Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-07-20_STUDY SESSIONAGENDA EDINA HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY EDINA CITY COUNCIL JULY 20, 2.010 7:00 P.M: ROLLCALL ADOPTION OF CONSENT AGENDA Adoption. of the Consent Agenda- is made by the Commissioners as to HRA items and by;the' Council Members as to Council items. All agenda items marked with an asterisk (') in bold print are Consent Agenda items and are considered routine and will be enacted 6y one motion: There will be no separate discussion 'of such items unless a Commissioner or,Council Member so requests it. In such cases4.the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in its normal sequence on the.Agenda. EDINA HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY * I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF HRA - Regular Meeting of July 6, 2010 * Il. RESOLUTION NO. 2010 -1 Appointing Heather Worthington, Interim Executive Director of Ediriia-Housing & Redevelopment Authority III. ADJOURNMENT EDINA CITY COUNCIL Liberty Mutual Fire Mark Award – Edina Fire Fighter /Paramedic Brian Hanrahan. * I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Regular Meeting of July 6, 2010 and Work Sessions of July 6, 2010 . II: PUBLIC .HEARINGS During "Public Hearings," the Mayor will ask for public testimony 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 respecMil 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 — Final Development Plan & Final Rezoning The Waters, Resolution No. 2010 -61 Final .Development Plan, Resolution No. 2010 -62 Findings Rezoning, Ordinance No. 850 -A -34 Final Rezoning (Favorable rollcall vote of three . Council Members present to approve) Agenda/Edina City Council July 20, 2010 Page 2 III. AWARD OF BID /CHANGE ORDERS * A. Soil Retention Tie -Back System for Braemar West Arena Bleachers * B. Track Loader — Edina Park Maintenance Department * C. Indoor Sweeper For Public Work Building * D. West 44th Street Mill and Overlay — Brookside Avenue To Brookside Terrace, Improvement No. BA -379 * E. Edinborough Park Bathroom Addition IV. REPORTS /RECOMMENDATIONS (Favorable vote of majority of Council Members present to approve except where noted) A. First Reading - Ordinance No. 2010 -11 Amending Edina City Code Concerning Boards and Commissions (First Reading: Requires offering of Ordinance only. Second Reading: Affirmative rollca/l vote of three Council Members to pass. Waiver of Second Reading: Affirmative rollcall vote of four Council Members to pass.) * B. Resolution No. 2010 -59 Authorizing Facsimile Signatures * C. Resolution No. 2010 -60 Authorizing Investment Agreements * D. Approve Summary Publication of Ordinance No. 2010 -08 E Resolution No. 2010 -58 Accepting Various Donations (Affirmative vote of four Council Members to approve) * F. EHS Hockey Alumni Donation to Braemar West Arena — A Tribute to Coach Willard (kola (Affirmative vote of four Council Members to approve) G. Appointment of Student Members To Boards, Commissions & Committees * H. Traffic Safety Report of July 7, 2010 * I. Resolution No. 2010 -64 Authorizing Condemnation of Land For Sidewalk Purposes — France Avenue Sidewalk Improvement No. S -101 J. Renaming Park Centrum 'Hughes Pavilion' V. 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. VI. FINANCE Agenda/Edina City Council July 20, 2010 Page 3 A. CONFIRMATION OF PAYMENT OF CLAIMS As per Pre -List dated July 8, 2010, TOTAL $562,161.28; and Pre -List dated July 15, 2010, TOTAL $1,080,939.66 and Credit Card Transaction Dated 5/26/10 — 6/25110 TOTAL $8,249.17. VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS A. Correspondence VIII. MAYOR AND COUNCIL COMMENTS IX. MANAGER'S COMMENTS X. 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 -8861 72 hours in advance of the meeting. SCHEDULE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS /DATES /EVENTS Tues July 20 Work Session — City Council /PDI Consultant 4:30 — 5:00 P.M. Tues Jul 20 Work Session — Budget 5:00 — 6:00 P.M. Tues July 20 Closed Session — Labor Negotiations 6:00 — 6:30 P.M. Tues Jul 20 Regular Meeting 7:00 P.M. Mon Jul 26 Gordon Hughes Retirement Reception 5:00 — 8:00 P.M. Tues Jul 27 Study Session — to be determined 7:00 A.M. Thur Jul 29 Dedication — Edina Public Works Facility 4:00 — 6:00 P.M. Mon Aug 2 Work Session — City Council /PDI Consultant 5:00 — 5:30 P.M. Mon Aug 2 Work Session — Supreme Court Decision on Variances 5:30 — 6:00 P.M. Mon Aug 2 Regular Meeting 7:00 P.M. Tues Aug 3 Filing Opens — Edina City Council Affidavits of Candidacy Tues Aug 10 PRIMARY ELECTION DAY — POLLS OPEN 7:00 A.M. UNTIL 8:00 P.M. Tues Aug 17 Regular Meeting 7:00 P.M. Tues Aug 17 Filing Closes — Edina City Council Affidavits of Candidacy Tues Aug 24 Study Session — to be determined 11:30 A.M. Mon Sep 6 LABOR DAY HOLIDAY OBSERVED — City Hall Closed Tues Sep 7 Regular Meeting 7:00 P.M. Tues Sep 21 Regular Meeting 7:00 P.M. Tues Sep 28 Study Session — to be determined 7:00 A.M. Tues Oct 5 Regular Meeting 7:00 P.M. Tues Oct 19 Regular Meeting 7:00 P.M. Tues Oct 26 Study Session — to be determined 11:30 A.M. COMMUNITY ROOM COMMUNITY ROOM COMMUNITY ROOM COUNCIL CHAMBERS CENNTENNIAL LAKES COMMUNITY ROOM PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY COMMUNITY ROOM COMMUNITY ROOM COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY CLERKS OFFICE COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY CLERKS OFFICE COMMUNITY ROOM COUNCIL CHAMBERS COUNCIL CHAMBERS COMMUNITY ROOM COUNCIL CHAMBERS COUNCIL CHAMBERS COMMUNITY ROOM MINUTES OF THE EDINA HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY HELD AT CITY HALL JULY 6, 2010 7:04 P.M. ROLLCALL Answering rollcall were Commissioners, Bennett, Brindle, Housh, . Swenson and Chair Hovland. CONSENT AGENDA APPROVED Motion made by Commissioner Bennett and seconded by Commissioner Swenson for approval of the Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority Consent Agenda as presented. 'Rollcall: Ayes: Bennett, Brindle,`Housh, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. . *MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 15, 201.0.. APPROVED Motion made by Commissioner Bennett and seconded by Commissioner Swenson approving the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority for June 15, 2010. Motion carried on rollcall vote - five ayes. There being no further business on the Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority Agenda, Chair Hovland declared the meeting adjourned at 7:08 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Gordon H. Hughes, Executive Director Ow �I N ,aas REPORT/RECOMMENDATION To: CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS Agenda Item HRA Item No. II From: John Wallin - Finance Director ® Action Discussion Information Date: July 20, 2010 Subject: HRA Resolution No. 2010 -1 Appointing Heather Worthington, Interim Executive Director of Edina Housing & Redevelopment Authority ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt Resolution. INFORMATION /BACKGROUND: The attached resolution would appoint Heather Worthington the Executive Director for the Housing Redevelopment Authority on an interim basis. A copy of the recommended resolution, as drafted by the City's attorney, is attached for your review. ATTACHMENT: HRA Resolution No. 2010 -1. HRA RESOLUTION NO. 2010-1 RESOLUTION APPOINTING EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ON AN INTERIM BASIS RECITALS A. Gordon Hughes, the Edina City Manager and Executive Director of the Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority, has submitted his resignation effective July 30th, 2010. B. The City is conducting a search for a new City Manager who will become the Executive Director of the Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE EDINA HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY: 1. Effective July 30th, 2010 at 4:31 p.m. Heather Worthington is appointed Executive Director of the Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority on an interim basis until such time as a new Executive Director commences employment with the City. 2. This appointment shall carry with it the duties and responsibilities associated with the office of Executive Director, and Heather Worthington shall be listed as a signatory on all HRA accounts. ADOPTED by the Board of Commissioners of the Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority this 20 day of July, 2010. Its Chair Attest: Its Executive Director ow e \�CORPOFIp-�v_ 1688 AGENDA ITEM Liberty Mutual Fire Mark Award — Edina Fire Fighter /Paramedic Brian Hanrahan � No packet data Oral presentation ❑ Information coming MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HALL JULY 6, 2010 7:08 P.M. ROLLCALL Answering rollcall were Members Bennett, Brindle, Housh, Swenson and Mayor Hovland. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS APPROVED Motion made by Member Bennett and seconded by Member Swenson approving the Council Consent Agenda with the exceptions of Items II.B., insurance renewals; 111,1.2., set hearing date for planning items: amendment to final development plan, Cypress Equities (8/2/2010); III.J., Resolution No. 2010 -54 authorizing use of central count ballot counter for primary and general elections; and III.L., Resolution No. 2010 -55, appointing Interim City Manager. Rollcall: Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Housh, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. *MINUTES APPROVED — REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 15, 2010, AND WORK SESSION OF JUNE 15, 2010 Motion made by Member Bennett and seconded by Member Swenson approving the minutes of the regular meeting of June 15, 2010, and work session of June 15, 2010. Motion carried, on rollcall vote — five ayes. *AWARD OF BID — 15 DSR -E SQUAD RADAR PACKAGES — EDINA POLICE DEPARTMENT Motion made by Member Bennett and seconded by Member Swenson awarding the bid for 15 DSR -E squad radar packages to the recommended low bidder, Stalker Radar Applied Concepts, Inc. at $37,032.19. Motion carried on rollcall vote — five ayes. AWARD OF BID — INSURANCE RENEWALS: 1. WORKERS COMPENSATION, 2. GENERAL LIABILITY, AND 3. PROPERTY The Council asked whether a workers compensation bid was requested from the League of Minnesota Cities. Bill Homeyer, agent of record, indicated he contacted the League each year to request a quote, but they had declined since their bid was not competitive. Assistant to City Manager Smith advised that the League does not insure several other Minnesota cities in addition to Edina, and the payments made to the League were for deductibles from on -going worker's compensation claims. The Council noted the property insurance premium would decrease. Jack Carroll, agent of record, confirmed that more markets were willing to quote property insurance so that premium would decrease by 40 percent. Member Bennett made a motion, seconded by Member Swenson, awarding the bid for worker's compensation at $470,143; general liability at $338,096; and property insurance at $51,259 to the recommended low bidder, Traveler's. Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Housh, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. *AWARD OF BID — SHELVING FOR NEW PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY Motion made by Member Bennett and seconded by Member Swenson awarding the bid for shelving for new Public Works Facility to the recommended low bidder, Mid America Business Systems at $76,299.82. Motion carried on rollcall vote — five ayes. ORDINANCE NO. 2010 -08 ADOPTED — AMENDING SECTION 850 ADDING HEIGHT OVERLAY DISTRICT Assistant Planner Aaker presented the recommendation of staff and the Page 1 Minutes /Edina City Council /July 6. 2010 Planning Commission to approve an ordinance amendment to establish a building height overlay district to regulate building heights in the commercial, industrial, and high density residential zoning districts. This amendment would bring the City's zoning ordinance into compliance with the comprehensive plan, which established maximum building heights within certain areas of the City. Ms. Aaker noted this amendment had been previously considered by the,Council and would result in three revisions: 1. the area north of 66th Street, west of Xerxes, from a 4 -story maximum to a 12 -story maximum; 2. the area west of France Avenue, south of 76th Street and east of Parklawn from 4 -story maximum to a 12 -story maximum; and, 3. the Gramercy site on 70th Street, west of Highway 100, from an 8 -story maximum to a 4 -story maximum. Following consultation with Attorney Knutson, Council consensus was reached to clarify wording: page 2, paragraph following MDD chart, to indicate: "The minimum building setback shall be increased by one -half foot for each foot the building height exceeds the minimum required setback. If the tract abuts land zoned and used for residential purposes, the required interior side yard setback shall not be less than 35 feet." Page 4, paragraph Cl: change the word "exceeds" to "exceed," page 4, sixth paragraph, to indicate: "ii) pedestrian connections by way of skyways and tunnels. The City Council will consider' page 5, Section 850.22, Subd. 1. Purpose, to indicate: "...building height regulations in order to minimize the visual impact of tall buildings..." Member Housh made a motion to grant First Reading and waive Second Reading adopting Ordinance No. 2010 -08, amending the zoning ordinance to add a building height overlay district, as revised. Member Swenson seconded the motion. Rollcall: Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Housh, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. RESOLUTION NO. 2010 -52 ADOPTED — DIRECTING STUDY OF ROOFTOP RESTAURANTS Manager Hughes advised that at least one restaurant was considering rooftop dining, so staff recommended a moratorium to study potential parking issues and nuisance aspects of dining in those locations. The Council discussed the recommendation and whether the moratorium should be placed for.six months, with the option to extend, in an effort to not impede commerce or discourage businesses from investing in Edina. It was acknowledged that the study should also address the potential for increased parking demand, especially 501h and France Avenues during summer months, that rooftop restaurant in some zoning districts may have different impacts, and staff's report was to be received within six months. Member Housh introduced and moved adoption of Resolution No. 2010 -52, directing completion of a study on the regulation of rooftop restaurants and preparation of official controls based upon that study with staff s report received within six months. Member Brindle seconded the motion. Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Housh, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. ORDINANCE NO. 2010 -14 ADOPTED — ESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM ON ROOFTOP RESTAURANTS IN EDINA Member Brindle made a motion to grant First Reading and waive Second Reading adopting Ordinance, No. 2010 -14, an interim ordinance temporarily prohibiting rooftop restaurants. Member Housh seconded the motion. Rollcall: Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Housh, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. ORDINANCE NO. 2010 -10 ADOPTED — AMENDING CITY CODE CONCERNING SWIMMING POOLS; FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS AND FOOD VENDING MACHINES; AND HOTELS, LODGING AND BOARDING HOUSES Community Health Administrator Engelman presented staff's recommendation to amend ordinance language to be consistent with State requirements and answered questions of the Council. Member Swenson made a motion to grant First Reading and waive Second Reading adopting Ordinance No. 2010 -10, amending the City Page 2 Minutes /Edina City Council /July 6, 2010 Code concerning swimming pools; food establishments and food vending machines; and hotels, lodging and boarding houses. Member Brindle seconded the motion. Rollcall: Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Housh, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS STUDY PRESENTED AND TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT Suzanne Kerwin, 5238 Hollywood Road, presented the study conducted by the League of Women Voters regarding private use and access to public facilities in Edina with a focus on park and recreation facilities and city communications. Ms. Kerwin advised of the League's recommendations and thanked City staff for its cooperation. The City Council thanked Ms. Kerwin and all who served on the study committee and indicated the study would be taken under advisement. RESOLUTION NO. 2010 -56 ADOPTED — IDENTIFYING NEED FOR LIVABLE COMMUNITY ACT GRANT FOR GRANDVIEW DISTRICT REPORT Assistant Manager Worthington presented staff's recommendation to authorize submission of a grant for funding to do an in -depth small area plan for the Grandview District. The Council discussed the recommendation and asked questions of Ms. Worthington about the grant process. It was noted that the grant filing deadline was July 19, 2010, and the Citizens Advisory Team (CAT) would continue to oversee the vision. Kim Montgomery, CAT member, explained the CAT Chairs were not available, so it was agreed that members would come forward at the meeting to assure the application fully reflected CAT's desire and criteria since there were no plans to reconvene before the submittal deadline. Ms. Worthington indicated the application would be based on CAT's seven guiding principles and she had informed CAT Chair Staunton that the grant draft would be submitted to CAT for its input prior to submittal. Member Swenson introduced and moved adoption of Resolution No. 2010 -56 identifying the need for livable community's demonstration account funding and authorizing an application for grant funds. Member Bennett seconded the motion. Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Housh, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. RESOLUTION NO. 2010 -53 ADOPTED ACCEPTING VARIOUS DONATIONS Mayor Hovland explained that in order to comply with State Statutes; all donations to the City must be adopted by Resolution and approved by four favorable votes of the Council accepting the donations. Member Bennett introduced and moved adoption of Resolution No. 2010 -53 accepting various donations. Member Brindle seconded the motion. Rollcall: Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Housh, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT COMMISSION APPOINTMENT DELAYED The City Council discussed the appointment process and acknowledged the recommendation of Energy & Environment Commission Chair Plunkett Latham to not fill the vacancy until the end of the year when annual appointments were made. Member Housh noted that several applications had been received from citizens who were interested in serving on this Commission. Member Brindle made a motion, seconded by Member Swenson, to not fill the Energy & Environment Commission vacancy until the end of the year when annual appointments were made. Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Swenson, Hovland Nays: Housh Motion carried. *PUBLIC HEARING DATE SET FOR PLANNING ITEM: FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN, FINAL PLAT & FINAL REZONING — THE WATERS (7/20/2010) Motion made by Member Bennett Page 3 Minutes /Edina City Council /July 6. 2010 and seconded by Member Swenson setting a public hearing date of July 20, 2010 for The Waters, Final Development Plan, Final Plat, and Final Rezoning. Motion carried on rollcall vote — five ayes. PUBLIC HEARING DATE SET FOR PLANNING ITEM: AMENDMENT TO FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN — CYPRESS EQUITIES (8/2/2010) It was noted that resident concern remained regarding the Cypress Equities project. John Bohan, 800 Coventry Place, requested that the public hearing allow comment on the applicant's June 11, 2010, request for amplification of music; the June 24, 2010, request for revised elevation to add sliding glass doors and a two -sided wood burning fireplace; and, that the August 2, 2010, public hearing notice clarify these two points. Attorney Knutson explained the public hearing before the Planning Commission only addressed amplification of music with the intention that the other two issues (sliding glass doors and wood burning fireplace) would come directly before the Council for determination whether the amendments were minor not requiring a public hearing or should be referred to the Planning Commission for hearing. The Council discussed the amendments and application timing. Mr. Hughes noted that should the Council elect to defer the two items to the Planning Commission for public hearing, it could be accommodated at their July 28, 2010, meeting. In addition, both published and mailed notice could be given for the Planning Commission and Council meetings. Member Swenson made a motion, seconded by Member Housh, setting public hearing date for planning item: amendment to final development plan, Cypress Equities, to August 2, 2010, and referring the requested amendments for the glass partition and fireplace to the Planning Commission for review and comment. Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Housh, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. RESOLUTION NO. 2010 -54 ADOPTED — AUTHORIZING USE OF CENTRAL COUNT BALLOT COUNTER FOR PRIMARY AND GENERAL ELECTIONS The Council asked questions of City Clerk Mangen regarding the type of paper reports generated by the ballot counter and process to count absentee ballots. Member Bennett introduced and moved adoption of Resolution No. 2010 -54, authorizing election equipment central counter for absentee ballots. Member Brindle seconded the motion. Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Housh, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. *GRANT ACCEPTED — AGREEMENT FOR OUTDOOR HOCKEY RINKS PROJECTS, HENNEPIN COUNTY YOUTH SPORTS, APPROVED Motion made by Member Bennett and seconded by Member Swenson accepting the $60,000 grant awarded by the Hennepin Youth Sports Program of Hennepin County and approving the agreement for outdoor hockey rinks project as submitted and required by Hennepin County. Motion carried on rollcall vote — five ayes. RESOLUTION NO. 2010 -55 ADOPTED — APPOINTING INTERIM CITY MANAGER The Council noted Manager Hughes' last day would be July 30, 2010, at 4:30 p.m. and consensus was reached to revise the resolution to indicate that Interim City Manager Worthington would be appointed on an interim basis starting on July 30, 2010, at 4:31 p.m. Member Swenson introduced and moved adoption of Resolution No. 2010 -55, appointing City Manager on an interim basis as revised above. Member Bennett seconded the motion. Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Housh, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. Page 4 Minutes /Edina City Council /July 6, 2010 *RESOLUTION NO. 2010 -57 ADOPTED — CALLING PUBLIC HEARING AUGUST 2. 2010. FOR INTERLACHEN BOULEVARD SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT: NO. S -106 AND NORMANDALE ROAD AND VALLEY VIEW SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT: NO. S -104 Motion made by Member Bennett and seconded by Member Swenson to adopt Resolution No. 2010 -57, set public hearing of August 2, 2010, sidewalk construction for Interlachen Boulevard, Improvement No. S -106, Normandale Road and Valley View Road, Improvement No. S -104. Motion carried on rollcall vote — five ayes. COMMUNITY COMMENT Tom Moses, 6969 Langford Court, expressed his concern about adverse impacts resulting from the designated bicycle routes. The Council advised that a joint meeting with the Three Rivers Park District would be scheduled, and if the proposed bisysle multipurpose recreation trail routes moved forward, a public hearing would be held when residents could provide testimony. Julie Boemer, 6971 Langford Court, asked whether citizens could e-mail comments to the Council. The Council answered in the affirmative. COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT (CAFR) FOR YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2009 RECEIVED Finance Director Wallin thanked Assistant Finance Director Roggeman and the entire Finance staff for their work on the financial report, noting the City received the Certificate of Achievement of Excellence for Financial Reporting from the MnGFOA. James Eichten, Malloy, Montague, Karnowski, Radosevich & Co., P.A., presented the comprehensive annual financial report (CAFR) for year ended December 31, 2009, management report, and special purpose audit report. He advised that the audit received an unqualified clean opinion and the report would be submitted to the MnGFOA for consideration of certification. Mr. Eichten stated there were no findings related to internal controls and no issues of non - compliance. He said there were two minor findings: 1) additional language was necessary in a contract and 2) advertisements for bids must have ten days publication prior to bid submission. Mr. Eichten advised the City's financial records continue to be in excellent condition. Member Brindle made a motion, seconded by Member Housh, to accept the comprehensive annual financial report for year ended December 31, 2009. Member Bennett noted the audit report included not only the $28 million general fund but an analysis of all funds, totaling $79 million. She asked the Council to defer action for two weeks to allow additional time for Council and public review prior to acceptance of the CAFR. The Council discussed this request and noted the audit report was for the past year and residents could make comment at any time during Public Comment, even if the report was accepted. It was noted that going forward, the Council could discuss its level of involvement with enterprise operations. Ayes: Brindle, Housh, Swenson, Hovland Nays: None Abstain: Bennett Motion carried. *CONFIRMATION OF CLAIMS PAID Motion made by Member Bennett and seconded by Member Swenson approving payment of the following claims as shown in detail on the Check Register dated June 17, 2010, and consisting of 30 pages: General Fund $318,697.68; Communications Fund $14,346.24; General Debt Service Fund $2,390.00; Working Capital Fund $3,046.67; Equipment Replacement Fund $258.70; Art Center Fund $5,147.31; Golf Dome Fund $1,388.00; Aquatic Center Fund $5,649.62; Golf Course Fund $34,656.92; Ice Arena Fund $6,753.73; Edinborough /Centennial Lakes Fund $19,523.45; Liquor Fund $228,229.39; Utility Fund $61,172.19; Storm Sewer Fund $823.73; Recycling Fund $37,683.00; PSTF Agency Fund $796.23; TOTAL $740.562.86: for approval of payment of claims dated June 24, 2010, and consisting of 34 pages: General Fund $156,278.61; Communications Fund $5,395.41; General Debt Service Fund $2,000.00; Working Capital Page 5 Minutes /Edina Citv Council /July 6. 2010 Fund $1,420,855.15; Equipment Replacement Fund $24,712.11; Art Center Fund $4,699.38; Golf Dome Fund $154.71; Aquatic Center Fund $8,942.97; Golf Course Fund $28,573.93; Ice Arena Fund $408,426.01; Edinborough /Centennial Lakes Fund $9,766.39; Liquor Fund $144,447.61; Utility Fund $210,331.72; Storm Sewer Fund $324,249.68; TOTAL $2,748,833.68; and, for approval of payment of claims dated July 1, 2010, and consisting of 36 pages: General Fund $107,051.36; Communications Fund $3,004.49; Working Capital Fund $123,343.83; Equipment Replacement Fund $5,711.16; Art Center Fund $14,484.34; Golf Dome Fund $44.96; Aquatic Center Fund $6,895.63; Golf Course Fund $42,993.36; Ice Arena Fund $4,223.72; Edinborough /Centennial Lakes Fund $20,113.96; Liquor Fund $228,995.63; Utility Fund $42,159.36; Storm Sewer Fund $17,796.81; Recycling Fund $32.61; PSTF Agency Fund $5,497.20; TOTAL $622,348.42. Motion carried on rollcall vote — five ayes. REQUEST FOR INDEPENDENT LEGAL OPINION, INDEPENDENT AUDIT, AND REPORT ON EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT AND EMPLOYEE BENEFIT POLICY Member Bennett stated that Mr. Hughes' Employment Contract and the Employee Benefit Policy govern the payout of Mr. Hughes' accrued vacation and sick leave. She indicated it appeared there were several internal inconsistencies contained in the Policy such as the definition between "accrual" and "maximum annual carry forward." The Employment Contract stated it was subject to the Policy but also stated provisions not consistent with the Policy. She noted that one of the Council's biggest responsibilities was fiscal oversight. Member Bennett said it was the Council's duty to exercise this fiscal oversight since the handling of this matter could have implications to the City in similar situations. Member Bennett made a motion that the City: 1. obtain an independent outside legal opinion as to the interrelationship, interpretation, and application of the Employment Contract and Employee Benefit Policy; 2. obtain an independent outside third -party audit of the benefits payout itself; and, 3. the results and determinations of these studies be brought back to the Council for review. Mayor Hovland called for a second to the motion for discussion purposes. Hearing none, he declared the motion to have failed for lack of a second. Mayor Hovland indicated that the 1986 1998 employment contract was signed by the City and Mr. Hughes when it was legally represented by Dorsey and Whitney. That contract entitled Mr. Hughes to certain benefits including sick leave and vacation accrual. He noted the City Attorney had advised the Council that the accrual information was confidential and would become public information when the benefits were paid out. Member Bennett clarified she was not asking to void Mr. Hughes' contract or deny responsibilities but was requesting clarification so the Council's responsibility could be discharged in a responsible manner. There being no further business on the Council Agenda, Mayor Hovland declared the meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk Minutes approved by Edina City Council, July 20, 2010. James B. Hovland, Mayor Video Copy of the July 6, 2010, meeting available. Page 6 MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HALL JULY 6, 2010 5:00 P.M. ROLLCALL Answering rollcall were Members Bennett, Brindle, Swenson and Mayor Hovland. Absent at rollcall was Member Housh. Staff present: Ceil Smith, Assistant to the City Manager. Also present: Siobhan Cleary, PDI. Mayor Hovland stated the purpose of the meeting was to narrow the number of candidates based upon the City Council's review of application materials submitted. Mr. Brull, of PDI had narrowed the candidates to thirteen from 29. Council Members each selected s+* .five of the thirteen applicants. Council Member Housh called the Mayor with his selections and gave the Mayor his proxy. The Council's selections were tabulated. The six candidates that 6eleGted the M06t times- receiving the highest vote totals were advanced in the process to continue on to the first round of interviews. The Mayor adjourned the work session at approximately 4:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Minutes approved by Edina City Council, July 6, 2010. Ceil Smith, Assistant to the City Manger James B. Hovland, Mayor MINUTES OF THE JOINT WORK SESSION OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL AND THE ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT "COMMISSION HELDAT CITY HALL 'JULY'6, 2010 5:00•P.M. ROLLCALL Answering rollcall were Members Bennett, Brindle, Swenson and Mayor Hovland. Absent at rollcall was Member Housh. Members of the Energy and Environment Commission in attendance were: Commissioners Bob'Gubrud, Susan Tucker, Michael Platteter, Paul Thompson, and.Chair Diane Plunkett Latham. Staff present: Gordon Hughes; City Manager; Heather Worthington, Assistant City Manager; Wayne Houle, City Engineer /Public Works Director; and Debra Mangen, City Clerk. Mayor Hovland stated the purpose of the.meeting was to allow{ouncil and Commission to discuss Green Step- Cities Pilot Program in which the City has been participating: Mayor Hovland asked Chair Plunkett Latham to report on the Pilot. Chair Plunkett Latham gave a brief report on the Green Step Pilot: • Edina chosen as one of five Cities, St. Louis Park, Bloomington, Falcon Heights & Victoria • Environmental objectives included: reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, protection of natural resources and support of healthy living • Work goals were adopted and ECC recommended 14 best practices: • Efficient existing public buildings • Efficient existing private buildings • Comprehensive Plan • Complete Green Streets • Environmentally preferable purchasing policy • Urban forest — increase city tree and plant cover • Efficient storm water management • Green infrastructure • Improve surface water quality • Managing solid waste • Improve air quality • Benchmarks and community involvement • Green business development • Renewable energy Chair Plunkett Latham presented a possible program developed by the Recycling and Solid Waste Working Group of the ECC entitled "Art on Bins" Council requested a formal response be obtained from the Energy & Environment Commission and brought back to the Council. The Council and Commission discussed the Green Step Pilot Program. A final version will be brought to a future Council meeting. The Council thanked the Energy and Environment Commission for their hard work on the project. The Mayor adjourned the work session at approximately 6 :35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Minutes approved by Edina City Council, July 20, 2010. Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk James B. Hovland, Mayor f / 1 Vner I O y), i�baee°s REPORT/RECOMMENDATION To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL Agenda Item Item No. ILA From: Cary Teague ® Action Planning Director Discussion Information Date: July 20, 2010 Subject: Final Development Plan & Final Rezoning — The Waters. Resolution No. 2010 -61 Final Development Plan, Resolution No. 2010 -62 Findings Rezoning, Ordinance No. 850 -A -34 ACTION REQUESTED: Staff recommends that the City Council approve the Final Rezoning and Final Development Plan, per the recommendation of the Planning Commission. INFORMATION /BACKGROUND: PlanningCommission Recommendation: On June 30, 2010, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Final Rezoning and Final Development Plan subject to the findings and conditions set forth in the staff report dated June 30, 2010, and the Planning Commission meeting June 30, 2010, for a senior assisted living facility proposed by the Colonial Church of Edina/The Waters of Edina. Vote: 7 Ayes and 1 Nay. ATTACHMENTS: • Resolutions • Planning Commission Staff Report dated June 30, 2010. (At this time the applicant is not requesting Final Plat). • Draft Planning Commission minutes from June 30, 2010 • Letters from Edina residents and others commenting on the proposal received after the June 30th meeting of the Edina Planning Commission. I � -A - THE WATERS SENIOR LIVING THEWATERS OFEDINA SENIOR LIVING° Proposed Senior Housing Community on the campus of Colonial Church May 28, 2010 Cary Teague Planning Director City of Edina 4801 West 50`h Street Edina, Minnesota 55424 Subject The Waters Senior Living of Edina Dear Cary, Since the February 16`s City Council meeting, we have. been working to modify the design the Waters Senior Living of Edina senior housing community in response to the City Council's comments as well as comments received from our neighbors. Based upon these comments, we made significant changes to the building design incorporating as much as we could without jeopardizing the financial feasibility of the senior housing community. With the revised design, we are requesting your approval of the rezoning, the Development Plan and the lot subdivision. We began the design revisions based on the comments made at the City Council meeting. In cooperation with Countryside Neighborhood, we held two neighborhood meetings on April 6' and 80' to listen to all of the neighbors comments. At each meeting over 125 neighbors attended and many of them provided their comments. On May 20' we met with Countryside Neighborhood representatives to show them the revised design. Our neighbors asked many questions and we answered all of them. In addition to the formal meetings, we had several informal meetings and conversations with Countryside Neighborhood representatives. We believe that the revised design responds to most of their comments and concerns. Significant design changes: Included as Exhibit A are three exterior renderings of the senior housing community from across Countryside Park, from Colonial Church and from the south. Each rendering is shown with full vegetation and without The full vegetation is a representation of how the vegetation will look when the construction is completed. Most of the senior housing community's view will be blocked by the full vegetation. At the Planning Commission and City Council meetings we will also be showing you a SketchUp fly over. The following points highlight the four areas where there are significant design modifications: • Senior housing community reduced from 4 stories to 3 stories at grade The fourth floor was completely removed reducing the overall building height by eleven feet. The building height to the peak of the main roof is 46 feet. The building height to the mid -point of the roof height is 38 feet. Because the land elevation increases by twenty feet from west to east, it is important to also take building elevations into consideration. A comparative height illustration of the senior housing community with adjacent buildings and trees is attached as Exhibit B. The elevation of the top of the fire station is approximately 905 feet with the senior housing community's roof starting at an elevation of 898 feet or seven feet below the top of the fire station. If one was to lie on the fire station's roof and look at the senior housing community, you would see approximately half way up the roof. Most of the senior housing community will be lower than the existing adjacent trees that will be preserved along the pond and Colonial Way. • Number of units reduced to 139 from 150 and fewer larger units The removal of one floor required both the number of units to be reduced along with a reduction in the number of larger units. The number of units was reduced by 11. The original submission had 61 units being larger than one bedroom. The revised design has 41 units larger than one bedroom. The overall square footage has been reduced from 214,967 to 200,387. • Front of building modified to include more architectural features At the City Council meeting it was requested that the memory support / care suites eastern end of the building (toward the fire station) be redesigned. The eastern end has been redesigned and looks more residential. The front of the building has been redesigned to include two larger wings on opposite sides of the main entrance. These two wings break up the long front view of the senior housing community and adds to the architectural interest. • Roof redesigned to eliminate gables and to be a complete hip roof system which also looks more residential The initial roof design was a gable roof incorporating several gables which made the building look taller. The roof has been redesigned to eliminate all of the gables and to be a hip roof. Hip roofs are very traditional and look more residential. The pitches of the hip roofs are designed to complement the look of the adjacent Colonial Church campus. Reasons to support the proposed senior housing communi : There are three basic reasons to support the proposed senior housing community: the senior housing meets several of Edina's broader community needs; the location is suitable for senior housing community that will become an asset to the neighborhood; and the senior housing community will be a great place for seniors to live. • The Waters Senior Living of Edina meets significant community needs o There is a need for more senior housing community in Edina • More than 10,000 Edina residents are older than 651 the highest percentage of seniors for a city in the metropolitan area • A market study by Larsen Allen shows a demand for over 700 units of senior housing community and over 450 units of memory support. o The senior housing community provides Edina residents an opportunity to remain in their community instead of having to relocate to Eden Prairie, Hopkins or other adjacent cities to find similar senior housing opportunities. o The creation of the senior housing community also helps recycle the housing formerly occupied by the senior resident to new, younger families seeking to reside in the City of Edina o Seniors living at The Waters Senior Living of Edina will be able to age in place without having to move as they need additional assisted living services. o Experience from The Colony at Eden Prairie shows that 75% of the future residents either currently live within three miles of the site or their children do. • The proposed senior housing community is well located and will be a good neighbor o The senior housing community is surrounded by Crosstown Freeway (south), the Edina Fire Station (east), Countryside Park (north) and Colonial Church (west). o The access to the senior housing community will be off of Colonial Way which connects to an arterial street (Tracy Avenue) and then within one block to the Crosstown Freeway. o A very tall tree berm will be preserved blocking the view of the senior housing community from the west and northwest The Fire Station and adjacent trees will block most of the view from the east. The best view of the senior housing community will be across the 800 -foot wide Countryside Park and over the 40 -foot high trees along Colonial Way. This view is still a partially blocked view. o Two traffic studies recently provided by the Developer and the Edina Public Works Department's subsequent analysis of these studies confirm that the traffic generated by the proposed senior housing community development will have a minimal impact on the existing roadway network. The 2009 average daily traffic count provided by the City of Edina for Tracy Avenue and Colonial Way is approximately 7,730. The Transportation Impact Analysis by RLK in January of 2010 projected 437 daily trips related to the proposed Senior Housing Community. That projection was based upon 150 units which has since been reduced to 139 units so the number of daily trips will be closer to 400. The Transportation Impact Analysis also projected 32 weekday AM peak hour trips and 55 weekday PM peak hour trips. A vast majority of the daily trips occur during non -peak hours. o The post-development parking requirements of the senior housing community and Colonial Church combined will be exceeded by 40 %. ■ Parking Requirements • Colonial Church o Maximum seating capacity of 857 requires 286 spaces Senior Housing Community 0 169 bedrooms requires 43 spaces 0 30 peak staffing requires 30 spaces 0 2 vehicles requires 2 spaces Total parking requirement of 361 spaces ■ Parking Available • Colonial Church has 341 spaces • Senior Housing Community o 90 garage stalls o 73 surface parking o 163 total spaces • Total Parldng available of 504 spaces ■ Available parking exceeds the parking requirement by 143 spaces o The 70 -foot high trees along Nine Mile Creek will be preserved with the 40 -foot high trees along Colonial Way to provide a green buffer to the senior housing community. When these trees leaf out each spring, most of the senior housing community will not be visible through the trees. o There will be no exterior flood lights illuminating the building. Rather, all parking lot lights will be shielded and focused toward the ground. Sidewalk lighting will also be focused toward the ground. o The senior housing community development's site design will mitigate water resource impact The development will obtain approvals and permits from the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District and will incorporate a water retention pond, rain gardens, and a water detention storage plan for a 100 year storm event. The ground floor parking level of the senior housing community will be located above the 100 -year flood elevation and will have no impact on the ground water table levels or area basement flooding during heavy rain falls. o A flora and fauna study was commissioned to be sure that no impact on rare or endangered species. RLK completed their study (Exhibit C) and found no rare or endangered species of flora or fauna on the site. o The design of the senior housing community by HGA, who also designed Colonial Church, will complement each other and be of similar award - winning architecture. • The Waters Senior housing community of Edina, a great place for Edina seniors to live o The Waters Senior Living of Edina is being designed to be the finest senior housing community in Edina with extensive communal areas, state of the art wellness focus, larger apartments, and a design complementary to Colonial Church. o The cost to incorporate the extensive communal areas — wellness areas, community rooms, bistro, library, and other common areas need to be spread over 139 units to be economically feasible. As the number of units is reduced, these amenities will be eliminated and the character of the senior housing community will diminish. o The senior housing community provides 24 -hour/ seven days a week on site professional nursing services that are tailored to meet each seniors needs. At least quarterly, professional nursing staff will meet with every senior resident via a wellness screen to determine if the individualized service plan should be modified. These higher levels of nursing costs need to be spread over more units to keep the costs to the seniors as reasonable as possible. o Similar new construction, high amenity, high quality senior housing community in the metropolitan area is also sized to be economically feasible. ■ Colony at Eden Prairie —142 units plus 25 beds of Transitional Care ■ Summit Place in Eden Prairie — 265 units ■ St Therese in Hopkins — 313 units ■ Castle Ridge / Broadmoor by Presbyterian Homes — proposed to be 321 units in Eden Prairie (approved by the City Council) ■ Wayzata Bay Redevelopment by Presbyterian Homes — 247 senior housing community units ■ Waverly Gardens by Presbyterian Homes in North Oaks — 233 senior housing community units ■ Trillium Woods in Plymouth proposed to be 209 units ■ Centennial House by Ecumen in Apple Valley —148 units ■ Highview Hills by Walker Methodist in Lakeville —155 units ■ Proposed senior housing community by The Goodman Group in Chaska —150 units ■ The to be constructed senior housing community by The Waters Senior Living in Minneapolis is part of a senior housing community complex consisting of a 225 bed nursing home and a to be built 77 unit assisted living community. o The financial forecasts of the new senior housing community are based upon current rents and expenses from the Colony at Eden Prairie and thereby are realistic and financially viable. Zoning related items vet to be approved by The City of Edina In February, the City Council approved the modification of the Comprehensive Plan to allow for the proposed senior housing community. There remains three basic actions for the senior housing community to proceed: a rezoning, a Development Plan and a lot sub division. • Rezoning to Planned Resident District 5 -- Rest Homes, Convalescent Homes and Nursing Homes • This type of zoning is the best suited for senior housing communities which include assisted living, memory support and care suites. The entire building will be registered for housing with services. • NO variances requested o The following zoning requirements are complied with or exceeded — per Edina Planning report • Building and parking lot set backs are larger than the zoning standards • Proximity to R -1 single family home zoning district exceeds the minimum requirement of 170 feet by two times toward Tracy Avenue and over four times toward Olinger Boulevard. • Building coverage of the site is less than the maximum by 33 %. • Building massing is less than the maximum by 30 %. • Parking requirements are exceeded by over 143 spaces or by 40 %. • Landscaping guidelines require 54 trees and a full complement of shrubs. Landscape plan greatly exceeds the minimum. The proposed landscaping plan includes over 200 trees and over 300 bushes. • There is no maximum building height requirement in this zoning classification • This zoning allows only senior housing community. • The application is included as Exhibit D. • Development Plan • This document details the senior housing community development to be sure that what is built is consistent with the City Council approvals. • As part of the Development Plan, we are requesting that this senior housing community have the Park Dedication Fee waived consistent with the waivers granted to the last two senior housing developments approved in Edina for the Ebenezer Society and Gramercy Cooperatives. The average age of the senior resident will be in the mid 80s and it is unlikely that they will avail themselves of Edina's parks. Instead, there are significant common areas for the seniors inside the building such as wellness areas, a therapy pool, community rooms, a library and other park- like areas. The cost of incorporating these park -like areas within the building greatly exceeds what the Park Dedication Fee would be. o The application is included as Exhibit E. • Property subdivision • The land is currently owned by Colonial Church of Edina. The senior housing community land needs to be subdivided. • The application is included as Exhibit F. We have worked very diligently over the last several months to listen to suggestions to modify our proposed senior housing community. We incorporated many of those comments, as well as comments from our team, to make the senior housing community better without jeopardizing its financial viability. We believe that in a few years when the senior housing community becomes the new home to many Edina seniors, it will be seen as a valuable Edina asset and a good neighbor. Thank you for your consideration of our requests. Please call Jay Jensen at 952- 358 -5110 or e-mail at jay@sheltercorp.com with any questions. Sincerely, Ja Jen en Ted Yoch Waters Senior Living Colonial Church of Edina 4,'gtN� \rl. w � y W PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Originator Meeting Date Agenda # Cary Teague June 30, 2010 2010- 001.10b Director of Planning INFORMATION /BACKGROUND Project Description Development of the south parking lot and vacant wooded portion of Colonial Church, located at 6200 Colonial Way. The specific request is to build a 3 -story, 139 -unit senior convalescent home for the Waters Senior Living of Edina, on behalf of the Colonial Church of Edina. (See project location on pages Al —A3; and the applicant narrative and detailed plans on pages A6 —A67, and the attached development plan book.) The applicant, has already received the following: 1. A Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Public /Semi - Public to High Density Residential. The High Density designation would allow the senior convalescent home use. (See page A5.) 2. A Preliminary Rezoning from R -1, Single- Dwelling Unit District to PRD -5, Planned Residential District -5. The PRD -5 District only allows rest homes, convalescent homes and nursing homes. 3. A Preliminary Development Plan. (See page A68 —A71.) 4. A Preliminary Plat. (See page A72.) (See Planning Commission & City Council minutes on pages Al50— Al65.) The applicant is now requesting the following: 1. Final Development Plan. 2. Final Rezoning. 3. Final Plat. The applicant has spent the last several months since the February 16, 2010 Preliminary Rezoning and Plan approval and the Comprehensive Plan amendment, meeting with residents and revising the plans in an attempt to address concerns of residents within the area, and concerns raised by the Planning Commission and City Council during the approval process. (See pages A14 —A20, of the applicant's narrative regarding the meetings that were held with neighbors in the area.) The plan revisions include the following: • The structure has been reduced from four to three stories. • A re- design of the roof. • The number of units was reduced from 150 to 139. • The front building fagade has been modified to add more architectural features. • Provision of additional landscaping in Countryside Park and in the Crosstown Highway 62 right -of -way. The Edina Zoning Ordinance defines "Convalescent Home" as follows: "A building or group of buildings licensed by the Minnesota Department of Public Welfare for the care of children, the aged or infirm, or a place of rest and care for those suffering physical or mental disorders. Hospitals, clinics, maternity care homes, and other buildings or parts of buildings containing surgical equipment are not included." The proposed building and facility is designed for the care of the aged, and would be licensed by the State. Therefore, the proposal would meet the City's definition of a Convalescent Home. SUPPORTING INFORMATION Surrounding Land Uses Northerly: Countryside Park; zoned R -1 Single- Dwelling Unit District and guided Public /Semi - Public. Easterly: Edina Fire Station; zoned R -1 Single- Dwelling Unit District and guided Low - Density Residential. Southerly: Crosstown Highway. Westerly: Nine -mile Village Townhomes; zoned and guided medium density housing. Existing Site Features 2 The subject property is 6.27 acres in size contains a parking lot for the Colonial Church with mature trees. (See pages A2 —A3.) Planning Guide Plan designation: High Density Residential — Pending Met Council Approval. Zoning: R -1, Single- Dwelling District Parking The applicant has demonstrated that enough parking would be provided for both the existing Colonial Church and the senior convalescent home. For the church, the required parking spaces must be one -third the maximum seating capacity of the largest place of assembly. The maximum capacity of the sanctuary in the church is 857 people, based on a ratio of 22 inches per person; therefore, 286 spaces are required. The site plan demonstrates 341 parking spaces available for the church. (See page A67.) The north lot contains 222 spaces, the west lot 20 spaces, and the east lot contains 99 spaces. The east lot was previously owned by Colonial Church, but dedicated to the City of Edina when the church was built back in 1978. Colonial Church and the City entered into a "Parking Lot Agreement" that allows the church to use the lot for their parking requirements. For the housing component, the required parking is one space for every four patients or residents based on the maximum capacity of the building, plus one space per employee on the major shift, plus one space per vehicle owned by the building's management. Based on 169 resident maximum, 30 employees, one vehicle and one bus, 76 spaces are required. The site plan shows that there would be 73 surface stalls and 80 enclosed stalls. Site Circulation Access to the site would be from two entrance /exits from Colonial Way. There would be surface parking in front of the building, with the loading area behind the building facing crosstown highway. A circular pick -up and drop off area would be located in front of the building. Access to the underground garage would be from the front of the building on the west side. (See pages A58 and A62.) The proposal would meet all minimum drive -aisle width standards. Walking paths are proposed around the site. (See pages A62 and A75a.) The paths would provide connections to the church to the northwest, and to Countryside Park. (See page A75a and A76.) 3 The city engineer has reviewed the proposed plans and found them to be acceptable. Landscaping To accommodate the new building, 334 trees and shrubs would have to be removed. (See attached tree inventory and removal plan on pages A59 —A60.) Base on the perimeter of the site, the applicant is required to have 54 over story trees and a'full compliment of under story shrubs. The applicant is proposing an extensive landscape plan that includes 117 over story trees that would remain, and planting back 346 over story trees and 517 understory trees and shrubs. (See plan on page A61.) Included in these calculations are 14 Black Hills Spruce to be planted in Countryside Park, and 19 Black Hills Spruce to be planted in the Crosstown Highway right - of -way to provide additional screening. The applicant has gone above and beyond the city's landscaping requirements. Environmental Review Based on concern in the neighborhood regarding environmental impacts on the subject property, the applicant hired Acorn Environmental Consultants to perform a plant and animal survey for the site. The report is attached on pages A31 —A57.) Grading /Drainage /Utilities The city engineer has reviewed the proposed plans and found them to be acceptable subject to the comments and conditions outlined on the attached page A73a —A73d. Any approvals of this project would be subject to review and approval of the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District, as they are the City's review authority over the grading of the site. The fire department reviewed the proposed plans and offers comments on page A73. Building /Building Material t The new building would be designed to'fit in, or match with the Colonial Church campus. The new building would be made of cement board siding and asphalt shingles. (See renderings and building elevations on pages A22— A28.) The applicant will have a materials board for the Planning Commission to review at the meeting. 4 Park Dedication Per Minnesota State Statute 462.353, Subd. 4(a) and Section 810.13 of the City Code, the applicant is required to dedicate land for public use as parks, playgrounds, recreation facilities, trails, or public open space, in an amount equal to the subdivision's proportional share of the City park system. Per Section 810.13. Subd. 5 of the City Code, the presumptive cash fee for subdivision of land is $5,000 per dwelling unit to satisfy the City's park dedication requirement. The City may also require a land dedication if necessary. The City's park director recommends that a 10 -foot trail easement be dedicated along the south side of Olinger Boulevard for a possible future regional trail. (See pages A75.) The total presumptive park dedication cost would be $695,000 with no land dedication. As such, the value of the 10 -foot trail easement would be taken from the $695,000 dedication amount. The developer may request a deviation from the presumptive requirements based upon the anticipated impact of that particular subdivision. The request must be made to the City Council as part of their review of the final plat approval. The applicant has requested that the City of Edina waive the park dedication fee. (See pages A13— A13b.) They have referenced projects where no park dedication was required. (See page A13 of the applicant narrative.) While it is true that no park dedication was required for the Ebenezer Society or the Gramercy, however, the City of Edina did not waive the fee. In both cases the property was not being subdivided, therefore, the City has no ability to require park dedication. Only when property is subdivided, can cities collect park dedication fees. It does seem reasonable to reduce the park dedication fees in this instance given the impact that a convalescent home would have on the park. However, the waiver of the fee would be a decision of the-City Council. Should the fee be required, it would paid prior to the City's release of the signed final plat mylars or subdivision approval for recording with Hennepin County. The exception is that in the case of multiple - family residential developments where the site plan review occurs after the time of final plat approval, the fee would be paid prior to the issuance of any building permits. Density From a unit count perspective, the proposed density of 22 units per acre would be a higher density than the adjacent Nine -Mile Village (11 units /acre) to the west. However, the proposed use and zoning would be for a senior assisted living facility only, which would not generate the amount of traffic than would be generated from a true high density market rate housing facility. Access to the facility would be off Tracy Avenue, and Olinger Boulevard, both of which are defined as collector roadways. (See functional classification map on page A78.) Affordable Housing The applicant has indicated a willingness to provide 20% of the dwelling units as affordable housing. That option can be discussed if the project receives approval. The applicant would come back the City Council at a later date to discuss the specifics of how affordable housing could be achieved. Final Plat The applicant is also requesting a re -plat of the lot to create a separate lot for the senior housing facility. (See the plat on page A72a.) The subdivision would meet all minimum lot standards and subdivision requirements. 2 Compliance Table City Standard (PRD -5) Proposed Building Setbacks Front — Colonial Way 43 feet 74 feet Side — West 48 feet 58 feet Side — East 35 feet 76 feet Front — Highway 62 35 feet 40 feet Parking Lot Setbacks 20 feet 20 feet Front Side — East 10 feet 50+ feet Side — West 10 feet 50+ feet Proximity to R -1 District 110 feet 344 feet Building Height No maximum requirement 43 feet Building Coverage 35% 33% Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 120% 90% Parking Stalls Church Spaces equal in number to one -third the maximum seating capacity of the largest place of assembly (Max. Capacity is 857 people = 286 spaces required) 341 spaces Senior Housing One space for every four patients or residents based on the maximum capacity o4f the building, plus one space per employee on the major shift, plus one space per vehicle owned by the building's management (169 residents, 30 employees, one vehicle, 153 spaces total (80 enclosed and 73 one bus = 76 spaces required.) surface) Parking Stall Size 8.5' x 18' 9' x 18' Drive Aisle Width 24 feet 24 feet Landscaping 54 over story trees and a full 117 over story trees would remain & compliment of under story shrubs. 346 over story trees planted. 517 understory trees and shrubs would be planted. Of the over story trees, 33 would be planted in the Crosstown right -of -way and Countryside Park to provide additional screening. PRIMARY ISSUES /STAFF RECOMMENDATION Primary Issues • Are the proposed Final Rezoning and Final Development Plan reasonable for this site? Yes. Staff believes the proposal is reasonable for the following reasons: 1. The proposed use would fit in to the neighborhood. As determined at the time of approval of the Preliminary Development Plan and Preliminary Rezoning; the use would be compatible with the higher density residential use to the west, Countryside Park to the north, Crosstown Highway to the south, and the fire station to the east. (See land uses on pages A2 and A3.) The park, church, and fire station would buffer the proposed use from the nearest single - family homes. The closest single - family home would be 344 feet away. (See page A74.) The site is located adjacent to Crosstown Highway 62 at the "edge" of this neighborhood. Higher density housing is often found adjacent to major roadways like the Crosstown Highway. (See Land Use Plan from the Comprehensive Plan on page A5.) Higher density residential developments provide a buffer to these roadways and potentially block noise. Access to the facility would be off Tracy Avenue, and Olinger Boulevard, both of which are defined as collector roadways. (See functional classification map on page A78.) Access to the site would not be through any local streets. This site would be advantages for the residents of this facility because of the emergency services offered from the fire station next door. Concern has been raised in regard to the size and scale of the building in this neighborhood. The applicant has attempted to address these concerns by reducing the height of the building from four to three stories; the roof has been re- designed; the number of units has been reduced from 150 to 139; the front building facade has been modified to add more architectural features; and additional trees have been added for screening. The building would meet all required setbacks from R -1 zoned property, which is 110 feet. (See page A74.) The building would be 344 feet from the nearest R -1 property, and buffered by Colonial Church, Countryside Park and the fire station. (See page A74.) The circumstance of a three -story or even four story building being located near R -1 zoning property in Edina is not uncommon. Staff conducted an inventory of existing circumstance where three and four story buildings have E:3 been constructed adjacent to R -1 properties. (See pages A117— A134.) As noted there are several similar building located much closer than 344 feet. Several are also located directly adjacent to R -1 property without any buffer. The following table these areas: 2. The proposed project would meet the following goals of the Comprehensive Plan: a. Promote increased housing opportunities and a diversity of housing types by promoting the creative and innovative use of land designated for residential /commercial mixed -use while complementing the character of existing development and promoting transit use and other mobility alternatives. (Comprehensive Plan Section 5.4 — Housing Goals.) b. Seek to accommodate the total projected 1,500 new households projected to locate in the City by the year 2030. (Comprehensive Plan Section 5.4 — Housing Goals.) c. Promote a vision of community that is inclusive of a wide range of ages, incomes, and abilities and offers a wide range of housing options for Edina's residents. This broad vision of community is a cornerstone to promoting workforce housing that includes a wide range of housing prices and options, based on the principle that those who contribute to the community should have the opportunity to live here. Also, this housing vision strengthens and reinvigorates community institutions and makes the City an attractive destination for young families. (Comprehensive Plan Section 5.4 — Housing Goals.) 9 Zoning Distance to R- I Stories Building Length of Apt. Grandview PSR -4 50'& 220' 3 & 4 450' York Place Apts. PCD -3 100' 4 300' Vernon Terrace PRD -3 95' 35' to R -2) 6 510' Grammercy PRD -4 130' 4 330' 51s'& Halifax PRD-4 30' & 35' 3 & 4 270' Southdale Office POD 280' 6 650' Cornelia Place Apts. PRD -4 700' 4 525' Brookside Apts. PRD -3 140' 3 250' 2 buildings) Apts on Eden Prairie Rd. Windwood A is Sunrise PRD -3 PRD -3 PRD -4 85' 120' 238' 3 3 3 230 -250' 3 buildings) 330'& 200' 210' Proposed Waters 11 P4D -5 344' & 810' 3 1 580' 2. The proposed project would meet the following goals of the Comprehensive Plan: a. Promote increased housing opportunities and a diversity of housing types by promoting the creative and innovative use of land designated for residential /commercial mixed -use while complementing the character of existing development and promoting transit use and other mobility alternatives. (Comprehensive Plan Section 5.4 — Housing Goals.) b. Seek to accommodate the total projected 1,500 new households projected to locate in the City by the year 2030. (Comprehensive Plan Section 5.4 — Housing Goals.) c. Promote a vision of community that is inclusive of a wide range of ages, incomes, and abilities and offers a wide range of housing options for Edina's residents. This broad vision of community is a cornerstone to promoting workforce housing that includes a wide range of housing prices and options, based on the principle that those who contribute to the community should have the opportunity to live here. Also, this housing vision strengthens and reinvigorates community institutions and makes the City an attractive destination for young families. (Comprehensive Plan Section 5.4 — Housing Goals.) 9 d. Increase the appeal of Edina's housing stock in order to attract. new- residents and retain current residents. (Comprehensive Plan Section 5.4 — Housing Goals.) e. Promote lifecycle housing to support a range of housing options that meet people's preferences and circumstances at all stages of life. (Comprehensive Plan Section 5.4 — Housing Goals.) f. Acknowledge the interrelationship between land use and transportation, and support the expansion of existing transportation infrastructure - capacity through wise land use. (Comprehensive Plan Section 5.4 — Housing Goals.) g. Facilitate the development of new housing and recreation facilities that accommodate the special needs of aging city residents. (Comprehensive Plan Section 4.4 — Land Use Goals.) h. Encourage infill /redevelopment opportunities that optimize use of city infrastructure and that complement area, neighborhood, and /or corridor context and character. (Comprehensive Plan Section 4.4 — Land Use Goals.) The proposed housing fits Edina's demographics. According to the 2000 census, 22.7% of Edina's population is age 65 or older. Many of these residents continue to live in single - family homes. The proposed housing development would offer an opportunity for these residents to move out of their single - family home and remain in Edina, resulting in an- opportunity for a young family to move into the vacated single - family residential home. 3. The existing roadways would support the project. RLK Incorporated conducted a traffic impact study based on the proposed development, and WSB & Associates reviewed the document to determine if it was accurate. Both RLK and WSB concluded that the existing roadway system could support the proposed project. (See traffic studies on pages A79— A112.) The study was based on a 150 unit building. The Edina Transportation Commission met on January 21, 2010, and recommended approval subject to conditions. (See the minutes on pages A115— A116.) During the previous review by the Planning Commission. A condition was added that the traffic study be recalculated to take in account traffic counts when Edina Schools were in session. That re- calculation was done prior to City Council review and is attached on pages A79 —A84.) The result of the new study concluded that there would be no change to the projected level of service on the roadways. (See page A82 of the study.) 10 4. If affordable housing is included within the project, the units could help the city to achieve its established goal with the Met Council of providing 212 additional affordable housing units by the year 2030. Affordable housing, and how to achieve it would be considered by the City Council, if the project is approved. Is the PRD -5 Zoning District appropriate for the site? Yes. Staff believes that the PRD -5 is appropriate for the site. This district is exclusive for rest homes, convalescent homes and nursing homes. These uses would be appropriate for this site given the surrounding land uses, including the Nine Mile Village townhomes to the west, Countryside Park to the north, Crosstown Highway to the south, and the fire station to the east. A "convalescent home" is defined as follows: "A building or group of buildings licensed by the Minnesota Department of Public Welfare for the care of children, the aged or infirm, or a place of rest and care for those suffering physical or mental disorders. Hospitals, clinics, maternity care homes, and other buildings or parts of buildings containing surgical equipment are not included." The proposed building and facility is designed for the care of the aged, and would be licensed by the State. Therefore, the proposal would meet the City's definition of a Convalescent Home. In the future, if the property owner wished to propose a different type of housing on the site, such as an "any age" facility, a rezoning of the property would be required subject to review and approval of the Planning Commission and City Council. Staff Recommendation Final Rezoning & Final Development Plan Recommend that the City Council approve the Final Rezoning from R -1, Single - Dwelling Unit District to PRD -5, Planned Residential District -5, Final Development Plan, and Final Plat for the Waters senior living development at 6200 Colonial Way. Approval is subject to the following findings: The senior housing development is consistent with the multiple family housing developments to the west. 2. The project would be buffered from the single - family residential area by the multiple - family housing to the west, Colonial Church and Countryside 11 Park to the north, the fire station to the east, and Crosstown Highway 62 to the south. 3. The existing roadways would support the proposed project. 4. The proposed project would meet the following goals of the Comprehensive Plan: a. Promote increased housing opportunities and a diversity of housing types by promoting the creative and innovative use of land designated for residential /commercial mixed -use while complementing the character of existing development and promoting transit use and other mobility alternatives. b. Seek to accommodate the total projected 1,500 new households projected to locate in the City by the year 2030. c. Promote a vision of community that is inclusive of a wide range of ages, incomes, and abilities and offers a wide range of housing options for Edina's residents. This broad vision of community is a cornerstone to promoting workforce housing that includes a wide range of housing prices and options, based on the principle that those who contribute to the community should have the opportunity to live here. Also, this housing vision strengthens and reinvigorates community institutions and makes the City an attractive destination for young families. d. Increase the appeal of Edina's housing stock in order to attract new residents and retain current residents. e. Promote lifecycle housing to support a range of housing options that meet people's preferences and circumstances at all stages of life. Acknowledge the interrelationship between land use and transportation, and support the expansion of existing transportation infrastructure - capacity through wise land use. g. Facilitate the development of new housing and recreation facilities that accommodate the special needs of aging city residents. h. Encourage infill /redevelopment opportunities that optimize use of city infrastructure and that complement area, neighborhood, and /or corridor context and character. 4. If affordable housing is included, it would assist in meeting the City's goal of 212 affordable housing units by 2030. 12 Approval is subject to the following Conditions: The site must be developed and maintained in conformance with the following plans, unless modified by the conditions below: • Site Plan date stamped May 28, 2010. • Grading Plan date stamped May 28, 2010. • Landscape Plan date stamped May 28, 2010. • Building elevations date stamped May 28, 2010. • Building materials board as presented at the Planning Commission and City Council meeting. 2. The following must be submitted to the City before a building permit it is issued: a. Submit a copy of the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District permit. The City may require revisions to the approved plans to meet the district's requirements. b. Per Section 850.10. Subd. 3.13 of the City's Zoning Ordinance, a letter of credit, performance bond or cash deposit must be submitted in the amount equal to 150% of the proposed landscaping. 3. The property owner is responsible for replacing any required landscaping that dies. 4. Compliance with the conditions required by the city engineer in his memo dated June 25, 2010. 5. Compliance with the conditions required by the fire marshal in his memo dated June 15, 2010. 6. All traffic mitigation measures as required by the Transportation Commission and traffic study must be followed. 7. Implementation of the applicant's Travel Demand Management Plan (TDM), as submitted. 8. Cross - easements must be established over the exterior parking lot of the senior housing project, to allow the church access to those spaces. 9. The project shall include 20% of the units for affordable housing. The detail of how that may be accomplished would be determined at a later date, subject to approval of the City Council. 13 Deadline for a city decision: September 21, 2010 14 Chair Fischer welcomed everyone acknowledging the interest many people have expressed for the project and established ground rules as follows: 1. City Planner, Applicant and neighborhood attorney are allotted '/2 hour for their presentation. 2. Audience members that wish to speak would be allotted 3 minutes - speaking on a rotating basis of support for the project/opposition for the project. 3. Unlimited discussion Planning Commission 4. Applicant and neighborhood attorney would be allotted 5 minutes to summarize their position. 2010.0001.10b Final Rezoning, Final Plat and Final Development Plan The Waters Senior L ' Wing Edina /Colonial Church 6200 Colonial Way; :Edina, MN Appearing for the Applicant Jay Jensen, The Waters Planner Presentation Planner Teague informed the Corftmission,:that Colon ial,.Church has requested development of the south parking Iot,and Vacant vvooded :portion of their site located at 6200 Colonial Way. The specific re=i!_ s to 'b'd ld :a 3 -story; .139 -unit senior convalescent home ,for.th Waters ivin§ iof. Edina., 1, Planner Teague explained that'the applicant,#ias spent the last several months since the February 16, 2010 Preliminary Rezoning'�and Plan approval and the Comprehensive Plan amendrnent,meeting wm #h::residents. and revising the plans in an attempt to address - concerns of residents vvithin the .area, and concerns raised by the Planning Commission and City Council during the approval process. Planner. eague presented -a power point presentation depicting previous and current plans. Concluding Planner rTeague said staff recommends approval of the Final Development.:PIan and Final.: Rezoning. 1. The senior housing development is consistent with the multiple family housing developments tq the west. 2. The project would Abe buffered from the single - family residential area by the multiple - family housing to the west, Colonial Church and Countryside Park to the north, the fire station to the east, and Crosstown Highway 62 to the south. 3. The existing roadways would support the proposed project. 4. The proposed project would meet the following goals of the Comprehensive Plan: a. Promote increased housing opportunities and a diversity of housing types by promoting the creative and innovative use of land designated for residential /commercial mixed -use while complementing the character of existing development and promoting transit use and other mobility alternatives. b. Seek to accommodate the total projected 1,500 new households projected to locate in the City by the year 2030. C. Promote a vision of community that is inclusive of a wide range of ages, incomes, and abilities and offers a wide range of housing options for Edina's residents. This broad vision of community is a cornerstone -to promoting workforce housing that includes a wide range of housing prices and options, based on the principle that those who contribute to the community should have the opportunity to live here. Also, this housing vision strengthens and reinvigorates community institutions and makesAhe City an attractive destination for young families. d. Increase the appeal of Edina's housing stodk in order to attract new residents and retain current residents. e. Promote lifecycle housing to support,a range of ho' using options that meet people's preferences and circumstances at all stages of life. f. Acknowledge the interrelationsh.ip:between land use and transportation, and support the expansion of existing -transportation infrastructure- capacity through wise land use. g. Facilitate the development of new housing:and.-recreation facilities that accommodate the special needs of agirig city residents. h. Encourage infill /redevelopment opportunities that optimize use of city infrastructure and that com:plementarea, neighborhood, and /or corridor context and character. 4. If affordable housing is included-,ft would.:assist.in meeting the City's goal of 212 affordable ho'isjng units.by 2030. Approval is subject to the followarig. Condition s• 1. Tl &s....m. ..., developed and rx aintained in conformance with the following pans, unless:modified ;by the conditions. below: Site Plan date. stamped. May 28, 2010. • Grading Plan date ;stamped:.May 28, 2010. • Landscape Plan date stamped May 28, 2010. • Building elevations date stamped May 28, 2010. • Building materials board as presented at the Planning Commission and City Council meeting: 2. The following must be submitted to the City before a building permit it is issued: a. Submit a copy of the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District permit. The City may require revisions to the approved plans to meet the district's requirements. b. Per Section 850.10. Subd. 3. B of the City's Zoning Ordinance, a letter of credit, performance bond or cash deposit must be submitted in the amount equal to 150% of the proposed landscaping. 3. The property owner is responsible for replacing any required landscaping that d ies. 4. Compliance with the conditions required by the city engineer in his memo dated June 25, 2010. 5. Compliance with the conditions required by the fire marshal in his memo dated June 15, 2010. 6. All traffic mitigation measures as required by the Transportation Commission and traffic study must be followed. 7. Implementation of the applicant's Travel Demand Management Plan (TDM), as submitted. 8. Cross - easements must be established over the exterior parking lot of the senior housing project, to allow the church access to those spaces. 9. The project shall include 20% of the units for aff. diaable housing. The detail of how that may be accomplished would be determined at :-:a later date, subject to approval of the City Council. Applicant Presentation Mr. Jensen addressed the Commission and thanked them and members of community for their support. Mr. Jensen delivered his presentation ,h.ighlighting` the, changes made to the plan after preliminary approval. Mr. Jensen said�'sjrice preliminary,approvals two neighborhood meeting were held`and with help of both`the neighborhoo d and Council the following changes were. implemented:: • The building was reduced fromA- storiessto 3- stories.at grade. The 4th floor was completely remo .ed ;reducing the overall, building height by eleven feet. • Number of units reduced: 0 139 from 150wiffi fewe r. larger units. • The front of'the building'elevation was .modified to Anclude more architectural features. • The roof:was redesigned to eliminate the gables and to be a complete hip roof system:whi h:also looks'more'residentials'.- Presentation by Attom6y . Mr. Rasmus addressed the:Commission, adding he is present to represent a number of residents who reside in the Countryside neighborhood. Mr. Rasmus gave a brief history of how Countryside.residents,organized in response to this project. Mr. Rasmus reported that a petition opposing the proposal was signed by 217 people. Continuing, Mr. Rasmus said the'bUildjrig as proposed is just too large and is a commercial for profit venture. Mr. Rasmus stated the building if constructed as proposed will change the character and symmetry of the residential neighborhood. Mr. Rasmus explained that residents of the Countryside area do not oppose senior housing; however, as proposed it's not reasonable, it's too large. Continuing, Mr. Rasmus stated the use doesn't fit, reiterating it's a commercial venture in the middle of a residential neighborhood comprised of single family homes. Mr. Rasmus also noted when these same residents purchased their homes they didn't foresee that the City would allow a commercial development in their neighborhoo6. Mr. Rasmus stated that in his opinion the proposal is also inconsistent with the goals set forth in the Comprehensive Plan to preserve and protect Edina's residential neighborhoods. He also added that the infrastructure would 3 also be compromised by this development. Mr. Rasmus pointed out that anyone who drives this stretch of Tracy Avenue knows how difficult it is to exit the Crosstown and turn onto Tracy Avenue. Safety should be carefully considered, it's an issue. Concluding, Mr. Rasmus said the proposed rezoning in his opinion is arbitrary (why not PSR) and raises the issue of spot zoning, adding the facts as presented by the developer don't support the projects approval. The proposed building is the wrong size in both scope and scale Mr. Rasmus encouraged the Commission to deny the request for a Final Development Plan and Rezoning. Chair Fischer opened the public hearing at 10:30 p.m. Public Testimony The following spoke in opposition to the proposal: Lawrence Kerzner, 5828 Jeff Place addressed the Commission Delite Dick, 6213 Tracy Avenue addressed the, Comm ission Jody Burris addressed the Commssjon:... John and Jeanne St. Pierre, 6005 Arbor Lane. addressed the Commission. Erik Jensen, 5916 O l nger addressed the Commission;.;. . Chip Howard, 5812'6 Street West addressed the Commission. Marian Meyer, 5805 Jeff Place addressed the Commission. Kent Or, velle 5609 Tracy Avenue. addressed:the Commission. Dave Dodge:,.6117 Sherman Circle'addressed the Commission. Eileen O'Shaud nessy, 4216•:Sunnyside Road addressed the Commission. Elizabeth Beer, 5804` :Jeff Place addressed the Commission. Harvey Havir, 6108 Tracy Avenue addressed the Commission. Kevin McCoy, 5809 Jeff Place addressed the Commission. Kevin and Kristina Bohrer, 5605 Dale addressed the Commission. Manny Huesbou, resident of 9 -Mile Village townhouse development. Jed Jenkins, 5708 Olinger Boulevard addressed the Commission. 4 Dorothy Kerzner, 5828 Jeff Place Addressed the Commission. Ray Voss, 5716 Benton Avenue addressed the Commission. Sally Mays, 529 Countryside Road, addressed the Commission. Judith Rodgers, 6100 Arbour Lane, addressed the Commission. Nancy Huseby, 5904 Arbour Lane, addressed the Commission. Barbara Hoganson, 5825 Jeff Place addressed the Commission The following spoke in support of the proposal:. Mike Lewis formerly of Edina now residing, in' Eden Prairie addressed the Commission. Robert Schulze, 6800 Paiute Trail addressed the Commission. Resident 9 -Mile Creek townhouse development addressed the Commission. Ted Springer, 6300 Pheasant Court.adddressed:the Commission. Peter Bundel, resident 6f,.9 -Mile Village townhouse development addressed the Commission. Gene Holderness, 6807 Dovre .Drive addressed the Commission. Nancy F.rykman 6026..Schaefer Road addressetl the Commission. Michael Hime, 5300 Chantrey Road.addressed the Commission. Mark Hugo, Colonial Church .Member addressed the Commission. Commissioner Brown moved to close the public hearing. Commission Scherer seconded the motion. All,voted aye; motion carried. Discussion Chair Fischer thanked everyone for sharing their information, adding from the testimony so far he believes there are three main issues; building height, mass and traffic. Chair Fischer asked Chuck Rickart, from WSB (Edina's traffic consultant) to address traffic. Mr. Rickart addressed the Commission and explained his analysis of the project was based on the 150 -units originally proposed. Mr. Rickart said the standards for conducting a traffic generation study comes from the Institute of Transportation Engineers. This study includes deliveries, employees, and visitors. Based on the study the report concluded that 490+ trips would be generated in a day, adding in relationship to what's there today it's considered a small increase. Mr. Rickart noted that as you "get away" from the "site" traffic spreads out. Mr. Rickart said the study also found traffic impact is minimal because it's incremental. Mr. Rickart explained that traffic fluctuates daily by roughly 10 %. Concluding, Mr. Rickart'stated in his opinion the project as proposed would have little impact on the surrounding traffic patterns. Mr. Rickart said the one concern he had focused on the area between the highway ramps and Colonial Way (area in front of the fire hall) from vehicles that want to turn left going northbound. He pointed out that traffic could back up at this point. Chair Fischer thanked Mr. Rickart adding that one safety concern he noted was the site lines off Crosstown because of the bridge rail. Mr. Rickart said tae agrees with that; however that traffic and sight lines are two separate issues; adding the City should present this concern to MnDot because they control the entrance /exit ramps. Commissioner Forrest questioned if the traffic study was recalculated to include the high school traffic. Mr. Rickart said he would haveto, defer to the applicant's traffic engineer on that question. He noted "peak", times are usually set`for am and pm traffic when people are traveling to and from work:,. Chair Fischer asked City Engineer .W.ayne1Houle if hebelieves the infrastructure (sewer & water) is capable of handling this development.. Mr. Houle responded when an application for a development comes before the�City,that impacts water and sewer the City has a tool that. uses two` 'models along. with,. consultants, (SEH) that study what impact the development would have on the infirastructure. Houle referred to a memo from Jesse Struve, Utility Engineer indicating that the existing water main has the capacity to provide water :.service, irrigation, arad;fre flow protection while maintaining the same level of protection to:the City _ ..:Barr Engineering reviewed the existing sanitary sewer;:sy_ which-,also indicated there is sufficient capacity in the existing sanitary sewer lir�es, to accommodate this development. Commissioner Staunton noted. that there was some testimony about the potential for a bike /pedestrian trail in this area and asked how that would interface with the project. Mr. Houle respon'ddd that the-Park and Recreation Director John Keprios is the representive for the City on,this project; however, he would "sign off' on any bike /pedestrian trail anywhere in the City. Houle stated the City would ensure that all trails, bike and /or pedestrian are safe, adding the City follows specific criteria. Commissioner Scherer noted that another question that was brought up during the public testimony was the waiver of the park dedication fee and asked Planner Teague what that's about. Planner Teague responded that anytime a property is subdivided a park dedication fee is required. At this time the applicant has requested that the City waive this fee which is left up to the Council to decide. Teague explained that the criteria for parkland dedication fees recently changed and if were applied as dictated the parkland dedication fee for this project would be over 700 thousand dollars. Teague also noted that the applicant is not seeking a final plat at this time; therefore no park dedication fee. Chair Fischer asked Planner Teague about height differentials for the proposed building, adding it was mentioned that building height is between 47 -52 feet. Fischer also-noted that some residents have referred to the building as a high -rise. Concluding, Chair Fischer asked the permitted height of a single family home. Planner Teague responded that the maximum height of a single family home is 40 -feet. Chair Fischer said when building height is discussed one has to make sure everyone is talking about the same thing. Commissioner Schroeder said one point that he would dike clarified is that the 200,000 square feet that has been mentioned for the projecf is; fhietotal square footage of the proposed building not the buildings footprint. Commissioner Staunton commented "getting back to building height issue" that he would like Planner Teague to further clarify building height, adding.he heard Planner Teague mention a building height of 43 -feet. Planner Teague responded that Commissioner Staunton is correct; the average building height of the proposed building is 43 -feet. Continuing, Teague explained by ordinance building height is measured from the average of the existing grade at the front building line to the mid -point of the highest pitch of the roof. Chair Fischer asked City Attorney, Roger - Knutson if this was considered "spot zoning ". Mr. Knutson said that; #o the best of his recollecdion theaerm "spot zoning" hasn't been used in 20 -30 years. .;. Continuing.;.Knutsori;said'spot zoning is considered irrational zoning, adding that in "a.sense ".you flip a coin ",and there is no basis for the rezoning, it's totally irrational..,. Knutson sai,d,-in he,doesn't believe that is the case in this situation. Chair Fischer asked Mr. Knutson if approved was it possible that a precedent would be established. Knutson responded there would be no legal precedent established if approved.: Commissioner Forrest asked.the designation for the subject site in the Comprehensive Plan. Planner Teague responded that the designation for this site is guided in the Comprehensive Plan, as higK� ensity residential. Teague noted that to the west there is medium density residential:' Commissioner Forrest pointed out that churches are typically located in an 'R -1 zoning district and are permitted by conditional use, adding if there were potential problems or detriments with a project the Planning Commission could place limits on the project. Teague agreed, adding conditions of approval can be placed on a project and are. Chair Fischer raised the issue that a "larger" version of this proposal was approved by both the Commission and Council and asked if once approved is the Commission legally bound to approve the project; albeit a smaller project. Mr. Knutson said if denied the Planning Commission would have to establish clear findings to support their reversal. 7 Commissioner Carpenter asked Mr. Jensen how the market for this "product" is established. Mr. Jensen replied the market is usually established around a 3 -mile perimeter of the site. Continuing, Mr. Jensen explained they do their own analysis and also use the firm Larsen and Allen for additional analysis. Jensen added with regard to prices per unit that assisted living facility prices are generally very competitive. Commissioner Carpenter commented that during the testimony it was mentioned that the Eden Prairie facility had vacancies. Mr. Jensen responded that that is correct, adding in assisted living facilities there is turnover; and at any given moment there are vacancies. Mr. Jensen said a 5% vacancy rate is normal-..- Commissioner Carpenter asked Mr. Jensen for clarification on the square footage "of both the church and the proposed facility. Mr. Jensen responded he believes ihke footprint of the church is around 80,000 square feet and the first floor of the assisted living facility is 70,000 + square feet. Mr. Jensen noted that for the assisted living facility the total square footage is larger. Commissioner Carpenter asked Mr;: J' 6nsen to comment on the convenience store. Mr. Jensen responded that the convenience store is only'for the residents of the building. Commissioner Forrest noted that, one of the conditions'.discussed was `affordable housing and asked Commissioners how firm they were on that issue. Commissioner Scherer said that in her opinion in our advisory capadtj the Commission could recommend a percentage and have the Council proceed.from there. Commissioner Schroeder noted that the Commission already recommended (as part of the preliminary approval) a quantity acid percentage, and,an implerriented traffic management plan. He said it would be up-to the Council to agree, with those previous conditions and establish criteria. A discussion ensued on, 'landscaping, and its importance to the project. Final Comments applicant /neighborhood attorney Mr. Jensen.said he would like to make the following six points in closing: 1. The project:as submitted, meets all ordinance requirements and no variances are requested`: 2. The Waters listened *.at the neighborhood meetings and at the Commission and Council meetings and made changes accordingly which resulted in a better project. These changes were not easy. 3. The Waters knows about senior housing, and is active in the assisted living facilities community. We know how to operate these types of facilities. 4. Housing of this type is needed statistically. Presently in Edina 10,000 residents are over 65 years of age. 5. 75 percent of the new residents will come from the nearby area and will be affordable to the Countryside residents. The Waters will be a good neighbor and when the project is complete and the trees and landscaping planted an asset to not only the community but neighborhood. Mr. Jensen acknowledged that he grew up in the Countryside neighborhood. 6. The project offers another choice for residents providing them with the opportunity to remain in their community. Concluding, Mr. Jensen said he believes the project is good and that The Waters will be a good neighbor. Mr. Rasmus addressed the Commission and stated that he appreciates everyone's patience, adding he has four points to make: 1. There is no evidence that the project benefits, the countryside neighborhood. It's tempting to conclude that there is a buffer, however; - the buffer doesn't make it OK. Light pollution from a three story project and the.loss of sight lines plus additional traffic are burdens the residents of this neighborhood will face, and it's not fair to burden these residents to.berefit others. 2.. No proof that the number of units suggested is necessary." Other smaller projects do work. 3. Traffic —the issue is going to be the people- com- ing "to and going`'out of this project that will focus the traffic at an already: difficult area at 62 and Tracy — Rush hour and school traffd'are'an. issue. 4. The size and scope and the box shape:.of the proposed building doesn't fit with the character and symmetry of the neighborhood or:rmatch the church itself. This will be different, no triatch. Thank you. Discussion. Commssioner Brown�,thanked" everyone fog the respectful dialogue, adding the Countryside neighborhdbd..has been..very thoughtful and organized. Brown stated he is a 49 -year resident of Edinaa:nd has ;.seen a number of changes over those 49 years. Brown noted that he was also;a member of the Comp Plan Task force adding he listened with an open mind tolbe discussion to understand the neighborhood and their concerns. Continuing, Brown`.5aid in his opinion the charge of the Planning Commission is, #o make decisions to serve the broader community. Brown submitted a visual guide he created to. help him understand the neighborhood and those opposed to the proposal, adding this was just his visualization interpretation from the information he had at the time. Brown said at this time one comes to "that fork in the road" adding that respectfully he doesn't believe this project is in the middle of a neighborhood, it isn't spot zoning and the project isn't a commercial development it's a residential property. Brown said one of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan was to provide senior housing. Brown concluded that he supports the project as submitted. Commissioner Risser commented that the question of what a neighborhood is has been present throughout this evening. Commissioner Risser said she holds a different 0 perspective on the information heard this evening. Commissioner Risser said to her it was important to keep in mind that the Commission was looking at a project that required the Comprehensive Plan to be amended and that to her that is a big deal. Continuing, Risser said with all due respect to the City Attorney that she isn't convinced that this isn't spot zoning. Risser said concern was also expressed over precedent setting. Concluding, Rissier said if approved residents would be left to wonder what the City's zoning means and introduces ambiguity. Residents should be able to count on the zoning map and the map should be paid attention too. Risser stated she opposes the project as submitted and the City needs to take a step back and think about what they are doing. Commissioner Schroeder reminded the Commission:fhat the action taken by the Commission and Council was to approve a Guide Plan Amendment, adding the Comprehensive Plan was not amended. Schroeder said the .map was changed not the plan. Commissioner Carpenter asked Planner 1" eague if there are other parcels in Edina where a project like this could go, or is this zone parcel.by. parcel designation. Planner Teague responded that an assisted living facility like.-the project propose d-,.can be located in the PRD -4, PSR -4 and.;PRD -5 and PSR =S zoning districts; however, to the best of his knowledge there are no-vacant or unoccupied parcels available with this zoning. Commissioner Kata sa`�d �4'recalls from past discussions that financial viability isn't considered or part of the purview of the Commission, adding many have expressed their concern that the project may not be viable.;, -Chair Fischer responded that financial viability is not something the Commission usually looks at unless the project is seeking some type of:tax: increment funding; however, those questions and concerns do come up. Chair Fischer told Comrraissioner Kata;. he vias correct in his assumption that financial viability isn't .part of t purview of the Commission. Commissioner Forrest stated.that she honestly loves the idea of this project; however, on the other Mind is haunted by the fact that there is a zoning code and residents rely on that code. Commissioner Staunton stated that this process has been a great exercise in participation. Staunton said this project complies with goals that were established in the Comprehensive Plan but the Comprehensive Plan also is very protective of the character and symmetry of Edina's single family neighborhoods. Staunton said he wrestles with balancing both. Staunton said the testimony tonight has demonstrated that residents do not object to the use but object to the size. Staunton noted that regardless of the size of the building delivery trucks, employees and visitors will come. The testimony from residents that support the use indicates the project is on the right track; however, it all appears to come down to the size and scale of the proposed building. Commissioner Staunton said he can't comment on "what's the right size; however the Commission can ensure that the development does not negatively impact 10 the neighborhood. Staunton said to help make his decision he must rely on the experts in transportation and infrastructure and they have indicated that impact as a result of this building would be minimal and he was in no position to second guess them. Staunton said a lot for him came down to the trees and vegetation which are important to retain and re - landscape. Staunton noted regardless of how one defines the neighborhood there is a major freeway to the south, 9 -mile village to the west, a fire station to the east a buffer of trees and a City park Staunton reiterated that trees and landscaping was very important and on balance that kind of screening and buffer would afford the neighborhood some protection Staunton said in balance that he falls on the side of supporting this project. Concluding, that he supports the project as proposed with the findings and conditions established in the stafffreport. Commissioner Brown moved to recommend Final. Development Plan and Final Rezoning R -1, Single Dwelling Unit District to`PRD -5 approval based on staff findings and subject to staff conditions on ;`pages 11 through 14. Commissioner Scherer seconded the motion. Chair Fischer thanked everyone for their participation; adding that all opinions are appreciated and respected. Fisclaer :said to him it was.a difficult task deciding if this was the right place for this project. Is tlaislocation the center.:of a neighborhood or edge, adding its planning sense for higher;density uses to be jocated along major roadways, buffering Edina's single .family homes:.This location was also. adjacent to a city park and fire hall. Fischer pointed: out that in Edina ;there are at-aeast'three parks in the community that are_ near high density developments with; the parks becoming their backyards. Continuing, Fischer said in his..opiriion, because of the buildings location traffic impact was miniiriized. Fischer acknowledged there would be impact; however be to keelpthe M— pactas:_ closeto the highway as one can, pointing out the goal would emergency, services:.and a church are also adjacent to the proposed building adding important support in close proximity. Fischer.poted there was much discussion on building height and mass ;,;however, because of the location and the existing and added landscaping impact is reduced. Fischer said he heard comments questioning "if it's fair for this development to burden this neighborhood "; adding it's not always just about neighborhoods..--The goal of "the City and all its residents is to figure out how to develop while protecting the'.City's single family neighborhoods and do both. Fischer noted that Mr. Rasmus asked ' 9what's. the. benefit" this building would have for the neighborhood; Fischer stated there will be .benefit. Fischer explained that he lives in the Cornelia neighborhood and a similar project was constructed in his neighborhood (also on a church site), adding this building acts as a transition at the edge of his neighborhood, reiterating he believes the building is an asset. Scout troops, neighborhors and other groups all interact with the facility and the neighborhood appreciates what Sunrise brings to their neighborhood In conclusion Fischer said what struck him was a letter from a resident, mentioning how much Colonial Church was loved.. Fischer said in speaking with many of the area neighbors Colonial Church at first wasn't well received and now the church is part of the neighborhood and community; a beautiful asset. 11 Fischer said it is his hope if this project is approved that the neighborhood will feel the same about this building and it becomes an asset to the neighborhood and community. Chair Fischer called for the vote. Commissioner Schroeder said he would like to add a friendly amendment to the motion suggesting that the following be added as findings: 1. The site location offers a reasonable transition between an major arterial roadway, a city park and R -1 residential neighborhood. 2. The potential traffic impacts are concentrated: ;ear a major arterial roadway. 3. The scale and ass will be of limited impactto the single family neighborhood by virtue of distance. Ayes; Carpenter, Scherer, Staunton, Schroeder, Brown, Forrest, Fischer. Nay; Risser. Motion carried 7 -1. 12 RESOLUTION NO. 2010 -61 City of Edina RESOLUTION APPROVING A FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE COLONIAL CHURCH SITE AT 6200 COLONIAL WAY BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, as follows: 1. BACKGROUND. The Waters Senior Living on behalf of the Colonial Church is requesting a Final Development Plan to build a 3 -story, 139 unit assisted living facility. 2. FINDINGS. The City Council makes the following Findings concerning the Final Development Plan: A. The Final Development Plan is consistent with the High Density Residential guiding of the Property. The 139 unit assisted living facility is high density. B. The Final Development Plan meets the following goals of the Comprehensive Plan: Promote increased housing opportunities and a diversity of housing types by promoting the creative and innovative use of land designated for residential /commercial mixed -use while complementing the character of existing development and promoting transit use and other mobility alternatives. 2. Seek to accommodate the total projected 1,500 new households projected to locate in the City by the year 2030. 3. Promote a vision of community that is inclusive of a wide range of ages, incomes, and abilities and offers a wide range of housing options for Edina's residents. This broad vision of community is a cornerstone to promoting workforce housing that includes a wide range of housing prices and options, based on the principle that those who contribute to the community should have the opportunity to live here. Also, this housing vision strengthens and reinvigorates community institutions and makes the City an attractive destination for young families. 952 - 927 -8861 City Hall FAX 952 - 826 -0390 4801 WEST1§99 1M EET wwwcityofedina.com TTY 952- 826 -0379 EDINA, MII$S(%Q91394 4. Increase the appeal of Edina's housing stock in order to attract new residents and retain current residents. 5. Promote lifecycle housing to support a range of housing options that meet people's preferences and circumstances at all stages of life. 6. Acknowledge the interrelationship between land use and transportation, and support the expansion of existing transportation infrastructure - capacity through wise land use. 7. Facilitate the development of new housing and recreation facilities that accommodate the special needs of aging City residents. 8. Encourage infill /redevelopment opportunities that optimize use of City infrastructure and that complement area, neighborhood, and /or corridor context and character. C. The Final Development Plan is consistent with the Preliminary Development Plan and contains the City Council imposed conditions. D. The project approved by the Final Development Plan will not be detrimental to surrounding properties. The property is bounded on the south by Highway 62, on the north by a City park, on the east by a fire station and on the west by townhomes. The project location provides a reasonable transition between a major arterial roadway, a city park and an R -1 residential neighborhood. The scale and mass of the project will be of limited impact to the single family neighborhood by virtue of distance. E. The project approved by the Final Development Plan is consistent with the high density guiding of the property and will not result in an overly intensive land use. F. The project approved by the Final Development Plan will not result in undue traffic congestion of traffic hazards. The existing roadways will handle the trips generated by the project. Both the RLK and WSB engineering firms determined that the existing roadway system will support the project. The potential traffic impacts are concentrated near a major arterial roadway, highway 62. G. The project approved by the Final Development Plan provides a proper relationship between the proposed improvements, existing structures, open space and natural features. 152934v02 RNK:r07/ 15/2010 3. APPROVAL. The Final Development Plan to build a 3 -story, 139 unit assisted living facility is approved subject to the conditions set forth in this Resolution. The property is legally described as follows: That part of Lot 1, Block 2, COLONIAL CHURCH OF EDINA FIRST ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying easterly and southerly of the following described. line: Commencing at the most easterly northeast corner of said Lot 1; thence North 89 degrees 33 minutes 42 seconds West, assumed bearing, along the north line of said Lot 1, a distance of 332.96 feet; thence North 88 degrees 57 minutes 34 seconds West, a distance of 173.74 feet; thence along a curve concave to the northeast having a radius of 155.56 feet, a central angle of 9 degrees 18 minutes 38 seconds, tangent to last described line, a distance of 25.28 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence South 53 degrees 00 minutes 18 seconds West, a distance of 250.34 feet; thence South 44 degrees 07 minutes 58 seconds East, a distance of 4031 feet; thence South 53 degrees 00 minutes 18 seconds West, a distance of 160.35 feet; thence North 67 degrees 37 minutes 12 seconds West, a distance of 11.62 feet; thence South 04 degrees 00 minutes 18 seconds West, a distance of 211.57 feet, more or less, to the south line of said Lot 1, and there terminating. 4. CONDITIONS. Approval of the Final Development Plan is subject to the following conditions: A. The site must be developed and maintained in conformance with the following plans, unless modified by the conditions below: • Site Plan date stamped May 28, 2010. • Grading Plan date stamped May 28, 2010. • Landscape Plan date stamped May 28, 2010. • Building elevations date stamped May 28, 2010. • Building materials board as presented at the Planning Commission and City Council meeting. B. Prior to any development, the site must be subdivided and plated as a separate lot. C. The following must be submitted to the City before a building permit it is issued: A copy of the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District permit. The City may require revisions to the approved plans to meet the District's requirements. 15293402 RNK:r07 /15/2010 2. Per Section 850.10. Subd. 3B of the City's Zoning Ordinance, a letter of credit, performance bond or cash deposit must be submitted in the amount equal to 150% of the proposed landscaping. D. The property owner is responsible for replacing any required landscaping that dies. E. Compliance with the conditions required by the City Engineer in his memo dated June 25, 2010. F. Compliance with the conditions required by the Fire Marshal in his memo dated June 15, 2010. Attest: G. All traffic mitigation measures as required by the Transportation Commission and traffic study must be followed. H. Implementation of the applicant's Travel Demand Management Plan (TDM), as submitted. I. Cross - easements must be established over the exterior parking lot of the senior housing project, to allow the church access to those spaces. ADOPTED by the Edina City Council this day of , 2010. Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk 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 , 2010, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this day of City Clerk 152934v02 RNK:r07/ 15/2010 2010. RESOLUTION NO. 2010 -62 City of Edina RESOLUTION ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT FOR THE REZONING OF PROPERTY TO PLANNED RESIDENCE DISTRICT -5 BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota that it approves the application to rezone the property described on the attached Exhibit "A" from Single Dwelling District 1 (R -1) to Planned Residence District -5 (PRD -5) based upon the following findings: 1. The property is currently zoned Single Dwelling Unit District 1 (R -1). 2. The property is guided in the City's Comprehensive Plan as High Density Residential. 3. The legal description of the property is set forth on the attached Exhibit "A" which is incorporated herein. 4. The rezoning is consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan's high density residential guiding. The rezoning will allow rest homes, convalescent homes and nursing homes, which are all high density. The current zoning is not consistent with the guiding because it only allows single - family dwellings on 9,000 square foot lots which is low density. 5. The rezoning furthers the following goals and policies of the comprehensive plan: a. Promote increased housing opportunities and a diversity of housing types by promoting the creative and innovative use of land designated for residential /commercial mixed -use while complementing the character of existing development and promoting transit use and other mobility alternatives. b. Seek to accommodate the total projected 1,500 new households projected to locate in the City by the year 2030. C. Promote a vision of community that is inclusive of a wide range of ages, incomes, and abilities and offers a wide range of housing options for Edina's residents. This broad vision of community is a cornerstone to promoting workforce housing that includes a wide range of housing prices and options, based on the principle that those who contribute to the City Ha112908,01 4801 WESTRNP-09TRUMIO EDINA, MINNESOTA, 55424 -1394 www.cityofedina.com 952 - 927 -8861 FAX 952 - 826 -0390 TTY 952 - 826 -0379 community should have the opportunity to live here. Also, this housing vision strengthens and reinvigorates community institutions and makes the City an attractive destination for young families. d. Increase the appeal of Edina's housing stock in order to attract new residents and retain current residents. e. Promote lifecycle housing to support a range of housing options that meet people's preferences and circumstances at all stages of life. Acknowledge the interrelationship between land use and transportation, and support the expansion of existing transportation infrastructure - capacity through wise land use. g. Facilitate the development of new housing and recreation facilities that accommodate the special needs of aging City residents. h. Encourage infill /redevelopment opportunities that optimize use of City infrastructure and that complement area, neighborhood, and /or corridor context and character. 6. The rezoning is compatible with present and future land uses in the area. The property is bounded on the south by Highway 62, on the north by a city park, on the east by a fire station and on the west by townhomes. The property being rezoned provides a reasonable transition between a major arterial roadway, a city park and an R -1 residential neighborhood. The scale and mass of development allowed by the rezoning will be of limited impact to the single family neighborhood by virtue of distance. 7. The proposed housing fits Edina's demographics. According to the 2000 census, 22.7% of Edina's population is age 65 or older. Many of these residents continue to live in single - family homes. The proposed housing development offers an opportunity for these residents to move out of their single - family home and remain in Edina, resulting in an opportunity for a young family to move into the vacated single - family residential home. 8. The existing roadways will handle the trips generated by the rezoning. Both the RLK and WSB engineering firms determined that the existing roadway system could support the proposed rezoning. Potential traffic impacts will be concentrated near a major arterial roadway, highway 62. 152908v01 2 RNK:07/ 14/2010 Attest: ADOPTED by the Edina City Council this day of Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk 152908v01 RNK:07 /14/2010 James B. Hovland, Mayor 2010. 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 , 2010, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this day of , 2010. City Clerk 152908v01 4 RNK:07 /14/2010 EXHIBIT "A" That part of Lot 1, Block 2, COLONIAL CHURCH OF EDINA FIRST ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying easterly and southerly of the following described line: Commencing at the most easterly northeast corner of said Lot 1; thence North 89 degrees 33 minutes 42 seconds West, assumed bearing, along the north line of said Lot 1, a distance of 332.96 feet; thence North 88 degrees 57 minutes 34 seconds West, a distance of 173.74 feet; thence along a curve concave to the northeast having a radius of 155.56 feet, a central angle of 9 degrees 18 minutes 38 seconds, tangent to last described line, a distance of 25.28 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence South 53 degrees 00 minutes 18 seconds West, a distance of 250.34 feet; thence South 44 degrees 07 minutes 58 seconds East, a distance of 40.31 feet; thence South 53 degrees 00 minutes 18 seconds West, a distance of 160.35 feet; thence North 67 degrees 37 minutes 12 seconds West, a distance of 11.62 feet; thence South 04 degrees 00 minutes 18 seconds West, a distance of 211.57 feet, more or less, to the south line of said Lot 1, and there terminating. 152908v01 RNK:07/ 14/2010 ORDINANCE NO. 850 -A -34 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 850 OF THE EDINA CITY CODE REZONING PROPERTY TO PLANNED RESIDENCE DISTRICT - 5 THE CITY OF EDINA ORDAINS: Section 1. Section 850 of the Edina City Code is amended by rezoning from Single Dwelling Unit District (R -1) to Planned Residence District - 5 (PRD -5) the following described property located within the City of Edina: That part of Lot 1, Block 2, COLONIAL CHURCH OF EDINA FIRST ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying easterly and southerly of the following described line: Commencing at the most easterly northeast corner of said Lot 1; thence North 89 degrees 33 minutes 42 seconds West, assumed bearing, along the north line of said Lot 1, a distance of 332.96 feet; thence North 88 degrees 57 minutes 34 seconds West, a distance of 173.74 feet; thence along a curve concave to the northeast having a radius of 155.56 feet, a central angle of 9 degrees 18 minutes 38 seconds, tangent to last described line, a distance of 25.28 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence South 53 degrees 00 minutes 18 seconds West, a distance of 250.34 feet; thence South 44 degrees 07 minutes 58 seconds East, a distance of 40.31 feet; thence South 53 degrees 00 minutes 18 seconds West, a distance of 160.35 feet; thence North 67 degrees 37 minutes 12 seconds West, a distance of 11.62 feet; thence South 04 degrees 00 minutes 18 seconds West, a distance of 211.57 feet, more or less, to the south line of said Lot 1, and there terminating. Section 2. The official zoning map of the City of Edina referred to and described in Section 850.06 of the Edina City Code shall not be republished to show the aforesaid rezoning, but the zoning map on file in the City Clerk's office shall be appropriately marked for the purpose of indicating the rezoning provided for in this ordinance. Section 3. This ordinance is effective immediately upon its passage and publication. 152903v01 RNK:07/ 14/2010 First Reading: Second. Reading: Published: Attest: Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk Please publish in the Edina Sun Current on: Send two affidavits of publication. Bill to Edina City Clerk 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 Ordinance was duly adopted by the Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of , 2010, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this day of City Clerk 15290301 2 RNK:07/ 14/2010 2010. Jackie Hoogenakker From: MaryAnn Meyer <marem @mindspring.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 7:31 AM To: Jackie Hoogenakker Subject: FW: June 30th meeting - - - -- Original Message---- - From: MaryAnn Meyer [mailto:ma rem @mindspring.comj Sent: Sunday, July 11, 201011:46 AM To: edinamail @ci.edina.mn.us; jhoogenakker @ci.edina.mn.us Subject: June 30th meeting Please forward to: Mayor Hovland Council Bennett Council Brindle Council Housh Council Swenson Any additional persons involved in this proposed project. - - - -- Original Message---- - From: MaryAnn Meyer [mailto:marem @mindspring.comj Sent: Sunday, July 11, 201011:34 AM To: MaryAnn Meyer Subject: MaryAnn Meyer 5805 Jeff PI Edina MN 55436 I am sending this e-mail in the hopes that you will read it in its entirety. I understand you have been inundated with calls, a -mails and letters and I know each one is important. My letter concerns a June 30th meeting with City Council, Shelter Corp. /Colonial Church and the Countryside Neighborhood. I would like to start with a question. How do you (City of Edina) decide what is in the best interest of a neighborhood without asking the neighborhood? In regards to our June 30th meeting, before the neighborhood (who is opposing this project) was allowed their 3 minutes to speak, we were totally dismissed. Julie Risser had excellent questions on the rezoning of this property from residential to commercial. Steve Brown was very irritated by her questions and remarks. Bottom line is, if the neighborhood were involved in the rezoning discussion we wouldn't have a need for these meetings. Julie had the most realistic viewpoints about the Shelter Corp. /Colonial Church project and any future projects that can be rezoned at any time for any reason without a vote or input from the neighborhood it affects. As she brought up these issues Steve Brown shook his head with disgust, put his face in his hands and turned his chair around several times. Sorry Steve if these questions annoyed you. The truth often offends. Along with that, Steve pulled out maps he said he created plotting signatures. Noting that only 60 some households were concerned about the proposed project when we gave him information stating that we have 250 yard signs, electronic signatures and additional hand written signatures. He low- balled the numbers to justify his decision. He NEVER provided any of these so- called maps to us. He was very unprofessional! He tried down playing it by saying that this proposed project was on the edge of south Edina. And your point ? ?? Most of us opposing this live on that edge. When I did get up to speak I told the committee that I would be able to see the lights and hear the traffic from my house. Ted Yoch who was allowed to speak twice stated that I would not be able to see or hear this facility. I have lived in my house for 23 years —Ted Yoch has NEVER been in my house or on my property. My question to Ted is. Is this the way you are planning this facility by assuming and guessing? He also talked about how great this-proposed project would be for the community. However, Ted Yoch lives far enough away from this project not to be affected or inconvenienced by it and also stands to make a nice salary from the construction of it. Along with Ted Yoch, Jay Jensen stated this is NOT about making a profit however he insists that they cannot downsize if any further. During his speech he mentioned a very nice facility they built with roughly 70 units on Nokomis and we know they built a similar size one at Calhoun. So where is the truth ? ?? Jay Jensen also mentioned several times they were being good neighbors. He resides in Eden Prairie. As a matter of fa several of those in favor of this project live nowhere near it or will be affected by it. I have friends and family that live in Eden Prairie. They are just that friends and family. NOT my neighbors. I buried both my parents in a little over 2 years (2006 & 2009) each requiring a different level of care. My husband and I did all of the legwork (calls, e-mails, visits) trying to find them the proper senior assisted living facility. This took us to dozens of facilities. We know all that these assisted /senior living facilities have to offer and know about the need for them. We also know that not one of these facilities was in a residential area. All encouraged any family member /friend to come and go at any time noting how important company was to these seniors. They also encouraged anyone to come for meals as often as possible thus creating more traffic and all that comes with the extra comings and goings. The traffic, sights, sounds, smells etc. from this proposed 139 unit convalescent home will impact this residential neighborhood in a way that we who oppose it have not signed on for. It was clear that by the end of the meeting there was an elephant in the room and it was NOT the opposition! Thank you for taking the time to read and hopefully address this letter! Sincerely MaryAnn Meyer 2 Jackie Hoogenakker From: Jensen, Erik (Corporate) <Erik.Jensen @bestbuy.com> Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 5:58 PM To: Lynette Biunno Cc: Jackie Hoogenakker, Jensen, Erik (Corporate) Subject: Please VOTE NO to the Colonial Church and Shelter Corp's Development Application Dear Mayor and City Council Members - My wife and I moved into our home at 5916 Olinger Boulevard almost a year ago. We purchased the home from a woman who had lived there nearly 40 years with her family. I have to admit, when my wife first suggested Edina as a place for our family (the two of us and a one year old at the time), I was very skeptical. I had lumped Edina in with many of the other surrounding suburbs that are overbuilt with "mc mansions," over developed with a strip mall or retail store on every corner and just plain lacked character. Upon our first visit to the home, we knew right away that this was the place that we wanted to live. We had looked at 50+ homes throughout Edina and Minneapolis and had zero interest up until that point. Seeing the home - - full of the character we were looking for - - and its surroundings (close to Bredesen and Countryside parks), I was sold. I had bought into the notion of Edina even before I was able to experience the other benefits that the city has to offer in terms of the Family Center and associated programs, broader community events and, most important, great neighbors that have become fast friends. With that being said, I can't tell you the disappointment that I am currently experiencing as it pertains to the proposed Waters Senior Living Facility at Colonial Church. Like the vast majority of my neighbors, I am not opposed to a senior living facility coming into our neighborhood, but rather one that is of the scale and mass that this one is being proposed as. The list of my concerns is extensive - - too extensive to name them all here. I will take the opportunity to highlight my main concerns and oppositions to the development under its current proposal. Zoning - I am curious why the City would entertain such radical amendments to existing zoning structures. The precedent that this would establish could potentially change the face of the city altogether. You know that there are other locations / groups within Edina watching this and waiting for the opportunity to develop what could certainly be considered out of character for most residential neighborhoods / areas within our city. This decision will open the door for rapid development and, in all likelihood, something that we would not be able to get back under control until it is too late. Traffic - Do we really think that there is going to be "minimal" impact to the traffic in the area once this facility opens? Remember, only a small portion of the residents will NOT be driving. The majority that does drive will be driving through one of the great parks that Edina has to offer. Layer on the delivery vehicles, visitors, employees and other support vehicles (emergency, etc.) and we all know, there will be substantial increase to traffic in the area. This is not even taking the construction period into consideration where we can all expect trucks moving all about and the associated noise pollution. The intent of the project has been outlined as something that will create a location for the generation of Edina citizens that is in need of housing like this a place to move within the community while creating homes for people of my generation and their families to purchase. This is flawed logic as far as I am concerned. Of the contemporaries that my wife and I have, I can think of nobody that would view having this huge complex within the neighborhood in which they are looking to purchase a home would represent a selling point. Quite the opposite is the case; a facility like this would stand as a reason NOT to move into a neighborhood like Countryside. There are several, commercial locations within our city that can support a facility of this nature; why can't we propose it is built in one of them? As I mentioned at the last planning commission meeting, I cannot say that we would not have moved into our home with knowledge of this project. I can say that we have been very on purpose in how we are investing in our home - - something we were looking forward to doing - - because I have zero confidence that if the Waters is built as is that we would ever recoup substantial investments when the time does come. Colonial Church is a fixture within the Countryside neighborhood and I hope it remains such for a very long time. We look forward to potentially sending our son to pre - school there next year (currently enrolled but we will send him elsewhere if this is approved) and his brother the year after that. We are certainly invested in the Colonial's future and certainly hope that there is a way for it to meet its objectives without a development of this nature. There are other options to deliver the financial outcomes the Church seeks without changing the face of our neighborhood so drastically. With that, I would ask that you do not support the Waters proposal as it stands. Please be mindful of the precedent that a zoning change of this nature will have on our entire city (potentially even your neighborhood (s)). I would ask you to recall my impression of the city prior to really taking a look and understanding what Edina had to offer - - overbuilt, "mc mansions," over developed retail spaces and lack of character. While it is great to say that nothing could be farther from the truth in Edina today, we would certainly point ourselves down that path with a decision that supports a radical zoning change and the construction of a misplaced, massive, commercial structure within an established neighborhood. Again, please vote no on the application submitted by Colonial Church and the Shelter Corporation. Thank you. Erik Jensen 5916 Olinger Boulevard Jackie Hoogenakker From: Rosemary Sundin <RSundin @ormanguidance.com> Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 6:57 AM To: Lynette Biunno Cc: Jackie Hoogenakker Subject: Save Countryside Neighborhood Attachments: OGR- staff -2 jpg To whom it may concern: I've been silent so far on the issue of the Waters Senior Living project in Edina, and I shouldn't be. As a resident of Tracy Avenue (about a mile north of 62 and Tracy) and a marketing researcher by profession (president and owner of Orman Guidance Research in Bloomington), I do have something to contribute to this discussion. Thank you in advance for indulging me as both a resident and a researcher. As a Countryside resident, my protest is that the character of the neighborhood will change; property values will be negatively impacted: traffic will exponentially increase on an already very busy street. The Waters project as it is proposed means additional cars and trucks by the hundreds. Think about it: residents, visitors, professional and support staff, deliveries, services, infrastructure services and so on. As an aside (and too bad for me) I purchased my Tracy Ave home in 2005 when property values were grossly over - inflated. Despite assurances from the so- called professionals my property has not increased in value; in fact, when I put it on the market last fall I was offered just over half of what I paid for it. The primary objection of would -be buyers? "Tracy Avenue is simply too busy a street." Therefore, I cannot imagine that properties in this neighborhood could even retain its value if the Waters project comes to fruition. Even in its current form Tracy Ave is viewed as "too busy ". All that said, as a researcher I put emotion aside and examined the Senior housing options and demographics in this area. What I found made me wonder why anyone would believe, as one writer put it, that "[the Waters project] is the type of thing Edina needs." Take a look; we have plenty of options in Edina: Walker Elder Suites, Edina Park Plaza, Sunrise of Edina, Vernon Terrace, Heritage of Edina, South Haven, Summit Point and Yorktown Continental — not to mention the dozens of facilities in nearby neighboring communities. All these facilities offer varying levels of rental, residency and care for seniors, and according to my independent inquiries most of them have ample availability. So do we really need another facility? With all the Senior housing options in Edina and neighboring communities, it seems that the Edina City Council is not pushing through the Waters Senior Living project because it should, but because it can. Rosemary Sundin Edina 612 -309 -9762 Jackie Hoogenakker From: K OSTMAN <k_ostman @msn.com> Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 8:19 AM To: Lynette Biunno Cc: Jackie Hoogenakker Subject: Email for council members and Mayor Mayor and Edina City Council I am concerned about the zoning change requested by Colonial Church and Shelter Corporation. This is a beautiful quiet single family neighborhood. Zoning has maintained this as a single family neighborhood. Edina can be proud of its zoning which has maintained and grown the value of our homes. I have lived most of my 61 years in my current home at 5917 Olinger Road and have seen this area grow from and area of open fields and farms to this beautiful quiet neighborhood. I have recently purchased a townhome in an area of Eagan where the city of Eagan allowed a mixture of rental townhomes, owner occupied townhomes and apartment buildings to be built on what was farm land. If you look at the single family homes that sit between these large buildings you see homes that have not maintained their value. The value of the townhomes continues to decline and the apartment rents decline. Good for me since I needed a place for my daughter to live cheaply while she attends Argosy University. But bad for the homeowners in this area. I respectfully request that Edina maintain the current zoning for this parcel of land owned by Colonial Church. We do not need this large commercial development that is being passed off as a nursing home. The developers will call it a convalescent home in one sentence and then later say these people will still be driving and are active seniors. Nursing homes that I have visited do not have parking for their residents. They may have a small van to take them on errands or doctor appointments. This is really a large upscale apartment building with a restaurant that the residents are required to use. It needs to be in a commercial area of Edina not in this single family area of Edina. There will be numerous delivery vehicles and increased traffic from residents of this apartment building, their visitors, and employees of Shelter corporation. Shelter corporation claims that this traffic will come off the crosstown, but there is no way of proving this. They may do the same thing I do, and that is to exit on 70th from highway 100 and travel 66th street to Tracy to avoid the dangerous exit off the crosstown at Tracy. Any traffic backup from a left turn off Tracy to Colonial Way will be directly in front of the fire station and if more than a few cars /trucks will back up to Valley View and the crosstown exits. Why would you want to live in the countryside neighborhood with this traffic mess? Why would a young family want to buy my home with this traffic? Would home prices drop? Would this neighborhood look like the area of Eagan near Donald and Yankee Doodle? Please vote no on changing the zoning for this parcel of land. Karen Ostman 5917 Olinger Road Please do not change the zoning. Please retain the quality of this area. Jackie Hoogenakker From: ARTHUR R SCHULZE <arthurschjr @msn.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 201012:57 PM To: Jackie Hoogenakker My wife and I would like to voice our support for the senior living facility near Colonial Church. We have been residents of Edina for forty years, and have had four children attend the Edina school system. Two of our children also live in Ediina, including one on Olinger who supports having the facility. Our current plans are to move to Friendship Village in Bloom ington(when we are ready] but we would much prefer to stay in Edina near our children and friends. Perhaps more to the point, on the assumption that the property is going to be developed, I can think of many other possibilities that would be far more objectionable to the countryside neighborhood(low income multi -level housing, for example). The idea that a senior facility will generate huge amounts of traffic ought to be rejected at face value. I would assume that the city of Edina could benefit significantly from additional tax income, which is badly needed in these times of recession, rather than have some of its citizens move to another city. Finally, while the opposition to the project in impressively organized(there are signs over five miles away from the proposed project), it must be noted that true southern boundary to the countryside neighborhood is Highway 62, not exactly a low traffic quiet street. Sincerely, Arthur and Joan Schulze, 14 Paddock Road. Jackie Hoogenakker From: Schulzemn @aol.com Sent: Sunday, June 27, 2010 4:51 PM To: Jackie Hoogenakker Cc: msch007 @aol.com Subject: Support for Waters project from Edina resident Dear City Planning Commission, We are writing to express our strong support for the Waters project at Colonial Church. We know there is a need for this type of senior housing in Edina and we support the use of this location. This location seems perfectly suited for many reasons: • Convenient location just off 62 for easy access without driving through neighborhoods. • Proximity to church • Proximity to fire station and emergency response teams • Out of site lines due to berms and hidden location by church and freeway • Proximity to homes in Edina where residents may be interested in living in this project, allowing them to stay in Edina close to their original residents. We are 50 year old residents with aging parents in Edina as well. We could see our parents interested in this facility in the future, and hope you have the foresight to allow this development. We know the opposition is well organized, so know there are many in support of this project as well. Thank you, Ann and Mark Schulze 6516 Navaho Trail Edina, MN 55439 schulzemn(cD_aol.com Jackie Hoogenakker From: Dave & Joyce Andreasen <dajoa @earthlink.net> Sent: Saturday, June 26, 2010 10:28 PM To: Jackie Hoogenakker Subject: The Waters Senior Housing To: The Edina Planning Commission We wish we could attend the June 30th Planning Commission meeting, but will be unable to because of out of town commitments. However, because this project is so important to the seniors of Edina, we would like to voice our support. We have been residents of Edina for 18 years (residing at Nine Mile Village) and realize the desperate need for senior housing in our community. The opposition is so well organized that we're afraid you are unaware of all that are very supportive and interested. We are on the waiting list for the Waters and personally know of six other families that are also interested. David & Joyce Andreasen 6334 Red Fox Lane, Edina. Dave & Joyce Andreasen daioa@earthlink.net EarthLink Revolves Around You. Jackie Hoogenakker From: me again <mgn4508 @gmail.com> Sent: • Wednesday, June 30, 201012:26 PM To: Jackie Hoogenakker Subject: opposition to Colonial Church proposal Have sent the following email to City Hall. Dear Mayor and City Council Members, The proposed Colonial Church Senior Mental Health facility is anti - neighbor. The huge facility will be an eyesore in a predominantly residential area. Haved participated in Church Craft shows (am a non - member of Colonial Church) it was unbelieveable how the volunteers at the shows would come around and monitor everyones merchandise displays in the anticipation and demand for a percentage of sales. This behavior shows a complete lack of trust and greed toward honest folks following their rules. The greedy demand to develop a revenue producing source will bring a lot of traffic and noise to a peaceful part of Edina with beautiful Bredesen Park -a joy to the community of Edina. Have walked the Park and wish to see the the continuance of a quiet neighborhood area. A four story commercial health building requiring outside staff and supplies is detrimental to the very areas that the Council members should preserve for peaceful residential living. It is time that the Council should think of the residents and not be so eager to endorse ridiculous commerical (even non- profit) businesses in residential areas. Lynn Johnson Ridgeview Dr. Jackie Hoogenakker From: Lynette Biunno Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 3:11 PM To: Gordon Hughes; Cary Teague Cc: Susan Howl; Jackie Hoogenakker; Arlene Forrest; Floyd Grabiel; Jeffrey Carpenter, Julie Risser, Karwehn Kata; Kevin Staunton; Michael Fischer, Michael Schroeder, Nancy N. Scherer, Steve Brown Subject: FW: In opposition to The Water as proposed Hello there, This message has been forwarded to the Mayor and Council members, Gordon Hughes, Cary Teague, Jackie Hoogenakker and the Planning Commission members. Lynette Biunno City of Edina Receptionist 952 - 927 -8861 www.citvofedina.com From: ecerq @comcast.net [mailto:ecerq @comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 2:40 PM To: Lynette Biunno Subject: In opposition to The Water as proposed Dear Lynnette, Please forward my email to the city leaders named below: • Gordon Hughes, City Manager • Cary Teague • Jackie Hoogenakker • Honorable Mayor James Hovland • Council Member Joni Bennett • Council Member Mary Brindle • Council Member Scot Housh • Council Member Ann Swenson • Planning Commissioner Stephen Brown • Planning Commissioner Jeff Carpenter • Planning Commissioner Michael Fischer • Planning Commissioner Arlene Forrest • Planning Commissioner Floyd Gabriel • Planning Commissioner Julie Risser • Planning Commissioner Nancy Scherer • Planning Commissioner Michael Schroeder • Planning Commissioner Kevin Staunton Thank you, Emma 1 Dear City Leaders, I am writing in advance of this evening's planning meeting to register my opposition to the building of the Waters Senior Living of Edina as currently proposed. While I welcome seniors as part of a vibrant neighborhood, the overall scale and height of the proposed building is completely out of keeping with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. Further, I am concerned that its construction near the primary gateway to our neighborhood and a public park would have an even more pronounced impact on the feel of our community. Just over a year ago, my young family and I moved from Eden Prairie, a city that offers many of the same amenities as Edina — efficient city services, good schools, and ample parks. However, it also has several large residential buildings that — even though well- maintained — are an architectural blight on the landscape. I believe the absence of such monoliths and attention to building structures that are consistent with the feel of the residential neighborhood are among the things that make Edina the special community it is. Please preserve the character of the Countryside neighborhood and reject the construction of the Waters facility as currently proposed. Sincerely, Emma Marshal l- Cerqueira 5800 Amy Drive Edina, MN Jackie Hoogenakker From: Kristin Engman <kristinengman @yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2010 2:16 PM To: Jackie Hoogenakker; Lynette Biunno Subject: Senior High Rise concern Please pass on my email to all the City Leaders listed below. Thank you very much. Gordon Hughes, City Manager Cary Teague Jackie Hoogenakker Honorable Mayor James Hovland Council Member Joni Bennett Council Member Mary Brindle Council Member Scot Housh Council Member Ann Swenson Planning Commissioner Stephen Brown Planning Commissioner Jeff Carpenter Planning Commissioner Michael Fischer Planning Commissioner Arlene Forrest Planning Commissioner Floyd Gabriel Planning Commissioner Julie Risser Planning Commissioner Nancy Scherer Planning Commissioner Michael Schroeder Planning Commissioner Kevin Staunton It is with concern that I email you over the proposed senior high rise in the Countryside neighborhood. The thought of changing the zoning codes in order to place a complex that is the size of two football fields in the middle of a neighborhood is worrisome. One would immediately know that to build a building of this size is a poor idea in just looking at the size of the streets, the amount of traffic that is already in that area, and the location of the building. The high volume of traffic this will create will destroy this neighborhood in Edina. As a mom of a young family, one of the many reasons why we moved to Edina was for the neighborhoods. The quality of the neighborhoods, the size of streets running through neighborhoods, and the activities for young kids to do in neighborhoods is very appealing. If the codes are changed and this building is raised, it will, only be a matter of time before more high rise buildings are put up in areas where they obviously should not be. Edina will change, and not for the good. Young families will not move to these neighborhoods. The value of homes in this area will decrease. People who were raised in Edina, like myself, will think twice before they move back to raise their families. Schools will also feel the affect of these decisions. The meeting is tomorrow night. I sincerely hope that you think of the good for neighborhoods in Edina, both in the present, but also the future. You reprepent us, your fellow citizens. It is clear that the residents do not want this to pass. I hope that you will listen to us, and do what is right for Edina and her future. Sincerely, Kristin Engman �Z���g3031 N' J N - � c+� m � v O c� Jackie Hoogenakker From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Barbara Hoganson <barbarahoganson @comcast.net> \n\1"Or Friday, June 25, 2010 4:17 PM �" Jackie Hoogenakker; Lynette Biunno Edina Countryside Neighborhood Electronic Petition Opposing the Colonial Church /Shelter Corp Project As Is - Please Reject It 101- 124.pdf; 1- 25.pdf, 26- 50.pdf; 51- 75.pdf; 76- 100.pdf; 2010_06_23_Question 14.pdf; 2010_06_23_Question 3.pdf; 2010 06_23_Question 5.pdf; 2010_06_23_Elec Petition Elec Signature2.pdf Please send this email to the Mayor, City Council, and Planning Commissioners: The Edina Countryside Neighborhood Group created an electronic petition /survey on Sunday, June 21, 2010 to verify how residents were weighing in with the proposed building. Three days later 116 resident's responded, which represents approximately 183 residents because sixty -seven of the people that filled out the petition represent two people in the household. The participation indicates nearly 40% of people on our email distribution responded within three days. Also, there were some very good additional comments that residents shared that we also thought you would like to know. Again, the Edina Countryside Neighborhood Group opposes the Colonial Church /Shelter Corp project and we ask the Planning Commission, Mayor, and City Council to respectfully reject the Developer's Application dated May 28, 2010. Sincerely, Barbara Hoganson, 5829 Jeff Place The first 5 attachments represent the people opposed to the project with their names and addresses. The additional attachments represent people's comments to the questions, and the last one represents the electronic signatures. 6. Please Indicate what you support. You may select multiple items. Please keep in mind Colonial Church has the common law riaht to develop their property within the zoning ordinances. Keep as residential Request a small area 2 story , 50 -75 units 2 story , 100 units co 3 story , 44 feet high 4 story, 67 feet high, Other please specify build single family homes and town plan - we all need to step back to complementary in character & symi mplementary in character & symmi 139 units 600 feet long 150 units, 600 feet long (original pi 73 63 % 63 54% 66 57% 8 7% 0 0% 0 0% 9 8% 10. Do you consider it to be an issue that an exception to the City of Edina's recently approved Comprehensive Plan be granted to allow for a commercial, for -profit project to be built in a residential area that was never earmarked for such change? Not at all R1 0 0% 1 1% 1 1% 11 10% 100 88% 113 100% 11. Do you consider it to be an issue that the Planning Commission and City Council provided approval in just 45 days for a $44 million, upscale, apartment complex, when the largest stakeholders (2,000 homes within a mile of the proposed site representing approximately $750 million in residential property value) were not part of the process, while the Church, Developer, and City had been working together on this project for six months or longer? http://cit)rofedina.com/Departments/CompPlan.htm Not at all important 1 0 0% Not very im ortant 0 -0% Moderately important_ . 1 1 % Ve im ortant - . 13 ,11 . o) o Extreme) import ant 100 Total 114 100% i12. Do you continue to consider the revised proposed upscale seniocapartment to be an issue even °ifit is reduced to -three stories, 44 feet high (a two story home is typically 25 feet tall), 139 units; but retains most of its mass, and the length of two football fields (600 feet), in a quiet residential neighborhood? Not at all important 0 0% . Not very important 0 0%. Moderately important 2 2% Very important 18 16% Extremely important 95 83% Total 115': 100% 13. Are you concerned about the proposed zoning change, and the city wide implications this zoning precedent may have on '. greater Edina (i.e. giving non -profit entities a zoning variance for a commercial, for - profit, high-density subdivision variance m a. ,: residential neighborhood? _ No concern 0 . 0% Low 0 0% Moderate 1 1% High 8 7% Very high concern 107 92% Tntn1 - _ -__ 116 100% 2 Jackie Hoogenakker From: Innaci @aol.com Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 11:02 PM To: Jackie Hoogenakker Subject: Fwd: Colonial Church /Living Waters PROPOSAL Hello Jackie... Apologize for original incorrect email address for you. So here's what I sent Please let me know if it was received officially by Edina city officials. Look forward to hearing from you soonest. Inna Hays innaci aol.com 952.941.3795 From: Innaci @aol.com To: edinamail @ci.edina.mn.us CC: joogenakker @ci.edina.mn.us Sent: 7/13/2010 5:09:00 P.M. Central Daylight Time Subj: Colonial Church /Living Waters PROPOSAL I urge the CITY COUNCIL to REJECT the current Shelter Corporation proposal because 1. of hasty, faulty processing through the system, ignoring what is believed to be in best interests of all Edina neighborhoods 2. of being too large a structure for a residential neighborhood, negatively affecting neighborhoods and environments on both sides of 62 Crosstown 3. of questionable, confusing, conflicting information and assumptions shared by the developer 4. and of other reasons formally noted and shared by "Save the Countryside Neighborhood" group AND to go back to square one in the best interest of Edina citizens, both present and future, by either keeping property residential or requesting more reasonably -sized structure[s] [two -story at the most - smaller left to right structure mass] which in addition to already operating Edina senior housing /care facilities would still meet needs of senior citizens in our community, respect the viability of current neighborhoods and restore confidence in Edina City Government. Sincerely, Inna Hays 5857 Creek Valley Road Edina MN 55439 Jackie Hoogenakker From: MaryAnn Meyer <marem @mindspring.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 7:31 AM To: Jackie Hoogenakker Subject: FW: June 30th meeting - - - -- Original Message---- - From: MaryAnn Meyer [mailto:ma rem @mindspring.com] Sent: Sunday, July 11, 201011:46 AM To: edinamail @ci.edina.mn.us; jhoogenakker @ci.edina.mn.us Subject: June 30th meeting Please forward to: Mayor Hovland Council Bennett Council Brindle Council Housh Council Swenson Any additional persons involved in this proposed project. - - - -- Original Message---- - From: MaryAnn Meyer [mailto:marem @mindspring.com] Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2010 11:34 AM To: MaryAnn Meyer Subject: MaryAnn Meyer 5805 Jeff PI Edina MN 55436 I am sending this e-mail in the hopes that you will read it in its entirety. I understand you have been inundated with calls, a -mails and letters and I know each one is important. My letter concerns a June 30th meeting with City Council, Shelter Corp. /Colonial Church and the Countryside Neighborhood. I would like to start with a question. How do you (City of Edina) decide what is in the best interest of a neighborhood without asking the neighborhood? In regards to our June 30th meeting, before the neighborhood (who is opposing this project) was allowed their 3 minutes to speak, we were totally dismissed. Julie Risser had excellent questions on the rezoning of this property from residential to commercial. Steve Brown was very irritated by her questions and remarks. Bottom line is, if the neighborhood were involved in the rezoning discussion we wouldn't have a need for these meetings. Julie had the most realistic viewpoints about the Sheiter Corp. /Colonial Church project and any future projects that can be rezoned at any time for any reason without a vote or input from the neighborhood it affects. As she brought up these issues Steve Brown shook his head with disgust, put his face in his hands and turned his chair around several times. Sorry Steve if these questions annoyed you. The truth often offends. Along with that, Steve pulled out maps he said he created plotting signatures. Noting that only 60 some households were concerned about the proposed project when we gave him information stating that we have 250 yard signs, electronic signatures and additional hand written signatures. He low- balled the numbers to justify his decision. He NEVER provided any of these so- called maps to us. He was very unprofessional! He tried down playing it by saying that this proposed project was on the edge of south Edina. And your point ? ?? Most of us opposing this live on that edge. When I did get up to speak I told the committee that I would be able to see the lights and hear the traffic from my house. Ted Yoch who was allowed to speak twice stated that I would not be able to see or hear this facility. I have lived in my house for 23 years —Ted Yoch has NEVER been in my house or on my property. My question to Ted is. Is this the way you are planning this facility by assuming and guessing? He also talked about how great this proposed project would be for the community. However, Ted Yoch lives far enough away from this project not to be affected or inconvenienced by it and also stands to make a nice salary from the construction of it. Along with Ted Yoch, Jay Jensen stated this is NOT about making a profit however he insists that they cannot downsize if any further. During his speech he mentioned a very nice facility they built with roughly 70 units on Nokomis and we know they built a similar size one at Calhoun. So where is the truth ? ?? Jay Jensen also mentioned several times they were being good neighbors. He resides in Eden Prairie. As a matter of fa( several of those in favor of this project live nowhere near it or will be affected by it. I have friends and family that live in Eden Prairie. They are just that friends and family. NOT my neighbors. I buried both my parents in a little over 2 years (2006 & 2009) each requiring a different level of care. My husband and I did all of the legwork (calls, e- mails, visits) trying to find them the proper senior assisted living facility. This took us to dozens of facilities. We know all that these assisted /senior living facilities have to offer and know about the need for them. We also know that not one of these facilities was in a residential area. All encouraged any family member /friend to come and go at any time noting how important company was to these seniors. They also encouraged anyone to come for meals as often as possible thus creating more traffic and all that comes with the extra comings and goings. The traffic, sights, sounds, smells etc. from this proposed 139 unit convalescent home will impact this residential neighborhood in a way that we who oppose it have not signed on for. It was clear that by the end of the meeting there was an elephant in the room and it was NOT the opposition! Thank you for taking the time to read and hopefully address this letter! Sincerely MaryAnn Meyer 2 Dear Mayor Hovland and Council Members Swenson, Brindle, Bennett, and Housh, I am writing to express my deep concern for the complete disregard that the Edina Planning Commission and the Edina City Council have shown towards the Edina's zoning laws and processes in the matter of the Waters Project. Once again, the taxpayers' sentiments are being disregarded at the whim of the City Council. There is a great deal of talk around Edina now that someone must be receiving kick backs as more and more unwanted and unnecessary projects are being bullied through as affected taxpayers sit back in disbelief. I have other feelings about the Waters Senior Living Project that I would like to share with you. I attended the June 30th planning commission meeting to stand in support of the Countryside neighborhood against The Waters. The banter between the developer and some planning commission members made it sound like this senior living facility was a five star hotel. It is easy to idealize nursing home care and the continuum of services they provide whether it be independent senior living, assisted living, Alzheimer's/Dementia care, long -term care for extended care and rehabilitation, transitional care for short-term rehabilitation, out - patient therapy, or rehabilitation services. When it comes right down to it, the management and oversight of a nursing home /care facility is a challenging and often monumental task. Consumer Reports found that Not - for - Profit nursing homes generally provided better care than For - Profit facilities and that independent nursing homes provided better care than those who operate numerous homes. http://www.SeniorJoumal.com/NEWS/Eldercare/6-08-07- ConsumerReports.htm One of the most difficult things about running a nursing home /care facility is employing competent, experienced employees. At the meeting on the 30th, they talked about the registered nurses that would work at the care center, but let me assure you that the majority of the staff that will-have direct contact with patients are the certified nursing assistants. Nursing assistants need only a high school diploma and nursing assistant training. They assist a patient in eating, dressing and undressing, bathing, toileting, collecting non - invasive body fluid specimens and taking vital signs. The nursing assistant staff is difficult to oversee and manage because they spend a great deal of their time with patients in their room. Unfortunately, there is a great deal of neglect of patients and even patient abuse going on in nursing homes. http• / /www.nursin -hg ome- abuse- resource com/care center/nursinghome statistics.html. Unfortunately, my father, who was an Edina resident at 5205 Lochloy Drive for 40 years, met his demise at the Walker Southview Nursing Home in Richfield where he was sent to convalesce from a fall by Fairview Southdale Hospital. My father who was not ambulatory and suffered from dementia was bludgeoned until he was black and blue by a nursing assistant, who four other staff members had reported for smelling alcohol on him the evening of the assault. My father spent several days in intensive care and did not return to Walker. My father's case was prosecuted by Hennepin County as a vulnerable adult case, but the jury did not convict the nursing assistant because there was no eye witness, and my father could not testify since he had dementia. My Dad died less than a year later. http• / /www startribune com/local/89652802 html ?elr= KArksi8cyaiUeyD8 o8cyaiU47cQUU I wonder if you have looked into each of the senior care facilities operated by The Waters. In just a few minutes of research online, I discovered that two of their facilities have very poor ratings. In fairness, I included The Colony ratings which were favorable. I did not find many of their other facilities as they are located in small towns throughout the state. However, the Minnesota Department of Health has records on all nursing homes. Have you contacted them? Or are we to believe only what Jay Jensen tells us. Woodbury Health Care Center, owned by The Waters Senior Living was rated 2 out of 5 stars by Our Parents http: / /www.ourparents.com/minnesota/ woodbury/woodbury_health _ care_center Birchwood Health Care Center, owned by The Waters Senior Living was rated 1 out of 5 stars by Our Parents htlp://www.oMarents.com/minnesota/forest lake/birchwood health care center Birchwood Health Center was also rated by Member of the Family. See table below. http://memberofthefamily.net/regisia/mn.htm MEDICARE . - Based on Overall Rating SAYS • • - as of 02/08/10 Click For Additional Medicare Ratings & Reports DATE: BIRCHWOOD HEALTH CARE ANNUAL 05/10/07 06/30/08 09/04/09 CENTER Click for More Information SURVEYS FOREST LAKE (COUNTY: Washington) RATING *i= TOTAL CONFIRMED VIOLATIONS BY SURVEY DATE 24 .7 15 8 1 STATE AVERAGE VIOLATIONS BY SURVEY DATE 10 10 9 REPEAT VIOLATIONS: 1) Make sure that residents who take drugs are not given too many doses or for too long; 2) make sure that the use of drugs is carefully watched; or 3) stop or change drugs that cause unwanted effects. Give each resident care and services to get or keep the highest quality of life possible. Give professional services that follow each resident's written care plan. Give proper treatment to residents with feeding tubes to prevent problems (such as aspiration pneumonia, diarrhea, vomiting, dehydration, metabolic abnormalities, nasal - pharyngeal ulcers) and help restore eating ski lls, if possible. Give residents proper treatment to prevent new bed (pressure) sores or heal existing bed sores. Have a program to keep infection from spreading. Have drugs and other similar products available, which are needed every day and in emergencies, and give them "out properly. Make a complete assessment that covers all questions for areas that are listed in official regulations. Make sure that each resident who enters the nursing home without a catheter is not given a catheter, unless it is necessary. Make sure that the nursing home area is free of dangers that cause accidents. Provide care in a way that keeps or builds each resident's dignity and self respect. Store, cook, and give out food in a safe and clean way. COMPLAINT INSPECTIONS: NONE ON FILE MEDICARE . - Based on Overall Rating SAYS • • - as of 02/08/10 Click For Additional Medicare Ratings & Reports Providence Place is rated by Member of the Family. See table below. DATE: PROVIDENCE PLACE Click for More ANNUAL 12/14/06 02/08/08 05/08/09 Information SURVEYS MINNEAPOLIS (COUNTY: Hennepin) RATING F TOTAL CONFIRMED VIOLATIONS BY 15 F 9 2 SURVEY DATE STATE AVERAGE VIOLATIONS BY 10 10 9 SURVEY DATE REPEAT VIOLATIONS: 1) Hire only people who have no legal history of abusing, neglecting or mistreating residents; or 2) report and investigate any acts or reports of abuse, neglect or mistreatment of residents. 1) Make sure that residents who take drugs are not given too many doses or for too long; 2) make sure that the use of drugs is carefully watched; or 3) stop or change drugs that cause unwanted effects. Give residents proper treatment to prevent new bed (pressure) sores or heal existing bed sores. Make a complete assessment that covers all questions for areas that are listed in official regulations. PROVIDENCE PLACE is on the National Watch List: click here to find out why COMPLAINTS: 7 VIOLATIONs SUBSTANTIATED: Click here. Use Back Button to Return to this Page MEDICARE SAYS on Quality res as of 02/08/10 Click For Additional Medicare Ratings & Reports THE COLONY AT EDEN PRAIRIE Click for More Information DATE: ANNUAL 04/11/07 12/20/07 12/30/08 I EDEN PRAIRIE (COUNTY: Hennepin) SURVEYS FiATING F TOTAL CONFIRMED VIOLATIONS BY SURVEY DATE STATE AVERAGE VIOLATIONS BY SURVEY DATE 6 10 10 10 0 9 REPEAT VIOLATIONS: Develop a complete care plan that meets all of a resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured. Make a complete assessment that covers all questions for areas that are listed in official regulations. Make sure that each resident who enters the nursing home without a catheter is not given a catheter, unless it is necessary. COMPLAINT INSPECTIONS: NONE ON FILE MEDICARE Above Based on Nurse Staffing SAYS - as of 02/08/10 Click For Additional Medicare Ratings & Reports h=://www.memberofthefamily.net/relaislg/mn.htm In conclusion, with the uncertainty of the economy and the effects of the new health care reforms, I do not think it is prudent for The Waters to be built, especially when most Edina taxpayers do not want the invasion of commercial enterprise into the middle of their neighborhoods. Nursing homes /facilities have a bad name for a reason. I don't hear too many people say, "I can hardly wait until my children put me in a nursing home. I urge the City Council to do the responsible thing and REJECT The Waters Senior Living project. Very truly yours, Ann Compton 5201 Lochloy Drive Edina, MN 55436 Jackie Hoogenakker From: RayVoss @aol.com Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2010 1:12 PM To: Lynette Biunno Cc: Jackie Hoogenakker; barbarahoganson @comcast.net Subject: Shelter Corporation High Density Housing Project Honorable Mayor James Hovland Council Member Joni Bennett Council Member Mary Brindle Council Member Scot Housh Council Member Ann Swenson Re: Concerns regarding the Shelter Corporation's proposed High Density Housing Project and the June 30th Edina Planning Commission Meeting Honorable Mayor and Respected Council Members: I am a 69 year old, 29 year resident of Edina. I am writing because I will be out -of -town on July 20th when I understand you will be taking up the question of a zoning change and other actions to allow this high density, high cost housing project to proceed. IF YOU READ NO FURTHER THAN THE FOLLOWING: I urge you to vote against this project as it currently stands. It does not fit the neighborhood. It sets a bad policy precedent. It is a form of "spot zoning ". It calls into question all R -1 zoning in the City. It is the only such development in Edina being dropped into an R -1 district. It is NOT a community outreach project of Colonial Church, rather it is a for - profit, commercial venture like any other high density housing development. It is not needed by the area residents, most of whom could not afford to live there. A reasonable compromise was proposed, but it was essentially rejected. Originally I only supported development of the property by Colonial Church that conformed to the long standing R -1 zoning. However, in the interests of compromise and because it was for Colonial Church, I agreed with the neighborhood group's proposal to try to negotiate a compromise on a moderate sized (perhaps 50 -75 unit, 1 to 2 story) affordable senior housing project. This would be consistent with the town house development on the other side of the Church and would fit in with the size and style of the residences in the neighborhood. It would work if the Church was truly interested in doing something supportive and positive for the senior members of the community and the developer already has at least one successful project of this size. The Church and the developer essentially rejected the majority of this compromise The Planning Commission did as well. Therefore, while I appreciate the direction of the changes that have been made in the project, I am forced now to only support the Church's being allowed to develop the property under the existing long standing R -1 zoning upon which everyone in the neighborhood and the City has relied for these many, many years. This is NOT an onerous position for the Church. It could still make lots of money by developing single family homes similar, for example, to the homes along the access road on the south side of Crosstown 62 west of Gleason. WHY YOU SHOULD VOTE AGAINST THIS PROJECT AS IT STANDS? (1) It is a massive building (600 ft long and up to 52 ft tall) being placed in a neighborhood with no building even approaching the same mass. (2) It is NOT needed as a buffer or transition from Crosstown Highway 62. There already is a great buffer of over 400 trees and, if developed in single family homes as allowed by the R -1 zoning, they would continue to provide the buffer (3) There is ample precedent for single family homes and church buildings along Crosstown Hwy 62 in Edina. They co- exist well. So there is no need for a large, out -of -scale building like the one proposed. The Colonial Church does NOT need rezoning to develop this property. It is zoned R -1 and a nice group of single family homes could be build, yielding a tidy profit to the Church from land which has been off the tax rolls for more than 30 years! (4) This is NOT a community outreach project of Colonial Church. It is a "for profit ", commercial, high cost, high density residential development like any other similar commercial development. While it is slated "for seniors ", there is no requirement that a person live in Edina to be a resident, nor is there any preference for Edina residents. (5) A circular argument is being used to justify the rezoning, i.e. an earlier action was taken to change the Comprehensive Plan specifically to accommodate this project. Now, it is argued, the rezoning is needed to conform to the newly modified Comprehensive Plan. And, without the zoning change for this project, the Comprehensive Plan change would not be needed. (6) As Commissioner Rissner pointed out very clearly, the residents of ALL of Edina need to be able to rely on the zoning map and the Comprehensive Plan designation for an area. Approving this rezoning would call into question the stability of all R -1 zoning in the City. There is no nearby similar commercial usage to justify approving this "spot zoning" request. (7) The Comprehensive Plan modification was made quickly without time for reasonable involvement of the immediate community and the community -at- large! Edina recently spent well over a year with many meetings in the overall community reviewing and updating its Comprehensive Plan and did NOT reach the conclusion that this space should be reclassified. At the least, a similar effort or mini -plan should have been completed before changing its classification. I have never seen a community like Edina make such a major change to its Comprehensive Plan so quickly after a plan review without involving the entire community or at least the entire neighborhood. The Comprehensive Plans' long standing classification of this area as "public /semi - public" was appropriate since the land is owned by a church which, in Edina, is a Conditional Use in R -1 zones and is generally not found elsewhere in Edina. (8) Edina residents need to be comfortable that the churches in their neighborhood aren't also going to go forward with commercial development plans with this as a policy precedent simply because they've been allowed the conditional approval to operate a church on tax free land all these years. (9) The construction traffic will disrupt the community as will the on -going traffic of an estimated 490 trips per day! (10) The developer says this will be a "Senior Living Facility with Services ". The PRD -5 rezoning classification is for "Rest homes, convalescent homes and nursing homes. ". I believe Mr. Teague has said to be applicable to this zoning classification, these would all have to be licensed by the state of Minnesota. "Senior Living Facilities with Services" (also sometimes called Assisted Living facilities) are NOT licensed by the state. Therefore, the proposed use would not appear to be allowed in the classification being requested. (11) At the June 30th Planning Commission meeting, the "deck" so -to -speak appeared to be stacked to some extent against the opposing residents: (a) They were told that in making presentations, each person had to alternate with one in favor. And they were told that the number of people speaking wouldn't count, that the Commission didn't want duplicate testimony. Yet at the end, two of the Commissioners cited a "balance of pros and cons" in their argument against the opponents of the project. Even Commissioner Risser stood up for the opponents saying this wasn't fair! (b) City Planner Teague's presentation was slanted in favor of the project, even though one would expect the City Staff to take a more or less neutral stance showing both the pros and cons since the staff is paid by all taxpayers. Examples: 1. He only showed drawings with trees in "full summer bloom ", as he put it, and after the replacement trees had matured some 20 -30 years! There were no drawings of what the building would look like the other 6 -7 months of the year or during the many years of their growth! 2. The height of the proposed building was compared to the height of the steeple of Colonial Church, like comparing the height of a watermelon to the standing height of a banana! He also used a height formula that made the building appear shorter than even the developer stated! 3. He showed pictures of other high- density housing in Edina with R -1 homes nearby, yet didn't show "the other. side of those units with commercial activities adjacent to the high density units. Nor did he point out that in most cases, the land on which these were located had originally been zoned for commercial or high density uses, unlike the R -1 zoning for this proposal. (c) The City Traffic Engineer discounted as inconsequential the 490 trip /day increase in traffic which corresponds to about 10% of the traffic on Tracy without mentioning that this would still be a very significant increase over the traffic that would result from developing the property under its existing R -1 classification! He passed to the MnDOT the responsibility for the resulting traffic issues at Tracy and the Crosstown! (d) Commissioner Forrest said, "I love the idea of this project." Enough said for having an open mind! Though she did point out that Colonial Church had no basis for expecting to receive the rezoning they've requested. (e) Commission Chair Fischer said he liked it when he first saw it, before any deliberations. He critiqued residents for their concerns about what they would see "out their bedroom window ", when mass and appearance of this project and how it fits in with the symmetry of the neighorhood is a key issue in the Comprehensive Plan and in the zoning requirements. (f) Commissioner Staunton used the Countryside Residents willingness to compromise to a 50 -75 unit, 1 -2 story affordable senior housing project as license to say that was adequate support to approve this much larger project, essentially.turning the residents willingness to cooperate against their better interests. (g) Commissioner Brown held up a map (from someone he wouldn't identify) which he said showed around 64 households opposed to the project. (This despite earlier testimony that more than 200 residents had accepted signs protesting the development and a similar number had signed an on -line petition opposing the project.) Regardless, how many objecting residents is enough? Commission Chair Fischer had said at the outset of the hearing, 'We don't go by volume." Yet in the end, after misleading the objecting residents, they did count the "volume "! A comment on Tax Increment Financing and Park Fees: If, perchance, you decide after all of the above to approve of this project, and even over the objections of the neighborhood and against the clear issues of "spot zoning" and bad policy precedent, please do not add insult to injury by approving tax increment financing and /or a waiver of the Park Impact fees. Colonial Church is a large church with high value assets as is the developer and clearly they should have the resources to develop a portion of this project as affordable housing without taxpayer assistance. They have already enjoyed years of tax free use of the land on which they want to build this project! The residents and their guests will most assuredly use the nearby parks as much, if not more, than many of the other residents of Edina and therefore the development should be required to pay the normal Parks Impact Fee! This fee requirement was (or should have been) known to the developer from the beginning. There is no basis for requesting a waiver at this juncture. Your willingness to review my concerns is very much appreciated. Sincerely, Raymond Voss Mailing address: 5021 Vernon Ave. So. #312 Edina, Minnesota 55436 Residence address: 5716 Benton Ave. Edina, Minnesota 55436 952 - 927 -0448 rayvoss @aol.com Jackie Hoogenakker From: MaryAnn Meyer <marem @m,indspring.com> Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2010 11:46 AM To: Lynette Biunno; Jackie Hoogenakker Subject: June 30th meeting Please forward to: Mayor Hovland Council Bennett Council Brindle Council Housh Council Swenson Any additional persons involved in this proposed project. - - - -- Original Message---- - From: MaryAnn Meyer [mailto:marem @mindspring.com] Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2010 11:34 AM To: MaryAnn Meyer Subject: MaryAnn Meyer 5805 Jeff PI Edina MN 55436 I am sending this e-mail in the hopes that you will read it in its entirety. I understand you have been inundated with calls, a -mails and letters and I know each one is important. My letter concerns a June 30th meeting with City Council, Shelter Corp. /Colonial Church and the Countryside Neighborhood. I would like to start with a question. How do you (City of Edina) decide what is in the best interest of a neighborhood without asking the neighborhood? In regards to our June 30th meeting, before the neighborhood (who is opposing this project) was allowed their 3 minutes to speak, we were totally dismissed. Julie Risser had excellent questions on the rezoning of this property from residential to commercial. Steve Brown was very irritated by her questions and remarks. Bottom line is, if the neighborhood were involved in the rezoning discussion we wouldn't have a need for these meetings. Julie had the most realistic viewpoints about the Shelter Corp. /Colonial Church project and any future projects that can be rezoned at any time for any reason without a vote or input from the neighborhood it affects.. As she brought up these issues Steve Brown shook his head with disgust, put his face in his hands and turned his chair around several times. Sorry Steve if these questions annoyed you. The truth often offends. Along with that, Steve pulled out maps he said he created plotting signatures. Noting that only 60 some households were concerned about the proposed project when we gave him information stating that we have 250 yard signs, electronic signatures and additional hand written signatures. He low- balled the numbers to justify his decision. He NEVER provided any of these so- called maps to us. He was very unprofessional! He tried down playing it by saying that this proposed project was on the edge of south Edina. And your point ? ?? Most of us opposing this live on that edge. When I did get up to speak I told the committee that I would be able to see the lights and hear the traffic from my house. Ted Yoch who was allowed to speak twice stated that I would not be able to see or hear this facility. I have lived in my house for 23 years — Ted Yoch has NEVER been in my house or on my property. My question to Ted is. Is this the way you are planning this facility by assuming and guessing? He also talked about how great this proposed project would be for the community. However, Ted Yoch lives far enough away from this project not to be affected or inconvenienced by it and also stands to make a nice salary from the construction of it. Along with Ted Yoch, Jay Jensen stated this is NOT about making a profit however he insists that they cannot downsize if any further. During his speech he mentioned a very nice facility they built with roughly 70 units on Nokomis and we know they built a similar size one at Calhoun. So where is the truth ? ?? . Jay Jensen also mentioned several times they were being good neighbors. He resides in Eden Prairie. As a matter of fact several of those in favor of this project live nowhere near it or will be affected by it. I have friends and family that live in Eden Prairie. They are just that friends and family. NOT my neighbors. I buried both my parents in a little over 2 years (2006 & 2009) each requiring a different level of care. My husband and I did all of the legwork (calls, e- mails, visits) trying to find them the proper senior assisted living facility. This took us to dozens of facilities. We know all that these assisted /senior living facilities have to offer and know about the need for them. We also know that not one of these facilities was in a residential area. All encouraged any family member /friend to come and go at any time noting how important company was to these seniors. They also encouraged anyone to come for meals as often as possible thus creating more traffic and all that comes with the extra comings and goings. The traffic, sights, sounds, smells etc. from this proposed 139 unit convalescent home will impact this residential neighborhood in a way that we who oppose it have not signed on for. It was clear that by the end of the meeting there was an elephant in the room and it was NOT the opposition! Thank you for taking the time to read and hopefully address this letter! Sincerely MaryAnn Meyer Jackie Hooaenakker From: Jeanne.StPierre <Jeanne.StPierre @target.com> Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 2:45 PM To: Jackie Hoogenakker Attachments: The development will cause big increases in traffic and an eyesore business towering over the local park.doc (I am resending this to you ... my e-mail said that my first e -mail did not go through. Thanks) Please do not allow the huge apartment building complex (Waters /Colonial Church) to be built in our Countryside neighborhood. A smaller building, 50 to 75 units will be a much better fit for our area. I am paraphrasing in this paragraph an editorial from the July 5`" Star Tribune by Donna Callender but I wanted to emphasize her points. The development will cause big increases in traffic and an eyesore business towering over the local park. (Common sense tells us this. Tracy will become a busy street for people who work/live at the complex to avoid the crosstown). It is necessary to change the existing zoning laws to do this. We live here precisely because the zoning laws do not permit this type of business in a quite neighborhood with small children who get around by foot and on bicycles. What recourse do we have when elected officials refuse to enforce existing laws? By the time the next election comes for voting the officials out, the damage will have been done. If residents have to obey the rules, then the officials who are supposed to enforce the rules need to do their jobs. I was reading the updated version of the Edina 20/20 vision. Objective #1 stats "Maintain strong residential neighborhoods." Building this apartment complex in our neighborhood will destroy our area. I don't feel that is too strong of a statement. Does Edina really need more upscale Senior housing when some facilities are currently vacant? What will happen when this cannot be filled? Lower income subsidized housing, a drug rehabilitation site? You really cannot guarantee what this building's use will end up being. Young families are now in our neighborhood because of the park and the quite, non -busy streets. Of course we want and need young families moving into Edina to keep our schools the top of the pack as they are. Countryside is one of the few neighborhoods in Edina that families CAN afford. This complex if built as the current huge mass, will change that forever. Jeanne St. Pierre 6005 Arbour Lane Jeanne St. Pierre 612.696.63ag i000 Nicollet TPS -2980 Mpls, MN 55403 jeanne.stpierre [ aatar eq t.com June 18, 2010 James B. Hovland, Mayor 5539 W. 70'' St. Edina, MN 55439 Dear Mayor Hovland, As long time members of Colonial Church and Senior Citizens we are excited and support the Waters Senior Housing project being proposed for the Colonial property behind the fire station. The proposed project is similar to the Colony in Eden Prairie where my husband has stayed during rehab. It is a first class facility and one similar to it, in our opinion, would be an attribute for Edina. We understand that there is a shortage of housing for Seniors in Edina. It doesn't appear that there are many residential homes nearby that would be negatively affected by such a structure. Given the nature of the residents it is doubtful that traffic would be substantially increased. We ask for your support and encourage the City Council and Planning Commission to support it. Sincerely yours �*Rutffih nQ Gross 5601 Auto Club Rd. Bloomington, MN 55437 Jackie From: Sent: Cc: Subject: enakker Dear City Leadership: pegdodge @comcast.net Wednesday, June 30, 2010 4:50 PM Jackie Hoogenakker barbarahoganson @comcast.net Colonial /Shelter Corp.Living Water's Project 788 I am writing to ask that you consider delaying the current re- zoning proposal at Colonial Way or veto the project as proposed. My husband and I have been a residents at 6117 Sherman Circle since 1980.' We are currently members of Colonial Church of Edina. I have been active in the church for many, many years and a choir member for at least 12 years. As a Colonial member, I attended a meeting on the land sale proposal. A compelling argument was given by one of the architects of the award - winning church design. He was against selling the land as it was designed to be an integral part of the park -like and picturesque setting that was so complimentary to the neighborhood. (I so wish I had that material!) I voted against the sale as did many other members of the church. The vote past. We moved on. Later, there was a meeting on three general concepts for the land use. I voted for a nursing home type of facility that would be in the same award - winning style and fit into the picturesque park- like setting. I cannot tell you which of those concepts passed as the proposal at hand does not remotely match that description. At least two years have passed since those meetings. Until March 28th, I have attended church twice a week or more. If it had not been for the efforts of the Save Edina Countryside Group, I would not have known anything about the Shelter Corp. Living Water's Project. The only church bulletin information was that the land sale task force group was meeting. The re- zoning sign was so obscure that I never once saw it in all my trips to the church. My guess is that the only people able to see that sign would be people coming from the 62 Crosstown and south. That does not include the Countryside neighborhood that is mostly impacted by this mega - building. On Sunday before the church /neighborhood information meetings, I asked at the front desk as to where I could find the information and drawings about the Shelter Corp. project and was told by the person there that she didn't know anything about it. This may be the way that things get done at church but it should not be mistaken by the Planning Commission and City Council as to the entire membership being in favor of or even aware of the size and scope of the project. In our 30 years of residence, we have also been active in the community, schools and park boards. We have two children who graduated from Edina HS and are successful in the engineering field and public radio. I have worked as an election judge and chair many times and have felt proud to contribute to the free and fair elections of all of our government offices. I believe in government and the need for government oversight in protecting the people from the power that corporations can wield. It is always tempting to build bigger and better, especially in a community that seems to retain its high standard of living. But if the last year has taught us anything, it is that even the big guys can go down hard and it is the individuals and their strength of community that then have to pick up the pieces and the costs. This project may be a good idea but, in this economy, it is not the right time for it and it is definitely not the right place. There are many ideas that I can think of for that land use that would be a better fit for our park-like, modest neighborhood, including a nursing /elder care home in which the church and neighbors could participate. We are those baby boomers that they say will fill this facility but we are looking for places to live out our lives that are more fitting to our suburban upbringings. We would like to find a smaller home for the two of us that has a yard for grandchildren and pets. We would like to see one level homes in some of our Edina communities left in tact and not mega -sized so that we can turn our larger home over to families that need them. We have worked hard for that equity in our homes and we want to maintain that style of living on a smaller scale. Our friends that tried the condo -craze are moving back to homes as they realize they have no place for their grandchildren. I question the need for this project with so much negative impact to the Countryside Community. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Peggy Dodge �Xv r r} �C�" X89 v Jackie Hoogenakker From: David & Tianyi Bremer <bremerda @comcast.net> Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 1:25 PM To: Lynette Biunno Cc: Jackie Hoogenakker Subject: Please send to the Mayor, and City Council Please vote "NO" to the Church and Shelter Corporations Waters Project for the following reasons: 1) The unrepresentative way the project has been approved —by only a small number of city elected officials —as opposed to gaining agreement with the residential community Edina citizens most affected — through a more widely representative process. 2) The size & scope of the project is too large as both an eye sore (too tall), an extreme addition of traffic on local streets, and over - development to the neighborhood and residents there. I strongly urge a sizing down of the project and a process by which concerns and appropriate information can be given to the public for our input. With concern, David & Tianyi Bremer J�� June 29, 2010 Dear Mayor, Cary Teague and Steve Brown, Please consider my reasons why I urge the Planning Commission to proceed to approve the final zoning items related to the Waters Sr Housing and the Colonial Church Land. First, my background, I've been in Edina 63 years. Originally I lived on Normandale Rd and walked the very ground we speak of aiding my brothers on traplines along Nine Mile Creek. Now we live on Arbour Lane, about 2 blocks from the site. So I am very aware of how this area developed. I also am a lifetime Colonial member and assist in tending the memorial gardens by the Bridge at Colonial. I am interested in preserving land as much or more than most, but I also see some very positive attributes to the Sr. Housing proposal. I have anxiously anticipated the development of this property ever since Colonial relocated to the present site. I hate to see mature oaks having to be removed, but I feel this property will enhance what is now primarily ugly parking lot and many scrub trees. Sr housing, especially in light of the concessions Shelter Corp has come up with to appease the neighbors, will be a beautiful fit for this land use. I can't imagine a better location in Edina.. When completed, my neighbors will wonder what all the fuss was about. Seniors deserve a lovely, natural setting with access to outdoor parks and trails. Traffic will primarily flow off the Crosstown, directly into the facility, with negligible movement on neighboring streets. After studying Shelter /Colonials plans and zoning proposals, it appears they have more than met the requirements for this site. Shelter Corp and Colonials ideas for a Wellness Center and other sought after amenities will make this a high quality home for our area seniors, many of whom I know are anxiously waiting approval, so they can make their plans for their retirement years. I surely had hoped this had been in the works 10 years ago, so my parents would have enjoyed the last years here. I have tried to attend many of the "Save Countryside" meetings to ascertain the "concerns" and have a discussion of such. I let my friends and neighbors know that I am glad they are good watchdogs and have sought out the plans and direction of this development. However, they have not been at all agreeable to much discussion. I don't agree with their distortion of the facts and misrepresentation of information. I have pretty much been told that their public meetings are only for those opposed to the size and scope of the development. In further dissection, it is apparent that quite a few are plain against any kind of development. Colonial had great "listening" meetings, very one -sided and then they have responded with some wonderful new design features, one less story and a different roof. So improvements have been forthcoming and I feel more than enough concessions. It's time we all say "Edina Welcomes Seniors", right here in my backyard where it will enhance what Countryside neighbors already brag about. (Among which is the church, which many of the same neighbors opposed 40 years ago). It's almost a shame that it will be so well "hidden" back among the tall trees and across from Countryside Park. Please know there are many more neighbors for this than against trusting that your due diligence will let the project proceed. Thank you, Carol Rothe 952- 920 -4504 Jackie Hoogenakker .-rom: CreekValleyl @comcast.net Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 20101:30 PM To: Lynette Biunno Cc: Jackie Hoogenakker; creekvalleyl @comcast.net Subject: Council hearing tonight To: Edina City Council, Ms. Jackie Hoogenakker, et al. I am asking you as a resident of Edina, as my representative, and as a directly affected neighborhood resident NOT to approve the request of Colonial Church and Shelter Corp. for zoning change and NOT to approve the application to build the commercial apartment complex project on the agenda for presentation to you at council meeting, July 20, 2010. I ask that you reject the report and conclusions of Director Cary Teague concerning the planned "The Waters" project of Colonial Church / Shelter Corp, Please understand that the scope and nature of this project has been systematically misrepresented to the city council and community in an attempt to subvert our community zoning and neighborhood quality of life. This has been done simply in the interest of profits and greed and has nothing to do with providing any needed services to our community or populations. I ask you to uphold and respect our current zoning structure and avoid detrimental precedent for future spot zoning and neighborhood destruction. Gary Griffiths 5844 Creek Valley Rd • ECEIVE � Jackie Hooaenakker From: Heather Worthington Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 8:58 AM To: Jackie Hoogenakker Subject: FW: Zoning map and Comprehensive Plan information FYI - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Joni Bennett [mailto:jonibennettl2 @comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 3:40 AM To: Gordon Hughes Cc: Heather Worthington Subject: Zoning map and Comprehensive Plan information Gordon (and Heather), The EAW for Three Rivers Park District /Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail contains a Zoning Map for the City of Edina (dated February 2009) at Figure 27 -2. Is this the most recent version of the City's zoning map? Could you please provide a copy of Figure 27 -2 (or its successor) to each Council member for Tuesday's meeting or, if each Council member has been provided with a copy of the EAW, ask each member to bring his /her copy to the meeting? Also, I will have some questions regarding pages 4 -25, 4 -32, 2 -33, and 4 -35 of the Comprehensive Plan. I will have my copy of the Plan with me, but they will be brighter /clearer if displayed online. Is that possible? Thank you - Joni Bennett 9onibennettl2 @comcast.net 952 - 927 -0661 HDIR 6 � Jackie Hoogenakker .-rom: Jim & Joyce Sutherland <j.sutherland2 @comcast.net> Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 11:27 AM To: Jackie Hoogenakker Subject: Fwd: Colonial Church - Waters development Begin forwarded message: From: Jim & Joyce Sutherland <Lsutherland2(a)comcast.net> Date: July 20, 2010 11:18:56 AM CDT To: edinamail(fti.edina.mn.us Subject: Colonial Church -Waters development Edina City Council We have lived in Edina for 48 years. We have always been proud of our community, and the services provided. However, the Colonial - Waters project has brought out a side of Edina that I didn't know existed. Spot zoning is not acceptable. You have opened the door to development that will change the character of our community and Edina as a whole. You know all the issues that our "Save Countryside" group has presented, and if there is any value in numbers, we have the numbers. Please vote NO to Director Teagues report, and consider a much smaller development in that site. Thank you, Joyce Sutherland 6104 Westridge Blvd. RECEIVED rifrT,nn, � Jackie Hoogenakker From: hhbains @aol.com Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 9:43 AM To: Lynette Biunno Cc: Jackie Hoogenakker Subject: (no subject) We urge the City Council to vote NO on the Revised Application submitted by the Colonial Church and Shelter Corporation. Accordingly, we urge the Council to reject Director Teague's expected recommendation approval of this application. My considered position on this matter is based on the seriously questionable practice of the Planning Commission. Adoption of the application would be inconsistent with the established zoning and would give legitimacy to spot zoning. PLEASE VOTE "NO" Herman H. & Jane W. Bains 6101 Tracy Avenue Edina, MN 55436 07/20/2010 Rtir �7t rl � Jackie Hoogenakker "rom: Kent Gravelle <kentg ravel le @gravellelaw.com> Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 3:30 PM To: Lynette Biunno Cc: Jackie Hoogenakker Subject: Shelter Corp. originally planned only 125 units Attachments: MN Business 2008 Shelter Corp Feature- 125 units.pdf Dear Mayor Hovland and City Council members, Please find attached an article from the September 2008 issue of Minnesota Business featuring an interview with the CEO/President of Shelter Corporation and also featuring the proponent's representative to the city, Jay Jensen. The bottom of the second substantive page states that the proposed project with Colonial church will have only 125 units. I participate in asbestos litigation and personal injury mediations regularly and in those mediations there is substantial give and take between the parties. I do not believe the mediation we had with the proponent last Spring was a legitimate mediation and the attached article is proof of that. The fact that the proponent has come down 11 units to 139 units is still substantially above their original plan as publicized in September of 2008! Furthermore, the article mentions that there is a Colony assisted living building in Inver Grove Heights which only contains 75 units. How can the proponent argue that they need 139 units to make the complex financially successful when they operate much smaller complexes throughout the state and country? Thank you kindly for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Kent B. Gravelle 5609 Tracy Ave. Edina, MN 55436 (952) 922 -8596 4lao Fax: (952) 513 -4750 p email: kentgravelle( lzravellelaw.com Jackie Hoogenakker From: philb <philipjbohrer @yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 9:26 PM To: Mary Brindle Cc: Jackie Hoogenakker; Jean McDowall; Lynette Biunno Subject: Opposed to Waters development Hello Mary, My wife and I, and many others, are adamantly opposed to the scope and size of the proposed building. We are also opposed to the zoning change that was recently made in order to enable this development. The main problem with the development plans is that the proposed building is far too large and it does not fit with the character and symmetry of the Countryside Neighborhood. There is no precedent for a 195,000 square foot, for - profit apartment complex being placed in the center of a residential Edina neighborhood that does not have even small -scale commercial activity. Also, the intersection at Hwy 62 and Tracy Avenue is already often crowded, and it is difficult to exit from Hwy 62 to go south onto Tracy. The unknown impact from a possible new Three Rivers bike trail raises other concerns. The resulting commercial activity will disrupt forever the tranquil and domestic nature of the neighborhood. We believed and trusted that there would be no commercial activity in our neighborhood when we purchased our home. It is unfair and unjust to impose such activity on us as we had no reasonable expectation such changes would occur. Thank you for your consideration. Phil Bohrer and Jean McDowall ECEIV ` -IlMl From: Mary Brindle <mbrindle @comcast.net> To: philipjbohrer @yahoo.com Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 5:01:39 PM Subject: FW: Opposed to Waters development Good afternoon, Thank you for your email message, below. If you have specific reasons why you are opposed to the Waters project I'd be interested in knowing your opinion. I will add your opinion to my spreadsheet as "opposed" without any specifics. Thanks. Mary Brindle 952- 941 -7746 home 612 - 270 -9887 cell From:Lynette Biunno [mailto:edinamail @ci.edina.mn.us] Sent: Monday, July 19, 20101:08 PM To: Gordon Hughes; Cary Teague Cc: Susan Howl; Arlene Forrest; Floyd Grabiel; Jeffrey Carpenter; Julie Risser; Karwehn Kata; Kevin Staunton; Michael Fischer; Michael Schroeder; Nancy N. Scherer; Steve Brown Subject: FW: Opposed to Waters development Hello there, This message has been forwarded to the Mayor and Council members, Gordon Hughes, Cary Teague and the Planning Commission members. Lynette Biunno City of Edina Receptionist 952 - 927 -8861 www.cityofedina.com From:philb [mailto:philipjbohrer @yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 1:00 PM To: Lynette Biunno Cc: Jackie Hoogenakker Subject: Opposed to Waters development As long -term Edina residents, we urge you to please vote against the "Waters" development. We assume you are already aware of the numerous reasons most of the residents in the area are strongly opposed to the proposed development. Thank you. Phil Bohrer and Jean McDowall z Jackie Hoogenakker From: Roger Pilgram <rpilgram @att.net> Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 8:32 PM To: Lynette Biunno Cc: Jackie Hoogenakker Subject: Revised Colonial Church and Shelter Corporation's Developer's Application We are asking the Edina City Council to Vote No on the Revised Colonial Church and Shelter Corporation's Developer's Application to build a large senior apartment complex in the residential Countryside Neighborhood. As Edina and Countryside Neighborhood residents, we are opposed to the project as currently designed because of the massive building size, the for profit driving force of the venture (exorbitant $3000 to $9000 monthly rents that many Edina residents could not afford), the Shelter Corporation's request for city financing given these monthly rental rates, the underestimated increased traffic and decreased safety to the park and neighborhood for this commercial venture, and, the inappropriate re- zoning for the Edina community. Sincerely, Roger and Martha Pilgram 6109 Arbour Lane Edina, MN 55436 �IIC:11 ��, Jackie Hoogenakker .-rom: Reed Anderson <reedanderson @hotmail.com> Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 6:21 PM To: Lynette Biunno; Jackie Hoogenakker Cc: Moira - Hotmail Boyle Subject: Colonial / Shelter - VOTE AGAINST We strongly oppose the current plans for this project, and are extremely disappointed in the actions of the city and appropriate oversight groups. This proposed building is inconsistent with the neighborhood and represents a dangerous precedent for future actions of those invovied. We, the voters, are watching. Do not let us down. VOTE FOR THE RESIDENTS OF THE COMMUNITY - NOT FOR PROFIT MOTIVATED DESTRUCTION OF A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. ONCE YOU GO DOWN THAT PATH, THERE IS NO RETURN. Reed and Moira Anderson 6237 Knoll Drive The New Busy is not the old busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox. Get started. Jackie Hoogenakker From: Ray Giske < rgiske @gcginc.us> Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 5:27 PM To: Lynette Biunno Cc: Jackie Hoogenakker Subject: The Waters Development After reviewing the staff report on the Water Development, I am requesting that Council vote NO and reject the application. While the concerns of my Edina neighbors are well documented, I want to call your attention to my concern that the provision for affordable housing is not firmly stated. The proposal should not be approved without a firm commitment to affordable housing. Ray Giske 5812 Jeff Place Edina MN 612- 861 -6054 rgiske (c,-gc iq nc.us R �6[S��N) Jackie Hoogenakker •rom: JJDTS @aol.com Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 2:21 PM To: Lynette Biunno Cc: Jackie Hoogenakker Subject: Waters Senior Living If the plan goes forward I hope you will close off Colonial Way at Olinger Blvd so the complex has to use the Tracy entrance and doesn't add any more traffic to the already busy Olinger Blvd. With Countryside and Bredeson Parks on Olinger and perhaps the bike route, we do not need more traffic. In listening to proponents of the center they talk about how great it would be living near Bredeson Park and the walking paths, the developers say they won't use the park and don't want to pay the park fees [have they talked to prospective residents ?] . I hope they are required to pay their share. I hope this does not pass, but if it does I hope it is greatly scaled back. Jim Sletten 5906 Olinger Road Jackie Hoogenakker From: Merlin1954 @aol.com Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 9:22 AM To: Lynette Biunno Cc: Jackie Hoogenakker Subject: Edina Senior Center Zoning Change To the Edina City Council: I hope you will consider the massive community objection to this "spot zoning" project. Please respect the Edina citizens' evaluation of this project as detrimental to the community. Many of us feel that the Council is forcing a fundamental change in the character of Edina that contradicts why many people like living here. Please vote NO to this project. Thank you, Donna Callender Countryside Road Edina M CV � Joyce Repya om: Susan Howl _,ent: Monday, July 19, 2010 1:03 PM To: Joyce Repya Subject: THIS IS SOME OF THE STUFF BEING SENT TO US - WHAT DO U THINK? Dear Mayor and City Council, I write in strong opposition to the proposed project and urge you to not approve the developer's application scheduled for presentation on July 20, 2010. I also write to call your attention to the front page Mineapolis Star Tribune article of July 18, 2010, "Surge in Seniors Will Reshape State ". The article speaks to the overwhelming desire of seniors to remain in their own homes, rather than transition to other living settings as the Shelter Corp proposes. It describes the Roseville experience, which has the highest percent of seniors in the Twin Cities area and "one of five oldest U. S. cities outside the sun belt ", which in the 1990's erred in its planning for senior housing by thinking that seniors would want to leave their homes and move into senior citizen's housing. The article states "In the 1990's Toogood served on a city task force that looked into the future - and guessed wrong. The group thought that as homeowners aged, they would vacate the city's 8,500 single - family homes for senior citizen's housing and be replaced by young families with kids . What we didn't figure out is that a lot of the homes are single level and that if seniors wanted to stay, they could ..... All they had to do was get the washer and ,yer to the first floor". The article goes on to illustrate how many seniors want to stay in their own homes and that there increasingly is home care service availability to permit those with illnesses and physical impairments to continue to reside in the homes they love. In this context the term "Reshape" is a reference to a need to reframe planning for the infrastructure of care from large building and institutions to home supports and home care. This type of reshaping is not supported by the current Shelter - Colonial proposal. Please do not make the same mistake that Roseville made in its uncritical acceptance of the "common knowledge" that seniors will want to leave their homes for other housing settings. My over 30 years experience as a practicing Geriatrician (physician skilled in the care of seniors) permits me to recognize and articulate a basic prinicple of Geriatric Medicine, that the overwhelming majority of frail seniors want to remain in a familiar setting for as long a time as possible. Development of home and community services is more in keeping with what they want and need and should be a high priority goal for the City of Edina. Transitioning to a different living setting is considered by many to be an unhappy last resort. Sincerely, Lawrence J. Kerzner, MD 5828 Jeff Place Edina, MN 55436 1 . Eco. EIVE � Jackie Hoogenakker From: philb <philipjbohrer @yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 1:00 PM To: Lynette Biunno Cc: Jackie Hoogenakker Subject: Opposed to Waters development As long -term Edina residents, we urge you to please vote against the "Waters" development. We assume you are already aware of the numerous reasons most of the residents in the area are strongly opposed to the proposed development. Thank you. Phil Bohrer and Jean McDowall •tiici��El Jackie Hoogenakker 1. from: Dino Balafas <Dino- Balafas @datacard.com> Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 8:07 AM To: Lynette Biunno Cc: Jackie Hoogenakker Subject: July 20, 2010 City Council Dear City of Edina, My name is Dino Balafas and on behalf of my wife and me I would like to submit this letter as a proxy for my absence from the July 20 Edina City Council meeting due to an international business trip. We live on 5316 Blake Road, which is in the Parkwood Knolls area. My children have gone to Countryside school and we frequently play around the area under review for the Colonial Church /Shelter Corp project. Three generations of my family have lived within Edina, and why we call this community our home is the focus on Edina's idyllic family setting. The ascetics of each neighbor in Edina has their own unique character that are timeless and the envy of all communities in Minnesota if not the US. I am no civil planning expert, but it seems to me that the reason for zoning laws is to provide predictability and synchronicity in our environment. I believe it to be deplorable and a disservice to our wonderful community to fast track a massive building project such as this. I have no doubt that a few stand to gain greatly with an oversized facility. They are leveraging the thoughtful value of our community that has been built for many generations. It seems the benefits of the Colonial Church project are focused on a very few and does not seek to balance the local stakeholders who helped build the attractiveness of the location for decades. Edina is a developed community and force fitting larger building projects in what is the heart of a residential area diminishes our ascetic and sense of original purpose of our community. Please vote not to approve Mr. Teague's Colonial Church and Shelter Corp developers' application. My Sincerest thanks for your consideration, Dino Balafas Dino Balafas Datacard - Product Management 11111 Bren Road West Minnetonka, MN 55343 (o) 952 - 988 -1359 ding balafas@datacard.com . ECFIV I NOTICE - This message and any attachment(s) are for authorized use by the intended recipient (s) only and may contain privileged or confidential information. Unless you are an intended recipient, you may not use, copy, retain, or disclose to anyone any information contained in this message and any attachment(s). If you are not an intended recipient of this message, please immediately contact the sender and delete this message and any attachment(s). Jackie Hoogenakker From: Joan Wierzba <jwierzba @comcast.net> Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 8:33 AM To: Lynette Biunno Cc: Jackie Hoogenakker Subject: Waters Dev Staff Report I urge the City Council to vote No on the Staff Report's recommendation to approve the Waters Dev project and to vote NO for the application to rezone this area. Edina needs to keep neighborhoods as they were when people decide to live there and not make such major changes. Doing rezoning like Teague is recommending cannot help with marketing to young families, as you have been doing. Joan Wierzba 6217 Belmore Lane Edina 952 - 931 -0855 RECEIV � Jackie Hoogenakker From: Marta Melin <martamelin @gmail.com> Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 8:39 AM To: Lynette Biunno Cc: Jackie Hoogenakker Subject: Proposed Waters Senior Housing Development Dear City Council, I urge you to VOTE NO to the Revised Colonial Church, (a conditional use permit holder), and Shelter Corporation's Developer's Application to build a massive senior apartment complex in a residential neighborhood. Scaling back to three stories is still grossly large and out of character with this neighborhood. Thank you, Marta and Skip Melin AF�F Jackie Hoogenakker From: Sue Keator <chickadeedee55 @gmail.com> Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 7:14 AM To: Lynette Biunno Cc: Jackie Hoogenakker Subject: Waters Project Jackie - please distribute this to all City Council members and Mayor Hovland - thank you. Dear Sir or Madam: I would like to urge you, once again, to vote NO on the Waters Senior Living Project to be built in the Countryside neighborhood. I feel this project sets a very bad precedent, namely that the Comprehensive Plan can be simply ignored if it suits the Council. The project, as planned, is still too large to be allowed in a residential neighborhood. It would be far better suited to the site where Public Works is now located. It seems to me that the main reason for approval must be to increase the property tax base of the City. The project certainly will NOT benefit many of the neighbors - it will simply impact the traffic, noise and even light pollution. It will, however, increase the coffers of the Church - is this a job for the City? And the idea that the project should not have to pay the park impact fee - NONSENSE! I do not use the parks myself, but I still have to pay my taxes. I could go on with all the reasons that I think this project is terrible, but you have already seen and heard them. I do wish that you would really listen to the people of Edina, many of whom really can see no logic in this project. Please vote NO! Yours truly, Susan Keator 5041 Yvoone Terrace Jackie Hoogenakker From: davestrand @comcast.net Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2010 4:45 PM To: Jackie Hoogenakker Subject: Colonial Church Rezoning 2010.0001.10a Dear City Council Members, I would respectfully request you vote NO to the Colonial Church rezoning. My name is Dave Strand, 6236 Crescent Dr. Just a stones throw from Countryside park. We purchased our home in 2006. The location was perfect because of the proximity the the QUIET park and central to all schools. This is a residential area. We picked this location for the lack of commercial property! Now the planning dept. wants to change all of that. What Colonial church wants to do with this land is completely out of character for this neighborhood. PLEASE, do not allow this (much to big) structure to be built on this property. If Colonial church wanted to be a good neighbor, they would work with residents instead of trying to force this down our throats! At the Planning dept. meeting, there was not 1 countryside resident who supported this project (NOT ONE). The only people supporting this project were the developer, Colonial church members, and people from Eden. Prairie who want to live there. Also, during the planning dept. meeting there were pictures of single story assisted living homes. They were beautiful and would certainly fit the character of this neighborhood. If the Church and the developer feel they could not make that size work in this location, then they need to find a different location Please vote no to this project! Send it back to the planning commision so they can get it right! Sincerely, David A. Strand Countryside Park Resident E�EIV Jackie Hoogenakker From: Dave & Joyce Andreasen <dajoa @earthlink.net> Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2010 2:42 PM To: Jackie Hoogenakker Subject: Waters Senior Residence Home Plans We have lived in Edina now 18 years and are very interested in seeing the development approved and go forward. The location could hardly be better for such a project, being that it would be buffered on 4 sides; Hwy 62, the Fire Department, Colonial Church and Countryside Park as well. Those opposing the project in the past, have brought up many superficial and unfounded objections. I would think those along Olinger would object to the children and traffic dangers that the ball field creates, but no, We have not heard anything about that. Shelter Corporation is a well recognized and reputable developer and it seems to us the they have bent over backwards to accommodate the objections of the Save Countryside Neighborhood Coalition. We have a number of friends here in Nine Mile Village that are very interested in the Waters as a likely place they would chose to spend their last years, right here in Edina. In addition the City will benefit by additional tax revenue. So the zoning has to be changed, nothing is forever! Dave & Joyce Andreasen 6334 Red Fox Lane Edina, MN 55436 952- 928 -0087 daioa@eartblink.net EarthLink Revolves Around You. • ECEIVE � mss; m Jackie Hoogenakker From: Sarah Nessan <snessan20 @comcast.net> Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2010 8:40 PM To: Lynette Biunno Cc: Subject: Importance: Jackie Hoogenakker Comment in Support of No Vote on Colonial Church - Shelter Corporation Developer's Application High If you want to blind copy me that is ok too. Also, is it ok your behalf at the Council Meeting? D if we read your letter in I have been a resident of Edina since 1982 and the Edina Highlands area since 1987. The proposed development is as impactful to this neighborhood as that of Countryside. The Tracy and Vernon Avenue traffic impacts are simply one example, i.e. 179 units x 1 -2 vehicles per unit x 2 -5 trips per day = 358 to 1790 estimated car traffic units on these major arterials. The reality is likely somewhere in between — nonetheless, a significant addition of traffic to already busy arterials. Moreover, my observations as an Edina resident generally are as follows: 1) the scale of the project needed to make a profit by the partnership of Shelter Corp and Colonial Church is not the problem of the neighborhoods or the larger community — the proposed scale of the project, and collateral financing qualifications required, are for their respective economic needs (not those of the community /neighborhood) - it is their problem alone that it is too big. Essentially, this has become the tail wagging the dog. There are other alternatives for the disposition of the real estate. We all have to make economic decisions and they are not entitled to any special "exempt" status in this regard. 2) collaterally, the real estate tax base interests of the City of Edina need to be managed through the fair application of its zoning laws - period - that Edina was one of the original planned cities in the U.S. has benefited all Edina residents, including those promoting this project, through today. The narrow interests of one property owner /organization and one developer are simply subordinate to the larger paramount interest of the community to the protection afforded all by zoning laws. 3) homeowners purchase homes in reliance on the enforcement of the zoning laws and are entitled to proper stewardship by public officials elected on this premise and charged with this duty - "zoning du jour " is an abdication of responsibility and undermines homeowner confidence in the governance of Edina. 4) If elderly housing on this scale is deemed this critical by the City, then one of the holes at Braemar golf course should be considered for utilization — (and I am not being sarcastic) - if it isn't this critical, then the scale is only about the economic interests of the partners involved and the City as a direct tax beneficiary — if so; where are the homeowners considered ?. For all of the above reasons, I am opposed to any the development and urge a_ "no" vote to this proposal. Doug Nessan Jackie Hoogenakker From: sharon labine <slabine_55436 @yahoo.com> Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2010 1:47 PM To: Jackie Hoogenakker Subject: countryside project To all concerned: I am against the Countryside project. Sharon LaBine 5229 Lochloy Dr. Edina, Mn. 55436 o n JUL -16 -2010 13:19 ISD 196 FOOD SERVICE 6516836817 July 16, 2010 Dear Planning Committee; I have attended a few meetings regarding the Colonial Church housing development. I have the following concerns about the project: 1) No one has talked about run off and the ground water tables for building a large complex that is basically on 9 Mile creek. Who will dredge the creek when the run off gets bad? Assuming it will, if you look at what happened when the Edina High school changed their parking lot and created a run off system to the lower sport fields. 