Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-03-01_COUNCIL PACKETAGENDA EDINA HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY EDINA CITY COUNCIL MARCH 1, 2005 7:00 P.M. OATH OF OFFICE - ALICE HULBERT 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, Council Member or citizen so requests it. In such cases the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in its normal sequence on the Agenda. * I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF HRA - Regular Meeting of February 15, 2005 II. ADJOURNMENT EDINA CITY COUNCIL PERFECT SHOW - PROCLAMATION * I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Regular Meeting of February 15, 2005 and Special Meetings of February 15,16,18 and 24, 2005 II. PUBLIC HEARING - Transportation Commission Traffic Policy III. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REPORTS ON PLANNING MATTERS - Zoning Ordinances: First Reading requires affirmative rollcall votes of three Council members except that a rezoning from residential to non - residential requires four affirmative votes. Second Reading requires affirmative rollcall votes of three of Council to pass except rezoning from residential to non - residential requires four affirmative votes. Waiver of Second Reading: Affirmative rollcall votes of four members of Council to pass. Final Development Plan Approval of Property Zoned Planned District: Affirmative rollcall vote of three Council members required passing. Conditional Use Permit: Affirmative rollcall vote of three Council members required to pass. Variance Appeal: Favorable rollcall of Council Members present to uphold or deny appeal A. SET HEARING DATE (3/15/05) - Amendment To The Zoning Ordinance And Conditional Use Permit - Haugland Companies, 3901 -3907 50th Street West and 5000 -5020 France Avenue South, Edina, MN it B. LOT DIVISION - 6920 Hillside Lane and 5524 West 70th Street Rollcall Agenda/ Edina City Council March 1, 2005 Page 2 IV. ORDINANCES - First Reading: Requires offering of Ordinance only. Second Reading: Favorable rollcall vote of three Council members to pass. Waiver of Second Reading: Affirmative vote of four Council members to pass. A. FIRST READING - ORDINANCE NO. 2005-2 - Amending Section 1000 V. REPORTS/ RECOMMENDATIONS A. Resolution 2005 -16 - Highway 100 Improvements B. On -Sale Intoxicating, Club On -Sale, and Sunday Sale Liquor License Renewals C. Wine License Renewals D. Beer License Renewals E. Resolution No. 2005 -17 Cooperative Agreement with MnDOT for Sound Wall Construction VI. FINANCE A. CONFIRMATION OF PAYMENT OF CLAIMS As per Pre -List dated February 17, 2005, TOTAL $992,690.50; and February 23, 2005, TOTAL $644,696.73. VII. COMMUNICATIONS AND PETITIONS VIII. CONCERNS OF RESIDENTS IX. INTERGOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES X. SPECIAL CONCERNS OF MAYOR AND COUNCIL XI. MANAGER'S MISCELLANEOUS ITEM SCHEDULE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS Tues Mar 15 Regular Meeting 7:00 P.M. Tues Apr 5 Regular Meeting 7:00 P.M. Mon Apr 11 Board of Appeal and Equalization 5:00 P.M. Thur Apr 14 Volunteer Recognition Reception 5:00 P.M. Tues Apr 19 Regular Meeting 7 :00 P.M. Mon Apr 25 Continuation Date Board of Appeals 5:00 P.M. Tues May 3 Regular Meeting 7:00 P.M. Tues May 17 Regular Meeting 7 :00 P.M. Mon May 30 MEMORIAL DAY OBSERVED - City Hall Offices Closed COUNCIL CHAMBERS COUNCIL CHAMBERS COUNCIL CHAMBERS EDINBOROUGH PARK COUNCIL CHAMBERS COUNCIL CHAMBERS if COUNCIL CHAMBERS COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11PA CITY OF Administration Office T. LOUIS 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard R K St. Louis Park MN 55416 (612) 924 -2525 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss "CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION" CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK ) The undersigned hereby certifies the following: 1) The attached is a full, true and correct copy of the original Resolution No. 05 -027, adopted February 22, 2005, and on file in the Office of the City Clerk. 2) The City Council meeting was held upon due call and notice. WITNESS my hand and the Seal of the City of St. Louis Park. F �: •LO��s Nancy J. Strot S'0.. ..o oRP��ar '• y�o�'; Deputy City Clerk s�.• SEAL.z , N i Date: March 3, 2005 RESOLUTION NO. 05 -027 RESOLUTION SUPPORTING RECONSTRUCTION OF HIGHWAY 100 AND OPPOSING DELAYS IN THE PROPOSED PROJECT SCHEDULE WHEREAS, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) plans to reconstruct Highway 100 between 36`h Street and Cedar Lake Road to expand the roadway to a six -lane freeway; replace the existing bridges to add an additional lane in each direction, rebuild the interchanges at Highway 7 and Minnetonka Boulevard, correct deficient bridge clearances, improve drainage, address flooding problems under the railroad bridge, add water quality and retention ponds, add noise mitigation walls, and correct other deficiencies in the system; and WHEREAS, Mn/DOT's long -range transportation plan called for the reconstruction to begin in 2005, was rescheduled to 2010, and is again proposed to.be rescheduled to start no sooner than 2014; and WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park believes Highway 100 improvements are essential to the economic vitality and the quality of life in our community and the region at large, and should undergo reconstruction as soon as possible for the following reasons: ■ Originally built in the mid- 1930's, this section is part of the original beltway around the Twin Cities. Minimal work has occurred on this 2.1 mile stretch of roadway over the last 60 years. ■ This segment is the last four -lane section remaining on Highway 100 and is one of the busiest and most congested four -lane freeways in the metro area. Traffic volumes on this segment were over capacity in 2001 and are only getting worse. ■ Crash rates for this stretch of Highway 100 are second highest of all non - interstate roadways in Minnesota, with 25 percent of Highway 100 crashes occurring at the West 36`h Street terminus. ■ Local neighborhoods in St. Louis Park and Edina are inundated with cars during peak drive -time hours. Cut - through traffic impacts the safety of our residents and their quality of life. • The estimated project cost is $80 million for construction and $7 million for right -of -way acquisition. Mn/DOT has estimated that the delay to 2014 will increase project costs to at least $104 million. ■ Mn/DOT has indicated that the Hwy 100 project will not occur until after the Crosstown /35W project has been completed (2009- 2010). It is felt that the Hwy 100 project should be constructed before or during the Crosstown /35W project. • The Hwy 100 project was originally designated by Mn/DOT as a high priority along with the Crosstown /35W project. It is unclear why this prioritization has changed. The original prioritization should be honored as the need has not changed. r Resolution No. 05 -027 -2- NOW THEREFORE LET IT BE KNOWN, that the City Council of the City of St. ,ark supports reconstruction of Highway 100 and opposes delays in the proposed project Rev a Yed for Administration: A ed by the ity Council February 22, 2005 City age May r Attest: City Clerk ACPU-6 MINUTES OF THE EDINA HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY HELD AT CITY HALL FEBRUARY 15, 2005 7:00 P.M. ROLLCALL Answering rollcall were Commissioners Housh, Masica, Swenson and Chair Hovland. CONSENT AGENDA APPROVED Motion made by Commissioner Housh and seconded by Commissioner Masica approving the Consent Agenda for the Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority as presented. Rollcall: Ayes: Housh, Masica, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. *MINUTES OF. THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY FOR FEBRUARY 1, 2005, APPROVED Motion made by Commissioner Housh and seconded by Commissioner Masica approving the Minutes of the regular meeting of the Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority for February 1, 2005. Motion carried on rollcall vote — four ayes. *CONFIRMATION OF CLAIMS PAID Motion made by Commissioner Housh and seconded by Commissioner Masica approving the payment of claims dated February 9, 2005, and consisting of one page totaling $192.26. Motion carried on rollcall vote — four ayes. There being no further business on the Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority Agenda, Chair Hovland declared the meeting adjourned. Executive Director psi p COR lase PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, the Adaptive Recreation & Learning Exchange (AR &LE) offers opportunities for individuals with disabilities to actively participate in recreation, leisure and Community Education programs in the cities of Bloomington, Eden Prairie, Edina and Richfield; and WHEREAS, AR &LE has developed a program to provide adults with disabilities the opportunity to participate in a theatrical production; and WHEREAS, funding for a full -scale AR &LE musical production was provided by Metropolitan Regional Arts Council through a grant by the McKnight Foundation, an appropriation by the Minnesota Legislature and gifts from the Edina Rotary Club, Edina Community Foundation, Eden Prairie Foundation, Education Foundation of Bloomington, St. Edwards Tithing and Outreach Program, Fort Snelling Memorial Chapel Foundation, Best Buy Foundation, Transportation Resource to Aid Independent Living and private donors; and WHEREAS, more than 40 principle actors in the play are adults with physical or developmental disabilities; and WHEREAS, the goal of the musical is not only to provide these adults with disabilities the opportunity to participate in a theatrical production, but to increase self- esteem, promote teamwork of people with and without disabilities, increase participants' artistic expression, and heighten community awareness of the talents of adults with disabilities; and WHEREAS, "A Perfect Show" will be presented at 3 and 7 p.m. Saturday, March 12, in the Richfield High School auditorium; NOW, THEREFORE, I, James B. Hovland, Mayor of the City of Edina, do hereby proclaim that day as A DAY FORA PERFECT SHOW in the City of Edina and I encourage all area residents to attend a performance of this must - see musical production. Adopted this 1s' day of March 2005. James B. Hovland, Mayor 1 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HALL FEBRUARY 15, 2005 7:00 P.M. ROLLCALL Answering rollcall were Members Housh, Masica, Swenson and Mayor Hovland. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS APPROVED Motion made by Member Housh and seconded by Member Masica approving the Council Consent Agenda as presented with the exception of Agenda Item V.B. Municipal Recycling Grant Agreement 2005 - 2007 with Hennepin County. Rollcall: Ayes: Housh, Masica, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. MINNESOTA SAFE AND SOBER PRESENTATION Bob O'Brien, the Safe & Sober Liaison for Minnesota Safe and Sober, indicated that statistics prove that when a good traffic program was in place, criminal activity was reduced. He added that 39% of criminals were apprehended as the result of a traffic stop. Mr. O'Brien commended and thanked the Edina Police Department with the example they have set that began with leadership from the Mayor and Council through staff and the community in saving lives. *MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 1, 2005, AND SPECIAL MEETINGS OF JANUARY 29, 2005, AND FEBRUARY 1, 2005, AND CLOSED MEETING OF FEBRUARY 1, 2005, APPROVED Motion made by Member Housh and seconded by Member Masica, approving the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Edina City Council for February 1, 2005, and Special Meetings of January 29, 2005, and February 1, 2005, and Closed Meeting of February 1, 2005. Motion carried on rollcall vote - four ayes. ROADWAY RECONSTRUCTION - SOUTH HARRIET PARK WEST ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT NO. A -204 ORDERED Affidavits of Notice were presented, approved and ordered placed on file. Engineer Presentation Engineer Houle reviewed briefly the Minnesota Statutes 429 process by which special assessments may be levied for improvement projects to the Council. He then went on to inform them that the South Harriet Park neighborhood roadway improvements had been partially (14 %) petitioned with a request for storm sewer, curb and gutter along West 53rd Street. Mr. Houle stated City staff had expanded the scope of the project and the project area when they began the process. The roadway and utilities in the area were originally constructed in the late 1930's and 1940's. Mr. Houle stated that the typical life of a roadway was approximately thirty years. Therefore, staff had proposed to reconstruct the existing roadway including the installation of new concrete curb and gutters, rehabilitating the watermain and sanitary sewer and extending the storm sewer system. Page 1 i Minutes/Edina City Council/February 15, 2005 t Mr. Houle showed a graphic representing all of the breaks to the water main and service line breaks in the neighborhood demonstrating the need for the proposed water and sanitary sewer work. He explained the area has experienced surface water drainage issues because of the level roadways and lack of storm sewer system in the area. In addition many area homes use sump pumps. Mr. Houle explained the existing streets in the area were 22 feet to 30 feet wide with no curb or gutter. Frequently boulders and landscaping have been placed in the boulevard to keep motorists from driving on lawns. He added that some on -street parking bays existed on the roadway along Arden Park. Mr. Houle stated the roadway was very deteriorated and had experienced band -aid patchwork. He noted that as the roadways existed, vehicles drove onto lawns and there were drainage problems along the edge of the roadway. For those reasons, Mr. Houle stated staff was recommending the installation of curbs and gutters, which in his opinion would add to the life of the roadway and decrease City maintenance costs. Mr. Houle said staff had expanded the initial resident petition so the proposed project area included Brookview Avenue, Oaklawn Avenue and Kellogg Avenue from West 54th Street to West 52nd Street including West 52nd Street. The proposed project would reconstruct the existing roadway including installing new curbs and gutters, rehabilitating the watermain and sanitary sewer, and extending the storm sewer system. He explained the estimated roadway construction cost was $808,000, which did not include the City Utility Fund costs for rehabilitating the water and sewer service and extending the storm sewer. Mr. Houle said funding for the roadway construction portion of the proposed project would be from a special assessment.of approximately $8,700 per residential equivalent unit. Mr. Houle stated the neighborhood had been surveyed and most do not want new concrete curb and gutter, do not prefer relocating overhead utilities to underground and do not prefer installing decorative street lighting. He added that staff recommended the installation of curb and gutter with the project, but would recommend not pursuing relocating the overhead utilities to underground or installing decorative street lighting. Mr. Houle added that intersection geometrics were proposed to be revised at the intersection of Oaklawn Avenue and Brookview Avenue to reduce the pavement area and create a more standard T- intersection. He said throughout the project, trees will be protected and impacts to the trees would be minimized. Mr. Houle said that staff believed the barrier style curb was more desirable as it would work well with existing topography within the neighborhood and provide the best control of water runoff and a better defined roadway while providing protection to the sod and pavement edges from snowplow damage during the winter months. Mr. Houle stated that if the Council ordered the project at this time, the bid could be awarded this spring and the project constructed over the summer. The final asses_ sment hearing could then be held in the fall in order to meet the County's November deadline. Member Housh asked if installing curb and gutter, 1) would increase roadway life, 2) would address the sump pumps in the area, and 3) what would be the comparable cost and performance Page 2 Minutes/Edina City Council/February 15, 2005 of bulkhead vs. surmountable curbs. Mr. Houle replied that in. his opinion installation of curb and gutter would substantially increase the life of the roadway. He stated that staff intended to install drain tiles and service stubs to handle area sump pumps. Mr. Houle said the cost of the two styles of curb were comparable, but bulkhead curbing handled storm water and drainage better. Member Swenson asked if colored concrete could be used to lessen the aesthetic impact of the curbing and if there was a discernable difference in the depth of the curbing. Mr. Houle said that colored concrete could be used to blend the curb into the landscaping. He added the two styles of curbs were essentially the same depth. Member Masica asked if it would be possible to install curb only in the petitioned areas, and if staff could compare the proposed project to the Maple Road area. Mr. Houle said that curb could be installed in the petitioned area only, but he stated it would not be his recommendation to do so. He explained Maple Road's project comprised about eight to twelve homes versus the proposed project area with approximately seventy homes. He added that typically project cost estimates were higher than the actual construction costs. Mayor Hovland asked if proposing the roadway at 27 feet would provide any traffic calming, whether or not the final special assessment decision could be done in the future and how the City would handle problems with in ground fencing and sprinklers. He also asked staff to comment on the utility work proposed to be constructed along with the roadway improvements. Mr. Houle said the narrower road would most likely aid in calming the traffic, adding that anything disturbed by the project such as in ground fencing or sprinklers would be restored to their pre - project condition. Mr. Houle stated that the utility improvements would be paid for out of the Utility Fund and not assessed to the property owners. Attorney Gilligan explained that the project could be ordered at this time and a final determination of the special assessments could be decided upon at a later date. Public Comment Bob Shutes, 5212 Kellogg Avenue, said he was the designated spokesperson for. the neighborhood, and expressed concern that a decision had already been made. He said the neighbors were not willing to accept curbs and gutters because of aesthetics, potential damage to trees and the expense. Mr. Shutes said according to his survey, which he presented to the City Council, 82% of the neighbors surveyed did not want curb and gutter. He Also voiced his concern over the 100% assessment policy favoring instead adding improvement costs to the General Fund levy for all citizens to pay. Louis Mitera, 5216 Kellogg Avenue, said he did not want curb and gutters installed. He expressed his extreme concern for the trees and suggested hiring an arborist to review the situation. Tom Jones, 5225 Brookview Avenue, stated his agreement with previous speakers, and added he also did not want curb and gutter. Mr. Jones said that Arden Park should have more units attributed to it than the eleven in the projection used by Mr. Houle. He felt in his professional opinion it should be something like twenty units. Page 3 Minutes/Edina Cit!' Council/February 15, 2005 Jill Hallbrooks, 5300 Brookview, stated she also did not want curb and gutter. She commented that in her opinion the petition was not valid because it had not been explained properly. Ms. Hallbrooks said she was a signer on the original petition, but would like to rescind that signature. Patricia Ziler, 5320 Brookview Avenue, expressed concern over water quality in Minnehaha Creek and stated she did not want curb and gutter and that the 6.5% interest rate was too high. Ms. Ziler asked that the neighborhood be left with its country look. Barbara Jondahl, 5200 Oaklawn Avenue, stated she did not favor curb and gutter and that if the expense of living in her home continued to increase she would have to think about moving. Ms. Jondahl urged that the improvement be constructed so as to maintain the neighborhood with its current rural feel. John Christ, 5324 Halifax Avenue, expressed his dissatisfaction with maintenance programs in place and the potential of 100% special assessments to cover the cost of street reconstruction. He was informed the hearing did not cover Halifax, which would be heard at a later time. Jay Carlson, 5304 Oaklawn Avenue, urged that the City be very mindful of the valuable trees in the area when the project was constructed. Mr. Carlson did not favor curb and gutter. Elspeth Nairn, 5320 Brookview Avenue, did not favor curb and gutter. Ms. Nairn chose her home because of the rural look of the area. She also expressed environmental concern for Minnehaha Creek. Council Discussion/ Action Mayor Hovland thanked the property owners for their input. He asked staff what would be different about the drainage and storm water management regardless of curb and gutter. Mr. Houle explained that there would be catch basins installed on Kellogg Avenue and every intersection on West 53rd Street. Mayor Hovland polled the Council for their opinions about the proposed project. Member Masica stated that if . the City could realize forty to fifty years of street life with an appropriate design, she would not support installation of curb and gutter, therefore preserving the rural appeal of the neighborhood. Member Swenson cautioned that forgoing curb and gutter could easily be opening Pandora's box. She urged her fellow Council members to go look at Skyview Drive where bituminous curbing had been installed after the original project was built. Member Housh thanked the public and staff for their work. He stated it was a necessity to keep the City's infrastructure sound. He said the Council would continue gathering information on the special assessments for the projects, adding he would not support installing curb and gutter in this area. Mayor Hovland added he also believed this was a special area with unique appeal. He said that typically the Council gathers all the information, listens to both staff and the public and then Page 4 Minutes/Edina City Council/FebruM 15, 2005 weighs their decisions carefully. Mayor Hovland added he also did not support curb and gutter in the area. Member Masica made a motion to close the public hearing. Member Housh seconded the motion. Ayes: Housh, Masica, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. Member Swenson acknowledged the need for a four vote favorable decision in order for the project to proceed reiterating her concern that bituminous curbs would be needed in the future and were not visually appealing. Member Housh introduced Resolution No. 2005 -14 ordering the South Harriet Park Roadway Reconstruction Improvement No. A -204 as per the feasibility report without the installation of curb and gutter as follows: RESOLUTION NO. 2005-14 ORDERING ROADWAY RECONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENT NO. A -204 SOUTH HARRIET PARK NEIGHBORHOOD WHEREAS, the Edina City Council on the 18th day of January, 2005, fixed a date for a Council hearing on the proposed street reconstruction, Improvement No A -204; and WHEREAS, ten days' mailed notice and two weeks' published notice of the hearing was given, and the hearing was held thereon on the 15th day of February 2005, for South Harriet Neighborhood Roadway Reconstruction Improvement No. A -204 reconstructing the existing bituminous pavement, replacing the existing watermain to the curb boxes, repairing the sanitary sewer where needed, extending the storm sewer and installing drain tile where needed at which time all persons desiring to be heard were given an opportunity, to be heard thereon. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council has duly considered the views of all persons interested, and being fully advised of the pertinent facts, does hereby determine to proceed with the construction of said improvement, including all proceedings which may be necessary in eminent domain for the acquisition of necessary easements and rights hereby designated and shall be referred to in all subsequent proceedings as Improvement Project No. A -204 South Harriet Neighborhood Roadway Reconstruction. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Improvement Project No. A -204 South Harriet Neighborhood Roadway Reconstruction is hereby ordered as proposed. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Engineer is hereby designated as the engineer for this improvement. The engineer shall cause plans and specifications to be prepared for the making of such improvement. Adopted this 151h day of February 2005. Member Masica seconded the motion. Rollcall: Ayes: Housh, Masica, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED TO MARCH 15, 2005, ROADWAY RECONSTRUCTION - SUNNYSLOPE NEIGHBORHOOD ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT NO. BA -326 Affidavits of Notice were presented, approved and ordered placed on file. Page 5 Minutes/Edina Ci!y Council/February 15, 2005 Engineer Presentation Mr. Houle noted the Sunnyslope Neighborhood Roadway Improvement had been partially initiated, also by a resident petition, requesting several neighborhood issues be addressed. Mr. Houle -said that staff again looked at the neighborhood and the expanded the proposed project including reconstructing the existing roadway including new concrete curbs and gutters, rehabilitating the watermain, sanitary sewer and storm sewer and installing decorative street lighting. Mr. Houle stated the estimated cost of the roadway and decorative light construction would be approximately $1,226,000. He commented that cost did not include any utility rehabilitation costs, which would be paid out of the utility funds. Mr. Houle said the proposed Sunnyslope Neighborhood Roadway Improvement was proposed as a neighborhood assessment of approximately $16,800 per residential equivalent unit (REI). He added that if the Council ordered the project, the bid could be awarded in the spring with a summer construction in time for the November deadline for the Special Assessment Hearing. Member Masica asked whether decorative streetlights meant only replacing existing light poles or if additional poles would be installed. Mr. Houle said that there would be a few additional light poles installed mid block. Member Swenson asked if existing curbs on Hilltop needed to be replaced, and whether the additional lighting had been requested. Mr. Houle replied the curb on Hilltop would be replaced and that the additional lighting had been requested. He cautioned that the decorative lighting would not increase safety. Member Housh commented that he had been trapped attempting to exit the neighborhood and suggested a stoplight was needed at Sunnyslope and West 5001. Mr. Houle reminded that warrants must be met before lights could be installed. Mayor Hovland asked about the roadway widths and whether staff had recommendations relative to curbs, and about storm water plans. Mr. Houle replied that roadway widths vary from approximately 27 feet up to 32 feet in width. He added that in his opinion the grades demand curb installation or the roadway edges will erode and public works will end up installing bituminous curbs in the future. He stated that the installation of curbs handle storm water, but also aid in performing on -going maintenance such ,as snow plowing and street sweeping. Mr. Houle said a significant amount of labor would be consumed placing snow stakes and repairing lawns without curbs due to snowplow damage. He said that a bulkhead style curb was his recommendation. Member Swenson asked if the bituminous curbs on Skyline Drive were installed when the street was done or later. Mr. Houle said after construction. He added that using Public Works to install bituminous curbs also comes from the general maintenance funds for streets. Public Comment James Widtfeldt 4905 Ridge Place, stated he was against adding curb and gutter in his neighborhood. He felt it was up to them to preserve the rural natural state of their neighborhood. Page 6 • Minutes/Edina City Council/February 15, 2005 David Lundstrom, 4912 Ridge Place, read a letter he had sent to the Assistant City Engineer Lillehaug on December 4, 2004, stating his objections to the project. John Reimann, 4909 Sunnyslope East, stated he grew up in Edina and liked the country look of the roadway. Mr. Reimann stated he did not want curb and gutter and did not think it was necessary. Dave Shirley, 4804 Woodhill Way, said he was a third generation Edina resident. Mr. Shirley said his heritage was important and that he had paid for his home because of the look and feel of the neighborhood. He said he did not want either the decorative streetlights or curb and gutter. Mr. Shirley added he did not feel narrowing the intersections were necessary. Randy Moskahk, 4908 East Sunnyslope Road, stated he did not support curb and gutter and urged the Council to continue looking at financing options to find the most equitable way to fund improvements. Tom Pederson, 4913 Dale Drive asked what was the expected life span of bituminous curbs. If there were significant erosion would installing bituminous curbs resolve the issue. Mr. Houle explained that bituminous curbs last approximately two years, but that in his opinion it was more efficient to consider installation of curbs when building the project. Peggy Jo Danielson, 4920 West Sunnyslope Road, said she loved the neighborhood and would like to see it remain in the same condition. She told the Council they must consider the neighbors desires. If the road has lasted this long then why add curbs. Mr. Houle explained that with the new construction the boulevard soils will become much less compacted and subject to erosion more readily. Steve Makredes, 4916 West Sunnyslope Road said his biggest concern with the project was the financing issues. Manager Hughes explained the Council could order the improvement this evening and then make a decision later on the special assessments. Debra Plum, 7019 McCauley, stated she did not live in the neighborhood affected, but she wondered why the entire City should pay for repeated installation of bituminous curbs. She advised that the most efficient plan be adopted at the beginning of the project. While Ms. Plum said she respected the neighborhoods concern over aesthetics, it just seemed to not be fiscally sound. Council Discussion/ Action Member Masica asked why it had been recommended to narrow the intersections and added she thought the neighborhood should be resurveyed to find out about the decorative streetlights. Mr. Houle replied that narrowing pavement at intersections was a method of reducing hard surface, which would aid in storm water run off and possibly calm traffic. Member Swenson urged her fellow Council members to go look at Skyline Drive. She said she felt if curbs were needed they should be installed when the street was reconstructed. Member Swenson advocated taking more time before ordering the project to gather further data. Page 7 Minutes/Edina City Council/February 15, 2005 Member Housh stated there was a need to keep neighborhood concerns in mind. He suggested moving forward on the project without the curb and gutter and deferring the decision on the decorative streetlights until the neighborhood can be re- surveyed. Mayor Hovland agreed with Member Housh that the road and utility improvements could be ordered while retaining the rural feel of the neighborhood without curbs and gutters. Mr. Houle suggested the project could be ordered with curb and gutter remaining where it exists today. He suggested continuing action on the project until March 15, 2005, for additional information. After a brief discussion, Member Housh made a motion, seconded by Member Masica to close the public hearing. Ayes: Housh, Masica, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. Member Swenson made a motion continuing action on Improvement Project No. BA -326 Roadway. Reconstruction. - Sunnyslope Neighborhood until March 15, 2005. Member Masica seconded the motion. Ayes: Housh, Masica, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. RESOLUTION NO. 2005 -12 APPROVING PROPOSED USE OF 2005 SUBURBAN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM FUNDS AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION Affidavits of Notice were presented, approved and ordered placed on file. Mr. Larsen explained that Edina's 2005 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) entitlement was $172,355, a $1,202 increase over the 2004 allocation. He noted that while the increase was not large, Edina was one of only two communities to experience an entitlement increase, while the,remaining nine communities were experiencing decreases of between three to seventeen percent. Requests for funding for the public services portion of the budget had been received from the same organizations Edina has funded in the past. He said that Edina's Human Rights and Relations Commission reviewed the proposed budget and agreed with staff's recommendation. Mr. Larsen outlined the budget, noting that public services may not exceed 15% of the total budget. Therefore, Edina's 2005 public services allotment may not exceed $25,853. He said the same agencies funded in year 2004 applied for 2005 funds: • Greater Minneapolis Daycare Association (GMDCA), providing daycare subsidies to income eligible parents. • Senior Community Services (H.O.M.E.), Housing and Outdoor Maintenance for the Elderly, providing housekeeping and chore services to Edina seniors who pay for services on a sliding fee scale. • Community Action for Suburban Hennepin (CASH) provides housing programs for low and moderate - income homeowners and homebuyers. • HOME Line provides tenant advocacy services for Edina renters. Page 8 Minutes/Edina City Council/February 15, 2005 Mr. Larsen said that $146,502 would remain to be directed toward community development projects. He said that staff recommendations included funding the Rehabilitation of Private Property and the Scattered Site Affordable Housing programs. Mr. Larsen added these two housing programs have successfully contributed to maintaining Edina's housing stock and also aided in providing affordable housing opportunities. He outlined the following distribution of funds for community development purposes: 2005 2004 Proposed Activity Budget Budget _ Rehab of Private Property $ 60,000 $ 66,502 Scattered Site Afford. Housing 85,481 80,000 TOTAL $145,481 $146,502 Member Hovland asked if the fifteen percent allowed for public service was controlled locally or by whom. Mr. Larsen replied that HUD set the fifteen percent, but he believed it was. also mandated by federal statute. The Council discussed the data available on the number of families served by the CDBG funds allocated to Greater Minneapolis Day Care Association. It was agreed that staff would gather additional information and report back to the Council at a later date. Beth Kodluboy, Executive Director of HOME Line, thanked the Council for their past support. She noted that HOME Line helps approximately 90 -100 Edina residents annually resolve conflicts with their landlords. Some issues include: • Court advocacy project providing free legal representation to renter families with children facing eviction; • Renter Education for High School Students -A one - session program on the "basics of renting" for young people who will be entering the rental market for the first time on their own; • Policy Advocacy including substandard housing, demand for property, guest rights, neighbor violation, privacy issues, and return of security deposit. Ms. Kodluboy urged the Council to continue funding her organization in 2005. Mr. Hughes noted for the record that he served on the Board of Directors of the Senior Community Services. He added that this organization receives funding from Edina's CDBG funds and provides services as Household and Outside Maintenance for Elderly (HOME), in Edina. Mr. Hughes stated he had not entered into any conversations or deliberations with either Page 9 2005 Public Services 2004 2005 Proposed Agengy Budge Requests Budget GMDCA Daycare Subsidy $14,633 $ 8,000 $ 8,191 H.O.M.E. Sr. Comm. Services $ 9,089 $ 9,089 $ 9,280 CASH $ 975 $ 5,000 $ 4,191 HOME Line 975 4,000 $ 4,191 TOTAL $26,293 $26,089 $25,853 Mr. Larsen said that $146,502 would remain to be directed toward community development projects. He said that staff recommendations included funding the Rehabilitation of Private Property and the Scattered Site Affordable Housing programs. Mr. Larsen added these two housing programs have successfully contributed to maintaining Edina's housing stock and also aided in providing affordable housing opportunities. He outlined the following distribution of funds for community development purposes: 2005 2004 Proposed Activity Budget Budget _ Rehab of Private Property $ 60,000 $ 66,502 Scattered Site Afford. Housing 85,481 80,000 TOTAL $145,481 $146,502 Member Hovland asked if the fifteen percent allowed for public service was controlled locally or by whom. Mr. Larsen replied that HUD set the fifteen percent, but he believed it was. also mandated by federal statute. The Council discussed the data available on the number of families served by the CDBG funds allocated to Greater Minneapolis Day Care Association. It was agreed that staff would gather additional information and report back to the Council at a later date. Beth Kodluboy, Executive Director of HOME Line, thanked the Council for their past support. She noted that HOME Line helps approximately 90 -100 Edina residents annually resolve conflicts with their landlords. Some issues include: • Court advocacy project providing free legal representation to renter families with children facing eviction; • Renter Education for High School Students -A one - session program on the "basics of renting" for young people who will be entering the rental market for the first time on their own; • Policy Advocacy including substandard housing, demand for property, guest rights, neighbor violation, privacy issues, and return of security deposit. Ms. Kodluboy urged the Council to continue funding her organization in 2005. Mr. Hughes noted for the record that he served on the Board of Directors of the Senior Community Services. He added that this organization receives funding from Edina's CDBG funds and provides services as Household and Outside Maintenance for Elderly (HOME), in Edina. Mr. Hughes stated he had not entered into any conversations or deliberations with either Page 9 Minutes/Edina City Council/February 15, 2005 staff or the Human Rights and Relations Commission during their review process of the 2005 CDBG funds. He added that he does not receive any financial remuneration for his service on the Board. Member Swenson made a motion, seconded by Member Housh to close the public hearing. Ayes: Housh, Masica, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. Member Swenson introduced the following resolution and moved it adoption, requesting further information regarding families served in Edina be sent to the City Council as soon as possible: RESOLUTION NO. 2005-12 RESOLUTION APPROVING PROPOSED USE OF 2005 SUBURBAN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT. PROGRAM FUNDS AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY AND ANY THIRD PARTY AGREEMENTS WHEREAS, the City of Edina, through execution of a joint Cooperation Agreement with Hennepin County, is cooperating in the Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program; and WHEREAS, the City of Edina has .developed a proposal for .the use of 2005 Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant funds made available to it; and WHEREAS, the City held a.public hearing on February 15, 2005, to obtain the views of citizens on housing and community development needs and priorities and the City's proposed use of $172,355 from the 2005 Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant. BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Edina approves the following projects for funding from the 2005 Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program and authorizes submittal of the proposed budget to Hennepin County. Activi Budget Rehabilitation of Private Property $66,502, Scattered Site Affordable Housing $80,000 Greater Minneapolis Daycare Association $ 8,191 Senior Community Services (HOME) $ 9,280 Community Action for Suburban Hennepin (CASH) $ 4,191 HOME Line $ 4,191 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby authorizes and directs the Mayor and the City Manager to execute the Subrecipient Agreement and any required Third Party Agreement on behalf of the City to implement the 2005 Community Development Block Grant Program. ADOPTED: the 151h day of February 2005. Member Housh seconded the motion. Rollcall: Ayes: Housh, Masica, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. RESOLUTION NO. 2005 -15 APPROVING THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN - FRAUENSHUH COMPANIES (7700 FRANCE AVENUE SOUTH) - GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF I -494 AND WEST OF FRANCE AVENUE Affidavits of Notice were presented, approved and ordered placed on file. Page 10 1 Minutes/Edina City Council/February 15, 2005 Presentation by Planner Mr. Larsen explained the request before the Council was to construct a freestanding building in the southerly portion of the site at 7700 France Avenue South that had originally been developed as headquarters for National Car Rental. He said in 2000, the building had been purchased by the current owner and was presently a multi- tenant office building. Frauenshuh Companies have proposed a new freestanding 7,000 square foot building near the intersection of Minnesota Drive and France Avenue. The proposed building would occupy space now used for surface parking. He added the plans also suggested a second building pad in the northeast portion of the site. The pad in the northeasterly portion of the site was not a part of the current proposal and would require separate action by the Council at a future date. Mr. Larsen noted the City had granted a parking variance in connection with the original development of the site. The Proof of Parking agreement associated with that variance was released in 1983. In 1994 Minnesota Drive, which borders the south side of the site, was built as a joint venture with the City of Bloomington. The City of Bloomington handled the construction and Edina shared in the cost. Mr. Larsen said that his review of the records showed no easement had been provided for the "free right" turn lane at the northwest corner of Minnesota Drive and France Avenue. He reported that the proponent had agreed to now dedicate the necessary right of way. Dedicating this right of way required the new building be moved to the north to meet setback requirements. Mr. Larsen said the proposed development complied with all Edina Zoning regulations except for the previously mentioned setback. He said the proposed new building would bring the site's total floor area to 268,800 square feet, well under the maximum 372,000 square feet allowed. Mr. Larsen said the plan provided 100 more parking spaces than required by Edina for an office development of this size. Proposed building materials and landscaping complied with all requirements. He concluded saying the Planning Commission had reviewed the proposed plan and recommended the Council grant a Final Development Plan conditioned upon dedication of the right -of -way for the existing turn lane and Watershed District Permits. Member Swenson asked what the proposed addition would house, if a restaurant were proposed in the new building and if sign questions had been addressed. Mr. Larsen said the new building would house a branch office of Fidelity Investment. He added that the proposed location could not be a restaurant and that he was comfortable that staff could handle the sign package. Member Housh expressed concern that employees parking will crowd the France Avenue side of the site. John Donnelly, representing the proponent explained employees must park on the north, west or northwest of the site. Visitors will park in front. He added the building was card access so employees can get in from their parking areas. Mr. Donnelly pointed out the twenty - five parking places that Fidelity would be using. Public Comment No one appeared to comment. Page 11 Minutes/Edina City Council/February 15, 2005 1 Member Housh made a motion, seconded by Member Swenson to close the public hearing. Ayes: Housh, Masica, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. Member Masica introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption contingent upon the developer granting the easement for a turn lane from France Avenue to Minnesota Drive and the granting of the necessary. Watershed District permits: RESOLUTION NO. 2005-15 GRANTING FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 7700 FRANCE AVENUE SOUTH BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDINA that the Final Development Plan dated January 25, 2005, and presented by Frauenshuh Companies is hereby approved conditioned upon granting the necessary easement for a turn lane from France Avenue to Minnesota Drive and the Watershed District permits. Adopted this 151h day of February, 2005. Member Swenson seconded the motion. Rollcall: Ayes: Housh, Masica, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. SUBDIVISION. MORATORIUM DISCUSSED Attorney Gilligan explained that Judge Schellhas modified the order in the lawsuit regarding the subdivision of a lot in Indian Hills. He reported the orders now state that the subdivision moratorium was not valid only. for Indian Hills subdivision request. Since the modification was granted, Mr. Gilligan said there would be no reason to re- impose a moratorium, as the one enacted in 2004 was still valid. No Council action was taken. *AWARD OF BID - FRONT .END LOADER - PUBLIC WORKS Motion made by Member Housh and seconded by Member Masica approving the award of bid for one articulated front end loader for Public Works to recommended bidder, St. Joseph Equipment at $175,559.93, under State Contract #432520. Motion carried on rollcall vote - four ayes. *AWARD OF BID - UTILITY VEHICLE - BRAEMAR GOLF COURSE Motion made by Member Housh and seconded by Member Masica approving the award of bid for a workman utility vehicle for Braemar Golf Course to recommended sole bidder, MTI Distributing Company at $16,117.71. Motion carried on rollcall vote - four ayes: *RESOLUTION NO. 2005 -13 SUPPORTING I494 IMPROVEMENT Member Housh introduced the following resolution, seconded by Member Masica and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION 2005 -13 RESOLUTION ENCOURAGING LEGISLATION TO INCREASE FUNDING FOR I-494 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS WHEREAS, the cities of Bloomington, Edina, Eden Prairie, Minnetonka, Plymouth and Richfield have joined together to promote improvement of I -494 from the Minnesota River to Page 12 Minutes/Edina City Council/February 15, 2005 I I -94 in order to increase road capacity and to improve the productivity and convenience of residents and businesses throughout the region; and WHEREAS, funding for improvements to the I-494 corridor, the Twin Cities metropolitan region and greater Minnesota has not kept pace with growth and demand; and WHEREAS, accelerating the scheduled expansion of I494 is a common and high priority objective of the I-494 Corridor Coalition communities; and WHEREAS, the I-494 corridor is at overcapacity in many locations; the cost of traffic congestion along the corridor is $100 million per year, and congestion is expected to double in the next 20 years; and, WHEREAS, these costs and the ramifications of congestion are an impediment to business development, economic growth, and reduce the overall quality of life in the metropolitan area; and WHEREAS, transportation funding, in inflation adjusted dollars, has declined by more that 25 percent over the past decade, transit is funded at 65 percent of that in similarly sized regions, and planners and government officials estimate that $700 million to $1 billion in improvements per year is needed over the next decade to simply keep up with anticipated congestion. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDINA that this Council supports legislation to decrease congestion and increase the state revenues available for improvements to the I-494 corridor and other metropolitan transportation systems including an increase in the state gas tax, dedication of 100 percent of the Motor Vehicle Sales Tax for transportation purposes, an increase in the license tab fee, a regional sales tax option, increased trunk highway and general fund bonding and increased use of voluntary toll lanes. ADOPTED: the 15th day of February 2005. Motion carried on rollcall vote - four ayes. *RESOLUTION NO. 2005 -11 APPROVING THE HENNEPIN COUNTY MUNICIPAL RECYCLING GRANT AGREEMENT FOR 2005 - 2007 Member Housh introduced the following resolution, seconded by Member Masica, and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 2005-11 AUTHORIZING THE CITY TO ENTER INTO A 2005 -2007 MUNICIPAL RECYCLING GRANT AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY WHEREAS, the City of Edina operates a recycling program consistent with Minnesota Statutes 115A.02 and 115A.03, as amended by the Laws of Minnesota 1992, Chapter, 685, and Minnesota Statutes, 473.8011; and WHEREAS, the Edina Recycling Program is consistent with the Office of Environmental Assistance Solid Waste Management Development Guide/Policy Plan, the Hennepin County Solid Waste Master Plan; and the Hennepin County's Residential Recycling Funding Policy; and WHEREAS, the Hennepin County Board has adopted a Resolution authorizing funding for Municipal Recycling Programs. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Edina City Council that the Mayor and the City Manager enter into an Agreement with Hennepin County to accept funding for the Edina Recycling Program. Adopted this 15th day of February 2005. Motion carried on rollcall vote - four ayes. Page 13 Minutes/Edina City Council/February 15, 2005 BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS SURVEY PRESENTED Mr. Hughes indicated upon the Council's request, he surveyed neighboring communities with respect to their policies/ ordinances concerning appointments to city boards and commissions. Survey questions were: • Has your city established term limits for service on boards and commissions and, if so, what was the limit; and • Does your city have an attendance policy or ordinance with respect to board and commission members and, if so, what was the requirement. Edina does not limit years of service but does have an attendance ordinance. Section 180 of the City Code provides that the Mayor, with consent of the Council, may remove a member who fails to attend three consecutive meetings, whether regular or special, or who fails to attend four meetings in a calendar year. Prior to this provision, City ordinances required automatic removal for failure to attend meetings. In 1980, the Council eased the requirement to allow discretion based on the individual circumstances of the member. Mr. Hughes noted that responses were received from Bloomington, St. Louis Park, Minnetonka, and Eden Prairie explaining the method in which they handle their policies/ ordinances concerning appointments and attendance to city boards and commissions. He noted that three of the four cities have a form of term limitation. Each city , has their own type of attendance requirements. Member Masica suggested continuing the issue to a future meeting for more information. Member Swenson indicated she would like to survey sitting members on the boards and commissions for their views on how beneficial their, time spent was during their terms. Member Housh concurred with the previous comments and suggested tabling the issue until March 15, 2005, to gain more information. Member Masica made a motion to continue the issue of policies /ordinances concerning appointments and attendance records for the City boards and commissions until March 15, 2005. Member Housh seconded the motion. Ayes: Housh, Masica, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. TRAFFIC SAFETY STAFF REVIEW OF FEBRUARY 3, 2005, APPROVED Assistant Engineer Lillehaug explained that staff recommended referral of the request to remove the STOP signs on West 56th Street at Woodland Circle (west) that were installed at the direction of the Council on August 17, 2004, for a period of six months to the Transportation Commission for further consideration and implementation of possible traffic calming measures. Additionally, staff recommended installing sidewalks along West 56th Street. Mr. Lillehaug stated a request was received in June 1997 to install STOP signs on West 56th Street at Park Place and in March 2001, to install STOP signs on West 561h Street at Woodland Circle. He explained that in April 2001, following a traffic survey, the requests were denied by the Council for lack of warrants. In June 2004 several requests were received to install STOP signs on West 56th Street at Park Place and /or Woodland Circle (west). In August 2004 staff recommended to Page 14 Minutes/Edina City Council/February 15, 2005 the Council that STOP signs be maintained at their existing locations and to deny the request for all-way STOPS at additional locations on West 561h Street for lack of warrants. The Council reversed the Traffic Safety Committee's recommendation and approved installation of STOP signs on West 56th Street at Woodland Circle (west) for a period of six months. Subsequently, a request was been received to remove the STOP signs. Mr. Lillehaug explained a letter was sent to the West 56th Street area residents informing them of the request for removal of the STOP Sign. He said residents were informed the Traffic Safety Advisory Committee would review the request and issue their recommendation at the February 15, 2005, Council meeting. Mr. Lillehaug said he had received five a -mails and six phone calls requesting that the STOP signs remain, based on volume, speed and safety of pedestrians. Mr. Lillehaug said Staff recommended referral of this issue to the Transportation Commission for further consideration and implementation of possible traffic calming measures as well as installation of sidewalks. Member Housh inquired whether the Transportation Commission could shed light on this issue. He said the policy seems clear. Mr. Lillehaug said the Commission would search for other traffic calming measures. Engineer Houle reiterated if the Traffic Plan was adopted at the next Council meeting, part of the plan was a traffic management plan that would be ideal for this specific issue. Perry Mead, 80 Woodland Circle, said he contacted Mr. Lillehaug about the STOP sign because the moment it was installed the noise level escalated with no appreciable decrease in speed or traffic. Mr. Mead stated he agreed with staff that STOP signs create a false perception of safety and he advocated removal of the STOP sign. He said referring this to the Transportation Commission was a good idea. Mike Sullivan, 81 Woodland Circle, said he believed there should be further study on the area but he did not agree that the STOP signs should be removed. Member Masica made a motion to adopt Section A and B of the February 3, 2005, Traffic Safety Staff Review and to refer the Section C, request to remove the STOP signs on West 561h Street at Woodland Circle to the Transportation Commission for further consideration. Member Housh seconded the motion. Ayes: Housh, Masica, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. BIG BOWL RESTAURANT ON -SALE INTOXICATING AND SUNDAY SALE LIQUOR LICENSES APPROVED Mr. Hughes explained that Big Bowl Restaurant has had a change in corporate ownership however, the Big Bowl Restaurant's operation would remain the same. He reported they have filed the necessary paperwork and paid the applicable fees for a license. Mr. Hughes explained that because the change in ownership occurred near the licenses' renewal date, staff recommended the license be issued for a thirteen -month period to avoid the burden of re- filing paperwork. The Planning, Health, and Police Departments have completed their investigations with no negative findings. Member Housh made a motion approving the On -Sale Intoxicating and Special Sunday Sale Liquor Licenses to Big Bowl Asian LLC d.b.a./Big Bowl Restaurant at 3669 Galleria, for the Page 15 Minutes/Edina City Council/Februga 15, 2005 period beginning February 28, 2005, and ending March 31, 2006. Member Masica seconded the motion. Ayes: Housh, Masica, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. *CONFIRMATION OF CLAIMS PAID Member Housh made a motion and Member Masica seconded the motion approving payment of the following claims as shown in detail on the Check Register dated February 2, 2005, and consisting of 29 pages: General Fund $223,369.55; Communications Fund $5,386.00, Working Capital Fund $1,056.98; Construction Fund $25,951.84; Art Center Fund $16,312.92; Golf Dome Fund $434.00; Golf Course Fund $7,892.12; Edinborough/Centennial Lakes Fund $3,511.75; Liquor Fund $90,862.13, Utility Fund $56,333.59; Storm Sewer Fund $9,203.91; Recycling Fund $33,874.00; PSTF Fund $467.82; TOTAL $474,656.61; and for approval of payment of claims dated February 9, 2005, and consisting of 30 pages: General Fund $166,607.08; Communications Fund $2,583.77; Working Capital Fund $17,755.50; Construction Fund $3,376.81Art Center Fund $2,556.04; Golf Dome Fund $3,185.11; Aquatic Center Fund $542.32; Golf Course Fund $56,630.43; Ice Arena Fund $15,295.45; Edinborough/Centennial Lakes Fund $14,256.23; Liquor Fund $158,052.52; Utility Fund $56,817.04; Storm Sewer Fund $4,034.99; PSTF Fund $18,930.11; TOTAL $520,623.40. Motion carried on rollcall vote - four ayes. There being no further business on the Council Agenda, Mayor Hovland declared the meeting adjourned at 11:30 P.M. City Clerk Page 16 MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HALL ON FEBRUARY 15, 2005 AT 5:00 P.M. ROLLCALL Answering rollcall were Members Housh, Masica, Swenson and Mayor Hovland. Mayor Hovland explained the purpose of the meeting was to interview candidates for the vacancy on the Edina City Council. He explained there was two years remaining in the seat he vacated to assume his responsibilities as Mayor. The Council then interviewed the following applicants: • Mark Peterson • Ralph Overholt • David Byron • Mark Johnson • Les Wanninger There being no further business on the Council Agenda, the Mayor adjourned the meeting at 6:57 p.m. City Clerk MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HALL ON FEBRUARY 16, 2005 AT 5:30 P.M. ROLLCALL Answering rollcall were Members Housh, Masica, Swenson and Mayor Hovland. Mayor Hovland explained the purpose of the meeting was to interview candidates for the vacancy on the Edina City Council. He explained there was two years remaining in the seat he vacated to assume his responsibilities as Mayor. He added the Council had interview4ed five applicants on February 15, 2005. The Council then interviewed the following six applicants: • James Roberts • Ardis Wexler • Todd Fronek • Jerrod Lindquist • Doug Johnson • Alice Hulbert The Council briefly discussed the procedure to follow when interviews were completed. Consensus was that they would meet to discuss the applicants on either the 24th or 28th of February or perhaps the 1St of March at 5:30 p.m. There being no further business on the Council Agenda, the Mayor adjourned the meeting at 8:10 p.m. City Clerk MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HALL ON FEBRUARY 18, 2005 AT 5:00 P.M. ROLLCALL Answering rollcall were Members Housh, Masica, Swenson and Mayor Hovland. Mayor Hovland explained the purpose of the meeting was to interview candidates for the vacancy on the Edina City Council. He explained there was two years remaining in the seat he vacated to assume his responsibilities as Mayor. He added the Council had interviewed five applicants on February 15, 2005 and six applicants on February 16, 2005. The Council then interviewed the following five applicants: • Nickolas Jermihov • Ray O'Connell • Kathleen Lepp • John Lonsbury • Lee McGrath Consensus was to meet on Thursday, February 24, 2005 at 5:00 p.m. Each Council member will bring three applicants names in ranked order to the meeting. There being no further business on the Council Agenda, the Mayor adjourned the meeting at 6:55 p.m. City Clerk MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE I EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HALL ON FEBRUARY 24, 2005 AT 5:00 P.M. ROLLCALL Answering rollcall were Members Housh, Masica, Swenson and Mayor Hovland. Mayor Hovland explained the purpose of the meeting was to come to a consensus on whom to appoint to the vacancy on the Edina City Council. The Council members each listed their top three choices for the appointment. Following the listing of the choices the Council discussed at length who would be the best applicant to appoint for the remainder of the term left by Mayor Hovland. Mayor Hovland made a motion to nominate Alice Hulbert to Edina City Council for a term ending January 1, 2007. Member Housh seconded the motion. Ayes: Housh, Masica, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. There being no further business on the Council Agenda, the Mayor adjourned the meeting at 5:55 p.m. City Clerk 'i "0 To: Mayor & City Council REPORT/RECOMMENDATION From: 51�Steven L. Lillehaug, PE, PTOE Traffic Engineer Date: March 1, 2005 Subject: Public Hearing and Adoption of the Transportation Commission Policy Recommendation: Agenda Item # II. Consent ❑ Information Only ❑ Mgr. Recommends ❑ To HRA ® To Council Action ® Motion ® Resolution ❑ Ordinance ❑ Discussion Hold Public Hearing and adopt the City of, Edina Transportation Commission Policy as recommended by the,Transportation Commission dated January 6, 2005. Info /Background: Over the past several months, the Transportation Commission worked with City staff in developing a Transportation Commission Policy to guide its members and residents in the identification and evaluation of traffic and transportation issues in the community. The policy is intended to encourage public input and decisions that will be made on quantitative, qualitative and objective factors. An Open House to solicit public comment regarding the. October 2004 DRAFT Policy was held on December 9, 2004. Commissioners reviewed and considered these comments as well as approximately 170 written comments regarding the policy and other transportation issues in Edina. These public comments were distributed to you previously (these are not included in this packet). However, all additional comments received since the previous distribution are included for your consideration. The attached FINAL DRAFT of the Transportation Commission Policy was recommended by the Transportation Commission for Council consideration on January 6, 2005. The Commission's recommendation was based on a six (ayes) and one (nay) vote. G: \Infrastructure \Streets\ traffic \Transportation CommissionWgendas \report- recommendations\rr to CC 3- 1 -05.doc J CITY OF EDINA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION POLICY yZNAJl'� t4 Cn O MM. FINAL DRAFT - January 6, 2005 -Edina Transportation Commission recommended the FINAL DRAFT on January 6, 2005 for City Council consideration. -Edina City Council action taken on f CITY OF EDINA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION POLICY FINAL DRAFT - January 6, 2005 Contributors: Transportation Commission Joni Kelly Bennett Dean Dovolis Warren Plante Fred Richards (Chair) Marie Thorpe Les Wanninger Jean White Steven L. Lillehaug, P.E., Traffic Engineer /Assistant Engineer Wayne D. Houle, P.E., Public Works Director /City Engineer City of Edina Engineering City of Edina Transportation Policy i FINAL DRAFT - January 6, 2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS TitleSheet .......................................................................... ............................... i Table of Contents ............................... I. INTRODUCTION 1 Background........................................................................ ............................... 1 Purpose.............................................................................. ............................... 1 Vision...... .......... ............................... II. POLICY FRAMEWORK 2 Introduction........................................................................ ....................:.......... 2 City of Edina Transportation Commission Policy ............... ............................... 2 III. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION 7 Transportation Commission Policy Adoption ..................... ............................... 7 ActionPlan ......................................................................... ............................... 7 Sourcesof Funding ............................................................ ............................... 8 Plan Costs and Acceptance Requirements ........ ..........:..... ............................... 8 IV. NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN 9 Introduction........................................................................ ............................... 9 Process and Schedule ...................................................... ............................... 10 Criteria for Screening ....................................................... ............................... 14 Scoring for Ranking .......................................................... ............................... 15 Removal of Traffic Calming Measures ............................. ............................... 16 Traffic Management Devices — City of Edina Approved Options .................... 17 Benefited Area (Assessed Area) ......................................... .............................18 APPENDICES Appendix A — Definitions Appendix B — Traffic Management Devices / Measures Appendix C — Application Request for Neighborhood_ Traffic Management Plan Appendix D — Acknowledgments and References City of Edina Transportation Policy ii FINAL DRAFT - January 6, 2005 i I. INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND Sustaining, improving and operating a sound street and transportation system are integral parts of the long -term vision of the City. 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. These conditions adversely affect the quality of life of the City's residents and the activities of the businesses located in the City. The Edina City Council in December 2003 established the Transportation Commission to address these issues and to work to improve the local transportation system, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Vision 20/20. PURPOSE The Edina Transportation Commission (ETC) was established to 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; to review and comment on plans to enhance. mass transit opportunities in the City; to evaluate methods for traffic calming and other speed and volume mitigation measures and to recommend their implementation where appropriate; and to review the findings of the Local Traffic Task Force (2002 -2003) and offer recommendations for implementation. VISION Edina will maintain a transportation system that will accommodate the efficient movement of people and goods throughout the City while fostering safe and livable neighborhoods and business areas connected by aesthetically beautiful, pedestrian and bicycle friendly streets and pathways. City of Edina Transportation Policy 1 FINAL DRAFT - January 6, 2005 C II. POLICY FRAMEWORK INTRODUCTION The Edina Transportation Commission Policy was developed as a supplement to the City of Edina Transportation Plan (March 1999). The purpose of this policy is to guide the ETC in the identification and evaluation of traffic and transportation issues in the community and the prioritization of projects and improvements to the transportation system. The policy is created to encourage public input and decisions that will be made on quantitative, qualitative and objective factors. CITY OF EDINA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION POLICY The City of Edina Transportation Commission Policy implements the purposes and objectives of the ETC as provided in Section 1225 of the City Code (Transportation Commission). The Policy also incorporates the amended policies of the Transportation Plan as follows: Roadway Design 1. Design roadway facilities constructed in conjunction with new developments according to the intended function. 2. Upgrade existing roadways when warranted by demonstrated volume, safety or functional needs, taking into consideration environmental limitations. 3. Emphasize improvements to management, maintenance and utilization of the existing street and highway system. 4. Design residential street systems to discourage through traffic and to be compatible with other transportation modes including transit, bicycle and walking, including traffic calming measures on local streets and, in some cases, collector streets. 5. Design collector and arterial roadway corridors to be compatible with other transportation modes including transit, bicycle and pedestrian. 6. Use adequate transitions and buffers including but not limited to earth berms, walls, landscaping and distance to mitigate the undesirable impact of high volume roadways. 7. Promote use of sound mitigating features (noise walls) and aesthetic barriers along residential development adjacent to high volume roadways, and, where economically feasible, make property owners and land developers responsible for noise attenuation at new developments near high volume roadways. City of Edina Transportation Policy 2 FINAL DRAFT — January 6, 2005 1 8. Encourage beautification of local corridors, where appropriate, with amenities such as boulevard trees, decorative street lighting, and monuments. Roadway Function and Access 1. Review and update regional and local functional street classification and coordinate with adjacent cities and Hennepin County. Establish subcategory. classifications and criteria for local streets if warranted. Revise local roadway classifications when warranted. 2. Provide logical street networks to connect residential areas to the regional highway system and local activity centers. 3. Adequately control access points to the regional roadway system (including minor arterials) in terms of driveway openings and side street intersections. 4. Provide access, to the local street. system (including collector and local streets) in a manner that balances the need to safely and efficiently operate the street system with the need for access to land. 5. Encourage intra -area trips on minor arterials rather than the principal arterial system, and promote serving regional trips on the metropolitan highway system. 6. Separate, to the extent possible, conflicting uses on the public street system in order to minimize safety problems. Give special attention to pedestrian and bicycle routes. 7. Provide access to redeveloping sites using current functional classification and standards rather than the existing access at the sites. 8. Annually review and monitor citywide traffic volumes, congestion, existing traffic calming devices, accident history, vehicle violation history, speed limits and enforcement. 9. Educate public on vehicle operations including public relations campaigns that focus on individual responsibilities to each other rather than individual rights. - 10. Review and recommend traffic calming policies and consider traffic calming implementation where requested by residents. 11. Implement measures to reduce non - local, cut - through traffic in cooperation with County and State efforts by developing a local traffic calming policy to mitigate the effects of cut - through traffic. Identify the origin and destination of cut - through traffic. City of Edina Transportation Policy 3 FINAL DRAFT — January 6, 2005 r 12. When requested by the Planning Commission, review landuse that may impact traffic implementations. Continue to monitor adjacent community redevelopment and activity that impact the City of Edina. Roadway Maintenance and Operation 1. Cooperate with other agencies having jurisdiction over streets and highways in Edina to assure good roadway conditions and operating efficiency. 2. Continue the implementation of the I -494 frontage road system and Integrated Corridor Traffic Management system through ongoing coordination with Mn/DOT, Hennepin County, and the cities of Richfield and Bloomington. 3. Maintain roads by repairing weather- related and other damage. 4. Use economic and environmentally sound management techniques for snow and ice removal. 5. Replace substandard bridges and bridges that present safety or traffic problems, and include bicycle and pedestrian features. Transit/TDM 1. Participate in the I -494 Commission to encourage all forms of travel demand management in order to reduce vehicle miles of travel, reduce petroleum consumption, and improve air quality. 2. Review all major new developments in light of the potential for ridesharing including bus accessibility, preferential parking for carpools /vanpools, and mixed -use development. 3. Support HOV bypasses and other preferential treatments for transit and high occupancy vehicles on streets and highways. 4. Include transit planning in the construction or upgrading of streets and highways. 5. Pursue development of a demonstration project to provide a circulator system within the Greater Southdale Area. 6. Encourage the legislature to increase funding for efficient mass transit. Review and recommend policies requiring a mass transit component with all types of development. City of Edina Transportation Policy 4 FINAL DRAFT — January 6, 2005 N Parking 1. Review new developments for adequacy of parking based upon need, the potential for joint use of parking facilities and opportunities to encourage idesharing. 2. Continue to limit on- street parking in and near congested commercial areas. 3. Find location of an additional Park and Ride facility located in close proximity to major mass transit routes. 4. Work with appropriate commissions such as Planning and Zoning to review City Code, Section 850.08 Parking and Circulation to identify parking based upon needs. 5. Evaluate present parking facilities found in Edina. Where appropriate, amend Section 850 to give commuter parking some spaces in City-owned ramps. Pedestrian /Bicycle 1. Provide accessibility to pedestrians and bicycles at major activity centers, including necessary storage facilities (e.g. bicycle racks and bicycle lockers) near visible points of entry, wide sidewalks where there is no boulevard or sidewalks with boulevards. Appropriate signage should be present at these facilities. 2. Create pedestrian and bicycle interconnections among major generators, with continuity across major roadways and other barriers. Include painted striping on roadways and paths designated as bicycle riding areas. 3. Provide sidewalks and safe crossing in high pedestrian danger areas, including high - traffic streets, commercial areas, park and school areas, areas with transit access, and in high- density residential locations. 4. Provide adequate signage along all bike paths including areas. of conflict with pedestrians and automobile traffic. 5. Review and recommend construction of pedestrian and bike paths throughout Edina cooperatively with the Three Rivers Park District and Hennepin County. 6. Promote safe walking, bicycling and driving. Promote vehicle driver respect for bicycles and pedestrians along with bicyclists and pedestrian observance of signs and designated paths. City of Edina Transportation Policy 5 FINAL DRAFT — January 6, 2005 Goods Movement Serve major truck users and intermodal facilities with good minor arterial access to the metropolitan highway system. Funding and Jurisdiction 1. Pursue and support regional or multi - community funding sources for improvements that provide regional or multi - community benefit. Support public funding for transit. 2. Support research efforts into more efficient and cost - effective management, maintenance and replacement of street surfaces. 3. Support governmental jurisdiction over roadways that reflect the role of the roadway in the overall transportation system. 4. Develop and support legislation permitting a transportation utility. City of Edina Transportation Policy 6 FINAL DRAFT — January 6, 2005 III. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION This section provides the steps necessary to implement the transportation policies and discusses a general strategy for carrying out the policies. TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION POLICY ADOPTION By adopting the Transportation Commission Policy, the City Council establishes the guidelines by which, decisions regarding transportation facilities are made in Edina. It should be revised as necessary to respond to changing conditions and needs, both locally and regionally. The policy should be circulated widely so the residents and the business community are aware of the opportunities and limitations that the policy provides, thus enabling all interested parties to voice their concerns and issues with full knowledge. ACTION PLAN Short Term (Immediate): • Review and approve Transportation Commission Policy: o Review and identify problems and causes of Edina traffic issues (determine what is fact versus perception). o Review volume and speed criteria. o Present Draft Policy to Council o Open public comment period. o Recommend to Council for approval. • Review Local Traffic Task Force Findings and Recommendations as it reflects the adoptive policies and procedures. Rank the six identified traffic "issue areas" and review and recommend action for them as Neighborhood Traffic Management Projects to the City Council. • Review and approve a Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan (NTMP). • Publicize transportation issues to be studied by ETC. • Establish a means for public communication for transportation issues: o City of Edina Website o About Town o Edina Community Channel 16 o Edina Sun Current Newspaper o Local Schools • Create a citizen's guide to transportation issues City of Edina Transportation Policy 7 FINAL DRAFT — January 6, 2005 Long Term (Continually): • Review and recommend Neighborhood Traffic Management Plans. • Review and update local roadway functional classification. • Hold yearly public open house for transportation issues. • Review and update Transportation Commission Policy annually. • Review and make recommendations for collector and arterial roadway planned improvements. SOURCES OF FUNDING The following sources of funding are explained in more detail in the Transportation Plan. Existing Sources of Revenue: • Federal Surface Transportation Program Funds • Congestion Management and Air Quality (CMAQ) • State Aid • Special Assessments • Livable Communities Grants • Ad Valorem Taxes • Tax Increment Financing Potential Sources of Revenue: • Impact Fees • Road Access Charge • Transportation Utility PLAN COSTS AND ACCEPTANCE REQUIREMENTS Plan acceptance requirements include educating residents about the possibility that they may be asked to fund the installation and maintenance of NTMP Projects through additional taxes and/or special assessments. A typical project includes all costs accrued for the improvement including all costs to perform the preliminary studies and data collection, temporary test installations, final studies, final design and actual construction costs. All costs associated with a Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan study and project will be assessed to the Benefited Area if Council approves the project for final implementation. City of Edina Transportation Policy 8 FINAL DRAFT — January 6, 2005 IV.NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN INTRODUCTION Neighborhood Traffic Management Plans (NTMP) include local, collector and arterial street studies and neighborhood area studies. These studies would be conducted by the City Engineering Department. The NTMP studies are intended to respond to speeding and excessive cut - through traffic on streets in a residential neighborhood and on multiple streets in one or more neighborhoods, yet are intended to be sensitive to areas where there may be a potential for diversion of this traffic onto other streets and/or into other neighborhoods. These plans are required to respond to traffic problems that are symptomatic of wider problems, such as congestion or lack of capacity on the arterial system. Possible solutions may include revisions to the local street to slow traffic or to completely or partially divert traffic off the street. While solutions will be considered for collector and arterial streets, only a limited number of management devices will be allowed due to State design standards and funding requirements (see Appendix B). NTMP studies are developed primarily through the City Engineering Department, with the involvement of the Transportation Commission and other City departments. They are scheduled based on available resources and given priority by factors that include, but are not limited to, the following: • Previous efforts, requests and studies in the area • Intensity and extent of the problems • Degree of conflict between traffic conditions and land uses • Availability of data • Regional improvement projects scheduled or planned • Feasibility of solutions City of Edina Transportation Policy 9 FINAL DRAFT — January 6, 2005 PROCESS AND SCHEDULE This section details the process and schedule for Neighborhood Traffic Management Plans (See Table 1). Table 1. Neiqhborhood Traffic Management Plan Schedule Step Item Period (Typical) - General Traffic Management Information Open House Late September Step 1 Neighborhood Traffic Management Applications Due 2nd Monday in February Step 2 Initial Screening, Scoring and Ranking of Applications March/April/May Before data collection Step 3 • Petition -to -study prepared and circulated by City staff May /June • Presentation to ETC for recommendation and to Council for approval to order plan development Step 4 Plan Development June • Review and comment by Fire, Police, Public Works and Engineering, Transit and School (transportation) agencies • Public Open House • Survey -to -test circulated and evaluated by City staff • Trial Project Plan prepared Step 5a Presentation to ETC for recommendation June Step 5b • Council approval of trial projects July • Schedule temporary installations, removals and after data collection (minimum period of 2 weeks after installation St 5c • Temporary installations Jul /August Step 6 • After data collection (trial projects) September • Review and comment by Fire, Police, Public Works, Transit, and School (transportation) agencies • Prepare evaluation summaries Step 7a Mail Surveys October Step 7b • Summarize returned surveys November • Open House Step 8a Recommendations to ETC, Public comment December Step 8b Recommendations to Council, Improvement Hearing, January Preliminary Assessment Hearing, Order Project Step 9a Survey and Design February / March Step 9b Final approval of plans by Council, Set bid schedule April Step 9c Letting, Assessment Hearing May Step 9d Construction June / Jul Step 10 After data collection July / August Step 11 Follow-up Evaluation Within 3 to 5 yrs City of Edina Transportation Policy 10 FINAL DRAFT — January 6, 2005 STEPS: 1. Study Request (Application) Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan (NTMP) studies can be requested by individual citizens or by neighborhood organizations. Requests to consider a NTMP study must be in writing and are due by 4:30 p.m. on the second Monday in February of each year. See Appendix C for application request. 2. Preliminary Review and Priority Ranking City staff gathers and reviews preliminary data about the traffic request including volume, speed and accident information and applies the criteria for screening and ranking to prioritize for trial and evaluation of a NTMP. The Engineering Department ranks the studies based on score (methodology outlined , under "Scoring for Ranking ") and schedules order of trial studies for ETC review. The number of trial studies depends on equipment and personnel availability. Some trial studies may be deferred if not feasible due to conflicting construction, development in the area, county or state restrictions or other concerns. Requests are also reviewed by the Engineering Department for other possible solutions. If the preliminary review shows that an immediate hazard to the public exists, the City may choose to address the problem separately from the NTMP. Studies are ranked citywide, based on the point score from Step 2. The highest- ranking study is undertaken first. The number of studies initiated each year depends on City resources. The City notifies all study requestors of the status of their request after Step 2. The City also notifies the ETC of the status of all ranked studies and asks for comments. Once in the process, a study is considered in the annual priority ranking step for up to 3 years. If, after 3 years, a study has not received a high enough priority to proceed, it is no longer eligible for consideration. This time limitation ensures that the study request has not become obsolete because of changing traffic conditions and/or new residents in the area. The study requestor is notified when the 3 -year limit expires. Then, a new request may be made to re -enter the study in the program. Step 1 is then repeated to obtain current information. 3. Petition -to -Study If a study is ranked high enough to proceed, a petition -to -study must be circulated within a defined study area. City of Edina Transportation Policy 11 FINAL DRAFT — January 6, 2005 The Transportation Commission establishes the petition -to -study area (benefited area), based on information obtained in the preliminary review. At a minimum, this area is generally defined as those households and businesses fronting on the affected segments of the study area (see Benefited Area — Assessed Area on page 18). The 'purpose of the petition -to -study is to determine the level of agreement among the benefited area's residents regarding the problem they want to address. The petition -to- study.,only defines the issue and surveys the benefited area that will be assessed for all costs of the improvement. It is used only to determine if the residents within the benefited area agree with the issue that has been requested to be addressed. City staff prepares the petition, describing the problem and the procedures to be followed if a study is undertaken. The City then circulates the petition. Each household is entitled to one signature. Property owners not living in the study area are not included in the petition -to- study process. To proceed, a minimum of 30% of all surveys must be returned with 65% of those returned surveys indicating agreement with the identified issue. The applications and petitions -to -study are presented to the ETC and the City Council. The City Council must order the plan development for the study to move forward to step 4. 4. Plan Development Based on direction from the Council, the NTMP study moves forward. The NTMP is reviewed by the City's Fire, Police, Public Works and Engineering Departments, and by transportation agencies including transit and schools. The ETC then holds a public meeting for the neighborhood and general public to inform residents of the proposed project, to describe the NTMP process, and to gather additional information about the traffic problems and related neighborhood needs. Plan development consists of the following steps: • Assessment of problems and needs • Identification of project goals and objectives • Determination of the benefited area and impacted area • Identification of evaluation criteria • Establishment of threshold criteria (on project -by- project basis) • Development of alternative plans /solutions The first two steps are accomplished through public meetings, neighborhood association meetings, and ETC meetings. Additionally, City staff prepares a survey -to -test describing the proposed project and calling for a temporary test installation. Staff then circulates the survey -to -test within the impacted area, which is defined by the Transportation Commission. City of Edina Transportation Policy 12 FINAL DRAFT — January 6, 2005 Each household and business is entitled to one survey. The survey is evaluated and City staff members prepare a trial installation plan. The City proposes solutions based on the citizen responses and sound engineering principles. Possible criteria, solutions and their impacts are evaluated by the ETC, City staff and other affected agencies. 5. Test Installation The NTMP is presented to the ETC and .the City Council. If recommended by the ETC and approved by Council, the test will be installed for between 3 and 12 months. If the City Traffic Engineer finds that an unforeseen hazard is created by the test, the test installation may be revised or removed. 6. Project Evaluation Following the test period, the City evaluates how well the test has performed in terms of the previously defined problems and objectives. The evaluation includes the subject street and streets affected by the project, and is based on before - and -after speeds and volumes, impacts on emergency vehicles or commercial uses, and other evaluation criteria determined during step 4. If, in the evaluation, desired improvements in quality of life are not met to the satisfaction of the ETC and City staff, the traffic plan may be modified and additional testing conducted. The final test results are reviewed with the ETC, area residents, and relevant City staff, and the information is distributed during the survey stage. The City will not forward a project to the next step if the test results show it may be unsafe or it violates NTMP policy or other City policies or regulations. 7. Survey To forward the project to the stage where permanent implementation is approved (step 8), a survey from households, businesses and non - resident property owners within the impacted area is obtained through a mail survey administered by the City. The ETC then holds an open house for the neighborhood to update residents about the proposed project. 8. City Council Action Based on the project evaluation and survey, City staff members prepare a feasibility report and recommendations for the ETC and City Council. The report outlines the process followed, includes the project findings, states the reasons for the recommendations and includes a preliminary assessment roll. The feasibility report and preliminary assessment roll will be presented for a recommendation by the ETC before final action by the City Council. If the feasibility report and preliminary assessment roll are adopted, the project is ordered. City of Edina Transportation Policy 13 FINAL DRAFT — January 6, 2005 If the feasibility report and preliminary assessment roll are not adopted, the plans and specifications will not be ordered and the project is terminated. The project is dropped from the list and the neighborhood is not able to reapply for five years. 9. Design, Final Assessment Roll and Construction Final design and construction are administered by the City and are generally completed within 12 months after final action by the City Council. City staff prepares and recommends the final assessment roll as required under authority granted by Minnesota Statute Chapter 429 10. Monitoring The City monitors constructed traffic management devices and gathers post data, including volume, speed and accident information. 11. Follow -up Evaluation Within 3 to 5 years after construction of an NTMP project, the City conducts a follow -up evaluation to determine if the project's goals and objectives continue to be met. This evaluation may entail traffic studies of volumes, speeds and accidents, as well as public opinion surveys. CRITERIA FOR SCREENING Each NTMP study is initially reviewed and screened for general qualification for this process. The following prescribes the general criteria used by staff to determine the eligibility for a NTMP study: 1. Roadway Classifications • Eligible: All Edina streets under the Public Works Department jurisdiction. • Not Eligible: All roadways within Edina designated as County, State, or Federal Highways. 2. Minimum Distance of the traffic calming device from the following (all must apply for eligibility): • Traffic Signals (except neckdowns) 300 R. • Stop Signs (except neckdowns) 300 ft. • Other Traffic Calming Devices 300 ft. • Driveway /Alleys 20 ft. • Horizontal or Vertical Curves affecting sight lines 200 ft. • Railroad Crossing 300 ft. • Dead End 400 ft. City of Edina Transportation Policy 14 FINAL DRAFT — January 6, 2005 3. Access: • No dead -end created without adequate turn around on public roadway right -of- way roadway. 4. Not - Critical Emergency Route: • To be reviewed and approved by the City Fire Chief. All four eligibility requirements must be met for scoring and consideration. SCORING FOR RANKING The following criteria defines the scoring for ranking that is used to prioritize a requested NTUT study as described in Step 2 of the NTMP process: 1. Sidewalk adjacent to the benefited area (0 to100 points): • None + 100 • All of 1 side + 50 • All of 2 sides + 0 2. Public school yard, play lot, playground development adjacent to benefited area (0 to 200 points): • None + 0 • All of 1 side + 100 • All of 2 sides + 200 3. Residential development adjacent to benefited area (0 to 100 points): • None + 0 • All of 1 side + 50 • All of 2 sides + 100 4. Number of reported correctable crashes based on last 5 years of available data (0 to 200 points): • 20 per crash; maximum of 200 points 5. Average residential density adjacent to benefited area (0 to 50 points): • 50 points maximum • (0 dwelling units per adjacent 100 lin. ft. = 0 points • 5+ dwelling units per adjacent 100 lin. ft.= 50 points) City of Edina Transportation Policy 15 FINAL DRAFT — January 6, 2005 6. Average Daily Traffic Volumes - ADT (0 to 200 points): • ADT divided by 10; maximum 200 points • For intersection, street segments or multiple streets, use higher volume street 7. Percent over speed limit - ADT (0 to 200 points): • Percent over speed limit times 2.5 (times 100); maximum 200 points (80% over limit) • For intersection, street segments or multiple streets, use street with higher speeds Scoring is based on the criteria pertaining to the benefited area. Correctable crashes are determined by the Engineering Department. REMOVAL OF TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES The City of Edina's Traffic Calming Program is intended to avoid the costly installation and later costly removal of traffic calming devices. On occasion, it may be determined to be desirable to remove a traffic calming device. If the removal is City initiated due to safety/crash issues, the removal will be at City expense. If the removal is at the neighborhood's request, the removal will be charged to the property owners (previously defined benefited area). The following procedure will be used for neighborhood initiated removals: 1. Petition requesting removal is submitted to the City Traffic Engineer. 2. A survey, including estimated cost for removal and data collected previously on the device, is mailed to each property owner in the benefited area. 3. Surveys are summarized 30 days after mailing. Staff makes recommendation to the ETC. 4. ETC forwards a recommendation to Council. If the recommendation is for removal, improvement and assessment hearings are scheduled for Council. 5. Final approval of plans by Council. Set bid schedule. 6. Letting, final assessment and construction. 7. New traffic calming devices will not be considered for five years in benefited area of removed device. City of Edina Transportation Policy 16 FINAL DRAFT — January 6, 2005 TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT DEVICES - CITY OF EDINA APPROVED OPTIONS This sections lists traffic management devices and methods that are approved for use in the City of Edina. Appendix B contains a detailed description and overview of each item Speed Reduction Traffic Calming Measures: • Speed Hump • Speed Table • Raised Crosswalk • Raised Intersection • Textured Pavements • Center Island Narrowings • Gateway Treatments • Neckdowns • Choker • Chicane • Realigned Intersections • Traffic Circle • Roundabout Volume Reduction Traffic Calming Measures: • Diagonal Road Closure • Partial Street Closure • Cul -de -sac • Median Barriers • Forced Turn Islands Education and Enforcement: • Targeted Police Enforcement • Radar Speed Display Units • Neighborhood Traffic Safety Campaigns Regulatory Measures: • Stop Sign • Turn Restrictions • One Way Streets • Traffic Signals ( "Rest on Red" and "Rest on Greed') • Pavement Striping (Centerline, Edge and Transverse) City of Edina Transportation Policy 17 FINAL DRAFT — January 6, 2005 BENEFITED AREA (ASSESSED AREA) This section generally defines the benefited area of the traffic management devices for use in determining the assessment area. The following prescribes the typical benefited areas, but may be adjusted by the ETC on a project by project basis. Speed Hump, Speed Table, Raised Intersection, Raised Crosswalk, Textured Pavement, Center Island Narrowings, Neckdowns, Gateway Treatments, Choker, Chicane, Traffic Circle: Benefited area extends 300 feet from the device along the street affected by the device, or to the nearest stop sign or traffic signal, whichever is less. Diagonal Road Closure, Round -a -bout: • Benefited area extends to the next intersection on each leg of the intersection. Partial Street Closure, Realigned Intersection, Forced Turn Island, Median Barrier: • Benefited area extends to the next intersection on the leg of the intersection partially closed, realigned or restricted. Cul -De -Sac: Benefited area extends from the point of closure to the next intersection on the leg that is closed. City of Edina Transportation Policy 18 FINAL DRAFT — January 6, 2005 i APPENDICES e APPENDIX A - DEFINITIONS APPENDIX B — TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT DEVICES / MEASURES APPENDIX C — APPLICATION REQUEST FOR NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN APPENDIX D — ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND REFERENCES City of Edina Transportation Policy FINAL DRAFT — January 6, 2005 APPENDIX A - DEFINITIONS City of Edina Transportation Policy FINAL DRAFT — January 6, 2005 Definitions Benefited Area — The properties expected to receive the majority of the positive impacts from the proposed traffic calming. (Assessed Area) Center Island Narrowings — An island or barrier in the center of a street that serves to segregate traffic. ( Midblock medians, median slowpoints, median chokers, central islands.) Chicane — Mainline deviations to deter the path of travel so that the street is not a straight line (by the installation of offset curb extensions). (Deviations, serpentines, reversing curves, twists.) Choker — Physical street narrowing to expand. sidewalks and landscaped areas; possibly adding medians, on street parking, etc. (Pinch points, lane narrowing, midblock narrowings, midblock yield points, constrictions.) Circulator Service — A means provided within a major activity center, (such as a regional business concentration, a metro center or community) for movement from place to place within the center; such a system may be entirely pedestrian or may use transit. Collector Street — Roadways that are designated to "collect" traffic from neighborhood streets and get that traffic to arterial streets. Collector streets are described in the City of Edina Comprehensive Plan. Corridor Studies — Typically, highway corridor studies focus on a segment of a particular travel corridor or travel shed. Land use, access issues, capacity, level of service, geometries and safety concerns are studied; alternatives analyzed; and recommendations made. Corridor studies are usually prepared with the participation and cooperation of the affected communities and governmental agencies. Recommendations for improvements are often incorporated into the local comprehensive plans of the participating cities and continue to be used by implementing agencies as improvements in the corridor are made. Cul- de-sac — Physical street closure resulting in a dead end (no outlet) constructed with a circular turn- around area. Cut- through Traffic — Traffic that intrudes into a residential subdivision to avoid congestion or other problem from an arterial or other high level street. Diagonal Road Closures — A barrier placed diagonally across a four- legged intersection, interrupting traffic flow across the intersection. This type of barrier may be used to create a maze -like effect in a neighborhood. (Diagonal diverter.) City of Edina Transportation Policy A -1 FINAL DRAFT — January 6, 2005 Feasibility Report — A report analyzing the recommended type of construction, the estimated construction cost, estimated engineering cost and the estimated assessment. Forced Turn Islands — Small traffic islands installed at intersections to channel turning movements. (Forced turn barriers, diverters.) Functional. Classification (of Roadways) — In. accordance with the City of Edina Transportation Plan (March 1999), the City has adopted the Metropolitan Council's functional classification system designation and guidelines for use in the City's roadway system. Functional classification involves determining what role each roadway should perform and ensures that certain transportation and non - transportation factors are taken into account in the planning and design of roadways. A complete description. of the functional classification system criteria is found in Appendix D of the Transportation Plan (March 1999). The following criteria lists typical vehicle volumes carried on roadways: Principal Arterials: 15,000 to 200,000 vehicles per day Minor Arterials: 5,000 to 30,000 vehicles per day Collector Streets: 1,000 to 15,000 vehicles per day Local Streets: Less than 1,000 vehicles per day Gateway Treatment — Treatment to a street that includes a sign, banner, landscaping or other structure that helps to communicate a sense of neighborhood identity. Guide Signs — A sign that shows route designations, destinations, directions, distances, services, points of interest, or other geographical, recreational, or cultural information. Impacted Area - Area for a project that is defined as those residences along local residential streets that are positively or negatively impacted by excessive through traffic volumes and speeding, or that may be positively or negatively impacted by proposed traffic calming. Inconvenience caused by limitation of access is not considered to be a negative impact under this definition. Infrastructure — Fixed facilities, such as roadways or railroad tracks; permanent structures. Level of Service (as related to highways) — The different operating conditions that occur on a lane or roadway when accommodating various traffic volumes. It is a qualitative measure of the effect of traffic flow factors, such as speed and travel time, interruption, freedom to maneuver, driver comfort and convenience, and indirectly, safety and operating costs. It is expressed as levels of service "A" through "F." Level "A" is a condition of free traffic flow where there is little or no restriction in speed or maneuverability caused by presence of other vehicles. Level "F" is forced -flow operation at low speed with many stoppages, the highway acting as a storage area. Local Street — A roadway that connects blocks within neighborhoods. City of Edina Transportation Policy A -2 FINAL DRAFT — January 6, 2005 Local Traffic — Traffic that originates from or is destined to a location within a neighborhood or area. -Major Street — The street normally carrying the higher volume of vehicular traffic (vs. Minor Street). Median Barriers — Raised island or barrier in the center of the street that serves to segregate traffic. Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) — The portion of the metropolitan area identified in the Regional Blueprint where development and redevelopment is to occur and in which urban facilities and services are to be provided. The purpose of the MUSA is to define the areas within the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area that are eligible for "urban services ", specifically sewers, municipal water systems and particular types of transportation systems. This boundary line is defined and maintained by the Metropolitan Council to assist in the orderly development of the metropolitan area. All of Edina is within the MUSA area. "A" Minor Arterials — Roadways within the metropolitan area that are more regionally significant than others. These roadways are classified into the following groups: a) Relievers — Minor arterials that provide direct relief for traffic on major metropolitan highways. These roads include the closest routes parallel to the principal arterials within the core, urban reserve and urban staging areas. These roadways are proposed to accommodate medium - length trips (less than eight miles) as well as to provide relief to congested principal arterials. Improvements focus on providing additional capacity for through traffic. b) Expanders — Routes that provide a way to make connections between developing areas outside the interstate ring or beltway. These routes are located circumferentially beyond the area reasonably served by the beltway. These roadways are proposed to serve medium to long suburb -to- suburb trips. Improvements focus on preserving or obtaining right -of -way. c) Connectors — This subgroup of "A" minor arterials are those roads that would provide good, safe connections among town centers in the urban reserve, urban staging and rural areas within and near the seven counties. Improvements focus on safety and load - carrying capacity. d) Augmenters — The fourth group of "A" minor arterials are those roads that augment principal arterials within the interstate ring or beltway. The principal arterial network in this area is in place. However, the network of principal arterials serving the area is not in all cases sufficient relative to the density of development that the network serves. In these situations, these key minor arterials serve many long -range trips. Improvements focus on providing additional capacity for through traffic. City of Edina Transportation Policy A -3 FINAL DRAFT — January 6, 2005 Minor Street — The street normally carrying the lower volume of vehicular traffic (vs. Major Street). Municipal State Aid (MSA) Route — A designated City roadway that receives state funds as allocated from the State gas tax for maintenance and construction. Approximately 20 percent of the City roadways are designated as MSA routes. State of Minnesota rules and standards, in addition to local jurisdiction guidelines, apply to these roadways. Neckdowns — Physical curb reduction of road width at intersections. Similar to lane narrowing but used at intersection(s). Widening of street corners at intersections to discourage cut - through traffic, to improve pedestrian access and to help define neighborhoods. (Nubs, bulb -outs, knuckles, intersection narrowings, corner bulges, safe crosses.) Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan (NTMP) — Formalized process where residents, commissioners and City staff evaluate the various requirements, benefits and tradeoffs of traffic calming projects within neighborhoods. The overall objectives for the Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan are to improve neighborhood livability by mitigating the impact of vehicular traffic on residential neighborhoods; to promote safe and pleasant conditions for motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians and residents on neighborhood streets; to encourage citizen involvement and effort in neighborhood traffic management activities; to make efficient use of City resources by prioritizing traffic management requests; and to support the Comprehensive Plan policy that livability and safety of established residential neighborhoods be protected in transportation operations. Non -Local Traffic — Traffic that does not originate from or is not destined to a location within a neighborhood or area. Off -Peak Period — Time of day outside the peak period (see peak period). Partial Street Closure — Physical blockage .of one direction of traffic on a two -way street. The open lane of traffic is signed "One way", and traffic from the blocked lane is not allowed to go around the barrier through the open lane. (Half closure.) Peak Hour — The hour during the peak period when travel demand is highest. Typically, peak hours are found to be from 7 to 8 a.m. and from 4:30 to 5:30 p.m. Peak Period — Typically, the time between 6:30 and 9:00 a.m. and between 3:30 and 6 p.m. on a weekday, when traffic is usually heavy. Person Trip — A one -way journey between two points by one person in a vehicle. Photo -radar Speed Enforcement — An automated camera system used to enforce speed limits. It includes the camera, an attached radar "gun" and a display that shows the speed of each passing vehicle. When a speeding vehicle is detected, the photo radar system City of Edina Transportation Policy A-4 FINAL DRAFT— January 6, 2005 takes a picture of the driver and the license plate. The registered owner of the vehicle then receives a ticket in the mail. This enforcement method is not legal in Minnesota. Photo -Red Light Enforcement — Implementation of a photo red light, an automated camera and computer system can be mounted on a traffic signal pole at an intersection for red light enforcement. Photo red light takes pictures of any vehicles that run'a red light, records the time elapsed since the light turned red and the vehicle entered the intersection, and issues a ticket. The photo red light systems are typically installed at key intersections that have a high number of accidents. This enforcement method is not legal in Minnesota. Platoon — A group of vehicles or pedestrians traveling together as a group, either voluntarily or involuntarily because of traffic signal controls, geometrics, or other factors. Principal Arterials — The high capacity highways that make up the metropolitan highway system, including all interstate freeways. Radar Speed Display Units — Driver feedback signs that use radar to provide motorists with an instant message, displayed on a reader board,- telling them how fast they are driving. Raised Crosswalk — A speed table designed as a pedestrian crossing, generally used at mid -block locations. (Raised crossings, sidewalk extensions.) Raised Intersection — A raised plateau where roads intersect. The plateau is generally 4" above the surrounding street. (Raised junctions, intersection humps, plateaus.) Realigned Intersections — Physical realignment of intersection typically used to promote better through movements for a major roadway (vs. a minor roadway). (Modified intersections.) Regional Blueprint — The Metropolitan Council plan that sets a general direction for future development patterns in the metropolitan area and establishes guidelines for. making decisions about major regional facilities that are needed to support the commercial, industrial and residential development of the area. It establishes urban and rural areas and certain development policies for different geographic policy areas. Regulatory Signs — A sign that gives notice to road users of traffic laws or regulations. Right -of -Way (Assignment) — The permitting of vehicles and/or pedestrians to proceed in a lawful manner in preference to other vehicles or pedestrians by the display of sign or signal indications. Roadway striping = Highlighting various areas of the road to increase the driver's awareness of certain conditions (e.g., edge of road striping to create a narrowing/slowing effect while defining space for cyclists). City of Edina Transportation Policy A -5 FINAL DRAFT — January 6, 2005 Roundabout - Raised circular areas (similar to medians) placed at intersections. Drivers travel in a counterclockwise direction around the circle. Modern roundabouts are "yield upon entry", meaning that cars in the circle have the right of way and cars entering the circle must wait to do so until the path is clear. When a roundabout is placed in an intersection, vehicles may not travel in a straight line. (Rotaries.) Signal Preemption — Usually referred to in this plan as a technology that triggers the green go -ahead on meters or signal lights to allow emergency vehicles (and sometimes transit vehicles) to move more quickly through signalized intersections. Speed— Speed is defined based on the following classifications: a) Advisory Speed — A recommended speed for all vehicles operating on a section of highway and based on the highway design, operating characteristics, and conditions. b) Design Speed — A selected speed used to determine the various geometric design features of a roadway. c) 85th- Percentile Speed — The speed at or below which 85 percent of the motorized vehicles travel. d) Posted Speed — The speed limit determined by law and shown on Speed Limit signs. e) Statutory Speed — A speed limit established by legislative action that typically is applicable for highways with specified design, functional, jurisdictional and/or location characteristic and is not necessarily shown on Speed Limit signs. Speed Hump —Wave- shaped paved humps in the street. The height of the speed hump determines how fast it may be navigated without causing discomfort to the driver or damage to the vehicle. Discomfort increases as speed over the hump increases. Typically speed humps are placed in a series rather than singularly. (Road humps, undulations.) Speed Limit — The maximum (or minimum) speed applicable to a section of highway or roadway as established by law. Speed Table — Trapezoidal shaped speed humps in the street, similar to speed humps. (Trapezoidal humps, speed platforms.) Speed Zone — A section of highway with a speed limit that is established by law but which may be different from a legislatively specified statutory speed limit. Street Closure — Street closed to motor vehicles using planters, bollards, or barriers, etc. City of Edina Transportation Policy A -6 FINAL DRAFT - January 6, 2005 Targeted Police Enforcement — Specific monitoring of speeding and other violations by police due to observed, frequent law disobedience. Textured Pavements — A change in pavement texture (e.g., asphalt road to brick crossing) that helps to make drivers aware of a change in the driving environment. Traffic Calming — A combination of mainly physical measures that reduce the negative effects 'of motor vehicle use, alter driver behavior and improve conditions for non- motorized street users. Traffic calming involves changes in street alignment, installation of barriers, and other physical measures to reduce traffic speeds and cut - through volumes in the interest of street safety, livability and other public purposes. Traffic calming measures are intended to be self - enforcing. Traffic calming measures rely on the laws of physics rather than human psychology to slow down traffic. Traffic Circle — Circular, raised island placed within the middle of intersections, requiring vehicles to divert around them, potentially forcing drivers to slow down as they traverse around the circle. (Intersection islands, similar to roundabouts.) Traffic Signal Control Systems — The degree of traffic management of an arterial is grouped and defined as follows: a) Fixed Time — The traffic signals on an arterial are controlled locally through a time clock system. In general, the progression of a through band (the amount of green time available along an arterial at a given speed) along the arterial in the peak direction is determined by past experience and is not a function of immediate traffic demand. b) Semi- actuated — The traffic signals along the arterial are designed to maximize the green time on the major route in the major direction. Timing and through band are based upon historical records. Use of green time on the minor leg dependent upon real -time demand and maximized based upon total intersection delay. c) Interconnection — A traffic signal system in which data collected at individual signals is shared with a central processor or controller. Adjustments in traffic signal control can be made based upon incoming data as opposed to historical data. d) Optimization — The process in which a traffic signal or system is modified to maximize the amount of vehicles passing through the intersection for all approaches or on the major road in the peak direction. e) Real -time Adaptive Control — An advanced traffic control system that incorporates current technologies in communications, data analysis, and traffic monitoring to provide real -time traffic control of arterials, corridors or roadway networks. City of Edina Transportation Policy A -7 FINAL DRAFT — January 6, 2005 Transportation Comprehensive Plan — Assists the City in making correct transportation- related decisions today by anticipating the character, magnitude and timing of future transportation demand. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) — Programs and methods to reduce effective demand. In the broadest sense, any activity or facility that reduces vehicle trips would fall within this classification. The highest priority in the region is given to reducing single- occupant vehicle trips in the peak periods. Techniques that might be utilized are carpooling, vanpooling, transit, alternative work hours, transportation management organizations, and land development or ordinances that discourage vehicle trips and encourage walk, bike, rideshare and transit trips. Transportation Policy Plan - This document is one chapter of the Metropolitan Development Guide, as provided for in Minnesota Stat. 473, Sections 145 and 146. Section 145 states: "The Metropolitan Council shall prepare and adopt ... a comprehensive development guide for the metropolitan area." Vehicle Trip — A one -way journey made by an auto, truck or bus to convey people or goods. Volume -to- capacity Ratio (v /c) — The hourly number of vehicles expected to use a roadway in the busiest hour, divided by the number of moving vehicles the roadway can safely accommodate in an hour. Warning Signs — A sign that gives notice to road users of a situation that might not be readily apparent. City of Edina Transportation Policy A -8 FINAL DRAFT — January 6, 2005 APPENDIX B - TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT DEVICES /MEASURES City of Edina Transportation Policy FINAL DRAFT — January 6, 2005 TRAFFIC MANAGMENT DEVICES /MEASURES (Not in priority order) City of Edir sportation Policy FINAL DRAFT - Jar 2005 TRAFFIC PAGE MANAGEMENT SPEED TRAFFIC FUEL AIR/NOISE EMERGENCY TEST VS. NO. DEVICE/MEASURE REDUCTION REDUCTION CONSUMPTION POLLUTION COST SERVICES PERMANENT OTHER B-4 Speed Hump Probable Possible Small Increase Small Increase Low Possible Test Installation Not used on Increased Possible Collector and Response Time Arterial Streets B -5 Speed Table Probable Possible Small Increase Small Increase Low Possible Test Installation Not used on Increased Possible Collector and Response Time Arterial Streets B -6 Raised Crosswalk Possible Possible Small Increase Small Increase Low Possible Test Installation Not used on Increased Possible Collector and Response Time Arterial Streets B -7 Raised Intersection Probable Possible Small Increase Small Increase Medium Possible Permanent Possible Drainage to High Increased Installation Only Problem Response Time B -8 Textured Pavement Possible No Effect No Change Minimal Effect Low to Minimal Impact Permanent Increased Medium Installation Only Maintenance B -9 Center Island Possible Possible No Effect No Effect Medium Minimal Impact Test Installation Narrowings Possible B -10 Neckdowns Possible Possible Small Increase Small Increase Medium Minimal Impact Test Installation to High Possible B -11 Gateway Treatment Possible Possible No Change Small Decrease Medium Minimal Impact Permanent Increased to High Installation Only Maintenance B -12 Choker Probable Possible Small Increase Small Increase Medium Minimal Impact Test Installation Possible B -13 Chicane Probable Possible Slight Increase Slight Increase Medium Minimal Impact Test Installation Not used on to High Possible Collector and Arterial Streets B -14 Realigned Intersection Varies Varies Small Decrease Small Decrease High Varies Permanent Installation Only City of Edir sportation Policy FINAL DRAFT - Jar 2005 TRAFFIC MANAGMENT DEVICES /MEASURES (Not in priority order) City of EdinaTransportation Policy B -2 FINAL DRAFT - January 6, 2005 TRAFFIC PAGE MANAGEMENT SPEED TRAFFIC FUEL AIR/NOISE EMERGENCY TEST VS. NO. DEVICE/MEASURE REDUCTION REDUCTION CONSUMPTION POLLUTION COST SERVICES PERMANENT OTHER B -15 Traffic Circle Possible Possible Slight Increase Small Increase Medium Possible Test Installation Not used on Increased Possible Collector and Response Time Arterial Streets B -16 Roundabout Probable Possible No Effect Slight Increase Medium Possible Permanent Increased to High Increased Installation Only Maintenance Response Time B -17 Diagonal Road Probable Probable Small Increase Small Increase Low to Varies Test Installation Not used on Closures Medium Possible Collector and Arterial Streets B -18 Partial Street Closure Possible Probable Small Increase Small Increase Medium Minimal Impact Test Installation Not used on Possible Collector and Arterial Streets B -19 Cul -de -sac Probable Yes Small Increase Small Increase High Possible Test Installation Not used on Increased Possible Collector and Response Time Arterial Streets B -20 Median Barriers Small Possiblity Possible No Effect No Effect Varies Possible Test Installation Increased Possible Response Time B -21 Forced Turn Islands Possible Possible Small Increase Small Increase Low to Possible Test Installation Not used on Medium Increased Possible Collector and Response Time Arterial Streets B -22 Targeted Police Depends on Possible No Effect No Effect High No Effect Temporary Enforcement Amount B -23 Radar Speed Units Probable No Effect No Effect No Effect Low No Effect Temporary or Permanent B -24 Neighborhood Traffic Possible No Effect No Effect No Effect Low No Effect Temporary or Safety Campaigns Permanent B -25 Stop Sign Varies (may Varies Small Increase Small Increase Low Possible Temporary or increase) Increased Permanent Response Time City of EdinaTransportation Policy B -2 FINAL DRAFT - January 6, 2005 TRAFFIC MANAGMENT DEVICES /MEASURES (Not in priority order) City of Edir sportation Policy I FINAL DRAFT - Jar 2005 TRAFFIC PAGE MANAGEMENT SPEED TRAFFIC FUEL AIR/NOISE EMERGENCY TEST VS. NO. DEVICE/MEASURE REDUCTION REDUCTION CONSUMPTION POLLUTION COST SERVICES PERMANENT OTHER B -26 Turn Restrictions Varies Yes Small Increase No Effect Low No Effect Temporary or Permanent B -27 One -Way Streets No Possible Small Decrease Small Decrease Low Varies Temporary or Permanent B -28 Traffic Signal Possible Varies Varies Varies High No Effect Temporary or ( "Rest on Red" and Permanent "Rest on Green ") B -29 Pavement Striping Possible No Effect No Effect No Effect Low No Effect Permanent Installation Only City of Edir sportation Policy I FINAL DRAFT - Jar 2005 Definition: Speed humps are wave - shaped paved humps in the street. The height of the speed hump determines how fast it may be navigated without causing discomfort to the driver or damage to the vehicle. Discomfort increases as speed over the hump increases. Typically speed humps are placed in a series rather than singularly. (Road humps, undulations.) Description: • Rounded raised areas of pavement typically 12 to 14 feet in length. • Often placed in a series (typically spaced 300 to 600 feet apart). • Sometimes called road humps or undulations. Applications: • Residential, local streets. • Not allowed on collector and arterial streets. • Midblock placement, not at an intersection. • Not on grades greater than 5 percent. • Work well with neckdowns. Design /Installation Issues: • Typically 12 to 14 feet in length; other lengths (10, 22, and 30 feet). • Speed hump shapes include parabolic, circular, and sinusoidal. • Hump heights range between 3 and 4 inches with trend toward 3 - 3 YZ inches maximum. • Difficult to construct precisely; may need to specify a construction tolerance (e.g. t 1/8 inch) on height. • Often have signage (advance warning sign before first hump in series and warning sign or object marker at hump). • Typically have pavement markings (zigzag, shark's tooth, chevron, zebra). • Taper edge near curb to allow gap for drainage. • Some have speed advisories. • Bicyclists prefer that it not cover or cross a bike lane. Evaluation Considerations Y Advantages: • Effective speed control /reduction at the installation. • May reduce traffic volumes. • Does not impact parking. • Works well with curb extensions. Disadvantages: • May increase noise (breaking and acceleration). • May impact drainage. • Not appropriate for grades greater than 5 percent. • May shift traffic to parallel streets. • Tend to reduce air quality and increase energy consumption. • May increase speeds between humps. • May cause bus passengers discomfort. • Not appropriate on some horizontal /vertical curves. • Requires signage that may be considered unsightly. Speed Traffic Fuel Air /Noise Cost Emergency Test vs. Other Reduction Reduction Consumption Pollution Services Permanent Probable Possible Small Small Low Possible Test Not Used on Increase Increase Increased Installation Collector and Response Time Possible Arterial Streets City of Edina Transportation Policy B-4 FINAL DRAFT - January 6, 2005 Definition: Trapezoidal shaped speed humps in the street, similar to regular speed humps. (Trapezoidal humps, Description: • Long raised speed humps with a flat section in the middle and ramps on the ends; sometimes constructed with brick or other textured materials on the flat section. Applications: • Residential, local streets. • Not allowed on collector and arterial streets. • Typically long enough for the entire wheelbase of a passenger car to rest on top. • Midblock placement or at an intersection. • Not on grades greater than 5 percent. • Work well with neckdowns. Design /Installation Issues: • Typically 22 feet in the direction of travel with 6 foot ramps on each end and a 10 foot flat section in the middle; other lengths (32 and 48 feet). • Most common height is between 3 and 4 inches (as high as 6 inches). • Ramps are typically 6 feet long (up to 10 feet long) and are either parabolic or linear. Evaluation Considerations - ate �r t Advantages: • Effective speed control /reduction at the installation. • Designed to be aesthetically pleasing. • May reduce traffic volumes. • Typically does not impact parking. • Typically preferred by fire department over speed hump. Disadvantages: • May increase noise (breaking and acceleration). • May impact drainage. • Not appropriate for grades greater than 5 percent. • May shift traffic to parallel streets. • May increase speeds between tables. • May cause bus passengers discomfort. • Not appropriate on some curves. Speed Traffic Fuel Air /Noise Cost Emergency Test vs. Other Reduction Reduction Consumption Pollution Services Permanent Probable Possible Small Small Low Possible Test Not Used on Increase Increase Increased Installation Collector and Response Time Possible Arterial Streets City of Edina Transportation Policy B -5 FINAL DRAFT - January 6, 2005 Definition: A speed table designed as a pedestrian crossing, generally used at mid -block locations. (Raised crossings, sidewalk extensions.) Description: • Speed Table with flat area to accommodate pedestrian traffic. Applications: • Local streets. • Not allowed on collector and arterial streets. • Midblock placement or at an intersection. • Not on grades greater than 5 percent. • Works well in combination with curb extensions and curb radius reductions. Design /Installation Issues: • Typically 22 feet in the direction of travel with 6 foot ramps on each end and a 10 foot flat section in the middle; other lengths (32 and 48 feet) reported in U.S. practice. • Most common height is between 3 and 4 inches (as high as 6 inches). • Ramps are typically 6 feet long (up to 10 feet long) and are either parabolic or linear. Evaluation Considerations aim!) Advantages: • Effective speed control /reduction at the installation. • Effective pedestrian amenity. • May be designed to be aesthetically pleasing. • May reduce traffic volumes. • Increases pedestrian visibility and likelihood that driver yields to pedestrian. Disadvantages: • May increase noise (breaking and acceleration). • May impact drainage. • Not appropriate for grades greater than 5 percent. • May shift traffic to parallel streets. • May cause bus passengers discomfort. • Not appropriate on some curves. Speed . Traffic Fuel Air /Noise Cost Emergency Test vs. Other Reduction Reduction Consumption Pollution Services Permanent Possible Possible Small Small Low Possible Permanent Not Used on Increase Increase Increased Installation Collector and Response Time Only Arterial Streets City of Edina Transportation Policy B -6 FINAL DRAFT - January 6, 2005 Definition: A raised plateau where roads intersect. The plateau is generally 4 inches above the surrounding street. (Raised junctions, intersection humps, plateaus.) Description: • Flat raised areas covering entire intersections, with ramps on all approaches and often with brick or other textured materials on the flat section and ramps. Applications: • Local streets. • Allowed on collector and arterial streets at all -way stop controlled intersection only. • Works well with curb extensions and textured crosswalks. • Often part of an area wide traffic calming scheme involving both intersecting streets. Design /Installation Issues: • Storm drainage modifications may be necessary. • Typically rise to sidewalk level. • May require bollards to define edge of roadway • Installations typically have gentle 1:40 slopes on ramps. • Not typically used in densely developed urban areas where loss of parking would be unacceptable. Evaluation Considerations Advantages: • Reduction in through movement speeds at intersection. • No effect on access. • Makes entire intersections more pedestrian - friendly. • Designed to be aesthetically pleasing. Disadvantages: • May slow emergency vehicles to approximately 15 miles per hour. • May impact drainage. Speed Traffic Fuel Air /Noise Cost Emergency Test vs. Other Reduction Reduction Consumption Pollution Services Permanent Probable Possible Small Small Medium to Possible Permanent Possible Increase Increase High Increased Installation Drainage Response Time Only Problem City of Edina Transportation Policy B -7 FINAL DRAFT - January 6, 2005 Definition: A change in pavement texture (e.g., asphalt road to brick crossing) that helps to make drivers aware of a change in the driving environment. Description: • An area within in the roadway set off from the typical . pavement (e.g. bituminous and concrete) by using cobble stones, stamped concrete, etc. Applications: • Used as community enhancement and /or as a gateway treatment. • Works well with raised crosswalk and intersection applications. Design /Installation Issues: • In some cases, not preferred by bicyclists due to rough surface. Evaluation Considerations Advantages: • Designed to be aesthetically pleasing. • May be used to define pedestrian crossing. • May reduce speeds. Disadvantages: • Increased Maintenance. • May increase noise. Speed Traffic Fuel Air /Noise Cost Emergency Test vs. Other Reduction Reduction Consumption Pollution Services Permanent Possible No Effect No Change Minimal Low to Minimal Permanent Effect Medium Impact Installation Only City of Edina Transportation Policy B -8 FINAL DRAFT - January 6, 2005 Definition: An island or barrier in the center of a street that serves to segregate traffic. (Midblock medians, median slowpoints, median chokers, central islands.) Description: • Raised islands located along the centerline of a street that narrow the travel lanes at that location. Applications: • Are often nicely landscaped to provide visual amenity and neighborhood identity. • Can help pedestrianize streets by providing a mid- point refuge for pedestrians crossings. • Sometimes used on wide streets to narrow travel lanes. • Works well when combined with crosswalks. Design /Installation Issues: • Bicyclists prefer not to have the travel way narrowed into path of motor vehicles. • Islands need to be wide enough to allow signs to mark them. • Driving lanes in each direction should be 12 feet plus gutter width. • Driveways, alleys, and snowplow operations should be considered. • Should not be used where on- street parking needs are extensive. Evaluation Considerations � az �I r• C r Advantages: • Reduces pedestrian crossing width. • Provides a refuge for pedestrians and cyclists. • Provides barrier between lanes of traffic. • May produce a limited reduction in vehicle speeds. • May visually enhance the street through landscaping. • May prevent passing of turning vehicles. • Preferred by fire department/emergency response agencies to most other traffic calming measures. • May reduce traffic volumes. • Self- enforcing. Disadvantages: • May reduce parking and driveway access. • May reduce separation for bicycles and pedestrians. • May limit visibility of pedestrian crossings. • May reduce driver sightlines if over - landscaped. • Increased maintenance. Speed Traffic Fuel Air /Noise Cost Emergency Test vs. Other Reduction Reduction Consumption Pollution Services Permanent Possible Possible No Effect No Effect Medium Minimal Impact Test Increased Installation Maintenance Possible City of Edina Transportation Policy B -9 FINAL DRAFT - January 6, 2005 Definition: Physical curb reduction of road width at intersections. Similar to lane narrowing but used at intersection(s). Widening of street corners at intersections to discourage cut - through traffic, to improve pedestrian access and to help define neighborhoods. (Nubs, bulb -outs, knuckles, intersection narrowings, corner bulges, safe crosses.) Description: • Realignment of curb, reducing street width at intersections. Applications: • Residential, local streets. • Should not be used in locations where turn lanes or through lanes would be lost. • County typically does not allow neckdowns directly adjacent to county roads. • Can be used in multiple applications or on a single segment of roadway. Design /Installation Issues: • Must result in a minimum intersection opening and radii to accommodate turning movements. • Drainage issues may be significant. • Vertical delineators or object markers are often used to make visible to snowplow operators. _ Evaluation Considerations Advantages: • May be aesthetically pleasing if landscaped. • Reduces pedestrian crossing distance. • May reduce speeds and traffic volumes. • Self- enforcing. • May improve sight lines. Disadvantages: • Unfriendly to cyclists unless designed to accommodate them. • Landscaping may cause sight line problems. • Increased maintenance if landscaped. • May impact drainage. • May impact bicycle accommodations. • May impact parking. • May require signage that may be considered unsightly. Speed Traffic Fuel Air /Noise Cost Emergency Test vs. Other Reduction Reduction Consumption Pollution Services Permanent Possible Possible Small Small Medium to Minimal Impact Test Increase Increase High Installation Possible City of Edina Transportation Policy B -10 FINAL DRAFT - January 6, 2005 Definition: Treatment to a street that includes a sign, banner, landscaping or other structure that helps to communicate a sense of neighborhood identity. Description: • Monument or landscaping used to denote an entrance into a neighborhood. Applications: • Used at entrances to residential neighborhoods typically adjacent to collector or arterial roadways. Design /Installation Issues: • Determination and agreement for responsibility of maintenance. • Drainage issues may be significant. • Must maintain proper intersection sight lines. Evaluation Considerations Advantages: • Positive indication of a change in environment from arterial /collector roadways to residential street. • May reduce entry speed. • Helps give neighborhood a sense of identity. • Allows neighborhood creativity and participation in design. Disadvantages: • Increased maintenance. • Determination and agreement of maintenance responsibility. Speed I Traffic Fuel Air /Noise Cost Emergency Test vs. Other Reduction Reduction Consumption Pollution I Services I Permanent Possible Possible No Change Small Medium to Minimal Impact Permanent Increased Decrease High I I Installation Maintenance City of Edina Transportation Policy B -11 FINAL DRAFT - January 6, 2005 Definition: Physical street narrowing to expand sidewalks and landscaped areas; possibly adding medians, on street parking, etc. (Pinch points, lane narrowing, midblock narrowings, midblock yield points, constrictions.) Description: • Curb extensions at midblock that narrow a street by widening the boulevard or sidewalk area. Applications: • Works well with pedestrian crossings. • Works well with speed humps, speed tables, raised intersections, textured pavement, and raised median islands. • Some applications use an island, which allows drainage and bicyclists to continue between the choker and the original curb line. Design /Installation Issues: • Bicyclists prefer not to have the travelway narrowed into the path of motor vehicles. • Typically designed to narrow road to 22 feet for two - way traffic with 1:10 tapers at the ends. • Adequate drainage is a key consideration. • Provides opportunity for landscaping. • Vertical delineators, bollards or object markers are often used to make visible to snowplow operators. • Effective when used in a series. • Avoid narrowings of two way traffic to single lanes. • Avoid use in locations where at the crest of a hill and on some curves. • Parking must be restricted at the choker. Evaluation Considerations I �. Wk.1 - � �w Advantages: • Reduces pedestrian crossing width and increases visibility of pedestrian. • May reduce speed and traffic volume • Self- enforcing. • Preferred by many fire department/ emergency response agencies to most other traffic calming measures. Disadvantages: • May impact parking and driveway access. • Unfriendly to bicyclists unless designed to accommodate them. • May impact drainage. Speed Traffic Fuel Air /Noise Cost Emergency Test vs. Other Reduction Reduction Consumption Pollution Services Permanent Probable Possible Small Small Medium Minimal Impact Test May Impact Increase Increase Installation Drainage Possible City of Edina Transportation Policy B -12 FINAL DRAFT - January 6, 2005 Definition: Mainline deviations to deter the path of travel so that the street is not a straight line (by the installation of offset curb extensions). (Deviations, serpentines, reversing curves, twists.) Description: • A series of narrowings or curb extensions that alternate from one side of the street to the other forming S- shaped curves. Applications: • Residential, local streets. • Not allowed on collector and arterial streets. • Appropriate for midblock locations only. • Most effective with equivalent volumes on both approaches. • Typically, is a series of at least three curb extensions. • Can use on- street parking to create chicane. • Very effective method of changing the initial impression of the street. If designed correctly, drivers will not be able to see through. Appears as a road closure yet allows through movement. Design /Installation Issues: • Unless well designed, chicanes may still permit speeding by drivers cutting straight paths across the center line. • Recommend shifts in alignment of at least one lane width, deflection angles of at least 45 degrees, and center islands to prevent drivers from taking a straight "racing line" through the feature. Evaluation Considerations t , Advantages: • Provides opportunity for landscaping. • Pedestrians have reduced crossing distance. • Imposes minimal inconveniences to local traffic. • Accepted by public as speed control device. • May reduce speed and traffic volumes. • Self- enforcing. • Emergency response typically prefer two - lane chicanes to speed humps. Disadvantages: • Can impact parking and driveway access. • Street sweeping may need to be done manually. • May impact drainage. • Typically, not appropriate for intersections. • Not appropriate on some curves. • May cause problems during winter. • Increased maintenance. • May create head -on conflicts on narrow streets. Speed Traffic Fuel Air /Noise Cost Emergency Test vs. Other Reduction Reduction Consumption Pollution Services Permanent Probable Possible Slight Slight Medium to Minimal Test Not Used on Increase Increase High Impact Installation Collector and Possible Arterial streets City of Edina Transportation Policy B -13 FINAL DRAFT - January 6, 2005 Definition: Physical realignment of intersection typically used to promote better through movements for a major roadway (vs. a minor roadway). (Modified intersections.) Description: • Revised street geometrics of an existing intersection that typically improves and decreases the traffic delay for the main through movement (vs. the less important road). Applications: • Typically used to correct and provide a non -stop condition for the legs of an existing intersection with the larger traffic volume. • Used to help define driver's right -of -way. Design /Installation Issues: • Drainage may be an issue. • May require mitigation signage due to substandard curvature of roadway. Evaluation Considerations Advantages: • Provides a more fluent through movement for the major roadway. • Improves driver expectation by providing a more typical intersection. • May better define driver's right -of -way. • May reduce traffic volume. Disadvantages: • May impact parking and driveway access. • May impact drainage. • May be perceived as an inconvenience by some neighbors. • May require additional right -of -way acquisition. Speed Traffic Fuel Air /Noise Cost Emergency Test vs. Other Reduction Reduction Consumption Pollution Services Permanent Varies Varies Small Small High Varies Permanent Decrease Decrease Installation Only City of Edina Transportation Policy B -14 FINAL DRAFT - January 6, 2005 Definition: Circular, raised island placed within the middle of intersections, requiring vehicles to divert around them, potentially forcing drivers to slow down as they traverse around the circle. (Intersection islands, similar to roundabouts.) Description: • Raised islands, placed in intersections, around which traffic circulates (this is not a roundabout). • Motorists yield to motorists already in the intersection. • Require drivers to slow to a speed that allows them to comfortably maneuver around them. Applications: • Intersections of local streets. • Not allowed on collector and arterial streets. • One lane each direction entering intersection. Design /Installation Issues: • Typically circular in shape, though not always. • Often controlled by YIELD signs on all approaches, but many different signage approaches are used. • Key design features are the offset distance (distance between projection of street curb and center island), lane width for circling the circle, the circle diameter, height of mountable outer ring for large vehicles such as school buses and trash trucks, and potential for pedestrian path - vehicle path conflicts. • Usually landscaped in center islands. Quality of landscaping and its maintenance are key issues. • Landscaping needs to be designed to allow adequate sight distance. • Not typically used at intersections with high volume of large trucks and buses turning left. Evaluation Considerations i I i. MR` Advantages: • No effect on access. • May reduce speed and traffic volumes. • Effective in reducing intersection collisions. • Self- enforcing. Disadvantages: • Can result in bicycle /auto conflicts at intersections because of narrowed travel lane. • May require parking restrictions at intersection. • Left turns may be confusing. • Care must be taken to avoid routing vehicles through unmarked crosswalks on side - street approach. • Increased maintenance. Speed Traffic Fuel Air /Noise Cost Emergency Test vs. Other Reduction Reduction Consumption Pollution Services Permanent Possible Possible Slight Small Medium Possible Test Not Used on Increase Increase Increased Installation Collector and Response Time Possible Arterial streets City of Edina Transportation Policy B -15 FINAL DRAFT - January 6, 2005 Definition: Raised circular areas (similar to medians) placed at intersections. Drivers travel in a counterclockwise direction around the circle. Modern roundabouts are 'yield upon entry', meaning that cars in the circle have the right of way and cars entering the circle must wait to do so until the path is clear. When a roundabout is placed in an intersection, vehicles may not travel in a straight line. (Rotaries.) Description: • Circular intersections with specific design and traffic control features including yield control of all entering traffic, channelized approaches, and appropriate geometric curvature to ensure travel speeds within the roundabout are less than 30 mph. Applications: • Intersections of local, collector and arterial streets. • Used to improve the operation of an intersection. • Sometimes used as community enhancement as a gateway treatment. • Used in high crash areas where the crash type is inclined to be corrected by the use of a roundabout. Design /Installation Issues: • Adequate speed reduction. • Design vehicle consideration. • Pedestrian crossings located at least one vehicle length upstream from crossing and only across legs. • Circulating vehicles have the right -of -way. • All vehicles circulate in a counter - clockwise direction and pass to the right of the central island. • Incorporate splitter islands to separate traffic, to deflect entering traffic, and to provide opportunity for pedestrians to cross in two stages. Evaluation Considerations Circular Roadway Advantages: • Reduces speed at intersection approach • Longer speed reduction influence zone. • May reduce traffic volumes. • Effective in reducing intersection collisions. • Self- enforcing. • Provides space for landscaping. • Provides a good environment for bicycles. • Provides equal access to intersections for all drivers. • Cheaper to maintain than a traffic signal. Disadvantages: • Requires a larger amount of right -of -way than a typical intersection. • May require additional lighting and signing. • Initial safety issues as drivers adjust. • Increased maintenance responsibilities. Speed Traffic Splitter Island Air /Noise Cost Emergency Truck Other Reduction Apron Consumption Pollution Services Permanent One -way Probable rEntry operation at 15- Slight 20 mph Possible Permanent Increased Advantages: • Reduces speed at intersection approach • Longer speed reduction influence zone. • May reduce traffic volumes. • Effective in reducing intersection collisions. • Self- enforcing. • Provides space for landscaping. • Provides a good environment for bicycles. • Provides equal access to intersections for all drivers. • Cheaper to maintain than a traffic signal. Disadvantages: • Requires a larger amount of right -of -way than a typical intersection. • May require additional lighting and signing. • Initial safety issues as drivers adjust. • Increased maintenance responsibilities. Speed Traffic Fuel Air /Noise Cost Emergency Test vs. Other Reduction Reduction Consumption Pollution Services Permanent Probable Possible No Effect Slight Medium to Possible Permanent Increased Increase High Increased Installation Maintenance Response Time Only City of Edina Transportation Policy B -16 FINAL DRAFT - January 6, 2005 Definition: A barrier placed diagonally across a four - legged intersection, interrupting traffic flow across the intersection. This type of barrier may be used to create a maze -like effect in a neighborhood. (Diagonal diverter.) Description: • Barriers placed diagonally across an intersection, blocking the through movement. Applications: • Used only on local roadways. • Not allowed on collector and arterial streets. • Closures are typically applied only after other measures have failed or have been determined to be inappropriate. • Often used in sets to make travel through neighborhoods more circuitous - typically staggered internally in a neighborhood, which leaves through movement possible but less attractive than alternative (external) routes. • Closures have been used as a crime prevention tool. Design /Installation Issues: • Provisions are available to make diverters passable for pedestrians and bicyclists. • There may be legal issues associated with closing a public street. • Barriers may consist of landscaped islands, walls, gates, side -by -side bollards, or any other obstruction that leave an opening smaller than the width of a passenger car. • Diverter width and curvature is dependent upon the intersection roadway widths. i Advantages: • Typically reduces traffic volumes. • Reduces speeds at the closure area. • Bicycles /pedestrians may not be restricted. Disadvantages: • May divert significant traffic volumes to parallel local streets. • No significant effect on vehicle speeds beyond the closed block. • Increased emergency response in most cases. • Interrupts street network connectivity. • May impact drainage. • May impact parking. • Tends to increase travel distance. • May increase maintenance. Evaluation consiaerations Speed Traffic Fuel Air /Noise Cost Emergency Test vs. Other Reduction I Reduction Consumption Pollution Services Permanent Probable Probable Small Small Low to Varies Test Not Used on Increase Increase Medium Installation Collector and Possible Arterial streets City of Edina Transportation Policy B -17 FINAL DRAFT - January 6, 2005 Definition: Physical blockage of one direction of traffic on a two -way street. The open lane of traffic is signed "One way", and traffic from the blocked lane is not allowed to go around the barrier through the open lane. (Half closure.) Description: • Barriers that block travel in one direction for a short distance on otherwise two -way streets (when two half - closures are placed across from one another at an intersection, the result is a semi - diverter). Applications: • Not allowed on collector and arterial streets. • Closures are typically applied only after other measures have failed or been determined to be inappropriate. • Often used in sets to make travel through neighborhoods more circuitous - typically staggered internally in a neighborhood, which leaves through movement possible but less attractive than alternative (external) routes. • Closures have been used as a crime prevention tool. • Intended to reduce the through traffic in one direction without the negative access issues of one -way streets. Design /Installation Issues: • Partial closure must extend to centerline of the affected street. • A minimum opening of 14 feet must be maintained. • Provisions are available to make diverters passable for pedestrians and bicyclists. • Barriers may consist of landscaped islands. Evaluation Considerations NI112 Advantages: • Typically reduces traffic volumes (mostly in one direction and possibly in the other). • Reduces speeds at the closure area. • Allows two -way traffic in the remainder of the street. • Shorter pedestrian crossing distance. Disadvantages: • May divert significant traffic volumes to parallel local streets. • No significant effect on vehicle speeds beyond the closed block. • Interrupts street network connectivity. • Enforcement issues (compliance may not be 100 %) • Increased maintenance if landscaped. • Emergency vehicles may be minimally affected (they have to drive around partial closure with care). • Reduces access to residents. Speed Traffic Fuel Air /Noise Cost Emergency Test vs. Other Reduction Reduction Consumption Pollution Services Permanent Possible Probable Small Small Medium Minimal Test Not Used on Increase Increase Impact Installation Collector and Possible Arterial streets City of Edina Transportation Policy B -18 FINAL DRAFT - January 6, 2005 Definition: Physical street closure resulting in a dead end (no outlet) constructed with a circular turn - around area. Description: • A street with no outlet that eliminates cut - through traffic. Applications: • Used only on local streets. • Not allowed on collector and arterial streets. • Cannot be used on truck routes, bus routes, snow emergency routes, through streets, or any other major roadway. Design /Installation Issues: • Must be a minimum of 120 feet of right -of -way (diameter) to accommodate the minimum turn - around radius of 40 feet. • Obtain approval of police, fire and emergency medical services. i I /- Advantages: • Eliminates through traffic. • Reduces speed of the remaining vehicles. • Improves safety for all the street users. • Pedestrian and bike access maintained. Disadvantages: • Reduces emergency vehicle access. • Reduces access to properties for residents. • May be perceived as an inconvenience by some neighbors and an unwarranted restriction by the general public. • May increase trip lengths. • May increase volumes on other streets. • May require additional right -of -way acquisition. Evaluation uonsiaerations Speed Traffic Fuel Air /Noise Cost Emergency Test vs. Other Reduction Reduction Consumption Pollution Services Permanent Probable Yes Small Small High Possible Test Not Used on Increase Increase Increased Installation Collector and Response Time Possible Arterial streets City of Edina Transportation Policy B -19 FINAL DRAFT - January 6, 2005 Definition: Raised island or barrier in the center of the street that serves to segregate traffic. Description: • Raised islands in the centerline of a street that continues through an intersection that blocks the left turn movement from all intersection approaches and the through movement at the cross street. Applications: • Median closures are typically applied only after other measures have failed or been determined to be inappropriate. • Intended to reduce the through traffic in one direction without the negative access issues of one -way streets. Design /Installation Issues: • A minimum opening of 14 feet