The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2011-03-01 COUNCIL MEETINGAGENDA EDINA CITY COUNCIL EDINA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (ETC) WORK SESSION MARCH 1, 2011 5:00 P.M. — COMMUNITY ROOM ROLLCALL I. ETC INTRODUCTION —Chair Janovy. a. Acknowledgment of Commission Members II. ETC PAST ACCOMPLISHMENTS a. Greater Cornelia Area / West 701h Street Traffic Study b. Transportation Plan Update (Comprehensive Plan Update) CITY COUNCIL & ETC FUTURE INITIATIVES / DISCUSSION ITEMS a. ETC Policy / Establishment / Purpose / Duties b. Complete Streets Policy c. Walkability & Bike- ability within the City d. Funding for these programs/ projects IV, ADJOURNMENT Correspondence to -date for the ETC Workshop with City Council: A. Agenda input from Council Member Brindle B. Agenda input from ETC Chair Janovy C. Role of the ETC: Summary Review and Recommendation from ETC Chair Janovy D. Draft ETC Minutes of February 17, 2011 G: \Engineering \Infrastructure\ Streets \Traffic \Transportation Commission \Miscellaneous \20110301 Workshop with CityCounctl \20110301 ETC and City Council Work Session Agenda.doc Poor Quality Document Disclaimer The original or copy of a document or page of a document presented at the time of digital scanning contained within this digital file may be of substandard quality for viewing, printing or faxing needs. Agenda input from Mary Brindle. FYI :,. Scott Neal, City Manager 6 952- 826 -0401 1 Fax 952 -826 -0390 sneal( cl.edina.mn.us I www.CltvofEdina.com ...For Living, Learning, Raising Families & Doing Business From: Mary Brindle [mailto:mbrindle @comcast.net] Sent: Moriday, February 28, 20119:13 AM To: Scott Neal Subject: RE: Monday Morning, February 28 Hi Scott, The ETC was created as a reaction to a situation in the past. As I recall, the Country Club street reconstruction was met with residents concerned with traffic and cut through routes through their neighborhood. Of late, I think the role of the ETC is evolving and should be a.forward- looking commission, advising us on what we should do. going forward to make Edina more pedestrian friendly._ Ideally, I would like to see the ETC come up with a set of standards that would be employed in any redevelopment or reconstruction in our city. Specifically, I would like the council to formally ask the ETC to take on Walkability in Edina as a project. I met previously with Jennifer Janovy about my work in this area so she is aware of it. As a council, we informally discussed walkability and the desire to ask the ETC to add it to their areas of interest. FYI Mary Brindle' 952 - 941 -7746 home 612 - 270 -9887 cell . From: Jennifer [mailto:rjmeyovy @comcast.net] Sent: Friday, February 25, 20113:42 PM To: Scott Neal Subject: Re: Work Session Agenda Yes, sounds reasonable. The topics that appear to be priorities now are: • ETC Policy and Establishment (1509.1) and Purpose and Duties (1509.02) • Sidewalks • Funding We had a preliminary discussion on ETC Purpose and Duties at our February meeting. Because nearly half of the commission members are new, we did not get very far along in formulating something to present formally to the Council. There are some clear themes, however: • a greater focus on multi - modal /complete streets /active transportation; • a focus on transportation planning and review of road reconstruction projects to ensure they meet policy goals; • improved sidewalk policies and funding; • improved positioning so Edina has a better chance when applying for grants and other sources of funding; • opportunity to review and advise on the "big" traffic /roadway issues in the city (such as 50th & France, Interlachen /Vernon, and Southdale area); • need for the TSC and /or TS coordinator to collect, map, and provide data on traffic complaints in the city so that this data can be used for transportation planning and project prioritization; • the need to review and revise the ETC Policy, NTMP, and traffic signs, crosswalks, and speed limits policies. The ETC voted to recommend that we hold one regularly scheduled meeting each quarter on camera and additional regular meetings on camera at the discretion of the chair. All meetings would be in the Council Chambers. Off camera meetings would be held around a table set up in the "audience" section of the room, similar to the set up used by the zoning ordinance update committee. Please let me know if there is anything else I can provide in preparation for this meeting. Have a great weekend I Jennifer On Feb 25, 2011, at 1:58 PM, Scott Neal wrote: Good Afternoon Jenifer- d-r- For the last two commission - Council joint meetings, the agenda for the meeting has also been a joint project. In terms of protocol, I would suggest that you, as the chair of the commission, take a stab at preparing an agenda that has the items that you feel the commission would like to discuss. When that's ready, you can email it to me. 'I will solicit feedback from Council and staff, and then merge all of that input into one compact coherent agenda. Sound reasonable? , Scott Neal, City Manager <ima eOO1. If> 952- 826 -0401 1 Fax 952 -826 -0390 g g sneal(Wdedina.mn.us I wv w:QityofEdina.com ...For Living, Learning, Raising Families & Doing Business - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Jennifer f mailto:rjmeyovy @comcast.net] Sent: Monday, February 28, 201112:59 PM To: Scott Neal Subject: ETC: Summary Overview and Recommendations Scott, The attached overview of ETC responsibilities and related recommendations was put together in preparation for the joint City Council -ETC meeting tomorrow. It has not been discussed by the ETC and should be viewed as my personal opinion. Please distribute to the City Council and appropriate staff. Please also let staff know that I am available to discuss if they have any concerns about any statements. The hope is to share this with the Council before the meeting so that it can inform but not be the focus of our discussions. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you! Jennifer Janovy The Role of the ETC: Summary Review and Recommendations The Edina Transportation Commission (ETC) has been excluded from studying and commenting on nearly all matters related to traffic and transportation in Edina, except when explicitly directed to by the Council, or except when ETC involvement has little or no consequence. If the ETC is going to be an effective body, the following issues need to be addressed. The ETC has been excluded from reviewing and commenting on road reconstruction projects. The basis for this appears to be language in the ordinance: 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. Staff has interpreted road reconstructions to be maintenance activities and therefore outside the scope of ETC purpose and duties. This overlooks, however, the fact that road reconstruction projects now rarely put streets back exactly as they were. The, operation of the street is altered in some way — whether with a narrowed intersection or realignment, installation of center .island, or addition of,a sidewalk —and these activities fall within the scope of the ETC to review. Further, early in each road reconstruction project, the City sends residents a survey and invites their comments on traffic management concerns: The survey cover letter says the.ETC.typically reviews traffic issues, implying that residents'- comments will-be-forwarded to- the -ETC for'-- - _- - - consideration. The ETC has.not been shown these comments,-or been given the opportunity to review a feasibility study prior to it being presented to the Council. Although road reconstruction projects naturally provide an opportunity for the ETC to advise the Council on the operation of the local street system (all modes of transportation) and to evaluate and recommend speed and volume mitigation measures where appropriate, the ETC is not given this opportunity. The ETC needs to be included in the road reconstruction process. The ETC has been excluded from reviewing and commenting on resident traffic concerns. The basis for this appears to be staff's interpretation of the Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan (NTMP) as the only means by which the ETC is presented resident traffic concerns, and the only process by which the ETC addresses resident traffic concerns. The NTMP is the City's policy for how requests for traffic calming are handled. It provides a list of traffic calming measures, including realigned intersections, center islands, gateway treatments, pavement striping, and stop signs —all measures that, over the past few years, have been recommended and implemented as part of road reconstruction projects or upon the Council's approval of a traffic safety report. Yet, even though the ETC has an explicit role in evaluating and recommending traffic calming measures, none of these measures were presented to the ETC prior to staff presenting them to the Council for approval. None of the measures were implemented in accordance with the City's traffic calming policy. Staff has explained that, when a resident contacts them with a traffic concern, the traffic safety coordinator typically gathers data and then, depending on the specifics, presents the concern to the Traffic Safety Committee. The purpose and duties of the Traffic Safety Committee have not been formally defined. On the surface, their purpose is to review requests for crosswalks and regulatory signs. A review of traffic safety reports shows that, most often, when a resident requests a stop sign, for example, it is not because they want the City to assign vehicle right -of -way at an intersection (the regulatory purpose of a stop sign), but because they are concerned about speeds and volume on the street and believe a stop sign will deter vehicles or slow them down (the perceived traffic calming purpose of a stop sign). The Traffic Safety Committee, however, does not distinguish the requests. As a rule, stop sign requests are denied. In fact, a review of traffic safety reports shows that most resident requests for speed and volume mitigation that are funneled through the Traffic Safety Committee are denied. The problem, whether actual or perceived, remains. A significant number of these concerns are related to pedestrians' perception of safety. Staff has said that when a resident contacts them with a traffic safety concern, they advise the .. resident of the NTMP.,Since the policy was adopted by the Council in 2005, no requests for speed or volume mitigation measures have been taken through the NTMP process. The NTMP requires objective data to support a concern; a defined level of agreement among residents within an impacted area of the problem and proposed solution; and multi -step involvement by the ETC and City. Council through an open process. Under the NTMP, a center island narrowing, for example, can't be suggested by just one resident and then rolled into a street reconstruction project. Objective criteria must be satisfied. The NTMP allows any individual — including staff —to file an NTMP application. It is not necessary that residents do this themselves. When a resident contacts staff with a traffic concern, staff can fill out the NTMP application and complete a "pre Iiminary.review and priority ranking" (steps l and 2 in the NTMP process). The data that is gathered for a preliminary review is the type of data that the traffic safety coordinator gathers anyway. The ETC could then be informed of the traffic concern and a discussion held about whether the concern should go through the Traffic Safety Committee process or the NTMP. If likely to result in traffic calming, targeted enforcement, or a public education campaign, it is clear the Council has established the:NTMP as-the policy that should be followed. The ETC has been excluded from reviewing and participating in a timely and meaningful way on projects or studies for which the City has received grants or other special funding. For example, the ETC was not included in the Safe Routes to School study or its recommendations; the Transit for Livable Communities grant for bicycle facilities; the Interlachen trail; the proposed pedestrian bridge over France Avenue; and the France Avenue Corridor,Study. 3 Information on some of these projects has not been shared with the ETC even though it has been requested, and no information has been shared to allow the ETC to participate through review or comment in a timely and meaningful way. If the ETC is to be an effective body, information must be shared with the ETC and the ETC must be given the opportunity to review and comment on major transportation projects within the City in a timely and meaningful way. Staff does include the ETC in projects when explicitly directed to by the Council. Examples are the Northeast Edina Transportation Study; the W. 70th Street Study; and the speed limit on W. 66th Street. The initial Country Club feasibility study, however, included traffic calming and came to the Council for approval without review by the ETC. The W. 66th Street speed limit came to the Council in a traffic safety committee report. It is unlikely the ETC would have been involved in any of these issues if the Council had not explicitly directed. The question is whether staff should require the Council's explicit direction before including the ETC, or whether this direction is implicit in the Council's establishment of the ETC and adoption of the NTMP policy. Although residents reasonably assume the ETC reviews road reconstruction projects, when the ETC has asked, at times, for information on upcoming projects, staff has directed the ETC to the road reconstruction map online. Although residents reasonably assume the ETC reviews resident traffic concerns, when the ETC asked for a copy of the cover letter and survey sent to residents in conjunction with road reconstruction projects (the one that says the ETC typically handles traffic concerns), copies were not provided and survey results have never been shared. When the ETC asked to review and be allowed to comment on traffic safety reports before they are sent to the Council, the request was denied. Allowing the ETC to comment would not have slowed the process. The resistance and lack of information has made it difficult for the ETC to be effective. A look at ETC agendas over the past few years shows our regular meetings have consisted primarily of presentations for informational purposes only —such as on Transit Link, MnPass, and the Mn /DOT rail plan —and opportunities to take action have been limited almost exclusively to 0 areas in which ETC involvement has little or no consequence. The ETC role in reviewing the transportation impacts of proposed developments is an example. Recently, the Planning Commission voted "to recommend that the Edina Transportation Commission be eliminated from the development review process." If this responsibility is removed from the ETC, the ETC will, esseritially, have no business brought to it by staff other than informational presentations and those issues that staff is explicitly directed by the Council to bring. In this case, there is no reason for an ETC. The public education benefits of informational presentations can be achieved through other means. That said, it is clear there is a great deal of work that the ETC could, should, and is willing to do. The key to an effective ETC is not necessarily a rewritten ordinance or policies; the key is including the ETC in those activities that are and have always been within the commission's scope of responsibilities. 5 A, Y1 •rte v • MINUTES OF THE Edina Transportation Commission Thursday, February 17, 2011 Edina City Hall 4801 West 50th Street Council Chambers MEMBERS PRESENT: Katherine Bass, Thomas Bonneville, Ann Braden, Sarah Jennifer Janovy, Paul Nelson, Bodhe Scheerer, Elin Schold D MEMBERS ABSENT: Jean White STAFF PRESENT: Jack Sullivan, Sharon Allison I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by II. Welcome New Members Chair Janovy welcomed new member and Katherine Bass to the commission. III. Approval of Mi a. Regular Me novy retson, Nathan ichael Thompson iel•'Thompson,'Iin,;Schold Davis, Ann Braden Commissioner Nelsorimoved to, approve the 'minutes of November 18 and the motion was seconded by Com ` ` seco missioner Bonneville:- < b`Re uiar�Meetinc -'df 1.anuary 20,2011"" ,.,, - The folltivuirig corrections were ma.de to the January 20 minutes: show Elin Schold Davis as being present; show " -ftcle Scheerer as being absent; delete Nathan Franzen from the attendance list; page 2, 4;h paragraph, 5th line change "is" to was; 6th paragraph, 2nd line add "... four 'tr,"aiDs a day each -:`direction" I't "aveling... "; last line add "...in Edina, where additional ROW mad %be. needed forXonstruction of upgrades." Commissioner Bonneville moved to approve minutes with the c6rrections and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Schold Davis. IV. Consent Agedda 5' a. Traffic Safety Report for February 2, 2011 Commissioner Bonneville said it is too bad that the ETC cannot pick 2 -3 issues to be looked at such as France Avenue /Crosstown intersection to TH -494 stoplights that malfunctions often. He said there are many signals and you can either speed to miss them, or drive slow and stop at each one. He asked if the ETC should look into this. Mr. Sullivan said France Avenue is a county road and that the University of Minnesota recently completed a study and the county and has optimized the signals based on the study. Mr. Sullivan said he could get the report for the ETC. Commissioner Braden asked how issues are brought forward. Assistant City Engineer Sullivan explained that Boyd Tate, the City's Traffic Safety Coordinator (and a retired Minneapolis police officer) is contacted, looks at issues, gathers data, followed by a meeting of the Traffic Safety Committee (TSC) made up of himself, city engineer, police traffic supervisor, city planner, traffic safety coordinator and sign coordinator, to see if the issues are within policy or see if there are other ways to mitigate the concerns, The TSC makes its recommendation to the Council. He said issues such as crosswalks, no parking signs, and stop signs are considered regulatory type issues. V. Community Comment None. VI. New Business a. Review advisory role, attendance, meeting procedures and schedule (Section 1500 Chair Janovy said a roster will be available to•tf e !public that includes ea .K."commissioner's name, address, email and /or phone. She saidthat name, address and either a telephone number or email address are required. Both emaiij and telephone number are note "required, but commissioners may include both if they want to. She:;a:sked commissioners to review the roster an give any changes or corrections tp. :Ms. Allison. Commissioners Engbretson and Scheerer requested to have their cell phone nurribe;rs removed froiY: the roster. Chair Janovy discussed the following: =` • Meeting schedule for the.entire the year; • Open meeting lav4 vh ch she said appl 4 &l6 the ETC because they are advisory to the Council. She explained that'o"ornmunicatio should be one way only and emails should not reach a quorum because - then you've had a meeting. She stated further that they should avoid discussions oriFcebook or `other social media where a quorum could be reached and also''to >avod``9&ial .m:eetings.,:(communication with one to the next to the o Ordinance Sectio; Review ETC Purpose and Duties (Section 1509) Mr. Sullivan said each commission was asked to look at their purpose and duties. He said this discussion will set the table for the March 1 work session with the ETC and Council. Chair Janovy said the ordinance is already written but the Council will consider changes. She said there is awareness that the ETC may have outgrown its original purpose and duties and that the Council is not expecting all the changes on March 1. Mr. Sullivan suggested getting the draft minutes to the ETC and Council prior to March 1. Chair Janovy said this past summer, they began discussion on the ETC's scope and responsibilities and are now returning to this discussion. Sharing a''p;erspective from this past summer' discussions, Commissioner Franzen said he felt the purpose and scope of the ETC, as written, is narrow and that it should be expanded to ,incorporate a more multi -modal approach to transportation planning and review —for exam plerroreof a focus on mass transit and becoming a walkable community rather than juste <focusing<::on, traffic volumes and congestion. Chair Janovy suggested Mankato's ordin exance as an ample. Commissioner Bonneville said they have a duty to look at the bg; picture and referenced areas such as Southdale, 50th & France, and the 501h extensiorf'I Jerry's area because"Ih;ere are conflicts involved in these areas. Chair Janovy said rn f',* f these things,, are currently`'handled by staff and asked if he's suggesting that the ETC handle them. Commissioner Bonneville said they could come from staff or the ETC. Chair Janovy asked, if , 'e; was suggesting they identify hot spots similar to what was done by tho Local Traffic Task�Force, the precursor to the ETC. He said the Council could, Planning Commission (PC) could ?or ask them to team up together. Commissioner Bass said she would "re fee'lo 'use the modes: as a lens to evaluate all traffic and how all modes serve the networks i:epedestrians,.bike, tra'rsit, etc. Commissioner Braden asked,'fthe ETC has-the:technical. expertise to evaluate what is being discussed. She askedfjf- #. e're are;;certain things; a a PE would do and not her. She said she liked the idea of expanding to mod"ut maybe snore of an advocate for complete streets, safe routes to school, and since they afe� a citizen `a'dvisory group, make a link between citizens, staff and consulting engineers. �)iaih<anoyy saitlfhey are advisory to Council, but do not write J the policies and that fi� ey ;arefexpected ,to have %some degree of technical understanding. .,. Commissioner: rBraden asked if They are concori ed about liabilities. Chair Janovy said the ETC only nl,, s recor ,i ie idatio Hs, Com"mjssloner Schold Da is: suggested looking at demographic changes that are projected for Edina afl ..':how designs wilf,affect pedestrians, older drivers, and other user groups. Commissioner: Franzen suggested evaluating connections within the city based upon multi - modal routes. He said th6"68rthwest area where he lives feels detached from Edina. Chair Janovy asked if 'a:(ack of'sidewalk may be the issue and if current sidewalk policy is not working should they ereate a funding source? Commissioner Thompson said he liked the discussion and suggested that staff could come to the ETC to show how Complete Streets is included in street reconstruction projects. Chair Janovy said the practice is generally not to involve the ETC with street reconstruction projects. She cited a questionnaire that is sent out to residents within project areas that asks about traffic issues and the result of the questionnaire is not shared with the ETC, so there are some issues that the ETC is not focusing on. Mr. Sullivan said project areas are compared with the Comp Plan. Chair Janovy asked if it is staff's opinion that the ETC's role is only with the NTMP and ,therefore no other involvement and Mr. Sullivan replied affirmatively. Chair Janovy said 3 staff does review how a proposed street reconstruction fits within the Comp Plan and Bike Plan, but suggested that if the questionnaire to resident says ETC handles traffic issues, the comments from residents should be given to the ETC. Commissioner Thompson suggested a level of review by the ETC for street reconstruction projects as a way to create connectivity with sidewalks so the decision is not made from neighborhood to neighborhood. Chair Janovy asked how they should handle daily traffic complaints. She said the NMTP has not worked well. She suggested making the TSC a formal process that would be transparent. Commissioner Nelson said the report that they were receiving recently that shows the types of calls that the traffic safety coordinator receives was helpful and that they should continue to receive that report. He said it at least would help them to identify patterns or trends. He also said getting regular traffic counts would be helpful. Chair Janov_ said they may not be able to mediate concerns but the data could be helpful. Commisslb "ner`Boineville suggested offering their assistance to the TSC when needed. Comm issioner":�Ba'ss suggested looking at the data in aggregate to help inform prioritization. Chair Janovy, --asked if the NTM,P ;should be enhanced to include education before engineering, and if so, would it be handled by tfe -TSC? a. Planning Commission's review of Traffic Studies Chair Janovy said the Planning Commission (PC) has rec..m;;rj ended that they fake over the ETC's responsibility of reviewing Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA�"usually done with developments. She said there is awareness that the ;ETC does have a:I'ble as defined by the TIA policy and asked whether the ETC and Planning Commission should`;bave a joint meeting to pass on the responsibility. She also said the ETC 666i ecommend that the f= .,Planning Commission not take over review of TIAs. Commissioner BonndeviIIe s' a'i& heis not"co:mfortable giving responsibility to the PC. Commissioner Nelson concu"rre.;d ando`ted.theCVS.'plan that was presented to them for review as a conOOV.Plon that d'idrnot include everything on the plan that they said would be there like the b ke racK:an'd that thkETC had issues with site circulation. He asked if these issues are taken "bare of as they move through the.process, Chair Janovy said if the PC takes over, there would continue .1o"be unmet:; needs; she's suggested to the PC chair that there are problems with:the pol ya:ndwith „the code not calling for a transportation review and he suggested. a meetinga .with:-`fhe'ETC;`and.;PC. Establishing thresholds for review was recommended bh- Janov".'said one thresh�oid "that the PC has recommended is that the ETC would be JnVolved if h AUAR :study is required. EnergyEnvironment Comm ission::;: Chair Janovy said Edina isa-.:Green"Step Cities and that the chair of the Energy Environment Commission'�:has asked if�'the ETC could do a review to see if they are meeting the requiremenfs::th'rough ordinances. Chair Janovy said she is not sure what they are expected to do and staff was also uncertain. Chair Janovy said she will follow -up to get clarification and Mr. Sullivan will checKw:ith Jesse Struve, the staff liaison, and report back. VII. Bike Edina Task Force Update (Commissioner Janovy) Chair Janovy said the BETF voted to support NICE Ride in Edina at 44th & France and 50th & France as first priority. VIII. Staff Comments a. Work Session with Council on March 1, 2011 A work session is scheduled for 3/1, 5 -7 p.m. with the Council in the Community Room. IX. Commission Comments 4 Commissioner Nelson said there is an upcoming meeting for the SW LRT and he will give an update report at the next ETC meeting. Commissioner Engbretson said she's noticed signs around Lake Harvey area saying no to curb and gutter. Mr. Sullivan said a neighborhood project is planned to include curb & gutter and at the public hearing, the water quality of the pond was raised and approval of the project was postponed until staff could meet with the watershed district. A follow -up meeting with residents is scheduled for February 22. Mr. Sullivan said staff will still be recommending curb & gutter and it was determined that of the 34 acres around the lake, only 4 is owned by the City; therefore treatment options would need to be done by the residents: :0" their private property. Commissioner Braden asked how is agendas put tc communicates with Mr. Sullivan and others can also send is currently working on soliciting federal funds and Mr. Su implement monies already received. Commissioner Franzen said he is excited to see ;rew group. X. Adjournment Meeting. adjourned. _ = Chair Janovy said she fo`:h'im. She asked if the City is n said 'X no, staff is working to 5 AGENDA EDINA HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY EDINA CITY COUNCIL MARCH 1, 2011 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 by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of such items unless a Commissioner or Council Member so requests it. In such cases 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 February 15, 2011 II. ADJOURNMENT EDINA CITY COUNCIL PROCLAMATION DECLARING EARTH HOUR IN EDINA * I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Regular Meeting of February 15, 2011 and Work Session of February 15, 2011 II. AWARD OF BID /CHANGE ORDERS * A. 2011 Toro,Reelmaster 5210 -D Fairway Mower - Braemar Golf Course * B. 2011 Toro Greensmaster 3150 -Q Greensmower — Braemar Golf Course * C. Traffic Signal Cabinets for West 70th Street Improvements: Improvement No. TS -44 III. REPORTS /RECOMMENDATIONS (Favorable vote of majority of Council Members present to approve except where noted) A. John Griffith, MnDOT - Update On 169/494 Reconstruction B. Dave Christianson, MnDOT— Freight Rail Presentation C. Melissa Madison, 494 Commuter Services — Commuter Services Activities Presentation D. Kevin Staunton — Grandview Small Area Plan Proposed Process E. Parking Permits For All Employees Of Edina Businesses At 50th & France Avenue Agenda/Edina City Council March 1, 2011 Page 2 * F. On -Sale Intoxicating, Club On -Sale, and Sunday Sale Liquor License Renewals * G. Wine License Renewals * H. Beer License Renewals I. Resolution No. 2011 -36 Accepting Various Donations * J. Set Hearing Date (3/15/2011): Ordinance No. 2011 -03 Amending Section 850.04 Regarding Notice Of Hearing For Conditional Use Permit K. Appointment To Energy & Environment Commission L. US Conference of Mayors Civility Accord *, M. Temporary On -Sale 3.2 Beer License Our Lady of Grace Church IV. 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. V. FINANCE * A. CONFIRMATION OF PAYMENT OF CLAIMS As per, Pre -List dated February 17, 2010, TOTAL $705,661.24; and per Pre -List dated February 24, 2010, TOTAL $426,191.35 VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS A. Correspondence VII. MAYOR AND COUNCIL COMMENTS VIII. MANAGER'S COMMENTS IX. ADJOURNMENT Agenda/Edina City Council March 1, 2011 Page 3 The City of Edina wants all residents to be comfortable being part of the public process. If you need assistance in the way of hearing amplification, an interpreter, large -print documents or something else, please call 952 - 927 - 886172 hours in advance of the meeting. SCHEDULE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS /DATES /EVENTS Tues Mar 1 Work Session —Joint Meeting With Transportation Comm 5:00 P.M. COMMUNITY ROOM Tues Mar 1 Regular Meeting 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS Tues Mar 15 Work Session —Joint Meeting With Planning Commission 5:00 P.M. COMMUNITY ROOM Tues Mar 15 Regular Meeting 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS Mon Mar 21 Annual Meeting — Boards & Commissions 5:00 P.M. HUGHES PAVILION Tues Apr 5 Work Session — Review of City Enterprise Business Plans 5:00 P.M. COMMUNITY ROOM Tues Apr 5 Regular Meeting 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS Tues Apr 18 Regular Meeting 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS Wed Apr 27 State of The Community 11:30 A.M. INTERLACHEN COUNTRY CLUB Thur Apr 28 Volunteer Recognition Reception 5:00 P.M. EDINBOROUGH PARK GREAT HALL Tues May 3 Regular Meeting 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS Tues May 16 Regular Meeting 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS Mon May 30 MEMORIAL DAY HOLIDAY OBSERVED — City Hall Closed DEFINING EXCELLENCE w9�,1� o e v � -o • ,�roRPOi�`'CBO • Wes Edina School Board and Edina City Council Joint Meeting Monday, February 28, 2011 5:00 — 6:30 pm Edina Community Center Room 351 AGENDA (Note: A light supper will be served) MEETING OUTCOMES • Gain understanding of the state of the school district and the city • Identify and explore partnerships between the city and the school district 1. Welcome and Introductions The meeting's planned outcomes will be discussed. 2. State of City and School District (Scott Neal and Ric Dressen) An overview of the current state of the City of Edina and Edina School District will occur. 3. City and District Partnership Discussion (City Council and, School Board) o City ;Council members and Schol Board members will break into teams to discuss city and school district'.partnership successes and possibilities in the following areas: • Public communications • Shared services Facilities access 4. Closure and Establishing Next Meeting Date AGENDA EDINA HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY EDINA CITY COUNCIL MARCH 1, 2011 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 by,one; motion. There will" be no separate discussion of such items unless a Commissioner or Council Member so requests it. In such cases 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 February 15, 2011 11. ADJOURNMENT EDINA CITY COUNCIL PROCLAMATION DECLARING EARTH HOUR IN EDINA * I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Regular Meeting of February 15, 2011 and Work Session of February 15, 2011 11. AWARD OF BID /CHANGE ORDERS * A. 2011 Toro Reelmaster 5210 -D Fairway Mower — Braemar Golf-Course * B. 2011 Toro Greensmaster 3150 -Q Greensmower — Braemar Golf Course * C. Traffic Signal Cabinets for West 70th Street Improvements: Improvement No. TS -44 111. REPORTS /RECOMMENDATIONS (Favorable vote of majority of Council Members present to approve except where noted) A. John Griffith, MnDOT - Update On 169/494 Reconstruction B. Dave Christianson, MnDOT— Freight Rail Presentation C. Melissa Madison, 494 Commuter Services — Commuter Services Activities Presentation D. Kevin Staunton — Grandview Small Area Plan Proposed Process E. Parking Permits. For All Employees Of Edina Businesses At 50th & France Avenue Agenda /Edina City Council 1 March 1, 2011 a Page 2 * F. On -Sale Intoxicating, Club On -Sale, and Sunday Sale Liquor License Renewals * G. Wine License Renewals * H. Beer License Renewals I. Resolution No. 2011 -36 Accepting Various Donations * J. Set Hearing Date (3/15/2011): Ordinance No. 2011 -03 Amending Section 850.04 Regarding Notice Of Hearing For Conditional Use Permit K. Appointment To Energy & Environment Commission L. US Conference of Mayors Civility Accord * M. Temporary On -Sale 3.2 Beer License Our Lady of Grace Church IV. 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. V. FINANCE * A. CONFIRMATION OF PAYMENT OF CLAIMS As per, Pre -List dated February 17, 2010, TOTAL $705,661.24; and per Pre -List dated February 24, 2010, TOTAL $426,191.35 VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS A. Correspondence VII. MAYOR AND COUNCIL COMMENTS VIII. MANAGER'S COMMENTS IX. ADJOURNMENT Agenda /Edina City Council March 1, 2011 Page 3 The City of Edina wants all residents to be comfortable being part of the public process. If you need assistance in the way of hearing amplification, an interpreter, large -print documents or something else, please call 952 - 927 - 886172 hours in advance of the meeting. SCHEDULE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS /DATES /EVENTS Tues Mar 1 Work Session —Joint Meeting With Transportation Comm 5:00 P.M. COMMUNITY ROOM Tues Mar 1 Regular Meeting 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS Tues Mar 15 Work Session —Joint Meeting With Planning Commission 5:00 P.M. COMMUNITY ROOM Tues Mar 15 Regular Meeting 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS Mon Mar 21 Annual Meeting— Boards & Commissions 5:00 P.M. HUGHES PAVILION Tues Apr 5 Work Session — Review of City Enterprise Business Plans 5:00 P.M. COMMUNITY ROOM Tues Apr 5 Regular Meeting 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS Tues Apr 18 Regular Meeting 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS Wed Apr 27 State of The Community 11:30 A.M. INTERLACHEN COUNTRY CLUB Thur Apr 28 Volunteer Recognition Reception 5:00 P.M. EDINBOROUGH PARK GREAT HALL Tues May 3 Regular Meeting 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS Tues May 16 Regular Meeting 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS Mon May 30 MEMORIAL DAY HOLIDAY OBSERVED — City Hall Closed MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HALL FEBRUARY 15, 2011 5:09 P.M. Mayor Hovland called the meeting to order at 5:09 p.m. Answering rollcall were Members Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, and Mayor Hovland. Human Rights and Relations Commissioners in attendance were: Jessica Kingston, John Cashmore, Lisa Finsness, Bob Mayer, Meg Grace Newell, Janet Seidman, Russell Stanton, Student Members Zack Antar and Daria Brosius and Chair Arnie Bigbee. Staff attending the meeting included: Scott Neal, City Manager; Ceil Smith, Assistant to the City Manager, Jennifer Bennerotte, Director of Communications and Marketing; Susan Howl, Human Services Coordinator; and Debra Mangen, City Clerk. Mayor Hovland stated the purpose of the meeting was to review several issues of mutual concern. Following introductions of all present, Mayor Hovland asked Chair Bigbee to lead off the HRRC's agenda. HUMAN RIGHTS & RELATIONS COMMISSION (HRRC) ACCOMPLISHMENTS Chair Bigbee asked various Commissioners of the HRRC to take turns reviewing the success of adoption of the Domestic Partnership Ordinance, the upcoming anti - bullying event that will include a screening of the film "Bullied "; and passage of the Council's resolution urging legislation relating to the definition of employee and dependent. DISCUSSION ITEMS The Council and HRRC Commissioners discussed: the potential of allowing student members to vote, the attendance policy of the City relative to Boards and Commissions, the responsibility for proposing the Human Services Budget annually, the responsibility for the Edina Resource Center budget, and proposed contractor requirement concerning domestic partner benefits. Consensus of the Council regarding the discussion items were: Student members will not be voting members at this time, the attendance policy for boards and commission will not be changed, the IHRRC was asked to develop a model for the Human Service budget recommendation. Make the Human - Sewviebudget ^dati9A f9F 2 ,staff will take over the Edina Resource Center budget and the HRRC will continue to study recommendation of a requirement that contractor's provide domestic partnership benefits. the City will t-- e the requ- A Mayor Hovland adjourned the meeting at 6:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Minutes approved by Edina City Council, March 1, 2011 Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk James B. Hovland, Mayor MINUTES OF THE EDINA HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY HELD AT CITY HALL FEBRUARY 15, 2011 7:04 P.M. ROLLCALL Answering rollcall were Commissioners Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson and Chair Hovland. CONSENT AGENDA APPROVED Motion made by Commissioner Swenson, and seconded by Commissioner Brindle for approval of th'e ' Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority Consent Agenda as presented. Rolicall Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. *MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 1, 2011, APPROVED Motion made by Commissioner Swenson and seconded by Commissioner Brindle approving the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority for February 1, 20111. 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 :05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Scott Neal, Executive Director �rTA, Ow Le v � moo. \�co cl9/ lass Earth Hour Proclamation Whereas, all people and cultures are dependent on a healthy environment for a safe and fulfilling life; and Whereas, the burning of fossil fuels to produce energy is one of the major contributors to rising temperatures and levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, causing rapid climate change in Minnesota and around our planet; and Whereas, electric lights account for a great deal of energy use; and Whereas, Earth Hour started in 2007 in Sydney, Australia, when 2.2 million individuals and more than 2,000 businesses turned their lights off for one hour to take a stand against climate change. Earth Hour, organized by WWF, had become a global sustainability movement with more than 50 million people across 35 countries participating. NOW, THEREFORE, I, James B. Hovland, Mayor of the City of Edina, do hereby proclaim 8:30 to 9:30 p.m. Saturday, March 26, 2011 as: Earth Hour In Edina The Edina City Council asks that all the residents, schools, churches and businesses in Edina turn off their lights (where safe) for the designated hour and to appreciate the gift of a life - supporting environment. Dated this I" day of March, 2011. James B. Hovland, Mayor I .10 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HALL FEBRUARY 15, 2011 7:05 P.M. ROLLCALL Answering rollcall were Members Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson and Mayor Hovland. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS APPROVED Motion made by Member Swenson and seconded by Member Brindle approving the Council consent agenda with the exception of Item III.E., Traffic Safety Report of February 2, 2011. Rollcall: Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. TEEN ART MONTH IN EDINA PROCLAIMED — MARCH 2011 Mayor Hovland read in full a proclamation declaring March of 2011 to be Teen Art Month in the City of Edina and presented it to Young I's Committee Members. Member Bennett made a motion, seconded by Member Swenson, approving Teen Art Month Proclamation. Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. Maria DePesa, Justin Moran, and Nicole Mills - Novoa, Young I's Committee Members, described the upcoming exhibition to highlight the art of young people and advised of community sponsorships. *MINUTES APPROVED — MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 1. 2011, MINUTES OF WORK SESSION OF FEBRUARY 1. 2011, MINUTES OF WORK SESSION OF FEBRUARY 3.2011, AMENDED MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 18 2011 AND AMENDED MINUTES OF WORK SESSION OF JANUARY 18, 2011 Motion made by Member Swenson and seconded by Member Brindle approving the minutes of regular meeting of February 1, 2011, minutes of work session of February 1, 2011, minutes of work session of February 3, 2011, amended minutes of regular meeting of January 18, 2011, and amended minutes of work session of January 18, 2011. Motion carried on rollcall vote —five ayes. PUBLIC HEARING HELD ON 2011 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT — RESOLUTION NO. 2011-35 ADOPTED Affidavits of Notice presented and ordered placed on file. Associate Planner Repya described the Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG), noting the 2011 allotment was $173,786. She presented the following distribution: Senior Community Services (H.O.M.E- Housing and Outdoor Maintenance for the Elderly) of $17,789; Community Action Partnership for Suburban Hennepin (CAPSH) of $5,624; and, HomeLine of $2,654. Ms. Repya explained that after this $26,067 distribution for public services, staff recommended directing $65,719 to the Rehabilitation of Private Property Program and $82,000 to West Hennepin Affordable Housing Land Trust (WHAHLT). The proposed $82,000 would be directed toward the purchase of a seventh land trust home, reinforcing the City's commitment to provide and secure affordable housing. Member Swenson disclosed that she served on the board of CAPSH but derived no payment. Attorney Knutson advised this was not a conflict of interest since Member Swenson was unpaid. The Council addressed anticipated federal funding reductions and potential impact to the CDBG program. Ms. Repya stated it was hoped the final budget would reflect funding from 2010 but if reduced the resolution allowed budget adjustments. She indicated that services were publicized in About Town, and Page 1 Minutes /Edina City Council /February 15, 2011 the Edina Resource Center was active to refer residents in need of services. The Council provided staff with information from the US Conference of Mayors relating to the proposed CDBG cuts of 7.5% and asked staff to strategize should such a reduction be made. It was noted that the Human Rights and Relations Commission had reviewed and recommended approval of the distribution to community service organizations and staff had made the determination and recommendation for the community development distributions. Ms. Repya explained the analysis used by staff to determine allotments to the Rehabilitation of Private Property Program and WHAHLT. The Council indicated its support for the high school to host HomeLine seminars to teach students about tenant rig_ hts and responsibilities. Mayor Hovland opened the public hearing at 7:23 p.m. Public Testimony Kitty Engle, HOME Senior Community Services Program Director, described the services provided to Edina seniors for the past 30 years. She explained that past clients receive a newsletter. Ms. Engle stated HOME collaborated with senior centers, churches, and corporations to recruit volunteers and provide education e# about the services provided. She added that in 2009, HOME had served 95 440 unduplicated clients with 8,891.75 3,894.75 hours and in 2010 had served 446-107 clients for 3,253 hours. Bill O'Meara, Community Action Partnership for Suburban Hennepin ( CAPSH), reported the services CAPSH had provided to Edina residents in 2010. He stated CAPSH obtained clients through advertisement in local newspapers, the City's newsletter and referrals.from the Minnesota Housing Financing Agency. Mr. O'Meara stated he was involved in a teaching program for first time homebuyers. Janet Lindbo, West Hennepin Affordable Housing Land Trust (WHAHLT), reported the organization began in 2001, and currently served 11 communities. Ms. Lindo said WHAHLT had completed a sixth home in Edina. She explained most referrals were received from CAPSH and homeowners but WHAHLT had also used a networker with the support of Hennepin County, made presentations to agencies and organizations, and distributed flyers at local stores. Ms. Lindbo felt an allotment of $82,000 would be adequate considering the matching funds WHAHLT would bring to the project. She said matching funds were received from Hennepin County HRA as well as Federal, State, City, private parties, and churches outside of Edina. The Council suggested WHAHLT also approach the Edina Housing Foundation. Communications Director Bennerotte indicated that the City would advertise the May 23, 2011, fund raiser to be held at Centennial Lakes. Beth Kodluboy, HomeLine, described the tenant advocacy services provided in 2010 to 212 Edina families with 22 involving critical situations of eviction or foreclosure. She welcomed the opportunity to provide renter education at the high school, as requested by the Council. Ms. Kodluboy stated HomeLine was publishing a book in March that would provide education on tenant rights. She advised that one -third of their clients were referred from the Attorney General's office with additional sources of referrals from emergency programs in the community, the City, social workers, and HomeLine's website. Member Sprague made a motion, seconded by Member Swenson, to close the public hearing. Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. Member Swenson introduced and moved adoption of Resolution No. 2011 -35, approving proposed use of 2011 Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant program funds and authorizing execution of Subrecipient Agreement with Hennepin County and any third party agreements. Member Bennett seconded the motion. Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Page 2 40 Minutes /Edina City Council /February 15, 2011 Motion carried. * GOLF TERRACE STREET RECONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENT NO. BA -355, RESOLUTION NO. 2011 -13 — CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 18, 2011 TO MARCH 15, 2011 Motion made by Member Swenson and seconded by Member Brindle continuing Golf Terrace Street Reconstruction Improvement No. BA -255, Resolution No. 2011 -13, to March 15, 2011. Motion carried on rollcall vote — five ayes. RESOLUTION NO. 2011 -32 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 Brindle introduced and moved adoption of Resolution No. 2011 -32 accepting various donations. Member Bennett seconded the motion. Rollcall: Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. BOARD AND COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS APPROVED Mayor Hovland presented a slate of highly - qualified nominations for appointment. Mayor Hovland made a motion, seconded by Member Swenson, confirming appointments as follows: Art Center Board -Dana Lappin (2/1/2012); Board of Appeals & Equalization -Jeff Johnson (2/1/2012); Edina Community Health Committee -Julie Mellum (2/1/2012) and Mary Ellen LaVelle (2/1/2012); Heritage Preservation Board -David Anger (2/1/2013), Jean Rehkamp Larsen (2/1/2012), and Robert Schwartzbauer (2/1/2012); Human Rights & Relations CommissionStevep Stephen Winnick (2/1/2013); Park Board -David Deeds (2/1/2014) and William Lough (2/1/2012); and Edina Transportation Commission - Nathan Franzen (2/1/2013) and Ann Braden (2/1/2014). The Council discussed the success of its extensive interview process and appreciation for the overwhelming interest by talented residents to serve Edina. Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. *RESOLUTION NO. 2011 -33 ADOPTED — AUTHORIZING A METROPOLITAN LIVABLE COMMUNITIES ACT GRANT AGREEMENT — REHABILITATION OF YORKDALE TOWNHOMES Motion made by Member Swenson and seconded by Member Brindle to adopt Resolution No. 2011 -33, authorizing execution of Metropolitan Livable Community Act Grant Agreement. Motion carried on rollcall vote —five ayes. TRAFFIC SAFETY REPORT OF FEBRUARY 2, 2011 ACCEPTED AS REVISED The Council noted that staff would approach Our Lady of Grace School to determine options to assure Eden Avenue was not impacted. Member Swenson made a motion, seconded by Member Bennett, accepting the February 2, 2011, Traffic Safety Report with the exception of the request related to Our Lady of Grace School. Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. *RESOLUTION NO. 2011 -34 ADOPTED — REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM STANDARDS FOR STATE AID OPERATIONS FOR WEST 44TH STREET Motion made by Member Swenson and seconded by Member Brindle to adopt Resolution No. 2011 -34, requesting variance from standards for State Aid Operations, for West 44th Street, from Brookside Terrace to France Avenue. Motion carried on rollcall vote — five ayes. *RESOLUTION NO. 2011 -31 ADOPTED — AUTHORIZING FIRE DEPARTMENT ASSISTANCE TO FIREFIGHTERS GRANT FROM FEMA Motion made by Member Swenson and seconded by Member Brindle to adopt Resolution No. 2011 -31, authorizing acceptance of Federal Emergency Management Grant Number Page 3 Minutes /Edina City Council /February 15, 2011 EMW- 2010 -FO -05073 in the amount of $46,800.00 for the acquisition of Hydraulic Rescue Tool (Jaws Of Life Tool) for the Edina Fire Department. Motion carried on rollcall vote — five ayes. *RESOLUTION NO. 2011 -30 ADOPTED — AUTHORIZING FIRE DEPARTMENT GRANT MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, DIVISION OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT Motion made by Member Swenson and seconded by Member Brindle to adopt Resolution No. 2011 -30, authorizing acceptance of Grant Award Number 2010 -SHSP 00742 in the amount of $76,425.00 from the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management. The monies will be used for the Fire Department Special Operations Teaming, Planning, Training, Equipment and Exercises. Motion carried on rollcall vote —five ayes. COMMUNITY COMMENT Susan Kovnick, 4715 Golf Terrace, expressed her concern with the proposed street reconstruction and potential impacts to the quality of Lake Harvey, safety of the road around Lake Harvey, and aesthetics of this premier neighborhood. Gene Persha, 6917 Cornelia Drive, recommended steps to name civic locations based on public testimony. *CONFIRMATION OF CLAIMS PAID Motion made by Member Swenson and seconded by Member Brindle approving payment of the following claims as shown in detail on the Check Register dated February 3, 2011, and consisting of 27 pages: General Fund $401,362.96; Communications Fund $2,654.73; Police Special Revenue $1,086.41; Working Capital Fund $46,790.01; Equipment Replacement Fund $3,133.39; Construction Fund $15,149.40; Art Center Fund $17,773.77; Golf Dome Fund $4,156.34; Aquatic Center Fund $540.19; Golf Course Fund $26,223.70; Ice Arena Fund $4,954.69; Edinborough /Centennial Lakes Fund $14,488.76; Liquor Fund $131,366.18; Utility Fund $46,712.72; Storm Sewer Fund $31,095.19; PSTF Agency Fund $4,189.54; Payroll Fund $5,064.26; TOTAL 5756.742.24 and for approval of payment of claims dated February 10, 2011, and consisting of 29 pages: General Fund $278,865.45; Communications Fund $5,290.58; Police Special Revenue $5,224.80; Working Capital Fund $62,939.45; Equipment Replacement Fund $32,289.08; Art Center Fund $2,474.49; Golf Dome Fund $5,978.42; Aquatic Center Fund $1,115.40; Golf Course Fund $6,738.62; Ice Arena Fund $26,701.21; Edinborough /Centennial Lakes Fund $29,421.52; Liquor Fund $221,686.45; Utility Fund $407,206.92; Storm Sewer Fund $529.44; PSTF Agency Fund $4,019.85; TOTAL $1.090.481.68; and, Credit Card Transactions dated December 28, 2010 — January 25, 2011, 2011: TOTAL $6.024.32. Motion carried on rollcall vote — five ayes. There being no further business on the Council Agenda, Mayor Hovland declared the meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk Minutes approved by Edina City Council, March 1, 2011. James B. Hovland, Mayor Video Copy of the February 15, 2011, meeting available. Page 4 (- 0 <t,Z A _ REQUEST FOR PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $20,000 /CHANGE ORDER To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL Agenda Item No. II. A. From: John Keprios, Director Park and Recreation Department Date: March 1, 2011 Subject: 2011 Toro Reelmaster 5210 -D Fairway Mower — Braemar Golf Course Date Bid Opened or Quote Received: Bid or Quote Expiration Date: NA NA Company Amount of Quote or Bid MTI Distributing 1. $40,199.25 State Contract # 444454, (account #5400.1740) RECOMMENDED QUOTE OR BID: MTI Distributing $40,199.25 GENERAL INFORMATION: This is for purchase and delivery of a 2011 Toro Reelmaster 5210 -D fairway mower for Braemar Golf Course. The price includes a $1,250.00 credit for trade in of a 1999 Jacobsen LF3400 fairway mower. The $40,199.25 also includes 6.875% sales tax and delivery. This fairway mower will be used to cut fairways at Braemar Golf Course's 36 holes of golf. The Golf Course owns four of these fairway mowers to maintain fairways at Braemar Golf Course and Fred Richards Golf Course. This fairway mower comes equipped with a 28 horse power diesel engine with eight cutting unit blades. This unit comes with a 2 year manufacturer's warranty. Purchase of this piece of equipment is .budgeted under the 2011 Equipment Replacement Fund, which is budgeted at $125,000 for this year's equipment purchases. Lj�--Q� John Wel5rios, Director This Recommended bid is X within budget Edina Park and Recreation Department Z not budget ohn Wallin, Finance Director c al, Ci er y i REQUEST FOR PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $20,000 /CHANGE ORDER To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL Agenda Item No. II. B. From: John Keprios, Director Park and Recreation Department Date: March 1, 2011 Subject: 2011 Toro Greensmaster 3150 -Q Greens Mower — Braemar Golf Course Date Bid Opened or Quote Received: Bid or Quote Expiration Date: NA NA Company Amount of Quote or Bid MTI Distributing 1. $22,886.72 State Contract # 444454 (account #5400.1740) RECOMMENDED QUOTE OR BID: MTI Distributing $22,886.72 GENERAL INFORMATION: This is for purchase and delivery of a 2011 Toro Greensmaster 3150 -Q eight -blade greens mower with tee reels for Braemar Golf Course. The price includes a $4,500.00 credit for trade in of a 2003 Toro eight -blade model GR3150 tee mower. The $22,886.72 purchase price also includes 6.875% sales tax and delivery. This greens mower with tee reels will be used to mow the tees and short grass around the greens at Braemar Golf Course's 36 holes of golf. The Golf Course owns five of these greens mowers to mow the tees and short grass around the greens at Braemar Golf Course and Fred Richards Golf Course. This greens mower comes with a 2 year manufacturer's warranty. Purchase of this piece of equipment is budgeted under the 2011 Equipment Replacement Fund, which is budgeted at $125,000 for this year's equipment purchases. L)n� John Ke'llirios, Director This Recommended bid is within budget Edina Park and Recreation Department 6��J, aL_e___ u et hn Vallin , Finance Director Scott Near, i y nager O REQUEST FOR PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $20,000 /CHANGE ORDER To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL Agenda Item No. II. C. From: Wayne D. Houle, PE Director of Public Works / City Engineer Date: March 1, 2011 Subject: Traffic Signal Cabinets for West 70th Street Improvements: Improvement No. TS -44 Date Bid Opened or Quote Received: Bid or Quote Expiration Date: February 16, 2011 Aril 16, 2011 Company Amount of Quote or Bid 1. Traffic Control Corporation (Hennepin County Contract 1. $ 44,975.00 No. 2155R7) RECOMMENDED QUOTE OR BID: Traffic Control Corporation $ 44,975.00 GENERAL INFORMATION: This purchase is for the traffic signal cabinets for the West 70th Street Improvement Project. This project was awarded on September 21 to Northwest Asphalt, Inc. The contractor is still anticipating a spring construction start for this project. Due to the complexity of the traffic signal cabinets they are typically purchased through the State of Minnesota or Hennepin County purchasing program and were not included in the original bid for this project. This project is being funded by MSA funds, special assessments, and respective utility funds. Staff recommends awarding the purchase order to Traffic Control Corporation. Public Works Signature Department ly The Recommended Bid is within budget not within bud et John n, Finance Dire for Ne , ag G: \Engineering \Contract Numbers\2010 \ENG 10-3W. 70th St - TH 100 to France Ave \ADMIN \MISC \Item II'C Traffic Signal Cabinets for West 70th Street Improvements Improvement No. TS- 44.docx o�e� Cn y • r�OORroRw'�ti9 • lase AGENDA ITEM III. A. JOHN GRIFFITH, MnDOT 169/494 RECONSTRUCTION UPDATE M 'No packet data IOral presentation ❑ Information, coming A, 31r� Ow e • f�� $O188B 9 1888 AGENDA ITEM III. B. DAVE CHRISTIANSON. MnDOT FREIGHT RAIL PRESENTATION ❑ No packet data Oral presentation [-1 Information coming r._3 I live in Edina and recently viewed the presentation made by Dave Christianson, Minnesota Department of Transportation (DoT) to the Edina Transportation Commission on the 20 January. I am a proponent of light rail along the MN&S tracks (also called Dan Patch) that run from Saint Louis Park to Savage through Edina. I understand that Christianson will be making a second presentation on 1 March, focusing on the DoT's 2030 plan for interurban rail. In view of the conflict between light rail and interurban rail on the use of the MN &S tracks, I suggest that the following comments be considered when evaluating the information he will be providing: The Stadler GTW train pictured is a gauge - compatible light rail option (now used in Austin, Texas, and other places) that could run on the existing MN &S tracks. The MN &S right of way is 60 feet or more in width. • The existing MN &S 60 -foot right of way width (as indicated in the sketch below) will provide enough 105 width for freight and light rail, along the same tracks, and a recreational trail. • The right of way is wider than 60 feet in places, permitting the inclusion of occasional parallel tracks that would allow the simultaneous operation of more than one light rail train moving in opposite directions. • The Federal Railroad Administration requires temporal separation of freight and light rail operations. Freight could run along the same tracks as light rail without interference if scheduled at night (when light rail is not operating). • Because light rail will run slowly, the MN &S tracks and the Savage bridge will need less investment for upgrades than for an interurban system. • The slower, shorter trains for light rail will be much less hazardous than the fast, heavy freight and interurban trains envisioned by the MN DOT's 2030 plan. • A recreational trail alongside the tracks (and across the Minnesota River), as shown, becomes viable. • Commuter rail (heavy, fast trains for workers, with stops every five miles or so) is precluded by Minnesota legislation, but interurban and light rail are permitted. • The DoT's 2030 plan includes two routes between Minneapolis and Makato. The unnecessary and costly route that includes the MN &S tracks provides convenience to interurban commuters and savings for freight operations at the cost of safety and convenience to residents of Edina. David Davison (dd01(d),annben.us) Freight &. Light Rail Right i of Way j __ ____- 50 feet Bike Right of Way f 214 20 feet 60 feet ANA, o e �y • IN�RP0 PA�4'O� 1888 AGENDA ITEM- III. C. MELISSA MADISON 494 COMMUTER - SERVICES COMMUTER SERVICES ACTIVITIES PRESENTATION Z No packet data Z Oral presentation [_-] Information coming n o Le \&N REPORT/RECOMMENDATION To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL Agenda Item Item No. III.D. From: Cary Teague Planning Director Action Discussion Information Date: March 1, 2011 Subject: Kevin Staunton — GrandView Small Area Plan Proposed Process. ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of the process proposed for the GrandView Small Area Plan. INFORMATION /BACKGROUND: At your December 10, 2010, we presented you with the GrandView District Small Area Guide Plan Process Report. The Report concluded with four recommendations which the Council unanimously approved. By approving the recommendations, the Council adopted the seven Guiding Principles included in the Report as "the foundation for development of a small area plan for the GrandView District." It also directed that the Small Area Plan for the District "be led by a community -based advisory team that includes members of the current CAT and Design Team, chosen through an open process similar to that used to form the initial Community Advisory Team." At the December 21 meeting, we also announced that the City had been awarded a Livable Communities Grant by the Metropolitan Council to help fund the creation of a Small Area Plan for the GrandView District. We told you that we would create a proposed process for developing the Small Area Plan and return to seek your approval of that process. Since that time, we have worked to develop the proposed process. The work included a review of small area plans created in other communities, a review of the Met Council Grant Agreement, and a meeting with members of the Guide Process Community Advisory and Design Teams. The purpose of this memo is to provide you with an overview of the s - process we are proposing and seek your approyal,to start work on it in April of this year. The Proposed Process The goal of the Small Area Plan process is to create a plan that provides City officials, residents, business and property owners, and developers a road map for redevelopment of the Grandview District. In accomplishing that goal, we think it's important to: 1. Create a process that is community -led and incorporates the perspectives of all stakeholders. 2. Ensure that the Plan we produce is consistent with the 7 Guiding Principles created in the Guide Process. 3. Be responsible stewards of the public resources supporting the process. To that end, we have built a process around the following concepts: Organize First, Engage Consultants Later. We are fortunate to have the resources to engage consultants to assist in development of the Small Area Plan. Some might choose to engage a single consultant to lead us through the process. We think engaging local stakeholders — residents, city officials, and business and property owners — before engaging consultants will ensure that the process is community -led and enhance the chances of producing a Plan consistent with the Guiding Principles. It will also give us the ability to target resources on tasks where consultants bring the greatest value. Strike the Proper Balance between Deliberation and Completion. We recognize that producing a quality Plan will take some time. At the same time, we are mindful that allowing too much time to pass without charting a course will erode the success of any Plan we eventually create. Accordingly, we are proposing a one year process with a draft of the development framework ready for broader public discussion after just six months. Ensure Participation and Productivity. We want to engage as many local stakeholders in this process as possible. Such participation is the key to having a community -led process and essential to ensuring success of the Plan we eventually create. At the same time, we recognize that too large a group will make it difficult to produce a Plan. Our process proposes two levels of participation to meet both concerns. As we did in the Guide Process, we intend for the participants to be self - selected. A set of work groups focusing on important areas of inquiry will allow as many people as are interested to participate. Those work groups will then select representatives to a steering committee that can focus on coordinating the work from each of the groups and "steer" the process to a conclusion. Attached is a schedule outlining the proposed process. It breaks the process into the following 4 three -month stages: 1. Organizing and Framing the Work Plan (April — June). 2. Retaining Consultants and Drafting a Development Framework and Implementation Plan (July- September). 3. Public Reaction and Refinement (October- December). 4. Drafting of the Final Plan (January- March). We will be attending your meeting on Tuesday, March 1 to make a brief presentation and answer any questions. Requested Action We ask that the Council authorize us to proceed with the proposed process. Community -based planning process for a Small Area Plan 17 April 2011 Schedule Stage One Stage Two . _ _. Stage Three Stage Four __. _ ._ .......... _....._ Apr May Jun I Jul I Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec I Jan Feb Mar Activity Description 1 "Kick -off' meeting Review Small Area Guide process and principles; introduce process for Small Area Plan; solicit participants; identify areas of commissions review inquiry; form work groups focused on areas of inquiry 2 .... ........ _ .... ._ Programming ...._....._ _ .._..._ _ .......... _ .... - - .......- -- - ................ Populate work groups; develop preliminary inquiries and principles related to each work group topic; select steering presentation committee made up of representatives from each work group 3 Steering committee _.,_.._ .......... _........_ ... ........................................................................... ._..... ......... .................._. ....... _....._......... Refine work group principles and inquiries; ensure consistency with guiding principles; develop framework for consultant refinement requests for proposals 4 City Council check -in ............... ............................... _ _....._............ ..._....__ Update City Council on progress related to preliminary inquiries and principles; review requests for proposal related to each City Council work group focus and obtain approval for requests for proposal; develop and issue requests for proposals 5 RFP review ................ .._....... _ ........................... _._._- ......... _ Review of responses to request for proposals 6 . . _ .. _ .................. _ __ Consultant ..........................._ ........... ................... _ ........ _ ................................... __ ... --- ........ -- Forward steering committee recommendations for consultants to City Council; Council authorizes engagement of refinement selections ........ consultants 7 ....... ......... _.. I Direction to ........ g .................. ......... ...................................... principles inquiries p ......... P Provide guidance to consultants based on results of the Small Area Guide and rinci les and in uiries develo ed as a art of to City Council consultants the Small Area Plan; review work plans of consultants and highlight key points of coordination ........ 8 ................... Development of . . .............. ............................... .. .... _....... Conduct investigations and research; pose initial directions for each focus; conduct consultant workshop to coordinate draft development findings and directions; prepare draft overall development concept; draft development framework related to each focus framework 9 ... .__._ Review and _ .... ......... . . ....... Convert draft overall development concept and development framework to preliminary development framework refinement of draft development framework 10 Community meeting ............................... .............. _ ......... ................................... Present draft development framework to the public; solicit public comment 11 Boards and ..................... - ..................... ......... ........._ _.. Present draft development framework to City boards and commissions and to the Edina School Board; solicit input; convene commissions review steering committee to define necessary refinements; convey necessary modifications to consultants 12 ....... ....... City Council - -... ... ..... ....... ......... ......... -- .. ............................. ._.__.._....__..._ ....... _ ... ......... .. .._...... - - ... - ... _ ..... Present draft to the City Council; solicit input presentation 13 Refinement Incorporate input from the public, boards and commissions, School District, and City Council; revise development I framework .............._..._..- - ..............__. —, 14 ! Presentation to the _ Obtain permission to proceed to draft final report City Council 15 Report assembly Draft final report by staff (and consultants, as necessary) 16 ........................................... 'Review and .............................. . ........................... ............ ................................ _ ..... _ ............................................................... ........... ......_.............. .......................................... Review final report by steering committee and edit as necessary refinement 17 _...._ Present final report .._ .... _ ..... _ .......... ___ .. _ .._ ... . ............................................... _ .......................... .--.. ............... .__..__.....--- ._ .............. _ .................................................................. _........ Present final report to City Council with the goal of gaining approval to City Council Involvement SC WG C P Public attendance will be encouraged at all meetings and events, with time established on the agenda by the CAT for public comment at the end of each meeting's agenda. ...._.... ............ _ .... __ .... .............................................. _........ _ .................. . ..... ow e W O \ °R °vim/ ,aaa REPORURECOIV MENDA A ION To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL Agenda Item Item No: III.E. From: Jennifer Bennerotte Communications & Marketing Director M Action F-1 Discussion Information Date: March 1, 2011 Subject: Parking Permits for All Employees of Edina Businesses at 50th & France ACTION REQUESTED: To help alleviate parking concerns in the area, the 50th & France Business & Professional Association would like the City to require both full- and part -time employees of Edina businesses who drive to work hold parking permits and park exclusively in the designated "permit only" areas of the municipal ramps. INFORMATION /BACKGROUND: An estimated 1,563 employees work in the 50th & France area. Of those, an estimated 1,203 are employed by Edina businesses. Parking in the area includes: Three (3) Edina municipal parking ramps -- 1,002 spaces Edina 5 -0 Mall surface lot — 25 spaces Ewing surface lot (Minneapolis) — 83 spaces Vehicles can park in the ramps for a maximum of five hours. However, employees working on the Edina side of the commercial area may purchase parking permits to park in designated areas for more than five hours. Approximately 200 Edina full -time employees buy parking permits from the City. If part -time employees work less than five hours, they do not need to buy a parking pass or even park in areas intended for employee parking: Association staff and Board members have observed employees parking in all sections of the ramps, not necessarily in the permit -only areas, taking premium spots away from patrons of the shops and restaurants in the area. Association staff recommends that all employees of Edina businesses at 50th & France be required to purchase parking passes, regardless of full- or part -time employment status. This would allow the Police Department to more easily provide enforcement to those who violate the parking requirements in the three ramps. Association staff recommends part -time employees be charged half the price for a permit, $2.50 per month instead of $5 per month. However, City staff believes that tracking employment status of permit applicants would be cumbersome and recommends the permit remain at $5 per month, regardless of the number of hours a permit holder works in the area. 50th & France Business & Professional Association Executive Director Rachel Hubbard and Board of Directors President Diana Fleetham will be present at the meeting to answer questions. %a w91A,1� 04 e V • f��URPOPf`�b� • 1888 REPORT /RECOMMENDATION To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL Agenda Item Item No. III.F. From: Debra Mangen City Clerk ® Action ❑ Discussion ❑ Information Date: March 1, 2011 Subject: On -Sale Intoxicating, Club On -Sale, and Sunday Sale Liquor License Renewals ACTION REQUESTED: Council approval of Club On -Sale and Sunday Liquor License renewals for: On -Sale Intoxicatine & Sundav Sale Big Bowl California Pizza Kitchen Crave Restaurant Eden Avenue Grill Edina Grill Restaurant Lake Shore Grill Mozza Mia P.F. Chang's Bistro Pinstripes, Inc. Raku Inc. Romano's Macaroni Grill Ruby Tuesday Salut Bar Americain The Cheesecake Factory Westin Edina Galleria Club & Sunday Sale Edina Country Club Interlachen Country Club INFORMATION /BACKGROUND: . Applications for renewal of On -Sale Intoxicating, Club On -sale and Sunday On -Sale Liquor Licenses for the above listed establishments have been reviewed by the Edina Police Department and renewals are recommended per the attached memo. Cocina del Barrio, McCormick & Schmick's Seafood Restaurant and Tavern on France have not yet submitted their renewal paperwork. They have been advised of the possibility of a license interruption due to the lateness of their renewal applications. All other applicants have submitted all required paperwork in accordance with the City's liquor ordinance and State Statutes, and have paid their license fees. Once Council approves the licenses, staff will forward them to the Minnesota Liquor Control. Attachment: Sgt. Draper's Memo Memo To: Chief of Police Jeff Long Prom: Tom Draper Date: February 23, 2011 Re: Liquor License Renewals Background checks have been completed for the 2011 -2012 licensing period for the following liquor licenses: On -sale Intoxicating and Sunday, Club on Sale and Sunday Sale, Wine and 3.2 Beer, 3.2 Beer On- Sale and 3.2 Beer Off -Sale The following restaurants and country clubs comply with City Code. An unqualified recommendation for approval of these renewal applications is warranted. On -Sale Intoxicating and Sunday Sale Big Bowl California Pizza Kitchen Crave Restaurant Eden Avenue Grill Edina Grill Restaurant Lake Shore Grill Mozza Mia P.F. Chang's China Bistro Pinstripes Raku Inc Romano's Macaroni Grill Ruby Tuesday Salut Bar Americain The Cheesecake Factory Westin Edina Galleria • Page 1 Wine and 3.2 Beer On -Sale Beaujo's Chipotle Mexican Grill Cooks of Crocus Hill D'Amico & Sons Good Earth Restaurant Marriott Residence Inn Noodles & Company Peoples Organic CoffeeNVine Galleria Cafe Rice Paper Asian Restaurant T J's Family Restaurant Beer 3.2 On -Sale Davanni's Pizza /Hoagie Chuck E. Cheese's Beer 3.2 Off -Sale Cub Foods DB Convenience LLC (Edina Market & Deli) Holiday Station store #217 Jerry's Foods Club On-Sale and Sundav Sale Edina Country Club Interlachen Country Club • Page 2 cq owe w CO 0 IBRFpB REPORT /RECOMMENDATION To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL Agenda Item Item No. III.G. From: Debra Mangen City Clerk ® Action ❑ Discussion ❑ Information Date: March 1, 2011 Subject: Wine License Renewals ACTION REQUESTED: Council approval of On -Sale Wine and On -Sale 3.2 Beer License renewals for the following restaurants: Beaujo's Marriott Residence Inn Chipotle Mexican Grill Noodles & Company Cooks of Crocus Hill People's Organic Coffee /Wine Galleria Cafe D'Amico & Sons Rice Paper Asian Fusion Restaurant Good Earth Restaurant Vs of Edina INFORMATION /BACKGROUND: The City received applications for On -Sale Wine and 3.2 On -Sale Beer Liquor Licenses from the above listed establishments. Approval of both the above mentioned licenses allows these establishments to also sell strong beer in their restaurants. Attached please find a memo reporting the results of the Police Department's investigation and review. The above applicants submitted their renewal documentation pursuant to Edina's Code and State Statute, and paid their license fees. Our renewal date is April 1, 2011. Once Council approves the licenses, staff will forward them to the Minnesota Liquor Control for state approval ATTACHMENT: Sgt. Draper's Memo Edina Police Department Me 0 To: Chief of Police Jeff Long From: Tom Draper Date: February 23, 2011 Re: Liquor License Renewals Background checks have been completed for the 2011 -2012 licensing period for the following liquor licenses: On -sale Intoxicating and Sunday, Club on Sale and Sunday Sale, Wine and 3.2 Beer, 3.2 Beer On- Sale and 3.2 Beer Off -Sale The following restaurants and country clubs comply with City Code. An unqualified recommendation for approval of these renewal applications is warranted. On -Sale Intoxicatinq and Sunday Sale Big Bowl California Pizza Kitchen Crave Restaurant Eden Avenue Grill Edina'Grill'Restaurant LakeShore Grill Monza Mia P.F. Chang's.China Bistro Pinstripes Raku `Inc Romano's Macaroni Grill Ruby Tuesday Salut Bar Americain The Cheesecake Factory ' Westin Edina Galleria a Page 1 Wine and 3.2 Beer On -Sale Beaujo's Chipotle Mexican Grill Cooks of Crocus Hill D'Amico & Sons Good Earth Restaurant Marriott Residence Inn Noodles & Company Peoples Organic Coffee/Wine Galleria Cafe Rice Paper Asian Restaurant T J's Family Restaurant Beer 3.2 On -Sale Davanni's Pizza/Hoagie Chuck E. Cheese's Beer 3.2 Off -Sale Cub Foods DB Convenience LLC (Edina Market & Deli) Holiday Station store #217 Jerry's Foods Club On -Sale and Sundav Sale Edina Country Club Interlachen Country Club • Page 2 .41 I �1�11 Maus REPORT /RECOMMENDATION To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL Agenda Item Item No. Ill. H. From: Debra Mangen City Clerk ® Action ❑ Discussion ❑ Information Date: March 1, 2011 Subject: Beer License Renewals ACTION REQUESTED: Council approve the issuance of 3.2 Beer licenses as listed below: INFORMATION/BACKGROUND: City Code Section 900 requires the City Council approve beer licenses before issuance. The following applicants have submitted the necessary documentation for renewal, paid the applicable fees, and been approved by the Police Department. One On -Sale Licensee, Dino's decided not to renew and one off -sale licensee SuperAmerica will not be licensed at this time because they have not yet completed their change of ownership paperwork or submitted their renewal application. Our renewal date is April 1, 2011. Once Council approves the licenses, staff will forward them to the Minnesota Liquor Control for state approval. Staff submits these licenses for Council consideration: On -Sale 3.2 Licenses: Chuck E. Cheese's Davanni's Pizza /Hoagies ATTACHMENT: Sgt. Draper's Memo Off -Sale 3.2 Licenses: Cub Foods DB Convenience LLC (Edina Market & Deli) Holiday Stationstore #217 Jerry's Foods Me . mo To: Chief of Police Jeff Long From: Tom Draper Date:, February 23, 2011 „ Re: Liquor License Renewals Background checks have been completed for the 2011 -2012 licensing'-period for the following liquor licenses: On -sale Intoxicating and Sunday, Club on Sale and Sunday Sale, Wine and 3.2 Beer, 3.2 Beer On- Sale and 3.2 Beer Off -Sale The following restaurants and country clubs comply with City Code. An unqualified recommendation for approval of these renewal applications is warranted. On- Sale .lntoxicating and Sunday Sale Big Bowl California Pizza Kitchen Crave Restaurant Eden Avenue Grill Edina Grill Restaurant Lake Shore Grill Mozza Mia P.F. Chang's China Bistro Pinstripes 'y° Raku'lnc Romano's Macaroni Grill Ruby Tuesday Saluf Bar Americain The Cheesecake Factory Westin Edina Galleria 0 Page 1 Wine and 3.2 Beer On -Sale Beaujo's Chipotle Mexican Grill Cooks of Crocus Hill D'Amico & Sons Good Earth Restaurant Marriott Residence Inn Noodles & Company Peoples Organic CoffeeNVine Galleria Cafe Rice Paper Asian Restaurant T J's Family Restaurant Beer 3.2 On-Sale Davanni's Pizza /Hoagie Chuck E. Cheese's Beer 3.2 Off-Sale Cub Foods DB Convenience LLC (Edina Market & Deli) Holiday Station store #217 Jerry's Foods Club On-Sale and Sunday Sale Edina Country Club Interlachen Country Club • Page 2 riA, o ew En v �y •,��OReF(o78 K • REPORT /RECOMMENDATION To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL Agenda Item Item No. III. I. From: Debra Mangen City Clerk ® Action ❑ Discussion ❑ Information Date: March 1, 2011 Subject: Resolution No. 2011 -36 Accepting Various Donations ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt Resolution. INFORMATION /BACKGROUND: In order to comply with State Statutes, all donations to the City must be adopted by a resolution approved by four favorable votes of the Council accepting the donation. I have prepared the attached resolution detailing the various donors, their gifts and the recipient departments for your consideration. ATTACHMENT: Resolution No. 2011 -36 RESOLUTION NO. 2011 -36 ACCEPTING DONATIONS ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF EDINA 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 Art Center Sharon Robichon HP Inkjet Printer Michael F. Kelly $100.00 John P. O'Leary $50.00 Polly Norman $50.00 Joanie M. Davis $50.00 City of Edina: Mount Olivet Rolling Acres $300.00 In Lieu Of Taxes For City Services Dated: March 1, 2011 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 March 1, 2011, 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 www.CityofEdina.com City Clerk 952 - 927 -8861 FAX 952 - 826 -0390 TTY 952 - 826 -0379 is 1NA, o t Le� N�t� �y 1 8B / REPORT /RECOMMEN DATION To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL Agenda Item Item No. III.J. From: Cary Teague Planning Director ® Action ❑ Discussion ❑ Information Date: March 1, 2011 Subject: Set Hearing Date (3/15/2011): Ordinance No. 2011 -03 Amending Section 850.04 Regarding Notice of Hearing for Conditional Use Permits. ACTION REQUESTED: Set hearing date for March 15, 2011. INFORMATION/BACKGROUND: The City Council is asked to set a public hearing date to consider an Ordinance Amendment that reduces the notification distance requirement for Conditional Use Permits requested for first floor elevations that exceed existing structures by more than one foot in the R -1 and R -2 Zoning Districts. ATTACHMENTS: See attached: Draft Ordinances and Planning Commission staff report. MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Cary Teague, Planning Director RE: Notification Requirements for a CUP — February 23, 2011 The City Council has directed staff to draft an ordinance that reduces notification distance requirements, for Conditional Use Permits required for first floor elevations that exceed existing structures by more than 1 foot in the R -1 and R -2 zoning districts. The notification reduction would be from 1,000 feet to 350 feet. Attached is a draft of the ordinance amendment. The Planning Commission is asked to review and comment on the proposed Ordinance. ORDINANCE NO. 2011-03 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE CONCERNING NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS The City Of Edina Ordains: Section 1. Subsection 850.04. Subd. 5.D and E is amended to read: Subd. 5 Conditional Use Permits. D. Commission Review and Hearing. The Commission shall conduct a public hearing regarding the application. A notice of the date, time, place and purpose of the hearing shall be published in the official newspaper of the City at least ten (10) days prior to the date of the hearing. A similar notice of hearing shall be mailed at least ten (10) days before the date of the hearing to each owner of property situated wholly or partly within one thousand (1,000) feet of the tract to which the petition relates insofar as the names and addresses of such owners can reasonably be determined by the Clerk from records maintained by the Assessor or from other appropriate records. Notification distance shall be three hundred and fifty (350) feet for Conditional Use Permits required under Section 850.11. Subd. 2.1. and Section 850.12. Subd. 3.A. After reviewing the report of the Planner and hearing the oral or written views of all interested persons, the Commission shall make its decision at the same meeting or at a specified future date and send its recommendation to the Council. No new notice need be given for hearings that are continued by the Commission to a specified future date. E. City Council Hearing and Decision. Upon request of the Planner, Manager or applicant, and after review and recommendation by the Commission, the Council shall conduct a public hearing regarding the application. A notice of the date, time, place and purpose of the hearing shall be published in the official newspaper of the City at least ten (10) days prior to the date of the hearing. A similar notice of hearing shall be mailed at least ten (10) days before the date of the hearing to each owner of property situated wholly or partly within one thousand (1,000) feet of the tract to which the application relates insofar as the names and addresses of such owners can reasonably be determined by the Clerk from records maintained by the Assessor. Notification distance shall be three hundred .. and fifty (350) feet for Conditional Use Permits required under Section 850.11. Subd. 2.1. and Section 850.12. Subd. 3.A.After hearing the oral and written views of all interested persons, the Council shall make its decision at the same meeting or at a specified future date. No new notice need be given for hearings that are continued to a specified future date. The Council shall not grant a conditional use permit unless it finds that the establishment, maintenance and operation of the use: 1. Does not have an undue adverse impact on governmental facilities, utilities, services or existing or proposed improvements; 2. Will generate traffic within the capacity of the streets serving the property; 3. Does not have an undue adverse impact on the public health, safety or welfare; 4. Will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of other property in the vicinity; 5. Conforms to the applicable restrictions and special conditions of the district in which it is located as imposed by this Section; and 6. Is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Approval of a conditional use permit requires a three -fifths favorable vote of all members of the Council. A favorable vote by the Council shall be deemed to include a favorable finding on each of the foregoing matters even if not specifically set out in the approval resolution or the minutes of the Council meeting. Section 2. This ordinance is effective immediately upon its passage and publication. First Reading: Second Reading: Published: 2 ATTEST: Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk James B. Hovland, Mayor Please publish in the Edina Sun Current on: Send two affidavits of publication. Bill to Edina City Clerk 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 , 2011, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this day of 2011. City Clerk 3 . 416 e (J) 0 ieoe // REPORT /RECOMMENDATION To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL Agenda Item Item No. III. K. From: James Hovland Mayor ® Action ❑ Discussion ❑ Information Date: March 1, 2011 Subject: Appointment to Energy & Environment Commission ACTION REQUESTED: Endorse Mayor's recommendations for appointment as follows: Energy & Environment Commission — Keith Kostuch —term ending 2/1/2013 INFORMATION /BACKGROUND: An appointment was missed in the recent action taken by the City Council. Keith Kostuch's appointment to the Energy and Environment Commission was missed after the recent ordinance amendment stopped the dual membership to the Commission from Planning Commission. He should be appointed to the Commission for a term ending February 1, 2013. A oy Le 0 REPORT /RECOMMENDATION To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL Agenda Item Item No. III. L. From: Debra Mangen City Clerk ❑ Action ® Discussion ❑ Information Date: March 1, 2011 Subject: US Conference of Mayors Civility Accord ACTION REQUESTED: Discuss possible Edina's involvement in the US Conference of Mayor's Civility Accord INFORMATION /BACKGROUND: Member Swenson asked that this item be placed on the Council's agenda for discussion. THE UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF MAYORS CIVILITY ACCORD January 19 -21, 2011 On the morning of January 8, 2011; gunshots fired in one of our nation's great cities reverberated through, all of America:. A federal judge and a nine- year -old girl were among the r.;. six people killed that day in Tucson, and Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords; the target of the shooting rampage;:was among the 14 more who were wounded. The pain inflicted on them, their families, and the entire Tucson community is shared by people across our nation. Regardless of what the motives behind the tragedy in Tucson might have been, it occurred in an atmosphere inwhich public discourse is often confrontational and lacking in civility. We should use "this event as a point of departure, to recommit ourselves to building a more civil society in which each person is respected and public and political discourse are aimed at the betterment of our nation and its people and not the destruction of those with whom we disagree. , As President Barack Obama said in the January 12 memorial service, "only a more civil and honest public discourse can help us face up to our challenges as a nation." We believe that because mayors are the elected leaders closest to the people, restoration of civility must begin with us. We are in a unique position to have a positive impact on behavior - individual and collective- and to lead by example: While the tragedy in Tucson is the impetus for this Accord, it represents a commitment that must live on in every mayor in our nation from this day forward. 1. Through The U.S. Conference of Mayors, we, the mayors of America's cities, in order to restore civility to our,communities and through them to our nation, pledge our commitment to the following principles for civility: • Respect the right of all Americans to hold different opinions; • Avoid rhetoric intended to humiliate, de- legitimatize, or question the patriotism of those whose opinions are different from ours; • Strive to "understand differing perspectives; • Choose words carefully; • Speak truthfully without accusation, and avoid distortion; • Speak out against violence, prejudice, and incivility in all of their forms, whenever and wherever they occur. We further pledge to exhibit and encourage the kinds of personal qualities that are emblematic of a civil society: gratitude, humility, openness, passion for service to others, propriety, kindness, caring, faith, sense of duty, and a commitment to doing what is right. The immediate need is to help our citizens through this difficult period. Our long term responsibility is to work with them to build that civil society. Elizabeth B. Kautz Burnsville MN Antonio R. Villaraisgosa Los Angeles CA Michael A. Nutter Philadelphia PA Robert E. Walkup Tucson AZ Tom Cochran CEO and Executive Director Lioneld Jordan Fayetteville AR Jason T. Baker Campbell CA Ashley Swearengin Fresno CA Richard Montgomery Manhattan Beach CA Jill Techel Napa CA David W. Smith Newark CA Jean Quan Oakland CA Jennifer Hosterman Pleasanton CA Michael A. Gin Redondo Beach CA Albert Boro San Rafael CA Miguel Pulido Santa Ana CA Helene Schneider Santa Barbara CA Melinda Hamilton Sunnyvale CA John Lazar Turlock CA Christopher Cabaldan West Sacramento CA Lionel Rivera Colorado Springs CO Guillermo Vidal Denver CO Bill Finch Bridgeport CT Kenneth A. Flatto Fairfield CT Pedro Segarra Hartford CT John DeStefano New Haven CT Richard Moccia Norwalk CT James M. Baker Wilmington DE Juan Carlos Bermudez Doral FL Craig Lowe Gainesville FL Joy Cooper Hallandale Beach FL Craig Cates Key West FL Rene Varela Lake Worth FL Michael Pizzi Miami Lakes FL Lori Moseley Miramar FL Andre Pierre North Miami FL Buddy Dyer Orlando FL Frank Ortis Pembroke Pines FL Michael J. Ryan Sunrise FL John Marks Tallahassee FL Beth Talabisco Tamarac FL Robert A.B. Reichert Macon GA William P. Kenoi Hilo HI Peter B. Carlisle Honolulu HI Bernard Carvalho, Jr. Kauai HI William E. Gluba Davenport IA T.M. Franklin Cownie Des Moines IA Roy Buol Dubuque IA Arlene Mulder Arlington Heights IL Richard M. Daley Chicago IL Elizabeth Tisdahl Evanston IL George Gaulrapp Freeport IL Rodney Craig Hanover Park IL William D. McLeod Hoffman Estates IL Irvana K. Wilks Mount Prospect IL Christopher Koos Normal IL John A. Spring Quincy IL Laurel Prussing Urbana IL James Brainard Carmel IN Dick Moore Elkhart IN Gregory Ballard Indianapolis IN Elaine Walker Bowling Green KY Greg Fischer Louisville KY M. Kip Holden Baton Rouge LA ..Ronald A. Grogan Patterson LA Michael Bissonnette Chicopee MA Scott Lang New Bedford MA Setti Warren Newton MA George Hartwell Grand Rapids MI Hilliard Hampton Inkster MI Brenda Lawrence Southfield MI RT Rybak Minneapolis MN Ardell F. Brede Rochester MN Francis G. Slay St. Louis MO Shelley Welsch University City MO Harvey Johnson, Jr. Jackson MS Mark Kleinschmidt Chapel Hill NC Scott Padgett Concord NC Jennifer Stultz Gastonia NC ' David A. Combs Rocky Mount NC Susan W. Klutz Salisbury NC Rita Sanders Bellevue NE Robert W. Bowser East Orange NJ. Antonia Ricigliano Edison NJ J. Christian Bollwage Elizabeth NJ John Bencivengo Hamilton NJ Timothy McDonough Hope NJ Brian C. Wahler Piscataway NJ Tony F. Mack Trenton NJ Samir Elbassiouny Washington NJ Kenneth Miyagishima Las Cruces NM Sandra Frankel Brighton NY Wayne Hall, Sr. Hempstead NY Paul A. Dyster Niagara Falls NY David R. Roefaro Utica NY Don Plusquellic Akron OH Mark Mallory Cincinnatti OH Gary Leitzell Dayton OH Donald Patterson Kettering OH Mick Cornett Oklahoma City OK Nathan Bates Stillwater OK Dewey F. Bartlett, Jr. Tulsa OK Shane Bemis Gresham OR Jack Hoffman Lake Oswego OR Lou Ogden Tualatin OR Ed Pawlowski Allentown PA Salvatore Panto, Jr. Easton PA Linda Thompson Harrisburg PA J. Richard Gray Lancaster PA Thomas McMahon Reading PA C. Kim Bracy York PA Edwin Garcia Feliciano Camuy PR Miguel Ortiz Sabana Grande PR Isidro Negron San German PR Angel Taveras Providence RI Scott Avedisian Warwick RI Joseph P. Riley, Jr. Charleston SC Steve Benjamin Columbia SC Joseph T. McElveen, Jr. Sumter SC Bobby Horton West Columbia SC Ron Littlefield Chatanooga TN Kim McMillan Clarksville TN Daniel Brown Knoxville TN Patricio Ahumada Brownsville TX Joe Adame Corpus Christi TX Mark Burroughs Denton TX Maher Maso Frisco TX Raoul G. Salinas Laredo TX Larry L. Melton Odessa TX Delores Prince Port Arthur TX James Thompson Sugar Land TX Ralph Becker Salt Lake City UT Daniel D. McArthur St. George UT Mike Winder West Valley UT Dave Norris Charlottesville VA David Bowers Roanoke VA Bob Kiss Burlington VT Pete Lewis Auburn WA John Marchione Redmond WA Michael McGinn Seattle WA Mary Verner Spokane WA Marilyn Strickland Tacoma WA Jim Schmitt Green Bay WI John Dickert Racine WI REPORT /RECOMMENDATION To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL Agenda Item Item No. III. M. From: Debra Mangen City Clerk ® Action ❑ Discussion ❑ Information Date: March 1, 2011 Subject: Temporary On -Sale 3.2 Beer License Our Lady of Grace Church ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a motion granting a temporary beer - license to Our Lady of Grace Church for their Lenten Fish Fry on March 18, 2011. INFORMATION /BACKGROUND: Our Lady of Grace Church has applied for a temporary beer license for a Lenten Fish Fry to be held Friday, March 18, 2011. Edina Code Section 900 allows non - profit organizations to obtain a temporary beer license to sell 3.2 beer on -sale for this type of event. Our Lady of Grace has filed the necessary application and insurance as well as paid their fee. They have held similar events in the past and obtained a temporary license each time. Their previous events were held without any incident. 2/1612011 7:31:10 Page- 1 Subledger Account Description Business Unit REPAIR PARTS = EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN CONTRACTED REPAIRS GOLF DOME PROGRAM PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL COST OF GOODS'SOLD MIX YORK SELLING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES EDINA CRIME FUND K9 DONATION GENERAL SUPPLIES PRINTING RECYCLING CHARGES NEW EQUIPMENT NEW EQUIPMENT NEW EQUIPMENT CITY COUNCIL EDINBOROUGH ADMINISTRATION RECYCLING COMMUNICATIONS' COMMUNICATIONS COMMUNICATIONS LAUNDRY 50TH ST OCCUPANCY LAUNDRY YORK OCCUPANCY LAUNDRY GRILL CITY OF EDINA R55CKREG LOG20000 Council Check Register 2117/2011 - 2/17/2011 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation .- _PO # Doc No Inv No Account No 344219 2117/2011 118536 A& 6 AUTO ELECTRIC INC' 128.25 MOTOR ,_ 00005736 256008 58576 1553.6530 128.25 - 344220 211712011 119152 A -1 VACUUM SOLUTIONS 572.58. REPLACEMENT VACUUM 00006222 255910 12586 5210.6180 572.58 1 344221 211712011 100715 ACCLAIMI BENEFITS 2,154.60 FSA & HRA ADMIN�RENEWAL FEE 255972 00192104Ni . 1550.6103 2,154.80 344222 211712011 102971 ACE ICE COMPANY - 26.00 256099 0725144 5842.5515 26.00 344223 211712011 105953 AFFILIATED EMERGENCY VET SERVI 285.05 K9 EXAM 255973 107879 4607.6103 285.05 344224 2117/2011 100621 ALBINSON 97.00 LAMINATE MAPS 255704 0509001 1100.6406 97.00 344225 , 2117/2011 - 102716 ALLEGRA EDINA . 293.41 BIRTHDAY PARTY CARDS 256009 85538 5621.6575 293.41 I, 344226 211712011 100058 ALLIED WASTE SERVICES,#894 38,820.60 RECYCLING 255911 2421995 5952.6183 38,820.60 344227 211712011 103357 ALPHA VIDEO & AUDIO INC. 673.32 AUDIO SYSTEM EQUIPMENT 00004221 255953 INV84099 2210.6711 1,453.50 SPEAKERS 00004221 255954 INVO4103 ;, 2210.6711 513.01 PA SUBWOOFER '00004221 255955 INV84117 2210.6711 2,639.83 344228 211712011 101115_ AMERIPRIDE SERVICES 50.25 255768 013111 5821.6201 55.09 255768 013111 5841.6201 55.85 255768 013111 5421.6201 2/1612011 7:31:10 Page- 1 Subledger Account Description Business Unit REPAIR PARTS = EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN CONTRACTED REPAIRS GOLF DOME PROGRAM PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL COST OF GOODS'SOLD MIX YORK SELLING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES EDINA CRIME FUND K9 DONATION GENERAL SUPPLIES PRINTING RECYCLING CHARGES NEW EQUIPMENT NEW EQUIPMENT NEW EQUIPMENT CITY COUNCIL EDINBOROUGH ADMINISTRATION RECYCLING COMMUNICATIONS' COMMUNICATIONS COMMUNICATIONS LAUNDRY 50TH ST OCCUPANCY LAUNDRY YORK OCCUPANCY LAUNDRY GRILL R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 2/16/2011 7:31:10 Council Check Register Page - 2 2/17/2011 - 2117/2011 Check # Date Amount Supplier/ Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 141.90 255768 013111 1470.6201 LAUNDRY FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 195.50 255768 013111 5861.6201 LAUNDRY VERNON OCCUPANCY 221.44 255768 013111 1551.6201 LAUNDRY CITY HALL GENERAL 327.30 255768 013111 1470.6201 LAUNDRY FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 1,047.33 344229 2117/2011 100665 AMSAN 24.24 CLEANER 00001150 255769 238013726 1646.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES BUILDING MAINTENANCE 61.74 DISINFECTANT 00001150 255770 238013718 1646.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES BUILDING MAINTENANCE 85.98 344230 2117/2011 102470 AON RISK SERVICES INC. OF MN 4,254.00 PREMIUM 255974 6100000125370 1550.6200 INSURANCE CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 4,254.00 344231 211712011 103680 ARAMARK REFRESHMENT SRVCS 95.99 COFFEE 256010 419018 5210.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD GOLF DOME PROGRAM 81.38 COFFEE 256011 419016 7411.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES PSTF OCCUPANCY 177.37 344232 211712011 114475 ARMOR SECURITY INC. 427.52 ANNUAL TEST AND INSPECTION 00001254 255771 149927 1646.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BUILDING MAINTENANCE 427.52 344233 211712011 102774 ASPEN WASTE SYSTEMS 202.51 WASTE DISPOSAL 256012 1- 146354 -2/11 7411.6182 RUBBISH REMOVAL PSTF OCCUPANCY 202.51 344234 211712011 117353 BASSFORD REMELE 438.25 LITIGATION FEES 256013 142106 1470.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 438.25 344235 211712011 102195 BATTERIES PLUS 32.29 BATTERIES 00001381 255772 018 - 225964 1646.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES BUILDING MAINTENANCE 263.94 BATTERIES 255975 018- 225425 1400.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 58.74 BATTERIES 256014 018- 226001 1400.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 354.97 344236 211712011 102449 BATTERY WHOLESALE INC. 473.56 BATTERIES 00005711 255705 6948 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 275.30 BATTERIES 00005710 255706 6994 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 40.00- CREDIT 00005715 255940 C15221 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 344239 2/1712011 344240 211712011 344241 211712011 344242 - 211712011 256102 84824000 117379 BENIEK PROPERTY SERVICES INC. CITY OF EDINA SNOW REMOVAL 2/16/2011 7:31:10 R55CKREG LOG20000 780.00 101191 BENNEROTTE, JENNIFER 119.67 SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT 255976 Council Check Register 119.67 Page - 3 100648 .BERTELSON OFFICE PRODUCTS 2117/2011 - 2117/2011 62.59 NOTES Check # Date Amount Supplier/ Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 255977 228.57 BATTERIES 00006373 255956 C14541 5422.6530 REPAIR PARTS MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS 937.43 127771 BIUNNO, LYNETTE 20.00 NOTARY. RENEWAL 344237 2/1712011 020411 100646 BECKER ARENA•PRODUCTS INC. 1,128.60 BENCHES 00002022. 255957 04-275 5630.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENTENNIAL LAKES 1,128.60 344238 2117/2011 101365 BELLBOY CORPORATION 210.15 255857 56906600 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 18.95 255858 56910900 - 5822.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 50TH ST SELLING 180.20 255658 56910900 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 194.05 255859 56919500 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 1,385.25 255860 56906500 ` 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 2,429.55 255861 56817900 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 77.35- 255862 56845100 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 121.24 255863 84797100 5662.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 117.33 255864 6029100 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 119.48 255865 84796900 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 102.61 255866 84797000 5822.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 50TH ST SELLING 2,281.35 256100 57005200 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING ns AS 256101 57022900 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING. 344239 2/1712011 344240 211712011 344241 211712011 344242 - 211712011 256102 84824000 5822.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 50TH ST SELLING 7411.6136 SNOW & LAWN CARE PSTF OCCUPANCY 2210.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES COMMUNICATIONS 1550.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 5662.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES VERNON SELLING 1600.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES PARK ADMIN. GENERAL 5110.6513 OFFICE SUPPLIES ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION 1120.6105 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS . ADMINISTRATION 117379 BENIEK PROPERTY SERVICES INC. 760.00 SNOW REMOVAL 256015 136786 780.00 101191 BENNEROTTE, JENNIFER 119.67 SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT 255976 020411 119.67 100648 .BERTELSON OFFICE PRODUCTS 62.59 NOTES 255707 W0 -674092 -1 137.62 BANDAGES, BINS, MARKERS 255773 OE- 247320 1 60.74 OFFICE SUPPLIES 255977 WO- 674574 -1 179.38 OFFICE SUPPLIES 00009011 256016 OE- 247611 -1 440.33 127771 BIUNNO, LYNETTE 20.00 NOTARY. RENEWAL 255978 020411 20.00 5822.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 50TH ST SELLING 7411.6136 SNOW & LAWN CARE PSTF OCCUPANCY 2210.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES COMMUNICATIONS 1550.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 5662.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES VERNON SELLING 1600.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES PARK ADMIN. GENERAL 5110.6513 OFFICE SUPPLIES ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION 1120.6105 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS . ADMINISTRATION CITY OF EDINA 2/16/2011 7:31:10 R55CKREG LOG20000. Council Check Register Page - 4 2117/2011 - 2117/2011 Check # Date Amount Supplier/ Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account.Descdption Business Unit' 344243 2117/2011 128275 BOTACH TACTICAL 64.95 ZIP TIES 00003195 .255979 ' 81267• 1400.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 64.95 344244 2/1712011 119351 BOURGET•IMPORTS. 149.00 256103 102411 5842:5513 '" COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 149.00 344245 2/1712011 100659 BOYER TRUCK PARTS - 149.45 OIL FILTERS 00005645 255708.- 487730 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 357.96 FILTERS 00005666 255709 483545 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 104.82 PANEL 00005645 255710 487757 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 147.17 BUSHING, U -BOLTS .00005644 255828 487132. 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 892.63 SPRING, PINS, NOZZLES 00005644 255829 - 487130 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 969.46 SPRINGS, PINS, U -BOLTS 00005648 256017 488628 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 2,621.49 344246 2/1712011 125155 BRAUN; MICHAEL 180.00 ABOUT TOWN PHOTOS 255774 1049 12210.6123 MAGAZINE/NEWSLETTER EXPENSE COMMUNICATIONS 180.00 " 344247 211712011 103239 BRIN NORTHWESTERN GLASS CO. 1,095.00 HANDICAP DOOR REPAIR 256018 515142S 5620.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS EDINBOROUGH PARK 1,095.00 344248 211712011 102149 CALLAWAY GOLF 336.18 .GOLF CLUBS 255775 922169439 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 110.90 MERCHANDISE '255941 922180963 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 447.08 344249 211712011 127500 CAPITAL MAINTENANCE SERVICES L 40.71 JANITORIAL SUPPLIES. 256019- 86367 7411.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES. PSTF OCCUPANCY 40.71 344250 211712011 119455 .,CAPITOL BEVERAGE SALES 626.95 255867 14799 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING 2,910.80 255868 14803 5842.5514 COST._OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 47.60 255869 14804 5842.5515. COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 3,585.35 344261 211712011 100677 CARGILL INC. RSSCKREG :' LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 2/1612011 7:31:10 Council Check Register Page - 5 2117/2011 - 2/1712011 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit - 8,618.14 DEICING SALT 00005710. 255711 3039922 1318.6525 SALT SNOW & ICE REMOVAL 18,767.26 255712 3049436 1318.6525 SALT SNOW & ICE REMOVAL 13,433.52 255713: 3051920 134.6525 SALT SNOW & ICE REMOVAL 40,818.92 344252 211712011 116683 CAT & FIDDLE BEVERAGE ` 390.00 255870 89103 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING ` 504.00 256104 89122 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 894.00 344253 j 211712011 100681 CATCO 173.57 VALVE KIT 00005716 255714 3 -03411 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 173.57 344254 211712011 128274 CAVELL; SALLY 30.00 AMBULANCE OVERPAYMENT 255942 021011 1470.4329 AMBULANCE FEES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 30.00 344255 2/1712011 119661 CENTRAL ENVELOPE CORPORATION 143.00 EMPLOYEE NEWSLETTER 255943 69110 2210.6575 PRINTING - COMMUNICATIONS 143.00 344256 211712011 119725 CHISAGO LAKES DISTRIBUTING CO 117.50 255871 438316 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 69.95 256105 436958 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 187.45 344257 2117/2011 122317 CITY OF EDINA -COMMUNICATIONS 75.00 PLAYING CARDS 00006217 255958 COM927 544.0.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 75.00 344258 211712011 100687 CITTOF RICHFIELD 191.78 % XCEL ENERGY FOR LS 00001346 256020 4783 5934.6185 LIGHT & POWER STORM LIFT STATION MAINT .191.78 344269 2/1712011 103141, CMI INC. 215.40 INTOXILIZER 256021 761726 1400.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 215.40 344260 2/1712011 100692 COCA -COLA BOTTLING CO. 212.20 256106 0128025724 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 21.80- 256107 0128025725 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 2/16/2011 7:31:10 Council Check Register Page - 6 2/1712011 - 2117/2011 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 190.40 344261 211712011 101119 COCKRIEL, VINCE 35.70 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 255980 021111 1600.6107 MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE PARK ADMIN. GENERAL 35.70 344262 211712011 120433 COMCAST 1.58 8772 10 614 0023973 255776 0023973 -2/11 1120.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES ADMINISTRATION 3.08 8772 10 614 0023973 255776 0023973 -2/11 1400.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 18.96 255981 0373022 -1/11 1100.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CITY COUNCIL 82.59 256022 220686 -2/11 5620.6230 SERVICE CONTRACTS EQUIPMENT EDINBOROUGH PARK 106.21 344263 211712011 120826 COMCAST SPOTLIGHT 115.00 CABLE TV ADVERTISING 256023 190775 5822.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER 50TH ST SELLING 115.00 CABLE TV ADVERTISING 256023 190775 5842.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER YORK SELLING 115.00 CABLE TV ADVERTISING 256023 190775 5862.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER VERNON SELLING 345.00 344264 211712011 122376 CORPORATE CONNECTION 574.38 SAFETY VESTS 00001375 255830 3356 1301.6556 TOOLS GENERAL MAINTENANCE 574.38 344265 211712011 101705 CROWN PLASTICS 571.89 ACRYLIC SHEETS 00008043 255715 21622 5521.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES ARENA ICE MAINT 571.89 344266 211712011 100699 CULLIGAN BOTTLED WATER 18.02 114 - 09855685 -4 256024 020111 7411.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES PSTF OCCUPANCY 18.02 344267 211712011 101418 CUMMINS NPOWER LLC 653.37 GENERATOR MAINTENANCE 256025 100 -9278 5620.6230 SERVICE CONTRACTS EQUIPMENT. EDINBOROUGH PARK 653.37 344268 211712011 101681 DAKOTA COUNTY TECHNICAL COLLEG 150.00 EMERGENCY RESPONSE DRIVING 242334 00077621 1470.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 150.00 344269 211712011 121618 DAKOTA SUPPLY GROUP 4,347.68 WATER METERS 00001109 255716 6745155 5917.6530 REPAIR PARTS METER REPAIR 4,347.68 CITY OF EDINA 2/16/2011 7:31:10 R55CKREG LOG20000 Council Check Register Page - 7 2/17/2011 - 2117/2011 Check # Date Amount Supplier! Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 344270 2/1712011 104020 DALCO 805.15 CAN - LINERS. MOP 00008032 255717 2297597 5511.6511 CLEANING SUPPLIES ARENA BLDG/GROUNDS 805.15 344271 2/1712011 102478 DAY DISTRIBUTING CO. 2,470.95 255872 587703 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 3,012.20 255873 587701 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 22.40 255874 587700 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 1,205.65 255875 587702 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING ' 6,711.20 344272 211712011 118490 DEEP ROCK WATER COMPANY 82.97 622833 WATER 256026 7154546 5621.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES EDINBOROUGH ADMINISTRATION ' 82.97 344273 2117/2011 100718 DELEGARD TOOL CO. 340.00 PANEL TOOL, SOCKET SET 00005676 256027 553728 1553.6556 TOOLS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 44.03 PLIERS 00005676 256028 553761 1553.6556 TOOLS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 5.03 SOCKET 00005665 256029 553922 1553.6556 TOOLS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 389.06 344274 211712011 122135 DENFELD, SCOTT'- 96.90 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 255944 021011 2210.6107 MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE COMMUNICATIONS 96.90 344275 211712011 100899 DEPARTMENT OF LABOR'& INDUSTRY 4,628.42 JAN 2011 SURCHARGE 255777 1027 -2011 1495.4380 SURCHARGE INSPECTIONS 4,628.42 344276 211712011 102831 "DEX MEDIA EAST INC. 1,360.95 255912 110311893 -1/11 5410.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER GOLF ADMINISTRATION 242.61 110311867 256030 110311867 -1/11 5621.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER EDINBOROUGH ADMINISTRATION 1,603.56 344277 211712011 123162 DISH NETWORK 54.53 825570 708 1422839 256031 020411 7411.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES PSTF OCCUPANCY 54.53 344278 211712011 128222 DISPLAYS2GO 188.16 BELT BARRIER 00008033 255718 IN- 0230624 5511.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES ARENA BLDG/GROUNDS 188.16 R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY.OF EDINA 2/16/2011 7:31:10 _ Council Check Register - 8 2/17/2011 - 2/17/2011 Check # Date Amount Supplier/ Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 344279 211712011 100731 DPC INDUSTRIES 1,149.45 CHLORINE 00001215 255719- 82700099 -11 5915.6586 WATER TREATMENT SUPPLIES WATER TREATMENT 1,149.45 344280 211712011 101630 EDINA:PUBLIC SCHOOLS 177.50 COMMUNITY ED ADVERTISING :255720 AWC-06 5822.6122 = ADVERTISING OTHER 50TH ST SELLING 177.50 COMMUNITY ED ADVERTISING - 255720 AWC-06 5842.6122 : r ADVERTISING OTHER YORK SELLING 177.50 COMMUNITY ED ADVERTISING '255720 AWC-06 - 5862.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER VERNON SELLING 270.00 GOLF COURSE AD. ,. 255913 AWC -10 5210.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER GOLF DOME PROGRAM 802.50 344281 211712011 103594 EDINALARMINC. 168.00 ALARM MONITORING 00001250 255778 64331 1646.6103 .. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BUILDING MAINTENANCE 168.00 344282 211712011 127590 ETTERMAN ENTERPRISES :. 589.42 LIGHTS, CONNECTOR BODIES 00005640:255721 167379 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION'GEN 589.42 344284 211712011 100146 FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY 3.44 RADIATOR CAP 06005618 255722 _ 69-030403 1553.6530 -• REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 5.03 GEAR LUBE 00005587 255723 69- 030078 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 15.10 OIL 00005587 255724 :69- 030104 1553.6584• LUBRICANTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 8.61 DIFFERENTIAL SETS 00005618 255831 69 -030453 1553:6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 56.40 HOSE ASSEMBLY, HOSE 60005618 255832 1- 3560761 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS, EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 1,109.03 TENSIONER, WIPERS, FILTERS 00005618 255833 69- 030449 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 22.94 TRICO PRODUCT 00005618 255834 1- 3561442 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT,OPERATION GEN 242.18 CALIPERS 00005420 255835 1- 3564839 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 143.47 ROTORS 00005618 255836 69- 030759 1553.6530 REPAIR`PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 166.19 HUB ASSEMBLY 00005618 255837 69- 030768 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 76.44 ANTIFREEZE 00005669 256032 69- 029499 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 15.98 FILTER 00005669 256033 1- 3555398 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 212.39 DRUMS, BEARING 00005587 256034 69- 030057 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 216.76 PUMP KIT, GASKET KIT 00005618 256035 69- 030358 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT-OPERATION GEN 12.22 GASKET 00005618 256036 70- 041808 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 4.84 BULB 00005618 256037 . 70- 041809 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS, EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 12.22 GASKET 00005618 256038 1- 3561524 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN - 12.22. GASKET 00005618 256039 69-030589' 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 35.67 PULLEY 00005618 256040 1- 3562549 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 199.30 PLUGS, WIRE KIT, TENSIONER 00005618 256041 69- 030571 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 95.51 INJECTOR 00005618 256042 69- 030781 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 2116/2011 7:31:10 Page - 9 Business Unit EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN SKATING RINK MAINTENANCE 119.85 DRUG TESTING CITY OF EDINA 00357430 R55CKREG LOG20000 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 119.85 Council Check Register 344287 2/1712011 100769 FLOYD TOTAL SECURITY 2/17/2011 - 2/17/2011.," Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation - PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description KEYS 107.94 END KITS, WIPER BLADES 00005618 256043 69- 030985 1553.6530. REPAIR PARTS 18.92 HEADLAMP BULBS 00005618 256044 69- 030988 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS 2,792.80 344288 211712011 344285 211712011 106035 FASTENAL COMPANY 137.87 SWEEPER REPAIR PARTS 00001151 255779. MNTC2104573 1648.6530 REPAIR PARTS 5440.5511 137.87 PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 102.41 344286 211712011 256207 119211 FIRSTLAB 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 2116/2011 7:31:10 Page - 9 Business Unit EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN SKATING RINK MAINTENANCE 119.85 DRUG TESTING 255982 00357430 1550.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 119.85 344287 2/1712011 100769 FLOYD TOTAL SECURITY 74.81 KEYS 00001339 256045 229809 5913.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES DISTRIBUTION 74.81 344288 211712011 101475 FOOTJOY 241.54 SHOES 255780 3542390 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 102.41 SHOES 256207 3555433 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 343.95 344289 211712011 102727 FORCE AMERICA 17.62 CONNECTOR, GASKET 00005678 256046 01357383 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 17.62 344290 211712011 100764 G & K SERVICES 78.90 255983 013111 5913.6201 LAUNDRY DISTRIBUTION 103.24 255983 013111 1646.6201 LAUNDRY BUILDING MAINTENANCE 273.95 255983 013111 5511.6201 LAUNDRY ARENA BLDGIGROUNDS 327.41 255983 013111 1301.6201 LAUNDRY GENERAL MAINTENANCE 386.64 255983 013111 1552.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENT SVC PW BUILDING 632.74 255983 013111 1553.6201 LAUNDRY EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 1,802.88 344291 2/17/2011 120776 GAGE, NATHAUE ' 48.45 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 256096 021111 2210.6107 MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE COMMUNICATIONS 48.45 344292 211712011 119567 GARELICK.STEEL'COINC 246.50 STEEL 00006391 255725 194703 5210.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES GOLF DOME PROGRAM 246.50 R55CKREG LOG20000 ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION PROFESSIONAL SERVICES SPECIAL ACTIVITIES CITY OF EDINA COMMUNICATIONS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES GOLF ADMINISTRATION Council Check Register 2117/2011 — 2/1712011 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No 344293 2/17/2011 101931 GEAR FOR SPORTS 1,384.41 APPAREL 255914 11452234 5440.5511 1,394.21 APPAREL 255915 11452236 5440.5511 1,339.84 APPAREL 255916 11452235 5440.5511 600.55 JACKETS 255917 11452372 5440.5511 4,719.01. 344294 211712011 119121 GENERAL SHEET METAL CO. INC. 8,980.50 REVISED FINAL PAYMENT 256209 021111 4402.1705.30 8,980.50 344295 211712011 100920 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY- MINNEA 56.09 PARTS 255984 013111 5630.6530 280.85 PARTS 255984 013111 5422.6530 419.28 PARTS 255984 013111 5422.6556 442.02 PARTS 255984 013111 1553.6530 1,198.24 344296 2117/2011 126266 GILMOUR, CHAD 1,000.00 AGENDA EDINA GRAPHICS 255945 1011 2210.6103 1,000.00 344297 211712011 125545 GLASS & MIRROR INC. 500.00 REPLACE DOOR SWEEPS 00006203 255918 6442 5420.6530 500.00 344298 211712011 119936 GLOBAL OAK 225.00 ART CENTER E- COMMERCE 255946 010804 5110.6103 862.50 PARK & REC E- COMMERCE 255946 010804 1627.6103 1,443.75 WEBSITE MAINTENANCE 255946 010804 2210.6124 3,375.00 GOLF REGISTRATION 255946 010804 5410.6103 5,906.25 344299 211712011 118941 GLOBALSTAR USA 29.20 R -91 PHONE 255919 2789857 1470.6188 29.20 344300 211712011 103316 GOETSCH, SAM L. 475.39 SIGN INTERPRETER - TOURNAMENT 255952 021111 4078.6103 475.39 - 344301 2117/2011 101103 GRAINGER Subledger Account Description COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP 2/16/2011 7:31:10 Page - 10 Business Unit PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES CONTRACTOR PAYMENTS PW BUILDING REPAIR PARTS REPAIR PARTS TOOLS REPAIR PARTS CENTENNIAL LAKES MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COMMUNICATIONS REPAIR PARTS CLUB HOUSE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION PROFESSIONAL SERVICES SPECIAL ACTIVITIES WEB DEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATIONS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES GOLF ADMINISTRATION TELEPHONE FIRE DEPT. GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES INCLUSION PROGRAM CITY OF EDINA 2/1612011 7:31:10 R55CKREG LOG20000 Council Check Register Page - 11 2/1712011 - 2/17/2011 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 753.89 WALL BRACKET FIXTURES,. 00005558 255726 9448637331 1552.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENT SVC PW BUILDING 353.00 FLARES, OUTLETS. _ 00003886 256047 9434370608 1470.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 1,106.89 344302 211712011 102670_ GRAND PEREWINES INC 803.00 255876 00026572 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 803.00 344303 211712011 124711 GRANDVIEW TIRE & AUTO - CAHILL 824.76 VEHICLE REPAIRS 00005653 256048 21755 1553.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 824.76 344304 2/1712011 120201 GRANICUS INC. 675.00 - CITIZEN PARTICIPATION SUITE 255781 24356 2210.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COMMUNICATIONS 675.00 344305 211712011 102217 GRAPE BEGINNINGS INC 270.25 255877 126583 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 378.25 256108 126807 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 648.50 344306 211712011 101518 GRAUSAM, STEVE . 125.76 SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT 255920 021011 5841.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES _ YORK OCCUPANCY 125.76 344307 211712011 100783 GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO. INC. 60.59 THERMAL CONTROLS 255782 952021133 5861.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES VERNON OCCUPANCY 60.59 344308 2/17/2011 100788 H&L MESABI 2,387.16 PLOW BLADES 00005553 255727 82119 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 3,580.74 CUTTING BLADES 00005553 256049 82118 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 5,967.90 344309 211712011 102320 HAMCO DATA PRODUCTS 169.77 REGISTER TAPE 256050 271797 5862.6512 PAPER SUPPLIES VERNON SELLING 169.77 344310 211712011 102312 HARMON INC. 555.25 WINDOW REPAIRS 00001252 255783 11913 1646.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS BUILDING MAINTENANCE 555.25 R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register 2/17/2011 - 2117/2011 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No 344311 211712011 105436 HENNEPIN COUNTY INFORMATION 160.31 MINCIS /ATTORNEY SUPPORT 255985 110162026 1400.6160 160.31 344312 211712011 103753 HILLYARD INC - MINNEAPOLIS 351.81 SOAP, MOPS 00002263 256051 6630339 5620.6511 351.81 344313 211712011 106388 HLB TAUTGES REDPATH LTD. 335.00 AUDIT 00006220 255921 001107049 5410.6130 335.00 344314 211712011 104375 HOHENSTEINS INC. 531.50 256109 549283 5662.5514 1,877.38 256110 549261 5842.5514 2,406.88 344315 211712011 100808 HORWATH, THOMAS 396.29 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 255784 020211 1644.6107 396.29 344316 211712011 118348 IDENTIX INC. 231.66 WYPALL WATERLESS WIPES 255986 49239 1400.6406 231.66 344317 211712011 100814 INDELCO PLASTICS CORP. 48.16 CLAMPS, CUTTER 00001340 255838 640956 5913.6406 48.16 344318 211712011 101732 INDUSTRIAL DOOR CO. INC. 155.08 REPLACE DOOR CABLES 256052 D219209 -IN 1400.6215 196.21 OVERHEAD DOOR REPAIR 256053 D219344 -IN 1470.6180 351.29 344319 211712011 102157 JEFF ELLIS & ASSOCIATES INC. 427.00 LIFEGUARD INSTRUCTION COURSE 255728 20048913 5310.6104 427.00 344320 211712011 100828 JERRY'S FOODS 13.63 255947 013111 1628.6406 21.83 255947 013111 1400.6406 34.37 255947 013111 1624.6406 Subledger Account Description DATA PROCESSING CLEANING SUPPLIES 2/16/2011 7:31:10 Page - 12 Business Unit POLICE DEPT. GENERAL EDINBOROUGH PARK PROFESSIONAL SERV - AUDIT GOLF ADMINISTRATION COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE TREES & MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES POLICE DEPT. GENERAL GENERAL SUPPLIES DISTRIBUTION EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE POLICE DEPT. GENERAL CONTRACTED REPAIRS FIRE DEPT. GENERAL CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS POOL ADMINISTRATION GENERAL SUPPLIES SENIOR CITIZENS GENERAL SUPPLIES POLICE DEPT. GENERAL GENERAL SUPPLIES PLAYGROUND 8 THEATER R55CKREG LOG20000 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation - 52.52 1322.6406 170.42 STREET LIGHTING ORNAMENTAL 292.77 GENERAL SUPPLIES 344321 21712011 100829 JERRY S HARDWARE 7.93 GOLF DOME PROGRAM 15.26 GENERAL SUPPLIES 27.66 1553.6406 47.90 EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 57.23 GENERAL SUPPLIES 57.24 1301.6406 57.82 GENERAL MAINTENANCE 69.59 GENERAL SUPPLIES 87.09 5422.6406 87.28 MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS 104.19 CONTRACTED REPAIRS 149.11 1646.6406 154.77 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 258.09 GENERAL SUPPLIES 913.18 1470.6406 2,094.34 FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 344322 211712011 100830 JERRY'S PRINTING 124.44 POOL SEASON PASSES 124.44 POOL ADMINISTRATION CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register 2/1712011 - 2117/2011 PO # Doc No Inv No Account No 255947 013111 1470.4760 255947 013111 5421.5510 344323 211712011 102146 JESSEN PRESS 303.26 CITY COUNCIL,LETTERHEAD 303.26 344324 ! 211712011 100741 JJ TAYLOR MT. OF-MINN 135.00 16.58 - 3.103.20 1,585.95 346.45 161.25 256097 013111 256097 , 013111 256097 013111 256097 013111 256097 013111 256097 013111 256097 013111 256097 013111 256097 013111 256097 013111 256097 013111 256097 013111 256097 013111 256097 013111 256097 013111 255839 52691 255987 26281 255878 1466158 256111 1161019 256112 1466174 256113 1466176 256114 1466182 256115 1466179 256116 1466188 344326 2117/2011 100835 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO. 2.445.02 256117 1997692 Subledger Account Description DONATIONS - GOVT FUND COST OF GOODS SOLD 2116/2011 7:31:10 Page - 13 Business Unit FIRE DEPT. GENERAL GRILL 4090.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 50TH &FRANCE MAINTENANCE 1322.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES STREET LIGHTING ORNAMENTAL 5431.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES RICHARDS GC MAINTENANCE 5210.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES GOLF DOME PROGRAM 5620.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES EDINBOROUGH PARK 1553.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 1624.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES PLAYGROUND & THEATER 1301.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL MAINTENANCE 1400.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES POLICE `DEPT. GENERAL 5422.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS 1647.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS PATHS & HARD SURFACE 1646.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES BUILDING MAINTENANCE 5913.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES DISTRIBUTION 1470.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 5511.6406 GENERALSUPPLIES ARENA BLDG /GROUNDS 5310.6575 PRINTING POOL ADMINISTRATION 1100.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CITY COUNCIL 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 5862.5514 COST OFGOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 2116/2011 7:31:10 Council Check Register Page - 14 2/1712011 - 2117/2011 Check # Dale Amount Supplier/ Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 1,492.74 256118 1997690 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 1,478.24 256119 1997693 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 618.55 256120 1997694 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 1,497.80 256121 1998632 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 1,898.26 256122 1997700 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 419.03 256123 1997698 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 1,284.29 256124 1997691 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 134.48 256125 1994851 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 2,432.52 256126 1997918 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 2,696.55 256127 1997696 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 1.12 256128 1997697 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 435.17 256129 1997699 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 1,130.81 256130 1997686 5822.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING 62.74 256131 1997687 5822.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 50TH ST SELLING 1,079.52 256132 1997688 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 261.53 256133 1997689 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 1,535.59 256134 1998626 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 270.81 256135 1998627 5822.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING 334.48 256136 1998634 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 1,314.03 256137 1998635 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 76.74 256138 1998628 5662.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 4.67- 256139 487093 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 11.35- 256140 486937 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 114.24- 256141 482498 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 4.75- 256142 486936 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 5.04- 256143 486938 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 22,759.97 344327 2/17/2011 102080 KATTREH, ANN 950.95 REIMBURSEMENT / RAMP PURCHASE 256054 021111 5620.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES EDINBOROUGH PARK 950.95 344328 2/1712011 111018 KEEPRS INC. 291.93 UNIFORMS 00003852 256055 153537 -04 1470.6558 DEPT UNIFORMS FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 291.93 344329 2/17/2011 106269 KORTERRA INC. 700.00 KORWEB TICKET SPLITTING FEE 00001343 255840 12693 5913.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES DISTRIBUTION 700.00 344330 2/1712011 100852 LAWSON PRODUCTS INC. 654.46 NUTS, BOLTS, CLAMPS 00005613 255729 9974306 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN R55CKREG LOG20000 " CITY OF EDINA Check # Date 344331 211712011 344332 2117/2011 344333 211712011 344334 211712011 344336 2117/2011 344336 2117/2011 Subledger Account Description REPAIR PARTS, REPAIR PARTS 2/16/2011 7:31:10 Page - 15 Business Unit EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN REPAIR PARTS Council Check Register GEN REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 2/17/2011 = 2/1712011 Amount Supplier/ Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No 550.81 NUTS, BOLTS, HOSE ENDS 00005642 255841 0122877 1553.6530 80.73 BATTERY CABLE LUGS 00005560 255842 0129642 1553.6530 1,286.00 124810 LIFT BRIDGE BEER'COMPANY 130.00 256144 11776 5842.5514 130.00 100857 LITTLE FALLS MACHINE INC. 338.86 TORSION SPRING 00005545 255730 00046169 1553.6530 1,991.66 TORSION SPRINGS, SHAFTS 00005542 255731 00046157 1553.6530 204.83 PINS 00005506 255732 00046317 1553.6530 29.98 BUSHING 00005538 255733 00046116 1553.6530 2,565.33 101843 LONG, JEFF 100.00 UNIFORM PURCHASE 255988 020711 1400.6203 100.00 101782 LUBE -TECH 20.52 TRUCK WASH FLUID 00005551 255785 1859386 1553.6238 451.18 TRUCK WASH FLUID 00005551 255786 1861565 1553.6238 137.76 WINDSHIELD WASH FLUID 00005626 255787 1861628 1553.6530 202.72 WINDSHIELD WASH FLUID 00005635 255788 1866059 1553.6530 2,502.17 TRANSMISSION FLUID, CUBE ' '00005555 255789 1864932 1553.6584 3,912.54 ATF 00005555 255790 1866542 1553.6584 7,361.25- CREDIT 255959 505222 1553.6584 383.79- CREDIT 00005988 255960 509114 1553.6530 27.41 AQUA KLEEN SOAP 00005240 255961 1818299 1553.6238 575.68 CAR WASH FLUID 00005246 255962 1821097 1553.6238 646.05 OIL 00006350 255963 1822912 5422.6406 262.72 WINDSHIELD WASH FLUID 00005366 255964 1842472 1553.6530 334.66 OIL, GREASE 00006372 255965 1848105 5422.6406 3,962.93 OIL - 00005071 255966 1850689 1553.6584 5,291.30 106672 LUGER, JEFF 59.50 UNIFORM PURCHASE 255922 021011 5431.6406 59.50 101165 MAA.O. 375.00 DUES 256205 021411 1190.6105_ Subledger Account Description REPAIR PARTS, REPAIR PARTS 2/16/2011 7:31:10 Page - 15 Business Unit EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN UNIFORM ALLOWANCE POLICE DEPT. GENERAL CAR WASH EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN CAR WASH EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT. OPERATION GEN REPAIR PARTS- EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN LUBRICANTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN LUBRICANTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN LUBRICANTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN CAR WASH EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN CAR WASH EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN GENERAL SUPPLIES MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN GENERAL' SUPPLIES MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS LUBRICANTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN GENERAL SUPPLIES RICHARDS GC MAINTENANCE DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS ASSESSING R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 2/16/2011 7:31:10 Council Check Register Page - 16 2/17/2011 - 2117/2011 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 375.00 344337 211712011 100864 MACQUEEN EQUIP INC. 120.00 VACTOR TRAINING (2) 00001345 255843 2011 5919.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS TRAINING 120.00 344338 211712011 124000 MARTIN, KAYLIN 68.00 WORKSHOPS 255948 021011 2210.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS COMMUNICATIONS 93.00 MAGAZINE SUBSCRIPTIONS 255948 021011 2210.6105 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS COMMUNICATIONS 161.00 344339 211712011 119209 MASTER TECHNOLOGY GROUP 1,111.43 FIRE -STOP OFFICE WALL 256056 447865 45008.6710 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FIRE STATION #1 RENOVATION 230.00 SPEAKER REPAIRS 256057 447866 1470.