HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-03-15 COUNCIL MEETINGAGENDA
JOINT MEETING
EDINA CITY COUNCIL & PLANNING COMMISSION
EDINA COMMUNITY ROOM
MARCH 15, 2011
5:00 P.M.
to *Variance, Review Process Zoning Board of Appeals
11. *Traffic Review - Commission review of traffic studies as
part of a new development proposal
Ill. *Public Hearings - Number of public hearings held as part
of the development review process
IV. Required Commission Attendance - Joint Work Session
exemption
*See attached background information on these topics.
J
Topic: Variance Process Review
Date Introduced: November.24, 2009
Why on the list: This is the result of the 2008 law suit regarding "The District"
project at Centennial Lakes: The City lost the suit in regard to
the,variance process. Before the law suit, single- family
residential variances were reviewed by the Zoning Board of
Appeals (ZBA). All.other variances that were tied to other
types of requests, such as 'a rezoning or final development
plan, were reviewed, by the Planning Commission and City
Council.
As a result of the law suit, all variances are now required to go
before the Zoning Board of Appeals, in addition to the
Planning Commission and City Council. This process is
awkward and cumbersome. Also, an issue has been raised in
regard to when variances should be reviewed if they are part
of a two stage development process.
History: The Zoning Board of Appeals was `established in 1960's. The
purpose was to make the variance process simple and
relatively short for residents of single - family homes. (Seethe
powers and duties of the ZBA on the attached documents.)
Decision. Points: 1. Keep or dissolve the ZBA.
2. If the ZBA is kept, is it possible to have a ZBA panel
consider variances at a regular Planning Commission
meeting?
3. At what stage of a two stage project are variances
considered? Currently, variances are considered at the
Preliminary Development stage by the Planning
Commission and City Council, but not acted on by the
ZBA. Since variances are a binding, action of the ZBA,.
the ZBA reviews variances at the Final Development
stage. Decisions on items #1 and #2 above may resolve
this issue.
Options: 1. Continue with the existing process.
2. Dissolve the current ZBA; the Planning Commission
becomes the ZBA, and all variances are reviewed by the
Planning Commission. This would require the Planning
Commission to meet twice per month to keep up with the
volume of work generated by variance requests.
3. Modify the current process. Figure out a "legal" way to
continue the ZBA in its present form, and allow variances as
part of larger project to be reviewed by the Planning
Commission as one of the ZBA panels.
Action: In order to streamline the review process, the Planning
Commission recommends dissolving the current ZBA. The
Planning Commission would become the ZBA.
City of Edina
Land Use, Platting and Zoning 850.04
Yar Front. An open, unoccupied space on the same as a building, which lies
betwee a building and the front lot line, and ext s from side lot line to side lot
line.
Yard - Rear. open, unoccupied a on the same lot as a building, which lies
between the buildin nd the re, t line, and extends from side lot line to side lot
line. Some accessory b ' di may be placed in the rear yard.
Yard - Side. An o , un i ied space on the same lot as a building, which lies
between the bu' g and the si lot line, and extends from the front lot line to the
rear lot lin ome accessory builds may be placed in the side yard.
YejV!OA" period of 365 consecutive days.
850.04 Administration and Procedures for Variances, Rezoning, Transfer to Planned
Districts and Conditional Use Permits.
4 Subd. 1 Variances and Appeals.
A. Zoning Board of Appeals. There is continued a separate Zoning Board of
Appeals of the City. The Zoning Board of Appeals is the board of appeals and
adjustments created pursuant to M.S. 462.354, Subd. 2. All members of the
Commission, from time to time, shall be members, and the other members shall be
six residents of the City appointed for a term of three years by the Mayor with the
consent of a majority of the members of the Council. For hearings, the Board shall
consist, at A maximum, of any five members, but three members shall constitute a
quorum for conducting such hearings and making decisions. However, at least one
Commission member shall be in attendance at each Board meeting, and shall be
deemed to be the representative of the Commission for purposes of review and
report by the Commission as required by M.S. 462.354, Subd. 2. The Board shall
make no decision until the Commission, or a representative of it, has had reasonable
opportunity, not to exceed 60 days, to review and report to the Board concerning
the decision. All members shall serve without compensation. Members may resign
voluntarily or be removed by a majority vote of the Council or pursuant to Section
180 of this Code That rnmmission member in attendance at a meeting who has the
then longest continuous service on the Commission shall be the Chair for that
meeting. The Board shall adopt such bylaws as shall be necessary or desirable for
conduct of its business. Staff services shall be provided by the Planning
Department. Board members who discontinue legal residency in the City shall be
automatically removed from office effective as of the date of such discontinuance.
Vacancies shall be filled pursuant to Subsection 180.03 of this Code.
B. Powers and Duties of Board. The Board shall have the power and duty of
hearing and deciding, subject to appeal to the Council, the following matters:
1. Requests for variances from the literal provisions of this Section.
2. Appeals in which it is alleged that there is an error in any order,
requirement, decision or determination made by an administrative officer in
the interpretation or enforcement of this Section; and
850 -15 Supplement 2007 -06
City of Edina
Land Use, Platting and Zoning 850.04
3. Requests for variances from the literal provisions of Section 1046 of this
Code.
4. Requests for modifications form the requirements of Section 815 of this
Code.
C. Petitions for Variances. The owner or owners of land to which the variance
relates may file a petition for a variance with the Planning Department. The petition
shall be made on forms provided by the Planning Department and shall be
accompanied by the fee set forth in Section 185 of this Code. The petition shall be
accompanied by plans and drawings to scale which clearly illustrate, to the
satisfaction of the Planner, the improvements to be made if the variance is granted.
The Planner may require the petitioner to submit a certificate by a registered
professional land surveyor verifying the location of all buildings, setbacks and
building coverage, and certifying other facts that in the opinion of the Planner are
necessary for evaluation of the petition.
D. Appeals of Administrative Decisions. A person who deems himself or herself
aggrieved by an alleged error in any order, requirement, decision or determination
made by an administrative officer in the interpretation and enforcement of this
Section, may appeal to the Board by filing a written appeal with the Planning
Department within 30 days after the date of such order, requirement, decision or
determination. The appeal shall fully state the order to be appealed and the relevant
facts of the matter.
E. Hearing and Decision by the Board; Notice.
1. Within 60 days after the Planner determines that a variance petition is
complete, and all required fees and information, including plans, drawings and
surveys, have been received, or within 60 days after the filing of an appeal of
an administrative decision, the Board shall conduct a public hearing and after
hearing the oral and written views of all interested persons, the Board shall
make its decision at the same meeting or at a specified future meeting.
2. Notice of variance hearings shall he mailed rest toss than ten days before
the date of the hearing to the person who filed the petition for variance and to
each owner of property situated wholly or partially within 200 feet of the
property to which the variance relates insofar as the names and addresses of
such owners can be reasonably determined by the Clerk from records
maintained by the Assessor.
3. A notice of hearing for appeals of administrative decisions shall be
published in the official newspaper of the City not less than ten days before the
hearing. A notice shall also be mailed to the appellant.
4. No new notice need be given for any hearing which is continued by the
Board to a specified future date.
F. Findings For Variances. The Board shall not grant a petition for a variance
unless it finds that the strict enforcement of this Section would cause undue hardship
850 -16 Supplement 2007 -06
City of Edina
Land Use, Platting and Zoning 850.04
because of circumstances unique to the petitioner's property and that the grant of
{ said variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of this Section. "Undue
hardship" means that (i) the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use
as allowed by this Section; (ii) the plight of the petitioner is due to circumstances
unique to the petitioner's property which were not created by the petitioner; and (iii)
the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the property or its .
surroundings. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship
if reasonable use for the petitioner's property exists under the terns of this Section.
A favorable vote by the Board 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 Board meeting.
G. Appeals from Decisions of the Board.
1. The following individuals may appeal a decision of the Board:
a. any petitioner for a variance;
b. any owner to whom notice of the variance hearing is required to be
mailed pursuant to this Section;
c. the appellant in the case of an appeal of an administrative decision;
d. any person who deems to be aggrieved by the Board's decision on
the appeal of an administrative decision; and
( e. any administrative officer of the City.
2. An appeal from a decision of the Board shall be filed with the Clerk no
later than ten days after the decision by the Board. If not so filed, the right of
appeal shall be deemed waived, and the decision of the Board shall be final.
H. Hearing and Decision by Council. The Council shall hear and decide all appeals
from the decisions of the Board. The appeal shall be heard not later than 60 days
after the date the appeal is filed. The Council shall follow the same procedures as to
notices, hearings, findings for variances and decisions that the Board is required to
follow relative to the subject matter of the appeal pursuant to this Section. A
favorable vote by the Council shall be deemed to include a favorable finding on
each of the required findings even if not specifically JLri zat ill O -e uppi,;�u:
resolution or the minutes of the Council tneeting.
I. Conditions on Variance Approvals. In granting a variance, the Board, or the
Council on appeal, may impose conditions to ensure compliance with the purpose
and intent of this Code and to protect adjacent properties.
J. Form of Action Taken and Record. The Board, or the Council on appeal, shall
maintain a record of its proceedings which shall include the minutes of its meetings
and final order concerning the variance petition or appeal of administrative
decision. If a variance is granted, the petitioner, at the petitioner's expense, shall
duly record the final order in the proper office to give constructive notice. A
verified copy of such order, with the recording data, shall be delivered to the
Planner. The Board, or the Council on appeal, may require such order to be
recorded and such verified copy to be delivered to the Planner before the variance
shall be effective.
850 -17 Supplement 2007 -06
City of Edina
Land Use, Platting and 'Zoning 850.04
K. Lapse of Variance By Non -User, Extension of Time.
1. If, within one year after the date of the meeting of the Board, or the
Council on appeal, at which the variance was granted, the owner or occupant
of the affected land shall not have obtained a building permit, if one is-
required, and commenced the work or improvement described in such petition,
the variance shall become null and void unless a petition for extension of time
in which to cotrunence the proposed work or improvement has been granted.
2. A petition for extension shall be in writing and filed with the Clerk within .
such one year period. The petition for extension shall state facts showing a
good faith attempt to use the variance and shall state the additional time
requested to begin the proposed work or improvement. The petition shall be
presented to the Board for hearing, findings and decision in the same manner
as then required by this Section 850 for an original petition for variance. The
Board may grant an extension of the variance for up to one year upon finding
that a good faith attempt to use the variance has been made, that there is a
reasonable expectation that the variance will be used during the extension, that
speculation will thereby not be fostered, and that the facts and circumstances
under which the original variance was granted are not materially changed.
L. Denial: No application for a variance which has been denied in whole or in part
shall be resubmitted within twelve (12) months of the date of the order of denial,
except that a new application may be permitted to the same denying board, if new
evidence or a change of circumstances warrant it.
Subd. 2
A. Initiatiokof Rezoning Process.
1. A peti\an or rezoning may be initiat y the owner of land proposed for
transfer to her district or subdistric he Council or the Corrunission.
2. A petition b n owner shall b n forms provided by the Planner, shall be
submitted with pla , data and i onnation required by this Section, and such
other information th- the P nc, believu5 for evaluation of 'the
petition. The petition s I accompanied by the fee set forth in Section 185
of this Code.
B. Sign. The petitioner to , ezoni shall erect, or cause to be erected, at least one
sign per street frontage the land scribed in the petition. The sign or signs shall
be of a design appro d by the " Platu r, shall be 36 inches by 60 inches in size,
shall have letters a east four inches hig using Helvetica medium typeface or other
letter style appr ed by the Planner, shall constructed of sturdy material, shall be
neatly lettere and shall be easily viewable om, and readable by persons on, the
adjoining s . -et. The sign or signs shall contain he following information:
Y "This property proposed for rezonNg by:
(Name of Petitioner or Applicant)
(Telephone of Petitioner or Applicant)
For information contact Edina Planning Department:
850 -18 Supplement 2007 -06
Planning Commission Minutes for Meetinq of November 24, 2009
TOPIC: Variance Process
DATE INTRODUCED: November 24, 2009
DISCUSSION: 11/24/209
Introduction
Planner Teague explained that in 2007 a lawsuit was filed against the City
regarding the variance process, adding that before the lawsuit the Planning
Commission heard, reviewed and acted on all variance requests for all major
developments at their regularly scheduled meetings. The Zoning Board of
Appeals (a five member rotating board comprised of Planning Commissioners
and Zoning Board of Appeals members) heard all residential and minor variance
requests. As a result of the lawsuit all variances are now heard by the Zoning
Board of Appeals.
Planner Teague stated this change in policy has created confusion and conflict
with major projects that require multiple actions. Presently the Zoning Board of
Appeals hears a variance request for a major project after it has received
preliminary development approval from both the Commission and Council. This
order can be awkward for Zoning Board members because they are making a
decision on a project that has received preliminary approval. After the Zoning
Board of Appeals acts on the variance request their action is forwarded to the
Commission and Council for the final approval phase of the project.
Chair Fischer asked Planner Teague if the City Attorney has weighed in on the
City's current process. Planner Teague responded that Mr. Knutson has
expressed some concern with the current process; especially the rotating aspect
of the Board.
Planner Teague stated he sees three options to administer variance requests:
1. Continue as is.
2. Dissolve the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Planning Commission
would become the "Zoning Board of Appeals ".
3. Modify the current process. The Planning Commission acting as
one of the Zoning Board of Appeals panels would hear and act on
major development variances at the same time they consider the
development proposal (Rezoning, Conditional Use, Final
Development Plan, etc.). Residential and minor variances would
continue to be heard as is. Try to establish a legal way to do this.
Chair Fischer stated that whatever is suggested would have to be reviewed by
the City Attorney. Planner Teague agreed.
Commissioner Grabiel commented that the Zoning Board may be easy to
dissolve but historically there was value in creating a separate Zoning Board of
Appeals. Commissioner Grabiel acknowledged that since the lawsuit there has
been a certain awkwardness in process for larger projects; however, the
residential variances do well in the present format. Commissioner Grabiel
suggested the possibility of creating a hybrid. The Planning Commission (all
Commissioners are members of the Zoning Board of Appeals) would hear and
act on large project variances and the "residential" variances would continue to
be heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Commissioner Carpenter said in his opinion it appears that the state statute is
very clear, agreeing with Chair Fischer that any suggestion from the Planning
Commission on the future of the Zoning Board should be reviewed by the City
Attorney. Commissioner Carpenter suggested that staff research how others
cities handle variances.
Commissioner Staunton stated he is a bit concerned with the City's current
process, adding if he is correct in his interpretation of the statue it appears to him
that the City could be in violation of the statute.
A discussion ensued with Commissioners considering whether to dissolve the
Zoning Board or to reconfigure the Board. Commissioners acknowledged there
is a difference in variances. A resident requesting a variance to enlarge their
garage vs. a variance to construct a five -story office building is very different.
Commissioners listed the following as concerns with dissolving the Board:
• If the Planning Commission is appointed as the Zoning Board should
residential and minor variances be heard differently?
At the beginning of each meeting. Hearing residential and minor
variances first would help with the flow of the meeting enabling residents
with a residential variance request the opportunity to leave immediately
after their issue is heard.
Hold two meetings per month. Residential and minor variances would be
heard at the first meeting of the month and at the second meeting of the
month large project variances would be heard.
Start the residential and minor variance hearing at 5:30 pm and proceed to
the regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting at 7:00. At that
time if there are large projects that require variances the hearing would
take place.
Staff would need to develop a new agenda style to accommodate the
different public hearing requests.
I
Commissioners acknowledged that dissolving the Zoning Board does create
timing challenges. Commissioners said in their opinion the goal should be to
create clarity in the hearing process and in the ordinance. It was pointed out that
there is a number of overlapping public hearings that create confusion for the
residents.
Planner Teague interjected and informed the Commission he previously worked
for two different cities that did not have a separate Zoning Board of Appeals (City
Council heard variances) and those cities had certain variances that would be
"tagged" as consent items and placed on the Council agenda as consent.
Planner Teague pointed out allowing consent items expedites the variance
process, by being handled with one motion. Planner Teague further clarified that
a "consent" item could be pulled from the agenda at any time and discussed
more thoroughly.
Commissioner Schroeder pointed out during the zoning ordinance updating
process the Commission has indicated it would recommend establishing a PUD
classification, adding if that was to occur large project variances would be
reduced. Commissioner Carpenter agreed, also adding if during the updating
process the Commission focuses on modifying and clarifying the ordinance
language to better address some of the more routine variance requests the need
for a variance would be reduced.
Commissioner Grabiel acknowledged that while having a separate Zoning Board
of Appeals to hear variance requests worked well in the past the change in the
review process as the result of the lawsuit has created a more cumbersome
confusing process with an additional step.
Community Comment
Janey Westin, 6136 Brookview Avenue, addressed the Commission and stated
that she learned the process by attending numerous meetings, but
acknowledged she still isn't clear why some issues are heard by this Board vs.
that Board. Ms. Westin suggested that a review chart be added to the ordinance
and the City's website indicating the process and steps an application needs to
go through. Concluding, Ms. Westin asked that the Commission consider adding
a community rebuttal period to the public hearing process.
Chair Fischer commented that creating a chart system may be a good idea,
adding that making the review process easier to understand would benefit
everyone. Commissioner Grabiel commented that instead of creating a chart or
graph to better understand the review process the goal at this time should be to
draft a clear and precise zoning ordinance that more clearly addresses the
review process. Charts and graphs could also be a matter of confusion and open
to wrong interpretation.
Jackie Whitbeck, 6128 Brookview Avenue, commented that her property has
suffered as a result of conflict in the ordinance. Ms. Whitbeck encouraged the
Commission to clarify the ordinance not only for the applicant but for the public
as well. Continuing, Ms. Whitbeck said she agrees with the suggestion that if the
Commission becomes the official Zoning Board that adopting some form of
"issue order" makes sense with the smaller "issues" heard first. Concluding, Ms.
Whitbeck asked the Commission to remember that residents believe they are
protected by the Planning Commission and current ordinances and therefore
may not attend meetings they are notified of.
Chris Rofidal, 5037 56t" Street West and Chairman to the Heritage Preservation
Board stated his only comment is where in the variance process would a
proposal be heard that also requires a Certificate of Appropriateness. There was
confusion in the past with a driveway width variance. Who hears it first Zoning
Board or HPB.
Action
Chair Fischer commented from the discussion so far it appears that the
best direction for the City to take would be to dissolve the Zoning Board of
Appeals and have the Planning Commission hear all variance requests.
Chair Fischer stated if the Commission deems it appropriate to be the body
that hears variance requests more needs to be discussed (how to deal with
routine items, when is an item heard, how many meetings, etc.)
Concluding, Chair Fischer directed Planner Teague to research how
neighboring cities administer variances without separate Board's of
Appeals and bring that information to the ZOUC work session scheduled
on December 9th. He also requested the City Attorney attend the
December 9t" meeting.
City
Consent Agenda _
ZBA
...... ..........- ....__._..._.._. - - -- ._ _...__....._.._...._..._..
— _
Apple Valle
Blaine
Bloomington
_ — ..........- ..__...._........_..
Yes - Both PC �,, Counci I
No
_— Yes - City Council
... .... ......CJt.y.._ Dune' ....... ...............................
Planning 9ommissi011' --
Planning Commission""
Coon Rapids - --- _— ._........_...._._._.
Colta e Grog e
_._.Yes -- City Council._....__..
............. . ................... .
No
'ZBA * **
Planning Commission"
Eagan
Yes -- City Council _._.._.....__
............ ........................_..City COLn1CiI ....... .._._._...--- ---
Minnetonka
Yes -.Both PC & City Council
Planning Commission "'
Lakeville
Yes - City Council
_ Git Council
Maple Grove_ _
New Brighton
Yes - .Both PC & City Council
_ Yes -- Cit.y Council - - --
City Council
-- C'ity Council
Plymouth
Yes - City Council
City Council
—
St.. Louis Park
Yes -_ City Council - -
ZBA * * *^:
- - -- --- ._._.- ...._.__.._.
Rielifield - --
Eden Prairie
__..........._........_._. -
Yes-- City._Council _..........._........ --
- -- _. _.- ....._ ............. - --
Yes --City Council _ _
._..._........_city._ Councils :.:�`* *;'. ;......._.._.._._
Planning Commission*
Wayzata
No
- C,i_ty Councii_l�—
* Planning Commission takes final action on variances, unless a variance is auacneu w
another application; then the City Council makes the final decision.
** Council still reviews all variances after planning commission. decision.
* ** Coon Rapids ZBA only reviews sign variances and appeals of staff decisions.
*4` ** .Process is the same as Edina. A separate ZBA for variances.
* * * ** Residential variances are reviewed and approved /denied by staff'.
TOPIC
DATE INTRODUCED
CONTINUED DISCUSSION
Variance review process
November 24, 2009
December 9, 2009
Introduction
Chair Fischer reminded the Committee that at the last meeting discussion on the
variance review process was moving in the direction of eliminating the Zoning
Board of Appeals and instead have the Planning Commission become the
Zoning Board. Chair Fischer explained that City Attorney Knutson indicated that
it would appear that Edina's variance process may be at odds with State Statues.
Discussion
Mr. Knutson clarified that State Statute indicates there shall be "a" Zoning Board
of Appeals, adding he doesn't mean Edina can't function the same way they
have been for many years; it's just that the current process may poise a legal
challenge.
Commissioner Staunton suggested the possibility of keeping the Zoning Board in
place to hear residential variances and allowing the Planning Commission to
hear variances relating to development projects with both holding the public
hearing, however, advisory to the City Council who would be the Zoning Board of
Appeals and take final action. Commissioner Staunton suggested the possibility
of the City Council hearing some items (residential) as consent.
The discussion ensued with a concern raised regarding the added time burden
that would be put on the City Council to read all of the materials and minutes
relating to variances. Concern was also raised as to whether the Council would
actually approve consent items or would two hearings /review of a project
ultimately occur for possibly a simple and minimal request. Some
Commissioners wondered if assigning the Council as the Zoning Board of
Appeals would elongate the process even more.
Chair Fischer asked Planner Aaker if she believes the Zoning Board of Appeals
works well. Planner Aaker responded that in her opinion the Board works well as
it is. Planner Aaker said the Zoning Board of Appeals follows a process that
requires a 10 -day neighborhood notification before the public hearing. The
Zoning Board of Appeals at present is the final action unless an appeal is made.
All variance appeals are heard by the City Council at a public hearing.
Mr. Andy Porter addressed the Committee and said he agrees with Planner
Aaker that the process works. There is a glitch however; on what body hears a
variance request first during HPB review process.
Further discussion pointed out that at the present time the ZOUC is considering
the option of implementing a PUD process and if the ordinance incorporates a
PUD, the variance process for large development projects would change.
Mr. John Bohan said in his opinion regardless of what is decided variance review
should be front ended. Hardship should be demonstrated by the applicant.
From past and present discussions the Committee indicated there are two
clear options; 1. establish the Planning Commission as the Zoning Board of
Appeals; 2. suggest that the City Council act as the Zoning Board of Appeals with
the current Zoning Board of Appeals reviewing and recommending residential
variances and Planning Commission reviewing and recommending commercial
variances. The ZOUC decided to continue the discussion regarding the variance
review process until such time as the group discusses the PUD process and how
framing PUD's within the ordinance could affect the variance process.
Action
Continue discussion with the PUD discussion.
their op tion. Bonneville suggested that the City consider an o an to guide
the develop rough the process to ensure that the sco a analysis meets City
requirements. P er Teague said at this time th n of the City "hiring" the traffic
consultant was only ea.
Action
The Zoning Ordina2gpoWPate Co ee recommends that the Transportation
Commission b inated from the de ment review process unless a
specific r al is requested by Staff, Plan Commission or City Council.
Cons' sending a Planning Commission pack the Chair of the
sportation Commission. Formal action to take p on January 26tH.
Topic: Variance Process Review
Date Introduced: November 24, 2009
Continued Discussion: January 19, 2011
Introduction
Chair Fischer acknowledged that this issue has been before the ZOUC a number of
times, adding there are a number of possibilities for the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA):
1. Dissolve the ZBA and have the Planning Commission become the ZBA;
2. Have the City Council be the Zoning Board of Appeals and have the Planning
Commission be advisory to the Council for commercial items and a ZBA panel for
residential items; hold the meetings, and forward their recommendation to the
City Council for action. Possibility for variances to be placed on the consent
agenda;
3. Keep the existing process; noting that since the ordinance was amended to
adopt a PUD process that variances (at the commercial level) would be handled
through the existing process.
Fischer noted with option 3, the PUD process, that an important point that needs to be
clarified would be the time frame of when the variance was heard. Fischer suggested
that the variance should be heard after preliminary review and approval and before final
review and approval. Committee Members agreed.
Continuing, Fischer pointed out that the recent changes to the City ordinance may also
impact the number of variances requested. Ms. Aaker agreed, adding that
changes to the ordinance have been done incrementally, adding it may be sometime
before the impact of those changes was realized. Aaker also noted that the recently
adopted non - conforming ordinance could also play a role in reducing the number of
variances.
Mr. Bonneville asked if Edina has an administrative decision process on variances.
Planner Teague responded yes and no; adding that all projects are reviewed by staff.
Staff's role is to guide applicants to avoid variances; however, the decision to proceed
with a variance is left up to the homeowner /applicant. Continuing, Teague said
staff would not consider eliminating the public hearing aspect of the variance process.
Ms. Aaker agreed with Teague, adding there is an expectation in Edina that a public
hearing is required when a variance is requested.
A discussion ensued with Committee Members acknowledging that the recent changes
to the ordinances and clarification of the process through adopting a PUD may not
address all issues that arise; however it's a start. Committee Members also
acknowledged that the City Attorney had expressed some discomfort with the current
rotating status of the zoning board; however, at this time it may be best to leave the
ZOA as is, and review the process in another year.
Action
Stay the course. Allow time to pass to see what occurs at the Legislature. The
City needs time to assess how the recent ordinance changes could impact
variances. Further discussion and action at the January 26th Planning
Commission meeting.
Topic: \ Role of the Energy and Environment Co
(ECC) /
Date Introduced November 24, 2009
Continued Discussion, January 19, 2011
Introduction
Chair Fischer said the current re>*s
Energy and Environment Comm
process; however, the Chair wo
packets. The Commission also r
their input when requested.
Action
The Chair would
the January 26th
Mon is for the process to remain as is. The
ave no role in the development review
Planning Commission meeting
kht to forward an issue to the ECC for
ePlanning Commission meZkg packets. Formal action at
ng Commission meeting. X
4
Variance process
Planner Teague said at the last ZOUC meeting members discussed a number of
options on how to address the Zoning Board of Appeals. Teague noted that past
ordinance changes would impact the number of variances heard on both the
commercial and residential level; however those changes are recent, adding it's too
early to see if they worked. Continuing, Teague said at their last ZOUC meeting the
committee recommended that the process continue "as is ", reiterating that this "waiting
period" would provide the time to see if the recent ordinance changes worked as hoped.
Teague also said that the ZOUC acknowledged that until the court addresses the recent
legislative action on variances (Krumenacher) this may not be the best time to alter the
way the City handles variances.
Chair Fischer said the continuing discussion on revising and /or eliminating the Zoning
Board of Appeals (ZBA) resulted in three options;
1. Dissolve the current ZBA; the Planning Commission becomes the ZBA, and all
variances are reviewed by the Planning Commission. This could require the
Planning Commission to meet twice per month to keep up with the volume of
work generated by variance requests.
2. Suggest that the City Council act as the ZBA; retain the current ZBA panels on
residential variances; have their recommendation forwarded to the City Council
and placed on the consent agenda.
3. Continue the current process, noting the impact of the adoption of the PUD
process
Continuing, Chair Fischer acknowledged that presently there are many "balls" in the air
(PUD process, zoning ordinance changes, Krumenacher case) and the question could
be raised if this was the right time to tamper with the ZBA, adding in some ways it's the
best time, and in some ways it's not.
A discussion ensued with the following points made:
• Acknowledgement that the City Attorney had expressed discomfort at the current
rotating zoning board(s); noting state statute talks about one singular board; not
two, one for residential and one for commercial.
• Different rotating boards can present the appearance of inconsistency and "board
shopping ".
• If the Planning Commission and /or City Council become the Zoning Board of
Appeals the meetings would be televised; which again would promote
transparency.
• More continuity with one ZBA.
• Ensure that the variance process isn't fractured.
• Have the City Council be the ZBA, pointing out that the recent ordinance change
automatically appeals a commercial variance to the City Council. Residential
3
variances could continue to be heard by the ZBA panels with their
recommendations) forwarded to the City Council for their approval as a consent
item on the agenda. Placing residential variances on the consent agenda
provides the Council leeway to "pull' items off the consent agenda if they need
further clarification or are controversial.
• Clarification needs to be made on what body holds the public hearing; variances
are public hearings.
• If the Planning Commission becomes the ZBA there would still be the two -step
process for commercial variances.
• Acknowledge when the Krumenacher case is resolved there was the potential (if
the Planning Commission becomes the ZBA) that the Commission would need to
hold two meetings per month.
• Would recommending that the City Council become the ZBA overburden the
Council agendas?
• Acknowledge the hesitation to have residential variances televised; the present
rotating ZBA is less formal and less intimidating for residents.
Commissioner Carpenter suggested that the Commission not rush into a final decision
on eliminating the ZBA when so much is up in the air, pointing out that at this time no
one knows how the recent ordinance changes to curb massing are going to play out.
Commissioner Brown said in his opinion having the Planning Commission as the ZBA
makes the most sense. It ensures transparency, adding everything would be "up front ".
The discussion ensued with Commissioners agreeing that the best way to serve the City
and its residents in a more open clear manner would be for the Planning Commission to
assume the role of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Commissioners agreed that a process
needs to be developed; suggesting the following:
• Dissolve the present Zoning Board of Appeals and have the Planning
Commission become the Zoning Board of Appeals. At this time because of the
reduction in variances as a result of the Krumenacher case the Commission
would continue to meet once per month.
• Acknowledge the possibility that if /when the Krumenacher case is resolved that
the Planning Commission would meet twice monthly. Further discussion on the
time frame within the agenda when the residential variances would be heard
requires further discussion.
Motion
Commissioner Staunton moved to recommend that the Planning Commission act
as the Zoning Board of Appeals eliminating the existing rotating panels and
continuing the automatic appeal to the City Council. Commissioner Grabiel
seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried.
4
Topic: Traffic /Parking Review (Planning Commission role
vs. Transportation Commission role)
Date Introduced: November 24, 2009
Why on the list: Concern was raised by the Transportation Commission in
regard to the need for their review of traffic studies for
individual projects. The idea was that the Transportation
Commission could focus their efforts on larger transportation
issues and studies, rather than review individual projects
which could be done by the Planning Commission.
History: The Transportation Commission was formed in 2003, and
provides greater focus on the issue of traffic generated by new
development. A specific duty of the Transportation
Commission is to advise the City Council on matters relating to
the operation of the local street system with respect to traffic
volumes, congestion, and functional classification. (See the
powers and duties of the Transportation Commission in the
attached documents.)
Decision Points: 1. Duplication of duties.
2. Streamline the process for developers. Having the
Planning Commission consider traffic studies would require
one less meeting to attend for developers, consultants and
the public.
3. The streamlining of the process would result in an extra
meeting for staff (city engineer) to attend.
Options: 1. Continue with the existing process with continued review of
traffic studies by the Transportation Commission.
2. Recommend that the Planning Commission review all
traffic studies as part of their review of development
projects.
City of Edina Streets and Parks 1225.04
Section 1225 - Transportation Commission
{ 1225.01 Policy and Establishment. The Council finds that the creation and operation of a street
and transportation system is an integral part of the long -term vision for the City. The Council also
finds that congestion on the regional roadway system and the failure of that system to accommodate
the continued growth in traffic volumes has created and exacerbated traffic volumes, speed and
congestion on local streets; that such volumes, speed and congestion are adversely affecting the
quality of life of the City's residents; that businesses located in the City are adversely affected by the
inadequacy of the regional system to move people and goods; and that improving the local
transportation system is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and strategic plans of the City,
Therefore, the Council hereby establishes the Transportation Commission (the "Commission ").
1225.02 Purpose and Duties. The Commission shall:
A. 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.
B. Review and comment on plans to enhance mass transit opportunities in the City.
C. Review the findings of the Local Traffic Task Force and offer recommendations for
implementation.
D. Evaluate methods for traffic calming and other speed and volume mitigation measures
and recommend their implementation where appropriate.
1225.03 Membership. The Commission shall consist of ten members appointed by the Council.
�. The Council shall endeavor to appoint members such that the Commission is reflective of the different
geographic areas of the City. One member of the Commission shall also be a member of the Planning
Cornmission. One member of the Commission shall also be a member of the Bike Edina Task Force
or any existing similar organization, or shall otherwise have an expertise or interest in. bicycling as a
mode of transportation. One member of the Commission may be a high school student, who shall
serve as a non - voting member of the Commission. Members shall serve until a successor has been
appointed. All members of the Commission shall be residents of the City and shall be appointed for a
term of three years except any student member shall be appointed for a term of one year, commencing
on a date determined by the Council. Upon termination of a member's term, that member's successor
shall be appointed for the remainder of such term. Members of the Commission shall serve without
rmmnencatinn and may rec;on voluntarily or be removed by a majority vntP of tha C'nimr.jl n„rc„ant to
Section 180 of this Code. Commission members who discontinue legal residency in the City may be
removed from office by the Council.
1225.04 Meetings. All meetings of the Commission shall be open to the public, be governed by
Robert's Rules of Order, and otherwise be held pursuant to its bylaws. The Commission shall hold its
regular meetings on such fixed date and in such fixed place as it from time to time shall determine.
The minutes of all meetings shall be recorded and a copy thereof transmitted to each member of the
Council.
History: Ord 2003 -09; 7- I5 -03; amended by Ord 2003 -14 12- 16 -03; Ord 2005 -07 7- 19 -05; Ord
2008 -05, 04 -01 -08
Cross Reference: Section 180
1225-1 Supplement 2008 -01
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER _24, 2009
TOPIC: Role of the Transportation Commission in
development review
DATE INTRODUCED: November 24, 2009
DISCUSSION 11/24/2009
Introduction
Planner Teague addressed the Commission and informed them at a past joint
meeting with the Transportation Commission it was found there appears to be
the perception of a duplication of duties between the Planning Commission and
the Transportation Commission. The Transportation Commission was formed in
2003 with their main focus on the bigger picture; the daily operation of a street
and transportation system, and to also provide advice to the City Council on the
impact of new developments on the City's street system. This advisory status
would take the pressure off the Planning Commission when considering
development plans that impact City streets.
Planner Teague explained the process as it exists today requires that new
development proposals are heard by the Transportation Commission and after
their review and recommendation the proposal proceeds to the Planning
Commission. This process created another step an applicant has to go through.
Planner Teague said at this time the Commission needs to decide if the process
should be continued as is, or should the process be streamlined by removing the
Transportation Commission as a step in the development process and have the
Planning Commission review all traffic studies as part of their overall review. The
Planning Commission would forward their recommendation on to the City Council
for their review and action.
Commissioner Brown said in his opinion this is a good question. If the
Commission was granted full review authority over traffic studies and found
during a development review process that more traffic, etc: information was
needed the Planning Commission could forward their concerns to the
Transportation Commission and have them render an opinion. Concluding,
Commissioner Brown noted that he served as Planning Commission liaison on
the Transportation Commission, and in his opinion the development process
would be streamlined if the Transportation Commission was implemented more
as an advisory board on development projects at the request of Staff,
Commission or City Council.
Commissioner Schroeder stated he is the current Planning Commission liaison to
the Transportation Commission and it appears to him if the Transportation
Commission is required to deal with each development project a lot of time is
taken away from the larger transportation and roadway issues.
Commissioner Scherer said she understands the issue of redundancy, adding in
her opinion the process is redundant. She pointed out that the present process
requires that the Transportation Commission weigh in on all development
proposals and make a recommendation to the Commission and Council.
Historically, both the Commission and Council continue to discuss traffic, etc.
even though the issue was studied and reviewed by Engineering staff and the
Transportation Commission. Commissioner Scherer reiterated in her opinion this
is a duplication of effort, adding that she recommends that the process be
streamlined by eliminating development review from the Transportation
Commission unless directed.
The discussion continued with Commissioners acknowledging that in the past the
public expressed concern that when a development proposal was heard that
included a traffic analysis that analysis was conducted by a traffic consultant
chosen by the applicant. The expressed concern was that the facts develivered
by the developers consultant may not be accurate, and may favor the applicant.
The Commission further noted however; that times have changed and at this
time the City has the tools to review all traffic studies and render its own opinion.
Commissioners also stressed that if the Transportation Commission review was
eliminated input from the Transportation Commission would still be needed on
certain development proposals and when the City "tackles" the Small Area Plans.
Commissioner Carpenter asked Planner Teague what information the Planning
Commission would receive if the Commission were to suggest that review by the
Transportation Commission be eliminated. Planner Teague said the Commission
would be supplied with everything needed to make an educated decision from
both the applicant and City staff.
it was noted by Commissioner Schroeder that both the Transportation
Commission and the Energy and Environment Commission have not been
granted review authority, adding in his opinion this creates two separate
categories. Those with review authority and those without.
Chair Fischer said it appears that the Commission is in favor of eliminating the
Transportation Commission as a step in the development review process.
Action
Preliminary Draft Recommendation to eliminate the Transportation
Commission from the Development Review process unless a specific
referral is requested by Staff, Planning Commission, or City Council.
TOPIC:
DATE INTRODUCED:
CONTINUED DISCUSSION:
Transportation Commission role in the
Development Review process
November 24, 2009
December 9, 2009
Introduction:
Chair Fischer explained that at the November 24, 2009, Planning Commission
PC) meeting, the Commission discussed the role of the Transportation
Commission (TC) in the development review process. Chair Fischer further
explained that at that meeting the Commission suggested that the Transportation
Commission be eliminated from the development review process unless a
specific referral is requested by staff, planning commission or city council.
Discussion:
Commissioner Risser questioned what would trigger review by the TC.
Commissioner Schroeder said he envisions that the Transportation Commission
would review projects of a scale sufficient to trigger an environmental review
(environmental assessment worksheet, environmental impact statement,
alternative urban areawide review), as well as any area of the city subject to a
small area plan.
Geof Workinger, 5224 Kellogg Avenue and Chair of the TC raised the
following questions:
1. Does the Planning Commission see eliminating TC review on all
development projects as an important step in streamlining the process?
2. Has the TC provided the Commission /Council quality guidance when
reviewing traffic issues; and
3. Is review by both the TC and PC duplication and an overlap of process or
does it provide the needed balance?
Commissioner Staunton explained that at the joint meeting of the TC and Zoning
Ordinance Update Committee (ZOUC) it was mentioned by a TC member that
the focus of the TC should be the larger picture, adding it was also mentioned
that reviewing every development project at the micro -level may be a duplication
of effort. Concluding, Commissioner Staunton said the goal of the ZOUC is to
streamline the development review process to avoid confusion for the public and
the developer.
Mr. Workinger clarified he wasn't aware the ZOUC was tackling this issue,
adding he is not speaking on behalf of the TC; he is only expressing his opinion.
tontinuing,,Mr. Workinger questioned if the Commission found it helpful that a
specific project had the TC stamp of approval? Chair Fischer responded it was
helpful, adding he doesn't want to convey the impression that the Planning
Commission wants to "control everything ". He reiterated that the goal of the
ZOUC is to streamline and clarify the development review process. Mr.
Workinger said in his opinion the role of the TC is vital, adding the TC has value
with their expertise.
A discussion ensued with Commissioners acknowledging the benefit of
development review at the TC level; however, a piece in the TC review process
is missing and that piece is public input. It was pointed out that the Planning
Commission and City Council conduct the public hearings and with many
projects traffic impact plays a very important role in the discussion and decision.
Residents have expressed confusion when the Commission and Council refer to
a recommendation from the TC when they weren't aware the project they were
interested in was previously discussed at a City level.
Mr. Bonneville, 4378 Browndale, and member of the TC said that in his opinion
the TC should be involved in the development review process; however their role
needs to be more clearly defined. Continuing, Mr. Bonneville pointed out the City
Council appoints residents with applicable expertise to the various boards and
commissions, adding the talents of Edina's residents should be used.
Concluding, Mr. Bonneville acknowledged the question if where the TC fits in the
development review process and suggested that the PC and the TC get together
to establish criteria for development review.
Commissioner Scherer agreed that clarification is needed on the role of the TC in
the development review process, but noted the TC is an advisory board without
public notice. Commissioners agreed with that comment. Continuing,
Commissioner Scherer said in her opinion establishing the PUD as the
development review threshold for the TC would be a good place to start.
Concluding, Commissioner Scherer said if there is an issue with the relevance of
the TC that should be addressed at the Council level and if the Council deems
that the TC continues its development review the Council should consider
assigning them a public process.
After further discussion the ZOUC suggested that either a joint session is needed
between the PC and TC or a member of the PC attends a TC meeting to discuss
the relevancy and the role of the TC in the development review process.
Chair Fischer reiterated what the ZOUC is trying to do is to establish a more
transparent, easily understood, and streamlined development review process. He
reiterated in no way should anyone take away from these work sessions that the
Planning Commission is attempting to "take away" anything, pointing out the City
Council has the final authority for any changes to the Zoning Ordinance.
Action:
The Zoning Ordinance Update Committee recommends that the previous
recommendation to eliminate the Transportation Commission from the
development review process be tabled until sometime in January 2010.
Chair Fischer said this will allow the TC time to discuss their role as it
relates to development review. Chair Fischer said minutes would be
provided to the TC on the discussion this evening. Chair Fischer said if
possible a member of the Planning Commission would also attend
January's TC meeting.
Topic: Traffic /Parking Review (Planning Commission role vs.
Transportation Commission role)
Date Introduced: November 24, 2009
Continued Discussion: January 19, 2011
Chair Fischer reminded the Commission of the topic regarding the role the Edina
Transportation Commission (ETC) plays in the review process, adding this topic has
been discussed for quite some time. Fischer said in his opinion the ETC does a fine job;
however, the problem was that the ETC doesn't hold the public hearing(s) on
development matters; thereby a disconnect was created in the process. Continuing,
Fischer explained because of this disconnect, the Zoning Ordinance Update Committee
(ZOUC) had suggested that the ETC be eliminated from the development review
process. This change would have all transportation /traffic issues addressed at the PC
and Council levels; freeing up time for the ETC to tackle future transportation issues for
the City. Concluding, Chair Fischer said this change would create the need for
engineering staff and the developer's traffic engineer to attend the Planning
Commission meetings.
Member Forrest asked if there would be a way to keep a dialogue open between the
Planning Commission and Edina Transportation Commission. Chair Fischer said the
intent of this change was not to minimize the role of the ETC, but to
streamline the process. The Planning Commission and City Council could still refer
projects to the ETC. Continuing, Fischer suggested that to keep the ETC "in the loop"
PC packets could be sent to the ETC. Concluding Fischer stated that he believes the
future approach of boards /commission may be to form working groups on large issues
made up of representatives from multiple commissions.
Tom Bonneville said in his opinion it would be important that at least one member of the
Planning Commission was knowledgeable on transportation /traffic issues and
processes.
The discussion ensued on the transportation criteria required for a development
project. The Commission noted it is important that the traffic consultant is
knowledgeable on what the City requires for a project. Planner Teague explained that
in some communities it's common practice that the City "hires" the traffic
consultant at the expense of the developer. Member Schroeder said in his opinion it's
best that the City gets the first "look" at the analysis and is the body that guides what is
found in the analysis.
Mr. Bonneville said that while it is true that some cities "hire" the consultant larger
corporations like to work with people they are familiar with and who are familiar with
their operation. Bonneville suggested that the City consider an ombudsman to guide
the developer through the process to ensure that the scope of the analysis meets City
requirements. Planner Teague said at this time the option of the City "hiring" the traffic
consultant was only an idea.
Action
The Zoning Ordinance Update Committee recommends that the Transportation
Commission be eliminated from the development review process unless a
specific referral is requested by Staff, Planning Commission or City Council.
Consider sending a Planning Commission packet to the Chair of the
Transportation Commission. Formal action to take place on January 26tH.
Topic: Variance Process Review
Date Introdu d: November 24, 2009
Continued Discu 'on: January 19, 2011
Introduction
Chair Fischer acknowledged t this issue has been bef the ZOUC a number of
times, adding there are a numb of possibilities for th oning Board of Appeals (ZBA):
1. Dissolve the ZBA and have th lanning C mission become the ZBA;
2. Have the City Council be the Zo Bo of Appeals and have the Planning
Commission be advisory to the Co or commercial items and a ZBA panel for
residential items; hold the meetings forward their recommendation to the
City Council for action. Possibility r va nces to be placed on the consent
agenda;
3. Keep the existing process; n ng that since ordinance was amended to
adopt a PUD process that riances (at the co ercial level) would be handled
through the existing pro s.
Fischer noted with option Vra-me e PUD process, that an import t point that needs to be
clarified would be the tim of when the variance was he N. Fischer suggested
that the variance shoul a heard after preliminary review and ap oval and before final
review and approval. ommittee Members agreed.
Continuing, Fisc r pointed out that the recent changes to the City ord nce may also
impact the nu er of variances requested. Ms. Aaker agreed, adding th
changes to ordinance have been done incrementally, adding it may be metime
before the ' pact of those changes was realized. Aaker also noted that the r ently
adopted on- conforming ordinance could also play a role in reducing the num r of
varian s.
MEETING MINUTES
Regular Meeting of the Edina Planning Commission
Wednesday, January 26, 2011, 7:00 PIS
Edina City Hall Council Cham s
MEMBERS P%LESENT:
Chair Mike Fisal%r, Jeff Carpenter, Julie Risser, NaZeorrest, erer, Kevin Staunton,
Michael Schroede , teve Brown, Floyd Grabiel, Ar Matt Rock and
Melisa Stefanik
STAFF PRESENT:
Cary Teague, Kris Aaker and ie Hoog ker
I. APPROVAL OF THE M
Commissioner Risser moved ap val of the D ember 1, 2010, meeting minutes.
Commissioner Carpenter sec ded the motion. oted aye; motion carried.
II. OLD BUSIN
Continued disc ion on amendments to Edina Zoning 'nance 850
Chair Fis � er reported that the Zoning Ordinance Update Committee \this es
its wo and discussion on updating Edina's Zoning Ordinance 850, ing
the mmission would put clo sure to some of the past topics. Fishepic
usiness was the role of the Transportation Commission.
Edina Transportation Commission (ETC)/Traffic /Parking Review
Planner Teague briefed the Commission that the intent of the proposed
recommendation to eliminate the Edina Transportation Commission from development
review was to streamline the process. Continuing, Teague said that having only the
Planning Commission and City Council review traffic and transportation issues on
development projects made the most sense because both the Planning Commission
and Council hold the public hearing. Teague stated a "one stop" review process before
each also eliminates confusion for both the applicant and the public. Planner Teague
opened the discussion.
Chair Fischer acknowledged that this issue was discussed many times over the past
months. Fischer said the initial recommendation of the ZOUC was to eliminate the ETC
from development review; freeing them up to consider future transportation issues and
recommending that the Planning Commission and City Council be the bodies that
review all development related transportation and traffic issues. Continuing, Fischer
noted that this recommendation was placed "on hold" at the request of the ETC. Fisher
reported after many discussions the initial recommendation went "full circle ". Fischer
noted that at the last meeting of the ZOUC it was recommended that the ETC be
eliminated from the development review process unless a specific referral was
requested by city staff, `Planning Commission or City Council. Concluding, Fischer also
noted that the recommendation included providing the Chair of the ETC with a Planning
Commission packet prior to each Commission meeting. Fischer asked for any
comments:
Commissioner Staunton stated he supports the proposed change, adding in his opinion
it's a good change. Staunton noted that the Planning Commission had experienced (on
numerous occasions) times when questions from the public couldn't be answered
because the City Engineer and /or the developer's traffic consultant were not present at
the PC meeting. Staunton said in his opinion the proposed change also sends a clear
signal to all that development review (on all levels) is heard by the Planning
Commission and City Council at their respective public hearings. Staunton concluded
that if the ETC was interested in a specific development proposal a member of the ETC
could attend the hearing(s).
Motion
Commissioner Staunton moved to recommend that the Edina Transportation
Commission be eliminated from the development review process unless a
specific referral is requested by City Staff, Planning Commission or City Council.
It was further recommended that the Chair of the Edina Transportation
Commission be provided with the Planning Commission packet prior to each
Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion. All
voted aye; motion carried.
Chair Fischer reported that he spoke with the Chair of the ETC and she indicated to him
that she was comfortable with the recommendation from the Planning Commission;
however, cannot speak for the entire ETC; some members continue to want to review
development proposals. Continuing, Fischer said the ETC Chair expressed to him the
need for the criteria a developer is required to follow be clear and easily accessible to
ensure that the developer's transportation consultant follows City guidelines on all
transportation /traffic development issues (Traffic Impact Analysis). Concluding Fischer
reported in the past the Planning Commission and City Council were the bodies that
reviewed all transportation and traffic issues, but when the ETC was formed that review
was forwarded to them; now the recommendation is to come back to the Commission
and Council for their review bringing it "full circle ".
Commissioner Carpenter suggested that the Planning Commission be provided with a
copy of the traffic impact analysis guidelines. Planner Teague responded he would look
into that.
2
Topic: Public Hearings
Date Introduced:
November 24, 2009
Why on the list:
Concern was raised by residents in regard to confusion over
multiple public hearings during the development review
process.
History:
The Planning ,Commission began holding public hearings in
2007, at the request of the City Council; with -the possibility of
the City Council no longer holding an official public hearing of
a City Council meeting. However, the Council has continued to
hold its own public hearings on development projects.
.Decision Points:
1. Duplication of public hearings.
2. Added cost of mailing and notification for two public
hearings.
3. Stated confusion expressed from residents adjacent to
projects in regard to when they should testify for or against
a project.
Options:
1. Continue with the existing two public hearing process.
2. Recommend that the Planning Commission no longer hold
public hearings if the City Council wishes to continue with
-
having a public'hearing.
It
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 24, 2009
TOPIC: Public Hearing During the Development Review
Process
DATE INTRODUCED: November 24, 2009
Discussion 11/2412009
Introduction:
Planner Teague said the, topic of public hearings came up at the last work
session when public input was taken. At that meeting concern was expressed
that both the Planning Commission and the City Council conduct public hearings.
This has created some confusion for residents on' which meeting'10. attend if they
have a conflict. Planner Teague explained in 2007 the City Council amended the
ordinance to have the Planning Commission conduct public hearings on
development proposals. The reason the Council amended the ordinance was to
help tighten up their meetings. However, since this change, the City. Council has
continued to conduct public hearings, which is a duplication that includes
additional Sun Current legal postings and multiple mailings. Planner Teague
suggested the following:
1. Continue as is.
2. Recommend the Planning Commission no longer hold the public hearing,
if the City Council wishes to continue having a public hearing.
Discussion.
A discussion ensued with the Commission expressing the.following;
There should only be one body conducting the public hearing.,
v Have the Planning Commission conduct all public'hearings on planning
matters; however, if the Planning Commission thought that an additional .
public hearing was warranted for a specific proposal 'they would
recommend to the Council they also conduct a public hearing.
Keep as is. Members of-the Commission expressed reluctance in
eliminating them from conducting the public hearing. If the City Council
indicates they also want to conduct public hearings on planning issues
both the Commission and Council should conduct them.
The discussion continued with the Commission noting that only the City Council
can hold a public hearing on ordinance changes; however reiterated their opinion
that if one of the goals of updating the ordinance is to streamline and clarify the
t
development review process the Planning Commission should be the body that
holds the public hearing. Having one body conduct the public hearings is less
costly and it lessens the confusion for the developer and the public.
Commissioner Grabiel said if this discussion is about what the Planning
Commission as a body would like to see happen it would be that the Planning
Commission conducts the public hearing.
Action:
Preliminary Draft Recommendation to eliminate the City Council from
holding public hearings on development issues unless a specific referral is
requested by the Planning Commission for the Council to hold a public
hearing.
The discussion turned to an issue raised by a resident on the option of a rebuttal
period for residents during the public hearing. Commissioner Schroeder said he
is uncomfortable with having that as an option. He said in his opinion any
decision made by the Planning Commission should be based on facts.
Commissioner Staunton asked if a resident has an additional question after the
public hearing is closed how would that'question be answered. It was noted that
there has always been instances during a public hearing when it was re- opened
to accommodate a question(s). Chair Fischer acknowledged there have been a
number of hotly contested issues within the community, adding it is difficult to
achieve a fair and balanced meeting; however, civility must be maintained to
prevent back and forth acquisitions from being raised without the benefit of fact
checking. Continuing, Chair Fischer added it can be frustrating for residents
when the hearing is closed and the Commission continues to ask questions of
the developer. Commissioner Schere pointed out in her opinion that the Chair
does a good job of summarizing concerns expressed by the residents.
Commissioner Schroeder suggested that as the ordinance updating process
continues the ordinance could require that an applicant hold a neighborhood
meeting prior to the meeting of the Planning Commission. This could diffuse any
issues. Planner Teague interjected that any change in meeting format would
need to be approved by the City Council.
In summary Commissioners stressed that the goal of a pubic hearing is to
provide facts, discuss the issues and have a civil meeting
TOPIC Public Hearings
DATE INTRODUCED November 24, 2009
CONTINUED DISCUSSION December 9, 2009
Introduction
Chair Fischer noted that at the past meeting of the Ordinance Update Committee
it was suggested that the. Planning Commission hold the:public hearing for
development projects with the City, Council taking public comments, but not
holding the "public hearing ". Commissioner Staunton agreed with that statement
and added in his opinion it is important to make a recommendation on who
should hold the.public hearing on development projects in order to clarify the
planning process. ,
Discussion
City Attorney Knuston told the Committee that in the cities he works with the
Planning Commission holds the public hearing on development projects. He
further noted that the City Councils he works with may, or may not; take public
input at City Council meetings.
Mr. Bohan commented that in his opinion having both.the Planning Commission
and City, Council hold the public hearings is a duplication of effort creating
dysfunction within the process. Treating the Planning Commission as advisory
only creates a "practice run" climate before the final City Council public hearing.
A brief discussion ensued with Members agreeing a clear recommendation
,needs to be drafted on the public hearing process. Members also noted in many
instances the developer is required to attend numerous meetings to "get a project
through" the process (Planning Commission, City Council, Transportation, Zoning
Board of Appeals, HPB). Multiple meetings elongate the. process increasing the
number of presentations and time` spent on a project. It also is confusing for
residents.
The discussion continued as'to control during the public hearing while meeting
the developers and residents expectations. City Attorney. Knutson stated in his
experience the body that holds the public hearing controls the process as to
when, how, and how often parties are allowed to speak. Mr. Knutson stated most
cities do not re -open hearings once it has been closed or offer a time for rebuttal
as suggested at a previous ZOUC meeting. Continuing, Mr. Knutson stressed
that a public hearing is not a dialog or-debate between the Commission,
developer and /or the public. Concluding Mr. Knutson said the goal of each
hearing is to have an orderly fair meeting that ultimately must come to an end
and a decision must be made.
Chair Fischer said the problem he sees is that after the public hearing is closed
and the Commission redirects questions to the developer the public feels slighted
if they can't continue to weigh in, especially if they disagree with the developer's
answer. Commissioner Schroeder asked Mr. Knutson if there is a "legal" outline
on how to conduct. public hearings. Mr. Knutson said to the best of his knowledge
how to run a public hearing is not legislated; however, there should be
consistency in the approach cities take with running a public hearing. Mr.
Knuston said that the body conducting the public hearing could "make their own
rules "; however, as previously mentioned the "rules" to follow should be
consistent and should be available for review. Mr. Knutson said the Commission
bylaws being drafted during this process should contain language on conducting
a public hearing.
Action
The ZOUC agreed to a final draft recommendation that one public hearing
should be held on development applications. The Planning Commission
should be the group to hold the public hearing. The City Council could still
take testimony or comment during their review, but the official public
hearing would be held with the Planning Commission.
i
In' duction
Chai ischer said the process that needs to be resolved is what's heard first; t
Certific a of Appropriateness (COA) or variance. The previous recommend on was
for the C to be reviewed first, and then the variance. Member Forrest, mmission
liaison to th eritage Preservation Board (HPB) asked the Committe keep in mind
that when a C is approved by the HPB what was approved is fin and if a variance
was needed an a Zoning Board were to change the plans ev slightly, the COA
would need to retu to the HPB for re review. Forrest said th order; COA first, Zoning
Board second could ate an additional meeting.
A discussion ensued acknXvledging Member Forres ' input; however, the Committee
felt that the HPB should he a a COA first and fo and their findings to the Zoning
Board of Appeals. It was note at Membe;?The a Zoning Board of Appeals would
take into consideration all input, r the HP Committee did acknowledge that an
argument can be made either way; w r, they believe that the public is better served
by having the HPB hear a COA with lance first. The HPB has more flexibility in
reviewing a COA if they are not bo d b a variance decision.
Member Forrest said anothe oint importan the HPB concerns setbacks. Forrest
pointed out thaZthere- oning Ordinance ually makes it impossible (in some
ins tances) to bbut a Tudor style ho Forrest said the Commission
should conside setbacks in the Count Club District. It was acknowledged
there is difficulg setbacks only for the C ntry Club District and continued
discussion on placed on the "bucket list ".
/opriateness
cy that when a project requires both a Certifica of Appropriateness
e that the Heritage Preservation Board hears the rtificate of
first and forwards their findings to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
n at the January 26th Planning Commission Meeting.
Topic: Public Hearings
Date Introduced: November 24, 2009
Continued Discussion: January 19, 2011
Introduction
Chair Fischer said that he continues to agree with the past recommendation of the
ZOUC that the Planning Commission holds the one "official" public hearing. Continuing,
Fischer reported that Kevin Staunton shared an idea he had on the public hearing
1
process that has the Planning Commission conduct the public hearing; however, the
public hearing does not close; but is continued to the City Council meeting.
Committee members agreed that one public hearing is best. It reduces confusion for
both the applicant and public. It provides a cleaner record with evidence presented at
one hearing, in case a decision is challenged in court. Findings made are based on
evidence presented at one hearing.
Chair Fischer suggested that Planner Teague speak with Roger Knutson, City Attorney
to clarify the to the Planning Commission what other cities are doing with public
hearings, and to articulate the reasons why one public hearing is a preferred solution;
adding the intent is not to prevent the City Council from taking public input; but to
reduce confusion and ensure that all official evidence is introduced before the Planning
Commission makes its findings and recommendation.
Action
No formal action. Action recommended at the Planning Commission meeting on
January 26th.
Topic: Developers Meeting & List of Conditions Req ' d by
the City
Date Introduce December 9, 2009
Continued Discuss January 19, 2011
Introduction
Chair Fischer introduced the is and said in hi pinion the process should stay as
previously recommended by the mmission. a added the adoption of the PUD
ordinance process also contains cl ' ing I guage. Commissioners agreed with Chair
Fischer.
Mr. Bonneville asked who makes t decis on whether an applicant needs a PUD or
rezoning. Planner Teague resp ed that he ides an applicant toward a process he
believes best meets the nee of both the City d applicant; however, he can't prevent
an applicant from decidin a different process long as it meets code
requirements.
Action
Keep th/al ocess as is; no changes to the sta veloper /neighborhood
processadoption of the PUD ordinance and th option of sketch plan
review. n recommended at the Planning Comm ion meeting on
January
Role
Chair Fisc r noted there had been a number of discussions on this to ,adding the
consens s at
us it was not beneficial for the Energy and Environ t Commission
to play an act\aa evelopment review process. Fishers at this time the
EEC chair recing Commission packet prior to PC etings.
Motion
Commissionoved to recommend at the Energy and Environment
Commis sion e le in the develo ent process. Commissioner
Scherer secotion. II voted a , motion carried.
Heritaae
Planner Teague said past discussyTs ha ccurred on "who hears it first "; HPB or ZBA
when a Certificate of Appropria ess (COA) iZOUC ariance was simultaneously required.
Teague said past discussion dicated that tnning Commission believes the HPB
should hear the Certificate Appropriatenesd forward their comments and
findings to the Zoning B rd of Appeals for thti It was acknowledged that
changes to the COA Id occur as the resulrian findings; however any
changes at the var. �ce level could be brougk to th PB for further review.
Teague said an er issue that was brought he HPB s the impact within the
Country Club strict from recent ordinance cs to addres assing. Teague said
as the resu f those changes the inability to Colonial styl ome in the Country
Club Dis t became apparent. Teague said r discussion on ' e yard setbacks
need a addressed at a future meeting of tUC and Planning mmission.
Cbdir Fischer asked for a motion.
Co mmissioner Sche recomme a
Certificate of Appro r' the Heritage Preservation Board
hears the and forwards their findings to Board of Appeals.
loner Risser seconded the motion. All voted aye; mo i d.
Public Hearings
Chair Fischer asked Planner Teague to share his findings on the public hearing process
from his talk with Roger Knutson, City Attorney .
Planner Teague said at a number of ZOUC meetings Commissioners expressed the
opinion that there was only one public hearing on development issues; and that hearing
should be before the Planning Commission. Teague said he spoke with Mr. Knutson
and they discussed the benefits of one public hearing and together outlined the
following possible benefits:
1. One public hearing streamlines the process /reducing confusion.
2. It is imperative that all evidence be presented at the public hearing. If there is
one public hearing and that hearing is before the Planning Commission it would
ensure that the Planning Commission receives the same information received by
the City Council to make their decision(s).
3. One public hearing better addresses the 60 -day rule.
4. Multiple public hearings create the possibility for mistakes in publishing
deadlines, continuances, mailing notices, etc.
5. Acknowledge that there is a cost associated with two public hearings; mailings,
published notices and other issues.
6. The City Council would continue to take public testimony; in no way does having
the Planning Commission hold the official public hearing limit public input at the
Council level.
7. Length of the City Council meetings could be reduced.
Commissioner Staunton asked Planner Teague if Roger Knutson had expressed a
preference on if the public hearing could be "left open" between the Planning
Commission and Council meetings. Planner Teague responded that Knutson didn't
express any preference, adding Knutson stated that all testimony becomes part of the
official record, regardless of who /where how many public hearings are held.
Commissioner Brown stated he is a staunch supporter of one public hearing; suggesting
that the public hearing should be before the Planning Commission. Brown said in his
opinion the Planning Commission should do the "heavy lifting ". Continuing, Brown said
this would take displine, and would ensure that everyone (developers & residents)
places everything on the table at the PC hearing, and not save their "ammunition" for
the last meeting (Council). The Planning Commission would then forward their findings
to the City Council for their review and approval or denial.
A discussion ensued with Commissioners acknowledging that at times it feels like the
Planning Commission is the "practice run ", pointing out there are many times when the
Planning Commission doesn't receive the same information the Council receives. The
consensus of the Commission was to recommend that the Planning Commission hold
the public hearing and forward their findings to the City Council.
Motion
Commissioner Brown moved to recommend that the City Council be eliminated
from holding the public hearing on development projects and that one public
hearing on development issues be held at the Planning Commission level.
Commissioner Grabiel seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried.
.AGENDA
EDINA HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
EDINA CITY COUNCIL
MARCH 15, 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, 2010
II. ADJOURNMENT
EDINA CITY COUNCIL
I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Regular Meeting of March 5, 2010 and Work Session of March 1, 2010
II. PUBLIC HEARINGS
During "Public Hearings," the Mayor will ask for public testimony after City staff members make
their presentations. If you wish to testify on the topic, you are welcome to do so as long as your
testimony is relevant to the discussion. To ensure fairness to all speakers and to allow the efficient
conduct of a public hearing, speakers must observe the following guidelines:
Individuals must limit their testimony to three minutes. The Mayor may modify times, as deemed
necessary.
Try not .to repeat remarks or points of view made by prior speakers and limit`testimony to the
matter under consideration.
In order to maintain a, respectful environment for all those in attendance, the use of signs,
clapping, cheering or booing or any other form of verbal or nonverbal communication is not
allowed.
A. PUBLIC HEARING - Ordinance No. 2011 -3 Amending Section 850.04. Regarding Notice of
Hearing For Conditional Use Permit (First Reading: Requires offering of Ordinance only.
Second Reading: Favorable rollcall vote of three Council Members to pass. Waiver of
Second Reading: Affirmative rollcall vote of four Council Members to pass.)
B. PUBLIC HEARING: Request To Keep More Than Three (3) Cats and Dogs in Aggregate Per City
Code Section 300.15 (Favorable vote of majority of .Council Members present to approve)
Agenda/Edina City Council
March 15, 2011
Page 2
III. AWARD OF BID /CHANGE ORDERS
* A. Contract No. ENG 11 -2, Imp No. BA -384, SS -461, STS -374; WM -510 Ridge Road Street and
Utility Reconstruction
IV. REPORTS /RECOMMENDATIONS (Favorable vote of majority of Council Members present to
approve except where noted)
A. Golf Terrace Street Reconstruction Improvement No. BA -355, Resolution No. 2011 -13
— Continued from February 15, 2011 (Favorable rollcall vote of four Council Members to
approve)
B. Nice Ride Minnesota
C. Decision Resources Proposal
D. Resolution No. 2011 -38 Accepting Various Donations
* E. Traffic Safety Committee Report of March 2, 2011
* F. Approval of Contract for 2010 - 2012, IAFF 1275 (Fire Fighters)
* G. Renewal On -Sale and Sunday Sale Liquor Licenses: Cocina del Barrio, Tavern on France and
McCormick and Schmick's Seafood Restaurant
H. Appointment to Edina Transportation Commission
I. Art Center Board and Heritage Preservation Board Vacancies
* J. Resolution No. 2011 -39 Accepting Grant For Installation of Solar Panels On City Hall
* K. Engineering Proposal for Construction Phase Services for Ridge Road Reconstruction Project
L. Spring Flooding Update
V. COMMUNITY COMMENT
During "Community Comment," the City Council will invite residents to share new issues or
concerns that haven't been considered in the past 30 days by the Council or which aren't slated for
future consideration. Individuals must limit their comments to three minutes. The Mayor may
limit the number of speaks on the same issue in the interest of time and topic. Generally speaking,
items that are elsewhere on tonight's agenda may not be addressed during Community Comment.
Individuals should not expect the Mayor or Council to respond to their comments tonight. Instead
the Council might refer the matter to staff for consideration at a future meeting.
VI. FINANCE
* A. CONFIRMATION OF PAYMENT OF CLAIMS As per, Pre -List dated March 3, 2011, TOTAL
$889,529.91; and per Pre -List dated March 10, 2011, TOTAL $788,650.67;
VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS
II
Tues
Tues
Tues
Tues
Mon
Tues
Tues
Tues
Wed
Thur
Tues
Tues
Tues
Mon
Tues
Wed
Tues
Agenda /Edina City Council
March 15, 2011
Page 3
A. Correspondence
VIII. MAYOR AND COUNCIL COMMENTS
IX. MANAGER'S COMMENTS
X. ADJOURNMENT
The City of Edina wants all residents to be comfortable being part of the public process. If you need
assistance in the way of hearing amplification, an interpreter, large -print documents or something else,
please call 952 - 927 - 886172 hours in advance of the meeting.
SCHEDULE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS /DATES /EVENTS
Mar 1
Work Session —Joint Meeting With Transportation Comm
5:00 P.M.
COMMUNITY ROOM
Mar 1
Regular Meeting
7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Mar 15
Work Session —Joint Meeting With Planning Commission
5:00 P.M.
COMMUNITY ROOM
Mar 15
Regular Meeting
7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Mar 21
Annual Meeting— Boards & Commissions
5:00 P.M.
HUGHES PAVILION
Apr 5
Work Session — Review of City Enterprise Business Plans
5:00 P.M.
COMMUNITY ROOM
Apr 5
Regular Meeting
7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Apr 18
Regular Meeting
7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Apr 27
State of The Community
11:30 A.M.
INTERLACHEN COUNTRY CLUB
Apr 28
Volunteer Recognition Reception
5:00 P.M.
EDINBOROUGH PARK GREAT HALL
May 3
Work Session —Joint Meeting With Heritage Preservation Brd
5:00 P.M.
COMMUNITY ROOM
May 3
Regular Meeting
7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
May 16
Regular Meeting
7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
May 30
MEMORIAL DAY HOLIDAY OBSERVED — City Hall Closed
Jun 7
Regular Meeting
7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Jun 8
Employee Recognition 11:00
A.M. & 12:30 P.M. BRAEMAR CLUBHOUSE
Jun 21
Regular Meeting
7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MINUTES
OF THE EDINA HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
HELD AT CITY HALL
MARCH 1, 2011
7 :04 P.M.
ROLLCALL Answering rollcall were Commissioners Bennett, Brindle, Sprague,
Swenson and Chair Hovland.
CONSENT AGENDA APPROVED Motion made by Commissioner Bennett and
seconded by Commissioner Brindle for approval of the Edina Housing. and
Red_ evelopment Authority Consent Agenda as presented.
Rollcall:
Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland
Motion carried.
*MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 15, 2011, APPROVED
Motion made by Commissioner Bennett and seconded by Commissioner Brindle
approving the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Edina Housing and
Redevelopment Authority for February 15, 2011.
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
l
Y
MINUTES
OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA CITY COUNCIL
HELD AT CITY HALL
MARCH 1, 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 Bennett and seconded by Member
Brindle approving the Council consent agenda with the exception of Item II.C., award of bid /change
orders, traffic signal cabinets for West 70th Street improvements: Improvement No. TS -44.
Rollcall:
Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland
Motion carried.
EARTH HOUR IN EDINA PROCLAIMED Mayor Hovland read in full a proclamation declaring 8:30 p.m. to
9:30 p.m. on March 26, 2011, as Earth Hour in Edina. Member Swenson made a motion, seconded by
Member Bennett, approving proclamation declaring Earth Hour.
Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland
Motion carried.
Paul Thompson, Energy & Environment Commissioner, accepted the petition and introduced
Commissioners in attendance.
*MINUTES APPROVED — REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 15, 2011 AND WORK SESSION OF FEBRUARY
15, 2011 Motion made by Member Bennett and seconded by Member Brindle approving the minutes of
the regular meeting of February 15, 2011, and work session of February 15, 2011.
Motion carried on rollcall vote — five ayes.
*AWARD OF BID — 2011 TORO REELMASTER 5210 -D FAIRWAY MOWER — BRAEMAR GOLF COURSE
Motion made by Member Bennett and seconded by Member Brindle awarding the bid for 2011 Toro
Reelmaster 5210 -D fairway mower, Braemar Golf Course, to the recommended low bidder, MTI
Distributing at $40,199.25.
Motion carried on rollcall vote —five ayes.
*AWARD OF BID — 2011 TORO GREENSMASTER 3150 -Q GREENSMOWER — BRAEMAR GOLF COURSE
Motion made by Member Bennett and seconded by Member Brindle awarding the bid for 2011 Toro
Greensmaster 3150 -Q greensmower, Braemar Golf Course, to the recommended low bidder, MTI
Distributing at $22,886.72.
Motion carried on rollcall vote —five ayes.
AWARD OF BID — TRAFFIC SIGNAL CABINET FOR WEST 70TH STREET IMPROVEMENTS: IMPROVEMENT
NO. TS -44 Public Works Director /City Engineer Houle described the bronze - colored cabinet that would
house signal control equipment. Member Sprague made a motion, seconded by Member Swenson,
awarding the bid for traffic signal cabinet for West 70th Street improvements to the recommended low
bidder, Traffic Control Corporation at $44,975.00.
Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland
Motion carried.
UPDATE ON 169/494 RECONSTRUCTION PRESENTED John Griffith, Mn /DOT, presented the two -year
timeline and performance measures used to create a cost - effective interchange design for the 169/494
reconstruction project that was currently underway. He described the time - efficient parallel design -build
process that would result in cost savings. Following a technical evaluation and bid process, the project was
Page 1
a
Minutes /Edina City Council /March 1. 2011
awarded to McCrossan /Kraemer (a joint venture) of just over $125 million. It was anticipated this project
would be completed by November 15, 2012. Mr. Griffith displayed computer animations depicting road
alignments and points of access. It was noted that Mn /DOT's use of a performance -based design process
resulted in a cost savings of $40 million by not including two fly -over bridge movements, yet the
infrastructure would accommodate future bridges, if needed. The Council acknowledged the local,
regional, and inter - regional impact of this interchange project. Mr. Griffith addressed the on -going
monitoring relating to potential impacts to the Valley View Road and Highway 169 interchange.
FREIGHT RAIL PRESENTATION Dave Christianson, Mn /DOT, described the components of Minnesota's
freight rail transportation system and indicated it was expected that rail transportation volumes would
increase 15 -25% by 2030. Mr. Christianson advised of potential future high -speed intercity passenger rail
and challenges to rail upgrades to accommodate rail transportation as well as "talking points." He advised
that the St. Louis Park freight interchange, if built, would not impact rail traffic levels in Edina because it
would divert traffic north, not south.
Mr. Christianson answered the Council's questions relating to anticipated private freight rail traffic
volumes and potential for public involvement with ,passenger pedeStFian rail traffic. He commented on the
three options presented before the Edina Transportation Commission (ETC) for freight rail currently
operating in the Kenilworth corridor and estimated costs of each. In response to the Council's request, Mr.
Christianson elaborated on the constitutional right of the freight railroads to operate, jurisdictional
protection, and ability to use eminent domain under certain circumstances. However, should public
funding be sought, a public process would be involved including environmental reviews and governmental
approvals. Mr. Christianson described the importance of the Dan Patch rail (the north /south line through
Edina) because it was the only north /south route through the west metro area.
The Council acknowledged the public's concern that the number and speed of trains would be increased.
Mr. Christianson clarified that while some segments of rail may accommodate a speed of 65 mph,
curvature, bridge and grade crossings would lower speeds to 25 -30 mph even in an upgraded condition. In
addition, mitigation such as signalization, grade separations, pedestrian crossings, and fencing -we-uW
could also be required. It was noted that if high speed intercity rail was built from Mankato, inerearied to
with four to eight passenger trains per day (estimated to be 2030 or beyond), it would be more probable
to run from Mankato to St. Paul due to the significant upgrades needed for the Dan Patch rail. Mr.
Christianson commented on the economic factors that would create demand for increased freight rail
traffic, noting that should it occur it would be directed east bound to St. Paul and not increase capacity in
Edina. With regard to light rail, Edina's line would need significant upgrades and additional right -of -way
would be required for station stops, side and passing rails to separate light -rail traffic from freight -rail
traffic. Mr. Christianson confirmed that as it existed today, the ' d;;,ca rail Dan Patch line was the most
functionally obsolete corridor for light rail.