'What additional costs to the city will there be to maintain present water levels of the homes around the 9 Me creek that would be affected? Who will clean the storm drains and at what cost to the city? 2) The builders for the project and the communication in the papers have indicated that the building will have assisted living and a memory unit. However, if you speak to the builders and the church planning committee, they have indicated they have no intent to staff for assisted living accommodations or request for approval to the Statc Health Department to acquire the needed Health Care building code documents necessary for Medical Assisted Living. Thus, one would assume that they are leading the community astray when they use the word assisted living and a memory unit. 3) There is a massive building on 70P street and Highway 100 that was an apartment building which they turned into an expensive Condo type building aiming for a high economic strata population that now sits almost empty and is owned by the bank. Do we need more massive empty buildings- collecting minimal taxes in our City? Thank you listening to cncems. Barbara Cmffiths� Resident � �^ 5844 Creek Valley Road Edina, MN 55123 D Phone:651- 683 -6959 P.02 Jackie Hoogenakker From: pegdodge @comcast.net Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 4:10 PM To: Jackie Hoogenakker Subject: Colonial church /Shelter Corp. final approval E MNIX Please see that this letter is considered by the Honorable Mayor Hovland, City Council Members and Planning Commission. Thank you. Dear Honorable Mayor Hovland and City Council Members: I am writing again to ask for your "NO" vote in response to the Colonial /Shelter Corporation's final re- zoning proposal. I am a thirty year resident of Sherman Circle and the Countryside neighborhood. In those 30 years as a parent and volunteer in the school system and the community, I believe that most of Edina's citizens consider themselves to be part of their elementary school neighborhood, as well as the city as a whole. Therefore, as a Countryside resident, I am very concerned with changes in zoning and planning, no matter how far I live from the area being considered. I am also a member of Colonial Church and I am stunned to see what has come about since I, and many other members, voted four years ago not to sell the land in question. Until March of this year, attended church two times a week and read my church bulletin faithfully every Sunday and on- line. The only mention of this project was the occasional statement that the land -use committee was meeting. There were no plans, descriptions or deadlines. There were no pictures or announcemen' of meetings with neighbors to talk of re- zoning. There was no visible re- zoning sign on any neighborhood corner. Only after the Save Edina Countryside Organization signs were placed, did I become aware of the project and its scope. And this was after the pre - approval from the council and planning commission. Since the neighborhood /church meetings, there have been weekly prayer and attendance requests for those in favor of this project in the church a -mails and bulletins. The church voted to sell the land democratically but the project was put together by committee, not by consensus. hope that your decision will not be made simply by committee but ,instead, with the consideration of these many people that you represent. This group has epitomized the meaning of democracy. They have worked tirelessly to get information to the people of this neighborhood so that they could be represented fairly in this re- zoning process. As President Jimmy Carter quotes, "Democracy is like the experience of life itself - -- always changing, infinite in its variety, sometimes turbulent and all the more valuable for having been tested for adversity ". We, the Save Edina Countryside group, are not a few cranky people that don't want or believe in change. We don't hate -the church and old people. But as a neighborhood, by description, housing style and values, we do not see this project as remotely resembling the place in which we live. The newest information on this project is that it is no longer even a nursing home, as the state has put a moratorium on nursing home licenses. It is high -end assisted living /senior housing with services, run by a for - profit corporation asking for tax relief. appreciate the volunteer hours that the planning commission puts in listening to Edina citizens. learned a great deal attending the June 30th meeting. But I disagree that high -end senior housing . going to be in big demand in the future. I know of many of our "60 something" Edina friends that followed the empty- nesters trend to downtown condos. They are now looking for small homes with yards because of the grandkids. They were raised in Edina, raised their kids in Edina and want to stay in Edina in a single - family home. They can do so, with many services, for less money than the rents that this project is seeking. This does not look like a sound venture for our city in this economy. Thank you for your consideration on the citizens behalf. Sincerely, Peggy Dodge WILSON RD & EDEN AVE DETAIL C— HALL_ (0 GRANDVIEW DETAIL CAHILL RD & 70TH DETAIL IN Zoning Map City o f Edina Hennepin County, Minnesota 44TH & FRANCE DETAIL . 4,51 wmiyW kw SEE SEE DETAIL DEU41L6.-L UPPER 93 -�LEIFT LEFT., CENTEft za P Mad LAke - 4RW IALD SiE. DETAIL L6WER LEFT A Nix IA& C-� 50TH & FRANCE DETAIL r ST 54TH & FRANCE DETAIL wsnn at Legend &,.D .vuDot I G— R.2 --I %— R- PRD PcD, PI.— cd—w Ditl PCD 2 PcW POCH' POD -2 NO PY— 1-1 D. Oa NbmoM[ft-QD OE.LD Ed'. —.9. D•l -R♦ N W E + moot S Pb-.N Dept February 201C VALLEY VIEW & WOODDALE DETAIL 70TH & FRANCE DETAIL SOUTHDALE DETAIL 13 MATERIALS PRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER BROWN MEETING 30, 2010 OF PLANNING COMMISSION. Steve Brown Planning Commission Steve Brown Planning Commission V0 . vv . \'A DtbR''� t" REQUEST FOR PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $20,000 /CHANGE ORDER To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL Agenda Item No. III. A. From: Name of Author: John Keprios . Title:. Director of Parks and Recreation Date: Date of Meeting July 20, 2010 Subject: Soil Retention Tie Back System for Braemar West Arena Bleachers Date Bid Opened or Quote Received: Bid or Quote Expiration Date: July 9, 2010 August 9, 2010 Company Amount of Quote or Bid 1. Atlas Foundation Company 1. $46,930.00 2. Veit Specialty Contracting & Waste Management 2. $49,790.00 RECOMMENDED QUOTE OR BID: Atlas Foundation Company $46,930.00 GENERAL INFORMATION: This is for soil retention and stabilization under the bleachers which is necessary to complete the work specified in the Braemar West Arena 2010 Improvement Project. This work could not be bid until the existing concrete was removed and the area was exposed for observation. This scope of work was not included as part of the original specifications base bid for the Braemar West Arena 2010 Improvement Project. This Soil Retention Tie -Back System is recommended by our project consultant Scott Ward, P.E. PrincipalNice President of Stevens Engineering to ensure that the new wall to be constructed next to the bleachers is properly stabilized. If approved by Council, the work will be completed by July 30, 2010. Sig t re The Recommended Bid is within budget ent not within budget , Xpohn.WkIlip, Fir/ace Director Hughes, CiWanager o Le tA ,o REQUEST FOR PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $20,000 /CHANGE ORDER leas To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL Agenda Item No. 111. B: From: Name of Author: John Keprios Title: Director of Parks and Recreation Date: Date of Meeting: Subject: Track Loader — Edina Park Maintenance Department Date Bid Opened or Quote Received: Bid or Quote Expiration Date: NA NA Company Amount of Quote or Bid. 1. St. Joseph Equipment, Inc. 1. $27,184.00 (State Contract #443001) RECOMMENDED QUOTE OR BID: St. Joseph Equipment, Inc. $27,184.00 (includes trade -in credit plus sales tax GENERAL INFORMATION: This is for purchase and delivery of a 2010 Terex/ASV Pt -60 model Track Loader for the Edina Park Maintenance Department. The purchase price of $27,184.00 for this Track Loader includes a $8,100.00 credit for trade in of a 1996 Case Wheel Loader (equipment inventory #47.500) that is due for replacement this year. This purchase is funded by the Equipment Replacement budget account number 1650.6710 and is being purchased under the Minnesota State Contract #443001. Park and Recreation Sig u e De artme The Recommended Bid is=—�`' within budget not within budget; John Wg4lin, jfi anc_e Director Gordon Hughet, Cft Manager REQUEST FOR PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $20,000 /CHANGE ORDER To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL Agenda Item No. III.C. From: Wayne D. Houle Director of Public Works / City Engineer Date: July 20, 2010 Subject: Indoor Sweeper for Public Works Facility Date Bid Opened or Quote Received: Bid or Quote Expiration Date: June 25, 2010 July 25, 2010 Company Amount of Quote or Bid 1. Tennant Sales & Service Company 1. $36,604.14 (State Contract No. 443538) RECOMMENDED QUOTE OR BID: Tennant Sales & Service Company $36,604.14 GENERAL INFORMATION: This purchase is for an indoor sweeper for the new Public Works Building located at 7450 Metro Boulevard. The sweeper will primarily be used for the vehicle storage area and the mechanic area. This sweeper will also serve as a back -up to the sweeper at 50th and France that maintains the public parking ramps. This purchase is through the State of Minnesota Purchasing Program and is being funded through the public works equipment replacement budget. Staff recommends awarding this project to Tennant Sales & Service Company. Public Works Signature Department The Recommended Bid is _ within budget not within budggj /I /,„Joon W n, Finance Director Gordon Huffs, City Manager G:\ Engineering \Infrastructure \Public Buldings \PW - 7450 Metro Boulevard \Non - Contractual Agreements \Sweepers\Item III C Indoor Sweeper For Public Works Building.0ocx REQUEST FOR PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $20,000 /CHANGE ORDER To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL Agenda Item No. 111. D. From: Wayne D. Houle, PE Director of Public Works / City Engineer Date: July 20, 2010 Subject: West 44th Street Mill and Overlay — Brookside Avenue To Brookside Terrace, Improvement No. BA -379 Date Bid Opened or Quote Received: Bid or Quote Expiration Date: July 14, 2010 September 13, 2010 Company Amount of Quote or Bid 1. Northwest Asphalt, Inc. 1. $40,977.50 2. Bituminous Roadways, Inc. 2. $44,880.50 RECOMMENDED QUOTE OR BID: Northwest Asphalt, Inc. $40,977.50 GENERAL INFORMATION: This project includes constructing a missing sidewalk segment, placing curb and gutter, and mill and overlaying the roadway below the new railroad bridge at West 44th Street, between Brookside Avenue and Brookside Terrace. The replacement of the railroad bridge last year was designed to allow for matching the existing roadway to the east of the bridge while reconstructing the sidewalk below the bridge. The funding for this project will be from the State Gas Tax funds. Staff recommends awarding this project to Northwest Asphalt, Inc. /' w6va=4='� Signature The Recommended Bid. is X -- -- -- -- - - - - -- -- - — within- budget----- - not withi Engineering Department Gordon H GAEngineering \Contract Numbers \2010 \ENG 10-11 44th St - Brookside to Th1e1en \ADMIN \MISC \BA -379 RFP.doc Director---- -- - City Manager owe 11 v �y REQUEST FOR PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF • �. $20,000 /CHANGE ORDER To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL Agenda Item No. Ill. E. From: Name of Author: John Keprios Title: Director of Parks and Recreation Date: Date of Meeting: July 20, 2010 Subject: Edinborough Park Bathroom Addition Date Bid Opened or Quote Received: Bid or Quote Expiration Date: July 14, 2010 August 14, 2010 Company Amount of Quote or Bid 1. Jan Lasserud Construction 1. $96,250.00 2. GenCon Construction 2. $132,900.00 3. The Joseph Company, Inc. 3. $135,000.00 RECOMMENDED QUOTE OR BID: Jan Lasserud Construction $96,250.00 includes $3,200 add alternate GENERAL INFORMATION: On Wednesday, July 14, 2010, the City of Edina opened sealed bids for development of bathroom additions (converting the catering kitchen to bathrooms) for Edinborough Park. There was one add alternate requested as part of the project which was for phenolic (high grade plastic) partitions for the bathrooms. Base bid specifications called for lesser expensive metal partitions. There were three bids received and opened as follows: ADD VENDOR BASE BID ALTERNATE TOTAL BID Jan Lasserud Construction $93,050.00 $3,200.00 $96,250.00 GenCon Construction $129,900.00 $3,000.00 $132,900.00 The Joseph Company, Inc. $132,400.00 $2,600.00 $135,000.00 This was originally a 2009 Capital Improvement Plan project budgeted at $60,000 (total project costs, including engineering /architect fees); however, we rejected all bids last year when they came in much more than Burt Coffin of ESG Architects originally estimated. The lowest bid last year came in at $98,488.00. We asked our consulting architect to change and tighten the specifications to bring the project closer to within budget and bid the project again in 2010. The end result is still higher than we had hoped but is probably as good a bid as we can expect to get for this scope of work. This remains a very high priority CIP project for Edinborough Park and therefore it is staff recommendation to accept Jan Lasserud Construction's (JLC) low bid of $96,250.00, which includes the $3,200.00 add - alternate. It is staff recommendation that accepting the add - alternate is important because we feel that the high density plastic will be a much more aesthetically pleasing, durable and long- lasting material that won't rust. It is a far superior product than the metal partitions called for in the base bid. Total funding available for this project is proposed to come from the following sources: 2009 CIP carried over to 2010 = $60,000 Theater Curtain budgeted at $26,000; actual cost $19,000 = $7,000 savings Theater floor budgeted at $24,000; $18,000 actual = $6,000 savings Exterior Arches budgeted at $20,000; $10,000 actual = $10,000 savings Sidewalk Entryway budgeted at $75,000; $40,272.10 = $29,727.90 savings In other words, the total available dollars are $112,727.90 which includes the 2009 CIP carry- over of $60,000 plus an additional $52,727.90 in savings from other 2010 CIP projects that have come in under budget. In addition, the 2010 Capital Improvement Plan project to replace the northeast and southeast doors budgeted at $40,000 is now scheduled to be delayed until 2013. Total project costs are anticipated to be $96,250.00 plus an additional $15,000 in architect/engineering fees for a grand total of approximately $111,250. Staff recommends award of bid to JLC for $96,250.00 which includes the $3,200.00 add - alternate. If approved by Council, the project will be completed by October 15, 2010. Signature The Recommended Bid is within budget not within budoetS Park and Recreation Finance Director Gordon Hu &os� City Manager ` , ', o / rel mp �roapo��° ,see REPORT /RECOMMENDATION To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL Agenda Item Item No. IV. A. From: Debra Mangen City Clerk ® Action F-1 Discussion 0 Information Date: July 20, 2010 Subject: Ordinance No. 2010 -11 and Commissions Amending Edina City Code Concerning Boards ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt Ordinance No. 2010 -11 with waiver of Second Reading. INFORMATION /BACKGROUND: The Council directed staff prepare the necessary ordinance amendment to allow appointment of two students who would be non - voting to the various City Boards, Committees and Commission. Attorney Knutson has prepared the attached draft to increase student membership to two members. ATTACHMENT: Draft Ordinance No. 2010 -11 V ORDINANCE NO__2010 -11. ______ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE CONCERNING APPOINTMENT OF STUDENTS TO BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES THE CITY OF EDINA ORDAINS: ---------------------------------------------------------------- Section 7. Section 140.04 of the Edina City Code is amended to read as follows: 140.04 Membership_ The Commission shall consist of nine regular members, including eae ____. two students, appointed by the Mayor with the consent of a majority of the Council. The student members of the Commission shall be non - voting members have fi," V9tiAq Fights and shall serve for a one -year terms. Members of the Commission shall be residents of the City, be appointed for a term of three years and serve until a successor shall have been appointed. Upon termination of a member's term, that member's successor shall be appointed for the remainder of such term. Members of the Commission shall serve without compensation and may resign voluntarily or be removed by majority vote of the Council or pursuant to Subsection 180 of this Code. Commission members who discontinue legal residency in the City shall be deemed to have resigned from office effective as of the date of such discontinuance. .Section 2. Section 1460.03 of the Edina City_Code is amended to read as follows; 146.03 Membership. The Commission shall consist of 11 members appointed by the Mayor with the consent of the majority of the Council. TwoAae members of the Commission shall be-a high 6rheel students with full V^`i^^ ' 414ts- The student members of the Commission shall be non - voting members. All members of the Commission shall be residents of the City and shall be appointed for a term of three years, except that a student members, shall be appointed for a term of one year. Of the 11 members, one member shall also be a member of the Planning Commission. Members shall serve until a successor has been appointed. Upon termination of a member's term, that member's successor shall be appointed for the remainder of such term. Members of the Commission shall serve without compensation and may resign voluntarily or be removed by a majority vote of the Council or pursuant to Section 180 of this Code. Section 3. Section 700.03 of the Edina City Code is amended to read as follows: 700.03 Community Health Committee. The Community Health Board may establish a community health committee to advise, consult with and make recommendations on matters related to the development, maintenance and funding of community health services. The Community Health Committee shall consist of at least seven (7) members, and twoa student members. The student members of the Committee shall be non - voting members. Members shall include, if possible, providers and consumers of health care services. All members shall be residents of the City. Members shall be appointed by the Mayor with the consent of the Council. No member shall serve more than two consecutive three -year terms, except the student members shall be appointed for-a one -year terms. The Community Health Committee shall study and advise the Community Health Board regularly on community health activities designed to protect and promote the health of the population by emphasizing the prevention of disease, injury, disability, and preventable death through the promotion of effective coordination and use of community resources and by extending health services into the community. Section 4. Section 801.05 Subd.1 of the Edina City Code is amended to read as follows: Formatted: Font: 11 pt Formatted: Font: 11 pt Formatted: Font: 11 pt, Bold Formatted: Font: 11 pt Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial, 11 pt Formatted: Font: 11 pt Formatted: Font: (Default) Anal, 11 pt Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial, 11 pt Subd. 1. Voting Members. The Board shall consist of ei h _ 89 voting members_ Seven ::. (7) members shall be adult legal residents of the City appointed by the Council to three (3) year terms of office. Members shall have a demonstrated interest, knowledge, ability or expertise in heritage preservation. If available, at least one (1) member shall be a qualified professional historian, architect, architectural historian, archeologist, planner, or the owner of a heritage landmark property. One (1) member of the Board shall be appointed annually from the Planning Commission. T,he Council- shall_annu..ally_appoi -- twoeae— 4- students to_se o on the Board_for.___. one year terms as a veting Friembe . The student members of the Board shall be non - voting members. Members of the Board shall serve without compensation and may resign voluntarily or be removed by majority vote of the Council or pursuant to Section 180 of this Code. Members who discontinue legal residency in the City shall be automatically considered to have resigned from office effective as of the date of such discontinuance. Upon termination of a voting member's term, that member's successor shall be appointed for the remainder of such term. Section 5. Section 805.04 of the Edina City Code is amended to read as follows: 805.04 Membership. The Commission shall consist of nine residents of the City appointed by the Mayor with the consent of a majority of the members of the Council. In addition, to the nine voting members, twoe% members of the Commission shallmay be a-high ssbeel students -, Whe The student members of the Commission shall be non - voting members. Commission members shall be appointed with due regard to their fitness for the efficient dispatch of the functions, duties, and responsibilities vested in and imposed upon the Commission. Members shall be appointed for terms of three years commencing on February 1, except that a student member shall be appointed for a term of one year, commencing on a date determined by the Mayor with the consent of the Council. A Commission member, following expiration of that member's term, may be reappointed by the Mayor with the consent of a majority of the members of the Council. Upon expiration of a term, a member shall continue to serve until that individual's successor is appointed. Any individual appointed to fill a vacancy occurring prior to the expiration of the term for which that individual's predecessor was appointed shall be appointed for the remainder of such term. Members of the Commission shall serve without compensation and may resign voluntarily or be removed by majority vote of the Council or pursuant to Section 180 of this Code. Commission members who discontinue legal residency in the City shall be automatically removed from office effective as of the date of such discontinuance. One member of the Commission shall also be a member of the Energy and Environment Commission. Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial, 11 pt Formatted: Font: (Default) Aria], 11 pt Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial, 11 pt ,Section 6. Section 1220.03 of the Edina_City Code is amended to read as follows_________ __ _ _____ - -- Formatted: Font: 11 pt ,- Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial, 11 pt 1220.03 Membership. The Park Board shall consist of eleven residents of the City_ One member shall also be a member of the Board of Education of Independent School District No. 273. Two Sae members shall -a}ay bey high ssheel students. The student members of the Board shall be non - voting members. Members shall be appointed by the Mayor with the consent of a majority of the Council; provided, however, that the member from the Board of Education shall be appointed by the Board of Education with the consent of the majority of the Council. Terms shall be three years except the Board of Education member and the student members shall serve one -year terms. Members shall serve until a successor has been appointed. Upon termination of a member's term, that member's successor shall be appointed for the remainder of such term. Members of the Park Board shall serve without compensation and may resign voluntarily or be removed by a majority vote of the Council pursuant to Section 180 of this Code. Section 7. Section 1221.03 of the Edina City Code is amended to read as follows: a 1221.03 Membership. The Board shall consist of eleven members appointed by the Mayor with the consent of the majority of the Council. TwoG4ie members of.the Board shall - reay -be a high SShee4 students. The student members of the Board shall be non - voting members. All members of the. Board shall be residents-'6f the City except that not more than three members may be non - residents. Members shall be appointed for'a'term of-three years except the student members shall be appointed fora one year terms. Members shall serve until a successor has been appointed. Upon termination of a member's term, ;that member's successor shall be appointed for the'remainder of such term. Members of the "Board shall`serve without compensation and:_may resign voluntarily or be removed by a majority vote, of the -Council. pursuant.to Section 180,of this Code. Board memb "ers 'who discontinue legl residency in the City may be removed from•office by the Mayor with the consent of a majority of the Council. Section 8. :`Section 1225.03 of the Edina City Code is amended to read as follows . 1225.03 Membership. The Commission shall consist often members appointed by the Council. The Council shall endeavor to appoint members such that the Commission is reflective of the different geographic areas of the City: One member of the Commission shall also be a member of the Planning Commission. One member of the Commission shall also be a member of the Bike Edina Task Force or any existing similar organization, or shall otherwise have an expertise or interest in bicycling as a mode of transportation. Two944e members of the Commission shalln:ay be high sshesl students., the GqFnmissiqR.- The student members of the Commission shall be non - voting members. Members shall serve until a successor has been appointed. All members of the Commission shall'be residents of.the City and shall be appointed for a term of three years except any student member shall be appointed for a term of one year, commencing on a date determined by the Council. Upon termination of a member's term,'that member's successor shall be appointed for the remainder of such term. Members of the Commission shall serve without compensation and may resign voluntarily or be removed by a majority vote of the Council pursuant to Section 180 of this Code. Commission members who discontinue legal residency in the City may be removed from office by the Council. .Section 9. This ordinance is effective immediately upon its passage and publication. rwrmatted: Font: i1 pt First Reading: Second Reading: -- Published: Attest: Debra A,-Mangen, City Clerk James B. Hovland, Mayor Please publish,in the Edina Sun Current on: Thursday, Send two affidavits of publication. Bill to Edina City Clerk o e REPORT/RECOMMENDATION To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL Agenda Item Item No. IV.B. From: John Wallin Finance Director ® Action F-1 Discussion Information Date: July 20, 2010 Subject: Resolution No. 2010 -59 Authorizing Facsimile Signatures ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt Resolution. INFORMATION /BACKGROUND: The use of Heather Worthington's facsimile signature must be authorized by the Council via a resolution. This authorizes the facsimile of the Mayor, Manager and Treasurer on checks, drafts, warrants, vouchers, etc. or other orders by public funds deposited with the City's banks. A copy of the recommended Resolution is attached for your review. ATTACHMENT: Resolution No. 2010 -59 i RESOLUTION NO. 2010 -59 .AUTHORIZING USE OF FACSIMILE SIGNATURES BY PUBLIC OFFICIALS RESOLVED that the use of facsimile signatures by the following named persons: JAMES B. HOVLAND - Mayor HEATHER WORTHINGTON - City Manager JOHN WALLIN - Treasurer on checks, drafts, warrants, warrant - checks, vouchers or other orders of public funds deposited in Bremer Bank, Crown Bank, Eagle Crest Capital Bank, Fidelity Bank, First Minnesota Bank, Marshall & Ilsley Bank, North American Banking Company, TCF National Bank, U.S. Bank, Wells Fargo Bank and Western Bank, be and hereby are approved, and that each of said persons may authorize said depository banks to honor any such instrument bearing his facsimile signature in such form as he may designate and to charge the same to the account in said depository bank upon which drawn as fully as though it bore his manually written signature and that instruments so honored shall be wholly operative and binding in favor of said depository bank although such facsimile signature shall have been affixed without his authority. This resolution will be effective July 31, 2010. Adopted this 20th day of July, 2010. 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 July 20, 2010 and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this day of , 20 City Clerk o e �s Cn t7 � f�ro�B REPORT /RECOMMENDATION To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL Agenda Item Item No. IV.C. From: John Wallin Finance Director ® Action F-1 Discussion Information Date: July 20, 2010 Subject: Resolution No. 2010 -60 Authorizing Investment Agreements ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt Resolution. INFORMATION /BACKGROUND: The City's Resolution Authorizing Investment Agreement is used by banks and brokerages to open new accounts such as each time a new bond construction fund is opened. A copy of the recommended Resolution is attached for your review. ATTACHMENT: Resolution No. 2010 -60 RESOLUTION NO. 2010-60 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING INVESTMENT AGREEMENT BE IT RESOLVED, that Heather M. Worthington and /or John Wallin who is /are Officers of the City of Edina, is /are authorized to enter into agreements or commitments to open, maintain and close accounts with banks, brokers and other financial institutions with which it does business, and are authorized to sign on individual bank and broker accounts and such Officers are further authorized to cancel such authority, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that John Wallin and /or Eric Roggeman is /are authorized to purchase or sell any and all securities as authorized by the City of Edina's Investment Policy (as attached), and that the Officer is authorized on behalf of the City of Edina to sign any necessary documentation: to give written or oral instructions with respect to said transactions: to obligate the City for the carrying out of any contract, agreement, or transaction; to pay by check or wire; and to take any and all such actions in the name of and on behalf of said City that would be considered desirable and necessary with respect to said transaction; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the bank, broker or other financial institution may rely upon the actions of the Officer as the City of Edina representative that any and all securities purchased are legal and authorized investments under the City's applicable policies and /or statutory requirements. The City of Edina represents that it will provide these applicable policies and /or statutory requirements, and that it will notify the bank, broker or other financial institution of any changes made; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk of the City of Edina is authorized and directed to certify, under the seal of the City of Edina, to you a true copy of these resolutions and specimen signatures of each and every person empowered by these resolutions; and I FURTHER CERTIFY that said resolution shall be effective July 31, 2010 and continue in full force and effect, until revoked or modified by the Edina City Council and written notice is received by the bank, broker or other financial institution, such notice setting forth a resolution adopted to effect said revocation or modification and authorizing the new signatory and /or person authorized to obligate the City of Edina securities transaction. Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Dated this 20th day of July, 2010. 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 July 20, 2010,. and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this day of , 20 City Clerk ... �gZNA �1 oe� 0 less REPORT /RECOMMENDATION To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL Agenda Item Item No. IV. D. From: Debra Mangen Council Members ❑ Action ® Discussion ❑ Information Date: July 20, 2010 Subject: Approve Summary Publication of Ordinance No. 2010 -08 ACTION REQUESTED: Approve publication, of the summary of Ordinance No.2010 -08. INFORMATION /BACKGROUND: At the July 6, 2010, meeting the Council adopted Ordinance No. 2010 -08 adding a Building Height Overlay District to the City's Zoning Code. Publication of the ordinance is required and in preparing the ordinance for publication I discovered the Edina Sun Current does not offer color publication of maps in their legal notification. Additionally, publication of the map would be very costly. Statutes allow Councils to approve summary publication of ordinance as long as the full version is on file and available to the public. I recommend that Council authorize a summary publication of this ordinance. Attachment: Summary of Ordinance No. 2010 -08 ORDINANCE NO. 2010 -08 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 850 OF THE EDINA CITY CODE ADDING A BUILDING HEIGHT OVERLAY DISTRICT ollowing is a summary of the Building Height Overlay District Ordinance No 2010 -08. The full and complete document including Appendix A of the City's Official Zoning Map is available for public inspection in the office of the City Clerk at Edina City Hall, 4801 West 50th Street, Edina, MN 55424 The City Council of Edina, Minnesota ordains: Section 1. Section 850.13, Subd. 5 C. (PRD & PSR, Planned Residence Districts) "C. Maximum Building Height — PRD -3 See Section 850.22 Building Height Overlay District & Appendix A of the City's Official Zoning Map PRD -4,5 See Section 850.22 Building Height Overlay District & Appendix A of the City's Official Zoning Map PSR -3 See Section 850.22 Building Height Overlay District & Appendix A of the City's Official Zoning Map PSR -4 See Section 850.22 Building Height Overlay District & Appendix A of the City's Official Zoning Map" Section 2. Section 850.14 Subd. 6 C & D. (MDD, Mixed Development Districts) "C. Setbacks. Setbacks shall be measured from the boundary of the tract or from public street right - of -way. D. Maximum Building Heights The minimum building setback shall be increased by' /2 foot for each foot the building height exceeds the minimum required setback. If the tract abuts land zoned and used for residential purposes, the required interior side yard setback shall not be less than 35 feet." Section 3. Section 850.15, Subd. 5 D (POD, Planned Office Districts) "D. Maximum Building Heights — POD -1 See Section 850.22 Building Height Overlay District & Appendix A of the City's Official Zoning Map POD -2 See Section 850.22 Building Height Overlay District & Appendix A of the City's Official Zoning Map" Section 4. Section 850.16, Subd. 11. C (PCD, Planned Commercial Districts) "C. Maximum Building Heights — PCD -1 See Section 850.22 Building Height Overlay District & Appendix A of the City's Official Zoning Map PCD -2 See Section 850.22 Building Height Overlay District & Appendix A of the City's Official Zoning Map PCD -3 See Section 850.22 Building Height Overlay District & Appendix A of the City's Official Zoning Map Front Street Side Street Interior Side Yard Rear Yard MDD -3 35' 35' 20' 35' MDD -4 35' 35' "20' 35' MDD -5 35' 35' 20' 35' MDD -6 35' 35' 20' 35' The minimum building setback shall be increased by' /2 foot for each foot the building height exceeds the minimum required setback. If the tract abuts land zoned and used for residential purposes, the required interior side yard setback shall not be less than 35 feet." Section 3. Section 850.15, Subd. 5 D (POD, Planned Office Districts) "D. Maximum Building Heights — POD -1 See Section 850.22 Building Height Overlay District & Appendix A of the City's Official Zoning Map POD -2 See Section 850.22 Building Height Overlay District & Appendix A of the City's Official Zoning Map" Section 4. Section 850.16, Subd. 11. C (PCD, Planned Commercial Districts) "C. Maximum Building Heights — PCD -1 See Section 850.22 Building Height Overlay District & Appendix A of the City's Official Zoning Map PCD -2 See Section 850.22 Building Height Overlay District & Appendix A of the City's Official Zoning Map PCD -3 See Section 850.22 Building Height Overlay District & Appendix A of the City's Official Zoning Map PCD-4 See Section 850.22 Building Height Overlay District & Appendix A of the City's.-Official Zoning Map " Section 5. Section 850.16, Subd. 12 D (PCD, Planning Commercial Districts is hereby amended as follows: "Subd. 12. Special Requirements. A. Established Average Front Street Setback for PCD -1 and PCD -2. When more than 25 percent of the frontage on one side of the street between intersections is occupied by buildings having front street setbacks of greater or lesser distances than hereafter required, then the average setback of the existing buildings shall be maintained by all new or relocated buildings on the same side of that street and between the intersections. If a building is to be built or relocated where there is an established average setback, and there are existing buildings on only one side of the building or relocated building, the front street setback of the new or relocated building need be no greater than that of the nearest adjoining principal building. If a building is to be built or relocated where there is an established average setback and there are existing buildings on both sides of the new or relocated building, the front street setback need be no greater than that which would be established by connecting a line parallel with the front line connecting between the most forward portion of the adjacent principal building on each side. B. Interior Side Yard and .Rear Yard Setbacks. Interior side yard and rear yard setbacks including parking setbacks and loading facility setbacks apply only when the side or rear lot line is a Planned Commercial District boundary. C. Setbacks for PCD -3. The minimum building setback required by Paragraph B of Subd. 11 of this subsection shall be increased as follows: 1. In the area bounded by France Avenue on the west, York Avenue on the east and West 70th Street on the south, the minimum building setback shall be increased by 1/3 foot for each foot that the building exceeds 50 feet in building height. For purposes hereof, only those portions of buildings which exceed 50 feet in building height need provide the additional setbacks required by this paragraph. 2. In all other areas, the minimum building setback shall be equal to the building height for buildings taller than 50 feet. Notwithstanding the requirement of this subsection, the City encourages i) ground level retail and service uses that create an active pedestrian and streetscape environment and ii) pedestrian connections by way of skyways and tunnels. The City Council will consider exceptions to setback requirements for these purposes." Section 6. Section 850.17, Subd. 3.G (PID, Planned Industrial District) is hereby amended as follows: Subd. 3 Requirements for Building Coverage, Setbacks, and Height. G. Maximum Building Height. Four stories or 50 feet whichever is less. See Section 850.22, Building Height Overlay District and Appendix A of the City's Official Zoning Map. Section 7. Section 850.18, Subd. 3.0 (RMD, Regional Medical District) is hereby amended as follows: Subd. 3 Requirements for Building Coverage, Setbacks, and Height. C. Maximum Building Height. No t°rmiRed by Feq piped setback r. See Section 850.22, Building Height Overlay District and Appendix A of the City's Official Zoning Map. Section 8. Section 850 is hereby amended to add the following "850.22. Building Height Overlay District (HOD). Subd. 1. Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to establish maximum building height regulations in order to minimize the visual impact of tall buildings built within establisP neighborhoods in and around commercial and industrial neighborhoods. Subd. 2. Boundaries. The official boundaries for each Height Overlay District are established on Appendix A of the City's Official Zoning Map. • Subd. 3. Maximum Building Heights. The following maximum building heights are required within each of the following Height Overlay Districts: HOD -1 Building height shall be determined by required setbacks, but shall not exceed 1 story or 20 feet, whichever is less. HOD -2 Building height shall be determined by required setbacks, but shall not exceed 2 stories or 24 feet, whichever is less. HOD -3 Building height shall be determined by required setbacks, but shall not exceed 3 stories or 36 feet, whichever is less. HOD-4 Building height shall be determined by required setbacks, but shall not exceed 4 stories or 48 feet, whichever is less. HOD -8 Building height shall be determined by required setbacks, but shall not exceed 8 stories or 96 feet, whichever is less. HOD -9 Building height shall be determined by required setbacks, but shall not exceed 9 stories or 108 feet, whichever is less. HOD -10 Building height shall be determined by required setbacks, but shall not exceed 10 stories or 120 feet, whichever is less. HOD -12 Building height shall be determined by required setbacks, but shall not exceed 12 stories or 144 feet, whichever is less." Passed and adopted by the Edina City Council this 6th day of July, 2010. First Reading: July 6, 2010 Second Reading: Waived Published: July 29, 2010 .pest: Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk James B. Hovland, Mayor Summary Approved July 20, 2010 Please publish in the Edina Sun Current on: Thursday, July 29, 2010 Send two affidavits of publication. Bill to Edina City Clerk owe •, �roRroR�'� 19813 REPORT /RECOMMENDATION To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL Agenda Item Item No. IV. E. From: Debra Mangen ® Action City Clerk Discussion Date: July 20, 2010 Information Subject: Resolution No. 2010 -58 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. have prepared the attached resolution detailing the various donors, their gifts and the recipient departments for your consideration. ATTACHMENT: Resolution No. 2010 -58 RESOLUTION NO. 2010-58 ACCEPTING DONATIONS ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF EDINA WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute 465.03 allows cities to accept grants and donations of real 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 Golf Course: Dan Moran $100.00 Lee Zanin $25.00 Fred Friswold $100.00 Jim Clark $20.00 Bob Sandilla $50.00 Braemar Men's Club $75.00 Lee Odland $50.00 Britton Goetze, Jr. $25.00 Bill Colby $50.00 Joe Langer $15.00 Chuck Koerber $50.00 Gary Soule $20.00 Edina Planning Department: Steve Kuhl, Kuhl Design Build Architectural Dated: July 20, 2010 Attest: Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) SS CITY OF EDINA ) CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK 10 Copies of the book "Get Your House Right — Elements to Use & Avoid' 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 July 20, 2010, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this day of , 20_ City Clerk 01 Vu REPORT /RECOMMENDATION To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL Agenda Item Item No. IV. F. From: John Keprios, Direct fr Park and Recreation De artment ® Action Discussion Information Date: July 20, 2010 Subject: EHS Hockey Alumni Donation to Coach Willard Ikola. Braemar West Arena — A Tribute to ACTION REQUESTED: The Park Board recommends that the Council accept the Edina High School Hockey Alumni's proposal to donate the purchase and installation of a tribute to former Edina High School Hockey Coach Willard Ikola at Braemar West Arena upper level corridor. INFORMATION /BACKGROUND: The Edina High School Hockey Alumni has requested that the City of Edina allow them to purchase and install a lasting tribute at Braemar West Arena upper level corridor to honor Coach Willard Ikola. Coach Ikola has had more Minnesota State High School Hockey Championships than any other Minnesota High School Hockey Coach in history. To honor this great legend of the game, the EHS Hockey Alumni has raised over $15,000 to purchase and develop a color mural to be painted on the wall of the upper lobby of Braemar West Arena and a permanent bronze statue of Coach Ikola. A color rendering is attached to this report. This proposed project has been communicated to the Edina Hockey Association and the Braemar City of Lakes Figure Skating Club. Both organizations are in support of the proposed project. The proposal has also received support from the Edina Public Schools Board of Education. At their July 13, 2010 meeting, the Park Board voted unanimously to recommend that the City Council accept the EHS Alumni's proposal. If approved by City Council, the project would be put in place in time for the start of the 2010 High School Hockey season. 01 tqu co 0 REPORT /RECOMMENDATION To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL Agenda Item Item No. IV. G. From: Joni Bennett & Mary Brindle Council Members ❑ Action ® Discussion ❑ Information Date: July 20, 2010 Subject: Student Board, Committee and Commission Appointments ACTION REQUESTED: Appoint the students listed below. INFORMATION /BACKGROUND: 25 students applied for appointment to City of Edina advisory board and commissions. Of the 25 applicants, two (one a student at Blake and one a student at Edina High School) withdrew their applications before being interviewed, citing busy schedules. The remaining 23 students were interviewed between Saturday, June 26 and Wednesday, July 10, 2010 by City Council Members Joni Bennett and Mary Brindle. Human Rights & Relations Commission Chair Arnie Bigbee and Vice Chair Jessi Kingston and Energy & Environment Commission Chair Dianne Plunkett Latham participated in many of the interviews. Interviews were generally 20 minutes in length and took place at the Edina Library, Edina Senior Center and Edina City Hall. During their interviews, several students stated interests or preferences other than or in addition to the first, second or third commission choices indicated on their applications. Of the 23 students interviewed: All but one will attend EHS in 2010 -2011; one will attend Benilde -St. Margaret 14 will be seniors; 5 will be juniors; 4 will be sophomores 14 are female; 9 are male Based on information gained from the students in their interviews and consultation with Chairs Bigbee and Plunkett Latham and Vice -Chair Kingston, we are recommending that the following 16 students be appointed to the eight boards and commissions listed, for terms of one year beginning September, 2010: Art Center Board: Maria DePesa (senior) Thea Zerbe (junior) Energy & Environment Commission Karwehn Kata (senior) Alma Pronove (junior) Community Health Committee John Beuerlein (senior) Francesca Sifferlin (BSM senior) Heritage Preservation Board Katherine McLellan (senior) Lauren Thorson (senior) Human Rights & Relations Commission Zack Antar (senior) Daria Brosius (senior) Park Board Austin Dummer (senior) Felix Pronove (senior) Planning Commission Tara Mohtadi (sophomore) Matt Rock (junior) Transportation Commission Sarah Engebretson (senior) Bodhe Scheerer (senior) •r�JV • REPORT /RECOMMENDATION To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL Agenda Item Item No: IV. H. From: Boyd Tate Traffic Safety Coordinator ® Action Discussion Information Date: July 20, 2010 Subject: Traffic Safety Report of July 7, 2010 ACTION REQUESTED: Review and approve Traffic Safety Staff Review of Wednesday, July 7, 2010. INFORMATION/BACKGROUND: It is not anticipated that residents will be in attendance at the Council meeting regarding any of the attached issues. ATTACHMENTS: Traffic Safety Review for July 7, 2010. TRAFFIC-SAFETY STAFF REVIEW Wednesday,.July 7, 2010 The staff review of traffic safety matters occurred on July 7, 2010. Staff present included the City Engineer; Assistant City Engineer, Traffic Safety Coordinator, Sign Coordinator and Police Traffic Supervisor. From that review, the recommendations below are provided. "On each of-the items, persons involved have been contacted and staff recommendation has been discussed with them: They were also informed that if they d>sagree,with the recommendation or have additional facts to present, they can be included on the July 20, 2010; Council Agenda. SECTION A Requests on which staff recommends approval of request: 1. Request to put up 30 MPH Speed Limit signs' along Parklawn Avenue between York Ave and France Avenue. This request comes from a resident on Coventry Lane who is concerned with the speed of vehicles on Parklawn Avenue. Parklawn Avenue, between York Avenue and France Avenue is a Collector Roadway with a Mon. -Fri. average daily traffic count of 3,391 and an 85th - percentile speed of 31.4 mph. There have been two possible injury and one property damage accident reported along this roadway in the past five years. _ Parklawn Avenue does not have speed limit'signs on this section of road. Because of the posted speed of 40 mph on France Avenue and 35 mph on York Avenue, staff feels that speed.limit signs are warranted on this section of Parklawn Avenue. Staff recommends the installation of 30 mph speed limit signs on Parklawn ,Avenue between York Avenue and France Avenue for both east -and west bound traffic. Siin placementI6 be determined by the sign coordinator. Traffic Safety Staff Review Page 1 of 4 July 7, 2010 G:\ Engineering \Infrastructure \Streets \Traffic \Traffic Advisory Committee \Staff Review Summaries \10 TSAC & Min\Traffic Safety Review 07 -07 -1 O.doc 2. Request to enhance the "No Parking" signage on the west end of Lexington Street just east of St. Johns Avenue. This request comes from a resident on Oak Drive whose back yard abuts Lexington Street and states that the no parking zone is frequently ignored by people attending events at Wooddale Church. The north side of Lexington Street is currently signed "No Parking Sundays 8AM — 1 PM." There are several of these signs along Lexington Street but none along the requestor's property line. Requestor feels that people think that the no parking ends with the last installed sign and park along his property line. Requestor feels enhancing or adding additional signage would solve this problem. Staff concurs and feels that a "No Parking Here to Corner" sign, thirty feet to the east of the intersection of Lexington Street and St. Johns Avenue would end the confusion. Staff recommends the approval of the installation of a "No Parking Here to Corner" sign on the north side of Lexington Street, thirty feet east of St. Johns Avenue. SECTION B: Requests on which staff recommends denial of request: 1. Re uest for a "Children at Play" sign to be placed in the area of York Park (55 and York Ave). This request comes from a resident on the 5500 block of York Ave who states that York Park is seeing a higher use due to the installation of a ball field. He feels that the sign would alert motorists to children in the area. Staff is no longer putting up this type of advisory sign. Staff recommends the denial of a "Children at Play" sign in the area of York Park due to past practices. 2. Request to paint a center line in the intersection of Grove Street and Merold Drive. Traffic Safety Staff Review July 7, 2010 Page 2 of 4 G:\Engineering\lnfrastructure \Streets \Traffic \Traffic Advisory Committee \Staff Review Summaries \10 TSAC & Min\Traffic Safety Review 07- 07- 10.doc This request comes from a resident on Merold Drive who is concerned with the safety of motorists and pedestrians at this intersection. She states that cars often make "lazy" turns, and drive -into the oncoming lane while making the turn off of Merold Drive onto .Grove Street. Requestor is concerned that this may cause an accident. Both Merold Drive and Grove Street are 30 -foot wide city streets with curb, gutter, and no sidewalks. There are no parking restrictions and there have been no reported accidents in the past five years: It has been..the . policy and past practice of staff not to paint residential intersections:. Staff feels that center striping residential streets would be costly, require high maintenance and would be. not insure proper driving habits of motorists. Staff recommends the denial of the request for center striving at the intersection of Merold Drive and Grove Street due to vast practice. SECTION C: Requests that are deferred to a later date or referred to others. 1. Request for a Pedestrian sign crossing the north bound ramp onto Highway 100 at Vernon Avenue. Referred. to Minnesota Department of Transportation. 2. Request for a Pedestrian Crosswalk in front of 3600 Minnesota Drive. Staff is in contact with the City of Bloomington on this request. 3. Request for a stop sign at the intersection of Limerick Lane and Brook Drive. A traffic study will be conducted on all legs of this intersection in September after the school year begins to obtain needed data. Traffic Safety Staff Review Page 3 of 4 July 7, 2010 G:\ Engineering \lnfrastructure\Streets \Traffic \Traffic Advisory Committee\Staff Review Summaries \10 TSAC & Min \Traffic Safety Review 07- 07- 10.doc . 1 SECTION D: Other traffic safety issues handled: 1. Thirty-eight phone calls from residents requesting information on various traffic safety issues. 2. Two requests for temporary "No Parking" signs at two construction sites. 3. Two phone calls from real estate agents requesting road counts on various streets. 4. Eight traffic studies were completed on eight different streets. 5. Three requests from residents regarding clear -view issues. 6. Two calls from residents regarding the resurfacing of France Avenue. 7. One phone call from a resident regarding the six -hour parking ordinance. Traffic Safety Staff Review July 7, 2010 Page 4 of 4 G:\ Engineering \Infrastructure \Streets \Traffic \Traffic Advisory Committee \Staff Review Summaries \10 TSAC & Min \Traffic Safety Review 07- 07- IO.doc REPORT /RECOMMEN DATIO N To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL Agenda Item Item No. IV. I. From: Wayne D. Houle, PE ® Action City Engineer F-1 Discussion Information Date: July 20, 2010 Subject: Resolution No. 2010 -64 Authorizing Condemnation of Land For Sidewalk Purposes — France Avenue Sidewalk Improvement No. S -101 ACTION REQUESTED: Recommend a motion approving the Mayor to sign attached resolution authorizing the condemnation of land for sidewalk purposes for the France Avenue Sidewalk Improvement Project. INFORMATION /BACKGROUND: This project was approved by the City Council on February 3, 2009. Staff had identified in the feasibility report that temporary easements would be required to construct the retaining wall and fence in -order to construct the sidewalk. Evergreen Land Services, the City's land acquisition consultant, has been able to acquire two of the three easements for this project, see attached easement. Evergreen has exhausted their ability to negotiate any further with the final property owner, Connor and Kathryn Schmid of 4711 Meadow Road. The project cannot move forward without this easement. The construction of the sidewalk includes reconstructing an existing retaining wall and the 6- foot high fence that runs along the rear property line of the three properties. The Schmid's have requested that the existing fence be extended 8 -feet in height. Current City Code does not allow an 8 -foot fence to be constructed. Other impediments to this project include the relocation of the power. poles. Due to this project being located on Hennepin County Right -of -Way, Excel Energy will not move the power poles- for a City- sidewalk project- without being- compensated for the move. Staff continues to work with Hennepin County staff and Excel Energy to resolve this issue. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution No. 2010 -64 Authorizing Condemnation of Land For Sidewalk Purposes — France Avenue Sidewalk Improvement No. S -101 Draft Temporary Easement Evergreen Letter dated June 30, 2010. E-1 • Market Value Appraisal — Summary Report for Connor and Kathryn Schmid of 4711 Meadow Road. G: \Engineering \Contract Numbers\2010\ENG 10 -9 France Ave Sidewalk -48th to Sunnyside\NDMIN\MISC \Item IV. I. Resolution No. 2010 -64 Authorizing Condemnation of Land For Sidewalk Purposes - France Avenue Sidewalk Improvement No.' S- 101.docx RESOLUTION NO. 2010-64 AUTHORIZING CONDEMNATION OF LAND FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES City of Edina WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Edina does hereby determine that it is necessary for a public use and purpose to acquire the property legally described on the attached Exhibit "A ", subject to engineering modifications, if any, for purposes in connection with the France Avenue Sidewalk Improvement Project (Project No. S -101). WHEREAS, City staff and consultants have and will continue to work with the property owners to acquire the necessary easements and /or fee title; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that development and construction conditions related to the area make it necessary to acquire title to, and possession of, the property as soon as possible in order for the project to proceed in an efficient, cost effective and expeditious manner. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA: 1. That the City Attorney is authorized to commence eminent domain proceedings pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 117 to acquire the necessary easements and /or fee title identified on the attached Exhibit "A ", subject to engineering modifications, if needed. 2. That the City Attorney is authorized to acquire the necessary property interests pursuant to the "quick take" provisions of Minnesota Statutes Section 117.042. 3. That the Mayor and the City Manager are authorized to execute all documents necessary, in the opinion of the City Attorney, to effect the acquisition of the necessary property interests. 4. The City is in the process of obtaining appraisals of the property being acquired. The City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager to approve the appraisals and make formal offers to the property owners subject to City Council's final approval. Attest: ADOPTED by the Edina City Council this 20th day of July, 2010. Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk James B. Hovland, Mayor I, the undersigned duly appointed acting City Clerk for the City of Edina, do hereby certify that the attached and foregoing City Council Minutes is a true and correct copy of the Resolution duly adopted by the Edina City Council at its regular meeting of July 20, 2010, and as recorded in the Minutes of said regular meeting. - WITNESS, my hand and seal of said City this day of City Hall 4801 WEST 50TH STREET EDINA, MINNESOTA, 55424 -1394 Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk www.citylfedina.com 952 - 927 -8861 FAX 952 - 826 -0390 TTY 952 -826 -0379 I � - I I ` MEADOW ROAD • I -- I I I I I I I I I I I I A A ? I ? V V _ V ? I O I V V V I A I O I EXHIBIT "A" I I I �I I i V I O FRANCE AVENUE FRANCE AVENUE lESa�d2 it ® 7EIFdtARY COIS'iRUC110N EASF]IEltT RM1 OF •AY = oa8 m cm a: OUTIFR TEMPORARY EASEMENT FOR EASEMENT FOR CONS�UC�ON 4711 MEADOW ROAD — CONNOR SCHMID AND KATHRYN SCHMID That part of Lot 11, 'White Oaks 5m AddMon, Hennepin County, Minnesota", according to the recorded plat thereof Hennepin County Minnesota. Sold easement is deseribed as the east 10 feet of said Lot 11. 0 3 V _ ;4d i 53 b I This instrument was drafted by: 'City of Edina 4801 W. 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 THIS INSTvRUIMENT, and between Connor Schmic State of Minnesota. n�arty of i under the laws of the this day of , 2009, by Kathryn Sc 'mid, of the County of Hennepin and rst part, and the City of Edina, a municipal corporation eta * —Of Minnesota, party of the second part; - WITNESSETH, that the said parties of the first part, in consideration of One and No /100 Dollars ($1:Q0 r% them in hand paid by the said party of the second part, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, do grant, bargain, sell, convey and warrant to said party of the second part an easement for the purposes hereinafter set forth, in and over the following described property situated in the City of Edina, County of Hennepin and State of Minnesota, to wit: A temporary easement for construction purposes is described as follows: That part of Lot 11, "White Oaks a Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota ", according to the recorded plat thereof Hennepin County Minnesota. Said easement is described as the east 10 feet of said Lot 11. It is the intention and agreement of the parties hereto that the party of the second part shall in the construction, or maintenance of said sidewalk and retaining wall, replace any landscaping, fences, or sod removed by any excavation in connection with such construction or maintenance work, in as nearly as possible the same condition as before such excavation. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said parties of the first part have hereunto set their hands the day and year first above written. Connor Schmid Kathryn Schmid STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )SS COUNTY.OF HENNEPIN) On this day of , 2009, before me a Notary Public within and for said County personally appeared: . and to me known to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledge that they executed the same as their free act and deed. (Notarial Seal) EXISTING PROPERTY LINE PROPOSED EASEMENT LINE i PROPOSED EASEMENT AREA N d d 0 40 80 i PROPOSED10'TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT II II �- - Q I II Lu II 0 I / II z II II w II 4711 I h Q I I Lu � II Z II EXISTING CURB AND GUTTER TOTAL LOT AREA :8437 SF TOTAL TEMPORARY; 650 SF EASEMENT AREA } e TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT LOT 11 OF THE ��' #4711 MEADOW ROAD WHITE OAKS 5TH ADD. Evergreen land Services Company 4131 Old Sibley Memorial Highway, Suite 201 Eagan, MN 55122 Tel: (651) 882 -0200 Fax:. (651) 882 -6564 Jack Sullivan, P.E... Assistant City Engineer City of Edina 4801 West 501h Street Edina, MN 55424 -1394 RE: France Ave. Acquisition Status Dear Mr. Sullivan: t ever cr, _ reen LAND . SERVICES ''COMPANY Aoquwtlon and Reloc6tlon Specialists Evergreen Land Services (ELS) has been successful in acquiring two of the three parcels involved in the France Ave. sidewalk project. The properties that are completed are listed below: Michael J. Martin Gwen M. Martin 4709 Meadow Rd. Edina, MN,_55424 The Martins just compensation through the appraisal was $9,960.00 and the final agreed upon amount was $13,005.00. The just compensation' amount was raised to include more landscape items that were missed on the appraisal. David Savageau Robin Savageau 4713 Meadow-Road Edina, MN 55424 The Savageau's agreed with the just compensation amount through the appraisal. Page 1 of 3 The remaining parcel that is not complete as of this date is listed below: Connor Schmid Kathy Schmid 4711 Meadow Road Edina, MN 55424 The Schmid's are not in favor of this project and have expressed this opinion to me on numerous occasions. The Schmid's have voiced concerns in many areas but it appears the issue that is keeping them from agreeing to the temporary easement is the height of the fence. The Schmid's feel they will lack the level of privacy they enjoy today with the proposed 6 foot fence. If the fence were to be increased to 8 feet I believe they would agree to the temporary easement. I hope this update meets your expectations. I can be reached at 651- 882 -0200 with any questions or comments. Thank you. Sincerely, Matthew S. Storm Page 2 of 3 MARKET VALUE APPRAISAL - SUMMARY REPORT ACQUISITION: TEMPORARY EASEMENT FOR FRANCE AVENUE SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS APPRAISAL OF PROPERTY OWNED BY: CONNOR AND KATHRYN SCHMID STATE AID PROJECT NO. 120 - 020 -040: FRANCE AVENUE SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS PREPARED FOR: CITY OF EDINA 4801 WEST 50TH STREET EDINA, MN 55424 -1394 EFFECTIVE DATE- WAPFR- AMA_ L m JANUARY 111, 2010 PREPARED BY: DOUGLAS K. JOHNSON, SR/WA AND PATRICIA J. NOLAN EVERGREEN LAND SERVICES, INC. 4131 OLD SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY, SUITE 201 EAGAN, MN 55122 Schmid -4711 Meadow Road France Avenue Sidewalk Improvements February 15, 2010 Jack Sullivan, P.E. Assistant City Engineer City of Edina 4801 West 50'h Street Edina, MN 55424 -1394 RE: France Avenue Sidewalk Improvements Market Value Appraisal of Schmid Parcel Acquisition 4711 Meadow Road, Edina, MN 55424 Dear Mr. Sullivan: Page 1 L_ evergreen LAND SERVICES COMPANY ArgoisiJoo .ad Rclou� inn Speciulicu At your request, we have made an appraisal of the above - referenced property for the purpose of estimating the just compensation of the City's acquisition. It is our understanding that the intended use of the appraisal is to provide the City valuation guidance for the acquisition. Because the acquisition is a partial acquisition the appraisal is prepared in a "before and after' methodology in order to estimate the value damages to the property as a result of the acquisition. The compensation for the acquisition is simply the difference between the value of the property prior to the project (before value) and the value of the remaining property after the acquisition (after value). Although the subject property contains improvements of a single - family house, the improvements will not be valued since they will not be impacted by the acquisition. The subject of this report is an 8,437± sf parcel of land owned by Connor and Kathryn Schmid. The subject parcel is located at 4711 Meadow Road within the City of Edina. The acquisition consists of 650 sf of temporary easement that is effective through August 1, 2011. Based upon the inspection of the property and after consideration of the many factors influencing market value, it is our opinion that total damages due to the acquisition over a portion of the subject property are $ 13,200 as of January 11, 2010. This appraisal is intended to comply with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP). If you have any questions or comments after reading this appraisal report, please feel free to contact us at 651- 882 -0200. V. 4vum Douglas K. Johnson, SR/WA MN Certified General Real Property Appraiser License No. 4001052 Patricia J. Nolan MN Certified General Real Property Appraiser License No. 20243478 evergreen Land Seivices Schmid -4711 Meadow Road France Avenue Sidewalk Improvements CERTIFICATE OF APPRAISERS Page 2 We, hereby certify that, to the best of our knowledge and belief: That an inspection of the subject property (land) was made by Douglas K. Johnson and Patricia Nolan on January 11, 2010. We spoke with the property owner via phone and they did not wish to accompany us for the inspection. That the property being appraised and the comparables utilized in this appraisal are as represented in the appraisal. The statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct. The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions and are our personal, impartial, and unbiased professional analyses, opinions, and conclusions. We have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report and no personal interest with respect to the parties involved. We have no bias with respect to the property that is the subject of this report or to the parties involved with this assignment. Our engagement in this assignment was not contingent upon developing or reporting predetermined results. Our compensation for completing this assignment is not contingent upon the development or reporting of a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client, the amount of the value opinion, the attainment of a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event directly related to the intended use of this appraisal. Our analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. No one else provided significant appraisal assistance to us in the preparation of this appraisal. That any decrease or increase in the fair market value of real property prior to the date of valuation caused by the public improvement for which such property is acquired, or by the likelihood that the property would be acquired for such improvement, other than that due to physical deterioration within the reasonable control of the owner, was disregarded in determining the compensation for the property. Based upon this independent appraisal and the exercise of our professional judgment, it is our conclusion that the just compensation for the acquisition described in this appraisal is $13,200 as of January 11, 2010. Date: February 15, 2010 V- Douglas K. Johnson, SR/WA MN Certified General Real Property Appraiser License No. 4001052 It 66 Patricia J. Nolan MN Certified General Real Property Appraiser License No. 20243478 evergreen Land Services Schmid -4711 Meadow Road France Avenue Sidewalk Improvements SUMMARY OF SALIENT FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS Page 3 PROJECT The project consists of the installation of a concrete sidewalk from DESCRIPTION: 48th Street West to 150 feet south of Sunnyside Road. The sidewalk will be 5 feet wide and in addition there will be a proposed modular block retaining wall and privacy fence. SITE DESCRIPTION: The subject property is an 8,437± sf parcel and is located on the west side of France Avenue in the City of Edina. The property is improved with a single - family house. FEE OWNERS: Connor and Kathryn Schmid PROPERTY LOCATION: 4711 Meadow Road Edina, MN 55424 DATE OF APPRAISAL: January 11, 2010 PROPERTY APPRAISED: Real Property (Land Only) RIGHTS APPRAISED: Fee simple title of before and after situations. TYPE AND SIZE 650 sf of temporary easement (to expire 08 -01 -2011) OF ACQUISITION: ZONING: "R -1: Single Dwelling Unit District" HIGHEST AND BEST USE (AS VACANT): Before Taking: Single Family Building Site After Taking: Single Family Building Site evergreen Land Services Schmid -4711 Meadow Road France Avenue Sidewalk Improvements SITE AREA: SUMMARY OF SALIENT FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS Before Taking After Taking: VALUE CONCLUSIONS (Land Only): 8,437 sf Total unencumbered land 8,437 sf of which 650 sf is encumbered in a temporary easement for 1.55 years. Market Value Before the Taking $ 420,000 Market Value After the Taking $ 415,987 Indicated Damages $ 4,013 Plus: Compensation for Trees /Shrubs /Garden $ 8,852 Plus: Compensation for Misc. Items $ 240 Total Recommended Compensation $ 13,200 Due the Land Owner (rounded) Severance Damage to Remainder: Page 4 SUMMARY OF COMPENSATION Compensation for Temporary Easement: _ $ 4,012 650 sf x 49.78/sf x 8% x 1.55 years Compensation for Trees /Shrubs /Garden Affected in TE: _ $ 8,852 Cost to replace trees /shrubs/ arden plus delivery plus planting Compensation for Misc. Items: _ $ 240 Relocation of memorabilia Severance Damage to Remainder: _ $ 0 None Compensation for Improvements within Acquisition: _ $ 0 None Total Damages: (rounded) _ $13,200 evergreen fn Land Services Schmid -4711 Meadow Road France Avenue Sidewalk Improvements TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 5 ITEM PAGE NO_ LETTEROF TRANSMITTAL .......................................................... ..............................1 CERTIFICATION........................................................................... ............................... 2 SUMMARY OF SALIENT FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS ............... ............................3 -4 TABLEOF CONTENTS ................................................................ ............................... 5 SUBJECTPHOTOGRAPHS ......................................................... ............................6 -7 AREALOCATION MAP .................................................................. ..............................8 NEIGHBORHOODMAP ................................................................. ..............................9 SUBJECTHALF SECTION MAP ................................................... .............................10 SUBJECT AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH .............................................. .............................11 GENERAL APPRAISAL INFORMATION ...................................... .............................12 CLIENT AND OR USER OF APPRAISAL ................................. .............................12 PURPOSE AND USE OF APPRAISAL ..................................... .............................12 PROPERTYOWNER CONTACT ............................................. .............................12 PROPERTY INTEREST APPRAISED ...................................... .............................12 EFFECTIVE DATE OF APPRAISAL ......................................... .............................12 COMPETENCY OF APPRAISER ............................................. .............................12 DETERMINATION OF LARGER PARCEL ................................ .............................13 MARKETVALUE DEFINITION ................................................. .............................13 EXPOSURE & MARKETING TIME ........................................... .............................14 SCOPEOF APPRAISAL ........................................................ ..........................15 -16 AREA/NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION ................................ .............................17 SUBJECT PROPERTY INFORMATION ..................................... ..............................• 18 LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND SIZE OF LARGER PARCEL ....... .............................18 SIZEOF LARGER PARCEL ..................................................... .............................18 5 YEAR SALES HISTORY OF SUBJECT PARCEL .................. .............................18 PRESENTUSE ........................................................................ .............................18 TAXINFORMATION ................................................................. .............................18 DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY IN BEFORE SITUATION ...................19 ZONINGINFORMATION ........................................................ ..........................20 -21 HIGHESTAND BEST USE ..................................................... ............................... 22 VALUE ANALYSIS OF SUBJECT PROPERTY IN BEFORE SITUATION .................23 SALES COMPARISON APPROACH TO VALUE .................... ............................... 23 COMPARABLE SALES LOCATION MAP ................................. .............................24 COMPARABLE MARKET DATA SUMMARY & ANALYSIS GRID ......................... 25 EXPLANATION OF ADJUSTMENTS ...................................... ............................... 26 CONCLUSION OF VALUE — BEFORE SITUATION ............... ............................... 27 DESCRIPTION OF EFFECTS OF PROPOSED ACQUISITION . ............................... 28 DESCRIPTION AND LEGAL OF ACQUISITION & CROSS SECTION .................. 28 PROPOSED ACQUISITION EXHIBIT .................................... ............................... 29 EFFECTS OF PROJECT AND ACQUISITION ON SUBJECT PROPERTY........... 30 VALUE ANALYSIS OF SUBJECT PROPERTY IN AFTER SITUATION .................... 31 DESCRIPTION OF REMAINDER AND VALUATION .............. ............................... 31 TEMPORARY EASEMENT VALUATION ............................... ............................... 32 COMPENSATION FOR TREES AND /OR MISCELLANEOUS ............................... 33 FINAL CONCLUSION OF COMPENSATION ............................. ............................... 34 ADDENDA.............................................................................. ............................... 35 -43 evergreen Land Services Schmid -4711 Meadow Road France Avenue Sidewalk Improvemen PHOTOGRAPHS OF SUBJECT PROPERTY PHOTOS TAKEN ON JANUARY 11, 2010 Page 6 View of subject property and easement area looking northerly. View of subject property and easement area looking southerly. bl "dell Land Services Schmid -4711 Meadow Road France Avenue Sidewalk Improvements PHOTOGRAPHS OF SUBJECT ACQUISITION PHOTOS TAKEN ON JANUARY 11, 2010 Page 7 View of subject improvements that will not be affected by the project. evergreen Land Services Schmid-4711 Meadow Road France Avenue Sidewalk Improvements Hocklord n�5 T�2j. 9 0rono'Y 12 0 Min Shorewood', Victoria .-Chanhassen , 0 2009 hiapQuest Inc. AREA MAP evergreen Land Services Page 8 0 7`krn: - 4 rN (121 Map Data 02009NAV7EO of AND Schmid-4711 Meadow Road France Avenue Sidewalk Improvements Page .0 I 1 MAPOWIST 400m 0 1200 ft bridEi ID Flag J W 44th St H&,%, 0 Subject Property 100 rJ 48th St L ng x > e at st ti PT� 50th St W IDD, �t co VV I Map Data 7,009 N AV I E 0 Or NEIGHBORHOOD MAP evergreen Land Services Sc'l',,mid -47' " Neadcvt, Road France Avenue Sidewalk Improvements Pac _ '0 �. (61) 4721 4707 139.9 4725 Subject Property 'C?'�ti� � �7 0� c � r. a�7 29 1.4 • �� - �'�� 21 116.66 - - -- 47 33 [471 C`J 24 i 11 � (63) TJ - z dx 47 37 Q4 r ? 21.16 �* J 12 #0r4 4741 t 4713 (64 ) 4715 ` jn 13 4n I 47 49 - -- j C4 SUBJECT PROPERTY PLAT (per Hennepin Co. website) evergreen Land Selvices Schmid -4711 Meadow Road France Avenue Sidewalk Improvements 24 -1715 Page 1 s C SUBJECT AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH (per Hennepin Co. website) evergreen Land Services Schmid -4711 Meadow Road France Avenue Sidewalk Improvements GENERAL APPRAISAL INFORMATION Page 12 The client and user of this appraisal is the City of Edina and their staff or consultants who will be involved in this acquisition of a portion of the subject property. A secondary user of the appraisal is the landowner who will receive a copy of this appraisal. PURPOSE AND USE OF APPRAISAL: The purpose of this appraisal is to estimate the market value of the fee simple interest of the subject property, both before and after the partial taking of a portion of the subject for the temporary easement. It is our understanding that the intended use is for valuation guidance due to the above stated acquisition by the City of Edina. This appraisal will be used as a basis for the acquisition offer. PROPERTY OWNER CONTACT: Douglas K. Johnson and Patricia Nolan inspected the subject property and acquisition on Monday, January 11, 2010. We spoke with the property owner via phone and they did not wish to accompany us on the inspection. PROPERTY INTEREST APPRAISED: The property interest appraised is that of the fee simple title in both the before situation and in the after situation in order to determine the amount of just compensation for the stated acquisitions. EFFECTIVE DATE OF APPRAISAL: The effective date of the appraisal is the last date of inspection, January 11, 2010. COMPETENCY OF APPRAISERS: Douglas K. Johnson, SRWA, and Patricia Nolan both have the knowledge and experience to complete this appraisal assignment competently and in compliance with USPAP. -Refer to the Appraisers' Qualifications in the Addenda of this report for further details. evergreen Land Seivices Schmid -4711 Meadow Road France Avenue Sidewalk Improvements GENERAL APPRAISAL INFORMATION DETERMINATION OF LARGER PARCEL: Page 13 In the appraisal of partial acquisitions, the larger parcel is important because it delineates the property being appraised and the property in which severance damage can be determined (if any). The larger parcel is determined through a "3 -part" unity test, i.e. 1) unity of ownership, 2) unity of location (contiguity), and 3) unity of use. The larger parcel of this appraisal is the 8,437± sf parcel owned by Connor and Kathryn Schmid and identified as tax parcel #18- 028 -24 -11 -0063. MARKET VALUE DEFINED: Market value as utilized in this appraisal report conforms to the following definition obtained from Pages 177 -178 of The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, Fourth Edition. The most probable price which a property should bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller each acting prudently and knowledgeably, and assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus. Implicit in this definition is the consummation of a sale as of a specified date and the passing of title from seller to buyer under conditions whereby: 1. Buyer and seller are typically motivated; 2. Both parties are well informed or well advised, and acting in what they consider their own best interest, 3. A reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market; 4. Payment is made in terms of cash in United States dollars or in terms of financial arrangements comparable thereto; and 5. The price represents a normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by special or creative financing or sales concession granted by anyone associated with the sale. Unless otherwise noted in the appraisal report, market value shall represent cash equivalent terms where the seller receives all cash for their interest. The property may be financed at typical market terms under this definition. evergreen Land Services Schmid -4711 Meadow Road France Avenue Sidewalk Improvements GENERAL APPRAISAL INFORMATION EXPOSURE AND MARKETING TIME: Page 14 The following definitions are taken from The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, Fourth Edition, Appraisal Institute: Exposure Time: The estimated length of time the property interest being appraised would have been offered on the market prior to the hypothetical consummation of a sale at market value on the effective date of the appraisal; a retrospective estimate based upon an analysis of past events assuming a competitive and open market. Exposure time is always presumed to occur prior to the effective date of the appraisal. The overall concept of reasonable exposure encompasses not only adequate, sufficient and reasonable time but also adequate, sufficient and reasonable effort. Exposure time is different for various types of real estate and value ranges and under various market conditions. Marketing Time: The time it takes an interest in real property to sell on the market subsequent to the date of appraisal. Reasonable market time is an estimate of the amount of time it might take to sell an interest in real property at its estimated market value during the period immediately after the effective date of appraisal; the anticipated time required to expose the property to a pool of prospective purchasers and to allow appropriate time for negotiation, the exercise of due diligence, and the consummation of a sale at a price supportable by concurrent market conditions. Marketing time differs from exposure time, which is always presumed to precede the effective date of the appraisal. Exposure time of one to six months would be required to sell the subject property, based on the value stated herein. Marketing time, including due diligence and closing is also estimated at one to six months. evergreen Land Services Schmid -4711 Meadow Road Page 15 France Avenue Sidewalk Improvements GENERAL APPRAISAL INFORMATION SCOPE OF APPRAISAL: This document is intended to provide a market value appraisal of the real property, and has been conducted in accordance with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP). The data and analyses presented in this summary report provide the basis for the value conclusions. The acquisition described within this appraisal is for the proposed France Avenue Sidewalk Improvement Project within Edina, Minnesota. The property being affected by this acquisition is an 8,437± sf property located in the eastern portion of the City of Edina. The property is located at 4711 Meadow Road with its backyard adjacent to France Avenue. The property is zoned "R -1" single dwelling unit district and is currently improved with a single - family residence. Douglas K. Johnson -and Patricia J. Nolan inspected the subject property and acquisition on Monday, January 11, 2010. We spoke with the property owner via phone and they did not wish to accompany us on the inspection. Summary of Appraisal Problem — The City of Edina proposes to acquire a temporary easement on a portion of the subject property. Since only a portion of the subject property is to be acquired, this acquisition is known as a "Partial Taking". The preferred method of estimating the total damages associated with this type of acquisition is to first appraise the market value of the subject property prior to the acquisition (before situation) and then to appraise the market value of the subject property assuming that the acquisition has taken place (after situation). The difference between the before value and the after value provides the estimate of total damages to the property as a result of the acquisition. Although the subject property contains building improvements, the acquisition does not touch or affect the building. It is the appraisers' judgment that the improvements are unaffected by the acquisition and that compensation for the acquisition is a function of land value. Minor improvements within the acquisition area such as trees will be compensated on a replacement cost basis or a cost to cure basis or a depreciated value basis. The appraisal of the property in the after situation is a type of hypothetical condition since the appraisers are using construction plans to determine the situation of the subject property in the after situation. The Comparable Sales Approach, the Cost Approach, and the Income Approach were considered for this appraisal. Since only land is being appraised for a small partial acquisition, and there are no improvements on the property, the Cost Approach will not be used. The Income Approach will not be used since it does not provide a reliable indication of value for a small acquisition that does not affect the income stream of the property. Since the acquisition is of land, the Comparable Sales Approach using land sales is judged to provide the most reliable indication of value for both before and after situations, and is the approach used in this appraisal. evergreen Land Services Schmid -4711 Meadow Road France Avenue Sidewalk Improvements GENERAL APPRAISAL INFORMATION SCOPE OF APPRAISAL (continued): Page 16 Summary of Appraisal Methodology - In this appraisal analysis we have examined the following data and concepts pertaining to the subject property. 1. Physical characteristics of real property including: - Inspection of the subject property - Review of available County maps and aerial photos - Review of proposed acquisition diagrams provided by the City - Observation of the local market 2. Non - physical characteristics of real property including: - Property rights and legal descriptions - Tax and assessment data. - Zoning and land use data. 3. Observations and data concerning the subject property market and transactions within this market: Sales of land - All of the comparable land sales were verified with a party to the transaction unless otherwise noted. In order to gather the comparable sales, we searched the public record and MLS information. After selecting land sales, an analysis of relevant comparative factors that influence value was undertaken to adjust the sales to the subject property based upon the actions and preferences demonstrated by the marketplace. Utilizing the above base information, we have determined the following: - Highest and Best Use of the subject property in both before and after situations. - Application of appropriate approaches, to value. - Value Analysis for both Before and After Situations. - Final Estimate of Just Compensation. evergreen Land Services Schmid -4711 Meadow Road Page 17 France Avenue Sidewalk Improvements GENERAL APPRAISAL INFORMATION The subject property is located within the City of Edina in the northern portion on the eastern border of the City. Edina is .a west central Twin Cities suburb. Edina is located in the west central portion of the Twin Cities metropolitan area, approximately 9 miles southwest of downtown Minneapolis, within Hennepin County. The subject is- located 'adjacent'to France Avenue, between transportation corridors Highway 62 and Excelsior Boulevard, which allows easy access throughout the entire metro. . Residential areas .comprise the largest portion of the City, now more than 95 percent developed. There are a total of 13,189 single - family units, 7,577 multi- family units with 76% being owner - occupied. Currently the vacancy rate is estimated at 5 %. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the population has been increasing gradually as follows: 1999 population estimate 47,274, 2000 census 47,425 and the 2002 estimate is 47,570. A few of the major employers within the City are Jerry's Enterprises, Fairview' Southdale Hospital and Southdale Center. The subject's immediate neighborhood is that of. residential properties and the well -known retail district of Edina is nearby at 50"' and France Avenue. A portion of the above information is from Mn /PRO and the City of Edina's website. evergreen Land Services Schmid -4711 Meadow Road France Avenue Sidewalk Improvements SUBJECT PROPERTY INFORMATION LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF LARGER PARCEL: Lot 11, White Oaks 5th Addition, City of Edina, Hennepin County, Minnesota SIZE OF LARGER PARCEL: The subject property is 8,437± sf according to the City of Edina. 5 YEAR SALES HISTORY OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY: The subject property has been in its current ownership for the past 5 years. PRESENT USE: The subject property is currently a single - family residence. TAX INFORMATION: Page 18 TAX_ AND ASSESSMENT DATA'. PID No. 18- 028- 24 -1.1 -0063 2009 Assessment For Taxes Payable 2010 Assessed Land Value 400,000 Assessed Building Value 31 000 Total Assessed Value $431,000 Real Estate Taxes Payable 2009 General Taxes $4,663.63 Special Assessments 510.14 Solid Waste Fee: 47.23 Total Tax: $5,221.00 evergreen Land Services Schmid -4711 Mleadow Road France Avenue Sidewalk Improvements SUBJECT PROPERTY INFORMATION DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY IN BEFORE SITUATION: Page 19 The subject property is an 8,437± sf tax parcel situated on the west side of France Avenue South at 4711 Meadow Road in the City of Edina. The property is rectangular in shape and is in an area of mostly single - family homes. A commercial /retail district lies just to the south of the subject property at 50th and France Avenue. The property's backyard has 65± feet of frontage on France Avenue South. The lot has a steep slope upward towards France Avenue. The subject property is currently improved with a single - family residence. There are various mature trees and shrubs throughout the property. The subject property does have city sewer and water service. evergreen Land Services Schmid -4711 Meadow Road France Avenue Sidewalk Improvements SUBJECT PROPERTY INFORMATION ZONING INFORMATION: The subject property is presently zoned "R1 - Single Dwelling Unit District ". Page 20 Principal Uses: ,A. Buildings containing not more than one dwelling unit B. Publicly owned parks, playgrounds and athletic facilities. C. Publicly and privately owned golf courses, but not including driving ranges or miniature golf courses as a principal use. Minimum requirements under the R1 District, for lots that are 75 feet or more in width, as follows: Minimum Lot Area - 9,000 sf Minimum Lot Width - 75 feet Minimum Lot Depth - 120 feet Minimum Front Street Setback - 30 feet Minimum Side Street Setback - 15 feet Minimum Interior Side Yard - 10 feet Minimum Rear Yard Setback - 25 feet The subject property is 65 feet in width and 8,437 sf in size and thus does not meet the minimum lot width and area. However the property is grandfathered and is thus a legal non- conforming use. evergreen Land Services MIMP. dom 0, ZOA 6,; r 4. rdo, =Imp W. Schmid -4711 Meadow Road France Avenue Sidewalk Improvements SUBJECT PROPERTY INFORMATION HIGHEST AND BEST USE: Page 22 Highest and best use is defined in The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, Fourth Edition, Appraisal Institute, at Page 135, as follows: The reasonably probable and legal use of vacant land or an improved property, which is physically possible, appropriately supported, financially feasible, and that results in the highest value. The four criteria the highest and best use must meet are legal permissibility, physical possibility, financial feasibility, and maximum profitability. Since this appraisal is concerned with land value, the highest and best use of the subject land as vacant must be determined. Generally the legal use of a property is defined by zoning regulations. The subject is zoned "R -1: Residential District" which allows for various residential uses of the subject property. Residential use is physically possible, financially feasible, and maximally profitable as shown by the existing use of similarly zoned property. It is our opinion that the highest and best use of the subject property in the before situation is that of a residential single family building site consistent with the zoning regulations for the City of Edina. evergreen Land Services Schmid -4711 Meadow Road France Avenue Sidewalk Improvements Page 23 VALUE ANALYSIS OF SUBJECT PROPERTY — BEFORE SITUATION SALES COMPARISON APPROACH TO VALUE: The sales comparison method is the most common and reliable way of developing a market value estimate for land. In the sales comparison method, sales of vacant land comparable to the subject property are gathered and analyzed. The comparable sales are then compared to the subject property based upon a common unit of comparison such as price per square foot (sf). Relevant differences between the subject and sale properties such as location, size, amenities, etc. are noted and adjustments are made to the sale properties to make them "comparable" to the subject property. If the comparable is superior to the subject, the sale price of the comparable property is adjusted downward to reflect the subject property's inferior status in that comparative factor. If the comparable is inferior to the subject property, its sales price is adjusted upward to reflect the subject's superior status. Thus each comparable sale receives adjustments to make it more like the subject property, and thus each comparable sale provides an estimated unit value of the subject property. The appraisers then utilize these unit values derived from each of the comparable sales to estimate the unit value of the subject property. This unit value is then expanded to the entire subject property and results in an estimate of the market value of the entire subject property as if vacant. To apply this approach to the subject property, information has been sought on recent sales of land that are similar to the subject in terms of highest and best use, location, size, and utility. Because residential lots generally sell on a building site basis and not directly by square footage, these sales will be valued as a building site. However, it is necessary for this valuation to "break down" the market value of the building site to a per square foot basis in order to calculate compensation. The market was searched for sales of vacant single building sites within the last few years. This search consisted of MLS inquiries as well as a CRV search in the city of Edina. Five single - family residential lot sales will be used in this valuation analysis. The sales used are identified on the location map, summarized and adjusted on the "Comparable Market Data Summary & Analysis Grid" on page 25 to arrive at a final value estimate for the subject property in the before situation. More complete sales information is found on the sales sheets in the addendum. evergreen Land Services Schmid -4711 Meadow Road France Avenue Sidewalk Improvements Page 24 VALUE ANALYSIS OF SUBJECT PROPERTY — BEFORE SITUATION MAP�U�SI S 2N9 V apQue M;ka` da 800 m 0 ft 2400 club Lakewoa C8TEterr G� m s �P h V1 Sale�No.4 �� Sale',No.2 1 !`-' L y/J e Ji. 121 I Njap Data D2009NAVYEQ (g TrIeAtas COMPARABLE SALES LOCATION MAP evergreen Land Seivices Schmid -4711 Meadow Road France Avenue Sidewalk Improvements Page 25 COMPARABLE MARKET DATA SUMMARY & ANALYSIS GRID 1 2 3 4 5 Comparable No. 12010 -00051 (2010 -0007) (2010 -0006) (2010 -0008) (2010 -0003) Subject 4240 Crocker 5317 Halifax 4602 Bruce 5220 Halifax 420152 rid Street 4711 Meadow Location Avenue, Edina Avenue S., Edina Avenue, Edina Avenue S.,Edina W., Edina Road, Edina (backs up to (backs up to parking lot ) France Ave. Off Market Date 12/14/2009 09/01/2009 11/14/2008 2008 10/06/2008 NA Date of Closing 12/30/2009 10/14/2009 05/10/2009 06/17/2009 11/25/2008 NA Single Family Lot Single Family Lot Single Family Lot Single Family Lot Single Family Lot Single Family Intended Use R -1 R -1 R -1 R -1 R -1 R -1 Zoninq Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Lot Features /Other Treed, Some mature Some mature Some mature Open, Some mature sloping trees trees trees Comer lot trees, steep slope Total Sales Price $400,000 $463,500 $540,000 $575,000 $540,000 WA 20,000± sf 11,520± sf 6,550± sf 13,192± sf 10,406± sf 8,437± sf Total Land Area/ Rectangular Rectangular Rectangular Rectangular Rectangular Rectangular Shane $20.00 $40.23 $82.44 $43.59 $51.89 WA Sale Price Per SF $400,000 $463,500 $540,000 $575,000 $540,000 Per Site Value ADJUSTMENTS Market Conditions 0% -2% -5% -5% -5% Adjusted Price Per $400,000 $454,230 $513,000 $546,250 $513,000 Market Conditions Size /Shape -12% -2% 0% -7% -2% Adjustment: Lot Features: 0% -5% -5% -5% -5% Location +15% -5% -10% -10% -10% Adjustment: Total Adjustments: +3% -12% -15% -22% -17% Indicated Value $412,000 $ 399,722 $436,050 $426,075 $425,790 Per SF Averaqe of Indicated Value Per Site $419,927 evergreen Laud Se1-vices Schmid -4711 Meadow Road France Avenue Sidewalk Improvements Page 26 VALUE ANALYSIS OF SUBJECT PROPERTY — BEFORE SITUATION EXPLANATION OF ADJUSTMENTS: Market Conditions: Residential lots have depreciated in price in this current economy, however, Edina has not experienced as significant of a drop in comparison to other communities in the Twin Cities. After conversations with several real estate agents in the area and the City Assessor, we have determined a 5% decline from the end of 2008 to the end of 2009. The market was still somewhat stable in 2008 in Edina and therefore no depreciation is taken for 2008. We will be using the "off Market Date" when determining the percentage. Size & Shape: Generally larger lots are more desirable and sell at a higher price than similar smaller lots (larger lots allow greater freedom of building location, larger gardens, etc.) All sales varied in size category with the exception of Sale 3 which is considered similar. All other sales were adjusted accordingly. Also the shape of a property influences its usability. For example, properties with long narrow portions are not as usable as more rectangular properties. All sales were considered similar shape. Lot Features /Other: Lot features such as: trees, lakes, views, corner sites, cul -de -sacs, upper bracket neighborhoods, etc. can add value to a property. Also, the subject property has a steep slope upward on the east portion of the lot which influences its backyard usability and is considered inferior to Sales 2 thru 5. Sale 1 also had some sloping so we deemed equal. Location: Location is extremely important for residential properties in this Edina area. Factors that contribute to "good location" are easy access to major traffic routes, lower traffic volumes and proximity to retail amenities (50t' and France) as well as close proximity to country clubs. The subject property backs up to France Avenue and experiences traffic noise which is considered inferior. All comparables were adjusted except for Sale 2 which backs up to a parking lot and would be considered similar. Sale 1 is located much further away from 50th and France and is considered inferior. Sales 2 thru 5 were all located slightly closer to 50th and France and to the country club and therefore considered slightly superior and therefore a downward adjustment is made. evergreen Land Services Schmid -4711 Meadow Road France Avenue Sidewalk Improvements Page 27 VALUE ANALYSIS OF SUBJECT PROPERTY — BEFORE SITUATION CONCLUSION OF VALUE - BEFORE SITUATION: The five adjusted comparable sales range in lot price from $399,722 to $436,050, with an average site value of $419,927. All sales were considered when reconciling. It is the opinion of the appraisers that the subject property (land only) has a market value for the lot of $420,000. Since we have reconciled on a "lot basis" and not on a "per square foot" basis, it is necessary for this valuation to "break down" the market value to a per square foot basis in order to calculate compensation. Since the subject property is 8,437 square feet in size, the corresponding value for the subject lot is $49.78 per square foot. $420,000 _ 8,437 sf = $49.78 per square foot evergreen Land Services Schmid -4711 Meadow Road France Avenue Sidewalk Improvements Page 28 DESCRIPTION & EFFECTS OF PROPOSED ACQUISITION Temporary Easement - A temporary easement for construction purposes is described as follows: That part of Lot 11, White Oaks 5t' Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota, according to the recorded plat thereof Hennepin County, Minnesota. Said easement is described as the east 10 feet of said Lot 11. Temporary Easement - The temporary easement is 650 sf in size and is located on the eastern portion of the lot. The eastern portion is adjacent and parallel to France Avenue The temporary easement is 10 feet wide and runs the entire width of the property for 65t feet (please see parcel sketch on the following page). The temporary easement area consists of mostly grass and the following: - 1 Box Elder tree 2 -trunk 8" and 5" diameter - 1 Box Elder tree 3" diameter - 7 Deciduous trees 1 -2" or less diameter - 2 Deciduous trees 4 -6" diameter - 2 Buckthorn trees 3 -6" diameter - 18 Japanese Yew 1 Perennial garden 1 Grouping of iron memorabilia (to be relocated) - 1 Wood fencing 8 feet tall by 10 feet south property line 1 Wood picket fencing 4 feet tall by 10 feet north property line 1 Wood fencing east property line - 1 Light post metal 8 ft with concrete base (will not be affected by construction) 1 Stone retaining wall (will not be affected by construction) - 1 Shed Wood 12x8 feet (will not be affected by construction) The above trees and other miscellaneous items are all located within the temporary easement area. Compensation for the trees, shrubs and garden, and removal and relocation of the iron memorabilia will be calculated on page 33. The wood fencing on the east side of the property will be replaced with a proposed modular block retaining wall with privacy fencing as part of the construction project. The wood picket fence on the north side and the cedar fence on the south side will be removed and reinstalled, if needed, as part of the construction project. The stone retaining wall, wood shed and metal light post will not be affected by the project. If any of these items are affected during construction (although it is anticipated that they will not be affected), compensation will be provided by the City of Edina. This temporary easement is needed since the construction limits will extend out beyond the existing right of way. evergreen Land Services Schmid -4711 Meadow Road France Avenue Sidewalk Improvements Page 29 DESCRIPTION. & EFFECTS OF PROPOSED ACQUISITION evergreen Land Services r I I I. I MEADOW ROAD II M o o z W m v v z O o� 0 ;U zo C, m m z m z m V .L 0 n M -1 D r M 0 I O 0 z -I M D Z m Dpi I I 0 Z K0 O C 0 v cn cz M �� 0 O z zc I I 0 rn rn Temporary M rn _ Easement Area M -4 D --4 ° Ct FRANCE AVENUE ° M �r r zm .0 4r. -1 —'— -- -- > 0 A. rn7 ��mt M 0 0 T N Q1 N T G1 M S N V n W ° D v v evergreen Land Services Schmid -4711 Meadow Road France Avenue Sidewalk Improvements Page 30 DESCRIPTION & EFFECTS OF PROPOSED ACQUISITION 1. Access to the subject property is unaffected by the project. In both before and after situations the subject property has access from Meadow Road. 2. The acquisition will temporarily encumber 650 sf of land in a temporary easement for 18.65 months (through August 1, 2011). There are 13 trees, 18 shrubs and perennial garden that will likely be removed within this area of TE. There are also several iron memorabilia items that will be removed and put back into place after construction. Compensation for the land within the easement and the above described items will be calculated later in the appraisal. The fencing on the north and south sides of the property will be removed and reinstalled, if needed, as part of the construction process. The wood fencing on the east property line will be removed and replaced with a proposed modular block wall and privacy fencing as part of the construction project. The stone retaining wall, wood shed and light post will not be affected by the project. If any of these items are affected during construction (although it is anticipated that they will not be affected), compensation will be provided by the City of Edina. 3. Although the subject property contains a single - family residence, the acquisition does not touch or affect the improvements. It is our opinion that there is no severance damage resulting from the City's acquisition on the subject property. evergreen Land Services _ Schmid -4711 Meadow Road France Avenue Sidewalk Improvements Page 31 VALUE ANALYSIS OF SUBJECT PROPERTY — AFTER SITUATION In the After Situation the subject property is still a 8,437± sf single family building site as it was in the before situation. The highest and best use of the property remains as a single family building site consistent with the zoning regulations for the City of Edina. However in the after situation the subject property is encumbered with 650 sf of a temporary easement for 1.55 years. The location of the proposed temporary easement will not affect the current or future use of the property. In summary, the subject property will experience a slight temporary reduction in the overall usable size of the property. In our opinion, the market would not perceive the subject as being less marketable after the taking than it is before. Although there is no permanent easement being acquired on the subject property, compensation is warranted for the value of the temporary easement and any damages /cost to cure items associated therewith. Highest and Best Use — After Condition The highest and best use of the subject property continues to be that of a single - family building site. It is the appraisers' opinion that there is no severance damage to the remaining property as a result of the proposed taking. evergreen Land Services Schmid -4711 Meadow Road France Avenue Sidewalk Improvements Page 32 VALUE ANALYSIS OF SUBJECT PROPERTY — AFTER SITUATION A temporary easement is needed for slope construction purposes and will encumber 650 sf of land from January 11, 2010 through August 1, 2011 (18.65 months or 1.55 years). For purposes of this appraisal, the temporary easement will be valued by estimating a land rental for the subject area encumbered. A reasonable annual return based on safe alternative investments would be 8% of the fee value of the land affected by the easement. The value of the affected land, in the after condition, is estimated to be $ 49.78 per sf. Therefore, the rent on the above land is calculated as follows: Estimated Land Value: 650 sf x $ 49.78/sf Indicated Market Rent: $ 32,357.00 x 8% rate of return Value of Tem op rarvEasement: 1.55 years x $ 2,588.56 per Year REMAINDER VALUATION = $ 32,357.00 = $ 2,588.56 per Year = $ 4,013 Thus in the after situation the remaining subject property is reduced in value by $4,000 (the rental value of the temporary easement). Value of Subject Property in Before Situation $ 420,000 Less Value of Temporary Easement $ - 4,013 Value of Subject Property in After Situation $ 415,987 However the acquisition has also affected certain trees, shrubs and garden within the easement area. The replacement cost for these affected trees and shrubs are estimated in the next section. evergreen Land Seivices Schmid -4711 Meadow Road France Avenue Sidewalk Improvements Page 33 VALUE ANALYSIS OF SUBJECT PROPERTY - AFTER SITUATION COMPENSATION FOR TREES AND OTHER ITEMS: There are trees /shrubs and other miscellaneous items on the subject property that will be removed due to their location within the temporary easement. The trees and other items are described in the tables below. The compensation for the trees /shrubs and other miscellaneous items are considered reasonable and are calculated using prices from Bachman's in Minneapolis. Most of the tree compensation is at a one to one tree replacement, but compensation for very large trees or bushes may be at a two for one replacement or more. The following table lists the trees /shrubs affected and the compensation for the trees /shrubs as per Bachman's conversation and website. The trees /shrubs are located within the temporary easement. The price includes installation. Tree Description and Pricing Compensation 1 Box Elder tree 2 -trunk approximately 8" and -5" diameter $ 786 Replace with two Elm Accolades 25G 393 /tree = 1 Box Elder tree 3" diameter $ 393 Re lace with one Elm Accolade 25G 393 /tree = 7 Deciduous trees 1 -2" or less diameter $ 1,179 Replace with three Elm Accolade 25G 393 /tree = 2 Deciduous trees approximately 4 -6" diameter $ 786 Re lace with two Elm Accolade 25G 393 /tree = 2 Buckthorn trees approximately 3 -6 "diameter $ 300 Replace with two Nann ber Viburnum 10G 150 /tree = 18 Japanese Yew shrubs $ 2,952 Re lace with 18 Japanese Yews 10G 164 /shrub Perennial garden includes hostas, ferns, lilies, etc. plus edging $ 2,406 Replace perennial garden & landscape edging $2,406 Delivery Charge: 50.00 delivery er load to Edina one load = 50 Total Compensation for Trees /Shrubs /Garden 8,852 The compensation for the relocation of the iron memorabilia items is considered reasonable and is calculated using hourly rates from local handyman services in the Edina area. Misc. Items Description and Pricing Com ensation Remove and relocate iron memorabilia items 4 hours 60 /hour = $ 240 Total Compensation for Misc. Items = $ 240 evergreen Land Services Schmid -4.711 Meadow Road France Avenue Sidewalk Improvements FINAL CONCLUSION OF COMPENSATION Page 34 The appraisers' final summation of damages to the subject property, as of January 11, 2010, is presented as follows: Market Value Before the Taking $ 420,000 Market Value After the Taking $ 415,987 Indicated Damages $ 4,013 Plus: Compensation for Trees /Shrubs /Garden $ 8,852 Plus: Compensation for Misc. Items $ 240 Total Recommended Compensation $ 13,200 Due the Land Owner (rounded) SUMMARY OF COMPENSATION Compensation for Temporary Easement: _ $ 4,012 650 sf x 49.78/sf x 8% x 1.55 years Compensation for Trees /Shrubs /Garden Affected in TE: _ $ 8,852 Cost to replace trees/shrubs/garden plus delive plus planting Compensation for Misc. Items: _ $ 240 Relocation of memorabilia Severance Damage to Remainder: _ $ 0 None Compensation for Improvements within Acquisition: _ $ 0 None Total Damages: (rounded) evergreen Land Services Schmid -4711 Meadow Road France Avenue Sidewalk Improvements ADDENDA 1. Contingent and Limiting Conditions 2. Comparable Sales (5) 3. Appraiser's Qualifications (2) evergreen Land Services Page 35 Schmid -4711 Meadow Road Page 36 France Avenue Sidewalk Improvements CONTINGENT AND LIMITING CONDITIONS This appraisal report is made subject to the following conditions: 1. The size of the subject acquisition was provided by the City of Edina and the acquisition is as shown on the exhibits within the appraisal. 2. No survey of the subject or sale properties has been made by the appraisers. The size of the sales were calculated from half section maps or County or City information or MLS information or GIS information. 3. The appraisers assume no responsibility for matters legal in nature affecting the property appraised or the title thereto, nor do the appraisers render any opinion as to the title, which is assumed to be good and marketable. Any existing liens or encumbrances have been disregarded and the property is appraised as free and clear and under competent management. 4. Soils are assumed to be adequate for the highest and best use of the property. The appraisers assume no responsibility for inadequate soils. 5. The appraisers assume that there are no hidden or unapparent conditions of the property, subsoil, or structures, which would render it more or less valuable. The appraisers assume no responsibility for such conditions, or for engineering that might be required to discover such factors. 6. The comparable sales data utilized in this appraisal are believed to be from reliable sources. However, it is necessary in an appraisal to rely on information furnished by others. Therefore, the value conclusions are subject to the correctness of the data as furnished by others. 7. The market value herein assigned is based on conditions, which were applicable as of the effective date of appraisal, unless otherwise noted. 8. The maps and exhibits in this appraisal are of illustrative purposes only, and are not meant to be for establishing definite boundaries. 9. The appraisers are not required to give testimony or appear in court because of having made this appraisal unless previous arrangements have been made. 10. Possession of this report, or a copy thereof, does not carry with it the right of publication. It may not be used for any purpose by any person other than the party to whom it is addressed without the written consent of the appraisers, and in any event, only with properly written consent and only in its entirety. 11. Environmental Disclaimer - The value estimated in this report is based on the assumption that the property is not negatively affected by the existence of hazardous substances or detrimental environmental conditions. The appraisers are not experts in the identification of hazardous substances or detrimental environmental conditions. The appraisers' inspection of the subject property did not develop any information that indicated any apparent significant hazardous substances or detrimental environmental conditions, which would affect the property negatively. The appraisers have not been privy to any Phase I Environmental Inspections of the property. The appraisers assume that the property is free and clear of hazardous substances. evergreen Land Seivices Schmid -4711 Meadow Road France Avenue Sidewalk Improvements Sale Property COMPARABL_E_LAND_ SALE NO n) 4235 10 8 4238 (�) zW d 42 B 42 42 17 — 4237 4239 Hennepin le 8 81 n 8 4240 (57 Highest Best Single family building 0 2m az 13 4243 R -1, Single Dwelling Unit District. 42• - ._ 4242 (58) 12 B 8 ._ _ .... (5p) Page 37 Property 4240 Crocker Avenue City/Township Edina Address: &Coun Hennepin Present Use at Vacant lot Highest Best Single family building Time of Sale: Use: site e - Zonin : R -1, Single Dwelling Unit District. e PIN/ Geo Code: 07.028.24.42.0057 Legal Lot 11, Block 2, Crocker & Crowles 1St Addition, Hennepin County, Description: Minnesota Size 20,000 sq.ft. Square Feet: Grantor(s): Scott Larson Construction, Inc. ° Grantee(s): Unknown Date of Sale: December 30, 2009 Off Market Date: December 14, 2009 • Confirmed With: MLS, County Records and Listing Agent Confirmed By: Patricia Nolan Conditions of Assumed Arms length Sale: Sale Price: $400,000 Per S . Ft. $ 20.00 Price Per Lot: $400,000 - Wooded, walk -out lot - Good tree cover • - Lot slopes downward to the north e e s 2010 -0005 evergreen Land Services Schmid -4711 Meadow Road France Avenue Sidewalk Improvements COMPARABLE LAND SALE__NO._2_ -___ n 5300 5312 iO� 1I$ ��J�►pp 25 M 04 o ....� 5313 FMK (37) s3 v 5316 $ (36) 67 $320 5321 (33) 249 A Ir ,Q 1325 I bbl $ a Page 38 Sale Property evergreen Land Services Properly 5317 Halifax Avenue S. City/Township. Edina Address: 81 County: Hennepin Present, Use at. Single Family Residential Hiqhest & Best Single family building Time of Sale`:, . I Use: site o Zonin : R -1, Single Dwelling Unit District. PIN/ Geo Code: 18.028.24.44.0036 Legal Lot 24, Block 1, South Harriet Park 2 "d Addition, that party lying West of Description: a line running from a point in the South line of Lot 24, a distance of 63 feet West from the SE corner thereof, to a point in the North line of Lot o 28 a distance of 84 feet West from the NE corner thereof 1 _ Size 11,520 sq.ft. a Square Feet: �. Grantor(s):. Roberta K. Johnson, Living Trust © o Grantee(s): - Ca stone Companies, LLC Q Date of Sale:. October 14, 2009 Off Market Date: September 1, 2009 1 Confirmed With: MLS, County Records and Listing Agent on January 13, 2010 Q_ Confirmed By: Patricia Nolan a Conditions of Assumed Arms length Sale: Q Sale Price: $463,500 Per S . Ft. $ 40.23 Price Per Lot:- . $463,500 - Mostly level lot with a few trees O - Located in highly desirable "South Harriet Park Neighborhood" - Existing single family house on property, tear down costs likely to be incurred by builder e - Lot backs up to church parking lot 0 C C� Q Lnl 2010 -0007 evergreen Land Services Schmid -4711 Meadow Road France Avenue Sidewalk Improvements _______COMPARABLE_LAN D SALE-N! Sale Property Bra dse &me 131 - 131 wo1(152) $ (145) $ $m 4600 181 38 2 46 41 4603 51) (1 46) $ $ 131 4602 131 y $ $41 46&5(150) (147) 181 4604 181 84 (149) $ 4 (148) $ $ 4667 I L Page 39 evergreen Land Services Propertv 4602 Bruce Avenue City/Township Edina Address: & County: Henne in Present Use at Single Family Residential Hiqhest & Best Single family building Time of Sale: Use: site Zoning: R -1, Single Dwelling Unit District, PIN/ Geo Code: 18.028.24.12.0146 Legal Lot 2, Block 9, Country Club District Fairway Sec. Descri tion: Size 6,550 sq.ft. S uare Feet: Grantor(s): William and Laurie Maclean • Grantee(s): Refined, LLC Date of Sale: May 6, 2009 Off Market Date: November 14, 2008 • Confirmed With: MLS, County Records and Listing Agent Confirmed By: Patricia Nolan Conditions of Assumed Arms length Sale: Sale Price: $640,000 Per S . Ft. $ 82.44 OW Price Per Lot: $540,000 - Mostly level lot with tree line on west side. - Located in highly desirable "Country Club Neighborhood" - Existing single family house on property, tear down costs likely to be incurred by builder 2010 -0006 evergreen Land Services Schmid -4711 Meadow Road Page 40 France Avenue Sidewalk Improvements COM_ PARABLE LAND SALE_ NO. -4 f 5209 5209_ �J 1 5212 6213 szo9 tl z�s •• 5215 1'•-„ 5217 Sale Property � =� 1 --S TPA �— 522 5221 W ' 5220 ou.r SOUTH 52 5225 ti 5224 5 i $229 5226 a L 52291 evergreen Ladd Services Property 5220 Halifax Avenue S. City/Township Edina Address: & County: Hennepin Present Use at Single Family Residential Highest 81 Best Single family building Time of Sale: Use: site - Zoning: R -1, Single Dwelling Unit District. PIN/ Geo Code: 18.028.24.44.0059 Legal Lot 6, Block 2, south Harriet Park 2nd Addition Description: Size 13,192 sq.ft. Square Feet: Grantor(s): Ralph and Claire Ole Grantee(s): Creekside Homes LLC Date of Sale: June 15, 2009 Off Market Date: 2008 exact month unknown e • Confirmed With: MLS, County Records and Listing Agent on January 13, 2010 Confirmed By: Patricia Nolan Conditions of Assumed Arms length Sale: Sale Price: $575,000 Per S . Ft. $ 43.59 Price Per Lot: $575,000 - Mostly level lot with a some mature trees - Located in highly desirable "South Harriet Park Neighborhood" - Existing single family house on property, tear down costs likely to be incurred by builder - Lot backs up to an alley • 2010 -0008 evergreen Ladd Services Schmid -4711 Meadow Road France Avenue Sidewalk Improvements ____ __COMPA.RABLE_LA.N_D SALEM— 5--- n32) �� n�s� °'I 5137 5336 5129 51: i 105 105 n 7 n] 52P&SUeet W. Sale Property TM HARM < P 02 DrO�5204 �� ON 5205 4207 = FN1T 01 .T m.:° on4T ;.r. n II j ,•:55'TU1 1'E �n 91 OF CrT.0 \'r�r (89) 1 yi 5203 Page 41 evergreen Land Services Propertv 4201 52nd Street West City/Township Edina Address: 81 County: Henne in Present Use at Vacant land Hiqhest & Best Single family building ° Time of Sale: Use: site Zoning: R -1, Single Dwelling Unit District. • 6 PIN/ Geo Code: 18.028.24.44.0105 ° Legal Lot 1, Block 1, South Harriet Park Steiner Addition, Hennepin County, Description: Minnesota Size Square Ft.: 10,406 sf Grantor(s): Gordon and Kathryn Otterlei • Grantee(s): Oak Grove Homes, LLC Date of Sale: November 25, 2008 Off Market Date: October 6, 2008 • Confirmed With: MLS, County Records and Listing Agent on January 12, 2010 Confirmed By: Patricia Nolan Conditions of Assumed Arms length Sale: Sale Price: $540,000 Per S . Ft. $ 51.89 Price Per Lot: $540,000 - Vacant residential lot. - Located two blocks west of France Ave and close to Arden Park. - Purchased for single family house • - Open, corner lot - Located in the highly desirable "South Harriet Park Neighborhood" 2010 -0003 evergreen Land Services Schmid -4711 Meadow Road France Avenue Sidewalk Improvements APPRAISER'S QUALIFICATION — DOUGLAS K. JOHNSON Page 42 NAME: Douglas K. Johnson, SR/WA BUSINESS ADDRESS: Evergreen Land Services 4131 Old Sibley Memorial Highway, Suite 201 Eagan, MN 55122 PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE: Past President and Board Member of Chapter 20 of the International Right of Way Association; IRWA Instructor APPRAISER LICENSE: Certified General Real Property Appraiser Minnesota - ID # 4001052 PRESENT EMPLOYMENT: Vice President and Appraisal Manager Evergreen Land Services APPRAISAL EXPERIENCE: 1) Property Manager & Acquisition Specialist Washington County Dept. of Transportation & Physical Development Stillwater, Minnesota April 1987 — September 2002 Principle duties included managing acquisition program for highways and parks; appraised for acquisition purposes, review of appraisals, negotiations. 2) Appraiser, Bureau of Reclamation U.S. Department of Interior Bismarck, North Dakota October 1985 —April 1987 Principle duty was the appraisal of properties for partial Acquisitions for federal water projects in ND, MT, WY 3) Appraiser, Bureau of Land Management U.S. Department of Interior Billings, Montana April 1979 — October 1985 Principle duty was the appraisal of properties for land exchanges, acquisitions, sales, and easements in MT and SD. EDUCATION: Bachelor of Science Degree - 1978 College of Forestry, University of Minnesota St. Paul, Minnesota APPRAISAL EDUCATION: (partial list) Appraisal Principles Appraisal of Partial Acquisitions Capitalization Theory/Techniques —1 Intro to Income Approach to Valuation Capitalization Theory/Techniques —2 Easement Valuation (instructor) Capitalization Theory/Techniques —3 Principles of Appraisal (instructor) American Society Farm Mors & Rural Appraisers Society of Real Estate Appraisers Transitional Use /Scenic Easements Residential Property Valuation Advanced Rural Appraisal evergreen Land Services Schmid -4711 Meadow Road France Avenue Sidewalk Improvements Name: APPRAISER'S QUALIFICATION — PATRICIA J. NOLAN Patricia J. Nolan Business Address: Evergreen Land Services 4131 Old Sibley Memorial Highway, Suite 201 Eagan, MN 55122 Appraiser License: Certified General Real Property Appraiser Minnesota License #20243478 Page 43 Present Employment: Staff Appraiser Evergreen Land Services Appraisal Experience: Staff Appraiser —Appraisal Concepts, Inc. 05/01/1986 — 03/17/2006 Work experience included residential appraisals such as — single family detached homes, town homes, condos, 2 & 4 family properties, vacant land, also assisted in appraising properties for eminent domain purposes Staff Appraiser — Evergreen Land Services 03/20/2006 — current Current work experience includes several large, right of way projects, commercial buildings, vacant commercial and residential land Appraisal Education: Real Estate Appraising 101 thru 108 General Appraiser Report Writing & Case Studies General Appraiser Sales Comparison Approach FHA Appraisal USPAP Right Of Way Professional Workshop 2006 & 2007 Appraising Historic Properties Back to the Basics Houses: 20 Cost Eff. Improvements Houses: Interior Styles, Designs, etc. Houses: Toxic Mold Alert Environmental Pollution and Mold House: Hazards Inside Machinery & Equipment Valuation ME201 Machinery & Equipment Valuation ME202 Machinery & Equipment Valuation ME203 A.S.A. Ethics Course Construction Blueprint Course evergreen Land Services .c�9�N��lrL, � Cn REPORT/RECOMMENDATION To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL Agenda Item Item No. IV.J. From: James B. Hovland Mayor ® Action Discussion Information Date: July 20, 2010 Subject: IV.J. Renaming Park Centrum "Hughes Pavilion" ACTION REQUESTED: Rename the Park Centrum at Centennial Lakes Park "Hughes Pavilion" in honor of retiring City Manager Gordon L. Hughes. INFORMATION /BACKGROUND: Edina has had three City Managers. Gordon Hughes, the third City Manager, will retire July 30, after 36 years of service to the community. The clubhouse at Braemar Golf Course was named the "Warren C. Hyde Clubhouse" in honor of Edina's first City Manager. Lake Cornelia Park was renamed "Rosland Park" after the retirement of City Manager Ken Rosland in 1998. 1 propose the Park Centrum at Centennial Lakes Park be renamed "Hughes Pavilion" in honor of Gordon Hughes. Park management supports the name change. Manager Tom Shirley said new metal letters can be affixed to the building in place of those currently in the arch above the front doors for approximately $1,000. A small bronze plaque similar to that dedicating the Maetzold Amphitheater at Centennial Lakes Park would also be installed prior to a formal dedication. Marketing materials would be updated to reflect the name change at the time they are reprinted. R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF � :, IAA- 7niL_ .j 11:30:07 Council Check Register - Page - 1 7/8/2010 - 7/8/2010 Check # Date Amount Supplier/ Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 336378 7/8/2010 126198 AARSVOLD, KRISTIN 93.00 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 240059 070110 1600.6107 MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE PARK ADMIN. GENERAL 93.00 336379 718/2010 102971 ACE ICE COMPANY 103.40 240002 0812808 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 32.60 _ 240003 0806533 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 62.80 240004 0812803 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 106.20 240005 0806528 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 13.00 240006 0812804 5822.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 50TH ST SELLING 33.80 240007 0806527 5822.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 50TH ST SELLING 61.60 240182 0724065 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 413.40 336380 718/2010 106162 ADT'SECURITY-SERVICES 32.92 ALARM SERVICE 239953 26336102 5111.6250 ALARM SERVICE ART CENTER BLDG /MAINT 32.92 _ 336381 7/812010 102715 ALLEGRA EDINA 483.74 CAFR PRINTING 239810 82300 1550.6575 PRINTING CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 483.74 336382 718/2010 120168 ALLIANCE ELECTRIC INC. 2,350.10 FREEZER AND A/C REPAIRS 240060 .. 6916 5620.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS EDINBOROUGH PARK 2,350.10 336383 7/812010 121207 AMERICAN SOCIETY OF APPRAISERS 575.00 ANNUAL DUES- BOB WILSON 240256 070610 1190.6105 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS ASSESSING 575.00 336384 7/812010 102470 -AON RISK SERVICES INC. OF MN 9,191.00 PREMIUM 240257 6100000119296 1550.6200 INSURANCE CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 9,191.00 336385 718/2010 102172 APPERT'S FOODSERVICE 931.15 FOOD 239954 1380370 5421.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD GRILL 931.15 336386 7/8/2010 103680 ARAMARK REFRESHMENT SRVCS 91.51 COFFEE 239955 910206 5430.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD RICHARDS GOLF COURSE 74.36 COFFEE 240062 416815 7411.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES PSTF OCCUPANCY 165.87 R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 717/2010 11:30:07 Council Check Register Page - 2 7/8/2010 - 7/8/2010 Check # Date Amount Supplier/ Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 336387 718/2010 126906 AUDIOLOGY CONCEPTS 173.40 TESTING 240275 18081 1314.6045 WORKERS COMPENSATION STREET RENOVATION 173.40 336388 7/812010 126893 BARNES DISTRIBUTION 44.49 HOSECLAMPS, FUSES 240063 2125009001 5422.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES MAINT OF COURSE 8 GROUNDS 580.94 CARB CLEANER, OIL 240064 2124661001 5422.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES MAINT OF COURSE 8 GROUNDS 625.43 336389 7/8/2010 102196 BATTERIES PLUS 15.19 BATTERIES 240065 200748 7412.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES PSTF RANGE 15.19 336390 7/8/2010 126300 BAUMAN, DOUG 66.25 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 239887 063010 5510.6107 MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE ARENA ADMINISTRATION 66.25 336391 7/8/2010 101366 BELLBOY CORPORATION 243.10 240008 53800800 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 459.10 240009 53807500 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 141.05 240010 53801000 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 28.00 240011 83829100 5862.6512 PAPER SUPPLIES VERNON SELLING 147.66 240011 83829100 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 1,018.91 336392 7/812010 125139 BERNICK'S WINE 120.00 240012 4717 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 658.20 240183 4715 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 778.20 336393 718/2010 126847 BERRY COFFEE COMPANY 139.00 COFFEE 239811 875809 5320.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD POOL CONCESSIONS 139.00 336394 7/8/2010 100648 BERTELSON OFFICE PRODUCTS 21.91 OFFICE SUPPLIES 239812 WO- 629705 -1 1550.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 87.56 FILE JACKETS 239813 W0-629811 -1 1550.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 53.91 LABELS 239814 WO- 629838 -1 1550.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 20.74 OFFICE SUPPLIES 239815 WO- 629552 -1 1600.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES PARK ADMIN. GENERAL 18.51 OFFICE SUPPLIES 239816 WO- 629536 -1 1600.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES PARK ADMIN. GENERAL 14.35- RETURN 240066 CP- WO- 629536 -1 1600.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES PARK ADMIN. GEN' R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF tQINA 7/7/2u M 11:30:07 Council Check Register Page - 3 718/2010 - 7/8/2010 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 188.28 336395 7/8/2010 122714 BLOOMINGTON IND. SCHOOL DIST. 3.22 PARTIAL REFUND 239888 062810 5300.2039 SALES & USE TAX PAYABLE AQUATIC CENTER BALANCE SHEET 44.78 PARTIAL REFUND 239888 062810 5301.4541 GENERAL ADMISSIONS AQUATIC CENTER REVENUES 48.00 336396 7/8/2010 103879 BLOOMINGTON RENTAL CENTER 78.49 STUMP GRINDER RENTAL 240067 68493 5620.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS EDINBOROUGH PARK 78.49 336397 7/8/2010 101376 BLOOMINGTON SECURITY SOLUTIONS 321.69 SECURITY MONITOR 239820 S69280 5310.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES POOL ADMINISTRATION 120.00 SAFE REPAIR 240068 S69326 5620.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS EDINBOROUGH PARK 441.69 336398 718/2010 119351 BOURGET IMPORTS 761.00 240013 99766 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 409.00 240184 99839 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 1.170.00 336399 7/8/2010 100659 BOYER TRUCK PARTS 40.17 LUBE FILTERS 00001050 239817 416387 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 15.20 SCREWS 00001050 239818 416074 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 30.40 SCREWS 00001050 239819 416082X1 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 85.77 336400 718/2010 100663 BRAEMAR GOLF COURSE 17.99 239956 062910 5422.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS 21.77 239956 062910 5422.6275 COURSE BEAUTIFICATION MAINT OF COURSE 8 GROUNDS 32.12 239956 062910 5424.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES RANGE 35.87 239956 062910 5410.6513 OFFICE SUPPLIES GOLF ADMINISTRATION 44.00 239956 062910 5410.6235 POSTAGE GOLF ADMINISTRATION 52.00 239956 062910 5401.4603 COMPUTERIZED HANDICAPS GOLF REVENUES 78.79 239956 062910 5410.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES GOLF ADMINISTRATION 81.36 239956 062910 5421.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD GRILL 108.00 239956 062910 5410.6105 DUES 8 SUBSCRIPTIONS GOLF ADMINISTRATION 471.90 336401 7/812010 126903 BREUNIG, MOLLY 2.91 SEASON TICKET REFUND 240166 063010 5300.2039 SALES $ USE TAX PAYABLE AQUATIC CENTER BALANCE SHEET 40.00 SEASON TICKET REFUND 240166 063010 5301.4532 SEASON TICKETS AQUATIC CENTER REVENUES R55CKREG LOG20000 200.00 CITY OF EDINA 063010 5631.6136 PROFESSIONAL SVC - OTHER CENTENNIAL ADMINISTRATION Council Check Register 200.00 7/8/2010 — 7/8/2010 336405 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 42.91 782.03 NEWSLETTER 00008245 240071 22029 336402 7/8/2010 SENIOR CITIZENS 103239 BRIN NORTHWESTERN GLASS CO. 782.03 348.42 DOOR LOCK REPAIR 240069 513381S 5620.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS 718/2010 1,974.00 GREAT HALL WINDOW REPAIR 240070 513459S 5620.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS 2,322.42 54.00 TRIP REFUND 240167 062810 336403 7/812010 SENIOR CITIZENS 103264 BRO -TEX INC. 54.00 361.36 PIG MATS 00005978 239924 389133 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS 7/8/2010 361.36 336404 7/8/2010 121118 BRUESKE, JEFF ASPHALT 00001210 239925 8090MB 7f712010 11:30:07 Page- 4 Business Unit EDINBOROUGH PARK EDINBOROUGH PARK EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 200.00 PERFORMANCE 7/13/10 239882 063010 5631.6136 PROFESSIONAL SVC - OTHER CENTENNIAL ADMINISTRATION 200.00 336405 7/8/2010 119826 BRYANT GRAPHICS INC. 782.03 NEWSLETTER 00008245 240071 22029 1628.6575 PRINTING SENIOR CITIZENS 782.03 336406 718/2010 121408 BURK, VERA 54.00 TRIP REFUND 240167 062810 1628.4392.07 SENIOR TRIPS SENIOR CITIZENS 54.00 336407 7/8/2010 102663 C.S. MCCROSSAN CONSTRUCTION IN 12,562.98 ASPHALT 00001210 239925 8090MB 1314.6518 BLACKTOP STREET RENOVATION 12,503.47 ASPHALT 00001210 239926 8100MB 1314.6518 BLACKTOP STREET RENOVATION 12,081.48 ASPHALT 00001210 239927 8112MB 1314.6518 BLACKTOP STREET RENOVATION 37,147.93 336408 718/2010 119466 CAPITOL BEVERAGE SALES 128.80 239957 11196 5430.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER RICHARDS GOLF COURSE 60.30 240014 11272 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 44.70 240185 11315 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 10,370.50 240186 11274 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 10,604.30 336409 71812010 102064 CASH REGISTER SALES & SERVICE 134.50 REPLACE PRINTER ROLLER 239821 062610 5310.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES POOL ADMINISTRATION 134.50 336410 718/2010 116683 CAT & FIDDLE BEVERAGE 312.00 240015 86792 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY Or -uiNA 7/7%[u 0 11:30:07 Council Check Register Page - 5 7/8/2010 -7/8/2010 Check # Date Amount Supplier/ Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 134.00 240016 86794 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 1,133.00 240017 86772 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 312.00 240187 86793 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING - 1,891.00 336411 7/8/2010 100681 CATCO 812.18 EQUIPMENT REPAIRS 00005975, 239928 3 =92894 1553.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 812.18 336412 7/8/2010 112561 CENTERPOINT ENERGY ,- 18.32 5596524 -8 239822 5596524 -6/10 5430.6186 HEAT RICHARDS GOLF COURSE 2,002:50 55914584 239823 5591458 -6/10 1551.6186 HEAT CITY HALL,GENERAL 576.65 - 5546504 -1 239824 5546504 -6/10 1470.6186 HEAT FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 38.68 8034001 -1 239958 8034001 -6/10 1552.6186 HEAT CENT SVC PW BUILDING 60.86 5590919-8 240072 5590919 -6/10 7413.6582 FUEL OIL PSTF FIRE TOWER 2,697.01 336413 7/812010 101815 CENTRAIRE:INC. , 810.00 GAS PIPE REPAIR 00001140 239929 19672 1552.6530 REPAIR PARTS CENT SVC PW BUILDING 810.00 336414 71812010 119725 CHISAGO LAKES DISTRIBUTING CO 162.00 240018 421613 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 162.00 336416 7/612010 106402 CHURCHILL, LEE 45.00 ADJUSTMENT 240177 062510 4077.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES EDINA ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION 306.00 SOFTBALL ADJUSTMENT 240178 070310 4077.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES EDINA ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION 351.00 336416 7/8/2010 122084 CITY OF-,EDINA - UTILITIES 289.72 00113667- 012835016 239959 120835016 -6/10 5111.6189 SEWER & WATER ART CENTER BLDG /MAINT 1,563.46 00077479- 0113317143 240073 113317143 -6/10 5620.6189 SEWER 8 WATER EDINBOROUGH PARK 1,853.18 336417 7/8_/2010 100692 COCA -COLA BOTTLING CO. 628.90 240188 0158032530 5842.5515 COST OF, GOODS,SOLD MIX, YORK SELLING 628.90 336418 718/2010 120433 COMCAST 74.95 8772 10 6140165667 239961 165667 -6/10 5424.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES RANGE 59.00 8772 10 614 0199138 239962 199138 -6/10 5422.6188 TELEPHONE MAINT OF COURSE 8 GROUNDS R55CKREG LOG20000 240019 558239 CITY OF EDINA COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 3,001.90 240020 558238 5862.5514 Council Check Register VERNON SELLING 67.20 240189 558244 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 7/8/2010 - 7/8/2010 240190 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 133.95 336419 7/8/2010 100695 CONTINENTAL CLAY CO. 37.40 STAIN, PAILS 00009221 239960 R200363581 5110.6564 CRAFT SUPPLIES 37.40 336420 716/2010 122376 CORPORATE CONNECTION 515.60 SAFETY VESTS 00001002 239825 2653 1552.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 515.60 336421 7/8/2010 102696 CROWN TROPHY 10.63 PLASTIC PLATE ENGRAVING 00009222 239963 23119 4105.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 10.63 ENGRAVING 00009222 239964 23142 4105.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 21.26 336422 7/8/2010 121618 DAKOTA SUPPLY GROUP 2,126.81 METER TRANSPONDERS 00005918 239826 6507934 5917.6530 REPAIR PARTS 2,126.81 336423 7/8/2010 104020 DALCO 217.17 CAN LINERS, HAND SOAP 00009204 239965 2207332 5111.6511 CLEANING SUPPLIES 358.99 FLOOR STRIPPER 240074 2221717 5620.6511 CLEANING SUPPLIES 964.01 CAN LINERS, TOWELS 00001038 240075 2225745 1552.6511 CLEANING SUPPLIES 1,540.17 336424 7/8/2010 102478 DAY DISTRIBUTING CO. 7/712010 11:30:07 Page- 6 Business Unit ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION CENT SVC PW BUILDING PUBLIC ART PUBLIC ART METER REPAIR ART CENTER BLDG /MAINT EDINBOROUGH PARK CENT SVC PW BUILDING 87.80 240019 558239 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 3,001.90 240020 558238 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 67.20 240189 558244 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 1,943.45 240190 558243 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 336426 7/812010 155.00 155.00 336426 7/812010 81.56 81.56 336427 7/8/2010 69.94 126863 DECESARE, COSETTE SUMMER CLASS REFUND 239889 062910 5511.6136 118490 DEEP ROCk WATER COMPANY 622833 WATER 240076 7030209 5620.6406 100718 DELEGARD TOOL CO. TORX BIT SET, TAMPPROOF HEX 00005951 239890 494214 1553.6556 PROFESSIONAL SVC - OTHER ARENA BLDG /GROUNDS GENERAL SUPPLIES TOOLS EDINBOROUGH PARK EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN ' R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY Oi -AA 7n,- 11:30:07 Council Check Register Page - 7 7/8/2010 - 7/8/2010 Check # Date Amount Supplier /Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 16.91 SCREWDRIVERS 00005383 239891 493451 1553.6556 TOOLS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 86.85 336428 7/812010 100720 DENNYS 6TH AVE. BAKERY ' 58.54 BAKERY 239966 - 337286 5421.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD GRILL 105.49 BAKERY 239967 337388 5421.5510 COSTrOF GOODS SOLD GRILL 76.84 BAKERY 239968 337494 5421.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD GRILL 25.38 BAKERY 239969 337559 5421.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD GRILL 47.70 BAKERY 239970 337603 5421.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD GRILL 121.92 BAKERY 239971 337654 5421.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD. GRILL 435.87 336429 7/8/2010 123996 DICK'S /LAKEVILLE SANITATION IN -3,883.17 REFUSE 240258 1118433 4095.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 50TH STREET RUBBISH 3,648.08 REFUSE 240259 1122059 4095.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 50TH STREET RUBBISH 7,531.25 336430 718/2010 126.848 DIXON, MAUREEN, 3.24 PARTIAL REFUND 239892 062810 5300.2039 SALES & USE TAX PAYABLE AQUATIC CENTER BALANCE SHEET 45.03 PARTIAL REFUND 239892 062810 5301.4541 GENERAL ADMISSIONS ' AQUATIC CENTER REVENUES 48.27 336431 7/8/2010 100731 DPC INDUSTRIES 632.20 CHLORINE 239827 82700914 -10 5311.6545 CHEMICALS POOL OPERATION 6,090.95 CHEMICALS 00001215 239893 82700921 -10 5915.6586 WATER TREATMENT SUPPLIES WATER TREATMENT 6,723.15 336432 71812010. 100740 EARL F. ANDERSEN INC. 113.56 FLAGPOLE COVERS 00006260 240077 0091930 -IN 5422.6406' GENERAL'SUPPLIES MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS 113.56 336433 718/2010 106496 ED'S TROPHIES INC. 10.27 2010 DENNY AWARD 239828 81562 2210.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES COMMUNICATIONS 10.27 336434 7/8/2010 101321 EDINA HARDWARE' 26.01. BUCKETS, BULBS, 00009223 239972 83311 5111.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES ART CENTER BLDG /MAINT 26.01 _ 336436 71812010 .123189. EDINA LIQUOR 348.00 WINE 239973 114 5421.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER GRILL 348.00 R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register 7/8/2010 - 7/8/2010 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 336436 71812010 100746 ELECTRIC MOTOR REPAIR 87.45 FAN MOTOR 239974 376547 5420.6530 REPAIR PARTS 87.45 336437 7/812010 101966 EMERGENCY APPARATUS MAINTENANC 324.13 E -82 PUMP TEST 240078 49661 1470.6215 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 324.13 E -81 PUMP TEST 240079 49660 1470.6215 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 324.13 E -83 PUMP TEST 240080 49662 1470.6215 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 384.13 E -90 PUMP TEST 240081 49663 1470.6215 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 1,356.52 336438 7/8/2010 100146 FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY 183.00 HUB ASSEMBLY 00005769 239829 69- 014111 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS 36.95 MOTOR 00005073 240082 1- 3356641 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS 219.95 336439 7/8/2010 119211 FIRSTLAB 7/7/2010 11:30:07 Page - 8 Business Unit CLUB HOUSE FIRE DEPT. GENERAL FIRE DEPT. GENERAL FIRE DEPT. GENERAL FIRE DEPT. GENERAL EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 117.00 DRUG TESTING 240083 00268165 1550.6121 ADVERTISING PERSONNEL CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 117.00 336440 718/2010 102267 FLAIR FOUNTAINS 129.33 FOUNTAIN REPAIR 240084 6124 5620.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS EDINBOROUGH PARK 129.33 336441 71812010 104270 FLARE HEATING & AIR CONDITIONI 510.00 INSTALLATION 240085 0019722 -IN 45008.6710 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FIRE STATION #1 RENOVATION 510.00 336442 7/8/2010 126861 FLUTE COCKTAIL 150.00 PERFORMANCE 7/12/10 239880 063010 5631.6136 PROFESSIONAL SVC - OTHER CENTENNIAL ADMINISTRATION 150.00 336443 7/812010 101361 GILBERT MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS 4,377.03 SERVICE ON THREE BOILERS 239830 85720 5311.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS POOL OPERATION 4,377.03 336444 7/8/2010 118941 GLOBALSTAR USA 29.09 R -91 PHONE 240086 2276269 1470.6188 TELEPHONE FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 29.09 336446 7/8/2010 101103 GRAINGER R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY Or -ANA Council Check Register 7/8/2010 - 7/8/2010 - Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No 18.40 WIRE CLOTH 00001049 239831 9281849647 1553.6556 49.54 EARMUFFS 00001031 239832 9284368587 1646.6610 49.55 EARMUFFS 00001031 239832 9284368587 1552.6406 64.83 EAR PLUGS 00001031 239833 9284368595 5913.6610 64.83 EAR PLUGS 00001031 239833 9284368595 1552.6406 90.04 FUSE BLOCKS, HOLDERS 00001010 239834 9279683248 1646.6406 71.82 CHOKE AND CARB CLEANER 00001013 239835 .9280563470 1553.6530 783.93 00002278 239894 9251887239 5620.6406 783.93- 00002278 239895 9260428231 5620.6406 159.11 EXTENSION CORD 00002286 240087 9260815031 5620.6406 28.20 LIGHT BULBS 00002288 240088 9264887499 5620.6406 146.85 LIGHT BULBS 00002298 240089 9270116313 5620.6406 156.59 FILTERS 00002102 240090 9271347115 5620.6406 2,246.77 FILTERS 00002296 240091 9269067279 5620.6406 - 308.01 CARTRIDGES 00006438 240092 9278538955 5420.6530 185.68 RAILING, PAINT 00006437 240093 9275847672 5422.6406 165.97 SOCKET SET, HAMMER, BLADES 00001034 240094 9286244141 1301.6556 3,806.19 336446 7/8/2010 102670 GRAND PERE WINES INC 152.00 240021 00024836 5862.5513 624.00 240022 00025302 5862.5513 776.00 336447 718/2010 102613 GRANDVIEW TIRE S AUTO 54.95 ALIGNMENT 00001056 239930 468657 1553.6180 54.95 ALIGNMENT 00005658 239931 - 467751 1553.6180 54.95 ALIGNMENT 00001142 240095 1`468350 1553.6180 164.85 336448 7/812010 102217 GRAPE BEGINNINGS INC 724.50 240191 120184 5842.5513 724.50 336449 71812010 101618 GRAUSAM, STEVE 163.00 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 240096 070110 5840.6107 163.00 336450 718/2010 100783 GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO. INC. 96.61 VOLUME CONTROLS 00001003 239836 948264913 5311.6406 96.61 Subledger Account Description TOOLS SAFETY EQUIPMENT GENERAL SUPPLIES SAFETY EQUIPMENT GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES REPAIR PARTS GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES REPAIR PARTS GENERAL SUPPLIES TOOLS 7/7 l;eul0 11:30:07 Page- 9 Business Unit EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN BUILDING MAINTENANCE CENT SVC PW BUILDING DISTRIBUTION CENT SVC PW BUILDING BUILDING MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN EDINBOROUGH PARK EDINBOROUGH PARK EDINBOROUGH PARK EDINBOROUGH PARK EDINBOROUGH PARK EDINBOROUGH PARK EDINBOROUGH PARK CLUB HOUSE MAINT,OF COURSE 8 GROUNDS GENERAL MAINTENANCE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING CONTRACTED REPAIRS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN CONTRACTED REPAIRS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN CONTRACTED REPAIRS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES LIQUOR YORK GENERAL POOL OPERATION R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 717/2010 11:30:07 Council Check Register Page - 10 7/8/2010 — 7/8/2010 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 336461 7/8/2010 100786 GREUPNER, JOE 10,980.00 3RD QTR RETAINER 239975 063010 5410.6132 PROFESSIONAL SVCS - GOLF GOLF ADMINISTRATION 10,980.00 336462 7/8/2010 100797 HAWKINS INC. 5,293.50 CHEMICALS 00001216 239837 3131020 5915.6586 WATER TREATMENT SUPPLIES WATER TREATMENT 5,293.50 336453 7/812010 100012 HD SUPPLY WATERWORKS LTD 207.29 NUTS & BOLTS 00001029 239838 1518410 5913.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES DISTRIBUTION 207.29 336464 7/812010 101209 HEIMARK FOODS 224.64 MEAT PATTIES 239976 022544 5421.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD GRILL 224.64 336466 7/812010 106371 HENNEPIN FACULTY ASSOCIATES 2,475.08 MEDICAL DIRECTOR SERVICES 239932 QB13886 1470.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 2,475.08 336466 7/8/2010 116680 HEWLETT - PACKARD COMPANY 197.72 LCD MONITOR 00004339 240097 47788129 1554.6710 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT CENT SERV GEN - MIS 140.01 SCANNER 00004341 240098 47816192 421600.6710 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT PARKS ADMIN EQUIPMENT 337.73 336467 7/812010 103763 HILLYARD INC - MINNEAPOLIS 391.72 CLEANING SUPPLIES 00002103 240099 6345093 5620.6511 CLEANING SUPPLIES EDINBOROUGH PARK 391.72 336468 7/8/2010 126867 HOEKSTRA, JOSH 2.88 DAILY ADMISSION REFUND 239919 062910 5300.2039 SALES & USE TAX PAYABLE AQUATIC CENTER BALANCE SHEET 40.00 DAILY ADMISSION REFUND 239919 062910 5301.4541 GENERAL ADMISSIONS AQUATIC CENTER REVENUES 42.88 336459 7/8/2010 104375 HOHENSTEINS INC. 858.50 240023 526639 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 40.00 240024 526640 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 991.00 240192 526664 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 1,889.50 336460 7/8/2010 100417 HORIZON COMMERCIAL POOL SUPPLY 314.64 STAIN INHIBITOR 00002289 20100 10060142 5620.6545 CHEMICALS EDINBOROUGH PARK CITY Oh �,AA 7f7l, ;, '11:30:07 R55CKREG LOG20000 Council Check Register Page- 11 7/8/2010 - 7/8/2010 - Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 125.63 FILTER CLEANER 00002289 240101 i 10060141 5620.6545 CHEMICALS EDINBOROUGH PARK 440.27 336461 718/2010 100808 HORWATH, THOMAS 420.50 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 240260 070510 1644.6107 MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE TREES & MAINTENANCE 420.50 336462 7/8/2010 101426 HUGHES, GORDON 240.00 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 239933 070110 1120.6107 MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE ADMINISTRATION 240.00 3364`63 7/812010. 122665 HYSER,.TIMOTHY 38.25 ADJUSTMENT 240175 062510 4077.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES EDINA ATHLETIC - ASSOCIATION 331.50 SOFTBALL OFFICIATING 240176 070310 4077.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES EDINA ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION 369.75 -336464 7/8/2010 100812 IAAO 500.00 ANNUAL CONFERENCE 240261 070610 1190.6104 CONFERENCES SCHOOLS ASSESSING 500.00 ,. 336466 71812010 112628 ICEE COMPANY; THE 611.94 CONCESSION PRODUCT 239920 548599 5320.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD POOL CONCESSIONS 611.94 336466 718/2010 120086 IDEAL S_ ERVICE INC. 165.66 KEYPAD 00005920 239934 4068 5912.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES WELL HOUSES 290.00 VFD CLEANING 00005920 239934 4068 5921.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS, SANITARY LIFT STATION MAINT 638.00 VFD CLEANING 00005920 239934. 4068 5912.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS WELL HOUSES 1,093:66 336467 71812010 126869 IPECKI, NATALIE 86.00 MILEAGE'REIMBURSEMENT 239935 063010 1624.6107 MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE PLAYGROUND & THEATER 86.00 336468 7/8/2010 102640 IPMA -HR - 360.00 DUES 240102 24164248. 1120.6104 CONFERENCES,& SCHOOLS ADMINISTRATION 360.00 336469 718/2010 124330 JEFF MARTIN COMPANY 260.00 CRANE SERVICE FOR LIGHT POLEM0001037 239839 6100 1322.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS STREET LIGHTING ORNAMENTAL 260.00 R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register 7/8/2010 - 7/8/2010 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 336470 7/812010 100830 JERRY S PRINTING 124.44 POOL SEASON PASSES 239840 50361 5310.6575 PRINTING 124.44 717/2010 11:30:07 Page - 12 Business Unit POOL ADMINISTRATION 336471 718/2010 100741 JJ TAYLOR DIST. OF MINN 799.30 239977 1405700 5421.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER GRILL 10,335.22 240025 1399901 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 151.70 240193 1399916 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 4,488.10 240194 1399880 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 202.50 240195 1396530 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 12,700.85 240196 1399915 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 2,905.27 240197 1399908 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING 31,582.94 336473 718/2010 100836 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO. .09 240026 1858168 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 454.95 240027 1859265 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 148.18 240028 1859264 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 728.69 240198 1863068 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 1,697.66 240199 1863066 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 22.11 240200 1863067 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 1.12 240201 1863056 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 2,854.57 240202 1863071 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 2,458.78 240203 1863069 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 11.69 240204 1863065 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 318.82 240205 1863073 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 618.05 240206 1864040 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 5,567.17 240207 1863072 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 1.12 240208 1863055 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING .19 240209 1863054 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 5,515.66 240210 1863064 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 1,688.92 240211 1863057 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 1,881.92 240212 1863061 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 5,761.07 240213 1863063 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 1.12 240214 1863052 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 7.84 240215 1863053 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 5,247.46 240216 1863062 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 1,412.21 240217 1863060 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 6,630.03 240218 1863058 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 22.11 240219 1863059 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 363.88 240220 1859405 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 43,415.41 R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OFoiNA 7/7/2oi0 11:30:07 Council Check Register Page - 13 7/8/2010 -7/8/2010 'z Check # Date Amount - Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business`Unit 336474 71812010 103664 JOHNSON, DENISE 66.95 ART WORK SOLD 239978 062410 5101.4413 ART WORK SOLD ART CENTER REVENUES 66.95 336476 7/8/2010 124361 JOHNSON, LUANN 57.20 ART WORK SOLD 239979 062410 5101.4413 ART WORK SOLD ART CENTER REVENUES `57.20 336476 7/8/2010 ' 102.719 JOHNSON, PHILLIP 98.95 REIMBURSEMENT 239980 062410 5125.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD MEDIA STUDIO 130.08 REIMBURSEMENT 239980 062410 5125.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES MEDIA STUDIO 229.03 336477 7/8/2010 102113 JOHNS-TONE SUPPLY 23.71 CONTACTOR 00005496 240103 053310 1375.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES PARKING RAMP 23.71 336478 7/8/2010 103230 JOHNSTONS SALES & SERVICE 53.33 VACUUM BAGS 239981 012847 5420.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CLUB HOUSE 53.33 336479 71812010 111018 KEEPRS INC. 159.96 UNIFORMS 00003747 240104 141969 -4 1470.6558 DEPT UNIFORMS FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 159.96 336480 71812010 100841 KEPRIOS, JOHN 68.70 SHIPPING COST REIMBURSEMENT 239896 062910 1600.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES ` PARK ADMIN. GENERAL 103.00 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 240262 070610 1600.6107 MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE _ PARK ADMIN. GENERAL 171.70 " 336481 7/8/2010 121496 KIDZSMART CONCEPTS INC. 550.00 BIRTHDAY. PARTY MARKETING 240105 34182 2210.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COMMUNICATIONS 550.00 336482 7/8/2010 101220.. LANO EQUIPMENT INC. 79.75 BUFFER 00005115 239936 213028 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 79.75 336483 71812010 100862 LAWSON PRODUCTS INC. 315.52 COUPLINGS 00005802 239841 9338313 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 315.52 COUPLINGS 00005802 239842 9338314 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register 7/8/2010 -7/8/2010 Check # Date Amount Supplier/ Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 364.13 NUTS, BITS, TY -RAP 00001028 239937 9353219 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS 995.17 336484 7/8/2010 101662 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES 234.95 DEDUCTIBLE 240263 070110 1550.6200 INSURANCE 163.76 PENALTY 240264 050110 1550.6200 INSURANCE 398.71 336485 7/8/2010 102965 LEONE, RON 110.00 ASE CERTIFICATIONS TESTING 239897 063010 1553.6260 LICENSES & PERMITS 110.00 336486 7/8/2010 126208 LOVEJOY, NICHOLAS 37.70 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 240265 062810 1554.6107 MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE 37.70 336487 7/8/2010 101792 LUBE -TECH 386.11 DELO GREASE 00005766 239843 1787534 1553.6584 LUBRICANTS 549.81 OIL 00006270 240106 1784603 5422.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 935.92 336488 7/8/2010 112677 M. AMUNDSON LLP 958.81 240029 88676 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 921.12 240221 88683 5822.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 1,879.93 336489 7/8/2010 114693 MAAP 20.00 DUES (2) 239844 062210 1190.6105 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 150.00 WORKSHOP REGISTRATION (2) 239844 062210 1190.6104 CONFERENCES 8 SCHOOLS 170.00 336490 7/8/2010 126892 MARECK, KATHY 235.00 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 240107 070110 1624.6107 MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE 235.00 336491 7/812010 124000 MARTIN, KAYLIN 5.20 REIMBURSEMENT 240108 070110 2210.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 10.00 REIMBURSEMENT 240108 070110 2210.6106 MEETING EXPENSE 73.00 REIMBURSEMENT 240108 070110 2210.6408 PHOTOGRAPHIC SUPPLIES 124.00 REIMBURSEMENT 240108 070110 2210.6107 MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE 212.20 7/7/2010 11:30:07 Page - 14 Business Unit EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN CENT SERV GEN - MIS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN MAINT OF COURSE 8 GROUNDS VERNON SELLING BOTH ST SELLING ASSESSING ASSESSING PLAYGROUND $ THEATER COMMUNICATIONS COMMUNICATIONS COMMUNICATIONS COMMUNICATIONS R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF -.,ANA 7/71__ .., 11:30:07 Council Check Register Page - 15 7/8/2010 - 7/8/2010 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 336492 718/2010 100876 MCCAREN DESIGNS INC. 3,659.62 OUTDOOR LANDSCAPING 00002108 240109 48829 5620.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS EDINBOROUGH PARK 2,408.57 RAMP ENTRANCE LANDSCAPING 00002122 240110 48831 5620.6620 TREES, FLOWERS, SHRUBS EDINBOROUGH PARK 158.18 PLANTS 00002293 240111 48852 5620.6620 TREES, FLOWERS, SHRUBS EDINBOROUGH PARK 6,226.37 336493 7/8/2010 126904 MCCOY, PAT 134.00 SUMMER CLASS REFUND 240168 070110 5511.6136 PROFESSIONAL SVC - OTHER ARENA BLDG /GROUNDS 134.00 336494 718/2010 126941 MCQUAY INTERNATIONAL 1,790.47 HEAT EXCHANGER SERVICE 00002264 240112 2525226 5620.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS EDINBOROUGH PARK 1,790.47 336495 718/2010 105603 MEDICINE LAKE TOURS 2,840.05 DULUTH TRIP 240113 070110 1628.6103.07 TRIPS PROF SERVICES SENIOR CITIZENS 2,840.05 336496 7/812010 113023 MEGGITT 795.00 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT 240114 INV- 0046194 7411.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PSTF OCCUPANCY 795.00 336497 718/2010 101457 MEICHSNER, EARL 100.00 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 239898 063010 1652.6107 MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE WEED MOWING 100.00 336498 7/8/2010 101987 MENARDS 20.43 LUMBER 00002109 240115 92852 5620.6532 PAINT EDINBOROUGH PARK 25.94 BATTERIES 00002107 240116 92703 5620.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES EDINBOROUGH PARK 29.88 MULCH 00002110 240117 96809 5620.6540 FERTILIZER EDINBOROUGH PARK 144.75 UTILITY PUMP, WEED KILLER 00002305 240118 94918 5630.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENTENNIAL LAKES 221.00 336499 7/812010 104166 MENARDS 140.19 SANDER, BELTS 00002110 240119 30113 5620.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES EDINBOROUGH PARK 140.19 336500 7/8/2010 100886 METRO SALES INC 25.65 TONER CARTRIDGE 239845 15980A 5840.6513 OFFICE SUPPLIES LIQUOR YORK GENERAL 32.90 TONER CARTRIDGE 239846 15949A 5840.6513 OFFICE SUPPLIES LIQUOR YORK GENERAL 58.55 R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA FFI CERTIFICATION 240121 499 1470.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS FIRE DEPT. GENERAL Council Check Register 140.00 7/8/2010 — 7/8/2010 7/812010 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 336601 7/8/2010 REPLACE WATER SERVICE 00005922 239940 102729 METROPOLITAN FORD OF EDEN PRAI 5913.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS DISTRIBUTION 120.02 VEHICLE REPAIRS 00001146 239938 174205 1553.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS DISTRIBUTION 120.02 4,165.00 336502 7/8/2010 336606 104660 MICRO CENTER 100622 MINNESOTA AIR INC. 64.11 QUICKEN FOR EIPA 00004342 240120 2822907 1400.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 1205102 -00 5912.6406 64.11 WELL HOUSES 14.57 336503 7/8/2010 100891 MIDWEST ASPHALT CORP. 336507 7/812010 101591 MINNESOTA CERAMIC SUPPLY 125.21 ASPHALT 00001224 239939 105192MB 5913.6518 BLACKTOP 76.83 139.80 ASPHALT 00001224 239939 105192MB 1301.6518 BLACKTOP 4,259.83 ASPHALT 00001224 239939 105192MB 1314.6518 BLACKTOP 336608 4,524.84 118590 MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF REVENU 336504 71812010 103942 MINN FIRE SERVICE CERTIFICATIO 19,634.89 TAXES 239983 DOR51 7/7/2010 11:30:07 Page - 16 Business Unit EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN POLICE DEPT. GENERAL DISTRIBUTION GENERAL MAINTENANCE STREET RENOVATION 140.00 FFI CERTIFICATION 240121 499 1470.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 140.00 336605 7/812010 100913 MINNEAPOLIS & SUBURBAN SEWER & 2,450.00 REPLACE WATER SERVICE 00005922 239940 33652 5913.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS DISTRIBUTION 1,715.00 STANDPIPE REPLACEMENT 00005921 239941 33651 5913.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS DISTRIBUTION 4,165.00 336606 7/8/2010 100622 MINNESOTA AIR INC. 14.57 CONTACTORS 00001030 239847 1205102 -00 5912.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES WELL HOUSES 14.57 336507 7/812010 101591 MINNESOTA CERAMIC SUPPLY 76.83 REPAIR PARTS 239982 30032 5111.6530 REPAIR PARTS ART CENTER BLDG / MAINT 76.83 336608 7/8/2010 118590 MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF REVENU 19,634.89 TAXES 239983 DOR51 1500.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTINGENCIES 19,634.89 336509 7/8/2010 100066 MINNESOTA MAILING SOLUTIONS 175.51 POSTAGE MACHINE SUPPLIES 239921 62830 1550.6235 POSTAGE CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 175.51 336510 7/8/2010 120301 MINNESOTA MULCH & SOIL 648.11 MULCH 240122 D10167 5422.6541 PLANTINGS & TREES MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS 648.11 R55CKREG LOG20000 58.21 CITY OF tuINA 00005762 ,239899 480904F6W 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS. Council Check Register GEN 485.17 COMPRESSOR ASSEMBLY 7/8/2010 - 7/8/2010 239900 Check # Date Amount Supplier /- Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 336511 71812010 MOTOR 8 FAN, RELAY 112908 MINNESOTA ROADWAYS CO. 240124 481381 F6 1553.6530 - 1,043.74 ASPHALT EMULSION 00001212 239942 61273 1301.6519 ROAD OIL 984.12 1,145.70 ASPHALT EMULSION 00001212 239943 61300 1301.6519 ROAD,OIL 2,189.44 336514 7/8/2010. 336512 7/8/2010 122019 MOORE CREATIVE TALENT 500.00 HOSTING FEE 240123 :129129 2210.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 240173 500.00 4077.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES EDINA ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION 336613 7/8/2010 255.00 121491 MORRIE'S PARTS & SERVICE GROUP 240174 7/7 /'i'u.0 11:30:07 Page- 17 Business Unit GENERAL MAINTENANCE GENERAL MAINTENANCE COMMUNICATIONS - 58.21 MOTOR ASSEMBLY 00005762 ,239899 480904F6W 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS. EQUIPMENT. OPERATION GEN 485.17 COMPRESSOR ASSEMBLY 00005765 239900 ' 481149F6W 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 440.74 MOTOR 8 FAN, RELAY 00005772 240124 481381 F6 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 984.12 336514 7/8/2010. 102395• MOSE WILLIAM " ' 33.75 ADJUSTMENT 240173 062510 4077.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES EDINA ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION 255.00 SOFTBALL OFFICIATING " 240174 070310 4077.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES EDINA ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION 288.75 336615 7/8/2010 101696 MSP COMMUNICATIONS 1,830.00 GOLF AD 00006059 239984 G259627 5410.6122 ADVERTISINGbTHER. GOLF ADMINISTRATION 1,830.00 336616 71812010 100906 MTI DISTRIBUTING INC. 478.71 MUFFLER 00006272 240125 740135 -00 5424.6530 REPAIR PARTS RANGE 333.78 STARTER, WIRES 00006268 240126 739766 -00 5424.6530 REPAIR PARTS RANGE 812.49 336617 7/812010 115616 NORTH IMAGE APPAREL INC. 68.00 UNIFORM PURCHASE 00005413 239901 NIA4578A 1260.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES ENGINEERING GENERAL 68.00 336618 71812010 10162.0 NORTH SECOND STREET STEEL SUPP ` 140.80 STEEL TUBES 00001058 240127 178262 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 140.80 336619 7/8/2010 104232 NORTHERN SAFETY TECHNOLOGY INC 1,199.14 SAFETY LIGHT BARS 00005382 240128 24223 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 1,199.14 R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA PERFORMANCE 7113/10 239881 063010 5631.6136 PROFESSIONAL SVC - OTHER Council Check Register 200.00 7/8/2010 — 7/8/2010 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 336520 71812010 100933 NORTHWEST GRAPHIC SUPPLY 1,500.00 PLAY STRUCTURE REPAIRS 240130 2066 266.84 D'ARCHES W /C, PENS 00009224 239985 39058200 5120.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD 1,500.00 82.34 ARTISTS OIL, CANVAS PANELS 00009219 239986 38972101 5120.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD 336626 7/8/2010 349.18 101470 ORVIS, JOAN 336521 7/8/2010 100374 NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY 6,465.21 SUMMER CLASS % 239902 063010 5510.6103 12,600.00 SUPERVISION OF POLICE COURSE00007432 240129 18973 7410.6218 EDUCATION PROGRAMS 12,600.00 336526 336522 7/8/2010 100939 OTIS SPUNKMEYER INC. 103578 OFFICE DEPOT 34.44 OFFICE SUPPLIES 00002302 239848 523589650001 5631.6513 OFFICE SUPPLIES 5320.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD 12.06 SCISSORS 00002302 239849 523593167001 5631.6513 OFFICE SUPPLIES 6.92 COPY PAPER 00006034 239987 1226600711 5410.6513 OFFICE SUPPLIES 124519 OVERHOLT, JAMES 53.42 336523 718/2010 126.50 124676 OKEE DOKEE BROTHERS 240266 062110 1644.6107 W712010 11:30:07 Page - 18 Business Unit ART SUPPLY GIFT GALLERY SHOP ART SUPPLY GIFT GALLERY SHOP PSTF ADMINISTRATION CENTENNIAL ADMINISTRATION CENTENNIAL ADMINISTRATION GOLF ADMINISTRATION 150.00 PERFORMANCE 711/10 239886 062810 5631.6136 PROFESSIONAL SVC - OTHER CENTENNIAL ADMINISTRATION 150.00 200.00 PERFORMANCE 7113/10 239881 063010 5631.6136 PROFESSIONAL SVC - OTHER CENTENNIAL ADMINISTRATION 200.00 336524 7/8/2010 116669 ON CALL SERVICES 1,500.00 PLAY STRUCTURE REPAIRS 240130 2066 5620.6530 REPAIR PARTS EDINBOROUGH PARK 1,500.00 336626 7/8/2010 101470 ORVIS, JOAN 6,465.21 SUMMER CLASS % 239902 063010 5510.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ARENA ADMINISTRATION 6,465.21 336526 7/8/2010 100939 OTIS SPUNKMEYER INC. 126.84 COOKIES 239850 80065755 5320.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD POOL CONCESSIONS 126.84 336527 7/8/2010 124519 OVERHOLT, JAMES 126.50 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 240266 062110 1644.6107 MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE TREES 8 MAINTENANCE 126.50 336628 7/8/2010 124856 PATRIOT ERECTORS INC. 2,443.88 PARTIAL PAYMENT NO.4 240131 070910 4402.1705.30 CONTRACTOR PAYMENTS PW BUILDING 2,443.88 336529 7/8/2010 126862 PAULSON, CARL 150.00 PERFORMANCE 711/10 239886 062810 5631.6136 PROFESSIONAL SVC - OTHER CENTENNIAL ADMINISTRATION 150.00 R55CKREG ' L6G20000 CITY OF EDINA' Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation 336530 718/2010 Page -. 19 100347 PAUSTIS & SONS 7/8/2010 - 7/8/2010 1,470.25 PO # Doc No Inv No 573.48 Subledger Account Description Business Unit 240030 80.25 - 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 2,518.30 8265576 -IN ` COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 4,481.78 240032 - 336631. 7_/812010 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 126492 PAYPAL INC. 240222. 8265573 -IN 39.95 2830598 MONTHLY FEE' YORK SELLING 240132 39.95 5910.6155 336532 718/2010 239851 102963 PELUF, JIM 1301.6201 LAUNDRY 199.51 UNIFORM. PURCHASE 063010 5300.2039 199.51 AQUATIC CENTER BALANCE SHEET z 336533 7/8/2010 5301.4541 126866 PENA, CRISTOBAL . AQUATIC CENTER REVENUES 239922 2.88 DAILY ADMISSION REFUND COST OF GOODS SOLD POOL CONCESSIONS 40.03 DAILY ADMISSION REFUND 5421.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD 42.91 240133 336534 7/8/2010 COST OF GOODS SOLD 100945 PEPSI -COLA COMPANY 240033 2927966 .433.78 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 240223 1,511.63 5862.5513 '. VERNON SELLING 477.75 2930604 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 2,423.16 240225 • 336536 718/2010 _COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 100743 PHILLIPS WINE S SPIRITS 240226 2930605 442.28 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 240227 1,197.94 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 1,051.96 2930602 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 583.39 240229 2930601 5842.5513 205.44 YORK SELLING 240230 2930603 675.65 COST -.OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 240231 37.12 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 1,929.98 070210 5910.6235 POSTAGE 583.39 3,687.83 10,394.98 - 336636 718/2010 100961. POSTMASTER - USPS 2,600.00 PERMIT #939 UTILITY BILLING CITY OF EDINA' 7l7ir_ .j 11:30:07 Council Check Register Page -. 19 7/8/2010 - 7/8/2010 PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 240030 8265579 -IN 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 240031 8265576 -IN 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 240032 8265504 -CM 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 240222. 8265573 -IN 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 240132 7726333 5910.6155 BANK SERVICES CHARGES GENERAL (BILLING) 239851 062910 1301.6201 LAUNDRY GENERAL MAINTENANCE 239918 063010 5300.2039 SALES 8 USE TAX PAYABLE AQUATIC CENTER BALANCE SHEET z 239918 063010 5301.4541 GENERAL ADMISSIONS AQUATIC CENTER REVENUES 239922 61933820 5320.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD POOL CONCESSIONS 239988 61933799 5421.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD GRILL 240133 61933769 5630.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD CENTENNIAL LAKES 240033 2927966 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 240223 2930606 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 240224 2930604 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 240225 2930607 5862.5512 _COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 240226 2930605 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 240227 2930599 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 240228 2930602 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 240229 2930601 5842.5513 COST -OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 240230 2930603 5842.5512 COST -.OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 240231 2930600 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 240169 070210 5910.6235 POSTAGE GENERAL (BILLING) R55CKREG LOG20000 240034 CITY OF EDINA 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 909.42 Council Check Register 324958 -00 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 2,769.29 7/8/2010 - 7/8/2010 240036 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 240037 323985 -00 2,600.00 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 278.40 336537 7/8/2010 324816-00 100964 PRECISION TURF S CHEMICAL COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 20.60 2,511.56 INSECTICIDE 00006266 240134 34849 5422.6545 CHEMICALS YORK SELLING 2,020.81 2,511.56 240040 324814 -00 5842.5513 336538 7/8/2010 1,124.05 106322 PROSOURCE SUPPLY 240041 323983 -00 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 1,567.76 ROLL TOWEL, LINERS, GLOVES 00002294 240135 4795 5620.6511 CLEANING SUPPLIES 324728 -00 5842.5512 1,567.76 YORK SELLING 12,388.83 336639 7/8/2010 100971 QUALITY WINE 336540 718/2010 7/712010 11:30:07 Page - 20 Business Unit MAINT OF COURSE 8 GROUNDS EDINBOROUGH PARK 1,902.32 240034 324815-00 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 909.42 240035 324958 -00 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 2,769.29 240036 324729 -00 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 554.70 240037 323985 -00 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 278.40 240038 324816-00 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 20.60 240039 323984 -CO 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 2,020.81 240040 324814 -00 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 1,124.05 240041 323983 -00 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 2,809.24 240042 324728 -00 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 12,388.83 336540 718/2010 119613 QWEST 1,905.08 PW BLDG PHONE CABLE 240267 45226 4402.6710 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT PW BUILDING 1,905.08 336541 7/812010 123898 QWEST 352.55 952 927 -8861 240268 8861 -6/10 1550.6188 TELEPHONE CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 55.72 952 929 -0297 240269 0297 -6/10 4090.6188 TELEPHONE 50TH&FRANCE MAINTENANCE 55.96 240270 0146 -6/10 5911.6188 TELEPHONE WELL PUMPS 58.66 240270 0146 -6/10 1628.6188 TELEPHONE SENIOR CITIZENS 99.34 240270 0146 -6/10 5821.6188 TELEPHONE 50TH ST OCCUPANCY 107.71 240270 0146 -6/10 5841.6188 TELEPHONE YORK OCCUPANCY 117.39 240270 0146 -6/10 1470.6188 TELEPHONE FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 166.14 240270 0146 -6/10 1622.6188 TELEPHONE SKATING 8 HOCKEY 235.04 240270 0146 -6/10 1646.6188 TELEPHONE BUILDING MAINTENANCE 256.57 240270 0146 -6/10 5511.6188 TELEPHONE ARENA BLDG /GROUNDS 266.71 240270 0146 -6/10 5932.6188 TELEPHONE GENERAL STORM SEWER 2,062.07 240270 0146 -6/10 1550.6188 TELEPHONE CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 3,833.86 336642 71812010 124637 RALPH, ROBERT CITY OF tu1NA Council Check Register 7/8/2010 -7/8/2010 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 27.00 ADJUSTMENT 240171 062510 4077.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 306.00 SOFTBALL OFFICIATING 240172 070310 4077.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 5910.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 7/7i�:.� 11:30:07 Page - 21 Business Unit EDINA ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION EDINA ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION GENERAL (BILLING) 4077.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 333.00 5620.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD EDINBOROUGH PARK 336543 7/8/2010 EDINBOROUGH PARK "± 104460 RAPID GRAPHICS & MAILING COST OF GOODS SOLD EDINBOROUGH PARK 5300.2039 71.81 MAIL WATER BILLS 239852 4203 AQUATIC CENTER REVENUES 1553.6180 71.61 EQUIPMENT,OPERATION GEN 5631.6136 PROFESSIONAL SVC - OTHER 33.6544 7/812010 REPAIR PARTS 119766 RICCI, PATRICE 1553.6530 REPAIR•PARTS ' 1553.6584 46.50 SOFTBALL OFFICIATING 240181 070310 PARK ADMIN. GENERAL -46.50 336546 7/8/2010 126343 RICHFIELD DO GRILL AND CHILL 84.00 DILLY BARS 240136 506 84.00 DILLY BARS 240137 508 26.99 SHEET CAKE, EDIBLE IMAGES 240138 507 194.99 336546 7/8/2010 126849, RICKARD, MICHELLE 7.66 PARTIAL REFUND 239903 062910 106.45 PARTIAL REFUND 239903 062910 114.11 336647 718/2010 118658 RIGHTWAY GLASS INC. 200.66 WINDSHIELD 00005976 239944 59608 200.66 336548 718/2010 116393 ROGERS, RUSS 200.00 PERFORMANCE 7 /15/10 239884 063010 200.00 336549 7/812010 100986 RUFFRIDGE_ JOHN_ SON EQUIPMENT CO 45.79 VINA MATS 00005757 239945 C55552 45.79 336550 7/812010 100988 SAFETY KLEEN 113.07 RECYCLE PARTS WASHER 00001164 240271 922317693 88.00- ADJUSTMENT 240272 51269223 25.07 336661 7/8/2010 101822 SAM'S CLUB DIRECT 18.00 101= "" "9350. 240139 070110 5910.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 7/7i�:.� 11:30:07 Page - 21 Business Unit EDINA ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION EDINA ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION GENERAL (BILLING) 4077.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES EDINA ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION 5620.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD EDINBOROUGH PARK 5620.5510 COST OF GOODSSOLD EDINBOROUGH PARK "± 5620.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD EDINBOROUGH PARK 5300.2039 SALES 8 USE TAX PAYABLE AQUATIC CENTER BALANCE SHEET 5301.4532 SEASON TICKETS AQUATIC CENTER REVENUES 1553.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS EQUIPMENT,OPERATION GEN 5631.6136 PROFESSIONAL SVC - OTHER CENTENNIAL ADMINISTRATION 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 1553.6530 REPAIR•PARTS 'EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 1553.6584 LUBRICANTS EQUIPMENT. OPERATION GEN 1600.4390.06 SAFETY CAMP PARK ADMIN. GENERAL R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 7f7/2010 11:30:07 Council Check Register Page - 22 7/8/2010 - 718/2010 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 147.98 101= "" "9350 240139 070110 1624.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES PLAYGROUND 8 THEATER 154.72 101 - "" "9350 240139 070110 4075.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD VANVALKENBURG 320.70 336562 7/812010 106442 SCHERER BROS. LUMBER CO. 87.83 LUMBER 00005494 240140 40839690 1301.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL MAINTENANCE 18.17 STAKES 00002080 240141 40851335 5630.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENTENNIAL LAKES 106.00 336663 71812010 119799 SCHIMETZ, SCOTT 18.00 ADJUSTMENT 240179 062510 4077.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES EDINA ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION 101.00 SOFTBALL OFFICIATING 240180 070310 4077.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES EDINA ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION 119.00 336664 718/2010 100991 SCHWAB- VOLLHABER- LUBRATT 256.64 FAN BLADES 239904 INV056878 1551.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CITY HALL GENERAL 256.64 336566 7/8/2010 119909 SHERWIN WILLIAMS CO. 148.51 PAINT 00002311 240142 3855 -8 5630.6532 PAINT CENTENNIAL LAKES 148.51 336566 7/8/2010 102936 SOUTH TOWN REFRIGERATION INC 354.22 ICE MAKER REPAIR 00006340 239989 5888 5421.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS GRILL 354.22 336657 7/812010 101021 SPEEDWAY SUPERAMERICA LLC 161.92 PROPANE 00001160 240143 062310 1301.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL MAINTENANCE 161.92 336568 7/8/2010 102424 SPEEDY PRINT 913.78 SCORECARDS 00002089 240144 69102 5631.6575 PRINTING CENTENNIAL ADMINISTRATION 913.78 336559 7/812010 102698 SPOONER, ANNE 52.00 ART WORK SOLD 239990 062410 5101.4413 ART WORK SOLD ART CENTER REVENUES 52.00 336560 71812010 101004 SPS COMPANIES 27.79 PVC PIPE 00005908 239853 52221504.001 5912.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES WELL HOUSES 439.95 FAUCETS 00002106 240145 S2218207.001 5620.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES EDINBOROUGH PARK 467.74 R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register 7/8/2010 - 7/812010 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 336661 7/8/2010 103277 ST. JOSEPH EQUIPMENT CO INC 1,157.46 FORK 00005114 240146 SM10232 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS 1,157.46 336562 7/8/2010 102170 STAR OF THE NORTH CONCERT BAND 717/x- . � 11:30:07 Page - 23 Business Unit EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 100.00 PERFORMANCE 7/14/10 239883 063010 5631.6136 PROFESSIONAL SVC - OTHER CENTENNIAL ADMINISTRATION 100.00 100900 SUN NEWSPAPERS 53.63 336563 7/8/2010 124476 STEVENS ENGINEERS INC. 1258173 1120.6120 107.25 1,452.01 ENGINEERING SERVICES 239905 8244 5500.1705 CONSTR. IN PROGRESS 1,452.01 1256890 1120.6120 403.98 336564 7/8/2010 102390 STRAND MANUFACTURING CO INC 336567 7/812010 102925 SUPERIOR TECH PRODUCTS 248.81 BRACKETS, HOOKS 00005788 239854 27291 5921.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 756.82 LADDER 00005898 239855 27292 5921.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,005.63 120998 SURLY BREWING CO. 800.00 336566 7/812010 101017 SUBURBAN CHEVROLET 00364 5822.5514 800.00 5.15 GASKET 00005768 239906 248257 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS 255.79 CONDENSER 00005770 239907 248667 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS 305.95 PIPE 00005767 239908 248010 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS 1,080.00 VEHICLE REPAIRS 00001147 239946 574186 1553.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS 1,118.23 00001150 239947 574512 1553.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS 75.00 00001149 239948 575060 1553.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS 465.00 00001145 239949 574769 1553.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS 175.00 00001144 239950 575267 1553.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS 336566 7/8/2010 100900 SUN NEWSPAPERS 53.63 PUBLISH NOTICE 239909 1258173 1120.6120 107.25 PUBLISH ORD 2010 -13 239910 1259369 1120.6120 243.10 PUBLISH ORD 2010 -12 239911 1256890 1120.6120 403.98 336567 7/812010 102925 SUPERIOR TECH PRODUCTS 1,736.18 GREENS FERTILIZER 240147 2743 -RGR 5422.6540 1,736.18 336568 7/8/2010 120998 SURLY BREWING CO. 800.00 240232 00364 5822.5514 800.00 ADVERTISING LEGAL ADVERTISING LEGAL ADVERTISING LEGAL FERTILIZER ICE ARENA BALANCE SHEET SANITARY LIFT STATION MAINT SANITARY LIFT STATION MAINT EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATION MAINT OF COURSE 8 GROUNDS COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 7/7/2010 11:30:07 Council Check Register Page - 24 7/8/2010 - 7/8/2010 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 336669 7/8/2010 122611 SWANK MOTION PICTURES INC. 778.83 MOVIES IN THE PARK 239856 RG1453978 5631.6136 PROFESSIONAL SVC - OTHER CENTENNIAL ADMINISTRATION 48.01 SHIPPING & HANDLING (MOVIES) 240148 RG1455813 5631.6136 PROFESSIONAL SVC - OTHER CENTENNIAL ADMINISTRATION 826.84 336570 71812010 126906 TAHERA, JAHERA WAWI 256.00 CLASS REFUND 240170 063010 5101.4607 CLASS REGISTRATION ART CENTER REVENUES 256.00 336671 718/2010 101027 TARGET 233.24 MONITOR, SUPPLIES 239991 061810 5410.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES GOLF ADMINISTRATION 233.24 336572 71812010 126223 TELECOM SUPERSTORE 205.51 DESKPHONE ADAPTER 00004340 240149 16425 1180.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES ELECTION 205.51 336573 718/2010 101326 TERMINAL SUPPLY CO 236.54 BULBS, FUSES, WIRE 00001044 239912 65372 -00 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 236.54 336574 7/8/2010 101029 TESSMAN SEED CO. 604.03 FINALES, RAZORS 00006267 240150 S129695 -IN 5422.6545 CHEMICALS MAINT OF COURSE 8 GROUNDS 604.03 336575 7/812010 126864 THOMSON; DOUGLAS 71.00 SUMMER CLASS REFUND 239913 062910 5511.6136 PROFESSIONAL SVC - OTHER ARENA BLDG /GROUNDS 71.00 336676 718/2010 101036 THORPE DISTRIBUTING COMPANY 293.85 239992 597300 5421.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER GRILL 435.00 239993 00771534 5421.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER GRILL 169.85 240043 597980 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 6,844.60 240044 597981 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 7,743.30 336677 7/812010 103331 TILSNER, DONNA 195.25 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 240151 070210 1600.6107 MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE PARK ADMIN. GENERAL 195.25 336678 7/812010 126907 TINNITUS AND HYPERACUSIS CLINI R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EilINA Council Check Register 7/812010 - 7/8/2010 Check # Date Amount Supplier/ Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 372.30 TESTING 240276 670 1314.6045 WORKERS COMPENSATION REPAIR PARTS REPAIR PARTS PHYSICAL EXAMINATIONS SOD & BLACK DIRT FIRST AID SUPPLIES CLEANING SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES PAPER SUPPLIES PAPER SUPPLIES REPAIR PARTS 71746.%) 11:30:07 Page - 25 Business Unit - STREET RENOVATION EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN FIRE DEPT. GENERAL MAINT OF COURSE 8 GROUNDS FIRE DEPT, GENERAL GRILL GRILL GRILL GRILL VERNON SELLING 50TH ST SELLING GOLF CARS COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING CLEANING SUPPLIES 372.30 COST OF GOODS SOLD POOL CONCESSIONS COST OF GOODS SOLD POOL CONCESSIONS CLEANING SUPPLIES 336579 ! 7/812010 - 118190 TURFWERKS LLC 58.10 ROCKER SWITCHES 00001051 239857 0121402 1553.6530 58.10 ROCKER SWITCH 00001051 240152 0121402A 1553.6530 116.20 336580 7/8/2010 123969 TWIN.CITIES OCCUPATIONAL HEALT 74.80 FITNESS FOR DUTY EXAM 239994 101677362 1470.6175 74.80 336681 7/8/2010 102160 TWIN CITY SEED CO. 855.00 SEED 00006440 240153 23355 5422.6543 855.00 336582 7/812010 122664 VALLEY NATIONAL GASES LLC - 58.08 OXYGEN 00003649 240154 854732 1470.6510 58.08 336583 . 718/2010 101068 VAN PAPER CO. 16.95 SOAP 00006347 239995 163846 -01 5421.6511 447.12 TOWELS, CUPS, TISSUE 00006347 239996 163846 -00 5421.6406 6.80 DISPENSERS 00006347 239997 162326 -02 5421.6406 " 67.92 CUPS 00006347 239998 163846 -02 5421.6406 • 422.85 LIQUOR BAGS 00007513 240155 164637 -00 5862.6512 409.27 LIQUOR BAGS 240156 164639 -00 5822.6512 1,370.91 336584 74/2010 101063 VERSATILE VEHICLES INC. 231.20 AXLE, TIE ROD 00006271 240157 48756 5423.6530 231.20 336585 7/8/2010 125327 VINOANDES 445.25 240233 1510 5842.5513 445.25 " 336586 7/8/2010 120627 VISTAR CORPORATION 57.16 CAN LINERS 239858 28473776 5311.6511 811.25 CONCESSION PRODUCT 239858 28473776 5320.5510 991.39 CONCESSION PRODUCT 239923 28496823 5320.5510 55.00 TISSUE 240158 28515924 5311.6511 REPAIR PARTS REPAIR PARTS PHYSICAL EXAMINATIONS SOD & BLACK DIRT FIRST AID SUPPLIES CLEANING SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES PAPER SUPPLIES PAPER SUPPLIES REPAIR PARTS 71746.%) 11:30:07 Page - 25 Business Unit - STREET RENOVATION EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN FIRE DEPT. GENERAL MAINT OF COURSE 8 GROUNDS FIRE DEPT, GENERAL GRILL GRILL GRILL GRILL VERNON SELLING 50TH ST SELLING GOLF CARS COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING CLEANING SUPPLIES POOL OPERATION COST OF GOODS SOLD POOL CONCESSIONS COST OF GOODS SOLD POOL CONCESSIONS CLEANING SUPPLIES POOL OPERATION R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register 7/8/2010 - 7/8/2010 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 683.75 CONCESSION PRODUCT 240158 28515924 5320.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD 1140.6103 5620.6620 5913.6103 1600.4390.26 1628.6406 1552.6530 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TREES, FLOWERS, SHRUBS 7/712010 11:30:07 Page - 26 Business Unit POOL CONCESSIONS PLANNING EDINBOROUGH PARK PROFESSIONAL SERVICES DISTRIBUTION GIN WEIDENFELLERS PROGRAMS PARK ADMIN. GENERAL GENERAL SUPPLIES REPAIR PARTS SENIOR CITIZENS CENT SVC PW BUILDING 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 2,398.55 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 336687 718/2010 VERNON SELLING 100023 VOGEL, ROBERT C. COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 2,250.00 3RD QTR CONSULTING 240165 210023 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 2,250.00 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 336688 7/812010 YORK SELLING 102886 WAGNERS COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 195.18 PLANTS 240159 111005 195.18 336689 7/8/2010 123616 WATER CONSERVATION SERVICE INC 445.50 LEAK SURVEYS 00005923 239951 1915 445.50 336690 7/8/2010 124140 WEIDENFELLER, VIRGENE 210.00 CLASS FEE 239885 062910 210.00 336691 7/8/2010 106440 WEIGLE, SUE 194.37 PETTY CASH 240160 062910 194.37 336692 718/2010 101078 WESTSIDE EQUIPMENT 222.61 REPAIRED GAS LINE 00001120 239859 0041296 -IN 222.61 336693 7/812010 101033 WINE COMPANY, THE 396.40 240045 245936 -00 1,370.90 240046 246069 -00 264.00- 240047 244416 -00 884.85 240234 245938 -00 2,388.15 336694 7/8/2010 101312 WINE MERCHANTS 1,120.00 240048 319164 2,391.43 240235 323294 5,849.60 240236 323298 199.71 240237 323296 919.81 240238 323295 6,970.93 240239 323297 17,451.48 1140.6103 5620.6620 5913.6103 1600.4390.26 1628.6406 1552.6530 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TREES, FLOWERS, SHRUBS 7/712010 11:30:07 Page - 26 Business Unit POOL CONCESSIONS PLANNING EDINBOROUGH PARK PROFESSIONAL SERVICES DISTRIBUTION GIN WEIDENFELLERS PROGRAMS PARK ADMIN. GENERAL GENERAL SUPPLIES REPAIR PARTS SENIOR CITIZENS CENT SVC PW BUILDING 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF FOINA 717/2u10 11:30:07 Council Check Register Page - 27 7/8/2010 - 7/8/2010 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 336696 718/2010 124291 WIRTZ BEVERAGE MINNESOTA 65.10 240049 420585 5822.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 50TH ST SELLING 765.12 240050 420584 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 6,489.49 240051 420581 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD VINE VERNON SELLING 2,664.15 240052 418970 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD VINE VERNON SELLING 78.15 240053 420582 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 1.15- 240054 804671 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 16,043.69 240240 420588 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 3,593.08 240241 420589 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 314.32 240242 421667 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 7,945.20 240243 420586 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 746.60 240244 420419 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 3,404.09 240245 420580 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 532.60 240246 420420 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 5,468.75 240247 420578 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 1,817.96 240248 420579 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 7,309.05 240249 420577 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 4,570.35 240250 420583 5822.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING 150.99 240251 421119 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 6,741.47 240252 420587 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 68,699.01 336696 718/2010 124629 WIRTZ BEVERAGE MINNESOTA BEER 112.00 239999 624838 5430.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER RICHARDS GOLF COURSE 494.00 240000 625323 5421.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER GRILL 4,296.95 240055 625826 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 60.00 240056 626570 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 1,911.84 240253 627186 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 7,199.95 240254 626569 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 14,074.74 336697 7/8/2010 101082 WITTEK GOLF SUPPLY 389.55 GOLF PENCILS 00006054 240001 243886 5410.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES GOLF ADMINISTRATION 389.55 336698 7/8/2010 101086 WORLD CLASS WINES INC 821.55 240057 250407 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD VINE 50TH ST SELLING 2,003.30 240058 250409 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD VINE VERNON SELLING 2,744.95 240255 250408 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 5,569.80 R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 717/2010 11:30:07 Council Check Register Page - 28 7/8/2010 - 7/8/2010 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 336600 7/812010 101726 XCEL ENERGY 33.42 51- 8997917 -7 239860 243800884 1321.6185 LIGHT & POWER STREET LIGHTING REGULAR 43.84 51- 8976004 -9 239861 243961671 1321.6185 LIGHT & POWER STREET LIGHTING REGULAR 289.68 51- 8324712 -5 239862 243792204 1321.6185 LIGHT & POWER STREET LIGHTING REGULAR 35.96 51- 6892224 -5 239863 243769503 1321.6185 LIGHT & POWER STREET LIGHTING REGULAR 220.16 51- 9251919-0 239864 243806317 5650.6185 LIGHT & POWER PROMENADE 2,260.42 51- 9603061 -0 239865 243978498 1552.6185 LIGHT & POWER CENT SVC PW BUILDING 78.56 51- 9422326 -6 239866 243972826 1322.6185 LIGHT & POWER STREET LIGHTING ORNAMENTAL 123.49 51- 9337452 -8 239867 243969139 1321.6185 LIGHT & POWER STREET LIGHTING REGULAR 144.08 51- 8987646 -8 239868 243960337 1321.6185 LIGHT & POWER STREET LIGHTING REGULAR 185.66 51- 6541084 -2 239869 243920424 1646.6185 LIGHT & POWER BUILDING MAINTENANCE 74.64 51- 8526048 -8 239870 243794924 1322.6185 LIGHT & POWER STREET LIGHTING ORNAMENTAL 1,201.28 51- 6223269 -1 239871 243754829 5210.6185 LIGHT & POWER GOLF DOME PROGRAM 59.71 51- 6692497 -0 239872 243763590 1460.6185 LIGHT & POWER CIVILIAN DEFENSE 1,353.08 51- 5107681 -4 239873 243731143 5111.6185 LIGHT & POWER ART CENTER BLDG /MAINT 2,301.01 51- 5547446 -1 239874 243901958 1628.6185 LIGHT & POWER SENIOR CITIZENS 54.69 51- 4420190 -3 239875 243399632 1321.6185 LIGHT & POWER STREET LIGHTING REGULAR 95.76 51- 5005454 -3 239876 243729624 5913.6185 LIGHT & POWER DISTRIBUTION 9.08 51- 6050184 -2 239877 243751553 4086.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AQUATIC WEEDS 3,228.82 51- 9011854 -4 239878 243801425 5913.6185 LIGHT & POWER DISTRIBUTION 41.62 51- 9608462 -5 239879 243981713 5921.6185 LIGHT & POWER SANITARY LIFT STATION MAINT 30,037.13 51- 4621797 -2 239914 244064752 1321.6185 LIGHT & POWER STREET LIGHTING REGULAR 33.66 51- 8102668 -0 239915 244122387 1321.6185 LIGHT & POWER STREET LIGHTING REGULAR 3,648.39 51 -4827232 -6 239916 244065619 5311.6185 LIGHT & POWER POOL OPERATION 2,802.04 51- 4159265 -8 240161 243714625 7411.6185 LIGHT & POWER PSTF OCCUPANCY 1,148.27 51- 5847121 -5 240273 244601841 5914.6185 LIGHT & POWER TANKS TOWERS & RESERVOIR 16,108.04 51- 4888627 -1 240274 244586947 5511.6185 LIGHT & POWER ARENA BLDG /GROUNDS 65,612.49 336601 7/812010 119647 YOCUM OIL COMPANY INC. 7,317.17 UNLEADED FUEL 00001010 239952 986754 1553.6581 GASOLINE EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 440.63 GASOLINE 00006403 240162 986699 5423.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES GOLF CARS 1,044.90 DIESEL 00006404 240163 986698 5422.6581 GASOLINE MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS 779.65 GASOLINE 00006403 240164 986697 5422.6581 GASOLINE MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS 9,582.35 336602 71812010 101091 ZIEGLER INC 2,180.00 GENERATOR TESTING 239917 SW050150375 1551.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS CITY HALL GENERAL 2,180.00 562,161.28 Grand Total Payment Instrument Totals CITY MA R55CKREG - JG20000 Council Check Register 718/2010 — 7/8/2010 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Check Total 562,161.28 Total Payments 562,161.28 i'. 1 11:30:07 Page - 29 R55CKSUM LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Summary 7/8/2010 - 7/8/2010 Company Amount 01000 GENERAL FUND 155,394.45 02200 COMMUNICATIONS FUND 1,272.47 04000 WORKING CAPITAL FUND 14,138.99 04200 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND 140.01 05100 ART CENTER FUND 3,043.49 05200 GOLF DOME FUND 1,201.28 05300 AQUATIC CENTER FUND 13,384.05 05400 GOLF COURSE FUND 32,349.66 05500 ICE ARENA FUND 24,708.08 05600 EDINBOROUGH /CENT LAKES FUND 26,501.48 05800 LIQUOR FUND 245,470.43 05900 UTILITY FUND 27,942.73 05930 STORM SEWER FUND 266.71 07400 PSTF AGENCY FUND 16,347.45 Report Totals 562,161.28 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 popcigs and procedures data71 7(7/2010 11:30:53 Page - 1 R55CKREG LOG20000 100058 ALLIED WASTE SERVICES #894 530.39 CITY OF EDINA .00001917 240420• 34002 1643.6541 PLANTINGS &TREES.` GENERAL TURF CARE Council Check Register 2,500.00 530.39 " 336612 7/1512010 105086 AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSOCIATI 94.90 7/15/2010 — 7115/2010 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description ' 336603 7/15/2010 100611 A TO Z RENTAL CENTER 2,611.62 'JANITORIAL SERVICES 240495 90.45 PAINT SPRAYER 00005964 240689 32484 1646.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 90.45 336604 711612010 101833 A.T.O.M. 7/1612010 102971 ACE ICE COMPANY 80.00 TRAINING 240494.. '21695931 1400:6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS 80.00 240300 0812836 336605 7/15/2010 50TH ST SELLING 102403 AAA LAMBERTS LANDSCAPE PRODUCT 105.40 7/14/2010 7:56:33 Page- 1 Business Unit BUILDING MAINTENANCE POLICE;DEPT. GENERAL - 336610 7/16/2010 100058 ALLIED WASTE SERVICES #894 530.39 TREE MULCH .00001917 240420• 34002 1643.6541 PLANTINGS &TREES.` GENERAL TURF CARE BRAEMAR STORAGE SHED 00005592 240691 SHED 1646.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 2,500.00 530.39 " 336612 7/1512010 105086 AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSOCIATI 94.90 TRAINING BOOKS •00005900 240496 7000239494 5913.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 336606 ,- 7/16/2010 124613 ABM JANITORIAL - NORTH CENTRAL 2,611.62 'JANITORIAL SERVICES 240495 1380876 1551.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CITY HALL GENERAL 2,611.62 336607 7/1612010 102971 ACE ICE COMPANY 83.00 -- 240300 0812836 5822.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD -MIX 50TH ST SELLING 105.40 24030T 0812835 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 55.00 240302 0812840 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 40.20 240303 0806640 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 283.60 336608 7/16/2010 119813 AERIAL PAINTING INC. 3,500.00 PAINT LIGHT POLES 00001166 240374 100100 1330.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS TRAFFIC SIGNALS 3,500.00 336609 7/1612010 111228 ALDEN POOL & MUNICIPAL SUPPLY f 767.90 CHLORINE PUMP 00001137 240375: 100309 5915.6530 REPAIR PARTS WATER TREATMENT - 855.00 1 622 90 CHLORINE SCALE 00005801 240376 - 100258 5915.6530 REPAIR PARTS WATER TREATMENT., 336610 7/16/2010 100058 ALLIED WASTE SERVICES #894 37,683.00 RECYCLING 240690 2208542 5952.6183 RECYCLING CHARGES 37,683.00 336611 7/1612010 105760 AMERICAN SURPLUS 2,500.00 BRAEMAR STORAGE SHED 00005592 240691 SHED 1646.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 2,500.00 336612 7/1512010 105086 AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSOCIATI 94.90 TRAINING BOOKS •00005900 240496 7000239494 5913.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES RECYCLING BUILDING MAINTENANCE DISTRIBUTION R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 7/14/2010 7:56:33 Council Check Register page - 2 7/15/2010 -7/15/2010 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 94.90 336613 7115/2010 101116 AMERIPRIDE SERVICES 49.00 240377 063010 5821.6201 LAUNDRY 50TH ST OCCUPANCY 52.10 240377 063010 5841.6201 LAUNDRY YORK OCCUPANCY 107.54 240377 063010 5861.6201 LAUNDRY VERNON OCCUPANCY 143.56 240377 063010 1470.6201 LAUNDRY FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 149.95 240377 063010 5421.6201 LAUNDRY GRILL 230.87 240377 063010 1551.6201 LAUNDRY CITY HALL GENERAL 279.00 240377 063010 1470.6201 LAUNDRY FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 1,012.02 336614 7/16/2010 100665 AMSAN 498.79 FLOOR SEALER 00002100 240692 225986330 5620.6511 CLEANING SUPPLIES EDINBOROUGH PARK 498.79 336616 7/16/2010 101601 AMUNDSON, ERIK 300.00 TUITION REIMBURSEMENT 240497 062910 1400.6104 CONFERENCES 8 SCHOOLS POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 300.00 336616 711612010 102172 APPERTS FOODSERVICE 1,468.53 FOOD 240498 1384380 5421.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD GRILL 1,468.53 336617 711612010 104236 APPLIED MEDIA 100.00 PERFORMANCE 7/20/10 240757 070110 5631.6136 PROFESSIONAL SVC - OTHER CENTENNIAL ADMINISTRATION 100.00 336618 7/1612010 100632 AQUA ENGINEERING 923.81 SPRINKLER REPAIR 240652 37367 01362.1705.30 CONTRACTOR PAYMENTS BA -362 PARKWOOD KNOLLS 803.23 SPRINKLER REPAIR 240653 37338.6228 01362.1705.30 CONTRACTOR PAYMENTS BA -362 PARKWOOD KNOLLS 368.60 SPRINKLER REPAIR 240654 37339.6209 01362.1705.30 CONTRACTOR PAYMENTS BA -362 PARKWOOD KNOLLS 184.19 SPRINKLER REPAIR 00005412 240655 37270 01214.1705.30 CONTRACTOR PAYMENTS PHASE 2 DREXEL, WOODDALE, EDIN 2,279.83 336619 7/16/2010 103680 ARAMARK REFRESHMENT SRVCS 226.08 COFFEE 240499 416813 1550.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 226.08 336620 711612010 102774 ASPEN WASTE SYSTEMS 452.93 240500 070110 5311.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES POOL OPERATION 191.23 240693 JUL1 12010 7411.6182 RUBBISH REMOVAL PSTF OCCUPANCY R55CKREG LOG20000 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register 7/15/2010 -7/15/2010 PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 4091.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 644.16 GENERAL SUPPLIES 4091.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 4091.6406 336621 7/1512010 101343 BEHR, JASON 100638 BACHMAN'S 50TH ST SELLING 5822.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 449.86 K9 CLASS EXPENSES 121.50 PURPLE FOUNTAIN GRASS 00001022 240450 B00496 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 614.96 ROSES 00001022 240451 21760 614.96 ROSES 00001118 240452 21876 53889700 512.93 PLANTS 00001156 240453 22087 1,864.35 240306 53893200 336622 7/1612010 103241 BALDINGER, WENDY 53889500 54.48 150.00 PERFORMANCE 7 /22/10 240760 070110 240309 150.00 285.21 336623 711612010 126893 BARNES DISTRIBUTION 283.35 240787 53893300 76.40 DEGREASER 00006060 240501 2124671001 76.40 336627 336624 7/16/2010 117379 BENIEK PROPERTY SERVICES INC. 100643 BARR ENGINEERING CO. 4091.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 4091.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 4091.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 4091.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 5631.6136 5421.6511 1,534.00 WATER RESOURSES MGMT PLAN 240656 23271072.00 -9 5913.6103 7/14/2010 7:56:33 Page - 3 Business Unit GRANDVIEW MAINTENANCE GRANDVIEW MAINTENANCE GRANDVIEW MAINTENANCE GRANDVIEW MAINTENANCE PROFESSIONAL SVC - OTHER CENTENNIAL ADMINISTRATION CLEANING SUPPLIES GRILL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES DISTRIBUTION 1400.6104 CONFERENCES 8 SCHOOLS POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 1,534.00 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 336626 7116/2010 50TH ST SELLING 101343 BEHR, JASON COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 50TH ST SELLING 5822.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 449.86 K9 CLASS EXPENSES 240502 062910 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 449.86 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 336626 7/16/2010 YORK SELLING 101366 BELLBOY CORPORATION 481.30 240304 53889700 240.15 240305 53889400 245.05 240306 53893200 74.10 240307 53889500 54.48 240308 83860800 6.30 240309 83860900 285.21 240309 83860900 283.35 240787 53893300 20.50 240788 53889600 1,690.44 336627 7/16/2010 117379 BENIEK PROPERTY SERVICES INC. 555.75 LAWN CARE 240694 135772 555.75 336628 7/16/2010 100661 BENN, BRADLEY 7/14/2010 7:56:33 Page - 3 Business Unit GRANDVIEW MAINTENANCE GRANDVIEW MAINTENANCE GRANDVIEW MAINTENANCE GRANDVIEW MAINTENANCE PROFESSIONAL SVC - OTHER CENTENNIAL ADMINISTRATION CLEANING SUPPLIES GRILL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES DISTRIBUTION 1400.6104 CONFERENCES 8 SCHOOLS POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 5822.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING 5822.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 50TH ST SELLING 5822.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 50TH ST SELLING 5842.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES YORK SELLING 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 7411.6136 SNOW & LAWN CARE PSTF OCCUPANCY R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register 7/15/2010 - 7/15/2010 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 137.15 ARTWORK SOLD 240743 070810 5101.4413 ARTWORK SOLD GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RUBBISH REMOVAL RUBBISH REMOVAL RUBBISH REMOVAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES FIRST AID SUPPLIES FIRST AID SUPPLIES REPAIR PARTS ART WORK SOLD 7/14/2010 7:56:33 Page - 4 Business Unit ART CENTER REVENUES CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL POLICE DEPT. GENERAL PLANNING FIELD MAINTENANCE FIELD MAINTENANCE FIELD MAINTENANCE SPECIAL ACTIVITIES RICHARDS GOLF COURSE MAINT OF COURSE 8 GROUNDS MAINT OF COURSE 8 GROUNDS SPECIAL ACTIVITIES GENERAL TURF CARE STREET LIGHTING ORNAMENTAL FIRE DEPT. GENERAL FIRE DEPT. GENERAL EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN ART CENTER REVENUES 137.15 336629 7116/2010 100648 BERTELSON OFFICE PRODUCTS 309.36 SELF -SEAL MAILERS 240503 W0-630407 -1 1550.6406 30.03 CUSTOM STAMP 240504 IN -18999 1400.6406 20.12 FILE POCKETS 240765 OE- 225817 -1 1140.6406 359.51 336630 7/16/2010 119679 BIXBY PORTABLE TOILET SERVICE 34.34 TOILET SERVICE 00001089 240454 21662 1642.6103 34.34 TOILET SERVICE 00001090 240455 21661 1642.6103 94.34 TOILET SERVICE 00001091 240456 21660 1642.6103 523.44 TOILET SERVICE - JULY 4TH 00001092 240457 21667 1627.6103 34.34 TOILET SERVICE 240505 21355 5430.6182 65.19 TOILET SERVICE 240506 21354 5422.6182 65.19 TOILET SERVICE 240507 21353 5422.6182 523.44 4TH OF JULY EVENT 240766 21666 1627.6103 1,374.62 336631 7116/2010 122688 BMK SOLUTIONS 88.85 GREENHOUSE SUPPLIES 00001119 240378 60858 1643.6406 88.85 336632 7/16/2010 101010 BORDER STATES ELECTRIC SUPPLY 958.86 LAMPS 00005558 240458 901030924 1322.6406 958.86 336633 7116/2010 105367 BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC 878.22 AMBULANCE SUPPLIES 00003740 240459 87157011 1470.6510 2,373.90 AMBULANCE SUPPLIES 00003751 240460 87157012 1470.6510 3,252.12 336634 7116/2010 100659 BOYER TRUCK PARTS 7.19 WIRE 00001067 240461 419621 1553.6530 7.19 336635 711612010 120867 BRANT, CAROL 32.50 ART WORK SOLD 240744 070810 5101.4413 32.50 336636 7/161' 100664 BRAUN INTERTEC GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RUBBISH REMOVAL RUBBISH REMOVAL RUBBISH REMOVAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES FIRST AID SUPPLIES FIRST AID SUPPLIES REPAIR PARTS ART WORK SOLD 7/14/2010 7:56:33 Page - 4 Business Unit ART CENTER REVENUES CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL POLICE DEPT. GENERAL PLANNING FIELD MAINTENANCE FIELD MAINTENANCE FIELD MAINTENANCE SPECIAL ACTIVITIES RICHARDS GOLF COURSE MAINT OF COURSE 8 GROUNDS MAINT OF COURSE 8 GROUNDS SPECIAL ACTIVITIES GENERAL TURF CARE STREET LIGHTING ORNAMENTAL FIRE DEPT. GENERAL FIRE DEPT. GENERAL EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN ART CENTER REVENUES R55CKREG LOG20000 5,999.00 CITY OF EDINA 336637 7/16/2010 Council Check Register 100667 BROCK WHITE COMPANY 7/15/2010 - 7/15/2010 400.78 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 292.00 MATERIALS TESTING 240657 321037 01360.1705.20 CONSULTING DESIGN 611.00 MATERIALS TESTING 240657 321037 04358.1705.20 CONSULTING DESIGN 2,365.00 MATERIALS TESTING 240658 321038 01362.1705.20 CONSULTING DESIGN 1,365.50 MATERIALS TESTING 240659 321040 01374.1705.20 CONSULTING DESIGN 1,365.50 MATERIALS TESTING 240659 321040 01361.1705.20 CONSULTING DESIGN 4402.6710 4402.6710 5101.4413 1642.6542 5311.6511 5311.6406 5311.6180 5822.5515 5822.5514 5842.5514 5842.5515 5822.5515 5822.5514 5101.4413 1400.6160 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT ART WORK SOLD INFIELD MIXTURE CLEANING SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES CONTRACTED REPAIRS COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER ART WORK SOLD DATA PROCESSING 7114/2010 7:56:33 Page- 5 Business Unit BA -360 PAMELA PARK N'HOOD STS -358 PAMELA PARK BA -362 PARKWOOD KNOLLS BA -374 INTERLACHEN BLUFF BA -361 INTERLACHEN CIRCLE PW BUILDING PW BUILDING ART CENTER REVENUES FIELD MAINTENANCE POOL OPERATION POOL OPERATION POOL OPERATION 50TH ST SELLING 50TH ST SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING 50TH ST SELLING 50TH ST SELLING ART CENTER REVENUES POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 5,999.00 336637 7/16/2010 100667 BROCK WHITE COMPANY 400.78 BERM AT NEW PW BLDG 240660 11984670 -00 480.94 BERM AT NEW PW BLDG 240661 11985102 -00 881.72 336638 7116/2010 100873 BROCKWAY, MAUREEN 63.70 ART WORK SOLD 240745 070810 63.70 336639 7116/2010 100669 BRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS INC. 515.01 AG -LIME 00005962 240379 063010 515.01 336640 7116 /2010 104649 BRYAN, BILL 42.88 REIMBURSEMENT 240767 071210 143.21 REIMBURSEMENT 240767 071210 510.00 REIMBURSEMENT 240767 071210 696.09 336641 711612010 119465 CAPITOL BEVERAGE SALES 14.65 240310 11271 970.45 240311 11270 4,761.00 240312 11380 27.35 240313 11381 89.60 240568 11375 1,251.85 240569 11377 7,114.90 336642 7116/2010 126664 CARMODY SMITH, PATTY 211.25 ART WORK SOLD 240752 070810 211.25 336643 7/16/2010 102372 CDW GOVERNMENT INC. 490.37 SUPPORT LICENSE 240508 SZL9490 490.37 4402.6710 4402.6710 5101.4413 1642.6542 5311.6511 5311.6406 5311.6180 5822.5515 5822.5514 5842.5514 5842.5515 5822.5515 5822.5514 5101.4413 1400.6160 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT ART WORK SOLD INFIELD MIXTURE CLEANING SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES CONTRACTED REPAIRS COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER ART WORK SOLD DATA PROCESSING 7114/2010 7:56:33 Page- 5 Business Unit BA -360 PAMELA PARK N'HOOD STS -358 PAMELA PARK BA -362 PARKWOOD KNOLLS BA -374 INTERLACHEN BLUFF BA -361 INTERLACHEN CIRCLE PW BUILDING PW BUILDING ART CENTER REVENUES FIELD MAINTENANCE POOL OPERATION POOL OPERATION POOL OPERATION 50TH ST SELLING 50TH ST SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING 50TH ST SELLING 50TH ST SELLING ART CENTER REVENUES POLICE DEPT. GENERAL R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 7/14/2010 7:56:33 Council Check Register Page - 6 7/15/2010 - 7/1512010 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 336644 7/16/2010 119661 CENTRAL ENVELOPE CORPORATION 28.00 ADVERTISING COUPONS 240695 68412 5621.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER EDINBOROUGH ADMINISTRATION 28.00 336646 7116/2010 119726 CHISAGO LAKES DISTRIBUTING CO 135.00 240314 421985 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING 135.00 336646 7/1612010 123148 CHRISTIANSEN, STEVE 46.43 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 240509 070810 2210.6107 MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE COMMUNICATIONS 46.43 336647 7/16/2010 100684 CITY OF BLOOMINGTON 9,682.75 EMERGENCY SERVICES CONTRACT 240380 070110 4204.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES HEALTH ALERT NETWORK 9,050.50 PHER IHI 240381 JUL1 4205.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PUBLIC HEALTH GRANT PHASE 1 &2 17,494.75 PHER 111 240381 JUL1 4206.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PUBLIC HEALTH GRANT PHASE 3 36,228.00 336648 7116/2010 100687 CITY OF RICHFIELD 375.13 % OF ELECTRICAL FOR LS 240696 4478 5934.6185 LIGHT & POWER STORM LIFT STATION MAINT 375.13 336649 7/1612010 105693 CITYSPRINT 220.98 COURIER SERVICE 240382 19245 1100.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CITY COUNCIL 220.98 336660 7/1612010 100689 CLAREYS SAFETY EQUIP. 673.32 AIR TEST CHIPS 00003412 240462 132335 1470.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 673.32 336651 7/16/2010 120747 CMS 90.00 DRUG TESTING 240697 062010532294 1550.6121 ADVERTISING PERSONNEL CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 90.00 336652 7/16/2010 100692 COCA -COLA BOTTLING CO. 190.10 240315, 0185834610 5822.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 50TH ST SELLING 190.10 336663 711612010 120433 COMCAST 82.59 8772 10 614 0164959 240510 164959 -6/10 5430.6188 TELEPHONE RICHARDS GOLF COURSE 88.26 8772 10 614 0177449 240511 177449 -6/10 5420.6188 TELEPHONE CLUB HOUSE CITY OF EDINA 7/14/2010 7:56:33 R55CKREG LOG20000 Council Check Register Page - 7 7/15/2010 - 7/15/2010 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 170.85 < 336654 7/16/2010 120826 COMCAST SPOTLIGHT 557.00 CABLE TV ADVERTISING 240698 280924,25,26 5822.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER 50TH ST SELLING • _ 557.00 CABLE TV ADVERTISING 240698 280924,25,26 5842.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER • YORK SELLING 557.00 CABLE TV ADVERTISING 240698 280924,25,26 5862.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER VERNON SELLING 1,671.00 1 336656 7/1612010,- 100697 COOL AIR MECHANICAL INC. 132,656.10 ' BRAEMAR ARENA IMPROVEMENTS 240463 APPL #5 5500.1705 CONSTR. IN PROGRESS ICE ARENA BALANCE SHEET 132,656.10 336666 711612010 124910 COURSE TRENDS INC. 100.00 EMAIL MARKETING 240512 166514 5410.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER GOLF ADMINISTRATION 100.00 336657 - 7_11612010 100699 CULLIGAN BOTTLED WATER 90.52 114 - 09855685-4' WATER 240699 1299063 7411.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES PSTF OCCUPANCY 90.52 336658 711612010 100701 CUSHMAN MOTOR CO. INC. 89.36 FUEL PUMP KIT 00005771 240383 150453 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 94:52 CABLE ASSEMBLY 00001127 240384 150469 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 183.88 336669 7/16/2010 124231 D. ERVASTI SALES CO. 1,967.03 INFIELD DRYING AGENT - 00001093 240464 10648 1642.6542 INFIELD MIXTURE - - FIELD MAINTENANCE 1,967.03 336660 711612010 104020'`. DALCO 334.28 CLEANING SUPPLIES 00001135 240465 2226778 1646.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES BUILDING MAINTENANCE 334.28 336661 7/16/2010 103176 DANICIC, JOHN 63.70 ART WORK SOLD 240746 070810 5101.4413 ART WORK SOLD ART CENTER REVENUES 63.70 336662 - 7/16/2010 102478 DAY DISTRIBUTING CO. 44.80 240316 558242 5822.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 50TH ST SELLING - 1,223.82 240317 558240 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING 789.00 240318 558241 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING 683.50 240319 558245 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 7/14/2010 7:56:33 Council Check Register Page - 8 7/15/2010 - 7/15/2010 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 2,244.35 240320 559150 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 2,957.60 240570 559147 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 1,032.05 240571 559149 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING 8,975.12 336663 711512010 100720 DENNYS 6TH AVE. BAKERY 54.36 BAKERY 240513 337851 5421.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD GRILL 85.54 BAKERY 240514 337948 5421.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD GRILL 89.68 BAKERY 240515 337949 5421.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD GRILL 49.21 BAKERY 240516 338121 5421.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD GRILL 61.82 BAKERY 240517 338256 5421.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD GRILL 340.61 336664 7/1512010 101947 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY 1,920.00 2ND QTR 240518 P07MD02706000L 1400.6204 TELETYPE SERVICE POLICE DEPT, GENERAL 1,920.00 336665 7/16/2010 102831 DEX MEDIA EAST INC. 115.40 240700 110311867 -6/10 5621.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER EDINBOROUGH ADMINISTRATION 550.80 00006064 240768 110311893 -6/10 5410.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER GOLF ADMINISTRATION 666.20 336666 7/16/2010 123162 DISH NETWORK 38.49 8255 70 708 1422839 240701 070410 7411.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES PSTF OCCUPANCY 38.49 336667 7/16/2010 124438 DONNAY HOMES 47.16 UTILITY REFUND 240762 5913 CONCORD 5900.2015 CUSTOMER REFUND UTILITY BALANCE SHEET AVE 47.16 336668 7/16/2010 123187 DORCAS WIDOWS FUND 117.00 ART WORK SOLD 240747 070810 5101.4413 ART WORK SOLD ART CENTER REVENUES 117.00 336669 7/16/2010 126919 DOUVILLE, BRENDA 260.00 CLASS REFUND 240764 070710 5101.4607 CLASS REGISTRATION ART CENTER REVENUES 260.00 336670 7116/2010 100740 EARL F. ANDERSEN INC. 358.41 PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT 00005947 240702 0091988 -IN 1647.6530 REPAIR PARTS PATHS & HARD SURFACE 358.41 R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY. OF EDINA Council Check Register f 7/15/2010 — 7/15/2010 " Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No 336671 7/16/2010 - 124603,, EDEN PRAIRIE WINLECTRIC CO. . 269.58 CONNECTORS;-WIRING 00001125 240385 07309200 1460.6230 40.03 SIREN WIRING 00001139 "240366 07315000 1460.6230 309.61 336672 7/16/2010 113116 EDINA CHEERLEADING 1,360.00 CHEERLEADING CAMP 240703 070810 1600.4390.25 1,360.00 336673 7/16/2010 106467 EDINA CRIME PREVENTION FUND - 4,075.00 'ART FAIR CREDIT CARD RECEIPTS 240466 070810 5101.4607 4,075.00 336674 7/16/2010 101966 EMERGENCY APPARATUS MAINTENANC 1,842.85"' 'T -90 REPAIRS 240467 49664 1470.6180 1,842 ;85 336675 7/1612010 121440 EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS NETWO 6,250.00 -, RED CODE SYSTEM RENEWAL 240769 070910 2340.6230 6,250.00 336676 711612010 104733 EMERGENCY MEDICAL PRODUCTS INC 1,237.81 AMBULANCE SUPPLIES 00003712 240468` - • 1285861 1470.6510 1,237.81 336677 7/16/2010 126914 EMERSON NETWORK POWER - 4,504.17 ELECTRICAL AT NEW PW BLDG 00005213 240662 S13555463 4402.6710 4;504.17 ' 336678 7/15/2010 123791." ERICKSON, MINDY 84.50, ART WORK SOLD 240748 070810 5101.4413 84.50 336679 7/1612010 101476 EVERGREEN:LAND SERVICES 1,540.50 ROW ACQUISITION 240663' 00 -9931 07101.1705.20 1,540.50 336680 7/15/2010 100018 - EXPERT T BILLING 5,304.50 JUNE TRANSPORTS. 240387 070110 1470.6103 5,304.50 7114/2010 7:56:33 Page- 9 Subledger Account Description Business Unit SERVICE CONTRACTS EQUIPMENT CIVILIAN DEFENSE SERVICE CONTRACTS EQUIPMENT CIVILIAN DEFENSE CHEERLEEDING CAMP PARK ADMIN. GENERAL CLASS REGISTRATION CONTRACTED REPAIRS ART CENTER REVENUES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL SERVICE CONTRACTS EQUIPMENT DWI FORFEITURE FIRST AID SUPPLIES EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT ART WORK SOLD CONSULTING; ESIGN ` PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL PW BUILDING ART CENTER REVENUES S101 FRANCE AVE 48TH - SUNNYSIDE FIRE DEPT. GENERAL R55CKREG LOG20000 2,100.00 SOUND SYSTEM FOR JULY 4TH CITY OF EDINA EDINA4TH 1647.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PATHS & HARD SURFACE Council Check Register 7/15/2010 - 7/15/2010 336684 7/16/2010 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 336681 7/16/2010 41.25 100146 FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY 240770 115149 5841.6162 SERVICES CUSTODIANS 251.80 CONDENSER 00001069 240469 69- 014841 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS 88.00 A/C HOSE 00001068 240470 69- 014819 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS 120831 FIRST SCRIBE INC. 339.80 336682 7/16/2010 425.00 126004 FERGUSON WATERWORKS 240664 19831 1260.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 64.38 FITTINGS 00005897 240388 S01256409.002 5913.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 64.38 336686 7/16/2010 336683 7/16/2010 126909 FETTE PRODUCTIONS 7/14/2010 7:56:33 Page- 10 Business Unit EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN EQUIPMENT OPERATION-GEN DISTRIBUTION 2,100.00 SOUND SYSTEM FOR JULY 4TH 00007164 240389 EDINA4TH 1647.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PATHS & HARD SURFACE 2,100.00 336684 7/16/2010 105420 FIKES SERVICES 41.25 AIR DEODORIZERS 240770 115149 5841.6162 SERVICES CUSTODIANS YORK OCCUPANCY 41.25 336685 7115/2010 120831 FIRST SCRIBE INC. 425.00 ROWAY 240664 19831 1260.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ENGINEERING GENERAL 425.00 336686 7/16/2010 101612 FLEXIBLE PIPE TOOL COMPANY 434.75 WIRELESS RECEIVER 00005440 240390 13411 5923.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES COLLECTION SYSTEMS 9,854.94 PUSH CAMERA 00005439 240391 13410 5923.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES COLLECTION SYSTEMS 10,289.69 336687 711612010 100764 G & K SERVICES 65.97 SHOP RAGS 240771 1006416955 5422.6201 LAUNDRY MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS 65.97 240772 1006438843 5422.6201 LAUNDRY MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS 65.97 240773 1006460846 5422.6201 LAUNDRY MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS 197.91 336688 7/16/2010 102419 GARDEN & ASSOCIATES INC 110.00 INTERPRETER 240704 88531 1400.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 110.00 336689 711612010 106608 GEMPLER'S INC. 39.00 SHIPPING 00005941 240392 1015673712 1646.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES BUILDING MAINTENANCE 227.00 TREE IRRIGATION TUBES 00005941 240393 1015676597 1644.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES TREES & MAINTENANCE 15.95 TREE WATERING TUBES 00005995 240394 1015704815 1644.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES TREES & MAINTENANCE 109.09 GARDENING GLOVES 00005956 240395 1015708304 1643.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL TURF CARE 382.55 TREE IRRIGATORS 00005995 240705 101570831 1644.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES TREES & MAINTENP R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register 7/15/2010 - 7/15/2010 Check # Date Amount Supplier/ Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 7/14/2010 7:56:33 Page - 11 773.59 336690 7/16/2010 103186 GERTENS 136.80 PLANTINGS 00005943 240706 201723 1644.6541 PLANTINGS &'TREES TREES & MAINTENANCE 136.80 336691 7/16/2010 101867 GETSINGER, DONNA 446.55 ART WORK SOLD 240749 070810 5101.4413 ART WORK SOLD ART CENTER REVENUES 446.55 336692 7/16/2010 124471 GOODPOINTE'TECHNOLOGY INC. 3,231.00 PCI PAVEMENT SURVEY 240665 1357 1260.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ENGINEERING- GENERAL 3,231.00 336693 7/16/2010 100780 GOPHER STATE ONE -CALL INC. 1,519.60 JUNE SERVICE 00005924 240396 0060478 5913.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES DISTRIBUTION ' 1,519.60 336694 7/1612010 114697 GOPHER STRIPING CO. 450.00 PARKING LOT STRIPING 00001100 240707 10058 1647.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PATHS &HARD SURFACE 450.00 336696 717612010 102646 GRAFFITI CONTROL SERVICES 169:93 GRAFFITI REMOVAL 00001099 240708 536 1646.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BUILDING MAINTENANCE 169.93 336696 7/16/2010 101103 GRAINGER 20.33 SAW BLADES 00001059 240397 9287699798 1553.6556 TOOLS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN. 55.58 SAW BLADES 00001059 240398 9287699780 1553.6556 TOOLS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 12.66 FUSE PULLERS 00001035 240399 9286244158 5913.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES DISTRIBUTION 337.09 HAND TOOLS' 00001128 240400 - ..9288202501 5913.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES DISTRIBUTION 49.82 LEVEL 00001062 240401 9289869332 1553.6556 TOOLS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 219.84 GLOVES 00001138 240402 .. 9288776447 1646.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES BUILDING MAINTENANCE 439.68 GLOVES 00001138 240403 9289382989 1646.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES BUILDING MAINTENANCE 29.90 TRACK FAN 00002111 240709 9280663488_ 5620.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES'. EDINBOROUGH. PARK 1,164:90 336697 7116/2010 102670 GRAND PERE WINES INC 144.00 240572 00025308 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE • VERNON SELLING 144.00 336698 7116/2010 102217 GRAPE BEGINNINGS INC R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 7/14/2010 7:56:33 Council Check Register Page - 12 7115/2010 - 7/15/2010 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 531.25 240573 120321 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 531.25 336699 7/16/2010 100783 GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO. INC. 308.29 CONTACTOR & RELAY COILS 00001033 240404 948386688 1642.6556 TOOLS FIELD MAINTENANCE 351.78 SQUARE D BOXES 00005887 240405 948237682 1642.6556 TOOLS FIELD MAINTENANCE 660.07 336700 7/16/2010 114566 HARTKE, BRENDA 80.60 ART WORK SOLD 240750 070810 5101.4413 ART WORK SOLD ART CENTER REVENUES 80.60 336701 7116/2010 100797 HAWKINS INC. 991.23 CAUSTIC SODA 240406 3133302 5311.6545 CHEMICALS POOL OPERATION 991.23 336702 7/16/2010 126917 HAYES, SUSAN 74.75 ART WORK SOLD 240751 070810 5101.4413 ART WORK SOLD ART CENTER REVENUES 74.75 336703 7116/2010 101676 HEGGIES PIZZA 149.10 PIZZA 240519 1704781 5421.