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 1,341.43 344340 211712011 100875 MCCAREN DESIGNS INC. 1,232.27 PLANTS 00002249 256058 50741 5620.6620 TREES, FLOWERS, SHRUBS EDINBOROUGH PARK 1,232.27 344341 211712011 119992 MCCARTHY WELL COMPANY 3,951.50 WELL REPAIR 00006493 255734 23609 • 5422.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS 3,951.50 344342 211712011 126839 MCDONALD, LILLIAN 500.00 HOSTING FEE 256206 021311 2210.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COMMUNICATIONS 500.00 344343 211712011 103944 MED COMPASS 16.00 HEARING TEST 256059 17131 1470.6175 PHYSICAL EXAMINATIONS FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 16.00 344344 211712011 101987 MENARDS 18.91 POWER LAGS, PAINT SCRAPER 00001244 255923 63067 1646.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES BUILDING MAINTENANCE 18.91 344345 211712011 102281 MENARDS 4.46 LUMBER 00006392 255735 51952 5210.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES GOLF DOME PROGRAM 99.95 HAND TOOLS 00006393 255736 52040 5422.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS 53.00 NAILS, SCREWS 00001379 255844 52346 1301.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL MAINTENANCE 91.26 BITS 00001384 255845 52349 1318.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES SNOW & ICE REMOVAL 56.56 LUMBER 00001305 255846 47378 1318.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES SNOW & ICE REMOVAL R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 2116/2011 7:31:10 - Council Check Register Page - 17 2/1712011. — 2/17/2011 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation. PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger. Account Description Business Unit 38.62 PARTICLEBOARD, WOOD FILLER 00001360 256060 51022 1400.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 11.75, PARTICLEBOARD 256061 50213 1400.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 355.60 344346 211712011 102928 METRO CITIES 11,773.00 2011 DUES 256007 20-2011 1120.6105 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS, ADMINISTRATION _ 11,773.00 - 344347 211712011 100885 METRO SALES INC. 2,033.32 COPIER USAGE 00003006 256062 396476 1400.6230 SERVICE CONTRACTS EQUIPMENT POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 2,033.32 344348 211712011 102729 METROPOLITAN FORD OF EDEN PRAI 126.14 BUMPER 00005556 255737 474188 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 126.14 344349 211712011 121053 MILLER, SUSAN 49.55 PETTY CASH 256063 021111 5620.6620 TREES, FLOWERS, SHRUBS EDINBOROUGH PARK 204.31 PETTY CASH - 256063 021111 5620.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES' EDINBOROUGH PARK 253.86 344350 7/1712011 100913 MINNEAPOLIS & SUBURBAN SEWER & 1,837.50 REPLACE WATER SERVICE 00001344 255847 33779 5913.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS DISTRIBUTION 1,837.50 344351 211712011 102174 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPANY 49.03 CO2, METHANE TANKS 256064 R101110247 7413.6545 CHEMICALS PSTF FIRE TOWER 49.03 344352 211712011 102770 MINNESOTA CASTERS INC. 93.73 SWIVEL CASTERS 00001429 255848 7694 1318.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES SNOW & ICE REMOVAL 93.73 344353 211712011 102137 MINNESOTA ELECTRICALASSOCIATI 327.04 TRAINING MATERIALS 00001371 255849 M11983 1322.6530 REPAIR PARTS STREET LIGHTING ORNAMENTAL 327.04 344354 2117/2011 101589 MINNESOTA GFOA 60.00 DUES - ERIC ROGGEMAN 255924 2011 1160.6105 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS FINANCE • 60.00 344355 211712011 101537 MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AG R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 2/16/2011 7:31:10 Council Check Register Page - 18 2/17/2011 —2/17/2011 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 23.00 CERT RENEWAL- STEVE HAMER 256066 SB -14764 5919.6260 LICENSES & PERMITS TRAINING 23.00 344356 2/17/2011 101556 MINNESOTA SHREDDING LLC. 186.00 DOCUMENT SHREDDING 255791 0253782651 1470.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 186.00 344357 211712011 118129 MINNESOTA SOCIETY OF CPAS 230.00 DUES - ERIC ROGGEMAN 255990 020111 1160.6105 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS FINANCE 230.00 344358 211712011 126817 MINNESTALGIA WINERY 85.50 256145 3684 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 85.50 344359 2/1712011 128254 MN HELICOPTERS INC. 914.50 AERIAL SURVEY OF DEER 00001246 255792 3027 1509.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES DEER CONTROL 914.50 344360 2/1712011 117459 MN METRO EWGA 125.00 DUES 255793 2011 5410.6105 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS GOLF ADMINISTRATION 125.00 344361 211712011 120996 MOBILE MINI INC. 1,507.51 STORAGE UNIT 256065 298009354 7412.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES PSTF RANGE 1,507.51 344362 2117/2011 121491 MORRIE'S PARTS & SERVICE GROUP 102.60 MIRROR ASSEMBLY 00005647 255850 489282F6W 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 102.60 344363 211712011 100906 MTI DISTRIBUTING INC. 1,555.45 GRINDER MOTOR 00006390 255738 771313 -00 5422.6530 REPAIR PARTS MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS 19.37 NUT SPLINE 00006389 255925 771256 -00 5630.6530 REPAIR PARTS CENTENNIAL LAKES 1,574.82 344364 2117/2011 101575 MUNICIPALS 25.00 2011 DUES 256204 021411 1550.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 25.00 344365 2/17/2011 127547 NEAL, SCOTT H. 35.65 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 255926 020911 1120.6107 MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE ADMINISTRATION R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register 2/1712011 — 2/17/2011 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 35.65 344366 2/17/2011 106662 NET LITIN DISTRIBUTORS 2,467.66 PARTY SUPPLIES -256067 103547 5620.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD 2,467.66 .344367 2/1712011 122449 NEW LIFE ENTERPRISES INC. 140.00 RANGE PUNCH CARDS 256068 2938 7414.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 140.00 344368 211712011 101620 NORTH SECOND STREET STEEL SUPP 124.42 STEEL 00006042 . 255739 194368 5210.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 124.42 . 344369 211712011 104232 NORTHERN SAFETY TECHNOLOGY INC 707.73 BACK -UP LIGHTS 00005702 255740 26480 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS 707.73 344370 211712011 100933 NORTHWEST GRAPHIC'SUPPLY CO. 14.33 PENS 00009265 256069 39603902 5120.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD 14.33 344371 211712011 105576 NYSTROM PUBLISHING CO. INC 1,67077 AQUATIC CENTER BROCHURES 255741 24338 5310.6575 PRINTING 1,670.77 344372 2/1712011 103578 OFFICE DEPOT 264.32. TONER 256070 549954075001 5621.6513 OFFICE SUPPLIES 264.32 344373 211712011 100940 OWENS COMPANIES INC. 2/16/2011 7:31:10 Page - 19 Business Unit EDINBOROUGH PARK PUBLIC PROGRAMS GOLF DOME PROGRAM EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN ART SUPPLY GIFT GALLERY SHOP POOL ADMINISTRATION EDINBOROUGH ADMINISTRATION 5,092.88 HVAC REPAIRS 00006218 255927 38978 5210.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS GOLF DOME PROGRAM 962.50 SERVICE CONTRACT 00006219 255928 39010 5210.6230 SERVICE CONTRACTS EQUIPMENT GOLF DOME PROGRAM 6,055.38 344374 2/1712011 100060 PA LAY DISPLAY INDUSTRIES INC 91.85 SLATWALL 00006196"255742 262734 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 91.85 344375 2117/2011 119486 PARAGON, LAND SCULPTING 3,360.00 LEAF DISPOSAL 00005611 255794 3371 1644.6182 RUBBISH REMOVAL 3,360.00 LEAF DISPOSAL 00005611 255794 3371 1301.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS TREES & MAINTENANCE GENERAL MAINTENANCE R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 2116/2011 7:31:10 Council Check Register Page - 20 2/17/2011 - 2117/2011 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 3,360.00 LEAF DISPOSAL 00005611 255794 3371 5932.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS GENERAL STORM SEWER 10,080.00 344376 211712011 100347 PAUSTIS & SONS 33.25 255879 8293017 -IN 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 2,319.05 255880 8293000 -IN 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 129.25 255881 8293022 -IN 5822.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING 674.25 255882 8293008 -IN 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 783.50 256146 8293014 -IN 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 1,011.80 256147 8293212 -IN 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 133.25 256148 8293019 -IN 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 5,084.35 344377 211712011 100945 PEPSI -COLA COMPANY 551.80 256149 51976045 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 551.80 344378 211712011 100946 PERA 200.89 EMPLOYER MATCH 256208 4410 -00 -2/11 1550.6030 PENSIONS CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 200.89 344379 211712011 125978 PETSMART#459 96.53 K9 DOG FOOD 00003004 255993 T -8133 4607.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES EDINA CRIME FUND K9 DONATION 96.53 344380 211712011 119372 PETSMART#463 98.67 K9 DOG FOOD 00003196 255992 T -3396 4607.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES EDINA CRIME FUND K9 DONATION 98.67 344381 2117/2011 103512 PETTY CASH 15.00- 255991 021011 1400.8060 CASH OVER AND UNDER POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 9.95 255991 021011 1400.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 93.00 255991 021011 1400.6106 MEETING EXPENSE POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 285.00 255991 021011 2340.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES DWI FORFEITURE 468.91 255991 021011 1400.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 841.86 344382 211712011 100743 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS 2.24 255883 2012837 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 2.24 255884 2012847 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 2,115.17 256150 2027139 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 45.07 256151 2027140 5822.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 50TH ST SELLING R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 2/1612011 7:31:10 Council Check Register Page - 21 2117/2011 - 2/1712011 Check # Date Amount Supplier/ Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 172.21 256152 .2027141 5822.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING 2,435.90 256153 2027151 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 654.45 256154 2027144 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 317.10 256155 2027152 5862.6513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 771.64 256156 2027150 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 905.63 256157 2027143 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 1,782.86 256158 2027145 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 57.12 256159 2027146 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 951.37 256160 2027148 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 1,874.21 256161 2027147 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 1.12 256162 2027142 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 41.07 256163 2027149 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 81.12- 256164 3452811 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 12,048.28 344383 211712011 124176 PINNACLE DISTRIBUTING, 312.40 256165 11709 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 312.40 344384 2117/2011 100958 PLUNKETTS PEST CONTROL 44.52 PEST CONTROL 256071 2193213 7411.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PSTF OCCUPANCY 44.52 344385 2/1712011 119620 POMP'S TIRE SERVICE INC. 337.23 TIRES 00005588 255743 199615 1553.6583 TIRES 8 TUBES EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 456.19 TIRES 00005588 255744 197380 1553.6583 TIRES & TUBES EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 240.60 TIRES 00005588 255745 199249 1553.6583 TIRES & TUBES EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 1,431.16 TIRES 00005588 255746 205887 1553.6583 TIRES & TUBES EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN ' 251.05 TIRES. 00005588 255747 209209 1553.6583 TIRES &'TUBES EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 531.98' TIRES 00005588 256072 210376 1553.6583 TIRES•& TUBES EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 469.53 TIRES 00005619 256073 228949 1553.6583 TIRES & TUBES EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 3,737.74 344386 211712011 102728 PRECISION LANDSCAPE AND TREE C 2,565.00 REMOVE ELM TREE 00001245 255795 21015 4088.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TREE REMOVAL 2,565.00 344387 211712011 124831 PRESSWRITE PRINTING INC. 426.43 CRIME VICTIM CARDS 255995 057704 1400.6575 PRINTING POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 151.76 ALARM RESPONSE NOTICES 255996 057703.. 1400.6575 PRINTING POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 348.41 ACCIDENT EXCHANGE PADS 255997 057735 1400.6575 PRINTING POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 926.60 R55CKREG LOG20000 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # 344388 211712011 100380 PRESTRUD, ROBERT 200.00 TUITION REIMBURSEMENT 200.00 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register 2/17/2011 - 2117/2011 Doc No Inv No Account No 255796 SPRING2011 1640.6104 Subledger Account Description CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS 2/16/2011 7:31:10 Page- 22 Business Unit PARK MAINTENANCE GENERAL 344389 211712011 100966 PRINTERS SERVICE INC 216.00 BLADE SHARPENING 00008041 255748 251910 5521.6215 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE ARENA ICE MAINT 79.00 BLADE SHARPENING 00001648 255797 251791 1648.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES SKATING RINK MAINTENANCE 295.00 344390 2117/2011 106322 PROSOURCE SUPPLY 476.72 LINERS, TISSUE, WIPES 00008037 255749 5099 5511.6511 CLEANING SUPPLIES ARENA BLDG/GROUNDS 495.69 LINERS, GLOVES, SOAP 00002088 255994 5107 5630.6511 CLEANING SUPPLIES CENTENNIAL LAKES 972.41 344391 211712011 100971 QUALITY WINE 885.30 255885 417438 -00 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 718.40 255886 417220 -00 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 860.50 255887 417439 -00 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 1,528.93 255888 417221 -00 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 360.00 255889 417219 -00 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 370.77 255890 417305 -00 5822.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING 568.30 255891 417440 -00 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 1,738.00- 255892 405328 -00 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 750.00- 255892 405328 -00 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 750.00- 255892 405328 -00 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 384.63 256166 414669 -00 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 4,844.65 256167 417303 -00 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 3,949.00 256168 417300 -00 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 1,543.50 256169 417304 -00 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 556.00 256170 417301 -00 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 105.41- 256171 406181 -00 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 4.00- 256172 415555 -00 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 13,222.57 344392 2/1712011 123898 QWEST 18.84 651281-1355 B001311 255798 1311 -2/11 1400.6188 TELEPHONE POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 121.95 952 926 -0419 255799 0419 -2/11 1646.6188 TELEPHONE BUILDING MAINTENANCE 57.78 952 926 -0092 255800 0092 -2111 5913.6188 TELEPHONE DISTRIBUTION 528.88 612 E01 -8392 255801 8392 -2/11 1550.6188 TELEPHONE CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 529.43 612 E24 -8657 255802 8657 -2/11 5420.6188 TELEPHONE CLUB HOUSE 297.36 612 E24 -8656 255803 8656 -2111 1628.6188 TELEPHONE SENIOR CITIZENS R55CKREG LOG20000 526.37 CITY OF EDINA 344393 211712011 100466 R & R PRODUCTS INC. 2J1712011 Council Check Register 122170 REGION 3AA 105.00 SEALS 00006388 255750 2/17/2011 - 2117/2011 5422.6530 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 606.52 612 E12 -6797 255804 6797 -2/11 1550.6188 TELEPHONE 606.52 612 E01 -0426 255805 0426 -2/11 1550.6188 TELEPHONE 104.80 612 E23 -0652 GV911 ACCT 256074 0652 -2/11 2310.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 200.72 952 835 -6661 256098 6661 -2/11 1552.6188 TELEPHONE 3,072.80 526.37 344393 211712011 100466 R & R PRODUCTS INC. 2J1712011 122170 REGION 3AA 105.00 SEALS 00006388 255750 CD1410438 5422.6530 1,546.20 SEALS, BEARINGS, BEDKNIFE 00006388 255751 CD1410147 5431.6530 1,651.20 344397 344394 2/1712011 100974 RAYMOND HAEG PLUMBING 104771 RICE COUNTY 991.90 WATER PIPE REPAIRS 255806 12756 5861.6406 991.90 180.00 344395 211712011 100975 RED WING SHOE STORE 344398 2/17/2011 112.95 SAFETY BOOTS 255752 725000001334 5630.6406 150.00 SAFETY BOOTS 255752 725000001334 1301.6610 263.42 SAFETY BOOTS 255752 725000001334 5620.6406 5511.6136 1000.2055 5620.5510 5620.5510 1553.6530 5511.6406 REPAIR PARTS REPAIR PARTS GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES SAFETY EQUIPMENT GENERAL SUPPLIES 2/16/2011 7:31:10 Page - 23 Business Unit CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL E911 CENT SVC PW BUILDING MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS RICHARDS GC MAINTENANCE VERNON OCCUPANCY CENTENNIAL LAKES GENERAL MAINTENANCE EDINBOROUGH PARK PROFESSIONAL SVC - OTHER ARENA BLDG/GROUNDS DUE TO OTHER GOVERNMENTS GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET COST OF GOODS SOLD EDINBOROUGH PARK COST OF GOODS SOLD EDINBOROUGH PARK REPAIR PARTS GENERAL SUPPLIES EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN ARENA BLDG/GROUNDS 526.37 344396 2J1712011 122170 REGION 3AA '614.75 % GIRLS HOCKEY PLAY -OFF 256095 021411 614.75 344397 2117/2011 104771 RICE COUNTY 180.00 OUT OF COUNTY WARRANT 255998 020911 180.00 344398 2/17/2011 126343 RICHFIELD DQ GRILL AND CHILL 45.98 SHEET CAKES 256075 543 140.93 CAKES 256076 544 186.91 344399 2/17/2011 102408 RIGID HITCH INCORPORATED 38.29 BALL MOUNT KIT, COUPLER 00005677 255851 1219134-01 38.29 344400 2/1712011 100980 ROBERT B. HILL CO. -. 616.67 SOFTENER SALT 00008039 255753 00247086 616.67 5511.6136 1000.2055 5620.5510 5620.5510 1553.6530 5511.6406 REPAIR PARTS REPAIR PARTS GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES SAFETY EQUIPMENT GENERAL SUPPLIES 2/16/2011 7:31:10 Page - 23 Business Unit CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL E911 CENT SVC PW BUILDING MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS RICHARDS GC MAINTENANCE VERNON OCCUPANCY CENTENNIAL LAKES GENERAL MAINTENANCE EDINBOROUGH PARK PROFESSIONAL SVC - OTHER ARENA BLDG/GROUNDS DUE TO OTHER GOVERNMENTS GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET COST OF GOODS SOLD EDINBOROUGH PARK COST OF GOODS SOLD EDINBOROUGH PARK REPAIR PARTS GENERAL SUPPLIES EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN ARENA BLDG/GROUNDS R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register 2117/2011 — 2/17/2011 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No 344401 211712011 121106 ROCHON CORPORATION 204,500.00 FIRE STATION RECONSTRUCTION 255967 020811 45008.6710 204,500.00 344402 2117/2011 101634 SAINT AGNES BAKING COMPANY 48.90 BAKERY 255968 290197 5421.5510 48.90 344403 211712011 124780 SCHAUER, LAUREN 790.00 INSTRUCTOR AC 256210 021111 5110.6103 790.00 344404 211712011 124036 SCHOENECKER, PAUL 67.48 OVERPAYMENT REFUND 205960 021809 5900.2015 67.48 344406 211712011 103970 SEEGER, MICHAEL 13.32 TRAINING EXPENSES 255999 020711 1400.6104 40.58 TRAINING EXPENSES 255999 020711 1400.6107 53.90 344406 2/17/2011 103237 SHIRLEY, TOM 99.45 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 255949 021011 5631.6107 99.45 344407 211712011 120292 SIGNATURE CONCEPTS 1,040.00 CHAMPIONSHIP PULLOVERS 255754 385257 4077.6406 1 ,040.00 344408 211712011 101000 SIR SPEEDY 297.59 EMPLOYMENT APPLICATIONS 255755 67644 1550.6406 297.59 344409 2/17/2011 125960 SIR SPEEDY 395.07 A/P CODING SLIPS 255756 58045 1160.6406 395.07 344410 2/1712011 124759 SISTERMAN, MATT 51.10 CELL PHONE REIMBURSEMENT 255807 020811 1554.6230 51.10 344411 2/17/2011 127878 SOUTHERN WINE AND SPIRITS Subledger Account Description EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT COST OF GOODS SOLD 2/16/2011 7:31:10 Page - 24 Business Unit FIRE STATION #1 RENOVATION GRILL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION CUSTOMER REFUND UTILITY BALANCE SHEET CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS POLICE DEPT. GENERAL MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE POLICE DEPT. GENERAL MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE CENTENNIAL ADMINISTRATION GENERAL SUPPLIES EDINA ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION GENERAL SUPPLIES CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL GENERAL SUPPLIES FINANCE SERVICE CONTRACTS EQUIPMENT CENT SERV GEN - MIS R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 2/16/2011 7:31:10 Council Check Register Page - 25 1647.6406 1553.6530 5420.6406 1646.6406 1646.6406 1550.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES REPAIR PARTS GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES- 1553.6530 140.00 1504.6103 2/1712011 - 2/17/2011 REPAIR PARTS 103283 ST. CROIX, RECREATION CO INC Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation_= • PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 36.08 255893 '1474605 5862.5513 COST OF GOODSZOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 104.50 STEP, STEP STRAPS 00005646 255852 255894 1474685 5822.5513 COST, OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 249.50 255895 1512163 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS, SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 241.50 256173 1474686 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 615.00 CH- 549768 256174 1512165 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 841.74 117685 STAPLES ADVANTAGE 256175 1474684 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 370.00 2,909.88 256176 1512299 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 2,458.32 170.89 SPINNER ASSEMBLIES 00001242 255759 17938 170.89 344412 2 1712011 106099 SOUTHSIDE PRIDE 344418 211712011 117667 STORE TO DOOR - -140 00 AD 256000 28266 -2011 5210.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER GOLF DOME PROGRAM 1647.6406 1553.6530 5420.6406 1646.6406 1646.6406 1550.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES REPAIR PARTS GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES- 1553.6530 140.00 1504.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 344413 211712011 REPAIR PARTS 103283 ST. CROIX, RECREATION CO INC REPAIR PARTS 2,332.01 ALUMINUM BLEACHERS 00001241 255929 16742 2,332.01 344414 211712011 103277 ST. JOSEPH EQUIPMENT CO INC. 278:04 STEP, STEP STRAPS 00005646 255852 S184289 278.04 344415 211712011 100650 STANLEY SECURITY SOLUTIONS INC 47.78 KEYS 00006040 255757 CH- 549989 151.72 BUILDING KEYS 00001139 255808 CH- 549818 95.67 DOOR HARDWARE 00001139 255809 CH- 549768 295.17 344416 2117/2011 117685 STAPLES ADVANTAGE 2,909.88 TONER`CARTRIDGES 255758 106828985 - 2,909.88 344417 2/1712011 112668- STONEBROOKE EQUIPMENT INC. 170.89 SPINNER ASSEMBLIES 00001242 255759 17938 170.89 344418 211712011 117667 STORE TO DOOR - 4,921.00 2011 GROCERY'SERVICE 255761 75182 4,921.00 344419 7/17/2011 101017 SUBURBAN CHEVROLET 124.69 PLATE 00005670 256077 293457 = 3,214.07 ENGINE 00005559 256078 294125 ' 1647.6406 1553.6530 5420.6406 1646.6406 1646.6406 1550.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES REPAIR PARTS GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES- 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS 1504.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS PATHS & HARD SURFACE EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN CLUB HOUSE BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUILDING MAINTENANCE CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN HUMAN RELATION COMMISSION EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN CITY OF EDINA 2/16/2011 7:31:10 R55CKREG LOG20000 Council Check Register Page - 26 2117/2011 - 2/1712011 Check # Date Amount Supplier/ Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 6.64 COVER 00005379 256079 296566 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 33.94 SEALS, NUTS 00005679 256080 296350 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 18.19 GASKET, SEAL 00005679 256081 295808 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 17.15 TEE 00005679 256082 295682 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 3,414.68 344420 211712011 102140 SUN MOUNTAIN SPORTS INC. 1,691.92 MERCHANDISE 255950 502388 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 225.44 REBATE 255969 800275 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 665.14- CREDIT 255970 899471 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 801.34 344421 211712011 100900 SUN NEWSPAPERS 91.52 PUBLISH NOTICE 255760 1299943 1120.6120 ADVERTISING LEGAL ADMINISTRATION 1,169.74 PUBLISH ORD 2011 -02 256083 1301094 1120.6120 ADVERTISING LEGAL ADMINISTRATION 299.00 EDINBOROUGH AD 256084 1298754 5621.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER EDINBOROUGH ADMINISTRATION 1,560.26 344422 211712011 121161 SUPER MEDIA LLC 41.33 PHONE LISTING 256085 020411 5821.6188 TELEPHONE 50TH ST OCCUPANCY 41.33 PHONE LISTING 256085 020411 5841.6188 TELEPHONE YORK OCCUPANCY 41.34 PHONE LISTING 256085 020411 5861.6188 TELEPHONE VERNON OCCUPANCY 124.00 344423 211712011 114800 SUPERIOR WHITETAIL MANAGEMENT 1,250.00 DEER REMOVAL 00001251 255810 020111 1509.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES DEER CONTROL 1,250.00 344424 2/1712011 110674 SUPERIOR WIRELESS COMMUNICATIO 86.90 CELL PHONE 00001248 255811 29284 1646.6188 TELEPHONE BUILDING MAINTENANCE 86.90 344425 211712011 120998 SURLY BREWING CO. 1,048.00 255896 02009 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 1,048.00 344426 211712011 105982 T.P.C. LANDSCAPE 295.00 SNOW REMOVAL 255762 413691 1551.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CITY HALL GENERAL 196.25 SNOW REMOVAL 255853 413707 1551.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CITY HALL GENERAL 491.25 344427 211712011 104178 TAB PRODUCTS CO. LLC R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register 2/17/2011 - 2117/2011 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 160.10 FILE FOLDER TABS 255971 1968061 -01 1495.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 160.10 344428 2117/2011 102300 TCALMC , Business Unit INSPECTIONS 2/16/2011 7:31:10 Page - ' 27 180.00 LABOR MANAGEMENT TRAINING 255930 020911 5919.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS TRAINING 180.00 LABOR MANAGEMENT TRAINING 255930 020911 1280.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS SUPERVISION & OVERHEAD MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE PLANNING COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER ' VERNON SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING ADVERTISING OTHER VERNON SELLING ADVERTISING OTHER 50TH ST SELLING ADVERTISING OTHER YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES COST OF GOODS.- PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES WELDING SUPPLIES EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN GENERAL SUPPLIES CENTENNIAL LAKES PRINTING PSTF ADMINISTRATION PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COMMUNICATIONS 360.00 344429 211712011 120602 TEAGUE, CARY 120.87 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 255812 020811 1140.6107 120.87 344430 211712011 101035 THORPE DISTRIBUTING COMPANY 752.00 256177 626944 5862.5514 50.40 256178 626945 5862.5515 802:40 344431 211712011 120700 TIGER OAK PUBLICATIONS INC. 291.66 MAGAZINE ADVERTISING 255854 2011 -56453 5862.6122 291.67 MAGAZINE ADVERTISING 255854 2011 -56453 5822.6122 291.67 MAGAZINE ADVERTISING 255854 2011 -56453 5842.6122 875.00 344432 211712011 101474 TITLEIST 433.69 GOLF BALLS 255931 2254800 5440.5511 170.28 GOLF CLUB 255932 2260082 5440.5511 603.97 344433 211712011 101038 TOLL GAS & WELDING SUPPLY 9.21 WELDING CYLINDERS 00005729 255763 416539 1553.6580 40.80 WELDING TANKS 255933 416540 5630.6406 50.01 344434 2117/2011 .124753 TOSHIBA FINANCIAL SERVICES 204.95 COPIER USAGE 256086 170535363 7410.6575 204.95 344435 211712011 122302 TOUCHPOINT LOGIC LLC . _ 3,685.00, AUDIO:SYSTEMS'UPGRADES 255951 3426 2210.6103 3,685.00 344436 2/17/2011 104064 :.TRANS UNION LLC MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE PLANNING COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER ' VERNON SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING ADVERTISING OTHER VERNON SELLING ADVERTISING OTHER 50TH ST SELLING ADVERTISING OTHER YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES COST OF GOODS.- PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES WELDING SUPPLIES EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN GENERAL SUPPLIES CENTENNIAL LAKES PRINTING PSTF ADMINISTRATION PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COMMUNICATIONS R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register 2/17/2011 — 2/17/2011 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 24.50 BACKGROUND CHECKS 256001 01121893 1400.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 24.50 344437 2/1712011 123969 TWIN CITIES OCCUPATIONAL HEALT 149.50 PRE - EMPLOYMENT PHYSICAL 256002 101752664 1550.6121 ADVERTISING PERSONNEL 149.50 344438 211712011 101360 TWIN CITY HARDWARE CO. 193.17 DOOR CLOSER 256087 440544 5620.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 193.17 344439 211712011 123957 TWINCITIESGOLF.COM 2,000.00 KIOSK 00006221 255934 5451 5410.6409 COMPUTER SUPPLIES 2,000.00 344440 211712011 103048 U.S. BANK 794.00 HSA ACCT MAINTENANCE FEE 256003 6772573 1550.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 794.00 344441 211712011 115379 U.S. BANK 17.90 NET ZERO 255936 020211 1500.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 38.20 INTERNET 255936 020211 1550.6155 BANK SERVICES CHARGES 56.10 344442 211712011 125032 UNI- SELECT USA 1,801.11 AUTO PARTS 255935 013111 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS 1,801.11 344443 211712011 101051 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED 174.53 UNIFORMS 256004 013111 1400.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 200.77 UNIFORMS 256004 013111 1419.6203 UNIFORM ALLOWANCE 2,496.85 UNIFORMS 256004 013111 1400.6203 UNIFORM ALLOWANCE 2,872.15 344444 211712011 100410 USA MOBILITY WIRELESS INC. 13.45 PAGER 255764 U6096083B 1550.6188 TELEPHONE 13.45 344445 211712011 123319 VACATION SPORTS 771.00 SHIRTS, JACKETS, SWEATSHIRTS 255765 1857 5631.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 771.00 2/16/2011 7:31:10 Page- 28 Business Unit POLICE DEPT. GENERAL CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL EDINBOROUGH PARK GOLF ADMINISTRATION CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL CONTINGENCIES CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN POLICE DEPT. GENERAL RESERVE PROGRAM POLICE DEPT. GENERAL CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL CENTENNIAL ADMINISTRATION 344450 2/1712011 344451 2/1712011 344452 2117/2011 120627 VISTAR CORPORATION COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE CITY OF EDINA R55CKREG LOG20000 30161096 5630.5510 37.85- CREDIT, 255938 30118475 5630.5510 81.28 NACHO CUPS 256211 29890714 Council Check Register 564.71 2/1712011 - 2/17/2011 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No 344446 2117/2011 2,250.00 122554 'VALLEY NATIONAL GAS_ ES LLC 70.43 HAND WHEELS ' - 00003649 256088 049456 1470.6510 - 132.14 OXYGEN 00003649 256089 049230 1470.6510 412.90 OXYGEN 00003649 256090 049227 1470.6510 116.73- YOKE ASSEMBLY 00003649 256091 049525 1470.6510 732.20 344447 211712011 101068 VAN PAPER CO. 138.91 TISSUE, UTENSILS 00007513 255813 187800 -00 5862.6406 575.10 LIQUOR BAGS 00007513 255813 187800 -00 5862.6512 156.85 LIQUOR BAGS _ 255814 187805 -00 5822.6512 40.04. CAN LINERS 00001369 255855 187245 -00 1552.6406 910.90 344448 2117/2011 101067 VIKING INDUSTRIAL CENTER 362.60 VESTS, GLOVES -00001249 255815 262547 1646.6610 250.09 LOCKS FOR ATHLETIC BOXES 00001145 255816 262376 1642.6406 49.00 GLOVES 00001338 256092 263183 5921.6406 661.69 344449 211712011 119454 VINOCOPIA 129.17 256179 0035567 -IN 5822.5512 255.80 256180 0035421 -IN 5822.5512 292.41 256181 0035420 -IN 5862.5513 734.00 256182 0035565 -IN 5842.5513 436.50 256183 0035566 -1N 5842.5512 344450 2/1712011 344451 2/1712011 344452 2117/2011 SubledgerAccount Description FIRST-AID SUPPLIES FIRST AID SUPPLIES FIRST AID SUPPLIES' FIRST AID SUPPLIES GENERAL' SUPPLIES PAPER SUPPLIES PAPER SUPPLIES. GENERAL SUPPLIES SAFETY EQUIPMENT GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES, 2/1612011 7:31:10 Page - 29 Business Unit FIRE DEPT. GENERAL FIRE DEPT. GENERAL FIRE DEPT. GENERAL FIRE DEPT. GENERAL VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING 50TH ST SELLING CENT SVC PW BUILDING BUILDING MAINTENANCE FIELD MAINTENANCE SANITARY LIFT STATION MAINT COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 120627 VISTAR CORPORATION COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 521.28 CONCESSION PRODUCT 00002085 255937 30161096 5630.5510 37.85- CREDIT, 255938 30118475 5630.5510 81.28 NACHO CUPS 256211 29890714 5630.5510 564.71 100023, VOGEL, ROBERTC. 2,250.00 1ST QTR-2011 CONSULTING. 255939 210056 1140.6103 2,250.00 101069 VOSS LIGHTING 18.12 LIGHT BULBS 00005615 255817 15171957 -00 1646.6530 18.12 - SubledgerAccount Description FIRST-AID SUPPLIES FIRST AID SUPPLIES FIRST AID SUPPLIES' FIRST AID SUPPLIES GENERAL' SUPPLIES PAPER SUPPLIES PAPER SUPPLIES. GENERAL SUPPLIES SAFETY EQUIPMENT GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES, 2/1612011 7:31:10 Page - 29 Business Unit FIRE DEPT. GENERAL FIRE DEPT. GENERAL FIRE DEPT. GENERAL FIRE DEPT. GENERAL VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING 50TH ST SELLING CENT SVC PW BUILDING BUILDING MAINTENANCE FIELD MAINTENANCE SANITARY LIFT STATION MAINT COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD'LIQUOR YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD" CENTENNIAL LAKES COST OF GOODS SOLD CENTENNIAL LAKES COST OF GOODS SOLD , CENTENNIAL LAKES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES - PLANNING'. REPAIR PARTS BUILDING MAINTENANCE R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 2,070.07 256187 350890 5642.5513 Council Check Register YORK SELLING 113.12 256188 350869 5842.5513 2/17/2011 - 2/17/2011 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No 344453 211712011 5862.5513 106699 WALSER CHRYSLER JEEP VERNON SELLING 10.33- 256191 52187 5842.5513 726.90 ACCCUMULATOR 00005649 256093 176797CHWB 1553.6530 52189 5842.5513 726.90 YORK SELLING 10.33- 256193 52188 344454 211712011 YORK SELLING 102798 WEST PAYMENT CENTER 504.00 JAN INFORMATION CHARGES 256005 822217367 1400.6103 316.87 504.00 527310 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 344455 7/17/2011 527306 101033 WINE COMPANY, THE COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 529.14 255899 525847 516.40 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 256184 262240 -00 5822.5513 527308 5822.5513 747.55 50TH ST SELLING 256185 262380 -00 5862.5513 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 1.222.17 1,050.48 256186 262247 -00 5842.5513 Subledger Account Description Business Unit REPAIR PARTS 2/16/2011 7:31:10 Page - 30 EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES POLICE DEPT. GENERAL COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 344456 2117/2011 101312 WINE MERCHANTS 2,070.07 256187 350890 5642.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 113.12 256188 350869 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 178.24 256189 350888 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 146.24 256190 350891 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 10.33- 256191 52187 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 15.20- 256192 52189 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 10.33- 256193 52188 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 2,471.81 344457 2117/2011 124291 WIRTZ BEVERAGE MINNESOTA 316.87 255897 527310 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 71.95 255898 527306 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 529.14 255899 525847 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 2,652.32 255900 527308 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 55.98 255901 525602 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 1,050.48 255902 527307 5822.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING 21.50- 255903 822460 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 37.10- 255904 822459 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 4,106.93 256194 527305 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 17,882.62 256195 527309 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 4,440.86 256196 527311 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 13,744.52 256197 523454 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 4,909.33 256198 527303 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 9,143.65 256199 523450 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 48.33- 256200 822608 5662.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 162.14- 256201 822250 5662.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 58,635.58 R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register 2/17/2011 - 2/17/2011 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No 344458 2/17/2011 - 124529 VIIIRTZBEVERAGE MINNESOTA BEER 28.80 255905 710059 5862:5515 2,448.20 255906 710058 5862.5514 1,267.20 255907 710326 5862.5514 340.00 255908 2511 5842.5514 2,539.30 255909 710879 5642.5514 4.921.25 256202 712623 5842.5514 Subledger AAccount Description COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER COST OF GOODS'SOLD BEER COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER _ 344459 2/1712011 101726 XCEL ENERGY 4,908.64 51- 6824328 -7 255818 270205357 5420.6185 LIGHT & POWER 312.39 51- 6137136 -8 255819 269543027 5430.6165 LIGHT & POWER 545.31 51- 4827232 -6 255820 269522769 5311.6185 LIGHT '& POWER 863.32 51- 6979948 -4 255821 269556359 5821.6185 LIGHT & POWER 1,405.66 51- 6979948 -4 255821 269556359 5861.6185 LIGHT & POWER 2,109.52 51- 69799484 255821 269556359 5841.6185 LIGHT & POWER 39.72 51- 7567037 -0 255822 269713978 1321.6185 LIGHT & POWER 21.50 51- 4151897 -6 255823 269667826 1646.6185 LIGHT & POWER 2,969.91. 51- 6621207 -1 255824 269703062 5913.6185 LIGHT & POWER' 952.30 51- 5847121 -5 255825 269689459 5914.6185 LIGHT & POWER 484.68 51- 9013604 -6 255826 269590429 5913.6185 LIGHT & POWER 3,776.96 51- 6840050 -6 255827 270205330 - 5921.6185 LIGHT & POWER 5,265.77 51- 6121102 -5 256006 270366526 1646.6185 LIGHT & POWER 13,497.35 51- 5605640 -1 256203 270730941 5911.6185 LIGHT &POWER . 37,153.03 344460 ! 2/17/2011 100568 XEROX CORPORATION 168.90 JAN USAGE - PARK & REC 00004322 255766 052986594 1550.6151 EQUIPMENT RENTAL 168.90 i 344461 211712011 119647 YOCUM OIL COMPANY INC.' 10,515.19 DIESEL FUEL 00001200 255856 422577 1553.6581 GASOLINE 10,515.19 344462 211712011 101091 ZIEGLER INC 450.00 FEB GENERATOR MAINTENANCE 255767 E6395923 1551.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS 450.00 344463 211712011 102500 23MMERMAN, TIM 104.97 UNIFORM PURCHASE 256094 021011 1646.6201 LAUNDRY 104.97 2/16/2011 7:31:10 Page- 31 Business Unit VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING CLUB HOUSE RICHARDS GOLF COURSE POOL OPERATION 50TH ST OCCUPANCY VERNON OCCUPANCY YORK OCCUPANCY STREET LIGHTING REGULAR BUILDING MAINTENANCE DISTRIBUTION TANKS TOWERS & RESERVOIR DISTRIBUTION SANITARY LIFT STATION MAINT BUILDING MAINTENANCE WELL PUMPS CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN' CITY HALL GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register 2117/2011 — 2117/2011 Check # Date Amount Supplier/ Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 705,661.24 Grand Total Payment Instrument Totals . Check Total 705,661.24 Total Payments 705,661.24 2/1612011 7:31:10 Page - 32 R55CKSUM LOG20000 Company Amount 01000 GENERAL FUND, 163,658.55 . 02200 COMMUNICATIONS FUND 10,692.60 02300 POLICE, SPECIAL REVENUE 389.80 04000 WORKING CAPITAL FUND 219,160.50 05100 ART CENTER FUND 1,208.7l.. 05200 GOLF DOME FUND 7,557.23 05300 AQUATIC CENTER FUND 2,767.52 05400 GOLF COURSE FUND 30,193.51 05500 ICE ARENA FUND 4,676.47 05600 EDINBOROUGH/CENT LAKES FUND 12,259.21 05800 LIQUOR FUND 177,031.87' 05900 UTILITY FUND 30,569.73 05930 STORM SEWER FUND 3,551.78 05950 RECYCLING FUND 38,820.60 07400 PSTF AGENCY FUND 3,123.16 Report Totals 705,661.24 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Summary 2/17/2011 - 2/17/2011- 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 ies qnd da �� << procedures � 2/16/2011 7:32:29 Page - 1 R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 2/22/2011 13:37:14 Council Check Register Page - 1 2124/2011 —2/24/2011 Check # Date Amount Supplier/ Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger- Account Description Business Unit 344464 2/24/2011 118261 2ND WIND EXERCISE INC.' 144.00 EQUIPMENT REPAIR 256511 21- 028258 5620.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS EDINBOROUGH PARK 144.00 i 344465 2124/2011 118536 A & B AUTO'ELECTRIC INC. 84.41 SHAKER MOTOR REPAIR 00005741 256295 58747 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 84.41 344466 212412011 100613 AAA 3.70 ADMIN FEE FOR PLATE 256212 021411 1553.6260 LICENSES & PERMITS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 3.70 344467 212412011 102971 ACE ICE COMPANY 63.25 - 256418 0915766 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 32.00 256419 0725173 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 95.25 344468 2/24/2011 105182 ADT SECURITY SERVICES 34.74 ALARM SERVICE 256512 41375148 5111.6250 ALARM SERVICE ART CENTER BLDG /MAINT 34.74 344469 212412011 124320- ADVERTISING FEDERATION OF MINN 1,825.00 BRAEMAR GOLF ADS 256296 021111 5410.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER GOLF ADMINISTRATION . 1;825.00 344470 ` 212412011 101794. ALBRECHT ENTERPRISES LLC - 825.00 IRRIGATION BLOWOUT 256584 10023527 5431.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS RICHARDS GC MAINTENANCE 825.00 - 344471 .,2/2412011 119463 ALEXANDRIA TECHNICAL COLLEGE 325.00 FIREARMS TRAINING 256388 021411 1400.6104 CONFERENCES ,& SCHOOLS POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 325.00 344472 212412011 102716 ' ALLEGRA EDINA- 48.30 BIRTHDAY PARTY FORMS 256513 85761 5621.6575 PRINTING EDINBOROUGH ADMINISTRATION 48.30 344473 2124/2011 101601 AMUNDSON, ERIK 2,000.00 TUITION REIMBURSEMENT 256389 021411 1400.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 2,000.00 344474 212412011 103680 ARAMARK REFRESHMENT SRVCS Subledger Account Description GENERAL SUPPLIES DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS GENERAL SUPPLIES 212212011 13:37:14 Page- 2 Business Unit CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL GOLF ADMINISTRATION ARENA ICE MAINT EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE POLICE DEPT. GENERAL MACHINERY & EQUIPMENT EB /CL BALANCE SHEET GENERAL SUPPLIES PSTF OCCUPANCY REPAIR PARTS REPAIR PARTS REPAIR PARTS REPAIR PARTS REPAIR PARTS REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN DATA PROCESSING POLICE DEPT. GENERAL COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING CITY OF EDINA R55CKREG LOG20000 YORK SELLING Council Check Register 2/24/2011 -2124/2011 Check # Date Amount Supplier/ Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No 259.29 COFFEE 256354 419029 1550.6406 259.29 344475 212412011 128298 ASSOCIATION OF GOLF MERCHANDIS 225.00 2011 DUES 256514 11 -042 5410.6105 225.00 344476 212412011 106015 ATHLETICA INC. 430.71 NETIPAD KIT 00008044 256213 0032487 -IN 5521.6406 430.71 344477 212412011 126019 B & B PRODUCTS I RIGS AND SQUA 854.00 SQUAD MAINTENANCE 256390 3450 1400.6215 854.00 344478 212412011 104345 BARCLAY AUDIO 10,584.06 SOUND SYSTEM UPGRADE 00002210 256585 NOV2010 5600.1740 10,584.06 344479 2/24/2011 102195 BATTERIES PLUS 18.29 BATTERIES 256515 020 - 216715 7411.6406 18.29 344480 212412011 102449 BATTERY WHOLESALE INC. 433.56 BATTERIES 00005739 256214 C15154 1553.6530 275.30 BATTERIES 00005739 256215 C15197 1553.6530 22.22 BATTERIES 00005739 256586 C14065 1553.6530 443.50 BATTERIES 00005739 256587 C14156 1553.6530 451.16 BATTERIES 00005739 256588 CW06 1553.6530 237.96 BATTERIES 00005739 256589 C14718 1553.6530 1,863.70 344481 2124/2011 124863 BEEZIX SOFTWARE SERVICES 319.04 QUICK REFERENCE CARDS 00003006 256391 5297 1400.6160 319.04 344482 2124/2011 101355 BELLBOY CORPORATION 177.05 256319 56994300 5842.5512 37.55 256420 57005100 5862.5515 57.21 256421 84822300 5862.5515 92.06 256422 6030200 5862.5515 84.86 256423 84822400 5842.5515 Subledger Account Description GENERAL SUPPLIES DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS GENERAL SUPPLIES 212212011 13:37:14 Page- 2 Business Unit CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL GOLF ADMINISTRATION ARENA ICE MAINT EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE POLICE DEPT. GENERAL MACHINERY & EQUIPMENT EB /CL BALANCE SHEET GENERAL SUPPLIES PSTF OCCUPANCY REPAIR PARTS REPAIR PARTS REPAIR PARTS REPAIR PARTS REPAIR PARTS REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN DATA PROCESSING POLICE DEPT. GENERAL COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 2/22/2011 13:37:14 Council Check Register Page - 3 2124/2011 - 2124/2011 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 20.04 256557 84695300 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 428:69 344483 212412011 125139 sBERNICK'S WINE 780.00 256320 16519 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 780.00 344484 2/2412011 100648 BERTELSON OFFICE PRODUCTS 70.52 SHREDDER BAGS 256216 WO- 674946 -1 1550.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 89.68 OFFICE SUPPLIES 256217 WO- 675243 -1 1600.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES PARK ADMIN. GENERAL 110.43 OFFICE SUPPLIES 256392 WO- 675700 -1 1400.6513 OFFICE SUPPLIES POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 270.63 344485 212412011 101296 BERTRAND, MIKE 101.89 OFFICE SUPPLIES 256516 021711 5430.6513 OFFICE`SUPPLIES RICHARDS GOLF COURSE 101.89 344486 212412011 128294 BERZELIUS, ROBERT 400.00 5/21/11 RENTAL REFUND 256505 021511 5601.4555 CENTENNIAL LAKES PARK EB /CL REVENUES 400.00 344487 2124/2011 128297 BLOOM DESIGNS `- 319.84 NOTECARDS 00006101 256594 11868 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 319.84 344488 , 2/2412011 102545 BLUE CROSS &BLUE SHIELD 82.76 AMBULANCE OVERPAYMENT 256318 M. HOVELSRUD 1470.4329 AMBULANCE FEES. FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 82.76 344489 212412011. 122688 BMK SOLUTIONS 54.19 OFFICE SUPPLIES 256297 66266 1552.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENT SVC PW BUILDING 130.86 OFFICE SUPPLIES 256297 66266 1646.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES BUILDING MAINTENANCE 53.32- CREDIT 256298 "4862CM 1260.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES ENGINEERING GENERAL 40.59 PAPER 00001437 256355 66511 1552.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENT SVC PW BUILDING 13.01 OFFICE - SUPPLIES 00001437 256356 66490 1260.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES ENGINEERING GENERAL 24.62 OFFICE SUPPLIES 00001437 256356 66490 1552.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENT SVC PW BUILDING 37.92 OFFICE SUPPLIES 00001437 256356 66490 1646.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES . BUILDING MAINTENANCE 45.37 OFFICE SUPPLIES 00001437 256356 66490 5913.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES DISTRIBUTION 169.85 OFFICE SUPPLIES 00003524 256357 66544 1470.6513 OFFICE SUPPLIES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 463.09 344490 2/24/2011 119631 BONNER & BORHART LLP R55CKREG LOG26000 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register 2/24/2011 -2/24/2011 Check # Date p Amount Supplier/ Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account,Description 19,337.50 PROSECUTING 256393 51459 1195.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 37 50 344491 2/2412011 i 19,3 100659 BOYER TRUCK PARTS 70.56 , U -BOLT 00005644 256219. 488014 70.56 344492 2/24/2011 100662 BRAEMAR GOLF DOME 150.00 FEES FOR ADAPTIVE PROGRAM -. 256299 6021511 150.00 344493 2/24/2011 i 102785 ",BRIDGE FOR.YOUTH, THE 4,921.00 2011 FUNDING 256218, 2011 4,921.00 344494 2124/2011 119455' CAPITOL BEVERAGE SALES 3,412.25 `256321 .14919 62.80 256322 14917. 265.80 256424 14915 3,740.85 344495 212412011 100897 CENTERPOINT ENERGY 240.53 256300 020311 265.28 256300 020311 387.22 256300 020311 506.22 256300 020311 632.37 256300 020311 726.61 256300 020311 1,281.94 256300 020311 1,410.42 256300 020311 1,843.28 256300 020311 .1,969.74 256300 020311 _ 1,980.26 - 256300 020311 2,021.45 256300 020311 2,206.82 256300 020311 3,571.97 256300 020311 4,611.25 256300 020311 9,261.84 256300 020311 13,991.99 256300 020311 46,909.19 344496 2/2412011- 103711 CENTERPOINT ENERGY SERVICES IN 1553.6530 1629.6406 1504.6103 5842:5514 5842.5515 5822.5514 . 5430.6186 5821:6186 5841.6186 5861.6186 5422.6186 1481.6186 5913.6186 5111.6186 1552.6186 5921.6186 5630.6186 5420.6186 1628.6186 5911.6186 1646.6186 5511.6186 5210.6186 REPAIR PARTS GENERAL SUPPLIES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER COST. OF GOODS SOLD MIX COST,OF GOODS SOLD BEER HEAT HEAT HEAT HEAT ., HEAT HEAT HEAT HEAT HEAT HEAT HEAT HEAT HEAT HEAT HEAT HEAT HEAT 2/22/2011.13:37:14 Page- 4 Business Unit LEGAL SERVICES EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN ADAPTIVE RECREATION . HUMAN RELATION COMMISSION YORK SELLING YORK SELLING 50TH ST SELLING RICHARDS GOLF COURSE 50TH ST OCCUPANCY YORK OCCUPANCY VERNON OCCUPANCY MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS YORK FIRE STATION DISTRIBUTION ART CENTER BLDG / MAINT . CENT SVC PW BUILDING SANITARY LIFT STATION MAINT CENTENNIAL LAKES CLUB HOUSE SENIOR CITIZENS WELL PUMPS BUILDING MAINTENANCE ARENA BLDG/GROUNDS GOLF DOME PROGRAM R55CKREG LOG20000. CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register 2/24/2011 -2124/2011 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No 9,590.39 256220 2132632 5620.6186 45.96 256221 2133102 5311.6186 9,636.35 344497 2124/2011 128284. CHESTERFIELD, TREASURER OF 1,600:00 SOT LEADER TRAINING 256358 FTFLC031411A 1470.6104 1,600.00 344498 212412011 119725 CHISAGO LAKES'DISTRIBUTING CO 52.00 256323 438825 5842.5514 187.95 256425 438637 5822.5514 130.00 256426 438647 5862.5514 369.95 344499 212412011 128283 CHRIST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH 48.00 RINK RENTAL REFUND 256301 021611 1600.4722.05 48.00 344500 2/2412011 122084 CITY OF EDINA - UTILITIES 41.63 00086676 - 0330288022 256359 330288022 -2111 5310.6189 5,530.46 00103426 - 0345052006 256360 345052006 -2/11 1552.6189 379.80 00105263 - 0335037016 256518 335037016 -2/11 5430.6189 5,951.89 344501 212412011 100692 COCA -COLA BOTTLING CO. 256427 0158083710 5862.5515 344502 212412011 101323 CONNEY SAFETY PRODUCTS 70.24 SAFETY GLASSES 00005731 256302 03852310 104.08 SAFETY GLASSES 00005731 256302 03852310 18.08 SAFETY GLASSES 00005738 256361 03854010 30.11 SAFETY GLASSES - 00005738 256361 03854010 33.70 SAFETY GLASSES 00005738 256361 03854010 58.14 SAFETY GLASSES 00005738 256361 03854010 132.01 SAFETY GLASSES 00006738 256361 03854010 446.36 344503 2/24/2011 102791 D2.SERVICES INC. 6,661.79 SCADA PROGRAM /HARDWARE 00005430 256520 10006 6,661.79 1553.6610 5913.6610 1553.6610 1552.6610 1646.6610 5913.6610 1301.6610 05508.1705 Subledger Account Description HEAT HEAT CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER COST OF GOODS'SOLD BEER FIELD USER FEE SEWER & WATER SEWER & WATER SEWER & WATER COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX SAFETY EQUIPMENT SAFETY EQUIPMENT SAFETY EQUIPMENT SAFETY EQUIPMENT SAFETY EQUIPMENT SAFETY EQUIPMENT SAFETY EQUIPMENT - 2/22/2011 13:37:14 Page - 5 Business Unit EDINBOROUGH PARK POOL OPERATION FIRE DEPT. GENERAL YORK SELLING 50TH ST SELLING VERNON.SELLING PARK ADMIN. GENERAL POOL ADMINISTRATION CENT SVC PW BUILDING RICHARDS GOLF COURSE VERNON SELLING EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN DISTRIBUTION EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN CENT SVC PW BUILDING BUILDING MAINTENANCE DISTRIBUTION GENERALMAINTENANCE CONSTR. IN PROGRESS WM -508 SCADA SYSTEM 2/22/2011 13:37:14 Page- 6 Business Unit CENT SVC PW BUILDING POLICE DEPT. GENERAL GRILL 1,826.35 256324 588486 CITY OF EDINA 5842.5514 R55CKREG LOG20000 YORK SELLING 1,121.10 256428 588483 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING Council Check Register 67.20 256429 588485 5822.5515 2124/2011 -2/24/2011 50TH ST SELLING Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account-No Subledger Account Description 344504 212412011 104020 DALCO 336.55 HAND TOWELS, FLOOR CARE 00001454 256222 2300760 1552.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 336.55 344505 2/2412011 00001378 256223 128291 DATA DOCTORS 9308 1301.6556 TOOLS GENERAL MAINTENANCE 2,975.12 DATA TRANSFER 256394 201100243 1400.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 1301.6556 TOOLS 2,975.12 583.90 344506 2124/2011 100710 DAVE'S DAIRY 344509 212412011 100731 DPC INDUSTRIES 82.79 DAIRY 256519 020711 5421.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD 3,523.69 82.79 00001215 256303 8270015411 5915.6586 344507 212412011 102478 DAY DISTRIBUTING CO. 2/22/2011 13:37:14 Page- 6 Business Unit CENT SVC PW BUILDING POLICE DEPT. GENERAL GRILL 1,826.35 256324 588486 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 1,121.10 256428 588483 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 67.20 256429 588485 5822.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 50TH ST SELLING 1,409.65 256430 588484 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING 4,424.30 344508 212412011 100718 DELEGARD TOOL CO. 564.57 TOOLS, BATTERY PACK 00001378 256223 553820 1301.6556 TOOLS GENERAL MAINTENANCE 19.33 POWER CORD SET 00001378 256224 553869 1301.6556 TOOLS GENERAL MAINTENANCE 583.90 344509 212412011 100731 DPC INDUSTRIES 3,523.69 CHEMICALS 00001215 256303 8270015411 5915.6586 WATER TREATMENT SUPPLIES WATER TREATMENT 3,523.69 344510 2/2412011 100740 EARL F. ANDERSEN INC. 1,017.98 TRAFFIC CONES 00001431 256225 0094675 -IN 1314.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES STREET RENOVATION 1,017.98 344511 212412011 124503 EDEN PRAIRIE WINLECTRIC CO. 32.85 BUSHINGS, JOINT COMPOUND 00001382 256226 07840300 1301.6556 TOOLS GENERAL MAINTENANCE 14.34 RED WASH, LUGS 00001376 256227 07837900 1552.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENT SVC PW BUILDING 47.19 344512 212412011 100744 EDINA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 26.66 GALA ADVERTISING 256362 29614 5862.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER VERNON SELLING 26.67 GALA ADVERTISING 256362 29614 5822.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER 50TH ST SELLING 26.67 GALA ADVERTISING 256362 29614 5842.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER YORK SELLING 80.00 go R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 2/22/2011 13:37:14 Council Check Register Page - 7 2/2412011 -2/2412011 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger.Account Description _ Business Unit 344513 212412011 - 123189 EDINA LIQUOR 411.75 - BEERIWINE 256521 130 "-'5421.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER GRILL 411.75 344514 212412011 101630 EDINA PUBLIC SCHOOLS 5,908.00 SCHOOL READINESS 256304 #002 1504.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES HUMAN RELATION COMMISSION 5.908.00 344515 212412011 100049 EHLERS S ASSOCIATES INC 855.00 ' 2010 HOUSING TIF 256395 342469 1500.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTINGENCIES 190.00 TIF CALCULATIONS 256396 342471 1000.1303 DUE FROM HRA GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET 332.50 GRANDVIEW TIF CALCULATIONS 256397 342470 1000.1303 DUE FROM HRA GENERAL FUND EALANCE SHEET 1,377.50 344516 2/2412011 127590 ETTERMAN ENTERPRISES 62.16 BULBS 00005328 256228 167804 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 62.16 344517 2/2412011. 100146 FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY 117.35 BALL JOINTS' 00005618 256229 69- 031201 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 117.35 344518 212412011 ,128296 .' FAIRVIEW AUXILIARY, . 2,357.00 FUNDRAISER 256522 021811 5110.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION 2,357.00 344519 2/24/2011 106035 FASTENAL COMPANY 3.26 FASTENERS "- 00005682 256523 .- MNTC2104931 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS . EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 3.26 344520 2124/2011 102003 FASTSIGNS BLOOMINGTON 283.22 PEAK RULES SIGNS 256524 190 -39674 5620.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES EDINBOROUGH PARK 283:22 344521 212412011 102101 FEDEX OFFICE 160.91 SIGNS 00002090 256363 131200003989 5630.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENTENNIAL LAKES 26.21 BINDING, PAPER 00006364 256525 062200021164 5410.6575 PRINTING GOLF ADMINISTRATION 187.12 - 344522 212412011 101512 FLEXIBLE PIPE TOOL COMPANY 506.59 WHEELS FOR TV CAMERA 00001337 256526 13976 5920.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES SEWER CLEANING R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register 2/24/2011 -2/24/2011 Check # Date Amount Supplier/ Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 2122/2011 13:37:14 Page- 8 Business Unit 5440.5511 506.59 PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 344523 2124/2011 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP 101475 FOOTJOY 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 5620.6406 4,228.04 MERCHANDISE 5620.6406 256527 3559157 224.85 MERCHANDISE 256528 3559423 2,187.80- SHOE CREDIT 256529 6870045 2,265.09 344524 2124/2011 102727 FORCE AMERICA 346.54 AUGER FEEDBACK SENSOR 00005684 256305 01357860 346.54 344525 2/24/2011 101022 FRAME, SUSAN 302.90 BRUSHES, INK, PAPER 00009170 256530 021811 302.90 344526 2124/2011 122614 FRUCHI 279.00 CONCESSION PRODUCT 256531 1 -1656 279.00 344527 2124/2011 100780 GOPHER STATE ONE -CALL INC. 100.00 ANNUAL ASSESSMENT 00001468 256230 4015 352.90 JAN TICKETS 00001473 256364 5439 452.90 344528 2124/2011 101103 GRAINGER 819.19 GLOVES 00005730 256231 9457927508 103.80 HEAT TAPE FOR ROOF 00006044 256232 9452324958 1,014.97 TOOLS 00001377 256233 9452848998 108.51 LAMPS 256398 9464286435 543.48 TOOLS, LIGHT BULBS 00002262 256532 9457371889 240.96 AIR FILTERS 00002259 256533 9453591076 2,830.91 344529 2124/2011 124711 GRANDVIEW TIRE & AUTO - CAHILL 54.95 ALIGNMENT 00005683 256234 21833 54.95 344530 212412011 102217 GRAPE BEGINNINGS INC 882.50 256325 127006 467.25 256431 127003 262.75 256432 127005 2122/2011 13:37:14 Page- 8 Business Unit 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 5110.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION 5620.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD EDINBOROUGH PARK 5932.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES GENERAL STORM SEWER 5913.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES DISTRIBUTION 1553.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 5420.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CLUB HOUSE 1301.6556 TOOLS GENERAL MAINTENANCE 7412.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES PSTF RANGE 5620.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES EDINBOROUGH PARK 5620.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES EDINBOROUGH PARK 1553.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 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 R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 2/22/2011 13:37:14 Council Check Register Page - 9 2124/2011 -2/24/2011 Check # Date - Amount Supplier/ Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 1,612.50 ' 344531 2/24/2011 102320 HAMCO DATA PRODUCTS. 113.18 REGISTER TAPE 256504 271835 5822.6512 PAPER SUPPLIES 50TH ST SELLING 113.18 344532 2/24/2011 105436', HENNEPIN COUNTY INFORMATION 160.31 'TECHNICAL SUPPORT 256306 110162025 1190.6105 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS ASSESSING 160.31 344533 212412011 101215 HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFI 541.55 JAN 2011 BOOKINGS 256399 3458 1195.6170 COURT CHARGES LEGAL SERVICES 541.55 - 344534 212412011 116680 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY • 203.06 MONITOR 00004300 256506 48945965 5841.6406 GENERAL•SUPPLIES YORK OCCUPANCY 646.84 COMPUTER 00004300 256506' 48945965 1495.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES INSPECTIONS 159.24 HP DOCKING STATION 00004300 256507 48982702 5861.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES VERNON OCCUPANCY ' 1,009.14 344535 2124/2011 103753 HILLYARD INC - MINNEAPOLIS 74.92 RESTROOM CLEANERS 00002266 256534 6636790 5620.6511 CLEANING SUPPLIES EDINBOROUGH PARK 74.92 344536 212412011 104375 HOHENSTEINS INC.: 2,144.00 256326 550020 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 206.75 256433 549947 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING 5.00 256434 549323 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING 56.00 256558 549853 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 800.50 256559 549852 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 3,212.25 344537 212412011 116152 INTERLACHEN COUNTRY CLUB 395.04 HYDRANT USAGE REFUND 256365 RENTAL 5901.4626 SALE OF WATER UTILITY REVENUES 395.04 344538 212412011 128290 IPMBA 30.00 TRAINING DVD 256400 021611 1400.6405 BOOKS & PAMPHLETS POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 30.00 344539 212412011 100741 JJ TAYLOR DIST. OF MINN 15.00 256435 1466175 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register 2/24/2011 -2/24/2011 2/22/2011 13:37:14 Page - 10 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 2,299.60 256436 1481218 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING 20.95- 256437 1161024 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING 7,624.00 256438 1481224 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 215.40 256439 1481225 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 2,251.61 256560 1481216 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 17.60 256561 1161023 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 12,402.26 344541 212412011 100835 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO. 1,944.79 256327 1998631 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 37.61 256328 1998633 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 17.92- 256329 485994 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 10.33- 256330 485693 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 3.68- 256331 485818 5822.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING 161.12- 256332 486524 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 1,171.17 256440 1002003 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 2,174.62 256441 1002000 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 2,080.00 256442 1001998 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 4,976.36 256443 1002002 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 430.98 256444 1001999 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 651.93 256445 1002001 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 970.87 256446 1002008 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 721.18 256447 1002004 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 111.47 256448 1002007 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 5,086.64 256449 1002006 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 1,782.34 256450 1002010 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 62.21 256451 1002009 5662.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 246.64 256452 1002005 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 1,038.27 256453 1998636 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 736.93 256562 1001992 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 22.11 256563 1001993 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 539.05 256564 1001994 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 334.44 256565 1001997 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 75.16 256566 1001995 5822.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING 1,064.97 256567 1001996 5822.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING 26,066.69 344542 212412011 100919 JOHNSON, NAOMI 1.22 PETTY CASH 256535 021611 5110.6235 POSTAGE ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION 40.34 PETTY CASH 256535 021611 5110.6564 CRAFT SUPPLIES ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION 42.89 PETTY CASH 256535 021611 5110.6513 OFFICE SUPPLIES ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 2/22/2011 13:37:14 Council Check Register Page - 11 2/24/2011 -212412011 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 65.39 PETTY CASH 256535 021611 5112.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES ART CENTER POTTERY 75.72 PETTY CASH 256535 021611 5110.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION 188.95 PETTY CASH 256535 021611 5101.4413 ART WORK SOLD ART CENTER REVENUES 414.51 344543 212412011 102113 JOHNSTONE SUPPLY 85.32 MOTOR 00001436 256235 089058 5912.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES WELL HOUSES i 91.19 SWITCH 00001436 256235 089058 1551.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CITY HALL GENERAL 176.51 344544 2124/2011 120296 KAASA, GUNNAR 23.33 SAFETY GLASSES 256366 021611 1553.6201 LAUNDRY EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 23.33 344545 212412011 128281T.- KEISER,LAURA 35.62 UTILITY OVERPAYMENT REFUND 256307 021411 5900.2015 CUSTOMER REFUND UTILITY BALANCE SHEET 35.62 344546 2124/2011 105887 KOESSLER, JOE 168.00 JAN 2011 SERVICE 256236 013111 1628.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES SENIOR CITIZENS 168.00 344547 212412011 128296 LAVA MARKETING GROUP 212.07, RANGEFINDER 00006226 256536 44903 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 212.07 344548 212412011 124810` LIFT BRIDGE BEER COMPANY 182.00 256454 11774 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING 130.00 256568 11829, 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 312.00 344549 212412011 106301' LOFFLER,COMPANIES INC. 116.58 COPIER USAGE 00005744 256367 1216444 1553.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 116.58 344550 2/24/2011 100868 LOGIS - 1,463.04 256368 33318/33245/332 1554.6160 DATA PROCESSING CENT SERV GEN - MIS 73 3,963.56 256368 33318/33245/332 1554.6160 DATA PROCESSING CENT SERV GEN - MIS 73 3,977.89 256368 33318/33245/332 1120.6160 DATA PROCESSING ADMINISTRATION 73 CITY OF EDINA 2122/2011 13:37:14 R55CKREG LOG20000 Council Check Register Page - 12 2/24/2011 —2/24/2011 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 5,047.34 256368 33318/33245/332 1495.6160 DATA PROCESSING INSPECTIONS 73 8,792.60 256368 33318/33245/332 1190.6160 DATA PROCESSING ASSESSING 73 11,962.34 256368 33318/33245/332 5910.6160 DATA PROCESSING GENERAL (BILLING) 73 14,585.23 256368 33318/33245/332 1160.6160 DATA PROCESSING FINANCE 73 49,792.00 344551 2/24/2011 101792 LUBE -TECH 275.59 CAR WASH FLUID 00005733 256237 1870753 1553.6238 CAR WASH EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 275.59 344552 2/2412011 112577 M. AMUNDSON LLP 1,080.94 256455 103349 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 1,080.94 344553 212412011 115376 M.A.C.IA. 25.00 MEMBERSHIP - MOLLY ANDERSON 256401 021511 1400.6105 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 25.00 344554 212412011 100864 MACQUEEN EQUIP INC. 138.71 ROLLER GUIDES, BOLTS 00005734 256238 2111326 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 756.34 CHAIN SETS FOR NOZZLE 00001343 256308 2111595 5920.