The Council and Mr. Christianson discussed the proposal for an elevated interchange in St. Louis Park to
enable nonstop traffic and possibly generate more traffic on the Edina line. It was noted that freight rail
had federal right to operate without public comment or limiting by a local entity so there were few
opportunities for the public to comment on freight rail planning or operations. However, with the seeking
of public funding for the St. Louis Park interchange, it would - permit there would now be opportunity for
public comment.
Mr. Christiansen reported on the design changes made to the elevated interchange to reduce the footprint
of the overpass and eliminated- , Se -Ah^ "^ ^^^^^"*w^^ into eliminate a second interchange south to Edina.
In addition, Mr. Christiansen stated there would be significant mitigation such as adequate fencing to
eliminate the potential for trespass, a pedestrian overpass at the high school site, full quiet zones, quad
and pedestrian gates at all crossings, and no horn blowing which would reduce 90% of the noise. Mr.
Page 2
i
Minutes /Edina City Council /March 1. 2011
Christiansen advised of the internet project site where residents could learn more, view plans, leave
comments, and ask questions.
The Council indicated it was disheartening to learn that the Dan Patch line was not compatible for an
adjacent recreational trail or bikeway due to the narrow and variable YaFiability ef right -of -way,
resulting in safety hazard and liability risk in the view of Canadian Pacific.
494 COMMUTER SERVICES ACTIVITIES PRESENTED Melissa Madison, Executive Director of the 494
Corridor Commission, presented its 2010 Work Plan and key accomplishments to lower congestion and
commuter pollution through van or carpooling, bicycle commuting, and mass transit. Kate Meredith,
Director of Outreach with 494 Commuter Services, reported on alliances that promote resources and
alternate transportation modes. She described their work with the businesses at 50th and France Avenues
to address parking issues through carpooling and mass transit by employees and customers. Ms. Meredith
advised of other partnerships and four companies participating in e- workplace. She indicated these
achievements would not be possible without the support of Edina. The City Council acknowledged the
tremendous work of the 494 Commuter Services to convert almost 4,500 single- occupant vehicles to
alternate transportation modes resulting in a savings of almost 18 million miles.
GRANDVIEW SMALL AREA PLAN PROPOSED PROCESS PRESENTED Kevin Staunton, Planning Commission
Vice Chair and Chair of the Community Advisory Team (CAT) of Grandview District Guide Process,
introduced CAT members and extended his thanks to Mr. Teague for his involvement and continued
support.
Mr. Staunton presented a brief background of the community -led process to develop the Guide Process
Final Plan that created a vision and goals for the wed former Public Works site. It was noted the
Metropolitan Council had awarded a grant to assist in developing a Small Area Plan, the second phase of
the process that would create a roadmap for future development. During this process the CAT intends to
reach out to all stakeholders, ensure the plan was consistent resin*° weFe Gensis*°^* with the seven
guiding principles, and be responsible stewards of public resources used to support the process. In that
effort, the CAT determined to organize first, prior to engaging consultants, which would encourage local
stakeholder participation and focus resources. The one -year process would include four three -month
stages: organizing and framing the work plan (April to June); retaining consultants and drafting
development framework and implementation (July to September); public input and refinement (October
to December); and, drafting of final plan (January to March). Mr. Staunton explained the CAT would
ensure participation and productivity through work groups and a steering committee. He presented an
organizational chart as well as a work schedule and timing chart and requested the Council's authorization
to move forward with this process.
The Council noted some residents who had not yet participated would like to become part of this exeit+ag
process. Mr. Staunton answered questions of the Council and indicated the CAT had not yet identified or
defined work groups but would do so as part of the process and remain mindful of the categories
contained in the grant application that identified how the money would be used. As discussed by the
Council earlier tonight, he agreed with the importance of addressing transportation and funding for such
projects. Mr. Staunton explained that the CAT had tried to think big, not letting practical difficulties get in
the way of a vision; however, with a Small Area Plan the CAT would need to be more realistic in looking at
feasibility, which may be part of the implementation discussion.
The Council and Mr. Staunton discussed methods of recruitment, the benefit of touring outstanding
public /private partnerships to open new ideas, and need for a community -wide survey that the CAT could
piggyback with questions that relate to this endeavor. The Council indicated it looked forwarding to seeing
what comes out of the Small Area Plan for creative visioning, such as and an east /west linkage across
Highway 100 and determining what was missing in Edina with regard to infrastructure. _ The Council
Page 3
1
Minutes /Edina City Council /March 1. 2011
thanked Mr. Staunton and the CAT members for their service to the community. Member Swenson made
a motion, seconded by Member Bennett, approving the Grandview Small Area Plan Process.
Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland
Motion carried.
PARKING PERMITS FOR ALL EMPLOYEES OF EDINA BUSINESSES AT SOT" AND FRANCE AVENUE APPROVED
Communications and Marketing Director Bennerotte described the location of the City's four parking
structures in the 50th and France Avenue area. Ms. Bennerotte said the growing parking concern had been
exacerbated by four new restaurants. It was noted that employees of businesses in the area, with a
permit, could park in the five -hour spaces in the top level of the north ramp and the top and lower levels
of the south ramp. No employee parking was allowed in the center ramp. However, it had been observed
that a number of Edina business employees were using premium parking spaces during the day, resulting
in the loss of competitiveness of the 501h & France Business District as a retail area. She reported the
France Business and Professional Association was recommending all employees of Edina businesses be
required to purchase a parking permit, regardless of full- or part-time status, and park only in the areas
designated for permit - parking. The Association recommended that part-time employees pay $2.50 per
month (half price); however, City staff recommended all employees pay the same amount due to the
difficult of tracking employment status. Ms. Bennerotte presented parking revenues for the past three
years and advised that fewer than half the employees who work in the area hold permits.
The Council asked questions of Ms. Bennerotte relating to the number of employee parking spaces and
process should an employee purchase a parking permit and space was not available in the designated
ramp levels.
Rachel Hubbard, Executive Director of the 50th and France Business and Professional Association, noted
that requiring a parking permit would improve enforcement so violators could be ticketed if parking in
"premium" parking spaces. She reported the Association was receiving multiple complaints from people
who want to shop in the area but cannot find a parking space. The Parking Task Force would address both
short- and long -term solutions including additional employee parking, off -site parking locations, a shuttle
service, and Park and Ride lots.
The Council suggested the Task Force consider use of the lower level of Anthropologie y, which was
underutilized, for employee or valet parking. Ms. Hubbard stated valet parking was helping but was not a
total solution ,e,.a„_se it used the tee I,,,,,,1 A- f +ti„ A9 4h F p (,,.,,.,leyee ,,. ly p pitted ..► Ms.
Bennerotte advised that staff was also addressing improvements to the ramps and additional
infrastructure with property owners.
The Council discussed the issues and indicated support for staffs recommendation and further research on
off -site alternatives for valet parking, shuttle service, use of underutilized church parking lots that were
within walking distance, and moving all employee parking to the north ramp so patrons could use lower
level covered parking areas. Planning Director Teague indicated the Covenant Church believed its parking
lot was currently underutilized. It was agreed that employers needed to require employees to obtain a
parking permit and should also encourage other solutions such as public transit or bicycles. Diana
Fleetham, President of the Board of Directors, reported that because it had come to this level, employers
were supportive of requiring permits. Member Swenson made a motion, seconded by Member Bennett,
requiring parking permits for all employees of Edina businesses at 50th and France at a price of $5 per
month.
Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland
Motion carried.
*ON -SALE INTOXICATING, CLUB ON -SALE, AND SUNDAY SALE LIQUOR LICENSES RENEWED Motion made
by Member Bennett and seconded by Member Brindle renewing Club On -Sale and Sunday Liquor
Page 4
r
J "
r
Minutes /Edina City Council /March 1. 2011
Licenses for: On -Sale Intoxicating & Sunday 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 American, The Cheesecake Factory,
Westin Edina Galleria; and, Club and Sunday Sale — Edina Country Club, Interlachen Country Club.
Motion carried on rollcall vote —five ayes.
*WINE LICENSES RENEWED Motion made by Member Bennett and seconded by Member Brindle
renewing On -Sale Wine and On -Sale 3.2 Beer Licenses for the following restaurants: Beaujo's, Chipotle
Mexican Grill, Cooks of Crocus Hill, D'Amico & Sons, Good Earth Restaurant, Marriott Residence Inn,
Noodles & Company, People's Organic Coffee /Wine Galleria Cafe, Rice Paper Asian Fusion Restaurant,
and TJ's of Edina.
Motion carried on rollcall vote — five ayes.
*BEER LICENSES RENEWED Motion made by Member Bennett and seconded by Member Brindle
approving issuance of the following 3.2 Beer Licenses: On -Sale 3.2 — Chuck E. Cheese's, Davanni's
Pizza /Hoagies; and, Off -Sale 3.2 — Cub Foods, DB Convenience LLC (Edina Market & Deli), Holiday
Stationstore #217, and Jerry's Foods.
Motion carried on rollcall vote — five ayes.
RESOLUTION NO. 2011 -36 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 Swenson introduced
and moved adoption of Resolution No. 2011 -36 accepting various donations. Member Bennett seconded
the motion.
Rollcall:
Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland
Motion carried.
*HEARING DATE SET (MARCH 15. 2011) — ORDINANCE NO. 2011 -03 AMENDING SECTION 850.04
REGARDING NOTICE OF HEARING FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Motion made by Member Bennett
and seconded by Member Brindle setting public hearing date of March 15, 2011 for Ordinance No. 2011-
03, amending Section 850.04 regarding notice of hearing for Conditional Use Permit.
Motion carried on rollcall vote —five ayes.
ENERGY & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION APPOINTMENT CONFIRMED Mayor Hovland nominated
Keith Kostuch for appointment to the Energy and Environment Commission. Member Sprague made a
motion, seconded by Member Brindle, confirming the appointment of Keith Kostuch to the Energy and
Environment Commission with a term ending February 1, 2013.
Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland
Motion carried.
Council consensus was reached that the vacancy on the Heritage Preservation Board would be addressed
at the March 15, 2011, meeting.
US CONFERENCE OF MAYORS CIVILITY ACCORD APPROVED The City Council addressed the positive
message aspects the US Conference of Mayor's Civility Accord. It was noted that the League of Women
Voters had created a one -page summary of suggestions for managing an orderly public forum. p4k&
eemp ^opt. Member Swenson made a motion, seconded by Member Sprague, adopting the US
Conference of Mayor's Civility Accord and directing staff to have a plaque prepared with the US
Conference of Mayor's Civility Accord for posting in the Council's Chamber.
Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland
Motion carried.
Page 5
ti
Minutes /Edina City Council /March 1, 2011
*TEMPORARY ON -SALE 3.2 BEER LICENSE APPROVED — OUR LADY OF GRACE CHURCH Motion made by
Member Bennett and seconded by Member Brindle granting temporary beer license to Our Lady of
Grace Church for their Lenten Fish Fry on March 18, 2011.
Motion carried on rollcall vote — five ayes.
COMMUNITY COMMENT
No one appeared to comment.
*CONFIRMATION OF CLAIMS PAID Motion made by Member Bennett and seconded by Member Brindle
approving payment of the following claims as shown in detail on the Check Register dated February 17,
2011, and consisting of 32 pages: General Fund $163,658.55; Communications Fund $10,692.60; Police
Special Revenue $389.80; Working Capital Fund $219,160.50; Art Center Fund $1,208.71; Golf Dome
Fund $7,557.23; Aquatic Center Fund $2,767.52; Golf Course Fund $30,193.51; Ice Arena Fund $4,676.47;
Edinborough /Centennial Lakes Fund $12,259.21; Liquor Fund $177,031.87; Utility Fund $30,569.73;
Storm Sewer Fund $3,551.78; Recycling Fund $38,820.60; PSTF Agency Fund $3,123.16; TOTAL
$705,661.24 and for approval of payment of claims dated February 24, 2011, and consisting of 23 pages:
General Fund $161,127.53; Working Capital Fund $600.00; Art Center Fund $5,789.71; Golf Dome Fund
$14,335.16; Aquatic Center Fund $669.31; Golf Course Fund $11,326.45; Ice Arena Fund $10,744.02;
Edinborough /Centennial Lakes Fund $30,828.76; Liquor Fund $146,805.79; Utility Fund $42,816.20;
Storm Sewer Fund $500.00; PSTF Agency Fund $648.42; TOTAL $426,191.35.
Motion carried on rollcall vote —five ayes.
COMMENTS REFERRED TO PARK BOARD Member Bennett made a motion, seconded by Member
Sprague, referring suggestions made during the February 15, 2011, Community Comment related to the
naming of public spaces and facilities to the Park Board.
Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland
Motion carried.
There being no further business on the Council Agenda, Mayor Hovland declared the meeting adjourned at
10:10 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Jane Timm, Deputy City Clerk
Minutes approved by Edina City Council, March 15, 2011.
James B. Hovland, Mayor
Video Copy of the March 1, 2011, meeting available.
Page 6
MINUTES
OF THE WORK SESSION OF THE
EDINA CITY COUNCIL AND
HELD AT CITY HALL
MARCH 1, 2011
5:07 P.M.
Mayor Hovland called the meeting to order at 5:07 p.m. Answering rollcall were Members Bennett,
Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, and Mayor Hovland.
Edina Transportation Commissioners in attendance were: Jennifer Janovy, Katherine Bass, Thomas
Bonneville, Ann Braden, Elin Schold Davis, Nathan Franzen, Paul Nelson, and Michael Thompson.
Staff attending the meeting included: Scott Neal, City Manager; Ceil Smith, Assistant to the City
Manager; Jennifer Bennerotte, Director of Communications and Marketing; Wayne Houle, Director of
Public Works; Jack Sullivan, Assistant City Engineer; and Jane Timm, Deputy City Clerk.
Mayor Hovland stated the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the City Council and Edina
Transportation Commission (ETC) future initiatives, purpose, duties, and city policies.
Chair Janovy and Member Bennett gave background information on the ETC. Member Bennett spoke
about the Local Traffic Task Force and the process that led to adoption of the Transportation
Commission Policy. and stated the T- FaASP90a +,nn Ce-m issien Policy was de„eleped as a supplemeR +„
the 1999 TFanspenatien P4an
DISCUSSION ITEMS The Council and Edina Transportation Commissioners discussed: the vision and role
of the ETC, ETC's request to move to quarterly on- camera meetings with other regular monthly
meetings held off camera, establishing policies, reviewing the ETC's role pFesess in evaluating traffic and
transportation in neighborhoods, and ETC's role desire +^ be involved, in the street reconstruction
process. The consensus of the Council regarding the discussion items was were: the ETC should draft, in
conjunction with staff, a revision to the existing ETC ordinance and make a recommendation to Council,
quarterly on- camera meetings, an ETC member should be placed on the Community Advisory Team
(CAT) for the Grandview Small Area Plan, ETC to work with staff regarding street reconstruction policies,
and as a commission the ETC should investigate funding sources for transportation study and projects.
th;# LJ ,ii., the r7+., +hr .+4. the rTr +., PARdliet walk _ability and bike ability stud..
Mayor Hovland declared the meeting adjourned at 6:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Minutes approved by Edina City Council, March 15, 2011.
Jane Timm, Deputy City Clerk
James B. Hovland, Mayor
i'
o e
Cn
REPORT /RECOMMENDATION
To:
MAYOR AND COUNCIL
Agenda Item
Item No. II.A.
From:
Cary Teague
Planning Director
® Action
F-1 Discussion
0 Information
Date: March 15, 2011
Subject:
Ordinance No. 2011 -03 Amending Section 850.04 Regarding Notice of
Hearing for Conditional Use Permits.
ACTION REQUESTED:
Waive second reading and adopt the attached Ordinance 2011 -03.
INFORMATION /BACKGROUND:
The City Council directed staff to draft an Ordinance Amendment that reduces the
notification distance requirement for Conditional Use Permits requested for the
following: Additions to existing homes or new homes in which the new first floor
elevation exceeds the first floor elevation of the existing structure by more than one foot
in the R -1 and R -2 Zoning Districts.
Staff drafted the Ordinance, which was recommended for approval by the Planning
Commission at their regular meeting in February. (See attached minutes.)
ATTACHMENTS:
See attached: Ordinance No. 2011 -03
Planning Commission memo
February_ 23,_201.1__Planning -Commission _ minutes. ____
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
is
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
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.
the sq a footage of the principal indoor restaurant area, adding a cut -2 needed
to be esta ed. Continuing, Teague said the draft ordinance pr s to suggest a
50 -foot setbac m existing residential properties, limited s, amplified sound
standards, rooftop and kitchen are prohibited, a of materials is prohibited and
was limited to the PCD- Wing district.
In conclusion the Commissio ey understood the rationale behind the draft
00 >andthat and its stipu conditions; er, were troubled over the unfairness of
t this lishment and rooftop dine The Commission pointed out that the
' ce governing the PCD -2 district was ded to accommodate housing;
amendment to permit housing could create issue where before there
An Ordinance Amending the Zoning Ordinance concerning Notification
Requirements for Conditional Use Permits
Planner Teague said the City Council 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.
The Commission asked where the 350 -foot distance came from. Planner Teague
responded that 350 -feet originates from the state statute distance requirements for
Conditional Use Permits. Teague pointed out that Edina's 1000 -foot distance
notification requirement for Conditional Use Permits far exceeds the minimum distance
requirements stipulated by state statute.
The Commission asked if the proposed ordinance was written only for single and double
family homes. Planner Teague responded that is correct. The
350 -foot notification area keeps the notification area in line with other residential
requests such as variances. Teague further clarified that this ordinance does not
include R -1 zoned properties such as churches,'schools and public buildings, reiterating
its jurisdiction was only for single and double family homes.
Motion
Commissioner Carpenter moved to recommend ordinance adoption.
Commissioner Potts seconded the motion. Ayes; Potts, Carpenter, Scherer,
Grabiel, Forrest, Platteter, Fischer. Motion carried on rollcall vote — seven ayes.
The Commission asked, as a point of clarification, if the 1 -foot ordinance only pertains
to water related issues. Planner Teague responded in the affirmative.
4
% 1,
REPORT /RECOMMENDATION
To:
MAYOR AND COUNCIL
Agenda Item
Item No. II.B.
From:
Jeff,Long
Chief of Police
® Action
❑ Discussion
D Information
Date: March 15, 2011
Subject:
Request To Keep More Than Three (3) Cats and Dogs in Aggregate Per
City Code Section 300.15, Resolution No. 2011.40
ACTION REQUESTED:
Deny the requested pet application for five dogs at 523 Coventry Lane.
INFORMATION /BACKGROUND:
Edina City Ordinance 300.15 reads "No more than three dogs or cats in the aggregate which
are over six months of age shall be kept or harbored at any place in the City, except in a pet
shop, animal hospital or commercial kennel, unless a permit has been issued pursuant to this
subsection by the Council."
At the January 6, 2009 Council meeting, the Council heard a pet application from Mr. Carlson.
That application was to maintain three (3) dogs and two (2) cats and was denied based in part
on the response from nearby residents. At that time we received nine (9) responses from
nearby residents regarding the pet permit application, eight (8) opposed and one (1) supporting.
We remain opposed to this current permit request for five dogs. This. home is in an area of high
density housing with many shared walls between the units. Our Animal Control Officer has
expressed concerns over health and public safety in regards to granting this permit. In
particular, with an excess of animals comes an excess of fecal matter and potential disease.
The second concern again relates to the noise that numerous dogs can generate.
Notification of the current application was sent to surrounding residents on February 11, 2011.
Since that mailing we have received thirteen (13) responses, all in opposition. The responses,
from properties within 200 feet of the Carlson residence; -cited barking and poor behavior on the-
part of the existing dogs among their reasons for opposing this application.
We, again, recommend denying this permit for the reasons stated in this narrative.
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution 2011 -40
Section 1.
RESOLUTION NO. 2011-40
DENYING PERMIT FOR MORE
THAN THREE CATS OR DOGS
IN A HOME
BACKGROUND.
1.01 Edina City Ordinance 300.15 reads "No more than three dogs or cats in the aggregate
which are over six months of age shall be kept or harbored at any place in the City,
except in a pet shop, animal hospital, or commercial kennel, unless a permit has been
issued pursuant to this subsection by the Council."
1.02 On January 6, 2009 the Edina City Council heard a pet application from Mr. Carlson, at
523 Coventry Lane, that would have allowed him to maintain three dogs and two cats in
his residence.
1.03 The Edina City Council denied the application.
1.04 Mr. Carlson again made application to maintain five dogs in his home.
Section 2. FINDINGS
2.01 Notification of the application for the permit was sent to surrounding residents on
February 11, 2011. As of March 8, 2011, thirteen residents had responded and were all in
opposition of the application. Many of those in opposition have noted current barking
and poor behavior on the part of existing dogs among their reasons for opposing the
application.
2.02 Due to these responses, Edina Animal Control Officer, Tim Hunter, has expressed
concerns about public safety and health by allowing this permit.
2.03 This is an area of high density housing units that share walls. There is limited green
space in the development and we are concerned about the amount of noise and fecal
matter that this one home could generate.
Section 3. DENIAL
NOW THEREFORE, it is hereby resolved that the City Council of the City of Edina,
denies the permit request of Wayne Carlson & Rosie Horner of 523 Coventry Lane, per Edina
Code Section 300.15 to exceed the limitation on the number of dogs and cats allowed in a home.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, on March 15, 2011.
ATTEST:
Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk
James B. Hovland, Mayor .
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
CITY OF EDINA
)SS
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 foregoirig Resolution was duly adopted by the Edina City Council at its
Regular Meeting of March 15, 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
'r 0
REAL ESTATE BROKERAGE
March 7, 2011
Mayor Hovland
Councilperson Joni Bennett
Councilperson Mary Brindle
Councilperson Josh Sprague
Councilperson Ann Swenson
4801 West 50'h Street
Edina, Minnesota 55439
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am requesting a variance to the pet ordnance to keep 5 pets, which is two above the
allowance. And while 3 pets, as pets, would be more than sufficient and reasonable I am
asking for the variance based on my specific medical need and the stature and diversity
that champion dogs bring to the community.
In my presentation I will lay out the need, the achievements of these animals and will
answer the objections that may surface to this request. I will present a petition from the
neighbors and a doctor's recommendation for this variance to be given. If you have any
questions please give me a call.
I look forward to the opportunity to present to you and thank you in advance for your
patience and attention.
incere ,
W ne Carlson
52 oventry Lane
Edina, Mn
55439
Wayne L. Carlson, President
waynecarlson@popp.net
7400 Metro Blvd #213
Edina, Minnesota 55439
Phone 952 -844 -0500
Fax 952 -844 -9078
APPLICATION FOR PET VARIANCE
I am requesting a variance based on my maintaining my physical
and mental health and the opportunity for Edina to provide
diversity and reputation for the city.
A number of years ago I was in a traffic accident that ended my
days playing racquetball and handball. I had shooting pain that
would come at unexpected and unpredictable times. I gained
weight, my cholesterol and triglycerides levels shot up, my blood
pressure increased.
We had three dogs about 4 years ago that I decided to train in
obedience. In the training center I saw other people training dogs
to do agility and I thought this might be a way to re -start my
exercise program.
Today we have achieved levels I never thought possible. Bogart, a
Chinese Crested has mastered a C -ATCH 1 in CPE, the only dog
of his breed to do so in the United States. Pearlina, a Pomeranian
has achieved a C -ATCH 2, the only Pomeranian to do so in the
country. Gypsy, a Shih- Tzu/Poodle mix has a achieved a C -ATCH
1. They have performed at the Minnesota State Fair and you may
have seen them there. Two of them will be in the CPE Nationals in
June.
As a result of the competition, I have lost 50 pounds and my blood
pressure, Cholesterol and triglycerides have reduced. I no longer
have muscle pain, back or neck pain or hip pain. The shooting pain
has gone away. My mental attitude is much improved and I am
recovering from my Viet Nam era experiences.
The problem is that the dogs are 8, 9 and 10 years old and are
facing retirement within the next two years. It takes about 3 years
to train dogs to perform at this level. I am also 67 years old so time
1
is getting short for me also. These may be my last agility dogs. I
am asking for a variance to acquire and start training replacements.
I don't want to euthenize or give my existing dogs away to save
me health.
Unfortunately the Edina Pet ordinance provides for 3 animals, dogs
have to be licensed but is vague on whether cats are included in the
number. A few years ago the pet patrol discovered we had the 3
dogs and 2 cats and after they researched the ordinances decided
that the 3 pet limit applied to both dogs and cats. I met with Officer
Hunter to get clarification on the issue and when I did I got a
$200.00 ticket. I appealed to the council and they ordered me to get
rid of the cats. I initially placed them in an Edina household with 6
dogs and 2 cats so Officer Hunter couldn't find them. I finally
placed the cats in a home and one of them began to spray on
everything and I thought she would have to be euthenized.
Eventually a vet took her and put her on Prozac until she could
adjust. When I tell this story to other pet owners in Edina they just
cringe. Like me, they don't understand the ordinance and in effect
have more pets than the ordnance allows. Even though I felt the
council ruling unfair and applied with lack of uniformity, I
complied as much as it harmed my pets.
Officer Hunter has been at our home twice in the last year saying
that the neighbor heard cat meows in my house. He somehow
found out that I was getting a petition together to submit with this
application and he came to our home asking to see my petition.
Somewhat odd but he seems to have an opinion that I want to skirt
the law. He has held my application back for 21 days trying to find
out the names of the new pets, I can only assume so he can give me
another ticket. They don't have any other pets because I am
looking for approval before I acquire the replacements. I also don't
want to have to come back to the council should one of the animals
become incapacitated and I need a fifth animal to maintain my
health.
1
Last Time the pet control people opposed my application on the
grounds of noise, feces and because there was supposed
overwhelming opposition from my neighbors.
On the noise issue, these dogs are trained to stop barking on
command. I have not trained them not to bark because their job is
partly to warn us. Last winter they started barking and 3 kids had
broken into the back yard of my neighbor and were looking to
break into their town home. We let the dogs into our backyard and
let them bark scaring the juveniles away.
On the feces issue, these are small animals and in total produce
less feces that a single Rothweiler or Lab. They do not do business
without us picking up after them.
On the neighbor issue, Pet Control, said that 22 of 29 of my
neighbors opposed my application. I don't believe that was so then
and it certainly is not now, as you can see from the attached list of
supporters. You will notice that over 60% of them have pets
themselves.
When I appeared before the council last time, one of the council
members suggested that additional pets would have to be
warranted only for medical reasons. I have attached a prescription
from my doctor. With the ages of these dogs there will be gaps in
the application of this therapy unless I start training a new dog
now.
All of my neighbors enjoy my dogs save one, who are afraid of
dogs. In our townhouse complex approximately 60 percent of the
people live here less than 100 days a year and right now there are
only 6 of 13 people living in our section. The vacancies are all next
to me. The one neighbor that is afraid of dogs is one of those
f
people who have homes down south and up north. On only one
occasion have the dogs even seen them in the last year. On that
occasion one of them complained to the police that the Pomeranian
had barked at him.
These people, a pathologist and his wife, have complained to the
association board that my dogs were vicious and threatening them.
They have complained to the police on the same issue. The dogs
are 6 1/2 pounds, 10 pounds and 10 pounds and the new dog would
be in the same weight range. To the average person these would
not be menacing animals.
At the Association meeting two years ago the association president
apologized to me because she finally realized that the Pathologist
and his wife were "confused ". She told them the dogs were well
trained and no dog trial situation would allow vicious dogs.
Obviously, these dogs are well socialized. I walk these dogs with
other neighbor dogs. One neighbor wants to borrow Gypsy for
companion time.
I can understand that under normal circumstances the three pet
limit would be adequate but you provide the opportunity for
variances and this seems like the perfect time to grant your first
one.
I am asking you to show compassion at this time and allow us a pet
variance for my personal health. In addition having Champion
agility dogs in the community adds to the vitality, diversity and
reputation of the City of Edina.
✓,
m
a
We, the undersigned, support Wayne Carlson in his petition for a kennel licenser for 5 Pets
Address
Resident Name
Signature
Pet Owner
Date
Yes
No
Ann
MMMMMM
404 Coventry
Tricia Budke
Michelle Freese
406 Coventry
Dorthy Darling
408 Coventry .
Jiaping Wang
410 Coventry
Kerry Kisling
-
412 Coventry
Victoria Bleise .
LX1 p Lpap
�'1
414 Coventry
Bruce.and Ann Mcpheeters
p n, ]
416 Coventry
Diane Pettit
David Bierknes
501 Coventry
Michael and Gail Milchman
503 Coventry
Samuel McGlone.
505 Coventry
Paul and Betty Horgen
UI)0Cr —UVx k7D
507 Coventry
Shellagh Ziegeweld
Ott
509 Coventry
Frank and Rebecca Miller
!
511 Coventry
Sarah Noah
513 Coventry
Mark and Evelyn Rostvold
515 Coventry
Elizabeth Canis
517 Coventry
David and Shirley Bailey,gyp
519 Coventry
Scott VonFischer
Lift
9 Z
o
521 Coventry
Stephen Dieringer
523. Coventry
Rosie Homer
<bjzy
525 Coventry
Seymour and Patricia Handler
600 Coventry
Patricia Hunter
p
l 3cj��1
602 Coventry
Anne Marie Gromme
/a
604 Coventry
Albert and Sally Hanser
606 Coventry
Richard McNevin
608 Coventry
Ross and Laura Gronfield
g
v v
610 Coventry
Randall and Lucy Mattson
612 CoVenfty
June Meyer
614 Coventry
Donald Kel
t
616 Coventry
Edith Grissin er
p Cc,P11Q411, .
701 Coventry
Raymond andElizabeth Bowman
703 Coventry
Richard and Judy Seers
705 Coven
Diane Cisewski
707 Coventry
Richard Johnson
709 Coventry
Clifford and Laraine Hoffman
711 Coventry
Lynn Kra f
713 Coventry
John and Rousty Hams
�yo
715 Coventry
Robert Hall
e`�C caz
I'
r
Address
Residents Name
Signature
Pet Owners
Date
I'
Yes
No
903 Coventry PI
Paul and Marcia Rehkam
j
905 Coventry
Steven and Leslie Comils
907 Coven
Norma DolliifF
909 Goventry
Sandra J. Anderson
911 Coventry
i
Herbert and Mary Froemmin
913 Coventry
Darlene Saren a
915 Coventry
Peter and Marilyn Kui ers
11101 Coventry
I
Michael and Leslie Krmpotich j
' Department of Veterans' Affairs
In Reply Refer To:
Ci. 0,4
, 1; p 'i -1,
C=
��
_. ,�.
,�,,,,,,�,,,,,n,f,�,,,,,.Y,.. ,_,.._........
-- - -- ..
a
;...
i�
sr
- -, r�
,�.
too
11111 111
400
to 0
01 tl Am
Vu
avri
I REQUEST FOR PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF
y $20,000 /CHANGE ORDER
To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL Agenda Item No. III. A.
From: Wayne D. Houle, PE
Director of Public Works / City Engineer
Date: March 15, 2011
Subject: Contract No. ENG 11 -2, Imp. No. BA -384, SS -461, STS -374, & WM -510;
Ridge Road Street and Utility Reconstruction
Date Bid Opened or Quote Received:
Bid or Quote Expiration Date:
March 8, 2011
Ma 9, 2011
Company Amount of Quote or Bid
1. Midwest Asphalt Corporation $ 509,688.75
2. Northwest Asphalt, Inc. $ 521,795.19
3. Hardrives, Inc. $ 533,216.35
4. GMH Asphalt Corporation $ 559,912.55
5. Palda & Sons, Inc. $ 566,767.53
RECOMMENDED QUOTE OR BID:
Midwest Asphalt Corporation $509,688.75
GENERAL INFORMATION:
This project is for street and utility improvements along Ridge Road. The project includes
reconstructing the existing roadways, adding curb, rehabilitating the sanitary sewers and
watermain and upgrading the storm sewer systems. The project was ordered by the Edina City
Council at the November 16, 2010 Public Hearing. This project will be funded by special
assessments and respective utility funds. The Feasibility Study overall project cost estimate was
$768,000. Staff recommends awarding the project to.Midwest Asphalt.
Signature
The Recommended Bid is
within b det
not withi
Engineering
Departmen
n budget John Wallin, Finance Director
Scott Neal, City Manager
GAEngineering \Contract Numbers\2011\ENG 11 -2 Ridge Road Street & Utility Recon\ADMINXMISC\ENG 11 -2 RFP.docx
i
of LIU
RE PO RURECO M M E N DATI O N
To:
MAYOR AND COUNCIL
Agenda Item Item No: IV. A.
From:
Wayne Houle, PE 160W
® Action
Public Works Director/
F-1 Discussion
City Engineer
Information
Date: March 15, 2011
Subject:
Golf Terrace Street Reconstruction Improvement No. BA -355,
Resolution No. 2011 -13 — Continued from February 15, 2011
ACTION REQUESTED:
If the Council determines the project to be necessary, cost - effective, and feasible,
Council shall adopt Resolution No. 2011 -13 approving Golf Terrace Street
Reconstruction Improvement No. BA -355 and authorize plans and specifications to be
completed and bids taken.
INFORMATION /BACKGROUND:
The Public Hearing was held on January 18, 2011. At that time Council closed the
hearing but continued consideration of the improvement until staff was able to evaluate
water quality improvement options for Harvey Lake.
The Engineering Department has revised the Feasibility Study to reflect information
gathered since the January 18 Public Hearing. Staff has not re- notified the residents
that the City Council is re- opening the public testimony; therefore the public testimony
cannot be reopened. However, staff did inform the residents that they can comment in
writing prior to the March 15 Council Meeting.
The Feasibility study proposed to reduce the overall pavement area in the Harvey Lake
drainage area to help improve the water quality of the lake. This is accomplished by
reducing Lakeview Drive along the north side of Harvey Lake. Filtration swales would
be added between the reduced roadway width and the Lake. The intersection of the
Lakeview Drives located at the north easterly side of Harvey Lake is also proposed to
be realigned to discourage traffic away from Lakeview Drive north of Harvey Lake.
Implementation of this change will improve the pedestrian safety of Lakeview Drive.
G: \Engineering \Improvements\BA355 Golf Terrace Street Recon (2011)\PRELIM DESIGN\FEASIBLITIY\Public Hearing\ltem IV.A. Public
Hearing Golf Terrace Street Reconstruction Improvement No. BA -355, Resolution No. 2011- 13.docx
The Engineering Department has received a petition dated March 10, 2011 requesting
that curb and gutter not be installed in areas next to or around Lake Harvey until further
study of Harvey Lake. This petition and other correspondence have been included for
review.
Staff has analyzed the project and feels that the project is necessary, cost - effective, and
feasible from an engineering standpoint.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Resolution 2011 -13
• Feasibility Study - BA- 355 Golf Terrace Neighborhood Roadway Improvement —
Revised March 15, 2011
• Correspondence from Residents
G: \Engineering \Improvements\BA355 Golf Terrace Street Recon (2011)\PRELIM DESIGNWEASIBLITIY\Public Hearing\ltem N.A. Public
Hearing Golf Terrace Street Reconstruction Improvement No. BA -355, Resolution No. 2011- 13.docx
RESOLUTION NO. 2011 -13
ORDERING IMPROVEMENT FOR
LF TERRACE NEIGHBORHOOD STREET
RECONSTRUCTION
IMPROVEMENT NO. BA -355
City of Edina
WHEREAS, a resolution of the city council, adopted the 21" day of December, 2010, fixed
a date for a council hearing on Improvement No. BA -355, the proposed improvement of Golf
Terrace Neighborhood Street Reconstruction; and
WHEREAS, ten days' mailed notice and two weeks' published notice of the hearing was
given, and the hearing was held thereon on the 18th day of January, 2011, at which. -all persons
desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard thereon; and
WHEREAS, public testimony was closed; and
WHEREAS, the city council postponed ordering the 'improvement giving staff additional time
to explore options for treating water run -off to Harvey Lake;
NOW THEREFORE, -BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDINA,
MINNESOTA:
1. Such improvement is necessary, cost - effective, and feasible to update aging
infrastructure and address several issues including drainage problems,
sanitary sewer problems and water'main improvements and upgrades. .
2. Such improvement is hereby ordered.
3. The city engineer is hereby designated as the engineer for this improvement.
The engineer shall prepare plans and specifications for the making of such
improvement.
4. The city council declares its official intent to reimburse itself for the costs of
the improvement from the proceeds of tax exempt bonds.
Dated: March 15, 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 15, 2011, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting.
WITNESS my hand and seal of said :City this day of 20,
City Hall
4801 WEST 50TH STREET
EDINA, MINNESOTA; 55424 -1394
www.cityofediha.com
City Clerk
952- 927 -8861
FAX 952- 826 -0390
TTY 952 - 826 -0379
4'9lN��r'U
ow e tr� FEASIBILITY STUDY — BA 355
Cn
H�o �o ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
•,N�A��o. CITY OF EDINA
GOLF TERRACE NEIGHBORHOOD ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
JANUARY 4, 2011
Revised March 15, 2011
LOCATION: The Project includes Dalrymple Road, Golf Terrace, Lakeview Drive,
Sherwood Avenue, Saint Andrews Avenue and Wind Road. The drawing
below is a detailed project location map of the Golf Terrace Neighborhood
Roadway Improvements (Figure 1).
4808 ;4804 4802 4800 4710 4708 4706 '4704,14702 1 4700 1 4610 1 4608 1 46
i
GOLF TER
4814 ) — 4715, 4705
4706 4703 4701 4617;4615 4613 4611 0 6
4818
/4704
y t� Project Limits
4702 4700 4614 14612 YvoO
4902 4903 _\ - s
•�
6 5500 5501 x'611 4609 4607
V02 4905 \
\ 5502 5503
4907 ; 5500 4612 46
•� `,
�•_ 4906 \\ � 5504 55051 5508
i 4909
5506 5507 ; 5512 4611
4910 4814
r.....9_ 4810 4808
wrw� 4812
o� = 5524 5525 m 4625
4817 4815
5602 5601 ■
7 4813 5600 5528
_ 5529 o
5603 5602 N N `
1 5604 5603 5532 5533 v
5605 5604 5603 5602 5605 ■
V41ND RD .__ ■ 5606
5606 5607 5606 5605 5604 5607 i 5608 CO N (CO4 m
- Q v to v v
5608 5609 5608 $ 5607 5606 5 5609 5610 rc o
t t O m N V
5610 5611 5610 5609 5608 5611 i 5612 0 'a v v v
5612 5613 5612 5611 5610 , 5613 =5614
0 5614 5615 5614 5611 N N
5613 5612 5615.5616
_ —_
5616 r5617 5616 5615 5614 5617 7 5618 5615
............■------ . ■. ■ ■ ■------ ■ ■■ ............. 5619 v
SOUTNVIEW LN (D CA
62
J 4701 5623
Project Area N
e Golf Terrace Street Reconstruction WE
Improvement No. BA -355
Figure 1. Project Area Map
Feasibility Study
Golf Terrace Neighborhood Improvements No. BA -355
January 4, 2011
Revised March 15, 2011
INITIATION & ISSUES: The Golf Terrace Neighborhood project was initiated by the Engineering
Department as part of the City's street reconstruction program and Capital
Improvement Program to update aging infrastructure and address several
issues including drainage problems, sanitary sewer problems and watermain
improvements.
Comprehensive Plan
All Engineering projects are reviewed for compatibility with the City of Edina
2008 comprehensive Plan Update. Figure 7.10, Sidewalk Facilities and 7. 11,
Bicycle Facilities in the Appendix.
Figure 7.10, Sidewalk Facilities, does not indicate any proposed sidewalk or
paths through the project.
Figure 7.11, Bicycle Facilities indicates a secondary bicycle route along the
north and west side of the project boundary along Golf Terrace and
Sherwood Avenue. Refer to the "Proposed Improvements, Bicycle Facilities"
for more information,on the bicycle route.
Staff Issues
The following are existing features and resident comments that present
issues in determining the feasibility of the project and are, addressed in this
report:
• Surface rainwater drainage and storm sewer issues
o . Poor condition of existing pavement
® Existing landscaping, retaining walls, driveways, etc.
® Sanitary sewer and watermain deficiencies
® Existing mature trees
® 'Existing lighting
Resident Input
The residents of the reconstruction area were invited to an Open House on
September 20, 2010 to discuss the City's process for street reconstruction.
This meeting was followed up with a questionnaire sent to the property
owners on October 4, 2010. The questionnaires were completed and
returned by 59 of the 93 property owners, a return rate of 63 %. The full
questionnaire and responses can be found in the Appendix.
The two key issues that were addressed in this questionnaire were the
addition of new sidewalks and installation of decorative lighting. - The
responses to those questions are shown in Table 1.
Page 2 of 16
Feasibility Study
Golf Terrace Neighborhood Improvements No. BA -355
January 4, 2011
Revised March 15, 2011
GOLF TERRACE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT —
Results from October 4, 2010 Questionnaire Sheet
Percentages are based on responses of returned questionnaires and may not equal 100% if
questions were not answered on questionnaire.
Table 1. Results from Questionnaire
A neighborhood informational meeting was then held on December 2, 2010 to
discuss the improvements planned for this neighborhood. The meeting was
attended by 17 residents representing 16 properties. Input from this,meeting
and comments received throughout the planning of this project have been
included in the Appendix.
A public. hearing was held on January 18, 2011; the public hearing was
closed at that meeting. A number of residents raised concerns about the
water quality of Harvey Lake and the walkability of Lakeview Drive (around
the north side of the lake). Staff was directed to work with the Minnehaha
Creek Watershed District _(MCWD) to explore options for reducing the
pollutant loading of Harvey Lake and to investigate funding sources for
treating the stormwater runoff.. Staff met with the MCWD to discuss potential
options and then held a second neighborhood informational meeting on
February 22, 2011 to share our findings with residents. The meeting was
attended by 17 property owners.
The analysis and recommendations of these meetings are addressed in the
"Water Quality" and "Walkability" sections that follow.
EXISTING CONDITIONS: Public Utilities
Sanitary Sewer
The sanitary sewer was installed in three phases during 1941, 1945 and
1952. There have been very few sewer blockages in this neighborhood. The
trunk sanitary sewer mains were inspected using a televising system and are
in satisfactory condition with the exception of a few localized. areas.
Watermain
The watermain was installed in in three phases during 1940, 1947 and 1951. .
There have been minor reports of trunk watermain and service pipe issues in
this neighborhood.
Page 3 of 16
Prefer New
Change Existing
Questionnaires
Questionnaires
Sidewalk
Lighting
Sent
Returned
Yes
No
Yes
No
93
59
14
44
21-
35
% of Returned
63%
24% *
75% *
36% *
59%
Questionnaires
Percentages are based on responses of returned questionnaires and may not equal 100% if
questions were not answered on questionnaire.
Table 1. Results from Questionnaire
A neighborhood informational meeting was then held on December 2, 2010 to
discuss the improvements planned for this neighborhood. The meeting was
attended by 17 residents representing 16 properties. Input from this,meeting
and comments received throughout the planning of this project have been
included in the Appendix.
A public. hearing was held on January 18, 2011; the public hearing was
closed at that meeting. A number of residents raised concerns about the
water quality of Harvey Lake and the walkability of Lakeview Drive (around
the north side of the lake). Staff was directed to work with the Minnehaha
Creek Watershed District _(MCWD) to explore options for reducing the
pollutant loading of Harvey Lake and to investigate funding sources for
treating the stormwater runoff.. Staff met with the MCWD to discuss potential
options and then held a second neighborhood informational meeting on
February 22, 2011 to share our findings with residents. The meeting was
attended by 17 property owners.
The analysis and recommendations of these meetings are addressed in the
"Water Quality" and "Walkability" sections that follow.
EXISTING CONDITIONS: Public Utilities
Sanitary Sewer
The sanitary sewer was installed in three phases during 1941, 1945 and
1952. There have been very few sewer blockages in this neighborhood. The
trunk sanitary sewer mains were inspected using a televising system and are
in satisfactory condition with the exception of a few localized. areas.
Watermain
The watermain was installed in in three phases during 1940, 1947 and 1951. .
There have been minor reports of trunk watermain and service pipe issues in
this neighborhood.
Page 3 of 16
Feasibility Study
Golf Terrace Neighborhood Improvements No. BA -355
January 4; 201 -1
Revised March 15, 2011
Storm Sewer
The limited storm sewer in this neighborhood was installed in 1952. This*
includes storm piping to regulate the water level in Lake Harvey. The project
area is located within the legal boundary of Minnehaha Creek Watershed.
Private Utilities
Providers of privately owned gas, electric, communications and cable
television utilities are present in the neighborhood. All the utilities are
overhead with the exception of the gas lines.
Street* lighting consists of standard "cobra head" lights mounted on .wood
poles that are typically located at. intersections. A few homeowners. have
front yard lights that help illuminate the street corridors.
Streets
Roadways in this neighborhood were originally constructed in the early
1940's and early. 1950's. The majority of the north half of the neighborhood
currently does not have curb and gutter and the roadway widths vary from 26
to 28 feet wide. The south.half of the neighborhood has curb and gutter with
a width of approximately 30 -feet wide.. The pavement condition varies
throughout the neighborhood and is in relatively poor condition (Photos 1 &
2).
The average Pavement. Condition Index (PCI) for the City of Edina is 57 and
the average PCI for Golf Terrace is 7. Examples of.the raveling and alligator
cracking can be seen in photos 1 & 2. The City of Edina recently hired a
consultant to evaluate all bituminous roadways within the City. The streets
were graded based on a number of conditions such as sagging, alligator
cracking; raveling and potholes. Streets are rated on a scale from 0 to 100;
with.0 being extremely poor and 100 representing a brand new road surface.
It is the City's practice to complete a total reconstruction of the streets when
the PCI is Less than 45, a Mill and Overlay .project when the PCI is between
45 and 65, and Seal Coats for PCI greater than 65 and less than 95. .
Street grades vary widely throughout the area with some areas that are
extremely flat allowing storm runoff to. collect along the edges of the roadway
causing additional deterioration of the pavement.
The pavement throughout these streets appears to be near the end of its
useful life while the costs to maintain and repair the roadways are steadily
increasing. Overlaying or seal coating the pavement is no longer feasible.
Walkability
The streets, within the project limits do not currently have sidewalks. The
traffic volumes and speeds generally allow for vehicles and pedestrians to
share the roadway. The section of Lakeview Drive along the north side of
Harvey Lake was, mentioned by residents as an area that is heavily used by
pedestrians. This section of roadway carries approximately 305 vehicles per
day, approximately 27 feet wide and has an 8 foot grass boulevard near the
lake.
Page 4 of 16
Feasibility Study
Golf Terrace Neighborhood Improvements No. BA -355
January 4, 2011
Revised March 15, 2011
Landscaping
Some property owners have placed boulders or other obstructions within the
City right -of -way creating barriers along the roadway. These types of barriers
and landscaping items are prohibited from being placed in the boulevard in
accordance with Edina City Code 1200.02. Other typical items exist adjacent
to the roadway such as retaining walls, concrete driveways, landscaping,
shrubs, trees and fences.
Photo 1. Existing Pavement Condition
Page 5 of 16
Feasibility Study
Golf Terrace Neighborhood Improvements No. BA -355
January 4, 2011
Revised March 15, 2011
f
Photo 2. Existing Pavement Condition
PROPOSED
IMPROVEMENTS: The Golf Terrace Neighborhood project involves localized rehabilitation of
sanitary sewer, upgrades to the storm sewer system, upgrades to fire
hydrants, construct concrete curb and gutter, and reconstruction of
bituminous pavement.
Public Utilities
Sanitary Sewer
Locations with settlements, cracks and deformities will require spot repairs,
limited sections of replacement and manhole rehabilitation. Two segments of
cured in place pipe lining (CIPP) are proposed on Golf Terrace and Lakeview
Drive west of Lake Harvey to reduce clear water infiltration.
Watermain
A 6 -inch watermain is proposed on Lakeview Drive along the north side of
Lake Harvey to loop the watermain and to provide future connects to two
homes that currently service through the back yards of their neighbors to the
north. In addition, watermain rehabilitation utilizing pipe bursting techniques
will be done to all existing watermains within the project limits.
Storm Sewer
The addition of barrier style B618 curb and gutter is proposed for all streets
within the project that currently do not have curb and gutter. The southerly
half of the project will receive spot repairs to curb and gutter that are no
longer functioning properly.
Page 6 of 16
Feasibility Study
Golf Terrace Neighborhood Improvements No. BA -355
January 4, 2011
Revised March 15, 2011
The storm sewer network will have modifications to improve existing drainage
issues at various locations throughout the neighborhood. Some of the
existing structures will be removed and replaced due to their poor condition.
Installation of sump drains will be installed where feasible to allow the
property owners to connect their sump pump discharges directly into the
storm sewer system.
Private Utilities
The local gas utility company, CenterPoint Energy, has indicated that they
may upgrade or replace gas mains within the project limits. CenterPoint
Energy may also coordinate moving gas meters to the exterior of the homes.
This work is not part of the City's project but will be coordinated to occur prior
to our construction activities.
The other privately utility owners have expressed some interest in upgrading
some of their networks within the project limits.
Streets
The City is recommending the addition of barrier style concrete curb and
gutter on all streets that do not currently have curb and gutter. A barrier style
curb provides the best control of water runoff and better defines the roadway
while providing protection to the yards and pavement edge from snowplow
damage in the winter months. The project will reconstruct the streets with a
bituminous pavement surface.
Residents requested that staff look into the feasibility of installing traffic
calming measures with the project. Based on that discussion staff is
recommending installing landscape islands at the intersections of the Wilson
Road /Wind Road and Wilson Road /Lakeview Drive. These islands would be
similar to the islands installed at West 70th Street and Cornelia Drive.
Sidewalks will be installed at these locations to separate pedestrian and
vehicles through the island areas (Figure 2).
In addition, bump -outs will be installed at the intersections of Southview Lane
and Sherwood Avenue, Southview Lane and Dalrymple Road, and Southview
Lane and St. Andrews Avenue. These bump -outs will be similar to the bump -
out on the north side of Southview Lane and Concord Avenue (Figure 3). .
Staff is proposing to reconfigure the intersection of the Lakeview Drives at the
northeast corner of Harvey Lake (Figure 4). This revision should help to slow
traffic at this intersection and redirect traffic off of Lakeview Drive north of
Lake Harvey.
Page 7 of 16
Feasibility Study
Golf Terrace Neighborhood Improvements No. BA -355
January 4, 2011
Revised March 15, 2011
Y,. EL
Figure 2. Landscape
Island
Figure 3. Aerial
Photo of Bump Out
CIXF 7fiYtACE _ °-- - -- -- �� '----- - BQF 7IIRACE - -.
LAI�I4EW OR
�g w
a 17+5\
� r
Figure 4. Lakeview Drive Reconfiguration
Page 8 of 16
Feasibility Study
Golf Terrace Neighborhood Improvements No. BA -355
January 4, 2011
Revised March 15, 2011
Walkability
Based on traffic volumes in the neighborhood, sidewalks are not
recommended. Staff also believes that an educational campaign should be
included with this project to educate drivers that pedestrians have the right of
way and vehicles need to yield to pedestrians.
Residential Roadway Lighting and Sidewalks
The questionnaire asked if residents wanted to add sidewalk or reconstruct
the street lights in the project area. The results from Figure 2 show that
property owners do not want to add sidewalk or reconstruct the street lights
within the project. Therefore, staff is not recommending these items be part
of the project.
Bicycle Facilities
The Comprehensive Plan, Figure 7.11 Bicycle Facilities, indicates a
secondary bicycle route along the north and west side of the project boundary
along Golf Terrace and Sherwood Avenue. Staff believes a "share the road"
philosophy is the best application for bicyclists since the vehicle volumes are
relatively low (630 ADT) and the existing road width does not allow for
dedicated bike lanes without removing the on- street parking along Golf
Terrace. Bike route markers will be installed along with share the road signs.
WATER QUALITY: Drainage Area
The shaded area shown in purple in Figure 5 illustrates the existing 30 acres
that drain to Harvey Lake. The drainage area is made up of the following
public and private property:
v City Right of Way — 4.3 acres, 14% of area
- 2 acres are impervious (roads)
- 2.3 acres are pervious (boulevards)
O Harvey Lake —6.3 acres, 21% of area
O Private Property —19.4 acres, 65% of area
- 4.5 acres are impervious (driveways, roofs, etc)
- 14.9 acres are pervious (grass areas)
Public right of way /property consists of 4.3 acres (14 %) of the overall
drainage area to the lake. Of that area, only 2.3 acres (8 %) of the land is
available for some type of stormwater treatment.
Page 9 of 16
Feasibility Study
Golf Terrace Neighborhood Improvements No. BA -355
January 4, 2011
Revised March 15, 2011
- - - -- -----------------------------------------------------------------
08 4804 80
42 4800 4710 4708 4706 4704 4702;47001 461 4608 461
GOLF TER
1
4902 4 --'1 4715 4706 4705 4703 4701 4617 4615 4611 46
18 +' 4704
<q Project Limits
kF� ew 4702 4700 4614
H
0
4903
5500 5501 X46 1 _ 4607
'..4902 4905
55 5503 5500
4907 1
4906 5505
55 ; 5508
09 ! rn
491 550 5507 ; 5512 4611
'J uk�y 4812 , . 4808 f- i
W
5600 5524 5525 ' 4625
4817 4815 5601
5602 552 55" 11
—..
:. 4813 5600 -- — N N
i 5604 5603 5602 5603: 553 5533 v v v
'
vow 11D 5605 5604 5603 5602 5605 56
5606 5607 5606 5605 5604 5607 1 56 W Zo
v v v
5608 5609 %W 5607 5606 9' 5609 i 561
a
< <
5610 5611 5610 5609 5608 5611 1 5612 $ v v a
o --
= 5612 5613 5612 5611 5610 56135614
' 5614 5615 5614 5613 5612 5615 1 5616 co c`c
_..__. 5615 v d
5616 5617 5616 5615 15614 5617 5618
.......................... ....... ...... L. ....... 5619 v
82
4701 5623
FT
Figure 5. Existing Drainage Area
Options
The meeting with the MCWD explored in more detail five options for
potentially improving the water quality.
1. Filtration swales /Rain Gardens
2. Shoreline restoration and buffers
3. Stormwater treatment devices
4. Pervious pavement
5. Pond Dredging
Each option was discussed in detail and evaluated with staff members from
the Watershed. Table 2 represents the highlights of the discussion.
Page 10 of 16
Feasibility Study
Golf Terrace Neighborhood Improvements No. BA -355
January 4, 2011
Revised March 15, 2011
OPTION
BENEFIT ( +)
DRAWBACK ( -)
• High maintenance until
• Reduce sediment and
• Typically expensive
Filtration Swales
pollutant loading prior
• High maintenance
Restoration &
to discharge
• Soil corrections needed
Buffers
can only treat small areas
expensive equipment to
• Need 3 ft of separation
erosion
space
from groundwater table
• Reduce sediment and
Reduce sediment and
• Typically expensive
Rain Gardens
pollutant loading prior
High maintenance
Should not be installed
to discharge
• Soil corrections needed
to discharge
below normal water level
• Can onlv treat small areas
Staff Recommended Option
It is impossible to provide the required 3 foot of vertical separation from the
groundwater table with most of the options stated above. Therefore, after
thorough review, Staff is recommending installing a combination of a filtration
swale along the north side of Harvey Lake and encourage residents to install
shoreline restoration/buffers. around the southern two- thirds of Harvey Lake
(Figure 6).
Page 11 of 16
• Reduce sediment and
• High maintenance until
Shoreline
pollutant loading prior
established
Restoration &
to discharge
° Reduce useable yard
Buffers
• Prevent shoreline
expensive equipment to
erosion
space
• Reduce sediment and
• Expensive
• Need 3 ft separation form
Stormwater
pollutant loading prior
Should not be installed
Treatment
to discharge
below normal water level
Devices
• Prevent shoreline
of the lake
Pond Dredging
erosion
• Does not solve external
Staff Recommended Option
It is impossible to provide the required 3 foot of vertical separation from the
groundwater table with most of the options stated above. Therefore, after
thorough review, Staff is recommending installing a combination of a filtration
swale along the north side of Harvey Lake and encourage residents to install
shoreline restoration/buffers. around the southern two- thirds of Harvey Lake
(Figure 6).
Page 11 of 16
• Expensive to install
• Reduce sediment and
• High maintenance costs
Pervious
pollutant loading prior
• Need specialized and
Pavements
to discharge
expensive equipment to
• Prevent shoreline
maintain
erosion
• Need 3 ft separation form
groundwater table
• Watershed won't permit
• Reduce internal
• Expensive
Pond Dredging
phosphorous loading
• Does not solve external
• May improve short
loading issues
term water quality
° Have to pump down the
lake
Table 2. Treatment Options
Staff Recommended Option
It is impossible to provide the required 3 foot of vertical separation from the
groundwater table with most of the options stated above. Therefore, after
thorough review, Staff is recommending installing a combination of a filtration
swale along the north side of Harvey Lake and encourage residents to install
shoreline restoration/buffers. around the southern two- thirds of Harvey Lake
(Figure 6).
Page 11 of 16
Feasibility Study
Golf Terrace Neighborhood Improvements No. BA -355
January 4, 2011
Revised March 15, 2011
M�MEAVWMPNNIO
.ale
I 1l
\
4 1
I �
40M
rL "J
I �
4710
i 47,a i 4700 i •� i .�• i •�
L - -1- - -J - - -1 J
- _- A
_ -_ -
/ /�- -4705 / 4703 I 4701 -- --
awe
�• / 4704
161.
470: / 47m
• 'i
_ i Shoreline
I' �,M'
1013
SeO3� I �4e1]
7
i
s
Figure 6. Treatment Options6. Treatment Options
I
Filtration Swales
In order to create room for the swale, Lakeview Drive (shown in yellow) would
be narrowed to 18 feet wide. The road would remain as two way traffic with
the intersections at either end reconfigured to discourage traffic from utilizing
the narrowed roadway. Parking would be allowed only on the north side of
the roadway. The narrowed roadway would reduce the impervious surface
draining to Harvey Lake by approximately 0.14 acres or 3% of the impervious
surface area in the entire project. The assessable cost of roadway
construction would be reduced by approximately $20,000.
The filtration swale would be graded to capture and treat the stormwater
runoff thru horizontal filtration. The swale would be planted with native
plantings and the aesthetics would be similar to a rain garden (Photo 3). The
construction costs for the filtration swale are approximately $10,000 to
$15,000 and would be funded through the Storm Sewer Utility fund. It is
anticipated that the combination of the reduction in road width and the
filtration swale would remove approximately 2 lbs. of phosphorus loading to
Harvey Lake.
Page 12 of 16
Feasibility Study
Golf Terrace Neighborhood Improvements No. BA -355
January 4, 2011
Revised March 15, 2011
Photo 3. Filtration Swale
Shoreline Restoration /Buffers
Shoreline restoration /buffers (Photo 4) should be implemented in conjunction
with the filtration swales. From aerial photos, the lawns of most of the
properties surrounding the lake are mowed to the waters' edge. All of these
properties are encouraged to install shoreline stabilization and a buffer strip
along the shoreline. According to MCWD Wetland Protection Rule, the
minimum buffer strip would be 20'. This buffer strip would filter approximately
4 acres of runoff from private property before it drains directly into Harvey
Lake. The cost of the lake shore restoration and buffer zone would be the
responsibility of the private homeowners.
MCWD does have grants which can offset a portion of the construction cost
to the homeowner. The homeowners would be responsible for securing
these grants and the continued maintenance of the buffer.
Page 13 of 16
Feasibility Study
Golf Terrace Neighborhood Improvements No
January 4, 2011
Revised March 15, 2011
:1[rlatdel '�_�7_17
BA -355
Photo 4. Shoreline Restoration /Buffer
& EASEMENTS: The right -of -way for Dalrymple Road, Golf Terrace, Lakeview Drive,
Sherwood Avenue, Saint Andrews Avenue and Wind Road is 50 feet wide.
The right -of -way on Golf Terrace is 60 feet wide. All proposed improvements
stay within this right -of -way and no additional easement requirements are
anticipated.
PROJECT COSTS: The total estimated project cost is $2,828,000 (Table 3). The total cost
includes direct costs for engineering, clerical and construction finance costs
from start of project to final assessment hearing. Funding for the entire
project will be from a combination of special assessment and utility funds.
The estimated roadway construction cost is $1,130,000 and will be 100
percent funded by special assessments. The new concrete curb and gutter is
included under the storm sewer fund not under the roadway special
assessment. Utility improvements and repairs amount to $1,698,000 and will
be funded through the respective utility fund.
Page 14 of 16
Feasibility Study
Golf Terrace Neighborhood Improvements No. BA -355
January 4, 2011
Revised March 15, 2011
Item
Amount
Total Cost
Roadway:
$1,130,000
m
Roadway Total:
o
$ 1,130,000
Utilities:
5533
Storm Sewer
$ 508,000
Watermain
$ 900,000
Sanitary Sewer
$ 290,000
Utility Total:
$ 1,698,000
Total Project:
N
$ 2,828,000
Table 3. Estimated Proiect Costs
ASSESSMENTS: The assessments are based on the City's Special assessment policy, dated
September 7, 2010. Based on this policy there are 91 residential equivalent
units (REU). The estimated assessment per REU is $12,500. (Figure 7)
Two parcels were not notified of the Public Hearing; 4702 Golf Terrace and
5524 Concord Avenue. Therefore, these two parcels have been removed
from the pending assessment role.
4804 4802 4800 4710 4708 4706 4702 4700 4610 14608
oL F MR ,� I
4814
4706 4705 4703 A61. 15 4
1/ 704
4702 .461:' 4612 .
4903 ,
.a�
5500
'y 4907
4906
4909
4910 4814
l....i
5600 5524
4817 4815 560 -
5602 _ 5528
15603 5602 4813 560
� 0 5532
05 5604 5603
WINO tm 05 • 5606
07 5606 5605 56 .5607 5608
'a
08 m 09 5608 5607 56 09 5610 0
5610 ; J 11 5610 - 5609 56 11 5612
a
;5612 13 5612 5611 561 5613
5614 15 5614 5613 56 5616
$616 -.-... 5617.... 5616-.-.- 5675 561 .- •5617- 5618
SOUi IEW LN
- _ -- 4701
E3
Preliminary Assessments
Golf Terrace Street Reconstruction
Improvement No. BA -355
13 4611 609
Project Limits
5500
5508
4611
5525
4625
5529
m
y
N
o
5533
e
o
M m
N
N
N
Figure 7.
5611
N
'
N
5615
5619
2
41
Preliminary
5623
°
Assessment
Map
N
W� E
9IIl11E
Page 15 of 16
Feasibility Study
Golf Terrace Neighborhood Improvements No. BA -355
January 4, 2011
Revised March 15, 2011
PROJECT SCHEDULE: I The following schedule is feasible from an Engineering standpoint:
Open House #1
September 14, 2009
Open House #2
September 20, 2010
Neighborhood Informational Meeting #1
December 2, 2010
Council Orders Public Hearing
December 18, 2010
Receive Feasibility Report
January 4, 2011
Public Hearing
January 18, 2011
Neighborhood Informational Meeting #2
February 22, 2011
City Council Action Continued
March 15, 2011
Bid Opening
April 2011
Award Contract
Spring 2011
Begin Construction
Spring 2011
Complete Construction
Fall 2011
Final Assessment Hearing
Fall 2012
FEASIBILITY: Staff believes the construction of this project is necessary, cost effective and
feasible to improve the public infrastructure in the Golf Terrace
Neighborhood.
APPENDIX: A. Revised Preliminary Assessment Roll
B. Invite Letter to the February 22, 2011 Golf Terrace Neighborhood
Informational Meeting
C. Power Point Presentation from the February 22, 2011 Golf Terrace
Neighborhood Informational Meeting
Page 16 of 16
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
5C
51
52
53
54
PENDING ASSESSMENT ROLL
GOLF TERRACE IMPROVEMENTS BA -355
REVISED MARCH 15, 2011
STREET
PID #
LEGAL
STREET
OWNER
LOT
BLOCK
ASSESSABLE
REU
ASSESSMENT
COST
NOTES
Dalrymple Rd
1902824220058
5602
Abhishek Shnvastava & Swail Agiwal
1.00
$12,417.58
1902824220061
5603
David E & Laura A Nelson
1.00
$12,417.58
1902824220057
5604
Joseph W & Debra Witt
1.00
$12,417.58
1902824230022
5605
Joan S Brandmeier
1.00
$12,417.68
1902824230021
5606
Christopher S & Beth Ann Fraley
1.00
$12,417.58
1902824230023
5607
David E Krasno & Lisa J Roebuck- Krasno
1.00
$12,417.58
1902824230020
5608
Scott Gavin & Susan N Meisenheimer
1.00
$12,417.58
1902824230024
5609
Michael W & Laura J Bryan
1.00
$12,417.58
1902824230019
5610
Jacqueline Lee Zipp
1.00
$12,417.58
1902824230025
5611
Galen B & Carol Honn
1.00
$12,417.58
1902824230018
5612
Deanna K Henriksen
1.00
$12,417.58
1902824230026
5613
Christopher & Jane F Baer
1.00
$12,417.58
1902824230017
5614
James D & Vicki A Nelson
1.00
$12.417.58
1902824230027
5615
Wayne & Mary Kewitsch
1.00
$12,417.58
1902824230016
5616
Lance A & Sara A Elliott
1.00
$12,417.58
Golf Ter
1902824220024
4517
Earl H Alsensee Jr
1.00
$12,417.58
1902824220012
4701
Lee D & Margaret M Valenta
1.00
$12,417.58
1902824220011
4703
Douglas A & Kathleen Drake
1.00
$12,417.58
1902824220019
4704
Richard J & Kristine Coughlin
1.00
$12,417.58
1902824220010
4705
Kenneth P & Jane G Manick
1.00
$12,417.58
1902824220018
4706
Douglas P Fulton & Cynthia M Brune
1.00
$12.417.58
1902824220009
4708
Richard E & Danis Z Byrd
1.00
$12.417.58
1902824220008
4710
Ridgway & Margaret Baker
1.00
.58
1902824220017
4715
Susan E Covnick
1.00
.58
1902824220007
4800
Willard P & Catherine S Hunnewell Jr
1.00
.58
1902824220006
4802
Dale & Kelly Ann Nitschke
1.00
.58
112417.58
1902824220005
4804
Vincent J & Marth G Dressed
1.00
1902824220004
4808
Andrew Weinert
1.00
.58
1902824220073
4814
Linda A Sonn
1.00
.58
1902824220070
4818
Steven H Arlowe & Danielle R Fagre
1.00
7.58
Lakeview Dr
1902824220025
4614
Christopher D & Gina L Drazen
1.00
$12,417.68
Different Address
1902824220013
4700
Douglas H & Doris E Yock Jr
1.00
$12,417.58
1902824220014
4702
Kevin P & Martha K Harris
1.00
$12,417.58
1902824220015
4704
Theodore C & Phyllis Gianos
1.00
$12,417.58
1902824220016
4706
Thomas D & Jaana Lindborg
1.00
$12,417.58
1902824220035
4808
Steen B Moller & Tara A Gaffney
1.00
$12,417.58
1902824220036
4810
Stephen C & Mary S Moosbrugger
1.00
$12,417.68
1902824220037
4812
Alvaro J Madrinan & Angelina Viloula
1.00
$12,417.58
1902824220060
4813
Victor S Reiner & Knsti A Trostel
1.00
$12,417.58
1902824220038
4814
Todd W & Diane R Miller
1.00
$12,417.58
1902824220059
4815
Lincoln B & Frances A Shea
1.00
$12,417.58
1902824220054
4817
William A & Sara R Eckloff
1.00
$12,417.58
1902824220045
4902
William L & Georgia Stocks
House sits on both properties
1902824220046
4902
William & Georgina Stocks
1.00
$12,417.58
1902824220042
4903
Edward Keating
1.00
$12,417.58
1902824220041
4905
Mark L & Polly S Norman III
1.00
12 417.58
1902824220047
4906
Jack P & Katherine N Helms
House sits on both properties
1902824220048
4906
Jack P 8 Katherine N Helms
1.00
$12,417.58
1902824220040
4907
John W & Diana Windhorst
1.00
$12,417.58
1902824220039
4909
John C & Jennifer K Feltl
1.00
$12.417.58
1902824220072
1 4910
Michele M Fuerstenberg
1.00
$12.417.58
1902824220031
5500
James J & Theresa Flannery
1.00
1.00
1.00
$12,417.58
$12,417.58
&1241758
1902824220027
5501
Carroll & Dor
1902824220032
5502
Richard L &. er Heinrich
G.. \Eng-- nggmprovemenR1eA355 Golf Ter- Street Reoon (2011)1PRELIM DESIGNIFEASIBLITIYIBA -355 Pending Aeeesemeot Rod.xin 1 of 2
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
7E
75
8C
81
82
W
84
85
BE
87
Be
BE
9C
91
92
9'
PENDING X SMENT ROLL
GOLF TERRACE IMF r<OVEMENTS BA -355
REVISED MARCH 15, 2011
STREET
PID #
LEGAL
STREET
OWNER
LOT
BLOCK
ASSESSABLE
REU
ASSESSMENT
COST
NOTES
1902824220028
5503
Stephen & Sara Zawoysk
1.00
$12,417.58
1902824220033
5504
William D & Betty L Reber
1.00
$12,417.58
1902824220029
5505
Craig J & Gloria Day Deberg
1.00
$12,417.58
1902824220034
5506
Robert Kaiser & Julie Champ
1.00
$12,417.58
1902824220030
5507
1 Michael R & M Kathryn Cashman
1.00
$12.417.58
Sherwood Ave
1902824220051
5600
Curtis A Knowles & Caroline B Rhoades
1.00
$12,417.58
1902824220052
5602
Stevens R & Mary J Anderly
1.00
$12,417.58
1902824220055
5603
Devan V & Suchita Padmanabhan
1.00
$12,417.58
1902824220053
5604
Blake & Varinie Nixon
1.00
$12,417.58
1902824220056
5605
Daniel & Susan Rooney
1.00
12 417.58
1902824230009
5606
Daniel J & Jamileh N Nosing
1.00
$12,417.58
1902824230010
5607
Richard J & Ann Russell
1.00
$12,417.58
1902824230008
5608
Dennis C & Marypaul Foreman
1.00
$12,417.58
1902824230011
5609
Peter S & Lisa Marie Moeller
1.00
$12,417.58
1902824230007
5610
Matthew E & Julie E Lovaas
1.00
$12,417.58
1902824230012
5611
Daniel J & Lynne S Rectenwald
1.00
$12,417.58
1902824230006
5612
Terry M & Carol J Holmes
1.00
$12,417.58
Different Addres
1902824230013
5613
Timothy B Kehoe & Beth Hamilton Kehoe
1.00
$12,417.58
1902824230005
5614
Daniel L Mueller & Michele M Vig
1.00
$12.417.68
1902824230014
5615
Matthew K & Margaret C Kershner
1.00
$12,417.58
1902824230004
5616
Jean - Claude Desjardine & Carole Robitaille
1.00
$12,417.58
1902824230015
5617
Ronald C & Karen S Wenaas
1.00
$12,417.58
St Andrews Ave
1902824220063
5600
Robert Grissinger
1.00
$12,417.58
1902824220064
5601
Charles H & Gail M Bolger
1.00
$12,417.58
1902824220062
5602
James R & Holly S Lindholm
1.00
12 417.58
1902824220065
5603
Ronald & Peggy Madaras
1.00
$12,417.58
1902824230033
5604
Mark D & Erika S Eberlein
1.00
$12,417.58
1902824230034
5605
Patrick T & Ann M Kelly
1.00
$12,417.58
1902824230032
5606
Robert C & Janet A Peterson
1.00
$12,417.58
1902824230035
5607
John & Kris Green
1.00
$12,417.58
1902824230031
5608
George & Susan Hadjiyanis
1.00
$12,417.58
1902824230036
5609
Todd G & Leslie S Anderson
1.00
$12,417.58
1902824230030
5610
Daniel F & Erin M Akins
1.00
$12.417.58
1902824230037
5611
Patnca A Nolte
1.00
$12,417.58
1902824230029
5612
Paul & Patricia Kolkman
1.00
$12,417.58
1902824230038
5613
David G Truckenmiller & Lois A Kaptema
1.00
$12,417.58
1902824230028
5614
Kathleen A Lahti
1.00
$12,417.58
1902824230039
5615
D S & Joan Weatherhead
1.00
$12,417.58
1902824230040
5617
Chris A & Ann S Wichman
1.00
$12,417.58
NOTES:
G \Engi er gUmprovements1BA355 Golf Terrace Street R-on (2011)1PRELIM DESIGNTEASIBLITMBA -355 Pend,ng Assessment Roll. Au
Total 91 $1,130,000.00
PRELIMINARY TOTAL ROADWAY COST r$ 11.130.000.001
TOTAL ASSESSMENT REU 91
AVERAGE COST PER REU $ 12,417.58
2 of 2
91r1A, g1r
m
V .S
CiLy or Edinii
February 10, 2011
RE: Golf Terrace Neighborhood Reconstruction Project
Dear Resident:
On January, 18, 2011, there was a Public Hearing for Golf Terrace Neighborhood
Reconstruction Project. The majority of the discussion centered on the water quality of
Harvey Lake. The City Council continued the vote on the project until staff could analyze
additional options available to reduce pollutant loading to Harvey Lake.
Staff met with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) and we would like to
share the finding of our discussion with you.
We are hosting a neighborhood informational meeting for the on February 22, from 7:00
p.m. to 9:00 p.m., at the new Public Works and Park Maintenance Facility, located at
7450 Metro Boulevard. The meeting will consist of a 20 minute presentation starting
shortly after 7:00 pm that will cover potential roadway configurations, storm water
treatment options, and additional options which were evaluated at but ruled not feasible.
Potential options include:
Option No. 1 — Narrow Lakeview Drive /Add Swales:
This option would reduce the width of Lakeview Drive, on the northeast side of Harvey
Lake, to 18' (back of curb to back of curb) and restrict parking on one side of the street.
It would reduce the impervious surface draining to Harvey Lake by an additional 6,295
square feet (SF) or (0.14 Acres) and allow for room to install filtration swales on the
south side of Lakeview Drive. These filtration swales would be planted with native
plantings and the aesthetics would be similar to a rain garden (see attached map for
potential locations).
Option No. 2 — Original Design /Reduction of Impervious Surface:
This option was the original design presented to the City Council on January 18, 2011.