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD GRILL 149.10 336704 7116/2010 106436 HENNEPIN COUNTY INFORMATION 156.00 SILS /CAL SUPPORT 240520 210662124 1400.6160 DATA PROCESSING POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 80.11 TRANSACTION PROCESSING 240521 210662123 1190.6105 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS ASSESSING 236.11 336705 7/1612010 100801 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER 1,965.00 AERIAL PHOTOS 240666 514 1260.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ENGINEERING GENERAL 1,965.00 336706 711612010 116680 HEWLETT - PACKARD COMPANY 143.22 MONITOR 00004343 240407 47867348 5821.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 50TH ST OCCUPANCY 143.22 336707 7/1612010 103763 HILLYARD INC - MINNEAPOLIS 592.69 SOAP 00002215 240710 6368920 5620.6511 CLEANING SUPPLIES EDINBOROUGH PARK 592.69 336708 7/16/' 100606 HIRSHFIELD'S R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 7/14/2010 7:56:33 Council Check Register. Page- 13 711512010 - 7/15/2010 - Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 348.84" PAINT SUPPLIES 00005950 240711 020542984 1646.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES BUILDING MAINTENANCE 80.15 STAIN 00002119 240712 003399974 5620.6532 PAINT EDINBOROUGH PARK 428.99 336709 7/15/2010 104376 HOHENSTEINS INC. 885.92 240574 527298 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON- SELLING 460.50 240575 527280 5822.5514 COST OF'GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING 2,277.50 240576 527210- 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 222.00 240789 527459 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 3,845.92 336710 7116/2010 100417 HORIZON COMMERCIAL POOL SUPPLY-, 123.86 FILTER CLEANER 00002112 240713. 10062231 5620.6545 CHEMICALS EDINBOROUGH PARK 123.86 .. 336711 711512010 100814 INDELCO PLASTICS CORP. 64.81 FITTINGS 00001126 240408 612990 5912.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES - -. - WELL HOUSES 294.15 PIPE, FITTINGS, VALVES 00001136 240409 613229 5912.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES WELL'HOUSES - 10.48 IRRIGATION PARTS 00005954 240714 612332 1643.6530 REPAIR PARTS GENERAL TURF CARE 369:44 336712 7/16/2010. 122269 IPROMOTEU INC. 425.81 FIRE TATTOOS _ 00003756 240471 338778MPT 1470.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 425.81 336713 7/16/2010 102167 JEFF ELLIS & ASSOCIATES INC. 748.00 SAFETY AUDIT 240410 20046803 5310.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES POOL ADMINISTRATION 748.00 336714 711612010 103067 JENSON, THOMAS 105.85 LUNCH FOR PARADE WORKERS 240472 070710 1470.6106 MEETING EXPENSE FIRE DEPT: GENERAL 105.85 • 336716 711612010 100.828 JERRY S FOODS 1.45 240411 063010 4075.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD- -VANVALKENBURG -7.98 240411,` 063010 1400.6106 MEETING EXPENSE POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 14.61 240411 063010 1470.6510 FIRST AID SUPPLIES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 33.39 240411 063010 1624.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES PLAYGROUND & THEATER _ 56.24 240411 063010 1470.4760 DONATIONS - GOVT FUND FIRE'DEPT. GENERAL 67.04 240411 063010 5421.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD GRILL 90.45 240411 063010 1400.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 271.16 R55CKREG LOG20000 Check # Date 336716 711612010 Amount Supplier / Explanation EDINA 100830 JERRY S PRINTING 173.49 SALE PRICE CARDS 173.49 SALE PRICE CARDS 173.50 SALE PRICE CARDS 520.48 PO # Doc No 7114/2010 7:56:33 Page - 14 Business Unit 50TH ST SELLING YORK SELLING VERNON SELLING 336717 7/16/2010 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register 7/15/2010 - 7/15/2010 PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 240522 50164 5822.6575 PRINTING 240522 50164 5842.6575 PRINTING 240522 50164 5862.6575 PRINTING 7114/2010 7:56:33 Page - 14 Business Unit 50TH ST SELLING YORK SELLING VERNON SELLING 336717 7/16/2010 100741 JJ TAYLOR DIST. OF MINN 71.75 240321 1399925 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 157.00 240523 1405718 5421.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER GRILL 427.50 240577 1399926 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 3,395.45 240578 1399947 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 3,423.15 240579 1399946 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING 10,031.18 240580 1399956 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 60.55 240581 1399957 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 67.50 240582 1396570 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 17,634.08 336718 7/1612010 126916 JOAS, PAUL 1,100.00 LANDSCAPING RELOCATED 240667 071010 01362.1705.30 CONTRACTOR PAYMENTS BA -362 PARKWOOD KNOLLS 1,100.00 336719 711612010 124104 JOHN DEERE LANDSCAPES / LESCO 5.29 BUSHINGS 00005952 240412 54984282 1643.6530 REPAIR PARTS GENERAL TURF CARE 5.29 336721 7116/2010 100836 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO. 696.56 240322 1863047 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 1,603.69 240323 1863046 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 1,448.19 240324 1863049 5822.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING 31.37 240325 1863051 5822.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 50TH ST SELLING 1,188.84 240326 1863050 5822.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING 441.37 240327 1863048 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 6.67- 240328 462485 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 27.66- 240329 462487 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 17.58- 240330 462488 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 19.98- 240331 462629 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 35.37 240583 1867057 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 105.12 240584 1867048 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 1,683.83 240585 1867060 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 1,506.60 240586 1867058 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 44.22 240587 1867059 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 7/14/2010 7:56:33 Council Check Register Page - 15 7115/2010 - 7/15/2010 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 1.12 240588 1867047 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 2,639.66 240589 1867062 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 503.58 240590 1867061 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 665.82 240591 1867063 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 2,987.86 240592 1867053 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 8,081.91 240593 1867056 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 2.24 240594 1867045 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING .09 240595 1867043 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 36.11 240596 1867055 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 66.74 240597 1867042 5822.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 50TH ST SELLING 1,487.69 240598 1867041 5822.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING 470.93 240599 1867040 5822.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING 22.11 240600 1867037 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 442.46 240601 1867039 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 1,397.53 240602 1867038 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 313.87 240603 1867036 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING .56 240790 1867044 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 1,403.19 240791 1867051 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 2,569.95 240792 1867049 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 727.62 240793 1867052 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 1,356.30 240794 1867054 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 44.22 240795 1867050 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 315.60 240796 1867046 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 34,250.43 336722 711512010 126918 JOHNSON, KIRK 143.52 BIKE EDINA TASK FORCE 240763 REIMBURSEMENT 1100.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CITY COUNCIL 143.52 336723 7/15/2010 100919 JOHNSON, NAOMI 6.45 PETTY CASH 240754 062210 5125.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES MEDIA STUDIO 16.94 PETTY CASH 240754 062210 5110.6235 POSTAGE ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION 53.68 PETTY CASH 240754 062210 5112.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES ART CENTER POTTERY 87.26 PETTY CASH 240754 062210 5110.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION 89.01 PETTY CASH 240754 062210 5110.6564 CRAFT SUPPLIES ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION 114.40 PETTY CASH 240754 062210 5101.4413 ART WORK SOLD ART CENTER REVENUES 151.71 PETTY CASH 240754 062210 5111.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES ART CENTER BLDG /MAINT 519.45 336724 7/16/2010 102719 JOHNSON, PHILLIP 123.43 REIMBURSEMENT 240774 070810 5125.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES MEDIA STUDIO 213.07 REIMBURSEMENT 240774 070810 5125.6710 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT MEDIA STUDIO R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 336731 7116/2010 101371 MACHOLDA, ED Council Check Register 81.50 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 240417 7115/2010 - 7115/2010 MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 100864 MACQUEEN EQUIP INC. 336.50 429.23 FILL HOSE 336726 7/1612010 1553.6530 102113 JOHNSTONE SUPPLY 429.23 222.79 DEHUMIDIFIER 00001122 240413 059465 1646.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 222.79 SOD, DIRT, TOOLS 240474 063010 1643.6543 336726 7115/2010 SOD, DIRT, TOOLS 111018 KEEPRS INC. 063010 5620.6540 FERTILIZER 146.95 SOD, DIRT, TOOLS 14.94 UNIFORMS 00003747 240473 141969 -05 1470.6558 DEPT UNIFORMS SOD, DIRT, TOOLS 240474 908.44 CTS SINGLE USE FLASHBANG 240524 142130 1400.6551 AMMUNITION 598.73 UNIFORMS 00003747 240715 141969 -03 1470.6558 DEPT UNIFORMS 1,522.11 336727 711612010 118660 LAKES AREA HOME IMPROVEMENT BE 298.00 SEWER DRAIN BACKUP SERVICE 240668 DRAIN 03450.1705.30 CONTRACTOR PAYMENTS 298.00 336728 7/16/2010 100862 LAWSON PRODUCTS INC. 181.11 LUBE ENGAGES 00001123 240414 9365772 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS 166.31 SAW BLADES 00001168 240415 9370648 1553.6556 TOOLS 347.42 336729 7/16/2010 100226 LIFEGUARD STORE INC, THE 68.00 LIFEGUARD SUITS 240416 INV020871 5311.6201 LAUNDRY 68.00 336730 7/1612010 124810 LIFT BRIDGE BEER COMPANY 7/14/2010 7:56:33 Page - 16 Business Unit BUILDING MAINTENANCE FIRE DEPT. GENERAL POLICE DEPT. GENERAL FIRE DEPT. GENERAL SS-450 INTERLACHEN CIRCLE EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN POOL OPERATION 130.00 240604 10190 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 130.00 336731 7116/2010 101371 MACHOLDA, ED 81.50 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 240417 070610 1600.6107 MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE 81.50 336732 7116/2010 100864 MACQUEEN EQUIP INC. 429.23 FILL HOSE 00001163 240418 2104303 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS 429.23 336733 711612010 100866 MAGNUSON SOD 48.09 SOD, DIRT, TOOLS 240474 063010 1643.6543 SOD & BLACK DIRT 74.76 SOD, DIRT, TOOLS 240474 063010 5620.6540 FERTILIZER 146.95 SOD, DIRT, TOOLS 240474 063010 5913.6543 SOD & BLACK DIRT 363.68 SOD, DIRT, TOOLS 240474 063010 1301.6556 TOOLS PARK ADMIN. GENERAL EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN GENERAL TURF CARE EDINBOROUGH PARK DISTRIBUTION GENERAL MAINTEN R55CKREG LOG20000 150.00 CITY OF EDINA 240759 070110 5631.6136 PROFESSIONAL SVC - OTHER CENTENNIAL ADMINISTRATION Council Check Register 150.00 7/15/2010 - 7/1512010 336738 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 633.48 600.00 GOLF INSTRUCTION 240526 070710 336734 7/1512010 ADAPTIVE RECREATION 114699 MANAGED SERVICES INC. 600.00 473.49 JANITORIAL SERVICE 240716 C004898 7411.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 101987 MENARDS 473.49 336735 7/15/2010 9.96 126910 MARTHA BURNS SWIM SCHOOL 00002121 240776 99268 5620.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES EDINBOROUGH PARK 2,057.19 RETAIL ITEMS 240525 2872136 5310.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD 2,057.19 336740 711512010 336736 7/15/2010 124652 MARTIN, MICHAEL & GWEN 28.47 13,005.00 EASEMENT ACQUISITION 240669 070810 07101.1705.20 CONSULTING DESIGN GOLF ADMINISTRATION 13,005.00 32.03 SPOT LIGHTS 00006052 240528 52878 336737 7/16/2010 GOLF DOME PROGRAM 124447 MCCULLOUGH, SCOTT 220.07 PAINT SUPPLIES 7/14/2010 7:56:33 Page - 17 Business Unit PSTF OCCUPANCY POOL ADMINISTRATION S101 FRANCE AVE 48TH - SUNNYSIDE 150.00 PERFORMANCE 7/21/10 240759 070110 5631.6136 PROFESSIONAL SVC - OTHER CENTENNIAL ADMINISTRATION 150.00 336738 7/1612010 106326 MEDRANO, CHRIS 600.00 GOLF INSTRUCTION 240526 070710 1629.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ADAPTIVE RECREATION 600.00 336739 711512010 101987 MENARDS 9.96 HEX NUTS, SANDPAPER 00002121 240776 99268 5620.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES EDINBOROUGH PARK 9.96 336740 711512010 102281 MENARDS 28.47 SPOT LIGHTS 00006051 240527 51536 5410.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES GOLF ADMINISTRATION 32.03 SPOT LIGHTS 00006052 240528 52878 5210.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES GOLF DOME PROGRAM 220.07 PAINT SUPPLIES 00005949 240777 51194 1646.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES BUILDING MAINTENANCE 280.57 336741 7115/2010 101891 METRO ATHLETIC SUPPLY 170.84 FIELD PAINT, FIELD RAKE 00005959 240718 124978 1642.6544 LINE MARKING POWDER FIELD MAINTENANCE 149.52 BALLFIELD TOOLS 00005649 240719 124980 1642.6556 TOOLS FIELD MAINTENANCE 486.71 SOFTBALLS 240720 125241 4077.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES EDINA ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION 807.07 336742 7116/2010 102602 METRO CASH REGISTER SYSTEMS 206.38 REGISTER REPAIR 00006063 240529 69408 5430.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS RICHARDS GOLF COURSE 74.64 THERMAL RECEIPT PAPER 00006063 240530 69444 5410.6513 OFFICE SUPPLIES GOLF ADMINISTRATION 281.02 R55CKREG LOG20000 INSTRUCTION 240533 CITY OF EDINA 1629.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ADAPTIVE RECREATION 336746 711612010 104660 MICRO CENTER Council Check Register 69.44 COMPUTER SUPPLIES 7/15/2010 - 7115/2010 2816718 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 336743 7116/2010 117.51 124301 METRO WEST IRRIGATION AND LAND 180.00 SHRUBS 00003764 240475 8468 1470.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 180.00 TISSUE, TOWELS, DETERGENT 00003758 240721 29938 1470.6406 336744 7116/2010 SUPPLIES 100887 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ENVIRONME 29937 1551.6511 CLEANING SUPPLIES 1,961.67 355,505.96 SEWER SERVICE 240419 0000935170 5922.6302 SEWER SERVICE METRO PAPER SUPPLIES 2,933.13 355,505.96 CO25 00006428 240534 R106100117 5421.6406 336746 7/16/2010 125297 MILLS- NOVOA, NICOLE 124204 METSA, PAUL R106100248 7413.6545 7/1412010 7:56:33 Page - 18 Business Unit FIRE DEPT. GENERAL SEWER TREATMENT 300.00 TALENT FEE 7/8/10 240775 070810 5410.6132 PROFESSIONAL SVCS - GOLF GOLF ADMINISTRATION 300.00 INSTRUCTION 240533 070610 1629.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ADAPTIVE RECREATION 336746 711612010 104660 MICRO CENTER 69.44 COMPUTER SUPPLIES 240531 2816718 1400.6160 DATA PROCESSING 48.07 DVDS 240532 2833568 1400.6160 DATA PROCESSING 117.51 336747 7/1612010 101161 MIDWEST CHEMICAL SUPPLY 487.72 TISSUE, TOWELS, DETERGENT 00003758 240721 29938 1470.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 483.74 SUPPLIES 240722 29937 1551.6511 CLEANING SUPPLIES 1,961.67 SUPPLIES 240722 29937 1551.6512 PAPER SUPPLIES 2,933.13 19.31 CO25 00006428 240534 R106100117 5421.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 336748 711612010 125297 MILLS- NOVOA, NICOLE CO2, METHANE 240723 R106100248 7413.6545 CHEMICALS POLICE DEPT. GENERAL POLICE DEPT. GENERAL FIRE DEPT. GENERAL CITY HALL GENERAL CITY HALL GENERAL 260.72 INSTRUCTION 240533 070610 1629.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ADAPTIVE RECREATION 260.72 336749 7/16/2010 101320 MINNEAPOLIS AREA ASSOC OF REAL 96.00 MLS ACCESS FEE 240421 1618583 1190.6105 DUES 8 SUBSCRIPTIONS ASSESSING 96.00 336760 7/16/2010 103216 MINNEAPOLIS FINANCE DEPARTMENT 19,395.99 WATER PURCHASED 240422 070110 5913.6601 WATER PURCHASED DISTRIBUTION 19,395.99 336761 7/16/2010 102174 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPANY 19.31 CO25 00006428 240534 R106100117 5421.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES GRILL 29.35 CO2, METHANE 240723 R106100248 7413.6545 CHEMICALS PSTF FIRE TOWER 343.60 METHANE 240724 JA983501 7413.6545 CHEMICALS PSTF FIRE TOWER 392.26 R55CKREG LOG20000 7176/2010 CITY OF EDINA - Council Check Register 59.08 IRRIGATION PARTS 00005973 240424 742239 -00 7/15/2010 -7/15/2010 REPAIR PARTS Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # " Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 336752 7/16/2010 1643.6530 100908 MINNESOTA WANNER CO. GENERAL TURF CARE 129.60 SOCCER GOAL REPAIRS 00005963 240423 0085332 -IN 1642.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ' 274.67 STAINLESS STEEL FRAMES 00005977 240670 0085213 -IN 4402.6710 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT 106066 NATURAL REFLECTIONS VII LLC 404.27 336763 7/16/2010 124449 MINNETONKA CMC ORCHESTRA PUMP REPAIRS 00001086 240426 1343 7/14/2010 7:56:33 Page - 19 Business Unit FIELD MAINTENANCE PW BUILDING 100.00 PERFORMANCE 7/19/10` 240756. 070110 5631.6136 PROFESSIONAL SVC -OTHER CENTENNIAL ADMINISTRATION 100.00 336764 7/16/2010 103246. MOIR, BILL 15.76 PETTY CASH 240778 071210 5311.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES POOL OPERATION 82.60 PETTY CASH 240778 071210 5310.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES POOL ADMINISTRATION 98.36 336766 7/16/201.0 126913 MOOTY, LIZ AND CHUCK 253.70 DOG FENCE REPAIR 240671 070810 01214.1705.30 CONTRACTOR PAYMENTS - PHASE 2 DREXEL, WOODDALE, EDIN 253.70 336766 7176/2010 100906 MITI DISTRIBUTING INC. 59.08 IRRIGATION PARTS 00005973 240424 742239 -00 1643.6530 REPAIR PARTS GENERAL TURF CARE 73.16 IRRIGATION PARTS 00005965 240425 741255 -00 1643.6530 REPAIR PARTS GENERAL TURF CARE 132.24 336767 7/1612010 106066 NATURAL REFLECTIONS VII LLC 881.72 PUMP REPAIRS 00001086 240426 1343 4086.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AQUATIC WEEDS 881.72 336768 711612010 106662 NET LITIN:DISTRIBUTORS 867.30 , PLASTICWARE FOR RESALE 240725 74854 5620.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD EDINBOROUGH PARK 867.30 336769 7/16/2010 100076 NEW FRANCE WINE CO. 328.50 240605 60667 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 328.50 336760 7116/2010 103632 NEXT DAY GOURMETISUPERIOR PROD 589.91 - BREWER/WARMERS, DECANTERS 00005977 240672. 8444591 4402.6710 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT PW BUILDING 589.91 336761 7/16/2010 102138 NORTHERN WINDS CONCERT BAND 75.00 PERFORMANCE 7 /18/10 240755 070110 5631.6136 PROFESSIONAL SVC - OTHER CENTENNIAL ADMINISTRATION 75.00 1�. R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 7/14/2010 7:56:33 Council Check Register Page - 20 7/15/2010 - 7115/2010 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 336762 7/16/2010 117830 NORTHLAND BUSINESS SYSTEMS INC 81.74 EQUIPMENT SERVICE 240535 IN19544 1400.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 81.74 336763 7115/2010 100933 NORTHWEST GRAPHIC SUPPLY 72.00 WHITE FOAM BOARD 00009229 240726 39136400 5120.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD ART SUPPLY GIFT GALLERY SHOP 144.78 PENCILS, BRUSHES, CANVAS 00009227 240727 39115900 5120.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD ART SUPPLY GIFT GALLERY SHOP 216.78 336764 7/16/2010 106007 NU- TELECOM 557.72 JULY SERVICE 240536 80208196 1400.6230 SERVICE CONTRACTS EQUIPMENT POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 557.72 336765 7/16/2010 105901 OERTEL ARCHITECTS 10,124.75 ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES 240673 #14 4402.6710 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT PW BUILDING 10,124.75 336766 7115/2010 103578 OFFICE DEPOT 30.27 OFFICE SUPPLIES 240537 1229641225 5410.6513 OFFICE SUPPLIES GOLF ADMINISTRATION 28.05 PAPER 240538 1228582763 5410.6513 OFFICE SUPPLIES GOLF ADMINISTRATION 64.99 INK 240539 1227979985 5410.6513 OFFICE SUPPLIES GOLF ADMINISTRATION 72.67 OFFICE SUPPLIES 00009232 240728 1227183114 5125.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES MEDIA STUDIO 195.98 336767 7/16/2010 102266 OLSON, TIM 157.67 UNIFORM PURCHASE 240540 062910 1400.6203 UNIFORM ALLOWANCE POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 157.67 336768 7/15/2010 100939 OTIS SPUNKMEYER INC. 190.26 COOKIES 240427 80073074 5320:5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD POOL CONCESSIONS 146.93 COOKIES 240541 80073070 5421.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD GRILL 337.19 336769 7/16/2010 100347 PAUSTIS & SONS 693.75 240606 8266247 -IN 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 1,216.85 240607 8266250 -IN 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 1,910.60 336770 7/15/2010 100945 PEPSI -COLA COMPANY 499.45 240542 61933822 5430.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD RICHARDS GOLF COURSE 833.36 240543 61933864 5421.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD GRILL R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 7/1412010 7:56:33 y Council Check Register Page - 21, 7/15/2010 - 7/15/2010 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # - Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit ' 1.332.81 336771 7/1612010 100948 PERKINS LANDSCAPE CONTRACTORS 1,735.00 LANDSCAPING 240674 62 01356.1705.30 CONTRACTOR PAYMENTS BA =356 MIRROR LAKES N'HOOD _ 1,250.00 BERM AND EROSION LOGS 240675 63 4402.6710 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT PW BUILDING 7,722.00 INSTALL PAVERS 00001231 - 240676 66 4402.6710 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT PW BUILDING 10,707.00 336772 '• 7/16/2010 - - 100743 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS 511:14 240332 2930598 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE - -- SOTH ST SELLING 160.00 240333 2930823 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE' 50TH'ST SELLING. 684.72 240334 2930597 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE - 50TH ST SELLING 98.00 240335 2930826 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 32.49 240336 2930827 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 787.49 240608 2933350 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH'ST SELLING' 74.24 240609 2933358 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 48.00 240610, 2930825 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 455.60 240611 2933351 5822.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING 1.12 240612. 2933349 5822.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING .875.28 240613 2933361 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD. WINE VERNON SELLING 245.60 240614' 2933354 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 1,006.24 240615 2933359 - 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE.. VERNON SELLING 57,12 240616' 2933360 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING - 233.96 240617 2933356 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 567.84 240797 2933353 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 1,592.44 240798 2933355 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD VINE YORK SELLING 314.42 240799 2933357 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD VINE YORK SELLING 7,745.70 336773 7/16/2010 124176 PINNACLE. DISTRIBUTING 280.40 240800 10816 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 280.00 240801 10747 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 560.40 ;136774 7/16/2010 100968_ PLUNKETTS PEST-.-CONTROL 44.52 PEST CONTROL 240729. 1803531 7411.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PSTF OCCUPANCY 44.52 ? 336776 7116/2010 101110 POLLY NORMAN PHOTOGRAPHY 60.00 PARADE -PHOTO 240544 070410 2210.6408 PHOTOGRAPHIC SUPPLIES COMMUNICATIONS 60.00 R55CKREG LOG20000 ZAMBONI BLADES 00008075 240477 248382 CITY OF EDINA EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE ARENA ICE MAINT 90.00 Council Check Register 336780 7/16/2010 106322 PROSOURCE SUPPLY 7/15/2010 - 7/15/2010 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 336776 7/16/2010 119620 POMP'S TIRE SERVICE INC. 336781 7116/2010 100971 QUALITY WINE 1,358.35 TIRES 00005810 240428 631111 1553.6583 TIRES & TUBES 324730 -00 5822.5512 257.57 TIRES 00001061 240429 642032 1553.6583 TIRES & TUBES 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 467.86 TIRES 00001064 240430 648486 1553.6583 TIRES & TUBES COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 192.48 TIRES 00001066 240431 648499 1553.6583 TIRES & TUBES YORK SELLING 535.25 2,276.26 240618 327671 -00 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 336777 7/16/2010 240619 100961 POSTMASTER - USPS 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 41.20 240620 350.00 NEWSLETTER POSTAGE 240476 070810 1628.6235 POSTAGE 240621 327503-00 350.00 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 285.78 240622 336778 7/16/2010 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 121387 POSTNET 415.60 240623 327505 -00 5822.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 77.17 SIGNS FOR TENNIS 240730 070610 1623.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING 77.17 240625 328011 -00 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 336779 7/16/2010 100966 PRINTERS SERVICE INC 326164-00 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 7/14/2010 7:56:33 Page - 22 Business Unit EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN SENIOR CITIZENS TENNIS INSTRUCTION 90.00 ZAMBONI BLADES 00008075 240477 248382 5521.6215 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE ARENA ICE MAINT 90.00 336780 7/16/2010 106322 PROSOURCE SUPPLY 583.49 ROLL TOWEL, TISSUE, GOJO 00002114 240731 4838 5620.6511 CLEANING SUPPLIES EDINBOROUGH PARK 583.49 336781 7116/2010 100971 QUALITY WINE 1,488.43 240337 324730 -00 5822.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING 623.60 240338 327744 -00 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 1,160.40 240339 327501 -00 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 1,777.46 240340 327525 -00 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 535.25 240618 327671 -00 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 992.31 240619 327745-00 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 41.20 240620 327746 -CO 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 3,263.20 240621 327503-00 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 285.78 240622 327672 -00 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 415.60 240623 327505 -00 5822.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING 340.93 240624 327504 -00 5822.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING 862.40 240625 328011 -00 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 28.67- 240626 326164-00 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 11,757.89 336782 7/16/2010 123898 QWEST 18.63 651281-1355 8001311 240432 13117/01 1400.6188 TELEPHONE POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 83.84 952 926 -0419 240433 0419 -7/10 1646.6188 TELEPHONE BUILDING MAINTEN R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register 7/15/2010 - 7/15/2010 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 57.18 952 926 -0092 240434 0092 -7/10 5913.6188 TELEPHONE 40.18 952 922 -9246 240545 9246 -6/10 1400.6188 TELEPHONE 520.74 612 E24 -8657 240779 8657 -7/10 5420.6188 TELEPHONE 292.48 612 E24 -8656 240780 8656 -7/10 1628.6188 TELEPHONE 606.52 612 E12 -6797 240781 6797 -7/10 1550.6188 TELEPHONE 606.52 . 612 E01 -0426 240782 0426 -7/10 1550.6188 TELEPHONE 96.11 952 835 -1474 240783 1474 -7/10 1552.6188 TELEPHONE 520.19 612 E01 -8392 240784 8392 -7/10 1550.6188 TELEPHONE 1644.6103 1260.6406 7/14/2010 7:56:33 Page - 23 Business Unit DISTRIBUTION POLICE DEPT. GENERAL CLUB HOUSE SENIOR CITIZENS CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL CENT SVC PW BUILDING CENTRAL-, SERVICES GENERAL GENERAL SUPPLIES • 50TH&FRANCE MAINTENANCE 2,842.39 POLICE DEPT. GENERAL CONTRACTED REPAIRS CLUBHOUSE 336787 336783 711612010 101963 S,8 S SPECIALISTS- 117692 R & B,CLEANING INC. 357.50 357.50 OAK WILT INSPECTIONS 00001083 2,009.25 RAMP STAIRWELL CLEANING 00001169 240435 793 4090.6406 2,009.25 -336788 7/16/2010- 121666 SAFETY DEPOT 336784 7116/2010 123246 RADDE, JENNIFER 34.68 - SAFETY VESTS 00004202 240678 1262 - 69.50 UNIFORM PURCHASE 240546 070610 1400.6203 336789 7/1612010 69.50 101634 SAINT.'AGNES BAKING COMPANY - 336785 - 7/16/2010 BAKERY 100977 RICHFIELD PLUMBING COMPANY 286013 56.19 172.95 WATER HEATER REPAIR 00006048 240547 55222 5420.6180 104788 SANDY'S PROMOTIONAL STUFF 172.95 1,061.42 EEC PROMO STICKERS 336786 7/16/2010 100982 ROTO- ROOTER - 1,061.42 259.00 UNCLOG SEWER 240677 048 - 249445 03450.1705.30 1644.6103 1260.6406 7/14/2010 7:56:33 Page - 23 Business Unit DISTRIBUTION POLICE DEPT. GENERAL CLUB HOUSE SENIOR CITIZENS CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL CENT SVC PW BUILDING CENTRAL-, SERVICES GENERAL GENERAL SUPPLIES • 50TH&FRANCE MAINTENANCE 259.00 POLICE DEPT. GENERAL CONTRACTED REPAIRS CLUBHOUSE 336787 7/_16/2010 101963 S,8 S SPECIALISTS- 357.50 357.50 OAK WILT INSPECTIONS 00001083 240436 41423 357.50 -336788 7/16/2010- 121666 SAFETY DEPOT 34.68 - SAFETY VESTS 00004202 240678 1262 - 34.68 336789 7/1612010 101634 SAINT.'AGNES BAKING COMPANY 56.19 BAKERY 240548` 286013 56.19 336790 .7/16/2010 104788 SANDY'S PROMOTIONAL STUFF 1,061.42 EEC PROMO STICKERS 240549 SH1047 1,061.42 1644.6103 1260.6406 7/14/2010 7:56:33 Page - 23 Business Unit DISTRIBUTION POLICE DEPT. GENERAL CLUB HOUSE SENIOR CITIZENS CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL CENT SVC PW BUILDING CENTRAL-, SERVICES GENERAL GENERAL SUPPLIES • 50TH&FRANCE MAINTENANCE UNIFORM ALLOWANCE POLICE DEPT. GENERAL CONTRACTED REPAIRS CLUBHOUSE CONTRACTOR PAYMENTS SS-450 INTERLACHEN CIRCLE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TREES'& MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES ENGINEERING GENERAL 5421.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD GRILL 1122.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES- ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT COMM R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 7/14/2010 7:56:33 Council Check Register Page - 24 7/15/2010 — 7/15/2010 Check # Date Amount Supplier/ Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 336791 7/16/2010 101431 SCAN AIR FILTER INC. 123.23 R70 MEDIA 00001552 240679 114029 4402.6710 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT PW BUILDING 123.23 336792 7/16/2010 103636 SCHEERER, DANIEL 2,648.00 PAINTING AT FIRE STATION 240550 062510 1470.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 2,648.00 336793 7/16/2010 101294 SCHEERER, MARTIN 252.31 PARADE CANDY 240478 070710 1470.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 252.31 336794 7/15/2010 106442 SCHERER BROS. LUMBER CO. 67.72 LUMBER 00005960 240732 40854341 1646.6577 LUMBER BUILDING MAINTENANCE 67.72 336796 7/16/2010 104161 SCHINDLER ELEVATOR CORP. 497.52 QUARTERLY MAINTENANCE 240551 8102662355 1550.6230 SERVICE CONTRACTS EQUIPMENT CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 497.52 336796 7/16/2010 126916 SCHOEWE, HARRY 9.21 UTILITY OVERPAYMENT REFUND 240761 070710 5900.2015 CUSTOMER REFUND UTILITY BALANCE SHEET 9.21 336797 7/1612010 124114 SCNS SPORTS FOODS 84.60 SNACKS 240552 28853 5421.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD GRILL 84.60 336798 7/16/2010 100996 SEH 262.45 ST JOHNS PARK RECON 240680 232275 04352.1705.24 CONSULTING CONSTR MGMT STS -352 FAIRFAX N'HOOD 605.66 ST JOHNS PARK RECON 240680 232275 05487.1705.24 CONSULTING CONSTR MGMT WM -487 FAIRFAX N'HOOD 746.99 ST JOHNS PARK RECON 240680 232275 03445.1705.24 CONSULTING CONSTR MGMT SS-445 FAIRFAX N'HOOD 2,422.66 ST JOHNS PARK RECON 240680 232275 01357.1705.24 CONSULTING CONSTR MGMT BA -357 FAIRFAX N'HOOD 934.45 COUNTRY CLUB CONSTR 240681 232274 01213.1705.24 CONSULTING CONSTR MGMT PHASE 1 ARDEN, BRUCE, CASCO 934.45 COUNTRY CLUB CONSTR 240681 232274 01214.1705.24 CONSULTING CONSTR MGMT PHASE 2 DREXEL, WOODDALE, EDIN 34,724.05 STORM /SIGN INVENTORY 240682 232062 5932.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES GENERAL STORM SEWER 1,311.02 PAMELA PK NEIGH CONSTR 240683 232276 03449.1705.21 CONSULTING INSPECTION SS-449 PAMELA PARK 2,881.77 PAMELA PK NEIGH CONSTR 240683 232276 05492.1705.21 CONSULTING INSPECTION WM -492 PAMELA PARK 10,686.05 PAMELA PK NEIGH CONSTR 240683 232276 04358.1705.21 CONSULTING INSPECTION STS -358 PAMELA PARK 24,043.60 PAMELA PK NEIGH CONSTR 240683 232276 01360.1705.21 CONSULTING INSPECTION BA -360 PAMELA PARK N'HOOD 79,553.15 R55CKREG `LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 711412010 7:56:33 Council Check Register Page'- 25 ;t 7/15/2010 —7115/2010 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 336799 7/1612010 103249 SHANNON, JIM 140.00 PERFORMANCE 7/20/10 240758 070110 5631.6136 PROFESSIONAL SVC - OTHER CENTENNIAL ADMINISTRATION 140.00 336800 7/1612010, 100998 - SHERWIN WILLIAMS CO. 58.58 ' PAINT 00005817 240684 2618 -0 4402.6710 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT PW BUILDING 58.58 336801 7/16/2010 117179 SIGNAL PRO EQUIPMENT 306.46 PULLEYS, CUTTER HOUSING 00001063 240479 72246 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN - 306.46 336802 7116/2.010 120292 SIGNATURE CONCEPTS 229.00 LIFEGUARD T- SHIRTS 240437 354341 5311.6201 LAUNDRY POOL OPERATION 238.00 UNIFORM SHIRTS 00005852 240733 354196 1646.6201 LAUNDRY BUILDING MAINTENANCE ' 467.00 ' 336803 7/16/2010 106416 SKYHAWKS SPORTS:ACADEMY 2,581.92 ` MINI HAWK PROGRAM 240553 3241018012 1624.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES PLAYGROUND & THEATER 2,581.92 - • 336804 7/16/2010 122368, SOUTH METRO PUBLIC SAFETY 4,194.75 3RD QTR DUES 240438 8415 1470.6221 RANGE RENTAL FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 5,485.25 3RD QTR DUES 240438 8415 1400.6221 RANGE RENTAL POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 9,680.00 336806 7/15/2010 101023 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN CABLE COMMI - 4,623.47 3RD QUARTER 240439 201012 2210.6136 PROFESSIONAL SVC'- OTHER COMMUNICATIONS 4,623.47 336806 7/16/2010 102183 SPECKMAN, GAIL 650.00 INSTRUCTOR AC 240753 070910 5110.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION - 650.00 336807 711612010 101004 SPS COMPANIES 19.68 STRAINER, PLUG - 00001155 240480, 52225345.001 5912.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES. WELL HOUSES. 19.68 - 336806 7/15/2010 117686 STAPLES ADVANTAGE 1,044.97 CARTRIDGES 240734 103123598 1550.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 1,044.97 R55CKREG LOG20000 GRILL 1,116.00 CITY OF EDINA 240341 Z01015 5842.5514 VERNON SELLING Council Check Register 240627 Z01035 5862.5514 7115/2010 - 7/15/2010 1,586.00 Check # Date Amount Supplier/ Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 336809 7/1512010 102390 STRAND MANUFACTURING CO INC 99.34 164.80 PUMP HANDLES 00001124 240481 27307 5921.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 164.80 336810 7/15/2010 7/15/2010 100900 SUN NEWSPAPERS 120595 T- MOBILE 101.89 AD FOR BID 240440 1260711 1120.6120 ADVERTISING LEGAL 240685 062710 101.89 84.26 336811 7/15/2010 120998 SURLY BREWING CO. 336814 7/15/2010 7/14/2010 7:56:33 Page - 26 Business Unit SANITARY LIFT STATION MAINT ADMINISTRATION COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING GENERAL SUPPLIES MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS TELEPHONE ENGINEERING GENERAL REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER GRILL 1,116.00 VERNON SELLING 240341 Z01015 5842.5514 VERNON SELLING 470.00 240627 Z01035 5862.5514 1,586.00 336812 7/15/2010 102063 SWENSON, THOMAS 99.34 PIPE FOR RAILING 240785 071210 5422.6406 99.34 336813 7/15/2010 120595 T- MOBILE 84.26 SURVEY PHONE 240685 062710 1260.6188 84.26 336814 7/15/2010 101326 TERMINAL SUPPLY CO 95.52 LED LIGHTS 00001661 240482 43614 -02 1553.6530 95.52 336815 7/16/2010 101035 THORPE DISTRIBUTING COMPANY 305.25 240554 598173 5421.5514 122.55 240628 598648 5862.5515 1,888.45 240629 598647 5862.5514 18.50 240630 00740083 5862.5514 2,334.75 336816 7/15/2010 117042 THREE RIVERS PARK DISTRICT 80.00 FINAL PAYMENT FOR PARK PROGRAM 240735 5639486 1624.6406 80.00 336817 7/15/2010 101826 THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR CORP. 398.80 QUARTERLY MAINTENANCE 00008076 240483 566791 5511.6105 398.80 336818 7116/2010 120700 TIGER OAK PUBLICATIONS INC. 283.33 MAGAZINE ADVERTISING 240555 2010 -42996 5822.6122 7/14/2010 7:56:33 Page - 26 Business Unit SANITARY LIFT STATION MAINT ADMINISTRATION COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING GENERAL SUPPLIES MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS TELEPHONE ENGINEERING GENERAL REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER GRILL COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING GENERAL SUPPLIES DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS ADVERTISING OTHER PLAYGROUND & THEATER ARENA BLDG /GROUNDS 50TH ST SELLING R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register 7/15/2010 -7/1512010 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 283.33 MAGAZINE ADVERTISING 240555 2010 -42996 5842.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER 283.34 MAGAZINE ADVERTISING 240555 2010-42996 5862.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER 7/14/2010 7:56:33 Page - 27 Business Unit YORK SELLING VERNON SELLING 1470.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 421554.6710 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT IT CENTRAL SERVICES EQUIPMENT 1330.6215 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE TRAFFIC SIGNALS 1551.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CITY HALL GENERAL 1643.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES GENERAL TURF CARE 1551.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CITY HALL GENERAL 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 1646.6180 850.00 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 1646.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS BUILDING MAINTENANCE 336819 711612010 CONTRACTED REPAIRS 119374 TNC INDUSTRIES INC. 1646.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS BUILDING MAINTENANCE 1640.6104 788.50 PLYMOVENT REPAIRS 00001161 240484 28559 788.50 336820 7/15/2010 122302 TOUCHPOINT LOGIC LLC 1,178.00 PROJECTOR INSTALLATION 240441 3375 1,178.00 336821 7/16/2010 103982 TRAFFIC CONTROL CORPORATION 973.21 TRAFFIC LIGHT MAINTENANCE 00001015 240442 0000043351 973.21 336822 7/1512010 100682 TRUGREEN - MTKA 6640 400.80 TURF CARE 00001078 240443 804498 464.93 TURF CARE 00001081 240444 804499 144.29 TURF CARE 00001080 240445 805558 1,010.02 336823 711512010 118190 TURFWERKS LLC 154.75 RIM, BOLTS, NUTS 00001057 240446 0121469 154.75 336824 7/15/2010 101360 TWIN CITY HARDWARE CO. 943.33 DOOR REPAIRS 00001096 240485 402885 8.58 DOOR REPAIRS 00001095 240486 403227 425.00 DOOR REPAIRS 00001094 240487 404595 226.67 DOOR REPAIRS 00001098 240736 404105 1,603.58 336826 7/16/2010 101066 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA 220.00 RECERTIFICATION WORKSHOP 00001084 240556 070810 330.00 RECERTIFICATION WORKSHOP 00001084 240556 070810 550.00 336826 7115/2010 101065 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA 110.00 RECERTIFICATION WORKSHOP 240738 070910 110.00 7/14/2010 7:56:33 Page - 27 Business Unit YORK SELLING VERNON SELLING 1470.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 421554.6710 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT IT CENTRAL SERVICES EQUIPMENT 1330.6215 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE TRAFFIC SIGNALS 1551.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CITY HALL GENERAL 1643.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES GENERAL TURF CARE 1551.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CITY HALL GENERAL 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 1646.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS BUILDING MAINTENANCE 1646.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS BUILDING MAINTENANCE 1646.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS BUILDING MAINTENANCE 1646.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS BUILDING MAINTENANCE 1640.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS PARK MAINTENANCE GENERAL 1643.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS GENERAL TURF CARE 5621.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS EDINBOROUGH ADMINISTRATION R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 7/14/2010 7:56:33 Council Check Register Page - 28 7115/2010 - 7115/2010 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 336827 7/16/2010 103298 UPS STORE #1716, THE 11.85 SHIPPING CHARGE 240557 MME77T16AH6QQ 1400.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 11.90 SHIPPING CHARGES 00003105 240739 TRAN: 3822 1400.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 23.75 336828 711612010 101908 US FOODSERVICE INC 20.42 BLEACH 240558 063010 5421.6511 CLEANING SUPPLIES GRILL 606.85 TRAYS, PANS, GLASSES 240558 063010 5421.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES GRILL 5,195.04 FOOD 240558 063010 5421.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD GRILL 5,822.31 336829 7/16/2010 114236 USA BLUE BOOK 104.27 PROBES 00001129 240488 182135 5913.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES DISTRIBUTION 416.12 MANHOLE LID EXTRACTORS 00005917 240489 183246 5923.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES COLLECTION SYSTEMS 520.39 336830 7/16/2010 100410 USA MOBILITY WIRELESS INC. ,13.26 PAGER 246561 T6096083G 1550.6188 TELEPHONE CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 13.26 336831 7/1612010 119476 USPCA REGION 12 50.00 2010 9K MEMBERSHIP 240560 070110 4607.6105 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS EDINA CRIME FUND K9 DONATION 50.00 336832 7/1612010 122664 VALLEY NATIONAL GASES LLC 126.39 OXYGEN 00003649 240490 254450 1470.6510 FIRST AID SUPPLIES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 126.39 336833 7115/2010 101338 VALLIERE, JOHN 607.50 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 240786 071210 5410.6107 MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE GOLF ADMINISTRATION 607.50 336834 7/16/2010 101058 VAN PAPER CO. 140.01 ROLL TOWEL 00005971 240491 165510 -00 1646.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES BUILDING MAINTENANCE 273.84 LIQUOR BAGS 00007512 240737 165221 -00 5842.6512 PAPER SUPPLIES YORK SELLING 413.85 336836 7/16/2010 101063 VERSATILE VEHICLES INC. 870.00 GOLF CAR RENTAL 00006023 240562 48808 5423.6216 LEASE LINES GOLF CARS 870.00 336836 7/16Y 101066 VIKING ELECTRIC SUPPLY R55CKREG LOG20000 Check # Date Amount Supplier/ Explanation 240343 1,338.61 STREET LIGHT REPAIRS 240447 7,585.45 STREET LIGHT REPAIRS 240448 8,924.06 5311.6511 336837 7/15/2010 28542876 119464 VINOCOPIA 5862.5513 168.50 VERNON SELLING 5842.5515 1,344.00 YORK SELLING 5842.5513 1,512.50 YORK SELLING 336838 7/16/2010 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 120627 VISTAR CORPORATION 5842.5513 461.80 CONCESSION PRODUCT 5842.5513 73.39 TISSUE, SOAP 5842.5513 721.76 CONCESSION PRODUCT 5822.5513 1,256.95 50TH ST SELLING 336839 7116/2010 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 104820 VOELKER, JAMES 5862.5513 14.00 CDL LICENSE 14.00 336840 7/16/2010 101944 WATERSTREET, JOAN M 325.85 UNIFORM PURCHASE 325.85 3368414 711612010 101033 WINE COMPANY, THE 77.00 116.00 208.00 958.45 918.65 691.55 77.00 440.25 77.00- 3,409.90 336842 711612010 101312 WINE MERCHANTS 804.32 13.32 - 12.42- 2,004.37 1,096.80 4,558.70 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register 7115/2010 - 7/15/2010 PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 00001204 240686 4624948 08056.1705.31 MATERIALS /SUPPLIES 00001204 240686 4624948 08054.1705.31 MATERIALS /SUPPLIES 240342 0027483 -IN 5822.5512 240343 0027482 -IN 5842.5513 240447 28530338 5320.5510 240448 28542876 5311.6511 240448 28542876 5320.5510 240449 070710 240563 063010 240344 245915 -00 240345 246209 -00 240346 246331 -00 240631 246540 -00 240632 246503 -00 240633 246501 -00 240634 245445 -00 240634 245445 -00 240635 245914 -00 240347 323487 240348 49095 240349 49094 240636 323956 240637 323457 240638 323959 1301.6406 1400.6203 7/14/2010 7:56:33 Page - 29 Business Unit L -56 MOCCASIN VALLEY RD L -54 BRAEMAR HILLS LIGHTING COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD CLEANING SUPPLIES COST OF GOODS SOLD GENERAL SUPPLIES UNIFORM ALLOWANCE POOL CONCESSIONS POOL OPERATION POOL CONCESSIONS GENERAL MAINTENANCE POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING R55CKREG LOG20000 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation 156.55 4,840.69 13,435.69 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register 7/15/2010 - 7/15/2010 PO # Doc No Inv No Account No 240639 323957 5862.5513 240802 323958 5842.5513 336843 7/15/2010 117482 WINECONNECT INC. 159.24 WEB SITE - JULY 2010 240564 574 159.24 336844 7115/2010 126911 WINZIP COMPUTING LLC 490.00 WINZIP LICENSE 00003102 240567 101100529 490.00 5842.6406 1400.6160 Subledger Account Description COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE GENERAL SUPPLIES DATA PROCESSING 7/14/2010 7:56:33 Page - 30 Business Unit VERNON SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING POLICE DEPT. GENERAL I 336846 7116/2010 124291 WIRTZ BEVERAGE MINNESOTA 31.02 240350 423663 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 1,470.00 240351 423660 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 6,906.17 240352 423662 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 98.30 240353 423664 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 115.20 240354 423661 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 33.06 240355 421128 5822.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 50TH ST SELLING 78.58 240356 421666 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 75.80- 240357 804714 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 46.49 240640 423659 5822.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 50TH ST SELLING 600.20 240641 423658 5822.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING 894.17 240642 423657 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 946.57 240643 423655 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 360.00 240644 424337 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 4,527.05 240645 423654 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 16,031.01 336846 7/16/2010 124529 WIRTZ BEVERAGE MINNESOTA BEER 1,980.10 240358 626966 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING 2,774.50 240359 625308 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING 22.00 240360 629188 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 64.50 240361 629189 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 4,699.25 240362 629187 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 697.00 240565 628297 5421.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER GRILL 2,174.57 240646 628528 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 6,043.15 240647 631044 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 2,082.30 240648 629200 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 20,537.37 336847 71151; 118396 WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP INC R55CKREG LOG20000 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation 142.89 SAFETY LIGHTS 142.89 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register 7/15/2010 - 7/15/2010 PO # Doc No Inv No Account No 00003706 240492 E719580 1470.6406 336848 7116/2010 101086 WORLD CLASS WINES INC 279.85 240649 250696 1,131.50 240650 250695 - 211.90 240651 250697 1,623.25 336849 7116/2010 102326 WORLD WATERPARK ASSOCIATION 365.00 MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL 240566 411 -2010 365.00 336860 7/16/2010 106740 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC. 1,474.00 TRAFFIC ENGINEERING REVIEW 5,333.00 70TH ST FINAL DESIGN 6,807.00 240687 29- 01686-020 240688 5- 01686 -160 336851 7/15/2010 101726 XCEL ENERGY 4,471.92 51- 6621207 -1 240363 244767075 2,046.12 51- 9013604 -6 240364 244645414 311.91 51- 5938955 -6 240365 244269872 448.16 51- 5634814 -2 240366 244260671 26.04 51- 7567037 -0 240367 244623998 28.95 51- 4151897 -6 240368 244575165 1,231.36 51- 6979948 -4 240369 244460487 1,590.94 51- 6979948-4 240369 244460487 1,798.69 51- 6979948 -4 240369 244460487 174.58 51- 6229265 -9 240370 244273370 1,976.26 51- 6229265 -9 240370 244273370 673.79 51 -0046826 -0 240371 244269978 665.21 51- 6137136 -8 240372 244606616 4,794.16 51 -0966303 -6 240373 244430533 ' 6,903.73 51- 6824328 -7 240740 245299883 1,430.12 51- 6840050 -6 240741 245108263 7,072.62. 51- 6121102 -5 240742 245095143 35,646.56 336862 711612010 100568 XEROX CORPORATION 156.39 COPIER USAGE - PARK & REC 00004322 240493 048717515 156.39 5822.5513 5862.5513 5842.5513 5310.6105 1260.6103 01367.1705.20 5913.6185 5913.6185 4086.6185 5934.6185 1321.6185 1646.6185 5821.6185 5861.6185 5841.6185 1481.6185 1470.6185 5422.6185 5430.6185 1330.6185 5420.6185 5921.6185 1646.6185 1550.6151 Subledger Account Description GENERAL SUPPLIES COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE: DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS PROFESSIONAL, SERVICES CONSULTING DESIGN 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' EQUIPMENT RENTAL 7/14/2010 7:56:33 Page - 31 Business Unit FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 50TH ST SELLING VERNON SELLING YORK SELLING POOL ADMINISTRATION ENGINEERING GENERAL BA -367 W70TH TRAFFIC IMPLEMENT 'DISTRIBUTION DISTRIBUTION AQUATIC WEEDS STORM LIFT STATION MAINT STREET LIGHTING REGULAR BUILDING MAINTENANCE 50TH ST OCCUPANCY VERNON "OCCUPANCY YORK-OCCUPANCY YORK FIRE STATION ` FIRE DEPT. GENERAL MAINT OF COURSE &`GROUNDS RICHARDS GOLF COURSE TRAFFIC SIGNALS CLUBHOUSE SANITARY LIFT STATION MAINT BUILDING MAINTENANCE CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 7/14/2010 7:56:33 Council Check Register Page - 32 7/15/2010 — 7/15/2010 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 1,080,939.66 Grand Total Payment Instrument Totals Check Total 1,080,939.66 Total Payments 1,080,939.66 R55CKSUM LOG20000 CITY OF F -,..A Council Check Summary 7/15/2010 - 7/15/2010 Company Amount 01000 GENERAL FUND 101,283.68 02200 COMMUNICATIONS FUND 4,729.90 02300 POLICE SPECIAL REVENUE 6,250.00 04000 WORKING CAPITAL FUND 135,256.67 04200 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND 1,178.00 05100 ART CENTER FUND 7,442.10 05200 GOLF DOME FUND 32.03 05300 AQUATIC CENTER FUND 7,153.01 05400 GOLF COURSE FUND 23,303.37 05500 ICE ARENA FUND 133,144.90 05600 EDINBOROUGH /CENT LAKES FUND 9,829.30 05800 LIQUOR FUND 165,027.81 05900 UTILITY FUND 405,752.10 05930 STORM SEWER FUND 47,106.84 05950 RECYCLING FUND 37,683.00 07400 PSTF AGENCY FUND 1,766.95 Report Totals 1,080,939.66 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 pogciesi and 7/14/20iu 7:57:33 Page - 1 Ul I Y OF EUINA CITY COUNCIL CREDIT CARD PAYME tEGISTER 5/26/10 - 6125/10 Card Holder Aerchanl Account Name Trans Date Amount Purchase Discription Merchant Name Merchant City State Code JOHN KEPRIOS 2010105/26 $22.65 BANDAIDS /BANDAGES TARGET 00002600 ST. LOUIS PAR MN 1622.6406 JOHN KEPRIOS 2010/05/26 $239.50 CANDY, NUT, AND CONFECTI SNAPPY POPCORN CO INC 712 - 673 -2347 IA 5631.6406 JOHN KEPRIOS 2010/05/28 $57.08 CALENDAR CREATOR BRODERBUND 800 - 395 -0277 MN 5631.6513 JOHN KEPRIOS 2010/06/01 $31.07 HANGERS AND HOOKS CONTAINERSTOREMINNES( EDINA MN 5310.6406 JOHN KEPRIOS 2010/06/04 $37.00 TENNIS EQUIPMENT HEAD /PENN RACQUET SPT!602- 4472329 AZ 1623.6406 JOHN KEPRIOS 2010/06/04 $128.10 TENNIS EQUIPMENT HEAD /PENN RACQUET SPT:602- 4472329 AZ 1623.6406 JOHN KEPRIOS 2010/06/04 $104.75 TENNIS EQUIPMENT HEAD /PENN RACQUET SPT;602- 4472329 AZ 1623.6406 JOHN KEPRIOS 2010/06/07 $2,275.75 POOL LICENSE JEFF ELLIS & ASSOCIATES, 800 - 742 -8720 TX 5310.6103 JOHN KEPRIOS 2010/06/08 $165.00 TEAM TENNIS SHIRTS ACT *USTA TEAMTNS 877 - 243 -8107 CA 1623.6406 JOHN KEPRIOS 2010/06/08 $214.24 UTILITY TRAILER NOR *NORTHERN TOOL 800 - 222 -5381 MN 5630.6406 JOHN KEPRIOS 2010/06/09 $361.00 TENNIS MEMBERSHIPS UNITED STATES TENNIS 914- 696 -7000 NY 1623.6406 JOHN KEPRIOS 2010/06/09 $1,134.00 SOFTBALL TEAM REGISTRATIOI` MN RECREATION AND PARIS 763- 571 -1305 MN 4077.6103 JOHN KEPRIOS 2010/06/09 $150.00 TEAM TENNIS SHIRTS ACT *USTA TEAMTNS 877 - 243 -8107 CA 1623.6406 JOHN KEPRIOS 2010/06/10 $16.94 HABITAT BOOK AMAZON.COM AMZN.COM /BILI WA 5422.6406 JOHN KEPRIOS 2010/06/10 $27.03 YOUTH SUMMER PROGRAM WAL- MART #1855 EDEN PRAIRIE MN 1624.6406 JOHN KEPRIOS 2010/06/15 $148.20 YOUTH SUMMER PROGRAM TARGET 00023135 EDINA MN 1624.6406 JOHN KEPRIOS 2010/06/17 $130.81 YOUTH SUMMER PROGRAM DAVANNI'S #15 EDINA MN 1624.6406 JOHN KEPRIOS 2010/06/18 $395.67 SOCKS VISR WWW.VISR.NE' NC 5620.5510 JOHN KEPRIOS 2010/06/20 $58.94 YOUTH SUMMER PROGRAM WAL -MART EDEN PRAIRIE MN 1624.6406 JOHN KEPRIOS 2010/06/22 $190.00 YOUTH SUMMER PROGRAM TUTTLES BOWLING BAR AN 952 - 9384090 MN 1624.6406 JOHN KEPRIOS 2010/06/23 $33.90 MAP DVDS FOR GOLF NEVER - SEARCH 408 - 6055860 CA 5410.6406 JOHN KEPRIOS 2010/06/23 $78.73 SPRAY PAINT SKYJACK PARTS 630- 262 -0005 IL 5620.6532 JOHN KEPRIOS 2010/06/24 $70.21 YOUTH SUMMER PROGRAM TARGET 00023135 EDINA MN 1624.6406 JOHN KEPRIOS 2010/06/24 $21.43 YOUTH SUMMER PROGRAM TARGET 00023135 EDINA MN 1624.6406 JEFF LONG 2010/05/25 $119.98 16 2GB SD CARDS MICRO CENTER #045 RETAI ST LOUIS PARK MN 1400.6406 JEFF LONG 2010/06/01 $154.00 PADS FOR DEFIBRELLATORS AED BRANDS 877 - 231 -5222 GA 1400.6406 JEFF LONG 2010/06/02 $24.48 SWITCHPLATES THE HOME DEPOT 2812 EDEN PRAIRIE MN 1400.6406 JEFF LONG 2010/06/10 $22.38 TASK FORCE MEETING BRUEGGERS #21 EDINA MN 1400.6106 JEFF LONG 2010/06/11 $63.27 ORGANIZER FOR SQUAD GAL *GALLS INC 800 - 504 -0328 KY 1400.6406 JEFF LONG 2010/06/16 $5.02 SUPPLIES TARGET 00023135 EDINA MN 1400.6406 JEFF LONG 2010/06/16 $186.66 PRINTER LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL 800 - 8474778 KY 1400.6160 JEFF LONG 2010/06/16 $60.96 REPLACEMENT FOAM ENGINEERED PACKAGING 909 - 5927406 CA 1400.6203 JEFF LONG 2010/06/18 $92.13 RUBBER PORT COVERS RUGGED NOTEBOOKS 714 - 998 -1828 CA 1400.6160 JEFF LONG 2010/06/21 $29.15 AUDIO EXTENSION CABLE MONOPRICE COM 909 - 989 -6887 CA 1400.6406 JEFF LONG 2010/06/22 $87.18 MINI DIGITAL VIDEO CAMERA BUY.COM WWW.BUY.COP CA 1400.6406 JEFF LONG 2010/06/23 $213.04 BCA CONFERENCE ZAPEVENT 612- 548 -5648 MN 1400.6104 $8,249.17 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 poll es nd procedures date 7AID er Ul I Y Ur tUIIVH CITY COUNCIL CREDIT CARD PAYMENT REGISTER 5/26/10 -6/25/10 Card Holder Oerchani Account Name Trans Date Amount Purchase Discription Merchant Name Merchant City State Code JEFF LONG 2010/06/23 $34.93 MINI DIGITAL VIDEO CAMERA BUY.COM WWW.BUY.COP CA 1400.6406 JOHN WALLIN 2010/05/26 $275.00 JOB POSTING INFOSOFT GROUP INC 414 - 278 -0700 WI 1550.6121 JOHN WALLIN 2010/06/01 $34.78 ADMINISTRATION MEETING PANERA BREAD #1307 SAINT LOUIS P MN 1120.6106 JOHN WALLIN 2010/06/01 $176.94 COUNCIL WORKSHOP PANERA BREAD #1307 SAINT LOUIS P MN 1100.6106 JOHN WALLIN 2010/06/15 $136.95 COUNCIL WORKSHOP PANERA BREAD #1307 SAINT LOUIS P MN 1100.6106 JOHN WALLIN 2010/06/15 $20.28 COUNCIL WORKSHOP PANERA BREAD #1307 SAINT LOUIS P MN 1100.6106 JOHN WALLIN 2010/06/22 $118.33 HUMAN RELATIONS MEETING PANERA BREAD #1307 SAINT LOUIS P MN 1504.6218 JOHN WALLIN 2010/06/24 $301.71 RETIREMENT WATCH JCPENNEY STORE 1957 EDINA MN 1513.6103 . $8,249.17 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 poll es nd procedures date 7AID er (-k oe H�v � �l �O• lase REPORT /RECOMMENDATION To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL Agenda Item VII. A. DEBRA MANGEN ❑ Action From: CITY CLERK ❑ Discussion ® Information Date: JULY 20, 2010 Subject: CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED SINCE LAST COUNCIL MEETING INFORMATION /BACKGROUND: Attached are copies of a -mails and letters received since the last Council meeting. Susan Howl -rom: Jennifer [rjmeyovy @comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 10:13 AM RECEIVED To: Susan Howl Subject: Fwd: Comparison of other cities' annual budgets JUL 14 1010 Attachments: Overview of City Budgets.pdf; ATT15808001.htm Susan, The June 28 email and attachment below did not get included in the July 6 City Council packet. I am resending and ask that the email and attachment be included in the packet for the July 20 City Council meeting. Please contact me if you have any questions, or if you trouble with the attachment. Thanks so much! Jennifer Janovy Begin forwarded message: From: Jennifer <rimeyovy(a)-comcast.net> Date: June 28, 2010 8:47:32 AM CDT To: Mary Brindle <mbrindle(a)-comcast.net >, edinamail aci.edina.mn.us, ann Swenson Swenson <swensonann1(a gmail.com >, Scot Housh <scot.housha- willis.com >, Joni Bennett <6onibennett12 comcast.net >, James Hovland <jhovland krauserollins.com> Subject: Comparison of other cities' annual budgets Dear Mayor Hovland and Council members Bennett, Brindle, Housh and Swenson: Attached is an overview of annual budgets from each statutory optional plan B city and four adjacent communities. Edina has 15 funds but historically adopts an annual budget for only the General fund. As the attached overview shows, Edina stands alone in this practice. All other cities considered, with the possible exception of North St. Paul, adopt annual budgets that appear to include all funds -- including Liquor funds if they operate municipal liquor stores. If you would like copies of the budgets to review, please let me know and I will try to put them on disc or flash drive for you. I hope this information provides a helpful perspective as you continue the budget process. Understanding you are very busy, please acknowledge receipt of this email and let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. Sincerely, Jennifer Janovy 952- 920 -4373 The following is an overview of city budgets from all Optional Plan B cities in MN and four adjacent communities. Note that with the exception of Edina and possibly North St. Paul budgets appear to include all city funds. Burnsville (2010) Document length: 306 pages BUDGETED FUNDS: GENERAL FUND SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS Cable Franchise Fee Youth center Recycling Grant EDA Levy CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS Parks Capital Equipment, Vehicle, & Facilities Replacement Information Technology (/.T.) Capital Infrastructure Trust Street Revolving Improvement Construction G O DEBT FUND ENTERPRISE FUNDS Water & Sewer Ice Center Golf Course Storm Water Street Lighting Performing Arts Center Chanhassen (2010) Document length: 113 pages BUDGETED FUNDS: GENERAL FUND SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS: 10% Fund (accounting for pull -tab revenues) Cable TV 1 A ENTERPRISE FUNDS Water Utility Sewer Utility Surface Water Management City of Perham Budget document, not available online'. Budget information available online suggests annual budget includes all,funds: The City of Perham has a "total' 2010 Budget of $20,351,659. Much of this budget is devoted to debt service payments and business -like "enterprise" activities such as Water, Wastewater, Natural Gas,,Resource Recovery Facility, and Liquor Store. The City's "General Fund" budget is $1,336,220 and this includes things such as administration, police, streets, ice and snow 'removal, street lighting, airport, and parks & recreation. Other activities such as the rLibrary, Economic Development Authority (EDA), Fire, and Storm Sewer are provided for in separate "funds ". Eden Prairie (2010 -2011) Document length: 303 pages BUDGETED FUNDS GENERAL FUND DEBT SERVICE FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS Housing and Redevelopment (summary) Capital Projects (CIP) ENTERPRISE FUNDS Utility Storm Drainage Liquor', INTERNAL. SERVICE FUNDS Benefits. Severance Workers Compensation Fleet Services Information Technology Facilities 2 Edina (2010) Document length: 139 pages BUDGETED FUND GENERAL FUND Includes budget summary for Debt Service Fund and Construction Fund. Golden Valley (2010 -2011) Document length: 112 pages BUDGETED FUNDS GENERAL FUND ENTERPRISE FUNDS Water and Sewer Utility Brookview Golf Course Motor Vehicle Licensing Conservation - Recycling Storm Sewer Utility INTERNAL SERVICE FUND Vehicle Maintenance SPECIAL REVENUE FUND Golden Valley Human Services Foundation Maplewood (2010) Document length: 315 pages BUDGETED FUNDS OPERATING BUDGET GENERAL FUND SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS Charitable Gambling Police Services Recreation Programs Tree Preservation ENTERPRISE FUNDS Ambulance Service 3 r � - Community Center Environmental Utility Recycling Program Sanitary Sewer Street Light Utility INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS Fleet Management Information Technology CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET FUNDS: Capital Improvement Projects Fire Truck Replacement Legacy Village Tax Abatement District Open Space Land Acquisition Park Development Public Improvement Projects Redevelopment DEBT SERVICE BUDGET Debt Service Separate Debt Service Sub -Funds for each bond issue Milaca (2010) Document length: 49 pages BUDGETED FUNDS GENERAL FUND Fire Department Reserve. AGENCY FUNDS Brahaip- Milaca joint Powers Cable Commission.. CAPITAL PROJECT FUND DEBT SERVICE FUND WATER FUND SEWER FUND BUILDING INSPECTION FUND LIQUOR FUND DEPUTY REGISTRAR FUND ESCROW FUND 4 SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS: Economic Development Charitable Gambling DARE H.O.F. Fund Initiative Foundation TIF.Districts Mound (2010) Document length: 68 pages BUDGETED FUNDS GENERAL FUND AREA FIRE SERVICE FUND DOCKS FUND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND PARKING DECK MAINTENANCE FUND ENTERPRISE FUNDS Water Sewer Liquor Recycling Storm Water Utility New Brighton (2010) Document length: 69 pages BUDGETED FUNDS Not clear from the document, although there are sections for General Fund, Water, Sewer, Storm Water, Street Light System, and Golf Course 5 New Hope (2010) Document length: 130 pages BUDGETED FUNDS GENERAL FUND SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS EDA CDBG Solid Waste Management Bassett Creek Watershed DEBT SERVICE FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND ENTERPRISE FUNDS water/Sewer Storm Water Street Lighting Golf Course Ice Arena INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS . North St. Paul (2010) Document length: 7 pages BUDGETED FUNDS The document online is a summary of the General Fund budget Prior Lake (2010) Document length: 27 pages BUDGETED FUNDS GENERAL FUND WATER & SEWER FUND WATER QUALITY FUND TRANSIT FUND NON - BUDGETED FUNDS APPEARING IN DOCUMENT DEBT SERVICE FUNDS REVOLVING EQUIPMENT FUND 6 MAINTENANCE BUILDING FUND TREATMENT PLANT FUND PARK EQUIPMENT FUND Roseville (2010) Document length: 138 pages BUDGETED FUNDS GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS General Fund Recreation Fund Community Development Communications Information Technology License Center Lawful Gambling Pathway Maintenance Park Maintenance Park Improvement PROPRIETARY (ENTERPRISE) FUNDS Recycling Sanitary Sewer Water Storm Drainage Golf Course Shoreview (2010) Document length: 191 pages BUDGETED FUNDS GENERAL FUND SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS Recycling Community Center Recreation Programs Cable Television Economic Development Authority Housing, Redevelopment Authority Slice of Shoreview Event 7 Economic Development DEBT SERVICE FUND ENTERPRISE FUNDS Water Sewer Surface Water Street Lighting _ INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS Central Garage Short-term. Disability Liability. Claims Saint Anthony Village (2010) Document length: 136 pages BUDGETED FUNDS GENERAL FUND RECYCLING FUND FORFEITURE FUND FIRE EDUCATION TRAINING FUND HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY PARK IMPROVEMENT FUND STREET RECONSTRUCTION BOND FUND COMMUNITY CENTER FUND UTILITY FUND LIQUOR FUNDS Budget includes 5 -year Capital Improvement Plan ADJACENT CITIES -NOT OPTIONAL PLAN B Bloomington (2010) Document length: 298 pages BUDGETED FUNDS GENERAL FUND SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS Health Special Revenue DWI Forfeiture E: Enhanced 999 Drug Forfeiture Police Grants Pension Residual Communications Airport South DEBT SERVICE FUNDS Special Assessments Tax Levy Interest on Investments Federal Reimbursement ENTERPRISE FUNDS Recreational Facilities Golf Courses Ice Garden Aquatic Facilities Center for the Arts Water Utility Wastewater Utility Storm Water Utility Solid Waste Utility Contractual Police Motor Vehicle INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS Support Services Equipment Fund Information Systems Radio Insured Benefits Self - Insurance Benefit Accrual Facilities Replacement Strategic Priorities Tax Levy Pavement Management Program 6 Hopkins (2010) Document length: 313 pages BUDGETED FUNDS GENERAL FUND SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS State ChemicalAssessment Team Economic andj�C- 6 mmunity Development: Real Estate Purchases & Sales TIF Districts Para Transit' Housing Rehabilitation Parking Communications Depot Arts Center INTERNAL SERVICE FUND Equipment Replacement ENTERPRISE FUNDS Water Sanitary Sewer Refuse Storm Sewer Pavilion DEBT SERVICE FUNDS Minnetonka (2010) Document length: 62 pages BUDGETED FUNDS GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS Street Improvement Municipal State Aid Capital Replacement Park Dedication Park and Open Space Bond Community Investment Development— Community Development Department 10 Livable Communities Technology Development SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS Electric Franchise Fees Grants Housing and Redevelopment Authority Community Development Block Grant Cable Television ENTERPRISE FUNDS Storm Water Utility Division Environmental Williston Center Ice Arena Gray' s Bay Marina INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS Fleet Maintenance Insurance Richfield (2010) Document length: 345 pages BUDGETED FUNDS GENERAL FUND SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS Liquor Contribution Tourism Administration Communications Drug /Felony Forfeiture Contribution Funds Community Center 911 Fees Public Safety Compliance Fund Election Fund Pension Refund Fund Wood Lake Half Marathon Public Health Grants Utility Franchise Fees ENTERPRISE FUNDS Liquor Stores I1 Water and Wastewater Utility Storm Sewer Utility Recreation INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS Central Garage information Technologies, Self Insurance Building "Services DEBT SERVICE FUND Includes .Capital Improvement Budget RECEIVED JUL 14 2010 July 6, 2010 Dear Mayor Hovland, We are writing to you in the hope of appealing to your sense of fairness. On December 18, 2009, a water main sprang a leak under Wooddale Avenue in front of our house. It was not the pipe to our house, but the main running parallel to the street underneath it. The water pouring out of the main put pressure on the sewer line leading from our house to the main sewer line which lay beneath it. That line broke as well. The water from the main poured up our sewer line and up through the drain in our finished basement. Fortunately for our neighbors, ours was the only house affected. It took city workers eight hours to figure out that it was the city water main that was causing the issue and not tree roots causing the backup into our basement, like they insisted was the cause. The following timeline explains the order of events in more detail: Friday 3:15 PM — Tia discovers an inch or two of water in our utility room in the basement and calls Roto- Rooter, thinking it was a sewer backup caused by tree roots. 4:00— Roto- Rooter (Sebastian) arrives. He cleans our line, says that the sewer line is clear and believes our problem is being caused by something in the main line. 5:00 —Jim from the City of Edina comes out and does a visual examination of the main sewer line by opening various manhole covers and looking down them. He leaves soon thereafter to get the jetter truck. 6:30 — Jim and crew return with jetter truck. I am not sure why this took over an hour. 7:00 — Rotor Rooter (Sebastian) leaves. 7:15 — Coit (cleaning company) arrives. 7:30 — Water temporarily recedes. 7:45 — Water starts coming back in through basement drain. Jim from the City of Edina says that the problem is our sewer line and has us call Roto- Rooter back to have them re -clean the line. We showed him the invoice from Roto- Rooter showing that the line was clear, but Jim said we needed to have the line cleaned before the City would do anything else. 8:00 — City of Edina crew leaves. 9:30 — second Roto- Rooter person arrives. 9:45 — City crew comes back to look at sewer main again. City crew calls Gary Wells. 9:50 — Roto- Rooter person verifies that line is clear and doesn't feel right billing us a second time for something that was already done so doesn't charge us. Roto- Rooter person tells City that problem is not with our outbound sewer line. Roto- Rooter person leaves. Saturday 1:00 AM — City determines that there is a water main break (eight hours after they initially came out). They reduce the water pressure for our street enough so that water no longer pushes up through our basement drain. 1:30 AM — City leaves. Coit leaves, after having pumped between 600 and 900 gallons of water out of our basement. During this entire time our sump pump was running as well. On Saturday a City crew came out and drilled through the street in front of our house. They fixed both the sewer line from our house and the water main break. The city workers agreed that the water main break must have caused the break in our sewer line. On Saturday Colt was here pumping out more water that came through as the city crew tested the line and fixed the break. Colt also started to do some of the removal /cleaning work needed in our finished basement. We, and everyone we talked to, were confident that any damage not covered by our insurance would be covered by the city, given that the damage was from city pipes on city property. So imagine our shock when we received a letter from Edina's insurer saying that we would receive no compensation for the damages, which ultimately totaled $11,598.85 (see the cost summary below). The claim was denied because the city performed routine maintenance on the water main; therefore, the city was not liable for any damages caused by breaks of that main. This doesn't seem right. We feel we've done everything within reason to protect our house. We have a sump pump and drain tile, and our homeowner's insurance covers the first $10,500 of cost related to a sewer back -up. After the burst sewer pipe catastrophe that happened just a block south of us on Wooddale a year ago, we knew the importance of that back -up clause. We also knew that the residents were lucky enough to include an attorney who argued their case when the city also refused to be responsible for any of the damages on that block. We also know that the residents of that block were lucky in that you were on the side of those residents when some city council members, inexplicably, were not. Mayor Hovland, we don't want to go through the hassle of hiring an attorney and taking action against the city over $1,100 in repairs that, to us, the city should pay for. We doubt that the city would want that either, considering there are at least 2 precedents of the city covering damage from sewer and /or water main damage to homes in other areas of Edina. In addition, the eight hours it took for the city workers to diagnose the problem, despite the recent history of similar problems on our very street, certainly contributed to the extent of the damages to our basement. We love our city. We love living here, but we are very disappointed with how this problem has been handled by the city. Can you please help us get these remaining out of pocket costs reimbursed by the City of Edina, which would go far in restoring our faith in the way things work in this otherwise wonderful city? Siroc Tely, � Dave and Tia Sm e 5925 Wooddale Ave. 950 - 920 -0079 tiasmythe @gmail.com Cost Summary Roto- Rooter $259.00 Coit (various cleanup services) $7,520.56 ProSource Wholesale Floorcoverings (replacement carpet and pad) $1,859.29 Royal Carpet Service (replacement carpet installation) $860.00 Joe Jungers d /b /a Tylit Construction (drywall, trim, cabinet re- installation, and painting) $1,100.00 Total Cost $11,598.85 Less State Farm reimbursement ($10,500.00) Net amount requested $1,098.85 . HO Date Date �• - _ Ticket No. ". Customer. �= - `� _.. Technician i._;..y. _ ':fi. "i'C .KIi00TFR. _ a ..rri;i3•�r 11MAIN 13511062 ? ' ._i��. Viz:_ �.'7. �.:fi•: �:ti. O- GET-DWO Residential Site Inspection & Estimate (see Binding Terms on Reverse). Customer g!Y&2��atlonicb parts Dot Total Dedin Silgr f cat $ Water Su�ppas : D ' ❑ 13 Sk*- plain Lines E3 ❑ fladgerstw4cellpaher .. 0 - ❑ ❑ 13 13 -Dishwasher Water A mnte)' fl E3 • El Water filter fl— ' ...❑ 13 Lev - Faucet & Water Supplies ❑ ❑ ❑ Lavatory - Drain Lines ❑ ❑ ❑ Shower ❑ ❑ ❑ Toilet - Operatktn ❑ ❑ ❑ Drainage ❑ ❑ ❑ Fauoels ❑ D ❑ Washer Drains fl � WeshkrglwrladttneHoses 13 1j' 111fabe''Flamrrl�r � • � .. --.— .— , - _ ❑ . fl I�elie� Valves . 13 ... 13 ❑ Tankless (Water temperature) .. 13 E3 ❑ Tank ❑ ❑ ❑ Boiler Drain , . ❑ ❑ ❑ Bap ValveffShut -Oita ❑ ❑ ❑ Water Supply & Piping ❑ ❑ ❑ Water Piping .. �' 17 Shut-Off at Water Service '❑ ` ` 13' L3 Drain unes ❑ ❑ ❑ • Pressure Reducing VsNe — . , 13 ❑ Waw or $swags an Floor Q �: i - ❑ Main Sewer Line J .! ._ r r , ❑ Hose Bib ❑ = ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Mairtiinanoe Products ❑ . `-r•• ' 0 Clean and Treat • D, �: , . - � . fl 13 Q. 13 Whole House Spedd 13. .i Othe.— ' ❑ 4 WORK ORDER AUTHORIZATION I authorize the services indicated above and agree to pay the amounts specified. I have .� read and agree to the tempad ire fever$e side, ironding the limits on Robftootet's respons #90410441069 Isms .. G . ; �7 r (Print Nsrfiqi�i- ESTIMATE AND DESCRIPTION OF WORK TO BE PERFORMED: Total ealbrtate ratleda amiorner arOtorizdm d work as kdcded above. � " - " Labor ; :► : 3 t - Discount ; Product ; MMENTSIADJUSTMENTSICHANOES II4WORK: Other ; -- TOTAL Tax not inducted M Whole. ��: ;` F': �'• Q� ~I.�datowledp' oonlat of the above desalted work tlrttkr has been donet?o my oanplete sefisfgctiort. �._ _- •��• --, A. (SlgrtaW�a.�•. r ' :.; (Print Narrte)'x� .x� - %• 'a �':r t COMM& COIT 11100 Hampshire Ave S., Bloomington, MN, 55438 Lire Item Total C'eanine Sales Tax Replacement Cost Value Net Claim Summary for Dwelling 7,010.54 @ 7.275% x 7,010.55 510.02 _ $7,520.56 $7,520.56 1 --A2ff*ew VetterU. R100553 12/23/2009 Page:8 5925 WODDALE AVE S EDINA, MN 55424 Telephone:9529200079 PROSOURCE OF BLOOMINGTON Page 1 9201 PENN AVE SO. #36 BLOOMINGTON, MN 55431 n Telephone: 952-881-7388 Fax: 952-881-6788 c .a 0 ACKNOWLEDGMENT Z PROSOURCE OF BLOOMINGTON N Z v n r M Order Date PO / Sidemark Order Number 02/22/10 CGO10331 Style /Item Color /Description Size Quantity Units Price Total MONTEVEGO - ACTION PALM DESERT BAC -12FT OOIN MOHAWK DROP BLOOMINGTON —02/22/10 Sales Consultant(s): J.C. DORAN 12X54.75 657.00 SF 2.60 1,708.20 010 11X010" 1.00 EA 25.00 25.00 Member /Client responsibility to verify style, color, and size. Special order products are non - returnable other products are subject to a 30% restocking fee. Not responsible for product left in whse more than 60 days. Signature: Member: E , DALE Material: Service: Sales Tax: NVOICE TOTAL: Less Payment(s): BALANCE DUE: e: - 3:28PM — 1, 733.20 0.00 126.09 $1,859.29 $0.00 64 5- -9 19 STATEMENT DATE (TERMS TO ADDRESS IN ACCOUNT WITH mmini rnmet Service 24018 E. Cedar Lk. Dr. Newt Prague- KAN 560TI tj 4119 A L^ L _ a:,sde s DC5812 't'-a'31 -i2S i Submitted TL �r.r.. ;., P .!r t. � YS Gig. PCd'fR4 9Fk Sit i�t�,: ...... .- ._.r-- ..�,_.__...._._...,..,, .�.— ..._...�.. �.«. Nb me Street ���� (JVOBG�G�I� /9V� Street b City % State !' City State Phone C7s�, G �v ' D4 ` q _F Date of Plans � Architect We hereby propose to furnish the materials and perform the labor necessary for the completion of Ozp— r % - •1 - 41 C' � ro�1�� �� �: -�,�►� , ��,�,� u�` walls All material is guaranteed to be as specified, and the above work to be performed in accordance with the drawings and specifications submitted for above wori)an/� comp ed in a substantial �norkmanlike manner for the sum of SCc.,,� 0 Dollars [S (X) i, with payments to be made as follows: /1 An, 31taral:ion or ri?':iation f -orn above slinifiratons invoking c>..ra Costs. %.:'ill he eXOCLIted cnP; upon oaten orders. and :.,ill become an f_;espeufully submitted c`,:aroe o •er E;,nd albo E. the e.. I nat.e. -ail agraelne r.s con intent ,pan stri::es, s.c;icencs nr ^clay, bcyand our ccri:rol, 7:. -c-' to e.^rr. fir,- rorl'; aC 6nd ',that ncrec::ar inslra�ir.e LOOM =. rte V'cr I'ef rn ^_n °. !;CfiiUeilSBi:r �:i Irl PUi;!![: ! i;i Jif ?Fy Ir3ui enCi2 nn ahr,`.p ...;r ?: t.-i tae t e4:an Gilt ill fi. - 'I n "w . ,;i,.,ld- ,7wrl P i CIS + ni]L arr'cote,! l Nl;:illn flc;yi. t JUN 2 � 2010 soYA t"A ' Ms. Helen McClelland _ 5717 Confine" Dr Minneapolis, MN 55436 -17 ta.�tie, h, 2 0 /D 4 77/V.' cSoL u E / U111- INOT dAv? 77 54c-a,5 /le, 'zo /D /fie ,P2 --cam .Z�a 69 . nom ot� Z& Jq Jo fie. 6 4 &wc� _ ..� A ,.,�..'�`�� A alr"�e. CP "-m4lell� ate. RECEIVED Page 1 of 1 JUL 14 2010 Edina > Community Edina's Calvin Christian School remodel wins award Print Page Published: Thursday, July 1, 2010 12:55 PM CDT Minneapolis -based Kodet Architectural Group recently received a 2010 American Institute of Architects Merit Award for its work on Edina's Calvin Christian School. The architectural team was asked to transform the 1950s box school into a facility that reflects the quality of education offered. The design, which included a remodel and addition, was meant to enhance the site and reflect the adjacent residential area. The environmentally conscious addition utilizes natural light. The work includes a new entry way and new integrated media center with a large library and adjoining computer lab. The addition also transformed an existing parking lot into a landscape feature that helps separates bus and automobile traffic. Several rain gardens were also planted around campus. Craig Veurink and Karen Christensson from the Calvin Christian School and several members of the Kodet Architectural Group, including the company president Edward Kodet and project designer Teri Nagel, accepted the award at the American Institute of Architects' annual luncheon in June. Copyright © 2010 - Sun Newspapers [x] Close Window http: / /www.mnsun.comlarticles/ 2010 /07 /01ledinalcommunityled01 calvindesign.prt 7/7/2010 RECEIVED Susan Howl JUL I 1010, From: edinacountryside @googlegroups.com on behalf of Barbara Hoganson [barbarahoganson @comcast.netj Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 11:04 PM To: edinacountryside @googlegroups.com Subject: ATTEND: July 20th, 7PM Edina City Council Mtg at City Hall + Electronic Petition, Email City Council, Attend July 13th Mtg at Fire Station Attachments: Notice to the July 20th City Council Meeting.pdf Importance: High Hello Edina Countryside Neighbors and Greater Edina Residents. (Five Very important Items Noted Below — Please Take Action -- Our Last Chance at the City!) We just received the notice of the City Council Meeting on July 20th. Please see the first attachment. The notice is copied below in the email too. Please note the project description is stating that this is a senior convalescent home. If you recall from the Dec 29, 2009 Developer Application it refers to the development as an "upscale senior housing community". The zoning code, the notice, and what is proposed to be built, is not being represented for what it is. This is senior housing with services and will NOT be a licensed nursing home. They can't get a nursing home license - -the state has a moratorium on nursing home licenses. They will get a class F registration "license" to provide home care services and a nurse to supervise "skilled care." They technically only need one nurse for the whole bldg. We don't know how many nurses they will have on staff, but we know if they don't have the license, they are not a nursing home. There is great risk to all of us when zoning codes are changes and being used for something that they are not. Please email the City Council and share your concern. Emails are in section 4 below. 2. We only have one week left before we present to the City Council on July 20th at 7 PM at City Hall of Edina. We really need all of you to come to City Hall on July 20th to show that you oppose this project, and request the City Council through your presence, or through the 3 minute Community Comment Section to VOTE NO to the Living Waters Project. THIS IS OUR LAST CHANCE TO PRESENT TO THE CITYI Please email this notice to all of your friends and family in Edina as this is a greater Edina issue. We want to have all neighborhoods of Edina represented. If you want to represent your neighborhood and at speak for 3 minute at the meeting, please email me back ASAP. If you are able to volunteer to call and get people to the meeting, please email hollv4ravellea- aol.com. 3. If you have not yet done so, we really need your support to complete the electronic petition /survey now! We have 149 people that completed the petition, we now have 400 people on our email distribution list, and we need the other 250 people and other Greater Edina Residents to complete the petition /survey now! So please click on the link: Edina Countryside Electronic Petition and Survey 4. Please write to the City Council and share your concerns at edinamail(a-)ci.edina.mn.us and please copy jkoogenakkeraci.edina.mn.us Send one email addressed to the two emails addresses. Ask the City Council to please VOTE NO to the Colonial Church and Shelter Corp's Development Application. Share your concerns about Colonial Church being a nonprofit organization that has operated for more than 30 years as a conditional use permit holder in a 100% residential area, being potentially allowed to form a for profit business partnership to build a $40 million upscale apartment building that we feel will alter the character and symmetry of the residential neighborhood forever. It would be a massive building, nearly 600 ft long, and up to 52 ft tall, and 100 ft deep, being in a neighborhood with no building even approaching the same size. Since the Developer and Church would not or could not compromise with the 2 story, 50 — 75 units, we feel the church's property should remain residential and be developed as single family, or town homes. The Comp Plan should not have been changed to accommodate this project-as this appears to be "spot zoning ". Zoning codes are laws and they should be respected. Be aware of all church property and school properties around the city that have land, as their land can also be repurposed for a mega complex of this scale. If it can be developed here, it can be done in other residential areas as well. There are zoning precedents here that we all should be very concerned with! 5. We are meeting at the Fire Station, tomorrow, July 13th at 7 PM to prepare for the meeting on July 201h. We ask all the speakers that shared their concerns to be available to do the same on July 2 0th We are not sure if we will need RECEIVED Susan Howl JUL 1 1010 'rom: Lynette Biunno Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 1:43 PM To: Gordon Hughes; Cary Teague Cc: Susan Howl; Arlene Forrest; Floyd Grabiel; Jeffrey Carpenter; Julie Risser; Karwehn Kata; Kevin Staunton; Michael Fischer; Michael Schroeder; Nancy N. Scherer; Steve Brown Subject: FW: Nursing Home in Edina Attachments: ATTEND: July 20th, 7PM Edina City Council Mtg at City Hall + Electronic Petition, Email City Council, Attend July 13th Mtg at Fire Station Hello there, I have forwarded this message to the Mayor and Council members, Gordon Hughes, Cary Teague and the Planning Commission members. Lynette Biunno City of Edina Receptionist 952 - 927 -8861 www.cityofedina.com From: Merlin1954 @aol.com [mailto: Merlin 1954 @aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 1:24 PM To: Lynette Biunno Subject: Nursing Home in Edina To the Edina City Council, The problem for most of us here in Edina is not seniors, but our city council's perceived sneakiness in this process. It's not the first time the city has sprung a project on us without adequate notice. This building was first advertised as a retirement community for wealthy seniors. (in the original application). Along the way, it's now morphed into a hospice -, nursing facility. There will be nursing staff, etc. There will be constant big traffic (medical deliveries, equipment moving around, ambulances, etc.) This is a far cry from a few little old ladies and gentlemen sitting on park benches. We feel fooled. The privately -owned Colonial Church will receive financial benefits from it as well, courtesy of our public -owned local government. Who gave the Council the right to assist church budgets at the expense of the voters? Edina residents feel left out of the decision - making and gypped. By the time we found out about this, the Council had already made up their minds. The small cosmetic changes made by Colonial Church make no difference to the issues of zoning exceptions that benefit private entities and violate the neighborhood rules that the rest of us are supposed to obey. These are the things that matter to Edina residents opposed to this facility, not number of stories /units. Please take this into consideration. The voters certainly will in the next election. Thanks. Donna Callender 952 - 920 79344 Susan Howl Subject: FW: Senior housing project RECEIVED JUL 14 2010 Subject: Senior housing project Dear Edina City council, We urge you to support the final proposed Waters Senior Housing Project as passed by the City of Edina Planning Commission last week at your 7/20/10 Council meeting. Sincerely, Paul and Stephanie Cavanor Al2 • OPINION - STAR TRIBUNE - MONDAY, JULY 5, 2010 Editorials Editorials represent the institutional voice of the Star Tnbune. They are researched and written by the Editorial Department, which is independent of the newsroom StarTribune MICHAEL T.P. SWMENEY, Chairman MICHAEL J. ffi.INCENSMITH, Publisher and CEO SCOTT CILLESPIE, Editor, Editorial Pages t -RISE les add value, t use the ? I am among those who appreciate your coverage of the downward spi- ral ofMinnesota's lakes ( "Losing our lakes;' June 20 -22). We live in a traditional suburban neighborhood that is having simi- lar problems with local government being too timid to enforce laws that protect a traditional environment The Edina City Council wants to let a company build a high -rise apartment building in our neigh- borhood, even though it would vio- late zoning rules. No problem for the council:- It will just declare the rules void for this one developer, on this particular property. But it's a big problem for Edina residents. This high -rise will cause big increases in traffic and an eye- sore business towering over the lo- cal park People live here precisely because the zoning laws do not per- mit big businesses in quiet neigh- borhoods with small children who get around by foot and on bicycles. What recourse do residents have when elected officials refuse to en- force existing laws? By the time the next election comes for voting the officials out, the damage has been done. This is unacceptable. If residents have to obey the rules, then the of- ficials who are supposed to enforce the rules need to do their jobs, too. DONNA CALLENDER, Edina Steven and Catherine Thatcher RECEIVED 6201 Creek Valley Road JUL 14 2010 Edina, MN 55439. July 12, 2010 Edina City Council Edina City Hall Edina, MN 55424 Re: The Waters Senior Living of Edina Dear Council Members, We are writing to strongly support The Waters Senior Living of Edina. Edina needs more senior housing. Many Edina seniors would like to continue living in Edina, and this project would allow them to do so. It would also help to free up single family homes for young families with kids in our schools. This is a good location for the project. It has good freeway access but it is still away from residents. The fire station and a tall tree berm will block the view from the east, west and north. Traffic studies have shown that it will generate little additional traffic in the area. This project is well designed to appeal to seniors and their families. It will have good amenities but will be reasonably priced. The developer has a lot of experience with other similar projects, especially the Colony in Eden Prairie. The developer has recently made significant changes to accommodate its neighbors. It has reduced the height to 3 stories and the number of units to 139. It also modified the front of the building to make it more architecturally interesting and redesigned the roof to make it look more residential. We are asking the City Council to approve this project at its July 20 meeting. Very t yours, Steven and Catherine Thatcher RECEIVED Dear Mayor Hovland and Council Members Swenson, Brindle, Bennett, and Housh, JUL 14 2010 I am writing to express my deep concern for the complete disregard that the Edina Planning Commission and the Edina City Council have shown towards the Edina's zoning laws and processes in the matter of the Waters Project. Once again, the taxpayers' sentiments are being disregarded at the whim of the City Council. There is a great deal of talk around Edina now that someone must be receiving kick backs as more and more unwanted and unnecessary projects are being bullied through as affected taxpayers sit back in disbelief. I have other feelings about the Waters Senior Living Project that I would like to share with you. I attended the June 30th planning commission meeting to stand in support of the Countryside neighborhood against The Waters. The banter between the developer and some planning commission members made it sound like this senior living facility was a five star hotel. It is easy to idealize nursing home care and the continuum of services they provide whether it be independent senior living, assisted living, Alzheimer's/Dementia care, long -term care for extended care and rehabilitation, transitional care for short-term rehabilitation, out- patient therapy, or rehabilitation services. When it comes right down to it, the management and oversight of a nursing home /care facility is a challenging and often monumental task. Consumer Reports found that Not - for - Profit nursing homes generally provided better care than For - Profit facilities and that independent nursing homes provided better care than those who operate numerous homes. http://v;\v\v.SeniorJoumal.com/NEWS/Eldereare/6-08-07- ConsumerRei)orts.htm One of the most difficult things about running a nursing home /care facility is employing competent, experienced employees. At the meeting on the 30"', they talked about the registered nurses that would work at the care center, but let me assure you that the majority of the staff that will have direct contact with patients are the certified nursing assistants. Nursing assistants need only a high school diploma and nursing assistant training. They assist a patient in eating, dressing and undressing, bathing, toileting, collecting non - invasive body fluid specimens and taking vital signs. The nursing assistant staff is difficult to oversee and manage because they spend a great deal of their time with patients in their room. Unfortunately, there is a great deal of neglect of patients and even patient abuse going on in nursing homes. http://www.nursing-home- abuse-resource.com/care center /nursing_home statistics.html. Unfortunately, my father, who was an Edina resident at 5205 Lochloy Drive for 40 years, met his demise at the Walker Southview Nursing Home in Richfield where he was sent to convalesce from a fall by Fairview Southdale Hospital. My father who was not ambulatory and suffered from dementia was bludgeoned until he was black and blue by a nursing assistant, who four other staff members had reported for smelling alcohol on him the evening of the assault. My father spent several days in intensive care and did not return to Walker. My father's case was prosecuted by Hennepin County as a vulnerable adult case, but the jury did not convict the nursing assistant because there was no eye witness, and my father could not testify since he had dementia. My Dad died less than a year later. http• / /www startribune com/local/89652802 html ?elr= KArksi8cyaiUeyD8 o8cyaiU47cQUU I wonder if you have looked into each of the senior care facilities operated by The Waters. In just a few minutes of research online, I discovered that two of their facilities have very poor ratings. In fairness, I included The Colony ratings which were favorable. I did not find many of their other facilities as they are located in small towns throughout the state. However, the Minnesota Department of Health has records on all nursing homes. Have you contacted them? Or are we to believe only what Jay Jensen tells us. Woodbury Health Care Center, owned by The Waters Senior Living was rated 2 out of 5 star's by Our Parents http:// www. ourparents .com/minnesota/woodbury/woodbury health_care_center Birchwood Health Care Center, owned by The Waters Senior Living was rated 1 out of 5 stars by Our Parents httT):HwwA7.oumarents.com/minnesota/forest lake/birchwood health care center Birchwood Health Center was also rated by Member of the Family. See table below. http://memberofthefamily.net/regisla/rrm.htm REPEAT VIOLATIONS: 1) Make sure that residents who take drugs are not given too many doses or for too long; 2) make sure that the use of drugs is carefully watched; or 3) stop or change drugs that cause unwanted effects. Give each resident care and services to get or keep the highest quality of life possible. Give professional services that follow each resident's written care plan. Give proper treatment to residents with feeding tubes to prevent problems (such as aspiration pneumonia, diarrhea, vomiting, dehydration, metabolic abnormalities, nasal - pharyngeal ulcers) and help restore eating ski lls, if possible. Give residents proper treatment to prevent new bed (pressure) sores or heal existing bed sores. Have a program to keep infection from spreading. Have drugs and other similar products available, which are needed every day and in emergencies, and give them out properly. Make a complete assessment that covers all questions for areas that are listed in official regulations. Make sure that each resident who enters the nursing home without a catheter is not given a catheter, unless it is necessary. Make sure that the nursing home area is free of dangers that cause accidents. Provide care in a way that keeps or builds each resident's dignity and self respect. Store, cook, and give out food in a safe and clean way. COMPLAINT INSPECTIONS: NONE ON FILE MEDICARE Much Belo lBased on Overall Rating SAYS Average as of 02/08/10 Click For Additional Medicare Ratings & Reports DATE: � BIRCHWOOD HEALTH CARE ANNUAL 05/10/07 06/30/08 109/04/09 CENTER Click for More Information SURVEYS i FOREST LAKE (COUNTY: BATING - Washington) TOTAL CONFIRMED VIOLATIONS 724 15 8 BY SURVEY DATE STATE AVERAGE VIOLATIONS BY 10 �I 10 9 SURVEY DATE REPEAT VIOLATIONS: 1) Make sure that residents who take drugs are not given too many doses or for too long; 2) make sure that the use of drugs is carefully watched; or 3) stop or change drugs that cause unwanted effects. Give each resident care and services to get or keep the highest quality of life possible. Give professional services that follow each resident's written care plan. Give proper treatment to residents with feeding tubes to prevent problems (such as aspiration pneumonia, diarrhea, vomiting, dehydration, metabolic abnormalities, nasal - pharyngeal ulcers) and help restore eating ski lls, if possible. Give residents proper treatment to prevent new bed (pressure) sores or heal existing bed sores. Have a program to keep infection from spreading. Have drugs and other similar products available, which are needed every day and in emergencies, and give them out properly. Make a complete assessment that covers all questions for areas that are listed in official regulations. Make sure that each resident who enters the nursing home without a catheter is not given a catheter, unless it is necessary. Make sure that the nursing home area is free of dangers that cause accidents. Provide care in a way that keeps or builds each resident's dignity and self respect. Store, cook, and give out food in a safe and clean way. COMPLAINT INSPECTIONS: NONE ON FILE MEDICARE Much Belo lBased on Overall Rating SAYS Average as of 02/08/10 Click For Additional Medicare Ratings & Reports Providence Place is rated by Member of the Family. See table below. COMPLAINTS: 7 VIOLATIONs SUBSTANTIATED: Click here. Use Back Button to Return to this Page MEDICARE Below Based on Quality SAYS Average Measures as of 02/08/10 Click For Additional Medicare Ratings & Reports DATE: F- PROVIDENCE PLACE Click for More ANNUAL 12/14/06 02/08/08 05/08/09 Information SURVEYS MINNEAPOLIS (COUNTY: Hennepin) RATING TOTAL CONFIRMED VIOLATIONS BY SURVEY DATE 15 9 2 STATE AVERAGE VIOLATIONS BY I 1p I 0 9 SURVEY DATE ' REPEAT VIOLATIONS: 1) Hire only people who have no legal history of abusing, neglecting or mistreating residents; or 2) report and investigate any acts or reports of abuse, neglect or mistreatment of residents. 1) Make sure that residents who take drugs are not given too many doses or for too long; 2) make sure that the use of drugs is carefully watched; or 3) stop or change drugs that cause unwanted effects. Give residents proper treatment to prevent new bed (pressure) sores or heal existing bed sores. Make a complete assessment that covers all questions for areas that are listed in official regulations. PROVIDENCE PLACE is on the National Watch List: click here to find out why COMPLAINTS: 7 VIOLATIONs SUBSTANTIATED: Click here. Use Back Button to Return to this Page MEDICARE Below Based on Quality SAYS Average Measures as of 02/08/10 Click For Additional Medicare Ratings & Reports DATE: F THE COLONY AT EDEN PRAIRIE Click I ANNUAL 104/11/07 1 12/20/07 112/30/08 for More Information 1SURVEYS1 EDEN PRAIRIE COUNTY: Hennepin) RATING r— TOTAL CONFIRMED VIOLATIONS BY 11 10 0 _ SURVEY DATE STATE AVERAGE VIOLATIONS BY SURVEY DATE 10 j 10 9 REPEAT VIOLATIONS: Develop a complete care plan that meets all of a resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured. Make a complete assessment that covers all questions for areas that are listed in official regulations. Make sure that each resident who enters the nursing home without a catheter is not given a catheter, unless it is necessary. COMPLAINT INSPECTIONS: NONE ON FILE MEDICARE Above Based on Nurse Staffing SAYS Average as of 02/08/10 Click For Additional Medicare Ratings & Reports http:// www. memberofthefamily .net/registry /mn.htm In conclusion, with the uncertainty of the economy and the effects of the new health care reforms, I do not think it is prudent for The Waters to be built, especially when most Edina taxpayers do not want the invasion of commercial enterprise into the middle of their neighborhoods. Nursing homes /facilities have a bad name for a reason. I don't hear too many people say, "I can hardly wait until my children put me in a nursing home. I urge the City Council to do the responsible thing and REJECT The Waters Senior Living project. Very truly yours, Ann Compton 5201 Lochloy Drive Edina, MN 55436 RECEIVED Susan Howl 7mn Hello, I respectfully ask that you forward this email to all City Council members in advance of the Colonial /Shelter final design vote that is upcoming. I originally supported a senior housing project believe it met the needs of our aging population in Edina. After further review, I think this project is out of scale, does not carry a design aesthetic worthy of our city and is not in our best interests as a community as proposed. As a public relations manager, I've worked with multiple commercial developers on projects both supported by neighborhoods and projects that are opposed. In most cases, the developers have been asked to change scale or design of projects somewhere in the process (which always included many neighborhood meetings and reviews by Council). The multiple developers in my experience have found a way to make changes without walking away from the total project. (Shadow Falls, Corridor Flats, Metro Lofts, Phoenix on the River and 2700 the Avenue are a few). A few projects. I've seen did not meet the test of common sense, and they failed. Other developers I've watched did not have the financial condition required to be a long -term player in the communities where they sought to do business. In this economy, a financial test for viability long -term should be essential. I hope you have retained an outside auditor for this critical task if that audit capability is not available on the Council. My personal experience is that developers may come in with an 'all or nothing' proposal (a tactic) -- but it is rarely so simple. Good developers find a way to rescale and make their projects work. Please ask Colonial and Shelter to redesign the scale of this project to reduce its impact on the parks and neighborhood shared by so many. Please ask for a redesign that is more aesthetically in keeping with the City's landmark projects. Also, it is truly a big signal and precedent from this City Council to rezone a residential neighborhood for commercial use with so much opposition. Naturally, with so many out of town in July, you won't get the attendance that shows the magnitude of opposition – and the developers are counting on this. As a citizen and taxpayer with three children and 25 years paying taxes in Edina, I'd like to know the value the City is getting back for the loss of pure residential zoning. Mixed use /retail boutiques /small service shops /small footprint grocery would be a great add , but that's not what we're getting with a 150 unit apartment building. I understand the value of commercial taxes vs. the cost of neighborhoods, parkland and woods. Please be clear with us why you think we must have that tradeoff at this time — or vote no on this project. Respectfully submitted, Joanne B. Henry 5700 Johnson Drive Edina, MN 55436 Susan Howl From: Spencer Turner [mailto:turnersal2 @gmail.com] RECEIVED Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 11:31 AM To: Lynette Biunno Cc: 'Barbara Hoganson' JUL 14 2010 Subject: to: Mayor Hovland and City Council members Dear Mayor and Council, Re: Waters Senior Living You have heard from me several times before. I urge you to NOT give final approval to the currently planned 3 and 4 story senior living project as proposed by Shelter Corporation and Colonial Church. Please send the proposal back to them for downsizing. The preliminary approval by the Planning Commission was a mistake. If the Countryside neighbors had not become so upset about the project it would have gone through as originally proposed — a 4 story mammoth facility sticking out like a sore thumb in a residential area. As a resident of the Countryside area I have felt, throughout the last four months, that the burden of proving why this facility was just too big fell only on the residents of the area. The City, the developer and the church did not ever, once, have the responsibility of proving to the neighbors how the project would benefit them. The voluntary reduction in size by Shelter Corporation from 150 units to 139 units is nothing more than window dressing. All of the concerns expressed by the area residents are caused by the large size of the building. A two story, 75 unit building would allay a lot of those concerns and be a win /win solution to all concerned. I urge you to vote, not to cancel the project, but to send it back to the developer for a reduction in size. Spencer Turner 6208 Hillside Rd. Edina MN 55436 952 - 929 -6216 Turnersal2 @gmail.com Susan Howl Subject: FW: June 30th meeting Please forward to: Mayor Hovland RECEIVED Council Bennett Council Brindle JUL 14 2010 Council Housh Council Swenson Any additional persons involved in this proposed project. I am sending this e-mail in the hopes that you will read it in its entirety. I understand you have been inundated with calls, a -mails and letters and I know each one is important. My letter concerns a June 30th meeting with City Council, Shelter Corp. /Colonial Church and the Countryside Neighborhood. I would like to start with a question. How do you (City of Edina) decide what is in the best interest of a neighborhood without asking the neighborhood? In regards to our June 30th meeting, before the neighborhood (who is opposing this project) was allowed their 3 minutes to speak, we were totally dismissed. Julie Risser had excellent questions on the rezoning of this property from residential to commercial. Steve Brown was very irritated by her questions and remarks. Bottom line is, if the neighborhood were involved in the rezoning discussion we wouldn't have a need for these meetings. Julie had the most realistic viewpoints about the Shelter Corp. /Colonial Church project and any future projects that can be rezoned at any time for any reason without a vote or input from the neighborhood it affects. As she brought up these issues Steve Brown shook his head with disgust, put his face in his hands and turned his chair around several times. Sorry Steve if these questions annoyed you. The truth often offends. Along with that, Steve pulled out maps he said he created plotting signatures. Noting that only 60 some households were concerned about the proposed project when we gave him information stating that we have 250 yard signs, electronic signatures and additional hand written signatures. He low- balled the numbers to justify his decision. He NEVER provided any of these so- called maps to us. He was very unprofessional! He tried down playing it by saying that this proposed project was on the edge of south Edina. And your point ? ?? Most of us opposing this live on that edge. When I did get up to speak I told the committee that I would be able to see the lights and hear the traffic from my house. Ted Yoch who was allowed to speak twice stated that I would not be able to see or hear this facility. I have lived in my house for 23 years - Ted Yoch has NEVER been in my house or on my property. My question to Ted is. Is this the way you are planning this facility by assuming and guessing? He also talked about how great this proposed project would be for the community. However, Ted Yoch lives far enough away from this project not to be affected or inconvenienced by it and also stands to make a nice salary from the construction of it. Along with Ted Yoch, Jay Jensen stated this is NOT about making a profit however he insists that they cannot downsize if any further. During his speech he mentioned a very nice facility they built with roughly 70 units on Nokomis and we.know they built a similar size one at Calhoun. So where is the truth ? ?? 1 Jay Jensen also mentioned several times they were being good neighbors. He resides in Eden Prairie. As a matter of fact several of those in favor of this project live nowhere near-it or will be affected by it. I have friends and family that live in Eden Prairie. They are just that friends and family. NOT my neighbors. I buried both my parents in a little over 2 years (2006 & 2009) each requiring a different level of care. My husband and I did all of the legwork (calls, e- mails, visits) trying to find them the proper senior assisted living facility. This took us to dozens of facilities. We know all that these assisted /senior living facilities have to offer and know about the need for them. We also know that not one of these facilities was in a residential area. All encouraged any family member /friend to come and go at any time noting how important company was to these seniors. They also encouraged anyone to come for meals as often as possible thus creating more traffic and all that comes with the extra comings and goings. The traffic, sights, sounds, smells etc. from this proposed 139 unit convalescent home will impact this residential neighborhood in a way that we who oppose it have not signed on for. It was clear that by the end of the meeting there was an elephant in the room and it was NOT the opposition! Thank you for taking the time to read and hopefully address this letter! Sincerely MaryAnn Meyer 5805 Jeff P1 2 RECEIVED JUL 14 2010 Susan Hdwl Subject: FW: Waters /Colonial Church Attachments: The development will cause big increases in traffic and an eyesore business towering over the local park.doc Dear Mayor and City Council, Please do not allow the huge apartment building complex (Waters /Colonial Church) to be built in our Countryside neighborhood. A smaller building, 50 to 75 units will be a much better fit for our area. I am paraphrasing in this paragraph an editorial from the July 5t' Star Tribune by Donna Callender but I wanted to emphasize her points. The development will cause big increases in traffic and an eyesore business towering over the local park. (Common sense tells us this. Tracy will become a busy street for people who work/live at the complex to avoid the crosstown). It is necessary to change the existing zoning laws to do this. We live here precisely because the zoning laws do not permit this type of business in a quite neighborhood with small children who get around by foot and on bicycles. What recourse do we have when elected officials refuse to enforce existing laws? By the time the next election comes for voting the officials out, the damage will have been done. If residents have to obey the rules, then the officials who are supposed to enforce the rules need to do their jobs. I was reading the updated version of the Edina 20/20 vision. Objective #1 stats "Maintain strong residential neighborhoods." Building this apartment complex in our neighborhood will destroy our area. I don't feel that is too strong of a statement. Does Edina really need more upscale Senior housing when some facilities are currently vacant? What will happen when this cannot be filled? Lower income subsidized housing, a drug rehabilitation site? You really cannot guarantee what this building's use will end up being. Young families are now in our neighborhood because of the park and the quite, non -busy streets. Of course we want and need young families moving into Edina to keep our schools the top of the pack as they are. Countryside is one of the few neighborhoods in Edina that families CAN afford. This complex if built as the current huge mass, will change that forever. Jeanne St. Pierre 6005 Arbour Lane Susan Howl Subject: FW: vote no!! RECEIVED JUL 14 2010 From: Mary Kosters [mailto:mkosters @unimaticinc.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 9:21 AM To: Lynette Biunno Subject: vote no!! Vote no to the TWO football field building right in the middle of Edina - - -All those Who had gone before us are rolling in their graves knowing that the current community That they built is being allowed to be carved apart with special interest "SPOT" zoning — Not ONE Edina resident if they truly understood what the meaning of this is and understands How Edina has been able to maintain this beautiful community would vote for this. No one talks about the expansion of hwy62— TRAFFIC< TRAFFIC TRAFFIC right thru our community — Talks about cutting up the community just to service the needed that will be housed in this Facility. Either this monster will be filled with any needy person other then Edina seniors or It will lay empty just like the others - - -And everyone of you will be held accountable for your decision. With today's technology -you council members will be haunted for the rest of your careers With this decision you make. Just cut your losses and vote no- - -This is the worst idea In the 51 years I have lived in Edina and made it what it is today! Mary Kosters Susan Howl RECEIVED - - - -- Forwarded Message - - - -- JUL 09'2010 >From: Dick Doyle <rfdmn @earthlink.net> >Sent: Jul 5, 2010 5:04 PM >To: Sun- Current <kmintz @acnpapers,com> >Subject: Waters Senior Living Project > >Why. the Fuss? It is difficult to understand why there is so much emotional opposition to the Waters Senior Living Project in Edina. Truth be told, there is-'likely more in favor of this project than opposed. It is not a "high- rise" that will tower over us'. It;is not going W. .to.be a "massive structure" in the. " cen t er" of a residential neighborhood. It will be on the edge of the neighborhood, next to Crosstown Highway, buffered on all sides, which'will make it even hard to see when it is completed. It is a "for profit" project, but so are all the grocery stores, gas stations, dry cleaners, and hardware stores that offer services we all need. Zoning is another matter of high concern, but I believe the City of Edina has done a pretty good job of zoning properly over the years. Actually, this is the type of thing Edina needs. If anything, more accomodations of this type will likely be needed as the population ages. I believe the Waters Senior Living Project will.be a definite asset to our neighborhood and community. >Richard Doyle >6308 Falcon Court > Edina, MN 55436 >952- 926 -6798 1 Susan Howl Subject: Support for Waters Project and Colonial Church To All RECED ED JUL 0 9 1010 I was an Edina resident when Countryside School opened in 1964 and lived here until 1980, returning in 1990 and am still here. My wife and I, and our two daughters all have gone thru the Edina Schools, as have many other siblings of my parents. I remember before Colonial was built that Olinger was a dirt road through a swamp, and I remember the opposition to Colonial being built from a small group of folks who lived "in the wooded area ". Over the years the addition of the Church and then the park were welcomed by the neighbors. Now, today, the "Country side Neighbors" stretch East of Hiway 100, West of the High School and are raising, in my mind, "alarmist calls" for which they have no substantive basis in fact. As the planning commission said, the distances and the heights for the proposed (as revised) structure raise no problems. I would suggest that the recent building of the "McMansion" style homes in many Edina neighborhoods has done more to negatively impact views and traffic patterns from a livability standpoint than this project will. At the end of the day, the reason I moved back to Edina was because of Edina's reputation for a high quality of living and a reasonable approach to growth. I urge you to support this project and its long range benefits to our community, and in fact the "local" neighborhood. Thank you, 612.209.0866 RECEIVED JUL 0 8 2010 dN. 4k 12 2&211t aaQ A 4� f AA PWIM CL m Susan Howl Subject: Shelter Corporation High Density Housing Project RECEIVED Honorable Mayor James Hovland Council Member Joni Bennett JUL 0 ] 110 Council Member Mary Brindle Council Member Scot Housh Council Member Ann Swenson Re: Concerns regarding the Shelter Corporation's proposed High Density Housing Project and the June 30th Edina Planning Commission Meeting Honorable Mayor and Respected Council Members: I am a 69 year old, 29 year resident of Edina. I am writing because I will be out -of -town on July 20th when I understand you will be taking up the question of a zoning change and other actions to allow this high density, high cost housing project to proceed. IF YOU READ NO FURTHER THAN THE FOLLOWING: I urge you to vote against this project as it currently stands. It does not fit the neighborhood. It sets a bad policy precedent. It is a form of "spot zoning ". It calls into question all R -1 zoning in the City. It is the only such development in Edina being dropped into an R -1 district. It is NOT a community outreach project of Colonial Church, rather it is a for - profit, commercial venture like any other high density housing development. It is not needed by the area residents, most of whom could not afford to live there. A reasonable compromise was proposed, but it was essentially rejected. Originally I only supported development of the property by Colonial Church that conformed to the long standing R -1 zoning. However, in the interests of compromise and because it was for Colonial Church, I agreed with the neighborhood group's proposal to try to negotiate a compromise on a moderate sized (perhaps 50 -75 unit, 1 to 2 story) affordable senior housing project. This would be consistent with the town house development on the other side of the Church and would fit in with the size and style of the residences in the neighborhood. It would work if the Church was truly interested in doing something supportive and positive for the senior members of the community and the developer already has at least one successful project of this size. The Church and the developer essentially rejected the majority of this compromise The Planning Commission did as well. Therefore, while I appreciate the direction of the changes that have been made in the project, I am forced now to only support the Church's being allowed to develop the property under the existing long standing R -1 zoning upon which everyone in the neighborhood and the City has relied for these many, many years. This is NOT an onerous position for the Church. It could still make lots of money by developing single family homes similar, for example, to the homes along the access road on the south side of Crosstown 62 west of Gleason. WHY YOU SHOULD VOTE AGAINST THIS PROJECT AS IT STANDS? (1) It is a massive building (600 ft long and up to 52 ft tall) being placed in a neighborhood with no building even approaching the same mass. (2) It is NOT needed as a buffer or transition from Crosstown Highway 62. There already is a great buffer of over 400 trees and, if developed in single family homes as allowed by the R -1 zoning, they would continue to provide the buffer (3) There is ample precedent for single family homes and church buildings along Crosstown Hwy 62 in Edina. They co- exist well. So there is no need for a large, out -of -scale building like the one proposed. The Colonial Church does NOT need rezoning to develop this property. It is zoned R -1 and a nice group of single family homes could be build, yielding a tidy profit to the Church from land which has been off the tax rolls for more than 30 years! (4) This is NOT a community outreach project of Colonial Church. It is a "for profit ", commercial, high cost, high density residential development like any other similar commercial development. While it is slated "for seniors ", there is no requirement that a person live in Edina to be a resident, nor is there any preference for Edina residents. (5) A circular argument is being used to justify the rezoning, i.e. an earlier action was taken to change the Comprehensive Plan specifically to accommodate this project. Now, it is argued, the rezoning is needed to conform to the newly modified Comprehensive Plan. And, without the zoning change for this project, the Comprehensive Plan change would not be needed. (6) As Commissioner Rissner pointed out very clearly, the residents of ALL of Edina need to be able to rely on the zoning map and the Comprehensive Plan designation for an area. Approving this rezoning would call into question the stability of all R -1 zoning in the City. There is no nearby similar commercial usage to justify approving this "spot zoning" request. (7) The Comprehensive Plan modification was made quickly without time for reasonable involvement of the immediate community and the community -at- large! Edina recently spent well over a year with many meetings in the overall community reviewing and updating its Comprehensive Plan and did NOT reach the conclusion that this space should be reclassified. At the least, a similar effort or "mini- plan" should have been completed before changing its classification. I have never seen a community like Edina make such a major change to its Comprehensive Plan so quickly after a plan review without involving the entire community or at least the entire neighborhood. The Comprehensive Plans' long standing classification of this area as "public /semi - public" was appropriate since the land is owned by a church which, in Edina, is a Conditional Use in R -1 zones and is generally not found elsewhere in Edina. (8) Edina residents need to be comfortable that the churches in their neighborhood aren't also going to go forward with commercial development plans with this as a policy precedent simply because they've been allowed the conditional approval to operate a church on tax free land all these years. (9) The construction traffic will disrupt the community as will the on -going traffic of an estimated 490 trips per day! (10) The developer says this will be a "Senior Living Facility with Services ". The PRD -5 rezoning classification is for "Rest homes, convalescent homes and nursing homes. ". I believe Mr. Teague has said to be applicable to this zoning classification, these would all have to be licensed by the state of Minnesota. "Senior Living Facilities with Services" (also sometimes called Assisted Living facilities) are NOT licensed by the state. Therefore, the proposed use would not appear to be allowed in the classification being requested. (11) At the June 30th Planning Commission meeting, the "deck" so -to -speak appeared to be stacked to some extent against the opposing residents: (a) They were told that in making presentations, each person had to alternate with one in favor. And they were told that the number of people speaking wouldn't count, that the Commission didn't want duplicate testimony. Yet at the end, two of the Commissioners cited a "balance of pros and cons" in their argument against the opponents of the project. Even Commissioner Risser stood up for the opponents saying this wasn't fair! (b) City Planner Teague's presentation was slanted in favor of the project, even though one would expect the City Staff to take a more or less neutral stance showing both the pros and cons since the staff is paid by all taxpayers. Examples: 1. He only showed drawings with trees in "full summer bloom ", as he put it, and after the replacement trees had matured some 20 -30 years! There were no drawings of what the building would look like the other 6 -7 months of the year or during the many years of their growth! 2. The height of the proposed building was compared to the height of the steeple of Colonial Church, like comparing the height of a watermelon to the standing height of a banana! He also used a height formula that made the building appear shorter than even the developer stated! 3. He showed pictures of other high- density housing in Edina with R -1 homes nearby, yet didn't show "the other side" of those units with commercial activities adjacent to the high density units. Nor did he point out that in most cases, the land on which these were located had originally been zoned for commercial or high density uses, unlike the R -1 zoning for this proposal. (c) The City Traffic Engineer discounted as inconsequential the 490 trip /day increase in traffic which corresponds to about 10% of the traffic on Tracy without mentioning that this would still be a very significant increase over the traffic that would result from developing the property under its existing R -1 classification! He passed to the MnDOT the responsibility for the resulting traffic issues at Tracy and the Crosstown! , (d) Commissioner Forrest said, "I love the idea of this project." Enough said for having an open mind! Though she did point out that Colonial Church had no basis for expecting to receive the rezoning they've requested. (e) Commission Chair Fischer said he liked it when he first saw it, before any deliberations. He critiqued residents for their concerns about what they would see "out their bedroom window ", when mass and appearance of this project and how it fits in with the symmetry of the neighorhood is a key issue in the Comprehensive Plan and in the zoning requirements. (f) Commissioner Staunton used the Countryside Residents willingness to compromise to a 50 -75 unit, 1 -2 story affordable senior housing project as license to say that was adequate support to approve this much larger project, essentially turning the residents willingness to cooperate against their better interests. (g) Commissioner Brown held up a map (from someone he wouldn't identify) which he said showed around 64 households opposed to the project. (This despite earlier testimony that more than 200 residents had accepted signs protesting the development and a similar number had signed an on -line petition opposing the project.) Regardless, how many objecting residents is enough? Commission Chair Fischer had said at the outset of the hearing, 'We don't go by volume." Yet in the end, after misleading the objecting residents, they did count the "volume "! A comment on Tax Increment Financing and Park Fees: If, perchance, you decide after all of the above to approve of this project, and even over the objections of the neighborhood and against the clear issues of "spot zoning" and bad policy precedent, please do not add insult to injury by approving tax increment financing and /or a waiver of the Park Impact fees. Colonial Church is a large church with high value assets as is the developer and clearly they should have the resources to develop a portion of this project as affordable housing without taxpayer assistance. They have already enjoyed years of tax free use of the land on which they want to build this project! The residents and their guests will most assuredly use the nearby parks as much, if not more, than many of the other residents of Edina and therefore the development should be required to pay the normal Parks Impact Fee! This fee requirement was (or should have been) known to the developer from the beginning. There is no basis for requesting a waiver at this juncture. Your willingness to review my concerns is very much appreciated. Sincerely, Raymond Voss Mailing address: 5021 Vernon Ave. So. #312 Edina, Minnesota 55436 Residence address: 5716 Benton Ave. Edina, Minnesota 55436 952 - 927 -0448 rayvoss @aol.com jVjkJ JUL fir,,, (�:7� 7nayn -✓ Nik Id�wunP��.01G+.w��i.��.4_ I AF WAL, ........... T-1 RECEIVED a 16 2010 E It a n e Ind A. efi ryG .......... ti r 1. 1 Ar- x r1 v, r) 4 v, n -P _ -OIL RECEIVIED ThreeRivers 'jUL 14 2010 PARK DISTRICT June 29, 2010 Three Rivers Park District Board of RE: Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail Commissioners Community Assessment Team Analysis Route 8 Assessment Correction Sara Wyatt Dear Reader, District 1 In reviewing the Community Assessment Team Analysis, we noticed a few mistakes in the Route 8 Assessment (pages 47 to 52) that required correction. The corrections have been made and the revised Route 8 Assessment is enclosed for your review. Marilynn Corcoran, District 2 This correction was made prior to the June 22, 2010 Open House and is being corrected at all locations with documentation available for public review. Sincerely, ark Haggerty District 3 Kelly Grissman Dale woodbeck, Senior Manger of Planning Vice Chair District 4 Enclosure Rosemary Franzese District 5 Larry Blackstad, Chair Appointed Barbara Kinsey Appointed Cris Gears iperintendent J: \PROJECTS \Regional Trails \TNM 0802 Nine Mile Edina Master Plan \A -E \Assessment Team \Final Document \2010 -06 -29 CAT Route 8 Correction Letter.doc Administrative Center, 3000 Xenium Lane North, Plymouth, MN 55441 -1299 Information 763.559.9000 TTY 763.559.6719 • Fax 763.559.3287 • www.ThreeRiversParks.org Route 8 Assessment Valley View Road > Antrim Road > 70th Street > Nine Mile Creek Overview Route 8 begins at Valley View Road and includes four variations, all of which are proposed within existing public right -of -way and proposed road reconstruction to remove one parking lane and /or reduce shoulder width. Route 8 ends at Nine Mile Creek. Route 8 -1 is proposed along the west side of Antrim Road and north side of 70th Street. Route 8 -2 is proposed along the west side of Antrim Road and south side of 70th Street. Route 8 -3 is proposed along the east side of Antrim Road and north side of 70th Street. Route 8 -4 is proposed along the east side of Antrim Road and south side of 70th Street. The design recommendation for Route 8 is to locate the trail on the east side of Antrim (lower photo) and south side of 70th Street (upper photo) II J I I AltemaWe Trail Routes Stream tir P.—[e . Hennepin Route a Variations � Wetlands (^I City of Edina Property -11-7 u{ I I I `1� &Z �'anation '�. &3 Variation ' I - I:_ -1M _ - -- - - -- Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail: Alternate Route 8 Legend 111511 City Boundary AltemaWe Trail Routes Stream tir P.—[e . Hennepin Route a Variations � Wetlands (^I City of Edina Property 6 -1 VanaLOn -. Lakes J Edina School Dianct Property `1� &Z �'anation '�. &3 Variation • `, &4 Vana,lon Fen 0 3 11151) 13M Economic Assessment Preliminary Construction Estimates: 8 -1 $1,700,000; 8 -2 $1,600,000; 8 -3 $1,700,000; 8 -4 $1,600,000 Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail - Community Assessment Team Analysis 47 Route 8 -1 Assessment, cont`c# Valley View Road > Antrim Road > 70th Street > Nine Mile Creek Social Assessment Adjacent Residential Yards Different areas of residential property offer varying levels of privacy and access which may be altered by the trail. Number of residential front yards 44 Number of residential side yards 6 Number of residential back yards 1 Technical Assessment Space Requirements if adegv_ate r�gF�t =o_f.= way, is alotava'ilab`fe, addii�onaf ease�nerlts ors =trgeC ifedes390-44ay;,tie required:. „ a oPm mgne ins p rkl_ng A long Antrlr0 Road a d remove gne> Jane 06 pa#dhf and/or iWtote shou7der depending on' location along 70th: street. Road' Crossings Each read crossing,ivill result in efaoounters betweery trail users and.motadtts. E ch.encounter c_reabes an gppgrt pity fo_r an incident. � lyTUin6er -of raoad•c�+nssings . 5 Speed limit of roads Sat 30 mph. or less Aueraye innual daily "fi15 1,@t s5,pOvel ides/day 1 at 9,001 47,006 vehicles /day Functional Class 3, local roads 2 collector roads 48 Three Rivers Park District Proximity of Adjacent Homes Homes closer to the proposed trail have greater opportunity for potential trail related impacts (visual, noise, privacy). Average distance from house to trail 50' Average distance from house to property line 45' Number of houses < 25 feet 1 Driveway Crossings Each driveway, Gros —qi willi [esutt.-in! encourLters, 6eh9eent #farl;�YSers,anan?otorlstis Fac?ae�cotira -tee c+�eates�an oP�gi�upitYifo�rariinc�deant� - Single famMy r3ijr ayrcrossings Multi family, dr%vztvay► cigssings 4' Low turnover co rimercial crosslnys 0' HigN turnover corri►ner+pal;uossinys, 0 Total drlvewaytressinys 44 Route 8 -2 Assessment, cunt "d Valley View Road > Antrim Road > 70th Street > Nine Mile Creek Social Assessment Adjacent Residential Yards Different areas of residential property offer varying levels of privacy and access which may be altered by the trail. Number of residential front yards 9 Number of residential side yards 15 Number of residential back yards 1 Technical Assessment Space Regg1revn4!nts If aft c uate ght o ;wgy;9s notavallabl -bi 4000 a.J: i easefkents of street rKesign, mpayi tie,r�qulred. P posed sheet r --1 --r A errioye� +ooe 1aite- of pgr Tng, a/oyig; Route 803 Assessment, cont'd Valley View Road > Antrim Road > 70th Street > Nine Mile Creek Social Assessment Adjacent Residential Yards Different areas of residential property offer varying levels of privacy and access Which may be altered by the trail. Number of residential front yards 39 Number of residential side yards 5 Number of residential back yards 1 Technical Assessment ! Space Req,�i�em valrs 7. i r to g1�] of vifay is ta�Lai1ab 1%,ad4ibonal ! _ Ifecleq�a r. e�semegts or�s6�eet r•Qd`e_s # a ,ibej egalrei y, Pn�fosedi straeet redr?sJgn• tem_ "ode one /ale- of" paiNaRot along_ Atralii►, oad'a�ii;i�emofYe finer lane, of•- '�htldngy anri ar nice shoulder �%pencling o_'n .. 1oca;+lonalongl7.Ot%St+aeet ftoa& C ossangs - ach road crossing,v�iill resultin enwulnters iegeen! titWOseisanif:W_ QQ rI's_ts: fach eneounWrC'r -04— s` 4 flPPotYgn7ty forth 3ndilehh Number• of rA)aFd- ' cr5s41ngs 3 Speed4fibit of roads 3 at 3D nipli, o -Jess Average anndal dally ttdfi'ic Zat <3,000: veli(dWVay I at 9,001 - 47400 vehiclegl4ay. Functlodaldiiss 2 local roads 1 collector road 50 Three Rivers Park District Proximity of Adjacent Homes Homes closer to the proposed trail have greater opportunity for potential trail related impacts (visual, noise, privacy). Average distance from house to trail 50' Average distance from house to property line 45' Number of houses < 25 feet 1 .�acla dl�ive� ray, c= rossin9; iy�U �esv]t 7n e�ao�nters . lie `e�e�tYa�l,t�seissaii ;iaiofors� ftdi"enGer cr�a� an �pof�niEj►jfor e'n� ]nc]a�ht; $&J-76, .family; 4hveway , rran 99 36, lIuYtl family, driYeyYay, cnosstngs,; 4 .LOW, tua Laver, comnierclalycfoss7ngs, 2'. ' ly'igh lv��oyef flor►�merc�a7cCos's_i�s, 0' -tota7drlvowwc- rossTOgs ' 92 Route 8 -4 Assessment, cont`d Valley View Road > Antrim Road > 70th Street > Nine Mile Creek Social Assessment Adjacent Residential Yards Different areas of residential property offer varying levels of privacy and access which may be altered by the trail. Number of residential front yards 6 Number of residential side yards 12 Number of residential back yards 0 Technical Assessment Space Requirements If adequate' right of -way, is not available, additional: easements orstfeet redesign may be r`euli�ed'. Proposed °street redesign: Remove one lane of parking along Antrim Road and remove one lane of-parking, andJor reduce shoulder. depending on. %ocatlnn. along,7Dth Street. Road Crossings Each road'ero$s§ing. will result in encounters between trail users and naoWists. Each encounter creates art opportunity, for an.incident. Number of road crossings 7 Speed limit nfmiods 7 at 30 mph or• less Average annual daily trafti<c s at <5,000 vehicles /day 1' at 5,000- 5,999 vehicles/day, 1 at 7,000 - 9,000 vehicles /day Functional Class 5localroads 2 collector roads Proximity of Adjacent Homes Homes closer to the proposed trail have greater opportunity for potential trail related impacts (visual, noise, privacy). Average distance from house to trail 50' Average distance from house to property line 45' Number of houses < 25 feet 1 Driveway. Crossings Each driveway, crossing will fesult In- erncountefs fietween traibnsecs~apd tnotor7st5: Eac�iencounter creates a inopportunity, for• an,incident. Single family driveway crossing`s 6, Mulct family driveway crossings 3 Low turnover commercial crossings 3 High,tumover• commerclal'crassings i Total-driveway crossings 13 Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail - Community Assessment Team Analysis 51 Mary Melander 6025 Killarney Lane Edina, MN 55436 July 10, 2010 Scot Housh City Council Member 4801 W. 50' Street Edina, MN. 55424 Dear Mr. Housh, RECEIVED jilt 16 21M I am writing you about the Three River Park Bike Trail. I attended the meeting at Southview School on June 22, 2010 and left the meeting with more questions than answers. When will there be public hearings to address questions of concerned homeowners? After attending the presentation I wondered how many people the bike trail will really serve vs. the cost. Edina was so wise to set aside park and wetland along 9 mile creek, however, disturbing this precious land seems environmentally unwise to me. I resided in my current home in 1987 when 9 mile creek flooded much of my neighborhood. Another flood even close to the size of 1987 would truly impact a bike trail in a very negative way. Who would pick up the cost of repair to the trail if this would ever happen? So many questions, and so little time to ask them or get any answers that make sense financially, environmentally, traffic wise, safety wise, etc. I feel there would be better ways to spend money during these economic times. I feel this project is being rushed through without enough public input and that is sad for Edina whose residents truly care about their city. Sincerely, Mary Melander RECEIVED RECEIVED aA,- 16 IQ'�0 7% JUt JUL 16 2010 VIA RECEIVED �� Ms. Astrid V Alexander J� 16 2010 T L y l 3 o 1 o 5212 w loth St n ( � din 55439-2109 O c.v I I SC. Ot (l o u-- s h., n. c C2 e m b ter - ' -1 S A. h w r e-.5 1 Qt o 5i h c e, Nov . a o o -r of E d. n'S+ lc r-L o Uv Flo a - y �br7ei to - '10 �,r p o se, b sPlp_rLCL i 5 , eD4D0, © ©O s fi� i2 i t l p fie, e G �2 e.r s 4o r- ass CP Pcc, b I c 57G h l S -'a 9 y cl iC7 vi-cL a r oLr -t"�. w o w I cl b e- OL, r e- cL e- ve. -'die. pa, k s f°sr� Edi tLa- re sF olej&s sh-ou - l dk tin r e-.,, d ,bt- a-/)-d e s s 7— be, n � � is e► �' -r'�° °� . 7- ! -F Y11 e sse,s - S1206l d oo � Gel l solcz�e Gyre a_s -Pram -(-be- p e l i c � 2e a l s� 5 o�m � er©a5 �b CZ. (r :-:2 ►ter a I Kers ,o �61 k ex- .7 f:) IfL `(-t2 e -"n - 6 � ►rz p es ecL 1 P� e i- �. i s �c c ► � e�� ll d �o � �h e,r e, 09i S � 1 a t of � �. b 1 � arty . � py � r- Shawl d hC, iLo n s CL s ca,41 not tLe,o _r a b i K e r 12 i th&�l1 - -F �-h �I e- cx- s P-- s FL e- i s �. bP—'� r e Lt- u�fiC-� b e- s sFZ m �L d. b e, Iz e a_r- CL G ovy-t en X1 -5 uj e, o--f -- r c a C ,tea c- CL -t-n r v c,,'- r- Cc5� ►)-7 e-vit s vi 1 moty rrL ► t �V e� �2 C; n b b- C 1 tkazk rn �- ear � � y S C., v-t,, red y 1 Ms. Astrid V Alexander �� 5212 W 70th St Mary Melander 6025 Killarney Lane Edina, MN 55436 July 10, 2010 James Hovland Mayor 4801 W. 5e Street Edina, MN. 55424 Dear Mayor Hovland, RECEIVED, JUL 14 1010 I am writing you about the Three River Park Bike Trail. I attended the meeting at Southview School on June 22, 2010 and left the meeting with more questions than answers. When will there be public hearings to address questions of concerned homeowners? After attending the presentation I wondered how many people the bike trail will really serve vs. the cost. Edina was so wise to set aside park and wetland along 9 mile creek, however, disturbing this precious land seems environmentally unwise to me. I resided in my current home in 1987 when 9 mile creek flooded much of my neighborhood. Another flood even close to the size of 1987 would truly impact a bike trail in a very negative way. Who would pick up the cost of repair to the trail if this would ever happen? So many questions, and so little time to ask them or get any answers that make sense financially, environmentally, traffic wise, safety wise, etc. I feel there would be better ways to spend money during these economic times. I feel this project is being rushed through without enough public input and that is sad for Edina whose residents truly care about their city. Sincerely, Mary Melander Susan Howl )ubject: RECEIVED To Mayor Hovland, and Council Members Bennett, Brindle, Housh and Swenson: JUL 16 2010 I'm writing to express great concern over the possibility that the proposed new bike path might follow the Nine Mile Creek route and implore you, as our elected representatives, to provide more time for citizens of Edina to weigh in — both on the advisability of spending that much money to build another bike path now, and also, if the citizens decide that a path should be built, where it should be built. My personal opinion is that there are more important ways to spend any extra money we have in these economic times. Yes, even in Edina we have neighbors who have lost their jobs, may be hungry and without health insurance, who are losing their homes and suddenly unable to send their children to college. Borrowing money and increasing taxes to build the fanciest segment of the regional bike trail at this time seems a little like Tony Hayward going yachting in England while the oil spill threatens people's livelihoods in the Gulf of Mexico. I'm not opposed to biking, but the timing of this project is bad. If the bike trail has to be built now, building it along the natural wetlands route that follows Nine Mile Creek is an irreversible insult to one of the only remaining natural wildlife habitats in the city. Those of us who live along the creek are concerned about the negative impact on our properties but, more importantly, do not want to see the natural wilderness compromised in order to provide the most scenic alternative for bike and skateboard enthusiasts. The creek should be enjoyed by Edina residents in its natural state and preserved for the creekbed's real residents — deer, wading birds, an eagle, an occasional fox, numerous varieties of turtles and ducks. Yes, I have photos of various species of turtles that lay eggs in my yard. And even if the creek route is now to be built on a raised boardwalk rather than a paved route, I'm concerned about the long -term environmental impact, the continuing maintenance costs and safety issues. I recently discussed this route with a Three Rivers Park district patrolman. At the time, the route was still being proposed as a paved route, but he mentioned that the path would have to be built wide enough to permit access by all types of emergency vehicles. How will that be done with a raised boardwalk? This issue is too big for a group of 5 to decide with so little public input. It should be put to a vote. If that's not possible, the decision should at least be postponed until all factors can be considered by all residents of Edina. Thank you! Judith Martin Susan Howl Subject: , FW: Edina regional Park Trail RECEIVED JUL 16 1010 From: marieforce @aol.com [mailto:marieforce @aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 8:41 PM To: NineMileTrail @threeriversparkdistrict.org; Lynette Biunno Subject: Edina regional Park Trail Please direct this email to: Edina Mayor and City Council Members Edina Parks Director John Keprios Three Rivers Park District Commissioners Three Rivers Park District Senior Planner Kelly Grissman Hello, I am writing to voice my support for the regional trail through Edina. While I recognize the current economic conditions make this task difficult, starting the process now will make it easier when the economics change. My husband and I enjoy the Park District's exceptional trail system. Since we like to save our legs for the trail itself, we generally put our bikes onto a car rack and drive to an access point for one of the trails. When looking around at the abundance of trails in the surrounding communities, I hope Edina will join in by adding this exceptional community benefit right here in our own city. I ask you to support moving forward on this project to add this important recreational amenity to our city. Sincerely, Marie La Force 5901 Tingdale Avenue Edina, MN 55436 Susan ;Ho'wl Subject: FW: Support for nine mile creek bike trail REGEIVEb A[ 16 2000 From: Mark Manfred [mailto:juliemark44 @msn.com] Sent: ,Wednesday, July 14, 2010 8:00 PM To: ,Lynette Biunno Subject: Support for nine mile creek bike trail I'm a 33 -year Edina resident who strongly supports a bike trail along nine mile creek. This will be.a strong asset to Edina and,nearby communities, similar to the popular bike trail along Minnehaha creek which is such an_asset,to Minneapolis: Edina needs good bike trails, especially those that offer the safety and beauty of an offstreet.natural.setting. It will be cherished by thousands of people;over,the decades. It will be an amenity that will continue to make Edina a desirable .-community-for living. I'm anxious to ride this trail myself and expect to do so' hundreds of times. Mark Manfred 4445 Dunham Drive Edina, MN 55435 Susan Howl Subject: FW: Nine Mile Creek Bike Trail Support RECEIVED JUL 16 2010 From: MELISSA SCHMIDT [mailto:schmidt311 @q.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 7:01 PM To: ninemiletrail @threeriversparkdistrict.org; Lynette Biunno Subject: Nine Mile Creek Bike Trail Support It frustrates me to have to send a comment in support of the trail; this is one instance that I believe support should be taken for granted. Those opposed to the trail for unfounded reasons such as increased crime and increased environmental impacts are most likely the same people that use our public parks for biking, walking, soccer, football, picnics, etc, and many of them probably purchased homes within close proximity to a park because a park is an amenity, not a breeding ground for crime. I am embarrassed that Edina is a holdout in supporting the Nine Mile Creek Bike Trail. The trail will surely be another amenity to already wonderful community. It will promote exercise and safe biking for all and allow us to boast of having a trail system comparable to those already found in neigborhood cities such as Eden Prairie and Bloomington. Once the trail is approved my only question will be why did it take so long? Sincerely, Melissa Schmidt 5205 Birchcrest Dr., Edina, 55436 952- 928 -8445 Susan Howl RECEIVED . JU0,16 2010 From: Kate Lilja [mailto:kfreya @gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010,6:55 PM To: Lynette Biunno Subject: Nine Miles Creek Trail I.am writing to express my strong support for the Creek -side route of the Nine Mile,Creek Regional Trail through Edina. I believe it represents the safest and best option for our citizens. This will create, a "new park that will link together many of Edina's existing parklands, and open.up public land for the public.to> enjoy. Kate Freya Lilja (612) 718 -4477 www.twitter. com/kfreya www.linkedin.com/in/katelilj a 1 Susan Howl RECa IVED Subject: Nine Mile Creek Comments JUL 16 2010 Dear Three Rivers Park District, I am an Edina resident, cyclist, and opponent to the idea of a bike trail on the Nine Mile Creek watershed. This trail does not connect us to anywhere we want to go, it removes valuable green space from the city, and the city will likely incur additional operating expenses. Edina has made excellent progress in becoming more bicycle - friendly since publishing the City of Edina Comprehensive Bicycle Transportation Plan (CBTP) in 2007, but I believe the cycling residents of Edina would be better served by other projects. We participated in the original survey regarding regional trails, and this proposed trail is not what I envisioned when I said I was supportive. The trail to nowhere. The most desired destination is downtown Minneapolis, and this trail does nothing to provide a more efficient connection to the Cedar Lake trail and the North Cedar Lake trail. The proposed route is goes too far west. A more efficient north -south connection would be the CP Trail proposed in the CPTP, running along the railroad by Highway 100. The re- paving of Blake road has helped tremendously, although the route around Mirror Lake is still a little tight. You could fix that easily with a fraction of the budget proposed for the Nine Mile Creek trail. Other highly desirable destinations would by the Three Rivers Park at Bryant Lake or the Hylands Lake Park Reserve in Bloomington. Destruction of green space. The mission of Three Rivers Park District is to promote environmental stewardship through recreation and education in a natural resources -based park system, and I fail to see how developing flood plains and wetlands meets the conservation- oriented objectives of the Park District. In addition, the proposed route will adversely impact the character of Walnut Creek Park. Small children and high -speed cyclists generally don't mix well. There will no doubt be additional wear and tear on the facilities as well. In short, this trail is being positioned as a gift to the citizens of Edina, but really it is taking away green space and parks while offering little improvement in Connectivity to regional trails or desired destinations like downtown Minneapolis. In addition, we will be saddled with the additional operating expenses and higher taxes. I firmly believe that better, cheaper options exist. Thank you for your consideration, Bruce Jackson 5716 Continental Drive Edina, MN 55436 Susan Howl �ECEEE Subject: FW: I Support the Regional Trail Along the Creek and by EHS JUL From: Lisa Johnson [mailto:lisaj222 @gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 4:30 PM To: NineMileTrail @ThreeRiversPa�kbistrict.org; Lynette Biunno Subject: I Support the Regional Trail Along the Creek and by EHS Dear leaders /decision makers for our community: Please approve the Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail. Also I strongly encourage you to ensure it goes along the creek as much as possible and passes-near the Edina High School. This will be a great resource for students and teachers alike. Our community- needs a regional trail -and having it go near the creek, forests, and parks is the best option: Do not spend money on detours through" city streets! I have seen some of the street -based detours and they do not look wise. We have other tools and options for making our streets walk- and bike- friendly. Foii the regional trail please keep it along the creek because people that want to use the trail want to walk, bike, job, etc. in a nice natural settings. I would definitely not want to see any side -paths alongside the roads. This resource can help make EHS into an even higher - rated school because of the numerous benefits it brings for athletics, environmental studies, and commuting options. The residents that feel personal and restrictive ownership for the public land might where the creek flows come around and enjoy it. Please remember they are a tiny minority of the overall population that can and should benefit from a good off -road trail system. I appreciate your hard work to consider what is best. Keep it along the creek and join up with the Edina High School! Thank you, Lisa Johnson 5844 Saint Johns Ave Edina, MN 55424 1 Susan Howl Subject: FW: I like the regional creek trail RECEIVED JUL 16 2010 From: Aliya Johnson [mailto:aliyahappygirl @gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 4:29 PM To: NineMileTrail @ThreeRiversParkDistrict.org; Lynette Biunno Subject: I like the regional creek trail Dear city and park leaders, I think that the trail should be by the Edina High School because I think that a lot of high schoolers would use the trail to get to school. If the trail is made there and when I am in high school I would like to take the trail. Thank you. Aliya Johnson 5844 St. Johns Avenue in Edina Susan Howl Subject: From: Ron Way [mailto:ron- way @comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 20104:29 PM To: NineMileTrail @ThreeRiversParkDistrict.org; Lynette Biunno Subject: Support River Bike Trail JUL 16 2010 Please direct this to Commissioners and Planners at Three Rivers Park District, AND to the Edina Mayor and City Council Members, AND Edina Parks Director John Keprios. I am writing in strong support of the Edina portion of the regional trail to generally follow Nine Mile Creek. Actually, a trail along Tracy Ave would be much closer to our home, but for reasons stated below both my wife and I strongly support the creek option. First, a trail through Edina would be a genuine community asset. Our daughter lives near the St. Louis Park portion of the trail; she and her family use the trail for hiking, biking, jogging, and in -line skating. They and their neighbors consider the trail an asset, and feel the value of homes increase based on proximity to the trail. Our son and his family live near a trail in their community of Leawood, KS, and likewise see high value in the trail. We note that in naming Eden Prairie one of the most livable communities in the U.S., Money, Inc., cited the value of trails -- including the regional trail in that neighboring community. I attended one of the informational sessions, and was impressed by the exhaustive planning effort that has surrounded the trail. I learned from Three Rivers officials that safety concerns are addressed both by regular patrols of trails and by the fact that emergency equipment -- including ambulance -- can provide any needed services. Crime along the trails is rare (there are some incidents in parts of trail in St. Louis Park and Minneapolis, but I was told that is rare. Reasons for our strong support of the creek option is because of safety (away from vehicle traffic), beauty of the river, and (importantly) the grade changes would be slight. My wife has difficulty with hills due to the condition of her knees. Also importantly, bringing people to Nine Mile Creek may enhance support for creek protection. We all know that the Mississippi River in the Twin Cities gained support as people occupied condos and apartments along the river, and as trails and open spaces were developed. Demand has now increased for improving water quality of the river. It seems that as people spend time hiking and biking along a creek -based their interest in protecting Nine Mile Creek would be increased. Just perhaps fewer people would dump grass clippings and other debris (including dog feces) on our streets, perhaps they would use less chemical on their lawns, and maybe even they would install rainwater gardens -- fill of which would benefit Nine Mile Creek. Currently, the creek is so surrounded by residential development that it's difficult for the public to even know the creek exists. Nine Mile Creek is a community asset that should be available to the public... much more so than it currently is. To my wife and me, the right thing to do here is to develop a hiking /biking trail along the Nine Mile Creek alignment. Thank you for your attention. My wife and I look forward to biking to Centennial Lakes! Ron Way 5708 Lois Ln Edina MN 55439 6120986 -5158 RECEIVED JUL 16 2010 Susan Howl Subject: FW: Please approve the trail Subject: Please approve the trail Dear city and park leaders: I think we should have the trail going from one end of Edina to the other because it would help kids like us and grown ups get around in Edina, for example Edina high school area. That is what I think we should do. I would use it later when I am oder. Thank you. Artem Johnson 5844 St Johns Ave EDINA RECEIVED Susan Howl JUL 16 2010 Subject: Support for Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail through Parkland I support the Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail through Edina. My family has used the Three Rivers Parks trails, which required transporting our family and bikes. While the trail would require a significant investment, I believe the many recreational and practical benefits of a regional trail to Edina residents would outweigh the cost. Edina is renowned as a very high quality community. A safe, comfortable, and inviting trail for walkers, joggers, and riders of all ages and skill levels would serve to promote our unique healthy Edina lifestyle and enjoyment of Edina's parks. A wise investment in a regional trail would be an asset to the community. Recreational facilities are a decision factor for many prospective homeowners and a trail would be a selling point for Edina home sellers. I believe the regional trail should run through parks to enhance the walking and riding experience, versus existing roadways which have increased levels of car exhaust and noise. In summary, I urge you to approve the proposed regional trail and select routes through parks. Sincerely, Wendy L. Morris 5524 Mirror Lakes Dr. Edina, MN 55436 1 RECEIVED Susan Howl JUL 16 2010 Mayor Hovland and Edina Council Members: I do not support the proposed Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail through Edina. I understand how such a trail could be beneficial to Edina residents and residents of surrounding areas. The recreation value is easily proven, but at what cost? What ultimately is the monetary cost to our residents and what is the cost to the environment? From everything that I have read and listened to, I have not seen enough study done to support MY support for such a project. I feel that TRPD is rushing the research and possibly ignoring the bottom lines in order to qualify for government funding. My biggest hesitation is the questionable cost of the trail. At this time, in these dire economic times, I do not know anybody with extra tax dollars. It's a time to not be spending excessively and a time to focus on essentials. My backyard is adjacent to the Nine Mile Creek Wetlands, and I do worry about the environmental impact of a trail and the people on it. I am disappointed in the fact that, once again, a city cannot leave open undeveloped land alone. I do worry about increasing accessibility to our neighborhood and the safety of our children. We. use Walnut Ridge Park almost daily. We love that we can send our kids to the park with friends to play baseball or tennis and KNOW that they are safe. Definitely "Stranger Danger" will be amplified. I moved to Edina five years ago from Los Angeles. As a family we were seeking safely, open spaces, and freedoms. We found it all in Edina. I am not saying our dreams are wiped out by the trail, but saying it's disappointing for my city to hastily make a decision, based on incomplete research /evidence, that affects so many residents and SO MANY DOLLARS I am a concerned resident of Edina, and right now I do not support the Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail. I encourage you Mayor Hovland and Edina City Council Members to consider further research and assessment BEFORE approving the trail, or consider no trail at this time. Sincerely, Brenda Francis 5600 Parkwood Lane Edina, MN. 55436 952 - 933 -2144 Julie Wells 5200 Lincoln Dr, Apt 300 Edina, MN 55436 July 14, 2010 Three Rivers Park District Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail 3000 Xenium Lane North Plymouth, MN 55441 Dear Three Rivers Park District, Edina City Council and Edina Park Board, RECEIVED JUL 16 2010 I attended the Open House on June 30th regarding the proposed Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail. I am strongly in favor of a creek -based plan and urge that this project be moved forward without delay. I'm writing because I want to make sure that not only the loudest and most persistent voices are heard in this debate. While I understand that a small number of homeowners directly affected by the proposed creek -based trail have been extremely persistent opponents, I urge you to consider the well -being of all the other residents both in Edina and throughout the county and region. Based on the information I reviewed at the Open House and online, I notice that an extremely small number of homeowners is directly affected (i.e. adjacent to trail) with the creek -based plans AND the average distance from homes to the trail is about 300 feet! In contrast, the Dakota Trail between Wayzata and St. Bonifacius is adjacent to many more homes and businesses and considerably closer to those properties than the proposed Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail. Both trails border valuable real estate and homes of significant value. When I ride the Dakota Trail I see mothers with babies in strollers, families out for a bike ride or walk, young people on rollerblades and bikes, senior citizens galore and about every segment of our society you can imagine. All are out to simply get a little fresh air and exercise and enjoy the great state we live in, a state the values and utilizes our parks and green spaces. The trails are safe and well patrolled; the various users are respectful of one another and the homes and businesses along the trail. It is a community atmosphere in the truest sense. While I am not currently a homeowner, I was one for more than fifteen years and plan to buy another home within the next few years. Where will I choose to live? In a community the puts their public land to use for all the people and that promotes a healthy lifestyle not just in words, but in actions. Please don't let the loud and persistent voices of dissent keep the majority of our population from the beauty and safety of a creek -based trail! . Sincerely, Julie A. Wells Susan Howl I Subject: FW: RECEIVED JUL 16 2010 To the Edina City Council, I am writing to express my concerns regarding the Edina Nine Mile Creek Trail system proposed by the Three Rivers Park District. I also would like the opportunity offer constructive suggestions. I have concerns about a particular segment of the Trail because it affects my family's home. I also have concerns about the Trail in general. ROUTE 5F CONCERNS am particularly concerned about route 5F. Route 5F was introduced without any community input, which is disrespectful to Edina homeowners and taxpayers. In addition, when more information was requested of Three Rivers, they were very defensive, and would not take questions. This left no mechanism for Edina homeowners and taxpayers to express appropriate concerns to them. Route 5F raises significant safety concerns, not only for our family and home, but also relating to the proximity of the bicycle traffic to the motor vehicle traffic and safety. • Route 5F is less desirable than Route 5E for safety reasons. If Route 5F runs along the west side of Tracy north of Hwy 62, it runs in front of the fire station. This would interfere with Edina's emergency response system. In addition, it will cross entry and exit ramps to Hwy 62, which is hazardous. Tracy Avenue also has traffic to /from school, and Countryside Park has many activities, and there is increased potential for accidents. On the south side of Hwy 62, the proposed Route 5F would run along the east side of Tracy, adjacent to a steep hill. If anyone falls of the trail, injuries could be severe. • If Route 5F runs along the east side of Tracy south of Hwy 62, it exposes my mother's home. She is a senior living alone. Trail users could look down into her house and back yard from a second -story height, invading her privacy. In addition, her home would become more accessible. Currently, without a trail, several people make their way down the hill from Tracy or the on -ramp, through her backyard, and ring her door bell. Again, she. is a senior living alone, and this raises safety concerns for us. If this route is approved, at the very least a wall of large evergreen trees, and possibly a high fence, would need to be put up along the east side of Tracy Avenue extending along the on -ramp for Hwy 62 East. Three Rivers has not been forthcoming about any plans to protect personal homes or safety in this regard. PROPOSED SOLUTIONS In my opinion, Route 5 + 5E would have less impact on private property (both on the North and South side of Hwy 62) than Route 5F, and seems more desirable overall. If Trail 5F is seriously being considered, it makes more sense for the trail to run along the West side of Tracy south of Hwy 62, since this does not involve any private homes, and no one lives at the church. It could then cross Tracy at the Valley Lane intersection. It should be noted that this is dangerous crossing point because of the traffic streaming rather rapidly down the hill from the high school. Stop signs would need to be put in there, and this would slow traffic in the area. Angther option that has not been entertained is having the trail run near Colonial Church, behind the Fire station, and cross Hwy 62 with a new bridge that is west of Tracy, and runs west of or behind Creek Valley Church. This would avoid all the intersection crossings, the fire station, and private comes. This seems like a safer path all around, and should be seriously considered. NINE MILE CREEK TRAIL Three Rivers Park District proposed this trail to connect Edina to the trail systems of Hopkins and Richfield. The initial proposal was for a trail along Nine Mile Creek. However, because of environmental and cost concerns, road based alternatives have been proposed. These routes run in front of or behind numerous Edina residents' homes, and cross busy intersections and highway entrances. Since the road based alternatives no longer run along Nine Mile Creek, perhaps new trails should be considered altogether, i.e. trails that maintain privacy of Edina residents, run through more scenic areas, and are not a safety risk. I propose the following trail — route 1 to route 3, then continue east on Vernon. There could be on off shoot to connect the Bredesen Park trail. The main trail could then continue east on Vernon, and cross Hwy 100 at Eden Avenue. The trail could then run south along Wilson Road. It could then be taken along the ramp between Hwy 62 W and Hwy 100 N, run along Hwy 62/64M Street, and then cross Hwy 62 to Cornelia Park. The later portion would require further investigation because there are homes in this area, but perhaps the trail could run alongside the Hwy and be fenced to exclude it from neighborhood. A bridge already exists that crossed Hwy 62. There could be an off shoot to connect the Cornelia Park trail. The trail could then be taken along Valley View Road to 691 Street to connect to the Target - Centennial Lakes path. This route would utilize wide streets where there may be existing sidewalks, or room for a wider trail, and don't pass near as many homes. Of course, this would need to be studied in more detail and input obtained from neighborhood that may be affected. I also wanted to comment that perhaps the residents of Edina would like a walking path in addition to a bike route, to allow for more recreation via walking or running, not only biking. Please take into consideration my concerns regarding Route 5F in particular, and my suggestions for a more comprehensive trail system. Edina residents would like to be assured that prior to approving Nine Mile Creek Trail, all other options have been considered - options that preserve trees and wildlife, and Edina neighborhoods and homes. This would be welcomed by Edina residents. If you are interested in exploring these ideas further, please call me. I would be happy to meet in person, and attend meetings. Sincerely, Emelie F. Helou, M.D. RECEIVED Edmi Mayor Jarr mes H—ew-wk-, Effm CAy Councilperswis.- Jor;i Bennett Mary BfirKNee, Soott Housh, Ann Swenson Jul 16 2010 Edina CAy Hall 4801 W. 50th St E6m MN, 55424 Ladies and Gentlemen, I think it would be enlightening to read the foil article from ft duty 9, 2010 Star Tribune befGre voft to allow the spending of $20 Million Dollars on a recreational bir-We trail through Edina. Spending this money wig create more debt and unfunded liabilities for our children- $20 miffion dollars would allow this nursing home, or others like it, to operate another forty years. Surely you won't attach a higher priority to recreation in a high end suburb than to our elderly in nursing homes. Si ely, 'Y' L4f 7 A 4, v my Mi eir 6000 Birchcrest Dr. Edina, Mn 55436 1­1 ome tuw economicsaat the nursin o h 0 -r, e place where rny 99-yez--ld ordtooperate. * 4. Irk I - , mather-ir.- law fives? it cAn ncolongei aff Who,nw std that "fifes what bzprea wtiik g"Vre making od= planV'PA it Tight, plea t sup- -r out cm the deck, ki- ed by readinE in Lbe den, then a inatie, We birk-By viz our ei-Trung on hOW to give ouvfs t i me to 'check on e-m&L' �,, 1-.. 1411� T...4, Ifs tempting to look for a villain — espftiaHY government. But the reality is that we Americans have been spending money we dorft have. ATY WIR: t, W.S 2 M `Lft bonded me om 14AOP. Sa� -What &N V0.4 rxAire 4 thilr, A crWk but CUCIV141 Mufted e-mzil firim thk- tw=*,,ewent d Ashton Gat C&31- *e x P j P e a, M x, M i r M., vase my 9 S -A = - at -a mother-w-Ls W had bem livuag the past two yem, k ed­ no, urgdd — our alftenian-m Ahe k&qW!vgMwWay evening at a Lautidy,'. O[W%m=kY Meeting to discuss the "finatt- cial &.Zenqes7fiw* Ashton. iLur,tut grWe way to augz What ax id this mean locreased fees. Red%at se-tic- es? 71,eri h hit me: "The place L< ck)=&"I suggested. fud) turnzd pale and ftiu& back team 7' e Ia., 4, tsvo an bad b ce np articuaA, bar; i manng hex mother to a mzsit* home sellirr­ her cWklboDd home, the relemkls downwWd spb-a of Ixt moihefs memory, f6flowedby her modh&s greatest fear cam ing MV-_ shell scam 1v 019 sAUjcmey And ww thr-AshtonCw1c Centezisck- M& Not is a year. NCY, in six moutbr, M in septem. bm 90 days from myw. Ail residtnm nrast be emit No neeptions. Holding back wars; hemli. Ashton's ad- rnini=am khond2 Yochem, confirmed the fear at the Monday meew.ig. In a letter hand- ad to faniiiy members. 4je wrotks -i-Wer I& Past five VMS, Ashu.n. Calt Canan LIU Wf- fered kwer averaggiw W.145355 cach Fear. _nr:4WzbUrSem=t rates Urr m tbe state of _%Aij;xnesotA) for the nursing., hcw3,, have. con- tinued to be teach Jess +Jumdeactaal cast to cperme the iaci ' �."r>`CEOtrf the nursing hcit�rirct�t?:ttitr• ;O,Ttrablmplce Com plex. Brad Bur-Is. illen .VA*d in Support of Ycowm, &-A in acan- fLqpk)g je7tej fie bad written to famly mem- b__es, said: Afner emvreful considenfim and xulysis, the PCMC W4>eStone County Medk=l Center] could not sunive friege losses indefinitely ima the fi$='M ' the crux of the problem. BwTis rciter- dtt�d 'was 110t mis-m.mwment. n6f malfea- sane,e, 1xit pritwily lack of Modicaidrcim- bursement from the state of Minnes;oia, and hF extension, ;be federal eovernmenL too. siYK Mon- ey fi-om the feds. More UWSW h%-W 4-4 .0 ar particularly m nortlhiwstern - )td ,outhw,eswrn M-I-PA)w --cap be expect- ed. addeJ a frdrd staff mt:wben My eyes took in the other families in the dining room. Farmers, big men uith ccp- per, &- s smq2irM,%J -U- TJ3eir the" ,r,Ls lebbed dieir eyes Wiffi Ma-WILThe Tew rmdmzs ia glendaix'e, %A VeA,7— zienawwing what wag taking plam fzbl grew angn treu wo s6L te))kpQrW -to ", Jo-, a vain — nu3st, may, %4aw atui f2derd W-Werarnen-ts. tae icnb ari.-we- Why is& government do- Ling moW- What art its Pwiarities, GoM queswa, but 03ey miss the marl-, zjv jr .ajity have been sper&4x* :mmev d-k M4 SU gars that we don't have Repr.-LeA, — loenxeen fideral =d state 3ehc lelxts -A unftmdel babil- 2ies — mr.W WRms 4dollam Manes- smW i%!Eh grate intenfions, cer=)y But molley The quesaim beconx-- nut, What the 9ON- ,nTatent is ging to doaltyxit this, IxA rather %%-Lv are we going w do? I 1w govermuent cant b0p u& It's oast of monev, put wt- can belp ourselves bj qxzd- ing less and by -O)iug more on each other and ounwives dmi on governmera largesse. For me it probably means ending retire - went and returning towork- But that OK Loo lingbackcnourfi years together, some of the best momenAs m-,• wife and I hmT shared have been in responsse to unexpect- ed chahe4ges. Weli get through this, and we'll got Grandma th ' this, too. WeT be sqxViger, For now, I cLoscwith a cusp salute to the staff of.kshton C-are Center. Be Strong. Find anew place to give 4yr=selve5 as Nm have given to our family..km! tLat& Mayor Hovland and Councilmembers Bennett, Swenson, Housh, and Brindle. RECEIVED City of Edina JUL 16 2010 Re: Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail in Edina The Edina 2006 Needs Assessment stated that biking and walking trails were the most important needs for the community. The second most important need identified was preserving outdoors and nature. I have experience in riding the trails that the Three Rivers Park District has constructed, and they have done an outstanding job of providing biking and walking trails that are sensitive to preserving the "outdoors" (natural features, trees and plants, water and wet lands) and the "natural' environment. The new trail from Wayzata to St. Bonifacius is an impressive example of the care and planning expertise that has been accomplished in addressing similar issues and challenges to those being faced in Edina. Three Rivers Park District provides trails for biking and walking that provide access for people in the community to not only preserve but to enhance the environment and provide enjoyment for everyone on public lands. I have witnessed many people using the Three Rivers Park District trails including individuals walking their dogs, couples strolling, families with children using scooters, skateboards, rollerblades, and bikes. I have seen young families riding bikes with their `Burley" carts being pulled along behind them. This is in addition to the large variety of bike riders who use the trails for enjoyment and exercise. This indicates to me that Three Rivers Park District trails in natural areas provide enjoyment and a high quality experience to a variety of community households. I also think that the trail would be a real asset for children and young people who would want to bike or hike to school. This trail would afford the opportunity to travel on a dedicated route separated from busy city streets and crossings as much as possible to enhance the enjoyment and provide safe routs to schools, churches, shopping, and other activities in Edina. I support the Three Rivers Park District proposed bike trail and the alignment that enhances the users experience, provides access to the natural areas and minimizes the use of city streets or riding lanes in or adjacent to city streets. Sincerely, Donald Eyberg 6600 Dakota Trail Edina, MN 55439 RECEIVED JUL 16 2010, to: Kelly Grissman; ThreeRivers Park District; ninemiletrail @threeriversparkdistrict.org John Keprios, City of Edina Park & Recreation Director; jkeprios @ci.edina.mn.us Edina City Council Members (Jim Hovland, Scot Housh, Ann Swensen, Joni Bennett, Mary Brindle)edinamailgci.edina.mn.us Alice Hulbert, Bike Edina Task Force State Representative 41A Keith Downey; rep. keith.downey&house.mn METC Representative Polly Bowles; polly.bowlesginetc.state.mn.us From: Diane Fansler Re: Route 7 of Proposed Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail Please add this Addendum to the letter I submitted to you yesterday for your use and response. Thank you. Addendum 1 -I inadvertently left off this paragraph from the last page: 9A4- Adoption of the proposed Route 7 plans and requires invasion onto all private property along the route on a consistent, constant, intrusive basis from the time of construction ever forward. Constructing the trail up to or very close to the affected property lines of 12 private residences all zoned single family will necessitate invasion into the private properties for construction, service, etc. I am not challenging Edina's ROW, but I firmly believe that this is a misuse of this ROW when this usage relies upon and requires said invasion of properties. John Keprios, Jesse Struve, and other Edina City officials explained city ROW as being for the purposes of accessing utilities such as gas /water /sewer, and for construction of such common -value entities as sidewalks. At no time did anyone state or imply that ROW was to be used for 1 -a permanent structure that 2 -will completely cover and 3 -will extend to the end of the ROW and 4 -will require use of private property for all construction and future maintenance /access of 1 -this structure and 2- reconstruction /moving/alterations /replacement to the current and future city /public /private utilities located within and/or under the ROW to be used by the proposed trail. Addendum 2 -I did not address the CAT cost estimate of $600,000 for this segment of the trail because I believe that this estimate is totally moot since 1- ThreeRivers provides no basis for this figure and 2 -the numerous omissions, inaccuracies, deficiencies, and errors that I have pointed out that alter and increase costs of construction and maintenance, including from the areas of 1- erroneous and incomplete Environment Assessment including negative environmental impacts; 2- safety and security to trail users, residents, and traffic; 3- costs, negative impacts, and encroachment on private properties during construction; 4- costs, negative impacts, and encroachment on private properties throughout future trail use; 5- erroneous and incomplete Technical Assessment; 6- erroneous and incomplete Design Recommendations; and 7- erroneous and incomplete Social Assessment. However, I wish to publically state that the CAT cost estimate is grossly inadequate and without reasonable foundation. Addendum 3 -All my analysis, information, and comments cover the portion of Route 7 directly - within and concentrating on the east side. of ValleyViewRd between Valley Land and Antrim Road. ThreeRivers does not provide specific routes at either end Route 7, asserting the Route 7 is ValleyViewRd between Tracy Avenue and Antrim Road. 3A -Route 7's reported southern endpoint is Antrim Road. However, the CAT. does not 'specify any route,on Antrim Road, but lists numerous possible nebul`oiis alternatives without even placing the trail within the 73 ft. ROW. 3B-The situation at, Route 7's northern.endpoint is even more confusing and convoluted. 3.31 -The CAT lists Tracy: Avenue, but where on Tracy Avenue, which stops and starts and jumps several'blocks in between` portions? Three.Rivers does not include any information;, analysis ,or reference to ar ything further north than West. 66th' Street or perhaps as far north as ValleyLane: (For example, the CAT bases its entire report on 5 road intersections Route 7, whereas there are 5 intersections on the east side of Valley View Rd between Antrim Rd and West 66th Street. Since there are 12 properties on the east side of ValleyViewRd between ValleyLane and Antrim Road, I have chosen to include this portion in my analysis. 3B2 -In addition, I do not have. sufficient expertise or personal knowledge of the SQ.or unique complications that would result if the trail extends further north along Valley View Rd than Valley Lane. To the extent that Route 7 extends - northward beyond Valley Lane along Valley View Road, all the issues I brought up affecting the portion from ValleyLane to Antrim Road would also be relevant to and must be addressed by CAT's research, plans, and communications. 3B3 -These considerations must be included, communicated to, and allow feedback from residents both a -as they directly affect this portion of the proposed trail and b -their snowballing effect from the northern endpoint of the segment throughout the trail to Antrim Road. 3B4- Issues I foresee include but are certainly not limited to a- possibly crossing /impacting on Highway 62, b- possibly 'by- passing 9MileCreek and/or its wetlands, c- possibly blocking entrance /egress from the-Fire Station/Paramedics at 6250 Valley View Road, d'- possibly impacting the primary entrance /egress of the new high occupancy Senior Care Center approved by the Edina City Council this past week, and e- certainly impacting on trail users, residents, and road users including ValleyView Rd, sideroads, and Highway 62. 3B5 -These 5 areas (and others of which I am not personally aware) deserve the same Environmental" Assessment, Technical Assessment, and Social Assessment that'CAT purports to have done for the segment affecting the east side of ValleyViewRd extending 5 roads northward from Antrim Road. Respectfully submitted, Diane A Fansler ' dianefansler@yahoo.com 5709 West 66th Street Edina, MN 55439 JO 1t_ 16 2010 To: Kelly Cmssman, ninemiletrail axhreeriversparkdistrict.org Edina City Council edinamailkei.edina.mn.us From: John Howells 6725 ValleyView Road Edina, Mn 55439 This letter is in support of the Letter and Addendum written by Diane Fansler regarding Route 7 of the Edina section of the Nine Mile Creek Bike Trail proposed by Three Rivers Park District. Diane has done a complete and accurate report on behalf of the residents along the east side of ValleyView Road. She presented many important issues for you to resolve before continuing with this section of the. proposed trail. This Route would impose particularly difficult and cruel hardships on me. The trail would come within a few feet of the entire front of my house. It would remove almost all of my entire front yard. It would remove almost all of my driveway and would be dangerous to enter or exit from my property. It would require me to cross the trail to enter busy Valley View Road. Also, my driveway would be dangerously shortened in length. Also, my driveway would be dangerously close to the intersection of ValleyView Road and Susan Avenue. Also, it looks like the shoulder would be eliminated which would make entering or exiting my property even more dangerous for me and the trail users. This Route would also endanger my health, privacy, and safety. I recently buried my wife from cancer and myself suffer from cardiac problems. I need to sleep most of the time. The noise, air pollution, and bikers /walkers/workers during construction and later using the trail would endanger my privacy, property, and health. I ask you not to proceed with Route 7. I ask you to study and respond to the Letter and Addendum written by Diane Fansler before continuing to consider Route 7. ou. Jo ell 67 51alleyView Road RECEIVED JUL 16 2010 Susan Hdwl Subject: Support for Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail through Parkland I am writing in support of the Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail, through Edina. Please ensure my message is directed to the following: Edina Mayor and City Council Members Edina Parks Director John Keprios Three Rivers Park District Commissioners Three Rivers Park District Senior Planner Kelly Grissman Edina Mayor, City Council, Parks Director, and TRPD Commissioners: As an Edina resident and active bike commuter and bicycling advocate, I ask that you help establish the Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail through Edina. While the trail would require a significant investment, the extraordinary recreational, family, community, and health benefits in having a regional trail will be of great value to Edina residents, to the city, and to the region. It shows Edina supports its community, alternative transportation and recreation options, and is willing to make investments in the good of the community. A safe, comfortable, and inviting trail for walkers, joggers, and riders of all ages and skill levels would serve to promote our Edina, its parks, and its ability to stand out as a city that offers tremendous amenities for its residents and for the area. Investing in this regional trail would be an asset to the community. Recreational facilities are a decision factor for many prospective homeowners and a trail would be a selling point for Edina home sellers. I believe the regional trail should run through parks to enhance the walking and riding experience, versus existing roadways which have increased levels of car exhaust and noise. Additionally, bike safety and walking safety issues already abound through the city of Edina, where walkers, bikers, joggers, and families with strollers compete for space on the roadways, particularly in areas without sidewalks, bike lanes, or trail space. This trail will not solve the problem in and of itself, but it will reduce the impact In summary, I urge you to approve the proposed regional trail and select routes through parks. Sincerely, Brad Boyd, 5212 Benton Avenue, Edina, MN RECEIVED July 8, 2010 JUL s 1pi0 Three Rivers Park District Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail 3000 Xenium Lane North Plymouth MN 55441 To Whom It May Concern: I am writing you this letter to protest the use of Valley View Road as an alternative trail route in Edina. I also want you to know I am an avid bicyclist and have over 50 years of experience riding parks, trails and roads. I look forward to a bike trail in Edina but I strongly believe Valley View Road is a poor choice. I live at the corner of Susan Avenue and Valley View. I have been here for 25 years and I am very familiar with the hazards that exist on this route. Valley View is a main thoroughfare for Edina and is heavily traveled by all sorts of automobiles, trucks, semi- trucks, city buses and school buses on a daily basis. Studies by the City of Edina have proved Valley View as one of the busiest residential streets in the city. Proposed section seven of Valley View is a treacherous, one -half mile hill. Although the speed limit is 30 mph, cars and trucks carelessly travel down this hill often reaching speeds of 50 or 60 mph before reaching the bottom. This is the rule rather than the exception. To make matters worse, in one block intervals, Valley View is intersected in the one - half mile by five side streets on the side of the proposed trail. They are Susan Avenue, Lois Lane, Grace Terrace, West 66th Street and Valley Lane. All day long cars and trucks dart out onto Valley View from the side streets and often fail to stop at the stop signs. The trail would cross all of these side streets. It is also noted Valley View is a major bus line with two stops in section seven. Because of the hill, the speed and the congestion, there has been all manner of motor accidents at Valley View and West 66th Street. The accidents have endangered not only the passengers but also the bicyclist and pedestrians. Motor vehicles are not the only victims of Valley View. Bicyclists that coast down the hill often reach speeds in excess of 50 mps without pedaling. I have witnessed at least one child who spilled their bike on Valley View carried away be an ambulance due to injuries. It is my impression that most parents from this area will not let their children bike on Valley View because of the dangerous conditions. I expressed dangers of Valley View to a representative at a recent public meeting for the trail. The answer from him was `wve will have to control the speed ". As a long time resident, I can tell you this has been tried and does not work. Despite complaints from neighbors, the Edina police have neither the time nor the manpower to slow this traffic all day long. I have heard comments that Valley View would be a good choice for a trail because the folks that live there are already used to high congestion traffic of motor vehicles and people. This logic is preposterous. We already have a lethal mix of traffic and people and adding a trail would only make it worse. Residents at the public meeting talked about alternative routes like section nine and eleven, a route that follows the creek. They expressed concern that the trail would affect wildlife and their privacy. But, since when does wildlife and privacy trump human safety? . For this reason, I believe following the creek a better choice. On a final note, when I bicycle I like to take in the scenery and relax. What is- scenic about Valley View with high privacy fences? And, what is relaxing about dodging cars and trucks traveling at high speeds? S Y. Han Resident Copy to: John Keprios Edina Parks and Recreation 4801 W. 50`h Street Edina MN 55424 Diane Fansler 5709 West 66th Street Edina MN 55439 About Town Magazine 4801 West 50`" Street Edina MN 55424 Susan Howl Subject: Support for Regional Trail Through Edina RECEIVED Jul 16 7110 Dear Mayor Hovland, City Council Members Bennett, Brindle, Housh, and Swenson, and Parks Director Keprios: I enthusiastically support the Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail through Edina. To me, this is the most important issue before the City Council. As an avid and regular rider, I have biked the trails throughout the southwest suburbs for years. Edina is a blank space on a beautiful canvass of trails that form one of the most beneficial parts of the infrastructure of this area of Minnesota. When I leave my house to ride, I am always struck by how isolated Edina is from the trail system. I believe the regional trail should run through parks and green areas to the extent possible to enhance the experience and provide maximum safety. While there may be various routes that are possible, to me the most important thing is that the trail gets built. Edina is the least bike - friendly community in the southwest suburbs. There can be reasonable disagreements about the best route, but the need for a trail is evident. The last survey of Edina residents shows that the bike trail is a priority, perhaps the highest priority for the community as a whole. While the opposition to particular routes is based on the concerns of some of the residents who are nearest to the trail and who do not perceive the benefits for themselves or their neighborhoods, I believe that the public good of the entire community outweighs these concerns. Moreover, from personal experience riding the trails, I think that concerns about crime or unwanted guests is way overstated. Indeed, at least as good an argument can be made that property values will go up near a trail as they will go down. Also, I really do not think that residents whose property abuts public land should have any more say in what happens to that land as any other residents. Public land is public land, not a private preserve for people who live next to it and who take the inherent risk that the public land will be used for purposes other than what they envisaged when they moved in. In summary, I urge you to approve the proposed regional trail and select a route through public parks and green areas to the extent feasible. By the way, since my address is in the far southwest corner of Edina, I will still have to use the roads to bike to any trail that is built. While I have personal preferences, since this letter is about the trail tself rather than any particular route, I will refrain from commenting on any particular route. If you have the foresight to support the trail, present and future residents of Edina and its surrounding communities will have you to thank for a wonderful new resource that is way overdue. Build the trail. Sincerely, Ken Liebman, T7o9 Stonewood Court, Edina, MN 55439 Susan Howl Subject: FW: Regional Trail Design comments: RECEIVED JUL 181910 Option 5F along Countryside Park was never assigned a neighborhood representative. This option was added without neighborhood input and apparently without a physical review of the location. Option 5F is not feasible, an off - street version encroaches on the seating area for the baseball games and the on- street version removes the only parking along the north side of the park. Option 5F also requires either a dedicated bridge at Tracey or the construction of a wider bridge at Tracey. There may also be an issue with the parking lot adjacent to Colonial Church being listed as a trailhead. I didn't see that statement but I heard about it second hand. This lot is already too small and adding to the parking load would negatively impact the park. Please reconsider the Gleason crossing of Hwy 62 per the original proposal. It appears that the Gleason bridge is large enough to accommodate the trail traffic. Crossing Hwy 62 over a shared bridge with motor vehicles may be a feature that the design team was attempting to prevent but if the dedicated bridge between Gleason and Tracey is no longer an option the only choice available is Option 5F, which per the above argument is not a good choice. I'm unclear why the dedicated bridge between Gleason and Tracey has been removed as an option. It would seem that although it would be expensive it would also prevent numerous conflicts in the neighborhoods. I prefer route 5 be developed as an off - street option from Gleason Ave, across the open spaces south of Hwy 62 and transition to either routes 7 or 9 at Valleyview Road near Nine Mile Creek. This route needs to be adjusted from the proposed layout in consideration to the residents, school and park property. My second choice would be the dedicated bridge between Gleason and Tracey. I request approval of the Regional Trail based upon the above comments. John & Jeanne St. Pierre 0st.Pierre @comcast.net 952 929 0175 Susan Howl subject: Support for creek -side route of Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail Dear Edina Mayor and City Council Members, RECEIVED Edina Parks Director John Keprios, Three Rivers Park District Commissioners, JUL 1 6 7010 Three Rivers Park District Senior Planner Kelly Grissman, Edina Mayor, City Council, Parks Director, and TRPD Commissioners: I grew up in Edina, raised my three children here, and continue to enjoy living here. I am writing to express my strong support for the creek -side route of the Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail through Edina. I believe it represents the safest and best option for our citizens. This will create a new park that will link together many of our existing parklands, and open up public land for the public to enjoy. Here are the key benefits, as I see them, for the creek -side trail route. It will create a new park. By constructing the creek -side trail through Edina, Three Rivers Park District will create a beautiful new park that links together many of our existing parks in Edina. It will be a wonderful amenity for all Edina residents to enjoy, and a superior addition to the Three Rivers regional trail system. It is the safest route. The creek route is the safest route for children and families to enjoy. The street routes are much less safe for children, given the driveways and busy intersections the trail would follow. It will help restore Nine Mile Creek. Nine Mile Creek is not a pristine natural resource it once was, long ago. Today it's on the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's impaired waters list, given the years of agricultural and yard waste (including today's fertilizer runoff from surrounding yards). It is full of invasive, non - native species of plants. Construction of the new park will add in native plants, and I believe will actually help improve water quality. It will open up public land for the public to enjoy. The multi -use regional trail will be built on public land - areas that previously have only been enjoyed by the property owners whose yards adjoin that property. It will become a beautiful park that can be enjoyed by everyone! It will promote a healthy lifestyle. A regional trail encourages healthy outdoor aerobic activities such as walking, jogging and biking by people of all ages and skill levels in an enjoyable parkland setting. Some people have expressed concerns about the cost of the Edina trail. I do not share those concerns. The trail will be underwritten by the Three Rivers Park District - not by increased taxes. Like all of the cities that surround us, Edina has been paying a $3.5 million annual fee to Three Rivers Park District for years. Other communities, such as Hopkins, Minnetonka and Bloomington, have benefited from construction of trails through their communities; now it's Edina's turn! I encourage you to do the right thing for the greatest number of people by ensuring the creek -side route of the trail is selected. This trail will be a tremendous asset to the community. We want Edina to stay young and vibrant. A world - class recreational trail will attract young families to Edina. As Steve Brandt wrote in today's Star Tribune, like the Minnehaha Creek Trail in Minneapolis, the Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail in Edina will be a centerpiece of recreation and beauty in our community that will be enjoyed by many for years to come. Sincerely, Mary Lilja 5809 McGuire Road Edina, MN 55439 952.942.5389 mcl @lilja.com Susan Howl Subject: FW: edina trail Attachments: SCAN_D000001.PDF RECEIVED Jul- 16 2010 Mayor Jim Hovland Councilmembers Joni Bennett, Mary Brindle, Scot Housh, and Ann Swensen John Keprios, Edina Park and Recreation Director Alice Hulbert, Bike Edina Task Force Also to: Kelly Grissman, ThreeRiversParkDistrict The article "On a bik..." is from today's Star and Tribune and is written by columnist Steve Brandt. It is timely and directly applicable to proposed Route 7 of NineMileCreekRegionalTrail, especially since it evaluates current south Minneapolis experience with creek -based versus road -based trails similar to Route 7. Congested, high - volume ValleyViewRd would be made even more dangerous and disadvantageous to bikers (and pedestrians!) than the busy Minneapolis streets cited in Brandt's article if Route 7 is adopted since the street would be made narrower with fewer lanes for traffic and eliminating and /or significantly narrowing parking lanes and shoulders. Thank you. Diane Fansler 1 Twovmzds Dateline has two words for a group of Edina residents who oppose locating a bike trail along Nine Mile Creek Min - nehaha Creek Stop by Minnehaha Creek in south Minneapolis any week- end and you'll see bikers and walkers of all ages enjoying trails along that creek Or por- tions of Bassett Creek Or Shin- gle Creek We understand that you may not want that traffic by your house, but the cure for that is not to buy next to public- ly owned land Dateline is comfortable rid- ing on the street and has biked across whole states on 24 inches ofhighway shoulder But not ev- eryone is that daring. Moreover, riding an off -street path yields a much more soothing journey than dodging potholes and bro- ken glass. There's also something about awindingtrailthat seemsto mo- tivate kids to see what's around the next bend With Edina rank- ing as the state's second - oldest city in terms of its share of pop- ulation over age 64, perhaps a family- friendly trail would di- versify the city. RECEIVED JUL 161010 -D a}Q(:h.e -t--Tr.%vA e 7114 do Ed C9w% Susan Howl RECEIVED From: benn hulbert [mailto:bennhulbert@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 12:40 PM 6 2010 To: Lynette Biunno; NineMileTrail @ThreeRiversParkDistrict.org Subject: support for the 9 Mile Creek Trail To Edina Mayor, Edina City Council, 3 Rivers Parks Commissioners, Park Director John Keprios, Project Director Kelly Grissman I am a lifelong resident of Edina and have been a captain of the Edina High School Nordic Ski Team for 3 seasons (2007- 2010). Although Minnesota folks like to complain about long snowy winters, we skiers love them, and I can tell you in recent years they are longer than they are snowy. When our high school season starts there is no snow, so we work on our skills and conditioning by rollerskiing. There are essentially no trails in Edina, so we rollerski on the streets near the high school. Rollerskis have no brakes, and the bumpy pavement, hills, and traffic make for a challenging practice some days. Sunset comes very early leaving us with little light towards the end of practice, making it more difficult to spot debris in the road. It would be great for our team to have a 3 Rivers Park trail passing through the High School Campus. It would be safer for rollerskiing, and safer for all the other sports that use running for training from the High School. The trail along the creek would be the safest alternative, since we already struggle with cars backing out of driveways not seeing us and not understanding that we have no brakes. The smooth clean surface would also be safer for the runners, who currently run along the streets because there are no sidewalks in many areas near the school. When the snow finally does come the trail will be a great area for on snow practice and will link to ski trails in Bredesen Park. The 9 Mile Creek Trail will also benefit students and teachers who chose not to drive to school, and will be a place athletes of all ages can work out safely. Edina has needed a trail like this for a long time and I think that the plan to build along the creek is the right one to bring the most benefit to our City. Benn Hulbert Susan Howl Please direct this email to: - Edina Mayor and City Council Members RECEIVE.© - Edina Parks Director John Keprios JUL 14 1010 - Three Rivers Park District Commissioners - Three Rivers.Park District Senior Planner Kelly Grissman Re.: Support for creek -side route of Nine Mile Creek .Regional Trail I' have been a resident-of Edina for five years, :own` a. home,; and paid $9,801 in Edina property taxes. Our City has, :a reputation for�'meeting the,needs of our residents with services of'-the highest` quality. 0ur Park system provides outstanding facilities for many activities including hockey and,skating, golf, baseball, soccer, football, swimming, basketball, and many others. However, we' have been -lagging behind our neighboring cities in one.area: trails. A wonderful and nationally known trail system has been evolving around us and we haven ?t had an opportunity to be a part.of it..Whether you bike, walk, or run for recreation or commute; access'to the trail system is tremendously important. The proposed Nine Mile Creek Trail routed through the creek area (not the road segments) will provide Edina residents of all ages a safe and enjoyable route for exercise or, commuting. The road segments will be busy and noisy with cars and will not attract cyclists, let alone walkers. The Three Rivers Park District Environmental Assessment Worksheet states there is no- serious environmental reason.to oppose the creek -based trail. The trail will be a huge benefit to the residents of Edina. Count me in favor of the Nine Mile Creek trail, through the natural. spaces. Andrew Heyer - 5717 Deville Dr Edina, MN 55436 1 Susan Howl Subject: Preferred route of Edina trail bear RECEIVED Three Rivers Park District Commissioners, JUL 14 1010 Three Rivers Park District Senior Planner Kelly Grissman, Edina Mayor, City Council, Parks Director, and TRPD Commissioners I am strongly in support of a new trail following the creekside route through Edina. Having lived in Edina most of my life, I am excited by the great opportunity this park like route through Edina offers our community! A safe and beautiful trail through Edina that will link our community together in a new way and provide a safe and beautiful waking and biking trail. I cannot imagine why we would want to select a hazardous roadside route, past driveways and intersections and up one of the biggest hills in Edina, when we have a wonderful route on previously uncared for and unused public land. The opportunity to install a premier trail through Edina will come only once and our obligation to the greater community, and to future generations, is far more important than the concerns of a small group of vocal homeowners who currently oppose this option. I've used the regional trail system and to be honest I think in the end those concerned homeowners will be delighted with the new trail and their very convenient access to it. Let's build a great trail through Edina. The creek side route of the the nine mile regional trail! Michael Lilja 5809 McGuire Road Edina, MN 55439 mliliaCabcomcast.net 952 - 942 -5389 Susan Howl Subject: Support for creek -side route of Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail Please direct this email to: RECEIVED - Edina Mayor and City Council Members JUL 14 1010 - Edina Parks Director John Keprios - Three Rivers Park District Commissioners - Three Rivers Park District Senior Planner Kelly Grissman Re: Support for creek -side route of Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail I have been a resident of Edina for five years, own a home, and paid $9,801 in Edina property taxes. Our City has a reputation for meeting the needs of our residents with services of the highest quality. Our Park system provides outstanding facilities for many activities including hockey and skating, golf, baseball, soccer, football, swimming, basketball, and many others. However, we have been lagging behind our neighboring cities in one area: trails. A wonderful and nationally known trail system has been evolving around us and we haven't had an opportunity to be a part of it. Whether you bike, walk, or run for recreation or commute, access to the trail system is tremendously important. The proposed Nine Mile Creek Trail routed through the creek area (not the road segments) will provide Edina residents of all ages a safe and enjoyable route for exercise or commuting. The road segments will be busy and noisy with cars and will not attract cyclists, let alone walkers. The Three Rivers Park District Environmental Assessment Worksheet states there is no serious environmental reason to oppose the creek -based trail. The trail will be a huge benefit to the residents of Edina. Count me in favor of the Nine Mile Creek trail, through the natural spaces. Vasanti Mudkanna 5717 Deville Dr Edina, MN 55436 Susan Howl Subject: FW: I support the creek side route for the new trail in Edina RECEIVED JUL 14 1010 From: Gene Kay [mailto:genekay2 @gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 2:34 PM To: NineMileTrail @ThreeRiversParkDistrict.org; Lynette Biunno Subject: I support the creek side route for the new trail in Edina Dear sirs/ mam, I am writing to express my support for the creek side route on the proposed 9 -mile creek bike trail through Edina. The creek side route is public property, it is more scenic and safer than the alternate street routes proposed by the adjoining property owners. I have walked near the creek and biked through Edina on many occasions and find that in general Edina does not have good bike commuting or bike recreational options. I think the bike system in our metro is a real asset and has greatly improved the quality of life for me and my family. Edina needs to have some safe connections between Hopkins and Hyland park. In fact these trails influenced our choice of homes over 18 years ago. Regards, Gene Kay Plymouth MN Susan Howl Subject: FW: Nine Mile Creek Trail Mayor Hovland Council Member Bennett Council Member Brindle Council Member Housh Council Member Swenson RECEIVED JUL 1'4 1010 I am writing hoping that there can be an alternate route found that does not destroy some of the limited natural wetlands in Edina. Instead of looking out our front windows and see trees and natural wetlands we may be looking at a 16' asphalt road or boardwalk elevated 12' above ground. To make matters worse there is talk about a parking lot which will add considerable traffic to our neighborhood, loss of security, privacy and greater upkeep from the added usage. The largest issue is the cost of approx. $30 million plus the ongoing and future maintenance of this trail. In a time of economic problems it would seem that there is a better use of that money than on a bike trail while increasing the debt of TRPD by 41% that we will all be paying off along with our National debt. Edina needs to look for an alternative to spending this much money, destroying natural habitat and disrupting neighborhoods and parks. Thank you Thanks Tom 1 Susan Howl Subject: FW: Bike Trail - public comment RECEIVED Mayor Hovland, JUL 14 2010 I'm a new resident to the Habitat development residing at 6117 Habitat Court and was recently advised that today marks the end of the public comment opportunity with regard to a plan to add bike trails potentially along the frontage road which we use to access Habitat Court. As I stated, I've recently moved to this neighborhood (from another Edina neighborhood) and my concern with this proposed plan is the volume of car traffic along the frontage road which riders would be challenged with. I can say from a car drivers perspective getting in and out of Habitat is challenging particularly due to the curves in the road not to mention the volume of traffic. I'm deeply concerned that the safety of trail users would be compromised should this plan be pursed. A lesser but also important consideration is the aesthetics of having a trail representing the city of Edina which fronts the freeway. Our city has a reputation of quality, desirable amenities and this location does not adequately represent the best the city has to offer. I hope you will give serious consideration to my comments and would welcome any follow up conversation which would assist your team in this important decision. Regards, Rebecca K. Duvick Sr. Mgr, Client Services Operations Kroll Ontrack Inc. www.krollontrack.com 8995 Columbine Road I Eden Prairie, MN 55347 Phone: (952) 906-49621(800) 872 -2599 Fax: (952) 974 -4523 Email: rduvick(a.krollontrack.com This communication contains information that is confidential; proprietary in nature, and may also be attorney - client privileged and /or work product privileged. It is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient(s) or the person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient(s), please note that any form of dissemination: distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender and delete the original communication. Thank you for your cooperation. Please be advised that neither Kroll, its affiliates, its employees or agents accept liability for any errors, omissions or damages caused by delays of receipt or by any virus infection in this message or its attachments, or which may otherwise arise as a result of this e-mail transmission. Susan Howl From: DONALD AND GEORGIA HELLENDRUNG [mailto:dghellendrung @q.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 1:43 PM RECEIVLp To: Lynette Biunno Subject: Nine Mile Creek JUL 14 2010 Dear Sirs and Madams: I'm writting in regards to the Nine Mile Creek regional plan for a bike path. My primary concern is flooding, since the proximity of my house on the south side from the creek, is about ten feet. A few years ago the city did some drenching on the East side of the house and since that, the water has been diverted to the proposed area. When it rains the proposed area is flooded. Prior to drenching the water would creep up very close to the house and in 1987 and 2001 the lower level of the house was flooded causing $85,000.00 worth with the damages. Any changes to the elevation; as proposed, would create flooding conditions. I'm asking you, would you be responsible for any damages? Why would the City of Edina and the Three Rivers create such devastating conditions for its residents ?? Why destroy such a pristine area? The streets in the City of Edina are not as busy as Hennepin Ave., University Ave. etc.and these streets have bike lanes running along side of them. Another concern I have is the budget. All Cities and States in recent years have problems with their budgets. Is the City of Edina prepared for an additional expense for the up -keep of the bike path? Is it fair for the City of Edina and ThreeRivers to pass such an additional expense to its residents, in such dire economic times? We can have a bike path that connects to the rest of the system without risking residents houses to flooding, destroying pristine areas and without putting residents in a financial bind. I am asking you to reconsider your decision in regards to the route of the bike path and please hold public hearings instead of informational public meetings. You owe that much to the residents of the City of Edina. Respectfully, Donald and Georgia Hellendrung 6725 Cahill Road Susan Howl Please direct this email to: RECEIVED Edina Mayor and City Council Members JUL 14 1010 Edina Parks Director John Keprios Three Rivers Park District Commissioners Three Rivers Park District Senior Planner Kelly Grissman Hello, I am writing to voice my support for the regional trail through Edina. While I recognize the current economic conditions make this task difficult, starting the process now will make it easier when the economics change. My wife and I enjoy both the safety and beauty of the Park District's exceptional trail system. Since we like to save our legs for the trail itself, we always have to put our bikes onto a car rack and drive to an access point for one of the trails. When I look around at the abundance of trails in the surrounding communities, I'm usually left wondering why Edina is so far behind in this regard. The other day I imagined how lucky the folks living in Hopkins had it with all the trails that converge in their city. I ask you to support moving forward on this project to add this important recreational amenity to our city. Sincerely, Tom LaForce 5901 Tingdale Ave Edina, MN 55436 Join me on the web at... www.tomlaforce.com LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com /in/tomlaforce Twitter: www.twitter.com /tomlaforce Facebook: http: //bit.ly/bYXLIY Susan Hdwl Subject: FW: creek side route RECEIVED JUL 14 2010 From: Dorothy Goldie [mailto :dorothygoldie @comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 1:04 PM To: NineMileTrail @ThreeRiversParkDistrict.org; Lynette Biunno Subject: creek side route I am writing to express my strong support for the creek -side route of the Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail through Edina. I believe it represents the safest and best option for our citizens. This will create a new park that will link together many of Edina's existing parklands, and open up public land for the public to enjoy Dorothy Goldie dorothygoldie ,comcast.net 612- 280 -7414 Mary Melander 6025 Killamey Lane Edina, MN 55436 July 10, 2010 James Hovland Mayor 4801 W. 5CP Street Edina, MN. 55424 Dear Mayor Hovland, RECEIVED JUL 14 2010 I am writing you about the Three River Park Bike Trail. I attended the meeting at Southview School on June 22, 2010 and left the meeting with more questions than answers. When will there be public hearings to address questions of concerned homeowners? After attending the presentation I wondered how many people the bike trail will really serve vs. the cost. Edina was so wise to set aside park and wetland along 9 mile creek, however, disturbing this precious land seems environmentally unwise to me. I resided in my current home in 1987 when 9 mile creek flooded much of my neighborhood. Another flood even close to the size of 1987 would truly impact a bike trail in a very negative way. Who would pick up the cost of repair to the trail if this would ever happen? So many questions, and so little time to ask them or get any answers that make sense financially, environmentally, traffic wise, safety wise, etc. I feel there would be better ways to spend money during these economic times. I feel this project is being rushed through without enough public input and that is sad for Edina whose residents truly care about their city. Sincerely, ,Q p Mary Melander RECEIVED 'JUL 14 1010 7/13/10 Members of Edina City Council Edina City Hall 4801 W. 50th St. Edina, MN 55424 Attached please find copies of Comments relative to the reports of the Community Assessment Team and the Environmental Assessment Worksheet, on the proposed Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail. These comments were submitted to the Three Rivers Park District office on July 13, 2010 by multiple Edina residents. CAT -EAW ASSESSMENT COMMENTS Below are our comments on the economic, social, technical, and environmental assessments to be presented to the Edina City Council for the purpose of determining the route, or rejectir all routes) of the Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail through the City of Edina. We expect these comments to be entered into the official record. Economic Assessment: 1. No construction timelines were included in the assessments. Construction costs were given in 2010 dollars. No provisions were made to adjust construction costs if actual work on the project takes place in future years. The assessment needs to include a construction timetable and an estimate of costs associated with new construction dates. 2. Construction costs were developed before the EAW was released to the public. Environmental concerns could dramatically increase costs. This includes the cost, timing, and compliance with all necessary permits and mitigation efforts. The assessment needs to include a list of all necessary permits and /or mitigation efforts and a timetable and costs associated with the permits and mitigations. 3. Financing costs were not included in the cost estimates. TRPD has historically financed capital improvements primarily with General Revenue Bonds. At the present bond rates this. would add approximately $11 million dollars to the $20 million dollar construction costs. The assessment needs to include timing and details of construction funding including grants and bonding. 4. The effect of declining property.values surely impacts TRPD's operating budget and accordingly on the ability of TRPD to provide safety, maintenance and replacement of the trail infrastructure over the next twenty five years was not discussed. A May 13, 2009 article in the Star - Tribune states "the district is on course to max out its levy limit by 2011 or 2012 ". The assessment needs to include detail on how TRPD will fund its maintenance, safety and other on -going responsibilities. 5. TRPD used past TRPD projects to calculate unit costs. This is internal TRPD cost information and is not verifiable. RS Means is the generally accepted source of-construction costs. The assessment needs to be based upon construction costs from RS Means. 6. The trail is to be constructed concurrently With Nine Mile Creek Watershed District work on stream alignment and stream bank improvement. The assessment needs to contain data regarding the cost and timing of the NMCWD project. The assessment needs to identify how these projects will impact adjacent properties. 7. The trail is likely to cost in excess of $35 Million dollars after factoring in construction delays, financing, and cost overruns. These are difficult economic times with most units of government burdened with debt and struggling to meet budgets for essential services. This i not the time to be spending this much money, incurring more debt, and creating more unfunded liabilities, on recreation. The assessment failed to seek out materially lower cost alternatives. The CAT Analysis team needs to develop less expensive alternatives such as those outlined in the City of Edina Comprehensive Bicycle CAT -EAW ASSESSMENT COMMENTS Aansportation Plan. The assessment also needs to detail the consequences of laying decisions on the trail until the economy improves. 8. The indirect costs, such as first responder, incremental staff, accommodations to area residents, local design changes, reserves for future liability, etc. that accrue to Edina and TRPD's tax base as a result of the trail were not addressed. The Assessment needs to identify these indirect costs and include them in the total cost of the trail. Social Assessment: 1. The number of residents living adjacent to public lands through which the trail would pass was not defined. Properties were counted, but it is people, not properties that make up the social structure and are affected by trail activity. The assessment needs to include the number of people living adjacent to public lands through which the trail would pass. 2. Protecting the safety of the very old and very young users of Walnut Ridge Park was not addressed. All park users entering north of the creek will have to cross an active bike trail to enter the park. The proposed trail crosses within a few feet of the children's play area. This plan presents unacceptable risks to children and seniors. The assessment needs to include a plan to protect the safety of small children and senior citizen walkers. .i. The question of noise resulting from the trail on adjacent residents was not addressed. There was no data on noise levels generated by the trail. The roll of trees (and their removal) as sound buffers was not addressed. The assessment needs to include data on noise generated by the trail, how the noise will be mitigated, and what effect the removed trees will have on ambient noise. 4. The visual impact of 6000 feet of raised board walk in the trail corridor was minimized. To postulate that 6000 feet of a structure rising 12 feet above a high quality wetland will create no visual impact defies common sense. The assessment needs to use common sense and community standards to define "visual impact ". 5. The differing needs of bikers for recreation, transportation, and physical training was not addressed. Bikers using a trail for transportation need to maintain relatively high speed, use the trail in all seasons, have the trail lighted and available evening hours, and have good access and egress. Bikers using the trail for physical training need to maintain high speed and have a smooth running surface. A regional recreational trail has a mix of walkers, family bikers, roller - blades, and joggers, which inhibit transportation and /or physical training bikers. In the often cited survey of park user preferences, all types of bikers and walkers were included in one category. The second most desired feature was maintaining natural areas. The 2007 City of Edina Comprehensive Bicycle Transportation Plan does not show any of the _reek routes of the Nine Mile Creek trail as a recommended primary route. The assessment needs to indicate that the regional trail does not meet the needs of bikers for transportation and physical training nor does it preserve an area as natural. CAT -EAW ASSESSMENT COMMENTS Environmental assessment: 1. The trees to be removed were calculated by area. Individual trees will have differing effects on the local environment. The assessment needs to contain data on the species, number, diameter range, volume, and location of individual trees to be removed. 2. A change in classification of the 352 acres of `Natural and Open Space Areas" affected by the trail was not discussed. The assessment needs to contain detail on how these acres will be classified if the trail is constructed. 3. The effect of 6000 feet of raised platform and approximately 1000 piling located in a flood plain and floodway was not discussed. The assessment needs to contain information on the potential for these structures to trap debris during a flood and the effect of this debris on flood levels, structure stability, and maintenance, costs. 4. The EAW contains many inconclusive and ambiguous statements using "may" and /or "could" regarding the trails effect on animals. The assessment needs to be much more conclusive and informative with regard to the effect of trail use on animal populations, species, habitat, and distribution WESLEY R KUSKE 5812 VIEW LA J, ARDELL F STARK 5924 WALNUT DR DANIEL C & MARY C MULVEHILL 5940 WALNUT DR i GLENDON HARRIED 5904 WALNUT DR L-�'JAMES M MALONEY 5908 WALNUT DR VWILLIAM G WESTERDAHL 5912 WALNUT DR ,,-*PETER M SCHAUB 5916 WALNUT DR GEORGE E KRUEGER 5920 WALNUT DRIVE j,ZCOTT L & CONNIE J ERICSON 5928 OVALNUT DR J "VIRGINIA ABULLARADE 5932 WALNUT DR V.p R JASON WILEYIJEAN BAY -WILEY 5936 WALNUT DR MARCUS $ ELIZABETH GUSTAFSON 5725 CAMELBACK DRIVE section 2 (952) 931 -0589 (952) 938 -9413 (952) 933 -8808 (952) 933- 6819 (952)938 -5211 nal a Y�i_iR)r>_;rNl (952) 936-7952 (952) 922 -4728 �. j�,S� I!ihoniln l (952) 512 -9940 S r 1G5Q1'l� Iti'1 IDw� Co M(k et q_\ (952) 938 -1164 (952) 931 -9100 yat0(son _0 z @k e;lIci g ail.cc SUSAN I BARKER SCOTT BERTAS MICHAEL R LITTLE ROBERT M GARVEY RAYMOND C BARON REBEKAH C REIFF PAMELA J WOLCOTT MAXINE K MARTIN KATHERINE & PETER PAPPAS MARGARET E MCBRIDE BRUCE HUDSON BOGAARD DONALD F & CAROLINE F BUENZ ANNE M LUNDBERG CHARLOTTE LARSON FRANCOISE C STRUTHERS FRANK J D'ASCENZO T J CRIMMINS BILL & EDITH KUROSS T E WANDER & T A HUDOBA KENNETH D KLEIST r GERALD & NANCY NYSTROM Jerry Nystrom KEVIN GIERTSEN /DANA GIERTSEN section 2 6672 VERNON AVE #109 6673 VERNON AVE #201 (952) 938 -2661 6674 VERNON AVE #205 (952) 938 -8523 6677 VERNON AVE #301 (952) 939 -0617 6679 VERNON AVE #310 (952) 939 -8963 6680 VERNON AVE #402 6681 VERNON AVE #405 (952) 938 -6616 6682 VERNON AVE #407 (952) 931 -3855 6730 VERNON AVE #120 (952) 945 -9671 6730 VERNON AVE #220 (952) 938 -7016 6675 VERNON AVE #207 6676 VERNON AVE #210 952) 930 -3406 6678 VERNON AVE #307 (952) 988 -9283 6730 VERNON AVE #320 6683 VERNON AVE #410 (952) 939 -0067 6730 VERNON AVE #420 (952) 922 -0546 5822 VERNON LN 5808 VIEW LA (952) 938 -4076 5724 VIEW LA (952) 936 -0317 5728 VIEW LA (952) 933 -4626 5800 VIEW LANE (952) 936 -9356 i 5800 View Lane (952) 936 -9356 5804 VIEW LA C) A 0 ! rbO.Lq . omC� t_n!