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES SEWER CLEANING 245.52 SHEAR PINS 00005652 256309 2111578 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 1,140.57 344555 212412011 117804 MALLOY MONTAGUE KARNOWSIQ 5,500.00 AUDIT 256402 28070 1160.6130 PROFESSIONAL SERV - AUDIT FINANCE 5,500.00 344556 212412011 125941 MCQUAY INTERNATIONAL 291.50 MOTOR INSTALLATION 258537 2542949 7411.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PSTF OCCUPANCY 291.50 344557 212412011 105603 MEDICINE LAKE TOURS 2,169.75 KING TUT TRIP 256239 021111 1628.6103.07 TRIPS PROF SERVICES SENIOR CITIZENS 2,169.75 344558 212412011 106326 MEDRANO, CHRIS 700.00 ADAPTIVE GOLF INSTRUCTION 256310 021511 1629.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ADAPTIVE RECREATION CITY OF EDINA 2/22/2011 13:37:14 R55CKREG LOG20000 Council Check Register Page - 13 2/24/2011 -2124/2011 Check # i Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 700.00 344559 2124/2011 101987' = MENARDS 15.99 PREMIXED CONCRETE 00002268'256538 65986 5620.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES EDINBOROUGH PARK 15.99 344560 212412011 104156 MENARDS - 235.26 GLOVES, LUMBER, CARPET 00002091 256508 33891 5630.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES _, CENTENNIAL LAKES - 235.26 344561 2124/2011 102602 METRO CASH REGISTER SYSTEMS 75.45 THERMAL RECEIPT PAPER 00006227 256539 70563 5210.6513 OFFICE SUPPLIES GOLF DOME PROGRAM 75.45 344562 212412011 100885 METRO SALES INC 166.60 COPIER USAGE 00008048 256240 396664 5510.6513 OFFICE SUPPLIES ARENA ADMINISTRATION 166.60 344563 212412011 101161 MIDWEST CHEMICAL SUPPLY 361.15 CLEANERS, WIPES 256509 39796 1551.6511 CLEANING SUPPLIES CITY HALL GENERAL 513.00 KITCHEN SUPPLIES 256509 39796 1551.6512 PAPER SUPPLIES CITY HALL GENERAL 874.15 " 344564 212412011 100913 MINNEAPOLIS & SUBURBAN SEWER & 2,940.00 REPLACE WATER SERVICE 00001472 256369 33781 5913.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS DISTRIBUTION 3,307.50 REPLACE WATER SERVICE 00001471 256370 33780 5913.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS DISTRIBUTION 6,247.50 344565 212412011 _ 127062 MINNEHAHA BLDG. MAINT.INC. 10.69 WINDOW CLEANING 256403 921080989 5821.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS 50TH ST OCCUPANCY 42.75 256404 921080987 5841.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS YORK OCCUPANCY 32.06 256405 921080988 5861.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS .. VERNON OCCUPANCY 85:50 344566 212412011 102014 MINNESOTA CLAY USA 23.90 UNDERGLAZE 00009163 256540 65336 5110.6564 CRAFT SUPPLIES ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION - 23.90 344567 2/24/2011 101638 MINNESOTA!DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 150.00 . WATERMAIN PERMIT 256313 PLAN REVIEW 05515.1705.20 CONSULTING DESIGN OSCAR ROBERTS RECON 150.00 2/22/2011 13:37:14 Page - 14 Business Unit FINANCE GENERAL MAINTENANCE OSCAR ROBERTS RECON PUBLIC WORKS ADMIN GENERAL POLICE DEPT. GENERAL PSTF RANGE EDINBOROUGH PARK 362.00 256333 64621 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE CITY OF EDINA 646.50 R55CKREG LOG20000 64624 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 105.50 256457 64623 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 1,114.00 Council Check Register 344576 212412011 104232 NORTHERN SAFETY TECHNOLOGY INC 2/24/2011 -2/2412011 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 344568 2124/2011 101589 MINNESOTA GFOA 344577 212412011 105675 NYSTROM PUBLISHING CO. INC 60.00 DUES - JOHN WALLIN 256406 020111 1160.6105 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS POOL ADMINISTRATION 581.72 60.00 344569 212412011 100908 MINNESOTA WANNER CO. 8.49 CAMLOCKS 00004223 256241 0087036 -IN 1301.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 8.49 344570 2/2412011 101796 MPCA 400.00 STORMWATER PERMIT 256311 MN R100001 04379.1705.20 CONSULTING DESIGN 400.00 344571 212412011 101796 MPCA 23.00 CERT RENEWAL- MICHAEL BAUER 256312 SD- 272640 1240.6105 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 23.00 344672 212412011 102308 MSANI 100.00 CONFERENCE FEE 256407 021411 1400.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS 100.00 344573 212412011 121482 NEATON'S CRANE SERVICE INC. 200.00 MOVE STORAGE UNIT 256408 0011316 7412.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 200.00 344574 212412011 106662 NET LITIN DISTRIBUTORS 174.74 PLASTICWARE 256541 104371 5620.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD 174.74 344575 212412011 100076 NEW FRANCE WINE CO. 2/22/2011 13:37:14 Page - 14 Business Unit FINANCE GENERAL MAINTENANCE OSCAR ROBERTS RECON PUBLIC WORKS ADMIN GENERAL POLICE DEPT. GENERAL PSTF RANGE EDINBOROUGH PARK 362.00 256333 64621 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 646.50 256456 64624 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 105.50 256457 64623 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 1,114.00 344576 212412011 104232 NORTHERN SAFETY TECHNOLOGY INC 79.82 FLANGE KITS, GASKETS 00005655 256371 26665 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 79.82 344577 212412011 105675 NYSTROM PUBLISHING CO. INC 581.72 AQUATIC CENTER POCKET BROCHURE 256242 24355 5310.6575 PRINTING POOL ADMINISTRATION 581.72 R55CKREG LOG20000 212412011 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 126330 ON -SITE LIGHTING & SURVEY LLC CITY OF EDINA COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 1,035.28 LIGHT FIXTURE 00001351 Council Check Register 6549 1322.6530 ' 1,035.28 2124/2011 -2/24/2011 Check # Date Amount Supplier/ Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 344578 2/2412011 103578 OFFICE DEPOT 720.75 HVAC SERVICE CONTRACT 256375 39032 5630.6230 36.95 FOLDERS, CLOROX WIPES 00002680 256510 550632608001 5631.6513 OFFICE SUPPLIES ' 36.95 2/2412011 100347 PAUSTIS & SONS 344579 212412011 102712 -OFFICE OF ENTERPRISE =TECHNOLOG 1,336.00 256334 8293941 -IN 362.68 256372 W11010668 5420.6188 TELEPHONE 8293998 -IN 23.12 256373 W11010662 1550.6188 TELEPHONE 8293815 -CM 23.12 256373 W11010662 1646.6188 TELEPHONE 8293953 -IN 46.24 256373 W11010662 1646.6188 TELEPHONE 8293962 -1N 46.24 256373 W11010662 5111.6188 TELEPHONE - 69.36 344583 256373 W11010662 5861.6188 TELEPHONE 92.48 256373 W11010662 1481.6188 TELEPHONE 45921878 92.48 - 256373 W11010662 5821.6188 TELEPHONE 115.60 256373 W11010662 1646.6188 TELEPHONE 138.72 256373 W11010662 5841.6188 TELEPHONE 158.98 256373 W11010662 5210.6188 TELEPHONE 165.48 256373 W11010662 1646.6188 TELEPHONE 206.84 256373 W11010662 5621.6188 TELEPHONE 206.85 256373 W11010662 5631.6188 TELEPHONE 323.68 256373 W11010662 1622.6188 TELEPHONE 344680 212412011 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 126330 ON -SITE LIGHTING & SURVEY LLC COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 1,035.28 LIGHT FIXTURE 00001351 256374 6549 1322.6530 ' 1,035.28 344581 2/2412011 100940 OWENS COMPANIES INC. 720.75 HVAC SERVICE CONTRACT 256375 39032 5630.6230 720.75 344582 2/2412011 100347 PAUSTIS & SONS 1,336.00 256334 8293941 -IN 5842.5513 603.75 256335 8293998 -IN 5842.5512 1,018.05- 256336 8293815 -CM 5842.5513 1,023.16 256458 8293953 -IN 5822.5513 1,338.01 256459 8293962 -1N 5862.5513 3,282.87 344583 212412011 100945 PEPSI-COLA COMPANY 367.60 256460 45921878 5862.5515 - 367.60 REPAIR PARTS - 2/22/2011 13:37:14 Page - 15 Business Unit CENTENNIAL ADMINISTRATION CLUB HOUSE CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUILDING MAINTENANCE ART CENTER BLDG /MAINT VERNON OCCUPANCY YORK FIRE STATION 50TH ST OCCUPANCY BUILDING MAINTENANCE YORK OCCUPANCY GOLF DOME PROGRAM BUILDING MAINTENANCE EDINBOROUGH ADMINISTRATION CENTENNIAL ADMINISTRATION SKATING & HOCKEY STREET LIGHTING ORNAMENTAL C SERVICE CONTRACTS EQUIPMENT CENTENNIAL LAKES COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING CITY OF EDINA 2/22/2011 13:37:14 R55CKREG LOG20000 Council Check Register Page - 16 2/24/2011 -2/24/2011 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 344584 2/2412011 100743 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS 163.20 256461 2030294 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 761.19 256462 2030289 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 179.79 256463 2030293 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 1,666.52 256464 2030295 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 1,635.75 256465 2030292 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 1,788.09 256466 2030291 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 561.98 256467 2030288 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 1.12 256468 2030287 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 3,470.30 256469 2030290 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 36.60- 256470 2453561 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 82.24 256569 2030283 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 288.63 256570 2030285 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 718.08 256571 2030286 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 696.22 256572 2030284 5822.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING 11,976.51 344585 2/24/2011 100953 PHYSIO- CONTROL INC. 576.00 AMBULANCE SUPPLIES 00003883 256376 111075032 1470.6510 FIRST AID SUPPLIES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 576.00 344586 2124/2011 111779 PIONEER RESEARCH CORPORATION 1,694.99 GEL STRIPPER 00001156 256590 217508 1301.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL MAINTENANCE 1,694.99 GEL STRIPPER 00001157 256591 217509 1301.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL MAINTENANCE 3,389.98 344587 212412011 119620 POMP'S TIRE SERVICE INC. 405.36 TIRES 00005619 256243 232922 1553.6583 TIRES & TUBES EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 1,088.58 TIRES, SCRAP DISPOSAL FEE 00005619 256314 235045 1553.6583 TIRES & TUBES EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 1,493.94 344588 212412011 100961 POSTMASTER - USPS 1,200.00 MAILING 256542 021811 5110.6235 POSTAGE ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION 1,200.00 344589 2/24/2011 101811 PREMIER FLEET SERVICES 939.33 VEHICLE REPAIRS 00005743 256377 21244 1553.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 939.33 344590 212412011 102354 PRO GUARD SPORTS INC. 357.39 STICK WAX, TAPE, MARKERS 00008045 256244 304803 5510.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD ARENA ADMINISTRATION 357.39 R55CKREG LOG20000 YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS, SOLD WINE YORK SELLING CITY OF EDINA COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING Council Check Register VERNON SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 2/24/2011 -2/2412011 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO #' Doc No Inv No Account No 344591 212412011 100971 QUALITY WINE 2,641.33 256337 420067 -00 '. 5842.5512 1,360.67 256338 420130 -00 5842.5513. 218.20 .256339 420209 -CO 5842.5514 635.44 256340 ° 420210 -00 5842.5513 1,301.91 256471 420068 -00 5822.5512 2,590.27 256472 420211 -00 5862.5513 509.02 256473 420115 -00 5862.5513 2,645.06 256474 420058 -00 5862.5512 128.42 256475 420059 -00 5862.5512 376.93 256476 420116 -00 5822.5513 1,237.90 256477 420225 -00 5822.5513 13,645.15 344592 212412011 123898 QWEST 151.57 952 285 -2951 256245 2951 -2111 1470.6188 58.70 952 944 -6522 256246 6522 -2/11 5511.6188 210.27 344593 2124/2011 104450, RAPID GRAPHICS & MAILING INC. 410.40 MAIL WATER BILLS 256543 5354 5910.6103 410.40 344594 212412011 126343 RICHFIELD DQ GRILL AND CHILL 149.09 DILLY BARS, CAKE - 256544 545 5620.5510 149.09 344595 212412011 101979 ROFIDAL, KEVIN 39.58 MEALS AT TRAINING 256409 021411 1400.6104 39.58 344596 2/2412011 128282 ROMANO'S MACARONI GRILL 1,690.48 DEPOSIT REFUND 256315 021511 1120.4314 1,690':48 344597 2124/2011 100985 RUFFRIDGE JOHNSON EQUIPMENT CO 581.61- CREDIT 00005668 256378 C57140 1553.6530 88.46 BEARINGS, 00005668 256379 C57156 1553.6530 1,414.05 - WELDMENT,AXLES, BEARINGS 00005668 256380 C57169 1553.6530 270.83 BEARING INSERTS 00005668 256381 C57141 1553.6530 1,191.73 2/22/2011 13:37:14 Page 17 Subledger Account Description Business Unit COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS, SOLD WINE YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING TELEPHONE TELEPHONE FIRE DEPT. GENERAL ARENA BLDG/GROUNDS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES GENERAL (BILLING) COST OF GOODS SOLD CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS INVESTIGATION FEE REPAIR PARTS REPAIR PARTS REPAIR PARTS REPAIR PARTS EDINBOROUGH PARK POLICE DEPT. GENERAL ADMINISTRATION EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN CITY OF EDINA 2/22/2011 13:37:14 R55CKREG LOG20000 Council Check Register Page - 18 2/24/2011 - 2/24/2011 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 344598 2/2412011 117807 SAM'S CLUB 30.12 FACILITY SUPPLIES 256410 002818 7411.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES PSTF OCCUPANCY 30.12 344599 212412011 118168 SANSIO 761.61 EMS SUBSCRIPTION 256545 1W020515 1470.6160 DATA PROCESSING FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 53.44 EMS FAXING 256546 INV020391 1470.6160 DATA PROCESSING FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 815.05 344600 2/2412011 101106 SERVICEMASTER 600.00 FLOOR CLEANING - COMPACTOR AREA 256592 28901 4095.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 50TH STREET RUBBISH 600.00 344601 212412011 120458 SIEMENS WATER TECHNOLOGIES CDR 287.00 SOFTENER REPAIR 00008034 256247 3277994 5511.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS ARENA BLDG/GROUNDS 287.00 344602 2/24/2011 105654 SIMPLEX GRINNELL LP 380.00 ALARM REPAIR/TEST 256547 66285521 5620.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS EDINBOROUGH PARK 320.00 ANNUAL INSPECTION 00001453 256593 74000999 1552.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CENT SVC PW BUILDING 700.00 344603 2124/2011 127878 SOUTHERN WINE AND SPIRITS 534.99 256478 1474735 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 876.00 256479 1489609 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 305.50 256480 1489608 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 3,065.50 256481 1489613 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 225.00 256482 1474747 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 120.50 256573 1489616 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 72.50 256574 1489611 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 217.50 256575 1489612 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 542.50 256576 1474741 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 5,959.99 344604 212412011 128279 SPAULDING, ANNE 42.00 SPRING CLASS REFUND 256316 021611 5511.6136 PROFESSIONAL SVC - OTHER ARENA BLDG /GROUNDS 42.00 344605 2/24/2011 101021 SPEEDWAY SUPERAMERICA LLC 145.27 PROPANE 256248 012511 1301.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL MAINTENANCE 145.27 - R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 2/2212011 13:37:14 Council Check Register Page - 19 2/24/2011 —2124/2011 Check # Date Amount - Supplier/ Explanation . - PO # - Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 344606 2124/2011 122466 SPRING LAKE ENGINEERING 3,820.40 SCADA.PROGRAMMING- - 00005430 256249 1135 05508.1705 CONSTR. IN PROGRESS WM -508 SCADA SYSTEM 3,820.40 344607 212412011 103277 ST. JOSEPH EQUIPMENT CO INC: 1,923.75 SNOW BLOWERS 00001361.'256250 SR17011 1301.6151 EQUIPMENT RENTAL GENERAL MAINTENANCE 304.57 ASV CUTTING EDGE. 00006395,- .256251 SI84357 5422.6530 REPAIR PARTS MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS 54.20 PIN, BUSHING 00006397 256252 SI84411 5422.6530 REPAIR PARTS MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS 2,282.52 344608 212412011 100650 STANLEY SECURITY SOLUTIONS INC 47.78 KEYS 00008036 256253 CH- 550599 5511.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES ARENA BLDG/GROUNDS 47.78 344609 212412011 128280 STENSRUD, SARAH 92.00 SPRING CLASS REFUND 256317 021411 5511.6136 PROFESSIONAL SVC - OTHER ARENA BLDG/GROUNDS ' 92.00 - 344610 2124/2011 112668 STONEBROOKE EQUIPMENT INC. 42.70 PLOW OIL 00005687 256549 18135 1553.6584 LUBRICANTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 42.70 344611 2124/2011 101016 STREICHERS 2,919.33 TASK FORCE ITEMS 00003011 256411 1812465 1400.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 2,919.33 344612 212412011 128293 STRENG, HELEN' . 1,402.19 AMBULANCE OVERPAYMENT 256412 021711 1470.4329 AMBULANCE FEES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 1,402.19 344613 2/2412011 102639 STROHMYER, TOM 150.00 EP ENTERTAINMENT 3/3111 256548 021811 5621.6136 PROFESSIONAL SVC - OTHER EDINBOROUGH ADMINISTRATION 150.00 344614 212412011 101017 SUBURBAN CHEVROLET 302.46 SHAFT 00005651 256254 296658 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS 35.82 SENSOR KITS 00005654 256382 297906 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS 338:28 344615 212412011 101019 SUBURBAN. RATE AUTHORITY 2,000.00 MEMBERSHIP DUES 256413 020111 1506.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN SUBURBAN RATE AUTHORITY CITY OF EDINA 2/22/2011 13:37:14 R55CKREG LOG20000 Council Check Register Page - 20 2124/2011 —2/24/2011 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 2,000.00 344616 212412011 102140 SUN MOUNTAIN SPORTS INC. 671.04 MERCHANDISE 256550 502270 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 671.04 344617 212412011 128289 SUNDIN, ROSEMARY 51.22 UTILITY OVERPAYMENT REFUND 256414 5805 TRACY AVE 5900.2015 CUSTOMER REFUND UTILITY BALANCE SHEET 51.22 344618 212412011 120998 SURLY BREWING CO. 910.00 256341 02063 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 458.00 256483 MVP00454 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 1,368.00 344619 2124/2011 124834 TELVENT DTN 798.00 WEATHER SERVICE 00001208 256255 3306839 1318.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES SNOW 8 ICE REMOVAL 798.00 344620 2124/2011 101035 THORPE DISTRIBUTING COMPANY 32.40 256577 627773 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 32.40 344621 2/2412011 101474 TITLEIST 1,286.25 MERCHANDISE 256551 2272593 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 272.17 DRIVER 256552 2278459 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS_- PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 1,297.05- CREDIT 256553 6012240 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 261.37 344622 212412011 101038 TOLL GAS & WELDING SUPPLY 338.26 METAL BINDER 00002084 256383 338658 5630.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENTENNIAL LAKES 338.26 344623 2/24/2011 128292 TONER, BRANDON 60.00 AMBULANCE OVERPAYMENT 256415 021711 1470.4329 AMBULANCE FEES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 60.00 344624 212412011 123969 TWIN CITIES OCCUPATIONAL HEALT 224.40 FITNESS FOR DUTY 256384 101755280 1470.6175 PHYSICAL EXAMINATIONS FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 224.40 344625 212412011 115379 U.S. BANK R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register 2124/2011 -2/24/20111 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger.,Account Descri ption 150.00 PUBLIC WORKS EXPENSES 256385 FEB022011, 1281.6104 CONFERENCES 8 SCHOOLS 215.00 PUBLIC WORKS EXPENSES 256385 FEB022011 5913.6260 "LICENSES 8 PERMITS 374:55 _PUBLIC WORKS EXPENSES 256385 FEB022011 1552.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 739.55 344626 212412011 103298 UPS STORE #1715, THE 10.20 SHIP SAMPLES 00001475 256554 TRAN:9064 5915.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 10.20 344627 212412011 114236 USA BLUE BOOK _ 319.81 PRESSURE GAUGES 00001341 256256 329416 5912.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 319.81 344628 212412011 100410 USA MOBILITY WIRELESS INC. 292.07 PAGERS 256416 U0319246B 1400.6151 EQUIPMENT RENTAL 292.07 344629 212412011 101058 VAN PAPER CO. 414.97 LIQUOR BAGS . 00007512 256257 18780400 5842.6512 PAPER SUPPLIES 414.97 344630 2/2412011 101066 VIKING ELECTRIC SUPPLY 116.61 PLUGS 00001385 256258;. 5185384 1322.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 116.61 PLUGS :, 00001385 256258. 5185384 1330.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 49.22 CONDUIT 00001442 256555 5203914 1552.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 282.44 344631 2/24/2011 101067 VIKING. INDUSTRIAL CENTER 3.20 SAFETY GLASSES 00005732 256386 263512 1553.6610 SAFETY EQUIPMENT, 5.30 SAFETY GLASSES 00005732 256386 263512 5913.6610 SAFETY EQUIPMENT, 36.54 SAFETY GLASSES 00005732 256386 263512 1646.6610 SAFETY EQUIPMENT 65.20 SAFETY GLASSES 00005732 256386 '263512 1301.6610 SAFETY EQUIPMENT 110.24 344632 2124/2011 101069' VOSS LIGHTING 293.53 BULBS 256.259 15171171 -02 1551.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 293.53 344633 2/24/2011 123616 WATER CONSERVATION SERVICE INC 275.50 LEAK LOCATE 00001350 256260 2302 5913.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 275.50 2/22/2011 13:37:14 Page - 21 Business Unit TRAINING DISTRIBUTION CENT SVC PW BUILDING WATER TREATMENT WELL HOUSES POLICE DEPT. GENERAL YORK SELLING STREET LIGHTING ORNAMENTAL TRAFFIC SIGNALS CENT SVC PW BUILDING EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN DISTRIBUTION BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL MAINTENANCE CITY HALL GENERAL DISTRIBUTION R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register 2/24/2011 -2/24/2011 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No 344634 2/24/2011 114588 WILSON, ROBERT C. 37.74 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 256583 022211 1190.6107 37.74 Subledger Account Description MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE Business Unit ASSESSING 2/22/2011 13:37:14 Page - 22 344635 2124/2011 101033 WINE COMPANY, THE 1,723.80 256342 262771 -00 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 488.40 256343 262610 -00 5642.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 804.18 256484 262779 -00 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 818.21 256485 262893 -00 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 557.90 256486 262379 -00 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 16.00- 256487 262712 -00 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 4,376.49 344636 212412011 101312 WINE MERCHANTS 274.24 256344 351109 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 6.00- 256345 52301 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 81.12- 256346 52186 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 5,634.62 256488 351736 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 1,918.28 256489 351735 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 554.24 256578 351759 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 121.12 256579 351734 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE BOTH ST SELLING 8,415.38 344637 212412011 124291 WIRTZ BEVERAGE MINNESOTA 154.89 256347 530619 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 6,640.32 256348 530618 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 6,164.84 256349 530617 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 998.25 256350 528110 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 33.10- 256351 822843 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 34.53 256490 527304 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 109.20 256491 530614 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 7,315.40 256492 530612 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 3,195.68 256493 530613 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 2,694.72 256494 530616 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 944.17 256495 530615 5822.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING 212.30- 256496 822863 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 101.97- 256497 823333 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 156.10- 256498 823345 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 553.70 256580 531396 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 28,302.23 344638 212412011 124529 WIRTZ BEVERAGE MINNESOTA BEER R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA . 212212011 13:37:14 Council Check Register Page - 23 2/24/2011 — 2/24/2011 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Descrlption Business Unit 2,223.20 256352 713385 5842.5514 COST-OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 64.50 256353 713386 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX -" YORK SELLING 1,160.85 256499 712427 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING 2,939.95 256500 712650 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 1,184.00 256501 712868 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS� SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 107.70 256502 712651 5862.5515 COST'OF GOODSSOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 636.66 256581 715181 5862.5514 COST OFGOODS'SOLD.BEER VERNON SELLING 1,800.00 256582 715180 5862.5514 COST. OF GOODS,SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 10,116.86 344639 212412011 112752 WPS- MEDICARE PART B 331.05 AMBULANCE OVERPAYMENT 256417 MARJORY 1470.4329 AMBULANCE FEES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL HOVELSRUD 331.05 344640 2/24/2011 101726 = XCELENERGY 446.53 51- 4197645 -8, 256261 270522047 1322.6185 LIGHT & POWER STREET LIGHTING ORNAMENTAL 1,892.81 51- 5619094 -8 256262 270353893 1552.6185 LIGHT & POWER- CENT SVC PW BUILDING 6,078.80 51- 5888961 77 256263 270366973 1375.6185 LIGHT & POWER PARKING RAMP 3,884.53 51- 6227619 --3 256264 270914658 5630.6185 LIGHT & POWER CENTENNIAL LAKES 12,302.67 344641 212412011 119647 YOCUM OIL COMPANY INC. 16,274.47 UNLEADED GAS 00001200 256387 423983 1553.6581 GASOLINE EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 16,274.47 344642 212412011 120099 Z WINES USA LLC 494.00 256503 10113 494.06 344643 212412011 101089 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE 108.74 FIRST AID SUPPLIES 256556 54066948 108.74 426,191.35 Grand Total' 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 5210.6610 SAFETY EQUIPMENT GOLF DOME PROGRAM Payment Instrument Totals Check Total 426,191.35 Total Payments 426,191.35 R55CKSUM LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 2/22/2011 13:37:48 Council Check Summary Page - 1 2/24/2011 - 2/2412011 Company Amount 01000 GENERAL FUND 161,127.53 04000 WORKING CAPITAL FUND 600.00 05100 ART CENTER FUND 5,789.71 05200 GOLF DOME FUND 14,335.16 05300 AQUATIC CENTER FUND 669.31 05400 GOLF COURSE FUND 11,326.45 05500 ICE ARENA FUND 10,744.02 05600 EDINBOROUGH /CENT LAKES FUND 30,828.76 05800 LIQUOR FUND 146,805.79 05900 UTILITY FUND 42,816.20 05930 STORM SEWER FUND 500.00 07400 PSTF AGENCY FUND 648.42 Report Totals 426,191.35 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 policigs anal procedures daty 011, To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL Agenda Item VI. A. 0 Action DEBRA MANGEN From: F] Discussion M Information Date: MARCH 1, 2011 P�A 8 ` REPORT/RECOMMENDATION C INFORMATION /BACKGROUND: Attached are copies of a -mails and letters received since the last Council meeting. To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL Agenda Item VI. A. 0 Action DEBRA MANGEN From: CITY CLERK F] Discussion M Information Date: MARCH 1, 2011 Subject: CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED SINCE LAST COUNCIL MEETING INFORMATION /BACKGROUND: Attached are copies of a -mails and letters received since the last Council meeting. 1 - Lei Susan Howl Subject: FW: Emailing: crosswalk 70th & Cornelia, crosswalk 70th & Cornelia (2) \ttachments: crosswalk 70th & CorneliaJpg; crosswalk 70th & Cornelia (2)Jpg Subject: Emailing: crosswalk 70th & Cornelia, crosswalk 70th & Cornelia (2) Dear City Council, Mayor Hovland and City Engineer Houle, I recently wrote the city council because of my concerns about the safety of the intersection at 70th St. and Cornelia Dr. This is the ,crosswalk that most students who live north of 70th St. need to use to get to and f roni school each day. Today is Wednesday February 23, 2011 three days after a large snowfall and this corner is still not cleared. I believe it is the city's job to clear the snow from this corner. For two days, there has been so much snow at this corner that we can't reach'the button for the walk signal, the entire stretch of sidewalk on the north,side of 70th has not been cleared, and there is nowhere to stand but in the middle of Cornelia Dr, when attempting to cross the street. Attached are some photos, that I took with my phone this morning. I called the city this morning and there was no one to take my call, so I left a message. I also filled out the online 'report a problem' page on the public works page of the City of Edina website. However, I did want to forward these pictures so that you can see what we pedestrians are up against when trying to get to school. This is a very, very dangerous situation. With the combination of un- educated drivers, a non - pedestrian friendly infrastructure at this corner, and a now snow bank like this, walking is nearly impossible and completely scary. I have cc'd Chris Holden, Principal of Cornelia Elementary, so that he is aware that I've contacted you about the problem. Also, cc'd is my husband, Doug Boettge. Thank you, Emily Boettge (952) 922 -4925 1 n s use G W WlckzLILL C( ox, 40 i iAio,� hl Notes from the February 10, 2011 TAB Executive Committee meeting. Membership • Discussed attendance over the past calendar year and membership on the Policy and Programming Committees. Directed staff to poll members on their preference. Subcommittee assignments will be made by the TAB Chair subject to Board approval on March 16. • Discussed the appointment of alternates for the seven county members and the Minneapolis and St. Paul representatives. 2011 regional solicitation • Reviewed the draft schedule for the 2011 regional solicitation and discussed milestones. Public meeting on the draft criteria on March 2 "d; information to the Met Council Transportation Committee on April 11; adoption of the final 2011 regional solicitation package by TAB on April 20; start the solicitation in May following Met Council concurrence. • Staff will present status reports to the Programming Committee almost monthly through the end of the calendar year. MN /DOT 50 year multi -modal transportation vision • Discussed MN /DOT effort that will form the basis for the next Statewide Multimodal Transportation Plan. Chair Hargis will participate as a member of the Steering Committee. • MN /DOT staff will present information on the 50 year vision to the TAB. 2012 -2015 State Transportation Improvement Program guidance • Discussed guidance from MN /DOT Central Office warning about potential over - programming in the draft 2012 -2015 State Transportation Improvement Program, given the uncertainty of future federal transportation funding and the new Congress. • Discussed how a new transportation Act could affect projects already programmed in the Tip and STIP, as well as funding levels in the 2011 regional solicitation for years 2015 and 2016. MPCA CMAQ funding request for electric vehicle recharging stations. • Discussed the MPCA proposal and the decision by the TAC Funding & Programming Committee to refer it to the CMAQ Transit Expansion and CMAQ System Management scoring groups for comment on whether the proposal could be scored competitively. • The scoring groups will report to the TAC Funding & Programming Committee tomorrow, Feb. 17, and their recommendation will come to the TAB in March. Process to evaluate project scope changes and TIP amendments. • Discussed a proposed process to evaluate project scope change requests for regionally - selected projects. The reason for this is to ensure the revised project scope provides close to the same benefit expected from the original project scope because projects are selected based on their benefit or score. The proposed process will be discussed by the TAC Funding &Programming Committee and report up to the TAB. 'D:; Office of the Legislative Auditor IA State of Minnesota Governance of Transit in the Twin Cities Region February 2011 Twin Cities Region Transit Overview • Regular -route bus — Express —Local • Light rail transit • Commuter rail • Bus rapid transit • 2009 operating costs: $319 million • 2009 riders: 81 million Key Legislative Recommendations • The Legislature should restructure the Metropolitan Council. • The Legislature should extend the transit taxing district. • The Legislature should allow consideration of the Dan Patch corridor. • The Legislature should clarify the goals and priorities of transit in the Twin Cities region. The Region's Transit System Performs Relatively Well • Compared to 11 peers, including Denver, Phoenix, Portland, and Seattle • Performed well on "efficiency" measures — Operating cost per passenger —Fare - recovery percentage — Subsidy per passenger — Subsidy per passenger mile Efficiency Measures Measure Twin TC Best Worst Cities Region Region Rank Operating cost $3.24 4 $2.59 $5.36 per passenger (San Diego) (Dallas -Fort Worth) Fare - recovery 31 % 2 35% 13% percentage (San Diego) (Dallas -Fort Worth) Subsidy per $2.24 2 $1.68 $3.59 passenger (San Diego) (Pittsburgh) Subsidy per $0.45 2 $0.35 $0.82 passenger mile (San Diego) (Dallas -Fort Worth) The Region's Transit System Performs Relatively Well • Compared to 11 peers, including Denver, Phoenix, Portland, and Seattle • Performed well on "efficiency" measures — Operating cost per passenger —Fare - recovery percentage — Subsidy per passenger — Subsidy per passenger mile • Performed well on "service -use" and "access" measures Service -Use Measures Measure Twin TC Best Worst Cities Region Region Rank Passengers 49 21 per revenue 37 4 (Baltimore) (Tampa) hour Passengers 3.2 1.5 per revenue 2.8 3 (Portland) (Tampa) mile Passenger 315 104 miles per 183 3 (Baltimore) (Tampa) revenue hour Passenger 19.7 7.7 miles per 14.2 3 (Baltimore) (Tampa) revenue mile But the Region's Transit Governance Structure is Far From Ideal Washington County Regional Railroad Authority Washington County Board Scott County Regional Railroad Authority Scott County Board Anoka County Regional Railroad Authority Anoka County Board The Metropolitan Council - Metro Transil - Metropolitan Ramsey County Regional Railroad Authority Ramsey County Board Carver County Regional Railroad Authority Carver County Board Transportation Services Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority Hennepin County Board Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) Dakota County Regional Railroad Authority Dakota County Board But the Region's Transit Governance Structure is Far From Ideal Washington County Regional Anoka County Regional Carver County Regional Railroad Authority Railroad Authority Railroad Authority Washington County Board Anoka County Board Carver County Board Counties Transit The Metropolitan Council Transportation Improvement - Metro Transit Advisory Board Board (CTIB) - Metropolitan Transportation Services (TAB) Scott County Regional Railroad Authority Scott County Board Ramsey County Regional Railroad Authority Ramsey County Board Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority Hennepin County Board Dakota County Regional Railroad Authority Dakota County Board But the Region's Transit Governance Structure is Far From Ideal Washington County Regional Anoka County Regional Carver County Regional Railroad Authority Railroad Authority Railroad Authority Washington County Board Anoka County Board Carver County Board Counties Transit The Metropolitan Council Transportation Improvement - Metro Transit Advisory Board Board (CTIB) - Metropolitan Transportation Services (TAB) Scott County Regional Railroad Authority Scott County Board Shakopee Transit Red Rock Corridor Commission Ramsey County Regional Hennepin County Regional Dakota County Regional Railroad Authority Railroad Authority Railroad Authority Ramsey County Board Hennepin County Board Dakota County Board Prior Lake Maple Grove SouthWest Transit Plymouth Metrolink The Minnesota Valley Transit Transit Transit Authority 1 -35W Solutions Gateway Corridor 1-494 Corridor Rush Line Corridor Alliance Commission Commission Task Force Challenges Due to the Transit Governance Structure • Fragmentation and complexity • Distrust among some of the transit organizations • Time - consuming coordination • No agreed -upon set of priorities The Composition of the Metropolitan Council Contributes to the Challenges • Appointed by the Governor • Limited accountability to the public • Limited credibility with stakeholders and other transit organizations in region • Limited stability • Contributes to large number of transit organizations in the region The Legislature Should Restructure the Metropolitan Council • Mix of appointed and elected members • Serve staggered terms • Would improve: — Accountability — Credibility — Stability • Could lead to more streamlined governance IN Other Governance Recommendations ' • Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) • Counties Transit Improvement Board (CTIB) • Metro Transit and the Metropolitan Council • it providers Suburban- trans O • The Legislature should extend the transit taxing district to. include communities under the Council's jurisdiction • The Legislature should allow consideration of the Dan Patch corridor Governance of Transit in the Twin Cities Region is available at: www.auditor.leg.state.mn.us Governance of Transit in the Twin Cities Region is available at: www.auditor.leg.state.mn.us Funding Recommendations • The Legislature should give the Met Council explicit authority to allocate "supplemental" MVST revenue within the Twin Cities region • The Met Council should allocate the supplemental MVST based on regional needs • The Legislature should extend the transit taxing district to include all communities under the Council's jurisdiction Transitway Planning Recommendations • The Legislature should designate the Metropolitan Council as the lead for "New Starts" projects • The Legislature should not commit capital funds to a transitway development project without ensuring operating revenues have been identified Transitway Planning Recommendations • The Metropolitan Council and stakeholders should: — Establish regional transit priorities — Prioritize potential transitways for future development • The Legislature should allow consideration of the Dan Patch corridor Establish Transit Goals for the Region • The Legislature should clarify the goals and priorities of transit in the region • The Metropolitan Council and stakeholders should: —Adopt a set of performance measures — Ensure comparable data Jurisdictions of Various Transit Organizations in the Anoka Twin Cities Region Carver Hennepin Ramsey Washington Scott Dakota Service Areas of the Suburban Transit Providers f""� SouthWes* -- Transit T nesota Vralley pii� uthority Communities Subject to the Regional Transit Capital Anoka Levy, 2011 Washington J Ramsey Hennepin Scott Dakota Transitways in the Twin.-Cities Region 0 FT rridor 6Susan f-fowl �ECEOVE® From Tami Richardson [mailto:tlrichardson @comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2011 7:16.PM To: Wayne Houle; Jesse Struve Cc: Lynette Biunno Subject: Minnehaha Woods Neighborhood Roadway Improvement Project No. BA 334 Wayne Houle and Jesse Struve (and by copy James Hovland and the City Council members), . I am writing with regard to several questions I have on the, information that came out at the February 10, 2011 meeting on the above referenced street improvement project. Apparently the properties in this area have now been divided into Type'I and Type II sewer pipe segment C replacements based on the depth of the trunk sanitary sewer main. My husband and I live.at -5412 Brookview Ave., which has been identified as one of the Type 11 properties. At least one contractor present at the meeting estimated that the cost to.-do a.T,ype II replacement of segment C would be more expensive than the $4500 figure currently included in the estimated as possible $2,500 extra. It wasn't made clear by the city how this additional cost would be handled. Given that the city has not assessed properties differently in the past on the basis of varying cost items specific to a household (driveway material to be replaced, amount and type of landscaping to be replaced and whether the property is on a corner lot or not), am l correct in assuming that any additional costs related to these properties where the trunk sanitary sewer main is deeper than 11 feet would be incorporated into the total project cost and assessed equally across the board to all households? In all honesty, I am surprised that this issue would be raised at such a late date in the planning process (the diagram which was handed out at the meeting was dated 2/09/11), given that most of these streets, utilities and properties have been in place since the 1920's and 1930's. I assume the city is going to promptly update all of the affected households with the information related to Type I and Type II properties, as obviously only a small number of people are able to attend these meetings. Additionally, it was noted by the contractors that the CIPP method required by the city for the properties designated as Type 11 is not amenable to a "Roto- Rooter" type blade cleaning. This seemed to come as a surprise to the city. Will this CIPP method create any potential problems for these homeowners regarding sewer line maintenance in the future, and if so will the city assume some responsibility (as the city is requiring the replacement of segment C, as well as dictating the method by which is must be done)? Also, will the use of the CIPP method for segment C limit in any way the type of replacement that could be done on sewer pipe segment D either now or in the future? Thank you in advance for your prompt response to these questions. Tami Richardson Jonas Runquist RESOLUTION NO. 10 -070 RESOLUTION RELATING TO FREIGHT RAIL ACTIVITY IN THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park is committed to protect and enhance the quality of its neighborhoods; and, WHEREAS, several railroads operate within the City of St. Louis Park and railroad operations can have adverse impacts on the City and its neighborhoods; and, WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park seeks to provide a clear, concise statement of its position regarding freight rail activity in the City today and in the future; and, WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park has always opposed the rerouting of freight rail traffic through our community; and WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park adopted the Railroad Task Force Recommendations of May 23, 2001 by Resolution No. 01 -120, which included St. Louis Park's opposition to the rerouting of freight rail; and, WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park has been an active participant and supporter of transit in the Southwest corridor, and WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park has participated in the Technical, Policy and Community Advisory Committees for the Southwest Transitway, and WHEREAS, the Technical Advisory Committee (TAQ unanimously recommended the selection of Route 3A as the locally preferred alternative with conditions including that agencies work cooperatively to identify impacts, mitigation requirements, and mitigation funding options to address the potential of rerouting freight rail in a parallel process with the Southwest LRT DEIS and to identify the freight rail issue and impacts as a part of the "secondary and cumulative impacts. "; and, WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park adopted Resolution No. 10 -05 in support of Hennepin County's decision of LRT alignment 3A (through the Kenilworth Corridor) as the locally preferred alternative for the Southwest Transitway; and, WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park participated in the Technical, Policy and Community Advisory Committees for the Southwest Transitway. Resolution No. 10 -070 -2- NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of St. Louis_ Park that the City of St. Louis Park: 1. Supports the implementation of the Southwest Transitway LRT project; and, 2. Continues to support the May 23, 2001 Railroad Task Force Recommendations adopted by the City Council October 21, 2001; and, 3. Opposes the introduction of any rerouted freight rail traffic north and south through the City of St. Louis Park; and, 4. Opposes the rerouting of freight rail traffic from the Kenilworth corridor to St. Louis Park unless the following conditions are clearly met: a. It is established through a very thorough and careful analysis that no other viable route exists; b. There is appropriate mitigation of any and all negative impacts associated with rail rerouting, funded by sources other than the City of St. Louis Park. Potential negative impacts that should be addressed include but are not limited to noise, vibration, odors, traffic congestion and safety, school use and safety, park use and safety; and, circulation /access in the community by vehicle, pedestrian, transit and bicycle; c. Elimination of railroad switching, sorting and blocking operations within the City of St. Louis Park; and funded by some other source than the City of St. Louis Park; d. Removal of the existing "wye" rail tracks in the vicinity of Oxford Street and any other tracks not needed for through train traffic including the rail tracks east of any new interconnections between the East -West CP -TCWR tracks and the North -South CP -MNS tracks; e. Creation of a freight rail single track corridor with significant right -of -way and safety measures incorporated between the track and adjacent properties; f. Creation of a whistle -quiet zone funded by sources other than the City of St. Louis Park throughout the entire north -south MNS corridor. r Administration: WA Attest: t ✓L_ _ . � ��L_l„�i Adopt, by the City Council July G, 2010 Mayor IV RESOLUTION NO, 10 -071 RESOLUTION REQUESTING HENNEPIN COUNTY REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY (HCRRA) REANALYZE THE POTENTIAL ROUTES IN THE 2009 TCWR FREIGHT RAIL REALIGNMENT STUDY IN GREATER DETAIL WHEREAS, in 2009 Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority conducted a study titled, "TCWR Freight Rail Realignment Study" that evaluated options for moving freight rail from the Kenilworth corridor; and WHEREAS, this study considered six options for TCWR operations, and WHEREAS, the six options were not adequately or equally evaluated in the report, and WHEREAS, additional information that evenly applies criteria to each option is necessary to ensure a viable, cost - effective route is selected. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park: 1, The City Council hereby requests Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority more fully evaluate the six options previously evaluated. 2. The additional study should evenly apply the same evaluation criteria to each route. 3. The evaluation should include, but not be limited to, such items as: an explanation of the future routes to Minneapolis and St. Paul; impacts to crossing Highway 100; a quantification of the number of at -grade road crossings and number and proximity of homes, schools and other sensitive uses along each route; impacts on public safety and transportation networks; operational impacts for TCWR and cost to compensate for possible competitive TC &W disadvantage due to route selection; an analysis of routing both freight rail and light rail through the Kenilworth corridor right -of way; and more detailed analysis of the projected costs for each route, including property acquisitions, environmental mitigation, and other factors outlined in the letter from St. Louis Park to the County in July 2009. 4. The evaluation should ensure that the analysis and criteria are applied consistently and equally for each route to provide a basis and understanding for decision making. 5. The analysis should be done in sufficient detail and reported in a format that makes it possible for St. Louis Park to fully understand the positive and negative impacts of each alternative on St. Louis Park itself istration: Ci Attest: opted b the Ciry Council July 6, 2010 Mayo Susan Howl From: Lynette Biunno Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2011 2:40 PM ,c; Susan Howl Subject: FW: Plan Amendment Comment Responses Attachments: Plan Amendment - Comment Response Letter.pdf; All comments as of 2- 4- 11_reduced.pdf -'< Lynette Biunno, Receptionist i 952- 927 -8861 1 Fax 952 - 826 -0389 ,! Ibiunno(fti.edina.mmus I www.CityofEdina.com - For Living, Learning, Raising Families fit Doing Business From: Becky Houdek [ma i Ito: BHoudek @m in nehahacreek.org] Sent: Thursday, February 17, 20112:15 PM To: info @ci.minnetonka- beach.mn.us; Tom.Crosby @ci.medina.mn.us; jdoak.woodland @hotmail.com; cfischer @ci. min netrista.mn.us; tfurlong @ci.chanhassen.mn.us; citycouncil @cityofrichfield.org; maha n us@frontiernet. net; info @ci.victoria.mn.us; Lynette Biunno; jacobsjeffrey @comcast.net; laketowntownship @broadband- mn.com; marvdjohnson @gmail.com; dkind100 @gmail.com; bill @labellebarin.com; clizee @ci.shorewood.mn.us; Iinda . loom is @ci.golden- vaI ley. mn.us; emax33721 @aol.com; Imcmillan @ci.orono.mn.us; sgreinhardt @hotmail.com; nruehl @mchsi.com; tschneider @eminnetonka.com; PaulSkrede @mchsi.com; KSlavik @ci.plymouth.mn.us; cityhall @mapleplain.com; watertowntownship @frontiernet.net; jmoeller @ci.long- lake.mn.us; stboni @visi.com; KenWillcox @wayzata.org Subject: Plan Amendment Comment Responses Dear Honorable Mayors, As you may know, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) distributed a draft plan amendment for 45 -day comment to city administrators, counties, and state review agencies on November 18th. A public hearing was held on January 1P at which the comment period was extended until February 4t ". The MCWD Board of Managers has reviewed all comments that were received, and some revisions to the amendment have been made in response to those comments. Attached is a comment response letter and revised plan amendment language. Also attached is a packet of all comments that were received during the comment period. The revised plan amendment will be brought to the MCWD Board of Managers for review and action next Thursday, February 24th This message was also sent to your city administrators and staff who requested to receive notice. Hard copies of the attached letter have been mailed directly to those who submitted comments. Please feel free to contact me with any questions. Thank you, Becky Houdek MCWD Assistant Planner 18202 Minnetonka Blvd. Deephaven, MN 55391 952 -641 -4512 (NEW NUMBER) www.minnehahocreek.org MINNEHAHA CREEK QUALITY OF WATER WATERSHED DISTRICT QUALITY OF LIFE DATE: February 16, 2011 TO: City Administrators and Staff, Counties, and State Review Agencies FROM: Becky Houdek, MCWD Assistant Planner RE: Response to Comments on Draft Plan Amendment, Local Water Plan Reporting Thank you for providing your comments on the proposed Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) plan amendment concerning local water plan implementation and reporting. We appreciate you taking the time to provide constructive feedback. This letter is intended to summarize the major areas of concern expressed by those who commented and to provide responses and clarification on these issues. As the amendment explains, the MCWD is charged under Minnesota Statute § 103B.235 with overseeing the implementation of local water management plans and seeks to do so without creating an unreasonable burden on local government units (LGUs). The goal of this plan amendment is to communicate a clear and transparent process that the MCWD will follow when reviewing local water plan implementation and to provide guidelines for LGUs to use when completing their annual report. The amendment focuses on maintaining open lines of communication between cities and the District to improve coordination of efforts to meet our shared water resource goals. The majority of comments we received about the plan amendment were similar in nature and can be summarized as follows: 1. MCWD should explain why the information requested in section 7.2.1 is needed and how it will be used by the District. 2. The reporting requirements are burdensome for city staff and should coincide better with the MPCA's reporting requirements. 3. The evaluative criteria in section 7.2.2 are vague and subjective. 4. The options listed in section 7.2.2 as steps the District could take to encourage local plan implementation are heavy- handed and will not help cities meet water resource goals. In our continued effort to be as responsive as possible, the District has prepared the following responses to these general areas of comment. A packet of all comments that were submitted on the draft amendment is attached for your reference. Comment 1 • MCWD should explain why the information requested in section 7.2.1 is needed and how it will be used by the District. The infonmation being requested in the draft amendment is infonnation required by the State of Minnesota to ensure adequate oversight and coordination between watershed districts and LGUs and is intended to improve the management of water resources. Specifically, Minnesota Rule 8410.0150 Subp. 3 requires that watershed districts annually report the following infonnation to the Board of Water and Soil Resources: E. a summary of the permits or variances issued or denied under ordinances or rules required by the organization or local plan and any enforcement actions initiated by either the organization or its local units of government; F. a summary of water quality monitoring data collected by the organization or its local units of government; G. an evaluation of the status of local plan adoption and implementation based on a review of the local unit of governments' activities by the organization during the past year; Numbers 1 -3 in section 7.2.1 of the amendment ask LGUs to identify what progress has been made on actions they committed to in their local water plans. These tie back to the District's responsibility under MN Rules 8410.0150 Subp. 3.G. to evaluate local plan implementation. This information will also help the District identify projects on which the LGU and District may be able to partner. Number 4 asks for a summary of land use activity and closely mirrors the requirement in MN Rules 8410.0150 Subp. 3.E. above, as well as information requested in section 4 of the MS4 annual report to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). These data inform the District of activities and changes to land use that may affect water resources and is relevant to keeping the District's hydraulic/hydrologic models up to date. It also helps the District anticipate significant permitting actions, which allows early involvement/coordination in the interest of the developer, keeps development activity from falling through the cracks of District permitting, and may allow the District to explore opportunities for beneficial involvement of the District's land conservation or cost -share programs. Number 5 requests any water quality, hydrologic, wetland or f7oodplain data developed by the city and mirrors the requirement in MN Rules 8410.0150 Subp. 3.17. above. The District is not asking LGUs to collect any new data, but rather to share any studies or inventories that have been conducted by the city so that the District 2 may also benefit from the information and can continue to serve as a central resource for LGUs and others. Number 6 asks for information about LGU stormwater conveyance systems and relates closely to information requested in section 5 of the MS4 annual report. It is useful to the District as it may affect hydraulic/hydrologic modeling. Number 7 relates to information requested in section 6 of the MS4 annual report and allows the District to evaluate whether the LGU is implementing the housekeeping practices it committed to in its plan. It will also inform the District of any new housekeeping activities an LGU may have adopted since the time its local plan was approved. Number 8 asks for an inventory of open space and other land rights acquired by the LGU. This information will inform decisions by the District's Land Conservation Department as to where to focus its efforts and will enhance coordination on corridors /greenways between District land conservation efforts and LGU land use /open space plans. It may also help the District identify potential sites for cooperative capital projects. Number 9 asks for a summary of the LGU's budget as it pertains to LGU plan implementation. This relates to section 8 of the MS4 annual report and will allow the District to evaluate whether the LGU is maintaining the financial commitments that were described in its plan. It will also help the District identify cities that may need additional support in meeting the goals in their implementation plan. Comment 2• The reporting, requirements are burdensome for city staff and should coincide better with the MPCA's reporting requirements. The proposed plan amendment is intended not to create any new obligations for cities, but rather to provide clear guidelines for cities to follow when completing their annual report. MCWD's 2007 Plan includes annual reporting requirements and states that the District will develop guidelines for LGUs regarding the content of the annual report. As described above, the District is obligated to collect much of this information in order to prepare its own required report to the Board of Water and Soil Resources. The District is developing a reporting form that will supplement the MS4 report and is intended to make reporting easier for cities. As requested, the dates of the reporting period have been changed to coincide with the dates for the MS4 report (i.e. previous calendar year). While there are some areas of overlap between the District and MS4 reporting requirements, the MS4 report consists largely of yes or no questions and does not provide the level of detail needed for the District to evaluate LGU plan 3 implementation. The District recognizes that LGUs have different methods of tracking information, and District staff will be flexible in working with LGUs-to obtain the necessary information. Comment 3• The evaluative criteria in section 7.2.2 are vague and subiective. Under these guidelines, the District will simply be reviewing the "progress the LGU has made, in implementing its local water plan. The listed criteria are primarily a checklist of the commitments an LGU may have made in its plan. The District. has included this list of criteria to be as transparent as possible about how the. District expects to approach its review of local implementation. The District intends these criteria to be general precisely because each LGU operates under different circumstances and the District hopes for implementation review activity to be collaborative. It is our belief that if the District instead created specific criteria for determining inadequate implementation without considering local circumstances, it would create an adversarial and unfair process. Instead, the District prefers to work with LGUs toward successfully implementing local water plans for the.mutual benefit of local communities and the watershed. Comment 4• The options listed in section 7.2.2 as steps the District could take to encoura eg local plan implementation are heavy- handed and will not help cities meet water resource goals. The amendment emphasizes that the MCWD seeks to work cooperatively with cities to help them meet their water resource goals. The District will seek to carefully address concerns with local plan implementation through two =way communication and cooperation with cities before taking any of the measures described in section 7.2.2. However, the MCWD included this section to be transparent about options that are available to encourage local plan implementation. The MCWD Board of Managers discussed that certain measures, such as prioritizing funding or other assistance to cities that have been more successful in implementing their local plans, could be detrimental to water resources in some circumstances. Accordingly, they decided that these measures (specifically, bullets 3 -6) should not be listed in the amendment. These measures remain within District authority, but in the event of inadequate plan implementation by a city, their appropriateness will be judged by the Board under the given circumstances. All comments received have been reviewed by the MCWD Board of Managers, and several revisions have been made to the amendment language in response to those comments. A copy of the amendment showing these revisions is enclosed for your 4 l� reference. Also enclosed are copies of MN Statute § 10313.235 and MN Rule 8410.0150 which were cited in this letter. The revised language will be brought back for MCWD Board review and action on February 24, 2011, Following Board action, we will provide you with the final version of the amendment and hope to work with you on any implementation and reporting activities in which you may be involved. If you have questions, feel any of your concerns were not addressed, or would like more specific responses to your comments, please contact Becky Houdek at bhoudek inneIlaIla creek, or or 952 -641 -4512. 61 DRAFT PLAN AMENDMENT: LOCAL PLAN IMPLEMENTATION Present Section 7.2 is replaced by the following new section: 7.2 LGU Local Plan Implementation and Reporting Minnesota Statutes §103B.235 establishes a process for watershed district review and approval of local water plans. Typically District staff will work with LGU staff through successive versions of the draft local plan until staff finds that the plan meets content requirements and standards of Section 7.1 and is recommended for approval. If an LGU is not able to satisfy District staff and believes nevertheless that its plan is entitled to District approval, it may request to have the plan brought before the District Board of Managers without a recommendation of approval. The District's preference is that a local plan be revised as needed so that when it is presented to the Board of Managers it may be approved without the need for further revisions. However, if it requires only minor revisions when it comes before the Board or if the need for minor changes is identified during Board review, the Board's approval resolution may approve the plan conditioned on identified revisions. Otherwise, typically the resolution will contain only standard conditions that implement the terms of Section 7. The Board also may include conditions as needed to address the specific circumstances in a given case. Minnesota Statutes S103B.235, subdivision 4, states that once the district approves a local plan, the LGU must adopt and implement it within 120 days, and must complete amendment of ordinances required by the local plan within 180 days. After the local plan is adopted, the District and LGU will coordinate watershed and local plan implementation over the course of the 10 -year planning cycle. Consistency between plans and coordinated implementation will help to ensure that capital spending, land conservation, public education, regulation and other activities will be carried out to best achieve shared water resource goals in a cost - effective and transparent way. Under the watershed law, each metropolitan -area watershed district is responsible to maintain awareness of local water plan implementation by LGUs within its boundaries. The District intends to carry out this responsibility through a process of LGU annual reporting and District monitoring of local plan implementation. The District has sought to create a framework that allows it to remain reasonably knowledgeable as to local implementation without being burdensome for LGUs. The framework also is designed so that any implementation issues are addressed through communication and collaboration to the extent possible. It seeks to respect the ability of the District and individual LGUs to make their own program and funding decisions. But it preserves the District's ability to step in if water resource commitments and goals are not being met. 7.2.1 Annual Report and Meeting Each LGU must provide a written report to the District by June 30 annually, describing how the LGU has implemented the local plan over the past T- e-pftti k alti „ri��_ year #= .i�r:4 1 t #tf+tt.= ta�ilfrrti 34�r. The annual report date coincides with the submittal date for municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) annual reports as set by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). If the MPCA should change that date, the District would adjust its annual reporting date administratively. An LGU may submit its MS4 report to the District as its annual report, with supplementation as needed to provide all of the information listed below. For efficiency, the District may develop a standard format that LGUs would be required to use. Until that time, an LGU may prepare a separate report using a format of its choosing. LGUs are encouraged to use a concise format for the annual report. At the same time, LGUs need to provide information that is sufficient for District staff to be fully apprised of activities by, and within the boundaries of, the LGU that affect water resources and further water resource programming. At a minimum, the annual report must cover the following for the reporting year: 1. The status of capital projects identified in the local water plan and any other water resource projects under LGU development or consideration, and identification of any project on which the LGU is interested in partnering with the District. 2. Progress on each water resource issue identified in the implementation section of the local plan. 3. The status of each action identified in the local plan as a means to contribute to the LGU's allocated phosphorus /nutrient load reduction, the cause of any failures or delays, and any proposed changes to the LGU's strategy for meeting the load reduction. 4. A summary of LGU land use activity as it may affect water resources, including: (a) permit applications for land disturbance received; (b) actions taken, including any variances granted; (c) pending development or redevelopment activity not yet the subject of an application; (d) zoning changes made or requested. 5. Additional water quality, hydrologic, wetland and floodplain data developed within the LGU. 6. A description of stormwater conveyance/ management facility construction, inspection, maintenance and repair activity, including identification of any 2 structural changes within the conveyance system affecting hydrologic /hydraulic modeling on greater than a parcel basis. 7. A summary of LGU housekeeping activities including salt /sand storage and use, hard surface sweeping and other public facility management activities to protect water resources. 8. An inventory of riparian, buffer, corridor, open space and other conservation land rights acquired through dedication, gift, purchase or any other means. 9: A summary of the LGU's budget as it pertains to local plan implementation. Following District staff review of an LGU's annual report, a meeting between staff may be arranged to complete the review, bring each party up to date on the other party's activities, and coordinate activity for the next year. 0 District staff may have questions or need further information about matters contained in or omitted from the LGU report. If the District perceives that LGU implementation has lagged, this would be an opportunity to discuss this, identify causes of any failures or delays, and mutually consider adjustments. As well, LGU staff may require more information about District activities over the past year as they affect the LGU. This meeting is an opportunity for the two parties to anticipate the next year's activity. A mutual briefing can be provided concerning programmed or potential capital projects, land conservation interests, cost - sharing or grant opportunities, development activity and other matters that would benefit from coordination. Pending or necessary plan amendment can be reviewed. Minnesota Statutes S103B.235, subdivision 1, and Minnesota Rules 8410.0160 requires that each local plan be revised and approved by the District within two years of .a District plan amendment that affects -an LGU, or as otherwise specified in the District implementation_program: The District has adopted the two -year standard of 8410:0160, except where the plan specifically states otherwise. Where an LGU lies partly within the District and partly within one or more other watershed management organizations, the District will require local plan revision and approval within two years for at least that part of the plan that concerns land within District boundaries. The District will endeavor to maintain communication and flow of information between itself and its LGUs on an ongoing basis. The Board of Managers encourages opportunities for joint meetings with city councils on specific matters or for the purpose of general communication. 