must be maintained. • Provisions are available to make diverters passable for pedestrians and bicyclists. • Barriers may consist of landscaped islands. Evaluation Considerations .. . ................. i a ECM Advantages: • Typically reduces traffic volumes (mostly in one direction and possibly in the other). • Reduces speeds at the median area. • Allows two -way traffic in the remainder of the street. • Shorter pedestrian crossing distance. Disadvantages: • May divert significant traffic volumes to parallel local streets. • No significant effect on vehicle speeds beyond the closed block. • Interrupts street network connectivity. • Enforcement issues (compliance may not be 100 %) • Increased maintenance if landscaped. • Emergency vehicles may be minimally affected. • Reduces access to residents. Speed Traffic Fuel Air /Noise Cost Emergency Test vs. Other Reduction Reduction Consumption Pollution Services Permanent Small Possible No Effect No Effect Varies Possible Test Possibility Increased Installation Response Time Possible City of Edina Transportation Policy B -20 FINAL DRAFT - January 6, 2005 Definition: Small traffic islands installed at intersections to channel turning movements. (Forced turn barriers, diverters.) Description: • Raised island barriers placed at intersections, typically blocking the through movement. Applications: • Used only on local roadways. • Not allowed on collector and arterial streets. • Physical barrier used to divert traffic to help prevent the temptation of drivers from making an illegal turning or through movement. • Intended to reduce traffic volume or to prevent a turning movement due to safety constraints. • Used for access management. Design /Installation Issues: • Island width and curvature is dependent upon the intersection roadway widths. • Must design corner radii to accommodate vehicle turning movements (e.g. Trucks and buses). Evaluation Considerations 1 r 1 11 f RE Advantages: • Typically reduces traffic volumes. • May reduce speeds at island area. Disadvantages: • May divert significant traffic volumes to parallel streets. • Emergency vehicles may be minimally affected (they have to drive around island with care). • May interrupt street network connectivity. • May increase travel distance. Speed Traffic Fuel Air /Noise Cost Emergency Test vs. Other Reduction Reduction Consumption Pollution Services Permanent Possible Possible Small Small Low to Possible Test Not Used on Increase Increase Medium Increased Installation Collector and Response Time Possible Arterial streets City of Edina Transportation Policy B -21 FINAL DRAFT - January 6, 2005 Definition: Specific monitoring of speeding and other violations by police due to observed, frequent law disobedience. Description: • Use of local police to enforce traffic laws appropriate to traffic problems identified in a neighborhood. Applications: • Should only be used when specific problems are outlined or documented. • Can be used in conjunction with speed wagon applications. Design /Installation Issues: • No design needed in a physical sense. • Due to staff time constraints, every effort should be made to clearly identify the problem (e.g. speeding, driving in the parking lane, running stop signs, etc.) • The problem should be narrowed down to the occurrence day, time, specific location, or vehicle type. • Follow -ups indicating the impact of enforcement are needed to determine the effectiveness. Evaluation Considerations Advantages: • Good temporary public relations tool. • Serves to inform pu0blic that traffic law violations are undesirable behavior for which there are consequences. • Easy to implement. • Can result in area -wide positive impacts. Disadvantages: • Effect is not permanent. • Enforcement is an expensive tool. Speed Traffic Fuel Air /Noise Cost Emergency Test vs. Other Reduction Reduction Consumption Pollution Services Permanent Depends Possible No Effect No Effect High No Effect Temporary on Amount City of Edina Transportation Policy B -22 FINAL DRAFT - January 6, 2005 Definition: Driver feedback signs that use radar to provide motorists with an instant message, displayed on a reader board, telling them how fast they are driving. (Permanent Radar Signs.) Description: • Tool to help raise driver awareness. • Displays speeds of passing vehicles on a reader board • Used in areas with frequent speeding • Stationary Radar Signs direct a motorist's attention to the posted speed limit and displays the speed of the driver's vehicle on a large message board. • Purpose is to remind drivers that they are speeding to help encourage compliance. Applications: • The Police Department may use it as a "speed checkpoint" and have an officer present to issue citations to violators. • Portable Radar Sign on a dolly enables residents to borrow and place on their street • Stationary Radar Signs are used in locations that do not qualify for other physical measures, such as speed humps. Design /Installation Issues: • Needs power to function. Stationary Radar Signs Evaluation Considerations Radar Dolly Radar Speed Trailer Advantages: • Heightens driver awareness of the speed limit and the speed they are traveling. Disadvantages: • May provide only short -term effectiveness. • Vandalism may be an issue. Speed Traffic Fuel Air /Noise Cost Emergency Test vs. Other Reduction Reduction Consumption Pollution Services Permanent Probable No Effect No Effect No Effect Low No Effect Temporary or Permanent City of Edina Transportation Policy B -23 FINAL DRAFT - January 6, 2005 Definition: Educational campaign used to appeal for compliance with traffic laws. Description: • Neighborhood traffic safety campaigns that typically consist of personalized letters or general flyers that are distributed to all residents of a neighborhood that cite statistics on speeding within the neighborhood and appeal for compliance with traffic laws. Applications: • Used in local residential neighborhoods. Design /Installation Issues: • Target all residents of an entire neighborhood (not certain individuals). Evaluation Considerations Neighborhood Traffic Management Area Advantages: • Low cost. • May reduce speeds. • Residents may feel better after the experience despite lack of noticeable results. Disadvantages: • Effects may be short term. Speed Traffic Fuel Air /Noise Cost Emergency Test vs. Other Reduction Reduction Consumption Pollution Services Permanent Possible No Effect No Effect No Effect Low No Effect Temporary or Permanent City of Edina Transportation Policy B -24 FINAL DRAFT - January 6, 2005 Definition: A regulatory sign that gives notice to road users that traffic is required to stop. Used to assign right -of -way at an intersection. Recommended for installation only when specific warrants are met in accordance with the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices ( MMUTCD). Stop signs are generally not installed to divert traffic or reduce speeding. Description: • An octagonal sign with a white legend and border on red background used to require traffic to stop. Applications: • Used at an intersection of a less important road with main road where application of the normal right -of- way rule would not be expected to provide a reasonably safe operation. • Used at a street entering a through highway or street. • Used at an unsignalized intersection in a signalized area. • Used when abnormal conditions exist such as very high speeds, restricted view or crash records indicate a need for stop control. Design /Installation Issues: • Stop signs should not be used for speed control. • Stop signs should be installed in manner that minimizes the numbers of vehicles having to stop. • In most cases, the street carrying the lowest volume should be stopped. A stop sign should not be installed on the major street unless justified by a traffic engineering study. Evaluation Considerations Advantages: • Relatively inexpensive installation cost. • Effectively defines driver's right -of -way. • Reduces speed at the intersection. Disadvantages: • When not warranted and used improperly, they typically cause negative traffic safety impacts (non - compliance with the signs and increased accidents). • May result in increased mid -block speeding. • Full compliance with stop control is rare. Speed Traffic Fuel Air /Noise Cost Emergency Test vs. Other Reduction Reduction Consumption Pollution Services Permanent Varies Varies Small Small Low Possible Temporary or Must meet (may Increase Increase Increased Permanent MMUTCD increase ) Response Time warrants City of Edina Transportation Policy B -25 FINAL DRAFT - January 6, 2005 Definition: The use of regulatory signs to restrict turning movements entirely or partially (e.g. restrictions for certain time periods during peak traffic periods). Description: • Prohibition of turns typically regulated by signs placed where they will most be easily seen by road users who might be intending to turn. Applications: • Used to restrict right, left and U- turns at intersections to work in conjunction with medians, signal systems, etc. • Used during certain time periods (peak traffic hours) to help maintain safety of certain driving situations. Design /Installation Issues: • Most effective when applied to peak traffic hours. • Consideration should be given to install physical barriers (active devices) to aid in the enforcement of the regulatory sign (passive device). Evaluation Considerations Advantages: • Low installation cost. • May increase safety. Disadvantages: • High violation rates without constant enforcement or physical barriers. • May inconvenience residents. Speed Traffic Fuel Air /Noise Cost Emergency Test vs. Other- Reduction Reduction Consumption Pollution Services Permanent Varies Yes Small No Effect Low ', No Effect Temporary or Increase Permanent City of Edina Transportation Policy B -26 FINAL DRAFT - January 6, 2005 Definition: Streets that are designated for use by traffic in one direction only. Typically controlled by the use of "One - Way" regulatory signs. Description: • One -way signs used to indicate streets upon which vehicular traffic is allowed to travel in one direction only. Applications: • Used to restrict through traffic in isolated applications or in combinations that create maze -like routes through a neighborhood. • Used to increase street capacity and traffic flow. Design /Installation Issues: • Combine one -way streets in ways that force turns every block or two to avoid speeding or cut - through problems. ONE WAY Evaluation Considerations Advantages: • May increase roadway capacity. • May reduce traffic volumes. Disadvantages: • May inconvenience residents. • May increase speeds. • Enforcement issues. • May increase volumes on other streets. Speed Traffic Fuel Air /Noise Cost Emergency Test vs. Other Reduction Reduction Consumption Pollution Services Permanent No Possible Small Small Low Varies Temporary or Decrease Decrease Permanent City of Edina Transportation Policy B -27 FINAL DRAFT - January 6, 2005 Definition: Semi - actuated traffic signals that are programmed to rest on green or red for the different legs of the intersection. Typically, signals are dependent upon traffic demand and maximized based upon total intersection delay with the rest on red given to the leg with the lower approach volume. Description: • "Rest on Red" is an application of a signal system where all approaches to an intersection face red lights. If advance loops detect an approaching vehicle moving at or below the desired speed and no other vehicle is being served at the cross street, the signal turns green. If speeding is detected, the green phase is not triggered until the vehicle comes to rest at the stop line. • "Rest on Green" is an application of a signal system where approaches along a main street will have a green light. If the traffic on the main street is moving at or below the desired speed and no one is waiting on the side street, the light will remain green on the main street. The signal will switch to red if speeding is detected. Applications: • An application of a signal system used to control speed. Design /Installation Issues: • Should not be used on roadways with high levels of traffic due to operational concerns. • May be used at non -peak times at some intersections. Evaluation Considerations Advantages: • Punishes or rewards based on compliance with speed limits. • Somewhat self- enforcing. Disadvantages: • May affect intersection operation if used at intersections with high levels of traffic. Speed Traffic Fuel Air /Noise Cost Emergency Test vs. Other Reduction I Reduction Consumption Pollution Services Permanent Possible Varies Varies Varies High No Effect Temporary or Other Permanent Agency Ap proval City of Edina Transportation Policy B -28 FINAL DRAFT - January 6, 2005 Definition: Paint or thermoplastic street markings commonly placed for delineation that provides guidance and information to the road user. Description: • Centerline, edgeline and transverse markings on the street used to provide guidance and information to the driver. Applications: • Used to supplement other traffic control devices. • Used to effectively convey regulations, guidance or warning. • Centerlines and edgeline use may have the effect of visually narrowing the roadway. • Used to create bicycle lanes. • Patterns of transverse markings placed across travel paths used to help slow traffic at intersections and at horizontal curve locations. Design /Installation Issues: • The materials used for markings should provide the specified color throughout their useful life. • Consideration should be given to selecting materials that will minimize tripping or loss of traction for pedestrians and bicyclists. Advantages: • Provide important information while allowing minimal diversion of driver attention from the roadway. • Perception of narrowing the roadway may modestly reduce speeds. Disadvantages: • Visibility of markings can be limited by snow, debris and water. • Marking durability is limited. Evaluation consiaerations Speed Traffic Fuel Air /Noise Cost Emergency Test vs. Other Reduction I Reduction Consumption Pollution Services Permanent Possible No Effect No Effect No Effect Low No Effect Permanent Installation Only City of Edina Transportation Policy B -29 FINAL DRAFT - January 6, 2005 City of Edina Transportation Policy FINAL DRAFT — January 6, 2005 Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan Application Form Contact Name: Address: ' Day /Message Phone: Today's Date: 'E -mail Address: Please indicate traffic issues that concern residents in your neighborhood: ■ ■ ■ Speeding Pedestrian /Bicycle Safety Other: ❑ Traffic Volumes ❑ Accidents CRY OF 4 - EDINA Engineering DeRartment 4801 West 50 Street Edina, Minnesota 55424 -1394 (952) 826 -0371 www.cityofedina.com Suggested Traffic Calming Measures (See Appendix B of the Transportation Commission Policy, please rank, No. 1 is most favored): Proposed Location from: to (street name) on (street name) (street name) We, the undersigned, as residents, hereby request the evaluation of the traffic management device listed above. We understand we may be 'assessed for the cost for the device. Please list all addresses in the potentially benefited area. One signature per household or business. Date Name lease print) Address Signature Page _ of Please return the completed application form to the Engineering Department at the address noted above. The Minnesota Data Practices Act requires that we inform you of your rights about the private data we are requesting on this form. Under the law, your telephone number is private data. This application when submitted will become public information. There is no consequence for refusing to supply this information. Edina NTMP Application Form- FINAL DRAFT - January 6, 2005 Acknowledgments and References Edina Transportation Commission: Joni Kelly Bennett Dean Dovolis Warren Plante Fred Richards (Chair) Marie Thorpe Les Wanninger Jean White Technical and Advisory: City of Edina Engineering Department City of Edina Public Works Department City of Edina Planning Department City of Edina Police Department City of Edina Fire Department City of Edina Local Traffic Task Force Cities' Websites: • City of Albuquerque Neighborhood Traffic Management Program hLtp://www.cabg.gov/streets/Xolicies.html • City of Boulder Planning and Public Works http: / /www3.ci.boulder.co.us /pwplafi/ • City of Las Vegas Traffic Engineering Division hap : / /www.lasvegasnevada.goy/public works/ • City of Bellevue Transportation Department hM:/ /www.ci.bellevue.wa.us /page_asp ?view =1056 • City of Bloomington Traffic Calming Policy and Procedure Manual http: / /www.ci. bloomington. mn .us /cityhall/commiss /ttac /calmin calming htm • City of Colorado Springs Traffic Engineering Management hLtp://www.gpringsgov.com/Pa.ge.asp?NavID=l 397 • City of Austin Transportation Division hq: / /www.ci.austin.tx.us /roadworks /default.htm • City of Vancouver Engineering Services http:// www .ciiy.vancouver.bc.ca/engsvcs/ • City of Gresham's Neighborhood Traffic Control Program http: / /www.ite.org/traffic /documents /Gresham.pdf • City of Portland Office of Transportation hM: / /www. trans. ci. portland.or.us /Trafficcalmingthow/how.htm City of Edina Transportation Policy D -1 FINAL DRAFT — January 6, 2005 • City of Berkley Office of Transportation http: / /www.ci.berkeleyca.us /transportation/ • Seattle Department of Transportation http: / /www.seattle. gov /trangportation/ntcpreports.htm • City of Savage Traffic Safety Committee hllp: / /www.ci.savage.mn.us /traffic safety.html • City of Tempe Traffic Management Program h!Ltp://www.tempe.gov/traffic/trafin,gnt.htm • City of Asheville Neighborhood Traffic Calming Policy http:// www. ci. asheville. nc .us /engineer/Trafficpolicy.pdf • City of Honolulu Transportation Services http:// www. co.honolulu.hi.us /dts /index.htm • City of Rochester, New York Neighborhood Traffic Calming Programs http: / /www.ci.rochester .ny.us /streetcalm/index.htm Websites: • Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Traffic Calming ht!p://www.ite.org/traffic/index.html • US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration - Traffic Calming btip://www.fhwa.dot.gov/enviromnent/tcahn/ • www.Traffic Calming.org http: / /www.trafficcalming.org/ • LessTraffic.com hQ: / /www. lesstraffic .com /Programs /SR/SR.htm • US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration - Roundabouts hLtp://www.tflirc.zov/safety/00068.pd • Victoria Transportation Policy Institute http: / /www.yVi.org/dm/ • Minnesota Safety Council — Crosswalk Safety http:// www .mnsafetycouncil.org/crosswalk/ • Bucknell University — Traffic Calming Measures http: / /www. students.bucknell.edu/proj ects /trafficcalming/Measures.html • Minnesota Department of Transportation — Pedestrian Plan b!V://www.dot.state.nm.us/modes/Tedplan.html • 3 E's of Traffic Calming hLV://www.3etrafficcalming.com/ • US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration — Safety Research hM://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/safety.htm Publications and Manuals: 1) Ewing, Reid H. Traffic Calming State of the Practice. Washington, DC: Institute of Transportation Engineers 1999. 2) City of Edina Transportation Plan. Edina, Minnesota, 1999. City of Edina Transportation Policy D -2 FINAL DRAFT — January 6, 2005 3) City of Edina Local Traffic Task Force Findings and Recommendations. Edina, Minnesota. 2003. 4) Collier County Neighborhood Traffic Management Program. Collier County, Florida. 5) Reardon, Linda. Traffic Calming — Creatively Mitigating Traffic Speeds and Volumes. CE News. November 2001. 6) Traffic Calming, City of Minneapolis Department of Public Works Transportation Division. Minneapolis, Minnesota. 1997 7) Canadian Guide to Neighborhood Traffic Calming. Transportation Association of Canada — Canadian Institute of Transportation Engineers. December 1998 8) Saffel, Amy J. Effective Traffic Calming Applications and Implementations. Minnesota Local Road Research Board. St. Paul, Minnesota, October 1998 9) Monahan, Bill. Getting People to Police Themselves. APWA Reporter. July 2004 10) Transportation Policy Plan. Metropolitan Council, Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, Minnesota. December 1996 City of Edina Transportation Policy D -3 FINAL DRAFT — January 6, 2005 Jeanne K. Hanson Literary Agent 6708 Cornelia Dr. Edina, Minnesota 55435 Phone and Fax: (952) 920 -8819 e -mail: jkhlit@aol.com Jean White Transportation Committee City of Edina December 22, 2004 Dear Jean, I have a couple of questions, as a concerned citizen, about changing the traffic flow /volume within the Country Club neighborhood. The law that covers associations gives such groups some unusual rights, and, though I don't know much about them, it's possible that the city might make an unfortunate misstep here. It might be a good idea to inquire of the City of Edina attorney along the following lines: 1) Is the Country Club neighborhood an "association" under the law? (It was developed as one of the first suburbs in America, in the days when the developers asked new residents to participate in a "covenant." Some, if not many, of these covenants later became associations.) 2) If the Country Club neighborhood is an association, does it have the right- -under certain circumstances (see, e.g. questions 3 and 4 below) - -to take control of any of its existing "common property" such as streets or access points, provided that it assumes the upkeep of them? (A resort association I used to belong to took over public access to a beach. And a certain number of new exurban developments today control their own streets.) 3) Would it have this property right if and only if these streets and access points were not used (under some definition) by the outside public? (If not, is there another way this might develop ?) 4) If the City of Edina were to divert traffic in a major way, creating blockades, closed streets, cul -de -sacs, and the like, restricting or preventing non - Country Club drivers from using them, would this create for the Country Club neighborhood a first step towards control along these lines (as mentioned in question 2)? I'm certainly not saying that the people of Country Club (quite a few of whom I know and like) are engaged in some sort of tricky conspiracy here. I've never been into conspiracies! What I am concerned about is that the City could take a traffic- related step that might later, or eventually, lead to something like a gated community in our midst. Very truly yours, Jeanne K. Hanson CC Mayor James Hovland Darlene Wallin From: Gordon Hughes Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2004 11:02 AM To: Darlene Wallin Subject: FW: Transportation Policy affecting 44th Street - - - -- Original Message---- - From: AnnaLom @aol.com [mailto:AnnaLom @aol.com] Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2004 11:01 AM To: Wayne Houle Cc: Gordon Hughes; plombardo @statesupply.com Subject: Transportation Policy affecting 44th Street To all persons: -I am opposed to the current draft Transportation policy as WE ARE DIRECTLY AFFECTED by ANY traffic changes that impact 44th Street -I am opposed to all traffic calming methods that increase emergency response times -I am opposed to limiting citizen's access to residential streets -I want the definition of an "impacted area" to include those negatively affected by limitation of access -I wanted the IMPACTED AREA RADIUS INCREASED for all purposes, INCLUDING NOTIFICATION and public hearings, to include ALL ALL ALL ALL RESIDENTS who reasonably self- define as "impacted" -I want at least a 70% threshold of support /opposition for any project to be advanced or defeated -I want a policy that considers and serves the residents of the ENTIRE community, NOT just residents of a single neighborhood Sincerely, Anna Lombardo 4401 North Avenue Corner of 44th and North 1 • t To: The Edina Transportations Committee And The Edina City Council And Edina Engineering Department 4801 West 50'h Street Edina, MN 55424 To all persons: I am opposed to the current draft Transportation policy. I am opposed to traffic calming measures for traffic volume control. I am opposed to all traffic calming methods that increase emergency response times. I am opposed to limiting citizen's access to residential streets. I want the definition of an "Impacted Area" to include those negatively affected by limitation of access. I want the "Impacted Area" radius increased for all purposes, including notification and public hearings, to include ALL residents who reasonably self - define as "Impacted ". I want at least a 70 % threshold of support /opposition for any project to be advanced or defeated. I want a policy that considers and serves the residents of the entire community, not just residents of a single neighborhood. Sincerely, i� Print Name: pa -kr:c-: a�� 51n�lc�c� �c taw {Z Address: C-1cl Z ^O' t VNA rU 5 S `-k ��. December 27, 2004 Dear Edina City Council Members, City Engineering Staff and The Edina Transportation Commission, As requested, we are writing the Edina Traffic Commission (ETC), Edina City staff and the Edina City Council with our thoughts and concerns about the transportation policy draft and —more importantly —the process through which it has been developed. Our immediate impression and concern is the obvious conflict of interest held by Commissioner Marie Thorpe. The Thorpe family developed and built the Country Club District— another clear conflict of interest. This gives the impression that she has preferential access to City Hall that most residents of Edina do not, and her past involvement with Country Club traffic issues render her role on the Commission disingenuous at the very least. Her direct involvement as the Chairperson of a ten member committee attempting to close off the County Club neighborhood to "outside" residents are outlined and documented in a 2001 Fall issue (August 29) of the Edina.Sun Current. She is also involved as a volunteer on the Edina Country Club web site (interestingly only accessible with a password) where the very same traffic changes and issues that were voted down in 2001 are being discussed and promoted by Thorpe, Country Club resident Robb Webb and others. Clearly the commissioners are entitled to their own'opimons regarding various issues, but it is egregiously cynical to appoint someone to the ETC who has previously led the charge to deliberately close off access.to certain neighborhood streets (her own, of course) in order to redirect traffic onto nearby neighboring streets. Such traffic management changes most certainly would benefit a very small minority at the expense of the majority of Edina residents. This is not the kind of mentality we want serving as our "representative" on any Edina commission. Her past involvement with this very sensitive issue is common knowledge among most Edina, Country Club and Momingside residents. Why would the City and Mayor of Edina risk even a "perceived" conflict of interest with matters that have such a long history of contentiousness in the Edina community? It is time for the Edina Transportation Commission to cease any efforts to forward. approval of a policy until Commissioner Thorpe has been removed and someone else is appointed who has the objectivity and the ability to assess these very important and sensitive issues in a professional, reasoned and less self - serving manner. Sincerely, Mr. and Mrs. E. J. Everett December 28, 2004 Edina Transportations Committee 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 Dear Transportation Committee Members, I am a nine -year resident of the Country Club neighborhood in Edina, and I am opposed to the Transportation Policy draft now being considered by your Committee. I am also opposed to the previously proposed street changes in this neighborhood. In my opinion, these changes would have a negative effect on the Country Club neighborhood, and also the surrounding neighborhoods. The current street setup and street usage works well for the residents of Edina, by spreading traffic out over the entire area. The previously proposed street changes would increase traffic levels to an unacceptable level on several streets, while impairing residents ability to maneuver in their neighborhoods. As you proceed with discussions on traffic patterns in this area of Edina, I request that you notify all residents of Edina and schedule public hearings for this issue. Ultimately, I would like any policy to serve the entire community rather than a favored few. Thank you for taking time to consider my concerns! Sincerely, A91 4��7'C-Z7 Michael Brower 4409 West 44th Street Edina, MN 55424 Edina Transportation Commission 4801 West 506' Street Edina, MN 55424 Wednesday, December 29, 2004 Dear Commission members, Those who would be impacted by "inconvenience" have information and knowledge to contribute. To exclude them compromises the ability of the City to learn valuable information about citizen use of roadways. Years ago, before a 5& street project, I attended a meeting at the City. When I described some of my circuitous routes to successfully reconnect with France Avenue south of 50th at certain times of day, one of the contractor's staff said to me, `Oh we hate that it is so hard to measure'. I remember it still because the conversation betrayed a tendency toward analytical weakness. The multiple time -of -day options in any direction contribute to a high quality of life in this congested area where i live, and therefore these are critical variables to identify and quantify. For a truly informed policy implementation anywhere, it is essential to not simply address complaints, but to aggressively identify and actively discuss those positive aspects of the things that people so typically take for granted every day, such as a flexible route network. For example, on a day -to -day basis, people will not actively seek you out to exclaim how wonderful their multiple time- of-day routes are in my neighborhood. Dear people, if a proposal has sufficient merit, then it should be able to stand the test of public comment. Furthermore, it would be terrible to see the politics of social disorder imposed via the forcible exclusion of affected citizenry. "I don't see you —you don't see me" is a cute game to play with a 2 year old, but in the context of policy language, it has very limited appeal. I am therefore of the strongest opinion that the following language should be removed from the policy draft, in order to better dignify us all: From the Definitions section: Impacted area: "...Inconvenience carved by limitation of access is not considered to be a negative impact under this definition" Additionally, I would be ever so pleased if you would pursue innovative new policy initiatives to encourage driver compliance rather than the more typical passive practices that currently prevail. Would love to discuss further. Sorry to cut this short. Such limited time having become aware of this at the holidays. Thank you for your work and your time and for additional considerations. Kisses and a Happy New Year, M Roberta Castellano 4854 France Avenue South Edina, MN 55410 -1756 Dec 29, 2004 Edina Engineering Department 4801 West 50'` Street Edina, MN 55424 I am writing to express my opinion on the flagrantly outrageous proposed traffic changes within the Country Club area of Edina. As a lifelong resident of either Edina or St Louis Park, I am shocked at the audacity of the suggestion that unless you live within a confined neighborhood, you are to not use the streets. A major change of the street structure within an already established area effects the value of all surrounding areas also. Houses have been purchased and businesses established in part based on traffic patterns, convenience and access. The consideration of where I live in St Louis Park was influenced definitely on my ability to access any surrounding neighborhood and business district. The proposal is self - centered and sets a scary precedent for other neighborhoods. Couldn't the Creekside or Brookside neighborhoods decide they do not like the through traffic coming from Edina and close off most access on Brookside at 44th SO Or the Browndale or Minnekada neighborhoods for that matter? The Impact Area is definitely greater than that one immediate neighborhood. A community does not end at the political border. I grew up in Edina and now live in St Louis Park, these are streets that I have always driven. I am embarrassed at the arrogance of the notion, "Keep your traffic out of our neighborhood." Nd Nancy 4150 Xenwood Ave St Louis Park 952- 928 -9956 December 28, 2007 TO: The Edina Transportation Commission The Edina City Council The Edina City Engineering Department The Edina Sun Current As residents of the City of Edina, we're writing to express our concerns and opinions about the Draft Transportation Policy written by City staff —with input from the Commission —and presented to the public on December 6th. Specifically, it is the following items that draw into question the credibility of the proposed plan and the process used to develop the plan. • Public input was not sought until the draft and process were near completion and the holiday season was in full swing. • There was no public notice of the public comment period or the availability of the draft policy for public review until Thursday, November 25'" Thanksgiving Day — almost one month after the public comment period opened. This gave the public very little time to learn about and respond before the "open house" on December 9h—the only meeting held to gather public comment before the policy is taken by the Commission to the Council for approval. • At the open house at City Hall, residents were presented with a very abbreviated version of the plan that lacked many critical facts and information relevant to those who would be most impacted by any proposed transportation changes and measures (e.g. notification areas, priority ranking of traffic study requests, etc.). The City Engineer's presentation was an even more distilled version of the policy draft, which offered little in terms of substance and specifics as to how the policy will be implemented. • The arbitrary deadlines attached to the approval timeline of this policy have clearly taken precedent over thoughtful consideration and public input. This draws into question' how a January or February approval deadline coincides with the street reconstruction schedule for identified neighborhoods in 2005. • The policy needs to provide context for acceptable and reasonable (realities vs. engineering principles) traffic volumes based on accurately defined street classifications; the policy does not provide (accurate) classification definitions for "local ", "collector" and "arterial" streets. Distinctions need to be made between local, collector and arterial streets — collectors are not arterial. The plan conveniently blurs these definitions. • The policy's definition of "impacted area" does not include residents who are negatively affected by traffic policies and changes. Notification and the "impacted radius" needs to include, for all purposes, all residents who reasonably self - define as "impacted ". • The policy should specify a minimum of a 60 % -700/o threshold of support or opposition for any project to be advanced or defeated (and paid for by all Edina residents). • The proposed policy promotes traffic calming measures for volume control (reduction of traffic on local streets by partial or full street closure). Most communities have either discontinued use of volume control because it diverts traffic to adjacent streets and neighborhoods; it interferes with access by emergency vehicles, and interferes with local travel on local streets. • The City so far has not released information on how many traffic studies and change requests have been made to the city in recent history, who has made them and at what expense to the tax payers such studies have been performed. Requests have been made, but the City to date has not provided this information. This includes releasing for public review the most recent traffic counts in Edina (keeping in mind that the most accurate traffic count study is a license plate study). • The City Council should not approve this policy before some financial data and projections are provided on what most recent traffic studies to date have cost tax payers and what the financial projections are for implementing this more formal policy. • The definition of "cut through" traffic needs to be reflective of that fact that every resident in Edina could claim this to be a traffic issue on their street. Further review should address what is considered "cut through" instead of the commonly implied ownership of streets in front of one's house. • The City's summer 2004 reviews of traffic calming devices done by City Planning, Engineering, Public Works and emergency responders should be available to the public on the City's web site as well as incorporated into the draft policy. • As it is currently drafted, the policy does not go far enough to represent the interests of all Edina residents; operationally, it pits one neighborhood against another, rather than looking at the community as a whole —a city -wide approach is paramount for resolving traffic issues. • Finally, the plan should ensure projects that benefit a small minority do not receive approval (particularly when study findings do not warrant their approval), at the expense of all residents of Edina (e.g. the $30,000 spent on consulting fees alone for studies done in the Country Club District in 2000 - 2001). It is our expectation that the City will address the concerns held by all Edina residents when furthering an Edina transportation plan to fairly address the serious issue of traffic volume and speed throughout our entire community. Sincerely, Residents of 44h Street West, Edina December 27, 2004 TO: The Edina City Engineering Department As a resident of the City of Edina, I am writing to express my concerns and opinions about the Draft Transportation Policy written by City staff —with input from the Commission —and presented to the public December 6th. I am particularly concerned with the polarizing effect this policy has imposed on our community. Although Country Club and Morningside are considered separate neighborhoods, we are all neighbors living within a mile of one another. Some residents of the two neighborhoods are separated by a single Street. However, the impact of street closures or other "traffic - calming" devices will have a much greater reach that a single street, or a single neighborhood. It is my understanding that neighbors living more that a street away from the "traffic - calming device" will not have any input into their placement. This is ridiculous and should not be tolerated by residents or by the city. Has it gotten to the point where Country Club will be gated off so that Morningside neighbors will be cut off from driving through that area, while Country Club residents will be free to drive on Morningside streets on their way to Excelsior Blvd? It is obvious why tensions exist. Perhaps less money should go to traffic studies and more towards speed and traffic enforcement on neighborhood streets. Country Club residents I have spoken to complain about speeders and people running stop signs, not neighbors from Morningside driving on local streets. Sincerely, Elizabeth Heinecke 4213 Branson St. Y4 �t p.s. It is my understanding that the following items draw into question the credibility of the proposed plan and the process with which it was developed. • Public input was not sought until the draft and process were near completion and the holiday season was in full swing. • There was no public notice of the public comment period or the availability of the draft policy for public review until Thursday, November 250'-- Thanksgiving Day — almost one month after the public comment period opened. This gave the Rublic very little time to learn about and respond before the "open house" on December 9 —the only meeting held to gather public comment before the policy is taken by the Commission to the Council for approval. • At the open house at City Hall, residents were presented with a very abbreviated version of the plan that lacked many critical facts and information relevant to those who would be most impacted by any proposed transportation changes and measures (e.g. notification areas, priority ranking of traffic study requests, etc.). The City Engineer's presentation was an even more distilled version of the policy draft, which offered little in terms of substance and specifics as to how the policy will be implemented. • The arbitrary deadlines attached to the approval timeline of this policy have clearly taken precedent over thoughtfid consideration and public input. This draws into question how a January or February approval deadline coincides with the street reconstruction schedule for identified neighborhoods in 2005. • The policy needs to provide context for acceptable and reasonable (realities vs. engineering principles) traffic volumes based on accurately defined street classifications; the policy does not provide (accurate) classification definitions for "local ", "collector" and "arterial" streets. Distinctions need to be made between local, collector and arterial streets-- collectors are not arterial. The plan conveniently blurs these definitions. • The policy's definition of "impacted area" does -not include residents who are negatively affected by traffic policies and changes. Notification and the "impacted radius" needs to include, for all purposes, all residents who reasonably self -define as "impacted ". • The policy should specify a minimum of a 60°/x70% threshold of support or opposition for any project to be advanced or defeated (and paid for by all Edina residents). • The proposed policy promotes traffic calming measures for volume control (reduction of traffic on local streets by partial or full street closure). Most communities have either discontinued use of volume control because it diverts traffic to adjacent streets and neighborhoods; it interferes with access by emergency vehicles, and interferes with local travel on local streets. • The City so far has not released information on how many traffic studies and change requests have been made to the city in recent history, who has made them and at what expense to the tax payers such studies have been performed. Requests have been made, but the City to date has not provided this information. This includes releasing for public review the most recent traffic counts in Edina (keeping in mind that the most accurate traffic count study is a license plate study). • The City Council should not approve this policy before some financial data and projections are provided on what most recent traffic studies to date have cost tax payers and what the financial projections are for implementing this more formal policy. • The definition of "cut through" traffic needs to be reflective of that fact that every resident in Edina could claim this to be a traffic issue on their street. Further review should address what is considered "cut through" instead of the commonly implied ownership of streets in front of one's house. • The City's summer 2004 reviews of traffic calming devices done by City Planning, Engineering, Public Works and emergency responders should be available to the public on the City's web site as well as incorporated into the draft policy. • As it is currently drafted, the policy does not go far enough to represent the interests of all Edina residents; operationally it pits one neighborhood against another, rather than looking at the community as a whole —a city -wide approach is paramount for resolving traffic issues. • Finally, the plan should ensure projects that benefit a small minority do not receive approval (particularly when study findings do not warrant their approval), at the expense of all residents of Edina (e.g. the $30,000 spent on consulting fees alone for studies done in the Country Club District in 2000 - 2001). To: The Edina Transportations Committee And The Edina City Council And Edina Engineering Department 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 To all persons: I am opposed to the current draft Transportation policy. I am opposed to traffic calming measures for traffic volume control. I am opposed to all traffic calming methods that increase emergency response times. I am opposed to limiting citizen's access to residential streets. I want the definition of an "Impacted Area" to include those negatively affected by limitation of access. I want the "Impacted Area" radius increased for all purposes, including notification and public hearings, to include ALL residents who reasonably self -define as "Impacted". I want at least a 70 % threshold of supportlopposition for any project to be advanced or defeated. I want a policy that considers and serves the residents of the entire community, not just residents of a single neighborhood. 1 / l-t o p - eorl-p— e, t' 0—,:P" ,. �' �� 0 ��eK i d !�4 4— I P— Sincerely, r c �� -�o ,C ri r'�� . (3 1� �- o 6 -� 0--Z Print Name: Address: , y q 4 slo,-e t,4- Fare' WL� ski . j To: The Edina Transportations Committee And The Edina City Council And Edina Engineering Department 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 To all persons: I am opposed to the current draft Transportation policy. I am opposed to traffic calming measures for traffic volume control. I am opposed to all traffic calming methods that increase emergency response times. I am opposed to limiting citizen's access to residential streets. I want the definition of an "Impacted Area" to include those negatively affected by limitation of access. I want the "Impacted Area" radius increased for all purposes, including notification and public hearings, to include ALL residents who reasonably self - define as "Impacted ". I want at least a 70 % threshold of supportlopposition for any project to be advanced or defeated. I want a policy that considers and serves the residents of the entire community, not just residents of a single neighborhood. Sincerely, Print Name: Address: - The Edina Transportation Committee - The Edina City Council - Edina Engineering Department 4801 W. 50'' St. Edina, MN 55242 To All Persons: Thursday, December 30, 2004 (delivered personally this date to Edina City Offices) In the last month I have been informed by two bulletins circulated in my neighborhood of changes being considered in the City of Edina's Transportation Policy; and also by an article in the 12/16/94 Edina Sun - Current commenting upon a 12/9/04 Edina Transportation Commission open house meeting; as well as by a Letter to the Editor in today's 12/30/04 Edina Sun - Current. I have not yet been able to responsibly familiarize myself with the matter —but perceive the neighborhood notices to be recommending vehement opposition to several aspects of the plan that is being developed;. and the 12/16 Sun - Current article quoting some City of Edina officials or advisors seeming to discount or at least diminish the current concerns of some parties or neighborhood groups; and the Letter to the Editor today suggesting in part that there was limited -time notice given for the matter to be fully aired. I do not consider myself able at this time to confidently take the stand suggested in all of the points contained the sample letter offered in the latest neighborhood bulletin for signing and forwarding to all parties noted above, but am signing it "conditionally" and attaching it to this letter, due to the deadline today of registering comments for consideration at a next meeting of the Committee on January 6, 2005 (which meeting I do plan to attend). However, if some of the research done by its authors is accurate, and the negative implications for all neighborhoods contiguous to and surrounding the Country Club District are valid —I am indeed concerned enough to register my "unconditional" disapproval of the plan as it is presently being advanced, until further, wider public engagement can be arranged to more openly and thoroughly consider all implications of the matter. The appropriate guiding principle in the difficult decisions that will have to eventually be made seems to me to be that the disruptions and disadvantages of increasingly burdensome traffic demands in the entire sector under consideration must to be accepted and equitably shared by all legitimately affected parties and neighborhoods. Respectfully submitted, �0 &,�./ William L. Hannon 4701 W. 44" St, Edina, MN 55424 952- 929 -7973 • To: The Edina Transportations Committee And The Edina City Council And Edina Engineering Department 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 To all persons: I am opposed to the current draft Transportation policy. I am opposed to traffic calming measures for traffic volume control. I am opposed to all traffic calming methods that increase emergency response times. I am opposed to limiting citizen's access to residential streets. I want the definition of an "Impacted Area" to include those negatively affected by limitation of access. I want the "Impacted Area" radius increased for all purposes, including notification and public hearings, to include ALL residents who,reasonably self - define as "Impacted ". I want at least a 70 % threshold of support/opposition for any project to be advanced or defeated. I want a policy that considers and serves the residents of the entire community, not just residents of a single neighborhood. Sincerely, Print Name: Address: hr' w(Ar", L. r4 w c W 7e1-1 2 December 30, 2004 Karen Hinz 4194 West 40 St. Edina, MN 55424 TO: The Edina Transportation Comaussh The Edina City Council The Edina City Engineering Department The Edina Sun Current PAID DEC 3 0 2004 As a resident of the City of Edina (or St. Louis Park), I am writing to express my concerns and opinions about the Draft Transportation Policy written by City staff —with input from the Commission —and presented to the public December 6th. Specifically, it is the following items that draw into question the credibility of the proposed plan and the process with which it was developed. • The city of Edina is situated in the heart of the metropolitan area. It borders several other large cities and is therefore in the midst of many traffic patterns. The concept of a "neighborhood" traffic policy seems like a bad policy that is destined to pit neighbor against neighbor. Unfortunately for all of us that live in Edina, the traffic volume will not be reduced until other arterial routes are corrected such as highway 100. In the meantime, the traffic volume should be shared by all those who enjoy this great community instead of pushing it from one neighborhood to another. • Public input was not sought until the draft and process were near completion and the holiday season was in full swing. • There was no public notice of the public comment period or the availability of the draft policy for public review until Thursday, November 25k- Thanksgiving Day — almost one month after the public comment period opened. This gave the public very little time to learn about and respond before the "open house" on December 96' —the only meeting held to gather public comment before the policy is taken by the Commission to the Council for approval. • At the open house at City Hall, residents were presented with a very abbreviated version of the plan that lacked many critical facts and information relevant to those who would be most impacted by any proposed transportation changes and measures (e.g. notification areas, priority ranking of traffic study requests, etc.). The City Engineer's presentation was an even more distilled version of the policy draft, which offered little in terms of substance and specifics as to how the policy will be implemented. • The arbitrary deadlines attached to the approval timeline of this policy have clearly taken precedent over thoughtful consideration and public input. This draws into question how a January or February approval deadline coincides with the street reconstruction schedule for identified neiAhorhoods in 201_5. • The policy needs to provide context for acceptable and reasonable (realities vs. engineering principles) traffic volumes based on accurately defined street classifications; the policy does not provide (accurate) classification definitions for "local ", "collector" and "arterial" streets. Distinctions need to be made between local, collector and arterial streets —collectors are not arterial. The plan conveniently blurs these definitions. • The policy's definition of "impacted area" does not include residents who are negatively affected by traffic policies and changes. Notification and the "impacted radius" needs to include, for all purposes, all residents who reasonably self -define as "impacted ". • The policy should specify a minimum of a 60 % -70% threshold of support or opposition for any project to be advanced or defeated (and paid for by all Edina residents). • The proposed policy promotes traffic calming measures for volume control (reduction of traffic on local streets by partial or full street closure). Most communities have either discontinued use of volume control because it diverts traffic to adjacent streets and neighborhoods; it interferes with access by emergency vehicles, and interferes with local travel on local streets. • The City so far has not released information on how many traffic studies and change requests have been made to the city in recent history, who has made them and at what expense to the tax payers such studies have been performed. Requests have been made, but the City to date has not provided this information. This includes releasing for public review the most recent traffic counts in Edina (keeping in mind that the most accurate traffic count study is a license plate study). • The City Council should not approve this policy before some financial data and projections are provided on what most recent traffic studies to date have cost tax payers and what the financial ,projections are for implementing this more formal policy. • The definition of "cut through" traffic needs to be reflective of that fact that every resident in Edina could claim this to be a traffic issue on their street. Further review should address what is considered "cut through" instead of the commonly implied ownership of streets in front of one's house. • The City's summer 2004 reviews of traffic calming devices done by City Planning, Engineering, Public Works and emergency responders should be available to the public on the City's web site as well as incorporated into the draft policy. • Finally, the plan should ensure projects that benefit a small minority do not receive approval (particularly when study findings do not warrant their approval), at the expense of all residents of Edina (e.g. the $30,000 spent on consulting fees alone for studies done in the Country Club District in 2000 - 2001). Regards, ) Karen Hinz To: The Edina Tramportations Committee And The Edina City Council And "I" Engineering Department 4801 Rest 50m Stmt Edina, MN 55424 To all persons: X aJm opposed to the current draft T � X am opposed to �portatxon policy. I am opposed to a���.��calmin m ds r h that - volume control. Y am opposed to lijaWm , access that Lotq`ease emergency response times. X want the definition of an " acted to residential streois,' li�mitahon of access. p Area" to include those Aegatively affected by I Want the "Impacted Areaix radius increased - and public hearkap, to include ALL res for 48 P sonab ' includiA g noti�icatiou "Impacted". lY self - define as I Rant at least a 70 % threshold of su advanced of defeated, PPortlopposW" for any project to be � I want a 1►ohcy tit considers and series the just residents of a shwe neighborhood. resideAts of the entire community, not Sincerely, -fd 11 e mod, / Pribt ,Name: Address: S4-. 4 0 K-S S�{ z CJ - The Edina Transportation Committee - The Edina City Council - Edina Engineering Department 4801 W. 50th St. Edina, MN 55242 To All Persons: Thursday, December 30, 2004 (delivered personally this date to Edina City Vices) In the last month I have been informed by two bulletins circulated in my neighborhood of changes being considered in the City of Edina's Transportation Policy; and also by an article in the 12/16/94 Edina Sun - Current commenting upon a 12/9/04 Edina Transportation Commission open house meeting; as well as by a Letter to the Editor in today's 12/30/04 Edina Sun - Current. I have not yet been able to responsibly familiarize myself with the matter —but perceive the neighborhood notices to be recommending vehement opposition to several aspects of the plan that is being developed; and the 12/16 Sun - Current article quoting some City of Edina officials or advisors seeming to discount or at least diminish the current concerns of some parties or neighborhood groups; and the Letter to the Editor today suggesting in part that there was limited -time notice given for the matter to be fully aired. I do not consider myself able at this time to confidently take the stand suggested in all of the points contained the sample letter offered in the latest neighborhood bulletin for signing and forwarding to all parties noted above, but am signing it "conditionally" and attaching it to this letter, due to the deadline today of registering comments for consideration at a next meeting of the Committee on January 6, 2005 (which meeting I do plan to attend). However, if some of the research done by its authors is accurate, and the negative implications for all neighborhoods contiguous to and surrounding the Country Club District are valid —I am indeed concerned enough to register my "unconditional" disapproval of the plan as it is presently being advanced, until further, wider public engagement can be arranged to more openly and thoroughly consider all implications of the matter. The appropriate guiding principle in the difficult decisions that will have to eventually be made seems to me to be that the disruptions and disadvantages of increasingly burdensome traffic demands in the entire sector under consideration must to be accepted and equitably shared by all legitimately affected parties and neighborhoods. Respectfully submitted, William L. Hannon 4701 W. 44"' St, Edina, MN 55424 952- 929 -7973 To: The Edina Transportations Committee And The Edina City Council And Edina Engineering Department 4801 West 5001 Street Edina, MN 55424 To all persons: I am opposed to the current draft Transportation policy. I am opposed to traffic calming measures for traffic volume control. I am opposed to all traffic calming methods that increase emergency response times. I am opposed to limiting citizen's access to residential streets. I want the definition of an "Impacted Area" to include those negatively affected by limitation of access. I want the "Impacted Area" radius increased for all purposes, including notification and public hearings, to include ALL residents who.reasonably sel%define as "Impacted ". I want at least a 70 % threshold of support/opposition for any project to be advanced or defeated. I want a policy that considers and serves the residents of the entire community, not just residents of a single neighborhood. Sincerely, Coto FR8eMr4#-J Soto*, MN Ssq %q To: Mayor Dennis Maetzvold, Council Members- Mike Kelly, Scot Housh, James Hovland, Linda Masica Transportation Commission Members- Joni Bennett, Dean Dovolis, Warren Plante, Chairman Fred Richards, Marie Thorpe, Les Wanninger, Jean White Edina Engineering Staff From: Jennifer Bunkers, 4209 Scott Terrace, Edina, MN, 55416 Subject: Public Comment Date: December 28, 2004 The following notes are from my comments made at the Edina Transportation Commission "Open House" on Thursday, December 9, 2004. One Saturday morning last spring I was at Weber Park pushing my two kids on the swings when I overheard an interesting conversation. Being that I am never one to wait to be invited into a conversation, I simply began asking questions. The men I spoke with were residents of the Country Club neighborhood. They went on to explain that a group was again spearheading efforts to close roads in the neighborhood to reduce the amount of traffic. Traffic deemed excessive, at least by residents. I asked more questions about which roads residents wished closed and where. By the time I left the park I had gotten quite an earful about what roads they wanted closed and where. I open with this comment because I believe the traffic "problem" within Country Club is the elephant in the room. I want to be clear that I do not believe this to be the agenda of all Country Club residents. I understand that the true issue being discussed this evening is not Country Club and the past and present desires of a few who live there. However, I believe the traffic problem perceived by this small, but tenacious group of Country Club residents is inextricable from the push for policy approval at this time. That being said, I would like to move on to express my two main objections to this traffic policy. The first of these objections pertains to the Plan Development portion of the Policy. In my personal experience it always works best in any circumstance to be as inclusive as possible. To disenfranchise interested individuals because they do not live within a 1 block radius of a proposed project is absurd. I can stand on any street corner in Edina, count cars and declare it a traffic problem. However to do so would be to suggest that one street or another operates in a vacuum. It is only by studying how one borough of Edina affects another and hearing the voices of all citizens that a conclusion can truly be reached. I am reminded of an article that recently ran in the Star Tribune on tax burden and debt. Jenny Wahl a Carleton College economist was quoted as saying, "There will be winners and losers, think carefully about where you want those burdens to fall, rather than pretending nobody's bearing them." I believe this is applicable here as well. This policy as it currently stands allows for the declared burdens of one to become the burdens of another, without offering that other a voice. I have to stop and ask myself, who benefits from exclusion? For the life of me, I can not come to a positive conclusion when I ask this question? My second objection speaks largely to the speed with which this measure is being pushed through. We should perhaps rename this policy "The Something is Better than Nothing Policy". Science says one must define one's terms. This policy while defining some terms to death does a poor job of defining others. Terms such as "Impacted Area" and "Discretionary" leave me crying out for further explanation. I would like those terms defined upfront, not later when I find out that because I am not an impacted individual I have no impact on a situation that affects me as a citizen. I have no doubt that all of you on the traffic commission have spent a great deal of time and energy on what has been produced thus far. So take more time. Obtain consistency of definition. Educate yourselves further with practical knowledge. Because until you have witnessed, I mean physically witness through controlled demonstrations how specific traffic management devices impact emergency services I do not understand how you can deem yourselves educated on the topic of traffic calming and management. "If my own family in a burning house and it is going to take the fire trucks 3 more minutes to get here will I be happy?" Unless you can answer "yes" then I think we need to take more time on the front end of this policy establishment. Currently I have a venue where I can air concerns regarding traffic issue — the City Council. My understanding of this commission and its mission is that it is to assist in public process as it relates to traffic. If this policy is approved, then this commission has only succeeded only in further disenfranchising the members of this community Additional Comments: 1. I would like to expand for a minute upon my opening comments and the conversation I heard in the park last spring. The gentlemen I overheard and eventually spoke with specifically referred to Marie Thorpe as the individual spearheading the "campaign" to close roads in Country Club. I was disgusted to find her sitting on this commission. She has been carrying the torch for road closure for years now and the fact that not a single individual on the commission sees this as a conflict of interest is incomprehensible. You should all be embarrassed by this display of impropriety. 2. Your inability to properly publicize the Transportation Policy Draft discussion to the residents of Edina flies squarely in the face of some of the reasons why this commission was established. Yet, despite your ineptitude no provision was made to expand the public comment period. December 30, 2004 The Edina Transportation Committee The Edina City Council The Edina Engineering Department 4801 West 50 Street Edina, MN 55424 RE: POTENTIAL CHANGES TO EDINA TRANSPORTATION POLICY To All of the Above: My husband and I currently reside at 4394 Mackey Avenue in Edina and have been residents since August 2003. We purchased our new home for many reasons, but the main one being a strong and equal community. As equal residents of Edina, we do no understand why other residents would be favored more than others. It is our understanding that the proposed changes to the transportation policy would favor only those that reside in Country Club. In addition, the traffic near our home would substantially increase causing the value of our property and anyone else along 44th Street to decrease. There are also numerous families within our neighborhood that have small children. The proposed traffic increase on 44th Street poses many dangers to children. These changes may cause families to relocate. Additionally and therefore: • We are opposed to the current draft Transportation policy. • We are opposed to traffic calming measures for traffic volume control. • We are opposed to all traffic calming methods that increase emergency response times. • We are opposed to limiting citizens' access to residential streets. • We want the definition of an "Impacted Area" to include those negatively affected by limitation of access. • We want the "Impacted Area" radius increased for all purposes, including notification and public hearings, to include ALL residents who reasonably self -define as "Impacted ". • We want at least 80% threshold of support/opposition for any project to be advanced or defeated. • We want a policy that considers and serves the residents of the ENTIRE community, not just residents of a single neighborhood. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us at 952- 920 -8212. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Sincerely, Alison & Chris Yeamen 4394 Mackey Avenue Edina, MN 55424 From: Steve Lillehaug Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 8:34 AM To: 'ielkins @tfs.psych.umn.edu' Cc: Steve Lillehaug Subject: RE: Re- routing of Country Club traffic Thank you for your comments regarding traffic issues in Edina and the DRAFT Transportation Commission Policy. They will be forwarded to the Transportation Commission and Council for consideration. However, you have a misconception that there are plans to reroute traffic from the Country Club to 44th Street. There are none that are currently being considered by the City. Your claims of a short- sighted approach ... a short sighted approach to what? To aid in dispelling any incorrect information out there, it would be good to know your source so I may aid in insuring correct information is available to the public so opinions and comments that we are requesting on the transportation policy are not skewed in any way. Please see the following website for the Transportation Commission Policy that the City is currently considering: http://ci.edina.mn.us/Pages/L4-19a—TrafficNews.htm Thank you. Steven L. Lillehaug, P.E., P.T.O.E. Edina Traffic Engineer /Assistant Engineer Engineering Department 952 -826 -0445 slillehaug @ci.edina.mn.us City of Edina 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 -1394 www.cityofedina.com (fax) 952 - 826 -0389 - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Wayne Houle Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 7:26 AM To: Steve Lillehaug Subject: FW: Re- routing of Country Club traffic - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Irene Elkins [ mailto :ielkins @tfs.psych.umn.edu) Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2004 10:58 AM To: Wayne Houle Subject: Re- routing of Country Club traffic To Whom it May Concern: I am a resident of St. Louis Park, but live in the Brookside neighborhood just north of the 44th and Brookside intersection. Therefore, I was deeply disturbed to learn that 44th, which has been a really nice neighborhood street, is likely to take the brunt of the increased traffic flow if the proposed re- routing of traffic from the Country Club area is adopted. While I sympathize with the residents of the Country Club area in the sense that I understand anyone who doesn't like traffic, I don't see why the feelings of residents of an upper -class neighborhood should be given greater weight by the city of Edina than those of the middle- to upper - middle class area that will bear the brunt of the increased traffic. This is not only unfair, in my opinion, but reflects a short - sighted approach that will only make the neighborhoods surrounding the Country Club area go downhill. Keeping the whole area as livable and pleasant as possible should take priority. Thank you in advance for your consideration of my Opposition to this issue. Irene Elkins, Ph.D. Minnesota Center for Twin and Family Research Dept. of Psychology, University of Minnesota Minneapolis, MN 55455 (612)626 -8777 Page 1 of 2 From: Steve Lillehaug Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 8:38 AM To: 'jim.bullard @leonard.com' Cc: Steve Lillehaug Subject: RE: Transportation Policy and Country Club Traffic Issues Thank you for your comments regarding traffic issues in Edina and the DRAFT Transportation Commission Policy. They will be forwarded to the Transportation Commission and Council for consideration. However, you have a misconception that there are plans to reroute traffic from the Country Club to 44th Street. There are none that are currently being considered by the City. To aid in dispelling any incorrect information out there, it would be good to know your source so I may aid in insuring correct information is available to the public so opinions and comments that we are requesting on the transportation policy are not skewed in any way. Please see the following website for the Transportation Commission Policy that the City is currently considering: http://ci.edina.mn.us/Pages/L4-19a—TrafficNews.htm Thank you. Steven L. Littehaug, P.E., P.T.O.E. Edina Traffic Engineer /Assistant Engineer Engineering Department 952 - 826 -0445 slillehaug @ci.edina.mn.us City of Edina 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 -1394 www.cityofedina.com (fax) 952 - 826 -0389 - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Bullard, Jim [mailto:Jim.Bullard @leonard.