Intersections would be realigned and the street would be narrowed to our standard width
of 28' (back of curb to back of curb). The redesign of the intersections would reduce
impervious surface by approximately 3,192 SF (0.07 Ac).
City Hall
4801 WEST 50TH STREET
EDINA, MINNESOTA, 55424 -1394
www.cityofedina.com
952- 927 -8861
FAX 952 -826 -0390
TTY 952 -826 -0379
February 10, 2011
Golf Terrace Reconstruction Project
Page 2 of 2
Option No. 3 — Shoreline Restoration /Buffers around Harvey Lake:
This option should be implemented in conjunction with Option 1 or 2. From aerial
photos, the lawns of most of the properties surrounding the lake are mowed to� the water
edge. All of these properties should install shoreline stabilization and a buffer strip along
the shoreline. According to MCWD Wetland Protection Rule, the minimum buffer strip
would be 20'. This buffer strip would filter approximately 4 acres of runoff from private
property before it drains directly into Harvey Lake. The cost of the lake shore restoration
and buffer zone would be the responsibility of the private homeowners (see attached
map for locations).
MCWD does have grants which can offset a portion of the construction cost to the
homeowner. The homeowners would be responsible for securing these grants and the
continued maintenance of the buffer.
There is a potential for homeowners in selected areas to keep the water from their own
property from draining to the roadway. If curb and gutter is going to be installed, the
City's contractor would need to do minor grading behind the curb to match the existing
elevation. Where feasible, the City's contractor could rough grade in a small depression
behind the curb. The homeowner could direct the water from their sump pump and roof
drains to this area to treat their runoff. MCWD grants may be available to help offset the
homeowner's cost of construction.
Other options considered were rain gardens, storm water treatment devices, pervious
pavement, and dredging of the lake. These options were analyzed and will be discussed
at the meeting regarding why they were determined not to be feasible.
If you cannot attend the informational meeting the presentation can be made available to
you after the meeting. Please contact the Engineering Department at 952 - 826 -0371.
Sincerely,
�ack D. Sullivan, P.E.
Assistant City Engineer
Enclosure: Golf Terrace Neighborhood — Proposed Water Quality Improvements
G: \Engineering \lmprovements\BA355 Golf Terrace Street Recon (2011)\PRELIM DESIGMFEASIBLIT1YUnformational
Meeting\201102I0_BA355_Meeting - Storm improvements.doc
GOLF TERRACE NEIGHBORHOOD RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT
PROPOSED WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS
I I I I I I 1 ,
4808 I 1 4800 1 4710 ' 4708 I 4706 I 4704 I 4702
4804 I 4802 -
_
GOLF -
RR
4814 o ' F461; t
r 4705 4703 1 4701 I
4715 /
4706
-- 4818
4704 \ \
4614
KE _
W
1 Fy 4702 / 4700
4903
LAKE
--
o 5501
5500 1
4902 \ 1
4905 J ,1
p j 55
5502 a 1
4907 �' A
//
4906
e f ••, 5504
491
4909 - � - -�
/ �.. -, -; •• •.
-- '
550
°a / 7
� � • '--- ......-- --' " � 5506
4814
- , \ 4609
5600,' / - 4812 I 4810
4617
IF 4615 —A �.
i
kENfW p I - --
\ I
I 5602 5601 II � � -� — - I 1
— - - - + -- -- 4813 1 -- - - --
® PROPOSED FILTRATION SWALE
® PROPOSED SHORELINE STABILIZATION & BUFFER STRIP
PROPOSED NARROWING OF LAKEVIEW DR. TO 18'
PROPOSED TREE REMOVAL
7�••� ice 2/10/11
INFORMATIONAL MEETING
POWERPOINT PRESENTATION
City of Edina
February 22, 2011
Neighborhood Informational
Meeting #2
Golf Terrace
Roadway Improvements
BA -355
,:: CITY OF EDINA Council Review
Council Meeting Review from Jan. 18th
1. Discussion centered on water quality of
Harvey Lake - Proposed design met
Watershed District requirements
2. Staff directed to look at options for
pollutant loading reduction
3. Explore funding options through the
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
"a CITY OF EDINA
Harvey Lake
Drainage Area
33.8 ac
Agenda
• Introductions
• Council Meeting Review
• Options Analyzed
• Expectations
• Staff Recommendations
• Costs
• Project Schedule
CITY OF EDINA r-- --
Project I
Location
I_
G = •e.
•� y v.m.e. Ne 4��55 -
Drainage
Numbers
• Harvey Lake Drainage Area — 33.8 ac
• City Right of Way — 4.3 ac or 13%
• Approximately 2 ac of impervious
• Approximately 2.3 ac of pervious
• Lake Harvey — 6.3 acres or 19%
• Private Property — 23.2 acres or 68%
Approximately 4.5 ac of impervious
• Approximately 18.7 ac of pervious
City can only control 13% of the
overall drainage area to the lake
INFORMATIONAL MEETING
POWERPOINT PRESENTATION
Options
:E CITY OF EDINA Reviewed
Options reviewed with the Watershed
1. Filtration swales /Rain gardens
2. Shoreline restoration and buffers
3. Storm water treatment devices
4. Pervious pavement
S. Pond dredging
CITY OF EDINA Options Reviewed
Rain Gardens
Benefit
• reduce sediment and pollutant prior to
discharge to lake
Drawback
• need 3' of separation from
groundwater table - not possible
• typically expensive
• high maintenance
• soil corrections needed
• can only treat small areas
(:® CITY OF EDINA Options Reviewed
Stormwater Treatment Devices
Benefit
• reduce sediment and pollutant prior to
discharge to lake
• prevents shoreline erosion
Drawback '
• expensive .
• should not be installed below lake
normal water level
1
.e CITY OF EDINA Options Reviewed
Filtration Swales
i Benefit
• reduce sediment and pollutant prior to
discharge to lake
Drawback
• typically expensive
i high maintenance
• soil corrections needed
• can only treat small areas
,.® CITY OF EDINA Options Reviewed
Shoreline Restoration and Buffers
Benefit
• reduce sediment and pollutant prior to
discharge to lake
• prevents shoreline erosion
Drawback
• high maintenance until established
• reduce useable yard space
0
CITY OF EDINA Options Reviewed
Pervious Pavements
Benefit
• reduce sediment and pollutant prior to
discharge to lake
• prevents shoreline erosion
Drawback
• expensive to install
• high maintenance costs
• need specialize and expensive i
equipment to maintain
• need separation from ground water
Pipyatenn
2
INFORMATIONAL MEETING
POWERPOINT PRESENTATION
.0 CITY OF EDINA Options Reviewed
Pond Dredging
Benefit
• reduces internal phosphorous loading
• may improve short term water quality
Drawback
• Watershed doesn't recommend
dredging therefore difficult to permit
• expensive
• need to reduce external loading before
Watershed would consider
• does not solve external loading issues
would have to uumn down lake
Staff
�MCITY OF EDINA Recommendation
Public Property
Filtration swale along Lakeview Drive
• Narrow Lakeview Drive to 18' to provide
room for swale
tl t"_
1 11
Staff
Recommendation
Private Property
Shoreline restoration and buffers
• Homeowners work with Watershed for
funding and guidance
Depressions behind curb line if
residents would like to install their own
basins
1n CITY OF EDINA Expectations
What will these options produce?
The lake has collected runoff for
hundreds of years
The City only has authority to work
within 13% of the project area
It is not expected or guaranteed that
the water quality of Harvey Lake will
quickly improve by completing any
combination of these options
Filtration
Swale
Staff
so CITY OF EDINA
Recommendation
I _ i
Filtration
swales
Shoreline
restoration &
Buffer --A .
3
y
•s
=Road 0 10A
\_., ,
Driveway 0 11 Ac
House 0.13Ac
'
..../
Yard 0.41 Ac
Total Public Area
=0.19 Ac
Staff
so CITY OF EDINA
Recommendation
I _ i
Filtration
swales
Shoreline
restoration &
Buffer --A .
3
INFORMATIONAL MEETING
POWERPOINT PRESENTATION
Staff
00 CITY OF EoINA Recommendation
Cost
• Filtration Swale along Lakeview Drive
to be paid for out of the Storm Sewer
Utility Fund
• Reduced width of Lakeview Drive will
reduce assessable costs by $20,000
• Shoreline restoration and buffer
would be separate from this project -
Costs would be paid for by property
owner
CITY OFEOINA Project Schedule
Proiect Timeline — cont.
Bid Opening ............. ..........................April 2011
Award Contract ........ ..........................April
2011
Begin Construction .... ............................May 2011
Complete Construction ..........................Fall
2011
Final Assessment Hearing ...........................2012
ii ®CITY OFEDINA Project Schedule
Proiect Timeline
Open House #1 ...... ..........................Sept. 14, 2009
Open House #2.. ............. m ............. Sept 20, 2010
Informational Meeting #1 .................Dec. 2, 2010
Public Hearing ................................ Jan.18, 2011
Informational Meeting #2 .................Feb. 22, 2011
Public Hearing Cont .....................March 15, 2011
The public testimony of the January 18th public
hearing has been closed.
Written comments will need to be received by:
• Noon on March 10th for inclusion in to the
Council packet
• Noon on March 151h for inclusion on the
Council dais
I:® CITY OF EDINA
Questions?
Comments?
rd
Sharon Allison
From: Douglas Fulton <Douglas. Fulton@cushwake.com >
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 20118:26 AM
To: Sharon Allison; Kaylin Martin
Cc: Douglas Fulton
Subject: Golf Ter Lake Harvey (Save Lake Harvey) Association Comment
Dear Mayor Hovland and Edina City Councilmembers,
Thank you for your continued interest in the Golf Ter Lake Harvey Street Reconstruction project. Our neighborhood
remains committed to a street system with no curbs. We are presenting an updated Association Petition calling for no
curbs around Lake Harvey. With only two exceptions, our neighborhood is promoting a neighborhood and Street
Reconstruction with no new curbs!
Further, our association's research with the Watershed District and Minnesota Waters Association has yielded a "neutral"
opinion on whether curbs or no curbs provides a better filtration system to Lake Harvey. We believe that the additional
neighborhood concerns over safety (tripping on curbs) and traffic would lead to a decision with no curbs versus Public
Work's concern over maintenance and snowplowing.
The Feb 22 presentation by Public Works was well attended by our neighborhood. It was helpful, but not very
enlightening. The options of dredging, rain gardens, pervious payment and storm water treatment devices were all
discounted as "too expensive" (among other reasons) although no costs were provided. The proposed option of
narrowing Lakeview Dr. and the addition of filtration swales (it was unclear whether one or two would be installed) seems
a small overall benefit to Lake Harvey in exchange for a narrowing of a road that will redirect over 180 cars a day onto
Golf Terrace (according to Public Works), create a major safety issue with the daily pedestrians that walk around Lake
Harvey each day and cause parking issues for impacted neighbors.
Several neighbors asked Public Works about another option — surmountable curbs. Sensing no flexibility on curbs, some
neighbors requested that Public Works at least consider a surmountable curb system that will provide a safer and more
natural look in the neighborhood. Our association's general position is that no curbs is best, but that surmountable (or
other flat) curbs systems would be a more desirable option than bulkhead curbs. Other communities have used
surmountable curbs very successfully. Public Works agreed to comment on surmountable curbs at the Mar meeting,
although the neighborhood group was left with a feeling that Public Works was not very open to a change in the one size
fits all approach to Street Reconstruction.
Our association is working to engage our neighbors about better ways to create rain gardens, shoreline buffers, curbs
filtration systems and other more environmentally friendly ways to treat our lawns. We are making a huge investment in
the Street Reconstruction project and we are very hopeful that the City Council will recognize that our desire for no curbs
in our neighborhood is important for the Health of Lake Harvey, safety and preserving the unique natural feel (and value)
of our neighborhood.
If you have questions, please feel free to contact me.
Doug Fulton
4706 Golf Ter
Edina, MN 55424
Douelas.fultonna.cushwake.com
(612) 209 -4208
Sharon Allison
From:
Susan Howl
Sent:
Thursday, March 10, 201111:08 AM
To:
Wayne Houle; Sharon Allison
Cc:
Deb Mangen
Subject:
FW: Dear Councilmember
Material for your agenda item.
Susan Howl, Human Services Coordinator
952 - 826 -0403 1 Fax 952 - 826 -0390
show[ @ci.edina.mn.us I www.CitvofEdina.com ...For Living, Learning, Raising Families & Doing Business - - - -- Original
Message---- -
From: Lynette Biunno
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 201111:04 AM
To: Susan Howl
Subject: FW: Dear Councilmember
Lynette Biunno, Receptionist
952-927-88611 Fax 952 - 826 -0389
Ibiunno @ci.edina.mn.us I www.CitvofEdina.com ...For Living, Learning, Raising Families & Doing Business
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Mark Kaiser [mailto:markkaiser @hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 201110:39 AM
To: Lynette Biunno
Subject: Fw: Dear Councilmember
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Sprague, Joshua S
Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 20117:20 PM
To: markkaiser @hotmail.com
Subject: Re: Dear Councilmember
Mark,
Send this to attn city council, at edinamail@ci.edina.mn.us, so it becomes a
part of the official record.
Regards,
.: js
josh sprague, realtor
coldwell banker burnet
edina regional office
cell 612.501.0252
- - - -- Reply message - - - --
From: "Mark Kaiser" < markkaiser @hotmail.com>
To: "josh @joshsprague.com" <josh @joshsprague.com >,
"jonibennettl2 @comcast.net" <jonibennettl2 @comcast.net >,
"jhovland @krauserollins.com" <jhovland @krauserollins.com >,
"mbrindle @comcast.com" <mbrindle @comcast.com>
Subject: Dear Councilmember
Date: Wed, Mar 9, 20116:48 pm
Dear Councilmember,
Please refer to the attached document regarding the Golf Terrace
reconstruction project. I have been an Edina resident my entire life and
graduated from the old high school. I have lived at 4702 Golf Terrace since
1975 and have raised my children there. My daughter also lives on Golf
Terrace and she has three young boys. My son lives in Edina in the Cornelia
area and has three sons. This is the second time I have been assessed for
the same project.
On a personal note;
My property was not included in this project and I never received any
notification regarding it. Some neighbors asked me to attend the December 2
meeting at the Public Works Facility to discuss the future of Lake Harvey.
Although I never received a notification about the meeting I did attend and
asked a few questions. On December 7, 1 received a letter from Jack
Sullivan stating "With the revised construction limits your property is now
part of the project." After reviewing the maps it appears that my property
was the only one added to the "revised construction limits ". I find this
very curious and can not help but think it was my attendance at the December
2 meeting that caused the "revised limits ".
I did not have the opportunity to voice my opinion at any of the previous
meetings nor did I receive any notification at all until December 7. This
is unreasonable and I would like to have some feedback as to why this action
was taken.
Sincerely,
Mark Kaiser
markkaiser @hotmail.com
612 - 418 -0544
4702 Golf Terrace
Edina, MN 55424
Dear Councibnember:
Thank you for your continued interest in the Golf Terrace Lake Harvey Street Reconstruction project.
Our neighborhood remains committed to a street system with no curbs. Our research with the Watershed
District and Minnesota Waters Association has yielded a "neutral " opinion whether curbs or no curbs
provides a better filtration system to Lake Harvey. We believe that the additional neighborhood concerns
over safety (tripping on curbs) and traffic would lead to a decision with no curbs versus Public Work's
concern over maintenance and snowplowing.
The Feb 22 presentation by Public Works was well attended by our neighborhood. It was helpful, but not
very enlightening. The options of dredging, rain gardens, pervious payment and storm water treatment
devices were all discounted as "too expensive " (among other reasons) although no costs were provided.
The proposed option of narrowing Lakeview Dr. and the addition of filtration swales (it was unclear
whether one or two would be installed) seems a small overall benefit to Lake Harvey in exchange for a
narrowing of a road that will redirect over 180 additional cars a day onto Golf Terrace (according to
Public Works), create a major safety issue with the daily pedestrians that walk around Lake Harvey each
day and cause parking issues for impacted neighbors. The addition of swales after narrowing Lakeview
Drive would cause additional danger. In the event that two cars meet head -on, pedestrians would be
forced to leave the street by jumping into the swale which is basically a ditch filled with weeds, plants and
water. What would kids on bicycles or mothers with strollers do?
Several neighbors asked Public Works about another option — surmountable curbs. Sensing no flexibility
on curbs, some neighbors requested that Public Works at least consider a surmountable curb system that
will provide a safer and more natural look in the neighborhood. Our association's general position is
that no curbs is best, but that surmountable (or other flat) curbs systems would be a more desirable
option than bulkhead curbs. Other communities have used surmountable curbs very successfully. Public
Works agreed to comment on surmountable curbs at the March meeting, although the neighborhood
group was left with a feeling that Public Works was not very open to a change in the one size fits all
approach to Street Reconstruction.
Our association is working to engage our neighbors about better ways to create rain gardens, shoreline
buffers, curb filtration systems and other more environmentally friendly ways to treat our lawns. We are
making a huge investment in the Street Reconstruction project and we are very hopeful that the City
Council will recognize that our desire for no curbs in our neighborhood is important for the Health of
Lake Harvey, safety and preserving the unique natural feel (and value) of our neighborhood.
If you have questions, please feel free to contact me:
Mark Kaiser
4702 Golf Terrace
Edina, MN 55424
612 - 418 -0544
itiarkkaiser@hotmail.com
Af
March 10, 2011 W
Mayor Flovland and Members of the Edina City Council,
Thank you for your continued interest in the GOIfTer Lake Harvey Street Reconstruction project. Our
neighborhood remains committed to a street system with no curbs. We are presenting an updated
Association Petition calling for no curbs around Lake Harvey. With only two exceptions, our
neighborhood is promoting a neighborhood and Street Reconstruction with no new curbs!
Further, our association's research with the Watershed District and Minnesota Waters Association has
yielded a "neutral" opinion on whether curbs or no curbs provides a better filtration system to Lake
Harvey. We believe that the additional neighborhood concerns over safety (tripping on curbs) and traffic
would lead to a decision with no curbs versus Public Work's concern over maintenance and
snowplowing.
The Feb 22 presentation by Public Works was well attended by our neighborhood. It was lielpful, but not
very enlightening. The options of dredging, rain gardens, pervious payment and storm water treatment
devices were all discounted as "too expensive" (among other reasons) although no costs were provided.
The proposed option of narrowing Lakeview Dr. and the addition of filtration swales (it was unclear
whether one or two would be installed) seems a small overall benefit to Lake Harvey in exchange for a
narrowing of a road that will redirect over 180 cars a day onto Golf Terrace (according to Public Works),
create a major safety issue with the daily pedestrians that walk around Lake Harvey each day and cause
parking issues for impacted neighbors.
Several neighbors asked Public Works about another option — surmountable curbs. Sensing no flexibility
on curbs, some neighbors requested that Public Works at least consider a surmountable curb system that
will provide a safer and more natural look in the neighborhood. Our association's general position is that
no curbs is best, but that surmountable (or other flat) curbs systems would be a more desirable option than
bulkhead curbs. Other coin munities have used surmountable curbs very successfully. Public Works
agreed to comment on surmountable curbs at the Mar meeting, although the neighborhood group was left
with a feeling that Public Works was not very open to a change in the one size fits all approach to Sheet
Reconstruction.
Our association is working to engage our neighbors about better ways to create rain gardens, shoreline
buffers, curbs filtration systems and other more environmentally friendly ways to treat our lawns. We are
making a huge investment in the Street Reconstruction project and we are very hopeful that the City
Council will recognize that our desire for no curbs in our neighborhood is important for the Health of
Lake Harvey, safety and preserving the unique natural feel (and value) of our neighborhood.
If you:haveAuestionsrplease feel lice to contact me:
Doug ,Itoil
4706 Golf Ter
Edina, MN 55424
Doti glas.ruIton a,cushwake.com
(612) 209 -4208
January 16, 2011 \.'iv�G� \v�p
R
Re: Golf Terrace Heights 1st Addition Street Reconstruction 2011
The Neighbors ( "Petitioners ") who have signed the attached Petition are very concerned
about the failing quality of Lake Harvey, and the likelihood that the installation of curbs
during street reconstruction in the neighborhood will cause further deterioration.
The main reason for this petition is for environmental reasons. We believe that curbs
will increase the amount of storm water that will enter Lake Harvey directly, carrying an
increased amount of sediment, phosphorus and other pollutants into the lake. We are
requesting that the City of Edina defer the installation of curbs around Lake Harvey
until their potential adverse effect on the lake can be studied and mitigated.
We understand that water quality in Lake Harvey is the result of many factors, and a
neighborhood group is being formed to work with the Minnesota PCA, the DNR, the
Minnesota Waters organization and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District to reverse
the ongoing deterioration. Staff from these organizations report that "storinwater
runoff has a negative impact" and "increasing the flow of stormwater to a lake or pond
generally causes water quality to be adversely affected ". As a first step, it is critically
important to avoid worsening the lake's condition by the installation of curbs.
A significant safety issue must also be considered. There is heavy pedestrian traffic on
the roads around Lake Harvey, and the installation of curbs would make it more difficult
for a pedestrian to move onto a yard or the boulevard to avoid passing cars.
If the installation of curbs is deemed to be an essential component of the 2011 Street
Reconstruction project, we request that an alternative curb system that is level with the
ground (surmountable system) be installed instead of traditional curbing.
Lake Harvey is a valuable asset to the Golf Terrace Heights 1st Addition neighborhood
and to the City of Edina. Deterioration of Lake Harvey will have decrease neighborhood
property values and reduce property taxes for the City of Edina.
Thank you for your careful consideration of these issues.
1
• ■•s
The City Council
City of Edina
Petition Instructions
This petition form is to be used to ask the Edina City Council to consider the following types of improvements:
SIDEWALK
WATER MAIN
STORM SEWER
PERMANENT STREET SURFACING WITH CURB AND GUTTER
CURB AND GUTTER ONLY
(WITHOUT PERMANENT STREET SURFACING)
SANITARY SEWER
STREET LIGHTING
or another improvement you describe (called OTHER on this form).
You may use aiiotllcr petition form if you wish but the city council may reject such petitions unless they contain
the following information:
1. Type of improvement(s) 'rcgtiested, e.g., SIDEWALK, STORM SEWER, WATER MAIN, ETC.
2. Precise locations(s) of the requested improvements.
3. A statement that all who sign the petition understand that the city council may assess the costs of
these improvements against the properties benefiting from the improvements in amounts
determined by the Council.
4. Printed name of property owner, owner's signature and phone niimber, and property address.
5. Signature of person circulating the petition.
If you have questions, please call the City Clerk at 952- 927 -8861 between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m.
DEBRA NIANGEN
CITY CLERK
APRIL 2008
DATE RECEIVED:
City of Edina, Minnesota
�o @` CITY COUNCIL
)0J 4801 West 50t1i Street - Edina, Minnesota 55424
(952) 927 -8861 - (952) 927 -7645 FAX - (612) 927 -5461 TDD
PETITION TO THE CITY COUNCIL
❑ SIDEWALK ❑ ALLEY PAVING ❑ WATER MAIN
❑ STORM SEWER ❑ SANITARY SEWER ❑ STREET LIGHTING
❑ CURB AND GUTTER ONLY ❑ PERMANENT STREET OTHER: / O O u r
SURFACING WITH CURB AND AND GUTTER �� o a f 2 ro •� -,
'ro the Mayor and City Council:
"RL��-i'i� � S"�eed o �-
The persons who have signed this petition ask the City Council to consider the improveme' Ids IisCe 1 a ove to 1 e`
locations listed below. J
Cvt ok k—
LOCATION OF IMPROVEMENT RY $ RL'ET NAME
ADDRESS
between and
LOCATION OF IMPROVEMENT BY S "rRla:T NAME ADDRESS
bet \Veen and
LOCATION OF INIPROVENIEN'r BY S'rRIiET NANIE ADDRESS
between and
LOCATION OF IMPROVEDIENT RY STREET NAME ADDRESS
:ADDRESS
ADDRESS
ADDRESS
ADDRESS
IMPORTANT NOTE: THE PERSONS WHO HAVE SIGNED THIS PETITION UNDERSTAND
THAT THE CITY COUNCIL MAY ASSESS THE COSTS OF THESE IMPROVEMENTS AGAINST
THE PROPERTIES BENEFITING FROM THE IMPROVEMENTS IN AMOUNTS DETERMINED
BY THE COUNCIL AS AUTHORIZED BY CHAPTER 429, MINNESOTA STATUTES.
PROPERTY OWNER'S
OWNER'S NAME
(PRINTED)
'7�&V,to,,4 I,-,046n
-�,,
This petition was circulated by:
NAME Q ADDRESS
PROPERTY ADDRESS
(PRINTED)
"no
1-/70
Y % 0D
There is Space for more signatures on the back.
1170(, 4v(4- ,,,�
PHONE
APRIL 2008
/I:'t �', ._ / ✓� L �• /' /•� ,i r .� J/ l_.i -CMG ..�C.J' /�
PROPERTY OWNER'S
SIGNATURE'
I'
This petition was circulated by:
OWNER'S NANIE
(PRINTED)
r-\r P' CXW
/ II 1
C _0c , tc, � R,1 — ��e_ t I
Al� V
N b _ff OA 57
- h, tbin
PROPERTY ADDRESS
(I'llINTF.D)
XoQ (0 D17`v'C-,
618COd Gd F —, em,
`f- l I G- /� k-
`70 LAKP.U1921�R
)ACR L41
NAME ADDRESS PHONE
The Mi nresotcr Data Practices Act requires that use in brm you of your rights abow the private data use are requestin, on this form.
Under the lmv, your telephone number is private data. 77ris petition when suburiuecl will become public ir{tnrnnalion. There is no
consequence for refusing to .crrpply this in%oruuniun.
You may attach eXtra pares with signatw"es.
APRIL 2008
Piioi,r!,RTY OWNER'S
A S./
k-
-iW2
- - �1 ln, //// Y-7 i L:7=
= �
OWNER'SAAME
(PRINTED)
ICK.
Soo)-
c-
L Cis
'Fills �Ctifio*ll Nvas circulated by:
PROPERTY ADDRESS
(PRINTED)
Cf
f-
C-
�
I , ( � (,(A ft-(. (L
(ALOW (-ILIJ OXI'il-
9
NAIME ADDRESS PHONE
The A-finnesom Data Practices Act requires that we i4brin you ofyou• rights about the private data we are requesting on thisjbi.m.
Under the lax, your telephone number is private data. This petition when submitted will became public itilbrmatio)i. There isno
consequence for refitsing to supply this iqlbrination.
You may attach extra pages with SlgllItLll'6S.
APRIL 7.008
CITY OF EDINA
project
Details
1)�•t' •h`' r1
Project Area
�'• Golf Terrace Street Reconstruction
V Improvement No. BA -355 u0.••., .1
•
1
0
I
0
1
r
�.,�sgfN
• iro)•ctLlmrt,
•
f -
i
m
� .:III. 1'I•
� ..
Lz
Lm
oinvew i 11
CN
Project Area
�'• Golf Terrace Street Reconstruction
V Improvement No. BA -355 u0.••., .1
•
1
0
I
0
Ok, e ..,
0 �y
• CORPOP��1��
1808
REPORT /RECOMMENDATION
To:
MAYOR AND COUNCIL
Agenda Item Item No. IV.B.
From:
Scott Neal
City Manager
® Action
❑ Discussion
❑ Information
Date: March 15, 2011
Subject:
Nice Ride Minnesota
ACTION REQUESTED:
Consider the expansion of Nice Ride MN into Edina per the Bike Edina Task Force request.
INFORMATION /BACKGROUND:
Nice Ride MN is a non - profit organization that provides bicycles for use by subscribers. Anyone may
become a subscriber. The simply take a bike when they need one, and return it to any station in the
system when they arrive at their destination.
The cost to use the Nice Ride system is a combination of a subscription price, plus trip fees. To use Nice
Ride, users need a subscription. 24 hour subscriptions can be purchased using a credit card at the pay
station located at each Nice Ride station or online. Nice Ride bicycles are available 24 hours a day, 7 days
a week from April to November. All Nice Ride stations will be removed from the streets during the
snowy winter months.
The Bike Edina Task Force has requested the City support the expansion of Nice Ride MN into Edina.
Attachment:
Kirk Johnson Letter
Edina Support for Nice Ride MN Expansion
February 14, 2011
To Edina City Council; Edina City Manager (Scott Neal) and Executive Director of Nice Ride MN (Bill Dossett):
The Bike Edina Task Force (BETF) requests your support for the Nice Ride MN organization to move forward
with expansion into Edina. The Nice Ride MN organization manages the bicycle sharing program, which was
successfully rolled out in June of 2010 in Minneapolis. We understand that Nice Ride MN is actively working on
its Phase 2 expansion based on high demand for the service.
Nice Ride MN's vision is to "...create a more vibrant city, a place where people want to work, live and play." By
connecting this service with Edina, the BETF is excited about the benefits that will serve Edina residents,
shoppers, and workers.
Edina is one of the communities included in preliminary planning for the Phase 2 expansion. At the November
11th BETF meeting, Mr. Bill Dossett, Executive Director of the Nice Ride MN organization presented the
benefits, program management, and start -up requirements. The meeting was attended by Mayor Hovland and
Council member Mary Brindle.
During our discussion we ranked the first priority choices as (1) 44th and France and (2) 50th and France. We
also discussed merits for other ideas including Southdale, libraries, Centennial Lakes area, and others. The
BETF made a motion to support expansion into Edina in November 2010. All voted in favor.
Subsequent to that meeting, the BETF has made connections for Bill Dossett with the 50th & France Business
Association (Julie Boehm) and also the Linden Hills Coop (Luke Schell).
For specific City support, such as approvals for kiosk space and other matters, these will be brought forward to
the City Council by the Nice Ride MN,group and other stakeholders as needed.
Please contact me if you have any questions or if you have a request for the BETF to offer additional support.
Sincerely,
Kirk Johnson, on behalf of the Bike Edina Task Force
�-�ZA.
• f �rORPO��� •
laaa
REPORT /RECOMMENDATION
To:
MAYOR AND COUNCIL
Agenda Item Item No. IV.C.
From:
Scott Neal
City Manager
® Action
❑ Discussion
❑ Information
Date: March 15, 2011
Subject:
Decision Resources Proposal
ACTION REQUESTED:
Set a "not to exceed" cost for the City Manager to negotiate with Decision Resources to
conduct a citizen satisfaction survey in the City of Edina.
INFORMATION /BACKGROUND:
The Council has received the proposed questions that Decision Resources would use to conduct a citizen
satisfaction survey for the City of Edina. The cost of their survey will depend upon the number of
questions asked. Staff would like direction from the Council as to how many questions they wish to
have included in the survey. I would suggest setting a cost that cannot be exceeded for conducting the
survey.
01
V,
\ `biBe
REPORT /RECOMMENDATION
To:
MAYOR AND COUNCIL
Agenda Item
Item No. IV.D.
From:
Debra Mangen
City Clerk
® Action
❑ Discussion
❑ Information
Date: March 15, 2011
Subject:
Resolution No. 2011 -38 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 -38
RESOLUTION NO. 2011 -38
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 Park Department:
Edina Community Foundation $16,000
Dated: March 15, 2011
Attest:
Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) SS
CITY OF EDINA )
Fairview Southdale Hospital Fourth of July
Fireworks Display
James B. Hovland, Mayor
CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK
I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting City Clerk for the City of Edina do hereby certify that the
attached and foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of
March 15, 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
1
l�
0
• f�� Ile, •
��1Ree0
REPORPRECOMMEN DATION
To:
MAYOR AND COUNCIL
Agenda Item
Item No: IV.E.
From:
Boyd Tate
Traffic Safety Coordinator
® Action
❑ Discussion
❑ Information
Date: March 15, 2011
Subject:
Traffic Safety Committee Report of March 2, 2011.
ACTION REQUESTED:
Review and approve Traffic Safety Staff Review of Wednesday, March 2, 2011.
BACKGROUND:
It is not anticipated that residents.will be in attendance at the Council meeting
regarding any of the attached issues.
ATTACHMENTS:
Traffic Safety Review for March 2, 2011.
TRAFFIC SAFETY STAFF REVIEW
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
The staff review of traffic safety matters occurred on March 2, 2011. Staff present
included the City Engineer, Assistant City Engineer, City Planner, Police Traffic
Supervisor, Traffic Safety Coordinator and Sign Coordinator.
From that review, the recommendations below are provided. On each of the items,
persons involved have been contacted and the staff recommendation has been discussed
with them. They were also informed that if they disagree with the recommendation or
have additional facts to present, they can be included on the March 15, 2011, Council
Agenda.
SECTION A:
Requests on which staff recommends approval of request:
None for Wednesday, March 2, 2011.
SECTION B:
Requests on which staff recommends denial of request:
1. Request for s stop sign for north/south traffic on Brookview Ave at West
556' Street.
This request comes from a resident on Brookview Avenue who is
concerned with traffic safety at this intersection. Requestor feels that there
is a lot of cut through traffic on Brookview that is driving too fast and
feels the stop sign would help slow vehicles down. The requestor says
that the traffic creates a safety issue for children and other pedestrians.
This requestor made the same request in May of 2010 and was denied by
the City Council on June 15, 2010, for lack of warrants. The Traffic
Safety Committee did recommend that "Yield" signs be put up on West
55'' Street and Brookview Avenue for the east/west traffic in order to
better define the right of way. Yield signs were approved at the same
meeting and are now in place.
Traffic Safety Staff Review
March 2, 2011
Page 1 of 2
9'
Brookview Avenue is a 28 -f000t wide north/south street with no curb,
gutter or sidewalks. A traffic study was conducted as a result of this
request from 05 -17 -10 to 05- 24 -10. Brookview Avenue has a Mon. -Fri.
average daily traffic count. of 300 vehicles and an 85th- percentile speed of
23.7 mph.
West 55th Street is a 26 -foot wide east/west street with no curb, gutter or
sidewalks. West 55th Street has an average daily traffic count of 127
vehicles with an 85th- percentile speed of 14.6 mph. This study, compared
to one taken in 2002, shows that the volumes and speeds have remained
constant. There have been no reported accidents at this intersection from
2001 - 2009. However, requestor states that she knows that there have been
three accidents at Brookview Avenue and West 55th Street in the past year
(one reported, two not reported).
Staff feels that the "Yield" signs for West 55th Street traffic clearly
establish the right of way at this intersection. Warrants are not met for a
"Stop" sign at this intersection.
Staff recommends the denial of the request for residential "Stop" signs for
north/south traffic on Brookview Avenue at West 55th Street for lack of
warrants.
SECTION C:
Requests that are deferred to a later date or referred to others.
1. Concerns from a resident on Chapel Lane regarding the high volume of
traffic coming in and out of Edina High School and Valley View Middle
School, turning onto Chapel Lane, during peak AM/PM driving hours.
Recommend further study and review.
2. Concerns with traffic congestion on Eden Ave. Request to have parents
who drop off and pick up their children at Our Lady of Grace School use
the two entrances off West Frontage road rather than the entrance off Eden
Avenue. Recommend further study and review.
Traffic Safety Staff Review Page 2 of 2
March 2, 2011
o Le.
\N�Reee �EO�
REPORT /RECOMMENDATION
To:
MAYOR AND COUNCIL
Agenda Item Item No. IV. F.
From:
Ceil Smith
Assistant to the City Manager
Action
❑ Discussion
Information
Date: March 15, 2011
Subject:
APPROVAL OF CONTRACT FOR 2010 -12, IAFF 1275 (FIRE FIGHTERS)
ACTION REQUESTED:
Approve contracts for 2010, 2011 and 2012.
INFORMATION /BACKGROUND:
The following items were agreed to for 2010, 2011 and 2012.
INSURANCE:
2010 -$25
2011- $25
2012 - union agrees to accept whatever the Council approves for 2012.
WAGES:
2% for 2010.
2% for 2011.
1.5% for 2012.
LICENSURE:
Recent legislation requires the licensing of firefighters. The City agreed to pay
the three year fee of $75.
A,
�y
• f�roRpoR�`'CYA�
1800
REPORT /RECOMMENDATION
To:
MAYOR AND COUNCIL
Agenda Item
Item No. IV.G.
From:
Debra Mangen
City Clerk
® Action
❑ Discussion
❑ Information
Date: March 15, 2011
Subject:
Renewal On -Sale and Sunday Sale Liquor Licenses: Cocina del Barrio, Tavern on
France and McCormick and Schmick's Seafood Restaurant
ACTION REQUESTED:
Council approval of Club On -Sale and Sunday Liquor License renewals for:
On -Sale Intoxicating & Sunday Sale Tavern on France
Cocina del Barrio McCormick & Schmick's Seafood Restaurant
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. The applicants have
submitted all required paperwork in accordance with the City's liquor ordinance and State
Statutes, and have paid their license fees. These are the final license renewals for this year.
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
From: Tom Draper
Date: March 10, 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 Intoxicatina and Sundav Sale
Cocina del Barrio
Tavem On France
McCormick & Schmick's Seafood Restaurant
)jj/'_
Chi, f 6f Police J Long
• Page 1
O1
m
REPORT /RECOMMENDATION
To:
MAYOR AND COUNCIL
Agenda Item
Item No. IV. H.
From:
James Hovland
Mayor
® Action
❑ Discussion
❑ Information
Date: March 15, 2011
Subject:
Appointment to Edina Transportation Commission
ACTION REQUESTED:
Endorse Mayor's recommendations for appointment as follows:
Robert McKleeven'to the ETC for a term ending 2/1/2012.
INFORMATION /BACKGROUND:
Jean White recently resigned from the Edina Transportation Commission. During our January
and February interviews the Council selected Robert McKlveen as the next possible applicant to
be appointed to the Edina Transportation Commission if the need arose. Therefore, I am
recommending that we appoint Robert to fill the vacancy resulting from Jean's resignation.
A,
011ee %'1�
•,� vim.
�CbABP[�7B
REPORT /RECOMMENDATION
To:
MAYOR AND COUNCIL
Agenda Item Item No. IV. I.
From:
Debra Mangen
City Clerk
® Action
❑ Discussion
❑ Information
Date: March 15, 2011
Subject:
Art Center Board and Heritage Preservation Board Vacancies
ACTION REQUESTED:
Direct staff how to proceed to fill the vacancies on the Art Center Board and the Heritage
Preservation Board.
INFORMATION /BACKGROUND:
Steve Carlson resigned in February from the Art Center Board because he joined Gov. Dayton's
staff and would not have the time to fulfill his commitment to the Art Center Board. His term
would have been up for reappointment February 1, 2013.
The adoption of the new ordinance regarding Boards and Commissions added a position to the
Heritage Preservation Board. I am suggesting that it expire February 1, 2012 to keep a balance
among the positions' expiration dates.
Staff is seeking direction from Council as to their preferred course to fill these two positions. I
believe after filling these two positions all advisory boards and commissions will be full.
A
REPORURECOM M EN DATION
To:
MAYOR AND COUNCIL
Agenda Item Item No. IV. J.
From:
Eric Roggeman
Assistant Finance Director
® Action
Discussion
Information
Date: 3/15/2011
Subject:
Resolution No. 2011 -39 Accepting Grant for Installation of Solar Panels
on City Hall
ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt the attached Resolution No. 2011 -39 Authorizing Execution Renewable Energy
Grant Agreement No. 1353982.
INFORMATION /BACKGROUND:
The attached grant provides the lesser of $82,000 or forty percent of the actual eligible
costs of solar panel installation at Edina City Hall. This project was discussed in detail at
the January 18, 2011 Council meeting, when Council directed staff to complete the final
phase of the grant application.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution No. 2011 -39
2. State of MN Grant Contract 853982
RESOLUTION NO. 2011 -39
AUTHORIZING EXECUTION
RENEWABLE ENERGY GRANT _..._.
AGREEMENT NO. 853982
WHEREAS, the City of Edina has applied for and received a grant under the State of
Minnesota Department of Commerce for an amount not to exceed $82,000 or forty
percent of the actual cost of solar panel installation on Edina City Hall.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Edina City Council hereby accepts
Grant No. B53982 and authorizes and directs the Mayor and City Manager to sign the
grant agreement on its behalf.
Passed and adopted this 15th day of March, 2011.
Attest:
Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) SS
CITY OF EDINA )
James B. Hovland, Mayor
CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK
I, the, undersigned duly appointed and acting City Clerk for the City of Edina do hereby certify -that the attached and
foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of March 15, 2011, and as
recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting.
WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this day of
Edina City Clerk
STATE OF MINNESOTA
GRANT CONTRACT.
This grant contract is between the State of Minnesota, acting through its commissioner of Commerce ( "State ") and City
of Edina, 4801 W 50th ST, Edina, MN 55424 -1330 ( "Grantee ").
Recitals
1. Under Minnesota Statute §216C.02 Subdivision 1, the State is empowered to enter into this grant..
2. The State is in need of assistance in the promotion of renewable energy resources.
3. The Grantee represents that it is duly qualified and agrees to perform all services described in this grant contract to
the satisfaction of the State.
Grant Contract
Term of Grant Contract
1.1 Effective date: 03 /21/2011, or the date the State obtains all required signatures under Minnesota Statutes
Section 16C.05, subdivision 2, whichever is later.
The Grantee must not begin work under this grant contract until this contract is fully executed and the
Grantee has been notified by the State's Authorized Representative to begin the work.
1.2 Expiration date: 10/31/2011, or until all obligations have been satisfactorily fulfilled, whichever occurs first.
1.3 Survival of Terms. The following clauses survive the expiration or cancellation of this grant contract: 8.
Liability; 9. State Audits; 10. Government Data Practices and Intellectual Property; 12. Publicity and
Endorsement; 13. Governing Law, Jurisdiction, and Venue; 15. Data Disclosure; and Exhibit A, Section C.
2 Grantee's Duties
The Grantee, who is not a state employee, will execute the duties set forth in Exhibit A, incorporated herein by
reference.
3 Time
The Grantee must comply with all the time requirements described in this grant contract. In the performance of this
grant contract, time is of the essence.
4 Consideration and Payment
4.1. Consideration. The State will pay for all. services performed by the Grantee under this grant contract as
follows:
4.1.1. Compensation. The Grantee will be paid the lesser of Eighty -Two Thousand dollars ($82,000.00) or
Forty percent (40.00 %) of actual eligible costs incurred in the performance of the Grantee's duties
according to the breakdown of costs contained in the grant budget (Exhibit B) which is attached to and
incorporated into this grant contract.
4.1.2. Travel Expenses. Reimbursement for travel and subsistence expenses actually and necessarily incurred
by the Grantee as a result of this grant contract will not exceed Zero dollars ($ 0.00); provided that the
Grantee will be reimbursed for travel and subsistence expenses in the same manner and in no greater
amount than provided in the current "Commissioner's Plan" promulgated by the:commissioner of
Employee Relations. The Grantee will not be reimbursed for travel and subsistence expenses incurred
outside Minnesota unless it has received the State's prior written approval for out of state travel.
Minnesota will be considered the home state for determining whether travel is out of state.
4.1.3. Total Ohligation. The total obligation of the State for all compensation and reimbursements to the
Grantee under this grant contract will not exceed Eighty -Two Thousand dollars ($82,000.00) or Forty
percent (40.00 %) of the total actual, eligible costs incurred in the performance of the Grantee's duties
specified in Exhibit A.
4.2. Matching Requirements. The Grantee certifies that the following matching requirement for the grant contract
will be met by Grantee: No less than Sixty percent (60.00 %) of the total actual, eligible costs incurred in the
performance of the Grantee's duties specified in Exhibit A.
G -City of Edina - Commerce
Grant (Rev. 10 /10)
4.3. Payment __. _.,_..._....
4.3.1. Invoices. The State will promptly pay the Grantee after the Grantee presents an itemized invoice for the
services actually performed and the State's Authorized Representative accepts the invoiced services.
Invoices must be submitted timely and according to the schedule as outlined in Exhibit A.
4.3.2. Federal funds. Payments under this grant contract will be made from federal funds obtained by the
- State through the American Recovery and-Reinvestment Act of 2009-(Public Law 111 =5). The Grantee
is responsible for compliance with all federal requirements imposed on these funds and accepts full
financial responsibility for any requirements imposed by the Grantee's failure to comply with federal
requirements. These requirements include, but are not limited to, Title III, part D, of the Energy Policy
and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6321 et seq. and amendments thereto); U.S. Department of Energy
Financial Assistance Rules (10CFR600); and Title 2 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
5 Conditions of Payment
All services provided by the Grantee under this, grant contract must be performed to the State's satisfaction, as
determined at the sole discretion of the State's Authorized Representative and in accordance with all applicable
federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations. The Grantee will not receive_ payment.fg"r work
found by the State to be unsatisfactory or performed in violation of federal, state, or local law.
6 Authorized Representative
The State's Authorized Representative is Stacy Miller, Project Manager, 651- 282 -5091, or their successor, and has
the responsibility to monitor the Grantee's performance and the authority to accept the services provided under this
grant contract. If the services are satisfactory, the State's Authorized Representative will certify acceptance on each
invoice submitted for payment.
The Grantee's Authorized Representative is Eric Roggeman, Assistant Finance Director, 952- 826 -0414, or their
successor. If the Grantee's Authorized Representative changes at any time during this grant contract, the Grantee
must immediately notify the State.
7 Assignment, Amendments, Waiver, and Grant Contract Complete
7.1 Assignment. The Grantee may neither assign nor transfer any rights or obligations under this grant contract
without the prior consent of the State and a fully executed Assignment Agreement, executed and approved by
the same parties who executed and approved this grant contract, or their successors in office.
7.2 Amendments. Any amendment to this grant contract must be in writing and will not be effective until it has
been executed and approved by the same parties who executed and,approved the original grant contract, or
their. successors in office.
7.3 Waiver...If the State fails to enforce any provision of this grant contract, that failure does not waive the
provision or; its right to enforce it.
7A Grant Contract Complete. This grant contract contains all negotiations and agreements between the State and
i the Grantee. No other understanding regarding this grant contract, whether written or oral, may be used to
bind either party.
8 Liability
The Grantee must indemnify, save, and hold the State, its agents, and employees harmless from any claims or causes
of action, including attorney's. fees incurred by the State, arising from the performance of this grant contract by the
Grantee or the Grantee's agents or employees. This clause will not be construed to bar any legal remedies the
Grantee may have for the State's failure to fulfill its obligations under this grant contract.
9 State Audits
Under Minn. Stat. § 16C.05, subd. 5, the Grantee's books, records, documents, and accounting procedures and
practices relevant to this grant contract, are subject to examination" by the State and/or the State Auditor or
Legislative Auditor, as appropriate, for a minimum of six years from the end of this grant contract.. - . . - . _
G -City of Edina - Commerce
Grant (Rev. 10 /10)
10 Government Data Practices and Intellectual Property - - - - --
10.1. Government Data Practices. The Grantee and State must comply with the Minnesota Government Data
Practices Act, Minn. Stat. Ch. 13, as it applies to all data provided by the State under this grant contract, and as
it applies to all data created, collected, received, stored, used, maintained, or disseminated by the Grantee
under this grant contract. The civil remedies of Minn. Stat. § 13.08 apply to the release of the data referred to
in this clause-by either the Grantee or the State.
If the Grantee receives a request to release the data referred to in this Clause, the Grantee must immediately
notify the State. The State will give the Grantee instructions concerning the release of the data to the
requesting party before the data is released.
10.2. Intellectual Property Rights.: Grantee represents and warrants that materials produced or used under this grant
contract do not and will not infringe upon any intellectual property rights of another, including but not limited
to patents, copyrights,,trade secrets, trade names, and service marks and, names. Grantee shall -indemnify and
defend the State, at Gran tee's expense, from any action or claim brought, against the State to the extent that it
is based on a claim that all or part of the materials infringe upon the. intellectual property rights of another.
Grantee shall be responsible for payment of any and all such claims, demands, obligations, . liabilities, costs,
and damages including, but not limited to reasonable attorneys' fees arising out of this grant contract,
amendments and supplements thereto, which are attributable to such claims or actions.
If such a claim or action arises, or in Grantee `s or the State's opinion is likely to arise, Grantee shall, at the
State's discretion, either procure for the State the right or license to continue using the materials at issue or
replace or modify the allegedly infringing materials. This remedy shall be in addition to and shall not be
exclusive to other remedies provided by law.
11 Workersl. Compensation
The Grantee certifies that it is in compliance with Minn. Stat. § 176.181, subd. 2, pertaining.to workers'
compensation insurance coverage. The Grantee's employees and agents will not be considered State employees.
Any claims that may arise under the Minnesota Workers' Compensation Act on behalf of these employees and any
claims made by any third party as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of these employees are in no way
the State's obligation or responsibility.
12 Publicity and Endorsement
12.1. Publicity. . Any publicity regarding the subject matter of this grant contract must identify the State as the
sponsoring agency and must not be released without prior written approval from the State's Authorized
Representative. For purposes of this provision, publicity includes notices, informational pamphlets, press
releases, research, reports, signs, and similar public notices prepared by or for the Grantee individually or
jointly with others, or any subcontractors, with respect to the program, publications, or services provided
resulting from this grant contract.
12.2. Endorsement. The Grantee must not claim that the State endorses its products or services.
13 Governing Law, Jurisdiction, and Venue
Minnesota law, without regard to its choice -of -law provisions, governs this grant contract. Venue for all legal
proceedings out of this grant contract, or its breach, must be in the appropriate state or federal court with competent
jurisdiction in Ramsey County, Minnesota.
14 Termination
14.1 Termination by the.State. The State may cancel this grant contract at any time, with or without cause, upon 30
days written notice to the Grantee. Upon termination, the Grantee will be entitled to payment, determined on a
pro rata basis, for services satisfactorily performed.
G -City of Edina - Commerce
Grant (Rev. 10 /10)
14.2 Termination for Cause. The State may cancel this Grant Contract immediately_ if the State fads- that -there has
been a failure to comply with the provisions of this Grant Contract, that reasonable progress has not been made
or that the purposes for which the funds were granted have not been or will not be fulfilled. The State may take
action to protect the interests of the State of Minnesota, including the refusal to disburse additional funds and
requiring the return of all or part of the funds already disbursed.
14.3 Termination for Insufficient Funding. The State may immediately terminate this Grant Contract if. 1)
funding for Grant No. DE- EE0000164 is withdrawn by the US Department of Energy; 2) it does not obtain
funding from the Minnesota Legislature, or other funding source; or 3) if funding cannot be continued at a
level sufficient to allow for the payment of.the services covered here. Termination must be by written or fax
notice to the Grantee. The State is not obligated to pay for any services that are provided after notice and
effective date of termination. However, the Grantee will be entitled to payment, determined on a pro rata basis,
for services satisfactorily performed to .the extent that funds are available. The State will not be assessed any
penalty if the Grant Contract is terminated because of the decision of the Minnesota Legislature, or other
funding source, not to appropriate funds. The State must provide the Grantee notice of the lack of funding
within a reasonable time of the State's receiving that notice.
15 Data Disclosure
Under Minn. Stat. § 270C.65, Subd. 3, and other applicable law, the Grantee consents to disclosure of its social
security number, federal employer tax identification number, and/or Minnesota tax identification number, already
provided to the State, to federal and state tax agencies and state personnel involved in the payment of state
obligations._ These identification numbers may be used in the enforcement of federal and state tax laws which could
result in action requiring the Grantee to file state tax returns and pay delinquent state tax liabilities, if any.
16 Davis -Bacon Act (DBA) Requirements
Section 1606 of ARRA requires that all laborers and mechanics employed by contractors and subcontractors on
construction, alteration, or repair projects funded directly by or assisted in whole or in part by ARRA Funds shall be
paid wages at rates not less than those prevailing on projects of a similar character in the locality as determined by
the Secretary of Labor in accordance with subchapter IV of chapter 31 of title 40, United States Code. Pursuant to
Reorganization Plan No. 14 and the Copeland Act, 40 USC 3145, the United States Department of Labor has issued
regulations 29 CFR Parts 1, 3, and 5 to implement the Davis -Bacon and related Acts. Wage determinations can be
found at: www.wdol.gov and additional information on DBA Requirements can be found at: www.dol.gov /esa/whd.
This contract does not explicitly or implicitly require that a scope of work proposed to satisfy the outcomes of the
Grantee's Program must include activities of a nature and scope that require DBA compliance. However, if
proposed work includes such activities, the state will hold the Grantee responsible for all federal requirements
involving DBA wages and reporting. It is the responsibility of the Grantee to determine if DBA wages will apply to
their program. Additional information on Davis -Bacon Act Requirements is located in Exhibit C, which is attached
and incorporated into this agreement.
17 Waste Management Plan ,
The Grantee is required to comply with all Federal, state and local regulations for waste disposal for projects funded
through the Grantee's program. The Grantee must address waste generated by the project, if applicable, and describe
the plan to dispose of any sanitary or hazardous waste (e.g., construction and demolition debris, old light bulbs, lead
paint, lead ballasts; piping_, roofing material, discarded equipment, debris, and asbestos) generated as a result of the
proj ect.
18 Compliance with National Historic Preservation Act
Prior to the expenditure of federal funds, if applicable, projects must be evaluated to determine if they are subject to
review under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 (36CFR 800). Section 106
applies to projects that may affect properties listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic
Places. Properties meeting the following criteria will be subject to Section 106 review:
a Is at least 45 years old; and
G -City of Edina - Commerce 4
Grant (Rev. 10/10)
• Listed in or eligible for listing in the NRHP (either individually or as part of a district);
• Any project involving ground disturbing activity (excavation, utility installation - etc.).
It is the responsibility of the Grantee.to provide information needed to complete the Section 106 evaluation.
Intentional efforts to circumvent these requirements by altering or damaging a historic property that is a candidate
for federal grant funding will be construed as "anticipatory demolition" as defined in section 110k of the NHPA as
follows.
Section 110 [16 U.S.C. 470h -2(k) — Anticipatory demolition] ;. (k) Each Federal agency shall ensure that the agency
will not grant a loan, loan guarantee, permit, license, or other assistance to an applicant who, with intent to avoid the
requirements of section 106 of this Act, has intentionally significantly adversely affected a historic property to
which the grant would relate, or having legal power to prevent it, allowed such significant adverse effect to occur,
unless the agency, after consultation with the [Advisory Council on Historic Preservation], determines that
circumstances justify granting such assistance despite the adverse effect created or permitted by the applicant.
Initiating a grant funded project before reviews required under Section 106 of the NHPA have been completed may
cause significant delays in the release of grant funds, require negotiated mitigation, or result in an outright loss of
federal funding.
19 Disadvantaged Business Enterprises
Projects funded in whole or in part from funds received by the Grantee directly from this grant contract must, to the
extent practicable, ensure that bidding contractors are qualified and participate in available apprentice and training
programs for all work performed. Bidding for contracts must, to the extent practicable, use the process established in
Minnesota Statutes, section 16C.16, subdivision 4, 5, 6 and 7, except that subdivision 12 does not apply.
20 Buy American
The Grantee confirms that, if applicable, it is in compliance with the Buy American provision in the American
Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009 (ARRA) (Section 1605 of Title XI) which directs that, subject to certain
exceptions, no funds appropriated or otherwise made available for a project may be used for the construction,
alteration, maintenance, or repair of a public building or public work unless all the iron, steel, and manufactured
goods used are produced in the United States.
A Grantee requesting a determination regarding the inapplicability of the Buy American restrictions for lack of
quantity or quality, increase of cost of the project by more than 25 percent, or inconsistency with the public interest,
must be submitted to the State prior to the execution of the grant agreement. The prospective Grantee shall include
the information and applicable supporting data required by 2 CFR 176.140(c) and (d) in the request. Exceptions
must be approved by the State and the United States Department of Energy.
Additional information, including category.; exclusions and exceptions, on Buy American can be found at:
wwwl.eere.energy.gpv/recovery/buy_american_provision.html.
21 Reporting
Section 1512 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) states recipients of "Recovery Act
funds must comply with the extensive reporting requirements." Laws of Minnesota 2009, Chapter 138, Article 5,
Section 2 (accountability and transparency reporting) specifies additional recipient reporting requirements related to
ARRA funding.
A) Monthly, the Grantee must submit progress reports detailing the progress and tasks completed of the grant
agreement funded in whole, or in part, with ARRA funding including percent of project completion to the State
by the 5th day of each month for the preceding month's work.
G -City of Edina - Commerce
Grant (Rev. 10 /10)
B) Quarterly, the Grantee must submit additional grant - related information, including but not limited -to data
regarding hiring practices for jobs retained or created under this agreement and information related to training
where applicable. The Grantee shall report this information on a form prescribed by the State which must be
submitted to the State by the 5th day of each month following the end of the quarter for the preceding quarter's
work. If the grant contract ends prior to the end of the quarter, the Grantee shall submit all data relevant to this
requirement for that quarter up to the end date of the grant contract and submit it with the final report. -.
If a Grantee does not comply with these requirements, the State reserves the right to withhold funding.
22 Compliance with U.S. Department of Energy's Flow Down Requirements
It is the responsibility of the Contractor to fully understand, and be in compliance, with all U.S. Department of
Energy's flow down requirements, found in Attachment 1 to this agreement.
1. STATE ENCUMBRANCE VERIFICATION'
Individual certifies that funds have been encumbered as
required by Minn. Stat. §§ 16A.15 and 16C.05
Signe
Dat
CFMS: �53ci �02
2. CITY OF EDINA
The Grantee certifies that the appropriate person(s) have executed
the grant contract on behalf of the Grantee as required by applicable
articles, bylaws, resolutions, or ordinances.
By:
Title:
Date:
By:
Title:
Date:
3. MN DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Individual certifies that funds have been encumbered as
required by Minn. Stat. §§ 16A.15 and 16C.05.
By:
Title:
Date:
Distribution:
MN Dept. of Commerce, Accounting Dept.
Grantee
State's Authorized Representative (copy)
G -City of Edina - Commerce 6
Grant (Rev. 10 /10)
Exhibit A
Grantee's Duties
A. GRANTF,F, shall do all thinus necessary to comnlete the followinu tasks!
B. Promotional Materials
All promotional and informational materials distributed by or for the Grantee shall contain the following statement:
"This project was made possible by a grant from the U.S. Department of Energy and the Minnesota Department of
Commerce through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA)," unless this requirement is
waived in writing by the State.
C. Reporting
Grantee further agrees to provide energy production data to demonstrate the energy production of the solar electric
system for three years after the installation of the equipment. The requirement of reporting this energy data is to
provide accurate documentation of actual energy production and cost - savings achieved as a result of the project
'being funded by this grant agreement.
G -City of Edina - Commerce 7
Grant (Rev. 10 /10)
Completion
Task
Description - - - - - - - - - _-
_._ Date
Task 1
1.1 City Council approves grant contract with the Office of Energy Security OES
03/31/2011
Task 2
2.1 City contracts with engineer to develop specifications for Request for Proposals
04/15/2011
(RFP) and issues RFP
2.2 Deadline for responses to RFP
05/20/2011
2.3 City Council approves award of contract to successful bidder
06/07/2011
Task 3
3.1 Successful bidder enters contract with City
06/15/2011
3.2 Contractor obtains any necessary permits and orders equipment
06/30/2011
3.3 Start construction on 20 kW Solar Photovoltaic (PV) System at City Hall
07/31/2011
Task 4
4.1 Complete and commission Solar PV System
10/31/2011
Task_ 5
- 5th of each
5.1 Monthly. status reports are provided to OES. Reports will cover the preceding
month during
month's work completed.
grant
5.2 Monthly invoices are submitted monthly to OES. Invoices will cover the preceding
5 of each
month's expenditures.
month during
ant
5.3 Submit weekly Davis Bacon reports to OES during grant period, on form
Weekly during
prescribed by OES.
grant
5.4 Monitor Davis Bacon Reporting by all subcontractors while project is under
Ongoing
construction.
5.5 Final Report including executive summary and a final invoice are submitted to
10/31/2011
OES.
B. Promotional Materials
All promotional and informational materials distributed by or for the Grantee shall contain the following statement:
"This project was made possible by a grant from the U.S. Department of Energy and the Minnesota Department of
Commerce through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA)," unless this requirement is
waived in writing by the State.
C. Reporting
Grantee further agrees to provide energy production data to demonstrate the energy production of the solar electric
system for three years after the installation of the equipment. The requirement of reporting this energy data is to
provide accurate documentation of actual energy production and cost - savings achieved as a result of the project
'being funded by this grant agreement.
G -City of Edina - Commerce 7
Grant (Rev. 10 /10)
Exhibit B
Grantee's Budget
Budget: Eligible costs include actual.costs incurred for labor /fringe, subcontracts, equipment,, and materials. Other
expenses may be eligible only if pre - approved in writing by the State's Authorized Representative. The Grantee will be
reimbursed 40 %, or $82,000, up to a total project cost of $205,000. Any project cost over $205,000 will be 100% the
responsibility of the Grantee.
G -City of Edina - Commerce 8
Grant (Rev. 10 /10)
'Aause I. Davis Bacon Act and Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act.
Definitions: For purposes of this clause, Clause I, Davis Bacon Act and Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act,
the following definitions are applicable:
(1) "Award" means any grant, cooperative agreement or technology investment agreement made with Recovery
Act funds by the Department of Energy (DOE) to a Recipient.. Such Award must require compliance with the
labor standards clauses and wage rate requirements of the Davis -Bacon Act (DBA) for work performed by all
laborers and mechanics employed by Recipients .(other than a unit of State or local government whose own
employees perform the construction) Subrecipients, Contractors, and subcontractors.
(2) "Contractor" means an entity that enters into a Contract. For purposes of these clauses, Contractor shall
include (as applicable),prime.contractors, Recipients, Subrecipients, and Recipients' or Subrecipients' contractors,
subcontractors, and lower -tier subcontractors. "Contractor" does not mean a,unit of State or local government
where construction is performed by its own employees."
(3) "Contract "- means'a contract executed by a Recipient, Subrecipient, prime contractor, or any tier .
subcontractor for construction, alteration, or repair. It may also mean (as applicable) (i) financial assistance
instruments, such as' grants, cooperative agreements, technology investment agreements, and loans; and, (ii) Sub
awards, contracts.and subcontracts issued under financial assistance agreements. "Contract" does not mean a
financial assistance instrument with a unit of State or local government where construction is performed by its
own employees.
(.4) ".Contracting Officer" means the DOE official authorized to execute an Award on behalf of DOE and who is
responsible for the business management and non - program aspects of the financial assistance process.
(5) "Recipient " means any entity other than an individual that receives an Award of Federal funds in the form of
a grant, cooperative.agreement, or technology investment agreement directly from the Federal Government and is
financially accountable for the use of any DOE funds or property, and is legally responsible for carrying out the
terms and conditions of the program and Award.
(6) "Subaward" means an award of financial assistance in the form of money, or property in lieu of money, made
under an award by a Recipient to an eligible Subrecipient or by a Subrecipient to a lower -tier subrecipient. The
term includes financial assistance when provided by any legal agreement, even if the agreement is called a
contract, but does'not include the'Recipient's procurement of goods and services to carry out the program nor
does it include any form of assistance which is excluded from the definition of "Award" above.
(7) "Subrecipient" means a non- Federal entity that expends Federal funds received from a Recipient to carry out a
Federal program, but does not include an individual. that is a beneficiary of such a program.
(a) Davis Bacon Act
(1) Minimummages.
(i) All laborers and mechanics employed or working upon the site of the work (or under the United States
Housing Act of 1937 or under the Housing Act of 1949 in the construction or development of the project),
will be paid unconditionally and not less often than once a week, and, without subsequent deduction or
rebate on any account (except such payroll deductions as are permitted by regulations issued by the
Secretary of Labor under the Copeland Act (29 CFR part 3)), the full amount of wages and bona fide
fringe benefits (or cash equivalents thereof) due at time of payment computed at rates not less than those
contained in the wage determination of the Secretary of Labor which is attached hereto and made a part
hereof, regardless of any contractual relationship which may be alleged to exist between the Contractor
and such laborers and mechanics.
Contributions made or costs reasonably anticipated for bona fide fringe benefits under section 1(b)(2) of
the Davis -Bacon Act on behalf of laborers or mechanics are considered wages paid to such laborers or
mechanics, subject to the provisions of paragraph (a)(1)(iv) of this section; also, regular contributions
G -City of Edina - Commerce
Grant (Rev. 10 /10)
made or costs incurred for more than a weekly period (but not less often than quarterly) under plans,
funds, or programs which _cover the particular weekly period, are deemed to. be constructively made or
incurred during such weekly period. Such laborers and mechanics shall be paid the appropriate wage rate
and fringe benefits on the wage determination for the classification of work actually performed, without
regard to skill, except as provided in § 5.5(a)(4). Laborers or mechanics performing work in more than one
classification may be compensated at the rate specified for each classification for the time actually worked
therein, provided that the employer's payroll records accurately set forth the time spent in each
classification in which work is performed. The wage determination (including any additional classification
and wage rates conformed under paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section) and the Davis -Bacon poster (WH-
1321) shall be posted at all times by the Contractor and its subcontractors at the site of the work in a
prominent and accessible place where it can be easily seen by the workers.
(ii)(A) The Contracting Officer shall require that any class of laborers or mechanics, including helpers,
which is not listed in the wage determination and which is to be employed under the Contract shall be
classified in conformance with the wage determination. The Contracting Officer shall approve an
additional classification and wage rate and fringe benefits therefore only when the following criteria have
been met:
(1) The work to be performed by the classification requested -is not performed by a classification in the -
wage determination;
(2) The classification is utilized in the area by the construction industry; and
(3) The proposed wage rate, including any bona fide fringe benefits, bears a reasonable relationship to
the wage rates contained in the wage determination.
(B) If the Contractor and the laborers and mechanics to be employed in the classification (if known), or their
representatives, and the Contracting Officer agree on the classification and wage rate (including the amount
designated for fringe benefits where appropriate), a report of the action taken shall be sent by the Contracting
Officer to the Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, DC
20210. The Administrator, or an authorized representative, will approve, modify, or disapprove every
additional classification action within 30 days of receipt and so advise the Contracting Officer or will notify
the Contracting Officer within the 30 -day period that additional time is necessary.
(C) In the event the Contractor, the laborers or mechanics to be employed in the classification or their
representatives, and the Contracting Officer do not agree on the proposed classification and wage rate
(including the amount designated for fringe benefits, where appropriate), the Contracting Officer shall refer
the questions, including the views of all interested parties and the recommendation of the Contracting
Officer, to the Administrator for determination. The Administrator, or an authorized representative, will issue
a determination within-30 days of receipt and so advise the Contracting Officer or will notify the Contracting
Officer within the 30 -day period that additional time is necessary.
(D) The wage rate (including fringe benefits where appropriate) determined pursuant to paragraphs
(a)(1)(ii)(B) or (C) of this' section; shall be paid to all workers performing work in the classification under
this Contract from the first day on which work is performed in the classification.
(iii) Whenever the minimum wage rate prescribed in the Contract'for a class of laborers or mechanics
includes a fringe benefit which is not expressed as an hourly rate, the Contractor shall either pay the
benefit as stated in the wage determination or shall pay another bona fide fringe benefit or an hourly cash
equivalent thereof.
(iv) If the. Contractor does not make payments to a trustee or other third person, the Contractor may
consider as part of the wages of any laborer or mechanic the amount of any costs reasonably anticipated in
providing bona fide fringe benefits under a plan or program, provided that the Secretary of Labor has
found, upon the written request of the Contractor, that the applicable standards of the Davis -Bacon Act
have been met. The Secretary of Labor may require the Contractor to set aside in a separate account assets
for the meeting of obligations under the plan or program.
(2) Withholding.
G -City of Edina - Commerce 10
Grant (Rev. 10/10)
The Department of Energy or the Recipient or Subrecipient shall upon its own action or upon written request of
an, authorized representative of the. Department of Labor withhold. or. cause. to be .withheld from -the., Contractor. . .
under this-Contract or any other Federal contract with the same prime contractor, or any other federally- assisted
contract subject to Davis -Bacon prevailing wage requirements, which is.held by the same prime contractor, so
much of the accrued payments or advances as may be considered necessary to pay laborers and mechanics,
including apprentices, trainees, and helpers, employed by the Contractor or any subcontractor the full amount of
wages required by the Contract. In the event of failure to pay any laborer or mechanic, including any apprentice,
trainee, or helper, employed or working on the site of the work (or under the United States Housing Act of 1937
or under the Housing Act of 1949 in the construction or development of the project), all or part of the wages
required by the Contract, the Department of Energy, Recipient, or Subrecipient, may, after written notice to the
Contractor, sponsor, applicant, or owner, take such action as may be necessary to cause the suspension of any
further payment, advance, or guarantee of funds until such violations have ceased.
(3) Payrolls and basic records.
(i) Payrolls and basic records relating thereto shall be maintained by the Contractor during the course of
the work and preserved for a period of three years thereafter for all laborers and mechanics working at the
site of the work (or under the United States Housing Act of 1937, or under the Housing Act of 1949, in the
construction or development of the project). Such records shall contain the name, address, and social
security number of each such worker, his or her correct classification, hourly rates of wages paid
(including rates of contributions or costs anticipated for bona fide fringe benefits or cash equivalents
thereof of the types described in section 1(b)(2)(B) of the Davis -Bacon Act), daily and weekly number of
hours worked, deductions made, and actual wages paid. Whenever the Secretary of Labor has found under
29 CFR 5.5(a)(1)(iv) that the wages of any laborer or mechanic include the amount of any costs
reasonably anticipated in providing benefits under a plan or program described in section l(b)(2)(B) of the
Davis -Bacon Act, the Contractor shall maintain records which show that the commitment to provide such
benefits is enforceable, that the plan or program is financially responsible, and that the plan or program
has been communicated in writing to the laborers or mechanics affected, and records which show the costs
anticipated or the actual cost incurred in providing such benefits. Contractors employing apprentices or
trainees under approved programs shall maintain written evidence of the registration of apprenticeship
programs and certification of trainee programs, the registration of the apprentices and trainees, and the
ratios and wage rates prescribed in the applicable programs.
(ii) (A) The Contractor shall submit weekly for each week in which any Contract work is performed
a copy of all payrolls to the Department of Energy if the agency is a party to the Contract, but if the
agency is not such a party, the Contractor will submit the payrolls to the Recipient or Subrecipient (as
applicable),. applicant, sponsor, or owner, as the case may be,, for transmission to the Department of
Energy. The payrolls submitted shall set out accurately and,completely all of the information required
to be maintained under 29 CFR 5.5(a)(3)(i), except that full social security numbers and home
addresses shall not be included on weekly transmittals. Instead, the payrolls shall only need to include
an individually identifying number for each employee (e.g., the last four digits of the employee's
social security number). The required weekly payroll information may be submitted in any form.
desired: ,Optional Form WH -347 is available for this purpose from the Wage and Hour Division Web
site at http:// www. dol'. gpv /esa/whd/forms /wh347instr.htm or its successor site. The prime Contractor
is responsible for the submission of copies of payrolls by all subcontractors. Contractors and,
subcontractors shall maintain the full social security number and current address of each covered
worker, and shall provide them upon request to the Department of Energy if the agency is a party to
the Contract, but if the agency.is not such a party, the Contractor will submit them to the Recipient or
Subrecipient (as applicable), applicant, sponsor, or owner, as the case may be, for transmission to the
Department of Energy, the Contractor, or the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor for
purposes of an investigation or audit of compliance with prevailing wage requirements. It is not a
violation of this section for a prime contractor to require a subcontractor to provide addresses and
social security numbers to the prime contractor for its own records, without weekly submission to the
sponsoring government agency (or the Recipient or Subrecipient (as applicable), applicant, sponsor, or
owner).
G -City of Edina - Commerce 11
Grant (Rev. 10 /10)
(B) Each payroll submitted shall be accompanied by a "Statement of Compliance," signed by the
Contractor or subcontractor or his or her agent who pays or supervises the payment of the persons
employed under the Contract and shall certify the following:
(1) That the payroll for the payroll period.contains the information required to be provided under §
5.5 (a)(3)(ii) of Regulations, 29 CFR part 5, the appropriate information is being maintained under §
5.5 (a)(3)(i) of Regulations, 29 CFR part 5, and that such information is correct and complete;
(2) That each laborer or mechanic (including each helper, apprentice, and trainee) employed on the
Contract during the payroll period has been paid the full weekly wages earned, without rebate, either
directly or indirectly, and that no deductions have been made either directly or indirectly from the full
wages earned, other than permissible deductions as set forth in Regulations, 29 CFR part 3;
(3) That each laborer or mechanic has been paid not less than the applicable wage rates and fringe
benefits or cash equivalents for the classification of work performed, as specified in the applicable
wage determination incorporated into the Contract.
(C) The weekly submission of a properly executed certification set forth on the reverse side of
Optional Form WH -347 shall satisfy the requirement for submission of the; "Statement of
Compliance" required by paragraph (a)(3)(ii)(B) of this section.
(D) The falsification of any of the above certifications may subject the Contractor or subcontractor to
civil or criminal prosecution under section 1001 of title 18 and section 3729 of title 31 of the United
States Code.
(iii) The Contractor or subcontractor shall make the records required under paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this
section available for inspection, copying, or transcription by authorized representatives of the
Department of Energy or the Department of Labor, and.shall permit such representatives to interview
employees during working hours on the job. If the Contractor or subcontractor fails to submit the
required records or to make them available, the Federal agency may, after written notice to the
Contractor, sponsor, applicant, or owner, take such action as may be necessary to cause the suspension
of any, further payment, advance, or guarantee of funds. Furthermore, failure to submit the required
records upon request or to make such records available may be grounds for debarment action pursuant
to 29 CFR 5.12.