�c NO INTERNET BILI_KtJRt�S�(i1SAVOI[ Sl1F' tfr1'i,tluclot�anuiri_£tl�om (_ EjA�QtJ STRQMnCGMQ yera_Lnystl oSL C+ a�litt section 2 name number street phone Signature 1 Signature 2 email WILLIAM E & VIRGINIA L RANZ 6412 ASPEN RD (952) 945 -0100 LAURIE A CHAPMAN 6420 ASPEN RD (952) 933 -1689 chauay642Q�UFjol. r_nni DAVID STAUGAITIS ABBEY STAUGAITIS 6424 ASPEN RD AMIT BHATI 6500 ASPEN RD (952) 920 -0564 9 JEANNE H BASTYR 6504 ASPEN RD (952) 935 -0618 RICHARD D BASTYR 6504 ASPEN RD (952) 935 -0618 DANA SCHLETZ 6508 ASPEN RD (952) 914 -9338 J I'L " 1.G7�C =;MAIL EHSAN DEHBASHI /SHIDA ARVIN 6512 ASPEN RD 612- 675 -8982 .5AR-AR .HQTMrj)I >_:(S7M, SCOTT P & SANDRA L MCMILLAN 6405 BISCAYNE BLVD _ (952) 928 -4841 / WILLIAM & MARGARET JOAS 6409 BISCAYNE BLVD (952) 935 -1081 !1QslS at )5�1:11ca�i.i t ERIC J & PAMELA L CABALKA 6413 BISCAYNE BLVD (952) 933 -0078 _ 1 MARK & JO PAETZNICK 6417 BISCAYNE BLVD KATHLEEN M KAVANAUGH #6421 BISCAYNE BLVD (952) 930 -9102 Todd and Jules Geisler 6468 BISCAYNE BLVD --- R MEIFERT & W GROTH MEIFERT 6501 BISCAYNE BLVD (952) 938 -3046 K D & T M SCHNEIDER 6505 BISCAYNE BLVD GLENDA K CORRIGAN 6509 BISCAYNE BLVD (952) 938 -1822 -/ W 1:. liSaA Ir BENJAMIN & GWEN HANKINSON 6515 BISCAYNE BLVD (952) 931 -0000 r`,�� ,,��,y -may f G11�ENHAP'I cyAFIO1� COQ r , i t RUSSEL & KAREN RUBIN 6601 BISCAYNE BLVD (952) 933 -2248 ALLAN GALLAHER 5744 DUNCAN LA 952- 933- 17131,.L41�1��4 ANNE L MUELLER 5740 DUNCAN LANE 612- 805 -7064 ai!nr�7nn�c�l Coln NANCY H FRANKENBERRY 5752 DUNCAN LANE (952) 935 -1177 7/12/10 Three Rivers Park District Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail 3000 Xenium Land North Plymouth, MN 55441 cc: Edina City Council Edina City Hall 4801 W. 50th St Edina, MN 55424 Comments on EAW -CAT economic assessment of the Nine MIle Creek Regional Trail. The EAW did not adequately address the fact that a raised wood walkway located in the . floodway of Nine Mile Creek would violate section 850.21 subd 5 para D of the Edina City Code. (see below) D. Standards for Floodway District Conditional Uses: 1. All Uses. No structure (temporary or permanent), fill (including fill for roads and levees), deposit, obstruction, storage of materials or equipment, or other uses may be allowed as a conditional use that will cause any increase in the stage of the 100 -year or regional flood or cause an increase in flood damages in the reach or reaches affected. The language of the code is completely unambiguous, it refers to "all uses ". "No structure ", "any increase ". A raised wooden platform built on piling would obviously displace some water and raise the flood stage some amount. A raised wood platform built on piling spaced from 10' to 16' apart for 2000' would have a strong potential to trap debris being carried on the flood waters. This debris would further displace water and increase the flood stage in violation of the city code. , G' Wm Westerdahl 5912 Walnut Dr Edina, MN 55436 7/12J10 Three Rivers Park District ne Mile Creek Regional Trail 00 Xenium Land North Plymouth, MN 55441 cc: Edina City Council Edina City Hall 4801 W. 50th St Edina, MN 55424 Comments on EAW -CAT economic assessment of the Nine MIle Creek Regional Trail. The Assessment team failed to examine the ability of TRPD to fund maintenance, repair, and safety for the trail over the next twenty five years. Below are tables from the 2010 operating budget of TRPD. They show that TRPD yearly operating expenses are within $4 million dollars of its levy authority. They also show that TRPD yearly operating expenses have increased $7 million dollars over the last four years, a rate of $1.75 million dollars per year. This indicates that TRPD operating expenses will exceed its levy authority in a little over two years. When that happens TRPD will likely be forced to reduce it operating expenses, including maintenance, repair, and safety. This reduction in maintenance activity has already started to occur.(see 2010 Operating Budget) AS proposed the Edina trail will be a high maintenance trail, it could contain 6000' of raised wood boardwalks located in a flood way and /or flood plain. Much of the asphalt paving will be over the unstable soils and will be susceptible to frost heaving. This will make the Edina trail very vulnerable to reductions in maintenance activity. If TRPD is unable to secure sufficient funding to provide maintenance and safety on the trail, the City of Edina could become responsible for these functions. It would seem to this writer that TRPD is seeking control of Edina Park lands to build a trail with no clear timetable for construction, and no clear understanding on how maintenance and safety will be funded ov r the life of the trail. Wm Westerdahl 5912 Walnut Dr Edina, MN 55436 The 2010 General Fund Operating Budget continues to provide the public with the high quality facilities, programs anti recreational opportunities for. which the Paris District is known and respected. As. such; priority for funding in 2010 was given to those budget initiatives that maintain the level of service provided in past years. Many of I these. "base budget" cost increases are faced by the Park District annually in. luding� emplayee :wages acrd. benefits; insurance premiums, utilities, fuel, and maintenance of equipment: To help offset these increases to the fuse budget in 2010, the Park.. District has eliminated the annual cost of living increase for employees, reduced the amount of capital equipment to be purchased and enacted conservation plans to reduce utility and fuel costs. 2010 GENERAL FUND OPERATING BUDGET EXPENDITURE SUMMARY BY FUNCTION THREE RIVERS PARK DISTRICT COMPARISON OF ACTUAL 2009 AND PROPOSED 2010 PROPERTY TAX LEVY . 2010 Budget TOTAL .�.,...._,.i�........m�r• 201�....�.s,._ 2. �... m._.,.... �_. 3; R�-_ �..,:, 2009 Gm%3 am Art m3ursd Torn Pare v- of Over/ funderj. - ;9,iE3.$44, 340,373,745 2047_ 2008 AMondd1_ 2010 2009 SLXkW . •:;;xrnte:a RWGC' c lr,; Adam Alai__. --- _ 3-As"t 8�ldgez ._ Dollars ;Upt: a;nl 9v]pr.�IS 1:L�5 - Lcat SenYCr 2G.294n i Dirk! Management 393.759 404,809 ,.. 334.781 _ 344,495 10,208 3.05% Nah"i 5esooc:e, is.5 lw_t'7,0 C.dt-t, Fat« a;a °;. .� _ - Z�.S {t1`•a _� 3 is +''w _ LEVY ov NEINIDrm cOUamry $26,919,722 $27,160.293 S9.96S.707 510.448,224 - Ma_nagemtm 5212: 166,354 183,365. 389,271 - SW. 3.22et Park lea; eerwwe !!!l P'- &T:ay[. C. '33 i4j: Marjbomtnt .9%,_718 154,543 - 208,134. 205,873 - - (2,26i.) oa-k HavAero'xe 5,837,884 6,476,479 7,212,51S 7,255,599 43,081 0.60% Centrai ` c xvi, 144 mesrt !181391.. 115.949 182,095 .. ..189,029 _ _ 6,934 3,81% - GasDe+dry 31.0_x20 _ 621,834 623,056. 658,177 33.121 S,39% Admwstathle CerAer _ 105:893 105.367. 3431423 ,_ 111,050. .. 114,3731 -:. {10.02 1,0 HoK+Glctre 102,359 112,653 _ 167,4:2. _ _ 144,G7. _ 2.251 1_,35?b Fgresrv. 1,282,844 1,.351,802 1,501,683 1,494,054 (7,624) (0_51% 1ltkibfe 452,299 467,512 51.7,&l ?a 525.260._ . 8,186 1589E Wa%tf' Qua&ty 352621 - 409505 _ 478,421 478,692 271 0106% Pbok' Safety 3,020.241 3,376,9973 3.736,014 3 °221032 1861018 4,988E Tota�, Faris and NewalResouzes 12,295,650 .13,743,114 15.269,982. 1.5,543,710. 273.728 1,79% Administration Diablo" 14a"&�rt 283,931 _ . 318,904,_ 429,613 " 443,355. . . 13,742 _ 31M Re_v3rctl& Evak fi'm 254,143 - 334,695 279,010 275,261 (3,749).. (13440 tomrr.;prvcat»ns .7,.1,89,940 _. 1,187333 1.,546,867 1590,060 49.193. 3 -19% GovoromentW 189,156.. -..._. 169,654 _ 174,407 4,753.'.. 2.80% , b1fQrTrsStgn Tecfirwb4y 1,149,384. :. 1:249.855..__ 1,296,547 -_ _ 7,301,088 4,528 Hwxan RES0lnts 891,120.... -.... •1,063,368 1 „53,534 1,219,794 66,260 ,:, 5,74% TramriV _ 4:.057 56.234 124.245 126.862 -2,623 2.119E To W AdWrWWOW 1, 3°?9,894 4415,897 4,993,463: 5,130,833 137.370 . 2,_75% cop"loumv 538;127 _ 623,969 498,654 358,867 199,7875 .(27.71Riz). O_p�estiYlp7FaFYdMa 106,600 1591383 154,251 154.251 ContinQegcY_, - 269.015 250 -000 !19.035) (7,07Tc) TOTALpTA!jpjT"ES 5271574,628 s 30,709.226 s 33.'80397 J� 855,602 2.53% THREE RIVERS PARK DISTRICT COMPARISON OF ACTUAL 2009 AND PROPOSED 2010 PROPERTY TAX LEVY . OPOtAT1N6 WOW OEBT smyiCE TOTAL .�.,...._,.i�........m�r• 201�....�.s,._ 2. �... m._.,.... �_. 3; R�-_ �..,:, �... �. �� .4P4....._._........I$.2_._._, Gm%3 am Art m3ursd Torn Pare v- of 525,435$139 S- 2 %W4,14£_'.. S-0,753r+06 Si:13fi45n7 - ;9,iE3.$44, 340,373,745 a,. fm. rr.:- a:r 7 -19ws S `3% 3.02gi LeurCeo as ��lc� -,:- ra!e Oi Q8:09±0 . •:;;xrnte:a RWGC' c lr,; ter, 98 :&.- ..A- °I %>a Pi,!A N ?4 ArnVVKlr 2yie _'E f-" orv'r4`t'r Ta. c'" 429.31$.?54 6c3.50i064 SJO 75:x. +U6 51 5.364,507 01917$9AW $AO vf-,.566 ;Upt: a;nl 9v]pr.�IS 1:L�5 - Lcat SenYCr 2G.294n i LOCAL LEW NEEDED $25,+6971537 127'.1",936 $9,961362 (10,441.,034 $14466,919 $37,4619,972" 't' fakes "'t 878 $1 0- r-. _:• . �-� =. " -' X78 11.465,45'8.144 51.2 (4fi.o7f.F7$ i1 .ff6:5.45$ < ?- is.5 lw_t'7,0 C.dt-t, Fat« a;a °;. .� _ - Z�.S {t1`•a _� 3 is +''w _ LEVY ov NEINIDrm cOUamry $26,919,722 $27,160.293 S9.96S.707 510.448,224 536,876.435 $37.626.517 Tae 4evv For owrA4;; it!i 1k-b t'7, mzme['.'aku ta I c. •,_t.. jUU _ !!!l P'- &T:ay[. C. '33 i4j: 33,337. $9� Pi" ........,.f. f :c Cinnn iirP nanP /S1 fnr inint CAT EAW comment letter and rejection of Edina segment of proposed regional trail Sianature Pacie(s) for joint CAT EAW comment letter , rejection of Edina segment of proposed regional trail name number street phone Signature I Signature 2 Signature 3 email A 010C Fkrj�uikktl 6$446"O t Section 2 -qinnnfiirP nnnp-tql fnr inint CAT EAW comment letter and rejection of Edina segment of proposed regional trail. name number street phone i Sig pature 2 Signature 3 email e632 LONDONDERRY urrent Oekpppiain _DR KATHLEEN A NELSON I 7117 WEST SHORE DR / 6625 Londonderr�Qnive katedonnay. CHAD P & KATHERINE DONNAY 6636 LONDONDERRY DR _12hotmail.corn 3400 Parklawn Ave_ Joyce Johnson oycer0001(a)yahqo. �om LESLIE & NANCY JONES 6600 PARKWOOD LA 95 ( 0-125 2) 93 nangy@lesaonesroofinci.com D F & H L FITZGERALD 6603 PARKWOOD LA - — --------- --------- SD and TP Benson 6607 PARKWOOD LA STEVEN J & HEIDI J PFEFFERLE 5900 TAMARAC LA.,,.,..--,--IP52 945-9380 STEVEN M JOHNSON 5904 TAMARAC LN ----952)938-90q______._ MARK H HAYMAKER 5905 TAMARAC LA, __ (.952)935-7696 WAYNE E BACH 5909 TAMARAC LA (952) 933-3084 5913 TAMARAC LA__��U)_�30-01128 GEORGE L F SALY & JANE SALY — ---------- GEORGE(MSALY.,PPM ROBERT E FOSTER JR 5917 TAMARAC LANE _(952) 938-3180 efoster@comcast.net JOHN E MORRISON 5720 TUCKER LA JANICE JOHNSON/KEITH SCHMIDT 5728 TUCKER LA 952-935-2666 �32 --.—MSBETSYFOSTERIMMSN.COM K SCHMIDT@Q.COM ELIZABETH A FOSTER 5732 TUCKER LA — MARK S COLE 5736 TUCKER LA (952) 945-5135 Rick L. Schwein 5712 Tucker Lane 507-458-8474 Rick. Schwein§grainmillers.com MIRA & WILLIAM G AKINS JR 6414 VERNON AVE (952)S25-9697 MARLENE M KENNY 6670 VERNON AVE #101 938 -1560 mkenny952@hotmaii.com MARJORIE A CARLSON 6670 VERNON AVE #103 (952)-93.5-4478.--- RICHARD BABBE 6671 VERNON AVE #105 (952)831-0246 - -- SUSAN IBARKER 6672 VERNON AVE #109 12 Signature page(s) for joint CAT EAW comment letter rejection of Edina segment of proposed regional trail. - name I number street phone Signature 1 Signature 2 Signature 3 email JOYCE VANTASSEL 16801 LANGFORD DR (952) 935 -9518 JOYCEV0001 QYAHOO.COM NANCY FIFE j6803LANGFORD DR 5952) 935_7357 - Rebecca Reinhold _ _ _ _ 6805 Lanord Dr DIANE & DOUG LYSEN 6813 LANGFORD DR 952 -938 -5579 952 - 303 -4649 diane@directbenefits.com sbar2840Qaol.com SUE BARKLEY 6816 LANGFORD DR MARILYN LINGUIST 6817 LANGFORD DR 5952L933 0648 MARIBETH SANBORN 16821 LANGFORD DR (952) 927 -5933 MARY KAY TUTTLE 6823 LANGFORD DR (952)931 -0706- MAGGIE GOODYEAR 6837 LANGFORD DR 952- 936 -7954 maggiegoodyeaQedinarealty.com LEV MAILER 6875 Langford Dr 930 -0636 levmeisteQhotmail.com THOMAS SMULLEN JR and Marilyn Re i 933.3873 1 C / thsmcQearth link. net 6600 LONDONDERRY DR�5952) MARION R & CONSTANCE FREED 6604 LONDONDERRY DR 952 938 - 1837 " �' T ' U ! marionfreed a0comcast.net (952) 935 -7965 COLLEEN F BORN 6608 LONDONDERRY DR_ 6612 LONDONDERY DR James R LARSON & Lorrie LARSON (952) 933 -6434 JEFFREY and Donna ARNESEN 6615 LONDONDERRY DR (952) 908 -0169 w JARNESEN QHL.COM Shirley and Richard Stoltz THOMAS CHOCHREK 6616 LONDONDERRY DR 6617 LONDONDERRY DR - „ 952 936 -9117 L t t tchochreka@comcast.net ROBERT N LUBAR ROB _ _ ._. _ .. - - -. �952�922 -2797 .. - _ . _... - i _ . -- - rlubarCa?comcast.net ° - - -� -- - - - -- - — LONDONDERRY 16619 LONDONDERRY DRI GEORGE J and Shelly RERAT 6620 LONDONDERRY DR X952) 285 -5448 --P41A I GEORGEORERATFAMILY.COM MICHAEL and Patsy HASSELSTROM_16621 i LONDONDERRY DR 952 - 920 -2101 _ phasselstromO- aol.com L DAVID & CAROL L RUSSELL 6623 LONDONDERRY DR _ -- 952 - 935 -9102 �/ u 114 JA Ol L", russellc _Qhotmail ,com ANDREW J & TERESA P MITCHELL 6624 LON_ DONDERRY DR��1% PAUL & MAYVA BORANIAN 6628 LONDONDERRY DR 952 933 -1392 paulmavvaOcomcast. net Z section name number street phone Signature 1 Signature 2 Signature 3 Signature page(s) for joint CAT EAW comment letter and rejection of Edina segment of proposed regional trail name number street phone Signature I Signature 2 Signature 3 email --F Section 2 Sianature Dage(s) for joint CAT EAW comment letter and rejection of Edina segment of proposed regional trail name number street phone Signature 1 Signature 2 SI nature 3 email Current Occu ap nt KATHLEEN A NELSON - -- _--- ____._ -- CHAD P & KATHERINE DONNAY Ja ce Johnson 6632 LONDONDERRY DR 7117 WEST SHORE DR / 6625 L-ondonder ___ -- _____._..---- - ----- _.__- _._.._ _ -- ---.------------ - katedon gy- fthotmail. con, _ ioycer0001 a yahoo.com Want Ies onzsroofinU.com 6636 LONDONDERRY DR 3400 Parklawn Ave 952 831 -9238 _ .. _ _- __ __ _________.- .--- _______.._.___ -. LESLIE & NANCY JONES 6600 PARKWOOD LA _- 952)930 -1257 - _ _ D F 8 _H L FITZGERALD - -- -.. - - SD and TP Benson STEVEN J & HEIDI J PFEFFERLE STEVEN MJOHNSON_- 6603 PARKWOOD LA -- - -- - -- -- - - - - -- - - -- - - -- - - - - -- - - -- -- -- - . - - - -` - - ... - - -- - - 6607 PARKWOOD LA 5900 TAMARAC LA 5904 TAMARAC LN _ - - - - - (952) 945 9380 952 938 -9092 -- ------.----------------- ----------------- _____________ MARK HAYMAKER - -- ___ -- 5905 TAMARAC LA 5909 TAMARAC LA .(952) 935_7696 __ -. -- ------- _-- ------- (952) 933_3084 95( 2) 930 -0128 -_ (952)938- "� _ _. - - - - J -- - - - -t - 952- 935 -2666 -------- ._ -___ -- - `D""'�t''`.J ----- - - -;- ____- _.- ..______ _ i - - - - .- . - - - -- - - -- - --------- - - - -.. GEORGE at5ALY,COM I ester(@comcast. net - -- - - - -- K SCHMIDT a Q.COM MSBETSYFOSTER cr MSN.COM _H WAYNE E BACH - --- _ -. - -- GEORGE L F SALY & JANE SALY - ROBERT E FOSTER JR JOHN E MORRISON 5913 TAMARAC LA 5917 TAMARAC LANE 5720 TUCKER LA _ JANICE JOHNSONXEITH SCHMIDT 5728 TUCKER LA ELIZABETH A FOSTER MARKS COLE Rick L. Schwein 5732 TUCKER LA 952) 938 -3432 5736 TUCKER LA 5712 Tucker Lane (952) 945 -5135 507-458-8474 (952) 525- 9697_ (952) 938 -1560 _..___ - MIRA & WILLIAM G_AKINS JR_ - MARLENE M KENNY - _ MARJ0�21E A CARLSON RICHARD BABBE 6414 VERNON AVE mkenn 952 (a)hotmaii. corn 6670 VERNON AVE #101 6670 VERNON AVE #103 6671 VERNON AVE #105 _ (952) 935 -4478 X952) 831 - 0246x- i I -_ SUSAN- I BARKER 16672 VERNON AVE #109 S( 2 Signature page(s) for joint CAT EAW comment letter rejection of Edina segment of proposed regional trail. name number street 1 phone , Signature 1 Signature 2 1 Signature 3 email I WILLIAM .E & VIRGINIA L RANZ 6412 ASPEN RD x(952) 945_0100_.__ ' LAURIE A CHAPMAN _- _.6420 ASPEN RD_ I (952) 933 -1689 is •_ �. /% " - y y(¢«� -___ chap- 6420(a�aol.com Y DAVID STAUGAITIS ABBEY STAUGAI 6424 ASPEN RD via 8500 ASPEN RD (952) 920 -05 TAW Y�� ;a acm.om AMITBHATI _ _ I JEANNE H BASTYR -- - - 6504 ASPEN RD -- - - 952) 935- 0618_.. -- -- — - -- — - - -- - - - -- -- - - - -- RICHARD D BASTYR . 6504 ASPEN RD _ __ 5952).935 -0618 DANA_SCHLETZ _ 6508 ASPEN RD (952) 914 -9338 1 IJULIO 1674 c GMAIL.COM HSAN DEHBASHIISHIDA ARVIN 6512 ASPEN RD 612 -675 -8982 i J_ - -_ -- S.ARVINQHOTMAIL.COM SCOTT P_& SANDRA L MCMILLAN 6405 BISCAYNE BLVD _ 952) 928 -4841 WILLIAM & MARGARET JOAS '6409 BISCAYNE BLVD I(952) 935 -1081 mioas@comcast.net ERIC J & PAMELA L CABALKA 6413 BISCAYNE BLVD ! (952) 933 -0078 MARK & JO PAETZNICK _ - 16417 BISCAYNE BLVD KATHLEEN M KAVANAUGH _ X6421 BISCAYNE BLVD (952) 930 - 9102._. Todd and Jules Geisler 16468 BISCAYNE 131-0 I ut lesgeisler5mac con) R MEIFERT & W GROTH MEIFERT - -- 6501 BISCAYNE BLVD . 1(952) 938 -3046 rameifert comcast.net K D & T M SCHNEIDER 6505 BISCAYNE BLVD GLENDA K CORRIGAN 6509 BISCAYNE BLVD 1(952) 938 -1822 FWCORRIGAN MAC.COM BENJAMIN & GWEN HANKINSON .6515 BISCAYNE BLVD ;(952) 931 -0000 i GWENHANK1@YAH0O.00M RUSSEL & KAREN RUBW 6601 BISCAYNE BLVD !(952) 933 -2248 ALLAN GALLAHER 5744 DUNCAN LA 952- 933 -1713 I GALLAHAJ(a)UWEC.EDU ANNE L MUELLER 5740 DUNCAN LANE 612- 805 -7064 almmn aol.com NANCY H FRANKENBERRY 15752 DUNCAN LANE (952) 935 -1177 Moses rd Ct PROPOSED 9 -MILE CREEK BIKE TRAIL (THREE - RIVERS PARK DISTRICT & CITY OF EDINA) Route 2 Route 2 would run east along the North side of the UHC Building & parking ramp, east along the north edge of the marsh Behind the UHC ramp on a raised Wooden bridge, east across the South edge of Walnut Ridge Park on a 16 -ft asphalt path, through the adjacent marsh on another raised wooden bridge roughly to the intersection of Vernon & Gleason. Issues: Safety Privacy Cost Route 3 Route 3 would run north -South along the east side of Lincoln Dr. and east along the north side of Vernon and crossing Gleason Rd. into Bredesen Park. This would replace, the existing sidewalk with a 10 -ft -wide asphalt strip with a 3 -ft- wide shoulder on each side (from the existing._curb). Issues: Privacy Ecological Crime? Noise A DECISION IS LIKELY IN AUGUST! PLEASE CONSIDER SIGNING THE PETITION! I Support Route 2 I Oppose Route 2 I Support Route 3 I Oppose Route 3 I Support Both Routes I Oppose Both Rout Taxpayer Name..... Taxpayer Address ............... Ue v &-, /wc-Yz -7 L � r C°T L � Support Route 2 Oppose Route 2 Support Route 3 Oppose Route 3 I Support Both Routes I Oppose Both Routes Taxpayer Name..... Taxpayer Address ............... 4, Ain --v k1l t, i fig CYr tom, NOMA OW t, i fig CYr tom, Ae2/ 10 Three Rivers Park District ie Mile Creek Regional Trail .00 Xenium Land North Plymouth, MN 55441 cc: Edina City Council Edina City Hall 4801 W. 50th St Edina, MN 55424 Comments on EAW -CAT economic assessment of the Nine MIle Creek Regional Trail. The Assessment team failed to examine the ability of TRPD to fund maintenance, repair, and safety for the trail over the next twenty five years. Below are tables from the 2010 operating budget of TRPD. They show that TRPD yearly operating, expenses are within $4 million dollars of its levy authority. They also show that TRPD yearly operating expenses have increased $7 million dollars over the last four years, a rate of $1.75 million dollars per year. This indicates that TRPD operating expenses will exceed its levy authority in a little over two years. When that happens TRPD will likely be forced to reduce its operating expenses, including maintenance, repair, and. safety. This reduction in maintenance activity has already started, to occur.(see 2010 Operating Budget below) As proposed the Edina trail will be a high maintenance trail, it could contain 6000' of raised wood boardwalks located in a flood way and /or flood plain. Much of the asphalt paving will be over the unstable soils and will be susceptible to frost heaving. This will make the Edina trail very vulnerable to reductions in maintenance activity. If TRPD is unable to secure sufficient. funding to provide maintenance and safety on the trail, the City of Edina could become responsible for these functions. It would seem to this writer that TRPD is seeking control of Edina Park lands to build a trail with no clear timetable for construction, and no clear understanding on how maintenance and safety will be funded over the life of the trail. Wm Westerdahl 5912 Walnut Dr Edina, MN 55436 The 2010 Generai Fund operating Budget continues to provide the puolic With file NO quality facilities, progrart7s and recreational opportunities for '.���ist l vle Park District is known and respected. As suc!i, priority for funding in 2010 was given to those budget initiatives lunat maintain the level of service provided in past years. Many of these "lease budget" cost decreases are faced by the Park 'District annualiy includiing: employee �^�a.Ges and benefits, insurance premiums, uti ties, fuel, and mainitena =Ice of equipme [, jo ne4 WfSgt-- zt7rese_.iriEreases NCO the base budget ir Z010, the Hark Distr ct fias e}iminated _ Vie t nlivaficost -0t immg increase for- empnoy! es, red�ucea'T ►e: 4mount of cairtatequl�nent to be s' pijrchaSed artd_enacted "ctiizservation plans to reduce WRY and fuel cars. �" TOTAL EXPENDITURES 127.57: 639 S 30.709.226 5 33.790.007 6 36ASS -69S 5 95:.392 :.55 .• THREE RIMERS PARK DISTRICT COMPARISON OF ACTUAL 2009 AND PROPOSED 2010 PROPERTY TAX LEVY •: Mt- rO iL1::1: • r.r •.••..5rn ••:7: •:� •r. r. - :.:ati T.r• :w" . .'a: r.; h+J to • •_ ..•: . .L'r•:. r. -.•r :{fib' ^.. LOCAL LEW MM OFLUIUw oullow OEe7 iLMyice 701AL )ono, ... ..3 R. 3OM _. ..1416 )fox . .. )o)u L•73. ..p tr +9•: Y A 1:: t ?.:t•: 1!'1 :Prim • :� s'; s:. -1 S A 1: c f � 71 °..: 5+ ?: S.•.SC Irt•r ifU'}: ••.. 4: :.:�'• :�'i is r �� 7 :. 1 :..•. } +:;. .: 1:. . • ilr :t. .::.: . ::1 1•::..'6.1 ... :41. :1:+51 - "6AIP.927 $27.116.938 fe.Yf0.3t2 712.4411.0341 53%24Wt+19 S17,610.912 . .y •.•�•.. .. .. 1.r :- •� , r.w: b:l 41w f m.� i:i I.we f.:r J•1: ■1 :r,. .11 Ir:. -j- •. Lei, LE717 et rlLMie/lA (;pyNlV i2i.lL0.726 i27.L60.2f2 66.215.707 !12.4146.224 626.670.42■ 127.621 517 . �- _.. . Tw■ 1 �e 1p Op.+wliwq. Lwn2 I :•sr1:..•rr. 4114:• j 2010 GENERAL FUND OPERATING BUDGET EXPENDITURE SUMMARY BY FUNCTION .Jp 2010 &040 2002 Over /(under) 2007 2000 Amended 2010 2006 Meer Adu11 Aalal MId1/t suds.! _ 17omom % P1Au.1nd. NttteraA(�e/1yrlDu �irsa•1Yaracf -141-11 3h3,75h +LS -',BCC 334.?9' 114.:06• 3.35•: Ma .2wmiY !.!•J.: 14,0,15.1 : X.l.ihi lil +,1 • : ! .=I:IF i J!" ••1.• Marronaxe My:atwn. -C.r: ?6,7 ;4 33 +.54: 2f;E.E34 275.673 •2.260 11 39'.. aa•• marrtc a we +.255.3^? 1:,361 4 6,-• "s cmio :Lti Y-L-! %w,e,rment 9019. 115.6419 :. °.7.3 ?5 184.CZ4 6.93= . Cr: Cd %*-Cry :I.!. 1 3: +r AtY..rwo-l•al+•e L...41 -: i;15.Ny7 ICi.36' :73 4177 11:.653 t l ?.3 -!1 t 10 3_' •11:•[K.N r.•r 102 :59 l 11.661 :67.6;7 Ir.i 4.73 2.:41 1 i5rr rurhy:.i 1 282,84- :.355.1102 1.501.1.113 1.49 =.4:7 (7.t'24) fC +:^•.: •:•:2Le 452.794 46.3.41: 51::3.' :•15.76? S.: 9U 15TH ::lc•+34621: 35262! 4109.505 = 76,4121 4179.052 17! 005 i e.r.b,. 5dle:i 3,020-24: 3.7360:1 3 CJ ?2 C-; :K.]:f 499.- MIR .440 ant 4atu•11R/5orms 12:95.653 13.743.:14 15.269.392 +5.543.70 272.726 :.79r's Adminbtratbl Owbc . Manovc-.e.x 283.53= 318.)[4 4296.3 443.755 13 ?42 ' 23"t "com1h 6 Evbiex. 5 -.1 41 3 3:4.69: 279.0:c s75:6! f3• - + -5i fIS -.. Markat.7Q tr Camlrar-carom 1 ;R9.94:1 :,1Fi7,3'3 T.SCIi.Ra/ 1 L.4:1,C50 99.:93 ?.lay: {rovcn••ne-ita. 1 4rbh.pl -& 191.31h 109. =ipF : 44.15.3 17-,407 4.753 ? 804• hdt•.: alu..lr:Irw:-04T 1:117 381 i.244.N4: 1.796 5c0 1.70:.088 41.5--0 0 35rr �I•rl:,n ?eS:•dr:r,: $ ±: te7 :.Gl; :.1140 1.:57.53= t.7 i ?.7414 F,6.26C t' - °s 71:2 rtti =! OS 56.234 ?- 2 -5 126 265 7.611 _ _ 08. TutA'ftl.'.:.ryl•alr,..• 39 ?5.494 - -t9n57 4.993.353 S 133.@33 :37.376 i 7P- Coo o101tbY 53e.1:7 023.965 1-96.65= 399.667 159.'9'! :20.014 :: OperstMi Tratr/fen 176 630 154.303 :5x.251 15 -.25: celdbslnLT 265.0:5 51c00 119,0156 ('107-1- TOTAL EXPENDITURES 127.57: 639 S 30.709.226 5 33.790.007 6 36ASS -69S 5 95:.392 :.55 .• THREE RIMERS PARK DISTRICT COMPARISON OF ACTUAL 2009 AND PROPOSED 2010 PROPERTY TAX LEVY •: Mt- rO iL1::1: • r.r •.••..5rn ••:7: •:� •r. r. - :.:ati T.r• :w" . .'a: r.; h+J to • •_ ..•: . .L'r•:. r. -.•r :{fib' ^.. LOCAL LEW MM OFLUIUw oullow OEe7 iLMyice 701AL )ono, ... ..3 R. 3OM _. ..1416 )fox . .. )o)u L•73. ..p tr +9•: Y A 1:: t ?.:t•: 1!'1 :Prim • :� s'; s:. -1 S A 1: c f � 71 °..: 5+ ?: S.•.SC Irt•r ifU'}: ••.. 4: :.:�'• :�'i is r �� 7 :. 1 :..•. } +:;. .: 1:. . • ilr :t. .::.: . ::1 1•::..'6.1 ... :41. :1:+51 - "6AIP.927 $27.116.938 fe.Yf0.3t2 712.4411.0341 53%24Wt+19 S17,610.912 . .y •.•�•.. .. .. 1.r :- •� , r.w: b:l 41w f m.� i:i I.we f.:r J•1: ■1 :r,. .11 Ir:. -j- •. Lei, LE717 et rlLMie/lA (;pyNlV i2i.lL0.726 i27.L60.2f2 66.215.707 !12.4146.224 626.670.42■ 127.621 517 . �- _.. . Tw■ 1 �e 1p Op.+wliwq. Lwn2 I :•sr1:..•rr. 4114:• j 7/12/10 Three Rivers Park District I-ie Mile Creek Regional Trail -j00 Xenium Land North Plymouth, MN 55441 cc: Edina City Council Edina City Hall 4801 W. 50th St Edina, MN 55424 Comments on EAW -CAT economic assessment of the Nine MIle Creek Regional Trail. The EAW did not adequately address the fact that a raised wood walkway located in the floodway of Nine Mile Creek would violate section 850.21 subd 5 para D of the Edina City Code. (see below) D. Standards for Floodway District Conditional Uses: 1. All Uses. No structure (temporary or permanent), fill (including fill for roads and levees), deposit, obstruction, storage of materials or equipment, or other uses may be allowed as a conditional use that will cause any increase in the stage of the 100 -year or regional flood or cause an increase in flood damages in the reach or reaches affected. The language of the code is completely unambiguous, it refers to "all uses ", "No structure ", "any increase ". A raised wooden platform built on piling would obviously displace some water and raise the flood stage some amount. A raised wood platform built on piling spaced from 10' to 16' apart for 2000' would have a strong potential to trap debris being carried on the flood waters. This debris would further displace water and increase the flood stage in violation of the city code. , Wm Westerdahl 5912 Walnut Dr Edina, MN 55436 RECEIVED 2010 Ms. Astrid V Alexander JUL 1 S LL L y 3 2 p r o 5212 w 70th St Edina. MN 55439-2109 M �] Y -1 S (x h�c-, W r e 5 i et east- o '� c� i n a-- 5 c h c e. Nov. a o ' r o T cl F ci rz d-k- Ic rL o w O..beuJ �`r( I a- h lbOr p Id rn or re,6 _ �O t b e- f i e. �e.. -t-kw r b ca SPE —) fLCL i `� 75 � co ob p ef©t©" e0 fio i t l p fie, c� c (Z e,r- s �o r cars s vt c e T "f-�n- h�r K-, K-,cl e� r PCbI c- sc, haois f'o 9 y w o w I cl .6 �b u. ! cl , a� ��e.(2� c�rK sfosfi� re s � q(� S s h-o u- l d I &n e r e-,, b e, n e7ci is e, Lt e.ry °n . i -F the 6e i so la7 -ed ire C-S �a r �r,a-m -7't2 e- �J o-I K�r-s �o �b� erg vL djM ' & I s , c j Ke r L GtJ'�,S �clC�e,r rn k- /1e- 1 b a speS�cL� P" e � Q-r S 0.. O 5 Q.0 c. e*tJ� 1 a -t- b I � c t�` /vo �r -rh er e e- 6t�L V V11 'V-1y P � y Ike.. s Gaut, not heou- -r-F -f-h - s E Ke e c- s e— h o l d u--, to l a c h b r' e w h ha. ✓'e b I c h eA r l CL 1 cL e- -s 5PLOL Lx-A d fO e-, 12 e� a- r- CL- Tu4-L� e- cam, rr G® rz d C�c- CL rt'6 r cj c,?. vr� r- Ccsrn rrn +e-vt- s kot rrL E-), v e, 4 r e- e d o-m- of s ,P E (P-., c i C(e s mom. e� he. rc[ ;n pa bIf c 1 Y& ` � � y Sin C, e r e % Ms. Astrid V Alexander 5212 W 70th St �L V F.rlina- MN 55439 -2109 RECEIVED Robert McKlveen, M.D. .JUL 14 10ID 5261 Lochloy Dr. Edina, MN 55436 July 9, 2010 To: Edina City Mayor Hovland, Edina City Council Members Housh, Bennett, Brindle, and Swenson Edina Parks Director Keprios RE: Support for Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail through Parkland I am writing to express my strong support for the construction of a regional trail through Edina, and particularly to support construction of the trail through parklands and other off -road locations. Such a trail would be an appropriate public use of public property that would enhance public safety, improve public health, improve water quality, improve air quality, increase property values, and enhance community connections. Public Use of Public Property As a homeowner, 1 recognize that homeowners living near the proposed trail must enjoy their adjacency to parkland. Still, it is the Council's responsibility to ensure appropriate public use of public property. Placing the trail on roadways in order to avoid upsetting adjacent homeowners near Nine Mile Creek would perpetuate their inappropriate private use of this public resource. Public Safety As a regular bicyclist and bike commuter, I strongly support off -road trails for safety reasons. I have ridden my bike on -road all over the world, including Chicago, San Francisco, New York, Guatemala City, Mexico City, and Madrid, but have found that only in the Minneapolis area do I feel physically threatened by motor vehicles. Drivers here do not know how to share the road with bicycles or pedestrians, often failing to yield even 12 inches of space between their car and my bike. Until this situation is remedied, we must, whenever possible, separate vehicles from bicycles. By putting the trail through public parkland, such separation will be maximized. The section of trail near Edina High School and Valley View Middle School is of particular safety concern. The roads around the schools, especially Valley View and Tracy, are very heavily used during the before -and after - school hours, and the percentage of inexperienced drivers during those times is high. Keeping the trail adjacent to the creek in this area will give students a safe, off -road route to school. Public Health As a physician, I am increasingly concerned with the worsening public health problems of obesity and physical inactivity in America. The availability of off -road multi -use trails promotes exercise and physical fitness, improving the health of our community. Off -road trails are much more likely to attract such public use. Water Quality As a citizen concerned about environment, I believe that Three Rivers Park District can be a better steward of the riparian environment than the homeowners along Nine Mile Creek. Several properties abutting the creek have chemically treated lawns mowed all the way to the waterfront. Placing the trail between these lawns and the creek enables the placement of filtering buffer plantings between the trail and the creek, improving water quality compared to unfiltered lawn runoff to which the creek is currently exposed. Air Quality As a regular bike commuter, I know that when I ride my bike, I am not burning gasoline, producing air pollution, or generating excess CO2. My bike commuting reduces my annual gasoline consumption by about 150 gallons, reducing my annual CO2 production by about 3000 pounds. Multiply that effect by the number of bike commuters a well - designed trail can accommodate, and the overall effect can be huge! Property Values As a taxpayer and homeowner, I want to see property values maintained or increased. There are numerous studies of the effect of trails on nearby property values (see web - link citations below.) All of these studies show either no effect or an increase in valuation of nearby properties, averaging $8000 per home. Realtors know that nearby off -road trails increase the demand for properties. Putting the trail through parklands will enhance the property values in Edina. Community Connections As a citizen of the greater Twin Cities community, I would like to be able to connect to the extensive network of off -road trails already in our community. A parks -based trail through Edina will bring our city into the greater community, providing much needed connections to this community resource In summary, I urge you to approve the proposed regional trail and select routes through parks. Sincerely, �AL Robert McKlveen, M.D. Citations regarding property values: http:Hl28 1 75 63 72/ projects /DOCUMENTS/bikepathfinal.pdf http: / /atfiles ora /files /pdf /0mahastudy.pdf hftp://www.americantrails.orci/resources/economics/MNecon.html hftp://www.americantrails.ora/resources/economics/index.htmi http:/ /www americantrails org/ resources /adjacent /sumad*acent.html http:/ /www brucefreemanrailtrail orq /pdf/LA- Metro - Bike -paths- safety- property - values pdf RECEIVED ' ja 14 2010 July 12, 2010 Attention: • Three Rivers Parks Commissioners Wyatt, Corcoran, Haggerty, Woodbeck, Franzese, Blackstad, and Kinsey, and Project Manager Kelly Grissman, • Edina City Mayor Hovland, Edina City Council Members Housh, Bennett, Brindle, and Swenson, Edina Park Director Keprios RE: Support for the Nine Mile Creek Trail through Parkland We, the undersigned, are southwest metro area high school athletes or recent graduates, and we are writing to support the construction of the proposed Nine Mile Creek trail through Edina. In particular, we support the placement of this trail through parkland and off -road areas wherever possible. Distance runners and other endurance athletes have no safe off -road places to train in Edina. We usually run on the streets, often encountering hostile motorists who do not yield any space to us. That is why it is so important to get this trail off the roads. Another benefit to constructing the trail is that it will provide a safe, off -road route to Edina High School and Valley View Middle School. Currently, students who want to walk or bike to school must brave the traffic on the busy streets around school. The off - road trail will give students a safe route to and from school property. Finally, the off -road Nine Mile Creek trail will link Edina to the rest of the metro area's trail system. Currently, if we want to go for a longer bike ride, we must ride in traffic until we get to Hopkins, Eden Prairie, or Minnetonka, where we can connect with their trail systems. Building the Nine Mile trail off -road will give us a safe, enjoyable way to get to the rest of the metro trails. Thank you for your consideration of our opinions. The following attached pages list our names and signatures. Name 9,4,b, �r)Eo"� I�N Gau- u 4b� 4� 'L (IV Al /a A«Uh Signature i heir I c1v i5u' -- Kyle 4OArVA � 6j &� Y-7 I./ ism Fo-rq us OT NOsor Name c oAr v i-e H ansbA 72,Y) h YP.f L I fe- S Signature Susan Howl From: bboyd0l @gmail.com [mailto:bboyd0l @ gmail.com] On Behalf Of Brad Boyd Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 9:26 AM RECEIVED To: NineMileTrail @ThreeRiversParkDistrict.org; Lynette Biunno Cc: Kirk Johnson; andrew @heyer.us JUL 14 2010 Subject: Support for Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail through Parkland I am writing in support of the Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail, through Edina. Please ensure my message is directed to the following: Edina Mayor and City Council Members Edina Parks Director John Keprios Three Rivers Park District Commissioners Three Rivers Park District Senior Planner Kelly Grissman Edina Mayor, City Council, Parks Director, and TRPD Commissioners: As an Edina resident and active bike commuter and bicycling advocate, I ask that you help establish the Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail through Edina. While the trail would require a significant investment, the extraordinary recreational, family, community, and health benefits in having a regional trail will be of great value to Edina residents, to the city, and to the region. It shows Edina supports its community, alternative transportation and recreation options, and is willing to make investments in the good of the community. A safe, comfortable, and inviting trail for walkers, joggers, and riders of all ages and skill levels would serve to promote our Edina, its parks, and its ability to stand out as a city that offers tremendous amenities for its residents and for the area. Investing in this regional trail would be an asset to the community. Recreational facilities are a decision factor for many prospective homeowners and a trail would be a selling point for Edina home sellers. I believe the regional trail should run through parks to enhance the walking and riding experience, versus existing roadways which have increased levels of car exhaust and noise. Additionally, bike safety and walking safety issues already abound through the city of Edina, where walkers, bikers, joggers, and families with strollers compete for space on the roadways, particularly in areas without sidewalks, bike lanes, or trail space. This trail will not solve the problem in and of itself, but it will reduce the impact In summary, I urge you to approve the proposed regional trail and select routes through parks. Sincerely, Brad Boyd, 5212 Benton Avenue, Edina, MN RECEIVED Susan Howl JUL 14-2010 From: kirkjohnsonster @gmail.com [mailto:kirkjohnsonster @gmail.com] On Behalf Of Kirk Johnson Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 10:41 PM To: NineMileTrail @ThreeRiversParkDistrict.org; Lynette Biunno Subject: Support for NMC Regional Trail, Creek Route Dear Edina Mayor, City Council, Parks Director, and TRPD Commissioners (please see forwarding information at the end): Please serve current and future residents by approving the NMC Regional Trail. And, your approval for a substantially creek- and park -based route, particularly one that connects with the north end of the EHS campus, will result in the best outcome. The gap: Since becoming an Edina resident in 1976 as an elementary school student and then graduating from Edina High School (EHS) and now still an Edina resident with 3 kids in our Edina schools, I and my fellow Edina residents have NEVER been able to enjoy a regional multi -use trail in Edina that actually connects with other trail systems: The value of this NMC regional trail, if approved for creek -based route, is HUGE. If you look at the trail implementations in neighboring communities, Edina shows a relatively large gap. Rationale for (a) approving the trail and (b) aligning it with the creek and EHS : 1. Select routes along the creek and in the open public non - street areas -- if you approve a regional trail that is not substantially creek - based, it can waste money. Three reasons: (a) street -based " "trails" are not desirable to users that want to be away from motorized traffic, (b) low margin of value -added experience because having a trail away from creeks, forests, etc. is hardly different than a well - designed complete street, and (c) any trail that is really a street side path is statistically higher for crash rates because of the additional intersecting driveways and other intersection hazards, especially for inline skaters and bicyclists. Regarding bicycling specifically, we already have approved on- street bike route accommodations approved as part of the Comprehensive Plan -- those routes will serve bicyclists well for street riding, but they do NOT serve a huge population that strongly desires to use trails in parkland areas. So, a set of routes that specifically align along the creek and open public land away from streets is the BEST VALUE for trail users. 2. Select a route connecting the north side of the High School: Select a route that goes adjacent to the school. Why? Offers staff and students more human- powered options to get to EHS. Can you imagine the treasure it will be for athletics training, commuting for many staff and students, and environmental studies options? A regional trail connecting on the north side of the school, combined with a separate network of bike lanes near the school, will be a key factor in (a) reducing carbon emissions and (b) alleviating some traffic issues currently caused by the high use of automobiles going to and from EHS and Valley View Middle school on every single school day and also for the numerous sports and performance arts events. 3. Many environmental issues alleviated by a creek -based trail: Do not be misled about the relatively small group of property owners, many of whom have directly caused pollution issues for Nine Mile Creek with pesticides and fertilizer runoff, two of the factors that have degraded the health of the creek. A well - designed multi -use trail combined with water quality improvements will be a win -win for humans and the environment. The fact is that the creek is already in a developed area in many places with houses nearby, and the current seclusion of this public land has led to many instances of improper care. Other creek -based trails managed by Three Rivers Park District have helped to improve and maintain the surrounding natural habitat, and getting more visibility to these areas by non - motorized trail users can actually provide an ongoing safety check on environmental conditions because the likelihood is higher that an environmental issue (e.g., trash, buckthorn, etc.) will be observed and reported. More people caring and enjoying the environment will lead to support for planting species natural to this area. 1. 4. Property values in general benefit: A multitude of studies document a positive correlation between nroximity to walking and biking amenities with (a) lower DOM (days on market) and (b) higher sales prices. .'his is because home buyers more than ever are looking for facilities to walk, hike, bike, and move around without relying on cars. 5. I'm speaking from deep experience: Nearly every day, in all seasons (yes, even the winter) I use multi -use trails in neighboring St. Louis Park and Minneapolis for my daily bicycle commute from -Edina to downtown Minneapolis. I use these in combination with on- street bike lanes, bike boulevards, and various signed routes, plus just normal streets. Where do I see the best landscaping, natural beauty, and wildlife undisturbed by motorized traffic? It is near the SW LRT Trail, the Cedar Lake Trail, and the Midtown Greenway. I have also ridden the Luce Line and the Dakota Trails. I observe excellent quality in trails and the environment, especially when these trails come close to residential properties. I have talked with leaders, pioneers and various commissioners in a vast array of leadership positions and the message and experience is clear: All trail projects have opposition, but when the projects are completed, the opposing thoughts are substantially dispelled because nearly everyone is pleasantly surprised with how wonderful the trail becomes. In summary and for the reasons above, I urge you to approve the proposed regional trail and select routes that align with the creek and connect parks and the Edina High School. Thank you for taking my input into consideration and for all your work! Sincerely, Kirk Johnson 5844 ST JOHNS AVE, EDINA, MN 55424; 612 - 916 -9966; RECEIVED JUL 14 1010 9c52-938-96-10 July 13, 2010 Mayor James B. Hovland Esq. Krause & Hovland Chartered 310 Groveland Ave. Minneapolis MN. 55403 City Council Members 4801 W. 50`h Street Edina MN. 55424 Re: Bike Trail Along Vernon Avenue/Lincoln Drive (Route 3) Dear Mayor and Council Members, I am enclosing a copy of a cover letter and my comments on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet and the Social and Technical Worksheets prepared by Three Rivers Park District and its expert. I'm not sure that these comments should be directed you at this time before the Park District has had time to review them. However, I understand that several of the other Community Assessment Team leaders have sent or will send their comments to you. Therefore, I did not want to be remiss in my duties to my constituent neighbors. I apologize if this is an unwarranted inconvenience. Very trul yours, Robert A. Schwartzbauer CAT representative Route 3 .� � � '�:CtO �1�� _ .. Comments on The Social and Technical Assessments by Robert A. Schwartzbauer, Community Assessment Team Representative — Route 3 1. Contrary to repeated representations and agreements that it would provide traffic counts or other data relevant to the number of automobiles that would cross the bicycle trail daily, the Park District failed to provide any such data.' There is no .data in the Social or Technical Assessment on the anticipated number of automobile crossings on the trail along Route 3. Nor is there any information on the number of transient automobiles using the United Healthcare parking lot daily (1100), the number of units in Fountain Woods (360), Edina West (160), or Manor Homes of Edina (144). In fact, the only data in the assessment relevant to likely trail crossings is inaccurate. In the Technical Assessment (page 124) under the item "Safety," the item is described as "Number of Units for Adjacent Multi- family Properties with Driveway Crossings." Under Route 3, the Park District states that there are two such units with less than 50 units. In fact, there are at least three, each of which has over 140 units. If these facts were made known to the decision makers, they would realize the safety threat created by over 2000 automobiles crossing the proposed trail nearly every day. 2. Much of the data accumulated by the Park District in both the Social and Technical Assessments is wrong. The Social and Technical Assessments compiled by the Park District purport to quantify various items that the Community Assessment Team deemed important to a decision on the trail route. These important factors included the number of driveway crossings, number of road crossings, number of adjacent residential yards (front, side ' Schwartzbauer, February 23, 2010: [According to] "United Healthcare's Director of Real Estate ... approximately 1100 cars would cross a trial on the East side of Lincoln Drive twice each weekday. I request that Three Rivers note the number of users and units that are likely to cross the proposed trail." Grissman, February 23, 2010: "[W]e are generally measuring the items you requested (ie [sic] traffic counts, estimates [sic] vehicles trips over the trail, etc." Schwartzbauer, February 26, 2010 [commenting on draft map]: "Please reflect that approximately 1100 cars enter and exit [United Healthcare's] parking lot weekdays. Please show Manor Homes of Edina with residents in 144 units who's [sic] only access is Langford Dr. [crossing the proposed trail]. Please show a is a 3a unit condominiums with 160 units.... The driveway for Fountain Woods, is missing• condominium complex between Wellesley Place and Walnut Dr. with the single access /egress [crossing the proposed trail]." the Park District to review how many times vehicles Grissman, March 5, 2010: "I understand that you are asking that `,�,� ah eady agreed to be studied." may cross over the proposed trail. If this is correct, this is something Schwartzbauer, May 19, 2010 [commenting on a draft of assessments]: "Averaue annual daily traffic ...1 assume the single crossing in route 3 with 7000 -9000 crossings is United Healthcare.... Was count one at Fountain Woods[,] Manor Estates and Edina West where there are combined over 600 units ?" Grissman, May 21, 2010: "AADT: We have the data for the number of units in the large apartment/condo /town home complexes and we can include this in the table. These promises were never kept The trafflc counts in the Technical Assessment are City of Edina counts on Gleason Rd. and back), adjacent land use, etc. They also purport to quantify the physical obstacles along the route that would need to be moved to accommodate a 16- foot -wide bicycle path. I asked several of my neighbors to walk through Route 3 and compare their count of the various obstacles, including trees, fire hydrants, etc., with the count contained in the Ce ark District's assessment. The results are shown�nedi� by tmthat the Park attached District assessment and 2. Some examples of the discrepancies include shown shows 81 total utility conflicts, while physical count ownedlconflicts, such as conflicts boxes, stone as 0, while the actual count shows 43; total privately retaining walls, etc., are shown as 0 in the Park District's assessment, while there are in fact at least 21. In the Technical Assessment, the Park District shows District h there are et shows 8 side yards that abut the trail, whereas actual count shows 9. The Park yards impacted directly, while there are 14 per the physical count. The Park District assessment shows there would be 28 trees in the right -of -way that appear to be planted by the residents that would be cut down. The actual count shows over 100 se k segment District suggests that 300 feet of retaining wall woul d be needed to level the grade in (Technical Assessment, page 23 e In fact, at least 1500 feet of retaining wall would be needed )• in the area between the southeast corner of 6121 Habitat Ct. and the Edina West Condominiums driveway. These discrepancies may be explained by the fact that the Park District did not physically count most items determined to be significant CAT. e Park D Rather, it used ed public re states and outdated aerial photographs primarily. The Appendix parcel that "[r]esidential yards were identified °ainventory eent (of adjacen (residential properties) were data and 2006 aerial photography and [ ] ° With respect to completed using Hennepin County parcel data and 2006 aerial photogZphL the trees only, the Park District assessment states that o a 2009 and 2010, Hennepin County construction limits were identified by field visits pt f believed that the field visits did not parcel data, and using 2006 aerial photography. include visits to the Route 3 segment. Outdated aerial photographs should not replace physical counts. I offered to walk through Segment 3 with a representative of the Park District in order to get the count right. That offer was rejected. 2 3. The assessment map of Route 3 contained on pages and 8 atedhe Co is no ty Assessment Team analysis is misleading. Wellesley Place is improperly reflection of the driveways for the 360 units in Found Woods condominiums; forn160 units in is no showing of the Edina West driveway, which is the only West; the same is true for the 144 units in Manor Homes of Edina. Since is has bde an aereen to the attention of the Park District by a resident, the Park District agreed mever did the counting should come to my 2 Schwartzbauer May 19, 2010 "I suggest that Bryan or Alex or who house tomorrow and we can walk through the section together to get an agreed count" Grissman May 19, 2010 "To be respectful of Park Staff time and other work load prioritzes [sic] that have been put on hold to complete the CAT work, we will not be meeting individual CAT members in the field and repeating previous field work." There was no previous fieldwork on these issues. -2- photograph. We suggest a Goggle map sent by Judy Rudrud to Jonathon Vlaming on June 29, 2010 would be better. -3- Comments on Section 3 Technical and Social Assessment Item Driveway Crossings Single Family Multi Family Low Turnover Commercial High Turnover Commercial Total Driveways As Report (revi Per Count 7 6 2 3 1 1 1 1 11 11 Trees - About half the trees are in the 16' distance and half are close enough that some roots are in the 16' distance. Trees were counted if they their trunk is 6" or more in circumference. APPENDIX 1 8 8 Road Crossings Adjacent residential yards 9 9 Front yards 9 14 Side yards 4 9 Back yards Adjacent land use Number of adjacent residential properties 20 31 2 Number of commercial / business properties 2 Trees Trees in ROW but appear to be planted by resident 28 130 Biking Access (314 mile) to Destinations from Trail Route 1 1 Schools 5 3 Parks 3 1 Retail 5 8 Employment centers 1 2 Restaurants 0 3 Places of Worship 5 6 Bus /LRT routes Trails /bike lanes (existing .proposed) 6 0 3 2 Existing trail head amenities 0 1 Other (hotel) 0 0 Opportunity to add trailhead amenities 26 30 Total Trees - About half the trees are in the 16' distance and half are close enough that some roots are in the 16' distance. Trees were counted if they their trunk is 6" or more in circumference. APPENDIX 1 Physical Obstacles/Ut lilies on Proposed Bicycle Path in Route 3 Communications box Underground fiber -optic box In- ground Qwest box w /cement cover Electric box (3 are huge) In- ground electrical access Electric pole Electric light Gas line Gas pipeline control station Fire hydrant In- ground public water - access plate Sanitary sewer Storm sewer Traffic - control light Total utility conflicts As Reported in New Anuendices 9 Same as my figure (Same) 4 0 3 0 9 7 2 0 28 Same 8 Same I Same 1 0 8 Same 5 0 34 16 1 0 113 81 Bus bench (cement affixed in cement) 1 0* Stone & Steel Bridge Guard Rail (65') 1 0* Traffic sign 41 0* Total traffic conflicts 43 0* Curbside mailbox in- ground sprinkler box in- ground sprinkler system Stone Retaining Wall* Wrought -iron fence (10- 12') ** Privately owned conflicts Total Obstacles 8 0* 4 0* 6 0* 2 0* 1 0* 21 0* 177 81 *These retaining walls are on both sides of the entrance to Wellesly Place. I believe they were installed in summer of 2009, and they look expensive. * *This fence is located in front of the large utility boxes adjacent to the sidewalk in front of the Fountainwood Condominiums. APPENDIX 2 Comments on Environmental Assessment Worksheet by Robert A. Schwartzbauer, Community Assessment Team Representative - Route 3 The following are my comments on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet dated June 3, 2010 ( "EAW '). 1. page 6, penultimate paragraph: A fourth and fifth bullet point should be added to the bullet points Seventy -one percent of the respondent.households indicated that the existing walking/biking trails met 75% or 100% of their needs. Fifty percent of the respondent households stated that they were "somewhat" to `very" satisfied with the existing number of walking/biking trails. 2. Page 7: We agree that the majority of all users prefer trails through the natural environment separated from traffic with limited road crossings. We also agree that both commuting and recreational trail users would prefer creek - based routes, which are proposed through the natural environment, generally separated from traffic and have less road crossings compared to the alternative road -based routes, assuming similar safety, directness, and access to designation. You should add: "[a] sense of physical and personal safety is the most important trail value in that without it people are disinclined to use a trail irrespective of how many other values it might provide." Minnesota DNR's "Trail, Planning, Design and Development Guidelines ", 2007. Guideline 2.2. These preferences should eliminate Segment 3 from further consideration. 3. Page 10: We agree with the comment that no present land use conflicts that involve environmental matters have been identified, other than past land uses that represent potential contamination issues. 4. Pages 12 and 14: Forests are defined as "trees with their crowns overlapping (generally forming 60 to 100 percent cover)." Woodlands are defined r stands of trees with crowns not usually touching (generally forming 25 to 60 percent cover)." The trees that border 6107 Waterford Court, should be considered either forest or woodlands per the MLCCS definition and should be treated accordingly. This is also true of the trees and pond behind 6110 Waterford Ct. as well as the land on Vernon Ave. between Tamarac and Fountain Woods condominiums. This would change the potential land -cover conversion Segment 3 showing that Wooded/Forest acres are 1.6 both before and after the construction. It appears that on Bonestroo's map of Land Cover Classification for Segment 3, only the rear portion is treated as Forest/Woodland. This should be corrected on the map. Page 17: We agree with the statement that "[a]lthough boardwalks may have potential to have negative impact on some wildlife species, they do not have a direct impact on the wetlands themselves." 6. Page 19 (Segment 3): We agree that if the trail is located along Segment 3, there will be a negative impact to an area of woodland composed primarily of Cottonwood, Boxelder, and European Buckthorn species. That impact will be upon 6107 Waterford Court and 6110 Waterford Ct. That area of woodland now is home to deer, ducks, geese, egrets, turkeys, and other animals. 7. Page 21: As stated above, the wooded area adjacent to 6107 and 6110 Waterford Court should be considered woods and forest areas. Regardless of whether they are so classified,.we agree that all of the individual trees which will be destroyed and removed should be replaced by planting new trees in the immediate vicinity of the tree removal location. 8. Page 27: We agree with the statement that, "[d]ue to the high wetland replacement ratios from NMCWD Rules, replacement of potential impacts will result in a net increase of wetland area. 9. Page 29: We agree with the statement that "[a]n at -grade or boardwalk trail would both be consistent with these requirements and not involve creation of any compensatory storage. 10. Page 40: We agree with the comment that no known archeological sites are located along (any portion) of the proposed corridor. The history /architecture -2- inventory indicates that seven properties are located in proximity to the site. The trail will not impact any of the listed sites. 11. Page 44: We agree with the City of Edina's plan to recommend a separation of the bicycles and pedestrians with a wider cross - section "consisting of a 14- foot -wide bicycle trail and a parallel 6- foot -wide pedestrian trail wherever possible." Since the proposed Three Rivers Park District trail is not consistent with that recommendation, we believe it creates a safety hazard for pedestrians. That is especially true where the pedestrians are primarily senior citizens, as in Segment 3. 12. Page 47: The EAW recognizes that wildlife may be affected by implementing the trail project. Construction and use of the proposed trail may disturb wildlife currently using the habitat. These statements apply to the wildlife referred to above in Comment 6 that currently reside in the wild area located behind 6107 and 6110 Waterford Court. 13. Bonestroo's Map Figure 9 -1 is grossly out -of -date. It also shows that "Alliant Techsystems, Inc." which no longer exists, occupies the area of United Healthcare's 1300 car parking lot. This should be corrected and current maps used. 991! 6500 Creek Drive RECEIVED Edina, MN 55439 JUL 14 2010 July 12, 2010 Ms. Kelly Grissman Senior Manager of Planning 3000 Xenium Lane North Plymouth, MN 55441 Dear Ms. Grissman, Attached are my comments regarding the "Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail - Edina Segment" - project, and forty nine specific detailed and substantive issues with the Environmental Assessment Worksheet. I believe these comments demonstrate the creek aligned routes have significant environmental challenges. Challenges that would not exist with the street aligned routes under consideration. B e and , Thomas G. Clifford Cc: Environmental Quality Board Steve Colvin — MN DNR Craig Affeldt — Pollution Control Agency Tamara Cameron — U.S. Army Corp of Engineers Kenneth Westlake — U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Kevin Bigalke — Nine Mile Creek Watershed District Administrator Gordon Hughes — Edina City Manager EXECUTIVE OVERVIEW The Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail — Edina Segment project includes some very troubling environmental and floodplain management issues with the proposed creek aligned routes that are not properly addressed in the EAW. The most serious issues can be summarized as: 1. An EAW is no longer optional based on the documented project size and quantity of wetlands impacted. 2. The Blanding's Turtle, a MN threatened species, has been documented to within township sections which include creek aligned routes 2, 4, 5, 5D, 5E, 9, 11, and 13. 3. Many areas within the City of Edina are fully developed up to the 100 -year floodplain and floodway. The major floodplain or floodway alterations included in this project could create disastrous effects on flood levels and water discharge rates. 4. Minnesota Administrative Rules and Environmental Quality Board Guidelines require projects which could have a "cumulative impact" to be considered together for EAW /EIS purposes. The EAW fails to address the cumulative impact for two specific projects -- The proposed Nine Mile Creek Watershed District stream bank restoration, and the Waters Senior Living of Edina development within the 100 -year floodplain. 5. Given the seriousness of the floodplain and threatened species issues, Three Rivers Park District has proposed an alternative with more than 5000 feet of raised boardwalks along the seven mile trail. It is unlikely this brief EAW study has sufficiently documented or correctly anticipated: The floodplain and environmental impact of 5000 feet of boardwalk. The temporary (though likely multi -year) floodplain and environmental impact for constructing more than 5000 feet of boardwalk. INTRODUCTION I have organized my comments to the Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail EAW into four broad narrative sections to facilitate reading, understanding, and interdependencies between topics. Because this organization may make it difficult to identify the individual substantive detailed comments /question that I wish addressed, I have added the tag [EAWPC #] following each of point. I ask that Three Rivers Park District address each of these points in their response to public comment. I — REGULATORY PROCESS STATE STATUTES LOCAL CODE and EAW DISCRPEANCIES The EAW submitted by Three Rivers Park District (TRPD) states that "Reason for EAW Preparation" as "proposer volunteered ". While MN Administrative Rule (MNAR) 4410.4300 subp. 37 normally excludes Recreational Trails from the mandatory EAW category, Rule 4410.4300 is very clear that if a project meets or exceeds any of the thresholds of subp. 2 -37, then an EAW is required. Subp. 27 Paragraph A applies to wetland projects which "will change or diminish the course, current, or cross - section of one acre or more of any public water or public water wetland... ". Since EAW Table 10 -2 shows that 2.05 acres of wetland will be permanently impacted, MNAR 4410.4300 subp. 27 applies, and the reason for EAW preparation is "Mandatory EAW ". [EAWPC 2] question the selection of TRPD as the RGU. While TRPD plans to fund and oversee the project, it has become evident from the Community Assessment Team (CAT) meetings that TRPD is not responsive to CAT member comments, nor adhering to the CAT process guidelines. I also question whether TRPD can objectively represent the environmental, floodplain, and watershed aspects of the project. TPRD does not have visibility concerning other Edina projects, nor has a vested interest in the City of Edina. Additionally TRPD will require the approval and /or permits from numerous outside agencies. .... . ... . . _ . Although allowed by State Statute and Environmental Quality Board (EQB) rules, I question the ability of the Three Rivers Park District to objectively fulfill the role of project proposer and Responsible Government Unit (RGU). Situations like this where a government entity has no outside accountability, generally lead to abuse of power. Per MNAR 4410.0500 subp 4. Paragraph B, I believe the EQB should review the assignment of RGU and appoint the City of Edina as the project RGU. [EAWPC3] Connected and Phased Actions MNAR 4410.1000 subp. 4 covers "Connected actions and phased actions ", states generally that the interrelated projects and actions must be considered as a whole when assessing environmental impact. Page 7 of the EAW declares this is a "subsequent stage of an earlier project", and that no future stages are "planned or likely to happen ". This declaration is incorrect and should state that future stages are likely to occur. Additionally all area wide cumulative impacts should be declared. This declaration is incorrect for the following reasons. • The environmental impact details from earlier stages of this project have not been included in detail nor attached as reference to this current EAW. It is impossible for the public to make meaningful and substantive comments on the complete connected project. environmental impact. [EAWPC 4] • Page 29 of the EAW states the project may trigger stream bank improvement in a few locations, and that this work will be completed by the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District ( NMCWD). Unfortunately the EAW contains no environmental impact details related to stream bank improvements. [EAWPC 5] • If the NMCWD stream bank improvements are anticipated to occur, then the EAW must include these details. [EAWPC 61 • TRPD has recently added an alternate route 5F to the review process. See the May 17, 2010 CAT meeting minutes ( http • / /www.threeriversparks.org/ news / construction /^' /media /planning -and- construction/ nine -mile- creek /05- 17 -10- cat- minutes.ashx). Route 5F is currently not addressed in the EAW and falls outside of the defined project boundary as shown on Figure 6.2 USGS Topo Map found on page 2 of the appendix- a- 1- 7.pdf. As outside the project boundary, the environmental impact details are missing from the EAW. [EAWPC 71 • If route 5F is a possible future action, then the EAW must be reworked to include this information. [EAWPC 8] • The city of Edina has given preliminary approval for a 100 ++ unit apartment facility to be developed on Colonial Church property just north of Highway 62 and west of Tracy Avenue. Consideration of Route 5F would bring this property into the regional trail project boundary. As proposed the Colonial Church project will almost certainly require excavation and fill within the 100 -year floodplain. It is anticipated this would impact the water discharge rate from this area into the Nine Mile Creek floodway. [EAWPC 9] • The proximity and potential overlap of the Colonial Church project and the Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail (NMCRT) (especially the traffic impact on route 5F), support the case that these projects should be considered "Connected Actions ". [EAWPC 101 • The EAW does not address the potential traffic and parking issues associated with route 5F in combination with the Colonial Church project. [EAWPC 111 • The combination of the Colonial Church project and the Regional Trail from an environmental impact perspective, support the case that the EQB should designate the City of Edina as the RGU for the Edina portion of the Regional Trail. [EAWPC 12] City of Edina Code Section 850.21 — Floodplain Overlay District The EAW mentions Edina Code (EC) 850.21, but does correctly address the restrictions this code places on the project. Section 850.21 Background • Statutory Authorization: The legislature of the State of Minnesota has, in Minnesota Statues Chapter 103F and Chapter 462 delegated the responsibility to local government units to adopt regulations designed to minimize flood losses. Therefore, the Council does adopt this Subsection 850.21. • MN statute 103F.121 Floodplain Management Ordinances Subd. 5 limits and restricts floodplain alterations which are "unreasonably hazardous to the .public or unduly restricts the capacity of the floodplain to carry and discharge a regional flood." The EAW does not address how this proposed project adheres to Edina Code 850.21, nor MN statute 203F.121. [EAWPC 131 While single or multiple purpose recreational trails" are permitted within the Floodway District (FW) ( Floodway District being defined as those areas designated as floodway on the Map."), permitted ermitted FW uses "shall not obstruct flood flows or increase flood elevations and shall not involve structures, fill, obstructions, excavations or storage of materials or equipment (850.21 Subd. 5, paragraph B, sub- paragraph 4). All the options being considered by Three Rivers Park District (TRPD) within the floodway require structures, fill, or excavations. Therefore the trail within the FW must be classified as, and . i subject to the restrictions of, a "Conditional Use". The EAW does not state that FW Conditional Use designation is unavoidable. [EAWPC 14] Conditional Uses cannot "cause any increase in the stage of the 100 year or regional flood or cause an increase in flood damages in the reach or reaches affected." (850.21 Subd. 5, paragraph D, sub - paragraph 1). While the EAW mentions the generalities of this subsection, the EAW does not provide details for how adhering to this has been (or will be) measured, nor how to ensure flood changes do not occur. [EAWPC 15] EC 850.21 generally does not distinguish between temporary and permanent impacts to the floodway. 850.21 SLibd. 5, paragraph D, subparagraph 4c does allow temporary impact to the 100 -year or regional flood level but "only after the City has received an appropriate plan which assures the removal of the materials from the floodway based upon the flood warning time available." The EAW does not describe in sufficient detail the potential temporary flood impact associated with the various proposed options, nor the time period associated with "flood warning time available ", nor how to remove any floodplain impact within said time. [EAWPC 16] The proposed boardwalk within the FW of Nine Mile Creek does not fit the description of a marina or dock, nor does it fit the description of a pier or wharf, which are engineered to specific standards and are not designed for through traffic. The boardwalk also does not fit the classification of a bridge (bridges being engineered to very specific standards and are generally used to span the complete floodplain with no impact to the floodway). Therefore the boardwalk must be classified as and subject to restrictions as an "Accessory Structure" (850.21 Subd. 5, paragraph D, subparagraph 5). The EAW fails to make this point. [EAWPC 17] In addition to the general restrictions on Accessory Structures, (850.21 Subd. 11, paragraph B, subparagraph 1), requires that a permit "be obtained priorto the erection, addition, modification, rehabilitation (including normal maintenance and repair), or alteration of any building structure, or portion thereof. The EAW fails to make this point related to maintenance and repair. [EAWPC 18] EC 850.21 states that accessory structures must be built to standards which do not place the public at risk. The EAW fails to describe how this will be accomplished. [EAWPC 19] EC 850.21 states that accessory structures should be aligned within the floodplain to minimize the impact on water flow. The EAW fails to discuss how the conceptual tail alignments adhere to this requirement. [EAWPC 20] EC 850.07 Subd. 18 establishes zoning limits for accessory structures. "Subd. 18 Setbacks from Naturally Occurring Lakes, Ponds and Streams. Notwithstanding any other requirements of this Section or other provisions of this Code, in cases where a portion of a lot or tract is located below the ordinary high water elevation of a naturally occurring lake, pond or stream, the shoreline created by such an ordinary high water elevation shall be deemed to be the rear lot line or side lot line, as the case may be, for setback purposes. All principal and accessory structures shall maintain a minimum setback of 50 feet from the ordinary high water elevation, except that all principal and accessory structures shall maintain a minimum setback of 75 feet from the ordinary high water elevation of Indianhead Lake, Arrowhead Lake, Mirror Lake and Lake Cornelia." The Nine Mile Creek Watershed District also has rules in place to protect the environment and floodplain. Unfortunately the NMCWD's definitions and acronyms lack the precision found in the Edina City Code, Minnesota Administrative Rules, and MN statutes. The definitions for "Water body", "Water course ", "Water basin, and "Subwatershed" are vague making it difficult for the public to comment. Additionally individual rules appear contradictory. None the less the following issues exist: • Rule 2.3.4 allows "trails 10 feet wide or less, designed primarily for nonmotorized use ", though clearly this rule should apply to the complete modified /improved trail area and not just the paved surface. • Rule 2.3.4 clearly calls out bridges, culverts, trails, and other structures covered by Rule 6.0. Though other than the Rule 6.0 title " "Waterbody Crossings and Structures ", there is no definition for the structure types covered by Rule 6.0. Without an explicit exception for boardwalks, the most restrictive rules shall apply. • While Rule 2.3.4 allows structures within 50 feet of the centerline of a watercourse, rule 3.4 covering "Wetland buffers" requires buffers that "average 60 feet from the edge of high value wetlands ", minimum 30 feet". Given the extent that Nine Mile Creek's watercourse is interconnected with wetlands, it is puzzling how the NMCWD could have these contradictory rules. • It appears the NMCWD understands their rules are confusing and contradictory, as they have adopted the following "Exception" policy. 10.2 Exceptions The Board of Managers may approve an exception from a provision of the rules requiring a particular treatment or management strategy, or setting forth a design specification, if an applicant demonstrates that better natural resource protection or enhancement can be achieved by the project as proposed, with such further conditions as the Board of Managers may impose, than would strict compliance with the provision. II — FLOODPLAIN IMPACT The Draft Hennepin County Flood Insurance Study (FIS) is being used by TRPD during planning, yet this document has not been approved by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). • The EAW does not describe in detail the floodplain boundaries as documented by Official Floodplain Zoning Map or the new FIS, nor include these important documents as a reference. [EAWPC 21] • The EAW does not discuss how an error or change to the still pending FIS could impact the NMCRT project flood mitigation. [EAWPC 22] The EAW states an "impervious surface will generate an additional runoff of about 7 acre -ft (100 -year event) of runoff. The total volume of runoff for the entire watershed basin is over 8,800 ac -ft (100 -year event). The impervious surface would result in an about 0.08% increase in runoff volume to the watershed." While this percentage increase may seem small overall, the EAW does not describe how this increase could become magnified in areas where the Nine Mile Creek floodplain is especially narrow. [EAWPC 23] One such area with an especially narrow floodway exists where route sections 9 & 11 meet. Within the last thirty years, the route 9 & 11 Nine Mile Creek high water levels have reached to within 12" to 18" of home basement floor elevation along Creek Drive and Valley Lane. The EAW does not identify this issue, nor identify individual high risk residences, nor how any residential impacts will be prevented. [EAWPC 24] The EAW proposes (page 33) to use buffer strips and grass filter strips to mitigate water quality issues caused by the NMCRT. The EAW has not stated how these buffer strips could be established within or adjacent to the floodplain without impacting existing wetlands, nor if these buffer strips have been included in the "wetlands impacted" calculation, nor how these buffer strips could impact regional flood elevation levels. [EAWPC 25] NMCWD policy states that when fill is placed within the floodplain, compensatory storage must occur at the same elevation ( + /- 1foot). Neither the Official Floodplain Zoning Map nor the FIS provide sufficient topographical precision to ensure compensatory storage occurs with this require range. The EAW does not describe how this will be measured and ensured. [EAWPC 26] III — ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MN Statute 116D.04 subd. 6 states the following. "No state action significantly affecting the quality of the environment shall be allowed, nor shall any permit for natural resources management and development be granted, where such action or permit has caused or is likely to cause pollution, impairment, or destruction of the air, water, land or other natural resources located within the state, so long as there is a feasible and prudent alternative consistent with the reasonable requirements of the public health, safety, and welfare and the state's paramount concern for the protection of its air, water, land and other natural resources from pollution, impairment, or destruction. Economic considerations alone shall not justify such conduct." The TRPD has not made the case that the proposed routes within the floodplain warrant the destruction or impact to Nine Mile Creek's floodplain when street based alternative routes provide such an alternative. [EAWPC 27] TRPD has not described in sufficient detail the materials which would be used for the construction of a boardwalk, nor whether these materials would be located above or below the regional flood level. [EAWPC 28] If located below flood level, the EAW does not discuss how construction materials will be selected, or how construction material chemical leaching may impact water quality. [EAWPC 291 TRPD and the NMCWD continue to insist that many segments following Nine Mile Creek requires stream bank restoration, yet the Erosion and Sedimentation assessment completed by Bonestroo, and presented to the CAT during their April 5, 2010 meeting, shows only a small area of "eroded soils ", and those areas are only within the Route 1 segment (see http://www.three -iversparks org/ news / construction /—/ media /planning- and - construction /nine -mile- creek /04- 05 -10- cat- presentation.ashx, page 14). The EAW does make the case that stream bank restoration is needed. [EAWPC 301 Blanding's Turtle Impact The MN -DNR Natural Heritage Information System (NHIS) was consulted to determine if rare species exist within a one -mile radius of the proposed project. EAW appendix C implies that Blanding's Turtles were located within the NHIS search area. While the NHIS "Index Report" has been included in the EAW, the "Detailed Report" has not been included, presumably because it's publication would place the turtles in danger. Specificially, • The NHIS report identifies the existence of Blanding's Turtles within the township sections including creek bases routes 2, 4, 5, 5D, 5E, 9, 11, and 13. Because the wetlands in these sections are almost exclusively connected to Nine Mile Creek and the proposed trail routes, it must be assumed the turtles and routes overlap. The. EAW does provide sufficient information to refute this reasonable conclusion. [EAWPC 31] • While the MN -DNR guidelines have been incorporated into the EAW, the EAW does not state whether Three Rivers Park District believe these guidelines will be strictly enforced. [EAWPC 32] • The TRPD review process does not address how temporary (possibly long duration) or permanent floodplain alterations could impact the turtle population. [EAWPC 33] • The TRPD review process does not describe how temporary or permanent wetland impact could impact the turtle population. [EAWPC 34] • The NHIS report lists 4 recommendations for wetlands inhabited by Blanding's Turtles. The EAW includes most of these, but specifically excluding the following statements. "A wide buffer should be left along the shore to minimize human activity near wetlands (basking Blanding's turtles are more easily disturbed than other turtle species ". "Wetlands should be protected from road, lawns, and other chemical run -off by a vegetated buffer strip at least 50' wide. This area should be left unmowed and in a natural condition" o TRPD has not stated why these specific recommendations have been excluded from the EAW report. [EAWPC 35] • Placing a boardwalk or trail within the NMC wetlands appears to be completely at odds with goal to avoid disturbing basking turtles. [.EAWPC 36] • A warm and sunny boardwalk or paved surface high speed bike trail would appear to be particularly treacherous for Blanding's Turtles. [EAWPC 37] • TRPD's goal to provide a mowed buffer zone around the trail is at odds with the NHIS recommendations. [EAWPC 38] IV — COMMUNITY & SOCIAL IMPACT Page 44 of the EAW discusses the connection between the City of Edina's Comprehensive Bicycle Transportation Plan (CBTP) (section 2.5.2) and the TRPD Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail, though per the final CBTP dated September 9, 2007. (located at . http: / /www.ci.edina.mn.us /PDFs/ Edina %2520Bike %2520PIan %2520Final %25202007 pdf), the CBTP diagram on page 61 does not include many of the floodplain routes, and specifically does not include Routes 2, 9, 11, 13, nor 19. The EAW leads readers to believe the regional trail proposal and CBTP are in complete agreement. [EAWPC 39] TRPD ensured the City of Edina that a methodical and open process would be followed with respect to planning and the CATs. This process included the notification of route adjacent properties, the election of route representatives, and open CAT meetings. Per the May 17, 2010 CAT meeting minutes related to route 5F, "No one was present to provide design recommendations at the meeting ". Per the CAT contact list http://www.threeriversparks.org/ news / construction /— /media /planning -and- construction/ nine -mile- creek /nine -mile- cat - contacts.ashx Route 7F does not have a CAT representative. TRPD has not accurately documented how they consulted with Edina residents to gather community and social impact information. [EAWPC 40] Per page 5 of the EAW, "TRPD will be responsible for all operations and maintenance for the regional trail during the non - winter months. Winter use of Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail is dependent on weather conditions and independent use agreements with local communities to maintain and operate the trail during the winter season (defined as November 15 through March 15). Potential winter use activities include snowshoeing and. cross country skiing and the aforementioned activities." TRPD does not commit to providing police and public safety services during the winter season, which are needed regardless of whether the trail is open or closed. [EAWPD 41] The EAW Appendix F discusses parking and trail traffic access for official access points, though fails to consider parking and traffic for unofficial access points. While it would be unreasonable to assume all city street aligned route should be considered as a contiguous unofficial access point, there are numerous points which would likely be used as unofficial access points. Unofficial access points which should be evaluated for traffic and parking impacts include: access from Heights Park, Walnut Ridge Park, and beginning /ending points of creek aligned segments where access has been restricted for a significant distance. [EAWPD 42] Edina City Parks Edina City-Par . ks are designed for a designated service area. Route 2 runs the trail through Edina's Walnut Ridge Park and routes 9 & 11 through Edina's Heights Park. Running the trails through these parks greatly increases the service burden on these parks and is equivalent to increasing the park's service areas. [EAWPC 43] Route segments 9 & 11 through Edina's Heights Park have the following two specific problems: • The neighborhood north and east of Heights Park is connected to the park by a walkway and bridge across Nine Mile Creek. This is the only access point to the park for residents of Valley Lane and Creek Drive area. Neighborhood children visiting the park would find themselves crossing the high -speed regional trail traffic of routes 9 & 11. Routes 9 & 11.would further disconnect residents from their neighborhood park. [ EAWPD 44] • -The walkway access from Creek Drive to Heights Park is a walkway easement on private property. Three Rivers Park District's inclusion of this walkway in the list of preliminary route options (and communication of this to the public) has lead people to use this walkway as a bicycle trail. Although the walkway has been removed from consideration, and signs place by the City of Edina stating the bicycles must be walked on the walkway, nothing has been done by the City of Edina or Three Rivers Park District to return the walkway to its previous use. If this problem cannot be solved, how will TRPD and the City of Edina ensure the walkway will not be used as a non - pedestrian unofficial access point to routes 9 & 11. [EAWPC 45] Edina Public Schools While the EAW does mention the need for the Edina School District to approve routes 5 & 5E, it does not address how school zone safety can be maintained if trail routes 5 & 5E cross school property. [EAWPC 46] Raised Boardwalks The EAW does not describe the visual impact associated with a raised boardwalk. [EAWPC 471 The EAW does not describe.the noise impact associated with wheeled traffic on a raised boardwalk. [EAWPC 48] The EAW does not address the safety issue a raised boardwalk would pose for inline skaters. Inline skates require a rough and even surface to provide skating traction. A raised boardwalk does not serve the inline skating population. [EAWPC 491 Routes 7 & 8 and the Americans with Disabilities Act See http• / /www access -board eov /outdoor /draft- final.htm #10171 for ADA information. Although not specifically covered in the EAW, ADA compliance has been mentioned by people connected to the regional trail proposal. Purportedly routes 7 & 8 have this problem and this is the reason routes 9 & 11 are preferred. • It is difficult to image how ADA issues exist for routes 7 & 8, as route 7 along Valley View Rd has a public sidewalk which would need to conform to the same ADA guidelines. • It should be noted that if ADA concerns exist with routes 7 & 8, other street based alternative routes should have replaced routes 7 & 8 during the CAT team process. Assuming routes 7 & 8 do have ADA issues, I'd like to point out the following ADA guidelines and specifically section 1017 on trails (see http: / /www. access- board.gov /outdoor /draft- fiinal.htm #10171). • 1017.1 EXCEPTIONS — describes how exceptions are to be made for a small segment of a trail, and how an "entity" should document and limit the exception to this small area while adhering to ADA guidelines for the remainder of the project. This is the same process which would apply to the sidewalk along Valley View Rd. • Section 1019 details the exceptions. o 1019.2 paragraph 1 "Compliance is not feasible due to terrain ". This clearly applies unfeasibility of rebuilding Valley View Rd. o 1019.2 paragraph 4 "Other Federal, State, or local law the purpose of which is to preserve threatened or endangered species; the environment; or archaeological, cultural, historical, or other significant natural features ". This clearly implies ADA guidelines are not to overrule local environmental needs. It would be difficult to make a case that routes 9 & 11 with the likelihood to impact the Blanding's Turtle (a MN threatened species) is preferred over routes 7 & 8 with purported ADA concerns. Susan Howl Subject: I Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail Public Input Opportunity From: Gene & Penny Kranz 6613 Cahill Road Edina, MN 55439 952 -944 -6674 We live along the creek in Section 11 We attended the information meeting on June 30 at South View Middle School. RECEIVED JUL 114 2010 When we went to the gym and looked at what is proposed for our section (11), which is a raised boardwalk, our first impression was that it looked massive. We cannot envision such a large structure going through the creek area behind our house. It would be larger than the creek itself during certain times of the year. We feel that the boardwalk would destroy the uniqueness of the creek area. We oppose the part of the trail that would go along the creek in Section 11 We believe that the process of the actual construction of the boardwalk would in itself be destructive to the creek area. Another thing that was mentioned at the meeting is that 4 -1/2 acres of forest in Edina would be lost in the construction of the bike trail — we oppose this deforestation. We believe that the projected cost of the Regional Trail ($20 million) is too low — that the cost could be higher. It is necessary for Gene to use a scooter because of a disability and he will not be able to use a boardwalk because it would cause too much jarring to his spine. Susan Howl Subject: Colonial Church /Living Waters PROPOSAL RECEIVED I urge the CITY COUNCIL JUL 14 2010 to REJECT the current Shelter Corporation proposal because 1. of hasty, faulty processing through the system, ignoring what is believed to be in best interests of all Edina neighborhoods 2. of being too large a structure for a residential neighborhood, negatively affecting neighborhoods and environments on both sides of 62 Crosstown 3. of questionable, confusing, conflicting information and assumptions shared by the developer 4. and of other reasons formally noted and shared by "Save the Countryside Neighborhood" group AND to go back to square one in the best interest of Edina citizens, both present and future, by either keeping property residential or requesting more reasonably -sized structure[s] [two -story at the most - smaller left to right structure mass] which in addition to already operating Edina senior housing /care facilities would still meet needs of senior citizens in our community, respect the viability of current neighborhoods and restore confidence in Edina City Government. Sincerely, Inna Hays 5857 Creek Valley Road Edina MN 55439 952.941.3795 RECEIVED JUL 14 1010 to: Kelly Grissman; ThreeRivers Park District; ninemiletrail @threeriversparkdistrict.org John Keprios, City of Edina Park & Recreation Director; jkeprios @ci.edina.mn.us Edina City Council Members (Jim Hovland, Scot Housh, Ann Swensen, Joni Bennett, Mary Brindle )edinamailra?ci.edina.mn.us Alice Hulbert, Bike Edina Task Force State Representative 41A Keith Downey; rep.keith.downeyAhouse.rnn METC Representative Polly Bowles; polly.bowles(ametc.state.mn.us From: Diane Fansler Re: Route 7 of Proposed Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail 1 -1 am submitting this letter to the above persons requesting your consideration and response. I am vehemently and rationally opposed to adoption of Route 7 of Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail on the east side of Valley View Rd from Tracy Ave to Antrim Rd. Paragraphs will be numbered and sub - pointed for reference, clarity, and accuracy of your response. 2 -My credibility and knowledge in addressing this matter are significant and apply directly to numerous important issues. A -1 am the owner /resident/taxpayer of 5709 West 66' Street for more than 29 '/z years, including being the main residence of my son from age 9 months to his recent completion of medical residency in CA. B -I am a life -long advocate for children, including serving as a teacher at Edina High School and/or Edina Valley View Middle School for more than 26 years. C- Therefore, I have extensive personal experience with this exact route since I traveled it daily between my residence and my teaching job. D -I am an avid biker and jogger who participates in one or both of these activities nearly daily. E -I have considerable, successful experience analyzing research methodology and veracity, including serving as EHS Debate Coach for numerous highly successful teams up to second place nationally and an MST degree with concentrations in testing and research. F -I am an active, concerned citizen and proponent of Edina and my neighborhood. I inform myself and vote in all elections. I am especially active in issues that affect Edina Schools, including active support for all School bonds and Board elections. I have given Edina Police permission and approval to use my driveway to assist with improving neighborhood safety through enforcement of traffic violations including excessive speed, failure to stop at signs, etc. 3- My involvement with the proposed Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail has been more limited than my desires or usual participation due to the impending death of my Mother in Wisconsin. Although my physical participation has been limited especially during the past 6 months, my opposition to Route 7 is based on: A- thorough reading, study, and analysis of relevant published articles including Edina Sun Current, St Paul Pioneer Press, Minneapolis StarTribune, Edina Schools website, Edina School Board minutes, Edina City Council minutes, ThreeRivers website, and 9milecreek website; B- attendance, direct interviews, contemporaneous notes and documents at the June 30' Public Informational Hearing at Southview Middle School including Kelly Grissman, John Keprios, Ciara Schlichting, Brent Christensen, and Edina resident attendees; C- extensive interviews, contemporaneous notes, and in -depth analysis of documents from meetings with Edina City employees including June 29, July 1, July 7, and July 8, 2010, including John Keprios, Jesse Struve, and Boyd Tate; D- Telephone and face -to- face conversations including Kelly Grissman, John Keprios, and numerous Edina residents most directly affected by Route 7 including residents and frequent walkers/bikers /joggers along the Route throughout June and July, 2010; E- review of documents, website, minutes, and personal conversations with Edina Schools personnel and SchoolBoard members; F- attendance, contemporaneous notes, and discussion at Neighborhood meetings and presentations in July, 2010; G- informal discussion with legal counsel; H- personal contact and discussion with owners of 10 of the 12 affected properties on the east side of ValleyView Road; (owners of 2 properties are currently OOT); and I- personally riding MTC Route 578 buses 4 times in the past 2 months, including both directions, with pick- ups /drop -offs both within and beyond Route 7; and J- personally assessing Route 7 via approximate measurements and photographs including on July 7- 12/2010 particularly Valley View, Tracy, Right -of -Way on both, yards, houses /structures, and driveways of the affected 12 properties. 4 -A critical area contributing to my opposition to Route 7 is negative environmental impact. ThreeRivers' Environmental Assessment of Route 7 is incomplete, inaccurate, misleading, and so generic that it doesn't directly address the actualities and realities of Route 7. Their reported Route 7 conclusions also fail to fulfill their reported mission, goals, considerations, responsibilities, or procedures. 4A- Therefore, I am requesting a thorough, accurate Environmental Assessment of Route 7 in accordance with the mission, goals, considerations, responsibilities, and procedures published by ThreeRiversParkDistrict and solicited by Edina City Council and Edina Park and Recreation Department on behalf of the citizens of Edina. It is imperative that this study be accurately and thoroughly completed and reported before further consideration of Route 7 as part of the NineMileCreekRegionalTrail. 4B -Since I will be referring frequently to this document, I will quote herein page 5 of ThreeRivers CAT analysis published June 2010: "The EAW's purpose is to identify and quantify the potential environmental impacts for each of the alternative trail routes under consideration. The EAW findings will help determine if any alternative trail routes should be removed from further consideration due to potential environmental impacts and determine the preferred Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail route through Edina. The EAW evaluates a variety of components including but not limited to land use, cover types, fish, wildlife, and ecologically sensitive resources, water resources, water - related land use management, erosion and sedimentation, water quality, geologic hazards and soil conditions, traffic, air emissions, odors, noise, and dust, nearby resources, visual impacts, land use regulation, infrastructure and public services, cumulative potential effects, and other potential environmental impacts." 4C- ThreeRivers' published `Route 7 Assessment Environmental Assessment' appears to be generic "cut and paste" and doesn't provide accuracy, completeness, or specificities of potential environmental impacts let alone assurance of mitigation of the 2 areas addressed; 1 -Fish, Wildlife, and Environmentally Sensitive Resources and 2- Surface Water Runoff/Erosion and Sedimentation. This EA is seriously flawed, inaccurate, incomplete, and contradictory, both within itself as well as contradicting outside facts, reports, statistics, and publications provided by City of Edina and others. 4C 1- RiverRivers' conclusion "The trail would be constructed along the roadway with little impact to habitat that is suitable to wildlife." This statement is totally false since the proposed trail (10 ft wide with 3 ft borders on both sides totaling 16 ft) would eliminate the current sidewalk and boulevards as well as eliminating the entire parklane /shoulder rather than "reducing shoulder width" as ThreeRivers claims. (Note: ThreeRivers ThreeRivers claims 67.5 ft Right -of -Way on ValleyView Rd; City of Edina claims 66ft ROW. ThreeRivers TechAssessment claims 11 ft available for trail; how can 11 ft provide 16 ft of trail even using their figures? City re- striped and moved yellow lines to center of ValleyViewRd this spring; distance from centerline to east curb of road is 21 '/2 ft of the approximate 33 ft ROW Edina claims, which means that ThreeRivers would have to eliminate entire parklane /shoulder, entire sidewalk, and both boulevards to even approach the 16 ft reported as needed for trail! And no where is it considered that this "parklane /shoulder" to be eliminated is required and used, including consistently by MTC Bus 578, Edina Schoolbuses, and Edina Police, Fire, and Paramedic equipment.) 4C- 2Whether ThreeRivers labels the area as "unsuitable" or not, considerable wildlife currently chooses to live, breed, eat, and sleep within the area chosen for Route 7, particularly using the numerous established trees (many 75 years old), numerous established hedges and dense plantings chosen with wildlife as a primary goal (many more than 30 years old), and compact lower vegetation with dense groundcover on the boulevards averaging 7.5 feet wide between the road and sidewalk and east of the sidewalk. (Personal note: Route 7 would eliminate at least 5 trees aged more than 25 years and my 83 ft hedge of 50+ honeysuckle /lilac /trees that I planted 28 years ago more than 1 '/2 feet within the property line as identified by City Personnel at that time. I developed this hedge specifically for wildlife and privacy. Personally his spring I have viewed a deer, geese, ducks, rabbits, squirrels, chipmunks, an opossum, and 10 varieties of birds actively using this specific hedge.). 4C3 -In addition to the wildlife actively using the habitat that adoption of Route 7 would totally eliminate, numerous additional wildlife that regularly cross the proposed trail would be negatively impacted. I have studied and support the research and conclusions developed by Protect 9 Mile Creek group regarding the habitat that NineMileCreek provides. Although Route 7 is not directly affected by fish, virtually all the other animals cited by Protect9MileCreek and some additional animals that use land would be negatively impacted by adopting Route 7. Numerous wildlife travel both east -west and north/south crossing ValleyViewRd, especially traveling to /from the creek, Bredesen Park, EHS and VVMS ecology areas, Highway 62, parkland, and private property. In the past year, I and my adjacent neighbors have observed hundreds of such animals, including 4 types of waterfowl, deer, mink, opossum, raccoons, and (endangered) Blanding turtles crossing proposed Route 7, sometimes remaining on ValleyViewRd, on the proposed Route itself, or in our yards for significant periods of time. 4C4- ThreeRivers denies negative environmental impact for fish, wildlife, and environmentally sensitive resources through adoption of Route 7; however,. they propose generalized Mitigation Strategies. These Mitigation Strategies do not directly address or adequately mitigate the true environmental conditions, habitat, vegetation, wildlife, etc that would be negatively affected as I presented in the preceding paragraphs. Indeed, the Mitigation Strategies admit significant additional negative environmental impact beyond those centering on wildlife issues I outlined above. (To be developed in C9 -C 19 below). 4C5- ThreeRivers reports: "Mitigation Strategies — Individual trees provide many benefits such as wildlife habitat, shade, rainfall interception, carbon sequestration, and improved air and water quality. The impact to individual trees would be minimized by: Placing the final trail alignment to avoid individual trees to the greatest extent practical. Protect preserved trees located in the immediate vicinity of trail construction with tree protection fencing around the root protection zone. Replacing individual trees that are removed by planting new trees in the immediate vicinity of the tree removal location." 4C6- ThreeRivers does not consider or present any factual, statistical, study /evidence /observation/facts /quantification on the trees currently located on proposed Route 7! Since ThreeRivers is claiming to develop a 16ft wide trail on 11 ft of claimed land available and is further claiming more ROW than Edina allows on ValleyViewRd, it is impossible for me to quantify the number of trees to be affected, or, therefore, to quantify the extent of the negative environmental impact including on the areas of wildlife habitat, shade, rainfall interception, carbon sequestration, and improved air and water quality cited by ThreeRivers EA. Yes, I recognize that considerable negative environmental impact from tree removal will result in these 6 areas as well as in other areas that I will cover later in this letter. 4C7- ThreeRivers EA only tangentially acknowledges negative environmental impact from trees in 6 areas but doesn't even acknowledge the negative environmental impacts from removal of other vegetation, including the considerable loss of current vegetation and groundcover to result from the elimination of the 7 '/� ft planted boulevard along the entire Route 7. 4C8- Again, I request that ThreeRivers (or their agents such as Bonestroo) complete an Environmental Assessment of proposed Route 7 using valid measurements and valid quantifications based on actual trail proposals for this route, and then to provide Mitigation Strategies that address these specific negative environmental impacts. Further, I request that this valid environmental study and mitigation proposals be presented to affected Edina residents and allow us to respond to their veracity BEFORE further inclusion of Route 7 in the Edina portion of NineMileCreekRegionalTrail. 4C9 -As I cited in "C" above, the second area addressed in ThreeRivers' published `Route 7 Assessment Environmental Assessment' is surface water runoff/erosion and sedimentation. "Surface Water Runoff/Erosion and Sedimentation. Inventory & Assessment -The increase in impervious surface along the entire trail system will generate an additional runoff. - Unmitigated runoff has the potential to exacerbate existing erosion issues adjacent to the proposed trail. Unmitigated runoff from the trail also has the potential to adversely affect the water quality of the waterbodies it is tributary to. Therefore the best management practices are recommended to minimize erosion potential. Nine Mile Creek Watershed District (NMCWD) rules further define the requirements for the design of the best management practices." 4C 10 -I agree with the 2 areas presented in the EA on the certainty of additional runoff from trail construction and the negative impact on existing erosion and water quality. However, it must be pointed out that the EA does not present any quantification, facts, or specificities even in these areas and fails to include numerous other likely negative environmental impacts from this increased run -off. 4C I -In the EA's statement that the entire trail will be impervious surface, it does not address or attempt to quantify the additional runoff to be generated 1 -by the loss of. planted ground surface I 6ft-wide along the entire ValleyViewRd, or 2 -to compare the SQ with additional runoff to be generated by the impervious surface, or 3 -the negative impacts of current erosion and water control entities that would be covered/replaced /eliminated by the new trail surface. 4C 12- Further, the EA does not seem to be aware of or to acknowledge the current significant amount of erosion on this Route. Three personal, quantified examples of the extent of erosion in my immediate area: 1 -a section of the boulevard to be replaced is adjacent to part of my hedge near a storm sewer; it has had a sizable sinkhole since the City ran a sumppump connection pipe through the area a few years ago; 2 -last summer a huge section of ValleyLane just.east of the ValleyViewRd intersection collapsed into a large sinkhole, including road, sidewalk, and boulevard; 3 -last fall I paid $15,000 for new erosion control in my backyard and to repair damage from erosion due to the repeated pumping of the swimmingpool from the backyard of 5712 Grace Terrace into my backyard. 4C13 -The EA acknowledges the potential of negative impact of unmitigated runoff on water quality, but, again, the EA does not acknowledge, or quantify the SQ, the probability of increased runoff, or the extent of potential harmful effects on water quality. Further, the EA does not acknowledge or address that Route 7 of ValleyViewRd is located on a hill and that all the runoff goes downhill directly into Nine Mile Creek! 4C14 -The EA does not address the current water control devices, their efficacy, or what effects replacing /removing/moving /covering them would exacerbate or create. Again, I will rely on personal experiences: 1- several times annually nearly every year in the 29 years I have lived here, the storm sewers on ValleyViewRd adjacent to Tracy Avenue are unable to keep up with rainfall/snowmelt, etc, resulting in street flooding, water backup, etc; and 2- within one four -year -period of my residency, we experienced a "100 year storm" and a "500 year storm ", both of which resulted in very serious, longer term problems including road closures for more than 3 days, sewer backups into our houses, significant property damage, etc. 4C 15 -The Mitigation Strategies presented in the EA do not address current or potential negative environmental effects. First, none are specified! Then, the EA presents a blanket assurance that "best management practices" are recommended and lists several of these without showing how any of them applies to the SQ or top proposed Route 7! 4C16 -The EA does not present information or mitigation strategies for current sedimentation or potential for future negative effects resulting from adoption of Route 7. I do not have professional or personal experience with sedimentation and, therefore, cannot do the EA's job for them in this area. However, I ask that sedimentation, its current status, potential future problems of sedimentation resulting from adoption of Route 7, and specific mitigation strategies to deal with these be addressed in my requested Environmental Assessment of proposed Route 7. Further, I request that this valid environmental study and mitigation proposals be presented to affected Edina residents and allow us to respond to their veracity BEFORE further inclusion of Route 7 in the Edina portion of NineMileCreekRegionalTrail. 4C17 -In addition to incomplete, misleading, and/or irrelevant statements on the two areas that it mentions (1 -Fish, Wildlife, and Environmentally Sensitive Resources and 2- Surface Water Runoff/Erosion and Sedimentation), the EA finds Wetlands and its Mitigation Strategies to be NA. 4C 18 -In addition to incomplete and misleading information and mitigation strategies on 1- fish,wildlife, and environmentally sensitive resources and 2- surface water runoff/erosion and sedimentation, the EA completely ignores several areas that its CAT Analysis publication promised to evaluate. Several of these are pertinent to Route 7, including some that potentially create significant negative environmental impacts. CATAnalysis areas that the EA ignored that may be relevant to Route 7 include: 1 -land_ use, 2 -land cover types, 3- ecologically sensitive resources, 4- geologic hazards, 5 -soil conditions, 6- traffic, 7 -air emissions, 8- odors, 9- noise, 10 -dust, 11- nearby resources, 12- visual impacts, 13 -land use regulation, 14- infrastructure, 15- public services, 16- cumulative potential effects, and 17 -other potential environmental impacts. PLEASE: these areas must have a valid environmental assessment, be reported and accessible to concerned parties, receive feedback, and responded to BEFORE continuing with Route 7. 4C 19 - -NONE of the areas most crucial and most likely to produce negative environmental and other negative impacts resulting from a road -based trail are even touched upon in the EA of Route 7. Traffic, air emissions, odors, noise, dust, visual impacts, infrastructures, and public services will all have significant negative impacts both during construction and after completion of the proposed Route 7. 5- Another area of urgent and compelling reasons for my opposition to Route 7 is lack of safety. 5A -The entirety of Route 7 is on a portion of Valley View Road that already is dangerous to both users and residents due to 1 -heavy usage as a major thoroughfare (nearly 10,000 vehicles daily via City of Edina's 2009 official Volume and Speed Count but please note that counts are done only every 2 -4 years since 1975, almost entirely in summer months, and do not accurately reflect average daily traffic during the far busier months when schools are in session let alone peak usage!); 2- traffic congestion especially related to the four daily start-end times of VVMS ValleyView Middle School) and EHS Edina High School) five days weekly for 9'/2 months each year (City's 2009 Volume and Speed Count shows consistently high volume beginning at 6:00am through past 9:00pm) ; 3- traffic congestion to /from numerous day /evening/weekend activities at EHS, VVMS, EPAC (Edina Performing Arts Center), and athletic /community events at facilities in or adjacent to EHS, VVMS, and EPAC nearly 365 days per year; 4- primary usage by Edina School buses transporting students to /from VVMS and EHS as well as picking up /dropping off/transporting neighborhood students to other Edina schools (most probably in excess of 60 buses daily just for EHS /VVMS am/pm start/end times); 5 -usage by the MTC for Route 578 including 6 bus stops within Route 7 on the "park lane /shoulder" on the east side of Valley View Road that provide important transportation for neighborhood residents and school personnel linking commuters directly with downtown Minneapolis and to MTC's Southdale Hub; 6 -heavy pedestrian usage of the sidewalk as the primary commuter route for students /staff/resident visitors to EHS, VVMS EPAC, and playing and practice fields; 7- heavy pedestrian usage of the existing sidewalk as a popular route for joggers, dog - walkers, exercise walkers, and pushers /companions of carriages for young children; 8- necessity, reliance, and primary usage by Edina Emergency Vehicles and Staff, especially fire equipment/personnel and paramedics equipment/personnel housed at the Fire Station located at 6250 Tracy Avenue serving area neighbors /residents as well as the 3000+ students, 300 +staff, and additional visitors at EHS and VVMS; (I personally owe my life to these Paramedics who were able to quickly reach me at my residence, provided advanced life support, and transported me to Fairview Southdale Hospital less than 3 years ago); 9- necessity, reliance, and primary usage by Edina City Public Works employees, including workers serving the streets and public utilities areas, especially maintenance, installation, and repairs to water mains, storm sewers, sanitary sewers, and streets, including snow plowing and removal on this busy major thoroughfare; 10- necessity, reliance, and significant usage by workers from public and private utility companies servicing the other utilities housed under /adjacent ValleyView Road including gas, electric, cable; 11 -primary usage by a growing number of service vehicles for neighborhood residents such as garbage removal, home /yard maintenance, and deliveries; 12- intersections on the east side of ValleyViewRd with 5 -6 major roads of high vehicle traffic including necessity for southbound ValleyViewRd traffic to make left turns onto these 6 streets across the proposed trail and westbound traffic from these 6 streets to make left turns and cross the bike trail; and 13- consistent vehicular violations including speeding, stopsigns, inattentive driving, lane usage, proper distance, failure to yield right -of -way. (These are traffic violations which I have personally observed, recorded, and reported to Edina Police. Statistically, the maximum posted speed within all of Route 7 is 30 mph; one of the most recent City Volume and Speed Count reports an average speed of 39.3mph with 15% in excess of 40mph! I am not criticizing the Edina Police; they are unable to dedicate more manpower, equipment, and time to his area.) 5B -In addition to the current dangers and imperiled safety along Route 7 which I outlined in the preceding paragraph, the proposed bike trail will significantly increase dangers to trail users, residents, and traffic. 5B1 -The existing sidewalk and boulevards will be eliminated and replaced with a IOft trail with 3 foot borders on each side (according to John Keprios and other Edina City personnel). The proposed trail will be extremely dangerous to users, residents, and traffic alike. The trail is to be shared by northbound bikers, southbound bikers, and pedestrians, separated by paint stripes. In addition to the dangers especially to pedestrians on a shared trail, dangers to trail users include highspeed downhill northbound bikers, narrowness of trail without sufficient enforcement on single -lane use, trail adjoining congested, speeding traffic on ValleyView road, intersections with 5 -6 busy streets with numerous stopsign violators, and crossing driveways on ValleyViewRd. One of those affected driveways is mine; I will be virtually imprisoned without being able to access my house and will be required to cross three lanes of pedestrians and bikers before entering a busy street which now will have the shoulder also eliminated! In addressing placement of crosswalks, Edina City acknowledges "the potential for accidents and injury" and reports that "in Minnesota, the rights of pedestrians are not as respected by motorists." 5B2- Portions of the proposed Trail 7 cross intersections that already experience significant vehicular accidents. Edina City records are extremely inaccurate here. Personal verification: city records claim 1 accident at the intersection of Tracy and ValleyViewRd in the past 4 years; I have personally witnessed at least 12 accidents in this time period despite not being present for more than 2/3 time due to work, etc. One day last winter there were 5 accidents in a 2 -hour period at the intersection including 2 that ended up past my property line in my front yard, damaging structures, 30 -year -old trees, mailbox, etc. 5B3 -The east shoulder will have to be eliminated to allow for trail construction. This shoulder is currently used heavily by MTC buses (including 6 stops), Edina schoolbuses, and emergency /law vehicles. ValleyViewRd is already highly congested, with stop -and- go traffic several hours per day. Elimination of the shoulder will not allow emergency vehicles to by -pass, which further endangers trail users, area residents, and the 3300+ students /staff at VVMS and EHS. 6- Several components of the CAT Design Recommendations for Route 7 are incomplete, non - specific, misleading, and false. Further, it should be noted that no resident directly affected by Route 7 was included on the CAT; Dave Henry is listed as representative for sections 5E and section 7 whereas section 5 has 2 additional representatives! 6A- CAT Design Recommendations for Route 7 "Route 7 recommendations include improving the Antrim Road and Valley View Road intersection to allow safe pedestrianibicycle movement to Edina middle and high schools from the regional trail. In addition it is recommended to design the trail in a manner to reduce vehicular speeds and increase safety in the neighborhood. The east side of Valley View Road appears to be more feasible as it already has a sidewalk and as a result, the residents and community are familiar with pedestrians and bikes on the east side of the street. The west side of Valley View Road was eliminated from further study due to limited available road shoulder and steep roadside embankments." 6A1- "Route 7 recommendations include improving the Antrim Road and Valley View Road intersection to allow safe pedestrian/bicycle movement to Edina middle and high schools from the regional trail." First, although 1 of the 3 rationales for Edina to be part of ThreeRiversBikeTrail was to provide access to EHS and VVMS, according to John Keprios and other City officials, "the schools don't want it"... the schools have other plans for their property ... the city doesn't have the same ROW's on school property as on property adjacent to private homeowners." Indeed, Route 7 magically appeared as a proposed part of the Edina trail, section 6 alternatives near the schools were eliminated, and other viable alternatives were not studied/added including along MNDOT Hwy 62 /Schools /Public ROW, connections along Gleason Rd, intersections with the 2.4 miles Braemar Golf Course Perimeter Walk, along Highway 169 /Braemar Arena, etc. Further, the Antrim- ValleyViewRd intersection is limited to 66 ft ROW. Third, additional negative snowballing will impact throughout Route 7 from any traffic /safety controls applied at this end - point. 6A2 - "In addition it is recommended to design the trail in a manner to reduce vehicular speeds and increase safety in the neighborhood." My responses: a- state regulations prohibit speed limits lower than 30mph; b -Edina police are unable to control current speeding (recall the previously documented 39.3 mph average at 85% of traffic and 15% above 40mph); c- additional trail user traffic will exacerbate the traffic control problems; d- ThreeRivers will not provide significant, sufficient additional patrols /enforcement; e -CAT does include any possible remedies, 6- Edina's "Suggested Traffic Calming Measures" for dealing with "speeding, pedestrian/bicycle safety, traffic volumes, and accidents" rely on seasonal speed bumps, signage, and semi - fours. None of these will provide significant relief, especially since ValleyViewRd is a major thoroughfare including winter months. 6A3- "The east side of Valley View Road appears to be more feasible as it already has a sidewalk and as a result, the residents and community are familiar with pedestrians and bikes on the east side of the street." This assertion is FALSE. My responses: a -the existing sidewalk is used predominately by pedestrians whereas Route 7 proposes to eliminate it and replace it with a trail shared by two lanes of bikers with a narrower lane than the current sidewalk for pedestrians; b -the second portion (assertion) is totally false since Minnesota law requires bikers to ride with the traffic -flow; therefore east side residents and community are more familiar with northbound bikers and traffic, whereas west side residents and community should be equally familiar with southbound bikers and traffic. Indeed, all of the most recent Edina City Volume and Speed Control Reports Daily Vehicle Classifications show 50% higher numbers of southbound (west side) bikers than northbound (east side) bikers. Since the major rationale for placing Route 7 on the east side of ValleyViewRd relies on a false assertion, the proposed adoption of east side Route 7 must be eliminated. 6A4 - "the west side of Valley View Road was eliminated from further study due to limited available road shoulder and steep roadside embankments." Again, this conclusion is based on false information: a- ValleyViewRd was re- striped in the past few months to be centered at 21 '/z ft from both east and west sides of road (previously for more than 29 years as verified by myself and 7 long -term residents, the stripes were closer to the east side of the road with a much larger parklane /shoulder on west side of road); b- whether using ThreeRivers or Edina city figures on ValleyView Rd ROW, the proposed trail's 16 ft would require elimination of the east side shoulder and elimination/replacement of the east side sidewalk and boulevard up to east side property lines; c -this will result in one very narrow lane of northbound traffic on the east side of ValleyViewRd; d- therefore, the current 21 '/z ft located on the west side of ValleyViewRd's centerstripe cannot accommodate one lane of all southbound traffic, left -turn lane for southbound traffic at 6 intersections, right -turn lane for all southbound traffic at 1 -2 intersections, as well as emergency vehicle /MTC bus /schoolbus /parking /emergency stopping; e- therefore, if Route 7 is installed on the east side of ValleyViewRd, the street must be widened along the west side within the same approximate 33ft ROW that exists on the east side. These facts contradict the CAT conclusion of both "limited road shoulder" and the necessity to work within the steeper embankment of the west side of ValleyViewRd. For numerous reasons including safety and traffic flow, the ROW along ValleyViewRd's west side will have to be developed into this embankment even if the trail itself were located on the east side of the street. 7 -The information reported in Route 7 Assessment Social Assessment is also flawed, misleading, incomplete, and false. 7A- Route 7 Assessment social Assessment Adjacent Residential Yards reports "varying levels of privacy and access which may be altered by the trail" as 2 residential front yards, 7 residential side yards, and 9 residential back yard. Factual numbers are 5 front yards, 9 sideyards, and 7 back yards. Please note that several properties are negatively impacted on more than one portion of yards. 7B -- Route 7 Assessment Social Assessment Proximity of Adjacent Homes acknowledges that "homes closer to the proposed trail have greater opportunity for potential trail related impacts (visual, noise, privacy" but inaccurately reports average distance from house to trail as 60', average distance from house to property line as 30', and number of houses <25 ft as 2. Even using the most generous of the sundry ROW figures used by Edina City and ThreeRivers, I find the Assessment figures to be grossly false with factual average distance house to trail as significantly closer than 60' (perhaps 30'), average distance house to property line much shorter than 30 ft (estimating 20 ft), and at least 7 houses that would be closer than 25 ft to a trail located 11 ft from the east side of the ValleyViewRd curb. In fact, the entire front of the house, entire front yard, and most of the driveway of John Howells' property located at 6725 ValleyViewRd would be within single -digit ft of the trail and my property located at 5709 west 66'' Street would be nearly as negatively impacted. 7C -The Assessment and ThreeRivers reports do not address or include compensation for the reduced property evaluations that would. result. 713-The Assessment and ThreeRivers do not offer sufficient mitigation remedies for the negative impacts that would result. 7E -The Assessment and Three Rivers do not address the negative impacts during construction or future negative impacts upon proposed trail completion including noise, traffic, air emissions, odors, dust, infrastructure replacements, public service replacements, and additional funding requirements. 8 -The Route 7 Assessment Technical Assessment is also inaccurate, incomplete, misleading, and false. 8A- Route 7 Assessment Technical Assessment Space Requirements concludes "Proposed street redesign: Reduce shoulder width and/or remove park lane along ValleyView Road." 8A 1 -As documented earlier, Route 7 would require the entire shoulder /park lane along the east side of ValleyViewRd to be eliminated by this plan and the shoulder /park lane along the west side needing to be widened significantly through the west ROW. As documented above, ValleyViewRd is already highly congested and a site of numerous accidents and traffic violations. 8A2 -The loss of parking spots is not addressed anywhere by ThreeRivers. These spots are crucial to residents and visitors at EHS and VVMS. 8B- Route 7 Assessment Technical Assessment Road Crossings acknowledges that "each road crossing will result in encounters between trail users and motorists. Each encounter creates an opportunity for an incident." 8B 1- However, the Assessment Technical Assessment Road Crossings reports 5 road crossings, whereas there are 6 on the east side of ValleyViewRd and additional crossings along the west side whose traffic may likely need to cross the trail as well. 8B2 -The Assessment Technical Assessment Road Crossings reports 5 roads with speed limit of 30 mph or less. It ignores the facts that the average actual speed of traffic on these 5 (or actually 6 +) intersecting roads and on ValleyView Rd itself far exceed the posted speed limit. 8B3 -The Assessment Technical Assessment Road Crossings does not address the high number of additional violations at these intersections with ValleyViewRd including failure to heed stop signs, failure to yield to pedestrians, etc, that will greatly endanger trail users. 8B4 -The Assessment Technical Assessment Road Crossings reports average annual daily traffic of 5 roads at <5,000 vehicles daily. As documented earlier, figures used by the City and ThreeRivers rely on traffic counts taken during a 4 days period only once every four years and rarely if ever are during the more typical, higher -usage school months. I challenge ThreeRivers to provide studies done more frequently and more recently, during the 9 -10 months of school usage. 8B5- The Assessment Technical Assessment Road Crossings lists the functional class of 5 intersecting roads as "local road." This is also misleading if not false, since several regulations and classifications including our city evaluations and ROW reflect property fronting on high usage roads. 8C- Route 7 Assessment Technical Assessment Driveway Crossings accurately reports that "Each driveway crossing will result in encounters between trail users and motorists. Each encounter creates an opportunity for an `incident "' and finds that 4 single family driveways will be crossed by the trail. 8C1- However, the Assessment Technical Assessment Driveway Crossings fails to address how severely and negatively the affected driveways will be impacted, including bringing the trail to within feet of residences, obliterating significant portions of driveways, endangering both residents and trail users during entrance /egress, destroying privacy, significantly decreasing ability to use these driveway by residents /their guests /those servicing the properties, increasing the above referenced negative environmental issues, and compromising property values and usage. 8C2- The Assessment Technical Assessment Driveway Crossings fails to recognize that several of these driveways both cross the proposed trail and are adjacent to one of the intersecting roads, thereby compounding the above negative impacts and dangers to trail users and residents. 8C3- The Assessment Technical Assessment Driveway Crossings fails to recognize that several of these driveways both cross the proposed trail and are adjacent to a current stop of the MTC bus or Edina Schoolbuses on the shoulder, which will be eliminated by Route 7. This will greatly increase danger to trail users, driveway users, and bus passengers. 9 -I also wish to address ThreeRivers' total failure to consider negative impact and actual encroachment on private property both during construction and throughout future usage of the proposed trail. 9A1 -Even using the most conservative of ThreeRivers figures, the proposed trail would have to extend to the actual property line of each of the 12 properties along ValleyViewRd. This does not allow for construction equipment or personnel, which, therefore would be within the personal properties during construction as well as upon completion to service the infrastructure /utilities /etc that currently exist on the shoulder, sidewalk, and boulevards to be eliminated and replaced by the impervious surface of the trail. 9A2 -No consideration is included to deal with the costs or logistics of moving /replacing/altering /servicing these numerous, crucial infrastructures and utilities including the above cited storm sewers, water mains, sewers, gas lines, etc. 9A3 -Three Rivers does not consider the costs, logistics, or negative impacts on.several other aspects on residents' private property necessitated by constructing the trail up to the property lines both during and after construction including 1- privacy; 2- replacement of thousands of feet of expensive existing fence and above - referenced trees, hedges, landscaping; 3 -noise pollution; 4- odors; 5- access to private property; 6- visual impacts; 7- erosion; 8- sedimentation; 9 -soil conditions; 10 -air emissions; 11- pollutants; and 12- safety/security. 10 -This letter is a serious effort to address numerous omissions, errors, deficiencies, and inaccuracies used and reported by ThreeRivers which result in the proposed Route 7 of NineMileCreekRegionalTrail. Therefore, I am vehemently and rationally opposed to adoption of Route 7 of Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail on the east side of Valley View Rd from Tracy Ave to Antrim Rd. 11 -I request that ThreeRivers (or their agents such as Bonestroo) complete an Environmental Assessment of proposed Route 7 using valid measurements and valid quantifications based on actual trail proposals for this route, and then to provide Mitigation Strategies that address these specific negative environmental impacts. Further, I request that these valid environmental study and mitigation proposals be presented to affected Edina residents and allow us to respond to their veracity BEFORE further inclusion of Route 7 in the Edina portion of NineMileCreekRegionalTrail. Respectfully submitted, Diane A. Fansler di anefansl er(awahoo. com 5709 West 66' Street Edina, MN 55439 RECEIVED July 13, 2010 JUL 14 1010 Kelly Grissman Senior Manager of Planning Three Rivers Park District 3000 Xenium Lane North Plymouth, MN 55441 Re: Comments concerning Route 7 on the Draft EAW for the Proposed Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail —Edina Segment Dear Ms. Grissman: As homeowners on the proposed Route 7 section of the Proposed Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail —Edina Segment, we have several concerns. SAFETY 1) Heavy traffic on Tracy/Valley View. This is an MTC bus route with 6 stops on Route 7 which puts it in conflict with the proposed trail. It is a major artery for Valley View Middle School, Edina Performing Arts Center, Edina High School busses and high school students driving to and from school. In addition, it is the route followed by busses from visiting schools for sporting and other events. 2) This is a major route for emergency vehicles as it is in close proximity (same road) as Edina Fire Station #1 and experiences heavy use by fire trucks, ambulances and police cars. 3) The route would crossover multiple driveways creating safety concerns for users of the trail and homeowners. This is especially troubling when school is in session. 4) Parking would be an issue along this trail for trail users and home owners. 5) Vandalism and crime are also a concern. LARGE LOSS OF HOME MARKET VALUES With the trail on the east side of Tracy/Valley View it would affect 12 homes, some of which are already in close proximity to the street. The trail would come within 10 feet of one front door and very close to other front doors. Two properties have in ground swimming pools which would come in conflict with the trail as well as numerous privacy fences and many mature trees that would have to be removed. The proposal says there will be no economic obsolescence caused by the trail, but our real estate appraiser highly disagrees with this because of the trail's close proximity to the homes on this proposed route 7. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 1) Homes on route 7 are close to the creek and we have wildlife, including Blanding's turtles, come on our property. (Pictures to verify turtles on property upon request.) 2) In addition to wildlife, noise and air pollution are additional environmental concerns. Respectfully submitted, William and Rosalyn Korst 5624 Hillside Court Edina, Minnesota 55439 phone: (952) 944 -8068 Susan Howl Subject: FW: Routing of 9 Mile Creek community trail through Edina RECEIVED JUL 1 2010 Subject: Routing of 9 Mile Creek community trail through Edina Edina City Officers and Three Rivers Park District Officers, As a resident of Edina, I am dismayed at the negative .FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) being spread by the home owners living along the proposed nature trail in Edina. These folks represent a tiny percentage of the population of Edina yet their collective voices could force us to walk, ride and rollerblade along city streets while the 9 mile creek area continues to meander through their property. Are they using the property along the creek? Is it being actively cared for by them? Likely not. Likely it is full of brackish water and surrounded by overgrown vegetation. Edina is a beautiful city and the city leaders have recognized this beauty. It is celebrated and shared openly in our many parks and open areas. What a great place Edina is to live and work in! Please continue the wonderful tradition of "keeping Edina beautiful" by opening up 9 mile creek for enjoyment by everyone! Thank you for your time and consideration. Carl Follstad 5709 Bernard Place Edina 952 848 1744 cfollstad(@Rmail.com Susan Howl From: LMARY691 @aol.com [mailto:LMARY691 @aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 10:21 PM To: Lynette Biunno; ninemilecreektrail @threeriversparkdistrict.org RECEIVED Subject: Nine Mile Creek Trail JUL 12 2010 July 13, 2009 Three Rivers Park District Edina City Council Edina Park Board I attended the Multi- Purpose Bike Trail presentation by Three Rivers recently. My displeasure is great. I did not hear one person indicate they wanted the trail on Nine Mile Creek. After the slide show, the crowd stood and applauded in unison when someone said we should let our city leaders know how much we oppose this. Please do not put the trail on Nine Mile Creek. The reasons are apparent: too costly, crime, safety, trash, harmful to the environment, plant life and wildlife. Now we learn Three Rivers is suggesting a raised boardwalk through the floodplain. How foolish to spend our money in the current economic situation when there is an alternate route on the streets that would be way, way cheaper and could connect the trail with our neighbors. Richfield put most of the trail on their streets. Doing the right thing is not always easy. Once the environment is damaged there is no going back. I want Three Rivers Park, the Edina Park Board and Edina City Council to keep the trail off the creek. I am counting on all of you to represent me and vote no to the trail along Nine Mile Creek. Respectfully submitted, Mary J. Landberg 5408 Creek View Lane Edina MN 55439 Susan Howl Subject: FW: Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail From: Richard Dalquist [mailto :rich @planesolutionsllc.com] RECEIVED Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 3:33 PM To: Lynette Biunno JUL 14 ZO1Q Subject: Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail Dear Mayor and city council members: I am an Edina native and also an avid biker. I ride all around the metro area and favor the Three Rivers trail system since it has become quite comprehensive. However, Edina is lagging far behind other West suburban communities (Eden Prairie, Minnetonka) in developing good quality and safe biking trails. The proposed Nine Mile Creek trail segment is an important connector which will enhance not only rider safety but add to the benefits of living in the great city of Edina. If I was lucky enough to have the trail run past my property I would-be very pleased. Rich Dalquist 5220 Richwood Drive Edina, MN 55436 Susan Howl RECEIVED JUL 14 1010 Dear Edina City Counci.: I am writing you to share my disapproval of the plans put forward for the changes to 9 Mile Creek and the proposed bike path. I STRONGLY urge you not to rush forward but to reexamine the numerous issues raised on the current proposa. PLEASE hold additional forums with the citizens of Edina NOT just to voice your plans but to hear our voices and answer the many questions this project has raised. We need a true dialogue with exchange of ideas and accurate and updated information and ideas on both sides of the issue. I am SHOCKED that in this economy that such a huge expense is even considered especially when no actual funds are in hand to pay for the project. It is unbelievable to think that more bonds will be sought when Three Rivers Park already has $85,000,000 in debt outstanding. How do you justify this action of seeking additional debt that will drive the total owed for the taxpayer to well over $100,000,000? $20 million is the low estimate with financing costs that could reach 11 million along with potential cost overruns. This would put the 9 Mile Creek bike trail at a cost near $950 + /foot of trail. Aside from the cost, it is UNTHINKABLE that beautiful rows of mature trees will be sacrificed for yards of tarred paths and running the path through prime acres of park land and high valued wetlands is disturbing and sickens me. The destruction of these valued lands and placing a bike trail several feet in height and width with it fenced in is not only unsightly but displaces the wildlife that make this their habitat. Where will these birds, deer, mice and other rodents, along with some species living there considered "endangered" go? The Minneapolis Star just this past week printed and article "Lyme- Carrying Ticks Go Urban ". With the mice and small animals who are the ticks' chief source of blood food in these areas. you will now be sending out bikers and hikers into this area which puts them at additional risk for what for many has become not only a devastating disease that requires drug therapy if NOT recognized and treated in a timely manner. The council has said a survey indicated that Edina residents wanted more biking /hiking trails. Their second desire was keeping /enhancing nature and natural habitats. The question was NEVER addressed if they wanted these paths at the expense of destroying natural habitats and resident areas. This needs to be looked at closely. For my Parkwood Knolls neighborhood, making Walnut RIdge Park a trail head will have a NEGATIVE impact in the neighborhood. With increase in the traffic on the streets, lack of parking which is already occurring with hockey and lacrosses games and safety issues for the young and elderly, this is NOT viewed at all as a favorable choice. We already have sign at Lincoln Drive and Dovre Drive that says "local traffic only" as workers at United Health and Opus cut through the neighborhood at speeds above posted to.avoid the freeways and already cause safety issues for us. Please read the CAT -EAW assessment comments carefully. As stated, these comments MUST be entered into the official record and addressed ACCURATELY. This project needs to go back to the drawing board and reassessed. Additional data needs to be collected on REAL cost, REAL irrepairable damage, REAL effects on the neighborhood and REAL damage to our environment and properties and REAL desires of residents when they learn about these answers. You cannot in good conscience go forward with this project. I urge you to not rush into a project with no current monies available to cover the cost and one that can destroy areas that cannot be undone. Sincerely, l._,UrrL.Q. Larson G& %q kcnc6r6erty Dt-. RECEIVED July 13, 2010 JUL Dear Mayor Hovland and elected officials: This letter registers our concerns on the proposed route for the.Nine Mile Creek Biking Trail as it pertains to section 5. We are 35 yr residents at our, current address. We are very familiar with the parks, the, city'.s and school's playing�.fields, the school, the marsh and wetlands, and the traffic flow and parking challenges.' As; retired residents, we are also very aware of expenses and; taxes. We are against running the biking trail as it is described on your website "as section 5 for the following reasons: • The.wetlands consistently -'flood, not only in the spring but also following heavy rains throughout the summer. Compensating for this by building elevated bike' paths over wetlands is not a wise use of tax dollars. Maintenance of boardwalks adds further to the expense. • The soccer fields below Creek Valley School are used extensively during the spring, summer, and fall; generating considerable traffic and parking. Adding bikes, cars, and pedestrians to this mix of children and adults seems to be inviting hazardous and risky encounters. Routing the bike path near or by the fields imposes a danger that is not needed. • The proximity of Creek Valley Grade School to the proposed path injects another element of concern. Children are a vulnerable population. Within the building, security is a high priority. The playground, after school and summer activity programs, and adjacent hill and playing spaces encourage younger children to gather. Bringing a bike path close to the area where children gather and where supervision varies by age, does not seem prudent. • While some citizens.enjoy traversing.pristine wilderness areas and justify their development because of this enjoyment; other citizens think that there is higher intrinsic value in allowing a wilderness area to remain just that with very limited access and use. We align with those who value having areas within our community,that remain in a natural state rather than developed to.biing large numbers of bikers and walkers through it. In conclusion, we urge you to adopt a plan for the bike trail that maximizes existing roadways, protects wetlands, avoids high traffic areas around parks and fields, and conserves financial resources so that taxes are.not increased. For these reasons; we object to the more expensive route 5. Sincerely, Joanna Swanson Jack Swanson 6424 Nordic Circle, Edina RECEIVED JUL 14 1010• Dear Mayor Hovland, and members of the Edina City Council, I am writing this letter in opposition to proposed route 5F of the Three Rivers Park District (hereafter, "the District ") recreational bike route project. The city cannot not consider proposed route 5F as an option. Its introduction and consideration is an exercise in subterfuge, and casts doubt onto the legitimacy of the District's route proposal process. By way of background, the last time I sent you and the council a letter, I protested the summary dismissal of senior members of the Human Rights and Relations Commission, as the then Chair of the commission. In defense of the councils' approach, the word "transparency" was used by a current councilmember both during the council meeting, as well as with me, on the phone, while we discussed my grievance. Transparency is exactly what's missing on the surreptitious inclusion of 5F for consideration. Without a neighborhood representative present, and in the absence of anyone able to countervail an off - handed remark by an attendee, 5F became an option that the city is actually considering. Where is the transparency in that? The council was concerned about transparency for commission appointments. This project is permanent, and unlike a commission appointment, it has real consequences to your constituents. Don't give consideration to an ill- proposed, ill- conceived and poorly thought out "option ". 5F creates obvious safety and privacy problems. On January of 2009, Jonathan Vlaming, senior manager of planning for the District, said that, "crossing Tracy Avenue at grade would be dangerous and unacceptable."' Mr.. Vlaming's comment is obviated to anyone who has attempted to cross Tracy Avenue at Nine Mile Creek on any weekday afternoon and after services at Saint Patrick's church. If the District acknowledges the danger of implementing a crossing at grade ' Mary Jane Smetanka and Laurie Blake, Nine Mile Creek pedestrian /bike trail takes shape in Edina, Star Tribune, January 31St, 2009. level, picture what would happen if the trail crossed two highway entrance ramps, carrying the same traffic that rightfully concerns Mr. Vlaming. The council is on notice of the danger that 5F presents. 5F would also place the bike route at the perfect vantage point for ANYONE to peer into my 70 year old mother -in -law's bedroom and living areas, from a second story perspective. Please take the time to imagine YOUR privacy compromised like that. Visualize a suspect lurking about your yard, equipped with a quiet get away route. Please take the time to examine the number of cases of indecent exposure and harassment that involve the Minneapolis bike trails. Consider what you will do to us when you choose to negatively impact private land for the sake of a bike trail that the city does not need. The city's contemplation to go forward with the long - considered bike trails is in part, fueled by the 2006 survey voicing some residents' desire to increase the number of trails within Edina. Query whether the survey followed up with some pertinent questions such as, "Would you like to have a trail adjacent to your back yard ?" Along with, "If so, how would you like to give up your privacy and your quiet enjoyment of your property, along with some of your family's safety in exchange ?" Or, "Would you like to have Nine Mile Creek "re- meandered" and altered in order to have your trail ?" And of course, "Are you willing to tie up city tax revenue for the maintenance of those and other District trails for the indefinite future ?" Maybe the answers to those questions would better articulate what you, the District, and the city council consider to be a "politically palatable conclusion "z. Sincerely, Luis Bartolomei, Esq. 2 Ibid. RECEIVED Susan Howl JUL 14 1010 From: Blanchett, Neal [mailto:nblanchett@carlson.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 3:09 PM To: Lynette Biunno Subject: Nine Mile Creek Trail, EAW and Plans Dear City Staff and Decision- makers: I am writing to comment on the recent EAW and express my support for the proposed trail along Nine Mile Creek. I live with my family in the Cornelia /Lake Edina area, and I am an attorney practicing land use and real estate law. I have helped to draft and served as counsel for many EAWs, and I have also reviewed numerous EAWs to oppose and find flaws with them. I have reviewed the EAW for the Nine -Mile Creek Trail and I believe it provides an adequate and thorough review of the potential environmental impacts. The standard for the government entities charged with approving the EAW is whether or not it provides sufficient information to conclude the project either does or does not have the potential to create significant environmental impact. I believe that the EAW does provide enough information to decide this question. Based on my review and knowledge of the area, the EAWs study of impacts shows that the trail will not create significant environmental impact. It's appropriate to consider the overall impact in proportion to the impacts already created in the area. The majority of the impacted area through Edina is fully - developed, suburbanized homesites. Many of these were mass - graded when developed, a fair number were graded to walk -outs which increase drainage to the creek, and each of them typically includes 2000 to 5000 or more square feet of impervious surface, depending on the size of the home and length of the driveway. Even a small home with a 1,000- square -foot footprint and 1,000 square feet of driveway has twice as much impervious surface as 100 feet of 10 -foot wide trail. And that calculation does not include the paved street serving that home. Again, assuming 100 -foot lot width and 25 -foot pavement width, each home on the creek brings with it 2,500 feet of pavement, or pavement equivalent to 250 feet of trail. I will only go into detail on this impervious surface issue, but as you review the EAW you can see that this rough calculation applies to other areas of impact as well. As the EAW notes, Nine Mile Creek has been compromised from its pristine state. However, the vast majority of that compromise occurred with the development of the area, and the rooftops, driveways, pavement, grading and landscaping that went into the homes and yards area residents currently enjoy. The incremental impact of the trail is insignificant in comparison. Regarding the alternative trail routes, the creek route is vastly better. The creek route provides separation from,car traffic, so it is safer for kids, which is a major concern in a trail connecting to the Valley View, Creek Valley, and Edina High School campuses. The creek route also allows trail users to enjoy the plants and wildlife along the creek. Currently the creek is mostly a hidden treasure; the trail will allow more people to see it, enjoy it, and to protect it. Every trail user is a potential protector of the creek. In addition the trail will be a tremendous amenity for those who live along it, who will be able to walk out their door and walk, run, hike, bike, rollerblade and ski for miles in a natural setting safe from dangerous traffic. Trail opponents cite privacy as one of their concerns, but more people prefer trails to privacy, as is shown by several studies that show a boost in market value for adjacent homes and neighborhoods after trail construction. The trail will also be a huge amenity for Edina, especially kids and parents. Edina is currently car - centric, as are most suburbs developed in the 1950s and later. Traffic, parking and rush hour is a huge hassle, especially for late- afternoon and early evening activities. The trail would allow many more kids and parents to park their cars and bike or walk to these activities. The eastern half, where I live, will allow us an easy bike ride to France and York Avenues for errands, shopping, and restaurants. All these benefits provide more opportunity for fresh air, exercise, utility, and fun, and a break from driving (or sitting) in traffic or staring at a screen. I would urge your approval of the EAW, a finding of no potential for significant environmental impact, and support for the creek trail routing. Neal Blanchett 4737 Hibiscus Avenue Edina, MN 55435 1 Susan Howl RECEIVED July 12, 2010 'JUL 14 2010 To: Mayor Hovland and Members of the Edina City Council As you know (a few) members from our complex and community were in attendance at your council meeting on July 6, 2010 Our spoke person, Mr. Thomas Moses, voiced our concerns regarding the proposed bicycle path along Lincoln Drive and on Vernon Ave. It is very important that we raise our concern regarding this critical issue. We have many seniors living in our complex (Manor Homes of Edina), at Edina West and in several private homes and apartments along the proposed route #3. Walking along Lincoln Dr is a form of exercise for many of them summer and winter. The Metro Bus 146B also runs along Lincoln Dr twice in the morning taking commuters downtown and returns early evening servicing the people for transportation to work. Our property is adjacent to United Health Group to the north and we encounter heavy traffic- from the north and south from their employees. We also contend with traffic from the little strip of businesses along Lincoln Drive. We enjoy walking on our sidewalk with our pets, as do many others. My concern is the safety of this bike path. Bicyclists have been riding either one or two abreast They go very fast [would say 30 to 35 mph. Privacy is also a great issue for the front of our complex. Cutting into our property line or widening the street for a bike path would be inconceivable. Drivers, joggers, usually have (- pods in their ears, and I can safely say that car drivers at least 8 out of ten are talking on cell phones. The cost is another issue, #1 value of our property and homes have already decreased due to the economy and current real estate market. We at Edina Manor Homes are trying to enhance our landscape and encourage buyers into our community; and #2 the cost of borrowing to build the path plus the cost to Edina taxpayers for maintaining it in the winter — Thank you for giving our request serious consideration. z7u- ic.e., �iA and fn -er RECEIVED HEN 0 'JUL 14 2010 OM: NARJA 1@ ELKENMALOOLY 6967 LANEWORD CT EDINA, MN 55436 DATE: JULY 12, 2010 TO: MAYOR HOVLAND AND MEMBERS OF THE EDINA C T,' COUNCIL RE: PROPOSED NINE MILS CREEK TRAIL As a former cyclist and cross country skier (and now a walker), the mother of two avid cyclists, and a 25 year resident of the city of Edina, I have to raise my voice in opposition to the proposed Route 3 (along Lincoln Dr and Vernon Ave). I do it out of concern for the safety of multiple walkers, cyclists and many, many drivers. Human Safety - -- Considering the fact that there are many bike paths and parks in this area I can't fathom the need to add more miles of paths, particularly in such precarious area. I am certain you are aware of the amount of traffic and driveways from the several multiple dwellings and businesses along the proposed route. Also the buses that are used by commuters to and from Minneapolis. You will be depriving our senior citizens of a safe walking area —if you travel this route each day, as I do, to and from my France Ave office, you'd notice the amount of individuals walking in summer and winter on the sidewalk. For many elderly who take their walks each day this is their only form of exercise. COSTS - - -I also object to the expense, particularly during these trying economic times. Why would anyone consider borrowing millions of dollars to develop what can very well be considered an unnecessary project? Of course, after construction comes maintenance, whose taxes will be raised to meet those expenses? Real Estate values - - -we have been informed that the proximity of this path to our homes will add to the already depreciated values suffered due to the economic downturn. Public Safety - - -at the meetings I attended the issue of public safety was never addressed. I find it hard to believe that no one has considered the possibility of vandalism and other crimes being perpetrated on property and humans in a poorly lit and unprotected area. Having lived on a small lake forced to be made accessible to everyone in Hennepin county and beyond and having observed the damage to lawns, private property, as well as attempted robberies and intimidation of children playing in their yards I will assume that the City will have to hire additional officers to patrol this area. More negative impact on property values and taxes. I strongly urge each and every one of you to consider the negative impact this route will have on this community. Consider the long term consequences and additional expense you'd be imposing on already burdened residents. I am certain this would not want to be a legacy a public official leaves behind. I look forward to the public hearings on this issue. Thank you for your consideration and your service. Maria Melken Malooly RECEIVED Susan Howl JUL Subject: FW: URGENT WE HAVE LIVED IN EDINA FOR NEARLY 50 YRS AND WE ARE TOTALLY AGAINST THIS PROJECT FOR THE FOR THE REASONS LISTED BELOW SANDY AND LEE CHAPMAN Hi, The environmental studies have been done and by law Three Rivers Park District (TRPD)has to give the public 30 days to make WRITTEN comments. The following are comments to send on to TRPD and the Edina City Council. If you are concerned about the excessive cost of this trail that each one of us will pay for, and the impact on the environment etc. please forward this letter on to TRPD and the Edina City Council. IF YOU ARE GOING TO SEND THIS ON, DO IT NOW. WRITTEN COMMENT PERIOD CLOSES WEDNESDAY, JULY 14TH. LAURIE Below are our comments on the economic, social, technical, and environmental assessments to be presented to the Edina City Council for the purpose of determining the route, or rejecting all routes) of the Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail through the City of Edina. We expect these comments to be entered into the official record. Economic Assessment: 1. No construction timelines were included in the assessments. Construction costs were given in 2010 dollars. No provisions were made to adjust construction costs if actual work on the project takes place in future years. The assessment needs to include a construction timetable and an estimate of costs associated with new construction dates. 2. Construction costs were developed before the EAW was released to the public. Environmental concerns could dramatically increase costs. This includes the cost, timing, and compliance with all necessary permits and mitigation efforts. The assessment needs to include a list of all necessary permits and /or mitigation efforts and a timetable and costs associated with the permits and mitigations. 3. Financing costs were not included in the cost estimates. TRPD has historically financed capital improvements primarily with General Revenue Bonds. At the present bond rates this would add approximately $11 million dollars to the $20 million dollar construction costs. The assessment needs to include timing and details of construction funding including grants and bonding. 4. The effect of declining property values surely, impacts TRPD's operating budget and accordingly on the ability of TRPD to provide safety, maintenance and replacement of the trail infrastructure over the next twenty five years was not discussed. A May 13, 2009 article in the Star - Tribune states "the district is on course to max out its levy limit by 2011 or 2012 ". The assessment needs to include detail on how TRPD will fund its maintenance, safety and other on -going responsibilities. 5. TRPD used past TRPD projects to calculate unit costs. This is internal TRPD cost information and is not verifiable. RS Means is the generally accepted source of construction costs. The assessment needs to be based upon construction costs from RS Means. 6. The trail is to be constructed concurrently With Nine Mile Creek Watershed District work on stream alignment and stream bank improvement. The assessment needs to contain data regarding the cost and timing of the NMCWD project. The assessment needs to identify how these projects will impact adjacent properties. 7. The trail is likely to cost in excess of $35 Million dollars after factoring in construction delays, financing, and cost overruns. These are difficult economic times with most units of government burdened with debt and struggling to meet budgets for essential services. This is not the time to be spending this much money, incurring more debt, and creating more unfunded liabilities, on recreation. The assessment failed to seek out materially lower cost alternatives. The CAT Analysis team needs to develop less expensive alternatives such as those outlined in the City of Edina Comprehensive Bicycle Transportation Plan. The assessment also needs to detail the consequences of delaying decisions on the trail until the sconomy improves. 8. The indirect costs, such as first responder, incremental staff, accommodations to area residents, local design changes, reserves for future liability, etc. that accrue to Edina and TRPD's tax base as a result of the trail were not addressed. The Assessment needs to identify these indirect costs and include them in the total cost of the trail. Social Assessment: 1. The number of residents living adjacent to public lands through which the trail would pass was not defined. Properties were counted, but it is people, not properties that make up the social structure and are affected by trail activity. The assessment needs to include the number of people living adjacent to public lands through which the trail would pass. 2. Protecting the safety of the very old and very young users of Walnut Ridge Park was not addressed. All park users entering north of the creek will have to cross an active bike trail to enter the park. The proposed trail crosses within a few feet of the children's play area. This plan presents unacceptable risks to children and seniors. The assessment needs to include a plan to protect the safety of small children and senior citizen walkers. 3. The question of noise resulting from the trail on adjacent residents was not addressed. There was no data on noise levels generated by the trail. The roll of trees (and their removal) as sound buffers was not addressed. The assessment needs to include data on noise generated by the trail, how the noise will be mitigated, and what effect the removed trees will have on ambient noise. 4. The visual impact of 6000 feet of raised board walk in the trail corridor was minimized. To postulate that 6000 feet of a structure rising 12 feet above a high quality wetland will create no visual impact defies common sense. The assessment needs to use common sense and community standards to define "visual impact ". 5. The differing needs of bikers for recreation, transportation, and physical training was not addressed. Bikers using a trail for transportation need to maintain relatively high speed, use the trail in all seasons, have the trail lighted and available evening hours, and have good access and egress. Bikers using the trail for physical training need to maintain high speed and have a smooth running surface. A regional recreational trail has a mix of walkers, family bikers, roller - blades, and joggers, which inhibit transportation and /or physical training bikers. In the often cited survey of park user preferences, all types of bikers and walkers were included in one category. The second most desired feature was maintaining natural areas. The 2007 City of Edina Comprehensive Bicycle Transportation Plan does not show any of the creek routes of the Nine Mile Creek trail as a recommended primary route. The assessment needs to indicate that the regional trail does not meet the needs of bikers for transportation and physical training nor does it preserve an area as natural. Environmental assessment: 1. The trees to be removed were calculated by area. Individual trees will have differing effects on the local environment. The assessment needs to contain data on the species, number, diameter range, volume, and location of individual trees to be removed. 2. A change in classification of the 352 acres of "Natural and Open Space Areas" affected by the trail was not discussed. The assessment needs to contain detail on how these acres will be classified if the trail is constructed. 3. The effect of 6000 feet of raised platform and approximately 1000 piling located in a flood plain and floodway was not discussed. The assessment needs to contain information on the potential for these structures to trap debris during a flood and the effect of this debris on flood levels, structure stability, and maintenance costs. 4. The EAW contains many inconclusive and ambiguous statements using "may" and /or "could" regarding the trails effect on animals. The assessment needs to be much more conclusive and informative with regard to the effect of trail use on animal populations, species, habitat, and distribution. NINEMILETRAIL (a�THREERIVERSPARKDISTRICT.ORG Susan Howl " Subject: FW: Nine Mie Creek Bike Trail Through Edina RECEIVED From: Donna Schoffelman [mailto:dschof @comcast.net] Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 10:21 PM 'JUL 14 1010 To: Lynette Biunno Subject: RE: Nine Mie Creek Bike Trail Through Edina Dear Lynette, I would like to add one more concern/ question. I understand that the plan is to have the trail 16ft wide so it will be wide enough for emergency vehicles. If the trail follows existing streets, why does the trail need to be so wide? Can't the emergency vehicles use the existing streets? Thank you. Donna Schoffelman From: Lynette Biunno [mailto:edinamail @ci.edina.mn.us] Sent: Friday, June 25, 2010 8:47 AM To: Donna Schoffelman Subject: RE: Nine Mie Creek Bike Trail Through Edina Dear Donna, Thank you for your interest in the City of Edina. I have forwarded your message to the Mayor and Council members. If I can be of additional assistance to you please contact me. Lynette Biunno City of Edina Receptionist 952 - 927 -8861 www.cityofedina.com From: Donna Schoffelman [mailto:dschof @comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2010 9:34 PM To:. Lynette, Biunno Subject: Nine Mie Creek Bike Trail Through Edina Importance: High Dear City Council Members, I wish to express my great concern and displeasure with the proposal for the Nine Mile Creek Bike Trail through Edina. Spending $20 -35 million dollars in difficult economic times for anything unnecessary, such as a bike trail that can only be used approximately half the year, seems irrational, especially when the money -is not currently available. Frankly, there is not one good thing about this trail through'Edina. 1 = The economics are outrageous. 2 - The environmental impact is extremely negative. 3 - Safety issues are significant. The planning apparently has not considered many of the potential problems. Maps do not show all of the properties affected. The routes in Edina will cause great disruption to well- established neighborhoods, destruction of hundreds of mature trees, infringement in yards with the -trail nearly abutting existing dwellings, etc. This trail will not add value to Edina homes, it will have a negative impact on property values in a struggling housing environment. My understanding is a homeowner who can see the trail from their home, will have their property value reduced by $50,000. A bike trail is not necessary for bikers to ride. Semi - professional bikers will not use the trail; they will use existing streets. Here are some of issues related to Route 2 & 3 that I do not believe have been addressed: 1 — Along Lincoln Drive (Route 3) there is United Health Care, Manor Homes of Edina, Edina West, and Fountain Woods which account for 3,000 people. These facilities are not shown on the Three Rivers Park map. Add to that Waterford Ct, Habitat Ct, Wellesly Place, Chapel Hills and-the twin homes on Vernon before Gleason. United Health has about 1,100 cars twice a'day going,in and out. 2 — Habitat Court primarily and Waterford Court, the trail would be nearly at the dwellings. 3 —When the trail nearly abuts the dwellings, where will the power lines be? 4 — The twin homes on Vernon just before Gleason have very short driveways. Take 16 feet off .the driveways and they will back out of their garage onto the bike trail. You better plan for accidents. 5 — In addition to all the traffic on Lincoln and Vernon, it is a bus route. We do not have bus shelters for riders, especially in winter. Why not spend money on bus shelters instead of bike trails. They can be used year round. 6 — Many people walking along Route 3 are over 65. Bikers do-not slow down for walkers. 7 — I understand the plan is for the trail to be 16 ft wide (10 + 3 + 3) so it can be available for emergency vehicles if necessary. If the trail is along a street, the emergency vehicles could use the street.. Why does the trail need to be so wide at those points? 2 _a 8 — I understand if the trail goes through the wetlands (Route 2), a wooden bridge will be built. Will it be strong enough to be used by emergency vehicles? 9 — If it goes through the wetlands (Route 2), have you considered the potential for drug dealers to gather after dark and the potential for increased crime? I know the answer is No. 10 — What about refuse pickup along the trail? Who will clean it up? 11 — On Lincoln (Route 3) vehicles have gone through the fence between 169 and Lincoln because they were going too fast. This spring an tractor trailer traveling north on 169 lost the steering and went through the ditch and through the fence between Edina West and Manor Homes. Are you planning to take property from home owners? Have you done a business plan for this trail? Where can Edina residents see it? Let me be clear. Though I have given specific issues relative to routes 2 and 3, it is simply a sampling of the problems related to the entire proposal. Please cancel plans for moving ahead with this trail. I will be following your positions and informing others in Edina. Sincerely, Donna Schoffelman 6964 Langford Court Edina, MN 55436 RECEIVED JUL. UL NineMileTrail@ThreeRiversParkDistrict.org (Commissioners and Planners) edinamail@ci.edina.mn.us (Mayor, City Council, and Parks Director) Subject: Support for Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail through Parkland Please direct this email to: Edina Mayor and City Council Members Edina Parks Directok John Keprios Three Rivers Park District Commissioners Three Rivers Park District Senior Planner Kelly Grissman Edina Mayor, City Council, Parks Director, and TRPD Commissioners: I support the Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail through Edina. While the trail would require a significant investment, I believe the many recreational and practical benefits, of a regional trail to Edina residents would outweigh the cost. Edina is renowned as'a very high quality community. A safe, comfortable, and inviting trail for walkers, joggers, and riders of all ages and skill levels would serve to promote our unique healthy Edina lifestyle and enjoyment of Edina's parks. A wise investment in a-re *opal trail would be an asset to the community. 91 - Recreational facilities are a decision factor for many prospective homeowners and a trail would be ea-selling point for Edina home sellers. tbelieve the regional trail should run through parks to enhanc6 the walking and riding experience, versus existing roa:dways which haveincreased levels of tar exhaust and noise. In summary, I urge you to approve the proposed regional trail and select routes through parks. Sincerely, Frank Kendall 18237 Tristram Way Eden Prairie, MN 55346 052-949-0296 Susan Howl Subject: IMMEDIATE ATTENTION PLEASE:: CONCERN & OPPOSITION TO NINE MILE CREEK EXPANSION Mayor Jim Hovland City of Edina 4801 W. 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 RECEIVED JUL 14 2010 This is in answer to the request by the Park District for comments relating to the proposed Nine Mile Creek Corridor. As citizens of Edina and after attending two park district planning meetings, and one city council meeting directed to a discussion of the trial, I am setting forth my comments. The entire event seems to be based on a survey that asked Edina residents if they would like more bike and walking trails and the Edina City Council approval to move forward in planning and implantation. It would be difficult to say "no" to the survey question and the council's action to move forward. As with most macro typed proposals the devil is in the details and from a reasonable original thought process it has become a night -mare to many concerned citizens of the community. The sentiment against the trail as proposed has been overwhelming at the meetings which I have attended. In our particular case we are located in the #5 assessment area as set forth in the Park District Planning. As is currently shown the trial would come across the Crosstown highway and essentially border the current soccer fields below the Creek Valley grade school on the west and south sides. It would then run directly behind our property and that of our neighbors, the Swansons; before extending eastward through the woods to the high school fields and then north past over the nine -mile creek marsh back to the Crosstown highway at or about Tracy Avenue. When we purchased our lot many years ago it was done based on the wooded beauty and privacy of backing up to Nine Mile Creek. The value of our property today is enhanced by its location. To put a 16' bike trail behind our home is entirely without justification and threatens not only our values and privacy, but also our concern for safety. In addition, virtually surrounding the soccer fields with a 16' foot trail is at best inappropriate. It would come at the base of a large hill on the west side which is a popular sledding hill in the winter for many children which would preclude it form ever being opened (played) in the winter. These fields are used almost continuously during weeknights in the spring and summer with not only the parking lots but the surrounding Nordic Circle full of cars,. Putting a 16' trail between the parking lot and the fields on the south side would provide an unnecessary danger to children and parents going back and forth. The possible alternative of putting the trial on the north and east sides would make it subject to flooding with every significant rainfall. To cap it off the extension of the trail across the marsh makes no sense. In addition to the obvious cost and risk of flooding, is the distraction to the wild life and serenity of the marsh for what is deemed to be a "nice ride" for bike rides. This is not a reasonable trade -off. As with other citizens the idea of a new bike trail is not the point of contention. Put it along roadways where its impact would be minimal or not at all. Please do not let an original reasonable approach result in actions which are vigorously opposed by many concerned citizens. Public meetings should be held before any final decisions are made. Bud & Nancy Meadley 6420 Nordic Circle Edina, MN 55439 July 13, 2010 Dear Mayor Hovland and elected officials: RECEIVED . JUL 14 2010 This letter registers our concerns on the proposed route for the Nine Mile Creek Biking Trail as it pertains to section 5. We are 35 yr residents at our current address. We are very familiar with the parks, the city's and school's playing fields, the school, the marsh and wetlands, and the traffic flow and parking challenges. As retired residents, we are also very aware of expenses and taxes. We are against running the biking trail as it is described on your website as section 5 for the following reasons: • The wetlands consistently flood, riot only in the spring but also following heavy rains throughout the summer. Compensating for this by building elevated bike paths over wetlands is not a wise use of tax dollars. Maintenance of board walks adds further to the expense. • The soccer fields below Creek Valley School are used extensively during the spring, summer, and fall; generating considerable traffic and parking. Adding bikes, cars, and pedestrians to this mix of children and adults seems to be inviting hazardous and risky encounters. Routing the bike path near or by the fields imposes a danger that is not needed. • The proximity of Creek Valley Grade School to the proposed path injects another element of concern. Children are a vulnerable population. Within the building, security is a high priority. The playground, after school and summer activity programs, and adjacent hill and playing spaces encourage younger children to gather. Bringing a bike path close to the area where children gather and where supervision varies by age, does not seem prudent. • While some citizens enjoy traversing pristine wilderness areas and justify their development because of this enjoyment, other citizens think that there is higher intrinsic value in allowing a wilderness area to remain just that -with very limited access and use. We align with those who value having areas within our community that remain in a natural state rather than developed to bring large numbers of bikers and walkers through it. In conclusion, we urge you to adopt a plan for the bike trail that maximizes existing roadways, protects wetlands, avoids high traffic areas around parks and fields, and conserves financial resources so that taxes are not increased. For these reasons, we object to the more expensive route 5. Sincerely, Joanna Swanson Jack Swanson 6424 Nordic Circle, Edina Susan Howl From: Carla Bartolomei [mailto: Carla. Ba rtolomei@genmills.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 12:17 PM RECEIVED To: Carla Bartolomei; Lynette Biunno; John Keprios; rep. keith.downey @ house. mn; ninemiletrail @threeriversparkdistrict.org 'JUL 2010 Cc: Emelie Helou; Luis Bartolomei; Mary Brindle; Paul L. Ratelle Subject: Edina - Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail - Input on Segment 5F I am writing this letter to convey deep concern with the proposed 5F segment of the regional trail. The addition of route 5F was a 'late in the process' addition and as a result there was no neighborhood representation nor a full assessment conducted by the CAT. ALL routes that are proposed to the City Council should be assessed with a level of rigor so as to adequately represent the interests of the Edina community and the HOMEOWNERS most impacted. I am confident that if there was representation, this part of the trail would not have been seriously considered in its current state and that NUMEROUS issues would have surfaced. These are just some of the challenges that Route 5F as currently proposed poses: SAFETY OF BIKERS/ PEDESTRIANS: The route as proposed runs alongside a very busy street and has many intersections including 3 entrance and exit ramps to hwy 62 and an intersection with a frontage road on the south side PEOPLE DO NOT STOP AS THEY MAKE RIGHT TURNS ONTO HIGHWAYS —this could be a huge safety risk for the bikers Intersection management and compliance will be a great safety concern Tracy avenue is a main road from Hwy 62 to the neighborhood communities in the area — it is very busy and not ideal for a bike path to run alongside it safely. It is also a main route for young, teenage drivers that are heading to and from high school utilize — and they are not the most careful drivers. • A young boy on his bike was recently hit by a driver on this very street. This HIGHLIGHTS the need NOT to cram a bike route into a busy road with little space for it and with multiple intersections that need to be managed. • The route as currently outlined proposes the trail to go alongside this street — yet there is not sufficient space to separate the bike path from the cars on the east side of the road without significantly encroaching into the privacy of homeowners on Doron Drive OR narrowing a road that needs to remain as it wide as it currently is to enable smooth running of traffic and minimize jams and dangerous driving. PRIVACY & SAFETY OF HOMEOWNERS: • The east side of Valley View/ Tracy as it traverses up and over Hwy 62 toward the fire department has a steep hill that leads down to the BACKYARDS of several homes in the area (boron Drive etc....). Putting a trail at the top of this hill would provide bikers and walkers alike access to the backyards and a birds -eye view into the bedrooms and living spaces of these homes — a definite invasion of privacy and an increase in safety risk. • 1 would never feel comfortable allowing my children to play freely in the backyard of these homes when a public access trail is running right alongside the backyard. Backyards should remain private and SAFE for families to use without concern of intrusion from strangers and commuters Back yard intrusion should be treated with higher concern than front yards. A PRIVACY WALL WOULD BE A MUST if this trail were to be put up in the manner proposed HOME VALUE & ONGOING MAINTENANCE • As proposed this trail segment is sure to reduce the value of the homes in this area of Edina. • I have not been satisfied with the plan (or lack thereof) that would be put in place to MAINTAIN this trail and keep it clean and safe from Graffiti, debris, or other hazards in the coming years • The issue of litter and maintenance would be worse on 5F if it runs on the East side as bikers would have easy access to 'dumping' into the homeowners backyards on Doron Drive with little recourse. ROUTE 5F SHOULD NOT EVEN BE CONSIDERED SINCE IT WAS PROPOSED SO LATE IN THE GAME WITHOUT FULL DUE DILIGENCE PLACED ON EVALUATING IT AND WITHOUT NEIGHBORHOOD REPRESENTATION. The city should not allow this type of shifting and low ball tactics. The proposal of route 5F went against the rules of the project and should not be given consideration until the neighborhood has had a chance to speak on this issue. Please Note — There is an opportunity to re -route the path for segment 5 in a manner to address all these issues and find a winning solution for all interested parties. I invite you to come walk the route with me and discuss the possibilities. Here are just some initial examples of what could be done: • There is opportunity to re -route the path so that it is NOT on an already busy. public road, and avoids impacting the creek in a significant manner • Install a 4 way stop on the intersection of Valley lane and Tracy. Have the route cross Tracy to the West side of the road and then go along side in front and AROUND to the west of the Church. • Provide a separate bridge for the trail over the highway that connects behind the fire station on the south side of Hwy 62 to avoid impacting entrance and exit ramps. • This will keep the trail off the main road and protect both the PRIVACY AND SAFETY OF THE HOMEOWNERS as well as the SAFETY of the bikers. • - OR- Adopt path 5D or 5E as they have more potential to avoid the above stated issues and modify those as needed to optimize Last but definitely not least — I ask that the council think carefully about approving this trail. Simply stated —those who want this trail should volunteer to have it run through their yards. I am not one to volunteer my tax $ and yard privacy for this, nor are the residents on Doron Drive. I have seen SO MANY signs and SO MANY battles against passing this trail through our neighborhoods these past years that I truly doubt that this is an item that Edina residents want. If it is so important to have this trail— Edina needs to find a way to make it happen on roadways that will not impact Edina residents home values, privacy rights or safety, AS WELL AS protect our environment. The trail as currently designed is failing to do this. Thank you for your consideration, Carla Bartolomei 952- 947 -9112 Susan Howl �ubject: FW: Route 7 of Proposed Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail Attachments: Route 7 Proposed Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail.pdf RECEIVED Please print, distribute, read, and respond to this attached letter. JUL 14 2010 To: Kelly Grissman, Three Rivers Park District To: John Keprios, City of Edina Park and Recreation Director To: Edina City Council members: Mayor Jim Hovland, Scot Housh, Ann Swensen, Joni Bennett, Mary Brindle To: Alice Hulbert, Bike Edina Task Force Please read, review and respond. To: State Representative 41 A Keith Downey To: METC Representative Polly Bowles Thank you. William & Rosalyn Korst 5624 Hillside Court Edina, MN 55439 July 13, 2010 RECEIVED Kelly Grissman 'JUL 14 2010 Senior Manager of Planning Three Rivers Park District 3000 Xenium Lane North Plymouth, MN 55441 Re: Comments concerning Route 7 on the Draft EAW for the Proposed Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail —Edina Segment Dear Ms. Grissman: As homeowners on the proposed Route 7 section of the Proposed Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail —Edina Segment, we have several concerns. SAFETY 1) Heavy traffic on Tracy/Valley View. This is an MTC bus route with 6 stops on Route 7 which puts it in conflict with the proposed trail. It is a major artery for Valley View Middle School, Edina Performing Arts Center, Edina High School busses and high school students driving to and from school. In addition, it is the route followed by busses from visiting schools for sporting and other events. 2) This is a major route for emergency vehicles as it is in close proximity (same road) as Edina Fire Station #1 and experiences heavy use by fire trucks, ambulances and police cars. 3) The route would crossover multiple driveways creating safety concerns for users of the trail and homeowners. This is especially troubling when school is in session. 4) Parking would be an issue along this trail for trail users and home owners. 5) Vandalism and crime are also a concern. LARGE LOSS OF HOME MARKET VALUES With the trail on the east side of Tracy/Valley View it would affect 12 homes, some of which are already in close proximity to the street. The trail would come within 10 feet of one front door and very close to other front doors. Two properties have in ground swimming pools which would come in conflict with the trail as well as numerous privacy fences and many mature trees that would have to be removed. The proposal says there will be no economic obsolescence caused by the trail, but our real estate appraiser highly disagrees with this because of the trail's close proximity to the homes on this proposed route 7. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 1) Homes on route 7 are close to the creek and we have wildlife, including Blanding's turtles, come on our property. (Pictures to verify turtles on property upon request.) 2) In addition to wildlife, noise and air pollution are additional environmental concerns. Respectfully submitted, William and Rosalyn Korst 5624 Hillside Court Edina, Minnesota 55439 phone: (952) 944 -8068 Susan Howl RECEIVED Subject: FW: Mine Mile Creek Regional Trail JUL 14 2010 From: Margaret Joas [mailto:mjoas @comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2010 8:22 PM To: kgrissmanl @threeriversparkdistrict.org; repkeith.downey @house.mn; sen.geoffmichel @senate.mn; Lynette Biunno Cc: Bob Lubar; rakilberg @aol.com Subject: Mine Mile Creek Regional Trail Dear Honorable Mayor Hovland, Council Member Brindle, Council Member Bennett, Council Member Housh, Council Member Swenson, Senator Michel, Representative Downey, and Kelly Grissman, It is with extreme concern and most outrage that I write this letter of comment concerning the nine mile creek regional trail proposal. My family (we have three children ages 9,11 and 13) and I reside at 6409 Biscayne Boulevard and have done so for approximately the past five years. Prior thereto, I have resided my entire life, forty seven years, in Parkwood Knolls. I have resided twice on Parkwood Road, for a period of about twenty years on South Knoll Drive and now on Biscayne. My wife and I decided to move our family from Parkwood to Biscayne because we were concerned about the speed and increased traffic as we watched our neighborhood become a "cut through" for transient commuters using Parkwood as a shortcut from Highway 169 east into Edina to connect to other road systems. We decided on the move to Biscayne as it allowed us to remain in a neighborhood that has been so important to my (our life) and have walking access to Walnut Ridge Park as well as a quiet street unencumbered by high traffic and speed. The Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail proposal ( "the proposal ") as currently presented and as I understand it would change our neighborhood forever and therefore we oppose it and present comments to support that opposition. The proposal would bring unwanted biker and commuter traffic to a neighborhood that is not established in that accord. As I understand the proposal, we could have literally thousands of bikers using a residential neighborhood park as part of that trail system. I ask you a rhetorical question; would you allow your young daughter or son to go down to a neighborhood park that has has invited and provided access to people from outside the community? Clearly, this is not why we moved into this neighborhood and my guess is that it does not reflect the views of most of the people living here. It is my understanding that there is consideration for making Walnut Ridge Park a sort of hub where bicyclists could come and park there cars and enter the bike trail from that point. This part of the proposal is completely unacceptable. As I mentioned above, the neighborhood already has a traffic issue from transient commuters entering the neighborhood off of Highway 169 to cut though to different arteries. Now, under the proposal, a new group of transients (perhaps from outside Edina) would be encouraged to drive past our house in order to access the bike trail. Walnut Ridge Park currently has parking for only about 14 cars and on any given summer night during lacrosse season we already have a neighborhood parking problem as cars park on the street along Biscayne onto Continental as they attempt to access the north side of the park. As I researched the Three River Park information, I noticed that of all the parking surveys taken, none was taken of this area. If the proposal is allowed to go through, our quiet neighborhood will forvever be changed; and not for the benefit of us; the homeowners, but rather for a new class of people that do not have a stake in our residence. I am not convinced from anything I have read that the City of Edina (and I know not Three Rivers) have contemplated the needs for additional security or monitoring of the trail system. From what I can tell from the materials on the Three Rivers website, the response to this issue seems to be that this group of people that engages in this activity are good people with little track record of illicit behavior. Living four houses from the trail system with three young children, this gives me great comfort, and I applaud the Park District for ensuring my family's well being. It seems selfish to bring the next point up, but it is worth pointing out but I cannot see how the proposal supports the property value of my home. I could be wrong, but most people who might be the future purchasers of my house would be so for the exact reason I sought it, to have a quiet neighborhood, with little traffic and walking access to a park. That being said, the additional traffic of bicylists and commuters attempting to get the trail can only be seen as a negative and not a positive. I can see no reason why this proposal would support my property values; especially when anyone who wants to use this system can drive to it and park their car. As I understand the proposal, there are viable alternatives. This trail system could simply use some of the existing right of ways and roads already available without impacting neighborhoods. If anyone has traveled to states and communities (such as parts of California ) where bicycling is revered this is exactly what they do, people learn to share the road. It seems important to bring up the ecological issues associated with the proposal. I have read many of the engineering studies on the Three River's website and I am skeptical at best. How is it whenever some cabin owner in the middle of nowhere in northern Minnesota wishes to do remove a wheelbarrow worth of wetland it seems like the greatest sin has been committed but when we are talking about a sixteen foot right away across a major wetland in the middle a first tier suburb all of a sudden the engineers do cartwheels to tell us this is marginal wetland. Do you really belive this? I moved to my lot because I have no one behind me and I have deer, and ducks and coyotes to name only a few as my backyard guests and you know what; they have value in the middle of suburbia and if they didn't we would be the worse. The damage this proposal will do to the little bit of natural environment we have left in Edina will be irreversible; you will never get it back. Trust me, I remember when Gleason was gravel, and the Jones farm was still a homestead in my neighborhood. There is a seen from the movie "Field of Dreams" when the baseball spirit says "if you build it they will come." Well if you allow this to happen, they will come, and the residents and citizens of Edina who are the stakeholders will never be the same. There are alternative and solutions. Please be receptive to those alternatives and the homeowners who will be impacted by your decisions. I appreciate your consideration. Respectfully, Bill Joas Susan Howl subject: FW: Support for Nine Mile Creek Regional TraiFthrough Parkland Please direct this email to: I RECEIVED JUL 1 4 1010 Edina Mayor and City Council Members Edina Parks Director John Keprios Three Rivers Park District Commissioners Three Rivers Park District. Senior Planner Kelly Grissman Edina Mayor, City Council, Parks Director, and TRPD Commissioners: I support the Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail through Edina. Although I am not an Edina resident, I do regularly use the trails here. While the trail would require'a significant investment, I; believe the many recreational and practical benefits of a regional trail.to Edina residents would outweigh the cost. Edina is renowned as a very high quality community. A safe, comfortable, and inviting trail for walkers, joggers, and riders of all ages and skill levels would serve to promote our unique healthy Edina lifestyle and enjoyment of Edina'.s parks. A wise investment in a regional trail would be an asset to the community. Recreational facilities are a decision factor for many prospective homeowners and a trail would be a selling point for Edina home sellers. I believe the regional trail should run through parks to enhance the walking and riding experience, versus existing roadways which have increased levels of car exhaust and noise. In summary, I urge you to approve the proposed regional trail and select routes through parks. Wilbur Ince Twin Cities Resident 1 Susan Howl ' Subject: . FW: Support for 9 mi trail RECEIVED JUL 14 2010 From: Glenn Nemec [mailto:nemec002 @umn.edu] Sent: Saturday, July 10, 2010 12:12 AM To: NineMileTrail @ThreeRiversParkDistrict.org; Lynette Biunno Subject: Support for 9 mi trail I support the Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail through Edina. While the trail would require a significant investment, I believe the many recreational and practical benefits of a regional trail to Edina residents would outweigh the cost. Edina is renowned as a very high quality community. A safe, comfortable, and inviting trail for walkers, joggers, and riders of all ages and skill levels would serve to promote our unique healthy Edina lifestyle and enjoyment of Edina's parks. Everywhere bike trails have been created they have been shown to stimulate use of the involved areas and bring economic benefit to nearby businesses. Detailed information is available at through Rails to Trails and the League of American Bicyclists. Furthermore, the intersections where bike trails along roads intersect with those roads, are high risk areas for vehicle vs bike and vehicle vs pedestrian accidents. They are sometimes cheaper to build there, but they are a known and proven danger. I refer you to the book "The Effective Cyclist" for detailed information on this subject. Sincerely, Glenn Nemec M.D. RECEIVED JUL 14 1010 July 7, 2010 RE: Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail: Edina Segment. Concerns about Alternate Route 8 -4 To: Mayor Hovland, and Council Members Bennett, Brindle, Housh and,Swenson, I am writing to express my concern about Route 8 -4 for the Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail. Route.:8 -4 is' on the soutfi, side of 70th Street and east side of Antrim Road. I believe the other proposed route in this area of Edina, Route 11,: would better serve the community of Edina and users of the trail..: Following are my. concerns with Route 8 -4: 1) 70th Street is a busy street with a steep incline which will be difficult,for the average biker or inline skater to climb. Most bikers have to walk up 706 Street due to the incline. 2) Crossing over 70th street (from south side) to the east side of Antrim Road is challenging due to high traffic. I believe this will be a safety hazard to all users of the trail: 3) The east side sidewalk on Antrim Road is currently heavily used by students of Edina High School and Valley View Middle School Making the sidewalk a multi use path (bikes, inline skaters) will put the students in a less safe, environment" when they walk to /from school. The sidewalk needs to remain for walkers only! 4) Route 8 -4 lacks the scenic beauty that Route 11 has for the users of the Regional Trail..- Thank you for your consideration of my concerns for Route 8 -4 of the regional trail. In summary, I believe Route 11 would be a superior path for the Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail. Regards, Anne L. Seidel (7005 Antrim Road, Edina) Susan Howl Subject: FW: Support for Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail through Parkland Please direct this email to: RECEIVED Edina Mayor and City Council Members JUL 14 1010 Edina Parks Director John Keprios Three Rivers Park District Commissioners Three Rivers Park District Senior Planner Kelly Grissman Edina Mayor, City Council, Parks Director, and TRPD Commissioners: I support the Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail through Edina. While the trail would require a significant investment, I believe the many recreational and practical benefits of a regional trail to Edina residents would outweigh the cost. Edina is renowned as a very high quality community. A safe, comfortable, and inviting trail for walkers, joggers, and riders of all ages and skill levels would serve to promote our unique healthy Edina lifestyle and enjoyment of Edina's parks. I have lived in the Edina area for several years and enjoy biking in the area. I would bike there more often if there was a nice trail to ride on. A wise investment in a regional trail would be an asset to the community. Recreational facilities are a decision factor for many prospective homeowners and a trail would be a selling point for Edina home sellers. I believe the regional trail should run through parks to enhance the walking and riding experience, versus existing roadways which have increased levels of car exhaust and noise. In summary, I urge you to approve the proposed regional trail and select routes through parks. Sincerely, Ramona Johnson 3858 Stevens Avenue Minneapolis MN Susan Howl )ubject: FW: Support for Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail through Parkland RECEIVED Subject: Support for Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail through Parkland JUL 14 1010 1 support the Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail through Edina. I don't live in Edina, but I grew up there (1957 to 1974) and lived on the Nine Mile Creek at 6801 Limerick Lane. Today I live in St. Louis Park. I am a bicycle commuter that rides through Hopkins every day.1 live next to the North Cedar Lake trail ... and use it for my commute. In 1999 this trail was still in planning stages ... and we moved here to be next to a trail. I am perplexed as to why Edina never "got with the program" and developed trails throughout the city. Better late than never. Do your best to get east/west and north /south trails on the map in Edina. There will be lots of vocal "not in my backyard" complaints ... I saw that here also. However, once the trails are in ... everyone is happy. The trail next to our townhome development has indeed added value to our property; it's a selling point. Dwight Fellman 7909 Victoria Curve St. Louis Park, MN 55426 Susan Howl Subject: FW: Please Support the 3 Rivers Trail Creek Alignment RECEIVED 7 -11 -10 JUL 14 2010 Dear 3 Rivers Pk Dist., Edina City Council and 9MCWD Managers, I want to compliment the Three Rivers Park District for the excellent presentation on the Edina segment of the 9 Mile Creek Regional Trail, which I attended on June 301h. It was well organized and informative. Three Rivers has put much research and planning into making the trail an outstanding amenity for Edina residents. As a cyclist I am writing to ask you to support the creek alignment of the trail. This provides the safest and most scenic option for cyclists, which will do much to encourage cycling in Edina. Increased cycling will yield better health among Edina residents. It will also result in more cycling commuters to work and to school, which will reduce carbon emissions and its consequent air pollution and global warming. I appreciate all your work to help make this trail a reality for Edina! Dianne Plunkett Latham 7013 Comanche Ct Edina MN 55439 -1004 952 - 941 -3542 Susan Howl Subject: FW: TracyNalley View route RECEIVED _ nn tL?N From: Paul Yaggie [mailto:paul- yaggie @vjaa.com] Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2010 8:37 PM To: NineMileTrail @ThreeRiversParkDistrict.org; Lynette Biunno Subject: Tracy /Valley View route Dear 3 Rivers Park District Commissioners Woodbeck, Wyatt, Corcoran, Haggerty, Franzese, Blackstad, and Kinsey, also Senior Planner Kelly Grissman, Mayor Jim Hovland, Council Members Bennett, Swenson, Housh, and Brindle, and Edina Parks Director John Keprios, Please consider locating the proposed bike path on the west side of Tracy /Valley View between HWY 62 and the High School. As a resident of this street I witness that most bicyclists use the west side because it does not bisect so many side roads. Many bikes reach 40 mph because of the hill. The east side is dangerous because of the pedestrians and traffic. Thank you for your consideration, Paul and Doreen Yaggie 5712 Grace Terrace Edina, MN 55439 Susan Howl Subject: FW: Nine Mile Creek! RECEIVED JUL 14 2010 From: Peter Hille [mailto:hilleptr @tds.net] Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2010 9:21 PM To: Lynette Biunno Cc: Laurie Chapman Subject: Nine Mile Creek! This seems to be a very foolish way to spend a lot of money in a time when incomes are growing smaller and taxes are going up. I hope you will drop this idea which will bring nothing but extra dept to a State that can not balance it's budget even without the poor planning of this wishful dream. Sincerely, Peter Hille 7823 North Shore, Spicer, MN 56288 RECEIVED JUL 14 2010 Please do not allow the huge apartment building complex (Waters /Colonial Church) to be built in our Countryside neighborhood. A smaller building, 50 to 75 units will be a much better fit for our area. I am paraphrasing in this paragraph an editorial from the July 5t' Star Tribune by Donna Callender but I wanted to emphasize her points. The development will cause big increases in traffic and an eyesore business towering over the local park. (Common sense tells us this. Tracy will become a busy street for people who work/live at the complex to avoid the crosstown). It is necessary to change the existing zoning laws to do this. We live here precisely because the zoning laws do not permit this type of business in a quite neighborhood with small children who get around by foot and on bicycles. What recourse do we have when elected officials refuse to enforce existing laws? By the time the next election comes for voting the officials out, the damage will have been done. If residents have to obey the rules, then the officials who are supposed to enforce the rules need to do their jobs. I was reading the updated version of the Edina 20/20 vision. Objective #1 stats "Maintain strong residential neighborhoods." Building this apartment complex in our neighborhood will destroy our area. I don't feel that is too strong of a statement. Does Edina really need more upscale Senior housing when some facilities are currently vacant? What will happen when this cannot be filled? Lower income subsidized housing, a drug rehabilitation site? You really cannot guarantee what this building's use will end up being. Young families are now in our neighborhood because of the park and the quite, non -busy streets. Of course we want and need young families moving into Edina to keep our schools the top of the pack as they are. Countryside is one of the few neighborhoods in Edina that families CAN afford. This complex if built as the current huge mass, will change that forever. Jeanne St. Pierre 6005 Arbour Lane RECEIVED JUL 14 1010 Susan Howl ' Please direct this email to: Edina Mayor and City Council Members Edina Parks Director John Keprios Three Rivers Park District Commissioners Three Rivers Park District Senior Planner Kelly Grissman Edina Mayor, City Council, Parks Director, and TRPD Commissioners: I support the Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail through Edina. While the trail would require a significant investment, I believe the many recreational and practical benefits of a regional trail to Edina residents would outweigh the cost. Edina is renowned as a very high quality community. A safe, comfortable; and inviting trail for walkers, joggers, and riders of all ages and skill levels would serve to promote our unique healthy Edina lifestyle and enjoyment of Edina's parks. A wise investment in a regional trail would be an asset to the community. Recreational facilities are a decision factor for many prospective homeowners and a trail would be a selling point for Edina home sellers. I believe the regional trail should run through parks to enhance the walking and riding experience, versus existing roadways which have increased levels of car exhaust and noise. In summary, I urge you to approve the proposed regional trail and select routes through parks. Sincerely, Jessica Hulbert 6928 Eliot View Road St. Louis Park, MN RECEIVED JUL 14 1010 July 3, 2010 To the Mayor and City council members of Edina, I am writing this letter in opposition to the consideration of Route 5F in the proposed Edina Bike trail project. This route was entered into consideration without any neighborhood representation and is a suboptimal if not poor solution for this trail. I have been a resident of Edina on 5616 Doron Drive for almost 31 years. During those years I watched many parts of the city changed and improved to promote better view and privacy, like for example on 66th and Valley View across from Southdale. Nothing was done to our area. Instead the city hired Three Rivers Park to encircle our properties and neighborhoods by a trail we don't need or care to pay for. For a long time the only two segments for route 5 were 5E and 5D only. Without any consideration, 5F was dumped on us. No assessment of the area was done. I am really very upset by 5F, and contrary to CAT's design recommendations, there is no existing pedestrian path on Tracy over East side of highway 62. Before the council considers or votes on that segment, each one of you should visit and walk along the proposed path. 1. A trail on the east side of Tracy will be an invasion of privacy and a safety concern for the residents on Doron Drive and especially me. My house happens to be located behind the east side of Tracy and the entrance ramp to Highway 62 East. The trail will be passing up on top of a narrow and steep hill allowing pedestrians and bikers to look down into our bedrooms and living spaces. It will be an easy hidden access down the hill, to my yard, and my neighbors. The tree coverage on that hill is very poor in winter, fall, and spring. A privacy wall or a wall of evergreens would be needed to block the view. 2. Route 5F will need many road crossings plus a crossing over the busy entrance ramp to Highway 62 east. The impact of the suggested bridge in that location is big. It will put the path at an even higher point and will give another balcony view into the side and front of my yard and my other neighbor's yard. A bridge over the ramp is unaesthetic in that location. 3. The committee already recommended shifting route 5F from Olinger to Colonial Church route near the fire station. If route 5F is to be considered it should follow the west side of Tracy and pass behind Creek Valley Baptist church. A bridge on the west side over the highway will be less invasive since there are no houses on the west side of Tracy Avenue. I plead with the members of the city council and all the people involved in this project to seriously address my concerns and reject section 5F. If any of you was living on Doron Drive in my location I am confident that you will vote no for this route over East Tracy across the ramp. Route 5F is a distraction, not a solution. Please vote no for route 5F. Either adopt 5E or invest the time to find an NEW alternate path that connects the trail. I do not see why the trail should infiltrate every corner of this quadrant of Edina. I am completely opposed to route 5F Thank you for your efforts to help solve this problem and find a solution that works for not only the general residents of Edina, but for those impacted by the trail. Thank you, Nohad Helou 5616 Doron Drive Edina , MN 55439 952 - 941 -4934 Susan Howl subject: FW: Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail - public input to route 5F from impacted Edina Resident Attachments: Nohad Helou 5F opposition letter.docx Importance: High RECEIVED JUL 1 d 1010 From: Carla Bartolomei [ mailto : Carla. Bartolomei @genmills.com] Sent' Monday, July 12, 2010 6:10 Pm. To: Lynette Biunno; John Keprios; ninemiletrail @threeriversparkdistric.org; rep. keith.downey @house.mn Subject: Nine Mile Creek Regional-Trail - public input"to;route 5F from impacted Edina Resident Importance: High To the Mayor, City Council Members, and the Park & Recreation Director for Edina, Please see the attached letter regarding route 5F. I am an Edina resident whom is impacted by the proposed route and have significant concerns. I would appreciate a response informing- me'how you plan to address these concerns as well as a scheduled date when I can come and participate in the Thank you, Nohad Helou 1 Susan Howl July 12, 2010 Mr. Mayor Hovland RECEIVED Councilwoman Joni Bennett Councilwoman Mary Brindle JUL 14 7010 Councilman Scot Housh Councilwoman Ann Swenson Edina City Hall 4801 W. 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 RE: Three Rivers Park District I am writing to express my concern about the proposal of a bicycle path along Lincoln Drive and onto Vernon. My property is in the Edina Manor Homes just next to United Health and right off of Highway 169. Many of the people who live in this area are seniors who enjoy walking and often take along a pet. I have concerns for the safety of myself and my neighbors due to the high speed that individuals riding bicycles currently travel at when passing by this area. In addition, I encourage you to drive down Vernon and examine the chain link fence to see the damage that has been caused due to cars that have come off the Highway and hit or knocked down the fence. I personally had individual in a car in front of me bounce off the left side of Highway 169 headed north, due a 360 degree turn and then go crashing into the fence. At this time I feel that this would decrease the value of my home, which has already been affected by the current market. The bike path would decrease the width of Vernon which is widely used by individuals who work at United Health, those living in this area and persons going to the strip mall close by. Respectfully, P. Smith RECEIVED` JUL 092010 Susan:Howl '0ject: FW: Edina Portion of proposed Regional Bike Trail— misguided analysis and inappropriate spending Subject:,Edina Portion of proposed Regional Bike Trail -- misguided analysis and inappropriate spending The argument that "Edina deserves a project . constructed within its boundaries because it sends $3.5 million (in tax revenue) annually to Three Rivers Park District (3RPD)" is misguided: 3RPD was created and designed to serve many of the park and recreation needs within the greater metro area. Sometimes the projects are close to our homes and sometimes:the'projects,are anywhere within 3RPD's taxing jurisdiction_(Hennepirrand Scott counties with the exception of the Cityof_Minneapolis). 3PRD receives its annual . revenues based upon property taxes in these communities. The amount,collected from Edina property owners is.about $3.5M annually. 3RPD also owns facilities in five adjacent counties: Anoka, Carver;, Dakota, Ramsey and Wright. ;. The regional park system was designed so that Edina citizens (and everyone else) benefit by using the services offered at one or more of 3RPD's many locations. To say that Edina is getting nothing in return is a very self centered view of the world. To me, it is like wanting to burn your house down so that you directly receive the,benefits offered by the local fire department. After all, you've probably been paying property taxes for police and fire services for many years. We as citizens need to judge a project based on its merits. This means we have a responsibility to look at a project based on its costs, what it brings to the community and rank it against alternative uses of limited funds. There must be a way to achieve the bike trail's objectives at a more reasonable cost. Remember, cost was never included as a route selection criterion when 3RPD and the City of Edina came with this proposal. Moreover, the proposed project will be largely funded by long term bonds — meaning that Edina (as well as other citizens within the taxing jurisdiction[s]) will be paying for this project for years to come. In addition to paying for the . construction of the trail, we will obligate ourselves to pay for future maintenance on a very expensive and high maintenance project. With property values declining, or remaining flat, it is not altogether clear that 3RPD will have the funds available to pay for the operation of the trail into the future. The ultimate source (federal, state or local) of the construction funds does not matter. It is still the peoples' tax dollars being spent in a frivolous manner. It is time to demonstrate responsibility to taxpayers and to take steps to live within our means. How about finding a lower cost solution and paying down some of the $85 million in long term debt currently on 3RPD's books? That's a big piece of the finance issue. And, we have not yet talked about higher priorities for government spending such.as education, first responders, roads and bridges, etc. Now, do you want to talk about the environmental impact and the wisdom of building a combined 6,000 foot bridge across a, "high value wetlands" ... Clearly 3RPD and the City of Edina did not do its homework on this issue. Please appoint a new team and send this proposal back for a meaningful analysis. Regards, Bob Lubar 6619 Londonderry Drive Edina, MN 55436 Phone: 612- 396 -3285 Fax: 866 - 521 -6018 Email: rlubar(ftomcast.net Susan Howl Subject: FW: support for nine mile creek regional trail through parkland Subject: support for nine mile creek regional trail through parkland Dear Mr Mayor and Council Members and Mr John Keprios: RECOVED JUL 0 9 2010 My wife and I strongly support the Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail through Edina. We understand the due diligence /EIS of the Three Rivers Park District is supportive of this development. We are residents of this fine city for 34 years and utilize the amazingly vast and beautiful resources of dedicated biking trails in our area. We believe Edina needs to join in linkage with this trail network. We understand the concerns of some property owners adjacent to the proposed trail, but also believe these concerns are overstated, a bit selfish, and will ultimately witness significant benefit to all of us Sincerely, Tom and Sue Christiansen 7701 Stonewood Court Edina, MN 55439 952 946 6976 doctc(aD-com cast. net Susan Howl .Aubject: FW: I Support the Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail through Parkland From: Karl Grindal [mailto:karl @grindal.org] Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 7:29 PM To: NineMileTrail @threeriversparkdistrict.org; Lynette Biunno RECEIVED Subject: I Support the Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail through Parkland JUL 0 9 1010 Please direct this email to: Edina Mayor and City Council Members Edina Parks Director John Keprios Three Rivers Park District Commissioners Three Rivers Park District Senior Planner Kelly Grissman Edina Mayor, City Council, Parks Director, and TRPD Commissioners: I support the Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail through Edina. While the trail would require a significant investment, I believe the many recreational and practical benefits of a regional trail to Edina residents would outweigh the cost. Edina is renowned as a very high quality community. A safe, comfortable, and inviting trail for walkers, joggers, and riders of all ages and skill levels would serve to promote our unique healthy Edina lifestyle and enjoyment of Edinas parks. A wise investment in a regional trail would be an asset to the community and region. I believe the regional trail should run through parks to enhance the walking and riding experience, versus existing roadways which have increased levels of car exhaust and noise. In summary, I urge you to approve the proposed regional trail and select routes through parks. Sincerely, Karl Grindal RECEIVEED Susan Howl n nn0n' Subject: Proposed Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail Three Rivers Park District and Edina City Council elected officials; We are writing as voting citizens to voice our EXTREME OPPOSITION to the proposed seven mile bicycle trail through Edina. With the existing financial deficits facing all branches of our local, regional, state and federal governments - the Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail should be voted against.by all responsible elected officials. Any elected official who would approve such a frivolous 'want' by so few individuals should be voted out of office! Please realize the many citizens that are impacted by job loss, the loss of health care benefits and are trying to meet basic needs. Let me net this out: 1.) Our economy is in a deficit, NOT a surplus. 2.) The Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail is a 'want' by a few, NOT a need. 3.) It is important to note that grants from other public agencies and stimulus funds are funded with our Hennepin county, State, or Federal tax dollars - there are no free public dollars!!! Vote responsibly, say no the the proposed seven mile bicycle trail through Edina. Concerned Voters, Nancy Kirkbride Mark Kirkbride 5929 Tamarac Avenue Edina, MN 55436 952 - 944 -9875 1 Susan Howl subject: FW: Attention: Mayor James Hovland- -Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail From: Jenn Edwards [mailto:jae950 @hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 09, 2010 9:56 AM �$�CL6Vt® To: Lynette Biunno Subject: Attention: Mayor James Hovland- -Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail JUL U 9 2010 Dear Mayor and City Council Members, I am writing to express my concern about the proposed route of the Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail- - especially segments 9 and 11. Edina should be linked to the regional trail system, but there is no reason to disrupt these two extremely narrow wild corridors that act as a floodplain. It is clear that Edina residents, not just recreational bike riders, will be better served by alternate, on -road routes. These routes will cost less initially, be easier and less costly to maintain, and be usable more months of the yea r-- and,..therefore, more appealing to those who commute by bike and favor an accessible, direct route. These alternate routes will also have fewer lighting, flooding, security, and safety issues. In addition, the City of Edina has gone on record as committed to preserving its vanishing wild areas from development and pollution. Please honor this commitment. Reevaluate the trail's routes and costs. Hold public hearings. Get it right. Edina deserves nothing less! Sincerely, Jenness Edwards 6605 Cahill Rd., Edina 55439 612 - 730 -9825 Susan Howl ' Subject: FW: Support the Nine Mile Creek RegionalTrail RECENED JUL 0 9 2010 From: tketl tds.net [mailto:tketl @tds.net] Sent: Friday, July 09, 2010 9:54 AM To: NineMileTrail @ThreeRiversParkDistrict.org; Lynette Biunno Subject: Support the Nine Mile Creek RegionalTrail Dear Sir or Madaam, I support the Nlne MIle Creek Regional Trail through Edina. ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! We load our bikes on the car and head to the Minneapolis for a day of riding, dining and enjoyment. Tom Kotschevar Monticello, MN Susan Howl Vbject: FW: Support for Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail through Parkland REGEN -:a JUL 0 9 2010 From: Ted Adams [mailto:tadams6 @comcast.net] Sent: Friday, July 09, 2010 9:38 AM To: NineMileTrail @ThreeRiversParkDistrict.org; Lynette Biunno Subject: Support for Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail through Parkland I am a 67 year old 15 year resident of Edina. I am also a bike rider and given my age I like to avoid riding on city streets. I use the 3 rivers trail system nearly every day (when I'm not playing golf). I strongly support building a trail through the park in Edina. The park is for all residents to use, not for the private use of local homeowners. I live on Minnihaha creek and many canoeists float through my back yard. Keeping bikes off trails in the park is akin to telling canoeists that they can't use the creek in my back yard. Lets get the trail built through the park for both my safety and my enjoyment. Ted Adams 4618 Edgebrook Place Edina, MN 55424 Susan Howl Subject: Support for Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail through Parkland RECEIVED Please direct this email to: JUL 0 9 2010 Edina Mayor and City Council Members Edina Parks Director John Keprios Three Rivers Park District Commissioners Three Rivers Park District Senior Planner Kelly Grissman Edina Mayor, City Council, Parks Director, and TRPD Commissioners: As a frequent user of the Minneapolis, Regional and State bike trail system, I support the Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail through Edina. While the trail would require a significant investment, I believe the many recreational and practical benefits of a regional trail to Edina residents would outweigh the cost. Edina is renowned as a very high quality community. A safe, comfortable, and inviting trail for walkers, joggers, and riders of all ages and skill levels would serve to promote our unique healthy Edina lifestyle and enjoyment of Edina's parks. I believe the regional trail should run through parks to enhance the walking and riding experience, versus running on existing roadways which have increased levels of car exhaust, noise and a lack of rider and jogger safety. Out of town visitors who I take riding in our great metro area are amazed by the extent of our off - street trail system and wish they had something like that in their city. When I can, I avoid using trails that run on roadways whenever possible. Although roadway trails are cheaper, they do not confer a much of a benefit over the bicycle use of city streets without trail markings, and so in that respect you get far less value fo your money. In summary, I urge you to approve the proposed regional trail and select routes through parks. Sincerely, Jared Frandson, MD 3330 Columbus Ave Minneapolis, MN 55407 1 Susan Howl subject: FW: Edina Resident: Opposition to Route 5F, Regional Trail From: Leslie Helou, Pharm.D. [mailto:lhelou @gmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 09, 2010 7:13 AM RECEIVED To: Jim Hovland Cc: Lynette Biunno JUL 0 9 2010 Subject: Edina Resident: Opposition to Route 5F, Regional Trail Dear Mayor Hovland, As a thirty-plus year resident of the city of Edina, I am writing in opposition to Route 5F of the Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail portion of the Three Rivers Park Trail. I was surprised to learn that Route 5F is strongly being considered without the pertinent group having completed a thorough community impact assessment, as stated in official documentation sent to us by mail. Why is a route that was not originally considered, and has no community representative assigned to it, now a preferred route? Route 5F is being proposed due to issues with all the alternative routes, but it has significant resident - impacting and trail -user safety issues that cause me to strongly oppose it. Route 5F runs directly behind my family's home on the south -east side of the Hwy 62 /Tracy Ave interchange, where we have lived for over 30 years. It also impacts our neighbors' homes. Edina homes are universally valued partly due to the privacy they secure, while simultaneously providing close proximity to metropolitan Minneapolis. Route 5F invades our privacy as well as that of our neighbors, by offering strangers a balcony view into our homes and our yards from atop an unassumingly steep hill. Major issues with the trail running on the East side of Tracy Ave. and South of Hwy 62, are: 1) Due to all area trees being leaf - bearing, there will be no view - obstructing tree coverage for approximately three quarters of the year, and passers -by will have a clear vantage point into the yards, bedrooms and living areas of our homes. Does Edina wish to invite strangers to look directly into my family's home? Will Edina plant a barrier wall of tall evergreens to prevent strangers from seeing our house or coming down the hill to our house if they have a problem? This is a significant security issue for us as residents. Our backyards should be private and secure havens for us to enjoy in peace. A path approximately two stories above our yards allows strangers to peep down on us and invade our privacy. 2) The hill is extremely steep and there is clearly not enough room for a 2 -way bike and pedestrian path. Will Edina build a fence to provide a barrier that prevents or mitigates accidents? There is no room for a path of sufficient width, let alone for a barrier /fence. This would have been recognized had a proper assessment been conducted. 3) How will pedestrians/bikers cross over Hwy 62? There is no existing sidewalk on Tracy Ave. nor available space to pave one, contrary to what was stated by Dave Henry (Route 5D and 7 representative; Meeting 5 minutes, May 17, 2010). Any proposed, newly constructed pedestrian bridge that will span across Hwy 62 on the east side of the Tracy Ave. overpass will provide a direct vantage point into our front yard and both our neighbor's deck (back yard) and front yard. Will Edina also plant a wall of tall evergreens to obstruct this 2nd vantage point? This vantage point was not accounted for in any assessment of resident property affected by this route. 