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2004 9:36 AM To: Wayne Houle; Gordon Hughes Subject: Transportation Policy and Country Club Traffic Issues Gentlemen, I am a resident of Edina and live on 44th Street in the Morningside neighborhood at 5016 West 44th Street. I have just learned of (1) the possibility that Edina may adopt a new Transportation Policy that might significantly reduce my ability to voice concerns in the future about plans to re -route traffic in my neighborhood, and (2) renewed plans to actually re -route traffic from the Country Club neighborhood on to 44th Street. Both of these possibilities are deeply troubling to me. As I live on 44th Street, I will be obviously and adversely affected by any increase in traffic that is shunted on to 44th Street. In addition, my ability to travel through the immediately adjacent neighborhood will be adversely affected to the extent that traffic is restricted on north/south streets through the Country Club neighborhood, such as Browndale and Wooddale. file://G:\Infrastructure \Streets \traffic \Transportation Commission \Correspondance\2004 Cor... 1/3/2005 Page 2 of 2 Changes such as these should not be undertaken without input from everyone who is likely to be affected. Furthermore, I am strongly opposed to any traffic plan that simply protects one neighborhood at the expense of another. Any Transportation Policy, and any plan to re -route traffic from one neighborhood to another, must take into account the needs of the larger community. I am strongly opposed to any plan that pits the interests of the Country Club neighborhood, against the similar interests of other surrounding neighborhoods. And, I am strongly opposed to any plan that will put increased traffic on my street (44th Street), curtail my access to other residential streets (Browndale and Wooddale), increase emergency response times, and do nothing to, improve my family's situation. I know we can do better than this. Thank you for considering my views. Jim Bullard 5016 West 44th Street Home: (952) 926 -9588 Work: (612) 335 -1512 Email: jim.bullardna.leonard.com file: / /G:\Infrastructure \Streets \traffic \Transportation Commission \Correspondance\2004 Cor... 1/3/2005 From: Steve Lillehaug Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 8:39 AM To: 'thomas.plant@ge.com' Cc: Steve Lillehaug Subject: RE: Draft Traffic Management Policy Thank you for your comments regarding traffic Transportation Commission Policy. They will be Commission and Council for consideration. Thank you. Steven L. Lillehaug, P.E., P.T.O.E. Edina Traffic Engineer /Assistant Engineer Engineering Department 952 - 826 -0445 slillehaug @ci.edina.mn.us City of Edina 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 -1394 www.cityofedina.com (fax) 952 - 826 -0389 - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Jennifer Bennerotte Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2004 12:12 PM To: Sharon Allison Cc: Steve Lillehaug Subject: FW: Draft Traffic Management Policy issues in Edina and the DRAFT forwarded to the Transportation - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Plant, Thomas (GE Commercial Finance) [mailto:Thomas.Plant @ge.com] Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2004 11:55 AM To: Jennifer Bennerotte Subject: Draft Traffic Management Policy Dear Members of the Edina Transportation Commission, Edina City Council, and Edina Engineering Department: I would like to express the following concerns about the Draft Transportation Policy for the City of Edina: * I object to the use of road closure or diversion devices to control traffic flow. First from a safety consideration, these devices prohibit the most optimum flow of fire, police and medical emergency personnel. Secondly, I do not believe we, as a community, should ever transfer a traffic flow problem in one neighborhood to another by closing roads or diverting traffic. Thirdly, we all contribute taxes to the maintenance and creation of our roads -- I want to drive on the public roads that get me where I want to go by the most expeditious route. Of course, we must always obey the speed limits! * I do not believe that a "neighborhood" approach is appropriate. The current draft policy appears to allow a small "neighborhood" to work with the city to solve its traffic issues without concern for, or participation by, those other nearby citizens who will be affected by the "neighborhood" solution. All citizens who are affected by a traffic flow changes should be allowed to participate in commission and council decisions. while the current draft proposal is a good start, it should at a minimum be amended to address the issues I listed above. Tom Plant 4350 Morningside Road Edina, MN 55416 (952) 922 -0354 Pagel of 3 From: Steve Lillehaug Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 8:41 AM To: 'cjmaichen @aol.com' Cc: Steve Lillehaug Subject: RE: Transportation Commission Thank you for your comments regarding traffic issues in Edina and the DRAFT Transportation Commission Policy. They will be forwarded to the Transportation Commission and Council for consideration. Thank you. Steven L. Lillehaug, P.E., P.T.O.E. Edina Traffic Engineer /Assistant Engineer Engineering Department 952 - 826 -0445 slillehaug @ci.edina.mn.us City of Edina 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 -1394 www.cityofedina.com (fax) 952 - 826 -0389 - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Jennifer Bennerotte Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2004 1:54 PM To: Sharon Allison Cc: Steve Lillehaug Subject: FW: Transportation Commission - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Cjmaichen @aol.com [mailto:Cjmaichen @aol.com] Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2004 1:32 PM To: Jennifer Bennerotte Subject: Transportation Commission Below is a letter expressing residential concerns regarding the proposed Transportation Policy. Thank you for listening. December 30, 2004 TO: The Edina Transportation Commission The Edina City Council The Edina City Engineering Department As residents of the City of Edina, we are writing to express our concerns and opinions about the Draft Transportation Policy written by City staff —with input from the Commission —and presented to the public December 6th. Specifically, it is the following items that draw into question the credibility of the proposed plan and the process with which it was developed. • Public input was not sought until the draft and process were near completion and the holiday season was in full swing. file: //G:\Infrastructure \Streets \traffic \Transportation Commission \Correspondance\2004 Cor... 1/3/2005 Page 2 of 3 • There was no public notice of the public comment period or the availability of the draft policy for public review until Thursday, November 25th -- Thanksgiving Day — almost one month after the public comment period opened. This gave the public very little time to learn about and respond before the "open house" on December 9t4—the only meeting held to gather public comment before the policy is taken by the Commission to the Council for approval. • At the open house at City Hall, residents were presented with a very abbreviated version of the plan that lacked many critical facts and information relevant to those who would be most impacted by any proposed transportation changes and measures (e.g. notification areas, priority ranking of traffic study requests, etc.). The City Engineer's presentation was an even more distilled version of the policy draft, which offered little in terms of substance and specifics as to how the policy will be implemented. • The arbitrary deadlines attached to the approval timeline of this policy have clearly taken precedent over thoughtful consideration and public input. This draws into question how a January or February approval deadline coincides with the street reconstruction schedule for identified neighborhoods in 2005. • The policy needs to provide context for acceptable and reasonable (realities vs. engineering principles) traffic volumes based on accurately defined street classifications; the policy does not provide (accurate) classification definitions for "local ", "collector" and "arterial" streets. Distinctions need to be made between local, collector and arterial streets —collectors are not arterial. The plan conveniently blurs these definitions. • The policy's definition of "impacted area" does not include residents who are negatively affected by traffic policies and changes. Notification and the "impacted radius" needs to include, for all purposes, all residents who reasonably self - define as "impacted ". • The policy should specify a minimum of a 60 % -70% threshold of support or opposition for any project to be advanced or defeated (and paid for by all Edina residents). • The proposed policy promotes traffic calming measures for volume control (reduction of traffic on local streets by partial or full street closure). Most communities have either discontinued use of volume control because it diverts traffic to adjacent streets and neighborhoods; it interferes with access by emergency vehicles, and interferes with local travel on local streets. • The City so far has not released information on how many traffic studies and change requests have been made to the city in recent history, who has made them and at what expense to the tax payers such studies have been performed. Requests have been made, but the City to date has not provided this information. This includes releasing for public review the most recent traffic counts in Edina (keeping in mind that the most accurate traffic count study is a license plate study). • The City Council should not approve this policy before some financial data and projections are provided on what most recent traffic studies to date have cost tax payers and what the financial projections are for implementing this more formal policy. • The definition of "cut through" traffic needs to be reflective of that fact that every resident file: //G:\Infrastructure \Streets \traffic \Transportation Commission \Correspondance\2004 Cor... 1/3/2005 Page 3 of 3 in Edina could claim this to be a traffic issue on their street. Further review should address what is considered "cut through" instead of the commonly implied ownership of streets in front of one's house. • The City's summer 2004 reviews of traffic calming devices done by City Planning, Engineering, Public Works and emergency responders should be available to the public on the City's web site as well as incorporated into the draft policy. • As it is currently drafted, the policy does not go far enough to represent the interests of all Edina residents; operationally it pits one neighborhood against another, rather than looking at the community as a whole--a city-wide approach is paramount for resolving traffic issues. • Finally, the plan should ensure projects that benefit a small minority do not receive approval (particularly when study findings do not warrant their approval), at the expense of all residents of Edina (e.g. the $30,000 spent on consulting fees alone for studies done in the Country Club District in 2000 - 2001). These are the reasons that we are opposed to the proposed changes that the Transportation Committee has brought up. If you need further clarification or any further written notification from us please free to let us know. Sincerely, Timothy and Caroline McGowan 4021 West 44th St. Edina, MN 55424 952- 929 -1604 file: //G:\Infrastructure \Streets \traffic \Transportation Commission \Correspondance\2004 Cor... 1/3/2005 From: Steve Lillehaug Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 8:44 AM To: 'julia.silvis @gmail.com' Cc: Steve Lillehaug Subject: RE: Comment on Draft Transportation plan Thank you for your comments regarding traffic issues in Edina and the DRAFT Transportation Commission Policy. They will be forwarded to the Transportation Commission and Council for consideration. Steven L. Lillehaug, P.E., P.T.O.E. Edina Traffic Engineer /Assistant Engineer Engineering Department 952 - 826 -0445 slillehaug@ci.edina.mn.us City of Edina 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 -1394 www.cityofedina.com (fax) 952 - 826 -0389 - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Jennifer Bennerotte Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2004 4:03 PM To: Sharon Allison Cc: Steve Lillehaug Subject: FW: Comment on Draft Transportation plan - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Julia Silvis [mailto:julia.silvis @gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2004 4:02 PM To: Jennifer Bennerotte Subject: Comment on Draft Transportation plan Dear Transportation Commission, I have writtn to you previously to urge a more public review, and am pleased to hear of the public meeting you held and are will hold, and am also pleased that you are soliciting public comment on the draft of the plan. Allow me to take up your time once again with a few comments on the current draft, which included, to your credit, several steps that would be taken to involve and educate the public about the plan. First and foremost, I strongly object to objective four of "Roadway Design," which states that the city will "design residential street systems to discourage through traffic." This conflicts with the goal stated in objective three, which states that the city will strive to maximize the efficiency and capacity of the existing road network. It also conflicts with the goal to "provide logical street networks to connect residential areas to the regional highway system and local activity centers." Objective it under Roadway Function raises similar objections, but it also is too vague to be included in a plan of this kind. I would like to see a definition of what the effects of cut - through traffic are. One effect that springs immediately to mind is access to places by the most direct and logical route. The city should not be mitigating that effect, but seeking to promote and replicate it. Furthermore, the word "implement" is too strong. That could bind the city to take foolish, harmful actions on behalf of a small group of citizens requesting traffic calming (objective 10). The definition of traffic calming is also sufficiently indistinct as to create potential conflict as the plan is implemented. It is one thing to discourage fast traffic to make streets safe for bikes and pedestrians, and quite another to discourage the free flow of cars. The city's proper goal in traffic calming should be to control speed, not to control volume. By reducing speed, volume reduction will occur in tandem, as people seek roadways where they can travel at higher speeds. Controlling for speed is both less invasive, less expensive in terms of infastructure installed, and within the appropriate role of city government. Controlling volume is not. Finally, I am happy to see sections on transit and bike modes in the plan. With the success of the new light rail, there is an exciting opportunity to work with the city to ensure that Edina benefits directly from any new extension of the Hiawatha line. And it would be a lovely thing if the signature feature of Edina's roads became their generous bike lanes, rather than the chokers and cul -de -sacs and diagonal road blockages put in to appease small minorities. Thank for you reading this letter; I look forward to reviewing the next draft. Sincerely, Julia Silvis From: Steve Lillehaug Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 8:45 AM To: 'D. Dege' Cc: Steve Lillehaug Subject: RE: Objections to Proposed Transportation Policy Thank you for your comments regarding traffic issues in Edina and the DRAFT Transportation Commission Policy. They will be forwarded to the Transportation Commission and Council for consideration. Steven L. Lillehaug, P.E., P.T.O.E. Edina Traffic Engineer /Assistant Engineer Engineering Department 952 - 826 -0445 slillehaug@ci.edina.mn.us City of Edina 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 -1394 www.cityofedina.com (fax) 952 - 826 -0389 - - - -- Original Message---- - From: D. Dege [mailto:ddege@visi.com] Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2004 4:20 PM To: Steve Lillehaug Subject: Objections to Proposed Transportation Policy Please, can we have some sanity in this process? Problem's I have with the plan are: 1. The arbitrary 5 -year moratorium on a neighborhood applying for a re- assessment. A 50 -unit apartment building could be built in a neighborhood a year after an assessment, but its traffic problems couldn't be evaluated for another four years? 2. The focus during the one meeting I attended (which may have been the one and only meeting ? ?) on just one or two streets instead of on a city -wide plan. 3. Who pays for the audits? I hope it's the individual or neighborhood who asks for it, and NOT the entire City of Edina. Who paid the $30,000 cost of the previous study requested by Country Club? 4. "Any individual or neighborhood" can request an assessment, and they are "rated" by the city. What does that mean? Who decides, and what is the rating process? It isn't stated. 5. But my strongest objection is the lack of publicity given to the process. The City of Edina has an obligation to be an open, forthcoming, honest body that serves ALL, not just the most wealthy, its constituents. Dolores A. Dege, Ph.D. 4012 Kipling Av So Edina, MN 55416 P.S. - I'd like to go on record as saying it may be time to open up Bridge Lane to traffic, to alleviate the traffic problems at 50th & France. Page l . of 2 From: Steve Lillehaug Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 8:48 AM To: 'Pat Bennett' Cc: Steve Lillehaug Subject: RE: Draft Edina Transportation Policy Thank you for your comments regarding traffic issues in Edina and the DRAFT Transportation Commission Policy. They will be forwarded to the Transportation Commission and Council for consideration. Steven L. Lillehaug, P.E., P.T.O.E. Edina Traffic Engineer /Assistant Engineer Engineering Department 952 - 826 -0445 slillehaug @ci.edina.mn.us City of Edina 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 -1394 www.cityofedina.com (fax) 952 - 826 -0389 - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Pat Bennett [mailto:PBENNETT @mn.rr.com] Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2004 4:27 PM To: Steve Lillehaug Subject: Draft Edina Transportation Policy To:Edina Transportation Commission Members Edina City Council Edina City Manager Re:Draft Transportation Policy Public Comments I am writing to express my concerns not only with the Draft Policy and Transportation Commission process but with what this process says about the public process in Edina. I first moved to Edina as an elementary school student in 1955. Over the years I have lived in the Pamela Park, 50th West of France, Grandview, and Morningside neighborhoods. In the course of living, working, shopping ,parenting,coaching,recreating etc. , I traverse many of Edina's streets on a daily basis. To place restrictions and characterizations on my use of those streets puzzles and concerns me greatly. I, purely and simply, want to state that no matter where I go in this city , I am not "cut- through" traffic. While traffic issues are of concern to us all, the process in front of us today is bigger than just traffic. It is about sound, representative City Government. Among the questions that come to my mind as I have viewed this process of repetitive agitation to address one neighboorhood's concerns over the past number of years are the following: "Who determines public policy in Edina ? `Who does City Staff serve ? "What direction is provided to City Staff by our elected officials regarding repetitive expenditure of city resources regarding traffic issues benefiting primarily one neighborhood ? *To whom are City Staff and City officials ultimately accountable ? Beyond the bigger questions, what are the problems with the Transportation Commission's work and the Draft Policy ? Here's what. If,as they say, knowledge is power, this has to be true in an area as complex as traffic design and management. Yet our Transportation Commission was comprised of traffic neophytes, file: / /G:\Infrastructure \Streets \traffic \Transportation Commission \Correspondance\2004 Cor... 1/3/2005 Page 2 of 2 whose primary objective appears to have been to adopt a spoon -fed Draft policy prepared by City Staff rather than become the experts that this topic demands and the residents of this city deserve. Additionally, insufficient measures taken to include the public in this process, combined with the measures recommended in the plan that would restrict notification to a small circle of beneficiaries, and leave open the possibility of road closures for the benefit of the few at the expense of the many, taint the Draft Policy with the specter of a Trojan Horse. So, in view of all of the above , what needs to be done to ensure that Edina develops and executes a traffic plan that will serve the city residents, businesses, customers, worshipers, parents and students long term ? Here are some guidlines: *Place a cease and desist on the current draft Policy. *City elected officials should provide clear instructions to the Transportation Commission to begin their work by studying regional and city-wide problems and solutions. *City Staff should be relegated to the role of executing public policy, not writing it. *Existing traffic laws in Edina should be rigorously enforced. Finally, as an observer at the December 9th meeting , in contrast to the description that this was a topic of narrow division and narrow interest, i was struck with the width and breadth of the interest in this issue. I was also disappointed that only one City Council member chose to attend. If the others had attended, they would have a greater appreciation for the groundswell of interest that exists in the neighborhoods not only around this issue but around holding City Government accountable for fair,open,effective and cost efficient public policy. Thank you. Patrick Bennett 4003 Lynn Avenue Edina file: //G:\Infrastructure \Streets \traffic \Transportation Commission \Correspondance\2004 Cor... 1/3/2005 Draft transportation policy Page 1 of 1 From: Steve Lillehaug Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 8:48 AM To: 'terryw @crassmonroe.com' Cc: Steve Lillehaug Subject: RE: Draft transportation policy Thank you for your comments regarding traffic issues in Edina and the DRAFT Transportation Commission Policy. They will be forwarded to the Transportation Commission and Council for consideration. Steven L. Lillehaug, P.E., P.T.O.E. Edina Traffic Engineer /Assistant Engineer Engineering Department 952 - 826 -0445 slillehaug @ci.edina.mn.us City of Edina 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 -1394 www.cityofedina.com (fax) 952 -826 -0389 - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Wayne Houle Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 7:09 AM To: Steve Lillehaug Subject: FW: Draft transportation policy - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Terrance J. Wagener [mailto:TerryW @krassmonroe.com] Sent: Thursday, December 30,,2004 5:28 PM To: Wayne Houle; Gordon Hughes Subject: Draft transportation policy To the Edina Transportation Committee; the Edina City Council; and Edina Engineering Dept. I reside at 4520 West 44th Street in Edina; our home occupies the NE corner of 44th and Browndale. While I am open to traffic calming methods in general, I am opposed restricting traffic flow through street closure. I am also opposed to the draft transportation policy. The Impacted Area as as defined in the draft should include all households affected by the proposed limited access. I want the policy to consider the residents of the entire community, not just a narrowly defined neighborhood or street. Thanks. file:HG:\Infrastructure \Streets \traffic \Transportation Commission \Correspondance\2004 Cor... 1/3/2005 Yage i or i From: Steve Lillehaug Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 8:51 AM To: billcompass @worldnet.att.nef Cc: Steve Lillehaug Subject: RE: draft transp plan comment Thank you for your comments regarding traffic issues in Edina and the DRAFT Transportation Commission Policy. They will be forwarded to the Transportation Commission and Council for consideration. Steven L. Lillehaug, P.E., P.T.O.E. Edina Traffic Engineer /Assistant Engineer Engineering Department 952 - 826 -0445 slillehaug @ci.edina.mn.us City of Edina 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 -1394 www.cityofedina.com (fax) 952 -826 -0389 - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Wayne Houle Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 7:09 AM To: Steve Lillehaug Subject: FW: draft transp plan comment - - - -- Original Message---- - From: William Hannon [ mailto :billcompass @worldnet.att.net] Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2004 4:34 PM To: Wayne Houle; Gordon Hughes Subject: draft transp plan comment Mr. Houle and Mr. Hughes: FYI (and in case reading it here is easier /quicker for you), earlier this afternoon I dropped off hard copies of the letter attached to this message, conveying comments on the Draft Transportation Policy currently being developed by the Transportation Commission. Thank you for your consideration of its content. William Hannon, 4701 W. 44th St., Edina; 952 - 929 -7973 file://G:\Infrastructure \Streets \traffic \Transportation Commission \Correspondance\2004 Cor... 1/3/2005 From: Steve Lillehaug Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 8:53 AM To: 'plombardo@statesupply.com' Cc: Steve Lillehaug Subject: RE: Traffic Calming in Country Club Thank you for your comments regarding traffic Transportation Commission Policy. They will be Commission and Council for consideration. Steven L. Lillehaug, P.E., P.T.O.E. Edina Traffic Engineer /Assistant Engineer Engineering Department 952 - 826 -0445 slillehaug@ci.edina.mn.us City of Edina 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 -1394 www.cityofedina.com (fax) 952 -826 -0389 - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Wayne Houle Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 7:13 AM To: Steve Lillehaug Subject: FW: Traffic Calming in Country Club issues in Edina and the DRAFT forwarded to the Transportation - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Patrick Lombardo [ mailto :plombardo@statesupply.com] Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2004 11:36 AM To: Wayne Houle Cc: Gordon Hughes Subject: Traffic Calming in Country Club From: Patrick Lombardo Subject: Transportation Policy affecting 44th Street To all persons - -- I am opposed to the current draft Transportation policy as we are directly affected by any traffic changes that impact 44th Street. We live on the of 44th Street and North Ave. I am opposed to all traffic calming methods that increase emergency response times and limit citizen's access to residential streets. Also, the definition of an "impacted area" should include those negatively affected by limitation of access, such as yours truly. Therefore, the Impacted Area Radius should be increased for all purposes. This would include both notifications and public hearings for all the folks who can reasonably be determined to be potentially impacted by the decision involving traffic calming methods. The currently proposed traffic calming method for the Country Club neighborhood will benefit one Edina neighborhood while causing harm to other adjoining neighborhoods. Please consider the well -being of the families in the surrounding Edina neighborhoods. Sincerely, Patrick Lombardo 4401 North Avenue Corner of 44th and North Ave. You may reach me at 952 - 925 -3375, or my office at 651 - 774 -5985 Page 1 of 1 From: Steve Lillehaug Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 8:54 AM To: 'bullardcm @aol.com' Cc: Steve Lillehaug Subject: RE: New Traffic Policy Thank you for your comments regarding traffic issues in Edina and the DRAFT Transportation Commission Policy. They will be forwarded to the Transportation Commission and Council for consideration. Steven L. Litiehaug, P.E., P.T.O.E. Edina Traffic Engineer /Assistant Engineer Engineering Department 952 - 826 =0445 slillehaug @ci.edina.mn.us City of Edina 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 -1394 www.cityofedina.com (fax) 952 - 826 -0389 - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Wayne Houle Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 7:13 AM To: Steve Lillehaug Subject: FW: New Traffic Policy - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Bullardcm @aol.com [mailto:Bullardcm @ aol.com] Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2004 11:30 AM To: Wayne Houle Cc: Gordon Hughes Subject: New Traffic Policy To whom it may concern: It has recently come to my attention that the Country Club neighborhood is seeking to limit access to their neighborhood streets. As a resident of 44th and Vernon, I'm greatly displeased by the prospect of increased traffic flow to my neighborhood, not to mention the additional inconvenience of the proposed measures. I strongly oppose the current draft Transportation Policy, traffic calming measures for traffic volume control, all traffic calming methods that increase emergency response times, and limiting citizen's access to residential streets. Thank you for your time. I trust that you will do all that you can to relieve traffic problems and answer my concerns. Sincerely, Christine Bullard (Edina Resident) file: //G:\Infrastructure \Streets \traffic \Transportation Commission \Correspondance \2004 Cor... 1/3/2005 Page 1 of 3 From: Nancy Ritzman [nancy.ritzman@mindspring.com] Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 10:03 AM To: Steve Lillehaug Subject: Re: Country Club Traffic Issues I guess it is a question in who is considered 'Impacted." I do not live in the immediate Country Club neighborhood, however any changes to the traffic patterns will definitely effect my daily life. 1 live in St Louis Park, in a nearby neighborhood. St Louis Park does not have the same local paper as Edina and therefore public notices in Edina's Sun Sailor will not reach all surrounding neighborhoods. I hope this is considered when offering public comment. Nancy Ritzman - - -- Original Message - - -- From: Steve Lillehaug To: Nancy Ritzman Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 9:53 AM Subject: RE: Country Club Traffic Issues Hi Nancy, Just a quick comment. The City will be notifying people that are impacted - the City Transportation Commission and Council make this very clear. Additionally, any proposal that the Council directs staff to move forward with will be part of a public hearing process. This requires public notification in the local newspaper. Any traffic calming in the City of Edina will be part of this procedure and approval process. Thanks. Steve - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Nancy Ritzman [mailto:nancy.ritzman @mindspring.com] Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 9:43 AM To: Steve Lillehaug Subject: Re: Country Club Traffic Issues Mr Lillehaug, Thank you for your response. I have read the draft. I guess I put the cart before the horse, so to speak. The new transportation policy makes it easier for neighborhoods to push modification of traffic patterns to limit access while reducing the imput of those living just outside of the immediate neighborhood. The impact area of any street changes is much more than a 300 -foot radius of the proposed change area. Your proposed policy will basically give those outside of that area no avenue for notification or comment. The Country Club neighborhood area is just waiting for the Transportation Commission Policy to be approved so they may more quicky push through their proposed traffic plan which previously did not pass under current policy. All the objections I gave earlier will then be relevant. You understood what I was getting at in my email. It is the results that the new Policy will allow that I truly object to. I still say, that Edina needs to look beyond its borders to truly see the impact of any policies change. Nancy Ritzman St Louis Park - - -- Original Message - - -- From: Steve Lillehaug To: nancy ritzmanamindspring.com file://G:\Infrastructure \Streets \traffic \Transportation Commission \Correspondance\2004 Cor... 1/3/2005 Cc: Steve Lillehaug Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 8:59 AM Subject: RE: Country Club Traffic Issues Page 2 of 3 Thank you for your comments regarding traffic issues in Edina and the DRAFT Transportation Commission Policy. They will be forwarded to the Transportation Commission and Council for consideration. However, you have a misconception that there are proposals by the City for 'flagrantly outrageous proposed traffic changes within the Country Club area of Edina.' There are none that are currently being considered by the City. To aid in dispelling any incorrect information out there, it would be good to know your source so I may aid in insuring correct information is available to the public so opinions and comments that we are requesting on the transportation policy are not skewed in any way. Please see the following website for the Transportation Commission Policy that the City is currently considering: hftp://ci.edina.mn.us/Pages/L4-19a—TrafficNews.htm Thank you. Steven L. Lillehaug, P.E., P.T.O.E. Edina Traffic Engineer /Assistant Engineer Engineering Department 952 - 826 -0445 slillehaug @ci.edina.mn.us City of Edina 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 -1394 www.cityofedina.com (fax) 952 - 826 -0389 - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Wayne Houle Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 7:26 AM To: Steve Lillehaug Subject: FW: Country Club Traffic Issues - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Nancy Ritzman (mailto:nancy.ritzman @mindspring.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2004 8:32 AM To: Wayne Houle Subject: Country Club Traffic Issues Dear Mr Houle, I am writing to express my opinion on the flagrantly outrageous proposed traffic changes within the Country Club area of Edina. As a lifelong resident of either Edina or St Louis Park, I am shocked at the audacity of the suggestion that unless you live within a confined neighborhood, you are to not use the streets. A major change of the street structure within an already established area effects the value of all surrounding areas also. Houses have been purchased and businesses established in part based on file: //G:\Infrastructure \Streets \traffic \Transportation Commission \Correspondance\2004 Cor... 1/3/2005 Page 3 of 3 traffic patterns, convenience and access. The consideration of where I live in St Louis Park was influenced definitely on my ability to access any surrounding neighborhood and business district. The proposal is self - centered and sets a scary precedent for other neighborhoods. Couldn't the Creekside or Brookside neighborhoods decide they do not like the through traffic coming from Edina and close off most access on Brookside at 44th St? Or the Browndale or Minnekada neighborhoods for that matter? I grew up in Edina and now live in St Louis Park, these are streets that I have always driven. I am embarrassed at the arrogance of the notion, "Keep your traffic out of our neighborhoods." Nancy Ritzman 4150 Xenwood Ave St Louis Park file: //G:\Infrastructure \Streets \traffic \Transportation Commission \Correspondance\2004 Cor... 1/3/2005 Page 1 of 1 From: Steve Lillehaug Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 9:07 AM To: 'martep @msn.com' Cc: Steve Lillehaug Subject: RE: DRAFT- TRANSPORTATION POLICY Thank you for your comments regarding traffic issues in Edina and the DRAFT Transportation Commission Policy. They will be forwarded to the Transportation Commission and Council for consideration. However, you have a misconception that there are current plans to close streets and make some one ways. There are none that are currently being considered by the City. To aid in dispelling any incorrect information out there, it would be good to know your source so I may aid in insuring correct information is available to the public so opinions and comments that we are requesting on the transportation policy are not skewed in any way. Please see the following website for the Transportation Commission Policy that the City is currently considering: http://ci.edina.mn.us/Pages/L4-19a—TrafficNews.htm Thank you. - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Wayne Houle Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 7:32 AM To: Steve Lillehaug Subject: FW: DRAFT TRANSPORTATION POLICY - - - -- Original Message---- - From: MARTE PALM [mailto:Martep @msn.com] Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2004 4:33 PM To: Wayne Houle Cc: Gordon Hughes Subject: DRAFT TRANSPORTATION POLICY I was just notified today by a neighbor of your Draft Transportation Policy that you are thinking of implementing. First of all why wouldn't you tell your neighbors in St Louis Park of your plan to close streets and make some one ways. I would like more information and to know how this is going to affect my Brookside Neighborhood. Thank you. Martha Palm 4115 Yosemite Avenue I AM OPPOSED TO THE CURRENT DRAFT TRANSPORTATION POLICY. file: / /G:\Infrastructure \Streets \traffic \Transportation Commission \Correspondance\2004 Cor... 1/3/2005 From: Steve Lillehaug Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 9:09 AM To: 'diablo @gyyv.net' Cc: Steve Lillehaug Subject: RE: Edina Traffic Control Thank you for your comments regarding traffic issues in Edina and the DRAFT Transportation Commission Policy. They will be forwarded to the Transportation Commission and Council for consideration. Thank you. Steven L. Lillehaug, P.E., P.T.O.E. Edina Traffic Engineer /Assistant Engineer Engineering Department 952 - 826 -0445 slillehaug @ci.edina.mn.us City of Edina 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 -1394 www.cityofedina.com (fax) 952- 826 -0389 - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Wayne Houle Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 7:34 AM To: Steve Lillehaug Subject: FW: Edina Traffic Control - - - -- Original Message---- - From: D'ablo [mailto:diablo @gyyv.net] Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2004 9:25 PM To: Wayne Houle; Gordon Hughes Subject: Edina Traffic Control To: The Edina Transportations Committee And The Edina City Council And Edina Engineering Department 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 To all persons: ? I am opposed to the current draft Transportation policy. ? I am opposed to traffic calming measures for traffic volume control. ? I am opposed to all traffic calming methods that increase emergency response times. ? I am opposed to limiting citizen's access to residential streets. ? I want the definition of an "Impacted Area" to include those negatively affected by limitation of access. ? I want the "Impacted Area" radius increased for all purposes, including notification and public hearings, to include ALL residents who reasonably self- define as "Impacted ". ? I want at least a 70 % threshold of support /opposition for any project to be advanced or defeated. ? I want a policy that considers and serves the residents of the entire community, not just residents of a single neighborhood. Sincerely, Linda Hatfield 4181 Zarthan Ave. S. St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Page 1 of 2 From: Steve Lillehaug Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 9:11 AM To: 'st @mn.rf.com' Cc: Steve Lillehaug Subject: RE: draft transportation policy Thank you for your comments regarding traffic issues in Edina and the DRAFT Transportation Commission Policy. They will be forwarded to the Transportation Commission and Council for consideration. Thank you. Steven L. Lillehaug, P.E., P.T.O.E. Edina Traffic Engineer /Assistant Engineer Engineering Department 952 - 826 -0445 slillehaug @ci.edina.mn.us City of Edina 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 -1394 www.cityofedina.com (fax) 952 - 826 -0389 - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Wayne Houle Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 7:43 AM To: Steve Lillehaug Subject: FW: draft transportation policy - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Restorative Learning [mailto:st @mn.rr.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2004 10:23 AM To: Wayne Houle Cc: Gordon Hughes Subject: draft transportation policy To: The Edina Transportation Committee and the Edina City Council and the Edina Engineering Department From: David St. Germain, 4650 W. 44th St. Edina, MN 55424 Sally Bulleit, 4650 W. 44th St. Edina, MN 55424 To all persons: I am opposed to the current draft transportation policy. I am opposed to traffic calming measures for traffic volume control. I am opposed to all traffic calming methods that increase emergency response times. I am opposed to limiting citizen's access to residential streets. I want the definition of an "impacted area" to include those negatively affected by limitation of file: //G:\Infrastructure \Streets \traffic \Transportation Commission \Correspondance\2004 Cor... 1/3/2005 Page 2 of 2 access. I want the "impacted area" radius increased for all purposes, including notification and public hearings, to include ALL residents who reasonably self -define as "impacted." I want at least a 70% threshold of support/opposition for any project to be advanced or defeated. I want a policy that considers and serves the residents of the entire community, not just residents of a single neighborhood. file: //G:\Mftastructure \Streets \traffic \Transportation Commission \Correspondance\2004 Cor... 1/3/2005 From: Steve Lillehaug Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 9:13 AM To: 'ayeamen @earthlink.net' Cc: Steve Lillehaug Subject: RE: Comments on Edina Transportation Policy Thank you for your comments regarding traffic issues in Edina and the DRAFT Transportation Commission Policy. They will be forwarded to the Transportation Commission and Council for consideration. However, you have a misconception that there are plans that will increase traffic on 44th Street. There are none that are currently being considered by the City. To aid in dispelling any incorrect information out there, it would be good to know your source so I may aid in insuring correct information is available to the public so opinions and comments that we are requesting on the transportation policy are not skewed in any way. Thank you. Steven L. Lillehaug, P.E., P.T.O.E. Edina Traffic Engineer /Assistant Engineer Engineering Department 952 - 826 -0445 slillehaug @ci.edina.mn.us City of Edina 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 -1394 www.cityofedina.com (fax) 952 - 826 -0389 - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Wayne Houle Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 7:44 AM To: Steve Lillehaug Subject: FW: Comments on Edina Transportation Policy - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Alison Yeamen [mailto:ayeamen @earthlink.net] Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2004 9:10 AM To: Wayne Houle; ghughes @ci.edina.cmn.us Subject: RE: Comments on Edina Transportation Policy Dear Wayne & Gordon, Attached you will find a letter expressing our concerns and opinion regarding the proposed Edina Transportation Policy. We are faxing a hard copy to 952 -826- 0389. Please let us know if you have any quesitons or if you do not receive our letter. We appreciate your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Alison & Chris Yeamen 4394 Mackey Avenue From: Steve Lillehaug Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 9:14 AM To: 'annalom @aol.com' Cc: Steve Lillehaug Subject: RE: Transportation Policy affecting 44th Street Thank you for your comments regarding traffic issues in Edina and the DRAFT Transportation Commission Policy. They will be forwarded to the Transportation Commission and Council for consideration. Thank you. Steven L. Lillehaug, P.E., P.T.O.E. Edina Traffic Engineer /Assistant Engineer Engineering Department 952 - 826 -0445 slillehaug @ci.edina.mn.us City of Edina 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 -1394 www.cityofedina.com (fax) 952 - 826 -0389 - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Wayne Houle Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 7:44 AM To: Steve Lillehaug Subject: FW: Transportation Policy affecting 44th Street - - - -- Original Message---- - From: AnnaLom @aol.com [mailto:AnnaLom @aol.com] Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2004 11:01 AM To: Wayne Houle Cc: Gordon Hughes; plombardo @statesupply.com Subject: Transportation Policy affecting 44th Street To all persons: -I am opposed to the current draft Transportation policy as WE ARE DIRECTLY AFFECTED by ANY traffic changes that impact 44th Street -I am opposed to all traffic calming methods that increase emergency response times -I am opposed to limiting citizen's access to residential streets -I want the definition of an "impacted area" to include those negatively affected by limitation of access -I wanted the IMPACTED AREA RADIUS INCREASED for all purposes, INCLUDING NOTIFICATION and public hearings, to include ALL ALL ALL ALL RESIDENTS who reasonably self- define as "impacted" -I want at least a 70% threshold of support /opposition for any project to be advanced or defeated -I want a policy that considers and serves the residents of the ENTIRE community, NOT just residents of a single neighborhood Sincerely, Anna Lombardo 4401 North Avenue Corner of 44th and North From: Steve Lillehaug Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 8:52 AM To: 'katy_stites @cargill.com' Cc: Steve Lillehaug Subject: RE: Draft Transportation Policy Thank you for your comments regarding traffic issues in Edina and the DRAFT Transportation Commission Policy. They will be forwarded to the Transportation Commission and Council for consideration. Steven L. Lillehaug, P.E., P.T.O.E. Edina Traffic Engineer /Assistant Engineer Engineering Department 952 - 826 -0445 slillehaug @ci.edina.mn.us City of Edina 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 -1394 www.cityofedina.com (fax) 952 - 826 -0389 - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Gordon Hughes Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2004 12:22 PM To: Wayne Houle Subject: FW: Draft Transportation Policy Importance: High Greetings Wayne. Just so we don't double up on things, I'm assuming that you are arranging thru Darlene or Sharon the copying of these a -mails when they're jointly addressed to you and me or if they are only addressed to you. If they are only addressed to me, I'm forwarding to Darlene for copying. - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Katy_Stites @cargill.com [ mailto:Katy_Stites @cargill.com] Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2004 12:13 PM To: Gordon Hughes; Wayne Houle Cc: Katy_Stites @cargill.com Subject: Draft Transportation Policy Importance: High Gentlemen: I am writing to let you know that I vehemently oppose the current draft Transportation policy in its present form. Specifically: * I am opposed to traffic calming measures for traffic volume control. * I am opposed to all traffic calming methods that increase emergency response times. How can we even consider endangering our families in order to make a few streets quieter for a very limited number of people ? ?? * I am opposed to limiting citizen's access to residential streets. In addition: * I want the definition of an "Impacted area" radius increased for all purposes (including notification and public hearings) to include all residents who reasonably self- define as "Impacted ". * I want at least a 70% threshold of support /opposition for a project to be advanced or defeated. This would seem to go without saying... Most of all, I endorse - and hope that both of you do as well - a policy that considers and serves the residents of the entire community, not just residents of a single neighborhood. Sincerely, Katy Stites 4311 W 44th St Edina, MN 55424 From: Steve Lillehaug Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 8:54 AM To: 'jstites@mn.rr.com' Cc: Steve Lillehaug Subject: RE: Draft Transportation Policy Thank you for your comments regarding traffic issues in Edina and the DRAFT Transportation Commission Policy. They will be forwarded to the Transportation Commission and Council for consideration. Steven L. Lillehaug, P.E., P.T.O.E. Edina Traffic Engineer /Assistant Engineer Engineering Department 952 -826 -0445 slillehaug @ci.edina.mn.us City of Edina 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 -1394 www.cityofedina.com (fax) 952 - 826 -0389 - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Wayne Houle Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 7:14 AM To: Steve Lillehaug Subject: FW: Draft Transportation Policy - - - -- Original Message---- - From: John Stites [mailto:jstites@mn.rr.com] Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2004 12:35 AM To: Wayne Houle; Gordon Hughes Cc: Katy Stites Subject: Draft Transportation Policy Gentlemen: I am opposed to the current draft Transportation policy. I am opposed to traffic calming measures for traffic volume control. I am opposed to all traffic calming methods that increase emergency response times. I am opposed to limiting citizen's access to residential streets. I want the definition of an "Impacted area" radius increased for all purposes, including notification and public hearings, to include all residents who reasonably self- define as "Impacted ". I want at least a 70% threshold of support /opposition for a project to be advanced or defeated. I want a policy that considers and serves the residents of the entire community, not just residents of a single neighborhood. Sincerely, John Stites 4311 W 44th St Edina,MN 55424 From: Steve Lillehaug Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 9:16 AM To: 'hburke @mplib.org' Cc: Steve Lillehaug Subject: RE: comment on Edina Transportation Plan Thank you for your comments regarding traffic Transportation Commission Policy. They will be Commission and Council for consideration. Thank you. Steven L. Lillehaug, P.E., P.T.O.E. Edina Traffic Engineer /Assistant Engineer Engineering Department 952 - 826 -0445 slillehaug @ci.edina.mn.us City of Edina 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 -1394 www.cityofedina.com (fax) 952- 826 -0389 - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Jennifer Bennerotte Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 To: Sharon Allison Cc: Steve Lillehaug Subject: FW: comment on Edina 8:03 AM issues in Edina and the DRAFT forwarded to the Transportation Transportation Plan - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Burke, Helen [mailto:HBurke @mplib.org] Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2004 4:48 PM To: Jennifer Bennerotte Subject: comment on Edina Transportation Plan Thank you very much for seeking public input to the Edina Transportation Plan. Please emphasize controlling traffic by enforcement of existing speed limits. Please do not enact traffic calming measures that limit traffic volume; such measures need to be implemented carefully so that the preferences of the residents of a particular street are not place higher than the needs of the residents of the entire city to move about freely. I would appreciate having a study done of the existing traffic calming measures undertaken several years ago in the Country Club neighborhood, with specific reference to the impact upon the Morningside neighborhood. Thank you very much for your dedication to studying the impact of transportation in, through and around Edina. Sincerely, Helen Burke 4246 Grimes Avenue South Edina, MN 55416 Page 1 of 2 From: Steve Lillehaug Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 9:18 AM To: 'timegrime@aol.com' Cc: Steve Lillehaug Subject: RE: Propose Edina Transportation Commission's New Draft Policy Thank you for your comments regarding traffic issues in Edina and the DRAFT Transportation Commission Policy. They will be forwarded to the Transportation Commission and Council for consideration. Thank you. Steven L. Lillehaug, P.E., P.T.O.E Edina Traffic Engineer /Assistant Engineer Engineering Department 952 - 826 -0445 slillehaug @ci.edina.mn.us City of Edina 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 -1394 www.cityofedina.com (fax) 952 - 826 -0389 - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Jennifer Bennerotte Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 8:05 AM To: Sharon Allison Cc: Steve Lillehaug Subject: FW: Propose Edina Transportation Commission's New Draft Policy - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Timegrime @aol.com [mailto:Timegrime @aol.com] Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2004 8:35 PM To: Jennifer Bennerotte Subject: Propose Edina Transportation Commission's New Draft Policy I would like to add my comments to that others regarding your new draft policy. I am concerned about the new draft policy that indicates one neighborhood can have nearly exclusive influence over future traffic routes. Any alteration in current traffic patterns needs to consider the impact on adjacent neighborhoods, the city and the surrounding communities. The process of planning needs to be transparent, all citizens informed of the process and consulted on the options as things progress. Further, we have concerned about some of the underlining objectives of draft plan. I have lived at 4410 Grimes Avenue for 16 years. My wife and I were attracted to this part of Edina in part because of its urban like setting and traffic patterns with streets that actually lead to someplace in an efficient manor. We do not want the grid as it now stands disturbed and requiring even longer trips by car. The traffic is not bad on my street for an urban area nor are the surrounding streets except maybe 44th street could use some measures to slow traffic a bit. As far as safety goes, there are kids on my street too including mine. We on Grimes do not want to absorb more traffic just for the sake of another neighborhood. When I attended the meeting at the old city hall a couple of years ago on this topic, the traffic consultant file: //G:\Infrastructure \Streets \traffic \Transportation Commission \Correspondance\2004 Cor... 1/3/2005 Page 2 of 2 noted that much of any traffic problem in the neighborhood was a result of the affluence of the residents and their dependency on cars. He really did not think there was much of a problem except at 50th and France. If the streets are clogged at all; it is because of the various contractors expanding and remodeling houses, delivering groceries, providing clean services, bringing lawn services, hauling garbage by four or five firms in the same area and numerous school buses crossing each other's paths. Perhaps we could all learn to walk a little more and do more for ourselves. However, the narrow two way streets as they exist requires us all to drive a little slower and with caution. As far as concerns about drive through traffic, we all do that once we leave our street and neighborhood which is the only choice one has living in the North eastern part of Edina if one wants to go someplace like work, shopping, schools, etc. Perhaps if there is a traffic problem, the city may want to promote a more extensive network of side walks, bike and walking trails.' I would appreciate if my children in middle school could walk safely from school on sidewalks. Thomas Koon (952) 929 4996 file://G:\Infrastructure \Streets \traffic \Transportation Commission \Correspondance\2004 Cor... 1/3/2005 Page 1 of 2 From: Steve Lillehaug Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 9:18 AM To: 'psledin @aol.com' Cc: Steve Lillehaug Subject: RE: transportation policy Thank you for your comments regarding traffic issues in Edina and the DRAFT Transportation Commission Policy. They will be forwarded to the Transportation Commission and Council for consideration. Thank you. Steven L. Lillehaug, P.E., P.T.O.E. Edina Traffic Engineer /Assistant Engineer Engineering Department 952 - 826 -0445 slillehaug @ci.edina.mn.us City of Edina 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 -1394 www.cityofedina.com (fax) 952 - 826 -0389 - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Jennifer Bennerotte Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 8:07 AM To: Sharon Allison Cc: Steve Lillehaug Subject: FW: transportation policy - - - -- Original Message---- - From: PSLedin @aol.com [mailto:PSLedin @ aol.com] Sent: Friday, December 31, 2004 4:22 PM To: Jennifer Bennerotte Subject: transportation policy December 21, 2007 TO: The Edina Transportation Commission The Edina City Council The Edina City Engineering Department As a resident of the City of Edina,Morningside, we are writing to express our concerns and opinions about the Draft Transportation Policy written by City staff —with input from the Commission —and presented to the public December 6th. - There was no public notice of the public comment period or the availability of the draft policy for public review until Thursday, November 25th -- Thanksgiving Day — almost one month after the public comment period opened. This gave the public very little time to learn about and respond before the "open house" on December 9th —the only meeting held to gather public comment before the policy is taken by the Commission to the Council for approval. file: //G:\Infrastructure \Streets \traffic \Transportation Commission \Correspondance\2004 Cor... 1/3/2005 Page 2 of 2 - The policy's definition of "impacted area" does not include residents who are negatively affected by traffic policies and changes. Notification and the "impacted radius" needs to include, for all purposes, all residents who reasonably self - define as "impacted ". - The policy should specify a minimum of a 60 % -70% threshold of support or opposition for any project to be advanced or defeated (and paid for by all Edina residents). - The proposed policy promotes traffic calming measures for volume control (reduction of traffic on local streets by partial or full street closure). Most communities have either discontinued use of volume control because it diverts traffic to adjacent streets and neighborhoods; it interferes with access by emergency vehicles, and interferes with local travel on local streets. - The City Council should not approve this policy before some financial data and projections are provided on what most recent traffic studies to date have cost tax payers and what the financial projections are for implementing this more formal policy. - The definition of "cut through" traffic needs to be reflective of that fact that every resident in Edina could claim this to be a traffic issue on their street. Further review should address what is considered "cut through" instead of the commonly implied ownership of streets in front of one's house. . - The City's summer 2004 reviews of traffic calming devices done by City Planning, Engineering, Public Works and emergency responders should be available to the public on the City's web site as well as incorporated into the draft policy. - As it is currently drafted, the policy does not go far enough to represent the interests of all Edina residents; operationally it pits one neighborhood against another, rather than looking at the community as a whole —a city-wide approach is paramount for resolving traffic issues. - Finally, the plan should ensure projects that benefit a small minority do not receive approval (particularly when study findings do not warrant their approval), at the expense of all residents of Edina (e.g. the $30,000 spent on consulting fees alone for studies done in the Country Club District in 2000 - 2001). We all appreciate your work, transparency, and openness to input. Paul +Sharon Ledin file://G:\Infrastructure \Streets \traffic \Transportation Commission \Correspondance\2004 Cor... 1/3/2005 Page 1 of 1 From: Steve Lillehaug Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 9:25 AM To: 'dluger @mn.rr.com' Cc: Steve Lillehaug Subject: RE: Transportation Commission Please see the following website for the Transportation Commission Policy that the City is currently considering: http: / /ci.edina.mn.us /Pages /L4 -19a TrafficNews.htm The City is not currently considering any solutions for any traffic situation in the Country Club area as you elude. I suggest you speak with the people who are spreading rumors to find the source. I would also be interested in discussing these rumors with your sources to help dispel any incorrect information. Thank you. Steven L. Lillehaug, P.E., P.T.O.E. Edina Traffic Engineer /Assistant Engineer Engineering Department 952 -826 -0445 slillehaug @ci.edina.mn.us City of Edina 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 -1394 www.cityofedina.com (fax) 952 - 826 -0389 - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Jennifer Bennerotte Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 8:10 AM To: Sharon Allison Cc: Steve Lillehaug Subject: FW: Transportation Commission - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Dave Luger [mailto:dluger @mn.rr.com] Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2005 4:58 PM To: Jennifer Bennerotte Subject: Transportation Commission Where can I find out more information regarding the rumors I've heard about the Country Club traffic situation /suggested solutions and the impact it may have on 44th St. and the surrounding area. Thank you Dave Luger dluger @excite.com file: / /G:\Infrastructure \Streets \traffic \Transportation Commission \Correspondance\2004 Cor... 1/3/2005 Page 1 of 3 From: Steve Lillehaug Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 9:04 AM To: 'mmherrmann @aol.com' Cc: Steve Lillehaug Subject: RE: Country Club Traffic Patterb Modifications Thank you for your comments regarding traffic issues in Edina and the DRAFT Transportation Commission Policy. They will be forwarded to the Transportation Commission and Council for consideration. Steven L. Lillehaug, P.E., P.T.O.E. Edina Traffic Engineer /Assistant Engineer Engineering Department 952 - 826 -0445 slillehaug @ci.edina.mn.us City of Edina 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 -1394 www.cityofedina.com (fax) 952 - 826 -0389 - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Wayne Houle Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 7:31 AM To: Steve Lillehaug Subject: FW: Country Club Traffic Patterb Modifications - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Mmherrmann @aol.com [mailto:Mmherrmann @aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2004 3:41 PM To: Wayne Houle; Gordon Hughes; info @edinamorningside.org Subject: Country Club Traffic Patterb Modifications December 28, 2007 TO: The Edina Transportation Commission The Edina City Council The Edina City Engineering Department The Edina Sun Current As a resident of the City of St. Louis Park, I am writing to express my concerns and opinions about the Draft Transportation Policy written by City staff —with input from the Commission — and presented to the public December 6th. Specifically, it is the following items that draw into question the credibility of the proposed plan and the process with which it was developed. Most importantly, as the mother of a daughter who was struck by an SUV at the corner of 44th and Wooddale in 2002, I am vehemently opposed to any traffic modification that would increase the traffic volume on 44th Street and Wooddale Avenue. The proposed changes to the Country Club area (making Wooddale a one -way entry, Browndale a one -way exit, cutting off Sunnyside at Grimes, etc.) would increase the volume of traffic in this area dramatically. Four mothers, including myself, were at the intersection when my 7 -year file://G:\Infrastructure \Streets \traffic \Transportation Commission \Correspondance\2004 Cor... 1/3/2005 Page 2 of 3 old daughter was waved forward by the SUV. There was nothing any one of us could do but scream. Another car was already on its way into the intersection and struck her head on. She recovered physically, but retains emotional scars, especially regarding crossing streets, parking lots, etc. Further, another child was struck by a car at 44th and Browndale a few years ago. MANY children ( including infants and toddlers) reside on 44th street between France and Brookside and should this traffic plan be instituted, it is almost a given that another child will be hit by a car and possibly killed. There is simply too much traffic, and too few people driving who actually stop at the stop signs. To my knowledge, no child has been struck by a car in Country Club (indeed, there is far less traffic in this area), and to increase the traffic on 44th, while further reducing the traffic in Country Club is fundamentally wrong and fails to protect the children of not only Edina (on 44th) but also of St. Louis Park. The life of one child is not greater than the life of another, and regrettably, this is the message being sent, should this traffic policy be approved. The community -at- large should be served, not merely one segment of that community. • Public input was not sought until the draft and process were near completion and the holiday season was in full swing. • There was no public notice of the public comment period or the availability of the draft policy for public review until Thursday, November 25k- Thanksgiving Day — almost one month after the public comment period opened. This gave the public very little time to learn about and respond before the "open house" on December OL —the only meeting held to gather public comment before the policy is taken by the Commission to the Council for approval. • At the open house at City Hall, residents were presented with a very abbreviated version of the plan that lacked many critical facts and information relevant to those who would be most impacted by any proposed transportation changes and measures (e.g. notification areas, priority ranking of traffic study requests, etc.). The City Engineer's presentation was an even more distilled version of the policy draft, which offered little in terms of substance and specifics as to how the policy will be implemented. • The arbitrary deadlines attached to the approval timeline of this policy have clearly taken precedent over thoughtful consideration and public input. This draws into question how a January or February approval deadline coincides with the street reconstruction schedule for identified neighborhoods in 2005. • The policy needs to provide context for acceptable and reasonable (realities vs. engineering principles) traffic volumes based on accurately defined street classifications; the policy does not provide (accurate) classification definitions for "local ", "collector" and "arterial" streets. Distinctions need to be made between local, collector and arterial streets —collectors are not arterial. The plan conveniently blurs these definitions. • The policy's definition of "impacted area" does not include residents who are negatively affected by traffic policies and changes. Notification and the "impacted radius" needs to include, for all purposes, all residents who reasonably self - define as "impacted ". • The policy should specify a minimum of a 60 % -70% threshold of support or opposition for any project to be advanced or defeated (and paid for by all Edina residents). file://G:\Infrastructure \Streets \traffic \Transportation Commission \Correspondance\2004 Cor... 1/3/2005 Page 3 of 3 • The proposed policy promotes traffic calming measures for volume control (reduction of traffic on local streets by partial or full street closure). Most communities have either discontinued use of volume control because it diverts traffic to adjacent streets and neighborhoods; it interferes with access by emergency vehicles, and interferes with local travel on local streets. • The City so far has not released information on how many traffic studies and change requests have been made to the city in recent history, who has made them and at what expense to the tax payers such studies have been performed. Requests have been made, but the City to date has not provided this information. This includes releasing for public review the most recent traffic counts in Edina (keeping in mind that the most accurate traffic count study is a license plate study). • The City Council should not approve this policy before some financial data and projections are provided on what most recent traffic studies to date have cost tax payers and what the financial projections are for implementing this more formal policy. • The definition of "cut through" traffic needs to be reflective of that fact that every resident in Edina could claim this to be a traffic issue on their street. Further review should address what is considered "cut through" instead of the commonly implied ownership of streets in front of one's house. • The City's summer 2004 reviews of traffic calming devices done by City Planning, Engineering, Public Works and emergency responders should be available to the public on the City's web site as well as incorporated into the draft policy. • As it is currently drafted, the policy does not go far enough to represent the interests of all Edina residents; operationally it pits one neighborhood against another, rather than looking at the community as a whole —a city-wide approach is paramount for resolving traffic issues. • Finally, the plan should ensure projects that benefit a small minority do not receive approval (particularly when study findings do not warrant their approval), at the expense of all residents of Edina (e.g. the $30,000 spent on consulting fees alone for studies done in the Country Club District in 2000 - 2001). Sincerely, Marianne Herrmann 4386 Wooddale Ave. S. St. Louis Park, MN 55424 952/ 924 -0591 Mmherrmann @aol.com file: / /G:\Infrastructure \Streets \traffic \Transportation Commission \Correspondance\2004 Cor... 1/3/2005 Page 1 of 1 From: MARTE PALM [Martep @msn.com] Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 10:12 AM To: Steve Lillehaug Subject: Fw: Fw: Edina Transportation Policy Hi Steve, thanks for your email. Here's the original message I received, then I wrote to Wayne Houle. Happy New Year. Marte Palm - - - -- Original Message - - - -- From: LindaSandbo(a)-aol.com To: ckealy @juno.com ; JohnSandbo(Daol.com ; sandy.behnken angenmills.com ; aramsey2 1(cDnetzero.com ; awbodeau(cD-earthlink.net ; beatrice- benda(a)webtv.net ; beunze -aol.com ; ckeal edenpr.org ; dadsakidtoo(cDyahoo.com ; danandmary(cD-prodigy.net ; dmaslp @hotmail.com ; ebennis498(cDmsn.com ; lelkins a aol.com ; ielkins _.tfs.psych.umn.edu ; karen .brookcomm.net ; kohner m(cD-yahoo.com ; linda.geer .visi.com ; mary.hinz @co.hennepin.mn.us ; matt.matousek(cilonvoy.com ; mcdorsey @gsb.uchicago.edu ; mecoats(a)_att.net ; Melissadave2 @aol.com ; merrick adam(c yahoo.com ; mfaridi a faridianslip.com ; michaell(D-michaell.org ; mittelstaedtj(a.netscape.net ; mkcarden@worldnet.att.net ; mkhinz@ouno.com ; mplsm yahoo.com ; nhintz _ mn.rr.com ; Pellinetaaol.com ; pietrsm(a)netscape.net ; pjandersen(a)lsadesigninc.com ; pjandjen andersen(aZyahoo.com ; PMcg4130 aol.com ; ritz4t@-mindspring.com ; rowlen usfamily.net ; shiz koizumi D-cargill.com ; tallpaul1225 @juno.com ; tmlross mac.com ; tmlross .mcc.com ; whkirmsse @gwest.net ; annette.adelmann( diasorin.com ; Bkwecker(a)cs.com ; wgarland(a)prodigy.net ; elizabetsy952 hotmail.com ; kathleen.wecker(aD-usbank.com ; martep @msn.com ; Chris sheehanphoto.com ; Kunalde(c�usfamily.net ; PatEverheart(cDearthlink.net ; NEngels _aol.com ; Rbrown nemerfieger.com ; sschultz (cD_stlouispark.org ; UllmannJH(a)aol.com ; emiuelmen(a)hotmail.com ; tcalhoun(cD- pro -ns -net ; eminelmen(a)hotmail.com ; wendy.tai(a)genmills.com ; diablo(c gyyy.net ; jeschaefer(a)gwest.net ; Debdeveny @aol.com Cc: JohnBasiIISLP(aD-mn.rr.com ; iiacobs @wilkersonhegna.com ; sue.sanger a genmills.com ; PFinkelste(cDaol.com ; pomodt ,,psbpr.com ; SusanSanta @aol.com ; svelick _.mn.rr.com Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2004 2:33 PM Subject: Fwd: Fw: Edina Transportation Policy Dear Neighbors: Attached is some information regarding Edina's draft Transportation Policy and links to the entire draft policy. Mary Anderson brought this to my attention and asked that I distribute to our neighborhood. The deadline for your commentary on this proposed policy is December 30th. Please read over the information. I've also copied our St. Louis Park Council Members hoping they can represent us on this issue. Keep Joyous & Safe this Holiday Season! Linda Sandbo (952) 924 -0261 file://G:Vnffastructure \Streets \traffic \Transportation Commission \Correspondance\2004 Cor... 1/3/2005 to! ! ! Neighborhood Action Required!!!! DECEMBER 30" DEADLINE In 1993, and again in 2001, the Country Club neighborhood sought the City of Edina's approval to modify access to their neighborhood due to concerns that non - Country Club residents were using their streets. The plan did not pass due to various technical City policy issues. Those issues are now being addressed within a new draft Transportation Policy that significantly reduces your right to voice your concerns about traffic modifications that could negatively affect you. If adopted, The City of Edina's proposed new Transportation Policy will make it dramatically easier to adopt County Club's traffic modifications to the significant detriment of non - Country Club residents. THE DEADLINE FOR YOUR COMMENTARY ON THIS PROPOSED POLICY IS DECEMBER 30TH. NO NOTICE OR COMMENT: Under this new Policy the Country C1ub.District will have the ability to begin street closures, re- routing and traffic calming techniques to reduce a perceived problem with traffic within Country Club. If you live outside of a 300 - foot radius of the proposed change area or are not, by their definition, an "affected person" (Edina or St. Louis Park) you will NOT receive notice of the changes and will have no right to comment. (Inconvenience does not count for anything by their current definition.) THE PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED STREET CHANGES: The previously proposed traffic plan completely closed Sunnyside between Arden and Grimes Ave. The Browndale Bridge becomes a one -way westbound exit only, leaving Country Club. To the North, Browndale becomes one-way,. outbound exit only to 44th Street from Country Club. Wooddale becomes an inbound -only entrance from 40 Street. VASTLY INCREASED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR NON - COUNTRY CLUB RESIDENTS: The result of the above actions, by Edina's own consultants' estimates, will only reduce traffic volumes by a few hundred vehicles per day per street; however, it will INCREASE the traffic on 44th street and others by THOUSANDS of vehicles per day. Specifically, 44th Street will go from 3400 vehicles per day at Kojetin Park to 7380. AN INCREASE OF MORE THAN 117%! At 44th and Browndale the vehicle count goes from 2500 vehicles to 4600, an equally unacceptable increase of 84 %. While numbers for Morningside and Browndale neighborhoods were conveniently not shown, it can be reasonably assumed that traffic on Wooddale, Browndale and in those non - Country Club areas will SKYROCKET as France Avenue is already at full capacity NO NORTH - SOUTH NEIGHBORHOOD INTERCONNECTIVITY: These street closure and traffic calming actions will significantly impair your ability to travel north and south through Country Club and will greatly add time and inconvenience to your ability simply to maneuver around the neighborhood. ACTION: You must notify the City of Edina immediately, IN WRITING, EMAIL or FAX if you are opposed to the new Transportation Policy and/or if you are opposed to street closures and re- routing of traffic through Country Club that result in increased traffic in other nearby neighborhoods. A HARD COPY LETTER TO THE CITY IS SUGGESTED. <over> IF YOU OPPOSE HAVING MORE TRAFFIC IN YOUR AREA, A SAMPLE LETTER IS ATTACHED FOR YOUR USE AND /OR USE THE BELOW EMAIL ADDRESS TO VOICE YOUR OPINION ON THE DRAFT TRANSPORTATION POLICY. VIA EMAIL: WAYNE HOULE, EDINA CITY ENGINEER AT: WHOULEACI.EDINA.MN.US AND GORDON HUGHES, EDINA CITY MANAGER Qhughesna,ci.edina.mmus VIA EDINA FAX: 952 - 826 -0389 (The entire draft policy can be found at: httu://www.cityofedina.com/Palles/L5- 63 TransportationCommissionPolicy .htm) A WCCO News video briefly outlining the issue is at h!M: / /wcco.dMort.com/launcher /4348/ YOU MUST RESPOND BEFORE DECEMBER 30, 2004 TO HAVE YOUR OPINION HEARD AND COUNTED! To: The Edina Transportations Committee And The Edina City Council And Edina Engineering Department 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 To all persons: I am opposed to the current draft Transportation policy. I am opposed to traffic calming measures for traffic volume control. I am opposed to all traffic calming methods that increase emergency response times. I am opposed to limiting citizen's access to residential streets. -,% I want the definition of an "Impacted Area" to include those negatively affected by limitation of access. I want the "Impacted Area" radius increased for all purposes, including notification and public hearings, to include ALL residents who reasonably self - define as "Impacted ". I want at least a 70 % threshold of support/opposition for any project to be advanced or defeated. I want a policy that considers and serves the residents of the entire community, not just residents of a single neighborhood. Sincerely, Print Name: Address: 12/30/04 Attached is a hard copy of my comment on the draft ETC Policy, with referenced attachments. An email version of the same was sent on 12/28/04. If you have any questions, please contact me. ' erl, Jennifer janovy 952 - 920 -4373 From: Steve Lillehaug Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2004 11:17 AM To: 'Jkj966 @aol.com'; Wayne Houle; Gordon Hughes Cc: Steve Lillehaug; Sharon Allison Subject: RE: draft ETC Policy public comment Good morning Jennifer. Thank you.for your comments regarding traffic issues in Edina and the DRAFT Transportation Commission Policy. They will be forwarded to the Transportation Commission and Council for consideration. Although I will not comment on every point you made, I would like to point out that it appears you spent a considerable effort compiling information regarding the derivation of the DRAFT Policy and points throughout the past year where you feel staff is misleading to one extent or another. First, I have never tried to mislead anyone where the information in the DRAFT policy was derived partly or wholly from nor tried to mislead anyone on any other Edina matter. Yes, we referenced Bloomington's policy as well as many, many others (as acknowledged in Appendix D). Another point I will continue to echo: Traffic control measures that divert traffic are included in the DRAFT policy (and, yes, I definitely support including them as a potential tool). The majority of substantial policies throughout America include these exact tools (contrary to what you claim, only a few minority exclude). It is my opinion that there may be an appropriate application of one of these volume mitigating tools in Edina and to exclude would be very short sighted as a professional engineer. Does this mean one of these measures will be implemented in an area that you elude to - possibly not or possibly, but only upon after completion of a traffic study, scrutinized and recommended by staff, public involvement, recommended by the ETC, public hearing process and approved by the Council - regardless of any one neighborhood group's or individual's intentions and desires. You and others continue to reiterate the need to increase the size of the benefited areas and impacted areas - its been well stated and heard by your Transportation Commission and Council. I've given my recommendation which is a minimum and allows for expanding these areas on a case by case scenario. No two areas in Edina are the same and it is my opinion that impacted areas may need to be adjusted based on a proper evaluation of the area and the potential impact to the area. If you are able to quantify this in a more logical manner, please give a suggestion rather than telling me what we currently have is wrong and too exclusive, narrow, inherently unfair, etc. 