55424 18- 028 -24-41 -0052 JSG COMPANY LLP 5850 OPUS PARKWAY, SUITE 108 MINNETONKA, MN 55343 18- 028 -24 -41 -0182 A K LARSON FAMILY LLC 3939 50TH ST W #200 EDINA, MN 55424 S FqoxA- 18- 028 -24 -14 -0020 FRANCE AVE PARTNERSHIPS C/O K.C.S. MANAGEMENT CO. 8100 12TH AVE S #200 BLOOMINGTON, MN 55425 18- 028 -24-41 -0066 5036 FRANCE AVE S LTD. PTNRSP. 5036 FRANCE AVE S EDINA, MN 55410 18- 028 -24 -14 -0024 49.5 LLC C/O JOHN GROSS 4520 ARDEN AVE EDINA, MN 55424 18- 028 -24 -14 -0108 1905 PARTNERSHIP LLP C/O KLEINMAN REALTY CO 5301 EAST RIVER RD, #101 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55421 18- 028 -24 -14 -0046 FIRST BUILDING CORP. C/o US BANK N.A. 2800 E. LAKE ST. MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55406 18- 028 -24 -14 -0126 L.A. REAL ESTATE GROUP ETAL 4100 50TH ST W, #2100 EDINA, MN 55424 18- 028 -24-41 -0178 LUND REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS LLC 4100 50TH ST W. #2100 EDINA, MN 55424 k" 1 ij:, o e �y REPORPRECOMMEN DATION To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL Agenda Item Item No. VI.D. From: Cary Teague ® Action Planning Director F-1 Discussion 11 Information Date: April 17, 2012 Subject: PUBLIC HEARING — Preliminary Plat with Lot Area Lot Width Variances, 6120 Brookview Avenue, JMS Custom Homes, Resolution No 2012 -62 Deadline May 15, 2012 for a City Decision: ACTION REQUESTED: Direct staff to prepare findings, consistent with the City Council decision to approve or deny these requests. Staff would then bring back a corresponding resolution for adoption at the May 1, 2012 City Council meeting. INFORMATION /BACKGROUND: JMS Custom Homes is proposing to subdivide the property at 6120 Brookview Avenue into two lots. The existing home would remain, and a new home built on the new lot. To accommodate the request the following is required: 1. A subdivision; 2. Lot width variances from 75 feet to 50 feet for each lot; and 3. Lot area variances from 9,000 square feet to 6,676 and 6,671 square feet. 4. Lot depth variance from 133.8 feet to 133.7 feet for Lot 2. Planning Commission Recommendation: On March 28, 2012, the Planning Commission recommended denial of the proposed Preliminary Plat and Variances subject to the findings outlined in the staff report dated March 28, 2012. Vote for denial: 8 -1. ATTACHMENTS: • Planning Commission. Staff Report, March 28, 2012 • Minutes from the March 28, 2012 Edina, Planning Commission meeting • Letter dated April 12, 2012, from Peter Coyle, the applicant's attorney • Correspondence from residents 49�11�1. s�2 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Originator Meeting Date Agenda Item VII.B. Cary Teague March 28, 2012 Community Development Director INFORMATION & BACKGROUND Project Description JMS Custom Homes is proposing to subdivide the property at 6120 Brookview Avenue into two lots. (See property location on pages A1—A5.) The existing home would remain, and a new home built on the new lot. (See applicant narrative and plans on pages A6 —A11.) There is an existing air conditioner located on the proposed lot line. Should this proposal be approved, the air conditioner would have to be relocated to meet the required 5 -foot setback. To accommodate the request the following is required: 1. A subdivision; 2. Lot width variances from 75 feet to 50 feet for each lot; and 3. Lot area variances from 9,000 square feet to 6,676 and 6,671 square feet. 4. Lot depth variance from 133.8 feet to 133.7 feet for Lot 2. Both lots would gain access off Brookview Avenue. Within this neighborhood, the median lot area is 6,707 square feet, median lot.depth is 133.8 feet, and the median lot width is 50 feet. (See attached median calculations on pages A10— A11.) The new lots would meet the median width, but would slightly shy of the the median lot size and depth. Surrounding Land Uses The lots on all sides of the subject properties are zoned and guided low - density residential. Existing Site Features The existing site contains a single - family home and attached garage on the south side of the lot. (See pages A4 —Ma.) There is an existing air conditioner on the proposed new lot line. This unit would have to be relocated if the project is approved. Planning Guide Plan designation: Zoning: Lot Dimensions Single- dwelling residential R -1, Single- dwelling district * Variance Required Grading /Drainage and Utilities The city engineer has reviewed the proposed plans and submitted comment. (See page A16.) If the project is approved, a condition of approval should be that the conditions outlined in the city engineer memo must be met. Grading and drainage plans specific to any proposed house would be reviewed at the time of building permit. Drainage from any new home, garage or driveway would have to be directed to Brookview Avenue. Sewer and water are available to the site. Specific hook -up locations would be reviewed at the time of a building permit for each lot. A Minnehaha Creek Watershed District permit would also be required. History of Subdivision Requests in the Area The City of Edina has considered several subdivision requests with variances in this area. (See attached area map showing this locations of these requests on page A14.) The following is the history in the past five years: Requested Subdivisions in the last five years 1. In 2006, the property at 5901 France Avenue received variances to build four (4) 66 -foot wide lots consistent with the area. 2 Area Lot Width Depth REQUIRED 9,000 s.f. 75 ft 133.8 ft Lot 1 6,676 s.f.* 50 ft* 133.8 ft Lot 2 6,671 s. f. * 50 ft* 133.7 ft* * Variance Required Grading /Drainage and Utilities The city engineer has reviewed the proposed plans and submitted comment. (See page A16.) If the project is approved, a condition of approval should be that the conditions outlined in the city engineer memo must be met. Grading and drainage plans specific to any proposed house would be reviewed at the time of building permit. Drainage from any new home, garage or driveway would have to be directed to Brookview Avenue. Sewer and water are available to the site. Specific hook -up locations would be reviewed at the time of a building permit for each lot. A Minnehaha Creek Watershed District permit would also be required. History of Subdivision Requests in the Area The City of Edina has considered several subdivision requests with variances in this area. (See attached area map showing this locations of these requests on page A14.) The following is the history in the past five years: Requested Subdivisions in the last five years 1. In 2006, the property at 5901 France Avenue received variances to build four (4) 66 -foot wide lots consistent with the area. 2 r, i 2. In 2008;.-6120 Brookview (the subject- property) was proposed to be divided into two (2) 50 -foot lots by Bravura. Construction; however, the applicant withdrew the request before action was taken. 3. In 2009, a 100 -foot lot at 5920 Oaklawn was granted variances to divide into two (2) 50 -foot lots. 4. In 2011, the property at 5829 Brookview was granted variances to divide into two (2) 50 -foot lots. . 5. In 2012, the property at 6109 Oaklawn was denied their request to subdivide the property into two (2) 50 -foot lots. Primary Issue • Are the findings for a variance met? No. Staff believes that the findings for a Variance are not met with this proposal. Per state law and the Zoning Ordinance, a variance should not be granted unless it is found that the enforcement of the ordinance would cause practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance and that the use is reasonable. As demonstrated below, staff believes the proposal does meet the variance standards, when applying the three conditions: a) Will the proposal relieve practical difficulties that prevent a reasonable use'from complying with the ordinance requirements? No. Reasonable use does not mean that the applicant must show the land cannot be.putto any reasonable use without the variance. Rather, the applicant must show that there are practical difficulties in complying with the code and that the proposed use is reasonable. "Practical difficulties" may include functional and aesthetic concerns.. Staff believes that the property already has reasonable use with a single family home that complies with all minimum lot size requirements. It is similar in size to several lots on-the block. Reasonable use of the property would still exist should. the city deny the request. While there are 50 -foot wide lots and 6,700 square foot lots on this block, similar to what is proposed; there are also several lots wider than 50 feet and over 6,700 square feet; including five lots to the north and west, two to the south and two to the east. (See pages Al2 —A13.) 3 As demonstrated on pages A10— A11, the median lot size in this neighborhood is 50 feet wide, 6,707 square feet in area and 133.8 feet deep. The proposed lots would be 50 feet wide, 133.7 and 133.8 feet deep and 6,676 and 6,671 square feet in size. Therefore the median lot size would not be met by either lot, and lot 2 would be just slightly under the median depth. The action or request by the applicant to subdivide the property causes the practical difficulty. The request to subdivide the lot causes the need for the variances; therefore the practical difficulties are self- created. b) There are circumstances that are unique to the property, not common to every similarly zoned property, and that are not self - created? The condition of this oversized lot is not unique to the Brookview Avenue. While many lots are 50 feet wide and 6,700 square feet in size, there are several in the neighborhood that are wider and larger in area. As mentioned above, there are five lots to the north and west, two to the south and two to the east. (See pages Al2 —A13.) Again, this is a self- created hardship or practical difficulty caused by the applicant's request to subdivide. The circumstances are self- created due to the request to subdivide the property. C) Will the variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood? No. The proposed improvements requested by the variance would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The neighborhood includes single - family homes on 50 -foot lots as proposed. Staff Recommendation Recommend that the City Council deny the proposed two lot subdivision of 6120 Brookview Avenue and the lot width variances from 75 feet to 50 feet for each lot, lot area variances from 9,000 square feet to 6,676 and 6,671 square feet, and a lot depth variance from 133.8 feet to 133.7 feet for Lot 2. Denial is based on the following findings: The proposal does not meet the required standards and ordinances for a subdivision, because the proposed lots do not meet the Zoning Ordinance requirements. 2. The two proposed lots do not meet the minimum lot area, lot width, and lot depth requirements. 3. The proposal does not meet the required standards for a variance, because: 4 1 . a. The property exists as a conforming single - family residential lot with a single- family home. Reasonable use of the property exists today. b. The size of the Subject Property does not create practical difficulties. The Subject Property is only 4,347 square feet larger than the minimum lot size. This is not a practical difficulty. There are no circumstances unique to the property that justifies multiple variances. c. The practical difficulty is self- created by the applicant's proposal to subdivide the property. d. The proposed lots do not meet the 6,707 square foot median lot area for lots in this neighborhood. e. The Subject Property is similar in size to several lots in the neighborhood including five lots to the north and west on Oaklawn Avenue, and two lots to the south and two lots to the east on Brookview Avenue. Deadline for a City Decision: May 15, 2012 City of Edina I •'•• I I �'•� I ••T I I I "-.. I 5928 e07HS7W 4303 t 6001 6000 6001 000 B00 6000 5932 6005 6004 7� 1005 6004 6005 6004 6006 6009 6008 $976 6009 6012 6013 6012 6009 6008 8017 6016 y 6017 0016 Q F 8021 6020 e� 6021 Q020 is 8888 6013 6012 8025 6021 602 6021 74 6001 6of7 6016 6029 6028 6029 28 6008 1 032 J _ 6021 6020 6097 6030 6017 6076 6037 i 80/9 6025 8041 8010 6038 lanili fork 6045 6041 6041 6044 6045 6016 24 24 FABd�AX A)/l: 8157 ST w 21 6101 6100 6101 6100 6101 6100 Lake himmeW 24 8020 24 610/ 6105 6104 6109 6104 1 � 508 6108 6109 8108 6108 '�� 6112 6111 6112 8117 6112 t 1500 4420 bit 117 8116 8117 8117 6120 6120 6121 6120 6121 6121 24 i 6125 6121 6125 4118 129 6128 6129 6118 6129 0515 441 8183 6172 8171 6113 1112 6136 6137 6176 13 4132 128 4124 41201116 4112 6108 1104 4100 161 4404 6111 6141 24 4425 r1 6171 6179 ...._.,.._._— ._.___.... 24 e2IJD S7 W 6216 4101 6205 74 4413 y,1305 410 1219 7013 1009 1005 i 0 4129 4125 ..._..- i.._.._.r 4401 4500 4250 4119 4111 6205 604 508 6209 0 7430-1 4301 6212 N`1 4472 H30!u28 6220 4246 4242 8211 4420 6221 62X! Q4 6127 6217 24 B 1505 4501 � � 6125 4241 4240 8224 j 6225 4509 6228 6233 4237 4236 6228 6233 'j 4.100 t 423 4231 4419 I I 21 6240 y 4233 4232- 6212 6277 4475,443/: I 6237 4425 i - T 4228 4228 6240 '�G1�� j 1 j 6744 6301 t 4421 6241 226 4505 4501 6700 6301 4225 4224 6300 6305 4220 4z�- waf�.nMWS Cmyngle �C', :OG�S GU N]S .• 6904 63090 aa1 6701 6309 PID: 1902824430091 Ott p .3 ~p 6120 Brookview Ave • , _ / tie I,. Edina, MN 55424 V a r 11 wit +�',ii �I tAgef1d Hlp lWftd Feature House Number Labels Sfleet Name Labels ./ Cibl Umih N Cfeeka Lake Names Lakes O Parks ElParcels 6025 6020 6029 6026 6037 6032 6037 6036 60]9 6044 6011 FIST Sr w 6101 slob 6105 6104 6109 6101 6112 6112 6117 6116 6121 6120 6125 6121 6129 6128 6133 6132 4412 8736 Igor 4415 1101 — c .xsacam Q n5 6037 6013 slot 6166 6109 6104 6106 fill etn 6112 6120 6126 6121 6125 6128 6132 6136 6117 6/n 6115 8144 nos uw Citv of Edina 621b 5T w 0 I 4213 I 1128 I 1125 PID:1902824430091 OC; p 6120 Brookview Ave "? Edina, MN 55424 V = " "; 114 Lopbnd Heuer Number Label. St—t Name Cabala City Limita Creeks Lake Namos Lakes Parks Parcels /�r t r n l� 0 Eyi ST I Al (a V` ,d Applicant Narrative 6120 Brookview Avenue Lots & If not for the two parcels having been previously combined, the proposal meets the required standards for a plat, by virtue of lots 5 and 6 already having been platted. The proposal meets the required standards for a variance because: 1. There is a unique hardship to the property caused by the existing size of the property which had not been subdivided to a size similar to the other lots in the neighborhood. 2. The requested variances are reasonable in the context of the immediate neighborhood. The existing lot is both larger and wider than other properties in the immediate neighborhood. The proposed subdivision would result in two properties more characteristic of the neighborhood. 3. The variance would meet the intent of the ordinance because the proposed lots are similar size to others in the neighborhood. The proposed variance will: Relieve an undue hardship which was not self - imposed or a mere inconvenience. The original parcel (of which the subject is the remainder) was platted a new house was build on lot 6 in 2008. The current size of the subject parcel (and lot 5 as well) was due to a decision made in prior decades to keep the subject parcel virtually equal in size with any other two lots of the adjacent subdivisions, allowing unjoining, subdivision or platting at a late date. The logic would follow that when the subject was platted, there would be two lots of equal size, similar in width and depth to the adjacent parcels. The entirety of all properties in the Fair Fax plat resets in property(s) of a 50 foot lot width. The size of the combined parcel is unique in the neighborhood and is twice the size of 9x% other Fair Fax (Pamela Park) neighborhood homes. Since many decades have passed since the original Fairfax platting, the City of Edina zoning requirements were changed to the current requirements, the subject parcel's historical configuration no longer complies with the minimum lot area and minimum lot width for two lots. Correct extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property, but not applicable to other property in the vicinity or zoning district. The home on the subject parcel was constructed in the 1950's and renovated in 2008. The request is in effort an unjoining instead of subdivision. The prior owner removed the 1950's home to remedy a neighborhood eyesore. The parcel also has sewer and water subs in the street indicating intent of not expenses for being two parcels dating from when water and sewer were provided in 1951 following the new code requirements for minimum lot sizes. The size of the parcel is unique in the neighborhood as it is twice the size of 9x% of parcel within plat. The parcel is conforming as to the original plat, as Mi it is, however, this was never the intent of the original platting to have 100' width lots or how the utilities were put into the street. Also, any house built on such a large lot would likely be oversized in the neighborhood. Unjoining the parcel would more likely result in new construction conforming to the sizes of the surrounding residences. Preserve substantial property right possessed by other property in the vicinity and zoning district. The proposed unjoining results in two lots of equal size with others on the block and in the neighborhood. The unjoining mimics the existing neighborhood lot scheme and scale. Presumably, the new construction will be similarly scaled for the neighborhood and will be more affordable than a single lot configuration. The zoning district is single family and is benefited from the single family nature of the likely construction. Not to be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity or zoning district. The proposed unjoining comports with the surrounding lots. As a single lot it would result in a lot that is twice the size of the surrounding properties. The new construction will likely result in a house of similar scale with the neighborhood that will conform to other new "revitalized" community. The applicant does not desire to facilitate a ,'monster" to which would likely be injurious to the City of Edina. PRELIMINARY PLAT - of FAIRFAX 4TH ADDITION EXISTING HOUSE - 127.9 - - - -- ��- -- 'I _ SITE DATA TOTAL AREA 0:31 .AC. i L NUMBER OF LOTS —2 OW1aEft: LOT 1 6,676. S.F. EXISTING CAROL A CARNICHIEL - ' I' I I .LOT 2 6,671 S.F. O�Wx ° GFE =±896.5. - �/ I EXISTING ZONING R7 i \ I/ / (Plat— 33.80) ' / ell °mind °s I PROPOSED ZONING R7 o Y I N89° P'30 °W orc ewe L'yz'' z 133 85 Y \ ) ' l I UTILITIES AVAILABLE. Shrub ro J �Norlh'lin of Lot 5, Blo k' 23, "FAIRFA % °. , Pinch Top RLS I y. w., 017009\. o I 5 SETBACK DATA 7 ----- - - - - -- - - - - -- ° ��� / -/ �//II r �- 10 \ I I a FRONT YARD:. - 29.8 FT. ' I I 10 I -' 1 l SIDE YARD: VARIES. WITH i /il '�ryl�('�i I I= BUILDING HEIGHT EXISTING GARAGE �t l ° / ' / sp.ccc lr.c 11I I (5 FT. MIN.) B L 0 C K / - / _ ,� REAR YARD: 25 FT. �o -� n <- I PROPOSED DRAINAGE AND UTILITY F i DOUDLAS A,& I A I I n v I ( J EASEMENTS ARE SHOWN THUS: JENNIFER NELSON �'�° .� -- - - - - -- �_` --- - -j-C� - - - -- ]` - -N /RLS rN =� I — 15 5 `- , { - 1hr 1/2" OPen -- t33.8 \ n/ (k40361 LLD �,` 'Y — — — / \ I being n leaf et wldlh and jolirg Ill right of wey et uMe,$ other.111 Indlclol aeon thla Plot lot Ilnee, y 6120 BRO AVE I' n h I /IL EXISTING HOUSE -:131.15 - !y ; 1 FFE- ±895.8 10.0 �. GFE =3094.9 m i O N E a •11,' \j •f? I) "7 - -> - -= EXISTING SANITARY SEWER ---------- t44.6 ........... w - -I - -- EXISTING WATERMAIN I, on Property ° I l 16 vC� / / / / / / ^)� --�—� I - - Lhne,'more'or'ess.• - -. 10 _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _1111��.ILs:JLJ 10 I ' .. ,.. __°e - -= OVERHEAD UTILITY LINE j' n I I I i I EW SANITARY M A NHO LE 65 ��Soulh lne .11X1 6, 1 /2 ",dpe 9 Block 23iFAIR ELECTRIC METER SHED N89 °40 Plat = 1633.78 POWER POLE ( p Driw°Y -/771 M GAS METER RICHARD k JACOUEUNE I I o =IRON FOUND MONUMENT - i8 EXISTING HOUSE FFE= ±895.6 /\ GFE= ±895.0 BENCHMARKS 0 10 ' 201 1 1. Tor• NUT OF f N-T L°CATED AT T11E ' g B ° `W " Oi AWN. LEGAL DESCRIPTION NOTES Z. TOl' NUT °F N111M0 L M & AT 111E 1) of Lot an°wn n23. "ore bcaed on II. ... NE CORNEA OF 9PNO STREET k Lota 5 and 6, Block 23, "FAIRFA%', of Lot 6, Block 23, "FAIRFA%'. whlcn b oaaumed ( IN FEET, � � AIt°OKMEW A@]IUE EtEV. -mdse Nennepin ceunfx ulnn.,°m m be°r N99L6'09'W. _ � 1 I , SHEET INDEX 1. PRELIMINARY PLAT 2. GRADING, DRAINAGE, UTILITY AND TREE PLAN XISTIN HOUSE ISTING GARAGY,I - 0 95.5." \ \ r — -- / /T� /J'I Q. SILT FENCE O / 0 / M, u a I b�' O I LL Ifi e � °o 00 a sF� eF� e o s o e e e e e - - - - -_— LJ / I EXISTING HOUSE /I FFE =895.8 GFE= 894.9 Oe% irce -- - • I EXISTING I/ SHED 7 I I __ROCK CONS'f UCTIN\' ENT;NCE Y I III I I I I �J SUBGRADE CORRECTION DETAIL RAW IT O E SUB I' w ^18,4 -. C �aPOIn -. LxFYI CAa µ / t�r - 9A ° un1CN.L �- PATEO a� RMJ finTIm rc M . „a[ SILT FENCE XI TI G HO 5 - - / FFE 895 6 I a vi MnAL °q"01 ” GFE =895.0 GRADING PLAN IAT KEY ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCF. — — RM,Y— � 3 i m — .nlx Nn. �•, �,a DIM a � Y�,P. �' a, i , - E.gMO T A° m1 Ra 0 I T GROUND BR . 1 1 LR — RuAI �w i � ^ ^ � I . rn0FUVAnorl Bfi20 m�(uw.) r� wasrvxem sm I WO i Know wher. below. nags: `- MOE = j ^ Cell before you dlg. - -- - -- TM uNHa�.,.Ilo K 51— A FEET — — — — — — °1, .ML,� R II n� ° a R"° r`n µaa°� , w µ M M a HREE A fi m Rn u � Z OI ®Oc� Om Q�$� =9 a'. s ^U LL U :E 8o All W Z 0 ag M W D 1a W N 2 X CI J U. w M L7 0 LL U „Jj m LU'nO fin ON 0, j3w uT REVISIONS z / 2 vi I I � I I LEGEND zzZ�� I FsF °I I w �I �I Ln X�WQI al ZI mI ,)W m UN) UI CI �I � Or ° I — I wawa Of � Ld I L) I e \ � L) 3za�l I e� ¢0 ZI N U K ? e I I e I'4'I ". I SUBGRADE CORRECTION DETAIL RAW IT O E SUB I' w ^18,4 -. C �aPOIn -. LxFYI CAa µ / t�r - 9A ° un1CN.L �- PATEO a� RMJ finTIm rc M . „a[ SILT FENCE XI TI G HO 5 - - / FFE 895 6 I a vi MnAL °q"01 ” GFE =895.0 GRADING PLAN IAT KEY ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCF. — — RM,Y— � 3 i m — .nlx Nn. �•, �,a DIM a � Y�,P. �' a, i , - E.gMO T A° m1 Ra 0 I T GROUND BR . 1 1 LR — RuAI �w i � ^ ^ � I . rn0FUVAnorl Bfi20 m�(uw.) r� wasrvxem sm I WO i Know wher. below. nags: `- MOE = j ^ Cell before you dlg. - -- - -- TM uNHa�.,.Ilo K 51— A FEET — — — — — — °1, .ML,� R II n� ° a R"° r`n µaa°� , w µ M M a HREE A fi m Rn u � Z OI ®Oc� Om Q�$� =9 a'. s ^U LL U :E 8o All W Z 0 ag M W D 1a W N 2 X CI J U. w M L7 0 LL U „Jj m LU'nO fin ON 0, j3w uT REVISIONS z / 2 Z LEGEND I w �I �I N DWNDARY LINE EXISTING LINE ZI mI I �I CL — I -- - - -'>- STORM SEWER C STORM � Ld I I YI 01 ol EXISTING 1' CONTWq —$g,5— E %ISTINO 5 CWTWq \ T, v -H > m SUBGRADE CORRECTION DETAIL RAW IT O E SUB I' w ^18,4 -. C �aPOIn -. LxFYI CAa µ / t�r - 9A ° un1CN.L �- PATEO a� RMJ finTIm rc M . „a[ SILT FENCE XI TI G HO 5 - - / FFE 895 6 I a vi MnAL °q"01 ” GFE =895.0 GRADING PLAN IAT KEY ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCF. — — RM,Y— � 3 i m — .nlx Nn. �•, �,a DIM a � Y�,P. �' a, i , - E.gMO T A° m1 Ra 0 I T GROUND BR . 1 1 LR — RuAI �w i � ^ ^ � I . rn0FUVAnorl Bfi20 m�(uw.) r� wasrvxem sm I WO i Know wher. below. nags: `- MOE = j ^ Cell before you dlg. - -- - -- TM uNHa�.,.Ilo K 51— A FEET — — — — — — °1, .ML,� R II n� ° a R"° r`n µaa°� , w µ M M a HREE A fi m Rn u � Z OI ®Oc� Om Q�$� =9 a'. s ^U LL U :E 8o All W Z 0 ag M W D 1a W N 2 X CI J U. w M L7 0 LL U „Jj m LU'nO fin ON 0, j3w uT REVISIONS z / 2 LEGEND N DWNDARY LINE EXISTING LINE - EXISTI CURB UN USE CL -- - - -'>- STORM SEWER C STORM � -STING - E%ISPNG SANITARY SEWER EYJSPNO _1ER MAIN O EXISTING 1' CONTWq —$g,5— E %ISTINO 5 CWTWq \ T, v -H > EXISTING EASEMENT MNE PR OSED SILT FENCE 3 I I^ + . . .. _ —894— PR OSEO CONTOUR DO w 5 ®895 PROPOSED S CONTOUR w.d > K I IN. TCE1 , X69.2 PROPOSED 'SPOT ELEVATION OL I 3 °w L'_ 5 In W I U D. K j fn GOVERNING SPECIFICATIONS 1. 111E 20D5 EDITION OF 1HE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION *STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION' m AND THE CITY OF EDINA'S SPECUNCAIIONS. N 01 K U E I Of F - 2 THE LATEST EDITION 01' THE MINNESOTA MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL OENCES (MMUTCD). 3 N D, YNE LATEST EDITION OF THE Ott ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION OF jI m W UWWI MINNESOTA (CEAM) STANDARD SPECIFCATIONS. U� }Q� �I a) CONSTRUCTION NOTES �) Z ow J 1. INSTALL 9LT FENCE PRIOR TO 97 CONSTRUCTION. N Z ° R. PROTECT ANY EXISTING STREET CATCH BASINS W,IH INLET OQ PROTECTION OENCES. 1 AFTER E.sTwC DRIVEWAY REMOVAL. INSTALL ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE FOR SITE ACCESS. SUBGRADE CORRECTION DETAIL RAW IT O E SUB I' w ^18,4 -. C �aPOIn -. LxFYI CAa µ / t�r - 9A ° un1CN.L �- PATEO a� RMJ finTIm rc M . „a[ SILT FENCE XI TI G HO 5 - - / FFE 895 6 I a vi MnAL °q"01 ” GFE =895.0 GRADING PLAN IAT KEY ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCF. — — RM,Y— � 3 i m — .nlx Nn. �•, �,a DIM a � Y�,P. �' a, i , - E.gMO T A° m1 Ra 0 I T GROUND BR . 1 1 LR — RuAI �w i � ^ ^ � I . rn0FUVAnorl Bfi20 m�(uw.) r� wasrvxem sm I WO i Know wher. below. nags: `- MOE = j ^ Cell before you dlg. - -- - -- TM uNHa�.,.Ilo K 51— A FEET — — — — — — °1, .ML,� R II n� ° a R"° r`n µaa°� , w µ M M a HREE A fi m Rn u � Z OI ®Oc� Om Q�$� =9 a'. s ^U LL U :E 8o All W Z 0 ag M W D 1a W N 2 X CI J U. w M L7 0 LL U „Jj m LU'nO fin ON 0, j3w uT REVISIONS z / 2 3 I , e i .j b� a 4 7 �j S 4 C` �'�. � �a. ��... s__ y -e � 8_e i x_o a =■ sce s 0 I a' / —Yz� — — —�— we -- — 0- i i A 5.2 cc 46 A i I m I _ i I I Al; - IE i_@ . !e --- -- --- --- - -- : r- '-- ---- -r- - -- - NDELL - - '000 ADDN - v. R j i �• J i _ - _ Z L. m 8 s- 's OR 500 FT. NEIGHBOR EXHIBIT for: (� Carlson g =? 9� =ate a y o f Cc Yee Gx i 9e t N 5 !o•e 4 :e?a` FAIRFAX 4TH ADDITION ENVIRONMENTAL •ENGINEERING•61,RVEYING 248 Apollo Dr, Suite 100, Lino Lakes, MN 55014 N o S X " - e3¢ nj i Edina, Minnesota a s N sS.R. i A 5.2 cc 46 A i I m I _ i I I Al; - IE i_@ . !e --- -- --- --- - -- : r- '-- ---- -r- - -- - NDELL - - '000 ADDN - v. R j i �• J i _ - _ Z L. m 8 s- 's OR 500 FT. NEIGHBOR EXHIBIT for: (� Carlson g =? 9� =ate JMS CUSTOM HOMES, LLC Mill N 5 !o•e 4 i A 5.2 cc 46 A i I m I _ i I I Al; - IE i_@ . !e --- -- --- --- - -- : r- '-- ---- -r- - -- - NDELL - - '000 ADDN - v. R j i �• J i _ - _ Z L. m 8 A I () s- 's OR 500 FT. NEIGHBOR EXHIBIT for: (� Carlson g =? 9� =ate JMS CUSTOM HOMES, LLC / McCain N 5 !o•e 4 :e?a` FAIRFAX 4TH ADDITION ENVIRONMENTAL •ENGINEERING•61,RVEYING 248 Apollo Dr, Suite 100, Lino Lakes, MN 55014 N o S X " - e3¢ nj Edina, Minnesota Phone: 763- 489 -7900 Fax: 763 -489 -7959 N sS.R. A I () a o rn i � m z m a 00-5 N N I+1 e, v . 0 !mil Z iV� O p O O u® _ O d � �+ N W N R F � O W p C Q L m a e N r N in S U Z W J O N M O W G CO S 0 c X.S N w W V Z Iy fA Q LL n LL O O N Nn+vaxs mr a eY. k�...0 L d Svwrer bn el W Slob of D-d u��ijj15tl mr =1 a y... 2011. 1. INana. R Btlbll, LS N.0. Nn b.Yl 2 6025 6024 6029 6028 6033 6032 6037 6039 6036 IO,dtg 6037 q�$ 7 7 ,4, Io o'EO IO 111 a 6157 Sf W 6101 6100 6101 6100 Lake Pamela 6105 6104 6104 6109 6109 6108 6108 Penile park 6f13 6112 6113 6112 6117 6116 6117 6117 10119 6121 6120 6120( �7 6121 6121 6125 6124 6125 6129 6128 6129 6128 6129 6133 6132 6133 6133 1412 6136 6137 6136 6137 4132 4128 412s 'I 8141 li.��(a 6141 1104 6145 6144 6143 62ND ST W 4415 4305 4301 b,Q1iA �Y r 4213 0 4129 4125 ..._.... ...... 4401 X75. � 4250 4119 upc- a�afnnA -W'! LOGMGr.MM o iO4fl Lot ARE/4 OVEN 6,700 =.f. 6025 6 6024 6029 6 6028 6033 6 6032 6037 6036 15 7 7S 6037 6039 6041 6 6044 7 s s- 6015 24 81STSTW 6101 6 6100 6 6101 6100 Lake Pamela 6105 6 6104 6 6104 C 6109 i i 6109 6 6108 6 6108 p psrt la Part 6113 6 6112 6 6113 6112 6117 6 6116 6 6117 6 6120 6 6121 6 6120 6 6121 P6133 6125 6 6121 6 6125 6 6129 6 6128 6 6128 6 6133 6 6132 6 6133 4112 6 6136 6 6137 6 6137 4132 4128 4121 6141 6 6141 4104 6145 6141 6 6113 62ND ST W 4415 4 4305 4301 14< 1 i ! 4 4401 ll�catdwT MtlYS CWO."IC)LOOSOSM 4129 4f 25 <1!9 0 10411 All�� ....ea �iiar :•I. ��•um 91 COA O City of Edina MEMORANDUM TO: Cary Teague, Community Development Director FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Chief Buildng Official ka 1 DATE: February 15, 2012 SUBJECT: 2008.0002.12a Fairfax 46' Addition I was asked to review the proposed preliminary plat stamped "PLANNING DEPARTMENT, JAN 20 2012 , CITY OF EDINA" for the above referenced project. The proposed interior property line between lot 1 and lot 2 creates a noncomplying setback condition for the existing air conditioner compressor for 6120 Brookview Ave. The air conditioner compressor must be relocated. I recommend a relocation schedule be included as a condition of approval for the plat. H:\ Documents\ Memos& Rpts \Planning\Fairfax4thAddn.doc I �� City Hall 952 -927 -8861 4801 WEST 50TH STREET FAX 952 - 826 -0390 EDINA, MINNESOTA, 55424 -1394 www.CityofEdina.com TTY 952 - 826 -0379 CITY OF EDINA MEMO Engineering Department - Phone 952 - 826-0371 4,9i��ld, Fax 952- 826 -0392 - www.C4ofEdina.com o e r �O Date: March 6, 2012 To: Cary Teague — Director of Planning cc: From: Wayne Houle — City Engineer Re: Plan Review Preliminary Plat of Fairfax Fourth Addition Engineering has reviewed the above stated project (dated January 18, 2012) and offer the following comments: The proposed lot split will need to be reviewed in detail at the time of a building permit application. Permits needed: • A Minnehaha Creek Watershed Permit will be required for storm water, grading, and erosion control. • An Edina Curb Cut Permit (obtained in the Engineering Department) will be required for the driveway entrances to each lot. • REC and SAC fees will be required for this project. Utilities and site work: 1. Any upgrades or additions to the sewer and water system that disturb the street will require a full width pavement replacement, from saw cut to saw cut. 2. Connection into the existing drain tile for sump pump and downspouts will be required for with this project. 3. Site grading will need to be reviewed at the time of building permit application. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this review. Thanks k G: \PW \ADMAN \COMM \EXTERNAL \GENERAL CORR BY STREETS \B Streets \6120 Brookvlew Ave \20120308 WH review of 6120 Brookview Ave.doc Engineering Department • 7450 Metro Bbd - Edina, MN 55439 A)b i To: Edina Planning Commission - Edina City Council - Cary Teague, Kris Aaker, Planning Dept. Scott Neal, City Manager From: Janey Westin& Charlie. Hughes 6136 Brookview Ave., Edina Re: Proposed Subdivision of 6120 Brookview Ave., Edina; Fairfax, Block 23, Lots 5 &.6 Jeffrey Schoenwetter of JMS Custom Homes. Planning Commission Members and City Staff, We are strongly opposed to this proposed lot division. The City has Zoning Ordinance, Subsection 850.07, Subd. 20B4a which states: "If a non - conforming lot or parcel is, or at any time since October 22, 1951, has been, held in common ownership with all or part of an adjoining or abutting: parcel or lot which together comply with, or come close to complying with, the minimum width, depth, area, and lot width to perimeter ratio, requirements of this Section, then such non - conforming lot or parcel and such adjoining or abutting parcel or lot shall be considered as ONE LOT and SHAL NOT BE DECREASED IN SIZE below such minimum requirements. If in a group of two or more adjoining or abutting lots or parcels owned or controlled. by the same person, any single lot or parcel does not meet the full minimum depth, width, area or lot width to perimeter ratio requirements of this Section, such single lot or parcel shall not be considered as a separate lot or parcel able to be conveyed and developed under this code. The city minimum lot width is 75 feet. The City of Edina must follow the City's own laws and ordinances to protect homeowners from intimidation and reckless harm from developers like JMS who demonstrate absolutely no consideration of neighboring homeowners. The history of how JMS has behaved regarding 6120 Brookview Avenue is a case in point: Late spring of 2008 -- Another developer ( Palaudian) attempted to divide 6120 into two 50 foot wide .lots. He had a purchase agreement with a contingency of subdivision, planning to build 2 large houses and cut down a healthy, 91 foot spanning oak tree in the process. The neighborhood strongly objected, and it was not approved. The City followed Zoning Ordinance. JMS's then - president, Andy Porter, attended the proceedings. Palaudian then backed out of the agreement. Within 2 days, JMS had bought it, before any neighbors could take other action. JMS then submitted plans to the City for a large, single home to be built, somewhat centered on the lot, though too close to the street with 'a setback of 33 feet, but did not begin construction. Early October, 2008, JMS approached Jim Holan, Property ID Supervisor for Hennepin County, attempting to divide 6120 Brookview at the County level. Edina City Planning was called and alerted; JMS did not get a lot division because he had not applied for one. Shortly_ thereafter, the existing rambler was removed and the large oak tree cut down. The open hole of the basement remained with no fencing around it for more than 10 days through Halloween weekend, in. spite of my phone call to City Inspections. Fall of 2008, JMS then submitted new plans which were approved: by Planning, for a full two story home of extremely large size; and completely out of character and proportion to anything within 500 feet (the neighborhood). He had his surveyors place this new house completely within the south half of the parcel (Lot 6) as if JMS had a lot division, which JMS did not. JMS also had his surveyors position the house 8+ feet closer to the street than front setback code allowed. This position put the back wall of the JMS house further forward than the front north corner of the neighboring historic Whitbeck home to the south. JMS has pled ignorance of understanding setback code, though this was the 35th or 36' home he built in Edina. In court, he also blamed this on his surveyor, though as the agent for his surveyor, JMS is the responsible party. From the moment the survey stakes were put in the ground in early December of 2008, it was clear that JMS's intent was to force the City to grant a subdivision of . the property. On December 22, 2008, JMS applied to the City for a building permit for the north half of 6120 Brookview, Lot 5. He had not applied for a subdivision. The permit was turned down, noted in a memo of the same date, on file in Planning. JMS proceeded with construction on the south half of the parcel in December. The foundation was poured on the coldest day of that winter, when temperatures were way below code rules for concrete. It was not tented or blanketed, violating state concrete construction code. Nonetheless, it passed inspection, and construction continued. The Whitbecks spoke with City Planning people and expressed. concern with position of the house. Construction continued to the point of the wood frame shell being completed and the roofing materials half on. Finally, in early January 2009, after more complaints by the Whitbecks regarding position of the house, a stop work order was placed on the house by the City, and it was determined to be way too close to the street, about 8 feet. JMS applied for a variance to allow the house to be as it sat, which was not granted. JMS also took the City to court to be allowed to continue construction, pleading that he would go out of business if the house couldn't be ready for the Spring 2009 Parade of Homes. After doing research, it seems that JMS's financial problems were due to numerous failed development projects, bankruptcies and lawsuits -- not this single house project. The Whitbeck's, the most affected party regarding this new JMS house, were not informed of JMS's first court appearance, and had no voice in the proceedings. The judge allowed JMS to proceed with construction. Construction usually started at 6:00 -6:30 am, in violation of city code. The house was finished and open for the Parade of Homes in February, 2009. It did not sell. In the fall of 2009, Nancy and Jeffrey Schoenwetter listed the house for sale through Prime Real Estate Services describing it as sitting on a 50 foot wide lot, not as a 100 foot wide lot. This was a clear violation of 3 Ethics rules of the Minnesota Association of Realtors. It was fraudulent information. No application for subdivision had been applied for. In an October 8, 2009 letter to Mr. Schoenwetter, former Edina City Manager Gordon Hughes advised Schoenwetter to accurately list the 6120 Brookview Avenue parcel size. J. Schoenwetter sent a reply October 26th, stating, 'We do understand and respect your interpretation of city code. We may not necessarily agree with this interpretation.' Interpretation??!! The Schoenwetters found a party to sign a 2 year contract for deed type of arrangement in December, 2009. At the end of the 2 years, in December, 2011, they moved out, not proceeding with the contract. So, here things sit, with an oversize, completely out of place house, that,could still be moved to the center of the 100 foot wide lot. Yes, this is possible. I have spoken with Otting House Movers, the company that moved the original home off the lot. They have experience moving houses, even 2 story houses to a new position on an existing lot. It would not cost more than about $50,000 total (new foundation water, sewer and moving), and JMS could still make a profit. There are no obstacles on this lot that would. hinder this type of repositioning. If this house were centered sensibly on the -lot, it would sell quickly. Schoenwetter has clearly created his own hardship. He has a reasonable use of the property with one house on it. His 'practical difficulty' is the position of the existing house, which he and the City are responsible for and which can be remedied. Strangers that come by this house. stop and ask us, 'What is it with the position of that house?'. He has thumbed his nose at City ordinances, seeming to think the 'rules' don't apply to him. JMS is the poster child of a bad developer, and should not be granted his request for a subdivision. He shouWAftiven;,dvery possible incentive to reposition the house, with required approval of the City and review by the neighbors. Then it would sell, and many hard feelings could be laid to rest. Janey Westin & Charlie Hughes i i i To: Edina Planning Commission March 8, 2012 Edina City Council Cary Teague, Kris Aaker, Planning Dept. Scott Neal, City Manager From: Dan Uhrhammer. Owner and resident of;6101 Oaklawn Ave., Edina Re: Proposed Subdivision of "6120 Brookview Ave., Edina; Fairfax, Block 23, Lots 5 & 6 Jeffrey Schoenwetter of JMS Custom Homes Planning Commission Members and City Staff, I am strongly opposed to this proposed lot division. The City has Zoning Ordinance, Subsection 850.07, Subdivision. 20134a which states: "lf a non - conforming lot orparcel is, or at any time since October 22, 1951, has been, held in common ownership with all or part of an adjoining or abutting parcel or lot which together comply with, or come close to complying with, the minimum width, depth, area, and lot width to perimeter ratio, requirements of this Section, then such non - conforming lot or parcel and such adjoining or abutting parcel or lot shall be considered as one lot and shall not be decreased in size below such minimum requirements. If in a group of two or more adjoining or abutting lots or parcels owned or controlled by the same person, any single lot or parcel does not meet the full minimum depth, width, area or lot width to perimeter. ratio requirements of this Section, such single lot or parcel shall not be considered as a separate lot or parcel able to be conveyed and developed under this code." The city minimum lot width is 75 feet. This is a City of Edina zoning ordinance; and was established to protect this city from suffering from the "crowding" of properties much like that which exists in many residential areas of Minneapolis. Basically; exceptionally large homes on very small lots. I cannot tell you why the city originally allowed or plotted 50 foot lots. But, they apparently realized they were not suitable to build upon very early in the development of this city. The only thing that has changed in any way since establishment of the 75 foot lot width requirement is that very little developable land exists in Edina anymore. Developers and a portion of the public want these subdivisions. to pass. Not for the good of the city, but for financial gain, or for. cheap entry, into residency in Edina. This area (Fairfax) of Edina is one of the most affordable neighborhoods in Edina to buy in. The sacrifice those of us who live here made was the size, of the homes, to maintain and have green space, and yards. Now, people just want in, and want their big home. But do not want to pay for the appropriate size of lot to hold them, or buy into more expensive areas of Edina. I understand these desires, but neither care about the effect these subdivisions, or these hugh.home have on a neighborhood. They just want it, and the hell with anyone else. As to the "Hardships" that JMS may face on this property. Along with their request for a subdivision as a result of them. You should all know the story well. They did it to themselves, and Edina shouldn't fix it for them: Say no to the subdivision this time, and every time one is requested. Sincerely, Dan Uhrhammer 6101 Oaklawn Ave. And by the way, just because the vast majority of lots in the area are 50 feet. Calling it the norm, and thus approving the subdivision seems like the easy way out. Besides, yes they for the most part are 50 foot lots. But our homes are also 1000 -1200 square foot ramblers, or story and a half. Isn't that also the norm here? Perhaps the building codes for these small lots should also be addressed. March 8, 2012 To: City Manager Scott Neal City Planner Cary Teague Planning Commission Members RE:. Proposed subdivision by JMS Homes at 612o Brookview Avenue I strongly oppose the proposed subdivision by JMS Custom Homes LLC at 612o Brookview Avenue. My property at 6112 Brookview Avenue is. adjacent to the above referenced property. JMS Custom Homes LLC seeks to subdivide the property in order tobuild a second house on a lot size less than 75 feet which is the current lot size minimum in Edina. I have lived in my home since 1974• My driveway which is on the right of my home, is on a hill. Along with regular snow removal, I have relied on the southern sun exposure to melt ice and snow from the driveway and sidewalks in the. winter months. The house that JMS Custom Homes LLC is proposing to. build will blockthat sun and light, causing hardship, difficulty and compromises my safety. I question whether Mr. Schoenwetter has taken into consideration City Code 850 .,11 single dwelling unit subdivision 2oB4 with regard to front and side setbacks for this second home. **-'�If a non - conforming lot or parcel is, or at any time since October 22, 1951 has been, held in common ownership with all or part of an adjoining or abutting minimum width, depth, area, and lot width to perimeter ratio, requirements of this Section, then such non- 1 conforming lot or parcel and such adjoining or abutting parcel does not meet the full minimum depth, width, area or lot width to perimeter ratio requirements of this Section, such single lot or parcel shall not be considered as a separate lot or parcel able to be conveyed and developed under this Code. I also refer you to: Minnesota Statute: MS 462.35, subd6(2): Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. JMS Custom Homes, LLC created the "circumstances" when he chose to build an oversized two story home extremely close to the historic home on Brookview, ignoring the legal codes for side and front setbacks. Also, in order to build the oversized home, he made the decision to remove a healthy Zoo + year old Savannah Oak Tree from the property. JMS Homes created the "practical difficulties" when he made the decision not to build one home in the center of the lot. The "essential character" of the neighborhood was altered in 2oo8 and the JMS home at 612o Brookview remains unoccupied. 2 The "essential character" of the locality will again be altered if the variance is granted for the building of a two story home on the .property. Most of the homes on Brookview Avenue are single story .to 1 -1/2 story,homes. SinFerely, Carol Carmichiel 6112 Brookview Ave. 3 Jackie Hoogenakker From: DWMUSIC @comcast.net Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2012 7:48 PM To: Janey Westin Subject: Re: J. Hoogenacker -Fwd: Brookview Janey, can't make this go through. Please forward to Planning Comission. Thanks. Dick & Jackie To: Edina Planning Commission Members 3/8/12 From: Dick & Jackie Whitbeck 6128 Brookview Ave Edina, MN 55424 Re: Proposed subdivision of 6120 Brookview Avenue. We wish to state our respectful opposition to the proposed subdivision of 6120 Brookview Avenue, and to the associated request for a variance. Dividing this property will not create affordable housing, will have a negative impact on the neighborhood, is not in harmony with the current 75 foot minimum lot size and does not comply with Minnesota statues and Edina city ordinances. Minnesota Statute section 462.375, sub division 6 (2) states "Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. `Practical difficulties' as used in connection with the granting of a variance means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manor not permitted by the zoning ordinance; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property ne' created by the land owner; and the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality." Cary Teague in his opposition to a recent subdivision on Brookview Ave, stated "The action or request by the applicant to subdivide the property causes the practical difficulty. The request to subdivide the lot causes the need for variances therefore, the practical difficulties are self - created." The situation here is similar. The applicant's need for a variance from the 75 foot frontage requirement has arisen solely because the applicant proposes to subdivide an already conforming lot and create two nonconforming lots. We cannot conceive of a clearer example of a self - created hardship. For this reason alone we believe the applicant's request for variance, and associated subdivision should be denied. If the property is subdivided as proposed, a very drastic change will be wrought upon the essential character of the neighborhood. The applicant's representatives have stated to others that the existing home at 6120 Brookview Ave (which was apparently sold for $849,000) is a model for the new construction. This would be a very large home. This neighborhood currently consists of more modest cottage style homes of one and a half story, located in a wooded setting, and selling in the 200 - 300 thousand dollar range. This will alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The home this applicant already built on the property is a poster child for poor development. The very nature of a variance is that each property is unique in its characteristics and that the application of the zoning ordinance should be reviewed in light of the unique characteristics of that property. That is, each variance is by nature a de novo review. Precedent has no bearing in a variance case, except in the helpful guidance a prior example may provide. The council is not bound by prior precedent. The question is not what has the City done before, but rather what is unique about this property that requires the commission to waive the usual application of our development code and create two nonconforming lots from one conforming lot. I see no such uniqueness in this property. The planning commission has previously stated that a similar request for subdivision would restore the neighborhood to its original intent of 50 foot plots. Whose intend would this be? Not the City's! We would like to draw your attention to city ordinance 850.07 subdivision 20 B. 4, which states that: "If a non - conforming lot or parcel is, or at any time since October 22, 1951, has been, held in common ownership with all or part of an adjoining or abutting parcel or lot which together comply with, or come close to complying with the minimum width, depth, area, and lot width to perimeter ratio, requirements of this Section, then such non - conforming lot or parcel and such 2 _adjoining or abutting,parcel or lot shall be considered as, one lot and shall not be-decreased -in size ;,below. such- minimum requirements." We read this ordinance as meaning that it is the City .:._ policy, indeed requirement, to- create conforming lots out. of nonconforming lots. Indeed, in the 350 foot radius surrounding the,proposed subdivision, 25 %, of the lots are greater than 50. feet. (our, own` home, which predates subdivision, consists of three lots). The City's intent is for there to be 75 foot lots, and where possible to combine nonconforming lots into conforming lots. The applicant however, proposes the opposite, he would create nonconforming lots out of a conforming lot. This is turning prior City policy on its head. The severe negative impact a subdivision would have on our us and our, neighbors who have owned our properties for decades is beyond comprehension. We and others purchased our property in good faith based on city codes at the time. We deserve the utmost consideration. As neighbors to the property in question, we do not want this subdivision. This subdivision and variance will not be for the greater good, but will only put more money in one developer's. pocket. Edina city ordinance 850.04 subd. 2 paragraph F basically says that the applicant must have a favorable finding on all criteria for approval. This simply cannot be done in this case. No special benefits should be given to this applicant. In compliance with Minnesota statutes and Edina ordinances this application should be denied. Respectfully, Dick & Jackie Whitbeck From: "Janey Westin" <janeywestin @usa.net> To: "Jackie Whitbeck" lkwhitbeck @comcast.net >, "Whitbecks" <dwmusic @comcast.net> Sent: Saturday, March 3, 2012 9:46:39 AM Subject: J. Hoogenacker -Fwd: Brookview Hey Dick and Jackie, Here is Jackie Hoogenacker's contact info. (The gal in Planning at city hall to send your letter to.) - -Janey Forwarded message is attached. 3 Planner Teague informed the Commission JMS Custom Homes is proposing to subdivide the property at 6120. Brookview Avenue into two lots. There is an existing air conditioner located on the proposed lot line. Should this proposal be approved, the air, conditioner would have to be relocated to meet the required.5 -foot setback. Teague noted that to accommodate the request the following is required: 1.1 A subdivision; 2. Lot width variances from 75 feet to 50 feet for each'lot; and 3. Lot area.variances from. 9,000 square feet to 6,676 and 6,671 square feet. 4. Lot depth variance from 133.8 feet to 133.7 feet for Lot 2. Teague explained that both would'gain.access off Brookview Avenue. Within this neighborhood, the median lot area is 6,707 square feet, median lot depth is 133.8 feet, and the median lot width is 50 feet. The new lots would meet the median width, but would slightly shy of thethe median lot size and depth. Planner:Teague concluded that staff recommends that the City Council deny the proposed two lot subdivision of 6120 Brookview Avenue and the lot width variances from 75 feet to 50 feet for each lot, lot area variances from 9,000 square feet to 6,676 and 6,671 square feet, and a lot depth variance from 133.8 feet to 133.7 feet for Lot 2. Denial is based on the following findings: 1. The proposal does not meet the required standards and ordinances fo "r a subdivision, because the proposed lots do not meet the Zoning Ordinance requirements. 2. The two proposed lots do not meet the minimum lot area, lot width, and lot depth requirements. 3. The proposal does not meet the required standards fora variance, because: a. The property exists as a conforming single - family residential lot with a single - family home. Reasonable use of the property exists:today. b. The size of the Subject Property does not create practical difficulties: The Subject Property is only 4,347 square feet larger than the minimum lot size. This is not a practical difficulty. There are no circumstances unique to the property that justifies multiple variances. c. The practical difficulty is self- created by the applicant's:proposal to subdivide the property. Page 4 of 14 d. The proposed lots do not meet the 6,707 square foot median lot area for lots in this neighborhood. e. The Subject Property is similar in size to several lots in the neighborhood including five lots to the north and west on Oaklawn Avenue, and two lots to the south and two lots to the east on Brookview Avenue. Appearing for the Applicant Jeff Schoenwetter and Steve Bona, JMS Custom Homes, LLC Applicant Presentation Mr. Bona addressed the Commission and acknowledged that the proposed subdivision has a "past" and is very "charged ". Bona reported that JMS mailed out letters to residents inviting them to attend a neighborhood meeting informing them of their plan to subdivide the property at 6120 Brookview Avenue. Bona said six residents came and viewed the subdivision and plans for the new house. Bona delivered a power point presentation on the project. Bona explained that the new house would be 2,600 square feet, 28 -feet wide with a building height of 26 Y2 -feet. Continuing, Bona said the plan for the house was generally well received and if the Commission so chooses JMS would be agreeable to place restrictions on the new house above what's required by ordinance. Discussion Commissioner Staunton asked when the existing house was built. Mr. Bona responded the house was constructed two years ago. Staunton questioned why JMS didn't seek a subdivision at that time. Bona responded that in hindsight that would have been a good idea; however they didn't do it. Public Comment Chair Grabiel acknowledged that the Commission was aware of the history of this site adding that at this time he would read two letters from residents; one in support of the proposal and one in opposition. Grabiel said if anyone has something new to share different from what's in the letters they are welcome to do so. Chair Grabiel read letters from Doug and Jenny Nelson and Dan Urhammer (attached as Exhibit "A "). Mr. Valentine, 5024 Hankerson Avenue addressed the Commission reporting that a new house is being built near him and while he has some concerns on its size, etc. he believes that the new house will benefit his property. Page 5 of 14 Janey Westin, 6136 Brookview Avenue, spoke in opposition to the project. Westin said two wrongs don't make a right and suggested that the City purchase the property and move the house on the southernmost portion of the lot to the middle of the lot and at the proper front yard setback. Jenny Nelson, 6117 Oaklawn Avenue told the Commission she supports the request. Nelson said her concern is viewing the vacant lot. She noted without a house on a lot the vacant parcel becomes messy and unkempt because no one is there on a day to day basis to care for the property. Miroslava Turk, 6141 Brookview Avenue stated she opposes the request to subdivide. She pointed out that the subject block was unique because there are other lots on the block in excess of 50 -feet. Turk noted that this is an affordable area, adding she would like to see it remain affordable. Trudy Landgren, 6104 Brookview Avenue spoke in opposition to the project. Landgren said she and the neighbors aren't fighting development; however, have very real concerns with the size of the new houses being built in the area. Landgren said in her opinion Edina needs moderate priced housing and if all lots that are redeveloped build such large homes the neighborhood character would be changed. Concluding, Landgren reiterated the importance of maintaining moderate housing prices. Carol Carmichiel, 6112 Brookview Avenue said that while the proposed house could suit the site she is concerned with the history of the lot and that history might repeat itself. Carmichiel said she doesn't want to see another overly large house built on the lot at the wrong setbacks. Chair Grabiel questioned if the applicant assures the neighborhood the house they depicted would be built would they still object. It was acknowledged that neighbors have trust issues with this developer. Mr. Bona responded that he understands the trust issues neighbors have expressed, adding if the neighbors concern is house size JMS will stand by their offer to build a house with setbacks more stringent than allowed by ordinance. Chair Grabiel asked if anyone else would like to address the Commission; being none chair Grabiel called for a motion to close the public hearing. Commissioner Carpenter moved to close the public hearing period. Commissioner Staunton seconded the motion. All coted aye; motion carried. Page 6 of 14 Discussion Commissioner Carpenter commented when one views the drawings this neighborhood appears to be a neighborhood of 50 -foot wide lots. However, after further review he decided if one only looks at this lot and block, it becomes apparent this block is different because it contains a number of lots in excess of 50 -feet. Continuing, Carpenter said he agrees with staff that the need for variances are self- created because of the applicants' intent to subdivide. Commissioner Fischer said he struggles with this being self - created. He questioned how this request was self- created when similar subdivisions in the area weren't. Fischer asked if anyone could articulate how this request was different from the recent subdivision in the immediate area. Planner Teague responded if one only views this lot on this block this block contains a number of oversized lots. That couldn't be said with some of the other subdivisions. Commissioner Fischer said he agrees with that; however how can this be self - created. Commissioner Carpenter responded variances wouldn't be necessary if the lot wasn't subdivided. Continuing, Carpenter said he believes the applicant acquired the property knowing the ordinance requirements. A discussion ensued on if the variances were "self- created ". Commissioner Staunton said there are standards that can be used to "test" if this proposal meets the intent of the ordinance -1) is the use reasonable 2) uniqueness of the circumstances, and 3) neighborhood consistency. Staunton said he finds the use reasonable, it's a single family house; but if he applies the other standards this subdivision is different and that makes a big difference in establishing neighborhood character. Continuing, Staunton pointed out that he voted to approve a subdivision at 6109 Oaklawn, pointing out on that block there were no other lots with a lot width of 100 -feet. Continuing, Staunton said the same could be said for the other subdivision request on Oaklawn. Staunton did acknowledge that the subdivision that was approved on the 5800 block of Brookview did contain lots larger than 50 -feet; however, some of those sizes were the result of the roadway easements, etc.. Staunton concluded that he was uncomfortable supporting this request, adding in his opinion this one block is different. Commissioner Schroeder said in his opinion it can be argued that the essential character of this neighborhood is the variable lot sizes. The original plat was for 50- foot lots; however, over the years the neighborhood evolved with people combining those 50 -foot lots. Chair Grabiel asked Commissioners how they would feel if this was reversed and a buyer was purchasing two small lots; combines them and builds one large house. Staunton acknowledged that that could happen; however he pointed out Page 7 of 14 City Code allows that, it doesn't allow this. Commissioner Platteter questioned if Commissioners were indicating that neighborhood character can't change. He pointed out neighborhoods are always evolving, ordinances don't' stand still. Schroeder agreed; however defining neighborhood isn't that simple. Commissioner Scherer told the Commission she can't support this request. Scherer said in her opinion residents should be able to rely on the ordinance; adding she reviews each request on its individual merits. Concluding, Scherer said that the subject lot wasn't unique and the applicant fails to meet the "test ". Commissioner Forrest commented that in reality the house proposed for this lot is a nice house; however, the request doesn't meet the intent of the ordinance. Forrest said if the Commission wants to preserve these small lot neighborhoods and believes neighborhoods originally plated with lots under 75 feet in width should be protected a better way to achieve maintaining neighborhood character would be for the Planning Commission to change the zoning ordinance and eliminate the minimum lot width, depth and lot area requirement. Forrest noted that if constructed on a 50 -foot wide lot the house itself wouldn't require variances; because of the subdivision the lot requires the variances. Concluding, Forrest said she can't support the variances; therefore, can't support the subdivision. Motion Chair Staunton moved to deny the request by JMS to subdivide property located at 6120 Brookview Avenue. Denial is based on 1) a 100 -foot wide lot is not unique to this block; there are multiple lots in excess of 50 -feet 2) the new house built to one side cannot be considered unique, an "orphan" lot was created; however, this was self - inflicted and 3) although building one single family house is reasonable subdividing this lot isn't because it doesn't maintain the character of this block. Denial is also based on staff findings. Commissioner Scherer seconded the motion. Commissioner Fischer added for him this was a tough decision, adding he struggled with it being self- created. He acknowledged at first glance this was a 50 -lot neighborhood but the comments from Commissioners Staunton and Schroeder persuaded him otherwise. Chair Grabiel said he can't support the motion, adding he doesn't agree with the logic that this subdivision request is different from ones previously granted. Ayes; Forrest, Scherer, Schroeder, Potts, Platteter, Carpenter, Staunton, Fischer. Nay; Grabiel. Motion for denial approved 8 -1. Page 8 of 14 Cary Teague City of Edina — Planning Director cteaaue@ci.edina.mn us We are, Doug and Jenny Nelson, the homeowners at 6117 Oaklawn Avenue. Our backyard is adjacent to the vacant lot/ subdivison at 6120 Brookview. We are here today to express our approval for the subdivision of the lot located at 6120 Brookview and express our disappointment for the denial of the subdivision of the lot located at 6109 Oaklawn. We live in the section of Edina, near Pamela Park, where the overwhelming majority of the lots are 50 feet wide. We do not understand why the subdivisions of double lots to 50 foot lots should not and were not immediately approved in keeping with the neighborhood. Seventy five foot lots that meet current city code were not developed in the Pamela Park neighborhood in the 1950's. The failure to subdivide the previously mentioned lots has left us with . vacant unkempt lots and two vacant homes. There are old wood piles, weeds, uncut grass, untrimmed trees, stakes, plastic and general junk left behind. We would have preferred to have 2 new families, new homes and homeowners who will take pride in their new homes'and property. We need the revitalization that is taking place in other neighborhoods within Edina to be scaled to the economic structure of our area. 50 foot lots are the most economically feasible for this area. The 50 foot lot values are approximately $150,000 to $200,000. The double lots (100 ft.) have values at approximately $300,000. With a finished house at the customary 3-4x lot value the result on a double lot is a home valued at nearly 1 million dollars. A 1 million dollar house is too expensive for our neighborhood and not likely to be built by a prospective buyer in the Pamela Park area. The lots could continue to remain vacant. We need 50 ft. lots to become available for new construction, be it tear down of older homes or subdivision. SimDiy nut. 50 foot lots fit nicely in with the rest of the neighborhood What has chaneed? Whv are the subdivisions beina denied? Subdivision is reasonable for our nei hborhood. If the lots are not allowed to subdivide to 50 foot lots- what is Edina's alternative lan for redevelopment of the vacated 100 ft. double lots? What is t Man of those o osin the subdivision into 50 ft. lots? Last week we received a newsletter in the mail from Jane Paulus, a long time real estate agent in Edina. The article is entitled "The Big House Coming into a Neighborhood" that we feel is well written and makes some very relevant points about redevelopment and revitalization. The key points that are applicable are: 1. The neighborhood is desired for its location so the investment is worth it for the new owner. Present people living on the block should feel good about this and feel this means their house value is good. 2. Change means the community is alive and well and someone else values this worth and wants to be part of it. 3. The past does. not fit iinto the'game plan of today. if housing stock cannot be created to meet the needs of today's buyers the (our) neighborhood will not flourish and these families will seek other neighborhoods. (Both in and out of Edina) 4. The older smaller houses do not necessarily lose value. They are still needed by communities as their size fits the needs of a family that is not in.need of space. Such as the home we own and have remodeled for our empty nester lifestyle. We hope others like us in the neighborhood will remodel; and. upgrade because: they see- revitalization and improvementin the neighborhood. If the houses do not keep pace with the needs of people today, the neighborhood will be put out to pasture. . Please approve the subdivision of 6120 Brookside to a 50 foot lot in a neighborhood that is 50 foot lots. Take the time to drive through our neighborhood. Bring us new families, revitalization and updated housing options for today's family not seeking the 1 million dollar home but still seeking to build a new home in Edina. Sincerely, Doug and Jenny Nelson �. To: Edina Planning Commission Edina City Council" Cary Teague, Kris Aaker, Planning Dept. Scott Neal, City Manager From: Dan Uhrhammer Owner and iesident of 6101 Oaklawn Ave., Edina March 8, 201 =2 E, 1b, I )t A - I I .. . . Re: Proposed Subdivision-of 6120.Brookview Ave., Edina; "Fairfax; Block 23, Lots 5 & 6 Jeffrey Schoenwetter of JMS Custom Homes Planning Commission Members and City Staff, I am strongly opposed to this proposed lot division. The City has Zoning Ordinance, Subsection 850.07, Subdivision. 20B4a which states: "If a non- conforming lot or parcel is, or at any time since October 22, 1951, has been, held in common ownership with all or part of an adjoining or abutting parcel or lot which together comply with, or come close to complying with, the minimum width, depth, area, and lot width to perimeter ratio, requirements of this Section, then such non - conforming lot or parcel and such adjoining or abutting parcel or lot shall be considered as one lot and shall not be decreased in size below such minimum requirements. If in a"group of two or more adjoining or abutting lots or parcels owned or controlled by the same person, any single lot or parcel does not meet the full minimum depth, width, area or lot width to perimeter ratio requirements of this Section, such single lot or parcel shall not be considered as a separate lot or parcel able to be conveyed and developed under this code." The city minimum lot width is 75 feet. This is a City of Edina zoning ordinance, and was established to protect this city from suffering from the "crowding" of properties much like that which exists in many residential areas of Minneapolis. Basically, exceptionally large homes on very small lots. I cannot tell you why the city originally allowed or plotted 50 foot lots. But, they apparently realized they were not suitable to build upon very early in the development of this city. The only thing that has changed in any way since establishment of the 75 foot lot width requirement is that very little developable land exists in Edina anymore. Developers and a portion of the public want these subdivisions to pass. Not for the good of the city, but for financial gain, or for cheap entry into residency in Edina. This area (Fairfax) of Edina is one of the most affordable neighborhoods in Edina to buy in. The sacrifice those of us who live here made was the size of the homes, to maintain and have green space, and yards. Now, people just want in, and want their big home. But do not want to pay for the appropriate size of lot to hold them, or buy into more expensive areas of Edina. I understand these desires, but neither care about the effect these subdivisions, or these hugh home have on a neighborhood. They just want it, and the hell with anyone else. As to the "Hardships" that JMS may face on this property. Along with their request for a subdivision as a result of them. You should all know the story well. They did it to themselves, and Edina shouldn't fix it for them. 1 Say no to the subdivision this time, and every time one is requested. Sincerely, Dan Uhrhammer 6101 Oaklawn Ave. And by the way, just because the vast majority of lots in the area are 50 feet. Calling it the norm, and thus approving the subdivision seems like the easy way-out. Besides, yes they for the most part are 50 foot lots. But our homes are also 1000 -1200 square foot ramblers, or story and a half. Isn't that also the norm here? Perhaps the building codes for these small lots should also be addressed. Larkin Hoffman ATTORN�TS April 12, 2012 Hon. James Hovland, Mayor Edina City Councilmembers City of Edina 4801 W. 50th Street Edina, Minnesota 55424 Iadrin Hoffman Daly & Lindgren lad. 1500 Wells Fargo Plaza 7900 xermn Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55431 -1194 GENERAL: 952. 835 -3800 FAX: 952$96-3333 WED: WWW.larldnhoil2I7an.Mm Re: Preliminary Plat and Variances for 6120 Brookview Avenue Dear Mayor Hovland and Councilmembers: We represent JMS Custom Homes, LLC in connection with its proposed subdivision of 6120 Brookview Avenue into two lots. In this regard, JMS is seeking variances from the City's 75 -foot minimum lot width standard to establish two lots of 50 -feet in width. A related lot depth variance for one -tenth of a foot is also requested with the subdivision. Approval of the preliminary plat and variances is reasonable for several practical reasons: 1. The requested subdivision will reinstate the historical lot dimensions for the subject property; 2. The requested lot dimensions in the after - condition, with 50 -foot lot frontages, will be more compatible with the immediate and surrounding neighborhoods of the City, including those lots immediately adjacent to, across from and behind the subject property; 3. The variances will allow a reasonable use of the newly created lot for a single - family home, which is consistent both with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance, as well as "the essential character of the locality"; and 4. The applicant has committed to making concessions on the site plan such as increased setbacks and other standards applicable to the proposed residence, to ensure it is very compatible with the existing neighborhood. City History of Recent Variance Decisions The City of Edina has allowed and disallowed subdivision variances for the same reasons, with no consistent rationale for these decisions. In the staff report for the subject application, staff has documented three (3) separate variance approvals in recent years to create smaller lots than allowed by Code, all of which were approved, in part, due to their compatibility with the surrounding neighborhoods. Yet, the City Council recently voted to deny a variance for 6109 Oaklawn Avenue to establish two 50 -foot lots, notwithstanding the recommendation of the City's Planning Commission and staff. During the Planning Commission discussion on the 6109 Oaklawn site, City staff confirmed that the requested lot split was not a correction of a self- Hon. James Hovland, Mayor April 12, 2012 Page 2 imposed hardship as the prior subdivision creating the larger lot was not initiated by the applicant; staff also confirmed that denial of the variance would deprive the applicant of a reasonable use of his property, similar to the use rights enjoyed by other 50 -foot lot owners in the neighborhood. What seems most evident from the City's record of its recent decisions is the documented lack of a rational basis for denial of the noted variances. Put differently, the City's actions on their face appear arbitrary. In the 6109 Oaklawn situation, while there were objectors, not a single resident objected that the variance being sought would impose a unique burden on the neighborhood or establish an unreasonable use of the property. Nor was any evidence presented that reflected an undue burden on City services. For these reasons staff recommended the variances for the lot split and the Planning Commission agreed with their recommendation. New Statutory Variance Standard Recently the Minnesota Legislature amended state law to provide a more flexible standard for municipal consideration of variance applications. The new standard replaced the so- called "undue hardship" standard which many cities and property owners had argued was too restrictive and limited reasonable land use requests which otherwise were consistent with local policies. The new standard also replaces the requirement that an applicant be able to demonstrate that the subject property cannot be put to a reasonable use without the requested variance. The new statutory standard provides: Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. Variances may be granted when the applicant demonstrates there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the ordinance; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Minn. Stat. 462.357, subd. 6(2) (enacted Laws 2011, Ch. 19). Applying the new statutory standard and the applicable facts to the subject property leads to the conclusion that variances for the lot split and lot depth are not only appropriate, but required. The proposed use of the site is "reasonable" as that term is defined in statute (a single family home is a guided and zoned use of the property); the practical difficulty is not imposed by the landowner but rather reflects a City standard that has been shown to be unworkable and impractical in long - established neighborhoods of the City; the current lot configuration of 100 feet at the frontage line was not created by the applicant, but rather by a prior owner's actions and exceeds by a significant margin the City's existing lot frontage requirements. Establishing Hon. James Hovland, Mayor April 12, 2012 Page 3 two lots with 50 -foot frontages simply reinstates a previous lot pattern for the subject property; no evidence has been presented to support a finding that two homes on the subject property will be out of character with "the locality." In fact, two homes on the subject property will be more consistent with the immediate neighborhood and the vast majority of the locality. Finally, the applicant proposes to meet or exceed other City standards applicable to the proposed residence, including yard setbacks and building height as additional opportunities for compromise. This is in contrast to prior applicants who neither had a plan depicting concessions nor offered to make concessions on site plan design as part of their variance request. The City may only deny the requested variance for 6120 Brookview if it has a rational basis for doing so, supported by facts in the record. The overwhelming weight of City policies supports the requested lot split and reasonable use; no burdens will be imposed on the City nor on adjacent residents or the community at large; the City has an inconsistent practice of approving (and sometimes denying) variances for lot splits based on virtually identical facts. It is arbitrary and capricious for the City to selectively apply undefined variables, including which lots within the plat are selected for comparison to the request. While we respect the right of residents to raise concerns and objections to the proposal, the City's obligation is to weigh all relevant facts and apply the law consistently and fairly. In this instance, doing so leads to the inescapable and legally compelled conclusion that the requested variances for 6120 Brookview are appropriate and reasonable. Thank you for considering this request to approve the variances for the subject property. erely Peter J. Coyle, for LARKIN HOFFMAN DALY & LINDGREN, Ltd. Cc: JMS Custom Homes, LLC Elliott Knetsch, Esq. 1401094.1 r y�ri,,g ExPIIP RECEIVED � EDINA EDUCATION FUND MAR z 8 1012 March 27, 2012 JMS Custom Homes 5250 W. 74th St, Suite 8 Edina, MN 55439 Dear JMS Custom Homes, Thank you for your donation to the Edina Education Fund. We are grateful for your support of Edina Public Schools.. We have received the following donation from you: $1,000.00 on March 12, 2012 via Check 268o Golf & Tennis Hole Sponsor The Edina Education Fund is looking forward to the differences you are allowing us to make across the school district. Our goal is to continue to keep our students at the forefront of the future and global challenges ahead. The Edina Education Fund has, been working closely with Edina Public Schools leadership to provide sup pork in maintaining excellence in our schools. We are excited to support three new initiatives: a Writing Center at South View, Math Center at Valley View and a new online digital learning website "Ecademy" for Edina students, their families and the community. We also recently funded 15 Innovation Grants throughout the district. Your contribution is fully tax- deductible...The Edina Educati on Fund did not provide any goods or services: in conslde ation for the contribution an is organized and operated un. er IRS code`5oi(c)(3). Please . contact me with any questonst. Sincerely; y Karen Nelson �,_ (S) Executive. Director BOARD OF DIRECTORS S T R E N G T H E N I N G O U R C O M M U N I T Y Nancy Schoenwetter, Vice President Jeffrey Sch.o:enwetter; Chairman and. CEO JMS Custom: Homes.. LLC 5250 West 74( .Street #8 Edina, MN 55439 BRAD BEARD Dear Nancy and Jeff, July 14, 2011 BERNIE BEAVER Thank you very much for your. recent $2.5,000 Founders Club pledge ANN B E NT DA H L commitment to the :Edina Cornmunity. Foundation .and your first annual pledge payment of $5,000. You may remember that 1/4 of that will be designated PETER DAH I. for our endowment, 1/2 for out general:.program services and.operations and G R E T H E D I L LO N 1/4 for program service grants to worthy programs in the cominunity. Your continuing support of all. these areas. is very important to our continued JAMES B. H OV LAND success in our mission of Strengthening. Our Community. BONNIE McG RAT H I think you would enjoy visiting our recently improved. website- edinacon munityfo>.uidation.Oig to see. the. range'of programs we're able to PAUL MOOTY provide to :the communia with your support. You:can ai o see some brief TIM MURPHY bios of our current Board members and View your significant role .in our Foundation as Founders Club members by'.click rig on Contributions and then BRENDA Ci_U AY E sustaining Donors. CA R O LY N S C H RO E D E R You-have not received. any tangible. consideration or compensation for this contribution, :although.we will do our best to feature your company as one JAMES VAN VALKENBURG of the local firms that play a key role in making our community work GEOF WORKINGER possible. We are a501, (c) (3) organization approved by the Internal Revenue Service and the Minnesota Attorney General, and our Federal ID # is 41 1315037. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR DICK CROCKETT Thank you for your.generous contribution, and please contact me if you.have. any sug11 gestions for how we might:.better serve the Edina community. We' be. scheduling: another I3onors Reception later this year and I hope to see both of you there. Since ely, ZZ Dick Crockett. Executive Director cc: Peter Dahl 5280 GRANDVIEW SCZUARE , EDINA. MINNESOTA 55436 • (952) 833 -9573 - FAX: (952) 833 -9575 edfuundadon@ci.edina.rnn.us www .edinacommunityfoundation.org C RO� N BANK 6600 FRANCE AVENUE SOUTH, SUITE 125 EDINA, MINNESOTA 55435 April 12, 2012 Mr. lames Hovland, Mayor % City of Edina ' 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 -1394 RE. !MS Companies Dear Mr. Hovland. The following summarizes Crown Bank's relationship with JMS Companies. The affiliates and principals of JMS and potential construction / development financing for the site located at 6120 Brookview, Edina, MN. Crown Bank has had a long term relationship with JMS and more specifically the principals of JMS, Jeff and Nancy Schoenwetter, spanning over 10 years. All past loan obligations and construction projects have been handled as agreed. I can tell you that JMS and Its affiliates are a long standing construction / development company and have a strong reputation in the Edina, Eden Prairie, Minnetonka and Savage communities. They have significant experience and knowledge in each community where they have built homes and developed communities. Currently Crown Bank has several projects with JMS and affiliated companies with total loan commitments in excess of $3M. This'exemplifles our confidence in JMS. In all Instances both historically and currently JMS has delivered results as agreed. JMS is a valued client of our bank. All JMS projects are completed within budget and ahead of schedule. _ Please do not hesitate to contact me at 952 - 285 -2721 should you have any other questions. V , Kevi4Ho- President 952- 285 -5800 (PHONE) 952-285-5900 (FAX) CROWN- BANK.COM 0 NORTH AMERICAN BANKING COMPANY April 12, 2012 RE: Reference Letter for Jeff and Nancy Schoenwetter /JMS Custom Homes, LLC To Whom It May Concern: Please accept this as a reference letter for Jeff and Nancy Schoenwetter and their various companies including JMS Custom Homes, LLC. I am quite familiar with their respective financial histories as they have been clients of mine for well over 20 years. In my capacity as a commercial lending officer at several financial institutions during that span of time, I have provided them with financing for numerous residential development and home construction projects. All past deposit accounts and loan obligations have been handled as agreed. Jeff and Nancy have significant experience and knowledge in residential real estate, whether it be in sales, developing new residential neighborhoods or building homes in existing community neighborhoods. Please feel free to contact me at (612) 455 -1126 should you have further questions. Sincerely, Jo H. Arends Vice President North American Banking Company R O S E V I L L E M I N N E A P O L I S H A S T I N G S W O O D B U R Y WWW.NA BAN KCO.COM i Miroslava (Mickie) Turk 6141 Brookview Avenue Edina, MN 55424 mturkgisd.net 952- 925 -2352 April 13, 2012 Dear City Council Members, I am strongly objecting to a proposed subdivision of the property of 6120 Brookview Avenue, by JMS LLC. This company and its owner come to you with unclean hands, having hoodwinked the city once already, by ignoring the code of proper front setback and pouring a concrete foundation at below temperatures set by the state. Hoping for a future grant of a subdivision, JMS LLC built a gargantuan house on the south side of 6120 Brookview Avenue —on a 100 -foot lot —using an illegal front setback. JMS LLC also cut down two mature oak trees and destroyed the view of the park for the Whitbecks, who own the historic and oldest home in Edina, next door. Edina's minimum lot width as stated in the city code, is 75 feet. Please do not grant JMS LLC a variation on this sound and principled code, as it will forever change the appearance and unity of the neighborhood, while causing hardship for nearby homeowners who will have to start living smashed in, between out -of -place houses. A builder stands to gain only monetarily and only in the short term. He or she will not actually live in the neighborhood. But the entire neighborhood will suffer damage for a long time to come. People will lose their unobstructed view of the street and trees, and the ability to live harmoniously and in privacy next door to others in houses of similar structure and size. On the economic side, the smaller houses will continue to lose value forcing middle class folks to move away from Edina where they have nearby employment and their children are enrolled in school. The ideal scenario would be for JMS to move the 6120 Brookview house to the center of the lot. Short of that, the company has a wonderful opportunity to landscape the side lot and make the property once again, beautiful for the neighborhood. JMS has let it go too long. Respectfully, Mickie Turk Jackie Hoogenakker From: Joe Clay <j.c.35 @live.com> Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 5:36 PM To: Jackie Hoogenakker Subject: Sub - division Dear Edina City Council, I wish to protest any division of the lot on which the house across the street from our house is located. I opposed the sub - division when JMS builders first cut down the 2 healthy oaks a few years back & removed the nice house that fit into the neighborhood & built a large structure that resembles a warehouse. I still oppose any sub - division of that lot. Recall I told the parable of "the Arab & the camel's nose." That story is still has merit. Rev. Joseph P Clay 6117 Brookview Ave Edina, MN 55424 952- 920 -6952 4.12.2012 Jackie Hoogenakker From: J Victorsen <jvictorsen @earthlink.net> Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 4:16 PM To: Jackie Hoogenakker Subject: Neighbor Input on Case File #2008.0002.12a To Whom It May Concern, I am writing in support of the subdivision. In a land planning sense, a park, such as Pamela, should be a vital, vibrant place for children. It should be close enough for them to walk to it, dragging their sleds, to run to a soccer game, or bicycle to without their parents present. This block of Brookview is ideal for that scenario, because Pamela Park is easily and safely accessible; there are no heavily - trafficked streets to cross. That being said, this location on Brookview also has very convenient automobile accessibility, being within two blocks of both West 62nd Street and Valley View Road, and within four blocks of Crosstown Freeway. The first home, which my wife and I owned is 4544 France Avenue South. It's lot was similar in width to the proposed lot, and not much different in depth. It was very adequate for our household. (We moved because it was isolated and we felt our children were dangerous to the traffic on France Avenue. I am pleased to see sidewalks installed...twenty years later). Because of the prime location of 6120 Brookview, it is my opinion that JMS Custom Homes should be allowed to subdivide Lots 5 and 6, and given the requested variances. It does not make sense in today's world, to restrict such a fine location to single - family homes with large lots. Sincerely, Jon R. DeMars Victorsen P.S. I am a co -owner of the twinhome at 4242 -44 Valley View Road and a partner of Oaklawn Estates, the apartment building located at 4401 Valley View Road. As a child, I lived at 6220 Brookview and I am well acquainted with this property. Jackie Hoogenakker From: barbara nelson <barbellen6 @earthlink.net> Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 4:17 PM To: Jackie Hoogenakker Subject: JMS Subdivision of 6120 Brookview Attachments: 6120 Brookview letter 3912.pages To: Edina City Cotmcil Planning Department Planning Commission RE: Opposition to 6120 Brookview lot subdivision DATE: April 12, 2012 I am writing to express my strong opposition to allowing the JMS company to subdivide the lot at 6120 Brookview across the street from my property where I have lived for 23 years. I am sure that you have received many letters expressing all the legal reasons why my neighborhood is opposed to this. So I will just write from my heart that I am feel the initial lenience in favor of JMS allowing the building of the oversized house at 6120 Brookview has been a huge mistake. The placement of the house off center only 5 feet from the property line of the Whitbeck's historical Edina home is ridiculous as anyone who sees the house knows. I remember Mr. Schoenwetter claiming that he just chose this placement for no reason! It seems to me that he has manipulated and deceived the City and in turn all of the neighbors as to his intentions to maximize his financial gain from the beginning. Now, after this home is still not selling 2 years later and all that has gone on in tenns of carefully researched objections in the face of his bullying behavior, to allow him to get his way is just not right. It is a betrayal of the trust of all of us taxpayers and loyal residents of this neighborhood. Please take a stand. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Barbara E Nelson 6137 Brookview Ave S Edina, MN 55424 ben To: Edina City Council April 13, 2012 Cary Teague& Kris Aaker, Planning Dept. Scott Neal, City Manager From: Janey Westin & Charlie Hughes 6136 Brookview Ave., Edina Re: Proposed Subdivision of 6120 Brookview Ave., Edina; Fairfax, Block 23, Lots 5 & 6 Jeffrey Schoenwetter of JMS Custom Homes City Council Members and City Staff, We are strongly opposed to this proposed lot division. The City has Zoning Ordinance, Subsection 850.07, Subd. 20134a which states: "If a non - conforming lot or parcel is, or at any time since October 22, 1951, has been, held in common ownership with all or part of an adjoining or abutting parcel or lot which together comply with, or come close to complying with, the minimum width, depth, area, and lot width to perimeter ratio, requirements of this Section, then such non - conforming lot or parcel and such adjoining or abutting parcel or lot shall be considered as ONE LOT and SHALL NOT BE DECREASED IN SIZE below such minimum requirements. If in a group of two or more adjoining or abutting lots or parcels owned or controlled by the same person, any single lot or parcel does not meet the fall minimum depth, width, area or lot width to perimeter ratio requirements of this Section, such single lot or parcel shall not be considered as a separate lot or parcel able to be conveyed and developed under this code." The city minimum lot width is 75 feet. The City of Edina must follow the City's own laws and ordinances to protect home owners from intimidation and reckless harm from developers like JMS who demonstrate absolutely no consideration of neighboring homeowners. The history of how JMS has behaved regarding 6120 Brookview Avenue is a case in point: Late spring of 2008 -- Another developer (PalaudianBravura) attempted to divide 6120 into two 50 foot wide lots. He had a purchase agreement with a contingency of subdivision, planning to build 2 large houses and cut down a healthy, 91 foot spanning oak tree in the process. The neighborhood strongly objected, and it was not approved. The City followed Zoning Ordinance. JMS's then - president, Andy Porter, attended the proceedings. Mr. Palaudian then backed out of the purchase agreement. Within 2 days, JMS had bought it, before any neighbors could take other action. JMS then submitted plans to the City for a large, single home to be built, somewhat centered on the lot, (though too close to the street with a setback of 33 feet), but did not begin construction. Early October, 2008 -- JMS approached Jim Holan, Property ID Supervisor for Hennepin County, attempting to divide 6120 Brookview at the County level. Edina City Planning was called and alerted; JMS did not get a lot division because he had not applied for one, as required by Edina ordinance. Shortly thereafter, the existing rambler was removed by Otting House Movers (hired by JMS) and the large, healthy oak tree cut down. The open hole of the block wall basement remained with no fencing around it for more than 10 days through Halloween weekend, in spite of my phone call to City Inspections. Fall of 2008 -- JMS then submitted new plans which were approved by Planning, for a full two story home of extremely large size, and completely out of character and proportion to anything within 500 feet (the 'neighborhood' as defined by city ordinance). Mr. Schoenwetter had his surveyors place this new house completely within the south half of the parcel (Lot 6) as if JMS Custom Homes had a lot division, which JMS did not. JMS also had his surveyors position the house 8+ feet closer to the street than front setback code allowed. This position put the back wall of the JMS house further forward than the front north corner of the neighboring historic Whitbeck home to the south. This positioning completely robs the Whitbecks of any peace of mind when coming and going from their front door. It does NOT improve with the passage of time, and frankly, has a 'creepy' feeling about it. JMS has pled ignorance of understanding setback code, though this was the 35' or 36' home he built in Edina. In court, he also blamed this on his surveyor, though as the agent for his surveyor, JMS is the responsible party. From the moment the survey stakes were put in the ground in early December of 2008, it was clear that JMS's intent was to force the City to grant a subdivision of the property. A letter to the City in warning of this was written by neighbor and lawyer Joe Lawver (living directly across the street). It was read aloud as correspondence at the early December 2008 Planning Commission meeting. Not much comment was made, and it seems to have been basically ignored. December 22, 2008 -- JMS applied to the City for a building permit for the north half of 6120 Brookview, Lot 5. He had not applied for a subdivision. The permit was turned down, and noted in a memo of the same date, on file in Planning. JMS proceeded with construction on the south half of the parcel in December, 2008. The foundation was poured on the coldest day of that winter, when temperatures were way below code rules for concrete. It was not tented or blanketed, violating state concrete construction code. Nonetheless, it passed inspection, and construction continued. The Whitbecks, spoke with City Planning people and expressed concern with position of the house. Construction continued to the point of the wood frame shell being completed and the roofing materials half on. Finally, in early January 2009, after more complaints by the Whitbecks regarding position of the house, a stop work order was placed on the house by the City, and it was determined to be way too close to the street, by about 8 feet. JMS applied for a variance to allow the house to be as it sat, which was not granted. JMS also took the City to court to be allowed to continue construction, pleading that he would go out of business if the house couldn't be ready for the Spring 2009 Parade of Homes. After doing research, it seems that JMS's financial problems were due to numerous failed development projects, bankruptcies and lawsuits -- not this single house project. The Whitbeck's, the most affected party regarding this new JMS house, were not informed of JMS's first court appearance, and had no voice in the proceedings. The judge allowed JMS to proceed with construction. Construction usually started at 6:00 -6:30 am, in violation of city code. The house was finished and open for the Parade of Homes in February, 2009. It did not sell. In the fall of 2009, Nancy and Jeffrey Schoenwetter listed the house for sale through Prime Real Estate Services describing it as sitting on a 50 foot wide lot, not as a 100 foot wide lot. This was a clear violation of 3 Ethics rules of the Minnesota Association of Realtors. It was fraudulent information. No application for subdivision had been applied for. In an October 8, 2009 letter to Mr. Schoenwetter, former Edina City Manager Gordon Hughes advised Schoenwetter to accurately list the property size of 6120 Brookview Avenue. Jeffrey Schoenwetter sent a reply October 26'x, stating, "We do understand and respect your interpretation of city code. We may not necessarily agree with this interpretation." Interpretation ?M The Schoenwetters found a party to sign a 2 year contract for deed type of arrangement in December, 2009. At the end of the 2 years, in December, 2011, they moved out, not proceeding with the contract. 3 So, here things sit, with an oversize, completely out of place house, that could still be moved to the center of the 100 foot wide lot. Yes, this is possible. I have spoken with Offing House Movers, the company that moved the original home off the lot. They have experience moving houses, even 2 story houses, to a new position on an existing lot. It would not cost more than about $50,000 total (new foundation, water, sewer and moving). There are no obstacles on this lot that would hinder this type of repositioning. A Solution -- Since the. City of Edina is half responsible for.the current position of this house that does not sell, and clearly imposes on the Whitbeck home to the south, it is time for the City to work out a purchase of the home from JMS, minus moving costs. The City then. takes care of moving it, and then sells it at little or no loss. As it sits, it costs JMS in taxes, financing and maintenance costs, year after year. It is an:embarassment to the City of Edina. The neighbors have done no wrong here. If the house were centered sensibly on the lot, it :would sell, and give relief to the Whitbecks and the neighborhood. The City has purchased 'problem' properties before. An example is the former Roster's U- Haul/gas station at 4416 Valley View Rd., purchased by Edina in May of 2002. The City still owns this property and has no tax revenue from it. Schoenwetter has clearly created his own hardship. He has a reasonable use of the property with one house on it His 'practical difficulty' is the position of the existing house, which he and the City are responsible for and which can be remedied. Strangers that come by this house stop and ask us, 'What is it with the position of that houseT. JMS has thumbed his nose at City ordinances, seeming to think the 'rules' don't apply to him. He is not acting as a responsible developer, and should not be granted this request for a subdivision. The JMS house at 6120 Brookview Ave. is a problem that CAN be solved with enough political will. It is a'wrong' that.CAN be made right. Get the house moved to the middle of the lot. Janey Westin & Charlie Hughes A 44.89 w W W - — -, W w w w W N j v I � V . I ) m :tl tl �' I I �°a" �ma s;e 1712 ......... � 11198 22 W w W Yp uuII W a"'+ w �I w i I m_, C dfiAB w i w W m f w W w w 4sdx w a° � ° 'a. vW � w !' A w J 1451 w w W w w w w w I w w w w w w W B 1 uy � W Ij i - - w •{� %- r(�' -r— - - - 1 - -AVE - - - - - 1 ! I 1 1,78 I , 1 ........... •' ! I 1 1 \........... y/ .............. W '50 so so BB i m NORTH l7.Bx wA3 _ - _ V/'1KLl'1YY1V _ -AVE 54 35 / ZY w w so w y r Y 46 Y 1 _ 1 I n I w w I w w j w —W I- y ' W I i i ' __ J______ --- _ ____ e �- a • °� �/ w _ w ® w - _ go w - - - - •• -- 1j - - - BR90K-HtEW - -- - - q'�fE —�-- 117.13 17978 G NORTH Cn 43A2 W w w w w w w 1 j w w w w w J w w is - _ w' MY 1 '� O Z .-. .. L" fy >r .._ hJ )r m ! tl 1 P�I Itl• "� a . ig is p I- 171.88 /yam 31 1w W W W W w so W - -68 - -W__ -I .W. .. it ^:_ -- j {-- 6Q- 4 -_BG— I w W W 50 _ -- -- d` S g J' ° Y� !6 fj 'r i• - - -_� - I� -' - 7 N ,y o u ° N - :1 !g :g V o i i I 79x.42 BOU7N : 148 __ __................ r °•' -•- i I j I r_ i __'________i____'_'" __ L 'C "_" �W I ---- '-- i" 46J7 W ! w ' W so w I W W ® I w rs I W w t }- W wso LI _ NDELL D N 145 - - ! - _- - - - Y.I �_• 16897 .:. zou ._. _ �� ` - - 249 .:. - -.. __ _�._.. yne7.w �so•oze - __ - i37s— NADDN KIDD \ A 1 _ _ _'•1�,'- - O 73892 V , ` - - N (—, O ~ m 0 Z D _ z -o - •_ ( C m 00 m 80 m Z • : '� _ _ fZT1 CO ~ rD A O 0 N O _1 44.89 w W W w w W w w w W N w V . I ) m :tl tl �' I I �°a" �ma s;e o�� � 11198 w W w W w W w so w �I w i I dfiAB w i w W m f w W w w 4sdx w a° � ° 'a. vW � w A w W W ID OD v 01 N A N I W W W W W W w W w 43A8 w W w W w w w w w •Wm W N w V . I ) m :tl tl �' I I �°a" �ma s;e o�� W BU ! W w W w p O.'v -mN 3..O o i I dfiAB w i w W m f w W w w 4sdx w w j' 1 W O7 w � w A w W W N W w w! I w w W w w i'uvW ' Ilps � II Ou g ?-' � N_', � •Wm -, B7 4.i +r 1 w N w V . I ) E _. �� I I ID W BU ! W w W w FO. ,-► 9 o o !; ` *3 o °3 o 500 FT. NEIGHBORHOOD EXHIBIT for: Carlson JMS CUSTOM HOMES, LLC ) E _. �� • McCain S. p O.'v -mN 3..O o m O FAIRFAX 4TH ADDITION ENVIRONMENTAL • ENGINEERING • SURVEYING N z � N , Q 248 Apollo Dr, suite 100, Lino lakes, MN 55014 9 o � o�3� Edina, Minnesota Phone: 763-489-7900 Fax: 763-489-7959 LEGAL DESCRIPTION PROPERTYOWNER ADDRESS AREA (S q. Ft.) WIDTH (Ft.) DEPTH (Ft.) L15 & N 1/21.14, 1119, FAIRFAX EG RAMBERG & MYKAGONOVICH 6037 Oaklai%m Ave 10,047 75 133.88 L13 & S 1/2 L14, B19, FAIRFAX JL DOW &'SA BOTTS 6045 Oaklawn Ave 10,046 75 133.86 L9, B19, FAIRFAX S KRANTZ & V KRANTZ 6032 Oaklawm Ave 6,691 50 133.90 L10 & N 1/21.11, B19, FAIRFAX RA SOLBERG ETAL 6036 0aklawa Ave. 10,035 75 ? 133.88 L12 & S 1/2 L11; B19, FAIRFAX MICHAEL SKINNER 6044 Oaklatvn Ave 10,033, 75 133.86 L13 & S 7/10 L14, B19, FAIRFAX DOUGLAS MAYO & WIFE 6041 -Kello Ave " 7,985. 60 133.86 L14, B19, FAIRFAX DAVIDLBRATTLANDETAL 60391elloggAve 5,392 40 133.87 L15,B19,FAIRFAX DAVIDJBERGESON 6037Kellog'gAve 6,689 50 133.88 L1, B22, FAIRFAX- JM DURR& JC POOL 6100 Oaklalvit Ave 6,707 % 50 133.84 L2; B22, FAIRFAX DAVID G ANDERSON ETA L 6104 Wklawa Ave 6,706 50 133.83 L3, B22, FAIRFAX L FLACK &'RLFIACK 6108 Oaklawn Ave 6,705 50 133.81 L4, B22, FAIRFAX JEFFREY STOEBNER 6112 Oaklalvn Ave 6,704 50 133.81 L5, B22, FAIRFAX W HENN AFFORD HSNG LAND TRUST 6116 0aklawri Ave 6,704 50 133.80 L6, B22, FAIRFAX BL STRANGIS & SL STRANGIS 6120 Oaklawn Ave 6,703 50 133.79 L7, B22, FAIRFAX BS GEORGE& SM GEORGE 6124 Oaklawn Ave 6,702 50 133.77 L8, B22, FAIRFAX IL CRAMER & E BILDSTEN 6128 Oaklaivn Ave 6,701 50 133.76 L9, B22, FAIRFAX JUL1E'A'STEINFR . 6132 Oaklalvn Ave 6,700` 50 133.75 L10,- B22,FAIRFAX LINDA M KNIGHT TRUST AGRMT 61360aklaiwnAve 6,706 50 133.74 Ll l & 12;' B22, FA IRFA X BURLEYS HA IR SA LON LLC 4404 Valley .View Rd 11,691 95 133.7 L13: B22; FAIRFAX EDINA VALLEYVIEW, LLC 4412 Valley View Rd 10,508 70 133.7 L14, B22, FAIRFAX. EDINA VALLEYVIEW, LLC 6133 Kellogg Ave 6,699 50 133.75 05, B22, FAIRFAX Q JOHN LASLEY 6129 Kellogg Ave 6,700. 50' 133.76 L16,B22,FAIRFAX CHARLOTT ELIZABETH RONNEi 6M KeUogg AVe 6,701 50 13337 L17,B22,FAIRFAX ANTONYRUSSELL & WIFE 6121 Kellogg Ave 6,701 50 1133.79 L18, B22, FAIRFAX JENNIFER C GREIG 6117 Kellogg Ave 6,702 50 133.80 L19,B22,FAIRFAX MARILYNEABRAM 6113 Kellogg Ave' 6,703 50 133.81 L20, B22, FAIRFAX R HARRELL & A HARRELL 6109 Kellogg Ave 6,704 50 133.82 L211 B22, FAIRFAX' EDWARD M DOYL.E & NANCY DOYLE 6105 Kellogg Ave 6,704 50 133.84 L72, B22, FAIRFAX SHIRLEYL GUTTKNBCHT 6101 KeHogg Ave - 6,705 50 133.85 L1, B23, FAIRFAX TG MOHER & SA MOHER 6100 Brookview Ave 6,709 150 133.85 L2, B23, FAIRFAX WS LANDGREN & M LANDGREN 6104 Brookview Ave 6,708 50 133.83 L3, B23, FAIRFAX SHARON KBRINGS 6108 Brookview Ave - 6,708 50 133.82 LA, B23; FAIRFAX CAROL A CARMICHIEL 6112BioolviewAve 6,707 50 133.81 L7 & L8'& N 25' OF L9, B23, FAIRFAX RB & JT WHITBBCK 6128 Brookview Ave 16,771 125 133.77 S 25' L9'& all of L10 & Ll 1, B23, FAIRFAX LT W ESTIN & CEHUGHS 6136 Brookview Ave 16,750 125 133.73 L12 B23; FAIRFAX DEBRA K LITTLE 6144 Brookview Ave 6,091 45.43 133.71 L13, B23, FAIRFAX CECILIA JA ISLE 6145 Oaklawn Ave 6,098 45.47 133.71 L14,B23,FAIRFAX PA SCHAEFER ETA L SUBJ/LE 6141'OaklawvAve 6,706 50 133.72 L15, B23, FAIRFAX SHARONKSAGEL . 6137 Oaklawn Ave 6,707 50 133.74 L16, B23, FAIRFAX CAROLYN A BARRET 6133 Oaklawn Ave 6,707 50 133.75 L17, B23, FAIRFAX KENNETH R DEVRIFS 619 Oaklawv Ave 6,708 50 133.76 - L18, B23, FAIRFAX JP GOOD & LA NOVAK 6125 Oaklawn Ave 6,709 50 133.77 L19, B23, FAIRFAX KRISTEN A SMYTH 6121 Oaklawn Abe 6,709 50 133.79 1.20; B23, FAIRFAX DOUGLAS A & JENNIFER NELSON 6117 Oaklawn Ave 6,710 50 133.80 L21, B23, FAIRFAX DN KAPKE & CJ KAPKE 6113 Oaklawn Ave' ` 6,710 50 133.81 L22 & L23,-B23, FAIRFAX JG & MM BOHLANDER 6109 Oaklawn Ave ',:' 13,422 100 133.82 L24,B23,FAIRFAX DANNY ERWIN UHRHAMMER 6101Oaklawn'Ave 6,712 S0 133.85 L13, B24, FAIRFAX RC & ACMOONAN 6143 Brookview Ave 6,083 45 133.71 L14,B24,FAIRFAX MLROSLAVA TURK 6141'BioolviewAve 6,698 .50 133.72 1.151B24,FAIRFAX, BARBARAENLISON 6137BroolwiewAve " 6,699 50 133.74` L16, B24, FAIRFAX DM & SB NELSON 6133 Brookview Ave 6,700 50 133.75 L17, B24, FAIRFAX AM & KM RALLY 6129 Brookview Ave;' 6,700 50 133.76 L18 & L19, B24, FAIRFAX JOSEPH LAW VIII ETAL „ 6121 Brookview Ave 13,402 100 133.78 110 & S25' I21, B24, FAIRFAX JP & MRCLAY . 6117 Brookview Ave 10,047 75 133.80 W 72' LS & E 5'19, B2, LAKE PAMELA KNS & AR STEINERT 4128 62nd St W` 15,400 77 200 Part W ofE S, L9, B2, LAKE PAMELA EARL P HOLDRIDGE ETAL 4132 62nd St W 21,003 105 200 Ll,BI, FINDELL ADD. PHIL & PAMELA J BERLJNG 4129'62nd;StW 10,876 75 145 Part ofOLI, NLYofL2,B1, HIPPES PAMELA C & L WALLIN 4213 62nd St W 15,516 126.66 1385 APT OWN 9.4 VALLEYVIEW ESTATES UNKOWN 6201 Brookview Ave �20 ,260 162.9 125.5 E45.33' ofNE 1/4 W ofBROOKVIEW AVE GARY& JANET GNOBLE 430162nd St W 4,425 453 96 Part OfNE 1/4W ofBROOKVIEW AVE GARY& JANET GNOBLE 4305 62nd St W 7,406 70.4 42.5 Ll, Bl, VICTORSENS VALLEYVIEW D & B EDINA LLC 4301 Valley View Rd 28,873 157.9 184.7 E 133' of W 658' ofN 268 of NW 1/4 of NE 1/4 VICTORSENS RENTAL 4401 Valk , View Rd 25,509 1133 212.9 E 2W of W 525'of N 159 of NE 1/4 VMVICTORSENETALTRUSTEES 4415 Valley View Rd 34,482 1200 170 MEDIAN LOT WIDTH MEAN LOT WIDTH MEDIAN LOT DEPTH MEAN LOT DEPTH 50.0 Ft. 66.9 Ft. 133.8 Ft. 136.6 Fl. MEDIAN LOT AREA MEAN LOT AREA 6,707 Sq.Ft. 9,420 Sq.Ft. %1 r I f S v 0 al Ln L9 Ln m n Z ' CD CO� ? vi NYC J Z o X - ", -Z J V' 15, o 0 rn L Z 00 W " to M 0 M 0 > c w 0. Q 0 . 00 a N F- ca U W A C C fu C ®° x ® aCl) C 002 W 4 U L W Fd J. r-j L6 ®' Ln REVISIONS DRAWN BY: C* I hereby certify to that. this survey, plan or report was prepared by my on under my. direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the Slate of Minnesota. Dated this 18th day of July, 2011. a° A. Thomas R. Balluff,-LS. Reg No. 40361 2 of 2 m u N N L o0 E I I A rp a l 04 z Shrub row., 0 Pinch Top G EXISTING GARAGE / GFE= *896.5 /I LIZZZZ12-,, PRELIMINARY PLAT of FAIRFAX 4TH ADDITION EXISTING HOUSE / 1 - -±27 9 - - - - -� FFE=±B97.5 j V OWNER' CAROL A CARMICHIEL ' I (Plat= 33.80) Bituminous N89 R30 W Driveway \ 13 I North line[ of Lot 5, Block 23, "FAIRF)X °. `PP \ \ Ln N T,7 /— F 10 ------ - - - - -- -- — — — — — — — Ix -- EXISTING GARAGE ( ' / Spruce Trei GFE = ±897.0 1 c A II I / I o B L 0 C K DOWNER: I / I I\ in j DOUGLAS A & n JENNIFER NELSON I I I/ I R r\ 3: o= O �F, oa) ao v Z d2 w¢ 0z Y Shed is on Property Line, more or less. -- 1/2" Oper Y 0 z ( IN FEET ) L /2" Open rn m 1% r m L— — — — — — — — — - - - -- -- J L 133.8 403E ° n / ( GM -- M -HT Ice Tree � IJ I \ 6120 BROOKMEW AVE. v r j EXISTING HOUSE 2 IV FFE= *895.8 GFE = ±894.9 I w w22.0/// Z/ - -- - - - -- *44.6--- - - - - -- / — �f��-I�It//, 10 L -0— is \ L0 Oak Tree udI 2 ±31.6—--- - / / i0.0 C 0 N E a I 5 10 I II % A --T— x abS 7-- `South line of J,6t 6, 1/2 ",ripen 'I I SHE / a Ee,ce N89 °4609 WI Block 23 " AIRFAX Wa° (Plat = 133.7 8 Gravel OWNER: i Driveway RICHARD & JACQUELINE ITBECK N \ D EXISTING HOUSE 00 FIFE ±895.6 GFE = *895.0 / `y 0) Do BENCHMARKS 1. TOP NUT OF HYDRANT LOCATED AT THE SE CORNER OF 81 E. �� LEGAL DESCRIPTION BROOKVIEW AVENUE. ELEV. � 884.55 2.TOP NUT OF HYDRANT LOCATED AT THE NE CORNER OF 62ND SIREET & Lots 5 and 6, Block 23, 'FAIRFAX . BROOK= AVENUE ELEV. = 880.28 Hennepin County, Minnesota RLS #17009 1 � II 1 m�N� Io I ° IJ �ooa U)`� K J TOTAL AREA W N 4 LOT 1 In — LOT 2 00 Do I 0 I 1 0 ^ ON UM ^ 0. rn ;> 0 10 20 ( IN FEET ) L /2" Open rn m 1% r m L— — — — — — — — — - - - -- -- J L 133.8 403E ° n / ( GM -- M -HT Ice Tree � IJ I \ 6120 BROOKMEW AVE. v r j EXISTING HOUSE 2 IV FFE= *895.8 GFE = ±894.9 I w w22.0/// Z/ - -- - - - -- *44.6--- - - - - -- / — �f��-I�It//, 10 L -0— is \ L0 Oak Tree udI 2 ±31.6—--- - / / i0.0 C 0 N E a I 5 10 I II % A --T— x abS 7-- `South line of J,6t 6, 1/2 ",ripen 'I I SHE / a Ee,ce N89 °4609 WI Block 23 " AIRFAX Wa° (Plat = 133.7 8 Gravel OWNER: i Driveway RICHARD & JACQUELINE ITBECK N \ D EXISTING HOUSE 00 FIFE ±895.6 GFE = *895.0 / `y 0) Do BENCHMARKS 1. TOP NUT OF HYDRANT LOCATED AT THE SE CORNER OF 81 E. �� LEGAL DESCRIPTION BROOKVIEW AVENUE. ELEV. � 884.55 2.TOP NUT OF HYDRANT LOCATED AT THE NE CORNER OF 62ND SIREET & Lots 5 and 6, Block 23, 'FAIRFAX . BROOK= AVENUE ELEV. = 880.28 Hennepin County, Minnesota RLS #17009 1 � II 1 m�N� Io I ° IJ �ooa U)`� / 1100 I —> I I / I I I f -' I q0 o I - SITE DATA i I 6� I I I TOTAL AREA 0.31 AC. I I N I 2 LOT 1 In — LOT 2 6,671 S.F. Do I R1 I 1 I I I L' J I ^ ON UM ^ Q. rn ;> DESIGNED BY: M Z 0 o ^ ao a `� J o ci Of C. W Q L 2 Do a R N L I I w LIJ C� I I r YJ I / 1100 I —> I I / I I I f -' I q0 o I - SITE DATA It TOTAL AREA 0.31 AC. NUMBER OF LOTS 2 LOT 1 6,676 S.F. LOT 2 6,671 S.F. EXISTING ZONING R1 PROPOSED ZONING R1 a U a W a: C� W En 0 W s W 0 0 _ o_ 0 UTILITIES AVAILABLE SETBACK DATA FRONT YARD: 29.8 FT. SIDE YARD: VARIES WITH BUILDING HEIGHT (5 FT. MIN.) REAR YARD: 25 FT. PROPOSED DRAINAGE AND UTIUTY EASEMENTS ARE SHOWN THUS: I I -- J s 5 L -- ° being 10 feet in width and adjoining right of way fines and 5 feet in width and adjoining lot lines, unless otherwise indicated on this plat. LEGEND - - > - -= EXISTING SANITARY SEWER - -I - -= EXISTING WATERMAIN - -oe - -= OVERHEAD UTILITY LINE MH O = SANITARY MANHOLE EM O = ELECTRIC METER L0-3 = POWER POLE GM = GAS METER • = IRON FOUND MONUMENT con Do J J M? NOTES 1) Bearing shown hereon are based on the south of Lot S. Block 23, "FAIRFAX'. which Is assumed to bear N89 '46'09"W. SHEET INDEX 1. PRELIMINARY PLAT 2. GRADING, DRAINAGE, UTILITY AND TREE PLAN Z g o Isal Ilras in 0 Q Q C Z F r J w UJ LL a a U. J .J °0 i tff 'S W N F- � d rYt N � U 0 i N _ a L z N � �5= 0 n ° II l0 0 N y 'v 00 0 3: w N U s In (A N \ !� In O i N n \ It report was pnepared by me or —de, my 14 U 0 rn Z In REVISIONS ^ 1. z l O C3 V Y tD Z ^ 3. w � U L-L J 4. Z �w o0 ^ ON UM s rn Q. Gum BY: c! w N � z 0 to o o DESIGNED BY: M Z 0 o ^ ISSUE DATE: 01/111/12 o ci Of C. W Q L 2 Do a R N Z g o Isal Ilras in 0 Q Q C Z F r J w UJ LL a a U. J .J °0 i tff 'S W N F- � d rYt N � U 0 i N _ a L z N � �5= 0 n ° II l0 0 N y 'v 00 0 3: w N U s In (A N \ !� In O i N n \ I hereby MMFV that this survey. Wan or ° 3 report was pnepared by me or —de, my TJ REVISIONS o 1. a` z v 3. r 4. cc n 6. Q. Gum BY: c! C DESIGNED BY: M V ISSUE DATE: 01/111/12 I hereby MMFV that this survey. Wan or ly report was pnepared by me or —de, my dins su"Md- sM that i am a duly licensed land SUNeyor under the laws of me Stale of Mines"'. t< r Name: Thomas R Baall�luNyL�S. r Signature: uJC A/V/ C Dale: 01 /111112 lJCense !: 40361 — (, I C 1 Of 1 2 L lit --PP f ISTING GARAG� GFE =896.5 L -1 1� <��I •SILT 0 II • •I FENCE En N 1l�`1 0.. 96.0 L - -� - -. • • • • • • • • MN F -]Spruce reel - - - - - - - I I I IL Ook Tree - - 27.9' - - - -� 1j I �XISTING� HOUSE 1 t O 0 / LLI I /� Lrn 4 00 _= 29.8' - -- Sgruce ree i . ROCK \ coo - T�ucTI01� ENTRPNCE 11 EXISTING HOUSE / Il FFE =895.8 GFE =894.9 i i I A I II �l �= / �IA I I 2 I1 /EXISTING/ /{ I/ SHED /.- � TI�G HO S� FFE = 895.6 > GFE =895.0 I DID GRADING PLAN LOT KEY ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE - M W n U I03 �{ W II U) 0 W Iz 5 La; w I U 0- X S U N W > Q I N W Q' d 3: V) 4. LEGEND BOUNDARY LINE N EXISTING PROPERTY LINE EXISTING CURB LINE - -_ -»- E)BSTING STORM SEWER - ->- EXISTING SANITARY SEWER _ 894-- - -I- EXISTING WATER MAIN EXISTING V CONTOUR -895- EXISTING 5' CONTOUR - - - - EXISTING EASEMENT LINE e e • • • - PROPOSED SILT FENCE 5 10 20 -894- PROPOSED 1' CONTOUR �89`� PROPOSED 5' CONTOUR c IN FEET) X69,2 PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION GOVERNING SPECIFICATIONS 1. THE 2005 EDITION OF THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION "STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION' AND THE CITY OF EDINA'S SPECIFICATIONS. 2. THE LATEST EDITION OF THE MINNESOTA MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES (MMUTCD). 3. THE LATEST EDITION OF THE CITY ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION OF SPECIFICATIONS. '4-- - - - - -- 3 N W N BLOCK NO. DRAIN 8 UTILITY I-- I EASEMENT LOT Nil. SURFACE DRANAGE I ` HOUSE TYPES F- 1 1 CONSTRUCTION NOTES R - RAMBLER OR SPLIT GROUND ELEVATION J 962.0 1. INSTALL SILT FENCE PRIOR TO S)iE CONSTRUCTION. � Z ENTRY O BUILDING Q WITH INLET LO - RAMBLER LOOKOUT Z 0 Z 2. PROTECT ANY EXISTING STREET CATCH BASINS ,,I YY M OR SPLIT ENTRY WALKOUT RECOMMENDED Q a M \ U N WO - RAMBLER WALKOUT GARAGE SIDE 0 I CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE FOR SITE ACCESS. SE -SPOT ENTRY FINISHED ELEVATION 1- SWO -SIDE WALKOUT TU -TUCK UNDER O LOT CORNER- - -I - F STREET R IN.) MIN. I I I N I I ZZZXI P�001 I x~WmI al rr)W m N gi41�JQ'1 01 O)> Q =) 0 x cr t01 0 LL) 0 ; I i d LIJ 0 W' �- w 0�QJI I • �Z(L I •: <°WZ i 1• I I • I I • I I • is T For I I I WI Z1 I WI X� �I I I I I �I six - -> -� W >1 � I Y 01 I m I I I I I 1 � I I I I 1 I I CALL BEFORE YOU 00 q5. Know whars below. 0811 before you dig. The subsurface unity bHormation shown oar this plan is utility Duality Level D. This quality led was determined o -ordmg to the guidd'ates of O /ASCE 38-02, entitled 'Standard Guideline for the Collection and Depiction of Existing Subsurface Utility Data.' fi o ' O W m Wa L) F- > in Ld N X W U LLI = Q M W n U I03 �{ W II U) 0 W Iz 5 La; w I U 0- X S U N W > Q I N W Q' d 3: V) 4. LEGEND BOUNDARY LINE N EXISTING PROPERTY LINE EXISTING CURB LINE - -_ -»- E)BSTING STORM SEWER - ->- EXISTING SANITARY SEWER _ 894-- - -I- EXISTING WATER MAIN EXISTING V CONTOUR -895- EXISTING 5' CONTOUR - - - - EXISTING EASEMENT LINE e e • • • - PROPOSED SILT FENCE 5 10 20 -894- PROPOSED 1' CONTOUR �89`� PROPOSED 5' CONTOUR c IN FEET) X69,2 PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION GOVERNING SPECIFICATIONS 1. THE 2005 EDITION OF THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION "STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION' AND THE CITY OF EDINA'S SPECIFICATIONS. 2. THE LATEST EDITION OF THE MINNESOTA MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES (MMUTCD). 3. THE LATEST EDITION OF THE CITY ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION OF SPECIFICATIONS. o rn Ln ON ? n t = _ > m O•� n Ln N W UO a 2 J rc O X W C W J UL U- O O a W O O W '� VizN ON `Z o to 0 0 n > y W CL 0 a GD a N N W N MINNESOTA (CEAM) STANDARD U 0 } O &� F- I a F- F<- F- CONSTRUCTION NOTES J Z U J I 1. INSTALL SILT FENCE PRIOR TO S)iE CONSTRUCTION. � Z O Q WITH INLET Z 0 Z 2. PROTECT ANY EXISTING STREET CATCH BASINS M 0 IN PROTECTION DEVICES. Q a M \ U N 3. AFTER EXISTING DRIVEWAY REMOVAL, INSTALL ROCK Z EE 0 CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE FOR SITE ACCESS. W C 0 Ce CU Q C aiS i' I_ SUBGRADE CORRECTION DETAIL Q m a L VARIES Q H I U. 0.5' TOPSOIL GRADING GRADE AR ES SO' PROPOSED FINISHED GRADE GRADE .._. U - -. _, ... :EXISTING ,,, F, `.� ` e- 3`._'::.E..�L`... -v,. Z. J J c0 5rgfA. �M/ le UNIT OF SUBGRADE EXCAVATION u SELECT BACKFlLL MATERIAL \ '00L. W Ln Chi 01 UN5(14/1, O CU NON - SELECT BALKFlLL MATERIAL SD Ln Ln NON- SELECT uAtc COMPACTED BACKFlLL BACKFlLL MATERIAL 10' �! y COMPACTED BACKFlLL N BOTTOM OF UNSTABLE MATERIAL G D ~ in CU U I w U o SILT FENCE N I i n E"1 ANCHOR W/ METAL T -POST OR WOOD 2'X2' STAKE r, I J . DIRECTION OF FLOW a FILTER FABRIC (36' MAX HEIGHT) OPENING IN FABRIC WEAVE < 212 pm TRENCH UNDISTURBED SOIL NOTES: 1. DIG A 6'X6' TRENCH ALONG THE INTENDED SILT FENCE LINE. 2. DRIVE ALL ANCHOR POSTS INTO THE GROUND AT THE DOWNHILL SIDE OF THE TRENCH. 3. POSTS SHALL BE SPACED A MAXIMUM OF 6 FEET APART. 4. LAY OUT SILT FENCE ALONG THE UPHILL SIDE OF THE ANCHOR POSTS AND BACK FILL 6'X6' TRENCH. 5. SECURELY ATTACH SILT FENCE TO ANCHOR POSTS W/ MINIMUM OF THREE ATTACHMENTS PER POST. 6. SEE MNDOT SPECIFICATIONS 2573 At 3886. REVISIONS L 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. DRAWN BY: Tnt DESIGNED BY: 7M ISSUE DATE o1noA2 0 R I here W -- tlrat [NS plan, spealas; dreport was preparrd ay me or under my S ire" a.peMgw aM that I am a duty ll¢nsed Pnresslonel Englneer under N! laws or the State or Hlh-- w Name: Bdan 1. KrystoflaR. P.E. Signature: n Date: 01 120/12 License #: 25063 r pp 01 _ f 4 I ;4 "roRPORP`� "" \ lase REPORT /RECOMMENDATION To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL Agenda Item Item No. VIII.A. From: Debra Mangen City Clerk ® Action ❑ Discussion ❑ Information Date: April 17, 2012 Subject: Resolution No. 2012 -59 Accepting Various Donations ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt Resolution. INFORMATION /BACKGROUND: In order to comply with State Statutes, all donations to the City must be adopted by a resolution approved by four favorable votes of the Council accepting the donation. I have prepared the attached resolution detailing the various donors, their gifts and the recipient departments for your consideration. ATTACHMENT: Resolution No. 2012 -59 RESOLUTION NO. 2012 -59 ACCEPTING DONATIONS ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF EDINA WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute 465.03 allows cities to accept grants and donations of real City of Edina or personal property for the benefit of its citizens; WHEREAS, said donations must be accepted via a resolution of the Council adopted by a two thirds majority of its members. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Edina City Council accepts with sincere appreciation the following listed donations on behalf of its citizens. Edina Art Center David Barker Norma Christopher Joanne Boche Edina Park Department: Edina Community Foundation Dated: April 17, 2012 Vintage 1930's 16 mm Movie Projector three Oriental Art Instruction Books $100.00 $16,000.00 Attest: Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) SS CITY OF EDINA ) CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK Fairview Southdale Hospital — 4th of July Fireworks Display James B. Hovland, Mayor I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting City Clerk for the City of Edina do hereby certify that the attached and foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of April 17, 2012, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this City Hall 4801 WEST 50TH STREET EDINA, MINNESOTA, 55424 -1394 day of www.CityofEdina.com City Clerk 952 - 927 -8861 FAX 952 - 826 -0390 TTY 952 - 826 -0379 o Le )0 • •'�QOR 8B REPORURECOMMEN DATION To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL Agenda Item IX. A. DEBRA MANGEN F] Action From: CITY CLERK Discussion ® Information Date: APRIL 17, 2012 Subject: CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED SINCE LAST COUNCIL MEETING INFORMATION /BACKGROUND: Attached are copies of a -mails and letters received since the last Council meeting. /11 D'S /fir Fus0 SA- t,0 G^ 6-,0 D i o A C21?-.6 -r �O•JON -TN'IS c� i PHYSICIANS 01 Heart Fairview Southdale Hospital STEMI Door to Device Time Patient Arrival Via Ground Ambulance (Edina Fire) Date: 2/24/2012 i Patient Name M C W Risk Factors/ History W {� chest pain started around 1645 Presentation Description STEMI EMS Arrival at Scene 19:04 Ground Ambulance I o Time of ED Arrival 19:27 1 Time of First ECG in ED 19:29 Door to EKG: 2 Minutes Time of Cath Lab Arrival 19:49 Time of First Device 20:11 Cath Lab Arrival to first Device: 22 Minutes Treatment Outcome Successful aspiration thrombectomy and drug eluting stent to Proximal RCA Exclusion Delay EMS Arrival on Scene to Device Time: 67 MINUTES 1 ED Door /First Elevated ST to Device Time: 44 MINUTES "CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE" DO NOT READ THIS FAX IF YOU ARE NOT THE IN'T'ENDED RECIPIENT. The information in this fax contains confidential material, including'protected health information'. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review; retransmission, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you received this fax in error, please confidentially destroy and contact us immediately at the number listed below. No response indicates that the information was received by the appropriate authorized party. Telephone: (952) 924 -5245 Fax: (952) 924 -5295 Last Updated: 2/27/2012 1:24:37 PM ire P s+ • Providing o y 0 v o C y N � s � 3 Compassion March 23, 2012 N. C. Little Memorial Hospice, Inc. Chief Marty Scheerer Edina Fire Department 4801 West 50th Street Edina, Mn 55424 Dear Chief Scheerer: On behalf of all of us at Little Hospice, "thank you" for the extraordinary service you and your team of outstanding paramedics and firefighters provide to our community. This morning we were in need of your services once again and your personnel responded immediately and with clarity of purpose. What a great team. We have a terminally ill patient who is unresponsive and whose husband was coming to visit her. As he approached the driveway in the back of the hospice, he apparently had a cardiac arrest and fell to the ground. Someone was right there to summon our nurses to come out and help. The nurses began CPR while 911 was called and our nurses said almost right away the police followed by the paramedics in an ambulance and fire truck were on the scene. One of our employees took the enclosed picture from the upstairs office area. I arrived a few moments later myself and was so impressed by the work the paramedics were doing. Thanks to the professional work of your firefighters, the man was kept alive long enough to make it to the emergency room at Fairview Southdale Hospital. They gave him the best chance he could have; unfortunately, his cardiac event was too severe to survive and he died about two hours after arriving. We are truly blessed to have such dedicated and competent paramedics /firefighters /public safety people in our midst. Thank you for your leadership! Sincerely, N. C. Little morial Hospice, Inc. Pp— Robert J. Solheim Director 7019Lynnz l -Lane • Edina, MN554550 952.928.9394 • fas 952.925.3578 • ""'"littlebo. +pice.oiy �= �, y ♦ ;. � �� __ _.-- -- '54 ?�f��s Larkin Hof nan , ATTORNEYS April 12, 2012 Hon. James Hovland, Mayor Edina City Councilmembers City of Edina, 4801 W. 50th Street Edina, Minnesota 55424 Larldn Hoffman Daly & Lindgren Ltd. 1500 Wells Fargo Plaza 7900 Xerxes Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55431 -1194 GENERAL: 952-835-3800 FAX: 952 -819�6�- �3�3�3y3 �-Y WEB: www.Lukinhoffman.com Re: Preliminary Plat and Variances for 6120 Brookview Avenue Dear Mayor Hovland and Councilmembers: We represent JMS Custom Homes, LLC in connection with its proposed subdivision of 6120 Brookview Avenue into two lots. In this regard, JMS is seeking variances from the City's 75 400t minimum lot width standard to_ establish two lots of 50 -feet in width. A related lot depth variance for one -tenth of a foot is also requested with the subdivision. Approval of the preliminary plat and variances is reasonable for several practical reasons: 1. The requested subdivision will reinstate the historical lot dimensions for the subject property; 2. The requested lot dimensions in the after - condition, with 50 -foot lot frontages, will be more compatible with the immediate and surrounding neighborhoods of the City, including those lots immediately adjacent to, across from and behind the subject property; 3: The variances will allow a reasonable use of the newly created lot for a single - family home, which is consistent both with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance, as well as "the essential character of the locality "; and 4. The applicant has committed to making concessions on the site plan such as increased setbacks and other standards applicable to the proposed residence, to ensure it is very compatible with the existing neighborhood. City History of Recent Variance Decisions The City of Edina has allowed and disallowed subdivision variances for the same reasons, with no consistent . rationale for these decisions. In the staff report for the subject application, staff has documented three (3) separate variance approvals in recent years to create smaller lots than allowed by Code, all of which were approved, in part, due to their compatibility with the surrounding neighborhoods. Yet, the City Council recently voted to deny a variance for 6109 Oaklawn Avenue to establish two 50 -foot lots, notwithstanding the recommendation of the City's Planning Commission and staff. During the Planning Commission discussion on the 6109 Oaklawn site, City staff confirmed that the requested lot split was not a correction of a self- Hon- James Hovland; Mayor April 12, 2012 Page 2 imposed hardship as the prior subdivision creating the larger lot was not initiated by the applicant; staff also confirmed that denial of the variance would deprive. applicant of a reasonable use of his property, similar to the use rights enjoyed by other 50 -foot lot owners in the neighborhood. What seems most evident from the City's record of its recent decisions is the-documented lack of a rational basis for denial of the noted variances. Put differently, the City's actions on their face appear arbitrary. In the 6109 Oaklawn situation, while there were objectors, not a single resident objected that the variance being sought would impose a unique burden, on the neighborhood or establish an unreasonable use of the "property. Nor was any evidence presented that reflected an undue, burden on City services. For these reasons staff recommended the variances for the iot split and the Planning Commission agreed with their recommendation. New .Statutory Variance Standard Recently the Minnesota Legislature amended state law to provide a more flexible standard for municipal consideration of variance applications. The new standard replaced the so- called "undue hardship" standard which many cities and property owners had argued was too restrictive and limited reasonable land use requests which otherwise were consistent with local policies. The new standard also replaces the requirement that an applicant be able to demonstrate that'the subject property cannot be'put to a reasonable use without the requested variance. The new statutory standard provides: Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general- purposes and intent of the ordinance and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. Variances may be granted when the applicant demonstrates there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the ordinance; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Minn. Stat. 462.357, subd. 6(2) (enacted Laws 2011, Ch. 19). Applying the new statutory standard and the applicable facts to the subject property leads to the conclusion that variances for the lot split and lot depth are not only appropriate, but required. The proposed:.use of the site is "reasonable" as that term is defined in statute (a single family home is a guided and zoned use of the property); the practical difficulty is not imposed by the landowner but rather reflects a City standard that has been shown to be unworkable and impractical in long - established neighborhoods of the City;. the current lot configuration of 100 feet at the frontage line was- not created by the applicant, but rather by a prior owner's actions and exceeds by a significant margin the City's existing lot frontage requirements. Establishing. Hon. James Hovland, Mayor April 12, 2012 Page 3 two lots with 50 -foot frontages simply reinstates a previous lot pattern for the subject property; no evidence has been presented to support a finding that two homes on the subject property will be out of character with "the locality." In fact, two homes on.the subject property will be more consistent with the immediate neighborhood and the vast majority of the locality. Finally, the applicant proposes to meet or exceed other City standards applicable to the proposed residence, including yard.setbacks and building height as additional opportunities for compromise. This is in contrast to prior applicants who neither had a plan depicting concessions nor offered to make concessions on site plan design as part of their variance request. The City may only.deny the requested variance for 6120 Brookview if it has a rational basis for doing so, supported by facts in the record. The overwhelming weight of City policies supports the requested lot split and reasonable use; no burdens will be imposed on the City nor on adjacent residents or the community at large; the City has an inconsistent practice of approving .(and sometimes denying) variances for lot splits based on virtually identical facts. It is arbitrary and capricious for the City to selectively apply undefined variables, including which lots within the plat are selected for comparison to the request. While we respect the right of residents to raise concerns and objections to the proposal, the City's obligation is to weigh all relevant facts and apply the law consistently and fairly. In this instance, doing so leads to the inescapable and legally compelled conclusion that the requested variances for 6120 Brookview are appropriate and reasonable. Thank you for considering this request to approve the variances for the subject property. erely SL Peter J. Coyle, for LARKIN HOFFMAN DALY & LINDGREN, Ltd. Cc: JMS Custom Homes, L LC Elliott Knetsch, Esq. 1401084.1 4/13/12 To: Mayor Hovland and Edina City Council members Our city and state law s alone are reason enough to refuse the IMS proposatto subdivide the lot at -6120 Brookview. In addition, JMS knowingly and willfully diminished our quality of life by building a house 5 feet from out property and, in violation of code, 7 feet too close to Br6iokview. There was every, opportunity to do the tight thing and.bui.ld in the centefof the 100 foot1ot_ IMS did not care.to ',do what one . i would think is just Instead, IMS clearly assumed the 1 11 ?1 "doWt ask for permission but ask for forgiveness later was the mantra of day. Wei were tacitly denied our day in court. Please do not deny us again. Bad behavior should not be rewarded-. Included here is a letter from Joe Lawver at 6121 Brookview to Jeffrey Schoenwette r dated 12/5/08. This was prior to breaking ground at 6120 Brookview. Respectfully, Dick Whitbeck 6128 Brookview Ave Edina, MN 55424 MMSERU & JMAMER December 5, 20DS jefty. Sdhbenw. etter jMS Custom I,; ornes 5250 West 74th Street Suite 8 Ed-Ina, MN 55439 Re: Fairfax, Biotic 231 L6t5. and 6 MeaserlC &Kramer PJL WOMM St FW t"A MN F1WMens.iYeW Yoh Sow' wAWsconzah w6ws Dear Mr. Schoenwetter My Wife andi, five .246121 grookView Avenue, Edina, Minn.q66t a - Y our firm acquired, thepr.operty.-ditOpAly across from Os, sold and moved the existlAgh -0 se.And removed a _.u. beautiful oak -tree in excess of 250 yeafs,61d with the stated pUrposb that you intended to build a single home upon the lot. Unfortunately, I returned from w 6* yesterday and saw that your 6 . MPI-9yees h tines indicatijnj: your intent to Wild a home on had staked off the southem., half of the prope p rty. it a'Oears, your intention is to, subdivide the lot to build -a, second home on the northern half of the property. You are aware, that a prior developer 6ttempt.ed to subdivide the. propelty to allaw construction of two homes.on.the. site. This subdivision proposal garnered strong objection ftom. the neighborhood. The bUilder subsequenlly, withdrew his subd proposal and. told property the: to your firm. It is my understanding that in order'to ... subdivide the property a. variance will .be required and I hope that' the City. Planning Department did not mislead, you into thinking that thi s would be an easy.-process. I Specifically, I do not believe you can legally establish that a hardsti p 6' -XIMS or If so it is self-induced. The property is currently conforming and is well-su ' fted. for a single dwelling. . if you intend to seek a subdivision I would have :preferred that you be more direct.aInd seek approval prior to building on the,south lot: Your tactic appears to be an effort to cirpun! . vent the due process I afforded neighbors 10 object to proposed oposed subdjVW6ns-' bat you . have a I am. told, your. firm builds: quality' homes and your Website indicates P - comm.ftm.erit to. the co. m.munitles - that you serve. Unless I am mistaken at to your city and heig. borhoW to accept a rint6ryflops, your facbe,of trying to force the_ ap subdivision,6f the lot by proceeding prior to obtaining the prdva.lashOWS L a total disregard to the 'interests of the neighborhood. I ask that you reconsider the proposed construction and- return to the plan of building a single AWelIlAj uporv.the property. Mel • 1 . rTAA TDiDTTT - -- 3 • STAR TRIBUNE , SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2009 * tt n s s L i► l i Newh m s site s . s a i 1. es IEXOM /LOCAL THE STAFF Relerford Abunexom r Furst MOM avid Chanen ibune.com e Olson bunex= James Waist+ -unexom Brandt ibunexom )s am Barnes EDINA FROM B1 Neighbors such as Joseph Lawyer, who lives across the street, take a different view "He risks his reputation by building oversize homes on un- dersized lots in total disregard for neighbors," Lawver said. "He is treating us like idiots:' first,atear -duwln Until last fall, a modest ram- bler sat on the land. The owner was ready to sell, and a devel- oper who was interested in the property asked the city for per - missionto subdivide the double lot. The city said no. That devel- operbacked away. JMS bought the property, hauling away the old house and garage. Dick and Jackie Whitbeck live next door in ahistoric farm- house known as the Sly House. The Whitbecks have received an ' award for preserving the house, which was built.between 1866 and 1870, and they've been asked by the city to apply for historic status for the house. The Whitbecks say Schoen - wetter visited them last fall and talked about building two homes next door. Later, they said, he showed neighbors plans for one large house and offered to sell 25 feet of the property for $75,000 to $loo,000 so the ancient oak could be saved. Shortly afterward, JMS removed the tree. r Neighbors along Brookview Avenue in Edina are upset with the new house on their bloc -mai uiey Day ___° - -- - -- long B violates city rules. The new home, at rights next door to one of the city s oldest homes, left, which dates to the here naio'hborh0 zx7 rann(nt control The city discoverea me llvuac was 7 feet nearer the street than it should be, and on Jan. 7 issued a stop -work order. Schoenwetter got the order overturned in Hennepin Coun- ty District Court, arguing that stopping work in winter could jeopardize the structure as well as his business. He wanted to complete the house in time for the Parade ofHomes,whichbe- gins this month. Ten days ago, Edina's Zoning Board of Appeals denied JMS' request for a setback variance. .r,- _ ! _ __, Ur%PC hPfnre the he puts a house on a lot as long as it meets minimum setbacks;' Scott said. Schoenwetter is adamant that he has done nothing wrong, "I'm a good builder work- ing very hard in a tough econ- omy, doing the right things and complying with the letter of the law," he said. Before the new house was built, the Whitbecks could see Pamela Park from their front yard. Now the back of the new house is nearer the street than their front door is. Jackie Hoogenakker From: Dick Whitbeck <dwmusic @comcast.net> Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 12:08 PM To: Jackie Hoogenakker Subject: 6120 Brookview Ave Subdivision proposal 4/13/12 To: Mayor Hovland and Edina City Council Members From: Jackie Whitbeck 6128 Brookview Ave Edina, MN 55424 Re: Proposed subdivision of 6120 Brookview Avenue. �Qp* A\1" I wish to state my respectful opposition to the proposed subdivision of 6120 Brookview Avenue, and to the associated request for a variance. Dividing this property will not create affordable housing, will have a negative impact on the neighborhood, is not in harmony with the current 75 foot minimum lot size and does not comply with Minnesota statues and Edina city ordinances. Minnesota Statute section 462.375, sub division 6 (2) states "Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. `Practical difficulties' as used in connection with the granting of a variance means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manor not permitted by the zoning ordinance; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the land owner; and the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality." Cary Teague in his opposition to a recent subdivision on Brookview Ave, stated "The action or request by the applicant to subdivide the property causes the practical difficulty. The request to subdivide the lot causes the need for variances therefore, the practical difficulties are self - created." The situation here is similar. The applicant's need for a variance from the 75 foot frontage requirement has arisen solely because the applicant proposes to subdivide an already I � conforming lot and create two nonconforming lots. I cannot conceive of a clearer example of a self - created hardship. For this- reason alone I believe the applicant's request for variance, and associated subdivision should be denied. If the property is subdivided as proposed, a very drastic change will be wrought upon the essential character of the neighborhood.. The applicant's representatives have stated to others that the existing home of 6120 Brookview Ave (which was apparently sold for $849,000) is a model for the new construction. This is a very large home. This neighborhood currently consists of more modest cottage style homes of one and a half story, located in a wooded setting, and selling in the 200 - 300 thousand dollar range. This will alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The home this applicant already built on the property is a poster child for poor development. The very nature of a variance is that each property is unique in its characteristics and that the application of the zoning ordinance should be reviewed in light of the unique characteristics of that property. That is, each variance is by nature a de novo review. Precedent has no bearing in a variance case, except in the helpful guidance a prior example may provide. The council is not bound by prior precedent. The question is not what has the City done before, but rather what is unique about this property that requires the commission to waive the usual application of our development code and create two nonconforming lots from one conforming lot. I see no such uniqueness in this property. The planning commission has previously stated that a similar request for subdivision would restore the neighborhood to its original intent of 50 foot plots. Whose intend would-this be? Not the City's! I would like to draw your attention to city ordinance 850.07 subdivision 20 B. 4, which states that: "If a non - conforming lot or parcel is, or at anytime since October 22, 1951, has been, held in common ownership with all or part of an adjoining or abutting.parcel or lot which together comply with, or come close to complying with the minimum width, depth, area, and lot width to perimeter ratio, requirements of this Section, then such non - conforming lot or parcel and such adjoining or abutting parcel or lot shall be considered as one lot and shall not be decreased in size below such minimum requirements." It is the City's policy, indeed requirement, to create conforming lots out of nonconforming lots. Indeed, in the 350 foot radius surrounding the proposed subdivision, 25 % of the lots are greater than 50 feet (our own home, which predates subdivision, consists of three lots). The City's intent is for there to be 75, foot. lots, and where possible to combine nonconforming lots into conforming lots. The applicant however, proposes the opposite, he would create nonconforming lots out of a conforming lot. This is turning prior City policy on its head. At a recent meeting of the planning commission, it was pointed out by Commissioner FO]Test that the 850.07 sub 20 BA ordinance had not previously been .a part of their discussion. And when considering this code. it is a clear statement of intent with very strong wording as to what the city warns. Also noted was the fact tliat "code trumps plat ". The severe negative impact a subdivision would have on our us and our neighbors who have owned our properties for decades is beyond comprehension. We and others purchased our property in good faith based on city codes at the time. We deserve the utmost consideration. As neighbors to the property in question, we do not want this subdivision. This subdivision and variance will not be for the greater good, but will only put more money in one developer's pocket. Edina city ordinance 850.04 subd. 2 paragraph F basically says that the applicant must have a favorable finding on'all criteria for approval. This simply cannot be done in this case. No special benefits should be given to this applicant. In compliance with Minnesota statutes and Edina ordinances this application should be denied. Respectfully, Jackie Whitbeck April 13, 2012 To: City Council Members: Mayor James Hovland and Council Members Joni Bennett, Mary Brindle, Josh Sprague, Ann Swenson RE: Proposed subdivision by JMS Custom Homes LLC at 612o Brookview Avenue I am in opposition to the proposed subdivision. My home and property at 6112 Brookview Avenue sit adjacent to and north of the referenced JMS property. If the variation to build is approved, I will be greatly impacted. I have lived in my home over 35 years. JMS Custom Homes LLC seeks to subdivide his lot at 612o Brookview Ave. in order to build a second house. He does not have the required 75 feet left on the lot to build a second house. My driveway which is on the right side of my home is on a hill, Along with regular snow removal, I have relied on the southern sun exposure to melt ice and snow from my driveway and sidewalks in the winter months. The house that JMS Custom Homes LLC proposes to buildmill block that sun and light, causing hardship and difficulty for me. My feeling of privacy will,be altered with the proposed two story home design. Second floor windows facing north will mean that when I am in my back yard for gardening and bird feeding someone could look out the windows and watch me work and enjoy my home. Also, I am one of the few people who like to hang out their clean blankets and sheets on a clothesline for drying on a warm summer day. Again, I will lose that free feeling of privacy. I question whether Mr. Schoenwetter has taken into consideration City Code 850.11 single dwelling unit subdivision 2oB4 with regard to front and side setbacks for this proposed second home. If a non - conforming lot or parcel is, or at any time since October. 22, 1951 has been, held in common ownership with all or part of an adjoining or abutting minimum width, depth, area, and lot width to perimeter ration, requirements of this Section, then such non - conforming lot or parcel and such adjoining or abutting parcel does not meet the fall:minimum depth, width, area or lot width to perimeter ratio requirements of this Section, such single lot or parcel shall not be Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. ".Practical difficulties ,-" -as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes. to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted'by the zoning ordinance; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property. not created by the landowner; and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. I believe that JMS Custom Homes, LLC created the "circumstances" when he chose to build an oversized two story home extremely close to the historic home on the south"side; ignoring the legal codes for side and front setbacks. Also,; in order to buildhis oversized home he made the decision to remove a healthy.200 year old Savannah Oak Tree from the property. I believe that JMS Custom Homes, LLC created:the "practical difficulties" when he made the decision not to build one home,in the center of the lot. The "essential character" of the neighborhood was altered when JMS Custom Homes, LLC built an oversized two story home in a neighborhood consisting of 1 -1/2 story homes. This "essential character" of the locality will again be altered if the variance is granted for the ,building of another two -story home on the same lot. Most of the homes on Brookview Avenue are single story to 1/12 story homes. On April 3, 2012,, the Planning Commission voted against approving the requested variance. As a former member of the Edina Human Rights & Relations Commission (1995- 2005) this is the first time as an Edina- resident that I have considered my rights and that they maybe compromised .... my right to privacy and safety. Do the right thing City Council members..... deny this variance request. If you I pprove, a precedent will.be set., Future builders can use "bullying techniques" to build oversize homes in neighborhoods consisting of 1 -1/12 story homes. Thank you. Carol Carmichiel 6112 Brookview Avenue 'rl scouts river valleys. April 1, 2012 Mayor James Hovland City of Edina 4801 W. 50th St Edina, MN 55424 Dear Mayor Hovland, Girl Scouts of Minnesota and Wisconsin River Valleys is proud to have 83'girls receive their Girl Scout Gold Award, the highest award that a Girl Scout may earn. Among them, Emily Benson and Christin Palmstrom will be honored during a Girl Scout ceremony on May 20 or June 3, 2012. Please consider sending a certificate of recognition or a special congratulatory note. Girls must spend at least 80 hours planning and implementing her project, which includes determining a need in the community. and developing innovative ways to address it. These 83 River Valleys Girl Scouts from the Twin Cities metro area, southern Minnesota, and western Wisconsin collectively contributed more than 7,000 hours to make the world a better place working on Gold Award projects. The Girl Scout Gold Award has been described as being "what you really want to be remembered for" in Girl Scouting. Each girl develops a project to match her area of interest and address a specific need in her local or global community. To earn the award, eligible Girl Scouts in grades 10 -12 must fulfill requirements related to leadership, career exploration, and community service. Also, she must put her plan into action. If you would like a detailed description of Emily Benson and Christin Palmstrom project/projects please e-mail Ruth Lutmer at ruth lutmerna girlscoutsrv.org. For many girls, the leadership skills, organizational skills, and sense of community pride and commitment that come from "going for the Gold" set the foundation for a lifetime of active citizenship. The Girl Scout Gold Award recipients of today are the women leaders of tomorrow. If you would like to send a certificate of recognition for the Girl Scouts in your area, send it care of: Girl Scouts of Minnesota and Wisconsin River Valleys, Attn.: Ruth Lutmer, 5601 Brooklyn Boulevard, Brooklyn Center, MN 55429. Thank you for your consideration. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to e -mail Ruth Lutmer at ruth Iutmer(@girlscoutsrv.org or call 1- 800 - 845 -0787. Sincerely, Nicole Huebner Girl Program Specialist I I II I I I i I Susan Howl From: Carol Rosenblatt ,[mailto: carol r970(a)gmail.coml Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2012 11:26 PM To: Edina Mail Subject: Fwd: Bredeson Park I tried previously to let the city council know of my concern that security cameras be installed in the parking lot of Bredeson Park. Whoever looks at this email address must have forwarded my previous email to Sergeant Tom Draper, which is not what I requested..My daughter, whose car was broken into. at Bredeson, already . notified the police, but without cameras there, they can't do anything to catch these criminals. I've seen broken glass.often at this parking lot, so I know this must happen frequently. I want the city council to discuss the possibility of installing security cameras with, signage letting people know these cameras are. there. I think_ Edina can afford to spend a little money on the safety and well =being of the people who use this facility. Carol Rosenblatt Begin forwarded message: From: Tom Draper <TDraper@EdinaMN.gov> Date: April 2, 2012 12:31:37 PM CDT To: "carolr970kgmail.com" <carolr970@Rmail.com> Subject: Bredeson Park. Carol, I am sorry to hear about the break in to your daughters van. We have had issues there from time to time and continue to patrol the area on a regular basis. As far as the cameras go that would be a decision made by the city council and whether or not they would like cameras in the parks. As far as the Police Department goes I will advise the officers to continue to'keep an eye on the parking lot on a regular basis. If you have any further questions please feel free to contact me or anyone here at the Police Department. Thanks Sergeant Tom Draper 952- 826 -1601 _ _ Susan Howl Good Morning, Mayor Hovland and Members of the Council — Attached please find the most recent housing statistics from the Minneapolis Area Association of REALTORS ®, for the City of Edina and the Twin Cities metro area as a whole. These reports describe our market in March 2012. Please let me know if you have any. questions. As a reminder, if you are interested in seeing more in -depth statistics and figures for your city, or other cities and counties in the metro — please feel free to check out our online statistical reports at www.mplsrealtor.com. The Thing, our interactive market analytics tool, is very useful, as it offers many choices of variables for your review. Check it out here: http • / /thething.mplsreaItor:tom/ (Apri111, 2012) — March provided a critical data point on the road to recovery. For the first time since October 2010, the median sales price of Twin Cities homes was higher than a year ago. The overall median sales price was up 6.4 percent to $149,000. That reflects a shifting market.share in terms of sales volumes. The 6.4 percent gain was the largest year - over -year median price increase since a tax - credit - driven April 2010. Prices weren't the only metric to show improvement in March. Pending home sales were up 20.4 Percent and are already higher than any month in 2007, 2008 or 2011. Months' supply of inventory fell nearly 40.0 percent to 4.6 months — the lowest reading for any month since January 2006. Compared to the year prior, sellers are seeing a greater share of their asking price in less time as competition and oversaturation have both eased significantly. Traditional sales surged 33.2 percent, while foreclosures slid 13.2 percent and short sales increased 5.0 percent. Distressed homes made up 34.6 percent of all new listings and 43.7 percent of all pending sales, the smallest shares since July 2008 and April 2010, respectively. All information is according to the Minneapolis Area Association of REALTORS® (MAAR) based on data from the Regional Multiple Listing Service of Minnesota, Inc. MAAR is the leading regional . advocate and.provider of information services and research on the real estate industry for brokers, real estate professionals and the public. MAAR serves the Twin Cities 13- county metro area and western Wisconsin. Julia Parenteau Public Affairs Director Minneapolis Area Association of REALTORS® p. (952) 988 -3124 e. iuliap mplsrealtor.com Local Market Update -- March 2012 A RE:.SEARCH 100!... PROVIDED BY THE MINNEAPOLIS AREA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS@ -7.2% +8.4% New Listings Closed Sales -5.2% +16.1% New Listings Closed Sales Change in Median Sales Price from Prior Year (6 -Month Average)" +10% ............. ............._ ...... ,.,, ... .._.......-..,,-................. _. ......... ,..................... .... ,............. .,.,,.,................................... ,,......... .......... ,............. ... ... _ ........... ........ . .... ,.................................................. ._,,,.....-,....... .....__._.,.,..._........... +5% _ ._ .._ _ .... ..... .... . 0% - 10% _ -15% -20% -25% _ ._.. . . ....... _...._ _ .... ..................... 1 -2008 7 -2008 1 -2009 7 -2009 1 -2010 7 -2010 Twin Cities Region --w Twin Cities Region �- 1 -2011 7 -2011 1 -2012 ' Each dot a *as.�rts ...0 eha..gu m aw:7iar sa!ja ;:rea I.,nin the prcu ;'a:,r utang s „ : cn:n wa:;lt7te;1 _v2ra96. Tl ±i; :neanc! hat ilacJa ni :h., zi :r;n:� etc us6ed in - tlet :t =: to t!t.:!• nI wk,.. .. 6u ?n(1 tat. perirri U_ir. r:n. as c` Apil Q. f 01:.. All data'rom 19rg r _1' Uu!ht7a Ljs;1,!,{{ 5urvinr, , Ir:r. P -erorl b,., 10K Rasaarc.r: ar•cs Tic;rn l rn;. spo'u"Pr' '+, P. •,,I' U ev.7t u MINNG.APO!.6 AREA Assnr.hition REALTORS` -7.2% +8.4% +6.4% Twin Cities - -----9------------------------------ - - - Change in Change in Change in - New Listings ---------------------------------------- Closed Sales Median Sales Price Region Year to Date March 2011 2012 + / - 2011 2012 New Listings 6,971 6,469 -7.2% 17,894 16,957 -5.2% Closed Sales 3,253 3,525 +8.4% 7,643 8,872 +16.1% Median Sales Price- I $140,000 $149,000 +6.4% $141,000 $142,000 +0.7% Average Sales Price' i $183,441 $189,951 +3.5% $182,791 $184,651 +1.0% Price Per Square Foot- $89 $92 +3.7% $89 $89 +0.2% Percent of Original List Price Received- 88.7% 92.1% +3.7% 88.5% 91.4% +3.2% Days on Market Until Sale I 160 144 -10.0% 158 143 -9.4% Inventory of Homes for Sale 23,566 17,081 -27.5% -- -- -- of-Inventory- 7.6 - -- - 4.6 - - - -39.2% -- - -- -- ' Does not aceeun! for sole- ca:ces:;lan,, AcUvIiV IN onc:. me ith c lar, eomelirnes loi*r exi.rc -rin, due to ::mall szw: pi-- March 2011 ■ 2012 Year to Date 2011 .2012 6,971 17,894 16,957 6.469 -7.2% +8.4% New Listings Closed Sales -5.2% +16.1% New Listings Closed Sales Change in Median Sales Price from Prior Year (6 -Month Average)" +10% ............. ............._ ...... ,.,, ... .._.......-..,,-................. _. ......... ,..................... .... ,............. .,.,,.,................................... ,,......... .......... ,............. ... ... _ ........... ........ . .... ,.................................................. ._,,,.....-,....... .....__._.,.,..._........... +5% _ ._ .._ _ .... ..... .... . 0% - 10% _ -15% -20% -25% _ ._.. . . ....... _...._ _ .... ..................... 1 -2008 7 -2008 1 -2009 7 -2009 1 -2010 7 -2010 Twin Cities Region --w Twin Cities Region �- 1 -2011 7 -2011 1 -2012 ' Each dot a *as.�rts ...0 eha..gu m aw:7iar sa!ja ;:rea I.,nin the prcu ;'a:,r utang s „ : cn:n wa:;lt7te;1 _v2ra96. Tl ±i; :neanc! hat ilacJa ni :h., zi :r;n:� etc us6ed in - tlet :t =: to t!t.:!• nI wk,.. .. 6u ?n(1 tat. perirri U_ir. r:n. as c` Apil Q. f 01:.. All data'rom 19rg r _1' Uu!ht7a Ljs;1,!,{{ 5urvinr, , Ir:r. P -erorl b,., 10K Rasaarc.r: ar•cs Tic;rn l rn;. spo'u"Pr' '+, P. •,,I' U ev.7t u Local Market Update - March 2012 A RESEARCH TOOT- PROVIDED BY t HE MINNEAPOLIS AREA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORSO. MINNEAPOUS AREA Association -f REALTORS' +40.7% +7.8% New Listings Closed Sales +32.5% +28.3% New Listings Closed Sales .:.. :: ; , :gin ^,. ,i.. si � nc try. +[ .iaci� r;. 1 t; ..ea :i »; usr�d .. �.or R: r�: ,r,t% r ^... -,d . ctrutina rr. t ^:air ,.r. -t rr: sair: _..,c. .... ,.r,,.n_ :hr: cha19 =: ir: ., :,�,v_� s.. :�a� ;,n,,,, .. r,... na. ar.c. , u- rr� : , .r =n :� ; V:.,it, _i [ �il` e urine, that p :nnd, ;i ,..v Ap 9 7. .. .. F`:!r.K 1e , f h'... - . iW.Mj Yl7 +40.7% +7.8% -23.4% ..........- ...... ...... ................. Change in ........................ .............. - ........... Change in ......,........ ........................ ....... Change in Edina " New Listings ......... Closed Sales ................. Median Sales Price ...... ............................... March Year to Date 2011 2012 + / - 2011 2012 New Listings 108 152 +40.7% 283 375 +32.5% Closed Sales 51 55 +7.8% 106 136 +28.3% Median Sales Price- $331,450 $253,850 -23.4% $324,000 $275,000 -15.1% Average Sales Price' $505,873 $309,301 -38.9% $453,971 $406,382 -10.5% Price Per Square Foot' $189 $132 -30.0% $172 $146 -14.7% Percent of Original List Price Received' 90.0% 88.4% -1.7% 88.8% 88.4% -0.4% Days on Market Until Sale 188 211 +12.5% 177 198 + 11.8% Inventory of Homes for Sale 403 394 -2.2% -- -- -- Months Supply of Inventory 7.5 6.0 -19.5% -- -- -- • Does not account for seller Concessions. I Activai Ioi une rnonth ::an someiirnes Zook extreme <Iue to smail size:. March 2011 ■2012 Year to Date 2011 02012 152 375 +40.7% +7.8% New Listings Closed Sales +32.5% +28.3% New Listings Closed Sales .:.. :: ; , :gin ^,. ,i.. si � nc try. +[ .iaci� r;. 1 t; ..ea :i »; usr�d .. �.or R: r�: ,r,t% r ^... -,d . ctrutina rr. t ^:air ,.r. -t rr: sair: _..,c. .... ,.r,,.n_ :hr: cha19 =: ir: ., :,�,v_� s.. :�a� ;,n,,,, .. r,... na. ar.c. , u- rr� : , .r =n :� ; V:.,it, _i [ �il` e urine, that p :nnd, ;i ,..v Ap 9 7. .. .. F`:!r.K 1e , f h'... - . iW.Mj Yl7 Susan Howl From: Kitty O'Dea ,[mailto:kodea.mn (&gmail.coml Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 1:14 AM To: Edina Mail Subject: Please forward to City Council and Energy & Environment Commission Re: Free Computer Recycling Event 5/5/2012 Hi- Thanks to your support, FREE GEEK TWIN CITIES. collected +100 computers, monitors and printers last Fall in conjunction with the Edina Day of Service. Most of the equipment was refurbished and 20 of the computers were sent to a school in Africa. That's much better than sending them to a landfill! Due to the success of the Fall event, FREE GEEK is planning another FREE RECYCLING collection at Jerry's Foods (5125 Vernon Avenue) on SATURDAY MAY 5th. I wanted to bring this project to Council's & the Commission's attention. I volunteer at FREE GEEK and I am really excited about this project because: 1) FREE GEEK does a lot of good work in terms of socially and environmentally friendly electronic recycling. http: / /freeizeektwincities.glg/ 2. FREE GEEK trains people on how to build and use computers. Volunteers can also earn a computer through their program. 3.1 know there are probably 100's of old,- unused computers in Edina, destined for landfills or dumped in developing countries, that can be put to productive use. No action is required on your part. Just wanted to share this event with you. Of course, if YOU got some new computer equipment over the holidays and need to get rid of the old stuff, I hope you will recycle it on the 5th. Feel free to pass this on. Thanks Kitty O'Dea Edina Resident Free Geek Twin Cities Volunteer - -- - Susan Howl From: Lynette Biunno on behalf of Edina Mail ent: Thursday, -March 29, 2012 9:29 AM ;c: Susan Howl Subject:. FW: Edina Litter Lynette Biunno, Receptionist it 952- 927 -8861 i Fax 952 - 826 -0389 ,f Ibiunno(WEdinaMN.aov I www.EdinaMN.-gov ...For Living, Learning, Raising Families & Doing Business Please make note of my new email address. We're a do.town ... working to make the healthy choice the easy choice! From: Benjamin Mueller [ mailto• benjarrlinm17913 @apps.edina.kl2.mn.usl Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 9:12 AM To: Edina Mail Subject: Edina Litter Dear Mr. Hovland, I am a seventh grade student at SouthView middle school. We are currently working on a project in language arts that requires us to pick a topic people are apathetic about, and make a presentation on how to stop it. We were instructed to email possible stakeholders and I was hopig you would be willing to come to our presentation. We will be presenting on April 17 at some point between 8:10 am to 9:30 am. We would sincerely love to have you attend our presentation. Sincerely, Ben of SouthView Middle School i Susan Howl From: Lynette Biunno on behalf of Edina Mail Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 9:31 AM Cc: Susan Howl Subject: FK Invitation to a presentation Lynette Biunno, Receptionist rja r 952 - 927 -8861 1 Fax 952 - 826 -0389 t� Ibiunno(ccDEdinaMN.aov I www.EdinaMN.gov ` ...For Living, Learning, Raising Families & Doing Business Please make note of my new email address. We're a do.town ... working to make the healthy choice the easy choice! From: Sebastian Birchard ,[mai Ito: sebastianb17846C) apps edina.kl2.mn.usl Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 9:29 AM To: Edina Mail Cc: Elijah Mickelson Subject: Invitation to a presentation Dear Council Members My name is Sebastian Birchard and I am putting on a presentation at South View Middle School about the dangers of not wearing your seat belt. This will be from 8:10 to 9:30 on April 17th. Thanks for listening 4725 South View LN Edina MN 55424 i Susan Howl From: Lynette Biunno on behalf of Edina Mail Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 8:02 AM ro Susan Howl Subject: FVV: MayTerm Lynette Biunno, Receptionist 1 952 - 927 -8861 i Fax 952 - 826 -0389 '1952-927-8861 E IbiunnoaEdinaMN.aov I www.EdinaMN.clov ...For Living, Leaning, Raising Families 6z Doing Business Please make note of my new email address., We're a do.town ... working to make the healthy choice the easy choice! From: Karl Heistad jmaI Ito: kheistad6894 @gmail.coml Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 5:30 PM To: Edina Mail Subject: MayTerm My name is Kari Heistad and I am a Senior at Edina High School. At my school, there is an opportunity for Seniors to learn outside the walls of the classroom during a two week period called Mayterm. For my project, I am hoping to educate myself and my class about the current status of gay rights in Minnesota, and about the possible repercussions of the proposed amendment to the Minnesota constitution that would ban gay marriage: If my project is approved, I am wondering if anyone from the Edina Human Rights and Relations Commission would be willing to give an interview about the proposed amendment and /or take part in a panel of experts to inform members of my community about the proposed amendment. The interview would be conducted sometime between May 21st to June 4th and the panel will most likely be on May 29th or'31 St. Please let me know your availability for either the interview or the panel at your earliest convenience. Thanks so much! -Karl Heistad 1 Susan Howl From: Emilie Kastner on behalf of Edina Mail Sent: Monday, April 09, 2012 11:07 AM Subject: FK Yellow Ribbon Program This message has been forwarded to the Mayor. Emilie Kastner, Communications Assistant 952 - 826 -0342 1 Fax 952 - 826 -0389 ekastner Edina MN.gov I www.EdinaMN.gov ...For Living, Learning, Raising Families & Doing Business - - - -- Original Message - - - -- From: stumpV0814 @q.com [mailto:stumpy0814 @g.coml Sent: Monday, April 09, 2012 11:02 AM To: Edina Mail Subject: Yellow Ribbon Program Dear Mr. Mayor ... I am inviting you to tha Yellow Ribbon Program steering meeting on April 18, 2012 at 7:30pm. There will be city officials and leaders from all veterans organizations in adjoining 7 city area. If you can attend, please let me know if you could. Your attendence and input would be valuable. Please send a designate if you cannot attend. Sincerely, W.V. Stump Jr. aka. Stumpy... American Legion 10th. District Commander, MN. myhosting.com - Premium Microsoft® Windows" and Linux web and application hosting - http:/ /link myhosting.com/myhosting 1 Susan Howl crom: Lynette Biunno on behalf of Edina Mail ent: Tuesday, April 10, 2012 2:24 PM Susan Howl - Subject: FW: Invitation to South View Middle School Apathy Project Lynette Biunno, Receptionist 952- 927 -8861 I Fax 952 - 826 -0389 Ibiunno(cDEdinaMN.gov I www.EdinaMN.aov ...For Living, Learning, Raising Families &. Doing Business Please make note of my new email address. We're a do.town ... working to make the healthy choice the easy choice! From: Emily Zavadil fmailto•emilyzl7650(�)apps edina.kl2.mn.usl Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2012 2:24 PM To: Edina Mail Subject: Invitation to South View Middle School Apathy Project Dear Edina City Council, Our names our Emily Z and Elisabeth B, and we are two seventh graders from South View Middle School. Our Language Arts teacher asked us to find a topic in the city where we felt apathy was shown, and we chose cars not stopping for pedestrians in crosswalks. We have done research on this, and think we have a way to stop the problem. We will be presenting our proposal and hypothesis on April 12, at 8:10 in the morning in the Dragseth Theater at South View Middle School, and we would love it if you would be able to come. If you cannot come, we would be happy to send you the link to our final presentation. Thank you for your time Sincerely, Emily Z. and Elisabeth B. South View Middle School 4725 South View Lane Edina, Minnesota 55424 Lynette Biunno, Receptionist { @ i 952 - 927 -8861 1 Fax 952 - 826 -0389 I IbiunnoCcDEdinaMN.gov I www.EdinaMN.gov '. ...For Living, Learning, Raising Families & Doing Business Please make note of my new email address. We're a do.town ... working to make the healthy choice the easy choice! From: Claire Hanrahan jmailto•claireh17165Ca)al2ps edina.kl2.mn.usl Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2012 4:13 PM To: swensonannl(o)gmail.com; Edina Mail; ion i ben nettl2(a)comcast.net; ioshspragueCd)edinarealty com; Mary Brindle Subject: Dear Reader, I would like to invite you to a bullying presentation that Claire Hanrahan, Eliana Yurich, and Maggie Menden will be presenting. We would like to get the message out to kids and adults. This presentation will be held in the South View Middle School theater on the 12th of April from 8:40 AM to 9:10 AM. Thank you, Claire Hanrahan,. Maggie Menden, and Eliana Yurich Claire Hanrahan Teamo 1 z_ __ _______ _ Susan Howl From: Lynette Biunno on behalf of Edina Mail Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2012 8:39 AM Cc: Susan Howl Subject: FW: Lynette Biunno, Receptionist { @ i 952 - 927 -8861 1 Fax 952 - 826 -0389 I IbiunnoCcDEdinaMN.gov I www.EdinaMN.gov '. ...For Living, Learning, Raising Families & Doing Business Please make note of my new email address. We're a do.town ... working to make the healthy choice the easy choice! From: Claire Hanrahan jmailto•claireh17165Ca)al2ps edina.kl2.mn.usl Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2012 4:13 PM To: swensonannl(o)gmail.com; Edina Mail; ion i ben nettl2(a)comcast.net; ioshspragueCd)edinarealty com; Mary Brindle Subject: Dear Reader, I would like to invite you to a bullying presentation that Claire Hanrahan, Eliana Yurich, and Maggie Menden will be presenting. We would like to get the message out to kids and adults. This presentation will be held in the South View Middle School theater on the 12th of April from 8:40 AM to 9:10 AM. Thank you, Claire Hanrahan,. Maggie Menden, and Eliana Yurich Claire Hanrahan Teamo 1 Susan Howl From: Lynette Biunno on behalf of Edina Mail Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2012 10:45 AM Vic: Susan Howl Subject: FW: Follow up to our invitation Attachments: SWMetroElectedlnvite.pdf Lynette Biunno, Receptionist I r 952 - 927 -8861 1 Fax 952 - 826 -0389 I IbiunnoOEdinaMN.gov I www.EdinaMN.gov ...For Living, Learning, Raising Families & Doing Bil, s iness Please make note of my new email address. We're a do.town working to make the healthy choice the easy choice! -. _ ....... - -- ... . ........ . From: Kathleen Misukanis jmailto•Katie Misukanis@rasmussen.edul Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2012 10:09 AM To: Edina Mail Subject: Follow up to our invitation Edina City Council, We are all busy so I wanted to follow up on our invitation to attend an information session at our Rasmussen - Bloomington Campus. Rasmussen is proud to be located near Edina and educate the members of your city! We would like to share with you some of the wonderful things we are doing to serve our students and community on April 17th at our campus. Please see the attached for specific times and let us know if you can join us! Regards, Katie Misukanis Rasmussen College Government Relations Director Office:952- 806 -3959 Mobile: 651- 324 -8242 kathleen .misukanis @rasmussen.edu www.Rasmussen.edu Confidentiolity. This electronic transmission is strictly confidential to the sender and intended solely for the addressee. It may contain information which is covered by legal, professional or other privilege. If you are not the intended addressee, or someone authorized by the intended addressee to receive transmissions on behalf of the addressee, you must not retain, disclose in any form, copy or take any action in reliance on this transmission. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender as soon as possible and destroy this message. R,.. :... .. W . Southwest Metro Elected Officials Meet & Greet We cordially invite you to participate in a breakfast and information session designed specifially for the elected officials who serve our students in the southwest metro area. For more information, please call 952- 806 -3959 today! Where Bloomington Campus 4400 W. 78th Street, 6th Floor Bloomington, MN 55435 RASMUSSEN C 0 L L E G E rasmussen.edu For more information on our graduation rates, median graduate debt level, and other student investment disclosure information, visit rasmussen.edu/SID; 19 -5136 noon i - 9��• �11 i i� t� Southwest Metro Elected Officials Meet & Greet We cordially invite you to participate in a breakfast and information session designed specifially for the elected officials who serve our students in the southwest metro area. For more information, please call 952- 806 -3959 today! Where Bloomington Campus 4400 W. 78th Street, 6th Floor Bloomington, MN 55435 RASMUSSEN C 0 L L E G E rasmussen.edu For more information on our graduation rates, median graduate debt level, and other student investment disclosure information, visit rasmussen.edu/SID; 19 -5136 noon Susan Howl Dear Mayor Hovland, Ms. Lonni Skrentner suggested that we ,contact you in the hope that you would attend an event we are presenting at South View Middle School. We have been studying the idea of Apathy in our Enriched Language. Arts, 7-class. Our teacher has asked us to recognize a problem in our community, gather information along with data on our subject, and to construct a campaign to inform people and create awareness of the problem. The problem our group has chosen is the fact that there. are no bike paths on busystreets near'schools in Edina, especially Concord Elementary and Southview Middle School.. After receiving results from a poll we sent out to students, we found that one out of five people who ride their bike to.school do not feel comfortable on busy streets while riding to school. We believe that we have found a solution to the predicament at hand and would like to share our ideas to install bike paths on busy streets such as Wooddale. If you are interested in hearing about our plans, we will be presenting them on April 17th at 12:40 p.m. in the Dragseth Auditorium near Door 7 at Southview Middle School 4725 Southview Lane Edina, MN 55424. If you are unable to attend, yet you would still like to hear our ideas we will gladly send you a copy of the presentation. We hope that you can attend and thank you for your consideration, Best regards, Samantha A., Elise W., and Amelia N. 4725 Southview Ln Edina, MN 55424 1 Susan Howl Subject: Planning Dept Proposed parking ramps 50th & France My wife and I want to express our concern to you about the proposed parking ramp expansion across the street from our home in "The Lanterns" We understand that the recommendation is to replace the middle ramp with a new 6 level structure and to not expand the south ramp but to update the east face with a brick faVade and replace the lighting. The only thing that would have improved for us with this project is the new brick facade and hopefully lighting that is less bright. Please consider including the south face with the new fagade. It seems logical to us to put the improved faVade where it is most visible. Also consider how the change in lighting will affect our home. The existing lighting is very bright and we are concerned that it will be brighter. I'm sure lighting engineers can give you an answer to this concern before the change takes place. We support the recommendation of not expanding the ramp. Expanding to the back of walk would have eliminated trees and green space and would not follow city setbacks that would require a variance. There are reasons for setbacks. I believe that expanding the building to the back of walk would increase traffic noise and also increased noise from city dump trucks, loaders and bobcats during ramp snow removal. On top of the gunning engines, every time they back up they activate annoying beepers. The expansion would have brought this noisy operation 60 feet closer to my bedroom window and it also starts at 4 AM. I would like to request a cost study on how much the city pays for snow removal on these ramps. We are talking about a large crew getting paid overtime using trucks that get 4 miles to the gallon, driving to sites across the city. How much has been spent on snow removal since the ramp was built and what is the projected cost for the life of the ramp? Compare that to the cost of adding a roof and please factor in the noise pollution we have to endure in the middle of the night. - _ ............ Expanding the building to the back of walk would also decrease traffic sight- lines. There are six driveways in a very short area of a curvy road. From our porch we witness close calls often the way it stands right now. I understand this proposed construction is intended to keep the area successful and vibrant. That is.important to us as well. We,love living by the shops and restaurants and-want to see them succeed. Another factor that deserves consideration is the possibility of a decrease in value of our property if a building is built that close to the sidewalk directly across the street. The existing trees provide a wonderful 'buffer for us. If you overrule this recommendation ,and expand the south ramp please give us some green space and trees, expand a little less and consider the costs of putting a roof on the ramp. We would also like trees planted on our side of the street. I believe the board of our condo would be very open to planting trees on our property. I draw plans for a living. Looking at plans and actually visiting a site are completely different. Please visit the site, park in the ramp, take a walk around the street on a busy afternoon /night and consider o, ur position. Thanks for your time. Jeff & Sheila Buffie z Susan Howl To all Edina council members, We are writing to express our concern for the removal of the pool and fitness center at Edinborough Park. We have owned a home in Centennial Lakes Village Homes since 2002. We love this area so much that we sold our first condo and bought and remodeled a larger one in the same complex, planning to retire and live out the rest of our years here. It seems to us that there are a LARGE number of seniors in the surrounding multi - family dwellings and that the Edinborough and Coventry complexes also pay monthly dues to use the fitness facilities at Edinborough Park. We assume you have done or know the demographics in the area. We appreciate the existing facilities for young families - which our grandchildren enjoy. However we would appreciate a consultant and the council asking what the many senior citizens, many who are paying a monthly fee, would like to see happen at Edinborough Park. We don't all have a high income but we personally would like to see: • the pool available for lap swimming and perhaps a reasonably priced water aerobics class. • the fitness center have TVs to look at while on the treadmills and other equipment. • yoga and fitness classes offered in the gym area. Yes, some of this is available at the Sr Center in the old high school but that is kind of far and not easy to get to. Does the City have access to the Silver Sneakers program available for free in other communities? We know that the access to the Edinborough fitness center was a wonderful feature to condo ownership and design as no fitness centers were built within our complexes. We have some concern that removing the pool and fitness center will lower the value of our home and certainly impact that quality of the life we expected when we bought here. Thank you for your time and please continue to discuss and evaluate the needs of the citizens in the area. Marybeth and Dennis Nelson 7440 Edinborough Way #4107 Edina 55435 Susan Howl Mayor James Hovland City of Edina Email: edinamailQci.edina.mn.us Dear Mayor Hovland: This letter is in regards to the recent resolution in which Edina added 11 days of Jewish, Islamic and Hindu holidays to the list of dates on which the city will not hold regular public meetings. On behalf of the Minnesota Muslim community, I would like to thank you for the new religious holidays policy. Edina is the only city in the state not to hold public meetings on Islamic holidays. This is a challenging time for American Muslims and your city's actions are very much appreciated. CAIR -MN is the state's only Muslim civil rights advocacy organization. In the past five years, we have resolved over 400 cases of discrimination, harassment and hate crimes in the state. We have seen three -mosque opposition issues in the state in the past year alone. A CAIR -MN's advisory board member served thirteen years in the U.S. Army. A CAIR -MN volunteer and award recipient served in the U.S. Marines. These and many other individuals put their lives at risk to fight for our freedoms, but regularly have their own freedom to practice their faith challenged at home. On March 5, an "anti - Sharia" bill was introduced in our state capitol. The bill was written using a template provided by an anti -Islam extremist and was one of 20 similar bills we have seen nationwide. However, what is great about Minnesota is that our community and elected officials speak up and do the right thing. The anti - Sharia bill was withdrawn by its author. What has become a court battle in other _states, took less than three hours to resolve in Minnesota. Your city sent a powerful message by adopting this resolution and we thank you for that. We hope other cities will follow Edina'slead and adopt similar policies that promote unity and inclusion. CAIR is America's largest Muslim civil liberties and advocacy organization. Its mission is to enhance the understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding. Sincerely, Lori Saroya, Executive Director CAIR - Minnesota - 2021 E. Hennepin Ave. Suite 407 Minneapolis, MN 55413 612- 206 -3360 (o) 612- 206 -3361 (f) www.cairmn.com Susan Howl From: Emilie Kastner on behalf of Edina Mail Sent: Friday, April 06, 2012 2:52 PM Subject: FW: Thank you This message has been forwarded to all members of the City Council. Emilie Kastner, Communications Assistant 952- 826 -0342 1 Fax 952 - 826 -0389 ekastnerOEdinaMN.gov I www.EdinaMN.gov ...For Living, Learning, Raising Families Doing $usiness Please make note of my new email address. We're _a do.town ... working to make the healthy choice the easy choice! _ _ _ _ �__ _ _ __..