(4) Apprentices and trainees-
(i) Apprentices. Apprentices will be permitted to work at less than the predetermined rate for the
work they performed when they are employed pursuant to and individually registered in a bona fide
apprenticeship'program registered with the U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training
Administration, Office of Apprenticeship Training_, Employer and Labor Services, or with a State
Apprenticeship Agency recognized by the Office, or if a person is employed in his or her first 90 days
of probationary employment as an apprentice in- `such.an apprenticeship program, who is not
individually registered in the program, but who has been certified by the Office of Apprenticeship
Training, Employer and Labor Services or a State Apprenticeship Agency (where appropriate) to be
eligible for probationary employment as an apprentice. The allowable ratio of apprentices to
journeymen on the job site in any craft classification shall not be greater than the ratio permitted to the
Contractor as to the entire work force under the registered program. Any worker listed on a payroll at
an apprentice wage rate, who is not registered or otherwise employed as stated above, shall be paid
not less than the applicable wage rate on the wage determination for the classification of work actually
performed. In addition, any apprentice performing work on the job site in excess of the ratio permitted
under the registered program shall be paid not less than the applicable wage rate on the wage
determination for the work actually performed. Where a Contractor is performing construction on a
project in a locality other than that in which its program is registered, thexatios and wage rates
(expressed in percentages of the journeyman's hourly rate) specified in the Contractor's or
G -City of Edina - Commerce 12
Grant (Rev. 10 /10)
subcontractor's registered program shall be observed. Every apprentice must be paid at not less than
the rate specified -in the registered program for the apprentice's level of-progress,- expressed as a
percentage of the journeymen hourly rate specified in the applicable wage determination. Apprentices
shall be paid fringe benefits in accordance with the provisions of the apprenticeship program. If the
apprenticeship program does not specify fringe benefits, apprentices must be paid the full amount of
fringe benefits listed on the wage determination_ for the applicable classification. If the Administrator
determines that a different practice prevails for the applicable apprentice classification, fringes shall.
be paid in accordance with that determination. In the event the Office of Apprenticeship Training,
Employer and Labor Services, or a State Apprenticeship Agency recognized by the Office, withdraws
approval of an apprenticeship program, the Contractor will no longer be permitted to utilize
apprentices at less than the applicable:predetermined rate for the work performed until an acceptable
program is approved.
(ii) Trainees. Except as provided in 29 CFR 5.,16, trainees. will not be permitted to ..work at less than
the predetermined rate for the work performed unless they are employed pursuant to' and individuall y
registered in a program which has received prior approval, evidenced by formal certification by the
U.S. Department of Labor, Employment.and Training Administration. The ratio- of .trainees to
journeymen on the job site shall not be greater than permitted underthe plan approved by the
Employment and Training Administration. Every trainee must'be paid at not less than the rate
specified in the approved program for the trainee's level of progress, expressed as a percentage of the
journeyman hourly rate specified in the applicable wage determination. Trainees shall be paid fringe
benefits in accordance with the provisions of the trainee program. If the trainee program does not
mention fringe benefits, trainees shall be paid the full amount of fiinge benefits listed on the wage
determination unless the Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division determines that there is an
apprenticeship program associated with the corresponding journeyman wage rate on the wage
determination which provides for less than full fringe benefits for apprentices. Any employee listed on
the payroll at a trainee rate who is not registered and participating in a training plan approved by the
Employment and Training Administration shall be paid not less than the applicable wage rate on the
wage determination for the classification of work actually performed: In addition, any trainee
performing work on the job site in excess of the ratio permitted under the registered program shall be
paid not less than the applicable wage rate on the wage determination for the work actually performed.
In the event the Employment and Training Administration withdraws approval of a training program,
the Contractor will no longer be permitted to utilize trainees at less than the applicable predetermined
rate for the work performed until an acceptable program is approved.
(iii) Equal employment opportunity. The utilization of apprentices, trainees, and journeymen under
this part shall be in conformity with the equal employment opportunity requirements of Executive
Order 11246, as amended and 29 CFR part 30.
(5) Compliance with Copeland Act requirements. The Contractor shall comply with the requirements of 29 CFR
part 3, which are incorporated by _reference in this Contract.
(6) Contracts and Subcontracts. The Recipient, Subrecipient, the Recipient's,.and.Subrecipient's contractors and
subcontractor shall insert in any Contracts the clauses contained herein in(a)(1) through (10) and such other
clauses as the Department of Energy may by appropriate• instructions require, and also a clause requiring the
subcontractors to include these clauses in any lower tier subcontracts. The'Recipient shall be responsible for the
compliance by any subcontractor or lower tier subcontractor with all of the paragraphs in this clause.
(7) Contract termination: debarment. A breach of the Contract clauses in 29 CFR 5.5 may be grounds for.
termination of the Contract, and for debarment as a contractor and a subcontractor as provided in 29 CFR 5.12.
(8) Compliance with Davis -Bacon and Related Act requirements. All rulings and interpretations of the Davis-
Bacon and Related Acts contained in 29 CFR parts 1, 3, and 5 are herein incorporated by reference in this
Contract.
(9) Disputes concerning labor standards. Disputes arising out of the labor standards provisions of this Contract
shall not be subject to the general disputes clause of this Contract. Such disputes shall be resolved in accordance
G -City of Edina - Commerce 13
Grant (Rev. 10 /10)
with the procedures of the Department of Labor set forth in 29 CFR parts 5, 6, and 7. Disputes within the
meaning of this clause include disputes . between the Recipient, .Subrecipient,,the Contractor. (or.any_ of.its.,. .
subcontractors), and the contracting agency, the U.S. Department of Labor, or the employees or their
representatives.
(10) Certification of eligibility.
(i) By entering into this Contract, the Contractor certifies that neither it (nor he or she) nor any person
or firm who has an interest in the Contractor's firm is a person or firm ineligible to be awarded
Government contracts by virtue of section 3(a) of the Davis -Bacon Act or 29 CFR 5.12(a)(1).
(ii) No part of this Contract shall be subcontracted to any person or firm ineligible for award of a
Government contract by virtue of section 3(a) of the Davis -Bacon Act or 29 CFR 5.12(a)(1).
(iii) The penalty for making false statements is prescribed in the U.S. Criminal Code, 18 U.S.C. 1001.
(b) Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act. As used in this paragraph, the terms laborers and mechanics
include watchmen and guards.
(1) Overtime requirements. No Contractor or subcontractor contracting for any part.of the Contract work which
may require or involve the employment of laborers or mechanics shall require or permit any such laborer or
mechanic in any workweek in which he or she is employed on such work to work in excess of forty hours in such
workweek unless such laborer or mechanic receives compensation at a rate not less than one and one -half times
the. basic rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of forty hours in such workweek.
(2) Violation; liability for unpaid wages; liquidated damages. In the event of any violation of the clause set forth
in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the Contractor and any subcontractor responsible therefor shall be liable for the
unpaid wages. In addition, such Contractor and subcontractor shall be liable to the United States (in the case of
work done under contract for the District of Columbia or a territory, to such District or to such territory), for
liquidated damages. Such liquidated damages shall be computed with respect to each individual laborer or
mechanic, including watchmen and guards, employed in violation of the clause set forth in paragraph (b)(1) of this
section, in the sum of $10 for each calendar day on which such individual was required or permitted to work in
excess of the standard workweek of forty hours without payment of the overtime wages required by the clause set
forth in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
(3) Withholding for unpaid wages and liquidated damages. The Department of Energy or the Recipient or
Subrecipient shall upon its own action or upon written request of an authorized representative of the Department
of Labor.withhold or cause to be withheld, from any moneys payable on account of work performed by the
Contractor or subcontractor under any such contract or any other Federal contract with the same prime Contractor,
or any other federally - assisted contract subject to the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act, which is
held' by the same prime contractor, such sums as may be determined to be necessary to satisfy any liabilities of
such Contractor or, subcontractor for unpaid wages and liquidated damages as provided in the clause set forth in
paragraph (b)(2) of this section, -
(4) Contracts and - Subcontracts. The Recipient; Subrecipient, and Recipient's and Subrecipient's "contractor or 2
subcontractor shall insert in any Contracts, the clauses set. forth in paragraph (b)(1) through (4) of this section and
also a clause 'requiring the subcontractors to include these clauses in any, lower tier subcontracts. The Recipient
shall be responsible for compliance by any subcontractor or lower tier subcontractor with the clauses set forth in
paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section.
(5) The Contractor or subcontractor shall maintain payrolls and basic payroll records during the course of the
work and shall preserve them for a period of three years from the completion of the Contract for all laborers and
mechanics, including guards and watchmen, working on the Contract. Such records shall contain the name and
address of each such employee, social security number, correct classifications, hourly rates of wages paid, daily
and weekly number of hours worked, deductions made,, and actual wages paid. The records to be maintained under
this paragraph shall be,made available by the Contractor or subcontractor for inspection, copying, or transcription
by authorized representatives of the Department of Energy and the Department of Labor, and the Contractor or-
subcontractor will permit such representatives to interview employees during working hours on the job.
G- City of Edina - Commerce 14
Grant (Rev. 10 /10)
G -City of Edina - Commerce Attachment 1 Cover
Grant (Rev. 10 /10)
SUBGRANT FLOW DOWN PROVISIONS FOR WAP AND SEP FINANCIAL
ASSISTANCE AWARDS
Resolution of Conflicting Conditions
Statement of Federal Stewardship
Site Visits
Reporting Requirements
Publications
Federal, State, and Municipal Requirements
Intellectual Property Provisions and Contact Information
Lobbying Restrictions
Notice Regarding the Purchase of American -Made Equipment and Products --
Sense of Congress
Decontamination and/or Decommissioning (D &D) Costs
Historic Preservation
Flow Down Terms For ARRA Awards– See Prescriptions for Applicability
Special Provisions Relating To Work Funded Under American. Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009
Reporting and Registration Requirements Under Section 1512 of The Recovery Act
Required Use of'American Iron, Steei, "and Manufactured Goods (Covered Under
International Agreements} — Section 1605 of the American Recovery'and
Reinvestment Act of 2009
Wage Rate Requirements Under Section 1606 Of The Recovery Act
Recovery Act Transactions Listed In Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
and Recipient Responsibilities For Informing Subrecipients
Davis Bacon Act Requirements (For WAP ARRA Financial Assistance Awards)
Davis Bacon Act and Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (For Use in
SEP Financial Assistance Awards)
Attachment .1 — Page 1
From 10 CFR 600.236- Procurement
(a) States. When procuring property and services under a grant, a State will follow the
same policies and procedures it uses for procurements from its non - Federal funds. The
State will ensure that every purchase order or other contract includes any clauses required
by Federal statutes and executive orders and their implementing regulations. Other
grantees and sub - grantees will follow paragraphs (b) through (i) in this section.
Note: 600.236 (i)- Contract provisions. A grantee's and sub - grantee's contracts MUST
contain provisions in paragraph (i) of this section (1) through (13).
10 CFR 600.236 -- http:/ /ecfr .gpoaccess.gov/cgi /t/text/text-
idx?c= ecfr&sid =1 d87da29f6087f0251 f78954c8888ffl &rgn =div8 &view =text &node = 10:
4.0.1.3.9.3.20.23 &idno =10
From 10 CFR 600.237- Subgrants
Retention and Access Requirements for Records
http: / /ecfr. gpoaccess. gov /c gi/t/text/text-
idx ?type= simple; c= ecfr;cc= ecfr; sid= 4c22613d54c8ee557f9dc9d6015ec 1 c9 ;idno= l0 ;regi
on =DIV 1;q1= 600.242;rgn=div8;view--text ;node =l 0 %3A4.0.1.3.9.3.20.27
Conform any advances of grant funds to sub - grantees substantially to the same standards
of timing and amount that apply to cash advances by Federal agencies (refer state to 10
CFR 600.221(c).
10 CFR 60.221(c) Advances. Grantees and subgrantees shall be paid in advance, provided
they maintain or demonstrate the willingness and ability to maintain procedures to
minimise the time elapsing between the transfer of the funds and their disbursement by
the grantee or subgrantee.
Attachment 1 — Page 2
RESOLUTION OF CONFLICTING CONDITIONS - MANDATORY FLOW DOWN REQUIRED4
AWARD AGREEMENT TERMS AND CONDITIONS.: ........................................................................ 4
PAYMENT PROCEDURES - ADVANCES THROUGH THE AUTOMATED STANDARD
APPLICATION FOR PAYMENTS (ASAP) SYSTEM ............................................. ............................... 4
REBUDGETING AND RECOVERY OF INDIRECT COSTS - REIMBURSABLE INDIRECT
COSTS AND FRINGE BENEFITS : . ............
USEOF PROGRAM INCOME - ADDITION ........................................................... ............................... 5
STATEMENT OF FEDERAL STEWARDSHIP — MANDATORY FLOW DOWN REQUIRED ...... 5
SITE.VISITS — MANDATORY FLOW DOWN REQUIRED ...............:'.:............... ............................... 5
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS -- MANDATORY FLOW DOWN REQUIRED .............................. 6
PUBLICATIONS — MANDATORY FLOW DOWN REQUIRED ........................... ............................... 6
FEDERAL, STATE, AND MUNICIPAL REQUIREMENTS — MANDATORY.FLOW DOWN
REQUIRED.................................................................................................................... ............................... 7
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROVISIONS AND CONTACT INFORMATION
MANDATORY FLOW DOWN REQUIRED ............................................................. ............................... 7
LOBBYING RESTRICTIONS — MANDATORY FLOW DOWN REQUIRED ..... ............................... 7
NOTICE REGARDING THE PURCHASE OFAMERICAN -MADE EQUIPMENT AND
PRODUCTS -- SENSE OF CONGRESS — MANDATORY FLOW DOWN REQUIRED .................... 7
DECONTAMINATION AND /OR DECOMMISSIONING (D &D) COSTS — MANDATORY FLOW
DOWNREQUIRED ...................................................................................................... .............................:. 7
HISTORIC PRESERVATION -- MANDATORY FLOW DOWN REQUIRED ... ............................... 8
SPECIAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO WORK FUNDED UNDER AMERICAN RECOVERY
ANDREINVESTMENT ACT OF 2009 ...................................................................... ............................... 8
REPORTING AND REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS UNDER SECTION 1512 OF THE
RECOVERYACT .............:......................................................................................... ............................... 13
REQUIRED USE OF AMERICAN IRON, STEEL, AND MANUFACTURED GOODS — SECTION
1605 OF THE AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT OF 2009 ............................ 13
REQUIRED USE OF AMERICAN IRON, STEEL, AND MANUFACTURED GOODS (COVERED
UNDER INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS} — SECTION 1605 OF THE AMERICAN
RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT OF 2009 ............................................. ............................... 15
WAGE RATE REQUIREMENTS UNDER SECTION 1606 OF THE RECOVERY ACT ................ 19
RECOVERY ACT TRANSACTIONS LISTED IN SCHEDULE OF EXPENDITURES OF
FEDERAL AWARDS AND RECIPIENT RESPONSIBILITIES FOR INFORMING ....................... 19
DAVIS BACON ACT REQUIREMENTS ................................................................. ............................... 20
DAVIS BACON ACT AND CONTRACT WORK HOURS AND SAFETY STANDARDS ACT...... 30
Attachment 1 — Page 3
SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR USE IN MOST GRANTS AND
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS
RESOLUTION OF CONFLICTING CONDITIONS — MANDATORY FLOWN
DOWN REQUIRED
Any apparent inconsistency between Federal statutes and regulations and the terms and
conditions contained in this award must be referred to the DOE Award Administrator for
guidance.
AWARD AGREEMENT TERMS AND CONDITIONS
This award/agreement consists of the Grant and Cooperative Agreement cover page, plus
the following:
a. Special terms and conditions.
b. Attachments:
Attachment No. Title
1 Intellectual Property Provisions
2 Federal Assistance Reporting Checklist
3 Budget Pages
4 State Annual File
5 State Master File
6 Wage Determination
c. Applicable program regulations [Specify] [Date]
d. DOE Assistance Regulations, 10 CFR Part 600 at http: / /ecfr.gpoaccess. gov and if the
award is for research and to a university or non - profit, the Research Terms & Conditions
and the DOE Agency Specific Requirements at
http://www.nsfp,ov/bfa/dias/Solicy/rtc/index.isi3.
e. Application/proposal as approved by DOE.
f. National Policy Assurances to Be Incorporated as Award Terms in effect on date of
award at http:/ /management.energy.gov/business doe /1374.htm.
PAYMENT PROCEDURES - ADVANCES THROUGH THE AUTOMATED
STANDARD APPLICATION FOR PAYMENTS (ASAP) SYSTEM
a. Method of Payment. Payment will be made by advances through the Department of
Treasury's ASAP system.
b. Requesting Advances. Requests for advances must be made through the ASAP
system. You may submit requests as frequently as required to meet your needs to
disburse funds for the Federal share of project costs. If feasible, you should time each
request so that you receive payment on the same day that you disburse funds for direct
project costs and the proportionate share of any allowable indirect costs. If same -day
transfers are not feasible, advance payments must be as close as is administratively
feasible to actual disbursements.
Attachment 1 — Page 4
c. Adjusting payment requests for available cash. You must disburse any funds that are
available from repayments to and interest earned. on a revolving fund, program income,
rebates, refunds, contract settlements, audit recoveries, credits, discounts, and interest
earned on any of those funds before requesting additional cash payments from DOE.
d. Payments. All payments are made by electronic funds transfer to the bank account
identified on the ASAP Bank Information Form that you filed with the U.S. Department
of Treasury.
REBUDGETING AND RECOVERY OF INDIRECT COSTS - REIMBURSABLE
INDIRECT. COSTS AND FRINGE BENEFITS
a. If actual allowable indirect costs are less than those budgeted and funded under the
award, you may use the difference to pay additional allowable direct costs during the
project period. If at the completion of the award the Government's share of total
allowable costs (i.e., direct and indirect), is less than the total costs reimbursed, you must
refund the difference.
b. Recipients are expected to manage their indirect costs. DOE will not amend an award
solely to provide additional funds for changes in indirect cost rates. DOE recognizes that
the inability to obtain full reimbursement for indirect costs means the recipient must
absorb the underrecovery. Such underrecovery may be allocated as part of the
organization's required cost sharing.
USE OF PROGRAM INCOME - ADDITION
If you earn program income during the project period as a result of this award, you may
add the program income to the funds committed to the award and use it to further eligible
project objectives.
STATEMENT OF FEDERAL STEWARDSHIP — MANDATORY FLOW DOWN
REQUIRED
DOE will exercise normal Federal stewardship in overseeing the project activities
performed under this award. Stewardship activities include, but are not limited to,
conducting site visits; reviewing performance and financial reports; providing technical
assistance and/or temporary intervention iri unusual circumstances to correct deficiencies
which develop during the project; assuring comp liance with terms and conditions; and
reviewing technical performance after project completion to ensure that the award
objectives have been accomplished.
SITE VISITS — MANDATORY FLOW DOWN REQUIRED
DOE's authorized representatives have the right to make site visits at reasonable times to
review project accomplishments and management control systems and to provide
technical assistance, if required. You must provide, and must require your subawardees
to provide, reasonable access to facilities, office space, resources, and assistance for the
Attachment 1— Page 5
safety and convenience of the government representatives in the performance of their
duties. All site visits and evaluations must be performed in a manner that does not
unduly interfere with or delay the work.
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS -- MANDATORY FLOW DOWN REQUIRED
a. Requirements. The reporting requirements for this award are identified on the Federal
Assistance Reporting Checklist, DOE F 4600.2, attached to this award. Failure to
comply with these reporting requirements is considered a material noncompliance with
the terms of the award. Noncompliance may result in withholding of future payments,
suspension, or termination of the current award, and withholding of future awards. A
willful failure to perform, a history of failure to perform, or unsatisfactory performance
of this and/or other financial assistance awards, may also result in a debarment action to
preclude future awards by Federal agencies.
b. Dissemination of scientific /technical reports. Scientific /technical reports submitted
under this award will be disseminated on the Internet via the DOE Information Bridge
(www.osti. ov/bridge), unless the report contains patentable material, protected data, or
SBIR/STTR data. Citations for journal articles produced under the award will appear on
the DOE Energy Citations Database (www.osti.gov /energycitations).
c. Restrictions. Reports submitted to the DOE Information Bridge must not contain any
Protected Personal Identifiable Information (PII), limited rights data (proprietary data),
classified information, information subject to export control classification, or other
information not subject to release.
PUBLICATIONS — MANDATORY FLOW DOWN REQUIRED
a. You are encouraged to publish or otherwise make publicly available the results of the
work conducted under the award.
b. An acknowledgment of Federal support and a disclaimer must appear in the
publication of any material, whether copyrighted or not, based on or developed under this
project, as follows:
Acknowledgment: "This material is based upon work supported by the Department of
Energy under Award Number DE- EE0000095
Disclaimer: "This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of
the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency
thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes
any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any
information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not
infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product,
process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not
necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the
Attachment 1 — Page 6
United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors
expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government
or any agency thereof."
FEDERAL, STATE, AND MUNICIPAL-REQUIREMENTS MANDATORY- — _ - - --
FLOW DOWN REQUIRED
You must obtain any required permits and comply with applicable 'federal, state, and
municipal laws, codes, and regulations for work performed under this award.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROVISIONS AND CONTACT INFORMATION
— MANDATORY FLOW DOWN REQUIRED
a. The intellectual property. prov sions. applicable to this award are .provided as an
attachment to this award or are referenced on the Agreement Face Page. A list of all
intellectual property provisions may be found at
http: % /www.gc.doe.gov /financial assistance awards.htm.
b. Questions regarding intellectual property matters should be referred to the DOE Award
Administrator and the Patent Counsel designated as the service provider for the.DOE
office that issued the award. The IP Service Providers List is found at
htt6: //v ww cg doe.gov /documents /Intellectual Property (IP) Service Providers for Ac
guisition.pdf
LOBBYING RESTRICTIONS — MANDATORY FLOW DOWN REQUIRED
By accepting funds under this award, you agree that none of the funds obligate&on the
award shall be expended, directly or indirectly, to influence congressional action on any
legislation or appropriation matters pending before Congress, other than to communicate
to Members of Congress as described in 18 U.S.C. 1913. This restriction is in addition to
those prescribed elsewhere in statute and regulation.
NOTICE REGARDING THE PURCHASE OF AMERICAN -MADE EQUIPMENT
AND PRODUCTS -- SENSE OF CONGRESS — MANDATORY FLOW DOWN
REQUIRED
It is the sense of the Congress that, to the greatest extent practicable, all equipment and
products purchased with funds made, available under this award should be American-
made.
DECONTAMINATION AND /OR DECOMMISSIONING (D &D) COSTS -
MANDATORY FLOW DOWN REQUIRED
Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Agreement, the Government shall not be
responsible for or have any obligation to the recipient for (i) Decontamination and/or
Decommissioning (D &D) of any of the recipient's facilities, or (ii) any costs which may
be incurred by the recipient in connection with the D &D of any of its facilities due to the
Attachment 1 - Page 7
performance of the work under this Agreement, whether said work was performed prior
to or subsequent to the effective date of this Agreement.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION -- MANDATORY FLOW DOWN REQUIRED
Prior to the expenditure of Federal funds to alter any structure or site, the Recipient is
required to comply with the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act (NHPA), consistent with DOE's 2009 letter of delegation of authority
regarding the NHPA. Section 106 applies to historic properties that are listed in or
eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. In order to fulfill the
requirements of Section 106, the recipient must contact the State Historic Preservation
Officer (SHPO), and, if applicable, the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO), to
coordinate the Section 106 review outlined in 36 CFR Part 800. SHPO contact
information is available at the following link: - http:/ /www.ncshpo.org/find/index.htm.
THPO contact information is available at the following link:
http: / /www.nathpo.org/map.html .
Section I I0(k) of the NHPA applies to DOE funded activities. Recipients shall avoid
taking any action that results in an adverse effect to historic properties pending
compliance with Section 106.
Recipients should be aware that the DOE Contracting Officer will consider the recipient
in compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA only after the Recipient has submitted
adequate background documentation to the SHPO/THPO for its review, and the
SHPO /THPO has provided written concurrence to the Recipient that it does not object to
its Section 106 finding or determination. Recipient shall provide a copy of this
concurrence to the Contracting Officer.
Prescription: This clause must be included in all grants, cooperative agreements and TIAs
(new or amended) when funds appropriated under the Recovery Act are obligated to the
agreement.
SPECIAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO WORK FUNDED UNDER AMERICAN
RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT OF 2009
Preamble
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Pub. L. 111 -5, (Recovery Act)
was enacted to preserve and create jobs and promote economic recovery, assist those
most impacted by the recession, provide investments needed to increase economic
efficiency by spurring technological advances in science and health, invest in
transportation, environmental protection, and other infrastructure that will provide long-
term economic benefits, stabilize State and local government budgets, in order to
minimize and avoid reductions in essential services and counterproductive State and local
tax increases. Recipients shall use grant funds in a manner that maximizes job creation
and economic benefit.
Attachment 1 — Page 8
The Recipient shall comply with all terms and conditions in the Recovery Act relating
generally to governance, accountability, transparency, data collection and resources as
specified in Act itself and as'discussed below.
Recipients should begin planning activities for their first tier subrecipients, including
obtaining a DUNS number (or updating the existing DUNS record), and registering with
the Central Contractor Registration (CCR).
Be advised that Recovery Act funds can be used in conjunction with other funding as
necessary to complete projects, but tracking and reporting must be separate to meet the
reporting requirements of the Recovery Act and related guidance. For projects funded by 1. sources other than the Recovery Act, Contractors must keep separate records for
Recovery Act fluids and to.ensure_those records comply with the requirements of the Act.
The Government has not fully developed the implementing instructions of the Recovery
Act, .particularly.concerning specific procedural requirements for the new reporting
requirements. The Recipient will be provided these details as they become available.
The Recipient must comply with all requirements of the Act. If the recipient believes
there is any inconsistency between ARRA requirements and current award terms and
conditions, the issues will be referred to the Contracting Officer for reconciliation.
Definitions
For purposes of this clause, Covered Funds means funds expended or obligated from
appropriations under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Pub. L.
:111 -5. Covered Funds,will have special accounting codes and will be identified as
Recovery Act funds in the grant, cooperative agreement .or TIA and/or modification using
Recovery Act funds. Covered Funds must be reimbursed by September 30, 2015.
Non- Federal employer means any employer with respect to covered funds — the
contractor, subcontractor, grantee, or recipient, as the case may be, if the contractor,
subcontractor, grantee,. or recipient is an employer; and any professional membership
organization, certification of other professional body, any agent or licensee of the Federal
government, or any person acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer
receiving covered funds; or with respect to covered funds received by a State or local
government, the State`o govern-
merit local governent receiving the funds.and any contractor or
subcontractor receiving the funds and any contractor or subcontractor of the State or local
government; and does not mean any department, agency, or other entity of the federal
government.
Recipient means any entity that receives Recovery Act funds directly from the Federal
government (including Recovery Act funds received through grant, loan, or contract)
other than an individual and includes a State that receives Recovery Act Funds.
Special Provisions
Attachment 1 — Page 9
A. Flow Down Requirement
Recipients must include these special terms and conditions in any subaward.
B. Segregation of Costs
Recipients must segregate the obligations and expenditures related to funding under the
Recovery Act. Financial and accounting systems should be revised as necessary to
segregate, track and maintain these funds apart and separate from other revenue streams.
No part of the funds from the Recovery Act shall be commingled with any other funds or
used for a purpose other than that of making payments for costs allowable for Recovery
Act projects.
Prohibition on Use of Funds
None of the funds provided under this agreement derived from the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Pub. L. 111 -5, may be used by any State or local
government, or any private entity, for any casino or other gambling establishment,
aquarium, zoo, golf course, or swimming pool.
D. Access to Records
With respect to each financial assistance agreement awarded utilizing at least some of the
funds appropriated or otherwise made available by the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009, Pub. L. 111 -5, any representative of an appropriate inspector
general appointed under section 3 or 8G of the Inspector General Act of 1988 (5 U.S.C.
App.) or of the Comptroller General is authorized —
(1) to examine any records of the contractor or grantee, any of its subcontractors
or subgrantees, or any State or local agency administering such contract that
pertain to, and involve transactions relation to, the subcontract, subcontract, grant,
or subgrant; and
(2) to interview any officer or employee of the contractor, grantee, subgrantee, or
agency regarding such transactions.
E. Publication
An application may contain technical data and other data, including trade secrets and/or
privileged or confidential information, which the applicant does not want disclosed to the
public or used by the Government for any purpose other than the application. To protect
such data, the applicant should specifically identify each page including each line or
paragraph thereof containing the data to be protected and mark the cover sheet of the
application with the following Notice as well as referring to the Notice on each page to
which the Notice applies:
Notice of Restriction on Disclosure and Use of Data
Attachment 1 —Page 10
The data contained in pages - - -- of this application have been submitted in confidence
and contain trade secrets or proprietary information, and such data shall be used or
disclosed only for evaluation purposes, provided that if this applicant receives an award
as a result of or in connection with the submission of this application, DOE shall have the
ri I ght to use or disclose the data hereto the extent provided in_the'award:- -This resttictiori-
does not limit the Government's,right to use or disclose data obtained without restriction
from any source, including the applicant.,
Information about this agreement will be published on the Internet and linked to the
website www.recovery.gov, maintained by the Accountability and Transparency Board.
The Board may exclude posting contractual or other, information on the website on a
case -by -case basis when necessary-10 protect national security or to protect information
that 'is not subject to disclosure under sections 552 and 552a of title 5, United States
Code.
F Protecting State and Local Government and Contractor Whistleblowers.
The requirements of Section 1553 of the Act are summarized below. They include, but
are not limited to:
Prohibition on Reprisals: An employee of any non - Federal employer receiving covered
funds under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Pub. L. 111 -5, may
not be discharged, demoted, or otherwise discriminated against as a reprisal for
disclosing, including a disclosure made in the ordinary course of an employee's duties, to
the Accountability and Transparency Board, an inspector general, the Comptroller
General, a member of Congress, a State or Federal regulatory or law enforcement agency,
a person-with supervisory authority over the employee (or other person working for the
employer who has the authority to investigate, discover or terminate misconduct, a court
or grant jury, the head of a Federal agency, or their representatives information that the
employee believes is evidence of:
• gross management of an agency contract or grant relating to covered funds;
• a.gross waste of covered funds
• a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety related to the
implementation or use of covered funds;
• an abuse of authority related to the implementation or use of covered funds; or
• as violation of law, rule, or regulation related to an agency contract (including
the competition for or negotiation of a contract) or grant, awarded or issued
relating to covered funds.
Agency Action: Not later than 30 days after receiving an inspector general report of an
alleged reprisal, the head of the agency shall determine whether there is sufficient basis to
conclude that the non - Federal employer has subjected the employee to a prohibited
reprisal. The agency shall either issue an order denying relief in whole or in part or shall
take one or more of the following actions:
• Order the employer to take affirmative action to abate the reprisal.
• Order the employer to reinstate the person to the. position that the person held
Attachment 1 — Page 11
before the reprisal, together with compensation including back pay, compensatory
damages, employment benefits, and other terms and conditions of employment
that would apply to the person in that position if the reprisal had not been taken.
• Order the employer to pay the employee an amount equal to the aggregate
amount of all costs and expenses (including attorneys' fees and expert witnesses'
fees) that were reasonably incurred by the employee for or in connection with,
bringing the complaint regarding the reprisal, as determined by the head of a court
of competent jurisdiction.
Nonenforceablity of Certain Provisions Waiving Rights and remedies or Requiring
Arbitration: Except as provided in a collective bargaining agreement, the rights and
remedies provided to aggrieved employees by this section may not be waived by any
agreement, policy, form, or condition of employment, including any predispute
arbitration agreement. No predispute arbitration agreement shall be valid or enforceable
if it requires arbitration of a dispute arising out of this section.
Requirement to Post Notice of Rights and Remedies: Any employer receiving covered
funds under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Pub. L. 111 -5, shall
post notice of the rights and remedies as required therein. (Refer to section 1553 of the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Pub. L. 111 -5, www.Recovery.gov,
for specific requirements of this section and prescribed language for the notices.).
G. Request for Reimbursement (this version is included in WAP /SEP awards with
states
I M11"I'MAN :
H. False Claims Act
Recipient and sub - recipients shall promptly refer to the DOE or other appropriate
Inspector General any credible evidence that a principal, employee, agent, contractor,
sub - grantee, subcontractor or other person has submitted a false claim under the False
Claims Act or has committed a criminal or civil violation of laws pertaining to fraud,
conflict or interest, bribery, gratuity or similar misconduct involving those funds.
I. Information in supporting of Recovery Act Reporting_
Recipient may be required to submit backup documentation for expenditures of funds
under the Recovery Act including such items as timecards and invoices. Recipient shall
provide copies of backup documentation at the request of the Contracting Officer or
designee.
J. Availability of Funds
Funds appropriated under the Recovery Act and obligated to this award are available for
reimbursement of costs until September 30, 2015.
Attachment 1 — Page 12
Prescription: The following award term shall be used to implement the recipient reporting
and registration requirements in the Recovery Act section 1512.
REPORTING AND REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS UNDER SECTION 1512
OF THE RECOVERY ACT
(a) This award requires the recipient to complete projects or activities which are funded
under the Ameri can Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) and to
report on use of Recovery Act funds provided through this award. Information from these
reports will be made available to the public.
(b) The reports are due no later than ten calendar "days after each calendar quarter in
which the recipient receives the assistance award funded in whole or in part by the
Recovery Act.
(c) Recipients and their first -tier recipients must maintain current registrations in the
Central Contractor Registration (http: / /www.ccr.gov) at all times during which they have
active federal awards funded with Recovery Act funds. A Dun and Bradstreet Data
Universal Numbering System (DUNS) Number (http: / /www.clnb.com) is one of the
requirements for registration in the Central Contractor Registration.
(d) The recipient shall report the information described in section 1512(c) of the
Recovery Act using the reporting instructions and data elements that will be provided
online at http: / /www.FederalReporting.gov and ensure that any information that is pre -
filled is corrected or updated as needed.
Prescription: When awarding Recovery Act fiends for construction, alteration, .
maintenance, or repair of a public building or public work and the total project value is
estimated less than $7,44' ),000, the agency shall use this award term.
REQUIRED USE OF AMERICAN IRON, STEEL, AND MANUFACTURED GOODS -- SECTION
1605 OF THE AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT OF 2009
(a) Definitions. As used in this award term and condition --
(1) Manufactured good means a good brought to the construction site for_incorporation into the building or
work that has been- -
(i) Processed into a specific form and shape;'oi
(ii) Combined with other raw material to create a material that has different properties than the properties of
the individual raw materials.
(2) Public building and public work means a public building of, and a public work of, a governmental
entity (the United States; the District of Columbia; commonwealths, territories, and minor outlying islands
of the United States; State and local governments; and multi - State, regional, or interstate entities which
have governmental functions). These buildings and works may include, without limitation, bridges, dams,
Attachment I,— Page 13
plants, highways, parkways, streets, subways, tunnels, sewers, mains, power lines, pumping stations, heavy
generators, railways, airports, terminals, docks, piers, wharves, ways, lighthouses, buoys, jetties,
breakwaters, levees, and canals, and the construction, alteration, maintenance, or repair of such buildings
and works.
(3) Steel means an alloy that includes at least 50 percent iron, between .02 and 2 percent carbon, and may
include other elements.
(b) Domestic preference. (1) This award term and condition implements Section 1605 of the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) (Pub. L. 111 - -5), by requiring that all iron, steel,
and manufactured goods used in the project are produced in the United States except as provided in
paragraph (b)(3) and (b)(4) of this section and condition.
(2) This requirement does not apply to the material listed by the Federal Government as follows:
[ Award official to list applicable excepted materials or indicate "none" ]
(3) The award official may add other iron, steel, and/or manufactured goods to the list in paragraph (b)(2)
of this section and condition if the Federal Government determines that- -
(i) The cost of the domestic iron, steel, and/or manufactured goods would be unreasonable. The cost of
domestic iron, steel, or manufactured goods used in the project is unreasonable when the cumulative cost of
such material will increase the cost of the overall project by more than 25 percent;
(ii) The iron, steel, and/or manufactured good is not produced, or manufactured in the United States in
sufficient and reasonably available quantities and of a satisfactory quality; or
(iii) The application of the restriction of section 1605 of the Recovery Act would be inconsistent with the
public interest.
(c) Request for determination of inapplicability of Section 1605 of the Recovery Act. (1)(i) Any recipient
request to use foreign iron, steel, and/or manufactured goods in accordance with paragraph (b)(3) of this
section shall include adequate information for Federal Government evaluation of the request, including- -
(A) A description of the foreign and domestic iron, steel, and/or manufactured goods;
(B) Unit of measure;
(C) Quantity;
(D) Cost;
(E) Time of delivery or availability;
(F) Location of the project;
(G) Name and address of the proposed supplier; and
(H) A detailed justification of the reason for use of foreign iron, steel, and/or manufactured goods cited in
accordance with paragraph (b)(3) of this section.
(ii) A request based on unreasonable cost shall include a reasonable survey of the market and a completed
cost comparison table in the format in paragraph (d) of this section.
Attachment 1 — Page 14
(iii) The cost of iron, steel, and/or manufactured goods.. material shall include all delivery costs to the
construction site and any applicable duty.
(iv) Any recipient request for a determination submitted after Recovery Act funds have been obligated for a
project, for construction alteration, maintenance, or repair shall explain why the recipient could "not
reasonably foresee the need for such determination and could not have requested the determination before
the funds were obligated. If the recipient does not submit a satisfactory explanation, the award official need
not make a determination.
(2) If the Federal Government determines after funds have been obligated for a project for construction,
alteration, maintenance, or repair that an exception to section 1605 of the Recovery Act applies, the award
official will amend the award to'-allow use of the foreign iron, steel, and/or relevant manufactured goods.
When the basis for the exception is nonavailability or'public interest, the amended award shall reflect
adjustment of the award amount, redistribution of budgeted funds, and/or other actions taken'to;cover costs
associated with acquiring or using the foreign iron, steelsand/or relevant manufactured goods. When the
basis for the exception.is the unreasonable; cost of the domestic iron, steel, or manufactured goods, the
award official shall adjust the award amount or redistribute budgeted funds by at least the differential
established in 2 CFR 176.110(a).
(3) Unless the Federal Government determines that an exception to section 1605 of the Recovery Act
applies, use of foreign iron, steel, and/or manufactured goods is noncompliant with section 1605 of the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
(d) Data. To permit evaluation of requests under paragraph (b) of this section based on unreasonable cost,
the Recipient shall include the following information and any applicable supporting data based on the
survey of suppliers:
Foreign and Domestic Items Cost Comparison
Description Unit of measure Quantity Cost
(dollars)*
Item 1:
Foreign steel, iron, or manufactured good _
Domestic steel, iron, or manufactured good
Item 2:
Foreign steel, iron, or manufactured good _
Domestic steel, iron, or manufactured good _
[List name, address, telephone number, email address, and contact for suppliers surveyed. Attach copy of
response; if oral, attach summary.]
[Include other applicable supporting information.]
[ *Include all delivery costs to the construction site.]
Prescription: When awarding Recovery Act funds for construction, alteration,
maintenance, or repair of a public building or public work with a total project value over
$7,443,000 that involves iron, steel, and /or manufactured goods materials covered under
international agreements, the agency shall use this award term.
REQUIRED USE OF AMERICAN IRON, STEEL, AND MANUFACTURED
GOODS (COVERED UNDER INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS) — SECTION
1605 OF THE AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT OF 2009
Attachment 1 — Page 15
(a) Definitions. As used in this award term and condition—
Designated country --(1) A World Trade Organization Government Procurement Agreement country
(Aruba, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France,
Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Korea (Republic of), Latvia,
Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania,
Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and United Kingdom;
(2) A Free Trade Agreement (FTA) country (Australia, Bahrain, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Dominican
Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Israel, Mexico, Morocco, Nicaragua, Oman, Peru, or
Singapore); or
(3) A United States - European Communities Exchange of Letters (May 15, 1995) country: Austria,
Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece,
Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania,
Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and United Kingdom.
Designated country iron, steel, andlor manufactured goods —(1) Is wholly the growth, product, or
manufacture of a designated country; or
(2) In the case of a manufactured good that consist in whole or in part of materials from another country,
has been substantially transformed in a designated country into a new and different manufactured good
distinct from the materials from which it was transformed.
Domestic iron, steel, andlor manufactured good —(1) Is wholly the growth, product, or manufacture of the
United States; or
(2) In the case of a manufactured good that consists in whole or in part of materials from another country,
has been substantially transformed in the United States into a new and different manufactured good distinct
from the materials from which it was transformed. There is no requirement with regard to the origin of
components or subcomponents in manufactured goods or products, as long as the manufacture of the goods
occurs in the United States.
Foreign iron, steel, andlor manufactured good means iron, steel and/or manufactured good that is not
domestic or designated country iron, steel, and/or manufactured good.
Manufactured good means a good brought to the construction site for incorporation into the building or
work that has been—
(1) Processed into a specific form and shape; or
(2) Combined with other raw material to create a material that has different properties than the properties of
the individual raw materials.
Public building and public work means a public building of, and a public work of, a governmental entity
(the United States; the District of Columbia; commonwealths, territories, and minor outlying islands of the
United States; State and local governments; and multi - State, regional, or interstate entities which have
governmental functions). These buildings and works may include, without limitation, bridges, dams, plants,
highways, parkways, streets, subways, tunnels, sewers, mains, power lines, pumping stations, heavy
generators, railways, airports, terminals, docks, piers, wharves, ways, lighthouses, buoys, jetties,
breakwaters, levees, and canals, and the construction, alteration, maintenance, or repair of such buildings
and works.
Attachment 1 — Page 16
Steel means an alloy that includes at least 50 percent iron, between .02 and 2 percent carbon, and may
include other elements.
(b) Iron, steel, and manufactured goods. (1) The award term and condition described in this section
implements-
(i) Section 1605(a) of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Pub. L. 111 -5) (Recovery
Act), by requiring that all iron, steel, and manufactured goods used in the project are produced in the
United States; and
(ii) Section 1605(d), which requires application of the Buy American requirement in a manner consistent
with U.S. obligations under international agreements. The restrictions of section 1605 of the Recovery Act
do not apply to designated country iron, steel, and/or manufactured goods. The Buy. American requirement
in section 1605 shall not be applied where the iron, steel or manufactured goods used.in the project are
from a Party to an international agreement that obligates the recipient to treat the goods and services of that
Party the same as domestic goods and services. This obligation shall only apply to projects with an
estimated value of $7,443,000 or more.
(2) The recipient shall use only domestic or designated country iron, steel, and manufactured goods in
performing the work funded in whole or part with this award, except as provided in paragraphs (b)(3) and
(b)(4) of this section.
(3) The requirement in paragraph (b)(2) of this section does not apply to the iron, steel, and manufactured
goods listed by the Federal Government as follows:
2
[ Award official to list applicable excepted materials or indicate "none" ]
(4) The award official may add other iron, steel, and manufactured goods to the list in paragraph (b)(3) of
this section if the Federal Government determines that-
(i) The'cost of domestic iron, steel, and/or manufactured goods would be unreasonable. The cost of
domestic iron, steel, and/or manufactured goods used in the project is unreasonable when the cumulative
cost of such material will increase the overall cost of the project by more than 25 percent;
(ii) The iron, steel, and/or manufactured good is not produced, or manufactured in the United States in
sufficient and reasonably available commercial quantities of a satisfactory quality; or
(iii) The application of the restriction of section 1605 of the Recovery Act would be inconsistent with the
public interest.
(c) Request for determination of inapplicability of section 1605 of the Recovery Act or the Buy American
Act. (1)(i) Any recipient request to use foreign iron, steel, and/or manufactured goods in accordance with
paragraph (b)(4) of this section shall include adequate information for Federal Government evaluation of
the request, including—
(A) A description of the foreign and domestic iron, steel, and/or manufactured goods;
(B) Unit of measure;
(C) Quantity;
Attachment 1 — Page 17
(D) Cost;
(E) Time of delivery or availability;
(F) Location of the project;
(G) Name and address of the proposed supplier; and
(H) A detailed justification of the reason for use of foreign iron, steel, and/or manufactured goods cited in
accordance with paragraph (b)(4) of this section.
(ii) A request based on unreasonable cost shall include a reasonable survey of the market and a completed
cost comparison table in the format in paragraph (d) of this section.
(iii) The cost of iron, steel, or manufactured goods shall include all delivery costs to the construction site
and any applicable duty.
(iv) Any recipient request for a determination submitted after Recovery Act funds have been obligated for a
project for construction, alteration, maintenance, or repair shall explain why the recipient could not
reasonably foresee the need for such determination and could not have requested the determination before
the funds were obligated. If the recipient does not submit a satisfactory explanation, the award official need
not make a determination.
(2) If the Federal Government determines after funds have been obligated for a project for construction,
alteration, maintenance, or repair that an exception to section 1605 of the Recovery Act applies, the award
official will amend the award to allow use of the foreign iron, steel, and/or relevant manufactured goods.
When the basis for the exception is nonavailability or public interest, the amended award shall reflect
adjustment of the award amount, redistribution of budgeted funds, and/or other appropriate actions taken to
cover costs associated with acquiring or using the foreign iron, steel, and/or relevant manufactured goods..
When the basis for the exception is the unreasonable cost of the domestic iron, steel, or manufactured
goods, the award official shall adjust the award amount or redistribute budgeted funds, as appropriate, by at
least the differential established in 2 CFR 176.110(a).
(3) Unless the Federal Government determines that an exception to section 1605 of the Recovery Act
applies, use of foreign iron, steel, and/or manufactured goods other than designated country iron, steel,
and/or manufactured goods is noncompliant with the applicable Act.
(d) Data To permit evaluation of requests under paragraph (b) of this section based on unreasonable cost,
the applicant shall include the following information and any applicable supporting data based on the
survey of suppliers:
Foreign and Domestic Items Cost Comparison
Description
Unit of measure
Quantity
Cost
(dollars)*
Item 1:
Foreign steel, iron, or manufactured good
Domestic steel, iron, or manufactured good
Item 2:
Attachment 1 — Page 18
Foreign steel, iron, or manufactured good
Domestic steel, iron, or manufactured good
_ [list name, address, telephone number, email address, and contact for suppliers surveyed. Attach-copy of-
response; if oral, attach summary.]
[Include other applicable supporting information]
[ *Include all delivery costs to the construction site.]
Prescription: When issuing announcements or requesting applications for Recovery Act
programs or activities that may involve construction, alteration, maintenance, or repair
the agency shall use this award term.
WAGE RATE REQUIREMENTS UNDER SECTION 1606 OF THE RECOVERY
ACT
(a) Section 1606 of the Recovery Act requires that all laborers and mechanics employed
by contractors and subcontractors on projects funded directly by or assisted in whole or in
part by and through the Federal Government pursuant to the Recovery Act shall be paid
wages at rates not less than those prevailing on projects of a character similar in the
locality as determined by the Secretary of Labor in accordance with subchapter IV of
chapter 31 of title 40; United States Code.
Pursuant to Reorganization Plan No. 14 and the Copeland Act, 40 U.S.C. 3145, the
Department of Labor has issued regulations at 29 CFR parts 1, 3, and 5 to implement the
Davis -Bacon and related Acts. Regulations in 29 CFR 5.5 instruct agencies concerning
application of the standard Davis -Bacon contract clauses set forth in that section. Federal
agencies providing grants, cooperative agreements, and loans under the Recovery Act
shall'ensure that the standard Davis -Bacon contract clauses found in 29 CFR 5.5(a) are
incorporated in any resultant covered contracts.that are in excess of $2,000 for
construction, alteration or repair (including painting and decorating).
(b) For additional guidance on the`wage rate requirements of section 1606, contact your
awarding agency. Recipients of grants, cooperative agreements and loans should direct
their initial inquiries concerning the application of Davis -Bacon requirements to a
particular federally assisted project, to the Federal agency funding the project. The
Secretary of Labor retains final coverage authority under Reorganization Plan Number
14.
Prescription: The award term described in this section shall be used by agencies to clarify
recipient responsibilities regarding tracking and documenting Recovery Act expenditures.
RECOVERY ACT TRANSACTIONS LISTED IN SCHEDULE OF -
Attachment 1 — Page 19
EXPENDITURES OF FEDERAL AWARDS AND RECIPIENT
RESPONSIBILITIES FOR INFORMING
(a) To maximize the transparency and accountability of funds authorized under the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Pub. L: -111 - -5) (Recovery Act) as
required by Congress and in accordance with 2 CFR 215.21 "Uniform Administrative
Requirements for Grants and Agreements" and OMB Circular A - -102 Common Rules
provisions, recipients agree to maintain records that identify adequately the source and
application of Recovery Act funds. OMB Circular A - -102 is available at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/al 02/a 102. html .
(b) For recipients covered by the Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996 and OMB
Circular A - -133, "Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non -Profit Organizations,"
recipients agree to separately identify the expenditures for Federal awards under the
Recovery Act on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) and the Data
Collection Form (SF - -SAC) required by OMB Circular A--133. OMB Circular A--133 is
available at http: / /www.whitehouse.gov/ omb /circulars /al33 /al33.html. This shall be
accomplished by identifying expenditures for Federal awards made under the Recovery
Act separately on the SEFA, and as separate rows under Item 9 of Part III on the SF --
SAC by CFDA number, and inclusion of the prefix "ARRA -" in identifying the name of
the Federal program on the SEFA and as the first characters in Item 9d of Part III on the
SF - -SAC.
(c) Recipients agree to separately identify to each subrecipient, and document at the time
of subaward and at the time of disbursement of funds, the Federal award number, CFDA
number, and amount of Recovery Act funds. When a recipient awards Recovery Act
funds for an existing program, the information furnished to subrecipients shall distinguish
the subawards of incremental Recovery Act funds from regular subawards under the
existing program.
(d) Recipients agree to require their subrecipients to include on their SEFA information
to specifically identify Recovery Act funding similar to the requirements for the recipient
SEFA described above. This information is needed to allow the recipient to properly
monitor subrecipient expenditure of ARRA funds as well as oversight by the Federal
awarding agencies, Offices of Inspector General and the Government Accountability
Office.
Prescription: Include for ARRA Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) Awards
when WAGE RATE REQUIREMENTS UNDER SECTION 1606 OF THE AMERICAN
RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT ("RECOVERY ACT ") term is required.
DAVIS BACON ACT REQUIREMENTS
Attachment 1 — Page 20
A. Definitions. For purposes of this term, the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act term, and
the Recipient Functions term, the following definitions are applicable:
(1).Award means the Award by the Department of Energy (DOE) to a Recipient that includes a
requirement to comply with the labor standards clauses and wage rate requirements of the Davis Bacon
Act (DBA) for work performed by all laborers and mechanics employed by Subrecipients, Contractors
and subcontractors on projects funded by or assisted in whole or in part by and through the Federal
Government pursuant to the Recovery Act.
(2) "Construction, alteration or repair" means all types of work done by laborers and mechanics
employed by the Subrecipient, construction contractor or construction subcontractor on a particular
building or work at the site thereof, including without limitation—
(a) Altering, remodeling, installation (if appropriate) on the site of the work of items fabricated
off-site; -
(b) Painting and decorating; or
(c) Manufacturing or furnishing of materials, articles, supplies, or equipment on the site of the
building or work.
(3) Contract means a written procurement contract executed by a Subrecipient for the acquisition of
property and sery ices for construction, alteration, and repair under a Subaward. For purposes of these
terms, a Contract shall include subcontracts and lower- tier subcontracts under the Contract.
(4) Contracting Ojf cer means the DOE official authorized to execute awards on behalf of DOE and
who is responsible for the business management and non - program aspects of the financial assistance
process.
(5) Contractor means an entity that enters into a Contract. For purposes of these terms, Contractor
shall include subcontractors and lower -tier subcontractors.
(6) Recipient means any entity other than an individual that receives Recovery Act funds in the form of
a grant directly from the Federal Government. The term includes the State that receives an Award
from DOE and is financially accountable for the use of any DOE funds or property, and is legally
for
responsible carry an
ing out the terms and conditions of the program d Award.
(7) "Site of the work"
(a)
Means-
(i) The physical place or places where the construction called for in the Award, Subaward, or
Contract will remain when work on it is completed; and
(ii) Any other site''-where a significant portion of the building or work is constructed, provided
that such site is established specifically for the, performance of the project;
(b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this definition, the site of the work includes any
fabrication plants, mobile factories, batch plants, borrow pits, job headquarters, tool yards, etc.,
provided—
(1) They are dedicated exclusively, or nearly so, to performance of the project; and
Attachment 1 — Page 21
(2) They are adjacent or virtually adjacent to the site of the work as defined in
paragraphs (7)(a)(i) or (7)(a)(ii) of this definition; and
(c) Does not include permanent home offices, branch plant establishments, fabrication plants, or
tool yards of a Contractor or subcontractor whose locations and continuance in operation are
determined wholly without regard to a particular contract or Federal Award or project. In
addition, fabrication plants, batch plants, borrow pits, job headquarters, yards, etc., of a
commercial or material supplier which are established by a supplier of materials for the project
before opening of bids and not on the project site as defined in paragraphs (7)(a)(i) or (7)(a)(ii) of
this definition, are not included in the "site of the work." Such permanent, previously established
facilities are not a part of the "site of the work" even if the operations for a period of time may be
dedicated exclusively or nearly so, to the performance of an Award, Subaward, or Contract.
(8) Subaward means an award of financial assistance in the form of money, or property in lieu of
money, made under an award by a Recipient to an eligible Subrecipient or by a Subrecipient to a
lower -tier subrecipient. The term includes financial assistance when provided by any legal agreement,
even if the agreement is called a contract, but does not include the Recipient's procurement of goods
and services to carry out the program nor does it include any form of assistance which is excluded
from the definition of "Award" above.
(9) Subrecipient means a non - Federal entity that expends Federal awards received from a pass - through
entity [Recipient] to carry out a Federal program, but does not include an individual that is a
beneficiary of such a program. The term includes a Community Action Agency (CAA), local agency,
or other entity to which a Subaward under the Award is made by a Recipient that includes a
requirement to comply with the labor standards clauses and wage rate requirements of the DBA work
performed by all laborers and mechanics employed by contractors and subcontractors on projects
funded by or assisted in whole or in part by and through the Federal Government pursuant of the
Recovery Act.
B. Davis -Bacon Act
(1)(a) All laborers and mechanics employed or working upon the site of the work will be paid
unconditionally and not less often than once a week, and without subsequent deduction or rebate on
any account (except such payroll deductions as are permitted by regulations issued by the Secretary of
Labor under the Copeland Act (29 CFR Part 3)), the full amount of wages and bona fide fringe benefits
(or cash equivalents thereof) due at time of payment computed at rates not less than those contained in
the wage determination of the Secretary of Labor which is attached to the Subaward or Contract and
made a part hereof, regardless of any contractual relationship which may be alleged to exist between
the Recipient, a Subrecipient, or Contractor and such laborers and mechanics.
(i) Applicable to Recipient Only: Prior to the issuance of the Subaward or Contract, the
Recipient shall notify the Contracting Officer of the site of the work in order for the
appropriate wage determination to be obtained by the Contracting Officer from the
Secretary of Labor.
(ii) If the Subaward or Contract is or has been issued without a wage determination, the
Recipient shall notify the Contracting Officer immediately of the site of the work under
the Subaward or Contract in order for the appropriate wage determination to be obtained
by the Contracting Officer from the Secretary of Labor.
(b) Contributions made or costs reasonably anticipated for bona fide hinge benefits under section
1(b)(2) of the DBA on behalf of laborers or mechanics are considered wages paid to such laborers
and mechanics, subject to the provisions of paragraph 13(4) below; also, regular contributions
made or costs incurred for more than a weekly period (but not less often than quarterly) under
plans, funds, or programs which cover the particular weekly period, are deemed to be
Attachment 1 — Page 22
constructively made or incurred during such period.
(c) Such laborers and mechanics shall be paid not less than the appropriate wage rate and fringe
benefits in -the wage determination for the classification of work actually performed, without
- regard to. skill,_except.as_provided in the paragraph entitled Apprentices' and Trainees. Laborers or
mechanics performing work in more than one classification may be compensated at the rate
specified for each classification for the time actually worked therein; provided that the employer's
payroll records accurately set forth the time spent in each classification in, which work is
performed.
(d) The wage determination (including any additional classifications and wage rates conformed
under paragraph B(2) of this term). and the Davis -Bacon poster (WH -1321) shall be posted at all
times by the Subrecipient and Contractor' at the site of the work in a prominent and accessible
place where it can beeeasily seen by the workers.
(2)(a) The Contracting Officer shall require that any class of laborers or mechanics which is not listed
in the wage determination and which is to be employed under the Subaward or Contract shall be
classified in conformance with the wage determination. The Contracting Officer shall approve an
additional classification and wage rate and fringe benefits therefore only when all the following
criteria have been met:
(i) The work to be performed by the classification requested is not performed by a
classification in the wage determination.
(ii),The classification is utilized in the area by the construction industry. .
(iii) The proposed wage rate, including any bona fide fringe benefits, bears a reasonable
relationship to the wage rates contained in the wage determination.
(b) If the. Subrecipient (and Contractor, when applicable) and the laborers and mechanics to be
employed in the classification (if known), or their representatives agree on the classification and
wage rate (iincluding'the amount designated for fringe benefits, where appropriate), the
Subrecipient shall notify the Recipient. The Recipient shall notify the Contracting Officer. of this
agreement. If the Contracting Officer agrees with the classification and wage rate (including the
amount designated for fringe benefits, where appropriate), a report of the action taken shall be sent
by the Contracting Officer to the Administrator of the:
Wage and Hour Division .
Employment Standards Administration
U.S. Department of Labor
Washington, DC' 20210
The. Administrator or an authorized representative will,approve, modify, or disapprove every
additional classification action within 30 days of receipt and so advise the Contracting Officer or
will notify the Contracting Officer within the 30-day period that additional time is necessary.
(c) In the event the Subrecipient (and Contractor, when applicable), and the laborers or mechanics
to be employed in the classification, or their representatives, do not agree on the proposed
classification and wage rate (including the amount designated for fringe benefits, where
appropriate), the Subrecipient shall notify the Recipient: The Recipient shall notify the
Contracting Officer of the disagreement. The Contracting Officer shall refer the questions,
including the views of all interested parties and the recommendation of the Contracting Officer, to
the Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division for determination. The Administrator, or an
authorized representative, will issue a determination within 30 days of receipt and so advise the
Attachment 1 — Page 23
Contracting Officer or will notify the Contracting Officer within the 30 -day period that additional
time is necessary.
(d) The wage rate (including fringe benefits, where appropriate) determined pursuant to
subparagraphs B(2)(b) or B(2)(c) of this Term shall be paid to all workers performing work in the
classification under the Award, Subaward, or Contract from the first day on which work is
performed in the classification.
(3) Whenever the minimum wage rate prescribed in the Award, Subaward, or Contract for a class of
laborers or mechanics includes a fringe benefit which is not expressed as an hourly rate, the
Subrecipient and Contractor shall either pay the benefit as stated in the wage determination or shall pay
another bona fide fringe benefit or an hourly cash equivalent thereof.
(4) If the Subrecipient or Contractor does not make payments to a trustee or other third person, the
Subrecipient or Contractor may consider as part of the wages of any laborer or mechanic the amount of
any costs reasonably anticipated in providing bona fide fringe benefits under a plan or program;
provided, that the Secretary of Labor has found, upon the written request of the Subrecipient or
Contractor that the applicable standards of the Davis -Bacon Act have been met. The Secretary of
Labor may require the Subrecipient or Contractor to set aside in a separate account assets for the
meeting of obligations under the plan or program.
C. Rates of Wages
(1) The minimum wages to be paid laborers and mechanics under the Subaward or Contract involved
in performance of work at the project site, as determined by the Secretary of Labor to be prevailing for
the corresponding classes of laborers and mechanics employed on projects of a character similar to the
contract work in the pertinent locality, are included as an attachment to the Award, Subaward, or
Contract.
(2) If the Subaward or Contract has been issued without a wage determination, the Recipient shall
notify the Contracting Officer immediately of the site of the work under the Subaward or Contract in
order for the appropriate wage determination to be obtained by the Contracting Officer from the
Secretary of Labor.
D. Payrolls and Basic Records
(1) Payrolls and basic records relating thereto shall be maintained by the Recipient, Subrecipient and
Contractor during the course of the work and preserved for a period of 3 years thereafter for all
laborers and mechanics working at the site of the work. Such records shall contain the name, address,
and social security number of each such worker, his or her correct classification, hourly rates of wages
paid (including rates of contributions or costs anticipated for bona fide fringe benefits or cash
equivalents thereof of the types described in section 1(b)(2)(B) of the Davis -Bacon Act), daily and
weekly number of hours worked, deductions made, and actual wages paid. Whenever the Secretary of
Labor has found, under paragraph (4) of the provision entitled Davis -Bacon Act, that the wages of any
laborer or mechanic include the amount of any costs reasonably anticipated in providing benefits under
a plan or program described in section 1(b)(2)(B) of the Davis -Bacon Act, the Subrecipient or
Contractor shall maintain records which show that the commitment to provide such benefits is
enforceable, that the plan or program is financially responsible, and that the plan or program has been
communicated in writing to the laborers or mechanics affected, and records which show the costs
anticipated or the actual cost incurred in providing such benefits. The Subrecipient or Contractor
employing apprentices or trainees under approved programs shall maintain written evidence of the
registration of apprenticeship programs and certification of trainee programs, the registration of the
apprentices and trainees, and the ratios and wage rates prescribed in the applicable programs.
Attachment 1 — Page 24
(2)(a) The Contractor shall submit weekly for each week in which any Contract work is performed a
copy of all payrolls to the Subrecipient. The Subrecipient shall submit weekly for each week in which
any Subaward or Contract work is performed a copy of all payrolls to.the Recipient. The Recipient
shall submit weekly for each week in which any Subaward or Contract work is performed a copy of all
payrolls to the Contracting Officer. The payrolls submitted shall set out accurately and completely all
of the information required to be maintained under paragraph D(1) of this Term, exceptaliat th e full —
social security numbers and home addresses shall not be included on weekly transmittals. Instead, the
payrolls shall only need to include an individually identifying number for each employee (e.g., the last
four digits of the employee's social security number). The required weekly payroll information may
be submitted in any form desired. Optional Form WH -347 is available for this purpose from the Wage
and Hour Division Web site at hqp://www.dol.gpv/esa/whd/forins/wh347instr.htin or its successor site.
(b) The Recipient is responsible for the ensuring that, all Subrecipients and Contractors submit copies
of payrolls and basic records as required by paragraph D, Payrolls and Basic Records, of this Term.
The Subrecipient is responsible for ensuring all Contractors, including lower tier subcontractors
submit copies of payrolls and basic records' as required by paragraph D, Payrolls and Basic Records,
of this term. 'Subrecipients -and Contractors shall maintain the full social security number and current
address of each covered worker, and shall provide them upon request for transmission to the
Contracting Officer, the Recipient, or the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor for
purposes of an investigation or audit of compliance with prevailing wage requirements. The
Recipient shall also obtain and provide the full social security number and current address of each
covered worker upon request by the Contracting Officer or the Wage and Hour Division of the
Department of Labor for purposes of an investigation or audit of compliance with prevailing wage
requirements. It is not a violation of this section for a Recipient to.require a Subrecipient or
Contractor to provide addresses and social security numbers to the Recipient for its own records,
without weekly submission to the Contracting Officer.
(c) Each payroll submitted shall be accompanied by a "Statement of Compliance," signed by the
Recipient, Subrecipient or Contractor or his or her agent who pays or supervises the payment of the
persons employed under the Subaward or Contract and shall certify -
(i) That the payroll for the payroll period contains the information required to be
maintained under paragraph D(2)(a) of this Term, the appropriate information is being
maintained under paragraph D(1) of this Term, and that such information is correct and
complete;
(ii) That each laborer or mechanic (including each helper, apprentice, and trainee)
employed on the Subaward or Contract during the payroll period has been paid the full
weekly wages earned, without rebate, either directly or indirectly, and that no deductions
have been made either directly or indirectly from the full wages earned, other than
permissible deductions as set forth in the Regulations, 29 CFR Part 3,; and
(iii) That each laborer or mechanic has been paid not less than the applicable wage rates
and fringe benefits or cash equivalents for the classification of work performed, as
specified in the applicable wage determination incorporated into the Subaward or
Contract.
(d) The weekly submission of a properly executed certification set forth on the reverse side of
Optional Form WH -347 shall satisfy the requirement for submission of the "Statement of
Compliance" required by paragraph 1)(2)(c) of this Term.
(e) The falsification of any of the certifications in Paragraph D, Payrolls and Basic Records, of this
Term may subject the Recipient, Subrecipient or Contractor to civil or criminal prosecution under
Sectiori 1001 of Title 18 and Section 3729 of Title 31 of the United States Code.
Attachment 1 — Page 25
(3) The Recipient, Subrecipient, or Contractor shall make the records required under paragraph D(1) of
this Term available for inspection, copying, or transcription by the Contracting Officer, authorized
representatives of the Contracting Officer, or the Department of Labor. The Subrecipient or Contractor
shall permit the Contracting Officer, authorized representatives of the Contracting Officer or the
Department of Labor to interview employees during working hours on the job. If the Recipient,
Subrecipient, or Contractor fails to submit the required records or to make them available, the
Contracting Officer may, after written notice to the Recipient, Subrecipient, or Contractor take such
action as may be necessary to cause the suspension of any further payment, advance, or guarantee of
funds. Furthermore, failure to submit the required records upon request or to make such records
available may be grounds for debarment action pursuant to 29 CFR 5.12.
E. Withholding of Funds
(1) The DOE Contracting Officer shall, upon his or her or its own action or upon written request of an
authorized representative of the Department of Labor, withhold or cause to be withheld from the
Recipient or any other contract or Federal Award with the same Recipient, on this or any other
federally assisted Award subject to Davis -Bacon prevailing wage requirements, which is held by the
same Recipient so much of the accrued payments or advances as may be considered necessary to pay
laborers and mechanics, including apprentices, trainees, and helpers, employed by the Subrecipient or
a Contractor the full amount of wages required by the Award or Subaward or a Contract. In the event
of failure to pay any laborer or mechanic, including any apprentice, trainee, or helper, employed or
working on the site of the work, all or part of the wages required by the Award or Subaward or a
Contract, the Contracting Officer may, after written notice to the Recipient take such action as may be
necessary to cause the suspension of any further payment, advance, or guarantee of funds until such
violations have ceased.
(2) The Recipient shall, upon its own action or upon written request of the DOE Contracting Officer
or an authorized representative of the Department of Labor, withhold or cause to be withheld from any
Subrecipient or Contractor so much of the accrued payments or advances as may be considered
necessary to pay laborers and mechanics, including apprentices, trainees, and helpers, employed by the
Subrecipient or Contractor the full amount of wages required by the Subaward or Contract. In the
event of failure to pay any laborer or mechanic, including any apprentice, trainee, or helper, employed
or working on the site of the work, all or part of the wages required by the Subaward or Contract, the
Recipient may, after written notice to the Subrecipient or Contractor, take such action as may be
necessary to cause the suspension of any further payment, advance, or guarantee of funds until such
violations have ceased or the Government may cause the suspension of any further payment under any
other contract or Federal award with the same Subrecipient or Contractor, on any other federally
assisted Award subject to Davis -Bacon prevailing wage requirements, which is held by the same
Subrecipient or Contractor.
F. Apprentices and Trainees
(1) Apprentices.
(a) An apprentice will be permitted to work at less than the predetermined rate for the work they
performed when they are employed-
(i) Pursuant to and individually registered in a bona fide apprenticeship program
registered with the U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration,
Office of Apprenticeship and Training, Employer, and Labor Services (OATELS) or with
a State Apprenticeship Agency recognized by the OATELS; or
(ii) In the first 90 days of probationary employment as an apprentice in such an
apprenticeship program, even though not individually registered in the program, if
Attachment 1 — Page 26
certified by the OATELS or a State Apprenticeship Agency (where appropriate) to be
eligible for probationary employment as an apprentice.
(b) The allowable ratio of apprentices to journeymen on the job site in any craft classification shall
not be. greater than the ratio permitted to the_Subrecipient or Contractor as to the entire work force
under the registered program..
(c) Any worker listed on a payroll at an apprentice wage rate, who is not registered or otherwise
employed as stated in paragraph F(1) of this Term, shall be paid not less than the applicable wage
determination for the classification of work actually performed. In addition, any apprentice
performing work on the job site in excess of the ratio permitted under the registered program shall
be paid not less than the applicable wage rate on the wage determination for the work'actually
performed.
(d) Where a Subrecipient or Contractor is performing construction on a project in a locality 'other
than that in which its program is registered, the ratios and wage rates (expressed in percentages of
the joume an's hourl rate) specified in the Subrecipient's or Contractor's registered program -
ym y .
shall-be observed. Every apprentice must be paid at not less than the rate specified in the
registered program for the apprentice's level of progress, expressed as a percentage of the
journeyman hourly rate specified in the applicable wage determination.
(e) Apprentices shall be paid fringe benefits in accordance with the provisions of the
apprenticeship program. If the apprenticeship program does not specify fringe benefits,
apprentices must be paid the full amount of fringe benefits listed on the wage determination for the
applicable classification. If the Administrator determines that a different practice prevails for the
applicable apprentice classification, fringes shall be paid in accordance with that determination.
(f) In the event OATELS, or a State Apprenticeship Agency recognized by OATELS, withdraws
approval of an apprenticeship program, the Subrecipient or Contractor will no longer be permitted
to utilize apprentices at less than the applicable predetermined rate for the work performed until an
acceptable program is approved.
(2) Trainees.
(a) Except as provided in 29 CFR 5.16, trainees will not be permitted to work at less than the
predetermined rate for the work performed unless they are employed pursuant to and individually
registered in a program which has received prior approval, evidenced by formal certification by
( OATELS). The ratio of trainees to journeymen on the job site shall not be'greater than permitted
under the plan approved by OATELS.
(b) Every trainee must be paid. at not less than the rate specified in the approved program for the
trainee's level of progress, expressed as a percentage of the journeyman hourly rate specified in
the applicable wage determination. Trainees shall be paid fringe benefits in accordance with the
provisions of the trainee program. If the.trainee program does not mention fringe benefits,
trainees shall be paid the full amount of fringe benefits listed in the wage determination unless the
Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division determines that there is an apprenticeship /training
program associated with the corresponding journeyman wage rate in the wage determination
which provides for less than full fringe benefits for apprentices. Any employee listed on the
payroll at a trainee rate who is not registered and participating in a training plan approved by the
OATELS shall be paid not less than the applicable wage rate in the wage determination for the
classification of work actually performed In addition, any trainee performing work on the job site
in excess of the ratio permitted under the registered program shall be paid not less than the
applicable wage rate in the wage determination for the work actually performed.
Attachment 1 — Page 27
(c) In the event OATELS withdraws approval of a training program, the Subrecipient or
Contractor will no longer be permitted to utilize trainees at less than the applicable predetermined
rate for the work performed until an acceptable program is approved.
(3) Equal employment opportunity. The utilization of apprentices, trainees, and journeymen under this
Term shall be in conformity with the equal employment opportunity requirements of Executive Order
11246, as amended, and 29 CFR Part 30.
G. Compliance with Copeland Act Requirements
The Recipient, Subrecipient. or Contractor shall comply with the requirements of 29 CFR Part 3 which are
hereby incorporated by reference in the Award, Subaward or Contract.
H. Subawards and Contracts
(1) The Recipient, the Subrecipient and Contractor shall insert in the Subaward or any Contracts this
Term entitled "Davis Bacon Act Requirements" and such other terms as the Contracting Officer may
require. The Recipient shall be responsible for ensuring compliance by any Subrecipient or Contractor
with all of the requirements contained in this Term. The Subrecipient shall be responsible for the
compliance by Contractor with all of the requirements contained in this Term.
(2) Within 14 days after issuance of a Subaward, the Recipient shall deliver to the Contracting Officer a
completed Standard Form (SF) 1413, Statement and Acknowledgment, for each Subaward and Contract for
construction within the United States, including the Subrecipient's and Contractor's signed and dated
acknowledgment that this Term) has been included in the Subaward and any Contracts. The SF 1413 is
available from the Contracting Officer or at
bgp:Hcontacts.gsa.gov/ webforms. nsf/ 0/ 70B4872Dl6EE95A785256A26004F7EA8 /$file /sfl413 e.pdf.
Within 14 days after issuance of a Contract or lower- tier subcontract, the Subrecipient shall deliver to the
Recipient a completed Standard Form (SF) 1413, Statement and Acknowledgment, for each Contract and
lower -tier subcontract for construction within the United States, including the Contractor and lower- tier
subcontractor's signed and dated acknowledgment that this Term has been included in any Contract and
lower -tier subcontracts. SF 1413 is available from the Contracting Officer or at
http: // contacts. gsa. gov/ webforms. nsf/ 0/ 70B4872Dl6EE95A785256A26004F7EA8 /$file /sfl413 e.ndf. The
Recipient shall immediately provide to the DOE Contracting Officer the completed Standard Forms (SF)
1413.
L Contract Termination Debarment
A breach of these provisions may be grounds for termination of the Award, Subaward, or Contract and for
debarment as a Contractor or subcontractor as provided in 29 CFR 5.12.
J. Compliance with Davis -Bacon and Related Act Regulations
All rulings and interpretations of the Davis -Bacon and Related Acts contained in 29 CFR Parts 1, 3, and 5
are hereby incorporated by reference in the Award, Subaward or Contract.
K. Disputes Concerning Labor Standards
The United States Department of Labor has set forth in 29 CFR Parts 5, 6, and 7 procedures for resolving
disputes concerning labor standards requirements. Such disputes shall be resolved in accordance with those
procedures and shall not be subject to any other dispute provision that may be contained in the Award,
Subaward, and Contract. Disputes within the meaning of this Term include disputes between the Recipient,
Subrecipient (including any Contractor) and the Department of Energy, the U.S. Department of Labor, or
Attachment 1 — Page 28
the employees or their representatives.
L. Certification of Eligibility.
(1) By entering into this Award, Subaward, or Contract (as applicable), the Recipient, . Subrecipient,-or _ - -.-
Contractor, respectively certifies that neither it (nor he or she) nor any person or firm who has an interest
in the Recipient, Subrecipient, or Contractor's firm, is a person, entity, or firm ineligible to be awarded
Government contracts or Government awards by virtue of section 3(a) of the Davis -Bacon Act or 29 CFR
5.12(a)(1).
(2) No part of this Award, Subaward or Contract shall be subcontracted to any person or firm ineligible for
award of a Government contract or Government award by virtue of section 3(a) of the Davis -Bacon Act or
29 CFR 5.12(a)(1).
(3) The penalty for making false statements is prescribed in the U:S. Criminal Code, 18 U.S.C. 1001.
M. Approval of Wage Rates
All straight time wage rates, and overtime rates based thereon, for laborers and mechanics engaged in work
under an Award, Subaward or Contract must be submitted for approval in writing by the head of the federal
contracting activity or a representative expressly designated for this purpose, if the straight time wages
exceed the rates for corresponding classifications contained in the applicable Davis -Bacon Act minimum
wage determination included in the Award, Subaward or Contract. Any amount paid by the Subrecipient or
Contractor to any laborer or mechanic in excess of the agency approved wage rate shall be at the expense of
the Subrecipient or Contractor and shall not be reimbursed by the Recipient or Subrecipient. If the
Government refuses to authorize the use of the overtime, the Subrecipient or Contractor is not released
from the obligation to pay employees at the required overtime rates for any overtime actually worked.
Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act
This Term entitled "Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act ( CWHSSA)" shall apply to any
Subaward or Contract in an amount in excess of $100,000. As used in this CWHSSA Term, the terms
laborers and mechanics include watchmen and guards.
A. Overtime requirements. No Subrecipient or Contractor contracting for any part of the Subaward
work which may require or involve the employment of laborers or mechanics shall require or permit any
such laborer or mechanic in any workweek in which he or she is employed on such work to work in
excess of forty hours in such workweek unless such laborer or mechanic receives compensation ava rate
not less than'one and one -half times the basic'rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of forty hours in
such workweek.
B. Violation; liability for unpaid wages; liquidated damages.; In the event of any violation of the term set
forth in.paragraph B herein, the Subrecipient or Contractor responsible therefor shall be liable for the
unpaid wages. In addition, such Subrecipient or Contractor shall be liable to the United States (in the
case of work done under a Subaward'or Contract for the District of Columbia or a territory, to such
District or to such territory), for liquidated damages. Such liquidated damages shall be computed with
respect to each individual laborer or mechanic, including watchmen and guards, employed in violation of
the provision set forth in CWSSHA paragraph A, in the sum.of $10 for each calendar day on which such
individual was required or permitted to work in excess of the standard workweek of forty hours without
payment of the overtime wages required by the term set forth in paragraph (A) of this section.
C. Withholding for unpaid wages and liquidated damages.
Attachment 1— Page 29
(1) The DOE Contracting Officer shall upon its own action or upon written request of an
authorized representative of the Department of Labor withhold or cause to be withheld, from
any moneys payable on account of work performed by the Recipient on this or any other Federal
Award or Federal contract with the same Recipient on any other federally- assisted Award or
contract subject to the CWHSSA, which is held by the same Recipient such sums as may be
determined to be necessary to satisfy any liabilities of such Recipient for unpaid wages and
liquidated damages as provided in the term set forth in CWHSSA, paragraph B of this Term.
(2) The Recipient shall, upon its own action or upon written request of the DOE Contracting
Officer or an authorized representative of the Department of Labor, withhold or cause from any
moneys payable on account of work performed by the Subrecipient or Contractor on this or any
other federally assisted subaward or contract subject to the CWHSSA, which is held by the
same Subrecipient or Contractor such sums as may be determined to be necessary to satisfy any
liabilities of such Subrecipient or Contractor for unpaid wages and liquidated damages as
provided in term set forth in CWHSSA, paragraph B of this Term.
D. Subcontracts. The Subrecipient shall insert in a Contract and a Contractor shall insert in any lower
tier subcontracts, the terms set forth in these CWHSSA paragraphs (A) through (D) and also a provision
requiring the Contractors to include this CWHSSA Term in any lower tier subcontracts. The Recipient
shall be responsible for compliance by any Subrecipient or Contractor, with the CWHSSA paragraphs A
through D. The Subrecipient shall be responsible for compliance by any Contractor (including lower -
tier subcontractors).
E. The Subrecipient or Contractor shall maintain payrolls and basic payrolls in accordance with Davis -
Bacon Act Requirements term, for all laborers and mechanics, including guards and watchmen working
on the Subaward or Contracts. These records are subject to the requirements set forth in the Davis Bacon
Requirements term.
Prescription: Include for ARRA Awards (other than Weatherization Assistance Program
and Loan Program awards) when WAGE RATE REQUIREMENTS UNDER SECTION
1606 OF THE AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT ("RECOVERY
ACT ") term is required.
DAVIS BACON ACT AND CONTRACT WORK HOURS AND SAFETY
STANDARDS ACT
Definitions: For purposes of this article, Davis Bacon Act and Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards
Act, the following definitions are applicable:
(1) "Award" means any grant, cooperative agreement or technology investment agreement made
with Recovery Act funds by the Department of Energy (DOE) to a Recipient. Such Award must
require compliance with the labor standards clauses and wage rate requirements of the Davis -
Bacon Act (DBA) for work performed by all laborers and mechanics employed by Recipients
(other than a unit of State or local government whose own employees perform the construction)
Subrecipients, Contractors and subcontractors.
(2) "Contractor" means an entity that enters into a Contract. For purposes of these clauses,
Contractor shall include (as applicable) prime contractors, Recipients, Subrecipients, and
Recipients' or Subrecipients' contractors, subcontractors, and lower -tier subcontractors.
Attachment 1 — Page 30
"Contractor" does not mean a unit.of State_ or local government where construction is performed
by its own employees."
(3) "Contract' ' means a contract executed by a Recipient; Subrecipient, prime contractor or any
tier subcontractor for construction, alteration, or repair. It may also mean (as applicable) (i)
financial assistance instruments such as grants, cooperative agreements, technology investment
agreements, and loans; and, (ii) Sub awards, contracts and subcontracts issued under financial
assistance agreements. "Contract" does not mean a financial assistance instrument with a unit
of State or local government where construction is performed by its own employees.
(4) "Contracting Officer" means the DOE official authorized to execute an Award on behalf of
DOE and who is responsible for the business management and non - program aspects of the
financial assistance process.
(5) "Recipient" means any entity other than an individual that receives an Award of Federal
funds in the form of a grant, cooperative agreement or technology investment agreement
directly from the Federal Government and is financially accountable for the use of.any_DOE
funds or property, and is legally responsible for- carrying out the terms and conditions of the
program and Award.
(6) "Subaward" means an award of financial assistance in the form of money, or property in lieu
of money, made under an award by a Recipient to an eligible Subrecipient or by a Subrecipient
to a lower - tier subrecipient. The term includes financial assistance when provided by any legal
agreement, even if the agreement is called a contract, but does not include the Recipient's
procurement of goods and services to carry out the program nor does it include any form of
assistance which is excluded from the definition of "Award" above.
(7) "Subrecipient" means a non- Federal entity that expends Federal funds received from a
Recipient to carry out a Federal program, but does not include an individual that is a beneficiary
of such a program.
(a) Davis Bacon Act
(1) Minimum wages.
(i) All laborers and mechanics employed or working upon the site of the work (or under
the United States Housing Act of 1937 or under the Housing Act of 1949 in the
construction or development of the project), will be paid unconditionally and not less
often than once a week, and without subsequent deduction or rebate on any account
(except such payroll deductions as are permitted by regulations issued by the Secretary of
Labor under the`Copeland Act (29 CFR part 3) ), the full amount of wages and bona fide
fringe benefits (or cash equivalents thereof) due at time of payment computed at rates not
less than those contained in the wage determination of the Secretary of Labor which is
attached hereto and made a part hereof, regardless of any contractual relationship which
may be alleged -to exist between the Contractor and'such laborers and mechanics.
Contributions made or costs reasonably anticipated for bona fide fringe benefits under
section 1(b)(2) of the Davis -Bacon Act on behalf of laborers or mechanics are considered
wages paid to such laborers or mechanics, subject to the provisions of paragraph
(a)(l)(iv) of this section; also, regular contributions made or costs incurred for more than
a weekly period (but not less often than quarterly) under plans, funds, or programs which
cover the particular weekly period, are deemed to be constructively made or incurred
during such weekly period. Such laborers and mechanics shall be paid the appropriate
wage rate and fringe benefits on the wage determination for the classification of work
actually performed, without regard to skill, except as provided in § 5.5(a)(4). Laborers or
mechanics performing work in more than one classification may be compensated at the .
Attachment 1 — Page 31
rate specified for each classification for the time actually worked therein: Provided, That
the employer's payroll records accurately set forth the time spent in each classification in
which work is performed. The wage determination (including any additional
classification and wage rates conformed under paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section) and the
Davis -Bacon poster (WH -1321) shall be posted at all times by the Contractor and its
subcontractors at the site of the work in a prominent and accessible place where it can be
easily seen by the workers.
(ii)(A) The Contracting Officer shall require that any class of laborers or mechanics,
including helpers, which is not listed in the wage determination and which is to be
employed under the Contract shall be classified in conformance with the wage
determination. The Contracting Officer shall approve an additional classification and
wage rate and fringe benefits therefore only when the following criteria have been met:
(1) The work to be performed by the classification requested is not performed by
a classification in the wage determination; and
(2) The classification is utilized in the area by the construction industry; and
(3) The proposed wage rate, including any bona fide fringe benefits, bears a
reasonable relationship to the wage rates contained in the wage determination.
(B) If the Contractor and the laborers and mechanics to be employed in the
classification (if known), or their representatives, and the Contracting Officer agree
on the classification and wage rate (including the amount designated for fringe
benefits where appropriate), a report of the action taken shall be sent by the
Contracting Officer to the Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division, U.S.
Department of Labor, Washington, DC 20210. The Administrator, or an authorized
representative, will approve, modify, or disapprove every additional classification
action within 30 days of receipt and so advise the Contracting Officer or will notify
the Contracting Officer within the 30 -day period that additional time is necessary.
(C) In the event the Contractor, the laborers or mechanics to be employed in the
classification or their representatives, and the Contracting Officer do not agree on the
proposed classification and wage rate (including the amount designated for fringe
benefits, where appropriate), the Contracting Officer shall refer the questions,
including the views of all interested parties and the recommendation of the
Contracting Officer, to the Administrator for determination. The Administrator, or an
authorized representative, will issue a determination within 30 days of receipt and so
advise the Contracting Officer or will notify the Contracting Officer within the 30-
day period that additional time is necessary.
(D) The wage rate (including fringe benefits where appropriate) determined pursuant
to paragraphs (a)(1)(ii)(B) or (C) of this section, shall be paid to all workers
performing work in the classification under this Contract from the first day on which
work is performed in the classification.
(iii) Whenever the minimum wage rate prescribed in the Contract for a class of laborers
or mechanics includes a fringe benefit which is not expressed as an hourly rate, the
Contractor shall either pay the benefit as stated in the wage determination or shall pay
another bona fide fringe benefit or an hourly cash equivalent thereof.
(iv) If the Contractor does not make payments to a trustee or other third person, the
Contractor may consider as part of the wages of any laborer or mechanic the amount of
any costs reasonably anticipated in providing bona fide fringe benefits under a plan or
program, Provided, That the Secretary of Labor has found, upon the written request of
Attachment 1 —Page 32
_y
the Contractor, that the applicable standards of the Davis -Bacon Act have been met. The
Secretary of Labor may require the Contractor to set aside dn a separate account assets for
the meeting of obligations under the plan or program.
(2) Withholding. The Department of Energy or the Recipient or Subrecipient shall upon its own
action or upon- written request of an authorized - representative of the Department of Labor
withhold or cause to be withheld from the Contractor under this Contract or any other Federal
contract with,the same prime contractor, or any other federally- assisted contract subject to, Davis-
Bacon prevailing wage. requirements, which is held by the same prime contractor, so much of the
accrued payments or advances as may be considered necessary to pay'laborers and mechanics,
including apprentices, trainees, and helpers, employed by the Contractor or any subcontractor the
full, amount of wages required by the Contract. In the event of failure to pay any laborer or
mechanic, including any - apprentice, trainee, .'or helper, employed or-working on the site of the
work.(or under the United States Housing Act of 1937 or under the Housing Act of 1949 in the
construction' or development"of_the project), all or part of wages required by the Contract, the
Department of Energy, Recipient, or Subrecipient, may, after written notice to the Contractor,
sponsor, applicant, or owner, take such action.as.may be necessary to cause the suspension of any _
further payment, advance, or guarantee of funds until such violations have ceased.
(3) Payrolls and basic records.
(i) Payrolls and basic records relating thereto shall be maintained by the Contractor
during the course of the work and preserved for a period of three years thereafter for all
laborers and mechanics working at the site of the work (or under the United States
Housing Act of 1937, or under the Housing Act of 1949, in the construction or
development of the project). Such records,shall contain the name, address, and social
security number of each such worker, his or her correct classification, hourly rates of
wages paid (including.rates of contributions or. costs anticipated for bona fide fringe
benefits or cash equivalents thereof of the types described in section I (b)(2)(B) of the
Davis -Bacon Act), daily and weekly number of hours worked, deductions made and
actual wages paid. Whenever the Secretary of Labor has found under 29 CFR
5.5(a)(1)(iv) that the wages of,any laborer or mechanic include the amount of any costs
reasonably anticipated in providing benefits under a plan or program described in section
I(b)(2)(B) of the. Davis -Bacon Act, the Contractor shall maintain records which show
that the commitment to provide such benefits is enforceable, that the plan or program is
financially responsible, and that the plan or program has been communicated in writing to
the laborers or mechanics affected, and records which show the costs anticipated or the
actual cost incurred in providing such benefits. Contractors employing apprentices or
trainees under approved programs shall maintain written evidence of the registration of
apprenticeship programs and certification of trainee programs,.the registration of the
apprentices and trainees, and the ratios and wage rates prescribed in the applicable
programs.
(ii) (A) The Contractor shall submit weekly for each week in which any Contract work is
performed a copy, of all payrolls to "the Department of Energy if the agency is a party
to the Contract, but.if.the agency is not such a party, the Contractor will submit the
payrolls to the Recipient or Subrecipient (as applicable), applicant, sponsor, or
owner, as the cas e may be,.for transmission to the Department of Energy. The
payrolls submitted shall set out accurately and completely all of the information
required to be maintained under 29 CFR 5.5(a)(3)(i), except that full social security
numbers and home addresses shall not be included on weekly transmittals. Instead
the.payrolls shall only need to include an individually identifying number for each
employee (e.g., the. last four digits of the employee's social security number). The
required weekly payroll information may be submitted in any form desired. Optional
Form WH -347 is available for this purpose from the Wage and Hour Division Web
site at http:// www. dol. gov /esa/whd/forms /wh347instr.htm or its successor site. The
Attachment 1 — Page 33
prime Contractor is responsible for the submission of copies of payrolls by all
subcontractors. Contractors and subcontractors shall maintain the full social security
number and current address of each covered worker, and shall provide them upon
request to the Department of Energy if the agency is a party to the Contract, but if
the agency is not such a party, the Contractor will submit them to the Recipient or
Subrecipient (as applicable), applicant, sponsor, or owner, as the case may be, for
transmission to the Department of Energy, the Contractor, or the Wage and Hour
Division of the Department of Labor for purposes of an investigation or audit of
compliance with prevailing wage requirements. It is not a violation of this section for
a prime contractor to require a subcontractor to provide addresses and social security
numbers to the prime contractor for its own records, without weekly submission to
the sponsoring government agency (or the Recipient or Subrecipient (as applicable),
applicant, sponsor, or owner).
(B) Each payroll submitted shall be accompanied by a "Statement of Compliance,"
signed by the Contractor or subcontractor or his or her agent who pays or supervises
the payment of the persons employed under the Contract and shall certify the
following:
(1) That the payroll for the payroll period contains the information required to
be provided under § 5.5 (a)(3)(ii) of Regulations, 29 CFR part 5, the appropriate
information is being maintained under § 5.5 (a)(3)(i) of Regulations, 29 CFR
part 5, and that such information is correct and complete;
(2) That each laborer or mechanic (including each helper, apprentice, and
trainee) employed on the Contract during the payroll period has been paid the
full weekly wages earned, without rebate, either directly or indirectly, and that
no deductions have been made either directly or indirectly from the full wages
earned, other than permissible deductions as set forth in Regulations, 29 CFR
part 3;
(3) That each laborer or mechanic has been paid not less than the applicable
wage rates and fringe benefits or cash equivalents for the classification of work
performed, as specified in the applicable wage determination incorporated into
the Contract.
(C) The weekly submission of a properly executed certification set forth on the
reverse side of Optional Form WH -347 shall satisfy the requirement for submission
of the "Statement of Compliance" required by paragraph (a)(3)(ii)(B) of this section.
(D) The falsification of any of the above certifications may subject the Contractor or
subcontractor to civil or criminal prosecution under section 1001 of title 18 and
section 3729 of title 31 of the United States Code.
(iii) The Contractor or subcontractor shall make the records required under paragraph
(a)(3)(i) of this section available for inspection, copying, or transcription by authorized
representatives of the Department of Energy or the Department of Labor, and shall permit
such representatives to interview employees during working hours on the job. If the
Contractor or subcontractor fails to submit the required records or to make them
available, the Federal agency may, after written notice to the Contractor, sponsor,
applicant, or owner, take such action as may be necessary to cause the suspension of any
further payment, advance, or guarantee of funds. Furthermore, failure to submit the
required records upon request or to make such records available may be grounds for
debarment action pursuant to 29 CFR 5.12.
(4) Apprentices and trainees—
Attachment 1 — Page 34
w
-1
(i) Apprentices. Apprentices will be permitted to work at less than the predetermined rate
for the work they performed when they- are.employed pursuant to and individually
registered in a bona fide apprenticeship program registered with the U.S. Department of
Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Office of Apprenticeship Training,
Employer and Labor Services, or with a State Apprenticeship Agency recogized by the
Office, or if a person is employed in his or her first 90 days of probationary employment
as an apprentice in such an apprenticeship program, who is not individually registered in
the program, but ,who has been certified by the Office of Apprenticeship Training,
Employer and Labor Services,or a State Apprenticeship Agency. (where appropriate) to.
be eligible for probationary employment as an apprentice. The allowable ratio of
apprentices to journeymen on the job site in any craft classification shall not be greater
than the ratio permitted to the Contractor as 'to the entire workforce under the registered
program: Any worker, listed on a,payroll afan apprenticemage rate, who is,not registered
or otherwise,employed as stated above, shall be paid not less than the applicable wage
rate, on the wage determination.for the classification of work actually performed. In
addition, any- apprentice performing work on the job site in excess of the; ratio.permitted___._
under the registered program shall be paid riot less than the applicable wage rate on the
wage determination for the work actually performed. Where a Contractor is performing
construction on a project in a locality other than that in which its program is registered,
the ratios and wage rates (expressed in percentages of the journeyman's hourly rate)
specified in the Contractor's or subcontractor's registered program shall be observed.
Every apprentice must be paid at not less than the rate specified in the registered program
for the apprentice's level of progress, expressed as a percentage of the journeymen hourly
rate specified in the applicable wage determination. Apprentices shall be paid fringe
benefits in accordance with the provisions of the apprenticeship program. If the
apprenticeship program does not specify fringe benefits, apprentices must be paid the full
amount of fringe benefits listed on the wage determination for the applicable
classification. If the Administrator determines that a different practice prevails for the
applicable apprentice classification, fringes shall be paid in accordance with that
determination. In the event the Office of Apprenticeship Training, Employer and Labor
Services, or a State Apprenticeship Agency recognized by the Office, withdraws approval
of an apprenticeship program, the Contractor will no longer be permitted to utilize
apprentices at less than the applicable predetermined, rate for the work performed until an
acceptable program is approved.
(ii).Trainees. Except as provided in 29 CFR 5.16, trainees will not be permitted to work
at lessthan the predetermined rate for the work performed unless they are employed
pursuant to and - individually registered in a program which has received prior approval,
evidenced by formal certification by the U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and
Training Administration. The ratio of trainees to journeymen on the job site shall not be
greater than permitted under the plan approved by -the Employment. and Training
Administration. Every trainee must be paid at not less than the rate specified in the
approved program for the trainee's level of progress, expressed as a percentage of the
journeyman hourly rate specified in the applicable wage determination. Trainees shall be
paid fringe benefits in accordance with the provisions of the trainee program. If the
trainee program does not mention fringe benefits, trainees shall be paid the full amount of
fringe benefits listed on the wage determination unless the Administrator of the Wage
and Hour Division determines that there is an apprenticeship program associated with the
corresponding journeyman wage rate on the wage determination which provides for less
than full fringe benefits for apprentices. Any employee listed on the payroll at a trainee
rate who is not registered and participating in a training plan approved by the
Employment and Training Administration shall be paid not less than the applicable wage
rate on the wage determination for the classification of work actually performed. In
addition, any trainee performing work on the job site in excess of the ratio permitted
under the registered program shall be paid not less than the applicable wage rate on the
Attachment 1 —Page 35
r
wage determination for the work actually performed. In the event the Employment and
Training Administration withdraws approval of a training program, the Contractor will no
longer be permitted to utilize trainees at less than the applicable predetermined rate for
the work performed until an acceptable program is approved.
(iii) Equal employment opportunity. The utilization of apprentices, trainees and
journeymen under this part shall be in conformity with the equal employment opportunity
requirements of Executive Order 11246, as amended and 29 CFR part 30.
(5) Compliance with Copeland Act requirements. The Contractor shall comply with the
requirements of 29 CFR part 3, which are incorporated by reference in this Contract.
(6) Contracts and Subcontracts. The Recipient, Subrecipient, the Recipient's and Subrecipient's
contractors and subcontractor shall insert in any Contracts the clauses contained herein in(a)(1)
through (10) and such other clauses as the Department of Energy may by appropriate instructions
require, and also a clause requiring the subcontractors to include these clauses in any lower tier
subcontracts. The Recipient shall be responsible for the compliance by any subcontractor or lower
tier subcontractor with all of the paragraphs in this clause.
(7) Contract termination: debarment. A breach of the Contract clauses in 29 CFR 5.5 may be
grounds for termination of the Contract, and for debarment as a contractor and a subcontractor as
provided in 29 CFR 5.12.
(8) Compliance with Davis -Bacon and Related Act requirements. All rulings and interpretations of
the Davis -Bacon and Related Acts contained in 29 CFR parts 1, 3, and 5 are herein incorporated
by reference in this Contract.
(9) Disputes concerning labor standards. Disputes arising out of the labor standards provisions of
this Contract shall not be subject to the general disputes clause of this Contract. Such disputes
shall be resolved in accordance with the procedures of the Department of Labor set forth in 29
CFR parts 5, 6, and 7. Disputes within the meaning of this clause include disputes between the
Recipient, Subrecipient, the Contractor (or any of its subcontractors) and the contracting agency,
the U.S. Department of Labor, or the employees or their representatives.
(10) Certification of eligibility.
(i) By entering into this Contract, the Contractor certifies that neither it (nor he or she)
nor any person or firm who has an interest in the Contractor's firm is a person or firm
ineligible to be awarded Government contracts by virtue of section 3(a) of the Davis -
Bacon Act or 29 CFR 5.12(a)(1).
(ii) No part of this Contract shall be subcontracted to any person or firm ineligible for
award of a Government contract by virtue of section 3(a) of the Davis -Bacon Act or 29
CFR 5.12(a)(1).
(iii) The penalty for making false statements is prescribed in the U.S. Criminal Code, 18
U.S.C. 1001.
(b) Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act. As used in this paragraph, the terms laborers and
mechanics include watchmen and guards.
(1) Overtime requirements. No Contractor or subcontractor contracting for any part of the Contract
work which may require or involve the employment of laborers or mechanics shall require or
permit any such laborer or mechanic in any workweek in which he or she is employed on such
work to work in excess of forty hours in such workweek unless such laborer or mechanic receives
Attachment 1 —Page 36
compensation at a rate not less than one and one -half times the basic rate of pay for all hours
worked in excess of forty hours in such workweek.
(2) Violation; liability for unpaid wages; liquidated damages. In the event of any violation of the
clause set forth in paragraph (b)(1) of this section the Contractor and any subcontractor
responsible therefor shall be liable for the unpaid wages. In addition, such Contractor and
subcontractor shall be liable to the United States (in the case of work done under contract for the
District of Columbia or a territory, to such District or to such territory), for liquidated damages.
Such liquidated damages shall be computed with respect to each individual laborer or mechanic,
including watchmen and guards, employed in violation of the clause set forth in paragraph (b)(1)
of this section, in the sum of $10 for each calendar day on which such individual was required or
permitted to work in excess of the standard workweek of forty hours without payment of the
overtime wages required by the clause set forth in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
(3) Withholding for unpaid wages and liquidated damages. The Department of Energy or the
Recipient or Subrecipient shall upon its own action or upon writteri request of an authorized
representative of the Department of Labor withhold or cause to be withheld, from any moneys
payable on account of work performed by the Contractor or subcontractor under any such contract
or any other Federal contract with the same prime. Contractor, or any other federally- assisted
contract subject to the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act, which is held by the same
prime contractor, such sums as may be determined to be necessary to satisfy any liabilities of such
Contractor or subcontractor for unpaid wages and liquidated damages as provided in the clause set
forth in paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
(4) Contracts and Subcontracts. The Recipient, Subrecipient, and Recipient's and Subrecipient's
contractor or subcontractor shall insert in any Contracts, the clauses set forth in paragraph (b)(1)
through (4) of this section and also a clause requiring the subcontractors to include these clauses in
any lower tier, subcontracts. The Recipient shall be responsible for compliance by any
subcontractor or lower tier subcontractor with the clauses set forth in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4)
of this section.
(5) The Contractor or subcontractor shall maintain payrolls and basic payroll records during the
course of the work and shall preserve them for a period of three years from the completion of the
Contract for all laborers and mechanics, including guards and watchmen, working on the Contract.
Such records shall contain.the name and address of each such employee, social security number,
correct classifications, hourly rates of wages paid, daily and weekly number of hours worked,
deductions made, and actual wages paid. The records to be maintained under this paragraph shall
be made available by the Contractor or subcontractor for inspection, copying, or transcription by
authorized representatives of the Department of Energy and the Department of Labor, and the
Contractor or subcontractor will permit such representatives to interview employees during
working hours on the job. .
From 10 CFR 600.236- Procurement
(a) States. When procuring property and services under a grant, a State will follow the
same policies and procedures it uses for procurements from its non - Federal funds. The
State will ensure that every purchase order or other contract includes any clauses required
by Federal statutes and executive orders and their implementing regulations. Other
grantees and sub - grantees will follow paragraphs (b) through (i) in this section.
Note: 600.236 (i)- Contract provisions. A grantee's and sub - grantee's contracts MUST
contain provisions in paragraph (i) of this section (1) through (13).
Attachment 1 —Page 37
10 CFR 600.236 -- http: / /ecfr.gpoaccess. ov/cgi/t/text/text-
idx ?c=ecfr&sid =1 d87da29f6087fD251 f78954c8888ff1 &rgn =div8 &view =text &node =l0:
4.0.1.3.9.3.20.23 &i dno =10
From 10 CFR 600.237- Subgrants
Retention and Access Requirements for Records
http:Heefr.gpoaccess. gov/cgi/t/text/text-
idx ?type= simple;c= ecfr;cc =ecfr; sid= 4c22613d54c8ee557f9dc9d6015ecl c9 :idno= l0:reLyi
on =DIV l;Q I= 600.242;rLyn= div8;view= text ;node= l0 %3A4.0.1.3.9.3.20.27
Conform any advances of grant funds to sub - grantees substantially to the same standards
of timing and amount that apply to cash advances by Federal agencies (refer state to 10
CFR 600.221(c).
10 CFR 60.221(c) Advances. Grantees and subgrantees shall be paid in advance, provided
they maintain or demonstrate the willingness and ability to maintain procedures to
minimize the time elapsing between the transfer of the funds and their disbursement by
the grantee or subgrantee.
Attachment 1— Page 38
r
oite
•f� u •
REPORT /RECOMMENDATION
To:
MAYOR AND COUNCIL
Agenda Item # IV. K.
From:
Wayne D. Houle, PE
® Action
City Engineer
❑ Discussion
Information
Date: March 15, 2011
Subject:
Engineering Proposal for Construction Phase Services for Ridge Road
Reconstruction Project
Recommendation:
Authorize City Manager to approve attached proposal for the Construction Phase
Services for Ridge Road Reconstruction Project.
Info /Background:
This proposal is for the construction phase service of the Ridge Road Reconstruction
Project. Construction phase service includes items such as construction staking,
inspection services (referred to as RPR — resident project representative on the task
hour sheet), and construction administration services. The estimated fee is $73,804.
ATTACHMENTS:
Engineering Proposal Ridge Road Reconstruction Project
g:\engineeflng\contractnumbers\2011\eng 11 -2 ridge road street & utillty recon \admin \misc \Item Iv.k. engineering proposal for construction phase services for ridge
road reconstruction project.docx
I � sk
March 10, 2011
Mr. Wayne Houle, PE
Director of Public Works and City Engineer
City of Edina
Engineering and Public Works Facility
7450 Metro Blvd.
Edina, MN 55439
Dear Wayne:
RE: City of Edina
Ridge Road Street and Utility
Reconstruction
Construction Phase Services
City .Contract No. ENG 11 -02
SEH No. EDINAI 13694 10.00
It has been rewarding to help the City of Edina (City) implement the referenced project to the milestone
of possibly awarding a construction contract. We respectfully ask the City to consider this supplemental
letter agreement that, if accepted, allows us to complete the project's dinplementation by providing
construction phase engineering services. We will provide these services in. accordance with our
Agreement for Professional'Engineering Services dated July 25, 1,988, herein called the - Agreement.
We have enclosed a Task Hour Budget (THB) that describes our not -to- exceed fee of $73,804.00, scope,
and key assumptions for this project. We will bill the City monthly on an hourly basis for labor and
reimbursable expenses.
This.Supplemental Letter Agreement, THB, and the Agreement represent the entire understanding
between.the City of Edina and the SEH in respect to the project'and may only be modified in writing if
signed by both parties. As always, please contact me at 952.912.2611 or ppaskong,sehinc:com with
questions or comments.
Thanks again for choosing. SEH to provide the City with these services.
Sincerely,
Paul . asko III, PE
Project Manager
cm
Enclosure
c:
p:\ae\e\edina\ 113694 \lgenl\lo- conuma\consbuction proposal sch letter.docx
Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc., 10901 Red Circle Drive, Suite 300, Minnetonka, MN 55343 -9302
SEH is an equal opportunity employer ' www.sehinc.com 1 952.912.2600 1 800.734.6757 1 952.912.2601 fax
.. .
Task Hour Budget
SEH City of Edina
Ridge Road Street and Utility Reconstruction (11)
Construction Phase Services
March 10, 2011
P4AE1E1EdnaN 1369411GerAIG a nhata[THa Const Phase Coimrbbss]Hows -Costs
NOTES
(t) Includes hours to verify the control used by the City for the topographic survey and/or set new control if needed.
(2) SEH will use the City's format for a Daily Construction Report.
(3) This task assumes that the City will secure material inspection services and make these services available to SEH.
(4) SEH will copy, fold, and provide the mailing labels for the any update newsletters. City staff will insert these updates into envelopes, attach the
mailing label and postage and send the Updates from City Hall.
(5) SEH will provide a RPR for 30 hours per week between 5/16/11 and 7/2/11(7 weeks), 20 hours per week between 7/5/11 and 7/29/11 (4 weeks),
and 15 hours per week between 8/1/11 and 8/26/11 (4 weeks).
(6) For each Application for Payment (AFP) SEH will use its format for tracking monthly quantities per City funding source, the City s format for the
cover sheet of the AFP, and the SEH format for the AFP's subsequent pages.
(7) SEH will prepare up to two (2) resident update newsletters. They will occur after the award of the project and prior to project kick -off. These
updates will be in a .doc format. These updates will suggest residents subscribe to the City Extra list serve tool. If enough residents sign up for the
list serve tool, SEH will only prepare and submit .docx file to the City for the City to distribute to the residents using their list serve tool.
(8) Task includes scheduling and conducting a pre- construction meeting, attend periodic on site progress meetings, prepare minutes of those meetings,
prepare applications for payments, prepare change orders, and the preparation of as -built drawings.
(8) Includes hours to review shop drawings.
(t 0) Reimbursable expenses include printing, auto allowances, mileage, and survey equipment.
(1 t) All reconstruction work shall be completed prior to July 29, 2011 except for restoration related work
(t 2) Other than preparing the final assessment roll and providing technical backup during the hearing itself, SEH will not provide any other services for
the assessment hearing.
(t 3) As -built drawing requirements concerning labeling, required data, and submittal materials will follow the City of Edina record drawing procedure
dated April 15, 2009.
(14) SEH will provide a project manager for construction administration tasks for 2 hours per week between 3/14/11 and 7/29/11 (20 weeks).
(t 5) Includes hours to gather asbuilt information.
(16) Landscape architect will verify that the concrete mix design has the correct color added to it.
(17) Landscape architect will verify that the concrete stamp pattern for the driveway ends match what is called for in the special provision.
(18) Landscape architect will assist the RPR in collecting the choice of concrete stamp pattern from the property owner for affected driveway ends.
Page 1 of 1
ESTIMATED COST
PROJECT COST SUMMARY
PROJECT TASKS
PROVIDE
CONSTRUCTION PHASE SERVICES
1.0
668
Construction Staking
Subtotal Labor Cost
$66,764.94
1.1
Provide Construction Staking Services (1 )(15)
$7,039.06
Subtotal
Subtotal Hours
TOTAL COST ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PROPOSAL:
$73,804.00
Subtotal Labor Cost
$8,922
2.0
RPR
2.1
Provide RPR Services 2 3 5 16 17 18
Subtotal Hours
Subtotal Labor Cost
$35,651
3.0
Construction Administration
3.1
Construction Administration (8) (4) (6) (7) (14) (9)
3.2
Provide as -built drawings (13)
3.3
Prepare final roll during Fall 2012
3.4
Assessment Hearin 12
Subtotal Hours
Subtotal Labor Cost
$22,192
P4AE1E1EdnaN 1369411GerAIG a nhata[THa Const Phase Coimrbbss]Hows -Costs
NOTES
(t) Includes hours to verify the control used by the City for the topographic survey and/or set new control if needed.
(2) SEH will use the City's format for a Daily Construction Report.
(3) This task assumes that the City will secure material inspection services and make these services available to SEH.
(4) SEH will copy, fold, and provide the mailing labels for the any update newsletters. City staff will insert these updates into envelopes, attach the
mailing label and postage and send the Updates from City Hall.
(5) SEH will provide a RPR for 30 hours per week between 5/16/11 and 7/2/11(7 weeks), 20 hours per week between 7/5/11 and 7/29/11 (4 weeks),
and 15 hours per week between 8/1/11 and 8/26/11 (4 weeks).
(6) For each Application for Payment (AFP) SEH will use its format for tracking monthly quantities per City funding source, the City s format for the
cover sheet of the AFP, and the SEH format for the AFP's subsequent pages.
(7) SEH will prepare up to two (2) resident update newsletters. They will occur after the award of the project and prior to project kick -off. These
updates will be in a .doc format. These updates will suggest residents subscribe to the City Extra list serve tool. If enough residents sign up for the
list serve tool, SEH will only prepare and submit .docx file to the City for the City to distribute to the residents using their list serve tool.
(8) Task includes scheduling and conducting a pre- construction meeting, attend periodic on site progress meetings, prepare minutes of those meetings,
prepare applications for payments, prepare change orders, and the preparation of as -built drawings.
(8) Includes hours to review shop drawings.
(t 0) Reimbursable expenses include printing, auto allowances, mileage, and survey equipment.
(1 t) All reconstruction work shall be completed prior to July 29, 2011 except for restoration related work
(t 2) Other than preparing the final assessment roll and providing technical backup during the hearing itself, SEH will not provide any other services for
the assessment hearing.
(t 3) As -built drawing requirements concerning labeling, required data, and submittal materials will follow the City of Edina record drawing procedure
dated April 15, 2009.
(14) SEH will provide a project manager for construction administration tasks for 2 hours per week between 3/14/11 and 7/29/11 (20 weeks).
(t 5) Includes hours to gather asbuilt information.
(16) Landscape architect will verify that the concrete mix design has the correct color added to it.
(17) Landscape architect will verify that the concrete stamp pattern for the driveway ends match what is called for in the special provision.
(18) Landscape architect will assist the RPR in collecting the choice of concrete stamp pattern from the property owner for affected driveway ends.
Page 1 of 1
ESTIMATED COST
PROJECT COST SUMMARY
PROVIDE CONSTRUCTION PHASE SERVICES
Subtotal Hours
668
Subtotal Labor Cost
$66,764.94
Subtotal SEH Expenses 10
$7,039.06
Subtotal
$73,804.00
TOTAL COST ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PROPOSAL:
$73,804.00
P4AE1E1EdnaN 1369411GerAIG a nhata[THa Const Phase Coimrbbss]Hows -Costs
NOTES
(t) Includes hours to verify the control used by the City for the topographic survey and/or set new control if needed.
(2) SEH will use the City's format for a Daily Construction Report.
(3) This task assumes that the City will secure material inspection services and make these services available to SEH.
(4) SEH will copy, fold, and provide the mailing labels for the any update newsletters. City staff will insert these updates into envelopes, attach the
mailing label and postage and send the Updates from City Hall.
(5) SEH will provide a RPR for 30 hours per week between 5/16/11 and 7/2/11(7 weeks), 20 hours per week between 7/5/11 and 7/29/11 (4 weeks),
and 15 hours per week between 8/1/11 and 8/26/11 (4 weeks).
(6) For each Application for Payment (AFP) SEH will use its format for tracking monthly quantities per City funding source, the City s format for the
cover sheet of the AFP, and the SEH format for the AFP's subsequent pages.
(7) SEH will prepare up to two (2) resident update newsletters. They will occur after the award of the project and prior to project kick -off. These
updates will be in a .doc format. These updates will suggest residents subscribe to the City Extra list serve tool. If enough residents sign up for the
list serve tool, SEH will only prepare and submit .docx file to the City for the City to distribute to the residents using their list serve tool.
(8) Task includes scheduling and conducting a pre- construction meeting, attend periodic on site progress meetings, prepare minutes of those meetings,
prepare applications for payments, prepare change orders, and the preparation of as -built drawings.
(8) Includes hours to review shop drawings.
(t 0) Reimbursable expenses include printing, auto allowances, mileage, and survey equipment.
(1 t) All reconstruction work shall be completed prior to July 29, 2011 except for restoration related work
(t 2) Other than preparing the final assessment roll and providing technical backup during the hearing itself, SEH will not provide any other services for
the assessment hearing.
(t 3) As -built drawing requirements concerning labeling, required data, and submittal materials will follow the City of Edina record drawing procedure
dated April 15, 2009.
(14) SEH will provide a project manager for construction administration tasks for 2 hours per week between 3/14/11 and 7/29/11 (20 weeks).
(t 5) Includes hours to gather asbuilt information.
(16) Landscape architect will verify that the concrete mix design has the correct color added to it.
(17) Landscape architect will verify that the concrete stamp pattern for the driveway ends match what is called for in the special provision.
(18) Landscape architect will assist the RPR in collecting the choice of concrete stamp pattern from the property owner for affected driveway ends.
Page 1 of 1
viol uki' V
M 0 1, —W--- - %J
1�
\CO 18880
REPORT /RECOMMENDATION
To:
MAYOR AND COUNCIL
Agenda Item # IV. L.
From:
Wayne D. Houle, PE b&FW—
City Engineer
F-1 Action
F1 Discussion
® Information
Date: March 15, 2011
Subject:
Spring Flooding Update
Recommendation:
No recommendation requested.
Info /Background:
Staff has been working for the past four weeks with the two watershed districts that cover
the City of Edina and would like to present what we currently know on the potential
spring flooding in Edina.
ATTACHMENTS:
None
g: \englneering \contract nuMinnesota Complete Streets Coalltlonmbers \2011 \eng 11 -2 ridge road street & utility recon \admin \misc \item iv.k. engineering proposal for
construction phase services for ridge road reconstruction project.docx
R55CKREG LOG20000
CITY OF EDINA
3/1/2011 15:42:01
Council Check Register
Page - 1
3/3/2011 -313/2011
Check #
Date
Amount
Supplier / Explanation
PO # Doc No
Inv No
Account No
Subledger Account Description
Business Unit
344644
31312011
105696" 3CMA
300.00
SAVVY CONTEST ENTRIES
256595
022211.
2210.6104
CONFERENCES.& SCHOOLS
COMMUNICATIONS
300.00
344645
3/312011
100613 AAA
9.00
TABS FOR 26 -189
256935
022511
1553.6260
LICENSES & PERMITS
EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN
9.00
344646
3/3/2011
102971 ACE ICE COMPANY
-
98.30
256703
0915817
5862.5515
COST OF GOODS -SOLD MIX
VERNON SELLING
32.00
256945
0814069
_ 5842.5515
COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX
YORK SELLING
32.00
256946
0814067
5822.5515
COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX
50TH ST SELLING
162.30
344647
3/312011
100614 ACE SUPPLY CO. INC.
'
82.83
FILTERS
00001433 256639
062422
1646.6530
REPAIR PARTS
BUILDING MAINTENANCE
82.83
344648
3/312011
123309 ACTION FLEET INC.
16.03
CUP HOLDERS
256666
7975
1400.6215
EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
POLICE DEPT. GENERAL
16.03
' 344649
31312011
122312 ANDERSEN, IMOGENE
288.00
GIFT SHOP SERVICES
256829
022411
5120.6103
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
ART SUPPLY GIFT GALLERY SHOP
288.00
344650
3/3/2011
106015 ATHLETICA.INC.
168.86
GOAL PADS
00008046 256640
0032529 -IN
5521.6406
GENERAL SUPPLIES
ARENA ICE MAINT
168.66
344651
3/3/2011
102503 BAGS & BOWS
-
35.29
GIFT BOXES
00009163 256809
0090134778
5120.6406
GENERAL SUPPLIES
ART SUPPLY GIFT GALLERY SHOP
35.29
344652
31312011
100643 BARR ENGINEERING CO.
-
916.00
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
257019
23270354.00 -182
5932.6103
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
GENERAL STORM SEWER
145.00
UPDATE WATER RES MGMT
257020
23271072.00 -14
5913.6103
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
DISTRIBUTION
1.061.00
344653
3/312011
102195 BATTERIES PLUS
263.94-
PAID TWICE IN ERROR
256908
018225425
1400.6406
GENERAL SUPPLIES
POLICE DEPT. GENERAL
108.95
BATTERIES
00001447 256909
018 - 227089
1646.6406
GENERAL SUPPLIES
BUILDING MAINTENANCE
R55CKREG LOG20000
YORK SELLING
COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR
YORK SELLING
CITY OF
EDINA
COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX
YORK SELLING
COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR
50TH ST SELLING
Council Check Register
50TH ST SELLING
COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX
50TH ST SELLING
COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR
3/3/2011
-3/3/2011
Check # Date
Amount
Supplier / Explanation PO #
Doc No
Inv No
Account No
YORK SELLING
12.76
BATTERIES 00001446
256910
018- 227038
1646.6406
VERNON SELLING
677.16
BATTERIES 00003523
256911
018 - 227271
1470.6406
534.93
344654 313/2011
100646 BECKER ARENA PRODUCTS INC.
422.16
LACES 00002096
256765
00083183_
5630.6406
422.16
344655 313/2011
101343 BEHR, JASON
40.00
REIMBURSE FOR FUEL
256912
022411
1400.6107
40.00
344656 3/312011
101355 BELLBOY CORPORATION
558.40
256618
57110500
5842.5513
437.10
256619
57108100
5842.5512
266.70
256620
57108200
5862.5512
217.73
256621
84846900
5842.5515
103.50
256947
57203700
5822.5512
113.10
256948
57196200
5822.5513
21.50
256949
57198300
5822.5515
376.05
256950
57203900
5862.5512
60.55
256951
57198500
5862.5513
21.50
256952
57198400
5862.5515
675.35
256953
57204700
5842.5512
905.75
256954
57203800
5842.5512
1,057.33
256955
57204600
5842.5513
54.26
256956
84873800
5842.5515
117.33
256957
6033600
5862.5515
4,986.15
344657 3/3/2011
117379 BENIEK PROPERTY SERVICES INC.
143.74
EXTRA SNOW PLOWING
256810
136846
7411.6136
143.74
344658 31312011
100661 BENN, BRADLEY
112.20
INSTRUCTOR AC
256830
022411
5110.6103
112.20
344659 31312011
100648 BERTELSON OFFICE PRODUCTS
86.44
BINDERS, NOTEPADS
256656
WO- 677632 -1
1550.6406
37.40
FOLDERS
256657
WO- 676065 -1
1550.6406
36.36
OFFICE SUPPLIES
256667
WO- 677713 -1
1400.6513
Subledger Account Description
GENERAL SUPPLIES
GENERAL SUPPLIES
GENERAL SUPPLIES
3/1/2011 15:42:01
Page - 2
Business Unit
BUILDING MAINTENANCE
FIRE DEPT. GENERAL
CENTENNIAL LAKES
MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE POLICE DEPT. GENERAL
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
YORK SELLING
COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR
YORK SELLING
COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR
VERNON SELLING
COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX
YORK SELLING
COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR
50TH ST SELLING
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
50TH ST SELLING
COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX
50TH ST SELLING
COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR
VERNON SELLING
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
VERNON SELLING
COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX
VERNON SELLING
COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR
YORK SELLING
COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR
YORK SELLING
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
YORK SELLING
COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX
YORK SELLING
COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX
VERNON SELLING
SNOW & LAWN CARE PSTF OCCUPANCY
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION
GENERAL SUPPLIES CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL
GENERAL SUPPLIES CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL
OFFICE SUPPLIES POLICE DEPT. GENERAL
CITY OF EDINA
3/1/2011 15:42:01
R55CKREG LOG20000
Council Check Register
Page - 3
31312011
--3/3/2011
Check #
Date
Amount .
Supplier / Explanation
PO # Dom No
Inv No
Account No
Subledger Account, Description
Business Unit
193.07
OFFICE SUPPLIES
256811
0& 249437 -1
7416.6513
OFFICE SUPPLIES
PSTF ADMINISTRATION
387.91
OFFICE SUPPLIES
256812
OE- 249430 -1
7410.6513
OFFICE SUPPLIES
PSTF ADMINISTRATION
69.43
FILE FOLDERS
257021
WO- 660118 -1
1550.6406
GENERAL SUPPLIES
CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL
810.61
344660
31312011
123329 BLOTZ, MOLLY
280.00
INSTRUCTOR AC
256831
022411
5110.6103
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION
280.00
344661
31312011
125268 BLUE COMPACTOR SERVICES
480.24'
COMPACTOR RENTAL
256857
329
4095.6103
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
50TH STREET RUBBISH
480.24
344662
3/3/2011
128300 BOLGER, GAIL
78.86
UTILITY OVERPAYMENT REFUND
256641
5601 ST ANDREWS
5900.2015
CUSTOMER REFUND
UTILITY BALANCE SHEET
78.86
344663
3/3/2011
105367 BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC
652.44
AMBULANCE SUPPLIES
00003519 256913
87225815
1470.6510
FIRST AID SUPPLIES'
FIRE DEPT. GENERAL
652.44
344664
31312011
100659 BOYER TRUCK PARTS
56.22
ALUMINUM
00005660 256766
491920
1553.6530
REPAIR PARTS
EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN
1,841.61
POLY BELT, OIL COOLER
00005694 256767
492694
1553.6530
REPAIR PARTS
EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN
117.31
PANEL, INDICATOR
00005781 256768
492754
1553.6530
REPAIR PARTS
EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN
7.18
HOSE
00005696 256769
493326
1553.6530
REPAIR PARTS
EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN
139.26
COOLANT
00005696 256858
493179
1553.6530
REPAIR PARTS
EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN
2,161.58
344665
313/2011
100664 BRAUN INTERTEC
4,418.00
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
257022
330381
01368.1705.20
CONSULTING DESIGN
BA -368 TRACY AVE M &O
4,418.00
-
344666
31312011
125155 BRAUN; MICHAEL
220.00
ABOUT TOWN PHOTOS `
256596
1050
2210,6123
MAGAZINEINEWSLETTER EXPENSE
COMMUNICATIONS
220.00
344667
31312011
119826 BRYANT GRAPHICS INC.
'
768.37
MARCH_ NEWSLETTER
00008256 256770
24181
1628.6575
PRINTING
SENIOR CITIZENS
768.37
i
344668
31312011
103244 BURTIS, ROBERT
R55CKREG LOG20000
CITY OF EDINA
3/1/2011 15:42:01
Council Check Register
Page - 4
3/3/2011
-3/3/2011
Check #
Date
Amount
Supplier / Explanation PO #
Doc No
Inv No
Account No
Subledger Account Description
Business Unit
150.00
EP ENTERTAINMENT 3/10/11
256901
022511
5621.6136
PROFESSIONAL SVC - OTHER
EDINBOROUGH ADMINISTRATION
150.00
344669
3/312011
102149 CALLAWAY GOLF
119.96
GOLF CLUB
256859
922200744
5440.5511
COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP
PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES
119.96
344670
31312011
102046 CAMPE, HARRIET
96.00
POTTERY MAINTENANCE
256832
022411
5112.6103
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
ART CENTER POTTERY
240.00
INSTRUCTOR AC
256832
022411
5110.6103
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION
336.00
344671
3/3/2011
120541 CANNON RIVER WINERY
126.00
256622
3399
5842.5513
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
YORK SELLING
126.00
344672
3/3/2011
119455 CAPITOL BEVERAGE SALES
3,494.10
256677
15014
5842.5514
COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER
YORK SELLING
71.00
256678
15015
5842.5515
COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX
YORK SELLING
56.80
256958
15077
5822.5514
COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER
50TH ST SELLING
45.60
256959
15078
5822.5515
COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX
50TH ST SELLING
3,667.50
344673
313/2011
116683 CAT & FIDDLE BEVERAGE
1,118.00
256679
89257
5842.5513
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
YORK SELLING
288.00
256704
89259
5862.5513
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
VERNON SELLING
320.00
256705
89258
5822.5513
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
50TH ST SELLING
1,726.00
344674
3/3/2011
100681 CATCO
240.78
EQUIPMENT REPAIRS 00005750 256771
1 -79896
1553.6180
CONTRACTED REPAIRS
EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN
240.78
344675
31312011
112561 CENTERPOINT ENERGY
4,532.41
8034001 -1
256656
8034001 -2/11
1552.6186
HEAT
CENT SVC PW BUILDING
42.77
5584310 -6
256813
5584310 -2/11
7413.6186
HEAT
PSTF FIRE TOWER
2,017.91
5584304 -9
256814
5584304 -2/11
7411.6186
HEAT
PSTF OCCUPANCY
214.00
5596524 -8
256860
5596524 -2/11
5430.6186
HEAT
RICHARDS GOLF COURSE
3,373.46
5546504 -1
256861
5546504 -2/11
1470.6186
HEAT
FIRE DEPT. GENERAL
7,114.83
5591458 -4
256862
5591458 -2/11
1551.6186
HEAT
CITY HALL GENERAL
17,295.38
R55CKREG LOG20000
3/3/2011
101119 COCKRIEL, VINCE
CITY OF EDINA
3/1/2011 15:42:01
40.80
. MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT
256863
Council Check Register
1600.6107
Page - 5
i
40.80
313/2011
—3/3/2011
3/3/2011
Check #
Date
Amount
Supplier / Explanation PO.#
Doc No
Inv No
Account No
Subledger Account Description
Business Unit
344676
3/312011
116353 CHIPPEWA GRAPHICS INC
373,865.09
344684
31312011
374.74
6X9 BOOKLET ENVELOPES,
256642
29574
1550.6406
GENERAL SUPPLIES
CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL
54.66
SAFETY GLASSES 00005742
374.74
03856594
1646.6610
85.45
SAFETY GLASSES 00005742
344677
313/2011
1301.6610
119725 CHISAGO LAKES DISTRIBUTING CO
140.11
344685
569.90
256680
439360
5842.5514
COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER
YORK SELLING
151.35
569.90
256615
R200368775
5120.5510
151.35
344678
3/312011
122084 CITY OF EDINA - UTILITIES
344686
313/2011
100697 COOL AIR MECHANICAL INC.
48.95
00077443 - 0332300004
256643
332300004 -2/11
1646.6189
SEWER & WATER
BUILDING MAINTENANCE
48.95
344679
31312011
100689 CLAREYS SAFETY EQUIP.
112.82
BRACKETS, STRAPS 00003521
256914
137587
1470.6530
REPAIR PARTS
FIRE DEPT. GENERAL
112.82
344680
31312011
116304 CLAY, DON
376.13
MEDIA INSTRUCTION
256833
022411
5125.6103
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
MEDIA STUDIO
376.13
344681
313120,11
100692 COCA- COLA.BOTTLING CO.
344682
3/3/2011
101119 COCKRIEL, VINCE
40.80
. MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT
256863
021811
1600.6107
40.80
344683
3/3/2011
101395 COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORTATION
373,865.09
169/494 PROJECT
256936
T7921300053148
01365.1705.30
373,865.09
344684
31312011
101323, CONNEY SAFETY PRODUCTS
54.66
SAFETY GLASSES 00005742
256772
03856594
1646.6610
85.45
SAFETY GLASSES 00005742
256772
03856594
1301.6610
140.11
344685
3/3/2011
100695 CONTINENTAL CLAY CO.
151.35
CLAY 00009017
256615
R200368775
5120.5510
151.35
344686
313/2011
100697 COOL AIR MECHANICAL INC.
COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX
MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE
CONTRACTOR PAYMENTS
SAFETY EQUIPMENT
SAFETY EQUIPMENT
COST OF GOODS SOLD
YORK SELLING
PARK ADMIN. GENERAL
BA -365 TH169 8 494 RECON
BUILDING MAINTENANCE
GENERAL MAINTENANCE
ART SUPPLY GIFT GALLERY SHOP
R55CKREG LOG20000
CITY OF EDINA
3/1/2011 15:42:01
Council Check
Register
Page - 6
3/3/2011
-3/3/2011
Check #
Date
Amount
Supplier / Explanation
PO # Doc No
Inv No
Account No
Subledger Account Description
Business Unit
3,888.12
DEHUMID REPAIR
00008062 256644
73490
5521.6180
CONTRACTED REPAIRS
ARENA ICE MAINT
3,888.12
344687
313/2011
124910 COURSE TRENDS INC.
100.00
EMAIL MARKETING
00006200 256864
172317
5410.6122
ADVERTISING OTHER
GOLF ADMINISTRATION
100.00
344688
3/3/2011
100370 CRAGUN'S RESORT
519.74
CONFERENCE LODGING
256915
022411
1400.6104
CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS
POLICE DEPT. GENERAL
519.74
344689
3/3/2011
102514 CUTTER & BUCK
481.04
GOLF SHIRTS
256865
91722891
5440.5511
COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP
PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES
481.04
344690
3/3/2011
102791 D2 SERVICES INC.
5,184.20
SCADA PROGRAMMING
00005430 256866
10009
05508.1705
CONSTR. IN PROGRESS
WM -508 SCADA SYSTEM
5,184.20
344691
31312011
104020 DALCO
497.93
CLEANERS, TISSUE, LINERS
00009020 256816
2299107
5111.6511
CLEANING SUPPLIES
ART CENTER BLDG / MAINT
247.04
TOWELS
00009020 256817
2301505
5111.6511
CLEANING SUPPLIES
ART CENTER BLDG/MAINT
445.67
MATS
00006330 256867
2303163
5421.6406
GENERAL SUPPLIES
GRILL
1,190.64
344692
31312011
102478 DAY DISTRIBUTING CO.
44.80
256682
589447
5842.5515
COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX
YORK SELLING
1,596.10
256683
589446
5842.5514
COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER
YORK SELLING
2,835.70
256706
589444
5862.5514
COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER
VERNON SELLING
143.95
256707
589507
5862.5514
COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER
VERNON SELLING
493.60
256708
589445
5822.5514
COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER
50TH ST SELLING
5,114.15
344693
3/312011
100718 DELEGARD TOOL CO.
131.48
DOOR PAD / PANEL TOOL
00005674 256773
554911
1553.6556
TOOLS
EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN
5.03
SOCKET
00005665 256774
555315
1553.6556
TOOLS
EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN
50.80
PUNCH / CHISEL SET
00005661 256775
558344
1553.6556
TOOLS
EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN
187.31
344694
31312011
103436 DENECKE, A. LEILA
342.00
INSTRUCTOR AC
256834
022411
5110.6103
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION
342.00
r.
R55CKREG LOG20000
CITY OF EDINA
3/1/2011 15:42:01
Council Check Register
Page.- 7
_
3/3/2011' —3/3/2011
Check #
Date
Amount
Supplier /Explanation, PO #
Doc No.
. Inv No
Account No
Subledger :Account Description
Business Unit
344695
3/3/2011
102831 DEX MEDIA EAST INC.
139.40
256645
650487671 -2111
5511.6188
TELEPHONE
ARENA BLDG /GROUNDS
139.40
344696
313/2011
123995 DICK'SILAKEVILLE SANITATION IN
3,383.85
REFUSE
256818
1208245
4095.6103
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
50TH STREET RUBBISH
l
3,383.85
344697
31312011
128299 DIEDRICH, PAMELA
60.00
WINTER PARTY PHOTOS
256597
153
2210.6123
MAGAZINE/NEWSLETTER EXPENSE
'COMMUNICATIONS
60.00
344698
31312011
125188 EDINA ART CENTER
81.25
ART SUPPLIES FOR ADAPTIVE REC
256905
022511
1629.6406
GENERAL SUPPLIES
ADAPTIVE RECREATION
81.25
344699
31312011
106340 EDINA CAR WASH
210.26
JAN 2011 CAR WASHES
256668
4528
1553.6238
CAR WASH
EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN
210.26
344700
3/3/2011
100744 EDINA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
25.00
CHAMBER MTG - MARTY DOLL
256661
29637
2210.6106
MEETING EXPENSE
COMMUNICATIONS
25.00
344701
3/3/2011
100744 EDINA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
400.00
MEMBERSHIP DUES
256868
29215
5820.6105
DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS
50TH STREET GENERAL
400.00
MEMBERSHIP DUES
256868.
29215
5840.6105
DUES,& SUBSCRIPTIONS
LIQUOR YORK GENERAL
400.00
MEMBERSHIP DUES
256668
29215
5860.6105
DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS
VERNON LIQUOR GENERAL
1,200.00
344702
3/3/2011
101731 EDINA SWIM CLUB
40.00
EDINBOROUGH PARK AD
256916
EDINA SWIM CLUB
5621.6122
ADVERTISING OTHER -
EDINBOROUGH ADMINISTRATION
40.00
• 344703
31312011
117375 ESRI
3,000.00
ARC INFO MAINTENANCE 00001380
256937
.92295165
5910.6103
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
GENERAL (BILLING)
3,990.93
ARC VIEW MAINTENANCE 00001380
256937
92295165
1554.6160
DATA PROCESSING
CENT SERV GEN - MIS
6,990.93 .
344704
3/312011
100158 EXPLORE MINNESOTA GOLF ALLIANC
r.
1,900.00
EMGA DUES 00006230
256869
2011
5410.6105
DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS
GOLF ADMINISTRATION
R55CKREG LOG20000
CITY OF EDINA
3/112011 15:42:01
Council Check Register
Page - 8
3/3/2011
- 313/2011
Check #
Date
Amount
Supplier / Explanation
PO # Doc No
Inv No
Account No
Subledger Account Description
Business Unit
1,900.00
344705
3/312011
104195 EXTREME BEVERAGE LLC.
335.00
256709
W- 325169
5862.5515
COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX
VERNON SELLING
335.00
344706
313/2011
106035 FASTENAL COMPANY
25.13
FASTENERS
00002094 256776
MNTC2104915
5630.6406
GENERAL SUPPLIES
CENTENNIAL LAKES
10.53
T -ROD
00005753 256938
MNTC2105047
1553.6530
REPAIR PARTS
EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN
35.66
344707
31312011
105420 FIKES SERVICES
41.25
AIR DEODORIZERS
256675
14877
5841.6162
SERVICES CUSTODIANS
YORK OCCUPANCY
41.25
344708
31312011
116492 FINANCE AND COMMERCE
208.03
PUBLISH AD FOR BID
256870
22267963
1120.6120
ADVERTISING LEGAL
ADMINISTRATION
215.42
PUBLISH AD FOR BID
256871
22269847
1120.6120
ADVERTISING LEGAL
ADMINISTRATION
423.45
344709
3/3/2011
120831 FIRST SCRIBE INC.
425.00
ROWAY
256598
21154
1260.6103
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
ENGINEERING GENERAL
425.00
344710
31312011
128313 FJELLANGER, STUART
168.00
INSTRUCTOR AC
256835
022411
5110.6103
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION
168.00
344711
3/3/2011
101475 FOOTJOY
368.93
GOLF SHOES
256872
3568599
5440.5511
COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP
PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES
127.50
GOLF SHOES
256873
3570519
5440.5511
COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP
PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES
496.43
344712
3/3/2011
102727 FORCE AMERICA
18.96
CONNECTOR
00005658 256599
01358163
1553.6530
REPAIR PARTS
EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN
184.51
CIRCUIT TESTER
00005658 256777
01358254
1553.6530
REPAIR PARTS
EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN
203.47
344713
3/3/2011
106351 FOSTER, REBECCA
171.36
MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT
256778
022411
1260.6107
MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE
ENGINEERING GENERAL
171.36
344722 3/3/2011 123946 GREENE, VANESSA ,
84.00 INSTRUCTOR AC 256840 022411
84.00
- 344723 313/2011 121379 GRIMES,-JUDITH
1,867.50 INSTRUCTOR AC 256.841 022411
1,887.50
5110.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
5110.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION
ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION
CITY OF EDINA
3/1/2011 15:42:01
R55CKREG LOG20000
Council Check Register
Page - 9
3/312011
- 3/3/2011
Check #
Date
Amount
Supplier I Explanation
PO # Doc No
Inv No
Account No
Subledger Account Description
Business Unit
344714
3/3/2011
105158 FRANKLIN, ELIZABETH
240.00
INSTRUCTOR AC
256836
022411
5110.6103
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION
240.00
344715
31312011
103039 FREY, MICHAEL
1,575.00
INSTRUCTOR AC
256837
022411
5110.6103
.'PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION
1,575.00
344716
313/2011
101867 GETSINGER;DONNA
171.00
INSTRUCTOR AC
256838
022411
5110.6103
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION
171.00
344717
313/2011
104652 GILLIS, LOUISE
j:
480.00
INSTRUCTOR AC
256839
022411
5110.6103
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION
-
480.00
344718
31312011
101178 GOPHER
271.14
BALLS FOR GREAT HALL
256874
8266880
5620.6406
GENERAL SUPPLIES
EDINBOROUGH PARK
271.14
344719
31312011
100781 GRAFIX SHOPPE
25.75
CUSTOM LICENSE PLATE
00003008 256669
73513 -
1400.6406
GENERAL SUPPLIES
POLICE DEPT. GENERAL
25.75
• 344720
31312011
101103. GRAINGER
11.35
MARKERS
00005746 256778
9466167278
1301.6406
GENERAL SUPPLIES
GENERAL MAINTENANCE
39.00
MARKERS
00005746 256779
9466167278
1553.6406
GENERAL SUPPLIES
EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN
50.35
344721
3/3/2011
102217 -GRAPE BEGINNINGS INC
98.25
256681
127152
5842.5513
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
YORK SELLING
•
98.25
256710
127210
5862.5513
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
VERNON SELLING
595.25
256711
127209
5822.5513
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
50TH ST SELLING
344722 3/3/2011 123946 GREENE, VANESSA ,
84.00 INSTRUCTOR AC 256840 022411
84.00
- 344723 313/2011 121379 GRIMES,-JUDITH
1,867.50 INSTRUCTOR AC 256.841 022411
1,887.50
5110.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
5110.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION
ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION
R55CKREG LOG20000
CITY OF EDINA
3/1/2011 15:42:01
Council Check Register
Page - 10
3/3/2011
- 3/3/2011
Check #
Date
Amount
Supplier / Explanation PO #
Doc No
Inv No
Account No
Subledger Account Description
Business Unit
344724
313/2011
101255 HASLER INC.
144.82
POSTAGE METER RENTAL
256600
13816888
1550.6235
POSTAGE
CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL
144.82
344725
3/3/2011
115377 HENRICKSEN PSG
270.76
BOOKCASE
256659
465987
44005.6710
EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT
CITY HALL BLDG IMPROVEMENTS
270.76
344726
313/2011
116680 HEWLETT - PACKARD COMPANY
8,797.95
PRINTER REPLACEMENTS 2011 00004302 256646
48978312
1554.6710
EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT
CENT SERV GEN - MIS
164.59
LCD MONITOR & SPEAKER 00004303 256875
48993165
1400.6160
DATA PROCESSING
POLICE DEPT. GENERAL
8,962.54
344727
31312011
128301 HOBBS, STEVE
75.00
SEWER CLEANING
256660
022311
5920.6180
CONTRACTED REPAIRS
SEWER CLEANING
75.00
344728
31312011
104375 HOHENSTEINS INC.
755.00
256684
550723
5842.5514
COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER
YORK SELLING
176.50
256712
550758
5862.5514
COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER
VERNON SELLING
931.50
344729
3/312011
100267 HOPKINS WESTWIND BAND
100.00
EP ENTERTAINMENT 3/13/11
256902
022511
5621.6136
PROFESSIONAL SVC - OTHER
EDINBOROUGH ADMINISTRATION
100.00
344730
3/3/2011
101697 HORIZON GRAPHICS INC
368.83
MORNINGSIDE BUNGALOW BULLETIN
256780
30461
1140.6575
PRINTING
PLANNING
204.02
ADVENTURE EXTRAS INSERTS
256876
30460
5621.6575
PRINTING
EDINBOROUGH ADMINISTRATION
572.85
344731
31312011
101714 IDENTISYS INC.
1,864.00
DATA CARD SERVICE CONTRACT
256877
98236
5310.6103
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
POOL ADMINISTRATION
1,864.00
344732
31312011
119808 INTEGRA TELECOM
296.14
PHONE / INTERNET
256819
7959142
7411.6188
TELEPHONE
PSTF OCCUPANCY
296.14
344733
3/312011
104157 INTERNATIONAL CODE COUNCIL INC
184.54
CODE BOOKS & MATERIALS
257017
1271000 -IN
1495.6405
BOOKS & PAMPHLETS
INSPECTIONS
CITY OF EDINA
311/2011 15:42:01
R55CKREG LOG20000
Council Check Register
Page - 11
3/3/2011
- 313/2011
Check # Date
-
Amount
Supplier / Explanation-. ;. PO #
-
Doc No
Inv No
Account No
Subledger. Account Description
Business Unit
184.54
344734 3/312011
118275 J.P. COOKE CO., THE
82.65
DATE STAMP
256601
108843
1260.6406
GENERAL SUPPLIES
ENGINEERING GENERAL
82.65
344735 31312011
100202- JAMAR TECHNOLOGIES INC.
83.63
MASTIC TAPE, POLY TAPE 00001380
256602
02958
1260.6406
GENERAL SUPPLIES
ENGINEERING GENERAL
83.63
344736 3/312011
101400 JAMES, WILLIAM F
100.00
POLICE SERVICE
256603
030111
1419.6102
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
RESERVE PROGRAM
100.00
344737 3/312011
100741 JJ TAYLOR DIST. OF MINN
51355.27
256713
1481251
5862.5514
COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER
VERNON SELLING
60.55
256714
1481262
5842.5515
COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX
YORK SELLING
3,780.62
256715
1481261
5842.5514
COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER
YORK SELLING
21.50
256961
1481253
5822.5515
COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX
50TH ST SELLING
1,882.42
256962
1481252
5822.5514
COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER
50TH ST SELLING
11,100.36
344739 3/312011
100835 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO.
.28
256623
1002876
5862.5512
COST OF GOODS.SOLD LIQUOR
VERNON SELLING
1.12
256716
1006030
5862.5515
COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX
VERNON SELLING
391.98
256717
1006026
5862.5512
COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR
VERNON SELLING
274.48
256718
1006028
5862.5512
COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR
VERNON SELLING
802.05
256719
1006027
5862.5513
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
VERNON SELLING
156.56
256720
1006013
5862.5513
COST OF GOODS'SOLD WINE
VERNON SELLING
1,344.58
256721
1006025
5862.5513
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
VERNON SELLING
1,637.96
256722
1006031
5862.5513
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE -.
VERNON.SELLING
445.88
256723
1002877
5862.5513
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
VERNON SELLING
18.92-
256724
488371
5862.5512
COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR
VERNON SELLING
42.71-
256725
488130
5862.5513
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
VERNON SELLING
56.29-
256726
483076
5842.5513
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
YORK SELLING
499.24
256963
1006015.
5822.5513
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
50TH ST SELLING
-
526.29
256964
1006011
5822.5513
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
50TH ST SELLING
1,453.66
256965
1006009
5822.5513
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
50TH ST SELLING
475.48
256966
1006010
5822.5512
COST- OF.GOODS SOLD LIQUOR
50TH ST SELLING
182.75
256967
1006012
5822.5512
COST OF -GOODS SOLD LIQUOR
50TH ST SELLING
901.85
256968
1006014
5822.5512
COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR
50TH ST SELLING
5,105.41
256969
1006029
5862.5512
COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR -
VERNON SELLING
R55CKREG LOG20000
Check # Date
Amount
Supplier / Explanation
3/1/2011 15:42:01
1.549.39
Council Check
Register
567.84
Page - 12
1,455.81
-3/3/2011
273.02
PO # Doc No
Inv No
3,034.04
Subledger Account Description
Business Unit
1,793.44
1006017
5842.5513
220.64
YORK SELLING
256971
10,843.53
5842.5513
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
1.12
256972
1006022
33,820.48
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
344740 3/312011
256973
102719 JOHNSON, PHILLIP
5842.5513
64.35
COMPUTER SUPPLIES
256974
64.35
5842.5513
344741 3/3/2011
YORK SELLING
102341 JOHNSON, RICHARD W.
1006023
160.00
MEDIA INSTRUCTION
YORK SELLING
160.00
1006018
344742 3/312011
COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR
102603 JONAS, LENORE
256977
344.25
INSTRUCTOR AC
COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR
344.25
256978
344743 3/3/2011
5842.5515
122239 KANDIKO, GEORGIA
YORK SELLING
75.00
INSTRUCTOR AC
5125.6406
75.00
MEDIA STUDIO
344744 3/312011
022411
100198 KIRCHMAN, STEVE A.
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
63.24
MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT
022411
63.24
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
344745 31312011
256844
101340 KOCHENASH, RICK
5110.6103
450.00
INSTRUCTOR AC
256604
450.00
1495.6107
344746 31312011
INSPECTIONS
101502 KONTERS, VIKTORS
022411
123.59
UNIFORM PURCHASE
ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION
123.59
021711
344747 3/312011
UNIFORM ALLOWANCE
121510 KRESOYA, BRUCE
256939
68.92
UNIFORM PURCHASE
LAUNDRY
68.92
CITY OF EDINA
3/1/2011 15:42:01
Council Check
Register
Page - 12
3/3/2011
-3/3/2011
PO # Doc No
Inv No
Account No
Subledger Account Description
Business Unit
256970
1006017
5842.5513
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
YORK SELLING
256971
1006020
5842.5513
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
YORK SELLING
256972
1006022
5842.5513
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
YORK SELLING
256973
1006016
5842.5513
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
YORK SELLING
256974
1006024
5842.5513
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
YORK SELLING
256975
1006023
5842.5512
COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR
YORK SELLING
256976
1006018
5842.5512
COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR
YORK SELLING
256977
1006019
5842.5512
COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR
YORK SELLING
256978
1006021
5842.5515
COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX
YORK SELLING
256820
022211
5125.6406
GENERAL SUPPLIES
MEDIA STUDIO
256842
022411
5125.6103
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
MEDIA STUDIO
256843
022411
5110.6103
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION
256844
022411
5110.6103
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION
256604
022211
1495.6107
MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE
INSPECTIONS
256845
022411
5110.6103
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION
256671
021711
1400.6203
UNIFORM ALLOWANCE
POLICE DEPT. GENERAL
256939
022811
1301.6201
LAUNDRY
GENERAL MAINTENANCE
3/112011 15:42:01
Page - 13
- Business Unit -
ENGINEERING GENERAL
LS41 LIFT STATION 2 REHAB
SKATING &HOCKEY
EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN
EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN
EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN
EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN
POLICE DEPT. GENERAL
PSTF OCCUPANCY
PSTF ADMINISTRATION
PSTF ADMINISTRATION
PUBLIC PROGRAMS
50TH ST SELLING
YORK SELLING
EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN
EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN
CITY OF EDINA
R55CKREG' LOG20000
Council Check
Register
' -
3/312011
-3/3/2011
Check #
Date
Amount
Supplier /Explanation . PO # Doc No
Inv No
Account No
Subledger. Account Description
344748
313/2011
121707- KUZNIA', AARON
120.00
UNIFORM PURCHASE
256781
022511
1260.6406
GENERAL SUPPLIES
120.00
_ 344749
3/312011
113676 LAMETTI & SONS,INC_ .
19,973.58
PARTIAL PAYMENT NO. 3
257023
030411
10041.1705.30
CONTRACTOR PAYMENTS
19,973.58
344750
3/312011
128325 LANG, LISA
241.22
MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT
256917
021011
1622.6107
MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE
241.22
344751
313/2011
100852 LAWSON PRODUCTS INC.
607.52.
COPPER PLATES, AIR NIPPLES
00005737 256605
0160760
1553.6530
REPAIR PARTS
124.49
CUT KIT
00005688 256782
0178919
1553.6530
REPAIR PARTS
713.05
FITTINGS, HOSE ENDS
00005689 256878
0183512
1553.6530
REPAIR PARTS
1,445.06
344752
3/3/2011
100857 LITTLE FALLS MACHINE INC.
1fi
1,743.39
CLEVISES, HYDRAULIC CYLINDER
00005675 256783
00046494
1553.6530
REPAIR PARTS
1,743.39
344753
313/2011
101453 LUTZ, RICHARD M.
317.17
UNIFORM PURCHASE
256672
021411
1400.6203
UNIFORM ALLOWANCE
317.17
344754
31312011
122472 M & I BANK
37.84
TRAINING FACILITY SUPPLIES
256821
021411
7411.6406
GENERAL SUPPLIES
79.00
TRAINING FACILITY SUPPLIES
256821
021411
7410.6406
GENERAL SUPPLIES
150.00
TRAINING FACILITY SUPPLIES
256821
021411
7410.6218
EDUCATION PROGRAMS
321.53
TRAINING FACILITY SUPPLIES
256821
021411
7414.6406
GENERAL SUPPLIES
588.37
344755
3/312011
112677 M. AMUNDSON LLP
761.85
256624
103750
5822.5515
COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX
,.