'Give me an example of another community that does this in a different manner. If I saw a more logical way to define this without having to spend the taxpayers money to send notifications to the entire City in every instance, I would recommend it. Meeting the Council objectives: the draft policy does not give a specific step by step methodology for addressing some of the other transportation issues such as mass transit. The ETC will be working with staff, consultants, etc. regarding these issues on a short and long term basis but does not require (in my opinion) a step by step procedure to do so. I've only been with the City of Edina for a short time (almost a year) and it is My strong opinion that this policy is extremely important and needed to avoid the paths that the City has went down in the past and has been extremely scrutinized for. I take pride in my work, will continue to put transportation safety issues at the forefront, and am not here to mislead anyone in this City. I'm willing to meet with you anytime to further discuss any of your issues or recommendations with the DRAFT policy or any other Edina infrastructure matter. Thank you. Steve Steven L. Lillehaug, P.E., P.T.O.E. Edina Traffic Engineer /Assistant Engineer Engineering Department 952 -826 -0445 slillehaug @ci.edina.mn.us City of Edina 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 -1394 www.cityofedina.com (fax) 952 -826 -0389 - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Jkj966Qaol.com [mailto:Jkj966 @aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2004 9:55 AM To: Steve Lillehaug; Wayne Houle; Gordon Hughes Subject: draft ETC Policy public comment Below and attached is public comment for the ETC and City Council regarding the draft ETC Policy. I will send a paper copy with referenced enclosures also. Thanks. Jennifer Janovy 12/27/04 To: Edina Transportation Commission Gordon Hughes CC: Edina City Council Re: ETC draft Policy Public Comment Dear Mr. Hughes and Members of the Edina Transportation Commission: The 12/16/04 article in the Edina Sun Current, Traffic Talks, includes statements attributed to Commission members and City staff that require some clarification. Issue 1: Creation of the Policy "The draft Transportation Commission Policy garnered attention in recent weeks after Commissioner Joni Bennett spoke out against the policy she and six other appointed residents comprising the Edina Transportation Commission spent the past year creating." "They started with nothing," [Gordon Hughes] said. "They now have a very strong policy that provides the framework it was intended to provide." what Is Misleading: Assertion that the Commission spent the past year creating the draft ETC Policy. Assertion the ETC started with "nothing." Clarification: Material in the draft Policy originated with City staff. A large part of the Policy was taken directly from other publications, specifically the Edina Transportation Plan (1999) and Bloomington's traffic management policy, as shown below. The following points in the ETC draft Policy come from the Edina Transportation Plan (1999): Roadway Design: Points 1 -4, 6 -7 Roadway Function and Access: Points 2 -7 Roadway Maintenance & Operation: Points 1 -5 Transit /TDM: Points 1 -5 Parking: Points 1 -2 Pedestrian /Bicycle: Points 1 -4 Goods Movement: Point 1 Funding and Jurisdiction: Points 1 -4 The ETC was given a copy of the Edina Transportation Plan (1999) on April 22, 2004 and went through it in a single meeting. At the following meeting (May 27, 2004) the ETC received the first draft of their Policy, which incorporated portions of the 1999 Plan. The following points in the ETC draft Policy come from Bloomington's traffic management policy: Process and Schedule, Table 1: All or part of Steps 1 -4, Step 5b, Step 6, Steps 8 -10 Criteria for Screening: All Scoring for Ranking: Points 1 -5 Removal of Traffic Calming Methods: All Benefited Area (Assessed Area): Benefited areas for speed hump, speed table, center island narrowing, choker, and chicane. Benefited area for partial street closure. Benefited area for cul-de- sac. Bloomington's transportation policy was not presented to the ETC prior to portions of it appearing in the draft ETC Policy. Because much of the draft Policy comes directly from other sources and because it was presented to the ETC by City staff, it is misleading to state the ETC created the Policy or started with nothing. Regarding the timeline for creating the Policy, the ETC began meeting on January 20, 2004 and received the first draft of the Policy on May 27, 2004 —a span of FOUR months, not a year as stated in the article. I question how in this length of time they could have studied the issues sufficiently to come up with a Policy on their own or knowledgably edit the Policy handed to them. "They started with nothing," [Gordon Hughes] said. "They now have a very strong policy that provides the framework it was intended to provide." What Is Misleading: Suggestion that the draft ETC Policy meets the objectives laid out for the ETC by the City Council. Clarification: The draft ETC Policy largely overlooks issues the ETC was formed to address, such as mass transit, while including objectives beyond the Commission's scope of responsibilities. For these reasons the draft Policy falls short of fulfilling the Council's intentions. Issue 2: Street Closure "The group of Edinans —and some non - residents —who use the local streets as commuter routes —who attended the meeting had to be reminded by Commission Chairman Fred Richards that there is no such proposal from the Country Club District or any other neighborhood to close off streets at this time." "Lillehaug said misinformation has led people to believe that there is some type of imminent threat that streets will be closed." What Is Misleading: Suggestion that concern over street closures is the result of misinformation. Failure to disclose that that some in the Country Club District continue to advocate for street closures in their neighborhood. Failure to disclose Commissioner Marie Thorpe's past and possibly current advocacy of street closures in the Country Club District. Clarification: In many conversations with others about issues related to the draft ETC Policy I have never said, nor have I ever heard said, there is a current proposal with the City to close off streets in the Country Club neighborhood. Instead, discussion has focused on the following facts: y Significant changes to streets in Country Club are still being discussed in the neighborhood, as evidenced by the article "Traffic Primer," by Country Club resident Rob Webb, which appeared this fall on the Country Club District web site. The article discusses making Browndale Ave. outbound only at W. 50th St. and W. 44th St.; Wooddale Ave. inbound only at W. 44th St.; and closing Sunnyside Rd. between Grimes and Arden Aves. y Commissioner Marie Thorpe, as past chairperson of the Country Club District Committee on Traffic Issues, has been an outspoken supporter of traffic calming measures, including street closures, in her neighborhood. In 2001, this group developed a plan with the assistance of City staff and taxpayer- funded consultants that included closing off Sunnyside between Grimes and Arden Avenues and adding one -way portals to Browndale and Wooddale (see attachment). According to an August 29, 2001 article in the Edina Sun Current, "A majority of the 10- member committee also believed it [proposal to close Sunnyside between Grimes and Arden and add one -way portals into /out of the neighborhood] was the least restrictive alternative to neighborhood traffic, Committee Chairperson Marie Thorpe said." It is interesting to note that in 2001 the City committed resources to studying the perceived problem in the Country Club neighborhood even though a November 2000 Traffic Safety Staff Review indicated no problems with excessive speed or volume in Country Club. y Regarding the issue of addressing cut - through traffic in Country Club, staff concluded, "under our present policies we have done all we can do." The draft ETC Policy, by including the option of street closure for volume control, provides the change in City policy needed for residents of Country Club to petition the City to implement street closures, as proposed in 2000/2001 and advocated in the recent Country Club District web site article. The participation of Ms. Thorpe on the ETC adds to the concern; as a Commissioner, she has supported the draft Policy, aspects of which clear the way for the City to spend time and money revisiting the proposal to close off access to her neighborhood that she advocated. This is a conflict of interest that must be addressed. Issue 3: Area of Notification "Lillehaug said the provision is a minimum area of notification. He said that if the city were to reach a point where it had to notify,property owners, it would not be difficult to expand the area. —This is another example of some thing you see in other cities' plans,' Lillehaug said. `This policy is meant to be a framework. It is not set in stone and does not bind us to its language.'" What Is Misleading: The City will fairly expand the notification area; therefore, the minimum notification area in the draft Policy is acceptable. Clarification: Because the area of notification is too narrow, exceptions will become the rule. One project may get broad notification, while another gets narrow notification. This is inherently unfair. If a minimum notification standard cannot be fairly adhered to in most situations, the area needs to be expanded and criteria for diverging from the standard must be clearly defined and publicly stated. It is my belief that the ETC should suspend work on the draft Policy and take some time to review their process. Requests for information that would indicate a need or lack of need for a neighborhood traffic management approach should be honored and this information carefully analyzed. Staff should review manpower needs associated with a neighborhood traffic management plan and provide a cost- benefit analysis for residents to review. Steve Lillehaug conceded at the December 7, 2004 joint meeting that the manpower needs associated with implementing the Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan had not been analyzed. All available traffic safety data should also be reviewed. If the ETC goes forward with a neighborhood traffic management policy at this time, it should not include the option of traffic calming for volume control. Communities with similar traffic management plans have wisely not included these options because they are known to shift traffic onto other local streets. If traffic calming for volume control were not included in the Policy, I believe much support for the Policy among certain Country Club residents would dwindle, as it seems it is just this aspect of the Policy these residents support. Finally, the City should take care to not represent citizens' concerns as resulting from misinformation when, clearly, there is significant documentation and history to support these concerns. Sincerely, Jennifer Janovy 952 - 920 -4373 jkj966Qaol.com Enclosures: 12/16/04 Edina Sun Current article, "Traffic Talks" Rob Webb article, "Traffic Primer," Country Club District web site Country Club District Committee on Traffic Issues, July 5, 2001 August 29, 2001 Sun Current article Traffic Safety Staff Review, November 2000 Sincerely, Jennifer Janovy 952 - 9204373 jkj966Qaol.com Enclosures: 12/16/04 Edina Sun Current article, "Traffic Talks" Rob Webb article, "Traffic Pruner," Country Club District web site Country Club District Committee on Traffic Issues, July 5, 2001 August 29, 2001 Sun Current article Traffic Safety Staff Review, November 2000 D .4� Y y' VWL C :,got- overpr4 ' �Y- .w h .. t�anspprtagQ�ipta� ��: � � �` � F� � �` � � � • ra �. B A Qom, 7 xq 4"W* � JAMS Zw�.l+��i Qb3ervegS,eX00kU.4g gQeid neighborhood vs Tle o^ r11 3v battle play out at the lac Edina. Tralslaortatlon Colntnis- w, : s�1{ -� "�� Slon O A1101138 were p- polnw, Pe le#1; disc � Wll]l 'pP�g packed the City Cauncil's jla a bers.and spilled into the:.City Hall's foyer, for the - meetiaxg, there was little disa�i # ^. be had b ui y those attendaz}c er i 4te ; The .r7raft; `1'x' &igxtatiot!�� k s. °.' a Commission Policy pro Y tendon In�yent vyeelts after `spode a #�A° Commissioner Joni Ifel -Y. Ben : Bettndt#'audt #laaGx18 Rat : '#list tletae is some type Qf llmli V nett spoke.out agars# the poiicY r of #heal x " t that s#xeets yv?11 be -9#t she and six -other appoi}t Pub1WY d . idents comprising the .Edina meeting pax TWO is "a tt'affc:&lming Transportation Coinrr}isaion n►etare.,tha# we see In other spent the past year crea � 7t $ 1� P ft m other c ties all of the • �*1os[t f S' x The policy is designed to sup- , At.tlie ca ter posal Qvou d sttbi 44 #fie • !'Ile said., ' 1t's atool. It's a off: much: of. the comtiisatoYt`s xeaAanenctatol� tool tha# ire want everyone .to. element the Edina Transports; debate between Harriett arid' fel ns weir :as that. ofQ Git3ign tion Plan created in 1999, and low commissioners fs:the ten `.,ba shpuld it be.determined 'to; provide a framewpo cilbeforeitWou]clexermoveiY r appropriate in certain. s tua ork for the tial that residents in the' 'CO un ward ` City Council an& city staff to try Club District would seek, to "C14Sitng 04,,S#eets;ts a nec< W- lather or not a plan to im implement future transporta- close off theii streets. These essa tion policies and initiatives. r'Y `and effective 'traffic- element' 'it exists, `residents" streets are often .used by rear. calming measure,', said Steve, don't deaei°ve ,the: possibility of But two facets of the pro dents:of the Mo ruingsde neigh i.illeiaug, the = city's tassistant � street closures posed: tr- ansportation_ policy borhood, wher'e nnett lives,,, e hanging ;over ?�" n$Ii�eei' gild a_St�ff iiais�in the city using street closures as and colnitte7ra-as-rira3e >= , a traffic = calming measure and :routes: ' y sign. transportation- related notices The group Qf Edinans and fight .nov to property owners - had Ben some 'non-residents who use as n trai nett calling four and voting local.st eetsaspommuterr� tea nd'it'gb against the plan. - who. attended the Meeting had s Nearly all of the people who to be �iJelt remnaiiied bYCgtnmission , to has - oWgU members -lave. pub- licly, stated they,wouldn't sup l ort.such a "closure ih- the:Coun- try Club District even; if it was tp present itsilf. :TRAFFIC: Tn Page 35A } 7 �ecery Traffic: Meeting well attended From Page IA. Public notification Bennett, and many of the re sidents speaking at least week's m - Practices. Bennett said the city is already ex- cluding the public from the process and has done so during the formation of the plan. ee mg, also criticized the plan for requiring notifica- tion ' Some citizens shared her concerns, but others pointed to the commissioners of traffic . and transportation changes only-to the affected areas of the and asked why they weren't out in the project. ' co mmunity talking about the plan, The policy defines affected .areas as an: 'Area City Manager Gordon Hughes defend- ed the city's communication efforts. for a project that is defined as those residences along local residential "The has a reputation of being streets that ai'e positively. or`negatively impacted by excessive through ,traffic open," he said. "This is no different. There is always going to be comment and 'of volumes and speeding, or that ,may, be review any plans for any neighbor- hood." Positively or negatively impacted by pro- posed traffic calming. Inconvenience Hughes, and those who spoke at last caused by limitation of-access is not•con- t be a negative impact' under week's commission meeting, had good things to say about the work of the coin thise f this.defmition." i mission so far. The idea that the impacted area could be confined to "They now ha e a very strong nothing," he said- T Y g policy that a single block was.a con - cern many residents shared with e framework it was intended to provide." -the commission. Richards said the commission would likely revisit that issue at its Jan.- The nextstep iii the process is a Jan. 6 Transportation Commission meeting in 6 meet- ing; but he did not indicate whether any changes would be made. which commissioners will review the public comment received at the meeting, Lillehaug said the provision.1s a min- ileum area prior to the meeting and since: Should the majority of the of notification. ' - He said that if the city were to reach _commis sion vote to move forward with the poli- a Point-where it'had to notify property owners, cy, as it is, Bennett intends to produce a minority report, she it-would not be difficult to ex- pand that area. said. The minority report idea stemmed "This is. another exainpie gf some from a suggestion of Mayor Dennis Maetzold' in a joint-meeting thing' you see in other cities'- plans," Lillehaug said- "This`.policy is -of the com- missionand the council, held Dec. 7. meant to be °aframework: It is not set,ilistone €end The policy and minority report ; if one is produced, does not bind us to its laAgtiage." Lillehaug said; t4wcity would -then be sent to the ' City Council for discussion and possible 4has�ixiany.lev -... els of'communication . in'pla"" to deal ' ' with t�mWic and other issues, and ;action. , The draft Transportation Policy = is the pro , .posed' policy would not exclude those available online at wwwacityofedina.com. )rhood Info News Interest Groups Street Info Template Articles Traffic Info Traffic Primer - Rob Webb Traffic has been the number one interest area for most residents. The CCNA survey identified 68% of respondents as "very interested ", and 32% as "moderately interested "; or 100% interested. The appetite for knowledge on the subject is high. I've avoided it to date as topic since it can be controversial. 8 out of 10 streets in the neighborhood have fairly significant Cut Through traffic volumes, and 2 have almost none. That said, I believe the CCNA needs to provide information on subjects of interest. This has overwhelming interest, and many of you inquired about the subject during the neighborhood block party, in addition to trees and architecture. The timing is important since there is a lot of activity at the City on this subject right now, and many decisions that affect the neighborhood will be made in coming months. The City is seeking to pass a traffic policy by September /October that will determine the process by which traffic issues will be addressed in the City for the foreseeable future. The baseline of knowledge on traffic in general and traffic in the neighborhood is disparate. The CCNA will provide the facts as they have been provided and explained to volunteers by the City or by research into the subject. These facts have been substantiated to the extent possible. Traffic Primer: • In any street system there are Residential streets, Collectors, and Arterials • Residential streets are designed to carry traffic derived primarily from the residences on that street. According to a City consulting study, residents become uncomfortable when traffic volumes exceed 500 vehicles per day, and a common maximum threshold for maximum recommended vehicles is 750 to 1,000 vehicles per day. • Collectors are designed to carry heavier volumes of traffic, and bear the i primary burden of providing vehicle mobility within a community. Examples �,. surrounding the neighborhood are 50 , France, 44th, and Brookside. • It is noteworthy that, according to City policy, 80% of the cost of major maintenance on Collectors is borne by the City, whereas on Residential streets 100% is borne by the homeowners. • When the Arterial and/or Collector street system fails to meet demands, cars begin to utilize Residential streets for mobility. This is often termed as "Cut Through ", and is defined as a vehicle that does not begin or end its trip on the street affected. Cut Through definitions are independent of whether the driver is a resident of Edina, Hennepin County, the United States or any other land mass —if the driver doesn't have a destination on the street, then they're Cut http:// www. countryclubdistrict .org/ReadArfcle.asp ?article's 10/25/2004 1�V44{ L 11 LLV1V Through by most definitions. Many cities target Cut Through volumes to be less than 20% of a street's traffic. • One common source of confusion is that Residential streets are public streets and open for anyone to access. The logic goes then that cars have an inherent right to drive on those streets. This is true. The issue isn't about rights, but is about appropriate traffic system design. Design objectives for street systems seek to keep traffic on Collectors vs Residential streets, and to keep the Residential streets below targeted levels (see above). In most cities the homeowners are prioritized over the drivers since the drivers are mobile, and have 150 to 300 horsepower pulling them around. • The ideal is for the street system to handle the demands placed on it by vehicles ( "the best defense is a good offense" approach), but if that is not possible, then traffic engineers often pursue "traffic calming" measures such as speed bumps, one -ways, no left turns, speed limit changes, etc. These measures essentially try to make the Residential street equally as unattractive to a Cut Through driver as the Collector or Arterial street. By definition, they require some level of sacrifice of mobility by the residents - -the extent of the sacrifice will vary depending on the situation. • The resident - derived traffic in the neighborhood varies by street but is generally less than 450 vehicles per day. According to the City, total Country Club traffic volumes, inclusive of Cut Through, by street were approximately as follows(much of this data is 4 years old, so volumes may be different at this time, the last time the City did a survey was 2000): Sunnyside (3,000 vehicles per day or VPD), Wooddale (2,000 VPD), Arden (1,900 VPD), Edina (1,600 VPD), Country Club (1,600 VPD), Drexel (1,500 VPD), Browndale (1,200 VPD), Bruce (600 VPD), Casco (450 VPD), Moorland (400 VPD). Total Cut Through traffic volumes are about 5,000 vehicles per day. Speeds are averaging 30 MPH on most streets, with <1% going over 40 MPH. • Country Club has streets as high as 3x the Residential thresholds of 1,000 VPD and 70% of the streets are well above it. 80% are above "comfort" levels. Over 50% of the traffic in the neighborhood does not originate or terminate in the neighborhood. • What is the source of the problem? The City is quick to point out that the highway system is not adequate, but most Country Club streets continue to bear high volumes even when the highways are not congested. The Edina Collector street system is not adequate. • Another source of confusion is the fact that other Edina neighborhoods would like to maintain easy passage through Country Club for their convenience. While many view this as an adversarial interest. They actually are lobbying for an easy way to get access to their homes from various points in the City. The City needs to provide them with adequate Collector streets to accommodate their mobility needs as best possible since a neighborhood thoroughfare is not consistent with most street system design principles. . What can be done? The City of Edina is developing a Traffic Policy to address the traffic issues in the City. It is targeted to complete its policy for City Council approval in September 2004. • There are three potential remedial courses of actions: 1) improve the Collector system; or 2) put in traffic calming measures; or 3) a combination of both. • A little more detail on the nature of calming measures considered. A plan wa. developed several years ago that would make the neighborhood less porous. It http://www.countryclubdistrict.org/ReadArficle.asp?artieltiM 10/25/2004 xeaa Am, cie would make the Browndale bridge one way out at 50th street to prevent people from coming off 100 and shooting up Browndale and/or across the other neighborhood streets (many people enter the neighborhood there to avoid Wooddale traffic signal even if their destination is to exit by 44th and France ). Then Wooddale would be one way into the neighborhood at 44th . This would prevent people from cutting straight across the neighborhood north to south, or from backtracking off eastern streets. The last, or perhaps first, move would be to close or make one way inbound Sunnyside at Grimes. The number of cars passing this way is 3,000 per day, and they find their way through the neighborhood all different ways (some straight up Arden, some up Bruce, some across Country Club, some up Drexel, some clear across from Browndale bridge). The net effect of the changes is that someone that wanted to Cut Through south to north (whether a bias to the west, or east) would need to. ck -track all the way to Browndale to exit the neighborhood to the north. The ief is ,� o that many people would instead choose to go throu�50�' and France, r go r/V Brookside to 44th (all collectors). This increase in traffic still till netted out to a material reduction for Browndale. It has the inconvenience of also having this effect on residents. One estimate indicated that the average trip to 44th and France would require 60 seconds longer. As discussed, traffic calming, by definition is breaking the traffic system a little bit to incent traffic to use appropriate roadways. The cost of this proposal is nominal, and is highly reversible. This proposal was projected by traffic engineers to reduce traffic on all streets by an average of 37 %. • Other proposals include speed humps, or other traffic calming measures. These measures cost, by one estimate, $20,000 to $30,000 per street depending on the number of bumps, are difficult to reverse. No traffic reduction projections have been developed by the City. Depending on design speed bumps reduce average speeds by 5 to 10 MPH. There are concerns about emergency vehicles being able to reach destinations in the neighborhood, and their affect on snow plows. Some neighborhoods have removed speed bumps due to increased noise as cars brake and accelerate at each hump. • What can you do? Attend the Traffic Commission meetings. All residents are given an opportunity to comment at the conclusion of the meetings. They are held the 4th Thursday of each month at 6:00 p.m. at City Hall. You can also write to the City officials. Their numbers and a -mails are listed under "Directories" on the web site. Last, the CCNA will be conducting a survey of residents on the web site in the near future regarding traffic. You can take the survey which will provide information regarding the views of the residents regarding traffic. I will send an e-mail when that survey is ready. • This information is also on the web site under "Interest Groups ", " Traffic" http://www.countryclubdistrict.org/ReadArficle.asp?article]M 10/25/2004 Country Club District � U . i�a.�►�� r Committee on Traffic Issues Neighborhood iJpdate - .arty 5. 2001 Country Club Neighbors and Friends' Last November, the Country Club District Committee on traffic Issues made a presentation to the Edina City Council based on your feedback showing that our neighborhood is concerned with traffic volume, speeds and stop sign compliance. The Committee requested the City's review of -these concerns. In response, the City of Edina retained SRF Consulting Group to study the issues and recommend potential solutions. SRF's findings are compelling. The Metropolitan Council Guidelines for the Functional Classification of Streets and Highways denotes 750 cars /day as appropriate for residential streets. Many streets in the neighborhood experience daily volumes that are up to four times that level_ Furthermore. SRF has determined that over 50 percent of our neighborhood traffic is non - resident, cut - through traffic. SRF's engineers have identified a possible solution that will effectively reduce traffic volumes (primarily cut - through traffic) throughout our neighborhood without increasing traffic volumes on any neighborhood street. The engineers considered speed, safety, convenience and accessibility to ensure the plan recommended for testing would be effective. The engineers indicated that by reducing traffic volumes in our neighborhood; we should also see an opportunity for reduced speeds; as the majority of�the remaining trafflE: wilt be residential traffic that should have a vested interest in the safety of our pedestrians. The engineers will consider additional traffic calming devices to enhance the recommended plan if tested and proven effective PROPOSED PLAN TO REDUCE CUT - THROUGH TRAFFIC In order to reduce our cut- through traffic, the engineers recommend making changes to the portals (access POWs) of our neighborhood, rather.than modifying the interior streets. They also noted that the majority of our cut - through traffic is traveling•between 5& Street at the.Browndale Bridge and the.,44y and. Erance,area in an effort to avoid congestion at the 500' and France area intersections. Because of this, the engineers stated that the single most effective change to address this problem would be to close oft access to/from our, neighborhood at Sunnyside between Arden and Grimes. The proposed plan modifies access to our neighborhood on the south side by making the Browndale Bridge one•way, westbound, leaving the Country Club neighborhood. On the North end of the area, Browndale becomes outbound -only' at 441' Street; Wooddale becomes Inbound -onto' at 44'h Street; and Sunnyside Road is closed between Arden and Grimes. NEXT STEPS 1. An informal Neighborhood Meetirig is set for July 12 at 7:00 p.m. at Edina -City Hall. SRF Consulting Group will present the results of their evaluation and their recommendations. Neighborhood residents will have the opportunity to ask questions and show support/concern for the plan that is being considered for testing. 2. With the support of the neighborhood, a presentabon,would be. made to the Edina, City Council to request approval to move forward with the testing process. Prior to testing, the City of Edina wilt take daily traffic volume counts by block to obtain a baseline for evaluating the effectiveness of the plan. The engineers have recommended that the plan be tested for a minimum of 4 weeks. Traffic volumes and speeds will be recorded on each blocfc during the testing phase. Following the testing period, all traffic conditions/access will return to normal. The City of Edina, the consulting engineers and the committee members will review the data collected during the testing phase. Based on that data, a recommendation will be made to the neighborhood: We encourage you to attend the Neighborhood Meeting on July 121h. as ti's an excellent opportunity for you to ask questions and share your feedback. Sincerely, Thee C:nuretry Club 1)istrict Co?n-m-ittee un Traffic Issues Country Club Neighborhood Traffic Study wAlternate B-1 (5-16 Ict 1 -6, ir -.4 & C'OMPQl,Iv. Alt rfgjhlLq reserved. ii o - -in H --J I ki Edina County Chub Neighbomood I Traffic S ' USTI" M& WLY VAC turfy Area A I w��s, !! < Ito ol 5316 J wv' � 14f. J > N� ed W's st st r•tli 1`� , Y. o } 3300 � a � � i -•- - i ~- IsTINU►" fRd?•t ' '� � �� � � • � •. • � ....` ... � ...... , T OkTA AVAY A&&. 0 1997 by Rand McNalty d, cpmPany. AN tights tese►vad. i 7 K d 0 n Edina County Club Neighborhood / Traffic Study Area -W FOET Pon W 4 L W Ord S1 > f04" Qq: Rd 0 t t W 441h st st 4g 'q-- It 'J: IiZ. P 10!F Awl : 4 . �.j W 45th St _40 Q --A xd 'v 2116 5 W 4641 St 41 -Z 5 � M W4) $ 47jh t A — A ? t IV L to ,ter r 14-1 tv�- ft > 14 W 40th st Rd 4 s ro )?OROI zo W 491h St q ; .. . %-- 4' lei *AM PIA 140 muz A W 381h St P4 W b1sJ St jr sold SO • ©1997 by Rand McNally & Company. All rights re& i. a TRAFFIC SAFETY STAFF REVIEW November 8, 2000 l Page 2 The staff recommends a playground advisory sign for Tingdale Avenue at north end of park for southbound traffic. SECTION B: Requests on which the staff recommends denial of request. None. SECTION C: Requests which are deferred to a later date or referred to others. 1. A group from the County Club area has informed the staff that it will attend the November 21" City Council meeting in order to address what they feel are traffic safety . - -- problems -in- the - County- _Club_area. -- - - - - -- __. 1 - - -- - - --- - - - - The core group consists of approximately eleven members that are from all the streets located in the Country Club area. They have named their group "the Country Club District Committee on Traffic Issues ". They appear to be well organized as they have sent out a survey to the entire County Club area regarding traffic issues and hope to have the results by November 21'. They have done some research and developed a mission statement: "To ensure the traffic speeds and volume levels are consistent with the safety concerns of the residents of the County Club area ". The staff has had discussions with and passed on information regarding traffic surveys done in the County Club area to some of the members of this group. The staff feels that under our present policies we have done all we can do. In 1992 -1993 a similar group approached the City Council for assistance regarding traffic problems in the Country Club area. A task force was formed and an outside consulting group, SRF, was hired to study the problem and make recommendations. From the study some changes were made. A major objective of the plan was to reduce traffic on Wooddale and Browndale which it did do. However for the most part that traffic was just redistributed to other streets, mainly Edina Boulevard and Drexel Avenue raising their traffic significantly from what it had been prior to the changes in 1993. Whether or not the changes made in 1993 helped the traffic situation depends on who you talk to. Some felt it helped and others thought it made things worse. The staff has continued to study the issue of too much traffic and the speed generated by that traffic in the County Club area. M TRAFFIC SAFETY STAFF REVIEW November 8, 2000 Page 3 In regards to the volume of traffic it's not likely to change. The is no where else for it to go and much of it is generated by the area itself. This volume of traffic in the Country Club area is generated by several different facets. There is the conduit factor in which traffic flows north and south connecting the area south of West 50� Street to the area north of Sunnyside Avenue. Wooddale Avenue has been a collector type street since the early 1930's. There is another `conduit' connecting the east with the west via Sunnyside Avenue. France Avenue is the only other route that traffic east of Highway 100 can use to move north and south. There is no denying that there is cut through commuter traffic but much of it is Edina residents traveling north and south and also east/west on Sunnyside Road. There is also the local traffic factor that adds greatly to the traffic volume in the Country Club area. SRF and other consulting groups like them use the figure of 10 -14 trips a day generated by the average household in a area like the County Club. The homes in the - -- - -- -- Country -Club- area- hav-e-at- least- tw-o- -vehicles_and-many comes more. is a verb mobile area with no buses in the immediate area. Being an affluent community there are many trips generated by work, activities, etc. that probably pushes that trip generation figure higher. An area like the County Club also generates a large amount of various service vehicles. And in the last few years there has been substantial renovation projects going on in the Country Club area bringing many construction type workers with their vehicles. The staff and the Police Department have looked at the speed issue in relation to the 30 mph speed limit and can find no excessive speed patterns in the Country Club area. Speed surveys were done on all streets in the County Club area except Moorland Avenue. The highest 85 percentile speed was 33 mph in the 4600 block of Edina Boulevard. What is interesting is there are stop signs at either end of that block. Other than Edina Boulevard the 85 percentile speeds were in the 30 -31 mph range. The speed percentiles were as high on the weekends as they are during the week. The speed surveys were conducted on a week long asis with hundreds of vehicles surveyed. In relationship to accidents the Country Club area has a yey low accident rate. From January 1, 1997 to December 31, 1999 a 3 year period there were 19 reported accidents, 10 in 1997, 6 in 1998, 3 in 1999. This is very good in relation to the volume of traffic. It would be very hard to improve on this figure. Even with the higher traffic the area is very pedestrian friendly when compared to other areas of Edina. It has wide sidewalks separated from the street with wide boulevards. To lower the traffic volumes and speed in this area from what it already is'would require actions beyond the scope of what we presently do. The Country Club area traffic is a IN TRAFFIC SAFETY STAFF REVIEW November 8, 2000 Page 4 very complex situation and would require a extensive study prior to imposing any more restrictions or changes. If the City Council would like to proceed further on this situation the staff would recommend some kind of process to include the following: 1. A neighborhood committee, representative of the entire area involved, to formulate the problem areas and present them in petition form with at least 50% of the residents. signatures. The committee would then continue to work with the City and any consultants that might be hired for the project. 2. The hiring of a private consulting group to work with the neighborhood in addressing problems. 3. Require before and after data collection. 4. If physical changes are to be made, determine the criteria for selection of devices /techniques to be used. This would require a consensus of sort between neighborhood, consultant, and city. 5. Workout the cost participation for physical geometric changes. Who is going to fund these improvements? This is a crucial area as it will probably set precedent for future like projects in the city. Also, it is imperative that the residents know up front what their individual cost will be. 6. Any proposed changes would also have to be reviewed by the Historical Society and other agencies such as the Watershed District. Again, this area has a very complex traffic pattern and great care should be taken to study all the ramifications that could possibly occur with any changes to that pattern. EDIIVA Nei orhoo One neighborhood-regroups, while a second seeks city assistance By Kim Johnson - Stm Newspapers Edina residents and city staff are strug- gling, to come up with ways to combat in- creasing traffic' volumes' and violations on -residential streets. People in two Edina neighborhoods have formed committees, hoping. to secure City nuugu", 2001 . d Council support fortraffic= 3nitigation plans. One neighborhood group received that support ;last. fall, buthas, since encountered resi$tance from community members. Earli- er this month,. a second committee ap- proached the council, but. found ii more hes- itant governing body that has chosen to seek information about traffic- calming measures- before designating city funds to complete a neighborhood study. '' undenstand that tlife ttrafficl is 'a very serious. problem," Councilm fiber Mike Kelly said at the Aug. 21.'Edina City Council tr C issues meeting. He added. that council member and city staff have had extensive discussioi on the issue of increasing traffic volum, along ..residential streets, particularly pri. _ to the construction of the Opus office devc opment on U.S. Highway 169 two years ag "We're sympathetic and we'll try: to find solution that. works for everyone," Kel added. "I'm just not convinced that any these, traffic - calming measures will make difference." TRAFF1Cz To =Page 12 lq,.rwg. 29, 2001 www.mnSun.con n apolis for pre' sentation ors- miti gation A 1993 traffic study, stated the neigh- stop signs at multiple intersections and . borhoods,Thorpe.said. However, she adde borhood, which includes about 550 making the Browndale bridge a one -way that not everyone on the committee ha d, West= households ;-had 'an- unusually. high traf- _ street to 50th Street. .. agreed the proposed plan was the best. P about fic volume fora residential- area.., The committee's goal was to make im- Without that consensus, the plan will nc gtorists The number, of vehicles 'traveling provements in the Country Club neigh - be implemented at this time, according to.cit .ants de- through the neighborhood has since in- borhood, but not at the expense of the staff reports. The committee will con&ue :t date the: creased and residents have growing con- surrounding community, Thorpe said. work with the city to create a solution that i terns about traffic volume, speed and This was intended to be.a test, not a per- acceptableto all,Thorpe said. She added.tha ed. stop -sign violations, Thorpe said. manent solution: a successful plan from them might be use. After workingwith.the city -hired firm of "We didn't know. if this test would _ by other Edina neighborhoods. SRF Consulting Group, the committee con - work," 'she said.. "If it did impact other . "It's been a learning experience for al ducted a neighborhood meeting innud -July neighborhoods or streets within Country. . parties involved - the .city, the commit to present the mitigation plan recommend- Club adversely, then it wouldn't be a good tee," she said. "We're trying to be good cit renting ed by the company's engineers as the most plan." izena. We're trying.to make.our neighbor uchpre- • effective way to limit cut-through traffic,' Re §ide'nts in and around the Countr}� hood safe and maintain its integrity." 4tion in Thorpe said. She defined. &t- through traf - Club neighborhood who attended the She added: that there have been. acci m.me up fic as motorists from outer -ring . suburbs July. 12 meeting i voiced concerns-about dents in the area, but not traffic fatalities datively who drive through the neighborhood on the proposal and : the process that was ..."But why wait for a fatality? Our un through their commutes to and from Minneapolis to used to develop it. In letters to City Coun- paralleled traffic situation is projected b: iod. avoid congestion on Highway 100. cil members, some people suggested clos- engineers to only get worse,"Thorpe said nmittee: "We're cognizant and sensitive of ing Sunnyside at Grimes would segre -. Thorpe said she remained'optimisti. ti being. surrounded by our neighboring gate neighborhoods and increase the dif- that the committee could come-up with; o. neighborhoods,". she added, explaining, ficulty of traveling in and around the city. plan that would be successful and bene 1' the committee did not consider any Edina Several people. also stated they would ficial to other neighborhoods facing simi source residents -as cut - through traffic, like to have been included in the devel= lar traffic ,problems: She added. that thi The proposed plan included closing off. opment process of the plan; so that their committee did have one success - gettini food in Sunnyside Road at Grimes Avenue and opinions would have been heard. local officials to synchronize traffic sig V 44th adding one -way access in, and out of the The committee followed city staff sug- nals at 50th Street and France Avenue b in the neighborhood's northern portals, without gestions to first come up with a neighbor- imp traffic. rove the flow of trac. id Min- converting entire streets to one -way hood consensus before presenting the traf- streets. The plan also included adding fic mitigation plan to surrounding neigh- COUNTRY CLUB: To Next Page IiA a - day,.Aug. 29, 2001 una to ask M nnea s presentation for &`66d West- !W=s about motorists residents de- 'gO*ate the pre- [I in al- a source �rhood in. 44th in the And Min- A 1993 traffic study stated the neigh - borhood, which includes about 550 households,-had an- unusually high traf- fic volume fora residential area. The number of vehicles traveling through the neighborhood has . since in- creased and residents have growingg con - -cerns about traffic. volume, speed and stop -sign violations, Thorpe said. After working with.the city -hired firm of SRF Consulting Group, the committee con- ducted a neighborhood meeting in mid July to present the mitigation plan recommend - ed by the company's engineers as the. most effective way to limit cut - through traffic, Thorpe said. She defined dirt- through traf- fic as motorists from outer -ring suburbs who drive through the neighborhood on their commutes, to and from Minneapolis to avoid congestion on Highway 100. "We're cognizant and sensitive of being surrounded by our neighboring neighborhoods," she added, explaining, the committee did not consider any Edina residents -as cut - through traffic, The proposed plan included closing off Sunnyside Road at Grimes Avenue and adding one -way access in, and out of the neighborhood's northern portals, without converting entire streets to one -way streets. The plan also included adding stop signs at multiple intersections and making the Browndale bridge a one -way street to 50th Street. The committee's goal was to make im- provements in the Country Club neigh- borhood, but not at the expense of the surrounding community, Thorpe said. This was intended to be .a test, not a per- manent solution.' "We didn't know. if this test ,would work," she said.. "If it did, impact other neighborhoods or streets within Country . Club adversely, then it wouldn't be a good plan." Residents in and around the Countr.� Club neighborhood who attended the July. 12 meeting, voiced concerns -about the proposal and -the process that was used to develop it. In letters to City Coun- cil members, some people suggested clos- ing Sunnyside at Grimes would segre- gate neighborhoods and increase the dif- ficulty of traveling in and around the city. Several people also stated they would like to have been included in the devel- opment process of the plan; so that their - opinions would have been heard. The committee followed city staff sug- gestions to first come up with a neighbor- hood consensus before presenting the traf- fic mitigation plan to surrounding neigh- www.mnSun.con on mitigation borhoods, Thorpe said. However, she adde that not everyone on the committee ha agreed the proposed plan was the best. Without that consensus, the plan will nc be implemented at this time, according to.cit staff reports. The committee will continue t work with the city to:create a solution that i acceptable.to all, Thor -ie said. She added tha a successful plan from them might be use by other Edina neighborhoods. "It's been a learning experience for a] parties involved — the city, the commit tee," she said. "We're trying to be good cit izens. We're trying to make.our neighbor hood safe and maintain its integrity." She added that there have been acci dents in the area, but not traffic fatalitie. "But why wait for a fatality? Our un paralleled traffic situation is projected b; engineers to only get worse," Thorpe said Thorpe said she remained'optimisti that the committee could come up with; plan that would be successful and bene frcial to other neighborhoods facing simi lar traffic _problems,' She added that th, committee did have. one success — gettin} local officials to synchronize traffic sig nals at 50th Street and France Avenue b improve the flow of traffic. COUNTRY CLUB: To Next Page December 29, 2004 Edina Transportation Committee Dear Sir or Madam: Please consider the following as you continue your difficult work to draft a comprehensive policy to serve all citizens of Edina: Please be sure the policy considers the effect of traffic on the entire c ommunfir, not just neighborhoods separately. To this end, please expand the community notification area for traffic changes beyond the current suggestion of just a few hundred feet to community -wide notification prior to public hearings, as changes to a grid -based traffic plan will have far- reaching impact. Your current definition of "Impacted Area" is grossly inadequate. 2. Consider defining what "percentage over average" for volume or speed on similar streets constitutes a "traffic problem" worthy of expending precious city dollars to improve or even investigate. People wanting to live on a quiet street may have perceptions that traffic volume is higher than it actually is, or have expectations for lower volumes than is reasonable. Defining the stage at which traffic measures will be implemented will prevent unnecessary spending of precious city resources due to a group of neighbors intent on shielding themselves from "pass -through traffic" in the middle of a grid -based traffic system. 3. Please consider including guidelines for use of traffic calming measures that increase response times for emergency vehicles, suggesting they be a last resort, for use only after trying traffic-calming measures that do not affect response time for emergency vehicles. All citizens of Edina deserve the most prompt emergency help available, and traffic diversions should be reserved for the most serious traffic problems only. Citizens are concerned that the suggested Transportation Policy draft will allow a neighborhood to hijack traffic calming measures intended for the most serious situations and use them to shield their neighborhood from sharing some of the traffic burden we should all share. We should put more of a focus on enforcing the traffic laws already in place, through low -cost radar stations or even more police enforcement, rather than costly street changes to alter traffic flow, including that of emergency vehicles. Creating a step -like approach to choosing trafic calming measures would be invaluable, encouraging the city to fiist try less - expensive measures that do not compromise citizen satiety bethre other more expensive and permanent options are fled. The street could then be reexamined after implementing a first -stage measure, for example, to evaluate how the traffic volume and speed now compare to similar streets as a "percent over average." 4. Please define the threshold for support (or opposition) before a project may be advanced. Changing traffic pattems for an entire traffic grid to gratify a few is unacceptable. Reducing volume on one street only to inflate volume on other streets is not helpful. Please define a threshold of support for a project to ensure unreasonable proposed changes cannot be pushed through engineering and city approval by a group of well- heeled and powerful neighbors at the expense of "the little guy." 5. Restricting access to residential streets in the middle of a grid -based traffic pattern to reduce traffic volumes for a select neighborhood is un- neighborly, un- Minnesotan, and not commensurate with the spirit of community that citizens of Edina like to share. We all pay taxes and deserve access to city roads that are the most convenient possible to keep traffic moving efficiently. Again, ensuring that permanent traffic calming measures such as 0 Page 2 December 29, 2004 street closings, cul- de-sac creations, and other permanent traffic diversions are to be a last resort for the most serious traffic problems only will keep the fabric of our community intact Thank you for your service to our great community. Please consider these suggestions thoughtfully to ensure a traffic policy that will serve all citizens of Edina equally. Edina, MN 55424 cc: Edina City Council, Edina Traffic Engineering Department M), Pagel of 3 11 . 'A, . . Y From: Steve Lillehaug Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 4:06 PM To: 'Connie Soteropulos @MarshallFields.com' Cc: Steve Lillehaug Subject: RE: Engineering Dept/Traffic Issues Thank you for your comments regarding traffic issues in Edina and the DRAFT Transportation Commission Policy. They will be forwarded to the Transportation Commission and Council for consideration. Thank you. Steven L. Litiehaug, P.E., P.T.O.E. Edina Traffic Engineer /Assistant Engineer Engineering Department 962- 826 -0445 slillehaug @ci.edina.mn.us City of Edina 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 -1394 www.cityofedina.com (fax) 952 - 826 -0389 - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Connie _Soteropulos @MarshallFields.com (mailto: Connie_ Soteropulos @MarshallFields.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 12:01 PM To: Jennifer Bennerotte . Subject: Engineering Dept/Traffic Issues January 4, 2005 TO: The Edina City Engineering Department As a resident of the City of Edina I am writing to express my concerns and opinions about the Draft Transportation Policy written by City staff -with input from the Commission -and presented to the public December 6th. Specifically, it is the following items that draw into question the credibility of the proposed plan and the process with which it was developed. _ Public input was not sought until the draft and process were near completion and the holiday season was in full swing. _ There was no public notice of the public comment period or the availability of the draft policy for public review until Thursday, November 25th -- Thanksgiving Day - almost one month after the public comment period opened. This gave the public very little time to learn about and respond before the "open house" on December 9th -the only meeting held to gather public comment before the policy is taken by the Commission to the Council for file://G:\Infrastructure \Streets \traffic \Transportation Commission \Correspondance\2004 Cor... 1/4/2005 Page 2 of 3 approval. The policy's definition of "impacted area" does not include residents who are negatively affected by traffic policies and changes. Notification and the "impacted radius" needs to include, for all purposes, all residents who reasonably self -define as "impacted ". The policy should specify a minimum of a 60 % -70% threshold of support or opposition for any project to be advanced or defeated (and paid for by all Edina residents). _ The proposed policy promotes traffic calming measures for volume control (reduction of traffic on local streets by partial or full street closure). Most communities have either discontinued use of volume control because it diverts traffic to adjacent streets and neighborhoods; it interferes with access by emergency vehicles, and interferes with local travel on local streets. The City so far has not released information on how many traffic studies and change requests have been made to the city in recent history, who has made them and at what expense to the tax payers such studies have been performed. Requests have been made, but the City to date has not provided this information. This includes releasing for public review the most recent traffic counts in Edina (keeping in mind that the most accurate traffic count study is a license plate study). The City Council should not approve this policy before some financial data and projections are provided on what most recent traffic studies to date have cost tax payers and what the financial projections are for implementing this more formal policy. The definition of "cut through" traffic needs to be reflective of that fact that every resident in Edina could claim this to be a traffic issue on their street. Further review should address what is considered "cut through" instead of the commonly implied ownership of streets in front of one's house. _ The City's summer 2004 reviews of traffic calming devices done by City Planning, Engineering, Public Works and emergency responders should be available to the public on the City's web site as well as incorporated into the draft policy. _ As it is currently drafted, the policy does not go far enough to represent the interests of all Edina residents; operationally it pits one neighborhood against another, rather than looking at the community as a whole -a city-wide approach is paramount for resolving traffic issues. Finally, the plan should ensure projects that benefit a small minority do not receive approval (particularly when study findings do not warrant their approval), at the expense of all residents of Edina (e.g. the $30,000 spent on consulting fees alone for studies done in the Country Club District in 2000 - 2001). Connie Soteropulos 4155 West 44th Street Edina, MN 55424 c.soteropulos @att.net file: //G:\Infrastructure \Streets \traffic \Transportation Commission \Correspondance\2004 Cor... 1/4/2005 White Oaks Improvement Assoc. 4711 Meadow Road Edina, MN 55424 January 14, 2005 Mayor Hovland and Edina City Council 4801 West 50' St Edina, MN 55424 Dear Mayor Hovland and Edina City Council: As representatives from White Oaks Improvement Association, we would like to voice our opposition to the traffic proposal. There are numerous issues of which we are concerned. The length of time given to investigate, analyze data, and consider the implications of the traffic proposal has been inadequate. This is a lengthy proposal with broad city -wide implications which must be considered. The importance of distributing accurate, complete, and concise data in a timely matter is critical. We do not believe there has been adequate time for analysis of the data, including input from surrounding communities as to the effectiveness of potential traffic calming options. The final proposal should be available to the public, and further public input should be sought. As a neighborhood within the community of Edina, we are very concerned with the limited impact area of any traffic calming or diversion techniques considered. The plan appears to only require that consideration be given to the impact of a proposal on the area within a one -block radius of the proposal. This ignores the fact that the impact of a proposal can be very broad and include everything from: traffic diverted to others' streets of residence; ease of finding an address; ease of travel for emergency personnel; busing of students; snow clearance; street cleaning; and many more. The impact area is extensive. Travel throughout the community of Edina should be predictable and pleasant. The costs of an investigation may be great. These costs should be considered upfront, before a traffic calming or diversion is considered. There should be a relatively high percentage of concerned neighbors in the immediate impact area who are required to request an investigation. These residents should be financially responsible for this investigation. This would prevent one person from requesting an investigation, which is charged to the city as a whole. In the current proposal, the city will recoup the cost of an investigation only if street changes or calming techniques are implemented in the neighborhood. A deluge of individual requests and potential investigations would be drain on the city's limited budget. This is not protecting the city's limited resources. Public comment should be carefully considered. Despite significant public opposition to the proposal, the traffic commission approved the proposal. It is disappointing to hear that the commission approved this position, when the only support came from one specific area of the community. It was suggested that those who were opposed were misinformed, we would argue that those who support the proposal were also misinformed. Better information is needed. We are requesting that you do not approve the draft plan at this time. The plan needs to be clarified, simplified and better address the costs of an investigation. A traffic policy must account for all surrounding neighborhoods that may be affected by a proposed traffic management plan. All surrounding neighborhoods must be notified of any traffic investigation, and be given an opportunity to comment. Finally, more public input is necessary before the City Council puts its stamp of approval on such an important city- wide policy with long term implications. Please consider the impact this will have on the entire Edina community now and in the future. Thank you for supporting our opposition to the traffic policy as it is currently written. Christine Rhodes Dekko President of White Oaks Improvement Association Connor Shmid — Secretary and Treasurer Board Members: / '7 G1 ( 40 t1 . CC: Wayne Houle and Steve Lillehaug 1 / January 18, 2005 To the Editor: As members of the "misinformed" public, we feel compelled to respond to the article in the Sun - Current dated January 13, 2005, regarding the Edina Transportation Committee's policy draft. We can assure all involved that the only information our opposition to this policy is based on is that contained in the policy itself. Joni Kelly Bennett's objections are legitimate. The policy does allow the closing of neighborhood streets, and it does not specify sufficient notification to all of the neighborhoods that would be affected by such closures. This is not misinformation; it is, to paraphrase Chairman Fred Richards, what the policy draft says. The city staff's assertion that the notification areas set forth in the plan are only "minimum" areas is of no comfort to those of us who would be affected by street closures. Quite the contrary. It leaves those of us outside of these "Impacted Areas" completely without legal recourse should the city decide not to notify residents outside of these minimum areas. If the city really intends to adequately notify every resident who could be reasonably said to be impacted by such actions, why not put it in the policy itself? What is the objection? The city staffs assertion that there are no street closure projects pending is of little comfort, either. Proposals to close Country Club streets have been around for years. The fact remains that such a project could surface as soon as this policy is approved. Frankly, we have to wonder why the Transportation Commission (Ms. Bennett excepted) is so adamantly pushing this policy forward in the face of such significant public opposition. If nothing is in the works, why the rush? As for Marie Thorpe's assertion that the "real issues have been clouded ": if the provision for street closures without adequate public notification and input is not a "real issue" to her, just what is? We can assure her it is a very "real issue" to us. We agree with Ms. Thorpe on one point. The public is indeed owed an apology — from Chairman Richards and Ms. Thorpe. While they are at it, they can apologize to Ms. Bennett, too. Mark and Ruth Valgemae Cc: The Edina Transportation Commission The Edina City Council The Edina Engineering Department The Morningside Neighborhood Association Dwaine Lindberg 7200 York Ave. South #221 Edina, MN 55435 4405 January 29, 2005 Transportation Commission % Engineering Department Edina City Hall 4801 W. 50th St. Edina, MN 55424 Re: Transportation Commission Report Dear Commission Members, I am writing ,at this time as am not sure a letter I wrote in December was received by the Commission. I may have erred in addressing it to the engineering department. I arrived late to the public hearing you he at City Hall but I gathered there were moments when the meeting got quite contentious over the potential of some streets being closed. I do not live in the area of the city which seemed to be the center of the storm nor do I have any understanding of all that may be involved in the dispute. However, with all the talk of the need to build -more roads it does seem strange to be thinking of closing streets. It seems to me if there is problem traffic on certain streets, if would be preferable to address the problem by'emploong one of the several traffic calming methods identified in your report rather than closing streets. I can identify at least a couple of areas where speed humps are desperately needed. I refer to the trail or pedestrian path crossing on both Hazelton Rd and on 70th Street. Many drivers do pay attention to the cross walk but all too many do not. They speed through. It is amazing there hasn't been a fatal accident at the cross walks and I hope you don't wait until there is one before acting. Consideration should be given to creating speed humps a short distance in advance of the crosswalk to slow the traffic before it reaches the crosswalk. Anoth possible solution would be to replace the current flashing lights with a system allowi; a pedestrian to change the light to red thus requiring the traffic to stop Si rely, Dwaine Lindb Page 1 of 2 Steve Lillehaug From: Steve Lillehaug Sent: Monday, January 31, 2005 9:22 AM To: 'tommyleewilson3 @aol.com' Cc: Steve Lillehaug Subject: RE: Transportation Commission Thank you for your e-mail. Your comments will be passed on to the Council and Commission for consideration. Additionally, I agree with your comment regarding to "exhaust those options (of closing roads) before taking such action as limiting access to" any neighborhood in Edina. Your questions and comments are definitely in tune with what your Council and Commission are considering. The issues you raised have been discussed intensely by the Commission. The Commission (and staff) agree with you that closing down access will be heavily scrutinized and all other options will be exhausted before closing off access. There may be areas in Edina where closing access may be feasible solution - it has been used in the past very successfully. But, that absolutely does not mean that this will be acceptable and approved. Closing access on local streets is only a tool and the City doesn't want to limit closures from being a tool. Thanks. Steven L. Lillehaug, P.E., P.T.O.E. Edina Traffic Engineer /Assistant Engineer Engineering Department 952 - 826 -0445 slillehaug @ci.edina.mn.us City of Edina 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 -1394 www.cityofedina.com (fax) 952 - 826 -0389 - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Jennifer Bennerotte Sent: Monday, January 31, 2005 8:17 AM To: Steve Lillehaug Subject: FW: Transportation Commission - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Tommyleewilson3@ aol. com ( mailto:Tommyleewilson3 @aol.com] Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2005 9:10 AM To: Jennifer Bennerotte Subject: Transportation Commission Dear Steve Lillehaug: We read the January 30th article in the Star Tribune about traffic issues in Edina and would like to pass along our comments. My wife and I have lived in this neighborhood for over 18 years and realize that traffic has increased during this time. We think the City responded well several years ago with the installation of stop signs at nearly every corner. We do not, however, support the idea of closing down access to the Country Club District. 2/1/2005 Page 2 of 2 That smacks of elitism and simply dumps the problem on surrounding neighborhoods which is an unfair solution. We believe that the concern isn't necessarily the increase in traffic, but rather the safety of the traffic. The issues that need to be addressed are: what can we do to control the speed and flow of the increased traffic? We're sure there are many other ways to control traffic on our neighborhood streets. Please thoroughly exhaust those options before taking such action as limiting access to Country Club. We plan to attend the March 1 meeting at City Hall. Thank you for passing our comments along to your traffic engineer associates. Sincerely, Tom & Susan Wilson 4519 Casco Avenue Edina, MN 55424 home: 952 - 925 -5077 tommyleewilson3@aol.com 2/1/2005 Page 1 of 2 Steve Lillehaug From: Steve Lillehaug Sent: Monday, January 31, 2005 8:47 AM To: 'elesch @usfamily.net' Cc: Steve Lillehaug Subject: RE: Traffic Calming System Thank you for your e-mail. Your comments will be passed on to the Transportation Commission as requested. A few comments as follows: The "photo cop" system that you elude to is not legal in the state of Minnesota and is not enforceable (but thanks for your recommendation - we have already considered your suggestion). Minneapolis is a charter City which their local ordinances allow for such a device. However, enforcement jurisdiction is the Hennepin County court system which follows the State of Minnesota laws - MPLS efforts may be for not. So, time will tell for us other Cities and for laws that may be changed to allow the State as a whole to legally use such a system. Also, I agree: Traffic calming won't solve the problem and it may be somewhat of an inconvenience for the ones that "we are trying to help ". However, it will help mitigate traffic volume and speed issues experienced on local roads. Many cities nationwide use traffic calming devices with great citizen support, acceptance and willingness to pay for such items. The question the Edina residents will need to ask themselves is - do we want to accept an insignificant inconvenience or do we want to increase the safety on our local roadways. Your address and City of residence would be greatly appreciated so as Edina's Transportation Commission can get a better perspective on the origination of your comments. Thank you. Steve Steven L. Lillehaug, P.E., P.T.O.E. Edina Traffic Engineer /Assistant Engineer Engineering Department 952 - 826 -0445 slillehaug @ci.edina.mn.us City of Edina 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 -1394 www.cityofedina.com (fax) 952 - 826 -0389 - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Jennifer Bennerotte Sent: Monday, January 31, 2005 8:17 AM To: Steve Lillehaug Subject: FW: Traffic Calming System - - - -- Original Message---- - From: edith lesch (mailto:elesch @usfamily.net] Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2005 9:09 AM To: Jennifer Bennerotte Subject: Traffic Calming System 2/1/2005 Page 2 of 2 �o TO: TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION The'TRAFFIC CALMING SYSTEM' is great for procrastinators, job security and wasting of tax dollars. TRAFFIC CALMING' won't solve the problem, and it's an inconvenience for the ones you are trying to help. The'PHOTO COP' system isn't for dreamers, procrastinators, job security and people that like to waste tax dollars. The 'PHOTO COP' system will solve the traffic problem, and will bring in needed revenue for the cities, county and state government. I urge you to follow the leadership of the MPLS. POLICE CHIEF and get the 'PHOTO COP' system installed in your city at once. Sincerely, Carlan & Edith Lesch - -- USFamily.Net - $8.25/mo! -- Highspeed - $19.99/mo! - -- 2/1/2005 February 16, 2005 Mr. Gordon Hughes, City Manager Edina City Hall: 4801 West 5& Street Edina, MN 55424 Dear Mr. Hughes: The, January 18 City Council mWutes indicated that you are continuing to forward public comments to the City Council regarding, the proposed ETC policy prior to the March 1 City Council meeting., I am requesting that you forward this letter for consideration of the changes enclosed for the Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan as proposed within the Final Transportation Policy dated January 6, 2005. Regardless of public communications that may have occurred previously, I was not aware of this activity until late January. I suspect many other residents are also just learning of this important body of work. My concern in writing to the Council is to promote a neighborhood traffic management plan and process that primarily focuses on the safety of our streets and provides a fair and public process for instituting changes and restrictions without unnecessary expense to city government. We are all dealing with increasing traffic issues and heavy congestion in every part of the community. The idea of neighborhood traffic management must always recognize that streets are paid for by all taxpayers and public use should be the prevailing goal. What I have heard recently from concerned neighbors, and from what I see in the plan as drafted, is the potential for small vocal groups of residents to restrict access to public streets for themselves while denying it for others. Such discriminatory restrictions should not be allowed under euphemisms such as "livability" and "quality of life." We are all in this together! Sincerely, Ronn . Williamson Edina Resident 43300 E- i D IV ---;' ZAEE I Proposed Changes to the City of Edina Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan of theTransportation Commission Policy Final Draft Dated January 6, 2005 (2) Proposed Definition Changes 1. Impacted Area Drop the words "inconvenience" and "not" from the last sentence so that it reads .. "Limitation of access is considered to be a negative impact under this definition." The statement as written incorrectly characterizes limitation of access as an "inconvenience." For neighborhoods surrounding a benefiting area, limitation of access can be a significant quality of life issue (and a safety issue if requiring alternate use of heavy traffic streets) and therefore should not be ruled out as a reason to exclude areas from the important survey step before the Council takes action on a proposed project. 2. Traffic Calming Drop the words "livability and other public purposes" from the second sentence. It should read: "Traffic calming involves changes in street alignment installation of barriers and other physical measures to reduce traffic speeds and cut - through volumes in the'interest of street safety." Safety is the only public purpose that everyone can agree on when road access is altered. The definition as proposed creates the opportunity for very subjective arguments to initiate traffic calming studies and will result in highly disputed outcomes of projects that unnecessarily detract from the real work of city administration. (4) Proposed Plan Changes 1. Page 8 under "Plan Costs and Acceptance Requirements" Change the last sentence to delete the words "if the Council approves the project for final implementation" and replace it to read: "All costs associated with a Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan study and project will be assessed to the Benefited Area if the Council orders the plan development for the study to move forward to step 4." The proposed ETC plan has no provisions for covering the cost of what may be numerous studies that do not make it to final implementation. It is unclear what impact this plan will have on engineering and other city resources and budget unless it is made clear that those who engage the process will pay for it once the real work effort begins. Ronn E. Williamson, Edina Resident 2 2. Page 12 under "Petition to Study" Change the last sentence of the second -to -last paragraph to read "To proceed, a minimum of 51 % of all households in the benefited area must provide returned surveys indicating agreement with the identified issue." It is absurd to allow significant work be done in project plan development with less than 20% of households showing support as proposed in the final draft of the ETC plan. If the purpose of the petition -to -study "is to determine the level of agreement among the benefited area's residents" then the threshold for responses must be more representative of those who will supposedly benefit before the City Council considers next steps. 3. Page 12 under "Petition to Study" Change the last sentence of this section to read "The City Council must order the plan development and approve assessment of all costs for the study to move forward to step 4." Those who petition for a plan development should pay for it regardless of the outcome since there can be considerable city expense involved even if the project is never implemented. 4. Page 13 under "Project Evaluation" In the last sentence of the first paragraph, remove the term "quality of life" and replace it with "safety" so the sentence reads "If, in the evaluation, desired improvements in safety are not met to the satisfaction of the ETC and City staff, the traffic plan may be modified and additional testing conducted." While "quality of life" is important to everyone in. Edina, the potential for restricting public use of city streets should not be determined with such a subjective measure of outcome — unless it is equally applied to an entire impacted area as well as to a benefiting area. Quality of life should not be improved in one area at the expense of quality of life in an adjoining area. Ronn E. Williamson, Edina Resident 3 r February 23, 2005 City of Edina Jeanne K. Hanson 6708 Cornelia Dr. Edina, Minnesota 55435 Subject: Country Club Neighborhood Traffic Issues Dear Ms. Hanson: In response to your letter dated December 22, 2004, City staff has prepared the enclosed memorandum addressing your questions regarding the Country Club neighborhood and its rights as an "association ". As you are aware, the City is currently considering a new Transportation Commission Policy to create a forum to address local traffic congestion, volume and speed issues, as well as broader regional and local transportation goals. The policy outlines specific tools available that may be used to calm both traffic speed and volume. Although traffic- diverting tools are potential measures included in the policy, detailed traffic studies would be completed with any plan that may include such calming devices. City staff, Commissioners and Council members will closely scrutinize any potential plan that would intentionally or unintentionally divert traffic to other roadways. The policy also outlines several measures of public involvement. This involvement includes holding regular open houses, the opportunity for individuals or groups to submit formal applications for studies and public surveys. In addition, all Transportation Commission and Council meetings considering any study or proposed plan are open to the public and the Council would hold a public hearing prior to ordering any project. _ The Transportation Commission's goals do not include measures that support creating gated neighborhoods in our community. Rather, the Commission supports measures that mitigate conditions that adversely affect the quality of life of the City's residents and the activities of the businesses located in the City. Sincerely, Fred Richards Edina Transportation Commission Chairperson c: Mayor and Council City Hall 4801 WEST 50TH STREET EDINA, MINNESOTA, 55424 -1394 www.cityofedina.com 952 - 927 -8861 FAX 952 - 826 -0390 TTY 952 - 826 -0379 MEMORANDUM DATE: February 23, 2005 CITY OF EDINA TO: Transportation Commission FROM: 51 Steven Lillehaug, Traffic Engineer SUBJECT: Country Club Neighborhood Traffic Issues In response to a letter received from Jeanne K. Hanson dated December 22, 2004, the following addresses the specific questions regarding the rights an Edina neighborhood has as an "association" in respect to public right -of -way: 1) Is the Country Club Neighborhood an "association" under the law? The neighborhood is an Edina Heritage Landmark District and was placed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1980. The City follows a guideline called the "Plan of Treatment" for new home construction in the Country Club Neighborhood. The Country Club Neighborhood is not (currently) an association. 2) If the Country Club Neighborhood is an association, does it have the right — under certain circumstances (see, e.g. questions 3 and 4 below) — to take control of any of the its existing "common property" such as streets or access points, provided that it assumes the upkeep of them? The Country Club Neighborhood does not have rights (even if it were an association) to take control of streets or access points (provided those streets are not private streets). The streets within the Country Club neighborhood are contained within public right -of -way that are managed and controlled by the City. Additionally, under the "Plan of Treatment", an objective for the City is to develop and implement a plan for the preservation, maintenance, and replacement of all public infrastructure within the district, including streets, bridges, trees, sidewalks, street lighting, signs, and open space areas that give the neighborhood its distinguishing character. 3) Would it have this property right if and only if these streets and access points were not used (under some definition) by the outside public? If existing City right -of -way is no longer needed for some reason and is not anticipated to be needed in the future, under certain circumstances, the City may pursue vacating easements that are of no use to the City. 4) if the City of Edina were to divert traffic in a major way, creating blockades, closed streets, cul -de -sacs, and the like, restricting or preventing non - Country Club drivers from using them, would this create for the Country Club neighborhood a first step towards control along these lines (as mentioned in question 2) ? No. 0 Jeanne K. Hanson Literary Agent 6708 Cornelia Dr. Edina, Minnesota 55435 Phone and Fax: (952) 920 -8819 e -mail: jkhlitOaol.com Jean White Transportation Committee City of Edina December 22, 2004 Dear Jean, I have a couple of questions, as a concerned citizen, about changing the traffic flow /volume within the Country Club neighborhood. The law that covers associations gives such groups some unusual rights, and, though I don't know much about them, it's possible that the city might make an unfortunate misstep here. It might be a good idea to inquire of the City of Edina attorney along the following lines: 1) Is the Country Club neighborhood an "association" under the law? (It was developed as one of the first suburbs in America, in the days when the developers asked new residents to participate in a "covenant." Some, if not many, of these covenants later became associations.) 