___ _ _ — ... -.__ - .....- •..- ...______. _ From: Diane Gardner rmailto •dianegardner @comcast.netl Sent: Friday, April 06, 2012 8:28 AM To: jonibennettl2(@comcast.net; Mary Brindle; ioshsprague @edinarealty.com; swensonannl @gmail.com; Edina Mail Subject: Thank you Dear Mayor Hovland and City Council Members, My husband and I are newer residents of Edina. I am writing to say thank you for your progressive vote regarding the Marriage Amendment proposed for the MN Constitution. As the mother of a gay child, I appreciate your stand for equality. I also appreciate your expanding no- meeting days to incude interfaith holy days. It shows a sense of inculsion and respect that serves the city well. Thank you all for your work. Sincerely, Diane Gardner 6364 Pheasant Ct. Edina, MN 55436 Susan Howl From: Emilie Kastner on behalf of Edina Mail gent: Friday, April 06, 2012 2:24 PM subject: FW: Holidays This message has been forwarded to all members of the City Council. .'_'_? Emilie Kastner, Communications Assistant 03 952- 826 -0342 1 Fax 952 - 826 -89 y , f� ° ekastner(a)EdinaMN.00v I www.EdinaMN.gov ...For Living, Learning,, Raising Families & Doing Business Please make note of my new email address. We're a do town . working to make the healthy choice the easy choice! From: Ali Samsami Lmailto :samsamiCai)sbcglobal.net1 Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2012 2:18 PM To Edina Mail Subject: Holidays Hi! Just read the news that you've recently added some holidays to your official lineup including Jewish, Islamic and Hindu observances ... This is Great! A real breath of fresh air that a district actually adheres to their duties of representing and accommodating their denizens, as opposed to enacting policies of exclusion which only promote fear and divisions within their population. Bravo! In this day and age where we as a country pride ourselves on being civil, tolerant, and above the dredges of racism, it should go without saying that we should be respectful of others' faith. I am glad you've solidified this stance into policy. Hope this gleam of light illuminates a path others may follow to escape the climate of bigoted and short- minded, not to mention unconstitutional, laws being considered by some state legislators. Susan Howl Subject: 50th and France parking structures and street scape improvements April 2, 2012 To: Edina City Council Edina Planning Commission re: 501h and France parking structures and streetscape improvements Improvement Nos BA -242, PA -21 & P -22 As President of the Board of the Lanterns of Edina, the property at 4075 W. 51st Street, I represent 44 Edina households. All of these households will be affected by the construction planned for the parking ramp on 51St Street. I am writing this letter on all of our behalf. The three ramps to be updated are referred to as the north ramp, the middle ramp, and the south ramp. The south ramp is the only one that shares a street with residential homes - namely the Lanterns homeowners as well as the residents of The Regency at the corner of 51St and France. The Lanterns residents are directly across the street from the south ramp, and many units overlook the ramp. Although the southern wall of the south ramp is the only wall that is directly visible by residential properties, according to the plans we saw on March 22, that wall will receive the most dramatic changes. Differences between 50th Street and 51s' Street in Approach to Aesthetics According to the drawings we have been shown, the plan is to bring the wall of the south ramp out to 51" street (with sidewalk between the ramp and the street). This will require the elimination of the green space that currently exists, which includes grass and five mature trees. This green space between the ramp and the street provides an attractive transition and softens the look of the ramp. It makes that side of the street more inviting and accessible to pedestrians and does a lot to improve the aesthetics of the entire street. The current plans will have that natural barrier destroyed and replaced with concrete. There has been a lot of enthusiasm at City Council lately about the concept of "living streets ". This means streets that are inviting not to only cars, but also to pedestrians, bikes, etc. Indeed, the plan for 50th Street is to focus a great deal of attention on making it a pleasing environment for pedestrians with special attention given.to the pavers, planters, and trees. However on 51st Street, the concept of living streets apparently is not going to be applied. Grass and trees will be eliminated and replaced with an imposing concrete structure that will also destroy the ambience of the neighborhood in order to make room for more cars. Those of us who live on 51st Street feel our enjoyment of our neighborhood should be given the same consideration that is given to local businesses and customers who might be visiting 501h and France. Effect on Our Community Many of us have lived in our homes for a number of years, and we have seen the neighborhood evolve from the quaint intersection it once was. But through all of the changes, there has always been an understanding that the 50th and France neighborhood was special. We feel that the current plans as they apply to 51st Street take that specialness away and replace it with something that looks more like any other city - and is not in keeping with charm of the neighborhood. If the current plans are allowed to go forward, the residents who live on 51" Street will surely take a hit in terms of the quality of their environment. It is likely that the desirability (and therefore the value) of the properties that overlook tF ramp will be affected as well. We want the businesses in our neighborhood toAhrive. But we feel we need to remind the city managers that 50th and France is a residential neighborhood for many, who also have a financial stake at hand. We want you to give us the same consideration that you would give to 44 single- family houses. We question the wisdom of making these changes to the ,nly one of the three ramps that truly affects residents. Safety Concerns In addition to a less aesthetically pleasing environment, we have safety concerns. The most active driveway in and out of the south ramp is directly across 51St Street from the driveway to the garage at the Lanterns. Over the years we have seen traffic increase dramatically on.515t Street, and traffic speeds have increased along with it. Although the city put a yellow flashing walk light where the street curves from Halifax to 51St Street, it has done little to slow the speed of the cars using that street in order to avoid the intersection of 501h and France. When residents at the lanterns exit from our garage, we must be careful to be aware of cars turning in from France Avenue on our right, cars speeding along 51" Street on our left, and also cars stopping to turn into the parking ramp or exiting in either direction from the parking ramp. It is challenging at best, particularly for many of our older residents as this is an "over -55" building. During rush hour, and at peak times for the restaurants and other businesses in the neighborhood, it is more than challenging. Since the condo development at 50th and France received permission to use the ramp for entering and exiting their garage, the traffic has increased even more. The current plan is to add spaces for an additional 92 cars. With the traffic situation that already exists, we feel the addition of 92 more cars at peak times would be a hardship for those of us who live in the neighborhood. Although the City Engineer, Wayne Houle, said the ramps would have capacity meters, we do not feel this would go very far in alleviating the traffic problems on 51St. In addition, if the ramp was built right out to the edge of the street, that would eliminate what is now open space where cars can stop on their way out of the garage and get a good view of traffic coming from the right and left. Cost Considerations Upon questioning Mr. Houle, it seemed it would cost less money per parking space to put another floor on the middle ramp rather than making these changes to the South ramp. Changes to the middle ramp and the North ramp would not directly affect homeowners. We wonder why more attention has not been directed to those two ramps. Wasted Space in Current Configuration In addition, we would like to suggest that the lower level of the south ramp that 'is currently reserved for contract parking be opened up to the general public. That lower level is off - limits to the general public from 9:OO to 6:00 on weekdays. Upon inspection on a Monday at 5:00, it was found that the lower level had 25 open spaces. At. noon on a Tuesday, there were 8 open spaces. On Saturday evening at 7:00, a peak time for some of the businesses, there were 34 open spaces in the lower level, while cars drove around through the other levels looking for an empty space. We feel that in the improvements should assure easy access from the main section of the ramp,to the lower level so that it can be fully utilized, and that contract parkers should be asked to park at the upper levels, but with no specific space reserved, their needs could be still met but more spaces would open up for the public. Conclusion We ask that the Planning Commission deny the variance that would allow the ramp to come out to the street. We ask that any changes to the South ramp include at least minimal space for grass and a row of trees between the ramp and the street. In conclusion, we ask that you apply the same principles to 51St Street that you apply to 501h Street. Thank you for your attention to our concerns. Please make this letter part of your records. Dyan Harlem 4075 W. 51st St., Apt 404 Edina, MN 55424 952 - 925 -0642 Susan Howl From: Lynette Biunno on behalf of Edina Mail Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2012 11:24 AM Cc: Susan Howl Subject: FW: Proposed roadway improvement for the Viking Hills •;..n. •tr`.M. .�.x. •,.:, Lynette Biunno, Receptionist 952- 927 -8861 1 Fax 952 - 826 -0389 4= Ibiunno(cbEdinaMN.gov I www.EdinaMN.aov ...For Living, Learning, Raising Families & Doing Business Please make note of my new email address. We're a do.town ... working to make the healthy choice the easy choice! From: Cliff Straka Lmai Ito: strakacliffc sbcgloba1.netl Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2012 9:45 AM To: Edina Mail Subject: Proposed roadway improvement for the Viking Hills TO: Edina City Council FROM: Cliff Straka As the President of the Vernon Hills Townhomes Association, I am writing this followup letter of the letter I sent on January 1, 2012. The Vernon Hills Townhomes Association submits this letter to supplement our prior presentation regarding th proposed assessments for improvements to Vernon Hills Road South. Shortly after our association was formed, We erected an appropriate fence, planted over 100 trees, and landscaped the south side of Vernon Hills Road South which was owned by the City of Edina. For over a decade, our association has continued to maintain the fence, trees, and landscape at no cost to the City of Edina. The City of Edina, like all other property owners on Vernon Hills Road South, should pay a fair portion of road improvement assessments. 1 Susan Howl From: Lynette Biunno on behalf of Edina Mail Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2012 8:41 AM Cc: Susan Howl Subject: FW: FW: [Edina411] Council News from Josh Sprague f, Lynette Biunno, Receptionist 952 - 927 -8861 1 Fax 952 - 826 -0389 Ibiunno @EdinaMN.gov I www.EdinaMN.gov �•# ...For Living, Learning, Raising Families & Doing Business Please make note of my new email address. We're a do.town ... working to make the healthy choice the easy choice! From: Schnorbach [mailto:schnorbach @yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2012 5:54 PM To: alexander ryan @comcast.net; dan.ballard @medtronic.com; eric.bjelland @northmarq.com; mikesueholmes @msn.com; mzhangl @fairview.org; wiarsen @scalesadvertising.com; Alison & Dan Arom; Amy Sells; Andrea & Craig Brandt; Ann LeFlem; Annie Michel; Arlie Potter; AWLentz @aol.com; Becky Werner; Betsy Kloiber; Buzz & Carolyn Pierce; Carl Torp; Carol and Terry Korupp; Carol Kapsen; carol.j.simon @optum.com; Cathy Thatcher; charies.haff @gmail.com; Craig Brandt; Cynthia Adair; Dick & Barbara Erlandson; DrLowell @aol.com; Elizabeth T Wolff; Eric and Joan Bjelland; Frank Lerman; Gene Nord; Gopal & Anjali Khanna; Grammto5 @aol.com; Jeff & Linda Sjolander; Jen Rondestvedt; Jerry and Lois Edwards; Jerry Tian; Jessica & Karl Mulle; Jim and Dorothy Kruger; Jim and Katie Downey; Jlmearnold @aol.com; John & Andrea Wagenaar; joswan0l @aol.com; judy freeman; Karen Haff; Kathleen Bonthius; Kathy Frey; Katie Downey; Keri Glaser; Kevin Bonthius; kleinfamily93 @comcast.net; LABjerke @aol.com; Laurie Muelbauer; Les & Jo Fujitake; Lisa Kelly; Lori Beck; Margaret Dunnigan; Margaret Dunnigan; Mark & Becky Kuck; Mark & Kris Marshall; Mark Marshall; Mary; Mary Cheng; Michelle Dass; Ned and Jane Gustafson; Ned Gustafson; Orn Arnar; Paul & Sue Arneson; Paul Stormo; Perry Bergren; Pete and Jan Northfield; Richard Cheng; Richard Werner; roarlund @gmail.com; Rob & Brandi Reed; Ruth Stormo; Scott & Jean Lastine; Stacey Eidsfold; Susan Lund; Terri DeVries; Terry Kapsen; Tim & Cammy Baer; Tim & Cathy Armbrustmacher; Tom; Tom & Thelma Buss; Tom and Vicki Hurwitz; Tracy & Mike Slaughter; Wes & Anne Anderson; Garry W Cc: Edina -Mail; jonibennettl2 @comcast.net; Mary Brindle; joshsprague @edinarealty.com; swensonannl @gmail.com Subject: Re: FW: [Edina411] Council News from Josh Sprague Thanks for sharing this Gary. Disappointing but not unexpected. I will immediately post to the "Edina Road Construction" facebook page so that the entire community can see Josh's response. I think this is a great example of how reason and logic do not enter into the decisions made regarding our hard earned dollars. I think this will lay a good foundation for residents to make more informed decisions the next time we have elections. - -- On Wed, 4/4/12, Garry W com> wrote: From: Garry W <gwoessner777@hotmail.com> Subject: FW: [Edina411] Council News from Josh Sprague To: alexander ryangcomcast.net, dan.ballardna medtronic.com, eric.bjelland@northmarq'corn, mikesueholmesQmsn.com, mzhangl @ fairview.org, wlarsen@scalesadvertising.com, "Alison & Dan Arom" <alison arom9yahoo.com >, "Amy Sells" <amy.sellsna bestbuy.com >, "Andrea & Craig Brandt" <ALDBrandt@yahoo:com >, "Ann LeFlem" <A.Twinga,comcast.net >, "Annie Michel" <annie.michel23@amail.com >, "Arlie Potter" <Rotteral@A.com >, AWLentz(Z,aol.com, "Becky Wemer" <rlschuett khotmail.com >, "Betsy Kloiber" <bkloiber ,comcast.net >, "Buzz & Carolyn Pierce" <bcpkpierce(,earthlink.net >, "Carl Torp" <Carl.W.Torp@wellsfar og_com >, "Carol and Terry Korupp" <chequerst7a usfamily.net >, "Carol Kapsen" <c kapsen@msn.com >, carol.j.simon ,optum.com, "Cathy Thatcher" <esthatcherna comcast.net >, charles.haff@jzmail.com, "Craig Brandt" <crai .bg_randt@a snyderattomeys.com >, "Cynthia Adair" <cynthia.adair(a gmail.com >, "Dick & Barbara Erlandson" <dickerland(a�,aol.com> DrLowell(2aol.com, "Elizdbethl``T Wolf ' Joan B'elland <jbiell' " _. (a,comcast_.net >; Gene Nord f <etwolff2 ai .com> nc an � and(cr�comcast:net> -Frank Lerman'! <fdlcer� <Elinord(a�aolxoom >, "Gopal- &- Anjali Khanna" <ahjalikhannal {a gmail.com >, Grammto5(a�aol.com,'.'Jeff.& Linda Sjolander "- <LindaJSjo a,aol.com >, "Jen Rondestvedf' <rondoz99na,v hoo.com>, "Jerry and Lois Edwards" <Jerrv1ed2003Aa ghoo. com >, " Jerry Tian "' <tiariLrry(a,yahoo.com >, "Jessica & Karl Mulle" <Jessica(a DaveBeson.com >, "Jim and Dorothy Kruger" <jndkrugert�a,ginail.com >, "Jim and Katie Downey" <idowrley_(a)powersys.com >, Jlmearnoldgaol.com, "John & Andrea Wagenaar" <jwagenaar@yahoo.com >, joswan0l@aol.com "Judy freeman" <moviecakespaolxom >, "Karen Haff' <karen.haff2a mail.coin >, "Kathleen Bonthius" <kathleenbonthiusQmsn.com >, "Kathy Frey" <kfrey2(a�fairview.org >, "Katie Downey" <kdowneya,murnane.com >, "Keri Glaser" <keri lg asirncomcast.net >, "Kevin Bonthius" <Kevinbonthius@msn.com >, kleinfaniily93(a)comcas"t.riet, LABierke @aol.com, "Laune Muelbauer" <LaurieKM comcast :net >, "Les & Jo Fujitake" < Jolene. Fuiitake '2minnetonka.k12.mn.us >, "Lisa Kelly" <gluekkel(a,aol.com >, "Lori Beck" <Lori@the- becks.us >, "Margaret Dunnigan < margaretdunnigan (a,gmail.corrr >, "Margaret Dunnigan" <m.dunnigan(a,att.net >, "Mark & Becky Kuck" <markkuckgmsn.com >, "Mark & Kris Marshall" <krisma90@n_iail.com >, "Mark Marshall" <MJ1VI@BWF.com >, "Mary" <imdyrhauga,earthlink.net >, "Mary Cheng" <chen rg_nna comcast.net >, "Maura & Peter Schnorbach" a, <schriorbach2yahoo.com >, "Michelle Dass" <mdassstetson.edu >, "Ned and Jane. Gustafson" <barth043@unm.6du>, "Ned Gustafson" <ned9nr ag coin >, "Orn Arnar" <iceconsgenr @yahoo.com >, "Paul & ,m Sue Arneson" <slameson sn.com >, "Paul Stormo nu <PJStormoa,aoLbom >, "Perry Bergren ", <ber rg_enperryb(a.msn.com >, "Pete and Jan Northfield <petejan(a,webtv.net >, "Richard Cheng" <chengr(a,comca%.net >, "Richard Werner" <rwemer@mac.com >, roarlund(agmail.com, "Rob & a, Brandi Reed" <reed3rbcomcast.net >, "Ruth Stormo" <RNStoimo(a�aol.com >, "Scott & Jean Lastine" <scott lastinm@q.com >, "Stacey Eidsfold" <staceyeids@comcast.net >, "Susan Lund" <susantlund@a,gmail.com >, "Terri DeVries" <Terri.DeVries(o,genmi11s.com >, "Terry Kapsen" <tkapsen ,comcast.net >, "Tim & Cammy Baer" <torcbaergatt.net >, "Tim & Cathy Armbrustmacher <carmbrustmacherQyahoo.com >, "Tom" <Itgiii @yahoo. com>, "Tom & Thelma Buss" <t buss2gyahoo.com "Tom and Vicki Hurwitz" <yickihurwitz@goo lg e.com >, "Tracy & Mike Slaughter" <mike.slau hter@yahoo.com >, "Wes ,& Anne Anderson" <anne- anderson(a,comcast.net> Date: Wednesday, April 4, 2012, 5:43 ,PM FYI... From: Sprague, Josh [ mai Ito: josh sprague(a)edinarealty.coml Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2012 2:49 PM To: 'Garry W' Subject: RE: [Edina411] Council News from Josh Sprague With respect to your question below: For now, the sidewalk is moving forward under the current policy guidelines that call for a sidewalk segment within .7 mile radius of a school paid. for 25% by school district. 25% by city, and balance by homeowners within project area. The Council is reviewing our entire street assessment funding, public process. and policies late spring and summer. If we were to determine that sidewalk segments would be paid for in a different manner, then that new policy would be in place by the time of the assessment hearing for your neighborhood, which will be November 2013. Same for the REU's. For now; as with other street projects adjacent to schools we have done in the recent past:, the REU's that are counted are only for the portion of the school property that generates significant trips for the neighborhood. In this case, it's the soccer field, which would provide 5 buildable lots. Again, were that policy to change by the time of your assessment hearing, the change would be applied to your project. If you have additional questions about how past projects were handles in calculating REU, I strong suggest emailing or calling Wayne Houle, whoule(2ci.edina.mn.us. He has a good historical perspective on this. ::.ls josh sprague; realtor edina realty 6800 france cell 612.501.0252 website I video blog From: Garry W [ mailto :gwoessner777(cDhotmail:coml Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 8:48 AM To: iisprague(oDg mail. com Subject: RE: [Edina411] Council News from Josh Sprague Hi Josh — thanks for the detailed minutes - very helpful. When do you. think we can expect the Council to follow -up on its' commitment to reconsider the two issues pending on the Valley Estates street reconstruction, i.e. payment for sidewalks on school property, and the number of REU's for property along Creek Valley Road and Nordic Circle? I have not seen any mention of this follow -up in written communication from the City. Our neighborhood is hoping it hasn't been deep -sixed or put on strategic stall status. Thanks! Garry Woessner 6602 Scandia Road From. edina4....._...,._. , ......___......._ ..,. _, ..... ....... .....,.. _..,.._... ......_ _....�_ 11(d)googlegroups.com fmailto:edina411 W- googlegroups.coml On Behalf Of Sprague, Josh Isent' Wednesday, February. 22, 20'12 2:53 PM', To ::edina41:1(a)_qooglegrbups ;com - _Subject: [Edina411] Council News from Josh- Sprague Here is a quick synopsis of the last week of Council work sessions and meetings: (1) At last weekend's Council work session `.`retreat" at. Braemar_ Golf Course, we discussed council and management priorities for the coming year, which seemed to collectively center around the themes of transportation infrastructure (Greater Southdale Area transportation improvements, starting on France; funding and implementation of Living Streets policies), economic development ( Southdale Mall Redevelopment Project, Grandview Area Project, 50th & France Parking Expansion Project),: community development (neighborhood associations), and long -term financial planning (strategic changes at various enterprise facilities to make them more sustainable, both individually and as a system; review. of special assessment - funding- model). We also discussed how to improve the functioning of our board and commission system by creating a more formalized annual work plan - procedure, by better and more frequent communications between Council and boards, and by implementing a more comprehensive training and orientation program. The discussion came out of a recent board and commission survey taken by board members, staff liaisons, and Council members. (2) At last night's 4:30 work session, we reviewed all the different types of development authorities authorized. by MN statute (Housing & Redevelopment Authority (HRA), Economic Development Authority (EDA), Port Authority (PA), etc), and the relative benefits and limitations of each. This also included some general review of Tax Increment Financing (TIF). -What we, learned is that a development authority (in Edina's case, the HRA) creates a plan (Redevelopment Plan) that includes a geographic area (Project Area) in which funds collected from a specific tax - increment area (TIF District) can be expended. In other words, TIF financing is authorized and collected from a certain area, but can be expended in a larger area. In the case of Edina's Southeast Edina Redevelopment Plan, TIF was collected from the somewhat compact Centennial Lakes TIF District, but was expendable in the broader Project Area running basically from 494 to 62, France to Xerxes (Greater Southdale Area). All of this brush up was in preparation of our vote on whether to expand the Project Area further to include more commercial nodes, corridors, and potential areas of change. For a great review of TIF and how it is used in Minnesota, check out the most recent State Auditor's report at http: / /bit.ly /AA3kvG. (3) At last night's 5:30 joint work session with the Energy & Environment. Commission, we discussed revisions to our future recycling and solid. waste hauling contracts. As for recycling, the next RFP will include a requirement that plastics #3 -5 are picked up, as well as the usual plastics #1 -2 (single use bottles), glass, newspapers, junk mail, and cardboard. For inore,info on what plastics are recyclable, visit http: //bit.ly /138Pxo, or download a one page guide you can hang on your fridge at http: //bit.ly /MQPYQ. There was also some discussion about.switching from our current dual stream system (two containers, one for glass /plastics, one for papers, with pickup weekly) to a single stream system (one container for everything, picked up every 2 weeks), but no real consensus emerged to take action. Single stream is more convenient, but also more expensive for the consumer in the long run. As for solid waste, there has been some study of organized hauling (or some version thereof where, instead of 1 vendor for the entire city, you have multiple vendors in different "zones" of the city — say 1 per quadrant, for example). Again, no 4 real consensus has emerged yet to take action, although it does appear that the organized hauling model leads to lower costs for the consumer, and with less trucks on the road you can expect less noise and disruption from week to week, and less wear- and -tear on streets. For a comprehensive study of the different type of hauler systems, check out the recent MPCA report at http: //bit.ly /zzWJ5Y. (4) We also discussed a final Turf Management Plan for Edina, which establishes a classification of Edina's parks and open space based on weed tolerance, and which will allow for more strategic and limited use of pesticides to control weeds. Obviously, at heavily scheduled athletic facilities, there will continue to be a heavier use of chemicals to maintain safe and expected playing conditions, But around school parks and play structures generally, there will be a more limited use, and organic pest control will be the preferred alternative. We also finalized a plan to add paired trash/recycling bins at all Edina parks, with the recycling bins being purchased and funded by private donors. It's a nice example of how public - private partnerships can work to improve quality of life in our town. (5) At the Council Meeting, we approved request from the Park Board to form a working group to study a proposal for an addition to Braemar Arena called the "Hornet's Nest." Advocates of the proposal presented their ideas recently to the Park Board. The plan includes new locker rooms for High School Hockey, a restaurant, and dryland training facilities. $1 M in private money is being pledged towards the $4M project. The Park Board has been busy in the last 12 months studying and reviewing requests for new facilities (Hornet's Nest, Sports Dome), as well as reviewing current Enterprise facilities (Edinborough, Golf Courses, Art Center). Much more work ahead to develop a cohesive, financially feasible Enterprise system for the 21s' century! (6) At the Council Meeting, we agreed to forward to staff, for future consideration, a proposal to allow for Happy Hour drink specials in Edina. This would involve a relatively simply change to.our liquor ordinances , section 900. (7) At the Council Meeting, and per my description in (2) above, we approved an expansion of the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area to include all of the potential areas of change listed in our Comprehensive Plan, including Wooddale/Valley View, 44th & France, Grandview District, as well as current commercial nodes such as 50th & France. The broad expansion allows us the most flexible use of TIF money from the Centennial Lakes TIF District, which will amount to over $20M,by 2014. Qualifying expenses include site acquisition, site cleanup and improvement, and public infrastructure improvements, but per state law specifically exclude spending on municipal government buildings, decorative /aesthetic -only public improvements, public parks, and facilities used for social, recreational, or conference purposes. So, no funding the community center with TIF. (8) During Council comments, I clarified that the email standard for the City is currently changing over, as our website domain is changing from http: / /ci.edina.mn.us to http: / /edinamn.gov. What that means for residents is that all future correspondence directed to the City Council should go to mail@edinamn.gov, instead of the previous edinamail@ci.edina.mn.us. We have until the end of the year to completely roll over to the new 4 i � ! written corres ondence'.to Council should now go to system, but please make note now. Again, all p i - mail edinamn. ov As always, thank you for the honor of serving, and remember I am available Fridays to discuss matters of importance to you, at your convenience. Warmest, :Js josh sprague edina city council cell 612.501.0252 facebook I twitter Josh Sprague is a Realtor with Edina Realty @ 6800 France Ave, Member of the Rotary Club of Edina, Chair of the Southdale YMCA Board, and Newest Member of the Edina City Council You are subscribed to the Google Group "edina411." To unsubscribe, send email to edina4l l +unsubscribe@googlegroos.com Visit this group online at http•/ /groups google c6m /groin /edina4l 1 ?h1= en ?1-A=en 6 ANA, owe, Cn \ ooxroAa'�� saes REPORURECOM MEN DATION To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL Agenda Item IX. A. DEBRA MANGEN Action From: CITY CLERK Discussion Information Date: APRIL 17, 2012 Subject: CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED AFTER PACKETS INFORMATION /BACKGROUND: Attached is correspondence received after the packets were delivered to you. s April 15, 2012 Mr. Wayne Houle 4801 W. 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 Dear Mr. Houle, I had composed a very detailed letter that suggested you consider an alternative to the newly- approved sidewalk on the south side of Creek Valley School property. However,. I've recently watched a TV replay of the April 3rd City Council meeting and am'now sending you, a different letter. The suggestion had to do with considering a "cut -out" on Creek Valley Road similar to the one on Valley View Road at the high school and middle school that is heavily used for student drop -off or pick -up. That cut -out does keep parked cars off of Valley View ` Road so that cars can pass by, and I thought something similar might be beneficial to the traffic issues on Creek Valley Road. However; after watching the replay of the Council meeting when the Creek Valley sidewalk was approved, I have a different view. Council members made good -to -hear comments about how parking on public streets for student drop -off or pick -up is not approved and should surely be discouraged ...... with signage or public information or other means available. I realized that my suggestion about a "cut -out' instead of a sidewalk would, in fact, only facilitate and encourage improper behavior. That improper behavior has existed and continues to exist on Creek Valley Road, particularly at the close of school days. _As it is now, two cars going in opposite directions cannot pass each other when other cars are dropping off or waiting for Creek Valley students. If, however, the,,Council truly means to do everything possible to prevent cars from stopping or parking in the street on the south side of Creek Valley School, that would be good. It might even diminish. dangers to bikers using the Gleason Road sidewalk to get to school by eliminating cars for them to maneuver through. Those student bikers who use the Gleason Road sidewalk to get to school have, for many years, AVOIDED the intersection of Gleason and Creek Valley by cutting across private property on the corner and going down the street to the large concrete area on school pro' roperty that leads to bike racks. It can probably safely be assumed that this pattern of behavior will continue, despite the existence of a sidewalk. I don't believe any accidents have occurred, but many do see this situation as an accident waiting to happen. And, if bikers and walkers DO intermix on the new sidewalk (either going to or leaving school), that might become problematic. Time will tell. I'd also like to point out that there are a number of large events that take place at Creek Valley School yearly that create a traffic nightmare for our neighborhood, at least for drivers exiting or entering on Creek Valley Rd. During those large events, cars are parked on both sides of the street and, again, no two cars going in opposite directions could pass each other. It is sometimes necessary for one car to pull into someone's driveway on the south side of the street in order to allow the other car to proceed in one direction before returning to the street to get home. I don't know if this situation exists because the school parking lots are full (my guess would be no) or if it's done for simple convenience (my guess is yes) which, of course, causes inconvenience for others. It is true that this scenario happens only a few times a year, but it is a problem - about which, I suspect, nothing could be done. I'm reasonably confident that people in Valley Estates would greatly appreciate any and all means the City would use to stop the inappropriate parking of cars on Creek Valley Road south of Creek Valley School, and I'd guess they'd agree that the most direct, clear, and permanent method would be to install signage on that side of the street. I'd also be reasonably confident that everyone would hope that action will be approved very soon and, subsequently, be included in the street reconstruction project itself. Si rely, Mrs. ugene Nord 6425. Nordic Circle Edina, MN 55439 cc: City Council Members Mayor James B. Hovland Joni Bennett Mary Brindle Josh Sprague Ann Swenson Edina City Council; Enclosed is a copy of the letter I sent to you on 6/6/11. I had and still have the expectation of a reply. I am requesting that you read and respond to my concerns outlined in the 6/6/11 fetter. Sincerely, Jill Emanuel 4/12/12 5008 W. 56`x' St. Edina, MN 55436 Ms. Bennett; Enclosed is a copy of the letter which I have submitted twice to the City Council. As of yet, I have had no response. I was informed by a neighbor recently that you had addressed my letter at a recent City Council meeting. I am currently awaiting a response to my original concern. Thank you for attention to this matter. Jill Emanuel Edina City Council James Hovland Joni Bennett Mary Brindle Josh Sprague Ann Swenson Edina City Hall 4801 W. 50th St. Edina, MN 55424 This past Sunday, 6/5/11, several cars on the street where I live were cited in violation of City,Code: Section 1400.10 Subd. 7 Limited Parldng Zones. B. Six Hour Parking. No person in charge of any vehicle shall park or permit the vehicle to stand upon any street or highway for more than six consecutive hours, unless otherwise designated on erected and installed signs. This paragraph shall not apply to vehicles used by persons while such persons .are present and actively engaged in services performed on the premises of others, such as painting, home construction or repair; installation of appliances, cleaning, or fumigating. D. Shifting of Parked Vehicle. To regulate limited parking, any vehicle moved a distance of not more than three tenths of a mile during the limited parking period shall be deemed to have remained stationary. The majority of the cars cited belong to the homeowners. We were all surprised as not a single neighbor I talked to was. aware of this regulation. I have lived in Edina for a total of 36 years, and most of my neighbors are also longtime residents. My concern over this issue is that the city of Edina has not made it known to the majority of residents about the 6 hour limited parking. Why does the city choose to enforce such a little known regulation without first informing home owners if they are in violation and give them the chance to correct it and /or learn the regulation, as is done when a home owner is in violation of a city code involving "nuisances" on their property? The officer writing out the "tickets" explained that the cars on our block were being ticketed as a complaint had been issued. It is very hard for us residents to understand that cars, less than 1/4 block away, can park for a length of time longer than 6 hours. My neighbors and myself are being required to follow a set of rules that the majority of Edina residents do not have to. Along with responding to the above stated concerns, I would also like to have you respond to the following questions. At times in the future, I will be having family members, (along with my 2 children who are home from college and have their own cars), staying at my house. They will be overnight guests, and there will be more cars at my home that can not fit in my driveway. What are practical solutions for this, as this is a common occurrence for many of the families living on my block? As cited in the code, for a car to be considered "moved" it has to be moved a distance of more than 3/10 of a mile. On Sunday, my brother -in -law's car was parked on the street in front of my -house and his tires had been marked. Around noon, he took his car and ran several errands. He returned home about an hour later. He observed the officer ticketing cars, so he spoke briefly with the officer. He questioned if he would receive a ticket as he had moved his car, yet he was planning on parking his car on the street directly in front of my house where it had been when the tires were marked. The officer recommended that he park in the driveway. My question is, could he have been ticketed as he had moved the car, and had been gone for at least an hour, and he had moved it for a total of much more than the 3/10 mile. Would he have received a ticket if he had returned to the same general area and the police officer did not know that that car had been driven? Also, does the "clock" start again after the first 6 hours? After that first 6 -hour violation, can the car be parked on the street ... does the "clock" start again at that time for a 6 -hour time frame? In conclusion, I feel as if my neighbors and I are being targeted /harassed by a neighbor. If only a specific area is being held accountable, and it is only due to one complaining neighbor, I view this as a form of harassment. Thank you for attention to this matter and I look forward to hearing your response to my questions and concerns. Sincerely, Jill Emanuel i i April 17, 2012 Mayor Hovland City Council Members The attached Position Paper was developed by a group of property owners who, with the assistance of Wayne Houle, have participated in discussions re the many facets of this project. Several members of the group will be in attendance tonight to answer any questions. Some of the property owners who participated in the Position Paper include: Jim & Tom Nelson (Edina Realty Bldg) Jenifer Kent (Lund's Properties) Richard Curtin (Salut) Klaus Freyinger (Chico's) Shelly Englesma & Mitch Worley (Spalon Montage) Gene Haugland (5000 France) j Parkin Structures and Streetsca pe Improvements April 17, 2012 ` g� Ill P P I POSITION PAPER Deliver To: Mayor Hovland City Council Members - We concur with the recommendations of Staff on the need for Parking Structure and Streetscape Improvements. Specifically, we support: • The vehicle_ counting and guidance system in all three ramps • The need for rebuilding the Middle Ramp • The upgrading and restoration of the South Ramp as outlined in the staff recommendation • The Streetscapd Improvements Our concerns are: The details of the financing and cost to the owners; tenants and customers at 5001 and France. We do not object to an assessment that is paid over a 20 year period and which averages $2.00 per square foot per year. We are concerned about the timing of the payments. We suggest: • The first assessment payment should not be due until one year after construction is completed • To achieve the average per year assessment of $2.00 per square foot, the assessment payments should not be level or decreasing, but. rather. increasing. We suggest that the first assessment payment is 50% of the average per square foot assessment and the last assessment is 150% of the average ($1.00 /SF the first year; $3.00 /SF the last year) • The $2.00 per square foot average assessment is based on a Total Project Cost of $11,969,858. If the Total Project Cost is less than $12,000,000, we believe the assessment should be reduced by a proportionate amount. Timing of construction, availability of alternative parking and traffic management during construction are issues critical to the sustainability of businesses at 50tl)& France. We are particularly concerned about any negative impact during the October - January time period and during the Art Fair. We prefer disruption to be confined to the months January - May. We would like to work with the City to achieve this goal The design details on the facade are of concern and we would like the opportunity to work with the City on achieving the best possible appearance The new Middle Ramp is higher than the existing ramp. This increased height requires particular attention to how it can be designed to minimize any negative impact on surrounding properties. We would like the opportunity to work with the City on this issue. i SuSan.HoWl - - April 12, 2012 To: James Hovland, Mayor Scott Neal, City Manager Edina City Council Members Carey Teague, City Planning Department Floyd Grabiel, Edina Planning Commission John Keprios, Edina Parks & Recreation Department From: Linda and Bill Roberts 7420 Edinborough Way #6306 Edina, MN 55435 (952) 221 -2155 lindatroberts @gmail.com Re: Edinborough Park We are residents of the Village Homes at Centennial Lakes. We're very concerned that the City is considering converting Edinborough Park's pool, track, and fitness center into a space exclusively for very young children and families. Please consider our thoughts on this issue: • We support maintaining the Park as a mixed -use and mixed -age facility. City Council member, Mary Brindle, recently said "A big mistake is departing,from the park's original purpose" (a mixed -use area). The creation of a long -term vision and strategic plan for the space is critical. • We would like to see the Park do a better job of "living within their means" by reducing operating expenses, including salaries & benefits, rather than taxpayers having to pay higher property taxes. We object to a public facility, sustained largely by taxpayer dollars, being forced to break even or, worse, generate a profit. Perhaps the park should be renamed " Edinborough Profit Center." • We object to the City ripping up beautiful mature trees and plants that, after all, make it a "park," to make way for hard surfaces. 1 • We strongly support privatizing of all aspects of the Park's operations. • The Park is in serious need of more aggressive marketing to reach potential users, who either are unaware of the facility or misunderstand what it has to offer. With a degree in marketing and 30+ years of experience, I (Linda) have witnessed for years the "non- marketing" of this wonderful facility. Again, privatization may take care of this. • Like other communities and businesses in Centennial Lakes, we have been fortunate to utilize Edinborough Park -facilities with no extra charges. However, in addition to property taxes paid by the 250 units in our condominium community, we pay a $15.00 Park Service Fee each and every month, as part of our Association dues. For us, this translates into $2,340 to -date for our condo alone. Should the facilities we enjoy be lost, can we assume our monthly Park Service Fee will go away as well? • We're in favor of free park access for Edina residents and a per visit fee for non -Edina residents. • Nowhere has it been mentioned whether Ballard King /ATS &R has a winning track record for this specific park " solution." A solution that has increased park utilization, revenue flow and has received positive community feedback. This is Due Diligence 101. The consultants need to show the City balance sheets of their successes. Have you checked their references (talked to the residents/ users of those projects)? This is more than just a financial issue. It's about the quality of life and health. It's about showing respect for the diversity of ages and lifestyles in our community. It's about ethics: the City breaking its commitment to its citizens by altering public space that excludes a large segment of people. And it's about the loss of a re -sale benefit, i.e. promoting Park amenities to potential buyers. We would appreciate a prompt resolution to this issue and strongly encourage you to consider our position and abandon the Ballard King /ATS &R recommendations. Thank you very much. Sincerely, Linda and William Roberts z Susan•Howl - - 'Dear City Council and Mayor; I write to you tonight that we have been informed through several conversations that Steve Devich planned informational session at Oak Grove Lutren Church will not include Pillsbury Commons housing project. Why we dropped these packages on your door way is several reasons. The Obtainable Housing Committee (OHC) which has ties with the Richfield Community Council, which is sanction by Richfield city council to advise Richfield city council, and is a activist organization that meets at that church. We are in a section 42 housing dispute that is being built by Ron Clark Construction. Ron Clark has several people from OHC claiming he is doing right for the people of Richfield by building a 100% Section 42 housing unit with 21 units possible used for Section 8. Hope you had some time to read the package I left with you about this impact it would have on Richfield. We see this as a bigger picture. We see that the city of Richfield is the door mat for your work force. What Richfield has become is a bed room community for your workforce. Ron Clark is a great citizen of your community, after all you named a GIFT Shop after him and his wife. You see I can not find one Home less shelter named after him nor one other section 42 building he is profiting from. As I said we are now Looking at Edina about Richfield housing issues. We would like to work with you. Trust me when we say we are looking out side of this box as why Richfield is becoming a bed room community of your poverty. The next time you interface with Ron Clark ask him to donate, on his next section 42 project, 100% of the profit to the residents children tuition at.Normandale College or Fish and Loafs. Thank You and Best Regards, Barry LeBlanc P.S. Richfield went on U Tube with the last special session: http: / /www. voutube .com /watcli ?v= 9AsvxxvgnGU You might want to watch the other follow on: htti)://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbCUqYBicqU&feature=relmfu On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 11:22 PM, Richfield Minnesota <richfieldminnesota gmail.com> wrote: Happy Easter, Please allow me to introduce myself and also Richfield Commoners United (RCU). I am sorry to have disturbed your Easter Sunday with a package that was left on your door step today.It was getting late and the package was not delivered to Ms. Brindel and we hope one will be delivered on Monday. In this package is a history of the past fliers we have and are circulating.in Richfield. We are hoping to start a dialog with you the city elected about Section 42 housing- LIHTC. We have been forced -as a group to start informing churches as what RCU and a overwhelming amount of Richfield citizens want, because the city of Richfield has sanction City Manager Steve Devich to speak at Oak Grove Lutheran church next Sunday at 930AM. Steve Devich will be talking about Pillsbury Commons as the church was informed today during EASTER morning mass. ' The package I dropped off is one of the examples of what we are about to go region wide in the near future. We decided to drop this package off just in case you start receiving phone calls and can respond to whom we are. One thing you will find about RCU is all we want is a open and honest conversation. We will inform you when we drop our leaflets. We want to be fact responsible so we will start asking questions. We have met with Steve Elkins, the Metropolitan Council Rep for our district. He also brought along two other people; Phyllis Hill Lead Organizer for ISAIAH a National faith based coalition for working on economic and racial equity; Chip Halbach, Executive Director, Minnesota Housing Partnership. You were in our thoughts. I can honesty tell you we are fans of your on line council meetings that are posted. You have an excellent web site to engage EDINA citizens. httL:// edinacitizenengagement .org/grandview /. We lack this in Richfield. For reasons I am told. I want to thank you and we look forward to our next conversation. Best Regards Barry LeBlanc Member of RCU -- -- - ------ --- -Susan Howl � 4/13/12 To: Mayor Hovland and Edina City Council Members From: Jackie Whitbeck 6128 Brookview Ave Edina, MN'55424 Re: Proposed subdivision of 6120 Brookview Avenue. I wish to state.my.respectful opposition to the proposed'subdivision , of 6120 Brookview Avenue, and to the associated request for a variance. Dividing this property will not create affordable housing, will have a negative impact on the neighborhood, is not in harmony with the current 75 foot minimum lot size and does not comply with Minnesota statues and Edina city ordinances. Minnesota Statute section 462.375, sub division 6 (2) states "Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. `Practical difficulties' as used in connection with the granting of a variance means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manor not permitted by the zoning ordinance; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the land owner; and the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality." Cary Teague in his opposition to a recent subdivision on Brookview Ave, stated "The action or request by the applicant to subdivide the property causes the practical difficulty. The request to subdivide the lot causes the need for variances therefore, the practical difficulties are self - created." The situation here is similar. The applicant's need for a variance from the 75 foot frontage requirement has arisen solely because the applicant proposes to subdivide an already conforming lot and create two nonconforming lots. I cannot conceive of a clearer example of a self - created hardship. For this reason alone I believe the applicant's request for variance, and associated subdivision should be denied. If the property is subdivided as proposed, a very drastic change will be wrought upon the essential character of the neighborhood. The applicant's representatives have stated to others-that the existing home at 6120 Brookview Ave (which was apparently sold for $849,000) is a model for the new construction. This is a very large home. This neighborhood currently consists of more modest cottage style homes of one and a half story, located in a wooded setting, and selling in the 200 - 300 thousand dollar range. This will alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The home this applicant already built on the property is a poster child for poor development. The very nature of a variance is that each property is unique in its characteristics and that the application of the zoning ordinance should be reviewed in light of the unique characteristics of that property. That is, each variance is by nature a de novo review. Precedent has no bearing in a variance case, except in the helpful guidance a prior example may provide. The council is not bound by prior precedent. The question is not what has the City done, before, but rather what is unique about this property that requires the commission to waive the usual application of our development code and create two nonconforming lots from one conforming lot. I see no such uniqueness in this property. The planning commission has previously stated that a similar request for subdivision would restore the neighborhood to its original intent of 50 foot plots. Whose intend would this be? Not the City's! I would like to draw your attention to city ordinance 850 .07 subdivision 20 B. 4, which states that: "If a non - conforming lot or parcel is, or at any time since October 22, 1951, has been, held in common ownership with all or part of an adjoining or abutting parcel or lot which together comply with, or come close to complying with the minimum width, depth, , area, and lot width to perimeter ratio, requirements of this Section, then such non - conforming lot or parcel and such adjoining or abutting parcel or lot shall be considered as one lot and shall not be decreased in size below such minimum requirements." It is the City's policy, indeed requirement, to create conforming lots out of nonconforming lots. Indeed, in the 350 foot radius surrounding the proposed subdivision, 25% of the lots are greater than 50 feet (our own home, which predates subdivision, consists of three lots). The City's intent is for there to be 75 foot lots, and where possible to combine nonconforming lots into conforming lots. The applicant however, proposes the opposite, he would create nonconforming lots out of a conforming lot. This is turning prior City policy on its head. At a recent meeting of the planning commission, it was pointed out by Commissioner FOITeSt that the 850.07 sub 20 13,4 ordinance had not previously been a part of their discussion. And when considering this code, it is a clear statement of intent with very strong wording as to what the city wants. Also noted was the fact that "code trumps plat ". The severe negative impact a subdivision would have on our us and our neighbors who have owned our properties for decades is beyond comprehension. We and others purchased our property in good faith based on city codes at the time. We deserve the utmost consideration. As neighbors to the property in question, we do not want this subdivision. This subdivision and variance will not be for the greater good, but will only put more money in one developer's pocket. Edina city ordinance 850.04 subd. 2 paragraph F basically says that the applicant must have a favorable finding on all criteria for approval. This simply cannot be done in this case. No special benefits should be given to this applicant. In compliance with Minnesota statutes and Edina ordinances this application should be denied. Respectfully, Jackie Whitbeck i April 16, 2012 Mayor and Edina City Council Members 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 Re: 501h and France Parking Structures Dear Mayor and Council Members Parasole Restaurant Holdings, Inc. owns and operates four restaurants and employs more than 300 people in the city of Edina. We have been doing business in Edina since 1978. We have been involved in some but not all of the "owners" meetings relating to parking ramp projects and thought it might be useful to state our position on the projects. We agree that there is a need and support the efforts to create additional parking and upgrade the parking ramps although we have some serious concerns. • We support the concept of tearing down the middle ramp and reconstructing it with six levels of parking and dedicating the top level as contract parking • We support refurbishing the south ramp including repairs to the parking deck, lighting upgrades, painting, reconstruction of the northeast and center stair and installation of two elevators, one in the northeast corner and one in the center of the ramp to connect to the pedestrian walkway between the Salut building and the'Haugland building. This should be the primary pedestrian access to France Avenue and can be enhanced to create an aesthetically pleasing meander between the parking facility and France Avenue. The walkway proposed off of the northeast elevator /stair through the Haugland property does not provide access to France Avenue except by using a service driveway which is not a safe or desirable method of access • The 100% cost pass through to owners (and their tenants) continues to be a concern .While some leases for smaller spaces may be "gross" leases, we suspect that most of the commercial leases are "net" leases and the assessment will pass immediately and directly to the tenants. It is fair for the 23 property owners (and their tenants) comprising the special services district to pay a portion of the cost of the parking ramp improvements; it is unfair for them to bear the full burden. A robust and healthy 501h and France commercial district is an asset and benefit to the entire city. A meaningful portion of the cost should be paid by the city and disbursed over a wider tax base o it will require a significant increase in sales and revenue to offset the increased occupancy cost resulting from the assessment pass through. At best, the parking improvements will only incrementally increase sales, if at all. The benefit really needs to be viewed as sustaining and maintaining existing sales volumes._ This will be further aggravated by the loss of customers due to diminished parking and chaos during the construction process. Disrupted customer habits could take as long as two years to reestablish after completion of the projects • Given the foregoing, we suggest the assessment be deferred and not start until 12 months after completion of the last phase and that the assessment escalates during the first 10 years. The deferral will allow some time for the impacted businesses to rebuild sales after the project and parking disruptions. The escalating assessment will afford the opportunity for tenants to negotiate lease terms reflecting the increased occupancy cost either at lease renewals, option periods or first lease negotiations. We would propose a flat $0.50 per square foot assessment for the first five years, increasing in steps to a maximum of $1.00 per square foot in year 10 A significant, thoughtful and well directed effort must be put into creating, communicating and implementing a mitigation plan. It is not clear that the city or the business association has the capacity to create and execute the promotional campaign needed to minimize the impact of the project during construction, maintain guest habits during the process and expedite the return to business as usual at the conclusion of the project The work needs to be segregated into two projects. The middle ramp should start January of one year and the south ramp January the following year. In all cases, there can be no diminution of parking during the fourth quarter at anytime We respectfully request to be a full participant in future meetings and planning sessions related to the design, implementation and execution of the project. We are available to meet and discuss in further detail. Thank you. Para ole Resta ra t Holdings, Inc. Alan ckerberg Susan Howl From: Lynette Biunno on behalf of Edina Mail Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 8:50 AM To: Susan Faus; Scott Neal cc: Susan Howl; Ann Kattreh; John Keprios Subject: FW: Edinborough Park Good morning, I have forwarded this message to the Mayor and Council members, Scott Neal, Susan Faus, Ann Kattreh and John Keprios. Lynette Biunno, Receptionist /Y ti 952-927-88611 Fax 952 - 826 -0389 ::..:i IbiunnoCrDEdinaMN.gov I www.EdinaMN.gov ...For Living, Learning, Raising Families & Doing Business Please make note of my new email address. We're a do town working to make the healthy choice the easy choice! From: Kate Cassell rmailto:Kate Cassell (@ Dell.coml Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 7:47 AM To: Edina Mail Subject: Edinborough Park But like lots of other public amenities out there – in America, not just in Edina – the cost of maintaining that amenity is borne by a much wider group of people than the people who enjoy the amenity." — from Scott Neill's blog Scott's statement is true of many services for which all residents of a community pay— whether they use the services or not. Edina seniors no longer have children in school, but these seniors still pay for schools through their property taxes. The children of Edina seniors are by now too old for the swings and slides used by younger children, but these seniors still pay for playground equipment through their property taxes. To have a valuable and affordable senior resource taken away is not only ageist, it is unfair to those who cannot afford the Y or Lifetime fitness. From his article, it reads like Scott has already decided on his view of the park's future. l hope that rest of the Edina decision makers are more open- minded. Mary Cassell Susan Howl To Whom It May Concern: I am writing to you on behalf of Earth Day Network. I am contacting your city's office, because I see your mayor passed an Earth Day proclamation last year, and I wanted to know if Mayor Hovland would be interested in passing one this year as well! Throughout the month of April and on Earth Day (April 22nd), Earth Day Network and its wide range of partners will organize and promote Earth Day events around the world. The theme for Earth Day 2012 is 'Mobilize the Earth', which aims to provide people with the opportunity to unite voices in a call for a sustainable future and guide them towards achieving quantifiable outcomes. This year, we are also encouraging every Earth Day event to involve a local leader or an elected official. We have some resources you might find useful, accessible at www.earthday.org /elected. For every Earth Day event this year, we would love if a local leader or elected official could take part in it, by either attending and taking part in the event(s) and /or passing a proclamation. We also ask participating cities and towns to provide us with pictures /video footage of their event, along with a green "best practice" for a report we'll be producing after Earth Day. We also have other campaigns for this Earth Day, which can provide great ideas on how to get your community further engaged by involving libraries, schools, universities, athletes and artists. If you have any questions or if you are interested in learning more about our campaigns please feel free to contact me! I look forward to hearing from you, Sincerely, Sophie Labaste �� eatth C+ay 2012 Sophie E. Labaste Earth Day Associate Earth Day Network labaste @earthday.ors 1616 P Street N.W. Washington D.C., 20036 (202)- 518 -0044 www.earthday.ore _ ... Susan ! Howl From: Lynette Biunno on behalf of -Edina Mail - - - - Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 3:28 PM To: Cary Teague; Arlene Forrest; Floyd Grabiell Jeffrey Carpenter; Ken Potts; Kevin. Staunton; matt rock; Melissa- Stefanik; Michael Fischer; Michael Platteter (platteters @comcast.net); Michael Schroeder; Nancy N. Scherer - Cc: Susan Howl Subject: FW: Grandview Development Good afternoon, This message has been forwarded_ to the Mayor and Council members, Cary Teague and the Planning Commission members. Lynette Biunno, Receptionist 4 952- 927 -8861 1 Fax 952 - 826 -0389 Ibiunno(cDEdinaMN.-gov I www.EdinaMN.-gov �,4..�;• ...For Living, Learning, Raising Families Si Doing Business Please make note of my new email address. We're a do town_. working to make the healthy choice the easy choice!__ From: Jack Abrahamson [mailto:twoabes@hotmail.coml Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 2:49 PM To: Edina Mail Subject: Grandview Development To City Council Members; Having lived in the Ricmond Hills area for over twenty years we oppose many of the proposed items being considered-#1. We oppose the closing of Sherwood Road /Eden Ave for the additional parking for the Library, our access for homes, deliveries, busses,emergency vehicals must remain open. #2. building height should be restricted to four stories or less. #3. affordable housing should not be part of the plan. #4. density came be controled by building height. So many of these issues were dis- approved during previous area developments, those promises should be kept and respected for a residential area that has existed since the early 1950's. Your consideration will be appreiciated. With all due respect; Jack & Eileen Abrahamson 5209 richwood Drive. 952 927 8200 Susan Howl From: Lynette Biunno on behalf of Edina Mail Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 9:29 AM Cc: Susan Howl Subject: FW: Simon Properties Lynette Biunno, Receptionist 952-927-88611 Fax 952 - 826 -0389 Ibiunno @EdinaMN.gov I www.EdinaMN.gov ...For Living, Learning, Raising Families & Doing Business - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Ann Compton (mailto:anncompton @comcast.netl Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 7:21 PM To: Edina Mail Subject: Simon Properties Dear Mayor Hovland and Members of the City Council, When will you quit giving out money at no interest (Simon Properties) that isn't yours? I hope you are all enjoying your last terms as representatives of Edina. Kendall and AnnCompton 5201 Lochloy Dr. Edina, MN 55436 V i Susan Howl To: Edina City Council From: Pat Olk, 5315 Pinewood Trail, Edina, MN Subject: Grandview District Development I have lived in the Richmond Hills neighborhood since 1990. When Grandview Square was developed, we as a neighborhood went to many Planning Commission and City Council meetings. We were disappointed in the density and height of the Grandview Square development. We were also disappointed that the development took about 1/3 of the park for condominium construction. There were other projects proposed that were less invasive, but the city decided to go with the Grandview Square Development that exists today. The neighborhood was frustrated to say the least. At that time, the city assured us that they had done their homework with respect to traffic and parking studies and that no additional parking was needed. We were also told that Eden Ave / Sherwood Road would not be changed and would remain our only exit / entrance for our neighborhood. The development also made a point to plant trees on both sides of Eden Ave / Sherwood Road to replace the larger trees that were cut down to make room for the library and condominium building. Every year the exit / entrance for our neighborhood looks nicer as these trees get bigger. Page 65 in the appendix of the Grandview District Development Framework offers 4 design alternatives for Eden Ave / Sherwood Road. I strongly support Alternative 3: Streetscape improvements. This design continues to enhance our entrance / exit for our neighborhood with additional landscaping. I strongly oppose any of the other options that turn Eden Ave / Sherwood Road into a parking lot for the library and senior center. I believe that changing the entrance and exit for our neighborhood like these designs do, would have a negative impact to the property values in our neighborhood. As I mentioned previously, a parking study was done when the library was built and we were told that there would be ample parking. We as a family, drive by the library multiple times each day and I can tell you that the library does not need more parking. There always appears to be parking available for patrons of the library and senior center. I can also tell you that the 20 parking spaces on Eden Ave / Sherwood Road in front of the library are filled by 8:00 am by commuters catching the bus and employees of Edina Family Physicians. If parking signs were put up on that street that limited parking to about 4 hours, I believe 20 more spots would be available in addition to the excess capacity that already exists for patrons of the library and senior center. Members of our neighborhood have also been told by employees of the library that the library doesn't need more parking. If that is the case, why is there a proposal to turn this street into a parking lot? With respect to the,rest of the Grandview District Development Framework, I recommend that the City of Edina be sensitive to the surrounding neighborhoods by not allowing tall buildings and developments with high density. If a building is built on the bus garage site it should be no higher than the office building across the street in Grandview Square which I believe is 3 stories high. A building on the public works site could be higher because of the lower elevation. The highest building on the public works site should be no more than 4 stories high. I also oppose any kind of affordable housing for this area. Edina already has sufficient affordable housing. Thank you for your consideration. Susan Howl From: Lynette Biunno on behalf of Edina Mail Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 9:40 AM Cc: Susan Howl Subject: FW: Simon Property no- interest loan Lynette Biunno, Receptionist 952 - 927 -8861 1 Fax 952 - 826 -0389 t IbiunnoCDEdinaMN.gov I www.EdinaMN.gov = rn For Living, Leaing, Raising Families & Doing Business Please make note of my new email address. We're a do.town working to make the healthy choice the easy choice! From: Susan [ mailto :spetersen55436(�)gmail.com1 Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 5:45 AM To: Edina Mail Subject: Simon Property no- interest loan Please forward to City Council In regards to the $5 million no- interest loan - -- Instead of edina taxpayers paying 100 percent assessment for our roads, lets use this money to help out taxpayers in edina, so we dont have to pay the tab. I have never heard of having to pay $12,000.00 to fix our roads. It is quite a financial burden for edina residents which include young families. Vote to help out edina residents Jeff and Susan Petersen i Susan Howl . I I I _. From: Lynette Biunno on behalf of Edina Mail Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 9:43 AM Cc: Susan Howl Subject: FW: Thank you. Lynette Biunno, Receptionist 952-927-88611 Fax 952 - 826 -0389 Ibiunno @EdinaMN.gov I ww.w. Edina MN.gov ...For Living, Learning, Raising Families & Doing Business - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Rosemary Larson f mailto:rptlarson @comcast.netl Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 9:18 AM To: Edina Mail Subject: Thank you. Dear Mayor Hovland: I am writing to thank you for you wonderful leadership as mayor of Edina. I have watched over the years how you have been on the forefront of diversity issues and am so impressed with and grateful for your emphasis on inclusivity, equality, diversity and recognition of differences (i.e. religious beliefs) in our community. I hope your leadership on these issues will be a model for other communities. I hope that other leaders in our state and country will take notice of your understanding and acceptance of ALL people and will work towards your same kind of empathy and desire to unify the community. Thank you again., Rose Larson 5524 Glengarry Pkwy Edina, MN 55436 1 Susan Howl From: john.rieger usbank.com [mailto:john.rieger usbank.com1 Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 9:46 AM To: Edina Mail Subject: Regarding $5 million interest free loan to Simon Properties for Southdale I understand a vote is coming up today regarding the $5 million loan. There have been some community comments as to why we would need to provide this interest free loan to a profitable company when it could be better used to fix some of our aging infrastructure. As a resident of Edina, already paying my share of the hefty real estate taxes of this community, there is always a balance and a tension on how to allocate funds. Southdale Shopping Center is an important asset of the Edina community and it has been showing its age. I have seen what happens when a shopping center is neglected and does not receive the required "refresh ". I also know that Simon Properties has a choice as to where they put their resources. An interest free loan is more of a symbol of the communities commitment to the center than it is a need of cash for Simon Properties. I don't know the terms of the loan but perhaps as a compromise, I suggest the following: 1. Approve the $5 million loan with no interest for Southdale Shopping Center. 2. As the $5 million is repaid back to the city, commit that the repaid funds would be placed into a fund to be used only for city infrastructure improvements. This way the funds are used for the aging roads but they are also used to show our support for the Shopping Center Regards, John R. Rieger Accounting Policy US Bank 800 Nicollet -Mall BC- MN -H19Q Minneapolis MN 55402 612- 303 -4389 612 - 710 -7630 fax john.rieger(cDusbank.com Ebethardt - - 11POPr. R TIES, INC. April 1.7, 2012 Mayor James B. Hovland & Members ofthe City Council Edina City.'[lall VIA EMAIL Tn:. edigam:ril,c ci etlina.mn.us 4801 West 50'x' Street Edina MN 55424 RI: 50`x' & France I'arking Ramps April 17. 2012 Public 1- learin- Dear Mayor Hovland & tvlembers of the Council: We own the property at 3930 W. 49 'h Street commonly known as "'I"he Edina Realty Building." We have been lead participants in the analysis of the improvement, expansion and financing of the 50'x' & France parking ramps and streetscape and are writing to express general support for City Staff recommendations and note our concerns and susagested parameters for moving Forward. We support the f.011oW]n <,g improvements: 1. Vehicle count and guidance system in all three ramps. 2. Streetscape improvements. 3. Upgrade and restoration of the South Ramp with two (2 ) pedestrian elevators. 4. The need to rebuild the Middle Ramp and expand its parking ng capacity in a manner that meets the Shared Parking Model Study recommended stall range of' 140- 2=47 vet is more mindful of =its impaCt on surrounding building's and streetscape than the 6-story, 252 additional stall concept proposed in the Staff Report. Further discussion and recommendations below. We support a financing plan that would: 1. Begin assessment payments one year after completion of construction. 2. I-lave assessment payments inc•reeise over a 20 -year period aver ,,, 7 $2.00 per square foot per year. We suggest that the first payment is 50% of the average and the last is 150% of the average, for example $1.00 /SF in year one and $3.00 /S1= in the last year. 3. Reduce the assessment proportionately if after full design. approvals. bidding and construction the Total Project Cost is less than the currently recommended $11.9K858. .. it YV1V;. .s: i f ri, D"1'1 ?.,0 PE it.'I's 5.: 01,1 '_; si si 0_..,.. Mayor James 13. Hovland & Members of the City Council April 17, 2012 Page 2 We support a project plan that: 1. Takes in to account construction timing attempting to focus disruption in the months of January thru May, manage traffic as best as possible and provide viable alternative parking during construction as these issues are critical to the sustainability of businesses at 50a' & France. 2. Offers input on the design details of the new ramp facades. We would like to continue to work with the City on achieving the best possible appearance. 3. Includes further study of the design and height of the proposed new Middle Ramp, recognizing the need to add 140 - 247 stalls to the district while being mindful of the impact on surrounding buildings and streetscape. Attached are shadow impact renderings based on the 6 -story conceptual schematic adding 252 stalls showing noon on the equinox. We note that from approximately November 1 to February 1 our building would. be completely shaded during daylight hours. We would look forward to researching possible solutions including lowering the first level, reducing the number of levels and /or offsetting the top levels, exploring the height difference of post tension versus pre -cast construction as well as facade and streetscape softening concepts. We propose that the City Council approve a resolution to move forward taking in to account the parameters noted above. Respectfully, Thomas M. Nelson President James W. Nelson Owner Attachments — Middle Ramp Shadow Impact Renderings 0 00 i. wim { or?" jfs, Ado MINUTES OF THE EDINA HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY HELD AT CITY HALL MARCH 20, 2012 8:19 P.M. ROL LCALL Answering rollcall were Commissioners Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson and Chair Hovland. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY21, 2012, APPROVED Motion made by Commissioner Swenson and seconded by Commissioner Sprague approving the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the 'Edina Housing and. Redevelopment Authority for February 21, 2012. Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. EXPANDED WALKWAY EASEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN JERRYT ENTERPRISES, INC. AND EDINA HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY APPROVED Planning Director Teague explained that although the agenda listed a resolution, the necessary action was an approval from the Council and no resolution had been prepared. He added that previously the easement had been approved at ten feet, but actually twelve feet four inches was needed. Motion by Commissioner Bennett, seconded. by Commissioner Swenson approving the expanded walkway easement at twelve feet four inches as requested between Jerry's Enterprises, Inc. and the Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority. Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. RESOLUTION NO. 2012 -5 ADOPTED SETTING APRIL 17, 2012 AS THE HEARING DATE FOR MODIFYING SOUTHEAST EDINA REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AND ESTABLISHING SOUTHDALE 2 TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT, CONSIDERING APPROVAL OF SOUTHDALE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP BUSINESS SUBSIDY AND PROPOSED SPENDING PLAN FOR CENTENNIAL LAKES TIF FINANCE DISTRICT. Manager Neal noted the proposed Resolution was required of the HRA to set a public hearing for April 17, 2012 to consider: modifying Southeast Edina Redevelopment District and establishing Southdale..2 Tax Increment Financing District, considering approval of Southdale Limited Partnership Business Subsidy and proposed spending plan for Centennial Lakes TIF Finance District. He noted the same issue had just been acted on at the March 20, 2012 City Council meeting. Motion of Commissioner Brindle seconded by Commissioner. Sprague setting a public hearing for April 17, 2012 to consider modification of the Southeast Edina Redevelopment District, establishment of the Southdale 2 Tax Increment Financing District, and considering approval of the Southdale Limited Partnership Business Subsidy and a proposed spending planfor Centennial Lakes TIF Finance district. Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. There being no further business on the Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority Agenda, Chair Hovland declared the meeting adjourned at 8:24 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Scott Neal, Executive Director ' e` Agenda Item HRA Ill. From: Scott Neal Dq Action City Manager 0 Discussion ❑ Information Date: April 17, 2012 Subject: PUBLIC HEARING - Considering Modifications To Southeast Dining Cl) O 1 Partnership Business Subsidy and Proposed Spending Plan For �y I IV REPORPRECOMMEN ®ATION To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL Agenda Item HRA Ill. From: Scott Neal Dq Action City Manager 0 Discussion ❑ Information Date: April 17, 2012 Subject: PUBLIC HEARING - Considering Modifications To Southeast Dining Redevelopment District And Establishing Southdale 2 Tax Increment Financing District, Considering Approval of Southdale Limited Partnership Business Subsidy and Proposed Spending Plan For Centennial Lakes TIF Finance District, Resolution No. 2012 -4, Resolution No. 2012 -6, and Resolution No. 2012 -7 ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt the three attached resolutions. INFORMATION/BACKGROUND: The City Council and City Housing & Redevelopment Authority will both hold public hearings on April 17, 2012, to receive public comment on a proposed development agreement between the City and Simon Properties concerning the redevelopment of Southdale Center Mall. The City Council met in special session on March 27, 2012, to provide feedback to staff and consultants on the proposed agreement. Staff and consultants have communicated the Council's feedback to representatives from Simon Properties, which has resulted in material changes to the draft agreement reviewed by the Council at the March 27 meeting. The terms and conditions of the proposed revised agreement are attached to this cover memorandum. Staff and consultants will review the agreement with the Council at the April 17 Council meeting. ATTACHMENTS: • Resolution No. 2012 -4 • Resolution No. 2012 -6 • Resolution No. 2012 -7 • TIF Plan, Summary and Supporting Documentation RESOLUTION NO. 2012 -4 RESOLUTION ADOPTING A MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR. THE SOUTHEAST EDINA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT. AREA, ESTABLISHING THE SOUTHDALE..2 TAX .,INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT THEREIN AND ADOPTING ADOPTING A TAX INCREMENT. FINANCING PLAN THEREFOR. WHEREAS; .it has beea:proposed by the Board of Commissioners (the "Board ") of the Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority (the "HRA ") and the City of Edina (the "City ") that the HRA adopt a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan (the "Redevelopment Plan Modification ") for the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area (the "Project Area ") and establish the Southdale 2 Tax Increment Financing District (the "District ") and adopt a Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "TIF Plan ") therefor (the Redevelopment Plan Modification and the TIF Plan are referred to collectively herein as the "Plans "), all pursuant to and in conformity with applicable law, including Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047, and Section s.469.174 to 469.1799, inclusive, as amended (the "Act "), all as reflected in the Plans and presented for the Board's consideration; and . . WHEREAS, the HRA has investigate_ d the facts relating to the Plans and has caused the Plans to be prepared; and WHEREAS, the PIRA has performed all. actions required by law to be performed prior to the adoption of the Plans. The HRA has also requested the City Planning Commission to provide for review of and written comment on Plans and that the Council schedule a public hearing on the Plans upon published notice as required by law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board as follows: 1. The HRA hereby finds that the District is in the public interest and is an "economic development district" under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subd. 12, and finds that the Plans conform in all respects to the requirements of the Act and will result in creation or retention of jobs in the State of Minnesota, including construction jobs, and will preserve and enhance the tax base of the state. The proposed development would not commence prior to _July 1, 2012, without the tax increment financing to. be provided. 2. The PIRA further finds that the Plans will afford maximum opportunity,.consistent with the sound needs for the City as a whole, for the development or redevelopment of the Project Area by private enterprise in that the intent is to provide only that public assistance necessary to make the private developments financially feasible. 3. The boundaries of the Project Area are not being expanded. 4. The reasons and facts supporting the findings in this resolution are described in the Plans. 5. The HRA elects to calculate fiscal disparities for the District in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, Subd. 3, clause b, which _means the fiscal disparities contribution would be taken from inside the District. 6. Conditioned upon the approval thereof by the City Council following its public hearing thereon, the Plans, as presented to the HRA on this date, are hereby approved, established and adopted and shall be placed on file in the office of the Executive Director of the HRA. 7. Upon approval of the Plans by the City Council, the staff, the HRA's advisors and legal counsel are authorized and directed to proceed with the implementation of the Plans and for this purpose to negotiate, draft, prepare and present to this Board for its consideration all further plans, resolutions, documents and contracts necessary for this purpose. Approval of the Plans does not constitute approval of any project or a development agreement with any developer. 8. Upon approval of the Plans by the City Council, the Executive Director of the HRA is authorized and directed to forward a copy of the Plans to the Minnesota Department of Revenue and the Office of the State Auditor pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 469.175, Subd. 4a. 9. The Executive Director of the HRA is authorized and directed to forward a copy of the Plans to the Hennepin County Auditor and request that the Auditor certify the original tax capacity of the District as described in the Plans, all in accordance with Minnesota Statutes 469.177. Approved by the Board on April 17, 2012. Chair ATTEST: Secretary RESOLUTION NO. 2012-6 RESOLUTION APPROVING A SPENDING PLAN FOR THE CENTENNIAL LAKES TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners (the. "Board") of the Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority (the "HRA ") as follows: Section 1. Background; Findings. (a) The HRA and the City of Edina (the "City ") have previously established the Centennial Lakes Tax Increment Financing District (the "TIF District ") and adopted the tax increment financing plan therefor (the "TIF Plan") pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 to 469.1799 (the "TIF Act ") and certain special legislation. (b) Section 469.176 Subd. 4m of the TIF Act (referred to as "Temporary Authority Act ") authorizes the City and HRA to spend available tax increment from any existing tax increment financing district, notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, to provide improvements, loans, interest rate subsidies, or assistance in any form to private development consisting of construction or substantial rehabilitation of buildings and ancillary facilities, if certain terms and conditions are met. (c) In accordance with the Temporary Authority Act, the City and HRA have caused to be prepared a spending plan (the "Spending Plan") authorizing the City to use existing tax increment revenues from the TIF District in order to stimulate construction or rehabilitation of private development in a way that will also create or retain jobs in the renovation of the Southdale Mall. (d) On, this date, the City Council is scheduled to hold a public hearing regarding the . Spending Plan, for which notice was published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City at least once, not less than ten days nor more than 30 days prior to the hearing, and at which hearing all persons will be given the opportunity to be heard. Section 2. Approval of the Spending Plan. (a) The Spending Plan is hereby approved in substantially the form on file in City Hall, subject only to approval of such plan by the City Council after public hearing, all in accordance with the Temporary Authority Act. (b) HRA staff and consultants are hereby authorized to take actions necessary to carry out the terms of the Spending Plan. Approved by the Board on April 17, 2012. HRA Resolution Approving a Spending Plan for Centennial Lakes TIF District Dated: April 17, 2012 Chair ATTEST: Secretary HRA Resolution Approving a Spending Plan for Centennial Lakes TIF District Dated: April 17, 2012 Commissioner EDINA HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY CITY OF EDINA HENNEPIN COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 2012-7 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN INTERFUND .LOAN FOR ADVANCE OF CERTAIN COSTS IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOUTHDALE 2 TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT. BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners (the ''Board ") of the Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority (the "HRA ") and the City of Edina (the "City ") that City Council (the "Council ") of the City of Edina, Minnesota (the "City'. ), as follows: Section 1. Back round. 