4) Tracy Ave. is an extremely busy, hilly street. For ten months of the year, school buses from the senior high, junior high, and elementary schools, as well as cars operated by teenagers and parents, drive North and South along the road, and frequently turn onto Hwy 62 and Valley Lane. Why would a recreational, usually scenic trail run along such a traffic -heavy street? If the trail needs to cross from the North side of Hwy 62 to the South side, a pedestrian bridge should be built somewhere West of Tracy Ave. and East of Gleason Rd., avoiding Tracy Ave. altogether. There are many scenic points along this newly, proposed stretch that would mitigate the hazards of traffic on Tracy Ave., as well as span across a stretch of Hwy 62 that contains no adjacent homes. For example, if a newly proposed trail continues from Bredeson Park onto Colonial Way, a newly proposed pedestrian bridge could be constructed on the Wes side of the Tracy Ave. fire station, avoiding the children's playground. These newly proposed adjustments would allow the trail to continue along the creek and utilize city land behind Creek Valley Church. Although there are recreational benefits to having proximate access to the Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail, it is in the best interest of Edina residents to have the trail run as close along the perimeter of Edina as possible, discretely around residential homes, instead of directly through the middle of our private neighborhoods. As was indicated in the May 17`h meeting minutes, it seems that arbitrary new alternate paths can be proposed for consideration at the last minute without having endured the proper and necessary assessments. I therefore propose the following for consideration. Since it is obviously Route 5F's intent to divert the Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail away from its namesake, Nine Mile creek, in order to both utilize the existing Bredeson Park pathway as well as satisfy environmental concerns associated with a creek path, this deviation from the creek can be further maximized by the following: • the trail continuing Northeast along Vernon Ave., since this does not implicate residential front or back yards, and there is an existing wide street containing a sidewalk and ample, available space • the trail crossing from the West side of Hwy 100 to the East side, utilizing either Eden Ave. or one of the two existing pedestrianibike bridges • the trail continuing South along the East side of Hwy 100, utilizing the frontage road • the trail continuing East along the North side of Hwy 62, utilizing the city land that exists around the Hwy 100 /Hwy 62 interchange, and crossing over Hwy 62 on a pedestrian bridge, connecting to the Rosland Park/Lake Corneila path • the trail connecting with the new pathways being constructed in the Southdale area and Centennial Lakes Park In conclusion, I firmly oppose Route 5F of the Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail portion of the Three Rivers Trail in Edina. Its incomplete assessment did not consider the multiple, balcony view, vantage points created by the trail into the yards and homes of all Doron Drive residents, particularly our home at 5616 Doron Dr. I have been a resident of Edina for over 30 years and, until now, have been proud of the privacy that Edina ensures for its residents. Route 5F was admittedly, as stated in the May 17 meeting minutes, not well thought out and was not even proposed with all of the other preliminary alternatives for thorough consideration. Instead, it was rashly conceived with little foresight, and was hastily thrust upon us, giving us very little time to react and resist its approval. Protect the privacy of the residents of Edina and vote NO on Route 5F. Sincerely, Leslie Helou, PharmD, BCPS Resident of 5616 Doron Dr., Edina, MN 55439 Susan Howl iubject: FW: Support for Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail through Parkland - From: Guy Costa [ mailto:gscosta@comcast.net] Sent: Friday, July 09, 2010 6:09 AM RECEIVED To: Commissioners and Planners; Lynette Biunno Subject: Support for Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail through Parkland JUL O 9 ZOiO Please direct this email to: Edina Mayor and City Council,Members. Edina Parks Director John Kepnos Three Rivers Park District Commissioners Three Rivers Park District Senior Planner, Kelly Grissman Edina Mayor, City Council,. Parks. Director, and TRPD Commissioners: I support the Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail through Edina, which provides a natural setting for recreational strolling and biking instead of a commercial street. While the trail would require a significant investment, I believe the many. recreational' and practical benefits of a regional trail to Edina residents would outweigh the cost . -Edina is renowned as a very high quality,.community. A safe, comfortable, and inviting trail for walkers, joggers,'and riders of all ages-and skill levels would serve to promote our unique healthy Edina lifestyle and enjoyment of. Edina's parks. A wise investment in a regional trail would be an asset to the community. Recreational facilities are a decision factor for many prospective homeowners and a trail would be a selling point for Edina home sellers. I believe the regional trail should run through parks to enhance the walking and riding experience, versus existing roadways which have increased levels of car exhaust and noise. In summary, I urge you to approve the proposed regional trail and select routes through parks. Sincerely, Guy Costa 2297 Manuela Dr. Chaska, MN 55318 1 Windows Live Hotmail from Qwest Print Message RECEIVED Page 1 of 1 JUL 0 8 1010 Nine Mile Creek bike trail Fro, a: RICHARD C JOHNSON (rcj5700 @q.com) Sun 7/04/10 9:36 PM i Iblake @startribune.com c:(:. andrew @heyer.us Dear Laurie Blake, In connection with your recent article in the Star Tribune concerning the proposed the Nine Mile Creek bike trail through Edina, the message I get from Andrew Heyer, who is widely quoted in the article and who does not live near the proposed trail nor will he experience any degradation of the physical environment by the construction or use of the trail, is : "It is ok for you (meaning me) to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune - degradation of the physical environment -so long as I can bike the pristine and serene contours of the Nine Mile Watershed." What makes Mr. Heyer's position so ironic is that he is a member of the Sierra Club, which I always thought coveted the physical environment and opposed the degradation thereof. Richard C. Johnson 5700 Tucker Ln Edina, MN 55436 (952) 930 -9040 P.S. The trail will be 16 feet wide, 10 feet for biking and 3 feet on either side. Susan Howl Subject: Support for Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail through Parkland RECEIVED JUL 0 6 2010 Please direct this email to: Edina Mayor and City Council Members Edina Parks Director John Keprios Three Rivers Park District Commissioners Three Rivers Park District Senior Planner Kelly Grissman Edina Mayor, City Council, Parks Director,'and TRPD Commissioners: I support the Nine Mile Creek,Regional Trail through Edina. While the trail would require a significant investment, I believe the many recreational and practical benefits -of a regional trail to Edina resi dents .would outweigh the cost. Edina is renowned as, a very high quality community. A safe, comfortable, and inviting trail for walkers,' joggers, and ri ders of all ages and skill levels would serve to promote our unique healthy Edina lifestyle and enjoyment of Edina's parks. A wise investment in a regional trail would be an as to the community. Recreational facilities are a decision factor for many prospective homeowners and a trail would be a selling point for Edina home sellers. I believe the regional trail should run through parks to enhance the walking and riding experience, versus existing roadways which have increased levels of car exhaust and noise. In summary, I urge you to approve the proposed regional trail and select routes through parks. Sincerely, Annie Kennedy 4024 Grimes Ave S Edina, MN 55416 1. Susan Howl Subject: FK NineMileTrail @ThreeRiversParkDistrict.org RECEIVED JUL 0 8 2010 From: Laura Nisi [mailto:lnisi @mac.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2010 8:12 PM To: Lynette Biunno; NineMileTrail @ThreeRiversParkDistrict.org Subject: NineMileTrail @ThreeRiversParkDistrict.org Edina Mayor, City Council, Parks Director, and TRPD Commissioners: I support the Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail through Edina. While the trail would require a significant investment, I believe the many recreational and practical benefits of a regional trail to Edina residents would outweigh the cost. Edina is renowned as a very high quality community. A safe, comfortable, and inviting trail for walkers, joggers, and riders of all ages and skill levels would serve to promote our unique healthy Edina lifestyle and enjoyment of Edina's parks. A wise investment in a regional trail would be an asset to the community. Recreational facilities are a decision factor for many prospective homeowners and a trail would be a selling point for Edina home sellers. I believe the regional trail should run through parks to enhance the walking and riding experience, versus existing roadways which have increased levels of car exhaust and noise. In summary, I urge you to approve the proposed regional trail and select routes through parks. Laura Nisi 5201 Blake Road Edina MN 55436 Inisia- mac.com RECEIVED Susan Howl AR ,n UL u u Subject: Mine Mile Creek Regional Trail Dear Honorable Mayor Hovland, Council Member Brindle, Council Member Bennett, Council Member Housh, Council Member Swenson, Senator Michel, Representative Downey, and Kelly Grissman, It is with extreme concern and most outrage that I write this letter of comment concerning the nine mile creek regional trail proposal. My family (we have three children ages 9,11 and 13) and I reside at 6409 Biscayne Boulevard and have done so for approximately the past five years. Prior thereto, I have resided my entire life, forty seven years, in Parkwood Knolls. I have resided twice on Parkwood Road, for a period of about twenty years on South Knoll Drive and now on Biscayne. My wife and I decided to move our family from Parkwood to Biscayne because we were concerned about the speed and increased traffic as we watched our neighborhood become a "cut through" for transient commuters using Parkwood as a shortcut from Highway 169 east into Edina to connect to other road systems. We decided on the move to Biscayne as it allowed us to remain in a neighborhood that has been so important to my (our life) and have walking access to Walnut Ridge Park as well as a quiet street unencumbered by high traffic and speed. The Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail proposal ( "the proposal ") as currently presented and as I understand it would change our neighborhood forever and therefore we oppose it and present comments to support that opposition. The proposal would bring unwanted biker and commuter traffic to a neighborhood that is not established in that accord. As I understand the proposal, we could have literally thousands of bikers using a residential neighborhood park as part of that trail system. I ask you a rhetorical question; would you allow your young daughter or son to go down to a neighborhood park that has has invited and provided access to people from outside the community? Clearly, this is not why we moved into this neighborhood and my guess is that it does not reflect the views of most of the people living here. It is my understanding that there is consideration for making Walnut Ridge Park a sort of hub where bicyclists could come and park there cars and enter the bike trail from that point. This part of the proposal is completely unacceptable. As I mentioned above, the neighborhood already has a traffic issue from transient commuters entering the neighborhood off of Highway 169 to cut though to different arteries. Now, under the proposal, a new group of transients (perhaps from outside Edina) would be encouraged to drive past our house in order to access the bike trail. Walnut Ridge Park currently has parking for only about 14 cars and on any given summer night during lacrosse season we already have a neighborhood parking problem as cars park on the street along Biscayne onto Continental as they attempt to access the north side of the park. As I researched the Three River Park information, I noticed that of all the parking surveys taken, none was taken of this area. If the proposal is allowed to go through, our quiet neighborhood will forvever be changed; and not for the benefit of us; the homeowners,but rather for a new class of people that do not have a stake in our residence. I am not convinced from anything I have read that the City of Edina (and I know not Three Rivers) have contemplated the needs for additional security or monitoring of the trail system. From what I can tell from the materials on the Three Rivers website, the response to this issue seems to be that this group of people that engages in this activity are good people with little track record of illicit behavior. Living four houses from the trail system with three young children, this gives me great comfort, and I applaud the Park District for ensuring my family's well being. It seems selfish to bring the next point up, but it is worth pointing out but I cannot see how the proposal supports the property value of my home. I could be wrong, but most people who might be the future purchasers of my house would be so for the exact reason I sought it, to have a quiet neighborhood, with little traffic and walking access to a park. That being said, the additional traffic of bicylists and commuters attempting to get the trail can only be seen as a negative and not a positive. I can see no reason why this proposal would support my property values; especially when anyone who wants to use this system can drive to it and park their car. As I understand the proposal, there are viable alternatives. This trail system could simply use some of the existing right of ways and roads already available without impacting neighborhoods. If anyone has traveled to states and communities (such as parts of California ) where bicycling is revered this is exactly what they do, people learn to share the road. It seems important to bring up the ecological issues associated with the proposal. I have read many of the engineering studies on the Three River's website and I am skeptical at best. How is it whenever some cabin owner in the middle of nowhere in northern Minnesota wishes to do remove a wheelbarrow worth of wetland it seems like the greatest sin has been committed but when we are talking about a sixteen foot right away across a major wetland in the middle a first tier suburb all of a sudden the engineers do cartwheels to tell us this is marginal wetland. Do you really belive this? I moved to my lot because I have no one behind me and I have deer, and ducks and coyotes to name only a few as my backyard guests and you know what; they have value in the middle of suburbia and if they didn't we would be the worse. The damage this proposal will do to the little bit of natural environment we have left in Edina will be irreversible; you will never get it back. Trust me, I remember when Gleason was gravel, and the Jones farm was still a homestead in my neighborhood. There is a seen from the movie "Field of Dreams" when the baseball spirit says "If you build it they will come." Well if you allow this to happen, they will come, and the residents and citizens of Edina who are the stakeholders will never be the same. There are alternative and solutions. Please be receptive to those alternatives and the homeowners who will be impacted by your decisions. I appreciate your consideration. Respectfully, Bill Joas RECEIVED Susan Howl Subject: Edina needs to be part of the Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail through the Parkland we already have Edina Mayor and City Council Members Edina Parks Director John Keprios Three Rivers Park District Commissioners Three Rivers Park District Senior Planner Kelly Grissman Mayor Hovland, City Council, Parks Director, and TRPD Commissioners: I support the Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail through Edina. While the trail would require a significant investment (I understand through federal funds already allocated), I believe the many recreational and practical benefits of a regional trail to Edina residents would outweigh the cost. Edina is renowned as a very high quality community. A safe, comfortable, and inviting trail for walkers, joggers, and riders of all ages and skill levels would serve to promote our unique healthy Edina lifestyle and enjoyment of Edina's parks. Unfortunately Edina is also known as being somewhat "bubble- like ", NIMBY, and frankly, stuck -up. The connection of our community to the whole Metropolitan area would surprise many in the Twin Cities and rid us of some of these misgivings. The opponents are a group of people who own property that is next to the now unused thin segments of Three Mile and have derived direct improvements to their property as a result of this lack of use. A trail would upset this "give away" that now improves the value of their property. I have talked with some of this landowners and they truly believe it is their property, although I did notice on Fox News that one owner had an eight foot barbed wire fence between the.park and his property. Ironically, I believe the trail itself would improve the value for any future landowners as this is the wave of the future, recreation and commuting by bicycle and foot. A wise investment in a regional trail would be an asset to the community. Recreational .facilities are a decision factor for many prospective homeowners and a trail would be a selling point for Edina home sellers. Again how ironic these people would realize. I believe the regional trail should run through parks to enhance the walking and riding experience, versus existing roadways which have increased levels of car exhaust and noise. In addition using existing roadways is a safety issue for car drivers and for users of the trail. Completely defeats the purpose of a continuous trail to be back, battling traffic. In conclusion, I urge you to approve the proposed regional trail and select routes through parks. You rs, Linda Stanch 3121 69th Street West, Apt. 126, previously of 5216 Grandview Lane, Edina, MN RECEM -.W JUL 0 8 2010 Susan Howl Subject: Support for Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail through Edina Parkland Edina Mayor, City Council, Parks Director, and TRPD Commissioners: I am writing in support of the Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail through Edina along existing parkland adjacent to the creek. While the trail would require a significant investment, I believe the many recreational and practical benefits of a regional trail to Edina residents would outweigh the cost. Edina is renowned as a very high quality community. A safe, comfortable, and inviting trail for walkers, joggers, and riders of all ages and skill levels would serve to promote our unique healthy Edina lifestyle and enjoyment of Edina's parks. A wise investment in a regional trail would be an asset to the community. As a lifetime resident and new homeowner in Edina I can attest to the important role of our excellent parks system in my desire to purchase a home in Edina. The continued upkeep and improvement of this system is critical in retaining housing marketability and community desirability as well as promoting a healthful and relaxing experience for residents. I believe the regional trail should run through parks to enhance the walking and riding experience, versus existing roadways which have increased levels of car exhaust and noise. As a recent resident of the area around Bredesen Park, currently the most significant natural trail area in Edina, I can attest to the desirability and usage of this type of natural and relaxing environment. Furthermore, I strongly believe that a route along the creek utilizing existing parkland would open this natural beauty to a much larger portion of residents than those which currently enjoy the creek and substantially increase trail usage. As a potential recreational user of the trail I must say I would be much more drawn to and likely to use a trail along the creek and natural parkland than to use one along roads. If I wanted to trave. on the roads with my bike I would already do that, natural trails are significantly more appealing to recreational users and.I would implore you to select a parkland route. In summary, I urge you to approve the proposed regional trail and select routes through parks. Sincerely, Dr. Benjamin Franske 6216 Ashcroft Ln Edina, MN 55424 1 RECEIVED Susan Howl Jul 0 8 1010 subject: FW: Proposed Bike Trail Through Walnut Ridge Park Importance: High TO SENATOR MICHEL REPRESENTATIVE DOWNEY HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE THREE RIVERS PARK DISTRICT BOARD MAYOR HOVLAND AND HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL My family and I reside at 5700 Camelback Drive in Edina, approximately 2'/2 blocks from Walnut Ridge Park. I am writing again to express my deep concerns regarding the proposed bike trail that (as currently conceived) will cut through Walnut Ridge Park and its adjacent neighborhoods. What is most alarming to my family (as well as our neighbors) is the impact that this trail may have on our neighborhood streets on which our kids play and ride their bikes and our neighbors gather, visit, walk dogs, etc. I am very concerned that this trail will result in a material increase in non - resident traffic into what is entirely a residential area. Our streets have no sidewalks, and people using the streets therefore walk on the streets themselves. A very good share of the people (other than those coming from the West off Hwy 169, trail users who could greatly impact our neighbors on Londonderry Road, Dovre Drive, Continental Drive, etc.) will likely use Schaefer Road, View Lane, Stauder Circle, Deville Drive, Biscayne Blvd, Continental Drive, and Camelback Drive to access the trail from the South or East. Whether such users park on our residential streets or simply use them to drop off bikers is unimportant, as in either event, it would increase traffic on our residential streets. This translates into a safety issue that "No Parking" and /or "Drive Slowly" signs, or other "traffic calming" measures will not address. Given the estimates of trail usage that I have seen, I am very fearful that the impact on our neighborhood traffic will be material. Walnut Ridge is a cherished part of our neighborhood. Throughout the year, kids of all ages meet and play there, and neighbors meet there and visit. Turning this park into a magnet for hundreds of thousands of bikers each year will spell the end to what is currently a safe, guarded and much loved neighborhood haven for our kids. Walnut Ridge is a quiet neighborhood park today that would be converted into a busy regional park. Trails of this nature with the degree of projected traffic and the planned parking and "staging" areas should not be laced inside residential neighborhoods This proposal isn't just adiacent to a residential neighborhood — it cuts directly through a residential neighborhood This plan as it currently is conceived presents material and avoidable safety issues and would be highly irresponsible. I appreciate your time and consideration. Thank you. Matt Thompson Susan Howl Subject: FW: Nine Mile Trail From: Anne or Paul Hussian [mailto:pahussian @hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 9:54 PM To: ninemiletrail @threeriversparkdistrict.org; Lynette Biunno Subject: Nine Mile Trail RECEIVED JUL 0 7 7010 I am strongly in favor of a bike trail through Edina that would link Edina with other communities. Edina has a special location given its proximity to the city lakes of Minneapolis and its wonderful system of bike and park trails. This bike trail presents a unique opportunity for Edina to stand out as a proponent of healthy lifestyles and enjoyment of the outdoors. Currently, bikers in Edina are stuck on "shoulder" paths pitted against cars and trucks (and exhaust) for a place to ride. Edina is really lacking in park situated bike trails. My husband and I are frequent bikes trying to figure out how to make our way to a "real" bike trail. It is time for Edina to make the investment in park situated bike trails for the betterment of our community. Sincerely, Anne & Paul Hussian 5408 Doncaster Way Edina, MN 55436 952 922 5299 The New Busy is not the old busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox. Get started. Susan Howl RECEIVED =rom: Braasch, Grant [gbraasch @cdpoly.cargill.com] JUL 0 7 2010 Sent: Friday, July 02, 2010 1:55 PM To: NineMileTrail @ThreeRiversParkDistrict.org Cc: Braasch, Grant; grant _braasch @hotmail.com; anna_braasch @hotmail.com Subject: Nine Mile Creek Trail Edina Feedback I attended the June 30th open house on the Edina trail options and wanted to take this opportunity to formally provide written feedback related to the proposed Nine Mile Creek Trail. Our address is 5177 Abercrombie Drive so we're one of the 10 or 11 homes on Abercrombie Drive whose backyard would be adjacent to the Route 11 proposal. We just bought our house last September and one of the key selling features for us was the beautiful open space of Abercrombie Park right behind the house. The intent of this feedback is not to lobby for one route over another but to share my thoughts should it be decided to choose Route 11 which would run behind our property. If this route is chosen, my hope is that feedback will be solicited from the specific homeowners who will be impacted regarding the design, location and construction of the trail prior to construction beginning. - The open space in Abercrombie Park is relatively large compared to some of the other public lands that would be used for the trail. My hope is that the trail would be constructed as close to the creek as possible to maximize the privacy for the homeowners who will be impacted and maintain as much of the existing open park space as possible. From my point of view, it would be a shame if the trail was constructed on or near our back property lines while there is so much open space between the Abercrombie Drive homes' rear property lines and the creek. - Abercrombie Park currently has a mix of grass that is mowed by the city as well as some tall grasses that are left wild nearer the creek. The mowed grass area also has two soccer goals that are enjoyed by those in the neighborhood. If the trail were able to be routed through the area nearest the creek where the tall grassland area is now, it's possible that the mowed field could remain somewhat undisturbed and that area could still be used as on open park. - To maximize privacy and possibly provide a better "nature" experience for trail users, I really like the idea of cutting the trail directly through the tall grassland area. At this time of year, much of that grass along the creek is at least 4 - 5 feet high and I believe it's at least 10 - 20 feet wide in places allowing the full rightaway needed for the trail. This would provide for a much less obtrusive trail for the adjacent homeowners and act a natural security and privacy barrier as well. The grassland would block much of the direct sightline between the trail and adjacent homes, at least during the summer months when the trail would be most heavily used. Whereas, if the trail were to run directly through the middle of the park through the mowed grass, that space would no longer have functionality for anything other than the trail and it would seem to be much less aesthetically pleasing both for trail users and adjacent homeowners. The area of Abercrombie Park behind the five houses on the west end of the park has significantly more of the tall grassland than the four houses on the east end. However, it seems it would be possible to extend the tall grassland on the east side of the park by simply not mowing as much of the open field in order to continue the natural screening of the trail all the way across the park. - Because the creek is prone to flooding in Abercrombie Park, I expect discussion will take place as to whether a boardwalk or standard asphalt paved trail will be constructed. Because the flooding is infrequent, my preference would be for an asphalt trail to be constructed rather than a boardwalk. My concern is that a boardwalk would result in the constant noise of wheels bumping over the boards whereas an asphalt trail will be much quieter. - Related to concerns about a loss of privacy, my understanding is that Three Rivers will not provide any privacy screening for adjacent property owners. While I do strongly support the idea of using natural vegetation and grassland as a screen immediately around the trail, I would not want Three Rivers to build a fence or even plant tall trees along the property lines of the adjacent homes. As I noted, a key selling feature for us with this property is the great view overlooking the park and creek. We would be very disappointed if this view was blocked by a privacy fence or trees. If an individual homeowner wants to install a fence or plant trees for privacy, they should do so. However, I don't want this to be automatically done or imposed on residents. - Some have cited safety concerns regarding plans to not light the trail. My preference is for the trail to not be lit. Cyclists who use the trail system for commuting in dark hours are able to stay safe by utilizing high powered headlamps so there is no need to light the trail for recreational or commuting use. Lights on the trail would only be another annoyance for adjacent property owners and an ongoing cost to maintain. - One other element related to Route 11 that I want to mention is Monkey Village. I don't know all the history df this unofficial "park" but understand it's been around for over 20 years and that it's a feature that many neighbors cherish. If at all possible, I hope the trail route will be able to bypass this area to allow this unique park to stay intact. Thanks and I welcome any feedback or follow -up questions, Grant Braasch 5177 Abercrombie Drive 952 - 285 -9783 Susan Howl RECEIVED subject: ` FW: Nine. Mile Creek Trail Feedback. JUL 0 i 1010 Attachments: Nine, Mile Creek Trail Edina Feedback From: GRANT _BRAASCH @NATUREWORKSLLC.COM [mai Ito: GRANT _BRAASCH @NATUREWORKSLLC.COM] Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 20101:24RM To: Lynette Biunno Subject: Nine Mile Creek Trail Feedback Dear Mayor and City Council Members,' My family just moved to Edina last September-and our home overlooks Nine Mile Creek in segment 11 of the proposed trail alternatives. I'm writing to provide my feedback and to request clarification on a number of points_ regarding. the trail. When we decided to buy the home last year; the beautiful open space. of. Abercrombie Park and the creek r were major' selling points for us but we also understood the possibility that a trail would be constructed in that space: I'm.an avid cyclist and enjoy the Three Rivers Trail system throughout the Twin Cities so I understand the value of the regional trail system. I've followed the process,of segment analysis, I attended last week's open house, and I've read everything I've been able to find regarding the proposals and I have maintained a pretty neutral position regarding where the trail goes. While I love the beauty and quietness of the open space in our backyard, I also understand the rationale for running a trail through city owned land. As we're approaching the end of the open comment period, I wanted to reach out to you regarding some unanswered questions and concerns I now have about segment 11 and specifically the portion of the trail proposed for Abercrombie Park. I had a conversation yesterday with our segment representative, Pete McCarthy, and was very concerned with what he shared so I wanted to come to you for clarification. I understand he has been heavily involved with this process through the CAT team meetings so I expect he has as much information about this as any resident. He shared that the plan for the entire segment 11 section is to run a raised boardwalk, 8 feet high and 10 feet wide through this area and that the boardwalk would likely run on or near property lines to stay as far away from the creek as possible. I find this very hard to believe and wanted to address this directly with you'so that I make sure I have the right information prior to the open comment period being over. As I noted above, I have been. pretty neutral regarding where the trail runs and I can even envision some scenarios where I could be relatively happy with the trail running through Abercrombie Park behind our property. (See the attached email I sent last week to Three Rivers.) One of the main points I wanted to make in my letter to Three Rivers is that wherever the trail ends up going, .I think it's important to give the impacted residents the ability to provide feedback regarding the actual construction of the.trail in situations where there are multiple options. He also shared that after the open comment period ends on July 14 and once the.vote is made at that time, the land will be turned over to Three Rivers and the city council and residents will have lost any power to.control what happens in this area. Is this accurate? If so, that makes me believe there is not much time left for residents.to weigh in on how the trail should be constructed. If what Pete shared with me is true. in that the entire trail through segment 11 will be raised boardwalk, I have a number of concerns as listed below. k - Boardwalk is not a good surface for a recreational trail. The key stated purposes for the trail are for commuting and recreation. As an avid cyclist, I know that riding on boardwalk is not pleasant and that commuters would likely revert to street routes on the section of the trail that are boardwalk: Pete.,also shared that there would be a 10 mph speed limit on the boardwalk which is also unreasonable for commuters. - Regarding recreation as a key function, boardwalk is also not pleasant for kids and families on bikes or for rollerbladers and my understanding is that if the trail is raised boardwalk, there will be very few access points. This makes recreational use by local residents and neighbors very challenging if they're not able to readily access it and if it's a difficult surface to navigate. Pete shared that the closest access point for us would be Heights Park which is about a mile away from our house. It's not most. residents' first choice to have a trail running behind their homes but it would add insult,to injury if these residents have to.look at an 8 foot high wooden structure that they aren't even able to easily access. In addition, a boardwalk trail is extremely noisy which will cause additional concerns and complaints from the homeowners who are adjacent to the trail. Finally, it's hard for me to imagine such a huge structure would be run through the entire segment. This would be a.massive construction undertaking and I find it hard to believe that the construction estimates for this route are.accurate relative to the road based route. The trail based route . is estimated to only be marginally more expensive than the alternative road based route which doesn't seem 1 to make sense to me if it's true that all or most of segment 11 will be raised boardwalk. We've only been in our house for several months, but I understand that the creek floods very rarely in Abercrombie Park so having a boardwaliCthroug[T that area, especially 8 feet high, seems to be unnecessary. A paved asphalt trail would be significantly preferable and would only rarely be unusable. - From a property value standpoint, having an 8 foot high raised boardwalk on the property line or anywhere in Abercrombie Park would create a terrible eyesore blocking views of the creek and significantly detract from the value of the homes directly adjacent. I agree with the analysis that having a trail through Edina will generally be positive for property values but I don't think that will be the case for the residents whose homes back up to an 8 foot tall boardwalk. - As you can see in my attached message to Three Rivers, I have a few suggestions for how the trail could run through Abercrombie Park that could be very aesthetically pleasing to both homeowners in the area and to trail users. Specifically, I think an asphalt trail at grade that runs through the tall grassland would be very pleasing both to homeowners and to trail users. My hope is that options such as this will be considered if segment 11 is chosen. I've read and heard many comments for and against the trail and know that much of the negative reaction is driven by NIMBY thinking. As expressed, I'm not necessarily opposed to this trail running behind my backyard but I have serious concerns if it is going to be constructed as Pete shared. My request for you is to provide me the details on how the trail will be constructed through segment 11. This is a very important detail that has not been shared yet and critical for homeowners to understand if they are going to be able to intelligently weigh in on the situation. Thanks for your time in reading and addressing each of my comments. I look forward to hearing from you either by email or by phone. Regards, Grant Braasch 952 - 334 -4357 5177 Abercrombie Drive Edina, MN Minutes of the Edina Park Board April 13, 2010 Edina City Hall, Council Chambers MEMBERS PRESENT: Jennifer Kenney, Todd Fronek, Dan Peterson, Bill Lough, Randy Meyer, Joseph Hulbert, Keeya Steel, Ben Pobuda, Ellen Jones, Louise Segreto MEMBERS ABSENT: Rob Presthus STAFF PRESENT: John Keprios, Ed MacHolda, Janet Canton I. APPROVAL OF THE MARCH 9.2010 PARK BOARD MINUTES Dan Peterson MOVED TO APPROVE THE MARCH 13, 2010 PARK BOARD MINUTES. Keeya Steel SECONDED THE MOTION. MINUTES APPROVED. II. NEW BUSINESS A. U.S. Open Flying Disc Championship Sponsorship - Mr. Keprios indicated that staff would like to recommend to the Park Board to consider a sponsorship of the 2010 US Open Flying Disc Championship event that is headed up by Edina resident Paul Thompson. Mr. Thompson gave a presentation on the history of the disc. He informed the Park Board he has been playing Frisbee since he was a young man. He explained to the Park Board that this year it is his turn to host this event and is looking for the Park Board's consideration to have it in Edina, along with Bloomington and Eden Prairie to a lesser extent, to host the overall championships. Mr. Thompson pointed out that they have taken out the word "open" and therefore it is the "2010 Overall Flying Disc Championship ". He noted that it is for men, women and children of all ages. Mr. Thompson indicated that it is a week -long event and that they would like to use Highlands Park. He noted that Three Rivers Park District is a sponsor of the event as well and they are hoping to use Highlands Hills and Bryant Lake, both of which are in Bloomington. Mr. Thompson indicated that he has been working with the gym classes at Highlands Elementary and Normandale to promote it to kids and families to come out and play and watch good players. He explained that they are also creating a beginners division so that people can come for a low cost entry fee to try a few of the events. Mr. Thompson stated that they would like to have the mayors from the cities at their opening ceremony as well as have a remembrance of the disc players who have passed away in the last year. Mr. Meyer asked if there needs to be a concern regarding parking and congestion for the neighborhood. Mr. Thompson replied that Monday through Friday there should not be a problem but that on Saturday they would like to encourage a crowd, however he still does not see there being a problem. Mr. Hulbert noted that it states there will be approximately 100 to 120 participants to ~_ which Mr. Thompson replied that he would be happy with 80 but if they could get 40 or 50 local folks to join the beginner division along with the out of town people they may get 120 participants. � Mr. Hulbert asked if there is an entry fee to which Mr. Thompson replied it is $100 to $125 for the Open Division, $60 to $75 for the Junior Division and $35.00 for the beginners. Mr. Hulbert asked is that just to cover costs to which Mr. Thompson responded yes as well as they will receive a player's packet and there will be an auction Wednesday night for "Save the Children" where people will be donating things. Mr. Thompson explained that they are sponsoring five kids through "Save the Children" as well as one -third of the money will go towards next year's tournament. Mr. Thompson commented that they are trying to educate people about disc sports other than ultimate and golf which are well known. Mr. Meyer asked Mr. Keprios if there are any liability issues beyond what a typical park usage would be. Mr. Keprios replied that he did check on that and was informed that it will be covered under the city's current insurance carrier. Todd Fronek MOVED THAT THE PARK BOARD ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE DIRECTOR AND WAIVE THE FEE AT HIGHLANDS PARK. Dan Peterson SECONDED THE MOTION. Mr. Hulbert asked if all four entities, Three Rivers Park, Eden Prairie, Bloomington and Edina are all on the same page with the waiver of any fees for park usage. Mr. Thompson replied that he is not sure yet if Three Rivers will waive the fee or if they will have to pay $3.00 per person for the golf for the day. Mr. Thompson explained that they are not using any city parks in Bloomington and Eden Prairie, just the Three Rivers parks that are in those two cities. He commented that he sees Edina as the lead city. He added that they are going to invite the other mayors but that they are not going to be asking those cities for anything specific. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. B. Rental of Pathways Policy — Mr. Keprios informed the Park Board that a couple of Edina High School students have approached him regarding a "May Term Project" that they would like to do at Pamela Park on Saturday, June 5th. He explained that they would like to have a cross country race and mark off their own trail and that the money they raise would be donated to a charity. Mr. Keprios indicated that through this process there were also a couple of other requests to use Pamela, Garden, and Bredesen which they finally zeroed in on Pamela Park. He noted that they haven't had requests for those in the past and therefore it seems to'make sense to put some policies in place for this because they really don't have any. Mr. Keprios pointed out that one written policy they have in place is there is no exclusive -use allowed of the Bredesen Park pathway. This policy was set by the Park Board on October 12, 1999. He noted that they have allowed races to take place at Rosland Park to which there have been seven fundraiser events at Rosland Park in the past 12 months. Mr. Keprios commented that he does see this trend continuing which is not a bad thing and it's great they are using the parks for these things. However they are getting into a gray area because it's not clear for staff as to how to respond to what he thinks is going to be a stronger trend. He noted that they are quickly learning that if they do have on- street fundraising races or walks they have to pay police to monitor traffic which eats up a lot of the profits. He stated that staff would like to start working toward a long- term policy. Therefore he is asking for two things. First, approval for the request to try the May Term project as well as he would also like to have a dialog on how the Park Board would feel about allowing these type of events at other locations such as Garden, Walnut Ridge and Todd. Mr. Hulbert commented that it seems hypothetically that five parks could have something like this to which Mr. Keprios replied that is correct. Mr. Hulbert indicated that he has been to Rosland Park when they've had these types of events and noted that sometimes there are so many people that they end up leaving and going to a different park. He stated that he would personally hate to see public usage of a park get monopolized in those weeks by people who want to rent these facilities. Mr. Hulbert indicated that with five potential parks perhaps there could be a policy that not more than two of them could be rented out in any given weekend. Ms. Segreto stated that she thinks that is an excellent idea as well as it's an excellent idea that staff is going to come up with some kind of policy to deal with requests like these. Ms. Segreto asked if there will be people in wheelchairs using the park being that it is a Courage Center fundraiser. Mr. Keprios replied that he did ask that question and was told it wouldn't be an issue for this particular race. Ms. Segreto commented that she would hope that the facilities that are rented for the bathrooms could accommodate people with disabilities and asked if they are renting Edina port- a- potties or are they going to private vendors. Mr. Keprios replied that the port-a- potties that they have are through a state contract through the Park Department and so they would get the best price by going through their contact. Ms. Kenney made a suggestion that the policy state that these fundraisers be held earlier in the morning when the parks typically are being used less by the public. She noted that perhaps they could have a time limit such as 7:00 am to 10:30 am or 8:00 am to 11:00 am so that it will minimize the inconvenience to the public. Mr. Lough stated that it was mentioned that the fees for the path rentals for this kind of an activity are modest and asked what does it typically cost the Park and Recreation Department for set -up, take down, clean up, etc., following an event like this and do the fees cover the expenses. Mr. Keprios replied that he believes the fees are commensurate with the expenses. He pointed out that when it gets beyond what they are charging then they put those expenses on the shoulders of the people who are renting such as additional restroom facilities, refuse removal, etc. Mr. Hulbert asked Mr. Keprios what type of formal action is he looking for from the Park Board. Mr. Keprios replied that he would like a formal action that will give the green light to go ahead and allow this May Term project at Pamela Park on June 5`h. He commented that as staff starts to work on a long -term policy if the Park Board could give him their comments in addition to what has already been provided he will start to put together a policy for the Park Board to review. Mr. Lough asked specifically what the purpose is of the May Term project so that the Park Board might have a better idea of what it is they are supporting. Mr. Meyer explained that during the last few weeks of school the seniors are required to do these projects which can be community based and have all different types of involvement and opportunities. He noted that it's sort of a way to keep the seniors focused a little bit on school before graduation. Jennifer Kenney MOVED TO APPROVE THE HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS REQUEST ON A TRIAL BASIS TO USE PAMELA PARK FOR THEIR CHARITY FUNDRAISER ON SATURDAY, JUNE 5TH BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 8:00 AND 11:00 AM. Todd Fronek SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. C. Community Advisory Team Report — Member Ellen Jones — Ms. Jones informed the Park Board that she has already been to three meetings. She noted that they are working on coming up with some guidelines but they are not going to come up with a final blue print for a plan. This group is going to come up with and present to the City Council some guidelines and ideas they want the plan to contain in the process of deciding what to do with the current Public Works building that will be evacuated later this year. Ms. Jones pointed out that a lot of ideas have been generated to which at least a third of them have had to do with some kind of a park or open space or some type of city center. She indicated that they had a kick off meeting and then they had a site tour where they literally walked the site so that they could define what area they are going to be looking at. 4 Ms. Jones indicated that they had a developer round table where four developers from Edina gave the group their thoughts as well as let the group pick their brains about the site. She stated that they were very helpful with giving them some viewpoints. Mr. Meyer asked what the goal is of the May 18`h joint City Council and Planning Commission work session. Is it to discuss the findings or is there a next step that will be taken at that point? Ms. Jones replied that she is not sure what is going to happen at that meeting but would guess it's to present their findings to the City Council. Mr. Hulbert indicated that his impression is they are trying to figure out the proper process of resident involvement. He noted that he thinks its way down the road before they will know exactly what will be happening with that piece of property. Mr. Keprios stated that his take on this type of process is that it's going to be pretty comprehensive, starting by determining what direction the City Council should take as far as its use before they make any further decisions. Mr. Keprios explained that this all came about when the City Council considered selling the property and taking those proceeds to help pay for the acquisition and development of the new building. However, some residents came forward saying they don't think the city should ever sell currently owned public property and, if anything, they should consider turning it into a recreation community center of some sort. Mr. Keprios commented there is a lot of opinion towards this and noted that it might make some sense to do another survey. He suggested that possibly they could receive a grant from the Statewide Health Improvement Program (SHIP) to do a survey to see if it is health related and if this is the direction they want to go. Mr. Keprios commented that possibly there is a survey that could qualify for grant money to see what things and how the community feels about that approach and use of the property for that purpose. Ms. Steel indicated that as this process moves forward and ideas revolve around Park Board type issues can they formally send a message to the City Council about any ideas brought forward. Mr. Keprios replied that if that's the direction the City Council wants to consider for this property then he would have to believe that it's going to be a very lengthy comprehensive process and he would request the Park Board's opinion. He added that if for any park purposes he would think they would need to form a committee. Mr. Keprios stressed this still has a long way to go it still needs to be decided should this be a business property and, if so, what type of business. Should it be publicly owned or privately owned or left open space? He noted these are some big general questions that this group is trying to help the City Council in making this decision. Mr. Meyer asked Ms. Jones from a park perspective what some of the ideas that have been suggested are. Ms. Jones replied one concept was to have underground parking with open space above it. She noted that other concepts have had to do with a bike 5 path and have some sort of park along the side of that potential bike path. She indicated there has also been discussion of having a town square and a sculpture garden. Ms. Segreto indicated that open space and park facilities in a community like Edina is hard to come by and therefore views this as a golden opportunity. She noted that she would like to see the Park Board get involved early on. She added she thinks they need to be a little proactive and maybe come to some of the planning meetings with some ideas to be considered otherwise she thinks they might be forgotten and just be thought of as only having a little sculpture sitting outside of a building. Ms. Segreto commented that she thinks Mr. Keprios idea about having a survey to determine what the community's needs are is a good one especially if grant money may be available. She asked Mr. Keprios what they would need to go ahead and do that. Mr. Keprios replied that the grant would probably only be approved if they could show that it would improve the health of residents, since it's a health initiative program. He noted that as long as it's for some health related amenity such as exercise equipment, pool, etc. he thinks they would have a legitimate shot at getting funding to do a survey if that, in fact, is the direction they want to go. Mr. Hulbert asked Ms. Jones if she had any impression in any way that there would be a survey as a result of what this group is studying at some point to see'what the community would want. Ms. Jones replied that no one has talked about a survey, but she does think that sounds like a good idea to pursue. Ms. Jones indicated that being the new person on the Park Board they may want to have someone who is more aware of what other space we may want as a Park Board. Where are the gaps or what could we do better or different or move to this site, because right now she may be the least likely one to bring these forward. Mr. Keprios informed the Park Board that they did do a very comprehensive needs assessment survey with 90% accuracy. He noted that he was surprised to find that the community felt we are short a recreation/community center. He commented that he's not exactly sure what that means and that they would have to do a follow -up study to determine what amenities the community feels we lack. He added that a lot of communities have all of their amenities under one roof and in Edina the amenities /facilities are spread throughout the city. Mr. Peterson noted that a couple of things have come up during the last three years. First, a lot of folks like to play basketball but use their car's headlights once it gets dark and therefore he would like to see some lighted basketball courts. Secondly, if there is some sort of a building put in at the site he would like the group to think about designing a roof for a community garden, which he continues to believe Edina needs. 2 Mr. Meyer asked Mr. Keprios what the timing would be and what would the process entail to apply for the grant and to receive the funds. Mr. Keprios replied that the grant he was referring to through the SHIP program would be a fairly short term process, possibly a couple of months. He commented that SHIP has enough funding to get them through two years so it would also be a possibility for next year. Mr. Keprios pointed out that the state may approve another round of grants for the SHIP program depending on their success. Mr. Meyer asked Mr. Keprios if he would like a motion, assuming the Park Board supports it, in that direction. Mr. Keprios replied no, it would be premature. He noted that he just brought it up in case it were to be determined that the site would be for recreational use then, at that point, he would suggest that they get a committee together and talk about what the needs are and then do a survey whether it be through a grant or through tax supported dollars. III. UPDATES FROM STAFF A. 9 -Mile Creek Regional Trail - Mr. Keprios informed the Park Board that last week they had another Community Assessment Team meeting and noted that the architect engineering firm, Bonestroo, gave their preliminary findings on the environmental assessment. He indicated that it became quite clear that the impact on some of the wetlands along the creek route are going to be problematic as they require a 9 to 1 wetlands mitigation which is going to be very challenging. He noted that it seemed clear to the group that some of the segments may not be feasible. Mr. Keprios indicated that the next community assessment meeting will be May 17`n B. Veteran's Memorial - Mr. Keprios informed the Park Board that they should have the Veteran's Memorial Committee application form on -line by the end of the week. They are looking for volunteers who are ready to serve on the committee. C. Farmer's Market — Mr. Keprios informed the Park Board that currently there are 20 vendors who have signed up and Mr. Shirley is sifting through several more. Therefore, it looks like they will get 25 vendors. He noted that they will be opening July 0 and that SHIP has granted them $3,000 to do some comprehensive advertising and promotion for the Farmer's Market. IV. PARK BOARD COMMENTS A. Policies - Mr. Meyer indicated that he has a couple of items regarding the process and concepts of policies. He noted that they just approved free use of the facilities for one group because they are having a national event; however, the students' May -term fundraising event will be charged a rental fee. He stated that he is a little sketchy on what really is the line if they are giving away facilities and how do they frame that. Mr. Meyer commented that for the disc event, which he thinks is great, how do they 7 determine whether that makes sense. In addition, if they are using the city logo what are the parameters? Mr. Meyer indicated that he didn't want to get into details because he felt they were both great projects. However, he thinks they need to have a little bit more framework in order to operate and understand the decisions. He commented that he really doesn't have any particular policies in mind but it would be more helpful in the future if they had one. Mr. Fronek indicated that they may be jumping through more hoops and hurdles than is necessary and feels that the Edina Community Foundation is a great organization and probably have more in experience looking at grant type things. He noted that it probably would be good to have some sort of a policy or cooperation with the Edina Community Foundation because it is their task to determine what is going to benefit the community and so that is something to think about as well. Meeting adjourned at 8:05 pm E:3 0 cb18BB I `" y/, REPORT /RECOMMENDATION To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL Agenda Item Item No. VII. A. -2 From: Debra Mangen City Clerk 1-1 Action F1 Discussion ® Information Date: June 1, 2010 Subject: CORRESPONDENCE AFTER PACKETS INFORMATION /BACKGROUND: Attached are copies of a -mails and letters received after the packets went out. Susan Howl Subject: FW: To Mayor Hovland RECEIVED iii n 2 0 �o�o Hello Mayor Hovland, My name is Laurie Chapman and I live on segment 2 of the proposed Nine Mile Creek bike trail. I spoke with you at the June 22nd Three Rivers Park District meeting. It was there that I asked you if you would walk the segment 2 trail with me. You said that you would do that and that I should E -mail you to arrange a date. I have been out of town (and still am) however, I will be in town on the following dates. Will any of these dates work out for you? We should not have to spend anymore than 45 minutes to an hour or less. I look forward to our walk and thank you very much for your time. Anytime on Monday, July 26th or after work or evening (before dark) Saturday, July 31 st anytime after 12 noon into evening Sunday, August 1st, anytime that day or evening Anytime on Saturday, August 7th or 8th or evening. I know that I will be in town on the above dates, but if none of these dates are convenient for you, please feel free to pick some times that work for you and I will make sure that I am in town on that date. I do think it is important to walk the trail before you meet with Three Rivers Park District to decide on which trail segments will make up the final bike route. When is that meeting? Thank you. Laurie Chapman 6420 Aspen Road Edina, MN 55436 H: 952- 933 -1689 cell: 612 - 210 -9686 chappy6420@aol.com Susan Howl Subject: FW: Council hearing tonight iu� � 0 1010 From: CreekValleyi @comcast.net [mailto:CreekValley1 @comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 1:30 PM To: Lynette Biunno Cc: Jackie Hoogenakker; creekvalleyl @comcast.net Subject: Council hearing tonight To: Edina City Council, Ms. Jackie Hoogenakker, et al. I am asking you as a resident of Edina, as my representative, and as a directly affected neighborhood resident NOT to approve the request of Colonial Church and Shelter Corp. for zoning change and NOT to approve the application to build the commercial apartment complex project on the agenda for presentation to you at council meeting, July 20, 2010. I ask that you reject the report and conclusions of Director Cary Teague concerning the planned "The Waters" project of Colonial Church / Shelter Corp, Please understand that the scope and nature of this project has been systematically misrepresented to the city council and community in an attempt to subvert our community zoning and neighborhood quality of life. This has been done simply in the interest of profits and greed and has nothing to do with providing any needed services to our community or populations. I ask you to uphold and respect our current zoning structure and avoid detrimental precedent for future spot zoning and neighborhood destruction. Gary Griffiths 5844 Creek Valley Rd Susan Howl Subject: FW: Colonial Church - Waters development JUL 2 0 Nio Subject: Colonial Church - Waters development We have lived in Edina for 48 years. We have always been proud of our community, and the services provided. However, the Colonial - Waters project has brought out a side of Edina that I didn't know existed. Spot zoning is not acceptable. You have opened the door to development that will change the character of our community and Edina as a whole. You know all the issues that our "Save Countryside" group has presented, and if there is any value in numbers, we have the numbers. Please vote NO to Director Teagues report, and consider a much smaller development in that site. Thank you, Joyce Sutherland 6104 Westridge Blvd. 1 Susan Howl Subject: FW: Support for the Water's Senior Living project. JUL 19 2010 From: Mark Hugo Excelsior, MN 7 relatives who live in Edina. Mark Hugo, long time Colonial Church member. Supporter of Edina school teams (cousin's children), participant in many Edina events, last 30 years ... fully supports the "Water's" project. A survey conducted 2 weeks ago, after the Planning Commission approval indicated that 12 houses had potential "views" of the project. Most of the critics arguments are "straw men ". IF MY HOUSE FACED THE PROJECT I would not be upset. I've had relatives in various homes (Elim, Mt. Olivet, Colony, etc.) NONE of those projects generate large traffic flows, nor noise, nor "light pollution ". We need this for our elderly. Please vote yes! Yours, Mark Hugo, P.E. RECEIVED JUL 202010 Susan Howl We urge the City Council to vote NO on the Revised Application submitted by the Colonial Church and Shelter Corporation. Accordingly, we urge the Council to reject Director Teague's expected recommendation approval of this application. My considered position on this matter is based on the seriously questionable practice of the Planning Commission. Adoption of the application would be inconsistent with the established zoning and would give legitimacy to spot zoning. PLEASE VOTE "NO" Herman H. & Jane W. Bains 6101 Tracy Avenue Edina, MN 55436 07/20/2010 Susan Howl Attachments: MN Business 2008 Shelter Corp Feature- 125 units.pdf ' Subject: Shelter Corp. originally planned only 125 units Dear Mayor Hovland and City Council members, RECEIVED Jul- 2 0 2010 Please find attached an article from the September 2008 issue of Minnesota Business featuring an interview with the CEO/President of Shelter Corporation and also featuring the proponent's representative to the city, Jay Jensen. The bottom of the second substantive page states that the proposed project with Colonial church will have only 125 units. I participate in asbestos litigation and personal injury mediations regularly and in those mediations there is substantial give and take between the parties. I do not believe the mediation we had with the proponent last Spring was a legitimate mediation and the attached article is proof of that. The fact that the proponent has come down 11 units to 139 units is still substantially above their original plan as publicized in September of 2008! Furthermore, the article mentions that there is a Colony assisted living building in Inver Grove Heights which only contains 75 units. How can the proponent argue that they need 139 units to make the complex financially successful when they operate much smaller complexes throughout the state and country? Thank you kindly for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Kent B. Gravelle 5609 Tracy Ave. Edina, MN 55436 (952) 922 -8596 Fax: (952) 513 -4750 email: kent rag vellegaravellelaw.com Reference Periodical SD q Vision -Ease> Minnesota business. � Bankruptcy to Profitability ✓ol. 18 no. 5 (Sept. 2008) 1 , i SEPTEMBER 2008 DERSHIP b CTPF�bR T UNITY ► GROWTH __j )ISCONI Y;;: t /hat happens hen a lawsuits � sires your -, rt.. ,�„�' � �• .tonic files? i CADENINA . BUSIMESS nding new 'ays to tersect FOCUS ill is a fine time r car fans '711117Ifllllll!'II II�I!il W "*"""" __CAR -RT LOT —CO27 42395 NOV 08 917015 S18503 B308 C6 P6 Peridical SOUTHDALE -HENN AREA LIBRARY US Postage Paid 7001 YORK AVE S Hopkins, MN EDINA MN 55435 -2510 Permit No. 020375 LE�,.. w BY David Gee PHOTOS BY Tate Carlson ppearances can be deceiving, can't they? Look at Shelter Corporation's website and you'll see a basic, no- frills description of a "Minneapolis -based corporation that finances, develops, owns, and manages multi - family and senior rental communities throughout the United States." Read down a little further and peek inside the portfolio and you'll see the company principals have developed or acquired 15,000 units encompassing $790 million in real estate, and currently have assets of around $400 million. The company also manages over 8,000 units in a myriad of settings. The corporate headquarters facility itself can play a trick on you as well. The setting, abutting some wetlands and a lake just south of 494 and Minnetonka Blvd., is certainly pastoral enough, and from the outside the brick building housing the headquarters employees is nice looking. Step inside however and you are treated to a myriad of marble and glass and stunning views from multiple vantage points and they even have ESPN on plasma screens in the elegantly appointed men's room. How cool is that? The company president, CEO and founder Lynn Carlson Schell is also a picture of understated elegancei though she's had some success worth shouting about as she shifted the company from a service - oriented business to an asset -based entity. She also has the company poised for exponential growth even though she doesn't necessarily think of herself as a classic entrepreneur. Lynn Carlson Schell started her real estate company in a down market in 1993 armed only with experience and a vision. Today, in another down market, her $130 million Shelter Corporation is thriving, and she likes the way the future looks too. Cliff Hill Townhouses in Burnsville SHELTER CORPORATION Shelter Corporation is coordinating a substantial rehabilitation of 32 units. projects in deN7elopment of Section 8 townhomes in Burnsville using housing tax credits. . . mum September 2008 1 Minnesota Business 41 "My sense of a traditional entrepreneur is someone who really is driven and visionary. I think I am visionary in the way that I want to create something where there is a need or a void. But most entrepreneurs I think of are much more daring, and they're pretty big risk - takers. By nature real estate is a very high leverage business and it's a very risky business, and inherently I am risk - adverse." That statement can be viewed with some skepticism given that Carlson Schell incorpo- rated the business in January of 1993, at a time when "real estate was just in the toilet" in her words. She had watched the principals of the development company where she worked for nine years generate personal wealth, take it out of the company, and not value it the way she would. So she offered a buyout, started up on her own, and took on substantial personal liabilities in the process. That's a proposition that certainly could easily be described as risky, don't you think? "The first couple of years were really lean," she recounts. "I used to sit down and map out how many payrolls I could make. At times I would have three months of payroll in the bank, sometimes I would have six weeks. I always thought if I got down to one month I would have to tell people." During those first two years the company had 2,000 units under management and then she began the game - changing process of moving from a service oriented company to an asset based one, something that still holds true today. "About 1995 we diversified and figured out how we could acquire," Carlson Schell said, in her beautifully appointed conference room. "I had been trained in the area of new construction which is often easier to finance The Colony at Edina The Colony at Edina, in cooperation with Colonial Church, will be an upscale senior housing commu- nity with 125 units of senior independent living, assisted living and memory support. "By nature real estate is a very high leverage business and it's a very risky business, and inherently I am risk- adverse." —L,`t iii CARLS,G "t SC; H':ELL than an existing acquisition. The underwriting for acquisition is traditionally more conservative as the underwriter is looking at actual history rather than projections in the future. With a glut of supply, new construction had died by the mid `90s. It was very hard to access capital. So use really shifted our focus and swung from almost 100 percent new construction to 100 percent acquisition and that made us much more competitive. We were really, well positioned when real estate began to come back around 1997 (or so)." Another tipping point came during the period from 1999 to 2001 when Shelter Corporation diversified into senior communi- ties. Spearheading that was a newly constructed property called The Colony at Eden Prairie. It consists of 142 units of independent and assisted living and another 24 units of transitional care in a surprisingly bucolic setting just east of the Eden Prairie Mall. "The really unique thing about that is we took a campus that is 100 percent housing and brought in a 25 bed skilled nursing component (care) with a transitional care focus which all ows The Colony at Inver Grove Heights 75 -80 unit assisted living facility adjacent to the Woodland Nursing Home. Building Your Are you concerned with rising costs? High fees? Gas prices? Hiway Federal Credit Union ( Hiway) is committed to understanding your business and providing innovative, cost - effective solutions to help your business succeed. We may not be able to help you with the cost of gas, but we can save you money on your financial services. Call us today! AY .UIWA, FEDERAL CREDIT UNION With You on the Road of Life 111 Empire Drive • St. Paul, MN 55103 (651) 291 -1515 • (B00) 899 -LOAN www.hiway.org September 2008 1 MinnesotaBusiness 43 > CO`s' -EF 570172"1 - shelter corporation Management Team Lynn Carlson Schell, President/CEO Jay Jensen, Principal Kyle Didier, Chief Financial Officer Beth Wilson, Chief Operating Officer Kathleen Conlan Joyce, Business Development people to do near hospital -level rehab 100 feet from their apartment (with a transitional care option)," Carlson Schell stated proudly. "It was the first time this had been done in the state and was one of the first in the country and it has done very well for us. The Minnesota Department of Health and others have toured it to try to replicate it and as a matter of fact it has been replicated now a couple of times here in this state." Shelter Corporation itself is doing that as well with several new local projects based on The Colony model. They're breaking ground this fall on Nokomis Assisted Living in south Minneapolis, and the company recently won the development rights to a piece of properry at Crosstown and Tracy that Colonial Church owns. Depending on the city planning and zon- ing process, they should break ground in spring of '09 with 125 units of senior independent living, assisted living and memory support. "Having these three properties in a single market I think will create a lot more opporrun.i- ties for us," says Carlson Schell enthusiastically. "We can raise our private fund of equity to more methodically and proactively go out and identify these types of transactions on a more consistent and programmatic basis." That's not to say that the senior business hasn't already represented a nice chunk of growth for Shelter Corporation. In 2007 that area of the company doubled to $55 million in revenue and Carlson Schell says they are poised for more growth, even as the market is changing. "A generation ago you came to a home and convalesced to the end of your life. We're now very focused on giving people an opportunity to choose from a whole spectrum of care options. You no longer have to keep moving your home and be continually displaced as you age, but rather you can age in place, in what- ever housing style you choose. That's what we feel is unique about the product we have. Is it news that our population is aging and Coventry Apar{rnents in Roseville Ebenezer [mark and Ebenezer Towers Nokomis Assisted 196 Section 8 apartment units being Rehabilitation in Minneapolis Living in Minneapolis substantially rehabilitated in Roseville using Working to manage the financing and rehabilitation of 77 -unit assisted living development housing tax credits and tax exempt bonds. 291 units of federally subsidized Section 8 housing. breaking ground in '09. A�°F'z,• '"tR9�m r�- •n€.i� ��w=Tfi°saow" "3!F,�` 1�IiS'...tit`•' ' �rf' 11Y6B= ''�*'�+]IbE_�IL.:= i�_�`.rk ^��:r�— a_I -�--_ - 1t 44 MinnesotaBusiness I September 2008 _ "Development takes some creativity for projects to work so you want an open, free - flowing environment to encourage that process and teamwork. That's one of our real strengths." will require more and better housing choices? No. Does it dilute the opportunity? I don't think so. There may be more competition in the future as more and more companies get into this area, but there is a very big learning curve. As a result, I think we are very well positioned with a decade of experience under our belts already." When Carlson Schell began to contem- plate where she might go to get her first professional work experience after college, she said she liked what she saw of the real estate sector in general. "I say we get three bites at the apple; cash flow from transactions, equity, and then the fee income from property management. Another wonderful thing about real estate though is that you can continue to dabble in it as long as you want. You can always decide to do one -off transactional business and keep all of your holdings even if at some point you exit the operating company." Lynn Carson Schell and her other partners aren't looking to put an exit strategy into play anytime soon. Before I exited the interview though I decided to give her another shot at my original question because she sure sounded a lot like a "classic entrepreneur" to me. "I think sometimes people look at entre- preneurs and imagine they are something special. You sit back and you watch others and you think to yourself there has to be some `secret.' But there really isn't. There is definitely an opportunity component to it. In my case it was being involved in a company that was broken but had some good pieces lying around. In those pieces I saw value. What made me think I could do it? Why not? Y'know, why not ?" We see morel BUSINESS LA LABSINC money' than SKUNKWORKS FOR ENTREPRENEURS] We see learning.Your There are two questions we are asked all the time: Y employees - WHAT DO YOU DO? AND HOW DID YOU KNOW? <r % resource. Join us for coffee, bagels and applied experience. Tom Walker Sr., a 30 .. nk and allow them to year veteran of advising entrepreneurs, will lead an open discussion of his share their knowledge book, Private Dream /Public Good: the Entrepreneur's War with Himself and Corporatism. - -_q with the whole .. _ , .4I — 3601 PARK CENTER BLVD � 920 MINNEAPOL S MN 5 4162 952 7705. ex.4 September 2008 1 MinnesotaBusiness 45 RECEIVED JUL 2 0 2010 Susan Howl Subject: VOTE NO to Colonial Church and Shelter Corp's Development Application Dear City Council Members, We do not live in the Countryside neighborhood; however, we are Edina residents and we are very concerned about the zoning precedent that the Living Waters Project will set for other residential areas in Edina. We believe the City (thus far) is not following its Comprehensive Plan or zoning codes with respect to the Living Waters Project. The Edina Comprehensive Plan requires that development be compatible with the neighborhood. Colonial Church has operated as a conditional use permit holder in a 100% residential area for more than 30 years. Now the City is potentially allowing Colonial Church to form a for - profit business partnership to build a $40 million upscale apartment building that will alter the character and symmetry of the residential neighborhood forever. The building as proposed is massive, nearly 600 ft long, and up to 52 ft tall, and 100 ft deep, being in a neighborhood with no building even approaching the same size. Since the Developer and Church would not or could not compromise with the 2 story, 50 — 75 units, we feel the church's property should remain residential and be developed as single family or town homes. The Living Waters Project appears to be "spot zoning" and is not congruous with Edina's Comprehensive Plan or zoning laws. The Living Waters Project establishes a dangerous precedent that could potentially damage the city's character (and thus property values /property taxes). Edina has a lot of church property throughout the city that could be repurposed for mega complexes such as the Living Waters Project. Please VOTE NO to the Colonial Church and Shelter Corp's Development Application. Katie and Mark Bourget 6203 South Knoll Drive Edina, MN 952 - 935 -4007 Susan Howl TO: RECEIVED Edina City Council JUL 101010 Edina Park Board To whom it may concern: RE: The draft EAW for the Edina portion of the proposed Nine -Mile Creek Regional Trail I don't want Three Rivers' tall, ugly boardwalks. I don't want the floodplains filled. I don't want the creek's water quality further impaired. I don't want the wildlife and its habitat disturbed. I don't want the (noise, air and water) pollution from construction and, later, users of the trail. What I want is for you folks to please keep the trail off the creek. Respectfully, Jim Landberg 5408 Creek View Lane Edina MN 55439 952 828 -9619 1 Susan Howl July 15, 2010 DECEIVED Mayor James Hovland and City Council 1010 Edina City Hall ��E' 0 4801 W. 50th St. Edina, MN 55424 Dear Mayor and Edina City Council: I am writing this letter on behalf of my support for the Colonial Church Senior Housing Project. As a member of the church, and as a former member of the on the Church Finance Committee, I have heard about this project for months and the careful planning and consideration that has gone into it. I own a business that has been located in Edina for the past 15 years and believe this type of facility is much needed in the community. While I understand the concerns of some of the neighbors, it is my opinion that: 1) This housing is a needed, and welcomed addition to the changing demographics. It is the type of resource business owners such as myself will find attractive as we move closer towards retirement and consider the community in which we will live. 2) A wonderful ministry opportunity to "live in community" with those we can serve. This facility will provide a nurturing of both the body and soul of the residents. 3) Very minimal traffic interruption into the surrounding neighborhood (I enter Colonial from Crosstown, and never enter further into the neighborhood. I believe this would be the same for the major majority of those entering the Sr. Housing. I urge you to vote positively for this wonderful addition to Edina's landscape and service to the community. Sincerely, Stan Stanek President/CEO Alpha Video and Audio, Inc. 7711 Computer Avenue Edina, MN 55435 952 - 841 -3328 Susan Howl RECEIVED To: Three Rivers Park District Re: Nine Mile Bike Trail CC: Edina Mayor and CityCouncil I am writing about the Three Rivers Bike Trail as the presentation at City Hall in June and spoke to representatives who were very helpful. JUL 2 0 2010 it applies to the City of Edina. I attended several of the park district Option 5F is not a feasible alternative. I was told by staff that it was significantly less expensive than other options. My point is that this is a false assumption. It is penny wise and dollar foolish. What it is saying is to Kick the can down the road" and let somebody else worry about it later.I have already written to the Edina Parks Director and the City Council to warn them of this pending dilemma. It will end up being a hugh expense to the Edina taxpayers in future years. The planning for this trail has, at this point, been for "now" and not for the next 15 to 20 years. I realize that "getting it done" is important, but but short - sighted planning is never cost effective. The conflicts around Countryside Park are enormous! When I asked how two way bike traffic would be routed on Tracy Avenue between Olinger and Colonial Way, I was told that the bike path would be built on Park Property on the West side of Tracy Avenue! WOW! Several trees taken out there! That also means that the Flower Garden on the corner of Tracy and Olinger will be replaced by asphalt, destroying the beauty of our residential neighborhood! No more trees, no more flowers. More conflicts on Olinger Boulevard! I did not ask, but the bike trail would have to be either on the street outside of the parking lane for the ball diamonds or on the narrow space along side of the ball field parking, most likely the latter. That presents a conflict for little kids running back and forth from the field to their cars. Are you aware that the second ball diamond (full size, not junior league) is going to be upgraded with dugouts and facilities similar to the one on the corner of the park? That this will increase the parking pressure on what is now inadequate parking space for the ball diamonds. This route will become obsolete by the time it is completed and the pressure from the parents of the ball players, who did not know what was happening, will build a demand to re- locate the bike trail. Sort of a repeat of the #169- #494 intersection by the State Highway department; obsolete before it was even completed. Penny wise and dollar foolish! From the the bike riding family perspective, coming down Olinger , the park traffic and parking congestion, running small children close to the curb along the fast traffic of Tracy Avenue, crossing Tracy by the fire station and the intersections with the Crosstown access, is an invitation to major and minor tragedies. There will be LOTS of pressures for a safer routing. Again, penny wise and dollar foolish! Kicking the can down the road! What to do? The obvious crossIng of Tracy Ave (Valley View Road) is just South of the Baptist Church. There is an open corner on the South side of the road and the brush can be cleared on the North side making a (seasonal) crossing with flashing lights or whatever is necessary to alert motorists and protect children. There is even adequate space on both sides to ramp up and down to a bridge which would be the ultimate long range planning solution to build for the future safety of children and families enjoying the bike trail. Now is the time to make the right decision. Harvey Havir 6108 Tracy Ave Susan Howl RECEIVED JUL 2 0 2010 From: alihul @aol.com [mailto:alihul @aol.com] Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 10:54 PM To: Lynette Biunno; Kirk.Johnson @LoganLogic.com Subject: BETF- Ride with the Mayor and Council Please forward to Mayor Hovland and Council Members Bennett, Brindle, Housh, and Swenson Greetings! We are planning our annual bike ride with the Mayor and City Council. Our provisional date is Thurs. Aug. 5th, 5:30pm at Weber Park. We will ride about 12 miles on the nearby Cedar Lake Trail. If you would like to attend but have a conflict with that date, please let me know by Monday July 19th so that we can accommodate your schedule. We have bikes available if you do not currently own one. Thanks! Alice Hulbert 952 - 215 -4434 RECEIVED JUL 2 0 2010 Susan Howl Subject: Please VOTE NO to the Colonial Church and Shelter Corp's Development Application Dear Mayor and City Council Members - My wife and I moved into our home at 5916 Olinger Boulevard almost a year ago. We purchased the home from a woman who had lived there nearly 40 years with her family. I have to admit, when my wife first suggested Edina as a place for our family (the two of us and a one year old at the time), I was very skeptical. I had lumped Edina in with many of the other surrounding suburbs that are overbuilt with "mc mansions," over developed with a strip mall or retail store on every corner and just plain lacked character. Upon our first visit to the home, we knew right away that this was the place that we wanted to live. We had looked at 50+ homes throughout Edina and Minneapolis and had zero interest up until that point. Seeing the home - - full of the character we were looking for - - and 'its surroundings (close to Bredesen and Countryside parks), I was sold. I had bought into the notion of Edina even before I was able to experience the other benefits that the city has to offer in terms of the Family Center and associated programs, broader community events and, most important, great neighbors that have become fast friends. With that being said, I can't tell you the disappointment that I am currently experiencing as it pertains to the proposed Waters Senior Living Facility at Colonial Church. Like the vast majority of my neighbors, I am not opposed to a senior living facility coming.into our neighborhood, but rather one that is of the scale and mass that this one is being proposed as. The list of my concerns is extensive - - too extensive to name them all here. I will take the opportunity to highlight my main concerns and oppositions to the development under its current proposal. Zoning - I am curious why the City would entertain such radical amendments to existing zoning structures. The precedent that this would establish could potentially change the face of the city altogether. You know that there are other locations / groups within Edina watching this and waiting for the opportunity to develop what could certainly be considered out of character for most residential neighborhoods / areas within our city. This decision will open the door for rapid development and, in all likelihood, something that we would not be able to get back under control until it is too late. Traffic - Do we really think that there is going to be "minimal" impact to the traffic in the area once this facility opens? Remember, only a small portion of the residents will NOT be driving. The majority that does drive will be driving through one of the great parks that Edina has to offer. Layer on the delivery vehicles, visitors, employees and other support vehicles (emergency, etc.) and we all know, there will be substantial increase to traffic in the area. This is not even taking the construction period into consideration where we can all expect trucks moving all about and the associated noise pollution. The intent of the project has been outlined as something that will create a location for the generation of Edina citizens that is in need of housing like this a place to move within the community while creating homes for people of my generation and their families to purchase. This is flawed logic as far as I am concerned. Of the contemporaries that my wife and I have, I can think of nobody that would view having this huge complex within the neighborhood in which they are looking to purchase a home would represent a selling point. Quite the opposite is the case; a facility like this would stand as a reason NOT to move into a neighborhood like Countryside. There are several, commercial locations within our city that can support a facility of this nature; why can't we propose it is built in one of them? 1 As I mentioned at the last planning commission meeting, I cannot say that we would not have moved into our home with knowledge of this project. I can say that we have been very on purpose in how we are investing in our home - - something we were looking forward to doing = - because I have zero confidence that if the Waters is built as is that we would ever recoup substantial investments when the time does come. Colonial Church is a fixture within the Countryside neighborhood and I hope it remains such for a very long time. We look forward to potentially sending our son to pre - school there next year (currently enrolled but we will send him elsewhere if this is approved) and his brother the year after that. We are certainly invested in the Colonial's future and certainly hope that there is a way for it to meet its objectives without a development of this nature. There are other options to deliver the financial outcomes the Church seeks without changing the face of our neighborhood so drastically. With that, I would ask that you do not support the Waters proposal as it stands. Please be mindful of the precedent that a zoning change of this nature will have on our entire city (potentially even your neighborhood(s)). I would ask you to recall my impression of the city prior to really taking a look and understanding what Edina had to offer - - overbuilt, "mc mansions," over developed retail spaces and lack of character. While it is great to say that nothing could be farther from the truth in Edina today, we would certainly point ourselves down that path with a decision that supports a radical zoning change and the construction of a misplaced, massive, commercial structure within an established neighborhood. Again, please vote no on the application submitted by Colonial Church and the Shelter Corporation. Thank you. Erik Jensen 5916 Olinger Boulevard z Susan Howl Subject: Save Countryside Neighborhood To whom it may concern: RECEIVE® R11. 10 2010 I've been silent so far on the issue of the Waters Senior Living project in Edina, and I shouldn't be. - As a resident of Tracy Avenue (about a mile north of 62 and Tracy) and a marketing researcher by profession (president and owner of Orman Guidance Research in Bloomington), I do have something to contribute to this discussion. Thank you in advance for indulging me as both a resident and a researcher. As a Countryside resident, my protest is that the character of the neighborhood will change; property values will be negatively impacted: traffic will exponentially increase on an already very busy street. The Waters project as it is proposed means additional cars and trucks by the hundreds. Think about it: residents, visitors, professional and support staff, deliveries, services, infrastructure services and so on. As an aside (and too bad for me) I purchased my Tracy Ave home in 2005 when property values were grossly over - inflated. Despite assurances from the so- called professionals my property has not increased in value; in fact, when I put it on the market last fall I was offered just over half of what I paid for it. The primary objection of would -be buyers? "Tracy Avenue is simply too busy a street." Therefore, I cannot imagine that properties in this neighborhood could even retain its value if the Waters project comes to fruition. Even in its current form Tracy Ave is viewed as "too busy ". All that said, as a researcher I put emotion aside and examined the Senior housing options and demographics in this area. What I found made me wonder why anyone would believe, as one writer put it, that "[the Waters project] is the type of thing Edina needs." Take a look; we have plenty of options in Edina: Walker Elder Suites, Edina Park Plaza, Sunrise of Edina, Vernon Terrace, Heritage of Edina, South Haven, Summit Point and Yorktown Continental — not to mention the dozens of facilities in nearby neighboring communities. All these facilities offer varying levels of rental, residency and care for seniors, and according to my independent inquiries most of them have ample availability. So do we really need another facility? With all the Senior housing options in Edina and neighboring communities, it seems that the Edina City Council is not pushing through the Waters Senior Living project because it should, but because it can. Rosemary Sundin Edina 612 - 309 -9762 RECEIVED Susan Howl I JUL 2 0 0010. Mayor and Edina City Council I am concerned about the zoning change requested by Colonial Church and Shelter Corporation. This is a beautiful quiet single family neighborhood. Zoning has maintained this as a single family neighborhood. Edina can be proud of its zoning which has maintained and grown the value of our homes. I have lived most of my 61 years in my current home at 5917 Olinger Road and have seen this area grow from and area of open fields and farms to this beautiful quiet neighborhood. I have recently purchased a townhome in an area of Eagan where the city of Eagan allowed a mixture of rental townhomes, owner occupied townhomes and apartment buildings to be built on what was farm land. If you look at the single family homes that sit between these large buildings you see homes that have not maintained their value. The value of the townhomes continues to decline and the apartment rents decline. Good for me since I needed a place for my daughter to live cheaply while she attends Argosy University. But bad for the homeowners in this area. I respectfully request that Edina maintain the current zoning for this parcel of land owned by Colonial Church. We do not need this large commercial development that is being passed off as a nursing home. The developers will call it a convalescent home in one sentence and then later say these people will still be driving and are active seniors. Nursing homes that I have visited do not have parking for their residents. They may have a small van to take them on errands or doctor appointments. This is really a large upscale apartment building with a restaurant that the residents are required to use. It needs to be in a commercial area of Edina not in this single family area of Edina. There will be numerous delivery vehicles and increased traffic from residents of this apartment building, their visitors, and employees of Shelter corporation. Shelter corporation claims that this traffic will come off the crosstown, but there is no way of proving this. They may do the same thing I do, and that is to exit on 70th from highway 100 and travel 66th street to Tracy to avoid the dangerous exit off the crosstown at Tracy. Any traffic backup from a left turn off Tracy to Colonial Way will be directly in front of the fire station and if more than a few cars /trucks will back up to Valley View and the crosstown exits. Why would you want to live in the countryside neighborhood with this traffic mess? Why would a young family want to buy my home with this traffic? Would home prices drop? Would this neighborhood look like the area of Eagan near Donald and Yankee Doodle? Please vote no on changing the zoning for this parcel of land. Karen Ostman 5917 Olinger Road Please do not change the zoning. Please retain the quality of this area. RECEIVED Susan Howl JUL 2 0 2010 To the Edina City Council, I am writing to express my concerns regarding the Edina Nine Mile Creek Trail system proposed by the Three Rivers Park District. I also would like the opportunity offer constructive suggestions. I have concerns about a particular segment of the Trail because it affects my family's home. I also have concerns about the Trail in general. ROUTE 5F CONCERNS I am particularly concerned about route 5F. Route 5F was introduced without any community input, which is disrespectful to Edina homeowners and taxpayers. In addition, when more information was requested of Three Rivers, they were very defensive, and would not take questions. This left no mechanism for Edina homeowners and taxpayers to express appropriate concerns to them. Route 5F raises significant safety concerns, not only for our family and home, but also relating to the proximity of the bicycle traffic to the motor vehicle traffic and safety. Route 5F is less desirable than Route 5E for safety reasons. If Route 5F runs along the west side of Tracy north of Hwy 62, it runs in front of the fire station. This would interfere with Edina's emergency response system. In addition, it will cross entry and exit ramps to Hwy 62, which is hazardous. Tracy Avenue also has traffic to /from school, and Countryside Park has many activities, and there is increased potential for accidents. On the south side of Hwy 62, the proposed Route 5F would run along the east side of Tracy, adjacent to a steep hill. If anyone falls of the trail, injuries could be severe. If Route 5F runs along the east side of Tracy south of Hwy 62, it exposes my mother's home. She is a senior living alone. Trail users could look down into her house and back yard from a second -story height, invading her privacy. In addition, her home would become more accessible. Currently, without a trail, several people make their way down the hill from Tracy or the on -ramp, through her backyard, and ring her door bell. Again, she is a senior living alone, and this raises safety concerns for us. If this route is approved, at the very least a wall of large evergreen trees, and possibly a high fence, would need to be put up along the east side of Tracy Avenue extending along the on -ramp for Hwy 62 East. Three Rivers has not been forthcoming about any plans to protect personal homes or safety in this regard. PROPOSED SOLUTIONS In my opinion, Route 5 + 5E would have less impact on private property (both on the North and South side of Hwy 62) than Route 5F, and seems more desirable overall. If Trail 5F is seriously being considered, it makes more sense for the trail to run along the West side of Tracy south of Hwy 62, since this does not involve any private homes, and no one lives at the church. It could then cross Tracy at the Valley Lane intersection. It should be noted that this is dangerous crossing point because of the traffic streaming rather rapidly down the hill from the high school. Stop signs would need to be put in there, and this would slow traffic in the area. Another option that has not been entertained is having the trail run near Colonial Church, behind the Fire station, and cross Hwy 62 with a new bridge that is west of Tracy, and runs west of or behind Creek Valley Church. This would avoid all the intersection crossings, the fire station, and private homes. This seems like a safer path all around, and should be seriously considered. RECEIVED JUL. 2 0 2010 NINE MILE CREEK TRAIL Three Rivers Park District proposed this trail to connect Edina to the trail systems of Hopkins and Richfield. The initial proposal was for a trail along Nine Mile Creek. However, because of environmental and cost concerns, road based alternatives have been proposed. These routes run in front of or behind numerous Edina residents' homes, and cross busy intersections and highway entrances. Since the road based alternatives no longer run along Nine Mile Creek, perhaps new trails should be considered altogether, i.e. trails that maintain privacy of Edina residents, run through more scenic areas, and are .not a safety risk. I propose the following trail — route 1 to route 3, then continue east on Vernon. There could be on off shoot to connect the Bredesen Park trail. The main trail could then continue east on Vernon, and cross Hwy 100 at Eden Avenue. The trail could then run south along Wilson Road. It could then be taken along the ramp between Hwy 62 W and Hwy 100 N, run along Hwy 62164^ Street, and then cross Hwy 62 to Cornelia Park. The later portion would require further investigation because there are homes in this area, but perhaps the trail could run alongside the Hwy and be fenced to exclude it from neighborhood. A bridge already exists that crossed Hwy 62. There could be an off shoot to connect the Cornelia Park trail. The trail could then be taken along Valley View Road to 691^ Street to connect to the Target - Centennial Lakes path. This route would utilize wide streets where there may be existing sidewalks, or room for a wider trail, and don't pass near as many homes. Of course, this would need to be studied in more detail and input obtained from neighborhood that may be affected. I also wanted to comment that perhaps the residents of Edina would like a walking path in addition to a bike route, to allow for more recreation via walking or running, not only biking. Please take into consideration my concerns regarding Route 5F in particular, and my suggestions for a more comprehensive trail system. Edina residents would like to be assured that prior to approving Nine Mile Creek Trail, all other options have been considered - options that preserve trees and wildlife, and Edina neighborhoods and homes. This would be welcomed by Edina residents. If you are interested in exploring these ideas further, please call me. I would be happy to meet in person, and attend meetings. Sincerely, Emelie F. Helou, M.D. RECEIVED July 15, 2010 pl 2 0 2010 Douglas R. Jones 4701 Aspasia Circle Edina, MN 55435 Mayor James Hovland City of Edina 4801 W. 50" St. Edina, MN 55424 Dear Jim: I am writing to encourage your positive consideration for the Waters senior housing project. As a long time resident of Edina and member of Colonial Church, I believe this would be an excellent development for the City of Edina. I believe that the many other members of Colonial who are residents of Edina agree with me. Some of the reasons why I think you should vote in favor of this development request are as follows: • The developers and members of the Church who have been involved with this project have worked very hard with the City staff, Planning Commission, etc. to come up with a plan that works well for that site. In particular, the project has been reduced in size and scope in order to try to meet some of the concerns raised by people in the neighborhood and on the Council. • I believe that this project is probably the best use for which that land could be developed. It is well buffered from the neighborhood by the church, park, fire station, freeway and condominiums that would surround it. It appears that the traffic impact would be minimal. Certainly the site is not well suited for single family homes. I suspect the only thing that would really satisfy all the neighbors who are objecting would be to do nothing with that land. • Because of the physical proximity of the Church, I think this development will be very unique and well received in the community. Although other such facilities may have a relationship with a church, none that I am aware of will be as close to a church as this one. As a result, the Church will be uniquely able to provide ministerial services for the residents and the residents will be able to participate in the many events at the Church, including not only religious activities but other things such as the many music events that are put on there. • Finally, and perhaps most importantly from your perspective as Mayor, I believe this will be a very positive development for the City. It will be an upscale facility for the senior citizens of our community, which, I believe, will keep many City residents, such as Sarah and me, in the community when we reach that point in life when we need a facility such as this. Obviously, it will also contribute to the tax base of the City. Net, net, I think this would be a wonderful development in the City, and I hope that you will vote in favor of the proposal. Sincerely, Douglas o es July 15, 2010 Mayor James Hovland and City Council Edina City Hall 4801 W. 50th St. Edina, MN 55424 Dear Mayor and Edina City Council: RECEIVED JUL 2 0 2010 I am writing this letter on behalf of my support for the Colonial Church Senior Housing Project. As a member of the church, and on the Church Council, I have heard about this project for months and the careful planning and consideration that has gone into it. I grew up in Edina, and have a fond attachment to it as my "home town" community. While I understand the concerns of some of the neighbors, it is my opinion that: 1) This housing is a needed, and welcomed addition to the changing demographics 2) A wonderful ministry opportunity to "live in community" with those we can serve 3) Very minimal traffic interruption into the surrounding neighborhood (I enter Colonial from Crosstown, and never enter further into the neighborhood. I believe this would be the same for the major majority of those entering the Sr. Housing. I urge you to vote positively for this wonderful addition to Edina's landscape and service to the community. Sincerely, Jitu Sue Harr Stanek, Ph.D. 8117 W. 96' St. Bloomington, MN 55438 Susan Howl Subject: FW: Waters development RECEIVED JUL. 2 0 2010 Subject: Waters development To City Council members: My husband and I are very much in favor of the Waters development. We believe it is a perfect use of the land - and that the neighbors will eventually find that it is an asset to the neighborhood, as is Colonial Church which they also once resisted. We hope that the project will be fully approved at this evening's meeting. Joy Risse and Grady Watts 6808 Chapel Lane, Edina 1 RECEIVED JUL 2 0 2010 Susan Howl Subject: Opposed to Waters development Hello Mary, My wife and I, and many others, are adamantly opposed to the scope and size of the proposed building. We are also opposed to the zoning change that was recently made in order to enable this development. The main problem with the development plans is that the proposed building is far too large and it does not fit with the character and symmetry of the Countryside Neighborhood. There is no precedent for a 195,000 square foot, for - profit apartment complex being placed in the center of a residential Edina neighborhood that does not have even small -scale commercial activity. Also, the intersection at Hwy 62 and Tracy Avenue is already often crowded, and it is difficult to exit from Hwy 62 to go south onto Tracy. The unknown impact from a possible new Three Rivers bike trail raises other concerns. The resulting commercial activity will disrupt forever the tranquil and domestic nature of the neighborhood. We believed and trusted that there would be no commercial activity in our neighborhood when we purchased our home. It is unfair and unjust to impose such activity on us as we had no reasonable expectation such changes would occur. Thank you for your consideration. Phil Bohrer and lean McDowall From: Mary Brindle <mbrindle @comcast.net> To: philipjbohrer @yahoo.com Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 5:01:39 PM Subject: FW: Opposed to Waters development Good afternoon, Thank you for your email message, below. If you have specific reasons why you are opposed to the Waters project I'd be interested in knowing your opinion. I will add your opinion to my spreadsheet as "opposed" without any specifics. Thanks. Mary Brindle 952 - 941 -7746 home 612 - 270 -9887 cell 1 From:Lynette Biunno [ mailto :edinamail @ci.edina.mn.us] Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 1:08 PM To: Gordon Hughes; Cary Teague Cc: Susan Howl; Arlene Forrest; Floyd Grabiel; Jeffrey Carpenter; Julie Risser; Karwehn Kata; Kevin Staunton; Michael Fischer; Michael Schroeder; Nancy N. Scherer; Steve Brown Subject: FW: Opposed to Waters development Hello there, This message has been forwarded to the Mayor and Council members, Gordon Hughes, Cary Teague and the Planning Commission members. Lynette Biunno City of Edina Receptionist 952 - 927 -8861 www.citvofedina.com From:philb [ mailto:philipjbohrer @yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 1:00 PM To: Lynette Biunno Cc: Jackie Hoogenakker Subject: Opposed to Waters development As long -term Edina residents, we urge you to please vote against the "Waters" development. We assume you are already aware of the numerous reasons most of the residents in the area are strongly opposed to the proposed development. Thank you. Phil Bohrer and Jean McDowall z RECEIVED JUL 2 0.2010 Susan Howl From: Lynette Biunno Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 8:29 AM To: Gordon Hughes; Cary Teague Cc: Susan Howl; Arlene Forrest; Floyd Grabiel; Jeffrey Carpenter; Julie Risser; Karwehn Kata; Kevin Staunton; Michael Fischer; Michael Schroeder; Nancy N. Scherer; Steve Brown Subject: FW: Revised Colonial Church and Shelter Corporation's Developer's Application Hello there, This message has been forwarded to the Mayor and Council members, Gordon Hughes, Cary Teague and the Planning Commission members. Lynette Biunno City of Edina Receptionist 952 - 927 -8861 www.citvofedina.com From: Roger Pilgram [mailto:rpilgram @att.net] Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 8:32 PM To: Lynette Biunno Cc: Jackie Hoogenakker Subject: Revised Colonial Church and Shelter Corporation's Developer's Application We are asking the Edina City Council to Vote No on the Revised Colonial Church and Shelter Corporation's Developer's Application to build a large senior apartment complex in the residential Countryside Neighborhood. As Edina and Countryside Neighborhood residents, we are opposed to the project as currently designed because of the massive building size, the for profit driving force of the venture (exorbitant $3000 to $9000 monthly rents that many Edina residents could not afford), the Shelter Corporation's request for city financing given these monthly rental rates, the underestimated increased traffic and decreased safety to the park and neighborhood for this commercial venture, and, the inappropriate re- zoning for the Edina community. Sincerely, Roger and Martha Pilgram 6109 Arbour Lane Edina, MN 55436 Susan Howl Subject: FW: Revised Colonial Church and Shelter Corporation's Developer's Application RECOVE— a 'JUL 2 0 2010 From: Roger Pilgram [mailto:rpilgram @att.net] Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 8:32 PM To: Lynette Biunno Cc: Jackie Hoogenakker Subject: Revised Colonial Church and Shelter Corporation's Developer's Application We are asking the Edina City Council to Vote No on the Revised Colonial Church and Shelter Corporation's Developer's Application to build a large senior apartment complex in the residential Countryside Neighborhood. As Edina and Countryside Neighborhood residents, we are opposed to the project as currently designed because of the massive building size, the for profit driving force of the venture (exorbitant $3000 to $9000 monthly rents that many Edina residents could not afford), the Shelter Corporation's request for city financing given these monthly rental rates, the underestimated increased traffic and decreased safety to the park and neighborhood for this commercial venture, and, the inappropriate re- zoning for the Edina community. Sincerely, Roger and Martha Pilgram 5109 Arbour Lane Edina, MN 55436 Susan Howl Subject: FW: Colonial / Shelter - VOTE AGAINST RECEIVED JUL 2 0 1010 From: Reed Anderson [ mailto :reedanderson @hotmaii.com] Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 6:21 PM To: Lynette Biunno; Jackie Hoogenakker Cc: Moira - Hotmail Boyle Subject: Colonial / Shelter - VOTE AGAINST We strongly oppose the current plans for this project, and are extremely disappointed in the actions of the city and appropriate oversight groups. This proposed building is inconsistent with the neighborhood and represents a dangerous precedent for future actions of those invovled. We, the voters, are watching. Do not let us down. VOTE FOR THE RESIDENTS OF THE COMMUNITY - NOT FOR PROFIT MOTIVATED DESTRUCTION OF A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. ONCE YOU GO DOWN THAT PATH, THERE IS NO RETURN. Reed and Moira Anderson 6237 Knoll Drive The New Busy is not the old busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox. Get started. Susan Howl Subject: The Waters Development RECEIVED JUL 2 0 2010 After reviewing the staff report on the Water Development, I am requesting that Council vote NO and reject the application. While the concerns of my Edina neighbors are well documented, I want to call your attention to my concern that the provision for affordable housing is not firmly stated. The proposal should not be approved without a firm commitment to affordable housing. Ray Giske 5812 Jeff Place Edina MN 612 -861 -6054 r isq ke(agcginc.us Susan Howl Subject: FW: Shelter spot zoning RECEIVED JUL 2 C 1010 Subject: Shelter spot zoning Council Members; How in the world can you folks be oblivious to Edina residents needs? To spot zone a property to build a for profit, commercial business, in the middle of a neighborhood, is scary to all of us who have lived in Edina for many years. Your motivation can only be the same as Colonial's. Money. My concern is once you get away with this re zoning, you will be deluged with other failing churches wanting to develop business operations on their tax free properties. I urge you to step back and re think what you are considering. Scott Housh said this was a "done deal" in February. I would hope he would not be voting on this issue because of his announced bias. In short, I ask you to rescind your preliminary approval, take a long look at what other plans are taking shape for this area(Three Rivers Trail route on Olinger Blvd, and redesign of Countryside Park), meet with all the residents of Edina to discuss our original Comprehensive Plan and why changes should be made for special interest groups. We plan on attending your meeting, July 20, and look forward to observing democracy in action. We were extremely disappointed at the Planning Commission meeting. Particularly the presentation for Shelter's project made by Cary Teague and Member Brown's pre printed response. Sounded just like S. Housh's "done deal" statement. Joanie Burris 5832 Olinger Blvd. Edina MN 55436 Susan Howl JUL 19 2010 From: philb [ mailto:philipjbohrer @yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 1:00 PM To: Lynette Biunno Cc: Jackie Hoogenakker Subject: Opposed to Waters development As long -term Edina residents, we urge you to please vote against the "Waters" development. We assume you are already aware of the numerous reasons most of the residents in the area are strongly opposed to the proposed development. Thank you. Phil Bohrer and Jean McDowall RECEIVED JUL 19 2010 Susan Howl Dear Mayor and City Council, I write in strong opposition to the proposed project and urge you to not approve the developer's application scheduled for presentation on July 20, 2010. I also write to call your attention to the front page Mineapolis Star Tribune article of July 18, 2010, "Surge in Seniors Will Reshape State ". The article speaks to the overwhelming desire of seniors to remain in their own homes, rather than transition to other living settings as the Shelter Corp proposes. It describes the Roseville experience, which has the highest percent of seniors in the Twin Cities area and "one of five oldest U. S. cities outside the sun belt ", which in the 1990's erred in its planning for senior housing by thinking that seniors would want to leave their homes and move into senior citizen's housing. The article states "In the 1990's Toogood served on a city task force that looked into the future - and guessed wrong. The group thought that as homeowners aged, they would vacate the city's 8,500 single - family homes for senior citizen's housing and be replaced by young families with kids . What we didn't figure out is that a lot of the homes are single level and that if seniors wanted to stay, they could ..... All they had to do was get the washer and dryer to the first floor". The article goes on to illustrate how many seniors want to stay in their own homes and that there increasingly is home care service availability to permit those with illnesses and physical impairments to continue to reside in the homes they love. In this context the term "Reshape" is a reference -to a need to reframe planning for the infrastructure -of care from large building and institutions to home supports and home care. This type of reshaping is not supported by the current Shelter - Colonial proposal. Please do not make the same mistake that Roseville made in its uncritical acceptance of the "common knowledge" that seniors will want to leave their homes for other housing settings. My over 30 years experience as a practicing Geriatrician (physician skilled in.the care of seniors) permits me to recognize and articulate a basic prinicple of Geriatric Medicine, that the overwhelming majority of frail seniors want to remain in a familiar setting for as long a time as possible. Development of home and community services is more in keeping with what they want and need and should be a high priority goal for the City of Edina. Transitioning to a different living setting is considered by many to be an unhappy last resort. Sincerely, Lawrence J. Kerzner, MD 5828 Jeff Place Edina, MN 55436 1 RECEIVED JUL 1,9 2010 Susan Howl Subject: FW: Margaret Joas sent you an article from startribune.com Margaret Joas wrote these comments: Mayor of Edina and City Council Members, I am e- mailing you a copy of a story in the Star Tribune from todays paper regarding a restroom on the Dakota Rail Regional Trail which Three River Park System oversees. As a resident near Walnut Ridge Park this article excalates my concern of the true intent of why Three River Park System wants to build a trail through the wetland of Walnut Ridge Park. Is the actual reason because of the restroom facilities that exist at Walnut Ridge Park? Not only am I opposed to the trail system through the wetlands of Walnut Ridge Park. Now I am doubly concerned of Walnut Ridge Park being slated a "rest area" for the 500,000+ bikers that are slated to use the bike trails. Plus the cost associated with maintaining a restroom for such a large number of people can not be ignored. If the bike trail goes through Walnut Ridge Park our small neighborhood park will be forever changed due to non Edina residents accessing the restrooms at Walnut Ridge Park. Margaret Joas 6409 Biscayne Blvd. Edina, MN 55436 952.935.1081 This Article from StarTribune.com has been sent to you by MargaretJoas. *Please note, the sender's identity has not been verified. The full Article, with any associated images and links can be viewed here. How do trail users spell relief? R- E- S- T- R -O -O -M LAURIE BLAKE, Star Tribune Despite its fast - growing popularity, the Dakota Rail Regional Trail -- offering scenic views from wetlands to stylish homes on Lake Minnetonka -- still is missing one important attribute. A place to go. Unless trail users venture off -trail into the weeds or find an accommodating business along the way, the lack of a public bathroom on the 13 -mile trail between downtown Wayzata and St. Bonifacius can turn a relaxing walk or bike ride into a bladder - holding race for relief. Coming to the rescue is the city of Mound. The city at the trail's midpoint plans to convert a 1934 municipal pump house into a trail restroom by fall. Three Rivers Park District, which oversees the trail, has chipped in $45,000 to help make it happen. Opened less than two years ago, the paved trail quickly became a hot spot for bicyclists, runners and walkers. Last summer, an estimated 255,000 people traveled along the trail. Use this year is expected to reach 350,000, which would make it one of Minnesota's busiest trails. The structure has historic value in Mound, and the restroom project fills a void, said City Manager Kandis Hanson. "There are a lot of businesses being called upon to offer up their bathrooms to trail users when their bathrooms are not intended for public use," she said. Although Three Rivers does not provide public restrooms on regional trails, the park district agreed to contribute $45,000 toward the Mound restroom because of the trail's popularity and Mound's willingness to maintain it, said Don DeVeau, director of planning and development. The park district also has budgeted $90,000 for more signs and parking for the trail. The pump house will have a single -stall men's and women's restroom, changing tables, vending machines and possibly drinking water. The original estimate for the project was $100,000 — "which sounds absurd," Hanson said. "We are making efforts to pare it way back and keep it basic." The city has placed the pump house on the north side of the trail just outside its transit station, which has a parking ramp open to trail users. The restroom would serve the transit station, the trail and the city's new farmer's market on the south side of the trail. The market is open from 1 to 5 p.m. Mondays and Wednesdays and 8 a.m. to 1 p.m. Saturdays. Trail -side business owners like the idea of a public restroom. The Mound True Value Hardware gets a constant stream of trail users in the store looking for a bathroom, said co -owner Patti Dodds. She's all for a Mound bathroom stop and wishes someone would open a new eatery to make Mound an even more welcoming point for trail traffic. The restroom also sounds good to Bob Dobihal, .owner of the St. Boni Bistro in St. Bonifacius. The small restaurant, which serves organic and local foods, sits adjacent to the trail endpoint and has become a destination for trail bikers. To welcome them, Dobihal set out bike racks and patio tables. But an unending stream of bathroom seekers prompted him to post a sign on the front door limiting his bathrooms to patrons. "I actually had a problem where I had 15 bikers sneak in to use the restroom and the son of one of our patrons had an accident" while waiting, Dobihal said. "I love the bikers, don't get me wrong, but I really have to take care of my patrons first." Laurie Blake • 612 - 673 -1711 RECEIVED Susan Howl JUL 19 2010 Importance: High I have been a resident of Edina since 1982 and the Edina Highlands area since 1987. The proposed development is as impactful to this neighborhood as that of Countryside. The Tracy and Vernon Avenue traffic impacts are simply one example, i.e. 179 units x 1 -2 vehicles per unit x 2 -5 trips per day = 358 to 1790 estimated car traffic units on these major arterials. The reality is likely somewhere in between — nonetheless, a significant addition of traffic to already busy arterials. Moreover, my observations as an Edina resident generally are as follows: 1) the scale of the project needed to make a profit by the partnership of Shelter Corp and Colonial Church is not the problem of the neighborhoods or the larger community — the proposed scale of the project, and collateral financing qualifications required, are for their respective economic needs (not those of the community /neighborhood) - it is their problem alone that it is too big. Essentially, this has become the tail wagging the dog. There are other alternatives for the disposition of the real estate. We all have to make economic decisions and they are not entitled to any special "exempt" status in this regard. 2) collaterally, the real estate tax base interests of the City of Edina need to be managed through the fair application of its zoning laws - period - that Edina was one of the original planned cities in the U.S. has benefited all Edina residents, including those promoting this project, through today. The narrow interests of one property owner /organization and one developer are simply subordinate to the larger paramount interest of the community to the protection afforded all by zoning laws. 3) homeowners purchase homes in reliance on the enforcement of the zoning laws and are entitled to proper stewardship by public officials elected on this premise and charged with this duty - "zoning du jour " is an abdication of responsibility and undermines homeowner confidence in the governance of Edina. 4) If elderly housing on this scale is deemed this critical by the City, then one of the holes at Braemar golf course should be considered for utilization — (and I am not being sarcastic) - if it isn't this critical, then the scale is only about the economic interests of the partners involved and the City as a direct tax beneficiary — if so, where are the homeowners considered ?. For all of the above reasons, I am opposed to any the development and urge a "no" vote to this proposal. Doug Nessan 5225 Doncaster Way 952 - 929 -5163 CEOEV C Susan Howl JUL 19 20t0 Subject: Edina Development/Pinstripes -- -- - I find it interesting that when a rooftop restaurant atop a commercial building was suggested for 50th and France, a moratorium prohibiting it quickly passed even though there is no existing ordinance barring one. According to the Sun - Current, Mayor Hovland is concerned that rooftop dining could result in "noise, odor and aesthetic nuisances" for the area. Meanwhile, consider the Cypress Equities development at Centennial Lakes. It started life with variances, disregarding existing setback requirements, that subsequently led to blocked views of and access to the park. Then, despite a city code which prohibits any wall signs on non - residential buildings which directly face, abut or adjoin a public park or residential uses, the residents of Coventry Place had to fight to avoid having neon signs facing their homes. Now the City Council has already changed city ordinances to allow intoxicating liquors at bowling alleys and approved language that allows windows and sliding doors to be open until 10:00 p.m. In addition, they are going to be voting on the elimination of Condition # 15 that currently prohibits amplification for outdoor restaurants. This does not bode well for park lovers or nearby residents. These changes are occurring at the most serene, wooded part of the park. This park is the closest one to our home, and my husband and I frequently have enjoyed walking at Centennial Lakes, but the current and proposed changes threaten to diminish that enjoyment. I have visited the Pinstripes web -site and do not find it a good fit for the site. Do we really want the sounds of bowling alleys, bocce ball courts combined with intoxicating liquor service bordering our parks and homes? Where is the concern for "noise, odor and aesthetic nuisances" in our neighborhood? Please think beyond short-term economics and listen to the concerns of neighborhood and quality of life over that of developers. Save that beautiful site for a gem like a Vincent's, Meritage, Heidi's or something from our own Wayne Kostroski. Although said in regard to another development matter, recent and proposed changes compel me to add my voice to that of Planning Commission member Julie Risser who said "I think it will leave many residents of Edina wondering what their city code means. Is it something that will be there next week or next month? This is really something we should honor." Sincerely, Susan Soule West Shore Drive Susan Howl Subject: FW: Waters Senior Living EIVEa From: JJDTS @aol.com [mailto:JJDTS @aol.com] 9 2010 Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 2:21 PM To: Lynette Biunno Cc: Jackie Hoogenakker Subject: Waters Senior Living If the plan goes forward I hope you will close off Colonial Way at Olinger Blvd so the complex has to use the Tracy entrance and doesn't add any more traffic to the already busy Olinger Blvd. With Countryside and Bredeson Parks on Olinger and perhaps the bike route, we do not need more traffic. In listening to proponents of the center they talk about how great it would be living near Bredeson Park and the walking paths, the developers say they won't use the park and don't want to pay the park fees [have they talked to prospective residents ?] . I hope they are required to pay their share. I hope this does not pass, but if it does I hope it is greatly scaled back. Jim Sletten 5906 Olinger Road Susan Howl To the Edina City Council: RECEIVED JUL 19 2010 I hope you will consider the massive community objection to this "spot zoning" project. Please respect the Edina citizens' evaluation of this project as detrimental to the community. Many of us feel that the Council is forcing a fundamental change in the character of Edina that contradicts why many people like living here. Please vote NO to this project. Thank you, Donna Callender Countryside Road Edina Susan Howl RECEIVED JUL 19 2010 Dear Sir or Madam: I would like to urge you, once again, to vote NO on the Waters Senior Living Project to be built in the Countryside neighborhood. I feel this project sets a very bad precedent, namely that the Comprehensive Plan can be simply ignored if it suits the Council. The project, as planned, is still too large to be allowed in a residential neighborhood. It would be far better suited to the site where Public Works is now located. It seems to me that the main reason for approval must be to increase the property tax base of the City. The project certainly will NOT benefit many of the neighbors - it will simply impact the traffic, noise and even light pollution. It will, however, increase the coffers of the Church - is this a job for the City? And the idea that the project should not have to pay the park impact fee - NONSENSE! I do not use the parks myself, but I still have to pay my taxes. I could go on with all the reasons that I think this project is terrible, but you have already seen and heard them. I do wish that you would really listen to the people of Edina, many of whom really can see no logic in this project. Please vote NO! Yours truly, Susan Keator 5041 Yvoone Terrace Susan Howl Subject: FW: Waters Dev Staff Report RECEIVED JUL 19 Z010 From: Joan Wierzba [mailto:jwierzba @comcast.net] Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 8:33 AM To: Lynette Biunno Cc: Jackie Hoogenakker Subject: Waters Dev Staff Report I urge the City Council to vote No on the Staff Report's recommendation to approve the Waters Dev project and to vote NO for the application to rezone this area. Edina needs to keep neighborhoods as they were when people decide to live there and not make such major changes. Doing rezoning like Teague is recommending cannot help with marketing to young families, as you have been doing. Joan Wierzba 6217 Belmore Lane Edina 952 - 931 -0855 Susan Howl R E C E f VED From: Dino Balafas [ mailto :Dino_Balafas @datacard.com] JUL 19 2010 Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 8:07 AM To: Lynette Biunno Cc: Jackie Hoogenakker Subject: July 20, 2010 City Council Dear City of Edina, My name is Dino Balafas and on behalf of my wife and me I would like to submit this letter as a proxy for my absence from the July 20 Edina City Council meeting due to an international business trip. We live on 5316 Blake Road, which is in the Parkwood Knolls area. My children have gone to Countryside school and we frequently play around the area under review for the Colonial Church /Shelter Corp project. Three generations of my family have lived within Edina, and why we call this community our home is the focus on Edina's idyllic family setting. The ascetics of each neighbor in Edina has their own unique character that are timeless and the envy of all communities in Minnesota if not the US. I am no civil planning expert, but it seems tome that the reason for zoning laws is to provide predictability and synchronicity in our environment. I believe it to be deplorable and a disservice to our wonderful community to fast track a massive building project such as this. I have no doubt that a few stand to gain greatly with an oversized facility. They are leveraging the thoughtful value of our community that has been built for many generations. It seems the benefits of the Colonial Church project are focused on a very few and does not seek to balance the local stakeholders who helped build the attractiveness of the location for decades. Edina is a developed community and force fitting larger building projects in what is the heart of a residential area diminishes our ascetic and sense of original purpose of our community. Please vote not to approve Mr. Teague's Colonial Church and Shelter Corp developers' application. My Sincerest thanks for your consideration, Dino Balafas Susan Howl Subject: FW: Proposed Waters Senior Housing Development REC .E{VED JUL 19 2010 From: Marta Melin [mailto:martamelin @gmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 8:39 AM To: Lynette Biunno Cc: Jackie Hoogenakker Subject: Proposed Waters Senior Housing Development Dear City Council, I urge you to VOTE NO to the Revised Colonial Church, (a conditional use permit holder), and Shelter Corporation's Developer's Application to build a massive senior apartment complex in a residential neighborhood. Scaling back to three stories is still grossly large and out of character with this neighborhood. Thank you, Marta and Skip Melin Susan Howl Subject: FW: message to Mayor Hovland RECEIVED JUL 19 2010 Mayor Hovland, I grew up in Edina and moved to Texas as an adult where I'm an elementary school teacher. I have enjoyed going back to visit my family in Edina often since 1980. My favorite spot is Centennial Lakes Park, where we enjoy walks, concerts, and picnics. It's beautiful! My parents live in the flower streets neighborhood (Lantana, Hibiscus, etc.) by 70th St. & Hwy. 100. The thing that continues to surprise me when I visit is the unsightly appearance of the concrete wall along the Hwy. 100 service road leading to these streets. MANY years ago there was apparently graffiti, which was painted over but the color does not match the wall. It is so tacky looking and just seems completely out of place in a beautiful suburb like Edina. Most of the wall also has no landscaping by it. The walls in Richfield near Hwy. 494 are much more attractive, which is also surprising considering the quality and price of homes in Edina compared to Richfield. We live in a middle income Texas city and all of our highway walls are nicer looking and in better shape than the wall in my parent's neighborhood. Through the years, I've noticed many improvements around Edina with new curbs, landscaped medians, etc., yet the wall remains an eyesore. Though I'm not an Edina taxpayer, I'm speaking for my parents and wondering if the city has plans to improve this wall soon. Thank you for reading these concerns. Kathy Baughman I'll share your response with my parents. RECEIVED 'JUL 19 2010 Susan Howl QUESTIONS TO ASK ABOUT THE BIKE TRAIL I have followed the opinion letters from proponents of the regional trail with interest. Who doesn't want a shiny new toy, in this case a recreational bike trail? Before we spend money on toys most of us ask ourselves a couple of questions: Do we really need the new toy, or do we just want it? Can we get along without it? How much does it cost? Can we afford it? Is it a good buy at that price? Is there a another toy that will do just as well at a better price? Lets ask these questions about the trail. Do we really need a bike trail? We already have 91 miles of bike trails in Three Rivers Park District and 11 miles of trail in Edina. Minnesota has more miles of bike trails than any other state. Is a new trail really a need, or just a want? Can we get along without it? How much will it cost? Initial construction of the trail will cost $20 million dollars, because the money is borrowed, financing will cost an additional $10 million dollars. Yearly operation and maintenance will start at $ 200,000 per year and go up every year after that. A I I these costs wi I I be paid for by the taxpayers. Can we afford it? Our nation is in debt, Our state is in debt, Our county is in debt, Our schools have had to cut services, and Three Rivers Parks District already owes $85 million dollars and has had to deny cost of living increases to its employees. Is the trail a good buy at those prices? The trail will only be operational 8 months /year, there will be no service (police, maintenance, etc) from November 15 -March 15. The trail will not be lighted making it dangerous for early morning and evening bicycle commuting. Because of multiple users the trail is not suitable for high speed exercise bikers. Are there better alternatives? We don't know because we haven't looked. Three Rivers presented our Edina citizens representatives with a narrow range of alternatives which Three Rivers had predetermined using Three Rivers criteria. Our citizen representatives were not allowed to explore other alternative routes. The routes Three Rivers presented were not even shown in the 2007 Edina Comprehensive Bicycle Plan. If you feel, as I do, that the decision on the trail needs a lot more study, then write the Edina City Council and let them know your feelings. LAURIE CHAPMAN 6420 ASPEN ROAD EDINA, MN 55436 612 - 210 -9686 RECEIVED JUL 19 2010 Susan Howl From: Lynette Biunno Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 8:39 AM To: Gordon Hughes; Cary Teague Cc: Susan Howl; Arlene Forrest; Floyd Grabiel; Jeffrey Carpenter; Julie Risser; Karwehn Kata; Kevin Staunton; Michael Fischer; Michael Schroeder; Nancy N. Scherer; Steve Brown Subject: FW: Hello there, This message has been forwarded to the Mayor and Council members, Gordon Hughes, Cary Teague and the Planning Commission Lynette Biunno City of Edina Receptionist 952 - 927 -8861 www.citvofedina.com From: Dorothy Pool [mailto:dorothy @q.com] Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2010 2:05 PM To: Lynette Biunno Subject: Please veto the revised Colonial church , a ;conditional use permit and Shelter Corporation etc. Susan Howl Subject: FW: input regarding proposed Nine Mile Creek Trail Attachments: nine mile creek regional trail.doc From: Julie Wells [mailto:jwells @live.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 4:10 PM To: Lynette Biunno RECEIVED Subject: input regarding proposed Nine Mile Creek Trail Julie Wells JUL 19 2010 5200 Lincoln Dr, Apt 300 Edina, MN 55436 July 14, 2010 Three Rivers Park District Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail 3000 Xenium Lane North Plymouth, MN 55441 Dear Three Rivers Park District, Edina City Council and Edina Park Board, I attended the Open House on June 30'' regarding the proposed Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail. I am strongly in favor of a creek -based plan and urge that this project be moved forward without delay. Im writing because I want to make sure that not only the loudest and most persistent voices are heard in this debate. While I understand that a small number of homeowners directly affected by the proposed creek -based trail have been extremely persistent opponents, I urge you to consider the well -being of all the other residents both in Edina and throughout the county and region. Based on the information I reviewed at the Open House and online, I notice that an extremely small number of homeowners is directly affected (i.e. adjacent to trail) with the creek -based plans AND the average distance from homes to the trail is about 300 feet! In contrast, the Dakota Trail between Wayzata and St. Bonifacius is adjacent to many more homes and businesses and considerably closer to those properties than the proposed Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail. Both trails border valuable real estate and homes of significant value. When I ride the Dakota Trail I see mothers with babies in strollers, families out for a bike ride or walk, young people on rollerblades and bikes, senior citizens galore and about every segment of our society you can imagine. All are out to simply get a little fresh air and exercise and enjoy the great state we live in, a state the values and utilizes our parks and green spaces. The trails are safe and well patrolled; the various users are respectful of one another and the homes and businesses along the trail. It is a community atmosphere in the truest sense. While I am not currently a homeowner, I was one for more than fifteen years and plan to buy another home within the next few years. Where will I choose to live? In a community the puts their public land to use for all the people and that promotes a healthy lifestyle not just in words, but in actions. Please dont let the loud and persistent voices of dissent keep the majority of our population from the beauty and safety of a creek -based trail! Sincerely, Julie A. Wells Hotmail is redefining busy with tools for the New Busy. Get more from your inbox. See how. MINUTES OF THE Edina Transportation Commission o e Thursday, May 20, 2010 o Edina City Hall 4801 West 50th Street Council Chambers MEMBERS PRESENT: Usha Abramovitz, Tom Bonneville, Jennifer Janovy, Paul Nelson, Michael Schroeder, Josh Sprague, Jean White, Geof Workinger, Nathan Franzen MEMBERS ABSENT: Julie Sierks STAFF PRESENT: Jack Sullivan, Sharon Allison I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by chair Janovy. II. Approval of Minutes a. Regular Meeting of April 15, 2010 The following corrections were made: page 2, item V.a., remove parenthesis from ..." jeven though the County is not in favor of bike lanesl;" page 3, item X, 'and' was added to "..local and collector..." III. Old Business a. 66th Street Speed Study Assistant city engineer Sullivan said a petition to lower the speed limit was received in 2007. He said the Traffic Safety Committee reviewed the request and forwarded it to the Council to approve a speed study. February 2010 it was forwarded to the ETC by Council for review and after discussion, the ETC passed a motion to table further discussion to allow staff to research adding bike lanes, changing road to park designation, and getting clarification on state statute to determine when it is necessary for Mn /DOT to perform a speed study. Mr. Sullivan said staff's findings were as follow: • Adding bike lanes is not an acceptable solution because the road width is 28 ft. and Mn /DOT's Bikeway Manual recommends 6 ft. bike lanes and minimum travel lane width of 11 ft. Based on roadway width and Mn /DOT's requirement only 3 ft. remains for the bike lane. • Changing road to park designation in not an acceptable solution. While state statute allows 20 mph on park roads, the roads must be fully located within the park and this is not the case with Rosland Park being adjacent to W. 66th Street. • The area is considered Urban District and if Mn /DOT had done a prior speed study, it would be necessary to do one again; however, because Mn /DOT does not have a speed study on file, and the lawful speed limit for an Urban District roadway is 30 mph, the speed limit can be reduced from 35 mph to 30 mph without a speed study. Therefore, this is an acceptable solution. Mr. Sullivan said staff is recommending lowering the speed limit to 30 mph and if the ETC agrees with the recommendation, Council will need to adopt a resolution to do so. He said if the recommendation is acceptable, the resolution could be sent to Council by their June 1 meeting and if passed, re- signing of the new speed limit could be done before the pool at Rosland Park opens. He said in an effort to educate drivers of the new speed limit, the variable speed sign monitor "Your Speed Is..." would be set up. The Commission asked questions of Mr. Sullivan about the road's right -of -way width to preserve right to have bike lanes, Blake Road's 5 ft. bike lane, 85th percentile speed of 38 mph, restriping to allow buffer between cars and cyclists, recounting after speed limit is reduced, consider merging traffic on the other side of Valley View for pedestrian safety at crosswalk, having two 11 ft. lanes and a left lane on the south side and tabling for BETF to review, and using signage in addition to reducing speed since the 30 mph may not slow vehicles. The Commission then reviewed and revised the resolution as follow: RESOLUTION NO. 2010 -44 REDUCING THE SPEED LIMIT ON WEST 66TH STREET BETWEEN TH -100 AND VALLEY VIEW ROAD WHEREAS, on February 16, 2010, the City Council requested the Edina Transportation Commission review residents' request to reduce the speed limit from 35 mph to 30 mph on West 66th Street between TH -100 and Valley View Road; and WHEREAS, after much research, the Minnesota Department of Transportation has not established a speed limit pursuant to an engineering and traffic investigation for this portion of roadway; and WHEREAS, West 66th Street between TH -100 and Valley View Road meets the definition of an urban district as defined in State Statue 169.011 subd. 90; and WHEREAS, State Statute 169.14 subd. 2 establishes the speed limit at 30 mph for an urban district; WHEREAS, the Edina Transportation Commission concurs with these findings per the May 20, 2010 Edina Transportation Commission Meeting; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, authorizes the resigning of the speed limit signs Valley View Road from 35 mph to 30 mph. Dated: June 1, 2010 Attest: Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk K that the City Council of the City of Edina, on West 66th Street between TH -100 and 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 June 1, 2010, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this day of , 20 City Clerk Commissioner Nelson motioned to accept staffs recommendation to Recommend to the City Council adoption of the revised resolution lowering the speed limit on West 66th Street from 35 mph to 30 mph from TH 100 to Valley View Road." The motion was seconded by Commissioner White. All voted aye. Absent: Sierks Motion passed. IV. New Business a. Edina's GreenStep Cities Dianne Plunkett- Latham, chair of the Energy & Environment Commission, explained what GreenStep Cities was and how it relates to transportation. She explained that the program grew out of a 2009 report to the Legislature on what cities could do to help the State meet greenhouse gas reduction goals, and to improve economic, environmental, and social responsibility. She said it is a voluntary program that offers cost - effective, simple pathway leading to implementation of sustainable best practices that focus on greenhouse gas reduction. She said the Statewide GreenStep Cities are made up of various partnerships and five pilot cities, including the city of Edina. Ms. Plunkett- Latham explained that as a pilot city, they are required to implement eight to ten of 27 best practices, but they have selected 14, including Transportation. She said there are seven categories to choose from, plus a required category which is — (1) Adopt a complete streets policy and modify street standards accordingly. She said Edina minimally qualifies at this level because there is a Complete Streets plan in place for the arterial streets. She said if the ETC would like to do some things beyond the minimal qualification, and Council approves the steps, the ETC can choose two additional steps from the following six categories: 2) Document installation of trees and rain gardens or other green storm water infrastructures and sewer water pipe restorations as needed, as part of at least one street construction project. 3) Identify and remedy non - complete street segments (at least one existing non - complete segment) to better facilitate walking and biking. 4) Identify and remedy gaps (at least one existing gap) between city streets and walking trails /bike trails to facilitate walking and biking. 5) Implement traffic calming measures in at least one street redevelopment project. (Done) 3 6) Adopt level of service standards for street types including ped /bike performance goals. (Done) 7) Adopt zoning language for selected areas equivalent to LEED for Neighborhood Development. Discussion included status of Complete Streets Policy which Mn /DOT recently approved and is working on guidelines that cities will need to incorporate into their State Aid streets design, lack of funding source could affect implementation, items 2, 3, & 4 looks like they can be done without much expense, would like to talk to staff about how item 2 could be implemented (this involves maintenance), and Complete Streets is in the Comp Plan but should consider adopting a formal policy. b. CVS Transportation Impact Analysis (69th and York Avenue) Assistant city engineer Sullivan explained that redevelopment of this site was first presented to the ETC in 2006 for 85 senior apartments and 39,000 sq. ft. of retail space; it was again presented in 2008 for 114 apartments and 18,000 sq. ft. retail space. In 2008, the ETC approved the traffic study with the condition that the developer improve their W. 691h exit across from the car dealership. Mr. Sullivan said the apartment building was completed in 2009 and the improvement was made to W. 69th Street. He said CVS Pharmacy is requesting approval to develop the retail space into a 13,013 sq. ft. building with 90 parking stalls and two drive -thru windows. Mr. Sullivan said in 2006 and 2008 the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA� policy was not in existence but is required now. He said the focus of the TIA was on W. 69 h Street and York Avenue, the right in /right out off York Avenue, the right out from the drive thru windows, and full shared intersection on W. 69th Street to determine the build and no -build level of service. Mr. Sullivan said the analysis showed that the level of service would remain the same after development. He said the signal timing at W. 69th and York can be improved but this area is Hennepin County's jurisdiction and the developer will work with them to make improvements after the store is open. Mr. Sullivan said staff is recommending that the ETC "adopt a motion recommending that the Transportation Impact Analysis for CVS Pharmacy at 69th Street and York Avenue does not adversely affect the adjacent transportation system." During discussion, concerns raised included the number of parking stalls /do they need that many; is there a reciprocal parking agreement between CVS and the apartment building; reason for placing building in the northwest corner of site; drivers exiting onto W. 69th and cutting across to go north could be unsafe; installation of bike racks; traffic exiting onto York Avenue will cross to go left on W. 69th Street even if signed not to do so; and, is closing the York Avenue access an option. Addressing the concerns, Mr. Mike Spack, the traffic engineer of Spack Consulting, explained that the parking ordinance requires 80 parking stalls but no maximum; there is a shared use agreement for parking; the building was moved to the northwest corner of the site at the request of planning staff; research shows that exiting on W. 69th and dealing with traffic on one side first and then the next side is actually safer than cutting straight across to the other side; bike racks will be installed at the entrance; and, the expectation is that at least 2/3 of the traffic will exit onto W. 69th Street instead of York Avenue. Mr. Kevin McGhee, The Velmeir 4 Companies, said one delivery truck, on a weekly basis, can only enter the site from York Avenue so it is a useful access. Commissioner Nelson motioned to accept staffs recommendation "...that the TFanspeFtatie� }m tralEq for CVS Pharmacy at 69th Street and York Avenue does not adversely affect the adjacent transportation system. ", The motion was seconded by Commissioner Franzen. Commissioner Sprague requested an amendment to the motion to include an agreement with the developer that delivery trucks do not use W. 70th Street between TH -100 and France Avenue. The amendment was accepted. All voted aye. Absent: Schroeder, Sierks Motion passed. c. Upcoming Workshops Chair Janovy said the idea is to schedule workshops when they do not have official business to review and discuss such things as bylaws, policies and scope and responsibilities. After discussion the consensus is to schedule June and July for workshops and the meeting format would be the same and open to the public. V. Planning Commission Update (Commissioner Schroeder) None. VI. Public Works Small Area Guide Process Update (Commissioner Sprague) Commissioner Sprague said the study is completed and a number of principles were written, plus renderings of those principles which are online. VII. Bike Edina Task Force Update (Commissioner Janovy) Commissioner Janovy said the 3rd annual ride with the Mayor is scheduled for May 27, 4:45 p.m. Participants should meet at the Bush Lake parking lot in Bloomington for a ride to Quality Bike Products. The event is co- sponsored by the Energy & Environment Commission. VIII. Staff Liaison Comments a. 70th Street Reconstruction Update This project is delayed until the Variance Board meets on June 17 to review the City's request to reduce the parking lanes from 10 ft. to 8 ft. A letter and City Extra email was sent out to the residents updating them on the status of the project. At the April 15 meeting, Commissioner Workinger asked to hear the types of options given to residents on W. 70th Street for driveway turnarounds to prevent backing out onto the street. Mr. Sullivan said the contractor will work directly with homeowners on this matter. IX. Commission Comments Commissioner Sprague said he attended a SW Transit meeting and he encouraged everyone to look at SWTransit.org. Also, the Center for Transportation Study has a research conference annually and their presentation is online. He encouraged Commissioners to review the handout he brought in and to visit the website for topics of interest. Commissioner White said she attended the final SW PAC meeting and the formal process is now under the Met Council. She also said Metro Transit is taking public comment until July 9 5 for the new 1- 35/46th Street transfer station, and that they will be realigning certain bus routes into Edina. X. Adjournment. MINUTES OF THE Edina Transportation Commission Work Session Thursday, June 17, 2010 Edina City Hall 4801 West 50th Street Community Room MEMBERS PRESENT: Tom Bonneville, Jennifer Janovy, Paul Nelson, Josh Sprague, Jean White, Geof Workinger, Nathan Franzen MEMBERS ABSENT: Usha Abramovitz, Julie Sierks, Michael Schroeder STAFF PRESENT: Jack Sullivan, Sharon Allison Chair Janovy opened the meeting and explained the purpose of the meeting was to talk about scope. Bonneville said the ETC needs to look at why we do what we do; need to advise citizens so that they may have opportunity for input, e.g. The Colony and public notification; Planning issues that come before the ETC do not get publicly noticed. Janovy said they could invite Director Teague to attend a session. White gave an overview of how the ETC started. She said it started with the Traffic Taskforce that identified issue areas and in 2003 a decision was made to create the ETC and they began meeting in 2004. Janovy elaborated on the issue areas - northeast, northwest, high school area, community center area, W. 70th Street, France between crosstown & TH-494 and Southdale corridor was looked. She said the issue areas have been looked at. Franzen asked what triggers something coming to the ETC. Bonneville said Sullivan's team does not tell them what's coming up regarding road reconstruction projects. Sullivan said everything is online. Sprague said the ETC is contact for public; if information is limited online, then limited information is seen by the public. He said issues come in to the Traffic Safety Committee (TSC) and the ETC does not have an opportunity to discuss because they do not have a role with the TSC. He said this is disjointed for the average resident. Janovy said they are advisory to the Council so they need to look at scope from this view and send useful information to the Council. She said the ETC is charged with looking at speed and volume. She said when residents approach TSC, they generally supply their own solution to problem, e.g. stop sign to deal with speeding, and they are told no because warrants are not met and so they are still stuck with the problem. She asked why aren't residents coming to the ETC? Workinger asked if this is a real problem. Sprague said yes, when you hear the same complaints. Workinger said they do get the TSC's report, so he does not think they are missing information. Sprague said need to delegate certain tasks given to TSC. He said they should be empowered like city of Bloomington to be able to discuss items from TSC report on camera. Workinger thinks process works and staff must have latitude. He said if they see pattern developing they can review. Janovy asked about the process for dealing with speeding on a street. Sullivan said when the call comes in it goes to Boyd, the traffic safety coordinator. Janovy said if ETC is charged with speed and volume on local streets, why aren't residents being referred to the ETC? Sullivan said because TSC requests are usually tied to regulatory signs. Janovy estimated that nine out of 10 requests are denied because they do not meet warrants. She said the ETC can then maybe focus on education. White said she relies on staff for expertise. Would response be delayed to residents if the ETC had a role in reviewing TSC reports? Sullivan said TSC reports go to Council to review and approve and Council can ask staff to take another look which could require a speed study. All said and done this process could take three or four months. Sullivan explained TSC's process — Boyd gets call, data gathered, TSC meets, resident notified of TSC's decision and told they can come to Council meeting if request is denied. Regulatory signs must be approved by Council. Removal of signs is the same process. Janovy said she knows residents are communicated with because she has been through the process. Workinger asked if the role of the TSC is working appropriately. He said he would support an ETC member being on TSC because there would be too many items to be added to the ETC agenda; or, pull item for discussion. Sprague agreed with this as long as ETC can have discussion and then advise Council, if it relates to speed or volume. Janovy said when residents make contact she would like the ETC to be an option instead of automatically going to the TSC. Sprague suggested that TSC reports be on the ETC consent agenda and pulled off for discussion if there is an item concerning speeds, volumes, congestion or traffic calming on local streets, especially if there is a pattern of similar type concerns. Workinger asked what can the ETC do that Council cannot do. Bonneville said TSC has devices that can be used such as speed humps, etc., if so choose. He said it goes back to his memo of 1000 ADT, busy streets, etc. These are large scope items that ETC should give input on then on to the Planning Commission (PC) and then to Council. Janovy estimated they could miss over 90% of Edina if the ETC limits its involvement to streets with 1000 ADT or higher and they would often be looking at streets outside of their jurisdiction (i.e., arterials). Sullivan said he does not know if 90% is accurate. Workinger asked if there are measurements that shows ADT. Sprague said they should focus on system -wide network, maybe on streets with less than 1000 ADT, and let ETC exercise discretion. He said Bloomington has great examples. They merged their Transportation Commission with Planning Commission and created a defined scope and policies to integrate scope. He read their ordinance Sec 2.98.32. Bonneville said Bloomington has fine procedures that are worthwhile studying. Sprague said they developed a collector street restriping policy to fit a more Complete Streets approach. He said they meet with staff at beginning of year to integrate and conflicts go to the body to decide. This allows them to meet strategic goals. ETC does not have a way to do this now. He said if the State passes Complete Streets, it will apply to State Aid roads but not to other local roads. For County roads, he said the County allows staff to come to them with their idea /plans and then the County signs off. Janovy said they could invite Steve Elkins from Bloomington to attend a meeting to explain their process. Sprague suggested (Josh please provide name) 2 Janovy summarized discussion so far: 1) TSC, 2) Road reconstruction - ETC does not have a role. Bonneville said they should not get involved in the detail of the day -to -day stuff which is wh he made the recommendations in his memo. He referenced 44th Street as an example:. 44 Street peaks in the morning; road is beyond 80% of capacity — too many parents taking kids to school in car at Cornelia. Sullivan was asked if 1000 ADT is high for local streets; he said 300 -1000 is typical for residential road. White asked about the cost of fixing these issues. Response was this cannot be answered at this time. Janovy suggested education and enforcement instead of being so focused on engineering. White said she recalls meeting with the Police regarding enforcement and they have done some marketing campaigns with the communications department. She suggested creating a toolbox that would include enforcement, education, and communication. She also suggested changing up what's being done so residents do not become bored. Sprague's noted example of Bloomington's policies online that explain why they need curb and gutter. Janovy said education could include stop sign function. When would the ETC discuss problem areas identified in the Comp Plan? Would it be at the beginning of the year? Sprague said their responsibility is first to inform self, second is to inform public, and third oversight. He said the City engineer could use TV to explain. Sullivan was asked if staff does similar planning like Bloomington does. Sullivan said yes. He said they generally look at 5 -yr plan and generally relates back to the Transportation Plan. Sprague asked if staff do such things as asking Mn /DOT for example, to look at Xerxes where a reliever is needed. Janovy asked what the ETC needs Council's approval on. She said the ETC is not advisory to staff. Franzen said it's their job to make Council's job easier. Janovy said all policies must be approved by Council. It was noted that Council is not getting ETC minutes. Does this undermine their role? Janovy said they will be getting minutes from now on. Council becomes involved in the following: ETC policy — yes - approved Traffic Impact Analysis — yes, but it was not approved by the City Council Comp Plan — yes, approved Local Area Taskforce — yes, approved, and all areas in report have been addressed in some way. Traffic Signs — yes 3 Petition - yes TSC — yes ( Janovy said a variety of traffic policies are in the engineering department as handouts) Street Maintenance — approved in CIP Sig ns /Striping — yes Budget discussion about maintenance dollars, asphalt, commodities bid, fiscal year. Bonneville said there are level of projects: 1) mega project; 2) medium (3-4 blocks long); 3) small (1 -2 blocks long); and ETC would get involve with mega and maybe medium projects. Traffic Controls — police enforcements and State Statutes Crash Statistics - no Grants — Council approves acceptance of funds. It was noted that funds were given back for Interlachen bike lanes that would have run from Vernon to city of Hopkins limits. Residents did not want it because it would cross their driveway. Suggestion that maybe there could have been a way to work with residents. Bike Taskforce — yes Metro Transit — yes, though they have final say, but ETC can put pressure on them White said Metro Transit is taking public comments for a route in Edina and suggested that ETC submit a comment. Regional Traffic News — on the web Hennepin County Roadway —yes Statutes — yes, if resolution required, e.g. resolution showing support for Complete Streets Bonneville said ETC could apply for a grant from City to ask Mn /DOT to do traffic study to look at a particular area. Chuck Rickart, City's consulting traffic engineer's time is hourly. As a matter of practice, ETC can comment on issues and then they could become agenda items said Janovy. Or, Bonneville said Janovy could assign members to work on certain issues. Franzen asked if the list can be put into a matrix and show for example, trigger points for TSC when issues would come to the ETC. Janovy said extra meetings could be scheduled to continue discussion. She said tonight's discussion was of scope and what Council weighs in on. 4 Nelson likes idea of matrix; concerned with delving into everything. Likes idea of knowing what's going on with restriping, etc-so he can talk with residents in community - this is part of our charge he said. If they can get TSC reports earlier, especially if it's a neighbor, but may not need to do anything unless the issue is big. He asked if there is a master plan that shows all ADT. Sullivan said yes, dates back to 1975 but there are some gaps. He said State Aid roads are done because of requirement and in recent years they've been filling in gaps. Data is electronic but not very user friendly. Sullivan was asked if there is a policy for doing traffic counts, speed study. He said not in writing, just general practice - knows days to avoid /include, do not place too close to turning movements because this gives artificially low speeds. And generally count volume and speed at the same time (two tubes). W. 66th St. currently being measured;. will be completed in two weeks. Capturing speed before speed reduction goes in effect and then again after and also capturing pool and school traffic. Will put down again in the summer and after the pool close. Final comments: Workinger asked what they are going to do when they get to what "it" is. He said PC's discussion is to cut out the ETC. Bonneville said they'll review minutes, modify and send to Council. Sprague said will need to flesh out more. Janovy said whatever they do will go to Council. Sprague said to continue having discussion on TSC and be able to discuss on camera; where do we fit regarding road reconstruction? Bloomington synchronizes with staff annually. Franzen said matrix would be good, especially for new members. Bonneville said he liked Franzen's idea. Will consider resending his 1/22 memo. He said it would be good if they had better knowledge of what streets are to be worked on so ETC can participate; not trying to infringe on budget. Electronic communication: Janovy said they to need to follow Open Meeting Law and League of MN Cities guideline was emailed to everyone. She said all emails could be sent to Jack and he would then distribute to everyone, but they cannot communicate with each other (for example, cannot email entire group, should not "reply all" to emails that contain ETC business, and should be careful to not email a small group about ETC business because email could end up being read by a quorum of members). And they are not to talk business outside of scheduled meetings with a quorum of members and should be mindful to avoid serial communications with a quorum of members. Sullivan said he has spoken with Heather about doing a presentation on Open Meeting Law. Janovy said 4 people can meet because this is not a quorum and they do not have decision - making power. Regular scheduled ETC meeting: Sullivan said he is only aware of the YMCA project, nothing else. Bonneville asked if the chair could ask members to work on projects via email. Sprague said his approach would be to use the list as a matrix along with Bloomington's ordinance and discuss using it as a scope. Janovy asked how busy members are to meet bi- weekly. Consensus is to meet again in two weeks. 11 e Workinger asked about the chair advising Council of what they're doing. Consensus was that Workinger would be seeing the Mayor in the morning and could mention it to him. Meeting adjourned. D S-T A WORK SESSION NOTES OF THE Edina Transportation Commission Committee of the Whole Work Session MEMBERS PRESENT: Tom Bonneville, Jennifer Janovy, Josh Sprague, Thursday, July 1, 2010 Edina City Hall 4801 West 50th Street Community Room MEMBERS ABSENT: Usha Abramovitz, Julie Sierks, Michael Schroeder, Paul Nelson, Jean White, Geof Workinger, Nathan Franzen Note: Attendance is not required for Committee of the Whole meetings STAFF PRESENT: Jack Sullivan, Sharon Allison Chair Janovy opened the meeting. She said Workinger talked with the Mayor and was told the City Could would appreciate being kept informed of the ETC discussions. She said she would email the City Council once the ETC has come to some conclusions about scope. She restated why they were reviewing scope as follows (taken from her handout): • Recognition that existing ETC policy has been incorporated in Transportation chapter of the Comprehensive Plan • Recognition that areas identified in the Traffic Task Force report have been addressed • Awareness that ETC ordinance indicates bylaws and we have none • Planning Commission discussion of the ETC role in development proposals And as a reminder of the ETC's authority, Janovy said the Council is the policy and legislative body of the City and the ETC is advisory to the Council, which means they can recommend policies or ordinances to the Council and that these policies and ordinances take effect only if approved by the Council. She said the ETC is not advisory to City staff and they do they direct City staff. City Council directs City staff through the City Manager and only goes to staff for information. Bonneville said another way to look at it is for the ETC to ask Council to allow ETC to do certain tasks and the Council would give staff permission to gather information or perform those tasks which could then go back to Council for approval as a policy. Janovy said if there are existing ways that the City operates, the ETC cannot instruct staff to do something differently. The ETC can comment and make recommendations and /or recommend policy to be adopted that would direct a different way of doing things. Bonneville said he suggested discussing scope of when the ETC is assigned to perform tasks - -this can come either from Council thru staff or through guidelines for the Council related to when it is appropriate to ask ETC to perform a task, e.g. whenever there is a street with only 500 cars a day not enough to be concerned because a street with two lanes is capable of handling 1000 cars. He said he picked 1000 cars a day as a guide to be used for the total ADT. Bonneville said he likes the matrix that was suggested at the previous meeting. 1000 cars would be one part of the matrix and another triggering factor would be if the Council wants them to work on something, no matter the parameters. He said they could create a series of reasons for ETC to work on task. Sprague said in lieu of the ETC looking at certain things there is the possibility of having policy that acts in place of having a review and a third category is policy and review or just review. Janovy said the minutes from the last meeting show a working premise that the ETC has an advisory role in those areas related to traffic and transportation in Edina where the City Council takes action. The areas are defined as (taken from handout): • ETC policies — as stated above, the City Council approves policies • ETC Policy /NTMP • TIA policy not approved by City Council Janovy asked why the TIA was not approved by Council. Sullivan said he is not sure why. Bonneville said they should not let policy get in the way of action. Sprague said policy provides standard operating procedures. Janovy said policies can be well conceived and expedite action and that they can be clearly written. Policies can also provide directions for when the policy doesn't apply and what to do then. She said it could be as simply as a check -off worksheet. Bonneville said he believe this is going to cause all directions to come down from Council. • Traffic Impact Analyses — the City Council approves development proposals; TIA reports may be a required submittal • Transportation Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan — the Council approves the Comprehensive Plan • Local Area Traffic Task Force — the council adopted the "framework" Janovy said she sees this as being done and Sullivan concurred. Sprague said it is mentioned in the ordinance. • Traffic signs — Recommendations for regulatory signs brought forward by TSC; can be posted only with Council approval • Sidewalk petition — Sidewalks approved by the City Council Other than petitioning for a sidewalk, Sprague asked how other sidewalk segments are implemented. Sullivan said an old State Aid study shows missing sidewalk links and staff initiates including these missing links when neighborhood projects are done. He said staff does not actively look for locations to install sidewalks due to funding and a back -log of projects. He explained further that State Aid sidewalks are paid for using gas tax funds while others are assessed, e.g. the Halifax Ave sidewalk was approximately $1,500 /property, payable over three years. If a sidewalk is in a business district or school zone, the business district is assessed and the City contributes 25 %. Staff time is included in the assessment also. 2 Janovy asked if a franchise fee on gas or electricity could be used for sidewalks. Sullivan said a franchise fee has been discussed for a variety of purposes, including sidewalks and streetlighting. He said the sidewalk on the west frontage road of Hwy. 100 (Eden Avenue to Eastview Drive) was petitioned and because it was not assessable, it was budgeted for over 5- years in the CIP. Janovy asked about the City's surplus funds and Sullivan said he was not knowledgeable in this area, but he is aware of the cost reductions that Public Works has been doing for the past year or so. Janovy said funding is always a problem and that although a franchise fee isn't a tax it is a government- imposed fee. • Traffic Safety Committee — City Council approves report or directs further action • Street maintenance — Equipment/supplies approved in CIP • Signs /striping — Approved by the City Council Major re- striping that changes the road reconfiguration would go to Council but not a mill and overlay that is going to be redone exactly as it was before. • Grants — Grant funds must be accepted by the Council • Bike Edina Task Force — City Council included Bike Plan in Comprehensive Plan • Metro Transit — City Council may be consulted by Metro Transit on route changes • Hennepin County projects in Edina — Such as France Ave restriping. City Council may be asked to support or not oppose. • State projects within Edina — Such as Bren Rd interchange, or 494/169. City Council may be asked to support, not oppose, and /or pay portion of project costs. State projects usually require a Joint Powers Agreement and Council authorizes fees that Mn /DOT charges. • State statutes — Mn /DOT rules — the City Council may pass resolutions in support of or opposing legislation, rules changes, etc. Janovy said she looked at the 2008, 2009 and 2010 agendas and noted that the ETC hears presentations on many topics for informational purposes. She said the ETC most often takes action on developments, and have done very little on neighborhood level traffic concerns (but did do W. 70th Study and NE Edina). Janovy moved on to what the ETC Role may be, as it relates to the above scope. The following were suggested for consideration: • Recommend policy only o For example, draft and recommend a policy that the Council approves and City staff carries out. No ongoing ETC involvement, apart from periodic policy review. • Recommend review only o Item appears on agenda for ETC review and action. • Recommend policy and review o Draft and recommend a policy that, if adopted, governs the process by which review is given and actions are taken; may provide guidance to both ETC and staff or only ETC. Janovy said if the above is accepted as their scope, there would be no assumption that they would take an active ongoing role in each, but instead would fill gaps with policy where necessary. For example, when a dog is hit on a street, as recently happened, she said this 3 should not have been an issue for the Council. Bonneville said they cannot be involved in every minor traffic issue. He said the dog getting hit is a police issue, not ETC. Sprague said the policy would explain where the complaint goes and how to handle certain issues. Janovy said further that a complaint from a street with 500 cars without a crash record, for example, may not be considered a traffic issue by the City because it is functioning correctly. She said the remedy for the concern may not involve engineering but may involve education and enforcement. Education and enforcement are two areas that the ETC has not investigated much. Janovy said the ETC's responsibility, based on the ordinance, is the local streets system. How the scope fits within the ETC ordinance was discussed next. Janovy said the existing purposes and duties are to: 1. Advise the Council on matters relating to the operation of the local street system with respect to traffic volumes, congestion, and functional classification, but not maintenance activities of the City. 2. Review and comment on plans to enhance mass transit opportunities to the City. 3. Review the findings of the Local Traffic Task Force and offer recommendations for implementation. 4. Evaluate methods for traffic calming and other speed and volume mitigation measures and recommend their implementation where appropriate. Janovy said some things to think about are: • Define each term in bold above. For example, what does "operation of local street system with respect to traffic volumes," mean? What does it involve? • How does each of the above areas (scope) fit within the existing ETC ordinance? • What is the connection? What is needed to make the connection? • What, if anything, does the existing ETC ordinance leave out? Janovy said the higher level streets that Bonneville is interested in are not explicitly included in the ordinance. She said they will need to keep this in mind if they recommend a change to the ordinance, but if the ordinance is left as does it limit ETC scope to residential and collector streets? What does "local" mean? Does it mean streets within city limits or just streets that are under City's jurisdiction? Bonneville said the Council could hear ETC recommendation on arterial streets even though they do not have jurisdiction. He said they should be able to opine even on Hwy. 100 because of impacts. Sprague said issues come forward in two ways — residents' complaints or reconstruction. He said he does not see the ETC becoming involved with reconstruction unless it's a collector street or higher; however, he said they want to discuss something, they could, but it would not be actionable; the issue would be reflected in the minutes as being discussed, which the Council would see. Janovy said it sounded like Sprague and Bonneville would like to focus on collector and above. She asked though, what about a street like hers, for example that is close to park and that may 4 be considered for a sidewalk when it comes up for reconstruction. Sprague said a fill in policy would cover local streets and Complete Streets would cover higher level streets, i.e. collector, etc. Janovy said they need a toolbox that includes education and enforcement for residents who believe their street has too many cars. Bonneville said residents need a place to call but not a toolbox. Sprague said Boyd (City's traffic safety coordinator) is the filter now when residents call. Maybe Boyd needs a public information handout that he could send to residents that would be standard for everyone. Janovy gave an example of a resident addressing the Council with a stop sign request and it was discovered that while the City was following the MUTCD, there was an error in the City's stop sign policy. She said the sidewalk petition process is confusing and could be made clearer and that communication with residents needs to be brought to forefront to prevent misinformation and to educate residents' perceptions. Janovy said she thinks the ETC has a role with local traffic, Bonneville said he does not. Sprague said the ETC currently gets the minutes from the TSA but, as a current practice, cannot discuss the items. Bonneville said he favors having documentation of standard operating procedures but nothing more. Janovy said she is not sure what "operation of local street system" as used in the ordinance means. Bonneville said they need to define the word "operation." He said this could be involvement with the function of the street --such as turning movement, speed limits or other important factors for traffic, even recommending stop signs. What does "operations as it relates to traffic volume" mean? This could mean striping, lane widths, signalization, stop signs, yield signs, caution, blinkers, etc. What does "congestion" mean? This means Level of Service (LOS) A, B, C, and D and is most often used to refer to intersection. LOS D is usually acceptable in most communities, said Sullivan. "...but not maintenance" probably means not getting involved with things like snowplowing, doing repairs due to aging of roadway, etc. Janovy said residents may want to know about pavement management and how this impacts the decision for reconstruction. Sprague said like Bloomington, they would want to be involved in the redesign discussion as it related to traffic volume and calming; therefore, the ETC needs to be informed each year so the ETC can weigh -in. An on- camera presentation would also inform the public of the annual reconstruction schedule so the public could attend meetings to make public comment if desired. He said Engineering would continue using their established process, such as open house, etc., which is well managed. Janovy said there could be times before the feasibility study where it would be helpful for the ETC to review to avoid what happened with the NE reconstruction and to also see if Complete Streets are covered. Sprague asked why the ETC is bypassed. Janovy said "maintenance" is probably interpreted to also mean reconstruction. Sprague said it would the ETC's review of street reconstruction would be brief and Janovy said the review would be primarily to see if Complete Streets are being implemented, etc. She said the ETC has a role to play as it relates to volume, speed, and traffic calming, although they still need to define what this role specifically means. Janovy asked if there is a way that the ETC could create a policy that would make the process more efficient for managing residents' input and feedback. Sullivan said they are always open to new ideas. Bonneville said he is satisfied with the current process; however, it could be publicized in the newspaper. Bonneville said a weakness is not having all the numbers relating to Edina streets, such as a map of all ADTs, for example. He does not know if there is a traffic count for Browndale or W. 44th, for example. Sullivan said it is difficult to show ADTs on a map on a citywide scale, but 5 data is available for State Aid streets and many local streets. Bonneville said definition is needed for development of policy and they do not have all the intelligence (data related to street ADT, LOS, crash, speeds, etc:) to formulate a policy. The data is computerized but is hard to manipulate said Sullivan. Crash data comes to Engineering one year later. The meeting's discussion was summarized as follows: 1. Street Fact sheet —which would provide known data about every street discussed (such as speeds, ADT, pedestrian facilities, bike facilities, roadbed width, transportation right of way, LOS, etc.) 2. Public information handouts to support communication with residents about traffic concerns —can be given to residents when they contact Boyd 3. Road reconstruction: (a) Does it fall under ordinance as written or does the ordinance need to be redrafted? (b) Could the ETC have a limited review role 4. Beginning of year have Sullivan talk about yearly road reconstruction plans Janovy said the ordinance does not contemplate what Bonneville is interested in so they will need to discuss this further. She asked how do you effect changes when Mn /DOT, for example, has the authority, and when there is an opportunity to influence such as France Avenue. Bonneville said they could have each commissioner bring up a street each month for review. He said he was frustrated because they did not talk about policies and procedures and what their performance and function is and as planned. Meeting adjourned. Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Energy and Environment Commission Edina City Hall Community Room Thursday, June 10, 2010, 7:00 P.M. Members In Attendance and Roll Call: Dianne Plunkett Latham, Bill Sierks, M. Germana Paterlini, , Michael Platteter, Paul Thompson, Julie Risser, Surya lyer, Susan Tucker, Bob Gubrud Absent: Jeannie Hanson, Hailey Lee Staff Present: Jane Timm 1. Welcome Meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chair Latham. 2. Approval of Agenda and Topic Time Allocation. The agenda was approved as written, with one addition, " #17 Efficient Stormwater Management ". 3. Approval of May 13 minutes The May 13 minutes were unanimously approved. 4. Community Comment Intern Elizabeth Templin from Edina High School gave a presentation. She did a project on Edina schools "going green" and what improvements can still be made. Resident, Raymond O'Connell, 4612 Valley View Rd, shared his concern with the commission about the loss of trees /green space at the proposed assisted living location near Colonial Church of Edina. S. Chair Report Chair Latham presented the commission with information on a NEMO (Nonpoint Education for Municipal Officials) Workshop. The registration fee is $25.00 per person. Commissioner Latham, Risser, and Tucker would like to attend. Commission Paterlini made a motion to approve expenditures up to $75.00 to attend the NEMO Workshop. Commissioner Gubrud seconded. Motion carried. 6. Policy and Project Report No report. 7. Education and Outreach Working Group Report Commissioner Thompson gave an update on the July 3`d parade. The commission discussed an electric car, hand -outs, signs, and magnets. The commission decided to put the magnets on hold until the next meeting. Commissioner Thompson made a motion to approve up to $1000 for the purchase of door hangers and/or flyers. Commissioner lyer seconded. Motion carried. Commissioner Thompson made a motion to approve up to $100 to laminate signs to be placed on the electric car for the July 3 parade. Commissioner Gubrud seconded. Motion carried. 8. Residential Energy Project. Commissioners Sierks, Platteter and Gubrud gave an update. There was a discussion about Xcel Energy providing the City of Edina with KwH usage data. Commissioner Sierks explained to the commission that Excel Energy was mandated by the state to reduce use. He asked the commission to trust the above commissioners and give them flexibility when working with Xcel Energy. 9. Staff Report Chair Latham gave an update on the Product Stewardship Resolution status. The legislature did not address the program this year. This will be addressed next year when the legislature is in session. The commission discussed business cards. Jane Timm showed the commission City of Edina blank business cards. There was a discussion about having the EEC's Mission Statement on the back, and whether sheets of the cards could be provided to the commissioners so that they could print their names on them on their home computers. Jane will follow up with Assistant City Manager, Heather Worthington 10. The discussion on the proposed meeting with the GreenStep counterparts was postponed until Assistant City Manager, Heather Worthington returns. 11. Commission Sierks gave an update on "Pilot Within A Pilot" program. The pilot would measure entire City of Edina's tons of waste, vehicle miles traveled (VMT), and how much energy had been used. This would be from the last two years. The commissioners discussed hiring a consultant for approximately $7000 or purchasing a Hara measurement tool. This item was tabled to the July 2010 meeting when Asst. Manager Worthington could participate. 12. GreenStep Pilot Program #1 Public Building & Lighting — The city has not ranked the city buildings in the B 3 database. This would take significant funding. #2 Private Existing Buildings & Lighting — Implementation should happen next year. #11 Complete Streets — Commissioner Latham presented this step to the Transportation Commission. #17 Efficient Storm Water Management — Commissioner Tucker and the Water Quality Working Group (WQ WG) met with the Nine Mile Watershed District (9MCWD), which strongly advised that Storm Water Management be added back into GreenStep Cities program. 9MCWD does not believe that you can effectively have a surface water Green Step BP without a storm water Green Step BP. Commissioner Tucker made a motion to reinstate GreenStep #17 Efficient Storm Water Management back into the program. Commissioner Risser seconded. Motion carried. #19 Surface Water Quality — Commissioner Tucker told the commission she would be meeting with staff member Wayne Houle about various issues raised by the WQ WG. #3 Green Buildings - Commissioner Platteter suggested this step be dropped. The International Building Code will supersede city codes. Commissioner Platteter made a motion to drop #3 Green Buildings from the GreenStep program. Commissioner lyer seconded. Motion carried. #23 Air Quality - Commissioner Tucker gave an update and suggested shaping a wood burning ordinance. She also talked about educational PDA's, perhaps on vehicle idling. #25 Renewable Energy — Commissioner Sierks gave information on a federal stimulus grant. City Council would have to approve the grant. Commissioner Latham asked the commission if they would be interested in seeing the Wind Source PowerPoint presentation. It was suggested to ask Heather what staff members would attend. 13. Appointment of Alternative Energy Working Group Co- Chairs. Chair Latham announced the resignation of Commissioner Hansen. Commissioner lyer was appointed Interim Chair of the Alternative Energy Working Group (AEWG). He will attend the June 22 AEWG meeting. There was a discussion about whether to continue this Working Group, or whether its focus should be sharpened. A decision was tabled to the July meeting when Commissioner lyer could report on the June AEWG 22 meeting result. Commissioner Paterlini volunteered to keep track of the budget and agreed to email the expenditures to all commissioners. Commissioner lyer made a motion to adjourn. Commissioner Thompson seconded. Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m. The next meeting will be the regularly scheduled meeting at 7:00 p.m. July 8, 2010 at Edina City Hall. Respectfully submitted, Jane M. Timm, Deputy City Clerk MINNEHAHA CREEK The Minnehoho Creel: Watershed District is committed to a leadership role in protecting, improving and managing the surface waters and affiliated groundwater resources within the District, including their relationships to the .cosystems of which they are an integral part. We achieve our mission through regulation, capital projects, education, cooperative endeavors, and other programs based on sound science, innovative thinking, on informed and engaged constituency, and the cost effective use of public funds. QUALITY OF WATER June 15, 2010 Honorable Mayor Hovland and Council City of Edina 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 WATERSHED DISTRICT QUALITY OF LIFE Re: July 8, 2010 Public Hearing for Wetland and Shoreline / Streambank Rules Dear Mayor Hovland and Council, After reviewing comments received during public comment periods concluding on January 15, 2010 and April 12, 2010 for the Wetland Protection and Shoreline and Streambank Improvement rules, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Board of Managers has set a Public Hearing on July 8, 2010. The Public Hearing will be held at 7 PM on July 8, 2010 at the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Offices, located at 18202 Minnetonka Blvd. Deephaven, MN, 55391. Enclosed with this letter please find: • Wetland Protection rule language (clean and redlined) • Shoreline and Streambank Improvement language (clean and redlined) • Statement Of Need And Reasonableness (SONAR) for both rules Electronic copies of this information can also be found on the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District website at www.minnehahacreek.org Please share this information with your city council members. This information is also being sent directly to your city staff members involved in the Watershed District's Technical Advisory Committee. The Public Hearing is the last step in an extensive public process to ensure these rule revisions protect the region's water resources. We have appreciated and listened carefully to input we've received so far, and are confident the final rules will address community concerns and remain true to our water quality goals. For questions in advance of the July 8, 2010, Public Hearing, please contact: James Wisker at Jwisker(c-)minnehahacreek.org or 952- 471 -0590 x 206. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT BOARD OF MANAGERS WETLAND PROTECTION RULE Proposed Revisions June 3, 2010 New Principal Residential Structure means a single - family residential building constructed on undeveloped property zoned for residential use or on a property zoned for residential use from which the principal building has been removed for purposes of constructing a new single - family residential building. Linear Reconstruction Project means rebuilding a road, sidewalk or trail within existing right -of -way, and may include an increase in the area of impervious surface. 1. POLICY. It is the policy of the Board of Managers to: (a) achieve no net loss in the quantity, quality and biological diversity of Minnesota's existing wetlands; (b) increase the quantity, quality and biological diversity of Minnesota's wetlands by restoring or enhancing diminished or drained wetlands; (c) avoid direct or indirect impacts from activities that destroy or diminish the quantity, quality and biological diversity of wetlands; (d) minimize direct or indirect impacts from activities that destroy or diminish the quantity, quality and biological diversity of wetlands; (e) rectify the impact of any such activity by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected wetland environment; (f) reduce or eliminate the impact of such activity over time by preservation and maintenance operation during the life of the activity; (g) compensate for the impact on the wetlands by restoring a wetland; (h) compensate for the impact on the wetlands by replacing or providing substitute wetland resources or environments; (i) promote competent administration of the Wetland Conservation Act within the watershed. 2. REGULATION UNDER WETLAND CONSERVATION ACT AND WATERSHED LAW. 6/15/2010 10:23 AM 1 47 48 The District regulates activity impacting wetlands pursuant to the Wetland Conservation 49 Act and the Watershed Law. A permit for activities impacting wetlands or requiring 50 wetland buffers is required as follows: 51 52 (a) In municipalities where the District is the local government unit under the 53 Wetland Conservation Act, a permit is required from the District for any draining or 54 filling of wetlands, or excavation in the permanently and semipermanently flooded 55 areas of type 3, 4, or 5 wetlands, and in all wetland types if the excavation results in 56 filling, draining, or conversion to nonwetland. The Wetland Conservation Act, as 57 amended, and its implementing rules as set forth in Minnesota Rules chapter 8420, 58 as amended, specifically including sequencing requirements and all exemptions, are 59 incorporated as a part of this rule. Wetland replacement, where permitted, shall 60 comply with section 3, Wetland Replacement, of this rule. 61 62 (b) A permit is required from the District pursuant to the excavation and buffer 63 provisions in sections 4, Excavation, and 5, Buffer, of this rule, which are adopted 64 under the District's watershed law authority and apply whether or not the District is 65 the Wetland Conservation Act local government unit. Pursuant to this authority and 66 section 4, Excavation, the District requires a permit for excavation in any type of 67 wetland, except where specifically exempted by the Wetland Conservation Act. 68 69 3. WETLAND REPLACEMENT. 70 71 (a) Replacement wetland must be sited in the following order of priority, which 72 replaces the siting priority in Minnesota Rules section 8420.0522, subpart 7, as it 73 may be amended: 74 75 (1) On site; 76 77 (2) Within the same subwatershed as the affected wetland (see Appendix 78 1); 79 80 (3) In the Minnehaha Creek watershed. 81 82 (b) Pursuant to Minnesota Rules section 8420.0522, subp.7, as it may be 83 amended, when reasonable, practical and environmentally beneficial replacement 84 opportunities are not available in a siting priority area in subsection 3(a), 85 providing replacement priority areas, the applicant may seek opportunities at the 86 next level. When neither replacement opportunities nor privately banked credits 87 are available in any priority area, the applicant may comply with this section 88 through the purchase of banked credits from the District at the cost to the District 89 to establish credits, so long as the District has determined that sufficient credits 90 are available. 91 92 4. EXCAVATION. Excavation in wetlands is subject to the following requirements. 6/15/2010 10:23 AM 2 r� 94 (a) Excavation is governed by the substantive and procedural standards, criteria 95 and requirements set forth in the Wetland Conservation Act, as amended, and the 96 . rules implementing the Wetland Conservation Act as set forth in Minnesota Rules 97 chapter 8420, as amended, including all exemptions, with the exception that 98 replacement for excavation not subject to the Wetland Conservation Act shall be 99 at the ratio of 2:1. The priority siting requirements of section 3 of this rule, 100 Wetland Replacement, apply to replacement of excavated wetland under this 101 section. 102 103 (b) Excavation of a wetland performed for public benefit, including excavation to 104 remove or control invasive species, shall be deemed self - replacing if the applicant 105 demonstrates that the wetland to be excavated is degraded; the proposed activity 106 would increase the wetland's function and value, as determined using the current 107 version of the Minnesota Routine Assessment Method or other method approved 108 by the District; and the enhanced wetland function and value are likely to be 109 preserved. Excavation shall not result in a change of wetland type, unless the 110 applicant demonstrates that public benefit is not obtainable absent such impact. 111 112 5. BUFFER. 113 114 , (a) Any activity for which a permit is required under this Wetland Protection 115 Rule, the Stormwater Management Rule or the District Waterbody Crossings and 116 Structures Rule, and New Principal Residential Structure construction that 117 increases the imperviousness of the subject parcel must provide for buffer 118 adjacent to each wetland and public waters wetland. To the extent the buffer 119 requirement applies to a proposed New Principal Residential Structure, it will be 120 applied in accordance with protections afforded a zoning nonconformity under 121 state law so as not to unduly restrict the proposed action. Buffer must be provided 122 on that part of the wetland edge that is downgradient from the activity or 123 construction and around each wetland that will be disturbed. 124 125 (b) Buffer width will be determined in accordance with section 6, Buffer Width, 126 of this rule. 127 128 (c) Buffers shall be documented by declaration or other recordable instrument 129 approved by the District and recorded in the office of the county recorder or 130 registrar before activity under the MCWD permit commences. A buffer on public 131 land or right -of -way may be documented in a written agreement executed with the 132 District in place of a recorded instrument. The agreement shall state that if the 133 land containing the buffer is conveyed, the public body shall require the buyer to 134 comply with this subsection. 135 136 (d) A permanent .wetland buffer monument shall be installed at each lot line 137 where it crosses a wetland buffer, and where needed to indicate the contour of the 138 buffer, with a maximum spacing of 100 feet. Language shall indicate the purpose 6/15/2010 10:23 AM 139 of the buffer, restrictions, and the name and phone number of the Minnehaha 140 Creek Watershed District. On public land, or right -of -way, the monumentation 141 requirement may be satisfied by the use of a marker flush to the ground or 142 breakaway markers of durable material. At the request of the applicant, the 143 District shall provide wetland buffer monuments at production cost. 144 145 6: BUFFER WIDTH. 146 147 (a) The. Base Buffer Width shall be determined by the management class of the 148 wetland as evaluated by the District's Functional Assessment of Wetlands or by 149 the current version of the Minnesota Routine Assessment Method (MnRAM). 150 Management Class Base Buffer Width Minimum Applied Buffer Width Manage 3 20 feet 16 feet Manage 2 30 feet 24 feet Manage 1 40 feet 34 feet Preserve 75 feet 67 feet 151 152 (b) The Applied Buffer Width, the actual width of wetland buffer(s) required for a 153 permitted project, shall be the Base Buffer Width as reduced by beneficial slope 154 or soil conditions pursuant to the following formulas: 155 156 (1) For every 5 percent decrease in average buffer slope from 20 percent, 157 the Base Buffer Width may be reduced 2 feet. 158 159 (2) For every grade of Hydrologic Soil Group above Type D for the 160 predominant buffer soil condition, the Base Buffer Width may be reduced 161 2 feet. 162 163 Reductions for beneficial slope or soil conditions shall not reduce the buffer width 164 to less•than the applicable Minimum Applied Buffer Width. 165 166 (c) Buffer width may vary based on demonstrated site constraints, provided that a 167 width of at least 50 percent of the Applied Buffer Width is maintained at all 168 points, there is no reduction in total buffer area, and the buffer provides wetland 169 and habitat protection at least equivalent to a buffer of uniform Applied Buffer 170 Width. Buffer width averaging calculation will exclude any part of the buffer 171 exceeding 200 percent of the Applied Buffer Width. The area of any path or trail 172 allowed in the buffer will be added to the total area required.by the Applied 173 Buffer Width, except that construction of a trail or path of no more than 4 feet in 174 width to provide riparian access through the buffer will not increase the required 175 buffer area. 176 177 (d) The Applied Buffer Width may be further reduced by the District upon a 178 demonstration by the applicant that the proposed buffer conditions clearly provide 6/15/2010 10:23 AM 4 179 a higher function and value than would be provided by a buffer of the applicable 180 Applied Buffer Width, but may not be reduced to less than 50 percent of the 181 applicable Applied Buffer Width. 182 183 (e) The Applied Buffer Width for Linear Reconstruction Projects shall be limited 184 to the extent of available right -of -way. A buffer is not required for resurfacing of 185 an existing road, sidewalk or trail that does not increase the area of impervious 186 surface. 187 188 (f) The Applied Buffer Width for New Principal Residential Structures shall be 189 limited to 25 percent of the distance between the existing structure at the point 190 that it is nearest to the wetland and the wetland, or 25 feet, whichever is greater, 191 provided that such a buffer shall not exceed the Base Buffer Width, and the buffer 192 shall not render a property unbuildable. 193 194 7. WETLAND BUFFER VEGETATION. 195 196 (a) Buffer vegetation shall not be cultivated, cropped, pastured, mowed, fertilized, 197 subject to the placement of mulch or yard waste, or otherwise disturbed, except 198 for periodic cutting or burning that promotes the health of the buffer, actions to 199 address disease or invasive species, mowing for purposes of public safety, 200 temporary disturbance for placement or repair of buried utilities, or other actions 201 to maintain or improve buffer quality, each as approved by District staff or when 202 implemented pursuant to a written agreement executed with the District. 203 Pesticides and herbicides may be used in accordance with Minnesota Department 204 of Agriculture rules and guidelines. No new structure or hard surface shall be 205 placed within a buffer, except as provided in paragraph 6(d). No fill, debris or 206 other material shall be excavated from or placed within a buffer. 207 208 (b) For public land, right -of -way or property held by a homeowner's association, 209 the applicant may comply with paragraphs 5(d), requiring buffer monumentation, 210 7(a), vegetation management, and section 10, Wetland Buffer Monitoring, of this 211 rule by demonstrating that the buffer will be maintained in accordance with a 212 written maintenance agreement with the District meeting the buffer 213 monumentation, vegetation management and wetland buffer monitoring 214 requirements in this rule, listing required elements of paragraph 9(h), the Wetland 215 Buffer Maintenance Plan, including terms describing in detail the location of 216 wetland buffer on the subject property and providing detailed protocols for buffer 217 maintenance. 218 219 (c) Buffer areas, or portions thereof, that are not vegetated or will be disturbed by 220 grading activities during construction, shall be replanted and maintained 221 according to the following standards: 222 223 (1) Soils must be decompacted to a depth of 18 inches and organic matter 224 must be incorporated into soils before revegetation. Decompaction shall 6/15/2010 10:23 AM 5 225 be accomplished solely by incorporation of organic matter within the drip 226 line or critical root zone of trees or within 10 feet of underground utilities. 227 228 (2) Erosion/sediment control practices, including provisions of sections 5, 229 Erosion Control Plan, and 9, Maintenance, of the District Erosion Control 230 Rule, as appropriate, shall be used during buffer vegetation establishment. 231 232 (3) Buffers shall be planted with a native seed mix and/or native plantings 233 approved by the District. 234 235 (4) Buffer maintenance and monitoring shall be performed in accordance 236 with section 10, Wetland Buffer Monitoring, of this rule. 237 238 8. FINANCIAL ASSURANCE. A performance bond, letter of credit or other 239 financial assurance, consistent with the District Financial Assurance Rule, may be 240 required for any project involving wetland replacement or replanting of wetland 241 buffers. The financial assurance shall be maintained until the monitoring period 242 has ended and District has approved the wetland replacement or establishment of 243 the buffer. 244 245 9. REQUIRED EXHIBITS. The following exhibits shall accompany the 246 Combined Joint Notification (CJN) form: 247 248 (a) Complete delineation report, in accordance with the guidelines provided by the 249 Board of Water and Soil Resources, for any wetland(s) that will be impacted or 250 require a buffer. The report must be approved by the WCA Local Government 251 Unit. 252 253 (b) Site plan, one set - full size and one set - reduced to a maximum size of 11" x 254 17", showing: 255 256 (1) Property lines and corners and delineation of lands under ownership of 257 the applicant; 258 259 (2) Existing and proposed elevation contours; including the existing 260 runout elevation and flow capacity of the wetland outlet; 261 262 (3) Boundaries of all wetlands on the property; 263 264 (4) Boundaries of all existing or proposed buffers; 265 266 (5) Proposed locations of buffer signage. 267 268 (6) Area of the wetland portion to be filled, drained, or excavated. 269 6/15/2010 10:23 AM 6 270 (c) Identification and area of the total watershed area presently contributing 271 stormwater runoff to the wetland. 272 273 (d) A replacement plan, if required, meeting all the requirements of Minnesota 274 Rules chapter 8420, as amended. Replacement plans for wetland impacts not 275 subject to the WCA must meet these same requirements. 276 277 (e) For projects involving wetland excavation (including projects deemed self - 278 replacing under paragraph 4(b)), the application shall identify spoils placement on 279 upland and specify how the deposited materials will be stabilized and vegetated. 280 281 (f) Information showing whether the subject wetland is protected by either the 282 State or municipality or both. 283 284 (g) Wetland Buffer Planting Plan, if required under section 7, Wetland Buffer 285 Vegetation, including: 286 287 (1) Proposed seed mixes and other plant materials to be used; 288 289 (2) Seed or plant supplier and origin of materials; 290 291 (3) Seed/planting bed preparation (i.e. disking, raking, clearing, herbicide 292 control, topsoiling, etc.); 293 294 (4) Seeding and/or planting method (i.e. broadcast, drill, etc.); 295 296 (5) Application rate in either pounds of seed per acre and/or the number of 297 plants per unit area if using plugs or seedlings. Specify if using pure live 298 seed (PLS). Higher application rates will be required if not using PLS; 299 300 (6) Detailed erosion control plan for establishing wetland buffer. 301 302 (h) Wetland Buffer Maintenance Plan, if required under section 7, Wetland Buffer 303 Vegetation, including: 304 305 (1) Schedule of establishment and maintenance activities for the first five 306 years of establishment (i.e. watering, burning, mowing, herbicide control, 307 etc.); 308 309 (2) Identification of probable invasive species and steps that will be taken 310 to control the spread of invasive species; 311 312 (3) Inspection methods and schedule for monitoring invasive species and 313 documenting native species germination and establishment. 314 6/15/2010 10:23 AM 7 315 10. WETLAND BUFFER MONITORING. For buffer areas required to be established or 316 replaced under subsection 7(c), setting standards for buffer establishment and 317 maintenance: 318 319 (a) Upon final establishment, wetland buffers shall contain little or no bare soil 320 and shall exhibit a dominance of native vegetation. 321 322 (b) The applicant shall submit to the District an annual ' Wetland Buffer Inspection 323 Report on or before January 1 of each year for five years. Alternatively, 324 applicants may request that the District perform the Wetland Buffer Inspection 325 and produce the report for a fee equal to the District's actual costs to perform the 326 work. 327 328 (1) The applicant may submit a written request to cease annual monitoring 329 by year three if the wetland buffer is well established pending District 330 approval. 331 332 (2) If the wetland buffer is poorly established at the end of the five year 333 monitoring period, the District may require continued monitoring and 334 maintenance. 335 336 (c) The annual Wetland Buffer Inspection Report shall include: 337 338 (1) Site plan showing: 339 340 i. Location of permitted buffer area; 341 342 ii. Areas of bare soil or erosion; 343 344 iii. Areas of invasive vegetation; 345 346 iv. Location and type of any encroachments on the buffer (structures, 347 unapproved mowing, trails, etc.) 348 349 (2) Color photos of the wetland buffer taken during the growing season. 350 Vantage points for these photos shall be labeled on the site plan. 351 352 (3) Description of buffer vegetation including: 353 354 i. List of dominant plant species and their estimated percent cover. 355 356 ii. Comparison of the species present to the approved 357 planting/seeding plan. 358 359 (d) A written narrative that identifies the management strategies that will be 360 utilized during the upcoming growing season to manage invasive species, 6/15/2010 10:23 AM 8 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 improve percent vegetative cover and species diversity, and mitigate any encroachments on the buffer. Annendix 1: Long Lake Creek Painter Creek Gleason Lake Creek Minnehaha Creek Dutch Lake Langdon Lake Lake Minnetonka M Christmas Lake Lake Virginia Schutz Lake Six Mile Cree 6/15/2010 10:23 AM 9 1 NIINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT 2 BOARD OF MANAGERS 3 4 RULE D� WETLAND PROTECTION RULE 5 6 Proposed Revisions cmvca- 2s,00-9 8 Mare. 1c , 201n 9 May 20,2010 10 June 3, 2010 11 12 New Principal Residential Structure means a single - family residential building 13 constructed on undeveloped property zoned for residential use or on a property zoned for 14 residential use from which the principal building has been removed for purposes of 15 . constructing a new single - family residential building. 16 17 Linear Reconstruction Project means rebuilding a road, sidewalk or trail 18 within existing right -of -way, and may include an increase in the. area of impervious 19 surface. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 1. POLICY. It is the policy of the Board of Managers to: (a) achieve -no net loss in the quantity, quality and biological diversity of Minnesota's existing wetlands; (b) increase the quantity, quality and biological diversity of Minnesota's wetlands by restoring or enhancing diminished or drained wetlands; (c) avoid direct or indirect impacts from activities that destroy or diminish the quantity, quality and biological diversity of wetlands; (d) minimise direct or indirect impacts from activities. that destroy or diminish the quantity, quality and biological diversity of wetlands; (e) rectify the impact of any such activity by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected wetland environment; (f) reduce or eliminate the impact of such activity over time by preservation and maintenance operation during the life of the activity; (g) compensate for the impact on the wetlands by restoring a wetland; (h) compensate for the impact on the wetlands by replacing or providing substitute wetland resources or environments; 6/15/2010 10:26 AM 47 (i) promote competent administration of the Wetland Conservation Act within the 48 watershed. 49 50 2. REGULATION AT T-14On rry UNDER WETLAND CONSERVATION ACT AND 51 WATERSHED LAW. 52 53 The District regulates activity impacting wetlands pursuant to the Wetland Conservation 54 Act and the Watershed Law. A permit for activities impacting wetlands or requiring 55 wetland buffers is required as follows: 56 57 (a) In municipalities where the District is the local government unit under the 58 Wetland Conservation Act, a permit is required from the District for any draining 59 or filling of wetlands, or excavation in the permanently and semipermanently 60 flooded areas of type 3, 4, or 5 wetlands, and in all wetland types if the excavation 61 results in filling, draining, or conversion to nonwetland. The Wetland 62 Conservation Act, as amended, and its implementing rules as set forth in 63 Minnesota Rules chapter 8420, as amended, specifically including sequencing 64 requirements and all exemptions, are incorporated as a part of this rule. Wetland 65 replacement, where permitted, shall comply with section 3, Wetland 66 Replacement, of this rule. 67 68 (b) A permit is required from the District pursuant to the excavation and buffer 69 provisions in sections 4, Excavation, and 5, Buffer, of this rule, which are adopted 70 under the District's watershed law authority and apply whether or not the District 71 is the Wetland Conservation Act local government unit. Pursuant to this authority 72 and section 4, Excavation, the District requires a permit for excavation in any type 73 of wetland, except where specifically exempted by the Wetland Conservation Act. 74 75 and its implementing fi�les as se , 76 fei4h in MipAieset" Rules ehapter- 8420 as amended, eeifle lly ; eluding 77 i4s and all exemptions, 78 md e�iea-va4ien in wetlands. in all eases , 79 80 , 81 seetien 3, Wedand Replaeemea4, 82 R en Wetlands Gensepvatiea Aet regulated 83 . 84 85 shall require , 86 . 87 88 , 89 ' 90 au4her-ity and appliesapply whether- er- net the Distfiet is the Wetland 91 92 6/15/2010 10:26 AM 2 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 3. WETLAND REPLACEMENT. MITIGATION. TION (a) Replacement wetland must be sited in the following order of priority, which replaces the siting priority in Minnesota Rules section 8420.0522, subpart 7, as it may be amended: (1) On site; (2) Within the same subwatershed as the affected wetland (see Appendix 1); (3) In the Minnehaha Creek watershed. (b) Pursuant to Minnesota Rules section 8420.0522, subp. 7, as it may be amended, when reasonable, practical and environmentally beneficial replacement opportunities -are not available in a-siting priority area in subsection 3(a), providing replacement priority areas, the applicant may seek opportunities at the next level. When neither replacement opportunities nor privately banked credits are fiet available in any priority area, the applicant may comply with this section through the purchase of banked credits from the District at the cost to the District to establish credits, so long as the District has determined that sufficient credits are available., er- thFeugh the _ehase other- banked e,.edits in the Dis4 e+ n4 et; shell be .ae ♦e e.a by the ALGA he appheable. Ad' ..leeem • r r _ not __ _L•__a to the 3SIG A LL e r shall be at a ratio f 2 { r 1 o eed e .7 l. e eie of imp etea aer-es iawefland: 6/15/2010 10:26 AM -- - - _ (b) Pursuant to Minnesota Rules section 8420.0522, subp. 7, as it may be amended, when reasonable, practical and environmentally beneficial replacement opportunities -are not available in a-siting priority area in subsection 3(a), providing replacement priority areas, the applicant may seek opportunities at the next level. When neither replacement opportunities nor privately banked credits are fiet available in any priority area, the applicant may comply with this section through the purchase of banked credits from the District at the cost to the District to establish credits, so long as the District has determined that sufficient credits are available., er- thFeugh the _ehase other- banked e,.edits in the Dis4 e+ n4 et; shell be .ae ♦e e.a by the ALGA he appheable. Ad' ..leeem • r r _ not __ _L•__a to the 3SIG A LL e r shall be at a ratio f 2 { r 1 o eed e .7 l. e eie of imp etea aer-es iawefland: 6/15/2010 10:26 AM 139 b. 200 p „t if any .. °..t: °n e fthe . plae ° „t , .°tlead is 140 outside the Mifi..°hah Greek water-shed bu4 , ithi the seven- 141 142 ; 143 144 c 400 per-eent if n „„ .. °,.t:°.. e f the plane., eat wetland 145 146 147 (3) if the u� ete'1 :.e+lan i n Pr -ese� ° bl Wa4er-s wetland, a1V L Lt La 4 J K 1 LVJVa .•V VT or- 148 , 149 f of aAs (1) and (2) nl eve shall be �,,,- her- : °.7 by 200 ..t vain YL`a w � a J and 151 (4) TFr lµ „t is a °t °a ..t to be feasible ,;thi 1\ f' h t, 152 Greek , a4er-s1. °.7 the ., .Bear+ .,, nitem tiye t.. , pin„ °....ea Greek ,.' n 153 ,,.aside e f the 1, fi ..°l,ah G,.° °L , ,ater -she _ehase edits fte the v u wauc. 7 r 154 Dist iet at the st t.. the Dist, -iet to establish ..feditom a long as the Dist f 4 aJUavL u�saiv� , ” 155 has detefmii3ed that saffieient er -edits are available f ,...nl° 156 157 4. EXCAVATION. Excavation in wetlands is subject to the following requirements. 158 159 (a) Excavation is governed by the substantive and procedural standards, criteria 160 and requirements set forth in the Wetland Conservation Act, as amended, and the 161 rules implementing the Wetland Conservation Act as set forth in Minnesota Rules 162 chapter 8420, as amended, including all exemptions, with the exception that 163 replacement for excavation not subject to the Wetland Conservation Act shall be 164 at the ratio of 1 n ° e fr- ep,nn °a wetland f eaeh n ° of 165 exeavatedimpaewefla 2:1. The priority siting requirements of section 3 of this 166 rule, Wetland Replacement, apply to replacement of excavated wetland under this 167 section. 168 169 n., >r.,e ,,.aims iaa ...et,nads f ,. the pwposes efyAldlife Thane° t t Enu 170 ee 1,. naa:t:°., ;tt, the er- t °fin deser -ibe in the D1 ...,bhe ti vvaurraJ, ' , ' 171 ” 172 173 (be) Excavation of a wetland performed by a publie enfity-for public benefit, 174 including excavation to remove or control invasive species, shall be deemed self - 175 replacing if the applicant demonstrates that the wetland to be excavated is 176 degraded; the proposed activity would increase the wetland's function and value, 177 as determined using the current version of the Minnesota Routine Assessment 178 Method or other method approved by the District; and the enhanced wetland 179 function and value are likely to be preserved. Excavation shall not result in a 180 change of wetland type, unless the applicant demonstrates that public benefit is 181 not obtainable absent such impact. 182 183 (dc) 184 how the deposited ...nt °r -ials -A411 be stabilized and vegetated-. 6/15/2010 10:26 AM 4 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 ( e) ; letlandr-ep laeeinea#,- where - ps4e'lca sh shall ereuF in the same 1. . 1, a +t, etea . ,etle ~zsuid knpaet. asse 45. BUFFER. (a) Any activity for which a permit is required under Distr-et Rule G (Fle„a ~l Aker tion) nithis Wetland Protection Rule,`, G (W ter -be y Stmetwes) N (the Stormwater Management) Rule or the District Waterbody Crossings and Structures Rule, and eeastF.et;e~ of a New Principal Residential Structure construction that increases the imperviousness of the subject parcel must provide for a-buffer adjacent to each wetland and public waters wetland:. e€ the fell,..Mng y4 th To the extent the buffer requirement applies to a proposed New Principal Residential Structure, it will be applied in accordance with protections afforded a zoning nonconformity under state law so as not to unduly restrict the proposed action. Buffer must be provided on that part of the wetland edge that is downgradient from the activity or construction and around each wetland that will be disturbed. (eb) Buffer width will be determined in accordance with section 5:6, Buffer Width, of this rule. (bc) A4mffiefBuffers shall be documented by declaration or other recordable instrument approved by the District and recorded in the office of the county recorder or registrar before activity under the MCWD permit commences. A buffer on public land or right -of -way may be documented in a written agreement executed with the District in place of a recorded instrument. The agreement shall state that if the land containing the buffer is conveyed, the public body shall require the buyer to comply with this subsection. 223 (ded) A permanent wetland buffer monument shall be installed at each lot line 224 where it crosses a wetland buffer, and where needed to indicate the contour of the 225 buffer, with a maximum spacing of 100 feet. Language shall indicate the purpose 6/15/2010 10:26 AM . 5 226 of the buffer, restrictions, and the name and phone number of the Minnehaha 227 Creek Watershed District. On public land, or right -of -way, the monumentation 228 requirement may be satisfied by the use of a marker flush to the ground or 229 breakaway markers of durable material. At the request of the applicant, the 230 District shall provide wetland buffer monuments at production cost. 231 232 5.6. BUFFER WIDTH. 233 234 (a) The Base Buffer Width wi44shall be determined by the management class of 235 the wetland as evaluated by the District's Functional Assessment of Wetlands or 236 by the current version of the Minnesota Routine Assessment Method (MnRAM). 237 Management Class Base Buffer Width Minimum Applied Buffer Width Manage 3 20 feet 16 feet Manage 2 30 feet 24 feet Manage 1 40 feet 34 feet .Preserve 75 feet 67 feet 238 239 (b) The Applied Buffer Width, the actual width of wetland buffer(s) required for a 240 permitted project, isshall be the Base Buffer Width extended by w' iehe• er- efas 241, reduced by beneficial slope or .soil conditions pursuant to the following formulas 242 applies to pfeduee th width: 243 244 (1) For every 5 percent inefeasedecrease in average buffer slope from 245 4-520 percent, the base buffer- -Aidth shall b ° . °•Base Buffer Width 246 may be reduced 2 feet. 247 248 (2) Base buffer- - ,;dths shall be : °a 2 feet f .. ° rage °� 249 .For every grade of Hydrologic Soil 250 Group above Type D for the predominant buffer soil condition, the Base 251 Buffer Width may be reduced 2 feet. 252 253 Reductions for beneficial slope or soil conditions shall not reduce the buffer width 254 to less than the applicable Minimum Applied Buffer Width. 