2) If the Country Club neighborhood is an association, does it have the right- -under certain circumstances (see, e.g. questions 3 and 4 below) - -to take control of any of its existing "common property" such as streets or access points, provided that it assumes the upkeep of them? (A resort association I used to belong to took over public access to a beach. And a certain number of new exurban developments today control their own streets.) 3) Would it have this property right if and only if these streets and access points were not used (under some definition) by the outside public? (If not, is there another way this might develop ?) 4) If the City of Edina were to divert traffic in a major way, creating blockades, closed streets, cul -de -sacs, and the like, restricting or preventing non - Country Club drivers from using them, would this create for the Country Club neighborhood a first step towards control along these lines (as mentioned in question 2)? I'm certainly not saying that the people of Country Club (quite a few of whom I know and like) are engaged in some sort of tricky conspiracy here. I've never been into conspiracies! What I am concerned about is that the City could take a traffic- related step that might later, or eventually, lead to something like a gated community in our midst. �,_ CC Mayor James Hovland ery truly yours, k,p �� (K (,/_/C," Jeanne K. Hanson Page 1 of 2 Darlene Wallin From: Jennifer Bennerotte Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2005 5:58 PM To: Darlene Wallin Subject: FW: City Council: Support Traffic POlicy - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Kitty ODea [mailto:kittyodea @mn.rr.com] Sent: Friday, February 25, 2005 7:27 PM To: Jennifer Bennerotte; Steve Lillehaug Subject: City Council: Support Traffic POlicy To: Edina City Council I am writing to you to share my thoughts on the proposed traffic policy and ask for your support. The Transportation Committee voted 7 to 1 in support of the policy - representing a variety of different neighborhoods in Edina. The dissenting vote and ALL of the opposition in the press is from one neighborhood lead by Joni Bennett. Please don't let one neighborhood, albeit a well- organized, vocal one, determine the policy for all of Edina. Is it fair for a neighborhood that has minimal, if any, traffic issues block other neighborhoods in Edina from seeking solutions to their traffic because it may cause some inconvenience? I hope not. There are two basic issues being raised by the opposition: 1. What traffic calming /control measures should the City be able to consider? Should closures /partial closures continue to be an option? Quite honestly, if "closures /partial closures" are eliminated, opposition will go away, but does that make sense for the City? As I understand it from the City engineer, nearly every municipality includes "closures /partial closures" as options. In fact, the City of Minneapolis has used them effectively in the 50th and France area. I think the City engineer should make that call. 2. Who should be included in the impacted area? The policy says that streets that may get diverted traffic as a result of any traffic- calming project will be included which is better than the current ad hoc approach. Individuals who are "inconvenienced" will not be included. The opposition proposes that any resident who defines themselves as impacted should have a say in what traffic measures are incorporated in a neighborhood. Their position is that if someone is inconvenienced, they should have a say. Should residents in Indian Hills have a say if we put a speed bump on Bruce? Does that make sense? Is it executable? The answer is NO. Not only does it not make sense, it favors DRIVER CONVENIENCE OVER NEIGHBORHOOD SAFETY AND QUALITY OF LIFE. What's good about the policy? 1. It was developed by representatives from ACROSS Edina. 2. It sets out a clear process where there hasn't been one before. Each project has 2/28/2005 Page 2 of 2 been handled on an ad hoc approach, which lead to many of the issues with the last Country Club neighborhood project 3. It evaluates all projects on a set timetable to insure an objective prioritization process. 4. Better definitions and notification. It includes streets that are directly impacted. Currently it is hit or miss. 5. It includes testing before implementation 6. Neighborhood based Why do I care about this? I am really concerned for my kid's safety. Recently I was waiting at the corner with my 6 year old for the bus. A truck was coming down Bruce faster than they should have been going given the icy conditions. I flagged the driver down and asked them to please slow down because there are kids waiting for buses and it was icy. The driver was rude to me and speed away, turning at a street with two other small children waiting for the bus. I later found the truck parked on a neighboring street and spoke to the driver. His explanation was that "I was running late due to the traffic at 50th and France He said that he was at the speed limit, but didn't consider the icy conditions or the possibility of a child running out. I can't tell you how many close calls we've had with speeding and cars running stop signs. I am afraid to let my kids cross the street or ride their bikes without me being there every minute. How many close calls will it take before a tragedy happens? I could deal with the volume of the traffic in Country Club IF we could slow it down. Vision 20/20 calls for a neighborhood - centered approach to planning. The proposed policy is consistent with 20/20 and provides a clear approach to addressing these traffic issues on a neighborhood -by- neighborhood basis. The City Council did the right thing in appointing the Traffic Commission a year ago to develop the policy. Now is the time to act on what's BEST FOR ALL OF EDINA and adopt the proposed policy. Please do not bend to the pressure of the vocal minority. In addition the Council needs to actively address the traffic issues that have been generated by the narrowing of 50th and commit to relieving some of the burden being placed on adjacent neighborhoods. Minneapolis has made, some steps in improving the situation. It is time for Edina to take responsibility for the issue at 50th and France and fix the problem. Sincerely, Kitty O'Dea 4610 Bruce Avenue Edina, MN 55434 952 - 922 -1165 2/28/2005 Darlene Wallin From: Jennifer Bennerotte Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2005 5:53 PM To: Darlene Wallin Subject: FW: City Council Traffic Policy -Safety a priority! - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Karol Saunders [ mailto:karolsaunders @yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2005 9:52 AM To: Jennifer Bennerotte Cc: Steve Lillehaug Subject: City Council Traffic Policy- Safety a priority! TO: Jim Hovland, City Mayor Linda Masica, City Council Ann Swenson, City Council Scot Housh, City Council Alice Hulbert, City Council cc: Steve Lillehaug In the twelve years we have been residents of the County Club neighborhood we have witnessed many unsafe traffic incidents. Here are just a few: • car rollover on Bruce Avenue & Country Club • boy on a bicycle struck by a car turning off 50th street onto Arden Avenue An out of control car driving up our lawn to our front steps We were very disappointed at the City's inability to take positive steps to analyze our growing traffic problems in 2001 and were in support of the proposed testing. The traffic volume in our neighborhood was not considered SAFE in 2001, and has only escalated due to cut - though traffic and highway congestion. There are over 60 kids on the 4600 block of Arden alone. Please put residents and safety as your priority and implement the policy. Thank you, Karol Saunders 4617 Arden Avenue Edina MN 55424 Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new—mail 1 MINORITY REPORT EDINA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DRAFT POLICY Joni Kelly Bennett Member, Edina Transportation Commission February 28, 2005 The Edina Transportation Commission (ETC) Policy, which has been sent by the ETC to the Edina City Council for approval and adoption, is the deeply flawed product of a deeply flawed process. THE ETC POLICY WAS DEVELOPED WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE OF OR ATTEMPT TO ASSESS COMMUNITY CONCERNS AND PRIORITIES. The ETC met for the first time on January 20, 2004. It met only five times before City staff and ETC chairman Fred Richards placed before it the 20 -page first draft of the ETC Policy. During five more meetings, the ETC reviewed a monthly set of additions and modifications (ultimately totaling 40 more pages) to the draft ETC Policy. It approved the ETC Policy on October 28, 2004. At no time during those ten months did the ETC schedule or hold a public meeting or attempt to survey Edina residents about their concerns and priorities. The ETC finally sought public comment after it approved the ETC Policy. It held an Open House on December 9, 2004, attended by over 100 members of the public. Twenty -nine of them addressed the ETC. Six of them spoke in favor of the ETC Policy. Most of the speakers expressed concerns with traffic speed, lack of enforcement of traffic laws, lack of process surrounding creation of the ETC Policy and deficiencies in the ETC Policy itself. The ETC received written comment from an additional 135 households in Edina and eight households in St. Louis Park. Only 45 households expressed unequivocal support for the ETC Policy. An additional eight households expressed support for traffic calming, specifically volume control and street closure, without mentioning the ETC Policy. Comment from almost 100 households expressed concern and asked for changes to the ETC Policy, particularly the definitions of cut - through traffic and impacted area, the limited area to be notified of proposed traffic calming, and the possible use of street closure as a method of traffic calming. At the ETC meeting on January 6, 2005, ETC chairman Fred Richards and other ETC members described the public comment as misinformed and made none of the changes requested to the ETC Policy. Instead, without seeing a final version in print, commissioners voted 6 -1 to approve the final draft of the ETC Policy. THE ETC POLICY WAS DEVELOPED WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE OF OR ATTEMPT TO ASSESS HOW EXISTING EDINA TRANSPORTATION POLICY IS OR IS NOT SERVING THE CITY. The Edina Transportation Plan, approved by the Edina City Council and the Metropolitan Council, has been part of the City of Edina Comprehensive Plan since 2000 The ETC was not given copies of it to review and study or even told the Edina Transportation Plan (ETP) existed until the end of its fifth meeting (just before the first draft of the ETC Policy was delivered to ETC members). No deficiencies in the operation of the existing Edina Transportation Plan were identified for or by the ETC. In fact, although the ETC Policy "incorporates the amended policies" of and "supplements" the ETP (ETC Policy, p. 2), it is unclear what is meant or accomplished. Amendment of part of the Comprehensive Plan requires multiple steps and reviews, including review by the Metropolitan Council. The ETC has not been informed of these procedural requirements, nor has the public been notified of any proposed amendment of the ETP. If the ETC Policy is intended to amend or revise the Edina Transportation Plan section of the City of Edina Comprehensive Plan, then the lack of attempt to involve the public in this process is even more disturbing. THE ETC POLICY CONFLICTS WITH THE EDINA TRANSPORTATION PLAN AND CITY OF EDINA VISION 20/20. The ETC Policy conflicts directly with the Edina Transportation Plan section on Traffic Calming, which states: A variety of physical means (such as speed humps)'exist to reduce the speed of traffic in neighborhoods. These traffic calming devices can be effective but should only be used where appropriate. Traffic calming can be appropriate on lower - volume local and collector streets where excessive speeds pose a safety problem. It should not be employed solely as a means to discourage through - traffic in a neighborhood. Through traffic can best be discouraged by having an arterial system that is spaced and operated so that it is more attractive to through traffic than local or collector streets. (Edina Transportation Plan, p. 27, emphasis added.) 4 The ETC Policy conflicts with the City of Edina Vision 20120 in its definition of cut - through traffic. Vision 20120 refers to "non -local cut - through traffic." (Vision 20120 Update, Fall 2003, p. 3.) This is consistent with the Federal Highway Administration's General Objectives for Traffic Calming, one of which is "[t]o discourage use of residential streets by non - citizens cut through vehicular traffic." (www fhwa dot. gov /environment /tcalm/part 1.htm. See Attachment One, copy of web page.) The ETC Policy even conflicts with itself concerning cut - through traffic. The Policy Framework section on Roadway Function and Access states that the ETC will "Implement measures to reduce non -local cut - through traffic..." (ETC Policy, p. 3.) However, the Definitions section of the ETC Policy defines cut - through traffic as "Traffic that intrudes into a residential subdivision to avoid congestion or other problems from an arterial or other high level street." (ETC Policy, p. A -1.) The ETC Policy definition deliberately does not distinguish between citizen /resident/local traffic and non - citizen /non- resident/non -local traffic. (This issue was debated at the August 2004 ETC meeting. See Attachment Two, letter of September 23, 2004 from Edina resident Julia Silvis.) THE ETC POLICY FAILS TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE REGIONAL, NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL SHIFT AWAY FROM USE OF TRAFFIC CALMING FOR VOLUME CONTROL TOWARD USE OF TRAFFIC CALMING FOR SPEED CONTROL. Traffic calming measures are grouped in one of two categories, by dominant effect. Volume control measures, including full and half street closures, diverters of various types, median barriers, and forced turn islands, are designed "to discourage or eliminate through traffic." (Traffic Calming: State of the Practice, Reid Ewing, c. 1999 Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), p.19.) Speed control measures, including speed humps, speed tables, raised intersections, traffic circles, chicanes, chokers, lateral shifts, and realigned intersections, may cause some diversion of traffic, but "[t]heir primary purpose is to slow traffic." (Ibid) "Early traffic calming initiatives in the United States relied almost exclusively on volume control measures." [examples described in Seattle and West Palm Beach, Gainesville, and Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.] "All of these communities, and others, now rely primarily on speed control measures." (Ibid, p. 60, emphasis added.) The trend is international. "Having a considerable head start, Europe and Australia have much to share with the United States about traffic calming. Several trends are evident, such as the shift from volume controls to speed controls, from simple to diverse programs, and from spot to areawide treatments." (Ibid, p. 13, emphasis added.) What the pioneers in traffic calming learned, in Europe, Australia and the United States, is that volume control measures slow emergency response times, interrupt street network connectivity, reduce street network capacity, and divert traffic to parallel local streets. (Ibid, pp. 20, 60. See also, Slow down, you're going too fast! The Community Guide. to Traffic Calming, c. Public Technology Institute, Washington D.C., http://pti.nw.dc.us/task forces/ transportation /docs /trafcalm /CASEI.htm. Accessed February 9 and 28, 2005.) Street closures are particularly disfavored. Traffic Calming: State of the Practice surveys the policies of 20 communities. Only two of the 20 are neutral toward street closures: One community has a moratorium on closures; another has unofficially banned them; two do not list them among program options. Eight list but discourage them by use of procedural requirements. Five state "closures discouraged," and one. states "closures difficult to effect under county code." (Traffic Calming: State of the Practice, p. 21, reproduced with this report as Attachment Three.) Minneapolis erected a number of diagonal diverters in its southwest neighborhoods , during the mid- 1980's. In operation, they have been found to interrupt even local travel, pushing it to the peripheral arterials of West 50th Street and France Avenue and increasing congestion on those roadways. Public opinion is reported to be polarized on their value, but the cost of removing them is prohibitively high (over $100,000 each). Thus, existing diverters remain, but no new diverters have been built since the mid- 1980's. (Telephone conversations with Jim Steffel, City of Minneapolis Department of Public Works, Transportation & Parking Services Division, August 27, 2004 and January 6, 2005.) THE ETC POLICY FAILS TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE NEGATIVE IMPACTS OF TRAFFIC CALMING ON PUBLIC SAFETY. "Traffic calming measures that are effective in slowing or diverting automobiles will have the same effect, or sometimes even greater effect on fire- rescue vehicles." (Traffic Calming. State of the Practice, p. 138.) "The shortest delays are experienced by ambulances without patients, the longest by ambulances with patients. When patients have already received basic life support at the scene and are receiving advanced life support en route, the latter delays may or may not be critical, depending on the medical condition being treated." (Ibid, p. 143.) "Probably the most significant results are those for fire engines. Because all fire stations have emergency medical capabilities, fire engines are often first on the scene in medical emergencies. Their crews are trained to perform basic life support functions. Thus, the delays they experience at traffic calming measures may affect 100 percent of emergency calls." (Ibid) 4 Other public safety impacts include damage to response vehicles, with increased maintenance costs and out -of- service time, injuries to emergency response personnel, and aggravated injuries to patients being transported. (Traffic Calming Primer, c. 1998, Pat Noyes & Associates, Boulder, CO, p. 4.) "Patients, crew and medical equipment in ambulances can be thrown about by humps. Traffic circles, chicanes or narrowed intersections can prove too tight for long fire vehicles to turn." (Slow Down, You're Going Too Fast, "For Another View, Dial 911," http:/Pti.nw.dc.us/task forces / transportation /does /trafcalm /foranoth.htm. Accessed February 9 and 28, 2005.) The ETC had no discussion about the public safety costs of traffic calming before approving the ETCPolicy. City staff comments on traffic calming devices were presented to the ETC on August 26, 2004 by Assistant City Engineer Steve Lillehaug in the form of a chart listing 26 measures and devices and brief comments of four City units: Engineering, Public Works, Planning and the Police and Fire Departments. Negative reviews were given to 10 of the devices by at least one unit. Diagonal road closures were given a negative review by all four. (See "Traffic Management Devices and Measures- - City Staff Comments," July 2004, enclosed with this report as Attachment Four.) This chart is not included in the ETC Policy. Instead, a chart listing likely effects of each device on speed and traffic reduction, fuel consumption, air /noise pollution and emergency services is attached as Appendix B. There is a discrepancy between Appendix B and the information presented to the ETC on August 26, 2004. In the column named "Emergency Services," several reviews are more positive than those stated in the comments by the Edina Police and Fire departments. For example, the City staff comments on diagonal road closures were all "negative ", with the Police and Fire Departments adding the reason "interrupts street network." (Ihid.) In the ETC Policy, the Emergency Services comment on the effect of diagonal road closures is "varies ". (See ETC Policy at p. B -2.) Before the ETC Policy, or any traffic calming policy, is adopted by the Edina City Council, there must be a public discussion of the public safety costs and impacts. THE ETC POLICY FAILS TO ACKNOWLEDGE OR PROTECT THE RIGHTS AND INTERESTS OF EDINA RESIDENTS WHO WOULD BE AFFECTED BY TRAFFIC CALMING. Public involvement and approval is essential to the success of traffic calming programs. (Traffic Calming. State of the Practice, p. 164.) First, the development of a program should involve potentially affected parties and "stakeholders ", including residents and property owners, community service providers (e.g. fire, police, transit, sanitation, school transportation), and "special interest groups" to ensure "policies that meet the community's needs" and a community informed about the "potential impacts, positive and negative, of traffic calming." (Traffic Calming Primer, p. 2.) 5 The ETC did not invite public input or create a public process before or during its discussion of the ETC Policy. As a consequence, no potentially affected parties or stakeholders were involved in developing the ETC Policy and its Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP). Nor did the ETC invite the community into a discussion about the potential impacts, positive and negative, of traffic calming, or itself study those impacts in any depth. The ETC Policy/NTNW contains a number of procedural steps, giving the illusion of a public, objective process. But at each step, notice is required to too small a geographic area or group of residents; measurement of traffic problems and public concern and approval is too subjective; and the amount of agreement required to advance a study or test installation is completely inadequate. THE ETC POLICY/NTMP REQUIRES NOTICE TO TOO SMALL A GEOGRAPHIC AREA OR GROUP OF RESIDENTS. [I]t is essential to involve all potentially affected parties, not just those who initiate the traffic calming request ... Identify the stakeholders at the beginning of the process to ensure that all affected parties are involved in the process to the extent they desire or need to be. Stakeholders include the residents of the street(s) to be study [sic], service providers who use or maintain the street, agencies or parties with a financial or fiduciary interest, and others in the community affected by the operation of the street.. This could be a very long list and may seem overwhelming at the beginning. In fact, parties that are involved early and self select out of the process once they find they are not affected or their interests are adequately represented, are not problematic. On the other hand, those who come to the process late in the game, whose interests have not been included or addressed can in fact derail the effort. Therefore, you should attempt to identify all potentially affected parties and involve them in the process to the extent they feel is necessary. (Traffic Calming Primer, p. 12, italics supplied, boldface added,) The ETC Policy/NTMP permits any individual resident to request a traffic calming study. As a study proceeds, the ETC establishes a "defined study area" (p. 11), also called "the . petition -to -study area" (p. 12) and "benefited area" (pp. 12, 18, and A -1). [The ETC Policy needs work to correct this and other inconsistent uses of terms and definitions.] For 11 of the traffic management devices offered in the ETC Policy, the "benefited area extends 300 feet from the device along the street affected by the device, or to the nearest stop sign or traffic signal, whichever is less." (ETC Policy, p. 18.) Three hundred feet is just one city block. The ETC Policy refers to "the benefited area that will be assessed for all costs of the improvement." (ETC Policy, p. 12.) However, the Edina City Council and City staff are 31 discussing a complete restructure of the City's assessment policy. How will this affect funding for traffic calming? This question should be answered before the ETC Policy is adopted. As with all other features of the ETC Policy, there has been no public discussion, and thus is as yet no public consensus, on the costs and funding of traffic calming. Before a traffic calming device or devices are installed on a test or permanent basis, the ETC establishes an "impacted area" (pp. 13 and A -2) to be surveyed by City staff. The ETC Policy's definition of impacted area is vague, subjective, and deliberately exclusionary: Impacted Area — Area for a project that is defined as those residences along local residential streets that are positively or negatively impacted by excessive through traffic volumes and speeding, or that may be positively or negatively impacted by proposed traffic calming. Inconvenience caused by limitation of access is not considered to be a negative impact under this definition. (ETC Policy, p. A -2, emphasis added.) This definition conflicts with the language regarding survey before permanent implementation, which states that "a survey from households, businesses and non- resident property owners within the impacted area is obtained by a mail survey." (ETC Policy, p. 13.) If traffic calming is sought for volume control, it is particularly important that a broad enough area be notified and included in analysis, planning and approval. Even speed control measures cause some traffic to be diverted to other streets and neighborhoods; that is the explicit purpose of volume control. Limitation of access to streets and destinations in one's own community is a profound impact, as is interference with the free travel of emergency vehicles and school buses throughout the community. Seattle, Washington pioneered neighborhood -wide traffic calming demonstrations in the early 1970's. It requires 60% written support from residents one block in each direction from proposed speed control measures, and 60% approval from residents throughout the "impacted area as defined by staff" for volume control measures. (Traffic Calming. State of the Practice, pp. 14, 167.) Neither the ETC nor Edina City staff has demonstrated the ability to fairly or adequately define or establish an impacted area for traffic studies. (See definition of Impacted Area above and histories of previous Edina neighborhood traffic studies, 1993 - 2001.) Minneapolis acknowledges that "speed reduction meawres...tend to have minimal impact on relocating problem traffic or reducing access for adjacent streets. Measures to reduce traffic volume have a much greater impact on adjacent streets ... " (Traffic Calming for Neighborhoods, City of Minneapolis Department of Public Works, Transportation and Parking Services, Draft in use, February 17, 2000, at p. v.) 7 In Minneapolis, the Petition Area Required for Speed Reduction Measures is "All blocks with property immediately adjacent to [the] device." (Ibid, p. iv.) The Petition Area Required for Traffic Volume Reduction Measures is "All blocks in subject areas bounded by thru [sic] streets, Park Board streets, Highways, Freeways, or natural barriers such as creeks or lakes." (Ibid) Edina can be divided geographically into four quadrants, bisected by highways 100 and 62. Between and within those quadrants run arterial roadways including France Avenue, Wooddale Avenue, Vernon Avenue, Interlachen Boulevard, Valley View Road, Cahill Road, Dewey Hill Road, West 50'' Street and West 70a' Street. Using the boundaries of highways and arterial roadways to define impacted areas for at least volume - control related traffic studies would protect the rights and interests of Edina residents while helping to avoid the creation of "musical traffic" in which traffic calming studies and installations simply push a problem from one street or neighborhood to another. MEASUREMENT OF TRAFFIC PROBLEMS, PUBLIC CONCERN, AND PUBLIC APPROVAL OF PROPOSED SOLUTIONS IS TOO SUBJECTIVE. The ETC Policy's Policy Framework states that "The policy is created to encourage public input and decisions that will be made on quantitative, qualitative and objective factors." (ETC Policy, p. 2.) However, the data and factors used by City staff to score, rank, and evaluate study requests and results are not quantitative; qualitative or objective. The ETC Policy / NTMP permits any individual citizen to request a traffic calming study. In subsequent procedural steps, the NTMP calls for the City to circulate a petition -to- study /survey (both terms are used, p. 12), a survey -to -test (p.12), and a permanent - installation survey (p. 13). A standard of measurement for the rate of participation or return and for the level of agreement is set only for the petition -to- survey /survey. (See ETC Policy at p. 12.) Requests are scored and ranked by City staff according to a formula prescribed on pages 15 and 16. But the NTMP Introduction states that NTMP studies "are scheduled based on available resources and given priority by factors that include, but are not limited to" an additional list of undefined, unweighted, highly subjective factors. (See ETC Policy at p. 9.) The formula used for scoring and ranking itself is problematic. The formula gives volume more weight than speed, even though speeding vehicles pose a greater risk to public safety. Volume is counted as all vehicles traveling on a street, regardless of origin or destination. No threshold number is used (most communities use a threshold of 500 vehicles per day). (See Traffic Calming: State of the Practice at p.164.) The formula gives points for no more than 2,000 vehicles per day, putting very high volume local and collector streets at a relative disadvantage. 8 The formula measures speed as the percentage of vehicles traveling over the speed limit, giving fewer points for speeding vehicles than for simple number of vehicles. THE AMOUNT OF AGREEMENT REQUIRED TO ADVANCE A STUDY OR TEST INSTALLATION IS COMPLETELY INADEQUATE. The ETC Policy permits any individual citizen to request a Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan study, with no requirement of a showing by application or petition that there is even a minimal level of agreement that a problem exists or support for a traffic calming study. (See ETC Policy at p. 11.) Not until a request is screened, scored and ranked, and preliminary data gathered and reviewed by City staff, is support for a study and "the level of agreement among the benefited area's residents regarding the problem they want to address" assessed and measured. (See ETC Policy at p. 12.) To proceed to a full study, "a minimum of 30% of all surveys must be returned with 65% of those returned surveys indicating agreement with the identified issue." (Ibid) Read together, the two percentages mean that if 100 residents are surveyed or asked to sign a petition, only 30 of them need do so, and only 19.5 of them need to agree, to advance a traffic study that may affect an entire neighborhood (and beyond), and be paid for by all 100 residents or all Edina taxpayers. No return rate or minimum level of agreement is set for either the survey -to -test a traffic calming measure or device, or for approval of a permanent installation. Other communities protect their residents and their city budgets by measuring support for traffic calming earlier and requiring a higher level of agreement to proceed. Bloomington requires that a minimum of 60% of the properties in a benefited area sign the initial petition requesting a study and installation of traffic calming device. (City of Bloomington, Traffic Calming for Bloomington Neighborhoods, adopted January 20, 2004 and revised February 2, 2004, at pp. 10 -11.) [This document served as the model for most of the first draft of the ETC Policy.] St. Louis Park permits a traffic calming study and installation at city expense if a situation meets a set of criteria: excess speed, accident history, traffic volume greater than 5,000 vehicles per day, and the requirement that "installation of any type traffic controls or traffic calming controls must not significantly increase traffic volumes on adjacent residential/neighborhood streets." (City of St. Louis Park, Policy Concerning Requests for Traffic Controls, revised March 1, 1999, p. 1.) In the alternative, a special study to be conducted at resident or neighborhood cost, by special assessment, may be initiated by petition from a neighborhood association or from 70% of the residents within a 600 foot radius (two blocks in each direction) of the proposed installation. A device installed after a special study is monitored and removed if "Neighboring residential streets would be adversely affected." (Ibid., p.2.) THE ETC POLICY FAILS TO INFORM THE PUBLIC ADEQUATELY ABOUT FUNCTIONAL STREET CLASSIFICATION AND THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ROADWAYS. The City of Edina is served by a variety of roadways, designed to carry varying amounts of traffic on trips of varying length. The designation of each roadway by design and function is called functional classification: The Edina Transportation Plan states that "the functional classification of the roadway system in Edina should conform to the criteria and characteristics summarized in Appendix D." Appendix D gives the Functional Classification Criteria and guidelines of the Metropolitan Council. ( See ETP at pp. 19 and 52.) The Metropolitan Council system and ETP describe a hierarchy of roadways, descending from Principal Arterials (highways, serving trips of greater than eight miles), Minor Arterials "A" and `B" (serving trips of two to six. miles), Collector Streets (serving trips of one to four miles), and Local Streets (serving trips of under two miles). (See ETP at pp. 21 -25 and Figures D -1, D -3, D -5.) Although roadway definitions are scattered throughout Appendix A of the ETC Policy, no explanation is given of the relationship between roadway hierarchy and trip lengths. Traffic congestion is a major concern of Edina residents (indeed, the only "major issue" identified as "troubling to a cross - section of the populace" in a Decision Resources survey conducted in 1999 to gather public input for Edina Vision 20120). (See Edina Vision 20120, Fall 2000, at p. 3.) Recognizing the congestion on principal arterials, and the limited prospects for relief, the Metropolitan Council in its Draft 2030 Transportation Policy Plan declared that minor arterials will need to carry more short -to -mid range trips to alleviate congestion on principal arterials. (See Metropolitan Council, Summary Draft 2030 Transportation Plan, Fall 2004, at p. 13.) It also called, repeatedly, for communities to "implement a system of fully interconnected arterial and local streets" (Ibid, pp. 37, 83.) and to "retain the interconnectivity of local streets." (Ibid, p.. 48.) Reliance by the ETC Policy on neighborhood traffic management and the contemplated use of traffic calming to divert local traffic to arterial roadways will not decrease congestion, it will increase it. THE ETC POLICY FAILS TO RECOGNIZE THAT TRAFFIC CALMING IS NO SUBSTITUTE FOR ADEQUATE CITY PLANNING. 10 Only one mention is made in the ETC Policy of city planning. The Policy Framework section on Roadway Function and Access states, in item number 12: When requested by the Planning Commission, review landuse that may impact traffic implementations. Continue to monitor adjacent community redevelopment and activity that impact the City of Edina. (ETC Policy at p. 4.) The inadequacy of that provision, and the apparently limited role of the ETC in traffic - related planning decisions, was revealed at the ETC meeting last Thursday, February 24, 2005. Congestion is a huge problem at the intersection of France Avenue (an "A" Minor Arterial Reliever, just one level lower than a Principal Arterial) with West 5& Street (an "A" Minor Arterial Augmenter, one level lower than a reliever). It has been known as a problem to residents, City staff and City officials for at least a decade. It is the root cause, along with congestion on the nearby Principal Arterial of Highway 100, of most of the perceived problems with traffic in the northeast quadrant of Edina. The ETC asked City staff on November 18, 2004 to look into possible redevelopment at 50th and France as an opportunity to address problems with street design and operation. Commissioners understood that there was as yet no redevelopment plan filed with the City, but also understood that redevelopment was in active planning stages. The ETC was asked on February 24, 2005 to approve a Plan for Proposed Redevelopment at West 50'' Street and France Avenue. The Edina Planning Commission had approved the Plan the previous evening. A Traffic Study prepared for the developer by a consulting firm was presented to the ETC. It predicts a very slight decrease, 100 per day, in the number of vehicles using those streets. No recommendation to correct the existing problems with street design or operation was presented by City staff. ETC Chairman Fred Richards told commissioners that their review of the Study and the redevelopment plan itself was to be confined to three questions: 1. Does the proposed development significantly affect the operation and congestion of the adjacent roadways? 2. Does the proposed development significantly affect pedestrian safety? 3. Does the proposed development provide an opportunity to enhance mass transit, carpooling, vanpooling, etc.? The ETC must be permitted to ask, and City staff instructed to answer, two additional questions: 4. Does the proposed development create an opportunity to address and correct an existing problem with street design and operation? 11 5. How will the City use that opportunity? Chairman Richards stated this is not within the scope of the Edina City Council's charge to the ETC. The ETC approved the Plan for Proposed Redevelopment by a 4 to 3 vote; the three votes against the Plan were made not to stop it, but with the concern that the redevelopment was Edina's last chance to at least try to fix the intersection. Other, similar, issues are before the City now or will be soon. The City is creating a redevelopment plan for the Greater Southdale Area. Redevelopment Plans, prepared by the City in 1990 for neighborhood business districts at Cahill Road and West 7& Street, Wooddale Avenue and Valley View Road, and France Avenue and West 44h Street and Sunnyside Road, are part of the City of Edina Comprehensive Plan. How well do those plans address current problems with traffic and congestion? It is beyond the City's power or ability to decrease congestion on the principal arterials /highways. But the City has both the power and the ability to guide, and even limit, development and redevelopment in ways that reduce or at least do not increase congestion on the roadways within its jurisdiction. If the right decisions are not made in the Planning and Engineering departments and by the Planning Commission, no amount of traffic calming by the Transportation Commission is going to make Edina livable. Respectfully Submitted, T ni /4 Kelly Bennett Member, Edina Transportation Commission 4003 Lynn Avenue Edina MN 55416 12 VG11Gl a1 VUj Gla1VOJ vi 11amL, %,auiuug - rnvvH ' nvironment Traffic Calming General Objectives of Traffic Calming ntip-://www.mwa.aot.gov/enviromenvtcalm/paill.ntr FHWA > HEP > Environment > Human • To encourage citizen involvement in the traffic calming process by incorporating the preferences and requirements of the citizens, • To reduce vehicular speeds, • To promote safe and pleasant conditions for motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians, and residents, • To improve the environment and livability of neighborhood streets • To improve real and perceived safety for nonmotorized users of the streets, • To discourage use of residential streets by non - citizens cut through vehicular traffic. This page last modified on October 24, 2001 0 FHWA Next Page FHWA Home I HEP Home I Traffic Calming Home I Feedback United States Department of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration >f 1 12/25/2004 8:53 PM _R�iTAf!ff /��N'T� GRJ� Julia Silvis 4246 Grimes Ave S Edina MN 55416 Transportation Commission 4801 West 50P Street Edina MN 55424 September 23, 2004 Dear Transportation Commissioners, I had the privilege to attend your last meeting as a member of the public and write to offer a few comments on the meeting. My name is Julia Silvis and my family moved to Edina's Morningside neighborhood in 1984, when I was 4, and has been there ever since. I attended Edina Schools, graduating in 1998 and went to college at Harvard University. I have been living at home for the past year, but this fall, I will start graduate school in transportation planning at the University of California- Davis. So, while I have yet to acquire expertise in transportation, I certainly have a keen interest in the subject and thank you in advance for the opportunity to share a few thoughts. Listening to your discussion of definitions, I was struck by how there seemed to be another, unspoken and much more specific discussion occurring. The definition that seemed to demand the most time was that of `cut- through traffic.' I objected to Marie Thorpe's proposal that it be defined as "any traffic that has no business being in a neighborhood." This definition is too flimsy and subjective for any policy crafted around it to have meaning. It is telling that you are even struggling to define a concept of `cut - through traffic;' that in itself makes a statement that certain kinds of traffic are better than others, rather than just seeing all traffic as citizens trying to get from point A to point B in the most convenient way. The city would get into muddy water were it try to determine the morality of the traffic, an inherently amoral phenomenon. If a definition along these lines must be proposed, I would suggest that more might be accomplished taking a positive stance than a negative one. Rather than seeking to minimize `illegitimate' traffic, the city could seek to improve efficiency of legitimate traffic. The other statement that forcefully struck me was Chairman Richards' assertion (in response to a query about public input) that the Transportation Committee is the public. I am sure that all seven of you are fine upstanding people, but you are not the public, and cannot claim to represent them. You were appointed, not elected, and are not held accountable to constituents. Furthermore, I have found it exceedingly difficult to keep abreast of what your activities are. Your minutes are not online, I could not find any press releases relating to the Commissions current agenda, and the meetings are barely publicized. Before the Council passes its approval on any document or plan, it should be open to public comment and debate. This would allow the plan to be the best, most useful guide possible, less in need of future corrections. To propose that you write a plan, have the Council approve it, and then have people comment (object, most likely) is counterproductive and exclusionary. Finally, I found it ironic that Keith Wolf, a resident of the Country Club neighborhood, spoke of preserving `livability' after a detailed conversation about definitions. "Livability" -is a highly flexible term, one that everyone can agree should be part of a transportation policy, without actually agreeing on the goals of that policy. For me, livability means access: I want to be able to drive directly and efficiently from my home to my destination, whether downtown Minneapolis, Southdale, or City Hall. Livability also means choice; when I go to the grocery store, l want to be able to choose between walking, busing, biking or driving. In the discussion of definitions, and underlying Mr. Wolf's comments, I heard voiced that the city should inhibit traffic, even to the point of blocking roads. I believe the euphemism used was "traffic calming." Obviously there are differences in traffic patterns between residential, collector and artery streets, but if `traffic calming' is to be used to enforce those differences, it would be more productive if it targeted the speed, rather than the volume of traffic. The city should never put itself in the position of saying to some of its residents "You can't drive by those houses to get home, but be sure to wave to their owners as they pass your house on their way home." I realize that the tools at the disposal of the city are somewhat limited by the fact that Edina is not as large as Minneapolis. But transportation is simultaneously a local and a regional issue, and the keys to an efficient, safe and effective transportation plan lies in careful consideration of the issues, which can only occur in an open public debate. In closing, I respectfully suggest that the Transportation Commission: • include as many opportunities for public disclosure and debate as possible. This should happen before the Commission sends its recommendation to the City Council. Please put the Commission's draft documents and meeting minutes online. • serve the needs of the entire city rather than those of one (vocal) neighborhood above all others. I'd appreciate being updated on the Commission's activities and actions. To that end, my e -mail address is below. Thank you. Sincerely Julia Silvis jsilvis @ucdavis.edu cc: City Council c/o Debra Mangen [copy delivered to City Hall] Gordon Hughes [copy delivered to City Hall] Steven Lillehaug [copy delivered to City Hall] Sharon Allison [copy delivered to City Hall] Table 3.5. Sample Street Closure Polities and Procedures. Community Policies and Procedures Austin,TX Closures discouraged but not ruled out as part of neighborhood -wide plans Bellevue, WA Closures considered only on residential streets with 20 percent or more cut - through traffic and at least 3,000 vehicles per day Berkeley, CA Closures discouraged where other measures will address problem — closures and other traffic diversion schemes must be referred by city council or city manager Boulder, CO Closures discouraged but listed among program options — planning board policy against additional closures due to effect on network connectivity Charlotte, NC Closures not listed among program options— barriers occasionally erected without abandoning street right -of -way Dayton, OH Neutral Eugene, OR Special study required for closures and other volume control measures Ft. Lauderdale, FL Permanent closures discouraged —two public hearings and super- majority of resident support required— temporary closures allowed for crime prevention Gainesville, FL Closures discouraged Gwinnett County, GA Neutral Howard County, MD Unofficial ban on street closures Montgomery County, MD Closures difficult to effect under county code Phoenix AZ Closures discouraged but listed among program options— street abandonment process inhibited by a filing fee, public hearing, and likelihood of no action— residents redirected to other options Portland, OR Closures discouraged but listed among program options San Diego, CA Closures discouraged San Jose, CA Closures discouraged Sarasota, FL Closures not listed among program options— considered only as a last resort, if an alternative route exists Seattle, WA Closures discouraged but listed among program options — larger impact area from which petition signatures must be obtained for volume controls than for speed controls Tallahassee, FL Closures discouraged —no closures planned —no formal policy West Palm Beach, FL Moratorium in effect Source: Interviews with staffs of traffic calming programs. Chapter 3: Traffic Calming Measures • 21 TRAFFIC MANAGMENT Ur-VICES/MEASURES (Not in priority order) City of EdinaTransportation Policy B-1 July 2004 C TRAFFIC PAGE MANAGEMENT Police Department & NO. DEVICE /MEASURE ENGINEERING PUBLIC WORKS PLANNING Fire Department B-4 Speed Hump low cost, simple speed reduction tool neutral - needs to be plowable, sweepers may negative, may not be effective unless used in negative - increased response time leave debris series B-5 Speed Table low cost, simple speed reduction tool - need neutral - needs to be plowable, sweepers may negative, may not be effective unless used in negative - increased response time to maintain specific and consistent leave debris series construction details B-6 Raised Crosswalk low cost, simple speed reduction tool and negative positive negative - increased response time raises awareness for effective pedestrian crosswalk B -7 Raised Intersection positive for intersection with high pedestrian negative positive neutral - possible increased response time volume B-8 Textured Pavement neutral positive - needs to be plowable positive neutral negative - diffucult to repair B -9 Center Island neutral neutral neutral positive- maintain adequate width for fire Narrowin 9 s trucks- prefered over humps B -10 Neckdowns positive - need to maintain proper turning negative - plowing concerns positive preferred over humps/tables movements B -11 Gateway Treatment neutral negative - plowing concerns positive neutral B -12 Choker effective for midblock speed reduction, neutral positive preferred over humpsitables provides minimal inconvenience B -13 Chicane effective for midblock speed reduction, negative positive preferred over humps/tables provides minimal inconvenience B -14 Realigned Intersection positive positive positive positive B-15 Traffic Circle positive - good option in lieu of unwarranted neutral positive Ensure adequate turning movements and STOP signs - does not require complete mountable curbs STOP B-16 Roundabout typically used on higher volume roads neutral positive neutral (collectors and arterials) - effective in reducing intersection collisions B -17 Diagonal Road negative negative negative negative - interrupts street network Closures I City of EdinaTransportation Policy B-1 July 2004 C TRAFFIC MANAGMENT DEVICESIMEASURES (Not in priority order) City of Edin -- sportation Policy R-2 July 2004 TRAFFIC PAGE MANAGEMENT police Department & NO. DEVICE /MEASURE ENGINEERING PUBLIC WORKS PLANNING Fire Department B-18 Partial Street Closure neutral neutral - may have plowing issues negative may pose delay if vehicle blocking throat of opening - B -19 Cul-de -sac difficult to implement on existing steels - may positive - must have adequate radius negative neutral . have much opposition from residents due to potential of diverted traffic B -20 Median Barriers positive positive neutral neutral B -21 Forced Turn Islands positive positive positive neutral B -22 Targeted Police positive, easy to implement positive positive neutral Enforcement B -23 Radar Speed Units positive positive positive neutral. B -24 Neighborhood Traffic positive, low cost neutral neutral neutral Safety Campaigns B -25 Stop Sign Install ONLY when warranted in accordance positive neutral neutral with policy and guidelines - do not use for speed control B -26 Turn Restrictions low cost, may increase safety positive positive neutral B -27 One -Way Streets may increase volumes and speeds positive positive neutral B -28 Traffic Signal typically limited to existing (or proposed, positive positive neutral ('Rest on Red" and warranted signals) most of which are on "Rest on Green" ) collects/arterials B -29 Pavement Striping positive - low cost and provides minimal positive positive neutral driver attention from the roadway City of Edin -- sportation Policy R-2 July 2004 Consent Item III. B. LOCATION MAP Case Number: LD -05 -1 Location: 6920 Hillside Lane and 5524 70th St West Request: Land Transfer DRAFT MINUTES PC MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2005 LD -05 -1 Lot Division 6920 Hillside Lane 5524 West 70th Street Ms. Aaker informed the Commission the applicant proposes to transfer a strip of land measuring approximately 5 feet by 124 feet from the lot on Hillside Lane to the rear of the lot at 5524 West 70th Street. Ms. Aaker concluded the proposed lot division would cure the encroachment of a brick patio and shed of the 70th Street house on the property of the house on Hillside Lane. Commissioner McClelland moved to recommend lot division approval. Commissioner Fischer seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. City of Edina Planning Commission Meeting Wednesday, February 23, 2005, 7:00 PM Edina City Hall Council Chambers ' 4801 West 50th Street File Number: LD -05 -1 Location: 6920 Hillside Lane 5524 West 70th Street Property Owners: Bridget Mitchellette Weidemann and Theodore & Sue Steen Request: Transfer a strip of land measuring approximately 5 feet by 124 feet from the lot on Hillside Lane to the rear of the lot at 5524 West 70"' Street Explanation: The proposed lot division would cure the encroachment of a brick patio and shed of the 70"' Street house on the property of the house on Hillside Lane. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval. Proposed Lot Changes for: BRIDGET & BR /AN WE/DEMANN 6920 Hillside Lane Phone: 952 -829 -1663, Cell: 612 - 819 -9048 CURRENT DESCRIPTIONS Lot 19, Block 6, La Buena Vista, Hennepin County, Minnesota, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Lot 18, Block 6, La Buena Vista, Hennepin County, Minnesota, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota PROPOSED DESCRIPTIN OF PARCEL TO BE TRANSFERRED: That part of the Southerly 5.00 Feet of Lot 19, Block 6, La Buena Vista, Hennepin County, Minnesota, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota lying westerly of the northerly extension of the east line of Lot 18, said Block 6. PROPOSED DESCRIPTION AFTER TRANSFER OF PARCEL: Lot 19, Block 6, La Buena Vista, Hennepin County, Minnesota, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin county, Minnesota, Except that part of the southerly 5.00 feet of the said Lot 19 lying westerly of the northerly extension of the east line of Lot 18, said block 6. Lot 18, Block 6, La Buena Vista, Hennepin County, Minnesota, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Together with the southerly 5.00 feet of the Lot 19, said block 6, Lying westerly of the northerly extension of the east line of said Lot 18. Note: Formal survey will be preformed by Sunde Land survey upon approval of the proposed lot changes. Statement prepared by homeowners: Bridget & Brian Weidemann �C 4 FT. CHAIN LINK FENCE FD I � Y v � Y p OPEN SET IRON _- AT 250.31 MEAS. 254.5 (PL � � � .72 .__. 0 1 ..�4• Pa�at _ swe swe swe sa ® _ _. ,1ELF _ vENCE CORNER IS 0/ FT. N. &Q4FTE. \ T/UTY EASEMENT A PER LA BIAWA VISTA -'�•- �. N890401041' Q�, 1 59.2 ,J 1. swe — swe Ac . Of 7 SET IRON �a Me i N swe v �• v K FT CHAIN, Vhf MAIrr' .f N V � V o� h 0 v4 W m 6 W 0 y v v li 124.10 ;' --- - - - --h ;S�o �c 50 t' CA TE 0.7 �^ j o ONCRET£ &STEP S a AI, r� ° ow e t4 11 ,aaa REPORT/RECOMMENDATION To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL Agenda Item W.A. 0 a From: GORDON L. HUGHES Consent ❑ CITY MANAGER Information Only ❑ Date: MARCH 1, 2005 Mgr. Recommends ❑ To HRA ° ® To Council Subject: ORDINANCE NO. 2005-2 ❑ Motion AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ❑ Resolution SECTION 1000 OF THE CITY ® Ordinance CODE - CRIMES AND ❑ Discussion FORBIDDEN CONDUCT RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Ordinance No. 2005 -2. - INFORMATIONBACKGROUND: Ordinance No. 2005.2 provides for the adoption of a trespass, ordinance within the City Code. Violations of this ordinance would be punishable as a petty misdemeanor. The City presently charges trespassers under Minnesota Statutes. Our City „Prosecutor and the Police Department feel that it would be more appropriate to charge violators, pursuant to the City Code, when possible. ORDINANCE NO. 2005 -2 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 1000 OF THE CITY CODE — CRIMES AND FORBIDDEN CONDUCT The City Council of the City of Edina ordains: Section 1. Section 1000 of the City Code is amended by adding a new Subsection 1000.14 as follows:. 111000.14 Trespass. For purposes of this Subsection, the terms "premises ", "building ", "dwelling ", and "owner or lawful possessor" have the meanings given to them under Minnesota Statutes 609.605. For purposes of this Subsection, the term " belief of property interest' shall mean a good faith belief that the person has a possessory interest in the property as an owner, tenant, lessee, licensee or invitee. A person who does not have a belief of property interest shall not: 0 A. Trespass on the premises of another and refuse to depart from the premises on demand of the lawful possessor; or B. Occupy or enter the dwelling or locked or posted building of another, without consent of the owner or the consent of one who has the right to give consent, except in an emergency situation; or 0 C. Return to the property of another within 30 days after being told to leave the property and not return if the person is without consent of one with authority to consent. Any person violating this Subsection upon conviction shall be guilty of a petty misdemeanor. Section 2. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon passage and publication. First Reading: Second Reading: Publication: 0 Attest: City Clerk 0 Mayor V] REPORURECOMMENDATION To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL el GORDON L. HUGHES V] REPORURECOMMENDATION To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL From: GORDON L. HUGHES ❑ CITY MANAGER Date: MARCH 1, 2005 Subject: RESOLUTION 2005 -16 HIGHWAY 100 IMPROVEMENTS Agenda Item V.A. Consent ❑ Information Only ❑ Mgr. Recommends ❑ To HRA ® To Council ° ❑ Motion ® Resolution ❑ Ordinance ❑ Discussion RECOMMENDATION: Adopt attached Resolution. INFORMATIONBACKGROUND: Recently, the Minnesota Department of Transportation announced its intention to delay the reconstruction of Highway 100 through St. Louis Park until 2014. It had previously been scheduled to be reconstructed in 2010. In our opinion, this portion of Highway 100 provides a significant bottleneck for safe and efficient travel on Highway 100. This bottleneck contributes to cut through traffic in the northeastern part of Edina. The attached Resolution among other things urges that MnDOT reprioritize the reconstruction of this critical segment of the regional roadway system. p O I'll rA, Resolution #2005 -16 i� t >`' �s Resolution Supporting Reconstruction of Highway 100 and o �. o Opposing Delays in the Proposed Project Schedule Ar Ayo'. ^fib cit 7 of Edina Whereas, the Minnesota Department of Tranportation (MNDot) plans to reconstruct Highway 100 between 36th Street and Cedar Lake Road to expand the roadway to a six-lane freeway, replace the existing bridges to add an additional lane in each direction, rebuild the interchanges at Highway 7 and Minnetonka Boulevard, correct deficient bridge clearances, improve drainage, address flooding problems under the railroad bridge, add water quality and retention ponds, add noise mitigation walls, and correct other deficiencies in the system; and . Whereas; MNDot's 10 -year plan called for the reconstruction to begin in 2005, was rescheduled to 2010, and is again proposed to be rescheduled to start no sooner than 2014; and o Whereas, the City of Edina believes Highway 100 improvements are essential to the economic vitality and the quality of life in our community and the region at large for the following reasons: ■ . Originally built in the mid- 1930's, this section is part of the original beltway around the Twin Cities. Minimal work has occurred on this 2.1 mile stretch of roadway over the last 60 years. ■ This segment is the last four -lane section remaining on Highway 100 and is one of the busiest and most congested four -lane freeways in the metro area. Traffic volumes on this segment were over capacity in 2001 and are only getting worse. r Crash rates for this stretch of Highway 100 are second highest of all non - interstate roadways in Minnesota, with 25 percent of Highway 100 crashes occurring at the West 36f Street terminus. ■ Local neighborhoods in Edina and St. Louis Park.are inundated with cars during peak drive -time hours. Cut - through traffic impacts the safety of our residents and their quality of life. ■ The estimated project cost is $80 mil idn for construction and $7 million for right -of -way 0 acquisition. MnDOT has estimated.that the delay to 2014 will increase project costs to at least $104 million. Now Therefore Be It Resolved, that the -City Council of the City of Edina supports reconstruction of Highway 100 and opposes delays in the.proposed project schedule. Attest ADOPTED: the 1st day of March 2005. 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 is a true and correct copy of the Resolution duly adopted by the Edina City Council at its regular meeting of March 1, 2005, and as recorded in the Minutes of said regular meeting. WITNESS, my hand and seal of said City this day of 2005. Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk City Hall 952- 927 -8861 FAX 952 -826 -0390 4801 WEST 50TH STREET TTY 952- 826 -0379 EDINA, MINNESOTA, 55424 -1394 www.cityofedina.com r 0 I REPORT/RECOMMENDATION To: Mayor & City Council Agenda Item °V.B. From: Debra Man gen Consent City Clerk Information Only Date: March 1, 2005 Mgr. Recommends 1 To HRA ® To Council Subject. ON -SALE INTOXICATING, CLUB ON -SALE AND Action ® " Motion SUNDAY SALE LIQUOR LICENSES ❑ Resolution ❑ Ordinance Discussion Recommendation: Council approval of On -Sale Intoxicating, Club On -Sale and Sunday Sale Liquor License renewals for: On -Sale Intoxicating & Sunday Sale California Pizza Kitchen Eden Avenue Grill Lakeshore Grill Louis XIII Maggiano's Little Italy P.F. Chang's China Bistro Romano's Macaroni Grill Ruby Tuesday Sidney's Restaurant Tejas The Cheesecake Factory Club & Sunday Sale Edina Country Club Interlachen Country Club Info/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 both Administration and Edina Police Departments; and renewals are recommended per the Sgt. Stroh's attached memo. All applicants submitted the required paperwork in accordance with the City's ordinance and State Statutes, and paid their license fees. Once Council approves the licenses, staff will forward them to the Minnesota Liquor Control for state approval. I, would remind the Council that Big Bowl's licenses were approved at the February 15, 2005 meeting. Staff would recommend submittal of Sidney's Restaurant licenses to the State for approval be contingent'upon their providing the City Clerk with proof they have resolved their tax delinquency with the State of Minnesota. ° One licensee, Ikasu, has not yet completed the necessary paperwork for their renewal. They have been advised that this will most likely result in an interruption in their license. Staff will submit their application as soon as it's'completed. M I Memo To: Chief of Police Mike Siitari From: Sergeant Steve StrohS Date: February 23, 2005 Re: Liquor License Renewals Background checks have been completed for the 2005 -2006 licensing period for the following liquor licenses: On -sale Intoxicating and Sunday, Club on Sale and Sunday Sale, Wine and 3.2 Beer, 3.2 Beer On- Sale and 3.2 Beer Off -Sale The following restaurants and country clubs comply with City code. An unqualified recommendation for approval of these renewal applications is warranted. ON -SALE INTOXICATING AND SUNDAY SALE • California Pizza Kitchen • Eden Avenue Grill • Lake Shore Grill • Louis XIII • Maggiano's Little Italy • P.F. Chang's China Bistro • Romano's Macaroni Grill • Ruby Tuesday • Sidney's Restaurant • Tejas • The Cheesecake Factory WINE AND 3.2 BEER ON -SALE • Alfred's Cafe • Beaujo's • Chapati • Chipotle Mexican Grill • Chuck E. Cheese's • D'Amico & Sons • Edina Grill • Good Earth Restaurant • Page 1 • Marriott Residence Inn • Pizzeria Uno • Szechuan Star Restaurant • Yorktown Cinema Grill BEER 3.2 ON -SALE • Davanni's Pizza /Hoagie • T J's Family Restaurant BEER 3.2 OFF -SALE • Cub Foods • Holiday Stationstore #217 • Jerry Foods • Speedway Superamerica, LLC CLUB ON-SALE AND SUNDAY SALE • Edina Country Club • Interlachen Country Club • Page 2 U 1 To: Mayor & City Council From: Debra Mangen City Clerk Date: March 1, 2005 0 U Subject: ON -SALE WINE LICENSE RENEWALS REPORT/RECOMMEN VATION Agenda Item V.C. Consent Information Only Mgr. Recommends To HRA ® To Council Action ® Motion Resolution F] Ordinance Discussion Recommendation: ` Council approval of On -Sale Wine and On -Sale 3.2 Beer License renewals for the following restaurants: Alfred's Cafe Beaujo's Bistro Chapati Chipotle Mexican Grill Chuck E. Cheese's D'Amico & Sons Edina Grill Good Earth Restaurant Pizzeria Uno Residence Inn Edina Szechuan Star Restaurant Yorktown Cinema Grill Info/Background: The City received applications for On -Sale Wine and 3.2 On -Sale Beer Liquor Licenses from the above listed establishments. Approval of both the above - mentioned licenses allows these establishments to also sell strong beer in their restaurants. Attached please find a memo reporting the results of the Police Department's investigation and review. All applicants submitted their renewal documentation pursuant to Edina's Code and State Statute, and paid their license fees. Our renewal date is April 1, 2005. Once Council approves the licenses, staff will forward them to the Minnesota Liquor Control for state approval. 0 Memo To: Chief of Police Mike Siitari From: Sergeant Steve Stroh Date: February 23, 2005 Re: Liquor License Renewals Background checks have been completed for the 2005 -2006 licensing period for the following liquor licenses: On -sale Intoxicating and Sunday, Club on Sale and Sunday Sale, Wine and 3.2 Beer, 3.2 Beer On- Sale and 3.2 Beer Off -Sale The following restaurants and country clubs comply with City code. An unqualified recommendation for approval of these renewal applications is warranted. ON-SALE INTOXICATING AND SUNDAY SALE • California Pizza Kitchen • Eden Avenue Grill • Lake Shore Grill • Louis XIII • Maggiano's Little Italy • P.F. Chang's China Bistro • Romano's Macaroni Grill • Ruby Tuesday • Sidney's Restaurant • Tejas • The Cheesecake Factory WINE AND 3.2 BEER ON -SALE • Alfred's Cafe • Beaujo's • Chapati • Chipotle Mexican Grill • Chuck E. Cheese's • D'Amico & Sons • Edina Grill • Good Earth Restaurant • Page 1 ,at2 • Marriott Residence Inn • Pizzeria Uno • Szechuan Star Restaurant • Yorktown Cinema Grill BEER 3.2 ON-SALE • Davanni's Pizza /Hoagie • T J's Family Restaurant BEER 3.2 OFF -SALE • Cub Foods • Holiday Stationstore #217 • Jerry Foods • Speedway Superamerica, LLC CLUB ON-SALE AND SUNDAY SALE • Edina Country Club • Interlachen Country Club • Page 2 n a To: Mayor & City Council From: Debra Mangen City Clerk Date: March 1, 2005 Subject: 3.2 BEER LICENSE RENEWALS KIEPUK IJKLCOMMEN VA41UN Agenda Item V. D.- Consent ❑ Information Only Mgr. Recommends ❑ To HRA °® To Council Action ® Motion Resolution ❑ Ordinance Discussion Recommendation: Council approve issuance of 3.2 Beer licenses as listed below: Info/Background: City Code Section 900 requires the City Council approve beer licenses before issuance. The following applicants have submitted the necessary documentation for renewal, paid the applicable fees, and been approved by the Police Department. Our renewal date is April 1, 2005. Once Council approves the licenses, staff will forward them to the Minnesota Liquor Control for state approval. 4 Staff submits these licenses for Council consideration: On -Sale 3.2 Licenses Davanni's Pizza /Hoagies TJ's Family Restaurant Off -Sale 3.2 Licenses Cub Foods Holiday Stationstore #217 Jerry's Foods Speedway Superamerica LLC 2 Memo To: Chief of Police Mike Siitari From: Sergeant Steve Stroh S?,5 Date: February 23, 2005 Re: Liquor License Renewals Background checks have been completed for the 2005 -2006 licensing period for the following liquor licenses: On -sale Intoxicating and Sunday, Club on Sale and Sunday Sale, Wine and 3.2 Beer, 3.2 Beer On- Sale and 3.2 Beer Off -Sale The following restaurants and country clubs comply with City code. An unqualified recommendation for approval of these renewal applications is warranted. ON -SALE INTOXICATING AND SUNDAY SALE • California Pizza Kitchen • Eden Avenue Grill • Lake Shore Grill • Louis XIII • Maggiano's Little Italy • P.F. Chang's China Bistro • Romano's Macaroni Grill • Ruby Tuesday • Sidney's Restaurant • Tejas • The Cheesecake Factory WINE AND 3.2 BEER ON -SALE • Alfred's Cafe • Beaujo's • Chapati • Chipotle Mexican Grill ■ Chuck E. Cheese's ■ D'Amico & Sons ■ Edina Grill ■ Good Earth Restaurant • Page 1 • Marriott Residence Inn • Pizzeria Uno • Szechuan Star Restaurant • Yorktown Cinema Grill BEER 3.2 ON -SALE • Davanni's Pizza /Hoagie • T J's Family Restaurant BEER 3.2 OFF-SALE • Cub Foods • Holiday Stationstore #217 • Jerry Foods • Speedway Superamerica, LLC CLUB ON-SALE AND SUNDAY SALE • Edina Country Club • Interlachen Country Club • Page 2 G r' REPORT/RECOM M EN DATION To: Mayor & City Council From: Wayne Houle, PE /}- City Engineer Date: March 1, 2005 Subject: Approve Resolution for Sound Wall Construction with Minnesota Department of Transportation, City Improvement No's SA -10, SA -11, SA -9. Recommendation: Agenda Item # V. E. Consent Information Only ❑ ° Mgr. Recommends ❑ To HRA ® To Council Action ❑ Motion ® Resolution ° ❑ Ordinance ❑ Discussion Adopt resolution 2005 -17, entering into Minnesota Department of Transportation ( MNDOT) Agreement No. 87602 -R and authorize the Mayor and City Manager to sign said agreement. See attached agreement. Info /Background: I o The Minnesota Department of Transportation has submitted the attached agreement for construction of Sound Walls along both sides of TH100 from Minnehaha Creek to West 44th Street on the east side and to the north City limits on the west side. Council has approved the two projects south of West 44th Street through the Special Assessment process. Council also approved the project north of West 44th Street on September 2, 2003, through the MNDOT Municipal Consent process. MNDOT has set a bid date of April 22, 2005 for these- projects. Staff and legal council has reviewed the agreement and recommends approval of this agreement. w .Yt PRE - LETTING STATE OF MINNESOTA SERVICES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECTION COOPERATIVE CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT The State of Minnesota Department of Transportation, and The City of Edina Re: City cost roadway, and noise wall construction by the State on T.H. 100 Mn /DOT AGREEMENT NO. 87602 -R S.P. 2734 -40 (T.H. 100 =005) S.A.P. 120 - 010 -010 State Funds AMOUNT ENCUMBERED (None) ESTIMATED AMOUNT RECEIVABLE $618,562.99 THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation, hereinafter referred to as the "State" and the City of Edina, Minnesota, acting by and through its City Council, hereinafter referred to as the "City ". 1 87602 -R WHEREAS, the State is about to perform noise wall, waterman relocation, storm sewer, and curb and gutter construction and other associated construction upon, along and adjacent to Trunk Highway No. 10.0 from Excelsior Boulevard to 200 feet south of Minnehaha Creek within the corporate City limits in accordance with State plans, specifications and special provisions designated as State Aid Project No. 120 - 010 -010, and State Project No. 2734 -40 (T.H. 100 =005); and WHEREAS, the City requested extensions to the proposed noise walls, and roadway construction, and the State has agreed to incorporate the additional noise wall lengths into the plans; and WHEREAS, the City has expressed its.willingness to participate in the costs of the.additional noise wall and roadway construction as hereinafter set forth; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Section 161.20, subdivision 2 authorizes the Commissioner of Transportation to make arrangements with and cooperate with any governmental authority for the purpose of constructing, maintaining and improving the trunk highway system. IT IS, THEREFORE, MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: ARTICLE I - CONSTRUCTION BY THE STATE Section A. Contract Award The State shall advertise for bids and award a construction contract to the lowest responsible bidder for State Project No. 2734 -40 (T.H. 100 =005) in accordance with State plans, sPecifications and special provisions which are on file in the office of the Commissioner of Transportation at St. Paul, Minnesota, and are incorporated into this Agreement by reference. 2 87602 -R Section B. Direction and Supervision of Construction The State shall direct and supervise all construction activities performed under the construction contract, and perform all construction engineering and inspection functions-in connection with the contract construction., All contract construction shall be performed in compliance with.the approved plans, specifications and special provisions. Section C. Plan Changes, Additional Construction, Etc. The State shall make changes in the plans and contract construction, which may include the City cost participation construction covered under this Agreement, and shall enter into any necessary addenda, change orders and supplemental agreements with the State's contractor that are necessary to cause the contract construction to be performed and completed in a satisfactory manner. However, the State District Engineer's authorized representative will inform the appropriate City official of any proposed addenda, change orders and supplemental agreements to the construction contract, which will'a'ffect the City cost participation construction covered under this Agreement. Section D. Satisfactory Completion of Contract The State shall perform all other acts and functions necessary to cause the construction contract to be completed in a satisfactory manner. ARTICLE II - INSPECTION BY THE CITY The City cost participation construction covered under this Agreement r shall be open to inspection by the City. If the City believes the City cost participation construction covered under this Agreement has not been properly performed or that the construction is defective, the City shall inform the State District Engineer's authorized representative in writing of those defects. Any recommendations made 3 87602 -R by the City are not binding on the State. The State shall have the exclusive right to determine whether the State's contractor has satisfactorily performed the City cost participation construction covered under this Agreement. ARTICLE III - BASIS OF PAYMENT BY THE CITY Section A. SCHEDULE "I" A Preliminary SCHEDULE "I" is attached and incorporated into this Agreement. The Preliminary SCHEDULE "I" includes all anticipated City cost participation construction items covered under this Agreement, and is based on engineer's estimated unit prices. Section B. City Cost Participation Construction The City shall, at the percentage indicated, participate in the following construction to be performed upon, along and adjacent to Trunk Highway No. 100 from Excelsior Boulevard to 200 feet south of Minnehaha Creek within the corporate City limits under State Project No. 2734 -40 (T.H. 100 =005). The:construction includes the City's proportionate share of item costs for mobilization, field office, field laboratory and traffic control. 1. 100 Percent shall be the City's rate of cost.participation in all of the Vernon Avenue South construction. The construction includes, but is not limited to, those construction items as, tabulated on Sheet No. 2 of the attached Preliminary SCHEDULE "I ". 2'. 