1.01. The City and HRA intend to establish the Southdale 2 Tax Increment Financing District (the "TIF District ") within the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area (the "Project "), and will adopt a Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "TIF Plan ") for the purpose of financing certain improvements within the Project. 1.02. The City and HRA have determined to. pay for certain costs identified in the TIF Plan consisting of site improvements, other, qualifying improvements; interest and administrative costs (collectively, the "Qualified Costs "), which costs may be financed on a temporary basis from City or HRA funds available for such purposes. 1.03. Under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.178, Subd. 7, the City. and HRA are authorized to advance or loan money from its general funds or any other fund from which such advances may be legally authorized, in order to finance the Qualified Costs. 1.04. The City and HRA intend to reimburse themselves for the Qualified Costs from tax increments derived from the TIF District in accordance with the terms of this resolution (which terms are referred to collectively as the " Interfund Loan "). Section 2. Terms of Interfund Loan. 2.01. The City. and HRA hereby authorize the advance of up to $5,100,000, or so much thereof as may be paid as Qualified Costs, from the Centennial Lakes Tax Increment District fund or such other fund identified by the City or HRA. The total advances of City and HRA, when added together, shall not exceed $5,100,000. 2.02 The City and HRA shall reimburse themselves such advances together with interest at the rate stated below. Interest accrues on the principal amount from the date of each advance. The maximum rate of interest permitted to be charged is limited to the greater of the rates specified under Minnesota Statutes, Section 270C.40 or Section 549.09 as of the date the loan or advance is authorized, unless the written agreement states that the maximum interest rate will fluctuate as the interest rates specified under Minnesota Statutes, Section 270C.40 or Section 549.09 are from time to time adjusted. The interest rate shall be 4% and will not fluctuate. 2.03. Principal and interest ( "Payments ") on the Interfund Loan shall be paid semi - annually on each August l and February 1 (each a "Payment Date "), commencing on the first Payment Date on which the Authority has Available Tax Increment (defined below), or on any other dates determined by the Finance Director, through the date of last receipt of tax increment from the TIF District. 2.04. Payments on this Interfund Loan are payable solely from "Available Tax Increment," which shall mean, on each Payment Date, tax increment available after other obligations have been paid, or as determined by the Finance Director, generated in the preceding six (6) months with respect to the property within the TIF District and remitted to the City and HRA by Hennepin County, all in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 to 469.1799, all inclusive, as amended. Payments on this Interfund Loan may be subordinated to any outstanding or future bonds, notes or contracts secured in whole or in part with Available Tax Increment, and are on parity with any other outstanding or future interfund loans secured in whole or in part with Available Tax Increment. 2.05. The principal sum and all accrued interest payable under this Interfund Loan are pre- payable in whole or in part at any time by the City and HRA without premium or penalty. No partial prepayment shall affect the amount or timing of any other regular payment otherwise required to be made under this Interfund Loan. 2.06. This Interfund Loan is evidence of an internal borrowing by the City or HRA in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.178, Subd. 7, and is a limited obligation payable solely from Available Tax Increment pledged to the payment hereof under this resolution. This Interfund Loan and the interest hereon shall not be deemed to constitute a general obligation of the State of Minnesota or any political subdivision thereof, including, without limitation, the City. Neither the State of Minnesota, nor any political subdivision thereof shall be obligated to pay the principal of or interest on this Interfund Loan or other costs incident hereto except out of Available Tax Increment, and neither the full faith and credit nor the taxing power of the State of Minnesota or any political subdivision thereof is pledged to the payment of the principal of or interest on this Interfund Loan or other costs incident hereto. The City and HRA shall have no obligation to pay any principal amount of the Interfund Loan or accrued interest thereon, which may remain unpaid after the final Payment Date. 2.07. The HRA may amend the terms of this Interfund Loan at any time by resolution of the Board, including a determination to forgive the outstanding principal amount and accrued interest to the extent permissible under law. Section 3. Effective Date. This resolution is effective upon the date of its approval. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council member , and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: Chair (Seal) Secretary Tax Increment Financing District Overview City of Edina. Southdale 2 Tax Increment Financing District The following summary contains an overview of the basic elements of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Southdale 2 Tax Increment Financing District. More detailed information on each of these topics can be found in the complete TIF Plan. Proposed action: Establishment of . the Southdale 2 Tax Increment Financing District ( "District ") and the adoption of a Tax Increment Financing Plan. ( "TIF Plan ") Modification of the Redevelopment Plan for the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area to include activities related to the District. Type of TIF District: An economic development district _Parcel Numbers: See Appendix C of the TIF Plan Proposed The District is being created to facilitate renovations to the common areas of Development: Southdale Mall in the City. Please see Appendix A of the TIF Plan for a more detailed project description. Maximum duration: Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. lb, the duration of the District will be 8 years after receipt of the first increment by the EDA or City. The date of receipt by the City of the first tax increment is expected to be 2014. Thus, it is estimated that the District, including any modifications of the TIF Plan for subsequent phases or other changes, would terminate after 2022, or when the TIF Plan is satisfied. If increment is received in 2013, the term of the District will be 2021. The EDA or City reserves the right to decertify the District prior to the legally required date. Estimated annual tax increment: Up to $1,615,874 Authorized uses: The TIF Plan contains a budget that authorizes the maximum amount that maybe expended: ' Land/Building Acquisition .......................................... ............................... $0 Site Improvements/ Preparation ............................... ..................... $2,274,296 Utilities......................... ...: .................. ........................................................ $0 Other Qualifying Improvements ................... ............................... $5,000,000 Administrative Costs (up to 10%) ................. ............................... $1,1.00,000 PROJECT COSTS TOTAL .......................... ............................... $8,374,296 Interest...................:.................. .....................:......... ..................... $3.577.921 PROJECT COST AND INTEREST COST TOTAL............ $11,952,217 See Subsection 2 -10, page 2 -5 of the TIF Plan for the full budget authorization. Form of financing: The project is proposed to be financed by an interfund loan(s) not to exceed $5,100,000. Administrative fee: Up to 10% of annual increment, if costs aie justified. Interfund Loan The City and HRA approved inter-fund loan resolutions authorizing a total Requirement: loan of $5,100,000, of which $100,000 is expected to be available for administrative expenditures. 4 Year Activity Rule After four years from the date of certification of the District one of the (§ 469.176 Subd. 6) following activities must have been commenced on each parcel in the District: o Demolition ® Rehabilitation ® Renovation o Other site preparation (not including utility services such as sewer and water) If the activity has not been started by approximately April 2016, no additional tax increment may be taken from that parcel until the commencement of a qualifying activity. 5 Year Rule Within 5 years of certification revenues derived from tax increments must be (§ 469.1763 Subd. 3) expended or obligated to be expended. Any obligations in the District made after approximately April 2017, will not be eligible for repayment from tax increments. The reasons and facts supporting the findings for the adoption of the TIF Plan for the District, as required pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 3, are included in Exhibit of the TIF Plan . Page 2 EHLERS t MAP OF THE SOUTHEAST EDINA REDEVELOMENT PROJECT AREA AND THE SOUTHDALE 2 TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT j. r. i • - - - - -,- -- -- `— Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area and Southdale 2 TIF District 9 m Prayectkea c ' Southdale2 TIF District Big rev mgDe War._R 20, 2 Page 3 EHL.ERS ...v a...... - ..b+sa+I.u..�w. v..- ..:.... .. ......:...4- .:...... .. .....r. r.. w..�.r.� .._.......:r..•- s •. ... ._ .. 1 i . m `■— As of April 11, 2012 Draft for Public Hearing Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area and the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the establishment of the Southdale 2 Tax Increment Financing District (an economic development district) within the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority City of Edina Hennepin County State of Minnesota Public Hearing: April 17, 2012 Adopted: This document is in draft form for distribution to the County and the School District. The TIF Plan contains the estimated fiscal and economic implications of the proposed TIF District. The City and the HRA may make minor changes to this draft document prior to the public hearing. QJ EHLERS 3060 Centre Prepared by: EHLERS &ASSOCIATES, INC. Pointe Drive, Roseville, Minnesota 55113 -1105 651 - 697 -8500 fax: 651 - 697 -8555 www.ehiers- inc.com Table of Contents (for reference purposes only) Section 1 - Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area .......................... 1 -4 Foreword.............................. ............................... 1 -4 Section 2 - Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Southdale 2 Tax Increment Financing District ........................... 2 -1 Subsection 2 -1. Foreword ............... ............................... 2 -1 Subsection 2 -2. Statutory Authority ........ ............................... 2 -1 Subsection 2 -3. Statement of Objectives .... ............................... 2 -1 Subsection 2 -4. Redevelopment Plan Overview .................... ....... 2 -1 Subsection 2 -5. Description of Property in the District and Property To Be Acquired 2 -2 Subsection 2 -6. Classification of the District . ............................... 2 -2 Subsection 2 -7. Duration and First Year of Tax Increment of the District .......... 2 -3 Subsection 2 -8. Original Tax Capacity, Tax Rate and Estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity Value /Increment and Notification of Prior Planned Improvements ............... 2 -3 Subsection 2 -9. Sources of Revenue /Bonds to be Issued ..................... 2 -4 Subsection 2 -10. Uses of Funds ........... ............................... 2 -5 Subsection 2 -11. Fiscal Disparities Election .. ............................... 2 -5 Subsection 2 -12. Business Subsidies ....... ............................... 2 -6 Subsection 2 -13. County Road Costs ....... ............................... 2 -7 Subsection 2 -14. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions ................ 2 -7 Subsection 2 -15. Supporting Documentation . ............................... 2 -9 Subsection 2 -16. Definition of Tax Increment Revenues ........................ 2 -9 Subsection 2 -17. Modifications to the District ............................... 2 -10 Subsection 2 -18. Administrative Expenses .. ............................... 2 -10 Subsection 2 -19. Limitation of Increment .................................. 2 -11 Subsection 2 -20. Use of Tax Increment .... ............................... 2 -12 Subsection 2 -21. Excess Increments ...... ............................... 2 -12 Subsection 2 -22. Requirements for Agreements with the Developer ............. 2 -13 Subsection 2 -23. Assessment Agreements .. ............................... 2 -13 Subsection 2 -24. Administration of the District .............................. 2 -13 Subsection 2 -25. Annual Disclosure Requirements .......................... 2 -13 Subsection -2 -26. Reasonable Expectations . ............................... 2 -13 Subsection 2 -27. Other Limitations on the Use of Tax Increment ................ 2 -14 Subsection 2 -28. Summary .............. ............................... 2 -14 Appendix A Project Description ...................... ............................... A -1 Appendix B Map(s) of the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area and the District ..... , .. B -1 Appendix C. Description of Property to be Included in the District ............................ C -1 Appendix D Estimated Cash Flow for the District ........ ............................... D -1 Section 1- Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area Foreword The following text represents a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area. This modification represents a continuation of the goals and objectives set forth in the Redevelopment Plan for the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area. Generally, the substantive changes consist of the establishment of the Southdale 2 Tax Increment Financing District within the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area. For further information, a review of the Redevelopment Plan for the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area, most recently modified on February 21, 2012, is recommended. It is available from the Executive Director at the City of Edina. Other relevant information is contained in the Tax Increment Financing Plans for the Tax Increment Financing Districts located within the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area. Edina HRA Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area 1 -1 Tax Increment Financing District Overview City of Edina Southdale 2 Tax Increment Financing District The following summary contains an overview of the basic elements of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Southdale 2 Tax Increment Financing District. More detailed information on each of these topics can be found in the complete TIF Plan. Proposed action: Establishment of the Southdale 2 Tax Increment Financing District ( "District ") and the adoption of a Tax Increment Financing Plan. ( "TIF Plan") Modification of the Redevelopment Plan for the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area to include activities related to the District. Type of TIF District: An economic development district Parcel Numbers: See Appendix C of the TIF Plan Proposed The District is being created to facilitate renovations to the common areas of Development: Southdale Mall in the City, Please see Appendix A of the TIF Plan for a more detailed project description. Maximum duration: Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. lb, the duration of the District will be 8 years after receipt of the first increment by the EDA or City. The date of receipt by the City of the first tax increment is expected to be 2014. Thus, it is estimated that the District, including any modifications of the TIF Plan for subsequent phases or other changes, would terminate after 2022, or when the TIF Plan is satisfied. If increment is received in 2013, the term of the District will be 2021. The EDA or City reserves the right to decertify the District prior to the legally required date. Estimated annual tax increment: Up to $1,615,874 Authorized uses: The TIF Plan contains a budget that authorizes the maximum amount that may be expended: Land/Building Acquisition .......................................... ............................... $0 Site Improvements/Preparation ..................... ............................... $2,274,296 Utilities ......... ............................... $ Other Qualifying Improvements ................... ............................... $5,000,000 Administrative Costs (up to 10 %) ............................. : ................. 1 100 00 PROJECT COSTS TOTAL .......................... ............................... $8,374,296 Interest..................................... ............................... ...................... $3.577.92 PROJECT COST AND INTEREST COST TOTAL............ $11,952,217 See Subsection 2 -10, page 2 -5 of the TIF Plan for the full budget authorization. Form of financing: The project is proposed to be financed by an interfund loan(s) not to exceed $5,100,000. Administrative fee: Up to 10% of annual increment, if costs are justified. Interfund Loan The City and HRA approved interfund loan resolutions authorizing a total Requirement: loan of $5,100,000, of which $100,000 is expected to be available for administrative expenditures. 4 Year Activity Rule After four years from the date of certification of the District one of the (§ 469.176 Subd. 6) following activities must have been commenced on each parcel in the District: • Demolition • Rehabilitation • Renovation • Other site preparation (not including utility services such as sewer and water) If the activity has not been started by approximately April 2016, no additional tax increment may be taken from that parcel until the commencement of a qualifying activity. 5 Year Rule Within 5 years of certification revenues derived from tax increments must be (§ 469.1763 Subd. 3) expended or obligated to be expended. Any obligations in the District made after approximately April 2017, will not be eligible for repayment from tax increments. The reasons and facts supporting the findings for the adoption of the TIF Plan for the District, as required pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 3, are included in Exhibit F of the TIF Plan Page 2 EHLERS MAP OF THE SOUTHEAST EDINA REDEVELOMENT PROJECT AREA AND THE SOUTHDALE 2 TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT t I•`, • 1 I I I •I f ( 1 I ( �� � R ``, 1 i IT, a I L I � 1 • Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area and Southdale 2 TIF District h' <• � t''i --r- E I Project Area s ED wern Souriidaie2 TIF District -- 9 FI _ Marn zo+z Page 3 Is EHLERS V I M1 As of April 11, 2012 Draft for Public Hearing Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area and the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the establishment of the Southdale 2 Tax Increment Financing District (an economic development district) within the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority City of Edina Hennepin County State of Minnesota Public Hearing: April 17, 2012 Adopted: This document is in draft form for distribution to the County and the School District. The TIF Plan contains the estimated fiscal and economic implications of the proposed TIF District. The City and the HRA may make minor changes to this draft document prior to the public hearing. el- Prepared by: EHLERS &ASSOCIATES, INC. EHLERS 3060 Centre Pointe Drive, Roseville, Minnesota 55113 -1105 651 - 697 -8500 fax: 651 - 697 -8555 www.ehlers- inc.com Section 1 - Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area .......................... 1 -4 Foreword.............................. .......... ........... .. 1-4 Section 2 - Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Southdale 2 Tax Increment Financing District ........................... 2 -1 Subsection 2 -1. Foreword .... ............ ........................... ` 2 -1 Subsection 2 -2. Statutory Authority ...... .......... ..... ............. 2 -1 Subsection 2 -3. Statement of Objectives ... ........ ... ................ 2 -1 Subsection 2 -4. Redevelopment Plan Overview .. .... ... I ................. 2 -1 Subsection 2 -5. Description of Property in the District and Property To Be Acquired 2 7.2 Subsection 2 -6. Classification of the District ............. .............. 2 -2 Subsection 2 -7. Duration and First Year of Tax Increment of the District .......... 2 -3 Subsection 2 -8. Original Tax Capacity, Tax Rate and Estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity Value /Increment and Notification of Prior Planned Improvements ............... 2 -3 Subsection 2 -9. Sources of Revenue /Bonds to be Issued ..................... 2 -4 Subsection 2 -10. Uses of Funds ...... ... ............................... 2 -5 Subsection 2 -11. Fiscal Disparities Election .................................. 2 -5 Subsection 2 -12. Business Subsidies ....... ............................... 2 -6 Subsection 2 -13. County Road Costs ..... ........ ... ........... . 2 -7 Subsection 2 -14. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions ................ 2 -7 Subsection 2 -15. Supporting Documentation ............................ 2 -9 Subsection 2 -16. Definition of Tax Increment Revenues ........................ 2 -9 Subsection 2 -17. Modifications to the District ............................... 2 -10 Subsection 2 -18. Administrative Expenses ........ ....................... 2 -10 Subsection 2 -19. Limitation of Increment .................................. 2 -11 Subsection 2 -20. Use of Tax Increment .... ............................... 2 -12 Subsection 2 -21. Excess Increments ........ ...................... 2 -12 Subsection 2 -22. Requirements for Agreements with the Developer ............. 2 -13 Subsection 2.23. Assessment Agreements ........... ........... ....... 2 -13 Subsection 2 -24. Administration of the District .............................. 2 -13 Subsection 2 -25. Annual Disclosure Requirements ...... ... _ ............. 2 -13 Subsection 2 -26. Reasonable Expectations ........... .. ................. 2 -13 Subsection 2 -27. Other Limitations on the Use of Tax Increment ................ 2 -14 Subsection 2 -28. Summary ............................. . ............. 2 -14 Appendix A Project Description ............................ ....................... A -1 Appendix B Map(s) of the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area and the District ........ B -1 Appendix C Description of Property to be Included in the District .... ................. C -1 Appendix D Estimated Cash Flow for the District ... .. • • . • • • • . • • • . .. D -1 Appendix E Minnesota Business Assistance Form ....... ............................... E -1 Appendix F Findings Including But/For Qualifications ..... ............................... F -1 Appendix G Prior Improvements ................... G -1 Section 1 - Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area Foreword The following text represents a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the . Southeast Edina Redevelopment Proj ect Area. This modification represents a continuation of the goals and objectives set forth in the Redevelopment Plan for the Southeast Edina,Redevelopment Proj ect Area. Generally, the substantive changes consist of the establishment of the Southdale 2 Tax Increment Financing District within the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area. For further information, a review of the Redevelopment Plan for the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area, most recently modified on February 21,;2012, is recommended. It is available from the Executive Director at the City of Edina. Other relevant information is contained in the Tax Increment Financing Plans for the Tax Increment Financing Districts located within the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area. Edina HRA Modification to the. Redevelopment Plan for the Southeast Edina. Redevelopment Project Area 1 -1 Section 2 - Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Southdale 2 Tax Increment Financing District Subsection 2 -1. Foreword The Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority (the "HRA "), the City of Edina (the "City "), staff and consultants have prepared the following information to expedite the establishment of the Southdale 2 Tax Increment Financing District (the "District "), an economic development tax increment financing district, located in the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area (the "Project Area "). Subsection 2 -2. Statutory Authority Within the City, there exist areas where public involvement is necessary to cause development or redevelopment to occur. To this end, the HRA and City have certain statutory powers pursuant to Minnesota Statutes ( "M.S. "), Sections 469.001 to 469.047, inclusive, as amended, and M.S., Sections 469.174 to 469.1799, inclusive, as amended (the "Tax Increment Financing Act" or "TIF Act "), to assist in financing public costs related to this project. This District is being created pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4c(d). This section contains the Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "TIF Plan") for the District. Other relevant information is contained in the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area. Subsection 2 -3. Statement of Objectives The District currently consists of 300 parcels of land and adjacent and internal rights -of -way. The District is being created to facilitate renovations to the common areas of Southdale Mall in the City. Please see Appendix A for further District information. The HRA and City are considering entering into a redevelopment agreement that would designate Southdale Limited Partnership as the developer. This TIF Plan is expected to achieve many of the objectives outlined in the Redevelopment Plan for the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area. The activities contemplated in the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan and the TIF Plan do notpreclude the undertaking of other qualified development or redevelopment activities. These activities are anticipated to occur over the life of the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area and the District. Subsection 2 -4. Redevelopment Plan Overview 1. Property to be Acquired - Selected property located within the District may be acquired by the HRA or City and is further described in this TIF Plan. 2. Relocation - Relocation services, to the extent required by law, are available pursuant to M.S., Chapter 117 and other relevant state and federal laws. 3. Upon approval of a developer's plan relating to the project and completion of the necessary legal requirements, the HRA or City may sell to a developer selected properties that it may acquire within the District or may lease land or facilities to a developer. Edina HRA Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Southdale 2 Tax Increment Financing District 2 -1 I I' 4.. The HRA or City may perform or provide for some or all necessary acquisition, construction, relocation, demolition, and required utilities and public street work within the District. 5. The City proposes both public and private infrastructure within the District. The proposed improvements to private property within the District will be for a renovation,to a retail mall, 7andthere will be continued operation of the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area after the capital improvements within the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area have been completed: Subsection 2 -5. Description of Property in the District and Property to be Acquired The District encompasses all property and ad j acent rights -of -way and abutting roadways identified by the parcels listed in Appendix C of this TIF-Plan. Please also see the ,map in Appendix B for further information on the location of the District. The City currently owns parcels to be included in the District and intends to acquire land easements and/or additional property within the District. The HRA and City are authorized to use tax increments to acquire any parcel listed in Appendix C of this TIF Plan. Subsection 2 -6. Classification of the District The District is an economic development district as defined in M.S. 469.174, Subd. 12, as. modified by M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4c(d). In order to create an economic development district under general law (M.S., Section 469.174 Subd. 12), the HRA or City must find that the District is in the public, interest because: (1) it will discourage commerce, industry, or manufacturing from moving their operations to another state or municipality; or (2) it will result in increased employment in the state; or (3) it will result in preservation and enhancement of the tax base of the state: In addition, M. S., Section 469:176, Subd. 4c provides that assistance from an economic development district may not be used to provide assistance to development if more than 15 percent of the buildings and ancillary facilities (determined on a square footage basis), are used for other than certain specified purposes (largely manufacturing, warehousing and distribution facilities). However, M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4c(d) provides a limited -time exception to,these general law rules. Under this provision (originally enacted in 2010 legislature and extended in 2011 legislature), a City may establish an economic development of any kind, notwithstanding the normal findings required under M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 12, and notwithstanding the limitation on types of assisted development under M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4c. To satisfy the requirement of M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4c(d), the City finds that: (1) the project will create or retain jobs in this state, including construction jobs and that construction of the project would not have commenced before July 1, 2012, without the City and HRA providing assistance under the provisions of this paragraph; (2) construction of the project will begin no later than July 1, 2012; and Edina HRA Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Southdale 2 Tax Increment Financing District 2 -2 (3) the request for certification of the district is made no later than June 30, 2012; and In meeting the statutory criteria the HRA and City rely on the following facts and findings: The City's findings in creating the District is pursuant to M.S. Sections 469.176, Subd. 4c(d) in order to assist in the renovations to the common areas of Southdale Mall. If construction does not commence on or before July 1, 2012, the proposed facility will need to meet the criteria in M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4c(a), and must satisfy the findings required under M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 12. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 7, the District does not contain any parcel or part of a parcel that qualified under the provisions of M.S., Sections 273.111 or 273.112 or Chapter 473H for taxes payable in any of the five calendar years before the filing of the request for certification of the District Subsection 2 -7. Duration and First Year of Tax Increment of the District Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 1, and M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 1, the duration of the District must be indicated within the TIF Plan. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 1b., the duration of the District will be 8 years after receipt of the first increment by the HRA or City. The date of receipt by the City of the first tax increment is expected to be 2014. Thus, it is estimated that the District, including any modifications of the TIF Plan for subsequent phases or other changes, would terminate after 2022, or when the TIF Plan is satisfied. If increment is received in 2013, the term of the District will be 2021. The HRA or City reserves the right to decertify the District prior to the legally required date. Subsection 2 -8. Original Tax Capacity, Tax Rate and Estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity Value /increment and Notification of Prior Planned Improvements Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 7 and M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, the Original Net Tax Capacity (ONTC) as certified for the District will be based on the market values placed on the property by the assessor in 2011 for taxes payable 2012. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subds.1 and 2, the County Auditor shall certify in each year (beginning in the payment year 2014) the amount by which the original value has increased or decreased as a result of: 1. Change in tax exempt status of property; 2. Reduction or enlargement of the geographic boundaries of the district; 3. Change due to adjustments, negotiated or court- ordered abatements; 4. Change in the use of the property and classification; 5. Change in.state law governing class rates; or 6. Change in previously issued building permits. In any year in which the current Net Tax Capacity (NTC) value of the District declines below the ONTC, no value will be captured and no tax increment will be payable to the HRA or City. The original local tax rate for the District will be the local tax rate for taxes payable 2012, assuming the request for certification is made on or before June 30, 2012. The ONTC and the Original Local Tax Rate for the District appear in the table below. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174 Subd. 4 and M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, 2, and 4, the estimated Edina HRA Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Southdale 2 Tax Increment Financing District 2 -3 Captured Net Tax Capacity (CTC) of the District, within the Southeast Edina-Redevelopment Project Area, upon completion of the projects within the District, will annually-approximate tax increment revenues as shown in the table below. The HRA and City request 100 percent of the available increase in tax, capacity for repayment of its obligations and current expenditures, beginning in the tax year payable 2014. The Project Tax Capacity (PTC) listed is an estimate of values when the projects within the District are completed. Southdale 2 Tax Increment District Parcels in School District No. 273 Project Estimated Tax - Capacity. upon Completion (PTC) $4,714,500 Original Estimated Net Tax Capacity (ONTC) $4,4579873 Fiscal Disparities Reduction $65,592 Estimated Captured Tax Capacity (CTC) $191,035 Original Local Tax Rate 1.08160 Est 20ed Y Estimated Annual Tax Increment (CTC x Local Tax Rate) $206,623 Percent Retained by the HRA and City 100% The tax capacity included in this.chart is the estimated tax capacity of the District in year 9. The tax capacity of the parcels located in. School District 273 in year one is. estimated to be $4,458,033.The fiscal disparities reduction will vary from year to year. Southdale 2 Tax Increment District Parcels in School District No. 280 Project Estimated Tax Capacity upon Completion (PTC) $5,858,175 Original Estimated Net Tax Capacity (ONTO) $4,121,297 Fiscal Disparities Reduction $504,487 Estimated Captured Tax Capacity (CTC) $1,232,391 Original Local Tax Rate 1.14351 pY Pay 2012 Estimated Annual Tax Increment (CTC x Local Tax Rate) $1,409,251 Percent Retained by the HRA and City 100% The tax capacity included in this chart is the estimated tax capacity of the District in year. 9. The tax capacity of the parcels in the District located in School District 280 in year one is estimated to be $4,887,371. The fiscal disparities reduction will vary from year to year. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 4, the HRA shall, after a due and diligent search, accompany its request for certification to the County Auditor or its notice of the District enlargement pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 4, with a listing of all properties within the District or area of enlargement for which building permits have been issued during the eighteen (18) months immediately preceding approval of the T1F Edina HRA Tax Increment Financi.ng Plan for the Southdale 2 Tax In_crementFinancing District 2 -4 Plan by the municipality pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 3. The County Auditor shall increase the original net tax capacity of the District by the net tax capacity of improvements for which a building permit was issued. The City has reviewed the area to be included in the District and has found building permits that were issued in the past 18 months prior to the public hearing. Please see Appendix G for the building permits that were issued. Subsection 2 -9. Sources of Revenue /Bonds to be Issued The costs outlined in the Uses of Funds will be financed primarily through the annual collection of tax increments. The HRA or City reserves the right to incur bonds or other indebtedness as a result of the TIF Plan. As presently proposed, the projects within the District will be financed by an interfund loan. Any refunding amounts will be deemed a budgeted cost without a formal TIF Plan Modification. This provision does not obligate the HRA or City to incur debt. The HRA or City will issue bonds or incur other debt only upon the determination that such action is in the best interest of the City. The total estimated tax increment revenues for the District are shown in the table below: SOURCES OF FUNDS TOTAL Tax Increment $11,702,217 Interest $250,000 Land Sale Proceeds/Lease Revenue LO TOTAL $11,952,217 The HRA or City may issue bonds (as defined in the TIF Act) secured in whole or in part with tax increments from the District in a maximum principal amount of $8,374,296. Such bonds maybe in the form of pay -as- you-go notes, revenue bonds or notes, general obligation bonds, or interfund loans. This estimate of total bonded indebtedness is a cumulative statement of authority under this TIF Plan as of the date of approval. Subsection 2- 10.Uses of Funds Currently under consideration for the District is a proposal to facilitate renovations to the common areas of Southdale Mall. The HRA and City have determined that it will be necessary to provide assistance to the project(s) for certain District costs, as described. The HRA has studied the feasibility of the development or redevelopment of property in and around the District. To facilitate the establishment and development or redevelopment of the District, this TIF Plan authorizes the use of tax increment financing to pay for the cost of certain eligible expenses. The estimate of public costs and uses of funds associated with the District is outlined in the following table. Edina HRA Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Southdale 2 Tax Increment Financing District 2 -5 USES OF TAX INCREMENT FUNDS . TOTAL Land/Building Acquisition $0. Site Improvements/Preparation $2,274,296 Utilities $0' Other`Qualifying improvements $5,000,000 Administrative Costs (up to 10 %) 11,100,000 PROJECT COST TOTAL $8,374,296 Interest 3 577 921 PROJECT AND INTEREST COSTS TOTAL $11,952,217 The total project cost, including financing costs (interest) listed in the table above. does not exceed the total projected tax increments -for the District as shown in Appendix D. Estimated capital and administrative costs listed above are subject to change among categories by modification of the TIF Plan without hearings and notices as required for approval of the initial TIF Plan, so long as the total capital and administrative costs combined do not exceed the total listed above. Further, the HRA or City may spend up to 20 percent of the tax increments from the District for activities (described in the table above) located outside the boundaries of the District but within the boundaries of the Project Area (including administrative costs, which are considered to be spend outside the District), subject to all other terms and conditions of this TIF Plan. Subsection 2-11. Fiscal Disparities Election Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 3, clause b, the HRA or City must calculate fiscal disparities using the following method of computation:. (1) The original net tax capacity shall be determined before the application of the fiscal disparity provisions of Chapter 276A or 473F. The current net tax capacity shall exclude any fiscal disparity commercial- industrial net tax capacity 'increase between the original year and the current year multiplied by the fiscal disparity ratio determined pursuant to M.S., Section 276A.06, subdivision 7 or M.S., Section 473F08, subdivision 6. Where the original net tax capacity is equal to or greater than the current net tax capacity, there is no captured tax capacity and no tax increment determination. Where the original tax capacity is less than the current tax capacity, the difference between the original net tax capacity and the current net tax capacity is the captured net tax capacity. This amount less any portion thereof which the authority has designated, in its tax increment financing plan, to share with the local taxing districts. is the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority. (2) The county auditor shall exclude the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority from the net tax capacity of the local taxing districts. in determining local taxing district tax rates. The local tax rates so determined are to be extended against the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority as well as the net tax capacity of the local taxing districts. Edina HRA Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Southdale 2 Tax Increment Financing District 2 -6 The tax generated by the extension of the less of (A) the local taxing district tax rates or (B) the original local tax rate to the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority is the tax increment of the authority. Subsection 2-12. Business Subsidies Pursuant to M.S., Section 116J.993, Subd. 3, the following forms of financial assistance are not considered a business subsidy: (1) A business subsidy of less than $150,000; (2) Assistance that is generally available to all businesses or to a general class of similar businesses, such as a line of business, size, location, or similar general criteria; (3) Public improvements to buildings or lands owned by the state or local government that serve a public purpose and do notprincipally benefit a single business or defined group of businesses at the time the improvements are made; (4) Redevelopment property polluted by contaminants as defined in M. S., Section 116J.552, Subd. 3; (5) Assistance provided for the sole purpose of renovating old or decaying building stock or bringing it up to code and assistance provided for designated historic preservation districts, provided that the assistance is equal to or less than 50% of the total cost; (6) Assistance to provide job readiness and training services if the sole purpose of the assistance is to provide those services; (7) Assistance for housing; (8) Assistance for pollution control or abatement, including assistance for a tax increment financing hazardous substance subdistrict as defined under M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 23; (9) Assistance for energy conservation; (10) Tax reductions resulting from conformity with federal tax law; (11) Workers' compensation and unemployment compensation; (12) Benefits derived from regulation; (13) Indirect benefits derived from assistance to educational institutions; (14) Funds from bonds allocated under chapter 474A, bonds issued to refund outstanding bonds, and bonds issued for the benefit of an organization described in section 501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended through December 31, 1999; (15) Assistance for a collaboration between a Minnesota higher education institution and a business; (16) Assistance for a tax increment financing soils condition district as defined under M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 19; (17) Redevelopment when the recipient's investment in the purchase of the site and in site preparation is 70 percent or more of the assessor's current year's estimated market value; (18) General changes in tax increment financing law and other general tax law changes of a principally technical nature; (19) Federal assistance until the assistance has been repaid to, and reinvested by, the state or local government agency; (20) Funds from dock and wharf bonds issued by a seaway port authority; (21) Business loans and loan guarantees of $150,000 or less; (22) Federal loan funds provided through the United States Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration; and (23) Property tax abatements granted under M.S., Section 469.1813 to property that is subject to valuation under Minnesota Rules, chapter 8100. Edina HRA Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Southdale 2 Tax Increment Financing District 2 -7 The HRA will comply with M.S., Sections 116.J.993 to 1161995 to the extent the tax increment assistance under this TIF Plan does not fall under any of the above exemptions. Subsection 2- 13.County Road Costs Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 1 a,:the county board may require the HRA or City to pay for all or part of the cost of county road improvements if theproposed development to be assisted by tax increment will, in the judgment of the county, substantially increase the use of county roads requiring construction of road improvements or other road costs and if the road improvements are not scheduled within the next five years under a capital improvement plan or within five years under another county plan. If the county elects to use increments to improve county roads, it must notify the HRA or City within forty - five days of receipt of this TIF Plan. In.the opinion. of the HRA and City and consultants, the proposed development outlined in this TIFF Plan will have little or no impact upon county roads, therefore the TIF Plan was not forwarded to the county 45 days prior to the public hearing. The HRA and City are aware that the county could claim that tax increment should be used for county roads, even after the public hearing. Subsection 2-14. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions The estimated impact on other taxing jurisdictions assumes that the redevelopment contemplated by the TIF Plan would occur without the creation of the District. However, the HRA or City has determined that such. development or redevelopment would not occur "but for' tax increment financing and that, therefore, the fiscal impact on other taxing jurisdictions is $0. The estimated fiscal impact of the District would be as follows if the "but for" test was not met: IMPACT ON TAX BASE FOR PARCELS LOCATED IN SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 273 Hennepin County City of Edina Edina ISD No. 273 Estimated 2011/Pay 2012 Total Net Tax Capacity 1,253,423,199 96,048,515 81,542,007 Estimated Captured Tax Capacity (CTC) Unon Completion 191,035 191,035 191,035 I Percent of CTC to Entity Total 0.0152% 0.1989% 0.2343% Edina HRA Tax Increment: Financing Plan for the Southdale 2 Tax Increment Financing District 2 -8 IMPACT ON TAX BASE FOR PARCELS LOCATED IN SCHOOL IMPACT ON TAX RATES DISTRICT NO. 280 Estimated Pay Estimated Captured 2011/Pay 2012 2012 Percent Potential Upon Completion to Entity Total Extension of Total CTC Taxes Hennepin County Rates 1,232,391 0.0983% City of Edina Hennepin County 0.487770 45.10% 191,035 93,181 City of Edina 0.259080 23.95% 191,035 49,493 Edina ISD No. 273 0.224280 20.74% 191,035 42,845 Other 0.110470 10.21% 191.035 21,104 Total 1.081600 100.00% Rates 206,623 IMPACT ON TAX BASE FOR PARCELS LOCATED IN SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 280 Estimated Estimated Captured 2011/Pay 2012 Tax Capacity (CTC) Percent of CTC Total Net Upon Completion to Entity Total Tax Capacity Hennepin County 1,253,423,199 1,232,391 0.0983% City of Edina 96,048,515 1,232,391 1.2831% Richfield ISD No. 280 29,902,478 1,232,391 4.1214% IMPACT ON TAX RATES Estimated Pay 2012 Percent Potential Extension of Total CTC Taxes Rates Hennepin County 0.487770 42.66% 1,232,391 601,123 City of Edina 0.259080 22.66% 1,232,391 319,288 Richfield ISD No. 280 0.282900 24.74% 1,232,391 348,643 Other 0.113760 9.95% 1,232,391 140,197 Total 1.143510 100.00% 1,409,251 The estimates listed above display the captured tax capacity when all construction is completed. The tax rate used for calculations is the estimated Pay 2012 rate. The total net capacity for the entities listed above are based on estimated Pay 2012 figures. The District will be certified under the actual Pay 2012 rates, which were unavailable at the time this TIF Plan was prepared. Edina HRA Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Southdale 2 Tax Increment Financing District 2 -9 Pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175 Subd. 2(b): (1) Estimate of total tax increment. It is estimated that the total amount of tax increment that will be generated over the life of the District is $11,702,217; (2) Probable impactof the Dictricton City12rovided cervices and ability to issue debt. An impact of the District on police protection is expected. The Edina Police Department does track all calls. for service including property -type calls and crimes.. With increased traffic at Southdale Center mall, police calls for service will be. increased. However, the proposed mall renovations include changes to common areas designed, in part, to reduce security concerns, and police calls, such as the relocation of the transit facility to mall property outside of the mall itself. In addition, proposed housing developments will generate increased police calls. The City does not expect.that the proposed development, in and of itself, mill necessitate new capital investment in vehicles. The probable impact of the District on fire protection is not expected to be significant. Typically new buildings generate few calls, if any, and are of superior construction. Several of the existing buildings, proposed to be replaced or renovated , have public safety concerns that include several unprotected old buildings with issues such as access, hydrant locations, and lack of sprinkling.. The impact of the District on public infrastructure is expected to be minimal. The development is not expected to significantly impact any traffic movements in the area, and is expected to enhance the flow of public transit vehicles in and around the Southdale area. The current infrastructure for sanitary sewer, storm sewer and water will be able to handle the additional volume generated from the proposed development. Potential housing, development will generate in excess of- $180,000 in sewer and water access charges. Based on the development plans, there are no additional costs associated with street maintenance, sweeping, plowing, lighting and sidewalks. The developer will negotiate maintenance of the proposed transit hub with the Metropolitan Council. The probable impact of any District general obligation tax increment bonds on the ability to issue debt for general fund purposes is expected to be minimal. It is not anticipated that there will be any general obligation debtissued in relation to this project, therefore there will be no impact on the City's ability to issue future debt or on the City's debt limit. (3) Estimated amount of tax increment attributable to Edina ISD No. 273 levies. It is estimated that the amount of tax increments over the life of the District that would be attributable to school district levies, assuming the school district's share of the total local tax rate for all taxing jurisdictions remained the same, is $293,548; (4) Estimated amount of tax increment attributable to Richifled ISD No. 280 levies. It is estimated that the amount of tax increments over the life of the District that would be attributable to school district levies, assuming the school district's share of the total local tax rate for all taxing jurisdictions remained the same, is $2,544,966; (5) Estimated amount of tax increment attributable to count lames_ It is estimated that the amount of tax increments over the life of the District that would be attributable to county levies, assuming the county's share of the total local tax rate for all taxing jurisdictions remained the same, is $5,026,701; Edina HRA . Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Southdale 2 Tax Increment Financing District 2 -.10 (6) Additional information requested by the county or school district. The City is not aware of any standard questions in a county or school district written policy regarding tax increment districts and impact on county or school district services. The county or school district must request additional information pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175 Subd. 2(b) within 15 days after receipt of the tax increment financing plan. No requests for additional information from the county or school district regarding the proposed development for the District have been received. Subsection 2- 15.Supporting Documentation Pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175, Subd. I (a), clause 7 the TIF Plan must contain identification and description of studies and analyses used to make the determination set forth in M.S. Section 469.175, Subd. 3, clause (b)(2) and the findings are required in the resolution approving the District. Following is a list of reports and studies on file at the City that support the HRA and City's findings: Greater Southdale Area Land Use and Transportation Study, December 2005 Edina Comprehensive Plan Update 2008 Developer correspondance and Summary of Renovation Costs, February 2011 Subsection 2- 16.Definition of Tax Increment Revenues Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 25, tax increment revenues derived from a tax increment financing district include all of the following potential revenue sources: 1. Taxes paid by the captured net tax capacity, but excluding any excess taxes, as computed under M.S., Section 469.177; 2. The proceeds from the sale or lease of property, tangible or intangible, to the extent the property was purchased by the Authority with tax increments; 3. Principal and interest received on loans or other advances made by the Authority with tax increments; 4. Interest or other investment earnings on or from tax increments; 5. Repayments or return of tax increments made to the Authority under agreements for districts for which the request for certification was made after August 1, 1993; and 6. The market value homestead credit paid to the Authority under M.S., Section 273.1384. Subsection 2 -17. Modifications to the District In accordance with M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 4, any: 1. Reduction or enlargement of the geographic area of the District, if the reduction does not meet the requirements of M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 4(e); 2. Increase in amount of bonded indebtedness to be incurred; 3. A determination to capitalize interest on debt if that determination was not a part of the original TIF Plan; 4. Increase in the portion of the captured net tax capacity to be retained by the HRA or City; 5. Increase in the estimate of the cost of the District, including administrative expenses, that will be paid or financed with tax increment from the District;.or Edina HRA Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Southdale 2 Tax Increment Financing District 2 -11 6. Designation of additional property to be acquired by the HRA or City, shall be approved upon the notice and after the discussion, public hearing and findings required for approval of the original TIF Plan. If the District qualifies for certification only under M.S. Section 469.176, Subd. 4c(d), than the District boundaries may not be enlarged after July 1, 2012. Pursuant to U.S., Section 469.175 Subd..4(f), the geographic area of the District may be reduced following the date of certification of the original'net tax capacity by the county auditor, but shall not be enlarged after five years following the date of certification of the original net tax capacity by the county auditor. The requirements of this paragraph do not apply if (1) the only modification is elimination of parcel(s) from the District and (2) (A) the current net tax capacity of the parcel(s) eliminated from the District equals or exceeds the net tax capacity of those parcel(s) in the District's original net tax capacity or (B) the HRA agrees that, notwithstanding M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, the original net tax capacity will be reduced by no more than the current net tax capacity of the parcel(s) eliminated from the District. The HRA or City must notify the County Auditor of any modification to the District. Modifications to the District in the form of a budget modification or an expansion of the boundaries will be recorded in the TIF Plan. Subsection 2- 18.Administrative Expenses In accordance with M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 14, administrative expenses means all expenditures of the HRA or City, other than: 1. Amounts paid for the purchase of land; 2. Amounts paid to contractors.or others providing materials and services, including architectural and engineering services, directly connected with the physical development of the real property in the District; 3. Relocation benefits paid to or services provided for persons residing or businesses located in the District; or 4. Amounts used to pay principal or interest on, fund a reserve for, or sell at a discount bonds issued pursuant to M.S., .Section 469.178; or 5. Amounts used to pay other financial obligations to the extent those obligations were used to finance costs described in clauses (1) to (3). For districts for which the request for certification were made before August 1, 1979, or after June 30, 1982, and before August 1, 2001, administrative expenses also include amounts paid for services provided by bond counsel, fiscal consultants, and planning or economic development consultants. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd: 3, tax increment may be used to pay any authorized and documented administrative expenses for the District up to butnotto exceed 10 percent of the total estimated tax increment expenditures authorized by the TIF Plan or the, total tax increments, as defined by M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 25, clause (1), from the District, whichever is less. For districts for which certification was requested after July 31, 2001, no tax increment may be used to pay any administrative expenses for District costs which exceed ten percent of total estimated tax increment expenditures authorized by the TIF Plan or the total tax increments, as defined in M.&, Section 469.174, Subd. 25, clause (1), from the District, whichever is less. Edina HRA. Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Southdale 2.Tax) Increment Financing District 2 -12 Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4h, tax increments may be used to pay for the County's actual administrative expenses incurred in connection with the District and are not subject to the percentage limits of M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 3. The county may require payment of those expenses by February 15 of the year following the year the expenses were incurred. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469. 177, Subd. 11, the County Treasurer shall deduct an amount (cur ently .36 percent) of any increment distributed to the HRA or City and the County Treasurer shall pay the amount deducted to the State Commissioner of Management and Budget for deposit in the state general fund to be appropriated to the State Auditor for the cost of financial reporting of tax increment financing information and the cost of examining and auditing authorities' use of tax increment financing. This amount may be adjusted annually by the Commissioner of Revenue. Subsection 2 -19. Limitation of Increment The tax increment pledged to the payment of bonds and interest thereon may be discharged and the District may be terminated if sufficient funds have been irrevocably deposited in the debt service fund or other escrow account held in trust for all outstanding bonds to provide for the payment of the bonds at maturity or redemption date. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 6: if, after four years from the date of certification of the original net tax capacity of the tax increment financing district pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, no demolition, rehabilitation or renovation of property or other site preparation, including qualified improvement of a street adjacent to a parcel but not installation of utility service including sewer or water systems, has been commenced on a parcel located within a tax increment financing district by the authority or by the owner of the parcel in accordance with the tax increment financing plan, no additional tax increment may be taken from that parcel and the original net tax capacity of that parcel shall be excluded from the original net tax capacity of the tax increment financing district. If the authority or the owner of the parcel subsequently commences demolition, rehabilitation or renovation or other site preparation on that parcel including qualified improvement of a street adjacent to that parcel, in accordance with the tax increment financing plan, the authority shall certify to the county auditor that the activity has commenced and the county auditor shall certify the net tax capacity thereof as most recently certified by the commissioner of revenue and add it to the original net tax capacity of the tax increment financing district. The county auditor must enforce the provisions of this subdivision. The authority must submit to the county auditor evidence that the required activity has taken place for each parcel in the district. The evidence for a parcel must be submitted by February 1 of the fifth year following the year in which the parcel was certified as included in the district. For purposes of this subdivision, qualified improvements of a street are limited to (1) construction or opening of a new street, (2) relocation of a street, and (3) substantial reconstruction or rebuilding of an existing street. The HRA or City or a property owner must improve parcels within the District by approximately April 2016 and report such actions to the County Auditor. Edina HRA Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Southdale 2 Tax Increment Financing District 2 -13 Subsection 2 -20. Use of Tax Increment The HRA or City hereby determines that it will use 100 percent of the captured net tax capacity of taxable property located in the District for the following purposes: 1. To pay the princip�j, of and;interest on bonds issued to finance a project; 2. to finance; or otherwise pay public redevelopment costs of the the,SoutheastEdina Redevelopment Project Area pursuant to M.S., Sections 469.001. to 469.047; 3. To pay for project costs as identified in the budget set forth in the TIF Plan; 4. To finance, or otherwise pay for other purposes as provided in M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4; 5. To pay principal and interest on any loans,. advances or other payments made to or on behalf of the HRA or City or for the benefit of the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area by a developer; 6. To finance or otherwise pay premiums and other costs for insurance or other security guaranteeing the payment when due of principal of and interest on bonds pursuant to the TIF Plan or pursuant to M.S., Chapter 462C. M.S., Sections 469.152 through 469.165, and/or M.S., Sections 469.178; and 7. To accumulate or maintain a reserve securing the payment when due of the principal and interest on the tax increment bonds or bonds issued pursuant to M.S., Chapter 462C, M.S., Sections 469.152 through 469.165, and/or M.S., Sections 469.178. These revenues shall not be used to circumvent any levy limitations applicable to the City nor for other purposes prohibited by M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4. Tax increments generated in the District will be paid by Hennepin County to the HRA for the Tax Increment Fund of said District. The BRA or City will pay to the deyeloper(s) annually an amount not to exceed an amount as specified in a developer's agreement to reimburse the costs of land acquisition, public improvements, demolition and relocation, site preparation, and administration. If the requestfor certification of the District was made after June 30, 2009 and no later than June 30, 2012 and construction commenced in the Districtby July 1, 2012, tax increments from the District may also be used to provide improvements, loans, subsidies, grants; interest rate subsidies, or assistance in any form to developments consisting of buildings and ancillary facilities. Remaining increment funds will be used for HRA or City administration (up to 10 percent) and for the costs of public improvement activities outside the District. Subsection 2 -21. Excess Increments Excess increments, as defined in M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 2, shall be used only to do one or more of the following: 1. Prepay any outstanding bonds; 2. Discharge the pledge of tax increment for any outstanding bonds; 3. Pay into an escrow account dedicated to the payment of any outstanding bonds; or 4. Return the excess to the County Auditor for redistribution to the respective taxing jurisdictions in proportion to their local tax rates. The HRA or City must spend or return the excess increments under paragraph (c) within nine months after the end of the year:. In addition, the HRA or City may, subject to the limitations setforth herein, choose to modify the TIF Plan in order to finance additional public costs in the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area or the District. Edina HRA Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Southdale 2 Tax Increment Financing District 2 -14 Subsection 2 -22. Requirements for Agreements with the Developer The HRA or City will review any proposal for private development to determine its conformance with the Redevelopment Plan and with applicable municipal ordinances and codes. To facilitate this effort, the following documents may be requested for review and approval: site plan, construction, mechanical, and electrical system drawings, landscaping plan, grading and storm drainage plan, signage system plan, and any other drawings or narrative deemed necessary by the HRA or City to demonstrate the conformance of the development with City plans and ordinances. The HRA or City may also use the Agreements to address other issues related to the development. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 5, no more than 10 percent, by acreage, of the property to be acquired in the District as set forth in the TIF Plan shall at any time be owned by the HRA or City as a result of acquisition with the proceeds of bonds issued pursuant to M. S., Section 469.178 to which:taxincrements from property acquired is pledged, unless prior to acquisition in excess of 10 percent of the acreage, the HRA or City concluded an agreement for the development of the property acquired and which provides recourse for the HRA or City should the development not be completed. Subsection 2- 23.Assessment Agreements Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 8, the HRA or City may enter into a written assessment agreement in recordable form with the developer of property within the District which establishes a minimum market value of the land and completed improvements for the duration of the District. The assessment agreement shall be presented to the County Assessor who shall review the plans and specifications for the improvements to be constructed, review the market value previously assigned to the land upon which the improvements are to be constructed and, so long as the minimum market value contained in the assessment agreement appears, in the judgment of the assessor, to be a reasonable estimate, the County Assessor shall also certify the minimum market value agreement. Subsection 2-24. Administration of the District Administration of the District will be handled by the Executive Director. Subsection 2- 25.Annual Disclosure Requirements Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subds. 5, 6, and 6b the HRA or City must undertake financial reporting for all tax increment financing districts to the Office of the State Auditor, County Board and County Auditor on or before August 1 of each year. M. S., Section 469.175, Subd. 5 also provides that an annual statement shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City on or before August 15. If the City fails to make a disclosure or submit a report containing the information required by M. S., Section 469.175 Subd. 5 and Subd. 6, the OSA will direct the County Auditor to withhold the distribution of tax increment from the District. Subsection 2 -26. Reasonable Expectations As required by the TIF Act, in establishing the District, the determination has been made that the anticipated development would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and that the increased market value of the site that could reasonably be Edina HRA Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Southdale 2 Tax Increment Financing District 2 -15 expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in the market value estimated to resultfrom the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of the District permitted by the TIF Plan. In making said determination, reliance has been placed upon written representation made by developer to such effects and upon HRA and City staff awareness of the feasibility of developing the project site(s) within the District. A comparative analysis of estimated market values both.with and without establishment of the District and the use of tax increments has been performed as described above. Such analysis is included with the cashflow in Appendix D, and indicates that the increase in estimated market value of.the proposed development (less the indicated subtractions) exceeds the estimated market value of the site absent the establishment of the - District and the use of tax increments. Subsection 2- 27.0ther Limitations on the Use of Tax Increment 1. General Limitations. All revenue derived from tax increment shall be used in accordance with the TIF Plan. The revenues shall be used to finance, or otherwise pay public redevelopment costs of,the the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area pursuant to M.S., Sections 469.001 to 469.047. Tax increments may not be used to circumvent existing levy limit law. No tax'increment may be used for the acquisition, construction, renovation, operation, or maintenance of a building to be used primarily and regularly for conducting the business of a municipality; county,'school district, or any other local unit of government or the state or federal government. This provision does not prohibit the use of revenues derived from tax increments for the construction or renovation of a parking structure. 2. Pooling Limitations. At least 80 percent of tax increments from the District must be expended on activities in the District or to pay bonds, to the extent that the proceeds of the bonds were used to finance activities within said district or to pay, or secure payment of, debt service on credit enhanced bonds. Not more than 20 percent of said tax increments may be expended, through a development fund or otherwise, on activities outside of the District except to pay, or secure payment of, debt service on credit enhanced bonds. For purposes of applying this restriction, all administrative expenses must be treated as if they were solely for activities outside of the District. 3. Five Year Limitation on Commitment of Tax Increments. Tax increments derived from the District shall be deemed to have satisfied the 80 percent test set forth in paragraph (2) above only if the five year rule set forth in M.S., Section 469.1763, Subd. 3, has been satisfied; and beginning with the sixth year following certification of the District, 80 percent of said tax increments that remain after expenditures permitted under said five year rule must be used only to pay previously committed expenditures or credit enhanced bonds as more fully set forth in M.S., Section 469.1763, Subd. S. Subsection 2 -28. Summary The Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority is establishing the District to preserve and enhance the tax base, redevelop substandard areas,. and provide employment opportunities in the City. The TIF Plan for the District was prepared by Ehlers & Associates, Inc., 3060 Centre Pointe Drive, Roseville, Minnesota 55113, telephone (651) 697 -8500. Edina HRA Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Southdale 2 Tax Increment, Financing District 2 -16 Appendix A Project Description The City and HRA will be facilitating improvements to the 1.2 million square foot Southdale Center mall which was originally constructed in the 1960's. The redeveloper plans to renovate the interiorcommon area and make exterior improvements to the shopping center. The renovations will consist of new entrance structures, flooring, lighting, signage, restrooms, parking deck lighting, and exterior seating, columns and interior wall treatments. Improvements are planned to be substantially completed by December 31, 2012. The City and HRA intend to finance a portion of the total renovation costs. The HRA will be loaning $5 million to Southdale Center, $250,000 of which is forgiven if a transit station is constructed. Tax increments collected from the Southdale Center parcels will be used to writedown principal of the loan and adjacent development will pay for interest on the loan and for the transit station improvements. Appendix A -1 i Appendix B Map(s) of'the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area and the District, Appendix - B -1 Al 21 k L 1 j j I I J I A., PAII ty I f k YHOW 1, �1- z Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area and Southdale 2 TIF District N W E ( n Project Area + S Southdale 2 TIF District Engineering Dept. March. 2012 Appendix G Description of Property to be Included in the. District The District encompasses all property and adjacent rights -of -way and abutting roadways identified by the parcel(s) listed below: Appendix C -1 Parcel ID Address 29 -028.24 -33 -0001 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 29 -028- 24-33 -0004 3500 69TH ST W 29- 028 -24 -33 -0014 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 29 -028 -24 -33 -0021 3503 GALLERIA 29 -028 -24 -33 -0022 3460 GALLERIA 29 -028- 24- 33.0023 3501 GALLERIA 29 -028 -24-34 -0002 6825 YORK AVE S 29-028 -24 -34 -0007 3100 70TH ST W 29- 028 -24 -34 -0010 6975 YORK AVE S 29- 028 -24 -34 -0019 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 29- 028 -24 -34 -0020 6775 YORK AVE 5 29 -028 -24 -34 -0021 6803 YORK AVE S 29- 028.24 - 34.0022 6805 YORK AVE S 29-028 -24 -34 -0024 3210 GALLERIA 29 -028 -24 -34 -0025 6905 YORK AVE 5 29 -028.24 -34 -0026 3121 69TH ST W 29- 028 -24 -34 -0033 3209 Galleria 29- 028 -24 -34 -0034 3209 Galleria 29- 028 -24 -34 -0035 3209 Galleria 29- 028.24 -34 -0036 3209 Gallerla 29 -02B -24 -34 -0037 3209 Galleria 29- 028 -24 -34 -0038 3209 Galleria 29- 028 -24 -34 -0039 3209 Galleria 29 -028- 24-34 -0040 3209 Galleria 29- 028 -24 -34 -0041 3209 Galleria 29- 028 -24 -34 -0042 3209 Galleria 29 -028 -24.34 -0043 3209 Gallerla 29-028 -24 -34 -0044 3209 Gallerla 29-028 -24 -34 -0045 3209 Gallerla 29- 028.24 -34 -0046 3209 Gallerla 29- 028- 24- 34 -DO47 3209 Galleria 29 -028.24 -34 -0048 3209 Galleria 29- 028 -24 -34 -0049 3209 Galleria 29 -028 -24.34 -0050 3209 Gallerla 29- 028 -24 -34 -0051 3209 Galleria 29- 028 -24 -34 -0052 3209 Galleria 29- 028.24.34 -0053 3209 Galleria 29- 028 -24 -34 -0054 3209 Galleria 29- 028 -24.34 -0055 3209 Galleria 29 -028 -24 -34 -0056 3209 Gallerla 29 -028 -24 -34 -0057 3209 Galleria 29 -02B -24-34 -0058 3209 Gallerla 29- 02B -24 -34 -0059 3209 Galleria 29- 028 -24 -34 -0060 3209 Galleria 29- 028.24 -34 -0061 3209 Galleria 29- 028.24 -34 -0062 3209 Galleria 29- 028 -24 -34 -0063 3209 Galleria 29 -028 -24 -34 -0064 3209 Galleria 29- 028.24 -34 -0065 3209 Galleria 29- 028.24 - 34.0066 3209 Galleria 30-028 -24.44 -0003 3950 70TH ST W 30- 028 -24 -44 -0004 4040 70TH ST W 30- 028- 24- 44 -D005 6950 FRANCE AVE 5 30 -028- 24- 44.0008 3910 70th Street West 30- 028 -24 -44 -0057 6900 FRANCE AVE 5 30- 028 -24-44 -0058 3905 69TH ST W 30 -028 -24 -44 -0059 3939 69TH ST W 29- 02B -24 -23 -0001 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 29- 028 -24 -23 -0007 6533 Drew Avenue South 29- 028.24 -23 -0008 6525 Drew Avenue 5 29 -028 -24 -23 -0009 6517 DREW AVE S 29 -028 -24 -23 -0010 3625 65TH ST W 29 -028 -24 -23 -0011 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 29 -028 -24 -23 -0012 3400 66TH 5T W 29- 028 -24 -23 -0167 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 29 -028 -24 -23 -0172 6545 FRANCE 29- 028.24 -23 -0173 6525 FRANCE AVE 5 29.028- 24.24.0001 3316 66th Street West 29. 028 -24 -24 -0002 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 29- 028.24.24 -0004 Thrivent Financial - No Address 29- 028 -24 -24 -0005 3250 66th Street West 29- 028 -24- 24-0007 6550 York Avenue 29. 028 -24 -24 -0025 6515 Barrie Road 29 -028 -24.24 -0026 6525 Barrie Road 29 -028.24 -24 -0027 6519 Barrie Road 29- 028 -24.24 -0030 3330 66th Street West 29- 028- 24- 24 -0D31 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 29 -028 -24 -24 -0032 6500 BARRIE RD 29 -028 -24.24 -0120 6444 Xerxes Avenue South 29- 028.24 -24 -0121 6500 Xerxes Avenue 29- 028 -24.24 -0223 6525 YORK AVE 5 29- 028 -24 -31 -0002 3101 66TH ST W 29.028 -24 -31 -0003 6725 York Avenue South 29- 028 -24 -31 -0005 3425 66TH ST W 29- 028 -24 -31 -0006 3230 SOUTHDALE CIR 29- 028 -24 -31 -0007 3220 SOUTHDALE CIR 29- 028.24.31 -0008 3210 SOUTHDALE CIR 29- 028 -24 -31 -0009 3200 SOUTHDALE CIR 29- 028 -24 -31 -0010 3240 SOUTHDALE CIR 29- 028 -24 -31 -0011 6512 XERXES AVES 29 -028 -24.31 -0012 6616 XERXES AVE 5 29- 028 -24 -31 -0013 6620 XERXES AVE 5 29- 028 -24 -31 -0014 6624 XERXES AVE 5 29- 028 -24 -31 -0015 6528 XERXES AVE S 29 -02B - 24.31 -0016 6700 XERXES AVE S 29- 028 -24 -31 -0017 6704 XERXES AVE S 29 -028 -24 -31 -0018 6708 XERXES AVE 5 29- 026 -24- 31.0019 6712 XERXES AVE 5 29- 028 -24.31 -0024 300 SOUTHDALE CENTER 29- 028 -24 -31 -0025 6636 YORK AVE S 30.028- 2414 -0073 6566 France 30 -028.24 -14 -0074 6566 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0077 6566 France 30-028 - 24.14 -0078 6566 France 30 -028.24.14 -0079 6566 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0080 6566 France 30 -028 -24 -14 -0081 6566 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0082 6566 France 30. 028 -24 -14 -0083 6566 France 3D- 028 -24 -14 -0084 6566 France 30 -028- 24- 14.0085 6566 France 30- 028.24 -14 -0086 6566 France 30 -028. 24-14 -0087 5566 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0088 6566 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0089 6566 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0090 6566 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0091 6566 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0092 6566 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0093 6556 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0094 6566 France 30 -028 -24 -14 -0095 6566 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0096 6566 France 30- 028 -24-14 -0097 6566 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0098 6566 France 30- 028.24.14 -0099 6566 France 30- 026 -24 -14 -0100 6566 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0101 6566 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0102 6566 France 30 -028- 24-14 -0103 6566 France 30 -028 -24 -14 -0104 6566 France 30 -028- 24 -14 -0105 6566 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0106 6566 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0107 6566 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0108 6566 France 30- 026 -24 -14 -0109 6566 France 30 -028 -24 -14 -0110 6566 France 30 -028 -24 -14 -0111 6566 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0112 6566 France 30 -028 -24-14 -0113 6566 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0114 6565 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0115 6566 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0116 6566 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0117 6566 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0118 6566 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0119 6565 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0120 6566 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0123 6566 France 30. 028 -24 -14 -0125 6566 France 30 -028 -24 -14 -0127 6566 France 30 -028 - 24.14.0128 6566 France 29 -028 -24 -34 -0067 .3209 Galleria 29- 028 -24 -34 -0068 3209 Galleria 29-028 -24-34 -0069 3209 Galleria 29- 028 -24 -34 -0070 3209 Galleria 29- 028 -24 -34 -0071 3209 Galleria 29 -028 -24-34 -0072 3209 Galleria 29 -028 -24 -34 -0073 3209 Galleria 29 -028 -24 -34 -0074 3209 Galleria 29- 028 -24 -34 -0075 3209 Galleria 29 -028 -24 -34 -0076 3209 Galleria 29- 028- 24-34 -0077 3209 Galleria 29- 028 -24 -34 -0078 3209 Galleria 29 -028 -24-34 -0079 3209 Galleria 29- 028 -24 -34 -0080 3209 Galleria 29- 028 -24 -34 -0081 3209 Galleria 29 -028 -24.34 -0082 3209 Galleria 29- 028 -24 -34 -0083 3209 Gallerla 29 -028- 24-34 -0084 3209 Galleria 29 -028 -24 -34 -0085 3209 Gallerla 29 -028 -24 -34 -0086 3209 Galleria 29 -028 -24 -34 -0087 3209 Galleria 29 -028 -24 -34 -0088 3209 Galleria 29 -028 -24-34 -0089 3209 Galleria 29 -028 -24 -34 -0090 3209 Galleria 29 -028- 24- 34.0091 3209 Galleria 29 -028 -24 -34 -0092 3209 Galleria 29 -028 -24-34 -0093 3209 Galleria 29- 028 -24 -34 -0094 3209 Galleria 29 -028 -24 -34 -0095 3209 Galleria 29 -028 -24. 34-0096 3209 Galleria 29 -028 -24 -34 -0097 3209 Galleria 29- 028 -24 -34 -0098 3209 Galleria 29- 028 -24 -34 -0099 3209 Gallerla 29- 028 -24 -34 -0100 3209 Galleria 29- 028 -24.34 -0101 3209 Galleria 29- 028 -24 -34 -0102 3209 Galleria 29- 028 -24 -34 -0103 3209 Galleria 29- 028 -24 -34 -0104 3209 Gallerla 29- 028 -24.34 -0105 3209 Galleria 29 -028 -24 -34 -0106 3209 Galleria 29 -028 -24 -34 -0107 3209 Galleria 29- 028 -24 -34 -0108 3209 Galleria 29 -028.24 -34 -0109 3209 Gallerla 29- 028 -24 -34 -0110 3209 Gallerla 29- 028 -24 -34 -0111 3209 Galleria 29- 028 -24 -34 -0112 3209 Galleria 29 -028 -24 -34 -0113 3209 Galleria 29 -028 -24 -34 -0114 3209 Galleria 30- 028 -24-41 -0001 6600 France Avenue South 30.028 -24-44 -0001 6996 France Avenue South 29 -028 -24 -31 -0026 6755 YORK AVE 5 29-028 -24 -31 -0027 6775 YORK AVE S 29- 028 -24 -32 -0001 3501 66TH ST W 29- 028 - 24.32 -0003 200 SOUTHDALE CENTER 29 -028 -24 -32 -ODOR 100 SOUTHDALE.CENTER 29- 028 -24 -32 -0009 10 SOUTHDALE CENTER 30 -028.24.14 -0007 4005 65th Street 30- 028 -24 -14 -0008 6500 France Avenue South 30 -028 -24-14 -0009 6566 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0010 6566 France 30- 028 -24.14 -0011 6566 France 40 -028 -24 -14 -0012 6566 France 30. 028 =24.14 -0013 6566 France 30 -028- 24 -14 -0014 6566 France 30- 028- 24- 14 -OD15 6566 France 30 -028 -24 -14 -0016 6566 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0017 6566 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0018 6566 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0019 6565 France 30- 028.24 -14 -0020 6565 France 30- 02B -24 -14 -0021 6566 France 30- 028 -24.14 -0022 6566 France 30- 028 -24.14 -0023 6566 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0024 6566 France 30. 