3 7.2.2 Review of LGU Plan Implementation The District will maintain awareness of LGU plan implementation largely through the annual reporting and meeting framework. However, this will be supplemented through ongoing communication with LGUs and knowledge of developments within the watershed gained through other usual channels. It is possible, then, that the District at any time may perceive that an LGU is not fully implementing its local water plan or meeting its commitments. In this case, the District will follow the course outlined here. This process is intended to ensure that the District has a full understanding of the LGU's water resource program, that the District respects the LGU's control of its own programs and its role in overseeing activity within its boundaries, and that the parties work collaboratively to ensure progress on mutual goals. At the same time, it is the District's responsibility under watershed law to maintain oversight of local water plan implementation and to take steps as necessary so that water resource goals are met. . The ['e_,tlov,itt<g_,s �+_..t; ,,t ()[critcrig_diat_.dic District will considertl when assessing LGU plan implementation... _I�il_c ,,IpproN ed Ic,c _t.t.1,l tl .ti,; II c car ialn_dic ti.alc r „tt.;t�t�tt4 �i�at11 IC'.11ticrtt cooltngt_lytel -its, the_ LQU lit,, sli_ad Ievlev tite.__jtrii rc , the ��U li 1S Ill id lfl_ folfiffill�_tll(�tit_ f t:1t1'l)llll „Tits 1. Water Resource Permitting (this subject will be relevant primarily when the LGU, through the local planning process, has elected to assume sole authority for water resource permitting in one or more areas covered by District rules and /or has elected to serve as the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) implementing authority): (a) Have ordinances been adopted as described in the approved local plan and in response to any subsequent District rule revisions? (b) Do they conform to MCWD- approved standards? (c) Have the ordinances been applied as written? (d) Where there is room for interpretation, has LGU discretion been exercised in a way that is sensitive to water resource protection? (e) Has the MCWD been notified of variance requests per Minnesota Statutes §103B.211? (f) Have technical expertise and program resources been maintained at levels described in the approved local plan? (g) Has regulated activity been diligently monitored and have LGU ordinances and permits been diligently enforced? 4 (h) The same considerations, as applied to the LGU's actions as WCA- implementing agency. 2. Land Use: (a) Has good progress been made to integrate Safe Drinking Water Act and other protections for wellheads and sensitive groundwater resources into the development code, as described in the approved local plan? (b) Has the LGU worked carefully to integrate low- impact development concepts into the development code and development review process? (c) Has the LGU met local plan commitments to reconcile development code setbacks and water resource protection goals? (d) Has the LGU revised its development code as necessary to require stormwater facilities and wetlands in residential subdivisions to be located on outlots? (e) Has the LGU ensured that the District timely receives proposed preliminary plats and revisions, in accordance with the approved local plan? (f) Are local plan commitments otherwise being met? 3. Capital Program: (a) Does the capital improvement program (CIP) continue to reflect the level of commitment toward water resource goals of the approved local plan? (b) Is CIP implementation on schedule? (c) Is the LGU making adequate progress toward achievement of phosphorus load reductions identified in the approved local plan? (d) If issues have arisen that were unexpected or are beyond LGU control, has the LGU identified, and is the LGU pursuing, alternative strategies? (e) Is the LGU diligently maintaining stormwater management facilities for which it is responsible? 4. Land Conservation: (a) Have water resource protection priorities been integrated into parks, open space, recreation and land acquisition plans, and are those tools being diligently implemented? (b) Are dedication and fee in lieu requirements under the development code being used to support water resource protection consistent with commitments in the approved local plan? (c) Is the LGU diligently monitoring municipal open space lands, protected lands and vegetated buffer areas under its control? 5. Housekeeping Practices: Is the LGU meeting local plan commitments for street sweeping, snow plowing, salt and snow storage, right -of -way maintenance, stormwater management facility and vegetated buffer maintenance, public land management and other housekeeping matters with water resource impacts? 6. Other Commitments: Is the LGU otherwise meeting commitments assumed under the approved local plan? If District staff, at the direction of the Board of Managers or on the basis of its own review, has concerns about local plan implementation, the District will generally follow a process that emphasizes communication and collaboration to assess these concerns and identify approaches to addressing any deficiencies. Presuming the LGU has a similar interest in this approach, initially the process will involve staff -to- staff communication and a process of staff collaboration. District staff will report back to the Board of Managers and the District will seek to memorialize any agreed outcomes in appropriate fashion. If District or LGU staff believes that, for any reason, adequate progress in resolving concerns is not being made, the Board of Managers and city council may be asked to convene an informal joint meeting. Ultimately, if the Board of Managers is not satisfied with a resolution of concerns, it may schedule the matter for formal consideration on its agenda. LGU representatives will be invited to attend; District staff, LGU representatives and interested members of the public will have an opportunity to address the issues; and the Board will make a finding as to whether it believes the LGU is failing to implement its plan in an important way. If the Board makes such a finding, it may take further steps within its authority as it judges will foster improved local plan implementation or allow resources to be focused on areas where they are more likely to leverage effective efforts. Such steps may include the following: • Requesting that the LGU engage in further discussions or provide written commitments. on • Reasserting District regulatory authority .t; a C i(% tI!;it } Ili% f(11 jw, td 11t' l�iti ltlCl* Yll�t' l il' lH4 tlTtt =t <l ':dii: } -r_17 { {§tfl €it ?` C1, it lksrttY,t..1ti ► 1 F rrt l't tit IiiIk: ( }t It" I) if ltiiliiit, 1.)Vy4€WI C JJ f i k It't'titk tdt''nofii*.J flit" e -, l- teot:kittif-e ti'4111ta tht. vify' • l�ititti:t] }� }t boltl oti cost- 4i'rYSte -,irid ()die' Ftfo �fraYY2 \A- ithiti tl)e .l GLi. �. _- �c- ii-- i4ititi-- tl- rt• -:'�k trrTl�(- rl+ rtst�t-- E�; tm�i t=+ �;- r�tifl- H- tkteY=- p�itt- +tifi�k- ti<x;ti`it'jPrrl- fit- -x'�( -tom§ w�.,litYte r��' tertik9efl tki�»LfitC't'sal7lir,) Jrtl i s re1t±E titt� tt€ the Djstrflet "s find11101: I'r 1i lit r it *t tit• r.' -pig ..l)fwtfiti t Cr r- i.(.... tj. t.. t. t.. i:: .itit:t- iF.l- citi^ii- ':t:tltE`C. Establishment of one or more water management districts encompassing the LGU or parts thereof to fund District implementation of local plan commitments not being met. • An action under Minnesota Statutes §103B.235, subdivision 4, requesting that the LGU be directed to implement its local plan. At any time, an LGU may advise the District of further implementation steps taken and allow the Board of Managers to determine that the local plan is again being adequately implemented. The Board also may take steps as outlined above where an LGU has not submitted or has not received approval of a local water plan in a timely way. 7.2.3 Applicabiliiy to Existing Approved Local Water Plans Most LGUs wholly or partly within the District have completed and approved local plans responding to the District's 2007 plan. BWSR rules require these plans to be revised within two years of a District plan revision to maintain consistency. The reporting responsibility and procedures outlined in this revised Section 7.2 ttci_11ot trigger this revision requirement,_ i. ,Y, -tli m . they - iiw.fc ly fulfill ,_..... III 5t tt,47Ttc t ,ln t]i ._?t)E�7 pL'i 1.1,1 111C F)istric( (irtiw (11—tiC1311CC tO LGI.'S. �tifl the w_'tc�_ t pt € °ifics be-reti -l:i ill rl)pIN- -tie eocl; l.GU ONO YVA 1r€itit t1w J-ait of tltt> I)Isificl zttii €tatlt }ie °ti#- +'i- rr- lee�t} t1 }e- laC�l:� l- �l;aittt`�.i�t «tti r�§- �l k' krrt ,i,.l..il,- t #=- :t >�rliE�t -- I. -trtt{ i�lrrt: rel }(itttlt��_.:t€tel..rtl.ttt -tl jtr +ite- tlt3t'cw ,ail. }...�i.lylTlt .t;..t.l.:e <l3 l.�t�1, , tt,. t., a.) rrlitt�-- ti- d. r. l,ic..tt..i.y.rf= ;_,.yl�.i.t;,. f�i;- ir- lt3r�:±; -�t-�� ;t- �- 1}:rt\- �r- �:r€itf- :rta�� trt�-€fi tl- rtti r: ttf- trrrr�t#= tt- tt�t�w .- t- tfif-itti�--- i4�ir'tl -�� -�ftt' A(if).litlt.� 1... l_i�� -E.):� rs k t_\v i11..<C; -i�t l.(.,C ..... ixi_��irifr_;rr�tii. ►iE,r ?>�al rc1?_�,lt_�, 1 _r ,17 -i5 rtix`1.;1.I1CL' `TI iilttitl 0, 201;L ._.. _.. MINNESOTA STATUTES 2010 10313.235' 103B.235 LOCAL WATER MANAGEMENT PLANS. Subdivision 1. Requirement. (a) After the watershed plan is approved and adopted, or amended, pursuant to section 103B.231, the local government units having land use planning and regulatory responsibility for territory within the watershed shall prepare or cause to be prepared a local water management plan, capital improvement program, and official controls as necessary to bring local water management into confonnance with the watershed plan within the time period prescribed in the implementation program of the watershed plan and, as necessary, shall prepare or cause to be prepared amendments to the local comprehensive plan. (b) Each town within the counties of Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Scott, and Washington authorized by general or special law to plan and regulate the use of land under sections 462.351 to 462.364 shall by resolution determine whether to prepare the local water management plan itself or to delegate all or part of the preparation of the plan to the county. (c) Towns within counties that have adopted comprehensive plans applicable to the town must use county preparation of their plan to the maximum extent possible. Subd. 2. Contents. (a) Each local plan, in the degree of detail required in the watershed plan, shall: (1) describe existing and proposed physical environment and land use; (2) define drainage areas and the volumes, rates, and paths of storm water runoff, (3) identify areas and elevations for stonn water storage adequate to meet performance standards established in the watershed plan; (4) define water quality and water quality protection methods adequate to meet performance standards established in the watershed plan; (5) identify regulated areas; and (6) set forth an implementation program, including a description of official controls and, as appropriate, a capital improvement program. (b) The Board of Water and Soil Resources shall adopt rules establishing minimum local plan standards and a model environmental management ordinance for use by local government units in implementing local water plans. The standards apply to plan amendments made to conform to changes in the watershed plans that are adopted under the board rules required by section 10313.231, subdivision 6. Subd. 3. Review. After consideration but before adoption by the governing body, each local unit shall submit its water management plan to the watershed management organization for review for consistency with the watershed plan adopted pursuant to section 10313.231. If the county or counties having territory within the local unit have a state - approved and locally adopted groundwater plan, the local unit shall submit its plan to the county or counties for review. The county or counties have 45 days to review and comment on the plan. The organization shall approve or disapprove the local plan or parts of the plan. The organization shall have 60 days to complete its review; provided, however, that the watershed management organization shall, as part of its review, take into account the comments submitted to it by the Metropolitan Council pursuant to subdivision 3a. If the organization fails to complete its review within the prescribed period, the local plan shall be deemed approved unless an extension is agreed to by the local unit. Copyright (0 2010 by the Office of the Revisor of Statutes. State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved. ' 2 MINNESOTA STATUTES 2010 10313.235 Subd. 3a. Review by Metropolitan Council. Concurrently with its submission of its local water management plan to the watershed management organization as provided in subdivision 3, each local unit of government shall submit its water management plan to the Metropolitan Council for review and comment by the council. The council shall have 45 days to review and comment upon the local plan or parts of the plan with respect to consistency with the council's comprehensive development guide for the metropolitan area. The council's 45 -day review period shall run concurrently with the 60 -day review period by the watershed management organization provided in subdivision 3. The Metropolitan Council shall submit its comments to the watershed management organization and shall send a copy of its comments to the local government unit. If the Metropolitan Council fails to complete its review and make comments to the watershed management organization within the 45 -day period, the watershed management organization shall complete its review as provided in subdivision 3. Subd. 4. Adoption and implementation. After approval of the local plan by the organization, the local government unit shall adopt and implement its plan within 120 days and shall amend its official controls accordingly within 180 days. Subd. 5. Amendments. To the extent and in the manner required by the organization, all amendments to local water management plans shall be submitted to the organization for review and approval in accordance with the provisions of subdivisions 3 and 3a for the review of plans. History: 1990 c 391 art 2 s 12; 1990 c 601 s 21; 1995 c 176 s 1 -3; 1995 c 184 s 11 Copyright C 2010 by the Office of the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved. REVISOR 8410.0150' 8410.0150 ANNUAL REPORTING REQUIREMENTS. Subpart 1. Requirement for annual financial, activity, and audit reports. Within 120 days of the end of the watershed management organization's fiscal year, each organization shall submit to the board a financial report, an activity report, and an audit report for the preceding fiscal year if it has expended or accrued funds during this time. These reports may be combined into a single document. The audit report for the preceding fiscal year must be prepared by a certified public accountant or the state auditor and forwarded to the state auditor's office within 120 days of the end of the fiscal year. Subp. 2. Content of annual financial report. The annual financial report must include the following information: A. the approved budget; B. a reporting of revenues; C. a reporting of expenditures; and D. a financial audit report or section that includes a balance sheet, a classification of revenues and expenditures, an analysis of changes in final balances, and any additional statements considered necessary for full financial disclosure. Subp. 3. Content of annual activity report. The annual activity report must include the following information: A. a list of the organization's board members, advisory committee members, and board member vacancies at the end of the reporting year, including the names of designated officers and members and information on how members can be contacted, and indicating the governmental organization that each board member represents for joint powers organizations and the county that each member is appointed by for watershed districts; B. a list of organization employees and consultants, including mailing addresses and telephone numbers; C. an assessment of the previous year's annual work plan that indicates whether the stated goals and objectives were achieved and, if they were not achieved, indicates why they could not be achieved; D. a projected work plan for the next year indicating the desired goals and objectives; E. a summary of the permits or variances issued or denied under ordinances or rules required by the organization or local plan and any enforcement actions initiated by either the organization or its local units of government; F. a summary of water quality monitoring data collected by the organization or its local units of government; Copyright ©2009 by the Revisor of Statutes. State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved. ,2 _ .. _.. .. - -_ __. ._ .. .. .. ..... REVISOR 8410.0150 G. an evaluation of the status of local plan adoption and implementation based on a review of the local unit of governments' activities by the organization during the past year; H. a copy of the written communication required by part 8410.0100, subpart 3; I. the organization's activities related to the biennial solicitations. for interest proposals 'for legal, professional, or technical consultant services under Minnesota Statutes, section 103B.227, subdivision 5; J. an assessment of changes . in fund balances, including a description of the costs of each program element with respect to the overall annual budget; and K. the status of any locally adopted wetland banking program. Subp. 4. Procedure for state audit. The board shall use the procedure described in items A to D to determine whether to order a state financial or performance audit of an organization. . A. Before the board will consider ordering a state audit, a written complaint must be filed with the board's executive director requesting the board to order a state audit. The - complaint must state as specifically as possible the grounds for requesting a state audit. Valid grounds for requesting a state audit include the mishandling or misuse of public funds or the documented failure to implement an approved plan. B. The ',executive director shall determine whether there is a basis for a complaint before reporting the complaint to the board. The executive, director shall ensure that the affected organization is notified of the complaint and given an opportunity to respond to the allegations before determining whether there is a basis for the complaint. C. If the executive director determines there is a basis for the complaint; the complaint shall be reported to the board. The affected organization shall be given an opportunity to. appear before the board at the time the complaint is reported to it and respond, to the allegations in the complaint. The, complainant shall also be given an .opportunity to appear. D. After having the complaint reported to it, and after providing an opportunity for the organization and the complainant to be heard by it, the board shall decide whether: to order a state financial or performance audit of the organization. Statutory Authority: MS s 103B.101; 103B.211; -103B.231; 103B.227 History: 17 SR 146 Posted: October 13, 1997 Copyright 02009 by the Revisor of Statutes. State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved. na +�nS j o Re rces Becky Houdek Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 18202 Minnetonka Boulevard Deephaven, MN 55391 RE; Minor amendment — Local Water Plans Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (District) Dear Ms. Houdek; December 14, 2010 On November 18, 2010, the Board of Water and Soil Resources received documentation requesting approval of changes to the District's Watershed Management Plan via minor amendment. This amendment details LGU annual report contents, the local water plan implementation assessment process, and implications Van LGU fails to implement. The proposed revisions to the Plan have been reviewed pursuant to MN Rules 8410.0140, Subpart 2 aflldl th Distct's Watershed Management Plan. BWSR agrees these revisions are consistent with District goals, p , ri and implementation priorities, and therefore, does constitute a minor amendment the on a certain however, that Section 7.2.2 item (1) 'Water Resource Permitting" clarify that this percentage of permits issued by the LGU throughout the year. Once the District adopts the changes, please print and forward them in the form of replacement pages for the Plan to all state review agencies and sfiakeholders. 13LN5R appreciates the opportunity to continue to assist you in planning of your water resource protection strategies. Feel free to contact me with any questions at 651 -296- 6068. Sincerely, r a; Bradley . Wozney Board Conservationist Cc: State Review Agencies (via email) Joel Settles, HCES (via email) Stacey Lijewski, HCD (via email) Paul Moline, Carver County (via email) Mike Wanous, Carver County SWCD (via email) Jim Haertel, BWSR (via email) 1 GL•,:u ..� I ::rout .:�1 Ai li , Ir: 11iL. li al(,Ijl, M i7r t1, I lu'•rs t'I}1? ti 2i t ,ILIUL '6S.4 !y5 L•la .�! ^I }•_` `di41 I;1•, +,'ICI iiS.4'.II ,}; I.l.i '1 •ul' II +1511.Iri:l `irrl 1( n:r11 •II I , I I t.i 041111 i . hiK '.I? .1 IN 11111'.1l'.21 •:I 7 I7`.r �' II41..I tit Ill r'.I:t ht ,u, [ '! � 5. �J -ri I h h �1.•• h`ti q }u l Iir.•. :(,? dd. l I rt !.1: v.l ''.� �hl;.I '�.'. '.l Ir•Jl:d:. r +.l`� : t _`•;t ht ,u, [ '! � 5. �J -ri I h h �1.•• h`ti q }u l ca^ h ,1 e t`1 '! :. lt.l 1'.'•. hal. 14:171 J'il 7 "• December 27, 2010 UE-E- f fOOVEN Mi:nnehalsa Creek W'alershed District Board of Managers Attn: Jamcs Wisker 18202 Minnetonka Boulevard Deephaven, MN 55391 RE: Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Draft Platt. Amendment Comments Dcar Mr. Wisher and N4anagcrs: It is my understanding that the Minnehaha Creek Watershed t.)istrict (MCWD) sent a notice on November 18, 2010 to affected cities, counties, and state review agencies regarding an amendment to the District's Comprehensive Water Resource Management flan (WRMP). Any comments on the WR: 4P annendrnent are to be forwarded to the MCWD no later than January 3, 2011. In order to meet the comment deadline period, I have altached a memorandum prepared for the City of Deephaven by City Engineer Dave: Martini of Balton & Menk for your consideration. Mn Martini's memorandum includes comments that were prepared by Bolton & Menk's Water .Resources Specialist Doug Carter. comments which 1 fully support. The Deephaven City Council has not yet had the opportunity to officially review either the WRMP X01 1, amendment or our engineer's comments, but we intend to address both issues at our January 3, y meeting. 1. am forwarding you our Engineer's memorandum at this time and request it be considered our prelimitim-y comment in order to comply with your 45-day requirement. I fully anticipate that. although our Council Nvill completely support our Engineer's comments regarding your proposed amendments to the WRUP, we also will be forwarding further comments following our Council meeting on January 3; 2011. 1 am also including; the .following remark on the Distriefs decision to require, comments on the proposed amendment be received within what I would consider an extremely short 45 -day comment Period. At a minimum, municipalities should be given at least 90 days in which to respond to any proposed plan amendment, in my opinion. A 45 -day comment period is simply not sui'Gcicnt tame t enable a municipality the opportunity to obtain and review comments from our City Engineer and discuss the potential ramifications of your plan at a regularly scheduled Council meeting, particularly in this instanee, when that 45 -day time period also coincides with three major holidays and the recent election of several new Council members. Sincerely. Paul A. Skrede;, Mayor City of Deephaven 11 77 4 ��)G1 °�r=i •=il?� Q, {_�_,. --� 4 ... tr :rlJ I ;� It is my understanding that the Minnehaha Creek Watershed t.)istrict (MCWD) sent a notice on November 18, 2010 to affected cities, counties, and state review agencies regarding an amendment to the District's Comprehensive Water Resource Management flan (WRMP). Any comments on the WR: 4P annendrnent are to be forwarded to the MCWD no later than January 3, 2011. In order to meet the comment deadline period, I have altached a memorandum prepared for the City of Deephaven by City Engineer Dave: Martini of Balton & Menk for your consideration. Mn Martini's memorandum includes comments that were prepared by Bolton & Menk's Water .Resources Specialist Doug Carter. comments which 1 fully support. The Deephaven City Council has not yet had the opportunity to officially review either the WRMP X01 1, amendment or our engineer's comments, but we intend to address both issues at our January 3, y meeting. 1. am forwarding you our Engineer's memorandum at this time and request it be considered our prelimitim-y comment in order to comply with your 45-day requirement. I fully anticipate that. although our Council Nvill completely support our Engineer's comments regarding your proposed amendments to the WRUP, we also will be forwarding further comments following our Council meeting on January 3; 2011. 1 am also including; the .following remark on the Distriefs decision to require, comments on the proposed amendment be received within what I would consider an extremely short 45 -day comment Period. At a minimum, municipalities should be given at least 90 days in which to respond to any proposed plan amendment, in my opinion. A 45 -day comment period is simply not sui'Gcicnt tame t enable a municipality the opportunity to obtain and review comments from our City Engineer and discuss the potential ramifications of your plan at a regularly scheduled Council meeting, particularly in this instanee, when that 45 -day time period also coincides with three major holidays and the recent election of several new Council members. Sincerely. Paul A. Skrede;, Mayor City of Deephaven 11 77 4 ��)G1 °�r=i •=il?� Q, {_�_,. --� 4 ... EBO L -r(=> "'! 4&L N *1 F—= N K , I N C® Consulting Engineers & Surveyors 2638 Shadow Lane, Suite 200 • Chaska, MN 55318 -1172 Phone (952) 448 -8838 • Fax (952) 448 -8805 www.botton- menk.com MEMORANDUM Date: December 20, 2010. To: City of Deephaven, City of Greenwood, City of Woodland From: David P. Martini, P.E. Subject: Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Draft Plan Amendment Comments On November 18a' the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) sent a notice out to affected cities, counties, and state review agencies regarding their proposed Comprehensive Water Resource Management Plan (WRMP) amendment. The proposed amendment would replace the existing WRMP, Section 7.2, LGU Local Plan Implementation and Reporting, in its entirety with the amended version. The November 18'� notice began the 45 -day public comment period required by state statute for WRMP amendments. We have reviewed the proposed amendment and offer the following comments that were prepared by our the general Water Resources Specialist Dou'a The b coage eFor your convenience I have color coded MCWD's theme and do not follow the document page y P draft and the sections referenced in our comments. 1. Data i eauested from the LGU with ' :o deFned use- The following citations are generally requests by the MCWD for data that will be a burden for the LGU to collect, summarize, review, and distribute. The MCWD does not detail how, or if, they plan to use this data. In some instances the MCWD is requesting data that is in the planning stages and may never make it through the land -use process. Projects that are under development or consideration by the LGU do not need to be disclosed to the MCWD. On an annual basis the MCWD needs only to know about active or permitted projects. Unless the MCWD can provide compelling reasons as to why they feel they need this information it should not be required to be provided by the LGUs. The citations are as follows: a. Section. 7.2.1— Annual Reporting and Meeting, Paragraph 2 b. Section 7.2.1— Annual Reporting and Meeting, Paragraph 3, Item #1 c. Section 7.2.1— Annual Reporting and Meeting, Paragraph 3, Item #4 d. Section 7.2.1— Annual Reporting and Meeting, Paragraph 3, Item. #5 e. Section 7.2.1— Annual Reporting and Meeting, Paragraph 3, Item #6 cADoc„me„ts and sensngs\aeo3r\Desk1opvMcW DE t3)'aocx SIGNING FOR A BETTER TOMORROW Bolton & Menk is an equal opportunity employer m�x • — 2. T /ae use of undefined, suNective, qualitative and, at tintes, argumentative laiegu The following.citations are generally instances where the MCWD. has chosen to use language that is not appropriate for use in natural resource management plans. In a number of the citations the language appears to assume an adversarial and hierarchical relationship between the LGU and the MCWD. The use of terms similar to, "lagged, diligently, importantly, good, timely, adequate, and failing" need to.be well defined, if used at all. What person, board,'or.entity will determine the definitions for,these words? These terms have a very real possibility of being - misapplied or misused and we would like to see their either well defined or removed frorir the document. The citations are as follows:. a. Section 7.2 — LGULocal Plan Implementation and Reporting, Paragraph. S b. Section 7.2.1— Annual Reporting and Meeting, Paragraph 4, First Item c. Section. 7.2.2 — Review of LGU Plan Implementation, Paragraph 3, Item. #1, (g) d. Section 7.2.2 — Review of LGU Plan Implementation, Paragraph 6, 2 "d sentence e. Section 7.2.2 — Review of LGUPIan Implementation, 2. Land Use, Item (a) f. Section 7.2.2 — Review of LGU Plan Implementation,. 2. Land Use, Item (e) g. Section 7.2.2 — Review of LGU Plan Implementation, 3. Capital Program, Item. (c) - - _— h. Section 7.2.2 — Review of LGU Plan Implementation?, 3.- Capital Progr•anr— Itenr(e) i. Section 7.2.2 — Review of LGUPIan Implementation, 4. Land Conservation, Item (a) j. Section. 7.2.2 = Review ofLGU Plan Implementation, 4. Land Conservation, Item (c) 3. Use of language that is vague' aitd open to interpretation The following citations are generally where criteria have been identified that will be nearly impossible to objectively evaluate. Thereis also the potential for the collection and evaluation of the data to be a significant time and money burden for both the LGU and the MCWD staff. If there is no indication existing practices in which the LGU is operating are substandard as it references natural resource protection, why does the MCWD take the position of essentially auditing the LGU's performance? The citations are as follows: a. Section 7.2.2 — Review of LGUPIan. Implementation, Paragraph 3, Item #1,. (c) b. Section 7.2.2 — Review ofLGU Plan Implementation, Paragraph 3, Item #1, (d) CADocuments and settings \danay\DesktopWCWD Draft Plan Comments\MCWD Draft Plan Comments 12 -20 -10 (3).docx �Z tom- EN The following citations generally foster an adversarial relationship between the LGU and the MCWD. In our experience if an h ir Capital Imp o meet ment Plans it is most often dude to a lack of identified in their local plans o as though the role of the MCWD available budget and/or funding for the program. It seems should be to assist the LGU with funding shortfalls, agencies �with the perceived hope of having em remove its funding assistance and notify pull their funding assistance as well aPpears, esources within the watershed. counterproductive If the LGU believed e that overarching goal of protecting the w adding tax burden to residents with the goal �odfdmeeting dditionalitax burden to residents isinot at would undertake the program on its own. g solution. Working with the LGU, in a cooperative manner, to jointly meet local plan objectives would be a much more sustainable approach. The citations are as follows: a. Section 7.2.2 — Revie A, of LGUPIan Implementation, Paragraph 7, 4`'`, 5`�', and 6`�' bullet b. Section 7.2.2 — Review ofLGU Plan Implementation, Paragraph 7, 7"' bullet S. General Amendment Comments a. Section sentence r ads, " of L Plan tole77MWCD approved standards?" The rocess of The sentence reads, "Do they reviewing and approving the LGU between the LGU and the MCWD staff and Board previously been defined as an iterative process The MCWD could provide a model ordinance that would save all parties time and staff expenditure. b. General Amendment Comments is not The overall tone of this amendment complex natural esourceomaagement goals. The t nes 1 determination to accomplish comp more of an authoritative agency looking down upon the LGU actively looking for the opportunity to take over control of the local plan implementation. We don't believe that if even one LGU gave overff and availability lity to accomplish the requirements; itbecomes MCWD would have the staff even less likely if more than one LGU did that. Working forward from that standpoint, it seems that that MCWD should be more interested in, and place more importance on, cooperatively working together with the LGU to protect the natural resources within the watershed and plan for the implementation of the local plan. c. This amendment to the original Section clusion of o many subjtectivge to close the and qualitative words d nature of the original draft. Them _ and phrases only magnifies the vague atof being committed to unfor unforeseeable memorandum obligations remains. understanding. The very real possibility remains. If the MCWD wishes to solve this problem they need to work cooperatively with the LGUs to clarify the issues. Writing a minor plan amendment in isolation from the LGUs only exasperates the problem. C :\Documents and Settings \danay\Desktop\MCWD Draft Plan Comments\MCWD Draft Plan Comments 12 -20 -10 (3).doex (DEC 92 5 2010 i) I� I Date: December 28, 2010 jBy To: Becky Houdek, Minnehaha Greek a ers e From: Debra J. Kind, Mayor of Greenwood Re: Comments Regarding Draft Plan Amendment Ureenwood City on the Lake I have reviewed your 11 -18 -10 memo (including the Draft Plan Amendment) and the 12 -20 -10 memo (attached) prepared by City Engineer Dave Martini from Bolton & Menk, which includes comments that were prepared by Bolton & Menk's Water Resources Specialist Doug Carter. In order to meet your 01 -08 -11 comment period deadline, I am sending this response before the Greenwood City Council has an opportunity to discuss the memos. While I cannot speak for the council as a whole, and I cannot forecast what action the city council may take in the future, I can advise that I personally support Mr. Carter's comments. I also can advise that the city council typically supports the recommendations made by Balton & Menk. In addition I can advise that based on previous council discussions it is my expectation that the council will be concerned that the District is placing too much emphasis on °process° vs. "results." In other words, the District's role should focus on whether or not each city is making appropriate progress to meet their Water Management Plan goals (phosphors reduction), and not prescribe "how° to make the progress. For example, section 7.2.2 in the proposed Draft Plan Amendment says the District will consider certain items when assessing Local Government Unit (LGU) plan implementation including whether "the LGU worked carefully to integrate tow- impact development concepts into the development codee and development review process." This is a requirement that most smaller cities like Greenwood probably are not compliant with, The fundamental point is that it should be our decision whether or not we want to focus on low - impact development in our fully developed city to help achieve our Water Management Plan goals. It is possible we might prefer to focus on street sweeping or other options to meet our goals. This cover letter as well as the memo from you (including the Draft Plan Amendment) and the city engineer's memo will be discussed at the Greenwood City Council's January meeting. 1 will let you know if the council takes action that contradicts the positions expressed in this cover letter. 1 also, would like to point out that your 45 -day comment period Included Thanksgiving, Christmas, and the New Year's holidays. In my opinion, 45 days -- especially at this time of year -- is not enough time if you truly, are interested in stakeholder input. Our council meets once a month and we need time for our engineering firm to review and make recommendations to the council. In the future, it would be appreciated if you could allow at least 60 days to comment on something this significant. Legally this may be a "minor' plan amendment, but from Greenwood's perspective there is nothing "minor" about what the District is proposing. If you have any questions, please contact me at 952.401.0181, dkindl00@gmail.com. Sincerely, Debra J. Kind Mayor of Greenwood t11Y OF GREERW000 , 20225 COTTAGN9000 RD, OEEPHAVEN, 911 55331 c ?:952.474,6633 - F: 952.474.1214.v%f w.glreenwoodmn.com T!I Consulting Engineers & Surveyors " 2635 Shadow Lane, Suite 200 - Chaska, MN 55318 -1172 Phone (9.52) 448 -8836 -t=ax (952) 448 -11805 www.bolton- menk.com MEMORANDUM Date: December 20, 2410 To: City of Deephaven, City of Greenwood, City of Woodland From: David P. Martini, P.E. Subject: Minnehalm Creek Wat>rshed District Draft. Plan Amendinent Comments On November 18i6 tho Minnettaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) sent a notice out to afkAcd cities, counties, and state review agencies regarding their proposed Comprehensive Water Resource Nianagement Plan (WRIVIP) amendment. The proposed amendment would replace the existing WRM.P, Section 7.2, LGU Local Plan Implementation and Reporting, in itR entirety with tite amended version. The November 18`'' notice began the 45-day public comment period required by state statute for WRMP amendments. We have reviewed the proposed amendment and oiler the allowring comments that were prepared by our Water Resources Specialist Doug Cotter. The comments are grouped together according the general theme and do not rol low the document page by page. Foe your convenience I have color coiled MCWD's draft and the sections referenced in our comments. 1. Data requested froin the LGU with no dellned use. The following citations are generally requests by the MCWD for data that will be x burden for the LGU to collect, summarize, review, and distribute. The 11CWD does not detail how, or if, they plan to use this data. In soma bistances the MCWD is requesting data that is in the planning stages and may never make it through the land -use process. Projects that are underdevelopment or consideration by the LCU do not need to be disclosed to the MCWD. On an annual basis the MCWD needs only to know about active or permitted projects. Unless the MCWD can provide compelling reasons as to why they, feet they need this information it should not be required to be provided by the LOUs. The citations are as follows: a. Section 7.2.1— Annual Reporting and.Meeling, Paragraph 2 b. Section 7.2. l - Annual Reporting and Meeting, Paragraph 3, flew 01 C. Section 7.2.1-Annual Reporting and Meeting; Paragraph 3, Item 44 d. Section 7.2.1 -Annual Reporting and Meeting, Paragraph 3, Item 45 e. Section 7,2.1 Annual Reporthi.g and tlfeetitt& Pw- ag)-asl)h 3, Iteilt #6 P DFF. r %ci3101185%Carfacp:indcnealMCWI) rhn0 Plan Ce_- .reek 12.2010 (3).docx DE51GNING FOR A BETTER 10MORROW Balton & 1iNlcnk is an ey id opimrttAnity enlployer 3 17ru sY&YINe, 91"Jlila60e undo at rimest. 0&"nten2fad a lnrrritr, a e. The following citations are generally instances where the MCWD has chosen to use language that is not appropriate for use in natural resource management plans. in a number ofthe citations the language appcars to assume an adversarial and hierarchical relationship between the LGU and the ,MCWD. The use of terms similar to, "tagged, diligently, importantly, good, timely, adequate, and failing" need to be well deFiined, if used at alt. What person, board, or entity will determine the definitions for these words? These terms have a very real possibility of being misapplied or misused and we would like to see there either Nveli defined or removed from the document. Tire citations are as follows; a. Section 7,2 — LGU Lve d Plan Itnpletnentajion and Repat tfng, Pm ag a S b. Section 7.2.1 tlrrnual Reporting and Meeting, Paragraph 4, First Item c. Seclir n 7.2.2 - Review of LGU Plan Implcrnetntation, Paragraph 3, Item Ill, (g) d Sectiotr 7.2.2 -- Review of LGU Plan In?plementatiom Paragraph 6, 2R sentence e. Section 7 2.2 Review of LGU Plan Irnplementalion. 2. Land Use. Item (a) f Section 7.2.2 — Review of LGUPIan Implementation. 2. Laud Use, Item (e) g. Secfion 7.,2.2 Review of L(_;UP1,an larpieenentation, 3.C'-apital Pragrrun , Item (c) h. Section 7.2.2 — Review of LGUPlatt Imple»rettartion, I Capital f rogral)) , JteM (e) i. Section 72.2 -- Review of LGUPIan .lmptementutiotn, 4 Land Corrw),vation. Item (a) j. Section 7.2.2 Review of LGUPltrn Intpletnentatian, 4, Land Conservation, Item (c) Use rptlungoua �e tlnnt is willue and opeu t6 it 1&prgML#tt This fvl lotving citations are generally where criteria have been identified that will be nearly impossible to objectively evaluate. There is also tine potential for the collection and evaluation of the data to be a significant time and money burden for both the LGU and the MCWD staff. If there is no indication .existing practices in. which the i,GU is operating are substandard as it references natural resource protection, why does the MCWD take the position of essentially auditing the LGU's performance? The citations are as follows:. a. Section 7.2.2 — Review of LG U Plan ltlnplemerttaliOM Paragraph 3, henn #7, (c) & Sections 7.2.2 -• Reviely of LGU Plan ImplenWitall0n, Paragraph 3, Item #I, (d) � <U7L?P1C 131 �J I lfiS CortwCnndcnrcU+�G WD i) afl pis,, C<ajwrunu 13 -:d -10 (3) do ux 4. F itte ttttd tlt hitl.e sense ofcooP ration tutd protectiatt al natural rerottrces The following citations generally foster an advemrial relationship between the LGU and the MCWD. In our experience if an LGU is unable to meet the water resource commitments identified in their local plans or their Capital Improvement Plans it is most open due to a lack of available budget andlor funding for the program. ft seems as though the role of the MCWD should be to assist the LGU with funding shortfalls, if that is the issue. To have the MCWD remove its funding assistance and notify other agencies with the perceived hope of having them pull their funding assistance as well appears, on the surface, to be counterproductive to the overarching goal of protecting the water resources within the watershed. If the LGU believed that adding tax burden to residents with the goal of meeting the local plan objectives was feasible, it would undertake the program on its own. Adding an additional tax burden to residents is not a solution. Working with the LGU, in a cooperative manner, to jointly meet local plan objectives would be a much more sustainable approach. The citations tire as follows: a. Sectlon 7.2.2— Review of LGU Plan Implementation, Putwgraph 7. 4`'', Y� and a bullet b. .17action 7.2.2 — Reviest, of LGU Platt Implementation, Paragraph 7, 7" bullet S. General A memlment Comments u. Section 7.2.2 Review of LGU Pktrt ImplPtne'llation; Paragraph 3, Item 91, (b) The sentence reads, "Do they conform to M:WCD- approved standards?" 7'he process of reviewing and approving the LGUN local plans and associated ordinance has previously been defined as an iterative process between the LGU and the MCWD staff and Board. Tile MCWD could provide a model ordinance that would save all parties time and staff expenditure. b. General Amendment Comments The overall tone oFthis amendment is not one that echo's cooperation, trust, and mutual determination to accomplish complex natural. resource management goals. The toile is more of an authoritative agency looking down upon the LGU actively looking for the opportunity to take over control of the local plan implementation. We don't believe that if even one LGU gave over control of all aspects of their plan implementation the MCWD would have the staff and availability to accomplish the requirements; it becomes even less likely if more than one LOU did that. Working forward from that standpoint, it seems that that MCWD should be, more interested in, and place more importance oil, cooperatively working together with the LGU to protect the natural resources within the watershed and plan for the implementation of the local plan. o. This amendmnt to the original Section 7.2 did not do anything to close the open -ended nature of the original draft. The inclusion of so many subjective and qualitative words and phrases only magnifies the vague nature of the requirements of the memorandum of understanding. The very real lx)ssibility of being committed to unforeseeable obligations remains. If the MCWD wishes to salve this problem they +iced to work cooperatively with the LGUs to clarify the issues. Writing a minor plan amendment in isolation from the LGUs only exasperates the problem. 1 %:.Dn1i C17 14 !'lBSti{:or +c�c�ronckr�tl'�ICWI� Dns;l Plnn Caunw -tilts 12- 21!•10 (S) dike MINNEHAHA CREEK QUALITY OF WATER 4 4 WATERSHED DISTRICT QUALITY OF LIFE Date: November 18, 2010 �. ' To: Cities, Counties, State Review Agencies 4 ;r :� ,tl,, r rrut „� Creak A From: Becky kloudek, Minnehaba Creek Watershed District Gj;sf,irf is Re: Draft Plan Amendment -- 45-DSy Comment �'rtio s In 2007 ' following an extensive planning and review process that involved citizens, cities, state agencies, and other stakeholders, the Minnchaha Creek Watershed District adopted a Comprehensive Water Resource Management Plan (WRMI'). The Plan details the Districes, goals and implementation strategies for improving water qu2liry IN and management in our communities. These strategics include District capital projects, city water resource projects, and District regulations. As required by MN Statute 10313.235, local government units (LGUs) must prepare and submit a Local Water Management Plan to this District for review and approval. As part of the �. rove) of tho Local Water Plan the District has been using a Memorandum of ishkt, irl-A f,ng Meh rohltoorthiDS to 0if of wlikh they :re an u;`egrnl pert. our M151;00 r"oerat•MS, tart:,' Other F:,ogra.ti tic!L'd till spi.rtd science. Understanding (MOIL) to outline specific obligations of both the LGU and the District. 'These requircments include that the LGU submit an annual report to the District that details progress toward implementing the Local Water Plan and an annual meeting with District staff to discuss the report. During the review and approval process for Local Water Plans, many municipalities expressed concem that the requirenicrits in the MOU were vague and therefore committed them to unforeseeable obligations. In response to those concerns, the District hoard of Managers directed staff to develop &nprorllan amendment that clearly outlines the expectations of the District regarding Local Water Plan annual reporting and mcctings, and would eliminate the need for a MOU for those cities not implementing District regulations. The attached draft plan amendment contains the following' 1. Purpose of annual reporting and meeting requirements 2, Minimum requirements for contents of LGU annual report 3. Items the District will consider when assessing Local Water Plan implementation 4. Steps the District Hoard may take if an LGU fails to implement its Local Water Plan 5. Steps the District will take to encourage a collaborative process toward achieving better water quality and management for our constituents The annual reporting and meeting process outlined in the draft plan amendment will allow the District to carry out its responsibility to oversee Local Water Plan implementation by LGUs as required by statute. This approach will also improve how District and city staff coordinate efforts to meet water resource goals. The Board of Managers has authorized staff to distribute the attached draft plan amendment for a 45 -day public comment period to solicit input prior to a public hearing and adoption. Please submit your comments by Monday, January 3`d. We will notify you of the date and time of the public hearing once it is scheduled. If you have any questions or concerns regarding the draft plan amendment, District staff would be happy to meet with you to answer questions and provide clarity on specific items within the amendment. Please feel free to contact Becky Houdek at bhoudek(a minnehahacreek.9Kg or 952- 641 -4512. DRAFT PLAN AMENDMENT: LOCAL PLAN IMPLEMENTATION (10- 7.10) Present Section 7.2 is re la.cec# t?the Collowirtg xYew�ccc�o 7.2 LGU Local Plan Implementation and Reporting Minnesota Statutes §103B.235 establishes a process for watershed district review and approval of local crater plans. 'Typically District staff will work with LGU staff through successive versions of the draft local plan until staff finds that the plan meets content requirements and standards of Section 7.1 and is recommended for approval. If an LGU is not able to satisfy District staff and believes nevertheless that its plan is entitled to District approval, it may request to have the plan brought before the District Board of Managers without a recommendation of approval. The District's preference is that a local plan be revised as needed so that when it is presented to the Board of Managers it may be approved without the need for further revisions. However, if it requires only minor revisions when it cornea before the Board or if the need for minor changes is identified during Board review, the Board's approval resolution may approve the plan conditioned on identified revisions. Otherwise, typically the resolution will contain only standard conditions that implement the terms of Section 7. The Board also may include conditions as needed to address the specific ciicutustances in a given case. Minnesota Statutes 5103B.235, subdivision 4, states that once the district approves a local plan, the LGU must adopt and implement it within 120 days, and must complete amendment of ordinances required by the local plan within 180 days. After the local plan is adopted, the District and LGU will coordinate watershed and local plan implementation over the course of the 10 -year punning cycle. Consistency between plans and coordinated implementation will help to ensure that capital spending, land conservation, public education, regulation and other activities will be carried out to best achieve shared water resource goals in a cost - effective and transparent way. Under the watershed l;jW, each f tctropolitan -area. watershed disidet is peapnnsible to ittaihtah, aWattoness of local water plan implementation. by LGUe within its boundaries. The Diettictintends to carry out this responsibility through a process of LGU afiiival reporting and District monitoring of local plan implementation. The District hats sought to create a .frttlrtework thitt allows it to remain reasonably, knowledgeablty as to local implementation r nthout being btrrdt:nsome for LGUs. The frameWotk also is desigoed an that any implementation issues are addressed through communication and collaboration to the extent possible. It seeks to teapeLx OIL- ability of the Diatriet and individual LGUs to m.;ke their own program and ftatding decisions. But it preserves the District's ability to step in if water resource commitments and. goals are not being met, 12J Annual Report and .Meeting F.. -tch .LGU must provide a written report to the District by June 30 anuually, describing how the LGU has Implemented the local, plan aver the past report year (May 1 through April 30). The annual report date -coincides with the submittal date for municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) annual reports as set by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (NUW —A). If the MPCA should change that date, the District would adjust its annual reporting date administratively. An LGU may submit its MS4 report to the District as its annual report, with supplementation as needed to provide all of the information listed below. For efficiency, the District may develop a standard format that LGUs would be required to use. Until that time, an LGU may prepare a separate report using a format of its choosing. LGUs are encout aged to use a concise fortuat for the annual report, At the saute time, LGUs need to provide information that is sufficient for District staff to be fully apprised of activities by,. and within the boundaries of, the I.GU that affect water resources and furthcr water resource programming. At a minimum, the annual report niust covet the following for the reporting yeat: 1. The status of capital projects identified in the local water plan and any other water resource projects under LGU development or consideration, and identification of any project on which the LGU is interested in partnering with the District. 2. Progress on each water resource issue identified in the Implementation section of the local plan. 3. The status of each action identified in the local plan as a means to contribute to the LGU's allocated phosphorus /nuttient load reduction, the cause of any failures or delays, and any proposed. changes to the LGU's strategy for meeting the load reduction. 4. A summary of LGU land use activity as it may affect water resources, including: (:t) permit applications for land disturbance received; (b) actions taken, including any variances granted; (c) pending development or redevelopment activity not yet the subject of an application; (d) zoning changes made or requested. S. Additional water quality, hydrologic, wetland and lloodplain data developed within the LGU. 6. A. description ofstormwater conveyance /management facility construction, inspection, maintenance and repair activity, including identification of any F4 structural changes within the conveyance system affecting hydrologic /hydraulic modeling on greater than a parcel basis. 7, A summary of LGU housekeeping activities including salt /sand storage and use, hard surface sweeping and other public facility management activities to protect water resources. 8. An inventory of riparian, buffer, corridor, open space and other . conservation land rights acquired through dedication, gift, purchaw or any other means. 9. A summary of the LGU's budget as it pertains to local plan implementation. Following District staff review of an LGU'$ annual report, a meeting between staff may be arranged to complete the review, bring each party up to date on the other party's activities, and coordinate activity for the next year. �. District staff may have questions or need further information about muttrts ` contained in or orAitted from the LGU, report. If the District perceives thAt LGI) MiplerrteniadM hae la gged,-thlscvould be an oppo�rtufutty ro diecuss- ih.1's, identify causes of any feAutes, or delays-, an&rnutuallyconsider adjugments. As well, LGU staff may require more inforrriation about District: %ctivities over the past year as they affeet the LGU. • This meeting is an opportunity for the two parties to anticipate the next yW is activity. A mutual briefing can be provided concerning programmed or potential capital projects, land conservation interests, cost- sharing or Onant opportunities, development activity scud other matters that would benefit from coordination, fending or necessary ,plan amendment can be reviewed. Minnesota Statutes §103B.235, subdivision 1, and Minnesota Rules 8410.0160 requires that each local plan be revised and approved by the District within two years of a District plan amendment that affects an LGU, or as otherwise specified in the District implementation program. The District has adopted the two -year standard of 8410,0164, except where the plan specifically states otherwise. N'Vhere an LGU lies partly within the District and partly within one or more other watershed management organizations, the District will require .Local plan revision and approval within two years for at least that part of the plan that concerns land within District boundaries. The District will endeavor to aaaintain communication and flow of information between itself and its LGUs tin an ongoing basis. The Board of Managers encourages opportunities for joint meetings with city councils on specific matters or for the purpose of general communication. 7.2.2 _ e i f G P.I n I lemetrtation The District will maintain awareness of LGU plan implementation largely through the annual reporting and meeting framework. However, this will be supplemented through ongoing communication with LGUs and knowledge of developments within the watershed gained through other usual channels. It is possible, then, that the District at any time may perceive that an LGU is not fully implementing its local water plats or meeting its commitments. In this case, the District will follow the course outlined here. This process is .intended to ensure that the District has a full understanding of the LGU's water resource program, that the District respects the LGU's control of its own programs and its role in overseeing activity within its boundaries, and that the parties work collabot'atively to ensure progress on mutual goals. At the same tune, it is the Districes tesponsibUity under watershed law to rnaintaw- oversight of local water plan implementation and to take steps as necessary so that water resource goals are met. The District will consider the following items when assessing LGV plati implementation: 1. Water Resource Permitting (this subject will be relevant primarily when the LGU, through the local planning process, has elected to assume sole authority for water resource permitting in one or more areas coveted by District rules and /or has elected to serve as the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) I mplementing authority): (a) Have ordinances been adopted as described in the approved local plan and in response to any subsequent District rule revisions? (b) Do they conform to MC"-approved standards? (e) Have the ordinances been applied as v►eLMO (d) Where there is rooru for ita tiatrtitdon, has LGU discretion been vxercised in a svay that is sensitive to water resource protection? (e) Has the MCWD been notified of variance requests per Minnesota Statutes S103B.211? (f) Have technical expertise and program resources been maintained at levels described in the approved local plan? Has regidated activity been diligently monitored and !lave LGU orcTi.nances and petmirs been diligently enforced? (h) The same considerations, as applied to the LGU's actions as WCA implementing agency. S 2. Laird Use: (a) Has good progress been made to Integrate S.-de Drinking Water Act acid other protections for wellheads and sensitive groundwater ,resources into the development code, as described in the approved. �tocal plum• (h) Has the LGU worked carefuJ.iy to integrate low - impact development concepts into the development code and development review process? (c) Has the LGU met local plan commitments to reconcile development code setbacks and water resource protection goals? (d) Has the LGU revised its development code as necessary to require storm-water facilities and wetlands in residential subdivisions to be located on outlots? (a) Has the LGU ensured that the District timely receives proposed prekirninary plats and revisions, in accordance with the approved local plan ? - (i) Are local plan commitments otherwise being met? 3. Capital program.: (a) Does the capital improvement program (GIP) continue to xeilect the level of commitment toward water resource goals of the approved local plan? (b) Is CIP implementation on schedule? (c) Is the LGU malting adequate progress toward achievement of phosphorus load reductions identified in the approved local plan? (d) If issues have arisen that were unexpected or are beyond LGU control, has the LGU identified, and is the LGU pursuing, alternative strategies? (e) Is the LGU diligently maintaining stormwater management facilities for which it is responsible? 4. Land Conservation: (a) Have water resource protection priori.ties been integrated imp parks) open space, recreation and land acquisition plans, anti are those tools being diligently implemented? 5 (b} Are dedication and fee In lieu requirements under the development code being used to support water resource protection consistent with commitments in the approved local plan? (c) is the LGU diligently mortltodrng municipal, open spaceland,s, p=otectedlands and vegetated buffer areas under its contra!? S. Housekeeping [practices: Is the LGU meeting local plan commitments for street sweeping, snore plowing, salt and snow storage, right-of-way maintenance, stormwater management. facility and vegetated buffer maintenance, public land ianagement and other housekeeping matters with water resource impacts? G. Other Commitments: Is the LGU otherwise meeting commitments assumed under the approved local plan? if District staff, at the direction of the Board of Managers or on the basis of its own review, has concerns about local plan implementation, the District will generally follow a process that emphasi2es communication and collaboration to assess these conc crass and identify approaches to addressing any deficiencies. Presuming the LGU has ai similar interest in this approach, initially the process will .involve staff-to- staff communication and a process of staff collaboration. District staff will report back to the Board of Managers and the District will seek to memorialize any agreed outcomes in appropriate fashion. If District or LGU stall believes that, for any reason, adequate progress in resolving concerns is not being made, the Board of Managers and city council may be asked to convene an informal joint meeting. Ultimately, if the Board of Managers is not satisfied Aith a resolution of concerns, it may schedule the matter for formal consideration on its agenda. JLGV repsesentadvca will be invited to attend; District staff, LGU representaLive-s tmd interesied members of the public will have an opportuWty to address the Issues; and, -tire Board will. make a finding as to whether it believes the LGU is falling to lrnplemCttt its Plt`n in an impaita:t wajr., If the Board makes such a finding, it may take further steps within its authority as it judges will foster improved local plan implementation or allow resources to be focused on areas where they are more likely to leverage effective efforts. Such steps may include the following: +r Requesting that the LGU engage in further discussions or provide written commitments. e Reasserting District regulatory authority for proposed land - disturbing activity for which city approvals have not yet been issued. R1 • Reprogramming or reprioritizing District capital funds identified for expenditure within the city. • Placing a hold on cost -share and other program funding within the LGU. # Advising the Metropolitan Council, and other potential municipal grantors where ~watershed district approval is relevant, of the District's finding. Restricting eligibility for District- funded water/land use planning assistance or other forms of District cost- or tecimical- assistance: * Establishment of one or more water management districts encompassing the I.GU or parts thereof to fiend District implementation of local plan commitments not being met. N An action under Minnesota Statutes 5103B.2.35, subdivision 4, requesting that the LGU be directed to implement its local plan. At any time, an LGU may advise the District of further implementation steps taken and allow the Board of Managers to determine that the local plate is again being adequately implemented. The Board also may take steps as outlined above where an LGU has not submitted or has not received approval of a local water plait in a timely way. 1 3 Applicability Io MpAng Approved Local Water Plans Most LGUs wholly or partly within the District have completed and approved local . plans responding to the District's 2007 plan. BWSR rules require these plans to be revised within two years of a District plan revision to maintain consistency. The reporting responsibility and procedures outlined in this revised Section 7.2 trigger this revision requirement and the specifics herein will apply to each LGU two years frotm the date of the District amendment ore when the .LGU Plan revision is approved, ifsoonear. Until then, reporting and related procedures will apply to each. LGU According to the terms of its prior local plan approval and any memoranum of understanding signed by the District and LGU in conjunction with that approval. 7 t Minneapolis City or Lakes Department of Public Works Staoen A• KDft. P.E City Er*neer Di,90or $59 soulh 5LI 6- ml -R00»t 203 J,Jin aap753 FAN 55415 ouipa- 612 673 -23352 Fag 012 673 -YA5 TTY 612 $73.2157 (7a City In'nnnallan ;d SPN Ms c�vr`tr.c1. nti nr c.�:,putis. mn. r K 'Tllrrnz6ee AWO Grmbyer December 19, 2010 Mr. L, Eric Evenson, Administrator Minnehahe Creek Watershed District 18202 Minnetonka Boulevard Deephaven, MN 55391 TIO U, f1) OF James B. Calkit9 PTi'D:, Fresident Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 18202 Minnetonka Boulevard Deephaven, MN 55391 Subject Address for Communications, and Request for Extension Dear Mr. Evenson and Dr. Calkins: it has come to my attention that a recent notice for public comment was not routed according to our needs. In Minneapolis, the Department of Public Works carries out official coordination vrlth the four watershed organizations, including the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (District). For effective and timely communication with the City of Minneapolis, it is essential that the District address its notices appropriately. Specifically, the notice to which I am referring is the 4"ay public comment period notice that was emailed on November 18, 2010 under the subject heading "MCWD Plan Amendment — Local Water Plans ". The November 18 notice announced a public comment period ending January 3, 2911. Public Worsts staff became aware of this matter on December 16, and then only indirectly from staff of another member city of the District's. Accordingly, please extend the public comment period on this item to January 29, 2011. In the future, please ensure that all official communications whether by mail, email or facsimile are addressed as follows: Steven A. Kotite, P.E., Director of Public Works City of Minneapolis Room 203 City Hall 350 South Fifth Street Minneapolis MN 55415 email steven k4tkeOcl.minnea0olis.hin.us fax: 612- 673 -3565 Lois Eherhart, Water Resources Administrator City of Minneapolis Room 300 City of Lakes Building 309 South Second Avenue Minneapolis MN 56401 email:lois.eberhart& .rriinneaaolis.mn.us fax; 612 -673 -2048 In addition, please send a copy of all notices regarding Plan Amendments since January 2010 to Ms. Eberhart Thank. you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, Lisa K. Cerney, Director of Suifabe Water and Sewers Administrative Offices 2117 West Riwt Road Minneapolis, M. N 5U11 -2227 operufFona Center 399 Bryint Avenue Suuth MirAcapolis, MN 55409 -IM Plwne: 612-230-6400 Far 612 -2:10 -6500 % urw.minrKapolisparks arg f'resukrl Vice Yrer&krtt hi. Annie Yuurg Co„vnis.tfo4rn Brad Bourn Bob Fine C rot A. Kulmrcf Jot, C. Olson Arkila Tabb Scutt VmcL- d U7, Wielintk i S"Prrinicuk'a )a)w milky secretary to t }e (icr,rd 0011 sinclko•4 1�� M110 Ali) December 29, 2010 Mr. L. Eric Evenson, Administrator Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 18202 Minnetonka Boulevard Deephaven, MN 55391 James P. Calkins, Ph. D. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 18202 Minnetonka Boulevard Deephaven, MN 55391 Becky Houdek Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Planning Technician 18202 Minnetonka Boulevard Deephaven, MN 55391 R,e: Failure to Notify the City of Minneapolis acting by and through its Park and Recreation Board (hereinafter "-MPRB" ) of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (hereinafter "MCWD'I Draft Plan Amendment and request for extension of commenting period. Dear Mr. Ivenson, Dr. Calkins, and Ms. Houdek: At 2:24pm today, the MPRB became aware of the proposed amendment to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan sent to other Focal Government Units on November 18, 2010 for review and commenting. Since the forty -five (45) day public comment period for the proposed amendment will lapse within three (3) business days on January 3, 2011, and assuming that the failure to notify the MPRB was an administrative oversight because the MPRB is a Local Governmental Unit affected by the mcWD Comprehensive Plan, the MPRB respectfully requests an extension of the public commenting period to enable the MPRB to properly review and comment on the amendment. To avoid future administrative oversights, the MPRB directs the MCWD to provide notice for any future plans or amendments to: Michael P. Schmidt, CPRP Assistant Superintendent, Operations Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board 2117 West River Road Minneapolis, MN 55411 612 - 230 -6408 rnschmidtOrni inegp9lisparks.org Please contact me if you have questions or comments, and I look forward to your prompt response to the MPRB, request for extension. Best regards, Michael P. Schmidt Cc: Superintendent of Parks Jayne Miller president John Erwin Michael Salchert Debra Pilger Karen Robinson Donald Siggelkow file City of the Village of Minnetonka Beach 2945 Westwood Road - Mailing Address: P.O. Box 146 Minnetonka Beach, MN 55361 952 -471 -8878 fax 952- 471 -7416 www. ci. minnetonka- beach. mn. us January 3, 2011 Board of Governors Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 18202 Minnetonka Blvd Deephaven, MN 55391 Attn: Becky Houdek RE MCWD Minor Plan Amendment Dear Board of Governors: Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed minor amendment in the Comprehensive Water Resource Management Plan. We offer the following comments and suggestions: 1. The issue does not warrant a Water Quality Plan Amendment: As you know our water quality management plan was adopted in December 2008 with approvals in the subsequent year and the comprehensive plan must have a water quality section within it. Any revisions to that plan should not take place until a full comprehensive plan is updated in 2018. The Board should do one of the following: a. If allowed by statute, waive Section 7.2.3 until the revised comprehensive plans are required. b. Not approve the amendment until a time closer to when the comprehensive plans are required to be updated. c. Update the Memo of Understanding (MOU) with the LGU's which would not trigger a water quality plan update and review by the MCWD. 3. List of implementation requirements from the Water Quality Management Plan (Comprehensive Plan) with a simple: 'completed, in progress with an expected completion date° or explanation of why it was not completed The following are redundant: 1. It is not necessary to list zoning district changes unless it is a change to the implementation section of the zoning text related to water quality management. In that zoning district changes must conform to the comprehensive plan any changes in the district has already part of the Water Quality Management Plan. Any Comprehensive Plan amendments needs to be reviewed by the Metropolitan Council which notifies the MCWD; 2. In that developments and redevelopments must conform to the comprehensive plan, and the land use section of that plan is one basis for the Water Quality Management Plan. Unless the plan is changed, in which case MCWD receives notice, this section is not required; 3. With the check list suggested above, all of the rest of the criteria list in 7.2.1 is not necessary. 7.2.1 Plan review procedures need to be simplified: 1. Either the plan is being carried out in accord with the required implementation program; it is in progress or it's not. If it is not being carried out, it is the only time that an explanation is required. If the explanation is not satisfactory then a meeting is necessary. 2. These meetings should have outcome related criteria that would trigger approved delays, plan changes or enforcement actions. The considerations of the District in assessing the plan implementation needs to be simplified: 1. Either the plan is being implemented or it is not being implemented, in which case a prescribed action is necessary on the part of the District; 2. The criteria are too vague and need to be changed to more - specific criteria such as: • List the ordinances that have been adopted and has the MCWD review been completed. • The only way for the MCWD to determined it the ordinances are being enforced is to do an annual audit with recommended modifications, not unlike what the City's financial auditor does. Protection of our water resources should be the primary focus of any revisions to the Water Quality Management Plan. Wasting resources on redundant, vague and over reaching regulations that do not accomplish this objective in a cost effective manner is not productive. Budgets are tight; we cannot afford to waste funds or staff time on rules that do not accomplish this objective in a simple cost effective manner. We need rules that are simple, predicable and are not redundant with other rules of the MPCA and Metropolitan Council. Simple, predictive rules based on outcomes are an approach to rule making that would be more effective and efficient than the proposed rules. The proposed rules do not meet these criteria and should be rejected by the Board of Governors. Sincerely, City of the Village of Minnetonka Beach Joann Anderson Mayor Cc: County Commissioner Jan Callison City Council City Administrator Planning and Zoning Administrator 1"PY OF —MO Dlxembcr 29, 2010 Ms. Becky Houdek Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Board of Managers 18202 Minnetonka Boulevard Deephaven, " 55391 1 141AYVN00D R AV 10CIUNI), MIN PK FAQ— (:'5i!) 4r47 �t 2C.i 'v1'E..Q: n•v."x�.r.�:yalsnu "�s;� r.:�m SAN c9 ,.all i I __1 RE: City of Mound Comments — proposed Minnehalin Creels Watershed District Comprehensive Platt Water Resources Managemcni plait Amendment On November 18, 2010, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 04CWD) sent a notice out to afTected cities, counties, and state review agencies regarding their proposed Comprehensive Water Resource Management Plan (%VRMP) amendment which began a 45 -clay public comment period as required by state statute for WRMP amendments. The proposed amendment would replace the existing WRMP, Section ?_2, LGU Local Plan lmplernent.ation and Reporting, in its entirety with the amended version. Please consider this letter as the City of Mound's formal comments for submittal during the public comment period. Respectfully, it is requested that the comments contained herein are incorporated into the record associated with the upcoming public hearing (stale yet to be determined) related to the proposed WRMP amendment. Please be advised that the comments belotiv are glbuped together according the general. theme and do not follow the document page by page. The first thing i wish to express is my concern over a MCWD procedural pattern that has become evident over the last couple years. Your rule change comment periods Are at the worst possible time of the your for cities to react in a timely manner. In fact; your current process is not fair to cities. The MCWD has been opening the 45 day comment period in mid to late November. Ties gives most cities only one council meeting to address concerns: And that one meeting is always the final budget and levy meeting, leaving little time for any outer business. Additionally, the largest holiday season of the year is in the middle of the comment period. 'Iliis is when many staff people take vacation or other time off leaving cities with a much reduced staff. This loaves cities with little to no lime to evaluate the rules. This needs to be changed to another time to give cities a reasonable time to react. When i count the actual business days that are available in the 45 day comment period by taking out %veckends and holidays, 1. see only 29 business days Icft. With the traditional vacations in dtis time window it gets closer to 20 days that contain only one city, council meeting that is Filled with other mandated business such as budget and levy hearings and final approvals. As a result, your 45 day Comment period is rcduced to only about 20 days at a time when only one meeting; is scheduled. Secondly, this is a large unfunded mandate. Most. cities do not have any excess personnel to take on this added burden. You can only place so many demands on cities without paying for your requirements and demands, The burden to cities created by the MCWD has grown significantly over the last several years. in my opinion, the MCWD has surpassed a reasonable or acceptable cost level a long time ago. MCWD Page 2 December 29, 2010 1. Data requested from the LGU with no defined use. The following citations are generally requests by the MCWD for data that will be a burden for the LGU to collect, summarize, review, and distribute. The MCWD does not detail how, or if, they plan to use this data. In some instances the MCWD is requesting data that would be in the project planning stages and may never make it through the land - use process. Proposed projects that are under development or consideration by the LGU do not need to be disclosed to the MCWD. On an annual basis the MCWD needs only to know about active or permitted projects. Unless the MCWD can provide compelling reasons as to why they feel they need this information and are willing to pay for it, this should not be required to be provided by the LGUs. The citations are as follows: a. Section 7.2.1 — Annual Reporting and Meeting, Paragraph 2 b. Section 7.2.1 — Annual Reporting and Meeting, Paragraph 3, Item 41 c. Section 7.2.1 — Annual Reporting and Meeting, Paragraph 3, Item #4 d. Section 7.2.1— Annual Reporting and Meeting, Paragraph 3, Item #S e. Section 7.2.1— Annual Reporting and Meeting, Paragraph 3, Item #6 2. The use of underned, subjective, qualitative and, at tines, arsumentative laneuame The following citations are generally instances where the MCWD has chosen to use language that is not appropriate for use in natural resource management plans. In a number of the citations the language appears to assume an adversarial and hierarchical relationship between the LGU and the MCWD. The use of terms similar to, "lagged, diligently, importantly, good, timely, adequate, and failing" need to be well defined, if used at all. What person, board, or entity will determine the definitions for these words? These terms have a very real possibility of being misapplied or misused and we would like to see them either well defined or removed from the document. This does not promote partnerships. The citations are as follows: a. Section 7.2 — LGULocal Plan Implementation and Reporting. Paragraph S b. Section 7.2.1 — Annual Reporting and Meeting, Paragraph 4, First Item c. Section 7.2.2 — Review of LGU Plan Implementation, Paragraph 3, Item #1, (g) d. Section 7.2.2 — Review of LG U Plan Implementation, 2. Land Use, .Item (a) e. Section 7 2.2 —Review of LGUPlan Implementation, 2. Land Use, Item (e) f. Section 7.2.2 —Review of LGU Plan Implementation, 3. Capital Program, Item (c) g. Section 7.2.2 —Review of LGUPlan Implementation, 3. Capital Program, Item (e) h. Section 7.2.2 — Review of LGU Plan Implementation, 4. Land Conservation, Item (a) i. Section 7.2.2 —Review of LGUPlan Implementation, 4. Land Conservation, Item (c) j. Section 7.2.2 —Review of LGU Plan Implementation, Paragraph 6, 2 "d sentence _ ___ MCWD Page 3 December 29, 2010 3. Use of lanauaze that is varue and open to interpretation The following citations are generally where criteria have been identified that will be nearly impossible to. objectively evaluate. There is also the potential for the collection and evaluation of the datato be a significant time and` money burden for both the LGU and the MCWD staff. If th ere is no indication existing practices, in which the LGU is operating are.substandard as it references natural resource protection, why does the MCWD take the position of essentially auditing the LGU's performance? This is unnecessary and wasteful for both the MCWD and all the LGUs. The citations are as follows: a. Section 7.2.2 — Review of LGUPIan Implementation, Paragraph 3, Item #1, (c) b. Section 7.2.2 — Review of LGU Plan Implementation, Paragraph 3, Item #1, (d) 4. Funding and the overarchinje sense of cooperation and protection of natural resources The following citations generally do not foster a cooperative relationship between the LGU and the MCWD. In our experience if an LGU is unable to meet the water resource commitments identified in their local plans or their Capital Improvement Plans it is most often due to a lack of available budget and/or funding for the program. It seems as though the role of the MCWD should be to assist the LGU with funding shortfalls or assist the LGU to find altemate.methods to accomplish the goals, if that is the issue. To have the MCWD remove its funding assistance and notify other agencies with the perceived hope of having them pull their funding assistance as well is counterproductive to the overarching goal of protecting the water resources within the watershed and make an already crippling, financial burden even worse. If the LGU believed that adding tax burden to residents with the goal of meeting the local plan objectives was feasible, it would undertake the program on its own. Adding an additional tax burden to residents is not a solution. Working with the LGU, in a cooperative manner, to jointly meet local plan objectives would be a much more sustainable approach. The citations are as follows: a. Section 7.2.2 — Review of LGUPIan Implementation, Paragraph 7, 4rh, 5`h, and 6`h bullet b. Section 7 2.2 Review of LGUPlan Implementation, Paragraph 7, 7`h bullet S. Generdl Amendment Comments a. Section 7 2.2 — Review of LGUPIan Implementation, Paragraph 3, Item #1, (b) The sentence reads, "Do they conform to MCWD-approved standards ?" The process of reviewing and approving the LGU's local plans and associated ordinance has previously been defined as an iterative process between the LGU and the MCWD staffand'Board. The MCWD could provide a model ordinance that would save all parties time and staff expenditure. Assistance will always accomplish more than mandates and expend fewer public dollars in the process. MCWD Page 4 December 29, 2010 h. General Atettrlinent Comments The. overall tone of this amendment is not one that echo's cooperation, trust, and mutual determination to accomplish complex natural resource management goals. The tone is more of an authoritative agency looking down upon the LGU actively looking for the opportunity to take over control of the local plan implementation. We don't believe, if even one 1.GtJ gave over control of all aspects of their plan implementation, that the MCWD would have the staff and availability to accomplish the requirements; it becomes even less likely if more than one LGU were to "opt out`'. Working forward from that standpoint, it seems that that MCWD should be more interested in, and place more importance on, cooperatively working together with the LOU to protect the natural resources within the watershed and plan for the implementation of the local plan rather than rule as a dictaterial power. c. This amendment to the original Section 7.2 did not do anything to close the open - ended nature of the original draft. The inclusion of so many subjective and qualitative words and phrases only magnifies the vague nature of the requirements oftlte memorandum ofunderstanding. Vagaries foster mistrust in thesystem. The very real possibility of being committed to unforeseeable obligations remains. If the NICWD wishes to solve this problem they need to work cooperatively with the LQUIs to clarify the issues. Writing a minor plan amendment in isolation from the LGrl;s only exacerbates the problem. By my interpretation, this is certainly not a "minor" plan amendment. I don't know %vlrat process changes would be required by considering it a major change, but simply declaring it a minor change does not make it so. 'This affects the budgets and staff of the 1v1CWD and every city and county within its jurisdiction. Minor it is not. d. Them are often references to partnerships in MCWD. rules. Mit don't lose sight that mandated partnerships are not partnerships at all. They are coerced or mandated relationships and are not very effective. The City of Mound would like to thank you for this opportunity to be heard. We also wish to express our sincere appreciation of the relationship it has had with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and the mutual cooperation we have enjoyed in the past. We respectfully request that the MCWD carefully consider the aforementioned comments with regards to the proposed plan amendments and their impact upon our community. Sincerely t� fri,l •i/ Mark Hanes Mayor rep. Adding Q olity to Life c;zy or Plymouth Ms. Becky Houdek Planner Specialist 18202 Minnetonka Blvd, Deephaven, MN 55391 I; 1t.1 DEC 2 2 2010 December 7l, 2010 SUBJECT: DRAFT PLAN .AMDMENT LOCAL PLAN IMPLEMENTATION & REPORTING M[ NEHAt rk CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT Dear Ms. Houdek: Thank you for the opportunity to continent on the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District's (MCIND) draft plan amendment to its Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan (WRMP) regarding Local Plan Implementation and Reporting. Based on your cover' letter, it is understood the purpose of the draft plan amendment is to clearly outline the expectations of the District regarding Local yP�rter Plan an�::rai reporting and meetings, and would eliminate the need for a fMentorandiun of Understanding] MoUfor those cities not implementing Dwrxcl regulations. " In. 2406, during development of the MCWD WIRM. P, the City of Plymouth expressed concerns with regard to the amual teporting requirements. MCWD staff assured that the MCWD is committed to close coordination with the City of Plymouth and other stakeholders to ensure an effective outcome to the annual reporting requirement. It is disappointing that development of this draft plan amendment and MOU did not follow a collaborative or coordinated approach and that the first time most stakeholders will see this draft plan amendment language is during the 45 -day comment period. As you may be aware, city staff and the MCWD did attempt to negotiate acceptable language into the M.OU. During this process, the MCAD assured the City of Plymouth on several occasions that the purpose of the Memorandum of Understanding was to summarize all of the pre - existing obligations to which each entity was already committed and that the MOU was not intended to create new obligations. Your cover letter, however, has reduced and refined that explanation to `outline specific obligations of both the LGU and the District." This has left open the possibility that the draft plan amendment now includes new commitments and obligations for municipalities, which was an original concern of the City of Plymouth with the MOU. Please provide clarification on the MOU or draft plan amendment by responding to the following Questions: 3400 ('tyrnt;t.!li, (;ltcl I'1��I11t,llCll 1, +,inr!esota `�51�11 81 •1 : 763.509 -5000 -'.• a�a' rti�.Ci.pl� +t7�r��Jtit,l�sfl.t'� VA a7;ti�n ir.Gering'W rRtiE�5RG1W1te+Fhcd �ii7ttthahu CntYlt -irafi plan anumdtitent - local plan implanentation and rrlmrling.dom 1. The WRMP went through and extensive planning and review process and resulted in no language requiring an MOU for municipalities (such as Plymouth) who authorize the MCWD to exercise regulatory authority. Please explain the origination and need for an MOU for those municipalities continuing to authorize the MCWD to exercise regulatory authority? 2. Why did the MCWD pursue MOU's through approving resolutions of local water management plans and not within the WRMP adopted in 2007? 3. Why is there no language requiring MOU's for municipalities who authorize the MCWD to exercise regulatory authority included in the WRMP? 4. Is the draft plan amendment a summarization of pre- existing obligations as previously assured by the MCWD? 5. If so, where can these pre- existing obligations be found? 6. Has the MCWD included new commitments and obligations for the City of Plymouth? 7. If so, has the MCWD estimated the amount of staff time and resources necessary to comply with the requirements of the Draft Plan Amendment? Regarding the text of the draft plan amendment, please accept these comments as part of your review process: 1. The City of Plymouth does not recognize any MCWD authority over Safe Drinking Water Act requirements. That responsibility lies with the MN Department of Health. 2. The City of Plymouth does not recognize any MCWD authority over Wetland Conservation Act requirements. That responsibility lies with the Board of Water and Soil Resources and the LGU. 3. The MCWD assured the City of Plymouth on several occasions that the purpose of the MOU was to summarize all of the pre- existing obligations to which each entity was already committed and that the MOU was not intended to create new obligations or be a serious encumbrance on staff time. Plymouth staff understands the draft plan amendment to include many new commitments and obligations despite previous assurances from the MCWD. Providing the information to the MCWD in the draft plan amendment will require significant staff time and resources and the City of Plymouth will be unable to provide the information requested. The City will, however, provide copies of annual reports provided to the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency upon request by the MCWD as these reports are already drafted by staff. The MCWD has never been denied a meeting with Plymouth representatives and staff will be able to accommodate an annual meeting request from the MCWD. The development of draft plan amendments and/or documentation should be through a cooperative process when there is the potential to encumber significant staff time and resources. The process should result in a reduction of duplication of effort between municipalities and watershed management organizations and should be a cost effective strategy for protection or improvement of water resources. I suggest the MCWD O:\ Engineering \WTRRESRC\Watersheds\Minnehaha Creek \draft plan amendment - local plan implementation and repotting.docx consider that appma.ch to view of previous assurances made to the City of Plymouth by the MCWD. I look forward to your responses. If you have any questions on thesc comments, please feel free to contact me directly at 763- 509 -5526. Sincerely, C1'erek Asche Water Resources Manager Cc: Senator Gen Olson, Minnesota Senate Senator Terri Bonoff, Minnesota Senate Representative John Benson, Minnesota Hoke Commissioner Jeff Johnson, Hennepin County Commissioner Mark Stenglein, Hennepin County Brad Wozney, !Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources Laurie Ahrens, City Manager Doran Cotc, Director of Public Works Lee Keeley, MCWD Board of Managers Q: Ertgi ntti�i�� V ITRRCSRCeWslersht :ltitii�iinnch�ha Crwk'drait plar. amendimni - mal p i in'pleintmt dion :tud rcptx6ne.din;x JAS December 30, 2010 Becky Houdek Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 18202 Minnetonka Blvd Deephaven, MN 55391 Dear Ms Houdek, This is in response to the proposed minor plan amendment addressing the submittal of Water Management Flans by Local Government Units (LGU). We are generally supportive of this amendment and believe it is good governance to have LGU plans be in conformance with the District's plans. However, we are somewhat concerned by the process to gain compliance with the plans. We are also concerned about the January 3, 2011 deadline, given the holiday season and the absence of many city staff members during this time of year. Perhaps a 30 day extension could be considered, allowing staff and consultants more time to analyze the proposed amendment. Thank you for your consideration.. James Brimeyer %tydministrator Ci� of Srriny Vark 4349 WARREN AVENUE, SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA 55384 -9711 (952) 471 -9051 FAX (952) 471 -9160 Beckv Houdek From: Mike Kelly [mike @wayzata.org] Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 9:16 PM To: Becky Houdek Cc: James Calkins; Eric Evenson; Al Orsen Subject: Public Comment period for proposed amendments to 2007 Water Resource Management Plan Becky, It has come to my attention, via communication with other communities, that a Public Comment period related to a "minor" amendment to the 2007 Water Resources Management Plan is under way and has a deadline of January 3, 2011. This notice was not sent to the proper department for comment, within the City of Wayzata. In Wayzata, the engineering department handles official coordination with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD). The notice was sent solely to our City Manager, Allan Orsen. For effective and timely communication with the City of Wayzata, it is essential that the MCWD address its notices appropriately. In the future, please include the City Engineer, Mike Kelly, on all official communications. Contact information is as follows: Michael H. Kelly, Jr., P.E. City Engineer 600 Rice Street East Wayzata, MN 55391 mil(e(@wayzata.org 952 - 404 -5316 (office) 952 - 404 -5318 (fax) Accordingly, as I have just recently been made aware of this public comment period, I request that the comment period be extended until Monday, January 31, 2011. (Also, please note that your comment period included three (3) holidays; Thanksgiving, Christmas, and New Year's Day, which significantly shortened the available comment period.) I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed amendments and look forward to your cooperation while Wayzata reviews your proposal. I will return my comments as soon as possible. Thank you for your consideration. Mike Kelly City Engineer City of Wayzata 1 City of Woodland City Offices: 20225 Cottagezvood Road, Deephaven, MN 55331 952- 474 -4755 • Fax 952 - 474 -1274 zvzvzv.cityofzvoodlmzdtitlz. org December 30, 2010 Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Board of Managers Attn: James Wisker 18202 Minnetonka Boulevard Deephaven, MN 55391 RE: ' Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Draft Plan Amendment Comments Dear Mr. Wisker, Becky Houdek and Managers: I am responding at the direction of the Mayor of the City of Woodland, James Doak, relating to the notice from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District on November 18, 2010 to affected cities, counties, and state review agencies regarding an amendment to the District's Comprehensive Water Resource Management Plan (WIUVIP). In an effort to meet the comment deadline period, and in response to the WRMP amendments, Woodland submits the attached memorandum prepared for the City of Woodland by our City Engineer Dave Martini and Water Resources Specialist Doug Carter. Mayor Doak supports the comments of the City Engineers at Bolton & Menk, and expects the support from the full Council pending review at the regular scheduled Council meeting on January 10, 2011. Sincerely, J. e 0 a— .-James S. Doak, Mayor City of Woodland JSDIShelley Sorters VA e m Consulting Engineers & Surveyors 2638 Shadow Lane, Suite 200 • Chaska, MN 55318 -1172 Phone (952) 448 -8838 - Fax (952) 448.8805 www.bolton- menk,com MEMORANDUIVI aAte: December 20, 2014 '1'o: City of Deephaven, City of Greenwood, City of Woodland From: David P. Martini, P.E. Subject: Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Draft Plan Amendment Comments i r--4(=, nit November 18 "' the Minnehaha Creek Waterbed District (MCWD) sent a notices out to afrected cities, counties, and state review agencies regarding their proposed Comprehensive Water Resource Management: Plan (WRMP) amendment. The proposed amendment would replace the existing WRMP, Section 7.2, LGU Local Flan Implementation and Reporting, in its entirety with the amended version. The November 18'h notice began the 45 -day public comment period required by state statute for WRMP amendments. We have reviewed the proposed amendment and offer the following comments that were prepared by our Wager Resources Specialist Doug Carter. The comments am grouped together according the general theme and do not follow the document page by page. For your convenience i have color coded MCWD's draft and the sections referenced in our comments. 1. Data requested from the LGU with no dertned use. The following citations are generally requests by the MCWD for data that will be a burden for the LGU to collect, summarize, review, and distribute. The MCWD does not detail how, or if, they plan to use this data. In some instances the MCIND is requesting data that is in the planning stages and may never make it through the land -use process. Projects that are under development . or consideration by the LGU do not need to be disclosed to the MCWD. On an annual basis the MCWD needs only to know about active or permitted projects. Unless the MCWD can provide compelling reasons as to why they feel they need this information it should not be required to be provided by the LGUs. The citations are as follows: a Section 7.2.1 — Annual Reporting and Meeting. Paragraph 2 b. Section 7.2.1— Annual Reporting and Meeting, Paragraph 3, Item #1 c. Section 7.3.1— Anniol Reportnig wrd Meeting, Paragraph 3, liens #4 d Section 7.2.1— Annual Reporting and Meeting Paragraph 3, fienr 05 e. ,Section 1.2.1 — Annual Reporting and Aleeting Paragraph 3, Item 46 Matumc.As and Seltiap"O.Clkys)LM1 SC1fln XcnWrM lntc=i Fi1c5A0l. KIOVACIAT shots Alan Commems 12 -20 -10 P) deco GtSIGNING FOR A BEUER TGM04.ROW Bolton & Meak is an equal opporiuoity ernplovel` Q 2. The rose of uftd fled enthiec re, audlitative and, rot times: umymerntotive Iran igme The following citations are generally instances where the MCWD has chosen to use language that is not appropriate for use in natural resource management plans. In a number ofthe citations die language appears to assume an adversarial and hierarchical relationship between the LOU and the M. CWD. Tlie use of terms similar to, "lagged, diligently, importantly, good, timely, adequate, and failing" need to be well defined, if used at all. What person, board, or entity will determine the definitions for these words? Tliese terms have a very real possibility of being misapplied or misused and we would like to see them either well defined or removed from the document. The citations are as follows: rt. Section 7.2 — LG U Local !Tarr Implementation and Reporting, Paragraph 5 b. Section 73.1—Annual Reporting and Afeeting, Paragraph 4 .First Item a Section 7.2.2 — Review of LGU Plan Innrplementation, Paragraph 3, Item W, (g) d Section 7. 2. Z— Review of LGU Plan Implesnetttation, Paragraph 6.2t"rsenntence e. Section 7.2.2 -- Review of LGUPlan Implennenntalivn, 2. ,frond Use, Itenr (4) f. Section 7.2:2 — Review of LGU Plan Implementatiorn, 2. Laud Use, Item (e) g. Section 7.2.2 — Review of LGU P1w' lrnpleolentationn, 3.Capitrrl Program, Itenn (c) h. Section 7.2.2 - Review of LGU Plan Implementation. J,Capital Prommn , lieiin (e) i. Section 7.2 2 — RevieW of LGU Plan Implennentatioin, 4. Land Conservations, Ilem (a) j. Section 72.2 — Review of LGUPlarr Implementation, d. Land Cotaervation, Itenn (c) 3. Use oflanruaee that is rasue mid peen to intergretnliolr Tha following citations are generally where criteria have been identified that will be nearly impossible to objectively cvaluatc. - Ilrere is also the potential for the collection and evaluation of the data to he a significant time and money burden for both the LGU and the MCWD staff. If theme is no indication existing practices in which the LGU is operating are substandard as it references natural resource protection, why does the MCWD take the position of essentially auditing the LGU's perfonnance? The citations are as follows: a Section 7.2.2 — Review of LGU Plan Implennrentationl. Paragraph 3, Item W. (c) b. Section. 7.2.2 — Review of LG U Plan Impleinenntationt, Paragraph 3, Item 41, (d) CADcm- news and jestmgtslwUctvU ee J seiiiitAYcmpam y Internet FOOLMI KIUNCW'U Urafl IshmCommenls 12 -20 -10 C)MDcx so 4, Farrdirtg and lire overarciduff sense ofcannerarion and nroleclion of natnrol tesounes Tile following citations generally foster an adversarial relationship between the LOU and the MCWD, In our experience if an LGU is unable to meet the water resource commitments identified in their local plans or their Capital improvement Plans it is most often due to a lack of available budget and/or funding for the program. It seems as though the role of the MCWD should be to assist the LOU with funding shortfalls, if that is the issue. To have the MCWD remove its funding assistance and notil} other agencies with the perceived hope of having them pull their funding assistance as well appears, on the surface, to be counterproductive to the overarching goal of protecting the water resources within the watershed. if the LGU believed that adding tax burden to residents with the goal of meeting the local plan objectives was feasible, it would undertake the program on its own. lidding an additional tax burden to residents is not a solution. Working with the LGU, in a w. perative manner, to jointly meet local plan objectives would be a much more sustainable approach. The citations are as follows: a. Serli6n 7.2.2 —Review of LGU Platy Implementation, Paragraph 7, .,h, 5", and 60 brdlel b. Section 7.2.2 —Review of LGUPlan Implementation, Paragraph 7, 7`" huller 3. Generarl Amendtttent Coinnteitls a. $eclion 7..2.2 — Review of LGUP1an h)?plettrenf41ion, Paragraph 3, Ilene ffl, (L) The sentence reads, "Do they conform to 11YMCD- approved standardsT The process of reviewing and approving the LGU's local plans and associated ordinance has previously been defined as an iterative process between the LGU and the MCWD staff and Board. The MCWD could provide a model ordinance that would save all parties time and staff expenditure. b. General Amendment Cantntcrrts The overall tone of this amendment is not one that echo's cooperation, trust, and mutual determination to accomplish complex natural resource mmtagetnent boats. The tone is more of an authoritative agency looking down upon the LOU actively looking for the opportunity to take over control of the local plan implementation. We don't believe that if even one LOU gave over control of all aspects of their plan implementation (lie MCWD would have the staff and availability to accomplish the requirements; it becomes oven less likely if more than one LGU did that Working forward from that standpoint, it seems that that MCWD should be more interested in, and place more importance on, cooperatively working together with. the LOU to protect the natural resources within the watershed and plan for the implementation of the local plan. c. This amendment to the original Section 7,2 did not do anything to close the open -ended nature of tile original draft. The inclusion of so many subjective and qualitative words and phrases only magnifies the vague nature of the requirements of the memorandum of understanding. 'file eery real possibility of being committed to unforeseeable obligations remains. If the MCWD %vishes to solve this problem they need to work cooperatively with the LGUs to clarify the issues. Writing a minor plan rmendment in isolation from the LGUs only exasperates the problem. C:il).�.hum:ms Host ecllingsl�lnllrpsll,oerJ Sa�inus'.Ten►narnry lmarrnt �ilci101.K 1 �1Mt'l�'TS [YeeR 1'��in Cp+mmnta 13.2.1 -10 { ±),dnac January 10, 201 l I�Cll��ll -��l Miunehaha Creek Watershed District Board of Managers ULJ JAN I Attn; James Wisker 18202 Minnetonka Boulevard Deephaven; MN 55391. RE: Minnebaha Creek Watershed District Draft Plan Amendment Comments Dear Mr. Wisker and Managers: r' r r- Yjolt J ' I I would like to thank you for extending the comment period on. the amendment to the District's Comprehertsivc Water Resource Management flan (WRIVIP) to January 13, 2011. This extension has allowed the Deephaven City Council the opportunity to review the amendment and the attached cominerlts from our City Engineer at. their iigularly+ scheduled Council meeting on January 3, 2011. In addition to fully supporting the attached comments of our City lsngineer, the Deephaven City Council has asked that I forward several of their own comments regarding the proposed amendment to the District's WRMP. L, Request for data is vague and poorly definetl. Section 111 Annual Itelort and Meetin,i states that tlhc annual report must include "the status of capital. proiects identified in the local water plan and driy other tivater resource projects under LGU development or consideration..." We are unsure of what would constitute "other water resource proiects ". Doc:t size or scope of a water resource project matter or could it potentially include the installation or repair of a catch basin? We also believe that the term "consideration" should be much more clearly defined. There area number of projects that come under consideration in our city, projects that arc requested by residents or by several of our boards and commissions, and the City Council. The vast maiority of these projects never come to fruition. It is hard to believe that the .District would seriously consider r requesting every water resource project under consideration to be included in an annual report. 2. The overall tone and content of the amendment does not promote inter &vernmental cooperation or respect. The most disappointing aspect to the Amendment was its overall tone, which we found to be condescending; burdensome and intrusive, ror many years, we have looked to the District for advice and guidance in dealing with increasingly complex water resource management goals. "this partnership is of critical importance to us because we simply lack the staff, Financial resources and the technical expeitise to address these goals as well or m expeditiously as we would like. Whereas water quality issues are daily concerns of the District, water quality is just one of many issues that city's are requirW to address. For these ,reasons, it is our expectation that the Amendment would be much more effective if its language echoed mutual respect and cooperation with the common offort to successfully resolve water resource management goals rather than the existing tone of an authoritative agency that will take it upon itself to be the- final judge on, how local water management plans should best be implemented. ('tty Offices: Z(1.'.?5Cutt�r�ge voo(f_f gn ,f, Dec�phae�en, 14fintizsota 5 3,31 1'95�1474 -4755 �rr.t'(`) 511) 4,74 1274 3. It r fund the District's implementation of a local water mane umvat PiLajL1L j A ■ vi v - This poorly veiled threat cuts to the heart of what many people so strongly dislike about government. It is more than a little disturbing to us and the residents we represent that the Board of Managers of the MCWD, an unelected group of citizens, is willing to use its authority to form a taxing district within a city to finance the implementation of a project simply because the Board of Managers "is not satisfied with a resolution of concerns ". Simply put, we object to this threatened exercising of authority in the strongest possible terms. 4. The 45 day comment period is insufficient. As has been clearly shown during the comment period for this Amendment, as well as for the revisions to Rule D and F last year, the 45 day comment period on any plan amendment, minor or otherwise,,is simply not sufficient. At a minimum, we contend that municipalities should be given at least 190, days in which to respond to any proposed plan amendment. A 45. -day comment period is simply not ufficient time for municipalities, particular smaller municipalities with less staff, the opportunity to fully determine the potential impact of any amendment due to the limited number of available council meetings over a 45 day period. I thank you in advance for your consideration of our concerns and look forward to future revisions in the Amendment to the WRMP that more strongly reflect the many years of mutual support and cooperation between the City of Deephaven and the District. Sincerely, Dana H. Young City Administrator City of Deephaven Gl-lj (=0 Consulting Engineers & Surveyors t' 2638 Shadow Lane, Suite 200 • Chaska, MN 55318 -1172 Phone (952) 448 -8838 • Fax (952) 448 -8805 www.bolton - menk.com MEMORANDUM Date: December 20, 2010 To: City of Deephaven, City of Greenwood, City of Woodland From: David P. Martini, P.E. Subject: Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Draft Plan Amendment Comments On November 18'h the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) sent a notice out to affected cities, counties, and state review agencies regarding their proposed Comprehensive Water Resource Management Plan (WRMP) amendment. The proposed amendment would replace the existing WRIAP, Section 7.2, LGU Local Plan Implementation and Reporting, in its entirety with the amended version. The November 18 "h notice began the 45 -day public comment period required by state statute for WRMP amendments. We have reviewed the proposed amendment and offer the following comments that were prepared by our Water Resources Specialist Doug Carter. The comments are grouped together according the general theme and do not follow the document page by page. 1. Data requested from the LGU with no defined use. The following citations are generally requests by the MCWD for data that will be a burden for the LGU to collect, summarize, review, and distribute. The MCWD does not detail how, or if, they plan to use this data. In some instances the MCWD is requesting data that is in the planning stages and may never make it through the land -use process. Projects that are under development or consideration by the LGU do not need to be disclosed to the MCWD. On an annual basis the MCWD needs only to know about active or permitted projects. Unless the MCWD can provide compelling reasons as to why they feel they need this information it should not be required to be provided by the LGUs. The citations are as follows: a. Section 7.2.1 — Annual Reporting and Meeting, Paragraph 2 b. Section 7.2.1 — Annual Reporting and Meeting, Paragraph 3, Item. #1 c. Section 7.2.1— Annual Reporting and Meeting, Paragraph. 3, Item. #4 d. Section 7.2.1— Annual Reporting and Meeting, Paragraph 3, Item #5 e. Section 7.2.1 — Annual Reporting and Meeting, Paragraph 3, Item #6 H:\Public Works% innehaha Watershed DistrictlMCWD Draft Plan Comments\MCWD Draft Plan Comments 12 -20 -10 (3).docx DESIGNING FOR A BETTER TOMORROW Bolton & Men], is an equal opportunity employer 2. The use of undefined, subjective, qualitative and at tunes a.rimmentative laneuaze The following citations are generally instances where the MOATI) has chosen to use language that is not appropriate for use in natural resource management plans. In a number of the citations the language appears to assume an adversarial and hierarchical relationship between the LGU and the MCWD. The use of terms similar to, "lagged, diligently, importantly, good, timely, adequate, and failing" need to be well defined, if used at all. What person, board, or entity will detemune the definitions for these words? These terms have a very real possibility of being misapplied or misused and we would like to see them either well defined or removed from the document. The citations are as follows: a. Section 7.2 — LGULocal Plan Implementation and Reporting, Paragraph S b. Section 7.2.1 — Annual Reporting and Meeting, Paragraph 4, First Item c. Section 7.2.2 — Review ofLGUPIan Implementation, Paragraph 3, Item. #1, (g) d. Section 7.2.2 — Review of LGU Plan Implementation, Paragraph 6, ,-,',d sentence e. Section 7.2.2 — Review of LGUPIan Implementation, 2. Land Use, Item (a) f Section 7.2.2 — Review ofLGUPIan Implementation, 2. Land Use, Item (e) g. Section 7.2.2 — Review of LGUPIan Implementation, 3. Capital Program, Item (c) h. Section. 7.2.2 — Review of LGUPIan Implementation, 3. Capital Program, Item. (e) i. Section 7.2.2 — Revie'141 ofLGUPIan Implementation, 4. Land Conservation, Item (a) j. Section 7.2.2 — Review of LGUPIan. Implementation, 4. Land Consen;ation, Item (c) 3. Use of language that is vague and open to interpretation The following citations are generally where criteria have been identified that will be nearly impossible to objectively evaluate. There is also the potential for the collection and evaluation of the data to be a significant time and money burden for both the LGU and the MCWD staff. If there is no indication existing practices in which the LGU is operating are substandard as it references natural resource protection, why does the MCWD take the position of essentially auditing the LGU's performance? The citations are as follows: a. Section 7.2.2 — Reviel4l ofLGUPIan Implementation, Paragraph 3, Item #1, (c) b. Section 7.2.2 — Review ofLGUPIan Implementation, Paragraph 3, Item #1, (d) HAPublic Works\Minnehaha Watershed District\MCWD Draft Plan Comments\MCWD Draft Plan Comments 12 -20 -10 (3).doex D�oN��t 4. Funding and the overarching sense of cooperation and protection of natural resources The following citations generally foster an adversarial relationship between the LGU and the MCWD. In our experience if an LGU is unable to meet the water resource commitments identified in their local plans or their Capital Improvement Plans it is most often due to a lack of available budget and/or funding for the program. It seems as though the role of the MCWD should be to assist the LGU with funding shortfalls, if that is the issue. To have the MCWD remove its funding assistance and notify other agencies with the perceived hope of having them pull their funding assistance as well appears, on the surface, to be counterproductive to the overarching goal of protecting the water resources within the watershed. If the LGU believed that adding tax burden to residents with the goal of meeting the local plan objectives was feasible, it would undertake the program on its own. Adding an additional tax burden to residents is not a solution. Working with the LGU, in a cooperative manner, to jointly meet local plan objectives would be a much more sustainable approach. The citations are as follows: a. Section 7.2.2 — Revie►4l ofLGUP1a.n.In7plem.entation, Paragraph 7, 4 "', 5 "', and e bullet b. Section 72.2 — Revie►41 of LGUPla.n Implementation, Paragraph 7, 7"' bullet 5. General Amendment Comments a. Section 7.2.2 — Review ofLGU Plan Implementation, Paragraph 3, Item #1, (b) The sentence reads, "Do they conform to MWCD- approved standards ?" The process of reviewing and approving the LGU's local plans and associated ordinance has previously been defined as an iterative process between the LGU and the MCWD staff and Board. The MCWD could provide a model ordinance that would save all parties time and staff expenditure. b. General Amendment Comments The overall tone of this amendment is not one that echo's cooperation, trust, acid mutual determination to accomplish complex natural resource management goals. The tone is more of an authoritative agency looking down upon the LGU actively looking for the opportunity to take over control of the local plan implementation. We don't believe that if even one LGU gave over control of all aspects of their plan implementation the MCWD would have the staff and availability to accomplish the requirements; it becomes even less likely if more than one LGU did that. Working forward from that standpoint, it seems that that MCWD should be more interested in, and place more importance on, cooperatively working together with the LGU to protect the natural resources within the watershed and plan for the implementation of the local plan. c. This amendment to the original Section 7.2 did not do anything to close the open -ended nature of the original draft. The inclusion of so many subjective and qualitative words and phrases only magnifies the vague nature of the requirements of the memorandum of understanding. The very real possibility of being committed to unforeseeable obligations remains. If the MCWD wishes to solve this problem they need to work cooperatively with the LGUs to clarify the issues. Writing a minor plan amendment in isolation from the LGUs only exasperates the problem. HAPublic Works\Minnehalia Watershed Distrlcl\MCWD Draft Plan Co nments\MCWD Draft Plan Comments 12 -20 -10 (3).docx r�sr••`f r''J • r' iAf ,• IM f,. •t 4: 1 January 12, 2011 Ms. Becky Houdek Planner Specialist 18202 Minnetonka Blvd. Deephaven, MN 55391 RE: EUINXS COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT DRAFT PLAN AMENDMENT Dear Ms. Houdek: The City of Edina (City) has reviewed the proposed amendment dated November 18, 2010. Starting with the Annual Report and Meeting, the City believes some of the proposed reporting requirements can be provided in other mandated reports. Reports such as Municipal Storm Sewer Separation System (MS4) Report, Non-Degradation Report, and the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) already require cities to track some of what the MCIRD is requesting. These reports will cover some of the information requested in sections 7.2.2.4, 7.2.1.6, and 7.2.1,7. The City is more than Willing to supply MCWD with a copy of these already mandated reports. At the annual meeting, We can easily talk through sections 7.2.1.1 and 7.2..1.3. We do however question the need to have to report land acquisition uncertaken by the City. If MCWD has a question as to the land owner or potential easements, MCWD can find this information on Hennepin County's website, request the information from Hennepin County, or contact the city. The City's budget along with the most current Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is available on the website (www.cityofedina.com), if you wish to view it. in sections 7.2.23 and 7.2.2.2, MCWD is trying to assure plan requirements are being made to integrate Safe Drinking Water Act and Wellhead protection areas. While these items are important to protect, we feel that MCWD does not have regulatory authority over these items and permitting authority lies with the MN Department of Health and MN Department of Natural Resources (DNR). We believe all agencies involved have similar water quality improvement goals and we have taken substantial steps to improve the water quality in Edina. The tone of the amendment on pages 6 and 7 does not convey NICWD's desire to have a "process that emphasizes communication and collaboration ". if MCWD wanted to build a positive relationship with cities, why would the plan amendment include language about withholding money from the city, or advising other agencies to riot provide funding to city Hall 4801 WESf 50TI I STREET EDWA, P,4mNF50Tr-., 55424 -1344 w w xityofedini,coni 952 - 927.8861 FAX 952- 826.0390 VY 952-826-03,79 the city? Why would MCWD include language which threatens to establish taxation districts within cities to Rind local plan commitments? What state statue gives MCWD authority to establish these taxation districts? Since MCWD's 2007 Comprehensive Water resources Management Plan does not specify a time frame for when the phosphorus reduction goal are to be reached, what criteria will MCWD use to determine if each city is implementing their plans in an appropriate fashion? This will need to be determined before MCWD could put together the'taxation districts as described in the proposed amendment. in a cooperative effort, we are more than willing to provide the already mandated plans to MCWD and have a yearly meeting to discuss Edina's efforts at Improving water quality in MCWD. The City does do a yearly meeting related to storm water issues in Edina as required in our SWPPP, but MCWD has never attended. As all agencies are under increased budget strain, duplication of effort is a waste of resources and should be avoided. Many of the plans I have outlined will provide much of the information MCWD is requesting in the plan amendment, but we do not have the staff time available to provide much more. Please contact me at 952.903 -5713 or at with any questions or concerns. Sincerely, a Jesse Struve, PE Utility Engineer Cc: Wayne Houle, PE, Director of Public Works f City Engineer Scott Neal, City Manager Greenwood City on the Lake CITY OF GREENWOOD RESOLUTION NO. 05 -11 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GREENWOOD, MINNESOTA OBJECTING TO THE MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT'S PROPOSED DRAFT PLAN AMENDMENT: LOCAL PLAN IMPLEMENTATION (10 -7 -10) WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Greenwood has received and reviewed the Draft Plan Amendment: Local Plan Implementation (10 -7 -10) issued by The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD), and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Greenwood has reviewed the comments of City Engineer Dave Martini, Bolton & Menk, thereon, and WHEREAS, Greenwood Mayor Debra J. Kind acting on behalf of the City did earlier issue a reply to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 12 -28 -10 (attached) thereon, and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Greenwood being fully advised desires to express its support and otherwise endorse Mayor Kind and City Engineer Martini's analysis and objections to the MCWD's proposed Draft Plan Amendment: Local Plan Implementation (10 -7 -10) NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Greenwood, Minnesota: 1. That the City of Greenwood hereby adopts and endorses the comments of City Engineer Dave Martini of Bolton & Menk and Mayor Debra J. Kind earlier issued on the City's behalf to the attention of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District in relation to the Draft Plan Amendment: Local Plan Implementation (10- 7 -10); 2. That for the reasons stated in said commentary, the City of Greenwood does object to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District's proposed Draft Plan Amendment: Local Plan Implementation (10 -7 -10) in its entirety. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GREENWOOD, MINNESOTA, THIS 4th DAY OF JANUARY 2011. Ayes 5, Nays 0 CITY OF GREENWOOD Debra J. Kind, Mayor Attest: Gus E. Karpas, City Clerk CITY OF GREENWOOD - 20225 [OTTAGEWOOD RD, DEEPHAVEN, MN 55331 - P: 952.474.6633 • F: 952.474.1274 • www.greenwoodmn.com Date: December 28, 2010 Greenwood To: Becky Houdek, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District City on the Lake From: Debra J. Kind, Mayor of Greenwood Re: Comments Regarding Draft Plan Amendment I have reviewed your 11 -18 -10 memo (including the Draft Plan Amendment) and the 12 -20 -10 memo (attached) prepared by City Engineer Dave Martini from Bolton & Menk, which includes comments that were prepared by Bolton & Menk's Water Resources Specialist Doug Carter. In order to meet your 01 -03 -11 comment period deadline, I am sending this response before the Greenwood City Council has an opportunity to discuss the memos. While I cannot speak for the council as a whole, and I cannot forecast what action the city council may take in the future, I can advise that I personally support Mr. Carter's comments. I also can advise that the city council typically supports the recommendations made by Bolton & Menk. In addition I can advise that based on previous council discussions it is my expectation that the council will be concerned that the District is placing too much emphasis on "process" vs. "results." In other words, the District's role should focus on whether or not each city is making appropriate progress to meet their Water Management Plan goals (phosphorus reduction), and not prescribe "how" to make the progress. For example, section 7.2.2 in the proposed Draft Plan Amendment says the District will consider certain items when assessing Local Government Unit (LGU) plan implementation including whether "the LGU worked carefully to integrate low- impact development concepts into the development code and development review process." This is a requirement that most smaller cities like Greenwood probably are not compliant with. The fundamental point is that it should be our decision whether or.not we want to focus on low- impact development in our fully developed city to help achieve our Water Management Plan goals. It is possible we might prefer to focus on street sweeping or other options to meet our goals. This cover letter as well as the memo from you (including the Draft Plan Amendment) and the city engineer's memo will be discussed at the Greenwood City Council's January meeting. I will let you know if the council takes action that contradicts the positions expressed in this cover letter. I also would like to point out that your 45 -day comment period included Thanksgiving, Christmas, and the New Year's holidays. In my opinion, 45 days -- especially at this time of year -- is not enough time if you truly are interested in stakeholder input. Our council meets once a month and we need time for our engineering firm to review and make recommendations to the council. In the future, it would be appreciated if you could allow at least 60 days to comment on something this significant. Legally this may be a "minor" plan amendment, but from Greenwood's perspective there is nothing "minor" about what the District is proposing. If you have any questions, please contact me at 952.401.9181, dkind100 @gmail.com. Sincerely, Debra J. Kind Mayor of Greenwood CITY OF GREENWOOD • 20225 COTTAGEWOOD RD, DEEPHAVEN, MN 55331 - P: 952.474.6633 • F: 952.474.1274 • www.greenwoodmn.com • BO L—TON cs- M B N K Consulting Engineers & Surveyors 2638 Shadow Lane, Suite 200 • Chaska, MN 55318 -1172 Phone (952) 448 -8838 • Fax (952) 448 -8805 www.bolton- menk.com MEMORANDUM Date: December 20, 2010 To: City of Deephaven, City of Greenwood, City of Woodland From: David P. Martini, P.E. Subject: Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Draft Plan Amendment Comments 1 Nom® On November 18'h the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) sent a notice out to affected cities, counties, and state review agencies regarding their proposed Comprehensive Water Resource Management Plan (WRMP) amendment. The proposed amendment would replace the existing WRMP, Section 7.2, LGU Local Plan Implementation and Reporting, in its entirety with the amended version. The November 18a' notice began the 45-day public comment period required by state statute for WRMP amendments. We have reviewed the proposed amendment and offer the following comments that were prepared by our Water Resources Specialist Doug Carter. The comments are grouped together according the general theme and do not follow the document page by page. For your convenience I have color coded MCWD's draft and the sections referenced in our comments. 1. Data requested from the LGU with no defined use. The following citations are generally requests by the MCWD for data that will be a burden for the LGU to collect, summarize, review, and distribute. The MCWD does not detail how, or if, they plan to use this data. In some instances the MCWD is requesting data that is in the planning stages and may never make it through the land -use process. Projects that are under development or consideration by the LGU do not need to be disclosed to the MCWD. On an annual basis the MCWD needs only to know about active or permitted projects. Unless the MCWD can provide compelling reasons as to why they feel they need this information it should not be required to be provided by the LGUs. The citations are as follows: a. Section 7.2.1 — Annual Reporting and Meeting, Paragraph 2 b. Section 7.2.1— Annual Reporting and Meeting, Paragraph 3, Item #1 c. Section 7.2.1 — Annual Reporting and Meeting, Paragraph 3, Item #4 d. Section 7.2. 1 —Annual Reporting and Meeting, Paragraph 3, Item #S e. Section 7.2.1 -- Annual Reporting and Meeting, Paragraph 3, Item #6 F:\ DEEP \C1 3101785 \Correspondence\MC\VD Draft Plan Comments 12 -20 -10 (3).docx DESIGNING FOR A BETTER TOMORROW Bolton & Menk is an equal opportunity employer ON $ .. -The ri4 W undellired: my& ecdve, aualltadve and, at times. arxiintentagive neudge" The following citations are generally instances where the WW) has chosen to use language that is not appropriate for use in natural resource management plans. In a number of the citations the language appears to assume an adversarial and hierarchical relationship between the LGU and the MCWD. The use of terms similar to, "lagged, diligently, importantly, good, timely, adequate, and failing" need to be well defined, if used at all. What person, board, or entity will determine the definitions for these words? These terms have a very real possibility of being misapplied or misused and we would like to see them either well defined or removed from the document. The citations are as follows: a. Section 7.2 — LGU Local Plan Implementation and Reporting, Paragraph 5 b. Section 7.2.1 — Annual Reporting and Meeting, Paragraph 4, First Item c. Section 7.2.2 — Review of LGUPIan Implementation, Paragraph 3, Item #1, (g) d. Section 7.2.2 — Review of LGUPIan Implementation, Paragraph 6, 2"d sentence e. Section 7.2.2 -- Review of LGUPIan Implementation, 2. Land Use, Item (a) f. Section 7.2.2 — Review of LGUPIan Implementation, 2. Land Use, Item (e) g. Section 7.2.2 Review ofLGU Plan Implementation, 3. Capital Program, Item (c) h. Section 7.2.2 —Review of LGUPIan Implementation, 3. Capital Program, Item (e) i. Section 7.2.2 — Review of LGUPIan Implementation, 4. Land Conservation, Item (a) j. Section 7 2.2 — Review of LGUPIan Implementation, 4. Land Conservation, Item (c) E3: use ofianuaee that is.vaFUe and oxen to fiterpretation The following citations are generally where criteria have been identified that will be nearly impossible to objectively evaluate. There is also the potential for the collection and evaluation of the data to be a significant time and money burden for both the LGU and the MCWD staff. If there is no indication existing practices in which the LGU is operating are substandard as it references natural resource protection, why does the MCWD take the position of essentially auditing the LGU's performance? The citations are as follows: a. Section 7.2.2 —Review of LGUPIan Implementation, Paragraph 3, Item #1, (c) b. Section 7.2.2 —Review of LGUPIan Implementation, Paragraph 3, Item #1, (d) F ADEEPU310178MCorrespondenceNCWD Draft Plan Comments 12 -20 -10 (3).doex N t4 d 44. Funding and the overarchi ii sense of cooperation and protection of, natural resources,. The following citations generally foster an adversarial relationship between the LGU and the MCWD. In our experience if an LGU is unable to meet the water resource commitments identified in their local plans or their Capital Improvement Plans it is most often due to a lack of available budget and/or funding for the program. It seems as though the role of the MCWD should be to assist the LGU with funding shortfalls, if that is the issue. To have the MCWD remove its funding assistance and notify other agencies with the perceived hope of having them pull their funding assistance as well appears, on the surface, to be counterproductive to the overarching goal of protecting the water resources within the watershed. If the LGU believed that adding tax burden to residents with the goal of meeting the local plan objectives was feasible, it would undertake the program on its own. Adding an additional tax burden to residents is not a solution. Working with the LGU, in a cooperative manner, to jointly meet local plan objectives would be a much more sustainable approach. The citations are as follows: a. Section 7.2.2 —Review of LGU Plan Implementation, Paragraph 7, 4`h, S`h, and 6rh bullet b. Section 7.2.2 — Review of LGU Plan Implementation, Paragraph 7, 7rh bullet S. General Amendment Comments a. Section 7.2.2 — Review of LGU Plan Implementation, Paragraph 3, Item #1, (b) The sentence reads, "Do they conform to MWCD- approved standards ?" The process of reviewing and approving the LGU's local plans and associated ordinance has previously been defined as an iterative process between the LGU and the MCWD staff and Board. The MCWD could provide a model ordinance that would save all parties time and staff expenditure. b. General Amendment Comments The overall tone of this amendment is not one that echo's cooperation, trust, and mutual determination to accomplish complex natural resource management goals. The tone is more of an authoritative agency looking down upon the LGU actively looking for the opportunity to take over control of the local plan implementation. We don't believe that if even one LGU gave over control of all aspects of their plan implementation the MCWD would have the staff and availability to accomplish the requirements; it becomes even less likely if more than one LGU did that. Working forward from that standpoint, it seems that that MCWD should be more interested in, and place more importance on, cooperatively working together with the LGU to protect the natural resources within the watershed and plan for the implementation of the local plan. c. This amendment to the original Section 7.2 did not do anything to close the open -ended nature of the original draft. The inclusion of so many subjective and qualitative words and phrases only magnifies the vague nature of the requirements of the memorandum of understanding. The very real possibility of being committed to unforeseeable obligations remains. If the MCWD wishes to solve this problem they need to work cooperatively with the LGUs to clarify the issues. Writing a minor plan amendment in isolation from the LGUs only exasperates the problem. F:\ DEEP \C13101785 \Correspondence\MCWD Draft Plan Comments 12 -20 -10 (3).docx MINNEHAHA CRE WATERSHED DISTRICT The Minnehoho Creek Watershed District is committed to a leadership rote in protecting, improving and managing the surface waters and affiliated groundwater resources within the District, including their relationships to the ecosystems 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, an informed and engaged constituency, and the cost effective use of public funds. QUALITY OF WATER Date: November 18, 2010 QUALITY OF LIFE To: Cities, Counties, State Review Agencies From: Becky Houdek, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Re: Draft Plan Amendment — 45 -Day Comment Period In 2007, following an extensive planning and review process that involved citizens, cities, state agencies, and other stakeholders, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District adopted a Comprehensive Water Resource Management Plan (WRMP). The Plan details the District's goals and implementation strategies for improving water quality and management in our communities. These strategies include District capital projects, city water resource projects, and District regulations. As required by MN Statute 103B.235, local government units (LGUs) must prepare and submit a Local Water Management Plan to the District for review and approval. As part of the approval of the Local Water Plan, the District has been using a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to outline specific obligations of both the LGU and the District. These requirements include that the LGU submit an annual report to the District that details progress toward implementing the Local Water Plan and an annual meeting with District staff to discuss the report. During the review and approval process for Local Water Plans, many municipalities expressed concern that the requirements in the MOU were vague and therefore committed them to unforeseeable obligations. In response to those concerns, the District Board of Managers directed staff to develop a minor plan amendment that clearly outlines the expectations of the District regarding Local Water Plan annual reporting and meetings, and would eliminate the need for a MOU for those cities not implementing District regulations. The attached draft plan amendment contains the following: 1. Purpose of annual reporting and meeting requirements 2. Minimum requirements for contents of LGU annual report 3. Items the District will consider when assessing Local Water Plan implementation 4. Steps the District Board may take if an LGU fails to implement its Local Water Plan 5. Steps the District will take to encourage a collaborative process toward achieving better water quality and management for our constituents The annual reporting and meeting process outlined in the draft plan amendment will allow the District to carry out its responsibility to oversee Local Water Plan implementation by LGUs as required by statute. This approach will also improve how District and city staff coordinate efforts to meet water resource goals. The Board of Managers has, authorized staff to- distribute the attached draft plan amendment for a 45 -day public comment period to solicit input prior to a public hearing and adoption .'' Please submit your comments by Monday, January 3rd. We will notify you of the date and time of the public hearing once it,is scheduled. If you have any questions or concerns regarding the draft plan amendment, District staff would be happy to meet with you to answer questions and provide clarity on specific items within the amendment. Please feel free to contact Becky Houdek at bhoudeka-minnehahacreek.ore or 952- 641 -4512. DRAFT PLAN AMENDMENT: LOCAL PLAN IMPLEMENTATION (10 -7 -10) Present Section 7.2 is replaced by the following new section: 7.2 LGU Local Plan Implementation and Reporting Minnesota Statutes. §103B.235 establishes a process for watershed district review and approval of local water plans. Typically District staff will work with LGU staff through successive versions of the draft local plan until staff finds that the plan meets content requirements and standards of Section 7.1 and is recommended for approval. If an LGU is not able to satisfy District staff and believes nevertheless that its plan is entitled to District approval, it may request to have the plan brought before the District Board of Managers without a recommendation of approval. The District's preference is that a local plan be revised as needed so that when it is presented to the Board of Managers it may be approved without the need for further revisions. However, if it requires only minor revisions when it comes before the Board or if the need for minor changes is identified during Board review, the Board's approval resolution may approve the plan conditioned on identified revisions. Otherwise, typically the resolution will contain only standard conditions that implement the terms of Section 7. The Board also may include conditions as needed to address the specific circumstances in a given case. Minnesota Statutes §103B.235, subdivision 4, states that once the district approves a local plan, the LGU must adopt and implement it within 120 days, and must complete amendment of ordinances required by the local plan within 180 days. After the local plan is adopted, the District and LGU will coordinate watershed and local plan implementation over the course of the 10 -year planning cycle. Consistency between plans and coordinated implementation will help to ensure that capital spending, land conservation, public education, regulation and other activities will be carried out to best achieve shared water resource goals in a cost - effective and transparent way. f-Utider.ttie "watershed lava, each nmetropoi3tan- an distdia is reap otieilile to maintain "awareness of local water plan implementation by LGUs within its boundaaes. The District intends to carry out this responsibility through aprocess of Grit annual reporting and District monitoring of local plan implementation. The District has sought to create a framework that allows it to retrain reasonably, h4owledgeable as to local implementation without being burdensome for LGUs. ;The framework also is designed so that any implementation issues are addressed through communication and collaboration to the extent possible. It seeks to respect the ability of the District and individual LGUs to make their own program and Junding- decisions. -Bit it preserves the District's ability to step in if water resource. ,(dommititket to and, goals are .not being mew 7.2.1 Annual Report and Meeting Each LGU must provide a written report to the District by June 30 annually, describing how the LGU has implemented the local plan over the past report year (May 1 through April 30). The annual report date coincides with the submittal date for municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) annual reports as set by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). If the MPCA should change that date, the District would adjust its annual reporting date administratively. An LGU may submit its MS4 report to the District as its annual report, with supplementation as needed to provide all of the information listed below. For efficiency, the District may develop a standard format that LGUs would be required to use. Until that time, an LGU may prepare a separate report using a format of its choosing. LGUs are encouraged to use a concise format for the annual report. At the same time, LGUs need to provide information that is sufficient for District staff to be fully apprised of activities by, and within the boundaries of, the LGU that affect water resources and further water resource programming. At a minimum, the annual report must cover the following for the reporting year: 1. The status of capital projects identified in the local water plan and any other water resource projects under LGU development or consideration, and identification of any project on which the LGU is interested in partnering with the District. 