1,452.47
256979
103967
5842.5515
COST OF GOODS: SOLD MIX
2,214.32
344756
31312011
100864 MACQUEEN EQUIP INC.
103.34
DIRT SHOE RUNNERS, HOSE
00005565 256606
2111366
1553.6530
REPAIR PARTS
401.71
BUSHINGS
00001343 256784
2111499
1553.6530
REPAIR PARTS
3/112011 15:42:01
Page - 13
- Business Unit -
ENGINEERING GENERAL
LS41 LIFT STATION 2 REHAB
SKATING &HOCKEY
EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN
EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN
EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN
EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN
POLICE DEPT. GENERAL
PSTF OCCUPANCY
PSTF ADMINISTRATION
PSTF ADMINISTRATION
PUBLIC PROGRAMS
50TH ST SELLING
YORK SELLING
EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN
EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN
R55CKREG LOG20000
CITY OF EDINA
3/1/2011 15:42:01
Council Check Register
Page - 14
313/2011
— 3/3/2011
Check #
Date
Amount
Supplier / Explanation
PO # Doc No
Inv No
Account No
Subledger Account Description
Business Unit
505.05
344757
31312011
105677 MAGC
180.00
NORTH LIGHTS CONTEST ENTRIES 256607
022211
2210.6104
CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS
COMMUNICATIONS
180.00
344758
3/312011
122878 MARTTI, DOROTHEA
425.00
HOSTING FEE
256918
154
2210.6103
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
COMMUNICATIONS
425.00
344759
31312011
100875 MCCAREN DESIGNS INC.
1,047.38
PLANTS
00002260 256879
50757
5620.6620
TREES, FLOWERS, SHRUBS
EDINBOROUGH PARK
1,047.38
344760
31312011
117181 MCLEOD COUNTY
500.00
OUT OF COUNTY WARRANT
256919
022511
1000.2055
DUE TO OTHER GOVERNMENTS
GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET
500.00
344761
3/312011
128322 MCVEETY, VAL
65.00
CLASS REFUND
256906
022211
5101.4607
CLASS REGISTRATION
ART CENTER REVENUES
65.00
344762
3/3/2011
105603 MEDICINE LAKE TOURS
328.75
ADDITIONS TO KING TUT TRIP
256785
021811
1628.6103.07
TRIPS PROF SERVICES
SENIOR CITIZENS
328.75
344763
313/2011
103720 MEDTECH
2,035.40
WRISTBANDS
00002256 256880
IN000338327
5621.6406
GENERAL SUPPLIES
EDINBOROUGH ADMINISTRATION
2,035.40
344764
3/312011
101483 MENARDS
141.58
LUMBER, BATTERIES
00002095 256786
29699
5630.6406
GENERAL SUPPLIES
CENTENNIAL LAKES
139.48
LUMBER, SCREWS
00001210 256881
27328
1301.6406
GENERAL SUPPLIES
GENERAL MAINTENANCE
207.21
LUMBER, SCREWS
00001449 256882
29339
1343.6406
GENERAL SUPPLIES
BRIDGES GUARD RAILS
141.65
GLOVES, PAINT, BATTERIES
00001474 256883
30081
5913.6406
GENERAL SUPPLIES
DISTRIBUTION
629.92
344765
313/2011
101987 MENARDS
96.51
CABLE TIES, FOAM, ROPE
256884
66616
5620.6406
GENERAL SUPPLIES
EDINBOROUGH PARK
96.51
344766
31312011
102602 METRO CASH REGISTER SYSTEMS
CITY OF EDINA
3/1/2011 15:42:01
R55CKREG LOG20000
Council Check Register
Page - 15
3/3/2011 —313/2011
'•. _ Check #
Date
Amount
Supplier /Explanation PO # Doc No
Inv No
Account No
Subledger Account Description
Business Unit
853.93
CASH REGISTER 00008059 256647
70570
5511.6406
GENERAL SUPPLIES
ARENA BLDG/GROUNDS
853.93
- 344767
31312011
104049 METRO FIRE
`
2,283.23
- STABILIZATION KIT ',"00003516 256920
40280
1470.6406
GENERAL SUPPLIES
FIRE DEPT. GENERAL
2,283.23
344768
31312011
104650 MICRO CENTER
•
13.88
COMPUTER SUPPLIES 00009012 256822
3153618
5125.6406
GENERAL SUPPLIES
MEDIA STUDIO
304.52
COMPUTER SUPPLIES 00009012 256823
- 3153614
5125.6406
GENERAL SUPPLIES
MEDIA STUDIO
195.55
IT SUPPLIES 00004405 257016
3136569
1554.6406
GENERAL SUPPLIES
CENT SERV GEN.- MIS
513.95
344769
3/3/2011
125297 MILLS- NOVOA, NICOLE
68.00.
INSTRUCTOR AC 256846
022411
5110.6103
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION
292.00
MEDIA INSTRUCTION 256846
022411
5120.6103
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
ART SUPPLY GIFT GALLERY SHOP-
666.23
SUPPLIES REIMBURSMENT 256846
022411
5110.6564
CRAFT SUPPLIES
ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION
1,026.23
344770
31312011
100885 MILWAUKEE ELECTRIC TOOL CORPOR
507.18
BATTERIES, TOOL REPAIR 00005740 256787
12059052
1553.6556
TOOLS:
EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN
507.18
344771
31312011
102007 MINNCOR INDUSTRIES
4,056.98
BUILD PARK BENCHES 00001995 256788
180922
1647.6103
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
PATHS & HARD SURFACE
4,056.98
344772
313/2011
100913 MINNEAPOLIS & SUBURBAN SEWER &
1,102.50
STAND, PIPE, REPLACEMENT 00001481 256789
33784
5913.6180
CONTRACTED REPAIRS
DISTRIBUTION
-
1,102.50
344773
3/3/2011 '
101638.. MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
-
22,072.00
CONNECTION FEE 256608
01270011
5915.6136
PROFESSIONAL SVC - OTHER
WATER TREATMENT
22,072.00
i.` 344774
3/3/2011
101459 MINNESOTA RECREATION & PARK AS
415.00
PLAYGROUNDSAFETYCERTIFICATM M01391 256648
DAVID WEIERKE
1647.6104
CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS
PATHS & HARD SURFACE
590.00
PLAYGROUND SAFETY COURSE 256921
RICHARD JOHNS
5620.6104
CONFERENCES•& SCHOOLS
EDINBOROUGH PARK
1,005.00
344776
31312011
102812 • MN DEPARTMENT OF. LABOR'& INDUS
104.00
PERMITS FOR PW BLDG 256609
022211
1552.6406
GENERAL SUPPLIES
CENT SVC PW BUILDING
R55CKREG LOG20000
300.00
CITY OF EDINA
BRUCE DEHN
5919.6104
CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS
TRAINING
Council Check Register
300.00
3/3/2011 -3/3/2011
Check # Date
Amount
Supplier I Explanation PO # Doc No
Inv No Account No
Subledger Account Description
104.00
344776 313/2011
112.61
121491 MORRIE'S PARTS & SERVICE GROUP
00218500 SNV
1470.6406
GENERAL SUPPLIES
235.80
WHEEL ASSEMBLY 00005780 256790
489704F6W 1553.6530
REPAIR PARTS
100.13
LAMP ASSEMBLY 00005782 256791
489783F6W 1553.6530
REPAIR PARTS
344779
335.93
127547 NEAL, SCOTT H.
344777 3/3/2011
101796 MPCA
3/1/2011 15:42:01
Page - 16
Business Unit
EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN
EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN
300.00
WASTEWATER OPERATOR TRAININ31001479 256662
BRUCE DEHN
5919.6104
CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS
TRAINING
300.00
344778
3/3/2011
101390 MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES 1
112.61
ADAPTERS 00003522 256922
00218500 SNV
1470.6406
GENERAL SUPPLIES
FIRE DEPT. GENERAL
112.61
344779
31312011
127547 NEAL, SCOTT H.
82.46
MEETING EXPENSES 256923
022511
1120.6106
MEETING EXPENSE
ADMINISTRATION
82.46
344780
3/312011
100076 NEW FRANCE WINE CO.
547.50
256685
64761
5842.5513
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
YORK SELLING
547.50
344781
313/2011
116616 NORTH IMAGE APPAREL INC.
256.90
UNIFORMS 00005604 256792
NIA4946A
1551.6406
GENERAL SUPPLIES
CITY HALL GENERAL
16.00
UNIFORM SHIRT 00005604 256885
NIA4866E
1646.6201
LAUNDRY
BUILDING MAINTENANCE
272.90
344782
3/3/2011
101620 NORTH SECOND STREET STEEL SUPP
423.63
STEEL 00005561 256793
196535
1553.6530
REPAIR PARTS
EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN
423.63
344783
3/3/2011
104232 NORTHERN SAFETY TECHNOLOGY INC
21.25
FLASHERS 00005748 256794
26761
1553.6530
REPAIR PARTS
EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN
21.25
344784
31312011
116114 OCE
53.94
JAN 2011 MAINTENANCE 256610
987360893
1552.6103
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
CENT SVC PW BUILDING
115.94
FEB 2011 MAINTENANCE 257018
987372603
1495.6103
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
INSPECTIONS
169.88
344785
31312011
100729 ODLAND, DOROTHY
CITY OF EDINA
3/1/2011 15:42:01
R55CKREG LOG20000
I
i
Council Check Register
Page - 17
-
I
-
3/3/2011
-3/3/2011
Check #
Date
Amount
Supplier/ Explanation ... PO # .
Doc No .,
Inv No
Account No
Subledger Accounl,Description
Business Unit
431.00
INSTRUCTOR AC "
256847
022411 --
5110.6103
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION
431.00
. 1 344786
31312011
103578 OFFICE DEPOT
7.60
PAPER
256886
1312514359
5410.6513
OFFICE SUPPLIES
GOLF ADMINISTRATION
'
7.60
344787
3/3/2011
120855 ` OLSON; VICKI.
20.00
NORTHSTAR PAYROLL MEETING
256890
022511
1160.6106
MEETING EXPENSE
FINANCE
20.00
344788
31312011
115669 ON CALL SERVICES
3,616.60
ADVENTURE PEAK NETTING
256887
2142
5620.6530
REPAIR PARTS
EDINBOROUGH PARK
150.00
POLE INSTALLATION
256888
2145
5620.6180
CONTRACTED REPAIRS-
EDINBOROUGH PARK
2,911.51
INDOOR PLAY DECKS, PADS
256889
2146
5620.6530
REPAIR PARTS
EDINBOROUGH PARK
6,678.11
344789
31312011
101659 ORKIN PEST CONTROL
119.40
PEST CONTROL -"
256663
62620385
1551.6180
CONTRACTED REPAIRS
CITY HALL GENERAL
119.40
344790
31312011
100939 OTIS SPUNKMEYER INC.
130.64
COOKIES
256891
80413462
5421.5510
COST OF GOODS SOLD
GRILL
130.64
344791
3/312011
128320 PADOVESE, ANNIE
50.00
CONCESSIONS 2/11
256899
022411
5631.6230
SERVICE CONTRACTS EQUIPMENT
CENTENNIAL ADMINISTRATION
50.00
344792
313/2011
102440 PASS, GRACE
716.00
POTTERY MAINTENANCE
256848
022411
5112.6103
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
ART CENTER POTTERY
745.00
INSTRUCTOR AC
256848
022411
5110.6103
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION
1,461.00
344793
31312011
100347 PAUSTIS & SONS
1,594.52
256686
82948924N
5842.5513
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
YORK SELLING
1,322.51
256727
8294902 -IN
5862.5513
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
VERNON SELLING
650.50
256728
8294899 -IN
5822.5513
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
50TH ST SELLING
3,567.53
344794
3/312011
123330 PEARSON, KARI
54.00
INSTRUCTOR AC
256849
022411
5110.6103
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION
R55CKREG LOG20000
CITY OF EDINA
311/2011 15:42:01
Council Check
Register
Page - 18
3/3/2011
-3/3/2011
Check # Date
Amount
Supplier / Explanation
PO # Doc No
Inv No
Account No
Subledger Account Description
Business Unit
54.00
344796 31312011
100743 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS
108.30
256625
2030440
5842.5513
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
YORK SELLING
113.50
256626
2030439
5842.5512
COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR
YORK SELLING
59.02
256627
2030948
5842.5513
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
YORK SELLING
175.63
256628
2030438
5842.5513
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
YORK SELLING
732.61
256729
2033177
5842.5513
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
YORK SELLING
66.12
256730
2033180
5862.5512
COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR
VERNON SELLING
1,971.21
256731
2033168
5862.5513
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
VERNON SELLING
543.63
256732
2033181
5862.5513
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
VERNON SELLING
606.70
256733
2033178
5862.5513
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
VERNON SELLING
57.12
256734
2033179
5862.5515
COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX
VERNON SELLING
6.67-
256735
3453635
5822.5513
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
50TH ST SELLING
4.02-
256736
3453634
5822.5513
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
50TH ST SELLING
2,226.07
256980
2033173
5842.5513
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
YORK SELLING
3,281.41
256981
2033174
5842.5513
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
YORK SELLING
114.24
256982
2033175
5842.5515
COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX
YORK SELLING
1,042.49
256983
2033176
5842.5512
COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR
YORK SELLING
170.09
256984
2033170
5822.5512
COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR
50TH ST SELLING
60.42
256985
2033172
5822.5513
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
50TH ST SELLING
263.65
256986
2033171
5822.5513
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
50TH ST SELLING
1,290.63
256987
2033169
5822.5513
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
50TH ST SELLING
16.67-
256988
3454234
5862.5513
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
VERNON SELLING
20.37-
256989
3454156
5842.5513
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
YORK SELLING
11.64-
256990
3454157
5862.5513
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
VERNON SELLING
12,823.47
344797 3/312011
100953 PHYSIO- CONTROL INC.
260.40
CABLES
00003518 256924
111079017
1470.6510
FIRST AID SUPPLIES
FIRE DEPT. GENERAL
576.00
EKG CABLES
00003518 256925
111081603
1470.6510
FIRST AID SUPPLIES
FIRE DEPT. GENERAL
836.40
344798 313/2011
111340 POLAR CHEVROLET
34,311.75
CHEVROLET TAHOE
00003861 256926
BR250222
421470.6710
EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT
FIRE EQUIPMENT
68,623.50
CHEVROLET TAHOES
00003861 256927
BR251101
421470.6710
EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT
FIRE EQUIPMENT
102,935.25
344799 3/3/2011
101110 POLLY NORMAN PHOTOGRAPHY
60.00
WINTER DIRECTORY PHOTOS
256670
022211
1600.6103
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
PARK ADMIN. GENERAL
60.00
R55CKREG LOG20000
Check #
Date
344800
i
31312011
i
344801
i
I
3/3/2011
344802
I
3/3/2011
344803
31312011
i
.344804
is
313/2011
344805
313/2011
344806
I
313/2011
Subledger Account Description
TIRES & TUBES
TIRES & TUBES
3/1/2011 15:42:01
Page- 19
Business Unit
EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN
EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN
LAUNDRY DISTRIBUTION
CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS, POLICE DEPT. GENERAL
COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR
COST OF GOODS SOLD' WINE
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE -
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE,
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
COST OF GOODS SOLD. LIQUOR
COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR
COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR
COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR
COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR
COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR
COST OF GOODS SOLD - LIQUOR
COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR
YORK SELLING
YORK SELLING
YORK SELLING
YORK SELLING
VERNON SELLING
VERNON SELLING
VERNON SELLING
50TH ST SELLING
50TH ST SELLING
50TH ST SELLING
50TH ST SELLING
50TH ST SELLING
VERNON SELLING
VERNON SELLING
VERNON SELLING
YORK SELLING
YORK SELLING
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION
UNIFORM ALLOWANCE POLICE DEPT. GENERAL
CITY OF
EDINA
Council Check Register
.3/3/2011
-3/3/2011
Amount
Supplier /.Explanation
PO #
Doc No
Inv No
Account No
119620: POMP'S TIRE SERVICE INC.,
496.50
TIRES, SCRAP FEE
00005619
256795
249264
1553.6583
827.19
TIRES, REPAIR
00005619
256796
251902
1553.6583
1,323.69
124741 POYTHRESS, MATT
77.97
UNIFORM PURCHASE
256940
022811
5913.6201
77.97
128324 PROFESSIONAL LE
ASST. ASSOC.
100.00
CONFERENCE FEES
256928
022411-
1400.6104
100.00
100971 QUALITY WINE
2,617.71
256687
422671 -00
5842.5512
1,347.74
256688
422802 -00
5842.5513
428.53
256689
422899 -00
5842.5513
18.60
256690
422803 -CO
5842.5513
2,009.10
256737
422805 -00
5862.5513
1,481.97
256738
422804 -00
5862.5513
1,746.87
256739
422672 -00
5862.5512
1,205.87
256740
422673 -00
5822.5512
418.93
256741
422806 -00
5822.5513
674.34
256742
422807 -00
5822.5513
8.90-
256743
418806 -00
5822.5512
11.83-
256991
420461 -00
5822.5512
10.00-
256992
387595 -00
5862.5512
7.54-
256993
374955 -00
5862.5512
7.53-
256994
415536 -00
5862.5512
7.61-
256995
420464 -00
5842.5512
3.18
256996
418804 -00
5842.5512
11,893.07
126424 QUINN, MATTHEW
315.00
INSTRUCTOR AC
256850
022411
5110.6103
315.00
103930 QUIST, SUSAN .
262.33
UNIFORM PURCHASE
256673
021511
1400.6203
262.33
104450 RAPID GRAPHICS &MAILING
INC.
Subledger Account Description
TIRES & TUBES
TIRES & TUBES
3/1/2011 15:42:01
Page- 19
Business Unit
EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN
EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN
LAUNDRY DISTRIBUTION
CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS, POLICE DEPT. GENERAL
COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR
COST OF GOODS SOLD' WINE
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE -
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE,
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
COST OF GOODS SOLD. LIQUOR
COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR
COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR
COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR
COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR
COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR
COST OF GOODS SOLD - LIQUOR
COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR
YORK SELLING
YORK SELLING
YORK SELLING
YORK SELLING
VERNON SELLING
VERNON SELLING
VERNON SELLING
50TH ST SELLING
50TH ST SELLING
50TH ST SELLING
50TH ST SELLING
50TH ST SELLING
VERNON SELLING
VERNON SELLING
VERNON SELLING
YORK SELLING
YORK SELLING
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION
UNIFORM ALLOWANCE POLICE DEPT. GENERAL
R55CKREG LOG20000
I CITY OF EDINA
3/1/2011 15:42:01
Council Check Register
Page - 20
3/3/2011
—31312011
Check #
Date
Amount
Supplier/ Explanation
PO # Doc No
Inv No
Account No
Subledger Account Description
Business Unit
68.40
MAIL PAST DUE WATER BILLS
256929
5359
5910.6103
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
GENERAL (BILLING)
68.40
344807
3/312011
128321 REPPENHAGEN, MOLLY
50.00
PARTIAL PASS REIMBUREMENT
256903
022211
5601.4532
SEASON TICKETS
EB /CL REVENUES
50.00
344808
3/312011
100977 RICHFIELD PLUMBING COMPANY
7,494.41
INSTALL WATER HEATER
00008058 256649
56709
5511.6180
CONTRACTED REPAIRS
ARENA BLDG/GROUNDS
7,494.41
344809
3/3/2011
128282 ROMANO'S MACARONI GRILL
1,638.25
DEPOSIT REFUND
256611
022211
1120.4314
INVESTIGATION FEE
ADMINISTRATION
1,638.25
344810
3/3/2011
102614 ROTARY CLUB OF EDINA
303.00
DUES - JENNIFER BENNEROTTE
256612
460
2210.6105
DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS
COMMUNICATIONS
303.00
344811
31312011
100982 ROTO - ROOTER
355.00
DRAIN CLEAN OUT
00008050 256650
04816115990
5511.6180
CONTRACTED REPAIRS
ARENA BLDG /GROUNDS
355.00
344812
313/2011
100985 RUFFRIDGE JOHNSON EQUIPMENT CO
119.01
BEARINGS, SEALS
00005668 256797
C57182
1553.6530
REPAIR PARTS
EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN
1,001.82
END PLATE
00005668 256798
C57109
1553.6530
REPAIR PARTS
EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN
16.61
WASHERS
00005668 256799
C57181
1553.6530
REPAIR PARTS
EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN
1,137.44
344813
31312011
128323 RUSSELL, EMILY
86.00
CLASSS REFUND
256907
022211
5101.4607
CLASS REGISTRATION
ART CENTER REVENUES
86.00
344814
31312011
101963 S & S TREE SPECIALISTS
2,869.59
TREE PRUNING
00001396 256800
46822
1644.6103
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
TREES & MAINTENANCE
2,869.59
344815
313/2011
100988 SAFETY KLEEN
102.26
WASTE OIL AND FILTERS
00005749 256801
53117332
1553.6584
LUBRICANTS
EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN
50.00-
CREDIT ON ACCOUNT
256802
53326248
1553.6584
LUBRICANTS
EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN
52.26
CITY OF EDINA
-
3/1/2011 15:42:01
RSSCKREG LOG20000
Council Check Register
Page - 21
31312011
-3/3/2011
Check #
Date
Amount
Supplier I Explanation PO #
Doc No
. Inv No
Account No
Subledger Account Description
Business Unit
344816
313/2011
124901 SANDILLA; ELAINE
75.00
HISTORY BOOK WORK/SUPPLIES
256904
022411
5410.6406
GENERAL SUPPLIES
GOLF ADMINISTRATION
75.00
_ 344817
31312011
124780 SCHAUER, LAUREN
654.00
INSTRUCTOR AC
256851
022411
5110.6103
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION
654.00
344818
313/2011
104151 SCHINDLER ELEVATOR CORP.
709.53
QUARTERLY BILLING 00001374
256613
8102831859
1375.6103
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
PARKING RAMP
700.38
QUARTERLY MAINTENANCE
256930
8102830833
1628.6103.
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
SENIOR CITIZENSr
1,409.91
344819
31312011
127049 SCHNEIDER, KATHERINE
320.00
FITNESS TRAINING SESSIONS
256931
022111
1470.6104
CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS
FIRE DEPT. GENERAL
320.00
344820
3/3/2011
100349 SCOTT COUNTY
535.00
OUT OF COUNTY WARRANT
256932
022511
1000.2055
DUE TO OTHER GOVERNMENTS
GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET
535.00
344821
31312011
128302 SCOTT SCHIERKOLK FABRICATION
-
253.23
RAMP FOR STORAGE UNIT
256824
264
7412.6406
GENERAL SUPPLIES
PSTF RANGE
253.23
I
344822
31312011
104689 SERIGRAPHICS SIGN SYSTEMS INC.
189.00
NEW NAME PLATES
256892
41842
1100.6406
GENERAL SUPPLIES
CITY COUNCIL
189.00
344823
3/312011
101380 SHAUGHNESSY, SANDRA
371.04
INSTRUCTOR AC
256852
022411
5110.6103
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION
1,304.00
POTTERY MAINTENANCE. -..
256652
022411
5112.6103
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
ART CENTER POTTERY
1,675.04
-
344824
31312011
100998. SHERWIN WILLIAMS'CO.
202.89
PAINT 00008047
256651
9279 -4 -
5511.6532
PAINT I
ARENA BLDGIGROUNDS
202.89
344826
31312011
100999 SIGNAL SYSTEMS INC.
115.00
TIME CLOCK CLEANING 00008060
256652
34453
5511.6406
GENERAL SUPPLIES
ARENA BLDG/GROUNDS
115.00
R55CKREG LOG20000
Check # Date Amount Supplier/ Explanation PO #
344826 3/3/2011 105654 SIMPLEX GRINNELL LP
1,145.72 SPRINKLER SYSTEM SERVICE
1,145.72
CITY OF EDINA
Council Check Register
313/2011 -3/312011
Doc No Inv No Account No
256825 66303227 7411.6103
3/1/2011 15:42:01
Page- 22
Subledger Account Description Business Unit
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PSTF OCCUPANCY
344827 313/2011
127878 SOUTHERN WINE AND SPIRITS
629.50
256744
1489621
5862.5513
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
VERNON SELLING
1,094.00
256997
1489622
5842.5513
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
YORK SELLING
646.00
256998
1474785
5842.5513
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
YORK SELLING
289.00
256999
1497603
5842.5513
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
YORK SELLING
1,223.50
257000
1474783
5862.5513
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
VERNON SELLING
305.50
257001
1474784
5822.5513
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
50TH ST SELLING
390.00
257002
1489620
5822.5513
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
50TH ST SELLING
4,577.50
344828 31312011
110977 SOW, ADAMA
519.20
INSTRUCTOR AC
256853
022411
5110.6103
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION
1,094.00
CLEANING / MAINTENANCE
256853
022411
5111.6103
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
ART CENTER BLDG / MAINT
1,613.20
344829 3/3/2011
123788 SPECIALTY TURF & AG INC
100.00
2011 TURF TRAINING 00001267 256653
127776
1643.6104
CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS
GENERAL TURF CARE
100.00
344830 31312011
104672 SPRINT
26.26
256638
873184124 -099
1240.6188
TELEPHONE
PUBLIC WORKS ADMIN GENERAL
47.48
256638
873184124 -099
7411.6188
TELEPHONE
PSTF OCCUPANCY
51.28
256638
873184124 -099
5841.6188
TELEPHONE
YORK OCCUPANCY
51.99
256638
873184124 -099
1490.6188
TELEPHONE
PUBLIC HEALTH
55.77
256638
873184124-099
1190.6188
TELEPHONE
ASSESSING
56.62
256638
873184124-099
1140.6188
TELEPHONE
PLANNING
56.84
256638
873184124-099
1554.6230
SERVICE CONTRACTS EQUIPMENT
CENT SERV GEN - MIS
87.23
256638
873184124-099
4090.6188
TELEPHONE
50TH&FRANCE MAINTENANCE
87.87
256638
873184124 -099
5422.6188
TELEPHONE
MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS
98.42
256638
873184124 -099
1553.6188
TELEPHONE
EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN
111.00
256638
873184124 -099
2210.6168
TELEPHONE
COMMUNICATIONS
183.39
256638
873184124-099
1260.6188
TELEPHONE
ENGINEERING GENERAL
245.27
256638
873184124 -099
1322.6188
TELEPHONE
STREET LIGHTING ORNAMENTAL
254.27
256638
873184124 -099
1470.6188
TELEPHONE
FIRE DEPT. GENERAL
296.00
256638
873184124 -099
1495.6188
TELEPHONE
INSPECTIONS
302.26
256638
873184124 -099
1301.6188
TELEPHONE
GENERAL MAINTENANCE
351.50
256638
873184124 -099
1640.6188
TELEPHONE
PARK MAINTENANCE GENERAL
374.28
256638
873184124 -099
5910.6188
TELEPHONE
GENERAL (BILLING)
CITY OF EDINA
i
3/1/2011 15:42:01
R55CKREG LOG20000
Council Check Register
Page - 23
3/3/2011
- 3/3/2011
Check #
Date
Amount
Supplier I Explanation PO #
Doc No
Inv No
Account No
Subledger Account Description j
Business Unit
468.87
256638
873184124-099
5620.6188
TELEPHONE
i
EDINBOROUGH PARK
1,923.48
256638
873184124-099
1400.6188
TELEPHONE
POLICE DEPT. GENERAL
439.89
CARD READERS
256933
312188813 -039
1470.6151
EQUIPMENT RENTAL
FIRE DEPT. GENERAL
5,569.97
'
I
344831
3/3/2011
103658 ST. LOUIS PARK COMMUNITY BAND
75.00
EP ENTERTAINMENT 316111
256900
022511
5621.6136
PROFESSIONAL SVC -OTHER
.
EDINBOROUGH ADMINISTRATION
75.00
344832
3/312011
128314 STEINBICKER, BILL
j
55.00
MEDIA INSTRUCTION
256854
022411
5125.6103
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
MEDIA STUDIO
55.00
344833
31312011
101016 STREICHERS
169.99
UNIFORM BOOTS 00003525
256934
1813366
1470.6558
DEPT UNIFORMS I
FIRE DEPT. GENERAL
169.99
344834
3/312011
101017 SUBURBAN CHEVROLET
118.31
AMT NOT COVERED BY INSURANCB)0005747
257024
580161
1553.6180
CONTRACTED REPAIRS
EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN
118.31
344835
31312011
120998 SURLY BREWING CO.
I
508.00
256629
MVP00528
5862.5514
COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER!
VERNON SELLING
889.00
256630
MVP00527
5822.5514
COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER
50TH ST SELLING
873.00
256691
Z02610
5842.5514
COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER
YORK SELLING
2,270.00
344836
31312011
105441 SUSA
i
300.00
ANNUAL DUES (3)
256664
022211
5919.6104
CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS
TRAINING
300.00
344837
31312011
111002 TEE JAY NORTH INC.
856.00
EQUIPMENT SERVICE CONTRACT
256893
34061
5860.6230
SERVICE CONTRACTS EQUIPMENT
VERNON LIQUOR GENERAL
856.00
I
344838
31312011
102471 THOLEN, BRIAN
119.98
UNIFORM PURCHASE
256674
022211
1400.6203
UNIFORM ALLOWANCE
POLICE DEPT. GENERAL
119.98
344839
31312011
101035 THORPE DISTRIBUTING COMPANY
159.10
256631
627956
5862.5514
COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER
VERNON SELLING
175.00
256632
628098
5862.5514
COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER I
i
VERNON SELLING
R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA
Council Check Register
3/3/2011 —3/3/2011
Check # Date Amount Supplier I Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description
776.15 256745 627774 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER
963.00 256746 628667 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER
MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE
MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP
COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
REPAIR PARTS
AUTOMOBILES & TRUCKS
31112011 15:42:01
Page - 24
Business Unit
VERNON SELLING
VERNON SELLING
PLAYGROUND & THEATER
PARK ADMIN. GENERAL
ADMINISTRATION
PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES
PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES
COMMUNICATIONS
EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN
UTILITY BALANCE SHEET
CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS I TREES & MAINTENANCE
POSTAGE
CONTRACTED REPAIRS
CONTRACTED REPAIRS
CONTRACTED REPAIRS
CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL
DISTRIBUTION
DISTRIBUTION
DISTRIBUTION
2,073.25
344840
31312011
103331 TILSNER, DONNA
72.17
JAN/FEB MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT
256803
022311
1624.6107
58.55
MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT
257025
122610
1600.6107
130.72
344841
31312011
123129 TIMESAVER OFF SITE SECRETARIAL
356.25
DRAFT MINUTES 2/1 /2011
256894
M18230
1120.6103
356.25
344842
313/2011
101474 TITLEIST
2,972.52
GOLF BALLS
256895
2277981
5440.5511
508.00
GOLF CLUBS
256896
2285028
5440.5511
3,480.52
344843
31312011
122302 TOUCHPOINT LOGIC LLC
7,745.00
INSTALL AUDIO UPGRADES
257026
3427
2210.6103
7,745.00
344844
313/2011
123649 TOWMASTER
509.10
BANJO EV125 12V, PUMP 00005685
256804
327547
1553.6530
6,128.21
RAMP SANDER 00005597
256941
326454
5900.1735
6,637.31
344845
31312011
101055 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA
165.00
SHADE TREE COURSE 00001392
256654
TOM HORWATH
1644.6104
165.00
344846
3/3/2011
100050 USPS - HASLER
8,000.00
ACCT #75983
256805
022411
1550.6235
8,000.00
344847
313/2011
103590 VALLEY -RICH CO. INC.
7,675.74
EMERGENCY WATER REPAIR 00001480
256806
16273
5913.6180
5,668.08
EMERGENCY WATER REPAIR 00001484
256897
16302
5913.6180
4,359.00
EMERGENCY WATER REPAIR 00001483
256898
16296
5913.6180
17,702.82
344848
3/3/2011
101068 VAN PAPER CO.
MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE
MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP
COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
REPAIR PARTS
AUTOMOBILES & TRUCKS
31112011 15:42:01
Page - 24
Business Unit
VERNON SELLING
VERNON SELLING
PLAYGROUND & THEATER
PARK ADMIN. GENERAL
ADMINISTRATION
PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES
PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES
COMMUNICATIONS
EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN
UTILITY BALANCE SHEET
CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS I TREES & MAINTENANCE
POSTAGE
CONTRACTED REPAIRS
CONTRACTED REPAIRS
CONTRACTED REPAIRS
CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL
DISTRIBUTION
DISTRIBUTION
DISTRIBUTION
R55CKREG LOG20000
3/312011
100023 VOGEL, ROBERT C.
CITY OF EDINA
3,750.00
CLG GRANT - .EDINA WOMEN 256807
211003
Council Check Register
-
3,750.00
3/3/2011
- 3/3/2011
Check #
Date
Amount
Supplier / Explanation
PO # Doc No
Inv No
Account No
Subledger Account Description
- 5110.6103
402.96
TISSUE, TOWELS, LINERS :•
00001257 256655
.189077 -00
1646.6406
GENERAL SUPPLIES
3/3/2011
218.44
LIQUOR13AGS
00007512 256676
189384 -00
5842.6512
PAPER SUPPLIES
JERRY'S RAMP PROJECT 256942
21370500001
621.40
6,891:63
344849
3131201.1
3/3/2011
106308 VEITH, MICHELLE
121042 WALLACE CARLSON PRINTING
211.61
750.00
AR &LE CATALOG - DESIGN
256614
2011 -1
1629.6575
PRINTING
BLACK T- SHIRTS 00009171 256827
40262
750.00
1,051.61
344850
313/2011
102970 VERIZON WIRELESS
32.73
256615
2528907701
5952.6188
TELEPHONE
37.26
256615
2528907701
1640.6188
TELEPHONE
67.41
256615
2528907701
1495.6188
TELEPHONE
77.79
256615
2528907701
1120.6188
TELEPHONE
96.97
256615
2528907701
1600.6188
TELEPHONE
286.46
256615
2528907701
1470.6188
TELEPHONE
598.62
344851
31312011
125327 VINOANDES
3/1/2011 15:42:01
Page - 25
Business Unit
BUILDING MAINTENANCE
YORK SELLING
ADAPTIVE RECREATION
RECYCLING
PARK MAINTENANCE GENERAL
INSPECTIONS
ADMINISTRATION
PARK ADMIN. GENERAL
FIRE DEPT. GENERAL
190.10 256747 2031 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING
190.10
344852 3/3/2011 119454 VINOCOPIA
202.64 256748 0036061 -IN 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING
1,098.00 257003 0036062 -IN 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING
344853
3/312011
100023 VOGEL, ROBERT C.
3,750.00
CLG GRANT - .EDINA WOMEN 256807
211003
1140.6103
-
3,750.00
344854
313/2011
121611 VON BARGEN, AMY
240.00
INSTRUCTION AC 256855
022411
- 5110.6103
240.00
344855
3/3/2011
102542 WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS INC
6,891.63
JERRY'S RAMP PROJECT 256942
21370500001
05473.170.5.20
6,891:63
344856
3/3/2011
121042 WALLACE CARLSON PRINTING
211.61
POSTCARDS 00009169 256826
40046
5110.6575
840.00
BLACK T- SHIRTS 00009171 256827
40262
5120.5510
1,051.61
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
i
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
CONSULTING DESIGN
PLANNING
ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION
WM -473 NEW TREATMENT PLANT #6
PRINTING ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION
COST OF GOODS SOLD ART SUPPLY GIFT GALLERY SHOP
i
R55CKREG LOG20000
Check #
Date
Amount
Supplier / Explanation
344857
31312011
256633
104681 WEBB, DONNA
1,106.50
96.00
SUPPLIES REIMBURSMENT
3,730.20
50TH ST SELLING
816.00
INSTRUCTION AC
665.90
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
912.00
263439 -00
344858
31312011
YORK SELLING
103266 WELSH COMPANIES LLC
344861 31312011
101312 WINE MERCHANTS
572.16
MARCH 2011 MAINTENANCE
2,919.23
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
572.16
352523
344859
3/312011
256751
103336 WILLIAMS ARCHITECTS
10.67-
YORK SELLING
79.17
UPDATE RENDERINGS
1,626.64
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
79.17
352522
CITY OF EDINA
Council Check Register
313/2011 -3/3/2011
PO # Doc No Inv No Account No
256856 022411
256856 022411
256616 030111
256617 0014268
344860 31312011
101033 WINE COMPANY, THE
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
YORK SELLING
216.00
VERNON SELLING
256633
263125 -00
1,106.50
256692
263323 -00
3,730.20
50TH ST SELLING
256749
263422 -00
665.90
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
257004
263439 -00
5,718.60
YORK SELLING
COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR
344861 31312011
101312 WINE MERCHANTS
COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR
2,919.23
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
256750
352523
14.65-
256751
52319
10.67-
YORK SELLING
256752
52358
1,626.64
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
257005
352522
.56
257006
352521
655.47
257007
352520
5,176.58
344863 302011
124291 WIRTZ BEVERAGE MINNESOTA
952.42
256634
531397
33.38
256693
533684
2,383.37
256694
533683
4,091.01
256695
533682
5,221.44
256696
533681
81.74-
256697
823278
1.15-
256698
823332
6,131.10
256753
533674
114.20
256754
533675
559.75
256755
532547
480.73
256756
533677
5110.6564
5110.6103
5841.6103
5310.6103
5862.5513
5842.5513
5862.5513
5822.5513
5862.5513
5822.5513
5842.5513
5842.5513
5822.5513
5822.5513
5842.5513
5842.5515
5842.5512
5842.5512
5642.5513
5842.5512
5842.5512
5862.5513
5862.5513
5862.5513
5862.5512
I
3/1/2011 15:42:01
i
Page - 26
Subledger Account Description Business Unit
CRAFT SUPPLIES ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES YORK OCCUPANCY
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES I POOL ADMINISTRATION
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
VERNON SELLING
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
YORK SELLING
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
VERNON SELLING
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
50TH ST SELLING
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
VERNON SELLING
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
50TH ST SELLING
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
YORK SELLING
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
YORK SELLING
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
50TH ST SELLING
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
50TH ST SELLING
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
YORK SELLING
COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX
YORK SELLING
COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR
YORK SELLING
COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR
YORK SELLING
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
YORK SELLING
COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR
YORK SELLING
COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR
YORK SELLING
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
VERNON SELLING
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
VERNON SELLING
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
VERNON SELLING
COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR
VERNON SELLING
R55CKREG LOG20000
CITY OF
EDINA
Council Check Register
3/3/2011
-3/3/2011
Check # Date
Amount
Supplier / Explanation PO #
Doc No
'Inv No
Account No
4,573.73
256757
533676
5862.5512
536.44
256758
533680
5822.5512
2,480.86
256759
533679
5822.5513
'
59.77
256760
533678
5862.5515
34.53-
256761
823907
5862.5515
291.25-
256762
823908
5862.5513
570.15
257008
535255
5842.5513
572.10
257009
535642
5842.5513
111.90
257010
534456
5862.5513
319.68
257011
534457
5842.5513
689.42
257012
534169
5842.5512
29,472.78
344864 31312011
124529 WIRTZ BEVERAGE MINNESOTA
BEER
400.00
256635
714954
5822.5514
'
1,673.20
256636
715440
5862.5514
465.55
256637
714955
5822.5514
43.00
256700
715921
5842.5515
2,806.63
256763
715920
5842.5514
43.00
257013
717473
5822.5515
1,386.10
257014
717472
5822.5514
1,291.18
257015
717673
5842.5514
8,108.66
344865 3/312011
106740 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC.
2,698.50
70TH ST CONSTR SERVICES
257027
3- 01686 -180
01367.1705.20
2,000.00
44TH ST IMPROVEMENTS
257028
4 -01686 -170
01383.1705.20
4,698.50
344866 3/312011
101726 XCEL ENERGY
41.18
51- 5276565 -8
256665
271430425
1330.6165
61.79
51- 4420190 -3
256943
272058666
1321.6185
8,010.56'
51- 6644819 -9
256944
272413497
5620.6185
8,113.53
344867 31312011
100568 XEROX CORPORATION
116.84
JAN 2011 USAGE
256828
052986702
5110.6151
116.84
- 344868 3/3/2011
120099 Z WINES USA LLC
332.50
256764
10114
5862.5513
332.50
Subledger Account Description
COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUC
COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUC
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX
COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUC
COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER
COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER
COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER
COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX
COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER
COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX
COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER
COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER
CONSULTING DESIGN
CONSULTING DESIGN
LIGHT & POWER
LIGHT & POWER
LIGHT & POWER
EQUIPMENT RENTAL
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
3/112011 15:42:01
Page - 27
Business Unit
VERNON SELLING
50TH ST SELLING
50TH ST SELLING
VERNON SELLING
VERNON SELLING
VERNON SELLING
YORK SELLING
YORK SELLING
VERNON SELLING
YORK SELLING
YORK SELLING
50TH ST SELLING
VERNON SELLING
50TH ST SELLING
YORK SELLING
YORK SELLING
50TH ST SELLING
50TH ST SELLING
YORK SELLING
BA -367 W76TH TRAFFIC IMPLEMENT
BA -383 W44TH ST
TRAFFIC SIGNALS
STREET - LIGHTING REGULAR
EDINBOROUGH PARK
ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION
VERNON SELLING
R55CKREG LOG20000
Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation
344869 3/3/2011 102500 ZJMMERMAN, TIM
106.37 UNIFORM PURCHASE
106.37
889,529.91 Grand Total
CITY OF EDINA
Council Check Register
3/3/2011 —313/2011
PO # Doc No Inv No Account No
256808 022411 1646.6201
Subledger Account Description
LAUNDRY
Payment Instrument Totals
Check Total 889,529.91
Total Payments 889,529.91
311/2011 15:42:01
Page - 28
BUILDING MAINTENANCE
R55CKSUM LOG20000
Company
01000 GENERALFUND
02200 COMMUNICATIONS FUND
04000 WORKING CAPITAL FUND
04200 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND
05100 ART CENTER FUND
05300 AQUATIC CENTER FUND
05400 GOLF COURSE FUND
05500 ICE ARENA FUND
05600 EDINBOROUGH /CENT LAKES FUND
05800 LIQUOR FUND
05900 UTILITY FUND
05930 STORM SEWER FUND
05950 RECYCLING FUND
07400 PSTF AGENCY FUND
Report Totals
Amount
82,046.57
9,369.00
387,203.67
102,935.25
18,439.36
_ 1,943.17
7,538.73
13,217.61
20,455.86
156,699.52
83,616.10
916.00
32.73
5,116.34
CITY OF EDINA
Council Check Summary
3/3/2011 - 3/3/2011
N
3/112011 15:42:47
Page - 1
We confirm to the best of our knowledge
and belief, that these claims
comply in all material respects
with the requirements of Ithe City
of Edina purchasing: policies and
1
R55CKREG LOG20000
GRILL
LAUNDRY
50TH ST OCCUPANCY
CITY OF
EDINA
LAUNDRY
FIRE DEPT. GENERAL
LAUNDRY
VERNON OCCUPANCY
LAUNDRY
Council Check Register
LAUNDRY
FIRE DEPT. GENERAL
3/10/2011
- 3/10/2011
Check #
Date
Amount
Supplier / Explanation PO #
Doc No
Inv No
Account No
344870
3/10/2011
110728 10,000 LAKES_CHAPTER
420.00
CODE SEMINAR (2) `
257118
022811
1495.6104
420.00
344871
3/10/2011
100613 AAA
1,741.54
PLATES FOR 26 -163
257136
030111
1553.6260
.1,741.54
344872
3/10/2011
100613, AAA
60.00
FIRE VEHICLE TITLES
257239
030411
1553.6260
60.00
344873
3/1012011
124613 ABM JANITORIAL- NORTH CENTRAL
2,695.87
MAR 2011 SERVICES
257397
2223737
1551.6103
2,695.87
344874
3110/2011
105991 AL'S COFFEE COMPANY
171.51
COFFEE
257119
125736
1628.6406
171.51
344875
311012011
102715 ALLEGRA EDINA
395.33
PARK PRESS PRINTING
257240
85914
5621.6575
395.33
344876
3110/2011
120168 ALLIANCE ELECTRIC INC.
1,325.70
OUTLET INSTALLATION 00002267-257241
7457
5620.6180
1,325.70
344877
3/10/2011
101115 AMERIPRIDE SERVICES
31.65
257134
022811
5421.6201
50.25
257134
i
022811
5821.6201
55.09
257134
022811
5841.6201
151.69
257134
022811
1470.6201
195.50
257134
022,811
5861.6201
224.65
257134
022811
1551.6201
340.58
257134
022811
1470.6201
1,049.61
344878
3/1012011
124774 ANCHOR FENCE OF MN INC.
375.00
PHOTOEYE 00005568
257137
11014
1552.6406
375.00
Subledger Account Description
CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS
LICENSES & PERMITS
LICENSES & PERMITS
319/2011 8:08:52
Page- 1
Business Unit
I FLU 1 IUNJ
EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN
EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CITY HALL GENERAL
GENERAL SUPPLIES SENIOR CITIZENS
PRINTING EDINBOROUGH ADMINISTRATION
CONTRACTED REPAIRS . EDINBOROUGH PARK
LAUNDRY
GRILL
LAUNDRY
50TH ST OCCUPANCY
LAUNDRY
YORK OCCUPANCY
LAUNDRY
FIRE DEPT. GENERAL
LAUNDRY
VERNON OCCUPANCY
LAUNDRY
CITY HALL GENERAL
LAUNDRY
FIRE DEPT. GENERAL
GENERAL SUPPLIES CENT SVC PW BUILDING
R55CKREG LOG20000
CITY OF EDINA
3/9/2011 8:08:52
Council Check Register
Page - 2
3110/2011
-3/1012011
Check #
Date
Amount
Supplier / Explanation
PO # Doc No
Inv No
Account No
Subledger Account Description
Business Unit
344879
3/1012011
100630 ANCHOR PAPER CO. INC.
298.09
PAPER
00006396 257242
10275830 -00
5410.6513
OFFICE SUPPLIES
GOLF ADMINISTRATION
744.35
COPIER PAPER
257243
10275685 -00
1550.6406
GENERAL SUPPLIES
CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL
1,042.44
344880
3/10/2011
101874 ANCOM COMMUNICATIONS INC.
163.30
NEXTELS
00005745 257138
20812
5913.6406
GENERAL SUPPLIES
DISTRIBUTION
163.30
-
344881
3110/2011
102109 ANCOM TECHNICAL CENTER
1,536.00
RADIO MAINTENANCE CONTRACT
257398
20436
1470.6215
EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
FIRE DEPT. GENERAL
1,536.00
344882
3/10/2011
103680 ARAMARK REFRESHMENT SRVCS
279.05
COFFEE
257030
419204
1550.6406
GENERAL SUPPLIES
CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL
279.05
344883
3110/2011
114476 ARMOR SECURITY INC.
144.28
MONITORING SERVICE
00001408 257244
150706
1646.6103
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
BUILDING MAINTENANCE
96.19
MONITORING SERVICE
257245
150707
1646.6103
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
BUILDING MAINTENANCE
240.47
344884
3110/2011
128336 ASHWAR, STEPHANIE
106.02
UTILITY OVERPAYMENT REFUND
257120
5215 GRANDVIEW 5900.2015
CUSTOMER REFUND
UTILITY BALANCE SHEET
LA
106.02
344885
311012011
102774 ASPEN WASTE SYSTEMS
203.75
257399
3/1111
7411.6182
RUBBISH REMOVAL
PSTF OCCUPANCY
203.75
344886
3110/2011
100642 BANNERS TO GO
34.49
PARKING SIGNS
00001450 257139
31428
4090.640E
GENERAL SUPPLIES
50TH &FRANCE MAINTENANCE
34.49
344887
3/10/2011
125300 BAUMAN, DOUG
102.51
MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT
257031
030111
5510.6107
MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE
ARENA ADMINISTRATION
102.51
344888
3/10/2011
100646 BECKER ARENA PRODUCTS INC.
676.82
HOCKEY STICK RACKS
00008056 257032
00083305
5521.6406
GENERAL SUPPLIES
ARENA ICE MAINT
676.82
R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA
Council Check Register
3/10/2011 -3/10/2011
Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description
344889 3110/2011 128348 BELL STRUCTURAL SOLUTIONS
5,794.00 LIGHT POLES 00001380 257400 BSS- 11 -T022 1646.6578 LAMPS & FIXTURES
5,794.00
344890 311012011 101355 BELLBOY CORPORATION
319/2011 8:08:52
Page - 3
Business Unit
BUILDING MAINTENANCE
.36.55
257192
57005300
5842.5515
COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX
YORK SELLING
482.15
257310
57304300
5842.5512
COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR
YORK SELLING
1,583.13
257311
57302200
5842.5513
COST OF GOODS.SOLD WINE
YORK SELLING
2,101.83
344891
3/10/2011
125139 BERNICK'S WINE
987.40
257312
19384
5842.5514
COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER
YORK SELLING
-
987.40
344892
3110/2011
100648 BERTELSON OFFICE PRODUCTS
23.50
DRY ERASE BOARD
257033
WO- 677399 -1
2210.6406
GENERAL SUPPLIES
COMMUNICATIONS
23.50
344893
311012011
125209 BISEK, KATIE
80.58
MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT
257401
030411
1554.6107
MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE
CENT SERV GEN - MIS
80.58
344894
3/1012011
100653 BITUMINOUS ROADWAYS INC.
11,602.50
FINAL PAYMENT
257246
031111
4402.1705.30
CONTRACTOR PAYMENTS
PW BUILDING
11,602.50
344895
311012011
128349 BLAINE BROTHERS
327.10
ENGINE REPAIRS,
00005697 257402
1210590061
1553.6180
CONTRACTED REPAIRS
EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN
327.10
344896
311012011
122688 BMK SOLUTIONS
15.29
OFFICE SUPPLIES
257140
66782
1552.6406
GENERAL SUPPLIES
CENT SVC PW BUILDING
42.98
OFFICE SUPPLIES
257140
66782
5913.6406
GENERAL SUPPLIES
DISTRIBUTION
70.78
OFFICE SUPPLIES
257140
66782
1646.6406
GENERAL SUPPLIES
BUILDING MAINTENANCE
24.55
OFFICE SUPPLIES
00001437 257141
66583
1552.6406
GENERAL SUPPLIES
CENT SVC PW BUILDING
153.60
344897
3110/2011
105367 BOUND. TREE MEDICAL LLC
300.98
AMBULANCE SUPPLIES
00003720 257142
87214096
1470.6510
FIRST AID SUPPLIES
FIRE DEPT. GENERAL
78.12
AMBULANCE SUPPLIES
00003879 257143'
80524921
1470.6510
FIRST AID SUPPLIES
FIRE DEPT. GENERAL
379.10
R55CKREG LOG20000
CITY OF EDINA
3/9/2011 8:08:52
Council Check Register
Page - 4
3/10/2011
-3/1012011
Check # Date
Amount
Supplier / Explanation
PO # Doc No
Inv No
Account No
Subledger Account Description
Business Unit
344898 311012011
119351 BOURGET IMPORTS
420.00
257313
102634
5842.5513
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
YORK SELLING
454.00
257314
102633
5862.5513
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
VERNON SELLING
874.00
344899 311012011
100659 BOYER TRUCK PARTS
157.33
STRAP ASSEMBLY, SLEEVE
00005765 257034
493706
1553.6530
REPAIR PARTS
EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN
25.99
WIRE ASSEMBLY
00005659 257144
491460
1553.6530
REPAIR PARTS
EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN
29.45
FILTER
00005659 257145
486664X1
1553.6530
REPAIR PARTS
EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN
94.14
PANEL
00005785 257247
494481
1553.6530
REPAIR PARTS
EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN
306.91
344900 3110/2011
100663 BRAEMAR GOLF COURSE
11.92
PETTY CASH
257403
030411
5410.6406
GENERAL SUPPLIES
GOLF ADMINISTRATION
87.95
PETTY CASH
257403
030411
5410.6105
DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS
GOLF ADMINISTRATION
173.08
PETTY CASH
257403
030411
5410.6513
OFFICE SUPPLIES
GOLF ADMINISTRATION
272.95
344901 3/1012011
106484 BRINDLE, MARY
48.00
SENSIBLE LAND USE MEETING
257121
030111
1100.6104
CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS
CITY COUNCIL
48.00
344902 3/10/2011
102149 CALLAWAY GOLF
653.22
GOLF BALLS
257404
922222332
5440.5511
COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP
PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES
312.75
GOLF BALLS
257405
922223861
5440.5511
COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP
PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES
1,617.00
GOLF CLUBS
257406
922223863
5440.5511
COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP
PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES
447.30
RENTAL CLUBS
257407
922223862
5410.6406
GENERAL SUPPLIES
GOLF ADMINISTRATION
191.28
GOLF BALLS
257408
922229117
5440.5511
COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP
PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES
1,273.32-
YEAR END REBATE
257409
922165825
5440.5511
COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP
PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES
615.00-
CREDIT
257502
922044503
5440.5511
COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP
PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES
1,333.23
344903 3/1012011
127500 CAPITAL MAINTENANCE SERVICES L
941.34
MARCH SNOW REMOVAL
257410
86433
7411.6136
SNOW & LAWN CARE
PSTF OCCUPANCY
941.34
344904 3/10/2011
119455 CAPITOL BEVERAGE SALES
94.20
257193
15148
5842.5515
COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX
YORK SELLING
5,238.63
257194
15150
5842.5514
COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER
YORK SELLING
475.15
257195
15147
5622.5514
COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER
50TH ST SELLING
169.00
257315
15178
5842.5514
COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER
YORK SELLING
CITY OF EDINA
3/9/2011 8:08:52
R55CKREG LOG20000
Council Check Register
Page - 5
3/10/2011
- 3/10/2011
Check #
Date
Amount
Supplier/ Explanation PO #
Doc No
Inv No
Account No
Subledger Account Description
Business Unit
5,976.98
344905
3/1012011
116843 CARVER SCOTT CO -OP
36.00
GROUP REFUND - EDINB PARK
257495
030411
5601.4541
GENERAL ADMISSIONS
EB /CL REVENUES
36.00
344906
3/1012011
116683 CAT & FIDDLE BEVERAGE
400.00
257196
89325
5842.5513
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
YORK SELLING
352.50
257197
69306
5842.5513
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
YORK SELLING
142.00
257316
89323
5822.5513
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
50TH ST SELLING
326.00
257317
89324
5862.5513
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
VERNON SELLING
1,220.50
344907
311012011
100681 CATCO
140.00
FITTINGS 00005629
257248
3 -04701
1553.6530
REPAIR PARTS
EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN
140.00
344908
3/10/2011
112561 CENTERPOINT ENERGY
517.46
5528973 -0
257249
5528973 -2/11
1552.6186
HEAT
CENT SVC PW BUILDING
12.82
5590919 -6
257411
5590919 -2/11
7413.6582
FUEL OIL
PSTF FIRE TOWER
530.28
344909
3/1012011
119725 CHISAGO LAKES DISTRIBUTING CO
'
583.50
257198
439663
5842.5514
COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER
YORK SELLING
228.88
257318
439672
5862.5514
COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER
VERNON SELLING
812.38
344910
311012011
122084 CITY OF EDINA - UTILITIES
487.47
00113607 - 0342163045
257146
342163045 -2/11
1470.6189
SEWER & WATER
FIRE DEPT. GENERAL
487.47
344911
311012011
105693 CITYSPRINT
23.46
MAIL LETTER
257135
21815
01383.1705.20
CONSULTING DESIGN
BA -383 W44TH ST
23.46
344912
311012011
100688 CITYWIDE WINDOW SERVICES INC
14.92
WINDOW CLEANING
257147.
479624
5861.6180
CONTRACTED REPAIRS
VERNON OCCUPANCY
16.49
WINDOW CLEANING
257147
479624
5821.6180
CONTRACTED REPAIRS
50TH ST OCCUPANCY
25.99
WINDOW CLEANING
257147
479624
5841.6180
CONTRACTED REPAIRS
YORK OCCUPANCY
57.40
344913
3110/2011
120433 COMCAST
R55CKREG LOG20000
CITY OF EDINA
Council Check Register
3/10/2011
- 3/1012011
Check #
Date
Amount
Supplier / Explanation
PO # Doc No
Inv No
Account No
Subledger Account Description
165.18
8772 10 614 0164959
257412
164959 -2/11
5430.6188
TELEPHONE
59.00
8772 10 614 0199138
257413
199138 -2111
5422.6188
TELEPHONE
88.26
8772 10 614 0177449
257414
177449 -2/11
5420.6188
TELEPHONE
74.95
8772 10 614 0165667
257415
165667 -2111
5424.6406
GENERAL SUPPLIES
387.39
344914
3/10/2011
101323 CONNEY SAFETY PRODUCTS
34.30
SAFETY GLASSES
00005752 257250
03862828
1646.6610
SAFETY EQUIPMENT
40.06
SAFETY GLASSES
00005752 257250
03862828
5913.6610
SAFETY EQUIPMENT
67.71
SAFETY GLASSES
00005752 257250
03862828
1301.6610
SAFETY EQUIPMENT
142.07
344915
3/1012011
100695 CONTINENTAL CLAY CO.
754.46
CLAY
00009017 257251
INV000058428
5120.5510
COST OF GOODS SOLD
54.02
CLAY
00009167 257252
INV000058665
5120.5510
COST OF GOODS SOLD
451.70
CLAY
00009167 257252
1WO00058665
5110.6564
CRAFT SUPPLIES
1,260.18
344916
311012011
100697 COOL AIR MECHANICAL INC.
1,053.41
HEATER REPAIR
00008063 257035
73576
5511.6180
CONTRACTED REPAIRS
1,053.41
344917
311012011
101495 CREATIVE IMAGES ON RIBBON INC.
94.64
CLASS RIBBONS
00008052 257036
8616
5510.6513
OFFICE SUPPLIES
94.64
344918
311012011
100701 CUSHMAN MOTOR CO. INC.
1,262.20
BROOM REPLACEMENT
00001260 257148
152820
1553.6530
REPAIR PARTS
1,262.20
344919
311012011
100706 D.C. ANNIS SEWER INC.
539.00
PUMP SUMP
257149
81374
1470.6215
EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
539.00
344920
3/1012011
102791 D2 SERVICES INC.
4,372.68
SCADA WORK
00005430 257416
10016
05508.1705
CONSTR. IN PROGRESS
4,372.68
344921
311012011
104020 DALCO
356.75
HAND CLEANER, RESTROOM CARE0000B054 257037
2304189
5511.6511
CLEANING SUPPLIES
991.34
ICE MELT
00001455 257150
2304257
4090.6406
GENERAL SUPPLIES
1,348.09
_
3/9/2011 8:08:52
Page- 6
Business Unit
RICHARDS GOLF COURSE
MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS
CLUB HOUSE
RANGE
BUILDING MAINTENANCE
DISTRIBUTION
GENERAL MAINTENANCE
ART SUPPLY GIFT GALLERY SHOP
ART SUPPLY GIFT GALLERY SHOP
ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION
ARENA BLDG/GROUNDS
ARENA ADMINISTRATION
EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN
FIRE DEPT. GENERAL
WM -508 SCADA SYSTEM
ARENA BLDG/GROUNDS
50TH &FRANCE MAINTENANCE
R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 319/2011 8:08:52
Council Check Register Page - 7
3/10/2011 -3110/2011
Check #
Date .
Amount
;Supplier / Explanation
PO # Doc No
Inv No
Account No
Subledger Account Description
Business Unit
344922
3/10/2011
102478 DAY DISTRIBUTING -CO.
2,936.20
257199
590390
5842.5514
COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER
YORK SELLING
22.40
257200
590391
5842.5515
COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX
YORK SELLING
44.80
257201
590389
5822.5515
COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX
50TH ST SELLING
668.35
257202
590388
5822.5514
COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER
50TH ST SELLING
3,629.00
257319
' 590386
5862.5514
COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER
VERNON SELLING
65.40
257320
590387
5862.5515
COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX
VERNON SELLING
312.00
257321
590761
5842.5514
COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER
YORK SELLING
7,678.15
344923
311012011
100899 - DEPARTMENT OF LABOR & INDUSTRY
2,570.81
FEB 2011 SURCHARGE
257417
11005053060
1495.4380
SURCHARGE
INSPECTIONS
2,570.81
344924
311012011
118375 DEPAUL LETTERING
268.00
LOGOS FOR UNIFORMS
257253
6374
1400.6203
UNIFORM ALLOWANCE
POLICE DEPT. GENERAL
268.00
344925
3/10/2011
102831 " DEX MEDIA EAST INC_ .
96.80
257038
650243624 -2111
5631.6122
ADVERTISING OTHER
CENTENNIAL ADMINISTRATION
96.80
344926
311012011
128222 DISPLAYS2GO
28.23
RETRACTABLE BELT
00008055 257039
IN- 0244306
5511.6406
GENERAL SUPPLIES
ARENA BLDG/GROUNDS
28.23
344927
3/10/2011
112663 DOLLARS &SENSE
683.33
DIRECT MAIL ADVERTISING
257151
26983
5822.6122
ADVERTISING OTHER
50TH ST SELLING
683.33
DIRECT MAIL ADVERTISING
257151
26983
5842.6122
ADVERTISING OTHER
YORK SELLING
683.34
DIRECT MAIL ADVERTISING
257151
26983
5862.6122
ADVERTISING OTHER
VERNON SELLING
2,050.00
344928
3110/2011
124503 EDEN PRAIRIE WINLECTRIC CO.
20.99
UNISTRUT
00001443 257152
07862100
1552.6406
GENERAL SUPPLIES
CENT SVC PW BUILDING
20.99
344929
3110/2011
101837 EDINA POLICE DEPARTMENT
1,209.50
SECURITY FOR HOCKEY GAMES
00008067 257418
2011 -094
5510.6103
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
ARENA ADMINISTRATION
1,209.50
344930
311012011
101937 EMS INSIDER
R55CKREG LOG20000
CITY OF EDINA
3/9/2011 8:08:52
Council Check Register
Page - 8
3/10/2011
- 3110/2011
Check # Date
Amount
Supplier / Explanation
PO # Doc No
Inv No
Account No
Subledger Account Description
Business Unit
225.00
EMS INSIDER SUBSCRIPTION
257153
16616757 -1
1470.6105
DUES 8 SUBSCRIPTIONS
FIRE DEPT. GENERAL
225.00
344931 3/10/2011
100018 EXPERT T BILLING
5,562.00
FEB BILLINGS
257254
030211
1470.6103
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
FIRE DEPT. GENERAL
5,562.00
344932 3110/2011
100146 FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY
163.37-
CREDIT
00005618 257154
1- 3562157
1553.6530
REPAIR PARTS
EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN
38.50-
CREDIT
00005618 257155
1- 3562156
1553.6530
REPAIR PARTS
EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN
64.63-
CREDIT
00005618 257156
1- 3562158
1553.6530
REPAIR PARTS
EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN
52.80-
CREDIT
257157
1- 3568432
1553.6530
REPAIR PARTS
EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN
213.37-
CREDIT
257158
1- 3568430
1553.6530
REPAIR PARTS
EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN
375.24-
CREDIT -
257159
1- 3568431
1553.6530
REPAIR PARTS
EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN
748.77
PUMPS, SEALS, FILTERS
00005618 257160
69- 031174
1553.6530
REPAIR PARTS
EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN
53.13-
CREDIT
257161
1- 3569674
1553.6530
REPAIR PARTS
EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN
35.33
INLET
00005618 257162
69- 031281
1553.6530
REPAIR PARTS
EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN
155.47-
CREDIT
257163
1- 3572949
1553.6530
REPAIR PARTS
EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN
43.50
DOOR JAMB SWITCH
00005618 257164
69- 032117
1553.6530
REPAIR PARTS
EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN
644.69
'SENSOR ASSEMBLY, GEARS
00005618 257165
69- 031482
1553.6530
REPAIR PARTS
EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN
39.79
ABSORBER
00005618 257255
69- 032154
1553.6530
REPAIR PARTS
EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN
103.76
MOTOR, RESISTOR
00005618 257256
69- 032149
1553.6530
REPAIR PARTS
EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN
227.07
BELTS, TENSIONERS
00005757 257257
69- 032263
1553.6530
REPAIR PARTS
EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN
13.34
LAMPS, SEALED BEAMS
00005757 257258
69- 032420
1553.6530
REPAIR PARTS
EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN
340.16
FILTERS, DRUMS, SHOE SET
00005757 257259
69- 032466
1553.6530
REPAIR PARTS
EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN
11.79
SEAL
00005757 257260
70- 045307
1553.6530
REPAIR PARTS
EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN
1,091.69
344933 3110/2011
100297 FAST FOTO & DIGITAL
6.16
8326063 PHOTO W /MOUNTING
257261
T2- 298916
2210.6408
PHOTOGRAPHIC SUPPLIES
COMMUNICATIONS
6.16
344934 3/10/2011
102101 FEDEX OFFICE
9.61
MAILINGS
00006234 257419
062200021289
5410.6235
POSTAGE
GOLF ADMINISTRATION
9.61
344935 3110/2011
116492 FINANCE AND COMMERCE
229.51
AD FOR BID
257122
22270385
1120.6120
ADVERTISING LEGAL
ADMINISTRATION
245.61
AD FOR BID
257123
22270953
1120.6120
ADVERTISING LEGAL
ADMINISTRATION
475.12
344936 3/10/2011
101475 FOOTJOY
CITY OF EDINA
3/9/2011 8:08:52
R55CKREG LOG20000
Council Check Register
Page - 9
3/10/2011
- 3/10/2011
Check #
Date
Amount
Supplier / Explanation
PO # Doc No
Inv No
Account No
Subledger Account Description
Business Unit
4,585.74
MERCHANDISE
257420
3572495
5440.5511
COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP
PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES
787.46
SHOES
257421
3573244
5440.5511
COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP
PRO SHOP RETAIL'SALES
69.24
SHOES
257422
3575522
5440.5511
COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP
PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES
258.88
SHOES
257423
3574555
5440.5511
COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP
PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES
73.73
SHOES
257424
3578001
5440.5511
COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP
PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES
5,775.05
344937
3/1012011
101848: FRANKLIN COVEY PRODUCTS
47.93
OFFICE SUPPLIES
00001269 257133
80183376
1640.6406
GENERAL SUPPLIES
PARK MAINTENANCE GENERAL
47.93
344938
311012011
105168. FRANKLIN, ELIZABETH
90.00
CLASS REFUND
257493
030111
5101.4607
CLASS REGISTRATION
ART CENTER REVENUES
90.00
344939
311012011
102273 FRED PRYOR SEMINARS
124.00
SEMINAR
257425
12331621
1400.6104
CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS
POLICE DEPT. GENERAL
124.00
344940
3110/2011
100764 G & K SERVICES
77.27
SHOP TOWELS
257426
1006811715
5422.6201
LAUNDRY
MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS
77.27
SHOP TOWELS
257427
1006833605
5422.6201
LAUNDRY
MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS
154.54
344941
311012011
105508 GEMPLER'S INC
102.28
UNIFORM PURCHASE
00001271 257040
1016884882
1640.6201
LAUNDRY
PARK MAINTENANCE GENERAL
102.28
344942
3/1012011
100772 GENERAL OFFICE PRODUCTS
2,013.12
NEW DESKS
00008015 257428
338402
5511.6406
GENERAL SUPPLIES
ARENA BLDG /GROUNDS
2,013.12
344943
311012011
100778 GOODIN COMPANY
235.88
REPAIR KITS
00001432 257262
01931792 -00
5912.6406
GENERAL SUPPLIES
WELL HOUSES
235.88
344944
3110/2011
101156 GOPHER SIGN CO.
1,927.84
U -POSTS
00001187 257166
84043
1325.6531
SIGNS & POSTS
STREET NAME SIGNS
1,927.84
344945
3/1012011
102383 GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS AS
150.00
DUES -ERIC ROGGEMAN
257263
0128198 -2011
1160.6105
DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS
FINANCE
R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA
Council Check Register
3/10/2011 —3/10/2011
Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description
GENERAL SUPPLIES
CONTRACTED REPAIRS
3/9/2011 8:08:52
Page - 10
Business Unit
MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS
EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING
MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE LIQUOR YORK GENERAL
WATER TREATMENT SUPPLIES WATER TREATMENT
COBRA INSURANCE CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL
HOSPITALIZATION CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL
RADIO SERVICE
EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN
150.00
POLICE DEPT. GENERAL
EQUIPMENT RENTAL
POLICE DEPT. GENERAL
DATA PROCESSING
344946
3110/2011
101103 GRAINGER
109.01
BATTERY 00006048
257429
9458565695
5422.6406
109.01
344947
3110/2011
124711 GRANDVIEW TIRE & AUTO - CAHILL
161.32
ALIGNMENT 00005761
257264
20580
1553.6180
161.32
344948
3110/2011
102217 GRAPE BEGINNINGS INC
909.75
257203
127411
5842.5513
1,069.50
257322
127418
5862.5513
1,979.25
344949
311012011
101518 GRAUSAM, STEVE
140.25
MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT
257041
030111
5840.6107
140.25
344950
311012011
100797 HAWKINS INC.
5,293.50
CHEMICALS 00001216
257265
3201514
5915.6586
5,293.50
344951
311012011
122093 HEALTH PARTNERS
23,495.77
PREMIUM
257266
36693617
1550.6043
196,008.11
PREMIUM
257267
36905053
1550.6040
219,503.88
344952
3/10/2011
105436 HENNEPIN COUNTY INFORMATION
656.00
RADIO ADMIN FEE 00001467
257430
110138079
1553.6237
32.00
RADIO ADMIN FEE
257431
110138115
1400.6151
1,718.80
RADIO ADMIN FEE
257432
110138016
1400.6151
160.31
TECH SUPPORT
257433
110262025
1400.6160
2,567.11
344953
3/10/2011
100801 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER
4,624.50
JAN 2011 ROOM & BOARD
257434
20111 - EDINA
1195.6170
4,624.50
344954
311012011
100801 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER
25.00
STEP TO IT TRAINING
257486
2011
1513.6218
25.00
GENERAL SUPPLIES
CONTRACTED REPAIRS
3/9/2011 8:08:52
Page - 10
Business Unit
MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS
EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING
MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE LIQUOR YORK GENERAL
WATER TREATMENT SUPPLIES WATER TREATMENT
COBRA INSURANCE CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL
HOSPITALIZATION CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL
RADIO SERVICE
EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN
EQUIPMENT RENTAL
POLICE DEPT. GENERAL
EQUIPMENT RENTAL
POLICE DEPT. GENERAL
DATA PROCESSING
POLICE DEPT. GENERAL
COURT CHARGES LEGAL SERVICES
EDUCATION PROGRAMS EMPLOYEE PROGRAMS
R55CKREG LOG20000
50TH ST SELLING
COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX
VERNON SELLING
CITY OF
EDINA
COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER
YORK SELLING
Council Check Register
3/10/2011
-3/1012011
Check # Date
Amount
Supplier / Explanation PO #
Doc No
Inv No
Account No
344955 3/1012011
102460 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER
315.00
HAZARDOUS WASTE FEE 00001211
257167
1000002330
1280.6271
315.00
HAZARDOUS WASTE FEE
257435
1000002329
5422.6182
210.00
HAZARDOUS WASTE FEE
257436
1000002331
7412.6136
840.00
344956 311012011
106371 HENNEPIN FACULTY ASSOCIATES
2,475.08
MEDICAL DIRECTOR SERVICES
257268
QB16778
1470.6103
2,475.08
' 344957 311012011
101588 HENNEPIN TECHNICAL COLLEGE
294.72
TRAINING
257168
00226683
1470.6104
294.72
344958 3/10/2011
103838. HENNEPIN TECHNICAL COLLEGE
170.00
TRAINNG
257169
00226388
1470.6104
925.86
TRAINING
257170
00226405
1470.6104
1,095.86
344959 3/1012011
116680 HEWLETT - PACKARD COMPANY
371.93
COMPUTERNIDEO CARD, MONITOFMOO4408
257124
49028620
5913.6406
630.80
PC 00004408
257124
49028620
1554.6710
1,002.73
344960 3/1012011
103753 HILLYARD INC -MINNEAPOLIS
206.46
SANITIZER, TOWELS 00002272
257269
6647625
5620.6511
16.97
PURELL STANDS 00002266
257270
6647826
5620.6406
307.41
PURELL FOAM, CLEANER 00002276
257271
6652388
5620.6511
530.84
344961 3/10/2011
100805 - HIRSHFIELD'S
31.86
PAINT 00006235
257272
003431205
5420.6406
31.86
_ 344962 311012011
104376 HOHENSTEINS INC.
214.00
257204
551089
5822.5514
12.00
257323
551605
5862.5515
•
559.75
257324
551604
5862.5514
1,415.00
257325
551438
5842.5514
2,200.75
319/2011 8:08:52
Page - 11
Subledger Account Description Business Unit
HAZ. WASTE DISPOSAL SUPERVISION & OVERHEAD
RUBBISH REMOVAL MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS
PROFESSIONAL SVC - OTHER PSTF RANGE
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL
z�
CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS FIRE DEPT. GENERAL
CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS FIRE DEPT. GENERAL
CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS FIRE DEPT. GENERAL
GENERAL SUPPLIES DISTRIBUTION
EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT CENT SERV GEN - MIS
CLEANING SUPPLIES EDINBOROUGH PARK
GENERAL SUPPLIES EDINBOROUGH PARK
CLEANING SUPPLIES EDINBOROUGH PARK
GENERAL SUPPLIES CLUB HOUSE
COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER
50TH ST SELLING
COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX
VERNON SELLING
COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER
VERNON SELLING
COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER
YORK SELLING
R55CKREG LOG20000
CITY OF EDINA
3/9/2011 8:08:52
Council Check Register
Page - 12
3/10/2011
-3/10/2011
Check #
Date
Amount
Supplier / Explanation
PO # Doc No
Inv No
Account No
Subledger Account Description
Business Unit
344963
3/10/2011
102205 HOMBERGER, JEFF
84.98
MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT
257437
030111
5410.6107
MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE
GOLF ADMINISTRATION
84.98
344964
3/10/2011
126816 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
72.82
PW SUPPLIES/TOOLS
257171
021311
1325.6406
GENERAL SUPPLIES
STREET NAME SIGNS
85.71
PW SUPPLIES/TOOLS
257171
021311
1318.6406
GENERAL SUPPLIES
SNOW & ICE REMOVAL
168.27
PW SUPPLIES/TOOLS
257171
021311
1301.6556
TOOLS
GENERAL MAINTENANCE
174.93
PW SUPPLIES/TOOLS
257171
021311
1301.6406
GENERAL SUPPLIES
GENERAL MAINTENANCE
688.13
PW SUPPLIES/TOOLS
257171
021311
1646.6556
TOOLS
BUILDING MAINTENANCE
1,189.86
344965
3/1012011
101618 HOPKINS PET HOSPITAL
3,056.04
DOG /CAT IMPOUNDS
257273
316609
1450.6217
KENNEL SERVICE
ANIMAL CONTROL
3,056.04
344966
311012011
124786 HURKADLI, ARUNA
25.00
AMBULANCE OVERPAYMENT
257500
030411
1470.4329
AMBULANCE FEES
FIRE DEPT. GENERAL
25.00
344967
3110/2011
128353 HURLEY, SCOTT
131.39
AMBULANCE OVERPAYMENT
257501
030411
1470.4329
AMBULANCE FEES
FIRE DEPT. GENERAL
131.39
344968
311012011
118348 IDENTIX INC.
44.75
ECONOMIZER TOWELS
00003016 257438
49707
1400.6406
GENERAL SUPPLIES
POLICE DEPT. GENERAL
44.75
344969
3/1012011
128034 INDEPENDENT OFFICIALS
ASSOCIAT
1,260.00
BASKETBALL OFFICIATING
257439
030211
4077.6103
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
EDINA ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION
1,260.00
344970
3110/2011
124290 INrL CHEMTEX CORP
86.57
BOILER TESTING
00001439 257440
8191
1552.6103
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
CENT SVC PW BUILDING
86.57
344971
3/1012011
102136 JERRY S TRANSMISSION SERVICE
38.42
DOOR CHECK ARM
00005478 257503
0016373
1553.6530
REPAIR PARTS
EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN
38.42
344972
311012011
100741 JJ TAYLOR DIST. OF MINN
6,414.02
257205
1481259
5842.5514
COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER
YORK SELLING
R55CKREG LOG20000
CITY OF
EDINA
Council Check Register
3110/2011
-3110/2011
Check # Date Amount
Supplier I Explanation - PO #
Doc No -
Inv No
Account No
5,609.20
257206
1461260
5842.5514
32.50-
257207
1514533
5862.5514 '
53.80
257326
1481297
5862.5515
4,103.35
257327
1481290
5862.5514
5,503.62
257328
1481301
5842.5514
5,198.50
257329
1481291
5822.5514
21.50
257330
1481292
5822.5515
26,871.49
344973 3110/2011
103959 JOHN, NAGENGAST DOORS LLC
370.00
DOOR REPAIRS
257176
4234
1470.6180
370.00
344975 3110/2011 100835 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO.