028 -24 -14 -0025 6556 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0026 6556 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0027 6566 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0028 6566 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0029 6566 France 30 -028 -24 -14 -0030 6566 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0031 6566 France 30 -028 -24 -14 -0032 6566 France 30 -028 -24 -14 -0033 6566 France 30 -028 -24.14 -0034 6566 France 30- 028.24 - 14.0035 6566 France 30 -028 -24 -14 -0036 6566 France 30 -028 -24 -14 -0037 6566 France 30 -028 -24 -14 -0038 6566 France 30 -028 -24 -14 -0041 6566 France 30 -028- 24- 14 -0D42 6566 France 30 -028 -24 -14 -0043 6566 France 30 -028- 24.14 -OD44 6566 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0045 5566 France 30 -028 -24 -14 -0046 6566 France 30 -028 -24 -14 -0047 6566 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0048 6566 France 30- 02B -24 -14 -0069 6566 France 30 -028 -24 -14 -0070 6566 France 30 -028 -24.14 -0071 6566 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0072 6566 France 30 -028 -24 -14 -0129 6566 France 30 -02B -24 -14 -0130 6566 France 30 -028.24 -14 -0131 6566 France 30 -028.24 -14 -0133 6566 France 30 -028 -24-14 -0135 6566 France 30 -028- 24- 14-0137 6566 France 30 -028 -24.14 -0139 6566 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0140 6566 France 30 -028 -24.14 -0141 6566 France 30 -028- 24-14 -0142 6566 France 30- 028 -24.14 -0147 6566 France :30-028 -24 -14 -0149 6566 France 30 -028.24 - 14.0151 6566 France 30- 028 -24 714 -0152 6566 France 30 -028 -24 -14 -0153 6566 France 30 -028 -24 -14 -0154 6566 France 30`028.24.14 -0155 6566 France 30 -028 -24 -14 -0156 6566 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0157 6566 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0158 6565 France 30- 028- 24- 14 -D159 6565 France 30- 028 -24 -14- 0160 4015 65th Street West 30 -028.24 -14 -0161 6566 France 30- 028 -24-14 -0162 6566 France 30- 02B -24 -14 -0163 6566 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0164 6566 France 30 -028- 24 -14- 0165 6566 France 30- 028.24 -14 -0166 6566 France 30 -028.24 -14 -0167 6566 France 30 -028 -24 -14 -0168 6566 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0049 6566 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0050 6566 France 30- 02B -24 -14 -0051 6566 France 30- 028.24- 14.0052 6566 France 30- 026 -24 -14 -0053 6566 France 30 -028 -24 -14 -0054 6566 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0055 6566 France 30- 028 - 24.14 -0056 6566 France 30 -028 -24 -14 -0057 6566 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0058 6566 France 30- 028 -24- 14-0059 6566 France 30- 028.24 -14 -0060 6566 France 30- 028 -24-14 -0061 6566 France 30- 028.24 -14- 00626566 France 30- 028- 24 -14- 0063.6566 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0064 6566 France 30- 028- 24 -14 -0065 6566 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0066 6566 France 30- 028- 24 -14- 0067'6566 France 30- 028 -24 -14 -0068 6566 France Southdale Mall Renovation and Mixed Use Development City of Edina Sou111dala Mall Renovation and Adjacent Development School Distric 273 Mall Mall Mall ASSUMPTIONS DlstriciType: Economic Development District Name/Number: County District e: First Year Construction or Inflation on Value 2012 Existing District - Specify No. Years Remaining Inflation Rate - Every Year. 0.00% Interest Rate: 550% Present Value Date: 1 -Feb-12 First Period Ending 1- Aug -12 Tax Year District was Caddied: Pay 2012 Castillo. Assumes First Tax Increment For Development: 2014 Years of Tax Increment 9 Assumes Last Year of Tax Increment 2022 F,ral Ospenties EL9t0orr, (Outside (A), Inside (B), or NA) Inside(B) inc-nmenrol or real F-=l Dilipini,@S Incremartal Fcs : l Dsoan :ies Gom4lWhan Ratio 34.7413% Pay 2012 Prelim. Fiscal DLS=n:i *N,etro•L'i tale rax Rate 141.9450% Pay 2012 Prelim. EASE • AAI Lb MaxknuWFFozen Local Tax Rate: Current Loral Tax Rate: (Use lesser of Current or Max_) SWIe -wide Tax Rate (Comm And. only used for total taxes) Market Value Tax Rate (Used for total taxes) PROPERTY TAX CLASSES AND CLASS RATES: Exempt Gass Rate (Exempt) Commercial Industrial Preferred Class Rare (CA Prel.) First 5150.000 Over S150.000 Commercial Industrial Gla >s Rate (5511) Rental Housing Class Rate (EAnial) A1lorda0la Rental Housing Class Rate (AIL Rental) Non -I lomestead Residenlial (Non H Res.) Homestdad Residental Class Fiala ( Hmstd. Res.) First 5500.000 Owl 5500,000 Agncultural Non - Homestead • • • 108 -160% S0273 1na.160% Pay 2012 Prelim. 52,0000% Pay 2012 Prelim. 0.18532% Pay 2012 Prelim 00016 2 2• 1.25`x 1 25% 1 25 °^ 10096 125% I.00 pc=n Tdx Yom Propdrty Current Class ARaf Land Building Total Of Valued Original Original Tax Original After Conversion StD PID address Market Value M0600t Value Market Value for Di•ufct Market Value Market Value claas Tax Ce 1 Conwrlsen Otl , Tdx COP. 273 29-028 -24. 33.0004 3500 GSTH ST W 571600 0 571,800 10D% 571,800 32,901800 Pay 2012 CA Pay 2012 CA 11,436 858,076 CA CA 11.438 658,076 273 29-028 -24- 33-0014 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 14,995,000 17,908,800 32,903,800 700% 100% 7,388,100 Pay 2012 551 151,762 CA 151,762 273 29- 028 -24 -33 -0021 3503 GALLERIA 2,273.100 14,624,600 5,315,000 42,085,400 7,5118100 56,710,000 100% 56,710,000 Pay 2012 Cn Pref. 1,133,450 CA Pref. 1,133,450 273 273 29-028 -24.33 -0022 3460 GALLERIA 29-028 -24- 33-0023 3501 GALLERIA 3,287,100 2.112.900 5,400,000 100% 5,400.000 Pay 2012 CA 100,000 CA Prof. 100,000 50,292 273 29- 028 -24 -34 -0002 6025 YORK AVE S 2.851,200 100,900 2,952,100 1009; 2X2.100 2,928.000 Pay 2012 CA Pret, Pay 2012 C/I Prel, 58292 45.770 CA CA Prof. 45.770 273 29 -028 -24.34 -0007 3100 70TH ST W 1,3R2,700 1,586,200 943,300 1,059,400 2,326,000 2.645,600 100% 1009. 2,645.600 Pay 2012 C/I Prof. 52,162 C41 Prof- 52,162 273 273 29 -028 -24.34 -0010 6975 YORK AVE 5 29- 028 -24 -34.0019 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 2,852,400 0 2,852.400 1OD°6 2.05°2,400 Pay 2012 C/I 57,048 Rental 35,655 273 29- 028 -24 -34 -0020 6775 YORK AVE5 1,162,700 0 1,162,700 100% 1,162,700 5,957,200 Pay 2012 CA Pay 2012 CA 23,254 119,144 GA CA 23.254 119.144 273 29 -028 -24 -34 -0021 6803 YORK AVE 5 2.932.400 3,024,800 247,800 5,957,200 973,000 1001A 100% 9MODD Pay 2012 CA 19,460 C.9 19.460 273 273 29 -028.24 -34 -0022 6805 YORK AVE 5 29 -028 -24 -34 -0024 32 LO GALLERIA 725,200 2,532200 2,117,800 4,650,000 100°16 4.650,000 Pay 2012 GA Pmf. 92,750 G/I Pmf, 92.250 273 29 -028 -24-34 -0025 6905 YORK AVE 5 2,084.400 0 2,084.400 100% 2.084,400 Pay 2012 GA Pmf. 40.930 C•1 Prel. 40.938 146.063 273 Z9. 028- 24- 34 -002E 312169TH ST 1,482.100 10,202,900 11,685,000 1W9 100% 11 M5.000 617,400 Pay 2012 Rental Pay 2012 Non -H Ras 146.063 7,718 Rental Non -H Res 7,718 273 273 29 -028 -24 -34 -0033 3209 Galled: 29 -028 -24 -34 -0034 3209 Gal 817,400 1,179.000 617,400 1,179,000 10094 1,179.000 Pay 2012 Non -H Res. 14,738 Non -H Res. 14,738 273 29 -028.24 -34 -0035 3209 Ga11.6a 620,000 620,000 100% 100% 1520.000 778,000 Pay 2012 Non-H Res. Pay 2012 Non-H Res. 7.750 9,738 Non -H Res. Non -H Res. 7,750 9,738 273 29 -028- 24- 34 -003E 3209 Galleria 779.000 591,000 779.000 591,000 100% 591,000 Pay 2012 Non -H Res 7,388 Non -H Res. 7,388 273 273 29. 028.24 -34 -0037 3209Galleria 29 -02H -24- 34-0039 3209 Galleria 589,000 589 000 100'.6 589,000 Pay 2012 Non-H Res. 7,363 Non-H Res. 7,363 273 29 -028- 24- 34 -0D3S 3209 Galleria 417,000 417,000 100% 417.000 Pay 2012 Non -H Res. 5,213 Non-H Res. 5.213 12,650 273 29- 019 -24- 34.0040 3209 Galleria 1,012,000 1,012,000 100% 1,012,000 Pay 2012 Non -H Res. 12,650 Non -H Res. Res. 8.389 273 29 -028 -24-34 -0041 3219 Gallen. 671.100 671.100 100% 100% 671,101) 1,179,000 Pay 2012 Non -H Res. Pay 2012 Non -H Res. 8,389 14,738 Non-H Non -H Res. 14.738 273 273 29-0Ze -24-34 -0042 3209 Galleria 29 -028.24 -34 -0043 3209 Galleria 1,179,000 626,000 1.179,000 626,000 100% 626,000 Pay 2012 Non -H Res. 7.825 Non-H Rea. 7,825 273 29 -028 -24.34 -0044 3209 Galleria 839.000 639.000 IDO% 639.000 Pay 2012 Hmstd. Ras. 6.738 Hrnsld. Res 6,738 7.088 273 29 -028 -24 -34 -0045 3209 Galled: 567,000 567,000 100% 567,000 565,600 Pay 2012 Non -H Res. Pay 2012 Hmstd. Res. 7,088 5,819 Non-H Res. Hmsid. Res. 5,819 273 29- 028 - 24.34 -0046 3209 Galleria 565,500 395.100 565.500 396,100 100% 100% 396,100 Pay 2012 Hmstd, Res- 3,961 Hmstrl Res 3,961 273 273 29 -028 -24- 34-0047 3209 Galleria 29-028.24 -34 -0048 3209Galkria 1.179,000 1,179,000 100% 1.179,000 Pay 2012 Non -H Res, 14,738 Non -H Res. 14,738 273 29 -028 -24 -34 -0049 3209 Galled: 1,005,400 0 1,005,400 1055% 100 °6 1,005,400 1,179,000 Pay 2012 Hinsld. Res. Pay 2012 Hmstd. Res, 11,318 13,468 Hmstd. Res. Hmsld. Res. 11.318 13,488 273 29 -028- 24- 34 -0OSC 3209 Galleria 1,179,000 680.100 1,179,000 680,100 100% 680,100 Pay 2012 Hmstd. Res. 7251 Hmstd. Res. 725t 273 273 29 -028 -24- 34-0051 3209 Galleri a 29-OZa -24-34 -0052 3209 Galleria 769,000 768,000 100% 768,000 Pay 2012 Non -H Res. 9,600 Non-H Res 9,60D 7,388 273 29 -028 -24- 34-0053 3209 Galleria 591.000 591.000 100% 681.000 50.000 Pay 2012 Non -H Res. Pay 2012 Non -H Res. 7,386 7.000 Non-H Res. Non -H Fins. 7,000 273 29 -02 9-24- 34-0054 3209 Galleria 560.000 560,000 389.400 100% 100% 389,400 Pay 2012 Non-H Ras, 4,968 Non -H Res. 4,868 273 273 29 -028 -24 -34 -0055 3209 Galleria 29 -028- 24 -34-ME 3209Galieda 3&9.400 1,219.000 1,219,000 100110 1219,000 Pay 2012 Non-H Res. 15,238 Non -H Res. 15.2311 10,203 273 29- 028 -24- 34-0057 3209 Galleria 916200 916.200 100% 816,200 1,226,800 Pay 2012 Hmstd. Res. Pay 2012 Hrnsld. Res. 10,203 14,086 Hmstd -Res. Hmstd. Res. 14.086 273 29 -028- 24- 34-0050 3209 Galleria 1226,900 1226.900 668,000 100% 100% 686.000 Pay 2012 Hmstd. Res. 7,100 Hmstd. Res. 7,1 DO 273 29 -028 -24 -34 -0055 3209Galleria 668,000 754,000 754,000 IGO% 754,000 Pay 2012 Hmstd. Res. 8.175 Hmsld. Res. 8.175 273 29-028- 24- 34 -006C 3209 Gallerla 591,000 591,000 100% 591.000 Pay 2012 Non -H Res. 7,388 Non -H Ras. 7,388 273 273 29- 029 -24 -34 -0061 3209 Galleria 29 -028 -24 -34 -0052 3209 Galleria 478,300 478,300 100. 478,300 Pay 2012 Non -H Res. 5,979 Non -H Res. Non Res.. 5,979 4,038 273 29 -028 -24 -34 -0063 3209 Galleria 323,000 323.000 100% 323,000 1268.300 Pay 2012 Non -H Res. Pay 2012 Hmstd. Rea. 4,038 14,604 -H Hmstd. Res. 14,604 273 29 -028 -24 -34 -0064 3209 Galleria 1,268,300 1268,300 1,047.000 1 OG% 100% 1,047,000 Pay 2012 Non -H Res 13,086 Non-H Res 13,088 273 29- 028 -24 -34 -0065 3209 Galleria 1,047,000 1,225,000 i 00% 1.225.000 Pay 2012 Non -H Res. 15.313 Non-H Res. 15,313 273 29 -028- 24- 34 -006E 3209 Galleria 1.225.000 Mall Mall Mall --273- 21"23-2a--U-0067 J109GanerN 01/.100 746,000 746,000 100% 74G=0 Pay 2012 Non-H Res. 8,325 Non-H Res. 9.325 273 29- 028 -24 -34 -0068 3209 Galleria 615.000 615.000 1007. 615,000 Pay 2012 Non -H Res. 7,688 Non-H Ras. 7,668 273 29-028 -24 -34 -0069 3209 Gallerla 534,500 534,500 100% 534,500 Pay 2012 NorrH Res. 6,681 NorfH Ras. 6.Fie1 273 29. 028.24 - 340070 3209 Galleria 380,200 380,200 100% X0,200 Pay 2012 Non-H Res. 4,753 Non, -H Res 4,753 273 29. 028.2434 -0071 3209 Galleria 1.392,100 1,392,100 1004: 1,302,100 Pay 2012 Non -H Res. 17,401 Non, -H Res. 17,401 273 29 -02 &2434-0072 3209 Gallerla 1,005.000 1,005,000 100% 1,005,000 Pay 2012 Non-H Res. 12,563 Nan-H Res. 12,563 273 29-028 -24-34 -0073 3209 Galkria 1,179,000 1,179,000 100% 1,179,000 Pay 2012 Non-H Res. 14,738 Non-H Res. 14.738 273 29 -028 -24- 34-0074 3209 Wlleria 773,400 773,400 100% 773.400 Pay 2012 Non-H Res- 9.668 Won -H Res. 9.668 273 29 -028.24.34 -0075 3209 Gallerla 776,000 776,000 100% 770,000 Pay 2012 Non-H Res. 9,700 NmrH Res. 9,700 273 29-028 -24 -34 -0076 3209 Galleria 503,000 503.000 100% 503,000 Pay 2012 Non -H Res 6,286 Non-H Res. 6268 273 29 -02 8-24 -34 -0077 3209 Gallerla 565,000 565,000 100% 565,CW Pay 2012 No" Res 7,063 Non-H Res. 7.063 273 29 -028 -2d -34 -0078 3209 Galleria 380.000 380,000 100% :90.000 Pay 2012 Non-N Ras. 4,750 Non-H Rea 4.750 273 29-028 -24-34 -0079 3209 Gelkda 24- 34 -008C 3209Ge1leria 1,270,800 1,270,80D 100% 1270,600 Pay 2012 Hmstd. Res. 14,631 Hmstd. Res. 14,635 273 273 29 -028- 29-028 -24-34 -0081 3209 Galleria 1,005,000 1.005,000 100% 10036 1,005,000 1.307,700 Pay 2012 Non-H Res. Pay 2012 Hm3W. Res. 12.563 15,096 Non-H Res. Hmstd. Res. 12,563 15,096 273 29 -02 &24 -34 -0082 3209 G.H.S. 1,307,7DO 669,600 1,307,700 669.600 100% 668,600 Pay 2012 Nor1-H Res- 8,370 Non-H Res. 6,370 273 29-028 -24- 34-0083 3209 Wlleria 791,500 791500 100% 791,500 Pay 2012 Non-H Res. 9,894 Nan-H Ras. 9,894 273 29 -028 -24. 34-0084 3209 Galleria 648400 646.400 100111. 608,400 Pay 2012 Hrnstd. Res. 6,655 Hmstd. Ras. 6.855 273 273 29 -028 -24-34 -0085 3209 Galleria 29 -34 -DOSE 3209 Galleria 543,500 543,500 1007. 543,500 Pay 20112 Non-H Res- 6,794 Non-H Res. 6,794 273 -028 -24 29-028- 24340087 3209 Galleria 380,000 360,000 100% 100% 380,000 1,900,800 Pay 2012 Non-H Res. Pay 2012 Hmstd Res. 4,750 15,049 Non-H Res. Hmstd. Res. 4,750 15,049 273 79. 028 -24-34 -0088 3209 Galleria 1,303.9DO 1,303,800 1,005,000 100% 1,005,000 Pay 2012 Non -H Ras. 12,563 Non-H Res- 12,563 273 29-028- 2434 -0089 3209 Gallerla 1,005.000 1.260,000 1,260,000 100% 1,280.400 Pay 2012 Non -H Res. 15.750 Non-H Res. 15.750 273 29- 028 -24 -34 -0090 3209 Galleria 713,400 713,400 100% 713,400 Pay 2012 Hmstd. Res. 7,668 Hmstd. Res. 7,668 273 29 -028- 2434 -0091 3209 Galleria 977, 00 977,300 100% 977,900 Pay 2012 Non -H Res. 12,218 Non-H Res. 12,216 273 29 -0Ze -24- 34-0092 3209 Gallerla 591.000 591,000 100% 591,000 Pay 2012 Non -H Res. 7,388 Non -H Res. 7,388 273 29-028 -24- 33-0093 3209Gelleria 522,900 522.900 1018: 522,900 Pay 2012 Non-H Res. 6,536 Non -H Res. 6,536 273 79. 028 - 2434 -0094 3209 Galleria 380,000 380,000 100% SKOGO Pay 2012 Non-H Res. 4.750 Non -H Res. 4,750 273 29- 028 -24. 34-0095 3209 Galleria Galleria 1,337,W0 1,337,000 100% 1,9307,000 Pay2012 Hms01 Res. 15,463 Hmstd. Res. 15,463 273 29-028 -24 -34 -0096 3209 999,900 999,900 100-1. 1399900 Pay 2012 Non-H Ras. 12.499 Non-H Res- 12,499 273 29-028 -24.34 -0097 3209 Galleria 1,989,300 1,989,300 100% 1,009,000 Pay 2012 Hmstd. Res 23.616 Hmsta Res. 23.616 273 29- 028.24- 340098 3209 Galleria 765,800 765.800 100% 788,800 Pay 2012 Non -H Res. 9,573 Non -H Res. 9,573 273 29 -028- 24- 34-0099 3209 Galleria Galleria 1,192,800 1,192,800 100% 1,192,900 Pay 2012 Hmstd Res. 13.660 Hmsld. Res. 13,660 273 29 -028 -24- 34-0100 3209 Cnlleria 1.052.000 1,052,000 IOU% 1,1152.4 D Pay 2D12 Non -H Res, 13,150 Non -H Res. 13.150 273 29 -028 -24 -34 -0101 3209 Gallerla 1,325.400 1.325,400 1001/6 1 gM400 Pay 2012 Hmstd. Res. 15,318 Hmstd. Rea 15.318 273 29 -0ZS-2434 -0102 3209 Galleria 1,266,300 1,288,300 100% 1286,.00 Pay 2012 Non -H Res. 16,104 Non -H Res. 16,104 273 29-028 -24 -34 -0103 3209 1,900,000 1,900,000 100% 1,900.400 Pay 2012 Non -H Res, 23,750 Non -H Rea 23.750 273 ?9-028 -24 -34 -0104 3209 Galleria 729,000 729,000 100% 729,000 Pay 2012 No" Res. 9,113 Non -H Res. 8,113 273 29-028- 24340105 3109 Galleria 931.000 931,000 100% 931 A Pay 2012 Non-H Res. 17,636 NorM Res. 11,638 273 29 -02&24 - 34010E 3209 Gatterla 1.093,000 1,093,000 100% 1,000,000 Pay 2012 Non-H Res. 13,653 Non-H Res, 13,663 273 29 -026- 2434 -0107 3209 Gallerla 1,660,100 1,660.100 100% 1,660,100 Pay 2012 Non -H Res. 20,751 Non-H Res. 20.751 273 29 -029-2434 -0108 3209 Galleria 593,000 100% 893.000 Pay 2012 Non -H Res. 11,163 Non -H Res. 11,163 273 29 -02 8-24.34 -0109 3209 Galleria 893,000 2,322,400 100% 2,32$400 Pay 2012 Non-H Ras, 29,030 Non -H Res. 29,030 273 29 -028 -24 -34 -0110 3209 Gallerta 2,322,400 G47,00D 100% 647.000 Pay 2012 Non -H Res. 6,088 Non -H Res. 8,086 273 29- 028 -24-34 -0111 3209 Gallerla 647,000 1,100,600 100% 1,100,800 Pay 2012 Non -H Res. 13,758 Non -10 Res. 13,758 273 29 -028 -24 -34 -0112 3209 Galleria 1,100,600 1.214,000 1.214,000 100% 1214X D Pay 2012 Non-H Res. 4,175 Non-H Res. 15,175 273 29 -028- 2434-0113 3209 Galleria 1203,200 1,203.200 100% 1203200 Pay 2012 Non -H Rea. 15,040 Non -H Res. 15,040 273 19 -028- 2434-0114 3209 Galkria 15,428,500 34,342,600 100% 34,942000 Pay 2012 C/1 Pref. 686,102 GI Pre[. 686,102 273 30.026.24.41 -0007 6600 France Avenue South 18,914,100 40,000 400,000 100% 400,000 Pay 2012 C/l Pre(. 7250 Gn Pref. 7,250 273 30.028 -24-44 -0001 6996 Franca Avenue South 360,000 1,021.100 622000 1.643,100 100% I,843,100 Pay 2012 Cn Prel. 3e,112 Cn Pret. 32,112 273 30 -025 -24- 44-0003 395070THSTW 1,081,000 1,376,800 2,457,900 100% 2,457,900 Pay 2012 Gl Pref. 46,408 C/1 Pre[. 48,408 2T3 30 -0213.2444-0004 4D40 70TH ST 5 789,700 1.206,300 1,998,000 10056 11966.000 Pay 2012 G4 Prel. 39,210 cn Prof. 39.210 273 30 -028. 2444 -0005 6950 FRANCE AVE 2131100 353,000 1001Y. 353=1 Pay 2012 C/I Pre[. 6,310 CA Pm1. 6,310 273 30-028 -24-44 -0006 391070th Street West 139.900 498,100 239,600 737,700 1009: 737,700 Pay 2012 CA Prof. 14,004 C41 Prey. 14,004 2T3 30-028 -Zd-44 -0057 6900 FRANCE AVE S 847,200 392.600 1,239,600 100% 1299,000 Pey 2012 Cn Prel. 24,046 Cll Pre!. 24,046 273 30-028.24 - 44.005E 3905 69tH ST W W 912,500 912,500 100% 912,500 Pay 2012 C71 Pref. 17500 CA P2[. 17500 273 30 -028.24-44-OOSS 3939 69TH ST 0 1004: 0 Pay 2012 2S7,607.500 4'479'28,; 4.457.973 Note: 1. Base values an based upon review at county wabsltb on 977/12 of value. assessed 172!11 for taxes Payable 2012. 2. Parcels are localod within School district 273 and Watershed District 1. Southdale Mall Renovation and Mixed Use Development City of Edina Soullldale Mall Renovation and Adjacent Development - Note: f. Renovated mall market value based upon tax estimates from mall owner. 2. Other development values based on proposals received by the City of Edina and estimates from City Assessor- TAX CALCULATIONS PROJECT e• • Nam tl•w tar Apartments Office Retail Condominkmis ate Tax Conceit 700,000 436,250 719,250 2,049,250 609.750 Disparities Tnx C3 ae, 243,168 0 249,977 711,936 0 ow Tax C0 01116!z 56,811 435XD 469,373 1,337,314 809,750 ca Property Taxes 494,1187 471,948 507,674 1,446,439 875826 Estimated Taxable e er Value Taxes 64,862 64,677 66,715 109,953 135.247 Total Taxable Property r0TKl7- Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage FIM You 1.91.152D 521.453_ Market value Market Value Total Market Tax Plojeet Project Tax Completed Completed Completed Completed 2015 Full Taxes P4 le ArcoMhoxe New Usa Per .FWnit Per .F1JUnil .FIJUnits Value Gars Toz Ca out Ca oc Alnh 2012 2013 2014 LW start 35A00, 35. 1 3x.000.000 WO 9 7D% 97Z. 70% 976 75% 100`8 100% 201 2017 Apartments Office Apartments Off a 34,900,000 36.000,000 34.900.000 36,000.000 1 1 34,900.000 38.0m,000 Rental CA Pref. 438250 719250 96% 100% 100% 100:6 2015 Retail Retail 102.500,000 102.500,000 1 102,50D,000 CA Pref. 2,019250 96% 100"1. 96% IOU're 100% 100% 100% 100% 2016 2014 CorMosfA . Condomirvums 890,000 990.000 e2 72.960400 Hms!d Res. 809750 TVIAL btolal dantll 83 10.00.000 1.24 0 Siubtal It CommeruavlAd. 3 173,500,000 3 466,500 Note: f. Renovated mall market value based upon tax estimates from mall owner. 2. Other development values based on proposals received by the City of Edina and estimates from City Assessor- TAX Note: 1. Taxes and lax increment will very signlicanlly from year to year depending upon values, rates, state law, fiscal disparities and other factors which cannot be predicted. 2. If lax increment is received in 2013 then the district will be one year shorter. CALCULATIONS Nam tl•w tar Apartments Office Retail Condominkmis ate Tax Conceit 700,000 436,250 719,250 2,049,250 609.750 Disparities Tnx C3 ae, 243,168 0 249,977 711,936 0 ow Tax C0 01116!z 56,811 435XD 469,373 1,337,314 809,750 ca Property Taxes 494,1187 471,948 507,674 1,446,439 875826 rsca Disparities Teas 34S.195 0 350.686 1,010,558 0 rate -vn e Property Taxes 364,000 a 374,010 1,065,610 0 e er Value Taxes 64,862 64,677 66,715 109,953 135.247 Total Teas 1,260,143 536,625 1,303,087 9,712,559 1 011 072 r0TKl7- IF440 1.91.152D 521.453_ Note: 1. Taxes and lax increment will very signlicanlly from year to year depending upon values, rates, state law, fiscal disparities and other factors which cannot be predicted. 2. If lax increment is received in 2013 then the district will be one year shorter. 3/23/2012 : Eff : HLERS # It &MRS rn Puelrc rit1ANC[ City of Edina Southdale Mall Renovation and Adjacent Development School District 273 Base Value Assumptions - Page 1 Prepareo .rs a Associates. Inc - EsUrnate, Only N.'.Mnnsola%FDINAWotsing Foonornlc RedevelopmenIVIRT1F DISIVICA3outhdale Z_11F Run Option 9 S Project Original Fiscal Captured Local Annual Semi -Annual State Admin. Semi - Annual Semi- Annuat r :" U % of Tax Tax Disparities Tax Tax Gross Tax Gross Tax Auditor at Net Tax Present ENDING Tax Payment OTC Capacity Capacity Incremental Capacity Rate Increment I increment 036% 10% Increment Value Yre. Year Date - 06!01112 _ 02/01/13 - 08/01/13 - - 02!01/14 100% 4,458,033 (4,457,873) - 160 108.160% 173 86 (0) (9) 77 77 68 133 0.5 1 2014 2014 08/01/14 02101/15 86 (0) (9) 100% 4,480,655 (4,457,873) 22,782 108.160% 24,641 12,320 (44) (1,228) 11,048 9.271 1.5 2015 08/01/15 02/01/16 12,320 (44) (1,228) 11,048 18.164 2 2015 100% 4.584.438 (4,457,873) (20,346) 106.218 108.1609/6 114,886 67,443 (207) (5,724) 51,512 5B,517 97,790 2.5 3 2016 2016 08101 /16 02/01/17 57,443 (207) (5,724) 51,512 100% 4.714,500 (4,457,873) (27,642) 228,985 108.1609/6 247,670 123,835 (446) (12,339) 111,050 180,188 3.5 4 2017 2017 08/01/17 02101/18 123,835 (446) (12.339) 111,050 260,382 100% 4,714,500 (4,457,873) (65,592) 191,034 108.160% 206,623 103,311 (372) (10,294) (10,294) 92,646 92,645 325,494 388,883 4.5 5 2018 2018 08/01/18 02/01/19 1001% 4,714,500 (4,457,873) (65,592) 191,034 108.160% 206,623 103,311 103.311 (372) (372) (10,294) 92,645 450.536 510,559 5.5 6 2019 2019 08/01/19 02101/20 103,311 (372) (10,294) 92,645 100% 4,714,500 (4,457,873) (65,592) 191,034 108,160% 206,623 103,311 (372) (10,294) 92,645 568,975 6.5 7 2020 2020 08/01/20 02/01/21 103,311 (372) (10,294) 92,646 625,828 100% 4,714,500 (4,457,873) (65,592) 191,034 108.1601/6 206,623 103.311 (372) (10,294) 92.645 92,645 681,159 735,009 7.5 8 2021 2021 08/01/21 02101/22 100% 4,714,500 (4,457,873) (65,592) 191,034 108.160% 206,623 103,311 103,311 (372) (372) (10,294) (10,294) 92,645 787,418 8.5 9 2022 2022 08/01/22 02/01/23 103.311 (372) (10.294) 92.645 838.424 Total 1,420,483 (5,114) (141,537) 1,273,832 Pm .,t V,t Fmm n2m1rzo12 Present Value Rate 5.5096 994.948 (3.3W) (93158) 838,424 Prepareo .rs a Associates. Inc - EsUrnate, Only N.'.Mnnsola%FDINAWotsing Foonornlc RedevelopmenIVIRT1F DISIVICA3outhdale Z_11F Run Option 9 S Southdale Mall Renovation and Mixed Use Development City Of Edina Southdats Mail Renovation and Adjacent Development Distric[Type: Economic Development District NamdNumber. County District 4: First Year Construction or Inflation on Value Existing District - Specify No. Years Remaining Inflation Rate - Every Year. Interest Rate: Present Value Date: First Period Ending Tax Year District was Candied: Cashllow Assumes First Tax Increment For Development: Years of Tax Increment Assumes Last Year of Tax Increment Fiscal Disparities Election (Outsida (A), Inside (B), or NA) Incremental or Total Fiscal Disparities Fiscal Olsparllfes Contribution Ratio Fiscal Disparities Metro-Wide Tax Rate I :r ASSUMPTIONS AND RATES 2012 0.00% 5.50% 1 -Feb-12 I- Aug.12 Pay 2012 2014 9 2022 Inside(B) Incremental 34.7413% Pay 2012 Prelim. 141.94509.: Pay 2012 Prelim. MaxlmuMFrozon Local Tax Rate: Current Local Tax Rate: (Use lesser of Current or Max.) Slate -wide Tax Rate (COMMAnd. only used for total taxes) Market Value Tax Hate (Used for total laxes -) PROPERTY TAX CLASSES AND CLASS RATES: Exarnpi Class Rate (Exampi) Commercial Industrial Pielemad Gass Rate (CA Prat.) First 5150,000 Over 5750,000 Commercial Indvsliial Gass Rate (GI) Rental Housurg Class Rate (Rental) Alfordablo Rental Housing Class Rate (All- Rental) Non- Homesiead Resideniol (Non -H Res.l Homestead Residental Class Rate ( Hmstd. Res.) First S500,OJo Over 5500,000 Agricultural Non-Homestead 114.351% S/D 280 114.351% Pay2012 Prelim. 52.0000% Pay 2012 Prelim. 0.15860% Pay 2012 Prelim. 0.00% 1.50% 2.00% 2.00% 125% 0.75% 125.6 1.00% 1.25% I.W% PAID Address Land 6tarael Value Building Market Volua Total Merkur Value Of Value Used for District Otiginal _ Market Value tlarkol Original Valtro Tax Ctoss Original Tarr 04110 After Cum"n Conversion Orla, T4vec� 1t W L r0i iAIV rW- e u vuu ray cue ,x 29- 028 -24- 23-0007 6533 Drew Avenue South 531,900 502,000 1,033,900 100% 1.035.900 Pay 2012 C/I Pref. 19,928 Cn Prof. 19.928 29- 028- 24 -23- 0008 6525 Drew Avenue 5 445,000 120.700 565,700 100% 565,700 Pay 2012 Gil Pref. 10,564 C11 Prof. 10.564 29 -028-24 -23 -0009 6517 DREW AVE 5 529.500 1235,500 1,765,000 100 °6 11765.000 Pay 2012 GI Pref. 34.550 GI Pair. 34,550 29 -028- 24- 23-001G 365 65TH 5T W 525,300 2.040.700 2.566.000 100% 2,566.000 Pay 2012 GI Pref. 50.570 GI Pref, 50.570 29 -028 -24 -23 -0011 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 285.1100 0 295.800 100% 285ADO Pay 2012 CA 5,716 GI 5.716 29 -028 -24 -23 -0012 3,100 66TH ST W 2,990 400 2.363.600 5.354.000 100% 6,364.000 Pay 2012 C71 Pral• 106.330 GI Piet. f 0 &330 29 -028 -24 -23 -0167 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 0 0 0 100% 0 Pay 2012 Exempt - Exempt 29-029-Z4-73-017i 6545 FRANCE 5,118.000 24,202.500 29.320.500 100`b 29320,OD Pay 2012 Cn Prel- 585,650 CA Pref. 585.660 29 -028 -24 -23 -0173 6525 FRANCE AVE S 1,107.600 11,092,400 12,200.000 100% 12200,000 Pay 2012 GI 244,000 CA 244,000 29. 028.24.24 -0001 3316 661h Street West 1,494.800 2,205.400 3.700,000 100% - 31700,000 Pay 2012 GI Prel. 73,250 Rental 46,250 29 -028 -24-24 -0002 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 403,100 0 403,100 100% 403.100 Pay 2012 GA 8.062 CA 8.052 29- 028 -24 -24 -0004 Thriven[ Financial - No Address 535,600 0 535,60(1 100% 535,600 Pay 22012 GI 10,712 Rental 6,695 29- 028 - 24-24 -0005 3250 661h Street West 2,091,800 755.900 2,847,700 100% 4047,700 Pay 2012 Gil Prof. 56,204 Rental 35,596 29- 028 -24- 24- 0007 6550 York Avenue 2.274,300 2,611,700 4,888,000 100% 4,886,0110 Pay 2012 CA Prot. 98,970 Rental 61,U75 29.028 -24 -24 -0025 6515 Barrie Road 675,000 979.300 1.654,300 100% 1,866,3011 Pay 2012 Cn Prof. 32,336 Rental 20,579 29- 028 -24 -24 -0026 6525 Barrie Road 480,000 806.000 1,286,000 100% 1,286,000 Pay 2012 GA Prel. 24,970 Rental 16,075 29- 028 -24 -24 -0027 6519 Berrie Rood 827.400 289,600 1,116,900 100% 1.116.90D Pay 2012 CA Prat 21.588 Rental 13.961 29 -029 -24 -24 -0030 3330 66th Street West 917.900 429,500 1,347.400 100% 1.347.400 Pay 2012 CA Pref. 26.198 Rental 16.843 29-028 -24 -24 -0031 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 36.900 0 36.900 100% 36,900 Pay 2012 Gn 738 CA 738 29- 028 -24 -24 -0032 6500 BARRIE RD 478,400 721,600 1,200.000 100% 1204000 Pay 2012 GI Peel. 23,250 CA Prel. 23.250 29 -028.24 -24 -0120 6444 Xerxes Avenue South 271.800 32R.200 600,000 100% 600,000 Pay 2012 CA Pref. 11,250 Rental 7,500 29 -028.24 -24 -0121 6500 Xerxes Avenue 244,100 206.400 450.500 100% 650,500 Pay 2012 Ca Pref. 8.260 Rental 5.631 29 -028- 24- 24 -022_ 6525 YORK AVE 5 1,671.000 1.645.400 3.316.400 100% 9.316,400 Pay 2012 CA 66.328 C/I 66,328 29-02 8-24 - 31-0002 3101 66TH ST W 1241,200 1.000 1.242200 100% 1,242200 Pay 2012 CA Prof. 24,094 GI Pref. 24,094 29 -028 -24 -31 -0003 6725 York Avenue South 2.574,000 1.000 2.675,000 100% 2,675,600 Pay 2012 U Pref. 52,750 GI Pair. 52.750 29- 028 -24.31 -0005 3425 66TH ST W 369,500 663,700 1.033,200 100% 1,033,200 Pay 2012 CA 20.664 GI 20,664 29 -028- 24- 31 -000E 3230 SOUTHDALE OR 714,700 220.600 935,300 100% 906,300 Pay 2012 CA Prel. 17.956 CA Pref. 17.956 29 -028 -24-31 -0007 3220 SOUTHDALE OR 1.124,800 125,400 1,250,200 100% 1.250,200 Pay 2012 Gn Prof. 24.254 CA Pref. 24,254 29- 028.24 -31 -0(108 3210 SOUTHDALE OR 457,500 58,000 525,500 1DD% 525.500 Pay 2012 Gil Prel. 9.760 CA Prel. 9,760 29- 028.24 -31 -0009 3200 SOUTHDALE OR 672.50(1 7,700 660.200 100% 680200 Pay 2012 CA Pref. 12•&54 CA Prel. 12.054 29- 028.24 -31 -0010 324050UTHDALE OR 563,100 1,000 564,1 DO 100% 564,100 Pay 2012 Cn Prel, 10.532 C111 Prel. 10,532 29- 028 -24-31 -0011 6612 XERXES AVE 5 131,400 56,900 188,300 1005/. 188,300 Pay 2012 Hmstd. Res. 1.883 Hmsld. Res. 1,883 29- 028 -24 -31 -0012 5616 XERXES AVE5 131.400 108.10I1 239,500 100% 239$00 Pay 2012 Hmstd. Res. 2.395 Hmstd. Res. 2.395 29.026.24 -31 -0013 6620 XERXES AVE 5 131.400 72.400 203,800 100% 203.800 Pay 2012 Hmstd Res. 2,036 Hmstd. Res. 2,038 29 -026 -24 -31 -0014 6624 XERXES AVE 5 131.400 68,200 199,600 100% 199,600 Pay 2012 Hmstd. Res, 1.996 Herald. Res- 1.996 29 -028 -24 -31 -0015 6628 XERXES AVE 5 145.300 72,700 218.000 100% 218.000 Pay 2012 Non-H Res. 2.725 Non-H Res, 2,725 29. 028- 24- 31 -001E 6700 XERXES AVE 5 145,300 79,600 224,900 100% 224,800 Pay 2012 Hmstd. Res. 2.249 Hmstd. Res. 2249 29 -028 -24 -31 -0017 6704 XERXES AVE 5 131,400 48.600 178,200 1 DO% 178200 Pay 2012 Hmstd. Res. 1.782 Hmstd. Res. 1,7112 29-026 -24 -31 -0018 6708 XERXES AVE5 131,400 74,300 205,700 100% 205.700 Pay 2012 Hmstd Res. 2.057 Hmsld. Res. 2,057 29 -028.24 -31 -0019 6712 XERXES AVE 5 131,400 82,900 214.300 100% 214,300 Pay 2012 Hltatd. Res. 2,143 Hnlsld. Res. 2.143 29 -028 -24 -31 -0024 300 SOUTHDALE CENTER 4,272,600 1.000 4,273.600 100% 4,273,600 Pay 2012 CA Pref. 04,722 C/I Pail, 84,722 29- 028 -24 -31 -0025 6635 YORK AVE S 967,800 1,000 968,800 100% 969,800 Pay 2012 Gil 19,376 C/I 19,376 29 -028- 24- 31 -002E 6755 YORK AVE 5 29- 028 -24 -31 -0027 6775 YORK AVE 5 0 3.464,000 0 2,487,60D 0 5,951.600 1001/6 100% 0 5251,600 Pay 2012 Pay 2012 Exempt C/I Prel. 110,282 Exempt GI Feral. 118,282 29- 028 -24 -02 -0001 3501 66TH ST W 616,600 0 616,600 100% 616.600 Pay 2012 CA 12.332 CA 12.332 88,010 29- 028 -24 -32 -0003 200 SOUTHDALE CENTER 1479500 2958500 4,438,000 100% 4,433,000 Pay 2012 GA Pref. 88,010 C/I Pier, 29.028. 24.32.0008 100 SOUTHDALE CENTER 1,883,700 7.193,300 9,077.000 100% 9,077,000 Pay 2012 GI Prof. 180.790 GI Prof. 180.790 1.465510 29 -028 -24-32 -0009 10 SOUTHDALE CENTER 27.696,800 45.616,200 73.313,ODO 100% 73,313,000 Pay 2012 GI Prel. 1,465,510 Gil Pref. 30-029 -24 -14 -0007 4005 651h Street 926.400 558.100 1.484.500 100% 1,484,500 Pay 2012 C/I Pail. 28,940 CA Prel. 28,940 [tw 220 wj.vd6.1Yi•1w.IMJa OiIN r ,NrGV M�V.IV V .lw6, 30 -028.24.14.000S 6566 France r..i6.,aw ..- +.w.. -- 116.200 ..��...�- 116.260 . __.. 100% _. 116200 Pay 2012 Hmstd. Res. 1.162 Hn%W. Rea. 1,162 280 30 -028.24- 14-0010 6566 France 229,200 229,200 1 DO% 228200 Pay 2012 Hmsld. Res. 2292 Hmsld. Res. 2,292 1,789 280 30. 026-24 - 14.0011 6566 France 178,900 178,900 100% 178,800 Pay 2012 Hmstd. Res. 1,789 Hmsld. Res Hmstd. Res. 1,789 280 30 -028- 24- 14-0012 6566Franca 178,900 178,900 1001/. 178,800 Pay 2012 Hmstd. Res 1,789 Res. 2,292 280 30 -028 -24-14 -0013 6566 France 229,200 229,200 116,200 1 DO5: 100% 2292m 116200 Pay 2012 Hmstd. Res. Pay 2012 Hmstd.Fla& 2.292 1,162 Hmstd. Hmstd. Res. 1,162 280 30 -026.24 -14 -0014 6566 France 116,20D 151,000 151,800 100% 151 AM Pay 2012 Hmstd. Has 1,518 Hrnst6 Res. 1,518 280 280 30 -028 -24 -14 -0035 6566 France 30.028- 24.14-003E 6566 France 116,200 116,200 100% 118200 Pay 2012 Hmsid.Ras. 1,162 Hmstd. Res 1,162 280 30-028.24 -14 -0017 6555 France 218,500 218,500 100% 210,600 224,900 Pay 2012 Hmstd. Ras. Pay 2012 Hmstd. Res. 2,185 2243 Hmsld. Res. Hmsld. Ras. 2,185 2,243 280 30 -028- 24- 14.0019 6566 France 224,300 170,400 224,300 170,400 100:6 IDD% 170,400 Pay 2012 Hmsld. Res. 1,704 Hrnsld. Res. 1,704 280 280 30 -0I8. 2414-0019 6566 France 30 -029 -Z4 -14 -0020 6566 France 183,800 183,800 100% 103.800 Pay 2012 NowH Res. 2298 Non H Res. 2.208 280 30 -028- 24-14-0021 6566 France 170,400 170,400 100: 1 170AM 183,000 Pay 2012 Hmsld. Res Pay 2012 HmshL Res 1,704 1,838 Hmstd. Res. Hmstd. Res. 1,704 1,838 280 30.OZ &24 14-0022 6566 France 183,800 218,500 163,800 218,500 DO% 100% 918" Pay 2012 Hmstd. Res 2,185 Hmstd. Res. 2,185 280 280 3D -028 -24-14 -0023 6566 France 30 -028 -24.14 -0024 6566 France 228,200 228,200 1 DM. 229,200 Pay 2012 Hmstd. Res. 2,282 Hmstd. Res. 2282 280 30-028.24 -14 -0025 6566 France 151,800 151,800 100% 151 ADD Pay 2012 Hmstd- Res 1,518 Hmstd. Ras. 1.518 280 30-018 - 24-14-0026 65616 France 116,200 116,200 IUD% 118,200 Pay 2012 NOr►H Res. 1,453 No H Rea. 1.453 280 30 -028 -24- 14-0027 6566 France 151,800 151ADO 1DD% 151,600 Pay2012 Hmstd. Res. 1,518 Hmstd. Res. 1,518 280 30-026-24 - 14-0028 6566 France 116,200 116 ,200 1009: 118RW Pay 2012 HmsW Res. 1,1W Hmsld. Res. 1,162 280 30-02a -24- 34-0029 6566 France 213,600 213,600 100% 219,600 Pay 2012 Hmsld. Res. 2,136 Hmsta Res. 2,136 280 90-02 9-24 - 14-0030 6566 Franca 224,300 224,300 100% 224,800 Pay 2012 Hms1d. Res 2,243 Hmst0. Res. 2.243 28U 30. 028 -24- 14-0031 6566 France 170,400 170,400 1001Y. 170AM Pay 2012 Hmsld. Ras 1,704 Hn a& Res. 1,704 260 3D-028 -24- 140032 6566 France 178,900 178,900 1005: 179M Pay 2012 Non-H Res. 2238 NmrH Res. 2.236 2,130 280 30 -028- 24- 14-0033 6566 France 170,400 170,400 100% 170,400 Pay 2012 Non -H Res. 2,130 Nan -H Res. 280 30-029 -24- 140034 6566 France 183AM 183,800 100% 183,BOD Pay 2012 Hmstd. Res. 1,838 Hmstd. Res. 1.838 280 30 -028- 24- 14-0035 6565 France 213,600 213,600 1004: 1001/. 218AOD 229= Pay 2012 HnnUL Ras Pay 2012 HmsuL Res. 2,136 2292 Hmsld. Res Hmstd. Res. 2.138 2292 280 3D.028- 24- 14-003E 6565 France 228200 156,700 229,200 158.700 10D% 150,700 Pay 2012 NorrH Res. 1.959 NomH Res. 1,959 280 280 30-028- 2414 -0037 6566 France 30-028 - 2414-0038 6568 France 116 ,200 116200 1007. 116200 Pay 2012 NMH Ras. 1,453 Non-H Res. 1,453 280 3D-028- 2414-0041 6566 France 213,600 213,600 IBM 218,6110 Pay 2012 Hmstd. Res 2,136 Hmstd. Res. 2.136 280 30-02& 2414-0042 6566 France 224,300 224,300 100% 224XD Pay 2012 Non-H Res, 2,004 Non•H Res. 2,804 1,704 280 30 -026 -24 -14 -0043 066 France 170,400 170,400 10DY. 170AM Pay 2012 Hmstd. Res, 1,704 Hmstd. Res. Mmstd. Res. 1.838 280 30-028 - 2414-0044 6566 France 1 B3,BDD 183,800 10D% 1003: 108,800 17OA00 Pay 2012 Hmstd. Ras. Pay 2012 Hntsld. Res 1,838 1,704 Hmstd. Res. 1.704 280 30 -028 -24.14 -0045 6566 France 170,400 178,900 170,400 178,900 1001.6 1781000 Pay 2012 Hmstd. Res. 1,709 Hmstd. Res. 1,789 280 30-028-24144ME 6566 France 213,600 213,600 100% 21SAW Pay 2012 Hmsld. Res. 2,135 Hmstd. Ras - 2,136 280 280 30 -028.24 -14. 0047 6566 France 30-028 -2414 -0043 6566 France 229,200 220.200 700% 718200 Pay 2012 Hmstd. Res. 2,292 Hmstd. Res 2.292 200 30-028- 24- 14 -0DCS 6566 France 170,400 170,400 1 DO% 170AW Pay 2012 Hmstd. Res. 1,704 Hmsld. Res. 1,704 1.838 280 3042 8-2414 -0070 6566 France 183,800 183AW 213,600 100% 100916 183,000 210,800 Pay 2012 Hmstd Res. Pay 2012 Mmsld. Res. 1,838 2.136 Hmstd. Res Hmstd. Res. 2.136 280 30. 028 -24- 14.0071 6366 France 213,600 229,200 229,200 1009: 22%= Pay 2012 Hnvstd. Res 2,292 Meld. Res. 2.292 280 280 30 -029 -24. 14-0072 6566 France 30-028. 2414-0073 6566 France 156,700 156,700 100% 16%7W Pay 2012 Hmsld. Res. 1,567 Hmstd. Res. 1,567 280 3D-028- 2414 -0074 6566 France 116,200 116200 100% 116200 Pay 2012 Hmstd_ Res. 1,162 Hmstd. Res. Res 1,162 2,243 280 304)23-24-14-0077 5565 France 224,300 224,300 100% 224,900 235AW Pay 2012 Hrmld. Res. Pay 2012 Hrnstd. Res 2,243 2,350 Hmstd. Hmstd. Res. 2,350 260 3D-028- 2414 -0078 6566 France 235,OW 235,000 178.900 100% 100% 176,900 Pay 2012 Hmstd. Res 1,789 Hmstd. Res. 1,769 280 30-028 - 2414-0079 6566 France 178,900 107,400 187,400 100% 107AW Pay 2012 Hmstd Res. 1,874 Hmstd. Res. 1,874 280 30-026.24 -14 -0090 6566 France 183,800 183,800 10011. 183,000 Pay 2012 Hmstd. Rea. 1,838 Hmstd. Res 1,838 200 280 30-028. 2414 -0081 6566 France 30 -028 -24 -14 -0092 6566 France 187,400 187,400 100% 167,400 Pay 2012 Hmstd. Ras. 1,874 Hmstd. Ras. 1.874 280 30-02&24-24-0093 6566 France - 224,300 224,300 1007. 224r30D 239,900 Pay 2012 Hmsld. Res. Pay 2012 HmshL Res. 2,243 2,399 Hmstd. Res. Hmstd. Res. 2,243 2.399 280 30 -02844- 14-0094 6566 France 239,900 159,400 238,800 159,400 100% 100% 159AW Pay 2012 Mrnstd. Res. 1,594 Hmstd. Ras. 1.594 280 30-028 -24- 14-0085 6566 France France 126.900 126,900 100% 1213,WD Pay 2012 Mmsld. Res 1269 H= W. Res. 1269 280 280 30-028- 2414-0OSE 6566 30 -028-24.14 -0097 6566 France 159,400 159,400 1001% 15%4W Pay 2012 Hmstd- Rea 1,594 Hmstd. Res. 1,594 200 30 -028-2414-0098 6566 France 126,900 126,900 1007. 126,900 Pay 2012 Non-H Res. 1,586 Non -H Res. 1,586 2282 260 30 -028-24 - 14-0089 6566 France 229.200 229,200 100% 729200 23MM Pay 2012 Hmsld. Res. Pay 2012 HmstQ Rea 2,292 2,350 Hmstd. Res. Hmstd. Ras. 2.350 280 30-018-24- 14-0090 6566 France 235.000 178.900 235,000 178,900 100% 100% 176500 Pay 2012 Hmstd. Ras. 1,789 Hmstd. Res. 1,789 280 30 -025-2414-0091 6566 France 187,400 187,400 1 ODY. 187,000 Pay 2012 Mmstd. Rea 1,874 Hmstd. Res. 1,874 280 280 30 -02 &2414-0092 6566 France 30-028-2414.0093 5566 France 178.900 178,900 100% 178500 Pay 2012 Hmstd. Ras. 1,789 Hmstd. Res. 1,789 280 30-02 824 - 14-0094 6566 France 192,300 192,300 1001% 100% 192AW 224,800 Pay 2012 Non-H Rea Pay 2012 Hmstd. ReS. 2,404 2,243 Non H Res. HMSid. Ras. 2,404 2,249 280 30 -020-2414-00% 6566 France 224,300 235,000 224,300 235,000 100% 235AW Pay 2012 Hmstd. Res. 2,350 Hmstd. Ras. 2,350 280 280 30028 -24- 14009E 6566 France 30-02 8-2414-0097 6566 France 164,300 164,300 100°x. 184900 Pay 2012 Hmstd. Res. 1,843 Hmstd. Res. 1.643 280 30.02 &2414 -0098 6566 France 122,000 122,000 100% 1 W' /. 122.400 159,400 Pay 2012 Hmstd Res. Pay 2012 NorM nos. 1,720 1,993 Hmsld. Res. Non-H Res. 1,220 1,993 280 30 -02 8-2414-0099 6565 France 159,400 122,000 159,400 122,000 100% 17$000 Pay 2012 Non -H Ras. 1,525 Non-H Res. 1,525 280 280 30-028 - 2414-0100 6566 France 30-02 8-2414-0101 6566 France 224,300 224,300 100'% 224,300 Pay 2012 Hmstd. Res. 2,243 Hmstd. Res, 2.243 280 30.02 8-24 -14 -0102 6566 France 239,900 239,900 100% 7396900 186,700 Pay 2012 Non+! Res. Pay 2012 No" Res. 2,999 2,011 Non-H Res. Non -H Res. 2,999 2,071 280 30 -02& 2414 -0103 6566 France 165,700 182,30D 165,700 192,300 100% 100% 182$00 Pay 2012 Hmstd. Res. 1,923 Hmstd. Res. 1.923 280 260 30 -028 -24- 14-0104 6566 France 30 -02&2414 -0105 6566 France 165,700 165,700 100% 165,700 Pay 2012 Hmstd. Res. 1,657 Hmstd. Ras. 1,657 2BU 30-028 - 24-14 -010E 6566 France 192,300 192,300 100% 192,000 729200 Pay 2012 Hmsld. Res Pay 2012 Hmstd. Res. 1,923 2,292 Hmstd. Res. Hmsld. Res 1.923 2,292 280 30 -018 -24- 14-0107 6566 France 229,200 244,800 229.200 244,800 100% 100% 244,1300 Pay 2012 Hmstd. Rea 2,448 Hmsid. Res. 2.448 280 280 30-028-2414-0108 6566 France 30-02&2414-0109 6566 Franco 170,600 170,600 100% 170,800 Pay 2012 Non -H Res. 2,193 NonH Res. 2,133 260 3D-02 &24- 14-0110 6566 France 129,400 129,400 1009: 100% 129.400 159AW Pay 2012 NorrH Ros. Pay 2012 Not1 -H Res. 1,618 1,993 Non-H Res Non-H Rea. 1,618 1,993 280 30-028 -24.14 -0111 6566 France 159,400 122,000 169,400 122.000 100% 122AW Pay 2012 Hmstd. Res. 1,220 HmsuL Res. 1220 280 280 30 -028-24 -14 -0112 6566 France 3D-028.24- 14-0113 6566 Frame 229,200 229 ,200 100% 2291200 Pay 2012 Hmstd Res, 2,292 Hmstd. Res. 2,292 209 280 3D-02 8-24 -14 -0114 6565 France 239,900 239,900 1007. 239.900 Pay 2012 Hmstd- Res. 2,309 Hmstd. Res. Hmsld. Ras 1,789 260 30 -028-2414 -0115 6566 France 178,900 178,900 100% 1 OD% 178900 107,400 Pay 2012 Hmstd Res. Pay 2012 No" Res. 1,789 2,343 Non-H Res 2,343 280 280 3D- 028-24.14-0111 6568 Frame 30 1566 France 187,400 178,900 107,400 178,900 100% 178.900 Pay 2DI2 Hmstd. Res, 1.789 Hmstd. Res. 1,789 280 -02&24-141 30 -028 -2441 65 France 1 87,400 187,400 100.16 MAW Pay 2012 Non-H Res. 2,343 No" Res. 2,343 2.243 280 30 -028-24 -1, 56 France 224,300 224,300 100% 224.800 Pay 2012 Hmsld. Res- 2,243 Hmstd. Res. ZOU 280 su-0ui•L4.1G•VUC 30. 028 -24- 144123 6565 France 159,400 159.400 100% '69,400 Pay 2012 Hmstd. Res. 1,694 Hmstd, Res, 1.594 280 30-028.24- 14-0125 6566 France 234,100 234,100 100% 100% 234,100 1882W Pay 2012 Hmstd, Res. Pay 2012 Hmstd. Res 2.341 1,882 Hmstd. Res. Hmsld. Res, 2,341 1,882 28D 30-028 -24 -14 -0127 6566 France 188.200 192.300 186200 192,300 100°. 192,900 Pay 2012 Hmstd. Res. 1,923 Hensld. Res. 1,823 280 30-028.24- 14 -0I28 6566 France 188,200 188,200 100% 185= Pay 2012 Hnretd. Rea. 1,882 Hmstd. Res. 1,882 280 30 -029 -24 -34 -0129 6566 France 187.400 167.400 100% 167,400 Pay 2012 Hmsid. Res 1,874 Hmstd. Res. 1,974 28D 30- 028-24 -14 -0130 6566 France 229.200 229= 100% 229200 Pay 2012 Hmstd. Rea. 2292 Hmstd. Rea. 2.292 280 30- D28- 24 -14. 0131 6566 From 164,300 164,300 100% 164,3011 Pay 2012 Hmstd. Res• 1,643 Hmstd. Res. 1.643 280 280 30-028 -24- 14.0133 6566 France 30.028-24 -14 -0135 6566 France 159,400 159.400 100% 15SAM Pay 2012 Non+! Res. 1.993 Non-H Res. 1.993 280 30- 028 -24 -14 -0137 6566 France 229.200 229,200 100% 100% 229200 178x00 Pay 2012 Non-H Res. Pay 2012 Nandi Res. 2,865 2.236 Non-H Res. Non-H Rag. 2,865 2,236 280 30 -028 -24 -14 -0139 6566 France 178.900 187.400 178.9m 187.400 100% 167,400 Pay 2012 Hmstd. Res 1.874 Hmstd. Res. 1.674 280 30 -028- 24- 14-0140 6566 France 183.800 183.800 100% 183AW Pay 2012 Hmstd. Res 1.838 Hmstd. Res. 1,838 280 3D-028 -24- 14-0141 6566 France 187,400 137.400 100% 187A00 Pay 2012 Non -H Res 2.343 Non-H Ras. 2,343 280 30-028.24.14.0142 6566 Frame 6566 France 179,400 179.400 100% 17SAW Pay 2012 Hm41d. Res. 1,794 Mind. Res. 1,790 28D 26D 30.02 &24.14 -0147 30 -028 -24-14 -0149 6566 France 314,200 314,200 100% 314020D Pay 2012 Non -H Res. 3,928 - Non -H Has. 3,928 280 30 -028.24 - 14.0151 6566 France 198.000 198,000 100% 198,400 Pay 2012 Hmsld. Res 1.960 Hmstd. Res. 1.960 2.618 280 30 -028 -24. 14-0152 6556 France 209.400 209,400 100% 209AM 188AM Pay 2012 Non•H Res. Pay 2012 Non-H Res 2.618 2.450 Non -H Res. Non -H Res. 2.450 260 30-028 -24- 14-0153 6556 France 196.000 214.300 198.000 214,300 100% 100% 214,800 Pay 2012 Hmstd. Res. 2.143 Hmstd. Res. 2,143 280 260 30-028 -24- 14-0154 6566 France 30.028 -24- 14.0155 6566 France 250,500 250.500 1 W9t 2: CAM Pay 2012 Hmstd. Res 2.505 Hmstd. Res. 2,505 280 W -028-24 - 14-0156 6566 France 261,200 261200 100% 261,200 179A00 Pay 2012 Hmstd. Res. Pay 2012 Non -H Res. 2,612 2.243 Hmstd. Res. Non-1-1 Res. 2.612 2,243 280 30-028.24 -14 -0157 6566 France 179.400 138.600 179,400 1311,500 100% 100% 12%= Pay 2012 Hmstd. Res. 1,385 Hmsid. Res. 1,385 280 280 30 -028 -24 -14 -0358 6566 Frame 30 -029 -24 -14 -0159 6556 France 372.500 372.500 100% 372.M Pay 2012 Non-H Res. 4,656 Non -H Res. 4.656 2BO 30 -029 -24 -14 -0160 4015 65th Street West 3,032.400 8,631.300 11.663,700 100% 100°. 11,003,700 299M Pay 2012 Rental Pay 2012 Hmstd. Res. 145,796 2,996 Rental Hmstd. Res. 145,796 2.996 2BO 30-028 -24- 14-0161 6566 France 299,600 399.900 299,600 399,900 100% 389,800 Pay 2012 Hmstd. Rea 3,999 Hm91d, Res. 3.999 280 280 30-028 -24-14 -0162 6566 France 30-028 -24- 14-0163 6566 France 367.600 387.600 100% 987,600 Pay 2012 Non-H Res. 4,595 Non -H Res. 4 ,595 280 30-028 -24- 14-0164 6566 France 367,600 367,600 10096 987,800 272,800 Pay 2012 Hms[d Res. Pay 2012 Non -H Res. 3,676 3.410 Hmstd. Res. Non -14 Res. 3.876 3.410 280 30 -028 -24-14 -0165 6556 France 272.800 367,600 272,800 367.600 1007. 1009. 387.800 Pay 2012 Non-H Res. 4.595 Non -H Rag. 4.595 280 30 -028 -24. 14-0166 GS66 France 414.300 414.300 100% 414,300 Pay 2012 Hmstd, Res 4,143 Hmstd. Rea 4.143 280 280 30 -028.24 -14 -0167 6566 France 30 -029 -24 -14 -0168 6566 France 288.200 286,200 100% 298,200 Pay 2012 Non-H Res 3.578 Non -H Rea. 3.576 280 30 -02 8-24- 144)049 6566 France 151.800 151,800 100% 100% 181,800 1100200 Pay 2012 Hntstd. Res. Pay 2012 Hmstd. Res 1,516 1,162 Hmstd. Res. Hmstd. Res. 1,618 1,162 280 30. 028 -24- 144050 6S66 France 116.200 151.800 116,200 151,800 1009: 161,1100 Pay 2012 Hmstd. Res. 1,518 Hmstd. Res. 1.618 200 280 30-028 -24- 14-00.51 6566 France 30 -028 -24 -14 -0052 6566 France 116.200 116200 t00% 11B.POD Pay 2012 Hmstd. Res. 1.162 Hmstd. Res. 1,162 280 30-028 -24-14 -0053 6556 France 213,600 213,600 100% 213,600 Pay 2012 Hmstd. Rea 2.136 Hmstd. Res. 2.136 2.243 280 36-028 -24- 14-0054 6566 France 224.300 224.300 170,400 100% 100% 224,900 170AM Pay 2012 Hmstd. Res. Pay 2012 Hmstd. Res. 2,243 1.704 Hmald. Res. Hmstd. Res. 1.704 280 30 -028 -24 -14 -0055 6566 France 170.400 183.800 183,800 100% 183AW Pay 2012 Non -H Res. 2,298 Non-H Res. 2,298 2BO 280 30 -028- 24- 14-0x56 6566 France 30-021i-24- 14-0057 6556 France 170.400 170,400 100% 170AW Pay 2012 Hmstd- Res. 1,704 Hmstd. Res. 1.704 280 30- 028- 24 -14- 0058 6566 France 178,900 178,900 100% 178,800 Pay 2012 Hmstd. Res. 1,789 Hmstd. Res. 1.789 280 30 -028- 24 -144)W9 6566 France 213.600 213.600 100% 213,000 Pay 2012 Hmstd. Res 2,136 Hmstd. Res, 2,136 280 30-02844 -14-0060 6566 France 229.200 229200 100% 229. DO Pay 2012 Hmstd. Res. 7•282 Hmstd. Res. 2,292 1.898 280 30-028 -24 -14 -0061 5566 France 151,800 151.800 100% 1610200 Pay 2012 Non -H Res. 1.898 1.453 No" Res. Non-H Res. 1.453 280 30 -028- 24- 144062 6566 France 116,200 116200 100% 1111200 Pay 2012 Non -H Res. 280 30 -028.24.14 -0063 6566 France 151.800 151.11W 100% 161,800 Pay 2012 Non -H Res. 1,898 Non-H Ras. 1.898 - 1,162 280 30-028 -24 -14 -0064 6566 France 116.200 116 .200 100% 1180200 Pay 2012 Hmsld. Res. 1.162 Hragld. Res 2110 30 -028 -24 -14 -0065 6566 France 213.600 213500 100% 213,1310 Pay 2012 Non -H Res 2,670 NowH Res. 2.670 280 30 -028- 24- 14 -006e 6566 France 229.200 229,200 100% 228,200 Pay 2012 Hmstd. Res. 2,292 Haudd. Res 2 .292 280 311-02 8-24 - 14.0067 6566 France 170,400 170,400 1 ODI. 170,400 Pay 2012 Hmstd. Res 1.704 Hmstdd, Res 1,704 280 3D -028.24 -14 -0060 65661'rance 183,800 183,800 100% 183,800 Pay 2012 Hmstd. Res. TA38 Meld. Res. 1,838 0 100% 0 Pay 2012 - 237.05 700 4.M.770 4121 7 Note: 1. Base values are based upon review of County weWbe an 31`7112 of values assessed V1711 for lases payable 2012. 2. Pamela are located within School district 280 and Watershed District 1 and 3. The tax rate used tar this protection is for Watershed 3 Southdale Mail Renovation and Mixed Use Development City of Edina Southdale Mail Renovation and Adjacent Development Note. 1. Renovated mall market value based upon tax estimates from mall owner. 2. Other developmenivalues based on proposals received by the City of Edina that will increase existing values and estimates from City Assessor. PROJECT • • Nana Use otol. Tax Capacity to Disparities Tax Capacity EaLmaled Taxable oral Disparities Taxes TotalTax•ble Property Total Tans Percentago Patcentago percmlo" Percentage FastYOar 1,865,040 999,402 780,446 790,454 317.810 Market Value Market Value Total wwm Tax Projrrtl Project Tex Completed Completed Completed Completed Full Taxes Payable Areal'Phatie Now Ua• Par . RJUnit PcrSq. FWnit . FtJUnits Value pass . Tax Capacity C alt fUnit 2012 2013 2014 2015 t4aD OW Olaw Office t25,0aTdW 67.000.000 125. ,ODD 67,000,000 I 1 125.OWAM GW 0 7,0.Of Prel. CA Pret 2459 ?50 19,250 ,8;1 .� 90% • 92% 95% 1 '6 100% 1 2017 66th 8 York Apartments 130.000 130.000 420 54,600,000 Rental 082,500 1,059,250 25% 93% 25% 96% 45% 98% 100% 100% 2017 201 7 Retail Retail Condominiums 00 53,0.000 215,000 53.000,000 197,110 1 141 53,000,000 27,792,510 CA Prel Hmstd. Res. 277,92b 1001/6 100% 100% 100% 2014 Condos u totol wae nLal 82.392.510 960 75 �vatol•1 meremVtnd. 245.000,000 4,997,750 Note. 1. Renovated mall market value based upon tax estimates from mall owner. 2. Other developmenivalues based on proposals received by the City of Edina that will increase existing values and estimates from City Assessor. 1w Taxes and tax increment will vary signlicuntly from year to year depending upon values. roles, stale law, fiscal disparities and other factors which cannot be predicted. 2. It lax increment is received in 2013 then the district will be one your shorter. TAX CALCULATIONS Nana Use otol. Tax Capacity to Disparities Tax Capacity ce Tax capacity Lora Property Taxes oral Disparities Taxes rate -wrae Property Texas a er Value Taxes Total Tans Ratan office Apartments Retail Candominiuraa 2,499,250 1,339,250 682,500 1,059,250 277,925 858,27r--- 465,273 0 367,997 0 11630,978 873,977 662,500 691,253 277.925 1,865,040 999,402 780,446 790,454 317.810 1,232,469 660,432 D 522,354 D 1,299,610 696,410 0 550,810 0 1 98,YS0 106,262 16,596 84,058 879 . 2AW05 997,061 1,947,876 361 1M ESW-1 1w Taxes and tax increment will vary signlicuntly from year to year depending upon values. roles, stale law, fiscal disparities and other factors which cannot be predicted. 2. It lax increment is received in 2013 then the district will be one your shorter. 3/23120 a EHLERS uiMNS to PUSIX noeo" City of Edina Southdale Mall Renovation and Adjacent Development School Dlstrict 280 Base Value Assumptions - Page 1 % of OTC Prolect Tai Capacity Original Tax Capacity FIWW Disparities Incremental Captured Tax Capacity local Tax Rate Annual Gross Tax Increment I Semi- Annual Gross Tax ncrement State Auditor cam Adman. at IV%* Semi - Annual Not Tax Increment Semi - Annual Present Value PERIOD ENDING Yre. Talc Year Payment Date 08/01712 • 02/01/13 08/01113 - - 02/01/14 1000/0 100% 4,887,371 (4,121,297) (350,521) 415,553 114.351% 475,189 237,594 (855) (23,674) 213,065 188,039 0.5 2014 OB/D1 /14 237,594 (855) (23,674) 213,065 367,098 1 2014 02/01115 100'/0 5,OD7,847 (4,121,297) (392,052) 494,497 114.351°% 565,463 .282.731 (1,018) (28,171) 253,542 576,788 1.5 2015 08/01115 282,731 (11018) (28,171) 253,542 780,866 2 2015 02/01/16 100% 5,294,683 (4,121,297) (444,281) 729,105 114.351% 833,738 416,869 (1,501) (41,537) 373;832 1,073,712 2.5 2016 08/01/16 416,869 (1,601) (41,637) 373,832 1,356,721 3 2016 02/01/17 100% 5,858.175 (4,121,297) (509,635) 1,227,243 114.351°% 1,403,364 701,682 (2,526) (69,916) 629,240 1,825,613 3.5 2017 08101/17 701,682 (2,526) (69,916) 629,240 2;280,009 4 2017 OPJ01118 1OD% 5,858,175 (4,121,297) (504,487) 1,232,391 114.351% 1,40.9,252 704,626 (2,637) (70,209) 631,880 2,724,099 4.5 2018 08/01/18 704,626 (2,537) (70,209) 631,880 3,156,303 5 2018 02101/19 1000% 5,858,175 (4,121,297) (504,487) 1,232.391 114.351% 1,409,252 704,626 (2,537) (70,209) 631,880 3,576,940 5.5 2019 08/01/19 704,626 (2,537) (70,209) 631,880 3,986,319 6 2019 02/01/20 1001/0 5,858,175 (4,121,297) (604,487) 1,232,391 114.351°% 1,409,252 704,626 (2,537) (70,209) 631,880 4,384,742 6.5 2020 08/01/20 704,626 (2,537) (70.209) 631,880 4,772,501 7 2020 02/01/21 100% 5,858,175 (4,121,297) (504,487) 1,232,391 114.351% 1,409,252 704,626 (2,537) (70,209) 631,880 5,149,882 7.5 2021 '08101/21 704,626 (2,537) (70,209) 631,880 S,S17,163 8 2021 02101/22 100% 5,858,175 (4,121,297), ,(504,487) 1,232.391 114.351% 1,409,252 704,626 (2,537) (70,209) 631,880 5,874,614 8.5 2022 08/01/22 704.626 (2,537) (70.209) 631,880 6.222,498 9 2022 02/01/23 Total 10,324 ;014 "(37,166) (1 ,028,685) 9;258.163 Present Value From 02/01/2012 Present Value Rote 5.50% 6,938,866 (24,980) (691,389) 6,2221498 Peered by Ehlers 8 Aesocbnes, Ina - E60n tas Only lleh1w&daldetaW 1nnso1a%EDINAWouslng Economic RedevelopmenaTWMF USbIcL Mudidele 21TIF Run Optbn B SD 260 Jr Appendix E Minnesota Business Assistance Form (Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development) A Minnesota Business Assistance Form (MBAF) should be used to report and/or update each calendar year's activity by April 1 of the following year. Please see the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) website at http: / /www.deed.state.mn.us/ Community /subsidies /MBAFForm.htm for information and forms. Appendix E-1 Appendix F Findings Including But/For Qualifications. But -For Analysis .Current Market Value 489,660,200 New Market Value - Estimate 608,772,510 Difference 119,112,310 Present Value of Tax Increment 7,873,815 Difference 111,238,495 Value Likely to Occur Without TIF is Less Than: 111,238,495 The complete list of permits issued are on file with the City Planner i EDINA HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY CITY OF EDINA HENNEPIN COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ADOPTING A MODIFICATION. TOi THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE SOUTHEAST EDINA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA, ESTABLISHING THE SOUTHDALE 2 TAX INCREMENT. FINANCING DISTRICT THEREIN. AND ADOPTING A TAX INCREMENT. FINANCING PLAN THEREFOR. WHEREAS, I it has been proposed by the Board of Commissioners (the. '.'Board ") of the Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority (the "HRA ") and the City of Edina (the "City ") that the HRA adopt a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan (the "Redevelopment Plan Modification ") for the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area (the "Project Area ") and establish the Southdale 2 Tax Increment Financing District (the "District ") and adopt a Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "TIF Plan") therefor (the Redevelopment Plan Modification and the TIF Plan are referred to collectively herein as the "Plans "), all pursuant to and in conformity with applicable law, including Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047, and Sections 469.174 to 469.1799, inclusive, as amended (the "Act "), all as reflected in the Plans and presented for the Board's consideration; and WHEREAS, the HRA has investigated the facts relating to the Plans and has caused the Plans to be prepared; and WHEREAS, the HRA has performed all actions required by law to:be performed prior to the adoption of the Plans. The HRA has also requested the City Planning Commission to provide for review of and written comment on Plans and that the Council schedule a public hearing on the Plans upon published notice as required by law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board as follows: 1. The HRA hereby finds that the District is in the public interest and is an "economic development district" under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subd. 12, and finds that the Plans conform in all respects to the requirements of the Act and will result in creation or retention of jobs in the State of Minnesota, including construction jobs, and will preserve and enhance the tax base of the state. The proposed development would not commence prior to July 1, 2012, without the tax increment financing to be provided. 2. The HRA further finds that the Plans will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs for the City as a whole, for the development or redevelopment of the Project Area by private enterprise in that the intent is to provide only that public assistance. necessary to make the private developments financially feasible. 3. The boundaries of the Project Area are not being expanded. 4. 'The reasons and facts supporting the findings in this resolution are described in the Plans. 5. The HRA elects to calculate fiscal disparities for the District in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, Subd. 3, clause b, which means the fiscal disparities contribution would be taken from inside the District. 6. Conditioned upon the approval thereof by the City Council following its public hearing thereon, the Plans, as presented to the HRA on this date, are hereby approved, established and adopted and shall be placed on file in the office of the Executive Director of the HRA. 7. Upon approval of the Plans by the City Council, the staff, the HRA's advisors and legal counsel are authorized and directed to proceed with the implementation of the Plans and for this purpose to negotiate, draft, prepare and present to this Board for its consideration all further plans, resolutions, documents and contracts necessary for this purpose. Approval of the Plans does not constitute approval of any project or a development agreement with any developer. 8. Upon approval of the Plans by the City Council, the Executive Director of the HRA is authorized and directed to forward a copy of the Plans to the Minnesota Department of Revenue and the Office of the State Auditor pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 469.175, Subd. 4a. 9. The Executive Director of the HRA is authorized and directed to forward a copy of the Plans to the Hennepin County Auditor and request that the Auditor certify the original tax capacity of the District as described in the Plans, all in accordance with Minnesota Statutes 469.177. Approved by the Board on April 17, 2012. Chair MIS 1 Secretary Commissioner introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN INTERFUND LOAN FOR ADVANCE OF CERTAIN COSTS. IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOUTHDALE 2 TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT. BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners (the "Board ") of the Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority (the "HRA ") and the City of Edina (the "City ") that City Council (the "Council") of the City of Edina, Minnesota (the "City"), as follows: Section 1. Background. 1.01. The City and HRA intend to establish the Southdale 2 Tax Increment Financing District (the "TIF District ") within the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area (the "Project "), and will adopt a Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "TIF Plan ") for the purpose of financing certain improvements within the Project. 1.02. The City and HRA have determined to pay for certain costs identified in the TIF Plan consisting of site improvements, other qualifying improvements, interest and administrative costs (collectively, the "Qualified Costs "), which costs may be financed on a temporary basis from City or HRA funds available for such purposes. 1..03. Under Minnesota Statutes, .Section 469.178, Subd. 7, the City and HRA are authorized to advance or loan money. from its general funds or any other fund from which such advances may be legally authorized, in order to finance the Qualified Costs. 1.04. The City and HRA intend to reimburse themselves for the Qualified Costs from tax increments derived from the TIF District in accordance with the terms of this resolution (which terms are referred to collectively as the "Interfund Loan "). Section 2. Terms of Interfund Loan. 2.01. The City and HRA hereby.authorize the advance of up to $5,100,000, or so much thereof as may be paid as ,Qualified Costs, from the Centennial Lakes Tax Increment District fund or such other fund identified by the City or HRA. The total advances of City and HRA, when added together, shall not exceed $5,100,000. 2.02 The City and HRA shall reimburse themselves such advances together with interest at the rate stated below. Interest accrues on the principal amount from the date of each advance. The maximum rate of interest permitted to be charged is limited to the greater of the rates specified under Minnesota Statutes, Section 270C.40 or Section 549.09 as of the date the loan or advance is authorized, unless the written agreement states that the maximum interest rate will fluctuate as the interest rates specified under Minnesota Statutes, Section 270C.40 or Section 549.09 are from time to time adjusted. The interest rate shall be 4% and will not fluctuate. 2.03. Principal and interest ('Payments ") on the Interfund Loan shall be paid semi - annually on each August 1 and February 1 (each a 'Payment Date "), commencing on the first Payment Date on which the Authority has Available Tax Increment (defined below), or on any other dates determined by the Finance Director, through the date of last receipt of tax increment from the TIF District. 2.04. Payments on this Interfund Loan are payable solely from "Available Tax Increment," which shall mean, on each Payment Date, tax increment available after other obligations have been paid, or as determined by the Finance Director, generated in the preceding six (6) months with respect to the property within the TIF District and remitted to the City and HRA by Hennepin County, all in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 to 469.1799, all inclusive, as amended. Payments on this Interfund Loan may be subordinated to any outstanding or future bonds, notes or contracts secured in whole or in part with Available Tax Increment, and are on parity with any other outstanding or future interfund loans secured in whole or in part with Available Tax Increment. 2.05. The principal sum and all accrued interest payable under this Interfund Loan are pre- payable in whole or in part at any time by the City and HRA without premium or penalty. No partial prepayment shall affect the amount or timing of any other regular payment otherwise required to be made under this Interfund Loan. 2.06. This Interfund Loan is evidence of an internal borrowing by the City or HRA in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.178, Subd. 7, and is a limited obligation payable solely from Available Tax Increment pledged to the payment hereof under this resolution. This Interfund Loan and the interest hereon shall not be deemed to constitute a general obligation of the State of Minnesota or any political subdivision thereof, including, without limitation, the City. Neither the State of Minnesota, nor any political subdivision thereof shall be obligated to pay the principal of or interest on this Interfund Loan or other costs incident hereto except out of Available Tax Increment, and neither the full faith and credit nor the taxing power of the State of Minnesota or any political subdivision thereof is pledged to the payment of the principal of or interest on this Interfund Loan or other costs incident hereto. The City and HRA shall have no obligation to pay any principal amount of the Interfund Loan or accrued interest thereon, which may remain unpaid after the final Payment Date. 2.07. The HRA may amend the terms of this Interfund Loan at any time by resolution of the Board, including a determination to forgive the outstanding principal amount and accrued interest to the extent permissible under law. Section 3. Effective Date. This resolution is effective upon the date of its approval. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council member , and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: ATTEST: Chair Secretary (Seal) EA Spending Plan for Centennial Lakes Tax Increment Financing District Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority City of Edina Hennepin County State of Minnesota Authority Adoption: April 17, 2012 City Council Approval: April 17, 2012 E H L E RS 3060 Centre Pointe by: FREERS &ASSOCIATES, INC. IS Drive, Roseville, Minnesota 55113 -1105 651 - 697 -8500 FAX: 651 - 697 -8555 WWW.EHLERS- INO.COM LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE The City of Edina and the Edina Housing' and . Redevelopment Authority (the "- HRA "), the administrative authority for Centennial Lakes Tax Increment Financing: District. (the "TIF District ") in the City of Edina, 1Glinnes.ota (the "City "), propose to adopt a Spending Plan.for the TIF District iri'accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.176 'Subd. 4m (the "Act "). The City and HR1A has determined to authorize expenditures of tax increment from the TIF District under the Temporary TIF Authority Act as further described in this Spending Plan. The purpose . of the Spending Plan is to develop or redevelop sites, lands or areas within the City in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan: by using available tax increments from the TIF District to provide improvements, loans, interest rate subsidies, or assistance in any form to private development consisting of the construction or substantial rehabilitation of buildings and ancillary facilities,. which will create or retain jobs in this state, including construction jobs, if the following conditions exist: (1) Such assistance will create or, retain jobs in the State of Minnesota, including construction jobs; (2) Construction commences before July 1, 2012; (3) The construction would not have commenced before that date without the assistance; (4) The City Council approves a written spending plan (after a duly noticed public hearing) that specifically authorizes the City to take such actions; and (5) The tax increments authorized under the Spending Plan are spent by December 31, 2012. Section 2. Plan Under this Spending Plan, the City and HRA intend: (a) To use available tax increments from the TIF District to provide improvements, loans, interest rate subsidies, or assistance in any form to private development consisting of the construction or substantial rehabilitation of commercial, industrial, housing and/or mixed -use buildings and ancillary facilities (the "Projects "). The assistance authorized under this Spending Plan expressly includes, but is not limited to, assistance to. Southdale Limited Partnership (the "Developer ") in the amount of not more than $5,000,000 to make a no- interest loan to the Developer to finance comin.on area renovations to the 1.2 million square foot City of Edina Spending Plan for Centennial Lakes TIF District 1 Southdale Mall (the " Southdale Renovation Improvements "). The Southdale Renovation Improvements include new entrance structures, flooring, lighting, signage, restrooms, parking deck lighting, exterior seating, columns, and interior wall treatments. The Projects shall commence before July 1, 2012, (unless a later commencement date is authorized by law) and shall constitute Projects that would not commence by such date without the assistance provided pursuant to this Spending Plan. (b) To amend this Spending Plan at any time in accordance with the procedures for approval of the Spending Plan under the Act. (c) To authorize and direct staff to maintain a copy of this Spending Plan with the . City's records for the TIF District, and to file a copy of the Spending Plan with the Office of the State Auditor. In connection with such assistance, the City expressly finds that: 1. Construction of the Southdale Renovation Improvements will create or retain new full -time equivalent construction jobs that would not otherwise exist elsewhere in Minnesota, or would not be retained in Minnesota, based on estimates provided by the Developer. 2. The Developer will be required to commence construction of the Southdale Renovation Improvements no later than July 1, 2012. Construction of the Southdale Renovation Improvements would not have commenced before July 1, 2012 without the assistance under this Spending Plan, because the Developer has represented that the portion of the mall renovation project financed by the City and HRA, herein referred to as the Southdale Renovation Improvements, would not be undertaken absent the no- interest loan provided under this Spending Plan. The assistance provided pursuant to this Spending Plan shall be subject to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 116J.993 to 116J.995 (the "Business Subsidy Law "), unless the assistance provided to a specified recipient is exempt from the Business Subsidy Act under the terms of that statute. City of Edina Spending Plan for TIF Districts No. 15, No 16 and No. 18 Page 2 EDINA HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY CITY OF EDINA HENNEPIN COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING A SPENDING PLAN FOR THE CENTENNIAL LAKES TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners (the 'Board ") of the Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority (the "HRA ") as' follows: Section 1. Background; Findings. (a) The HRA and the City of Edina (the "City ") have previously established the Centennial Lakes Tax Increment Financing District (the "TIF District ") and adopted the tax increment financing plan therefor (the "TIF Plan ") pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 to 469.1799 (the "TIF Act ") and certain special legislation. (b) Section 469.176 Subd. 4m of the TIF Act (referred to as "Temporary Authority Act ") authorizes the City and HRA to spend available tax increment from any existing tax increment financing district, notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, to provide improvements, loans, interest rate subsidies, or assistance in any form to private development consisting of construction or substantial rehabilitation of buildings and ancillary facilities, if certain terms and conditions are met. (c) In accordance with the Temporary Authority Act, the City and HRA have caused to be prepared a spending plan (the "Spending Plan ") authorizing the City to use existing tax increment revenues from the TIF District in order to stimulate construction or rehabilitation of private development in a way that will also create or retain jobs in the renovation of the Southdale Mall. (d) On this date, the City Council is scheduled to hold a public hearing regarding the Spending Plan, for which notice was published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City at least once, not less than ten days nor more than 30 days prior to the hearing, and at which hearing all persons will be given the opportunity to be heard. Section 2. Approval of the Spending Plan. (a) The Spending Plan is hereby approved in substantially the form on file in City Hall., subject only to approval of such plan by the City Council after public hearing, all in accordance with the Temporary Authority Act. (b) HRA staff and consultants are hereby authorized to. take actions necessary to carry out the terms of the Spending Plan. Approved by the Board on April 17, 2012. Chair ATTEST: Secretary Resolution Approving a Spending Plan for Centennial Lakes TIF District Dated: April 17, 2012 r � Supporting Documentation for the Southdale 2 Tax Increment Financing District (an economic development district) Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority City of Edina Hennepin County State of Minnesota EHLERS Prepared by: EHLERS i ASSOCIATES, INC. 3060 Centre Pointe Drive, Roseville, Minnesota 55113 -1105 651 - 697 -8500 fax: 651 - 697 -8555 www.ehlers - inc.com Jessica Cook From: bhammer @simon.com Sent: Monday, March 26, 2012 2:09 PM To: Jessica Cook Subject: Re: FW: Follow -up from Southdale Meeting with City of Edina Jessica I believe that the information in my e-mail continues to be correct. I say that with one caveat - David Contis who is President of the Mall Division has recommended that the level of renovation that should be pursued at Southdale Center is the "Full Level of Renovation." Our internal staff had originally recommended a level of renovation which is a slightly enhanced version of the Basic + level that I had set forth in my e-mail in conformance with corporate minimum return requirements. Mr. Contis felt, given his knowledge and familiarity with the property that undertaking the Full Level of Renovation is in the best long term interest of the property, and, while it would result in a return on investment under our normal thresholds for a third year return, and the property has been designated as a transformation property ( one of eighteen properties so designed from a portfolio of 380 properties), it should achieve the corporate minimum hurdle rate in the fifth year with the TIF assistance. Bill Hammer Simon Property Group 225 West Washington Street Indianapolis, IN 46204 Phone: 317.263.7006 Fax: 317.685.7299 From: "Jessica Cook" <jcook @ehlers- inc.com> To: "Hammer, Bill" <bhammer@simon.com> Cc: <MRuff@ehlers- inc.com> Date: 03/26/2012 02:49 PM Subject: FW; Follow -up from Southdale Meeting with City of Edina Good afternoon Bill, I am preparing the TIF Plan for the Southdale project. As part of the plan, and as required by Minnesota state law, we must attach a financial analysis or documentation that shows that "but for" the use of tax increment the project would not proceed in its current size and scope. To meet this requirement, we can use your e -mail from 2/25/11 (see below) and the construction estimates attached that you provided last year. Please let me know if this works for you. 1 Thanks; Jessica Cook Financial Advisor Ehlers 3060 Centre Pointe Drive Roseville, MN 55113 651 - 697 -8546 (direct) 952 - 200 -9926 (cell) From: bhammer @simon.com [mailto:bhammer @simon.com] Sent: Friday, February 25, 2011 2:45 PM To: Jessica Cook Subject: Re: Follow -up from Southdale Meeting with City of Edina Jessica .Attached is an updated ..Summary of Renovations Costs. These are the Mall related renovations that do not produce income. These were updated on February 16, 2011 and are slightly different from the prior amounts based upon additional description of the scope of the work being produced, and additional contractor estimates based upon the refined scope. The Basic Level of Renovation Cost is $7,339,896. There is a Basic + Level of Renovation of $12,752,764 There is a Fu11...Level of Renovation of. $15,088,084 There is a Recommended Level of Renovation of $12,641;614 I won't bother you with the internal criteria that we use internally for all these levels. The key number to focus on is the Basic Level of.$7,339,896, and also the Recommended Level of Renovation of $12,641,6.14. The Basic Level of Renovation Costs is the amount of work that we would do without City. assistance. This amount increased because in the final Development Pro Forma, John Phipps was to improve the terms of his anchor deal somewhat, and our Leasing group was able to enhance their commitments from small shop space due to the publicity surrounding the pending addition of an anchor. As approved, the Final Development Pro Forma shows Costs of $22,681,412 plus the Final Basic Level of Mall Renovation Costs of $7,339,896 for a total of $30,021,308. The first year income is $1,763,778 for a Cash -on -Cash Return of 5.9 %. The third year stabilized income is $2,944,791 for a Cash -on- Return of. 10 %. By being 1 of the 15 Transformational Properties, the property received special consideration. The normal first year return threshold is 9 %. The minimum threshold for the third year, stabilized return is 10- which we are able to achieve. Nonetheless, there remains a Gap of $5,301;718 between the Basic Level and the Recommended Level of Mall Renovations. On the attached summary, you will see a column 2 labelled "Potential City Funding" which totals $5,278,000. The difference of $23,716' would be legal and related expenses for the TIF. The column labelled "Potential City Funding" is based solely upon our Management Group attempting to group costs in term of use of the potential TIF Funds. Bond Counsel may well determine that they would prefer other costs to meet the requirement of Minnesota law. In addition, there are costs within the "Development Pro Forma" of $7,540,750 for construction (major renovation costs) for the modification required for the new anchor. the relocation of the food court, and the corridor realignment, plus related work for asbestos surveys and remediation, permits, testing, design, engineering, structural engineering /design, general conditions, liability insurance, and general contractor fees that can be substituted for the items listed in the "Potential City Funding" column for Mall related renovations. At the end of the day, there is a total of $12,818,750 from which bond counsel has the potential to select costs with which they might be comfortable. Accordingly, based on the revised costs, our request for City assistance has been revised from the original estimate to $5,301,718 plus any City costs related to this endeavor. Early next week, I will have these Development Cost Pro Forma merged with Renovation Pro Forma for you. This is necessary as we discussed because, intricately related, these element go through separate internal capital processes. Bill Hammer Simon Property Group Development Operations 225 West Washington Street Indianapolis, IN 46204 317.263.7006 phone 317.685.7299 fax 317.681.4125 mobile From: "Jessica Cook" <jcook @ehlers- inc.com> To: <bhammer @simon.com> Cc: <lvandale @simon.com >, <jphipps @simon.com >, <MRuff @ehlers- inc.com >, <jnorth @ehlers - inc.com> Date: 02/25/2011 12:41 PM Subject: Follow -up from Southdale Meeting with Hello Bill, the Mall while they are approval <sneal @ci.edina.mn.us>, City of Edina I wanted to get back to you with a summary of the next steps we need to take to advance your request for City assistance for improvements to Southdale Mall. The first step will be for you to pull together information about the specific improvements, and their costs, that you would like to use tax increment for. Specifically, can you please provide a list of the estimated $6M in improvement you would complete without City assistance, and the additional improvements that you would complete with City assistance. 3 once we have this information, we will, meet ,with the City and the city's attorney to determine which items may eligible for assistance, and what the-legal framework would be. If we _determine there are eligible - costs, we can move on to the underwriting of the assistance (the "but for" test). At this point we will need a financial pro -forma for Southdale that justifies City particpation. �If you are comfortable providing both the project information and the pro -forma together, we can expedite the discussion and consideration of your request. I know you are eager to begin the work. our goal is to prepare a memo for Council discussion and consideration that outlines the proposed business terms for any assistance. Please let me know when you think you will be providing us with the project list and cost estimates. If it will be within the next week or so I will go ahead and set up a meeting with the City and their attorneys. Finally, as you think of intensification of development on the Southdale property, as well as exterior improvements, we would encourage you to look at the Greater Southdale Area Study. You will see a focus on pedestrian connections, increasing intensity of land uses, a transit hub on 6.6th'street, and completing sidewalks in the area. We would encourage you to consider achieving some of the "vision" of this study in your improvements. You can find a copy of the report at: http: / /www.ci.edina.mn.u_s /PDFs /Complete�20Rep2rt.pdf <httn: / /www.ci. edina .mn.us /PDFs /Complete %20Report.pdf> There was an additional study completed for the area south of 70th Street that focused on internal pedestrian and bike paths (The Edina Promenade). In 2008 the City completed its Comprehensive Plan with incorporated considerable public input and information from the Southdale Area Study and the Edina Promenade report. You can view the Comprehensive Plan at the City's website at www.ci.edina.mn.us <http://www.ci.edina.mn.us/> If you have any questions, please call Mark Ruff at 651 - 697 -8505 or me at 651 - 697 -8546. Thanks, and have a good weekend. Jessica Jessica Cook - Financial Advisor Ehlers 3060 Centre Pointe Drive Phone: 651 - 697 -8546 Mobile: 952 - 200 -9926 www.ehlers - inc.com <http: / / www.ehlers- inc.com /> This e-mail and any attachments may contain information which is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient', note that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this message is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please destroy it and notify us immediately by return e-mail or at our telephone number, 651- 697 -8500. Any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are solely those of the author and may not represent the views or opinions of Ehlers and Associates, Inc. 4 M This e-mail and any attachments may contain information which is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, note that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this message. is prohibited. If you have received this e. -mail in error, please destroy it and notify us immediately by return e-mail or at our telephone number, 651- .697 - 8500. Any views or opinions presented in this e -mail are solely those. of the author and may not represent the views or opinions of Ehlers and Associates_, Inc. [attachment "win:mail.dat" deleted by Bill Hammer /Simon) 5 Southdale Shopping Center Development Related Constuction /Renovation Costs Anchor Related: Central Utility Plant Modifications 350,000 Electrical Modifications 310,000 Verticle Transportation 166,000 subtotal 826,00.0 New Food Court Exterior 564,750 Interior 1,663,250 2,228,000 Corridor Relocation Mall Office Modifications 67,750 Elevator & Stair Modifications 708,250 Corridor Relocation 953,750 New Tenant Utiltiy Stubs 537,250 subtotal 2,267,000 Subtotal 5,321, 000 General Conditions 6.7% 356,000 Liability Insurance 0.9% 48,750 G C Fees 3.7% 196;500 subtotal 601,250 Subtotal 5,922,250 Other Items: Asbestos Survey 10,000 Asbestos Abatement 325;000 Elevator /Escalator supervision 10,000 Preliminary investigations 63,500 Permits 65,000 Testing & Inspections 251000 Architectural design 220,000 Civil Engineering 40,000 Structural Engineering /Design 50,006 MEP Engineering /Design 125,000 Construction Contingency 685,000 1,618;500 Total 7,540,750 Mail Name: Soulhdale Center Prepared by: Steve Kinasley Date: 21168011 CAD Common Area So Ft 149.000 Potential S 300.0001 S paint parking deck handrail, Basic Plus and Full - 7 Mall Entrances. Basic - Paint existing structure, replace door system, new signage (average of $50K per entrance), Basic Plus - Remove existing structures and replace with smaller, more contemporary design at key entrances 16, 17.19. 8., new signage (average of $178,600 per entrance). Full - replace existing structure at all S 150.000 I S 80.000 (S 80.000 (Basic Plus and Full - minor exterior landscape Improvements at monuments (4) and at all vehicle entrances. - refurbish existing graphics, Basic Plus - Replace existing "fan" graphics on monument 52.0001 S 58.0001S 5B.0oo 3,267,000 S 2,313,000 1 S 2,313,000 Interior Basic Basic Plus Full Renovation - r- .•.•�•• -... -� Comments Floor $ 733.915 .S 3,714.798 5 3,714,798 $ 3 214.798 S 5.278,000 Basic - 60% tile. 40% carpet -Basic Plus - 80% tile. 20% carpel. Full - all the Ha.tdrails S 87.500 S 3611.000 I S 350,000 S 350.000 S - 3.500 linear feet of handrail. Basic- Paint rail cap. Basic Plus and Full - replace rail cap with wood Overhead S 80.000 S 425.000 S 425,000 S 425,000 0.585.000 S Basic, remove -tower' at center court bridge. Bask Plus and Full - Remove tower, and replace wilh water or othe element. add power for STL tenants on bridge Vertical Transportation S 80.000 S 240,000 S 240.000 $ 240,000 $84.89 $35.42 Private = $49.47 PSF + Public $35.42 = $64.89 3 elevators, 14 escalators. Basic - refurbish 2 feature elevator cab tops. Basic and Basic Plus - refurbish elevatoi tops. refurbish cabs ColumnslNe.itral Piers S 132.000 S 330.000 S 726,000 S 330.0001 107 round columns, 25 square columns. Basic - refurbish tops and bottoms of columns. Basic Plus and Full - redad columns to reduce size and improve sight lines Mall Finishes S 450,000 S 695.000, 695,000 $ 695,000 Basic - paint mail interior, address `gna" effect at center court. Basic Plus and Full - paint mall interior, address "grid effect at center court, add wood trim accents to "wells" between lower and upper levels Food Court $ 35,000 S 35 -000 1 $ 35,000 Decommission food court, wall off Customer Conveniences S 550.000 S 650,000 S 850.000 S 650.000 S 650.000 Refurbish mall restrooms, add family restrooms Mall Ooera6cns Graphics S 110.000 S 180.0001 S 220.000 S 220.000 Re lace interior graphics package HVAC S 56,000 $ 58.000 S 58,000 Replace rifles Plumbing S 50,000 S 80.000 S 80,000 $ 80,000 Add plumbing atcenlercourt for new food kiosks Liohbnq/Pawer S 600,000 S 850.000 S 1.250.000 S 1.2SO.0001 S 1.250.000 Basic - replace 155 sconce lights, add electric for kiosidAMU locations, modest lighting upgrades. Basic Plus an Full - additional lighting improvements Life Safe S 250,000 S 250,000 S 250.000 S 250.000 S 250.000 Antiopaled required fire alarm upgrade& and ADA device installation FFSE (NOTE: Coco letlen b Owner S 225.000 S 585,000 S 585.000 S 665 000 S 685.000 Basic - replace furniture. Basic Plus and Full - Replace existing wire metal benches and trash cans, add soft ;;eating, add la area. Value Enharcerrent ACM Abatemenil S 150,0001S ISO.0001 S 150.000 $ 150.000 S 150.000 lAlloviance wrap �mcnw �"uaa a a,aoa,.w a o,ays,. ea a a....�.. �� . - r- .•.•�•• -... -� Total Construction Cost S 6.273,415 S 10,899,798 S 12,895.796 $ 10,810,798 S 5.278,000 includes Construction Contingency 5% CM, ABE, General Conditions $ 1,0%.481 S 1.652.956 S 2.122.265 S 1,837,636 (CM Fee 3.5 %, AB.f Fee 3.5 %, General Conditions 10 %- Estimates) Total Renovation CostrA S 7,339,896 1 S 12.752,764 I S . tb 088 084 1 S 12.648.6341 Target Goal Based on Sq. FL $ 7,450.000 S 0.585.000 S 13,410,000 S Basic= $50.00psf,, Basic += $55,00psf, Full Renovation = $90,00psf Cost Per Square Foot: $49.26 585.59 $101.26 $84.89 $35.42 Private = $49.47 PSF + Public $35.42 = $64.89 MINUTES CITY OF EDINA MINNESOTA ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT COMMISSION EDINA CITY HALL COMMUNITY ROOM Thurs., March 08, 2012 7:00 PM� I. CALL TO ORDER 7:03 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Answering Roll Call was Members Gubrud, Heer, Kostuch, Rudnicki, Sierks, Thompson, and Chair Latham. Late Arrival: Risser and Zarrin Absent: Gupta, Jenning, Paterlini. Staff Present: Karen Kurt and Rebecca Foster III. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA Agenda was approved as written. IV. ADOPTION OF CONSENT AGENDA V. COMMUNITY COMMENT VI. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. Working Group Membership —Sarah Zarrin was added -to the Education and Outreach Working Group B. Bylaw Revision Committee. Chair Latham asked if there were any changes to the Bylaws that were presented at last month's meeting and thanked Ms. Kurt for her revisions. Motion made by Member Gubrud and seconded by Member Rudnicki to approve the Energy & Environment Commission Bylaws. as presented and without changes. Motion carried unanimously. C. EEC annual activity calendar. Chair Latham reviewed the EEC annual calendar with Commissioners. D. Recycling & Solid Waste WG 1. Residential Recycling RFP. Chair Latham gave an update on the Allied MRF, Waste Management MRF and Randy's MRF facilities that she toured. 2. Revised RFP process,for all city RFP's. Chair Latham gave an update on how the scoring process is done on a RFP within the city. In the future RFP scoring will be done by City staff and consultants without any commissioners or working group members. - 3. City Park Recycling Bin Task Force. Chair Latham discussed the revisions she made to the Edina Park Recycling Bin Sponsorship Form. Motion made by Member Kostuch and seconded by Member Zarrin to approve the Edina Park Recycling'Bin Sponsorship Form. Motion carried unanimously. E. Energy WG 1. Solar panel project. Ms. Kurt.gave an update on the installation of the project, which will not be operational until inspected. 2. Solar /wind ordinance amendments. Cary Teague, Planning Director, is currently reviewing the ordinance. 3. PACE /EEEP commercial energy district update. Only one business has taken advantage of this program. F. Air Quality WG Report. Commissioner Risser invited the Air Quality Working Group members to join the Water Quality Working Group due to its temporarily deactivation. 1. Drive Through City Code Amendments— No report 2. No Idling sign pilot project. The Traffic Safety Committee is reviewing the sign installation and specifications of purchase. G. Education. Outreach Working Group Report. Member Thompson invited EEC Members to the Sustainable Communities Conference March 24th at United Methodist Church to talk about Edina's Green Step Cities. Member Gubrud updated the Earth Day Proclamation to April 22 "d Motion made by Member Gubrud and seconded by Member. Zarrin'to approve the Earth Day Proclamation to be presented at the April 3`d City Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously. 1. April 19 2012 educational program. Member Zarrin gave an update about the Dr. Jonathan Foley Dialogue. Member Zarrin will contact Ms. Kurt to have the City create an EEC flyer for the event. Motion made by Member Heer and seconded by Member Sierks to increase the planning. budget for the event by $250 to provide food. Motion carried' unanimously. 2. Policies are needed for educational programs. Chair "Latham presented a draft Event Planning Policy'and Guidelines for the EEC. 3. Proposed Eco Film at Centennial Lakes — No Report H. Water Quality WG. 'Member - Risser is looking for direction from City Council on what projects should be implemented this year from the EEC Work Plan that was presented to Council at the Work Session. Ms. Kurt gave an update on the vacant EEC staff liaison and a new staff position that'll help with Water Quality within the Engineering Dept. I. May Term Intern.. Member Thompson said there are three students waiting approval to help with Education and Outreach in schools on the Go Green Principals and Energy Efficiency. J. . April 23 Volunteer Recognition nominee proposals. Member Thompson will ask the Faith Community for a nominee and he will prepare the nominee's application plus introduce EEC's nominee at the April 23 event. EEC will pay the $20 dinner fee for both the nominee and their introducer (Paul Thompson). K. EEC 4th of July parade unit. Member Gubrud will complete an application to have the Home Energy Squad unit and hand out Tolby wall plates within the parade. L. Update of EEC.Website. The topic was tabled. M. Commissioner Training Program. Ms. Kurt presented a Member Orientation about Edina's Boards and Commissions. VII. CORRESPONDENCE & PETITIONS VIII. CHAIR AND COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS A. Officer elections. No one has yet volunteered to be Chair for 2012, instead, three members volunteered to each serve one - quarter starting in summer. There will be two acting chairs for the spring quarter. Ms. Kurt strongly encouraged Members to become a Chair since they are an appointed body to the Council and to ease communication with the staff liaison. The EEC is concerned about the Council's two year term limits for the Chair. B. Press release soliciting Working Group Members was sent to the Sun Current by the Communications Dept. on 2 -17 -12 IX. STAFF COMMENTS A. Karen Kurt 1. Report Feb. No report on the EEC budget. 2. Green Corps Intern. Chair Latham said the PCA is offering an intern again, but the EEC decided to not participate due to not having a staff liaison available to supervise the Intern. There being no further business on the Commission Agenda, Chair Latham declared the meeting adjourned at 9:33p.m. Motion made by Member Gubrud and seconded by Member Thompson to adjourn meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Respectfyll "ubmitted, Re cca Foster GI Administrator � I � I MINUTES - Annual Meeting of the Edina_ Heritage Preservation Board Edina .City .Hall — Community Room Monday, March 13, 2012 7:00 p.m. 1.. CALL TO ORDER 7:05 P.M. II. ROLL CALL Answering roll call were Members Stegner, Carr, Davis, Moore, Curran, Christiaansen, Mellom, Sussman, Anger, Copman and Ellingboe. Staff present was Planner Joyce Repya. III. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA Member Stegner asked that the impact the Grandview Design Framework will have on the Cahill School and Grange Hall be added to the agenda under the Board Member Comments. Member Curran moved to approve the meeting agenda with the addition of Member Stegner's request. Member Davis seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried. IV. ELECTION OF OFFICERS A. Chairman Planner Repya called for nominations for the office of Chairman of the HPB. Member Curran moved to nominate Member Claudia Carr. Member Stegner seconded the motion. Member Carr agreed that she would be willing to serve as the Chairman of the HPB. All voted aye. The motion carried. Member Carr will serve as the Chairman of the HPB for 2012. B. Vice Chairman Planner Repya called for nomination for the office of Vice Chairman of the HPB. Member Carr moved to nominate Member Bob Moore. Member Ross seconded the motion. Member Moore agreed that he would be willing to serve as the Vice Chairman of the HPB. All voted aye. The motion carried. Member Moore will serve as the Vice Chairman of the HPB for 2012. V. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES Regular meeting of February 13,2012 Member Davis moved approval of.the minutes from the February 13, 2012, meeting of the board. Member Moore seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried. ` VI. COMMUNITY COMMENT None VII. REPORTS /RECOMMENDATIONS A. Board Member Orientation Planner Repya explained that Assistant City Manager, Karen.Kurt created a Power Point presentation to serve as an orientation for members of the city's advisory boards and commissions. Ms. Kurt asked staff liaisons to present the orientation to the entire board this year, and in the future, it will be presented to all newly appointed board and commission members. After viewing the Power Point, the Board agreed that the information was very timely and provided good clarification on running effective meetings. B. 2012 Work Plan Planner Repya'provided the Board -with a finalized copy of the 2012 work plan and-calendar that - incorporated the changes they-agreed upon at the February meeting. A brief discussion ensued., regarding the plan after which Member Stegner moved for approval of the 2012 work plan with the expectation that.it will be presented to the City Council for approval at the upcoming joint work session. Member Curran seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried. On the topic of managing the tasks of the HPB - Member Carr pointed out that through her job at, 3M she has been working with an Excel 5peeadsheet to record and keep track of action steps — adding that perhaps a similar program would -work,well for the HPB. Ms. Carr agreed to share the spreadsheet with Ms. Repya to see if the application would be helpful to manage the HPB workload. C. CLG Application — Historic Context Study for Post — WWII Heritage Resources Planner Repya provided the Board with a copy of the proposed application for a Certified Local Government (CLG) matching grant to fund a Historic Context Study for Post WWII Heritage Resources in the City of Edina. She explained that the application has been downloaded to the State, however, is in a holding format, awaiting approval to proceed from the HPB. Board members expressed their pleasure in receiving the draft noting that they found the information supporting the request for funding to be very interesting. Following brief discussion, Member Stegner moved that the CLG application to fund a Historic Context Study of Post WWII Edina Heritage Resources be submitted to the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). Member Christiaansen seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried. Ms. Repya noted that although the deadline for the grant submittal is March 23rd, SHPO will consider the grant applications in May. D. Pronnotion.for 2012 Edina Heritage Award Planner Repya provided the Board with copies of a Facebook posting which invited people to submit nominations for the 2012 Edina Heritage Award. Interestingly, the post generated one nomination thus far with hopefully more to-follow. Board members also received nomination forms and were encouraged to consider potential properties they could nominate. Ms. Repya pointed out that the deadline for the submittal of nominations is Friday, April 13th because an invitation to, submit nominees in the spring issue of About Town magazine will not be delivered until the week of April 1 -7. Since the next HPB meeting is Tuesday, April 1 0th, three days before`the deadline for nominations, Ms. Repya asked the Board how the wished to handle choosing the award recipient. Following a brief discussion, Member Curran moved to establish a committee to review the nominations for the 2012 Heritage Award and make a recommendation to the HPB. Member Stegner seconded the motion. Members Anger, Curran and Davis agreed to serve on the nominating committee with Member - - 2 i I� Anger serving as Chairman of the Committee. Member Davis moved to amend the motion to require a new member of the HPB serve on the nominating committee. Member Mellom agreed to replace Member Davis on the committee. Member Stegner seconded the subsidiary motion to ensure that a new member serve on the nominating committee, and replacing Member Davis with Member. Mellom. All voted aye. The motion carried. Chairman Carr called for a vote on the original motion to establish a nominating committee for the Edina Heritage Award. All voted aye. The motion carried. Member Sussman pointed out that there should be a contingency in place in the event a nomination is received by the April 13th deadline, but after the April I Oth HBP meeting. Following a brief discussion, Member Curran moved that the nominating committee meet on April I Oth, at 6:30 p.m., prior to the HPB meeting to choose an award recipient recommendation to the HPB - if between April I Oth and the deadline for nominations, April 13th other nominations are received, the nominating committee is authorized to make the final. decision. Member. Christiaansen seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried. VIII. _ CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS -None IX. CHAIR AND BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS A. Member Stegner — Potential impact of the Grandview District Development Framework on the historic- Cahill School and Grange Hall (Tupa Park) Member Stegner pointed out that he was reviewing the materials on display in the City Hall Lobby relative to the Grandview District Framework and noticed that Tupa Park was included in the study area. Mr. Stegner questioned how the Cahill School and Grange Hall would be affected by a proposed plan. Member Sussman, who also serves on the Grandview District Development Framework's steering - committee, explained that the process that has been underway for the past two•years is new for the city I. — including a 52 member steering committee made up of residents, professional consultants and city staff. The desired outcome is not to have a plan per se, but rather a framework that will be presented to the City Council who will in turn fold the framework into the City's Comprehensive Plan as a guide for future development. Mr.'Sussman explained that the district covering a 30 acre area has been ambitious — originating with the need to find a use for the City's vacant public works building, the area expanded to include properties on the east side of Highway 100 (Cahill School, Grange Hall, City Hall,. Perkins) with the desire to provide more connectivity between the east and west sides of the highway. Addressing areas of the framework with an impact on the City's historic buildings, Member Sussman pointed out that the historic park is recognized as an important element in the public realm. A desire for 3 Edina Heritage Preservation Board Minutes March 13, 2012 a pedestrian bridge connecting the east and west sides of Highway 100 adjacent to the park has been shown. Also, there is a scenario that shows closing off the on /off ramp from northbound Highway 100 — providing more green space/parki ng for Tupa Park. Mr. Sussman advised the Board that currently a public comment is taking place whereby residents are encouraged to review the framework and provide their input/suggestions. The documents can be viewed on the City's website at www.EdinaMN.gov. The Board thanked Member Sussman for his explanation and expressed an interest in checking further into the Grandview District project. B. Member Davis 1. Star Tribune Housing Article Member Davis announced that former HPB member Jean Rehkamp Larson was highlighted in a Star Tribune article that focused on providing storage areas to home renovations. It was a good article. Kudos to Ms. Rehkamp Larson! 2. Star Tribune Article on Edina Tear Downs Another recent article in the Star Tribune which caught Mr. Davis' attention focused on the excessive number of residential tear downs that have occurred in the City of Edina. Mr. Davis expressed concern regarding the how this teardown phenomenon is so wasteful — with good building materials ending up in local landfills. Member Curran agreed with Member Davis, citing that this is a sustainability issue, and wondering if the HPB should get involved. A discussion ensued regarding the impact the tear down of homes is having on the community. When asked her professional opinion regarding the teardown issue, Member Christiaansen who works as an architect agreed that the trend to tear down and build new, particularly in Edina is evident. She added that in her opinion, the HPB cannot solve the problem, rather this is an issue of education — it needs to become "not cool" to tear down and build new. Member Mellom agreed with Ms. Christiaansen, pointing out that since education is one of the missions of the HPB; this would be a good topic to support. Planner Repya pointed out that the upcoming Community Education class "Caring for Your Old House: The Basics" sponsored by the HPB is a good step toward educating the public to an alternative to tearing down a home. She added that interestingly, on the same page of the catalog is a class offering entitled "The Tear Down and Rebuild Process" where they ask the question "Do you want to build a new home in an established neighborhood ?" Board members discussed contacting the class instructor to find out how she was approaching the topic and what she was advocating. Planner Repya offered to check into that class and report back. 4 i Edina Heritage Preservation Board Minutes March 13, 2012 Following a brief discussion, Member Davis moved that a committee be formed to investigate the role the HPB can take relative to the residential tear down trend in the community. Member Stegner seconded the motion. Member Sussman pointed out that this topic is timely with the Board's current work with the postWWII period. Chairman Carr called for the vote. All voted aye. The motion carried. Members Davis, Mellom and Christiaansen agreed to serve on the committee. C. Member Moore . Southdale Center Artifact Update Member Moore reported that Linda Vandaleh, Southdale Center's manager has invited his committee to search for possible hidden Southdale artifacts in the basement area of the mall. He is hoping to schedule a date within the next few weeks and will hopefully have some good news to report at the April meeting. 2. Facts on Edina Women Mr. Moore shared the following interesting facts regarding Edina women he received from Marci Matson, Director of the Edina Historical Society: • Emma Rovick, 6101 Halifax Avenue, founder of Edina Realty. She bought a very small real estate company in hopes of making enough money to buy a piano for her daughter and created a multi- million dollar corporation. • Pauline Littel, one of the first women real estate agents in Minneapolis. She designed and built houses because she found completed houses easier to sell than empty lots. Some of these homes are located in the Morningside neighborhood. • Clara Parsons designed and built four houses in Morningside. • Dorothy Dahlquist, with her husband created NordicWare. She created and adapted recipes for the bundt pan in the kitchen of her Edina home on Malibu Drive. • Alice Snyder of Morningside was the first election judge. Her presences at the polls in 1920 during a special election determining whether Morningside should secede from Edina got the women out to vote. Apparently, her husband stayed home and washed the dishes. The Board agreed that the information was fascinating. Planner Repya pointed out that she too received these facts from Ms. Matson, and, she shared them with Consultant Vogel who agreed that it was great information, however with the exception of Emma Rovick's home, the properties or historic resources associated with these women have yet to be identified. That will be an interesting task that lies ahead. Mr. Moore agreed, pointing out that the Edina Historical Society has a vast amount of information and is more than happy to partner with the HPB when accessing information on properties. 3. Edina Historical Society's First Annual Fundraiser The Edina Historical Society will be holding their first annual fundraiser on June 14, 2012 and will feature entertainment by the Peterson family. 4. Open House Cahill School /Grange Hall and St. Stephens Episcopal Church In recognition of Preservation Month the HPB and Edina Historical Society will again hold an open house on May 8th from 5 -7pm at the Cahill School and Grange Hall — Also, this year will have a new twist in 5 i i i i i I I Edina Hentage Preservation Board ! _ Minutes ' March-13,2012 - - - - - -- -- - -- - that St. Stephens Episcopal Church who is celebrating their 75th anniversary will also participate in the open house. The Church will offer two tours that will coincide with those at the school and Grange Hall. The Historical, Society and St. Stephens will.advertise:th.e tours to. their members/ parishioners. Planner Repya added that the City will also advertise on the web site, Facebook,'Twitter, etc. D. Chairman Carr - _Student. Member's May Term Projects Chairman Carr reminded the student members that if they are interested in a May Term Project focusing on Edina's history, the HPB would be happy to provide their support. Member Ellingboe stated that she is a junior and .will work on her May Term Project next year. Member Copman explained that, he is a senior and has already chosen his May Term Project. X. STAFF COMMENTS None X. NEXT MEETING DATE April, 10, 2012 XI. ADJOURNMENT 8:45 p.m. Member Davis moved the meeting be adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Member Stegner seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried. Respectfully submitted, Joyce Repya _- 6 1 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE PARK BOARD HELD AT CITY HALL MARCH 13, 2012 7:00 PM L CALL TO ORDER Chair Steel called the meeting to order at 7:06 pm H ROLLCALL Answering roll call were Members Dan Peterson, Jones, Cella, Gieseke, Steel, Segreto, Deeds, Jacobson, Hulbert, Weicht, Neville. III. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA Member Dan Peterson made a motion, seconded by Member Gieseke, approving the meeting agenda. Ayes: Members Dan Peterson, Jones, Cella, Gieseke, Steel, Segreto, Deeds, Jacobson, Hulbert Motion carried. IV. ADOPTION OF CONSENT AGENDA. Member Dan Peterson made a motion, seconded by Member Jones approving the consent agenda as follows: W.A. Approval of Minutes —Regular Meeting of Tuesday, February 14, 2012 Ayes: Members Dan Peterson, Jones, Cella, Gieseke, Steel, Segreto, Deeds, Jacobson, Hulbert Motion carried. V COMMUNITY COMMENT None VI. REPORTS /RECOMMENDATIONS VIA. Highlands Park Athletic Field Proposal., Mr. Keprios pointed out that his Staff Report and Recommendation states that the Edina Soccer Club (ESC) has requested to make a proposal to remove the. softball baseball backstop at Highlands Park and make room for a little bit larger practice area for the ESC. It would be used strictly as a practice venue. The ESC proposal is to remove the backstop, provide funding to provide grass for the infield and install irrigation. Mr. Keprios indicated that he mailed a letter on February 22 "d to everyone who lives within 1,000 feet of the park which ended up being approximately 205 households and requested that people give their comments in writing. He noted that he has submitted all letters and emails that he has received as of 6:15 pm tonight to the Park Board. He indicated there seems to be a common concern from the neighbors which is the traffic. In addition, they are concerned about losing what is a community playfield amenity for the community neighborhood to use as a park as an unscheduled field for pick -up games, etc. Mr. Keprios showed some overhead pictures of the park. He added that the Edina Soccer Association (ESA) uses Highlands Park heavily during the summer evenings and weekends for games on the three,fields. He noted that what the ESC is looking for is any green space that is somewhat level and safe to just.use as a scheduled practice venue, it would not be a scheduled game field. He commented they are proposing not to add another game field but just want to improve what they are already using as a non - scheduled practice area. Jeff Carlson, ESC Board Member, informed the Park Board there really is no space for their growing club which is basically an extenuation of the ESA where they have fewer people playing but it's at a higher level of coaching and really is the feeder program into high school and college play. Mr. Carlson explained there are no tax dollars being proposed, they would be using their own funds. He pointed out that currently it is a non - assigned field for baseball and softball. He indicated that they had a record number of 250 kids try out at the youngest level which is 9 year -olds and because of the limited green space they had to cut 20% of that group. He commented that it could still be used for spontaneous baseball and softball, it just would not have the diamond. Member Gieseke asked Mr. Carlson in his estimation how does he expect the traffic flow to change. Mr. Carlson responded they already use that space so it would really just be any incremental use so any added traffic would really not be noticed. He indicated that these fields are used for 13 year -olds and older and at that age parents are typically just dropping off their kids and are not staying to watch the practice. Member Jones noted just to clarify in the future there is no intention to create this to be a scheduled field to which Mr. Carlson replied it would simply be scheduled for practices only by the ESC and not games. Member Cella asked if ESA games would be scheduled there. Mr. Carlson replied that is going to be left up to the City if they want to assign it for games. Mr. Keprios stated that from a City standpoint if this were to happen they would not accept reservations for games whether it is ESA or ESC. He added that he doesn't think the area would even be large enough to accommodate either one, it's strictly a small practice area. Member Segreto commented that she is a little confused about whether the backstop would stay or be removed. Mr. Keprios replied that the ESC came forward and requested that the backstop be removed to give them a safer, larger space for practice. Mr. Carlson stated that if needed as a compromise the backstop could stay and they would simply take away the diamond and would irrigate it and make it look like the rest of the space that is out there. Mr. Keprios indicated that may be a compromise the Park Board may want to consider to take the dirt out and replace it with healthy new grass and irrigate the space. He noted they.could leave the backstop and everything in place and it could still be used for baseball and softball, it would just be without a dirt infield and it would also make the practice field a little bit smaller. Member Gieseke stated just to clarify when they say they are going to take the diamond away does that mean the bases are gone. Mr. Keprios replied they could put the bases back in but they would be removable bases so it could also be used for soccer. Chair Steel asked if adult softball uses the field to which Mr. Keprios replied they used to but now all adult softball is played at VanValkenburg Park. Mr. Keprios pointed out that this is a wonderful problem to have and he doesn't want to paint ESC as the bad guys, they have provided thousands of hours volunteering to make this a fabulous program and help develop kids. He noted all of the associations volunteer thousands of hours of their time and this is really the symptom of a much bigger problem. As Member Deeds knows and has repeated many times we need more rectangular fields and that is something that will have to be addressed at a later date but that is why they are seeing this proposal. Member Deeds commented just so he understands you are talking about keeping the backstop but grass the infield so that it's still useable for softball and baseball but will also function as a practice field for soccer. Mr. Keprios replied that would be a nice compromise. Member Deeds asked what months, how many hours and/or days a week would ESC want to schedule this field. Mr. Carlson replied it would be May through July during the evenings and weekends as well as September and October for fall soccer. 2 Bruce Carlson, 5208 Glengarry Pkwy, informed the Park Board he has lived in Edina for 60 years and during that time he has lived near six different.Edina parks. He noted you talk about more green space but he thinks it has 98% green space with a little bit of gravel and even in the proposed new field it looked like it only needed a little bit of that gravel. Therefore, he is a little confused why the gravel can't be striped and not schedule games on there and for that matter irrigate it and make the gravel softer if that's the case. He noted that kids and neighbors gather at this park by the dozens and its unstructured play which is pretty unusual to finally see kids come back to unstructured play with pick -up games, etc. He commented that at a minimum he can't see why they would eliminate the backstop and if need be the third base fencing if they needed that for space. He added if grass is put -in there the kids are going to play and wear it out and it will turn to mud. Mr. Carlson noted that the biggest thing the neighborhood is most concerned about is the traffic, it is over the top. He noted if people were to park that may be one thing but as Mr. Carlson mentioned they come and go dropping kids off and picking them up. He added that their driveways and yards are utilized for parking as well as the "no parking" is utilized for parking which is really unbelievable being there are two'--parking lots which virtually go unutilized. He stated that as he suggested in his letter perhaps some serious education, communication and patrol responsibility should be required by the Associations and Clubs and they will participate as neighbors. He pointed out that he is also particularly concerned about the corner of Glengarry and Ayshire Blvd., there is a two -way stop sign there and there are nears misses there all of the time. Will O'Connell, 5532 Glengarry Pkwy, informed the Park Board he thinks they need to keep the baseball field because he sees there are 30 or 40 kids that live in the neighborhood that use it for baseball and kickball and it's the only diamond in their neighborhood Kate O'Connell, 5532 Glengarry Pkwy, informed the Park Board she has been a resident of Edina for 12 years, has three children and lives at the end of the park. She noted she would really like for the Park Board to not eliminate the ballpark. She indicated they use it all of the time for pick -up games of kickball and soccer and just to hangout and throw the ball around. She noted the kids are older so their yard is getting smaller for those amenities and they are at an age where they can ride their bikes to the park. She pointed out that her kids participate in soccer, hockey and baseball and they have gotten a lot of use out of all the wonderful programs that Edina has to offer but would ask that you also keep the unorganized spaces and reserve those for special community and neighborhood events. Ashley Hughes, 5500 Glengarry, informed the Park Board that she lives across the street from the park on the corner of Glengarry and Ayrshire. She indicated that she has five children ages almost two to 10 and they use the baseball field three or four nights and days during the summer months. She noted that it was one of the.main reasons that drew them to this neighborhood especially to their home being right across the street from the park that has:such a wide variety of activities for the kids from skating to the playground to the wide open space to the baseball field. She added that it's a charming area that draws so many people to this neighborhood that makes it such a popular neighborhood and she feels it would just be a great loss to their neighborhood and to their children to lose the baseball field. Scott Reich, 5517 Chantrey Road, informed the Park Board that he has lived there for 17 years and one of the reasons he bought his house was because it's near the park and he is raising two boys who like to play hockey, soccer and pick -up baseball. He commented that it's a multi - purpose park and they do like to go there and play pick -up baseball; there are very few places now where you can go and do that and this one happens to be close to their home. He indicated that even when the park is being utilized by the ESC during the week it is so heavily used you can't really even use it. He noted if you try to play baseball there you can't because ESC is encroaching into everything. He stated that he is not anti soccer, his kids play soccer but it's a great facility just to come and play kickball, hang out, play baseball because there are few of these places and they are being converted into specific sports and if you look at some studies kids are better, well- rounded athletes if they play multi - purpose sports. 3 Matt O'Connell, 5532 Glengarry Pkwy, informed.the Park Board that he has coached both baseball and soccer and he is well aware of the challenges,that both groups face as far as finding enough spaces for their kids to participate-within a certain time frame. He noted that his position is that he goes up with.his kids to Highlands Park and brings a bucket of balls with and he will pitch to them but baseball isn't really, baseball with grass so'that is where his position is as far as the compromise of taking.out the dirt and keeping the backstop. Therefore,. he would like to see that space stay the way it is because they. do utilze,it so much in their neighborhood just getting kids together. and as a parent going up and simply being able to sit there and watch them play kickball or play;catch and hit a ball. He noted that unstructured time is valuable-and they don't have enough of that right now as it is with - the other activities that they participate in so that time is very important to -them. Cathy Kidd, 5528 Glengarry Pkwy, informed the!Park:Board that they bought their house a year and a >> half ago because of Highlands Park, they looked everywhere and when they droveby and saw the pick- up games andAids that is something that is special. She noted that.she has met so many people and neighbors because of fhaupark. She indicated that iVs hard to find any time for anything and- if you have a place where you. can go to where; her, 13 year -old can play with the 5 year -old neighbor and they can work it out and play true baseball because it is gravel, and it is bases and it is sitting on the benches and they can pretend they are in the dugout and pretend and play. She stated that she thinks it would be.a really poor choice to remove it. Paul Patzloff, 5508 Chantrey. Road, informed the Park Board.that he has been a resident for over :ten years and there are a lot of different schools that the kids go to and it's really nice to have that park where kids can go who go to a different school during the day can get together and meet their neighbors at the ball diamond. Dan. O'Connell, 5532 Glengarry Pkwy, I walk to the baseball field with my mom and sister and I like the baseball field and we play soccer and kickball and added that he doesn't want to wreck it down. Mr. Keprios,informed the Park Board that the ESC asked him whether or not they should fill the Council Chambers with their players to come and testify and tell the Park Board how much green space is needed. He noted that his reply to the ESC was that the Park Board is very keenly aware of the shortage of space issue and he asked ESC to please spare the Park Board another hour of testimony to prove that point, he didn't think that would be necessary and that is why you don't see a lot of the ESC, players at this meeting. Member Jones asked Mr. Keprios to talk a little bit about the classification of the parks because she has been hearing that word "neighborhood" park: Mr. Keprios explained there are a variety of . classifications, which they adopted from the "National Recreation Park Association ". He noted:that ,. Highlands Park is one of nine parks that they call "Community,Playfields ", which community playfields typically range in size from 20 to 60 acres and are designed to provide facilities for diverse recreational activities for both.young people. and adults. In,addition, a section is typically set aside for smaller neighborhood children and.typically has a service area of anywhere from 9 to 16 square miles. The other eight community playfields are: Creek-Valley, Garden, Lake Edina (which is now.Fred Richards Golf.Course); Pamela, Todd, VanValkenburg, Walnut Ridge and,Lewis. He commented that,they are all. heavily scheduled-venues because they don't have the massive athletic complex like a Miller Park in Eden Prairie. Member Gieseke asked is there any kind of stripping for the fourth practice field right now or is it just green to which Mr. Keprios replied there is not. 4 Member Dan Peterson commented that in the diagram that was shown it looked like there was more space north of the third soccer field.. Mr. Keprios replied that just to the east there is some playground equipment and a little further to the north you run into the lake and to west there is a grade change that goes up the hill. He noted that all three of those major fields are scheduled game fields and are heavily used by the ESA. Member Cella asked if it would be possible to push those fields a little further south to save that edge of the infield because on the diagram it looked like there was just a piece that was being taken. Mr. Keprios replied the diagram was just a quick analysis of trying to show in•concept how it's laid out but he doesn't think that is exactly how staff lays them out and stripes them. He noted that they try to get as much of a soccer field in there for those three fields and the third field comes fairly close to the edge of that infield the way, it is. The three fields are probably a little larger than he shows on the diagram. Member Deeds indicated that what he sees as a major change in going from unscheduled to scheduled in this area, if it's scheduled from 3:00 to 9:00 weekdays; all day Saturday and "part of.Sunday, it is a major change that the neighbors are going to feel. He asked while soccer is running can the baseball /softball/kickball field be used or is it scheduled so tight with the soccer that :essentially 'it's an unusable space with the current scheduling. Mr. Keprios responded when.the ESA has their games scheduled kids could use that infield but it would interfere with the soccer so they are not compatible when there are games scheduled. He added that is with the existing three fields and if you were to add the practice venue clearly you couldn't do both. Member Gieseke stated that he has coached baseball and soccer and there are different ways to approach practice. He asked could they make it a half sized regulation field because currently it's a 3/4 sized field. He noted it would fit better and it would really accommodate and would not encroach on the infield, it could be a compromise. Mr. Keprios replied he thinks that would be more of a question for the ESC. He commented that the ESC is willing to provide some dollars and improve the park with new turf and irrigation and if they are going to do that they would like to be able to encroach on the infield and have it grass as well which would be a better venue for soccer. He indicated that if this were'to happen there will be more traffic and he would venture to say that is probably the biggest issue for the neighbors than losing a backstop. Member Hulbert indicated that Member Gieseke brings up a really good point in that a lot of times you see two teams sharing a field; one playing on one half, the other playing on the other half. He stated that if they want to preserve having the gravel field maybe they could have alternate compromise by putting in a half size field out in what would be right field of the baseball field. He added that it wouldn't have to be a small field; it could be a regulation half field if they are just using it for practicing and when they are not there then the neighborhood still gets to use the field. He commented that he is biased, he loved baseball as a kid, and he would hate to take that away and maybe they can find a creative compromise. Member Deeds asked Mr. Keprios if they are talking an increase in traffic, is Highlands particularly problematic in that sense relative to other ones in that same general classification. It does seem to have less parking and also seems to be more embedded in the middle of the neighborhood and asked is that with all of the parks or just Highlands. Mr. Keprios replied that he thinks what is different and unique about Highlands is it lacks off - street parking and people are already parking and turning around in the neighbor's driveway. It's a very big issue for the neighbors and in that respect it is unique. Member Gieseke stated in his opinion compromise seems to be the name of the game and asked if there are any parks in the city where they only schedule practice three days a week and Saturdays because that could be compromise to the neighborhood with the traffic to which Mr. Keprios responded no there is not. 5 Member Dan Peterson commented it's a neat thing to hear how people meet their neighbors at the park and build friendships and watch their kids play a pick -up game of baseball or soccer. He noted he came in with the thought that things change and there are a lot more kids playing soccer for a lot of reasons it's not that expensive to play and it's an awfully good sport for athleticism but like most people in this room he loves baseball. He noted that he thought he would support the compromise but now he doesn't think he will. Member Jones indicated to echo member Dan Peterson's perspective and noted that her kids grew up playing at Highlands Park. She noted there really isn't another option for people who: want to play baseball and agrees with, baseball you need to have dirt. Therefore, between that and saying.they may want to increase the times.that it,is off limits to allow kids to play there seems to counter to everything that she has experienced with her own kids. She pointed out that when kids do their thing without scheduled games she wants to encourage that and if they take it away then they are going to.build an area that doesn't have r that,' * portunity. Member Jones stated that the. City should be working diligently to find rectangulac'fields for,soccer,; she doesn't want to make,the ESC out to be the bad guy because they are just looking at it as it's a;field,and.whycan't they use it. Member Cella stated that she is a mother of four kids who played,soccer and she.has a great understanding of the need for fields and she also has a great appreciation for neighborhood spaces and the idea of pick -up neighborhood and family pick -up games. She indicated that she supports this proposal only if they can find wayto'work in some of the ideas that people were raising and questions. She noted if they made it half a field and observed the dirt infield she could see voting for it otherwise it would be very tough. Member Gieseke indicated that he can see both sides making sense and if they can push for further compromise, and it's agreeable to,the'soccer folks, that would be something he would support but, if not, then they need to look elsewhere. Member Segreto commented that she has a keen appreciation of the need for extra rectangular fields in Edina but on the other hand she is a strong advocate of unstructured play and it seems to her that this neighborhood is already taxed to the max with traffic. She noted if she were to support any proposal it would have to be a compromise that would include the backstop and maintain dirt so that softball and baseball could continue to be, played the way they should be played. Member Deeds noted as he stated previously they are woefully short of rectangular athletic fields in Edina, from the looks of it they have underfunded their amenities for the last 20 years so they are in this situation, they shouldn't be but they are. He indicated that he understands the need for unstructured; however, dirt or no dirt is irrelevant to him he has played baseball on both. He stated that his next question is does the space remain unscheduled or scheduled and that is the crux of the issue. He commented that he is a firm believer in unstructured but they've got to have places for teams to practice and teams to play because they are talking about large associations serving a large community and a lot of kids. He noted, unless there is another way of.doing this, the. demand for fields in this community relative to what they have is so great that being able to bring on a half field for practice simply outweighs the uses that the neighborhood is putting it to. He added having a half .a practice field for soccer given the demands is -more valuable. They need to solve.that problem and hopefully in the nearer rather than the longer term they can solve that problem by getting three or four more large rectangular athletic fields in the community. He stated he would support the current proposal keeping the backstop in place but he would support the proposal. Member Jacobson indicated that she would agree with the compromise of putting in a half of a soccer field without disrupting the baseball backstop and the gravel area and mark out those,areas so that it would at least delineate where they can be at the same time if that's a possibility. She stated she would agree with the compromise. Member Hulbert stated he has multiple reasons that he would support maintaining the baseball as it is right now. He indicated if they convert it to soccer and baseball then it also creates a conflict of two sports in one. area., He noted he thinks that neighborhood is extremely taxed with the programming at those fields and he would hate to see the creative play taken away; therefore, he would like to find a way and Member Gieseke had a nice idea to have another option on the table so it's not necessarily taking some potential use away from the ESC. Member Weicht noted she thinks it's important to have the baseball field there because there really isn't anywhere else in that neighborhood where families could go play and she understands that more fields are needed but she feels like in that specific area there are enough places for soccer to play. Chair Steel noted that for her the issue that comes to mind is really the safety of the children, safety for the kids in the neighborhood as well as safety for the players. She indicated there seems to be a lot of interest in this compromise with the half field and asked the ESC to give some brief thoughts on that possibility. Mr. Carlson replied that he loves baseball and also has kids that play baseball so he can definitely empathize with the neighborhood; however, they are looking for options and he can appreciate - everything that was-said by the neighborhood.- He noted that they certainly would like to look at the half space and added that currently they put four teams on the three fields that they have so they are already breaking them up into quarters. Mr. Carlson indicated that the space where the open ice rink is has dirt and asked if they could build something incremental for baseball back there. Mr. Keprios replied that it's very difficult to have safe turf to play over an area that is used for a skating rink in the winter. Member Deeds indicated that he honestly doesn't see compromising on the side of the field will make much difference because he thinks it still comes back to scheduled or unscheduled. He asked would the ESC be willing to compromise on the amount of time scheduled so rather than you want it five days a week and all day Saturday would you be willing to take half a Saturday and two or three nights a week so there is a serious compromise between community usage and the. ESC usage. He commented that he thinks the issue is both traffic and scheduled versus unscheduled and so his question to the ESC would be will you compromise on the amount of time. Mr. Carlson responded that it's hard for him to think that it would even be noticeable to have three fields scheduled for whatever they are using them for and to have that one extra piece to be scheduled for half that time that anyone would notice the difference because they are already there. Would anyone notice there would be that fewer amount of cars coming through the area? Member Deeds responded but it also leaves that space open.for the kids to use it on those nights where if it's scheduled it becomes unusable to them even if they were to back it up and just keep the little ground dirt in the infield.area. He noted, however, it's pretty difficult to play baseball without having any outfield space whatsoever so this is why,he comes back to its scheduled versus unscheduled time and you have given him an answer which is you need it,five nights a week and all day Saturday. Mr. Carlson replied,but they don't because they will take whatever the compromise ultimately is that the Park Board will push through if the ESC gets more space, incremental space and times then they are certainly going to stand in line and be ready to take it. Member Hulbert made a motion, seconded by Member Gieseke, to keep the baseball field but work with the ESC to. try to create some sort of programming space in right field that maintains the baseball field for the neighborhood. VA Member.Deeds asked Mr. Keprios with the field as it stands have you looked at whether or not laying the field out this way is even feasible. Mr. Keprios replied that a practice field could be laid out whether there is new grass there or not. He stated that it's going to be a question for the ESC; do they want to improve the grass without touching the infield and that is a question the ESC Board has to answer or do they feel their resources would be spent better someplace else. Mr. Carlson replied that would be accurate, they wouldn't make that decision right -now. Member Jones indicated that she appreciates trying to find a compromise in this but like Chair Steel she also wonders about the safety. In the one small area kids are playing baseball/softball/kickball, while there are soccer kids out on the soccer field and she is not so sure that is safe for either side; especially if they are going to be limiting this space. She also stated it's going to increase traffic a little. In addition, she doesn't think of Highlands as a neighborhood park but feels at least some areas should be open for the neighborhood. Member Deeds commented that,this is a tough issue and it's a choice between the wants and needs of the neighborhood and the wants and needs of the broader community of Edina and the kids. He'noted they are go ng:to have to make.a;call andAhey are probably going to come down on different sides but encouraged the Park Board to take a.vote one way or another on it. Ayes: Dan Peterson, Cella, Gieseke, Steel, Segreto, Hulbert, Jacobson Nays: Deeds, Jones Motion Carried VI.B. Hornet's Nest Working Group —Appointment of Chairperson Chair Steel commented that at their last meeting they approved the Hornet's Nest Working Group but they didn't appoint a chair person which has been their past practice. Member Hulbert made a motion, seconded by Member Dan Peterson, to nominate Member Jones as Chair of the Hornet's Nest Working Group. Ayes: Dan Peterson, Jones, Cella, Gieseke, Steel, Segreto, Deeds, Jacobson, Hulbert Motion Carried. VI. C. Sports Dome Study Mr. Keprios informed the Park Board that the Sports Dome Working Groups have come to the Park Board with a recommendation to enter into Phase Two of the feasibility study. Member Deeds stated that he would like to commend the Athletic Associations for.the:,hard work they've put in to come up with another set of pro forma and that they are actually beginning to work on a schedule and beginning to lay out and map out who is going to have what and when, etc., which is quite encouraging. He added that it was a big help with good feedback and input. Member Hulbert asked what will Phase Two of the study cost to which Ms. Kattreh replied approximately $12,000. Mr. Keprios commented that staff fully supports the direction this is going and seconds Member Deeds thoughts, the Athletic Associations have really stepped up to plate in looking at hours and ways to help with the funding. Member Deeds informed the Park Board that those of them working on the Working Group, with the exception of Member Fronek who is no longer on the Park Board, will continue on with the, Working. Group. Member Cella asked who is on the Working Group so she knows who is making,the recommendation. Member Deeds replied the following: Members Jones, Jacobson, Gieseke, Jacobson, Fronek and he as well at Ms. Kattreh. Member Cella asked if it was a . unanimous recommendation with happy support behind it or more you are dragging your feet because you want to push it along. Member Deeds replied it was a happy unanimous support. 8 Member Jones indicated that as Member Deeds said they are very positive about the sports dome and she thinks it is entirely financially feasible. She informed the Park Board that one of the ways a different community was able to raise additional funds was to have donations from the community and that has not been explored at all in the current proposal. She pointed out that Minnetonka, for example, when they built their dome they had their sports associations as well as their citizens donate in a fund to help create that. She noted that she was able to get the 2010 year -end statements for the associations so she does not have the 2011 amounts but found: the following for 2010 year -end: ESC balance was $460,455.00, EBA balance was $1,30,653:00, EFA balance was $28,716. She commented that she thinks this is not unrealistic for the City to ask of the'sports associations to donate funds in order to show both their interest and their desire for the dome. Chair Steel asked if any members of the public wanted to speak to this item. Marty Probst, 5617 West 68'h Street, informed the Park Board that his partner and he are from Champions Hall which is new facility across the street from Edina on Washington Avenue South. He noted that it is under renovation right now but that it will be a turf field as well as a multi- purpose building. He stated they have been working with the ESC as well as they have talked to the EBA, Lacrosse and Softball. He indicated that their goal originally was to put it in Edina but could not find any space. He pointed out that they are doing this completely with private funds, they are receiving no public funds in any way, shape or form. He added that the field will be 93 yards by 65 yards and it will be about 45 feet at the peak and about 36 feet high on the perimeter and it will be a vaulted roof. Terry Lynner, 6505 Shawnee Circle, informed the Park Board that he is Mr. Probst's partner and co- developer of Champions Hall and indicated this is going to be a spectacular facility to offer to the athletes. in Edina. He stated if you are looking for green rectangular space as Mr. Probst pointed out their turf field will be 93 yards by 65 yards with a hard roof and will be well lit. He noted in addition it will have a concession area, full set of bathrooms, locker rooms, very nice dining area and a place that both parents and kids will want to come to. Also, they are currently open,for volleyball, they are going to have eight volleyball courts, and have volleyball every night and weekends. There will also be a trampoline park, curling and rock climbing vertical endeavors. He commented that he thinks this is very special and hopes you share in his excitement and would like for the Park Board to consider this as an alternative to building the dome because_ he thinks it will provide everything that the dome would provide and a lot more. Member Cella asked is phase two for location only or are there other questions that are part of phase two. Member Deeds replied that phase two is location and.once that gets worked out then they get into the financing side of things. He explained that what's been done so far is pro forma on the operating side of things; however, the capital side of things in terms of cost, etc., is going to be site dependent. He noted that the consultants stuck a 5 million dollar cost out there which he thinks is probably the high end of cost from what they can figure. He indicated what they know is essentially that it will probably not fully recover its costs on the operating side of things. He pointed out they can debate that later but it's closer now in terms of the pro forma that they put together and the scheduling. Member Hulbert commented so the $12,000 is to try to determine what locations would be possible. He indicated this may be complicated with the golf dome going down and there may possibly be new opportunities. Also, it has changed a little bit from the meeting they had three weeks ago to now being full force where they are in support of studying phase 2. He commented he is curious if there is any logic to see what the tone of their work session with City Council is next week before they spend another $12,000 studying phase two. Chair Steel responded that Park Board is advisory to the City Council and they want to hear what our thoughts are on the issue and so she would hope that they would be able to take action one way or another tonight. Member Dan Peterson made a motion, seconded by Member Segreto, that the Park Board recommend going forward with phase two to the City Council for approval. Ayes: Dan Peterson, Jones, Cella, Gieseke, Steel, Segreto, Deeds, Jacobson Nays: Hulbert Motion Carried. VI.D. Countryside Park Playground Equipment Selection Working Group Mr. Keprios informed the Park Board they do have $330,000 in their CIP to make improvements at Countryside Park to do pathways and the replacement and relocation of the playground equipment. He indicated that he thought it would make some sense to have a little bit more involvement from the Park Board and would proposejolappgmt a working group or a member or two. He added as a reminder the bylaws require that a working group have the chair be a Park Board member.` He stated that•his intent' would be to recruit people from the Countryside Park area to be pnrt.of this process to hear presentations from vendors, visit playground sites, and be actively involved in deciding the type of design that the, n_ ew play structure would be. He noted that Ms. Kattreh is going to lead-that charge and guide the group through the process. Member Deeds made a motion,. seconded by Member Dan Peterson, to approve, the motion that they have in front of them. Ayes:. Dan Peterson, Jones, .Cella, Gieseke, Steel, Segreto, Deeds, Jacobson, Hulbert Motion Carried. Member Hulbert noted that. he would volunteer to do that. Member Segreto noted that, she also would like to help. Chair Steel asked Member Hulbert if he would be willing to chair the working group to which he said yes. VI. E. Special Park Board Meeting Chair Steel stated that in past practice they have approved the members of working groups and therefore would likeAo be consistent with the Hornet's Nest Working Group. She informed the Park Board that a public notice went out asking for resident participation in the working group and is proposing that the Park Board meet after their work session with the City Council on March 20`h to approve working group members as they have solicited interest. Member Gieseke made a motion, seconded by Member Hulbert, to approve. Ayes: Dan Peterson, Jones, Cella, Gieseke, Steel, Segreto, Deeds, Jacobson, Hulbert Motion Carried. VI. F. Updated. Work Plan —Revised as of March 6, 2012 Mr. Keprios commented that in the new work plan the changes that were made are in bold and went over those changes. He informed the Park Board that he is going to talk to the Lacrosse Association and bring the matter to the Park Board to vote whether or not they should even mail letters and go through a similar process rather than just have them show up at your next Park Board meeting. He indicated he thinks they are going to get the same results and that will save them the mailing and agony of going through another debate which will mirror what just happened tonight with Highlands Park. He noted he will discuss this with Chair Steel and they will decide the approach for it. Mn Keprios pointed out that the Work Plan will always be a work in progress and stated that if anyone would like to see something added to the work plan or change something to give him a call and Chair Steel and he will discuss it. 10 Member Jones indicated she is going to be proposing a schedule for the Donations review process and public hearing and giving it enough notice and so she thinks they will need to move it back one more month. VI.G. Self - Assessment Survey —Louise Segreto, Park Board Member Chair Steel commended Member Segreto for bringing this forward she has done a lot of work on it and it's a great'item. Member Segreto informed the Park Board the she received an e-mail from Member Kathryn Peterson with some comments that she felt were very good. She noted thatshe thought it might be a`bit too long for the purposes of administering it for Survey Monkey because Survey Monkey i5 limited to ten questions for free. Member Segreto noted that she is not averse to shortening.the survey. She also commented that Member Kathryn Peterson felt because she is still new to the Park Board she could not answer some of the questions. Member Segreto noted that if someone is not in a position to answer a questionrthen;don't answer it. She stated that she believes Member Kathryn. Peterson's last comment was that she was uncomfortable answering questions with respect to whether or not in their recruitment process they had wide enough diversity since she doesn't know who each of-the individuals on the board are. Member Segreto commented she thinks that is part of what she would like to address; get to know each other better and learn a little bit more about everyone before coming on the Park Board. Member Dan Peterson thanked Member Segreto for doing this and thinks it's a good idea. He noted that he thinks it might also be helpful if everyone told a little story about them on a half -page. Member Gieseke pointed out that before they were appointed to the -Park Board -they filled out forms-for the City Council to review with all sorts of questions such as what you do for a living, where you went to school, interests, volunteer positions, etc., so if they could have access to that it might be a quick and easy way of doing it. Mr. Keprios responded that's a great idea; that he will gladly look into it and be sure it is public information. Chair Steel noted that she would like to volunteer and that she would be happy to help administer it in any way possible. Member Deeds explained to the Park Board that he has done a lot of surveys and he doesn't think it's worth the time, energy and effort to call it down to ten and put it on survey monkey. He noted because there are only 12 of them they can put it in an email format, someone can code it in a spreadsheet and it will take a lot less time. Chair Steel replied that she would be happy to do that. Chair'Steel indicated that, her only question is if there is any: value to remaining anonymous in this surveyor is everyone okay with sending her their thoughts. Member Jones replied she is fine with that and is glad they are doing this. Member Segreto asked if it would be logical.to. combine the orientation that was mentioned earlier if it's talking about the role of the Park Board with this. Mr. Keprios replied he will be the one giving the orientation presentation and if the results are ready by the April 10'h meeting he would be happy to put them in ,a power point format if she would like. Member Segreto replied.she is not sure the results will be ready by then .to which Mr. Keprios responded whenever the results are ready he would be happy to put it in a power point form and present it to the Park Board. Member Cella suggested there be a NA (not applicable) response in addition to the 0 through 10 responses for the new Park, Board members who probably don't know how to answer one-third of the questions. Member Cella pointed out an observation she had,from the last meeting regarding the survey it's a two -part survey; one was getting a better sense of who we are working with and foster a sense of community or bonding and working together and the other one was process. She noted the questions on 11 the survey seem to all be very process oriented as to how they operate but do not deal with getting to understand who they are working with. Member Segreto replied that she thinks it does because if they understand how people perceive what's happening at their meetings they will have more insight into how to work with one another. She added that she doesn't know how to begin other than to ask these questions and these are questions that appear in many, many non - profit surveys and doesn't want to add to it. Member Cella replied she is not suggesting adding questions to the survey, she was just saying this survey fulfills one function and previously she had heard Member Segreto explaining another function as well but if this takes care of what you are looking at, then it's fine and good. Member Deeds suggested a couple of things before being sent in his direction. He stated if they are going to use a scale he would suggest having 1 through 5 or 1 through 7 because it will give them superior results where 0 through 10 doesn't work particularly well and it's very hard to consolidate and figure out what the answers are. He commented that he would be happy to help with the formatting and such. Member Segreto stated that if it's okay with everyone she would to work with Chair Steel and Mr. Keprios to finalize this and come up with a time and a place. Member Segreto made a motion, seconded by Member Dan Peterson, proposing that the Park Board undergo a self - assessment survey process as discussed at this meeting and attached to the agenda item. Ayes: Dan Peterson, Jones, Cella, Gieseke, Steel, Segreto, Deeds, Jacobson, Hulbert Motion Carried. VI.H. Donations Policy & Naming of Parks and Facilities Policy Working Croup Update — Ellen Jones, Edina Park Board Vice Chairperson Member Jones informed the Park Board that the Naming and Donations Working Group has come up with two drafts to two proposed policies and gave the members a copy of those. In addition, she included a copy of the two current policies the City has. She noted that they are proposing the City have one uniform donation policy and procedure for all donations to the city regardless of the department in order to minimize confusion and conflict. She commented that in addition they also have a similar policy (just one) for naming for all facilities in the city. She indicated that they do recognize that the proposed policy may need to incorporate additional language to capture the needs of entities that the Working Group hasn't thought about. She noted that the Working Group would like to receive questions and comments by March 23`d which will give them time when the Working Group meets on March 26'h to discuss comments and suggestions and incorporate them into the proposed policy. She explained this will then go out to the public for comment on March 27th and on April 23`d the Working Group will compile all written comments from the public notice period and create a summary of those comments to discuss and when appropriate incorporate them into the proposed policies which will then be brought to the Working Group on April 27th where they will talk about it as a Working Group and on May 14th they would hold a public hearing at the Park Board meeting. VI. I. User Fees Policy Working Group Update — Keeya Steel, Edina Park Board Chairperson Chair Steel informed the Park Board they had one of their last meetings on Wednesday where they finalized their draft recommendation and sent it out to all of their working group members for final edits. She noted she is supposed to be receiving those on Friday and then she will forward them to Mr. Keprios and Mr. Neal for their feedback and to make sure they are not missing anything. It will then go back to the Working Group and they are scheduled to bring it before the Park Board meeting in May. VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS Mr. Keprios noted that he handed out a packet of other letters and received no petitions. VIII. BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS 12 Member Deeds stated since they lost Member Fronek who was the chair of the Sports Dome Working Group they will need a new chair. Member Deeds made a motion, seconded by Member Gieseke to appoint Member Jacobson as chair of the Sports Dome Working Group. Member Gieseke seconded. Ayes: Dan Peterson, Jones, Cella, Gieseke, Steel, Segreto, Deeds, Jacobson, Hulbert Motion Carried. Member Dan Peterson indicated that after receiving the minutes from the Veterans Memorial Committee it seems they may be stumbling on who does what for fundraising and asked if there was anything the Park Board could do or any assistance from the staff to help. Mr. Keprios responded that the committee has actually taken a great big leap forward. He noted that Member Lonsbury put together a wonderful power point presentation to show to potential significant donors and they also recently met with General Schulstad; -an Edina resident, who has agreed to be honorary chair for the fundraising committee. He added that General Schulstad will also be introducing the committee to some individuals whom he believes may have a strong interest in donating to the memorial so they are:moving in the right direction. Chair Steel thanked the Park Board again for electing her as chair and hopes to get to know everyone better over the next year. She commented that if anyone has any ideas or concerns or anything to feel free to contact her or even if it's just to get to know one another. IX. STAFF COMMENTS Mr. Keprios informed the.Committee that they've planted flowers in front of City Hall today which is a first and they are breaking records'all over the place and they have flowers blooming in their greenhouse which they are going to have to get out soon because it has been that warm. Mr. Keprios informed the Park Board there have been people,out using the tennis courts so he thinks it was a good move to leave the nets up year around; he has even seen people using them this past January. Mr. Keprios informed the Park Board that the driving range and executive course are now open for business, they opened last weekend. Member Keprios thanked their student member for speaking up tonight because they need to hear their voices. Meeting adjourned at 9:00 pm 13 4 MINUTES' CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS MARCH 28, 2011 7:00 PM. I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Grabiel called the meeting of the Edina Planning Commission to order at 7:00 PM. II. ROLL CALL Answering the roll call were Commissioners Scherer, Forrest, Schroeder, Rock, Potts, Platteter, Cherkas'sky, Fischer, Carpenter, Staunton, Grabiel III. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA Commissioner Platteter moved approval of the meeting agenda. Commissioner Fischer seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. IV. ANNUAL MEETING - ELECTION OF OFFICERS AND ADOPTION OF BYLAWS Chair Grabiel explained that the City has standardized Bylaws for all board and commissions. Grabiel said the role of the Planning Commission is different from most boards and commissions so Commissioner Carpenter would be reviewing the bylaws from a Planning Commission perspective. After his review the Commission would adopt the bylaws at the next Planning Commission meeting. Chair Grabiel reported it's time to elect new officers to the Commission. Commissioner Staunton nominated Commissioner Carpenter as Secretary. No other nominations were offered. Commissioner Scherer,moved to close the nomination. Commissioner Potts seconded the motion. All voted aye. Commissioner Carpenter appointed as Secretary to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Fischer nominated Commissioner Staunton as Vice - Chair. No other nominations were offered. Commissioner Scherer moved'to close the nominations. Commissioner Fischer seconded the motion. All voted aye. Commissioner Staunton appointed as Vice -Chair to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Staunton said the next position was to elect the Chair of the Commission. Page 1 of 14 Commissioner Fischer nominated Chair Grabiel as Chair. No other nominations were offered. Commissioner Forrest moved to close the nominations. Commissioner Potts seconded the motion. All voted aye. Chair Grabiel appointed as Chair to the Planning Commission. It was pointed out that the Planning Commission Chair can serve two consecutive terms and members of the Planning Commission rotate officers on an annual basis. V. APPROVAL OF CONSENT ITEMS Commissioner Staunton moved approval of the March 14, 2012 meeting minutes. Commissioner Fischer seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried Commissioner Staunton suggested that people review the video on the discussion on the Sketch Plan Review for Byerly's. Staunton said the Commission and presenter of the sketch plan had a full discussion on the topic. VI. COMMUNITY COMMENT None. VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Variance - 4613 Browndale Avenue - Clifford and Jane Taney Planner Presentation Planner Teague informed the Commission the subject property is located east of Browndale Ave. consisting of a two story home with an attached, side loading, garage behind the home, The property owners Are hoping to add more living space above the non conforming 2 -stall garage that has existing living space over Y2 the garage below. The existing garage is nonconforming regarding rear yard setback. The minimum rear yard setback for an attached garage is 25 feet. The existing garage is 16 feet from the rear lot line so a 9 foot rear yard setback variance is needed to extend the upper floor living space to match the garage area below. Setbacks of the garage will remain the same with living space to match the setback of the east wall of the garage. The east side wall is nonconforming regarding setback/ height and may be extended at the same setback without the need for a variance. The ordinance allows for an equal amount of encrooachment when maintaining a nonconforming setback. Planner Teague explained that the property is located within the historic Country Club District and is subject to a Heritage Preservation Overlay Zoning.The proposed project will not be visible from the street so a Certificate of Appropriateness is not required from the Heritage Preservation Board. The City Staff Liason to the Heritage Preservation Board has reviewed the plans and determined that no Heritage Preservation Board action is necessary. Page 2 of 14 Planner Teague concluded staff recommends approval of the variance based on the following findings: 1) With the exception of the variance requested, the proposal would meet the required standards and ordinances for the R -1, Single Dwelling Unit District and the Heritage Preservation Over -Lay District. 2) The proposal would meet the required standards for a variance, because: a. The proposed use of the property is reasonable; as it is consistent with surrounding properties and matches the nonconforming setback that has historically been provided by the existing garage. b. The imposed setback limits design opportunity to the second floor above the garage. 3) The intent of the ordinance is to provide adequate spacing between properties and structures. Spacing on both sides of the home will not change. The unique circumstance is the original nonconforming placement of the home. Approval of the variance is also subject to the following conditions: 1) Subject to -staff approval, the site must be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the following plans, unless modified by the conditions: Survey date stamped February 15, 2012. Building plans and elevations date stamped February 12, 2012. Appearing for the Applicant I Clifford and Jane Taney Applicant Presentation Mr. Taney informed the Commission letters were sent to the immediate neighbors informing them of their project, adding neighbors indicated they support the improvements as submitted. Mrs. Taney said she believes the proposed improvements create a more finished. look to the house. Discussion IMotion Commissioner Fischer said in his opinion this request is very straightforward and he had no questions. Commissioner Fischer moved variance approval based, on staff findings and subject to staff conditions. Commissioner Carpenter seconded the motion. All Page 3 of 14 voted aye; motion carried. 9 -0 B. Preliminary Plat with Variances - 6120 Brookview Avenue for JMS Custom Homes, LLC Planner Presentation Planner Teague informed the Commission JMS Custom Homes is proposing to subdivide the property at 6120 Brookview Avenue into two lots. There is an existing air conditioner located on the proposed lot line. Should this proposal be approved, the air conditioner would have to be relocated to meet the required 5 -foot setback. Teague noted that to accommodate the request the following is required: 1. A subdivision; 2. Lot width variances from 75 feet to 50 feet for each lot; and 3. Lot area variances from 9,000 square feet to 6,676 and 6,671 square feet. 4. Lot depth variance from 133.8 feet to 133.7 feet for Lot 2. Teague explained that both would gain access off Brookview Avenue. Within this neighborhood, the median lot area is 6,707 square feet, median lot depth is 133.8 feet, and the median lot width is 50 feet. The new lots would meet the median width, but would slightly shy of the the median lot size and depth. Planner Teague concluded that staff recommends that the City Council deny the proposed two lot subdivision of 6120 Brookview Avenue and the lot width variances from 75 feet to 50 feet for each lot, lot area variances from 9,000 square feet to 6,676 and 6,671 square feet, and a lot depth variance from 133.8 feet to 133.7 feet for Lot 2. Denial is based on the following findings: 1. The proposal does not meet the required standards and ordinances for a subdivision, because the proposed lots do not meet the Zoning Ordinance requirements. 2. The two proposed lots do not meet the minimum lot area, lot width, and lot depth requirements. 3. The proposal does not meet the required standards for a variance, because: a. The property exists as a conforming single - family residential lot with a single - family home. Reasonable use of the property exists today. b. The size of the Subject Property does not create practical difficulties. The Subject Property is only 4,347 square feet larger than the minimum lot size. This is not a practical difficulty. There are no circumstances unique to the property that justifies multiple variances. c. The practical difficulty is self- created by the applicant's proposal to subdivide the property. Page 4 of 14 d. The proposed lots do not -meet the 6,70.7 square foot median lot area for 1_ots. in this neighborhood. e. The Subject Property is similar in size to several lots in the neighborhood including five lots to the north and west on Oaklawn Avenue, and two lots to the south and two lots to the east on Brookview Avenue. Appearing for the Applicant Jeff Schoenwetter and Steve Bona, JMS Custom Homes, LLC Applicant Presentation Mr. Bona addressed the - Commission and acknowledged that the proposed subdivision has a "past" and is very "charged ". Bona reported that JMS mailed out letters to residents inviting them to attend a neighborhood meeting informing them of their plan to subdivide the property at 6120 Brookview Avenue. Bona said six residents came and viewed the subdivision and plans for the new house. Bona delivered a power point presentation on the project. Bona explained that the new house would 'be 2,600 square feet, 28 -feet wide with a building height of 26Y2-feet. Continuing, Bona said the plan for the house was generally well received and if the Commission so chooses JMS would be agreeable to place restrictions on the new house above what's required by ordinance. Discussion Commissioner Staunton asked when the existing house was built. Mr. Bona responded the house was constructed two years ago. Staunton questioned why JMS didn't seek a subdivision at that time. Bona responded that in hindsight that would have been a good idea; however they didn't do it. Public Comment Chair Grabiel acknowledged that the Commission was aware of the history of this site adding that at this time he would read two letters.from residents; one in support of the proposal and one in opposition. Grabiel said if anyone has something new to share different from what's in the letters they are welcome to do so. Chair Grabiel read letters from Doug and Jenny Nelson and Dan Urhammer (attached as Exhibit "A "). Mr. Valentine, 5024 Hankerson Avenue addressed the Commission reporting that a new house is being built near him and while he has some concerns on its size, etc. he believes that the new house will benefit his property. Page 5 of 14 Janey Westin, 6136 Brookview Avenue, spoke in opposition to the project. Westin said two wrongs don't make a right and suggested that the City purchase the property and move the house on the southernmost portion of the lot to the middle of the lot and at the proper front yard setback. Jenny Nelson, 6117 Oaklawn Avenue told the Commission she supports the request. Nelson said her concern is viewing the vacant lot. She noted without a house on a lot the vacant parcel becomes messy and unkempt because no one is there on a day to day basis to care for the property. Miroslava Turk, 6141 Brookview Avenue stated she opposes the request to subdivide. She pointed out that the subject block was unique because there are other lots on the block in excess of 50 -feet. Turk noted that this is an affordable area, adding she would like to see it remain affordable. Trudy Landgren, 6104 Brookview Avenue spoke in opposition to the project. Landgren said she and the neighbors aren't fighting development; however, have very real concerns with the size of the new houses being built in the area. Landgren said in her opinion Edina needs moderate priced housing and if all lots that are redeveloped build such large homes the neighborhood character would be changed. Concluding, Landgren reiterated the importance of maintaining moderate housing prices. Carol Carmichiel, 6112 Brookview Avenue said that while the proposed house could suit the site she is concerned with the history of the lot and that history might repeat itself. Carmichiel said she doesn't want to see another overly large house built on the lot at the wrong setbacks. Chair Grabiel questioned if the applicant assures the neighborhood the house they depicted would be built would they still object. It was acknowledged that neighbors have trust issues with this developer. Mr. Bona responded that he understands the trust issues neighbors have expressed, adding if the neighbors concern is house size JMS will stand by their offer to build a house with setbacks more stringent than allowed by ordinance. Chair Grabiel asked if anyone else would like to address the Commission; being none chair Grabiel called for a motion to close the public hearing. Commissioner Carpenter moved to close the public hearing period. Commissioner Staunton seconded the motion. All coted aye; motion carried. Page 6 of 14 l i, r' Discussion Commissioner Carpenter commented when one views the drawings this neighborhood appears to be a neighborhood of 50 -foot wide lots. However, after further review he decided if one only looks at this lot and block, it becomes apparent this block is different because it contains a number of lots in excess of 50 -feet. Continuing, Carpenter said he•agrees with staff that.the need for variances are self- created because .of.the applicants' intent to subdivide. Commissioner.Fischer said he struggles with this being self- created. He questioned how this request was self- created when similar subdivisions in the area weren't. Fischer asked if anyone could articulate how this request was different frorn.the recent subdivision in the immediate area. Planner Teague responded if one only views this lot on this block this block contains a number of oversized lots. Thatcouldn't be said with some of the other subdivisions. Commissioner Fischer said he agrees with that; however how can this be self- created. Commissioner Carpenter responded variances wouldn't be necessary if the lot wasn't subdivided. Continuing, Carpenter said he believes the applicant acquired the property knowing the ordinance requirements. A discussion ensued on if the variances were "self- created ". Commissioner Staunton said there are standards that can be used to "test" if this proposal meets the intent of the ordinance -1) is the use reasonable 2) uniqueness of the circumstances, and' 3) neighborhood consistency. Staunton said he finds the use reasonable, it's a single family house; but if he applies the other standards this subdivision is different and that makes a big difference in establishing neighborhood character. Continuing, Staunton pointed out that he voted to approve a subdivision at 6109 Oaklawn, pointing out on that block there were no other.lots with a lot width of 100 -feet. Continuing, Staunton said the same Y _ could be said for the other subdivision request on Oaklawn. Staunton did acknowledge that the subdivision that was approved on the 5800 block of Brookview did contain lots larger than 50 -feet; however, some of those sizes were the result of the roadway easements, etc.. Staunton concluded that he was uncomfortable supporting this request, adding in his opinion this one block is different. Commissioner Schroeder said in his opinion it -can be argued that the essential character of this neighborhood is the variable lot sizes. The original ,plat was for 50- foot lots; however, over the years the neighborhood evolved with people combining those 50 -foot lots. Chair Grabiel asked Commissioners how they would feel if this was reversed and a buyer was purchasing two small lots; combines them and builds one large house. Staunton acknowledged that that could bappen; however he pointed out Page 7 of 14 City Code allows that, it doesn't allow this. Commissioner Platteter questioned if Commissioners were indicating that neighborhood character can't change. He pointed out neighborhoods are always evolving, ordinances don't' stand still. Schroeder agreed; however defining neighborhood isn't that simple. Commissioner Scherer told the Commission she can't support this request. Scherer said in her opinion residents should be able to rely on the ordinance; adding she reviews each request on its individual merits. Concluding, Scherer said that the subject lot wasn't unique and the applicant fails to meet the "test ". Commissioner Forrest commented that in reality the house proposed for this lot is a nice house; however, the request doesn't meet the intent of the ordinance. Forrest said if the Commission wants to preserve these small lot neighborhoods and believes neighborhoods originally plated with lots under 75 feet in width should be protected a better way to achieve maintaining neighborhood character would be for the Planning Commission to change the zoning ordinance and eliminate the minimum lot width, depth and lot area requirement. Forrest noted that if constructed on a 50 -foot wide lot the house itself wouldn't require variances; because of the subdivision the lot requires the variances. Concluding, Forrest said she can't support the variances; therefore, can't support the subdivision. Motion Chair Staunton moved to deny the request by JMS to subdivide property located at 6120 Brookview Avenue. Denial is based on 1) a 100 -foot wide lot is not unique to this block; there are multiple lots in excess of 50 -feet 2) the new house built to one side cannot be considered unique, an "orphan" lot was created; however, this was self- inflicted and 3) although building one single family house is reasonable subdividing this lot isn't because it doesn't maintain the character of this block. Denial is also based on staff findings. Commissioner Scherer seconded the motion. Commissioner Fischer added for him this was a tough decision, adding he struggled with it being self- created. He acknowledged at first glance this was a 50 -lot neighborhood but the comments from Commissioners Staunton and Schroeder persuaded him otherwise. Chair Grabiel said he can't support the motion, adding he doesn't agree with the logic that this subdivision request is different from ones previously granted. Ayes; Forrest, Scherer, Schroeder, Potts, Platteter, Carpenter, Staunton, Fischer. Nay; Grabiel. Motion for denial approved 8 -1. Page 8 of 14 VIII. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. Sketch Plan Review for Senior Housing - 5109 -5125 West 49th Street for Hunt Associates Planner Presentation Planner Teague-reported that the Planning Commission is being asked to consider a sketch plan proposal to redevelop three lots at 5109 -5125 49th Street West. The applicant is proposing to tear down the existing two apartment buildings and single - family home and build a new six story, sixty foot tall, 98 -unit senior housing building. Teague pointed out the existing properties are zoned PRD -2, Planned Residential District which allow residential buildings containing six of fewer units. Teague said should the City decide to rezone these sites to PUD, the proposed setbacks, height of the building and number of parking stalls would become the standards for the site. Continuing, Teague said a traffic study would need to be completed to determine impacts on adjacent roadways. Concern was expressed from residents in regard to congestion that would be created at the intersection of Brookside Avenue and Interlachen.Boulevard. Concluding, Teague stated which the proposal would be an improvement over the existing buildings on the site, staff is not sure that the proposal would rise-to the level of meeting the purpose and intent of a PUD. The proposal far exceeds allowed densities. Seven variances would also'be required under traditional senior housing zoning. Apå for the Applicant Daniel Hunt, Hunt and Associates, David Motzenbecker, BKV Group Chair Grabiel explained that before the Commission this evening is a sketch plan review. Grabiel clarified that a sketch plan wasn't a public hearing. It's an opportunity for the developer to obtain feedback from the Planning Commission on their concept. Discussion /Comments Chair Grabiel told the Commission he seems to remember the Commission and Council approving a development concept in this area for townhomes, adding he doesn't remember the unit count. Planner Teague responded that Chair Grabiel was correct. The Council approved a 6 -unit townhouse development; however, the townhouse development only included the R-11ot and right -of -way. Page 9 of 14 Commissioner Forrest observed that ordinance stipulates a building height limit of 2- stories in the PRD -2 zoning district. Planner Teague agreed adding PRD -2 also contains a density cap of 6- units. Applicant Presentation Mr. Hunt addressed the Commission and said he believes the proposed use of the site as senior housing is good. Continuing, Hunt explained in Edina there is demand for senior housing. Edina residents want to be able to remain in their community when it comes time for them to sell their home. This proposal gives them that option. Hunt introduced David Motzenbecker to speak more on the proposal. Mr. Motzenbecker told the Commission that in his opinion this is a key piece and an excellent location for a senior building. Continuing, Motzenbecker said that the project will entail tearing down the existing two apartments and single - family home to construct a new 98 -unit, 6 story structure and rezoning the site to PUD incorporating the requirements of the City's PSR -4 zoning. The parcel is located adjacent to the Vernon Avenue exit ramp and West 49th Street. Motzenbecker said in his opinion the proposed building would bookend with Grandview. With graphics Motzenbecker pointed out design elements and the goal of incorporating this site into the greater Grandview area. Motzenbecker also noted the goal of the ETC was to establish a comprehensive living streets policy that integrated all modes of transportation. Motzenbecker said he believes this project is a step in the right direction in implementing that goal. Concluding, Motzenbecker said they looked to the Grandview small area development plan and incorporated its key principles into their site. One principle was key; turning perceivable barriers into opportunities. In this respect the natural topography actually became an asset. Discussion /Comments Chair Grabiel said in his opinion this may be a very difficult area to "get out of including getting onto Interlachen Boulevard. Mr. Motzenbecker acknowledged that and informed the Commission a traffic study needs to be completed to ensure traffic is handled appropriately. Continuing, Motzenbecker said they also anticipate improving the sidewalks and boulevard along Vernon. Chair Grabiel noted their reference to senior housing and asked exactly what type of senior housing this would be. Motzenbecker said that the population served would be able bodied seniors 62 +. Chair Grabiel asked if the units would be market rate or something else. Motzenbecker responded that the units would be market rate and be around $2,000 per month depending on unit size. Commissioner Staunton said he has a concern with the request as it relates to zoning /PUD /PSR -4. Staunton said to him it appears to be an excuse to get around Page 10 of 14 code. Mn Motzenbecker said their intent was to create,the :best development possible and tie into the Grandview small area plan by bringing connection to the Grandview area. Vernon Avenue would also °be enhanced through landscaping and walkways along with boulevard enhancement. Aligning the project with the PSR -4 zoning district provides the opportunity for the project to.implement bonuses. Commissioner Fischer said he hasa difficult'time justifying a building of this size and density in a. small residential neighborhood. Mr._ Motzenbecker said their intent was to set the`building as far back from the street (49th Street) as possible and add amenities to the front of the building. Motzenbecker said the building would be 200' from the nearest residents across 491h. Concluding, Motzenbecker said they took advantage of the topography when designing the building pointing out that the topography absorbs the building height. Commissioner Carpenter said in his opinion the building is too large. Carpenter asked the developers how parking was handled; not only parking for residents of the building but for guests. Mr. Motzenbecker said the building was designed with 132 enclosed parking spaces those spaces include spaces for visitor parking. Carpenter questioned if that would really work. Commissioner Staunton stated in his opinion this plan is very aggressive and causes him concern. Staunton said he likes the attention paid to Vernon Avenue; however the unit count is way too high; more attention needs to be paid to the north side and traffic is a major concern. Staunton noted the one -way in and out scenario is difficult at best. Commissioner Platteter agreed and questioned site circulation, traffic circulation on West 49th St, site drop -off, metro mobility, deliveries and visitor parking. Platteter said that he doesn't think the drop -off area as sketched would work. There's just too much going on with this building. Commissioner Forrest added she was also concerned with the circulation on the site and on 49th St. This proposal will certainly add additional traffic into the area pointing out it's a one way in and out. Continuing, Forrest also said in her: opinion the building is too tall, the site is too tight (especially on the east), and it's just too much. Concluding, Forrest said the Commission also has to keep in mind housing trends change over time, adding it may be a senior building today but maybe not in the future. Commissioner Schroeder said the site intrigues him with the question of how you transition from Vernon into the residential neighborhood while maintaining the residential character. Schroeder said in his opinion this;isn't a very friendly project. He added the building needs to relate better to the R -1 neighborhood. Concluding, Schroeder said the building at least at the residential level on ,49th St. needs to be scaled back. Page 11 of 14 Commissioner Staunton agreed with Schroeder's comments pointing out the proposal increases the density 10 -fold. It's just too much. Concluding, Staunton said that he's also not sure if this is consistent with the GrandView Framework. The building is way out of scale. Mr. Motzenbecker asked the Commission if they could provide some guidance on the number of units they would be comfortable with. Commissioner Staunton said traffic is another large issue. He said the one way in and out nature of this neighborhood along with the RR tracks is key in redeveloping this site and achieving the correct unit count. Staunton said he doesn't know the right number. Commissioner Potts suggested that the applicant take another look and respond more to the topography and to the residential neighborhood. Potts asked if their intent was to build the building and sell it or would they continue to manage the property. Mr. Hunt responded they would build and manage the property. Commissioner Fischer asked the applicants if they spoke with their neighbors. Mr. Motzenbecker responded they had, adding around 15 -20 neighbors came to a neighborhood meeting. Motzenbecker said they received both positive and negative feedback. Commissioner Forrest indicated the proposed use is fine with her, reiterating her concern is massing and traffic. Forrest said in her opinion this project isn't the right "transition" into the neighborhood. Concluding, Commissioner Forrest said that in her opinion 20 units at 2 Y2 stories may be the right transition. As presented it's just too large. Chair Grabiel said he agrees with all comments thus far adding his concern is that the building is just too large and the transition into the R -1 neighborhood just isn't there. Grabiel said he doesn't want to give false encouragement, adding he believes the use is right; however this is just way to large. Mr. Motzenbecker said he understands the Commissions comments indicating they want to see a smaller building. He asked the Commission if they could provide him with a unit range. Commissioner Schroeder commented that he understands the applicant is looking for a number; however, that can't be provided. Schroeder said he wants to see a creative solution that is sensitive to the neighborhood. Concluding Schroeder said there are other options out there. Commissioner Carpenter suggested considering other areas, adding this may not be the right site. Page 12 of 14 Chair Grabiel thanked the applicants for their presentation adding the Commission would be receptive to them bringing forward another sketch plan for review. Public Comment David Valentine, 5021 Hankerson, told the Commission he doesn't think a building of this size belongs in a residential neighborhood. Valentine said he has no objection that it's a senior building; however, the building is just too large with too many units. B. Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area and the TIF Plan for the Establishment of the Southdale 2 TIF District. Planner Presentation Planner Teague informed the Commission the City Council is considering the establishment of a new TIF District that would include Southdale and surrounding parcels. Teague explained the purpose of creating the new TIF was to facilitate improvements to Southdale including the following renovations to common areas; new entrances, flooring, lighting, signage, restrooms, parking deck lighting, exterior seating, columns and interior treatments. Teague said at this time there are no proposed changes in use of the property with the proposed improvement project. Teague told the Commission that at this time they are being asked to determine by resolution -that the proposed improvement to the common areas are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioners asked Planner Teague to clarify their action. Planner Teague explained the Commission is being asked to determine by resolution that the proposed use of TIF funds to improve common areas was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Motion Commissioner Fischer moved to adopt the resolution as outlined by City staff on page Al. Commissioner Platteter seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried 9 -0. Page 13 of 14 IX. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS Chair Grabiel acknowledged receipt of Council Connection and attendance. Commissioner Fischer asked staff if they could add to the attendance sheets the compliance percentage. Planner Teague responded that staff would be happy to add that. X. CHAIR AND COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS Commissioner Staunton told the Commission the GrandView District Development Framework is moving along and would return to the Planning Commission on April 11th for their approval. The City Council will hear the presentation at their April 17th meeting. XI. STAFF COMMENTS Planner Teague reported that the City Council approved the City's first PUD for 6996 France Avenue. XII. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Potts moved meeting adjournment at 10:05 PM. Commissioner Platteter seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. L"P>cie Respectfully submitted Page 14 of 14 Ni s f 1 Cary Teague City of Edina — Planning Director cteacue0ci.edina.mn us We,are, Doug and Jenny Nelson, the homeowners at 6117 Oaklawn Avenue. Our backyard is adjacent to the vacant lot/ subdivison at 6120 Brookview. We are here today to express'our approval for the subdivision of the. lot located at 6120 grookview and express our disappointment for the denial of the subdivision of the lot located at 6109 Oaklawn. We live in the section of Edina,'near Pamela Park, where the overwhelming majority of the lots are 50 feet wide. We do not understand why the subdivisions of double lots to 50 foot lots should not and. were not immediately approved in keeping with the. neighborhood. Seventy five foot lots that meet current city code were not developed in the Pamela Park neighborhood in the 1950's. The failure to subdivide the previously mentioned lots has left us with vacant unkempt lots and two vacant homes. There are old wood piles, weeds, uncut grass, untrimmed trees, stakes, plastic and general junk left behind. We would have preferred to have 2 new families, new homes and homeowners who will take pride in their new homes and -property. We need the revitalization that is taking place in other neighborhoods within Edina to be scaled to the economic structure of our area. 50 foot lots are the most economically feasible for this area. The 50 foot lot values are approximately $150,000 to $200,000. The double lots (100 ft.) have values at approximately $300,000. With a finished house at the customary 3-4x lot value the result on a double lot is a home valued at nearly 1 million dollars. A 1 million dollar house is too expensive for our neighborhood and not likely to be built by a prospective buyer in the Pamela Park area. The lots could continue to remain vacant. We need 50 ft. lots to become available for new construction, be it tear down of older homes or subdivision. Simply out. 50 foot lots fit nicely in with the rest of the neighborhood What has chanced? Why are the subdivisions being denied? Subdivision is reasonable for our neichborhood If the lots are not allowed to subdivide to 50 foot lots- what is Edina's alternative Ian for redevelopment of the vacated 100 ft. double lots? What is the plan of those opposing the subdivision Into 50 ft. lots? Last week we received a newsletter in the mail from Jane Paulus, a long time real estate agent in Edina. The article is entitled "The Big House Coming into a Neighborhood" that we feel is well written and makes some very relevant points about redevelopment and revitalization. The key points that are applicable are: 1. The neighborhood is desired for its location so the investment is worth it for the new owner. Present people living on the block should feel good about this and feel this means their house value is good. 2. Change means the community is alive and well and someone else values this worth and wants to be part of it. 3. The past does: not fit into the game plan of today. If housing stock cannot be created to meet r the needs of today's buyers the ,(our) neighborhood will not flourish an d these families will . seek other neighborhoods. (Both in and out of Edina) - 4. The older smaller houses do not necessarily lose value. They are still needed by communities as their size fits the needs of a family that.is not in.need of space. Such as the home we own and have remodeled for our empty nester lifestyle: We hope others like us in the neighborhood will remodel and. upgrade because: they see- revitalization and improvemenYin the neglitiorhood: F if the houses do not keep pace with the needs of people today, the neighborhood will be put out to pasture. . Please approve the subdivision of 6120 Brookside to a 50 foot lot in a neighborhood that is 50 foot lots. Take the time to drive through our neighborhood. Bring us new families, revitalization and updated housing options for today's family not seeking the 1 million dollar home but still seeking to build a new home in Edina. Sincerely, Doug and Jenny Nelson ti To: Edina Planning Commission Edina City Council Cary Teague, Kris Aaker, Planning Dept. Scott Neal, City Manager From: Dan Uhrhammer Owner and iesident of 6101 Oaklawn Ave., Edina °l March 8, 201.27 - - Re: Proposed Subdivision-of 6120 Brookview Ave., Edina; Fairfax; Block 23, Lots 5 & 6 Jeffrey Schoenwetter of JMS Custom Homes Planning Commission Members and City Staff, I am strongly opposed to this proposed lot division. The City has Zoning Ordinance, Subsection 850.07, Subdivision. 20B4a which states: "If a non- conforming lot or parcel is, or at any time since October 22, 1951, has been, held in common ownership with all or part of an adjoining or abutting parcel or lot which together comply with, or come close to complying with, the minimum width, depth, area, and lot width to perimeter ratio, requirements of this Section, then such non - conforming lot or parcel and such adjoining or abutting parcel or lot shall be considered as one lot and shall not be decreased in size below such minimum requirements. If in a group of two or more adjoining or abutting lots or parcels owned or controlled by the same person, any single lot or parcel does not meet the full minimum depth, width, area or lot width to perimeter ratio requirements of this Section, such single lot or parcel shall not be considered as a separate lot or parcel able to be conveyed and developed under this code:' The city minimum lot width is 75 feet. This is a City of Edina zoning ordinance, and was established to protect this city from suffering from the "crowding" of properties much like that which exists in many residential areas of Minneapolis. Basically, exceptionally large homes on very small lots. I cannot tell you why the city originally allowed or plotted 50 foot lots. But, they apparently realized they were not suitable to build upon very early in the development of this city. The only thing that has changed in any way since establishment of the 75 foot lot width requirement is that very little developable land exists in Edina anymore. Developers and a portion of the public want these subdivisions to pass. Not for the good of the city, but for financial gain, or for cheap entry into residency in Edina. This area (Fairfax) of Edina is one of the most affordable neighborhoods in Edina to buy in. The sacrifice those of us who live here made was the size of the homes, to maintain and have green space, and yards. Now, people just want in, and want their big home. But do not want to pay for the appropriate size of lot to hold them, or buy into more expensive areas of Edina. I understand these desires, but neither care about the effect these subdivisions, or these hugh home have on a neighborhood. They just want it, and the hell with anyone else. As to the "Hardships" that JMS may face on this property. Along with their request for a subdivision as a result of them. You should all know the story well. They did it to themselves, and Edina shouldn't fix it for them. Say no to the subdivision this time, and every time one is requested. Sincerely, Dan vhrhammer 6101 Oaklawn Ave. And by the way, just because the vast majority of lots in the area are 50 feet. Calling it the norm, and thus approving the subdivision seems like the easy way-out. Besides, yes they for the most part are 50 foot lots. But our homes are also 1000 -1200 square foot ramblers, or story and a half. Isn't that also the norm here? Perhaps the building codes for these small lots should also be addressed. [J 10 7P A I "M Ap, o e Aprtll 9., 2012 a 10 7P A I "M Ap, o e Aprtll 9., 2012 DATE: April 2, 2012 City Of Edina TO: Edina Board of Appeal and Equalization Members Edina City Council Members FROM: Robert C. Wilson, City Assessor Beginning March. 9, 2012 approximately 20,000 valuation notices were mailed to Edina property owners. Since this time, the assessing department' has responded to over 240 calls from owners with questions and concerns regarding their new valuation notice. The review process is a key aspect of the mass appraisal system. Over the last three weeks, the assessing staff has reviewed the valuations on over 100 properties. When there is evidence that a property has been overvalued, its market value has been adjusted. These reviews have resulted in changes to approximately 55% of the properties. In the instances where the appraiser and property owner cannot come to a mutual agreement on valuation, the Board of Appeal and Equalization is one of several avenues for the owner to make an appeal. The following material has been prepared for the Board's meeting on Monday April 9, 2012. The Edina Assessing Department consists of Liz Lopez, Assessing Technician; Mitzi Wicklund, Assessing Technician; Adrienne Garcia, Appraiser; Bev Moos, Appraiser; Nate Stulc, Appraiser, Shelagh Stoerzinger, Appraiser; and Bob Wilson, City Assessor. At the initial meeting, Board members will hear testimony from property owners. Assessing staff will be available to. provide information and answer questions. No decisions will be made during this meeting. The assessing staff will prepare property review reports and provide copies to Board members prior to the April 23 th reconvened meeting, when the Board will make their final decisions. It has been the policy of the Board to' sustain the assessor's valuations on commercial, apartment and industrial properties, and on all appeal applications received after the March 30th deadline. This allows the property owner to present their case to the County Board of Appeal and Equalization for their consideration. Lity bail 4801 WEST 50TH STREET EDINA, MINNESOTA, 55424 -1394 www.CityofEdina.com 952 - 927 -8861 FAX 952 - 826 -0390 TTY 952 - 826 -0379 Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1 BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION - GENERAL 1. Letter of Transmittal ............................. ..............:...............I ............................ 1 2. Board of Appeal and Equalization Rules and Procedures ......... ............................... 2 3. Local Board Meeting /Duties of the Local Board ...................... ............................... 4 SECTION 2 ASSESSMENT /APPRAISAL INFORMATION 2012- Assessment - Summary- ......................... ............... 10 — -- A-. —Edina 5. Sample Real Estate Valuation Notice .................................. ............................... 16 6. Estimating Market Values ...................................................... ............................... 18 7. Historical Changes in Market Value ........:........................... ............................... 21 8. Residential Assessment ................................................... ............................... 25 9. Apartment and Commercial /Industrial Assessment ................ ............................... 39- 10. 2011 Assessment Calendar .............................................. ............................... 41 SECTION 3 PROPERTY TAX INFORMATION 12. Simplified Chart of Property Tax Process ............................. ............................... 42 13. Property Tax Refunds and Programs .................................. ............................... 43 14. Market Value Exclusion on Homesteads of Disabled Veterans ..... ............................... 44 15. Property Taxation 101 ..................................................... ............................... 45 16. Market Value Exclusion 101 ........ :......................................................................... 51 SECTION 4 MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION 18. Sale and Resale Analysis Summary ........................................ ............................... 54 19. 2011 Residential Real Estate Activity Report ...................... ............................... 57 20. "Joint Advisory- Foreclosures and the Assessment Process" ........ ............................... 73 24. Foreclosure Data ..................................................... ............................... 84 Section 1 City of Edina BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION RULES AND PROCEDURES 1. GENERAL The following rules and procedures shall govern the Board of Appeal and Equalization in the exercise of the authority and responsibilities granted to it pursuant to Chapter 274 of the Minnesota Statutes. ' 2.' MEETINGS a) The board shall conduct annual meetings and hearings in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 274.01, subd. 1, and make preliminary determinations of .property classification and assessment matters. The board meetings shall be conducted in the City Council Chamber of the City Hall. The City Clerk shall give published and posted notice of the meetings at least ten (10) days in advance thereof. b) All meetings of the board shall be considered open meetings and shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Minnesota Open Meeting Law (Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.705). c) The board shall elect a Chairperson who shall preside at all Board meetings, and shall have duties and responsibilities specifically prescribed by any applicable laws and regulations. d) There must be at least one member at each meeting, who has attended an appeals and equalization course required by M.S. 274.014, within the last four years. e) Board meetings shall be conducted in accordance with Robert's Rules of Order. f) Three (3) members of the board must be present for a quorum to exist in order to conduct board reviews. Formal action may be taken by a majority of those members present at a meeting. g) Board meetings, shall be attended by the city assessor, and /or a designated city staff member, and a recording secretary. The board may also request the advice of the city attorney on legal issues which arise. M i h)- -Upon receipt of the- completed - applications of- property owners or taxpayers, the city assessor shall- hearings- thereon. Board meetings-shall be held -until all petitions have been heard. Each appellant will be allowed a maximum of.five (5.) minutes to present any data or information relevant to the market value or classification of the subject property. i) The board shall take each petition under- advisement and shall render its determination thereon at a subsequent meeting of the board. - - j) Board policy is to sustain the assessor's valuations on commercial, apartment and industrial properties, appeal-�applications received after the dead_ line, and walk -ins. This allows_the property owner to present their case to the County Board of Appeal -and Equalization for. their consideration. k) A list <of all appellants and copies of all assessor recommendations shall be sent.to the local board, for final consideration -and decision not more;than twenty (20) days from the commencement of the Board ,of Appeal and Equalization. 3. CONFLICTS; EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS a) When not in session, the board shall- not accept or consider any ex Iparte communications concerning parcels being reviewed, except as requested by the board, at a regular board meeting, in order to render an. equitable decision. b) A board member shall not participate in any actions of the board which result in market value adjustments or classification changes to property owned by the board member, the spouse, parent, stepparent,. child, stepchild, grandparent, brother, sister, uncle, aunt,, nephew,. or niece of a board member, or property in which a board member has a financial interest. The relationship may be by blood or marriage. If the board is faced with this scenario, the decision to continue with _the appeal shall be made by the remaining members of the board (assuming there is still a quorum). If there is not a quorum, or the.remaining board members feel that there may otherwise be a conflict of interest, "No Change" should be marked on the record form and the property owner shall be able to appeal to the county board. 3 Local Board Meeting Who must attend the meeting Per Minnesota Statutes, Section 274.0 1, subdivision 1, paragraph a, the town board of a town or the council or other governing body of a city is the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization, except in'the following situations: Cities whose charters provide for a board of equalization; _ e Cities or towns that have transferred their local board duties.to the county (see Chapter S); Cities with Special Boards of Appeal and Equalization -appointed by the governing body (see Chapter S); or Cities or towns whose local board duties have been transferred due to noncompliance with the training requirements. When a Local Board of Appeal and Equalization convenes, a majority of the members (quonun) must be in attendance in order for any valid action to be taken (see Chapter 4 for more information about quorum requirements). _The local assessor is required by law to be present with his/her assessment books and papers. The, local assessor is required to take part in the proceedings to support his values or recommend a change, but the local assessor has no vote. He/she should be prepared to explain how the value was determined, and in doing so, the assessor should be able to describe the characteristics of the property, such as: location and neighborhood; public or private restrictions on the property; building type and size; quality of construction; age of the structure; physical condition of the structure; total number of rooms and total number of bedrooms and bathrooms; and market conditions, etc. The local assessor should be knowledgeable about the local. real estate market and the property in the area. While it isn't the goal of the assessor to influence the board, the assessor should provide factual information to support the value and classification or to support a recommended change to a subject property. The local assessor also should be able to explain how the property classification was determined. In addition to the local assessor, the county assessor or one of his/her assistants is required to attend. The board should' ask the local and/or county assessors to present any tables that have been prepared, making comparisons of the current assessments m—the district Either the local or county assessor is required to have maps and tables relating particularly to agricultural'land values for the guidance-of the Local Board of Appeal and-Equaliiation. The local board'should be prepared to ask the local and county assessors questions, and assessors should;be prepared to answer questions and provide information that will assist the board in its deliberations. Meeting dates and times for the local board The meeting. date and time for the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization is set by the county assessor. The county assessor must provide written notice of the date and time to the city or town clerk by February 15 of each year. The clerk shall publish and post notice of the meeting at least 10 days before the date of the meeting. The Local Board of Appeal and Equalization meeting must be held between April l and May 31 of each year (unless the provisions of a charter provide otherwise). The local board must conduct its business and adjourn within 20 days of the date stated in the published notice. Upon request, the Department of Revenue (at its discretion) may grant extensions beyond the 20-day time period. No changes may be made by the local board after adjourning. The county assessor also may not make any changes in valuation or classificati on that are intended to correct errors in judgment by the county assessor after the local board has adjourned. However, the county assessor may make changes that are clerical in nature or changes that extend homestead treatment until the tax extension date for that assessmentyear. A list of all the changes made by the local board must be fully documented and maintained in the assessor's office and must be available for review by any person. A copy of the changes made during this period in those cities or towns that hold a local board must be sent to the county board no later than December 31 of the assessment year. I Role of the local board in the assessment process - i Documenting local board actions Before adjourning, the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization must prepare an official record of all actions taken by the board Minnesota Statutes 274.0 1, subdivision 1, paragraph (e) requires, in part, that "The board shall list separately, on a form appended to the assessment boob all omitted property added to the list by the board and all items ofproperty increased or decreased, with the mm ket value of each item ofproperty, added or changed by the board, placed opposite the item. " This means that the local board must prepare an official record of the proceedings. The record must reflect all board actions. Therefore, the record must list all: ■ Assessments of property added to the tax rolls with the market value for each; ■ Appeals brought before the board, indicating the action taken by the board (including all appeals in which the board voted "no change "). Assessments that have been increased or decreased with the market value for each. ■ All class changes. ■ All changes that the county assessor brought to the board for action, indicating the action taken by the board. After the changes have been completed, the record must be signed and dated by the members of the local board who were present at the meeting. The record must also list the names and titles of all voting members of the local board, including those who are present and those who are absent, to verify that the quorum requirement was met The county assessor is to make all changes ordered by the local board that are authorized by law. Required forms for documenting board actions County assessors are required to submit any changes made by the Local and County Boards of Appeal and Equalization to the Commissioner of Revenue, along with a copy of the proceedings of each board within 10 working days following final action of the local board. The information must be filed in the manner prescribed by the Commissioner of Revenue (Minnesota Statutes, Section 270.11). . Role of the local board in the assessment process 5 In recent years, there has been increasing interest by the legislature and others in the number of appeals at the local level and the effect of the changes that were made. However, because of the manner in which many counties submit this information, the Department of Revenue has not been able to respond to requests for this information. Therefore, we are requiring that the counties provide the data in a format that is complete, readable and easily interpreted. Each county will be required to submit this information in an electronic format as instructed by the Department of Revenue. To ensure that the information is consistent from local jurisdiction to local jurisdiction and from county to county, the Department of Revenue also is requiring that the local board complete the following two forms for each Local Board ofAppeal and Equalization meeting: • Local Board ofAppeal and Equalization Certification Foim — must be completed and signed to verify that the quorum requirement was met and to provide a summary of board actions. • Local Board ofAppeal and Equalization Record — must be completed to provide a detailed report of the proceedings of the board The county assessor will provide these forms to the local board. The local board will complete the forms (the jurisdiction total EMV is to be completed by the assessor), and the county assessor will take possession of the completed forms at the end of the meeting. New forms must be completed in the case of a reconvene meeting. If a recess is called, a quorum also must be present at the reconvene meeting for the local board to take valid action. To verify that the quorum requirement was met, the local board must complete and sign a Local Board ofAppeal and Equalization Certification Form for each reconvene meeting. In addition, the local board must complete a Local Board ofAppeal and Equalization Record for each reconvene meeting. The reconvene meeting(s) must be held and all business of the local board must be concluded within 20 calendar days (including the day of the initial meeting) unless the board requests a time extension in writing from the Department of Revenue and the time extension is granted by the department The date and time for the reconvene meeting must be determined, before the initial meeting is recessed Once the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization has adjourned, they cannot reconvene. Duties of the local board The local board is to determine whether all of the, taxable Oftentimes, the assessor will continue to review property in the town or city has been properly valued properties within 10 days of the local board meeting. and classified. All property is to be valued at its market However, if the assessor makes a change, that change value, and all property is to be classified according to should be brought to the local board for action. use. It is assumed that the assessor has properly valued and classified all the property in the' jurisdiction: The If the property owner agrees with the change, he/she burden of proof rests with the property owner who must does not need to personally appeal to the board. Instead, present factual evidence to disprove the assessor's value the assessor should present such changes to be voted on or classification. b y-the-board. The complaints and objections of property appealing individual assessments for the current year should be considered very carefully by the board. An appeal may be made in person, by letter, or through a representative of the owner. Written objections should be filed with the city or town clerk prior to the meeting of the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization and must be presented to the board for consideration while it is in session. The board must hear all complaints and examine all letters. Such assessments must be reviewed in detail, and the board has the authority to make corrections as it deems to be just The board may recess from day to day until all cases have been heard. The board should look for property or improvements that are not on the tax rolls. When properly or improvements are missing from the tax rolls, an unfair burden falls upon the owners of all property that has been assessed If the board finds any property or improvements that are not on the tax rolls, the board should place it on the, assessment list along with its market value, and correct the. assessmentso that each tract or lot of real property and each article, parcel or class of personal property is entered on the assessment list at its market value. Changes within 10 days of local board meeting Since the Notice of Valuation and Classification must be mailed to taxpayers at least 10 days prior to the meeting of the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization, the assessor should not make changes to the valuation or classification of a property within that 10 -day window without bringing the change to the local board for action. After receiving the notice, the property owner can contact the assessor to discuss questions or concerns. The assessor can make changes to the valuation or classification without bringing the change to the local board if a new notice is mailed to the property owner at least 10 days prior to the local board meeting. What the board can do Reduce the value of a property. The local board may reduce the value of a properly if the facts show that the property is assessed at a value that is higher than its market value. All property is to be valued at its market value. It is assumed that the assessor has properly valued the property. The burden of proof rests with the property owner who must present factual evidence to disprove the assessor's value. Increase the value-of a property. The local board may increase the value of a property if the facts show that the property is assessed at a value that is lower than its market value. The board also must base the decision to increase the market value on facts. All property is to be valued at its market value. It is assumed that the assessor has properly valued the property. The board must rely on factual evidence to disprove the assessor's value. Before the board raises the market value of a property, it must notify the owner. The law doesn't prescribe any particular form of notice, except that the person whose property is to be increased in assessment must be notified of the intent of the board to make the increase. The owner must be notified either in writing or orally. He/she should be given a time to appear before the local board. After the hearing, the local board should make any corrections that it deems just. Add properties to the assessment I& If the board finds that any real' or personal property has not been entered onto.the assessment list, the board shall place it on the assessment list along with its market value, and correct the assessment so that each tract and lot of real property and all personal property is entered on the assessment list at its market value. Role of the local board in the assessment process Add improvements to the assessment list In reviewing the individual assessments, the board may find instances where property is not listed at its market value because the value of a building or other improvement was not included when the market value of the property was estimated These should be carefully reviewed by the board and placed on a tentative list of property values to be increased. The board should then determine to what extent the valuation of such property should be increased Before the board adds value for new or overlooked improvements, it must notify the owner. The local board can't orderpercentage increases or decreases for an entire class ofproperty. The authority of the local board extends over the individual assessments of real and personal property. The board can't increase or decrease by percentage all of the assessments in the district of a given class of property. Changes in the aggregate assessments by classes are made by the County Board of Appeal and Equalization. The local board can't reduce the aggregate assessment by mare than l percent Although the Local Board of The local board can't consider prior year assessments The Local Board of Appeal and Equalization doesn't have the authority in any year to reopen former assessments on which taxes are due and payable. The board considers only the assessments that are in process in the current year. Occasionally, a property owner may appear with a tax statement and protest the taxes or assessment of the previous year. The board should explain tactfully that it does not have the authority to consider such matters. After taxes have been extended, adjustments can be made only by the process of application for abatement or by legal action. Role of the local board in the assessment process F (judgment errors) are not considered to be clerical errors. The local board can't exempt property. The Local Board of Appeal and Equalization does not have the authority to grant an exemption or to order property . removed from the tax rolls. The local board can't make changes benefiting a property owner who refuses entry by the assessor. The board may not make an individual market value adjustment or classification change that would benefit the property in cases where the owner or other person having control over the property will not permit the assessor to inspect the property and the interior of any buildings or structures. Appeal_ and_ Equalization has_the_authority_to -increase_or Change the classification of a propergy. In reduce individual assessments, the total of such Minnesota, property is classified according to its use adjustments must not reduce the aggregate assessment on the assessment date (January 2 of each year). If the of the jurisdiction by more than 1 percent. The property is not currently being used, it is classified "aggregate assessment" is the total EMV that the local according to its most probable, highest and best use. board has the authority to change, i.e. the total EMV of Property owners do not get to choose or request how assessments within the jurisdiction excluding state they want their property to be classified. It is the assessed property. For example, if the total EMV of a assessor's job to classify it according to its current use jurisdiction is $2,000,000, the board cannot reduce the or its most probable, highest and best use. The board total EMV of the can change the classification of any property which in jurisdiction by more Assessors EMV the board's opinion is not properly classified. Again, it than $20,000. This + Total board EMV increases is assumed that the assessor has classified the property means the EMV after - Total board EMV reductions correctly. The classification must be based on use, and board actions must be EMV after board actions in order for the board to change the classification, the at least $1,980,000. appellant must present evidence that the property is If the total amount of adjustments made by the local used in a manner consistent with the classification. For board does lower the aggregate assessment by more example, the assessor classified the property as than 1 percent, none of the adjustments will be residential. The owner seeks the agricultural allowed. This limitation doesn't apply, however, to the classification. In order for the board to change the correction of clerical errors or to the removal of classification to agricultural, the owner must prove duplicate assessments. Clerical errors are limited to that the property is used agriculturally and meets the errors made by someone performing a clerical function statutory requirements of the agricultural class. during the course of the actual assessment. Examples of clerical errors are errors such as transposing numbers or What the board can't do mathematical errors. Errors that occur when making estimations during the inspection and appraisal process The local board can't consider prior year assessments The Local Board of Appeal and Equalization doesn't have the authority in any year to reopen former assessments on which taxes are due and payable. The board considers only the assessments that are in process in the current year. Occasionally, a property owner may appear with a tax statement and protest the taxes or assessment of the previous year. The board should explain tactfully that it does not have the authority to consider such matters. After taxes have been extended, adjustments can be made only by the process of application for abatement or by legal action. Role of the local board in the assessment process F (judgment errors) are not considered to be clerical errors. The local board can't exempt property. The Local Board of Appeal and Equalization does not have the authority to grant an exemption or to order property . removed from the tax rolls. The local board can't make changes benefiting a property owner who refuses entry by the assessor. The board may not make an individual market value adjustment or classification change that would benefit the property in cases where the owner or other person having control over the property will not permit the assessor to inspect the property and the interior of any buildings or structures. Duties: Local and County Boards Local Board of Appeal and Equalization Ensures individual assessments within the jurisdiction are properly valued and classified. County. Board of Appeal and Equalization Ensures equalization,among individual assessments, ,between classes and from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. What - can - local- andlor-county- boards -do ? —I T T ❑ Increase or decrease value of individual property. ✓ Yes ✓ 'Yes ❑ Add properties to the assessment list. ✓ Yes _ No ❑ Add improvements to the assessment list. ✓ Yes ✓ Yes ❑ Increase or decrease value for.ari entire property class. No ✓ Yes ❑ Chapc e the classification of a property_— ✓ Yes ✓ Yes What local and county boards cannot do: ❑ Cannot change prior year assessments. ❑ Cannot reduce aggregate assessment by more than 1 percent. ❑ Cannot exempt property. ❑ Cannot make change benefiting owner who refuses entry by assessor.' "?Minnesota Statutes, Section 274.01, subdivision 1, pm agraph b states thal dw local board may not make an in&v dual nha l et value odjustmeni or classification change that would benefit tae property in cases where the owner or other person having control over the property will not pernul the assessor to hupect the propury and the nhterior of any buildbigs or.snuctures. 777e county board is.. not stawta7ly precluded froin maldng a change based on the propetj; owner's refitsal to a11014; the assessor access to view the property. horn er; simply because the statute does not etplicidy prechtde the cowdy board from malvhg such a change, it is strongly recommended Hurt dhe coharty board rotgrant.any reduction in value until the property owner has al10141ed the assessor access to view the p open ry. It seems obvious that for an assessor to make a fair and knowledgeable value estimate, lidshe must fast be allowed to view the entire p-openji. Until such access is granted the county board should not grant a volue reduction. Recommendations for local board members. Become familiar with sales information prior to local board meeting Most local board members aren't necessarily aware of current trends in the real estate market or trained in the field of appraisal. Therefore, advance preparation is essential to making informed, fair decisions on the appeals heard by the local board 91 The county assessor (or the local or city assessor in some instances) should provide information on the real estate market in advance of the local board meeting. If this information isn't provided, the local board should request that the assessor provide the information at least one week prior to the meeting so board members have time to review it. Role of the local board in the assessment process I The following are examples of the type of data that the _ I Avoid conflicts of interest- - assessor may provide for the local-board to, use when I. : No board member shall participate in the discussions or determining if an adjustment is necessary.-This is not an vote on any matters relating to property in which he or all- encompassing list, and depending on the jurisdiction, she has a conflict of interest. A conflict of interest exists it may or may not be necessary for every board to have where a member: all the items on the list. The local board should work:: :i with the assessor to determine the specific information ° has a financial interest in the property; to be supplied to. the -local board. is a director, trustee, officer, employee oT ° Information on sales within the district that agent of any business'or- institution directly ' -occurred in the, previous -year. involved with.the- property; Y; or -- - ■ Valuation tables of land types. ° is related by blood or marriage to an individual_having- an- o- wnership_or-fnancial ■,.Copy of the values from the mini- abstract for the district. (current year and prior year). interest in the property. ■ Printout of parcel listings for the district Board members are afforded the same rights as the with.the values. general public when it comes to the appeal process. ■ Review of the current statutory classifications However, when a local board member is appealing the and the corresponding_ class rates. value or classification of his/her property, as a general ■ Review of value roP e rty type changes b a g by P rule, the local board should not make any changes to the in the district. valuation or classification. The local board should vote The local board should also be prepared to request additional background information and to ask questions of the assessor in order to assist with the board's deliberations. As a local board member, you should review the information provided by the assessor. If you have any questions about the materials, please be sure to contact the assessor. Being knowledgeable about the real estate market is the key to making informed and fair decisions. Duties of the clerk The town or city clerk plays an important role in the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization process. The following is a brief list of the duties of the clerk pertaining to the local board meeting:' • The clerk should work with the county assessor to establish the meeting date(s) for the local board. • The clerk should coordinate with the board to ensure that a quorum will be present at the meeting. • The clerk must publish and post notice of the meeting at least 10 days prior to the date of the meeting (Minnesota Statutes, Section 274.0 1, subdivision 1). Role of the local board in the assessment process i I 9 no change, and the appeal should be recorded so that the board member can appeal to the County Board of Appeal and Equalization. This will eliminate any appearance of the board having a conflict of interest or the appearance of giving preferential treatment. ■ The clerk should have a sign -in sheet for all appellants. ° The clerk should take minutes of the meeting as part of the town or city record. ■ The clerk should return all necessary records to the county assessor in a timely manner. In some jurisdictions, various duties of the clerk may be performed by the city or county assessor or the assessor's staff. In these instances, it is recormnended that the clerk be aware of and monitor the duties to ensure that all duties are performed. Section 2 SUMMARY The 2012 property assessment has been completed, and property owners received a Notice of Estimated Market Value in early March. The 2012 property assessment applies to property taxes payable in 2013 and reflects sales between October 2010 and September 2011. Key points of the 2012 property assessment include: C 0 9- • The total estimated market value for Edina in 2012 is $8.95 billion, a decrease of approximately $200 million, or 2.2 percent less than the $9.15 billion total in 2011. Approximately 80 percent of the total market value comes from residential properties, while 20 percent comes from commercial, industrial, and apartment properties. 10.00 9.00 8.00 7.00 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Assessment Year • Average 2012 market value changes are listed below for the major property classifications: Single family residential •LT:� r�z r�i � � Zero -Lot Lines 2.3% Townhomes -7.2% Condominiums -9.0% Commercial 1.7% Industrial -3.6% Apartments -1.9% 1 E � F .. LOA 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Assessment Year • Average 2012 market value changes are listed below for the major property classifications: Single family residential -3.5% Doubles -9.2% Zero -Lot Lines 2.3% Townhomes -7.2% Condominiums -9.0% Commercial 1.7% Industrial -3.6% Apartments -1.9% 10 Similar to the previous year, commercial values have held more of their value than residential properties. The result is a continuing shift of the property tax burden from residential to commercial properties. • For 2012, most single - family residential properties received statistical adjustments of 0 percent to -10 percent. This is the fifth year of a decrease in residential valuations. These adjustments are based on the specific characteristics of the property, its location, and comparisons to actual selling __prices. This approach results in similar market value adjustments for like properties throughout the city. • Comparisons with other cities for 2012 indicate an average decrease of 4.6 percent for southwestern suburban cities. Edina's decrease of 3.5 percent for single - family homes is the smallest decrease compared to neighboring communities. • Distribution of the 2012 percentage changes in value by residential property type: 40 Single Family 2% 11 []Inc rease ❑No Change ❑ Decrease -1 to -3% ❑ Decrease -4 to -6% ® Decrease -7 to -10% ❑ Decrease > -10% I 2012 Assessment Condominiums 6% 46% © Increase 9% ■No Change O Decrease -1 to -3% ❑ Decrease -4 to -6% 10% o Decrease -7 to -10% ❑ Decrease> -10% Townhomes 12 a Increase ■No Change E3 Decrease -1 to -6% ❑ Decrease -7 to -10% ■Decrease > -10% I -- I 1 I -- The-accuracy and egaity-of the property- assessment - are - evaluated through -- - - two statistical measures: the sales ratio and the coefficient of dispersion (COD). The sales ratio is the assessor's estimated market value divided by the actual selling price. For 2012, Edina's overall sales ratio is 95.8 percent, indicating a very accurate assessment. The COD measures how far the assessor's market values deviate from the median ratio. For 2012, the COD is 6.5 which demonstrates an equitable assessment. ® Adjustment to Sales Ratio Relative to Hennepin County Target - The standard that assessors use to measure the accuracy of the assessment is the change in sales ratio for the state mandated sales study period of October 2010 through September 2011, not the annual change in the median sale price of properties. For the 2012 assessment, the ratios for sales that occurred between October 2010 and September 2011 were as follows: Single- family residential 99.5% Doubles 111.0% Zero -lot lines 95.3% Townhouses 98.5% - - Condominiums 105.7% The target ratio defined for each property type by Hennepin County is 95 percent. As a result, it was necessary for staff to respond by decreasing most residential values for 2012. Changes to townhouse and condo properties were made by analyzing sales from each individual complex. Value changes for single - family properties were made based on a variety of factors, including location, style, quality class, and price point. The appeals process is an important part of the annual property assessment. Residents having questions about their 2012 Notice of Estimated Market Value are urged to contact the assessing department. This allows staff to discuss the property characteristics and, where needed, conduct an on -site review. Property owners must complete an application by March 30, 2012, to appeal their value to the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization, which convenes April 9, 2012. i 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010- 2011 2012 SALES RATIO 96.1 95.0 96.0 95.5 95.7 95.7 95.8 COD 7.2 6.8 5.7 5.8 6.1 6A 6.5 ® Adjustment to Sales Ratio Relative to Hennepin County Target - The standard that assessors use to measure the accuracy of the assessment is the change in sales ratio for the state mandated sales study period of October 2010 through September 2011, not the annual change in the median sale price of properties. For the 2012 assessment, the ratios for sales that occurred between October 2010 and September 2011 were as follows: Single- family residential 99.5% Doubles 111.0% Zero -lot lines 95.3% Townhouses 98.5% - - Condominiums 105.7% The target ratio defined for each property type by Hennepin County is 95 percent. As a result, it was necessary for staff to respond by decreasing most residential values for 2012. Changes to townhouse and condo properties were made by analyzing sales from each individual complex. Value changes for single - family properties were made based on a variety of factors, including location, style, quality class, and price point. The appeals process is an important part of the annual property assessment. Residents having questions about their 2012 Notice of Estimated Market Value are urged to contact the assessing department. This allows staff to discuss the property characteristics and, where needed, conduct an on -site review. Property owners must complete an application by March 30, 2012, to appeal their value to the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization, which convenes April 9, 2012. i The Residential Real Estate Market - The Minneapolis Area Association of Realtors (MAAR) reported that the median sales price in Edina was $340,000 in 2011, an increase of 0.3 percent from the 2011 median of $339,000. These sales include single - family, doubles, zero lot - lines, condominiums and townhomes. 180 N 160 140 N 120 100 0 L 80 60 E 40 Z 20 X11 U Number of Sales by Sales Price Less than $200,000 to 400,000 to $600,000 to Greater than $199,999 $ 399 ,999 $599,999 $999,999 $1,000,000 a2010 o2011 Edina had the second lowest percentage of distressed sales in the 13- county twin cities region at 17 percent. The lowest was the City of Deephaven at 14 percent. Distressed sales include foreclosures and short sales. Short sales occur when the lender allows the property to be sold for less than the outstanding mortgage balance. Some cities have shown a significant decline in housing values and have been greatly impacted by the high volume of foreclosures. MAAR data for Brooklyn Center for instance, indicates that 65 percent of the sales were lender mediated. (see page 15 ) 14 Changes in Median Sales Price by Area 2010 to 2011 All Sales *Distressed Sales (includes single-family, condos and townhomes City 2011 #Sales Change from 2010 Median Sale Price Change from 2010 % of All Sales Bloomington 860 6% $157,000 -12% 42% Brooklyn Center 510 16% $82,500 -25% 65% Brooklyn Park 1,154 _1% $127,000 -9% 62% Eden Prairie 755 11% $257,360 -3% 35% Edina 695 5% $340,000 0% 17% Golden Valle 270 38% $199,000 -15% 39% Hopkins 168 -10% $125,000 -15% 51% Maple Grove 1008 7% $214,000 -17% 38% Minnetonka 652 12% $233,000 -12% 33% New Hoe 205 13% $126,125 -15% 52% Plymouth 933 18% $245,000 -2% 29% Richfield 455 26% $140,250 -12% 49% St. Louis Park 687 33% $185,000 -13% 40% Source: Regional Multiple Listing Service * Includes Lender -Owned Foreclosures and Short Sales 15 City of Edina, Minnesota 4801 West W Street ■ Edina, MN ,operty Identification Number: Property Location: Joe Smith 1234 Oaklawn Avenue Edina, MN 55424 -1924 55424 -1394 ■ (952) 826 -0365 FAX: (952) 826 -0389 a TTY: (952) 826 -0379 2012 Notice of Valuation and Classification _ For faxes payable in 2013 - This is NOT a bill 18- 028 -24-31 -0000 1234 Oaklawn Avenue This form is to notify you of the market value and classification of your property for assessment year 2012. The property taxes you pay in 2013 (next year) will be based on this valuation and classification. The prior year data has been included for comparison purposes. Property Classification: Estimated Market Value: Value of New Improvements: Green Acres Value Deferred: Open Spaces Value Deferred: Plat Deferment: Rural Preserve Value Deferred: This Old House Exclusion: Disabled Veterans Market Value Exclusion: Referendum Market Value: Homestead Market Value Exclusion: Taxable Market Value: Assessment Year 2011 (For Taxes Payable in 2012) RESIDENTIAL HOMESTEAD $363,000 $363,000 $4,100 $358,900 Assessment Year 2012 (For Taxes Payable in 2013) RESIDENTIAL HOMESTEAD $348,500 $348,000 $5,900 $342,600 IMPORTANT INFORMATION - Appealing the Value or Classification of Your Property Appeal Option 1: Informal Appeal — Contact Your Assessor If you have questions or disagree with the classification or estimated market value for your property for 2012, please contact your assessor's office first to discuss your concerns. Often your issues can be resolved at this level. You may contact the Edina Assessors Office at (952) 826-0365. Property information can be viewed at the assessor's office between 8:00 AM and 4:30 PM Monday through Friday. Appeal Option 2: Formal Appeal Options Step #1 — City of Edina Local Board of Appeal and Equalization If you believe your value or classification is incorrect, you may bring your case to the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization. You may appear in person, by letter, or be represented by an authorized agent. Please call your Assessor's Office first, an application is necessary. It is required that you first attend the Local Board prior to attending the County Board of Appeal. The Local Board of Appeal and Equalization convenes at 5:30 PM on Monday, April 9, 2012 in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 4801 West 50th Street, Edina, MN 55424. If you wish to make an appeal before the Local Board, an application is required no later than Friday. March 30, 2012. Step #2 — Hennepin County Board of Appeal and Equalization The County Board of Appeal and Equalization begins on June 18, 2012, at the Hennepin County Government Center, 300 S Sixth St., Minneapolis, MN 55487. Application is required no later than May 23, 2012. To appear before the County Board, you must have appeared before the City of Edina Board of Appeal and Equalization. You must call in advance to get on the agenda: Phone: (612) 348 -7050 or [TTY (612) 348 -3461 Teletype]. Appeal Option 3 — Minnesota Tax Court Depending on the type of appeal, you may take your case to either the Small Claims Division or the Regular Division of Tax Court. You have until April 30, 2013 to file an appeal with the Small Claims Division or the Regular Division of Tax Court for your 2012 valuation and classification. -iformation on the Tax Court, contact the Minnesota Tax Court: e: 651 - 296 -2806 [TTY Relay (800) 627 -3529 Teletype] Web site: htto: / /www.taxcgurt.state.mn.us For additional information concerning property's valuation or classification, you can access the Hennepin County website at: htto: / /www.henneoin.us Property classification information can also be accessed through the Department of Revenue website at: htto: / /www.taxes.state.mn.us '16 i 9u1A owe City !of Edina , C � )0 4801 West-50th - Street • ,�� _Edina, MN 55424 -1394 -- - IMPORTANT: Property-Tax Information - Valuation Notice REVISED. Joe Smith _1234 Oaklawn Aveneue Edina, MN- 55424 -1924 IMPORTANT INFORMATION AND DEFINITIONS This form is to notify you of the market value and classification of yourproperty for assessment year 2012. The'property taxes�you,will pay in 2013 (next year) will be based ,on this valuation and classification.. If you believe your valuation and property class are correct, it is not necessary to contact the assessor or attend .the meeting listed on „this notice. If the property, information is not correct, you disagiee -with 'values, or yod have other questions about this notice, please contact your assessor to discuss any questions or concerns. Often your issues can be resolved at this level. If your questions or concerns are not resolved, more formal appeal options are available. Please read the back of this notice for important information about the formal appeal process. Property Classification - The statutory classification that.has been assigned to your property based upon your use of the property. A change in classification of your property can have a significant impact on real estate tax payable: Please compare the 2011 and 2012 -classifications. listed on the other side of this statement. Disabled Veterans Homestead Market Value Exclusion - Qualifying disabled veterans may be eligible for valuation exclusion o homestead property. Yearly reapplication is required for partially disabled veterans and for previously qualified spouses of deceased vetera Estimated Market Value - This value is what the assessor estimates your property would likely sell for on the open market. Green Acres - Applies to class 2a agricultural property that is facing increasing values due to development pressures not related to the agricultural value of the land. This value is determined by looking at what comparable agricultural land is selling for in areas where there is no development pressure. The taxes on the higher value are deferred until the property is sold, transferred, withdrawn, or no longer qualifies for the program. Homestead Market Value Exclusion - Applies to residential homesteads and to the house, garage, and one acre of land on agricultural homesteads. The exclusion is a maximum.of $30,400 at $76,000 of market value, and then decreases by nine percent for value over $76,000. The exclusion phases out for properties valued at $413,800 or more. **This was enacted during the 2011 Special Session and was not shown on 2011 value notices, although it was applied to 2011 taxable market values.** New lmnrovements - This is the assessor's estimate of the value of new or previously unassessed improvements you have made to your property. Plat Deferment - For land that has been recently platted (divided into individual lots) but not yet improved with a structure, the increased market value due to platting is phased in over time. If construction begins, or if a lot is sold before expiration of the phase -in period, the lot will be assessed at full market value in the next assessment. Referendum Market Value - This value is subject to referenda levies, and is applied prior to any homestead market value exclusion. Rural Preserve - Applies to class 2b rural vacant land that,is part of a farm homestead or that had previously been; enrolled in Green Acres, if it is contiguous to agricultural land enrolled in Green Acres. This value may not exceed the Green Acres value for tilled lands. The taxes on the higher value are deferred so long as the property qualifies. Taxable Market Value - This is the value that your property taxes are actually based on, after all reductions, exclusions, exemptions and deferrals. Your 2012 value, along with the class rate and the budgets of your local government, will determine how much you will pay in taxes in 2013. This Old House Exclusion - This program expired with the 2003 assessment. However, property may still be receiving the value exclusion under this program. Qualifying properties with improvements that increased the estimated market value by $5,000 or more were eligible to have some of the value deferred for a maximum of 10 years. After this time, the deferred value is phased in. 17 ESTIMATING MARKET VALUES The purpose of the assessment process is to make an accurate .estimate of the market value of each parcel of property, every - year. Doing so requires current information about the properties being assessed, and_about the local real estate market. The Edina Assessing Office maintains a record of every property in the City, including its size, location, physical characteristics,. and condition. This record is updated whenever new information becomes available — as the result of the five -year reappraisal, or when improvements are made to the property, or when the property owner requests a 'physical review. This information is computerized, allowing statistical comparisons of properties by type and .location. It is important to know that assessors must out of necessity use a mass appraisal process for valuing residential property, and the mass appraisal process is different from the individual appraisal system used by banks, mortgage companies and others. The mass appraisal system used in Edina involves the comparison of properties with actual residential market sales from the same neighborhood and throughout the city. New houses, additions, and remodeling are valued based on their individual characteristics and the current costs of construction. Having the local assessment system operate effectively requires as much information about the local real estate market as possible. The Assessing Office makes a record of all property sales, using the Certificate of Real Estate Value (or CRV) filed at Hennepin County for each property sale. This information is augmented with regular sales information obtained from the Multiple Listing Service (MLS) and other sources. The Assessing staff also examines multiple sales — properties that have sold more than once over a period of a_few years. After taking into account any physical changes that may have occurred, the Assessor is able to determine what is happening to the real estate market over that period of time. In all cases, the sales information collected by the Assessing Office is closely scrutinized. Evidence suggesting a forced sale, foreclosure, a sale to a relative, or anything but an arms - length transaction results in the sales. information being discarded. This is important, because the real estate sales information constitutes the data -base for the statistical comparisons necessary to make the property assessment. 18 The accuracy of the Assessing Department's estimated market values is measured by the sales ratio, which is simply the Assessor's estimated market value divided by the actual selling price. For example, a house having its estimated market value assessed at $270,000 and an actual selling price of $300,000 gives a sales ratio of 90.0. For cities in Hennepin County, the accepted range for the median sales ratio measurement is 90 to 105. In other words, the median (or midpoint) of the sales ratios for all properties sold should fall within 90 to 105. A sales ratio of slightly less than 100 is desirable in order to avoid having a great many properties valued at more than their actual market value. If the median sales ratio were at 100, as shown at the left below, it would mean that half the properties were assessed at less than market value and half were higher, with too many over the actual market value. On the other hand, as shown at the right below, a sales ratio of 95.0 means half the properties are below 95.0% of actual market value, half are higher, and a relative low number are valued by the Assessor at more than actual market value. Therefore, the acceptable range is 90 to 105, with a target of 95.0. Edina's 2011 assessment results in a sales ratio'of 95.7. SALES RATIO: MEDIAN MEDIAN 100 95.0 95 97.5 102.5 105 HALF THE VALUES ARE OVER 100% WO 90 92.5 97.5 100 FEW VALUES ARE OVER 100% `A measure of the equity of the property assessment is the coefficient of dispersion, which measures the average deviation or dispersion from the midpoint, or median. The more closely the Assessor's values are grouped around the midpoint, the more equitable the assessment. This is true because relatively few properties have been valued too high, or too low, compared to actual selling prices. For the annual property assessment, a coefficient of dispersion of less than 15 is deemed acceptable and less than 10 is considered excellent. Edina's 2011 assessment reflects a coefficient of dispersion of 6.4. COEFFICIENT OF DISPERSION: MEDIAN 95.0 VALUES ARE DISPERSED FROM MEDIAN (HIGH COEFFICIENT) MEDIAN 95.0 20 VALUES ARE GROUPED CLOSE TO MEDIAN (LOW COEFFICIENT) The review process is a key aspect of the mass appraisal system. Because some properties receive statistic -based adjustments to market value, the review allows the assessing staff the opportunity to individually examine certain properties. Where there is evidence a property has been overvalued or valued inequitably, its market value can be readjusted to an appropriate amount. A property owner who is not satisfied with the assessing staffs review may make an appeal to the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization, which meets on April 11, or make an appeal directly to state tax court. HISTORICAL CHANGES IN MARKET VALUE Edina experienced steady growth in the market value of real property in the community up until 2009. This occurred through the construction of new single - family, multi - family and commercial properties as well as the appreciation of existing properties. The chart below shows the amount of market value change from year to year, and the proportions of the change attributable to new construction and appreciation. As indicated, the city's 2012 assessment is the fourth year the total market value for the city has declined. The value decrease is negated somewhat by new construction and improvements which amounts to $80,651,500 for the 2012 assessment. The improvement amount for single - family properties was $59,511,900 or 74% of the total new construction. CITY OF EDINA GROWTH 1997 -2012 ,YEAR,, , MARKET VALUE NEW z CONSTRUCTION VALUE. : CHANGE TOTAL GR OWTH 1997 $4,257,192,500 0.8% 4.1% 4.9% 1998 $4,526,862,400 1.1% 4.4% 5.5% 1999 $4,904,869,300 1.5% 6.9% 8.4% 2000 $5,457,802,200 1.5% 9.9% 11.4% 2001 $6,230,194,800 1.4% 12.8% 14.20/6 2002 $7,081,684,800 0.7% 13.0% 13.7% 2003 $7,487,906,000 1.0% 4.8% 5.8% 2004 $8,073,198,900 1.0% 6.8% 7.8% 2005 $8,693,345,900 0.7% 8.0% 8.7% 2006 $9,598,697,600 1.1% 9.3% 10.4% 2007 $9,984,799,500 1.3% 2.3% 3.6% 2008 $10,101,311,700 1.7% -0.3% 1.4% 2009 $10,054,504,600 1.9% -2.0% -0.1% 2010 $9,446,343,100 0.7% -5.7% -5.0% 2011 $9,239,541,600 0.7% -5.7% -5.0% 2012 $8,956,726,200 0.9% -2.2% -1.3% 21 The first graph (p. 23) compares the annual change in property type growth over the past ten years for apartment, commercial; industrial and residential properties in Edina. The second chart (p.23) compares market values and tax capacities by property class. Although residential property accounts* for 80% of market value, the property tax is based on tax capacity, and, for 2011 residential property is 70% of the total tax capacity. Commercial /industrial and apartment - properties make up 20% of market value and approximately -30% of the total tax capacity. The third, chart (p.24) illustrates the changes in tax capacity by property class over the past ten years. Changes made by the Legislature starting in 2001, to the classification system, have resulted in property tax shifts. Commercial, industrial, and apartment properties received significant reductions in their class rates which have resulted in residential properties picking up a greater share of the, property tax burden. This changed in 2007 when the growth in commercial properties exceeded the residential growth, and the tax burden shifted back slightly toward commercial properties. In 2009 - and 2010 there was a slight shift back to residential properties and for 2011, the shift is back to commercial. The fourth chart - (p.24) compares the changes in total market value and total tax capacity for the city; over the past ten years. The total growth in market value is up 48 percent and the tax capacity is up 54 percent. 22 d { CITY OF EtDINA PROPERTY TYPE GROWTH +-- APARTMENT • COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL RESIDENTIAL 25 0 20.0 15.0 t� 10.0 z 5.0 ul aG 0.0 -5.0 -10.0 _11;n 2002 2003 2003 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 YEAR CITY OF EDINA Market Values vs. Tax Capacities by Property Class 2012 Commercial/ Industrial 16% 51,427 Apartments Residential 4% 80% $363 57,165 2012 Commercial! Industrial 27% $28 Residential Apartments 4% 69% $4 573 2012 Total Market Value 2012 Total Tax Capacity $8,956 Million $106 Million 23 CITY OF EDINA TAX CAPACITY BY PROPERTY CLASS 2002 -2012 80.00% 60.00% Percentage of Total Tax 40.00% Capacity 20.00% 0.00% 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 Assessment Year o Residential ®Comm /Ind ❑Apts GROWTH IN TOTAL MARKET VALUE vs. TOTAL TAX CAPACITY 2002 -2012 $12,000 $10,000 $8,000 0$6,000 w $4,000 $2,000 $0 ti ti ti� ti ti ti ti ti ti ti Assessment Year $140 $120 $100 c $80 0 $60 $40 $20 $0 � 2 o ti o ° ti o °ti o °ti o °A ti o ti ti ti ti Assessment Year TOTAL INCREASE IN MARKET VALUE TOTAL INCREASE IN TAX CAPACITY 26% 38% 24 RESIDENTIAL ASSESSMENT Edina Single- Family Residential Sales 2004 -2011 — which indicates the median and average sales price for the last eight years EDINA SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SALES BY CALENDAR YEAR ., YEAR ME , , DIAN; AVERAGE �. # OF SALES. 2004 $389,900 $498,701 583 2005 $425,000 $510,987 492 2006 $469,000 $568,985 474 2007 $437,250 $595,622 414 2008 $450,080 $558,005 363 2009 $389,950 $494,851 317 2010 $429,040 $524,942 292 2011 $436,500 $565,724 291 The median sale price (the point where half the homes sell for more and half for less) for single- family homes that sold in 2011 is $436,500. This is an increase of 1.7% from the median sale price in 2010 of $429,040. Edina Single - Family Houses 2004 -2011- compares the growth in the average and median sale price with the estimated market value over the past seven years. The 2011 median estimated market value is $396,300. $700,000 $600,000 LE $500,000 v $400,000 a $300,000 w $200,000 N $100,000 $0 EDINA SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 YEAR 25 -+- Ave SP Median SP Median EMV RESIDENTIAL ASSESSMENT (continued) For the 2012 assessment, 303 residential sales which occurred between October 2010 and September 2011 were analyzed both for market trends as well as the assessment ratio (assessor's value divided by sale price) on the sales. For 2012, most residential properties received statistical adjustments from 0 to -10 %. These adjustments are based on the specific characteristics of the property, its location, and comparisons to actual selling prices. This approach results in similar market value adjustments for like properties throughout the city. Distribution of the changes in market value from 2011 to 2021 for Edina's 12,500 single - family homes: Single Family ?% The following pages include: Dlcrease ■No Change ❑Decrease -1 to -3% ❑ Decrease -4 to -6% ■ Decrease -7 to -10% oDecrease > -10% District Maps —which shows Edina's 41 geographic districts 2. Qualifying Single- Family Residential Sales from January 2011 to December 2011 -which shows individual sales by District M NW Dist O All D 21 22 O 23 24 25 30 - 31 O 33 34 35 - 36 O 37 ® 42 S Distric All O' 0 15 16 17 - 18 19 -` 20 26 O 27 28 0 29 38 39 O 40 NE Distric" lancir:nnti7{ ®�r�elc h�i liic�rir♦ Assessing Department 27 rLFl 1 1%. 11 Northeast Assessing Area 0 , No an�r ■II?Cltl WW d�! Lo - I Northeast Districts mask highway All Other Parcels 01 AAth S�V� 02 03 04 0 05 06 - 07 08 09 O 10 11 O 12 13 14 d m v C 10 L 62 29 ■IR I Kra:A IS �C:CC% City of Edina Assessing Department South Assessing Area 51 62 1 ` lr- Ili 11 ■oo■: ron■. ■o■■rr City of Edina Assessing Department South Districts 0 All Other Parcels F-1 15 �16 17 ■ 18 0 19 20 N O 26 0 27 =28 LZJ 29 38 Q ® 39 / 1� I I 0 40 0 Illlllnll R "1N l�::1111■ � �■ ■111:!, ■■ � � �� .1. ■1.1111 \� _ �S City of Edina Qualifying Sales by District for Calendar Year 2011 I° l� j I , I 31 District Address Sale Date Sale Price Morningside 01' 4014 Lynn Ave 09/15/2011 $ 249,800 01 4113 Monterey Ave 11/09/2011 $ 291,000 01 4224 Scott Ter 01112/2011 $ 299,000 01 4010 Monterey Ave 12/01/2011 $ 313,000 01 3905 Sunnyside Rd 03/10/2011 $ 329,000 01 4101 Monterey Ave 12/2012011 $ 345,000 01 3920 44th St W 04/29/2011 $ 363,705 01 4237 Lynn Ave 09/28/2011 $ 393,000 01 4303 Morningside, Rd 06/27/2011 $ 407,000 01 4404 Branson St 06/2212011 $ 424,000 01 -4315 Branson St 05/05/2011 $ 540,000 01 4383 Coolidge Ave 08/31/2011 $ 630,000 01 4232 Scott Ter 01/25/2011 $ 640,000 01 4217 42nd St W 02/1412011 $ 670,100 01 4239 Lynn Ave 08/19/2011 $ 700,000 01 4216 Lynn Ave 12/09/2011 $ 905,000 01 4208 Oakdale Ave 07/1512011 $ 1,000,000 01 4010 Grimes Ave 02/18/2011 $ 1,030,000 White Oaks 02 4836 Townes Rd 09/21/2011 $ 500,000 02 4809 Townes Rd 12/08/2011 $ 655,500 Country Club 03 4901 Bruce Ave 10/21/2011 $ 530,000 03 4629 Casco Ave 01/27/2011 $ 560,500 03 4621 Arden Ave 06/28/2011 $ 589,000 03 4613 Casco Ave 06/30/2011 $ 636,000 03 4229 Country Club Rd 10/28/2011 $ 725,000 03 4620 Bruce Ave. 04104/2011 $ 765,000 03 4212 Sunnyside Rd 10/20/2011 $ 818,750 03 4620 Moorland Ave 11/30/2011 $ 825,000 03 4621 Casco Ave 09/27/2011 $ 826,000 03 4909 Bruce Ave 08104/2011 $ 850,000 03 4910 Bruce Ave 05126/2011 $ 870,000 03 4404 Sunnyside Rd 03/31/2011 $ 873,675 03 4626 Bruce Ave 06/27/2011 $ 875,000 03 4610 Drexel Ave 06/30/2011 $ 880,000 03 4632 Browndale Ave 04/22/2011 $ 890,000 03 4225 Country Club Rd 08/05/2011 $ 895,000 03 4700 Sunnyside Rd 06/03/2011 $ 995,000 03 4500 Edina Blvd 11/23/2011 $ 996,981 03 4621 Drexel Ave 12/14/2011 $ 1,034,000 03 4510 Moorland Ave 07/19/2011 $ 1,075,000 03 4621 Edina Blvd 09/15/2011 $ 1,100,000 03 4601 Edina Blvd 04/15/2011 $ 1,255,000 03 4615 Browndale Ave 08/05/2011 $ 1,298,000 03 4611 Wooddale Ave 11/04/2011 $ 1,310,000 03 4527 Casco Ave 05123/2011 $ 1,355,000 03 4606 Moorland Ave 12/05/2011 $ 1;360,000 I 31 32 City of Edina Qualifying Sales by District for Calendar Year 2011 Sunnyside 04 4916 Dale Dr 08108/2011 $ 446,250 -- - - - Brucewood 06 5006 Bruce Ave 10/28/2011 $ 1,268,000 06 4431 52nd St W 09/01/2011 $ 1,700,000 Golf Terrace 07 4601 Lakeview Dr 09/08/2011 $ 625,000 07 4505 Golf Ter 12/09/2011 $ 950,000 07 4506 Lakeview Dr 12128/2011 $ 1,250,000 N 58th Sher /So Har Pk 08 5436 France Ave S 11/02/2011 $ 205,000 08 5720 Wooddale Ave 10/14/2011 $ 268,000 08 4519 56th St W 11/29/2011 $ 301,000 08 4605 Concord Ter 04/08/2011 $ 402,000 08 5413 Wooddale Ave 11/29/2011 $ 415,500 08 4529 Tower St 10/18/2011 $ 436,500 08 4500 Oak Dr 06/29/2011 $ 450,600 08 4308 Philbrook La 04/20/2011 $ 465,000 08 5620 Wooddale Ave 12/01/2011 $ 510,000 08 5436 Brookview Ave 11/10/2011 $ 599,900 08 5504 Oaklawn Ave 08/26/2011 $ 687,000 08 5201 Wooddale Ave 11/11/2011 $ 700,000 68 5236 Kellogg Ave 12/09/2011 $ 880,000 08 5508 Woodcrest Dr 10/14/2011 $ 880,000 08 5501 Brookview Ave 07/11/2011 $ 1,080,000 08 5308 Oaklawn Ave 07/28/2011 $ 1,358,000 Woodland/Woodcrest 09 5616 Woodcrest Dr 10/03/2011 $ 635,000 09 5656 Woodcrest Dr 09/20/2011 $ 750,000 09 5612 Park PI 07/28/2011 $ 849,500 09 5 Woodland Rd 10/14/2011 $ 1,625,000 E France No 60th - 10 5921 Abbott Ave S 11/17/2011 $ 197,000 10 5841 York Ave S 06/13/2011 $ 2101000 10 5617 York Ave S 04/29/2011 $ 237,697 10 5712 Ewing Ave S 09/22/2011 $ 239,500 10 5805 Zenith Ave S 06/29/2011 $ 241,500 10 5920 Beard Ave S 07/18/2011 $ 245,390 10 5712 Drew Ave S 09/16/2011 $ 270,000 10 5825 France Ave S 12/16/2011 $ 273,000 10 5637 Beard Ave S 11/28/2011 $ 278,000 10 5625 York Ave S 01/19/2011 $ 278,450 10 5508 Beard Ave S 07/28/2011 $ 280,000 10 5805 Beard Ave S 09/26/2011 $ 310,000 10 5912 Drew Ave S 09/30/2011 $ 322,000 10 3517 54th St W 04/15/2011 $ 372,000 10 5612 Chowen Ave S 07/22/2011 $ 455,000 10 3709 Fuller St 05/31/2011 $ 820,000 E France So 60th 11 6305 Chowen Ave S 12/21/2011 $ 180,000 11 6037 York Ave S 09/16/2011 $ 272,000 t 1 3704 Chowen Cur 06/30/2011 $ 284,850 11 6104 Beard Ave S 11/03/2011 $ 295,000 1 t 6109 Abbott Ave S 10113/2011 $ 319,900 11 6304 Ewing Ave S 04/14/2011 $ 341,250 11 1 6013 Chowen Ave S 07/18/2011 $ 343,000 11 6120 Beard PI 08/12/2011 $ 374,000 32 Halifax/Grimes 12 12 12 12 S 58th /Fairfax Area 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 So Jr High /Concord 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 Lake Cornelia 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 City of Edina Qualifying Sales by District for Calendar Year 2011 5924 France Ave S 09/21/2011 $ 215,500 4005 Wood End Dr 03/11/2011 $ 318,400 3912 58th St W 11/10/2011 $ 355,000 4016 Wood End Dr 04/20/2011 $ 464,040 5917 Concord Ave 6040 Kellogg Ave 5917 Wooddale Ave 6017 Kellogg Ave 5908 St Johns Ave 5917 St Johns Ave 5901 Concord Ave 5800 Kellogg Ave 6024 Kellogg Ave 6316 Peacedale Ave 4833 Valley View Rd 6204 Ashcroft La 6309 St Johns Ave 6113 Ashcroft Ave 6112 Parnell Ave 6024 Fairfax Ave 6009 Virginia Ave 4217 Dunberry La 6717 Cornelia Dr 6933 Cornelia Dr 6809 Southdale Rd 6821 West Shore Dr 6821 Creston Rd 6836 Creston Rd 6600 West Shore Dr 6904 Wooddale Ave 4521 Laguna Dr 6801 Cornelia Dr 6932 Dawson La 4505 Balfanz Rd 4520 Laguna Dr 09/30/2011 08/31/2011 08/26/2011 04/22/2011 06/23/2011 07/29/2011 05/26/2011 12/30/2011 08/19/2011 01/31/2011 12/30/2011 08/26/2011 09/29/2011 05/13/2011 04/01/2011 07/26/2011 07/27/2011 09/29/2011 10/21/2011 06/21/2011 11/28/2011 06/07/2011 06/27/2011 12/02/2011 09/09/2011 06/14/2011 06/30/2011 08/31/2011 07/15/2011 08/31/2011 06/09/2011 33 $ 225,000 $ 236,500 $ 255,000 $ 263,000 $ 263,743 $ 270,000 $ 305,000 $ 339,000 $ 351,900 $ 229,000 $ 256,600 $ 260,000 $ 325,146 $ 353,900 $ 415,000 $ 450,000 $ 575,000 $ 312,000 $ 317,000 $ 362,500 $ 370,000 $ 375,390 $ 389,000 $ 415,000 $ 425,000 $ 445,000 $ 473,500 $ 542,500 $ 715,000 $ 790,000 $ 1,100,000 I Oscar Roberts .. 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 So 70th /Lake Edina 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 Brookvlew Heights 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 Wilryan So Xtown 20 20 20 Richmond /Birchcrest 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 f City of Edina Qualifying Sales by District for Calendar Year 2011 I 7200 Glouchester Dr 7128 Glouchester Ave 7105 Glouchester Ave 7313 Cornelia Dr 7312 Cornelia Dr 7316 Cornelia Dr 7124 Heatherton Tr 7133 Cornelia Dr 7104 Heatherton Tr 4517 70th St W 7212 Wooddale Ave 4404 Gilford Dr 7104 West Shore Dr 4416 Gilford Dr 4409 Gilford Dr 4504 Belvidere La 4700 Phlox La 731.6 Wooddale Ave 4801 Larkspur La 4428 Gilford Dr 5220 70th St W 6904 Ridgeview Dr 6900 Ridgeview Dr 5129 Tifton Dr. 5349 Whiting Ave 5167 Tifton Dr 5023 Nob Hill Dr 5015 Nob Hill Dr 6400 Josephine Ave 6413 Rolf Ave 6333 Warren Ave 5116 Roberts. PI 6133 Code Ave 6121 Code Ave 5213 Benton Ave 6228 Hansen Rd 5816 Hansen Rd 5321 61 st St W 5121 Valley View Rd 5221 Birchcrest Dr 5305 Birchcrest Dr 6109 Code Ave 6120 Birchcrest Dr 6117 Wilryan Ave 5113 Windsor Ave 5801 Bernard PI 5213 56th St W 6124 Wilryan Ave 5721 Melody La 5113 59th St W 5220 Richwood Dr 09/16/2011 07/07/2011 07/15/2011 02/04/2011 07/25/2011 09/19/2011 05/26/2011 07/21/2011 05/03/2011 02/25/2011 05/26/2011 07/22/2011 09/:1412011 05/13/2011 12%16/2011 10/21/2011 11/17/26111 09/30/2011 01/19/2011 07/15/2011 12/30/2011 01/03/2011 09/16/2011 06/17/2011 06/08/2011 08/18/2011 12/22/2011 02/25/2011 09/30/2011 04/25/2011 09/09/2011 04/15/2011 08/24/2011 02/11/2011 12/12/2011 12/30/2011 06/27/2011 11/21/201 1 09/14/2011 05/27/2011 06/17/2011 08/15/2011 11/10/2011 07/22/2011 06/03/2011 01/26/2011 12/19/2011 12/01/2011 11/16/2611 12/29/2011 12/15/2011 34 $ - 314,200 $ 343,900 $ 361,810 $ 384,000 $ 400,000 $ 403,500 $ 407,000 $ 431,000 $ 555,000 $ 238,900 $ 330;000 $ 378,440 $ 390,050 $ 425,000 $ 430,000 $ 437,500 $ 442,200 $ 474,900 $ 570,000 $ 655,000 $ 226,504 $ 275,000 $ 280,000 $ 300,000 $ 327,900 $ 398,000 $ 635,575 $ 870,000 $ 242,750 $ 279,000 $ 389,000 $ 242,500 $ 252,000 $ 285,850 $ 306,500 $ 316,000 $ 330,000 $ 331,025 $ 331,200 $ 340,000 $ 342,000 $ 370,000 $ 379,200 $ 384,400 $ 392,000 $ 408,340 $ 415,000 $ 425,000 $ 489,000 $ 548,850 $ 650,000 35 City of Edina Qualifying Sales by District for Calendar Year 2011 ! i Brookside 22 5005 Moore Ave 12/09/2011 $ 137,388 22 _ _ 4508_LauraAve_ _- 12/09/2.011 _ $- 22 5032 Oxford-Ave 08/2612011 $ 265,000 22 - 5033 Oxford Ave 11/04/2611 $ 275,000 22 5320 Interlachen Blvd 05/31/2011 $ 297,000 22 4525 Rutledge Ave 04/22/2011 $ 303,000 22 4426 Brookside Ave 03/17/2011 $ 384,335 22. 4517 Oxford Ave 06/21/2011 $ 393,180 22 5233 Hollywood Rd 09/27/2011 $ 434,900 22 44817 Vandervork Ave 06/28/2011 $ 473;871 22 5113 "Bedford Ave 09/27/2011 $ 520,000 22 5328 Division St 12/29/2011 $ 675,000 Rolling Green 23 4908 Rolling Green Pkwy 04/27/2011 $ 1,300,000 23 4712 Annaway Dr 08/31/2011 $ 1,595,000 Highland 24 6008 Eden Prairie Rd 09/08/2011 $ 364;000 24 6029 Pine.Grove Rd 11/04/2011 $ 388,000 ,. 24 5217 Duncraid;Rd 12%06/2011 $ 430;000 24 5512 Doncaster Way 08/12/2011 $ 540,000 '. 24 5207 Doncaster Way 02/01/2011 $ 591,000 . 24 5305 Ayrshire Blvd ' 07/15/2011 $ 595,000 24 5,424 Higfiwood Dr W 11/30/2011 $ 610,000 ' 24 5505 Glengarry Pkwy 06/30%2011 $ 630,000 24 5309 Mirror Lakes Dr 08/12/2011 $ 674,000 24 5124 Mirror Lakes Dr 10/31/2011 $ 790,000 24 5117 Blossom Ct 08/12/2011 $ 1,485,000 Countryside 25 5828 Olinger Blvd 09/•16/2011 $ 265,000 25 5509 Grove St- 06/28/2011 $ 275,000 25 5905 Merold Dr. 12/30/2011 $ 300,000 25 5908 Crescent Dr 11/16/2011 $ 320,000 25 5704 Hawkes�br 11/29/2011. $ 331,650 25 5801 61st St W 12/23/2011 $ 350,000 25 5604 Warden Ave 05/26/2011 $ 383,000 25 5820 'Jeff PI 03/18/2011 $ 395,000 25 5710 Olinger Blvd 05/31/2011 $ 400,000 25 5525 Warden,Ave 07/07/2011 $ 423,006 . 25 6125 Westridge Blvd 12/15/2011 $ 436,500 25 5817 Grove St 10/20/2011 $ 458,000 25 5513 Warden Ave 05/13/2011 $ 549;000 25 5611 Countryside Rd 08/29/2011 $ 575,000 25 5917 Amy Dr 04/19/2011 $ 625,000 25 5802 Vernon La 09/27/2011 $ 780,000 25 5827 Vernon La 06/22/2011 $ 870,000 " 25 5816 Vernon La 06/20/2011 $ 890,000 Creek Valley 26 5701 68th St W 09/01/2011 $ 295,000 26 6801 Chapel La 07/07/2011 $ 370,000 26 6004 Erin Ter 02/15/2011 $ 375,000 26 6620 Galway Dr 05/31/2011 $ 380,000 26 6900 Antrim Rd 04/29/2011 $ 410,000 26 5520 Hillside Ct 04/29/2011 $ 419,000 26 6012 Erin Ter:. 