2. Progress on each water resource issue identified in the implementation section of the local plan. 3. The status of each action identified in the local plan as a means to contribute to the LGU's allocated phosphorus /nutrient load reduction, the cause of any failures or delays, and any proposed changes to the LGU's strategy for meeting the load reduction. 4. A summary of LGU land use activity as it may affect water resources, including: (a) permit applications for land disturbance received; (b) actions taken, including any variances granted; (c) pending development or redevelopment activity not yet the subject of an application; (d) zoning changes made or requested. S. Additional water quality, hydrologic, wetland and floodplain data developed within the LGU. 6. A description of stormwater conveyance /management facility construction, inspection, maintenance and repair activity, including identification of any 2 structural changes within the conveyance system affecting hydrologic /hydraulic modeling on greater than a parcel basis. 7. A summary of LGU housekeeping activities including salt /sand storage and use, hard surface sweeping and other public facility management activities to protect water resources. 8. An inventory of riparian, buffer, corridor, open space and other conservation land rights acquired through dedication, gift, purchase or any other means. 9. A summary of the LGU's budget as it pertains to local plan implementation. Following District staff review of an LGU's annual report, a meeting between staff may be arranged to complete the review, bring each party up to date on the other party's activities, and coordinate activity for the next year. District staff may have questions or need further information abobt_matters ,contained in or omitted from the LGU report. If the District perceives thof. TA-10 implementation has, lagged, this would he an opportunity to discuss � iiis,jdentify causes of any failures or delays, and.mutually co 16*r` ,�djfqstme tts. As well, LGU staff may require more. information -about District, Wtivities over the past year as they affect the LGU. • This meeting is an opportunity for the two parties to anticipate the next year's activity. A mutual briefing can be provided concerning programmed or potential capital projects, land conservation interests, cost - sharing or grant opportunities, development activity and other matters that would benefit from coordination. Pending or necessary plan amendment can be reviewed. Minnesota Statutes §103B.235, subdivision 1, and Minnesota Rules 8410.0160 requires that each local plan be revised and approved by the District within two years of a District plan amendment that affects an LGU, or as otherwise specified in the District implementation program. The District has adopted the two -year standard of 8410.0160, except where the plan specifically states otherwise. Where an LGU lies partly within the District and partly within one or more other watershed management organizations, the District will require local plan revision and approval within two years for at least that part of the plan that concerns land within District boundaries. The District will endeavor to maintain communication and flow of information between itself and its LGUs on an ongoing basis. The Board of Managers encourages opportunities for joint meetings with city councils on specific matters or for the purpose of general communication. 7.2.2 Review of LGU Plan Implementation The District will maintain awareness of LGU plan implementation largely through the annual reporting and meeting framework. However, this will be supplemented through ongoing communication with LGUs and knowledge of developments within the watershed gained through other usual channels. It is possible, then, that the District at any time may perceive that an LGU is not fully implementing its local water plan or meeting its commitments. In this case, the District will follow the course outlined here. This process is intended to ensure that the District has a full understanding of the LGU's water resource program, that the District respects the LGU's control of its own programs and its role in overseeing activity within its boundaries, and that the parties work collaboratively to ensure progress on mutual goals. At the same time, it is the District's responsibility under watershed law to maintain oversight of local water plan implementation and to take steps as necessary so that water resource goals are met. The District will consider the following items when assessing LGU plan implementation: 1. Water Resource Permitting (this subject will be relevant primarily when the LGU, through the local planning process, has elected to assume sole authority for water resource permitting in one or more areas covered by District rules and /or has elected to serve as the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) implementing authority): (a) Have ordinances been adopted as described in the approved local plan and in response to any subsequent District rule revisions? (b) Do they conform to MCWD- approved standards? (c ''Have`_te -- 4dinau ces been, applied as wtitteO- jj W1i�ere there -is room for intetptetation, has-LGU : discretion been _. *xercised in a--way that is sensitive. to; water resource pmte.ctlon? (e) Has the MCWD been notified of variance requests per Minnesota Statutes S103B.211? (f) Have technical expertise and program resources been maintained at levels described in the approved local plan? (g), Has:regulated activity been diligently monitored and have LGU ordinances and permits been diligently enforced? r$ (h) The same considerations, as applied to the LGU's actions as WCA- implementing agency. 4 2. Land Use: iO :Has good,progtess been made to integrate Safe Drinldng.Water Act and other protections for wellheads and sensitive groundwater resources into the development code, as described in the _approved Vocal plan` (b) Has the LGU worked carefully to integrate low- impact. development concepts into the development code and development review process? (c) Has the LGU met local plan commitments to reconcile development code setbacks and water resource protection goals? (d) Has the LGU revised its development code as necessary to require stormwater facilities and wetlands in residential subdivisions to be located on outlots? (a) Has the LGU ensured that the District tims'ly,receives proposed- (preliminary plats and revisions,. in accordance with the approved local tplan ? -` (f) Are local plan commitments otherwise being met? 3. Capital Program: (a) Does the capital improvement program (CIP) continue to reflect the level of commitment toward water resource goals of the approved local plan? (b) Is CIP implementation on schedule? L(c) Is the LGU making adequate progress toward achievement of ' phosphorus load reductions identified in the approyed°local plapt (d) If issues have arisen that were unexpected or are beyond LGU control, has the LGU identified, and is the LGU pursuing, alternative strategies? t(e) Is the LGU diligently maintaining stormwater management (facilities for which it is responsible? 4. Land Conservation: a ) Have water resource protection priorities been integrated into, parks, open space, recreation and land" acgctisition plans, and aie those 0619 being diligently implemented? 5 (b) Are dedication and fee in lieu requirements under the development code being used to support water resource protection consistent with commitments in the approved local plan? tc). Is. the -LGU diligently monitoring municipal open space lands, protected !"arid•. and vegetated, egetated buffer areas under its cWitrol? r 5. Housekeeping Practices: Is the LGU meeting local plan commitments for street sweeping, snow plowing, salt and snow storage, right -of -way maintenance, stormwater management facility and vegetated buffer maintenance, public land management and other housekeeping matters with water resource impacts? 6. Other Commitments: Is the LGU otherwise meeting commitments assumed under the approved local plan? If District staff, at the direction of the Board of Managers or on the basis of its own review, has concerns about local plan implementation, the District will generally follow a process that emphasizes communication and collaboration to assess these concerns and identify approaches to addressing any deficiencies. Presuming the LGU has a similar interest in this approach, initially the process will involve staff-to- staff communication and a process of staff collaboration. District staff will report back to the Board of Managers and the District will seek to memorialize any agreed outcomes in appropriate fashion. If District or LGU staff believes that, for any reason, adequate progress in resolving concerns is not being made, the Board of Managers and city council may be asked to convene an informal joint meeting. Ultimately, if the Board of Managers is not satisfied with a resolution of concerns, it may schedule the matter for formal consideration on its agenda. ,LGU representatives will be-invited to attend; District staff, LGU representatives and interested members of the public will have an opportunity to addtess the issues; and Lthe Hoard will make a finding as to whether it believes the LGU is failing to JmpleWent its plan in an important way. If the Board makes such a finding, it may take further steps within its authority as it judges will foster improved local plan implementation or allow resources to be focused on areas where they are more likely to leverage effective efforts. Such steps may include the following: • Requesting that the LGU engage in further discussions or provide written commitments. • Reasserting District regulatory authority for proposed land - disturbing activity for which city approvals have not yet been issued. 2 • Reprogramming or reprioritizing District capital funds identified for expenditure within the city. • Placing a hold on cost -share and other program funding witllin the LGU.' • Advising the Metropolitan Council, and other potential municipal grantors where watershed district approval is relevant, of the District's finding. • Restricting eligibility for District- funded water /land use planning assistance# or other forms of District cost- or technical- assistance. • Establishment of one or more water management districts encompassing the* LGU or parts thereof to fund District implementation of local plan; commitments not being met. • An action under Minnesota Statutes §103B.235, subdivision 4, requesting that the LGU be directed to implement its local plan. At any time, an LGU may advise the District of further implementation steps taken and allow the Board of Managers to determine that the local plan is again being adequately implemented. The Board also may take steps as outlined above where an LGU has not submitted or has not received approval of a local water plan in a timely way. 7.2.3 Applicability to Existing Approved Local Water Plans Most LGUs wholly or partly within the District have completed and approved local plans responding to the District's 2007 plan. BWSR rules require these plans to be revised within two years of a District plan revision to maintain consistency. The reporting responsibility and procedures outlined in this revised Section 7.2 trigger this revision requirement and the specifics herein will apply to each LGU two years from the date of the District amendment or when the LGU plan revision is approved, if sooner. Until then, reporting and related procedures will apply to each LGU according to the terms of its prior local plan approval and any memorandum of understanding signed by the District and LGU in conjunction with that approval. 7 January X, 2011 Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 18202 Minnetonka Boulevard Deephaven, MN 55391 Dear Ms. Houdek and Board of Managers; Municipal Offices 7701 County Road 110 West Minnetrista, MN 55364 -9552 Email: mimletristagci.minnetrista.mn.us The City of Minnetrista would like to submit this letter in response to the draft Plan Amendment to your 2007 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan. As affected stakeholders, we appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed amendment that sets parameters for Local Government Units (LGU) to submit required annual reports regarding the implementation of their local water plans. In general, Minnetrista staff prefers an identified process for annual reporting and monitoring than the previously - utilized MOU process. A clearly written, standardized program is much preferred to an individual review and process for each LGU. The emphasis on coordination, collaboration, and consistent communication between the District and LGUs is admirable and great to see included in the document. It is important to be clear and direct about the District's expectations and requirements for such an annual monitoring program. The following comments aims to clarify these expectations and differentiate them from the other annual reporting requirements LGUs must adhere to in the MS4 reporting. 1) Overall document. The City is requesting that a panel of local government staff is convened to provide specific, detailed comments in person to the District on this plan amendment. As written, in appears that this unfunded reporting requirement will have a significant impact on local governments. Having local government staff weigh in on this important amendment will only improve its administration and effectiveness, and can serve as the first step in collaborating with them on plan implementation. 2) 7.2 The first two paragraphs seem unnecessary and are unclear. Proposed solution: The District staff and Board will review all local water plans according the criteria set forth in Section 7.1. District staff will forward a recommendation to the Board, and the Board shall act on the request for approval according to Minnesota Statute 103B.235. The Board shall pass a resolution, with conditions for approval when necessary. OFFICE: (952) 446 -1660 FAX: (952) 446 -1311 WEBSITE: www.ci.minnetrista.mn.us 3) 7.2.1 Coordinating submittal deadlines with MS4 deadlines provide uniformity and ease in multiple reporting requirements. It would help if the process for annual reporting could be clearer about when MS4 reporting would suffice, and when additional information would be required. It appears there is significant overlap in the requirements. Since the MS4 requirements are known by the District, is it possible to lump those requirements under one list, with a note that allows the MS4 report to satisfy those requirements, then an additional list for further requirements? For example, in the numbered list, it appears that items 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9 would be covered under MS4 reporting. A clear indication if this would be acceptable would help clarify expectations. Furthermore, MS4 reporting preparation is expensive, and it appears that this reporting would be another unfunded cost that takes away from project implementation. Please be cognizant of these added costs to local government. 4) 7.2.1 Submittal requirement #4 and #5 are vague. Could this be specified? For example, are you looking for just grading activities, or any development or any increase in impervious surface? What type of information would be required? #8 is not always known by the city, or tracked with consistency, therefore would be difficult to submit. 5) The first two paragraphs under 7.2.2 could be re- written to emphasize the importance of regular communication between the LGU and the MCWD. I think that is the intention, however, instead the introductory paragraphs appear threatening and heavy- handed. Similarly, Section 7.2.1 that describes the meeting process could be re- written to be much more collaborative in nature. Proposed solution for the first two paragraphs: The key to successful implementation of local water plans, and in turn, the District's Comprehensive Water Resource Management Plan, is consistent and clear communication between LGUs and the District. Without knowledge of the programs and projects of one another, neither the LGU nor the District can successfully implement water quality programming. In order to ensure the lines of communication stay as open as possible, the following process is outlined below. The intent of this process is to encourage collaboration to ensure the accomplishment of mutual goals and to identify areas of partnership. 6) Staff objects to the review criteria section. This appears to be a section intended as a list for District staff of what to keep tabs on, and not intended for LGUs to be trying to include in preparing an annual report. a. Water Resource Planning. BWSR already monitors WCA procedure through an additional reporting requirement. Staff disagrees with duplicating this effort. b. Land Use, Capital Program, Land Conservation- All these items are specific to individual local water plans and cannot be applied watershed -wide. Each plan should be reviewed against the implementation efforts put forth in the individual plan, not according to the list in the proposed document. It is crucial to keep the review specific to the contents of LGU's local water plan, and not to expand implementation requirements beyond the scope of the each plan. Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on behalf of the City of Minnetrista. The City Council authorized submission of this letter at their meeting on January 10, 2011. We feel that our relationship with the District is good and that this new reporting requirement can be met by keeping communication open and collaboration the intended goal. As many LGUs, we have an aggressive and inclusive local water resources plan, and together, we can accomplish the common goal of improved water quality. Sincerely, Breanne Rothstein, AICP Senior City Planner (952) 241 -2522 (office) (612) 834 -5288 (mobile) Cc: David Abel, Assistant City Planner Mike Funk, City Administrator �flvv cITYo oRONo Municipal Offices Street Address: Mailing Address: 2150 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Orono, MN 55356 Crystal Bay, MN 55323.0066 January 11, 2011 Becky Houdek MCWD Assistant Planner 18202 Minnetonka Blvd. Deephaven, MN 55391 Re: Comments on Draft Plan Amendment - Section 7.2 Dear Becky: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed amendment of Section 7.2 of the MCWD Water Resource Management Plan. It is our understanding that the initial intent of the proposed amendment was to clarify MCWDs expectations regarding annual Local Water Plan reporting and meetings, which is covered in Section 7.2.1. However, the amendment then takes additional steps by defining a set of very subjective standards against which the adequacy of LGU Plan implementatioll will be measured, followed by a variety of possible actions and sanctions that MCWD will take if an LGU is deemed as not meeting expectations. The tone of much of this document seems somewhat oppressive, based on a premise that LGU's will not meet their obligations. It does not have the positive flavor the District may be attempting to create. I would offer the following more specific comments: 1. In proposed Section 7.2.1, the amendment states that "Each LGU must provide a written report to the District by June 30 annually, describing how the LGU has implemented the local plan over the past report year (May 1 through April 30)." The reporting period for the MS4 Permit is based on the previous calendar year (January 1 through December 31). We recommend that MCWD revise its reporting year to coincide with the MS4 Permit. 2. In proposed Section 7.2.1, item 6, the amendment indicates that the LGU must provide in the annual report "A description of stormwater conveyance /management facility construction, inspection, maintenance and repair activity, including identification of any structural changes within the conveyance system affecting hydrologic/hydraulic modeling on greater than a parcel basis," and in Section 7.2.2, item 3(e), the amendment asks "Is the LGU diligently maintaining stormwater management facilities for which it is responsible ?" The communities within MCWD are identified as MS4 Telephone (952) 249 -4600 • Fax (952) 249 -4616 www.cLorono.mn.us _. MCWD Draft Amendment January 11, 2011 Page 2 communities, and they are expected to maintain their system in accordance with the MS4 Permit. We propose that this language be revised to require that the systems be maintained as defined in the MS4 Permit 3. In proposed Section 7.2.2, the standards for review leave an uncomfortable measure of subjectivity in play. It is very unclear how MCWD will determine or interpret whether an LOU has "made good progress ", "worked carefully"; "diligently monitored "'or "diligently implemented" its plan. We recommend thafthese qualitative terms,either be removed from the document or be further defined. 4. In proposed Section 7.2.2, item 2(d), the amendment indicates that MCWD. expects stormwater facilities and wetlands in residential subdivisions to be located on outlots. Is this a requirement of the W dMP? What is the basis for this requirement? We are not convinced that forcing all such features to be located within outlots is necessary for their management, and in many circumstances to do so would be inappropriate. We object to this being a criterion for determining whether a local plan is being properly implemented. Wetlands. Orono has long held the position that wetlands should generally remain in private ownership. The City does not have a desire to own wetlands; rather, Orono has long- established easement and covenant requirements that place the burden of wetland protection on the property owner while providing the City with the ability to enforce violations of the easements and covenants. The creation of an outlot around an existing wetland, however, suggests an intent to allow for separate ownership, by another entity, individual or association. For Planned Unit Developments, outlots typically are owned by a homeowners association as common area, and may encompass stormwater facilities and wetlands as well as other non - water - related amenities including parkland, open space, road systems, play areas, utilities, etc. In. such developments, wetlands and stormwater facilities would in most instances be appropriately located in outlots. However, for standard rural large -lot subdivisions as are common in Orono, wetlands may occur completely within the boundaries of a buildable lot. To plat a separate wetland outlot within, for example, a 2 -acre buildable lot would be cumbersome to administer from a zoning perspective. For instance, does the boundary of the outlot become a lot line from which setbacks must be measured? Is there an expectation that the - outlot will encompass the.wetland buffer-as-well? This-would also create unneeded complexity in terms of ownership documentation by potentially requiring multiple deeds for what is intended to be a single property. It has the potential to create issues as to how the property is valued and taxed (and whether the outlot could .go 'tax- forfeit', or be sold separately), might result in what would be perceived as a landlocked parcel, or may have negative title implications. These potential issues are avoided by dealing with protection and documentation of wetlands simply via the use of easements and covenants, which we believe will provide equivalent: levels of MCWD Draft Amendment January 11, 2011 Page 3 protection. We would suggest that a policy of reauirine wetlands to be located in outlots within residential subdivisions is not appropriate; the use of easements and covenants should be equally or more acceptable in a variety of development situations. Stormwater Ponds. While we generally agree that created stormwater ponds should be in outlots, the term "stormwater facilities" seems rather broad - brush. Surely we are not going to place every storm sewer line, rain garden, or pervious paver system within an outlot. We suggest that the wording be revised to better define which ` stormwater facilities' MCWD expects to be located within oudots. 5. Per Section 7.2.3, we interpret that the existing MOU regarding Orono's Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) will remain the governing document for two years from the date this amendment is adopted, after which the amendment will govern. If this is not a correct interpretation, please advise. Please take our comments into consideration as you continue the review process for the plan amendment. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 952- 249 -4622. Sincerely, Michael P. Gaffron Assistant City Administrator cc: Jessica Loftus Mayor & City Council i�CTO� Of kes 0 CITY OF VICTORIA 7951 �Qse Street • Box36 9�ictoru� 55386 9521443 -4210 • Fax-9521443-2110 www.ci.victorla.mmus January 11, 2010 Becky Houdek Planner Specialist Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 18202 Minnetonka Boulevard Deephaven, MN 55391 Dear Ms. Houdek, The City of Victoria is not supportive of the minor Plan Amendment — Local Plan Implementation dated October 7, 2010. We feel that the Plan Amendment is overreaching, cumbersome and costly to local governments. We are also concerned that our first opportunity to review the language is through its release for public comment. In the spirit of collaboration between governmental agencies committed to water resource protection, the development of an amendment that outlines specific requirements for cities should only be developed through an open collaborative process with. the cities in the District. Because of the time and a financial burden to a city such as Victoria, it is likely that the City of Victoria will be unable to provide the information requested. In addition, much of the language. outlining the items the District will consider when assessing LGU implementation is vague and subjective. As a regulated MS4 City, we can provide you with copies of our annual report to the MPCA if requested and we would welcome an annual meeting with the District to exchange information on our program and the District's program. Beyond that, our available time and resources need to be focused on maintaining, protecting, and improving our marry natural resources. We recommend that the District not approve this amendment, but proceed to meet with member cities to discuss the District's reporting needs and concerns with implementation of local plans and work collaboratively to find a reasonable means to address those concerns. As part of that process, we would also like to discuss the information that the City would like provided by the District on an annual basis outlining the status of District activities within the City limits. Should the District plan to proceed with the Amendment as drafted, the following is a sampling of our specific concerns with the proposed language as outlined below: 7.2.1 Annual Report and Meeting 4. A summary of LGU land use activity as it may affect water resources, including: (a) permit applications for land disturbance received; (b) actions taken, including any variances granted; (c) pending development or redevelopment activity not yet the subject of an application; (d) zoning changes made or requested. Comments: • Does (b) refer to permit applications for land disturbance? • In regards to (c), the LGU may be in negotiations with potential developers and may not want to inform the District. Pending needs to be defined, does it mean that they have applied for concept plan approval or some other type of planning approval such as site plan or a conditional use permit? • Does (d) refer to rezoning requests and approvals or zoning ordinance changes or approvals or both? "Zoning changes" is not clearly defined. • Under what authority does the District have to request this information? 5. Additional water quality, hydrologic, wetland and floodplain data developed within the LGU. Comments: • Does this refer to data that the LGU collects? • Does it refer to outside agencies such as the DNR or FEMA? 6. A description of stormwater conveyance /management facility construction, inspection, maintenance and repair activity, including identification of any structural changes within the conveyance system affecting hydrologic/hydraulic modeling on a greater than a parcel basis. Comment: • The City does not intend to model hydrology or hydraulic changes for repairs of stormwater conveyance systems. 8. An inventory of riparian, buffer, corridor, open space and other conservation land rights acquired through dedication, gift, purchase or any other means. Comments: • Does this refer to an inventory of properties acquired in, the calendar year of the report or in totality? • Under what authority does the District have to request this information? 7.2.2 Review of LGU Plan Implementation 2. Land Use: .(a) Has good progress been made to integrate Safe Drinking Water Act and other protections for wellheads and sensitive groundwater resources into the development code, as described in the approved local plan? Comment: • Under what authority does the District have to review development codes in relation to the Safe Drinking Water Act? (b) Has the LGU worked carefully to integrate low- impact development concepts into the development code and development process? Comment: • Under what authority does the District have to require that LGUs integrate low - impact development into the development code and development process? (c) Has the LGU met local plan commitments to reconcile development code setbacks and water resource protection goals? Comments: • What are development code setbacks? Are you referring to yard setbacks or Ordinary High Water Level setbacks within a Shoreland District? • What if the local plan has no such commitments ?. • What is there to reconcile between development code setbacks water resource protection goals? (d) Has the LGU revised its development code as necessary to require stormwater facilities and - wetlands in residential subdivisions to be located on outlots? Comments: • As you are aware, the City of Victoria currently does require this as part of our subdivision process; however, as .we articulated in the Wetland Rule amendment process, the District's increased wetland buffers will make this a difficult provision to enforce in the future. • There are situations where both the property owner and the LGU are better served by placing the wetland in an easement versus and outlot. • Other LGUs may prefer to require wetlands and stormwater facilities in easements, versus outlots based on their specific past practices. • Under what authority does the District have to require such an ordinance change by a LGU? 3. Capital Program: (a) Does the capital improvement program (CIP) continue to reflect the level of commitment toward water resource goals of the approved local plan? Comment: • Are you referring to the LGU's entire CIP or only those areas directly related to water resources? 4. Land Conservation: (c) Is the LGU diligently monitoring municipal open space lands, protected lands and vegetated buffer areas under its control? Comment: Who determines what is "diligently monitoring "? Does this refer to removal of invasive species? • Undtr what authority does the District have to require this of LGUs? If you have any questions, please contact me at 952/443 -4210. Respectfully submitted, CITY OF VICTORIA Don Uram City Administrator. Cc: Mayor and City Council MCWD Board Representative, William Olson January 11, 2011 Ms. Becky Houdek Planner Specialist Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 18202 Minnetonka Blvd. Deephaven, MN 55391 City of Wayzata 600 Rice Street Wayzata, MN 55391 -1734 Re: Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Draft Plan Amendment Comments Local Plan Implementation Dear Ms. Houdek: Mayor: Kenneth Willcox City Council: Jack Amdal Mary Bader Andrew Mullin Tom Tanner City Manager: Allan Orsen On November 18`h the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) sent a notice out to affected cities, counties, and state review agencies regarding their proposed Comprehensive Water Resource Management Plan (WRMP) amendment. The proposed amendment would replace the existing WRMP, Section 7.2, LGU Local Plan Implementation and Reporting, in its entirety with the amended version. Please consider this letter as the City of Wayzata's formal response to the Board's request for comments. Respectfully, I request that these comments be incorporated into the record associated with the Public Hearing, scheduled for January 13, 2011. Procedure and timing of 45 -day comment notice The City of Wayzata City Manager was notified of the Draft Plan Amendment, via email, on November 18, 2010. However, the City Manager does not handle official coordination with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD). This coordination is administered by the City's engineering department. For effective and timely communication with the City of Wayzata, it is essential that the MCWD address its notices appropriately. Also, the MCWD's comment period began just before and included three (3) holidays; Thanksgiving, Christmas, and New Year's Day, which significantly shortened the available comment period. A 45 -day comment period also does not adequately allow for staff review, possible City Council review, and presentation of formal comments. Future comment periods should be extended to 60 days and not fall during the November/December holiday season. Data requested in Section 7.2.1 The City of Wayzata is. currently working in coordination with the MCWD through an approved Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). The MOU between the City and the MCWD already contemplates many of the items listed under Section 7.2.1 Annual Report and Meeting. However, the MCWD does not detail how, or if, they plan to use this data. In some instances, the MCWD is requesting data that is in the planning stages and may never make it through the land -use process. Projects that are under development or consideration by the LGU do not need to be disclosed to the MCWD. On an annual Phone: 952 -404 -5300 Fax: 952- 404 -5318 e-mail: city@wayzata.org home page: www.wayzata.org City of Wayzata City of Wayzata 600 Rice Street Wayzata, MN 55391 -1734 Mayor: � Kenneth Willcox City Council: Jack Amdal Mary Bader Andrew Mullin Tom Tanner City Manager: Allan Orsen basis, the MCWD needs only to know about active or permitted projects. Unless the MCWD can provide compelling reasons as to why they feel they need this information it should not be required to be provided by the LGUs. Also, the MCWD should develop and supply a concise checklist -type report form for the information requested in section 7.2.1. This would make both completion of the report and review of the report much easier. The use of qualitative lanzwee In numerous requirements of the draft plan amendment, the MCWD utilizes qualifying language such as "diligently, importantly, good, timely, adequate, and failing." What person, board, or entity will determine the definitions for these words? These terms have a very real possibility of being misapplied or misused and should be either well defined or removed from the document. Review ofLGUPIan Implementation Several paragraphs in Section 7.2.2 seem generally adversarial, in nature. The ultimate goal of our /your work is to protect the natural resources within the MCWD. This becomes difficult if municipalities are constantly worrying that the MCWD might remove any funding assistance and notify other agencies with the perceived hope of having them pull their funding assistance, as well. It seems as though the role of the MCWD should be to assist the LGU, should commitments become difficult to achieve. If the LGU believed that adding tax burden to residents with the goal of meeting the local plan objectives was feasible, it would undertake the program on its own. Working with the LGU, in a cooperative manner, to jointly meet local plan objectives would be a much more sustainable approach. We greatly appreciate the opportunity to provide this input to the MCWD, as you continue with this process and look forward to collaborating to find cost effective solutions to these common goals. Should you have any questions, you may call me directly at (952) 404 -5316. Sincerely, Michael H. Kelly, Jr., P.E. City Engineer cc: Mayor and City Council, City of Wayzata Mr. Jim Calkins, MCWD Board President Mr. Allan Orsen, Wayzata City Manager Mr. Bryan Gadow, Wayzata City Planner Phone: 952- 404 -5300 Fax: 952 -404 -5318 e-mail: city@wayzata.org home page: www.wayzata.org .___ ___ City of Minneapolis Summary,Comments Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) Plan Amendment 1.' The City of Minneapolis requests an extension to submit comments on the MCWD plan amendments. 2. It has not been shown that additional reports will lead to improvements in the water bodies. We believe that additional reporting requirements may have the "opposite, effect as a result of diverting resources from actual water quality work to reporting work., 3. 'Annual report time frame is different.than our Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Municipal Separated Storm .Sewer System (MS4).Permit,.and would require significant staff-time with-no benefit to the management of the stormwater system being. shown. 4. Language in the proposed plan amendment requiring meetings is not necessary for collaboration and adds unnecessary regulatory requirements. The'City will continue to collaborate with the MCWD. 5. The proposed Plan amendment language requires the City of Minneapolis to update our Local Surface Water Management Plan after each watershed organization approves their Plan. This,is an expensive and time consuming process since we have four watershed - organizations in the City that may update their plans at different times. We believe that the provisions of Minnesota Rules account for this local government dilemma and are clear thatth:e-legal requirement is that we only -have to update our Local Surface. Watershed Management Plan within two years of approval of the last of the four watershed management plans of watershed organizations located within the City. This interpretation of Minnesota Rules is supported by correspondence we received in the past from Minnesota Board of Soil and Water Resources staff. 6. Items the District proposes to review, in our Local Surface Water Management Plan appear to be in excess of the actual authority.of the MCWD. 7. The proposed MCWD review of the City's implementation; of its Local Surface Water Management Plan appears to be unnecessarily punitive rn,.nature and undermines the spirit of cooperation and common commitment.which is essential to best manage and preserve our water resources. City of Minneapolis Comments DRAFT PLAN AMENDMENT: LOCAL PLAN IMPLEMENTATION 00-740" Comment [el]: This was prepared in Comment l - - - - - - - -. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - — October, and sent for public comment in November. This issue of it not getting to tbb appropriate city and WRB staff has been covered in previous communication- However, there is another issue here: We would all be more effective if the MCWD and the cities were to have much more open, ongoing communication, rather than the cities being merely on the receiving end of public comment documents. We request that a permanent TAC be formed of City stn$ not just temporary TACs around issues selected by the MCWD. This would be a benefit to MCWD staff and board members as well as the cities. Present Section 7.2 is replaced by the following new section: 7.2 LGU Local Plan Implementation and Reporting Minnesota Statutes §103B.235 establishes a process for watershed district review and approval of local water plans. Typically District staff will work with LGU staff through successive versions of the draft local plan until staff finds that the plan meets content requirements and standards of Section 7.1 and is recommended for approval. If an LGU is not able to satisfy District staff and believes nevertheless that its plan is entitled to District approval, it may request to have the plan brought before the District Board of Managers without a recommendation of approval. The District's preference is that a local plan be revised as needed so that when it is presented to the Board of Managers it may be approved without the need for further revisions. However, if it requires only minor revisions when it comes before the Board or if the need for minor changes is identified during Board review, the Board's approval resolution may approve the plan conditioned on identified revisions. Otherwise, typically the resolution will contain only standard conditions that implement the terms of Section 7. The Board also may include conditions as needed to address the specific circumstances in a given case. Minnesota Statutes §103B.235, subdivision 4, states that once the district approves a local plan, the LGU must adopt and implement it within 120 days, and must complete amendment of ordinances required by the local plan within 180 days. After the local plan is adopted, the District and LGU will coordinate watershed and local plan implementation over the course of the 10 -year planning cycle. Consistency between plans and coordinated implementation will help to ensure that capital spending, land conservation, public education, regulation and other activities will be carried out to best achieve shared water resource goals in a cost - effective and transparent way. Under the watershed law, each metropolitan -area watershed district is responsible to maintain awareness of local water plan implementation by LGUs within its boundaries. The District intends to carry. out this responsibility through a process of LGU annual reporting and District monitoring of local plan implementation. The District has sought to create a framework that allows it to remain reasonably knowledgeable as to local implementation without being burdensome for LGUs. The framework also is designed so that any implementation issues are addressed through communication and collaboration to the extent possible. It seeks to respect the ability of the District and individual LGUs to make their own program and funding decisions. But it preserves the District's ability to step in if water resource commitments and goals are not being met. Comment 2 7.2.1 Annual Report and Meeting Each LGU must provide a written report to the District by June 30 annually, describing how the LGU has implemented the local plan over the past report year �(May1 through April 30)r The annual report date coincides with the submittal date Commentfe2]: Change to calendar for municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) annual reports as set by the yam' Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). If the MPCA should change that date, the District would adjust its annual reporting date administratively. Comment 3 An LGU may submit its MS4 report to the District as its annual report, with supplementation as needed to provide all of the information listed below. For efficiency, the District may develop a standard format that LGUS would be required to use. Until that time, an LGU may prepare a separate report using a format of its choosing. LGUs are encouraged to use a concise format for the annual report.- At the same time, LGUs need to provide information that is sufficient for District staff to be fully apprised of activities by and within the boundaries of, the LGU that affect water 'resources and further water resource programming. At a min_ im_ um, the -annual report must cover the following for the reporting year: 1. The status of capital projects identified in the local water plan aad any other water resource projects under LGU development or consideration, and identification of any project on •which the LGU is interested in partnering with the District. 2. Progress on each water resource issue identified in the- implementation section of the local plan-. 3. The status of each action identified in the local plan as a means to contribute to the LGU's allocated phosphorus /nutrient load reduction, the cause of any failures or delays, and any proposed changes to the LGU's strategy for meeting the load reduction. 4. A summary of LGU land use activity as it may affect water resources, including. (a) permit applications for land disturbance received; (b) action_ s taken, including any variances granted; (c) pending development or redevelopment activity not yet the subject of an application; (d) zoning changes made or requested. 5. Additional water quality, hydrologic, wetland and floo_dplain-data developed within the LGU. 6. A description of stormwater conveyance /management facility construction, inspection, maintenance and repair activity, including identification of any structural changes within the conveyance system affecting hydrologic /hydraulic modeling on greater than a parcel basis. 7. A summary of LGU housekeeping activities including salt /sand storage And use, hard surface sweeping and other public facility management activities to protect water resources. 8. An inventory of riparian, buffer, corridor, opens' ace And other conservation land rights acquired through dedication, gift,-purchase or a_ny other means. % A summary of the LGU's budget as it'pertains to local•plan ; implementation. I _ Comment [0]: The City'of Minneapolis's commitment is to submit a copy of its MS4 annual report and several other documents, as described in this excerpt from the October 2006 City of Minneapolis Local Surface Water Manaeement Plan (LSWMP): "To satisfy the annual report requirement of the watersheds, the City will forward informational copies of its Combined Sewer Ooetflow Annual Report, NPDES MS4 Stormwater Annual Report, lake Monitoring Annual Report and Sustainability Indicator Annual Report to the watersheds in June of each year ". It is unclear how supplemental dam would lead to improvements in water quality. Reporting requirements need to provide data and information for an LGU to use in order to make decisions related to management of their systems to improve water quality. Comment 4 ollowing�Distnct staff,eview of'an LGU's'annual report, a meetvng between staff may�beiartangedto complete tli_e review, bring each jparty�up todate;on(the othe"r� p-al act ties ;;and coordinate activity for tfie next,yeai: • Distract staff�may have questions or needrfurtfier information about matters cgntairied in 6C-- omitted) from the LGLTXepoit If the `Distract perce ves�tbat this, identify causesrof ,,any failures or$elays; and m'il 1.1y considei adjustments As.avell, GU staff mayarequuemore:uiformapon abouttDistnct Y activities overt the pastyear,as they affect the LGU! • This,uieeuiig istanopgo- rtumt}*for�thetwo�parties to;anticipate,theFnextyear's Cactivity. ' A mutual bnefingcc n, eiprovided concerning programmed or potential: :c tion'interesfs; cost shanngor grant opportunities, development activity andtother matters, that would'bei ea from coordlnatlon Comment[e4] Languageregw- ng'tivsr .._._,1 - -- -- - - - - -- - - -- ---- - - - - -- - - -- ------- - - - - -- �r. meoang is not naec�n.for collaboiah , a ed�`„mears y _regideim , - regaireinaits Tlie City;will continue:to < ' soggaborate _' `, ,f 4 Comment 5 Pending or necessary plan amendment can be reviewed. Minnesota Statutes §10313.235, subdivision 1, and Minnesota Rules 8410.0160 requires that each local plan be revised and approved by the District within two years of a District plan amendment that affects an LGU, or as otherwise specified in the District implementation program. The District has adopted the two -year standard of 8410.0160, except where the plan specifically states otherwise. here an LGU lies partly within the District and partly within one or more 'other watershed management organizations, the District will require local plan revision and approval within two years for at least that part of the plan that concerns land within District boundaries: Comment [eS]: This is not consistent with the Minneapolis approach described in the following LSWMP excerpt "Minneapolis is committed to managing its water resources in the most efficient and up-to -dare manner feasible. The goal of this plan is to be in compliance with requirements of Minnesota Rule 8410.0160, which states "each local plan shall be adopted within two years of the board's atnnoval of the last ortmnizati on plan that affects local units of aompment" Once the LSWMP isfinal, the focus will be to implement the recommended programs and to continue the updating of proctices and policies as mandates develop or as new technologies emerge. This approach will allow Minneapolis the flexibility necessary to respond to the layers of regulations that affect the City It would be a burden to update the LSWMP each and every time a NPDESpermit is reissued each time one of the jour watersheds revises its watershed management plan, or each time a 7MDL implementation plan Is - approved Minneapolis prefers to dedicate limited resources to actual practices such as inspection for g...: - control and targeted education c -- "�', This LSWMP will be used as the j�" ensure that new practices meet the staled goals and guiding principles. A renewal cycle that triggers a LSWMP update after all Third Generation Plans are complete, or some other major change to water resources management affecting Minneapolis occur., whichever is first, is in compliance with Minnesota Rules and allows a balance between managing water resources and reassessment ofthe overall direction that the ISWMP provides. Minneapolis adopted its Local Surface Water Management Plan in October 2006 which was two years following the adoption of the last of four "Second Generation" watershed plans that affect Miinneapolis. The MCWD was the Ent of the four organizations that affect Minneapolis to adopt its —Third Generation" watershed plan, in 2007. The second "third generation" plan is near completion (Mississippi Watershed Management Organization), and the third and fourth will he commencing in 2011 (Shingle Creek and Bassett Creek). Comment 6 The District will endeavor to maintain communication and flow of information between itself and its LGUs on an ongoing basis. The Board of Managers encourages opportunities for joint meetings with city councils on specific matters .or for the purpose of general communication. _. ---------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- 7.2.2 Review of LGU Plan Implementation The District will maintain awareness of LGU plan implementation largely through the annual reporting and meeting framework. However, this will be supplemented through ongoing communication with LGUs and knowledge of developments within the watershed gained through other usual channels. It is possible, then, that the District at any time may perceive that an LGU is not fully implementing its local water plan or meeting its commitments. In this case, the District will follow the course outlined here. This process is intended to ensure that the District has a full understanding of the LGU's water resource program, that the District respects the LGU's control of its own programs and its role in overseeing activity within its boundaries, and that the parties work collaboratively to ensure progress on mutual goals. At the same time, it is the District's responsibility under watershed law to maintain oversight of local water plan implementation and to take steps as necessary so that water resource goals are met. The District will consider the following items when assessing LGU plan implementation: 1. Water Resource Permitting (this subject will be relevant primarily when the LGU, through the local planning process, has elected to assume sole authority for water resource permitting in one or more areas covered by District rules and /or has elected to serve as the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) implementing authority): (a) Have ordinances been adopted as described in the approved local plan and in response to any subsequent District rule revisions? (b) Do they conform to MCWD- approved standards? N Comment le6]: Meetings and other communication are essential for collaboration and effectiveness, we agree this is important, but doesn't belong in the Plan Amendment (c) Have the ordinances been applied as written? (d) Where there is room for interpretation, has LGU discretion been exercised in a way that is sensitive to water resource protection? (e) Has the MCWD been notified of variance requests per Minnesota Statutes §103B.211? (f) Have technical expertise and program resources been maintained at levels described in the approved local plan? (g) Has regulated activity been diligently monitored and have LGU ordinances and permits been diligently enforced? (h) The same considerations, as applied to the LGU's actions as WCA- implementing agency. i Land .Use: '(a) Has good progress'•been made to integrate Safe D'rtnlang Water_Act and other protections for wellheads and sensitive groundwater resources into the development code, as described in the approved - -- _ - -- local plan? .(b) Has the LGU.worked carefully to integrate low=impact development concepts into the development code and development review process? '(c) Has the LGU met local plan commitments to reconcile development code setbacks and water resource protection goals? '(d) Has'the LGU revised its development code as necessary to require stormwater facilities and wetlands in residential subdivisions to be located on outlots? (e) Has the LGU ensured that the Distract timely receives proposed preliminary plats and revisions, in accordance with the' approved local p:. (f) Are local plan commitments otherwise being met? - 7 3. Capital Program: (a) Does the capital improvement program (CIP) continue to reflect the level of commitment toward water resource goals of the approved local plan? (b) Is CIP implementation on schedule? (c) Is the LGU making adequate progress toward achievement of phosphorus load reductions identified in the approved local plan? (d) If issues have arisen that were unexpected or are beyond LGU control, has the LGU identified, and is the LGU pursuing, alternative strategies? (e) Is the LGU diligently maintaining stormwater management facilities for which it is responsible? 4. Land Conservation: (a) Have water resource protection priorities been integrated into parks, open space, recreation and land acquisition plans, and are those tools being diligently implemented? (b) Are dedication and fee in lieu requirements under the development code being used to support water resource protection consistent with commitments in the approved local plan? (c) Is the LGU diligently monitoring municipal open space lands, protected lands and vegetated buffer areas under its control? 5. Housekeeping Practices: Is the LGU meeting local plan commitments for street sweeping, snow plowing, salt and snow storage, right -of -way maintenance, stormwater management facility and vegetated buffer maintenance, public land management and other housekeeping matters with water resource impacts? 6. Other Commitments: Is the LGU otherwise meeting commitments assumed under the approved local plan? �f District staff, at the direction of the Board of Managers or on the basis of its own review, has concerns about local plan implementation, the District will generally follow a process that emphasizes communication and collaboration to assess these concerns and identify approaches to addressing any deficiencies. Presuming the LGU has a similar interest in this approach, initially the process will involve staff -to- staff communication - and a process of staff collaboration. District staff will report back to the Board of Managers and the District will seek to memorialize any agreed outcomes in appropriate fashion. If District or LGU staff believes that, for any reason, adequate progress in resolving concerns is not being made, the Board ofManagers and city council may be asked to convene an informal joint meeting. Ultimately, if the Board of Managers is not.satisfied with 'a resolution of concerns, it may schedule the matter for formal consideration on. its agenda. LGU representatives will be invited to attend; District staff, LGU representatives and interested members of the public will have an opportunity to address the issues; and the Board will make a finding as to whether it believes the LG_ U is failing to implement its plan in an important way. If the Board makes such a finding, it may take further steps within its authority as it judges will foster improved local plan implementation or allow.resources to be focused on areas where they are -more likely to leverage effective eff_ orts. Such steps may include the following. • Requesting that the LGU engage in further discussions. or provide written commitments. • Reasserting District regulatory authority for prbposed= land- distur_bing;activity for which city approvals have not yet been issued. • Reprogramming or reprioritizing District capital funds identified .for expenditure within the city. • Placing a hold on cost -share and other program f niding:within the LGU. • Advising the Metropolitan Council, and other potential municipal grantors where watershed district approval is relevant, of the District's finding: • Restricting eligibility for District - funded water /land use planning:assistance or other forms of District cost- or technical- assistance. • Establishment of one or more water management districts encompassing the'" LGU or parts thereof to fund District implementation of local plan_ commitments not being met. • An action under Minnesota Statutes §103B.235, subdivision 4, requesting that the LGU be directed to implement its local plan. At any time, an LGU may advise the District of further implementation steps.taken Col and allow the Board of Managers to determine that the local plan is again being «c ind adequately implemented. nn The Board also may take steps as outlined above where an LGU has not submitted coc or has not received approval of'a local water plan in a timely way. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ,' My 0 h 2 3 Ap ihcabtlit�to E�nsiwi&yroved Local Water Plaris Most LGUs wholly or partly *iihtn Ditrac the st have completed aril app "foved<local plans responding to the District's 2007'plan,. BWSR'rules'tegiiire these plans "to be revised:within two years of a Distract plan revision to maintain - consistency. The r'egorting resporiailiility and procedures outlined in this revised $ecuou,7.2`tngger. this revision requirement and the specifcs herein will apply to each LGU two,years from the-date ofthe District amendment or When the LGU plan• revisionis approved, r if sooner. Until then, repordng:and related,procedures:will apply to each'LGU according to the terns of its'pri or local plan approval and any memorandum:of understanding signed;by the District and LGU in conjunction with that approval _ .. 10 �K & here ky 4 }�a January 11, 2611 s, EJtl;CFf f I 1 JAN 12 2.111 1 j -r+ Ph wx: 612 -2304-400 Re: Request for extension of comment period an minor amendment to the Minnehaha Far: U 12 -230 65C0 Creek Watershed District Comprehensive Water Resources Management. Plan, :1ti4w.ntinneatpt?!i�l rks.org LGU Annual Report: Item 5.2 on the January 13, 2011 Board of Managers Meeting, Dear Mr. Evenson and Dr. Calkins: Please consider this letter the Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board request to extend the comment period for the proposed minor amendment to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Comprehensive Management Plan for LGU annual reporting to 5:00 p.m. Friday, February 4, 2011. This request is being made because as I identified in my letter of December 29, 2010 to you the Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board staff has not had time to review the amendment, prepare comments, and have the comments reviewed and approved by the Board of Commissioners of the Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board. We can have draft comments to you by 5:00 p.m. Friday, January 21, 2011 and final comments to you by 5:00 p.m. Friday, February 04, 2011. Thank you for your consideration. Mr. L. Eric Evenson, Administrator f'vc•��dee:1 Minnehaha Creek Watershed Disia� Viii r'm,ide rr 18202 Minnetonka Boulevard �rl nr`nis!r.rrit c)(Irew Deephaven, MN 55391 2117 Weal River Rc)ad Cc: Superintendent of Parks Jayne Miller N1inneop- is. NIN 5:5411-21-27 James P. Calkins, Ph. D. Gr t! neNtt: Minnehaha Creek "Watershed District E7Jar"4Woo's C, �:ve- 18202 Minnetonka Boulevard 3SOO Bryan Aviatu. Svisth Deephaven, MN 55391 Miineapim, MN 11NYO Donald Slggelkow s, EJtl;CFf f I 1 JAN 12 2.111 1 j -r+ Ph wx: 612 -2304-400 Re: Request for extension of comment period an minor amendment to the Minnehaha Far: U 12 -230 65C0 Creek Watershed District Comprehensive Water Resources Management. Plan, :1ti4w.ntinneatpt?!i�l rks.org LGU Annual Report: Item 5.2 on the January 13, 2011 Board of Managers Meeting, Dear Mr. Evenson and Dr. Calkins: Please consider this letter the Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board request to extend the comment period for the proposed minor amendment to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Comprehensive Management Plan for LGU annual reporting to 5:00 p.m. Friday, February 4, 2011. This request is being made because as I identified in my letter of December 29, 2010 to you the Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board staff has not had time to review the amendment, prepare comments, and have the comments reviewed and approved by the Board of Commissioners of the Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board. We can have draft comments to you by 5:00 p.m. Friday, January 21, 2011 and final comments to you by 5:00 p.m. Friday, February 04, 2011. Thank you for your consideration. sce 7e:r:ry to the Ka:en Roht +l-'m :;ate Respectfu Ily yours, f'vc•��dee:1 Viii r'm,ide rr Michael P. Schmidt, CAP, Assistant Superintendent, Operations A9. Annir Yco.ing Cc: Superintendent of Parks Jayne Miller President John Erwin Gr t! neNtt: Michael Salcheit Lind, S.V Debra Pilger .'err:! A. K„ :„ tic,: r Karen Robinson .;nil C. Olsen Donald Slggelkow An,:a "i':tl+h fie &Oa Y "Ve1arX1 U7. Wicltn.,ki S11pa't'it1le- l"Jii. I - J;;vtte A'lill:r sce 7e:r:ry to the Ka:en Roht +l-'m :;ate Page 1 of 1 Schmidt, Michael P. From: Schmidt, Michael P. Sent: Thursday, January 20, 20114:34 PM To: 'Eric Evenson'; Becky Houdek; 'James Wisker' Cc: Miller, Jayne S.; JErwin_Home account; LWiefinski Home account; Pilger, Debra L,; Lisa Cemey; AYoung Home account; BFine_Home account; 'Michael Salchert' Subject. Minneapolis Paris & Recreation Board Staff Draft Comments on Attached are the staff draft comments related to the proposed WRMP minor plan amendment related to LGU annual Reporting being considered by the MCWD Board of Managers Thank. you to the Board of Managers and to the staff of the MCWO for the extension in the timeline to submit these comments. These comments will be reviewed by the Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board of Commissioners at their Regular Meeting at the MPRB Headquarters, 2117 West River Road, Minneapolis, MN or Wednesday, February 2, 2011. The meeting begins at 540 p.m. Following that meeting and the Board approval of the comments, final comments will be submitted before the close of business on Friday, February 4, 2011. Please call or email if you have any questions. In addition to this email, the draft comments will be mailed by LISPS mail to the MCWD offices In Deephaven, Minnesota. Ml*ae/P. SdmtX MR, AzhdtWSlrprnY?tWdeNoperations A t mVolis Part[ & Rye da? Board swe2w 211714'est Aer Road MWnsWa4 A&ru mb 33411 -2277 (612) 2.V-64400 1/20/2011 Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board Staff Draft Comments - 20 January 2011 Comment 1. 