255 256 257 b. 258 259 (dc) Buffer width may vary based on demonstrated site constraints, provided that 260 a width of at least 50 percent of the Applied Buffer Width is maintained at all 261 points, there is no reduction in total buffer area, and the buffer provides wetland 262 and habitat protection at least equivalent to a buffer of uniform Applied Buffer 263 Width. Buffer width averaging calculation will exclude any part of the buffer 264 exceeding 200 percent of the Applied Buffer Width. The m4 area of any 265 a ieus path or trail allowed in the buffer will be dedueted ffem added to the 6/15/2010 10:26 AM 6 266 total area required by the Applied Buffer Width buffer- d ealeulatie , except 267 that construction of a trail or path of no more than 4 feet in width to provide 268 riparian access through the buffer will not increase the required buffer area. 269 270 (ed) An appliewA may e est fieNib l;ty fer- r-edueed wetland bu ff ,...,;. th if it 271 is demenst The Applied Buffer Width may be further reduced by the District 272 upon a demonstration by the applicant that the proposed buffei conditions clearly 273 pfevidesprovide a higher function and value than would be provided by a buffer 274 of r-equked under-the n4e. applicable Applied Buffer Width, but may not be 275 reduced to less than 50 percent of the applicable Applied Buffer Width. 276 277 (fe) The Applied Buffer Width for Linear Reconstruction Projects shall be limited 278 to the extent of available right -of -way. A buffer is not required for resurfacing of 279 an existing road, sidewalk or trail that does not increase the area of impervious 280 surface. 281 282 (gf) The Applied Buffer Width for New Principal Residential Structures shall be 283 limited to 25 percent of the distance between the existing structure at the point 284 that it is nearest to the wetland and the wetland, or 25 feet, whichever is greater, 285 provided that such a buffer shall not exceed the Base Buffer Width, and the buffer 286 shall not render a property unbuildable. 287 288 6-7. WETLAND BUFFER VEGETATION. 289 290 (a) Upen final establishment and eessation f + .a a 291 wetland buffer-s 1, 11 t' l nno4 geta4iye eever- :tl, l;�le e e bare sail. b 292 ^ aiinimtffa ef 7504 of the vegetative eever- shall „ st e f plant ovveaea native to 293 leseta-. 294 295 (ba) Buffer vegetation shall not be cultivated, cropped, pastured, mowed, 296 fertilized, subject to the placement of mulch or yard waste, or otherwise disturbed, 297 except for periodic cutting or burning that promotes the health of the buffer, 298 actions to address disease or invasive species, mowing for purposes of public 299 safety, temporary disturbance for placement or repair of buried utilities, or other 300 actions to maintain or improve buffer quality, each as. approved by District staff or 301 when implemented pursuant to a written agreement executed with the District. 302 Pesticides and herbicides may be used in accordance with Minnesota Department 303 of Agriculture rules and guidelines. No new structure or hard surface shall be 304 placed within a buffer, except as provided in paragraph 6(d). No fill, debris or 305 other material shall be excavated from or placed within a buffer. 306 307 (b) For public land, right -of -way or property held by a homeowner's association, 308 the applicant may comply with paragraphs 5(d), requiring buffer monumentation, 309 7(a), vegetation management, and section -910, Wetland Buffer Monitoring, of this 310 rule by demonstrating that the buffer will be maintained in accordance with a 311 written maintenance agreement with the District meeting the buffer 6/15/2010 10:26 AM 7 312 monumentation, vegetation management and wetland buffer monitoring 313 requirements in this rule, listing required elements of paragraph 99(h), the 314 Wetland Buffer Maintenance Plan, including terms describing in detail the 315 location of wetland buffer on the subject property and providing detailed 316 protocols for buffer maintenance. 317 318 (c) Buffer areas, or portions thereof, that are not vegetated or will be disturbed by 319 grading activities during construction, shall be replanted and maintained 320 according to the following standards: 321 322 (1) Soils must be decompacted to a depth of 18 inches and organic matter 323 must be incorporated into soils before revegetation. Decompaction shall 324 be accomplished solely by incorporation of organic matter within the drip 325 line or critical root zone of trees or within 10 feet of underground utilities. 326 327 (2) Erosion/sediment control practices, including provisions of sections 5, 328 Erosion Control Plan, and 9, Maintenance, of the District Erosion Control 329 Rule, as appropriate, shall be used during buffer vegetation establishment. 330 331 (3) Buffers shall be planted with a native seed mix and/or native plantings 332 approved by the District. 333 334 (4) Buffer maintenance and monitoring shall be performed in accordance 335 with section 10, Wetland Buffer Monitoring, of this rule. 336 337 8. PERFORMANCE Bnrm OR LETTER OF GRE4)Ir FINANCIAL 338 ASSURANCE. A performance bond, e�letter of credit, or other financial 339 assurance, consistent with the District p°f Finanee Bend or- Le"e"- a fCredi* 340 Financial Assurance Rule, may be required for any project involving wetland 341 replacement or replanting of wetland buffers. The bead er. let4er finan cial 342 assurance shall be maintained until the monitoring period has ended and District 343 has approved the wetland replacement or establishment of the buffer. 344 345 -5-.9. REQUIRED EXHIBITS. The following exhibits shall accompany the 346 Combined Joint Notification (CJN) form: One set full size; one set r- edueed-to 347 a inffi4muffi size of 11 '417". (a) Site plan b' 348 349 lines and eemer-s and deli. ea fie of lands under- 350 ; 351 352 {2}& }g ead pr-epesed elevatien eenteufs; ineluding the 353 :sfia, ut e,e.,atie., e d flow a eity a fthe . ,etia d eut e,.. 354 355 (3) Area of t e wetland d ,,et4ie to be filled 356 6/15/2010 10:26 AM 8 357 (ba) Complete delineation report, in accordance with the guidelines provided by 358 the Board of Water and Soil Resources, for any wetland(s) that will be impacted 359 or require a buffer. The report must be approved by the WCA Local Government 360 Unit. of t + wetland(s), ,.,,,,,: g a.,+„ sheets it detailed ,.,F afie« 361 en field indiea4er-s ( •, ,, a ,eg y and . ,moo+ + � , . « Al +, d , / � r 362 delineations w 4d be f d d+ g the al ... f tMs are r tea. vu iv 363 of State (N4 , n + be 15). ,: ati �r ..o. M ,+� ,. :ao „f+ rye 364 ft t be t4 a depending pete ,+:.,, wetland , et , � r a ^� c 365 366 a-YA 368 (a)(b) Site plan, one set - full size and one set - reduced to a maximum size of 11" 369 x 17 ", showing: 370 371 (1) Property lines and corners and delineation of lands under ownership of 372 the applicant; 373 374 (2) Existing and proposed elevation contours; including the existing 375 runout elevation and flow capacity of the wetland outlet; 376 377 (3) Boundaries of all wetlands on the property; 378 379 (4) Boundaries of all existing or proposed buffers; 380 381 (5) Proposed_ locations of buffer signage. 382 383 (36) Area of the wetland portion to be filled, drained, or excavated. 384 385 (c) Identification and area of the total watershed. area presently contributing 386 stormwater runoff to the wetland. 387 388 (d) A replacement plan, if required, eu4liakig the steps felle ,_a F : the 389 i : ,.ludi g de 390 •+ + plan. a +• f the at a ,rA o f the p .° fill a r �a� ., �,,.,,�,. -gin 391 inmcz� and details f+,, anffffi-A •+ fia r „ ..la must alse be ; elude meeting 392 all the requirements of Minnesota Rules chapter 8420, as amended. Replacement 393 plans for wetland impacts not subject to the WCA must meet these same 394 requirements. 395 396 ) Wetlands a + be e ate fer- Adli f „as r st also submit. 397 t a eepzAnaetiea speeifieations whieh . , ludo the fell . 398 399 400 (,) Ponds t, ,a be ,.ular- shape, and . wA .2500 401 sweet 402 6/15/2010 10:26 AM 9 403 (2) Mad depth net te emeeed 5 feet and te have an undulating 404 bettem 405 406 «) Raties ,.fi..asin side slopes Fanging f.,..., 3.i to 10 407 408 409 (4) The s eil dispesal site must be identified ..a 9 and not-te 410 below the 014W e f a ,...,blie water- o ubli . , a4e!. wetland, wetland 411 subj eet te the We4laad Gensefva4ien Aet of 199 1, 412 However-, fill m be laee,a i wetland bj t + the Wet! � �,�, may .,., y.....,.,.. �.. " •'enmicr&cccJeErco- mc�rcrr�ma 413 Ge e .atie., net to the exten4 „o,. .hied in M;.,..e et Statutes 414 103 G.2241, subd, 10. 415 416 (5) Vogeatie ,- este,.., *;e plan whieh ; ,.lu es the disturbed aFe 417 being seeded to native grasses fer- a nikiimum ef 150 feet ar-eund 418 the -duge 419 420 «) The r-s a ,°a er-ganie eils sheuld be spread evef the e., +;,.o 421 422 423 (e) For projects involving wetland excavation (including projects deemed self - 424 replacing under paragraph 4(b)), the application shall identify spoils placement on 425 upland and specify how the deposited materials will be stabilized and vegetated. 426 427 (f) Information showing whether the subject wetland is protected by either the' 428 State or municipality or both. 429 430 (g) Wetland Buffer Planting Plan, if required under section 7, Wetland Buffer 431 Vegetation, including: 432 433 ; 434 435 (1) Proposed seed mixes and other plant materials to be used; 436 437 (2) Seed or plant supplier and origin of materials; 438 439 (3) Seed/planting bed preparation (i.e. disking, raking, clearing, herbicide 440 control, topsoiling, etc.); 441 442 (4) Seeding and/or planting method (i.e. broadcast, drill, etc.); 443 444 (5) Application rate in either pounds of seed per acre and/or the number of 445 plants per unit area if using plugs or seedlings. Specify if using pure 446 live seed (PLS). Higher application rates will be required if not using 447 PLS; 448 6/15/2010 10:26 AM 10 449 (6) Detailed erosion control plan for establishing wetland buffer. 450 451 (h) Wetland Buffer Maintenance Plan, if required under section 7, Wetland 452 Buffer Vegetation, including: 453 454 (1) Schedule of establishment and maintenance activities for the first five 455 years of establishment (i.e. watering, burning, mowing, herbicide 456 control, etc.); 457 458 (2) Identification. of probable invasive species and steps that will be taken 459 to control the spread of invasive species; 460 461 (3) Inspection methods and schedule for monitoring invasive species and 462 documenting native species germination and establishment. 463 464 9-.10. WETLAND BUFFER MONITORING. For buffer areas required to be established 465 or replaced under subsection 7(c), setting standards for buffer establishment and 466 maintenance: 467 468 (a) Upon final establishment, wetland buffers shall contain little or no bare soil 469. and shall exhibit a dominance of native vegetation. 470 471 (b) The applicant shall submit to the District an annual Wetland Buffer Inspection 472 Report on or before January 1 of each year for five years. Alternatively, 473 applicants may request that the District perform the Wetland Buffer Inspection 474 and produce the report for a fee equal to the District's actual costs to perform 475 the work. 476 477 (1) The applicant may submit a written request to cease annual monitoring 478 by year three if the wetland buffer is well established pending District 479 approval. 480 481 (2) If the wetland buffer is poorly established at the end of the five year 482 monitoring period, the District may require continued monitoring and 483 maintenance. 484 485 (c) The annual Wetland Buffer Inspection Report shall include: 486 487 (1) Site plan showing: 488 489 i. GPS leea4ed ei suff eyed a a Location of appfevedpennitted 490 buffer vegeta4ie area; 491 492 ii. Areas of bare soil or erosion; 493 494 iii. Areas of invasive vegetation; 6/15/2010 10:26 AM 11. 495 496 497 498 499 500. 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 iv. Location and type of any encroachments on the buffer (structures, unapproved mowing, trails, etc.) (2) Color photos of the wetland buffer taken during the growing season. Vantage points for these photos shall be labeled on the site plan. (3) Description of buffer vegetation including: i. List of dominant plant species and their estimated percent cover. ii. Comparison of the species present to the approved planting/seeding plan. (d) A written narrative that identifies the management strategies that will be utilized during the upcoming growing season to manage invasive species, improve percent vegetative cover and species diversity, and mitigate any encroachments on the buffer. 6/15/2010 10:26 AM 12 522 523 524 525 526 Appendix 1: Long Lake Creek Painter Creek Gleason Lake Creek innehaha Creek Dutch Lake Langdon Lake Lake Minnetonka Christmas Lake Lake Virginia Schutz Lake Six Mile Cree Water- Water-shed T 6/15/2010 10:26 AM 13 MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT STATEMENT OF NEED AND REASONABLENESS Proposed Amendments to Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Rules June 14, 2010 PUBLIC HEAR ING WILL BE HELDJuly 8, 2070 I. BACKGROUND This Statement of Need and Reasonableness (SONAR) presents background on and explains proposed amendments to the following rule of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District: • Wetland Protection Rule The SONAR has been revised since it was issued along with the draft proposed amendments to the Wetland Protection Rule and now explains the decisions made by the District Board of Managers in revising the rule in response to comments received during two separate public comment periods provided by the District. The revisions to the SONAR address substantive changes to the rule made since it was first issued for public comment in November 2009 and provide clarifications on the operation of the rule in response to issues identified during the comment periods. The amendments contribute to the implementation of the policies, standards and goals of the District's third - generation Watershed Management Plan, adopted on July 5, 2007. The amendments also represent improvements based on the District's experience applying its rules, and are designed to improve the rules' effectiveness in protecting water resources without imposing unreasonable compliance burdens on permit holders. This statement of need and reasonableness describes the basis for the District Board of Managers' determination that the revisions are both beneficial and reasonable. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 103D.341, the proposed amendments were issued for a 45 -day public comment period that ended January 15, 2010. The Board of Managers encouraged all interested parties to comment on the rule or otherwise provide any information that might lead to further improvements to the rule. State and regional resource protection agencies, local governments and potentially regulated parties were particularly invited to engage in a review of the proposed amendments for the purpose of making the Wetland Protection Rule as resource protective as possible without incurring excessive administrative costs or placing an undue burden on those subject to the rule. The District received comments on the proposed amendments from many cities, state agencies, parks agencies, private developers and the Metropolitan Council. After the 45 -day period for written comments, the District held a public hearing to gather additional comments. After the original comment period, the District conducted additional public meetings on the draft revision, comments and responses, and participated in several meetings on the rule held by other groups, such as representatives of watershed cities. The District considered carefully all comments received. The Board of Managers reviewed and discussed the comments and responses drafted by staff at a series of meetings, then directed staff to make responsive changes to the rule text. The revised amendments were distributed in mid - March 2010 via the District's website and sent to everyone who had submitted comments, along with explanations of changes made to the rule and clarifications. Because the District made substantial changes to the proposed wetland rule amendments in response to the comments, the Board of Managers elected to again post the rules for an open public comment period. The District accepted comments until April 12, 2010, and staff again compiled them for review, along with proposed responses, by the Board of Managers. The Board directed staff to make further responsive changes and issue the revised amendments, then schedule a public hearing forJuly 8, 2010. The District anticipates that the amendments will be finalized for adoption after the July hearing. Legal Authority Legal authority for the District's rules derives from Minnesota Statutes Chapters 103B and 103D. Under Minnesota Statutes section 103D.341, subdivision 1 , watershed districts must adopt rules "to accomplish the purposes of [the Watershed Act] and to implement the powers of the managers." These purposes include, among others, conservation of water for public uses; controlling erosion and siltation of lakes, streams and wetlands; and protecting water quality in these bodies.' District managers are further authorized to regulate and control the use of water within the watershed district, regulate the use of streams and watercourses to prevent pollution, ' Minn. Stat. § 103D.201, subd. 2. 2 Revised Amendments to MCWD Wetland Protection Rule June 15, 2010 Statement of Need and Reasonableness and regulate the use and development of land in collaboration with watershed cities.2 District rules, and revisions to the rules, must be adopted by a majority vote of the Board of Managers, after public notice and hearing.3 Before adoption, a copy of the proposed rules must be provided to the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) and all public transportation authorities for a 45 -day period of review and comment.4 11. INTRODUCTION The Wetland Protection Rule is the sixth of the District's rules to be revised following the adoption of the revised watershed plan. Revisions to the District's Erosion Control, Floodplain Alteration, Dredging and Waterbody Crossings and Structures rules have been adopted and will be effective September 1, 2010. The revised amendments to the Wetland Protection Rule were issued simultaneously with the revised amendments to the Shoreline & Streambank Improvements Rule. Watershed Plan In mid 2007, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District adopted its third - generation watershed plan. The plan presents ambitious policies and goals for the protection of water resources in the 178- square mile Minnehaha Creek watershed in Hennepin and Carver counties. The amendments introduced here represent an integral part of the plan's multifaceted implementation strategy. The amendments are part of the, performance -based management strategy at the heart of the plan's implementation program. Collective Experience The amendments also reflect the District's experience implementing, administering and enforcing its rules. The size of and the intensity of development activity in the watershed give District staff ample opportunity to apply the rules. Staff have compiled notes and suggestions for improvements, as well as questions and comments from permit applicants, since the rules were last amended (a round of housekeeping updates in 2005). z Minn. Stat. § 103D.335, subds. 10, 16, and 23; § 10313.211, subd. 1. 3 Minn. Stat. § 103D.341, subds. 1, 2(a). 4 /d., at subd. 2(b). 3 Revised Amendments to MCWD Wetland Protection Rule June 15, 2010 Statement of Need and Reasonableness Stakeholder Participation The District developed and implemented an extensive stakeholder involvement program for its rulemaking, including a Technical Advisory Committee and a Rulemaking Task Force that reviewed all of the background issues and drafts of the amendments. The District made concerted efforts to ensure that the task force membership represented a broad spectrum of interested watershed residents - from developers, builders and business representatives to citizens, public and private environmental professionals, and environmental advocates. Several members of the task force came from the District's standing Citizens Advisory Committee. (See Table 1, Rulemaking Task Force members.) Members were chosen not only to achieve broad representation, but also on the basis of their individual experience and interest in the District rulemaking. The task force met with District staff and consultants to guide the rulemaking process in accordance with the policies and goals in the plan. Beginning in May 2007, the task force met monthly to study plan policies, staff reports and other relevant information, and develop effective approaches to implementation. (One or more District managers attended the task force meetings, but principally to hear the discussion and opinions firsthand, rather than actively participate. The managers generally confined their input on the rulemaking to relevant meetings of the Board and workshops with staff.) Members reviewed and commented on draft amendment language as it was developed subsequent to the initial policy and implementation alternatives discussions. The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) included water management experts from local governments, public parks organizations, and county, regional and state agencies. Rather than limiting membership in the technical group to a particular defined set of individuals, the District left TAC membership open, and invited interested organizations to send the member or members of their staff who were particularly well- versed in a topic to attend the meeting focused on that topic. (See Table 2, a list of individuals who participated in meetings of the TAC.) Members of the technical group regularly work with the District and are familiar with the history of its regulatory program and its day -to -day integration with their programs and activities. The TAC provided input on the recommendations that emerged from the Rulemaking Task Force, with particular attention to the technical feasibility of proposed rule provisions. Like the task force, the TAC members commented on draft rule 4 Revised Amendments to MCWD Wetland Protection Rule June 15, 2010 Statement of Need and Reasonableness amendment language as it was developed and reviewed by the Board of Managers in response to input from the advisory groups. In some places the groups' input prompt the District to rethink and revise its approach, and in others the groups offered language changes that clarified and improved the proposed amendment. III. WETLAND PROTECTION RULE The Wetland Protection Rule works in harmony with the District's capital improvements program, land conservation program and educational efforts to promote the conservation and restoration of.wetlands in the watershed. The revisions to the rule reflect the emphasis in the District watershed plan on wetlands protection that accounts for not only the quantity and size of wetlands, but also the functions and values provided by wetlands - wetland qualities such as biological diversity. This approach is grounded in the District's commitment to the statewide policies of ensuring no net loss and avoiding direct and indirect impacts to the quantity, quality and biological diversity of wetlands. The proposed changes provide protection to watershed wetlands beyond what is achieved under the state Wetland Conservation Act (WCA), while also accounting for site - specific conditions and providing implementation flexibility to land owners. The District's authority to afford greater protection to wetlands under its rules than is provided under WCA is affirmed by Minnesota Rules 8420.0233. The draft amendments to Wetland Protection Rule drew a substantial number and variety of comments, and the District made substantial revisions to address misunderstandings and to more effectively protect wetlands in harmony with state law and watershed municipalities' ordinances. The District also incorporated provisions to ensure that property owners in the watershed - especially those developing or redeveloping property for a single - family home - would not be unduly burdened when the rule applies to their projects. In addition to the substantive changes made in response to public comments, the revised amended rule includes explanatory language added to section and paragraph cross - references to make the rule easier to understand and follow. (The two new definitions introduced along with the amendment revisions - for " -New Principal Residential Structure" and "Linear Reconstruction Project" - were drafted and included with the rule text to facilitate clear understanding of the application of the 5 Revised Amendments to MCWD Wetland Protection Rule June 15, 2010 Statement of Need and Reasonableness wetland buffer provisions of the rule to single - family properties ( "New Principal Residential Structure ") and road projects ( "Linear Reconstruction Project "). The new definitions are discussed and explained below. Ultimately they will appear in the definitions section of the District rules.) Policy The sole addition to the Wetland Protection Rule's policies - paragraph 1(i) - reflects the plan's goal of ensuring that the Wetland Conservation Act is competently administered throughout the watershed (see goal 11.5 in section 5 of the 2007 plan). Improved administration of WCA will be achieved through implementation of the amended rule by District staff and coordination of WCA administration with watershed cities and other LGUs. Otherwise, the wetlands- management policies continue to mirror the policies of the state Wetland Conservation Act, as recognized in the District plan. (See Minnesota Statutes section 103G.222, subdivision 1(b) and Minnesota Rule 8420.0100, as well as goal 1 1 in section 5 of the plan.) The rule also has been revised in conformity with recently adopted revised WCA rules, and continues to complement the state rules. Regulatory Scope The District wetland rule does not apply significantly more broadly under the revised amendments than it does under the existing rule. After the initial public comment period, the regulation section was redrafted in response to comments that indicated substantial uncertainty as to when the rule applies. The revised regulatory section is restructured to emphasize which provisions will be administered by the District as WCA local government unit and which will be administered under the District's Watershed Law authority (see Minnesota Statutes chapters 1036 and 103D). The rule applies as follows: 1. In watershed municipalities where the District serves as the WCA local government unit (LGU), the District will apply WCA (including the WCA exemptions), as modified by the Wetland Protection Rule's stricter - than -WCA replacement siting requirements (section 3), as well as its excavation regulations (section 4) and the District buffer provisions (sections 5 -7, 10); 6 Revised Amendments to MCWD Wetland Protection Rule June 15, 2010 Statement of Need and Reasonableness 2. In watershed municipalities where the District is notthe WCA, the District will apply its excavation regulations and the District buffer provisions.5 The disparity between wetlands regulation in the two areas will be remedied over time, because a watershed city that serves as the WCA LGU within its jurisdiction ultimately will have to bring its wetland controls (ordinances) up to par with the District's rule through the local water management plan review and approval process.6 In response to confusion expressed during the comment period, the District added language (in paragraph 2(a)) to clarify. that it will not regulate wetlands that are exempted from regulation under WCA.7 (See Minn. Stat. § 103G.2241; Minn. R. 8420.0420.) Neither the excavation (section 4) nor the buffer requirements of the rule (sections 5 -7, 10) will apply to WCA- exempt wetlands. This fact is clarified in section 4 and is implicit in the buffer sections: These impacts to wetlands that fall within the scope of WCA regulation, but are specifically exempted by statute and rule, and District wetland permitting requirements also will not apply. Applicability of the Wet /and Protection Rule to Road Projects Among other purposes, the revisions to the sections 2 and 3 of the rule were made to clarify the application of the rule to road projects. For state road projects, the Department of Transportation (MnDOT) will most often be the LGU, so the replacement provisions in section 3 will not apply to WCA - regulated wetlands (see Minn. R. 8420.0200, subp. 1 Q. The District will regulate excavation of non -WCA wetlands and require buffers for MnDOT projects in accordance with the terms of sections 4 and 5- 7, 10 (see Minn. Stat. § 103D.345, subd. 5). 5 The general applicability of the buffer requirement is provided in paragraph 2(b), with specifics provided in paragraph 5(a). 6 See Minn. Stat. § 1036.235; section. 7.1.2, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan, 2007. Watershed municipalities' official controls must be amended, if necessary, to ensure that they are at least as protective as the District's rules within one year of the city's receiving notice of the District's rule update. Alternatively, the city can elect at any time to have the District apply its rule to projects in the city's jurisdiction. 7 The District will not regulate incidental wetlands, which are outside the scope of WCA as described in Minn. R. 8420.0105, but treated as exempt in statute (Minn. Stat. § 103G.2241, subd. 5). 7 Revised Amendments to MCWD Wetland Protection Rule June 15, 2010 Statement of Need and Reasonableness Local governments' road projects will be subject to the replacement requirements of section 3 for WCA wetland impacts when the District is the LGU only if the project is If nonqualifying" under Minn. R. 8420.0544 (that is, the project builds a new road, expands an existing road to solely to increase capacity or does not comply with the state rule requirements in part D of 8420.0544). Qualifying road projects - those that repair, rehabilitate, reconstruct or replace a roadway to comply with design and /or safety standards and do comply with Minn. R. 8420.0544D - need not submit a replacement plan for WCA - regulated wetland impacts. Both qualifying and nonqualifying projects must comply with the District's excavation and buffer requirements. In both cases, the District rule provisions have been crafted to provide flexibility appropriate to the constraints under which such projects are undertaken (e.g., restricted available right -of -way in which wetland buffer can be established; see paragraph 6(f)). Siting of Replacement Wetlands The revised proposed additions to the District's wetlands - replacement siting provisions would direct project proposers to replace wetlands onsite when impacts are unavoidable. The in -kind replacement requirements in the current rule are proposed to be deleted, as they duplicate the requirements of section 8420.0522, subpart 3, in the WCA rules as updated in August 2009. In response to concerns that the replacement ratios in the draft amendments were too onerous, the District opted to eliminate the ratios introduced in the November 2009 proposed amendments and instead rely on the WCA sequencing standards and the replacement wetland size criteria in Minnesota Rule 8420.0522, subpart 4, in conjunction with the siting hierarchy in paragraph (a) of section 3 to ensure that wetlands impacts are replaced as close to the affected wetland as possible - a policy of particular importance to the Board of Managers. Enhancing the emphasis on this policy, the options for replacement siting have been simplified with a three -tier hierarchy to ensure that replacement wetlands are sited within the watershed. The subwatersheds referred to in this section are the same as described in the District's 2007 plan, and a new map is added to the revised proposed amendments as Appendix 1. The District is keenly aware that suitable replacement sites are scarce in some corners of the Minnehaha Creek watershed, and compliance with the siting requirements in subsection 3(a) is facilitated by the banking options provided in paragraph 3(b). The 8 Revised Amendments to MCWD Wetland Protection Rule June 15, 2010 Statement of Need and Reasonableness District intends to plan and implement wetland creation and restoration projects in critical locations within the watershed, and enroll these wetlands in a District bank that will be created under WCA and registered with BWSR. The District bank is intended to ensure that applicants who cannot comply with the siting criteria in subsection 3(a) have other options for compliance, while ensuring that replacement takes place within the watershed. In addition, in the wake of the second comment period, the District added language allowing the District bank to be used, on /ywhen credits also are not available from a private bank. The provision is meant to prevent the District bank from discouraging private investment creating wetland banks in the watershed. The Board of Managers felt that the District bank should be in place to facilitate the administration of the District's siting priorities, but should serve as the last resort for applicants. The banking options in section 3(b) would be available for'nonqualifying' road projects even when credits from the BWSR state wetland bank are not available. Other applicants may also pursue the banking alternatives, although it is the experience of the District that most private development applicants are able to mitigate wetland impacts onsite. Excavation In addition to clarifying how excavation in wetlands is covered by the rule, as discussed above, the District has added language to what is now section 4 of the rule to make the operation of the excavation provisions applicable to non -WCA wetlands clearer as well. In response to comments, the replacement ratio is stated in simple terms - 2:1. That the siting requirements of section 3 apply to replacement of excavation impacts not regulated by WCA is made explicit in paragraph 4(a). The District expects that the typical project triggering this section will involve excavation in a Type 1 or 2 wetland - though excavation in a Type 6, 7 or 8 wetland also would be regulated. In keeping with direction from the Board of Managers, one purpose of section 4 is to discourage conversion of such wetlands to other types of wetlands or ponds during property development or redevelopment. As a result, excavation that changes the wetland type will not be authorized unless it achieves a public benefit that cannot be obtained by other means (seethe last sentence of paragraph 4(b)). In response to comments, the District has broadened the applicability of the exemption from the replacement requirement for excavation that produces a public benefit 9 Revised Amendments to MCWD Wetland Protection Rule June 15, 2010 Statement of Need and Reasonableness (paragraph 4(b)). The exemption now applies whether the project proponent is a public entity or not. The other factors necessary for excavation to be exempt remain: The wetland must be degraded and the project proposed must improve function and value. The control or removal of invasive species has been added as a specific example of a type of qualifying public benefit, but the District specifically eschewed defining the term "public benefit" to allow for project- and circumstances - specific analysis as a part of permit application analysis. Buffers The District's proposed buffer -width requirements drew extensive comments and discussion. The Rulemaking Task Force convened on six different occasions to discuss buffers, and the draft provisions were carefully crafted and revised to accomplish District wetland - protection goals in light of stakeholder input. The proposed buffer regulations also reflect the benefit of the substantial review of literature on wetland buffers conducted by District staff, consultants and stakeholders. Among the studies that form the basis for the proposed rule are: • "Benefits of Wetland Buffers: A Study of Functions, Values and Size," . conducted by Emmons and Olivier Resources Inc. (EOR) for the District in 2001 and updated in 2004; • "Case Study No. 6: Assessing Vegetated Buffers Using Synthetic Residential Runoff," completed by Westwood Professional Services in 2007 for the Builders Association of the Twin Cities (BATC), the Metropolitan Council and the National Association of Home Builders, and supplemented by a 2007 Minnesota Water Conference presentation; • "Review of BATC Wetland Buffer Case Study," prepared by FOR in February 2008 specifically for the District rulemaking process; • "Further Assessment of Buffer Widths" and "Follow -up Questions from Further Assessment of Buffer Widths," completed by FOR for the District, July 31, 2008, and September 8, 2008; and • "Functional Assessment of Wetlands Within Minnehaha Creek Watershed District," completed in 2003. The methodologies and findings of these studies were presented in detail to and discussed at length by the stakeholder groups. 10 Revised Amendments to MCWD Wetland Protection Rule June 15, 2010 Statement of Need and Reasonableness The 2001 District study by FOR was based on a review of more than 300 peer- reviewed and university- published articles. The study also was informed by the International Best Management Practice Database, compiled by the Environmental Protection Agency and the American Society of Civil Engineers, among others. The District study found that virtually all wetlands benefit from well - established and - maintained buffer. Buffer improves water quality by capturing sediment and nutrients, and it moderates runoff temperature fluctuations. It provides flood protection, bank stabilization and habitat, as well as aesthetic quality. Buffer also inhibits people from accessing and damaging wetlands. Scope of the Buffer Requirement The delineation of activities triggering the District's buffer requirement underwent some revision in response to comments received on the amendments posted in November 2009. The changes clarified the applicability of the buffer provisions, but did not substantially expand them - buffers continue to be required to protect wetlands protected by WCA and by the District under the Watershed Law, as well as public waters wetlands (regulated by the Department of Natural Resources). The only extension of the requirement under the revised amendments is to certain, narrowly defined single - family home developments and redevelopments, and even then, only when impervious surface is added to the project parcel (see paragraph 5(a)). The District drafted a new term - 'New Principal Residential Structure" - to allow for precise description of the activities on single - family properties that would, even if a permit under another District rule is not required, trigger the buffer requirement. The revised. provision will require wetland buffers only when a new home is built on a property already zoned for residential use or when the existing home is razed and a new one built on a parcel zoned for residential use. However, the provision is limited to circumstances where the construction project adds impervious surface to the parcel; reconstruction within the footprint of the existing structure does not trigger the buffer requirement. (Subdivision and development.of multiple properties will in all imaginable scenarios trigger the District's stormwater rule, and thereby trigger buffer requirements that will most often be met through a subdivision -wide plan.) The District wetland buffer provisions will not apply to remodeling projects, and there is no reasonably imaginable scenario in which a buffer would be required on a parcel that is only minimally disturbed. 11 Revised Amendments to MCWD Wetiand Protection Rule June 15, 2010 Statement of Need and Reasonableness The paragraph defining the regulatory scope for the buffer requirement also has been amended to reference the special status that building nonconformities enjoy under state law (see Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 1 e). The addition provides assurance that the buffer requirement will not be applied to restrict the repair, maintenance or replacement of a residential structure on a nonconforming parcel. The District also has removed its Floodplain Alteration Rule from the list of regulated activities triggering the buffer requirement, in recognition of the fact that if a shoreline project does not disturb a nearby wetland (which would trigger the buffer requirement if the impact on the wetland is permanent and regulated), there is no basis for application of the buffer requirement. Finally, in response to concerns expressed during the comment period, the District has removed the originally proposed requirement that buffer be provided around the entirety of a wetland downgradient from a disturbance. The revised amendments retain the existing requirement of buffer only on the wetland edge downgradient from the disturbance (see paragraph 6(a)). Buffer also will still be required around the entirety of a wetland disturbed in the course of a project, as under the current rule. Monumentation The rule's buffer - monumentation amendment in paragraph 5(d) has been modified as it applies to public land, including right -of -way, to allow for the use of markers flush to the ground or breakaway markers. This is one of two revisions to the original proposed amendments designed to provide flexibility for managers of large buffer areas on public land that present unique monumentation, maintenance and monitoring challenges (see also options for programmatic approaches to buffer maintenance in paragraph 7(b)). In addition, after the second round of comments revealed potential applicants' concerns about the cost and availability of monumentation, the District agreed to provide appropriate signage or markers at its cost to produce. (See paragraph 5(d).) Buffer Widths The initial basic presumption presented by District staff and strongly supported by the research reviewed - that higher - quality wetlands ought to be protected by wider buffers - was accepted by the stakeholders. From there, staff, the Board of Managers, the Rulemaking Task Force and Technical Advisory Committee examined several 12 Revised Amendments to MCWD Wetland Protection Rule June 15, 2010 Statement of Need and Reasonableness possible systems for setting buffer widths. There was strong support among stakeholders to the proposed switch from the existing system, under which the buffer width required is based on wetland size (area), to a wetland quality -based system, involving an assessment of wetland functions and values. The proposed revisions use the wetland categories in the District's 2003 Functional Assessment of Wetlands: Preserve (the highest - quality wetlands), Manage 1, Manage 2, Manage 3 (see paragraph 6(a)). Initially, some members of the task force expressed discomfort with a system based on management categories because wetlands can be placed in a category for different reasons - i.e., a Preserve wetland may be so designated either because it has exceptional vegetative diversity or because it offers shoreline protection - two distinct ecological benefits. In response, District staff and consulting engineers drew on the studies, as well as the District's functional assessment, to develop three different multistep frameworks for calculating buffer widths. Each system was based on an assessment of the criteria used in determining the management classification for a particular wetland.$ Each of the systems also addressed another Rulemaking Task Force recommendation by accounting for performance factors that affect the effectiveness of buffers. The task force recommended some simplification upon subsequent review of the systems, but members of the Technical Advisory Committee expressed concern that a system using a multifactor matrix based on analysis of functions and values would be too cumbersome and complex. In refining the proposed buffer -width provisions for initial distribution to the public, the District adopted a hybrid approach that establishes Base Buffer Widths based on management classifications, then determines the actual buffer width applied to a particular wetland (dubbed the Applied Buffer Width) based on critical performance factors. Both the BATC case study and the District's buffer study generally support this approach. And the 2008 followup analyses of the District's 2001 buffer study specifically support the use of slope and soil type (as a surrogate for the ability of the buffer to infiltrate runoff) as factors to support diminution of required buffered widths 8 Vegetative diversity; wildlife habitat; fisheries habitat; aesthetics, recreation, education and cultural; stormwater susceptibility; wetland water quality; hydrologic regime; flood storage; wetland area; "special status" as a District Key Conservation Area or Outstanding Resource Value. 13 Revised Amendments to MCWD Wetland Protection Rule June 15, 2010 Statement of Need and Reasonableness (see 6(b)(1) and (2)). In addition, the studies support the provision whereby the buffer width required can be reduced where a function and values analysis provided by the applicant shows that best management practices proposed will outperform a buffer of the width required by the rule under the circumstances (see 6(d)). The rule also provides flexibility to account for unique site characteristics and design in proposed paragraph 6(c), which allows averaging of buffer widths as long as a minimum of 50 percent of the Applied Buffer Width is maintained at all points along the required buffer. In response to the numerous comments on the initially proposed buffer -width provisions, the District made extensive changes in the spring of 2010, including revision of the process by which Applied Buffer Width is determined. The changes allow project proponents to understand the maximum buffer widths that apply to a project from the outset, then work through the rule provisions to determine whether conditions exist that allow for reductions. That is, the Base Buffer Width is now the maximum buffer that could be required for a particular property. Advantageous slope and soil conditions allow the width to be reduced. Buffer width also can be reduced through the implementation of best management practices (BMPs) that demonstrably improve the function and value of a wetland buffer. Such BMPs must be specifically installed to improve buffer function; they cannot also provide compliance with other District regulatory criteria. To ensure that buffers are not reduced to ineffective widths, minimums are established for slope and soil condition reductions (see 6(b) and the table accompanying paragraph 6(a)), and reductions based on improved function and value cannot exceed 50 percent of the applicable Minimum Applied Buffer Width, as determined according to wetland class. After the second round of comments ended in April 2010, the District also added language to 6(c) allowing a trail or path (pervious or impervious) to be routed through the buffer, as long as the commensurate area is added to total buffer provided for that wetland. (This added exception also is referenced as an exception from the still - applicable prohibition on hard surface in a buffer in paragraph 7(a).) In recognition of landowners' riparian access needs, a 4 -foot path or trail (matching average dock width) providing access to a waterbody is excepted from the requirement that compensating buffer be provided. While some commentors urged general reductions in the base buffer widths from those proposed in the November 2009 and March 2010 drafts, the District determined that 14 Revised Amendments to MCWD Wetland Protection Rule ,June 15, 2010 Statement of Need and Reasonableness with the addition of flexibility to reduce widths in paragraphs (b) though (f), reductions in the Base Buffer Width numbers were not warranted. With the available reduction options, the rule provides a reasonably balanced approach to buffer regulation. Roadways and Residences The District responded to comments on the application of the wetland buffer requirements to specific types of projects by adding specific compliance flexibility language: First, new paragraph 6(f) limits the amount of buffer that will be required for certain road redevelopment projects (defined under the heading Linear Reconstruction Projects) to the available right -of -way. The provision means road authorities need not find locations outside the right -of -way adjacent to a particular project site to establish sufficient buffer to meet the strict requirements of the rule. In addition, in response to comments the District removed resurfacing projects that do not increase the impervious area of a road from the operation of the buffer provision (see paragraph 6(f)). Second, in addition to limiting the circumstances in which the buffer requirement applies to single - family homes, the District crafted specific language to ensure that the buffer width required for such projects will not take up a disproportionate portion of the property. Paragraph 6(g) limits the buffer width based on the amount of available land adjacent to the affected wetland (with a minimum of 25 feet or the applicable Minimum Applied Buffer Width), and is drafted to ensure that the buffer requirement does not conflict with municipal setback requirements or render a property unbuildable (paralleling the provision accounting for nonconformities in paragraph 5 (a)). Overall, the proposed buffer - width - setting system recognizes that in some cases increasing buffer widths beyond a basic level of protection provides diminishing returns in terms of effective removal of pollutants and runoff volume reduction. Where buffer conditions are optimal - porous soils, shallow slope, diverse native vegetation - buffer widths can be reduced. Where conditions are less favorable, greater buffer width is necessary to provide adequate protection. The proposed revised buffer provisions are crafted to respond to specific buffer conditions and landowner rights, while effectively protecting wetland functions and values. 15 Revised Amendments to MCWD Wetland Protection Rule June 15, 2010 Statement of Need and Reasonableness Some commentors expressed concern that the District would mandate 300 -foot buffers. The District did not consider or propose a 300 -foot maximum buffer width. The District plan mentioned - in a footnote - BWSR's 300 -foot recommended buffer for protection of wetlands providing exceptional wildlife habitat. The District's focus is on ensuring sound, research -based wetland buffer protection for the great number of wetlands in the watershed that are likely to be discussed in the context of land- disturbance proposals that will come before the District in the near future. The proposed buffer widths reflect this focus, as well as diverse stakeholder input. A suggestion that a District buffer width determination be appealable to the WCA Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) was declined as unnecessarily complicating the process. Statutory appeal rights apply to all watershed district permit determinations,9 and decisions under WCA are appealable by procedures described by state rule.10 State rule also prescribes the kinds of WCA determinations for which a land owner or another party can request TEP review.11 Further, in the majority of cases, the buffer width.will be simply an application of the wetland rule provisions in accordance with the functions, values, type and boundary determinations that will necessarily involve review and analysis by the TEP. The revised version of the rule's buffer width provisions provide substantial flexibility to project proponents to achieve compliance at the same time that it strengthens the District's continuing commitment to protecting wetlands from damage caused by runoff, animals and people. The provisions protect and respect property rights while affirming the District's commitment to securing the diverse benefits provided by wetlands and wetland buffers. Vegetation Maintenance As proposed in November 2009, the Wetland Protection Rule included a new requirement, specifying 100 percent vegetative cover and 75 percent native species content for buffer. Otherwise, the substantive maintenance provisions for wetland buffers remained from the current rule. The latter have been retained in paragraph 7(a) and apply to a/ /wetland buffer - whether established through planting after construction or retained through designation of existing vegetated areas as buffer. In response to comments, the District has elected to reorganize the buffer monitoring, 9 Minn. Stat. §§ 103D.535, 103D.537. 10 Minn. R. 8420.0905. 11 See Minn. R. 8420.0240. 16 Revised Amendments to MCWD Wetland Protection Rule June 15, 2010 Statement of Need and Reasonableness reporting and vegetative content requirements to emphasize that they apply only when buffer must be newly established (i.e., planted and nurtured) because the location where buffer is required is bare or has been graded or otherwise disturbed during construction. The new subsection 7(c) articulates the specific criteria for establishing, maintaining and monitoring buffer established to comply with the rule, including soil decompaction requirements in paragraph 7(c)(1) that mirror those of the District Erosion Control Rule and a narrative standard for native plant content in paragraph 7(c)(3), replacing the percentage requirements in the originally proposed amendments. Buffer monitoring and reporting specifics are detailed in section 10. In revising the amendments, the District also added options to respond to comments from public entities managing large tracts of buffer who felt that the originally proposed monitoring and reporting requirements would be onerous. In addition to the already- mentioned flexibility for the means of compliance with the monumentation requirement in paragraph 5(d), the District has added the option for certain properties to comply with the monumentation, vegetation management and buffer monitoring requirement by executing a written agreement that describes with specificity how the buffer will be maintained (see paragraph 7(b)). The District inspections for such properties will focus on confirming that the wetland buffer areas are being managed in conformity with the agreement and the plans it incorporates. The District's requirements and procedures for monitoring and maintaining wetland buffer should not be confused with the requirements in WCA that apply to the establishment and monitoring of replacement wetlands, where required. The applicable provisions in the WCA rules (chapter 8420 in the Minnesota Rules) govern property owners' and project proponents' interactions with the District as WCA LGU for replacement wetlands, when the District is serving as the LGU. Financial Assurances In revising the amendments to the Wetland Protection Rule, the District added the specifics in section 8 regarding provision of financial assurances, as authorized by Minnesota Statutes section 103D.345, subd. 4. (The District also may require financial assurances for wetland replacement as authorized by Minnesota Rules 8420.0522, subp. 9, or for no -loss applications as authorized by 8420.0415 H(3), when it is serving as the WCA LGU.) 17 Revised Amendments to MCWD Wetland Protection Rule June 15, 2010 Statement of Need and Reasonableness Permits under the District's wetlands rule have always been subject to the financial assurance requirement; the proposed addition of section 8 to the rule merely makes the requirement plainer to potential permit applicants and other interested parties. Exhibits The District - Department of the Natural Resources Combined joint Notification form, along with standard annotated site plan documents, remain the basic documentation required to begin the District wetland - permitting process. A complete wetland delineation is required for any project triggering the District wetland rule (see paragraph 9(a)). The requirements in section 9 supplement WCA submission requirements (applicable only when the District is the LGU). These basic exhibit requirements have been enhanced with detailed buffer planting, maintenance and monitoring documentation, which have- been revised in keeping with the clarification, discussed above, that buffer maintenance (beyond the basics in paragraph 7(a)) and monitoring will be required only for new buffer areas. i.e., the exhibits in subsections 9(g) and 9(h) are required only for buffer that must be established on bare or disturbed areas to comply with the rule. The addition of greater specificity in the exhibits lists was prompted by the poor rate of buffer success observed by District staff in the past, as well as a recognition that the full ecological value of the rule's buffer requirements will be realized only if the long- term health of buffer plants is ensured to the greatest degree possible by sound planning at the outset and thorough monitoring throughout the establishment period. The detailed exhibit requirements for planting and monitoring also reflect the information gained through the District's review of buffer literature, which underscores the importance of a healthy native - species community in the performance of wetland buffers. Monitoring The proposed changes to the monitoring section of the rule have been cited above, though it is noteworthy that the District revised the requirements here to simplify the survey requirement in response to comments and reexamination by District staff (see 10(c)(1)). While applicants are welcome to provide global positioning system or survey data, the District will work with applicants to determine a level of documentation of . buffer area location sufficient to ensure compliance with the substantive requirements of the rule. Also, to help facilitate compliance with the monitoring and reporting, which some commentors felt would be onerous, the District added the option of having 18 Revised Amendments to MCWD Wetland Protection Rule June 15, 2010 Statement of Need and Reasonableness the buffer monitoring and reporting performed by District staff at standard field -work rates (see paragraph 10(b)). Other minor deletions in the section also are proposed to make the requirements easier to understand and satisfy. 19 Revised Amendments to MCWD Wetland Protection Rule dune 15, 2010 Statement of Need and Reasonableness Table 1 - Members of the Rulemaking Task Force IName Occupation /Affiliation Employer /City Tom Aasen Citizens Advisory Committee Minnetonka Kristin Asher ...... .. .. Engineer ................. . City of Richfield Melissa Barrett VI/etland Scientist Kjolhaug Environmental Services Ginny Black _. Organics Recycling Coordinator _.. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency ... _ .................__ ........................... Larry Blackstad lCiti.zens Advisory Committee Minnetonka William Bushnell Citizens Advisory Committee Minnetrista ITom Casey. Citizens Advisory Committee Mound Nate Duoss Public Policy Specialist Builders Association of the Twin Cities ITony Goldenstein Citizens Advisory Committee St. Louis Park Ste hen jenkins P FSupervisor - District #4 .. .._.......__... Hennepin Conservation District ames Johnson Vice President Lyman Properties LLC ISteve Mohn I.Invest.men.t Manager Self Employed IDavid Newman Land Developer The Bancor Group Dan Salmon Citizens Advisory Committee St. Louis Park Ethel Smith Resident Timothy Smith Registered Nurse Hennepin County Medical Center I.Puncan Steinman Citizens Advisory Committee Minnetonka Harold Ulvestaed Commercial Real Estate Broker Staubach Company acob Westman Educator, Student lWestonka Public Schools Donna Woodruff Citizens Advisory Committee Shorewood 20 Revised Amendments to MCWD Wetland Protection Rule June IS, 2010 Statement of Need and Reasonableness Table 2 - Participants in the Technical Advisory Committee Name Agency/City Laura Adler Cit of St. Louis Park Liz Stout Ci of Minnetonka Tony Brou h Hennepin County Wayne Houle City of Edina Jesse Struve City of Edina Mike Kelly City of Wayzata Aaron Snyder U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Dave Poggi Bolton & Menk (Engineer for Mound, Deephaven, St. Bonifacius, Greenwood & Woodland) John Barten Three Rivers Park District Tim Brown Barr Engineering Jack Frost Metropolitan Council Brad Wozney Board of Water and Soil Resources Lois Eberhart City of Minneapolis Bob Moberg City of Plymouth Larry Brown City of Shorewood Holly Kreft City of Victoria Cara Geheren TKDA (City of Victoria Engineer) Deb Pil er Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board Michael Schmidt Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board Mike Eastling City of Richfield Derek Asche City of Plymouth Sara A likowski Minnea olis Park and Recreation Board Kate Drewery Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Kristin Asher City of Richfield Bob Moberg City of Plymouth Lee Gustafson City of Minnetonka Terryjeffery I City of Chanhassen 21 Revised Amendments to MCWD Wetland Protection Rule June 15, 2010 Statement of Need and Reasonableness I MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT 2 BOARD OF MANAGERS 3 4 PROPOSED REVISIONS 5 SHORELINE & STREAMBANK STABILIZATION RULE 6 7 June 3, 2010 8 9 10 1. POLICY. It is the policy of the Board of Managers to: 11 12 (a) Preserve the natural appearance of shoreline and streambank areas; 13 14 (b) Encourage and foster bioengineering, landscaping and preservation of natural 15 vegetation as preferred means of stabilizing shorelines and streambanks; 16 17 (c) Assure that improvement of shoreline and streambank areas to prevent erosion 18 complies with accepted engineering principles in conformity with Minnesota 19 Department of Natural Resources construction guidelines; and 20 21 (d) Preserve water quality and the ecological integrity of the riparian environment, 22 including wildlife, fisheries, and recreational water resources. 23 24 2. REGULATION. 25 26 (a) No person shall install an improvement or alteration of the shoreline of a water 27 basin or the bank of a watercourse, including but not limited to a bioengineered 28 installation, riprap, a retaining wall, a sand - blanket or a boat ramp, without first 29 securing a permit under this rule and providing a surety pursuant to the District 30 Financial Assurance Rule. Planting of vegetation not intended to provide deep 31 soil structure stability does not require a permit under this rule. 32 33 (b) All permit applications submitted under this rule, except applications for 34 maintenance of an existing improvement that has not degraded to a natural state, 35 shall be required to include a detailed erosion intensity calculation of the shoreline 36 or streambank in accordance with section 3, Shoreline Erosion Intensity 37 Calculation (for shorelines), or section 4, Streambank Erosion Intensity 38 Calculation (for streambanks), of this rule. 39 6/15/2010 9:20:46 AM (c) A permit under this rule is required for maintenance of an existing riprap or otherwise hard - armored shoreline or streambank that involves the addition of new material or structural change to the improvement. (d) A fast track permit may be issued for shoreline stabilization projects that conform to the requirements in section 6, Criteria for Stabilization Techniques, of this rule. (e) Shoreline or streambank stabilization projects that do not utilize a stabilization practice consistent with the erosion intensity calculation shall be required to document compliance with the design flexibility /minimal impact standard in section 5, Design Flexibility. Such projects shall be subject to the public notice requirements of the District Procedural Requirements Rule. (f) A fast track permit may be issued for routine sandblanket projects that conform to the requirements set forth in sections 9, Criteria for Laying Sandblankets, and 10, Sandblankets Required Exhibits, of this rule. 3. SHORELINE EROSION INTENSITY CALCULATION. (a) Applications for shoreline stabilization shall be required to complete the erosion intensity scoresheet to document the shoreline erosion intensity (low, medium, high). (b) The proposed shoreline stabilization practice shall be consistent with the shoreline erosion intensity calculated (low, medium, high). (1) Low erosion intensity shorelines are those where the erosion intensity calculated has a score of 30 or less and shall utilize biological stabilization practices in accordance with section 6, Criteria for Stabilization Techniques, of this rule. (2) Medium erosion intensity shorelines are those where the erosion intensity calculated has a score between 31 and 48 and shall utilize biological or bioengineering stabilization practices in accordance with section 6, Criteria for Stabilization Techniques, of this rule. (3) High erosion intensity shorelines are those where the erosion intensity calculated has a score of greater than 48 and shall utilize biological, 6/15/2010 9:20:46 AM 2 79 bioengineering or structural stabilization practices in accordance with 80 section 6, Criteria for Stabilization Techniques, of this rule. 81 82 83 EROSION INTENSITY SCORESHEET SHORELINE VARIABLES DESCRIPTIVE CATEGORIES Ell VALUE EROSION INTENSITY (EI) VALUE IS LOCATED IN PARENTHESIS ON LEFT SIDE OF EACH CATEGORY BOX AVERAGEFETCH— (0) <1 /10 (2) 1/10 -1/3 (4) 1/3 -1 (7) 1 -3 (10) >3 Average distance (miles) across open water to the opposite shore. DEPTH AT 20 FEET — (1) <I (2) 1 -3 (3) 3 -6 (4) 6 -12 (5) >12 Depth of water (feet) 20 feet from the shoreline. DEPTH AT 100 FEET — (1) <1 (2) 1 -3 (3) 3-6 (4) 6 -12 (5) >12 Depth of water (feet) 100 feet from the shoreline. BANK HEIGHT— (1) <I (2) 1 -3 (3) 3 -6 (4) 6 -10 (5) >10 Measure from toe of bank to top of bank-lip (feet). INFLUENCE OF ADJACENT (0) no hard (1) hard armoring (2) hard armoring (3) hard armoring (4) hard armoring STRUCTURES— armoring on either on one adjacent on both adjacent on one adjacent on both adjacent Likelihood that adjacent structures are adjacent property property properties property with properties with causing flank erosion at the site. measurable measurable recession recession adjacent to both structures AQUATIC VEGETATION — (0) rocky substrates (1) dense or abundant (4) scattered or patchy (7) lack of emergent, Type and abundance of vegetation unable to support emergent, floating or emergent, floating or floating or submergent occurring in the water off the vegetation. submergent vegetation submergent vegetation vegetation shoreline. BANK VEGETATION — (0) bank composed of (1) dense vegetation, (4) clumps of vegetation (7) minimal vegetation Type and abundance of vegetation rocky outcropping upland trees, shrubs and alternating with areas (due to shading or occurring on bank face and unable to support grasses, including lawns lacking vegetation erosion) immediately on top of bank lip. vegetation. BANK STABILITY — (0) established (1) established lawn (4) moderate to dense natural (7) moderate to dense Degree to which bank and adjacent lawn with few with moderate to ground vegetation and canopy canopy trees with moderate area (within 10 feet of bank lip) is canopy trees dense canopy trees trees with shrub layer to dense natural shrub stabilized by natural ground, shrub, and/or shrubs and/or shrubs substantially reduced; or few layer; or other natural and canopy vegetation. Human canopy trees with moderate to features prevents disturbance is typified by tree dense natural shrub layer establishment of ground removal, brushing, mowing, and lawn vegetation establishment. SHORELINE GEOMETRY — (1) coves or sheltered areas (4) irregular shoreline or straight (8) headland, point, or island General shape of the shoreline at the shoreline point of interest plus 200 yards on either side. SHORE ORIENTATION — (0) <1/3 mile fetch (1) north to east to (4) south to west- (8) west to north- Geographic direction the shoreline south- southeast (349 ° - southwest (169° -258 °) northwest (259 ° -349) faces. 360 °, 1° -168 BOAT WAKES — (1) broad open (4) limited traffic within (8) moderate traffic (12) intensive traffic Proximity to and use of boat channels waterbody with limited 200 yards; or moderate within 200 yards; or within 200 yards and thoroughfares. traffic; constricted traffic 200 yards to 1/. intensive traffic 200 shallow water body; or mile offshore yards to 1/4 mile offshore no -wake zones TOTAL EROSION INTENSITY SCORE _ 84 *See guidance document for additional information on how to determine EI values. 85 6/15/2010 9:20:46 AM 86 4. STREAMBANK EROSION INTENSITY CALCULATION 87 88 (a) Applications for streambank stabilization shall be required to include the 89 calculations detailed below to document bankfull stream velocity and shear stress: 90 91 (1) Bankfull stream velocity 92 i. Manning's equation: A C1.n1 93 V = Q - 9 R213S112 94 v = Average velocity of flow (feet/sec) 95 Q = Bankfull flow (cubic feet/sec) 96 A = Area of flow (square feet) 97 n = Manning's number 98 R = Hydraulic radius (feet) 99 S = Slope of channel bottom (rise /run) 100 101 (2) Shear stress on the streambank 102 i. z =dxaxS 103 i = Shear stress (pounds / square feet) 104 d = Bankfull flow depth (feet) 105 µ = Unit weight of water (62.4 pounds / cubic feet) 106 S = Slope of channel bottom (rise /run) 107 108 (b) The proposed streambank stabilization practice shall be consistent with the 109 shear stress calculated (low, medium, high). 110 111 (1) Low erosion intensity streambanks are those where the shear stress 112 calculated is less than or equal to 2.5 lb per square foot and shall utilize 113 biological stabilization practices in accordance with section 6, Criteria for 114 Stabilization Techniques, of this rule. 115 116 (2) Medium erosion intensity streambanks are those where the shear stress 117 calculated is between 2.5 and 5 lb per square foot and shall utilize 118 biological or bioengineering stabilization practices in accordance with 119 section 6, Criteria for Stabilization Techniques, of this rule. 120 121 (3) High erosion intensity streambanks are those where the shear stress 122 calculated is greater than 5 lb per square foot and shall utilize biological, 6/15/2010 9:20:46 AM 4 123 bioengineering or structural stabilization practices in accordance with 124 section 6, Criteria for Stabilization Techniques, of this rule. 125 126 5. DESIGN FLEXIBILITY. Where an applicant believes that, as a result of site specific 127 conditions, the shoreline erosion intensity as calculated in section 3, Shoreline Erosion 128 Intensity Calculation, or the streambank erosion intensity as calculated in section 4, 129 Streambank Erosion Intensity Calculation, may inaccurately predict the degree of 130 erosion, the District may approve alternative stabilization techniques if the applicant 131 provides sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the proposed stabilization practice 132 represents'the minimal impact solution with respect to all other reasonable alternatives. 133 134 6. CRITERIA FOR STABILIZATION TECHNIQUES. 135 136 (a) General criteria: 137 138 (1) The District will permit the installation of structural stabilization 139 practices only where there is a demonstrated need to prevent erosion or to 140 restore eroded shoreline / streambank; 141 42 (2) Removal of native vegetation within the shoreline /streambank 143 stabilization zone shall be limited in accordance with the following 144 provisions: 145 146 i. Clear cutting shall be prohibited except within the access 147 corridor; 148 149 ii. Native vegetation shall be preserved outside of the access 150 corridor as much as practicable and, where removed, shall be 151 replaced with other vegetation that is equally effective in retarding 152 runoff and preventing erosion. 153 154 (3) Stabilization practices shall be installed at a 3:1 slope or flatter where 155 practical and feasible. Practices proposed at slopes steeper than 2:1 shall 156 be evaluated as retaining walls in accordance with section 12, Criteria for 157 Other Shoreline Improvements, of this rule; 158 159 (4) Horizontal encroachment from a shoreline shall be the minimum 160 amount needed and shall not interfere unduly with water flow. Under '61 normal conditions, hard armoring inert material, such as riprap, or other 6/15/2010 9:20:46 AM 5 162 fill shall be placed no more than 5 feet waterward of a shoreline, measured 163 from the OHW. The maximum encroachment waterward of the OHW is 164 10 feet. Encroachment from streambanks shall be minimized to the 165 greatest extent practical to limit hydraulic impacts; 166 167 (5) Streambank stabilization shall not reduce the cross sectional area of the 168 channel nor result in a net increase in the flood stage upstream or at the 169 site of the streambank stabilization practice unless it can be demonstrated 170 to not exacerbate existing high -water conditions; 171 172 (6) Shoreline / streambank stabilization practices shall conform to the 173 natural alignment of the bank.(e.g., maintain an undulating or meandering 174 shoreline /streambank); 175 176 (7) The design shall reflect the engineering properties of the underlying 177 soils and any soil corrections or reinforcements. For a shoreline, the 178 design shall conform to engineering principles for dispersion of wave 179 energy and resistance to deformation from ice pressures and movement. 180 For a streambank, design shall conform to engineering principles for the 181 hydraulic behavior of open channel flow; 182 183 (8) For sites involving aquatic plantings or aquatic plant removal, a 184 separate Aquatic Plant Management permit shall be obtained from the 185 Department of Natural Resources, when applicable; 186 187 (9) Any work below the normal water level shall be encircled by a 188 flotation sediment curtain. The curtain shall be constructed and 189 maintained as illustrated in "Protecting Water Quality in Urban areas — 190 Best Management Practices for Minnesota" (MPCA 1989). The barrier 191 shall be removed upon completion of the work after disturbed sediment 192 has settled; 193 194. (10) All shoreline / streambank stabilization applications shall submit the 195 required exhibits as set forth in section 7, Required Exhibits for 196 Shoreline / Streambank Stabilization, of this rule. 197 198 (a) Criteria for biological and bioengineering techniques (see typical detail 199 examples in Appendix A): 200 6/15/2010 9:20:46 AM 6 201 (1) Live plantings incorporated into the shoreline or bank shall be native 202 aquatic and/or native upland vegetation known to occur in the North 203 Central Hardwood Forest eco- region of Minnesota (refer to the Minnesota 204 Department of Natural Resources "Lakescaping for Wildlife and Water 205 Quality" and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency "Plants for 206 Stormwater Design"); 207 208 (2) Vegetative treatments shall be installed in accordance with the Natural 209 Resource Conservation Service (MRCS) "Engineering Field Handbook 210 Chapter 16 "; 211 212 (3) If wave barriers are utilized, they shall be located within the 3 foot 213 water depth or less and may not create and obstruction to navigation. 214 Wave barriers shall be removed within 2 years of the installation. 215 216 (b) Criteria for structural stabilization (see typical detail examples in Appendix 217 A): 218 219 (1) Hard armoring inert material, such as riprap, shall be considered 220 wetland fill only if proposed to be placed within an area identified as a 221 wetland; 222 223 (2) Riprap shall extend no higher than the top of the bank, or two feet 224 above the 100 year high water elevation, whichever is lower; 225 226 (3) Riprap materials shall be durable stone meeting the size and gradation 227 requirements of MnDOT Class III or IV riprap. Toe boulders shall be at 228 least 50 percent buried and may be as large as 30 inches in diameter; 229 230 (4) A transitional granular filler meeting requirements of MnDOT 3601.B, 231 at least 6 inches in depth, shall be placed between the native shoreline and 232 the riprap to prevent erosion of fine grained soils. A geotextile filter fabric 233 meeting the requirements of MnDOT 3733 shall be placed beneath the 234 granular filler where appropriate; 235 236 (5) Structural stabilization practices, including riprap, are recommended to 237 include plantings between individual boulders or native upland plantings 238 to retard runoff and prevent erosion wherever feasible and practical. 239 6/15/2010 9:20:46 AM 7 240 7. REQUIRED EXHIBITS FOR SHORELINE /STREAMBANK STABILIZATION. 241 242 (a) Erosion intensity calculations from section 3, Shoreline Erosion Intensity 243 Calculation, or 4, Streambank Erosion Intensity Calculation, of this rule, 244 whichever is applicable, or materials necessary to make the demonstration 245 required in section 5, Design Flexibility. 246 247 (b) Photographs of the project site, showing existing conditions. 248 249 (c) Site plan showing: 250 251 (1) Survey locating the existing ordinary high water (OHW) elevation, 252 existing shoreline or streambank, floodplain elevation, and location of 253 property lines; 254 255 (2) Elevation contours of the upland within 15 feet of the OHW and 256 referenced to accepted datum; 257 258 (3) Location of the shoreline /streambank stabilization zone and access 259 corridor; 260 261 (4) Location of existing trees and shrubs within the shoreline /streambank 262 stabilization zone and an indication of whether they are to be removed or 263 retained; 264 265 (5) Plan view of locations and lineal footage of the proposed 266 shoreline/bank stabilization treatment; and 267 268 (6) The location of an upland baseline parallel to the shoreline/bank with 269 stationing. The baseline shall be staked in the field and maintained in 270 place until project completion. Baseline origin and terminus each shall be 271 referenced to three fixed features, with measurements shown and 272 described on the plan. Perpendicular offsets from the baseline to the OHW 273 shall be measured and distances shown on the plan at 20 foot stations. 274 275 (d) Cross section, drawn to scale, with the horizontal and vertical scales noted on 276 the drawing, detailing: 277 278 (1) The existing bank, OHW, and 100 year floodplain elevation; 6/15/2010 9:20:46 AM 8 279 280 (2) The proposed stabilization technique, finished slope, and distance 281 lakeward of the OHW; 282 283 (3) Material specifications; 284 285 (4) Description of the underlying soil materials. 286 287 (e) Specification of erosion control and site stabilization practices. 288 289 (f) For biological and bioengineering stabilization practices, a Vegetation 290 Establishment Plan, including: 291 292 (1) A plant list with common and scientific names, seed mix 293 specifications, quantities and origin of all material; and 294 295 (2) Specification of the methods, schedule and party responsible for 296 ensuring establishment and maintenance of the vegetation for the three 297 years following installation or construction. The plan shall include the 298 control of invasive species and replacement of vegetation as necessary. 299 300 (g) For bioengineering: 301 302 (1) Detail the location of all hard armoring inert material, such as riprap, 303 to be utilized; 304 305 (2) Provide a written narrative explaining how the use of hard armoring 306 inert material such as riprap has been minimized to the extent practical and 307 feasible. 308 309 (h) For streambank stabilization: 310 311 (1) Cross sectional view of stream channel in existing and proposed 312 conditions; 313 314 (2) Longitudinal view of stream channel in existing and proposed 315 conditions; 316 317 (3) Plan view of stream channel in existing and proposed conditions; 6/15/2010 9:20:46 AM 9 318 319 (4) Identification of bankfull indicators; 320 321 (5) Documentation of existing soils, wetlands, vegetation, slopes, bank 322 and channel material; 323 324 (6) Identification of in- stream features such as woody debris, riffles and 325 pools, etc. 326 327 8. MAINTENANCE DECLARATION. A declaration or other recordable instrument 328 describing techniques for maintenance of access corridors, periodic selective vegetation 329 removal and ongoing maintenance of bioengineering or biological stabilization practices, 330 must be submitted to and approved by the District, then recorded in the office of the 331 county recorder or registrar before activity under the District permit commences. In lieu 332 of recordation, a public permittee may assume the maintenance obligation by means of a 333 written agreement with the District. The agreement shall state that if the ownership of the 334 property on which the shoreline or streambank improvement is transferred, the permittee 335 shall require the transferee to comply with this section. 336 337 9. CRITERIA FOR LAYING SANDBLANKETS. All permitted sandblanketing shall 338 comply with the following standards: 339 340 (a) The sand or gravel used must be clean prior to being spread. The sand must 341 contain no toxins or heavy metal, as defined by the Minnesota Department of 342 Natural Resources, and must contain no weed infestations such as, but not limited 343 to, water hyacinth, alligator weed, and Eurasian watermilfoil, or animal life 344 infestations such as, but not limited to, zebra mussels or their.larva. Violators will 345 be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. 346 347 (b) The sand layer must not exceed six inches in thickness, 50 feet in width along 348 the shoreline, or one -half the width of the lot, whichever is less, and may not 349 extend more than 10 feet waterward of the ordinary high water mark. 350 351 (c) Only one installation of sand or gravel to the same location may be made 352+ during a four -year period. After the four years have passed since the last 353 blanketing, the location may receive another sandblanket. No more than two 354 applications may be made at an individual project site. 355 356 (d) Exception. Beaches which are operated by governmental entities and available 357 to the public shall be maintained in a manner that represents the minimal impact 358 to the environment, relative to other reasonable alternatives, and shall be 359 exempted from the following restrictions: 360 6/15/2010 9:20:46 AM 10 361 (1) Sandblankets be no more than 50 feet in width and extend no more 362 than 10 feet waterward of the ordinary high water mark. See paragraph 363 8(b), specifying sandblanket criteria, of this rule; and 364 365 (2) Sandblankets be installed no more frequently than once every four 366 years and no more than twice at the same project location. See paragraph 367 8(c), limiting repeated sandblanket installations, of this rule. 368 369 10. SANDBLANKET REQUIRED EXHIBITS. The following'exhibits shall accompany 370 the sandblanket permit application: 371 372 (a) Site plan showing property lines, delineation of the work area, existing 373 elevation contours of the adjacent upland area, ordinary high water elevation, and 374 regional flood elevation (if available). All elevations must be reduced to NGVD 375 (1929 datum). 376 377 (b) Profile, cross sections and/or topographic contours showing existing and 378 proposed elevations and proposed side slopes in the work area. (Topographic 379 contours should be at intervals not greater than 1.0 foot). MY 381 (c) A completed Sandblanket Permit Application form, available from the 382 District. 383 384 11. CRITERIA FOR RETAINING WALLS. 385 386 (a) A new retaining wall, or repair /reconstruction of an existing retaining wall that 387 increases floodplain encroachment beyond that required by technically sound and 388 accepted repair /reconstruction methods, is permitted only pursuant to a variance 389 or an exception under the District Variance Rule. The applicant must demonstrate 390 that there is no adequate stabilization alternative. 391. 392 (b) Wooden seawalls and/or steel sheetpiling retaining walls shall comply with 393 accepted engineering principles. 394 395 (c) The applicant shall submit a structural analysis prepared by a professional 396 engineer registered in the State of Minnesota, in the practice of civil engineering, 397 showing that the wall will withstand expected ice and wave action and earth 398 pressures. 399 400 (d) The applicant shall submit'a survey prepared by a registered land surveyor 401 locating the finished wall and shall file a certificate of survey with the District. 402 403 6/15/2010 9:20:46 AM 11 404 12. CRITERIA FOR OTHER SHORELINE IMPROVEMENTS. Other shoreline 405 improvements, such as boat ramps, shall comply with accepted engineering principles as 406 follows: 407 408 (a) Boat ramps and other similar improvements shall not be allowed in riparian 409 shoreline areas unless the applicant demonstrates that no feasible alternative 410 riparian access is available, that aquatic habitat and water quality impacts are 411 minimized; and 412 413 (b) Installation of boat ramps shall involve placement of no more than 50 cubic 414 yards of inert and clean material, and the maximum width of shoreline 415 disturbance shall be 15 feet unless the facility is a commercial marina or public 416 launch facility that requires a greater width; and 417 418 (c) Materials utilized for construction of boat ramps or other similar 419 improvements shall be safe and cause not adverse environmental impacts; the 420 improvement shall be of sound design and construction so that the improvement is 421 reasonably expected to be safe and effective. 422 423 6/15/2010 9:20:46 AM 12 424 Definitions 425 426 • Access Corridor means corridor equal to 30 percent of the total shoreline length to a 427 maximum of 30 feet. 428 429 • -Bioengineering Stabilization means the strategic installation of natural, vegetative, 430 biologically active materials in conjunction with toe stabilization, riprap or other hard - 431 armoring materials to stabilize shoreline or streambank areas and associated slopes and 432 prevent erosion. 433 434 Biological Stabilization means the strategic placement of natural, vegetation, 435 biologically active materials — such as but not limited to brush mattresses, live 436 stakes /plantings, brush layering, fiber rolls, root wads and willow wattles — to stabilize 437 shoreline or streambank areas and prevent erosion. 438 439 Native Vegetation means plant species that are indigenous to Minnesota or that expand 440 their range into Minnesota without being intentionally or unintentionally introduced by 441 human activity and that are classified as native in the Minnesota Plant Database, 442 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul, 2002. 443 444 Stabilization Zone means the area of land paralleling the shoreline or streambank and 445 extending 20 feet inland from all points along the ordinary high -water mark of the 446 shoreline. 447 448 Structural Stabilization is the use of engineered systems — such as riprap, retaining 449 walls, headwalls, groins, revetments, gabions = to stabilize shoreline or streambank areas 450 and associated slope and prevent erosion. 451 6/15/2010 9:20:46 AM 13 I MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT 2 BOARD OF MANAGERS 3 4 PROPOSED REVISIONS 5 RULE HORELINE & STREAMBANK STABILIZATION RULE 6 7 N ..,beF 25,200-9 8 Mar-& 1 c 201 n 9 n R); 20 201 n 10 June 3, 2010 11 12 1. POLICY. It is the policy of the Board of Managers to: 13 14 (ba) Preserve the natural appearance of shoreline and streambank areas; 15 16 (eb) Encourage and foster bioengineering, landscaping and preservation of natural 17 vegetation as preferred means of stabilizing shorelines and streambanks; 18 19 (ac) Assure that improvement of shoreline an d streambank areas to prevent 20 erosion complies with accepted engineering principles in conformity with DNR 21 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources construction guidelines; and 22 23 (d) Preserve water quality and the ecological integrity of the riparian environment, 24 including wildlife, fisheries, and recreational water resources. 25 26 2. REGULATION. 27 28 (a) No person shall install an improvement or alteration of the 29 shoreline of a water basin or the bank of a watercourse, 30 including but not limited to a bioengineered installation, riprap, a retaining wall, a 31 sand - blanket or a boat ramp, without first securing a permit under this rule and 32 providing a surety pursuant to the District rei�nnaa '' Let4er- of nr-e° 33 Financial Assurance Rule K. Planting of vegetation not intended to provide deep 34 soil structure stability does not require a permit under this rule. 35 36 (b) All permit applications submitted under this rule, except applications for 37 maintenance of an existing improvement that has not degraded to a natural state, 38 shall be required to fit - include a detailed erosion intensity calculation of the 39 shoreline or streambank in accordance with section 3, Shoreline Erosion Intensity 6/15/2010 9:13:07 AM - 1 40 Calculation (for shorelines), or section 4, Streambank Erosion Intensity 41 Calculation (for streambanks), of this rule. 42 43 (dfc) A permit under this rule is required for Mmaintenance of an existing riprap 44 or otherwise hard- armored shoreline or streambank ' 45 a pemiR • na°- 444 Fale • .,less t that involves the addition of new material or; feF 46 , structural change into the improvement. 47 48 (led) A fast track permit may be issued for shoreline stabilization 49 projects that conform to the requirements set in section 36, 50 Criteria for Stabilization Techniques, of this rule. 51 52 (de) Shoreline or streambank stabilization projects that do not utilize a 53 stabilization practice consistent with the erosion intensity calculation shall be 54 required to document compliance with the design flexibility /minimal impact 55 standard set- feFth-in section 45, Design Flexibility. Such projects shall 56 be subject to the public notice requirements of the District P-Feeedtw,—Procedural 57 Requirements Rule A. 58 59 (ef) A fast track permit may be issued for routine sandblanket projects that 60 conform to the requirements set forth in paFagr-aph 6sections 9, Criteria for Laying 61 Sandblankets, and 10, Sandblankets Required Exhibits, of this rule. 62 64 65 66 3. SHORELINE EROSION INTENSITY CALCULATION. 67 68 (a) Applications for shoreline stabilization shall be required to complete the 69 erosion intensity calculation worksheet to document the shoreline erosion 70 intensity (low, medium, high). 71 72 (b) The proposed shoreline stabilization practice shall be consistent with the 73 shoreline erosion intensity calculated (low, medium, high). 74 75 (1) Low erosion intensity shorelines are those where the erosion intensity 76 calculated has a score of 4741 -30 or less and shall utilize biological 77 stabilization practices in accordance with section -56, Criteria for 78 Stabilization Techniques, of this rule. 6/15/2010 9:13:07 AM 2 T 80 (2) Medium erosion .intensity shorelines are those where the erosion 81 intensity calculated has a score between 4541 -31 and 6753 48 and shall 82 utilize biological or bioengineering stabilization practices in accordance 83 with section -56, Criteria for Stabilization Techniques, of this rule. 84 85 (3) High erosion intensity shorelines are those where the erosion intensity 86 calculated has a score of greater than X3-48 and shall utilize biological, 87 bioengineering or structural stabilization practices in accordance with 88 section -56, Criteria for Stabilization Techniques, of this rule. 89 "xsJ and shear- n, 92 eei4ified b y registered r p ' efen „t e v e 93 94 i. BaHkfull stfeamveleeitiy 95 Q — 1.49 122/3 1/2 96 — A n 97 v. — Avemge-veleeity of flow (feetisee) 98 f". — 99 A=��ff �ew (squafe feet) 100 n — 101 R — Hydr -.idle radius is eo 102 n — Slepe a f -e..,n el bet+.,.., ( iser.an) / 103 104 n. -SheaF s4ess n the s 105 a. S. — a ., #)(8 106 — Sheaf s4r-ess (..,,uAds � square feet) 107 d — D AA tt fiew dept. `font) 108 ji — Unit weight ef water- (62.4 pounds / 6ubie Caet) 109 S — 110 111 112 6/15/2010 9:13:07 AM 3 113 EROSION INTENSITY SCORESHEET SHORELINE VARIABLES DESCRIPTIVE CATEGORIES EI VALUE EROSION INTENSITY (EI) VALUE IS LOCATED IN PARENTHESIS ON LEFT SIDE OF EACH CATEGORY BOX AVERAGE FETCH - (0) <1/10 (2) 1/10 -1/3 (4) 1/3 -1 (7) 1 -3 (10) >33-49 (13) 10 39 {}b) >30 Average distance (miles) across open water to the opposite shore. DEPTH AT 20 FEET - (1) <1 (2) 1 -3 (3) 3 -6 (4) 6 -12 (5) >12 Depth of water (feet) 20 feet from the shoreline. DEPTH AT 100 FEET - (1) <1 (2) 1 -3 (3) 3-6 (4) 6 -12 (5) >12 Depth of water (feet) 100 feet from the shoreline. BANK HEIGHT - (1) <1 (2) 4-51 -3 (3)-5443-6 (4) 4-39 6 -10 (5) >3910 Measure from toe of bank to top of bank-lip (feet). BANK COMPOSITION Gempeskien ..A dee.ee of eementatien efdie-se-diments, m\ tight el. y, weu eemented .e..A (dig'A:th :ek) C°io "1Qi'Q'PT�'R7 (7) Soft C-!.*. elayey smd, ede...tel. a ted (easily du-, a With a !Mi fe (15) un emented sands eF peat (easily dug with yaw I. ad) [� a . INFLUENCE OF ADJACENT (0) no hard (1) hard (2) hard (3) hard armoring (4) hard armoring on STRUCTURES- armoring on either armoring on armoring on both on one adjacent both adjacent Likelihood that adjacent structures are adjacent property one adjacent adjacent property with properties with causing flank erosion at the site. property properties measurable measurable recession recession adjacent to both structures AQUATIC VEGETATION - (0) rocky substrates (1) dense or abundant (4) scattered or patchy (7) lack of emergent, Type and abundance of vegetation unable to support emergent, floating or emergent, floating or floating or submergent occurring in the water off the vegetation. submergent vegetation submergent vegetation vegetation shoreline. BANK VEGETATION - (0) bank composed of (1) dense vegetation, (4) clumps of vegetation (7) laelk- eminimal Type and abundance of vegetation rocky outcropping upland trees, shrubs and alternating with areas vegetation (due to occurring on bank face and unable to support grasses, including lawns lacking vegetation shading or immediately on top of bank lip. vegetation. erosion BANK STABILITY - (0) established (1) established lawn (4) moderate to dense natural (7) moderate to dense Degree to which bank and adjacent lawn with few with moderate to ground vegetation and canopy canopy trees with moderate area (within 10 feet of bank lip) is canopy trees dense canopy trees trees with shrub layer to dense natural shrub stabilized by natural ground, shrub, and/or shrubs and/or shrubs substantially reduced; or few layer; or other natural and canopy vegetation. Human canopy trees with moderate to features prevents disturbance is typified by tree dense natural shrub layer establishment of ground removal, brushing, mowing, and lawn vegetation establishment SHORELINE GEOMETRY- (1) coves or bays sheltered areas (4) irregular shoreline or straight (8) headland, point, or island General shape of the shoreline at the shoreline point of interest plus 200 yards on either side. SHORE ORIENTATION - (0) <1/3 mile fetch (1) north to east to (4) south to west- (8) west to north - Geographic direction the shoreline south- southeast (349°- southwest (169° -258 northwest (259 ° -349 faces. 360 °, 1 °-168 BOAT WAKES - (1) He rhannels within (4) limited traffic within (68) moderate traffic (12) intensive traffic Proximity to and use of boat channels 100 }aFds, broad open 200 yards; moderate within 200 yards; or within 200 yards and thoroughfares. waterbody with law to traffic 200 yards to 1/. intensive traffic 200 faedeFia limited traffic; mile offshore yards to 1/. mile offshore a inte constricted shallow t1.e.e..eC l.oe.e Within 100 water body; oriels 5,aFds in a no wake g limite beating withiwno -wake zones ;mead epee wateFbedy-w+Ek 100 paFds te- !Mile 0-MARFA �s TOTAL EROSION INTENSITY SCORE _ 114 *See guidance document for additional information on how to determine EI values. 6/15/2010 9:13:07 AM 4 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 «Higli ere sien intensity str-eambanks are these „here the shear- s+.^ss- c-cac-airstca-ro shall «,•z bielegie , bieengineer-ing preefiees in aeeefdanee V4 4. STREAMBANK EROSION INTENSITY CALCULATION (a) Applications for streambank stabilization shall be required to include the calculations detailed below to document bankfull stream velocity and shear stress; "4.fie....,y » -_a- ^--»r------ - - - - -- -mac- - 6/15/2010 9:13:07 AM (1) Bankfull stream velocity i. Manning's.equation: v = Q = C1•n9)Rzi3Sv2 v = Average velocity of flow (feet/sec) Q = Bankfull flow (cubic feet/sec) A = Area of flow (square feet) n = Manning's number R = Hydraulic radius (feet) S ° Slope of channel bottom (rise /run) (2) Shear stress on the streambank i. r =dXUXS T = Shear stress (pounds / square feet) d = Bankfull flow depth (feet) 5 152 !t = Unit weight of water (62.4 pounds / cubic feet) 153 S = Slope of channel bottom (rise /run) 154 155 (b) The proposed streambank stabilization practice shall be consistent "with the 156 shear stress calculated (low, medium, high). 157 158 (1) Low erosion intensity streambanks are those where the shear stress 159 calculated is less than or equal to 2.5 lb per square foot and shall utilize 160 biological stabilization practices in accordance with section 36, Criteria 161 for Stabilization Techniques, of this rule. 162 163 (2) Medium erosion intensity streambanks are those where the shear stress 164 calculated is between 2.5 and 5 lb per square foot and shall utilize 165 biological or bioengineering stabilization practices in accordance with 166 section -56, Criteria for Stabilization Techniques, of this rule. 167 168 (3) High erosion intensity streambanks are those where the shear stress 169 calculated is greater than 5 lb per square foot and shall utilize biological, 170 bioengineering or structural stabilization practices in accordance with 171 section -56, Criteria for Stabilization Techniques, of this rule. 172 173 45. DESIGN FLEXIBILITY. Where an applicant believes that, as a result of site 174 specific conditions, the shoreline erosion intensity as calculated in 175 paragraph section 3, Shoreline Erosion Intensity Calculation, or the streambank erosion 176 intensity as calculated in section 4, Streambank Erosion Intensity Calculation, may 177 inaccurately predict the degree of erosion, the District may approve alternative 178 stabilization techniques if the applicant provides sufficient evidence to demonstrate that 179 the proposed stabilization practice represents the minimal impact solution with respect to 180 all other reasonable alternatives. 181 -56. CRITERIA FOR STABILIZATION TECHNIQUESRIP "° DT A /"SEA EZNT Ripmp 182 183 (a) General criteriastandef4s: 184 , natufg stone and ef 185 . 186 Stene, 187 3691.1 and 369 1.2, Standard e..eei fi,.a4iens f .. Geas+,.,,etie., 6/15/2010 9:13:07 AM 6 188 189 190 (2) The, c h a slepe eft he r-eek fiag ents h e„aea s aa&e, 191 eebbles % it + be s4eeper- than a ,e e of 3 f ehZe.+el +e 192 1 feet Aie 1 (3. 1) _a__ nefmal eendi +_ens Steeper- slepes 193 mill ll, require larger- sized .1 Any ,vekke.lae 194 stabilizatien ee+, .; +h e prep ^ r ed f., she,i r sle„e steeper Y Y 195 than 7 1 (h + 1 +e yeF eel) shell he e,•el„e +e.l 196 mwiniag wall-. 197 (1) The District will permit the installation of structural stabilization 198 practices only where there is a demonstrated need to prevent erosion or to 199 restore eroded shoreline /streambank; 200 201 (2) Maintenanee + p y he , a �.Y,.eY ,,,.,, r o 202 fellewifig 203 204 i. Areas ef h 1' + b 1 1 + .l +h' '.l aeeess 205 may h r a and f ntai ,l e in er-da ee , 4h the ..+r.,e.,,�el 206 stabilizatien + d ,i in ee +; par-agmph 56(e) et JVti setting e „+ 207 ; 208 209 K. The afea ef h 1• a ide-eft-he aeeecss 210 eeffider- h ll a4 h;eleg l & h: .. �:— r o e e ae.. e .,Q.« 211 212 213 214 (32) Removal of native vegetation within the shoreline /streambank 215 stabilization zone shall be limited in accordance with the following 216 provisions: 217 218 i. Clear cutting shall be prohibited except within the access 219 corridor; 220 221 ii. Native vegetation shall be preserved outside of the access 222 corridor as much as practicable and, where removed, shall be 223 replaced with other vegetation that is equally effective in retarding 224 runoff and preventing erosion. 225 6/15/2010 9:13:07 AM 7 226 (43) Stabilization practices shall be installed at a 3:1 slope or flatter where 227 practical and feasible. Practices proposed at slopes steeper than 2:1 shall 228 be evaluated as retaining walls in accordance with paFagr-aph section 229 1214", Criteria for Other Shoreline Improvements, of this rule; 230 231 (34) Horizontal encroachment from a shoreline shall be the minimum 232 amount needed and shall not interfere unduly with water flow. Under 233 normal conditions, ne hard armoring inert material, such as riprap, or-filtef 234 mater-ials other fill shall be placed no more than 5 feet waterward of a 235 shoreline, measured from the OHW. The maximum sher-eline 236 encroachment waterward of the OHW is 10 feet. Encroachment from 237 streambanks shall be minimized to the greatest extent practical to limit 238 hydraulic impacts; 239 240 (65) Streambank fiffagstabilization shall not reduce the cross sectional 241 area of the channel nor result in a stage net increase of more than 0.0 1 feet. 242 at-ef in the flood stage upstream or at the site of the tfeatmeat 243 sher-elinestreambank stabilization practice unless it can be demonstrated to 244 not exacerbate existing high -water conditions; 245 (4) Atfansifiene4 layer- eensi ting of gr-a ed g�P , a4 least 246 6 ;,,e e" deep and " me geete."e fitter. fab 247 "h"» he ..1.,..sa ti R*_%Mee„ thA RAil .,.. "t."A"i „f+he P.wirtima 248 249 250 (-76) Shoreline /streambank stabilization practices shall conform to the 251 natural alignment of the bank (e.g., maintain an undulating or meandering 252 shoreline /streambank); 253 254 (97) The design shall reflect the engineering properties of the underlying 255 soils and any soil corrections or reinforcements. For a shoreline, the 256 design shall conform to engineering principles for dispersion of wave 257 energy and resistance to deformation from ice pressures and movement; 258 , 259 energy. For a streambank, design shall conform to engineering principles 260 for the hydraulic behavior of open channel flow, 261 slope veleeity and tFaefive ze=ees; 262 6/15/2010 9:13:07 AM 8 263 (98) For sites involving aquatic plantings or aquatic plant removal, a 264 separate Aquatic Plant Management permit shall be obtained from the 265 Department of Natural Resources, when applicable; 266 267 (4-09) Any work below the normal water level shall be encircled by a 268 flotation sediment curtain. The curtain shall be constructed and 269 maintained as illustrated in "Protecting Water Quality in Urban areas – 270 Best Management Practices for Minnesota" (MPCA 1989). The barrier 271 shall be removed upon completion of the work after disturbed sediment 272 has settled; 273 274 (4-410) All shoreline /streambank stabilization applications shall submit the 275 required exhibits as set forth in paFagr-aphsection 76, Required Exhibits for 276 Shoreline /Streambank Stabilization' i StabiliZ-a en —Teehn ques 277 of this rule. 278 279 (b) Criteria for biological and bioengineering techniques (see typical detail 280 examples in Appendix A): 281 282 (1) Live plantings incorporated into the shoreline or bank shall be native 283 aquatic and/or native upland vegetation known to occur in the North 284 Central Hardwood Forest eco- region of Minnesota (refer to the Minnesota 285 Department of Natural Resources "Lakescaping for Wildlife and Water 286 Quality" and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency "Plants for 287 Stormwater Design'); 288 289 (2) Vegetative treatments shall be installed in accordance with the Natural 290 Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) "Engineering Field Handbook 291 Chapter 16' 292 293 (3) If wave barriers are utilized, they shall be located within the 3 foot 294 water depth or less and may not create and obstruction to navigation. 295 Wave barriers shall be removed within 2 years of the installation. 296 297 (c) Criteria for structural stabilization (see typical detail examples in Appendix 298 A) : FAIL", 6/15/2010 9:13:07 AM 0 300 (1) Hard armoring inert material, such as riprap, shall be considered 301 wetland fill only if proposed to be placed within an area identified as a 302 wetland; 303 geotextile filter fabric meeting the requirements of MnDOT 3733 shall be 304 (2) HaFd apmering- nett mmer-ial, sueh as --ipr-ap, shall eeeiiside -d 322 to enhanee stability.- 305 fleedplain fill if placed Alhi n he Yi vjve4ed ann year- high water- elevatien 306 of a «mer- .,,.ay and shall be subjeet to !.e uife,.. .,+s of Rule n 307 recommended to include plantings between individual boulders or native 308 ( -32) Riprap shall extend no higher than the top of the bank, or two feet 309 above the 100 year high water elevation, whichever is lower; 310 311 (43) Riprap shall eeafeFm te materials shall be durable stone meeting the 312 size and gradation requirements of MnDOT Class III or IV riprap. The 313 314 stone diameten Toe boulders shall be at least 50 percent buried and may 315 be as large as 30 inches in diameter; . 317 (64) A transitional granular filler meeting requirements of MnDOT 318 3601.13, at least 6 inches in depth, shall be placed between the native 319 shoreline and the riprap to prevent erosion of fine grained soils. A 320 geotextile filter fabric meeting the requirements of MnDOT 3733 shall be 321 placed beneath the granular filler where appropriate 322 to enhanee stability.- 323 324 (65) Ripr-ap Structural stabilization practices, including riprap, skaH are 325 recommended to include plantings between individual boulders or native 326 upland plantings to retard runoff and prevent erosion wherever feasible 327 and practical. 328 329 (76) V 1}er-ever- pr-aetieal and feasible, s4ab:l: a4i pr-aefiees 330 shall inebade aa4iye upland plantings to r-e +.,..a P erte a pr-event a 331 332 (8) A ripmp m-- ce-°-+ design f . w s#eCi,aak e i i t u 333 334 this $-ale by a registered _e f ssie a eagineer- in,the St me f N + 335 the aetiee of eivil e a ems.. Y` :b:: �Vauab. 336 337 go 6/15/2010 9:13:07 AM 10 338 +1 • representative CD J+l O+ Jo "im-- as -t he Y +., ets J +� e 339 340 The a a� steeper- 341 3 feet W to , - + . ei:tiea (314! 1 V); 342 343 344 345 rdprap u aaavav �a...a 346 5feet v';-at a f the staked OHW i. OEW an 347 shall + t see a en pr-epefty aet „ oa by +t�e 348 applie �h - + • + die-water- s +� e 349 350 351 67. REQUIRED EXHIBITS FOR SHORELINE /STREAMBANK STABILIZATION. ,• I-%— - t.,l 352 The - - 353 set r-edueed + ifaum SiMe ef 11 " x 17" 354 355 (a) Erosion intensity calculations from paragraph section 3, Shoreline Erosion 356 Intensity Calculation, or 4, Streambank Erosion Intensity Calculation, of this rule, 357 whichever is applicable, or materials necessary to make the demonstration 358 required in section 5, Design Flexibility. 359 360 (b) Photographs of the project site, showing existing conditions. 361 362 (be) Site plan showing: 363 364 (1) Survey locating the existing ordinary high water (OHW) elevation, 365 existing shoreline or streambank, floodplain elevation, and location of 366 property lines; 367 368 (2) Elevation contours of the upland within 15 feet of the OHW and 369 referenced to accepted datum; and 370 371 (3) Location of the shoreline /streambank stabilization zone and access 372 corridor; 373 6/15/2010 9:13:07 AM 11 374 (4) Location of existing trees and shrubs within the shoreline /streambank 375 stabilization zone and an indication of whether they are to be removed or 376 retained; 377 378 (5) Plan view of locations and lineal footage of the proposed 379 fipmpshoreline/bank stabilization treatment; and 380 381 (6) The plea s' a4l s location of an upland baseline parallel to the 382 shoreline/bank with stationing. The baseline shall be staked in the field 383 and maintained in place until project completion. Baseline origin and 384 terminus each shall be referenced to three fixed features 385 elesest ^ 05 „* with measurements shown and described on the plan. 386 Perpendicular offsets from the baseline to the OHW shall be measured and 387 distances shown on the plan at 20 foot stations. The plan shall be eei4 fie 388 389 390 -- gmphs- ef the pr-e} site, sh em4ab existing endi LViD. 391 392 (ed) Cross section, drawn to scale, with the horizontal and vertical scales noted on 393 the drawing,. detailing4he: 394 395 (1) The existing bank, OHW, and 100 year floodplain elevation; W. 397 (4-2) The proposed fipr-apstabilization technique, finished slope, and 398 distance lakeward of the OHW, dr-avin to e'rl e, -Ait'�" the hefizeaW; 399 ,.,, +t,° dr-A ;A4;;Q' fhA a° +°:l ..L,...]a ..L,..., tL fin;, 400 , 401 the " Y "Y Y l" ° erne. * y v .du. ) high water- level eie atie and . t i 402 sp °eifleR*eas.; 403 404 , 405 eleyaafien; 406 407 (3) Material specifications; 408 409 (4) Description of the underlying soil materials that A411 suppei4 the 410 411 (d)- liatefial speeifieatiens for s4eae•, -filt d- geete)aile avrre. 6/15/2010 9:13:07 AM 12 412 413 (de) Specification of erosion control and site stabilization practices. 414 415 (ef) For biological and bioengineering stabilization practices, a Vegetation 416 Establishment Plan, including: 417 418 (1) A planting plan, ' plant list with common and scientific 419 names, seed mix specifications, quantities and origin of all material; and 420 421 (2) " maintenanee plan speei ,in Specification of the methods, schedule 422 and party responsible f6r ensuring pefmaaen4 "'"hill'' establishment and 423 maintenance of the vegetation for the three years following installation or 424 construction. The plan shall include the €er- controlling of invasive species 425 and replacement of vegetation if as necessary. 426 427 (fg) For bioengineering: 428 429 (1) Detail the location of all hard armoring inert material, such as riprap, 430 to be utilized; 431 432 (2) Provide a written narrative explaining how the use of hard armoring 433 inert material such as riprap has been minimized to the extent practical and 434 feasible. 435 436 (gh) For streambank stabilization: 437 438 (1) Cross sectional view of stream channel in existing and proposed 439 conditions; 440 441 (2) Longitudinal view of stream channel in existing and proposed 442 conditions; 443 444 (3) Plan view of stream channel in existing and proposed conditions;. 445 446 (4) Identification of bankfull indicators; 447 448 (5) Documentation of existing soils, wetlands, vegetation, slopes, bank 449 and channel material; 450 6/15/2010 9:13:07 AM 13 451 (6) Identification of in- stream features such as woody debris, riffles and 452 pools, etc. 453 454 (,) n 1airAs1 aaee plan s eify ng ,e methods, sehedule and .. Ft _ y 455 -, ineluding 456 b , 457 ee is e ..i the ., h able er-ke ee fien 56 r�� +e fer- S+ �. i +• -a ai./11 VV •11411 U1vr DPPlp , 458 Te, hiiiq es ,.fthis FWe 459 460 -78. MAINTENANCE DECLARATION. A declaration or other recordable instrument 461 describing 462 techniques for maintenance of access corridors, periodic selective vegetation removal 463 and ongoing maintenance of bioengineering or vegetative stabilization practices 464 vegetatien managem , must be submitted to and approved by the District, then 465 recorded in the office of the county recorder or registrar before activity under the 466 District permit commences. In lieu of recordation, a public permittee may assume the 467 maintenance obligation by means of a written agreement with the District. The 468 agreement shall state that if the ownership of the property on which the shoreline or 469 streambank improvement is transferred, the permittee shall require the transferee to 470 comply with this section. 471 472 473 474 file. 475 476 99. CRITERIA FOR LAYING SANDBLANKETS. All permitted sandblanketing shall 477 comply with the following standards: 478 479 (a) The sand or gravel used must be clean prior to being spread. The sand must 480 contain no toxins or heavy_metal, as defined by the Minnesota Department of 481 Natural Resources, and must contain no weed infestations such as, but not 482 limited to, water hyacinth, alligator weed, and Eurasian watermilfoil, or 483 animal life infestations such as, but not limited to, zebra mussels or their larva. 484 Violators will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. 485 486 (b) The sand layer must not exceed six inches in thickness, 50 feet in width along 487 the shoreline, or one -half the width of the lot, whichever is less, and maymy 488 not extend more than 10 feet waterward of the ordinary high water mark. 489 490 (c) Only one installation of sand or gravel to the same location may be made 491 during a four -year period. After the four years have passed since the last 492 blanketing, the location may receive another sandblanket. No more than two 6/15/2010 9:13:07 AM 14 493 applications may be made by at an individual 494 ideney at m individual project site. 495 496 (d) Exception. Beaches which are operated by governmental entities and available 497 to the public shall be maintained in a manner that represents the minimal 498 impact to the environment, relative to other reasonable alternatives, and shall 499 be exempted from the following restrictions: 500 501 (1) Sandblankets be no more than 50 feet in width and extend no more 502 than 10 feet waterward of the ordinary high water mark. See 503 °•paragraph 8(b), specifying sandblanket criteria, of this 504 rule; and 505 506 (2-) Sandblankets be .installed no more frequently than once every four 507 years and no more than twice at the same project location. See 508 °•�e4i&a-oparagraph 8(c), limiting repeated sandblanket installations, 509 of this rule. n '+ shall b z u f _ea _ all r .,,,blie beaeh . ..ab,ankets 510 511 910. SANDBLANKET REQUIRED EXHIBITS. The following exhibits shall 512 accompany the sandblanket permit application: 513 514 (a) Site plan showing property lines, delineation of the work area, existing 515 elevation contours of the adjacent upland area, ordinary high water elevation, 516 and regional flood elevation (if available). All elevations must be reduced to 517 NGVD (1929 datum). 518 519 (b) Profile, cross sections and/or topographic contours showing existing and 520 proposed elevations and proposed side slopes in the work area. (Topographic 521 contours should be at intervals not greater than 1.0 foot). 522 523 (c) A completed Sandblanket Permit Application form, available from the 524 District. 525 526 4-011. CRITERIA FOR RETAINING WALLS. 527 528 (a) A new retaining wall, or repair /reconstruction of an existing retaining wall 529 that increases floodplain encroachment beyond that required by technically 530 sound and accepted repair /reconstruction methods, is permitted only pursuant 531 to a variance or an exception under the District Variance Rule I. The applicant 532 must demonstrate that there is no adequate stabilization alternative. 533 534 (b) Wooden seawalls and/or steel sheetpiling retaining walls shall comply with 535 accepted engineering principles. 536 6/15/2010 9:13:07 AM 15 537 (c) The applicant shall submit a structural analysis prepared by a professional 538 engineer registered in the State of Minnesota, in the practice of civil 539 engineering, showing that the wall will withstand expected ice and wave 540 action and earth pressures. 541 542 (d) The applicant shall submit a survey prepared by a registered land surveyor 543 locating the finished wall and shall file a certificate of survey with the District. 544 545 4 -1-12. CRITERIA FOR OTHER SHORELINE IMPROVEMENTS. Other shoreline 546 improvements, such as boat ramps, shall comply with accepted engineering principles 547 as follows: 548 549 (a) Boat ramps and other similar improvements shall not be allowed in riparian 550 shoreline areas unless the applicant demonstrates that no feasible alternative 551 riparian access is available, that aquatic habitat and water quality impacts are 552 minimized; and 553 554 (b) Installation of boat ramps shall involve placement of no more than 50 cubic 555 yards of inert and clean material, and the maximum width of shoreline 556 disturbance shall be 15 feet unless the facility is a commercial marina or 557 public launch facility that requires a greater width; and 558 559 (c) Materials utilized for construction of boat ramps or other similar 560 improvements shall be safe and cause not adverse environmental impacts; the 561 improvement shall be of sound design and construction so that the 562 improvement is reasonably expected to be safe and effective. 563 564 6/15/2010 9:13:07 AM 16 565 Defmitions 566 • Access Corridor means corridor equal to 30 percent of the total shoreline length to a 567 maximum of -5&30 feet. 568 569 • Bioengineering Stabilization. means the strategic installation of natural, vegetative, 570 biologically active materials in conjunction with toe stabilization, riprap or other hard - 571 armoring materials to stabilize shoreline or streambank areas and associated slopes and 572 prevent erosion. 573 574 Biological Stabilization means the strategic placement of natural, vegetation, 575 biologically active materials _ such as but not limited to brush mattresses, live 576 stakes /plantings, brush layering, fiber rolls, root wads and willow wattles - to stabilize 577 shoreline or streambank areas and prevent erosion. 578 579 Native Vegetation means plant species that are indigenous to Minnesota or that expand 580 their range into Minnesota without being intentionally or unintentionally introduced by 581 human activity and that are classified as native in the Minnesota Plant Database, 582 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul, 2002. 583 584 • Stabilization Zone means the area of land paralleling the shoreline or streambank and 585 extending 20 feet inland from all points along the ordinary high -water mark of the 586. shoreline. 587 588 • Structural Stabilization is the use of engineered systems — such as riprap, retaining 589 walls, headwalls, groins, revetments, gabions — to stabilize shoreline or streambank areas 590 and associated slope and prevent erosion. 591 6/15/2010 9:13:07 AM 17 MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT STATEMENT OF NEED AND REASONABLENESS - UPDATE Amendments to Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Shoreline & Streambank Stabilization Rule June 14, 2010 I. BACKGROUND This Statement of Need and Reasonableness (SONAR) presents background on and explains proposed amendments to the following rule of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District: • Shoreline & Streambank Stabilization Rule The SONAR has been revised since it was issued along with the draft proposed amendments to the Shoreline & Streambank Stabilization Rule and now explains the decisions made by the District Board of Managers in revising the rule in response to comments received during two separate public comment periods provided by the District. The revisions to the SONAR address substantive changes to the rule made since the issuance of the rule for public comment and provide clarifications on the operation of the rule in response to issues that emerged in the comment periods. The amendments contribute to the implementation of the policies, standards and goals of the District's third - generation Watershed Management Plan, adopted on July 5, 2007. The amendments also represent-improvements based on the District's experience applying its rules, and are designed to improve the rule's effectiveness in protecting water resources without imposing unreasonable compliance burdens on permit holders. This statement of need and reasonableness describes the basis for the District Board of Managers' determination that the revisions are both beneficial and reasonable. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 103D.341, the proposed amendments were issued for a 45 -day public comment period that ended January 15, 2010. The Board of Managers encouraged all interested parties to comment on the rule or otherwise provide any information that might lead to further improvements to the rule. The District invited interested parties to submit written comments on the proposed changes to the rule. State and regional resource protection agencies, local governments and potentially regulated parties were particularly invited to engage in a review of these proposed amendments for the purpose of making the Shoreline & Streambank Stabilization Rule as 1 MCWD Shoreline & Streambank Stabilization Rule Amendments June 15, 2010 Statement of Need and Reasonableness resource protective as possible without incurring excessive administrative costs or placing an undue burden on those subject to the rule. The District received comments on the proposed Shoreline & Streambank Stabilization Rule revision from many cities, state agencies, parks agencies, private developers and the Metropolitan Council. After the 45 -day period for written comments, the District held a public hearing to gather additional comments. The District considered carefully all comments received. Even after the original comment period, the District conducted additional public meetings on the draft revision, comments and responses, and participated in several meetings on the rule held by other groups, such as representatives of watershed cities: The Board of Managers reviewed and discussed the comments and the responses drafted by staff at a series of meetings, then directed staff to make responsive changes to the rule text. The revisions and responses to comments were distributed in mid -March 2010 via the District's website and sent to everyone who had submitted comments, along with explanations of changes made to the rule and clarifications. Because the District made substantial changes to the rule from November to March, the Board of Managers elected to again post the rules for an open public comment period. The District accepted comments until April 12, 2010, and staff again compiled them for review by the Board of Managers. The Board directed staff to make further responsive changes, distribute the revised revisions to the rule, then schedule another public hearing forJuly 8, 2010. The District anticipates that the amendments will be finalized for adoption after the July hearing. Legal Authority Legal authority for the District's rules derives from Minnesota Statutes Chapters 103B and 103D. Under Minnesota Statutes section 103D.341, subdivision 1, watershed districts must adopt rules "to accomplish the purposes of [the Watershed Act] and to implement the powers of the managers." These purposes include, among others, conservation of water for public uses; controlling erosion and siltation of lakes, streams and wetlands; and protecting water quality in these bodies.' District managers are further authorized to regulate and control the use of water within the watershed district, regulate the use of streams and watercourses to prevent pollution, and regulate the use and development of Minn. Stat. § 103D.201, subd. 2. 2 MCWD Shoreline & Streambank Stabilization Rule Amendments June 15, 2010 Statement of Need and Reasonableness land in collaboration with watershed cities.2 District rules, and revisions to the rules, must be adopted by a majority vote of the Board of Managers, after public notice and hearing.3 Before adoption, a copy of the proposed rules must be provided to the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) and all public transportation authorities, in the watershed for a 45 -day period of review and comment.4 II. INTRODUCTION The Shoreline & Streambank Stabilization Rule is the fifth of the District's rules to be revised following the adoption of the revised watershed plan and distributed for public review and comment. Revisions to the District's Erosion Control, Floodplain Alteration, Dredging and Waterbody Crossings and Structures rules have been adopted and become effective September 1, 2010. The amendments to the Shoreline & Streambank Stabilization Rule were issued along with the amendments to the Wetland Protection Rule. Two sources of policy direction have informed the development of the revision of the rule introduced and described by this document: The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District's completion and adoption of its third - generation watershed management plan and the need to integrate lessons learned from the District's extensive practical experience administering its rules. The changes to the District's rules developed in response to these two sources of policy direction were examined, discussed, informed by and revised in a stakeholder - involvement process that began even before the new watershed plan was approved. Watershed Plan In mid 2007, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District adopted its third - generation watershed plan. The plan presents policies and goals for the protection of water resources in the 1'78- square mile Minnehaha Creek watershed in Hennepin and Carver counties. The amendments introduced here represent an integral part of the plan's multifaceted implementation strategy. The amendments are part of the performance - based management strategy at the heart of the plan's implementation program. Z Minn. Stat. § 103D.335, subds. 10, 16, and 23; § 10313.211, subd. 1. 3 Minn. Stat. § 103D.341, subds. 1, 2(a). 4 /d. at subd. 2(b). 3 MCWD Shoreline & Streambank Stabilization Rule Amendments dune 15, 2010 Statement of Need and Reasonableness Collective Experience The amendments also reflect the District's experience implementing, administering and enforcing its rules. The size and intensity of development activity in the watershed give District staff ample opportunity to apply the rules. Staff have compiled notes and suggestions for improvements, as well as questions and comments from permit applicants, since the rules were last amended (a round of housekeeping updates in 2005). Stakeholder Participation The District developed and implemented an extensive stakeholder involvement program for its rulemaking, including a Technical Advisory Committee and a Rulemaking Task Force that reviewed all of the background issues and drafts of the amendments. The District made concerted efforts to ensure that the task force membership represented a broad spectrum of interested watershed residents - from developers, builders and business representatives to citizens, public and private environmental professionals, and environmental advocates. Several members of the task force came from the District's standing Citizens Advisory Committee. (See Table 1, Rulemaking Task Force members.) Members were chosen not only to achieve broad representation, but also on the basis of their individual experience and interest in the District rulemaking. The task force met with District staff and consultants to guide the rulemaking process in accordance with the policies and goals in the plan. Beginning in May 2007, the task force met monthly to study plan policies, staff reports and other relevant information, and develop effective approaches to implementation. (One or more District managers attended the task force meetings, but principally to hear the discussion and opinions firsthand, rather than actively participate. The managers generally confined their input on the rulemaking to relevant meetings of the Board and workshops with staff.) Members reviewed and commented on draft amendment language as it was developed subsequent to the initial policy and implementation alternatives discussions. The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) included water management experts from local governments, public parks organizations, and county, regional and state agencies. Rather than limiting membership in the technical group to a particular defined set of individuals, the District left TAC membership open, and invited interested organizations to send the member or members of their staff who were particularly well- versed in a topic to attend the meeting focused on that topic. (See Table 2, a list of individuals who participated in meetings of the TAC.) Members of the technical group regularly work with 4 MCWD Shoreline & Streambank Stabilization Rule Amendments June 15, 2010 Statement of Need and Reasonableness the District and are familiar with the history of its regulatory program and its day -to -day integration with their programs and activities. The TAC provided input on the recommendations that emerged from the Rulemaking Task Force, with particular attention to the technical feasibility of proposed rule provisions. Like the task force, the TAC members commented on draft rule amendment language as it was developed and reviewed by the Board of Managers in response to input from the advisory groups. In some places the groups' input prompt the District to rethink and' revise its approach, and in others the groups offered language changes that clarified and improved the proposed_ amendment. III. SHORELINE & STREAMBANK STABILIZATION RULE The amendments to the Shoreline & Streambank Stabilization Rule propose an important shift in the District's regulation of shorelines and streambanks by adding substantive provisions to support preservation and restoration of natural, vegetated shorelines that provide habitat and runoff - filtration benefits, among others. The Shoreline & Streambank Stabilization Rule secures the stability of shorelines and streambanks through application of the rule criteria when a project affecting shoreline or streambank is proposed. These overall goals have been served by the rule since it was first implemented by the District more than a decade ago, and the revised amendments represent improvements and refinements to the District's approach to these goals. The proposed changes to the Shoreline & Streambank Stabilization Rule are prompted not by new policy, but by a realization that the existing rule could be improved to better implement established District policy: namely, that shorelines and streambanks should remain natural in appearance and function to the greatest extent possible. In addition to the District's longstanding and overarching goal of promoting natural shorelines, the Lake Minnetonka subwatershed plan in the District's 2007 watershed plan includes goals and actions the District will undertake to promote and restore native vegetation to stabilize shoreline, filter runoff, create habitat and reduce the use of the shoreline by waterfowl. The existing rule states as much, but the amendments effect the policy by: • directing applicants to design their stabilization projects to address specific erosion conditions and utilize natural, native restoration or maintenance where feasible and appropriate; and • providing that new structural stabilization (e.g., installation of riprap) will be allowed only for shorelines and streambanks with high susceptibility to erosion - referred to as "erosion intensity." 5 MCWD Shoreline & Streambank Stabilization Rule Amendments June 15, 2010 Statement of Need and Reasonableness Central to the effort to better align the rule's function with District policy is the addition of a required shoreline or streambank energy analysis, under which the susceptibility of the subject shoreline or streambank to erosion is ascertained (see sections 3 and 4). The District reviewed an array of literature and research identifying the most important factors in assessing a shoreline's or bank's sensitivity, then incorporated specific analytical protocols into the rule to determine whether a shoreline has high, medium or low vulnerability to erosion. In response to comments asserting that the originally proposed analytical methods did not reflect conditions on watershed waterbasins, District staff reanalyzed conditions at roughly 50 properties that were the subject of recent permit applications - mostly from property owners on Lake Minnetonka. Based on the results, both the Erosion Intensity Scoresheet and the erosion - intensity ranges in sections 3 and 4 were revised to more accurately apply to conditions in the watershed. With these revisions, the analytical tools developed by the District support the proposed approach and criteria that require applicants to use natural vegetative strategies for shoreline and bank restoration whenever feasible. While the proposed revisions constitute a significant.new approach to regulating shoreline and streambank stabilization, the District has crafted the rule to ensure that its requirements will be implemented in conformity with property owners' land -use and riparian rights. The amended rule continues to allow for hard - armoring of shorelines where necessary, including the use of riprap. Existing riprap installations are not affected by the rule (there are no retroactive provisions in the rule), and no permit under the rule is necessary for maintenance of a riprapped shoreline or streambank unless and until the property owner decides to add material (e.g., more riprap boulders) to the shoreline or streambank structure. The proposed rule also continues to recognize and provide for retaining walls where necessary; the rule continues to require an exception or variance showing under the District's Variance Rule before a permit will be issued for a retaining wall (see paragraph 1 1(a)). In addition to the substantive changes made in response to public comments discussed below, the revised draft amended rule includes administrative changes and explanatory language added to section and paragraph cross - references to make the rule easier to understand and follow. 6 MCWD Shoreline & Streambank Stabilization Rule Amendments June 15, 2010 Statement of Need and Reasonableness Definitions Several new /revised definitions are critical to clearly understanding and working with the amended Shoreline & Streambank Stabilization Rule language. The definitions will appear in the Key Definitions section of the District rules, but because they are helpful to the interpretation and application of the rule provisions, the proposed new definitions were provided at the end of the proposed rule revision to help explain the changes to the rule and to seek comment on them. "Biological stabilization," "bioengineering stabilization" and "structural stabilization" describe shoreline /streambank stabilization strategies that directly correspond to the low, medium and high erosion - sensitivity ratings that are produced by the rule's analytical systems (discussed in detail below). Each describes a category of techniques, ranging from exclusively natural (biological) to mixed natural and engineered (bioengineering) to entirely hard - armored, engineered systems (structural). Also proposed for addition in support of the rule are definitions for the terms "stabilization zone" and "access corridor," both of which are critical to understanding the application of the rule criteria. The District revised the definition of "access corridor" after the winter comment period, narrowing the maximum width thereof to 30 feet, to conform to the width that is standard in municipal ordinances in the District. The narrowing of the scope of "access corridor" helped address concerns about the degree to which the District's shoreline and. streambank regulation would restrict property owners' ability to landscape as they wished. Also, a definition for "native vegetation" was added to ensure harmony with the Department of Natural Resources rules and guidance. Policy The Shoreline & Streambank Stabilization Rule's policies, are reordered but only slightly reworded and amended. The reorganization to place preservation at the top of the list and addition of preservation of water quality and ecological integrity as a priority reflect the emphasis in the District plan on encouraging approaches to stabilization that restore and enhance the natural functions and appearance of shorelines and streambanks wherever possible. (See plan section 5.0, Goal 6.) Well- designed shoreline and streambank projects can achieve both landowner goals (e.g., stability /erosion control, 7 MCWD Shoreline & Streambank Stabilization Rule Amendments June 15, 2010 Statement of Need and Reasonableness visual appeal) and District goals (e.g., habitat creation, erosion control /stability, water quality improvement). The policy emphasis on natural shorelines is effected by the analysis and specific criteria discussed below. The long- established connection between the District regulatory programs and those of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is recognized by the reference in policy 1(c) to the DNR construction guidelines. The District has permitted work in public waters under a DNR- issued general permit since 2001, and the Shoreline & Streambank Stabilization rule, among others, is crafted to facilitate the District's continuing regulatory partnership with the state. The policy statement in paragraph 1(d) reflects Goal 6 in section 5.0 of the District's 2007 plan, underscoring that the District's regulation of water resource impacts considers the various uses and functions of waterbodies and the critical relationship to riparian ecology. Regulatory Threshold The basic regulatory thresholds for shoreline and streambank improvements have not changed. The revised rule would continue to apply to structural improvements, such as riprap, as well as sandblankets and other shoreline and streambank improvements, such as boat ramps, that are installed to prevent erosion and facilitate riparian access. The title of the rule is changed to underscore the focus on stabilization as the goal of the rule. The rule's scope is expanded to cover not only improvements but also "alteration" of shorelines and streambanks (see paragraph 2(a)). The term ensures that substantial changes to a shoreline or streambank made to protect against degradation caused by wind, wave and runoff forces, even if not constituting an "improvement" as the term is. traditionally used in municipal regulations, will be subject to District permitting requirements. In its revisions to the amendments as first proposed, the District has clarified that maintenance of riprap or other hard - armored shorelines or streambank does not require a permit from the District unless materials will be added or the structure of the improvement will be altered (paragraph 2(c)). The District agreed with the observation made in several comments that, when changes to a stabilization improvement are being proposed and a permit is needed, the new erosion intensity measurements are not necessary because such work does not change the stabilization system from one type to another. In the revised version of the amendments, property owners who are maintaining an existing stabilization need not complete the section 3 worksheet or section 4 8 MCWD Shoreline & Streambank Stabilization' Rule Amendments June 15, 2010 Statement of Need and Reasonableness calculations - unless the shoreline or bank stabilization has degraded to the point where the property is essentially unprotected or has reverted to a natural state (see paragraph 2(b)). Fast track permitting remains available for all of the shoreline stabilization techniques regulated by the rule, with the exception of retaining walls. (See paragraphs 2(d) and 2(f).) To be eligible, a project must conform to the rule criteria. Fast track permitting is not available for streambank projects. Shoreline /Streambank Energy Analysis The District's revised approach to regulation of stabilization projects rests on the research the District has conducted to determine the factors that create susceptibility to erosion. The research has allowed the District to draft new regulatory provisions and incorporate site - specific analytical tools that support tailoring of stabilization to address the erosion risk at a given property.5 For shoreline, wind - driven waves, boat traffic, shoreline geometry and other factors are assessed via the erosion intensity calculation worksheet integrated into the rule. The worksheet was developed by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, and after the reanalysis by District staff and consultants and adjustment to the criteria and thresholds, as discussed above, it provides an objective, field- confirmed tool that supports the District's regulation of shoreline stabilization projects.6 For streambanks, susceptibility to erosion is a function of flow depth, channel slope and shear stress, the critical factors identified in the Federal Highway Administration's "Design of Roadside Channels with Flexible Linings, Hydraulic Engineering Circular Number 15," Third Edition.? The District also based its streambank formula on research results published in the Minnesota Department of Transportation's Drainage Manual. 5 See shoreline erosion forces study, Wenck Associates Inc., 2009. 6 See Wisconsin DNR, Waterway & Wetland Permits: Lake Shore Erosion Control athttp:/ /dnrwi gov /waterways /shoreline habitat /lake_erosion.htmI (last visited May 30, 2010). The worksheet tool itself is available at http•/ /dnrwi gov /waterways /factsheets /Erosion Intensity_Worksheet.pdf (last visited May 30, 2010). 7 Available athttp• / /www.fhwa.dot.gov/engineering /hydraulics/ pubs /051 14 /index cfm (last visited November 23, 2009). 9 MCWD Shoreline & Streambank Stabilization Rule Amendments June 15, 2010 . Statement of Need and Reasonableness In response to comments stating that property owners should be able to comply with the rule's stabilization criteria without having to hire a structural engineering professional, the District removed language requiring that streambank stress calculations be certified by a registered engineer (see subsection 4(a)). The District also will continue its long - established practice of providing assistance to property owners and their contractors working on stabilization designs to ensure that they comply with rule requirements. The District's continuing commitment to facilitating compliance with its rules reflects its interest in achieving water - resource protection goals without unduly burdening property owners with technical requirements. The numerical results produced by the shoreline and streambank analyses correspond to the high, medium and low erosion - intensity determinations in subsection 3(b) for shorelines and 4(b) for streambanks. These rankings determine the appropriate stabilization techniques to be used. Hard armoring ( "structural stabilization ") is allowed only where erosion potential is great. A low score from the relevant analytical section means natural, vegetated techniques ( "biological stabilization," discussed above) are to be used, while a mix of vegetation and hard armoring ( "bioengineering ") is prescribed for sites with mid -range erosion potential. High erosion potential merits structural solutions such as riprap. The ranking system ensures that the District's policy emphasis on preservation of natural shorelines is realized to the greatest degree possible, without unduly risking erosion. The analytical steps here are cumulative, not exclusive; an applicant whose shoreline qualifies for hard - armoring based on the appropriate analysis nonetheless may use vegetated, deep- rooted native plants - or a mixture of hard - armoring and plantings. In such cases, riprap is allowed, but by no means required. . Design Flexibility The District recognizes that some applicants will maintain that their shoreline or streambank must be either partially hard - armored (via bioengineering) or entirely structurally stabilized, even though the results of the erosion intensity analysis indicate a medium or low erosion risk. For such cases, the rule provides (in paragraph 2e) an alternative compliance route: Section 5 allows applicants to present documentation which indicates that notwithstanding the results of the energy analysis, their proposed stabilization approach provides protection against erosion with the smallest possible impact on water - resource ecology, compared with other reasonable approaches to stabilizing the location. Fast track permits are not available via this alternative 10 MCWD Shoreline & Streambank Stabilization Rule Amendments June 15, 2010 Statement of Need and Reasonableness compliance path because of the necessary site - specific analysis by the District engineer and staff. Criteria The proposed rule includes standards for biological and bioengineered stabilization (see subsection 6(b)), as well as general criteria that apply to all stabilization projects (see' subsection 6(a)). Subsection (c) for structural stabilization largely mirrors the existing rule criteria provisions for riprap. The emphasis on natural shorelines and streambanks is supported by the criterion in paragraph 6(a)(1), which requires applicants - whether pursuing the analysis in section 3 or 4, or the alternative demonstration via the Design Flexibility provision in section 5 - to show that structural stabilization (hard armoring) is needed to arrest or prevent erosion. That is, while biological and bioengineering practices may be pursued without demonstration of an erosion problem or threat (because they provide other natural resources and water - resource ecology benefits), hard armoring for purely aesthetic reasons is precluded. The Rulemaking Task Force members supported requiring this demonstration of need, while also cautioning the District against an overly prescriptive regulation of shoreline work. Task force members suggested that outreach and education efforts could appropriately and effectively advance the District's interests in greater use of biological and bioengineered stabilization techniques in lieu of riprap and other hard - armoring approaches. Greater familiarity with natural resources -based stabilization strategies will lead to landowners more readily considering alternatives to traditional hard - armored techniques, such as riprap. In response to the task force recommendations, along with commentors' concerns regarding the efficacy of biological stabilization, the District will extend its existing shoreline stabilization cost -share program to private property, including residential lots. The District has provided cost -share and technical assistance for a number of projects on publicly owned land already, and by opening up the program to private property owners who wish to naturalize and beautify their shorelines or streambanks the District intends to demonstrate successful implementation of biological and bioengineered stabilizations. In addition, the District will support compliance with the amended Shoreline & Streambank Stabilization Rule by providing training to commercial shoreline and streambank stabilization contractors on how to correctly design and install biological and 11 MCWD Shoreline & Streambank Stabilization Rule Amendments June 15, 2010 Statement of Need and Reasonableness bioengineered solutions. These workshops and onsite demonstrations will be offered at no charge, and participants will receive certification of having attended and completed the District training. As the program develops, the District Board of Managers may reduce permitting fees for applications from applicants working with certified contractors, since such applications will very likely require less staff time to process; inspection and followup costs should be reduced, too, supporting the fee reduction. The District responded to comments suggesting (based on an apparent misunderstanding of the rule provisions) that the amended rule would mandate biological or bioengineered shoreline and streambank stabilization when an applicant seeks approval of a riprap maintenance plan by simplifying the provisions governing management of vegetation when a maintenance project requires a permit. The District eliminated subsection 6(a)(2) and paragraph 6(c)(6), which mandated incorporation of native vegetation whenever feasible, in favor of a recommendation that permittees take this step (see revised paragraph 6(c)(5)). The change to an advisory rather than a mandatory provision is made in response to commentors' suggestion that the requirement amounted to a penalty for landowners simply trying to repair an established stabilization structure. The District's goal of preserving natural shorelines and streambanks will be achieved via the revised paragraph 6(a)(2), which allows an access corridor (defined as 30 percent of the shoreline to a maximum of 30 feet) to be cleared, while requiring a more naturalized, vegetated maintenance regime for the rest of the stabilization zone (defined as the area 20 feet inland from the ordinary high water mark along the shoreline or streambank). Proposed paragraph 6(a)(6) is new and provides further emphasis on maintaining natural shorelines and streambanks. Paragraph 6(a)(7) is fundamentally as it appears in the current rule (3(a)(5)), and the criterion in paragraph (8) simply. underscores that the District's permitting authority under the DNR General Permit does not extend to aquatic plan management - a separate DNR permit must be obtained by the applicant when required under the DNR rules (see Minnesota Statutes section 103G.61 5 and Minnesota Rules section 6280). Biological and Bioengineering Criteria As noted, the current rule lacks criteria for natural shoreline and streambank stabilization - a situation rectified by subsection 6(b). Research and design references are incorporated into criteria (1) and (2), and the temporary use of wave barriers is allowed to 12 MCWD Shoreline & Streambank Stabilization Rule Amendments June 15, 2010 Statement of Need and Reasonableness give plants a better chance to become established and secure the shoreline or streambank. Structural Criteria The proposed criteria for structural stabilizations generally reflect the riprap requirements in the existing rule, with the exception of the new criterion in paragraph 6(c)(1), which clarifies that placement of riprap in wetlands will constitute fill and subject the project to regulation as filling in a wetland under the District Wetland Protection Rule and the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) or other wetland regulation, if applicable. During the comment period on the amendments it became clear that some reviewers understood the paragraph to mean that all riprap would be considered wetland fill. The District added "only" to the amendment to make it clear that riprap will be considered fill in a wetland onlywhen it is placed in a wetland. The addition of this paragraph to the rule is merely a clarification - the scope of the WCA is set by the state, and if a particular wetland adjacent to a waterbody is regulated under WCA, riprap placed therein is regulated. Similarly, if the wetland is regulated by the District, the DNR or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, fill may be subject to regulation by those entities. Paragraph 6(c)(2) as originally proposed in November 2009 stated that riprap and other hard armor materials used to reinforce shorelines would be considered floodplain fill when placed below the 100 -year flood elevation. The provision has been removed in the revisions to the amendments. Additional analysis conducted in response to comments on this provision determined that historical use of hard - armoring materials to stabilize shoreline has not materially decreased floodplain storage around lakes in the watershed. Further, the benefit of stabilized shorelines in preventing sloughing and sediment transport into waterbodies outweighs any increased incursion into the floodplain caused by placement of stabilization materials. Revisions also will be made to section 2 and paragraph 3(e) of the adopted revised Floodplain Alterations Rule to implement this shift in policy. The District originally proposed two new criteria requiring plantings between riprap boulders wherever possible, reflecting the District's emphasis in this rulemaking on shorelines and streambanks that are naturalized to the greatest extent possible, even when the overall approach is structural. As discussed above, these criteria have been collapsed into one (6(c)(5)) and recast as a recommendation. The District believes that as property owners learn more about natural stabilization options through its cost -share and outreach programs, increasing numbers will incorporate native plantings into their 13 MCWD Shoreline & Streambank Stabilization Rule Amendments June 15, 2010 Statement of Need and Reasonableness stabilization projects. But in the meantime, incorporation of native vegetation into structural stabilization practices is recommended, but not required. Also in response to the comments that property owners should not have to hire a structural engineer to install riprap, the District is proposing to remove the required certification of riprap design by a registered professional engineer (which appears in the current rule at 3(a)(8) and appeared in the initial draft revision of the rule). Certification by an engineer will continue to be required for retaining walls (see paragraph 1 1(c).) The Rulemaking Task Force expressed support for a specific provision that would allow applicants to propose overall environmental enhancements to mitigate riprap impacts. The existing exception provision in the District's Variances Rule provides such flexibility where the overall design and plans for a project stand to provide greater environmental performance than strict compliance with a rule. Exhibits The amended Shoreline & Streambank Stabilization Rule would include a single list of exhibit requirements applicable to all stabilization projects except sand blankets, which are "specifi cal ly provided for in sections 9 and 10. The requirements are refined and updated from the set that apply to riprap projects under the current rule, and are designed to provide District staff and engineers with a detailed set of plans showing the work proposed including, when biological or bioengineering stabilization is proposed, planting and design details as appropriate to the location (see paragraphs 7(f) and (h)). The most substantial addition, in paragraph 7(a), is the required appropriate erosion intensity analysis per section 3 or 4. Applicants seeking approval through the alternative Design Flexibility route in section 5 must submit materials necessary for the District staff and consultants to make the appropriate analysis to provide a basis for consideration (by staff or the Board of Managers) of the proposal. Other additions are made to provide the'appropriate delineation of the access zone (7(c)(3)) and the area to which the vegetation and tree maintenance provisions in 6(a)(2) apply (7(c)(4))• The District also added a requirement that applicants submit representative site photographs in paragraph 7(b). Other changes were made to the exhibits section after 14 MCWD Shoreline & Streambank Stabilization Rule Amendments June 15, 2010 Statement of Need and Reasonableness the second comment period to streamline organization. No substantive changes were made to the exhibit lists. Maintenance Consistent with standard District policy, a Shoreline & Streambank Stabilization Rule applicant is required to commit to maintenance of their streambank or shoreline. The method by which this is accomplished was streamlined by staff after the second round of comments. First, vegetation must be established according to a three -year plan submitted by the applicant for approval, the components of which are outlined in subsection 7(f). Then the property owner must record a declaration against the deed for the subject property, and the document must include details on how the project access corridor and vegetation will be maintained. Section 8 requires the maintenance elements _ to be recorded against the deed so that when a property is transferred, the new owner will not clear -cut biological stabilizations or the vegetative elements of bioengineered stabilizations, and vegetation removal in other parts of the shoreline impact zone will take place only in keeping with approved techniques. Again in keeping with long- established District policy, public entities conducting projects on public property may meet the memorialization requirement by entering an agreement with the District in lieu of recording a declaration (see section 8). Sandblankets In the initially proposed amendments, no substantive changes to sandblanket regulation by the District were proposed (see sections 9 and 10). Only minor revisions for clarification were proposed, and applicants for sandblanket permits need not show a need to prevent erosion or repair damage to be issued a permit. As noted, sandblanket permits remain available via fast track permitting (see paragraph 2(f)). Following the first comment period, paragraph 9(c) was revised to match the DNR's requirement that no more than two sandblanket applications be made at an individual project site, whether or not the ownership of the property is transferred. Comments on the proposed amendments arguing for greater flexibility for public beaches also led to revisions to the exception specifics (i.e., the parameters with which public projects need not comply - sandblanket width, distance waterward and frequency of reapplication) in paragraph 9(d)(1). Public beach projects now must be shown to cause the least environmental impact of all reasonable alternatives. This standard allows the District to ensure, through application of the rule, that public entities have the flexibility they need 15 MCWD Shoreline & Streambank Stabilization Rule Amendments June 15, 2010 Statement of Need and Reasonableness to maintain beaches in the manner that best serves all of various public purposes implicated, while the District ensures that water - resources impacts are minimized. Public entities will be expected to provide historical and /or public use information to support maintenance of sandblankets in excess of the parameters established by the rule, which are in line with the DNR's thresholds for permitting maintenance of public beaches. Regardless of how a particular project is regulated under the District rule, applicants are advised to ensure that they have complied with DNR's permitting requirements. (The District's DNR General Permit does not apply to sandblanket projects.) . Retaining Walls Retaining walls continue to be permitted by the Shoreline & Streambank Stabilization Rule, but an exception or variance showing must be made for a retaining wall permit to be granted (see 11(a)). Other The proposed revisions to Shoreline & Streambank Stabilization Rule provide new specific requirements for boat ramps and other shoreline improvements. The District has proposed specificity to replace the broad requirement that such projects must comply with generally accepted engineering principles. The criteria in section 12 apply the needs analysis relevant to stabilization projects and provide that a boat ramp is allowed only if there is no other feasible means of getting a boat into the water. The impact of boat ramp construction also must be minimized (see paragraph 12(b). IV. BEYOND REGULATION In conjunction with the proposed regulatory revisions, naturalized shoreline and streambank restoration and preservation will remain a focus of District outreach efforts and capital improvement work, including the extension of the District cost -share program to private residential properties and the contractor- training program described above. As noted, the District is collaborating with four watershed cities around Lake Minnetonka on public shoreline restoration projects that are increasing the District's understanding of how to stage such work and which kinds of plants, planting techniques and associated features are most effective given certain shoreline energy conditions. Also, District staff remain available to discuss applicant's shoreline and streambank goals, and to review early plans and make suggestions and provide assistance, as requested. The District's goal is to preserve the integrity and natural character of 16 MCWD Shoreline & Streambank Stabilization Rule Amendments June 15, 2010 Statement of Need and Reasonableness watershed shorelines and streambanks and to work with property owners in a reasonable manner to do so. 17 MCWD Shoreline & Streambank Stabilization Rule Amendments June 15, 2010 Statement of Need and Reasonableness Table 1 - Members of the Rulemaking Task Force [Name Occupation /Affiliation Employer /City Tom Aasen Citizens Advisory Committee Minnetonka IKristin Asher [Engineer City of Richfield IMelissa Barrett Wetland Scientist Kjolhaug Environmental Services Ginny Black Organics Recycling Coordinator M innesota Pollution Control Agency IlLarry Blackstad Citizens Advisory Committee [Minnetonka IWilliam Bushnell Citizens Advisory Committee Minnetrista ITom Casey Citizens Advisory Committee Mound Nate Duoss Public Policy Specialist FB lders Association of the Twin ies Tony Goldenstein Citizens Advisory Committee St. Louis Park Stephen Jenkins Isupervisor - District #4 IHennepin Conservation District Tames Johnson Vice President Lyman Properties LLC Steve Mohn Investment Manager Self Employed IDavid Newman [Land Developer The Bancor Group Dan Salmon Citizens Advisory Committee St. Louis Park Ethel Smith Resident F7 [Timothy Smith Registered Nurse Hennepin County Medical Center Duncan Steinman Citizens Advisory Committee Minnetonka I.Ha-ro.1d Ul,vestaed Commercial Real Estate Broker IStaubach Company acob Westman Educator, Student Westonka Public Schools __ Donna Woodruff ICitizens Advisory Committee Shorewood 18 MCWD Shoreline & Streambank Stabilization Rule Amendments June 15, 2010 Statement of Need and Reasonableness Table 2 - Participants in the Technical Advisory Committee Name Agency/City Laura Adler City of St. Louis Park Liz Stout City of Minnetonka Tony Brou h Hennepin County Wayne Houle City of Edina Jesse Struve City of Edina Mike Kelly City of Wayzata Aaron Snyder U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Dave Poggi Bolton & Menk (Engineer for Mound, Deephaven, St. Bonifacius, Greenwood & Woodland) John Barten Three Rivers Park District Tim Brown Barr En ineerin Jack Frost Metropolitan Council Brad Wozney Board of Water and Soil Resources Lois Eberhart City of Minneapolis Bob Moberg City of Plymouth Larry Brown City of Shorewood Holly Kreft City of Victoria Cara Geheren TKDA (City of Victoria Engineer) Deb Pil er Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board Michael Schmidt Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board Mike Eastlin2 City of Richfield Derek Asche City of Plymouth Sara A likowski Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board Kate Drewery Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Kristin Asher City of Richfield Bob Moberg City of Plymouth Lee Gustafson City of Minnetonka Terry Jeffery City of Chanhassen 19 MCWD Shoreline & Streambank Stabilization Rule Amendments June 15, 2010 Statement of Need and Reasonableness By Robert Barkin he pay- raises that Tomball, Texas, employees had received for 22 consecutive years came to a halt in 2009 thanks to the Great Recession. Yet, other than the wage freeze, the Houston suburb has been largely able to resist the kinds of benefits cutbacks that have been common in other cities and towns. But how long the city can hold the line against cuts seen elsewhere remains a big unknown, says Lisa Coe, the city's director of human resources. While popular benefits like life insurance and disability coverage appear safe for now, health insurance is a major concern, with possible increases in employee cost - sharing on the table. "The costs keep skyrocketing so fast, it's hard to tell," she says. "We keep looking for ways to save. You never know what will work." Coe is certainly not alone in her focus on benefit expenses in the face of the worst climate for government finances in many years, with increasing demands for services, reduced revenue from traditional sources and an angry constituency that is not in any mood for tax increases. The competing forces have set the scene for a rigorous debate between those who maintain that public sector employees are overcompensated in pay and benefits, and observers who warn that the continuing cuts may place state and local governments at a disadvantage in trying to fill critical skill positions once the employment picture brightens. "The public sector is walking on a knife's edge," says Keith Bender, an economist at the University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee (UWM), who recently completed a study comparing compensation levels in the public and private sectors. "They need to supply a service and maintain the kind of labor force with the right skills that they are having a hard time paying for. It's a real challenge." Most public sector officials believe that the effects of the reduced compensation levels -will not be felt for some time, because the high unemployment rate nationally keeps employees from seeking better paying jobs in the private sector. In the meantime, the pressure to trim expenses continues to weigh down on the kinds of benefits being offered and the contribution levels employees expect. PENSION OBLIGATIONS LOOM LARGE A March 2010 study of public sector compensation levels by the Brookfield, Wis. -based International Foundation of Employee Benefit Plans (IFEBP) identified a continuing "trend toward increased cost - sharing with workers" and "slow movement toward consumer - driven health care in the public sector." While the generally difficult economic climate is a big factor, additional pressure comes from the severe decline in value in public employee defined benefit retirement plans, which will likely require substantial increases in contributions from employers. Under defined benefit plans. the employer is responsible for the pension payment, even if the value of the stocks and bonds set aside to cover the costs suffers market losses, as was the case in 36 June 2010 _ Intel. the Intel LC90 . —el—­ •, �._• - -•- - - . - As employee benefits get chopped, how will governments attract and retain people with the right skills? k the 2008 bear market. The Washington -based Pew Center on the States estimates that pensions are underfunded by more than $1 trillion, bringing their funding levels down to 77 percent in 2008. Estimates from some conservative think tanks (using different assumptions) place the total liability as high as $3 trillion. The money to fund healthcare benefits for retirees also is lacking. As of November 2009, the federal government estimated that state and local governments had promised more than $530 billion more in post - employment health benefits than they had set aside. The net effect, regardless of the assumptions, is that governments will be forced to contribute more to pay- for retiree health plans and the retiree pension plans to keep their promises. As a result, the IFEBP study found that more employers are turning to wellness initiatives and disease management to reduce health costs, cost - sharing of deductibles and co -pays to add to employee responsibility, and voluntary benefits that have no effect on the employer's bottom line but can lift employee morale. "Plans are embracing initiatives in wellness, value -based health care and disease management even more than a year ago," says Sally Natchek, IFEBP's senior director of research. "It's caused by challenges on the pension side and the cost stress of health care. They are definitely stepping up health care cost control, more than the last few years." In addition to the health care initiatives, the IFEBP study found: • Governments are trying to keep health care increases to single digits; • Employee contributions are growing, despite evident economic hardship; • Retiree health care costs loom ominously over governments, especially those that have promised a high level of benefits to retirees; and • Pension plans will require increased contributions from employers to make up for losses on plan assets. "In the past, the public sector has not followed the changes in the private sector," Natchek notes. "They are following now, maybe a few steps behind, but increasingly they are passing the costs on to employees. The corporations were doing this before. The public sector is following suit." The trend toward focusing cost - cutting efforts on public employees has spurred a debate between those who contend that employee benefits are out of control and bankrupting governments, and those who argue that the higher skill level of government workers requires equal compensation to attract and retain the right workers. Based on education levels of employees, some maintain, the government is underpaying its workers. Two recent articles in the Wall Street Journal present one perspective, arguing that state and local workers are overpaid and receive benefits that are out of line with the trends in the public sector. "Labor costs, which at $1.1 trillion in 2008 account for half of state and local spending 38 June 2010 1 www.americancityandcounty.com Types of wellness initiatives offered Screening and treatment 51.2% Flu shot program (free or discounted flu shots) 83.6% Health screenings (e.g., mammograms, prostate 77.70/6 cancer screens, blood pressure checks, cholesterol 63.4% tests, glucose /diabetes tests, vision tests) 36.6% Health risk assessments /appraisals 74.9% Smoking cessation program (e.g., counseling, 62.7% medication, nicotine patches) 25.8% Stress management program 38.3% Complementary and alternative medicine 24.7% On -site health care clinics 15.3% On -site massage therapy 9.1% Fitness and nutrition Wellness competitions such as walking /fitness 51.2% challenges 72.1% Weight loss management program (on -site or 45.6% subsidized) 63.4% Nutrition program /counseling 36.6% On -site exercise classes 30.7% On -site fitness equipment /center 28.6% Off -site fitness program subsidies 25.8% Healthy food choices in cafeteria or vending 25.4% machines 38.7% On -site walking trails 22 0'6 Fitness equipment discounts 16.4% Employer- sponsored sports teams 11.1010 Participant education E -mail messages 72.1% Health fairs 70.4% Newsletters 63.4% Web site /links to online wellness resources 58.2°/o Bulletin board updates 48.1% Intranet 45.6°'0 Seminars/ speakers 44.3% Nurse advice hotline 39.4% Health care coach /advisor /advocate 38.7% Letters mailed to participant homes 34.5% Online wellness tools purchased from a vendor 28.9% Books, magazines, DVDs, videos or tapes 20.2ao Personal health record (interactive record that 19.5 11/c allows individuals to store, update and share health information with care providers) Source. Trends in Public Employee Plans, International Foundation ofEmployeeBenef t Plans, Survey Results 2010 according to the Cato Institute, simply must come down. And there is plenty of reason why they should," writes Gary Shilling, an economist and investment adviser. Mortimer Zuckerman, chairman and editor in chief of U.S. dews and `Vorld Report, is even more direct. There is a mounting sense that taxpayers are being taken for an expensive ride by public sector unions;" he writes. Countering that contention is the April 2010 study by Bender and UWM colleague John Heywood, which looked at the education levels of employees in the public and private sectors, rather than trving to find comparable jobs. According to Bender and Heywood, "the typical state or local government employee has substantially more education, training and experience" than the typical private sector worker. The study found that "wages and salaries of state and local employees are lower than those for private sector workers with comparable earnings determinants (e.g., education). State employees typically earn 11 percent less; local workers earn 12 percent less." When including benefits, on average, the researchers found that total compensation is 6.8 percent lower for state employees and 7.4 percent lower for local workers, compared with comparable private sector employees. "The average compensation of state and local employees is not excessive," the report states. "The data do not call for reductions in average state and local wages and benefits. - Bender acknowledges that there is a public perception that public sector workers are overpaid. But, he says, the misconception comes from evaluating compensation based on the position rather than the education levels required for the jobs. `Media reports are based on raw averages," he says. "But you can't look at raw averages. Public sector workers are not overpaid." Public Secto i Public- Private Wage Differentials, 0 1983 -2008 is C 2 v c a v a Average Public— Private Wage Differentials, 2000 -2008 Full country -11.4 -12.0 California -9.8 -6.1 Texas -16.6 -17.6 New York -7.0 -5.9 Pennsylvania -4.5 -12.9 Illinois -12.5 -13.3 Michigan -10.1 -11.2 Florida _ _ _ -4.8 -0.2 Earnings and Benefits as Shares of Total Compensation Total private 29.15 '70.85 sector Large firms in 31.42 68.58 private sector State and local 32.65 67.35 government Notes: The shares are averaged across quarterly estimates from 2004 to 2008. Data are from the National Compensation Survey and the associated Employment Cost Index published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Large firms are those with 100 or more workers. r Percent Differential trom OLS Regressions Year Source for all charts this page, "Out ofBalance? Comparing Public and Private Sector Compensation over 20 Years, "Apri12010, Keith Bender and John He)-Lvodfor the Center for State andLocal Government Excellence and the _-V'anonal rastitute on Retirement Security 40 June 20101 www.americancityardcounty.com State - Private -+- Local- Private -2 — -4 - -- -6 — -8 10 — - 12 1d - -- Year Source for all charts this page, "Out ofBalance? Comparing Public and Private Sector Compensation over 20 Years, "Apri12010, Keith Bender and John He)-Lvodfor the Center for State andLocal Government Excellence and the _-V'anonal rastitute on Retirement Security 40 June 20101 www.americancityardcounty.com Although the academics can make a convincing case for higher wages and benefits for state and local workers, the political reality pushes much more strongly in the other direction — and that worries public sector advocates, like Elizabeth Kellar, executive director of the Center for State and Local Government Excellence, the Washington - based nonprofit that sponsored Bender's study. "The biggest challenge is to put together a picture of the variety of jobs that make a community work," she says. "A lot of people don't give a thought about all the little things that governments do for the people — until a natural disaster and people demand a full range of services." Kellar points to the anthrax scare after the 2001 attack on the World Trade Center and the more recent swine flu scare as examples of the high skill levels required to deliver what the public expects. She recalls that during the 1980 recession, the public sector went through the same convulsions with hiring freezes and elimination of positions. "When we came out of the recession, we didn't have the people ready for the critical positions, and we couldn't compete with the private sector to bring the government back to a competitive level," Kellar says. HOB' TO SAVE HONEY AND KEEP BENEFITS Given the economic environment, Kellar suggests that governments seek ways to reduce costs while sustaining the 2 June 2010! www.americancityandcounty.com level of benefits through wellness programs and innovative training techniques, such as long- distance learning programs using Internet webinars that provide information without incurring travel expenses. "Governments have to be creative how they help the employee," she says. Tomball's human resources department has mixed benefit changes with the personal touch to keep up morale among the city's 130 full -time and 50 part -time employees. For example, the city has adopted National Save for Retirement Week as a platform for its own financial planning events, which include seminars on college savings and age -based seminars. "We try to make the employees feel as appreciated as best we can with the money that taxpayers allow us," Coe says. The city saved .a considerable amount of money by switching health providers and using the extra dollars to add long -term disability insurance, which employees had often requested. In addition, the city began offering wellness testing six years ago, which included tests for high blood pressure and sugar. "Two people were sent straight to the hospital," she says, noting that as a result of the continuing testing she has seen fewer employees today suffering sudden incidents, like heart attacks or strokes. "It keeps insurance rates down a little," she says. Among the voluntary benefits offered is vision care, which pays for eyeglasses, and life insurance coverage for families of the employees. As a whole, the city's offering amounts to an excellent package for employees, she says. "We've had employees leave for better pay but then come back when they see that a huge chunk of the raise goes for family health coverage," she says. But, Coe acknowledges the savings from switching providers was a one -time event and that keeping the lid on health care costs is a priority. "Health care is an area we are keeping our eye on," she says. "It's one of the few areas where we still have some leeway. N e would never pass on the full cost of increases, but in the future some employee charge might be something we would look at." The Utah Transit Authority (UTA) also has emphasized its wellness program as a means to restrain health care increases, says Linda Knudsen, UTA's pension administrator. UTA has a particular need to attract and retain highly skilled engineers and information systems personnel to maintain the technical expertise to operate a modern transportation system. "There are good people who work here for many, many years," she says. Knudsen says the authority has made a special effort to keep up the benefits package for its 2,000 employees because current employees value it greatly today and prospective employees will seek the security it provides in the future. "The new generation coming into the workforce is looking for stability more than a big paycheck," she says. "They see what their parents are going through right now, especially with layoffs, disruption of their families. They're looking for stability, so they value our offerings of benefits and stability." — Robert Barkin is a Bethesda, 1AId. -based freelance writer. 11UNNES07A'S VISION SHIP Statewide Health Improvement Program Edina Update July 15, 2010 OVERVIEW • $47M in funding statewide to prevent the main drivers of chronic disease — tobacco use and obesity • Bloomington Public Health (BPH) applied for grant on behalf of Bloomington, Edina and Richfield o Proposal developed by the Community Leadership Team • Received $1.61VI over 2 years (July 2009 — June 2011) • BPH works in partnership with Bloomington, Edina and Richfield COMMUNITY LEADERSHIP TEAM 0 18 members from the 3 cities — schools, park & recreation, public health,.healthcare, colleges o Edina members Val Burke, Resource Center Coordinator and Co -Chair of CLT C Katherine Bass, BCBS of MN /Prevention Minnesota and Edina resident ■ Betty Elliot, Edina Public Schools Health Services Coordinator ■ Sherry Engelman, Community Health Administrator 0 John Keprios, Park & Recreation Director o Developing "City Workgroups" to further meet individual needs of each city 9 interventions focused on physical activity, nutrition and tobacco use 4 sectors — Schools, Communities, Worksites, and Healthcare SCHOOLS • School Liaison hired — 'Berit Peterson, former coordinator of health services at EPS • Meet school administrators and key. stakeholders, sharing possibilities under SHIP • - School health assessment completed at Normandale Elementary; developing action plan to increase physical activity at that school (implementation Fall 2010) • Identifying strategies that improve safety for students who walk or bike to school • Supported Edina Bike Task Force with bike rodeo at Highlands Elementary in April — approx. 250 students and parents attended • Installing 12 bike racks at various school locations • School garden at Highlands Elementary — providing exposure to new foods and integrating into curriculum - • Exploring additional strategies for increasing physical activity during school day, such as "active recess" and incorporating physical activity into after school programs. C ciTr of BLOOMINGTON PUBLIC HEALTH B L O O M I N G T O N 1900 WEST OLD SHAKOPEE ROAD M I N N E 5OTA BLOOMINGTON, MN 55431 VI�iIN NESo,rNs ISION SHIP COMMUNITY Active Communities • 'Planning an "Active Living" workshop for the city to assess needs and plan next steps (Fall 2010) • Installing 12 bike racks in city parks (Braemar, Centennial Lakes, and Garden Parks) Community Nutrition • Researched farmers market - related city codes and provided examples to City staff • Provided resources and assistance to City staff in developing and passing city ordinance o Shared farmers market start -up and management tools • Assisted with drafting marketing and promotion plan and an evaluation plan • Provide funding support for marketing and promotion Healthy Eating & Physical Activity in Childcare Centers o Provided nutrition workshop to 28 day care /preschool facilities in October 2009 and Jan 2010, including 4 facilities in Edina ® Training on nutrition best practices in day care /preschools o Providing quarterly visits to each facility, supporting them with implementing their action plans o Provided physical activity training workshop to 30 daycare /preschool facilities in April, including 6 sites in Edina o Offering both trainings again in the Fall /Winter Tobacco Free Parks o Provided new tobacco free signs and replaced old /work signage HEALTH CARE • Assisting Southdale Internal Medicine Clinic, Women, Infant and Children Programs, and Sage Plus Clinics with quality improvement structures and processes to implement . health promotion guidelines in clinics. • Delivering ongoing training, technical assistance, support materials, and referral resources. ACTIVE WORKSITES • Implementing "Energize at Work" where we conduct physical activity assessments of the worksite, map out safe and convenient walking routes for employees, provide route maps, promotional materials, and technical assistance to employers with implementing action plans that promote physical activity for employees. • City of Edina participating; SHIP recruiting other employers in the city (referrals accepted!) SUBSCRIBE TO THE SHIP ENEWSLETTER Sign -up for the monthly SHIP e- Newsletter at the Bloomington, Edina & Richfield SHIP website. o Website: www.ci.bloomington.mn.us o Search keyword: SHIP enews. For more information: Ruth Tripp, MPH, RN Coordinator 952 - 563 -8742 rtripp @ci.bloomington.mn.us uTY OF BLOOMINGTON PUBLIC HEALTH BLOOMINGTON 1900 WEST OLD SHAKOPEE ROAD MINNESOTA BLOOMINGTON, MN 55431 By Robert Barkin he pay raises that Tomball, Texas, employees had received for 22 consecutive years came to a halt in 2009 thanks to the Great Recession. Yet, other than the wage freeze, the Houston suburb has been largely able to resist the kinds of benefits cutbacks that have been common in other cities and towns. But how long the city can hold the line against cuts seen elsewhere remains a big unknown, says Lisa Coe, the city's director of human resources. While popular benefits like life insurance and disability coverage appear safe for now, health insurance is a major concern, with possible increases in employee cost - sharing on the table. "The costs keep skyrocketing so fast, it's hard to tell," she says. "We keep looking for ways to save. You never know what will work." Coe is certainly not alone in her focus on benefit expenses in the face of the worst climate for government finances in many years, with increasing demands for services, reduced revenue from traditional sources and an angry constituency that is not in any mood for tax increases. The competing forces have set the scene for a vigorous debate between those who maintain that public sector employees are overcompensated in pay and benefits, and observers who warn that the continuing cuts may place state and local governments at a disadvantage in trying to fill critical skill positions once the employment picture brightens. "The public sector is walking on a knife's edge," says Keith Bender, an economist at the University of Wisconsin- Milwaukee (UWb1), who recently completed a study comparing compensation levels in the public and private sectors. "They need to supply a service and maintain the kind of labor force with the right skills that they are having a hard time paying for. It's a real challenge." Most public sector officials believe that the effects of the reduced compensation levels will not be felt for some time, because the high unemployment rate nationally keeps employees from seeking better paying jobs in the private sector. In the meantime, the pressure to trim expenses continues to weigh down on the kinds of benefits being offered and the contribution levels employees expect. PENSION OBLIC UIONS LOOM LARGE A March 2010 study of public sector compensation levels by the Brookfield, Wis. -based International Foundation of Employee Benefit Plans (IFEBP) identified a continuing "trend toward increased cost - sharing with workers" and "slow movement toward consumer - driven health care in the public sector." While the generally difficult economic climate is a big factor, additional pressure comes from the severe decline in value in public employee defined benefit retirement plans, which will likely require substantial increases in contributions from employers. Under defined benefit plans, the employer is responsible for the pension payment, even if the value of the stocks and bonds set aside to cover the costs suffers market losses, as was the case in 36 June 2010 _ - _ . _ : , i. - , , -.. -, Intel. the intel W9o. rtnc'^e " — " - the 2008 bear market. The Washington -based Pew Center on the States estimates that pensions are underfunded by more than $1 trillion, bringing their funding levels down to 77 percent in 2008. Estimates from some conservative think tanks (using different assumptions) place the total liability as high as $3 trillion. The money to fund healthcare benefits for retirees also is lacking. As of November 2009, the federal government estimated that state and local governments had promised more than $530 billion more in post - employment health benefits than they had set aside. The net effect, regardless of the assumptions, is that governments will be forced to contribute more to pay for retiree health plans and the retiree pension plans to keep their promises. As a result, the IFEBP study found that more employers are turning to wellness initiatives and disease management to reduce health costs, cost - sharing of deductibles and co -pays to add to employee responsibility, and voluntary benefits that have no effect on the employer's bottom line but can lift employee morale. "Plans are embracing initiatives in wellness, value -based health care and disease management even more than a year ago," says Sally Natchek, IFEBP's senior director of research. "It's caused by challenges on the pension side and the cost stress of health care. They are definitely stepping up health care cost control, more than the last few years." In addition to the health care initiatives, the IFEBP study found: • Governments are trying to keep health care increases to single digits; • Employee contributions are growing, despite evident economic hardship; • Retiree health care costs loom ominously over governments, especially those that have promised a high level of benefits to retirees; and • Pension plans will require increased contributions from employers to make up for losses on plan assets. "In the past, the public sector has not followed the changes in the private sector," Natchek notes. "They are following now, maybe a few steps behind, but increasingly they are passing the costs on to employees. The corporations were doing this before. The public sector is following suit." DEB vri\G Pl OR KER BF. \EFITS The trend toward focusing cost - cutting efforts on public employees has spurred a debate between those who contend that employee benefits are out of control and bankrupting governments, and those who argue that the higher skill level of government workers requires equal compensation to attract and retain the right workers. Based on education levels of employees, some maintain, the government is underpaying its workers. Two recent articles in the Wall Street Journal present one perspective, arguing that state and local workers are overpaid and receive benefits that are out of line with the trends in the public sector. "Labor costs, which at $1.1 trillion in 2008 account for half of state and local spending 38 June 2010 1 www.americancityandcounty.com Types of wellness initiatives offered Screening and treatment 51.2% Flu shot program (free or discounted flu shots) 83.6% Health screenings (e.g., mammograms, prostate 77.7% cancer screens, blood pressure checks, cholesterol 63.4% tests, glucose /diabetes tests, vision tests) 36.6% Health risk assessments /appraisals 74.90/a Smoking cessation program (e.g., counseling, 62.7% medication, nicotine patches) 25.8% Stress management program 38.3% Complementary and alternative medicine 24.7% On -site health care clinics 15.3% On -site massage therapy 9.1% Fitness and nutrition Wellness competitions such as walking /fitness 51.2% challenges 72.1° Weight loss /management program (on -site or 45.6;% subsidized) 63.4% Nutrition program /counseling 36.6% On -site exercise classes 30.7% On -site fitness equipment /center 28.6% Off -site fitness program subsidies 25.8% Healthy food choices in cafeteria or vending 25.4% machines 38.7% On -site walking trails 22% Fitness equipment discounts 16.4% Employer- sponsored sports teams 11.1% Participant education E -mail messages 72.1° Health fairs 70.4% Newsletters 63.4% Web site /links to online wellness resources 58.2% Bulletin board updates 48.1% Intranet 45.6% Seminars /speakers 44.3% Nurse advice hotline 39.4% Health care coach /advisor /advocate 38.7% Letters mailed to participant homes 34.5% Online wellness tools purchased from a vendor 28.9% Books, magazines, DVDs, videos or tapes 20.2 0o Personal health record (interactive record that 19.5% allows individuals to store, update and share health information with care providers) Source: Trends in Public Employee Plans, International Foundation ofEmployeeBenefatPlans, Survey Results 2010 according to the Cato Institute, simply must come down. And there is plenty of reason why they should," writes Garti Shilling, an economist and investment adviser. Mortimer Zuckerman, chairman and editor in chief of U.S. News and World Report, is even more direct. "There is a mounting sense that taxpayers are being taken for an expensive ride by public sector unions," he writes. Countering that contention is the April 2010 study by Bender and UWM colleague John Heywood, which looked at the education levels of employees in the public and private sectors, rather than trying to find comparable jobs. According to Bender and Heywood, "the typical state or local government employee has substantially more education, training and experience" than the typical private sector worker. The study found that "wages and salaries of state and local employees are lower than those for private sector workers with comparable earnings determinants (e.g., education). State employees typically earn 11 percent less; local workers earn 12 percent less." When including benefits, on average, the researchers found that total compensation is 6.8 percent lower for state employees and 7.4 percent lower for local workers, compared with comparable private sector employees. "The average compensation of state and local employees is not excessive," the report states. "The data do not call for reductions in average state and local wages and benefits." Bender acknowledges that there is a public perception that public sector workers are overpaid. But, he says, the misconception comes from evaluating compensation based on the position rather than the education levels required for the jobs. "Media reports are based on raw averages," he says. "But you can't look at raw averages. Public sector workers are not overpaid." Public- Private Average Public- Private Wage Differentials, 2000 -2008 Full country -11.4 -12.0 California -9.8 -6.1 Texas -16.6 -17.6 New York -7.0 -5.9 Pennsylvania -4.5 -12.9 Illinois -12.5 -13.3 Michigan -10.1 -11.2 Florida -4.8 -0.2 Earnings and Benefits as Shares of Total Compensation Total private 29.15 70.85 sector Large firms in 31.42 68.58 private sector State and local 32.65 67.35 government Notes: The shares are averaged across quarterly estimates from 2004 to 2008. Data are from the National Compensation Survey and the associated Employment Cost Index published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Large firms are those with 100 or more workers. Public Sector Percent Differential trom ULS Regressions Wage Differentials, 1983 -2008 -2 — -4 �a C -6 w` v -8 CU CL -10 -12 State - Private -a-- Local- Private -14 E'' $a $y a° a` ati 1� 1� \q 1� N� %� ,� \� �� %� 1q Nq N N N� ti ti ti ti ti ti° ti ti ti Year Source for all charts this page: "Out ofBalance? ComparingPublic and Private Sector Compensation over 20 Years, " Apri12010, Keith Bender and Aohn Heywod for the Center for State and Local Government Excellence and the: ationallnstitute on Retirement Security 40 June 2010; www.americancityandcounty.com Although the academics can make a convincing case for higher wages and benefits for state and local workers, the political reality pushes much more strongly in the other direction — and that worries public sector advocates, like Elizabeth Kellar, executive director of the Center for State and Local Government Excellence, the Washington - based nonprofit that sponsored Bender's study. "The biggest challenge is to put together a picture of the variety of jobs that make a community work," she says. "A lot of people don't give a thought about all the little things that governments do for the people — until a natural disaster and people demand a full range of services." Kellar points to the anthrax scare after the 2001 attack on the World Trade Center and the more recent swine flu scare as examples of the high skill levels required to deliver what the public expects. She recalls that during the 1980 recession, the public sector went through the same convulsions with hiring freezes and elimination of positions. "When we came out of the recession, we didn't have the people ready for the critical positions, and we couldn't compete with the private sector to bring the government back to a competitive level," Kellar says. HONV TO SAVE MONU AND KEEP BENEFITS Given the economic environment, Kellar suggests that governments seek ways to reduce costs while sustaining the franc safety. 42 June 2010 1 www.americancityancicounty.com level of benefits through wellness programs and innovative training techniques, such as long- distance learning programs using Internet webinars that provide information without incurring travel expenses. "Governments have to be creative how they help the employee," she says. Tomball's human resources department has mixed benefit changes with the personal touch to keep up morale among the city's 130 full -time and 50 part -time employees. For example, the city has adopted National Save for Retirement Week as a platform for its own financial planning events, which include seminars on college savings and age -based seminars. "We try to make the employees feel as appreciated as best we can with the money that taxpayers allow us," Coe says. The city saved a considerable amount of money by switching health providers and using the extra dollars to add long -term disability insurance, which employees had often requested. In addition, the city began offering wellness testing six years ago, which included tests for high blood pressure and sugar. "Two people were sent straight to the hospital," she says, noting that as a result of the continuing testing she has seen fewer employees today suffering sudden incidents, like heart attacks or strokes. "It keeps insurance rates down a little," she says. Among the voluntary benefits offered is vision care, which pays for eyeglasses, and life insurance coverage for families of the employees. As a whole, the city's offering amounts to an excellent package for employees, she says. "We've had employees leave for better pay but then come back when they see that a huge chunk of the raise goes for family health coverage," she says. But, Coe acknowledges the savings from switching providers was a one -time event and that keeping the lid on health care costs is a priority. "Health care is an area we are keeping our eye on," she says. "It's one of the few areas where we still have some leeway. We would never pass on the full cost of increases, but in the future some employee charge might be something we would look at." The Utah Transit Authority (UTA) also has emphasized its wellness program as a means to restrain health care increases, says Linda Knudsen, UTA's pension administrator. UTA has a particular need to attract and retain highly skilled engineers and information systems personnel to maintain the technical expertise to operate a modern transportation system. "There are good people who work here for many, many years," she says. Knudsen says the authority has made a special effort to keep up the benefits package for its 2,000 employees because current employees value it greatly today and prospective employees will seek the security it provides in the future. "The new generation coming into the workforce is looking for stability more than a big paycheck," she says. "They see what their parents are going through right now, especially with layoffs, disruption of their families. They're looking for stability, so they value our offerings of benefits and stability." — Robert Barkin &a Bethesda, Md. -based freelance writer. MINNEHAHA CREEK QUALITY OF WATER WATERSHED DISTRICT QUALITY O'F LIFE June 15, 2010 Honorable Mayor Hovland and Council The Minnehaha Creek .City of Edina 4801 West 50th Street Watershed District is Edina, MN 55424 committed to a Re: July 8, 2010 Public Hearing for Wetland and Shoreline / Streambank Rules leadership role in Dear Mayor Hovland and Council, protecting,, improving and managing the After reviewing comments received during public comment periods concluding on January 15, 2010 and April 12, 2010 for the Wetland Protection and Shoreline and surface waters and Streambank Improvement rules, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Board of affiliated groundwater Managers has set a Public Hearing on July 8, 2010. resources within the The Public Hearing will be held at 7 PM on July 8, 2010 at the Minnehaha Creek District, including their Watershed District Offices, located at 18202 Minnetonka Blvd. Deephaven, MN, 55391. relationships to the x0systems of which they Enclosed with this letter please find: are an integral part. • Wetland Protection rule language (clean and redlined) • Shoreline and Streambank Improvement language (clean and redlined) We achieve our mission . Statement Of Need And Reasonableness (SONAR) for both rules through regulation, Electronic copies of this information can also be found on the Minnehaha Creek capital projects, Watershed District website at www.minnehahacreek.orz education, cooperative Please share this information with your city council members. This information is also endeavors, and other being sent directly to your city staff members involved in the Watershed District's programs based on Technical Advisory Committee. sound science, The Public Hearing is the last step in an extensive public process to ensure these rule innovative thinking, an revisions protect the region's water, resources. We have appreciated and listened carefully to input we've received so far, and are confident the final rules will address informed and engaged community concerns and remain true to our water quality goals. constituency, and the For questions in advance of the July 8, 2010, Public Hearing, please contact: cost effective use of James Wisker at Jwisker@minnehahacreek.org or 952 -471 -0590 x 206. public funds. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT BOARD OF MANAGERS WETLAND PROTECTION RULE Proposed Revisions J 3 2010 une New Principal Residential Structure means a single - family residential building constructed on undeveloped_property zoned for residential use or on, a property zoned for residential use from which the L principal building has been. remove_ d for. purposes of constructing a new single - family residential building. Linear Reconstruction Project means rebuilding a road, sidewalk or trail within existing right -of -way, and may include an increase in the area of impervious surface. 1. POLICY. It is the policy of the Board of Managers to: (a) achieve no net loss in the quantity, quality and biological diversity of Minnesota's existing wetlands; (b) increase the quantity, quality and biological diversity of Minnesota's wetlands by restoring or enhancing diminished or drained wetlands; (c) avoid direct or indirect impacts from activities that destroy or diminish the quantity, quality and biological diversity of wetlands; (d) minimize direct or indirect impacts from activities that destroy or diminish the quantity, quality and biological diversity of wetlands; (e) rectify the impact of any such activity by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected wetland environment; (f) reduce or eliminate the impact of such activity over time by preservation and maintenance operation during the life of the activity; (g) compensate for the impact on the wetlands by restoring a wetland; (h) compensate for the impact on the wetlands by replacing or providing substitute wetland resources or environments; (i) promote competent administration of the Wetland Conservation Act within the watershed. 2. REGULATION UNDER WETLAND CONSERVATION ACT AND WATERSHED LAW. 6/15/201010:23 AM 1 47 48 The District regulates activity impacting wetlands pursuant to the Wetland Conservation 49 Act and the Watershed Law. A permit for activities impacting wetlands or requiring 50 wetland buffers is required as follows: 51 52 (a) In municipalities where the District is the local government unit under the 53 Wetland Conservation Act, a permit is required from the District for any draining or 54 filling of wetlands, or excavation in the permanently and semipermanently flooded 55 areas of type 3, 4, or 5 wetlands, and in all wetland types if the excavation results in 56 filling, draining, or conversion to nonwetland. The Wetland Conservation Act, as 57 amended, and its implementing rules as set forth in Minnesota Rules chapter 8420, 58 as amended, specifically including sequencing requirements and all exemptions, are 59 incorporated as a part of this rule. Wetland replacement, where permitted, shall 60 comply with section 3, Wetland Replacement, of this rule. 61 62 (b) A permit is required from the District pursuant to the excavation and buffer 63 provisions in sections 4, Excavation, and 5, Buffer, of this rule, which are adopted 64 under the District's watershed law authority and apply whether or not the District is 65 the Wetland Conservation Act local government unit. Pursuant to this authority and 66 section 4, Excavation, the District requires a permit for excavation in any type of 67 wetland, except where specifically exempted by the Wetland Conservation Act. 68 69 3. WETLAND REPLACEMENT. 70 71 (a) Replacement wetland must be sited in the following order of priority, which 72 replaces the siting priority in Minnesota Rules section 8420.0522, subpart 7, as it 73 may be amended: 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 (1) On site; (2) Within the same subwatershed as the affected wetland (see Appendix 1); (3) In the Minnehaha Creek watershed. (b) Pursuant to Minnesota Rules section 8420.0522, subp.7, as it may be amended, when reasonable, practical and environmentally beneficial replacement opportunities are not available in a siting priority area in subsection 3(a), providing replacement priority areas, the applicant may seek opportunities at the next level. When neither replacement opportunities nor privately banked credits are available in any priority area, the applicant may comply with this section through the purchase of banked credits from the District at the cost to the District to establish credits, so long as the District has determined that sufficient credits are available. 92 4. EXCAVATION. Excavation in wetlands is subject to the following requirements. 6/15/2010 10:23 AM 2 OW 94 (a) Excavation is governed by the substantive and procedural standards, criteria 95 and requirements set forth in the Wetland Conservation Act, as amended, and the 96 rules implementing the Wetland Conservation Act as set forth in Minnesota Rules 97 chapter 8420, as amended, including all exemptions, with the exception that 98 replacement for excavation not subject to the Wetland Conservation Act shall be 99 at the ratio of 2:1. The priority siting requirements of section 3 of this rule, 100 Wetland Replacement, apply to replacement of excavated wetland under this 101 section. 102 103 (b) Excavation of a wetland performed for public benefit, including excavation to 104 remove or control invasive species, shall be deemed self - replacing if the applicant 105 demonstrates that the wetland to be excavated is degraded; the proposed activity 106 would increase the wetland's function and value, as determined using the current 107 version of the Minnesota Routine Assessment Method or other method approved 108 by the District; and the enhanced wetland function and value are likely to be 109 preserved. Excavation shall not result in a change of wetland type, unless the 110 applicant demonstrates that public benefit is not obtainable absent such impact. 111 112 5. BUFFER. 113 114 (a) Any activity for which a permit is required under this Wetland Protection 115 Rule, the Stormwater Management Rule or the District Waterbody Crossings and 116 Structures Rule, and New Principal Residential Structure construction that 117 increases the imperviousness of the subject parcel must provide for buffer 118 adjacent to each wetland and public waters wetland. To the extent the buffer 119 requirement applies to a proposed New Principal Residential Structure, it will be 120 applied in accordance with protections afforded a zoning nonconformity under 121 state law so as not to unduly restrict the proposed action. Buffer must be provided 122 on that part of the wetland edge that is downgradient from the activity or 123 construction and around each wetland that will be disturbed. 124 125 (b) Buffer width will be determined in accordance with section 6, Buffer Width, 126 of this rule. 127 128 (c) Buffers shall be documented by declaration or other recordable instrument 129 approved by the District and recorded in the office of the county recorder or 130 registrar before activity under the MCWD permit commences. A buffer on public 131 land or right -of -way may be documented in a written agreement executed with the 132 District in place of a recorded instrument. The agreement shall state that if the 133 land containing the buffer is conveyed, the public body shall require the buyer to 134 comply with this subsection. 135 136 (d) A permanent wetland buffer monument shall be installed at each lot line 137 where it crosses a wetland buffer, and where needed to indicate the contour of the 138 buffer, with a maximum spacing of 100 feet. Language shall indicate the purpose 6/15/2010 10:23 AM 3 139 of the buffer, restrictions, and the name and phone number of the Minnehaha 140 Creek Watershed District. On public land, or right -of -way, the monumentation 141 requirement may be satisfied by the use of a marker flush to the ground or 142 breakaway markers of durable material. At the request of the applicant, the 143 District shall provide wetland buffer monuments at production cost. 144 145 6. BUFFER WIDTH. 146 147 (a) The. Base Buffer Width shall be determined by the management class of the 148 wetland as evaluated by the District's Functional Assessment of Wetlands or by 149 the current version of the Minnesota Routine Assessment Method (MnRAM). 150 Management Class Base Buffer Width Minimum Applied Buffer Width Manage 3 20 feet 16 feet Manage 2 30 feet 24 feet Manage 1 40 feet 34 feet Preserve 75 feet 67 feet 151 152 (b) The Applied Buffer Width, the actual width of wetland buffer(s) required for a 153 permitted project, shall be the Base Buffer Width as reduced by beneficial slope 154 or soil conditions pursuant to the following formulas: 155 156 (1) For every 5 percent decrease in average buffer slope from 20 percent, 157 the Base Buffer Width may be reduced 2 feet. 158 159 (2) For every grade of Hydrologic Soil Group above Type D for the 160 predominant buffer soil condition, the Base Buffer Width may be reduced 161 2 feet. 162 163 Reductions for beneficial slope or soil conditions shall not reduce the buffer width 164 to less•than the applicable Minimum Applied Buffer Width. 165 166 (c) Buffer width may vary based on demonstrated site constraints, provided that a 167 width of at least 50 percent of the Applied Buffer Width is maintained at all 168 points, there is no reduction in total buffer area, and the buffer provides wetland 169 and habitat protection at least equivalent to a buffer of uniform Applied Buffer 170 Width. Buffer width averaging calculation will exclude any part of the buffer 171 exceeding 200 percent of the Applied Buffer Width. The area of any path or trail 172 allowed in the buffer will be added to the total area required by the Applied 173 Buffer Width, except that construction of a trail or path of no more than 4 feet in 174 width to provide riparian access through the buffer will not increase the required 175 buffer area. 176 177 (d) The Applied Buffer Width may be further reduced by the District upon a 178 demonstration by the applicant that the proposed buffer conditions clearly provide 6/15/2010 10:23 AM 4 i 179 a higher function and value than would be provided by a buffer of the applicable 180 Applied Buffer Width, but may not be reduced to less than 50 percent of the' 181 applicable Applied Buffer Width. 182 183 (e) The Applied Buffer Width for Linear Reconstruction Projects shall be limited 184 to the extent of available right -of -way. A buffer is not required for resurfacing of 185 an existing road; (sidewalk or trail that does not increase the area of impervious 186 surface. 187 188 (f) The Applied Buffer Width for New Principal Residential Structures shall be 189 limited to 25 percent of the distance between the existing structure at the point 190 that it is nearest to the wetland and the wetland, or 25 feet, whichever is greater, 191 provided that such a buffer shall' not exceed the Base.Buffer Width, and the buffer 192 shall not render a property unbuildable. 193 194 7. WETLAND BUFFER VEGETATION. 195 196 (a) Buffer vegetation shall not be cultivated, cropped, pastured, mowed, fertilized, 197 subject to the placement of mulch or yard waste, or otherwise disturbed, except 198 for periodic cutting or burning that promotes the health of the buffer, actions to 199 address disease or invasive species, mowing for purposes of public safety, 200 temporary disturbance for placement or repair of buried utilities, or other actions ,201 to maintain or improve buffer quality, each as approved by District staff or when 202 implemented pursuant to a written agreement executed with the District. 203 Pesticides and herbicides may be used in accordance with Minnesota Department 204 of Agriculture rules and guidelines. No new structure or hard surface shall be 205 placed within a buffer, except as provided in paragraph 60): No fill, debris or 206 other material shall be excavated .from or placed within a buffer. 207 208 (b) For public land, right -of -way or property held by a homeowner's association, 209 the applicant may comply with paragraphs 5(d), requiring buffer monumentation, 210 7(a), vegetation management, and section 10, Wetland Buffer Monitoring, of this 211 rule by demonstrating that the buffer will be maintained in accordance with a 212 written maintenance agreement with the District meeting the buffer 213 monumentation, vegetation management and wetland buffer monitoring 214 requirements in this rule, listing, required elements of paragraph 9(h), the Wetland 215 Buffer Maintenance Plan, including terms describing in detail the location of 216 wetland buffer on the subject property and providing detailed protocols for buffer 217 maintenance. 218 219 (c) Buffer areas, or portions thereof, that are not vegetated or will be disturbed by 220 grading activities during construction, shall be replanted and maintained 221 according to the following standards: 222 223 (1) Soils must be decompacted to a depth of 18 inches and organic matter 224 must be incorporated into soils before revegetation. Decompaction shall 6/15/2010 10:23 AM 5 225 be accomplished solely by incorporation of organic matter within the drip 226 line or critical root zone of trees or within 10 feet of underground utilities. 227 228 (2) Erosion/sediment control practices, including provisions of sections 5, 229 Erosion Control Plan, and 9, Maintenance, of the District Erosion Control 230 Rule, as appropriate, shall be used during buffer vegetation establishment. 231 232 (3) Buffers shall be planted with a native seed mix and/or native plantings 233 approved by the District. 234 235 (4) Buffer maintenance and monitoring shall be performed in accordance 236 with section 10, Wetland Buffer Monitoring, of this rule. 237 238 8. FINANCIAL ASSURANCE. A performance bond, letter of credit or other 239 financial assurance, consistent with the District Financial Assurance Rule, may be 240 required for any project involving wetland replacement or replanting of wetland 241 buffers. The financial assurance shall be maintained until the monitoring period 242 has ended and District has approved the wetland replacement or establishment of 243 the buffer. 244 245 9. REQUIRED EXHIBITS. The following exhibits shall accompany the 246 Combined Joint Notification (CJN) form: 247 248 (a) Complete delineation report, in accordance with the guidelines provided by the 249 Board of Water and Soil Resources, for any wetland(s) that will be impacted or 250 require a buffer. The report must be approved by the WCA Local Govemment 251 Unit. 252 253 (b) Site plan, one set - full size and one set - reduced to a maximum size of 11" x 254 17 ", showing: 255 256 (1) Property lines and corners and delineation of lands under ownership of 257 the applicant; 258 259 (2) Existing and proposed elevation contours; including the existing 260 runout elevation and flow capacity of the wetland outlet; 261 262 (3) Boundaries of all wetlands on the property; 263 264 (4) Boundaries of all existing or proposed buffers; 265 266 (5) Proposed locations of buffer signage. 267 268 (6) Area of the wetland portion to be filled, drained, or excavated. 269 6/15/2010 10:23 AM 6 270 (c) Identification and area of the total watershed area presently contributing 271 stormwater runoff to the wetland. 272 273 (d) A replacement plan, if required, meeting all the requirements of Minnesota 274 Rules chapter 8420, as amended. Replacement,plans for wetland impacts not 275 subject to the WCA must meet these same requirements. 276 277 (e) For projects involving wetland excavation (including projects deemed self - 278 replacing under paragraph 4(b)), the application shall identify spoils placement on 279 upland and specify how the deposited materials will be stabilized:and vegetated. 280 281 (f) Information showing whether the subject wetland is protected by either the 282 State or municipality or both. 283 284 (g) Wetland Buffer Planting Plan, if required under section 7, Wetland Buffer 285 Vegetation, including: 286 287 (1) Proposed seed mixes and other plant materials to be used; 288 , 289 (2) Seed or plant supplier and origin of materials; 290 291 (3) Seed/planting bed preparation (i.e. disking, raking, clearing, herbicide 292 control, topsoiling, etc.); 293 294 (4) Seeding and/or planting method (i.e. broadcast, drill, etc.); 295 296 (5) Application rate in either pounds of seed per acre and/or the number of 297 plants per unit area if using plugs or seedlings. Specify if using pure live 298 seed (PLS). Higher application rates will be required if not using PLS; 299 300 (6) Detailed erosion control plan for establishing wetland buffer. 301 302 (h) Wetland Buffer Maintenance Plan, if required under section 7, Wetland Buffer 303 Vegetation, including: 304 305 (1) Schedule of establishment and maintenance activities for the first five 306 years of establishment (i.e. watering, burning, mowing, herbicide control, 307 etc.); 308 309 (2) Identification of probable invasive species and steps that will betaken 310 to control the spread of invasive species; 311 312 (3) Inspection methods and schedule for monitoring invasive species and 313 documenting native species germination and establishment. 314 6/15/2010 10:23 AM 7 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345i 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 10. WETLAND BUFFER MONITORING. For buffer areas required to be established or replaced under subsection 7(c), setting standards for buffer establishment and maintenance: (a) Upon final establishment, wetland buffers shall contain little or no bare soil and shall exhibit a dominance of native vegetation. (b).The 7 applicant shall submit to the District-an annual Wetland Buffer Inspection Report on or before January I. of each year for five years. Alternatively, applicants may request that the District perform the Wetland Buffer Inspection and produce the report for a fee equal, to the District's actual costs to perform the work (1) The applicant may submit a written request to cease annual monitoring by year three if the'wetland buffer is well established,pending District approval. (2) If the wetland buffer is poorly established at the end of the five year monitoring period, the District may require continued monitoring and maintenance. (c) The annual Wetland Buffer Inspection Report shall include: (1) Site plan showing: i. Location of permitted -buffer area; ii. Areas of bare soil or erosion; iii. Areas of invasive vegetation; iv. Location and type of any encroachments on the buffer (structures, - unapproved` mowing, trails, etc.) (2) Color photos of the wetland buffer taken during the growing season. Vantage points for these photos shall be labeled on the site plan. (3) Description of buffer vegetation including: i. List of dominant plant species and their estimated percent cover ii. Comparison of the species present to the approved planting/seeding plan. (d) A written narrative that identifies the management strategies that will be utilized during the upcoming growing season to manage invasive species, 6/15/2010 10:23 AM 8 361 362 363 364 365 366 improve percent vegetative cover and species diversity, and mitigate any encroachments on the buffer. enaix is Painter Dutch Lakc Langdon La Long Lake Creek R IL Six Mile Cree r � l N son Lake Creek h , Lake Minnetonka Christmas Lake Lake Virginia \Schutz Lake Minnehaha Creek 367 1 1 6/15/2010 10:23 AM L I MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT 2 BOARD OF MANAGERS 3 4 PWLE P.. PROTECTION RULE 5 6 Proposed Revisions 7 lU...,.....ber- 2C 2009 9 May 20, 10 June 3, 2010 11 12 New Principal Residential Structure means a single - family residential building 13 constructed on undeveloped property zoned for residential use or on a property zoned for 14 residential use from which the principal building has been removed for purposes of 15 constructing a new single - family residential building. 16 17 Linear Reconstruction Project means r-esui::faeing a 7rebuilding a road, sidewalk or trail 18 within existing right -of -way, and may include an increase in the -area of impervious 19 surface. 20 21 22 1. POLICY. It is the policy of the Board of Managers to: 23 24 (a) achieve no net loss in the quantity, quality and biological diversity of 25 Minnesota's existing wetlands; 26 27 (b) increase the quantity, quality and biological diversity of Minnesota's wetlands 28 by restoring or enhancing diminished or drained wetlands; 29 30 (c) avoid direct or indirect impacts from activities that destroy or diminish the 31 quantity, quality and biological diversity of wetlands; 32 33 (d) minimise direct or indirect impacts from activities.that destroy or diminish the 34 quantity, quality and biological diversity of wetlands; 35 36 (e) rectify the impact of any such activity by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring 37 the affected wetland environment; 38 39 (f) reduce or eliminate the impact of such activity over time by preservation and 40 maintenance operation during the life of the activity; 41 42 (g) compensate for the impact on the wetlands by restoring a wetland; 43 44 (h) compensate for the impact on the wetlands by replacing or providing 45 substitute wetland resources or environments; 46 6/15/2010 10:26 AM 47 (i) promote competent administration of the Wetland Conservation Act within the 48 watershed. 49 50 2. REGULATION AUTHORITY TTHO ITV UNDER WETLAND CONSERVATION ACT AND 51 WATERSHED LAW. 52 53 The District regulates activity impacting wetlands pursuant to the Wetland Conservation 54 Act and the Watershed Law. A permit for activities impacting wetlands or tequiring 55 wetland buffers is required as follows: 56 57 (a) In municipalities where the District is the local government unit under the 58 Wetland Conservation Act, a permit is required from the District for any draining 59 or filling of wetlands, or excavation in the'penmanently and semipermanently 60 flooded areas of type 3, 4, or 5 wetlands, and in all wetland types if the excavation 61 results in filling, draining, or conversion to nonwetland. The Wetland 62 Conservation Act, as amended, and its implementing rules as set forth in 63 Minnesota Rules chapter 8420, as amended, specifically including sequencing 64 requirements and all exemptions, are incorporated as a part of this rule. Wetland 65 replacement, where permitted, shall comply with section 3, Wetland 66 Replacement, of this rule. 67 68 (b) A permit is required from the District pursuant to the excavation and buffer 69 provisions in sections 4, Excavation, and 5, Buffer, of this rule, which are adopted 70 under the District's watershed law authority and apply whether or not the District 71 is the Wetland Conservation Act local government unit. Pursuant to this authority 72 and section 4, Excavation, the District requires a permit for excavation in any type 73 of wetland, except where specifically exempted by the Wetland Conservation Act. 74 75 (a) The W°4,..n.l (ease. ,afi .n A..4 7 as amended, anal its implementing roles as s°4 76 , 77 and all exemptions, 78 , and e)ieava4iea in wetlands. in all eases 79 where ° the Distr -iet is the l., a n4 . 4t under- that A n4 i n41, the fellem4ag 80 , shall eemply m4 81 s2Eteir3 , r @ �2�E2i° 4 , .. f tWs Fu ° . The T Di s t fief r vrrl rcdm�;rAster - these 82 en Wetlands GeaseFvatiea Aet regulated wetlands epAy when it sen,es 83 as t—he heeal gevemment . n;4 , n,l°.. the aet 84 85 (a) All ..°4,..na ° .atier. whether- a net :4_;n subjen4 to the WG shall require 86 87 88 (b) The eiieavatien and bu ff- r r-eiisie rseefiens -34; &iearatiea and -4;-5-, 80 Buffer-, below, of tMs nole are adopted under- the DistFiet's water-shed distfiet 90 91 92 6/15/2010 10:26 AM 2 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 3. WETLAND REPLACEMENT . (a) Replacement wetland must be sited in the following order of priority, which replaces the siting priority in Minnesota Rules section 8420.0522, subpart 7, as it -may be amended: (1) On site; (2) Within the same subwatershed as the affected wetland (see Appendix 1); (3) In the Minnehaha Creek watershed. (b) Pursuant to Minnesota Rules section 8420.0522, subp. 7, as it may be .amended, when reasonable, practical and environmentally beneficial replacement opportunities.are not available in a-siting priority area in subsection 3(a), providing replacement priority areas, the applicant may seek opportunities at the • next level. When neither replacement opportunities nor privately banked credits are fiat available in any priority area, the applicant may comply with this section through the purchase of banked credits from the District at the cost to the District to establish credits, so long as the District has determined that sufficient credits are available., . (b) ReplaeeMeii4 wetlands mttst be sized aeeer-ding to the fellev4ag pr- (1 ) Minknuin r-epIaee_;_s_e_;_nA ..ages ssh ,ll be lleterm:..eil by the WC A where 1, 11 be t F' f a f 1 a wed and fer- ea.eh e e e f impeeted weta M\ if replaeffinenA is et . ,:d4a dw saaW ubweAer -s ed as the : eeted tl a tl, pl.,eeinefA r-a fie shall be iner-eased L....,,1,ieheye, eff s.hA- f IIwA.:i4 p e r. e eatages appliesi. . Q5, p .,t ifmpleee.,,e.,t is outside the s,.t,.,,ete. -shed btA .;.