09/01/2011 $ 444,000 26 6732 Rosemary La 06/15/2011 $ 447,700 26 6217 Balder La 08/15/2011 $ 575,000 26 6809 Limerick La 12/02/2011 $ 1,000,000 35 36 City. of Edina Qualifying Sales'by District for Calendar Year 2011 Antrim /Dublin • 27 7117 Tralee Dr 12/08/2011 $ 580,000 Kemmrich /Shannon 28 5820 Dewey Hill Rd 04/27/2011 $ 347,000 28 5708 Dewey Hill Rd 06/30/2011 $ 405,000 28 5720 Kemrich Dr 03/3112011 $ 408,000 28 7213 Fleetwood Dr 06/30/2011 $ 455,000 28; 5716 Dewey Hill Rd 10/28/2011 $ 477,240 28 5816 Dewey Hill Rd 10/20/2011 $ 505,000 28 7509 Hyde Park Dr 08/19/2011 $ 641,000 28 7021 Shannon Dr 06/17/2011 $ 855,000 28 7201 Shannon Dr 11/29/2011 $ 1,685,000 Dewey Hill 29 7;721 Marth Ct 09/09/2011 $ 400,000 29 7720 Marth Ct 06/28/2011 $ 745,000 29 7415 Shannon Dr 11/09/2011 $ 850,000 Mendelssohn 30 509 Arthur St 08/12/2011 $ 356,475 30 6420'Maloney Ave 07/25/2011 $ 360,000 30 604 Blake Rd S 10/27/2011 $ 382,500 30 300 Blake Rd S 07/15/2011 $ 412,400 30 309 John St 07/01/2011 $ 630,000 Mols Heights 31 409 Harrison Ave 04/28/2011 $ 180,000 31 423 Monroe Ave S 09/07/2011 $ 231,000 31 418 Tyler Ave 06115/2011 $ 255,000 Malibu 33 5500 Malibu Dr 04/06/2011 $ 467,500 33 5511 Malibu Dr 09/01/2011 $ 500,000 Park Knolls New 34 5316 Schaefer Rd 02/01/2011 $ 470,000 34 6417 Willow Wood Rd 09/22/2011 $ 545,000 34 5195 Malibu Dr 05/17/2011 $ 800,000 34 4950 Malibu Dr 01/12/2011 $ 817,000 34 5223 Larada La 08/15/2011 $ 11010,000 34 5309 Blake Rd 04/29/2011 $ 1,162,500 Park Knolls Older 35 5705 Schaefer Rd 08/17/2011 $ 665,000 35 6654 Parkwood Rd 07/15/2011 $ 702,000 35 6208 Knoll.Dr S 07/01/2011 $ 755,000 35 6637 Parkwood Rd 06/17/2011 $ 843,500 35 6516 Stauder Cir 07/01/2011 $ 1,094,800 Park Knolls Middle 36 6628 Londonderry Dr 04/15/2011 $ 477,070 36 6605 Biscayne Blvd 06/16/2011 $ 710,000 36 6624 Dovre Dr 07/15/2011 $ 750,000 Artic Way/Tamarac 37 5900 Walnut Dr 11/19/2011 $ 50,000 37 5904 Walnut Dr 11/19/2011 $ 251,000 37 6505 Polar Cir 02/16/2011 $ 475,000 37 6517 Polar Cir 12/01/2011 $ 490,000 37 6020 Schaefer Rd 10/28/2011 $ 660,500 37 6024 Schaefer Rd 03/01/2011 $ 664,000 36 I i ; City of Edina Qualifying Sales by District for,Calendar Year 2011 i Indian Hills, 38 6728 Indian - Hills Rd - 06/29%2011 $ 859,000 - — 38- - 6369 Timber Tr 06/06/2011- $ 859000 -_ - - 38 6405 Indian Hills Rd 08/17/2011 $ 1,025,000 -38 6791 Brendan Ct -_ — 07/29/2011 $ 1,M;500- 38 7116 Valley View Rd 04/15/2011 $ 1,280,000 38 6516 Indian Hills Rd 09/28/2011 $ 1;350,000 38 6429 Indian Hills Rd 06/22/2011. $ 21895;000 38 6605 Dakota Tr 04/07/2011 $ 3,456,000 Sioux 39 6.712 Sioux Tr 08/26/2011 $ 445,000 39 6701 West Tr 01/04/2011 $ 470,000 -- - 39 - 6621 Sally La 04%28/2011 $ 565,000 Braemar 40 7137 Gleason Rd 06/23/2011 $ 465,000 ' 40 7014 Tupa Cir 10/14/2011 $ 760,000 37 COMPARISONS WITH OTHER CITIES The assessing department has contacted other southwest suburban communities to determine the overall adjustment they have made to the market values of existing residential properties for their 2012 assessment. These amounts do not include increases in value due to new construction. The reported adjustments are as follows: CITY 2007 PERCENT CHANGE.• " 2008 PERCENT CHANGE 2009 PERCENT CHANGE 2010 PERCENT. CHANGE 2011 PERCENT CHANGE 2.012 PERCENT CHANGE Bloomington 1.9 -2.9 -5.5 -5.6 -3.6 -6.3 Eden Prairie 3.2 -0.9 -4.7 -6.1 -3.4 -4.5 Edina 1.3 -1.1 -1.9 -5.1 -2.7 -3.5 Maple Grove 2.8 -2.9 -5.0 -5.4 -3.5 -6.2 Minnetonka 2.2 -1.8 -4.3 -6.4 -2.3 -3.6 Plymouth 2.2 -2.6 -4.6 -5.8 -2.4 -3.8 St. Louis Park 2.6 -0.7 -2.3 -4.6 -2.5 -4.3 Average 2.4 -1.9 -4.0 -5.7 -3.0 -4.6 M. APARTMENT AND COMMERCIAUINDUSTRIAL ASSESSMENT The assessment for apartment, commercial, and industrial properties is subject to the same: general, standard_ as. the residential. property. assessment. That is, there is.a target sales _ratio of_ 90 - .105% .set for commercial properties (including apartments..and industrial property).' A significant difficulty encountered with local sales ratio studies for commercial /industrial and apartment property is there are usually relatively.few property sales. For example, although there.. are 375 commercial /industrial parcels in the city, Edina typically has had fewer than 10. commercial /industrial property sales in any single year. In order to avoid this;difficulty, countywide' samples of comparable commercial property sales-are used to help determine appropriate adjustment of market values. These studies show the following results: C'OMMERICAUINDUSTRIAL Jurisdiction Assessment Sales Sales Ratio Coefficient of Year Dispersion 2012 2 176.6 41.9 Edina 2011 4 98.5 3.1 2010 4 104.0 10.6 2012 79 100.0 19.8 Hennepin 2011 67 98.0 14.3 County 2010 90 98.0 11.3 APARTMENTS 2012 2 88.0 1.5 Edina 2011 1 99.1 - -- 2010 3 100.5 7.1 2012 17 96.8 11.3° Hennepin 2011 10 97.5 5.9 County 2010 19 100.5 6.1 39 APARTMENT AND COMMERICIAUINDUSTRIAL ASSESSMENT (continued) This last three years have been challenging for the real estate industry, although the current markets have shown some signs of recovery. The apartment market appears to be doing the best with low vacancy rates, increasing rents and new construction. The relatively small number of sales transactions has made it difficult for assessors and appraisers to have benchmarks in estimating market values. CITY COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL APARTMENT, Bloomington +5.2% -1.9% +4.8% Eden Prairie +1.2% -4.1% +7.8% Maple Grove -5.8% -9.4% +6.1% Edina +1.7% -3.6% -7.0% Minnetonka +0.4% -1.3% +13.3% Plymouth +7.5% +0.3% +11.0% St. Louis Park +1.5% -3.9% +5.1% Suburban Hennepin Co. +1.0% -1.8% +4.0% Tax Court As anticipated, a significant number of tax court petitions have been filed over the past three years. There were 115 petitions filed for the pay 2009 taxes,147 filed on th e 2010, and 125 petitions filed for payable 2011. Over the past seven years, market value has been appealed through petitions filed with the Minnesota petitions require a substantial amount of time and resources to resolve. . 40 taxes payable in over $5 billion in Tax Court. These City of Edina Value Under Petition $1,600,000,000 $1,400,000,000 $1,387,236,400 $1,234,609,400 $1,200,000,000 $1,000,000,000 $947,281,600. $800,000,000 $607,061,600 $600,000,000 $494;700,000 $489�p�300 $400,000,000 $264,627,600 $200,000,000 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 ASSESSMENT CALENDAR DATE ACTION March 1 County Auditor's target date for mailing 2012 property tax statements. March 9 City Assessor's target date for mailing 2012 value notices. March 30 Last day for property owners to file an appeal to appear at the Local Board. April 9 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization. April 23 Reconvened meeting for Local Board of Appeal April 30 Last day for property owners to file State Tax Court petitions regarding the 2011 assessment. May 23 Last day for property owners to file an appeal to appear at the County Board of Appeal and Equalization June 18 Hennepin County Board of Appeal and Equalization. 41 • Section 3 • • SIMPLIFIED CHART OF PROPERTY TAX PROCESS �Jetermines what property is taxed, and by what I - -- procedures ASSESSOR lists all ta_xa_blepr..— estimates value of this ro erty I sends valuation notices I _ to-property owners _ I property owners can I lUpeal their assessmentl jsends final assessment j roll to Hennepin Count 1 STATE LEGISLATURE I CITY COUNCIL I review budgets and 1 L— _proposed tax rate — 17- holds truth -in- taxation 1 _meetin s_ - - -� sets tax levy and sends I to County I L- - - - - - - - - - - - - i I HENNEPIN COUNTY I pp fie s tax rate to assessed values and sends out I L -- resulting tax bills - -j 42 determines levy limits Lnd budget procedures I CITY MANAGER I ends proposed budget L -- to council - - -j PROPERTY TAX REFUNDS AND PROGRAMS Property Tax Refunds Available The regular property tax refund provides relief to property owners who meet certain guidelines. For 2011, homeowners whose adjusted gross incomes are less than $100,780 and renters less than $54,620 are eligible for the program. Homeowners may receive a refund of up to $2,260; renters are eligible for up to $1,550. The special refund program offers relief to property owners, regardless of income, whose taxes in 2012 go up more than 12 percent and at least $100. The state will refund 60 percent of any amounts paid beyond those limits, up to a maximum of $1,000. For more information on property tax refunds, contact the Minnesota Department of Revenue at 651- 296 -3781 (TTY users, call 711 for MN relay). Senior Citizens Property Tax Deferral This program allows people 65 years of age or older whose household incomes are $60,000 or less, to defer a portion of their homestead property taxes. The deferred tax is a loan from the state. While in this program, you will pay no more than 3 percent of your household income toward your property taxes and the state will pay the rest. You or your heirs will need to repay the deferred amount before you can transfer title of the property. A property may qualify even if there are unpaid special assessments or property taxes, penalties or interest. For more information, call the Department of Revenue at 651 556 -6088 (TTY users, call 711 for MN relay). 43 MARKET VALUE EXCLUSION ON HOMESTEADS OF DISABLED VETERANS The 2008 State legislature amended the homestead law that provides a market value exclusion for all or a portion of property owned and occupied as a homestead by a military veteran who has a service- connected disability of 70 percent or more. To qualify, a veteran must have been honorably discharged from the United States armed forces and must be certified by the United States Veterans Administration as having a service- connected disability. A veteran who has a. disability rating of 70 percent or more qualifies for a $150,00,0 market value exclusion, and must reapply annually, if not considered permanent. A veteran, who has a total (100 percent) and permanent disability, qualifies for a $300,000 market value exclusion. To receive this valuation exclusion, a property owner must apply to the assessor by July 1 of the assessment year. The exclusion is a one- time application, and the property continues to qualify until there is a change in ownership., If _a disabled veteran qualifying for a valuation exclusion predeceases the veteran's spouse, and if upon death of the veteran the spouse holds the legal or beneficial title to the homestead and permanently resides there, the-exclusion shall carryover to the benefit of the veteran's spouse for four additional assessment year or until such time as the spouse sells, transfers, or otherwise disposes of the property, whichever comes first. For taxes payable in 2012 (2011 assessment), 43 parcels will qualify for the market value exclusion. The total excluded market value is $10,200,000. E, E, j CONNECTING & INNOVATING LEAGUE of MINNESOTA SINCE 1913 CITIES Property Taxation 101 Updated September 2011 This guide is intended to describe the basics of Minnesota's property tax system. This, system collected almost $7 billion in 2011 to help fund the services of schools, counties, cities, townships, and special districts and the state general fund. One of the challenges of trying to understand this system is the complex array of terms involved. As new terms are introduced in this guide, they are shown in italics. A glossary at the end of the guide has short definitions of these terms. Assessment and classification The property tax system is a continuous cycle, but it effectively begins with the estimation of property market values by local assessors. Assessors attempt to determine the approximate selling price of each parcel of property based on the current market conditions. Along with the market value determination, a property class is ascribed to each parcel of property based on the use of the property. For example, property that is owner - occupied as a personal residence is classified as a residential homestead. The "use class" is important because the Minnesota system, in effect, assigns a weight 'to each class of property. Generally, properties that are associated with income production (e.g. commercial and industrial properties) have a higher classification weight than other properties. The property classification system defines the tax capacity of each parcel as a percentage of each parcel's market value. For example, a $75,000 home which is classified as a residential homestead has a class rate of 1.0 percent and therefore has a tax capacity of $75,000 x .01 or $750. (A sample of the class rates are included in table A.) 145 UNIVERSITY AVE. WEST ST. PAUL, MN 55103 -2044 45 [parcel market value] * [class rate] = [parcel tax capacity] The next step in calculating the tax burden for a parcel involves the determination of each local unit of government's property tax levy. The city, county, school district and any special property taxing authorities must establish their levy by December -28 of the year preceding'the year in which the levy will be paid by taxpayers. The property tax levy is set after the consideration of all other revenues including state aids such as LGA. [city budget] - [all non - property tax revenues] = [city levy] For cities within the seven - county Twin Cities metropolitan and on the iron range, the levies are reduced by an amount of property tax revenue derived from the metropolitan and range area fiscal disparities programs (see "Fiscal Disparities 101" for more information). Local tax rates Local governments do not directly set a tax rate. Instead, the tax rate is a function of the PHONE: (651) 281 -1200 FAX: (651) 281 -1299 TOLL FREE: (800) 925 -1122 WEB: WWW.LMC.ORG levy and the total tax base. To compute the local tax rate, a county must determine the total tax capacity to be used for spreading the levies. The total tax capacity is computed by first aggregating the tax capacities of all parcels within the city. Several adjustments to this total must be made because not all tax capacity is available for general tax purposes. The result of this calculation produces taxable tax capacity. Taxable tax capacity is used to determine the local tax rates. [city levy] / [taxable tax capacity] = [city tax rate] The city tax rate is computed by dividing the city levy (minus the fiscal disparities distribution levy, if applicable) by the taxable tax capacity. Under the current property tax system, the tax rate is expressed as a percentage. For example, the average 2011 city tax capacity rate is approximately 42.14 percent. Dramatic changes to the tax system in 2001 increased the average city rate significantly in 2002. This same calculation is completed for the county based on the county's levy and tax base, the school district and all special taxing authorities. The sum of the tax rates for all taxing authorities that levy against a single property produces the total local tax rate. This total local tax rate is then used to determine the overall tax burden for each parcel of property. Parcel tax calculations The property tax bill for each parcel of property is determined by multiplying the parcel's tax capacity by the total local tax rate. The tax statement for each individual parcel itemizes the taxes for the county, municipality, school district, and any special taxing authorities. [parcel tax capacity] * [total local tax rate] _ [tax capacity tax bill] Updated September 2011 W. To complicate the tax calculations, voter - approved referenda levies are applied to the market value of each parcel, not tax capacity. As a result, each identically valued parcel, regardless of the property's use, pays the same amount of referenda taxes (with the exception of certain agricultural and seasonal recreational properties, which are exempted from referenda taxes). In 2011, four counties, 52 cities and 332 school districts levied market value -based levies. These communities must have a separate calculation for a market value referenda levy by the total taxable market value of each community. [parcel market value] * [market value tax rate] = [market value tax bill] [tax capacity tax bill] + [market value tax bill] = [total tax bill] State property tax New to the tax system in 2002 was a state property tax on all commercial, industrial, seasonal recreational, and utility real property. In 2011, this tax raised more than $796 million statewide; the proceeds are deposited in the state general fund. Prior to 2002, the state last collected a property tax in 1968. Property tax credits Several tax credits for various types of properties are available in certain instances. These amounts are subtracted from the overall taxes for each parcel to determine the net tax bill for the individual owner. Minnesota also provides additional property tax relief directly to individual homeowners, cabin owners, and renters through the circuit breaker and the targeting refund programs. Property tax intricacies- - The technical details of computing property taxes mask many other intricacies of the property tax system. Many communities over the past several years have experienced situations where individual property taxes rise much faster than the increase, in the levies that are certified by local units of government. - The most common factor that results in an increase in an individual parcel's tax is the change in the parcel's estimated market value. Without any change in local levies, a property owner can experience a tax increase due almost exclusively to'any valuation increase. The Legislature frequently changes the classification system. Changes to the classification system can shift property tax burdens from one type of property to another. Table A demonstrates some of the changes the Legislature has made to class rates since 1997. Commercial, industrial, and apartment properties received significant reductions in their class rates. This shifts tax burden to other classes of property that.did not receive class rate reductions. In an effort to minimize the effect of these shifts, the legislature reduced school levies across the state and created the Market Value Homestead Credit (MVHC). This credit reduced property taxes for homesteads by 0.4 percent of the. homestead's market value up to a maximum $304 dollars. As part of the credit program, the state was supposed to reimburse cities for the amount by which the credits reduce cities' tax receipts. The Legislature made significant reductions to the reimbursement amounts for cities in 2003 and 2004 and later extended those reductions to 2005 and 2006. The reimbursements were restored for 2007. Reimbursements were again reduced in 2008, 2009, and 2010 through the governor's use of unallotment and by the legislature in 2011. The reimbursement program was eliminated beginning in 2012. Qualifying homeowners Updated September 2011 CYl will receive a partial market value. exclusion instead of the credit offset-.-- Economic factors that may affect broad classes of property can also influence the overall tax changes for individual parcels of property. For example, in the early .1990s the metropolitan area experienced major declines in the valuation for commercial and�industrial properties. These valuation` declines shifted taxes from property classified as commercial and industrial to all, other types of property. Valuation declines also may have accentuated the.levy changes by local units of government. A 20021aw' change exempted agricultural and cabin property from voter - approved referenda levies. In some jurisdictions where these types of property are a significant part of the tax base, this change shifted taxes onto other classes of property. Legislative changes in state aid programs can also affect the revenue needed to be raised from the property tax. In 2002 the legislature eliminated HACA and increased the other major aid program, LGA, by $140 million. In 2003, the Legislature reduced 2003 LGA by about $120 million and 2004 LGA.by about $150 million. In 2005, however, the Legislature added about $48 million to the LGA program for 2006 and beyond, $4 million of which is directed to cities under 5000 via a per capita aid base. In December 2008, the governor used the unallotment authority to reduce cities' .LGA and MVHC payments. Actual aid and credit payments for 2009 and 2010 were reduced by $64.2 million and $128.3 million, respectively, through the power of unallotment'. The.legislature cut MVHC reimbursement by $45 million and LGA by $7.8 million during the 2010 session these cuts were in addition to the ratified unallotments. The 2011 special session ' The 2010 legislature later ratified the governor's unallotments. budget agreement cut LGA by $102 million, leaving roughly $425.3 for 2011 and 2012. Levy limits also impact local levy decisions. During the 2003 session, cities that had been previously covered by levy limits lost any unused levy authority. There were no levy limits in place for 2008 but the Legislature did pass new levy limits for cities over 2500 for taxes payable in 2009, 2010, and 2011. There are no levy limits in place undercurrent law. This discussion is only a general overview of the current Minnesota property tax system. Over time, the system has become more complex and difficult for taxpayers to understand. Unfortunately, local officials must frequently explain how the system works and take the blame for the complicated features of the system. Local officials, however, can only control local levy decisions. They have no direct ability to modify the overall structure of the tax system and are at the mercy of the Minnesota Legislature. Glossary of Terms Circuit breaker - A state -paid property tax refund program for homeowners who have property taxes out of proportion with their income. A similar program is also available to renters. Class rates - The percent of market value set by state law that establishes the property's tax capacity subject to the property tax. See - Table A for a sample list of class rates. Fiscal disparities programs - Local units of government in the Twin Cities metropolitan area and on the iron range participate in property tax base sharing programs. Under these two programs, a portion of the growth in commercial and industrial property value of each city and township is contributed to a tax base sharing pool. Each city and township then receives a distribution of Updated September 2011 .• property value from the pool based on market value and population in each city. Homestead and agricultural credit aid (HACA) - A $200 million property tax relief program that was eliminated in 2001. Homestead Market Value Exclusion (HMVE) — Starting with taxes payable in 2012, eligible homesteads will pay property taxes on only a portion of the value of their homes. The maximum exclusion, 40% of value, occurs at home value of $76,000 and phases out as home value grows. Local government aid (LGA) - A state government revenue sharing program for cities and townships that is intended to provide an alternative to the property tax. The formulae for distributing the aid payments were changed for 2004 and beyond. The 2008 Legislature implemented additional formula changes. LGA is distributed using different formulae for cities over 2,500 and cities under 2,500. Large city formula factors are: pre -1940 housing percentage, population decline over last decade, accidents per capita, average household size, metro or non - metro, and adjusted net tax capacity per capita. Small city formula factors are: pre -1940 housing percentage, population decline over last decade, commercial/industrial property percentage, and population. In 2006, a new aid base for small cities was created. Cities under 5,000 in population received base aid equal to $6 per capita. The 2008 reforms resulted in several other changes and additions to aid base. See "Local Government Aid 101: 2009 Distribution & Beyond ". Local tax rate - The rate used to compute taxes for each parcel of property. Local tax rate is computed by dividing the certified levy (after reduction for fiscal disparities distribution levy and disparity reduction) by the taxable tax capacity.- Market value - An assessor's estimate of what property would be worth on the open market if sold. The market value is set on January 2 of the year before taxes are payable. - Market value homestead credit - This credit.offset a portion of each homestead's property tax burden equal to .4 percent.of the homestead's market value up to a maximum credit of-$304. For taxes payable in 2012 and beyond the property tax statement will not receive a-credit but rather a partial market value exclusion. Property class - The classification assigned to each parcel of property based on the use of the property. For example, owner - occupied residential property is classified as homestead. Property tax levy - The tax imposed by a local unit of government. The tax is established on or around December 28 of the year preceding the year the levy will be paid by taxpayers. Table A: class rates Targeting refund - a state paid property tax refund for homeowners whose property taxes have increased by more than 12 percent. A similar program is available to cabin owners. Tax capacity - The valuation of property based on market value and statutory class rates. The property tax for each- parcel is based on its tax capacity. Total tax capacity - The amount computed by first totaling the tax capacities of all parcels of property within a city. Adjustments for fiscal disparities, tax increment and a portion of the powerline value are made to this total since not all tax capacity is available for general tax purposes. Truth -in- Taxation - The "taxation and notification law" which requires local governments to set estimated levies, inform taxpayers about the impacts, and announce which of their regularly scheduled council meetings will include a discussion of the budget and levy. Taxpayer input is taken at that meeting. Property Class Taxes Local Taxes State Tax Payable Pa able 2010 Payable 2011 2011 Residential Homestead: V $500,000' 1.0% 1.0% No state tax >$500,000 1.25 1.25 Non - homestead Residential: Single unit: V $500,000' 1.0 1.0 >$500,000 1.25 1.25 No state tax 2 -3 unit buildings 1.25 1.25 Market -rate Apartments: 1.25 1.25 No state tax Comm ercial/Industrial: Subject to state 103150,000' 1.5 1.5 levy (commercial- >$I 50,000 2.0 2.0 industrial rate) Seasonal Recreational Residential: Subject to state 1" $500,000 1.0 1.0. levy (seasonal- >$500,000 1.25 1.25 recreational rate First tier limit was $72,000 for 1997, $76,000 for 2000, and $500,000 for 2002 and thereafter ZFirst tier limit was $100,000 for 1997, $150,000 thereafter Updated September 2011 .. I 1.1 I i 'II Resources- League of Minnesota Cities http : / /www.Imc. org/page/l /property -tax- state - funding - fiscal -i ssues. j sp Local Government Aid 101: 2009 Distribution& Beyond a Fiscal Disparities 101 ® State Homeowner Property Tax Relief Programs 101 I i , �1 6 j_,EAGUE of MINNESOTA CITIES CONNECTING. & INNOVATING SINCE 1913 Market Value Exclusion 101. October 2011 The Market Value Exclusion (MVE) program (hereafter referred to as "the exclusion ") replaced the Market Value Homestead Credit (MVHC) program for taxes payable in 2012 and beyond. This guide describes how the exclusion works and highlights some of the issues that cities should keep in mind when examining the effects of the new program on their communities. Many of the issues relate to the ways that different aspects of the property tax system interact. A detailed description of the overall property tax system can be found in the "Property Taxation 101" guide. An overview of the new exclusion program and will be available on the League's site. Background During the 2011 special session, legislators eliminated the MVHC program, creating a savings of more than $260 million for the state budget. Cities had experienced years of cuts to the reimbursement payments from the state, leaving them with shortfalls in their property tax levies at the end of the year. The table below shows the amount cities expected to receive in reimbursement and the actual amount paid by the state -for each year of the program (2002 through 2011). The state fully reimbursed cities for the amount of credit going to homeowners in only two years since the program's inception (2002 and 2007). The elimination of the program means that cities will no longer have to deal with the unpredictability and in consistency of reimbursement payment amounts. The new exclusion program, however, has created a lot of questions for local officials and property owners. - The exclusion program begins with taxes payable in 2012. Year Original Amount cities Final Amount cities 2002 87,512,765 87,512,765 2003 85,539,919 65,425,091 2004 85,290,722 66,279,257 2005 82,636,505 65,087,094 2006 78,921,393 62,809;103 2007 75,935,548 75,935,548 2008 75,810,435 63,310,311 2009 76,770,261 57,204,103 2010 82,053,176 12,106,217 2011 est. 60,246,987 12,148,508 145 UNIVERSITY AVE. WEST ST. PAUL, MN 55103 -2044 51 PHONE: (651) 281 -1200 FAX: (651) 281 -1299 TOLL FREE: (800) 925 -1122 WEB: WWW.LMC.OR.G How it works for homeowners: Much like in the MVHC program, homeowners will not have to take any action in order to benefit from the market value exclusion'. It is applied automatically. The maximum exclusion will go to homes valued at $76,000 or less: The exclusion at that level is 40% of market value. For a $76,000 home, that means $30,400: of value is not taxable. In other words, all property taxes are applied only to the remaining $45,600 of market value. As home value increases; the portion of market value eligible for exclusion phases-out and is at zero percent for home's valued at more than $413,778. Note that market values are determined in the year prior to the year in which taxes are paid. For example, values used to calculate taxes payable in 2011 were set,in early 2010. Property owners will receive notices stating 'the value of their property for 2012 taxes early in the spring of 2012. That will be the first time that homestead owner's see the amount of their value excluded. Below is a sample calculation of total taxes due (city, county, and school district taxes) before and after the exclusion from the Department of Revenue: Sample Home Market Value 1 $76;000 $150,000 $300,000 1 $450,000 Previous Law: MVHC Net Tax Capacity (market value x 1 % class rate $760 $1,500 $3,000 $4;500 Gross Tax at rate of 105.81% (rate x tax capacity) $804.16 $1,587.15 $3,174.30 $4,761.45 Current MVHC 1 304.00 1 $237.40 1 $102.40 $0 Net Tax-(total taxless credit) $500.16 $1,349.75 $3,071.90 $4,761.45 New Law: Exclusion Market Value Exclusion $30,400 $23740 $10,240 $0 MV after exclusion $45,600 $126,260- $289,760 $450,000 Home Net.Tax.Capacity (market value x 1% class rate $456 $1,263 $_2,898 $4,500 MVHC Credit $0 1 $0 1 $0 Net Tax at rate of 110.92% (rate x tax capaci 1 $505.80 1 $1,400.48 1 $3,214.02'1 $4,991.40 *the total tax rates used in this example are statewide averages before and after the effects of the exclusion What it means for cities The immediate effect of the exclusion is a decrease in the tax base. The valuations used for calculating taxes owed in 2012 were set in early 2011. They won't be updated until early 2012 for taxes payable in 2013. So, a portion of homestead value will be excluded and values for other kinds of property will not be. updated. The extent of the decrease in tax base depends on the portion of homestead property each city has. The tax base decrease will mean that in order toAzenerate the same amount of city property tax dollars as in 2011, city tax rates will have to go up. For example, if prior to the conversion a city's tax base was 1000 and its tax levy was 100, the tax rate would be 10 %. Now, in that same city the tax base has been reduced 40% to 600. The city still needs to generate 100 in property taxes. The rate climbs to almost 17 %. For many cities, it will likely be very difficult to hold levies flat given the repeated cuts to Local Government Aid (LGA) payments and to ongoing cost pressures, like the cost of healthcare, fuel and infrastructure maintenance. 52 f The exclusion will result in a shift in tax burden from homestead properties to other kinds of property. The extent of this shift will be influenced by the portion of all homestead property made up of lower value homes. The more lower -value homes a city has as a portion of its tax base means more tax burden shifting. In many communities, lower value homes will pay more in taxes even if the levy remains flat. This is because of the increase in tax rate necessary to generate the same amount of tax levy. This effect is more likely in cities where a high portion of property is lower value homes. - Property, tax bills, of course, reflect the levy decisions and tax bases of not just the city, but also the county, the school district and any special districts. The tax bases of all local governments will be affected by the new exclusion program. A given city may not see a big decrease in its city tax base and therefore experience little shifting of city tax burden. The county containing that city may have a lot of lower -value homes and therefore experience a big tax base loss. That will affect property owners within the city. Other issues to consider The new HMVE program will interact with other aspects of the tax system, namely Tax Increment Financing (TIF), Local Government Aid (LGA), and market value levy limits. The interactions are described briefly below: MVE and TIF: The new program will mean that current .values of TIF properties will be adjusted but the Dept. of Revenue has indicated that the base year values will NOT be adjusted. This will result in a decrease in the increment captured and may cause problems for cities in paying off debt associated with the TIF district. MVE and LGA: The current LGA formula takes city tax base into account in distributing the LGA appropriation. The exclusion will reduce tax capacity in each city. That will mean a reduction in the capacity side of the need vs. capacity comparison the formula makes. MVE and market value levy limits: The Dept. of Revenue has indicated that market values for determining HRA and EDA levy limits and certain debt limits will be the values after the effects of the exclusion. Resources League of Minnesota Cities http: / /www.l mc. org//pa g %1 /property- tax - state -fund in g- fiscal -i ssues. j s p 11 53 Section 4 N � Sale and Resale Analysis Summary The best indications of change in market conditions are provided by the prices of properties that have been sold and resold several times. There were 23 single - family residential properties that sold in 2010 that had also sold within the prior 4 years. Sale prices were adjusted for cash equivalency. Properties with improvements made from 2007 to 2011 were excluded from this analysis. There were two properties that sold a total of three times within the four -year period. Summary of Sales - Single Family Year Sold Year Resold Number of Sales Aggregate Percent Change Average Annual Change Median Annual Change 2007 2011 10 -23.6 -3.3 -3.6 2008 2011 8 -10.5 -2.3 -2.0 2009 2011 1 4 -8.7 -1.3 1 -1.3 2010 2011 1 3 -4.6 -4.9 1 -5.5 Twenty two out of the twenty three sales indicated a decrease over the four year period. The average annual decrease was 3.0 percent and the median annual decrease was 2.8 percent. Summary of Sales- Condominiums Year Sold . Year Resold - Number of Sales Aggregate Percent Change Average Annual Change: Median Annual Change 2007 2011 4 -32.8 -7.6 -7.0 2008 2011 8 -7.2 -3.5 -3.1 2009 2011 4 -4.1 -2.1 -3.2 2010 2011 4 -1.8 -2.4 -1.3 Sixteen out of the twenty sales indicated a decrease over the four year period. The average annual decrease was 3.7 percent and the median annual decrease was 3.2 percent. For townhomes, there was only one repeat sale. At Coventry, 717 Coventry Lane sold in 2007 for $435,000 and again in 2011 for $415,000. The indicated annual decrease was 1.0 percent. The following pages include the sales used in this analysis. The percent change column represents average annual rates based on elapsed months between sales. 54 Report Name: Multiple Sales Analysis Current Sale Year: 2011 Sales Data Period: 012007 - 12/2011 User Name: BWILSON(2) PID Address 04- 116 -21 -22 -0087 05- 116 -21 -44 -0024 06- 116 -21 -23 -0049 06- 116 -21 -42 -0023 07- 028 -24 -13 -0075 08- 116 -21 -21 -0076 08- 116 -21 -24 -0035 18- 028 -24 -13 -0136 18- 028 -24 -24 -0005 18- 028 -24 -24 -0052 18- 028 -24 -24 -0090 18- 028 -24 -42 -0076 19- 028 -24 -12 -0157 ,19- 028 -24 -42 -0052 19- 028 -24 =43 -0036 20- 028 -24 -31 -0092 30- 028 -24 -31 -0005 30- 117 -21 -12 -0063 31- 028 =24 -13 -0113 ,31- 117 -21 -44 -0033 32- 117 -21 -14 -0004 32- 117 -21 -42 -0025 33- 117 -21 -33 -0097 6333 Warren Ave 6904 Ridgeview Dr 6791 Brendan Ct 6405 Indian Hills Rd 4010 Monterey Ave 7021 Shannon Dr 7213 Fleetwood Dr 4909 Bruce Ave 4611 Wooddale Ave 4615 Browndale Ave 4632 Browndale Ave 4431 52nd St W 5501 Brookview Ave 5800 Kellogg Ave 6024 Kellogg Ave 5805 Beard Ave S 4521 Laguna Dr 6420 Maloney Ave 4409 Gilford Dr 6020.Schaefer Rd 5513. Warden Ave 5611 Countryside Rd 5221 Birchcrest Dr -Sale Year 2007- MO Price Pct 5 330,000 4.1 4 1,750,000 -9.1 2 1,660,000 -8.5 9 1,716,624 -53 3 1,050,000 -3.7 3 435,000 -4.6 7 400,000 -2.4 2 310,000 0 4 360,000 0 3 790,000 -3.5 0 City of Edina Multiple Sales Analysis Single Family -Sale Year 2008- MO Price Pct 12 295,000 -3.3 3 840,000 0.5 8 476,000 -1.6 3 2,200,000 -6.5 7 1,160,000 -2.3 6 524,500 -3.1 55 -Sale Year 2009- MO Price Pct 5 321,000 -1.0 6 880,000 -1.6 4 351,000 -1.3 - 2 565,000' -1.3 Average Median 9 580,000 -0.3 Change Change 6 354,500 -1.4 -2.3 -2.0 Sale and Resale Analysis Summary -4.9 -5.5 Aggregate Year Year Number Percent Sold ReSold Sales Change 2007 2011 10 -23.6 2008 2011 8 -10.5 2009 2011 4 -8.7 2010 2011 3 -4.6 55 -Sale Year 2009- MO Price Pct 5 321,000 -1.0 6 880,000 -1.6 4 351,000 -1.3 - 2 565,000' -1.3 Average Median Annual Annual Change Change -3.3 -3.6 -2.3 -2.0 -1.3 -1.3 -4.9 -5.5 -Sale Year 2010- MO Price Pct 10 1,360,000 -5.5 8 1,750,000 -2.6 4 482,500 -6.5 Printed:,3 /28/2012___ -- . Page:-1 -Year 2011- MO Price 9 389,000 1 275,000 7' 1,072,500 8. 1;025,000 12 1313,000 6� 855;000_ 6 455,000 8 850,000 1.1 1;310,000 8, 1;298,000 4 i 890,000- - - 9 1700,000- _ 7 1;080,0_00_ - -- 12 :339,000 81 11360,000 9 310,000 6 475,000 7 360,000 12 430,000 10 1665,000 5' 549,000 8' 575,000 5 340;000 I ' ; Report Name: Multiple Sales Analysis City of Edina Printed: 4/10/2012 Current Sale Year: 2011 Page: 1 Sales Data Period: 01/2007 - 12/2011 Multiple Sales Analysis User Name: BWIISON (2) PID Address 18- 028 -24-41 -0393 18- 028 -24-41 -0409 19- 028 -24 -11 -0125 19- 028 -24 -11 -0132 29- 028 -24 -21 -0113 29- 028 -24 -34 -0046 29- 028 -24 -34 -0059 29- 028 -24 -34 -0104 30- 028 -24 -14 -0009 30- 028 -24 -14 -0065 31- 028 -24 -41 -0074 32- 028 -24 -21 -0047 32- 028 -24 -32 -0167 32- 028 -24 -32 -0169 32- 028 -24 -32 -0194 32- 028 -24 -32 -0286 32- 028 -24 -34 -0739 32- 117 -21 -23 -0137 5000 France Ave S 27 5000 France Ave S 47 5424 France Ave S 104A 5424 France Ave S 211A 6301 York Ave S 102 3209 Galleria 906 3209 Galleria 1103 3209 Galleria 1702 6566 France Ave S 102 6566 France Ave S 603 4120 Parklawn Ave 228 7200 York Ave S 405 7520 Edinborough Way 2103 7520 Edinborough Way 2106 7520 Edinborough Way 2218 7500 Edinborough Way 3216 7605 Edinborough Way 6218 5725 Blake Rd 208 Condominiums -Sale Year 2007- -Sale Year 2008 - Mo Price Pct Mo Price Pct 7 835,000 -2.2 3 1,598,235 -1.7 3 210,300 -3.5 1 220,000 -5.5 8 70,000 -6.6 10 595,287 -0.9 12 2,108,271 -3.9 7 116,900 -13.0 -Year 2011 - Mo Price 2 224,900 -9.1 Price Pct Mo Price 12 5 115,000 -1.7 4 134,000 -4.8 3 785,000 11 132,000 -5.2 3 1,516,750 Sale and Resale Analysis Summary Aeereeate Average Year Year Number Percent Annual Sold ReSold Sales Change Chance 2007 2011 4 -32.8 -7.6 2008 2011 8 -7.2 -3.5 2009 2011 4 -4.1 -2.1 2010 2011 4 -1.8 -2.4 it -Sale Year 2009- -Sale Year 2010- -Year 2011 - Mo Price Pet Mo Price Pct Mo Price 12 853,819 -6.4 3 785,000 3 1,516,750 12 175,000 10 175,000 11 55,000 4 595,000 -2.0 7 580,000 3 758,575 0.5 11 765,000 3 1,925,000 11 150,000 0.0 11 149,900 1 260,000 4.8 9 293,000 12 50,000 10 129,000 2 159,000 -12.2 8 130,000 3 115,000 4.1 10 122,500 2 109,500 7 183,000 -6.6 6 160,000 Median Percent Change -7.0 -3.1 -3.2 -1.3 6 107,000 1 117,200 *Annual Report on the Twin Cities Housing Market FOR RESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE ACTIVITY IN THE 13- COUNTY TWIN CITIES REGION ® fl Rt11110R weeier MINNEAPOLIS AREA Association of REALTORS® Annual Report on the Tw" i C"ties Housing. Market MINNEAPOLIS AREA Association -1 REALTORS` FOR RESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE ACTIVITY IN THE 13- COUNTY TWIN CITIES REGION What was largely touted as a recovery year for our nation turned into a morass of political gridlock, credit downgrades, financial volatility, upstart protest movements and a sluggish jobs picture. The housing sector, in particular, did not see the recovery it should have. It was another transition year in what has become a more drawn -out bottoming process than most would like. Let's face facts: There is no way to know for sure what the future holds. But a few important patterns emerged in 2011 that could clue us in.. Key leading indicators are setting the stage for better times ahead and we are encouraged by these emerging patterns. There is a sense of momentum in the right direction. Falling supply and rising demand suggest improving fundamentals. Distressed properties made up a sizable share of that demand, which prevented price gains. Although foreclosures continued to hinder a full -on housing recovery in 2011, many of them were sold, bringing supply of this price drag to a much lower level than in recent years. The path of least resistance is higher prices. And remember that 2010 tax credit for first -time home buyers? Hindsight indicates that Washington was trying to catch a falling knife. The credit temporarily reversed the market's natural tide, causing forecasters to prematurely declare that we'd hit bottom. Make no mistake, the economy is on the mend. Layoffs have slowed, hiring has accelerated, fewer homes in financial distress are entering the market. It's good to see that time still has a way of healing most wounds. Housing demand has stabilized and a steadily expanding construction sector is generating the jobs needed to invigorate recovery. New jobs will drive housing demand and activate the widely- coveted "positive feedback loop." Housing helps jobs which helps housing which helps jobs. You get the idea. Additional labor market growth combined with record -low mortgage rates have bolstered purchase demand. Armed with cheap money, buyers took to the streets in 2011 and are expected to continue forging new households at a reasonable clip. SaleS Housing recovery won't occur without consumer participation. In 2011, housing demand strengthened organically on its own, independent of government incentives. Closed sales were up 8.2 percent to 41,429 for the year. Inventory No matter your personal beliefs or favorite type of Angry Bird, there's no denying the fact that buyers have fewer choices from which to pick and sellers are facing less competition. PrICeS Home prices remained depressed for most of the year and indeed ended the year 11.7 percent lower than in 2010. At $150,000, prices have come down roughly one third from their bubbly apex in 2007. Higher. Increase. Positive. These are words we expect to use more of in 2012. The major factor constraining market recovery will not be with us forever. Lender - mediated inventory is a tar pit in the near -term, but it will soon be absorbed, removing the downward pressure on overall prices. At the same time, housing doesn't live in a vacuum. A number of local, national and global changes must take place to restore stability and confidence in the marketplace. For one, credit -worthy home buyers need access to mortgage capital. And although past policies temporarily dampened the natural ebb and flow of the market, a comprehensive housing policy framework is necessary to guide sustained recovery. Table of Contents 3 Quick Facts 5 Property Type Review 6 New Construction Review 7 Distressed Homes Review 8 Area Overviews Listings Seller activity slowed during the year, both for 12 Area Historical Prices traditional sellers and banks with distressed property inventory. The net result was a big reduction in the supply of available homes. Glick on deehed page We to jump to that page. Current as of January 13. 2012. Sponsored by Royal Credit Union (www.RCU.org). All data from the Regional Multiple Listing Service. Powered by 10K Research and Marketing. 1 2 ' 2011 Annual Report on the Twin Cities Housing Market NINNEA'OLIS ARSAA.1 -1 1 Quick Facts oREALTORS' New Listings Pending Sales 46,179 42,345 104,986 40,574 39,737 38,201 93,451 82,969 81,846 68,875 I I 2007 2008 2009 _ 2010 -- 2011 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Top 5 Areas: Change in New Listings from 2010 Top 5 Arms: Change in Pending Sales from 2010 Mahtomedi +36.2% Excelsior +141.7% 0 Excelsior + 15.6% Cologne + 104.8/0 Cologne + 14.7% South Haven +81.0% +12.5% Columbus +78.6% Lake Elmo +9.6% Lilydale +75.0% Wyoming Bottom 5 Areas: Change in New Listings from 2010 Bottom 5 Areas: Change in Pending Sales from 2010 Somerset -34.6% Saint Bonifacius 19.4% Oak - 35.2% Lakeland -20.0% Inndeperndence -35.5% Minneapolis - Phillips -22.3% Minneapolis - Phillips -36.9% Saint Paul - Downtown -25.4% Saint Paul - Downtown -38.9% Independence - V - - _ 32.5% Closed Sales Inventory of Homes for Sale At the end of the year. 27,640 25 657 45,871 41,429 41,021 39,591 38,283 2007 2008 2009 Top 5 Areas: Change in Closed Sales from 2010 Excelsior Columbus South Haven Cologne Chisago Bottom 5 Areas: Change in Closed Sales from 2010 Minneapolis - Phillips Saint Paul - Downtown Saint Bonifacius Independence Lakeland 2010 2011 +125.0% +91.7% +89.5% +86.4% +69.0% - 25.5% -26.7% -36.4% -37.5% -38.1% 22,723 ?0,680 16,191 2007 2008 2009 2010 Top 5 Areas: Change in Homes for Sale from 2010 Lake St. Croix Beach Mahtomedi Columbus Arden Hills Saint Paul - Summit - University Top 5 Areas: Change in Homes for Sale from 2010 Rosemount Minneapolis - Camden Newport Lilydale Lauderdale 2011 +40.0% +23.5% +15.4% +14.8% +13.5% -50.6% -50.7% -53.3% -68.4% -69.2% Current as of January 13, 2012. Sponsored by Royal Credit Union (www.RCU.org). All data from the Regional Multiple Listing Service. Powered by 1 OK Research and Marketing. 1 3 2011 Annual Report on the Twin Cities Housing Market Quick Facts Median Sales Price Average Sales Price $225,000 $275,774 519 000 $236,585 MINNEAPOLIS AREA A -c-t- =r REALTORS' $165,000 $169,900 1 $199,378 $211,350 $193,450 $150,000 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 1 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Top 5 Areas: Change in Median Sales Price from 2010 Greenfield +56.9% Little Canada +31.5% Afton +30.3% Excelsior +26.4% Rush City +18.9% Bottom 5 Areas: Change in Median Sales Price from 2010 Arden Hills -34.7% Deephaven -36.7% Newport -41.6% Independence -43.3% Lake St. Croix Beach -44.9% Days on Market Until Sale 153 148 144 133 133 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Top 5 Areas: Change in Days on Market from 2010 Lauderdale +165.3% Columbus +78.09/o Osseo +74.0% Excelsior +72.8% Oak Park Heights +72.0% Bottom 5 Areas: Change in Days on Market from 2010 Elko New Market - 25.7% Long Lake -30.0% Tonka Bay -32.8% Cokato -39.4% Bayport -43.0% Top 5 Areas: Change in Average Sales Price from 2010 Excelsior +33.0% Greenfield +31.7% Maple Lake +22.7% Grant +18.3% Saint Paul - St. Anthony Park +17.5% Bottom 5 Areas: Change in Average Sales Price from 2010 Dellwood -25.7% Saint Paul - Thomas -Dale -28.2% Dayton -30.0% Lake St. Croix Beach -30.5% Newport -36.4% Percent of Original List Price Received 94J5 92.7% 92.30/c 91.8 90.6% E 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Top 5 Areas: Change in Pct. of Orig. Price Received from 2010 Maple Lake +6.1% Long Lake +5.2% Stacy +2.6% Bayport +2.6% Jordan +2.5% Top 5 Areas: Change in Pct. of Orig. Price Received from 2010 Clearwater -7.6% Rockford -7.7% Saint Paul - Thomas -Dale -8.6% Osseo -11.5% Lake St. Croix Beach -13.7% Current as of January 13, 2012. Sponsored by Royal Credit Union (www.RCU.org). AM data from the Regional Multiple Listing Service. Powered by 10K Research and Marketing. 1 4 ' 2011 Annual Report on the Twin Cities Housing Market] Property Type Review MINNEAPOLIS AREA AS REALTORS' •r REALTORS' Top Areas: Townhouse -Condo Attached Market Share in 2011 143 164 � Minneapolis - Central Saint Paul - Downtown 99.8% 96.9% Lilydale 95.0% Average Days on Market Average Days on Market I Minneapolis - University 71.4% Single- Family Detached Townhouse -Condo Attached Hugo 54.4% Minneapolis - Calhoun -Isle 54.0% Little Canada 52.2% Days on Market Until Sale Apple Valley 50.2% This chart uses a rolling 12 -month average for each data point. Hopkins 47.6% Single - Family Burnsville 47.1% 180 - -Townhouse-Condo Oak Park Heights 43.8% Saint Paul - Summit - University 43.4% Eagan 41.8% no . _..... ..... .. ... ... ... Centerville 41.7% Inver Grove Heights 41.2% 180 _ ;. ..... ..... Vadnais Heights 40.6% i Wayzata 40.4% .... .... ..... ... .._.... Woodbury 40.3% 150 _ _. _.. _ ...:... Rosemount 39.8% Minneapolis - Phillips 39.2% uo Plymouth 38.8% Oakdale 38.5% 130 .. , _. _ ........ , Arden Hills 38.2% Saint Paul - Summit Hill 38.0% Shoreview 37.8% 1 -2008 1 -2009 1 -2010 1 -2011 1 Shakopee - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 36.7% - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -9.7% - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -.. -14.9% 91.1% 89.2% One -Year Change in Price One -Year Change in Price Pct. of Orig. Price Received Pct. of Ohg. Price Received Single - Family Detached Townhouse -Condo Attached Single- Family Detached Townhouse -Condo Attached Median Sales Price S244< $21 OK Single - Family Detached Percent of Original List Price Received 2007 • zoos • 2009 •2010 •2011 •2007 •2008 •2009 •2010 •2011 95.6% 94.4% 91.6 %93.2% 92.7% 91.1% 92.5% 91.2% 91.3% 89.2% $182K $165K $140K $135K Flo $115K Townhouse -Condo Attached i I 1 i i i 1 . i 1 Single- Family Detached Townhouse -Condo Attached Current as of January 13, 2012. Sponsored by Royal Credit Union (www.RCU.org). All data from the Regional Multiple Listing Service. Powered by 10K Research and Marketing. 5 2011 Annual Report on the Twin Cities Housing Market a New Construction Review NNN APO�q A EAAUVnaO �� REALTORS' Top Areas: New Construction Market Share In 2011 M a r '07 45569 Carver Bayport 37.3% 28.6% Victoria 27.6% Peak of Drop in New Construction Cologne 24.4% New Construction Inventory Inventory from Peak Chanhassen 22.2% Otsego 20.6% Blaine 20.1% New Construction Homes for Sale Hugo 18.5% 17.6% Maple Grove Minnetrista 14.9% 7.000 - - ...... - �,. -- - - Stillwater 14.5% Plymouth 14.4% 6.000 _...... _ I Watertown 14.1% Woodbury 13.9% Andover 13.3% s,000 _ .... I Medina 13.2% Montrose 13.2% 4,000 ...... .. Rosemount 13.1% I Minneapolis - University 13.0°x6 Delano 12.9% 3,000 _ .. - ' I Minneapolis - Central 12.7 % River Falls 12.6% 2,000 I Rkfd 12.5 %10 Rogers 12.2% I Waconia 11.2% 1,000 -- 1.2007 1 -2008 1 -2009 1 -2010 1 -2011 i Savage - - - - - - - - - -- 11.2% - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7.3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4.5 - - - - - - - I 95.9% 90.2% Year -End Months Supply Year -End Months Supply Pct. of Orig. Price Received Pct. of Orig. Price Received New Construction Previously Owned New Construction Previously Owned Months Supply of Inventory 10.4 10.5 New Construction 2007 •2008 •2009 •2010 •2011 8.1 7.8 7.2 Previously Owned Percent of Original List Price Received I This chart uses a Rolling 12 Month Average for each data point. -New Construction - Previously Owned 100% I I 99% I 95% I 1 I 93% I I 1 90% 1 ea% 1 -2007 1.2008 1.2009 1 -2010 1 -2011 !iu Current as of January 13, 2012. Sponsored by Royal Credit Union iwww.RCU.org). All data from the Regional Multiple Listing Service. Powered by 10K Research and Marketing. 1 6 2011 Annual Report on the Twin Cities Housing Market MINNEAPOLIS AREA ►.fLTlle D i stressed Homes Review REAOR S' Median Sales Price 20D8 •2DD9 •2010 •2011 $224,000 $217,000 $210,000 -,,,,,, „-„ Traditional $175,000 $152,800 $150,000 Short Sales $135'000 $125,900 $120,000 $108,000 Foreclosures -W Current as of January 13, 2012. Sponsored by Royal Credit Union (www.R000rg). All data from the Regional Multiple Listing Service. Powered by 10K Research and Marketing. Top Areas: Distressed Market Share in 2011 50.0% +13.0% Zimmerman Francis Zimmerman 80.0% 79.0g'o Isanti 78.1% Percent of Distressed One -Year Change in Sales of Big Lake 77.7% Properties Sold in 2011 Distressed Properties Cambridge 75.7% Elko New Market 75.0% Albertville 74.8% Minneapolis - Phillips 74.7% Percent of Sales That Were Distressed North Branch 74.7% Saint Paul - Thomas -Dale 74.5% St. Michael 72.9% Newport 72.7% 48.9% 50.0% 47.9% East Bethel 71.8% Oak Grove 71.4% Rockford 71.4% Elk River 70.7% 32.5% Saint Paul - Dayton's Bluff 69.7% Spring Lake Park 69.6% Coon Rapids 68.9% ' Montrose 68. 0 o Saint Paul - Greater East Side 67.7% 10.1% Monticello 67.6% Princeton 67.3% Stacy 66.7% 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 1 Saint Paul - Battle Creek/Highwood 66.451c Minneapolis - Near North 66.3% -33.3% -14.1% ---------------------------------- -29.3% -32.5% Four -Year Change in Price Four -Year Change in Price Four -Year Change in Price Four -Year Change in Price All Properties Traditional Properties Short Sales Foreclosures Median Sales Price 20D8 •2DD9 •2010 •2011 $224,000 $217,000 $210,000 -,,,,,, „-„ Traditional $175,000 $152,800 $150,000 Short Sales $135'000 $125,900 $120,000 $108,000 Foreclosures -W Current as of January 13, 2012. Sponsored by Royal Credit Union (www.R000rg). All data from the Regional Multiple Listing Service. Powered by 10K Research and Marketing. 2011 Annual Report on the Twin Cities Housing Market j, Area Overviews M' " "`�� °`,f -f R � „e�..EALTO RS' Percent Pct. of Orig. Total Change Percent New Townhouse- Percent Days on Price Closed Sales from 2010 Construction Condo Distressed Market Received -- - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - r - - - - - - - - - - - - - Twin Cities Region 41,429 +8.2% I 6.1% 23.9% 50.0% I 148 90.6% Afton i 25 +25.0% 1 � 4.0% 0.0% 32.0% 226 85.3% Albertville 103 - 8.8% 1 1 1.9% 15.5% 74.8% 131 1 92.9% Andover � 1 383 - 3.3% f 13.3% 8.1% 56.1% I 154 93.2% Annandale 73 -1.4% i 5.5% 0.0% 50.7% 199 90.3% Anoka 1 198 +21.5% 3.5% 13.6% 62.1 % 139 1 88.1% Apple Valley 1 721 +14.3% 2.5% 50.2% 53.7% 136 90.7% Arden Hills 1 68 I +25.9% 1.5% 38.2% 41.2% 119 90.4% Bayport I 28 -17.6% I 28.6% 0.0% 39.3% 1 87 94.2% Becker 86 +6.2% 8.1% 7.0% 59.3% i 144 92.2% Belle Plaine 1 125 -12.0% t 3.2% 5.6% 59.2% 1 145 92.7% Big Lake 1 256 f +10.8% 4.3% 7.8% 77.7% 147 92.6% Blaine 957 +17.0% i 20.1% 31.5% 49.1% 132 92.1% Bloomington 1 860 +5.8% 1 1.3% 27.9% 42.3% 144 90.7% Brooklyn Center i 510 +16.4% 0.4% 11.6% 65.3% 1 131 89.2% Brooklyn Park 1,154 -1.4% 4.1% 23.1% 62.3% i 128 91.6% Buffalo 275 +20.1% 2.2% 17.1% 62.2% I 124 91.2% Burnsville i 764 +27.5% 1.8% 47.1% 54.8% 145 90.4% Cambridge 1 189 -3.6% 9.5% 19.6% 75.7% 185 86.6% Carver I I 75 + 13.6% 1 37.3% 20.0% 41.3% I 144 95.0% Centerville 48 +4.3% 0.0% 41.7% 62.5% 151 88.9% Champlin 1 316 +35.0% r 7.6% 25.6% 50.0% 1 146 I 91.3% Chanhassen I 370 +23.3% 22.2% 31.1% 27.8% 1 149 92.6% Chaska 1 282 -5.1% 10.3% 33.3% 46.5% i 156 91.8% Chlsago 1 I 98 +69.0% 9.2% 11.2% 57.1% 1 186 89.9% Circle Pines i 66 +24.5% i 0.0% 33.3% 53.0% i 155 88.4% Clear lake 1 50 - 2.0% 1 � 2.0% 0.0% 50.0% 188 I 88.4% Clearwater � 44 +37.5% 2.3% 9.1% 61.4% 1 196 85.4% Cokato 45 +45.2% 4.4% 4.4% 46.7% i 141 88.5% Cologne 1 41 +86.4% r 24.4% 4.9% 43.9% 1 181 1 90.3% Columbia Heights � I 288 � +12.1% 4.9% 13.9% 53.8% 142 88.5% Columbus 23 +91.7% ' 0.0% 0.0% 60.9% 1 149 91.1% Coon Rapids 1 894 r +19.8% f 3.0% 30.1% 68.9% 139 89.9% Corcoran 29 - 17.1 Ho 0.0% 0.0% 55.2% , 226 87.3% Cottage Grove 1 440 +5.0% 8.4% 15.7% 52.5% 1 136 I 92.0% Crystal 1 329 +21.9% 1 1.2% 2.4% 59.6% I 151 87.6% Dayton 47 +17.5% 8.5% 0.0% 61.7% 189 85.8% Deephaven 1 49 -10.9% 1 0.0% 2.0% 14.3% 1 168 I 87.7% Delano , 93 +19.2% , 12.9% 17.2% 43.0% , 190 90.3% Dellwood 1 14 +27.3% 0.0% 0.0% 21.4% 275 86.8% Eagan 1 i 796 +22.7% 4.1% 41.8% 49.5% I 132 90.9% East Bethel 131 +27.2% 0.8% 0.0% 71.8% 158 89.9% Eden Prairie 1 755 +11.4% ' 2.5% 35.4% 35.4% 1 156 91.3% Edina 1 1 695 r +4.7% t 3.7% 28.3% 17.0% 1 1 147 90.4% Elk River 379 +19.6% 4.7% 26.4% 70.7% 147 1 91.0 % - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- - - - - - - - - - �� Current as of January 13, 2012. Sponsored by Royal Credit Union (www.RCU.org). All data from the Regional Multiple Listing Service. Powered by 10K Research and Marketing. I 8 • 2011 Annual Report on the Twin Cities Housing Market] Area Overviews MINNEAPOLIS AREA A -61'e- - ,REALTORS. Percent Pct. of Orig. Total Change Percent New Townhouse- Percent Days on Price Closed Sales from 2010 Construction Condo Distressed Market Received -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - , -- - - - - - - - - - - - -Y - - - -° - - - - - - - - - - - - - o - - r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Elko New Market t 92 + 9.5% t 8.7% 14.1 % 75.0% , 138 90.5% Excelsior 27 +125.0% 0.0% 14.8% 33.3% 232 90.0% Falcon Heights ' 41 +36.7% 0.0% 12.2% 17.1% ' 150 89.8% Farmington t 439 +10.3% t 9.3% 25.7% 64.2% t 141 92.7% Forest Lake t 281 t + 12.0% 6.8% 29.5% 55.9% i 152 91.2% Fridley t 267 +30.2% t 0.0% 13.9% 59.2% 151 89.6% Golden Valley t t 270 + 38.5% � 1.9% 15.9% 39.3% i 166 88.7% Grant ' 29 +11.5% 0.0% 0.0% 34.5% 208 87.8% Greenfield t 37 +27.6% l 5.4% 0.0% 37.8% 240 89.8% Ham Lake 156 -3.196 4.596 6.4% 59.0% 166 91.2% Hammond ' 34 + 9.7% ' 2.9% 8.8% 55.9% ' t 220 88.4% Hanover t t 36 i +5.9% t 8.3% 0.0% 52.8% , 143 92.9% Hastings 326 +20.7% 3.40% 32.5% 65.3% 151 88.9% Hopkins t 168 -9.7% ' 2.4% 47.6% 50.6% 150 90.4% Hudson i 281 +6.0% 9.6% 32.4% 37.0% 200 90.0% Hugo ' 287 0.0% 18.5% 54.4% 57.5% 150 92.6% Independence t t 25 -37.5% 0.0% 0.0% 36.0% 1 186 87.4% Inver Grove Heights i 311 +11.9% 4.2% 41.2% 53.4% 145 91.2% Isanti ' 146 -5.2% ' 7.5% 11.6% 78.1% ' t 119 89.9% Jordan t 72 - 13.3% t 4.2% 0.0% 61.1% t 144 92.4% Lake Elmo 60 -11.8% 6.7% 1.7% 36.7% 181 90.4% Lake St. Croix Beach ' 14 -17.6% ' 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% ' 157 79.4% Lakeland 13 -38.1% 0.0% 0.0% 46.2% i 231 89.3% Lakeville ' 761 +3.79,o 11.2% 22.7% 48.0% 1 136 92.5% Lauderdale t t 18 + 38.5510 t 0.0% 33.3% 61.1% 188 94.1% Lil Y dale 20 +66.7% 11 0.0% 95.0% 25.0% 267 85.3% Lindstrom ' 95 +30.1% ' 1.1% 12.6% 60.0% ' 205 88.4% Lino Lakes t 198 +3.7% t 9.1% 22.2% 46.5% t t 166 91.1% Little Canada 113 +16.5% 10.6% 52.2% 46.9% 161 89.0% Long Lake 17 -22.7% ' 0.0% 23.5% 52.9% 153 91.2% Mahtomedl 84 +55.6% 11 9.5% 16.7% 29.8% t 142 90.9% Maple Grove ' 1,008 +6.6% 17.6% 33.7% 37.6% 1 146 92.0% Maple lake t t 63 +10.5% t 1.6% 11.1% 60.3% t 197 88.6% Maple Plain 20 + 11.1 % t 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 169 90.4% Maplewood ' 404 +8.0% ' 2.0% 26.5% 55.0% i 163 88.8% Mayer t 37 +8.8% t 8.1% 0.0% 56.8% t 136 93.7% Medina 53 +10.4% 1 13.2% 15.1% 26.4% 240 88.5% Mendota Heights t 103 -8.8% t 6.8% 31.1% 18.4% t t 160 89.9% Minneapolis - (Citywide) , 4,378 - 0.2% 3.7% 22.2% 44.4% , 141 90.1% Minneapolis - Calhoun -Isle 315 +17.5% 10.8% 54.0% 28.9% i 181 69.0% Minneapolis - Camden t 597 - 5.8% 1.0% 1.8% 66.2% t 142 88.6% Minneapolis - Central 449 + 0.2% 12.7% 99.8% 35.0% ; 191 90.7% Minneapolis - Longfellow ' 295 + 8.1 % ' 2.0% 3.4% 35.9% 112 91.0% Minneapolis - Near North 362 -17.9% t 1.4% 6.4% 66.3% 120 88.9% M Minneapolis - Nokomis 569 +1.8% 0.5% % 41.7% 132 91_2% - _5.1 _ �% Current as of January 13, 2012. Sponsored by Royal Credit Union (www.RCU.org). All data from the Regional Multiple Listing Service. Powered by 10K Research and Marketing. 1 9 2011 Annual Report on the Twin Cities Housing Market Area Overviews MINNEAPOLIS AREA A.a e.tion =rREALTORS, tU /L Current as of January 13. 2012. Sponsored by Royal Credit Union (www.RCU.org). All data from the Regional Multiple Listing Service. Powered by 10K Research and Marketing. 1 10 Percent Pct. of Orig. Total Change Percent New Townhouse- Percent Days on Price Closed Sales from 2010 Construction Condo Distressed Market Received ----------------------,--------------7--------------------r------------- Minneapolis - Northeast r 406 + 8.0% i 0.2% 4.7% 48.8% f 123 90.2% Minneapolis - Phillips ; 79 -25.5% , 7.6% 39.2% 74.7% ; 160 86.8% Minneapolis - Powderhom ' , 466 -1.7% ' , 1.5% 16.1% 55.6% ' r 137 90.4% Minneapolis - Southwest , 681 +15.2% , 2.1% 6.3% 23.2% , 130 91.3% Minneapolis - University i 154 -6.1% 13.0% 71.4°46 27.3% 178 89.5% Minnetonka 652 +12.2% 2.0% 35.1% 32.5% 161 89.9% Minnetrista 87 +1.2% 14.9% 3.4% 34.5% 259 89.0% Monticello i 213 +4.9% 2.3% 14.1% 67.6% 1 129 91.5% Montrose f 76 -13.6% f 13.2% 10.5% 68.4% f 143 91.1% Mound 153 -3.8% 1.3% 17.0% 53.6% 210 88.4% Mounds View t 98 +32.4% f 1.0% 6.1% 54.1% f 122 91.6% New Brighton , 174 +14.5% f 1.7% 24.1% 47.7% i . 133 89.6% New Hope 205 +13.3% i 3.9% 23.4% 51.7% 143 90.7% New Prague 152 -3.2% ' 2.0% 15.8% 55.9% f 140 90.6% New Richmond , 142 +4.4% , 5.6% 13.4% 57.0% , 190 88.8% Newport 33 +50.0% 0.0% 3.0% 72.7% 115 90.4% North Branch 150 +20.0% f 3.3% 3.3% 74.7% r 120 90.3% North Oaks 51 -3.8% 2.0% 17.6% 19.6% j 241 86.7% North Saint Paul f 154 +25.2% ' 1.3% 3.9% 53.9% ' 129 89.8% Northfield , 250 +21.4% , 4.0% 24.8% 46.0% , 174 89.7% Norwood Young America 51 +59.4% 2.0% 9.8% 58.8% 169 87.7% Oak Grove 105 +14.1% f 4.8% 1.0% 71.4% f 159 90.3% Oak Park Heights 48 +11.6% i 8.3% 43.8% 54.2% i 201 87.3% Oakdale 371 +0.5% 4.6% 38.5% 57.1% 129 90.6% Orono r 132 0.0% f 10.6% 8.3% 37.1% i 242 84.5% Osseo 28 +21.7% 0.0% 3.6% 42.9% 161 85.5% Otsego ' 262 -13.8% f 20.6% 32.1% 61.8% ' 143 91.9% Plymouth f f 933 +18.4% f , 14.4% 38.8% 28.8% r , 138 92.3% Princeton 153 +8.5% i 2.6% 7.8% 67.3% 124 92.2% Prior lake 452 +11.6% 8.2% 27.4% 52.2% l f 147 91.8% Ramsey 355 +6.9% 6.8% 28.7% 64.2% , 128 92.8% Richfield 455 +26.0% 0.4% 8.4% 49.2% 131 90.7% River Falls f 135 -3.6% i 12.6% 21.5% 32.6% f 198 91.2% Robbinsdale 208 +16.9% 2.9% 10.1% 55.3% 166 87.5% Rockford f 56 + 7.7% f 12.5% 19.6% 71.4% ' 215 85.4% Rogers f 123 +5.1% f 12.2% 20.3% 48.8% , 143 92.9% Rosemount 344 +12.4% 13.1% 39.894. 48.3% 156 92.0% Roseville f 308 +9.6% ' 1.6% 23.1% 33.1% ' 141 88.5% Rush City 42 -19.2% 7.1% 11.9% 61.9% 174 87.0% Saint Anthony i 100 +22.0% 0.0% 30.0% 19.0% 126 90.7% Saint Bonifacius f 21 - 36.4% f 0.0°/6 23.8% 42.9% f 150 92.7% Saint Francis i 125 +21.4% 4.0% 15.2% 80.0% i 137 89.9% Saint Louis Park ' '687 +32.6% f 5.7% 30.6% 39.7% ' 129 91.1% Saint Michael f t 247 +23.5% t 6.5% 24.3% 72.9% f , 157 91.8% Saint Paul - (Citywide) 3,025 + 1.1% 1.1 % 11.3% 53.4% 134 89_7% - - - _ ^ tU /L Current as of January 13. 2012. Sponsored by Royal Credit Union (www.RCU.org). All data from the Regional Multiple Listing Service. Powered by 10K Research and Marketing. 1 10 r 2011 Annual Report on the Twin Cities Housing Market M Area Overviews MINNEAPOLIS Ap R A..oC,. or REALTORS' sr�/ Current as of January 13, 2012. Sponsored by Royal Credit Union (www.RCU.org). All data from the Regional Multiple Listing Service. Powered by 1 OK Research and Marketing. 1 11 Percent Pct of Orig. Total Change Percent New Townhouse- Percent Days on Price Closed Sales from 2010 Construction Condo Distressed Market Received - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - o - - r - - - - - - - - - - - - - Saint Paul - Battle Creek/Highwood i 256 +19.1% t 0.0% 4.3% 66.4% r 128 89.8% Saint Paul -Como Park , 115 + 15.0% r 0.0% .3.5% 34.8% 133 88.3% Saint Paul - Dayton's Bluff ' 208 -17.5% 1.9% 7.7% 69.7% 131 87.9% Saint Paul - Downtown i , 96 -26.7% , 7.3% 96.9% 55.2% i 241 86.6% Saint Paul - Greater Fast Side 439 +4.5% 0.2% 3.0% 67.7% i 124 90.0% Saint Paul - Hamline- Midway ' 126 +28.6% 0.0% 0.8% 54.0% ' 106 ' 92.2% Saint Paul - Highland Park , 244 +21.4% t , 2.0% 1.1.1% 23.4% , 124 92.0% Saint Paul - Lexington- Hamline 123 +20.6% 6.5% 8.1% 28.5% 141 91.2% Saint Paul - Macalester- Groveland I 210 +0.5% I 0.0% 6.2% 21.0% I 103 93.0% Saint Paul -North End /South Como 250 -6.0% 0.0% 8.0% 65.6% 134 89.4% Saint Paul - Payne - Phalen 1 341 -14.8% 1.2% 2.6% 61.9% i 143 89.1% Saint Paul - St. Anthony Park r , 42 -14.3% 2.4% 33.3% 28.6% , 164 90.9% Saint Paul - Summit HIII i 50 + 11.1% 0.0% 38.0% 20.0% 153 90.6% Saint Paul - Summit - University 1 143 -2.1% ' 2.1% 43.4% 47.6% ' 142 89.3% Saint Paul - Thomas -Dale i 110 +1.9% , O.O.Y. 0.9% 74.5% , 135 86.1% Saint Paul - West Seventh i 120 +1.7% 1 0.0% 19.2% 55.8% i 140 87.3% Saint Paul - West Side r 152 +14.3% 0.0% 3.3% 59.9% 1 145 87.3% Saint Paul Park i 80 +6.7% 1.3% 20.0% 66.3% i 124 88.2% Savage ' 490 +41.2% 11.2% 33.1% 49.0% ' 149 93.5% Shakopee , 624 +0.5% , 11.19/0 36.7% 58.5% i 141 92.3% Shoreview i 267 - 7.9% 0.4% 37.8% 27.7% 142 90.4% Shorewood 106 +8.2% 2.8% 18.9% 20.8% 180 89.9% Somerset t 41 -2.4% , 7.3% 9.8% 63.4% I 212 90.7% South Haven 1 36 +89.50/. 0.0% 0.0% 38.9% 210 87.4% South Saint Paul 269 +6.7% r 1.5% 4.8% 57.6% 124 90.3% Spring Lake Park i 56 -11.1 % 3.6% 30.4% 69.6% i 117 87.4% Stacy ' 42 +27.3% 0.0% 7.1% 66.7% ' 147 90.5% Stillwater I 304 +0.7% , 14.5% 34.2% 37.2% I 172 90.2% Tonka Bay 28 +33.3% 0.0% 10.7% 17.9% 192 84.5% Vadnais Heights 138 +2.2% 2.9% 40.6% 42.0% i 147 89.8% Victoria 127 -17.0% 27.6% 12.6% 24.4% , 154 93.2% Waconia 169 -2.3% 11.2% 24.3% 39.6% 156 92.9% Watertown r I 64 +56.1% f 14.1% 18.6% 48.4% i 201 87.0% Wayzata , 57 +7.5% 3.5% 40.4% 26.3% i 173 89.7% West Saint Paul ' 197 +7.1% ' 0.0% 24.4% 45.7% i 157 87.7% White Bear Lake , 294 +23.0% 2.0% 26.9% 40.8% , 172 90.2% Woodbury 997 +9.0% 13.9% 40.3% 41.4% 135 92.4% Wyoming 74 +21.3% 1.4% 14.9% 59.5% ' 142 i 92.1% Zimmerman i , 200 +17.0% -- - - - � , - - 0.5% - - - - - - 10.0% - - - - o - - 79.0% - - - - - , 132 - - - - - - - - 90.2% - - - - - - - - sr�/ Current as of January 13, 2012. Sponsored by Royal Credit Union (www.RCU.org). All data from the Regional Multiple Listing Service. Powered by 1 OK Research and Marketing. 1 11 2011 Annual Report on the Twin Cities Housing Market Area Historical Median Prices MINNE POLIS ARR Ass vci„ion ' =r REALTORS Current as of January 3, 2012. Sponsored b Royal Credit Union www.RCU.or All data from the Regional Multiple Ustin Service. Powered b 10K Research end Marketing. 12 arY P Y oy ( 91� 9 P 9 Y 9• I ' Change Change 2007 2008 2009 - - - - -- 2010 - - - - - - 2011 - - - - - - From 2010 -,- - - - - - From 2007 - - - -------- 9-------- Twin Cities Region --- - -- -- , -- - - - $225,000 - - - - - - - $195,000 - $165,000 $169,900 $150,000 l -11.7% = o -33.3% Afton $525,000 $412,000 $307,000 $330,000 $430,000 +30.39/6 -18.1% Albertville $220,000 $201,750 $167,190 $150,200 $142,500 I -5.1% - 35.2% Andover r , $267,950 $225,400 $205,000 $205,000 $182,000 I , -11.2% -32.1% Annandale $191,700 $170,500 $154,700 $154,110 $153,889 i -0.1% -19.7% Anoka t $187,400 $160,000 $130,000 $136,312 $114,500 l -16.0% -38.9% Apple Valley i $224,900 $206,000 $170,500 $177,150 $150,000 i -15.3% -33.3% Arden Hills $238,800 $262,600 $232,250 $241,025 $157,500 -34.7% -34.0% Bayport' r $241,900 $271,000 $186,000 $157,500 $147,000 t -6.7% -39.2% Becker $200,000 $171,000 $137,500 $131,950 $131,850 i -0.1% - 34.1 % Belle Plaine $208,000 $175,000 $149,900 $142,250 $137,300 I -3.5% -34.0% Big Lake i $195,450 $150,000 $135,850 $140,000 $117,250 -16.3% -40.0% Blaine i $222,500 $194,750 $169,900 $170,500 $154,950 - 9.1 % -30.4% Bloomington I $226,000 $201,500 $181,200 $178,322 $157,000 I -12.0% -30.5% Brooklyn Center $174,000 $115,000 $90,000 $110,000 $82,500 -25.0% - 52.6% Brooklyn Park $220,000 $174,250 $134,000 $140,000 $127,000 -9.3% -42.3% Buffalo , $197,000 $175,000 $145,500 $150,000 $131,500 , -12.3% -33.2% Burnsville $225,000 $200,000 $175,000 $167,000 $149,000 - 10.8% -33.8% Cambridge $170,450 $139,500 $110,125 $105,000 $94,000 1 -10.5%, -44.9% Carver , $276,500 $287,000 $237,950 $225,900 $225,000 , -0.4% -18.6% Centerville � $230,000 $209,000 $222,000 $180,000 $154,600 � -14.1% -32.8% Champlin i $217,700 $196,000 $162,000 $172,078 $148,000 I -14.0% -32.0% Chanhassen $319,900 $296,650 $287,500 $313,500 $295,000 -5.9% -7.8% Chaska $240,750 $229,250 $177,500 $210,750 $170,000 i -19.3% -29.4% Chisago I $260,000 $190,650 $175,000 $159,500 $155,700 l -2.4% -40.1% Circle Pines $187,000 $171,100 $148,750 $139,900 $124,150 i -11.351. -33.6% Clear Lake $207,000 $180,000 $113,000 $168,000 $146,800 I -12.6% -29.1% Clearwater I , • $185,400 $149,900 $122,000 $159,900 $127,750 � , - 20.1% -31.1% Cokato $159,150 $125,000 $120,000 $99,000 $107,500 i +8.6% -32.5% Cologne I $239,900 $207,450 $205,013 $193,000 $189,900 r -1.6% -20.8% Columbia Heights $180,000 $145,000 $122,500 $120,000 $101,750 -15.2% -43.5% Columbus $270,000 $262,450 $222,000 $232,000 $177,277 ' -23.6% I -34.3% Coon Rapids , , $190,800 $159,900 $136,000 $133,000 $114,900 l -13.6% -39.8% Corcoran $327,500 $293,950 $315,000 $291,500 $246,000 i -15.6% -24.9% Cottage Grove $223,450 $199,000 $180,000 $174,450 $160,000 -8.3% -28.4% Crystal $194,700 $160,750 $139,950 $139,900 $105,500 l , -24.6% -45.8% Dayton $286,000 $260,300 $197,000 $205,000 $142,000 -30.79/6 -50.3% Deephaven t $502,500 $485,000 $545,000 $509,000 $322,000 r -36.7% -35.9% Delano $256,000 $233,686 $201,500 $195,000 $173,150 -11.2% -32.4% Dellwood $577,000 $750,000 $462,500 $617,575 $499,000 -19.2% -13.5% Eagan , $242,000 $215,000 $182,150 $189,000 $171,250 I -9.4% -29.2% East Bethel $218,650 $179,988 $158,950 $150,400 $162,500 + 8.0% -25.7% Eden Prairie $315,000 $280,000 $250,000 $264,800 $257,360 -2.8% -18.3% Edina , $376,500 $389,450 $323,950 $339,000 $340,000 , +'0.39/. -9.7% Elk River - -' - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 $212,000 - - - - - - $190,000 - - - - - - - $158,000 - - - - - - - $160,000 - - -- - - - - $131,500 - - - - - - 1 -17.8% -I- - - - - -38.0% - - - -- - _ " Current as of January 3, 2012. Sponsored b Royal Credit Union www.RCU.or All data from the Regional Multiple Ustin Service. Powered b 10K Research end Marketing. 12 arY P Y oy ( 91� 9 P 9 Y 9• I J 2011 Annual Report on the Twin Cities Housing Market] Area Historical Median Prices MINNEAPOLIS AREA Aamai a R REALTOO RS' .E:!/ Current as of January 13, 2012. Sponsored by Royal Credit Union (www.RCU.org). All data from the Regional Multiple Listing Service. Powered by 10K Research and Marketing. 1 13 Change Change 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 - - - - -,- From 2010 - - - - -- From 2007 - - -- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Elko New Market - - - - -;- 1 - - - - - - $302,000 - - - - - - - $235,000 - - - - - - - $229,500 - - - - - - $209,900 - - $191,500 1 -8.8% -36.6% Excelsior $472,500 $450,000 $332,450 $277,000 $350,000 +26.4% -25.9% Falcon Heights ' $286,250 $280,250 $267,500 $239,500 $207,500 ' -13.4% ' -27.5% Farmington 1 , $224,000 $195,460 $175,600 $172,000 $141,000 , -18.0% -37.1% Forest Lake $237,500 $204,700 $142,000 $135,450 $153,750 + 13.5% - 35.3% Fridley 1 $194,000 $160,025 $138,900 $136,545 $120,000 l -12.1% -38.1% Golden Valley i $272,500 $263,000 $220,000 $235,500 $199,000 i -15.5% -27.0% Grant ' $505,000 $455,000 $432,500 $395,000 $422,500 ' +7.0% -16.3% Greenfield 1 1 $466,000 $235,000 $153,250 $237,750 $373,000 ' 1 + 56.9% -20.0% Ham Lake $316,000 $289,500 $235,500 $227,500 $211,500 -7.0% -33.1% Hammond ' $167,700 $150,950 $127,500 $116,500 $115,750 ' -0.6% -31.0% Hanover $299,900 $229,000 $229,900 $208,875 $214,950 I l +2.9% -28.3% Hastings $195,120 $177,500 $150,000 $148,500 $128,500 -13.5% - 34.1 Hopkins 1 $205,150 $169,000 $160,000 $148,000 $125,000 -15.5% -39.1% Hudson ; $241,774 $218,000 $195,000 $194,848 $184,750 ; -5.2% -23.6% Hugo $244,000 $193,000 $154,900 $158,338 $136,950 -13.5% -43.9% Independence l $766,750 $490,500 $306,500 $433,500 $246,000 1 -43.3% -67.9% Inver Grove Heights $209,950 $190,000 $165,751 $165,500 $155,000 -6.3% -26.2% Isantl ' $172,000 $145,000 $120,950 $114,114 $90,750 ' -20.5% -47.2% Jordan , $250,500 $219,900 $204,000 $174,150 $178,000 , +2.291. -28.9% Lake Elmo $492,450 $450,000 $405,250 $369,500 $374,800 i +1.49/. -23.9% Lake St. Croix Beach 1 $183,000 $184,950 $158,000 $154,850 $85,250 l -44.9% -53.4% Lakeland , $235,000 $246,000 $169,000 $211,000 $221,000 , +4.7% -6.0% Lakeville ' $263,200 $255,000 $224,188 $225,000 $205,000 i -8.9% - 22.1% Lauderdale 1 $183,950 $197,000 $189,950 $173,900 $128,150 1 -26.3% -30.3% Ulydale i $297,500 $208,500 $180,000 $201,500 $175,000 -13.2% -41.2% Lindstrom $213,650 $202,000 $180,000 $150,000 $143,950 ' -4.0% ' -32.6% Lino Lakes 1 , $262,000 $227,700 $218,950 $211,250 $173,500 , -17.9% -33.8% Little Canada $236,900 $205,500 $175,250 $106,500 $140,000 + 31.5% - 40.9% Long Lake 1 $222,000 $248,125 $197,450 $196,500 $186,500 1 -6.0% -16.0% Mahtomedl , $274,450 $297,000 $199,000 $249,995 $257,500 , + 3.0% - 6.2% Maple Grove ' $256,500 $254,600 $222,000 $258,000 $214,000 ' -17.1% ' -16.6% Maple Lake 1 1 $211,000 $174,700 $100,000 $100,000 $112,840 1 +12.8% -46.5% Maple Plain $234,900 $159,900 $161,250 $166,700 $153,500 -7.9% -34.7% Maplewood $208,550 $190,000 $162,000 $156,000 $139,400 -10.6% 1 -33.2% Mayer i $244,900 $213,600 $169,900 $174,950 $169,900 -2.9% -30.6% Medina $774,000 $620,000 $580,000 $615,000 $525,000 -14.6% -32.2% Mendota Heights 1 $390,000 $296,625 $289,450 $305,000 $283,000 1 -7.2% -27.4% Minneapolis - (Citywide) 1 $217,500 $168,000 $145,000 $160,000 $140,000 ; -12.5% -35.6% Minneapolis - Calhoun -Isle ' $282,375 $290,000 $273,500 $315,000 $267,261 ' -15.2% ' -5.4% Minneapolis - Camden 1 $123,600 $52,500 $48,950 $66,002 $45,000 1 -31.8% -63.6% Minneapolis - Central $270,275 $254,950 $236,825 $225,000 $213,500 -5.1% - 21.0% Minneapolis - Longfellow 1 $211,900 $189,500 $172,000 $170,500 $148,500 -12.9% -29.9% Minneapolis - Near North $80,000 $35,725 $36,700 $55,000 $43,183 -21.5% -46.0% Minneapolis - Nokomis - - - - - - - - - - - ! _ $227,700 $209,000 $189,883 $195,400 . $163,450 -�- 16.4% _ _ 28_2% _ .E:!/ Current as of January 13, 2012. Sponsored by Royal Credit Union (www.RCU.org). All data from the Regional Multiple Listing Service. Powered by 10K Research and Marketing. 1 13 2011 Annual Report on the TV& Cities Housing Market 4% Area Historical Median Prices MINNE VOLTS AFE�ASCOt��O . v REALTORS G� Current as of January 3, 2012. Sponsored b Royal Credit Union www.RCU.or All data from the Regional Multiple Listing Service. Powered b 1 OK Research and Marketln 14 ry P Y Y ( 9)• 9 P 9 Y 9� � Change Change 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 From 2010 From 2007 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Minneapolis - Northeast - - - - -;- r - - - - - - $192,000 - - - - - - - $164,850 - - - - - - - $150,000 - - - - - - $151,500 - - - - - - - $125,000 , -- - - - - r -17.5% - - - - - -34.9% Minneapolis - Phillips $163,622 $85,000 $78,000 $110,000 $72,500 -34.1% - 55.7% Minneapolis - Powderhom ' $175,750 $130,000 $123,950 $135,000 $110,000 ' -18.5% ' -37.4% Minneapolis - Southwest t , $309,000 $275,000 $260,000 $276,000 $264,000 , -4.3% -14.6% Minneapolis - University $253,450 $247,118 $215,000 $207,950 $207,500 -0.2% -18.1% Minnetonka t $287,000 $265,900 $245,000 $265,713 $233,000 I -12.3% -18.8% Mlnnetrista $434,500 $385,000 $346,639 $325,086 $349,950 +7.6% -19.5% Monticello ' $191,500 $160,000 $133,000 $135,000 $124,000 -8.1% - 35.2% Montrose r .$184,000 $139,900 $133,943 $131,371 $114,950 , -12.5% -37.5% Mound $227,500 $207,750 $181,000 $188,000 $150,000 -20.2% -34.1% Mounds View $221,225 $175,000 $153,000 $166,700 $134,950 -19.0% -39.0% New Brighton i $224,700 $210,000 $187,000 $178,000 $156,250 i -12.2% -30.5% New Hope $221,700 $186,000 $158,250 $148,000 $126,125 -14.8916 -43.1% New Prague r $205,000 $192,000 $170,000 $161,250 $141,500 r -12.2% -31.0% New Richmond ; $184,900 $141,000 $139,950 $135,400 $110,000 ; -18.8% - 40.5% Newport i $175,000 $150,000 $127,400 $123,500 $72,175 -41.6% -58.8% North Branch , $202,000 $160,000 $144,350 $136,000 $115,000 r -15.4% -43.1% North Oaks $625,000 $637,735 $475,000 $584,000 $480,000 -17.8% -23.2% North Saint Paul r $200,000 $159,500 $160,000 $145,000 $120,000 r -17.2% -40.0% Northfield I , $220,000 $190,000 $165,000 $159,900 $145,000 ' , -9.3% -34 * 1 % Norwood Young America $190,500 $155,000 $134,500 $155,450 $119,900 -22.9% - 37.1 % 0 Oak Grove I $259,950 $249,950 $207,000 $200,450 $175,000 r -12.7% -32.7% Oak Park Heights i $165,000 $185,000 $127,000 $136,100 $130,000 -4.5% -21.2% Oakdale i $210,000 $184,900 $159,900 $164,600 $133,000 i -19.2% -36.7% Orono , $797,000 $767,500 $595,000 $565,000 $530,000 r -6.2%. - 33.5% Osseo i $207,500 $152,000 $134,500 $128,500 $114,900 -10.6% -44.6% Otsego r $209,000 $175,000 $159,900 $160,610 $159,900 ' -0.4% -23.5% Plymouth t , $293,500 $275,000 $253,000 $249,000 $245,000 ' , -1.6% -16.5% Princeton i $179,042 $122,206 $103,160 $113,900 $110,500 -3.0% -38.3% Prior Lake r $274,000 $245,000 $234,500 $223,900 $214,900 r -4.0% -21.6% Ramsey $215,000 $188,989 $152,250 $156,830 $137,000 -12.6% - 36.3% Richfield ' $217,500 $185,500 $165,000 $160,000 $140,250 -12.3% -35.5% River Falls r , $178,000 $175,000 $165,000 $172,500 $143,600 r -16.8% -19.3% Robbinsdale i $202,500 $160,000 $145,000 $131,500 $104,775 -20.3% - 48.3% Rockford $235,000 $206,000 $192,500 $169,800 $130,000 -23.4% r -44.7% Rogers i $284,800 $253,000 $226,825 $212,000 $210,000 , -0.9% -26.3% Rosemount $244,050 ' $214,950 $193,500 $201,500 $170,000 -15.60/o -30.39/o Roseville r $235,000 $225,000 $198,000 $190,000 $158,500 r -16.6% -32.6% Rush City i $179,000 $145,000 $87,000 $95,000 $113,000 +18.9% - 36.9% Saint Anthony ' $251,200 $220,000 $210,000 $181,000 $176,500 -2.5% -29.7% Saint Bonifacius r r $239,900 $223,500 $170,000 $178,850 $145,000 , -18.9% -39.6% Saint Francis $200,000 $163,250 $133,000 $135,000 $122,100 -9.6% - 39.0% Saint Louis Park $234,000 $227,000 $212,500 $213,250 $185,000 ' -13.2% -20.9% Saint Michael , $246,250 $204,000 $179,950 $165,000 $165,000 0.0% - 33.0% Saint Paul - (Citywlde) - - - -------- - - - - -- - - - - - 1 - $190,000 - - $145,000 - $117,500 -------------------- $121,250 $100,000 -17.5% ----- - 47.4% - - - - -� G� Current as of January 3, 2012. Sponsored b Royal Credit Union www.RCU.or All data from the Regional Multiple Listing Service. Powered b 1 OK Research and Marketln 14 ry P Y Y ( 9)• 9 P 9 Y 9� � c 2011 Annual Report on the Twin Cities Housing Market Area Historical Median Prices MINNEAPOLIS j REALTORS' �1 Current as of January 13, 2012. Sponsored by Royal Credit Union (www.RCU.org). All data from the Regional Multiple Listing Service. Powered by 10K Research and Marketing. 1 15 Change Change 2007 2008 2009 - - - 2010 - - - - - - - 2011 - - - - - - From 2010 - - - - - From 2007 - - -- Saint Paul - Battle Creek/HI hwood t -- $177,000 - - - - - - $150,000 - - - - $116,000 $123,000 $89,700 - , i 27.1% _ 49.3% Saint Paul - Como Park $222,500 $215,000 $199,900 $190,400 $145,000 i -23.8% -34.8% Saint Paul - Dayton's Bluff $140,000 $58,563 $60,000 $75,000 $50,000 -33.3% -64.3% Saint Paul - Downtown $192,000 $200,000 $140,000 $152,500 $128,250 -15.9% -33.2% Saint Paul - Greater East Side $169,290. $109,948 $103,000 $102,500 $85,000 -17.1% -49.8% Saint Paul - Hamline- Midway $184,900 $156,950 $149,450 $142,000 $104,500 t -26.4% -43.5% Saint Paul - Highland Park $284,700 $248,000 $225,000 $232,250 $235,000 i +1.2% -17.5% Saint Paul - Lexington- Hamline $260,950 $225,000 $214,900 $217,000 $210,000 -3.2% -19.5% Saint Paul - Macalester- Groveland $275,000 $265,000 $240,000 $250,000 $228,750 i -8.5% -16.8% Saint Paul - North End / South Como $158,375 $81,000 $75,000 $76,250 $57,313 -24.89/o -63.8% Saint Paul - Payne - Phalen $150,700 $79,950 $70,000 $82,500 $65,000 -21.2% � -56.9% Saint Paul - St. Anthony Park f , $246,150 $241,000 $258,000 $216,750 $180,000 1 -17.0% -26.9% Saint Paul - Summit Hill $301,750 $261,000 $315,000 $370,000 $325,000 -12.2% +7.7% Saint Paul - Summit - Universlty I $208,500 $165,000 $125,000 $157,325 $130,000 1 -17.4% -37.6% Saint Paul - Thomas -Dale ; $122,800 $44,450 $49,500 $65,450 $45,000 ; -31.2% -63.4% Saint Paul - West Seventh i $194,000 $151,623 $146,900 $142,900 $103,626 - 27.5% -46.6% Saint Paul - West Side , $180,000 $110,000 $91,000 $113,000 $82,000 t -27.4% -54.4% Saint Paul Park $191,500 $155,450 $129,900 $134,600 $116,000 -13.8% -39.4% Savage t $257,000 $240,000 $210,000 $200,000 $187,000 -6.5% -27.2% Shakopee , $220,000 $199,888 $175,000 $180,000 $154,900 i -13.9% -29.6% Shoreview $236,500 $222,000 $205,000 $205,000 $180,000 1 -12.2% -23.9% Shorewood t I $450,000 $465,000 $356,200 $359,288 $350,000 t -2.6% -22.2% Somerset $177,400 $145,000 $136,400 $130,950 $127,000 -3.0% -28.4% South Haven $216,450 $164,750 $160,000 $215,500 $195,000 -9.5% -9.9% South Saint Paul t $182,000 $158,000 $130,250 $131,500 $114,990 t -12.6% -36.8% Spring Lake Park $195,000 $159,000 $136,500 $131,000 $92,250 -29.6% -52.7% Stacy $231,000 $175,000 $153,450 $138,500 $139,000 +0.4% -39.8% Stillwater , $277,000 $262,950 $208,500 $230,000 $208,000 , -9.6% -24.9% Tonka Bay i $1,055,000 $1,062,500 $525,000 $495,000 $550,000 i + 11.196 -47.9% Vadnais Heights t $201,250 $195,900 $153,500 $165,000 $165,000 0.0% -18.0% Victoria $402,500 $401,000 $330,375 $374,695 $352,500 1. -5.9% -12.4% Waconla $254,000 $237,000 $199,700 $213,500 $187,500 -12.2% -26.2% Watertown i , $215,000 $186,000 $175,263 $159,500 $118,000 , -26.0% - 45.1 % Wayzata $533,994 $409,400 $500,000 $439,000 $405,000 - 7.7% -24.2% West Saint Paul $188,950 $160,800 $126,500 $136,500 $120,000 -12.1% -36.5% White Bear Lake 1 $221,900 $200,000 $167,000 $175,000 "$148,500 , -15.1% - 33.1 % Woodbury $268,595 $261,900 $239,000 $243,750 $219,700 -9.9% -18.2% Wyoming $224,450 $189,900 $165,000 $156,700 $152,500 t -2.7% -32.1% Zimmerman 1 ----- --- -- - --- $203,900 ------- $154,950 --------------- $135,000 $143,700 ----- $117,950 - - - - -- -�- _17.9% -42.2% - - - - -- �1 Current as of January 13, 2012. Sponsored by Royal Credit Union (www.RCU.org). All data from the Regional Multiple Listing Service. Powered by 10K Research and Marketing. 1 15 2011 Annual Report on the Twin Cities Housing Market Historical Review MINNEAPOLIS AREA Association -r REALTORS' Need More Data? Check out www.mplsrealtor.com to access up -to -date market reports throughout the year. You can also create your own custom reports on- the -fly with The Thing, our new interactive market analytics tool. Just a few simple clicks will break out any area you need by any variable you need. Access it now at http: / /thething.mplsrealtor.com. n-. •-• --• - - -. ------ oee Current as of January 13, 2012. Sponsored by Royal Credit Union (www.RCU.org). All data from the Regional Multiple Listing Sendce. Powered by 10K Research and Marketing. 1 16 Number of Total Dollar Number of Average Year Listings Volume Units Sold Sales Price Processed On billions) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- I - - - - - - Iwo - - - - - - - - - - 37,018 - - - - - - $1.34 18,351 $74,069 � , F 1981 35,580 $1.25 15,675 $80,238 � t ' 1982 41,465 $1.00 12,193 $82,288 ' � I t 1983 50,794 $1.35 15,914 $84,953 1 t 1984 53,646 $1.55 18,231 $85,007 � I 1985 51,492 $1.87 21,335 $87,789 � t ' 1986 58,382 $2.52 28,015 $90,319 ' t t 1987 55,422 $2.46 25,772 $95,914 � t t 1988 80,771 $3.21 34,244 $93,977 � t 1989 89,170 $3.28 33,962 $96,658 r 1990 78,548 $3.37 34,496 $98,016 1 1991 71,850 $3.52 35,598 $99,402 t t 1992 72,730 $4.31 41,944 $103,264 � t 1993 70,685 $4.30 39,842 $107,569 I 1980 -1996 1994 63,369 $4.73 42,454 $111,806 1995 64,556 $4.94 42,310 $117,053 All property types and ' all MLS districts. t 1996 73,433 $5.82 46,949 $124,022 � 1997 63,189 $5.68 41,441 $137,085 f . r 1998 64,280 $7.09 47,836 $147,346 1997 - Present t 1999 57,573 $7.62 46,675 $163,277 1 Single- family detached 2000 59,618 $8.76 48,208 $181,605 homes, condominiums, 2001 71,861 $10.22 50,298 $203,136 townhomes and twin homes for the 13- county metro area. t ' 2002 73,940 $11.33 51,212 $221,275 ' t � 2003 88,129 $13.80 57,457 $240,005 1 2003 - Present t t 2004 100,035 $15.62 60,176 $259,292 ' Home sales were recalculated t 2005 99,629 $16.60 60,061 $273,673 � , in 2011 to account for all late- ' 2006 108,033 $13.92 49,414 $279,151 ' recorded activity, affecting I data back to 2003. 2007 104,986 $11.41 41,027 $275,774 ' I � I 2008 93,451 $9.44 39,591 $236,585 I I 2009 82,969 $9.19 45,871 $199,378 � , ' I 2010 81,846 $8.16 38,283 $211,350 I 2011 68,875 $8.07 41,429 $193,450 1 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - j Need More Data? Check out www.mplsrealtor.com to access up -to -date market reports throughout the year. You can also create your own custom reports on- the -fly with The Thing, our new interactive market analytics tool. Just a few simple clicks will break out any area you need by any variable you need. Access it now at http: / /thething.mplsrealtor.com. n-. •-• --• - - -. ------ oee Current as of January 13, 2012. Sponsored by Royal Credit Union (www.RCU.org). All data from the Regional Multiple Listing Sendce. Powered by 10K Research and Marketing. 1 16 FORECLOSURE DATA While foreclosure information is important for consideration in valuing properties on .an individual basis, these properties are not used when determining overall assessment value changes for the city. Department of Revenue and Hennepin County standards require these lender- mediated. sales be rejected from the sales study to determine property valuation. Foreclosure is a legal process that allows a lender /bank to take possession of and sell a property due to non - payment of a loan that is secured by that property. After the completion of the foreclosure process, the lender /bank has title to the property. The foreclosure process begins when a borrower /owner defaults on loan payments, and the lender files a Notice of Default. The Sheriff's Sale, as it is called in Minnesota, is the event where the property is sold to the highest bidder. The notice of pending Sheriff's Sale is published for six weeks prior to the sale, and the sheriff or designee will serve notice to the occupant one month prior to the sale. Typically at the Sheriff's Sale, the . lender /bank will open bidding with the exact amount due at the time of sale. Following this opening bid, other bidders are given an opportunity to bid at higher amounts. The successful bidder will receive a Sheriff's Certificate of Sale. After the Sheriff's Sale the borrower has the right to redeem the property by paying the successful bidder at the sheriffs sale the amount of the successful final bid plus interest and applicable fees. -This is referred to as the redemption period. For most properties, this is six months in length. During the redemption period, the original owner of the property may continue to live in the property and the successful bidder at the Sheriffs Sale may not enter the property without permission of the original owner. If, after six months, the property is not redeemed, the highest bidder at the Sheriff's Sale is the undisputed owner of the property. At this time, if the lender /bank is the owner of the property, the property is typically listed for sale. The sale that transpires is the sale that is rejected from the sales study used in analysis to calculate market value. Another type of sale that the staff has studied is a short sale. Short sales are special arrangements where the financial institution and the in- default homeowners attempt to sell the property before the foreclosure process, generally for an amount less than the current mortgage obligation. These sales can be more difficult to track because there is no recording of this type of sale; it must be monitored through sales verification. , 73 HENNEPIN COUNTY FORECLOSURES 2007 through 2011 City' Total 2007:. Total 2008 ' Tota1 2009 Total 2010 Total 2011 Bloomington 198 274 234 279 300 Brooklyn Park 614 1,005 720 723 595 Eden Prairie 162 186 145 132 177 Edina 72 75 90 104 76 Hopkins 66 90 76 89 81 Maple Grove 176 281 224 349 240 Minnetonka 88 175 126 161 155 Plymouth 124 165 159 210 109 Richfield 115 230 150 110 132 St. Louis Park 90 143 92 201 169 The foreclosures listed are those that have actually gone through the sheriff's sale proceedings. Out of the 76 properties in 2011 for the City of Edina: • 59% are single - family, double or zero lot -line • 78% are homestead • 41% are condominiums or townhouses 74