17he 45-day public comment period notification for the DRAFT PLAN AMENDMENT: LOCAL PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ( "drab Plan Amendment ") was not sent to appropriate City of Minneapolis staff and was not sent at all to Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board (MPRB) staff. Letters have been sent to the District's Administrator specifying who should be notified. In die future, please notify the City and the MPRB as directed in both letters. Comment 2. The draft Plan Alliendment states that annual reports submitted by June 30 each year are to cover the period of May I through April 30. The Minneapolis annual reports cover the period of January 1 to December 31 as required by its NPDES X4S4 Permit. The Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board collects and submits data to the City of Minneapolis for this report on a calendar year basis. Please modify this reporting time period to match the NPDE MS4 reporting requirements so extra work is not created for MPRB and City of Minneapmlis staff. Comment 3. The drdll Plan Amendment calls for several pieces of information in its annual report including a summary of LGUland use aclivily as it may of fect >7 crier resources including (a) permit applications for land disturbance received; (b) actions taken, including any variances granled; (c) pending development or redevelopment activity notyet the subject of an application (d) zoning changes made or requested It is very difficult for the MPRB to report on and monitor these activities on a watershed basis. Doesn't the MCWD have its own permit process to capture land use activity that is impacting water resources'? It is also very difficult to predict and report on projected development activity. Comment 4. The draft Plan Amendment also calls for its annual report to includa Additlonal water qualily, lryd►•ologie, >vedand and jloodplain data developed i thin the LGU As a partner in water resources, the MPRB already submits its annual raw water quality data to the MCWD on an annual basis and will continue to do so without a local plan amendment. Comment S. The draft Plait Amendment also dills for its annual, report to include an inventory of r- iparion, bt&-, corridor, open space and outer conservation land righly acquired through dedication, gift, purchetse or any other Inca ts. The MPRB inquires as to what the purpose of this data is and MCWD will be doing with this data. We are unclear how this data will be used and are unsure of its necessity. Please justify. Comment b. Tlie draft Plan Amendment also calls for its aruival report to include A summary of the LGU's budget as it pertains to local plan implementation. The MPRB budgets and provides water resources and educational services on a city -wide basis not on. a watershed basis. The MPRB would only be able to provide budgetary data on a city -wide basis. Comment 7. The draft Plan Amendment lists a variety of punitive measures the MCWD could undertake if the Hoard deems the LGU is failing to implement its plan. The Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board is very concerned that the punitive nature of this does not allow for water resources improvements and activities where needed. If there are failures, there may be a need for assistance and not punishment. Also, If there is an issue with an LGU implementing its plan, placing a hold on funding and advising potential grantors of the associated concerns does not resolve the issue. It serves as a means to punish potential partners such as the MI PRB and other land stewards. o Atlrninisrrntrre Offices 2117 VVL-A River Road Minnebpolis, M N I 5 5 5 41 1 12~7 OpemHans Center 38W Bryant A clue Smith MinmPol is, M;`I55409 -IM Phase: 612- 230.6.010 Fur: 61.2- 230 -6_5" w wwminnenpolispark5.o.-g Presidetu John Erwin Vice Prrsich-r,, A Annit Young Co nnutrinners Brad Bohm anb Fine +Carol A. I:ununrr 10"Colxn Arrila Tubb stoat Vreeland l.it. Midinskl S*rperinttrdr+ir Jay= Sirrejary to the RM-Ird Rm SigjPlkcnv .p9�Y?iQ4y-yW('j 1 December 29, 2010 Mr. L Eric Evenson, Administrator Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 18202 Minnetonka Boulevard Deephaven, MN 55391 James P. Calkins, Ph. D. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 18202 Minnetonka Boulevard Deephaven, MN 55391 Becky Houdek Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Planning Technician 18202 Minnetonka Boulevard Deephaven, MN 55391 Re: Failure to Notify the City of Minneapolis acting by and through its Park and Recreation Board (hereinafter "MPRB "j of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (hereinafter "MCWD`) Draft Plan Amendment and request for extension of commenting period, Dear Mr. Evenson, Dr. Calkins, and Ms. Houdek: At 2:24pm today, the MPRB became aware of the proposed amendment to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan sent to other Local Government Units on November 18, 2010 for review and commenting, Since the forty -five (45) day public comment period for the proposed amendment will lapse within three (3) business days on January 3, 2011, and assuming that the failure to notify the MPRB was an administrative oversight because the MPRB is a Local Governmental Unit affected by the MCWD Comprehensive Plan, the MPRB respectfully requests an extension of the public commenting period to enable the MPRB to properly review and comment on the amendment. To avoid future administrative oversights, the MPRB directs the MCWD to provide notice for any future plans or amendments to: Michael P. Schmidt; CPRP Assistant Superintendent, Operations Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board 2117 West River Road Minneapolis, MN 55411 612 - 230 -6408 m5chmidt@Mi0neapolisnarks.org Please contact me if you have questions or comments, and I look forward to your prompt response to the MPRB request for extension. Best regards, azle . Michael P. Schm , t Cc: Superintendent of Parks Jayne Miller President John Erwin Michael Salchert Debra Pilger Karen Robinson Donald Siggelkow file V.2CMinneapolis Park & Recreation Board��Comments approved February 0 � 11 Comment 1. The 45 -day public comment period notification for the DRAFT PLAN AMENDMENT: LOCAL PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ( "draft Plan Amendment ") was not sent to appropriate City of Minneapolis staff and was not sent at all to Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board (MPRB) staff. Letters have been sent to the District's Administrator specifying who should be notified. In the future, please notify the City and the MPRB as directed in both letters. Comment 2. The draft Plan Amendment states that annual reports submitted by June 30 each year are to cover the period of May 1 through April 30. The Minneapolis annual reports cover the period of January 1 to December 31 as'required by its NPDES MS4 Permit. The Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board collects and submits data to the City of Minneapolis for this report on a calendar year basis. Please modify this reporting time period to match the NP.D,E MS4 "reporting requirements so extra work is not created for MPRB and City of Minneapolis staff. Comment 3. The draft Plan Amendment calls for several pieces of information in its annual report including a summary of LGU land use activity as it may affect water resources including (a) permit applications for land disturbance received; (b) actions taken, including any variances granted; (c) pending development or redevelopment activity not yet the subject of an application; (d) zoning changes made or requested. It is very difficult for the MPRB to report on and monitor these activities on a watershed basis. Doesn't the MCWD have its own permit process to capture land use activity that is 'impacting water resources? It is' also very difficult to predict and report on projected development activity. Comment 4. The draft Plan Amendment also calls for its annual report to include Additional water quality, hydrologic, wetland and jloodplain data developed within the LGU. As a partner in water resources, the MPRB already submits_its.annual raw water quality data to the MCWD on an "annual basis and will continue to do so without a local plan amendment. Comment 5. The draft Plan Amendment also calls for its annual report to include an inventory of riparian, buffer, corridor, open space and other conservation land rights acquired through 'dedication, gift, purchase or any other means. The MPRB inquires as to what the purpose of this data is and MCWD will be doing with this data. We are unclear how this data will be used and are unsure of its necessity. Please justify. Comment 6; The draft Plan Amendment also calls for its annual report to include A summary of the'LGUs, budget as it pertains.to local plan implementation. The MPRB budgets and provides water resources. %and educational -services on a city -wide basis not on a watershed basis. The MPRB would only be able to provide budgetary data on a city -wide basis. Comment 7. The draft Plan Amendment lists a variety of punitive measures the MCWD could undertake if the Board deems the LGU is failing to implement its plan. The Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board is very concerned that the punitive nature of this does.not allow for water resources improvements and activities where needed. If there are failures, there may be a need for assistance and not punishment. Also, If there is an issue with an LGU implementing its plan, placing a hold on funding and advising potential grantors of the associated concerns does not resolve the issue. It serves as a means to punish potential partners such as the MPRB and other land stewards. MINNEHAHA CREEK The Minnehaha Creek 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 ecosystems 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, an informed and engaged constituency, and the cost effective use of public funds. QUALITY OF WATER February 18, 2011 Mayor James Hovland City of Edina 4801 W 50th St Edina, MN 55424 RE: 2011 Spring Flooding Potential Dear Mayor Hovland, WATERSHED DISTRICT QUALITY OF LIFE Due to the wet fall and heavy snowpack this winter, the National Weather Service anticipates potentially significant flooding this spring in Minnesota. I am writing to let you know how the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District is proactively monitoring the situation and is working with city staffs to prepare your community and residents for potential flooding. The District has and will continue to study the high water potential on Lake Minnetonka and Minnehaha Creek using a complex, hydrologic and hydraulic model recently developed by the District. Overall, early models indicate a high water potential in Lake Minnetonka and high flows in the Minnehaha Creek Corridor. In fact, the model currently shows that the high water level this spring in Lake Minnetonka is 930.2 compared to 929.18, 928.90 and 929.34 during the last three spring thaws. This means there is potential for low -lying roads and structures to be affected. We advise cities to monitor areas around Lake Minnetonka and Minnehaha Creek that were prone to spring flooding in past high water years. The District also coordinated two meetings with the staff from cities adjacent to Minnehaha Creek and Lake Minnetonka on Friday' January 28th and Monday, February 14"', respectively. These meetings provided a summary report from the District Engineer regarding our modeled predictions. We continue to coordinate with city staff to provide detailed flood scenarios and update modeling information as the snow melts. Although the high water elevation provided is specific to Lake Minnetonka and Minnehaha Creek, other low -lying areas adjacent to creeks and wetlands will most likely be subject to high water or flooding. Our recent press release, presentation, map of predicted high water elevations and resources for residents are available on our website at www.minnehahacreek.org. This information is available for cities and residents to use to provide information about the potential flood susceptibility of your city and residents' properties. The online map will allow residents and city officials to zoom into the parcel level for a more detailed view of the potential flooding. 18202 Minnetonka Boulevard, Deep haven, MN 55391 •Office: (952) 471 -0590 • Fax: (952) 471 -0682 • www.minnehahacreek.org If you or your council members have any questions or need more information, don't hesitate to contact me. Together, we can help our communities better understand spring flood risks and help residents protect their property from damage. Sincerely, U-)L- .r,, -L L. Eric Evenson District Administrator eevensonnminnehahacreek.org 952- 471 -0590 x 201 PLEASE NOTE: These maps are for general informational purposes only and should not be relied on for any official purpose. Prediction of the extent or duration of flooding is very imprecise and based on many assumptions about snow and ice conditions, stormsewer conditions and how water will move across land and within surface water channels and basins. All future flooding scenarios are also affected significantly by weather conditions including but not limited to temperatures and patterns of snowfall and rainfall. Any indication of how far flood waters may reach or how long they may remain there, generally or with respect to a specific propertyjs for illustration only. It does not represent the most likely scenario and the District does not represent any particular level of probability associated with it. Property owners and other interested persons should rely on a licensed surveyor or other professional retained for specific advice concerning their property and should contact their city for information and assistance concerning federal flood insurance, flood risks and response. The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District strictly disclaims any and all warranties on use of the information in these maps for any purpose. J BRANCH IF 0 �T 1 Z LU w COUNTY,ROAD - -15 I U RE VV LSHI _ J � _7 BAR��TT. 'tom HIGHWAY•7- -�-- 11 MINNEHAHA CREEK Y WATERSHED DISTRICT QUALITY OF WATER, QUALITY OF LIFE � v �r o� -P i? Z' ;0- D �-;0 �q BAYSIDE HIGH WAY,�12 t �0 NORTH SHORE _ 0 f� MINNETONKA f SHORELINE r ME AA Map #4 Lake Minnetonka Snowmelt Floodin g 02/18/2011 - 2011 Snowmelt Floodplain Lakes Streams N Miles 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 c� IN AY7- and should not be relied on for any official purpose. Prediction of the extent or duration of flooding is very imprecise and based on many assumptions about snow and ice conditions, stormsewer conditions and how water will move across land and within surface water channels and basins. All future flooding scenarios are also affected significantly by weather conditions including but not limited to temperatures and patterns of snowfall and rainfall. Any indication of how far flood waters may reach or how long they may remain there, generally or with respect to a specific property, is for illustration only. It does not represent the most likely scenario and the District does not represent any particular level of probability associated with it. Property owners and other interested persons should rely on a licensed surveyor or other professional retained for specific advice concerning their property and should contact their city for information and assistance concerning federal flood insurance, flood risks and response. The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District strictly disclaims any and all warranties on use of the information in this map for any purpose. w, - td- U)I ;w. w d 0 z J �G M NOR 0 FIIIIIINN. miL I LL[ r!►�' \ y F( o x, a. x t 66TH J4, Map #3 Minnehaha Creek Snowmelt Flooding02/,8,2011 - 2011 Snowmelt Floodplain MINNEHAHA CREEK rakes WATERSHED DISTRICT — .qtrPamc QUALITY OF WATER, QUALITY OF LIFE 0 0.3 0.6 1.2 1.8 N Miles 2.4 PLEASE NOTE: This map is for general informational purposes only and should not be relied on for any official purpose. Prediction of the extent or duration of flooding is very imprecise and based on many assumptions about snow and ice conditions, stormsewer conditions and how water will move across land and within surface water channels and basins. All future flooding scenarios are also affected significantly by weather conditions including but not limited to temperatures and patterns of snowfall and rainfall. Any indication of how far flood waters may reach or how long they may remain there, generally or with respect to a specific property, is for illustration only. It does not represent the most likely scenario and the District does not represent any particular level of probability associated with it. Property owners and other interested persons should rely on a licensed surveyor or other professional retained for specific advice concerning their property and should contact their city for information and assistance concerning federal flood insurance, flood risks and response. The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District strictly disclaims any and all warranties on use of the information in this map for any purpose. J/ ,I I I I / Ii I 42ND - — — — — — — — — — -------------- Li a' HIGHWAY 62 + L.1) Co 'W Lo LijII— LU z M11NEENN1 Y Q 46TH— i NEI 11111111111111111111111IN min I IN Map #2 Minnehaha Creek Snowmelt Flooding _ 2011 Snowmelt Floodplain MINNEHAHA CREEK El Lakes WATERSHED DISTRICT N = __=Streams QUALITY OF WATER, QUALITY OF LIFE F Miles 0 0.3 0.6 1.2 1.8 2.4 Q 0 LU U WON LEM LIS so I I I L-Li I I V I -I I I L-JEW -AHIGHWAYi62 _ r EE PLEASE NOTE: This map is for general informational purposes only and should not be relied on for any official purpose. Prediction of the extent or duration of flooding is very imprecise and based on many assumptions about snow and ice conditions, stormsewer conditions and how water will move across land and within surface water channels and basins. All future flooding scenarios are also affected significantly by weather conditions including but not limited to temperatures and patterns of snowfall and rainfall. Any indication of how far flood waters may reach or how long they may remain there, generally or with respect to a specific property, is for illustration only. It does not represent the most likely scenario and the District does not represent any particular level of probability associated with it. Property owners and other interested persons should rely on a licensed surveyor or other professional retained for specific advice concerning their property and should contact their city for information and assistance concerning federal flood insurance, flood risks and response. The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District strictly disclaims any and all warranties on use of the information in this map for any purpose. Map #1 Minnehaha Creep Snowmelt Flooding 02/18/2011 - 2011 Snowmelt Floodplain MINNEHAHA CREEK Lakes WATERSHED DISTRICT N Streams QUALITY OF WATER, QUALITY OF LIFE Miles 0 0.3 0.6 1.2 1.8 2.4 PLEASE NOTE: This map is for general informational purposes only and should not be relied on for any official purpose. Prediction of the extent or duration of flooding is very imprecise and based on many assumptions about snow and ice conditions, stormsewer conditions and how water will move across land and within surface water channels and basins. All future flooding scenarios are also affected significantly by weather conditions including but not limited to temperatures and patterns of snowfall and rainfall. Any indication of how far flood waters may reach or how long they may remain there, generally or with respect to a specific property, is for illustration only. It does not represent the most likely scenario and the District does not represent any particular level of probability associated with it. Property owners and other interested persons should rely on a licensed surveyor or other professional retained for specific advice concerning their property and should contact their city for information and assistance concerning federal flood insurance, flood risks and response. The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District strictly disclaims any and all warranties on use of the information in this map for any purpose. irTA. ok e 1888 REPORT /RECOMMENDATION To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL Agenda Item VI. A. -2 DEBRA MANGEN Action From: CITY CLERK Discussion ® Information Date: MARCH 1, 2011 Subject: CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED AFTER PACKETS INFORMATION /BACKGROUND: Attached are copies of a -mails and letters received after. the packets were delivered to you. Susan FP.)wl Subject: FW: Let's Move Cities and Towns - National Kids To Parks Day Attachments: James Hovland NPT Proclamation Request Letter.doc; KTP Proclamation.doc From: Grace Lee.. (O � V/ E D Sent: Monday, Fe � bruary 28, 2011 11:26 AM FEB Z 8 ZO�� To: Lynette Biunno Subject: Let's Move Cities and Towns - National Kids To Parks Day Dear Mayor James Hovland, I am contacting you on behalf of National Park Trust, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization dedicated to the preservation and protection of our nation's critical parklands and reconnecting our youth - especially those who are underserved - to nature. We are contacting you because you are part of Let's Move Cities and Towns, and.we are hoping Edina will participate in our upcoming event, National Kids to Parks Day on Saturday; May 21, 2011. National Kids to Parks Day is a grassroots movement designed to empower children and encourage adults to visit national, state or local parks. This will be an opportunity for adults to model healthy, active lifestyles for the children in their lives. The concept is similar to Take Your Child to Work Day. National Kids to Parks Day already carries the endorsement of the National Education Association (NEA), American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP, DC), and the President's Council on Physical Fitness, Sports & Nutrition, and we are excited to work with communities like yours, that share our commitment to healthy living. We have attached a letter that describes our organization and National Kids to Parks day in greater depth, as well as a sample proclamation, and ask that you consider proclaiming National Kids to Parks Day in your community. Together, we can make this a real opportunity to move your community outdoors. Sincerely, Grace Lee Grace Lee Executive Director National Park Trust Selected as "one of the best" by the Catalogue for Philanthropy 401 East Jefferson Street, Suite 102 Rockville, MD 20850 301- 279 -7275, ext. 14 301- 279 - 7211, fax www.parktrust.org National Park E Trust Dear James Hovland, National Park Trust (NPT) is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization dedicated to the preservation and protection of our nation's critical parklands and reconnecting our youth - especially those that are underserved - to nature. In addition to land conservation, NPT's mission is to provide important recreational and educational parkland opportunities for current and future generations through our Where's Buddy Bison Been?' program. As an organization we have become increasingly concerned by the 6 hours children spend on average in front of televisions or computers every day. We are also concerned that nearly 1 in 5 children are obese. As a component of a broader effort to encourage healthy, outdoor activity in children, NPT is preparing to launch our first National Kids to Parks Day on May 21, 2011. National Kids to Parks Day is designed to empower children and encourage adults to visit national, state or local parks, and give adults an opportunity to better connect with the kids in their lives. This initiative is in direct response to a call from children in NPT's Buddy Bison school program to mobilize kids to visit parks nationwide. Parents and teachers will be encouraged to pledge online at www.BuddyBison.org to take their children and students to a park and join the grassroots movement to play outdoors. We applaud your participation in Michelle Obama's Lets Move Cities and Towns program and believe that Kids to Parks Day is a great way to keep kids active. We have already secured endorsements and partnerships with the National Education Association (NEA), the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP, DC), the President's Council on Physical Fitness, Sports & Nutrition, and are currently working to formalize endorsements from Let's Move!, Children's National Medical Center and the Association of State Parks, and the National Park Service. We ask that you join these organizations in supporting National Kids to Parks Day, by: • Proclaiming National Kids to Parks Day in (City) Sharing this proclamation with your local school district and encouraging schools to participate by visiting www.BuddyBison.org Mobilize your local parks to participate This event is open to all children and families, and we believe it is important to introduce our children to these national treasures to ensure they will be around for future generations. Sincerely, // Z4 c— Grace Lee Executive Director 401 E. Jefferson Street, Suite 102 • Rockville, MD 20850 • Phone: 301- 279 -7275 • Fax: 301-279-7211 www.parktrust.org National �'_ Park �, Trust National Kids to Parks Day: May 21St 2011 A Proclamation WHEREAS, May 21St is the first National Kids to Parks Day organized and launched by the National Park Trust; and WHEREAS, National Kids to Parks Day empowers kids and encourages families to get outdoors and visit America's parks; and WHEREAS, it is important to introduce a new generation to our nation's parks because of the decline in Park attendance over the last decades; and WHEREAS, we should encourage children to lead a more active lifestyle to combat the issues of childhood obesity, diabetes mellitus, hypertension and hype rcholesterolemia; and WHEREAS, National Kids to Parks Day is open to all children and adults across the country to encourage a large and diverse group of participants; and WHEREAS, National Kids to Parks Day will broaden children's appreciation for mature and the outdoors; and NOW THEREFORE, (I /WE) of (City /Town) (State) do hereby proclaim to participate in National Kids to Parks Day. (I /WE) urge residents of (city) to make time May 21St to take the children in their lives to a neighborhood, state or national park. Dated this day of (Month) 2011 (Name of body approving proclamation) h4:at2- atfini� � 7 WHEREAS, May 21St is the first National Kids to Parks Day organized and launched by the National Park Trust; and WHEREAS, National Kids to Parks Day empowers kids and encourages families to get outdoors and visit America's parks; and WHEREAS, it is important to introduce a new generation to our nation's parks because of the decline in Park attendance over the last decades; and WHEREAS, we should encourage children to lead a more active lifestyle to combat the issues of childhood obesity, diabetes mellitus, hypertension and hype rcholesterolemia; and WHEREAS, National Kids to Parks Day is open to all children and adults across the country to encourage a large and diverse group of participants; and WHEREAS, National Kids to Parks Day will broaden children's appreciation for mature and the outdoors; and NOW THEREFORE, (I /WE) of (City /Town) (State) do hereby proclaim to participate in National Kids to Parks Day. (I /WE) urge residents of (city) to make time May 21St to take the children in their lives to a neighborhood, state or national park. Dated this day of (Month) 2011 (Name of body approving proclamation) EDINA HUMAN RIGHTS -& RELATIONS COMMISSION TUESDAY, JANUARY 25, 2011 7:00 PM – MAYOR'S CONFERENCE ROOM Members Present Members Absent Zack Antar John Cashmore Arnie Bigbee Bob Mayer Daria Brosius Lisa Finsness Jessi Kingston Meg Newell Russ Stanton Staff Susan Howl Guest . Janet Seidman Guest Introduced and Welcomed Janet Seidman, recently appointed to the Commission, was introduced and welcomed., She will participate as an official member at the February meeting. Commission Minutes Approved It was noted that Member Kingston was incorrectly listed as absent at the December, 2010, meeting. Member Finsness seconded the motion Member Stanton to approve the Commission minutes as amended for December 14, 2010. The motion carried. 2011 CDBG Budget for Public Services Approved Member Kingston seconded the motion of Member Stanton to approve the Public Services portion of the 2011 CDBG budget as submitted by the Planning Department staff in the amount of $26;067: H.O.M.E. $17,789, C.A.P.S.H. $5,624, and HomeLine $2,654. The motion carried. Edina Community Council Report Shared Member Finsness reported that HRRC was featured at the last Community Council meeting with an overview of the Commission presented by Chair Bigbee. The goal is for the Commissioners to take this PowerPoint into the community to educate and share the mission of the Commission. The 2011 budget of the Edina Resource Center will be forwarded to the Commissioners. Anti- Bullying /Cyber Bullying Subcommittee Update Presented Member Newell updated the Commission regarding the work of the Subcommittee in its preparations for the community event on April 26 "'. • Member Finsness has been actively seeking partners. • It is hoped that showing the movie "Bullied" will help to build awareness within the community. • The event will be participatory —with art work and reflections from Edinans. • It will be a festival of celebrating what is good. • Dick Crockett, Executive, Director of the Edina Community Foundation, will be a partner, and he is working to get others interested and on board. • Rachael Pream Grenier has signed on as a voice in the High School, as well as Tony of the High School Theater, who is the artistic director and drama teacher. • This will be a City -wide event held at the High School Fick Auditorium and will be called "Reflections on Bullying." • The Mayor will open the event, and a person who has been bullied will be a part of the program. • This will be an opportunity to come together and explore a healthy community — looking at issues in the context of civil rights for everyone. • Adrian Peterson, Vikings football player, will assist in lining up a celebrity speaker. • Keith Ellison could wrap up the event with an address for combating bullying. • Incentives are needed for people to attend the event. Perhaps there could be extra credit for students. • "Hold- the - date" flyers will be circulated at the High School's event "Bang Bang You're Dead." • A press release will be created for viewing on the City's HRRC web page. 2011 Draft Work Plan Approved Member Newell seconded the motion of Member Stanton to approve the 2011 Work Plan as updated' from the last meeting. The motion carried. Tom Ove Human Rights Award Discussed With the recent taping of a cable show of past award recipients, the community will be able to learn about the Tom Oye Award and propose new candidates. The information will also be distributed throughout the City via civic organizations, the School District, the Chamber of Commerce, the Sun Current and the City's website. The award will be given at the City's Annual Volunteer Recognition Reception at Edinborough Park on April 28tH Upcoming Events Noted • "Afternoon of Conversation About Juvenile Justice in MN" — St. Cloud — February 26, 2011 • "Religious Diversity in Our Communities" — Shoreview — February 7, 2011 • "Examining Bullying in the Community" — Chaska — February 5, 2011 • "Know Your Neighbor" — New Hope — February 10, 2011 • "Regional Human Rights Forum" — Roseville —April 7, 2011 • "Beyond Diversity: A Strategy for Deinstitutionalizing Racism and Improving Student Achievement" — Edina staff development — held in Minnetonka — March 17 and 18 Out Front Minnesota Celebration To be Announced Member Kingston indicated that there is a reason for celebration in the community regarding the number of newly- created Domestic Partner registries. The 2012 anti -gay marriage legislation is ahead, and the focus will be on how to move the middle. Adiournment There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:15 PM. 4 9iNA,j MINUTES OF THE Edina Transportation Commission 0 e Thursday, November 18, 2010 N o Edina City Hall ��0 4801 West 50th Street \� Council Chambers MEMBERS PRESENT: Jennifer Janovy, Paul Nelson, Michael Schroeder, Tom Bonneville, Jean White, Geof Workinger MEMBERS ABSENT: Nathan Franzen, Josh Sprague STAFF PRESENT: Jack Sullivan, Sharon Allison I. Call to Order The meeting was called order by chair Janovy. II. Introduction of City Manager Scott Neal New city manager Scott Neal introduced himself and gave a brief work history. He said he is touring facilities and meeting co- workers. He was asked if there were any transportation issues on his list of things to do. He said no but that he was involved with the TH -169 & TH -494 issues while at Eden Prairie. He was also asked how the Transportation Commission functions at Eden Prairie and he said they did not have one. III. Approval of Minutes a. Regular Meeting of October 21, 2010 The first sentence of the last paragraph on page two was edited to read "...about the France Avenue Bridge over crosstown..." Commissioner Bonneville motioned to approve the minutes with the addition and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Nelson. IV. Consent Agenda a. Traffic Safety Report for October 6, 2010 b. Traffic Safety Report for November 3, 2010 No comment. V. Community Business Resident David Davison showed Mn /DOT's 2030 rail map plan that has 10 corridors, including the Twin Cities - Mankato corridor with one line running through Edina (formerly known as a the Dan Patch line and now named MN &S line). He said the plan calls for building by the year 2030 with 5 -6 long, fast, heavy trains per day, traveling at 80 mph with stations five miles apart. He suggested the Cahill line as a cost - saving measure and as an option for relieving the traffic along TH -169 and asked that the City respond to a current call for comment from Mn /DOT to study the cost benefit and requested specifically that the City comment as follow: "That Mn /DOT examine the cost and other benefits of including light rail as an alternative to A commuter rail along the MN &S fork of the Twin Cities - Mankato Corridor." He said they are taking comment until December 23. Assistant city engineer Sullivan said staff will be reporting to the Council and the ETC in late December regarding this topic and will also include information on what is happening in St. Louis Park with their rail line. VI. New Business a. Richfield Traffic Control Request City of Richfield's city engineer Jeff Pearson, said the city of Richfield is requesting permission to install stop signs at 75 & Xerxes and York Terrace & Xerxes because of the new bike lanes and also because of their new stop sign policy that calls for stop signs on north /south avenues. Mr. Sullivan explained that the request was first presented to the Traffic Safety Committee but was denied for lack of warrants and Council requested that the ETC review the request and make a recommendation. During discussion, staff was asked if this was a good idea and Mr. Sullivan said considering the city of Richfield's stop sign policy, the bike lanes and the trail system, that this would be a positive measure. Commissioner Schroeder noted that Edina's stop sign policy has no accommodation for bicycles and pedestrians and said they should be adjusted to include them. Commissioner Nelson motioned to approve the request as presented by the city of Richfield and the motion was seconded by Commissioner White. b. Whole Foods Transportation Study Assistant city engineer Sullivan said developers are proposing to tear down the 35,000 sq. ft. building at 7401 France Avenue and replace it with a 32,000 sq. ft. building with a similar foot print to house Whole Foods, a grocery store. Mr. Sullivan said the traffic study objectives were to 1) document traffic operations under existing operating conditions; 2) assess future traffic conditions if the project does not proceed; 3) analyze future operations if the redevelopment proceeds as planned; and 4) assess the impact of the redevelopment and recommend mitigation measures if needed; and they were asked to look at the following intersections: France Avenue at Parklawn, Plaza Drive, and 76th Street; Parklawn Avenue at Centennial Lakes; 76th Street at Centennial Lakes; and two Plaza Drive internal intersections. Mr. Sullivan said the study analysis shows the following: reconstruction will add 2100 daily trips with 145 trips in the PM peak hour and 133 in the Saturday peak hour; intersections will operate at acceptable level of service C or better; however, some measurements are at E; access locations to remain the same; and no improvements to the local street network are recommended. Additionally, he said a new sidewalk with a crosswalk and bike racks are included in the project and that the store is along Metro Transit's route 6 bus line. Mr. Sullivan said staff recommends approval and asked that the ETC "adopt a motion recommending that the traffic as demonstrated in the transportation study for Whole foods — Centennial Lakes does not adversely affect the adjacent transportation system." 2 AIII Discussion ensued and Commissioner Nelson asked if the construction to the north was taken into consideration. Mr. Sullivan said yes, and that the developers' traffic consultant was given a computerized base model to do the traffic study. Commissioner Bonneville noted that the access on Plaza Drive that connects the adjoining parking lots is below grade and unsafe. He suggested stop signs to make it safer. Mr. Sullivan said site circulation will be reviewed .by City Engineer Houle and the Planning Commission. Commissioner Bonneville also said he believes vehicles will stack on Parklawn Avenue. Nick Erpelding with Westwood Professional Services, said majority of traffic is expected to access from Parklawn Avenue and they reviewed cueing on Parklawn and found no adverse effects from vehicles passing through the intersection. Commissioner Janovy said she is concerned that the north entrance will be used by delivery trucks and customers and asked if there will be a conflict. Mr. Bruce Carlson, development director with Mid - America Real Estate, said they have gone over truck movements many times and feel that they have a good design. He said most deliveries will be in the mornings and will be minimal at 4 -5 per day. Commissioner Bonneville said the nose of the center median on Parklawn Avenue will need to be cut back for trucks to make left turns. Mr. Sullivan said staff questioned this earlier on but all of the templates that they've looked at shows trucks will be able to maneuver around the median and the issue can be revisited if needed. Commissioner Schroeder asked if they took into account the number of drivers going south who may leave to the north thereby creating more traffic on Parklawn Avenue instead of W. 76th Street. Mr. Erpelding said they did take this into account and they did factor in most of the traffic exiting via Parklawn Avenue. Commissioner Bonneville inquired about parking ratio and Mr. Sullivan said parking review will be looked at by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Schroeder motioned "that the traffic as demonstrated in the [traffic impact analysis] for Whole Foods — Cenntenial Lakes does not adversely affect the adjacent transportation system." The motion was seconded by Commissioner Nelson. Aye: Schroeder, White, Janovy, Nelson, Workinger Nay: Bonneville Motion carried. c. Complete Street — Jack Broz Mr. Sullivan introduced Jack Broz with Howard R. Green. He said Mr. Broz represents one of many companies that have been working on developing Complete Streets which is now state statute and that after the City Engineers Association of Minnesota winter conference in January, staff will have something more defined to present. Mr. Broz said he is a transportation engineer and- most recently he has been participating in the MN Complete Streets Coalition, an advisory group formed by Mn /DOT. Mr. Broz showed a video that was taped on Market Street, San Francisco, in 1906, showing cars, trains, bikers, pedestrians and horse and buggies all using the same street and no traffic jam. He said traffic is about travel, circulation and access and also about mobility, not speed. 3 k. A Mr. Broz talked about the historical perspective of the interstate system and how it has shaped the future. He said the mission of the interstate system was to move faster and most design standards have followed this pattern of wider, faster, flatter, straighter, and cost was not an issue. He said studies show that the faster you are driving, the likelihood that an accident will result in a fatality. For design purposes, he said engineers generally forecast out 20 years and vehicle level of service is typically designed for a small percentage of traffic when you eliminate things like rush hour and mid -week traffic. He said this leads to intersections like the one at Best Buy in Richfield with wide open streets. He said this design required a lot of money, right -of -way had to be acquired and pedestrian crossing is difficult. In a photo illustration, he pointed to a car making a right turn, coming upon the crosswalk and asked if the driver is paying attention to the crosswalk or oncoming traffic as he attempts his turn. He said the only consideration given in this design was to get vehicles more efficiently to Best Buy while other modes of transportation are secondary. Continuing, Mr. Broz said with Complete Streets, they are looking to put back what was there such as the ability to walk and chose your mode of transportation and doing so at a time when funds are no longer unlimited. The definition of Complete Streets, he said, is safe access for all users of all ages and abilities... motorists, transit users, pedestrians and bicyclists can move safely along and across complete streets. An example of a complete street, he said, would be to redesign a 4 -lane road that has a sidewalk into a 4 -lane road with sidewalk, bike lanes and green space. To accommodate all modes he said all users should receive attention in the design process for all projects. He said many decisions must be made early in the planning and design process with an understanding of mobility and speed (travel, circulation and access); however, many detailed design issues arise later in the design process. Mr. Broz said there are indications that things are changing as illustrated in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual, which, for the first time in 50 years will include a multi -level mode of service. He said design must be done with all of the varied characteristics in mind — transit, bicyclists (commuters, recreational riders, etc), pedestrians (older, children, persons with disability, etc). He also said understanding maintenance for all modes of transportation is important, example, more frequent sweeping of streets to accommodate bicyclists, removal of snow, etc. During discussion Mr. Broz was asked about similar cities to Edina that would be good models to follow. He referred the ETC to the MN Complete Streets Coalition website as a good resource. VII. Planning Commission Update (Commissioner Schroeder) Commissioner Schroeder said they continue to work on the same issues as last month. VIII. Bike Edina Task Force Update (Commissioner Janovy) a. October 14, 3010 Meeting Minutes Chair Janovy said they had a visit from Mr. Bill Dossett, executive director of Nice Ride (the green bikes in downtown Minneapolis) and they are looking to expand to either 44th & France or 50th & France. IX. Commission Comments Commissioner Bonneville said he would like to keep the conversation going regarding Xerxes Avenue and doing a traffic study with the city of Bloomington. Chair Janovy noted from an 2 n. earlier conversation that Commissioner Bonneville had mentioned discussing restriping of 76th Street at'a future meeting. Commissioner Nelson said he attended a tour. of the station locations for the. Southwest LRT and brought back informational handouts which he gave to Mr. Sullivan. He said public meetings are scheduled for station area planning. For more information go to www. southwesttransitway. org. Commissioner Workinger noted that the City has an email subscription service that anyone can sign up for and receive notice on a variety of topics, including the W. 70th Street: France to TH -100 project. X. Adjournment Meeting adjourned. 5 r� 0 ,aae MINUTES OF THE Edina Transportation Commission Thursday, January 20, 2011 Edina City Hall 4801 West 50th Street Council Chambers MEMBERS PRESENT: Tom Bonneville, Sarah Engbretson, Jennifer Janovy, Paul Nelson, Geof Workinger, Elin Schold Davis MEMBERS ABSENT: Jean White, Michael Schroeder, Bohde Scheerer STAFF PRESENT: Jack Sullivan, Sharon Allison I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by chair Janovy. Chair Janovy welcomed one of three new members, Elin Davis, to the commission. II. Approval of Minutes a. Regular Meeting of November 18, 2010 Approval was postponed until the next meeting for lack of quorum. III. Consent Agenda a. Traffic Safety Report for December 1, 2010 The Traffic Safety Report for December 1, 2010, was accepted without comments. IV. Community Comment Mr. Jim Welna, 5139 W. 44th Street, asked if this was the only time to comment on the freight train presentation and he was told yes. He expressed his appreciation for the presentation and said this is first time that Edina has talked about it as a community and that there should be considerable concern as discussions take place, similar to St. Louis Park. Chair Janovy said viewers can send comments to edinamailCaD-cityofedina.com or regular mail to City Hall and that Council meetings also have a comment period. V. New Business a. MnDOT Rail Presentation — Dave Christianson, MnDOT Assistant City Engineer Sullivan introduced Dave Christianson from MnDOT. He said Mr. Christianson has been involved in train transit for the last 25 years and most recently in charge of the freight rail division, working on state rail plan, investment policies, local freight rail planning, and truck support services and parking. Mr. Sullivan said the reason for the presentation was to help residents understand what is happening in St. Louis Park, how it may or may not affect their community, and to explain what is happening regionally and nationally with freight and passenger rail. $A 14 Mr. Christianson said there are approximately 4,500 miles of tracks in the state (down from 9,000 in 1980 when the railroad was deregulated) with 500 miles in the metro area. 95% of the railroad is privately -owned by 4 major companies (Canadian National, Canadian Pacific, Union Pacific, and Burlington Northern Sante Fe) and operation is much more efficient and profitable. He said 230 million tons of freight is moved annually which represents 38% of all freight moved in the state in comparison to 12% nationally. Commodities moved most often by freight are iron ore, lumber, paper products, and corn. Mr. Christianson said future trends include annual growth of 1 -2% and high speed intercity rail which is a new national and regional federal initiative that will grow around the country, including the twin cities. He said there are lines already in place traveling at 90 mph, and within six years, there could be a line from Chicago to the Twin Cities traveling at 110 mph. Mr. Christianson said the MN State Rail Plan, a first of its kind for the state, which was adopted in 2010 and approved by the federal government, looks at passenger and freight rail as a public venture which simply means there is a consistent plan to keep them both in balance and growing. He showed a map of the passenger rail system in the MN Rail Plan. The map showed a connection to Chicago, with possible diversion to Madison, and on to LaCrosse, to Wisconsin Dells, with an alternate route through Eau Claire and on to Rochester. Other links on the map includes Duluth and Superior, Fargo- Moorhead, Mankato, and Rochester. In the metro area, he said the hubs would be the Northstar Station next to Target Field and St. Paul Union Station. He said there were many participants at past public meetings which demonstrate that there is lots of interest. As it relates to Edina, Mr. Christianson explained that the rail coming southwest out of Minneapolis towards Lake Calhoun, Lake of the Isle, St. Louis Park and Hopkins, is referred to as the Kenilworth Corridor and this is the approved route for the Southwest LRT. He said if Kenilworth is approved, freight would not be able to use this line because there is inadequate right -of -way (ROW) and the original plan was to keep the bike path and have both freight and passenger rail. He said the line is important to the western district and because federal law requires freight line to have access to other connections, alternative routes are being examined. He said one route is the Dan Patch line (owned by Canadian Pacific) that goes through north Minneapolis, as an option to carry freight that would be removed from the southwest line. He said Hennepin County made a pre - emptive assumption that the freight line would be moved to the Canadian Pacific (Dan Patch) line and residents in St. Louis Park reacted. A third option is rebuilding tracks along TH -169. He said construction is tentatively scheduled for 2016 for the Southwest LRT; however, a final decision has not been made. Mr. Christianson said freight traffic in Edina could increase and a passenger rail on the Dan Patch line could see four trains a day each direction traveling at 60 -65 mph. He said an increase in freight could happen at any moment but the passenger line would involve a public process and this could be over the next six years. He said the Dan Patch line does not have consistent ROW because it was purchased after the cities were already platted and this is a problem especially in Edina, where additional ROW may be needed for construction of upgrades. He stated further that if the decision is made to use Dan Patch, there would be a lot of changes in St. Louis Park. He said students are currently crossing the train track to get to the high school so this would require a pedestrian bridge, and there would be bike trail, pedestrian gates, barriers to keep everyone safe, and the ROW would be fenced to prevent derailment. 2 However, by installing these safety measures, he said the opportunity would exist for the line to carry more freight. Of the three options being considered, Mr. Christianson said Kenilworth would be the most expensive because properties would need to be purchased for ROW. Discussion Mr: Christianson was asked what rights does Edina and St. Louis Park has to discuss what is done on freight line. He said very little. He said there are certain things that are required.to do such as not blocking crossings for any longer than 10 minutes and making sure gate crossing - and signals are always. in working condition. He said residents can call the police for these violations. He said there has been, a rise in complaints about parked freight 'cars with ethanol but this is legal. He said the only thing they can do is talk with the freight companies and ask them to be more customer- friendly. He noted that the line, being discussed for the St. Louis Park area is a little different because public money is helping to fund the project and this requires the public involvement. Clarifying the current maximum speed on Dan Patch of 10 mph and ROW as wide as 150 ft. and as narrow as 60:ft. in some areas, Mr. Christianson said the ROW would not allow fora dual line. He was asked if there was any chance of making this a passenger line and he said yes, but by state law they cannot study it as a commuter rail. He said it would have to be intercity rail which is different than commuter rail because it travels at higher speeds, stops are usually 15 -50 miles apart and is intended to get people from one point to the next as fast as possible; commuter on the other hand mean trips to -work and stops are spaced about 5 miles apart like the Northstar. More information is available on the state's website or by contacting St. Louis Park to see everything that has been discussed -to- date.- The -next- meeting is scheduled for mid - February to discuss mitigation measures and the process will continue for another 3-4 months then it goes to the Hennepin County Board. VI. Planning Commission Update (Commissioner Schroeder) Commissioner Schroeder was absent and chair Janovy announced that his term has ended as the representative from the Planning Commission. VII. Bike Edina Task Fotce. Update (Commissioner Janovy) a. November.11, 2010 . Meeting Minutes Chair Janovy said they met in January and provided feedback on landscape islands in the Golf Terrace Street Reconstruction project. VIII. Commission Comments Chair Janovy announced that Commissioner Workinger's term has ended and thanked him for his contribution and leadership. Her sentiments were echoed by all of the commissioners. Commissioner Workinger said it was a pleasure serving. Chair Janovy also announced that Josh Sprague would no longer be serving as a commissioner as he was elected to the City Council. IX. Adjournment Meeting adjourned. R IL MINUTES OF THE Edina Transportation Commission Thursday, February 17, 2011 Edina City Hall 4801 West 50th Street Council Chambers MEMBERS PRESENT: Katherine Bass, Thomas Bonneville, Ann Braden, Sarah Ef etson, Nathan Franzen, Jennifer Janovy, Paul Nelson, Bodhe Scheerer, Elin Schold` D, i r ichael Thompson MEMBERS ABSENT: Jean White STAFF PRESENT:�� Jack Sullivan, Sharon Allison I. Call to Order r� The meeting was called to order by cFo�Rl��i�m��anovy. ' '. I % ' II. Welcome New Members >,,J.. Chair Jano welcomed new members�M chael�T�o, son,, EJiSchold Davis, Ann Braden and Katherine Bass to the cgrmission. �,�fr. III. Approval of Mir�u - -' < a. Regular M e ma of November 18, 01:0 Commissioner Nefso' f `'"�' f09fi -. oved to, pprove the f.�autes of November 18 and the motion was seconded by CommiserBonneuil� r b. a /fla"Meet1n a A. n 20 2019 The fmg correct is were,lad'e to the January 20 minutes: show Elin Schold Davis. as bE resent; show %de Scftrer as being- absent, delete Nathan Franzen from the attenc a ce list; page 2, 4 paragra 5th line change is. to was; 6, paragraph, 2 "d line add .. "...four trai s a day each ,direction traveling... , last line add in Edina; where additional ROW may'l%e.; needed for`i�consfruction of upgrades." Commissioner Bonneville moved to ' f,,rr frr., f /.r/ approve min600""'' with the c rr ctions and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Schold Davis. E v IV. Consent Agericla a. Traffic Safety Report for February 2, 2011 Commissioner Bonneville said it is too bad that the ETC cannot pick 2 -3 issues to be looked at such as France Avenue /Crosstown intersection to TH -494 stoplights that malfunctions often. He said there are many signals and you can either speed to miss them, or drive slow and stop at each one. He asked if the ETC should look into this. Mr. Sullivan said France Avenue is a county road'and that the University of Minnesota recently completed a study and the county and has optimized the signals based on the study. Mr. Sullivan said, he could get the report for the ETC. J Commissioner Braden asked how issues are brought forward. Assistant City Engineer Sullivan explained that Boyd Tate, the City's Traffic Safety Coordinator (and a retired Minneapolis police officer) is contacted, looks at issues, gathers data, followed by a meeting of the Traffic Safety Committee (TSC) made up of himself, city engineer, police traffic supervisor, city planner, traffic safety coordinator and sign coordinator, to see if the issues are within policy or see if there are other ways to mitigate the concerns. The TSC makes its recommendation to the Council. He said issues such as crosswalks, no parking signs, and stop signs are considered regulatory type issues. V. Community Comment None. VI. New Business a. Review ad, 1500): Chair Janovy said a roster will be available toy{ e name, address, email and /or phone. She said ,ha number or email address are required. Both email.ar commissioners may include both if they want to. She an give any changes or corrections t Ms. Allison. t requested to have their cell phone nurbersJemoved Chair Janovy discussed the following: • Meeting schedule for, he /nt , • Open meeting la�hich sh Council. She ex 1ained that i not reach a �,oum becau: should avoid discfsions{ reached and also Ito vA'i ablic that includes each' %p��ommissioner's ffJfr name, address and ei he�fa telephone telelp reef number are not r quired, but s ROOM. edommissioners to review the roster ssioners Engbretson and Scheerer ,o�e roster. the y ea' aid applied o be the ETC cause they are advisory to the mmunica on should be one way only and emails should then you, V ad a meeting. She stated further that they �'e�,,00k or otper social media where a quorum could be ia�rmeefrnas.._(communication with one to the next to the AWance Sec'tip 00' ETC is advisory only to the Council and does not direct • At 6dance requireme- can oily miss 25% or three consecutive meetings. She said atte S'� ce at committka�of the whole meetings is optional. Commissioners are to contact Mr. Su�fiier,�,if not ableg attend a meeting. • Bylaws slice be'ornng which would be rules of procedures, dealing with working �f,, groups and how- #0 are formed, etc. Mr. Sullivan said the City Clerk did a draft for the ETC to review ate next meeting. He said the ETC 's draft was taken from the Energy Environment Commission's bylaws. • Park Board asked Council if they need to meet on camera every time and Council has asked each commission for a recommendation. After discussion, a motion was made by Commissioner Franzen for the ETC to meet on camera quarterly and that the chair would have discretion rega_ rding other meetings. Commissioner Thompson amended the motion to add holding the meetings in the Council Chamber. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Braden. All voted ave. Motion passed. 2 Review ETC Purpose and Duties (Section 1509) . Mr. Sullivan said each commission was asked to look at their purpose and duties. He said this discussion will set the table for the March 1 work session with the ETC and Council. Chair Janovy said the ordinance is already written but the Council will consider changes. She said there is awareness that the ETC may have outgrown its original purpose and duties and that the Council is not expecting all the changes on March 1. Mr. Sullivan suggested getting the draft minutes to the ETC and Council prior to March 1. Chair Janovy said this past summer, they began discussion n, e the ETC's scope and responsibilities and are now returning to this discussion. Sharing Prspective from this past summer' discussions, Commissioner Franzen said he felt the p. se and scope of the ETC, as written, is narrow and that it should be expanded to jdeorporate a more multi -modal approach to transportation planning and review —for examn e d o a focus on mass transit and becoming a walkable community rather than just sing lb-n traffic volumes and congestion. Chair Janovy suggested Mankato's orance as an of le. Commissioner Bonneville said they have a duty to hook at the�fb g picture and refereoe�lr areas such as Southdale, 50 &France, and the 50 extension Jerry, area because q a are conflicts involved in .these areas. Chair Janovy said mo�othese thin,9 are currently`'h�adled by staff and asked if he's suggesting that the ETC handl 0pem. CG' Missioner Bonneville said they rat /. could come from staff or the ETC. Chair Janovy asKwe I as suggesting they identify hot spots similar to what was done by they focal Traffic Tames rce, the precursor to the ETC. He said the Council could, Planning Co issi n (PC) coifltl r ask them to team up together. Commissioner Bass said she would prof r W;Su a the modes' s a lens to evaluate all traffic and how all modes serve the networks LQ%edestrtar �;�bike, etc. Commissioner Braden discussed. She asked liked the idea of ex routes to school,f staff and consulting e the policies and that �J}fi�'r,rrli ,, Commis ind Mde, only mgtcesf� commen � fif% he ETC ha's'%tho ff PP ff. 'fl; ,)ere are eertain third -9 g to mode'�but maybe ce they ,-�faf a citizen eers. Cf- airfJanovv sai are co hnic�al e,;Pertise to evaluate what is being it a PE woSid do and not her. She said she re of an advocate for complete streets, safe isory group, make a link between citizens, py are advisory to Council, but do not write rsome degree of technical understanding. about liabilities. Chair Janovy said the ETC Comi'01's oner Schold Day's'.suggesfted looking at demographic changes that are projected for Edina an d% ow designs wi l�f�ect pedestrians, older drivers, and other user groups. P Commissioner anzen suggested evaluating connections within the city based upon multi - modal routes. i�;e`,said Lgorthwest area where he lives feels detached from Edina. Chair o Janovy asked if a(ack fP idewalk may be the issue and if current sidewalk policy is not working should the t a funding source? Commissioner Thompson said he liked the discussion and suggested that staff could come to the ETC to show how Complete Streets is included in street reconstruction projects. Chair Janovy said the practice is generally not to involve the ETC with street reconstruction projects. She cited a questionnaire that is sent out to residents within project areas that asks about traffic issues and the result of the questionnaire is not shared with the ETC, so there are some issues that the ETC is not focusing on. Mr. Sullivan said project areas are compared with the Comp Plan. Chair Janovy asked if it is staff's opinion that the ETC's role is only with the NTMP and therefore no other involvement and Mr. Sullivan replied affirmatively. Chair Janovy said 3 staff does review how a proposed street reconstruction fits within the Comp Plan and Bike Plan, but suggested that if the questionnaire to resident says ETC handles traffic issues, the comments from residents should be given to the ETC. Commissioner Thompson suggested a level of review by the ETC for street reconstruction projects as a way to create connectivity with sidewalks so the decision is not made from neighborhood to neighborhood. Chair Janovy asked how they should handle daily traffic complaints. She said the NMTP has not worked well. She suggested making the TSC a formal process that would be transparent. Commissioner Nelson said the report that they were receiving recently that shows the types of calls that the traffic safety coordinator receives was helpful and tha /bthey should continue to receive that report. He said it at least would help them to iden i . r' atterns or trends. He also said getting regular traffic counts would-be helpful. Chair Jang aid they may not be able to mediate concerns but the data could be helpful. Commissio : er IQhneville suggested offering their assistance to the TSC when needed. Commissioner, Bass suggp;sted looking at the data in aggregate to help inform prioritization. Chair Janov �f�f`s'kked if the NTN71P should be enhanced to include education before engineering, and if so, , od�it be handled b;;e,TSC? a. Planning Commission's review16UTraffic Studies Chair Janovy said the Planning Commission has!r,/ercommended1hat they take over the ETC's responsibility of reviewing Traffic Impact Analysis (TIfA) Jsually done with developments. She said there is awareness that the ETC " o s have a role�;as defined by the TIA policy and asked f ,r r7 ,,r whether the ETC and Planning Co ;�mfi6sion� should ha. a joint meeting to pass on the responsibility. She also said the ETC could redo end thatf� Planning Commission not take over review of TIAs. Commissioner Bonne ille aacf %I is not doh fortable giving responsibility to the PC. Commissioner Nelson concAO. "i and end the C S; 'Ian that was presented to them for review as a cop/de '1an that ditlfript� `�c ude�e {`�`'" hin on the Ian that the said rp�,�� r /rf�ti� 9 p Y would be there like thgg e rack Ak that there,,�' had issues with site circulation. He asked if these issues are taKe� re of as%t'ey movfhrough the process. Chair Janovy said this is why the ETC still �epds to be in��yo ved and s ggested that they could identify threshold of lf111 involvement. She said? erthat C -•has recom .;ended is that the ETC would be involved if an AUAR study_is requ e'R. ' '� W91 Energy ;" iF6nment C?rommis`sio . Chaim ,anovy said Edna is a Greets Step Cities and that the chair of the Energy Environment Commis ion has asked f the "ETO- could do a review to see if they are meeting the requiree s through ordir ices. Chair Janovy said she is not sure what they are expected to do and sta;R ilas also uncerk �'. Chair Janovy said she will follow -up to get clarification and Mr. Sullivan will check with Jesse; truve, the staff liaison, and report back. VII. Bike Edina'TaAll, l Fofce Update (Commissioner Janovy) llirs Chair Janovy said thBETF voted to support NICE Ride in Edina at 44th & France and 50th & France as first priority. VIII. Staff Comments a. Work Session with Council on March 1, 2011 A work session is scheduled for 3/1, 5 -7 p.m. with the Council in the Community Room. IX. Commission Comments Commissioner Nelson said there is an upcoming meeting for the SW LRT and he will give an update report at the next ETC meeting. 4 Commissioner Engbretson said-. she's noticed signs around Lake Harvey area saying no to curb and gutter. Mr. Sullivan said' a neighborhood project is planned to include curb & gutter and at the. public hearing, the water quality of the pond was raised and approval of the project was postponed until staff could meet with the watershed. district'. A follow=up meeting with residents is scheduled for February 22. 'Mr. Sullivan said staff will still be recommending curb & gutter and it was determined that of the 34 acres around the lake, only 4 is owned by the City; therefore treatment options would need.to, be done by. the residents on their- private property. Commissioner Braden asked how is agendas 'put together Chair JaPovy said she communicates with Mr. Sullivan and others can also send ideas U., im. She asked if the; City is currently working on_ soliciting f6deral''Junds and Mr. Sulli aid 'no, staff is working to implement monies already received. Commissioner Franzen said he is excited to see new 91 P_ X. Adjournment Meeting adjourned. 5