100 Percent shall be the City's rate of cost participation in all of the noise walls No. 2, 3, and 5 construction. The construction includes, but is not limited to, those construction 4 IN 87602 -R items as tabulated on Sheets No. 3 through No. 5 of the attached Preliminary SCHEDULE "I". Section C Addenda, Change Orders and Supplemental Agreements The City shall share in the costs of construction contract addenda, change orders and supplemental agreements that are necessary to complete the City cost participation construction covered under this Agreement. Section D. Liquidated Damages All liquidated damages assessed the State's contractor in connection with the construction contract shall result in a credit shared by each party in the same proportion as their total construction cost share covered under this Agreement is to the total contract construction cost before any deduction for liquidated damages. ARTICLE IV - PAYMENT BY THE CITY Section A. Estimate and Advancement of the City's Cost Share It is estimated that the City's share of the costs of the contract construction is the sum of $618,562.99 as shown in the attached Preliminary SCHEDULE "I ". Upon award of the construction contract the State shall prepare a Revised SCHEDULE "I" based on construction contract unit prices. After the following conditions have been met, the City shall advance to the Commissioner of Transportation the City's total estimated construction cost share, as shown in the Revised SCHEDULE "I" and in accordance with the advance payment schedule below: A. Execution and approval of this Agreement and the State's transmittal of it to the City. 5 87602 -R B. Award of the construction contract for the construction to be performed hereunder., C. Receipt by the City of a written request from the State for the advancement of funds. ADVANCE PAYMENT SCHEDULE First Payment: Upon award of the contract, and the City's receipt of a written request from the State, the City shall advance to the State 40 percent of the City's construction cost based on the Revised SCHEDULE "I ". Second Payment: On or before November 1", 2005 and the City's receipt of a written request from the State, the City will pay to the State the balance of.the construction cost based on the Revised SCHEDULE "I Section B. Final Payment by the City Upon completion and acceptance of the contract construction and upon computation of the final amount due the State's contractor, the State shall prepare a Final SCHEDULE "I" and submit a copy to the City. The Final SCHEDULE "I" shall be based on final quantities, and include all City cost participation construction items covered under this Agreement. If the final cost of the City participation covered under this Agreement exceeds the amount of funds advanced by the City, the City shall, upon receipt of a request from the State, promptly pay the difference to the State without interest. If the final cost of the City participation covered under this Agreement is less than the amount of funds advanced by the City, the State shall promptly return the balance to the City without interest. ri E 87602 -R Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 15.415, the State waives claim for any amounts less than $5.00 over the amount of City funds previously advanced to the State, and the City waives claim for the return of any amounts less than $5.00 of those funds advanced by the City. Section C. Acceptance of City's Cost and Completed Construction The computation by the State of the amount due from the City shall be final, binding and conclusive. Acceptance by the State of the completed contract construction shall be final, binding and conclusive upon the City as to the satisfactory completion of the contract construction. ARTICLE V - GENERAL PROVISIONS Section A. Plan Changes The City may request changes in the plans. If the State determines that the requested plan changes are necessary or desirable, the State will cause those plan changes to be made. Section B. Replacement of Castings The City shall furnish the State's contractor with new castings and parts for all inplace City -owned facilities constructed hereunder when replacements are required, without cost or expense to the State or the State's contractor, except for replacement of castings and parts broken or damaged by the State's contractor. Section C. Utility Permits Upon the City's receipt of a fully executed copy of this Agreement, the City shall submit to the State's Utility Engineer an original permit application for all City -owned utilities to be constructed hereunder that are upon and within the trunk highway right -of -way. FA 87602 -R Applications for permits shall be made on State form "Application For Utility. Permit On Trunk Highway Right -Of -Way" (Form TP2525). Section D'. Maintenance by the City Upon satisfactory completion of the Vernon Avenue South construction to be performed within the corporate City limits under the construction contract, the City shall provide. for the proper maintenance of the roadways and all of the facilities a part thereof, without cost or expense to the State. Maintenance includes, but is not limited to, snow, ice and debris removal, resurfacing and seal coating and any other maintenance activities necessary to perpetuate the roadways in a safe and usable condition. Upon satisfactory completion of the City -owned utilities construction to be performed within the corporate City limits under the construction contract, the City shall provide for the proper maintenance of those utilities, without cost or expense to the State. Upon satisfactory completion of the walkways construction to be performed within the corporate City limits under the construction contract, the City shall provide for the proper routine maintenance of the walkways, without cost or expense to the State. Routine maintenance includes, but is not limited to, snow, ice and debris removal, patching, crack repair, and any other maintenance activities necessary to perpetuate the walkways in a safe and usable condition. Section E. Additional Drainage Neither party to this Agreement shall drain any additional drainage into the storm sewer facilities to be constructed under the construction contract, that was not included in the drainage for which the storm sewer facilities were designed, without first obtaining permission to do so from the other party. The drainage 8 L .r 87602 -R areas served by the storm sewer facilities constructed under the construction contract are shown in a drainage area map, EXHIBIT "Drainage Area ", which is on file in the office of the State's District Hydraulics Unit at Roseville and is incorporated into this Agreement by reference. Section F. Release and Conveyance of Roadways The State shall, upon satisfactory completion of the Vernon Avenue South construction and all of the facilities a part thereof constructed within the corporate City limits under the construction contract, serve upon the City a "Notice of Release" placing that roadway portion under the jurisdiction of the City; and subsequent thereto, after all necessary and required documents have been prepared and processed, the State shall convey to the City all right, title and interest of the State in that roadway portion. Upon receipt of that "Notice of Release ", the City shall become the road authority responsible for the roadway portion so released. Section G. Future Responsibilities Upon satisfactory completion of the Vernon Avenue South construction to be performed within the corporate City limits under the construction contract, the City shall thereafter accept full and total responsibility and all obligations and liabilities arising out of or by reason of the use, operation, maintenance, repair and reconstruction of the facilities a part thereof constructed hereunder, without cost or expense to the State. Section H. Examination of Books, Records, Etc. As provided by Minnesota Statutes Section 16C.05, subdivision 5, the books, records, documents, and accounting procedures and practices of each party relevant to this Agreement are subject to examination by 9 .y 87602 -R each party, and either the legislative auditor or the state auditor as appropriate, for minimum of six years from final payment. Section I. Claims Each party is responsible for its own employees for any claims arising under the Workers Compensation Act. Each party is responsible for its own acts, omissions and the results thereof to the extent authorized by law and will not be responsible for the acts and omissions of others and the results thereof. Minnesota Statutes Section 3.736 and other applicable law govern liability of the State. Minnesota Statutes Chapter 466 and other applicable law govern liability of the City. Section J. Agreement Approval Before this Agreement becomes binding and effective, it shall be approved by a City Council resolution and executed by such State and City officers as the law may provide in addition to the Commissioner of Transportation or their authorized representative. ARTICLE VI — AUTHORIZED AGENTS The State's Authorized Agent for the purpose of the administration of this Agreement is Maryanne Kelly- Sonnek, Municipal Agreements Engineer, or her successor. Her current address and phone number are 395 John Ireland Boulevard, Mailstop 682, St. Paul, MN 55155, (651) 296 -0969. The City's Authorized Agent for the purpose of the administration of this Agreement is Wayne Houle, City Engineer, or his successor. His current address and phone number are 4801 West 50"' Street, Edina, MN 55425, (952) 826 -0443. 10 1! J w 87602 -R IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF the parties have executed this Agreement by their authorized officers. CITY OF EDINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Recommended for approval: By Mayor By District Engineer Date Approved: By By State Design Engineer Date Title Approved as to form and execution: Date BY Contract Management Date COMMISSIONER OF ADMINISTRATION As delegated to Materials Management Division By Date F1VI J , `. F RESOLUTION No. 2005 -17 City of Edina BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Edina, enter into Mn /DOT Agreement No. 87602 -R with the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation for the following purposes: To provide for payment by the City to the State of the City's share of the costs for Vernon Avenue South, and noise walls No. 2, No. 3, and No. 5 construction and other associated construction to be performed upon, along and adjacent to Trunk Highway No. 100 from Excelsior Bouelvard to 200 feet south of Minnehaha Creek within the corporate City limites unders State Project No. 2734- 40(T.H.100 =005). IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor and City Manager are authorized to execute the Agreement and any amendments to the Agreement. Passed and adopted this 1st day of March 2005. Attest: Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk James B. Hovland 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 is a true and correct copy of the Resolution duly adopted by the Edina City Council at its regular meeting of March 1, 2005 and as recorded in the Minutes of said regular meeting. WITNESS, my hand and seal of said City this day of Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of 20 Notary Public My Commission Expires City Hall 4801 WEST 50TH STREET EDINA, MINNESOTA, 55424 -1394 www.cityofedina.com Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk 952 - 927 -8861 FAX 952 - 826 -0390 TTY 952 - 826 -0379 f J 37.96 R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register 2/17/2005 -- 2117/2005 Check # Date Amount Vendor / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 269170 2/17/2005 101304 ABM EQUIPMENT & SUPPLY 824.50 RECEIVER HITCH 106079 0100622 -IN 5913.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS 824.50 269171 2/1712006 102971 ACE ICE COMPANY Business Unit UIS 1 KlbU I IUN 2/17/2005 8:03:45 Page - 1 3796 106051 451233 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING CENT SVC PW BUILDING CENT SVC PW BUILDING PSTF REVENUE WATER TREATMENT COMMUNICATIONS A 106269 123104 4400.6710 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT CITY HALL/POLICE BUILDING 5,814.70 FIN L 37.96 5,814.70 269172 2/17/2005 269177 2/17/2005 100614 ACE SUPPLY CO. INC. 57,98 105910 59056 -1/05 39.82 NIPPLE, REDUCER, ELBOWS 106013 633390 1552.6530 REPAIR PARTS LAUNDRY 110.32- 53.39 HAND CRIMPER, SNIP 106014 . 633658 1552.6530 REPAIR PARTS 46 -1/05 1551.6201 93.21 40.04 105913 35334 -1105 5821.6201 LAUNDRY 269173 2/1712005 35314 -1/05 117759 AIRPORT POLICE LAUNDRY 444.02 105915 6200 -1/05 1470.6201 LAUNDRY 2,550.00 REGISTRATION REFUND 106015 020905 7401.4390 REGISTRATION FEES 105917 16813 -1/05 2,550.00 LAUNDRY 1,321.96 269174 2/17/2005 100596 ANOKA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE 111228 ALDEN POOL & MUNICIPAL SUPPLY 589.26 METER PARTS, O -RINGS 106080 500022 5915.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 589.26 269175 2/17/2005 103367 ALPHA VIDEO & AUDIO 341.87 - -- WIRED LAVALIER MICROPHONE 106081 SYSINVO3729 2210.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 341.87 269176 2/1712005 113594 AM -TEC DESIGNS INC. CENT SVC PW BUILDING CENT SVC PW BUILDING PSTF REVENUE WATER TREATMENT COMMUNICATIONS A 106269 123104 4400.6710 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT CITY HALL/POLICE BUILDING 5,814.70 FIN L 5,814.70 269177 2/17/2005 101115 AMERIPRIDE LINEN & APPAREL SER 57,98 105910 59056 -1/05 1470.6201 LAUNDRY 104.82 105911 35320 -1/05 5841.6201 LAUNDRY 110.32- 105912 46 -1/05 5421.6201 LAUNDRY 426.75 105912 46 -1/05 1551.6201 LAUNDRY 40.04 105913 35334 -1105 5821.6201 LAUNDRY 230.27 105914 35314 -1/05 5861.6201 LAUNDRY 444.02 105915 6200 -1/05 1470.6201 LAUNDRY 80.03 105916 3695 -1/05 5210.6511 CLEANING SUPPLIES 48.37 105917 16813 -1/05 5421.6201 LAUNDRY 1,321.96 269178 2/17/2005 100596 ANOKA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE FIRE DEPT. GENERAL YORK OCCUPANCY GRILL CITY HALL GENERAL 50TH ST OCCUPANCY VERNON OCCUPANCY FIRE DEPT. GENERAL GOLF DOME PROGRAM GRILL CITY OF EDINA 2/17/2005 8:03:45 R55CKREG LOG20000 Council Check Register Page - 2 2/17/2005 - 2/17/2005 Check # Date Amount Vendor/ Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 300.00 OUT OF COUNTY WARRANT 106122 020905 1000.2055 DUE TO OTHER GOVERNMENTS GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET 300.00 269179 2/17/2005 102646 AQUA LOGIC INC. 82.59 PUMP SEALS 106123 26319 5620.6530 REPAIR PARTS EDINBOROUGH PARK 82.59 269180 211712005 103680 ARAMARK REFRESHMENT SRVCS 38.00 COFFEE 106124 6013- 449907 1551.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CITY HALL GENERAL 38.00 269181 2/1712005 101977 ARCH WIRELESS 10.96 PAGER 105918 A6096083B 1551.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CITY HALL GENERAL 10.96 269182 211712005 114475 ARMOR SECURITY INC. 96.00 SERVICE CALL 106173 88328 1646.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS BUILDING MAINTENANCE 96.00 269183 217712005 117765 ARROW -TECH INC. 1,670.00 RADIATION MONITOR 106082 4563 1480.6710 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT SPECIAL OPERATIONS 1,670.00 269184 2/1712005 100634 ASPEN EQUIPMENT CO. 43.07 MOUNTING CLIPS 106016 1024411 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 72.91 MOUNTING CLIPS 106017 1037741 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 115.98 269185 2/1712005 105838 BAUDVILLE 194.95 CERTIFICATE FOLDERS 106125 1264573 2210.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES COMMUNICATIONS 194.95 269186 211712005 101355 BELLBOY CORPORATION 459.95 105988 32261700 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 224.00 105989 32261600 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 133.30 106224 39552300 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING - 30.48- - 106225 39554200 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 786.77 269187 2/1712005 100648 BERTELSON OFFICE PRODUCTS 134.18 TONER CARTRIDGE 105919 3633640 1470.6513 OFFICE SUPPLIES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 19.59- CREDIT 105920 CM3567110 1470.6513 OFFICE SUPPLIES FIRE DEPT. GENERF' a i rr f � t � � FIRST AID SUPPLIES 640.96 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 269188 2/1712005 EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN CITY OF EDINA CONTRACTED REPAIRS R55CKREG LOG20000 1495.4110 HEATING & VENTING LICENSE 987.79 VEHICLE WASHES 106085 49788 Council Check Register 269189 2/17/2005 - 2/1712005 105965 BLOOMINGTON POLICE Check # Date Amount Vendor / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 127.80 OFFICE SUPPLIES 105921 3626500 1470.6513 OFFICE SUPPLIES 88.99 OFFICE SUPPLIES 106018 3622970 5510.6513 OFFICE SUPPLIES 37.05 OFFICE SUPPLIES 106019 3625440 5510.6513 OFFICE SUPPLIES 16.28 OFFICE SUPPLIES 106020 3567880 1140.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 35.09 CUSTOM STAMP 106021 SA1101 1140.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 6.82 OFFICE SUPPLIES 106022 3643250 1160.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 9.02 OFFICE SUPPLIES 106022 3643250 1550.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 98.41 OFFICE SUPPLIES 106022 3643250 1600.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 16.62 WORKBOX CLIPBOARD 106083 3651880 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS 9029 OFFICE SUPPLIES 106084 3644980 1301.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 2117/2005 8:03:45 Page - 3 Business Unit FIRE DEPT. GENERAL ARENA ADMINISTRATION ARENA ADMINISTRATION PLANNING PLANNING FINANCE CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL PARK ADMIN. GENERAL EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN GENERAL MAINTENANCE 1553.6238 CAR WASH EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 7401.4390 REGISTRATION FEES PSTF REVENUE 1646.6530 REPAIR PARTS BUILDING MAINTENANCE 1470.6510 FIRST AID SUPPLIES 640.96 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 269188 2/1712005 EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 104053 BIOCLEAN MOBILE WASH INC. CONTRACTED REPAIRS ARENA BLDG /GROUNDS 1495.4110 HEATING & VENTING LICENSE 987.79 VEHICLE WASHES 106085 49788 987.79 269189 2/17/2005 105965 BLOOMINGTON POLICE 50.00 REGISTRATION REFUND 106023 020905 50.00 269190 211712005 101375 BLOOMINGTON SECURITY SOLUTIONS 190.17 SERVICE CALL 106174 S40510 190.17 269191 2/1712005 106367 BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC 568.48 AMBULANCE SUPPLIES 105922 50046114 568.48 269192 2117/2006 100669 BOYER TRUCK PARTS 55.91 MIRRORS 106086 714060 83.10 TUBE KIT 106087 713789 139.01 269193 2/17/2005 100671 BUDGET LIGHTING 393.36 REPLACE LAMPS 106024 00270009 393.36 269194 2/1712005 117760 BURNSVILLE HTG & A/C 33.00 PERMIT REFUND 106279 ED030483 33.00 269195 2/1712005 117724 BUSINESS JOURNAL -MINNEAPOLIS 2117/2005 8:03:45 Page - 3 Business Unit FIRE DEPT. GENERAL ARENA ADMINISTRATION ARENA ADMINISTRATION PLANNING PLANNING FINANCE CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL PARK ADMIN. GENERAL EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN GENERAL MAINTENANCE 1553.6238 CAR WASH EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 7401.4390 REGISTRATION FEES PSTF REVENUE 1646.6530 REPAIR PARTS BUILDING MAINTENANCE 1470.6510 FIRST AID SUPPLIES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 5511.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS ARENA BLDG /GROUNDS 1495.4110 HEATING & VENTING LICENSE INSPECTIONS R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register 2/17/2005 - 2/17/2005 Check # Date Amount Vendor/ Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 74.95 SUBSCRIPTION 105963 020905 1190.6105 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 2/17/2005 8:03:45 Page - 4 Business Unit ASSESSING DUE TO OTHER GOVERNMENTS GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET HEAT EDINBOROUGH PARK HEAT POOL OPERATION HEAT CENT SVC PW BUILDING HEAT 74.95 HEAT 50TH ST OCCUPANCY HEAT YORK OCCUPANCY HEAT 269196 2/17/2005 HEAT 108517 CARVER COUNTY YORK FIRE STATION HEAT PUMP & LIFT STATION OPER HEAT 250.00 OUT OF COUNTY WARRANT 106126 020905 1000.2055 FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 250.00 CENT SVC PW BUILDING HEAT SENIOR CITIZENS HEAT DISTRIBUTION 269197 211712005 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 103711 CENTERPOINT ENERGY GAS SERVICE GOLF DOME PROGRAM 9,729.87 106127 1076082 5620.6186 41.29 106128 1076692 5311.6186 11,496.04 106129 1076682 1552.6186 21, 267.20 269198 2/17/2005 100897 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MINNEGASCO 140.49 105923 020105 5430.6186 340.26 105923 020105 5821.6186 570.04 105923 020105 5841.6186 585.94 105923 020105 5861.6186 690.21 105923 020105 5422.6186 951.75 105923 020105 1481.6186 1,763.96 105923 020105 5911.6186 1,796.76 105923 020105 5111.6186 2,558.63 105923 020105 5420.6186 2,794.60 105923 020105 5630.6186 3,277,42 105923 020105 1470.6186 3,548.80 105923 020105 1552.6186 3,811.21 105923 020105 1628.6186 5,908.23 105923 020105 5913.6186 7,653.20 105923 020105 1646.6186 12,733.16 105923 020105 5511.6186 14,010.98 105923 020105 5210.6186 63,135.64 269199 211712005 117169 CHARLES MICHAEL COMPANY LLC 1,517.50 ENTRY GRATE 106280 1115BAL 5841.6406 1,517.50 269200 2/1712005 101223 CITIES FORD 359.30 TRACK ASSEMBLY 106088 116454WFOW 1553.6530 371.66 ALTERNATOR 106089 116467WFOW 1553.6530 730.96 2/17/2005 8:03:45 Page - 4 Business Unit ASSESSING DUE TO OTHER GOVERNMENTS GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET HEAT EDINBOROUGH PARK HEAT POOL OPERATION HEAT CENT SVC PW BUILDING HEAT RICHARDS GOLF COURSE HEAT 50TH ST OCCUPANCY HEAT YORK OCCUPANCY HEAT VERNON OCCUPANCY HEAT MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS HEAT YORK FIRE STATION HEAT PUMP & LIFT STATION OPER HEAT ART CENTER BLDG / MAINT HEAT CLUB HOUSE HEAT CENTENNIAL LAKES HEAT FIRE DEPT. GENERAL HEAT CENT SVC PW BUILDING HEAT SENIOR CITIZENS HEAT DISTRIBUTION HEAT BUILDING MAINTENANCE HEAT ARENA BLDG /GROUNDS HEAT GOLF DOME PROGRAM GENERAL SUPPLIES YORK OCCUPANCY REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN r RECERTIFICATION COURSE 106027 00035207 1281.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS TRAINING 75.00 269208 2/1712005 103985 DAVE'S GREAT AD SHOP 500.00 CITY OF EDINA COMMUNICATIONS R55CKREG LOG20000 269209 2/1712005 100712 DAVIES WATER EQUIPMENT 64.91 UNIFORM JACKETS 106028 3275609 1301.6201 LAUNDRY GENERAL MAINTENANCE Council Check Register 2/17/2005 -2/17/2005 Check # Date Amount Vendor / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 269201 2117/2005 100687 CITY OF RICHFIELD - -- 81.02 LIFT STATION POWER 106090 2423 5932.6185 LIGHT & POWER 81.02 269202 2/17/2005 100689 CLAREYS SAFETY EQUIP. 2,340.00 FACEPIECES 105924 44381 1470.6552 PROTECTIVE CLOTHING 44.19 CYLINDER PARTS 105925 51210 1470.6530 REPAIR PARTS 2,384.19 269203 2/17/2005 101323 CONNEY SAFETY PRODUCTS 19.01 SAFETY GLASSES, GLOVES 105926 02499892 1301.6610 SAFETY EQUIPMENT 54.38 SAFETY GLASSES, GLOVES 105926 02499892 1552.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 12.41 SAFETY GLASSES, GLOVES 106025 02502898 1646.6610 SAFETY EQUIPMENT 24.28 SAFETY GLASSES, GLOVES 106025 02502898 1301.6610 SAFETY EQUIPMENT 53.42 SAFETY GLASSES, GLOVES 106025 02502898 1552.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 25.41 SAFETY GLASSES 106091 02503881 1322.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 44.40 SAFETY GLASSES 106175 02504730 5913.6610 SAFETY EQUIPMENT 233.31 269204 2/1712005 100695 CONTINENTAL CLAY CO. 9.06 KEMPER TOOLS 106130 INV000010733 5120.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD 34.42 ELEPHANT EARS 106131 INV000010732 5120.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD 43.48 269205 2/17/2005 115119 CONTROL ASSEMBLIES COMPANY 15,704.38 PARTIAL PAYMENT NO. 11 106176 021805 03404.1705.30 CONTRACTOR PAYMENTS 15,704.38 269206 211712005 101495 CREATIVE IMAGES ON RIBBON INC. 186.00 CLASSES RIBBONS 106026 7059 5510.6513 OFFICE SUPPLIES 186.00 269207 211712005 101581 DAKOTA COUNTY TECHNICAL COLLEG 2/17/2005 8:03:45 Page - 5 Business Unit GENERAL STORM SEWER FIRE DEPT. GENERAL FIRE DEPT. GENERAL GENERAL MAINTENANCE CENT SVC PW BUILDING BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL MAINTENANCE CENT SVC PW BUILDING STREET LIGHTING ORNAMENTAL DISTRIBUTION ART SUPPLY GIFT GALLERY SHOP ART SUPPLY GIFT GALLERY SHOP SCADA SANITARY SEWER ARENA ADMINISTRATION 75.00 RECERTIFICATION COURSE 106027 00035207 1281.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS TRAINING 75.00 269208 2/1712005 103985 DAVE'S GREAT AD SHOP 500.00 FLYER & LOGO DESIGN 106132 1894 2210.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COMMUNICATIONS 500.00 269209 2/1712005 100712 DAVIES WATER EQUIPMENT 64.91 UNIFORM JACKETS 106028 3275609 1301.6201 LAUNDRY GENERAL MAINTENANCE R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register 2/17/2005 -2117/2005 Check # Date Amount Vendor / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 7099 UNIFORM JACKETS 106028 3275609 1260,6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 5422.6530 REPAIR PARTS 2/17/2005 8:03:45 Page - 6 Business Unit ENGINEERING GENERAL MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS 5862.5515 - - 135.90 VERNON SELLING 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 269210 2/17/2005 5842.5515 116927 DAVIS SUN TURF YORK SELLING 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 454.11 LF LIFT CYLINDER 106133 555342 5210.6188 454.11 GOLF DOME PROGRAM 1646.6188 TELEPHONE 269211 211712005 1550.6188 102478 DAY DISTRIBUTING CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 5861.6188 TELEPHONE 65.80 1481.6188 105990 298533 5111.6188 1,959.75 ART CENTER BLDG / MAINT 105991 298532 YORK OCCUPANCY 53.20 TELEPHONE 106052 300338 TELEPHONE 1,651.60 106053 300337 374.60 106054 300287 4,104.95 269212 2/17/2005 102712 DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION 32.24 GREENHOUSE 106281 W04120583 48.36 ARNESON 106281 W04120583 48.54 HISTORICAL 106281 W04120583 64.48 106281 W04120583 73.87 106281 W04120583 79.44 106281 W04120583 80.60 CARD ACCESS -PARKS 106281 W04120583 80.60 106281 W04120583 82.84 106281 W04120583 97,12 106281 W04120583 109.61 106281 W04120583 132.46 106281 W04120583 177,70 106281 W04120583 326.61 106281 W04120583 1,434.47 269213 2/17/2005 101644 DICK SLICK COMPANY 24.66 FOAMBOARD, TAPE 106177 88846 23.15 106178 88713 23.15- CREDIT 106179 88845 24.66 269214 2/1712005 100731 DPC INDUSTRIES 3,359.10 CHEMICALS 106029 82700095 -05 3,359.10 t 5422.6530 REPAIR PARTS 2/17/2005 8:03:45 Page - 6 Business Unit ENGINEERING GENERAL MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING 1646.6188 TELEPHONE BUILDING MAINTENANCE 1646.6188 TELEPHONE BUILDING MAINTENANCE 1646.6188 TELEPHONE BUILDING MAINTENANCE 5821.6188 TELEPHONE 50TH ST OCCUPANCY 5311.6188 TELEPHONE POOL OPERATION 5210.6188 TELEPHONE GOLF DOME PROGRAM 1646.6188 TELEPHONE BUILDING MAINTENANCE 1550.6188 TELEPHONE CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 5861.6188 TELEPHONE VERNON OCCUPANCY 1481.6188 TELEPHONE YORK FIRE STATION 5111.6188 TELEPHONE ART CENTER BLDG / MAINT 5841.6188 TELEPHONE YORK OCCUPANCY 1622.6188 TELEPHONE SKATING & HOCKEY 5610.6188 TELEPHONE ED ADMINISTRATION 1628.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES SENIOR CITIZENS 1628.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES SENIOR CITIZENS 1628.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES SENIOR CITIZENS 5915.6586 WATER TREATMENT SUPPLIES WATER TREATMENT R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register 2/17/2005 —2/17/2005 Check -# Date Amount Vendor / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 269215 211712005 116989 DYNAMETRIC 82.16 TELEPHONE LOGGER PATCH 106134 0034746 -IN 1400.6188 TELEPHONE 82.16 269216 211712005 100739 EAGLE WINE 2/17/2005 8:03:45 Page - 7 Business Unit POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 1,187.11 106055 189111 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 1,204.45 106226 189115 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 1,213.65 106227 184587 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 3,605.21 269217 2/1712005 100740 EARL F. ANDERSEN INC. 2,912.78 AIR BOUNCE 106135 0063568 -IN 5620.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES EDINBOROUGH PARK 2,912.78 269218 2117/2005 100741 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE 6,751.45 105992 324840 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 2,871.80 106056 324913 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 15.40 106228 325010 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 22.00 106229 325009 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 8,093.70 106230 325011 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 17,754.35 269219 2117/2005 106340 EDINA CAR WASH 293.94 CAR WASHES 106136 2011 1553.6238 CAR WASH EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 293.94 269220 2/17/2005 102955 EDINA PUBLIC SCHOOLS 237.89 FIELD TRIPS 106302 05 -004 1629.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES ADAPTIVE RECREATION 237.89 269221 211712005 117764 EHDE, JENNIFER 23.00- PROGRAM REFUND 106092 020905 1600.4390.01 PLAYGROUND PARK ADMIN. GENERAL 38.00 PROGRAM REFUND 106092 020905 1600.4390.27 SUPER 6 & 7 PROGRAM PARK ADMIN. GENERAL 15.00 269222 2/1712005 105758 EMERGENCY AUTOMOTIVE 240.65 POWER SUPPLY 106093 BCO20105 -2 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 240.65 269223 211712005 115673 EPISCOPAL COMMUNITY SERVICES 1 2,850.00 READY FOR SUCCESS PROGRAM 105927 020205 1504.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES HUMAN RELATION COMMISSION 2,850.00 CITY OF EDINA 2/17/2005 8:03:45 R55CKREG LOG20000 Council Check Register Page - 8 2117/2005 - 2/17/2005 Check # Date Amount Vendor / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 269224 2117/2005 103351 ESSIG'S TREE & LANDSCAPE INC. 1,986.00 LANDSCAPE REPAIRS 106282 160 1470.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 1,986.00 269225 2/17/2005 100297 FAST FOTO & DIGITAL 15.59 PHOTO FINISHING 106203 T2- 199341 1470.6408 PHOTOGRAPHIC SUPPLIES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 15.59 269226 2/1712005 117789 FESENMAIER, MARIE 100.00 CONTEST WINNER 106137 021105 1627.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES SPECIAL ACTIVITIES 100.00 269227 211712005 102792 FIRE INSTRUCTORS ASSOC. OF MIN 213.00 TRAINING MANUALS 105928 50103 1470.6579 TRAINING AIDS FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 213.00 269228 2/1712005 114661 FIRESIDE HEARTH & HOME 25.20 PERMIT REFUND 106283 ED030615 1495.4110 HEATING & VENTING LICENSE INSPECTIONS 25.20 269229 2117/2005 105331 FLIR SYSTEMS INC. 965.00 FUR REPAIRS 105929 SL2/25307 1470.6530 REPAIR PARTS FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 965.00 269230 211712005 102432 FREEWAY RADIATOR SERVICE 349.32 RECORE RADIATOR 106094 35118 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 349.32 269231 211712005 117725 FRITZ, ROB 1,035.00 REIMBURSE HOCKEY SUPPLIES 105964 020305 4077.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES EDINA ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION 1,035.00 269232 2/1712005 100764 G & K SERVICES 138.18 105930 013105 5511.6201 LAUNDRY ARENA BLDG /GROUNDS 162.69 105930 013105 5913.6201 LAUNDRY DISTRIBUTION 314.24 105930 013105 1552.6511 CLEANING SUPPLIES CENT SVC PW BUILDING 372.15 105930 013105 1646.6201 LAUNDRY BUILDING MAINTENANCE 388.54 105930 013105 1553.6201 LAUNDRY EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 450.31 105930 013105 1301.6201 LAUNDRY GENERAL MAINTENANCE c 1,826.11 2/17/2005 8:03:45 Page - 9 Business Unit WATERMAIN EXT - OXFORD & 52ND FIRE DEPT. GENERAL EDINBOROUGH PARK FIRE DEPT. GENERAL EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN CITY HALL/POLICE BUILDING INCLUSION PROGRAM EDINBOROUGH PARK SPECIAL OPERATIONS DISTRIBUTION EDINBOROUGH PARK MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS CENT SVC PW BUILDING MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS CITY OF EDINA R55CKREG LOG20000 Council Check Register 2/17/2005 — 2/17/2005 Check # Date Amount Vendor / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 269233 2/1712005 102166 G.L. CONTRACTING INC. 6,545.85 FINAL PAYMENT 106180 021805 05430.1705.30 CONTRACTOR PAYMENTS 6,545.85 269234 2117/2005 108632 GALLES CORPORATION 475.37 DISINFECTANT 105931 108445 1470.6511 CLEANING SUPPLIES 475.37 269235 2/17/2005 117085 GARDENWORLD INC. 177.13 BULBS 106284 211 /05STMT 5620.6620 TREES, FLOWERS, SHRUBS 177.13 269236 2117/2006 100920 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY - MINNEA 13.93 PARTS 105962 013105 1470.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 884.02 PARTS 105962 013105 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS 897.95 269237 211712005 112779 GEPHART ELECTRIC CO. INC. 10,694.00 FINAL 106270 123104 4400.6710 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT 10,694.00 269238 2117/2005 103316 GOETSCH, SAM L. 420.00 INTERPRETER 106204 020305 4078.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 420.00 269239 2/1712005 101178 GOPHER 91.79 FRISBEE GOLF HOLE 106139 7086060 5620.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 91.79 269240 2/1712005 101103 GRAINGER 935.67 HAND TOOLS 105965 498- 680351 -0 1480.6710 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT 149.67 SOLDERING GUN, HEAT GUN 106030 495- 650287 -8 5913.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 94.89 THERMOMETER 106140 498- 327659 -5 5620.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 115.69 HOSE 106141 498 -488553 -5 5422.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 16.29 SEAL KIT 106181 498 - 849269 -2 1552.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 1.312.21 269241 211712005 102202 GRAND VIEW LODGE 1,000.00 IRRIGATION CONTROLLERS 106142 020305 5422.6611 IRRIGATION EQUIPMENT 1,000.00 269242 211712005 1102217 GRAPE BEGINNINGS INC 2/17/2005 8:03:45 Page - 9 Business Unit WATERMAIN EXT - OXFORD & 52ND FIRE DEPT. GENERAL EDINBOROUGH PARK FIRE DEPT. GENERAL EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN CITY HALL/POLICE BUILDING INCLUSION PROGRAM EDINBOROUGH PARK SPECIAL OPERATIONS DISTRIBUTION EDINBOROUGH PARK MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS CENT SVC PW BUILDING MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS 2/17/2005 8:03:45 Page - 10 Business Unit YORK SELLING VERNON SELLING 50TH ST SELLING YORK SELLING VERNON SELLING CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 5842.5515 2,857.50 CITY OF EDINA 5822.5515 R55CKREG LOG20000 269243 211712005 5822.5512 100782 GRIGGS COOPER & CO. 50TH ST SELLING 5842.5512 Council Check Register 52.35 5842.5512 106058 2/17/2005 - 2/17/2005 5842.5512 Check # Date Amount Vendor / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 971.00 85990 63161 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 380.00 86191 63275 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 1,143.00 86192 63272 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 194.00 86405 63273 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 194.50 106057 70457 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 25.00- STOP PMT FEE 106138 258432 1550.6155 BANK SERVICES CHARGES 2/17/2005 8:03:45 Page - 10 Business Unit YORK SELLING VERNON SELLING 50TH ST SELLING YORK SELLING VERNON SELLING CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 5842.5515 2,857.50 YORK SELLING 5822.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 269243 211712005 5822.5512 100782 GRIGGS COOPER & CO. 50TH ST SELLING 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 52.35 5842.5512 106058 189118 5842.5512 54.90 YORK SELLING 106059 189114 YORK SELLING 2,261.56 106060 189113 2.55 106231 188800 5,936.31 106232 189119 5,664.92 106233 189117 142.74 106234 189116 14,115.33 269244 2117/2005 102567 GUEST SERVICES 216.00 MEAL TICKET 106205 021005 216.00 269245 211712005 102060 HALLOCK COMPANY INC - 45.13 -- -45.13 RELAY 106031 205 -983 269246 2117/2005 103314 HARDRIVES INC. 14,691.07 PARTIAL PAYMENT NO. 6 106182 021805 44,073.23 PARTIAL PAYMENT NO. 6 106182 021805 8,618.53 PARTIAL PAYMENT NO. 7 106202 FEB 18 67,382.83 269247 2/1712005 115699 HENNEPIN COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFF 915.59 DWI FORFEITURE 106143 021005 915.59 269248 2/17/2005 105436 HENNEPIN COUNTY INFORMATION 1,706.42 RADIO LEASE 105932 25018009 30.44 TRANSACTION PROCESSING 105966 25017173 49.03 TRANSACTION PROCESSING 105966 25017173 1,785.89 2/17/2005 8:03:45 Page - 10 Business Unit YORK SELLING VERNON SELLING 50TH ST SELLING YORK SELLING VERNON SELLING CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 5822.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 50TH ST SELLING 5822.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 1470.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 1552.6530 REPAIR PARTS CENT SVC PW BUILDING 04296.1705.30 CONTRACTOR PAYMENTS VALLEY VIEW WOODDALE STORM 05432.1705.30 CONTRACTOR PAYMENTS VALLEY VIEW WOODDALE WATERMAIN 01205.1705.30 CONTRACTOR PAYMENTS WOODDALE - 56 TO VV RECLAIM 4601.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES POLICE FORFEITURE 1470.6151 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 1400.6160 DATA PROCESSING POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 1190.6105 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS ASSESSING CITY OF EDINA 2/17/2005 8:03:45 R55CKREG LOG20000 Council Check Register Page - 11 2/17/2005 .72/17/2005 Check # Date Amount Vendor / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 269249 2/17/2005 101717 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER 50.00 COUNTY ROAD PERMIT 106183 UTIL00523 5913.6260 LICENSES & PERMITS DISTRIBUTION 50.00 269250 2/1712005 103838 HENNEPIN TECHNICAL COLLEGE 3,275.64 FFI AND FFII APP FEES 105933 00091375 1470.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 3,275.64 269251 2/17/2005 117766 HIRONS & ASSOCIATES INC. 7,490.00 INFRASTRUCTURE VALUATION 106285 1107 1500.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTINGENCIES 7,490.00 269252 2/17/2005 100805 HIRSHFIELD'S 65.68 PAINT 105934 003960374 5420.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CLUB HOUSE 65.68 269253 2/17/2005 104375 HOHENSTEINS INC. 297.60 105993 350372 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 648.30 105994 351387 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING __..._ 211,40 -1, 106061 351388 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 157.30 269254 2/17/2005 101365 HONEYWELL INC. 607.27 SECURITY MAINTENANCE 105935 267491 1470.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 607.27 269255 2/1712005 101774 HONEYWELL INC. 6,555.00 MECHANICAL MAINT CONTRACT 106095 3153924 5620.6230 SERVICE CONTRACTS EQUIPMENT EDINBOROUGH PARK 18,890.00 MECHANICAL MAINT CONTRACT 106095 3153924 5510.6136 PROFESSIONAL SVC - OTHER ARENA ADMINISTRATION 25,445.00 269256 2117/2005 101040 HOPKINS TOWN & COUNTRY DODGE 1,131.69 REPAIRS 106096 46354 1553.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 1,131.69 269257 2/1712005 102114 HUEBSCH 107.37 TOWELS /RUGS 106144 206799 5620.6230 SERVICE CONTRACTS EQUIPMENT EDINBOROUGH PARK 107.37 269258 2/1712005 101468 IIMC 940.00 CONFERENCE REGISTRATION 105967 020905 1180.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS ELECTION 940.00 12,163.40 269265 2/1712005 100839 KAMAN INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGIES 37.04 BEARING CUPS 106100 K591344 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 37.04 CITY OF EDINA 2/17/2005 8:03:45 R55CKREG LOG20000 Council Check Register Page - 12 2/17/2005 -2/17/2005 Check # Date Amount Vendor / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 269259 211712005 100814 INDELCO PLASTICS CORP. 58.82 PVC PIPE, ELL 106097 377650 5915.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES WATER TREATMENT 206.27 PVC PIPE, UNION 106098 377493 5915.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES WATER TREATMENT 265.09 269260 2/17/2006 101183 INSPECTRON INC. 4,412.50 JAN 2005 SERVICES 106206 020905 1495.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES INSPECTIONS 4,412.50 269 261 211712005 116191 I N S TY- PRINTS 522.81 NEWSLETTER 106145 68772 2210.6575 PRINTING COMMUNICATIONS 150.48 TPS POSTERS 106207 68754 1629.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES ADAPTIVE RECREATION 673.29 269262 2/1712005 101403 J -CRAFT 175.27 CYLINDER 106184 36210 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 33.28 PISTON ROD, SEAL KIT 106185 36211 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 208.55 269263 2/17/2005 100830 JERRY'S PRINTING -- 241.76 WATER NOTICE HANGER 106099 31913 5913.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES DISTRIBUTION 241.76 269264 2/17/2005 100835 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO. 1,735.82 105995 1850994 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 159.95 105996 1850997 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 99.40 106235 1854256 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 1,285.00 106236 1854261 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 256.15 106237 1854266 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 796.31 106238 1854264 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 65.40 106239 1854263 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 213.25 106240 1854255 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 48.00 106241 1854265 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 7,610.52 106242 1854262 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 106 40 106243 272907 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 12,163.40 269265 2/1712005 100839 KAMAN INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGIES 37.04 BEARING CUPS 106100 K591344 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 37.04 R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register 2/17/2005 — 2/17/2005 Check # Date Amount Vendor / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 269266 2117/2005 111018 KEEPRS INC. 757.50 UNIFORM 105936 33204 -01 1470.6558 DEPT UNIFORMS 2117/2005 8:03:45 Page - 13 Business Unit FIRE DEPT. GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PSTF OCCUPANCY EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT CITY HALUPOLICE BUILDING EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE PSTF FIRE TOWER COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING GENERAL SUPPLIES CENTENNIAL LAKES GENERAL SUPPLIES CENTENNIAL LAKES GENERAL SUPPLIES CENTENNIAL LAKES GENERAL SUPPLIES CENTENNIAL LAKES REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN GENERAL SUPPLIES EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN REPAIR PARTS MAINT OF COURSE 8 GROUNDS REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 757.50 269267 2/17/2005 114276 KELLEHER, KEVIN 379.64 FBI COURSE MEALS 106186 021105 7411.6103 379.64 269268 2/1712005 113212 KENDELL DOORS & HARDWARE INC. 10,338.58 FINAL 106271 123104 4400.6710 10,338.58 269269 2/17/2005 117792 KIDDE FIRE TRAINERS INC. 3,000.00 MAINTENANCE CONTRACT 106187 P04001- JG -05 -10 7413.6215 4 3,000.00 269270 2/17/2005 100846 KUETHER DISTRIBUTING CO 405.00 105997 426264 5842.5514 2,224.80 105998 426237 5842.5514 2,629.80 269271 2/17/2005 100850 LAKELAND FLORIST 83.87 DECORATIONS 106286 552185 5630.6406 71.09 DECORATIONS 106287 547540 5630.6406 154.96 269272 2117/2005 101220 LANO EQUIPMENT INC. 29.39 FITTINGS 106146 122591 5630.6406 29.39 269273 2/17/2005 115852 LANO EQUIPMENT INC. 1,451.60 BLADE FOR PLOW 106147 45219 5630.6406 1,451.60 269274 2117/2005 100852 LAWSON PRODUCTS INC. 268.15 TY -RAP, WASHERS 106032 2861955 1553.6530 175.84 LUBRITEMP SPRAY 106033 2867298 1553.6406 180.69 WASHERS, SOLVENT 106148 2867297 5422.6530 393.26 PUSH ON HOSE 106188 2885634 1553.6530 1,017.94 2117/2005 8:03:45 Page - 13 Business Unit FIRE DEPT. GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PSTF OCCUPANCY EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT CITY HALUPOLICE BUILDING EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE PSTF FIRE TOWER COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING GENERAL SUPPLIES CENTENNIAL LAKES GENERAL SUPPLIES CENTENNIAL LAKES GENERAL SUPPLIES CENTENNIAL LAKES GENERAL SUPPLIES CENTENNIAL LAKES REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN GENERAL SUPPLIES EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN REPAIR PARTS MAINT OF COURSE 8 GROUNDS REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN CITY OF EDINA 2/17/2005 8:03:45 R55CKREG LOG20000 Council Check Register Page - 14 2/17/2005 - 2/17/2005 Check # Date Amount Vendor / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 269275 211712005 100863 LEEF SERVICES 31.18 -- SHOP TOWELS 106149 334850 5422.6201 LAUNDRY MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS 31.18 269276 2/17/2005 115125 LIENEMANN, EMMA 80.74 AMBULANCE OVERPAYMENT 106288 020805 1470.4329 AMBULANCE FEES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 80.74 269277 2/17/2005 100858 LOGIS 91,384.00 UTILITY ASSESSMENT 106034 24847 5910.6160 DATA PROCESSING GENERAL (BILLING) 13.10 106289 24715/24736 5910.6160 DATA PROCESSING GENERAL (BILLING) 44.76 106289 24715/24736 5410.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES GOLF ADMINISTRATION 67.14 106289 24715/24736 2210.6160 DATA PROCESSING COMMUNICATIONS 190.76 106289 24715/24736 1260.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ENGINEERING GENERAL 332.16 106289 24715/24736 1554.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CENT SERV GEN - MIS 1,420.39 106289 24715124736 1160.6160 DATA PROCESSING FINANCE 93,452.31 269278 2/1712005 113213 M G MCGRATH INC. 2,517.15 FINAL 106272 103104 4400.6710 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT CITY HALUPOLICE BUILDING 2,517.15 269279 211712005 112677 M. AMUNDSON LLP 797,46 106244 174139 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 88.64- 106245 174270 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 708.62 269280 2117/2005 101166 M.A.A.O. 390.00 2005 DUES 105968 020805 1190.6105 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS ASSESSING 390.00 269281 2117/2005 101165 M.A.A.O. 310.00 WORKSHOP 3/7- 3/8/05 105969 020905 1190.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS ASSESSING 310.00 269282 211712005 100864 MAC QUEEN EQUIP INC. 15.01 LATCH SPRING 106035 2051336 5920.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES SEWER CLEANING 219.75 COUPLER, FITTING, HOSE 106036 2051413 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 743.96 SPRING BASE 106037 2051426 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 458.35 STRAINER ASSEMBLY 106038 2051412 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 1,927.39 BELTS, FILTERS, SPROCKETS 106039 2051048 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 3,364.46 2/17/2005 8:03:45 Page - 15 Business Unit YORK OCCUPANCY VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING VERNON SELLING 50TH ST SELLING YORK SELLING ASSESSING CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE FIRE DEPT. GENERAL CITY HALL/POLICE BUILDING GOLF DOME PROGRAM CITY OF EDINA R55CKREG LOG20000 Council Check Register 2/17/2005 - 2/17/2005 Check # Date Amount Vendor/ Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 269283 2/1712005 112095 MAGIC CARPET SPECIALISTS INC. 319.50 STEAM CLEANING 106208 011905 5841.6162 SERVICES CUSTODIANS 319.50 269284 2/1712005 100868 MARK VII SALES 1,128.90 105999 759934 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER .03 106000 757216 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 847.60 106001 757215 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 2.662.65 106002 761982 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 98.00 106003 761984 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 43.90 106004 761983 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 2,777,25 106062 761782 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 1,830.05 106063 761514 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 967.75 106246 764171 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 10,356.13 269286 2/1712005 101555 MARSHALL & SWIFT 180.95 RESIDENTIAL COST BK 106150 5679338 1190.6105 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 180.95 269286 2117/2005 100869 MARTIN - MCALLISTER 350.00 PERSONNEL EVALUATION 106209 4121 1550.6121 ADVERTISING PERSONNEL 350.00 269287 2/1712005 102600 MATRIX COMMUNICATIONS INC 62.50 PHONE CHANGES 105937 22722 1550.6188 TELEPHONE 556.99 PHONE CHANGES 105938 22733 1550.6188 TELEPHONE 62.50 PHONE CHANGES 106210 22878 1550.6188 TELEPHONE 420.00 CAHILL SCHOOL LINE 106211 22807 1646.6188 TELEPHONE 1,101.99 269288 211712005 100870 MATRX - -- 22.95 - AMBULANCE SUPPLIES 106212 880930 1470.6510 FIRST AID SUPPLIES 22.95 269289 2/1712005 111825 MCGUIRE MECHANICAL SERVICES IN 6,679.88 REDUCE RETAINAGE 106273 040604 4400.6710 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT 6,679.88 269290 2117/2005 101483 MENARDS 37.51 DISINFECTANT, BLADES 105939 98347 5210.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 2/17/2005 8:03:45 Page - 15 Business Unit YORK OCCUPANCY VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING VERNON SELLING 50TH ST SELLING YORK SELLING ASSESSING CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE FIRE DEPT. GENERAL CITY HALL/POLICE BUILDING GOLF DOME PROGRAM CITY OF EDINA 2117 /2005 8:03:45 R55CKREG LOG20000 Council Check Register Page - 16 211712005 -2/17/2005 Check # Date Amount Vendor / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 98.81 BLADES ,LUMBER, THINNER 106040 99494 1301.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL MAINTENANCE 55.60 PAINT, STAIN, WOOD 106041 99931 5630.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENTENNIAL LAKES 73.17 BITS, HOLDER 106101 92 1301.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL MAINTENANCE 115.63 SINK KIT, COUNTERTOP 106189 1046 1552.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENT SVC PW BUILDING 380.72 269291 211712005 101987 MENARDS 83.11 BULBS, TORCH KIT 106042 63655 5630.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENTENNIAL LAKES 83.11 269292 211712005 102281 MENARDS 16.90 LUMBER 106190 49555 1646.6577 LUMBER BUILDING MAINTENANCE 16.90 269293 211712005 100882 MERIT SUPPLY 200.65 TISSUE, TOWELS 106102 66226 1552.6511 CLEANING SUPPLIES CENT SVC PW BUILDING 200.65 269294 211712006 101390 MES INC. 107.81 BOOTS 105940 263943 1470.6552 PROTECTIVE CLOTHING FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 330.78 GLOVES 106213 264947 1470.6552 PROTECTIVE CLOTHING FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 438.59 269295 2117/2005 102507 METRO VOLLEYBALL OFFICIALS 98.00 OFFICIATING FEES 105970 2713 4077.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES EDINA ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION 98.00 269296 2/17/2005 100886 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL 132,313.50 BAL - DEC 2004 106290 020805 1495.4307 SAC CHARGES INSPECTIONS 132,313.50 269297 2117/2005 100886 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL 1,435.50 JAN 2005 105971 020905 1495.4307 SAC CHARGES INSPECTIONS 1,435.50 269298 2/17/2005 104650 MICRO CENTER 63.89 EXT HDD ENCLOSURE 105972 831238 1554.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENT SERV GEN - MIS 223.59 MEMORY UPGRADES 105972 831238 5913.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES DISTRIBUTION 287.48 269299 2117/2005 101161 MIDWEST CHEMICAL SUPPLY 108.31 TRASH LINERS 106214 23386 1470.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES FIRE DEPT. GENER" CITY OF EDINA 2/17/2005 8:03:45 R55CKREG LOG20000 Council Check Register Page - 17 2/17/2005 2/17/2005 Check # — Date Amount Vendor / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 108.31 269300 211712005 100692 MIDWEST COCA -COLA EAGAN 6.80- 106005 80826262 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 223.30 106006 80826254 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 216.50 269301 2117/2005 116929 MIDWEST HOUSING COLLABORATIVE, 5,280.00 EAH PROJECT 106043 020805 1508.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RPC 5,280.00 269302 2/1712005 101260 MIDWEST LIGHTING PRODUCTS 68.85 LIGHTING 106103 00040435 1551.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CITY HALL GENERAL 68.85 LIGHTING 106103 00040435 1400.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 137.70 269303 2/1712005 100895 MILWAUKEE ELECTRIC TOOL CORPOR _ ._.... 45.50 REPAIR PARTS 105941 4790252 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 45.50 269304 2/17/2005 103216 MINNEAPOLIS FINANCE DEPARTMENT 14,566.16 WATER PURCHASE 106104 020805 5913.6601 WATER PURCHASED DISTRIBUTION 14,566.16 269305 211712005 102174 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPANY 5.61 PROPANE 105943 R101050331 5421.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES GRILL 5.61 269306 2/17/2006 100913 MINNEAPOLIS SUBURBAN SEWER & W 680.00 TELEVISED SEWER SERVICE 105942 32623 03413.1705.20 CONSULTING DESIGN PHASE 1 ARDEN, BRUCE, CASCO SS 680.00 269307 2/1712006 101684 MINNESOTA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASS 1,500.00 MJNO SERVICE 62515 1386 1400.6160 DATA PROCESSING POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 1,500.00 269308 2/17/2005 102222 MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSP 133.80 — PW MANUALS 106105 BOOKS 1281.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS TRAINING 133.80 269309 2/17/2005 100245 MINNESOTA DNR 40.00 WORKSHOP 106191 021105 1644.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS TREES & MAINTENANCE 2/17/2005 8:03:45 Page - 18 Business Unit GOLF ADMINISTRATION TRAINING 270.00 WASTEWATER SEMINAR 105944 020705 CITY OF EDINA CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS R55CKREG LOG20000 270.00 269313 2/17/2005 Council Check Register 2117/2005 - 2/17/2005 PARTIAL PAYMENT NO. 1 Check # Date Amount Vendor/ Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description PARTIAL PAYMENT NO. 1 106193 40.00 05448.1705.30 CONTRACTOR PAYMENTS WM448 WELL #16 6301 GLEASON 269310 2/1712005 100906 MINNESOTA GOLF ASSOCIATION 269314 2/1712005 360.00 MEMBERSHIP DUES 106151 ACCT 1500 5410.6105 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 360.00 106064 29763 269311 2/17/2005 YORK SELLING 101537 MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AG 23.00 WASTEWATER LICENSE RENEWAL 106192 021105 5919.6260 LICENSES & PERMITS 23.00 29.01 269312 2/17/2005 873184124026 101796 MPCA TELEPHONE STREET REVOLVING 2/17/2005 8:03:45 Page - 18 Business Unit GOLF ADMINISTRATION TRAINING 270.00 WASTEWATER SEMINAR 105944 020705 5919.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS TRAINING 270.00 269313 2/17/2005 110522 MUNICIPAL BUILDERS INC. 15,240.61 PARTIAL PAYMENT NO. 1 106193 021805 05447.1705.30 CONTRACTOR PAYMENTS WM447 WELL #4 4701 SOUTHVIEW 19,310.61 PARTIAL PAYMENT NO. 1 106193 021805 05448.1705.30 CONTRACTOR PAYMENTS WM448 WELL #16 6301 GLEASON 34, 551.22 269314 2/1712005 100076 NEW FRANCE WINE CO. 445.00 106064 29763 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 445.00 269315 2/1712005 104672 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS 29.01 105973 873184124026 4090.6188 TELEPHONE STREET REVOLVING 29.01 105973 873184124026 1240.6188 TELEPHONE PUBLIC WORKS ADMIN GENERAL 29.01 105973 873184124026 1325.6188 TELEPHONE STREET NAME SIGNS 82.25 105973 873184124026 1553.6188 TELEPHONE EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 87.03 105973 873184124026 1280.6188 TELEPHONE SUPERVISION & OVERHEAD 98.52 105973 873184124026 1301.6188 TELEPHONE GENERAL MAINTENANCE 136.68 105973 873184124026 1260.6188 TELEPHONE ENGINEERING GENERAL 154.05 105973 873184124026 1322.6188 TELEPHONE STREET LIGHTING ORNAMENTAL 175,79 105973 873184124026 1640.6188 TELEPHONE PARK MAINTENANCE GENERAL 475.24 105973 873184124026 5910.6188 TELEPHONE GENERAL (BILLING) 342.13 106152 425483229021 5620.6230 SERVICE CONTRACTS EQUIPMENT EDINBOROUGH PARK 1 051 B7 106215 757391129026 1470.6151 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 2,690.59 269316 2/17/2005 101620 NORTH SECOND STREET STEEL SUPP 1,315.28 GALVANIZED PIPE 105945 091892 1325.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES STREET NAME SIGNS 1.315.28 2/17/2005 8:03:45 Page- 19 Business Unit CITY HALUPOLICE BUILDING ART SUPPLY GIFT GALLERY SHOP ART SUPPLY GIFT GALLERY SHOP PSTF ADMINISTRATION INSPECTIONS ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION TREES & MAINTENANCE CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL YORK SELLING YORK SELLING 21.60 PERMIT REFUND 106291 ED027787 1495.4110 HEATING & VENTING LICENSE INSPECTIONS 20.24 CITY OF EDINA HEATING & VENTING LICENSE R55CKREG LOG20000 269326 2/17/2005 117784 PEER ENGINEERING INC. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES MAINT OF COURSE &GROUNDS 425.00 UST MONITORING 106155 0012334 5422.6103 Council Check Register 425.00 2/17/2005 — 2/17/2005 Check # Date Amount Vendor/ Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 269317 2/17/2005 106023 NORTHLAND PAVING 28,760.74 FINAL 106274 083004 4400.6710 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT 28,760.74 269318 2/1712005 100933 NORTHWEST GRAPHIC SUPPLY 17.82 CANVAS TACKS, CHAMOIS 106153 30990100 5120.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD 113.15 PRISMACOLOR PENCILS 106154 31021400 5120.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD 130.97 269319 2/17/2005 100374 NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY 20,000.00 CONTRACTED COURSE 106194 530A376 -01 7410.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 20,000.00 269320 211712005 116114 OCE 140.00 FEB. MAINTENANCE 106216 984750162 1495.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 140.00 269321 2/1712005 100729 ODLAND, DOROTHY 480.00 INSTRUCTOR AC 75540 102103 5110.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 480.00 269322 211712005 100936 OLSEN COMPANIES 58.79 CLIPS, CUTTER 106195 321642 1644.6556 TOOLS 58.79 269323 211712005 100941 PARK NICOLLET CLINIC 303.00 EMPLOYMENT PHYSICAL 105946 012305 1550.6121 ADVERTISING PERSONNEL 303.00 269324 211712005 100347 PAUSTIS &SONS 39.90 106247 8060707 -IN 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 1,414.20 106248 8060706 -IN 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 1,454.10 269325 2/17/2005 117762 PEARSON MECHANICAL SERVICE 2/17/2005 8:03:45 Page- 19 Business Unit CITY HALUPOLICE BUILDING ART SUPPLY GIFT GALLERY SHOP ART SUPPLY GIFT GALLERY SHOP PSTF ADMINISTRATION INSPECTIONS ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION TREES & MAINTENANCE CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL YORK SELLING YORK SELLING 21.60 PERMIT REFUND 106291 ED027787 1495.4110 HEATING & VENTING LICENSE INSPECTIONS 20.24 PERMIT REFUND 106292 ED030208 1495.4110 HEATING & VENTING LICENSE INSPECTIONS 41.84 269326 2/17/2005 117784 PEER ENGINEERING INC. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES MAINT OF COURSE &GROUNDS 425.00 UST MONITORING 106155 0012334 5422.6103 425.00 5,182.83 269330 2/17/2005 117790 POOLPAK INTERNATIONAL 2,787.78 POOLPAK SUPPLY FAN 106158 022266 5620.6230 SERVICE CONTRACTS EQUIPMENT EDINBOROUGH PARK 2,787.78 269331 2/1712005 102856 PORTHAN, TODD 914.82 REIMBURSE COURSE FEE 106293 020105 1470.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS -- 914.82 269332 2/17/2005 116396 PRAXAIR DISTRIBUTION INC 15.14 CO2 TANK RENTAL 106044 672333 7413.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 15.14 269333 , 2117/200 101032 PRINT SHOP, THE FIRE DEPT. GENERAL PSTF FIRE TOWER CITY OF EDINA 2/17/2005 8:03:45 R55CKREG LOG20000 Council Check Register Page - 20 2/17/2005 - 2/17/2005 Check # Date Amount Vendor / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 269327 2/1712005 104461 PELLA WINDOWS & DOORS 10,700.00 NEW WINDOWS 106156 021005 2127.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COMM DEV BLK GRANT 10,700.00 269328 2/17/2005 100946 PERA 78.233.86 PPEND 2/8/05 106157 021105 1000.2023 P.E.R.A. PAYABLE GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET 78,233.86 269329 2/17/2005 100743 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS 47.20 106007 2162866 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 1,656.95 106008 2162867 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 988.40 106009 2162865 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 6.00- 106065 3313046 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 22.74- 106066 3313048 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 1,176.45 106249 2165085 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 81.45 106250 2165086 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 413.90 106251 2165087 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 1,110.24 106252 2165084 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 1.35 106253 2162858 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 200.00- 106254 3313041 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 2.06- 106255 3313045 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 9.83- 106256 3313043 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 28,07- 106257 3313047 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 4.20- 106258 3313042 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 8.50- 106259 3313044 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 1171- 106260 3313049 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 5,182.83 269330 2/17/2005 117790 POOLPAK INTERNATIONAL 2,787.78 POOLPAK SUPPLY FAN 106158 022266 5620.6230 SERVICE CONTRACTS EQUIPMENT EDINBOROUGH PARK 2,787.78 269331 2/1712005 102856 PORTHAN, TODD 914.82 REIMBURSE COURSE FEE 106293 020105 1470.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS -- 914.82 269332 2/17/2005 116396 PRAXAIR DISTRIBUTION INC 15.14 CO2 TANK RENTAL 106044 672333 7413.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 15.14 269333 , 2117/200 101032 PRINT SHOP, THE FIRE DEPT. GENERAL PSTF FIRE TOWER R55CKREG LOG20000 Check # Date 269334 2/17/2005 269335 211712005 269336 211712005 269337 2/17/2005 269338 2117/2005 Amount Vendor / Explanation 489.52 NEWSLETTER 489.52 YORK SELLING 5862.5513 100966 PRINTERS SERVICE INC 39.00 BLADE SHARPENING 204.00 BLADE SHARPENING 243.00 HOSPITALIZATION CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 100968 PRIOR WINE COMPANY CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register 2/17/2005 - 2/17/2005 PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 106196 IP100291 1628.6575 PRINTING 105947 209143 106045 209215 913.27 106067 189120 140.40 106068 189049 421.20 106069 188788 513.13 106070 189112 1,988.00 101877 PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY 5.22 COBRA 105948 020105 5.22 100971 QUALITY WINE 5.84- 106071 513393 -00 590.46 106071 513393 -00 10.88- 106072 512922 -00 1,098.28 106072 512922 -00 6.58- 106073 513650 -00 664.94 106073 513650 -00 2.92- 106074 513355 -00 294.76 106074 513355 -00 23.33- 106075 513638 -00 1,174.40 106075 513638 -00 50.84- 106261 513640 -00 2,562.92 106261 513640 -00 8.44- 106262 513392 -00 853.27 106262 513392 -00 1.40- 106263 513541 -00 140.92 106263 513541 -00 20.89- 106264 513569 -00 1,049.51 106264 513569 -00 -W% 11- 106265 509319 -00 101965 QWEST 1648.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS 5521.6215 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 2/17/2005 8:03:45 Page- 21 Business Unit SENIOR CITIZENS SKATING RINK MAINTENANCE ARENA ICE MAINT 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD VINE YORK SELLING 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD VINE VERNON SELLING 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 1550.6040 HOSPITALIZATION CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 5860.5518 VENDOR DISCOUNTS VERNON LIQUOR GENERAL 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 5860.5518 VENDOR DISCOUNTS VERNON LIQUOR GENERAL 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 5820.5518 VENDOR DISCOUNTS 50TH STREET GENERAL 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 5820.5518 VENDOR DISCOUNTS 50TH STREET GENERAL 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 5820.5518 VENDOR DISCOUNTS 50TH STREET GENERAL 5822.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING 5840.5518 VENDOR DISCOUNTS LIQUOR YORK GENERAL 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 5840.5518 VENDOR DISCOUNTS LIQUOR YORK GENERAL 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 5840.5518 VENDOR DISCOUNTS LIQUOR YORK GENERAL 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 5840.5518 VENDOR DISCOUNTS LIQUOR YORK GENERAL 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING R55CKREG LOG20000 7250000231 5422.6201 CITY OF EDINA 5422.6201 106107 7250000231 Council Check Register 106107 7250000231 1301.6610 2/17/2005 2/17/2005 Check # Date Amount Vendor / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No 91.07 952 926 -0419 105974 0419 -2/05 1646.6188 51.15 952 926 -0092 105975 0092 -2/05 5913.6188 565.90 612 E24 -8659 105976 8659 -2/05 1470.6188 282.95 612 E24 -8656 105977 8656 -2/05 1628.6188 504.60 612 E24 -8657 105978 8657 -2/05 5420.6188 876.00 612 E01 -0426 105979 0426 -2/05 1550.6188 282.95 612 E24 -8661 105980 8661 -2105 1550.6188 57.45 105981 012805 1628.6188 87.87 105981 012805 5861.6188 97.12 105981 012805 5821.6188 97.95 105981 012805 5841.6188 165.84 105981 012805 1622.6188 168.93 105981 012805 5610.6188 193.66 105981 012805 1470.6188 218.20 105981 012805 1646.6188 237.37 105981 012805 5932.6188 253.58 105981 012805 5511.6188 353.97 105981 012805 5911.6188 2.827.96 105981 012805 1550.6188 7.414.52 269339 2/17/2005 100974 RAYMOND HAEG PLUMBING 39100 RPZ INSPECTION 106159 PO 2117 5620.6180 392.00 269340 2/17/2005 487.00 487.00 269341 2/17/2005 150.00 160.65 249.90 373.70 393.51 1,327.76 117763 RED PETERSON UTILITIES HYDRANT USAGE REFUND 100975 RED WING SHOE STORE SAFETY BOOTS SAFETY BOOTS SAFETY BOOTS SAFETY BOOTS SAFETY BOOTS 269342 211712005 100980 ROBERT B. HILL CO. 8.79 SOFTENER SALT 43.93 SOFTENER SALT 52.72 106106 020905 5901.4626 106107 7250000231 5422.6201 106107 7250000231 5422.6201 106107 7250000231 5620.6610 106107 7250000231 1301.6610 106107 7250000231 5913.6610 105949 00158921 1470.6406 105950 00158953 1470.6406 Subledger Account Description TELEPHONE TELEPHONE TELEPHONE TELEPHONE TELEPHONE TELEPHONE TELEPHONE TELEPHONE TELEPHONE TELEPHONE TELEPHONE TELEPHONE TELEPHONE TELEPHONE TELEPHONE TELEPHONE TELEPHONE TELEPHONE TELEPHONE CONTRACTED REPAIRS SALE OF WATER LAUNDRY LAUNDRY SAFETY EQUIPMENT SAFETY EQUIPMENT SAFETY EQUIPMENT GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES 2/1712005 8:03:45 Page - 22 Business Unit BUILDING MAINTENANCE DISTRIBUTION FIRE DEPT. GENERAL SENIOR CITIZENS CLUB HOUSE CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL SENIOR CITIZENS VERNON OCCUPANCY 50TH ST OCCUPANCY YORK OCCUPANCY SKATING & HOCKEY ED ADMINISTRATION FIRE DEPT. GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL STORM SEWER ARENA BLDG /GROUNDS PUMP & LIFT STATION OPER CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL EDINBOROUGH PARK UTILITY REVENUES MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS EDINBOROUGH PARK GENERAL MAINTENANCE DISTRIBUTION FIRE DEPT. GENERAL FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 2/17/2005 8:03:45 Page - 23 Business Unit PSTF ADMINISTRATION SPECIAL OPERATIONS SPECIAL OPERATIONS SPECIAL OPERATIONS EDINBOROUGH PARK ED ADMINISTRATION CENT SVC PW BUILDING CENT SVC PW BUILDING 269349 120.00 CITYWORKS 106294 0124954 CITY OF EDINA PROFESSIONAL SERVICES R55CKREG LOG20000 120.00 CITYWORKS 106294 0124954 5910.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES GENERAL (BILLING) 135.75 CITYWORKS Council Check Register 0124954 5923.6136 PROFESSIONAL SVC - OTHER COLLECTION SYSTEMS 375.75 2/17/2005 — 2/17/2005 Check # Date Amount Vendor / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 269343 211712005 117791 ROBERTSON, JERRY 3,000.00 DIAL -A -RIDE DEC 2004 106295 021105 1514.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 45.22 FBI COURSE REFRESHMENTS 106197 021105 7410.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 45.22 269351 2/17/2005 111827 SERICE CONSTRUCTION INC. 269344 2117/2005 CITY HALUPOLICE BUILDING 111084 ROPES AND RESCUE INC. 4,832.35 FINAL 106275 103104 4400.6710 3,620.00 TRIPOD 106217 6 -1732 1480.6710 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT 1,153.78 ROPE EQUIPMENT 106218 6 -1708 1480.6710 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT LICENSES & PERMITS 2,650.00 VENTILATION EQUIPMENT 106219 6 -1739 1480.6710 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT 1470.6260 7,423.78 269345 2/17/2005 105062 ROSEVILLE PLUMBING & HEATING I 995.90 BOILER EXHAUST PIPING 106160 29955 5620.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS 995.90 269346 2/17/2005 104788 SANDY'S PROMOTIONAL STUFF 286.97 BEACH PARTY FRISBEES 106161 SH5012 5610.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER 286.97 269347 2117/2005 105358 SCOTT KORMANIK PLUMBING 199.65 PLUMBING REPAIRS 106046 202 1552.6530 REPAIR PARTS 199.65 269348 2/17/2005 105550 SCRAP METAL PROCESSORS INC. 150.00 FEB CHARGE 106108 D- COE5 -2 1552.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES - 150.00 2117!2005 100995 SEH 2/17/2005 8:03:45 Page - 23 Business Unit PSTF ADMINISTRATION SPECIAL OPERATIONS SPECIAL OPERATIONS SPECIAL OPERATIONS EDINBOROUGH PARK ED ADMINISTRATION CENT SVC PW BUILDING CENT SVC PW BUILDING 269349 120.00 CITYWORKS 106294 0124954 5913.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES DISTRIBUTION 120.00 CITYWORKS 106294 0124954 5910.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES GENERAL (BILLING) 135.75 CITYWORKS 106294 0124954 5923.6136 PROFESSIONAL SVC - OTHER COLLECTION SYSTEMS 375.75 269350 2/17/2005 101587 SENIOR COMMUNITY SERVICES 3,000.00 DIAL -A -RIDE DEC 2004 106295 021105 1514.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES DIAL -A -RIDE PROGRAM 3,000.00 269351 2/17/2005 111827 SERICE CONSTRUCTION INC. EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT CITY HALUPOLICE BUILDING 4,832.35 FINAL 106275 103104 4400.6710 4,832.35 269352 211712005 101201 SIEMS, JEFFREY LICENSES & PERMITS FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 11.00 CLASS B LICENSE 85886 040804 1470.6260 CITY OF EDINA 2/17/2005 8:03:45 R55CKREG LOG20000 Council Check Register Page - 24 2117/2005 —2/17/2005 Check # Date Amount Vendor / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 11.00 269353 2/1712005 105739 SNAZA, DAVID 224.83 UNIFORM PURCHASE 105982 020705 1301.6201 LAUNDRY GENERAL MAINTENANCE 224.83 269364 2117/2005 101002 SOUTHSIDE DISTRIBUTORS INC 4,177.65 106076 160327 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 695.80 106077 160324 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING 4,873.45 269355 2117/2005 114576 SPEC. RESCUE INTERNATIONAL 11,760.00 PNEUMATIC SHORING 106109 IS5 -0015 1480.6710 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT SPECIAL OPERATIONS 11, 760.00 269356 2/17/2005 115666 SPECTRA/CONTRACT FLOORING SERV 10,984.50 FINAL 106276 4 4400.6710 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT CITY HALUPOLICE BUILDING 10,984.50 269357 211712005 116856 SPRINT 1,197.77 CDMA 106296 121604 1400.6160 DATA PROCESSING POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 1,197.77 269358 2117/2005 116856 SPRINT 1,052.31 CDMA 106297 011505 1400.6160 DATA PROCESSING POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 1,052.31 269359 2117/2005 101004 SPS COMPANIES 16.82 NIPPLES 106047 S1178918.001 5920.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES SEWER CLEANING 158.68 TUBING, CONNECTORS 106048 S1179990.001 1552.6530 REPAIR PARTS CENT SVC PW BUILDING 90.61 TUBING CUTTER, PLUG 106110 S1180590.001 5932.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL STORM SEWER 79.21 ANODE RODS 106198 S1178656.001 1646.6530 REPAIR PARTS BUILDING MAINTENANCE 345.32 269360 2/17/2005 101007 STAR TRIBUNE 5,432.94 WANT ADS 105951 013105 1550.6121 ADVERTISING PERSONNEL CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 5,432.94 269361 2/17/2006 100900 SUN NEWSPAPERS 80.44 P H NOTICE 106111 754582 1120.6120 ADVERTISING LEGAL ADMINISTRATION 80.44 P H NOTICE 106112 754584 1120.6120 ADVERTISING LEGAL ADMINISTRATION 35.75 P H NOTICE 106113 754587 1120.6120 ADVERTISING LEGAL ADMINISTRATION 2/17/2005 8:03:45 Page- 25 Business Unit ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATION EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS LEGAL SERVICES LEGAL SERVICES LEGAL SERVICES LEGAL SERVICES VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN DISTRIBUTION CENTENNIAL LAKES CENTENNIAL LAKES ART CENTER REVENUES ART CENTER REVENUES ART CENTER REVENUES ART CENTER REVENUES ART CENTER REVENUES ART CENTER REVENUES CITY OF EDINA R55CKREG LOG20000 Council Check Register 2/17/2005 - 2/17/2005 Check # Date Amount Vendor / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 64.35 P H NOTICE 106114 754586 1120.6120 ADVERTISING LEGAL 39.33 P H NOTICE 106115 754585 1120.6120 ADVERTISING LEGAL 300.31 269362 2/17/2005 110674 SUPERIOR WIRELESS COMMUNICATIO 13.25 PHONE ACCESSORY 106199 8834 1553.6188 TELEPHONE 13.25 269363 2117/2005 102063 SWENSON, THOMAS 106.08 SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT 105952 020705 5422.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 106.08 269364 2/17/2005 101034 THOMSEN & NYBECK 8,862.53 PROSECUTING 106162 7959 1195.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 10,071.35 PROSECUTING 106298 7957 1195.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,858.00 PROSECUTING ATK 106299 7958 1195.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,090.58 PROSECUTING - YEAZIZW 106300 7956 1195.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 22,882.46 269365 211712005 101035 THORPE DISTRIBUTING COMPANY 59.00 106010 361080 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 4,268.67 106011 361079 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 5,068.11 106078 361809 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 9,395.78 269366 2/17/2005 101038 TOLL GAS & WELDING SUPPLY 83.82 WELDING GASES 105953 466390 1553.6580 WELDING SUPPLIES 19.35 DEMURRAGE CHARGE 105954 466392 5913.6580 WELDING SUPPLIES 25.80 WELDING TANKS 106163 464075 5630.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES -- 25.80 - WELDING TANKS 106164 466391 5630.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 154.77 269367 2/17/2005 103152 TOMLINSON, DAWN 107.25 ART WORK SOLD AT EAC 21285 062001 5101.4413 ART WORK SOLD 65.00 ART WORK SOLD AT EAC 25108 081601 5101.4413 ART WORK SOLD 58.92 ART WORK SOLD AT EAC 30434 110801 5101.4413 ART WORK SOLD 63.67 ART WORK SOLD AT EAC 31969 120501 5101.4413 ART WORK SOLD 55.06 ART WORK SOLD AT EAC 34180 010802 5101.4413 ART WORK SOLD 29.80 ART WORK SOLD AT EAC 35914 020802 5101.4413 ART WORK SOLD 379.70 269368 2117/2005 116411 TRINITY MEDICAL SOLUTIONS INC. 2/17/2005 8:03:45 Page- 25 Business Unit ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATION EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS LEGAL SERVICES LEGAL SERVICES LEGAL SERVICES LEGAL SERVICES VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN DISTRIBUTION CENTENNIAL LAKES CENTENNIAL LAKES ART CENTER REVENUES ART CENTER REVENUES ART CENTER REVENUES ART CENTER REVENUES ART CENTER REVENUES ART CENTER REVENUES R55CKREG LOG20000 Check # Date Amount Vendor / Explanation REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 165.03 UNIFORM SHIRTS 54.00 4833496005452490 36.89 UNIFORM SHIRTS 1470.6106 MEETING EXPENSE 201.92 4833496005452490 269369 2/17/2005 1470.6579 102175 TRUCK UTILITIES MFG CO 492.50 4833496005452490 236.88 HYDRAULIC PUMP 1470.6510 FIRST AID SUPPLIES 205.26- CREDIT 106049 020305 31.62 GENERAL SUPPLIES 269370 211712005 106167 102255 TWIN CITY OXYGEN CO 1553.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 50.22 OXYGEN 106167 FEB 03 101.00 OXYGEN 1.894.19 1120.6106 151.22 ADMINISTRATION 269371 2/1712005 CONTINGENCIES 100363 U.S. BANK 42.62 149.00 SERVICE CONTRACT 149.00 13010 275.00 295.50 2117/2005 101053 UNITED ELECTRIC COMPANY 509.94 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register 2/17/2005 - 2/17/2005 PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 106165 4208 5620.6201 LAUNDRY 106166 4213 5620.6201 LAUNDRY 106116 0137494 106117 0138092 105955 811933 106222 813391 106220 021005 106220 021005 106220 021005 106220 021005 106220 021005 106220 021005 106220 021005 269372 211712005 EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 115379 U.S. BANK REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 1470.6510 FIRST AID SUPPLIES 54.00 4833496005452490 106049 020305 1470.6106 MEETING EXPENSE 391.25 4833496005452490 106049 020305 1470.6579 TRAINING AIDS 492.50 4833496005452490 106049 020305 1470.6510 FIRST AID SUPPLIES 530.00 4833496005452490 106049 020305 1470.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 176.44 4833496005452508 106167 FEB 03 1553.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 250.00 4833496005452508 106167 FEB 03 1281.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS 1.894.19 1120.6106 MEETING EXPENSE ADMINISTRATION 269373 2117/2005 CONTINGENCIES 101049 UHL COMPANY 149.00 SERVICE CONTRACT 106118 13010 149.00 269374 2117/2005 101053 UNITED ELECTRIC COMPANY 87.86 LAMPS 106200 836401 87.86 269376 2/17/200 102819 UNLIMITED SUPPLIES INC 2/17/2005 8:03:45 Page - 26 Business Unit EDINBOROUGH PARK EDINBOROUGH PARK 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 1470.6510 FIRST AID SUPPLIES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 1470.6510 FIRST AID SUPPLIES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 1470.6106 MEETING EXPENSE FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 1550.6235 POSTAGE CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 1470.6579 TRAINING AIDS FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 1470.6552 PROTECTIVE CLOTHING FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 1470.6510 FIRST AID SUPPLIES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 1480.6710 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT SPECIAL OPERATIONS 1470.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 1325.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES STREET NAME SIGNS 1553.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 1301.6610 SAFETY EQUIPMENT GENERAL MAINTENANCE 1281.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS TRAINING 1120.6106 MEETING EXPENSE ADMINISTRATION 1500.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTINGENCIES 1552.6530 REPAIR PARTS CENT SVC PW BUILDING 5820.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 50TH STREET GENERAL CITY OF EDINA 2/1712005 8:03:45 R55CKREG LOG20000 Council Check Register Page - 27 2/17/2005 — 2/17/2005 Check # Date Amount Vendor / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 36.74 SCREW PIN SHACKLES 106119 05020098 1343.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES BRIDGES GUARD RAILS 36.74 269376 2/17/2005 101908 US FOODSERVICE INC 150.33 CUST. 114300 105956 2/01/05 5421.6511 CLEANING SUPPLIES GRILL 436.30 CUST. 114300 105956 2/01/05 5421.