>,:., 4,e lk fiffi -e-b- t,., nFeek . ,,,tefshea. 6/15/2010.10:26 AM 3' !rfreeett�.�rzr.» (b) Pursuant to Minnesota Rules section 8420.0522, subp. 7, as it may be .amended, when reasonable, practical and environmentally beneficial replacement opportunities.are not available in a-siting priority area in subsection 3(a), providing replacement priority areas, the applicant may seek opportunities at the • next level. When neither replacement opportunities nor privately banked credits are fiat available in any priority area, the applicant may comply with this section through the purchase of banked credits from the District at the cost to the District to establish credits, so long as the District has determined that sufficient credits are available., . (b) ReplaeeMeii4 wetlands mttst be sized aeeer-ding to the fellev4ag pr- (1 ) Minknuin r-epIaee_;_s_e_;_nA ..ages ssh ,ll be lleterm:..eil by the WC A where 1, 11 be t F' f a f 1 a wed and fer- ea.eh e e e f impeeted weta M\ if replaeffinenA is et . ,:d4a dw saaW ubweAer -s ed as the : eeted tl a tl, pl.,eeinefA r-a fie shall be iner-eased L....,,1,ieheye, eff s.hA- f IIwA.:i4 p e r. e eatages appliesi. . Q5, p .,t ifmpleee.,,e.,t is outside the s,.t,.,,ete. -shed btA .;.>,:., 4,e lk fiffi -e-b- t,., nFeek . ,,,tefshea. 6/15/2010.10:26 AM 3' 139 b. 200 p nt :f,,.,,. peftien efthe °plaeefne A , etla ,a 140 eutside the r, innehah Creek water-shed brit , ,:thi the seven- 141 142 , 143 144 145 etAside the seven eeuaty metfepefitm area. 146 147 «) if the .,ffeeted , .° *land is ° P..°s°,,.° °.. Publ ° Watefs , e flana 148 , the wetland r-ep1aeemenA r-atie 149 . 150 151 (4) if r-ep .,.. ent is a°*°... fined net to be feasible , .;d.:., r, i finehah 152 Grzeek wa4e shed the ° .,1;. ant may, as an aft five to . ..lace. ent 153 outside efthe >, innei,ah Gr-ee, water-shed, ~°brie °r -edits ft °TM the 154 , se long as the Distiet. 155 S& 157 4. EXCAVATION. Excavation in wetlands is subject to the following requirements. 158 159 (a) Excavation is governed by the substantive and procedural standards, criteria 160 and requirements set forth in the Wetland Conservation Act, as amended, and the 161 rules implementing the Wetland Conservation Act as set forth in Minnesota Rules 162 chapter 8420, as amended, including all exemptions, with the exception that 163 replacement for excavation not subject to the Wetland Conservation Act shall be 164 at the ratio of 1 aeFe °f,. °.a°,. °d , .eda d fer- eaeh ° 165 eiEeava4edimpaewWan .2:1. The priority siting requirements of section 3 of this 166 rule, Wetland Replacement, apply to replacement of excavated wetland under this 167 section. 168 169 (,) > meayatie s : wetlands f ,. the », S 170 eemply, in add:+:°„ ,,,;.h the efkefi, deser-i ed in the PNR publ:.., + : °., 171 " 172 173 (be) Excavation of a wetland performed by a publie enfity-for public benefit, 174 including excavation to remove or control invasive species, shall be deemed self - 175 replacing if the applicant demonstrates that the wetland to be excavated is 176 degraded; the proposed activity would increase the wetland's function and value, 177 as determined using the current version of the Minnesota Routine Assessment 178 Method or other method approved by the District; and the enhanced wetland 179 function and value are likely to be preserved. Excavation shall not result in a 180 change of wetland type, unless the applicant demonstrates that public benefit is 181 not obtainable absent such impact. 182 183 (dc) The Wlieefien shall iderAify spoils plaeemea4 en upland and speei�,, 184 how the depesited materials mill be stabilized and vegetated-. 6/15/2010 10:26 AM 4 185 186 , shall eeeuf in the samee 187 subwateFshed as the asseeiated wedand inVaet. 188 189 45. BUFFER. 190 191 (a) Any activity for which a permit is required under 192 atiex), D-(this Wetland Protection Rule,), 193 (the Stormwater Management) Rule or the District Waterbody Crossings and 194 Structures Rule, and New Principal Residential Structure 195 construction that increases the imperviousness of the subject parcel must 196 provide for a -buffer adjacent to each wetland and public waters wetland:. e€ 197 To the extent the buffer requirement applies to a proposed 198 New Principal Residential Structure, it will be applied in accordance with 199 protections afforded a zoning nonconformity under state law so as not to 200 unduly restrict the proposed action. Buffer must be provided on that part of 201 the wetland edge that is downgradient from the activity or construction and 202 around each wetland that will be disturbed. 203 204 The buffer- -Aidt ,,:II be deteE... i ea in aeeer-danee . ,:� ..ee fie., 5 of tl s Fine 205 206 . 207 (1) On that paFt of the wedand edge that is deA%gr-adient fiem thea !a 208 ; 209 210 . 211 212 (eb) The bBuffer width will be determined in accordance with section 36, Buffer 213 Width, of this rule. 214 215 (bc) A-bu fefBuffers shall be documented by declaration or other recordable 216 instrument approved by the District and recorded in the office of the county 217 recorder or registrar before activity under the MCWD permit commences. A 218 buffer on public land or right -of -way may be documented in a written agreement 219 executed with the District in place of a recorded instrument. The agreement shall 220 state that if the land containing the buffer is conveyed, the public body shall 221 require the buyer to comply with this subsection. 222 223 (ded) A permanent wetland buffer monument shall be installed at each lot line 224 where it crosses a wetland buffer, and where needed to indicate the contour of the 225 buffer, with a maximum spacing of 100 feet. Language shall indicate the purpose 6/15/2010 10:26 AM 5 226 of the buffer, restrictions, and the name and phone number of the Minnehaha 227 Creek Watershed District. On public land, or right -of -way, the monumentation 228 requirement may be satisfied by the use of a marker flush to the ground or 229 breakaway markers of durable material. At the request of the applicant, the 230 District shall provide wetland buffer monuments at production cost. 231 232 3:6. BUFFER WIDTH. 233 234 (a) The Base Buffer Width wil4shall be determined by the management class of 235 the wetland as evaluated by the District's Functional Assessment of Wetlands or 236 by the current version of the Minnesota Routine Assessment Method (MnRAM). 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 Management Class Base Buffer Width Minimum Applied Buffer Width Manage 3 20 feet 16 feet Manage 2 30 feet 24 feet Manage 1 40 feet 34' feet Preserve 75 feet 67 feet (b) The Applied Buffer Width, the actual width of wetland buffer(s) required for a permitted project, i-sshall be the Base Buffer Width as reduced by beneficial slope or soil conditions pursuant to the following formulas applies !e pr-eduee the maKimum Aid : (1) For every 5 percent ;neFeasedecrease in average buffer slope from 4-520 percent, the base' offer- m4dth shall be i e Base Buffer Width may be reduced 2 feet. 248 (2) Dose buffer- v4dths shall be ; e ea 2 feet f r ever-Y grade e 249 .For every grade of Hydrologic Soil 250 Group above Type D for the predominant buffer soil condition, the Base 251 Buffer Width may be reduced 2 feet. 252 253 Reductions for beneficial slope or soil conditions shall not reduce the buffer width 254 to less than the applicable Minimum Applied Buffer Width. 255 256 (e) The buff ff ....0 1, ri. . be ..edueea if the total a e ftl,e buff-e# erweeds the 257 Mr-ea effsthe wetland it is- pr-eteeting. 258 259 (dc) Buffer width may vary based on demonstrated site constraints, provided that 260 a width of at least 50 percent of the Applied Buffer Width is maintained at all 261 points, there is no reduction in total buffer area, and the buffer provides wetland 262 and habitat protection at least equivalent to a buffer of uniform Applied Buffer 263 Width. Buffer width averaging calculation will exclude any part of the buffer 264 exceeding 200 percent of the Applied Buffer Width. The width area of any 265 path or trail allowed in the buffer will be aed e *ea ft em added to the 6/15/2010 10:26 AM 6 266. total area required by the Applied Buffer Width'' th �, except 267 that construction of a trail or path of no more than 4 feet in. width to provide 268 riparian access through the buffer will not increase the required buffer area. 269 270 (ed) An appl , eat Fn&y o est flexibili: , f a _educe vievi—And- bu ff- is y4dth 4:+ 271 The Applied Buffer Width may further reduced by the District 272' upon a demonstration by the applicant that the ,proposed buffer conditions clearly 273 pFevidesprovide a higher function and value than would be provided by a buffer 274 of the Fule. - applicable Applied Buffer Width, but may not be 275 reduced to less than 50 percent of the applicable Applied Buffer Width. 276 277 (€e) The Applied Buffer -Width for Linear Reconstruction Projects shall be limited 278 to the extent of available right -of -way. A buffer is not required for resurfacing of 279 an existing road, sidewalk or trail that does not increase the area of impervious 280 surface. 281. 282 (go The Applied Buffer Width for New Principal Residential Structures shall be 283 limited to 25 percent of the distance between the existing structure at the point 284 that it is nearest to the wetland and the wetland, or 25 feet, whichever is greater, 285 provided that such a buffer shall not exceed the Base Buffer Width, and the buffer 286 shall not render a property unbuildable. 287 288 6:7. WETLAND BUFFER VEGETATION. 289 290 , 291 o *t.,.,a �..,�x �i..;tt „ :� ',.� 0V104 , ege+eAye -A ith IMe it a bA e soil 292 0 293e- 294 295 (ba) Buffer vegetation shall not be cultivated, cropped, pastured, mowed, 296 fertilized, subject to the placement of mulch or yard waste, or otherwise disturbed, 297 except for periodic cutting or burning that promotes the health of the buffer, 298 actions to address disease or invasive species, mowing for purposes of public 299 safety, temporary disturbance for placement or repaii of buried utilities, or other 360 actions to maintain or improve buffer quality, each as. approved by District staff or 301 when implemented pursuant, .to a written agreement executed with the District., 302 Pesticides and herbicides may be used in accordance with Minnesota Department 303 of Agriculture rules and guidelines. No new structure or hard surface shall be 304 placed within a buffer, except as provided in paragraph 6(d). No fill, debris or 305 other material shall be excavated from or placed within a buffer. 306 307 (b) For public land, right -of -way or property held by a homeowner's association, 308 the applicant may comply with paragraphs 5(d), requiring buffer monumentation, 309 7(a), vegetation management, and section 910, Wetland Buffer Monitoring, of this 310 rule by demonstrating that the buffer will be maintained in accordance with a 311 written maintenance agreement with the District meeting the buffer 6/15/2010 10:26 AM 7 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 .346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 monumentation, vegetation management and wetland buffer monitoring requirements in this rule, listing required elements of paragraph 89(h), the Wetland Buffer Maintenance Plan, including terms. in`detail the location of wetland buffer on the subject property and providing detailed protocols for buffer maintenance. (c) Buff& areas, `or portions thereof, that are not vegetated or will be.disturbed by grading activities during construction, shall hie replanted and maintained according to the following standards. (1) Soils must be decompacted to a depth of 18 inches and organic matter must be in into soils before revegetation. Decompaction shall be accomplished solely by incorporation of organic matter within -the drip line or critical root zone of trees or within 10. feet of underground utilities.. (2) Erosion/sediment control practices, including provisions of sections 5, Erosion Control Plan, and 9, Maintenance, of the District Erosion Control Rule, as appropriate, shall be used during buffer vegetation establishment. (3) Buffers shall be planted with a native seed mix and/or native plantings approved by the District. (4) Buffer maintenance and monitoring shall be performed in accordance with section 10,' Wetland Buffer Monitoring, of this rule. 8. PE FOR M (lrm O T EgPT-E QF nR EDIT FINANCIAL ASSURANCE. A performance bond, or- letter of credit, or other financial assurance, consistent with the District Per fe,..,, ee Bond or r eaeaf of C..oa:* Financial Assurance Rule, may be required for any project involving wetland replacement or replanting.of wetland buffers. The'-e-ia A-F 164 financial assurance shall be maintained until the monitoring period has ended and District has approved the wetland replacement or establishment of the buffer.. -5-.9. REQUIRED EXHIBITS.. The following exhibits shall accompany the Combined Joint Notification (CJN) form: one set ffiall size; eneset- edAeed -te 6/15/2010 10:26 AM 8 357 (ha) Complete delineation report, in accordance with the guidelines provided by 358 the Board of Water and Soil Resources, for any wetland(s) that will be impacted 359 or require a buffer. The report must be approved by the WCA Local Government 360 Unit. , ' 361 �field indie4er-s (see s i ydr- e,,.,,. ap , ..otafi a) as s e ,'A 362 363 ef the State (May 1 Oetpber- 4 5). Delineation I s . peFfiaFrA I ed.eu4side ef this time 364 ' 365 366 in the field. 367 368 (a)(b) Site plan, one set - full size and one set - reduced to a maximum size of 11" 369 x 17 ", showing:. 370 371 (1) Property lines and corners and delineation of lands under ownership of 372 the applicant; 373 374 (2) Existing and proposed elevation contours; including the existing 375 runout elevation and flow capacity of the wetland outlet; 376 377 (3) Boundaries of all wetlands on the property; 378 379 (4) Boundaries of all existing or proposed buffers; 380 381 (5) Proposed, locations of buffer signage. 382 383 (36) Area of the wetland portion to be filled, drained, or excavated. 384 385 (c) Identification and area of the total watershed. area presently contributing 386 stormwater runoff to the wetland. 387 388 (d) A replacement plan, if required; 389 390 391 -.-meeting 392 all the requirements of Minnesota Rules chapter 8420, as amended. Replacement 393 plans for wetland impacts not subject to the WCA must meet these same .394 requirements. 395 396 (e) Wetlands pr-epeseedd te bbee Few.eavated fer. Aildlife ponds must alse submit 397 398 . 399 400 (1) Ponds sheuld be ifFegulaf shaped—An- 9-1 -A size ef 2 401' squue feet 402 6/15/2010 10:26 AM 9 403 (2) Pend depth net to erweed 5 feet and te have an undtdating 404 bettem 405 406 . 407 408 409 (4) The spoil dispesal site must be identified and f6und net te 410 , we 411 , 412 , fill may be plaeed in a wetland subjeet 4e the Wetia 413 414 103 241, subd, 10. 415 416 417 being seeded te native grasses fer- a ffik4mum ef 150 gaet afei 418 the -dugeut 419 420 (6) The reserved efganie eils sheWd be spread ever- the entire 421 422 423 (e) For projects involving wetland excavation (including projects deemed self - 424 replacing under paragraph 4(b)), the application shall identify spoils placement on 425 upland and specify how the deposited materials will be stabilized and vegetated. 426 427 (f) Information showing whether the subject wetland is protected by either the 428 State or municipality or both. 429 430 (g) Wetland Buffer Planting Plan, if required under section 7, Wetland Buffer 431 Vegetation, including: 432 433 („ The i, e-atie AS -Pave- fl-a .a buffer- s e; 434 435 (1) Proposed seed mixes and other plant materials to be used; 436 437 (2) Seed or plant supplier and origin of materials; 438 439 (3) Seed/planting bed preparation (i.e. disking, raking, clearing, herbicide 440 control, topsoiling, etc.); 441 442 (4) Seeding and/or planting method (i.e. broadcast, drill, etc.); 443 444 (5) Application rate in either pounds of seed per acre and/or the number of 445 plants per unit area if using plugs or seedlings. Specify if using pure 446 live seed (PLS). Higher application rates will be required if not using 447 PLS; 448 6/15/2010 10:26 AM 10 449 (6) Detailed erosion control plan for establishing wetland buffer.. 450 451 (h) Wetland Buffer Maintenance Plan, if required under section 7, Wetland 452 Buffer Vegetation, including: 453 r 454 (1) Schedule of establishment and maintenance activities for the first five 455 years of establishment (i.e. watering, burning, mowing, herbicide 456 control, etc.); 457 458 (2) Identification. of probable invasive species and steps that will be taken 459 to control the spread of invasive species; 460 461 (3) Inspection methods and schedule for monitoring invasive species and 462 documenting native species germination and establishment. 463 464 9-.10. WETLAND BUFFER MONITORING. For buffer areas required to be established 465 or replaced under subsection 7(c), setting standards for buffer establishment and 466 maintenance: 467 468 (a) Upon final establishment, wetland buffers shall contain little or no bare soil 469. and shall exhibit a dominance of native vegetation. 470 471 (b) The applicant shall submit to the District an annual Wetland Buffer Inspection 472 Report on or before January 1 of each year for five years.. Alternatively, 473 applicants may request that the District perform the Wetland Buffer Inspection 474 and produce the report for a fee equal to the District's actual costs to perform 475 the work. i 476 477 (1) The applicant may submit a written request to cease annual monitoring .. 4.78 by year three if the wetland buffer`is well established pending District 479 approval. 480 481 (2) If the wetland buffer is poorly established at the end of the five year 482 monitoring period, the District may require continued monitoring and 483. maintenance. 484 485 (c) The annual Wetland Buffer Inspection Report shall include: 486 487 (1) Site plan showing: 488 489 i. Location of aevedpermitted 490 buffer vegetmie area; 491 492 ii. Areas of bare soil. or erosion; 493 494 iii. Areas of.invasive vegetation; 6/15/2010 10:26 AM 11 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 5.07 508 .509 510 51`1 512 . 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 iv. Location and type of any encroachments on the buffer (structures, unapproved mowing, trails, etc.) (2) Color photos of the wetland buffer taken during the growing season. Vantage points for these photos shall be labeled on.the site plan. (3) Description of buffer, vegetation including: i. List of dominant plant species and their estimated percent cover. MO the „: _ . . used; ii. Comparison of the species present to the approved planting/seeding plan. (d) A written narrative that identifies the management strategies that will, be utilized during the upcoming growing season to manage invasive species, improve percent vegetative cover and species diversity, and mitigate any encroachments on the buffer. 6/15/2010 10:26 AM 12 522 523 Annenaix 1: Long Lake Creek Painter Creek Gleason Lake Creek Dutch Lake innehaha Creek •R Langdon Lake }` Lake Minnetonka -Yq Christmas Lake Lake Virginia a- Schutz Lake Six Mile Cree 524 525 Mississippi River- Major- c<,� Wate,. Water-shed Unit (Ne 2-0 526 6/15/2010 10:26 AM 13 MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT STATEMENT OF NEED AND REASONABLENESS Proposed Amendments to Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Rules June 14, 2010 PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD July B, 2010 I. BACKGROUND This Statement of Need and Reasonableness (-SONAR) presents background on and explains proposed amendments to the following rule of the Minnehaha'Creek Watershed District: • Wetland Protection Rule The SONAR has been revised since it was issued along with the draft proposed amendments to the Wetland Protection Rule and now explains the decisions made by the District Board of Managers in revising the rule. in response to comments received during two separate public comment periods providedby the District. The revisions to the SONAR address substantive changes to the rule made since it was first issued for public comment in November 2009 and provide clarifications on the operation of the rule in response to issues identified during the comment periods. The amendments contribute to the implementation of-the policies, standards and goals of the District's third - generation Watershed Management Plan, adopted on July 5, 2007. The amendments also represent improvements based on the District's. experience applying its rules, and are designed to improve the rules' effectiveness in protecting water resources without imposing unreasonable compliance burdens on permit holders. This statement of need and reasonableness describes the basis for the District Board of Managers' determination that the revisions are both beneficial and reasonable. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 103D.341, the. proposed amendments were issued for a 45 -day public comment period that ended January 15, 2010. The Board of Managers encouraged all interested parties to comment on the rule or otherwise provide any information that might lead to further improvements to the rule. State and regional resource protection agencies, local governments and potentially regulated parties were particularly invited to engage in a review of the proposed amendments for the purpose of making the Wetland Protection Rule as resource protective as possible without incurring excessive administrative costs or placing an undue burden on those subject to the rule. The District received comments on the proposed amendments from many cities, state agencies, parks agencies, private developers and the Metropolitan Council. After the 45 -day period for written comments, the District held a public hearing to gather additional comments. After the original comment period, the District conducted additional public meetings on the draft revision, comments and responses, and participated in several meetings on the rule held by other groups, such as representatives of watershed cities. The District considered carefully all comments received. The Board of Managers reviewed and discussed the comments and responses drafted by staff at a series of meetings, then directed staff to make responsive changes to the rule text. The revised amendments were distributed in mid - March 2010 via the District's website and sent to everyone who had submitted comments, along with explanations of changes made to the rule and clarifications. Because the District made substantial changes to the proposed wetland rule amendments in response to the comments, the Board of Managers elected to again post the rules for an open public comment period. The District accepted comments until April 12, 2010, and staff again compiled them for review, along with proposed responses, by the Board of Managers. The Board directed staff to make further responsive changes and issue the revised amendments, then schedule a public hearing forJuly 8, 2010. The District anticipates that the amendments will be finalized for adoption after the July hearing. Legal Authority Legal authority for the District's rules derives from Minnesota Statutes Chapters 103B and 103D. Under Minnesota Statutes section 103D.341, subdivision 1, watershed districts must adopt rules "to accomplish the purposes of [the Watershed Act] and to implement the powers of the managers." These purposes include, among others, conservation of water for public uses; controlling erosion and siltation of lakes, streams and wetlands; and protecting water quality in these bodies.' District managers are further authorized to regulate and control the use of water within the watershed district, regulate the use of streams and watercourses to prevent pollution, ' Minn. Stat. § 103D.201, subd. 2. 2 Revised Amendments to MCWD Wetland Protection Rule June 15, 2010 Statement of Need and Reasonableness and regulate the use and development of land in collaboration with watershed cities.2 District rules, and revisions to the rules, must be adopted by a majority vote of the Board of Managers, after public notice and hearing.3 Before adoption, a copy of the proposed rules must be provided to the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) and all public transportation authorities for a 45 -day period of review and comment.4 11. INTRODUCTION The Wetland Protection Rule is the sixth of the District's rules to be revised following the adoption of the revised watershed plan. Revisions to the District's Erosion Control, Floodplain Alteration, Dredging and Waterbody Crossings and Structures rules have been adopted and will be effective September 1, 2010. The revised amendments to the Wetland Protection Rule were issued simultaneously with the revised amendments to the Shoreline & Streambank Improvements Rule. Watershed Plan In mid 2007, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District adopted its third - generation watershed plan. The plan presents ambitious policies and goals for the protection of water resources in the 178- square mile Minnehaha Creek watershed in Hennepin and Carver counties. The amendments introduced here represent an integral part of the plan's multifaceted implementation strategy. The amendments are part of the, performance -based management strategy at the heart of the plan's implementation program. Collective Experience The amendments also reflect the District's experience implementing, administering and enforcing its rules. The size of and the intensity of development activity in the watershed give District staff ample opportunity to apply the rules. Staff have compiled notes and suggestions for improvements, as well as questions and comments from permit applicants, since the rules were last amended (a round of housekeeping updates in 2005). Z Minn. Stat. § 103D.335, subds. 10, 16, and 23; § 10313.211, subd. 1. 3 Minn. Stat. § 103D.341, subds. 1, 2(a). 4 /d., at subd. 2(b). 3 Revised Amendments to MCWD Wetland Protection Rule June 15, 2010 Statement of Need and Reasonableness ° Stakeholder Participation The District developed and implemented an extensive stakeholder involvement program for its rulemaking, including a Technical Advisory Committee and a Rulemaking Task Force that reviewed all of the background issues and drafts of the amendments. The District made concerted efforts to ensure that the task force membership represented a broad spectrum of interested watershed residents - from developers, builders and business representatives to citizens, public and private environmental professionals, and environmental advocates. Several members of the task force came from the District's standing Citizens Advisory Committee. (See Table 1, Rulemaking Task Force members.) Members were chosen not only to achieve broad representation, but also on the basis of their individual experience and interest in the District rulemaking. The task force met with District staff and consultants to guide the rulemaking process in accordance with the policies and goals in the plan. Beginning in May 2007, the task force met monthly to study plan policies, staff reports and other relevant information, and develop effective approaches to implementation. (One or more District managers attended the task force meetings, but principally to hear the discussion and opinions firsthand, rather than actively participate. The managers generally confined their input on the rulemaking to relevant meetings of the Board and workshops with staff.) Members reviewed and commented on draft amendment language as it was developed subsequent to the initial policy and implementation alternatives discussions. The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) included water management experts from local governments, public parks organizations, and county, regional and state agencies. Rather than limiting membership in the technical group to a particular defined set of individuals, the District left TAC membership open, and invited interested organizations to send the member or members of their staff who were particularly well- versed in a topic to attend the meeting focused on that topic. (See Table 2, a list of individuals who participated in meetings of the TAC.) Members of the technical group regularly work with the District and are familiar with the history of its regulatory program and its day -to -day integration with their programs and activities. The TAC provided input on the recommendations that emerged from the Rulemaking Task Force, with particular attention to the technical feasibility of proposed rule provisions. Like the task force, the TAC members commented on draft rule 4 Revised Amendments to MCWD Wetland Protection Rule June 15, 2010 Statement of Need and Reasonableness amendment language as it was developed and reviewed by the Board of Managers in response to input from the advisory groups. In some places the groups' input prompt the District to rethink and revise its approach, and in others the groups offered language changes that clarified and improved the proposed amendment. Ill. WETLAND PROTECTION RULE The Wetland Protection Rule works in harmony with the District's capital improvements program, land conservation program and educational efforts to promote the conservation and restoration of wetlands in the watershed. The revisions to the rule reflect the emphasis in the District watershed plan on wetlands protection that accounts for not only the quantity and size of wetlands, but also the functions and values provided by wetlands - wetland qualities such as biological diversity. This approach is grounded in the District's commitment to the statewide policies of ensuring no net loss and avoiding direct and indirect impacts to the quantity, quality and biological diversity of wetlands. The proposed changes provide protection to watershed wetlands beyond what is achieved under the state Wetland Conservation Act (WCA), while also accounting for site - specific conditions and providing implementation flexibility to land owners. The District's authority to afford greater protection to wetlands under its rules than is provided under WCA is affirmed by Minnesota Rules 8420.0233. The draft amendments to Wetland Protection Rule drew a substantial number and variety of comments, and the District made substantial revisions to address misunderstandings and to more effectively protect wetlands in harmony with state law and watershed municipalities' ordinances. The District also incorporated provisions to ensure that property owners in the watershed - especially those developing or redeveloping property for a single- family home - would not be unduly burdened when the rule applies to their projects. In addition to the substantive changes made in response to public comments, the revised amended rule includes explanatory language added to section and paragraph cross - references to make the rule easier to understand and follow. (The two new definitions introduced along with the amendment revisions - for "New Principal Residential Structure" and "Linear Reconstruction Project" - were drafted and included with the rule text to facilitate clear understanding of the application of the 5 Revised Amendments to MCWD Wetland Protection Rule June 15, 2010 Statement of Need and Reasonableness wetland buffer provisions of the rule to single - family properties ( "New Principal Residential Structure ") and road projects ( "Linear Reconstruction Project "). The new definitions are discussed and explained below. Ultimately they will appear in the definitions section of the District rules.) Policy The sole addition to the Wetland Protection Rule's policies - paragraph 1(i) - reflects the plan's goal of ensuring that the Wetland Conservation Act is competently administered throughout the watershed (see goal 11.5 in section 5 of the 2007 plan). Improved administration of WCA will be achieved through implementation of the amended rule by District staff and coordination of WCA administration with watershed cities and other LGUs. Otherwise, the wetlands- management policies continue to mirror the policies of the state Wetland Conservation Act, as recognized in the District plan. (See Minnesota Statutes section 103G.222, subdivision 1(b) and Minnesota Rule 8420.0100, as well as goal 11 in section 5 of the plan.) The rule also has been revised in conformity with recently adopted revised WCA rules, and continues to complement the state rules. Regulatory Scope The District wetland rule does not apply significantly more broadly under the revised amendments than it does under.the existing rule. After the initial public comment period, the regulation section was redrafted in response to comments that indicated substantial uncertainty as to when the rule applies. The revised regulatory section is restructured to emphasize which provisions will be administered by the District as WCA local government unit and which will be administered under the District's Watershed Law authority (see Minnesota Statutes chapters 1036 and 103D). The rule applies as follows: 1. In watershed municipalities where the District serves as the WCA local government unit (LGU), the District will apply WCA (including the WCA exemptions), as modified by the Wetland Protection Rule's stricter - than -WCA replacement siting requirements (section 3), as well as its excavation regulations (section 4) and the District buffer provisions (sections 5 -7, 10); 6 Revised Amendments to MCWD Wetland Protection Rule June 15, 2010 Statement of Need and Reasonableness 2. In watershed municipalities where the District is notthe WCA, the District will apply its excavation regulations and the District buffer provisions.5 The disparity between wetlands regulation in the two areas will be remedied over time, because a watershed city that serves as the WCA LGU within its jurisdiction ultimately will have to bring its wetland controls (ordinances) up to par with the District's rule through the local water management plan review and approval process.6 In response to confusion expressed during the comment period, the District added language (in paragraph 2(a)) to clarify. that it will not regulate wetlands that are exempted from regulation under WCA.7 (See Minn. Stat. § 103G.2241; Minn. R. 8420.0420.) Neither the excavation (section 4) nor the buffer requirements of the rule (sections 5 -7, 10) will apply to WCA- exempt wetlands. This fact is clarified in section 4 and is implicit in the buffer sections: These impacts to wetlands that fall within the scope of WCA regulation, but are specifically exempted by statute and rule, and District wetland permitting requirements also will not apply. Applicability of the Wetland Protection Rule to Road Projects Among other purposes, the revisions to the sections 2 and 3 of the rule were made to clarify the application of the rule to road projects. For state road projects, the Department of Transportation (MnDOT) will most often be the LGU, so the replacement provisions in section 3 will not apply to WCA - regulated wetlands (see Minn. R. 8420.0200, subp. 1 Q. The District will regulate excavation of non -WCA wetlands and require buffers for MnDOT projects in accordance with the terms of sections 4 and 5- 7, 10 (see Minn. Stat. § 103D.345, subd. 5). 5 The general applicability of the buffer requirement is provided in paragraph 2(b), with specifics provided in paragraph 5(a). 6 See Minn. Stat. § 1036.235; section. 7.1.2, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan, 2007. Watershed municipalities' official controls must be amended, if necessary, to ensure that they are at least as protective as the District's rules within one year of the city's receiving notice of the District's rule update. Alternatively, the city can elect at any time to have the District apply its rule to projects in the city's jurisdiction. 7 The District will not regulate incidental wetlands, which are outside the scope of WCA as described in Minn. R. 8420.0105, but treated as exempt in statute (Minn. Stat. § 103G.2241, subd. 5). 7 Revised Amendments to MCWD Wetland Protection Rule June 15, 2010 Statement of Need and Reasonableness Local governments' road projects will be subject to the replacement requirements of section 3 for WCA wetland impacts when the District is the LGU only if the project is "nonqualifying" under Minn. R. 8420.0544 (that is; the project builds a new road, expands an existing road to solely to increase capacity or does not comply with the state rule requirements in part D of 8420.0544). Qualifying road projects - those that repair, rehabilitate, reconstruct or replace a roadway to comply with design and /or safety standards and do comply with Minn. R. 8420.0544D - need not submit a replacement plan for WCA - regulated wetland impacts. Both qualifying and nonqualifying projects must comply with the District's excavation and buffer requirements. In both cases, the District rule provisions have been crafted to provide flexibility appropriate to the constraints under which such projects are undertaken (e.g., restricted available right -of -way in which wetland buffer can be established; see paragraph 6(f)). Siting of Replacement Wetlands The revised proposed additions to the District's wetlands - replacement siting provisions would direct project proposers to replace wetlands onsite when impacts are unavoidable. The in -kind replacement requirements in the current rule are proposed to be deleted, as they duplicate the requirements of section 8420.0522, subpart 3, in the WCA rules as updated in August 2009. In response to concerns that the replacement ratios in the draft amendments were too onerous, the District opted to eliminate the ratios introduced in the November 2009 proposed amendments and instead rely on the WCA sequencing standards and the replacement wetland size criteria in Minnesota Rule 8420.0522, subpart 4, in conjunction with the siting hierarchy in paragraph (a) of section 3 to ensure that wetlands impacts are replaced as close to the affected wetland as possible - a policy of particular importance to the Board of Managers. Enhancing the emphasis on this policy, the options for replacement siting have been simplified with a three -tier hierarchy to ensure that replacement wetlands are sited within the watershed. The subwatersheds referred to in this section are the same as described in the District's 2007 plan, and a new map is added to the revised proposed amendments as Appendix 1. The District is keenly aware that suitable replacement sites are scarce in some corners of the Minnehaha Creek watershed, and compliance with the siting requirements in subsection 3(a) is facilitated by the banking options provided in paragraph 3(b). The 8 Revised Amendments to MCWD Wetland Protection Rule June 15, 2010 Statement of Need and Reasonableness District intends to plan and implement wetland creation and restoration projects in critical locations within the watershed, and enroll these wetlands in a District bank that will be created under WCA and registered with BWSR. The District bank is intended to ensure that applicants who cannot comply with the siting criteria in subsection 3(a) have other options for compliance, while ensuring that replacement takes place within the watershed. In addition, in the wake of the second comment period, the District added language allowing the District bank to be used on /ywhen credits also are not available from a private bank. The provision is meant to prevent the District bank from discouraging private investment creating wetland banks in the watershed. The Board of Managers felt that the District bank should be in place to facilitate the administration of the District's siting priorities, but should serve as the last resort for applicants. The banking options in section 3(b) would be available for 'nonqualifying' road projects even when credits from the BWSR state wetland bank are not available. Other applicants may also pursue the banking alternatives, although it is the experience of the District that most private development applicants are able to mitigate wetland impacts onsite. Excavation In addition to clarifying how excavation in wetlands is covered by the rule, as discussed above, the District has added language to what is now section 4 of the rule to make the operation of the excavation provisions applicable to non -WCA wetlands clearer as well. In response to comments, the replacement ratio is stated in simple terms - 2:1. That the siting requirements of section 3 apply to replacement of excavation impacts not regulated by WCA is made explicit in paragraph 4(a). The District expects that the typical project triggering this section will involve excavation in a Type 1 or 2 wetland - though excavation in a Type 6, 7 or 8 wetland also would be regulated. In keeping with direction from the Board of Managers, one purpose of section 4 is to discourage conversion of such wetlands to other types of wetlands or ponds during property development or redevelopment. As a result, excavation that changes the wetland type will not be authorized unless it achieves a public benefit that cannot be obtained by other means (seethe last sentence of paragraph 4(b)). In response to comments, the District has broadened the applicability of the exemption from the replacement requirement for excavation that produces a public benefit 9 Revised Amendments to MCWD Wetland Protection Rule June 15, 2010 Statement of Need and Reasonableness (paragraph 4(b)). The exemption now applies whether the project proponent is a public entity or not. The other factors necessary for excavation to be exempt remain: The wetland must be degraded and the project proposed must improve function and value. The control or removal of invasive species has been added as a specific example of a type of qualifying public benefit, but the District specifically eschewed defining the term "public benefit" to allow for project- and circumstances - specific analysis as a part of permit application analysis. Buffers The District's proposed buffer -width requirements drew extensive comments and discussion. The Rulemaking Task Force convened on six different occasions to discuss buffers, and the draft provisions were carefully crafted and revised to accomplish District wetland - protection goals in light of stakeholder input. The proposed buffer regulations also reflect the benefit of the substantial review of literature on wetland buffers conducted by District staff, consultants and stakeholders. Among the studies that form the basis for the proposed rule are: • "Benefits of Wetland Buffers: A Study of Functions, Values and Size," conducted by Emmons and Olivier Resources Inc. (EOR) for the District in 2001 and updated in 2004; • "Case Study No. 6: Assessing Vegetated Buffers Using Synthetic Residential Runoff," completed by Westwood Professional Services in 2007 for the Builders Association of the Twin Cities (BATC), the Metropolitan Council and the National Association of Home Builders, and supplemented by a 2007 Minnesota Water Conference presentation; • "Review of BATC Wetland Buffer Case Study," prepared by FOR in February 2008 specifically for the District rulemaking process; • "Further Assessment of Buffer Widths" and "Follow -up Questions from Further Assessment of Buffer Widths," completed by FOR for the District, July 31, 2008, and September 8, 2008; and • "Functional Assessment of Wetlands Within Minnehaha Creek Watershed District," completed in 2003. The methodologies and findings of these studies were presented in detail to and discussed at length by the stakeholder groups. 10 Revised Amendments to MCWD Wetland Protection Rule June 15, 2010 Statement of Need and Reasonableness The 2001 District study by FOR was based on a review of more than 300 peer- reviewed and university - published articles. The study also was informed by the International Best Management Practice Database, compiled by the Environmental Protection Agency and the American Society of Civil Engineers, among others. The District study found that virtually all wetlands benefit from well - established and - maintained buffer. Buffer improves water quality by capturing sediment and nutrients, and it moderates runoff temperature fluctuations. It provides flood protection, bank stabilization and habitat, as well as aesthetic quality. Buffer also inhibits people from accessing and damaging wetlands. Scope of the Buffer Requirement The delineation of activities triggering the District's buffer requirement underwent some revision in response to comments received on the amendments posted in November 2009. The changes clarified the applicability of the buffer provisions, but did not substantially expand them - buffers continue to be required to protect wetlands protected by WCA and by the District under the Watershed Law, as well as public waters wetlands (regulated by the Department of Natural Resources). The only extension of the requirement under the revised amendments is to certain, narrowly defined single - family home developments and redevelopments, and even then, only when impervious surface is added to the project parcel (see paragraph 5(a)). The District drafted a new term - "New Principal Residential Structure" - to allow for precise description of the activities on single - family properties that would, even if a permit under another District rule is not required, trigger the buffer requirement. The revised provision will require wetland buffers only when a new home is built on a property already zoned for residential use or when the existing home is razed and a new one built on a parcel zoned for residential use. However, the provision is limited to circumstances where the construction project adds impervious surface to the parcel; reconstruction within the footprint of the existing structure does not trigger the buffer requirement. (Subdivision and development,of multiple properties will in all imaginable scenarios trigger the District's stormwater rule, and thereby trigger buffer requirements that will most often be met through a subdivision -wide plan.) The District wetland buffer provisions will not apply to remodeling projects, and there is no reasonably imaginable scenario in which a buffer would be required on a parcel that is only minimally disturbed. 11 Revised Amendments to MCWD Wetland Protection Rule June IS, 2010 Statement of Need and Reasonableness The paragraph defining the regulatory scope for the buffer requirement also has been amended to reference the special status that building nonconformities enjoy under state law (see Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 1 e). The addition provides assurance that the buffer requirement will not be applied to restrict the repair, maintenance or replacement of a residential structure on a nonconforming parcel. The District also has removed its Floodplain Alteration Rule from the list of regulated activities triggering the buffer requirement, in recognition of the fact that if a shoreline project does not disturb a nearby wetland (which would trigger the buffer requirement if the impact on the wetland is permanent and regulated), there is no basis for application of the buffer requirement. Finally, in response to concerns expressed during the comment period, the District has removed the originally proposed requirement that buffer be provided around the entirety of a wetland downgradient from a disturbance. The revised amendments retain the existing requirement of buffer only on the wetland edge downgradient from the disturbance (see paragraph 6(a)). Buffer also will still be required around the entirety of a wetland disturbed in the course of a project, as under the current rule. Monumentation The rule's buffer - monumentation amendment in paragraph 5(d) has been modified as it applies to public land, including right -of -way, to allow for the use of markers flush to the ground or breakaway markers. This is one of two revisions to the original proposed amendments designed to provide flexibility for managers of Large buffer areas on public land that present unique monumentation, maintenance and monitoring challenges (see also options for programmatic approaches to buffer maintenance in paragraph 7(b)). In addition, after the second round of comments revealed potential applicants' concerns about the cost and availability of monumentation, the District agreed to provide appropriate signage or markers at its cost to produce. (See paragraph 5(d).) Buffer Widths The initial basic presumption presented by District staff and strongly supported by the research reviewed - that higher - quality wetlands ought to be protected by wider buffers - was accepted by the stakeholders. From there, staff, the Board of Managers, the Rulemaking Task Force and Technical Advisory Committee examined several 12 Revised Amendments to MCWD Wetland Protection Rule June 15, 2010 Statement of Need and Reasonableness possible systems for setting buffer widths. There was strong support among stakeholders to the proposed, switch from the existing system, under which the buffer width required is based on wetland size (area), to a wetland quality -based system, involving an assessment of wetland fu'nction's and values. The proposed revisions use the wetland categories in the District's 2003 Functional Assessment of Wetlands: Preserve (the highest- quality wetlands), Manage 1, Manage 2, Manage 3 (see paragraph 6(a)). Initially, some members of the task force expressed discomfort with a system based on management categories because wetlands can be placed..in a category for different reasons - i.e., a Preserve wetland may be so designated either because it has exceptional vegetative diversity of because it offers shoreline protection - two distinct ecological benefits. In response, District staff and consulting engineers drew on the studies, as well as the District's functional assessment, to develop three different multistep frameworks for calculating buffer widths. Each system was based on an assessment of the criteria used in determining the management classification for a particular wetland.$ Each of the systems also addressed another Rulemaking Task Force recommendation by accounting for performance factors that affect the effectiveness of buffers. The task force recommended some simplification upon subsequent review of the systems, but members of the. Technical Advisory Committee expressed concern that a system using 'a multifactor matrix based on analysis of functions and values would be too cumbersome and complex. In refining the proposed buffer -width provisions for initial distribution to the public, the District adopted a hybrid approach that establishes Base Buffer Widths based on management classifications, then determines the actual buffer width applied to a particular wetland (dubbed the Applied Buffer" Width) based on critical performance factors. Both the BATC case study and the District's buffer study generally support this approach. And the 2008 followup analyses of the District's 2001 buffer study specifically support the use of slope and soil type (as a surrogate for the ability of the buffer to infiltrate runoff) as factors to support diminution of required buffered widths 8 Vegetative diversity; wildlife habitat; fisheries habitat; aesthetics, recreation, education and cultural; stormwater susceptibility; wetland water quality; hydrologic regime; flood storage; wetland area; "special status" as a District Key Conservation Area or Outstanding Resource Value. 13 Revised Amendments to MCWD Wetland Protection Rule June 15, 2010 Statement of Need and Reasonableness (see 6(b)(1) and (2)). In addition, the studies support the provision whereby the buffer width required can be reduced where a function and values analysis provided by the applicant shows that best management practices proposed will outperform a buffer of the width required by the rule under the circumstances (see 6(d)). The rule also provides flexibility to account for unique site characteristics and design in proposed paragraph 6(c), which allows averaging of buffer widths as long as a minimum of 50 percent of the Applied Buffer Width is maintained at all points along the required buffer. In response to the numerous comments on the initially proposed buffer -width provisions, the District made extensive changes in the spring of 2010, including revision of the process by which Applied Buffer Width is determined. The changes allow project proponents to understand the maximum buffer widths that apply to a project from the outset, then work through the rule provisions to determine whether conditions exist that allow for reductions. That is, the Base Buffer Width is now the maximum buffer that could be required for a particular property. Advantageous slope and soil conditions allow the width to be reduced. Buffer width also can be reduced through the implementation of best management practices (BMPs) that demonstrably improve the function and value of a wetland buffer. Such BMPs must be specifically installed to improve buffer function; they cannot also provide compliance with other District regulatory criteria. To ensure that buffers are not reduced to ineffective widths, minimums are established for slope and soil condition reductions (see 6(b) and the table accompanying paragraph 6(a)), and reductions based on improved function and value cannot exceed 50 percent of the applicable Minimum Applied Buffer Width, as determined according to wetland class. After the second round of comments ended in April 2010, the District also added language to 6(c) allowing a trail or path (pervious or impervious) to be routed through the buffer, as long as the commensurate area is added to total buffer provided for that wetland. (This added exception also is referenced as an exception from the still - applicable prohibition on hard surface in a buffer in paragraph 7(a).) In recognition of landowners' riparian access needs, a 4 -foot path or trail (matching average dock width) providing access to a waterbody is excepted from the requirement that compensating buffer be provided. While some commentors urged general reductions in the base buffer widths from those proposed in the November 2009 and March 2010 drafts, the District determined that 14 Revised Amendments to MCWD Wetland Protection Rule June 15, 2010 Statement of Need and Reasonableness with the addition of flexibility to reduce widths in paragraphs (b) though (f), reductions in the Base Buffer Width numbers were not warranted. With the available reduction options, the rule provides a reasonably balanced approach to buffer regulation. Roadways and Residences The District responded to comments on the application of the wetland buffer requirements to specific types of projects by adding specific compliance flexibility language: First, new paragraph 6(f) limits the amount of buffer that will be required for certain road redevelopment projects (defined under the heading Linear Reconstruction Projects) to the available right -of -way. The provision means road authorities need not find locations outside the right -of -way adjacent to a particular project site to establish sufficient buffer to meet the strict requirements of the rule. In addition, in response to comments the District removed resurfacing projects that do not increase the impervious area of a road from the operation of the buffer provision (see paragraph 6(f)). Second, in addition to limiting the circumstances in which the buffer requirement applies to single - family homes, the District crafted specific language to ensure that the buffer width required for such projects will not take up a disproportionate portion of the property. Paragraph 6(g) limits the buffer width based on the amount of available land adjacent to the affected wetland (with a minimum of 25 feet or the applicable Minimum Applied Buffer Width), and is drafted to ensure that the buffer requirement does not conflict with municipal setback requirements or render a property unbuildable (paralleling the provision accounting for nonconformities in paragraph 5(a)). Overall, the proposed buffer- width - setting system recognizes that in some cases increasing buffer widths beyond a basic level of protection provides diminishing returns in terms of effective removal of pollutants and runoff volume reduction. Where buffer conditions are optimal - porous soils, shallow slope, diverse native vegetation - buffer widths can be reduced. Where conditions are less favorable, greater buffer width is necessary to provide adequate protection. The proposed revised buffer provisions are crafted to respond to specific buffer conditions and landowner rights, while effectively protecting wetland functions and values. 15 Revised Amendments to MCWD Wetland Protection Rule June 15, 2010 Statement of Need and Reasonableness Some commentors expressed concern that the District would mandate 300 -foot buffers. The District did not consider or propose a 300 -foot maximum buffer width. The District plan mentioned - in a footnote - BWSR's 300 -foot recommended buffer for protection of wetlands providing exceptional wildlife habitat. The District's focus is on ensuring sound, research -based wetland buffer protection for the great number of wetlands in the watershed that are likely to be discussed in the context of land - disturbance proposals that will come before the District in the near future. The proposed buffer widths reflect this focus, as well as diverse stakeholder input. A suggestion that a District buffer width determination be appealable to the WCA Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) was declined as unnecessarily complicating the process. Statutory appeal rights apply to all watershed district permit determinations,9 and decisions under WCA are appealable by procedures described by state rule.,° State rule also prescribes the kinds of WCA determinations for which a land owner or another party can request TEP review.,' Further, in the majority of cases; the buffer width will be simply an application of the wetland rule provisions in accordance with the functions, values, type and boundary determinations that will necessarily involve review and analysis by the TEP. The revised version of the rule's buffer width provisions provide substantial flexibility to project proponents to achieve compliance at the same time that it strengthens the District's continuing commitment to protecting wetlands from damage caused by runoff, animals and people. The provisions protect and respect property rights while affirming the District's commitment to securing the diverse benefits provided by wetlands and wetland buffers. Vegetation Maintenance As proposed in November 2009, the Wetland Protection Rule included a new requirement, specifying 100 percent vegetative cover and 75 percent native species content for buffer. Otherwise, the substantive maintenance provisions for wetland buffers remained from the current rule. The latter have been retained in paragraph 7(a) and apply to aHwetland buffer - whether established through planting after construction or retained through designation of existing vegetated areas as buffer. In response to comments, the District has elected to reorganize the buffer monitoring, 9 Minn. Stat. §§ 103D.535, 103D.537. 10 Minn. R. 8420.0905. „ See Minn. R. 8420.0240. 16 Revised Amendments to MCWD Wetland Protection Rule June 15, 2010 Statement of Need and Reasonableness reporting and vegetative content requirements to emphasize that they apply only when buffer must be newly established (i.e., planted and nurtured) because the location where buffer is required is bare or has been graded or otherwise disturbed during construction. The new subsection 7(c) articulates the specific criteria for establishing, maintaining and monitoring buffer established to comply with the rule, including soil decompaction requirements in paragraph 7(c)(1) that mirror those of the District Erosion Control Rule and a narrative standard for native plant content in paragraph 7(c)(3), replacing the percentage requirements in the originally proposed amendments. Buffer monitoring and reporting specifics are detailed in section 10. In revising the amendments, the District also added options to respond to comments from public entities managing large tracts of buffer who felt that the originally proposed monitoring and reporting requirements would be onerous. In addition to the already- mentioned flexibility for the means of compliance with the monumentation requirement in paragraph 5(d), the District has added the option for certain properties to comply with the monumentation, vegetation management and buffer monitoring requirement by executing a written agreement that describes with specificity how the buffer will be maintained (see paragraph 7(b)). The District inspections for such properties will focus on confirming that the wetland buffer areas are being managed in conformity with the agreement and the plans it incorporates. The District's requirements and procedures for monitoring and maintaining wetland buffer should not be confused with the requirements in WCA that apply to the establishment and monitoring of replacement wetlands, where required. The applicable provisions in the WCA rules (chapter 8420 in the Minnesota Rules) govern property owners' and project proponents' interactions with the District as WCA LGU for replacement wetlands, when the District is serving as the LGU. Financial Assurances In revising the amendments to the Wetland Protection Rule, the District added the specifics in section 8 regarding provision of financial assurances, as authorized by Minnesota Statutes section 103D.345, subd. 4. (The District also may require financial assurances for wetland replacement as authorized by Minnesota Rules 8420.0522, subp. 9, or for no -loss applications as authorized by 8420.0415 H(3), when it is serving as the WCA LGU.) 17 Revised Amendments to MCWD Wetland Protection Rule June 15, 2010 Statement of Need and Reasonableness Permits under the District's wetlands rule have always been subject to the financial assurance requirement; the proposed addition of section 8 to the rule merely makes the requirement plainer to potential permit applicants and other interested parties. Exhibits The District - Department of the Natural Resources Combined point Notification form, along with standard annotated site plan documents, remain the basic documentation required to begin the District wetland - permitting process. A complete wetland delineation is required for any project triggering the District wetland rule (see paragraph 9(a)). The requirements in section 9 supplement WCA submission requirements (applicable only when the District is the LGU). These basic exhibit requirements have been enhanced with detailed buffer planting, maintenance and monitoring documentation, which have- been revised in keeping with the clarification, discussed above, that buffer maintenance (beyond the basics in paragraph 7(a)) and monitoring will be required only for new buffer areas. Le., the exhibits in subsections 9(g) and 9(h) are required only for buffer that must be established on bare or disturbed areas to comply with the rule. The addition of greater specificity in the exhibits lists was prompted by the poor rate of buffer success observed by District staff in the past, as well as a recognition that the full ecological value of the rule's buffer requirements will be realized only if the long- term health of buffer plants is ensured to the greatest degree possible by sound planning at the outset and thorough monitoring throughout the establishment period. The detailed exhibit requirements for planting and monitoring also reflect the information gained through the District's review of buffer literature, which underscores the importance of a healthy'native- species community in the performance of wetland buffers. Monitoring The proposed changes to the monitoring section of the rule have been cited above, though it is noteworthy that the District revised the requirements here to simplify the survey requirement in response to comments and reexamination by District staff (see 10(c)(1)). While applicants are welcome to provide global positioning system or survey data, the District will work with applicants to determine a level of documentation of buffer area location sufficient to ensure compliance with the substantive requirements of the rule. Also, to help facilitate compliance with the monitoring and reporting, which some commentors felt would be onerous, the District added the option of having 18 Revised Amendments to MCWD Wetland Protection Rule June 15, 2010 Statement of Need and Reasonableness the buffer monitoring and reporting performed by District staff at standard field -work rates (see paragraph 10(b)). Other minor deletions in the section also are proposed tomake the requirements easier to understand and, satisfy. 19 Revised Amendments to MCWD Wetland Protection Rule Statement of Need and Reasonableness June 15, 2010 Table 1 - Members of the Rulemaking Task Force IName Occupation /Affiliation Employer /City Tom Aasen Citizens Advisory Committee Minnetonka Kristin Asher Engineer City of Richfield FM elissa Barrett e H. ......... _ t Wetland Scientist . Kjolhaug Environmental Services __.. tinny Black _ Organics Recycling Coordinator ' - Minnesota Pollution Control j Agency _ _... .. ..._ ........ Larry Blackstad Citizens Advisory Committee Minnetonka William Bushnell Citizens Advisory Committee Minnetrista Tom Casey Citizens Advisory Committee Mound Nate Duoss Public Policy Specialist Builders Association of the Twin Cities j Tony Goldenstein _ . Citizens Advisory Committee St. Louis Park ....._ . _...._._. __.. Stephen Jenkins Supervisor - District #4 ;Hennepin Conservation District — ames Johnson Vice President Lyman Properties LLC Steve Mohn Investment Manager Self Employed David Newman Land Developer The Bancor Group _. IDan Salmon Citizens Advisory Committee St. Louis Park IEthel Smith Resident Timothy Smith Registered Nurse Hennepin County Medical Center Steinman tIDuncan Citizens Advisory Committee Minnetonka 1-arold Ulvestaed Commercial Real Estate Broker i Staubach Company J acob Westman iducatoir, Student Westonka Public Schools Donna Woodruff ]Citizens Advisory Committee Shorewood 20 Revised Amendments to MCWD Wetland Protection Rule June 15, 2010 Statement of Need and Reasonableness - Name . Agency/City Laura Adler Cit :of St. Louis,Park Liz Stout Ci' of Minnetonka Tony Brou h .,Hennepin County Wayne Houle Citv of -Edina Jesse Struve .',City of Edina Mike:Kell City- of Wayzata Aaron Snyder �U.S': Army Corps of Engineers Dave Poggi. Bolton & Menk (Engineer for Mound, Deephaven, St. Bonifacius, Greenwood & Woodland) John Barten Three Rivers Park District Tim Brown Barr En ineerin Jack Frost Metropolitan Council Brad Wozne Board of Water and Soil Resources Lois Eberhart City of Minneapolis Bob Moberg City of Plymouth Larry Brown City of Shorewood Holly kreft City of Victoria Cara Geheren TKDA (City of Victoria Engineer) Deb Pil er Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board Michael Schmidt Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board Mike Eastling City of Richfield Derek Asche Cit of PI mouth-. Sara A likowski Minnea olis Park and Recreation Board Kate Drewer Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Kristin Asher i C t of Richfield Bob Moberg City of Plymouth Lee Gustafson City of Minnetonka Terryjeffery City of Chanhassen 21 Revised Amendments to MCWD Wetland Protection Rule Statement of Need and Reasonableness June IS, 2010 1, Ry 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT BOARD OF MANAGERS PROPOSED REVISIONS SHORELINE & STREAMBANK STABILIZATION RULE June 3, 2010 1. POLICY. It is the policy of the Board of Managers to: (a) Preserve the natural appearance of shoreline and streambank areas; (b) Encourage and foster bioengineering, landscaping and preservation of natural vegetation as preferred means of stabilizing shorelines and streambanks; (c) Assure that improvement of shoreline and streambank areas to prevent erosion complies with accepted engineering principles in conformity with Minnesota Department of Natural Resources construction guidelines; and (d) Preserve water quality and the ecological integrity of the riparian environment, including wildlife, fisheries, and recreational water resources. 2. REGULATION. (a) No person shall install an improvement or alteration of the shoreline of a water basin or the bank of a watercourse, including but not limited to a bioengineered installation, riprap, a retaining wall; a sand - blanket or a boat ramp, without first securing a permit under this rule and providing a surety pursuant to the District Financial Assurance Rule. Planting of vegetation not intended to provide deep soil structure stability does not require a permit under this rule. (b) All permit applications submitted under this rule, except applications for maintenance of an existing improvement that has not degraded to a natural state, shall be required to include a detailed erosion intensity calculation of the shoreline • or streambank in accordance with section 3, Shoreline Erosion Intensity Calculation (for shorelines), -or section 4, Streambank Erosion Intensity Calculation (for streambanks), of this rule. 6/15/2010 9:20:46 AM 1 40 (c) A permit under this rule is required for maintenance of an existing riprap or 41 otherwise hard - armored shoreline or streambank that involves the addition of new 42 material or structural change to the improvement. 43 44 (d) A fast track permit may be issued for shoreline stabilization projects that 45 conform to the requirements in section 6, Criteria for Stabilization Techniques, of 46 this rule. 47 48 (e) Shoreline or streambank stabilization projects that do not utilize a stabilization 49 practice consistent with the erosion intensity calculation shall be required to 50 document compliance with the design flexibility /minimal impact standard in 51 section 5, Design Flexibility. Such projects shall be subject to the public notice 52 requirements of the District Procedural Requirements Rule. 53 54 (f) A fast track permit may be issued for routine sandblanket projects that 55 conform to the requirements set forth in sections 9, Criteria for Laying 56 Sandblankets, and 10, Sandblankets Required Exhibits, of this rule. 57 58 3. SHORELINE EROSION INTENSITY CALCULATION. 59 60 (a) Applications for shoreline stabilization shall be required to complete the 61 erosion intensity scoresheet to document the shoreline erosion intensity (low, 62 medium, high). 63 64 (b) The proposed shoreline stabilization practice shall be consistent with the 65 shoreline erosion intensity calculated (low, medium, high). 66 67 (1) Low erosion intensity shorelines are those where the erosion intensity 68 calculated has a score of 30 or'less and shall utilize biological stabilization 69 practices in accordance with section 6, Criteria for Stabilization 70 Techniques, of this rule. 71 72 (2) Medium erosion intensity shorelines are those where the erosion 73 intensity calculated has a score between 31 and 48 and shall utilize 74 biological or bioengineering stabilization practices in accordance with 75 section 6, Criteria for Stabilization Techniques, of this rule. 76 77 (3) High erosion intensity shorelines are those where the erosion intensity 78 calculated has a score of greater than 48 and shall utilize biological, 6/15/2010 9:20:46 AM 2 79 bioengineering or structural -stabilization practices -in accordance with 80 Section 6, Criteria for Stabilization Techniques, of this rule. 81 82 83 EROSION INTENSITY SCORESHEET SHORELINE VARIABLES DESCRIPTIVE CATEGORIES Ell VALUE EROSION INTENSITY (El) VALUE IS LOCATED IN.PARENTHESIS ON LEFT SIDE OF EACH CATEGORY BOX AVERAGE FETCH ='. (0) <I /10 (2) 1/10 -1/3 (4) 1/3 -1 (7) "1 -3 '(10) >3 Average distance (miles) across open water to the opposite shore. DEPTH AT 20 FEET — (1) <1 (2) l -3 (3) 3-6 (4) 6 -12 (5) >12 Depth of water (feet) 20 feet from the shoreline. DEPTH AT 100 FEET — (1) <1 (2) 1 -3 (3) 3-6 (4) 6 -12 (5) >12 Depth of water (feet) 100 feet from the shoreline. BANK HEIGHT— (1) <1 (2)1 -3 (3)3 -6 (4)6 -10 (5) >10 Measure from toe of bank to top of bank-lip (feet). INFLUENCE OF ADJACENT (0) no hard (1) hard armoring (2) hard armoring (3) hard armoring (4) hard armoring STRUCTURES— armoring on either on one adjacent on both adjacent on one adjacent on both adjacent Likelihood that adjacent structures are adjacent property property properties property with properties with causing flank erosion at the site. measurable measurable recession recession adjacent to both structures AQUATIC VEGETATION — (0) rocky substrates (1) dense or abundant (4) scattered or patchy (7) lack of emergent, Type and abundance of vegetation unable to support emergent, floating or emergent, floating or floating or submergent occurring in the water off the vegetation. submergent vegetation submergent vegetation vegetation shoreline. BANK VEGETATION — (0) bank composed of (1) dense vegetation, (4) clumps of vegetation (7) minimal vegetation Type and abundance of vegetation rocky outcropping upland trees, shrubs and alternating with areas (due to shading or . occurring on bank face and unable to support grasses, including lawns lacking vegetation erosion) immediately on top of bank lip. vegetation. BANK STABILITY— (0) established (1) established lawn (4) moderate to.dense natural (7) moderate to dense Degree to which bank and adjacent lawn with few with moderate to, ground vegetation and canopy canopy trees with moderate . area (within 10 feet of bank lip) is canopy trees dense canopy trees trees with shrub. layer to dense natural shrub stabilized by natural ground, shrub, and/or shrubs and/or shrubs substantially reduced; or few layer-, or other natural and canopy vegetation. Human canopy trees with moderate to features prevents disturbance is typified by tree dense natural shrub layer establishment of ground removal, brushing, mowing, and lawn vegetation establishment. SHORELINE GEOMETRY — (1) coves or sheltered areas (4) irregular, shoreline or straight (8) headland, point, or island General shape of the shoreline at the shoreline point of interest plus 200 yards on either side. SHORE ORIENTATION — (0) <1/3 mile fetch (1) north to east.to (4) south to west- (8) west. to north- Geographic direction the shoreline south- southeast (349 ° - southwest (169 ° -258) northwest (259 ° -349) faces. 360 °, 1° -168 BOAT WAKES — (1) broad open (4) limited traffic within (8) moderate traffic (12) intensive traffic Proximity to and use of boat channels waterbody with limited 200 yards; or moderate within 200 yards; or within 200 yards and thoroughfares. traffic; constricted traffic 200 yards to %. intensive traffic 200 shallow water body; or mile offshore yards to'' /. mile offshore no -wake zones TOTAL EROSION INTENSITY SCORE _ 84 *See guidance document for additional information on how to determine EI values. 85 6/15/2010 9:20:46 AM 11 3 86 4. STREAMBANK EROSION INTENSITY CALCULATION 87 88 (a) Applications for streambank stabilization shall be required to include the 89 calculations detailed below to document bankf ill stream velocity and shear stress: 90 91 (1) Bankf ill stream velocity 92 i. Manning's equation: 93 V=2= A 0 1.491 l JJRzissvz 94 v = Average velocity of flow (feet/sec) 95 Q = Bankfull flow (cubic feet/sec) 96 A = Area of flow (square feet) 97 n = Manning's number 98 R = Hydraulic radius (feet) 99 S = Slope of channel bottom (rise /run) 100 101 (2) Shear stress on the streambank 102 i. r =dxpxS 103 i = Shear stress (pounds / square feet) 104 d = Bankfull flow depth (feet) 105 p = Unit weight of water (62.4 pounds / cubic feet) 106 S = Slope of channel bottom (rise /run) 107 108 (b) The proposed streambank stabilization practice shall be consistent with the 109 shear stress calculated (low, medium, high). 110 111 (1) Low erosion intensity streambanks are those where the shear stress 112 calculated is less than or equal to 2.5 lb per square foot and shall utilize 113 biological stabilization practices in accordance with section 6, Criteria for 114 Stabilization Techniques, of this rule. 115 116 (2) Medium erosion intensity streambanks are those where the shear stress 117 calculated is between 2.5 and 5 lb per square foot and shall utilize 118 biological or bioengineering stabilization practices in accordance with 119 section 6, Criteria for Stabilization Techniques, of this rule. 120 121 (3) High erosion intensity streambanks are those where the shear stress 122 calculated is greater than 5 lb per square foot and shall utilize biological, 6/15/2010 9:20:46 AM 4 bioengineering or structural stabilization practices in accordance with section 6, Criteria for Stabilization Techniques, of this rule. 5. DESIGN FLEXIBILITY. Where an applicant believes that, as a result of site specific conditions, the shoreline erosion intensity as calculated in section 3, Shoreline Erosion Intensity Calculation, or the streambank erosion intensity as calculated in section 4, Streambank Erosion Intensity Calculation, may inaccurately predict the degree of erosion, the District may approve alternative stabilization techniques if the applicant provides sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the proposed stabilization practice represents'the minimal impact solution with respect to all other reasonable alternatives. 6. CRITERIA FOR STABILIZATION TECHNIQUES (a) General criteria: (1) The District will permit the. installation of structural stabilization practices only where there is a demonstrated need to prevent erosion or to restore eroded shoreline /streambank; (2) Removal of native vegetation within the shoreline /streambank stabilization zone shall be limited in accordance with the following provisions: i. Clear cutting shall be prohibited except within the access corridor; ii. Native vegetation shall be preserved outside of the access corridor as much as practicable and, where removed, shall be replaced with other vegetation that is equally effective in retarding runoff and preventing erosion. (3) Stabilization practices shall be installed at a 3:1 slope or flatter where practical and feasible. Practices proposed at slopes steeper than 2:1 shall be evaluated as retaining walls in accordance with section 12, Criteria for Other Shoreline Improvements, of this rule; (4) Horizontal encroachment from a shoreline shall be the minimum amount needed and shal l not interfere unduly with water flow. Under normal conditions, hard armoring inert material, such as riprap, or other 6/15/2010 9:20:46 AM 5 61 162 fill shall be placed no more than 5 feet waterward of a shoreline, measured 163 from the OHW. The maximum encroachment waterward of the OHW is 164 10 feet. Encroachment from streambanks shall be minimized to the 165 greatest extent practical to limit hydraulic impacts; 166 167 (5) Streambank stabilization shall not reduce the cross sectional area of the 168 channel nor result in a net increase in the flood stage upstream or at the 169 site of the streambank stabilization practice unless it can be demonstrated 170 to not exacerbate existing high -water conditions; 171 For a streambank, design shall conform to engineering principles for the 172 (6) Shoreline /streambank stabilization practices shall conform to the 173 natural alignment of the bank,(e.g., maintain an undulating or meandering 174 shoreline /streambank); 175 separate Aquatic Plant Management permit shall be obtained from the 176 (7) The design shall reflect the engineering properties of the underlying 177 soils and any soil corrections or reinforcements. For a shoreline, the 178 design shall conform to engineering principles for dispersion of wave 179 energy and resistance to deformation from ice pressures and movement. 180 For a streambank, design shall conform to engineering principles for the 181 hydraulic behavior of open channel flow; 182 183 (8) For sites involving aquatic plantings or aquatic plant removal, a 184 separate Aquatic Plant Management permit shall be obtained from the 185 Department of Natural Resources, when applicable; 186 187 (9) Any work below the normal water level shall be encircled by a 188 flotation sediment curtain. The curtain shall be constructed.and 189 maintained as illustrated in "Protecting Water Quality in Urban areas — 190 Best Management Practices for Minnesota" (MPCA 1989). The barrier 191 shall be removed upon completion of the work after disturbed sediment 192 has settled; 193 194, (10) All shoreline /streambank stabilization applications shall submit the 195 required exhibits as set forth in section 7, Required Exhibits for 196 Shoreline / Streambank Stabilization, of this rule. 197 198 (a) Criteria for biological and bioengineering techniques (see typical detail 199 examples in Appendix A): 200 6/15/2010 9:20:46 AM 6 I 201 (1) Live plantings incorporated into the shoreline or bank shall be native 202 aquatic and/or native upland vegetation known to occur in the North 203 Central Hardwood Forest eco- region of Minnesota (refer to the Minnesota 204 Department of Natural Resources "Lakescaping for Wildlife and Water 205 Quality" and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency "Plants for 206 Stormwater Design "); 207 208 (2) Vegetative treatments shall be installed in accordance with the Natural 209 Resource Conservation Service (MRCS) "Engineering Field Handbook 210 Chapter 16 "; 211 212 (3) If wave barriers are utilized, they shall be located within the 3 foot 213 water depth or less and may not create and obstruction to navigation. 214 Wave barriers shall be removed within 2 years of the installation. 215 216 (b) Criteria for structural stabilization (see typical detail examples in Appendix 217 A): 218 219 (1) Hard armoring inert material, such as riprap, shall be considered 220 wetland fill only if proposed to be placed within an area identified as a 221 wetland; 222 223 (2) Riprap shall extend no higher than the top of the bank, or two feet 224 above the 100 year high water elevation, whichever is lower; 225 226 (3) Riprap materials shall be durable stone meeting the size and gradation 227 requirements of MnDOT Class III or IV riprap. Toe boulders shall be at 228 least 50 percent buried and may be as large as 30 inches in diameter; 229 230 (4) A transitional granular filler meeting requirements of MnDOT 3601.13, 231 at least 6 inches in depth, shall be placed between the native shoreline and 232 the riprap to prevent erosion of fine grained soils. A geotextile filter fabric 233 meeting the requirements of MnDOT 3733 shall be placed beneath the 234 granular filler where appropriate; 235 236 (5) Structural stabilization practices, including riprap, are recommended to 237 include plantings between individual boulders or native upland plantings 238 to retard runoff and prevent erosion wherever feasible and practical. 239 6/15/2010 9:20:46 AM 7 I 7. REQUIRED EXHIBITS FOR SHORELINE /STREAMBANK STABILIZATION. (a) Erosion intensity calculations from section 3, Shoreline Erosion Intensity Calculation, or 4, Streambank Erosion Intensity Calculation, of this rule, whichever is applicable, or materials necessary to make the demonstration required in section 5, Design Flexibility. (b) Photographs of the project site, showing existing conditions. (c) Site plan showing: (1) Survey locating the existing ordinary high water (OHW) elevation, existing shoreline or streambank, floodplain elevation, and location of property lines; (2) Elevation contours of the upland within 15 feet of the OHW and referenced to accepted datum; (3) Location of the shoreline /streambank stabilization zone and access corridor; (4) Location of existing trees and shrubs within the shoreline /streambank stabilization zone and an indication of whether they are to be removed or retained; (5) Plan view of locations and lineal footage of the proposed shorelinelbank stabilization treatment; and (6) The location of an upland baseline parallel to the shoreline/bank with stationing. The baseline shall be staked in the field and maintained in place until project completion. Baseline origin and terminus each shall be referenced to three fixed features, with measurements shown and described on the plan. Perpendicular offsets from the baseline to the OHW shall be measured and distances shown on the plan at 20 foot stations. (d) Cross section, drawn to scale, with the horizontal and vertical scales noted on the drawing, detailing: (1) The existing bank, OHW, and 100 year floodplain elevation; 6/15/2010 9:20:46 AM 8 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 E (2) The proposed stabilization technique; finished slope, and distance lakeward of the OHW; (3) Material specifications; (4) Description of the underlying soil materials. (e) Specification of erosion control and site stabilization practices. (f) For biological and bioengineering stabilization practices, a Vegetation Establishment Plan, including: (1') A plant list with common and scientific names, seed mix specifications, quantities and origin of all material; and (2) Specification of the methods, schedule and party responsible for ensuring establishment and maintenance of the vegetation for the three years following installation or construction. The plan shall include the control of invasive species and replacement of vegetation as necessary. (g) For bioengineering: (1) Detail the location of all hard armoring inert material, such as riprap, to be utilized; (2) Provide a written narrative explaining how the use of hard armoring inert material such as riprap has been minimized to the extent practical and feasible. (h) For streambank stabilization: (1) Cross sectional view of stream channel in existing and proposed conditions; (2) Longitudinal view of stream channel in existing and proposed conditions; (3) Plan view of stream channel in existing and proposed conditions; 6/15/2010 9:20:46 AM 9 S 318 319 (4) Identification of bankfull indicators; 320 321 (5) Documentation of existing soils, wetlands, vegetation, slopes, bank 322 and channel material; 323 324 (6) Identification of in- stream features such as woody debris, riffles and 325 -pools, etc. 326 - 327 8. MAINTENANCE DECLARATION. A declaration or other recordable instrument 328 describing techniques for maintenance of access corridors, periodic selective vegetation 329 removal and ongoing maintenance of bioengineering or biological .stabilization practices, 330 must be submitted to and approved by the District, then recorded -in the office of the 331 county recorder or registrar before activity under the District permit commences. In lieu 332 of recordation, a public permittee may assume the maintenance obligation by means of a. 333 written agreement withthe District. The agreement shall state that if the ownership of the 334 property on which the shoreline or streambank improvement is transferred, the.permittee 335 shall require the transferee to comply with this section. 336 337 9. CRITERIA FOR LAYING SANDBLANKETS. All permitted sandblanketing shall 338 comply with the following standards: 339 340 (a) The sand or gravel used must be clean prior to being spread. The sand. must 341 contain no toxins or heavy metal, as defined by the Minnesota Department of 342 Natural Resources, and must contain no weed infestations such as, but not limited 343 to, water hyacinth, alligator weed, and Eurasian watermilfoil, or animal life 344 infestations such as, but not limited to, zebra mussels or their larva. Violators will 345 be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. 346 347 (b) The sand layer must not exceed six inches in thickness, 50 feet in width along 348 the shoreline, or one -half the width of the lot, whichever is less, and may not 349 extend more than 10 feet waterward of the ordinary high water mark. 350 351 (c) Only one installation of sand or gravel to the same location may be made 352, during a four -year period. After the four years have passed since the last 353 blanketing, the location may receive another sandblanket. No more than two 354 applications may be made at an individual project site. 355 356 (d) Exception. Beaches which are operated by governmental entities and available 357 to the public shall be maintained in a manner that represents the minimal impact 358 to the environment, relative to other reasonable alternatives, and shall be 359 exempted from the following restrictions: 360 6/15/2010 9:20:46 AM 10 r If 361 (1) Sandblankets be no more than 50 feet in width and extend no more 362 than 10 feet waterward.of the ordinary high water mark. See paragraph 363 8(b), specifying sandblanket criteria, of this rule; and 364 365 (2) Sandblankets be installed no more, frequently than once every four —366' years and no snore than twice at the same: project location. See paragraph 367 8(c); limiting repeated sandblanket installations, of this rule. 368 369 10. SANDBLANKET REQUIRED EXHIBITS: The following exhibits shall accompany 370 the sandblanket permit application: 371 372 (a) Site plan showing property lines, delineation of the work area, existing 373 elevation contours of the adjacent upland area, ordinary high water elevation, and 374 regional flood elevation (if available). All elevations must be reduced to NGVD 375 (1929 datum). 376 377 (b) Profile, cross sections and/or topographic contours showing existing and 378 proposed elevations and proposed side slopes in the work area. (Topographic 379 contours should be at intervals not greater than 1.0 foot). 380 381 (c) A completed Sandblanket Permit Application.form, available from the 382 District. 383 384 11. CRITERIA FOR RETAINING WALLS. 385 386 (a) A new retaining wall, or repair /reconstruction of an existing retaining wall that 387 increases floodplain encroachment beyond that required by technically sound and 388 accepted repair /reconstruction methods, is permitted only pursuant to a variance 389 or an exception under the District Variance Rule. The applicant must demonstrate 390 that there is no adequate stabilization alternative. 391. 39.2 (b) Wooden seawalls and/or steel sheetpiling retaining walls shall comply with 393 accepted engineering principles. 394 395 (c) The applicant shall submit a structural analysis prepared by a professional 396 engineer registered in the State.of Minnesota, in the practice of civil engineering, 397 showing that the wall will withstand expected ice and wave action and earth 398 pressures. 399 400 (d) The applicant shall submit 'a survey prepared by a registered land surveyor 40.1 locating the finished wall and shall file a certificate of survey with the District. 402 403 6/15/2010 9:20:46 AM 11 It 404 12. CRITERIA FOR OTHER SHORELINE IMPROVEMENTS. Other shoreline 405 improvements, such as boat ramps, shall comply with accepted engineering principles as 406 follows: 407 408 (a) Boat ramps and other similar improvements shall not be allowed in riparian 409 shoreline areas unless the applicant demonstrates that no feasible alternative 410 riparian access is available, that aquatic habitat and water quality impacts are 411 minimized; and 412 413 (b) Installation of boat ramps shall involve placement of no more than 50 cubic 414 yards of inert and clean material, and the maximum width of shoreline 415 disturbance shall be 15 feet unless the facility is a commercial marina or public 416 launch facility that requires a greater width; and 417 418 (c) Materials utilized for construction of boat ramps or other similar 419 improvements shall be safe and cause not adverse environmental impacts; the 420 improvement shall be of sound design and construction so that the improvement is 421 reasonably expected to be safe and effective. 422 423 6/15/2010 9:20:46 AM 12 e 424 Definitions 425 426 Access Corridor means corridor equal to 30 percent of the total shoreline length to a 427 maximum .of 30 feet. 428 429 'Bioengineering Stabilization means the strategic installation of natural, vegetative, 430 biologically active materials in conjunction with toe stabilization, riprap or other hard - 431 armoring materials to stabilize shoreline or streambank areas and associated slopes and 432 prevent erosion. 433 434 Biological Stabilization means the strategic placement of natural, vegetation, 435 biologically active materials — such as but not limited to brush mattresses, live 436 stakes /plantings, brush layering, fiber rolls, root wads and willow wattles — to stabilize 437 shoreline or streambank areas and prevent erosion. 438 439 Native Vegetation means plant species that are indigenous to Minnesota or that expand 440 their range into Minnesota without being intentionally or unintentionally introduced by 441 human activity and that are classified as native in the Minnesota Plant Database, 442 Minnesota Department.of Natural Resources, St. Paul, 2002.. 443 444 Stabilization Zone means the area of land paralleling the shoreline or streambank and 445 extending 20 feet inland from all points along the ordinary high -water mark of the 446 shoreline. 447 448 Structural Stabilization is the use of engineered- systems — such as riprap, retaining 449 walls, headwalls, groins, revetments, gabions = to stabilize shoreline or streambank areas 450 and associated slope and prevent erosion. 451 6/15/2010 9:20:46 AM 13 1 NIINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT 2 BOARD OF MANAGERS 3 4 PROPOSED REVISIONS 5 R . SHORELINE & STREAMBANK STABILIZATION RULE 6 7 Ngm;,....hPr- e 2009 8 9 . 10 June 3, 2010 11 12 1. POLICY. It is the policy of the Board of Managers to: 13 14, (ba) Preserve the natural appearance of shoreline and streambank areas; 15 16 (eb) Encourage and foster bioengineering, landscaping and preservation of natural 17 vegetation as preferred means of stabilizing shorelines and streambanks; 18 19 (ac) Assure that improvement of shoreline and streambank areas to prevent 20 erosion complies with accepted engineering principles in conformity with l 21 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources construction guidelines; and 22 23 (d) Preserve water quality and the ecological integrity of the riparian environment, 24 including wildlife, fisheries, and recreational water resources. 25 26 2. REGULATION. 27 28 (a) No'person shall install an improvement or alteration of the 29 shoreline. of a water.basin or publie vvoeFs We4laad the bank of a watercourse, 30 including but not limited to a bioengineered installation, riprap, a retaining wall, a 31 sand - blanket or a boat ramp, without first securing a�permit under this rule and 32 providing a surety pursuant to the District nef f Real r.eAe.. e f Credit. or- 33 _ Financial Assurance Rule K. Planting of vegetation not intended to provide deep 34 soil structure stability does not require a permit under this rule. 35 36 (b) All permit applications submitted under, this rule, except applications for 37 maintenance of an existing improvement that has not degraded to a natural state, 38 shall be required to eendtwt- include a detailed erosion intensity calculation of the 39 shoreline or streambank in accordance with section 3, Shoreline Erosion Intensity 6/15/2010 9:13:07 AM 1 40 Calculation (for shorelines), or section 4, Streambank Erosion Intensity 41 Calculation (for streambanks), of this rule. 42 43 (dfc) A permit under this rule is required for Mmaintenance of an existing riprap 44 or otherwise hard - armored shoreline or streambank ' 45 ' that involves the addition of new material orb 46 ets ethef than fipmp, structural change into the improvement. 47 48 (bed) A fast track permit may be issued for shoreline stabilization 49 projects that conform to the requirements set fe in section -56, 50 Criteria for Stabilization Techniques, of this rule. 51 52 (de) Shoreline or streambank stabilization projects that do not utilize a 53 stabilization practice consistent with the erosion intensity calculation shall be 54 required to document compliance with the design flexibility /minimal impact 55 standard min par-agmph section 45, Design Flexibility. Such projects shall 56 be subject to the public notice requirements of the District Pf-eeedufe Procedural 57 Requirements Rule A. 58 59 (ef) A fast track permit may be issued for routine sandblanket projects that 60 conform to the requirements set forth in sections 9, Criteria for Laying 61 Sandblankets, and 10, Sandblankets Required Exhibits, of this rule. 62 63 A., ; e.. +.,; +>,;., +t,e,,,e.,,,:,,,, „f +t,e rAo st,.,lt atse;,,etuae an 64 65 66 3. SHORELINE EROSION INTENSITY CALCULATION. 67 68 (a) Applications for shoreline stabilization shall be required to complete the 69 erosion intensity calculation worksheet to document the shoreline erosion 70 intensity (low, medium, high). 71 72 (b) The proposed shoreline stabilization practice shall be consistent with the 73 shoreline erosion intensity calculated (low, medium, high). 74 75 (1) Low erosion intensity shorelines are those where the erosion intensity 76 calculated has a score of 4741 -30 or less and shall utilize biological 77 stabilization practices in accordance with section -56, Criteria for 78 Stabilization Techniques, of this rule. 6/15/2010 9:13:07 AM 2 79 80 81 82 83 84. 85 86 .87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 1' 1.1 112 6/15/20109:13:07 AM (2) Medium erosion intensity shorelines are those where the erosion intensity calculated has a score- between'4R41 31 and 6753 48 and shall utilize biological or bioengineering stabilization practices in accordance with section 66, Criteria for Stabilization Techniques, of this rule. (3) High erosion intensity shorelines are those where the erosion intensity calculated has a score of greater than 675 3 and shall utilize biological, bioengineering or structural stabilization practices in accordance with section -56, Criteria for Stabilization Techniques, of this rule. , Q 1.49 2/ vz A n Q : o..., EyH1 fi.ew (,,. bie f ease„) A of flow (squ6fe�f�et) g's a4rabef- cir—v eri the cic-tnixvcanc ss (peurids square feet) ske d,— Bankfull fiew,depth (feet) it weight 4 water- (62.4 peunds 1 6ubie feet) 3 M ENEW-111.1 [13Z1 01 DIM I SWIG SHORELINE VARIABLES I DESCRIPTIVE CATEGORIES EI VALUE EROSION INTENSITY (ED VALUE IS LOCATED IN PARENTHESIS ON LEFT SIDE OF EACH CATEGORY BOX AVERAGE FETCH - (0) <1 /10 (2) 1/10 -1/3 (4) 1/3 -1 (7) 1 -3 (10) >33-N "3) ',0 3 (!k}>39 Average distance (miles) across open water to the opposite shore. DEPTH AT 20 FEET - (1) <1 (2) 1 -3 (3) 3-6 (4) 6 -12 (5) >12 Depth of water (feet) 20 feet from the shoreline. DEPTH AT 100 FEET - (1) <1 (2) 1 -3 (3) 3-6 (4) 6 -12 (5) >12 Depth of water (feet) 100 feet from the shoreline. BANK HEIGHT - (1) <1 (2) 4-31 -3 (3) &40 3-6 (4) 10 20 6 -10 (5) >2010 Measure from toe of bank to top of bank-lip (feet). BANK GON411081TION a (dig ^'�'P . b b INFLUENCE OF ADJACENT (0) no hard (1) hard (2) hard (3) hard armoring (4) hard armoring on STRUCTURES- armoring on either armoring on armoring on both on one adjacent both adjacent Likelihood that adjacent structures are adjacent property one adjacent adjacent property with properties with causing flank erosion at the site. property properties measurable measurable recession recession adjacent to both structures AQUATIC VEGETATION - (0) rocky substrates (1) dense or abundant (4) scattered or patchy (7) lack of emergent, Type and abundance of vegetation unable to support emergent, floating or emergent, floating or floating or submergent occurring in the water off the vegetation. submergent vegetation submergent vegetation vegetation shoreline. BANK VEGETATION - (0) bank composed of (1) dense vegetation, (4) clumps of vegetation (7) Net- of minimal Type and abundance of vegetation rocky outcropping upland trees, shrubs and alternating with areas vegetation (due to occurring on bank face and unable to support grasses, including lawns lacking vegetation shading or immediately on top of bank lip. vegetation. erosion)(eleafed), frep BANK STABILITY - (0) established (1) established lawn (4) moderate to dense natural (7) moderate to dense Degree to which bank and adjacent lawn with few with moderate to ground vegetation and canopy canopy trees with moderate area (within 10 feet of bank lip) is canopy trees dense canopy trees trees with shrub layer to dense natural shrub stabilized by natural ground, shrub, and/or shrubs and/or shrubs substantially reduced; or few layer; or other natural and canopy vegetation. Human canopy trees with moderate to features prevents disturbance is typified by tree dense natural shrub layer establishment of ground removal, brushing, mowing, and lawn vegetation establishment. SHORELINE GEOMETRY- (1) coves or bays sheltered areas (4) irregular shoreline or straight (8) headland, point, or island General shape of the shoreline at the shoreline point of interest plus 200 yards on either side. SHORE ORIENTATION - (0) <1/3 mile fetch (1) north to east to (4) south to west- (8) west to north- Geographic direction the shoreline south- southeast (349°- southwest (169° -258) northwest (2590-349 faces. 3600, V -168 BOAT WAKES - (1) ne ehannels within (4) limited traffic within (68) moderate traffic (12) intensive traffic Proximity to and use of boat channels 100 abroad open 200 yards; moderate within 200 yards; or within 200 yards and thoroughfares. waterbody with few to traffic 200 yards to'' /. intensive traffic 200 111edeFate limited traffic; mile offshore yards to' /. mile offshore yaFds eaffying inte constricted shallow th0F8HghfWe Withi thffeughfaFe tFeffe (unfegeleted water body; or- ehapAw6 yam in a Re wake a lifaited beat ng aetivit)q wit # in -no -wake zones waterliedyWi! 1HE2as1Ve -allffis 190 gams to i r Fail-@ AfrAho.v -c^-° r ifio . TOTAL EROSION INTENSITY SCORE _ 114 *See guidance document for additional information on how to determine EI values. 6/15/2010 9:13:07 AM 115 116 117 118 119 120 1,21 122 123 124 125 126" 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 .134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147. 148 149 150 151 (3) 14i6 er-esien intensity str-eambRAICA Ar-A. *4Ase where . the sheaf stfess 4. STREAMBANK EROSION INTENSITY CALCULATION (a) Applications for streambank stabilization shall be required to include the calculations detailed below to document bankfull stream velocity and shear stress, 6/15/2010 9:13:07 AM (1) Bankfull stream velocity i. Manning's.equation: V, _ Q _ . A ( 1.49 R2isSti2 n ) v = Average velocity of flow (feet/sec) Q = Bankfull flow (cubic feet /sec) A = Area of flow (square feet) n = Manning's number R = Hydraulic radius (feet) S = Slope of channel bottom (rise /run) (2) Shear stress on the streambank .i. a= dx,uxS T = Shear stress (pounds / square feet) d = Bankfull flow: depth (feet) 5 152 p = Unit weight of water (62.4 pounds / cubic feet) 153 S = Slope of channel bottom (rise /run) 154 155 (b) The proposed streambank stabilization practice shall be consistent "with the 156 shear stress calculated (low, medium, high). 157 158 (1) Low erosion intensity streambanks are those where the shear stress 159 calculated is less than or equal to 2.5 lb per square foot and shall utilize 160 biological stabilization practices in accordance with section -56, Criteria 161 for Stabilization Techniques, of this rule. 162 163 (2) Medium erosion intensity streambanks are those where the shear stress 164 calculated is between 2.5 and 5 lb per square foot and shall utilize 165 biological or bioengineering stabilization practices in accordance with 166 section -56, Criteria for Stabilization Techniques, of this rule. 167 168 (3) High erosion intensity streambanks are those where the shear stress 169 calculated is greater than 5 lb per square foot and shall utilize biological, 170 bioengineering or structural stabilization practices in accordance with 171 section -56, Criteria for Stabilization Techniques, of this rule. 172 173 45. DESIGN FLEXIBILITY. Where an applicant believes that, as a result of site 174 specific conditions, the shoreline erosion intensity as calculated in 175 paragraph section 3, Shoreline Erosion Intensity Calculation, or the streambank erosion 176 intensity as calculated in section 4, Streambank Erosion Intensity Calculation, may 177 inaccurately predict the degree of erosion, the District may approve alternative 178 stabilization techniques if the applicant provides sufficient evidence to demonstrate that 179 the proposed stabilization practice represents the minimal impact solution with respect to 180 all other reasonable alternatives. 181 -56. CRITERIA FOR STABILIZATION TECHI`1IQUESD1DD ^ D nr GEN4EN:.F F 182 183 (a) General criteriastandar-ds: 185 1 1- .. t Y411 result in a stable sheFeline em ankme 187 3601.1 and 3601.2, Standard Speeifiea&m fer- GeasWaefiea, 6/15/2010 9:13:07 AM 6 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 '202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 .213 214 21'5 :216 217 218 219 220 .221 222 223 224 225 IT, trPTIM-Tapp.-Tr M. �.. r� 6/15/2010 9:13:07 'AM (1) The District will permit the installation of structural stabilization practices only where there is a demonstrated need to prevent erosion or to restore eroded shoreline /streambank; bieeagin AALil.:le4:en p ee4:..es where '- -feasible and the ea. e.... e..4 n&e.. sheaf stfesses ellew (42) Removal of native vegetation within the shoreline /streambank stabilization zone shall be limited in accordance with the following provisions: i. Clear cutting shall be prohibited except within the access corridor; ii. Native vegetation shall be preserved outside of the access corridor as much as practicable and; where removed, shall be replaced with other vegetation that is equally effective in retarding runoff and preventing erosion. 7 r� 6/15/2010 9:13:07 'AM (1) The District will permit the installation of structural stabilization practices only where there is a demonstrated need to prevent erosion or to restore eroded shoreline /streambank; bieeagin AALil.:le4:en p ee4:..es where '- -feasible and the ea. e.... e..4 n&e.. sheaf stfesses ellew (42) Removal of native vegetation within the shoreline /streambank stabilization zone shall be limited in accordance with the following provisions: i. Clear cutting shall be prohibited except within the access corridor; ii. Native vegetation shall be preserved outside of the access corridor as much as practicable and; where removed, shall be replaced with other vegetation that is equally effective in retarding runoff and preventing erosion. 7 226 (43) Stabilization practices shall be installed at a 3:1 slope or flatter where 227 practical and feasible. Practices proposed at slopes steeper than 2:1 shall 228 be evaluated as retaining walls in accordance with paragraph section 229 124440, Criteria for Other Shoreline Improvements, of this rule; 230 231 (34) Horizontal encroachment from a shoreline shall be the minimum 232 amount needed and shall not interfere unduly with water flow. Under 233 normal conditions, ae hard armoring inert material, such as riprap, or- " 234 materials other fill shall be placed no more than 5 feet waterward of a 235 shoreline, measured from the OHW. The maximum sheFeli3e 236 encroachment waterward of the OHW is 10 feet. Encroachment from 237 streambanks shall be minimized to the greatest extent practical to limit 238 hydraulic impacts; 239 240 (65) Streambank ripmpstabilization shall not reduce the cross sectional 241 area of the channel nor result in a stage net increase of...e -e than 0.01 feet. 242 at-ef in the flood stage upstream or at the site of the tfeatment 243 sher-elinestreambank stabilization practice unless it can be demonstrated to 244 not exacerbate existing high -water conditions; 248 249 250 (76) Shoreline /streambank stabilization practices shall conform to the 251 natural alignment of the bank (e.g., maintain an undulating or meandering 252 shoreline /streambank); 253 254 (97) The design shall reflect the engineering properties of the underlying 255 soils and any soil corrections or reinforcements. For a shoreline, the 256 design shall conform to engineering principles for dispersion of wave 2577 energy and resistance to deformation from ice pressures and movement; 258 eensi a Ping prevailing a ads , f tei. and ether- faet r-s that ir duee wave 259 energy. For a streambank, design shall conform to engineering principles 260 for the hydraulic behavior of open channel flow, eensid 261 sle e ,ei,.,,:,-.. and F..,,etiye ferees; ►Ty7 6/15/2010 9:13:07 AM 8 263 (98) For sites involving aquatic plantings or aquatic plant removal, a 264 separate Aquatic Plant Management permit shall be obtained from the 265 Department of Natural Resources, when applicable; 266 267 (409) Any work below the normal water level shall be encircled by a 268 flotation sediment curtain. The curtain shall be constructed and 269 maintained as illustrated in "Protecting Water Quality in Urban areas — 270 Best Management Practices for Minnesota" (MPCA 1989). The barrier 271 shall be removed upon completion of the work aft er disturbed sediment 272 has settled; 273 274 (4410) All shoreline /streambank stabilization applications shall submit the 275 required exhibits as set forth in par-ag section 76, Required Exhibits for 276 Shoreline /Streambank Stabilization , 277 of this rule. 278 279 (b) Criteria for biological and bioengineering techniques (see typical detail 280 examples in Appendix A): 281 282 (1) Live plantings incorporated into the shoreline or bank shall be native 283 aquatic and/or native upland vegetation known to occur in the North 284 Central Hardwood Forest eco- region of Minnesota (refer to the Minnesota 285 Department of Natural Resources "Lakescaping for Wildlife and Water 286 Quality" and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency "Plants for 287 Stormwater Design'); 288 289 (2) Vegetative treatments shall be installed in accordance with the Natural 290 Resource Conservation Service (MRCS) "Engineering Field Handbook 291 Chapter 16 "; 292 293 (3) If wave barriers are utilized, they shall be located within the 3 foot 294 water depth or less and may not create and obstruction to navigation. 295 Wave barriers shall be removed within 2 years of the installation. 296 297 (c) Criteria for structural stabilization (see typical detail examples in Appendix 298 A): 299 6/15/2010 9:13:07 AM . 9 300 (1) Hard armoring inert material, such as riprap, shall be considered 301 wetland fill only if proposed to be placed within an area identified as a 302 wetland; 303 geotextile filter fabric meeting the requirements of MnDOT 3733 shall be 304 (2) 14ard er-ing inei4 R4ef al, sueh as Fipr- p, shall be a s:a °. °a 305 fleed.,lai fill if..laeea , ,;.i i the p eeted inn year- 1,:g , eAer- elev .+:,.� 306 of a , ,.,.°,.belly and shall be subjeet t ,° ° °„+s of Rule G 307 (65) Imp - Structural stabilization practices, including riprap, shA are 308 ( -32) Riprap shall extend no higher than the top of the bank, or two feet 309 above the 100 year high water elevation, whichever is lower; 310 and practical. 311 (43) Riprap "I eeafefm to materials shall be durable stone meeting the 312 size and gradation requirements of MnDOT Class III or IV riprap. The 313 thickness of the w p i., er-s shetAd be at least 1.25 times th .., 314 stone a:am ° * °-. Toe boulders shall be at least 50 percent buried and may 315 be as large as 30 inches in diameter; . 316 317 (64) A transitional granular filler meeting requirements of MnDOT 318 3601.B, at least 6 inches in depth, shall be placed between the native 319 shoreline and the riprap to prevent erosion of fine grained soils. A 320 geotextile filter fabric meeting the requirements of MnDOT 3733 shall be 321 placed beneath the granular filler where appropriate the 322 te enhanee stabilit,- 323 324 (65) Imp - Structural stabilization practices, including riprap, shA are 325 recommended to include plantings between individual boulders or native 326 upland plantings to retard runoff and prevent erosion wherever feasible 327 and practical. 328 329 (76) Aler-ever- pr-aefieal and - feasible, str -u,,W r-a siabiliz tier p etie °s 330 shall inelude native upland plantings 331 332 (8) A fipmp plaeemei*t asignzfior- aetr .,..,sank a ,,,,.,n dal 333 334 tWs Rule b',v registered professional engineer- in he State ,.fr,r:,,. eset„ in 335 336 337 �ts shall qualify fer- a fast tfaek pefmit issued and signed by an 6/15/2010 9:13:07 AM 10 338 339 340` 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362. 363 364` 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 (a) Erosion intensity calculations from pamgmpl- section 3, Shoreline Erosion Intensity Calculation, or 4, Streambank Erosion Intensity Calculation, of this rule, whichever is applicable, or materials necessary to make the demonstration required.in section 5, Design Flexibility. (b) Photographs of the project site, showing existing conditions. (bc) Site plan showing: (1) Survey locating.the existing ordinary high water (OHW) elevation, existing shoreline or streambank, floodplain elevation, and location of property lines; (2) Elevation contours of the upland within 15 feet of the OHW and referenced to accepted datum; and (3) Location of the shoreline /streambank stabilization zone and access corridor; 11 374 (4) Location of existing trees and shrubs within the shoreline /streambank 375 stabilization zone and an indication of whether they are to be removed or 376 retained; 377 378 (5) Plan view of locations and lineal footage of the proposed 379 rishoreline/bank stabilization treatment; and 380 381 (6) The plan shall location of an upland baseline parallel to the 382 shoreline/bank with stationing. The baseline shall be staked in the field 383 and maintained in place until project completion. Baseline origin and 384 terminus each shall be referenced to three fixed features FRease fl3e 385 ,.west 0.05-feet, with measurements shown and described on the plan. 386 Perpendicular offsets from the baseline to the OHW shall be measured and 387 distances shown on the plan at 20 foot stations. The plan shail be eei4ified 388 . 389 390 391 392 (ed) Cross section, drawn to scale, with the horizontal and vertical scales noted on 393 the drawing, detailing -the: 394 395 (1) The existing bank, OHW, and 100 year floodplain elevation; 396 397 (4-2) The proposed fipmpstabilization technique, finished slope, and 398 distance lakeward of the OHW, - dr-avffi a 399 vei4ieal sea4es noted on the dr- a-.ing +° detail should sh,.., the fi flis,eA 400 , 401 , 402 eifieatiens . 403 404 , 100 year- fleedplain 405 elevation; 406 407 (3) Material specifications; 408 409 (4) Description of the underlying soil materials that YAII suppet4 e 410 411 . 6/15/2010 9:13:07 AM 12 412 413 414 415 416 417 418. 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441, 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 (de) Specification of erosion control and site stabilization practices. (ef) For biological and bioengineering stabilization practices, a Vegetation Establishment Plan,; including- (1) A planfing plan, ifteladk4ge.plant list with common and scientific names, seed mix:specifcations, quantities and origin of all material; and (2) Specification of the methods; schedule and party" responsible for ensuring p " establishment and maintenance of the vegetation for the three years following installation or construction. The plan shall include the for - controlling of invasive species and replacement of vegetation. if as necessary. (fg) For bioengineering:, (1) Detail the location of all hard armoring inert material, such as riprap, to be utilized; (2) Provide a written narrative explaining how the use of hard armoring inert material such as riprap has been minimized to the extent practical and feasible. (gh) For streambank stabilization: (1) Cross sectional view of stream channel in existing and proposed conditions; (2) Longitudinal view" of stream channel in existing and proposed conditions; (3) Plan view of stream channel in existing and proposed conditions;. (4) Identification of bankf ill indicators; (5) Documentation of existing soils, wetlands, vegetation, slopes, bank and channel material; 6/15/2010 9:13:07 AM 13 451 (6) Identification of in- stream features such as woody debris, riffles and 452 pools, etc. 453 454 , 455 eastiFing the e nt stab lit., , fthe sh.reline e stFe,.,,b ank ineluding 456 establishment and maintenanee ef plan4ings, erosion een#el and eentinued 457 eemplianee .,,;+ the ., r t:,,able er- iter-i in ee fie., 56 Gr- ite,.:., f Stabiliz 458 TeehrAques, ef 04s Fule. 459 460 78. MAINTENANCE DECLARATION. A declaration or other recordable instrument 461 describing 462 techniques for maintenance of access corridors, periodic selective vegetation removal 463 and ongoing maintenance of bioengineering or vegetative stabilization practices 464 vegetatien management, must be submitted to and approved by the District, then 465 recorded in the office of the county recorder or registrar before activity under the 466 District permit commences. In lieu of recordation, a public permittee may assume the 467 maintenance obligation by means of a written agreement with the District. The 468 agreement shall state that if the ownership of the property on which the shoreline or 469 streambank improvement is transferred, the penmittee shall require the transferee to 470 comply with this section. 471 472 5. CHWDELWES. The engineer- shall publish er- make available te inter-es4ed per-seas 473 474 475 476 99. CRITERIA FOR LAYING SANDBLANKETS. All permitted sandblanketing shall 477 comply with the following standards: 478 479 (a) The sand or gravel used must be clean prior to being spread. The sand must 480 contain no toxins or heavy.metal, as defined by the Minnesota Department of 481 Natural Resources, and must contain no weed infestations such as, but not 482 limited to, water hyacinth, alligator weed, and Eurasian watermilfoil, or 483 animal life infestations such as, but not limited to, zebra mussels or their larva. 484 Violators will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. 485 486 (b) The sand Payer must not exceed six inches in thickness, 50 feet in width along 487 the shoreline, or one -half the width of the lot, whichever is less, and mayfy 488 not extend more than 10 feet waterward of the ordinary high water mark. 489 490 (c) Only one installation of sand or gravel to the same location may be made 491 during a four -year period. After the four years have passed since the last 492 blanketing, the location may receive another sandblanket. No more than two 6/15/2010 9:13:07 AM 14 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501, 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 applications may be made by at an individual project site. (d) Exception. Beaches which are operated by-governmental entities and available to the public shall be maintained in a manner that represents the minimal impact to the environment, relative to other reasonable alternatives, and shall be exempted from the following, restrictions: (1) Sandblankets.be no more than 50 feet in width and extend no more than 10 feet waterward of the ordinary high water mark. See subwet�e - 6paragraph 8(b), specifying sandblanket criteria, of this rule; and (2) Sandblankets be installed no more frequently than once every four years and no more than twice at the same project location. See paragraph 8(c), limiting repeated sandblanket installations, of this rule. . 910. SANDBLANKET REQUIRED, EXHIBITS. The following exhibits shall accompany the sandblanket permit application: (a) Site plan showing property lines, delineation of the work area, existing elevation contours of the adjacent upland area, ordinary high water elevation, and regional flood elevation (if available). All elevations must be reduced to NGVD (1929 datum). (b) Profile, cross sections and/or topographic contours showing existing and proposed elevations and proposed side slopes in the work area. (Topographic contours should be at intervals not greater than 1.0 foot). (c) A completed Sandblanket Permit Application form, available from the District. 4-011. CRITERIA FOR RETAINING. WALLS (a) A new retaining wall, or repair /reconstruction of an existing retaining wall that increases floodplain encroachment beyond that required by technically sound and accepted repair /reconstruction methods, is permitted only pursuant to a variance or an exception under the District Variance Rule I. The applicant must demonstrate that there is no adequate stabilization alternative. (b) Wooden seawalls and/or steel sheetpiling retaining walls shall comply with accepted engineering principles. 6/15/2010 9:13:07 AM 15 537 (c) The applicant shall submit a structural analysis prepared by a professional 538 engineer registered in the State of Minnesota, in the practice of civil 539 engineering, showing that the wall will withstand expected ice and wave 540 action and earth pressures. 541 542 (d) The applicant shall submit a survey prepared by a registered land surveyor 543 locating the finished wall and shall file a certificate of survey with the District. 544 545 44.12. CRITERIA FOR OTHER SHORELINE IMPROVEMENTS. Other shoreline 546 improvements, such as boat ramps, shall comply with accepted engineering principles 547 as follows: 548 J 549 (a) Boat ramps and other similar improvements shall not be allowed in riparian 550 shoreline areas unless the applicant demonstrates that no feasible alternative 551 riparian access is available, that aquatic habitat and water quality impacts are 552 minimized; and 553 554 (b) Installation of boat ramps shall involve placement of no more than 50 cubic 555 yards of inert and clean material, and the maximum width of shoreline 556 disturbance shall be 15 feet unless the facility is a commercial marina or 557 public launch facility that requires a greater width; and 558 559 (c) Materials utilized for construction of boat ramps or other similar 560 improvements shall be safe and cause not adverse environmental impacts; the 561 improvement shall be of sound design and construction so that the 562 improvement is reasonably expected to be safe and effective. 563 564 6/15/2010 9:13:07 AM 16 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586. 587 588 589 590 591 Definitions • Access Corridor means corridor equal to 30 percent of the total shoreline length to a maximum of X30 feet. • Bioengineering Stabilization means the strategic installation of natural, vegetative, biologically active materials in conjunction with.toe stabilization, riprap or other hard - armoring materials to stabilize shoreline or streambank areas and associated slopes and prevent erosion. • Biological Stabilization means the strategic placement of natural, vegetation, biologically active materials _ such as but not limited to brush mattresses, live stakes /plantings, brush layering, fiber rolls, root wads and willow wattles - to stabilize shoreline or streambank areas and prevent erosion. • Native Vegetation means plant species that are indigenous to Minnesota or that expand their range into Minnesota without being intentionally or unintentionally introduced by human activity and that are, classified as native. in the Minnesota Plant Database, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul, 2002. • Stabilization Zone means the area of land paralleling the shoreline or streambank and extending 20 feet inland from all points along the ordinary high -water mark of the shoreline. • Structural Stabilization is the use of engineered systems — such as riprap, retaining walls, headwalls, groins, revetments, gabions — to stabilize shoreline or streambank areas and associated slope and prevent erosion. 6/15/2010 9:13:07 AM 17 V MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT STATEMENT OF NEED AND REASONABLENESS - UPDATE Amendments to Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Shoreline & Streambank Stabilization Rule June 14, 2010 I. BACKGROUND This Statement of Need and Reasonableness (SONAR) presents background on and explains proposed amendments to the following rule of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District: • Shoreline & Streambank Stabilization Rule The SONAR has been revised since it was issued along with the draft proposed amendments to the Shoreline & Streambank Stabilization Rule and now explains the decisions made by the District Board of Managers in revising the rule in response to comments received during two separate public comment periods provided by the District. The revisions to the SONAR address substantive changes to the rule made since the issuance of the rule for public comment and provide clarifications on the operation of the rule in response to issues that emerged in the comment periods. The amendments contribute to the implementation of the policies, standards and goals of the District's third - generation Watershed Management Plan, adopted on July 5, 2007. The amendments also represent improvements based on the District's experience applying its rules, and are designed to. improve the rule's effectiveness in protecting water resources without imposing unreasonable compliance burdens on permit holders. This statement of need and reasonableness describes the basis for the District Board of Managers' determination that the revisions are both beneficial and reasonable. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 103D.341, the proposed amendments were issued for a 45 -day public comment period that ended January 15, 2010. The Board of Managers encouraged all interested parties to comment on the rule or otherwise provide any information that might lead to further improvements to the rule. The District invited . interested parties to submit written comments on the proposed changes to the rule. State and regional resource protection agencies, local governments and potentially regulated parties were particularly invited to engage in a review of these proposed amendments for the purpose of making the Shoreline & Streambank Stabilization Rule as 1 MCWD Shoreline& Streambank Stabilization Rule Amendments June 15, 2010 Statement of Need and Reasonableness resource protective as possible without incurring excessive administrative costs or placing an..undue burden on those subject to the rule. The District received comments on the proposed Shoreline & Streambank Stabilization Rule revision from many cities, state agencies,, parks agencies, private developers and the Metropolitan Council. After the 45 -day period for written comments, the District held a public hearing to gather additional comments. The District considered carefully all comments received. Even after the original comment period, the District conducted additional public meetings On the draft;, revision, comments and responses, and participated in several meetings on the rule held by other groups, such as representatives of watershed cities: The Board of Managers reviewed and discussed the comments and the responses drafted by staff at.a.series of .meetings, then directed staff to make responsive changes to the rule text. The revisions and responses to- comments were distributed in mid -March 2010 via the District's website and sent to everyone who had submitted comments, along with explanations of changes made to the rule and clarifications. Because the District made substantial changes to the rule_from November to March, the Board of Managers elected to again post the rules for an open public comment period. The District accepted comments- until -April 12, 2010, and staff again compiled them for review by the Board of-Managers. The Board directed staff to make further responsive changes, distribute the revised revisions to the rule, then schedule another public hearing forJuly 8, 2010. The District anticipates that the amendments will be finalized for adoption after the July hearing. Legal Authority Legal.authority for the District's rules derives from Minnesota Statutes Chapters 103B and 103D. Under Minnesota Statutes section 103D.341, subdivision 1, watershed districts must adopt rules "to accomplish the purposes of [the Watershed Act] and to implement the powers of the managers." These purposes include, among others, conservation of water for public uses; controlling erosion and siltation of lakes, streams and wetlands; . and protecting water quality in these bodies.] District managers are further authorized to regulate and control the use of water within the watershed district, regulate the use of streams and watercourses to prevent pollution, and regulate the use and development of Minn. Stat. § 103D.201, subd. 2. 2 MCWD Shoreline & Streambank Stabilization Rule Amendments June 15, 2010 Statement of Need and Reasonableness land in collaboration with watershed cities.2 District rules, and revisions to the rules, must be adopted by a majority vote of the Board of Managers, after public notice and hearing.3 .Before adoption, a copy of the proposed rules must be provided to the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) and all public transportation authorities, in the watershed for a 45 7.day period of review and comment.4 . INTRODUCTION The Shoreline & Streambank Stabilization Rule is the fifth of the District's rules to be revised following the adoption of the revised watershed plan and distributed for public review and comment. Revisions to the District's Erosion Control, Floodplain Alteration, Dredging and Waterbody Crossings and Structures rules have been adopted and become effective September 1, 2010. The amendments to the, Shoreline & Streambank Stabilization Rule were 'issued along with the amendments to the Wetland Protection Rule. Two sources of policy direction have informed the development of the revision of the rule introduced and described by this document: The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District's completion and adoption of its third - generation watershed management plan and the need to integrate lessons learned from the District's extensive practical experience administering its rules. The changes to the District's rules developed in response to these two sources of policy direction were examined, discussed, informed by and revised in a stakeholder- involvement process that began even before the new watershed plan was approved. Watershed Plan In mid 2007, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District adopted its third - generation watershed plan. The plan presents policies and goals for the protection of water resources in the 1/78- square mile Minnehaha Creek watershed in Hennepin and Carver counties. The amendments introduced here represent an integral part of the plan's multifaceted implementation strategy. The amendments are part of the performance - based management strategy at the heart of the plan's implementation program. z Minn. Stat. § 103D.335, subds. 10, 16, and 23; § 10313.211, subd. 1. 3 Minn: Stat. § 103D.341, subds. 1, 2(a). 4 /d. at subd. 2(b). 3 MCWD Shoreline & Streambank Stabilization Rule Amendments Statement of Need and Reasonableness June 15, 2010 i Collective Experience The amendments also reflect the Distr.ict's experience implementing, administering and enforcing its rules. The size and intensity of development activity in the watershed give District staff ample opportunity to apply the rules. Staff have compiled notes and suggestions. for improvements, as well 'as, questions and comments from permit applicants, since the rules were last amended (a rouind of housekeeping updates in 2005). Stakeholder Participation The District developed and implemented an extensive stakeholder involvement program for its rulemaking, including a; Technical. Advisory Committee and -a Rulemaking Task. Force that reviewed all of the background issues and drafts of the amendments. The District made concerted efforts to ensure that the task force membership represented a broad spectrum of interested watershed residents - from developers, builders and business representatives to citizens, public and private environmental professionals, and environmental advocates. Several members of the task force came from the District's standing Citizens Advisory Committee. (See Table 1, Rulemaking Task Force members.) Members were chosen not only to achieve .broad representation, but also on the basis of their individual experience and interest in the District rulemaking. The task force met with District staff and consultants to guide the rulemaking process in accordance with the policies and goals in the plan. Beginning in May 2007, the task force met monthly to study plan policies, staff reports and other relevant information, and develop effective approaches to implementation. (One or more District managers attended the task force meetings, but principally to hear the discussion. and opinions firsthand, rather than actively participate. The managers generally confined their input on the,rulemaking to relevant meetings of the Board and workshops with staff.) Members reviewed and commented on draft amendment language as it was developed subsequent to the initial policy and implementation alternatives discussions. The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) included water management experts from local governments, public parks organizations, and county, regional and state agencies. Rather than limiting membership in the technical group to a particular defined set of individuals, the District left TAC membership open, and invited interested organizations to send the member or members of their staff who were particularly well- versed in a topic to attend the meeting focused on that topic. (See Table 2, a list of individuals who participated in meetings of the TAC.) Members of the technical group regularly work with 4 MCWD Shoreline & Streambank Stabilization Rule Amendments June 15, 2010 Statement of Need and Reasonableness the District and are familiar with the history of its regulatory program and its day -to -day integration with their programs and activities. The TAC provided input on the recommendations that emerged from the Rulemaking Task Force, with particular attention to the technical feasibility of proposed rule provisions. Like the task force, the TAC members commented on draft rule amendment language as it was developed and reviewed by the Board of Managers in response to input from" the advisory groups. In some places the groups' input prompt the District to rethink and revise its approach, and in others the groups offered language changes that clarified and improved the proposed. amendment. III. SHORELINE & STREAMBANK STABILIZATION RULE The amendments to the Shoreline & Streambank Stabilization Rule propose an important shift in the District's regulation of shorelines and streambanks by adding substantive provisions to support preservation and restoration of natural, vegetated shorelines that provide habitat and runoff - filtration benefits, among others. The Shoreline & Streambank Stabilization Rule secures the stability of shorelines and streambanks through application of the rule.criteria when a project affecting shoreline or streambank is proposed. These overall goals have been served by the rule since it was first implemented by the District more than a decade ago, and the revised amendments represent improvements and refinements to the District's approach to these goals. The proposed changes to'the Shoreline & Streambank Stabilization Rule are prompted not by new policy, but by a realization that the existing rule could be improved to better implement established District policy: namely, that shorelines and streambanks should remain natural in appearance and function to the greatest extent possible. In addition to the District's. longstanding and overarching goal of promoting natural shorelines, the Lake Minnetonka subwatershed plan in the District's 2007 watershed plan includes goals and actions the District will undertake to promote and restore native vegetation to stabilize shoreline, filter runoff, create habitat and reduce the use of the shoreline by waterfowl. The existing rule states as much, but the amendments effect the policy by: • directing applicants to design their stabilization projects to address specific erosion conditions and utilize natural, native restoration or maintenance where feasible and appropriate; and • providing that new structural stabilization (e.g., installation of riprap) will be allowed only for shorelines and streambanks with high susceptibility to erosion - referred to as "erosion intensity." 5 MCWD Shoreline & Streambank Stabilization Rule Amendments June 15, 2010 Statement of Need and Reasonableness Central to the effort to better align the rule's function with District policy is the addition of a required shoreline or streambank energy analysis, under which the susceptibility of the subject shoreline or streambank to erosion is ascertained ,(see.sections,.3 and 4). The District reviewed an array of literature and research identifying the most important factors in assessing a shoreline's or bank's sensitivity; then incorporated specific analytical„ protocols into the rule to determine whether a shoreline has high, medium or low vulnerability to erosion. In. response to comments asserting that the originally proposed analytical methods did not reflect conditions on watershed waterbasins, District staff reanalyzed conditions at roughly 50 properties that were the subject of recent permit applications - mostly from property owners.on Lake Minnetonka. Based on the results, both the Erosion Intensity Scoresheet and the. erosion- intensity ranges in sections 3 and 4 were revised to more accurately apply to conditions in the watershed. With these revisions, the analytical tools developed by the District support the proposed approach and criteria that require applicants to use natural vegetative strategies for shoreline and bank restoration whenever feasible. While the proposed revisions constitute a significant.new approach to regulating shoreline and streambank stabilization, the District has crafted the rule to ensure that its requirements will be implemented in conformity with property owners' land -use and riparian rights. The amended rule continues to allow for hard- armoring of shorelines where necessary, including the use of riprap. Existing riprap installations are not affected by the rule (there are no retroactive provisions in the rule), and no permit under the rule is. necessary for maintenance of a riprapped shoreline or streambank unless and until the property owner decides to add material (e.g., more riprap boulders) to the shoreline or streambank structure. The proposed rule also continues to recognize and provide for retaining walls where necessary; the rule continues to require an exception or variance showing under the District's Variance Rule before a permit will be issued for a retaining wall (see paragraph 1 1(a)). In addition to the substantive changes made in response to public comments discussed below, the revised draft amended rule includes administrative changes and explanatory language added to section and paragraph.cross- references to make the rule easier to understand and follow. 6 MCWD Shoreline & Streambank Stabilization Rule Amendments June 15, 2010 Statement of Need and Reasonableness C Definitions Several new /revised definitions are critical to clearly understanding and working with the amended Shoreline & Streambank Stabilization. Rule language. The definitions will appear in the Key Definitions, section of the District rules, but because they are helpful to the interpretation and application of the rule provisions, the proposed new definitions were provided at the end of the proposed rule revision to help explain the changes to the rule and to seek comment on them. - "Biological stabilization," "bioengineering stabilization" and "structural stabilization" describe shoreline /streambank stabilization strategies that directly correspond to the low, medium and high erosion- sensitivity ratings that are produced by the rule's analytical systems (discussed in detail below). Each describes a category of techniques, ranging from exclusively natural (biological) to mixed natural and engineered (bioengineering) to entirely hard - armored, engineered systems (structural). Also proposed for addition in support of the rule are "definitions for the terms "stabilization zone" and "access corridor," both of which are critical to understanding the application of the rule criteria. The District revised the definition of "access corridor ". after the winter comment period, narrowing the maximum width thereof to 30 feet, to conform to the width that is standard in municipal ordinances in the District. The narrowing of the scope of "access corridor" helped address_ concerns about the degree to which the District's shoreline and streambank regulation would restrict property owners' ability to landscape as they wished. Also, a definition for "native vegetation" was added to ensure harmony with the Department of Natural Resources rules and guidance. Policy The Shoreline & Streambank Stabilization Rule's policies. are reordered but only slightly reworded and amended. The reorganization to place preservation at the top of the list and addition of preservation of water quality and ecological integrity as a priority reflect the emphasis in the District plan on encouraging approaches to stabilization that restore and enhance the natural functions and appearance of shorelines and streambanks wherever possible. (See plan section' 5.0, Goal 6.) Well- designed shoreline and' streambank projects can achieve both landowner goals (e.g., stability /erosion control, 7 MCWD Shoreline & Streambank Stabilization Rule Amendments. June 15, 2010 Statement of Need and Reasonableness visual appeal) and District goals (e.g., habitat creation, erosion control/ stability, water quality improvement). The policy emphasis on natural shorelines is effected by the analysis and specific criteria discussed below. The long- established connection between the District regulatory programs and those of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is recognized by the reference in policy 1(c) to the DNR construction guidelines. The District has permitted work in public waters under a DNR- issued general permit since 2001, and the Shoreline & Streambank Stabilization rule, among others, is crafted to facilitate the District's continuing regulatory partnership with the state. The policy statement in paragraph 1(d) reflects Goal 6 in section 5.0 of the District's 2007 plan, underscoring that the District's regulation of water resource impacts considers the various uses and functions of waterbodies and the critical relationship to riparian ecology. Regulatory Threshold The basic regulatory thresholds for shoreline and streambank improvements have not changed. The revised rule would continue to apply to structural improvements, such as riprap, as well as sandblankets and other shoreline and streambank improvements, such as boat ramps, that are installed to prevent erosion and facilitate riparian access. The title of the rule is changed to underscore the focus on stabilization as the goal of the rule. The rule's scope is expanded to cover not only improvements but also "alteration" of shorelines and streambanks (see paragraph 2(a)). The term ensures that substantial changes to a shoreline or streambank made to protect against degradation caused by wind, wave and runoff forces, even if not constituting an "improvement" as the term is. traditionally used in municipal regulations, will be subject to District permitting requirements. In its revisions to the amendments as first proposed, the District has clarified that maintenance of riprap or other hard - armored shorelines or Streambank does not require a permit from the District unless materials will be added or the structure of the improvement will be altered (paragraph 2(c)). The District agreed with the observation made in several comments that, when changes to a stabilization improvement are being proposed and a permit is needed, the new erosion intensity measurements are not necessary because such work does not change the stabilization system from one type to another. In the revised version of the amendments, property owners who are maintaining an existing stabilization need not complete the section 3 worksheet or section 4 8 MCWD Shoreline & Streambank Stabilization' Rule Amendments June 15, 2010 Statement of Need and Reasonableness calculations - unless the shoreline or bank stabilization has degraded to the point where the property is essentially unprotected or has reverted to a natural state (see paragraph Fast track permitting remains available for all of the shoreline'stabilization techniques regulated. by the rule, with the exception of retaining Walls: (See paragraphs 2(d) and 2(f).) To be eligible, a projeet mustconform to the rule criteria. Fast track permitting is not available for streambank projects. Shoreline /Streambank Energy Analysis The District's revised approach to regulation of stabilization projects rests on the research the `District has conducted to determine the factors that create susceptibility to erosion. The research has allowed the District to draft new regulatory provisions and incorporate site- specific analytical tools that support tailoring of stabilization to address the erosion risk at a given property.5 For shoreline, wind- driven waves, boat traffic, shoreline geometry and other factors are assessed via the erosion intensity calculation worksheet integrated into the rule. The worksheet was developed by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, and after the reanalysis by District staff and consultants and adjustment to the criteria and thresholds, as discussed above, it provides an objective, field- confirmed tool that supports the District's regulation of shoreline stabilization projects.6 For streambanks, susceptibility to erosion is a function of flow depth, channel slope and shear stress, the critical factors identified in:the Federal Highway Administration's "Design of Roadside Channels with Flexible Linings, Hydraulic Engineering Circular Number 15," Third Edition:? The District also based its streambank formula on research results published in the Minnesota Department of Transportation's Drainage Manual. 5 See shoreline erosion forces study, Wenck Associates Inc., 2009. 6 See Wisconsin DNR, Waterway & Wetland Permits: Lake Shore Erosion Control athttp: / /dnr.wi.gov /waterways/ shoreline _habitat /lake - erosion.html (last visited May 30, 2010). The worksheet tool itself is available at http: / /dnr.wi.gov/ waterways/ factsheets/ Erosion_Intensity_Worksheet.pdf (last visited May 30, 2010). 7 Avai iabieathttp: / /www.fhwa.dot.aov/ engineering/ hydraulics /pubs /05114 /index.cfm (last visited November 23, 2009). 9 MCWD Shoreline & Streambank Stabilization Rule Amendments June 15, 2010 . Statement of Need and Reasonableness In response to comments stating that property owners should be able to comply with the rule's stabilization criteria without having to hire a structural engineering professional, the District removed language requiring that streambank stress calculations be certified by a registered engineer (see subsection 4(a)). The District also will continue its long - established practice of providing assistance to property owners and their contractors working on stabilization designs to ensure that they comply with rule requirements. The District's continuing commitment to facilitating compliance with its rules reflects its interest in achieving water - resource protection goals without unduly burdening property owners with technical requirements. The numerical results produced by the shoreline and streambank analyses correspond to the high, medium and low erosion - intensity determinations in subsection 3(b) for shorelines and 4(b) for streambanks. These rankings determine the appropriate stabilization techniques to be used. Hard armoring ( "structural stabilization ") is allowed only where erosion potential is great. A low score from the relevant analytical section means natural, vegetated techniques ( "biological stabilization," discussed above) are to be used, while a mix of vegetation and hard armoring ( "bioengineering ") is prescribed for sites with mid -range erosion potential. High erosion potential merits structural solutions such as riprap. The ranking system ensures that the District's policy emphasis on preservation of natural shorelines is realized to the greatest degree possible, without unduly risking erosion. The analytical steps here are cumulative, not exclusive; an applicant whose shoreline qualifies for hard - armoring based on the appropriate analysis nonetheless may use vegetated, deep- rooted native plants - or a mixture of hard - armoring and plantings. In such cases, riprap is allowed, but by no means required. . Design Flexibility The District recognizes that some applicants will maintain that their shoreline or streambank must be either partially hard - armored (via bioengineering) or entirely structurally stabilized, even though the results of the erosion intensity analysis indicate a medium or low erosion risk. For such cases, the rule provides (in paragraph 2e) an alternative compliance route: Section 5 allows applicants to present documentation which indicates that notwithstanding the results of the energy analysis, their proposed stabilization approach provides protection against erosion with the smallest possible impact on water - resource ecology, compared with other reasonable approaches to stabilizing the location. Fast track permits are not available via this alternative 10 MCWD Shoreline & Streambank Stabilization Rule Amendments June 15, 2010 Statement of Need and Reasonableness compliance path because of the necessary site - specific analysis by the District engineer and staff. Criteria The proposed rule includes standards for biological and bioengineered stabilization (see subsection 6(b)), as well as general criteria that apply to all 'stabilization projects (see subsection 6(a)). Subsection (c) for structural stabilization largely mirrors the existing rule criteria provisions for riprap. The emphasis on natural shorelines and streambanks is supported by the criterion in paragraph 6(a)(1), which requires applicants - whether pursuing the analysis in section 3 or 4, or the alternative demonstration via the Design Flexibility provision in section 5 - to show that structural stabilization (hard armoring). is needed to arrest or prevent erosion. That is, while biological and bioengineering practices may be pursued without demonstration of an erosion problem or threat (because they provide other natural resources and water - resource ecology benefits), hard armoring for purely aesthetic reasons is precluded. The Rulemaking Task Force members supported requiring this demonstration of need, while also cautioning the District against an overly prescriptive regulation of shoreline work. Task force members suggested that outreach and education efforts could appropriately and effectively advance the District's interests in greater use of biological and bioengineered stabilization techniques in lieu of riprap and other hard- armoring approaches. Greater familiarity with natural resources -based stabilization strategies will lead to landowners more readily considering alternatives to traditional hard-armored techniques, such as riprap. In response to the task force recommendations, along with commentors' concerns regarding the efficacy of biological stabilization, the District will extend its existing shoreline stabilization cost -share program to private property, including.residential lots. The District has provided cost -share and technical assistance for number of projects on publicly owned land already, and by opening up the program to private property owners who wish to naturalize and beautify their shorelines or streambanks the District intends to demonstrate successful implementation of biological and bioengineered stabilizations. In addition, the District will support compliance with the amended Shoreline & Streambank Stabilization Rule by providing training to commercial shoreline and streambank stabilization contractors on how to correctly design and install biological and 11 MCWD Shoreline & Streambank Stabilization Rule Amendments June 15, 2010 Statement of Need and Reasonableness bioengineered solutions. These workshops and onsite demonstrations will be offered at no charge, and participants will receive certification of having attended and completed the District training. As the program develops, the District Board of Managers may reduce permitting fees for applications from applicants working with certified contractors, since such applications will very likely require less staff time to process; inspection and followup costs should be reduced, too, supporting the fee reduction. The District responded to comments suggesting (based on an apparent misunderstanding of the rule provisions) that the amended rule would mandate biological or bioengineered shoreline and streambank stabilization when an applicant seeks approval of a riprap maintenance plan by simplifying the provisions governing management of vegetation when a maintenance project requires a permit. The District eliminated subsection 6(a)(2) and paragraph 6(c)(6), which mandated incorporation of native vegetation whenever feasible, in favor of a recommendation that permittees take this step (see revised paragraph 6(c)(5)). The change to an advisory rather than a mandatory provision is made in response to commentors' suggestion that the requirement amounted to a penalty for landowners simply trying to repair an established stabilization structure. The District's goal of preserving natural shorelines and streambanks will be achieved via the revised paragraph 6(a)(2), which allows an access corridor (defined as 30 percent of the shoreline to a maximum of 30 feet) to be cleared, while requiring a more naturalized, vegetated maintenance regime for the rest of the stabilization zone (defined as the area 20 feet inland from the ordinary high water mark along the shoreline or streambank). Proposed paragraph 6(a)(6) is new and provides further emphasis on maintaining natural shorelines and streambanks. Paragraph 6(a)(7) is fundamentally as it appears in the current rule (3(a)(5)), and the criterion in paragraph (8) simply underscores that the District's permitting authority under the DNR General Permit does not extend to aquatic plan management - a separate DNR permit must be obtained by the applicant when required under the DNR rules (see Minnesota Statutes section 103G.61 5 and Minnesota Rules section 6280). Biological and Bioengineering Criteria As noted, the current rule lacks criteria for natural shoreline and streambank stabilization - a situation rectified by subsection 6(b). Research and design references are incorporated into criteria (1) and (2), and the temporary use of wave barriers is allowed to 12 MCWD Shoreline & Streambank Stabilization Rule Amendments June 15, 2010 Statement of Need and Reasonableness give plants a better chance to become established and secure the shoreline or streambank. Structural Criteria The proposed criteria for structural stabilizations generally reflect the riprap requirements in the existing rule, with the exception of the new criterion in paragraph 6(c)(1), which clarifies that placement of riprap in wetlands will constitute fill and subject the project to regulation as filling in a wetland under the District Wetland Protection Rule - and the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) or other wetland regulation, if applicable. During the comment period on the amendments it became clear that some reviewers understood the paragraph to mean that a# riprap would be considered wetland fill. The District added "only" to the amendment to make it clear that riprap will be considered fill in a wetland onlywhen it is placed in a wetland. The addition of this paragraph to the - rule is merely a clarification - the scope of the WCA is set by the state, and if a particular wetland adjacent to a waterbody is regulated under WCA, riprap placed therein is regulated. Similarly, if the wetland is regulated by the District, the DNR or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, fill may be subject to regulation by those entities. Paragraph 6(c)(2) as originally proposed in November 2009 stated that riprap and other hard armor materials used to reinforce shorelines would be considered floodplain fill when placed below the 100 -year flood elevation. The provision has been removed in the revisions to the amendments. Additional analysis conducted in response to comments on this provision determined that historical use of hard - armoring materials to stabilize shoreline has not materially decreased floodplain storage around lakes in the watershed. Further, the benefit of stabilized shorelines in preventing sloughing and sediment transport into waterbodies outweighs any increased incursion into the floodplain caused by placement of stabilization materials. Revisions also will be made to section 2 and paragraph 3(e) of the adopted revised Floodplain Alterations Rule to implement this shift in policy. The District originally proposed two new criteria requiring plantings between riprap boulders wherever possible, reflecting the District's emphasis in this rulemaking on shorelines and streambanks that are naturalized to the greatest extent possible, even when the overall approach is structural. As discussed above, these criteria have been collapsed into one (6(c)(5)) and recast as a recommendation. The District believes that as property owners learn more about natural stabilization options through its cost-share- and outreach programs, increasing numbers will incorporate native plantings into their 13 MCWD Shoreline & Streambank Stabilization Rule Amendments June 15, 2010 Statement of Need and Reasonableness stabilization projects. But in the meantime, incorporation of native vegetation into structural stabilization practices is recommended, but not required. Also in response.to the comments that property owners should not have to hire a structural engineer to install- riprap, the District is proposing to remove the required certification of riprap design by a registered professional engineer (which appears in the current rule at 3(a)(8) and appeared in the initial draft revision of the rule). Certification by an engineer will continue to be required for retaining walls (see paragraph 1 1(c).) The Rulemaking Task ,Force. expressed support for a specific provision that would allow . applicants to propose overall environmental enhancements to mitigate riprap impacts. The existing exception provision in the District's Variances Rule provides such flexibility where the overall design and plans for a project stand to provide greater environmental performance than strict compliance.with a rule. Exhibits The amended Shoreline & Streambank Stabilization Rule would include a single list of exhibit requirements applicable to all stabilization projects except sand blankets, which are "specifi cal ly provided for in sections 9 and 10. The requirements are refined and updated from the set that apply to riprap projects under the current rule, and are designed to provide District staff and engineers with a detailed set of plans showing the work proposed including, when biological or bioengineering stabilization is proposed, planting and design details as appropriate to the location (see paragraphs 7(f) and (h)). The most substantial addition, in paragraph 7(a), is the required appropriate erosion intensity analysis per section 3 or 4. Applicants seeking approval through the alternative Design Flexibility route in section 5 must submit materials necessary for the District staff and consultants to make the appropriate analysis to provide a basis for consideration (by staff or the Board of Managers) of the proposal. Other additions are made to provide the'appropriate delineation of the access zone (7(c)(3)) and the area to which the vegetation and tree maintenance provisions in 6(a)(2) apply (7(c)(4))• The District also added a requirement that applicants submit representative site photographs in paragraph 7(b). Other changes were made to the exhibits section after 14 MCWD Shoreline & Streambank Stabilization Rule Amendments June 15, 2010 Statement of Need and Reasonableness the second comment period to streamline organization. No substantive changes were made to the exhibit lists. Maintenance Consistent with standard District policy, a Shoreline & Streambank Stabilization Rule applicant is required to commit to maintenance of their streambank or shoreline. The method by which this is accomplished was streamlined by staff after the second round of comments. First, vegetation must be established according to a three -year plan submitted by the applicant for approval, the components of which are outlined in subsection 7(f). Then the property owner must record a declaration against.the deed for the subject property, and the document must include details on how the project access corridor and vegetation will be maintained. Section 8 requires the maintenance elements _ to be recorded against the deed so that when a property is transferred, the new owner will not clear -cut biological stabilizations or the vegetative elements of bioengineered stabilizations, and vegetation removal in other parts of the shoreline impact zone will take place only in keeping-with approved techniques. Again in keeping with long- established District policy, public entities conducting projects on public property may meet the memorialization requirement by entering an agreement with the District in lieu of recording a,declaration (see section 8). Sandblankets In the initially proposed amendments, no substantive changes to sandblanket regulation by the District were proposed (see sections 9 and 10). Only minor revisions for clarification were proposed, and applicants for sandblanket permits need not show a need to prevent erosion or repair damage to be issued a permit. As noted, sandblanket permits remain available via fast track permitting (see paragraph 2(f)). Following the first comment period, paragraph 9(c) was revised to match the DNR's requirement that no more than two sandblanket applications be made at an individual project site, whether or not the ownership of the property is transferred. Comments on the proposed amendments arguing for greater flexibility for public beaches also led to revisions to the exception specifics (i.e., the parameters with which public projects need not comply - sandblanket width, distance waterward and frequency of reapplication) in paragraph 9(d)(1). Public beach projects now must be shown to cause the least environmental impact of all reasonable alternatives. This standard allows the District to ensure, through application of the rule, that public entities have the flexibility they need 15 MCWD Shoreline & Streambank Stabilization Rule Amendments June 15, 201.0 Statement of Need and Reasonableness to maintain beaches in the manner that best serves all of various public purposes implicated, while the District ensures that water - resources impacts are minimized. Public entities will be expected to provide historical and /or public use information to support maintenance of sandblankets in excess,of the parameters established by the, rule, which are in line with the DNR's thresholds for permitting maintenance of public beaches. Regardless of how a particular project is regulated under the District rule, applicants are advised to ensure that they have complied with DNR's permitting requirements. (The District's DNR General Permit does not apply, to sandblanket projects.) , Retaining Walls Retaining walls continue to be permitted by.the Shoreline & Streambank Stabilization Rule, but an exception or variance showing must be made for a retaining wall permit to be granted (see 11(a)). Other The proposed revisions to Shoreline & Streambank Stabilization Rule provide new specific requirements for boat ramps and other shoreline improvements. The District. has proposed specificity to replace the broad requirement that such projects must comply with generally accepted engineering principles. The criteria in section 12 apply the needs analysis relevant to stabilization projects and provide that a boat ramp is allowed only if there is no other feasible means of getting a boat, into the water. The impact of boat ramp construction also must be minimized (see paragraph 12(b). IV. BEYOND REGULATION In conjunction with, the proposed regulatory revisions, naturalized shoreline and streambank restoration and preservation will remain a focus of D.i,strict outreach efforts and capital improvement work, including the extension of the District cost -share program to private residential properties and the contractor- training program described above. As noted, the District is collaborating with four watershed cities around,Lake Minnetonka on .public shoreline restoration projects that are increasing the District's understanding of how to stage such wor`k'and which kinds of plants,. planting techniques and associated features are most effective given certain shoreline energy conditions. Also, District staff remain available to discuss applicant's shoreline and Streambank goals, and to review early plans and make suggestions and provide assistance, as requested. The District's goal is to preserve the integrity and natural character of 16 MCWD Shoreline & Streambank Stabilization Rule Amendments June 15, 2010 Statement of Need and Reasonableness watershed shorelines and streambanks and to work with property owners in a reasonable manner to do so. 17 MCWD Shoreline & Streambank Stabilization Rule Amendments June 15, 2010 Statement of Need and Reasonableness Table 1 - Members of the Rulemaking Task Force IName Occupation /Affiliation Employer /City ITorn Aasen Citizens Advisory Committee Minnetonka Kristin Asher Engineer [City of Richfield Melissa Barrett Wetland Scientist Kjolhaug Environmental Services Ginny Black Organics Recycling Coordinator M inn esota Pollution Control j Agency 11-arry Blackstad Citizens Advisory Committee Minnetonka William Bushnell ICitizens Advisory Committee IMinnetrista ITorn Casey Citizens Advisory Committee Mound Nate Duoss Public Policy Specialist ilders Association of the Twin Icaties Tony Goldenstein Citizens Advisory Committee St. Louis Park Stephen Jenkins Supervisor - District #4 Hennepin Conservation District ames Johnson Vice President Lyman Properties LLC Steve Mohn Investment Manager Self Employed Fp4vid-Newman _ _- Land Developer ; FTh; Bancor Group -- .... _.. -- Dan Salmon Citizens_..._ Advisory Committee St. Louis Park Ethel Smith Resident 'Timothy Smith Registered Nurse Hennepin County Medical Center Duncan Steinman Citizens Advisory Committee ;Minnetonka Harold Ulvestaed Commercial Real Estate Broker Staubach Company acob Westman Educator, Student I Westonka Public Schools _ ... - _ . _ _.. _ -_ . - Donna Woodruff Citizens Advisory Committee i Shorewood 18 MCWD Shoreline & Streambank Stabilization Rule Amendments June 15, 2010 Statement of Need and Reasonableness Table 2 - Participants in the Technical Advisory Committee Name Agency/City Laura Adler Cit of St. Louis Park Liz Stout Cit of ;Minnetonka Tony Brou h Hennepin County .. Wayne Houle 'City of Edina Jesse Struve City of Edina Mike Kelly City of Wayzata Aaron Snyder U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Dave Poggi Bolton & Menk (Engineer for Mound, Deephaven, St. Bonifacius, Greenwood & Woodland) John Barten Three Rivers Park District Tim Brown Barr Engineering Jack Frost Metropolitan Council Brad Wozney Board of Water and Soil Resources Lois Eberhart City of Minneapolis Bob Moberg City of Plymouth Larry Brown City of Shorewood Holly Kreft City of Victoria Cara Geheren TKDA (City of Victoria Engineer) Deb Pil er Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board Michael Schmidt Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board Mike Eastlin2 City of Richfield Derek Asche City of Plymouth Sara A likowski Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board Kate Drewery Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Kristin Asher City of Richfield Bob Moberg City of Plymouth Lee Gustafson of Minnetonka Ter Jeffe t�C�Z'ty of. Chanhassen 19 MCWD Shoreline & Streambank Stabilization Rule Amendments June 15, 2010 Statement of Need and Reasonableness SN A, ow Le 4� �y •,rye eee �// REPORT /RECOMMENDATION To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL Agenda Item Item No. V.A. From: John Wallin Finance Director ® F1 Action Discussion Information Date: July 6, 2010 Subject: Receive Comprehensive Annual Ended December 31, 2009 Financial Report (CAFR) for Year ACTION REQUESTED: Recommend receipt of 2009 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). James Eichten, CPA, from Malloy, Montague, Karnowski, Radosevich, & Co., P.A., (MMKR) the Principal in charge of the audit, will be present at the meeting to present the CAFR and Management Report. INFORMATION /BACKGROUND: Attached is the following: Independent Auditors' Management Report Independent Auditors' Special Purpose Audit Reports 2009 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. The Independent Auditors' Management Report is a report by the auditors to communicate information relevant to city finances and to provide comments resulting from their audit process. The Independent Auditor's Special Purpose Audit Reports is the result of the extensive audit performed to assess the City's internal controls and to assure compliance with all of the State's and Federal Government's statutes, laws and regulations. The auditors this year found two occurrences where the City did not comply with State statutes and Federal laws and regulations. Finance staff has responded to both of these findings. The auditors did not identify any deficiencies in internal control over financial reporting that they consider to be material weaknesses. The 2009 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report is the accumulation of all Finance functions compiled in a format prescribed by the Financial Accounting Standards Board, the Governmental Accounting Standards Board, The State of Minnesota, and The Federal Government. The Comprehensive Annual Financial Report consists of a number of sections: The Introductory Section has a letter from the Finance Director, a listing of elected and appointed officials and an organization chart. The Financial Section includes the Auditors' Opinion and Management's Discussion and Analysis letter. The Basic Financial Statements is the part of the report that details the 2009 accounting for the City, as well as the notes to the financial statements. The Required Supplementary Information includes the budgetary comparison schedule for the General Fund along with the related notes. The Combining and Individual Fund Statements and Schedules are the financial statements for the non -major funds. The Supplementary Financial Information includes various schedules of debt and assessed valuation. The Statistical Section has a number of schedules again required by the above mentioned boards and governments. Management Report for City of Edina, Minnesota December 31, 2009 MMKR CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS To the City Council City of Edina, Minnesota PRINCIPALS Kenneth W. Malloy, CPA Thomas M. Montague, CPA Thomas A. Karnowski, CPA Paul A. Radosevich, CPA William J. Lauer, CPA James H. Eichten, CPA Aaron J.-Nielsen, CPA Victoria L. Holinka, CPA We have prepared this management report in conjunction with our audit of the City of Edina, Minnesota's (the City) financial statements for the year ending December 31, 2009. The purpose of this report is to communicate information relevant to city finances in Minnesota and to provide comments resulting from our audit process. We have organized this report into the following sections: • Audit Summary • Funding Cities in Minnesota • Governmental Funds Overview • Financial Trends and Conditions • Accounting and Auditing Updates We would be pleased to further discuss any of the information contained in this report or any other concerns that you would like us to address. We would also like to express our thanks for the courtesy and assistance extended to us during the course of our audit. This report is intended solely for the information and use of management, those charged with governance of the City, and those who have responsibility for oversight of the financial reporting process and is not intended to be, and should not be, used by anyone other than these specified parties. /11q 1/0 H r /✓ 0e)-fA , v R- k,o..�'n"Sk" June 24, 2010 �J Malloy, Montague, Karnowski, Radosevich & Co., P.A. 5353 Wayzata Boulevard • Suite 410 • Minneapolis, MN 55416 • Telephone: 952- 545 -0424 • Telefax: 952 -545 -0569 • www.mmkr.com AUDIT SUMMARY The following is a summary of our audit work, key conclusions, and other information that we consider important or that is required to be communicated to the City Council, administration, or those charged with governance of the City. We have audited the financial statements of the governmental activities, the business -type activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City as of and for the year ended December 31, 2009. Professional standards require that we provide you with information about our responsibilities under auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and Government Auditing Standards, as well as certain information related to the planned scope and timing of our audit. We have communicated such information to you verbally and in our audit engagement letter. Professional standards also require that we communicate to you the following information related to our audit. AUDIT OPINION AND FINDINGS Based on our audit of the City's financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2009: • We have issued an unqualified opinion on the City's annual financial statements. • We noted no matters involving the City's internal control over financial reporting that we consider to be significant deficiencies or material weaknesses. • The results of our testing disclosed no instances of noncompliance that are required to be reported under Government Auditing Standards. • We have reported two findings based on our testing of the City's compliance with Minnesota laws and regulations. • The City did not include in all contracts the required language specifying contractor's payment to subcontractors within 10 days of receipt of payment from the City. • The City did not advertise for all bids solicited during the year within 10 days prior to required submission of the bids to the City. SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES Management is responsible for the selection and use of appropriate accounting policies. The significant accounting policies used by the City are described in Note 1 of the notes to basic financial statements. No new accounting policies were adopted and the application of existing policies was not changed during the year. We noted no transactions entered into by the City during the year for which there is a lack of authoritative guidance or consensus. All significant transactions have been recognized in the financial statements in the proper period. ACCOUNTING ESTIMATES AND MANAGEMENT JUDGMENTS Accounting estimates are an integral part of the financial statements prepared by management and are based on management's knowledge and experience about past and current events and assumptions about future events. Certain accounting estimates are particularly sensitive because of their significance to the financial statements and because of the possibility that future events affecting them may differ significantly from those expected. 4- The most sensitive estimates affecting the financial statements of the City include the following: Useful lives for the depreciation of capital assets. Estimate for compensated absences payable based on current sick leave balances. Actuarial determined calculation of the City's net other post - employment benefits obligation. Management expects any differences between estimates and actual amounts of these estimates to be insignificant. We evaluated the key factors and assumptions used by management in the areas discussed above in determining that they are reasonable in relation to the financial statements taken as a whole. DIFFICULTIES ENCOUNTERED IN PERFORMING THE AUDIT We encountered no significant difficulties in dealing with management in performing and completing our audit. CORRECTED AND UNCORRECTED MISSTATEMENTS Professional standards require us to accumulate all known and likely misstatements identified during the audit, other than those that are trivial, and communicate them to the appropriate level of management. Where applicable, management has convected all such misstatements. In addition, none of the misstatements detected as a result of audit procedures and corrected by management, when applicable, were material, either individually or in the aggregate, to each opinion unit's financial statements taken as a whole. DISAGREEMENTS WITH MANAGEMENT For purposes of this report, professional standards define a disagreement with management as a financial accounting, reporting, or auditing matter, whether or not resolved to our satisfaction, that could be significant to the financial statements or the auditor's report. We are pleased to report that no such disagreements arose during the course of our audit. MANAGEMENT REPRESENTATIONS We have requested certain representations from management that are included in the management representation letter dated June 24, 2010. MANAGEMENT CONSULTATIONS WITH OTHER INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS In some cases, management may decide to consult with other accountants about auditing and accounting matters, similar to obtaining a "second opinion" on certain situations. If a consultation involves application of an accounting principle to the City's financial statements or a determination of the type of auditor's opinion that may . be expressed on those statements, our professional standards require the consulting accountant to check with us to determine that the consultant has all the relevant facts. To our knowledge, there were no such consultations with other accountants. OTHER AUDIT FINDINGS OR ISSUES We generally discuss a variety of matters, including the application of accounting principles and auditing standards, with management each year prior to retention as the City's auditors. However, these discussions occurred in the normal course of our professional relationship and our responses were not a condition to our retention. -2- FUNDING CITIES IN NHNNESOTA LEGISLATION The following is a summary significant legislative activity passed in calendar 2009 affecting the finances of Minnesota cities: Unallotment — The 2009 legislative session ended without an agreement on how to erase the state budget deficit. The Legislature approved and sent a final package of budget - balancing tax items to the Governor, but the Governor vetoed the bill and balanced the budget on his own using his power of unallotment. The Governor's unallotment plan included delays in the payment of state revenues to school districts, and a reduction in appropriations to other state programs, including local government aid (LGA) and market value homestead credit (MVHC). The unallotments included $193 million in reductions in calendar 2009 and 2010 to LGA and MVHC to cities, calculated at 3.31 percent and 7.64 percent, respectively, of the total calendar 2009 aggregated levy and LGA of the city. Cuts are first taken from LGA and then from MVHC, as necessary. A city's total reduction could not exceed $22 and $55 per capita, respectively. Cities with populations below 1,000 and below the state -wide average tax base per capita were exempted from these cuts. In May 2010, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled on a lawsuit brought by a program that had its funding cut through unallotment. The court ruled that the Governor's "use of unallotment power to address the unresolved deficit exceeded the authority granted to the executive branch by statute." While the court ruled only on the cuts to this specific program, the decision called into question all of the Governor's reductions, which were subsequently revisited during the 2010 legislative session. Levy Limitations — The 2008 Legislature passed a law that limits general operating property tax levy increases for cities with populations over 2,500 to 3.9 percent annually for the next three calendar years. The 2009 legislative session ended with levy limits intact. Levy limits will remain in place for at least the 2010 budget year, with a couple of minor modifications that were contained in laws passed in 2009. For the calendar 2010 tax year, cities will be able to declare "special levies" for the calendar 2008 and 2009 unallotment losses described earlier. The calendar 2010 unallotment losses can be declared for the 2011 tax year. Emergency Certificates of Indebtedness — The law authorizes a city to issue emergency debt certificates if the city's current year revenues are reasonably expected to be reduced below the amount provided in the city's budget approved when the property tax levy of the city was certified. This law only allows for the issuance of this debt if the revenues of the city will be insufficient to meet the expenses incurred or to be incurred during the current fiscal year. For example, emergency debt certificates could be issued as a result of mid -year reductions in state aid payments for LGA or MVHC, or when a city is experiencing a high level of property tax delinquencies. This law also requires the city to levy property taxes for the payment of principal and interest on the certificates issued. FEDERAL RECOVERY ACT The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 is expected to provide approximately $300 billion in federal funds to state and local governments, and to institutions of higher education. These funds are intended to supplement existing federal programs, create new programs, or provide more broad fiscal relief. Many cities are hoping to receive some of these temporary funds for programs and projects. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 mandates that there be an unprecedented amount of oversight and transparency around the spending of these funds, including specific audit and internal control requirements. -3- The additional internal control requirements include the need for controls over the acceptance of recovery funds, appropriate controls over the segregation of these funds from other sources of revenue, compliance with the additional laws and regulations specific to each grant award, and additional financial reporting requirements back to the appropriate federal agency. These additional controls also include considerations into whether control procedures are in place over the federal grant expenditures to prevent unallowable expenditures, consideration into whether additional controls and systems will be needed to ensure funds are able to be separately tracked and identified, and consideration into if controls are sufficient for any funds that are passed along to subrecipients. PROPERTY TAXES Minnesota cities rely heavily on local property taxes to support their governmental fund activities. In recent years this dependence has been heightened, as revenue from state aids and fees related to new development have dwindled due to the struggling economy. This has placed added pressure on local taxpayers already beset by higher unemployment, lower property values, and tighter credit markets. As a result, municipalities in general are experiencing increases in tax delinquencies, abatements, and foreclosures. This instability has led to significant fiscal challenges for many local governments, and increased the investing public's concerns about the security of the municipal debt market. Property values within Minnesota cities experienced average increases of 7.0 percent for taxes payable in 2008 and 1.5 percent for those payable in 2009, reflecting the slowdown in growth in market values. It is important to remember that the 2009 market value is based on estimated values as of January 1, 2008, and the housing market is still experiencing difficult times. In comparison, the City's market value increased by 3.8 percent in 2008 and 1.3 percent in 2009. The following graph shows the City's changes in taxable market value over the past 10 years: $12,000,000,000 $10,000,000,000 $8,000,000,000 $6,000,000,000 $4,000,000,000 $2,000,000,000 Taxable Market Value 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 -4- Tax capacity is considered the actual base available for taxation. It is calculated by applying the state's properly classification system to each property's market value. Each property classification, such as commercial or residential, has a different calculation and uses different rates. Consequently, a city's total tax capacity will change at a different rate than its total market value, as tax capacity is affected by the proportion of the city's tax base that is in each property classification from year -to -year, as well as legislative changes to tax rates. Your city's tax capacity increased 5.9 percent for 2008 and 2.0 percent for 2009. The following graph shows the City's change in tax capacities over the past 10 years: $140,000,000 $120,000,000 $100,000,000 $80,000,000 $60,000,000 $40,000,000 $20,000,000 Local Tax Capacity 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Although it is impossible to consider every aspect and variable of local government spending, average tax rates are often used as a benchmark. Rates expressed as a percentage of net tax capacity All Cities Seven -County State -Wide Metro Area City of Edina 2008 2009 2008 2009 2008 2009 Average tax rate City 36.3 36.9 33.6 33.7 21.2 22.5 County 38.0 39.3 34.9 34.7 38.6 40.4 School 21.1 22.0 21.3 22.1 17.5 18.3 Special taxing 5.6 5.5 7.0 5.9 8.6 8.5 Total 101.0 103.7 96.8 96.4 85.9 89.7 The City's portion of the tax capacity rates for its residents was well below the state -wide and metro area averages the last two years. -5- GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS OVERVIEW This section of the report provides you with an overview of the financial trends and activities of the City's governmental funds. Governmental funds include the General Fund, special revenue funds, debt service funds, and capital project funds. We have also included the most recent comparative state -wide averages available from the Office of the State Auditor. The reader needs to consider the effect of inflation and other known changes or differences when comparing this data. Also, certain data on these tables may be classified differently than how they appear on the City's financial statements in order to be more comparable to the state -wide information, particularly in separating capital expenditures from current expenditures. We have designed this section of our management report using per capita data in order to better identify unique or unusual trends and activities of your city. We intend for this type of comparative and trend information to complement, rather than duplicate, information in the Management's Discussion and Analysis. An inherent difficulty in presenting per capita information is the accuracy of the population count, which for most years is based on estimates. Keep in mind that your city's per capita revenue and expenditures maybe higher or lower than average due to your city's level of commercial development and activity for a city in your population class. GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS REVENUE The amounts received from the typical major sources of revenue will naturally vary between cities based on their particular situation. This would include the City's stage of development, location, size and density of its population, property values, services it provides, and other attributes. The following table presents the City's revenue per capita of its governmental funds for the past three years, together with state -wide averages: The City has generated more property tax revenue for its governmental fund revenues compared to the average Minnesota city, while having a lower than average tax rate. The City continues to generate significantly more tax increment revenue per capita than average, as it has made extensive use of this tool to finance commercial development. However, because the City is a mature suburb, it generates less special assessment revenue (typically used for new development) and receives lower than average state aid revenue. The City's per capita governmental fund revenue for 2009 was $902, a decrease of about 4.7 percent from the prior year. The decrease is partially due to the.decrease in tax increments of $20 per capita as a result of the City decertifying TIF Districts over the past two years. License and permit revenues decreased $17 per capita as a result of the down economy. Intergovernmental revenues decreased $31 per capita as a result of the City receiving more funds from the state for street construction related projects in fiscal 2008. -6- Governmental Funds Revenue per Capita With State -Wide Averages by Population Class State -Wide City of Edina Year December 31, 2007 December 31, 2008 2007 2008 2009 Population 20,000 - 100,000 20,000 - 100,000 47,090 48,169 48,169 Property taxes $ 353 $ 376 $ 456 $ 462 $ 495 Tax increments 56 61 166 178 158 Franchise fees and other taxes 35 37 12 13 14 Special assessments 73 61 37 51 56 Licenses and permits 37 33 62 61 44 Intergovernmental revenues 169 147 79 62 31 Charges for services 82 79 58 64 60 Other 113 89 67 55 44 Total revenue $ 918 $ 883 $ 937 $ 946 $ 902 The City has generated more property tax revenue for its governmental fund revenues compared to the average Minnesota city, while having a lower than average tax rate. The City continues to generate significantly more tax increment revenue per capita than average, as it has made extensive use of this tool to finance commercial development. However, because the City is a mature suburb, it generates less special assessment revenue (typically used for new development) and receives lower than average state aid revenue. The City's per capita governmental fund revenue for 2009 was $902, a decrease of about 4.7 percent from the prior year. The decrease is partially due to the.decrease in tax increments of $20 per capita as a result of the City decertifying TIF Districts over the past two years. License and permit revenues decreased $17 per capita as a result of the down economy. Intergovernmental revenues decreased $31 per capita as a result of the City receiving more funds from the state for street construction related projects in fiscal 2008. -6- GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS EXPENDITURES Similar to our discussion of revenues, the expenditures of governmental funds will vary from state -wide averages and from year -to -year, based on the City's circumstances. Expenditures are classified into three types as follows: • Current — These are typically the general operating -type expenditures occurring on an annual basis, and are primarily funded by general sources such as taxes and intergovernmental revenues. • Capital Outlay and Construction — These expenditures do not occur on a consistent basis, more typically fluctuating significantly from year -to -year. Many of these expenditures are project - oriented which are often funded by specific sources that have benefited from the expenditure, such as special assessment improvement projects. • Debt Service — Although the expenditures for the debt service may be relatively consistent over the term of the respective debt, the funding source is the important factor. Some debt may be repaid through specific sources such as special assessments or redevelopment funding, while other debt may be repaid with general property taxes. The City's expenditures per capita of its governmental funds for the past three years, together with state -wide averages, are presented in the following table: The City's governmental funds current per capita expenditures are higher than state -wide averages for cities in the same population class. The City's current operating costs are higher than average for public safety service costs, which is partially caused by the City having a full -time fire department. The City's per capita expenditures for capital are more than state -wide averages and can vary on a yearly basis depending on current, ongoing capital projects. Debt service costs are higher than average, but are offset by higher than average tax increment revenue. Overall, the City's per capita governmental fund current expenditures for 2009 increased $7 per capita. -7- Governmental Funds Expenditures per Capita With State -Wide Averages by Population Class State -Wide City of Edina Year December 31, 2007 December 31, 2008 2007 2008 2009 Population 20,000 - 100,000 20,000 - 100,000 47,090 48,169 48,169 Current General government $ 83 $ 86 $ 139 $ 129 $ 143 Public safety 223 237 276 286 284 Street maintenance and lighting 94 88 123 128 123 Parks and recreation 82 86 73 77 77 All other 97 100 — — — $ 579 $ 597 $ 611 $ 620 $ 627 Capital outlay and construction $ 328 $ 327 $ 255 $ 304 $ 477 Debt service Principal $ 100 $ 112 $ 131 $ 147 $ 154 Interest and fiscal 39 41 36 41 38 $ 139 $ 153 $ 167 $ 188 $ 192 The City's governmental funds current per capita expenditures are higher than state -wide averages for cities in the same population class. The City's current operating costs are higher than average for public safety service costs, which is partially caused by the City having a full -time fire department. The City's per capita expenditures for capital are more than state -wide averages and can vary on a yearly basis depending on current, ongoing capital projects. Debt service costs are higher than average, but are offset by higher than average tax increment revenue. Overall, the City's per capita governmental fund current expenditures for 2009 increased $7 per capita. -7- FINANCIAL TRENDS AND ANALYSIS GENERAL FUND The City's General Fund accounts for the financial activity of the basic services provided to the community. The primary services included within this fund are the administration of the municipal operations, police and fire protection, building inspection, streets and highway maintenance, and parks and recreation. The following graph displays the City's General Fund trends of financial position and changes in the volume of financial activity. Fund balance and cash balance are typically used as indicators of financial health or equity, while annual expenditures are often used to measure the size of the operation: $30,000,000 $ 28,000,000 $26,000,000 $24,000,000 $22,000,000 $20,000,000 $18,000,000 $16,000,000 $14,000,000 $12,000,000 $10,000,000 $8,000,000 $ 6,000,000 $4,000,000 $ 2,000,000 General Fund Financial Position Year Ended December 31, 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Fund Balance =Cash Balance (Net of Interfund Borrowing) Expenditures The City's General Fund cash and investments balance (net of interfund borrowing) at December 31, 2009 was $12,576,288, which decreased $2,556,822 from 2008. Most of this decline was the result of a transfer out of close to $3,300,000 to the Construction Capital Project Fund from the General Fund to move the equipment replacement program of the City to the Construction Capital Project Fund. Total fund balance at December 31, 2009 was $12,049,599 down $2,329,404 from the prior year. Of this total fund balance, $11,113,100 was reserved or designated according to city fund balance policies. The remaining fund balance of $936,499 is undesignated. Having an appropriate fund balance is an important factor because a government, like any organization, requires a certain amount of equity to operate. Generally, the amount of equity required typically increases as the size of the operation increases. A healthy financial position also allows the City to avoid volatility in tax rates; helps minimize the impact of state funding changes; allows for the adequate and consistent funding of services, repairs, and unexpected costs; and can be a factor in determining the City's bond rating and resulting interest costs. 10 The following graph reflects the City's General Fund revenues for 2009: General Fund Revenue Taxes Incenses /Permits Intergovernmental Charges for Services Other sr, p00 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 tkI 000 ^ 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000, OOp, OOp, ■ Budget ❑ Actual Total General Fund revenues for 2009 were $28,039,079, which was $823,779 (2.9 percent) under the final budget. Property taxes were under budget by $310,524 mostly due to the MVHC unallotment and higher than expected delinquencies and abatements. Licenses and permit revenues were under budget by $716,576 due to the issuance of fewer building permits than expected during 2009 which is mainly the result of the down economy. The following graph presents the City's General Fund revenue sources for the last five years. The graph reflects the City's increasing reliance on taxes to finance its General Fund operations. General Fund Revenue by Source Year Ended December 31, $22,500,000 $20,000,000 $17,500,000 $15,000,000 $12,500,000 $10,000,000 $7,500,000 $5,000,000 $2,500,000 $— 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 ■ Taxes ■ Intergovernmental ❑ Other Overall, General Fund revenues decreased $197,199 (0.7 percent) from the previous year, primarily due to a decrease in revenues from permits and licenses totaling about $800,000 as previously discussed. The City also experienced a decrease in investment income of around $223,000 with the decline in market performance for securities. These decreases are offset by an increase in property tax revenues totaling about $759,000. -9- The following illustrations provide you with the components of the City's General Fund spending for 2009, including budgeted amounts: General Government Public Safety Public Works Parks General Fund Expenditures 00 00 00 00 00 00 0000 0000 00 0000 00 0000 0000 0000 0000 q(�, s4�^ SAO, ,��'' ��p , S1�' ■ Budget ❑ Actual Total General Fund expenditures for 2009 were $27,173,707, which was $2,459,251 (8.3 percent) under the final budget. Expenditures were under budget in all program areas listed above. In response to declining revenues and economic uncertainty, the City adjusted spending patterns by deferring equipment purchases, employing fewer staff, limiting overtime hours, voluntary furloughs, and other adjustments. The following graph illustrates trends in the General Fund's major expenditures by function over the past five years: $16,000,000 $14,000,000 $12,000,000 $10,000,000 $8,000,000 $6,000,000 $4,000,000 $2,000,000 General Fund Expenditures by Function Year Ended December 31, 2009 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 ■ General Government ■ Public Safety ❑ Public Works ■ Parks Overall, General Fund expenditures decreased $1,180,050 (4.2 percent) from the prior year. Public safety expenditures decreased about $451,414. Most of this decline was in capital related expenditures which declined $253,993 in fiscal 2009. Public works expenditures decreased $819,287. Again, most of the decline was in capital related expenditures which declined $570,795. -10- UTILITIES FUND The utility funds comprise a considerable portion of the City's activities. These funds help to defray overhead and administrative costs and provide additional support to general government operations by way of annual transfers. We understand the City is proactive in reviewing these activities on an ongoing basis and we want to reiterate the importance of continually monitoring these operations. Over the years we have emphasized to our city clients the importance of these utility operations being self - sustaining, preventing additional burdens on general government funds. This would include the accumulation of net assets for future capital improvements and to provide a cushion in the event of a negative trend in operations. The following graph presents five years of operating results for the Utilities Fund: $16,000,000 $14,000,000 $12,000,000 $10,000,000 $ 8,000,000 $6,000,000 $ 4,000,000 $ 2,000,000 Utilities Fund Year Ended December 31, 2009 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 D Operating Revenue � Operating Expenses, Including Interest Expense Operating Income (Loss), After Interest Expense The Utilities Fund ended 2009 with net assets of $49,137,466, an increase of $3,181,676 from the prior year. Of this, $37,292,620 represents the investment in utility distribution system capital assets, leaving $11,844,846 of unrestricted net assets. Utilities Fund operating revenue was $14,857,798 for 2009, up $1,313,070 or 9.7 percent mostly due to an increase in rates during 2009. Operating expenses, including interest expense, were $1,001,522 or 9.4 percent more than last year. Operating expenses increased about 7.3 percent while interest expense on outstanding debt increased about $260,000. As the graph above illustrates, operating income has improved gradually from 2005 to 2009. -11- LIQUOR FUND The following graph presents five years of operating results for the Liquor Fund: $13,000,000 $12,000,000 $11,000,000 $10,000,000 $ 9,000,000 $ 8,000,000 $7,000,000 $ 6,000,000 $5,000,000 $ 4,000,000 $3,000,000 $ 2,000,000 $1,000,000 Liquor Fund Year Ended December 31, 2009 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 O Sales � Cost of Sales � Operating Expenses Operating Income (Loss) The Liquor Fund ended 2009 with net assets of $2,572,678, a decrease of $103,517 from the prior year. Of the net asset balance, $1,331,625 represents the investment in liquor capital assets, leaving $1,241,053 of unrestricted net assets. Liquor sales for 2009 were $12,642,630, $520,839 (4.2 percent) more than last year. Sales have steadily increased over the last several years, increasing 17.6 percent since 2005. The Liquor Fund generated a gross profit of $3,341,931 in 2009, or 26.4 percent of gross sales. The Liquor Fund gross profit margin has been similar for the last several years, ranging from 26.3 percent to 26.4 percent between 2005 and 2009. Operating expenses for 2009 were $2,148,495, about $42,001 or 2 percent higher than last year. aPa AQUATIC CENTER FUND The following graph presents five years of operating results for the Aquatic Center Fund: $1,000,000 $ 900,000 $ 800,000 $ 700,000 $ 600,000 $500,000 $400,000 $300,000 $200,000 $100,000 Aquatic Center Fund Year Ended December 31, 2009 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 =Operating Revenue Operating Expenses, Including Interest Expense Operating Income (Loss), After Interest Expense The Aquatic Center Fund ended 2009 with net assets of $2,199,368, an increase of $61,447 from the prior year. Of the net asset balance, $897,352 represents investments in aquatic center capital assets, $677,179 of unrestricted net assets, and $624,837 restricted for debt service. Aquatic Center Fund operating revenues for 2009 were $859,816, about $65,000 (7.1 percent) less than last year mostly due to a decrease in usage during 2009 due to many days of bad weather in their peak season. Operating expenses, including interest expense for 2009, were $797,605, an increase of $11,047 from the prior year. As the graph above illustrates, operating income decreased in 2009 but remains positive in each of the five years presented. M911 GOLF COURSE FUND The following graph presents five years of operating results for the Golf Course Fund: $4,000,000 $3,500,000 $3,000,000 $2,500,000 $ 2,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 $(500,000) Golf Course Fund Year Ended December 31, 2009 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 =Operating Revenue Operating Expenses, Including Interest Expense Operating Income (Loss), After Interest Expense The Golf Course Fund ended 2009 with net assets of $2,354,850, an increase of $341,759 from the prior year. Of this, $3,763,691 represents the investment in golf course land and capital assets, leaving a deficit of ($1,408,841) of unrestricted net assets. Golf Course Fund operating revenues for 2009 were $3,658,674, about $21,910 (0.6 percent) less than last year. Operating expenses, including interest expense, for 2009 were $3,576,410, down $31,733 from the prior year. On an annual basis, this fund has had to borrow from other funds to fund cash flow needs. The interfund borrowing decreased $100,000 during 2009 to a total of $1,000,000 at December 31, 2009. Due to the cash flow losses over recent years, management has developed a plan to support operations of this fund by making a transfer from the Liquor Fund on an annual basis until the financial position improves. The transfer made during 2009 totaled $170,000. -14- ARENA FUND The following graph presents five years of operating results for the Arena Fund: $1,800,000 $1,600,000 $1,400,000 $1,200,000 $1,000,000 $800,000 $600,000 $400,000 $ 200,000 $(200,000) $(400,000) Arena Fund Year Ended December 31, 2009 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 =Operating Revenue � Operating Expenses, Including Interest Expense Operating Income (Loss), After Interest Expense The Arena Fund ended 2009 with net assets of $2,140,132, a decrease of $54,499 from the prior year. Of this, $2,204,047 represents the investment in the arena capital assets, leaving a deficit of ($63,915) of unrestricted net assets. Arena Fund operating revenues for 2009 were $1,414,410, about $14,811 more than last year. Operating expenses, including interest expense, for 2009 were $1,665,124, a decrease of $32,890 from the prior year. As the graph above illustrates, operating income (loss) has improved from the previous year, with an increase of about $48,000 from the previous year. As can be seen in the above table, this fund has continually operated at a net loss. As a result, the City has been supporting the operations of this fund by making transfers from the Construction Fund (formally the Revolving Fund) and the Liquor Fund on an annual basis. These transfers totaled $102,075 in fiscal 2009. We recommend that the City continues to monitor the financial results in this fund. We also recommend that the City continue to update the long -range financial plan for this fund, including progress toward having adequate resources for the payback of interfund borrowing. SUM ART CENTER FUND The following graph presents five years of operating results for the Art Center Fund: $700,000 $600,000 $500,000 $400,000 $300,000 $ 200,000 $100,000 $(100,000) $(200,000) $(300,000) Art Center Fund Year Ended December 31, 2009 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 = Operating Revenue � Operating Expenses Operating Income (Loss) The Art Center Fund ended 2009 with net assets of $290,173, an increase of $49,325 from the prior year. Of this, $230,986 represents the investment in capital assets, leaving $59,187 of unrestricted net assets. Art Center operating revenues for 2009 were $468,217, about $16,520 more than the prior year. Operating expenses for 2009 were $683,318 which increased about $19,124 from the prior year. As can be seen in the above table, this fund has continually operated at a net loss. As a result, the City has been supporting the operations of this fund by making transfers from the Liquor Fund on an annual basis. This transfer totaled $145,000 in fiscal 2009. We recommend that the City continues to monitor the financial results in this fund. We also recommend that the City continue to update the long -range financial plan for this fund, including progress toward having adequate resources for the payback of interfund borrowing. -16- EDINBOROUGH PARK AND CENTENNIAL LAKES FUND The following graph presents five years of operating results for the Edinborough Park and Centennial Lakes Fund: $ 2,500,000 $ 2,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 $(500,000) $(1,000,000) Edinborough Park and Centennial Lakes Fund Year Ended December 31, 2009 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 D Operating Revenue IIIIIIIIII10perating Expenses Operating Income (Loss) The Edinborough Park and Centennial Lakes Fund ended 2009 with net assets of $4,422,684, a decrease of $236,838 from the prior year. Of this, $1,613,473 represents the investment in capital assets, leaving $2,809,211 of unrestricted net assets. Operating revenues in this fund increased $58,135 in 2009 and expenses increased $149,478. As can be seen in the above table, this fund has been operating at a net loss for the past several years. These losses have been financed through the use of fund equity. Although this fund has adequate fund equity to finance the operating losses, it is important to be aware of these financial results when considering long -range financial plans. We recommend that the City continues to monitor the financial results in this fund. We also recommend that the City continue to update the long -range financial plan for this fund, including progress toward having adequate resources for the payback of interfund borrowing. -17- GOVERNMENT -WIDE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS The City's financial statements include fund -based information that focuses on budgetary compliance, and the sufficiency of the City's current assets to finance its current liabilities. The Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement No. 34 reporting model also requires the inclusion of two government -wide financial statements designed to present a clear picture of the City as a single, unified entity. These government -wide statements provide information on the total cost of delivering services, including capital assets and long -term liabilities. Statement of Net Assets The Statement of Net Assets essentially tells you what your city owns and owes at a given point in time, the last day of the fiscal year. Theoretically, net assets represent the resources the City has leftover to use for providing services after its debts are settled. However, those resources are not always in spendable form, or there may be restrictions on how some of those resources can be used. Therefore, the Statement of Net Assets divides the net assets into three components: Invested in Capital Assets, Net of Related Debt — The portion of net assets reflecting equity in capital assets (i.e. capital assets minus related debt). Restricted Net .Assets — The portion of net assets equal to resources whose use is legally restricted minus any non - capital- related liabilities payable from those same resources. Unrestricted Net Assets — The residual balance of net assets after the elimination of invested in capital assets, net of related debt and restricted net assets. The following table presents the City's net assets as of December 31, 2009 for governmental activities and business -type activities: Governmental Activities Net assets Business -Type Activities Total Current and other assets $ 60,453,175 $ 23,418,500 $ 83,871,675 Net book value of capital assets 122,558,594 68,987,531 191,546,125 Current liabilities (10,670,301) (4,942,035) (15,612,336) Long -term liabilities (64,880,633) (24,346,645) (89,227,278) Total net assets $ 107,460,835 $ 63,117,351 $ 170,578,186 Net assets Invested in capital assets, net of related debt $ 69,622,370 $ 47,333,794 $ 116,956,164 Restricted 7,132,865 624,837 7,757,702 Unrestricted 30,705,600 15,158,720 45,864,320 Total net assets $ 107,460,835 $ 63,117,351 $ 170,578,186 The City's total net assets at December 31, 2009 were $6,159,053 higher than at the beginning of the year. The amount invested in capital assets decreased by $1,496,799. Unrestricted assets increased by $4,215,082 and restricted assets increased from the prior year by $3,440,770. -18- Statement of Activities The Statement of Activities tracks the City's yearly revenues and expenses, as well as any other transactions that increase or reduce total net assets. These amounts represent the full cost of providing services. The Statement of Activities provides a more comprehensive measure than just the amount of cash that changed hands, as reflected in the fund -based financial statements. This statement includes the cost of supplies used, depreciation of long -lived capital assets, and other accrual based expenses. The following table presents the change in net assets of the City for the year ended December 31, 2009: Net (expense) revenue Governmental activities General government Public safety Public works Parks Interest on long -term debt Business -type activities Utility Liquor Aquatic center Golf course Community activity centers General revenues Property and tax increments Franchise taxes Investment earnings Gain on disposal Total general revenues Change in net assets Expenses Program Revenue 7,362,560 14,751,479 8,993,290 7,732,777 2,129,490 11,833,994 11,449,194 798,369 3,588,831 4,636,375 $ 73,276,359 $ 1,102,720 5,940,811 3,205,574 408,829 14,975,103 12,655,777 859,816 3,660,466 3,625,986 $ 46,435,082 Net Difference (6,259,840) (8,810,668) (5,787,716) (7,323,948) (2,129,490) 3,141,109 1,206,583 61,447 71,635 (1,010,389) (26,841,277) 31,722,032 667,791 596,548 13,959 33,000,330 $ 6,159,053 One of the goals of this statement is to provide a side -by -side comparison to illustrate the difference in the way the City's governmental and business -type operations are financed. The City's governmental operations tend to rely more heavily on general revenues, such as property taxes. In contrast, the City's business -type activities tend to rely more heavily on program revenues (service charges and program specific grants) to cover expenses. This is critical given the current external downward pressures on general revenue sources such as taxes and state aids. -19- ACCOUNTING AND AUDITING UPDATES GASB STATEMENT N0.51— ACCOUNTING AND FINANCIAL REPORTING FOR INTANGIBLE ASSETS Governments possess many different types of assets that may be considered intangible assets, including easements, water rights, timber rights, patents, trademarks, and computer software. This statement requires that all intangible assets not specifically excluded by its scope provisions be classified as capital assets. The requirements in this statement improve financial reporting by reducing inconsistencies that have developed in accounting and financial reporting for intangible assets. These inconsistencies will be reduced through the clarification that intangible assets subject to the provisions of this statement should be classified as capital assets, and through the establishment of new authoritative guidance that addresses issues specific to these intangible assets given their nature. The requirements of this statement are effective for financial statements for periods beginning after June 15, 2009. GASB STATEMENT N0.53 - ACCOUNTING AND FINANCIAL REPORTING FOR DERIVATIVE INSTRUMENTS The guidance in this statement improves financial reporting by requiring governments to measure derivative instruments at fair value in their economic resources measurement focus financial statements. These improvements should allow users of those financial statements to more fully understand a government's resources available to provide services. The disclosures provide a summary of the government's derivative instrument activity and the information necessary to assess the government's objectives for derivative instruments, their significant terms, and the risks associated with the derivative instruments. The requirements of this statement are effective for financial statements for periods beginning after June 15, 2009. GASB STATEMENT N0.54 — FUND BALANCE REPORTING AND GOVERNMENTAL FUND TYPE DEFINITIONS The objective of this statement is to enhance the usefulness of fund balance information by providing clearer fund balance classifications that can be more consistently applied and by clarifying the existing governmental fund type definitions. This statement establishes fund balance classifications (nonspendable, restricted, committed, assigned, and unassigned) that comprise a hierarchy based primarily on the extent to which a government is bound to observe constraints imposed upon the use of the resources reported in governmental funds. The definitions of the General Fund, special revenue, capital projects, debt service, and permanent fund types are clarified by the provisions in this statement. Elimination of the reserved component of fund balance in favor of a restricted classification will enhance the consistency between information reported in the government -wide statements and information in the governmental fund financial statements and avoid confusion about the relationship between reserved fund balance and restricted net assets. The requirements of this statement are effective for financial statements for periods beginning after June 15, 2010. -20- CITY OF EDINA HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA Special Purpose Audit Reports Year Ended December 31, 2009 CITY OF EDINA HENNEPIN` COUNTY, MINNESOTA Year Ended December 31, 2009 Table of Contents Independent Auditor's Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting and on .Compliance and Other Matters Based on an Audit of Financial Statements Performed in Accordance With Government Auditing Standards Independent Auditor's Report on Compliance With Minnesota State Laws and Regulations Page 1 -2 Schedule of Findings 4-5 MMKR CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING AND ON COMPLIANCE AND OTHER MATTERS BASED ON AN AUDIT OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARDS City Council and Residents City of Edina, Minnesota PRINCIPAIS Kenneth W. Malloy, CPA Thomas M. Montague, CPA Thomas A. Karnowski, CPA Paul A. Radosevich, CPA William J. Lauer, CPA James H. Eichten, CPA Aaron J. Nielsen, CPA Victoria L. Holinka, CPA We have audited the financial statements of the governmental activities, the business -type activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City of Edina, Minnesota (the City) as of and for the year ended December 31, 2009, which collectively comprise the City's basic financial statements, and have issued our report thereon dated June 24, 2010. We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Internal Control Over Financial Reporting In planning and performing our audit, we considered the City's internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing our auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinions on the financial statements, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the City's internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the City's internal control over financial reporting. A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct misstatements on a timely basis. A material weakness is a deficiency, or combination of deficiencies, in internal control, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the City's financial statements will not be prevented, or detected and corrected on a timely basis. Our consideration of internal control over financial reporting was for the limited purpose described in the first paragraph of this section and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control over financial reporting that might be deficiencies, significant deficiencies, or material weaknesses. We did not identify any deficiencies in internal control over financial reporting that we consider to be material weaknesses, as defined above. (continued) -1- Malloy, Montague, Karnowski, Radosevich & Co., P.A. 5353 Wayzata Boulevard • Suite 410 • Minneapolis, MN 55416 • Telephone: 952- 545 -0424 • Telefax: 952 -545 -0569 • www.mmkr.com Compliance and Other Matters As, part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the City's financial statements are free of material misstatement, we performed tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, an d grant agreements, noncompliance with which could have a direct and material effect on the determination of financial statement amounts. However, providing an opinion on compliance with those provisions was not an objective of our audit and, accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. The results of our tests disclosed no instances of noncompliance or other matters that are required to be reported under Government Auditing Standards. This report is intended solely for the information and use of management, the City Council and pass- through entities and is not intended to be, and should not be, used by anyone other than these specified parties. /14016%1( June 24, 2010 -2- MMKR CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT ON COMPLIANCE WITH MINNESOTA STATE LAWS AND REGULATIONS City Council and Residents City of Edina, Minnesota PRINCIPALS Kenneth W. Malloy, CPA Thomas M. Montague, CPA Thomas A. Karnowski, CPA Paul A. Radosevich, CPA William J. Lauer, CPA James H. Eichten, CPA Aaron J. Nielsen, CPA Victoria L. Holinka, CPA We have audited the financial statements of the governmental activities, the business -type activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City of Edina, Minnesota (the City) as of and for the year ended December 31, 2009, which collectively comprise the City's basic financial statements, and have issued our report thereon dated June 24, 2010. We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America; the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States; and the provisions of the Minnesota Legal Compliance Audit Guide for Local Governments, promulgated by the Office of the State Auditor pursuant to Minnesota Statute § 6.65. Accordingly, the audit included such tests of the accounting records and such other auditing procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. The Minnesota Legal Compliance Audit Guide for Local Governments covers seven main categories of compliance to be tested: contracting and bidding, deposits and investments, conflicts of interest, public indebtedness, claims and disbursements, miscellaneous provisions, and tax increment financing. Our study included all of the applicable categories listed. The results of our tests indicate that, for the items tested, the City complied with the material terms and conditions of applicable legal provisions, except as noted in the Schedule of Findings. The City's responses to the findings identified in our audit are described in the accompanying Schedule of Findings as "Actions Planned." We did not audit the City's responses and, accordingly, we express no opinion on them. This report is intended solely for the information and use of the City Council, management of the City, and the state of Minnesota and is not intended to be, and should not be, used by anyone other than these specified parties. /✓ice, (to /✓lo.�-���2, karno..,.sk.' few,JasQ.v,,C4 / r June 24, 2010 -3- Malloy, Montague, Karnowski, Radosevich & Co., P.A. 5353 Wayzata Boulevard • Suite 410 • Minneapolis, MN 55416 • Telephone: 952- 545 -0424 • Telefax: 952 -545 -0569 • www.mmkr.com CITY OF EDINA Schedule of Findings Year Ended December 31, 2009 A. FINDINGS — INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING None. B. FINDINGS — MINNESOTA LEGAL COMPLIANCE AUDIT 2009 -1 CONTRACT LANGUAGE — PAYMENT OF SUBCONTRACTORS Criteria — Minnesota Statute § 471.425, Subd. 4a. Condition — City contracts must require the prime contract to pay any subcontractors within 10 days of the prime contractor's receipt of payment from the City of Edina (the City). This requirement was not included in one contract we tested that the City entered into during the year ended December 31, 2009. Context — This is a current year finding. Effect — One of the five bids selected for testing was missing the required statutory language for payments to subcontractors. Recommendation — We recommend that the City review its contracts and include this required declaration in future contracts. Actions Planned — The contract reviewed during our testing procedures will be rewritten by the City to include the required language and present the changed contract to the contractor for approval, explaining the change made. All future contracts will be reviewed to ensure the required language is included. 