125.52 257331 1010604
31.37 257332 1010602
1,823.26 257333 1010601
1,121.52 257334 1010606
1,274.31 257335 1010603
1.12 257336 1010592
3,034.79 257337 1010605
22.11 257338 1010597
1,799.53 257339 1010596
3,825.30 257340 1010586
5,382.12 257341 1010593
99.23 257342 1010594
546.60 257343 1010595
1,404.94 257344 1010599
193.10 257345 1010591
259.39 257346 1010588
2,346.70 257347 1010587
704.36 257348 1010590
72.71 257349 1010589
2,465.95 257350 1010600
1,786.10 257351 1010598
28,320.03
344976 3/1012011 112618 KOLLMER CONSULTANTS INC.
4,000.00 WATER TOWER REHAB SPECS 257274 1540
4,000.00
344977 311012011 100605 LANDS' END BUSINESS OUTFITTERS
5862.5512
5862.5515
5862.5512
5862.5513
5862.5513
5862.5513
5862.5513
5842.5513
5842.5513
5842.5513
5842.5512
5842.5515
5842.5512
5842.5512
5822.5513
5822.5513
5822.5513
5822.5512
5822.5512
5842.5513
5842.5513
05509.1705.20
Subledger Account Description ,
COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER
COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER
COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX
COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER
COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER
COSTOF GOODS SOLD BEER
COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX
CONTRACTED REPAIRS
COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR
COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX
COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR
COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX
COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR
COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR
COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
CONSULTING DESIGN
3/9/2011 8:08:52
Page - 13
Business Unit
VERNON SELLING
VERNON SELLING
VERNON SELLING
YORK SELLING
50TH ST SELLING
50TH ST SELLING
FIRE DEPT. GENERAL
VERNON SELLING
VERNON SELLING
VERNON SELLING
VERNON SELLING
VERNON SELLING
VERNON SELLING
VERNON SELLING
YORK SELLING
YORK SELLING
YORK SELLING
YORK SELLING
YORK SELLING
YORK SELLING
YORK SELLING
50TH ST SELLING
50TH ST SELLING
50TH ST SELLING
50TH ST SELLING
50TH ST SELLING
YORK SELLING
YORK SELLING
GLEASON WATER TOWER REHAB
R55CKREG LOG20000
CITY OF EDINA
3/9/2011 8:08:52
Council Check Register
Page - 14
3/10/2011
- 3/10/2011
Check #
Date
Amount
Supplier / Explanation
PO # Doc No
Inv No
Account No
Subledger Account Description
Business Unit
1,795.85
UNIFORMS
257042
09896711
1495.6558
DEPT UNIFORMS
INSPECTIONS
1,795.85
344978
3/10/2011
124611 LARSCO INC.
853.18
NOZZLES
00001348 257172
2758
5915.6406
GENERAL SUPPLIES
WATER TREATMENT
2,358.39
CHEMICAL FEED EQUIPMENT
00001347 257173
2760
5915.6406
GENERAL SUPPLIES
WATER TREATMENT
3,211.57
344979
3/10/2011
100852 LAWSON PRODUCTS INC.
58.85
PLOW BOLTS
00005689 257043
0187965
1553.6530
REPAIR PARTS
EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN
86.80
WASHERS
00001359 257275
0205078
1325.6406
GENERAL SUPPLIES
STREET NAME SIGNS
145.65
344980
3110/2011
101455 LOCAL 49 TRAINING CENTER
400.00
TRAINING
00001547 257441
00000070
1281.6104
CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS
TRAINING
400.00
344981
3/10/2011
125208 LOVEJOY, NICHOLAS
69.67
FEB 2011 MILEAGE
257442
022811
1554.6107
MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE
CENT SERV GEN - MIS
51.10
CELL PHONE REIMBURSEMENT
257443
030311
1554.6230
SERVICE CONTRACTS EQUIPMENT
CENT SERV GEN - MIS
120.77
344982
311012011
101792 LURE -TECH
1,087.28
CAR WASH FLUID
00005570 257276
1878819
1553.6238
CAR WASH
EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN
1,087.28
344983
3/10/2011
101453 LUTZ, RICHARD M.
50.53
UNIFORM PURCHASE
257444
030311
1400.6203
UNIFORM ALLOWANCE
POLICE DEPT. GENERAL
50.53
344984
3/1012011
100864 MACQUEEN EQUIP INC.
723.79
DRIVE FLANGE
00005693 257044
2111760
1553.6530
REPAIR PARTS
EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN
224.84
SHEAR PINS
00005783 257045
2111803
1553.6530
REPAIR PARTS
EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN
948.63
344986
3110/2011
100866 MAMA
45.00
DUES - SCOTT NEAL
257445
460
1120.6105
DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS
ADMINISTRATION
45.00
344986
3/1012011
101146 MATRIX
215.61
257046
607748742
1550.6188
TELEPHONE
CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL
215.61
R55CKREG LOG20000
CITY OF EDINA
Council Check Register
3/10/2011
- 3/10/2011
Check #
Date
Amount
Supplier / Explanation
PO # . Doc No
Inv No
Account No
Subledger.• Account Description
344987
311012011
102560 MAXIMUM SOLUTIONS INC.-
300.00
MAXSCHEDULE ANNUAL SERVICE
257125
11516
1600.6105
DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS
300.00
344988
3/10/2011
101483 MENARDS
162.93
BUILDING SUPPLIES
00001264 257047
29771
1646.6406
GENERAL SUPPLIES
35.28
PAINTING SUPPLIES
00001270 257048
30020
1646.6406
GENERAL SUPPLIES
198.21
344989
3/1012011
101987 MENARDS
151.55
CIRCULAR SAW, BLADES
00002099 257049
67061
5630.6406
GENERAL SUPPLIES
21.40
HOOKS, WIRE
00002278 257277
68831
5620.6406
GENERAL SUPPLIES
173.65
PAINT & SUPPLIES
00002000 257448
68334
5630.6532
PAINT
346.60
344990
3110/2011
104156 MENARDS
141.42
SCREWS, PLYWOOD
00000626 257449
33357
5210.6406
GENERAL SUPPLIES
141.42
344991
3/1012011
100885 METRO SALES INC
98.00
COPIER MAINT CONTRACT
00008065 257446
394173
5510.6105
DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS
98.00
344992
311012011
100886. METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
13,246.20
FEB 2011 SAC CHARGES
257447
FEB2011
1495.4307
SAC CHARGES
13,246.20
344993
311012011
104650 MICRO CENTER
85.49
PRINTER
00004409 257050
3192239
1554.6710
EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT
85.49
344994
311012011.
102007 MINNCOR INDUSTRIES
57.50
DISINFECTANT
00001440 257174
181014
1552.6406
GENERAL
57.50
344995
3110/2011
100913 MINNEAPOLIS & SUBURBAN SEWER &
2,450.00
REPLACE WATER SERVICE
00001491 257278
33789
5913.6180
CONTRACTED REPAIRS
2,450.00
344996
3110/2011
128337 MINNEAPOLIS FOUNDATION, THE
3/912011 8:08:52
Page - 15
Business Unit
PARK ADMIN. GENERAL
BUILDING MAINTENANCE
BUILDING MAINTENANCE
CENTENNIAL LAKES
EDINBOROUGH PARK
CENTENNIAL LAKES
GOLF DOME PROGRAM
ARENA ADMINISTRATION
INSPECTIONS
CENT SERV GEN - MIS
CENT SVC PW BUILDING
DISTRIBUTION
10,000.00 2011 INVESTMENT 257126 1018 1120.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
R55CKREG LOG20000
CITY OF EDINA
31912011 8:08:52
Council Check Register
Page - 16
3/1012011
— 3/1012011
Check #
Date
Amount
Supplier / Explanation PO #
Doc No
Inv No
Account No
Subledger Account Description
Business Unit
10,000.00
344997
3110/2011
102174 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPANY
19.82
CO25
257279
R102110115
5421.6406
GENERAL SUPPLIES
GRILL
44.29
CO2, METHANE
257450
R102110242
7413.6545
CHEMICALS
PSTF FIRE TOWER
64.11
344998
3/10/2011
100231 MINNESOTA POST BOARD
1,440.00
LICENSE RENEWALS
257451
030211
1400.6104
CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS
POLICE DEPT. GENERAL
1,440.00
344999
3/10/2011
104147 MINNESOTA SOCIETY OF ARBORICUL
40.00
MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL
257127
2011
1644.6105
DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS
TREES & MAINTENANCE
40.00
345000
311012011
101996 MINNESOTA TROPHIES & GIFTS
70.38
PLAQUE ENGRAVING
257280
106677
1419.6106
MEETING EXPENSE
RESERVE PROGRAM
70.38
345001
3/10/2011
100908 MINNESOTA WANNER CO.
384.75
HOSE REEL 00005571
257281
0087409 -IN
1553.6530
REPAIR PARTS
EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN
384.75
345002
3/10/2011
100898 MINVALCO
1,431.85
HVAC ACTUATORS
257452
790838
1551.6530
REPAIR PARTS
CITY HALL GENERAL
1,431.85
345003
3110/2011
122611 MORNINGSIDE BUILDERS LLC
115.00
INSTALL LIFEPAK BASE
257453
1254
1470.6180
CONTRACTED REPAIRS
FIRE DEPT. GENERAL
115.00
345004
3110/2011
108668 MORRIS, GRAYLYN
150.00
EP ENTERTAINMENT 3/17/11
257496
030411
5621.6136
PROFESSIONAL SVC - OTHER
EDINBOROUGH ADMINISTRATION
150.00
345005
3110/2011
100912 MOTOROLA INC.
1,635.12
SERVICE AGREEMENT
257282
•78163532
1400.6230
SERVICE CONTRACTS EQUIPMENT
POLICE DEPT. GENERAL
1,635.12
345006
3110/2011
100906 MTI DISTRIBUTING INC.
435.40
MOWER PARTS 00001259
257051
773363 -00
1643.6530
REPAIR PARTS
GENERAL TURF CARE
435.40
R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA
Council Check Register
3/10/2011 —3/10/2011
Check # Date Amount Supplier/ Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description
345007 311012011 101390 MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES 1
435.04 GAUGES, BLEED CAPS 00003522 257175 00220581_SNV 1470.6530 REPAIR PARTS
435.04
345008 3/1012011 100921 NATIONAL CAMERA EXCHANGE
3/912011 8:08:52
Page - 17
Business Unit
FIRE DEPT. GENERAL
5,943.08 TRAINING SUPPLIES /CAMERAS 00003009 257454 0209107ULEQ 1400.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS POLICE DEPT. GENERAL
5,943.08
345009 311012011 100076 NEW FRANCE WINE CO.
239.00
257208
64932
5842.5513
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
YORK SELLING
549.00
257352
64930
5862.5513
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
VERNON SELLING
61.50
257353
64931
5822.5513
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
50TH ST SELLING
849.50
345010
3/1012011
100922 NEWMAN TRAFFIC SIGNS
4,821.16
SIGNS 00001186 257504
TI- 0230465
1325.6531
SIGNS & POSTS
STREET NAME SIGNS
4,821.16
345011
3/10/2011
126728 NORTH COUNTRY CONCRETE INC.
11,210.42
FINAL PAYMENT 257505
031111
4402.1.705.30
CONTRACTOR PAYMENTS
OW BUILDING
11,210.42
345012
311012011
101620 NORTH SECOND STREET STEEL SUPP
202.95
STEEL 00006396 257455
195996
5210.6406
GENERAL SUPPLIES
GOLF DOME PROGRAM
202.95
345013
3110/2011
100292 NORTHERN ESCROW INC.
1,029.60
PARTIAL PAYMENT NO. 12 257283
031111
4402.1705.30
CONTRACTOR PAYMENTS
PW BUILDING
1,029.60
345014
311012011
104232 NORTHERN SAFETY TECHNOLOGY INC
59.64
LOCKING COLLAR 00005656 257177
26815
1553.6530
REPAIR PARTS
EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN
59.64
345015
311012011
100933 NORTHWEST GRAPHIC SUPPLY CO.
69.00
SYNTHETIC SABLE WASH 00009165 257284
40160201
5120.5510
COST OF GOODS SOLD
ART SUPPLY GIFT GALLERY SHOP
69.00
345016
311012011
103578 OFFICE DEPOT
111.39
ENVELOPES, PAPER 00002269 257285
552535553001
5621.6406
GENERAL SUPPLIES
EDINBOROUGH ADMINISTRATION
1.82
PENCIL HOLDER 00006034 257456
1314253673
5410.6513
OFFICE SUPPLIES
GOLF ADMINISTRATION
R55CKREG LOG20000
Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation
158.01 OFFICE SUPPLIES
271.22
345017 3/10/2011 100347 PAUSTIS & SONS
4,071.69
160.25-
1 719 AR
CITY OF EDINA
Council Check Register
3/10/2011 -3/10/2011
PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description
00008051 257457 552350632001 5510.6513 OFFICE SUPPLIES
3/9/2011 8:08:52
Page - 18
Business Unit
ARENA ADMINISTRATION
257209
8295757 -IN
5842.5513
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
YORK SELLING
257210
8295335 -CM
5842.5513
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
YORK SELLING
257354
8295776 -IN
5862.5513
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
VERNON SELLING
257355
8295768 -IN
5822.5513
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
50TH ST SELLING
345018 3/10/2011
VERNON SELLING
125492
PAYPAL INC.
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
VERNON SELLING
COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR
VERNON SELLING
39.95
VSV0002830598 FEE
257458
10510352
5910.6155
50TH ST SELLING
39.95
50TH ST SELLING
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
50TH ST SELLING
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
50TH ST SELLING
345019 3/1012011
YORK SELLING
100743
PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
YORK SELLING
COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX
YORK SELLING
1,415.17
YORK SELLING
257356
2036454
5862.5513
502.80
257357
2036456
5862.5513
1,220.50
257358
2036447
5862.5513
234.86
257359
2036455
5862.5512
1,233.60
257360
2036608
5842.5513
3,186.46
257361
2036452
5842.5512
544.02
257362
2036444
5822.5512
1.12
257363
2036448
5822.5512
1,844.22
257364
2036445
5822.5513
703.14
257365
2036449
5822.5513
332.32
257366
2036443
5842.5513
819.70
257367
2036446
5842.5513
1,880.99
257368
2036450
5842.5513
45.07
257369
2036451
5842.5515
1,255.79
257370
2036453
5842.5513
15,219.76
345020 3/1012011
100958
PLUNKETTS PEST CONTROL
44.52
PEST CONTROL
257459
2235697
7411.6103
44.52
345021 3/1012011
119620
POMP'S TIRE SERVICE INC.
765.12
LOADER
TIRE CHAINS 00005619
257052
258935
1553.6530
235.32
TIRES
00005758
257286
269926
1553.6583
1,000.44
345022 3/10/2011
100961
POSTMASTER - USPS
BANK SERVICES CHARGES GENERAL (BILLING)
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
VERNON 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 WINE
YORK SELLING
COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR
YORK SELLING
COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR
50TH ST SELLING
COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR
50TH ST SELLING
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
50TH ST SELLING
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
50TH ST SELLING
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
YORK SELLING
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
YORK SELLING
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
YORK SELLING
COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX
YORK SELLING
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
YORK SELLING
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PSTF OCCUPANCY
REPAIR PARTS
TIRES & TUBES
EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN
EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN
R55CKREG LOG20000
YORK SELLING
COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR
YORK SELLING
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
CITY OF
EDINA
YORK SELLING
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
YORK SELLING
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
YORK SELLING
Council Check Register
50TH ST SELLING
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
50TH ST SELLING
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
50TH ST SELLING
3/10/2011
- 3/10/2011
Check # Date
Amount
Supplier/ Explanation
PO #
Doc No
Inv No
Account No
VERNON SELLING
300.00
NEWSLETTER POSTAGE `'
COST OF GOODSSOLD LIQUOR
257131
030711
1628.6235
300.00
345023 3110/2011
100961 POSTMASTER - USPS
2,600.00
UTILITY BILLING PERMIT #939
257178
030211
5910.6235
2,600.00
345024 3/10/2011
128346 PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS
465.00
PWC INVESTOR SURVEY
257179
3196339.000
1190.6105
465.00
345025 3110/2011
106341 PRIORITY DISPATCH
78.00
MAINT AGREEMENT - CARDSET
ESP
257460
63772
2310.6230
78.00
345026 311012011
106322 PROSOURCE SUPPLY
562.93
WYPALL, TISSUE, CLEANERS
00008049
257053
5117
5511.6511
436.04
TISSUE, TOWELS
00002098
257054
5124
5630.6511
998.97
345027 311012011
100971 QUALITY WINE
570.20
257211
42516400
5842.5512
2,613.00
257212
425907 -00
5842.5512
608.00
257213
426138 -00
5842.5513
1,612.45
257214
425086 -00
5842.5513
1,080.00
257215
422658 -00
5842.5513
488.43
257216
425863 -00
5842.5513
1,376.91
257217
425909 -00
5822.5512
397.43
257218
425848 -00
5822.5513
1,011.44
257219
425088 -00
5822.5513
305.60
257371
426600 -00
5842.5512
116.60
257372
425089 -CO
5822.5514
1,244.01
257373
425908 -00
5862.5512
2.905.60
257374
425087 -00
5862.5513
1,178.41
257375
42586400
5862.5513
872.90
257376
426139 -00
5862.5513
7.20-
257377
42158400
5842.5512
16,373.78
345028 3110/2011
123898 QWEST
55.81
952 922 -2444
257055
2444 -2111
1550.6188
114.21
952 920 -8166
257056
8166 -2/11
1550.6188
Subledger Account Description
POSTAGE
POSTAGE
3/9/2011 8:08:52
Page - 19
Business Unit
SENIOR CITIZENS
GENERAL (BILLING)
DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS ASSESSING
SERVICE CONTRACTS EQUIPMENT E911
CLEANING SUPPLIES ARENA BLDG/GROUNDS
CLEANING.SUPPLIES CENTENNIAL LAKES
COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR
YORK SELLING
COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR
YORK SELLING
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
YORK SELLING
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
YORK SELLING
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
YORK SELLING
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
YORK SELLING
COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR
50TH ST SELLING
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
50TH ST SELLING
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
50TH ST SELLING
COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR
YORK SELLING
COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER
50TH ST SELLING
COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR ,
VERNON SELLING
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
VERNON SELLING
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
VERNON SELLING
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
VERNON SELLING
COST OF GOODSSOLD LIQUOR
YORK SELLING
TELEPHONE CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL
TELEPHONE CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL
r
R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA
Council Check Register
3/10/2011 — 3/10/2011
Check # Date Amount Supplier/ Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description
55.76 952 929 -0297 257487 0297 -2/11 4090.6188 TELEPHONE
332.12 952 927 -8861 257488 8861 -2111 1550.6188 TELEPHONE
GENERAL SUPPLIES
3/9/2011 8:08:52
Page - 20
Business Unit
50TH &FRANCE MAINTENANCE
CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL
50TH &FRANCE MAINTENANCE
PROFESSIONAL SVC - OTHER ARENA BLDG/GROUNDS
PROFESSIONAL SVC - OTHER ARENA BLDG/GROUNDS
PROFESSIONAL SVC - OTHER ARENA BLDG/GROUNDS
GENERAL SUPPLIES PATHS & HARD SURFACE
REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN
RUBBISH REMOVAL MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS
GENERAL SUPPLIES 50TH &FRANCE MAINTENANCE
GENERAL SUPPLIES CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL
MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE SKATING & HOCKEY
557.90
345029
3/1012011
117692 R & B CLEANING INC.
2,009.25
MAR 2011 RAMP CLEANING
00001546
257287
#1
4090.6406
2,009.25
345030
3/1012011
122170 REGION 3AA
1,217.26
% QUARTER FINAL
257057
030111
5511.6136
4,211.94
% SEMI FINAL
257057
030111
5511.6136
5,429.20
345031
3/1012011
101268 REGION 6AA
5,518.92
% SEMI FINAL
257058
030111
5511.6136
5,518.92
345032
3/1012011
125936 REINDERS
432.66
ICE MELT FOR GRANDVIEW SQ
00001394
257059
3007882 -00
1647.6406
432.66
345033
3110/2011
100985 RUFFRIDGE JOHNSON
EQUIPMENT
CO
716.70
WELDMENT
00005668
257288
C57170
1553.6530
716.70
345034
3/10/2011
100988 SAFETY KLEEN
202.04
RECYCLE PAINT
257461
53286535
5422.6182
202.04
345035
311012011
106442 SCHERER BROS. LUMBER CO.
31.36
LUMBER
00001542
257289
40912755
4090.6406
31.36
345036
311012011
101000 SIR SPEEDY
51.30
BUSINESS CARDS
257060
67932
1550.6406
51.30
345037
311012011
125137 SJOBLOM, JOHN
214.71
MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT
257498
030411
1622.6107
214.71
345038
3110/2011
117819 SOUTH OF THE RIVER
COMMUNITY
B
GENERAL SUPPLIES
3/9/2011 8:08:52
Page - 20
Business Unit
50TH &FRANCE MAINTENANCE
CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL
50TH &FRANCE MAINTENANCE
PROFESSIONAL SVC - OTHER ARENA BLDG/GROUNDS
PROFESSIONAL SVC - OTHER ARENA BLDG/GROUNDS
PROFESSIONAL SVC - OTHER ARENA BLDG/GROUNDS
GENERAL SUPPLIES PATHS & HARD SURFACE
REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN
RUBBISH REMOVAL MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS
GENERAL SUPPLIES 50TH &FRANCE MAINTENANCE
GENERAL SUPPLIES CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL
MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE SKATING & HOCKEY
R55CKREG LOG20000
CITY OF EDINA
3/9/2011 8:08:52
Council Check Register
Page - 21
3/10/2011
- 3/10/2011
Check #
Date
Amount
Supplier / Explanation PO #
Doc No
Inv No
Account No
Subledger Account Description
Business Unit
150.00
EP ENTERTAINMENT 3/20/11
257497
030411
5621.6136
PROFESSIONAL SVC - OTHER
EDINBOROUGH ADMINISTRATION
150.00
345039
3/10/2011
127878 SOUTHERN WINE AND SPIRITS
116.90
257220
1515047
5822.5512
COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR
50TH ST SELLING
330.00
257220
1515047
5822.5513
COST OFrGOODS SOLD WINE
50TH ST SELLING
1,523.17
257378
1497637
5842.5513
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
YORK SELLING -
1,716.00
257379
1489626
5862.5513
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
VERNON SELLING
3,686.07
345040
3/10/2011
123788. SPECIALTY TURF.,& AG INC
25.00
TRAINING .00001267 257061
127791
1640.6104
CONFERENCES &,SCHOOLS
PARK MAINTENANCE GENERAL
25.00
345041
3110/2011
101021 . SPEEDWAY SUPERAMERICA LLC
141.33
PROPANE/GAS
257290
022311
1400.6406
GENERAL SUPPLIES
POLICE DEPT. GENERAL
323.53
PROPANE/GAS "
257290
022311
1318.6406
GENERAL SUPPLIES
SNOW & ICE REMOVAL
464.86
345042
3/1012011
104672 SPRINT
39.99
DATA CARDS
257180
666109817 -039
1322.6188
TELEPHONE
STREET LIGHTING ORNAMENTAL
39.99
DATA CARDS
257180
666109817 -039
5913.6188
TELEPHONE
DISTRIBUTION
79.98
345043
3110/2011
101004 SPS COMPANIES.
14.19
PLUMBING PARTS 00001459 257062
52333723.001
1646.6530
REPAIR PARTS
BUILDING MAINTENANCE
14.19
345044
3/1012011
103277 ST. JOSEPH EQUIPMENT CO INC.
46.42
ASV COUPLING 00006403 257462
5184678
5422.6530
REPAIR PARTS
MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS
46.42
345045
311012011
119937 STEARNS COUNTY
".
200.00
OUT OF COUNTY, WARRANT
257463
030311
1000.2055
DUE TO OTHER GOVERNMENTS
GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET
200.00
345046
311012011
121569 STOCKER EXCAVATING CO.
15,105.33
FINAL PAYMENT
257291
031111
4402.1705.30
CONTRACTOR PAYMENTS
PW BUILDING
'
15,105.33
345047
3/10/2011
121569 STOCKER EXCAVATING CO.
3,780.60
FINAL PAYMENT
257292
MAR11
4402.1705.30
CONTRACTOR PAYMENTS
PW BUILDING
R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA
Council Check Register
3/10/2011 - 3/10/2011
Check # Date Amount Supplier/ Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description
7412.6406
7412.6406
7412.6406
1553.6530
1553.6530
1553.6530
1553.6530
1553.6530
1553.6530
1553.6530
1553.6530
1120.6120
1120.6120
1509.6103
5842.5514
5822.5514
1551.6103
5410.6513
GENERAL SUPPLIES
GENERAL SUPPLIES
GENERAL SUPPLIES
REPAIR PARTS
REPAIR PARTS
REPAIR PARTS
REPAIR PARTS
REPAIR PARTS
REPAIR PA14TS
REPAIR PARTS
REPAIR PARTS
ADVERTISING LEGAL
ADVERTISING LEGAL
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
3/912011 8:08:52
Page - 22
Business Unit
PSTF RANGE
PSTF RANGE
PSTF RANGE
EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN
EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN
EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN
EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN
EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN
EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN
EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN
EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN
ADMINISTRATION
ADMINISTRATION
DEER CONTROL
COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING
COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CITY HALL GENERAL
OFFICE SUPPLIES GOLF ADMINISTRATION
3,780.60
345048 3110/2011
101015 STRETCHERS
174.17
NITRO POWDER
257464
1816888
390.24
CLEANING BRUSHES, PATCHES
257465
1817057
36.32
NITRO POWDER
257466
1817796
600.73
345049 3/10/2011
101017 SUBURBAN CHEVROLET
52.36
HANDLE
00005686
257293
297460
320.63-
CREDIT
00005559
257294
CM294125
44.51
MUD FLAPS
00005657
257295
298192
52.36
HANDLE
00005787
257296
301119
132.85
LAMP
00005700
257297
301353
55.62
TRANSMISSION FLUID
00005820
257298
301730
302.46
SHAFT
00005791
257299
301780
17.58
RETAINER
00005699
257300
301050
337.11
345050 3/1012011
100900 SUN NEWSPAPERS
98.38
AD FOR BID
257128
1302883
91.52
AD FOR BID
257129
1302882
189.90
345051 311012011
114800 SUPERIOR WHITETAIL MANAGEMENT
6,250.00
DEER REMOVAL
00001409
257301
022811
6,250.00
345052 3110/2011
120998 SURLY BREWING CO.
930.00
257221
Z00008
818.00
257222
02093
1,748.00
345053 3/1012011
105982 T.P.C. LANDSCAPE
421.25
SIDEWALK SHOVELING
257467
413827
421.25
345054 311012011
101027 TARGET BANK
29.29
X- XXX -XX9 -840
257468
021811
29.29
345055 3/1012011
104932 TAYLOR MADE
7412.6406
7412.6406
7412.6406
1553.6530
1553.6530
1553.6530
1553.6530
1553.6530
1553.6530
1553.6530
1553.6530
1120.6120
1120.6120
1509.6103
5842.5514
5822.5514
1551.6103
5410.6513
GENERAL SUPPLIES
GENERAL SUPPLIES
GENERAL SUPPLIES
REPAIR PARTS
REPAIR PARTS
REPAIR PARTS
REPAIR PARTS
REPAIR PARTS
REPAIR PA14TS
REPAIR PARTS
REPAIR PARTS
ADVERTISING LEGAL
ADVERTISING LEGAL
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
3/912011 8:08:52
Page - 22
Business Unit
PSTF RANGE
PSTF RANGE
PSTF RANGE
EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN
EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN
EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN
EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN
EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN
EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN
EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN
EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN
ADMINISTRATION
ADMINISTRATION
DEER CONTROL
COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING
COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CITY HALL GENERAL
OFFICE SUPPLIES GOLF ADMINISTRATION
R55CKREG LOG20000
CITY OF EDINA
3/9/2011 8:08:52
Council Check Register
Page - 23
3/10/2011
- 3/10/2011
Check #
Date
Amount
Supplier! Explanation PO # . Doc No
Inv No
Account No
Subledger Account Description
Business Unit
478.08
GOLF BALLS 257469
15298986
5440.5511
COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP
PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES
478.08
345056
311012011
126352 THAYER, AUDREY
98.86
UTILITY OVERPAYMENT REFUND 257499
ACCT #110526002 5900.2015
CUSTOMER REFUND
UTILITY BALANCE SHEET
98.86
345057
3110/2011
101035 THORPE DISTRIBUTING COMPANY
68.85
257380
629564
5862.5515
COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX
VERNON SELLING
6,352.35
257381
629565
5862.5514
COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER
VERNON SELLING
6,421.20
345058
3/10/2011
124958 THURNBECK STEEL FABRICATION IN
8,026.33
FINAL PAYMENT 257302
031111
4402.1705.30
CONTRACTOR PAYMENTS
PW BUILDING
8,026.33
345059
3/10 12011
127318 11GER ATHLETICS INC.
600.00
FITNESS TRAINING 257470
INV362
1470.6104
CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS
FIRE DEPT. GENERAL
600.00
345060
3/1012011
123129 TIMESAVER OFF SITE SECRETARIAL
137.50
DRAFT MINUTES 2115/11 257303
M18254
1120.6103
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
ADMINISTRATION
137.50
345061
3110/2011
101474 TITLEIST
699.65
CUSTOMIRONS 00006137 257471
2303602
5440.5511
COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP
PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES
699.65
345062
311012011
128347 TKO WINES INC..
393.60
257382
580415
5842.5513
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
YORK SELLING
393.60
345063
3/1012011
101038 TOLL GAS & WELDING SUPPLY
80.07
TIPS, NOZZLES 00005695 257181
340314
1553.6580
WELDING SUPPLIES
EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN
36.84
WELDING TANKS 257472
418221
5630.6406
GENERAL SUPPLIES
CENTENNIAL LAKES
116.91
345064
3110/2011
101693 TOTAL REGISTER SYSTEMS
335.69
RECEIPT PRINTER 257304
'26340
5842.6406
GENERAL SUPPLIES
YORK SELLING
499.00
REGISTER SERVICE CONTRACT 00006236 257489
26177
5421.6230
SERVICE CONTRACTS EQUIPMENT
GRILL
1,735.00
REGISTERS SERVICE CONTRACT 00006236 257490
26178
5410.6230
SERVICE CONTRACTS EQUIPMENT
GOLF ADMINISTRATION
2,569.69
R55CKREG LOG20000
STREET NAME SIGNS
GENERAL SUPPLIES
DISTRIBUTION
CITY OF
EDINA
GENERAL SUPPLIES
ENGINEERING GENERAL
Council Check Register
3110/2011
- 3/10/2011
Check #
Date
Amount
Supplier / Explanation
PO #
Doc No
Inv No
Account No
345065
3110/2011
103982 TRAFFIC CONTROL CORPORATION
118.63
ADAPTER RINGS
00001367
257182
0000047284
1330.6406
118.63
345066
311012011
128351 TUCKER, KATHLEEN
100.00
CLASS REFUND
257494
030111
5101.4607
100.00
345067
3110/2011
118190 TURFWERKS LLC
1,025.18
RAKE PARTS
00006402
257473
S125728
5422.6530
1,025.18
345068
3/1012011
123969 TWIN CITIES OCCUPATIONAL HEALT
149.60
FITNESS FOR DUTY
257474
101760205
1470.6175
149.60
345069
3/1012011
101360 TWIN CITY HARDWARE
CO.
6,415.27
PARTIAL PAYMENT NO. 6
257506
031111
4402.1705.30
6,415.27
345070
3/10/2011
103298 UPS STORE #1715, THE
30.84
SHIPPING
257183
TRAN:9682
1325.6406
15.45
SHIPPING CHARGES
00001469
257305
2432
5913.6406
22.04
SHIPPING CHARGES
OOPOLICE
257306
9722
1400.6406
21.24
SHIPPING CHARGES
00001469
257307
9989
1260.6406
89.57
345071
3/1012011
114236 USA BLUE BOOK
708.43
CL INJECTOR KITS
00001482
257184
340020
5915.6406
708.43
345072
3/1012011
122554 VALLEY NATIONAL GASES LLC
70.10
OXYGEN
00003649
257185
825705
1470.6510
181.64
OXYGEN
00003649
257186
106373
1470.6510
290.83
OXYGEN
00003649
257475
055554
1470.6510
542.57
345073
311012011
103590 VALLEY -RICH CO. INC.
10,500.00
STORM OUTFALL REPAIR
00001486
257187
16271
5932.6180
11,778.15
WATER MAIN REPAIR
00001492
257308
16318
5913.6180
22,278.15
Subledger Account Description
GENERAL SUPPLIES
CLASS REGISTRATION
REPAIR PARTS
319/2011 8:08:52
Page- 24
Business Unit
TRAFFIC SIGNALS
ART CENTER REVENUES
MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS
PHYSICAL EXAMINATIONS FIRE DEPT. GENERAL
CONTRACTOR PAYMENTS PW BUILDING
GENERAL SUPPLIES
STREET NAME SIGNS
GENERAL SUPPLIES
DISTRIBUTION
GENERAL SUPPLIES
POLICE DEPT. GENERAL
GENERAL SUPPLIES
ENGINEERING GENERAL
GENERAL SUPPLIES WATER TREATMENT
FIRST AID SUPPLIES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL
FIRST AID SUPPLIES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL
FIRST AID SUPPLIES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL
CONTRACTED REPAIRS GENERAL STORM SEWER
CONTRACTED REPAIRS DISTRIBUTION
R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 3/9/2011 8:08:52
Council Check Register Page - 25
3/10/2011 - 3/10/2011
Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit
345074 3/1012011 102970 VERIZON WIRELESS
193.72 257476 2528050742 1400.6188 TELEPHONE POLICE DEPT. GENERAL
GENERAL SUPPLIES STREET LIGHTING ORNAMENTAL
GENERAL SUPPLIES STREET LIGHTING ORNAMENTAL
SAFETY. EQUIPMENT GENERAL MAINTENANCE
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING
GENERAL SUPPLIES
GENERAL SUPPLIES .
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
CITY HALL GENERAL
PARKING RAMP
POLICE DEPT. GENERAL
DISTRIBUTION
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES' SENIOR CITIZENS
REPAIR PARTS CENT SVC PW BUILDING
MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE RECYCLING
MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE RECYCLING
il-:
193.72
345075
311012011
101066 VIKING ELECTRIC SUPPLY
37.27
PLUG
00001385
257188
5211015
1322.6406
20.32
PLUG
00001385
257309
5231660
1322.6406
57.59
345076
311012011
101067 VIKING INDUSTRIAL CENTER
25.70
SAFETY GLASSES
00005732
257063
265128
1301.6610
25.70
345077
3/1012011
119464 VINOCOPIA
186.50
257383
0036332 -IN
5862.5513
186.50
345078
3110/2011
101069 VOSS LIGHTING
297.30
LAMPS
00001444
257189
15174200 -00
1551,6406
484.00
LAMPS
00001444
257189
15174200 -00
1375.6406
781.30
345079
3/10/2011
122069 WASHINGTON COUNTY FINANCIAL SE
2,904.00
MOTOROLA COST ALLOCATION
257477
68575
1400.6103
2,904.00
345080
311012011
123616 WATER CONSERVATION
SERVICE INC
502.53
LEAK LOCATES
00001488
257190
2338
5913.6103
502.53
345081
3110/2011
101075 WEIGLE, SUE
59.00
MASS CONFERENCE
257132
022811
1628.6103
59.00
345082
311012011
101078 WESTSIDE EQUIPMENT
245.00
NOZZLES, SWIVEL
00005759
257191
0042516 -1N -
1552.6530
245.00
345083
3/10/2011
101973 WILMOT, SOLVEI
2.04
JAN ✓/< FEB 2011 MILEAGE
257478
030311
5952.6107
22.44
JAN & FEB 2011 MILEAGE
257478
030311
5952.6107
GENERAL SUPPLIES STREET LIGHTING ORNAMENTAL
GENERAL SUPPLIES STREET LIGHTING ORNAMENTAL
SAFETY. EQUIPMENT GENERAL MAINTENANCE
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING
GENERAL SUPPLIES
GENERAL SUPPLIES .
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
CITY HALL GENERAL
PARKING RAMP
POLICE DEPT. GENERAL
DISTRIBUTION
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES' SENIOR CITIZENS
REPAIR PARTS CENT SVC PW BUILDING
MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE RECYCLING
MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE RECYCLING
il-:
CITY OF EDINA
3/9/2011 8:08:52
R55CKREG LOG20000
Council Check Register
Page - 26
'
3/10/2011
- 311012011
Check # Date
Amount
Supplier / Explanation PO #
Doc No
Inv No
Account No
Subledger Account Description
Business Unit
50.49
JAN & FEB 2011 MILEAGE
257478
030311
1490.6107
MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE
PUBLIC HEALTH
64.26
JAN & FEB 2011 MILEAGE
257478
030311
1490.6107
MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE
PUBLIC HEALTH
139.23
345084 3110/2011
101033 WINE COMPANY, THE
154.00
257223
263973 -00
5842.5515
COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX
YORK SELLING
140.20
257224
263974 -00
5842.5513
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
YORK SELLING
894.85
257225
26384400
5842.5513
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
YORK SELLING
512.92
257384
263972 -00
5862.5513
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
VERNON SELLING
982.85
257385
263859 -00
5822.5513
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
50TH ST SELLING
2,684.82
345085 311012011
101312 WINE MERCHANTS
2,806.84
257386
353524
5862.5513
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
VERNON SELLING
298.03
257387
353522
5822.5513
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
50TH ST SELLING
3,642.27
257388
353523
5842.5513
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
YORK SELLING
6,747.14
345086 3110/2011
124291 WIRTZ BEVERAGE MINNESOTA
13,184.07
257226
537204
5842.5512
COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR
YORK SELLING
69.06
257227
537205
5842.5515
COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX
YORK SELLING
6,226.43
257228
537202
5842.5513
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
YORK SELLING
4,594.33
257229
536131
5842.5513
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
YORK SELLING
127.25
257230
537203
5842.5515
COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX
YORK SELLING
3,114.80
257231
536129
5822.5513
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
50TH ST SELLING
2,015.64
257232
537201
5822.5513
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
50TH ST SELLING
1,615.28
257233
537200
5822.5512
COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR
50TH ST SELLING
11,130.49
257389
537198
5862.5512
COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR
VERNON SELLING
8,787.79
257390
537196
5862.5513
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
VERNON SELLING
49.15
257391
537197
5862.5513
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
VERNON SELLING
6,237.64
257392
536127
5862.5513
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
VERNON SELLING
89.05-
257393
824602
5862.5513
COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE
VERNON SELLING
679.02-
257394
822310
5842.5512
COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR
YORK SELLING
599.98-
257394
822310
5862.5512
COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR
VERNON SELLING
55,783.88
345087 3/10/2011
124529 WIRTZ BEVERAGE MINNESOTA BEER
1,641.95
257234
717957
5862.5514
COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER
VERNON SELLING
3,164.90
257235
717695
5862.5514
COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER
VERNON SELLING
600.00
257236
717694
5862.5514
COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER
VERNON SELLING
3,814.75
257237
718487
5842.5514
COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER
YORK SELLING
64.50
257238
718488
5842.5514
COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER
YORK SELLING
R55CKREG LOG20000
l
CITY OF EDINA
3/9/2011 8:08:52
Council Check Register
Page - 27
3110/2011
- 3110/2011
Check #
Date Amount
Supplier / Explanation
PO # Doc No
Inv No
Account No
Subledger Account Description
Business Unit
2,078.35
257395
719979
5822.5514
COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER
50TH ST SELLING
4,424.46
257396
720148
5842.5514
COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER
YORK SELLING
15,788.91
345088
3/10/2011
101082 WITTEK GOLF SUPPLY
54.28
SEED BOTTLES
00006049 257479
252729
5423.6406
GENERAL SUPPLIES
GOLF CARS
50.59
RAIN COVERS -
00006049 257480
252690
5423.6406
GENERAL SUPPLIES
GOLF CARS
168.71
RAIN COVERS
00006228 257481
253050
5423.6406
GENERAL SUPPLIES
GOLF CARS
273.58
345090
3/1012011
101726 XCEL ENERGY
1,307.87
51- 5547446 -1
257064
272573139
1628.6185
LIGHT & POWER
SENIOR CITIZENS
220.63
51- 8987646 -8
257065
272632004
1321.6185
LIGHT & POWER
STREET LIGHTING REGULAR
47.30
51- 9422326 -6
257066
272638851
1322.6185
LIGHT & POWER
STREET LIGHTING ORNAMENTAL
203.54
51- 9337452 -8
257067
272636509
1321.6185
LIGHT & POWER
STREET LIGHTING REGULAR
1,091.25
51- 5107681 -4
257068
272383125
5111.6185
LIGHT & POWER
ART CENTER BLDG / MAINT
67.42
51- 6692497 -0
257069
272413960
1460.6185
LIGHT & POWER
CIVILIAN DEFENSE
2,480.64
51- 6223269 -1
257070
272405146
5210.6185
LIGHT & POWER
GOLF DOME PROGRAM
324.80
51- 9251919 -0
257071
272455887
5650.6185
LIGHT & POWER
PROMENADE
58.14
51- 8997917 -7
257072
272451831
1321.6185
LIGHT & POWER
STREET LIGHTING REGULAR
98.82
51- 8526048 -8
257073
272446843
1322.6185
LIGHT & POWER
STREET LIGHTING ORNAMENTAL
427.36
51- 8324712 -5
257074
272442124
1321.6185
LIGHT & POWER
STREET LIGHTING REGULAR
34.65
51- 6892224 -5
257075
272418507
1321.6185
LIGHT & POWER
STREET LIGHTING REGULAR
9.91
51- 6541084 -2
257076
272412737
1646.6185
LIGHT & POWER .
BUILDING MAINTENANCE
9,942.55
51- 9603061 -10
257077
272463205
1552.6185
LIGHT & POWER
CENT SVC PW BUILDING
101.06
51- 9770164 -7
257078
272471381
1321.6185
LIGHT & POWER
STREET LIGHTING REGULAR
20.75
51- 9770163 -6
257079
272473015
1321.6185
LIGHT & POWER
STREET LIGHTING REGULAR
9.91
51- 6050184 -2
257080
272402900
4086.6103
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AQUATIC WEEDS
907.35
51- 9011854 -4
257081
272453945
5913.6185
LIGHT & POWER
DISTRIBUTION
89.61
51- 9608462 -5
257082
272644726
5921.6185
LIGHT & POWER
SANITARY LIFT STATION MAINT
61.10
51- 8976004 -9
257083
272631716
1321.6185
LIGHT & POWER
STREET LIGHTING REGULAR
37.97
51- 8102668 -0
257084
272794232
1321.6185
LIGHT &POWER
STREET LIGHTING REGULAR
551:03
51- 4827232 -6
257085
272738689
5311.6185
LIGHT &POWER
POOL OPERATION
5,835.68
51- 6955679 -8
257086
272596045
1551.6185
LIGHT & POWER
CITY HALL GENERAL
33,153.46
51- 4621797 -2
257087
272735827
1321.6185
LIGHT '& POWER
STREET LIGHTING REGULAR
2,377.09
51 -4159265 -8
257482
272208880
7411.6185
LIGHT & POWER "
PSTF OCCUPANCY
18,277.34
51- 4888627 -1
257491
273269197
5511.6185
LIGHT &POWER
ARENA BLDG /GROUNDS
418.64
51- 5847121 -5
257492
273274980
5914.6185
LIGHT & POWER
TANKS TOWERS & RESERVOIR
78,155.87
345091
3/10/2011
100568 XEROX CORPORATION
84.61
JAN 2011 USAGE - BLDG /ENG
00004322 257483
053279876
1550.6151
EQUIPMENT RENTAL
CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL
R55CKREG LOG20000
Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation
516.00 FAX MAINTENANCE
600.61
CITY OF EDINA
Council Check Register
3110/2011 — 3/10/2011
PO # Doc No Inv No Account No
257484 053515709 1550.6230
345092 3110/2011 119647 YOCUM OIL COMPANY INC.
5,864.20 DIESEL FUEL 00001010 257088 424393
7,801.50 BIO- DIESEL 00001200 257485 425062
13,665.70
788,650.67 Grand Total
1553.6581
1553.6581
319/2011 8:08:52
Page- 28
Subledger Account Description Business Unit
SERVICE CONTRACTS EQUIPMENT CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL
GASOLINE
GASOLINE
Payment Instrument Totals
Check Total 788,650.67
Total Payments 788,650.67
EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN
EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN
R55CKSUM LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 31912011 8:09:38
Council Check Summary Page - 1
3/1012011 - 311012011
Company
01000 GENERALFUND
02200 COMMUNICATIONS FUND .
02300 POLICE SPECIAL REVENUE
04000 WORKING CAPITAL FUND
05100 ART CENTER FUND
05200 GOLF DOME FUND
05300 AQUATIC CENTER FUND
05400 GOLF COURSE FUND
05500 ICE ARENA FUND
05600 EDINBOROUGH/CENT LAKES FUND
05800 LIQUOR FUND
05900 UTILITY FUND
05930 STORM SEWER FUND
05950 RECYCLING FUND
07400 PSTF AGENCY FUND
Report Totals
Amount
397,387.58
29.66
78.00
61,585.62
2,610.43
2,825.01
551.03
13,813.44
35,579.38
3,940.34
217,804.28
37,486.88
10,500.00
24.48
4,434.54
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 po icies and
procedures d �-'
it' Lf
0
tNA.
v � 4y
• ,NroR�a ��
REPORT/RECOMMENDATION
To:
MAYOR AND COUNCIL
Agenda Item VII. A.
DEBRA MANGEN
Action
From:
CITY CLERK
❑ Discussion
Information
Date: MARCH 15, 2011
Subject:
CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED SINCE LAST COUNCIL MEETING
INFORMATION /BACKGROUND: Attached are copies of a -mails and letters received
since the last Council meeting.
r -
CommonBond
COn9N UN ITIES N '
328 Kellogg Boulevard W.
St. Paul, MN 55102 -1900
651 -291 -1750 Phone
651 - 291 -1003 Fax
vrwwcommonbond.org
February 1, 2011
Mayor James Hovland
City of Edina
4801 West 50'' Street
Edina, MN 55424
'REC EVE®
4 MAR 0 8 2011
i
RE: Yorkdale Townhomes
Notice of County Funding. Application for Housing.
Dear Mayor Hovland,
CommonBond Communities is a mission -drive non - profit organization that provides
affordable housing as a stepping -stone to success. We have owned and operated Yorkdale
Townhomes at 7429 York Avenue for over 30 years. Currently, we are exploring options
for renovating and redeveloping the family apartments at the development.
On February 15, 2011 the Edina City Council approved the pass - through grant of
$250,000 from the Met Council to the project for rehabilitation.
We would like to inform you that we are making an additional request for public
financing to Hennepin County for HOME funds.
If you have any questions about this proposal or any of CommonBond's other successful
affordable housing options in Edina,'please feel free to contact Rachel Robinson, project
manager, at 651- 288 -8696 or Rachel.robinson @commonbond.org.
Sincerely,
e Peacock
Interim COO
✓ 3l- .
Susan Howl
From: Laurie Jennings [mailto:laurie @metrocitiesmn.org]
Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 11:19 AM
To: Deb Mangen
Subject: Invite to Metro Cities Forum
METRO
CITIES
0.trGAa�+r^n nt rieenw ?clean PPr�mR.Wlm♦
March 8, 2 011
Dear City Official:
We are writing to invite you to a Metro Cities forum with new Metropolitan Council Chair
Susan Haigh on Monday, April 4`h at 8:30 a.m.
We have asked Chair Haigh to outline her vision for the Metropolitan Council, and there will be
an opportunity for dialogue and questions. This should be an informative discussion. New
Metropolitan Council appointees will also be invited.
Please join us! The forum is on Monday, April 4, 2011 at 8:30 am in the first floor St Croix
Room of the LMC building, 145 University Avenue, St Paul. Coffee and pastries will be
served. RSVP to Laurie Jennings by replying to this email at laurie ,metrocitiesmn.org or by
phone 651- 215 -4000.
We hope to see you!
Sincerely,
Metro Cities Staff
Susan Howl
From: Jennifer Bennerotte
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 9:57 AM
Subject: February website report
Good morning!
Activity on the City of Edina website reflected the following activity during the month of February 2011:
Total visits: 93,966
Number of visitors: 38,241
Total number of hits: 2,792,932
Average time of each visit: 12 minutes, 56 seconds
Total page views: 217,073
Average page views per day: 7,752
Busiest day of the month: Feb. 2 with 153,473 hits
The most visited page was City Manager Scott Neal's blog, with 3,674 visits. Other top pages included the following (with
number of visits):
Centennial Lakes Park Skating — 3,101
Centennial Lakes Park -- 2,641
Job Listings -- 2,509
Park & Recreation Department — 2,222
Adventure Peak -- 2,132
Edinborough Park -- 1,992
Edina Store -- 1,657
Edinborough Park General Information - -1,506
Telephone Numbers & Contacts -- 1,472
The most frequently accessed PDF among visitors was the building permit application, which was downloaded 12,510 times.
Other frequently downloaded files included the following (with number of downloads):
Spring /Summer Park & Recreation Activities Directory-- 5,555
Minnehaha Woods Neighborhood Street Reconstruction Meeting Presentation -- 2,525
Summer 2009 About Town -- 2,200
Bike Plan -- 1,900
Winter 2011 About Town 1,471
Spring 2009 About Town -- 1,469
2011 Budget — 1,112
Community Street Map — 940
Fall /Winter Park & Recreation Activities Directory -- 920
We have been streaming video on our website for more than two years. The most requested videos in February were the
January Transportation Commission meeting (152 views), Feb. 1 City Council meeting (89), February episode of "Agenda:
Edina" (77), Jan. 18 City Council meeting (60), February/March episode of "Beyond the Badge" (58), Feb. 15 City Council
meeting (41), February episode of "In Edina" (31), Jan. 27 Rotary Club of Edina meeting (24), January Planning Commission
meeting (21), and Jan. 4 City Council meeting (19). All programming is also streamed on You Tube, including meetings.
The City now has Facebook pages for all of its enterprise facilities. Edinborough Park has 510 "fans." Centennial Lakes Park has
,184. Braemar Golf Course has 111. Braemar Arena has 97. Edina Liquor has 78. The Edina Aquatic Center has 70. The Edina Art
Center has 96. It is believed that the facilities' additional social media presence has driven increased traffic to their.websites.
..,i 'S.
Though the website has grown substantially in the past year, interest still needs to be generated among the public. To gain
that interest and generate more hits, please attempt to include the Uniform Resource Locator (URL), www.CityofEdina.com,
on all correspondence.
Please continue to tell others about our website and think about ways to improve it. If you have suggestions or questions,
contact me. Thanksl
-- Jennifer Bennerotte, Communications & Marketing Director
952- 833 -9520 1 Fax 952 -826 -0389
1
� JBennerotteeci.edina.mn.us I www.CityofEdina.com
...Fier Livin. -, Learning, Raisin; Families & Doing Business
PVC Pipe Industry
l�rhi;�8eb; rIP r�. D-) . ` ��� J� March 10, 2011
R E E 9 V E
•
His Worship Mayor James B. Hovland _ M • O 20 11
Edina, MN _ - - - - -_
Watermain Break Clock Web Site Highlights Corrosion Crisis in Underground Infrastructure
Dear Mayor Hovland and Members of Council:
The Uni -Bell PVC Pipe Association is pleased to announce the launch of the Watermain Break Clock
web site. To view click here: www.watermainbreakclock.com.
The site has valuable information on the corrosion epidemic responsible for the widespread and costly
water main breaks spreading throughout the United States. It not only informs readers about the
weaknesses of corrosion -prone piping materials, it also underscores the need to adopt more cost -
effective and sustainable materials .
Moreover, it argues that local elected officials should review their procurement practices and include
alternative materials like PVC pipe as a means of stemming the corrosion crisis. It is a must read for
anyone in government interested in improving the state of our nation's water and wastewater networks.
"The traditional habit of using one or two pipe materials exclusively is no longer satisfactory," says
Schenectady (NY) Mayor Brian Stratton. "Local officials need to compare all proven pipe materials,"
adds Mayor Stratton, who also co- chairs the U.S. Conference of Mayors Water Council.
With over two million miles in service, corrosion -proof PVC pipe has been celebrated by Engineering
News Record as one of the top twenty advancements of the last 125 years — and municipalities are
encouraged to include it in their bidding processes.
With critical systems like water infrastructure crumbling, and local governments facing tight budgets, it's
time to review old practices.
Uni -Bell is a non - profit organization serving the engineering, regulatory, public health and
standardization communities. For more information, please feel free to contact us at www.uni- bell.org.
Sincerely, `=
Bruce Hollands
Executive Director I Uni -Bell PVC Pipe Association
2711 LBJ Freeway, Suite 1000 1 Dallas, TX 75234
T. 972.243.3902 ext. 1019 1 C. 214.244.9202 1 F. 972.243.3907
www.uni- bell.orci
C omr11011Bond
C0NIMU NIT ILS I
328 Kellogg Boulevard
St. Paul, MN 55102 -1
651 -291 -1750 Phone
651 - 291 -1003 Fax
;vwwcommonbond.org
February 1, 2011
Mayor James Hovland
City of Edina
4801 West 50"' Street
Edina, MN 55424
RE: Yorkdale Townhomes
Notice of County Funding Application for Housing
Dear Mayor Hovland,
CommonBond Communities is a mission -drive non -profit organization that provides
affordable housing as a stepping -stone to success. We have owned and operated Yorkdale
Townhomes at 7429 York Avenue for over 30 years. Currently, we are exploring options
for renovating and redeveloping the family apartments at the development.
On February 15, 2011 the Edina City Council approved the pass - through grant of
$250,000 from the Met Council to the project for rehabilitation.
We would like to inform you that we are making an additional request for public
financing to Hennepin County for HOME funds.
If you have any questions about this proposal or any of CommonBond's other successful
affordable housing options in Edina, please feel free to contact Rachel Robinson, project
manager, at 651- 288 -8696 or Rachel.robinson @commonbond.org.
Sincerely,
e Peacock
Interim COO
MINNEHAHA CREEK
The I,iinnehaha 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
r -
QUALITY OF LIFE
r -
March 1, 2011
Mayor James Hovland
City of Edina
4801 W 50th St
Edina, MN 55424
Dear Mayor Hovland,
As you may know, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) is considering
how to control the further spread of aquatic invasive species in the watershed. After
the discovery of zebra mussels in Lake Minnetonka last summer, the MCWD Board
of Managers made addressing AIS a priority and is looking for input from cities and
townships.
The MCWD Board of Managers invites mayors, township chairpersons and city
administrators to a roundtable discussion with MCWD Board and Staff on the future
of aquatic invasive species (AIS) planning in the District. Input at those meetings
will help the MCWD decide how to proceed in addressing this threat to our resources.
Please see the invitation below for the dates, times and RSVP information for the AIS
Plan Discussion.
Sincerely,
L. Eric Evenson .
District Administrator
eevensonQminnehahacreek. orp,
952- 651 -4521
18202 Minnetonka Boulevard, Deephaven, MN 55391 o Office: (952).471 -0590 Fax: (952) 471-0682.9.www.midnehah 4 &eek.org
species that have been introduced
or moved by people to lakes,
streams and other areas where
they do not naturally occur and
cause ecological or economic
problems.
The Minnehaha Creek Watershed
District has a number of AIS
throughout the watershed and is
focusing efforts on managing their
spread to other lakes and limiting
the introduction of new species.
Please join us to learn more about
the impacts of AIS and to explore
how we can work together to
protect our waters.
MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT
QUALITY OF WATER QUALITY OF LIFE
Join us for an
Aquatic Invasive Species Plan Discussion
MCWD Board of Managers invites Mayors, Township Chairpersons
and City Administrators to a discussion about the future of Aquatic
Invasive Species plans within the District.
We request your input at one of three sessions:
March 8, 2011 7:30 AM at The Marsh
Dragon Room, 15000 Minnetonka Blvd., Minnetonka
March 10, 2011 7:30 AM at SouthShore Community Center
Library Room, 5735 Country Club Road, Shorewood
March 10, 2011 Noon at St. Louis Park City Offices
Community Room, 5005 Minnetonka Blvd., St. Louis Park
*Breakfast or lunch will be served
Pleasc RSVP by Friday, Marcl) 4th:
Chandi McCracken cmecracken @minnehahacreek.org 952- 641 -4520
.. _. ------ I J'AH rrzoi . 0a9- L71-n ;qn . Fax: 952- 471 -0682 • www.minnehahacreek.ora
Susan Howl
Subject: FW: Mayor and City Council of Edina
From: Peterson, Andrew I SSG USA NG 133 FSS /FSS [ mailto :andrew.peterson.3 @ang.af.mil]
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2011 11:50 AM
To: Lynette Biunno ���� ��%[�
Subject: Mayor and City Council of Edina 0 2 2011
MXR Good Morning Mayor Hovland and City Council Members,
My name is Andrew Peterson, I am a Staff Sergeant in the Minnesota Army National Guard assigned to
the 133rd Airlift Wing (Air National Guard) as a Beyond the Yellow Ribbon Outreach Coordinator.
I am writing you today to request a meeting to talk to you about the Beyond the Yellow Ribbon
Community Recognition Program. I want to encourage you all to consider making the City of Edina a
Yellow Ribbon City.recognized by the Governor of Minnesota. There is an effort underway across
our state right now to form steering committees with community members in order to expand the
Yellow Ribbon Network. I would love to have a moment to speak with you about this with my Air
Guard counterpart, Capt. Joe Hennessy. Feel free to contact me and thank you for your
consideration.
Best Regards,
Andrew Peterson, SSG, MNARNG
Yellow Ribbon Outreach Coordinator
612 - 618 -7006
andrew.peterson.3 @ans.af.mil
s )r
1
1
REPORURECOMMEN DATION
To:
MAYOR AND COUNCIL
Agenda Item
Item No:
From:
Wayne Houle, PE --
Public Works Director/
City Engineer
F-1 Action
F-1 Discussion
® Information
Date: March 15, 2011
Subject:
2010 Edina Public Works Accomplishments
ACTION REQUESTED:
No action requested.
INFORMATION /BACKGROUND:
Attached.. is a summary of the 2010 Public Works Accomplishments. Everyone
throughout the City of Edina should be thanked for both the ability to make these
improvements and the people that are involved in implementing these projects.
ATTACHMENTS:
• 2010 Accomplishments -Edina Public Works
r
G: \Engineering\Administrat onIBUD- INW010\2010 Accomplishments\20110315 Informational Purposes - 2010 Accomplishments Edina Public Works.docx
2010 ACCOMPLISHMENTS
y EDINA PUBLIC WORKS
The Engineering Department and Public Works has once again finished another very
successful year of projects. Everyone throughout the City organization should be proud of the
improvements that were made to the quality of life for the citizens of Edina. This includes not
only staff who design and inspect these projects but also staff who provide internal support,
from our administrative, financial, assessing, enforcement (police dispatch to traffic control),
and all the staff in Public Works.
General Public Works Protects:
The Public Works Department used the following materials to perform a variety of maintenance
throughout the city:
• 7,643 tons of asphalt blacktop mix
0 8,352 gallons of road oil, including sealcoating and patching oil
• 503 cubic yards of concrete
• $30,000 on timber and stone materials and repairs
• $19,000 on sweeping broom stock
• 4,300 tons of winter de -icing materials
• $3,200 on parking ramp materials and repairs
1,077 tons of sealcoat chips
• $30,000 on replacement street signs and posts
• 50th and France area: in addition to re�qular maintenance of pavers, signs and light
poles, the north and south side of W. 50 h Street, between Halifax Avenue and France
Avenue received a face lift when the landscape was restored with new ornamental
trees, shrubs and perennials. An irrigation system was also installed in these planters.
• Over 2,000 ton of asphalt to repair potholes
• 2,200 gallons of traffic marking paint
Engineering Department Projects:
The projects listed below were all initiated by the Engineering and Utility Departments as part
of the City's Street Reconstruction and Capital Improvement Program to update aging
infrastructure and address several issues including drainage problems and sanitary sewer and
water main repairs. The streets and public utilities were constructed in the early 1950's and
1960's.
2010 Accomplishments — Public Works
Pamela Park Neighborhood
Engineer's Estimate: $3,147,000
Low Bid: $1,515,280
The Pamela Park Neighborhood Road and Utility Improvement Project included all streets in
between West 591" Street to the north; Valley View and West 62nd Street to the south; Pamela
Park to the east and Wooddale Avenue to the west. Improvements included:
• Removal of the old bituminous and replacement with new aggregate base material and
bituminous pavement;
• Installed new concrete curb and gutter;
• Spot repair, removal and replacement of select segments of sanitary sewer trunk pipe;
• Storm sewer trunk pipe extension;
• Reconstructed storm sewer pipe to increase capacity;
• Installed drainage swale through Pamela Park;
• Installed sump pump drains.
Before
Braemar Hills Neighborhood
Engineer's Estimate: $1,272,258
Low Bid: $990,976
s'
"1
After
The Braemar Hills Neighborhood Road and Utility Improvement Project included Braeburn
Circle, Hill -A -Way Court, Loch Moor Drive, Mark Terrace Circle, Mark Terrace Drive, Moccasin
Valley Roadway, and Bror Road. Improvements included:
• Removal of the old bituminous and replacement with new aggregate base material and
bituminous pavement;
• New curb and gutter on Bror Road to provide better control of water run -off; this also
helps to better define the roadway while providing protection to yards and pavement edge
from snowplow damage in the winter months;
2
2010 Accomplishments — Public Works
• Spot repair, replacement and cured in place lining (CIPP) of select segments of sanitary
sewer trunk pipe;
• Replaced undersized water main on Hill -A -Way Court with new 6" water main; abandoned
undersized water main on Moccasin Valley Roadway and reconnected to a 6" water main.
• Upgraded all hydrants;
• Modified storm sewer and corrected drainage issues at various locations;
• Installed sump pump drains.
Before After
Parkwood Knolls Neighborhood
Engineer's Estimate: $1,230,779
Low Bid: $946,661
The Parkwood Knolls Neighborhood Road and Utility Improvement Project included Knoll Drive
South, Knoll Drive, Schaefer Road, Idylwood Lane, Parkwood Road and Westwood Court.
Improvements included:
• Removal of the old bituminous and replacement with new aggregate base material and
bituminous pavement;
• Spot repair, replacement and cured in place lining (CIPP) of select segments of sanitary
sewer trunk pipe;
• Upgraded fire hydrants to meet safety standards;
• New curb and gutter were installed where none existed, and existing curb and gutter were
rehabilitated; curb and gutter provides better water run -off and helps to better define the
roadway while providing protection to yards and pavement edge from snowplow damage
in the winter months,
• Replaced storm sewer trunk pipes and corrected drainage issues at various locations;
• Installed sump pump drains.
3
2010 Accomplishments — Public Works
Before After
Interlachen Bluff & Circle Neighborhood
Engineer's Estimate: $307,713
Low Bid: $233,518
Interlachen Bluff and Circle Road and Utility Improvement Project included:
• Removal of the old bituminous and replacement with new aggregate base material and
bituminous pavement;
• Extended the sanitary sewer main on the east leg of Interlachen Circle north to
accommodate for future connections for properties on the corner of Interlachen Circle and
Blvd;
• Upgraded fire hydrants to meet safety standards;
• On Interlachen Circle reconstructed storm sewer to increase capacity-, relocated storm
sewer structures out of driveways; and on Interlachen Bluff installed additional storm
sewer structures to capture storm run -off and changed curb type in the cul -de -sac to a
barrier style to control drainage.
Before
2
After
2010 Accomplishments — Public Works
2010 Mill and Overlay
West 69th Street from France Avenue to York Avenue
Engineer's Estimate: $97,240
Low Bid: $78,860
The westbound lane of West 69th Street from France Avenue to York Avenue was milled and
overlaid with new bituminous. This method of repair is generally used to prolong the life of the
road another 5 -10 years before having to do a full reconstruction. This project was funded by
Municipal State Aid funds.
West 44th Street between Brookside Avenue and Brookside Terrace
Engineer's Estimate: $34,362
Low Bid: $44,126
West 44th Street between Brookside Avenue and Brookside Terrace was milled and overlaid
with new bituminous pavement in addition to a new concrete sidewalk on the north side to
complete a missing link.
k
Ix
After
2010 Accomplishments — Public Works
Oaklawn Avenue Storm Sewer Improvements
Engineer's Estimate: $124,750
Low Bid: $91,911
The storm sewer improvements were made to provide protection for the 100 year rainfall
event. This project was petitioned by a resident.
a
Grimes Avenue & West 42nd Street Sanitary Sewer Lift Station Improvements
Engineer's Estimate: $275,000
Low Bid: $277,735
A new lift station was built to replace Sanitary Sewer Lift Station No. 2 at 4200 Grimes Avenue.
Sanitary Sewer Lift Station No. 7 at 4021 Grimes Avenue was replaced and rerouted to the
new Sanitary Sewer Lift Station No. 2 by gravity sewer using a directional drill method.
[*1
2010 Accomplishments — Public Works
50th & France District Improvements and Renovations
Engineer's Estimate:
Low Bid: $25,783
This project consisted of landscape restoration and irrigation to four existing raised planters
located on the north and south sides of 50th Street between Halifax Avenue and France
Avenue. The project will be completed in 2011.
N
2010 Park & Recreation Parking Lot & Pathway Improvements
Engineer's Estimate: $465,515
Low Bid: $384,466
Final Cost: $427,656
The Bredesen Park bike path, Braemar Golf Course parking lot, Edinborough Park, and
Walnut Park parking lot were repaired. Additionally, the curb and gutter on Olinger Blvd was
replaced as a result of a resident petition.
Well No. 6 Rehabilitation, 5849 Ruth Street
Engineer's Estimate: $97,760
Low Bid: $65,820
Final Cost: Incomplete
This project included rehabilitation of the well pump and redeveloping of the well.
7
2010 Accomplishments — Public Works
Projects Assessed in 2010
The following projects were assessed in 2010:
A -213 Country Club Neighborhood Reconstruction
Pending Assessment: $18,210
Levied Assessment: $11,469
A -214 Country Club Neighborhood Reconstruction
Pending Assessment: $22,900
Levied Assessment: $15,371
BA -356 Mirror Lakes Neighborhood Reconstruction
Pending Assessment: $9,375
Levied Assessment: $6,089
BA -357 St. John's Neighborhood Reconstruction
Pending Assessment: $9,300
Levied Assessment: $6,477
BA -358 South Garden Neighborhood Reconstruction
Pending Assessment: $8,931
Levied Assessment: $5,424
New Public Works & Park Maintenance Facility
In July, Engineering, Public Works and Park Maintenance relocated to our new location at
7450 Metro Blvd. Previously, we operated out of three separate buildings. Being in a single
building will allow us to operate more efficiently.
Before
CA'; R
Z'r
o l� I 1
\cORPOPAT�'/
BBB
REPORT/RECOMMENDATION
To:
MAYOR AND COUNCIL
Agenda Item
VII. A. -2
DEBRA MANGEN
0 Action
From:
CITY CLERK
Discussion
Information
Date: MARCH 15, 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 Howl
From: Lynette Biunno
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 2:01 PM
Susan Howl
'Subject: FW: To the City Council Members of Edina
[II EC
l� ua. 1
MAR 14 2011
` Lynette Biunno, Receptionist
952- 927 -8861 1 Fax 952 - 828-0389
Ibiunno(cDci.edina.mn.us I www.CitvofEdina.com
...For Living, Learning, Raising Families 6- Doing Business
From: Kurt Nierste [mailto:knierste @gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, MarchA4, 2011 1:55 PM
To Lynette Biunno
Subject: To the City Council Members of Edina
Edina City Council Members,
My name is Kurt Nierste and I am writing you on behalf of my family and two recent clients. I am a real estate
agent with Edina Realty and I have had two separate clients in the past year that very much wanted.to live in the
Golf Terrace /Lake Harvey area, but ended up moving to the Linden Hills neighborhood. The deciding factor for
both families was sidewalks and the safety of their children. My family and I would also like to move to that
,.rea, and are reluctant to do so because of the lack of sidewalks. I am confident that neither my family, nor the
-)ther two .,families are unique in this desire. Although I am currently a resident of the Linden Hills
neighborhood, I was born in, and grew up in Edina, and would very much like to return. I would urge this city
council to consider making sidewalks a priority as the road reconstruction progresses through Edina. Sidewalks
create a safer place for pedestrians and build stronger communities.
Thank you for your time,
Kurt A Nierste
612-817-7602
1
r ,
Susan Howl
Subject: FW: News Release on Updated Flood Map
Attachments: NR- Updated Flood Models -Mar 15 2011.doc
Contacts: Mayor Joann Anderson; Mayor Thomas Crosby; Mayor James Doak; Mayor Cheryl Fischer; Mayor Tom Furlong; Mayor 7.
Hultmann; Mayor Debbie Gottel; Mayor Mark Hanus; Mayor Mary Hershberger Thun; Mayor James Hovland; Mayor Jeff
Jacobs; Chairman Charles Johnson; Mayor Marvin Johnson; Mayor Deb Kind; Mayor William LaBelle; Mayor Christine
Lizee; Mayor Linda Loomis; Mayor Gene Maxwell; Councilor Lili McMillan; Mayor Sarah Reinhardt; Mayor Nick Ruehl;
Mayor R. T. Rybak; Mayor Terry Schneider; Mayor Paul Skrede; Mayor Kelli Slavik; Mayor John Sweeney; Chairman Si
Tesch; Mayor Rick Weible; Mayor Ken Willcox
[n9nEC ��VED�
MAR 15 2011
From. Telly Mamayek [mallto:TMamayek @minnehahacreek.org] "
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 10:42 AM
To: info @ci.minnetonka - beach.mn.us; Tom.Crosby @ci.medina.mn.us; jdoak.woodland @hotmail.com;
cfischer @ci.minnetrista.mn..us; tfurlong @ci.chanhassen.mn.us; jmoeller @ci.long - lake.mn.us;
citycouncil @cityofrichfield.org; mahanus @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; linda.loomis @ci.golden - valley.mn.us; emax33721 @aol.com;
Imcmillan @ci.orono.mn.us; sgreinhardt @hotmail.com; nruehl @mchsi.com; jeremy.hanson @ci.minneapolis.mn.us;
tschneider @eminnetonka.com; PaulSkrede @mchsi.com; KSlavik @ci.plymouth.mn.us; cityhall @mapleplain.com;
watertowntownship @frontiernet.net; stboni @visi.com; KenWillcox @wayzata.org
Subject: News Release on Updated Flood Map
Mayors and Town Chairpersons,
Please see the attached news release the MCWD issued today on the new flood map that went live on the district's wel-
site this morning.
Thank you,
Telly Mamayek I I Communications Manager I I www.minnehahacreek.ora
18202 Minnetonka Blvd, Deephaven, MN 55391 11 952.641.4508
MINNEHAHA CREEK
WATERSHED DISTRICT
-J QUALITY OF WATER, QUALITY OF LIFE
P
MINNEHAHA CREEK
QUALITY OF WATER
NEWS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 15, 2011
WATERSHED DISTRICT
QUALITY OF LIFE
Contact: Telly Mamayek, Communications Manager
952- 641 -4508; tmamayek @minnehahacreek.org
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Issues Updated Flood Map
Depicts High Precipitation /Rapid Snow Melt Scenario
Deephaven, Minn. — With the an iVal of warmer weather, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) has run another
computer model of potential flooding in the area around Lake Minnetonka and Minnehaha Creek. New data shows the
water level on Lake Minnetonka has risen slightly and the water content in the snow and the expected precipitation by the
end of March have declined since the last computer model was run two weeks ago. Using those factors, the latest
predictions show the anticipated peak lake level and discharge into the creek have not changed from the previous outlook.
They still show the prospect for a 10 -year flood event with moderate high water in some areas.
The MCWD also ran another model using a scenario of high - precipitation coinciding with a rapid snow melt. To compute
this potential, the district factored in a 2.24 inch, 24 -hour rain event directly following a 10 -day snow melt. (2.24 inches
corresponds to the heaviest April rainfall recorded over a 24 -hour period at Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport.)
Interactive maps depicting these projections can be found on the district's web site www.minnehahacreek.org.
The MCWD will be monitoring water levels throughout the watershed during the spring melt. It also is working closely with
communities, including the city of Minneapolis, to help coordinate their flood response.
Residents are urged to use the district's flood potential maps as a guide as the spring flooding season draws near. They're
also encouraged to contact their cities for information about local response to high water, including the availability of sand
bags and plans for street closures. Insurance agents can provide information about flood insurance and coverage for
sanitary sewer back -ups. For more tips on how to prepare for potential flooding, including a fact sheet on the MCWD's flood
potential monitoring, log on to the district's web site.
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District covers approximately 181 square miles, including Minnehaha Creek,
Lake Minnetonka, the Minneapolis Chain of Lakes and Minnehaha Falls. The District is charged by state law to
protect, improve and manage water resources. It does so through scientific research and monitoring, public
education, cost -share grant programs, permitting and collaborative efforts with the 27 cities; two townships and
two counties (Hennepin and Carver) that are in the District. For more information, visit
www.minnehahacreek.org.
Minutes -of the
Edina Park Board
January 11, 2011
Edina City Hall, Council Chambers
MEMBERS PRESENT: Bill Lough, Todd Fronek, Ellen Jones, Jennifer Kenney, Joseph
Hulbert, Louise Segreto, Dan Peterson, Rob Presthus, Keeya Steel
MEMBERS ABSENT: Randy Meyer, Felix Pronove, Austin Dummer
STAFF PRESENT:. John Keprios, Ed MacHolda, Janet Canton
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
Louise°Segreto MOVED TO APPROVE THE DECEMBER 14, 2010 PARK BOARD
MINUTES. Jennifer Kenney SECONDED THE MOTION. MINUTES APPROVED.
U. NEW BUSINESS
A. Braemar Golf Course Clubhouse Consultant - Mr. Hulbert proposed to the Park Board
that they submit a recommendation to the City Council that they utilize the services of
an independent consultant to help put together a vision for Braemar Park. He explained
that he would like to see it cover items listed on pages one through seven of NGF's
proposal. He added he would also like to see a customer survey- done which he thinks
would be beneficial for marketing..and feedback to course management.
Mr., Hulbert pointed out that during the last three years the clubhouse has lost $470,000.
He noted that he realizes $15,000 to $20,000 is a lot to pay for a consultant and as the
City Finance Director said at their November meeting this amount of money will not
make a difference one way or another on a multi - million dollar facility like Braemar
especially if it's going to add value over the next several years.
Mr, Hulbert stated that as far as a consultant he thinks it's important that the consultant
not be in competition with Braemar. In addition, he doesn't think they. should be in the
business of facilitating the sale or taking over the management of a golf course and
doesn't think they should be affiliated past or present witl the course or its management;
-however, they should have extensive experience in the f eld.'
Mr. Hulbert indicated that Mr. Keprios did contact a local consultant "Continental Golf
Corporation ", and included in the Park Board packet is.a letter from their president
David Mooty. He stated that after researching it, it just didn't feel like it was the right
fit. Mr. Hulbert noted that he contacted the "United States Golf Association" to try to
find a reputable lead to put him in touch with. He commented he was given the name of
a group in Wisconsin; however, they only work in turf management and maintenance
operations but suggested he contact the National Golf Foundation which he already had.
1%
Ms. Steel apologized for not being at the last Park Board meeting but noted that she did
watch it online. She indicated she liked the comparison to the Pamela Park and
Countryside Park long -term plans that have been done in the past; however, this has a
business component to it and they need to look at the operational aspects. She pointed
out that she also thinks they need to look at the community input aspect and would like
to entertain the idea of putting together a task force like they have done in the past for
Pamela Park and the Veterans Memorial.
Ms. Steel explained that she put together a handout and that the purpose of the task force
would be to come together before the consultant came to Edina so that they could
discuss what their concerns and questions would be for the consultant. Ms. Steel stated
that Mr. Hulbert and she were able to talk to NGF and they do take community input as
part of their report which would be valuable. She commented that more importantly the
task force would be completing an evaluation of the report and will then present an
action plan to the Park Board. She indicated that she thinks this follows the precedent
that the Park Board has set in the past and allows for community input from those who
would be interested in being involved in this process.
Mr. Segreto indicated that she thinks combining a task force and an outside independent
consultant would really give them the best of both worlds in terms of getting local input
and a breath of fresh air.
Mr. Lough stated that he thinks systemic losses by golf operations in total over time
should be unacceptable to city management and to the City Council. He noted that if
what they are trying to do is take a look at forecasts, which are continuing to project
losses, then if the City Council wishes the Park Board to take a look at ways in which
they can stop an enterprise operation from systemically losing money that he thinks they
would have some sort of charter for them to do that. He asked who is it now that looks
in detail at an enterprise operation to try to assure the city and community that
something that was not meant to be subsidized per se by other sources of revenue is
indeed on the road to becoming healthy. He stated that if they think it would be useful
to have a consultant then they can make that recommendation to the City Council;
however, he hasn't gone into enough detail to understand the plans from the
management themselves as to what it is they are trying to do to correct the situation. He
indicated that a consultant is going to do a long laundry list of one year, two year, three
year operating plans and make detailed recommendations about pluses and minuses that
can be done now and in the near future. Mr. Lough commented that his own personal
experience is that the amounts of money that they are talking about are fairly modest;
however, any amount of money that they might spend on something like this should
probably be approved by the City Council even if they have local authority to do so for
less than $20,000.
Mr. Peterson indicated that every municipal golf operation have the same thing on their
agenda. He noted that a lot of it is the economy and added that private clubs are going
downhill and cutting staff. He stated that he thinks they have good management at
2
C
r
Braemar and they are lucky to have them. He indicated that one thing he would like a
consultant and task force to look at is should we continue to have two dedicated
executive or par three courses, is one enough. Secondly, can they continue to afford 27
holes for the regulation course? It costs a lot of money and maybe they could save staff
and maintenance costs if they only need 18 holes, at least until the economy improves.
Mr. Fronek indicated that he agrees with Mr. Peterson and he doesn't think this whole
process has ever been an indictment of current or former management, Braemar has run
great for 40 plus years of its existence. He noted that Braemar is a great jewel in the
middle of their city and they provide a great service to their residents. However, he does
not want to wait until Braemar becomes a crisis. Mr. Fronek pointed out that he thinks
now is probably the time to look at Braemar and decide what they want to do in terms of
a 10 or 15 year plan and thinks a consultant is going to be a good first step in starting to
formulate that process.
Ms. Jones stated that she agrees they may want to consider creating a task force but her
concern is that they lose sight of the big vision. She noted they have this wonderful golf
course but according to the 15 year plan they are going to have to invest over three
million dollars to which the majority will go towards maintenance. She indicated that
she has no idea how they would be able to fund that and doesn't know what the
priorities are. Ms. Jones stated that she does think that if they seek help for how they
can go about budgeting for it they could help them with that. She commented that she
does want community involvement, especially the people involved in the Braemar Golf
Club. She noted that she wants them to remain involved and doesn't want them to feel
alienated by hiring a consultant. She added that she also doesn't want them to waste
their money on a consultant going down paths the community doesn't want so therefore
the idea of identifying what they want the task force to look at can save them money.
Mr. Presthus indicated that isn't the general purpose of what they are doing on this right
now is to try to find ways to get more revenue at the golf course. He commented as Mr.
Fronek pointed out Braemar has been successful for 40 plus years and compared to most
public courses it's very successful but now they are in an economic downturn. He
indicated that he likes the idea of a task force and based on the information they received
from Mr. Mooty he thinks they should combine the two as a first step rather than pay
$15,000 to $20,000 on a consultant. He noted that maybe they don't want to use Mr.
Mooty but he is trying to expand on the task force and maybe they should appoint the
task force to work with Braemar staff and focus on their revenue enhancement side
rather than the big picture items to start.
Mr. Hulbert stated that his original thought was to have an A to Z evaluation of the
course and stated that he doesn't see why they can't go with both NGF & Mr. Mooty.
He indicated that it takes a little time to build up momentum and try to get something
accomplished. He noted it was his intent from the beginning why look at half the
operation when you can look at the entire operation.
Ms. Segreto asked in terms of the notification requirements to form a task force is there
a requisite notice period that would slow the process down. Mr. Keprios replied he
3
believes you can form a task force on your own and that you don't need to rely on City
Council to do that. He noted that he would recommend that staff be added to the task
force. Mr. Hulbert commented that he could see it being valuable to have staff present
at the meetings and help direct thoughts and ideas.
Joseph Hulbert MOVED THAT PARK BOARD SUBMIT A RECOMMENDATION
TO CITY COUNCIL THAT WE UTILIZE THE SERVICES OF AN INDEPENDENT
GOLF CONSULTANT ALONG WITH THE PROPOSED TASK FORCE.
Todd Fronek SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mr. Fronek stated that to clarify Ms. Steel's "Proposed Task Force Composition" the
purpose of the task force is in part to determine the scope of the consultant and he asked
Ms. Steel to comment on the scope of the task force.
Ms. Steel explained that first she wanted to make sure the Park Board was in agreement
with the composition of the Task Force. She noted that secondly she thought the Park
Board could come to some agreement on that part and then go ahead with the motion.
Mr. Hulbert asked Ms. Steel how she thinks the task force would operate in its roles and
responsibilities. Ms. Steel replied instead of making a motion first she wanted to have
more discussion. Ms. Steel apologized to Mr. Keprios for not including staff in the task
force.
Ms. Segreto agreed staff should be a part of the task force and asked how many staff
members would be appropriate. Mr. Fronek replied he thinks Todd Anderson, Manager
of Braemar, should be part of the task force. Ms. Segreto stated that her concern is that
it not be too large that it becomes cumbersome and suggested having a total of ten
people on the task force. Ms. Jones stated that for the Small Site Task Force she was on
there were 20 plus people on it and she felt it functioned well as an open type of body;
they did not turn anyone away who was interested in being involved. Ms. Segreto
responded that she is in favor of keeping it as small as they can and that ten members
would be good. In addition, she agrees Mr. Anderson should be added as the staff
representative. .
Ms. Jones asked if they should discuss the immediate timeline they are thinking. Mr.
Keprios replied that a task force by definition is a short-term working committee, it's not
an ongoing commission or board and the life expectancy is until the end of the project,
however long that takes. He stated that he thinks it's a little premature to determine
how long it needs to be in existence but he would think they would want to have them
stick around until the consultant has done what the task force wants them to do since that
appears to be the purpose of it. Also he would think the task force would stick around
until the results of the study and the recommendations of the consultants are complete
and presentations are delivered to Park Board and City Council and at that time the task
force job would be done. Mr. Keprios commented that he doesn't think there needs to
have a definitive ending date. Ms. Steel asked can they determine when they begin
meeting to which Mr. Keprios replied as soon as the task force can be assembled they
can start meeting.
4
Mr. Hulbert clarified that Mr. Keprios will be part of the task force as a staff liaison to
which Mr. Keprios replied he would be happy to be on the task'force.
Mr. Hulbert indicated if this goes to the City Council and they agree he ;would like' for
the consultant to do a site visit when the golf course is in operational mode. He noted it
would be nice to,have the task. force in p lace a month. ahead of time so,they are able, to
have one `or two meetings so that they, can brainstorm some ideas. Mr. Hulbert asked
Ms. Steel to comment on ways she thought the task force _would interact'with the .Park
Board. Ms. Steel replied that their purpose would`be to develop and present, an action
plan to the Park Board. She noted that Mr. Keprios could give updates to the -Park
Board as they go,,along as well there will be some Park Board members on the task ,
force.
Mr: Keprios stated that one of the challenges'.they.,may face is there may be more than
one person from the clubs and association that want to be involved and who do you pick
at that.point•because he does think there will be a lot of support and enthusiasm for it.
Mr. Keprios. asked Mr. Hulbert if he is recommending just a consultant or does he want
a specific consultant. Mr. Hulbert responded he would like to recommend to the City
Council to hire an independent consultant that has no ties or affiliation with anyone at
Braemar to give an unvarnished assessment of recommendations as well as have
community input and find a way to tie the two together. He noted he would like enough
time to have at least a couple of meetings before the consultant begins their process so
that the task force can give their input to the consultant.
Ms. Segreto commented that she's a little confused because Mr. Lough explained why
he thought it would be best for this issue to be sent to the City Council with a
recommendation but she thought the Park Board.had authority to make a decision for
expenditures that were less than $20,000. Mr. Keprios explained the Park Board has the
authority to advise the City Council regardless of the dollar amount. He stated that
when money is involved anything under $20,000 does not necessarily have to be brought
to City Council to expedite your process. He indicated that if the Park Board wanted to
save time as long as the cost is under $20,000 it becomes the City Manager's decision
whether or not'it needs`to go to City Council for consideration and, if riot, he. has the
authority to-,sign the contract
Ms. Segreto 4ndicated.that she has spent a lot of time looking at the proposals and as far
as she is concerned based on the discussions they've had she would likerto recommend
NGF to the City Council so that they don't have to go through the lengthy, process of
listening to presentations because that will slow down the process.
Ms. Steel stated that she is not comfortable sending a recommendation to the City
Manager because she feels with Park Board being appointed bythe City Council it is
their duty to advise the City Council.
Ms. Kenney noted that she agrees with Ms. Steel but it seems to some extent they are
not in agreement on exactly how they should proceed. She pointed out that she feels
5
more comfortable with the recommendation of forming a task force, and possibly at the
same time recommending to the City Council that once they receive feedback from the
task force that the feedback would then be provided to the consultant to look at. She
stated that she thinks it's premature right now for them to name a consultant and have
the City Manager sign a contract.
Mr. Keprios asked the Park Board if the City Council passes the recommendation what
process would they like to use for the selection of a consultant. Mr. Hulbert replied if
the City Council agrees with the recommendation and hypothetically want to put out
their own Request For proposal his only request would be to include the two consultants
they have already done. He stated again what's important to him is that they be
independent and unaffiliated with the Braemar and provide truly an independent
analysis. Mr. Keprios replied that with all due respect the Park Board did ask staff to do
that but then put a stop to it and did your own research. Mr. Keprios stated that he
doesn't think they should expect the City Council to decide on which consultants they
are going to use or decide on the process, they will more than likely look to the Park
Board to provide that. Mr. Hulbert stated that he is trying to be respectful of City
Council and their decision making ability. Mr. Keprios explained that typically the
ways these things work is you would request what you feel is in the best interest of the
City of Edina to hire an independent consultant and would then ask staff to put together
a request for proposal which would then be sent out to the Park Board to review. He
indicated to Mr. Hulbert that he has already done that on his own and if that is what the
Park Board is comfortable with then he is okay with that because he is here to support
the Park Board and is more than happy to do the leg work that is his job. Mr. Keprios
stressed that he thinks if you ask the City Council to tell you which consultants you
should hire is not a good recommendation to come from the Park Board. He stated that
if you want to go forward and you're not comfortable with what you currently have and
you're not ready to make a decision maybe you would like for the task force to be
involved in that or perhaps you want staff to send out more RFP's; however, he doesn't
think Park Board should ask the City Council to give you direction on what to
recommend.
Mr. Presthus indicated that based on everything he's heard he would suggest that they
approve the idea of putting together a task force and he likes the start of what the
composition of the task force is. However, he does think there needs to be some
discussion outside of this meeting to finalize what the actual composition is. He noted
that he thinks they are on the right track but there are a couple of other ideas that they
don't necessarily need to talk about now. He commented that they still have time to
establish that and put it together because they are not hiring a consultant until the
summer when the course is open. He stated that he thinks part of the point of putting the
task force together will be for them to decide whether it makes sense as well as for them
to use a consultant. He commented if they want to use a consultant the task force can
help review that because like Mr. Keprios stated he has done a lot of this work already
and if the task force is going to be involved then why don't they just approve a task
force. Mr. Hulbert responded that he would like for the recommendation to include that
we utilize the services of a consultant and if it's NGF, the one he is most comfortable
with, that's what he would make a motion on. Mr. Presthus noted that what he is saying
0
is if they are going to make a task force they might as well empower them in that way
because it's not a one person decision; otherwise don't even have a task force.
Mr. Lough stated that he agrees to some point with what Mr. Presthus is saying. He
noted the purpose of the task force, as Ms. Steel has written, would be to define specific
concerns and questions to ask the consultant. Mr. Lough indicated that it sounds like
what they need is a body to bring them together around what they are trying to figure out
going forward. He stated if the consultant can answer these questions and propose
solutions that they think may be helpful then at that time they could entertain the idea of
going ahead and hiring a consultant and sorting out which consultants will be the best.
Mr. Lough commented isn't the primary purpose of the task force to get the issues
framed, the questions asked and the concerns defined.
Mr. Hulbert commented that he just thinks they are looking at it from different
directions and that the concept for task force is to let the consultant know what's
important to the community with the golf course. Mr. Lough replied that may turn out
to be the case but you have to go through that step first and we are not necessarily
wedded to a consultant once they've made a list of concerns and questions but wouldn't
the task force have to recommend that.
Mr. Presthus asked isn't the point of bringing in an outside consultant to get a whole set
of fresh eyes and we can point them in the direction with the task force. He noted that
he likes the idea of a task force but if we are telling a consultant this is what we want
and building around this then they are not really coming with fresh eyes. Mr. Hulbert
pointed out that he thought it was important because it's a community golf course and
the community in some ways should be involved in the process to make sure they can
convey their list of concerns, thoughts and ideas for the course. He noted that ultimately
the consultant would be someone who would come in and give an evaluation and ideas
for the course. Mr. Presthus suggested that the task force come up with their ideas and
the consultant has their own ideas and then they two can collaborate together after that.
Mr. Hulbert responded that he doesn't think the consultant is going to stick around and
collaborate with the task force. Mr. Presthus replied no but they can take the consultant's
proposal and compare it with what the task force has been saying and then the Park
Board would choose the best route to go forward, they would be separate.
Ms. Steel stated that as the person who came up with the idea for the task force she has
talked to NGF and she would recommend NGF as their consultant in going forward in
addition to the task force. She pointed out that Mr. Keprios has done a lot of work
looking for different consultants and so she would not make a recommendation tonight
to put that burden on the City Council to look for another consultant. She noted they
have done a lot of work and NGF is a very reputable consulting firm.
Mr. Fronek indicated that he doesn't think anyone doubts NGF's capabilities or what
they can do. He noted as an advisory board they need to rely on staff and asked Mr.
Keprios for his opinion. Mr. Keprios replied that NGF is a very qualified firm and
would probably do an outstanding job. He stated that he was sent on a charge by the
Park Board to find local competition but if you really want a set of fresh eyes like you
7
discussed he thinks an outside look from that group would be just fine and if that's the
direction Park Board wants to go, he will fully support it.
Mr. Fronek asked what would be the timing of signing a contract with NGF or any
consultant. Mr. Keprios replied if it's recommended tonight it could be rather quick
depending on the City Manager and his sense of it which he thinks he would support it.
Mr. Fronek asked would they need to do it that quickly to which Mr. Keprios replied the
better question would be do you want to. Mr. Keprios pointed out this is not a staff
driven thing; it is not something staff brought forward. He stated that he applauds the
Park Board for bringing this forward if you think it's the direction we need to go to turn
things around and staff is happy to give it their best shot.
Mr. Peterson asked wouldn't it make sense to get the task force going as quickly as
possible and then in two to four months recommend to the City Council a consultant.
He noted that he thinks there will be some good and true local citizens looking at the
issues and that will still leave plenty of time for the golf season. He stated that he has a
very strong belief that Braemar isn't broken, it's the economy that's currently broken
and that eventually the economy will get better. He pointed out that every golf course
he knows of have the same difficulties and therefore would put his stake on our fellow
citizens to set the path and then look at the consultant early or mid - summer.
Mr. Hulbert stated that he likes that idea and as far as timing goes maybe they could put
something in the Sun Current or on Edina Patch indicating that we are looking for
people to form a task force. He noted if people are interested they could submit an
application or something showing their desire to be on a task force. He indicated they
could go over them at the next meeting or two and try to have something in place by
March or April. He commented this way they have some time to get their legs
underneath them and then try to get NGF out in June or July.
Ms. Jones stated that she doesn't want to waste people's time and therefore feels if they
are going to go through the City Council they should wait for their approval before they
create a task force. Mr. Hulbert commented that he agrees.
Ms. Steel noted that she thinks it should be a two part recommendation.
Ms. Jones stated that her experience has been that neighborhoods like involvement in
this type of thing. She noted there are three at large community representatives and she
would like to make sure that one representative is from the neighborhood. She
commented they may want to reduce it to two at large plus one neighborhood
representative.
Mr. Keprios reminded the Park Board that procedurally there is a motion and a second
on the table to recommend to the City Council to hire a consultant and form a task force.
Mr. Hulbert asked the Park Board if they would prefer there be two motions versus one
motion. Ms. Kenney replied yes, she would. Mr. Keprios noted that procedurally you
have a motion on the table that's been seconded. Mr. Hulbert asked if he could
withdraw his motion. Ms. Steel indicated that she's afraid to do them separately because
they are hand in hand motions the task force is acting upon the consultant. Ms. Kenney
8
replied that her understanding is that the consultant is acting upon the task force. Mr.
Hulbert responded he doesn't think the consultant is acting on the task force, the
consultant is acting independently, and the task force is somewhat acting independently
by providing ideas and things they feel are important to the consultant but are also
coming back with ideas to the Park Board, golf course and City Council. Ms. Kenney
stated that she doesn't think it's an accurate statement to say that the task force is acting
upon the consultant's recommendations, if anything it's the opposite but regardless at a
minimum they are independent and the task force is going to come up with its
recommendations and the consultants are going to come up with their recommendation.
She pointed out that for the last three months the motion that they have never really
acted upon is as a Park Board do they agree that they want to request that the City
Council hire a consultant and so she thinks that needs to be decided.
Mr. Hulbert stated his motion was to use an independent consultant, not specifying one,
but with the caveat of also creating a task force he would like to amend that motion and
specify using NGF. Mr. Keprios replied that needs a second. Ms. Segreto SECONDED
THE MOTION.
Mr. Peterson asked for a time frame. Mr. Hulbert replied the timeframe would be to try
to get feedback from the City Council and see if they can get it on their agenda for their
next meeting. He stated that he would like for the Park Board at their next meeting to
decide a course of action for putting out request for people at large that want to be a part
of this task force. He indicated he would like to get a task force in place by the middle
of March or April and he would like for the consultant to look at Braemar mid -June.
Mr. Lough commented that he is of the opinion that the task force has work to do before
a consultant is considered. He commented that he doesn't think they go in parallel and
is not particularly favorably inclined toward recommending hiring a consultant right
now.
Mr. Hulbert stated that the motion on the table is to hire an independent golf consultant
using NGF and implementing the utilization of a task force if possible by the middle of
March or April and having NGF come out in June and give the task force two months to
do their due diligence and formulate ideas.
Mr. Keprios indicated that he thinks procedurally they should vote on the amendment
first and if that passes then ask for a vote on the original motion. Mr. Lough asked for
the original motion to be repeated
RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL THAT WE UTILIZE THE SERVICES OF AN
INDEPENDENT GOLF COURSE CONSULTANT AND AT THE SAME TIME
UTILIZING A TASK FORCE AS STATED IN MS. STEEL'S MEMO WITH THE
ADDITION OF ONE STAFF MEMBER AND MR. KEPRIOS.
The Amendment: "TO RECOMMEND NGF AS THE CONSULTANT ".
9
IN FAVOR OF AMENDMENT: Todd Fronek, Keeya Steel, Joseph Hulbert, Ellen
Jones, Louise Segreto
AGAINST AMENDMENT: Jennifer Kenney, Dan Peterson, Bill Lough, Rob Presthus
Mr. Keprios stated six votes are need to pass the amendment so AMENDMENT TO
ORIGINAL MOTION FAILED.
Mr. Hulbert repeated the original motion "TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL
THAT THEY USE THE SERVICES OF AN INDEPENDENT GOLF CONSULTANT
AS LISTED ON SERVICES FOR EXAMPLE ON ONE THROUGH SEVEN WITH
NGF'S PROPOSAL ALONG WITH THE UTILIZATION OF A TASK FORCE IN
THE TIME FRAME THEY SUGGESTED ".
IN FAVOR: Todd Fronek, Keeya Steel, Ellen Jones, Joseph Hulbert, Dan Peterson,
Louise Segreto
AGAINST — Jennifer Kenny, Bill Lough, Rob Presthus
MOTION PASSED
Mr. Keprios asked the Park Board what process they are envisioning for hiring a
consultant assuming the City Council approves the recommendation. Mr. Hulbert
replied he is anticipating a little feedback from City Council. Mr. Presthus commented
that he thinks what Mr. Keprios is saying is that we need to give the City Council a more
definitive outline of what we recommend that the process should be rather than asking
them for feedback because that is the Park Board's job. Mr. Keprios asked the Park
Board if they are expecting the task force to make a recommendation for consultants and
then have them give presentations. Mr. Hulbert asked for thoughts from the Park Board.
Mr. Fronek stated that he thinks it should be staff, if staff feels that the recommendations
that have come forth already are sufficient then put that in the recommendation and if
not send out an RFP to a few more companies to come in and take a look. Mr. Hulbert
responded that he thinks Mr. Keprios made it clear that he didn't want to do that because
staff has already done the due diligence process. Mr. Keprios replied that he will be
happy to do whatever it is that the Park Board would like for him to do.
Ms. Segreto stated that she is really uncomfortable having the task force involved with
selecting a consultant. She explained she feels what they really need is someone from
outside of this community to come in and analyze Braemar. She noted that rightfully so
the task force is made up of people who are very involved in the golf course and may not
have an independent analysis of the selection of the consultant. Ms. Segreto indicated
that she thinks the task force should help narrow what the consultant studies. She asked
that any Park Board members who are uncomfortable with NGF should do whatever due
diligence they think is necessary to feel comfortable in recommending to the City
Council who we should use.
10
Ms. Kenney indicated that she voted against the original motion. She stated to clarify
the Park Board was. first asked to vote on a specific consultant and then were asked to
vote onwhethef,they wanted to hire a consultant at all and so both of her votes were no.
She stated th& if it's.the Park Board's majority decision that they are going to
recommend hiring a consultant then she thinks it's a different question on whether they
want to recommend a specific consultant. She pointed out that it may be worth making
another motion since it has already been decided that they are going to recommend
hiring a consultant.
Mr. Presthus stated that he agrees).with Ms. Kenney because he voted based on the same
reasoning. He indicated that if they. are gointto go with,a consultant.then NGF makes
sense because Mr.'Keprios has already done'due. diligence.
Todd Fronek MOVED TO RECOMMEND THAT THE PARK BOARD
RECOMMENDS HIRING NGF AS THE CONSULTANT. Louise,Segreto
SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Hulbert stated that part of him feels that if they start to get into specifics of the .
timing of when they create a task force, aren't they kind of putting the cart ahead of the
horse. He indicated that ultimately the City Council could say they don't like either of
the ideas. He noted that he thinks if they can have a task force up and running by April
and have NGF here in June that will give the task force two months. He stated that
before they decide any of this he thinks they need to wait until they get some sort of
feedback from the City Council
Mr. Keprios explained what he would like to see happen is to bring this information to
the City Council as soon as possible and see if there is any opposition. He stated that
next he would recommend that they do a quick work session with the City Council and
Park Board and hammer this out. He commented that he suspects they will support what
you would like to do and make it successful. Mr. Hulbert suggested that maybe they
turn their next Park Board meeting into a work session or possibly they could schedule
something in between. Mr. Keprios responded that first he thinks he will have the City
Manager discuss this with the City Council and see what their desire is from there
because it will delay the process if they wait to do it in a City Council setting.
III. PUBLIC COMMENTS
John West, 6113 Kaymar Drive, stated that he has a couple of questions. He noted that he
is a fan of Braemar Golf Course and loves Bra_ emar and was curious as to the issue.
statement and the discussion about taking the issue or questions to the City Council. He
asked what would be the issue statement, what is the issue they are trying to solve. He
understands that Braemar Golf Course is perhaps not profitable but one question he has is
how you would phrase that to the City Council and then what would you ask City Council
to do and then if there was some discussion about a consultant an d a task force what would
be their mission statement. He asked what information would you want from this task
force or this consultant to make the.appropriate decision. He noted that he heard a lot of.
discussion about a consultant and task force but driving down a little bit deeper what
11
information do you want from either the consultant or the task force to make a decision or
recommendation to the City Council because he didn't hear a lot about that. Again he
asked what is it they are trying to solve. Mr. Hulbert informed Mr. West that they don't
have a practice of dialoging during the public comment portion of the agenda but assured
him that those will all be things that they will be deliberating and talking about over the
coming months.
IV. STAFF UPDATES
A. Star Tribune Article - Mr. Keprios asked the Park Board to refer to the article that was in
their packet pertaining to the small triangular piece of open space designated as a park
that was recently in the Star Tribune newspaper. He pointed out that one thing the
article did not address that he did state was if the constituent feels that if this is still
something he would like to purse then he has the option of requesting that the matter be
placed on the Park Board's agenda.
B. Centennial Lakes, Braemar, Golf Dome - Mr. Keprios informed the Park Board that they
had a great Winter Festival at Centennial Lakes. He noted that Braemar Arena is now
up and operational. Lastly, the golf dome was repaired in less than five days and that is
back up and operational.
Meeting Adjourned at 8:30 pm.
12
1
I
MINUTES
Regular Meeting of the
Heritage Preservation Board
Tuesday, February 8, 2011, 7:00 PM
Edina Community Room
4801 50th Street West
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Joel Stegner, Chris Rofidal, Jean Rehkamp Larson,
Bob Schwartzbauer, Arlene Forrest, Claudia Carr, Colleen Curran, Ross Davis,
Katherine McLellan and Lauren Thorson
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Joyce Repya, Associate Planner
INTRODUCTION OF CITY MANAGER, SCOTT NEAL
Planner Repya introduced City Manager, Scott Neal to the HPB. Mr. Neal shared his
background and responded to questions from the group. The Board welcomed
Manager Neal to Edina and expressed their desire to work with him for the betterment
of the city.
I. PRESENTATION OF GIFT FROM CLINT & CAROLYN SCHROEDER, 4917
ARDEN AVE.
Clint & Carolyn Schroeder, long standing residents of the Country Club District
presented the Board with a framed poster from the June 20, 1926, Minneapolis Tribune,
advertising "Thorpe's Country Club District — One of Minneapolis' Most Beautiful
Residential Sections ". Mrs. Schroeder recalled finding the poster when they moved to
their home on Arden Avenue in1963. The Schroeders' thanked the HPB for the work
they have done to preserve the historic integrity of their neighborhood, hoping the
poster commemorating the history of the district would find a home in City Hall.
Board members collectively thanked Mr. & Mrs. Schroeder for their thoughtful gift,
assuring them that the poster would indeed find a place of honor in the city offices.
II. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: January 11, 2011
Member Rofidal moved approval of the minutes from the January 11, 2011 meeting.
Member Davis seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried.
COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT: Certificates of Appropriateness (COA)
A. H -10 -03 4623 Bruce Avenue — Change to a COA issued 8 -09 -2010
a,
Minutes
Heritage Preservation Board
February 8, 2011
Planner Repya reminded the Board that at their August 2010 meeting they had
approved a COA for the subject property that entailed the construction of a new
detached garage in the rear yard. The plans approved indicated that the exterior
cladding material would be stucco to match the house. Now, the applicant is requesting
a change to the exterior materials from stucco to Hard -board stucco panels. The garage
would match the home where they plan to also install the Hardi -board stucco panels.
As required for a change to an approved COA, the request is being presented to the
HPB for approval.
Lon Oberpriller of The Replacement Housing Services Consortium, LLC, contractor for
the applicant shared the challenges encountered with unforeseen corrections to the
deteriorated infrastructure. Mr. Oberpriller pointed out that once the walls of the home
were opened up to add the addition, they encountered rotted rim /floor joists, as well as
rotted framing and sheathing hidden between plaster and stucco with serious
implications for the overall structural integrity of the home. His comments were
documented with photos depicting the rot encountered during the renovation. He added
that the mandatory repairs substantially increased the total cost of the project.
Mr. Oberpriller pointed out his awareness that financial considerations cannot drive the
decisions of the HPB; however the change in exterior materials from stucco to Hardi-
board stucco panels would save the homeowner $14,500, and relieve a looming
financial hardship. Furthermore, Mr. Oberpriller observed that the new Tudor style
home constructed at 4602 Bruce Avenue is clad in the same Hardi -board stucco panels,
approved by the HPB.
Mr. Oberpriller concluded that the renovation of this home has been an excellent
opportunity to understand the actual condition of an 80 year old home in the Country
Club District. The interior photos provided prior to the walls being removed demonstrate
that while the home looked perfectly sound, the rot inside the walls greatly undermined
the health and safety of the home. Mr. Oberpriller then offered to give the Board
members a tour of the home at anytime.
Board Comments & Vote
Several Board members asked for clarification on the materials under consideration as
well as the colors proposed.
Member Forrest thanked Mr. Oberpriller for the thorough documentation of the home's
renovation, pointing out that this is a very good example how a home in the Country
Club District can be renovated, even with the existence of rot, without tearing it down.
Member Rofidal also appreciated the documentation of the project. Adding that it was
very instructional; and he looked forward to visiting the home.
Member Rehkamp Larson stated that it is a good thing that the form, mass, and scale
of the original home have been preserved. She expressed awareness of the financial
constraints of the project, pointing out that heritage preservation will always be more
expensive than new construction. She also opined that although batten trim is
Minutes
Heritage Preservation Board
February 8, 2011
proposed for the seams of the Hardi -board stucco panel, there are so many seams that
the batten trim appears too excessive. Ms. Rehkamp Larson then encouraged Mr.
Oberpriller to provide more spacing between the panels, and consider using detail
elements such as those used on the home at 4602 Bruce Avenue to provide some
relief.
Board members discussed the extent of their review. Planner Repya explained that this
COA was the last one they considered that did not include an approval of the addition.
That being said, the change request is for the siding on the garage.
Member Schwartzbauer observed that the request involves the siding on the garage,
however since the HPB, requires that the materials of the detached structures match the
house, it would be consistent for the house to also be clad in materials to match the new
garage.
Member Davis, moved to approve a change in the exterior cladding of the detached
garage from stucco to match the existing house to Hardi -board stucco panels which will
also.,be used on the existing house and addition. Member Curran seconded the motion.
All voted aye. The motion carried.
IV. MORNINGSIDE NEIGHBORHOOD OPEN HOUSE:
A. Morningside Neighborhood Association — Proposed "Streetcar Logo
Planner Repya introduced Helen Burke, 4246 Grimes Avenue and Jennifer Janovy;
4016 Inglewood Avenue, both representing the Morningside Neighborhood Association
steering committee. Ms..Janovy explained that Ms. Burke, having attended previous'
meetings of the HPB had provided the steering committee with a copy of the streetcar
logo she had received at the January meeting. Upon viewing the logo, some members
of the committee expressed concern that the streetcar was not the best representation
of the neighborhood.
Ms. Janovy provided information demonstrating that there are several logos for groups
within the neighborhood (Morningside Women's Club — 1937; Men's Athletic -2008;
and the Morningside Neighborhood Association —2005) all sharing a theme centered on
nature. She added that the streetcar image is used by the Linden Hills Neighborhood
Association, and she would prefer that image not be carried through on Morningside's
street signs.
Ms. Burke clarified that the opinions of the neighborhood association's steering
committee do not necessarily represent the entire neighborhood. She added that she
would suggest providing information to the neighborhood; which the steering committee
would be happy to facilitate.
Member Forrest thanked Ms. Burke for that clarification, adding that in addition to
providing logo options to the steering committee to disseminate, a perfect time to
assess the desires of the neighborhood would be at the open house on March 8th. On a
Minutes
Heritage Preservation Board
February 8, 2011
cautionary note, Ms. Forrest pointed out that the logos currently used by the
neighborhood probably could not be used by the City for the street signs.
Board members discussed possible logos that would tie into both the history of the
neighborhood as well as nature. Some ideas included the Catalpa trees along W. 44th
Street which were brought to Minnesota by Jonathan Grimes; and apples blossoms or
the fruit in recognition of the large orchard which made up a great deal of the land that is
now Morningside. Board members agreed that the streetcar is an important historic
element for the neighborhood which should be included as one of the offerings. The
use of a bungalow home was also suggested as a possible logo contender.
Discussion ensued regarding ways to gain input from the neighborhood. Ms. Burke and
Janovy agreed that they could help communicate to the members of the neighborhood
association through their web site. The Board agreed that would be a great idea. They
also discussed providing the choices at the neighborhood open house on March 8th with
an opportunity for residents to vote on which logo they liked best... 1St, 2 "d, 3rd, etc.
Member Stegner pointed out that the HPB is very open to input from the neighborhood.
The intention of the logo on the street sign is to recognize the history of the area, and if
the logo can recognize the history utilizing a theme from nature, that would be great. He
added that the final decision will be made by the HPB taking into consideration the
consensus of the neighborhood. Mr. Rofidal added that whatever is suggested for the
logo, must meet criteria that is acceptable to the City's public works department.
Board members thanked Ms. Burke and Ms. Janovy for providing input from the
Morningside Neighborhood Association, and added that they look forward to working
with them as the history of Morningside is recognized.
B. Open House Planning
Planner Repya explained that because the Morningside Open House will be held prior
to the March 8th meeting, this is the last opportunity the Board will have to discuss the
event. Ms. Repya recalled that a similar open house was provided when the Country
Club District Plan of Treatment was presented to the neighborhood, and it was very
successful. Because there will be no "presentation ", residents are free to stop by the
City Hall lobby between 5:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. to view stations set up to convey
information and answer questions.
The Board agreed to include the following stations for the open house:
• Morningside Bungalow Study
- How to designate ones bungalow a heritage landmark
- The ramifications of heritage landmark designation
- Creating the individualized plan of treatment for ones bungalow property
- A list of the bungalow properties in Morningside
• Morningside Street Sign Logo Selection — Choose your favorite logo (or no logo)
• Morningside Walking Tour — Created in Summer 2010
• Edina Heritage Award information — Nomination Forms
Minutes
Heritage Preservation Board
February 8, 2011
Following a brief discussion, the HPB agreed that they looked forward to meeting with
the residents of Morningside at the March 8th open house to share the results of the
Morningside Bungalow Study, gain interest in heritage landmark designation, and
answer'community questions.
V. COMMUNITY COMMENT: None
VI. 2011 HERITAGE AWARD PREPARATION:
Planner Repya provided the Board with a copy'of =the press release. calling for
nominations for ffi6 m11 Heritage Award, noting that the deadline for nominations is
Wednesday, April 6th. Board members briefly discussed potential nominations. All
agreed that it would'be great to receive a nomination for amid- century home (built in
the 1950's :& 1960's), noting that a.-great deal of the City's architecture falls within that
time period. The Board was encouraged to keep their eyes open to potential
nominations. No formal action was taken.
VII. OTHER BUSINESS:
A. New Ordinance (proposed) Special Setback Requirement for Single
Dwelling Unit Lots in Edina Heritage Landmark District
Board members were pleased to seethe Planning Commission propose to exempt the
properties designated Edina Heritage Landmark from the side yard setback criteria in
the Zoning Ordinance.
A question arose regarding the terminology in the proposal which read 'With the
exception of single dwelling unit lots within the Edina Heritage Landmark District..."
Some. Board members observed that it appeared that the exemption would only apply to
district designations (as in the Country Club District), and not include the individual
single dwelling unit (of which there are 3).
Following a brief,discussion, Board members agreed that it is importantthat.the
exemption'would apply to, all single dwelling unit lots designated Edina Heritage
Landmarks. Member Schwartzbauer moved to suggest the: following change to the
proposed ordinance "With the exception of single dwelling unit lots designated as
Edina Heritage Landmarks," thus; removing the -term district. Member Rofdal
seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried.
B. New Ordinance Regarding City Advisory Boards & Commissions
Planner Repya provided the Board with a copy of the new ordinance for the City's
Boards and Commissions which served to compile all of the ordinances for the various
groups into one ordinance with an opening section providing general provisions for all.
Ms. Repya explained that the City Council -has asked each group to review their section
and report back any changes or updating they would like to see.
Minutes
Heritage Preservation Board
February 8, 2011
Following a brief discussion, some Board members expressed frustration that they were
asked to comment after the code had been completed. Member Stegner commented
that he found the general provisions for all boards and commissions under Section 1500
did not thoroughly address how the boards currently functions — pointing out that
"Advocating for their respective causes" and "Providing public education" should be
included. He added that he also felt strongly that the attendance policies should be
changed to give attendance credit to all board members in the event a meeting is
cancelled.
Member Rofidal observed that under the Heritage Preservation Board's section No.
1504.05 Membership, the code currently states the following "At least one member
shall be a qualified professional historian, architect, architectural historian, archeologist,
planner, or the owner of a heritage landmark property." Rofidal pointed out that
considering the important design review responsibilities of the HPB; he would like to see
it be mandatory that there be an architect in the make -up of the board. All agreed that
would be a good change.
Continuing the discussion regarding section 1504, it was pointed out that item C.
County Historical Society Membership. "A member of the Board shall be a
member of the Hennepin County Historical Society" did not appear beneficial to the
operation of the HPB. All agreed requiring membership to the Minnesota State
Historical Society with whom the HPB works closely, made much more sense.
Member Curran commented that since the new ordinance has been completed, yet the
Council is asking for input, perhaps the HPB should let the Council know that the Board
believes there are substantive issues that should be addressed.
Planner Repya agreed to compile the comments of the Board, prior to presenting them
to the City Council at the upcoming joint meeting.
C. 2011 Work Plan — Continued until March meeting.
VIII. CORRESPONDENCE: None
IX. NEXT MEETING DATE: March 8, 2011
X. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:50 PM
Respectfully submitted,
Joyce R.epya
C
VETERANS MEMORIAL COMMITTEE MEETING
MINUTES FROM DECEMBER 17, 2010
The following are Minutes from the Veterans Memorial Committee held in the Mayor's
Conference Room at City Hall on Friday, December 17, 2010 at 7:30 am
Volunteers in attendance:
Chairman Mike Goergen, Frank Cardarelle, Bob Kojetin, Marshall Schwartz, Robert Reed,
Herb Lefler, Justin Kieffer, Jason Christiaansen, Barbara Bender
Volunteers unable to attend:
Bob Benson, John Lonsbury
Staff in attendance:
John Keprios, Edina Park and Recreation Department Director
Janet Canton, Edina Park and Recreation Office Coordinator
Scott Neal, City Manager
I. INTRODUCTION OF CITY MANAGER SCOTT NEAL — Mr. Neal informed the
committee that he has been involved in two Veteran Memorial projects and they were both
a couple of the best projects he has worked on in his 22 year career. Mr. Neal informed the
committee that he is originally from Iowa and attended Iowa State where he received a
degree in economics and a Masters in Public Administration. He indicated that he has been
a City Manager for Norris, Tennessee; Mount Pleasant, Iowa; Northfield, Minnesota and
Eden Prairie. He stated that he is happy to be in Edina and would be happy to lend any of
his experience in anything he has done and in particular the Veteran Memorials.
II. APPROVAL OF THE NOVEMBER 19.2010 MINUTES
Bob Kojetin MOVED TO APPROVE THE NOVEMBER 19, 2010 VETERANS
MEMORIAL COMMITTEE MINUTES. Robert Reed SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mr. Goergen pointed out that the minutes credited Bob Benson with discussion and
motions on pages 6 and 7 when it should have been Herb Lefler. Changes were made.
MINUTES APPROVED.
III. REVIEW ARCHITECT RESPONSES TO RFP
Mr. Keprios informed the committee that of the 18 architects he sent RFPs to he received
nine responses back. He noted that he reviewed each one and summarized their highlights
and key points and then handed out the information for the committee to look at. He
indicated that one thing they hadn't zeroed in on by the time of the mailing was the dollar
limit on the project, as you will recall they decided not to exceed $400,000. Mr. Keprios
informed the committee that he did take this to the Park Board earlier this week and they
approved the amount as well as the Community Foundation Agreement and Ordinance to
place the Veterans Memorial at Utley Park. He pointed out that when the RFP went out
they listed all of the elements; however, some of them called to ask how much we thought
ti
the project would cost to which he would inform them approximately $400,000. He noted
that may contribute why there is such a variety in the proposed fee structure of anywhere
from $9,000 to $57,000. He stated that he thinks from the 9 RFP's they received. they
should try to narrow it down to the top four or five to interview. He added that the first
four he listed are arguably the.top four he feels they should interview and then proceeded
to go through each firm giving his thoughts both pro and con.
Mr. Schwartz commented that all of the people who bragged that they worked on the
Veterans Memorial at the State Capitol wouldn't necessarily take that as a plus. ' He noted
that he has been to that memorial and in his opinion it's very cold and doesn't have the
dignity that he thinks they are looking for. He commented that he was at Eden Prairie's
Veterans Memorial yesterday and that one has a sense of warmth as well as great dignity
along with it. Mr. Goergen asked Mr. Christiaansen is part of that contingent on what
direction the architect receives from the committee. Mr. Christiaansen replied that the
committee does have a lot of say in the direction they go.
Mr. Keprios informed the committee that he did receive some calls from the architects that
did ask good questions such as where are we at with the artist, what we mean by focal
point, etc. He noted that he would tell them what their discussions have been so far as well
as informed them that the committee is looking for the architect to bring forward some
suggestions and creativity to the table.
Mr. Kojetin asked if they are going to bring any artists in because he knows they were
talking about something with the Art Center helping out. Mr. Keprios replied that he
recently sat with the Public Art Committee and told them that this committee is still in the
infancy stage when it comes to the art work. He indicated that Public Art Committee said
as soon as the Veterans Committee have a better idea of what it is they will help the
committee secure what they think would be the best artist to bid on. Mr. Keprios indicated
that he made it very clear to them that it is the Veterans Committee that is going to make
the final recommendation to the Park Board and then on to the City Council.
Mr. Neal indicated that he has worked with some of the companies listed and in comparing
and contrasting the companies, a smaller firm like Brauer & Associates will sub out all of
their specialty work to a variety of people but he knows they have managed very well and
may be a little more sensitive to the group. He stated that with a larger firm like SRF they
control all of the sub specialty groups that will certainly be needed on a project like this;
however, they are probably not as sensitive to the group, but since they control all of the
resources it's easier for them to make it happen. Mr. Neal stated that he agrees the real key
to getting what you want is the direction you give to your architect, are you building a
memorial to war or are you building a memorial to veterans.
Mr. Keprios indicated that he would like the committee to take some time to look over all
the proposals and proposed they figure out the top four or five finalists to interview via e-
mail.
2
Ms. Bender asked Mr. Keprios if there were any firms that were sent an RFP that did not
respond that we would be really interested in. Mr. Keprios replied he was expecting to
hear from a couple that he never heard from. He noted that he did receive a call from
Ellerbe Becket saying what a wonderful project it is but that they would have to decline to
bid because they would be too expensive and would not compete with the smaller firms so
that was a little disappointing. Ms. Bender asked Mr. Keprios if he thinks any should be
taken out of consideration right away. Mr. Keprios responded that he thinks he would take
out the two one -man shops as well as the one that would charge $57,000, which would
bring them down to six to figure out the top four or five to interview.
Mr. Goergen asked Mr. Christiaansen if he thinks they should key on how the firms answer
certain questions such as the number of people and length of experience. Mr.
Christiaansen replied he doesn't know how important the number of people they assign to a
project is. He commented that he does think the one -man shops can do it but he does
understand why they may not want to have those because they may not have as much
experience in general.
Mr. Kieffer asked is it possibly true that maybe you have three of the top experienced
people or may have a group submit six of their less experienced people. Mr. Christiaansen
replied that the people they are probably going to meet with are the ones that sell the
project and don't have a lot of experience and won't actually work on the project. He
stated if someone says they will have nine people working on the project that doesn't mean
they should get extra points because that really doesn't tell them much.
Mr. Neal commented that he thinks it's important to get a commitment from whoever they
assign that they will be there from the beginning until the end. Mr. Kojetin asked how
many people they would be interviewing from each firm. Mr. Keprios responded that he
would ask them to bring the whole team that would be involved in the project. He also
stated that he thinks it would be beneficial to find a firm that has done this before and can
help them out with some of the details and guidance.,
Mr. Christiaansen asked Mr. Keprios if he is going to ask for additional work from the
firms they are going to interview such as a mock -up of the design or ask to see what they
might envision. Mr. Keprios replied that he thinks that would be a lot to ask and feels they
should just ask questions like what makes them better than the next guy and see how they
conduct themselves so that hopefully they will get a better feel of what they're looking for.
Mr. Goergen suggested they ask the firms how they interpret the elements we've given
them so that at least they could expound on what their vision would be without requiring
sketches. Mr. Christiaansen stated that he thinks the firms to some extent can describe how
they will approach the whole process and added he would think all of the firms will take
the site into consideration when they come to the interview. Mr. Christiaansen commented
that they may also want to ask the question what they see specifically at Utley Park that
would be unique to the memorial.
3
Mr. Schwartz asked what if Company A were to have a really good idea but we decide to
select Company B would there be some type of ethical or legal boundary that says we
couldn't use their idea. Mr. Christiaansen replied he doesn't think so and feels they should
take advantage of anything they learn during the interview process with broader ideas;
however, he would not feel comfortable taking another firms design/sketching that they
didn't hire. Ms. Bender responded that she also thinks it would depend whether or not they
had it copyrighted. Mr. Neal indicated that he thinks whoever you hire they are going to
design what you want them to design. He suggested that in terms of trying to select a
design consultant find a piece of work that you like and then find out who did it.
Mr. Keprios stated that he had one firm call and ask if we would be open to moving the
tennis court to which his reply was that would depend on what you have in mind. If you
show us that there is a good reason to do that then.the committee will listen because they
are looking for creative ideas with sound reason that's affordable and can be done within
budget.
Mr. Goergen asked Mr. Neal if their process is similar to what he has experienced to which
Mr. Neal replied yes. Mr. Goergen commented that they've often referred to the Veterans
Memorial at Eden Prairie. Mr. Neal asked if it's one of the memorials they like or have
certain elements that you like. Mr. Goergen replied that he thinks the general consensus is
that size wise it's bigger than they are thinking as well as they don't envision as much
information. He added they are looking at downplaying the significant donors.
Mr. Neal pointed out with the site they used in Eden Prairie they did have some constraints
because it was basically a swamp that they had to fill in so be sure to find out if there are
any site constraints because that could end up being more important than the design itself.
Mr. Keprios asked Mr. Kojetin if he thinks there is anything they should be worried about
or know about at Utley Park. Mr. Kojetin indicated that he recently met with the
Minnehaha Watershed District and as soon as the committee has decided on a firm they
will sit down with them to give the parameters of what can be down from the creek and
total hard surface area. He commented that he thinks they will work very well together and
that there is good solid land at Utley Park.
Mr. Keprios recommended to the committee to throw out the following three firms: Mary
Hustad Architecture, Damon Farber & Bryan Carlson Planning & Landscape Architecture.
He noted that leaves six and hopefully they can get that number down to four to bring in to
interview. Again he stated that he would like to give the committee some time to look
closer at the six remaining proposals and then hopefully via e-mail they can narrow it down
to four.
Mr. Goergen suggested that the committee take a- look at the proposal and maybe come up
with a point system and rate them 1, 2, 3. Mr. Keprios noted that he thinks they should rate
them 1 through 6 and the bottom one or two go and the top 4 or 5 stay. Mr. Goergen
commented that it may be clear to them that only three firms would be sufficient. Mr.
Reed stated that they may miss someone and therefore thinks they should aim for four. Mr.
4
J
Keprios recommended they rate all six because someone may see something that he didn't
notice.
Mr. Schwartz questioned if the whole committee should vote because he doesn't know as
much as some of the other people on the committee do in selecting a firm. He noted he
wouldn't want to cancel out someone's vote because they may have a really good reason
and he just has a feeling. He commented that maybe if someone doesn't feel qualified to
vote then they just don't vote without any prejudice against them so that the people'who do
know what they are doing on this particular issue have the say. Mr. Keprios replied that he
understands what Mr. Schwartz is saying but that he does respect the opinions of everyone
on the committee. Mr. Schwartz commented that in listening to what other people are
saying there are comments being made that he never even thought about and therefore
doesn't feel comfortable voting to which Mr. Keprios replied that would be okay.
Mr. Lefler indicated that from his perspective what is important is what kind of attention
are they going to give the committee. He noted that it's not a huge project but to them it's
a big deal so he would like to be sure there is someone on their staff who would be willing
to help massage their creative instincts. He stated he would like to see someone who is
willing to take some time and help lead them through their thought process because right
now he's confused what this might look like. He added that one of the things he would
look for in an architect and also an artistic consultation is somebody to help them form and
focus their ideas and try to bring the physical realities of the site together. He pointed out
that to a firm where this might not be a big project to them they may not be willing to give
us that kind of time. He stated that a question they may want to ask is will somebody be
assigned to their committee that is going to come in and spend time with them.
Ms. Bender stated that she thinks that's a really good question. She noted that in looking at
the list of firms there is one that she thinks could really take ideas and guide them;
however, there's another firm that she absolutely dragged through the process and is the
last job she will ever do with them because she does not want to have to drag a firm
through the creative process. She indicated that she does think this is something that they
will be able to find out in the interview process.
Mr. Christiaansen stated that, in looking at the questions, he thinks they will all say they
have good communication and will have staff involvement beginning to end but they
should elaborate on those things and attend meetings. Mr. Kojetin indicated that he thinks
it's important for the architect to go through the process and attend their meetings so they
are not communicating to Mr. Keprios and Mr. Keprios is communicating to the architect.
Mr. Keprios indicated that he would like to give the interview questions ahead of time to
firms they select and let them know there will be a time limit so they will need to come
prepared to answer them and also to be sure they have all visited the site. He informed the
committee he will put together some pre - written questions to circulate to the committee for
any feedback. It was decided to give Mr. Keprios any feedback including questions by
December 30`h as well as rate each firm one through six.
Ms. Bender indicated that she thinks there are three basic things they are looking at: more
green than granite, gender neutral and minimalist when it comes to recognition of donors.
Mr. Goergen added three flags and two plaques for recognition as well.
Mr. Reed indicated that before the meeting he heard Mr. Schwartz say we better talk to
people from Eden Prairie about the firm they used and asked him was that a positive or a
negative. Mr. Schwartz replied negative. Mr. Reed noted that the same firm is on the top
of the.list and asked Mr. Schwartz to explain. Mr. Schwartz explained that he was told
Eden Prairie had some issues because it was a swamp and once the firm did whatever they
were contracted to do they were not as accessible as the committee would have liked to
have finished up the project. He noted they may want to talk to other people from Eden
Prairie to get more details.
Mr. Reed asked because some of the bigger firms have their own in -house people should
we assume they are more attuned to the elements as opposed to the actual design, artistic or
visual side of things. Mr. Keprios replied that he thinks these are things they will have to
learn through the interview process. He noted that he has worked with both large firms and
small firms and has had great success with both.
Mr. Schwartz thanked Mr. Keprios for the great job he has done of putting everything
together.
IV. FEBRUARY 11, 2011 MEETING
Mr. Goergen informed the committee that Mr. Keprios has asked if they could move their
February meeting a week earlier because he will be out of town. It was decided the next
Veterans Committee meeting will be held on February 11 `h at 7:30 am.
V. STANDING COMMITTEE REPORTS
A. Fundraising /Treasurer — Mr. Kojetin informed the committee that recently Mr. Goergen,
Mr. Keprios and himself met with Dick Crockett from the Edina Community Foundation.
He noted that he thought the meeting went well. He indicated that the main thing the
Foundation will be doing for them is funneling money and writing thank you notes
acknowledging the donations.
Mr. Kojetin indicated that they did ask Mr. Crockett if the Foundation would be willing to
give them money. He noted that Mr. Crockett informed them they would, but that it
would be a grant that the committee would need to apply to the Foundation for.
Mr. Goergen informed the committee that Mr. Crockett showed them an interesting thing
called the Triangle System. The way it works is the tip of the triangle is their target for
the most significant donation such as one individual donating $50,000, $100,000, etc. The
second level they may be ten people each giving $10,000. The third level would be for
businesses or whatever and the bottom level would be for the rest of the community. Mr.
Goergen stated they are hoping to get mailings sent to 15,000 households.
Mr. Kojetin informed the committee that they also talked to Mr. Crockett about the
Foundation not having their name on the top of the list unless they contribute a $10,000
grant. If they don't, they will be listed as an ordinary donor and it will not say this is their
project. Mr. Goergen indicated that Mr. Crocket had no objection to that as well as on the
plaque changing the acknowledgment to "Foundation's Assistance ".
Mr. Goergen indicated that he thinks they may need one more person from the committee
to work on fundraising. He informed the committee that the Foundation has a database
with a lot of contacts but they are not going to give them, they will need to go there and
look at it. He pointed out that it will show who should be at the top of their list for
significant donors based on their past giving at least through the Foundation. He
commented that Mr. Crockett also suggested that they may want to look at getting a
campaign planning consultant and grant writer.
Mr. Keprios asked Mr. Kojetin his thought on hiring a campaign professional. Mr.
Kojetin replied that he personally thinks that is John Lonsbury's profession, he's a
marketing person and thinks they should talk to him. He commented that he thought at a
previous meeting Mr. Lonsbury said he's not a fundraiser but he has good ideas on
marketing. Mr. Kojetin indicated there are two different portions, there is marketing and
fundraising and if Mr. Lonsbury can tell them how to market it then they can use that to
go out and get donations.
Mr. Goergen informed the committee that he also learned that most businesses have three
pools of funds. For example Target Corporation, they are a member of the community so
there is one fund. Secondly, there is probably a Twin Cities wide fund or the corporation
for the metropolitan area. Thirdly, there is a Target Foundation. However he's not sure
how they would tap all of those once the local Target store gives X amount of dollars. He
noted that Mr. Crockett gave them a lot of good ideas and information.
B. Marketing, /Community Relations — Mr. Keprios informed the committee that recently he
met with Jennifer Bennerotte, Edina Communications Director, and she said she would be
willing to do all of the writing for the committee. He stated that all Mr. Lonsbury will
need to do is give her enough advanced notice. He noted they will do press releases,
brochures, letter writing, etc. Mr. Keprios indicated that he has contacted Mr. Lonsbury
and Ms. Bennerotte to try to set up a meeting which Mr. Goergen may also want to attend.
C. Research (KIAs) — Mr. Schwartz informed the committee that they cannot go by home
record when looking for KIAs because everyone enlisted at Fort Snelling, therefore
records do not go beyond Hennepin County. He noted that he also found that some
information he has found in data bases are not only inaccurate but inconsistent. Mr.
Schwartz gave some examples and commented that a lot of the information was put
together before computers so it's not always a one on one correlation. He pointed out that
given what he has recently found out he now needs to reject 16 people which took him an
average four to five hours of research before he could reject them. He indicated for sure
there are 15 people that he does not question and feels the committee would agree with
7
him. He noted there are another five that he thinks have a very strong case but will need
discussion among the committee. He added that he currently has a work in progress on 8
people where there is indication they may be from Edina and were killed but not enough
to bring to the committee at this time.
Mr. Schwartz stated that right now his best guess for KIAs would be one person from
WWI, no one from the Spanish American War, ten from WWII (5 will require the
committee to make a decision on and eight will need more research), one from the Korean
War and three from the Vietnam War. The committee was very impressed and thanked
Mr. Schwartz for all of his time and work.
Mr. Schwartz commented that he thinks what is driving him right now, and he feels very
strongly about it, is if they are able to identify a living relative they should be invited to
the ceremony. Mr. Schwartz shared a story of how when he was looking for information
on the name Prescott and ended up calling a gentleman who was 67 years old and lived in
Plymouth. The gentleman informed him that the man he was looking for was indeed his
father and that his father had died in the war two weeks before the war ended. He noted
that he was less than a year old when his father died so he doesn't remember him.
However, last summer this gentleman went to France to the American Cemetery where his
father was buried, his father was in the fourth division which likely meant he was at
Normandy, and that was the first contact he had ever had with his father. Mr. Schwartz
stated that this gentleman was very pleased to know that we were bringing just a little
piece of his father's name back to Edina where he was from. Mr. Schwartz stated that
talking to people like these (so far he has talked to five of them) is what really drives him.
Mr. Schwartz thanked Mr. Cardarelle and Mr. Kojetin because they have been a walking
reference for Edina and their knowledge has been invaluable.
Again everyone thanked Mr. Schwartz for his time and efforts.
Meeting adjourned at 9:00 am
4
EDINA PUBLIC ART COMMITTEE MINUTES
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Community Room, Edina City Hall, 4:00 p.m.
Present: Bernice Amacher, Naomi Griffith, Amy Kerber, Bill McCabe, Lois Ring, Anne
Spooner. Not present: Brad Benn, Rick Fesler and Ruth Valgemae.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
APPROVAL OF JANUARY MINUTES
Motion carried to approve final corrected minutes by email.
FINANCIAL REPORT
Bill McCabe reported that $9,069 is currently on hand. He broke this number down and
reported there is $540 from the Community Foundation, $7,500 from city appropriations,
and $1,092 from the Taste of Creativity event. The cost of the plaques will be submitted
and the expenses incurred will be subtracted from the above.
Lois Ring received a $10 donation and mailed it to the Community Foundation.
Bill McCabe will confirm whether $10,000 is still owed for the stained glass project at
Edina City Hall. The 2010 calendar year brought in $3,331 from utility bill donations.
This will be reported separately as it will. go toward the cost of the stained glass at city
hall. It will take anotherthree and a half years to pay it off.
CONTINUING BUSINESS (Action List)
PEOPLE'S CHOICE WINNERS
I
Lois Ring contacted Nicholas Legeros and Deb Zeller and both are pleased to leave
their sculptures for the 2011 exhibition. Stephen Fischer is unsure about leaving Holy
Big Bird and will let us know.
Lois Ring notified Kevin Komadina that Three Trees will not be included in the 2011
exhibition as it was not a People's Choice winner.
PLAQUES
No new update.
CALL FOR SCULPTURES SCHEDULE 2011
Lois Ring reported that she has received two telephone inquiries about the Call for
Sculptures. She also reported that the Call has appeared in The Star Tribune and the
Edina Sun- Current.
Brad Benn sent the Call for Sculptures to Minnesota Monthly.
Anne Spooner reported that one application /entry has come in to EAC.
Perci Chester contacted Lois Ring about showing Gyr Family Cycle again. Motion
approved to keep Gyr Family Cycle for 2011.
The March 25 meeting for selection of the new exhibition will be at the City Hall
Community Room from 1 -4 p.m.
DONOR CONTACTS /LETTERS
J
Naomi Griffith reported that the new donor letter has been finalized and one has been
sent.
Lois Ring reported that Dale Schwartz from Pinstripes has offered to have the reception
with wine and appetizers. The date of the grand opening is still pending but will be a
weekday afternoon.
Amy Kerber reported that she is continuing her contact with Tiffany & Co.
POLICE DOG SCULPTURE
No new report.
VETERAN'S MEMORIAL
No new report.
MEMBERSHIP
Lois Ring reported that Brad Benn will retire after the next Call for Sculpture exhibition
ends. Rick Fesler has also sent in his letter of resignation which is effective now. Lois
Ring urged the committee to pursue new EPAC members.
MARKETING PROMOTION
Recent articles were in the Star Tribune, Edina Sun - Current', and on the Patch blog.
Town Planner- Lois Ring contacted Chip Jones, an Edina resident and talented
photographer. He agreed to photograph the Pinecone, possibly a nighttime image, as
well as the Art Glass Window and send them to the Town Planner. Lois Ring also plans
to send in a daytime image of the Pinecone for inclusion.
Lois is suggesting public art images be placed on Channel 16. She will work with Diana
Hedges and Jennifer Bennerotte on this.
In order to promote awareness of public art, Bernice Amacher suggested organizing a
group of students to tour the Pinecone and other sculptures currently on display. Anne
Spooner will look into this possibility with Edina High School art teachers and EAC
student groups. Lois Ring would be happy to help provide background information.
MOSAICS YORK AVENUE BRIDGE
Diana Hedges sent a letter to John Keprios to obtain the county's approval to place the
mosaics on the sides of the York Avenue Bridge.
RELATIONSHIP DOCUMENT
Bill McCabe reported that it is forthcoming.
WEBSITE UPDATE
Lois Ring reported she and Diana Hedges will be working on updating the website and
making it more user - friendly. A shortcut to access the Call for Sculptures should
be incorporated. All updates will go through the art center to Jennifer Bennerotte,
EPAC ACCOMPLISHMENTS DOCUMENT UPDATE
Naomi Griffith will continue to add to this chronological document originally started by
Linda Kieffer. She is working on some missing information which will make it more
complete.
GRANTS UPDATE
Bill McCabe will attend an Arts Activities grant writing workshop on March 6 through the
Regional Arts Council. The entry deadline is April 11. Since it is still somewhat unclear,
further clarification is needed as to whether EPAC qualifies for a State Arts Board Grant.
r
JUDGING PROCESS FOR UPCOMING EXHIBITIONS
Anne Spooner will report on any new proposals as they come in so members can
preview'them prior to judging. Lois Ring recommended that when choosing the
sculptures, there should be more discussion regarding the sites and that better
visualization is needed.
NEW BUSINESS
The annual meeting of the advisory boards, commissions, and committees is March 21.
EPAC members are encouraged to attend.
Naomi Griffith presented a Word template for an outline to facilitate reporting minutes,
which will be used for future meetings.
Scott Neal expressed interest in having some contemporary art in his office. Lois Ring
suggested some abstract acrylic paintings by Robert Jackson which are now on loan
and hung in Scott Neal's office. A card will be designed by the Edina Art Center. to
identify the art and artist.
Bernice Amacher volunteered to send thank- you notes to utility bill donors after the new
quarter. Bill McCabe reminded all that exact donations are to be acknowledged and
must be accurate. Another option would be to wait until the end of the year to send a
note. Lois Ring.suggested using an image of a public art piece on the card. More
discussion to follow.
OTHER
Amy Kerber reported that the recycling can project at 50th and France is no longer being
implemented. No specific reason was given.
To save costs, EPAC strives to utilize their email list as much as possible. Since the
cost of a postcard is more affordable than mailing a letter, Amy Kerber agreed to create
a postcard invitation for the upcoming June exhibition opening and reception. This will
be in addition to email invitations.
Members agreed to write the minutes for the May 5 since Anne Spooner will not be
present.
Meeting adjourned at 5:12 p.m.
Next meeting: Thursday, March 3, 2011 at 4:00 p.m.
Minutes taken by Anne Spooner
For Immediate Release
March 10, 2011
Contact Information:
Deborah Price
763.476.1791
dl. priceCcilcomcast. net
LEAGUE OF
WOMEN VOTERS'
MINNESOTA
Voter Photo ID: Does Minnesota Need It?
The League of Women Voters West Metro Alliance invites you to a public panel
discussion on voter photo Identification. The program will be held Saturday, March 26,
2011, 9:30 to 11 am, St. Louis Park City Hall Council Chambers, 5005 Minnetonka Blvd.
St. Louis Park.
Legislation has been introduced requiring voters to present photo ID at the polls, for both
new registration and for voting. A new provisional ballot procedure is defined for
registered voters unable to provide the ID. Does Minnesota need Voter Photo ID? What
issues does this address? What are the impacts of the bill to state and local budgets,
voter costs, voter turnout, and election results tabulation? The public is invited to attend
this panel discussion to hear from all sides of the Voter Photo ID issue. Questions will be
taken from the audience.
Our panel members will be Representative Kurt Zellers (R) District 32B speaking for
photo ID and Representative Steve Simons (DFL) District 44A speaking in opposition.
Ms. Claire Wilson, Voter Outreach Director from the Minnesota Secretary of State's
office will provide pertinent data. The moderator will be Helen Palmer, Past President
LWV Minnesota.
The League of Women Voters West Metro Alliance includes Brooklyn Park/Osseo /Maple
Grove, Crystal /New Hope /East Plymouth, Golden Valley, Minnetonka /Eden
Prairie /Hopkins, St. Louis Park, South Tonka and Wayzata /Plymouth.
The League of Women Voters, a nonpartisan political organization, encourages informed
and active participation in government, works to increase understanding of major public
policy issues, and influences public policy through education and advocacy. Membership
in the League is open to men and women of all ages. Join us in making democracy
work!
For more information about the League of Women Voters, call 612 - 224 -5445 or visit
www.lwvmn.org.
„4
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the
Energy and Environment Commission
Edina City Hall Community,Room
Thursday, February, 10, 20111; 7 P.M.
Members In Attendance and Roll Call: Dianne Plunkett Latham, Sarah Zarrin, Bill Sierks, Paul Thompson,
Susan Tucker, Bob "Gubrud, M. Germana Paterlini, Surya lyer, Karwehn Kata
Absent:,Alma Pronove, Julie Risser
Staff Present: Jane Timm, Jesse Struve, Scott Neal
1. Welcome
Meeting was called to order•at -7:00 p.m..by Chair Latham
2. Approval of Agenda and Topic Time Allocation
The agenda was approved with changes to the order of items and the addition of May Term Intern and
elections.
3. Approval of January -13, minutes
The January 13, 2011 minutes were unanimously approved with minor changes.
4. Community Comment
Chair Latham welcomed resident Keith Kostuch, 4511 Lakeview Drive and Working Group member John
Howard.
Michael Platteter (now on the Planning Commission) returned some items and thanked the commission. The
commissioners thanked him for his hard work.
5. Chair Report
Chair Latham introduced Commissioner Sarah Zarrin.
The commission discussed working group members.
Commissioner Tucker.made a motion to remove Eric Kilberg from the Air Quality Working
Group because he could not attend meetings. Commissioner Gubrud seconded. Motion carried
unanimously.
Commissioner lyer made a motion to add John Howard to the Alternative Energy Working
Group. Commissioner Sierks seconded. Motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner.Paterlini made a motion to add Keith Kostuch to the Purchasing Working Group.
Commissioner lyer seconded. Motion carried unanimously.
It was announced that Commissioner Zarrin would .join. the Recycling & Solid Waste Working Group.
6. GreenStep Cities Report
There was a discussion about the GreenStep Cities resolution. Chair Latham told the commission that the
resolution would be forwarded to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and Edina would be listed
as a GreenStep City. Chair Latham was instructed to change B3 to CDP then forward to Commissioner
Paterlini for her approval. The resolution would then be forwarded to the City Clerk, Debra Mangen, before
going to the MPCA.
Commissioner lyer made a motion to approve the GreenStep Cities Resolution with some minor
changes. Commissioner Thompson seconded. Motion carried unanimously.
7. Alternative Energy Working Group Report
There was a discussion about changing the name of the working group.
W1
Page 12 1
Commissioner Sierks made a motion to change Alternative Energy Working Group to Energy
Working Group. Commissioner Tucker seconded. Motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner lyer gave the commission an update on a Renewable Energy Ordinance.
Commissioners Sierks and lyer asked the EEC for permission to work on the ordinance with Edina Staff
and the Planning Commission Chair. After that time there would be a decision on whether a Task Force
was needed.
Commissioner lyer made a motion for the Energy Working Group to work with City Staff and
Planning Commission to look at the proposed draft of the Renewable Energy Ordinance.
Commissioner Gubrud seconded. Motion carried unanimously.
New Staff Liaison, Jesse Struve, Engineering Department was introduced to the commission.
8. Presentation of 20/40/15 Program
City Manager, Scott Neal presented Eden Prairie's Report done by the McKinstry Co.
9. Budget
No Report.
10. Turf Management Task Force
No Report.
11. Water Quality Working Group Report
There was a discussion about the February 7, 2011 Nemo Workshop. Commissioner Tucker discussed
setting up an appointment with city staff to talk about Water Quality in Edina.
12. Energy Working Group
No Report.
13. Recycling and Solid Waste Working Group
Chair Latham told the commission about a plan for Hennepin County Environmental Services to speak at
their next working group meeting.
14. Residential Energy Project — Home Energy Squad (HES)
Commissioner Thompson told the commission that the HES project would be moved from Creek Valley
School to Highlands School for parental participation.
15. Education and Outreach Working Group
Commissioner Thompson talked about his presentation at the Senior Center called Smart Energy Project,
March 10, 2011.
Commissioner Thompson would like the EEC to back Earth Hour with a proclamation from the City
Council. Commissioner Thompson would contact City Clerk, Debra Mangen for the procedure.
Commissioner Thompson made a motion to have a proclamation_ prepared for the March 1, 2011
City Council meeting proclaiming March 26, 2011, from 8:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. Earth Hour.
Commissioner Gubrud seconded. Motion carried unanimously.
16. Air Quality Working Group Report
Chair Latham talked about a letter to the Sun Current from the Air Quality Working Group. It was decided
revision were needed.
17. Miscellaneous Items
Page 13
Chair Latham talked about putting an article in the Sun Current asking for volunteers for the working
groups.
Commissioner Sierks gave the commission information about a May intern student. He explained it was
a 3 week period and the student.would work about 5 -6 hours a day. It would require a hands -on
commissioner. The intern must have a specific project. Commissioner Zarrin Mohtadi volunteered to
supervise a. recycling. study. Chair Latham volunteered to supervise a noxious weed abatement study.
Chair Latham will forward, a description of the two studies to the Edina High School May Term
Coordinator.
Chair Latham reminded the commissioners about the Board and Commission Annual Meeting, March 21,
2011 at Braemar Golf Course. The RSVP must'be received by Susan Howl by March 11.
18. Elections
Commissioner Thompson- nominated Chair Latham to continue as Chairperson of the EEC. The
commission agreed unanimously. ". -
Commissioner Paterlini explained that she would like someone to volunteer to move up to the Vice Chair
position. At this time no one stepped up and she said she would continue until someone else came
forward. The commission agreed unanimously.
19. EEC Website Task Force
No report.
20. Adjournment
Commissioner Gubrud made a motion to adjourn. Commissioner Thompson seconded. Motion
carried. The meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m. The next meeting will be the regularly scheduled meeting
at 7:00 p.m. March 10, 2011 at Edina City Hall.
Respectfully submitted,
Jane M. Timm, Deputy City Clerk