2009 -2 ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS Criteria — Minnesota Statute § 412.311. Condition — Minnesota Statutes require advertisements published to solicit bids must be published in the City's official newspaper at least 10 days in advance of the last day for submission of bids. This advertisement was not published for one bid that we tested within the required 10 days in advance during the year ended December 31, 2009. Context — This is a current year finding. Cause — The City advertised for bids in their official newspaper for one project planned by the City. The advertisement was published in the newspaper seven days before the bids were required to be submitted to the City. All bids are to be published 10 days prior to the required submission date. Effect — The City did not publish the advertisement to solicit bids in the official newspaper far enough in advance of the bid deadline. -4- CITY OF EDINA Schedule of Findings (continued) Year Ended December 31, 2009 B. FINDINGS — MINNESOTA LEGAL COMPLIANCE AUDIT (CONTINUED) 2009 -2 ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS (CONTINUED) Recommendation — We recommend that the City publish advertisements for bids at a minimum of 10 days prior to the date of the bidding deadline to be in compliance with state statutes. Actions Planned — The City is aware of the statute requirements for soliciting bids. The City will be conscious of the publication date for advertisements to solicit bids in the future to ensure they are in compliance with the statute requirements. -5- .t] � � IJ �►1:�u' I I►1►1 �I►Y� CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA Comprehensive Annual Financial Report For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009 Prepared by: Department of Finance John Wallin — Treasurer and Finance Director Eric Roggeman - Assistant Finance Director CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTORY SECTION Letter of Transmittal GFOA Certificate of Achievement Organization Organization Chart II. FINANCIAL SECTION Independent Auditors' Report Management's Discussion and Analysis Basic Financial Statements: Government -wide Financial Statements: Statement of Net Assets Statement of Activities Fund Financial Statements: Page No. 1 4 5 6 7 4 21 22 Balance Sheet - Governmental Funds 25 Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances - Governmental Funds 26 Reconciliation of the Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances of Governmental Funds to the Statement of Activities 27 Statement of Net Assets - Proprietary Funds 28 Statement of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in Fund Net Assets - Proprietary Funds 29 Statement of Cash Flows - Proprietary Funds 30 Statement of Fiduciary Net Assets - Fiduciary Funds 32 Notes to the Financial Statements 33 Required Supplementary Information: Budgetary Comparison Information: Budgetary Comparison Schedule - General Fund 63 Other Post - Employment Benefits Plan Schedule of Funding Progress 69 Notes to Required Supplementary Information 71 CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. Combining and Individual Non Major Fund Financial Statements and Schedules: Combining Balance Sheet - Nonmajor Special Revenue Funds 74 Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances - Nonmajor Special Revenue Funds 75 Special Revenue Fund - Community Development Block Grant Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances - Budget and Actual 76 Combining Statement of Net Assets - Nonmajor Proprietary Funds 78 Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Fund Net Assets - Nonmajor Proprietary Funds 79 Combining Statement of Cash Flows - Nonmajor Proprietary Funds 80 Combining Statement of Changes in Assets and Liabilities - Agency Funds 83 Supplementary Financial Information: Tax Capacity, Tax Levies and Tax Capacity Rates 85 Combined Schedule of Bonded Indebtedness 86 Schedule of Sources and Uses of Public Funds for 50th & France - #1200 88 Schedule of Sources and Uses of Public Funds for Southeast Edina Redevelopment District - #1201 89 Schedule of Sources and Uses of Public Funds for Grandview Area Redevelopment District - #1202 90 Schedule of Sources and Uses of Public Funds for Southeast Edina Redevelopment District - #1203 91 Schedule of Sources and Uses of Public Funds for 70th Street and Cahill Road District - #1207 92 CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA TABLE OF CONTENTS III. STATISTICAL SECTION (UNAUDITED) Financial Trends: Page No. Net Assets by Component 94 Changes in Net Assets 96 Fund Balances of Governmental Funds 98 Changes in Fund Balances of Governmental Funds 100 Revenue Capacity: Assessed Value, Actual Value and Tax Capacity of Taxable Property 102 Direct and Overlapping Tax Capacity Rates 103 Principal Property Tax Payers 104 Property Tax Levies and Collections 105 Debt Capacity: Ratios of Outstanding Debt by Type 106 Ratios of General Bonded Debt Outstanding 107 Direct and Overlapping Governmental Activities Debt 108 Legal Debt Margin Information 109 Pledged Revenue Coverage 110 Demographic and Economic Information: Demographic and Economic Statistics 111 Principal Employers 112 Operating Information: Full -Time Equivalent City Government Employees by Function 113 Operating Indicators by Function 114 Capital Asset Statistics by Function 115 This page left blank intentionally. t1A, R0 e F.. .� 1 y en�ai� [[ y June 24, 2010 CiLy U1 Edina To the Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Citizens of the City of Edina (City): Minnesota statutes require that every city publish within six months . of the close of each fiscal year a complete set of audited financial statements. This report is published to fulfill that requirement for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009. Management assumes full responsibility for the completeness and reliability of all of the information presented in this report, based upon a comprehensive framework of internal control that it has established for this purpose. Because the cost of internal control should not exceed anticipated benefits, the objective is to provide reasonable rather than absolute assurance that the financial statements are free from material misstatement. Malloy, Montague, Kamowski, Radosevich, & Co. P.A., a firm of licensed certified public accountants,. has issued an unqualified ( "clean ") opinion on the City's financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2009. The independent auditor's report is located at the front of the financial section of this report. Management's Discussion and Analysis (MD &A) immediately follows the independent auditor's report and provides a narrative introduction, overview, and analysis of the basic financial statements. MD &A complement this letter of transmittal and should be read in conjunction with it. Profile of the City The City, incorporated in 1888, is a fully developed first -ring suburb of Minneapolis. The City currently occupies a land area of 16 square miles and serves a population of 48,169. Currently, 98% of the City it developed with 55.5% of the land attributed to residential uses, 13.1% to roadways and 11.8% supporting the park and open spaces. The remainder of the land is used for commercial, industrial and publictsemi- public uses. The City is empowered to levy a property tax on both real and personal property located within its boundaries. The City has operated under the Council- Manager form of government since 1955. Policy- making and legislative authority are vested in a City Council (Council) consisting of the Mayor and four other members, all elected on a non - partisan basis. The Council is responsible, among other things, for passing ordinances, adopting the budget, appointing committees, and hiring the City Manager. The City Manager is responsible for carrying out the policies and ordinances of the Council, for overseeing the day -to -day operations of the city government, and for appointing the heads of the various departments. Council members serve four -year terms, with two Council members elected every two years. The Mayor also serves a four -year term. The Council and Mayor are elected at large. The City provides a full range of services, including police and fire protection; the construction and maintenance of highways, streets, and other infrastructure; water and sewer services and recreational and cultural activities and events. The Council is required to adopt a final budget by no later than the close of the fiscal year. The annual budget serves as the foundation for the City's financial planning and control. The budget is prepared by fund, function (e.g., public safety), and department (e.g. police). Department heads may use resources within a department as they see fit. The City Manager may authorize transfers of budgeted amounts between departments. City Hall 41301 WEST 50Th STREET EDINA, MINNESOTA. 55424- 139.1 www.cityofedina.com 952 - 927 -8861 FAX 952 -1326 -0390 TTY 952 - 1326 -0379 Local economy The City currently enjoys a favorable economic environment and local indicators point to continued stability. The region, while noted for a strong retail sector, enjoyed considerable re- development in recent years. The re- development consisted of varied manufacturing, medical and high -tech base that adds to the relative stability of the unemployment rate. Major industries with headquarters or divisions within the government's boundaries or in close proximity include medical services, retail operations and banking services. Edina is home to over 50,000 jobs that are expected to remain stable over the coming years. The City has become known for its quality residential housing stock and attractive neighborhoods. To date, approximately 98% of the housing stock is in place. Although the emphasis has changed over the years from exclusively single family housing to a more balanced mix of housing types, the City's concern for overall quality in residential development remains a top priority. The City enjoys a AAA bond rating and a Aaa bond rating from Standard and Poors and Moody's, respectively. Long -term financial planning The Metropolitan Council requires all cities in the seven -county metropolitan area to have a Comprehensive Plan and State law requires cities to update their plans every 10 years. The Comprehensive Plan guides development and redevelopment and addresses changes likely to occur due to various social and market forces. The City updated our Comprehensive Plan and submitted it to the Metropolitan Council for review in 2008. A final version was adopted by the City Council in 2009. The City continues to focus on quality of life improvements throughout Edina. These efforts cover a broad array of areas including protecting and improving the environment, revitalization of parks and public areas, expanding recreational opportunities, expanding City services, and increasing communication between City representatives and the public. The City is working closely with state government, federal government and neighboring communities to improve the area's state and county transportation network, which includes upgraded highways and well - placed pathways. Funding for most of the transportation improvements will need to come from state, county and federal sources, with some minor portion supported by the local taxpayers. Relevant financial policies The City recently adopted a set of financial management policies that focus on long -term financial planning. Policies cover areas such as cash and investments, the operating budget, revenue, fund balance, capital outlay, and debt management. Designations for park dedication, investments, compensated absences, and cash flow are all within the ranges specified in the policies. In addition, the City has $936,499 unreserved, undesignated fund balance in the general fund. Major initiatives The City is continually working to update our aging infrastructure. Our annually adopted five -year Capital Improvement Plan includes spending and financing projections for these projects. 2 Awards and Acknowledgements The Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada (GFOA) awarded a Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting to the City of Edina for its comprehensive annual financial report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008. This was the third consecutive year that the government has achieved this prestigious award. In order to be awarded a Certificate of Achievement, a government must publish an easily readable and efficiently organized comprehensive annual financial report. This report must satisfy both generally accepted accounting principles and applicable legal requirements. A Certificate of Achievement is valid for a period of one year only. We believe that our current comprehensive annual financial report continues to meet the Certificate of Achievement Program's requirements and we are submitting it to the GFOA to determine its eligibility for another certificate. The preparation of this report would not have been possible without the dedicated services of the Finance Department staff. We would like to express our appreciation to all members of the department who assisted and contributed to the preparation of this report. Credit also must be given to the Mayor and the City Council for their unfailing support for maintaining the highest standards of professionalism in the management of the City's finances. Respectfully submitted, John Wallin Finance Director Eric Roggeman Assistant Finance Director K91 Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting Presented to City of Edina Minnesota For its Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2008 A Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting is presented by the Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada to government units and public employee retirement systems whose comprehensive annual financial reports (CAFRs) achieve the highest standards in government accounting and financial reporting. E 0 fp���9 ttANDA 7n CWDA qo� 8$gI.� &KCua President Executive Director CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA ORGANIZATION December 31, 2009 Mayor: James Hovland Council Members_ : Joni Bennett Scot Housh Mary Brindle Ann Swenson City Manager: Gordon Hughes Finance Director/Treasurer: John Wallin City Clerk: Debra Mangen 5 Term Expires December 31, 2012 December 31, 2010 December 31, 2010 December 31, 2012 December 31, 2012 Appointed Appointed Appointed City, of Boards and City Council City Attorney Commissions City Manager HRA Personnel Administration Assessing Health - Public Parks and Building Finance Public Safety Planning.-... Works Recreation Inspections City Clerk Recycling' . Water and Sewer Recreational Police Facilities Street Maintenance Recreational Elections Programs Civil Defense Engineering Park Maintenance Human Resources Animal Control Human Services Police Operations Communications Fire Technology_ Prevention a_ nd Control Liquor EMS Special Operations Financial Section IMMKRI CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT To the City Council and Residents City of Edina, Minnesota PRINCIPALS Kenneth W. Malloy, CPA Thomas M. Montague, CPA Thomas A. Karnowski, CPA Paul A. Radosevich, CPA William J. Lauer, CPA James H. Eichten, CPA Aaron J. Nielsen, CPA Victoria L. Holinka, CPA We have audited the accompanying financial statements of the governmental activities, the business -type activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City of Edina, Minnesota (the City) as of and for the year ended December 31, 2009, which collectively comprise the City's basic financial statements as listed in the table of contents. These financial statements are the responsibility of the City's management. Our responsibility is to express opinions on these financial statements based on our audit. We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the City's internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinions. In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the respective financial position of the governmental activities, the business -type activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City as of December 31, 2009, and the respective changes in financial position and cash flows, where applicable, for the year then ended in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. In accordance with Government Auditing Standards, we have also issued our report dated June 24, 2010 on our consideration of the City's internal control over financial reporting and on our tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, grant agreements, and other matters. The purpose of that report is to describe the scope of our testing of internal control over financial reporting and compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the internal control over financial reporting or on compliance. That report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards and should be considered in assessing the results of our audit. (continued) Malloy, Montague, Karnowski, Radosevich & Co., P.A. 5353 Wayzata Boulevard - Suite 410 • Minneapolis, MN 55416 • Telephone: 952 -545 -0424 • Telefax: 952- 545 -0569 • www.mmkr.com The Management's Discussion and Analysis and required supplementary information, as listed in the table of contents, are not required parts of the basic financial statements, but are supplementary information. required by accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. We have applied certain limited procedures, which consisted principally of inquiries of management, regarding the methods of measurement and presentation of the required supplementary information. However, we did not audit the information and express no opinion on it. Our audit was conducted for the purpose of forming opinions on the financial statements that collectively comprise the City's basic financial statements. The introductory section, combining and individual nonmajor fund financial statements and schedules, supplementary financial information, and statistical . section, as listed in the table of contents, are presented for purposes of additional analysis and are not a required part of the basic financial statements. The combining and individual nonmajor fund financial statements and schedules have been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the basic financial statements and, in our opinion, are fairly stated, in all material respects, in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole. The introductory section, supplementary financial information, and statistical section have not been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the basic financial statements and, accordingly, we express no opinion on them. A)(oj, /�oh-�a�•►Q.� �Garn�ws�,� �a�loSar.��.1,,� �'o,, Pi4 June 24, 2010 8 MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS As management of the City of Edina (the City), we offer readers of the City's financial statements this narrative overview and analysis of the financial activities of the City for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009. We encourage readers to consider the information presented here in conjunction with additional information that we have furnished in our letter of transmittal, which precedes this report. Financial Highlights • The assets of the City exceeded its liabilities at the close of the most recent fiscal year by $170,578,186 (net assets). Of this amount, $45,864,320 (unrestricted net assets) may be used to meet the City's ongoing obligations to citizens and creditors in accordance with the City's fund designations and fiscal policies. • The City's total net assets increased by $6,159,053. $5,836,562 of this increase is due to the City's use of tax increment revenues to pay down tax increment debt. • As of the close of the current fiscal year, the City's governmental funds reported combined ending fund balances of $46,770,059, an increase of $4,702,160 in comparison with the prior year. Of this total amount, $31,528,465, or 67 %, is available for spending at the City's discretion (unreserved fund balance). • At the end of the current fiscal year, unreserved fund balance for the general fund was $12,031,358, or 44% of total general fund expenditures. • The City's total bonded debt increased by $15,095,000 during the current fiscal year, from $76,295,000 to $91,390,000. The City issued new debt during the year consisting of $14,230,000 general obligation bonds to finance equipment purchases and the new public works facility, $8,720,000 public project revenue bonds to finance the new public works facility, and $4,450,000 of revenue bonds to refinance existing debt and to pay for improvements to Braemar Arena. Overview of the Financial Statements This discussion and analysis is intended to serve as an introduction to the City's basic financial statements. The City's basic financial statements comprise three components: 1) government -wide financial statements, 2) fund financial statements, and 3) notes to the financial statements. This report also contains other supplementary information in addition to the basic financial statements themselves. Government -wide financial statements. The government -wide financial statements are designed to provide readers with a broad overview of the City's finances, in a manner similar to a private- sector business. The statement of net assets presents information on all of the City's assets and liabilities, with the difference between the two reported as net assets. Over time, increases or decreases in net assets may serve as a useful indicator of whether the financial position of the City is improving or deteriorating. 0 Management's Discussion and Analysis (Continued) The statement of activities presents information showing how the City's net assets changed during the most recent fiscal year. All changes in net assets are reported as soon as the underlying event giving rise to the change occurs, regardless of the timing of related cash flows. Thus, revenues and expenses are reported in this statement for some items that will only result in cash flows in future fiscal periods (e.g. uncollected taxes and earned but unused vacation leave). Both of the government -wide financial statements distinguish functions of the City that are principally supported by taxes and intergovernmental revenues (governmental activities) from other functions that are intended to recover all or a significant portion of their costs through user fees and charges (business -type activities). The governmental activities of the City include general government, public safety, public works and parks. The business -type activities of the City include utilities, liquor, aquatic center, golf course and community activity centers. Fund financial statements. A fund is a grouping of related accounts that is used to maintain control over resources that have been segregated for specific activities or objectives. The City, like other state and local governments, uses fund accounting to ensure and demonstrate compliance with finance- related legal requirements. All of the funds of the City can be divided into three categories: governmental funds, proprietary funds, and fiduciary funds. Governmental funds. Governmental funds are used to account for essentially the same functions reported as governmental activities in the government -wide financial statements. However, unlike the government -wide financial statements, governmental fund financial statements focus on near -term inflows and outflows of spendable resources, as well as on balances of spendable resources available at the end of the fiscal year. Such information may be useful in evaluating a government's near -term financial requirements. Because the focus of governmental funds is narrower than that of the government -wide financial statements, it is useful to compare the information presented for governmental funds with similar information presented for governmental activities in the government -wide financial statement. By doing so, readers may better understand the long -term impact of the City's near term financial decisions. Both the governmental fund balance sheet and governmental fund statement of revenues, expenditures, and change in fund balances provide a reconciliation to facilitate this comparison between governmental funds and governmental activities. The City maintains 4 individual major governmental funds. Information is presented separately in the governmental fund balance sheet and in the governmental fund statement of revenues, expenditures, and changes in fund balances for the general fund, Housing and Redevelopment Authority fund, debt service fund and the construction fund. Data from the other governmental funds are combined into a single, aggregated presentation. Individual fund data for each of these non -major governmental funds are provided in the form of combining statements elsewhere in this report. The City adopts an annual appropriated budget for its general fund and one of its special revenue funds. A budgetary comparison statement has been provided for those funds to demonstrate compliance with these budgets. Proprietary funds. The City maintains four major enterprise funds. Enterprise funds are used to report the same functions presented as business -type activities in the governmental - wide financial statements. The City uses enterprise funds to account for its utility, liquor, aquatic center and golf course operations. 10 Management's Discussion and Analysis (Continued) Data from the other proprietary funds are combined into a single, aggregated presentation. Individual fund data for each of these non -major proprietary funds are provided in the form of combining statements elsewhere in this report. Proprietary funds provide the same type of information as the government -wide financial statements, only in more detail. Fiduciary funds. Fiduciary funds are used to account for resources held for the benefit of parties outside the government. Fiduciary funds are not reflected in the government -wide financial statements because the resources of those funds are not available to support the City's own programs. The accounting used for fiduciary funds is much like that used for proprietary funds. Notes to the financial statements. The notes provide additional information that is essential to a full understanding of the data provided in the government —wide and fund financial statements. Other information. The combining statements referred to earlier in connection with non -major governmental and enterprise funds are presented immediately following the required supplementary information on budgetary comparisons. Government -wide Financial Analysis As noted earlier, net assets may serve over time as a useful indicator of a government's financial position. In the case of the City, assets exceeded liabilities by $170,578,186 at the close of the most recent fiscal year. The largest portion of the City's net assets ($116,956,164 or 69 %) reflects its investment in capital assets (e.g. land, buildings, machinery, and equipment) less any related debt used to acquire those assets that is still outstanding. The City uses these capital assets to provide services to citizens; consequently, these assets are not available for future spending. Although the City's investment in its capital assets is reported net of related debt, it should be noted that the resources needed to repay this debt must be provided from other sources, since the capital assets themselves cannot be used to liquidate these liabilities. 11 Management's Discussion and Analysis (Continued) City of Edina's Net Assets Govemmental Activities 2009 2008 Business -Type Activities 2009 2008 Totals 2009 2008 Current and other assets $ 60,453,175 $ 54,476,230 $ 23,418,500 $ 24,630,275 $ 83,871,675 $ 79,106,505 Capital assets 122,558,594 108,049,357 68,987,531 65,348,867 191,546,125 173,398,224 Total assets $183,011,769 $162,525,587 $ 92,406,031 $ 89,979,142 $275,417,800 $252,504,729 Long -term liabilities outstanding $ 64,880,633 $ 44,334,972 $ 24,346,645 $ 24,334,398 $ 89,227,278 $ 68,669,370 Other liabilities 10,670,301 13,649,480 4,942,035 5,766,746 15,612,336 19,416,226 Total liabilities $ 75,550,934 $ 57,984,452 $ 29,288,680 $ 30,101,144 $104,839,614 $ 88,085,596 Net assets: Invested in capital assets, net of related debt $ 69,622,370 $ 71,601,227 $ 47,333,794 $ 46,851,736 $116,956,164 $118,452,963 Restricted 7,132,865 3,362,446 624,837 954,486 7,757,702 4,316,932 Unrestricted 30,705,600 29,577,462 15,158,720 12,071,776 45,864,320 41,649,238 Total net assets $107,460,835 $104,541,135 $ 63,117,351 $ 59,877,998 $170,578,186 $164,419,133 An additional portion of the City's net assets ($7,757,702) represents resources that are subject to external restrictions on how they may be used. The remaining balance of unrestricted net assets ($45,864,320) may be used to meet the City's ongoing obligations to citizens and creditors. At the end of the current fiscal year, the City is able to report positive balances in all of the categories of net assets reported, both for the government as a whole, as well as for its separate governmental and business -type activities. The same situation held true for the prior fiscal year. There was also an increase of $4,215,082 in unrestricted net assets, largely due to positive operating results in the Utility fund. 12 Management's Discussion and Analysis (Continued) As shown below, the City's net assets increased by $6,159,053 during the current fiscal year. Factors contributing to this change are discussed in the next two sections. City of Edina's Changes in Net Assets 13 Governmental Activities Business -type Activities Totals 2009 2008 2009 2008 2009 2008 Revenues: Program revenues: Charges for services $ 6,697,150 $ 7,442,883 $ 35,641,231 $ 33,959,038 $ 42,338,381 $ 41,401,921 Operating grants and contributions 1,377,785 1,170,183 135,917 147,456 1,513,702 1,317,639 Capital grants and contributions 2,582,999 7,710,015 - - 2,582,999 7,710,015 General revenues: Property taxes 23,834,274 22,242,276 300,372 - 24,134,646 22,242,276 Other taxes 8,255,177 9,225,900 - - 8,255,177 9,225,900 Gain on disposal of assets 11,709 1,265 2,250 14,505 13,959 15,770 Unrestricted investment earnings 387,177 1,185,899 209,371 607,312 596,548 1,793,211 Total revenues 43,146,271 48,978,421 36,289,141 34,728,311 79,435,412 83,706,732 Expenses: General government 7,362,560 6,836,248 - - 7,362,560 6,836,248 Public safety 14,751,479 14,833,647 - - 14,751,479 14,833,647 Public works 8,993,290 9,046,873 - - 8,993,290 9,046,873 Parks 7,732,777 5,971,565 - - 7,732,777 5,971,565 Interest on long -term debt 2,129,490 1,923,821 - - 2,129,490 1,923,821 Utilities - - 11,833,994 10,625,811 11,833,994 10,625,811 Liquor - - 11,449,194 11,049,223 11,449,194 11,049,223 Aquatic center - - 798,369 787,663 798,369 787,663 Golf course - - 3,588,831 3,612,482 3,588,831 3,612,482 Community activity centers 4,636,375 4,502,849 4,636,375 4,502,849 Total expenses 40,969,596 38,612,154 32,306,763 30,578,028 73,276,359 69,190,182 Increase in net assets before transfers 2,176,675 10,366,267 3,982,378 4,150,283 6,159,053 14,516,550 Transfers 743,025 967,800 (743,025) (967,800) - - Increase in net assets 2,919,700 11,334,067 3,239,353 3,182,483 6,159,053 14,516,550 Net assets - January 1 104,541,135 93,207,068 59,877,998 56,695,515 164,419,133 149,902,583 Net assets - December 31 $107,460,835 $104,541,135 $ 63,117,351 $ 59,877,998 $170,578,186 $164,419,133 13 Management's Discussion and Analysis (Continued) Governmental Activities Governmental activities increased the City's net assets by $2,919,700, accounting for 47% of the total growth in net assets. Key elements of this increase are as follows: • Property tax revenues increased by $1,591,998 (7 %) during the year, which is equal to the property tax levy increase of 7% outlined in our 2009 budget. • The City also collected $7,587,386 in tax increments, which were used to pay principal and interest on tax increment debt. This increases net assets because debt principal payments are not expensed on the Statement of Activities. Below are specific graphs which provide comparisons of the governmental activities revenues and expenses: Revenues by Source - Governmental Activities Other Charges for services 1% 16% Operating grants and Other taxes contributions 19% 3% 00 Capital grants and contributions Property taxes 55% Expenses and Program Revenues - Governmental Activities Millions 16 14 —expenses 12 10 oprogram revenue 8 6 4 2 General Public safety Public works Parks Interest on government long -term debt 14 Management's Discussion and Analysis (Continued) Business -type Activities Business -type activities increased net assets by $3,239,353 accounting for 53% of the City's growth in net assets. Key elements of the current year increase are as follows: • Charges for services for business -type activities increased 5% from 2008. The Utilities fund charges for services increased $1,145,239 (8 %) from the previous year due to increased rates and consumption. The City commissioned a utility rate study for the 2009 year that called for significant rate increases to pay for current and future infrastructure needs. • Business -type activities made net transfers of $743,025 to governmental activities during 2009 to provide cash flow for operational and capital improvement needs. Revenues by Source - Business -type Activities Operating grants Other and 1.4% contributions 0.4% Charges for senvices 98.2% Expenses and Program Revenues - Business -type Activities Millions 16 - 14 - ®expenses 12 _ O program revenue 10 - 8 - 6 - 4 - 2 - Utilities Liquor Aquatic Golf course Community center activity centers 15 Management's Discussion and Analysis (Continued) Financial Analvsis of the Citv's Funds As noted earlier, the City uses fund accounting to ensure and demonstrate compliance with finance - related legal requirements. Governmental Funds. The focus of the City's governmental funds is to provide information on near - term inflows, outflows, and balances of spendable resources. Such information is useful in assessing the City's financing requirements. In particular, unreserved fund balance may serve as a useful measure of a government's net resources available for spending at the end of the fiscal year. At the end of the current fiscal year, the City's governmental funds reported combined ending fund balances of $46,770,059, an increase of $4,702,160 in comparison with the prior year. Approximately 67% of this total amount ($31,528,465) constitutes unreserved fund balance. The remainder of the fund balance is reserved because it has already been committed 1) to provide for prepaid items ($18,241), 2) to pay committed contracts ($6,838,361), 3) for special projects ($200,343), 4) for construction projects ($2,730,517) or 5) to pay debt service ($5,454,132). The general fund is the chief operating fund of the City. At the end of the current fiscal year, unreserved fund balance of the general fund was $12,031,358. As a measure of the general fund's liquidity, unreserved fund balance represents 44% of total general fund expenditures. The fund balance of the City's general fund decreased by $2,329,404 during the current fiscal year. Key factors in this decrease are as follows: • As part of the 2010 budget process, the City decided to move the equipment replacement program to the construction fund in 2010. This decision required a transfer of program assets ($3,244,468) from the general fund to the construction fund on December 31, 2009. • General fund property tax revenues increased by 3.8% in the current fiscal year despite a budgeted levy increase of over 4.3 %. The shortfall is due to higher than expected delinquencies and abatements. • Total general fund expenditures decreased 4% in the current fiscal year despite a budgeted increase of 3.6 %. The City made several mid -year adjustments to our spending patterns in 2009 due to declining revenues and economic uncertainty. Adjustments included deferred equipment purchases and maintenance, fewer part-time staff, voluntary furloughs, and other adjustments. • The liquor fund transferred $765,100 of profits to the general fund. • The general fund made transfers totaling $700,000 to the construction fund to finance our Capital Improvement Program, as stipulated in the fund balance section of our financial management policies. The Housing and Redevelopment Authority fund balance decreased by $2,210,875 in the current fiscal year because the City is using accumulated tax increment funds to pay for the promenade project. The debt service fund has a total fund balance of $5,454,132, all of which is reserved for the payment of debt service. The net increase in fund balance during the current year in the debt service fund was $1,785,508. Fund balance increased during the year because of new levies for debt issued during 2009 that will increase required debt service beginning in February 2010. The construction fund balance increased by $7,383,155 in 2009 due to the equipment replacement program transfer from the general fund. Also, new debt was issued in 2009 to help finance construction of the new public works facility, which will be completed in 2010. U-1 Management's Discussion and Analysis (Continued) Proprietary funds. The City's proprietary funds provide the same type of information found in the government -wide financial statements, but in more detail. Unrestricted net assets of the utility fund at the end of the year amounted to $11,844,846. The total growth in net assets was $3,181,676. Operating revenues and expenses in the utilities fund increased by 9.7% and 7.3 %, respectively, in 2009, due to rate increases that are intended to help replace aging infrastructure. The City invested $5,388,636 in utility fund capital assets during 2009. Unrestricted net assets of the liquor fund at the end of the year amounted to $1,241,053. Total net assets decreased by $103,517. The liquor fund continues to transfer profits back into other City funds, including the general, construction, golf course, arena and art center funds. The liquor fund made transfers totaling $1,310,100 to other funds during 2009. The majority of this amount ($765,100) was transferred to the general fund according to the budget. Unrestricted net assets of the aquatic center fund at the end of the year amounted to $677,179. Aquatic center revenues decreased slightly from 2008 due to unfavorable weather for the aquatic center in 2009. The aquatic center remains profitable. Unrestricted net assets of the golf course fund at the end of the year amounted to a deficit of ($1,408,841), an increase of $121,561 from the prior year. Unrestricted net assets had been declining for a number of years leading up to 2009 in the golf course fund because cash flow is not sufficient to make principal and interest payments on outstanding debt. The golf course made the final payment on some of its debt on January 1, 2009, and refinanced the remaining debt on April 29, 2009, so debt service will be less of a burden in future years. General Fund Budgetary Highlights During the year there was a $700,000 increase in appropriations between the original and final amended budget. The increase was a transfer to the construction fund of unreserved and undesignated general fund balance according to the City's fund balance policy. During the year, revenues were $823,779 less than budget, as the weak economy affected our property tax, permit, and investment revenue. Due to these revenue declines, the City made several adjustments to our spending during the year as well, although the budget was never formally changed. The spending adjustments succeeded in saving $1,635,472 of budgeted expenditures, so that there was no need to draw upon existing fund balance for operations. Fund balance decreased, but only because of the equipment replacement program transfer to the construction fund. Many City departments were significantly under budget for the year, mostly due to the mid -year spending adjustments. All departments cut expenditures by reducing staffing levels through overtime, part-time staffing, attrition, and voluntary furloughs. No full -time employees were laid off during the year. In addition, departments deferred equipment purchases where possible. The City also saved money through lower than expected fuel, commodities, and insurance prices. Capital Asset and Debt Administration Capital assets. The City's investment in capital assets for its governmental and business type activities as of December 31, 2009, amounted to $191,546,125 (net of accumulated depreciation). This investment in capital assets included land, land improvements, buildings, vehicles and equipment. The total increase in the City's investment in capital assets for the current fiscal year was 10 percent (a 13 percent increase for governmental activities and a 6 percent increase for business - type activities). 17 Management's Discussion and Analysis (Continued) Major capital asset events during the current fiscal year included the following: • The City started construction on a new public works facility in 2009; construction in progress as of the close of the fiscal year has reached $13,294,948. • A variety of street construction, sidewalk and traffic signal projects began in 2009. • A variety of utility infrastructure improvements, including watermain, sanitary and storm sewer, including the country club neighborhood project; construction in progress as of the close of the fiscal year reached $11,179,667. City of Edina's Capital Assets (Net of Depreciation) Additional information on the City's capital assets can be found in Note 4. Long -term debt. At the end of the current fiscal year, the City had total bonded long -term debt outstanding of $91,390,000, an increase of $15,095,000 from 2008. The key factor in this increase was the issuance of $22,720,000 of General Obligation and Public Project Revenue bonds related to the construction of the new public works facility. $24,020,000 is for general obligation improvement debt that is supported by property tax levies and special assessments. This amount increased from 2009 due to a new debt issue for the public works facility. $14,620,000 is for permanent improvement revolving (PIR) bonds, which finance the City's special assessment program. This amount decreased from 2008 due to regularly scheduled principal payments on outstanding issues. An additional $4,125,000 of general obligation tax increment debt financed the City's economic development program. This amount decreased in 2009 due to regularly scheduled principal payments on outstanding issues. Also outstanding is $22,650,000 public project revenue bonds which financed the City Hall and Police facility as well as two gymnasiums and the new public works facility. This amount increased in 2009 due to a new debt issue for the public works facility. There is a total of $25,975,000 in revenue bonds for improvements to the enterprise funds. 18 Governmental Activities Business -Type Activities Totals 2009 2008 2009 2008 2009 2008 Land and land improvements $ 26,040,078 $ 26,109,904 $ 4,634,890 $ 4,832,171 $ 30,674,968 $ 30,942,075 Buildings and improvements 34,810,399 35,576,980 5,924,799 6,486,370 40,735,198 42,063,350 Machinery and equipment 8,108,214 8,003,483 2,771,677 2,098,994 10,879,891 10,102,477 Infrastructure 24,727,802 24,946,400 44,202,165 41,962,368 68,929,967 66,908,768 Construction in progress 28,872,101 13,412,590 11,454,000 9,968,964 40,326,101 23,381,554 Total $122,558,594 $108,049,357 $ 68,987,531 $ 65,348,867 $ 191,546,125 $ 173,398,224 Additional information on the City's capital assets can be found in Note 4. Long -term debt. At the end of the current fiscal year, the City had total bonded long -term debt outstanding of $91,390,000, an increase of $15,095,000 from 2008. The key factor in this increase was the issuance of $22,720,000 of General Obligation and Public Project Revenue bonds related to the construction of the new public works facility. $24,020,000 is for general obligation improvement debt that is supported by property tax levies and special assessments. This amount increased from 2009 due to a new debt issue for the public works facility. $14,620,000 is for permanent improvement revolving (PIR) bonds, which finance the City's special assessment program. This amount decreased from 2008 due to regularly scheduled principal payments on outstanding issues. An additional $4,125,000 of general obligation tax increment debt financed the City's economic development program. This amount decreased in 2009 due to regularly scheduled principal payments on outstanding issues. Also outstanding is $22,650,000 public project revenue bonds which financed the City Hall and Police facility as well as two gymnasiums and the new public works facility. This amount increased in 2009 due to a new debt issue for the public works facility. There is a total of $25,975,000 in revenue bonds for improvements to the enterprise funds. 18 Management's Discussion and Analysis (Continued) City of Edina's Outstanding Debt Governmental Activities Business -Type Activities Totals 2009 .2008 2009 2008 2009 2008 Tax increment bonds $ 4,125,000 $ 10,015,000 $ $ $ 4,125,000 $ 10,015,000 General obligation bonds 24,020,000 10,420,006 24,020,000 10,420,000 Public inprovenient bonds 14,620,000 14170,000 14,620,000 14,770,000 Public project revenue bonds 22,650,000 14,675,000 22,650,000 14,675,000 Revenue bonds - - 25,975,000 26,415,000 25,975,000 26,415,000 Total $ 65,415,000 $ 49,880,000 $25,975,000 $26,415,000 $ 91,390,000 $ 76,295,000 The City maintains an Aaa rating from Moody's and an AAA rating from Standard & Poor's. State statutes limit the amount of general obligation debt a Minnesota city may issue to 3% of total Estimated Market Value. The current debt limitation for the City is $301,368,951. Only $46,670,000 of the City's outstanding debt is counted within the statutory limitation. Additional information on the City's longterm debt can be found in Note 5. Economic Factors and Next Year's Budget The City strives to provide an uncommonly high quality of life for our residents and businesses and the relatively healthy local economy helps to make this goal a reality. The unemployment rate in Edina for February 2010 was 5.4 %, well below the state and national levels. The City is home to Southdale Center, the nation's first fully enclosed climate - controlled regional shopping mall, Fairview Southdale hospital, as well as several corporate headquarters. In addition to its healthy economy, Edina is known for excellent public schools, as. the Edina school system has been consistently selected as one of the best in the country. Ninety-seven percent of seniors go to college and eighty- six percent finish in five years. Property values in Edina increased at a rapid pace for several years through 2006, but the growth has slowed since then. Estimated market .value of all real estate actually decreased 0:6 %_ for taxes payable in 2010 after a 1.3% increase the year before. Market.Value and Tax Capacity Annual Changes -0 Tax Capacity. —0- Market Value 25.0% 20.0% 15:0 °,6 10'0% 5-M .` 0,0% -5.0 %' - 20.09/0 -25:0% 2000. 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005. 2006 2007 2008 2009' 19 Management's Discussion and Analysis (Continued) The City collects property taxes based on tax capacity, which roughly equals estimated market value multiplied by class rates for different types of parcels (commercial, residential, etc.). Class rates are set by state statute. Tax capacity for real estate increased 0.5% for taxes payable in 2010, and has been increasing steadily ever since the state revised property tax law in 2001 for taxes payable in 2002, although that growth has slowed since 2006 along with values. Due to the recent increases in market value and tax capacity, property tax rates had been decreasing through 2007, although tax rates now appear to be rising slightly. All of these factors above were considered in preparing the City's budget for the 2010 fiscal year. The City's adopted 2010 budget includes a property tax levy of $20,737,472 for the general fund, an increase of 2.2% from the 2009 general fund levy. Requests for Information This financial report is designed to provide a general overview of the City's finances for all those with an interest in the government's finances. Questions concerning any of the information provided in this report or requests for additional financial information should be addressed to the Office of the Finance Director, 4801 West 50th Street, Edina, Minnesota 55424. The City's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report can also be found on the internet at www.cityofedina.com. 20 Basic Financial Statements CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA STATEMENT OF NET ASSETS December 31, 2009 Liabilities: Current liabilities: Accounts payable Salaries payable Accrued interest payable Contracts payable Due to other governments Deposits payable Unearned revenue Compensated absences payable Bonds payable Total current liabilities Noncurrent liabilities: Net OPE13 obligation , Compensated absences payable Bonds payable, net of unamortized discount Total noncurrent liabilities Total liabilities Net assets: Invested in capital assets, net of related debt Restricted for tax increments Restricted for debt service Unrestricted Total net assets 3,645,786 Primary.Government 4,434,432 751,851 Governmental Business -type 985,995 363,894 Activities Activities Total ` Assets: 12,192 177,712 189,904 Current assets: 112,887 140,052 6,354 Cash and cash. equivalents $ 662,700 $ 596,903 $ 1,259,603 Investments 41,777,092 11,746,053 53,523,145 Restricted investments 9,568,879 4,538,546 14,107,425 Accrued interest 81,480 23,696 105,176 Accounts receivable, net 507,793 3,260,834 3,768,627. _ Special.assessments receivable 8043,035 394;738 8,437;773 Internal balances (1,200,000) 1,206,000 - -' Due from other governments 626,252 3;840 630,092 Prepaid items 18,241 355,506 373,747 Inventory - 1,148,391 1,148,391 Total current assets 60,085,472 23,268,507 83,353,979 Noncurrent assets: Deferred charges 367 ;703 149,993 517,696 Nondepreciable capital assets 46,305,930 12,542,965 58,848,895 Depreciable capital assets (net) 76,252,664 56,444,566 132,697,230 Total noncurrent assets 122,926,297 69,137,524 192,063,821 Total assets 183,011,769 92,406,031 275,417,800 Liabilities: Current liabilities: Accounts payable Salaries payable Accrued interest payable Contracts payable Due to other governments Deposits payable Unearned revenue Compensated absences payable Bonds payable Total current liabilities Noncurrent liabilities: Net OPE13 obligation , Compensated absences payable Bonds payable, net of unamortized discount Total noncurrent liabilities Total liabilities Net assets: Invested in capital assets, net of related debt Restricted for tax increments Restricted for debt service Unrestricted Total net assets 3,645,786 788,646 4,434,432 751,851 251,762 1,003,613 985,995 363,894 1,349,889 8291,425 85,616 915,041 12,192 177,712 189,904 27,165 112,887 140,052 6,354 105,645 111,999 1,436,533 455,873 1,892,406 2,975,000 2,600,000 5,575,000 10, 670, 301 4,942,035 15, 612, 336, 513,059 70,553. 583,612 2,154.,890, 683,809 2,838,609 62,212,774 23,592,283 85,805,057 64,880,633 24,346,645 89,227,278 75,550,934 29,288,680 104,839,614 69,622,370 47,333,794 116,956,164 7,132,865 - 7,132,865 - 624,837 624,837 30,705,600 15,158,720 45,864,320 $ 107,460,835 $ 63,117,351 $ 170,578,186 The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements 21 CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA STATEMENT OF ACTIVITIES For The Year Ended December 31, 2009 Functions /Programs Primary government: Governmental activities: General government Public safety Public works Parks Interest on long -term debt Total government activities Business -type activities: Utilities Liquor Aquatic center Golf course Community activity centers Total business -type activities Total primary government Expenses Program Revenues Operating Capital Charges for Grants and Grants and Services Contributions Contributions $ 7,362,560 $ 811,087 $ 291,633 $ - 14,751,479 5,081,563 859,248 - 8,993,290 403,771 218,804 2,582,999 7,732,777 400,729 8,100 - 2,129,490 - - - 40,969,596 6,697,150 1,377,785 2,582,999 11,833,994 14,858,488 116,615 - 11,449,194 12,655,777 - - 798,369 859,816 - - 3,588,831 3,660,466 - - 4,636,375 3,606,684 19,302 - 32,306,763 35,641,231 135,917 - $ 73,276,359 $ 42,338,381 $ 1,513,702 $ 2,582,999 The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 22 General revenues: Property taxes Tax increment collections Franchise taxes Unrestricted investment earnings Gain on disposal of capital assets Transfers Total general revenues and transfers Change in net assets Net assets - beginning Net assets - ending Net (Expense) Revenue and Changes in Net Assets Governmental Activities Business -type Activities Total $ (6,259,840) $ - $ (6,259,840) (8,810,668) - (8,810,668) (5,787,716) - (5,787,716) (7,323,948) - (7,323,948) (2,129,490) - (2,129,490) (30,311,662) - (30,311,662) - 3,141,109 3,141,109 - 1,206,583 1,206,583 - 61,447 61,447 - 71,635 71,635 - (1,010,389) (1,010,389) - 3,470,385 3,470,385 (30,311,662) 3,470,385 (26,841,277) 23,834,274 300,372 24,134,646 7,587,386 - 7,587,386 667,791 - 667,791 387,177 209,371 596,548 11,709 2,250 13,959 743,025 (743,025) - 33,231,362 (231,032) 33,000,330 2,919,700 3,239,353 6,159,053 104,541,135 59,877,998 164,419,133 23 $ 107,460,835 $ 63,117,351 $ 170,578,186 This page left blank intentionally. 24 CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA BALANCE SHEET GOVERNMENTALFUNDS December 31, 2009 Fund balance reported above $ 46,770,059 Amounts reported for governmental activities in the statement of net assets are different because: Capital assets used in governmental activities are not financial resources, and therefore, are not reported in the funds 122,558,594 Other long -term assets are not available to pay for current - period expenditures and, therefore, are deferred in the funds 8,042,640 Long -term liabilities, including bonds payable, are not due and payable in the current period and therefore are not reported in the funds. 69,910,458 Net assets of governmental activities 107,460,835 The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 25 Housing & Nonmajor Total Redevelopment Debt Governmental Governmental General Authority Service Construction Funds Funds Assets Cash and cash equivalents $ 222,893 $ 7,283 $ 245,744 $ 21,390 $ 165,390 $ 662,700 Investments - unrestricted 12,422,894 12,380,037 4,981,014 11,275,151 717,996 41,777,092 Investments - restricted - - - 9,568,879 - 9,568,879 Accrued interest 12,441 45,066 4,430 15,009 4,534 81,480 Accounts receivable 314,825 - - 11,776 181,192 507,793 Special assessments receivable - - 5,922,939 2,120,096 - 8,043,035 Due from other funds 130,501 - 200,000 - 450,000 780,501 Due from other governments 491,121 1,662 22,944 10,450 100,075 626,252 Prepaid items 18,241 - - - - 18,241 Total assets 13,612,916 12,434,048 11,377,071 23,022,751 1,619,187 62,065,973 Liabilities and fund balances Liabilities: Accounts payable $ 611,477 $ 970,336 $ - $ 2,049,287 $ 14,686 $ 3,645,786 Salaries payable 731,821 - - 8,524 11,506 751,851 Contracts payable - - - 829,425 - 829,425 Due to other funds 200,000 130,501 - 1,550,000 100,000 1,980,501 Due to other governments 5,779 6,413 - - - 12,192 Deposits payable 14,240 - - 12,925 - 27,165 Unearned revenue - - - - 6,354 6,354 Deferred revenue - - 5,922,939 2,119,701 - 8,042,640 Total liabilities 1,563,317 1,107,250 5,922,939 6,569,862 132,546 15,295,914 Fund balance: Reserved for: Prepaid items 18,241 - - - - 18,241 Encumbrances - - - 6,838,361 - 6,838,361 Special projects - - - 200,343 - 200,343 Construction projects - - - 2,730,517 - 2,730,517 Debt service - - 5,454,132 - - 5,454,132 Unreserved: Designated, reported in: General Fund 11,094,859 - - - - 11,094,859 Capital Project Funds - - - 6,683,668 - 6,683,668 Undesignated, reported in: General Fund 936,499 - - - - 936,499 Special Revenue Funds - 11,326,798 - - 1,486,641 12,813,439 Total fund balance 12,049,599 11,326,798 5,454,132 16,452,889 1,486,641 46,770,059 Total liabilities and fund balances $ 13,612,916 $ 12,434,048 $ 11,377,071 $ 23,022,751 $ 1,619,187 $ 62,065,973 Fund balance reported above $ 46,770,059 Amounts reported for governmental activities in the statement of net assets are different because: Capital assets used in governmental activities are not financial resources, and therefore, are not reported in the funds 122,558,594 Other long -term assets are not available to pay for current - period expenditures and, therefore, are deferred in the funds 8,042,640 Long -term liabilities, including bonds payable, are not due and payable in the current period and therefore are not reported in the funds. 69,910,458 Net assets of governmental activities 107,460,835 The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 25 CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS For The Year Ended December 31, 2009 Expenditures: Housing & Nonmajor Total Current: Redevelopment Debt Governmental Governmental General government General Authority Service Construction Funds Funds Revenues: 13,442,038 - - 60,366 190,282 13,692,686 General property taxes $ 20,742,167 $ - $ 3,092,107 $ - $ - $ 23,834,274 Tax increment collections - 7,587,386 - - - 7,587,386 Special assessments - - 1,508,662 1,195,171 - 2,703,833 Franchise fees - - - - 667,791 667,791 License and permits 2,081,139 - - 23,828 - 2,104,967 Intergovernmental 884,649 - - 276,129 346,392 1,507,170 Charges for services 2,759,164 - - 146,246 - 2,905,410 Fines and forfeitures 1,148,440 - - - 76,543 1,224,983 Investment income 37,668 183,592 35,151 109,936 20,830 387,177 Rental of property 342,446 - - 1,170 - 343,616 Other revenues 43,406 - - 14,950 101,679 160,035 Total revenues 28,039,079 7,770,978 4,635,920 1,767,430 1,213,235 43,426,642 Expenditures: Current: General government 4,007,381 1,631,984 - 306,787 949,177 6,895,329 Public safety 13,442,038 - - 60,366 190,282 13,692,686 Public works 5,597,264 - - 314,494 - 5,911,758 Parks 3,569,655 - - 118,408 - 3,688,063 Capital outlay: General government 16,653 - - 405,492 - 422,145 Public safety 320,573 - - 234,330 - 554,903 Public works 54,149 - - 19,232,675 - 19,286,824 Parks 165,994 2,215,633 - 351,566 - 2,733,193 Debt service: Bond principal - - 7,415,000 - - 7,415,000 Interest and fiscal charges - - 1,841,342 - - 1,841,342 Total expenditures 27,173,707 3,847,617 9,256,342 21,024,118 1,139,459 62,441,243 Revenues over (under) expenditures 865,372 3,923,361 (4,620,422) (19,256,688) 73,776 (19,014,601) Other financing sources (uses): Transfers in 765,100 - 6,338,205 4,244,468 - 11,347,773 Transfers out (3,994,468) (6,134,236) - (476,044) - (10,604,748) Sale of capital assets 34,592 - - - - 34,592 Bonds issued - - 67,000 22,883,000 - 22,950,000 Premium on bonds issued - - 725 64,040 - 64,765 Discount on bonds issued - - - (75,621) - (75,621) Total other financing sources (uses) (3,194,776) (6,134,236) 6,405,930 26,639,843 - 23,716,761 Net increase (decrease) in fund balance (2,329,404) (2,210,875) 1,785,508 7,383,155 73,776 4,702,160 Fund balance - January 1 14,379,003 13,537,673 3,668,624 9,069,734 1,412,865 42,067,899 Fund balance - December 31 $ 12,049,599 $ 11,326,798 $ 5,454,132 $ 16,452,889 $ 1,486,641 $ 46,770,059 The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 26 CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA RECONCILIATION OF THE STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES OF GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS TO THE STATEMENT OF ACTIVITIES For The Year Ended December 31, 2009 Amounts reported for governmental activities in the statement of activities (page 22 -23) are different because: Net changes in fund balances - total governmental funds (page 26) $ 4,702,160 Governmental funds report capital outlays as expenditures. However, in the statement of activities the cost of those assets is allocated over their estimated useful lives and reported as depreciation expense. This is the amount by which capital outlays exceeded depreciation in the current period. 14,532,120 In the statement of activities, only the gain on the sale of capital assets is reported. However, in the governmental funds, the proceeds from the sale increases financial resources. Thus, the change in net assets differs from the change in fund balance by the cost of the capital assets sold. (22,883) Revenues in the statement of activities that do not provide current financial resources (property tax and special assessment receivables) are not reported as revenues in the funds. (292,080) The issuance of long -term debt (e.g., bonds, leases) provides current financial resources to governmental funds, while the repayment of the principal of long -term debt consumes the current financial resources of governmental funds. Neither transaction, however, has any effect on net assets. Also, governmental funds report the effect of issuance costs, premiums, discounts and similar items when debt is first issued, whereas these amounts are deferred and amortized in the statement of activities. This amount is the net effect of these differences in the treatment of long -term debt and related items. (15,388,617) Some expenses reported in the statement of activities do not require the use of current financial resources (OPEB obligations, accrued interest and amortization on debt and compensated absences payable) and, therefore, are not reported as expenditures in governmental funds. (611,000) Change in net assets of governmental activities (page 23) $ 2,919,700 The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 27 CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA STATEMENT OF NET ASSETS PROPRIETARY FUNDS December 31, 2009 Assets: Current assets: Cash and cash equivalents Investments - unrestricted Investments - restricted Interest receivable Accounts receivable, net Special assessments receivable Due from other funds Due from other governments Prepaid expenses Inventory Total current assets Noncurrent assets: Deferred charges Net capital assets Total noncurrent assets Total assets Liabilities: Current liabilities: Accounts payable Salaries payable Accrued interest payable Contracts payable Due to other funds Due to other governments Deposits payable Unearned revenue Compensated absences payable Bonds payable - current Total current liabilities Noncurrent liabilities: Net OPEB obligation Compensated absences payable Bonds payable, net of unamortized discounts Total noncurrent liabilities Total liabilities Net assets: Invested in capital assets, net of related debt Restricted for debt service Unrestricted Total net assets Business -type Activities - Enterprise Funds Nonmajor Aquatic Golf Enterprise Utilities Liquor Center Course Funds Total $ 458,470 $ 571 $ 107,848 $ 12,949 $ 17,065 $ 596,903 8,510,735 - - - 3,235,318 11,746,053 2,233,114 - - - 2,305,432 4,538,546 3,911 - - - 19,785 23,696 3,127,841 950 - 1,613 130,430 3,260,834 394,738 - - - - 394,738 - 1,000,000 1,200,000 - 116,000 2,316,000 3,840 - - - - 3,840 355,506 - - - - 355,506 24,827 1,058,199 - 52,622 12,743 1,148,391 15,112,982 2,059,720 1,307,848 67,184 5,836,773 24,384,507 100,931 - 9,575 11,329 28,158 149,993 56,772,399 1,331,625 1,758,093 4,928,678 4,196,736 68,987,531 56,873,330 1,331,625 1,767,668 4,940,007 4,224,894 69,137,524 71,986,312 3,391,345 3,075,516 5,007,191 10,061,667 93,522,031 281,915 341,754 592 33,718 130,667 788,646 61,781 56,206 1,015 51,003 81,757 251,762 335,278 - 13,233 15,383 - 363,894 85,616 - - - - 85,616 - - - 1,000,000 116,000 1,116,000 14,062 149,214 567 6,144 7,725 177,712 112,216 - - 671 - 112,887 - 4,545 - 45,141 55,959 105,645 90,027 101,846 - 127,168 136,832 455,873 2,185,000 - 135,000 280,000 - 2,600,000 3,165,895 653,565 150,407 1,559,228 528,940 6,058,035 20,018 12,333 - 17,374 20,828 70,553 135,040 152,769 - 190,752 205,248 683,809 19,527,893 - 725,741 884,987 2,453,662 23,592,283 19,682,951 165,102 725,741 1,093,113 2,679,738 24,346,645 22,848,846 818,667 876,148 2,652,341 3,208,678 30,404,680 37,292,620 1,331,625 897,352 3,763,691 4,048,506 47,333,794 - - 624,837 - - 624,837 11,844,846 1,241,053 677,179 (1,408,841) 2,804,483 15,158,720 $ 49,137,466 $ 2,572,678 $ 2,199,368 $ 2,354,850 $ 6,852,989 $ 63,117,351 The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 28 CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES AND CHANGES IN FUND NET ASSETS PROPRIETARY FUNDS For The Year Ended December 31, 2009 Operating revenues: Sales - liquor Sales - retail Sales - utilities Sales - concessions Memberships Admissions Building rental Rental of equipment Greens fees Otherfees Total operating revenues Operating expenses: Cost of sales and services Personal services Contractual services Commodities Central Services Depreciation Total operating expenses Operating income (loss) Nonoperating revenues (expenses): Excess tax increments Intergovernmental Investment income Donations Interest and fiscal charges Amortization of bond discount Gain (loss) on sale of capital asset Miscellaneous Special items Total nonoperating revenues (expenses) Business -type Activities - Enterprise Funds Nonmajor Aquatic Golf Enterprise Utilities Liquor Center Course Funds Total $ - $ 12,642,630 $ - $ 146,632 $ - $ 12,789,262 - - 4,759 212,886 43,909 261,554 14,484,863 - - - - 14,484,863 - - 101,398 230,776 65,549 397,723 - - 464,570 123,761 86,290 674,621 - - 261,621 264,671 675,447 1,201,739 - - 27,468 81,728 1,398,011 1,507,207 - - - 359,277 106,758 466,035 - - - 1,880,610 215,710 2,096,320 372,935 - - 358,333 1,015,010 1,746,278 14,857,798 12,642,630 859,816 3,658,674 3,606,684 35,625,602 52,786 9,300,699 28,670 338,248 73,878 9,794,281 1,732,097 1,361,602 261,365 1,774,558 2,095,029 7,224,651 5,989,392 472,412 118,074 580,479 1,432,638 8,592,995 888,411 62,538 142,570 323,311 414,341 1,831,171 501,693 186,144 25,056 110,796 155,897 979,586 1,650,837 65,799 194,928 414,656 464,490 2,790,710 10,815,216 11,449,194 770,663 3,542,048 4,636,273 31,213,394 4,042,582 1,193,436 89,153 116,626 (1,029,589) 4,412,208 - - - 100,124 200,248 300,372 116,615 - - - - 116,615 140,567 - - - 68,804 209,371 - - - - 19,302 19,302 (811,587) - (26,942) (34,362) (42) (872,933) 8,005 - (764) (820) (60) 6,361 - - - (11,601) 2,250 (9,351) 690 13,147 - 1,792 - 15,629 (215,196) - - - - (215,196) (760,906) 13,147 (27,706) 55,133 290,502 (429,830) Income (loss) before transfers 3,281,676 1,206,583 61,447 171,759 (739,087) 3,982,378 Transfers: Transfers in - - - 170,000 497,075 667,075 Transfers out (100,000) (1,310,100) - - - (1,410,100) Total transfers (100,000) (1,310,100) - 170,000 497,075 (743,025) Change in net assets 3,181,676 (103,517) 61,447 341,759 (242,012) 3,239,353 Net assets - January 1 45,955,790 2,676,195 2,137,921 2,013,091 7,095,001 59,877,998 Net assets - December 31 $ 49,137,466 $ 2,572,678 $ 2,199,368 $ 2,354,850 $ 6,852,989 $ 63,117,351 The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements 29 CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS PROPRIETARY FUNDS For The Year Ended December 31, 2009 Cash flows from operating activities: Receipts from customers and users Payment to suppliers Payment to employees Donations Miscellaneous revenue Special items Net cash provided by (used in) operating activities Business -type Activities - Enterprise Funds Nonmajor Aquatic Golf Enterprise Utilities Liquor Center Course Funds Total $ 15,030,675 $ 12,643,860 $ 859,805 $ 3,661,488 $ 3,605,996 $ 35,801,824 (7,759,304) (9,988,420) (314,722) (1,387,799) (2,260,207) (21,710,452) (1,692,107) (1,322,943) (260,723) (1,734,978) (2,046,052) (7,056,803) - - - - 19,302 19,302 690 13,147 - 1,792 - 15,629 (215,196) - - - - (215,196) 5,364,758 1,345,644 284,360 540,503 (680,961) 6,854,304 Cash flows from noncapital financing activities: Excess tax increments - State grant 116,615 Transfer from other funds - Transfer to other funds (100,000) Proceeds from interfund borrowing - Payment of interfund borrowing Net cash provided by (used in) 100,124 200,248 300,372 - - 116,615 170,000 497,075 667,075 (1,310,100) - - - (1,410,100) 100,000 185,000 - 101,000 386,000 (1,200,000) (100,000) (101,000) (1,401,000) noncapital financing activities 16,615 (1,210,100) (1,015,000) 170,124 697,323 (1,341,038) Cash flows from capital and related financing activities: Proceeds from capital debt - Proceeds from refunding debt - Deposit to refunding escrow - Acquisition of capital assets (5,388,636) Proceeds from sale of capital assets - Principal paid on bonds (2,045,000) Interest paid on bonds (803,157) Net cash provided by (used in) capital and related 2,425,443 2,425,443 - 858,033 1,159,096 - 2,017,129 - (845,000) (1,140,000) - (1,985,000) (157,853) (14,915) (173,180) (718,719) (6,453,303) - - 12,328 2,250 14,578 - (120,000) (515,000) (225,000) (2,905,000) - (34,013) (53,953) (4,162) (895,285) financing activities (8,236,793) (157,853) (155,895) (710,709) 1,479,812 (7,781,438) Cash flows from investing activities: Proceeds from sale of investments 3,025,663 - - - 715,922 3,741,585 Purchase of investments - - - - (2,425,591) (2,425,591) Investment income 214,681 - - - 184,226 398,907 Net cash flows provided by (used in) investing activities 3,240,344 - - - (1,525,443) 1,714,901 Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents 384,924 (22,309) (886,535) (82) (29,269) (553,271) Cash and cash equivalents - January 1 73,546 22,880 994,383 13,031 46,334 1,150,174 Cash and cash equivalents - December 31 $ 458,470 $ 571 $ 107,848 $ 12,949 $ 17,065 $ 596,903 The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 30 CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS PROPRIETARY FUNDS For The Year Ended December 31, 2009 Noncash investing activities: Increase (decrease) in fair value of investments 1____J8,566) $ - $ - $ - $ (105,245) The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 31 Business -type Activities - Enterprise Funds Nonmajor Aquatic Golf Enterprise Utilities . Liquor Center Course Funds Total Reconciliation of operating income to net cash provided (used) by operating activities: Operating income (loss) $ 4,042,582 $ 1,193,436 $ 89,153 $ 116,626 $ (1,029,589) $ 4,412,208 Adjustments to reconcile operating income (loss) to net cash flows provided by (used in) operating activities: Depreciation 1,650,837 65,799 194,928 414,656 464,490 2,790,710 Donations - - - - 19,302 19,302 Miscellaneous revenue 690 13,147 - 1,792 - 15,629 Special items (215,196) - - - - (215,196) Changes in assets and liabilities: Decrease (increase) in receivables 324,192 550 - 347 (69) 325,020 Decrease (increase) in special assessments (153,431) - - - - (153,431) Decrease (increase) in due from other governments 2,116 . - - - - 2,116 Decrease (increase) in inventory 12,330 30,173 - (3,649) (1,307) 37,547 Decrease (increase) in prepaid items (11,100) - - - - (11,100) Increase (decrease) in accounts payable (244,071) (9,286) 35 (20,654) (182,397) (456,373) Increase (decrease) in salaries payable 11,648 7,570 642 9,508 7,927 37,295 Increase (decrease) in contracts payable (88,143) - - - - (88,143) Increase (decrease) in due to other governments 3,962 12,486 (387) (128) 251 16,184 Increase (decrease) in deposits - - - (10,534) - (10,534) Increase (decrease) in unearned revenue - 680 (11) 2,467 (619) 2,517 Increase (decrease) in net OPEB obligation 9,471 5,835 - 8,219 9,854 33,379 Increase (decrease) in compensated absences 18,871 25,254 - 21,853 31,196 97,174 Total adjustments 1;322,176 152,208 195,207 423,877 348,628 2,442,096 Net cash provided by (used in) operating activities $ 5,364,758 $ 1,345,644 $ 284,360 $ 540,503 $ (680,961) $ 6,854,304 Noncash investing activities: Increase (decrease) in fair value of investments 1____J8,566) $ - $ - $ - $ (105,245) The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 31 CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA STATEMENT OF FIDUCIARY NET ASSETS AGENCYFUNDS December 31, 2009 Assets Cash Investments Total assets Liabilities Accounts payable Salaries payable Due to other governmental units Total liabilities Agency Funds $ 177,048 245,000 $ 422,048 $ 34,406 4,716 382,926 $ 422,048 The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 32 Notes to the Financial Statements CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2009 Note 1 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES The City of Edina (the City) was incorporated in 1888 and operates under the State of Minnesota Statutory Plan B form of government. The governing body consists of a five- member City Council elected by voters of the City. The financial statements of the City have been prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (generally accepted accounting principles) as applied to governmental units by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB). The following is a summary of significant accounting policies. A. FINANCIAL REPORTING ENTITY The City's financial reporting entity consists of (a) the primary government, (b) organizations for which the primary government is financially accountable, and (c) other organizations for which the nature and significance of their relationship with the primary government are such that exclusion would cause the reporting entity's financial statements to be misleading or incomplete. The primary government is financially accountable for the component unit if it appoints a voting majority of the component unit's governing body and is able to impose its will on the component unit or there is a potential for the component unit to provide specific financial benefits to, or impose specific financial burdens on, the primary government. As required by generally accepted accounting principles, the financial statements of the reporting entity include those of the City of Edina (the primary government) and its component units. The component units discussed below are included in the City's reporting entity because of the significance of their operational or financial relationships with the City. COMPONENT UNITS In conformity with generally accepted accounting principles, the financial statements of the component unit have been included in the financial reporting entity as a blended component unit. The Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) is an entity legally separate from the City. However, for financial reporting purposes, the HRA is reported as if it were part of the City's operations because the members of the City Council serve as HRA board members and its activity is confined to the City of Edina. The activity of the HRA is reported in the Special Revenue Funds. Separate financial statements are not prepared for the HRA. 33 CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2009 B. GOVERNMENT -WIDE AND FUND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS The government -wide financial statements (i.e., the statement of net assets and the statement of changes in net assets) report information on all of the nonfiduciary activities of the City. Governmental activities, which normally are supported by taxes and intergovernmental revenues, are reported separately from business -type activities, which rely to a significant extent on fees and charges for support. The statement of activities demonstrates the degree to which the direct expenses of a given function or business -type activity are offset by program revenues. Direct expenses are those that are clearly identifiable with a specific function or business -type activity. Program revenues include 1) charges to customers or applicants who purchase, use, or directly benefit from goods, services, or privileges provided by a given function or business -type activity and 2) grants and contributions that are restricted to meeting the operational or capital requirements of a particular function or business type activity. Taxes and other items not included among program revenues are reported instead as general revenues. Separate financial statements are provided for governmental funds, proprietary funds, and fiduciary funds, even though the latter are excluded from the government -wide financial statements. Major individual governmental funds and major individual enterprise funds are reported as separate columns in the fund financial statements. Aggregated information for the remaining nonmajor governmental and enterprise funds is reported in a single column in the fund financial statements C. MEASUREMENT FOCUS, BASIS OF ACCOUNTING, AND FINANCIAL STATEMENT PRESENTATION The government -wide financial statements are reported using the economic resources measurement focus and the accrual basis of accounting, as are the proprietary fund and fiduciary fund financial statements. The City's only fiduciary fund type, agency funds, are custodial in nature and do not have a measurement focus. Revenues are recorded when earned and expenses are recorded when a liability is incurred, regardless of the timing of related cash flows. Property taxes are recognized as revenues in the year for which they are levied. Grants and similar items are recognized as revenue as soon as all eligibility requirements imposed by the provider have been met. Governmental fund financial statements are reported using the current financial resources measurement focus and the modified accrual basis of accounting. Revenues are recognized as soon as they are both measurable and available. Revenues are considered to be available when they are collectible within the current period or soon enough thereafter to pay liabilities of the current period. For this purpose, the City considers all revenues, except reimbursement grants, to be available if they are collected within 60 days of the end of the current fiscal period. Expenditures generally are recorded when a liability is incurred, as under accrual accounting. However, debt service expenditures, as well as expenditures related to compensated absences and claims and judgments are recorded only when payment is due. 34 CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2009 Property taxes, special assessments, intergovernmental revenues,. charges for services and interest associated with the current fiscal period are all considered to be susceptible to accrual and so have been recognized as revenues of the current fiscal period. Only the portion of special assessments receivable due within the current fiscal period is considered to be susceptible to accrual as revenue of the current period. All other revenue items are considered to be measurable and available only when cash is received by the City. The City reports the following major governmental funds: The general fund is the government's primary operating fund. It accounts for all financial resources of the general government, except those required to be accounted for in another fund. The special revenue Housing and Redevelopment Authority fund is used to account for revenues from several sources (property taxes, bond proceeds, investment earnings, etc.) that are designated for housing and redevelopment. The debt service fund accounts for the payment of principal and interest on the Tax Increment, General Obligation, Permanent Improvement Revolving, and Public Project Revenue Bonds. The capital projects construction fund accounts for the various special assessment and state aid projects throughout the City. This fund also provides financing for capital improvements as designated in the City's capital improvement budget. The City reports the following major proprietary funds: The utility fund accounts for the provision of water, sewer and recycling services to the City's residents. The liquor fund accounts for the operation of the City's three liquor stores. The aquatic center fund accounts for the operation of the City's aquatic center. The golf course fund accounts for the operation of the City's three golf courses and a golf dome. Additionally, the City reports the following fund type: Agency - the police seizure, Public Safety Training Facility, and 1 -494 Corridor Commission funds account for fees collected for other government agencies and the payroll fund accounts for payroll deductions withheld from employee paychecks but not yet sent to the appropriate party (includes federal and state taxes, health care deductions, etc). 35 CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2009 Private - sector standards of accounting and financial reporting issued prior to December 1, 1989, generally are followed in both the government -wide and proprietary fund financial statements to the extent that those standards do not conflict with or contradict guidance of the Governmental Accounting Standards Board. Governments also have the option of following subsequent private- sector guidance for their business -type activities and enterprise funds, subject to this same limitation. The City has elected not to follow subsequent private- sector guidance. As a general rule the effect of interfund activity has been eliminated from the government -wide financial statements. Exceptions to this general rule are transactions that would be treated as revenues, expenditures or expenses if they involved external organizations, such as buying goods and services or payments in lieu of taxes, are similarly treated when they involve other funds of the City of Edina. Elimination of these charges would distort the direct costs and program revenues reported for the various functions concerned. Amounts reported as program revenues include 1) charges to customers or applicants for goods, services, or privileges provided, 2) operating grants and contributions, and 3) capital grants and contributions, including special assessments. Internally dedicated resources are reported as general revenues rather than as program revenues. Likewise, general revenues include all taxes. Proprietary funds distinguish operating revenues and expenses from nonoperating items. Operating revenues and expenses generally result from providing services and producing and delivering goods in connection with a proprietary fund's principal ongoing operations. The principal operating revenues of the utilities, liquor, aquatic center, golf course, arena, art center and Edinborough Park/Centennial Lake enterprise funds are charges to customers for sales and services. Operating expenses for enterprise funds include the cost of sales and services, administrative expenses, and depreciation on capital assets. All revenues and expenses not meeting this definition are reported as nonoperating revenues and expenses. When both restricted and unrestricted resources are available for an allowable use, it is the City's policy to use restricted resources first, then unrestricted resources as they are needed. Depreciation expense is included in the direct expenses of each function. Interest on long -term debt is considered an indirect expense and is reported separately on the Statement of Activities. KI:1 CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2009 D. CASH AND INVESTMENTS The City's cash and cash equivalents are considered to be deposits and cash on hand for purposes of the cash flow statement. Cash balances from all funds are pooled together and invested to the maximum extent at favorable rates. This also allows certain funds to generate a temporary cash overdraft. Interest earned is allocated as determined by the Investment Advisory Committee. The City provides temporary advances to funds that have insufficient cash balances by means of an advance from another fund shown as interfund receivables in the advancing fund, and an interfund payable in the fund with the deficit, until adequate resources are received. These interfund balances are eliminated on the government -wide financial statements. The City reports its investments at fair value based on quoted market prices. Changes in fair value of securities in the City's investment portfolio are recorded as a net change in fair value of investments in the City's fund financial statements and within general revenues in the government -wide financial statements. E. RECEIVABLES AND PAYABLES During the course of operations, numerous transactions occur between individual funds for goods provided or services rendered. Short-term interfund loans are classified as "due to /from other funds." All short-term interfund receivables and payables at December 31, 2009 are planned to be eliminated in 2010. Any residual balances outstanding between the governmental activities and business -type activities are reported in the government - wide financial statements as "internal balances." Property taxes and special assessments receivables have been reported net of estimated uncollectible accounts. Because utility bills are considered liens on property, no estimated uncollectible amounts are established. Uncollectible amounts are not material for other receivables and have not been reported. 37 CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2009 F. REVENUE RECOGNITION 1. PROPERTY TAX REVENUE RECOGNITION The City Council annually adopts a tax levy and certifies it to the County in December (levy /assessment date) of each year for collection in the following year. The County is responsible for billing and collecting all property taxes for itself, the City, the local School District and other taxing authorities. Such taxes become a lien on January 1 and are recorded as receivables by the City at that date. Real property taxes are payable (by property owners) on May 15 and October 15 of each calendar year. Personal property taxes are payable by taxpayers on February 28 and June 30 of each year. These taxes are collected by the County and remitted to the City on or before July 7 and December 2 of the same year. Delinquent collections for November and December are received the following January. The City has no ability to enforce payment of property taxes by property owners. The County possesses this authority. GOVERNMENT -WIDE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS The City recognizes property tax revenue in the period for which the taxes were levied. Uncollectible property taxes are not material and have not been reported. GOVERNMENTAL FUND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS The City recognizes property tax revenue when it becomes both measurable and available to finance expenditures of the current period. In practice, current and delinquent taxes and State credits received by the City in July, December and January are recognized as revenue for the current year. Taxes collected by the County by December 31 (remitted to the City the following January) and taxes and credits not received at the year end are classified as delinquent and due from County taxes receivable. The portion of delinquent taxes not collected by the City in January are fully offset by deferred revenue because they are not available to finance current expenditures. 2. SPECIAL ASSESSMENT REVENUE RECOGNITION Special assessments are levied against benefited properties for the cost or a portion of the cost of special assessment improvement projects in accordance with State Statutes. These assessments are collectible by the City over a term of years usually consistent with the term of the related bond issue. Collection of annual installments (including interest) is handled by the County Auditor in the same manner as property taxes. Property owners are allowed to (and often do) prepay future installments without interest or prepayment penalties. Once a special assessment roll is adopted, the amount attributed to each parcel is a lien upon that property until full payment is made or the amount is determined to be excessive by the City Council or court action. If special assessments are allowed to go delinquent, the property is subject to tax forfeit sale. Pursuant to State Statutes, a property shall be subject to a tax forfeit sale 38 CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2009 after three years unless it is homesteaded, agricultural or seasonal recreational land in which event the property is subject to such sale after five years. GOVERNMENT -WIDE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS The City recognizes special assessment revenue in the period that the assessment roll was adopted by the City Council. Uncollectible special assessments are not material and have not been reported. GOVERNMENTAL FUND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Revenue from special assessments is recognized by the City when it becomes measurable and available to finance expenditures of the current fiscal period. In practice, current and delinquent special assessments received by the City are recognized as revenue for the current year. Special assessments that are collected by the County by December 31 (remitted to the City the following January) and are also recognized as revenue for the current year. All remaining delinquent, deferred and special deferred assessments receivable in governmental funds are completely offset by deferred revenues. G. INVENTORIES, PREPAID ITEMS AND DEFERRED CHARGES Inventories of the proprietary funds are stated at cost and are recorded as expenditures when consumed rather than when purchased. Certain payments to vendors reflect costs applicable to future accounting periods and are recorded as prepaid items in both government -wide and fund financial statements. Deferred charges represent deferred issuance costs. H. CAPITAL ASSETS Capital assets, which include property, plant, equipment and parks, are reported in the applicable governmental or business -type activities columns in the government -wide financial statements. Capital assets are also reported in the proprietary fund financial statements but not in the governmental fund financial statements. Capital assets are defined by the government as assets with an initial, individual cost of more than $10,000 (amount not rounded) and an estimated useful life in excess of three years. Such assets are recorded at historical cost or estimated historical cost if purchased or constructed. Donated capital assets are recorded at estimated fair market value at the date of donation. The costs of normal maintenance and repairs that do not add to the value of the asset or materially extend assets lives are not capitalized. Infrastructure assets include all of the City's assets since inception. 4r CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2009 Property, plant and equipment of the primary government is depreciated using the straight line method over the following estimated useful lives: Assets Life Golf course 10 - 35 years Land improvements 20 — 50 years Buildings and structures 20 - 40 years Furniture and office equipment 5 - 10 years Vehicles and equipment 3 - 20 years Parks 5 -100 years Distribution system 50 years Collection system 10 - 50 years Storm sewers 50 years Wells 7 - 30 years I. COMPENSATED ABSENCES It is the City's policy to permit employees to accumulate earned but unused vacation and sick pay benefits. All vacation pay is accrued when incurred in the government -wide and proprietary fund financial statements. A liability for these amounts is reported in governmental funds only if they have matured, for example, as a result of employee resignations and retirements. In accordance with the provisions of Statement of Governmental Accounting Standards No. 16, Accounting for Compensated Absences, no liability is recorded for nonvesting accumulating rights to receive sick pay benefits. However, a liability is recognized for that portion of accumulating sick leave benefits that is vested as severance pay. According to City policy, vested sick leave benefits are liquidated into a health care savings plan upon separation. J. LONG -TERM OBLIGATIONS In the government -wide financial statements and proprietary fund types in the fund financial statements, long -term debt and other long -term obligations are reported as liabilities in the applicable governmental activities, business -type activities, or proprietary fund type statement of net assets. Bond premiums and discounts, as well as issuance costs, are deferred and amortized over the life of the bond using the straight -line method. Bonds payable are reported net of the applicable bond premium or discount. Bond issuance costs are reported as deferred charges and amortized over the term of the related debt. 40 CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2009 In the fund financial statements, governmental fund types recognize bond premiums and discounts, as well as bond issuance costs, during the current period. The face amount of debt issued plus any premium received is reported as other financing sources. Discounts on debt issuances are reported as other financing uses. Issuance costs, whether or not withheld from the actual debt proceeds received, are reported as debt service expenditures. K. FUND EQUITY In the fund financial statements, governmental funds report reservations of fund balance for amounts that are not available for appropriation or are legally restricted by outside parties for use for a specific purpose. Designations of fund balance represent tentative management plans that are subject to change. L. INTERFUND TRANSACTIONS Interfund services provided and used are accounted for as revenues, expenditures or expenses. Transactions that constitute reimbursements to a fund for expenditures /expenses initially made from it that are properly applicable to another fund, are recorded as expenditures /expenses in the reimbursing fund and as reductions of expenditures /expenses in the fund that is reimbursed. Interfund loans are reported as an interfund loan receivable or payable which offsets the movement of cash between funds. All other interfund transactions are reported as transfers. M. NET ASSETS Net assets represent the difference between assets and liabilities in the government -wide and proprietary fund financial statements. Net assets invested in capital assets, net of related debt, consists of capital assets, net of accumulated depreciation, reduced by the outstanding balance of any long -term debt used to build or acquire the capital assets. Net assets are reported as restricted when there are limitations imposed on their use through external restrictions imposed by creditors, grantors, or laws or regulations of other governments. N. USE OF ESTIMATES The preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles requires management to make estimates that affect amounts reported in the financial statements during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from such estimates. 41 CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2009 O. JOINT VENTURES The City's investment in joint venture is reported in the statement of net assets as governmental activities capital assets and is equal to the City's interest in the net assets of the joint venture. The City's interest is based on the allocation in the joint powers agreement. Note 2 RECONCILIATION OF GOVERNMENT -WIDE AND FUND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS A. EXPLANATION OF CERTAIN DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENTAL FUND BALANCE SHEET AND THE GOVERNMENT -WIDE STATEMENT OF NET ASSETS The governmental fund balance sheet includes a reconciliation between fund balance — total governmental funds and net assets — governmental activities as reported in the government -wide statement of net assets. One element of that reconciliation explains that "long -term liabilities, including bonds payable, are not due and payable in the current period and therefore are not reported in the funds." The details of this difference are as follows: Bonds payable $ 65,415,000 Plus: issuance premium 94,042 Less: issuance discount (321,268) Less: deferred charge for issuance costs (367,703) Accrued interest payable 985,995 OPEB obligation 513,059 Compensated absences 3,591,333 Net adjustment to reduce fund balance - total govemmental funds to arrive at net assets - govemmental activities $ 69,910,458 B. EXPLANATION OF CERTAIN DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENTAL FUND STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES AND THE GOVERNMENT -WIDE STATEMENT OF ACTIVITIES The governmental fund statement of revenues, expenditures, and changes in fund balances includes a reconciliation between net changes in fund balances — total governmental funds and changes in net assets of governmental activities as reported in the government -wide statement of activities. One element of that reconciliation explains that "Governmental funds report capital outlays as expenditures. However, in the statement of activities the cost of those assets is allocated over their estimated useful lives and reported as depreciation expense." The details of this difference are as follows: 42 CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2009 Capital outlay $ 19,818,160 Depreciation expense (5,286,040) Net adjustment to increase net changes in fund balances -total gowmmental funds to arrive at changes in net assets ofg6wrnmental funds $ 14,532,120 Another element of that reconciliation states that "The issuance of long -term debt provides current financial resources to governmental funds, while the repayment of the principal of long -term debt consumes the current financial resources of governmental funds. Neither transaction, however, has any effect on net assets. Also, governmental funds report the effect of issuance costs, premiums, discounts and similar items when debt is first issued, whereas these amounts are deferred and amortized in the statement of activities." The. details of this difference are as follows: Debt issued or incurred: Issuance of general obligation bonds $ 14,230,000 Issuance of public project revenue bonds 8,720,000 Less issuance costs (135,527) Less discounts (75,621) Plus premiums 64,765 Principal repayments: Tax increment debt (5,890,000) General obligation debt (630,000) Permanent improvement rewNing debt (150,000) Public project revenue debt (745,000) Net adjustment to decrease net changes in fund balances - total gowmmental funds to arrive at changes in net assets of govemmental activities $ 15,388,617 Another, element of that reconciliation states that "Some expenses reported in the statement of activities do riot require. the use of current financial resources and therefore are not reported as expenditures in governmental funds." The details of this difference are. as follows: 43 CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2009 OPEB obligation $ (242,729) Compensated absences (80,123) Accrued interest (234,517) Amortization of issuance costs (33,247) Amortization of bond discounts and premiums (20,384) Net adjustment to decrease net changes in fund balances - total governmental funds to arrive at changes in net assets of governmental activities $ (611,000) Note 3 CASH AND INVESTMENTS A. COMPONENTS OF CASH AND INVESTMENTS Cash and investments at year -end consist of the following: Deposits Cash on hand Investments $ 1,417,565 19,085 67, 875, 570 $ 69,312,220 Cash and investments are presented in the financial statements as follows: Cash and cash equivalents - Statement of Net Assets $ 1,259,603 Investments - Statement of Net Assets 53,523,144 Restricted investments - Statement of Net Assets 14,107,425 Cash and investments - Statement of Fiduciary Net Assets 422,048 $ 69, 312, 220 The City had restricted investments of $14,107,425 as of December 31, 2009 that represent unspent bond proceeds to be used for construction projects. B. DEPOSITS In accordance with applicable Minnesota Statutes, the City maintains deposits at depository banks authorized by the City Council, including checking accounts, savings accounts and certificates of deposit. The following is considered the most significant risk associated with deposits: Custodial credit risk — In the case of deposits, this is the risk that in the event of a bank failure, the City's deposits may be lost. 44 CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2009 Minnesota Statutes, require that all deposits-be•protected by federal- deposit insurance, corporate surety bond, or collateral. The market value of collateral pledged'must equal 110% of the deposits not covered by federal deposit insurance or corporate surety_ bonds.. Authorized collateral-includes treasury bills, notes, and bonds;, issues of U.S. government agencies; general obligations rated "A" or.better revenue obligations rated "AA" or better; irrevocable standard letters oficredit issued by the Federal Home Loan Bank; and certificates of deposit. Minnesota Statutes require that securities pledged•as collateral be in safekeeping in a restricted account at the Federal Reserve Bank or in an account at a trust department of a commercial bank or other financial institution that is not owned or controlled by the financial institution furnishing the collateral. The,City's investment policy does not contain further. restrictions on the types of collateral required. At year -end, the.carrying amount of the City's.deposits was $1,417,565 while the balance on the. bank records was $2,298,284.. At December 31, 2009, all deposits were=fully covered by federal depository insurance, surety bonds, or by collateral held by the City's agent in the City's name. C. INVESTMENTS The City has the following investments at year end: Credit Risk Interest Risk- Maturity Duration in Years Investment Rating Agency < 1 1 to 5 5 to 10 10+ Total U.S. Treasuries N/A N/A $ $ 64,631 $ 753,494 $. 599,169 $ 1,417,294 GNMA N/A N/A - 33,813 33,813 SBANotes AAA/Aaa S &P/Mdys 3,944 54,434 485,400 42,526 586,304 ;4. U.S. Agencies AAA/Aaa S &P /Mdys 5,274,355 13,050,897 2,611,137 2,704,226 23,640,615 Municipals, N/R N/A 30,122 - - - 30,122 Municipals A S &P 10,041 - - 10,041 Municipals AAA/AAA S &P/Fitch 30,291 10,603 73,459 - 114,353 Municipals AAtAa1 S &P /Mdys - - 2,595,000 2,595,000. Negotiable CD's N/R N/A 6,988,183 97,879. 7,086,062 Interfund Debt N/R N/A 1,400,000. 1,400,000 $12,336,936 $14,678,444 $ 3,923,490 $ 5,974,734 36,913,604 WneyMarkeY AAA S &P 28,390,629 4M Fund' N/R N/A 2,571,337 Total investments $67,875,570 N /A- Not Applicable N/R - Not Rated The City's money market investments don't have maturities The Minnesota Municipal Money Market Fund, (4M Fund) is regulated: by Minnesota Statutes and the Board of Directors of the League of Minnesota Cities. The 4M Fund is an unrated 2a7 -like pool and the fair value of the position in the pool is the same as the value of pool shares. 45 CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2009 Investments are subject to various risks, the following of which are considered the most significant: Custodial credit risk — For investments, this is the risk that in the event of a failure of the counterparty to an investment transaction (typically a broker - dealer) the City would not be able to recover the value of its investments or collateral securities that are in the possession of an outside party. The City's investment policy specifically addresses custodial credit risk, requiring the City to limit its exposure by purchasing insured or registered investments, or by the control of who holds the securities. Credit risk — This is the risk that an issuer or other counterparty to an investment will not fulfill its obligations. Minnesota Statutes limit the City's investments to direct obligations or obligations guaranteed by the United States or its agencies; shares of investment companies registered under the Federal Investment Company Act of 1940 that receive the highest credit rating, are rated in one of the two highest rating categories by a statistical rating agency, and all of the investments have a final maturity of thirteen months or less; general obligations rated "AK or better; general obligations of the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency rated "A" or better; bankers' acceptances of United States banks eligible for purchase by the Federal Reserve System; commercial paper issued by United States corporations or their Canadian subsidiaries, rated of the highest quality category by at least two nationally recognized rating agencies, and maturing in 270 days or less; Guaranteed Investment Contracts guaranteed by a United States commercial bank, domestic branch of a foreign bank, or a United States insurance company, and with a credit quality in one of the top two highest categories; repurchase or reverse repurchase agreements and securities lending agreements with financial institutions qualified as a "depository" by the government entity, with banks that are members of the Federal Reserve System with capitalization exceeding $10,000,000, that are a primary reporting dealer in U.S. government securities to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, or certain Minnesota securities broker - dealers. The City's investment policies specifically address credit risk, further limiting the City's exposure to credit risk by requiring that all state and local government obligations to be rated "AA" or better by a national rating agency. Concentration risk — This is the risk associated with investing a significant portion of the City's investment (considered 5 percent or more) in the securities of a single issuer, excluding U.S. guaranteed investments (such as Treasuries), investment pools, and mutual funds. The City's investment policies specifically address the City's desire to limit concentration risk, but do not set specific guidelines for measurement of this risk. At year -end, the City's investments include 7% and 24% in securities issued by FHLMC and FNMA, respectively. Interest rate risk — This is the risk of potential variability in the fair value of fixed rate investment resulting in changes in interest rates (the longer the period for which an interest rate is fixed, the greater the risk). The City's investment policies 46 CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2009 specifically address the City's desire to limit interest rate risk, but do not set specific guidelines for measurement of this risk. Note 4 CAPITAL ASSETS Capital asset activity for the year ended December 31, 2009 is as follows: Certain capital assets were reclassified to different categories during the year, and these reclassifications are reflected in the "Increases" and "Decreases" columns above. 47 Beginning Ending Balance Increases Decreases Balance Governmental activities: Capital assets not being depreciated: Land $ 15,981,364 $ - $ - $ 15,981,364 Investment in joint venture 1,452,465 - - 1,452,465 Construction in progress 13,412,590 19,197,487 (3,737,976) 28,872,101 Total capital assets not being depreciated 30,846,419 19,197,487 (3,737,976) 46,305,930 Capital assets being depreciated: Land improvements 21,699,762 693,134 - 22,392,896 Buildings and structures 35,018,165 344,266 - 35,362,431 Furniture and office equipment 2,615,664 935,934 (180,865) 3,370,733 Vehicles and equipment 13,888,737 574,109 (602,698) 13,860,148 Infrastructure 69,003,514 1,398,379 (203,145) 70,198,748 Parks 14,669,282 412,827 (99,001) 14,983,108 Total capital assets being depreciated 156,895,124 4,358,649 (1,085,709) 160,168,064 Less accumulated depreciation for: Land improvements (11,571,222) (762,960) - (12,334,182) Buildings and structures (9,764,664) (985,309) - (10,749,973) Furniture and office equipment (1,255,307) (244,633) 180,865 (1,319,075) Vehicles and equipment (7,245,611) (1,140,594) 582,613 (7,803,592) Infrastructure (44,057,114) (1,616,977) 203,145 (45,470,946) Parks (5,798,268) (535,567) 96,203 (6,237,632) Total accumulated depreciation (79,692,186) (5,286,040) 1,062,826 (83,915,400) Total capital assets being depreciated, net 77,202,938 (927,391) (22,883) 76,252,664 Governmental activities capital assets, net $108,049,357 $ 18,270,096 $ (3,760,859) $122,558,594 Certain capital assets were reclassified to different categories during the year, and these reclassifications are reflected in the "Increases" and "Decreases" columns above. 47 CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2009 Beginning Ending Balance Increases Decreases Balance Business -type activities: Capital assets not being depreciated: Land $ 1,088,965 $ - $ - $ 1,088,965 Construction in progress 9,968,964 5,580,286 (4,095,250) 11,454,000 Total capital assets not being depreciated 11,057,929 5,580,286 (4,095,250) 12,542,965 Capital assets being depreciated: Land improvements & golf course 8,080,614 102,704 - 8,183,318 Buildings and structures 16,102,655 35,735 - 16,138,390 Furniture and office equipment 121,680 38,462 - 160,142 Vehicles and equipment 4,915,278 1,070,810 (53,211) 5,932,877 Utility infrastructure 68,448,170 3,720,556 - 72,168,726 Lease property capital lease 468,580 - - 468,580 Total capital assets being depreciated 98,136,977 4,968,267 (53,211) 103,052,033 Less accumulated depreciation for: Land improvements & golf course (4,337,408) (299,985) - (4,637,393) Buildings and structures (9,616,285) (597,306) - (10,213,591) Furniture and office equipment (111,652) (9,982) - (121,634) Vehicles and equipment (2,826,312) (402,678) 29,282 (3,199,708) Utility infrastructure (26,485,802) (1,480,759) - (27,966,561) Lease property capital lease (468,580) - - (468,580) Total accumulated depreciation (43,846,039) (2,790,710) 29,282 (46,607,467) Total capital assets being depreciated, net 54,290,938 2,177,557 (23,929) 56,444,566 Business -type activities capital assets, net $ 65,348,867 $ 7,757,843 $ (4,119,179) $ 68,987,531 Depreciation expense was charged to functions /programs of the primary government as follows: E, 1.1 CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2009 Govemmental activities: General government $ 505,794 Public safety 640,274 Public works 2,371,507 Parks 1,768,465 Total depreciation expense - governmental activities $ 5,286,040 Business -type activities: Utilities $ 1,650,837 Liquor 65,799 Aquatic Center 194,928 Golf Course 414,656 Arena 286,241 Art Center 30,124 Edinborough Park /Centennial Lakes 148,125 Total depreciation expense - business -type activities $ 2,790,710 CONSTRUCTION COMMITMENTS At December 31, 2009, the City had construction project contracts in progress. The commitments related to the remaining contract balances are summarized as follows: $ 7,512,364 Note 5 LONG -TERM DEBT The City has five types of bonded debt outstanding at December 31, 2009: tax increment bonds, general obligation bonds, public improvement revolving bonds, public project revenue bonds and G.O. revenue bonds. The first type of bond is payable solely from tax increment monies with any deficiency to be provided for by general property taxes. The second type is payable from general property taxes. The third type is payable from special assessments. The fourth type is payable solely from annual appropriation lease payments received from the City of Edina pursuant to a lease between the Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority and the City. The fifth type is payable primarily from enterprise revenue with any deficiency to be provided for by general Contract Remaining Project # Project Description Amount Commitment 08 -1 Eng Country Club Reconstruction $ 14,289,890 $ 1,348,005 08 -6 Eng Street /Sidewalk Reconstruction 2,145,508 4,348 09 -5 Eng Promenade 1,952,097 22,029 09 -6 Eng Street/Sidewalk Reconstruction 720,380 38,024 09 -7 Eng Street/Sidewalk Reconstruction 718,139 7,638 09 -11 Eng Street/Sidewalk Reconstruction 1,586,586 17,366 Various New Public Works Facility 10,613,873 6,074,954 $ 7,512,364 Note 5 LONG -TERM DEBT The City has five types of bonded debt outstanding at December 31, 2009: tax increment bonds, general obligation bonds, public improvement revolving bonds, public project revenue bonds and G.O. revenue bonds. The first type of bond is payable solely from tax increment monies with any deficiency to be provided for by general property taxes. The second type is payable from general property taxes. The third type is payable from special assessments. The fourth type is payable solely from annual appropriation lease payments received from the City of Edina pursuant to a lease between the Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority and the City. The fifth type is payable primarily from enterprise revenue with any deficiency to be provided for by general CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2009 property taxes. The reporting entity's long -term debt is segregated between the amounts to be repaid from governmental activities and amounts to be repaid from business -type activities. GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES As of December 31, 2009, the governmental long -term bonded debt of the financial reporting entity consisted of the following: Tax Increment Bonds: Tax Increment Bonds, Series 2000A Tax Increment Bonds, Series 2002B Tax Increment Refunding Bonds, Series 2005D Total Tax Increment Bonds General Obligation Bonds: General Obligation - Park & Recreation Refunding, 2005A General Obligation - Capital Improvement Ran, 2007A General Obligation - Capital Improvement Ran, 2009A General Obligation - Equipment Certificates, 2009B Total General Obligation Bonds Permanent Improvement Revolving (RR) Bonds: Permanent Improvement Revolving, 2005E Ptermanent Improvement Revolving, 2007C Permanent Improvement Revolving, 2008B Total RR Bonds Public Project Revenue Bonds: Public Project Revenue, Series 2002 Public Project Revenue, Series 2005 Public Project Revenue, Series 2009A Public Project Revenue, Series 2009B Total Public Project Revenue Bonds Final Interest Issue Maturity Original Payable Rates Date Date Issue 12/31/09 4.30- 4.80% 9/6/2000 2/1/2011 $ 2,620,000 $ 630,000 3.00% 8/5/2002 2/1/2012 1,400,000 1,400,000 3.00 -3.40% 7/19/2005 2/1/2013 3,505,000 2,095,000 7,525,000 4,125,000 3.50 - 4.00% 7/19/2005 2/1/2017 5,375,000 4,120,000 4.00 - 4.25% 5/24/2007 2/1/2028 5,865,000 5,670,000 3.00 - 4.40% 4/29/2009 2/1/2030 14,000,000 14,000,000 2.00 -3.00% 4/29/2009 1/1/2012 230,000 230,000 25,470,000 24,020,000 3.00 -3.75% 9/13/2005 2/1/2016 1,460,000 995,000 3.60 -4.00% 5/24/2007 2/1/2019 5,870,000 5,870,000 3.00- 4.00% 8/28/2008 2/1/2020 4.00 -5.25% 1/1/2002 2/1/2021 3.50 -4.13% 9/13/2005 5/1/2026 2.10 -4.55% 11/24/2009 2/1/2030 1.95 -5.80% 11/24/2009 2/1/2030 Total bonded indebtedness - governmental activities 50 7,755,000 7,755,000 15, 085, 000 14, 620, 000 12,410,000 9,075,000 5,425,000 4,855,000 2,595,000 2,595,000 6,125,000 6,125,000 26,555,000 22,650,000 $ 74,635,000 $ 65,415,000 CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2009 BUSINESS -TYPE ACTIVITIES Total bonded indebtedness - business -type activities $ 29,845,000 $ 25,975,000 Annual debt service requirements to maturity for the City's bonds are as follows: Final Interest Issue Maturity Original Payable Obligation Bonds Rates Date Date Issue 12/31/09 Revenue Bonds: Principal Interest 2010 $ 805,000 $ 125,820 Recreational Facility Bonds, Series 2009B 2.00 - 3.00% 4/29/2009 1/1/2013 $ 2,010,000 $ 2,010,000 Recreational Facility Bonds, Series 2009C 2.00 -4.00% 12/10/2009 2/1/2030 2,440,000 2,440,000 Utility Revenue Bonds, Series 2003C 1.10 -3.55% 3/1/2003 2/1/2013 3,200,000 1,405,000 Utility Revenue Bonds, Series 2007B 4.00% 5/24/2007 2/1/2017 8,210,000 6,740,000 Utility Revenue Bonds, Series 2008A 3.00 -4.25% 8/28/2008 2/1/2019 13,985,000 13,380,000 Total Revenue Bonds 346,231 2015 -2019 29,845,000 25,975,000 Total bonded indebtedness - business -type activities $ 29,845,000 $ 25,975,000 Annual debt service requirements to maturity for the City's bonds are as follows: 51 Governmental Activities Tax General Public laprovement Year Ending Increment Bonds Obligation Bonds Revolving Bonds December 31 Principal Interest Principal Interest Principal Interest 2010 $ 805,000 $ 125,820 $ 735,000 $ 1,016,976 $ 655,000 $ 520,278 2011 840,000 94,359 1,265,000 852,680 1,330,000 486,944 2012 1,930,000 48,445 1,310,000 810,293 1,375,000 442,069 2013 550,000 9,350 1,270,000 766,655 1,415,000 395,269 2014 - - 1,310,000 721,799 1,455,000 346,231 2015 -2019 6,080,000 2,905,192 7,460,000 904,525 2020 -2024 5,195,000 1,966,223 930,000 18,600 2025 -2029 5,880,000 827,596 - - 2030 975,000 21,450 Total $ 4,125,000 $ 277,974 $ 24,020,000 $ 9,888,864 $ 14,620,000 $ 3,113,916 Governmental Activities Business -type Activities Public Project Revenue Year Ending Revenue Bonds Bonds December 31 Principal Interest Principal Interest 2010 $ 780,000 $ 632,880 $ 2,600,000 $ 869,086 2011 810,000 1,063,316 2,755,000 808,335 2012 975,000 953,448 2,880,000 718,226 2013 1,255,000 910,821 2,985,000 622,636 2014 1,305,000 860,166 2,330,000 531,925 2015 -2019 7,370,000 3,385,491 10,895,000 1,303,195 2020 -2024 5,925,000 1,700,844 625,000 245,213 2025 -2029 3,595,000 664,953 740,000 109,600 2030 635,000 34,330 165,000 3,300 Total $ 22,650,000 $ 10,206,249 $ 25,975,000 $ 5,211,516 51 CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2009 CHANGE IN LONG -TERM LIABILITIES Long -term liability activity for the year ended December 31, 2009, was as follows: For governmental activities, compensated absences are generally liquidated by the general fund. The City issued $2,240,000 of General Obligation bonds, Series 2009B to finance a current refunding of the 2010 through 2013 maturities of the City's $3,270,000 General Obligation bonds, Series 1999B and the 2010 through 2017 maturities of the $4,620,000 General Obligation bonds, Series 2001A and to fund the purchase of capital equipment. The current refundings were undertaken to reduce total debt service payments by $124,874 and resulted in an economic gain of $117,750. 52 Beginning Ending Due Within Balance Additions Reductions Balance One Year Governmental activities: Bonds payable: Tax increment $ 10,015,000 $ - $ (5,890,000) $ 4,125,000 $ 805,000 General obligation 10,420,000 14,230,000 (630,000) 24,020,000 735,000 PIR 14,770,000 - (150,000) 14,620,000 655,000 Public project revenue 14,675,000 8,720,000 (745,000) 22,650,000 780,000 Less deferred amounts: Discount on bonds (273,307) (75,621) 27,660 (321,268) - Premiums 36,553 64,765 (7,276) 94,042 - Total bonds payable 49,643,246 22,939,144 (7,394,616) 65,187,774 2,975,000 Compensated absences 3,511,210 1,741,551 (1,661,428) 3,591,333 1,436,533 Governmental activity Long -term liabilities $ 53,154,456 $ 24,680,695 $ (9,056,044) $ 68,779,107 $ 4,411,533 Business -type activities: Bonds payable: Revenue bonds $ 26,415,000 $ 4,450,000 $ (4,890,000) $ 25,975,000 $ 2,600,000 Less deferred amounts: Discount on bonds (17,504) - 3,834 (13,670) - Premiums 216,397 41,997 (27,442) 230,952 - Total bonds payable 26,613,893 4,491,997 (4,913,608) 26,192,282 2,600,000 Compensated absences 1,042,508 380,253 (283,079) 1,139,682 455,873 Business -type activity Long -term liabilities $ 27,656,401 $ 4,872,250 $ (5,196,687) $ 27,331,964 $ 3,055,873 For governmental activities, compensated absences are generally liquidated by the general fund. The City issued $2,240,000 of General Obligation bonds, Series 2009B to finance a current refunding of the 2010 through 2013 maturities of the City's $3,270,000 General Obligation bonds, Series 1999B and the 2010 through 2017 maturities of the $4,620,000 General Obligation bonds, Series 2001A and to fund the purchase of capital equipment. The current refundings were undertaken to reduce total debt service payments by $124,874 and resulted in an economic gain of $117,750. 52 CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2009 Note 6 LEGAL DEBT MARGIN The City is subject to a statutory limitation by the State of Minnesota for bonded indebtedness payable principally from property taxes. The City of Edina's legal debt margin for 2009 is computed as follows: December 31, 2009 Market Value (after fiscal disparities) $ 10,045,631,700 Debt Limit (3% of Market Value) $ 301,368,951 Amount of debt applicable to debt limit: Total bonded debt $ 91,390,000 Less: Tax increment bonds (4,125,000) Public improvement revolving bonds (14,620,000) Revenue bonds (25,975,000) Total debt applicable to debt limit $ 46,670,000 Legal debt margin $ 254,698,951 Note 7 DEFINED BENEFIT PENSION PLANS - STATEWIDE A. PLAN DESCRIPTION All full -time and certain part-time employees of the City of Edina are covered by defined benefit plans administered by the Public Employees Retirement Association of Minnesota (PERA). PERA administers the Public Employees Retirement Fund (PERF) and the Public Employees Police and Fire Fund (PEPFF) which are cost - sharing, multiple - employer retirement plans. These plans are established and administered in accordance with Minnesota Statute, Chapters 353 and 356. PERF members belong to either the Coordinated Plan or the Basic Plan. Coordinated Plan members are covered by Social Security and Basic Plan members are not. All new members must participate in the Coordinated Plan. All police officers, firefighters and peace officers who qualify for membership by statute are covered by the PEPFF. 53 CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2009 PERA provides retirement benefits as well as disability benefits to members, and benefits to survivors upon death of eligible members. Benefits are established by State Statute, and vest after three years of credited service. The defined retirement benefits are based on a member's highest average salary for any five successive years of allowable service, age, and years of credit at termination of service. Two methods are used to compute benefits for PERF's Coordinated and Basic Plan members. The retiring member receives the higher of a step -rate benefit accrual formula (Method 1) or a level accrual formula (Method 2). Under Method 1, the annuity accrual rate for a Basic Plan member is 2.2% of average salary for each of the first 10 years of service and 2.7% for each remaining year. The annuity accrual rate for a Coordinated Plan member is 1.2% of average salary for each of the first 10 years and 1.7% for each remaining year. Under Method 2, the annuity accrual rate is 2.7% of average salary for Basic Plan members and 1.7% for Coordinated Plan members for each year of service. For PEPFF members, the annuity accrual rate is 3.0% for each year of service. For all PEPFF and PERF members hired prior to July 1, 1989 whose annuity is calculated using Method 1, a full annuity is available when age plus years of service equal 90. Normal retirement age is 55 for PEPFF and 65 for Basic and Coordinated members hired prior to July 1, 1989. Normal retirement age is the age for unreduced Social Security benefits capped at 66 for Coordinated members hired on or after July 1, 1989. A reduced retirement annuity is also available to eligible members seeking early retirement. There are different types of annuities available to members upon retirement. A single -life annuity is a lifetime annuity that ceases upon the death of the retiree — no survivor annuity is payable. There are also various types of joint and survivor annuity options available which will be payable over joint lives. Members may also leave their contributions in the fund upon termination of public service in order to qualify for a deferred annuity at retirement age. Refunds of contributions are available at any time to members who leave public service, but before retirement benefits begin. The benefit provisions stated in the previous paragraphs of this section are current provisions and apply to active plan participants. Vested, terminated employees who are entitled to benefits but are not receiving them yet are bound by the provisions in effect at the time they last terminated their public service. PERA issues a publicly available financial report that includes financial statements and required supplementary information for PERF and PEPFF. That report may be obtained on the internet at www.mnpera.org, by writing to PERA at 60 Empire Drive #200, St. Paul, Minnesota, 55103 -2088 or by calling (651) 296 -7460 or 1- 800 - 652 -9026. 54 CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2009 B. FUNDING POLICY Minnesota Statutes Chapter 353 sets the rates for employer and employee contributions. These statutes are established and amended by the state legislature. The City makes annual contributions to the pension plans equal to the amount required by state statutes. PERF Basic Plan members and Coordinated Plan members were required to contribute 9.1 % and 6.0 %, respectively, of their covered salary in 2009. PEPFF members were required to contribute 9.4% of their covered salary in 2009. The City of Edina is required to contribute the following percentages of annual covered payroll: 11.78% for Basic Plan PERF members, 6.75% for Coordinated Plan PERF members, and 14.1 % for PEPFF members. Employer contribution rates for the Coordinated Plan will increase to 7% effective January 1, 2010. The City's contributions to the Public Employees Retirement Fund for the years ending December 31, 2009, 2008, and 2007 were $930,938, $860,091, and $785,482, respectively. The City's contributions to the Public Employees Police and Fire Fund for the years ending December 31, 2009, 2008, and 2007 were $941,565, $855,910, and $738,399, respectively. The City's contributions were equal to the contractually required contributions for each year as set by state statute. Note 8 OTHER POST - EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS PLAN A. Plan Description The City provides post - employment insurance benefits to certain eligible employees through City's Other Post - Employment Benefits Plan, a single - employer defined benefit plan administered by the City. All post - employment benefits are based on contractual agreements with employee groups. These contractual agreements do not include any specific contribution or funding requirements. These benefits are summarized as follows: Post - Employment Insurance Benefits — All retirees of the City have the option under state law to continue their medical insurance coverage through the City from the time of retirement until the employee reaches the age of eligibility for Medicare. For members of all employee groups, the retiree must pay the full premium to continue coverage for medical and dental insurance. The City is legally required to include any retirees for whom it provides health insurance coverage in the same insurance pool as its active employees, whether the premiums are paid by the City or the retiree. Consequently, participating retirees are considered to receive a secondary benefit known as an "implicit rate subsidy." This benefit relates to the assumption that the retiree is receiving a more favorable premium rate than they would otherwise be able to obtain if purchasing insurance on their own, due to being included in the same pool with the City's younger and statistically healthier active employees. 55 CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2009 B. Funding Policy The required contribution is based on projected pay -as- you -go financing requirements, with additional amounts to pre -fund benefits as determined annually by the City. C. Annual OPEB Cost and Net OPEB Obligation The City's annual OPEB cost (expense) is calculated based on annual required contributions (ARC) of the City, an amount determined on an actuarially determined basis in accordance with the parameters of GASB Statement Nos. 43 and 45. The ARC represents a level funding that, if paid on an ongoing basis, is projected to cover normal costs each year and amortize any unfunded actuarial liabilities (or funding excess) over a period not to exceed 30 years. The following table shows the components of the City's annual OPEB cost for the year, the amount actually contributed to the plan, and the changes in the City's net OPEB obligation to the plan: Annual required contribution $ 439,466 Interest on net OPEB obligation 13,838 Adjustment to annual required contribution (9,987) Annual OPEB cost (expense) 443,317 Contributions made (167,209) Increase in net OPEB obligation 276,108 Net OPEB obligation - beginning of year 307,504 Net OPEB obligation - end of year $ 583,612 The City's annual OPEB cost, the percentage of annual OPEB cost contributed to the plan, and the net OPEB obligation for the past two years are as follows: Percentage of Fiscal Annual Employer Annual OPEB Year Ended OPEB Cost Contribution Cost Contributed December 31, 2008 $ December 31, 2009 439,466 $ 131,962 443,317 167,209 D. Funded Status and Funding Progress Net OPEB Obligation 30.0% $ 307,504 37.7% 583,612 As of January 1, 2008, the most recent actuarial valuation date, the plan was zero percent funded. The actuarial accrued liability for benefits was $4,638,477, and the actuarial value of assets was $0, resulting in an unfunded actuarial accrued liability (UAAL) of $4,638,477. The covered payroll (annual payroll of active employees covered by the plan) was $17,071,318, and the ratio of the UAAL to the covered payroll was 27.2 percent. 56 CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2009 Actuarial valuations of an ongoing plan involve estimates of the value of reported amounts and assumptions about the probability occurrence of events far into .the future. Examples include assumptions about future employment, mortality, and the healthcare cost trend. Amounts determined regarding the funded. status of the plan and ARCs of the employer are subject to continual revision as actual 'results are compared,-with .past expectations and new estimates are made about the future. The Schedule of Funding Progress immediately following the notes to the basic financial statements. presents multi- year trend information about whether the actuarial value of plan assets is increasing or decreasing over time relative to the actuarial accrued liabilities for benefits. E. Actuarial Methods and Assumptions Projections of benefits for financial reporting purposes are based on the substantive plan (the plan as understood by the employer and the plan members) and include the types of benefits provided at the time of each valuation and the historical pattern of sharing of benefit costs between the employer and plan members to that point. The actuarial methods and assumptions used include techniques, that are. designed to reduce the effects of short-term volatility in actuarial accrued liabilities and the actuarial value of assets, consistent with the long -term perspective of the calculations. In the January .1, 2008 actuarial valuation, the projected unit credit actuarial cost method was used. The actuarial assumptions included: a 4.5 percent investment rate of return (net of administrative expenses) based on the City's own investments; an annual healthcare cost trend rate of 1.0.0 percent initially, reduced by decrements to an ultimate rate of 5.0 percent after ten years. The UAAL is being amortized on a level dollar basis over a closed period. The remaining amortization period at January 1, 2008 was 30 years. Note 9 INTERFUND RECEIVABLES, PAYABLES, AND TRANSFERS The composition of internal balances as of December 31, 2009, is as- follows: Receivable Fund Payable Fund Amount General HRA $ 130,501 Debt Service General 200;000 Police Special Revenue CDBG 100,000 Construction 350,000 Liquor _ Golf Course 1,000,000 Aquatic Center Construction 1,200,000 Art Center Arena .116,000 Total $3,096,501 The City's interfund receivables and payables eliminate what would have been negative cash balances. 57 CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2009 $ 765,100 $ 6,338,205 $ 4,244,468 $ 170,000 $ 497,075 $12,014,848 Interfund transfers allow the City to allocate financial resources to the funds that receive benefit from services provided by another fund. Many of the City's interfund transfers fall under that category. Non - routine transfers include the following: 1. The liquor fund transferred $765,100, $170,000, $145,000 and $80,000 to the general fund, golf course fund, art center, and arena funds, respectively, to subsidize operations. 2. The construction fund transferred $22,075 and $250,000 to the arena and edinborough funds, respectively, to subsidize capital improvements to those facilities. 3. The HRA fund transferred $6,134,236 of tax increment revenues to the debt service fund to pay principal and interest on outstanding tax increment debt. 4. The general fund, utilities fund, and liquor fund transferred $50,000, $100,000, and $150,000, respectively, to the construction fund to fund the capital improvement program, as planned in the 2009 budget. 5. The construction fund transferred $203,969 to the debt service fund to pay a portion of the debt service on the gymnasium bonds. 6. The general fund transferred $700,000 of the 2008 unreserved and undesignated fund balance to the construction fund according to the City's fund balance policies to fund the capital improvement program. 7. The general fund transferred $3,244,468 to the construction fund to move the equipment replacement program to the construction fund. Note 10 TAX INCREMENT DISTRICTS The City of Edina is the administering authority for the following Tax Increment Districts: District number 1200 (50th and France Commercial Area) is a redevelopment district established in 1974 pursuant to Minnesota Statutes with a termination date of 2009. District number 1201 (Southeast Edina Redevelopment District — Edinborough) is a redevelopment district established in 1977 pursuant to Minnesota Statutes with a termination date of 2009. 58 Transfer In: Debt Nonmajor General Service Construction Golf Course Business -type Total Transfer out: General Fund $ - $ - $ 3,994,468 $ - $ - $ 3,994,468 HRA Fund - 6,134,236 - - - 6,134,236 Construction Fund - 203,969 - - 272,075 476,044 Utilities Fund - - 100,000 - - 100,000 Liquor Fund 765,100 - 150,000 170,000 225,000 1,310,100 $ 765,100 $ 6,338,205 $ 4,244,468 $ 170,000 $ 497,075 $12,014,848 Interfund transfers allow the City to allocate financial resources to the funds that receive benefit from services provided by another fund. Many of the City's interfund transfers fall under that category. Non - routine transfers include the following: 1. The liquor fund transferred $765,100, $170,000, $145,000 and $80,000 to the general fund, golf course fund, art center, and arena funds, respectively, to subsidize operations. 2. The construction fund transferred $22,075 and $250,000 to the arena and edinborough funds, respectively, to subsidize capital improvements to those facilities. 3. The HRA fund transferred $6,134,236 of tax increment revenues to the debt service fund to pay principal and interest on outstanding tax increment debt. 4. The general fund, utilities fund, and liquor fund transferred $50,000, $100,000, and $150,000, respectively, to the construction fund to fund the capital improvement program, as planned in the 2009 budget. 5. The construction fund transferred $203,969 to the debt service fund to pay a portion of the debt service on the gymnasium bonds. 6. The general fund transferred $700,000 of the 2008 unreserved and undesignated fund balance to the construction fund according to the City's fund balance policies to fund the capital improvement program. 7. The general fund transferred $3,244,468 to the construction fund to move the equipment replacement program to the construction fund. Note 10 TAX INCREMENT DISTRICTS The City of Edina is the administering authority for the following Tax Increment Districts: District number 1200 (50th and France Commercial Area) is a redevelopment district established in 1974 pursuant to Minnesota Statutes with a termination date of 2009. District number 1201 (Southeast Edina Redevelopment District — Edinborough) is a redevelopment district established in 1977 pursuant to Minnesota Statutes with a termination date of 2009. 58 CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2009 District number 1202 (Grandview Commercial Area) is a redevelopment district established in 1984 pursuant to Minnesota Statutes with a termination date of 2010. District number 1203 (Southeast Edina Redevelopment District — Centennial Lakes) is a redevelopment district established in 1988 pursuant to Minnesota Statutes with a termination date of 2016. District number 1207 (70th and Cahill Economic Development District) is an economic district established in 1990 pursuant to Minnesota Statutes with a decertification date of 2000. Increment previously collected is available for expenditures within the larger development district that includes the Wooddale — Valley View commercial area. Tax capacity and debt for this district is not included in the following schedule as county reports no longer indicate captured tax capacity for this district and no debt is outstanding. The following table reflects values as of December 31, 2009: Total bonds issued (general obligation) $ 5,360,000 $ 22,445,000 $ 9,637,555 $ 35,894,724 $ 73,337,279 Amounts redeemed 5,360,000 22,445,000 7,607,555 33,799,724 69,212,279 Outstanding bonds at December 31, 2009 $ - $ - $ 2,030,000 $ 2,095,000 $ 4,125,000 Note 11 CONTINGENCIES A. RISK MANAGEMENT The City is exposed to various risks of loss related to torts, theft of, damage to and destruction of assets; errors and omissions; injuries to employees; and natural disasters. Worker's compensation insurance is provided through the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT). The City has a $10,000 deductible per occurrence, with a $500,000 annual maximum. Automobile and general liability coverage is provided through an insurance company. The City pays an annual premium for this coverage and all claims are paid from the plan up to the annual maximum of $600,000. The City is not subject to a deductible for automobile or general liability coverage. Property coverage is also provided by an insurance company. The City pays an annual premium for this coverage, and all claims are paid for by the plan. The City has $2,500 - 4&a TIF #1200 T1F #1201 TIF #1202 TIF #1203 Total Original tax capacity $ 112,826 $ 94,319 $ 164,885 $ 229,691 $ 601,721 Current tax capacity 1,635,539 3,146,003 1,656,552 4,470,822 10,908,916 Tax capacity change 1,522,713 3,051,684 1,491,667 4,241,131 10,307,195 Captured tax capacity value: Retained captured tax capacity $ 1,522,713 $ 3,051,684 $ 1,491,667 $ 4,241,131 $ 10,307,195 Total bonds issued (general obligation) $ 5,360,000 $ 22,445,000 $ 9,637,555 $ 35,894,724 $ 73,337,279 Amounts redeemed 5,360,000 22,445,000 7,607,555 33,799,724 69,212,279 Outstanding bonds at December 31, 2009 $ - $ - $ 2,030,000 $ 2,095,000 $ 4,125,000 Note 11 CONTINGENCIES A. RISK MANAGEMENT The City is exposed to various risks of loss related to torts, theft of, damage to and destruction of assets; errors and omissions; injuries to employees; and natural disasters. Worker's compensation insurance is provided through the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT). The City has a $10,000 deductible per occurrence, with a $500,000 annual maximum. Automobile and general liability coverage is provided through an insurance company. The City pays an annual premium for this coverage and all claims are paid from the plan up to the annual maximum of $600,000. The City is not subject to a deductible for automobile or general liability coverage. Property coverage is also provided by an insurance company. The City pays an annual premium for this coverage, and all claims are paid for by the plan. The City has $2,500 - 4&a CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2009 $25,000 deductibles per occurrence depending on claim type, with an annual maximum of $83,446,936. Police professional insurance coverage is provided by an insurance company. The City pays an annual premium for this coverage, and has a $10,000 deductible per occurrence, with a $500,000 annual maximum. Settlement claims have not exceeded insurance coverage for each of the past three years. There were not significant reductions in insurance coverage during 2009. B. LITIGATION The City attorney has indicated that existing and pending lawsuits, claims and other actions in which the City is a defendant are either covered by insurance; of an immaterial amount; or, in the judgment of the City attorney, remotely recoverable by plaintiffs. C. FEDERAL AND STATE FUNDS The City receives financial assistance from federal and state governmental agencies in the form of grants. The disbursement of funds received under these programs generally requires compliance with the terms and conditions specified in the grant agreements and is subject to audit by the grantor agencies. Any disallowed claims resulting from such audits could become a liability of the applicable fund. However, in the opinion of management, any such disallowed claims will not have a material effect on any of the financial statements of the individual fund types included herein or on the overall financial position of the City at December 31, 2009. D. TAX INCREMENT DISTRICTS The City's tax increment districts are subject to review by the State of Minnesota Office of the State Auditor (OSA). Any disallowed claims or misuse of tax increments could become a liability of the applicable fund. Management is not aware of any instances of noncompliance which would have a material effect on the financial statements. [:3i] CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2009 Note 12 CONDUIT DEBT OBLIGATION As of December 31, 2009, the City of Edina had 4 series of Housing and Health Care Revenue Bonds, with an aggregate principal amount payable of $31,560,000. The bonds are payable solely from revenues of the respective organizations and do not constitute an indebtedness of the City, and are not a charge against its general credit or taxing power. Accordingly, the bonds are not reported as liabilities in the accompanying financial statements. Note 13 JOINT VENTURE The City is a participant with the City of Bloomington, the City of Eden Prairie and the Metropolitan Airport Commission in a joint venture to construct and operate a facility to be used for the training of law enforcement officers and firefighters. The South Metro Public Safety Training Facility Association (PSTF) is governed by a Board consisting of one representative from each Member. On dissolution of the Association, the Facility shall revert to the City of Edina, and all remaining assets shall be divided among the members based on the Cost Sharing Formula. In accordance with the joint venture agreement, each member of the association will share in the cost of the construction and operation based on the Cost Sharing Formula. The City's net investment is reported in the governmental activities capital assets. The City's equity interest in the PSTF was $1,452,465. Complete financial statements for PSTF can be obtained from the City of Edina, 4801 West 50th Street, Edina, MN 55424. Note 14 RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS The City pays an annual membership fee to the South Metro Public Safety Training Facility as part of the joint venture agreement. The membership fee is paid by the Police and Fire departments and is based on a Cost Sharing Formula. For the year ended December 31, 2009, the City paid a total of $35,044 in membership fees to the PSTF. The City also pays an annual membership fee to the 1-494 Corridor Commission as part of the joint venture agreement. The membership fee is paid by the commissions and projects department and is based on a Cost Sharing Formula. For the year ended December 31, 2009, the City paid a total of $10,831 in membership fees to the 1-494 Corridor Commission. 61 CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2009 Note 15 DESIGNATIONS AND RESERVATIONS OF FUND BALANCE At December 31, 2009 the City had designated and reserved portions of its various fund balances through legal restriction and City Council authorization. A summary of such designations and reservations is as follows: Debt Service Fund: Reserved for debt service 5,454,132 Construction Fund: Reserved for encumbrances December 31, 2009 General Fund: 200,343 Reserved for prepaid items $ 18,241 Designated for park dedication 178,295 Designated for investments 25,817 Designated for compensated absences 1,436,533 Designated for cash flow 9,454,214 Debt Service Fund: Reserved for debt service 5,454,132 Construction Fund: Reserved for encumbrances 6,838,361 Reserved for special projects 200,343 Reserved for construction projects 2,730,517 Designated for equipment replacement 3,244,468 Designated for capital improvements 3,439,200 $ 33, 020,121 Note 16 SPECIAL ITEMS During 2009 the City experienced a significant watermain break that overloaded the local sanitary sewer system capacity causing sewage backups in several homes. The City's insurance carrier reviewed the event and determined that neither they nor the City would be liable for the property damage. However, the City Council decided that the City would voluntarily reimburse property owners for damage up to a limit, based on an independent assessment of the damage caused. The Utilities fund paid claims of $215,196 for this event in 2009. No material claims related to the voluntary payment program are believed to be outstanding at year -end. 62 Required Supplementary Information CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE - GENERAL FUND For The Year Ended December 31, 2009 Revenues: General property taxes: Current Penalties and interest Total general property taxes Licenses and permits: Intergovernmental: Federal: State: Municipal state aid Other State aid - police Health programs Total intergovernmental Charges for services: Building Department City Clerk Fire Department Ambulance fees Police Department Engineering Health Department Planning Department Housing Foundation Contract HRA Services Park Registration Senior Center Otherfees 50th & France Assessment Charges to other funds Total charges for services Fines and forfeits Miscellaneous: Rental of property Investment income Donations Other Total miscellaneous Total revenues Budgeted Amounts Original Final $ 21,040,691 12,000 21,052,691 $ 21,040,691 12,000 21,052,691 2,797,715 2,797,715 36,000 195,000 51,000 355,000 120,000 757,000 5,300 5,300 48,000 1,545,000 200,950 155,000 7,700 26,750 24,000 20,600 96,000 100,000 5,000 69,000 392,880 2,701,480 36,000 195,000 51,000 355,000 120,000 757,000 5,300 5,300 48,000 1,545,000 200,950 155,000 7,700 26,750 24,000 20,600 96,000 100,000 5,000 69,000 392,880 2,701,480 900,000 900,000 315,000 322,772 10,200 6,000 653,972 315,000 322,772 10,200 6,000 653,972 2009 Actual Amounts $ 20,721,987 20,180 20,742,167 2,081,139 104,906 195,000 126,973 338,684 119,086 884,649 29,132 8,862 31,237 1,556,146 172,878 210,071 6,580 16,536 37,870 28,377 103,530 94,525 1,540 69,000 392,880 2,759,164 1,148,440 342,446 37,668 28,367 15,039 423,520 Variance with Final Budget - Over (Under) $ (318,704) 8,180 (310,524) (716,576) 68,906 75,973 (16,316) (914) 127,649 23,832 3,562 (16, 763) 11,146 (28,072) 55,071 (1,120) (10,214) 13,870 7,777 7,530 (5,475) (3,460) 57,684 248,440 27,446 (285,104) 18,167 9,039 (230,452) 28,862,858 28,862,858 28,039,079 (823,779) 63 CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE - GENERAL FUND (CONTINUED) For The Year Ended December 31, 2009 Expenditures: General government: Mayor and Council: Current: Personal services Contractual services Commodities Central services Total mayor and council Administration: Current: Personal services Contractual services Commodities Central services Total current Capital outlay Total administration Planning: Current: Personal services Contractual services Commodities Central services Total current Capital outlay Total planning Finance: Current: Personal services Contractual services Commodities Central services Total current Capital outlay Total finance Election: Current: Personal services Contractual services Commodities Central services Total current Capital outlay Total election Budgeted Amounts Original Final $ 45,829 12,355 1,200 31,932 91,316 870,456 193,650 4,780 76,236 1,145,122 6,360 1,151,482 364,502 48,055 1,960 59,076 473,593 2,010 475,603 519,682 109,800 3,400 58,452 691,334 6,300 697,634 143,876 32,319 19,393 15,168 210,756 210,756 64 $ 45,829 12,355 1,200 31,932 91,316 870,456 193,650 4,780 76,236 1,145,122 6,360 1,151,482 364,502 48,055 1,960 59,076 473,593 2,010 475,603 519,682 109,800 3,400 58,452 691,334 6,300 697,634 143,876 32,319 19,393 15,168 210,756 210,756 2009 Actual Amounts $ 46,150 8,105 1,214 27,582 83,051 837,215 156,602 766 64,196 1,058,779 332 1,059,111 372,582 24,472 49,764 446,818 1,862 448,680 513,840 96,560 2,236 49,252 661,888 661,888 104,907 11,668 6,783 12,466 135,824 985 136,809 Variance with Final Budget - Under (Over) $ (321) 4,250 (14) 4,350 8,265 33,241 37,048 4,014 12,040 86,343 6,028 92,371 (8,080) 23,583 1,960 9,312 26,775 148 26,923 5,842 13,240 1,164 9,200 29,446 6,300 35,746 38,969 20,651 12,610 2,702 74,932 (985) 73,947 CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE - GENERAL FUND (CONTINUED) For The Year Ended December 31, 2009 Assessing: Current: Personal services Contractual services Commodities Central services Total current Capital outlay Total assessing Legal and court services: Current: Contractual services Commissions and projects: Current: Personal services Contractual services Commodities Total commissions and projects Total general government Public safety: Police protection: Current: Personal services Contractual services Commodities Central services Total current Capital outlay Total police protection Fire protection: Current: Personal services Contractual services Commodities Central services Total current Capital outlay Total fire protection Budgeted Amounts Original Final $ 660,133 116,100 3,000 71,760 850,993 12,695 863,688 $ 660,133 116,100 3,000 71,760 850,993 12,695 863,688 2009 Actual Amounts $ 651,457 87,395 637 60,288 799,777 13,474 813,251 Variance with Final Budget - Under (Over) $ 8,676 28,705 2,363 11,472 51,216 (779) 50,437 371,800 371,800 339,744 32,056 130,000 130,000 506,232 506,232 636,232 636,232 213,379 266,441 1,680 481,500 (83,379) 239,791 (1,680) 154,732 4,498,511 4,498,511 4,024,034 474,477 6,453,422 399,650 67,182 961,236 7,881,490 265,533 8,147,023 3,694,178 321,500 166,000 332,484 4,514,162 201,247 4,715,409 65 6,453,422 399,650 67,182 961,236 7,881,490 265,533 8,147,023 3,694,178 321,500 166,000 332,484 4,514,162 201,247 4,715,409 6,289,875 359,935 57,476 801,135 7,508,421 75,456 7,583,877 3,530,757 319,454 191,064 270,727 4,312,002 230,313 4,542,315 163,547 39,715 9,706 160,101 373,069 190,077 563,146 163,421 2,046 (25,064) 61,757 202,160 (29,066) 173,094 CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE - GENERAL FUND (CONTINUED) For The Year Ended December 31, 2009 Civil defense: Current: Personal services Contractual services Commodities Total current Capital outlay Total civil defense Animal Control: Current: Personal services Contractual services Commodities Central services Total current Capital outlay Total animal control Public health: Current: Personal services Contractual services Commodities Central services Total current Capital outlay Total public health Inspections: Current: Personal services Contractual services Commodities Central services Total current Capital outlay Total inspections Total public safety Budgeted Amounts Original Final $ 38,800 10,026 12,110 60,936 5,683 66,619 69,897 8,795 4,299 9,312 92,303 7,534 99,837 272,872 198,234 1,407 35,436 507,949 5,682 513,631 910,454 70,021 9,265 94,008 1,083,748 22,452 1,106,200 14,648,719 66 $ 38,800 10,026 12,110 60,936 5,683 66,619 69,897 8,795 4,299 9,312 92,303 7,534 99,837 272,872 198,234 1,407 35,436 507,949 5,682 513,631 910,454 70,021 9,265 94,008 1,083,748 22,452 1,106,200 2009 Actual Amounts $ 38,800 7,812 8,278 54,890 13,425 68,315 70,489 9,826 2,050 7,590. 89,955 89,955 258,358 192,565 1,673 29,850 482,446 482,446 847,385 62,910 5,325 78,704 994,324 1,379 995,703 Variance with Final Budget - Under (Over) 2,214 3,832 6,046 (7,742) (1,696) (592) (1,031) 2,249 1,722 2,348 7,534 9,882 14,514 5,669 (266) 5,586 25,503 5,682 31,185 63,069 7,111 3,940 15,304 89,424 21,073 110,497 14,648,719 13,762,611 886,108 CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION BUDGETARY COMPARISON • SCHEDULE - GENERAL FUND (CONTINUED) For The Year Ended December 31, 2009 Variance with 2009 Final Budget - Budgeted Amounts Actual Under Original Final Amounts (Over) Public works: .Administration: Current: ` xt. Personal services Contractual services Commodities Central services Total administration Engineering: _ Current: Personal services Contractual services Commodities Central services Total current Capital outlay, Total engineering Street maintenance: Current: Personal services Contractual services Commodities Central services ,. Total current Capital outlay _. Total street maintenance Total public works $ 190,941 $ 190,941 $ 169,697 $ 21,244 7,300 7,300 6,049 1,251 850 850 - 850 23,856 23,856 20,151 3,705 222,947 222,947 195,897 27,050 813,584 813,584 825,592 (12,008) 102,100 102,100 94,937 7,163 18,370 18,370 11,159 7,211 122,004 122,004 101,580 20,424 1,056,058 1,056,058 1,033,268 22,790 51,084 51,084 25,373 25,711 1,107,142 1,107,142 1,058,641 48,501 2,198,050 2,198,050 2,026,026 172,024 755,090 755,090 699,374 55,716 1,031,735 1,031,735 896,542 135,193 915,276 915,276 746,157 169,119 4,900,151 4,900,151 4,368,099 532,052 294,454. 294,454 28,776 265,678 5,194,605 51194,605 4,396,875 797,730 6,524,694 6,524,604 5,651,413. 873,281 67 CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE - GENERAL FUND (CONTINUED) For The Year Ended December 31, 2009 Parks: Administration: Current: Personal services Contractual services Commodities Central services Total current Capital outlay Total administration Recreation: Current: Personal services Contractual services Commodities Total recreation Maintenance: Current: Personal services Contractual services Commodities Central services Total current Capital outlay Total maintenance Total parks Total expenditures Revenues over (under) expenditures Other financing sources (uses): Transfer from other funds Transfer to other funds Sale of capital assets Total financing sources (uses) Net increase (decrease) in fund balance Fund balance - January 1 Fund balance - December 31 Budgeted Amounts Original Final $ 646,249 34,844 2,986 71,760 755,839 7,088 762,927 198,875 182,343 51,655 432,873 1,574,630 516,391 199,608 353,088 2,643,717 121,517 2,765,234 3,961,034 29,632,958 $ 646,249 34,844 2,986 71,760 755,839 7,088 762,927 198,875 182,343 51,655 432,873 1,574,630 516,391 199,608 353,088 2,643,717 121,517 2,765,234 3,961,034 29,632,958 2009 Actual Amounts $ 613,614 29,037 10,087 60,395 713,133 324 713,457 175,560 151,362 50,313 377,235 1,630,190 384,891 174,758 289,448 2,479,287 165,670 2,644,957 3,735,649 27,173, 707 Variance with Final Budget - Under (Over) $ 32,635 5,807 (7,101) 11,365 42,706 6,764 49,470 23,315 30,981 1,342 55,638 (55,560) 131,500 24,850 63,640 164,430 (44,153) 120,277 225,385 2,459,251 (770,100) (770,100) 865,372 1,635,472 765,100 (50,000) 55,000 770,100 765,100 (750,000) 55,000 70,100 $ - $ (700,000) 68 765,100 (3,994,468) 34,592 (3,194,776) (2,329,404) 14,379,003 $ 12,049,599 (3,244,468) (20,408) (3,264,876) $ (1,629,404) CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA . REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION OTHER POST - EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS PLAN SCHEDULE OF FUNDING PROGRESS For The Year Ended December 31, 2009 69 Unfunded Unfunded Actuarial Actuarial Actuarial Actuarial Liability as a Valuation Accrued Value of Accrued Funded Covered Percentage of Date Liability Plan Assets Liability Ratio Payroll Payroll January 1, 2008 $ 4;638,477 $ - $ 4,638,477 0.0% $ 17,071,318 27.2% 69 This page left blank intentionally. 70 CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA NOTES TO REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION December 31, 2009 Note A LEGAL COMPLIANCE — BUDGETS The City follows these procedures in establishing the budgetary data reflected in the financial statements: 1. The City Manager submits to the City Council a proposed operating budget for the fiscal year commencing the following January 1. The operating budget includes proposed expenditures and the means of financing them. 2. Public hearings are conducted to obtain taxpayer comments. 3. The budget is legally enacted by the passage of a resolution by the City Council. 4. Formal budgetary integration is employed as a management control device during the year. 5. Budgets for the General Fund and the Community Development Block Grant Fund are adopted on a basis consistent with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). 6. The City Manager may authorize transfers of budgeted amounts between departments. 7. Reported budget amounts are as originally adopted or as amended by Council- approved supplemental appropriations and budget transfers. 8. Expenditures may not legally exceed appropriations by department unless offset by increases in revenues. All unencumbered appropriations lapse at year -end. 71 CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA NOTES TO REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION December 31, 2009 Note B EXCESS OF EXPENDITURES OVER APPROPRIATIONS The General Fund budget is legally adopted on a basis consistent with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. The legal level of budgetary control is at the department level for the General Fund. The following is a listing of General Fund departments whose expenditures exceed budget appropriations. Final Over Budget Actual Budget Public Safety: Civil defense $ 66,619 $ 68,315 $ 1,696 Excess expenditures in the civil defense department are funded by available general fund balance designated for our equipment replacement program. Excess expenditures of $119,096 in the CDBG fund are due to timing differences between the grant period and the City's fiscal year. All CDBG expenditures are reimbursed by the County. 72 Combining and Individual Fund Statements and Schedules NONMAJOR GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS Special Revenue Funds A Special Revenue Fund is used to account for the proceeds of specific revenue sources that are legally restricted to expenditures for specified purposes. The following are nonmajor special revenue funds: Community Development Block Grant Fund - This fund was established to account for funds received under Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974. Communications Fund - This fund was established to account for funds received from the franchise fee of the local cable television service. Police Special Revenue Fund - This fund was established to account for funds received for specific purposes within the police department, including E -911 and forfeiture funds. 73 CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA COMBINING BALANCE SHEET NONMAJOR SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS December 31, 2009 Assets Cash and cash equivalents Investments Accrued interest receivable Accounts receivable Due from other funds Due from other governments Total assets Liabilities and Fund Balance Liabilities: Accounts payable Salaries payable Due to other funds Unearned revenue Total liabilities Fund balance: Unreserved: Undesignated Total fund balance Total liabilities and fund balance Community Development Block Grant Communication Police Special Revenue Total Nonmajor Special Revenue Funds $ 59 $ 81,470 $ 83,861 $ 165,390 - 717,996 - 717,996 4,534 - 4,534 - 181,192 - 181,192 - - 450,000 450,000 100,075 - - 100,075 $ 100,134 $ 985,192 $ 533,861 $ 1,619,187 $ - $ 14,412 134 11,228 100,000 - - 6,354 100,134 31,994 $ 274 144 418 $ 14,686 11,506 100,000 6,354 132,546 953,198 533,443 1,486,641 - 953,198 533,443 1,486,641 $ 100,134 $ 985,192 $ 533,861 $ 1,619,187 74 CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA COMBINING STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES NONMAJOR SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS For The Year Ended December 31, 2009 75 Community Total Nonmajor Development Police Special Revenue Block Grant Communication Special Revenue Funds Revenues: Franchise fees $ - $ 667,791 $ - $ 667,791 Intergovernmental 278,052 - 68,340 346,392 Fines and forfeitures - - 76,543 76,543 Investment income - 20,552 278 20,830 Other - 101,679 - 101,679 Total revenues 278,052 790,022 145,161 1,213,235 Expenditures: Current: General government 278,052 671,125 - 949,177 Public safety - - 190,282 190,282 Total expenditures 278,052 671,125 190,282 1,139,459 Net increase (decrease) in fund balance - 118,897 (45,121) 73,776 Fund balance - January 1 - 834,301 578,564 1,412,865 Fund balance - December 31 $ - $ 953,198 $ 533,443 $ 1,486,641 75 CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA SPECIAL REVENUE FUND - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES - BUDGET AND ACTUAL For The Year Ended December 31, 2009 Variance with Final budget - Budgeted Amounts Actual Over Original Final Amounts (Under) Revenues: Intergovernmental $ 158,956 $ 158,956 $ 278,052 $ 119,096 Expenditures: Current: General government 158,956 158,956 278,052 119,096 Net increase (decrease) in fund balance $ - $ - $ - $ - Fund balance - January 1 - Fund balance - December 31 76 NONMAJOR PROPRIETARY FUNDS Enterprise Funds Enterprise funds account for the financing of self- supporting activities of governmental units which render services to the general public on a user charge basis. The following are nonmajor enterprise funds: Arena Fund - This fund accounts for activities related to the Braemar Ice Arena. Art Center Fund - This fund accounts for activities related to the City's Art Center. Edinborough /Centennial Lakes Fund - This fund accounts for activities at two of the City's parks; Edinborough Park and Centennial Lakes Park. 77 CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA COMBINING STATEMENT OF NET ASSETS NONMAJOR PROPRIETARY FUNDS December 31, 2009 Assets Current assets: Cash and cash equivalents Investments - unrestricted Investments - restricted Interest receivable Accounts receivable Due from other funds Inventory Total current assets Noncurrent assets: Deferred charges Net capital assets Total noncurrent assets Total assets Liabilities: Current liabilities: Accounts payable Salaries payable Due to other funds Due to other governments Unearned revenue Compensated absences payable Total current liabilities Noncurrent liabilities: OPEB payable Compensated absences Bonds payable, net of unamortized discounts Total noncurrent liabilities Total liabilities Net assets: Invested in capital assets, net of related debt Unrestricted Total net assets Total Nonmajor Art Edinborough Park Proprietary Arena Center Centennial Lakes Funds $ 485 114,013 2,305,432 74 128,990 2,548,994 28,158 2,352,277 2,380,435 4,929,429 35,076 32,201 116,000 1,771 57,375 242,423 7,150 86,062 2,453,662 2,546,874 2,789,297 $ 14,835 $ 116,000 12,743 143,578 230,986 230,986 374,564 19,041 8,164 743 7,267 18,881 54,096 1,973 28,322 1,745 3,121,305 19,711 1,440 3,144,201 1,613,473 1,613,473 4,757,674 76,550 41,392 5,211 48,692 60,576 232,421 11,705 90,864 30,295 102,569 84,391 334,990 2,204,047 230,986 (63,915) 59,187 $ 2,140,132 $ 290,173 78 1,613,473 2,809,211 $ 4,422,684 $ 17,065 3,235,318 2,305,432 19,785 130,430 116,000 12,743 5,836,773 28,158 4,196,736 4,224,894 10,061,667 130,667 81,757 116,000 7,725 55,959 136,832 528,940 20,828 205,248 2,453,662 2,679,738 3,208,678 4,048,506 2,804,483 $ 6,852,989 CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA COMBINING STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES AND CHANGES IN FUND NET ASSETS NONMAJOR PROPRIETARY FUNDS For The Year Ended December. 31, 2009 Total Nonmajor Edinborough Park, Proprietary - Arena Art Center Centennial Lakes Funds . Operating revenues: Sales - retail $ 2,026 $ 41,883 $ - $ 43,909 Sales - concessions 5;692 444 59,413 65,549 Memberships 3,716 25,496 57,078 86;290 Admissions 111,481 - 563,966 675,447 Building rental 1,157,522 - 240;489 1,398;011 Rent ' al. of, equipment 2,997 - 103;761 106,758 Greens:fees - - 215,710 215,710 Class registration & other fees 130,976 400,394 483,640 1,015010 Total operating revenues 1,414,410 468,217 1,724,057 3,606,684 Operating expenses: Cost of sales and services .880 21,094 51,904 73,878 Personal services 654,132 244;329 1,196,568 2,095,029 Contractual services 608,683 293,356 530,599 1,432,638 Commodities 73,241 59,568 281;532 414,341 Central Services 41,905 34,847 79,145 155,897 Depreciation 286,241 30,124 148,125 464,490 . Total operating expenses 1,665,082 683,318 2,287,873 4,636,273 Operating loss Nonoperating revenues (expenses): Excess tax increments Investment income (loss) Donations Interest and fiscal charges Amortization of bond discount Gain (loss) on sale of capital asset Total nonoperating revenues (expenses) Income' (loss) before transfers Transfers: Transfers in Total transfers Change in net assets (250,672) (215,101) (563,816) (1,029,589) 100,124 100,124 (5,924) - 19,302 (42) - (60) - - 200,248 74,728 68,804 - 19,302 _ (42) (60) 2,250 2,250 94,098 119;426 76;978 290,502 (156574) (95;675) (486,838) (739,087) 102,075 145,000 250,000 497,075 102,075 145000 250,000 4971,075 (54,499) 49,325. (236,838) 1 (242,012) Net assets - January 1 2,194,631 240,848 4,659,522 7,095,001 Net assets - December 31 $ 2,140,132 $ 290,173 $ 4,422,684 $ 6,852,989 CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA COMBINING STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS NONMAJOR PROPRIETARY FUNDS For The Year Ended December 31, 2009 80 Total Nonmajor Art Edinborough Park Proprietary Arena Center Centennial Lakes Funds Cash flows from operating activities: Receipts from customers and users $ 1,408,372 $ 468,262 $ 1,729,362 $ 3,605,996 Payment to suppliers (715,951) (411,244) (1,133,012) (2,260,207) Payment to employees (630,015) (237,119) (1,178,918) (2,046,052) Donations - 19,302 - 19,302 Net cash provided by (used in) operating activities 62,406 (160,799) (582,568) (680,961) Cash flows from noncapital financing activities: Excess tax increments 100,124 100,124 - 200,248 Transfer from other funds 102,075 145,000 250,000 497,075 Proceeds from interfund borrowing 101,000 - - 101,000 Payment of interfund borrowing - (101,000) - (101,000) Net cash provided by noncapital financing activities 303,199 144,124 250,000 697,323 Cash flows from capital and related financing activities: Proceeds of capital debt 2,425,443 - - 2,425,443 Acquisition of capital assets (136,088) - (582,631) (718,719) Proceeds from sale of capital assets - - 2,250 2,250 Principal paid on bonds (225,000) - - (225,000) Interest paid on bonds (4,162) - (4,162) Net cash used in capital and related financing activities 2,060,193 (580,381) 1,479,812 Cash flows from investing activities: Proceeds from sales of investments - 715,922 715,922 Purchase of investments (2,425,591) - (2,425,591) Investment income 148 184,078 184,226 Net cash flows provided by (used in) investing activities (2,425,443) - 900,000 (1,525,443) Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents 355 (16,675) (12,949) (29,269) Cash and cash equivalents - January 1 130 31,510 14,694 46,334 Cash and cash equivalents - December 31 $ 485 $ 14,835 $ 1,745 $ 17,065 Reconciliation of operating loss to net cash provided (used) by operating activities: Operating loss $ (250,672) $ (215,101) $ (563,816) $ (1,029,589) Adjustments to reconcile operating loss to net cash flows from operating activities: Depreciation 286,241 30,124 148,125 464,490 Donations - 19,302 - 19,302 Changes in assets and liabilities: Decrease (increase) in receivables (6,038) - 5,969 (69) Decrease (increase) in inventory - (1,307) - (1,307) Increase (decrease) in accounts payable 7,711 (1,062) (189,046) (182,397) Increase (decrease) in salaries payable 10,171 933 (3,177) 7,927 Increase (decrease) in due to other governments 1,047 (10) (786) 251 Increase (decrease) in unearned revenue - 45 (664) (619) Increase (decrease) in OPEB payable 3,383 933 5,538 9,854 Increase (decrease) in compensated absences 10,563 5,344 15,289 31,196 Total adjustments 313,078 54,302 (18,752) 348,628 Net cash provided by (used in) operating activities $ 62,406 $ (160,799) $ (582,568) $ (680,961) Noncash investing activities: Increase (decrease) in fair value of investments $ (6,146) $ - $ (99,099) $ (105,245) 80 FIDUCIARY FUNDS Aaencv Funds Agency funds are used to report resources held by the City in a purely custodial capacity. The following are agency funds: Police Seizure Fund - This fund accounts for assets seized by the Police Department. Public Safety Training Facility - This fund accounts for assets and liabilities of the South Metro Public Safety Training Facility, which is a joint venture that the City has fiduciary responsibilities for. Payroll Fund - This fund accounts for assets withheld from employee paychecks that the City plans to remit to various third parties, including state & local governments, insurance providers, and others. 1 -494 Corridor Commission This fund accounts for assets and liabilities of the 1-494 Corridor Commission, which is a joint venture that the City has fiduciary responsibilities for. . 1.41 This page left blank intentionally. 82 CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA COMBINING STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN ASSETS AND LIABILITIES AGENCYFUNDS For The Year Ended December 31, 2009 Balance Balance January 1 Additions Deductions December 31 POLICE SEIZURE Assets: Cash $ 21,505 $ 1,184 $ - $ 22,689 Liabilities: Due to other governmental units $ 21,505 $ 1,184 $ - $ 22,689 PUBLIC SAFETY TRAINING FACILITY Assets: Cash $ 13,104 $ - $ 8,602 $ 4,502 Investments 245,000 - - 245,000 Total Assets $ 258,104 $ - $ 8,602 $ 249,502 Liabilities: Accounts payable $ 15,605 $ - $ 11,448 $ 4,157 Salaries payable 4,187 529 - 4,716 Due to other governmental units 238,312 2,317 - 240,629 Total Liabilities $ 258,104 $ 2,846 $ 11,448 $ 249,502 PAYROLL Assets: Cash Liabilities: Accounts payable 1-494 CORRIDOR COMMISSION Assets: Cash Liabilities: Due to other governmental units $ 14,016 $ 16,233 $ - $ 30,249 $ 14,016 $ 16,233 $ - $ 30,249 $ - $ 119,608 $ - $ 119,608 $ - $ 119,608 $ - $ 119,608 TOTALS - ALL AGENCY FUNDS Assets: Cash $ 48,625 $ 137,025 $ 8,602 $ 177,048 Investments 245,000 - - 245,000 Total Assets $ 293,625 $ 137,025 $ 8,602 $ 422,048 Liabilities: Accounts payable $ 29,621 $ 16,233 $ 11,448 $ 34,406 Salaries payable 4,187 529 - 4,716 Due to other governmental units 259,817 123,109 - 382,926 Total Liabilities $ 293,625 $ 139,871 $ 11,448 $ 422,048 A This page left blank intentionally. 84 Supplementary Financial Information CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA TAX CAPACITY, TAX LEVIES AND TAX CAPACITY RATES (shown by year of tax collectibility) Total levy Tax capacity rate: General fund revenue Bonds & interest Total tax capacity rate Market value rate $ 20,820,130 $ 21,530,528 $ 22,605,669 $ 24,153,933 $ 25,492,973 20.755 1.858 22.613 19.636 19.563 20.204 20.004 1 CIA 4 G•]A n')A7 nnco Z1.15U 11.19/ 0.00703 0.00641 0.00601 85 11.44 / 11.9 /Z 0.00597 0.00606 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total tax capacity $ 101,947,912 $ 113,428,895 $ 120,084,430 $ 122,532,149 $ 122,737,754 Increment valuation (7,980,069) (8,771,951) (9,771,137) (10,307,195) (5,482,305) Contribution to fiscal disparities pool (7,107,862) (8,486,997) (9,358,999) (10,393,526) (10,942,782) Tax capacity used for rate calculation 86,859,981 96,169,947 100,954,294 101,831,428 106,312,667 Fiscal disparities distribution 2,411,937 2,595,376 2,895,523 3,298,549 3,537,906 Adjusted net tax capacity $ 89,271,918 $ 98,765,323 $ 103,849,817 $ 105,129,977 $ 109,850,573 Tax levies: General fund $ 18,560,151 $ 19,427,890 $ 20,314,404 $ 21,202,691 $ 20,737,472 Equipment - - - - 940,494 Debt service 1,660,841 1,497,500 1,695,827 2,351,030 3,212,757 Total certified tax levies 20,220,992 20,925,390 22,010,231 23,553,721 24,890,723 Referendum market value levy 599,138 605,138 595,438 600,212 602,250 Total levy Tax capacity rate: General fund revenue Bonds & interest Total tax capacity rate Market value rate $ 20,820,130 $ 21,530,528 $ 22,605,669 $ 24,153,933 $ 25,492,973 20.755 1.858 22.613 19.636 19.563 20.204 20.004 1 CIA 4 G•]A n')A7 nnco Z1.15U 11.19/ 0.00703 0.00641 0.00601 85 11.44 / 11.9 /Z 0.00597 0.00606 CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA COMBINED SCHEDULE OF BONDED INDEBTEDNESS December 31, 2009 Permanent Improvement Revolving (PIR) Bonds: 3.70-4.45 05/03/99 Final Prior Years 1,595,000 Interest 2.25-4.65 Maturity Original 4,620,000 3,450,000 Rates Date Date Issue Redeemed Tax Increment Bonds: GO Permanent Improvement Revolving 2.00-4.00 12/10/09 02/01/30 - Tax Increment Bonds, Series 2000A 4.30-4.80 09/06/00 02/01/11 $ 2,620,000 $ 1,700,000 Tax Increment Bonds, Series 2002B 3.00% 08/05/02 02/01/12 1,400,000 - Tax Increment Refunding Bonds, Series 2005B 3.00% 07/19/05 02/01/09 10,520,000 7,285,000 Tax Increment Taxable Refunding Bonds, Total PIR Bonds 3.00-4.00 08/28/08 02/01/19 15,085,000 Series 2005C 3.75-4.25 07/19/05 02/01/09 6,220,000 4,335,000 Tax Increment Refunding Bonds, Series 2005D 3.00-3.40 07/19/05 02/01/13 3,505,000 930,000 Total Tax Increment Bonds Public Project Revenue, Series 2005 3.00-4.13 09/13/05 24,265,000 14,250,000 General Obligation Bonds: Taxable Public Project Revenue, Series 2009A 2.10-4.55 11/24/09 02/01/30 - GO Park & Recreation Refunding Bonds, Taxable Public Project Revenue, Series 2009B 1.95-5.80 11/24/09 02/01/30 - Series 2005A 3.50-4.00 07/19/05 02/01/17 5,375,000 820,000 GO Capital Improvement Plan, Series 2007A 4.00-4.25 05/24/07 02/01/28 5,865,000 - GO Capital Improvement Plan, Series 2009A 3.00-4.40 04/29/09 02/01/30 - - GO Equipment Certificates, Series 2009B 2.00-3.00 04/29/09 01/01/12 - - Total General Obligation Bonds 11,240,000 820,000 Permanent Improvement Revolving (PIR) Bonds: 3.70-4.45 05/03/99 01/01/13 3,270,000 1,595,000 GO Permanent Improvement Revolving, 2.25-4.65 11/01/01 01/01/17 4,620,000 3,450,000 Series 2005E 3.00 - 3.75 09/13/05 02/01/16 1,460,000 315,000 GO Permanent Improvement Revolving 2.00-4.00 12/10/09 02/01/30 - - Series 2007C 3.60 - 4.25 05/24/07 02/01/19 5,870,000 - GO Permanent Improvement Revolving 1.10-3.55 03/01/03 02/01/13 3,200,000 1,475,000 Series 2008B 3.00-4.00 08/28/08 02/01/20 7,755,000 - Total PIR Bonds 3.00-4.00 08/28/08 02/01/19 15,085,000 315,000 Public Project Revenue Bonds: 36,885,000 10,470,000 Public Project Revenue, Series 2002 4.00-5.25 01/01/02 02/01/21 12,410,000 2,785,000 Public Project Revenue, Series 2005 3.00-4.13 09/13/05 05/01/26 5,425,000 375,000 Taxable Public Project Revenue, Series 2009A 2.10-4.55 11/24/09 02/01/30 - - Taxable Public Project Revenue, Series 2009B 1.95-5.80 11/24/09 02/01/30 - - Total Public Project Revenue Bonds 17,835,000 3,160,000 Revenue Bonds: Recreational Facility Bonds, Series 1999B 3.70-4.45 05/03/99 01/01/13 3,270,000 1,595,000 Recreational Facility Bonds, Series 2001A 2.25-4.65 11/01/01 01/01/17 4,620,000 3,450,000 Recreational Facility Bonds, Series 2009B 2.00-3.00 04/29/09 01/01/17 - - Recreational Facility Bonds, Series 2009C 2.00-4.00 12/10/09 02/01/30 - - Utility Revenue Bonds, Series 1999A 3.20-4.20 05/03/99 02/01/09 3,600,000 3,180,000 Utility Revenue Bonds, Series 2003C 1.10-3.55 03/01/03 02/01/13 3,200,000 1,475,000 Utility Revenue Bonds, Series 2007B 4.00% 05/24/07 02/01/17 8,210,000 770,000 Utility Revenue Bonds, Series 2008A 3.00-4.00 08/28/08 02/01/19 13,985,000 - Total Public Project Revenue Bonds 36,885,000 10,470,000 Total - Bonded indebtedness $ 105,310,000 $ 29,015,000 Principal Interest Interest Outstanding 2009 Payable Due Due Payable 12/31/08 Issued Payments 12/31/09 In 2010 In 2010 to Maturity $ 920,000 $ - $ 290,000 $ 630,000 $ 305,000 $ 22,768 $ 30,568 1,400,000 - - 1,400,000 - 42,000 105,000 3,235,000 - 3,235,000 - - - - 1,885,000 - 1,885,000 - - - - 2,575,000 - 480,000 2,095,000 500,000 61,052 142,406 10,015,000 - 5,890,000 4,125,000 805,000 125,820 277,974 4,555,000 - 435,000 4,120,000 455,000 147,250 669,107 5,865,000 - 195,000 5,670,000 205,000 227,044 2,494,547 - 14,000,000 - 14,000,000 - 638,040 6,717,417 - 230,000 - 230,000 75,000 4,642 7,793 10,420,000 14,230,000 630,000 24,020,000 735,000 1,016,976 9,888,864 1,145,000 - 150,000 995,000 150,000 32,331 121,741 5,870,000 - - 5,870,000 505,000 214,153 1,175,671 7,755,000 - - 7,755,000 - 273,794 1,816,504 14,770,000 - 150,000 14,620,000 655,000 520,278 3,113,916 9,625,000 - 550,000 9,075,000 575,000 442,499 3,059,575 5,050,000 - 195,000 4,855,000 205,000 190,381 1,869,572 - 2,595,000 - 2,595,000 - - 1,354,368 - 6,125,000 - 6,125,000 - - 3,922,734 14,675,000 8,720,000 745,000 22,650,000 780,000 632,880 10,206,249 1,675,000 - 1,675,000 - - - - 1,170,000 - 1,170,000 - - - - - 2,010,000 - 2,010,000 415,000 46,256 132,306 - 2,440,000 - 2,440,000 - 54,670 1,085,670 420,000 - 420,000 - - - - 1,725,000 - 320,000 1,405,000 330,000 41,972 99,133 7,440,000 - 700,000 6,740,000 730,000 255,000 1,134,200 13,985,000 - 605,000 13,380,000 1,125,000 471,188 2,760,207 26,415,000 4,450,000 4,890,000 25,975,000 2,600,000 869,086 5,211,516 $ 76,295,000 $ 27,400,000 $12,305,000 $ 91,390,000 $ 5,575,000 $ 3,165,040 $ 28,698,519 87 CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA SCHEDULE OF SOURCES AND USES OF PUBLIC FUNDS FOR 50TH & FRANCE -NO. 1200, A TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT (Districts 1200, 1201, 1203 and 1204 are pooled) December 31, 2009 * Real estate sales Liquor store site Union oil site Cost to authority Price paid by developer $ 128,064 134,506 $ 262,570 F-fl. $ 105,002 65,780 $ 170,782 Accounted Original Amended for in Current Amount Budget Budget prior years year remaining Source of funds: Bond proceeds $ 2,200,000 $ 5,280,000 $ 5,251,998 $ - $ 28,002 Tax increments received - 31,748,489 25,790,600 694,209 5,263,680 Real estate sales " 800,000 170,782 170,782 - - State aid - 418,871 418,871 - - Special assessments - 1,321,096 728,505 - 592,591 Parking permits - 268,524 268,524 - - Community development - 186,064 186,064 - - Interest on invested funds - 2,000,000 2,747,974 - (747,974) Other - 73,881 73,881 - - Total sources of funds: 3,000,000 41,467,707 35,637,199 694,209 5,136,299 Uses of funds: Land acquisition - 873,061 873,061 - - Installation of public utilities and improvements 3,000,000 7,867,034 7,862,032 - 5,002 Bond payments: Principal - 5,280,000 5,360,000 - (80,000) Interest - 4,738,329 4,140,864 - 597,465 Administrative costs - 1,230,000 1,205,451 - 24,549 Paid to other governments - 21,000 20,841 - 159 Work orders - 16,257 16,257 - - Contingencies - 11,644 11,644 - - Interest - 463,037 463,037 - - Miscellaneous - 62,095 63,010 - (915) Transfer - 17,000,000 15,575,000 740,211 684,789 Total uses of funds: 3,000,000 37,562,457 35,591,197 740,211 1,231,049 Funds remaining (deficit) $ - $ 3,905,250 $ 46,002 $ (46,002) $ 3,905,250 * Real estate sales Liquor store site Union oil site Cost to authority Price paid by developer $ 128,064 134,506 $ 262,570 F-fl. $ 105,002 65,780 $ 170,782 CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA SCHEDULE OF SOURCES AND USES OF PUBLIC FUNDS FOR SOUTHEAST EDINA REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT -NO. 1201, A TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT (Districts 1200, 1201, 1203 and 1204 are pooled) December 31, 2009 Source of funds: Bond proceeds Tax increments received Real estate sales Loan proceeds Community development Interest on invested funds Other Total sources of funds: Uses of funds: Land acquisition Installation of public utilities and improvements Site improvements or preparation costs Bond payments: Principal Interest Administrative costs Paid to other governments Transfers out Interest reduction Parkland dedication fees Total uses of funds: Accounted Original Amended for in Current Amount Budget Budget prior years year remaining $ 6,165,177 $ 21,470,000 $ 20,219,852 $ - $ 1,250,148 - 75,000,000 60,306,927 1,595,175 13,097,898 598,005 3,000,000 2,642,115 - 357,885 - 1,321,096 - - 1,321,096 - 189,221 189,221 - - - 3,500,000 2,665,830 - 834,170 - 50,000 1,357 - 48,643 6,763,182 104,530,317 86,025,302 1,595,175 16,909,840 6,682,998 12,200,000 6,894,303 - 5,305,697 - 16,000,000 14,278,823 - 1,721,177 2,885,484 2,000,000 468,098 - 1,531,902 - 21,470,000 22,445,000 - (975,000) - 20,100,000 19,772,264 - 327,736 194,700 1,800,000 1,673,988 - 126,012 - 110,000 99,613 - 10,387 - 22,000,000 19,581,699 1,638,837 779,464 - 1,850,000 - - 1,850,000 - 767,852 767,852 - - 9,763,182 98,297,852 85,981,640 1,638,837 10,677,375 Funds remaining (deficit) $ (3,000,000) $ 6,232,465 $ * Real estate sales Retail site Hotel site Elderly site Office site Coventry Townhouses Cost to authority $ 8,350 192,915 453,740 1,027,277 1,318,103 $ 3,000,385 :• 43,662 $ (43,662) $ 6,232,465 Price paid by developer $ 11,899 192,915 346,534 784,563 1,318,103 $ 2,654,014 CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA SCHEDULE OF SOURCES AND USES OF PUBLIC FUNDS FOR GRANDVIEW AREA REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT -NO. 1202, A TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT December 31, 2009 Accounted Original Amended for in Current Amount Budget Budget prior years year remaining Source of funds: Bond proceeds $ 4,500,000 $ 9,900,000 $ 9,475,915 $ - $ 424,085 Tax increments received - 29,737,107 15,109,770 1,325,812 13,301,525 Real estate sales ` - 4,700,000 5,402,344 - (702,344) Interest on invested funds - 300,000 1,014,888 41,376 (756,264) Other - - 61,068 - (61,068) Total sources of funds: 4,500,000 44,637,107 31,063,985 1,367,188 12,205,934 Uses of funds: Land acquisition - 6,500,000 4,265,416 332,715 1,901,869 Installation of public utilities and improvements 4,310,000 17,127,000 9,738,935 - 7,388,065 Bond payments: Principal - 9,900,000 7,317,555 290,000 2,292,445 Interest - 9,190,000 3,130,660 78,677 5,980,663 Loan /note interest - - 4,000,994 593,264 (4,594,258) Paid to other governments - - 198,978 2,068 (201,046) Administrative costs 190,000 1,920,107 1,353,171 8,992 557,944 Total uses of funds: 4,500,000 44,637,107 30,005,709 1,305,716 13,325,682 Funds remaining (deficit) $ - $ - $ 1,058,276 $ 61,472 $ (1,119,748) Cost to authority Price paid by developer * Real estate sales 5229 Eden Ave. $ 1,822,319 5220 Eden Circle 995,000 5244 Eden Circle (condemnation deposit) 309,937 5201 Eden Circle 1,447,043 2,070,119 Project area 23,832 4,005,694 $ 4,598,131 $ 6,075,813 A CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA SCHEDULE OF SOURCES AND USES OF PUBLIC FUNDS FOR SOUTHEAST EDINA REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT -NO. 1203, A TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT (Districts 1200, 1201, 1203 and 1204 are pooled) December 31, 2009 * Real estate sales Retail and theater site Medical office site Office site Office building #1 Office building #2 Office building #3 Office building #4 Office building #5 Cost to authority $ 3,213,720 815,092 1,1.07,160 449,300 1,280,702 1,341,533 1,625,849 1,803,714 $ 11,637,070 91 Price paid by developer. $ 3,213,720 815,0K 1,107,160 449, 300 1,280,702 1,341,533 1,625,849 1,803,714 $ 11,637,070 Accounted Original Amended for in Current Amount Budget Budget prior years year remaining Source of funds: Bond proceeds $ 41,400,000 $ 34,400,000 $ 33,761,677 $ - $ 638,323 Tax increments received 80,000,000. 90,000,000 38,198,706 3,972,190 47,829,104 Real estate sales' 5,000,000 11;637,070 11,637,070 - - Special assessment - 1,321,096 - - 1,321,096 Interest -on invested funds - 2,500,000 3,847,904 172,250 (1,520,154) Transfer in - 40,000,000 36,267,924 2,379,047 1,353,029 Sale of material - 255,710 255,710 - - Developer payments - 297,826 297,826 - - Other - 20,000 21,799 - (1,799) Total sources of funds: 126,400,000 180,431,702 124,288,616 6,523,487 49,619,599 Uses of funds: Land acquisition 13,900,000 22,981,425 22,981,425 - - Installation of public utilities and improvements 26,677,000 25,871,230 18,758,446 2,213,608 4,899,176 Bond payments: Principal 41,400,000 41,400,000 28,199,724 5,600,000 7,600,276 Interest 38,000,000 38,000,000 33,989,191 165,559 3,845,250 Administrative costs 1,140,800 1,600,000 1,352,912 24,241 222,847 Paid to other governments - 42,000 36,758 4,345 897 Loan /note interest - 14,684,711 5,016,715 666,592 9,001,404 Parkland dedication fees - 2,030,345 2,030,345 - - Total uses of funds: 121,117,800 146,609,711 112,365,516 8,674,345 25,569,850 Funds remaining (deficit) $ 5,282,200 $ 33,821,991 $ 11,923,100 $ (2,150,858) $ 24,049,749 * Real estate sales Retail and theater site Medical office site Office site Office building #1 Office building #2 Office building #3 Office building #4 Office building #5 Cost to authority $ 3,213,720 815,092 1,1.07,160 449,300 1,280,702 1,341,533 1,625,849 1,803,714 $ 11,637,070 91 Price paid by developer. $ 3,213,720 815,0K 1,107,160 449, 300 1,280,702 1,341,533 1,625,849 1,803,714 $ 11,637,070 CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA SCHEDULE OF SOURCES AND USES OF PUBLIC FUNDS FOR 70TH STREET AND CAHILL ROAD DISTRICT -NO. 1207, A TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT December 31, 2009 �� Accounted Original Amended for.in Current Amount Budget Budget prior years year remaining Source of funds: Bond - proceeds $ 1,911,000 $ 1,911,000 $ - $ - $ 11791`1,000 Tax increments received .2,177,855 2,177,855 .746,863 - 1,430,992 Interest on invested funds - - 242,483 16,940 (259,423) Total sources of funds: 4,088,855 4;088,855 98 9,3 46 16,940 3,082;569 Uses of funds: Land acquisition 529,400 529,400 39,968 2,025 487,407 Installation of public utilities and improvements 325,000 325,000 540,279 - (215,279) Demolition 150,000 150,000 - - 15000 Relocation 160,000 160,000 - - 160,000 Capitalized interest 150,000 150,000 - - 150,000 Debt service 2,178,455 2,178,455 - - 2;-178,455 Paid to other governments - . - 2;730 - (2,730) Administrative costs 596,000 596;000 74,830-' - :'521;170 Total uses of funds: 4,088,855 4,088,855 657,807 2,025 3,429,023 Funds remaining (deficit) $ - $ - $ 331,539 $ 14;915 $ (3467454) �� STATISTICAL SECTION This part of the City's comprehensive annual financial report presents detailed information as a context for understanding what the information in the financial statements, note disclosures, and required supplementary information says about the City's overall financial health. Contents Page Financial Trends 94 These schedules contain trend information to help the reader understand how the City's financial performance and well -being have changed over time. Revenue Capacity 102 These schedules contain information to help the reader assess the City's most significant local revenue source, the property tax. Debt Capacity 106 These schedules contain information to help the reader assess the affordability of the City's current levels of outstanding debt and the City's ability to issue additional debt in the future. Demographic and Economic Information 111 These schedules offer demographic and economic indicators to help the reader understand the environment within which the City's financial activities take place. Operating Information 113 These schedules contain service and infrastructure data to help the reader understand how the information in the City's financial report relates to the services the City provides and the activities it performs. Sources: Unless otherwise noted, the information in these schedules is derived from the comprehensive annual financial reports for the relevant year. The City implemented GASB Statement 34 in 2003; schedules presenting government -wide information include information beginning in that year. M CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA NET ASSETS BY COMPONENT LAST SEVEN FISCAL YEARS (accrual basis of accounting) 94 Fiscal Year 2003 2004 2005 Governmental activities Invested in capital assets, net of related debt $ 21,792,377 $ 34,320,784 $ 36,092,020 Restricted 4,676,748 2,145,488 78,943 Unrestricted 31,876,783 28,762,040 35,796,801 Total governmental activities net assets $ 58,345,908 $ 65,228,312 $ 71,967,764 Business -type activities Invested in capital assets, net of related debt $ 29,952,549 $ 37,240,476 $ 40,044,169 Restricted 1,672,828 - - Unrestricted 15, 344,474 11, 934 ,496 11,121, 720 Total business -type activities net assets $ 46,969,851 $ 49,174,972 $ 51,165,889 Primary government Invested in capital assets, net of related debt $ 51,744,926 $ 71,561,260 $ 76,136,189 Restricted 6,349,576 2,145,488 78,943 Unrestricted 47,221,257 40,696,536 46,918,521 Total primary government net assets $ 105,315,759 $ 114,403,284 $ 123,133,653 94 Fiscal Year 2006 2007 2008 2009 $ 69,814,012 $ 67,680,882 $ 71,601,227 $ 69,622,370 - - 3,362,446 7,132,865 15,280,058 25,136,312 29,577,462 30,705,600 $ 85,094,070 $ 92,817,194 $ 104,541,135 $ 107,460,835 $ 46,981,755 $ 43,046,160 $ 46,851,736 $ 47,333,794 - - 954,486 624,837 6,379,515 13,649,355 12,071,776 15,158,720 $ 53,361,270 $ 56,695,515 $ 59,877,998 $ 63,117,351 $ 116,795,767 $ 110,727,042 $ 118,452,963 $ 116,956,164 - - 4,316,932 7,757,702 21,659,573 38,785,667 41,649,238 45,864,320 $ 138,455,340 $ 149,512,709 $ 164,419,133 $ 170,578,186 X1.7 CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA CHANGES IN NET ASSETS LAST SEVEN FISCAL YEARS (accrual basis of accounting) Expenses Governmental activities: General government Public safety Public works Parks Interest on long -term debt Total governmental activities expenses Business -type activities: Utilities Liquor Aquatic center Golf course Community activity centers Total business -type activities expenses Total primary government expenses Program Revenues Governmental activities: Charges for services: General government Public safety Other activities Operating grants and contributions Capital grants and contributions Total governmental activities program revenues Business -type activities: Charges for services: Utilities Liquor Aquatic center Golf course Community activity centers Operating grants and contributions Total business -type activities program revenues Total primary government program revenues Net Governmental activities Business -type activities Total primary government net expense General Revenues and Other Changes in Net Assets Governmental activities: Property taxes Tax increment collections Franchise taxes Unrestricted investment earnings Gain on disposal of capital assets Transfers Total governmental activities Business -type activities: Property taxes Unrestricted investment earnings Gain (loss) on disposal of capital assets Transfers Total business -type activities Total primary government Change in Net Assets Governmental activities Business -type activities Total primary government Fiscal Year 2003 2004 2005 $ 5,839,893 10,784,215 5,621,291 4,484,685 2,760,022 29,490,106 7,930,502 8,764,081 711,061 3,555,243 3,833,026 24,793,913 $ 54,284,019 $ 930,391 4,213,081 898,141 1,215,745 7,214,393 14,471,751 9,694,981 9,659,631 861,340 3,684,079 2,966,731 132,031 26,998,793 $ 41,470,544 $ 6,934,045 $ 4,967,008 11,063,767 12,019,027 5,834,490 7,185,784 4,248,060 5,901,648 2,399,682 2,288,524 30,480,044 32,361,991 7,801,580 9,110,888 701,768 3,508,741 3,850,192 24,973,169 $ 55,453,213 $ 454,603 4,634,744 748,398 1,154,808 4,192,947 11,185,500 9,875,078 10,030,067 764,134 3,538,122 3,254,012 138,447 27,599,860 $ 38,785,360 8,254,409 9,749,313 725,936 3,580,307 3,825,562 26,135,527 $ 58,497,518 $ 619,526 5,614,406 630,157 1,512,366 2,252,491 10,628,946 10,240,381 10,752,724 849,380 3,482,999 3,251,860 131,408 28,708,752 $ 39,337,698 $ (15,018,355) $ (19,294,544) $ (21,733,045) 2,204,880 2,626,691 2,573,225 $ (12,813,475) $ (16,667,853) $ (19,159,820) $ 17,815,426 $ 17,865,757 $ 19,071,202 7,342,270 6,761,934 7,060,744 - 450,956 457,421 286,209 443,074 977,956 26,669 - 63,674 (4,053,805) 655,227 841,500 21,416,769 26,176,948 28,472,497 387,117 227,167 236,654 (177,051) 6,490 22,538 4,053,805 (655,227) (841,500) 4,263,871 (421,570) (582,308) $ 25,680,640 $ 25,755,378 $ 27,890,189 $ 6,398,414 6,468,751 $ 12,867,165 96 $ 6,882,404 2,205,121 $ 9,087,525 $ 6,739,452 1,990,917 $ 8,730,369 Fiscal Year 2006 2007 2008 2009 $ 5,414,961 $ 7,039,298 13,300,351 13,743,194 8,973,031 8,757,022 5,341,682 5,025,560 2,973,749 1,887,633 36,003,774 36,452,707 9,234,651 9,968,963 795,614 3,652,169 4,048,649 27,700,046 $ 63,703,820 $ 731,613 6,146,114 793,796 1,423,302 4,013,617 13,108,442 10,036,844 10,361,998 780,981 3,621,977 4,168,534 28,970,334 $ 65,423,041 $ 6,836,248 14,833,647 9,046,873 5,971,565 1,923,821 38,612,154 10,625,811 11,049,223 787,663 3,612,482 4,502,849 30,578,028 $ 69,190,182 $ 7,362,560 14,751,479 8,993,290 7,732,777 2,129,490 40,969,596 11,833,994 11,449,194 798,369 3,588,831 4,636,375 32,306,763 $ 73,276,359 $ 784,659 $ 840,070 $ 811,087 5,632,642 5,839,683 5,081,563 736,329 763,130 804,500 1,384,024 1,170,183 1,377,785 4,299,509 7,710,015 2,582,999 12,837,163 16, 323,081 10,657,934 11,421,474 13,125, 773 13, 713,249 14, 858,488 11,029,445 11,436,175 12,122,599 12,655,777 867,626 868,833 925,388 859,816 3,646,620 3,630,538 3,680,584 3,660,466 3,337,153 3,517,111 3,517,218 3,606,684 122,358 127,492 147,456 135,917 30,424,676 32,705,922 34,106,494 35,777,148 $ 43,533,118 $ 45,543,085 $ 50,429,575 $ 46,435,082 $ (22,895,332) $ (23,615,544) $ (22,289,073) $ (30,311,662) 2,724,630 3,735,588 3,528,466 3,470,385 $ (20,170,702) $ (19,879,956) $ (18,760,607) $ (26,841,277) $ 20,414,298 $ 21,459,001 $ 22,242,276 $ 23,834,274 7,228,002 7,793,577 8,578,434 7,587,386 499,206 570,871 647,466 667,791 1,230,264 1,581,702 1,185,899 387,177 8,418 58,377 1,265 11,709 838,230 919,625 967,800 743,025 30,218,418 32,383,153 33,623,140 33,231,362 $ - $ - $ - $ 300,372 283,771 510,678 607,312 209,371 25,210 7,604 14,505 2,250 (838,230) (919,625) (967,800) (743,025) (529,249) (401,343) (345,983) (231,032) $ 29,689,169 $ 31,981,810 $ 33,277,157 $ 33,000,330 $ 7,323,086 $ 8,767,609 $ 11,334,067 $ 2,919,700 2,195,381 3,334,245 3,182,483 3,239,353 $ 9,518,467 $ 12,101,854 $ 14,516,550 $ 6,159,053 97 CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA FUND BALANCES OF GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS (modified accrual basis of accounting) General fund Reserved Unreserved Total general fund All other governmental funds Reserved Unreserved, reported in: Special revenue funds Capital projects funds Total all other governmental funds Fiscal Year 2000 2001 2002 2003a $ 141,939 $ 15,872 13,755,160 14,359,821 $ 13,897,099 $ 14,375,693 $ 16,729,995 $ 2,319,839 1,147,917 1,435,949 22,454,859 22,869,578 $ 40,332,771 $ 26,625,366 $ 417,093 14,325,972 $ 14,743,065 $ 4,186,436 1,589,518 26,750,351 $ 32,526,305 $ 412,991 9,961,074 $ 10,374,065 $ 4,084,987 686,777 19,608,849 $ 24,380,613 a The substantial decrease in unreserved fund balance in 2003 is due to the transfer of investment assets to the Edinborough Park/Centennial Lakes enterprise fund. The substantial increase in reserved fund balance in 2005 is due to two crossover refunding bond issues that were outstanding as of December 31, 2005. The substantial decrease in general fund unreserved fund balance in 2009 is due to the transfer of the equipment replacement program to the construction fund. The substantial increase in other governmental funds reserved fund balance in 2009 is due to unspent bond proceeds related to the new Public Works Facility, which is under construction. m Fiscal Year 2004 2005b 2006 2007 2008 2009° $ 390,771 $ 223,351 $ 36,849 $ 28,637 $ 13,982 $ 18,241 10,226,055 11,595,433 13,797,189 14,078,220 14,365,021 12,031,358 $ 10,616,826 $ 11,818,784 $ 13,834,038 $ 14,106,857 $ 14,379,003 $ 12,049,599 $ 3,465,440 $ 13,792,312 $ 2,682,238 $ 6,247,539 $ 8,467,918 $ 15,223,353 781,458 731,027 13,179,904 14,750,448 14,950,538 12,813,439 16,651,788 17,032,750 3,160,085 5,853,322 4,270,440 6,683,668 $ 20,898,686 $ 31,556,089 $ 19,022,227 $ 26,851,309 $ 27,688,896 $ 34,720,460 .. CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES OF GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS (modified accrual basis of accounting) Fiscal Year 9nnn 9nn9 9nnA Revenues General property taxes $ 22,904,512 $ 24,409,785 $ 24,735,336 $ 17,903,618 Tax increment collections - - - 7,342,270 Special assessments 1,159,876 1,086,093 998,908 1,019,461 Franchise fees 336,678 473,702 418,153 393,627 License and permits 1,835,828 2,239,611 1,939,207 2,182,263 Intergovernmental 1,880,680 5,085,981 2,254,968 4,678,735 Charges for services 2,902,666 1,962,172 2,096,806 2,076,519 Fines and forfeitures 967,421 976,952 910,407 785,227 Investment income 2,376,137 1,357,701 1,178,211 286,209 Rental of property 1,156,526 4,262,984 1,782,063 354,266 Other revenues 96,932 184,466 180,081 200,551 Total revenues 35,617,256 42,039,447 36,494,140 37,222,746 Expenditures General government 4,558,424 5,353,002 5,372,431 5,709,741 Public safety 8,846,360 9,409,291 9,893,428 10,352,816 Public works 3,672,057 4,313,065 4,161,373 4,142,668 Parks 2,150,588 2,375,565 2,602,266 2,974,164 Capital outlay 8,352,494 11,193,155 11,059,757 15,539,676 Debt service Principal 6,050,000 3,740,000 5,885,000 5,700,000 Interest and other charges 3,108,601 3,148,719 3,094,480 2,908,787 Total expenditures 36,738,524 39,532,797 42,068,735 47,327,852 Revenues over (under) expenditures (1,121,268) 2,506,650 (5,574,595) (10,105,106) Other Financing Sources (Uses) Transfers in 6,976,639 6,215,411 12,308,480 8,752,126 Transfers out (6,165,639) (6,201,152) (11,552,990) (12,805,931) Parkland dedication 85,520 60,280 - - Sale of capital assets - - - - Bonds issued 21,742,116 - 13,637,416 1,540,000 Premium on bonds issued - - - 59,219 Discount on bonds issued - - - - Refunding bonds issued - - - 6,570,000 Payment to refunding escrow - (15,810,000) (2,550,000) (6,525,000) Principal paid by escrow - - - - Total other financing sources (uses) 22,638,636 (15,735,461) 11,842,906 (2,409,586) Net change in fund balances $ 21,517,368 1_(13,228,81 1) $ 6,268,311 $ (12,514,692) Debt service as a percentage of noncapital expenditures 32.3% 24.3% 29.0% 27.1% a The substantial change in debt service as a percentage of noncapital expenditures in 2007 is due to a change in the way this ratio is calculated. The City did not recalculate previously reported ratios. 100 Fiscal Year 2064 2005. 2006 2007a 2008 2009 $ 17,865,757 $ 19,071,202 $ 20,414,298 $ 21,459,001 $ 22,242,276 $ 23,834,274 6,761.,934 7,060;744 7;228;002 7,793,577 8,578,434 7,587,386 966,879 1,354,264. 1,751,219 1,750,444 2,442,490 2,703,833 450,956 457,421 499,206 570,871 647;466 667,791 2,247,759 3,240,622 3,488,897 2,909;521 2,915,455 2,104,967 3,933,540 1,539,169 2,773,350 3,699,006 3,005,883 1,507,170 .2,279,302 2,466,663 2,691,354 2,748,709 3,093,941 2,905,410 863,073 742,91.7 1,023,935 971,486 1,073,174 1,224,983 443,074 977,956 1,230,264 11581,702 1,185,899 387,177 _ 385,707 315,542 310,145 355,734 255,607 343,616 294,136 227;446 246,797 225,839 126,723 160,035 36,492;117 37,453,946 41,657,467 44,065,890 45,567,348 43,426,642 5,213,469 5,477,3.08 5,995,804 6,544,307 6,235,352 6,895,329 11,125,388 11,373,763 12,431,114 12,985,215 13,788,797 13,692,686 M 4,386,669 4,882,81.1 5,233,907 5,787,619 6,189,594 5,911,758 2,954,372 3,146;029 3,300;375 3,455,789 3,693,595 3,688,063 7,772,321 8,227,191 8,980,526 11,991,122 14,666,907 22,997,065 6,450,000 6,830,000 5,985,000 6,190,000 7,090,000 7,415,000 2,484 ;291 2,543,639 2,107,036 1,677,770 1,967,021 1.,841,342 40,386,510 42,480,741 44,033,762 48,631,822, 53,631,266 62,441,243 " (3,894,393) (5,026,795) (2,376,295) (4,565,932) (8,063,918) (19,014,601) 8,367,595 7,797,369 6,865,258 7,290,391 7,983,585 11,347,773 (7,712,368) (6,955,869) (6,027,028) (6,370,766) (7,015,785) (10,604,748) 135,045 54,457 66,845 96,825 34,592 - 15,816;165, - 11,735,000 7;755;000 22,950,000 - - - - - 64,765 _ - (36,275) - (53,637) (35,848) (75,621) - 16,764,721 - - (161635 ;000) - - - - - - (9,035,000) - - - 655,227 16,886,156 .(8,142;313) 12,667,833 8,783,777 23,716,761 $ (3,239,166) $ 11,859,361. $ (10;5.18,608) $ 81101,901 $ 719,859 $ 4,702,160 27.4% 27.4% 23.1% 20.9% 101 22.6 %. 21.6% CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA ASSESSED VALUE, ACTUAL VALUE AND TAX CAPACITY OF TAXABLE PROPERTY LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS Source: Hennepin County Taxpayer Services. 2000 -2004 estimated market values obtained from previous CAFRs and do not include personal property. DNA: Historical data is not available a Property in the City is assessed annually. Assessed value is equal to market value, although taxable value may be different, as shown. The City receives reports from Hennepin County showing total market value, but not separated by property classification. b This value is estimated by the City Finance Department by taking City taxes as a rate of estimated market value (rate per $1,000 of assessed value). The property tax system in Minnesota uses a tax capacity system whereby each parcel is assigned a tax capacity based on taxable value and class. In Minnesota, local taxes are usually expressed as a percentage of this calculated tax capacity (see column titled "City Tax Capacity Rate "). Therefore, this rate is only theoretical and shown for comparative purposes only. The State of Minnesota passed property tax reform legislation that significantly reduced tax capacity in 2002. 102 Market Value (In Thousands)' Tax Capacity (In Thousands) City Tax City Estimated Fiscal Used Adjusted Capacity Referendum Direct Year Estimated Limited Taxable Total for Rate Net Rate Rate Rate b 2000 $4,535,762 DNA DNA $ 90,807 $ 74,705 $ 77,166 17.669% 0.01634% $3.006 2001 4,861,730 DNA DNA 99,650 80,964 83,716 17.233% 0.01495% 2.967 2002 5,821,567 DNA DNA 72,584 ` 59,176 ° 61,007 ° 27.806% ° 0.01200% 2.914 2003 6,328,581 DNA DNA 77,666 63,169 65,145 27.139% 0.01100% 2.794 2004 6,909,477 DNA DNA 83,448 68,553 70,756 25.565% 0.01000% 2.618 2005 8,052,704 $7,674,983 $7,668,117 91,310 76,343 78,717 24.085% 0.00880% 2.354 2006 8,713,166 8,541,954 8,536,086 101,948 86,860 89,272 22.613% 0.00703% 2.317 2007 9,619,356 9,456,650 9,451,668 113,429 96,170 98,765 21.150% 0.00641% 2.172 2008 9,986,738 9,933,166 9,928,907 120,084 100,954 103,850 21.197% 0.00601% 2.204 2009 10,112,498 10,091,005 10,079,499 122,532 101,831 105,130 22.447% 0.00597% 2.334 Source: Hennepin County Taxpayer Services. 2000 -2004 estimated market values obtained from previous CAFRs and do not include personal property. DNA: Historical data is not available a Property in the City is assessed annually. Assessed value is equal to market value, although taxable value may be different, as shown. The City receives reports from Hennepin County showing total market value, but not separated by property classification. b This value is estimated by the City Finance Department by taking City taxes as a rate of estimated market value (rate per $1,000 of assessed value). The property tax system in Minnesota uses a tax capacity system whereby each parcel is assigned a tax capacity based on taxable value and class. In Minnesota, local taxes are usually expressed as a percentage of this calculated tax capacity (see column titled "City Tax Capacity Rate "). Therefore, this rate is only theoretical and shown for comparative purposes only. The State of Minnesota passed property tax reform legislation that significantly reduced tax capacity in 2002. 102 CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA DIRECT AND OVERLAPPING TAX CAPACITY RATES LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS Source: Hennepin' County Taxpayer Services. Some 2000 -2004 data obtained from previous CAFR's. RMV: Referendum Market Value DNA: Historical data is not available Geographic boundaries for overlapping district are not identical to the City's boundaries. City boundaries contain six different school districts but only ISD #273 is shown here. Other districts include Mosquito Control, Met Council, Metro Transit, Hennepin Parks, Park Museum and Regional Railroad Authority. In addition, there are two watershed districts in the City, Nine Mile Creek and Minnehaha Creek, and rates for Nine Mile are included in Other. Total rates do not include RMV rates. a The State of Minnesota passed property tax reform legislation that significantly reduced tax capacity in 2002. At the same time, the state took on greater responsibility for school district funding. 103 City Rates Overlapping Rates Total Fiscal Basic Debt Total Tax ISD #273 Edina Direct & Year Rate Rate Capacity RMV Hennepin Tax.Cap.. RMV Other Overlap 2000 DNA DNA 17.669% 0.016% 39.655% 51.6766 DNA 8.426% 117.428% 2001 DNA DNA 17.233 %' 0.015% 37.624% 46.8396/6 DNA 8.126% 109.822% 2002 26.116% 1.690% 27.806% a 0.012% 50.409% a 18.504% a DNA . 9.847% 106.566% 2003 24.586% 2.553% 27.139% 0'.0111% 50.607% 23.312% DNA 8.993% 110.051% 2004 23.183% 2.382-% 25.565% 0.010% 47.324% 22.670% DNA 8.256% 103.815% 2005 22.536% 1.549% 24.085 % 0.009% 44.172% 19.694% 0.166% 8.547% 96.498% 2006 20.755% 1.858% 22.613% 0.007% 41.016% 19.226% 0.154% 8.104% 90.959% 2007 19.636% 1.514% 21.150% 0.006% 39.110% 18.244% 0.147% 8.417% 86.921% 2.008 19.563% 1.634% 21.197% 0.006% 38.571% 16.951% 0.177% 8.546% 85.265% . 2009 20.204% 2.243% 22.447% 0.006% 40.413% 17.766% 0.183% 8.413% 89.039% Source: Hennepin' County Taxpayer Services. Some 2000 -2004 data obtained from previous CAFR's. RMV: Referendum Market Value DNA: Historical data is not available Geographic boundaries for overlapping district are not identical to the City's boundaries. City boundaries contain six different school districts but only ISD #273 is shown here. Other districts include Mosquito Control, Met Council, Metro Transit, Hennepin Parks, Park Museum and Regional Railroad Authority. In addition, there are two watershed districts in the City, Nine Mile Creek and Minnehaha Creek, and rates for Nine Mile are included in Other. Total rates do not include RMV rates. a The State of Minnesota passed property tax reform legislation that significantly reduced tax capacity in 2002. At the same time, the state took on greater responsibility for school district funding. 103 CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA PRINCIPAL PROPERTY TAX PAYERS CURRENT YEAR AND NINE YEARS AGO Taxpayer Tax Capacity Southdale Shopping Center $ 3,497,098 Galleria Shopping Center 1,188,800 Southdale Office Park 910,362 Centennial Lakes Retail 679,250 Southdale Medical Bldg 638,930 National Car 631,752 Centennial Lakes Phase V 615,384 Centennial Lakes Phase IV 603,462 Macy's Department Stores 520,174 Target 510,186 Pentagon Office Park United Healthcare Corporation Cedars of Edina Edinborough Plaza Totals $ 9,795,398 Source: City of Edina Assessing Office 2009 2000 104 Percentage Percentage of Total of Total Rank Capacity Tax Capacity Rank Capacity 1 2.85% $ 4,906,659 1 5.45% 2 0.97% 1,614,622 2 1.79% 3 0.74% 1,359,207 4 1.51% 4 0.55% 663,442 9 0.74% 5 0.52% 716,706 7 0.80% 6 0.52% 957,300 6 1.06% 7 0.50% - 0.00% 8 0.49% - 0.00% 9 0.42% - 0.00% 10 0.42% 432,156 11 0.48% 0.00% 1,560,591 3 1.73% 0.00% 882,609 5 0.98% 0.00% 710,438 8 0.79% 0.00% 508,820 10 0.57% 7.99% $14,312,550 15.89% 104 CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA PROPERTY TAX LEVIES AND COLLECTIONS LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS Collected within the Total Fiscal Year of the Levy Collections in Taxes Tax Percentage Subsequent Payable Levy Amount of Levy Years Total Collections to Date Percentage Amount of Levy 2000 $ 14,391,078 $ 14,290,698 99.30% $ 91,042 $ 14,381,740 99.94% 2001 15,165,091 15,053,569 99.26% 100,594 15,154,163 99.93% 2002 17,728,603 16,985,098 a 95.81% a 85,589 17,070,687 96.29% 2003 18,506,442 17,808,469 96.23% 50,633 17,859,102 96.50% 2004 18,808,903 18,066,892 96.06% 106,524 18,173,416 96.62% 2005 19,667,551 19,090,016 97.06% 108,171 19,198,187 97.61% 2006 20,820,130 20,310,889 97.55% 164,059 20,474,948 98.34% 2007 21,530,528 21,347,789 b 99.15% b 66,091 21,413,880 99.46% 2008 22,605,669 22,178,719 c 98.11% ° 122,057 22,300,776 98.65% 2009 24,153,933 23,484,137 d 97.23% d - 23,484,137 97.23% Source: Hennepin County Taxpayer Services. a Beginning in 2002, the State of Minnesota quit reimbursing the City for the market value homestead credit (MVHC) program. The MVHC program reduces property taxes for certain residential properties and is phased out once a property reaches a certain assessed value. The program is designed so the State "pays" the amount property taxes were reduced by to local governments. When the State ended reimbursing the City for MVHC in 2002, tax collections as a percent of levy dropped, as shown in this table. Due to the phase out provision in the MVHC program, the City anticipates that the impact of this lost revenue will decrease over time as property values rise above the phase out level. b In 2007 the State of Minnesota reimbursed the City for MVHC after five years of not making payments. In 2008 the State of Minnesota reimbursed the City for only 50% of MVHC. d In 2009 the State of Minnesota once again quit reimbursing the City for MVHC. 105 CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA RATIOS OF OUTSTANDING DEBT BY TYPE LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS (dollars in thousands, except per capita) Total Percentage Governmental Activities Primary Business -Type Activities Government General Public Tax Permanent Rec. utility Fiscal Obligation Project Increment Improvement Facility Revenue Year Debt Revenue Bonds Revolving Bonds Bonds 2000 $ 7,550 $ - $ 66,670 $ 170 $ 10,520 $ 3,265 2001 7,250 - 47,590 - 14,670 2,955 2002 6,950 12,410 40,855 - 7,890 2,630 2003 8,165 12,035 35,900 - 7,145 5,495 2004 7,295 11,595 30,760 - 6,325 4,860 2005 11,765 16,560 28,905 1,460 5,475 4,215 2006 5,670 16,080 20,460 1,460 4,595 3,550 2007 10,990 15,390 15,665 7,170 3,690 11,070 2008 10,420 14,675 10,015 14,770 2,845 23,570 2009 24,020 22,650 4,125 14,620 4,450 21,525 Total Percentage Primary of Personal Per Government Income Capita $ 88,175 4.24% $ 1,859 72,465 3.51% 1,527 70,735 3.31% 1,490 68,740 2.97% 1,445 60,835 2.58% 1,263 68,380 2.92% 1,441 51,815 2.19% 1,105 63,975 2.39% 1,359 76,295 3.00% 1,584 91,390 3.59% 1,897 Details regarding the City's outstanding debt may be found in the notes to the financial statements. 106 CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA RATIOS OF GENERAL BONDED DEBT OUTSTANDING LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS (dollars in thousands, except per capita) Fiscal Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 General Bonded Debt General Public Tax Obligation Project Increment Debt Revenue Bonds Total $ 7,550 $ - $ 66,670 $ 74,220 7,250 - 47,590 54,840 6,950 12,410 40,855 60,215 8,165 12,035 35,900 56,100 7,295 11,595 30,760 49,650 11,765 16,560 28,905 57,230 5,670 16,080 20,460 42,210 10,990 15,390 15,665 42,045 10,420 14,675 10,015 35,110 24,020 22,650 4,125 50,795 Percentage of Property Value a 1.64% 1.13% 1.03% 0.89% 0.72% 0.71% 0.48% 0.44% 0.35% 0.50% Details regarding the City's outstanding debt may be found in the notes to the financial statements. Per Caoita $ 1,565 1,155 1,269 1,179 1,031 1,206 900 893 729 1,055 a See statistical schedule titled "Assessed Value, Actual Value and Tax Capacity of Taxable Property" for estimated property value data. 107 CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA DIRECT AND OVERLAPPING GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES DEBT AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2009 Overlapping Debt: Hennepin County Hennepin Suburban Park District Hennepin Regional Rail Authority School Districts: ISD No. 273 (Edina) ISD No. 270 (Hopkins) ISD No. 271 (Bloomington) ISD No. 272 (Eden Prairie) ISD No. 280 (Richfield) ISD No. 283 (St. Louis Park) Metro Council Total Overlapping Debt Direct Debt: City of Edina Total Overlapping and Direct Debt Debt Ratios: Ratio of debt per capita (48,169 population) Net General Obligation Bonded Debt Outstanding a $ 600,494,319 71,017,752 42,430,624 82,581,000 156,028,964 80,285,172 78,098,382 30,739,811 54,914,328 131,613,280 1,328,203,632 26,528,780 $ 1,354,732,412 Ratio of debt to estimated market valuation of $10,112,498,000 Source: Hennepin County Taxpayer Services Percentage Applicable in City b City Share of Debt 7.29% $ 43,776,036 9.89% 7,023,656 7.29% 3,093,192 98.64% 8.74% 0.00% 0.92% 23.24% 0.02% 3.23% 81,457,898 13,636,931 718,505 7,143,932 10,983 4,251,109 161,112,242 100.00% 26,528,780 $ 187,641,022 $ 3,895 a Calculation excludes revenue and special assessment bonds as well as sinking fund balance, if any. b The percentage of overlapping debt applicable is estimated using tax capacity. Applicable percentages were estimated by determining the portion of another governmental unit's tax capacity that is within the City's boundaries and dividing it by each unit's total tax capacity. 108 1.86% CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA LEGAL DEBT MARGIN INFORMATION LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS (dollars in thousands) Fiscal Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008a 2009 Debt limit $ 97,235 $ 116,431 $ 138,279 $ 138,190 $ 160,674 $ 173,867 $ 191,974 $ 199,775 $ 302,385 $ 301,369 Total net debt applicable to limit 7,550 7,250 19,360 20,200 18,890 29,785 21,750 26,380 25,095 46,670 Legal debt margin $ 89,685 $ 109,181 $ 118,919 $ 117,990 $ 141,784 $ 144,082 $ 170,224 $ 173,395 $ 277,290 $ 254,699 Total net debt applicable to the limit as a percentage of debt limit 7.76% 6.23% 14.00% 14.62% 11.76% 17.13% 11.33% 13.20% 8.30% 15.49% Legal Debt Margin Calculation for Fiscal Year 2009 Market value (after fiscal disparities) $ 10,045,631,700 Debt limit (3% of market value) 301,368,951 Debt applicable to limit: General obligation bonds 24,020,000 Public project revenue bonds 22,650,000 Total debt applicable to limit 46,670,000 Legal debt margin $ 254,698,951 a The State of Minnesota changed the legal debt limit from 2% of taxable market value to 3% during 2008. 109 CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA PLEDGED REVENUE COVERAGE Last Ten Fiscal Years Fiscal Less: operating Net available 721,871 Debt service requirements 13,340 Year Revenue expenses revenue Principal Interest Total Coverage Public Project Revenue Bonds (Annual Appropriation Lease Revenue) 9,309,360 - 9,309,360 3,270,000 2003 $ 1,026,437 $ - $ 1,026,437 $ 375,000 $ 15,000 $ 390,000 2.63 2004 1,028,837 - 1,028,837 440,000 557,636 997,636 1.03 2005 1,058,840 - 1,058,840 460,000 558,486 1,018,486 1.04 2006 1,501,741 - 1,501,741 480,000 779,778 1,259,778 1.19 2007 1,497,500 - 1,497,500 690,000 725,855 1,415,855 1.06 2008 1,425,186 - 1,425,186 715,000 696,118 1,411,118 1.01 2009 1,424,405 - 1,424,405 745,000 665,193 1,410,193 1.01 Tax Increment Bonds 721,871 - 721,871 180,000 13,340 2000 8,590,313 - 8,590,313 5,595,000 2,677,383 8,272,383 1.04 2001 9,309,360 - 9,309,360 3,270,000 3,205,971 6,475,971 1.44 2002 7,053,836 - 7,053,836 4,570,000 2,355,928 6,925,928 1.02 2003 7,342,270 - 7,342,270 5,000,000 1,889,329 6,889,329 1.07 2004 6,761,934 - 6,761,934 5,140,000 1,520,376 6,660,376 1.02 2005 7,060,744 - 7,060,744 5,465,000 1,327,983 6,792,983 1.04 2006 7,228,002 - 7,228,002 8,445,000 902,607 9,347,607 0.77 2007 7,793,577 - 7,793,577 4,795,000 625,606 5,420,606 1.44 2008 8,578,434 - 8,578,434 5,650,000 445,694 6,095,694 1.41 2009 7,587,386 - 7,587,386 5,890,000 244,236 6,134,236 1.24 Permanent Improvement Revolving Bonds (Special Assessment) 2000 721,871 - 721,871 180,000 13,340 193,340 3.73 2001 684,660 - 684,660 170,000 4,420 174,420 3.93 2006 85,656 - 85,656 - 43,366 43,366 1.98 2007 391,921 - 391,921 160,000 46,694 206,694 1.90 2008 564,534 - 564,534 155,000 306,759 461,759 1.22 2009 1,508,662 - 1,508,662 150,000 513,708 663,708 2.27 Utility Bond 2000 8,793,386 7,205,934 1,587,452 335,000 127,525 462,525 3.43 2001 8,556,810 7,065,589 1,491,221 310,000 116,794 426,794 3.49 2002 8,561,287 7,399,773 1,161,514 325,000 105,205 430,205 2.70 2003 9,668,434 7,769,810 1,898,624 335,000 160,691 495,691 3.83 2004 9,473,355 7,643,129 1,830,226 635,000 158,451 793,451 2.31 2005 10,225,975 8,107,039 2,118,936 645,000 141,226 786,226 2.70 2006 11,416,361 9,107,143 2,309,218 665,000 129,608 794,608 2.91 2007 13,125,419 9,735,839 3,389,580 690,000 108,840 798,840 4.24 2008 13,544,728 10,076,422 3,468,306 1,485,000 459,983 1,944,983 1.78 2009 14,857,798 10,815,215 4,042,583 2,045,000 803,157 2,848,157 1.42 Recreational Facility Bonds 2000 5,727,930 5,209,610 518,320 450,000 553,962 1,003,962 0.52 2001 5,430,507 5,231,143 199,364 470,000 531,176 1,001,176 0.20 2002 5,424,422 5,031,839 392,583 6,780,000 611,509 7,391,509 0.05 2003 5,866,300 5,511,730 354,570 745,000 265,602 1,010,602 0.35 2004 5,621,743 5,492,510 129,233 820,000 241,387 1,061,387 0.12 2005 5,708,827 5,604,464 104,363 850,000 214,108 1,064,108 0.10 2006 5,929,984 5,808,902 121,082 880,000 199,260 1,079,260 0.11 2007 5,870,485 5,798,005 72,480 905,000 168,159 1,073,159 0.07 2008 6,005,571 5,972,558 33,013 845,000 135,956 980,956 0.03 2009 5,932,900 5,977,793 (44,893) 860,000 92,128 952,128 (0.05) 110 CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC STATISTICS Last Ten Fiscal Years Estimated Personal Fiscal Income Year Population (In thousands) Per Capita High School Personal Graduation Unemployment Income Rate Rate 2000 47,425 $ 2,081,388 $ 43,888 88.2% 2.40% 2001 47,465 2,065,867 43,524 91.5% 3.30% 2002 47,465 2,134,976 44,980 91.5% 4.00% 2003 47,570 2,317,801 48,724 91.5% 4.10% 2004 48,156 2,356,369 48,932 93.3% 3.90% 2005 47,448 2,341,464 49,348 92.1% 3.30% 2006 46,896 2,365,434 50,440 92.0% 3.00% 2007 47,090 2,673,959 56,784 92.0% 3.45% 2008 48,169 2,547,369 52,884 92.0% 4.33% 2009 48,169 2,547,369 52,884 92.4% 6.38% Sources: Population data from U.S. Census Bureau /Metropolitan Council. 2008 is the most recent estimate. Personal income and per capita income estimates based on MN Department of Employment and Economic Development Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages. 2008 is the most recent. High school graduation rate data from U.S. Census Bureau for all of Hennepin County. 2007 is the most recent estimate. Unemployment rate data from State of Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development. 111 CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA PRINCIPAL EMPLOYERS CURRENT YEAR AND NINE YEARS AGO 2008 Employer Employees Rank Percentage of Total City Jerry's Enterprises, Inc. 4,500 1 Fairview Southdale Hospital 2,500 2 Macy's (Marshall Field's or Dayton's) 1,200 3 Edina Public Schools ISD #273 1,172 4 Nash Finch Co. 350 5 International Dairy Queen Inc. 300 6 City of Edina 262 7 JC Penney Co. 250 8 Edina Realty 210 9 Con Agra Foods -Snack Food Gr. 196 10 Golden Valley Microwave Foods Health Risk Management Inc. Norwest Funding Roach Organization Inc. Totals 2000 Percentage of Percentage of Total City Total City Employment Employees Rank Employment 20.74% 2,000 2 7.77% 11.52% 2,400 1 9.32% 5.53% 500 5 1.94% 5.40% DNA DNA DNA 1.61% 350 8 1.36% 1.38% 300 9 1.17% 1.21% DNA DNA DNA 1.15% 400 6 1.55% 0.97% DNA DNA DNA 0.90% DNA DNA DNA 0.00% 650 3 2.53% 0.00% 552 4 2.14% 0.00% 358 7 1.39% 0.00% 140 10 0.54% 50.43% 7,650 29.72% Source: State of Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED). DNA: Historical data is not available 112 CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA FULL -TIME EQUIVALENT CITY GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES BY FUNCTION LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS Source: City of Edina Finance Department a Employee counts do not include Council members, part-time, contract or seasonal employees. 113 Budgeted `Full -time Employees for Fiscal Year' Function 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 General Government Administration 8.00 8.00 8.25 8.25' 8.25 8.25 8.25 8.25 8.25 8.25 Planning 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.85 Finance 5.50 5.75 5.50 5.50 5.50 5.50 5.50 5.50 5.50 5.50 Elections 0.50 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1:00 Assessing 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 Public Works Administration 1.50 1'.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 Engineering 7.50 7.50 7.50 6.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 8.50 8.50 8.50 Supervision 2.00 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 Maintenance 28.00 27.00 28.00 28.00 28.00 28.0.0 28.00 28.00 28.00 27.00 Public Safety Police Protection 67.00 70.00 69.00 68.00 66.00 69.00 69.00 70.00 70.00 71.00 Animal Control 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Fire Protection 31.00 32.00 32.00 32.00 32.00 32.00 32.00 33.00 33.00 33.00 Public Health 3.08 3.08 3.75 2.75 2.75 2.75 2.75 2.75 2.75 2.65 Inspections 5.75 6.75 6.50 6.50 6.50 6.50 6.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 Parks & Recreation Administration 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 6.80 6.80 .6.80 6.80 6.80 6.80 Maintenance 16.00 17.00 17.00 16.00 16.50 16.40, 16.40 16.40 16.40 16.40 Central Services General 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 City Hall 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.1.0 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 Public Works Bldg 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90. 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Equipment Ops 7.00 6.50 6.50 6.50 6.50 6.50 6.50 6.50 6.50 6.50 Utilities 16.25 15.70 14.50 14.50 15.50 15.75 15.75 15.25 15.75 18.75 Liquor 10.00 9.30 9.75 9.75 9.75 9.75 9.75 9.75 9.75 9.75 Aquatic Center - - - - 0.20 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 Golf: Course 14.00 14.00 15.00 15.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 Arena 5.00 5.00 5.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 5.00 Art.Center 3.00 100 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.50 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Edinborough Park/ Centennial Lakes 12.00 13.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 11.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 Other 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 4.00 4.00 5.00 Total 266.83 272.83 273.00 270.00 268.50 271.50 270.00 277.50 278.00 281.00 Source: City of Edina Finance Department a Employee counts do not include Council members, part-time, contract or seasonal employees. 113 CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA OPERATING INDICATORS BY FUNCTION LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS Function General Government Total City employees Votes cast a Public Works Asphalt placed (tons) Concrete (cu. yds.) Public Safety Crimes reported Fire calls Medical calls Central Services Vehicle fixes Utilities Daily consumption b Aquatic Center Attendance Golf Course Total rounds played Fiscal Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 801 868 860 879 870 909 887 890 918 885 30,483 10,008 28,156 10,721 31,730 1,367 26,270 7,930 31,512 2,733 - - - - - - 9,000 8,000 7,500 9,500 - - - - - - 650 850 480 640 - 2,411 2,139 2,073 1,983 1,908 1,937 2,010 2,025 NA 1,091 1,142 1,106 1,062 1,060 1,055 963 1,012 913 852 2,914 2,931 3,153 3,030 3,199 3,423 3,470 3,510 3,516 3,496 - - - - - - 2,398 2,460 2,967 2,539 - - - - - - 7,209 7,372 7,376 7,596 125,000 115,000 111,056 96,419 88,636 139,415 120,406 114,173 110,000 64,836 137,838 120,898 112,078 123,770 116,734 113,679 114,737 112,821 112,663 117,819 Source: Various City departments Note: The City prepared this schedule for the first time in 2006, therefore, some historical data is not readily available. NA: Data not available when this report was compiled. a The City Elections department runs general elections in even - numbered years and school district elections in odd - numbered years. Number of votes cast tend to vary between even and odd - numbered years and based on presidential election cycles. b Daily average of water pumped from city wells, measured in thousands of gallons. 114 CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA _ CAPITAL ASSET STATISTICS BY FUNCTION LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS Fiscal Year Function 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004. 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Public Works Miles of streets 224 224 224 224 224 224 224 224 224 224 City parking ramps 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Public Safety " Fire stations 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Parks & Recreation City parks 39 .39 39 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 " Acreage of parks 1,552 1,552 1,552 1,553 1,553 1,553 1,553 1,553 1,553 1,553 Park buildings 26 26 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 Utilities . Wells 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 19 19 19 Watermain miles 199 199 199. , 199 199 199 199 199 199 199 Sanitary sewer miles 186 186 186 186 186 186 186 186 186 186 Sewer connections 13,984 13,984 13,984 13,984 14,851 14,851 . 14,851 14,851 14,851 .13,933 Arena Ice sheets 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Source: Various City departments 115 A, 7=-7 y • ���'o�uao�tp:<�:p • City of Edina 4801 West 50th Street Edina, Minnesota 55424 www.CityofEdina.com 952 -826 -0366