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES GRILL 1,110.65 CUST. 114300 105956 2/01105 5421.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD GRILL 1,697.28 269377 2117/2005 100050 USPS 4,000.00 ACCT #75983 106303 021405 1550.6235 POSTAGE CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 4,000.00 269378 2/1712005 101058 VAN PAPER CO. 134.99 TISSUE, CUPS, LINERS 106168 567539 5111.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES ART CENTER BLDG /MAINT 133.39 NAPKINS, TOWELS, TISSUE 106221 568574 1470.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 268.38 269379 2/17/2005 116104 VERDICON INC. 685.60 SNOW MELT 106050 S002134424.001 4090.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES STREET REVOLVING 685.60 269380 2/17/2005 102499 VIEWPOINT INTERNATIONAL 1,141.59 MERCHANDISE 106169 8187028 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 1,141.59 269381 211712005 101953 VISU -SEWER CLEAN & SEAL INC 9,486.66 SEWER TV INSPECTION 105957 17572 5923.6136 PROFESSIONAL SVC - OTHER COLLECTION SYSTEMS 9,486.66 269382 211712005 102542 WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS/ENG 4,522.00 RAMP INSPECTIONS 106301 212627 1375.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PARKING RAMP 4,522.00 269383 211712005 103466 WASTE MANAGEMENT - SAVAGE MN 105958 2963929 4095.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 50TH STREET RUBBISH 2,931.92 REFUSE 105959 2966393 4095.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 50TH STREET RUBBISH 3,250.43 REFUSE 6,182.35 269384 211712005 106287 WEMYSS, SCOTT D. 130.00 PAR TAGS 106223 03-44 1470.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 130.00 2/17/2005 8:03:45 Page- 28 Business Unit EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN CENTENNIAL LAKES 3,098.70 FINAL CITY OF EDINA 123104 R55CKREG LOG20000 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT CITY HALL/POLICE BUILDING 3,098.70 Council Check Register 269387 211712005 2/17/2005 —2/17/2005 Check # Date Amount Vendor / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 269385 2/1712005 GAS PUMP REPAIRS 101077 WEST WELD SUPPLY CO. 0027500 -IN 1552.6530 REPAIR PARTS 69.99 CUTTING WHEELS, BITS 105960 287460 1553.6580 WELDING SUPPLIES 243.50 CUTTINGIWELDING SUPPLIES 106170 292372 5630.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 269388 2/1712005 313.49 105848 WILKIE SANDERSON 269386 2/1712005 111829 WESTERN STEEL ERECTION INC. 5,000.00 2/17/2005 8:03:45 Page- 28 Business Unit EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN CENTENNIAL LAKES 3,098.70 FINAL 106277 123104 4400.6710 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT CITY HALL/POLICE BUILDING 3,098.70 269387 211712005 101078 WESTSIDE EQUIPMENT 164.05 GAS PUMP REPAIRS 106201 0027500 -IN 1552.6530 REPAIR PARTS CENT SVC PW BUILDING 164.05 269388 2/1712005 105848 WILKIE SANDERSON 5,000.00 FINAL 106278 083104 4400.6710 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT CITY HALLIPOLICE BUILDING 5,000.00 269389 2/1712005 101033 WINE COMPANY, THE 2,596.80 106266 109505 -00 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 6.67- — 106267 109123 -00 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 2,590.13 269390 2117/2005 101312 WINE MERCHANTS 710.24 106012 116284 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 668.87 106268 116811 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 1,379.11 269391 2117/2006 101726 XCEL ENERGY 13.01 105983. 0835467448031 1646.6185 LIGHT & POWER BUILDING MAINTENANCE 3,230.34 105984 1124423268034 5420.6185 LIGHT & POWER CLUB HOUSE 1,100.77 105985 2191373085034 5914.6185 LIGHT & POWER TANKS TOWERS & RESERVOIR 3,471.04 105986 0899506462034 1552.6185 LIGHT & POWER CENT SVC PW BUILDING 4,453.28 105987 0062257452034 1375.6185 LIGHT & POWER PARKING RAMP 4,441.06 106120 2333176393034 1646.6185 LIGHT & POWER BUILDING MAINTENANCE 16,709.50 269392 2/17/2005 100568 XEROX CORPORATION 104.00 JAN USAGE 106171 007792585 5110.6151 EQUIPMENT RENTAL ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION 319.29 JAN USAGE 106172 007792384 1400.6230 SERVICE CONTRACTS EQUIPMENT POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 423.29 R55CKREG LOG20000 Check # Date Amount 269393 211712005 345.00 95.72 440.72 992,690.50 Vendor / Explanation 101091 ZIEGLER INC GENERATOR MAINT CONTRACT TUBE KIT Grand Total CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register 2/1712005 — 2/17/2005 PO # Doc No Inv No Account No 105961 E3809711 1551.6180 106121 PC000770187 1553.6530 Subledger Account Description CONTRACTED REPAIRS REPAIR PARTS Payment Instrument Totals Check Total 992,690.50 Total Payments 992,690.50 2/17/2005 8:03:45 Page -. 29 Business Unit CITY HALL GENERAL EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN R55CKSUM LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Summary 2/17/2005 - 2/17/2005 Company Amount 01000 GENERAL FUND 394,098.76 02100 CDBG FUND 10,700.00 02200 COMMUNICATIONS FUND 1,626.77 04000 WORKING CAPITAL FUND 98,086.15 04800 CONSTRUCTION FUND 8,618.53 05100 ART CENTER FUND 3,179.51 05200 GOLF DOME FUND 14,207.96 05300 AQUATIC CENTER FUND 115.16 05400 GOLF COURSE FUND 13,000.64 05500 ICE ARENA FUND 32,924.32 05600 EDINBOROUGH /CENT LAKES FUND 30,367.92 05800 LIQUOR FUND 110,456.29 05900 UTILITY FUND 234,168.42 05930 STORM SEWER FUND 15,100.07 07400 PSTF AGENCY FUND 26,040.00 Report Totals 992,690.50 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 pplicies and 2/17/2005 8:06:02 Page - 1 R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register 2/2412005 -2/24/2005 Check -# Date Amount Vendor / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 269394 2/24/2006 100613 AAA 9.50 TAB RENEWAL FOR 26.103 106567 021705 1553.6260 LICENSES & PERMITS 2/23/2005 13:45:02 Page- 1 Business Unit EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 5110.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 9.50 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 269395 2/2412005 50TH ST SELLING 102234 ABDELLA, PAUL COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 50TH ST SELLING 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 256.00 INSTRUCTOR AC 106655 021805 1646.6610 SAFETY EQUIPMENT 256.00 1301.6610 SAFETY EQUIPMENT GENERAL MAINTENANCE 269396 2/24/2005 DISTRIBUTION 102971 ACE ICE COMPANY SAFETY EQUIPMENT BUILDING MAINTENANCE 1301.6610 SAFETY EQUIPMENT 42.84 1646.6610 106304 451235 64.36 106305 449833 16.84 106306 451234 18.28 106484 451281 43.24 106485 451285 185.56 269397 2/24/2006 102191 ADVANCED GRAPHIC SYSTEMS INC. 372.43 PRINTER CARTRIDGES 106357 INV00059239 372.43 269398 2/24/2005 102128 AEARO CO. 59.00 SAFETY GLASSES 106411 04165473 49.00 SAFETY GLASSES 106412 04165483 144.00 SAFETY GLASSES 106413 04165481 159.00 SAFETY GLASSES 106414 04165476 77.50 SAFETY GLASSES 106415 04165487 179.00 SAFETY GLASSES 106416 04165470 667.50 269399 2/24/2006 100621 ALBINSON REPROGRAPHICS 51.12 LAMINATING CITY MAPS 106417 C411871 51.12 269400 2/24/2005 100867 ALSTAD, MARIAN 804.00 INSTRUCTOR AC 106656 021805 804.00 269401 2/2412005 101601 AMUNDSON, ERIK 575.10 UNIFORM ALLOWANCE 106418 021605 575.10 269402 2/24/2005 101874 ANCOM COMMUNICATIONS INC. 2/23/2005 13:45:02 Page- 1 Business Unit EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 5110.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 5822.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 50TH ST SELLING 5822.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 50TH ST SELLING 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 1550.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 1646.6610 SAFETY EQUIPMENT BUILDING MAINTENANCE 1301.6610 SAFETY EQUIPMENT GENERAL MAINTENANCE 5913.6610 SAFETY EQUIPMENT DISTRIBUTION 1646.6610 SAFETY EQUIPMENT BUILDING MAINTENANCE 1301.6610 SAFETY EQUIPMENT GENERAL MAINTENANCE 1646.6610 SAFETY EQUIPMENT BUILDING MAINTENANCE 1400.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 5110.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION 1400.6203 UNIFORM ALLOWANCE POLICE DEPT. GENERAL CITY OF EDINA 2/23/2005 13:45:02 R55CKREG LOG20000 Council Check Register Page - 2 2/24/2005 -2/24/2005 Check # Date Amount Vendor/ Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 2,775.60 REMOTES, JUNCTION BOXES 106419 40180 44003.6710 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT 800 MHZ RADIO 2,775.60 269403 2124/2005 102109 ANCOM TECHNICAL CENTER 455.44 RADIO REPAIRS 106568 62588 1553.6237 RADIO SERVICE EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 12.78 PAGER REPAIR 106679 62604 1470.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 468.22 269404 2/24/2005 101611 ANOKA TECHNICAL COLLEGE 250.00 COURSE FEE 106420 00042838 1470.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 250.00 269405 212412005 102646 AQUA LOGIC INC. 29.33 -ACID 106569 26337 5620.6545 CHEMICALS EDINBOROUGH PARK 159.59 DE, CALHYPO 106570 26336 5620.6545 CHEMICALS EDINBOROUGH PARK 188.92 269406 2/2412005 101977 ARCH WIRELESS 64.96 PAGER RENTAL 106680 A6339611B 1470.6151 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 64.96 269407 2124/2005 105342 ARNOLD, MATTHEW 311.15 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 106421 021605 1622.6107 MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE SKATING & HOCKEY 311.15 269408 2/24/2005 102120 ATOL, ROBERT 59.55 EXPO EXPENSES 106358 021105 5410.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS GOLF ADMINISTRATION 59.55 269409 2/24/2005 103465 AUTO ELECTRIC SPECIALISTS 106.08 STARTER 106359 7884 5422.6530 REPAIR PARTS MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS 112.38 STARTER 106571 7978 5422.6530 REPAIR PARTS MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS 218.46 269410 2/24/2005 104192 BAG BOY CO. 451.99 RENTAL CLUBS 106422 263856 5410.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES GOLF ADMINISTRATION 146.46 RENTAL CLUBS 106423 264084 5424.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES RANGE 1,066.82 CART PARTS 106424 264277 5423.6530 REPAIR PARTS GOLF CARS 1,665.27 269411 2124/2005 102195 BATTERIES PLUS r 44.06 MULTIMETER, BATTERIES 106360 18- 113182 553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENTOPERA' SN R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 2/23/2005 13:45:02 Council Check Register Page- 3 2/2412005 -- 2/24/2005 Check # Date Amount Vendor / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 44.06 269412 2/24/2005 101365 BELLBOY CORPORATION 223.59 106307 39581300 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 135.11 106308 39552400 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 1,280.00 106309 32338900 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 36.95 106310 32339000 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 78.23 106311 38973100 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 87.44 106312 39581200 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 534.00 106313 32338700 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 1,968.95 106314 32338600 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 70,81 106486 39587300 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 1,274.00 106487 32355000 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 48.25 106488 32355800 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 3,204.00 106489 32354900 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 173.00 106490 32339100 5822.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING 15.84 106491 39581400 5822.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 50TH ST SELLING 9,130.17 269413 2/2412005 106864 BEN MEADOWS COMPANY 127.08 HOSE REEL, PRUNER 106572 1005887568 5620.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES EDINBOROUGH PARK 127.08 269414 2/24/2006 100661 BENN, BRADLEY 91.00 ART WORK SOLD AT EAC 106635 021505 5101.4413 ART WORK SOLD ART CENTER REVENUES 91.00 269416 2/24/2005 115067 BENSON, RON PAUL 78.00 ART WORK SOLD AT EAC 106636 021505 5101.4413 ART WORK SOLD ART CENTER REVENUES 78.00 269416 2/24/2005 100648 BERTELSON OFFICE PRODUCTS 35.09 CUSTOM STAMP 106361 SA0975 1600.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES PARK ADMIN. GENERAL 35.09 CUSTOM STAMP 106362 SA0974 1120.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES ADMINISTRATION 26.61 OFFICE SUPPLIES 106363 3510430 1495.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES INSPECTIONS 79.85 OFFICE SUPPLIES 106363 3510430 1550.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 106.45 OFFICE SUPPLIES 106363 3510430 1260.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES ENGINEERING GENERAL 54.87 REPORTER BOOKS 106425 3657340 1400.6513 OFFICE SUPPLIES POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 112.78 OFFICE SUPPLIES 106426 3651860 1400.6513 OFFICE SUPPLIES POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 112.01 LAMINATOR REFILLS 106427 3662250 1400.6513 OFFICE SUPPLIES POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 110.43 OFFICE SUPPLIES 106428 3655410 1400.6513 OFFICE SUPPLIES POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 13.10 BINDERS, MARKERS 106429 3664120 1552.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENT SVC PW BUILDING 1470.6510 FIRST AID SUPPLIES 5410.6105 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 755.23 CITY OF EDINA 5421.5510 R55CKREG LOG20000 269417 2/24/2005 5410.6235 105367 BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC 5210.6513 OFFICE SUPPLIES Council Check Register 1,149.61 AMBULANCE SUPPLIES 106681 50056440 2/24/2005 -2/24/2605 Check # Date Amount Vendor / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 39.49 OFFICE SUPPLIES 106430 3669820 1552.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 12.43 MONTHLY MINDER REFILLS 106431 3567910 1552.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 17.03 PENCIL SHARPENER 106573 3671580 1552.6530 REPAIR PARTS 1470.6510 FIRST AID SUPPLIES 5410.6105 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 755.23 GENERAL SUPPLIES 5421.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD 269417 2/24/2005 5410.6235 105367 BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC 5210.6513 OFFICE SUPPLIES 1,149.61 AMBULANCE SUPPLIES 106681 50056440 1,149.61 269418 2/24/2005 100663 BRAEMAR GOLF COURSE 16.97 PETTY CASH 106574 021605 16.98 PETTY CASH 106574 021605 32.79 PETTY CASH 106574 021605 33.75 PETTY CASH 106574 021605 37.00 PETTY CASH 106574 021605 71.72 PETTY CASH 106574 021605 209.21 269419 2124/2005 101516 BRAEMAR PRINTING 180.54 PUNCH CARDS 106364 60843 180.54 269420 2124/2005 100873 BROCKWAY, MAUREEN 735.00 INSTRUCTOR AC 106657 021805 735.00 269421 2124/2005 103995 BRYAN, LINDA NELSON 63.54 ART WORK SOLD AT EAC 106637 021505 63.54 269422 2124/2006 102046 CAMPE, HARRIET 822.00 - INSTRUCTOR AC 106658 021805 822.00 269423 2/24/2005 117800 CARLSON, JOHN 150.00 PERFORMANCE 3/3/05 106432 021505 150.00 269424 2124/2006 117808 CARVER COUNTY RECORDER 100.00 NOTARY COMMISSION FEE 106575 021705 100.00 1470.6510 FIRST AID SUPPLIES 5410.6105 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 5410.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 5421.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD 5422.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 5410.6235 POSTAGE 5210.6513 OFFICE SUPPLIES 5410.6575 PRINTING 5110.6103 5101.4413 5110.6103 5610.6136 1120.6105 2/23/2005 13:45:02 Page- 4 Business Unit CENT SVC PW BUILDING CENT SVC PW BUILDING CENT SVC PW BUILDING FIRE DEPT. GENERAL GOLF ADMINISTRATION GOLF ADMINISTRATION GRILL MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS GOLF ADMINISTRATION GOLF DOME PROGRAM GOLF ADMINISTRATION PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION ART WORK SOLD ART CENTER REVENUES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION PROFESSIONAL SVC - OTHER ED ADMINISTRATION DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS ADMINISTRATION CITY OF EDINA 2/23/2005 13:45:02 R55CKREG LOG20000 Council Check Register Page - 5 212412005 - 2/24/2005 Check # Date Amount Vendor / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 269425 2/2412005 100681 CATCO 373.86 SLEEVE, HOSE GUARD 106576 3 -68168 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 121.62 HOSE ENDS, FITTINGS 106577 1 -28044 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 495.48 269426 2/24/2005 102372 CDW GOVERNMENT INC. -- 126.73 TONER 106365 QT19437 5510.6513 OFFICE SUPPLIES ARENA ADMINISTRATION 126.73 269427 2/24/2005 112561 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MINNEGASCO 262.62 106578 021505 5430.6186 HEAT RICHARDS GOLF COURSE 74.67 106579 FEB15 7411.6186 HEAT PSTF OCCUPANCY 2,256.52 106580 2115/2005 7411.6186 HEAT PSTF OCCUPANCY 2,593.81 269428 2/24/2005 100688 CITYWIDE WINDOW SERVICES INC 14.38 WINDOW CLEANING 106581 349479 5861.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS VERNON OCCUPANCY 16.62 WINDOW CLEANING 106581 349479 5821.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS 50TH ST OCCUPANCY 27.04 WINDOW CLEANING 106581 349479 5841.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS YORK OCCUPANCY 58.04 269429 2124/2005 100689 CLAREYS SAFETY EQUIP. 420.00 STRAPS 106682 43974 1470.6552 PROTECTIVE CLOTHING FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 420.00 269430 2124/2005 105316 CLARK, PENNY 52.65 ART WORK SOLD AT EAC 106638 021505 5101.4413 ART WORK SOLD ART CENTER REVENUES 52.65 269431 2124/2005 116304 CLAY, DON 252.50 MEDIA INSTRUCTOR 106659 021805 5125.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES MEDIA STUDIO 252.50 269432 2/2412006 101345 COLOURS 3.900.03 EMPLOYEE BROCHURE 106366 9269 2210.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COMMUNICATIONS 3,900.03 269433 2124/2005 101395 COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORTATION 93.06 LAB TEST 106367 PA000107271 01205.1705.21 CONSULTING INSPECTION WOODDALE - 56 TO VV RECLAIM 217.48 LAB TEST 106367 PA000107271 01206.1705.21 CONSULTING INSPECTION 50TH - GRANGE TO WOODDALE MAO 310.54 2/23/2005 13:45:02 Page- 6 Business Unit EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN GENERAL MAINTENANCE CENT SVC PW BUILDING BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL MAINTENANCE 2 110 00 REBAR CUTTER 106434 11581 1480.6710 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT SPECIAL OPERATIONS 2,110.00 CITY OF EDINA R55CKREG LOG20000 269437 212412005 101915 COUNTRY FLAGS Council Check Register 123.54 FLAGS 106435 1280 1550.6406 2/24/2005 -2/24/2005 Check # Date Amount Vendor / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 269434 2/24/2005 102757 COMPUTERIZED FLEET ANALYSIS 269438 2/24/2006 495.00 SUPPORT /LICENSE FEE 106368 26087 1553.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 495.00 856.26 CHAIR 106437 INV015197 269435 2/2412005 101323 CONNEY SAFETY PRODUCTS 856.26 20.19 SAFETY GLASSES. GLOVES 106369 02506144 1301.6610 SAFETY EQUIPMENT 25.82 SAFETY GLASSES. GLOVES 106369 02506144 1552.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 106683 1610592 9.20 SAFETY GLASSES 106433 02506525 1646.6610 SAFETY EQUIPMENT 48.07 SAFETY GLASSES 106582 02509205 1301.6610 SAFETY EQUIPMENT 100710 DAVE'S DAIRY 103.28 269436 2/24/2005 117799 CONSTRUCTION COMPLETE INC. 020705 5421.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD 2/23/2005 13:45:02 Page- 6 Business Unit EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN GENERAL MAINTENANCE CENT SVC PW BUILDING BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL MAINTENANCE 2 110 00 REBAR CUTTER 106434 11581 1480.6710 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT SPECIAL OPERATIONS CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL POLICE DEPT. GENERAL ART CENTER BLDG /MAINT GRILL YORK SELLING 50TH ST SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING 50TH ST SELLING 2,110.00 269437 212412005 101915 COUNTRY FLAGS 123.54 FLAGS 106435 1280 1550.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 123.54 FLAGS 106436 1286 1550.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 247.08 269438 2/24/2006 116755 CSI ERGONOMICS 856.26 CHAIR 106437 INV015197 1400.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 856.26 269439 2/2412005 104020 DALCO 68.13 FLOOR CLEANING SUPPLIES 106683 1610592 5111.6511 CLEANING SUPPLIES 68.13 269440 2/2412005 100710 DAVE'S DAIRY 87.02 DAIRY 106438 020705 5421.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD 87.02 269441 212412005 102478 DAY DISTRIBUTING 239.65 106492 301156 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 1.213.10 106493 301155 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 39.00 106494 301154 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 498.00 106495 301141 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 1,176.70 106496 300336 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 176.00 106710 301590 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 3,342.45 269442 2/24/2006 114055 DAYS INN CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL POLICE DEPT. GENERAL ART CENTER BLDG /MAINT GRILL YORK SELLING 50TH ST SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING 50TH ST SELLING 269445 212412005 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 100652 CITY OF EDINA R55CKREG LOG20000 672.00 INSTRUCTOR AC 106660 021805 5110.6103 672.00 Council Check Register 269446 2/2412005 -2/24/2005 101766 Check # Date Amount Vendor / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description FLAG 297.77 OVERNIGHT PLOWING ROOM 106708 18319 -18334 1318.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 85.20 297.77 269447 269443 2124/2006 100717 DEKO FACTORY SERVICE EAGLE WINE 4.50 BOOT 106583 07089 1646.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 5862.5513 4.50 1,222.20 106498 269444 2/24/2005 5862.5513 102831 DEX MEDIA EAST 1,832.90 106499 24.99 5822.5513 106706 024624800000 5841.6188 TELEPHONE 24,99 192404 106706 024624800000 5861.6188 TELEPHONE 90.70 106706 024624800000 5110.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER 122.60 EARL F. ANDERSEN INC. 106706 024624800000 5511.6188 TELEPHONE 194.24 PAINT 106706 024624800000 5821.6188 TELEPHONE 383.97 74.51 106706 024624800000 5430.6188 TELEPHONE 486.05 212412006 106706 024624800000 5210.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER 554.00 106706 024624800000 5610.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER 106315 1350.04 5822.5514 106706 024624800000 5420.6188 TELEPHONE 269445 212412005 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 100652 DIETRICHSON, BILL 50TH ST SELLING 672.00 INSTRUCTOR AC 106660 021805 5110.6103 672.00 269446 2/24/2006 101766 DISPLAY SALES 85.20 FLAG 106370 INVO032298 5511.6406 85.20 269447 2/2412005 100739 EAGLE WINE 1,407.70 106497 192399 5862.5513 1,222.20 106498 189107 5862.5513 1,832.90 106499 192402 5822.5513 3,779.36 106500 192404 5842.5513 8,242.16 269448 2124/2005 100740 EARL F. ANDERSEN INC. 74.51 PAINT 106371 0064438 -IN 1325.6406 74.51 269449 212412006 100741 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE 5,831.90 106315 324994 5822.5514 22.00 106316 324998 5822.5515 1,549.55 106501 325068 5822.5514 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES GENERAL SUPPLIES 2/23/2005 13:45:02 Page - 7 Business Unit SNOW & ICE REMOVAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE YORK OCCUPANCY VERNON OCCUPANCY ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION ARENA BLDG /GROUNDS 50TH ST OCCUPANCY RICHARDS GOLF COURSE GOLF DOME PROGRAM ED ADMINISTRATION CLUB HOUSE ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION ARENA BLDG /GROUNDS COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING GENERAL SUPPLIES STREET NAME SIGNS COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 50TH ST SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING CITY OF EDINA 2/23/2005 13:45:02 R55CKREG LOG20000 Council Check Register Page - 8 2/24/2005 - 2/24/2005 Check # Date Amount Vendor / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 1,742.75 106502 324995 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 9,146.20 269450 212412005 103594 EDINALARM INC. 357.84 ALARM SERVICE 106372 34693 5821.6250 ALARM SERVICE 50TH ST OCCUPANCY 357.84 ALARM SERVICE 106372 34693 5861.6250 ALARM SERVICE VERNON OCCUPANCY 600.66 ALARM SERVICE 106372 34693 5841.6250 ALARM SERVICE YORK OCCUPANCY 1,316.34 269451 212412005 105339 ENRGI 2,003.75 WEBSITE CONSULTING 106373 2423 2210.6124 WEB DEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATIONS 972.50 WEBSITE CONSULTING 106584 2443 2210.6124 WEB DEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATIONS 2,976.25 269452 2124/2005 104004 ESSIG, CRAIG 167.00 BOOTS 106439 021505 1470.6558 DEPT UNIFORMS FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 167.00 269453 2124/2005 100146 FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY 566.62 ROTORS, PADS 106586 6- 716131 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 566.62 269464 212412005 104474 FILTERFRESH 231.92 COFFEE 106374 93977 1552.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENT SVC PW BUILDING 231.92 269455 2124/2005 102727 FORCE AMERICA 587.77 JOYSTICK 106375 01221495 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN - -- 267.36- CREDIT 106440 01221727 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 320.41 269466 212412005 104071 FREUND, JEFF 29.80 PETTY CASH 106585 021805 5620.6556 TOOLS EDINBOROUGH PARK 57.99 PETTY CASH 106585 021805 5620.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS EDINBOROUGH PARK 168.51 PETTY CASH 106585 021805 5620.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES EDINBOROUGH PARK 256.30 269457 2124/2005 103039 FREY, MICHAEL 1,100.00 INSTRUCTION 106661 021805 5110.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION 1,840.00 INSTRUCTION 106661 021805 5125.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES MEDIA STUDIO 2,940.00 2123/2005 13:45:02 Page - 9 Business Unit ART CENTER REVENUES ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL ART CENTER REVENUES ART CENTER REVENUES 345.70 JAN 2005 SERVICE 106376 5010309 5913.6103 CITY OF EDINA DISTRIBUTION R55CKREG LOG20000 269465 212412005 102645 GRAFFITI CONTROL SERVICES Council Check Register 250.00 GRAFFITI REMOVAL 106588 00001221 1646.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS 2/24/2005 -2/24/2005 Check # Date Amount Vendor / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 269458 212412005 105372 FRONT AVENUE POTTERY 87.44 CABLE CLIPS, CAP SCREWS 106377 495- 272039 -1 1551.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 44.85 ART WORK SOLD AT EAC 106639 021505 5101.4413 ART WORK SOLD GENERAL SUPPLIES CITY HALL GENERAL 44.85 BIN BOXES 106589 498418526 -6 1646.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 269459 2/2412005 101867 GETSINGER, DONNA 269467 2/2412005 102670 GRAND PERE WINES INC 240.00 INSTRUCTOR AC 106662 021805 5110.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 106711 240.00 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 1,235.75 269460 2/2412005 104652 GILLIS, LOUISE 240.00 INSTRUCTOR AC 106663 021805 5110.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 240.00 269461 2/24/2005 101146 GLOBAL CROSSING TELECOMMUNICAT 202.35 106587 9005596906 1550.6188 TELEPHONE 202.35 269462 2/2412005 117811 GOLDBERG, CAROLYN 35.75 ART WORK SOLD AT EAC 106640 021505 5101.4413 ART WORK SOLD 35.75 269463 2124/2006 117810 GOLDISH, JEFF 94.00 CLASS REFUND 106684 020405 5101.4607 CLASS REGISTRATION 94.00 269464 2/24/2005 100780 GOPHER STATE ONE -CALL INC. 2123/2005 13:45:02 Page - 9 Business Unit ART CENTER REVENUES ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL ART CENTER REVENUES ART CENTER REVENUES 345.70 JAN 2005 SERVICE 106376 5010309 5913.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES DISTRIBUTION 345.70 269465 212412005 102645 GRAFFITI CONTROL SERVICES 250.00 GRAFFITI REMOVAL 106588 00001221 1646.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS BUILDING MAINTENANCE 250.00 269466 2/2412005 101103 GRAINGER 87.44 CABLE CLIPS, CAP SCREWS 106377 495- 272039 -1 1551.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CITY HALL GENERAL 98.41 CABLE, CAP SCREWS 106378 001 - 272040 -5 1551.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CITY HALL GENERAL 40.75 BIN BOXES 106589 498418526 -6 1646.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES BUILDING MAINTENANCE 226.60 269467 2/2412005 102670 GRAND PERE WINES INC 1,235.75 106711 00015158 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 1,235.75 R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register 2/24/2005 - 2/24/2005 Check # Date Amount Vendor/ Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 269468 2124/2005 102217 GRAPE BEGINNINGS INC 279.75 106712 70685 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 723.75 106713 70605 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 269469 212412005 021705 101518 GRAUSAM, STEVE EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 55.35 REPLACE BACKUP BATTERIES 021705 83.03 REPLACE BACKUP BATTERIES VERNON OCCUPANCY 138.41 REPLACE BACKUP BATTERIES 5821.6215 75.57 CELL PHONE CHARGES 106686 352.36 5841.6188 269470 2/24/2005 YORK OCCUPANCY 100783 GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO. INC. 907028203 76.84 PLUG, COVER TANKS TOWERS & RESERVOIR 449.22 LIGHT BULBS 5620.6406 526.06 EDINBOROUGH PARK 269471 2/2412005 021805 102688 GRIFFITHS, GEORDIE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 50.00 INSTRUCTION 189110 50.00 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 269472 212412005 106318 100782 GRIGGS COOPER & CO. 5862.5512 4,363.48 VERNON SELLING 106319 2.55 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 53.10 106320 659663 26.53- COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 207.66 192405 5842.5515 2,112.00 YORK SELLING 106504 3.40 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 7,037.69 106505 192163 680.50 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 2,140.20 192406 5842.5512 52.35 YORK SELLING 106507 3,270.38 5822.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 7.15 - 106508 192353 117.43- COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 19.772.20 192400 269473 2/24/2005 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 102869 GUEST, LISA 106510 44.85 ART WORK SOLD AT EAC COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 44.85 106511 2123/2005 13:45:02 Page - 10 Business Unit 50TH ST SELLING YORK SELLING 106685 021705 5841.6215 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE YORK OCCUPANCY 106685 021705 5861.6215 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE VERNON OCCUPANCY 106685 021705 5821.6215 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 50TH ST OCCUPANCY 106686 021805 5841.6188 TELEPHONE YORK OCCUPANCY 106590 907028203 5914.6530 REPAIR PARTS TANKS TOWERS & RESERVOIR 106591 906931085 5620.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES EDINBOROUGH PARK 106664 021805 5125.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES MEDIA STUDIO 106317 189110 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 106318 188799 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 106319 189109 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 106320 659663 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 106503 192405 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 106504 192354 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 106505 192163 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 106506 192406 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 106507 192403 5822.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING 106508 192353 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 106509 192400 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 106510 192401 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 106511 659988 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 106714 660136 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 106641 021505 5101.4413 ART WORK SOLD ART CENTER REVENUES 2/23/2005 13:45:02 Page- 11 Business Unit EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN WATERMAIN EXT - OXFORD & 52ND GRILL GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 216.96 CONFERENCE LOGDING 106445 31328 1400.6104 CITY OF EDINA POLICE DEPT. GENERAL R55CKREG LOG20000 CONFERENCE LOWING 106446 31335 1400.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 433.92 Council Check Register 269481 2/24/2005 105461 HOLL, SHELLEY 2/24/2005 -2/24/2005 356.00 Check # Date Amount Vendor / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 269474 2/2412005 100790 HACH COMPANY 269482 2/24/2005 101040 HOPKINS TOWN & COUNTRY DODGE 182.33 RUST REMOVER 106441 4164653 5913.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 182.33 269475 212412005 117802 HOTSTICK USA 100791 HALLMAN OIL COMPANY 590.00 HOTSTICKS 953.98 OIL 106592 145582 1553.6584 LUBRICANTS 964.53 ATF BULK 106593 145583 1553.6584 LUBRICANTS 525.58 AW BULK 106594 145584 1553.6584 LUBRICANTS 2,444.09 269476 2/2412005 116447 HANSEN THORP PELLINEN OLSON IN 737.00 CONSTRUCTION ADMIN 106379 13675 05430.1705.21 CONSULTING INSPECTION 737.00 269477 212412005 101209 HEIMARK FOODS 215.04 MEAT PATTIES 106442 018181 5421.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD 215.04 269478 212412005 100801 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER 14,403.68 TIF FEE 106443 021105 1000.1303 DUE FROM HRA 14,403.68 269479 2124/2005 101632 HOLIDAY 220.60 FUEL ( ACCT #006 -403 -557) 106380 020805 1553.6581 GASOLINE 220.60 269480 2/24/2005 101858 HOLIDAY INN HOTEL & SUITES 2/23/2005 13:45:02 Page- 11 Business Unit EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN WATERMAIN EXT - OXFORD & 52ND GRILL GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 216.96 CONFERENCE LOGDING 106445 31328 1400.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 216.96 CONFERENCE LOWING 106446 31335 1400.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 433.92 269481 2/24/2005 105461 HOLL, SHELLEY 356.00 MEDIA INSTRUCTOR 106665 021805 5125.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES MEDIA STUDIO 356.00 269482 2/24/2005 101040 HOPKINS TOWN & COUNTRY DODGE 362.70 REPAIRS 106447 47087 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 362.70 269483 2/24/2005 117802 HOTSTICK USA 590.00 HOTSTICKS 106444 863 1480.6710 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT SPECIAL OPERATIONS 590.00 CITY OF EDINA 2/23 /2005 13:45:02 R55CKREG LOG20000 Council Check Register Page - 12 2/2412005 - 2/24/2005 Check # Date Amount Vendor / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 269484 2/24/2005 117432 IMPERIAL SCOTT SPECIALTIES INC 180.00 CUSTOM TATTOOS 106448 13024 1400.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 180.00 269485 2/24/2005 100202 JAMAR TECHNOLOGIES INC. 259.50 ROUND TUBE 106449 68719 1260.6577 LUMBER ENGINEERING GENERAL 259.50 269487 2124/2006 100835 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO. 265.61 106321 1854422 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 4,072.66 106322 1854945 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 1,025.22 106323 1854267 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 1,014.45 106324 1854269 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 745.70 106325 1852543 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 2,601.88 106326 1854268 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 559.59 106327 1854260 5822.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING 535.97 106328 1854258 5822.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING 60.40 106329 1854259 5822.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 50TH ST SELLING 893.15 106330 1854254 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 13.99- 106331 273803 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 4.98- 106332 273802 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 41.94- 106333 273800 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 11.33- 106334 273355 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 744.53 106512 1854257 5862.5513 COST.OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 320.00- 106513 273797 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 50.55- 106514 273353 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 109.40- 106515 273354 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 80.80- 106516 272906 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 15,687.43 106715 1857604 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 192.90 106716 1857600 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 30.94 106717 1857603 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 65.40 106718 1857607 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 3,813.10 106719 1857606 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 2,345.80 106720 1857611 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 125.80 106721 1857612 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 750.66 106722 1857599 5822.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING 286.43 106723 1857598 5822.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING 2,032.59 106724 1857595 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 109.45 106725 1857594 5822.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING 17,326.67 9 R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register 2/24/2005 -- 2/24/2005 Check # Date Amount Vendor / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 269488 2/24/2005 102341 JOHNSON, RICHARD H. 544.00 MEDIA INSTRUCTOR 106666 021805 5125.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 544.00 269489 2124/2005 104297 K. BELL 2123/2005 13:45:02 Page - 13 Business Unit MEDIA STUDIO 6 82 SOCKS 106450 0488979 -IN 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES BA -321 VALLEY VIEW - WOODDALE 50TH STREET GENERAL FIRE DEPT. GENERAL FIRE DEPT. GENERAL FIRE DEPT. GENERAL FIRE DEPT. GENERAL FIRE DEPT. GENERAL FIRE DEPT. GENERAL GRILL ART CENTER REVENUES EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 2 1. 261.82 269490 2124/2005 106186 KAEDING & ASSOCIATES INC. 3,000.00 ROAD LIGHTING DESIGN 106381 490236D 01321.1705.20 CONSULTING DESIGN 3,000.00 269491 2/24/2005 100553 KEEHR, GREGORY - - -- -.__ 55.79 SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT 106595 021605 5820.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 55.79 269492 2/24/2005 111018 KEEPRS INC. 28.95 GLOVES 106687 33894 1470.6558 DEPT UNIFORMS 169.95 UNIFORMS 106688 33893 1470.6558 DEPT UNIFORMS 79.90 UNIFORMS 106689 33204 -02 1470.6558 DEPT UNIFORMS 275.85 UNIFORMS 106690 31352 -02 1470.6558 DEPT UNIFORMS 413.75 UNIFORMS 106691 33893 -01 1470.6558 DEPT UNIFORMS 104.26 UNIFORMS 106692 33667 1470.6558 DEPT UNIFORMS 1,072.66 269493 212412005 117803 KIP ENTERPRISES 400.00 LAMINATE MATERIAL 106451 1903 5421.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 400.00 269494 2/24/2006 114344 KRAEMER, KARIN 39.00 ART WORK SOLD AT EAC 106642 021505 5101.4413 ART WORK SOLD 39.00 269495 2124/2005 100845 KREMER SPRING & ALIGNMENT INC. 418.91 SPRING, PINS, BOLTS 106382 INV0008117 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS 418.91 269496 2/24/2005 102474 KRULL, JULIE 207.10 UNIFORM ALLOWANCE 106452 021005 1400.6203 UNIFORM ALLOWANCE 207.10 269497 2/24/2005 100846 KUETHER DISTRIBUTING CO BA -321 VALLEY VIEW - WOODDALE 50TH STREET GENERAL FIRE DEPT. GENERAL FIRE DEPT. GENERAL FIRE DEPT. GENERAL FIRE DEPT. GENERAL FIRE DEPT. GENERAL FIRE DEPT. GENERAL GRILL ART CENTER REVENUES EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN POLICE DEPT. GENERAL CITY OF EDINA • 2/23/2005 13:45:02 R55CKREG LOG20000 Council Check Register Page - 14 2/24/2005 2/2412005 Check # Date Amount Vendor / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 1.214.30 106335 426106 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING 1,026.00 106517 426908 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 156.80 106518 426889 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING 1,228,15 106519 426736 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING 128.10 106726 427456 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING 36.00 106727 427455 5822.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 50TH ST SELLING 19.00 106728 427457 5822.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 50TH ST SELLING 3,808.35 269498 2/24/2005 117407 LEXISNEXIS 110.00 BACKGROUND CHECKS 106453 0501248807 1400.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 110.00 269499 2/24/2005 116882 LIPPERT, BARBARA 29.25 ART WORK SOLD AT EAC 106643 021505 5101.4413 ART WORK SOLD ART CENTER REVENUES 29.25 269500 212412005 100857 LITTLE FALLS MACHINE INC. 495.20 REVERSING CYLINDERS 106596 00033288 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 1,284 -33 PUSH BAR ASSEMBLIES 106597 00033298 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 1.779.53 269501 2/24/2005 112577 M. AMUNDSON LLP -- 695.62 - 106336 174551 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 695.62 269502 2124/2005 100864 MAC QUEEN EQUIP INC. 363.12 DIRT SHOE RUNNERS, BUSHINGS 106383 2051507 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 1,049.03 CAMERA SYSTEM 106455 1050104 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 2,125.12 TOW BRACKETS, ROLLERS 106598 2051046 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 150.00 VACTOR CLINIC (2) 106709 MAR 4 REG 5919.6104 CONFERENCES 8 SCHOOLS TRAINING 3,687.27 269503 2/24/2005 105677 MAGC 250.00 NORTHERN LIGHTS AWARD ENTRIES 106693 022205 2210.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS COMMUNICATIONS 250.00 269504 2/24/2006 102414 MAINTENANCE ENGINEERING LTD 1,405.20 - BULBS 106599 2288473 -01 5210.6185 LIGHT & POWER GOLF DOME PROGRAM 1,405.20 269605 , 2/24/200: 1117804 MALLOY MONTAGUE KARNOWSKI t CITY OF EDINA 2123/2005 13:45:02 R55CKREG LOG20000 Council Check Register Page - 15 2/2412005 - 2/24/2005 Check # Date Amount Vendor / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 6,000.00 AUDIT 106454 14592 1160.6130 PROFESSIONAL SERV -AUDIT FINANCE 6,000.00 269506 2/24/2005 100868 MARK VII SALES 1,986.00 106337 762424 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 175.70 106338 762425 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 762.80 106339 763387 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING 1,899.60 106520 764380 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 43.90 106521 764381 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 1,025.50 106522 764865 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 1,196.43 106523 764188 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 43.90 106729 765808 5822.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 50TH ST SELLING 1,067.50 106730 765807 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING 98.00 106731 765809 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING 8,299.33 269507 2/2412005 101030 MATHISON CO. 279.15 WATER COLORS 106694 590995 -0 5120.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD ART SUPPLY GIFT GALLERY SHOP 215.37 PAPER, CANVAS, BRUSHES 106695 592462 -0 5120.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD ART SUPPLY GIFT GALLERY SHOP 12.64 TEMPERA 106696 592480 -0 5120.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD ART SUPPLY GIFT GALLERY SHOP 507.16 269508 2124/2005 102600 MATRIX COMMUNICATIONS INC 62.50 PHONE PROGRAMMING 106456 22946 1550.6188 TELEPHONE CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 62.50 269509 2/24/2006 102197 MCFOA 35.00 MEMBERSHIP - J. TIMM 106600 021805 1120.6105 DUES 8 SUBSCRIPTIONS ADMINISTRATION 35.00 269610 2/24/2005 103720 MEDTECH 685.00 WRISTBANDS 106601 IN000120676 5610.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES ED ADMINISTRATION 685.00 269611 2/24/2005 101483 MENARDS 23.11 PAINT SUPPLIES 106384 1010 5420.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CLUB HOUSE 304.00 FLUSH VALVE 106457 1377 5420.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CLUB HOUSE 488.24 OAK. PINE, STAIN 106458 1583 5421.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES GRILL 35.61 STAIN 106602 2458 5421.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES GRILL 34.30 WRENCH, TOOL BOX 106603 1375 5431.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES RICHARDS GC MAINTENANCE 76.33 CAULK, PLIERS 106604 1390 5913.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES DISTRIBUTION 961.59 CITY OF EDINA R55CKREG LOG20000 Council Check Register 2124/2005 -2/24/2005 Check # Date Amount Vendor / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 269512 2/24/2005 101987 MENARDS 5428 OAK BOARDS 106605 62750 5630.6532 PAINT 2/23/2005 13:45:02 Page - 16 Business Unit CENTENNIAL LAKES 5511.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES_ - - 54.28 5511.6511 CLEANING SUPPLIES ARENA BLDG /GROUNDS 269513 2/24/2005 MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS 100882 MERIT SUPPLY REPAIR PARTS CENT SVC PW BUILDING 1553.6585 ACCESSORIES 1,242.11 SWEEPER, 2 -WAY RADIO 106385 66296 5111.6511 CLEANING SUPPLIES 1.511.87 BROOMS, LINERS. CLEANERS 106386 66272 361.08 SOLVENT 106387 66254 520.66 MATTING 106459 66310 297.56 LPS SPRAYS 106460 66276 236.75 CLEANERS 106606 66318 116.51 MOPS, CLEANERS 106697 66203 4,286.54 269514 2/2412005 101390 MES INC. 739.72 FOAM 106461 266056 264.51 SPANNER WRENCHES 106462 266384 1,004.23 269516 2124/2005 102507 METRO VOLLEYBALL OFFICIALS 84.00 OFFICIATING FEES 106463 2720 84.00 269616 2124/2006 100410 METROCALL 366.20 PAGERS 106464 02094602 -1 366.20 269517 2124/2005 100887 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ENVIRONME 275.767.36 SEWER SERVICE 106465 0000789776 275,767.36 269618 2/24/2005 102508 METZGER, MAURE ANN 154.38 ART WORK SOLD AT EAC 106644 021505 154.38 269519 2/24/2006 100692 MIDWEST COCA -COLA EAGAN 104.37 106340 87259020 249.70 106341 82561164 354.07 269520 . 2/24/200: 101356 MIDWEST FENCE 8. MFG COMPANY 2/23/2005 13:45:02 Page - 16 Business Unit CENTENNIAL LAKES 5511.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES_ ARENA BLDG /GROUNDS 5511.6511 CLEANING SUPPLIES ARENA BLDG /GROUNDS 5422.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS 1552.6530 REPAIR PARTS CENT SVC PW BUILDING 1553.6585 ACCESSORIES EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 5620.6511 CLEANING SUPPLIES EDINBOROUGH PARK 5111.6511 CLEANING SUPPLIES ART CENTER BLDG / MAINT 1470.6557 FIREFIGHTING FOAM FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 1470.6552 PROTECTIVE CLOTHING FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 4077.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES EDINA ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION 1400.6151 EQUIPMENT RENTAL POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 5922.6302 SEWER SERVICE METRO SEWER TREATMENT 5101.4413 ART WORK SOLD ART CENTER REVENUES 5822.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 50TH ST SELLING 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 2/23/2005 13:45:02 Page- 17 Business Unit FIELD MAINTENANCE CENT SVC PW BUILDING DISTRIBUTION TRAINING SKATING RINK MAINTENANCE 18 225 00 CONNECTION FEE 106698 021505 5915.6136 PROFESSIONAL SVC - OTHER WATER TREATMENT 18,225.00 CITY OF EDINA R55CKREG LOG20000 269626 2/24/2006 101459 MINNESOTA RECREATION & PARK AS Council Check Register MEETING REGISTRATION 106467 3678 1600.6105 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 2124/2005 —2/24/2005 82.50 Check # Date Amount Vendor/ Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 100906 MTI DISTRIBUTING INC. 191.70 GALVANIZED FENCE FABRIC 106607 113959 1642.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 24,620.67 191.70 106468 448846 -00 1650.6710 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT 269521 2/24/2005 240.00 102582 MINN DEPT. OF LABOR & INDUSTRY 106609 1008641 -99 1640.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS 50.00 BOILER REGISTRATION 106389 B42351R0563591 1552.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 50.00 2/2412006 101108 NATIONAL CAMERA EXCHANGE 269522 2/2412006 100913 MINNEAPOLIS SUBURBAN SEWER & W 117.92 -- DEVELOPER. PEARL STOCK 106699 1,700.00 WATER SERVICE REPAIR 106388 32627 5913.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS 117.92 1,700.00 269529 269523 2/24/2005 111726 NAUMAN, RODERICK A. 105716 MINNESOTA AWWA 750.00 REGISTRATION (6) 106466 021605 5919.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS 750.00 269624 2/2412005 102770 MINNESOTA CASTERS INC. 109.53 WHEELS 106608 INV24770 1648.6530 REPAIR PARTS 109.53 269525 212412005 101638 MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 2/23/2005 13:45:02 Page- 17 Business Unit FIELD MAINTENANCE CENT SVC PW BUILDING DISTRIBUTION TRAINING SKATING RINK MAINTENANCE 18 225 00 CONNECTION FEE 106698 021505 5915.6136 PROFESSIONAL SVC - OTHER WATER TREATMENT PARK ADMIN. GENERAL EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT PARK MAINTENANCE GENERAL ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION F ND 63202 041703 5900 1211.1 ACCTS RECEIVABLE MANUAL UTILITY BALANCE SHEET 10.56 WATER BILL RE U 10.56 269630 212412005 101472 NEHA 85.00 E. MARSTON 106390 021505 1490.6105 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS PUBLIC HEALTH 18,225.00 269626 2/24/2006 101459 MINNESOTA RECREATION & PARK AS 82.50 — MEETING REGISTRATION 106467 3678 1600.6105 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 82.50 269527 2/2412005 100906 MTI DISTRIBUTING INC. 24,620.67 LAWN TRACTOR 106468 448846 -00 1650.6710 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT 240.00 IRRIGATION CLASSES 106609 1008641 -99 1640.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS 24,860.67 269528 2/2412006 101108 NATIONAL CAMERA EXCHANGE 117.92 -- DEVELOPER. PEARL STOCK 106699 02095011PIV 5110.6564 CRAFT SUPPLIES - 117.92 269529 2/24/2005 111726 NAUMAN, RODERICK A. PARK ADMIN. GENERAL EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT PARK MAINTENANCE GENERAL ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION F ND 63202 041703 5900 1211.1 ACCTS RECEIVABLE MANUAL UTILITY BALANCE SHEET 10.56 WATER BILL RE U 10.56 269630 212412005 101472 NEHA 85.00 E. MARSTON 106390 021505 1490.6105 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS PUBLIC HEALTH CITY OF EDINA 2/23/2005 13:45:02 R55CKREG LOG20000 Council Check Register Page - 18 2/24/2005 2/24/2005 Check # Dale Amount Vendor / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 85.00 269531 2/2412005 101727 NELSON, BARBARA 90.00 INSTRUCTION 106667 021805 5110.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION 484.00 — INSTRUCTION 106667 021805 5125.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES MEDIA STUDIO 574.00 269632 2/24/2006 100076 NEW FRANCE WINE CO. 445.00 106342 29602 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 972.00 106343 29752 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 1,255.00 106524 29750 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 2,672.00 269633 212412005 111483 NICHOLSON, JEFFREY 70.00 PIANO TUNING 106469 021505 5610.6136 PROFESSIONAL SVC - OTHER ED ADMINISTRATION 70.00 269634 2/24/2005 101958 NICOL, JANET 273.00 — MEDIA INSTRUCTOR 106668 021805 5125.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES MEDIA STUDIO 273.00 269635 2124/2005 100933 NORTHWEST GRAPHIC SUPPLY 24.34 PENS 106700 30998301 5120.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD ART SUPPLY GIFT GALLERY SHOP 24.34 269536 2/24/2005 103212 NYHLENS FILTER RECYCLING 150.00 RECYCLE OIL FILTERS 106391 336801 1553.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 150.00 269537 2/24/2005 113341 OCHS BRICK & STONE 119.17 MODEL STONE 106610 151878 5912.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES BUILDINGS 119.17 269538 2/24/2005 105901 OERTEL ARCHITECTS 1,340.00 PW /BUS GARAGE REVIEW 106392 012905 1260.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ENGINEERING GENERAL 1,340.00 269539 2124/2006 117812 OESTERREICH, ROSA 204.00 MODEL FEES 106669 021805 5125.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES _ MEDIA STUDIO 204.00 269540 2124/2005 100936 OLSEN COMPANIES • S R55CKREG LOG20000 Check # Date Amount Vendor / Explanation 106470 9992000066 455.97 CHAINS 106470 9992000066 455.97 269641 2124/2006 5110.6103 105230 OSVOG, KYLE CLAYTON 106528 8060944 -IN 48.75 ART WORK SOLD AT EAC 106732 8061408 -IN 48.75 269642 2124/2005 117813 OUSLEY, JASON 288.00 MODEL FEES 288.00 269543 2/24/2005 100940 OWENS COMPANIES INC. 640.00 SERVICE CONTRACT 640.00 269544 2/24/2005 100941 PARK NICOLLET CLINIC 10.00 160.00 250.00 420.00 269545 2/2412006 102440 PASS, GRACE 742.00 INSTRUCTOR AC 742.00 269646 2/2412006 100347 PAUSTIS & SONS 1,085.60 1,693.20 1,377.75 565.71 CITY OF EDINA 2/23/2005 13:45:02 Council Check Register Page - 19 2/24/2005 -2124/2005 PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 106393 321901 1480.6710 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT SPECIAL OPERATIONS 269547 212412005 100945 PEPSI -COLA COMPANY 173.52 173.52 269548 2/24/2005 100743 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS 1,176.25 196.80 259.05 106645 021505 5101.4413 106670 021805 5125.6103 106611 82735 5630.6230 106470 9992000066 1550.6121 50TH ST SELLING 106470 9992000066 1400.6175 106470 9992000066 1470.6175 106671 021805 5110.6103 106344 8060704 -IN 5822.5513 50TH ST SELLING 106525 8060705 -IN 5862.5513 106526 8061406 -IN 5862.5513 106527 8061407 -IN 5822.5513 106528 8060944 -IN 5822.5513 106732 8061408 -IN 5842.5513 106529 72718611 5822.5515 106345 2165088 5862.5512 50TH ST SELLING 106346 2165081 5822.5512 106347 2165083 5822.5513 ART WORK SOLD ART CENTER REVENUES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES MEDIA STUDIO SERVICE CONTRACTS EQUIPMENT CENTENNIAL LAKES ADVERTISING PERSONNEL CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL PHYSICAL EXAMINATIONS POLICE DEPT. GENERAL PHYSICAL EXAMINATIONS FIRE DEPT. GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION 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 50TH ST SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING 50TH ST SELLING 50TH ST SELLING YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 50TH ST SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 2/23/2005 13:45:02 Council Check Register Page 20 2/24/2005 - 2/24/2005 Check # Date Amount Vendor / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 45.45 106348 2165082 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 717.60 106530 2165090 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 670.80 106531 2165089 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 8.96- 106532 3313421 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 11.88- 106533 3313420 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 18.49- 106534 3313419 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 3.33- 106535 3313416 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 8.30- 106536 3313415 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 150.80- 106537 3313414 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 744.65 106733 2167473 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 503.25 106734 2167477 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 2,910.44 106735 2167472 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 47.20 106736 2167470 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 1,019.35 106737 2167468 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 164.25 106738 2167467 5822.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING 2210.6123 5630.6180 5110.6235 MAGAZINE /NEWSLETTER EXPENSE COMMUNICATIONS CONTRACTED REPAIRS POSTAGE 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 8,253.33 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 269549 2/24/2005 5862.5513 101110 POLLY NORMAN PHOTOGRAPHY 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 300.00 ABOUT TOWN PHOTOS 106612 021705 300.00 269550 2124/2005 101539 PORTER CABLE 111.69 REPAIRS TO SAW 106613 6995615 111.69 269551 2/24/2005 100961 POSTMASTER 1,300.00 POSTAGE 106672 021805 1.300.00 269552 2/2412005 100968 PRIOR WINE COMPANY 286.00 106349 191139 7.62- 106350 659897 42.20- 106351 659893 2,247.73 106538 192746 2,877,47 106539 189108 252.89 106540 192747 266.00 106541 192749 5.880.27 269553 2124/2005 106322 PROSOURCE SUPPLY 574.25 SOAP, ROLL TOWEL, LINERS 106614 3484 574.25 2210.6123 5630.6180 5110.6235 MAGAZINE /NEWSLETTER EXPENSE COMMUNICATIONS CONTRACTED REPAIRS POSTAGE 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 5620.6511. CLEANING SUPPLIES CENTENNIAL LAKES ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION YORK SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING 50TH ST SELLING YORK SELLING EDINBOROUGH PARK 2/23/2005 13:45:02 Page - 21 Subledger Account Description Business Unit EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT DIGITAL MUGSHOT SYSTEM DATA PROCESSING POLICE DEPT. GENERAL GENERAL SUPPLIES POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 269556 2/24/2005 110484 QPR CITY OF EDINA R55CKREG LOG20000 2,775.18 COLD MIX ASPHALT 106394 43443 1301.6518 BLACKTOP GENERAL MAINTENANCE Council Check Register 2/24/2005 - 2/24/2005 Check # Date Amount Vendor / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No 269554 2124/2005 106419 PSC ALLIANCE INC. 39.93- 106352 1,941.88 COMMUNICATION SYS CONSULTING 106471 2000308 44002.6710 2,010.12 1,941.88 106352 513637 -00 5862.5512 269555 2124/2006 VERNON SELLING 100547 PULSTAR DISTRIBUTING 106353 512923 -00 140.41 CDMA ANTENNAS 106615 0011321 -IN 1400.6160 38.51 ALV CASES 106616 0013195 -IN 1400.6406 LIQUOR YORK GENERAL 178.92 106542 516442 -00 2/23/2005 13:45:02 Page - 21 Subledger Account Description Business Unit EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT DIGITAL MUGSHOT SYSTEM DATA PROCESSING POLICE DEPT. GENERAL GENERAL SUPPLIES POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 269556 2/24/2005 110484 QPR 2,775.18 COLD MIX ASPHALT 106394 43443 1301.6518 BLACKTOP GENERAL MAINTENANCE 2,775.18 269558 2/24/2005 100971 QUALITY WINE 39.93- 106352 513637 -00 5860.5518 VENDOR DISCOUNTS VERNON LIQUOR GENERAL 2,010.12 106352 513637 -00 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 91.95 106353 512923 -00 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 15.49- 106542 516442 -00 5840.5518 VENDOR DISCOUNTS LIQUOR YORK GENERAL 1,568.75 106542 516442 -00 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 9,71- 106543 516558 -00 5840.5516 VENDOR DISCOUNTS LIQUOR YORK GENERAL 980.84 106543 516558 -00 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 85.70- 106544 516497 -00 5840.5518 VENDOR DISCOUNTS LIQUOR YORK GENERAL 4,317.33 106544 516497 -00 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 35.61- 106545 516498 -00 5860.5518 VENDOR DISCOUNTS VERNON LIQUOR GENERAL 1,797.57 106545 516498 -00 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 6.59- 106546 516559 -00 5820.5518 VENDOR DISCOUNTS 50TH STREET GENERAL 664.51 106546 516559 -00 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 21.36- 106547 516488 -00 5820.5518 VENDOR DISCOUNTS 50TH STREET GENERAL 1,076.73 106547 516488 -00 5822.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING 5.68 - 106548 516435 -00 5820.5518 VENDOR DISCOUNTS 50TH STREET GENERAL 573.54 106548 516435 -00 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 7,95- 106549 516434 -00 5860.5518 VENDOR DISCOUNTS VERNON LIQUOR GENERAL 806.14 106549 516434 -00 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 19.42- 106550 515910 -00 5860.5518 VENDOR DISCOUNTS VERNON LIQUOR GENERAL 1,964.01 106550 515910 -00 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 17.83- 106551 515127 -00 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 10.75- 106552 515130 -00 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 15,575.47 269659 2124/2005 117805 R & M MANUFACTURING CO. 150.00 LIGHT FIXTURE BASES 106472 143343 5410.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES GOLF ADMINISTRATION CITY OF EDINA 2/23/2005 13:45:02 R55CKREG LOG20000 Council Check Register Page - 22 2/24/2005 — 2/24/2005 Check # Date - Amount Vendor / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No -- Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 150.00 269560 2/24/2005 113831 REINKE, GAIL 28.00 PROGRAM REFUND 70867 080503 1600.4390.19 BECOME A MAGICIAN PARK ADMIN. GENERAL 28 -00 269561 2/24/2005 100977 RICHFIELD PLUMBING COMPANY 132.55 REPAIR VALVE 106617 38625 5630.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS CENTENNIAL LAKES 624.00 FAUCET REPAIR 106701 38668 1470.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 756.55 269562 2/2412005 108669 RICHFIELD /MPLS AMERICAN LEGION 100.00 PERFORMANCE 3/1/05 106473 021505 5610.6136 PROFESSIONAL SVC - OTHER ED ADMINISTRATION 100.00 269563 2/24/2005 102096 RICKERT, DAVID 30.55 ART WORK SOLD AT EAC 106646 021505 5101.4413 ART WORK SOLD ART CENTER REVENUES 30.55 269564 2/24/2005 101979 ROFIDAL, KEVIN 1,466.60 BEARCAT TRAINING EXPENSES 106474 012105 1400.6104 CONFERENCES 8 SCHOOLS POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 1,466.60 269565 2/2412005 117809 SAFETY SIGN COMPANY 57.28 SIGNS 106618 2263220 1552.6530 REPAIR PARTS CENT SVC PW BUILDING 57.28 269566 2/24/2005 117807 SAM'S CLUB 96.17 SUPPLIES 106475 4055,5940,7963 7411.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES PSTF OCCUPANCY 96.17 269567 2/24/2005 103859 SANDBERG, MARY 108.00 MODEL FEES 106673 021805 5125.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES MEDIA STUDIO 108.00 269568 212412005 104788 SANDY'S PROMOTIONAL STUFF 648.19 PROMOTIONAL ITEMS 106619 SH5011 5610.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER ED ADMINISTRATION 648.19 269569 2124/2006 105442 SCHERER BROS. LUMBER CO. 401.52 LUMBER 106620 40036183 5913.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES DISTRIBUTION 401.52 CITY OF EDINA 2/23/2005 13:45:02 R55CKREG LOG20000 Council Check Register Page - 23 2/24/2005 - 2/24/2005 Check # Date Amount Vendor / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 269570 2124/2005 102949 SECURITAS SECURITY SYSTEMS USA 680.00 ALARM REPAIR 106621 2059112 -IN 5620.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS EDINBOROUGH PARK 680.00 269571 212412005 100995 SEH 369.57 INSPECT PEDESTRIAN SYSTEM 106395 0125990 10084.1705.21 CONSULTING INSPECTION W 51ST & HALIFAX PED SIDEWALK 369.57 269572 2124/2005 102870 SEIFERT, ELIZABETH 41.60 ART WORK SOLD AT EAC 106647 021505 5101.4413 ART WORK SOLD ART CENTER REVENUES 41.60 269573 212412005 117798 SHERIDAN SHEET METAL CO. 1,630.00 GUTTERS, METAL CAP 106396 70283 5912.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES BUILDINGS 1,630.00 269574 2/24/2005 106002 SHOEMAKER, JAM[ 108.00 MODEL FEES 106674 021805 5125.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES MEDIA STUDIO 108.00 269576 2/2412006 101002 SOUTHSIDE DISTRIBUTORS INC 195.25 106354 160451 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 27.70 106553 160505 5822.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 50TH ST SELLING 368.35 106554 160506 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING 591.30 269576 2124/2006 110977 SOW, ADAMA 421.20 ART WORK SOLD AT EAC 106648 021505 5101.4413 ART WORK SOLD ART CENTER REVENUES 518.00 INSTRUCTOR AC 106675 021805 5110.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION 940.00 CLEANING 106675 021805 5111.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ART CENTER BLDG/MAINT 1,879.20 269577 212412005 103277 ST. JOSEPH EQUIPMENT CO INC 96.36 FILTERS 106397 SI35659 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 96.36 269578 2124/2005 117686 STAPLES BUSINESS ADVANTAGE 19.64 OFFICE SUPPLIES 106398 8002663068 1160.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES FINANCE 42.71 OFFICE SUPPLIES 106398 8002663068 1600.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES PARK ADMIN. GENERAL 53.21 OFFICE SUPPLIES 106398 8002663068 1260.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES ENGINEERING GENERAL 745.49 OFFICE SUPPLIES 106398 8002663068 1550.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL CITY OF EDINA 2/23/2005 13:45:02 R55CKREG LOG20000 Council Check Register Page - 24 2124/2005 —2/24/2005 Check # - -- — Date - -- - - - Amount -- Vendor / Explanation PO # - - -- Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 861.05 269679 2/24/2005 103976 STEINBACH, BRUCE 175.92 UNIFORM PURCHASE 106476 021605 1646.6201 LAUNDRY BUILDING MAINTENANCE 175.92 269580 212412005 101016 STREICHERS 94.73 TRAINING AMMO 106477 1245427 1400.6551 AMMUNITION POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 94.73 269581 212412005 101017 SUBURBAN CHEVROLET 696.15 REPAIRS 106478 CVCB477199 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 696.15 269582 2/2412005 101336 SULLIVAN, MONICA 415.00 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 106676 021805 5110.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION 415.00 269583 212412005 102140 SUN MOUNTAIN SPORTS INC. 109.35 — GOLF BAGS 106399 537987 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 109.35 269584 2/24/2005 110674 SUPERIOR WIRELESS COMMUNICATIO -- 13.25 -13.25 PHONE CASE 106622 8923 1322.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES STREET LIGHTING ORNAMENTAL 269585 212412005 117686 TECHNA GRAPHICS 1,251.77 EMPLOYEE PAMPHLET 106623 500221 -01 2210.6575 PRINTING COMMUNICATIONS 1,251.77 269586 2/2412005 101326 TERMINAL SUPPLY CO 475.67 SHRINK TUBING, FUSES 106624 11915 -00 1553.6585 ACCESSORIES EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 475.67 269687 212412005 101035 THORPE DISTRIBUTING COMPANY 2,331.33 106555 362530 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 2.331.33 269588 2124/2005 101038 TOLL GAS & WELDING SUPPLY 50.80 WELDING GAS 106400 342599 1553.6580 WELDING SUPPLIES EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 111.36 WELDING GAS 106401 342467 1553.6580 WELDING SUPPLIES EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 162.16 f ' CITY OF EDINA 2/23/2005 13:45:02 R55CKREG LOG20000 Council Check Register Page - 25 2/24/2005 - 2124/2005 Check # Date Amount Vendor / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 269589 212412005 101693 TOTAL REGISTER 14.20 MONTHLY FTP FOLDER 106402 17898 5820.6160 DATA PROCESSING 50TH STREET GENERAL 14.20 MONTHLY FTP FOLDER 106402 17898 5840.6160 DATA PROCESSING LIQUOR YORK GENERAL 14.20 MONTHLY FTP FOLDER 106402 17898 5860.6160 DATA PROCESSING VERNON LIQUOR GENERAL 42.60 269590 2124/2005 103153 TREUTING, KRISTEN 35.75 ART WORK SOLD AT EAC 106649 021505 5101.4413 ART WORK SOLD ART CENTER REVENUES 35.75 269591 2/24/2005 101042 TRIARCO 114.27 CRAFT SUPPLIES 106702 183675 5110.6564 CRAFT SUPPLIES ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION 69.06 CRAFT SUPPLIES 106703 195379 5110.6564 CRAFT SUPPLIES ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION 183.33 269592 2/2412005 116411 TRINITY MEDICAL SOLUTIONS INC. 75.75 SHIRTS 106625 4214 5630.6201 LAUNDRY CENTENNIAL LAKES 75.75 269593 2124/2005 101046 TWIN CITY FILTER 191.06 PLEATED FILTERS 106704 0338910 -IN 5511.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES ARENA BLDG /GROUNDS 191.06 269594 2/24/2005 101360 TWIN CITY HARDWARE 2,895.71 INSTALL RESTROOM PARTITIONS 106626 098792 1646.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS BUILDING MAINTENANCE 200.40 DOOR LATCH PARTS 106627 099984 5620.6530 REPAIR PARTS EDINBOROUGH PARK 3,096.11 269595 2124/2005 102613 U.S. FILTER CORPORATION 466.96 TANK FILTERS 106404 1405990 5511.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES ARENA BLDG /GROUNDS 466.96 269696 2/24/2006 101051 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED 3,546.79 106479 013105 1400.6203 UNIFORM ALLOWANCE POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 3.546.79 269597 2/24/2005 101053 UNITED ELECTRIC COMPANY 88.13 BALLASTS 106480 783755 1552.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENT SVC PW BUILDING 88.13 BALLASTS 106480 783755 5912.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES BUILDINGS 88.14 BALLASTS 106480 783755 1646.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES BUILDING MAINTENANCE 88.14 BALLASTS 106480 783755 5820.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 50TH STREET GENERAL CITY OF EDINA 2/23/2005 13:45:02 R55CKREG LOG20000 Council Check Register Page - 26 2/24/2005 -2/24/2005 Check # Date Amount Vendor / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 88.14 BALLASTS 106480 783755 1470.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL -- 88.14 BALLASTS 106480 783755 1551.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CITY HALL GENERAL 528.82 269598 2/24/2005 101073 UNITED RENTALS 58.00 TRAINING SEMINAR 106403 . 46031712 -001 1260.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS ENGINEERING GENERAL _ 58.00 269599 2/24/2005 101055 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA - - -- 1,040.00 SHADE TREE COURSE 106634 021805 1640.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS PARK MAINTENANCE GENERAL 1.040.00 _ 269600 2124/2005 116991 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA 65.00 LAB FEES 106628 002217 1450.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ANIMAL CONTROL 65.00 269601 2124/2005 103637 VALGEMAE, RUTH 69.23 SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT 106677 021805 5120.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES ART SUPPLY GIFT GALLERY SHOP 69.23 269602 212412005 103590 VALLEY -RICH CO. INC. 2,973.49 WATER MAIN REPAIR 106707 9165 5913.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS DISTRIBUTION 2,973.49 269603 2/24/2005 101058 VAN PAPER CO. 26.89 TOWELS 106405 568946 5842.6512 PAPER SUPPLIES YORK SELLING . 539.69 . TOWELS, BAGS 106406 569068 5862.6512 PAPER SUPPLIES VERNON SELLING 395.17 TOWELS, CUPS 106481 568883 5421.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES GRILL 27.42 SOAP 106482 568958 5421.6511 CLEANING SUPPLIES GRILL 13.25 GLOVES 106705 569483 5862.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES VERNON SELLING 1,002.42 269604 2124/2005 101063 VERSATILE VEHICLES INC. 46.06 DASH LINER 106629 21405001 5423.6530 REPAIR PARTS GOLF CARS 46.06 269606 2/24/2005 101066 VIKING ELECTRIC SUPPLY 8.36 CONNECTOR 106630 8816514 5913.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES DISTRIBUTION 8.36 269606 2124/2006 101069 VOSS LIGHTING 137.39 LIGHTING 106407 15006086 -00 10.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES LIOUOR YORK GENER' y R55CKREG LOG20000 Check # Date Amount Vendor / Explanation Council Check Register 39.94 MINIATURE LAMPS 2/24/2005 177.33 269607 2124/2005 Inv No 102457 WALTON, DANIEL Subledger Account Description Business Unit 25.19 ART WORK SOLD AT EAC 1322.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 25.19 106650 269608 2/2412005 ART WORK SOLD 116616 WELDON, KEN 106651 021505 79.95 ART WORK SOLD AT EAC ART CENTER REVENUES 106678 79.95 5110.6103 269609 2/24/2005 106483 102342 WENZEL, KENNETH 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS 480.00 INSTRUCTOR AC 0011158 5300.1705 480.00 AQUATIC CENTER BALANCE SHEET 269610 2/24/2005 5822.5513 101078 WESTSIDE EQUIPMENT 50TH ST SELLING 106556 86.53 SERVICE KIT COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 86.53 109713 -00 269611 2/2412005 VERNON SELLING 103336 WILLIAMS ARCHITECTS 109507 -00 5862.5513 325.58 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 106559 109160 -00 325.58 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 269612 2/24/2005 109714 -00 101033 WINE COMPANY, THE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 2,530.13 116810 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 2,155.27 106560 116812 5862.5513 3,051.70 VERNON SELLING 106740 117387 3,623.75 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 106741 153.34- 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 2,775.65 117386 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 13,983.16 106652 269613 2/24/2005 ART WORK SOLD 101312 WINE MERCHANTS 1,803.19 651.26 300.95 3,580.20 450.91 6,786.51 269614 2/24/2006 100591 WITTSTRUCK, MARTHA 32.50 ART WORK SOLD AT EAC CITY OF EDINA 2/23/2005 13:45:02 Council Check Register Page - 27 2/24/2005 2/24/2005 PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 106631 15006086 -01 1322.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES STREET LIGHTING ORNAMENTAL 106650 021505 5101.4413 ART WORK SOLD ART CENTER REVENUES 106651 021505 5101.4413 ART WORK SOLD ART CENTER REVENUES 106678 021805 5110.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION 106483 0027522 -IN 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 106632 0011158 5300.1705 CONSTR. IN PROGRESS AQUATIC CENTER BALANCE SHEET 106355 109413 -00 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 106556 109774 -00 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 106557 109713 -00 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 106558 109507 -00 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 106559 109160 -00 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 106739 109714 -00 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 106356 116810 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 106560 116812 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 106740 117387 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 106741 117388 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 106742 117386 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 106652 021505 5101.4413 ART WORK SOLD ART CENTER REVENUES R55CKREG LOG20000 Check # Date Amount Vendor / Explanation 32.50 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 269615 2/2412005 102019 WOIT, DIANE 32.50 ART WORK SOLD AT EAC 32.50 YORK SELLING 269616 2/2412005 101086 WORLD CLASS WINES INC 824.75 ART WORK SOLD AT EAC 3,743.63 106564 265.25 117410 ZIEGLER POWER SYSTEMS 485.00 FINAL PAYMENT 594.00 161026 751.48 Grand Total 51825 106566 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register 2124/2005 — 2/24/2005 PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 106653 021505 5101.4413 ART WORK SOLD 269617 212412005 101726 XCEL ENERGY 2,877.46 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 2,143.46 106562 885.27 5842.5513 5,906.19 YORK SELLING 269618 212412005 102732 YUNGNER, DAVE 55.25 ART WORK SOLD AT EAC 55.25 106564 269619 2/24/2005 117410 ZIEGLER POWER SYSTEMS 13,728.69 FINAL PAYMENT 13,728.69 161026 644,696.73 Grand Total 2/23/2005 13:45:02 Page- 28 Business Unit ART CENTER REVENUES 106561 160959 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 106562 161187 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 106563 161031 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 106564 161089 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 106565 161026 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 106566 161259 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 106743 161320 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 106744 161273 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 106408 1826916144034 5913.6185 LIGHT & POWER DISTRIBUTION 106409 1916215721039 5630.6185 LIGHT & POWER CENTENNIAL LAKES 106410 0901769168038 5111.6185 LIGHT & POWER ART CENTER BLDG /MAINT 106654 021505 5101.4413 ART WORK SOLD ART CENTER REVENUES 106633 030405 5900.1740 MACHINERY & EQUIPMENT UTILITY BALANCE SHEET Payment Instrument Totals Check Total 644,696.73 Total Payments 644,696.73 R55CKSUM LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Summary 2/24/2005 - 2/24/2005 Company Amount 01000 GENERAL FUND 89,584.93 02200 COMMUNICATIONS FUND 8,678.05 04000 WORKING CAPITAL FUND 5,171.05 04800 CONSTRUCTION FUND 3,310.54 05100 ART CENTER FUND 17,454.60 05200 GOLF DOME FUND 1,962.97 05300 AQUATIC CENTER FUND 325.58 05400 GOLF COURSE FUND 7,196.16 05500 ICE ARENA FUND 3,746.53 05600 EDINBOROUGH /CENT LAKES FUND 8,077.84 05800 LIQUOR FUND 176,769.18 05900 UTILITY FUND 319,991.94 07400 PSTF AGENCY FUND 2,427.36 Report Totals 644,696.73 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 pglicies and procedures�l , 2/23/2005 13:50:47 Page- 1 Minneapolis City of Lakes Police Department William P. McManus Chief of Police 350 South 5th Street — Room 130 Minneapolis MN 55415.1389 Office 612 673 -2853 TTY 612 673.2157 February 9, 2005 Chief Siitari: I would like to take this time to personally thank you for the efforts of Detective Erik Kleinberg. Presently Kleinberg is assigned to the Minnesota Financial Crimes Task Force. I became involved with Det. Kleinberg through the investigation of a case I was assigned to on 12/14/04. The case gained media attention due to the victims age and severity of her injuries. From the beginning, Det. Kleinberg took an active role in the investigation and pursued the participants until they were ID'd and charged. I found Det. Kleinberg professional and knowledgeable with extensive contacts, which proved to be vital for the successful completion of this case. Det Kleinberg's level of expertise was essential and truly evident while obtaining a full and complete confession from one of the suspects as the suspect was serving time in the St. Cloud Correctional Facility. Detective Kleinberg exhibits the qualities and cooperation I needed for such an assignment as the Minnesota Financial Crime Task Force. Weinberg's actions and work ethics bring credit and honor to the Edina Police Dept. , I looked forward to working with Det. Kleinberg in the future. Sincerely, S t. ThAfnas E. Ryan 4 Precinct Investigations www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us Affirmative Action Employer Page 1 of 1 Mike Siitari From: harry davis [hbdavis4 @msn.com] Sent: Friday, February 25, 2005 11:36 AM To: Mike Siitari Cc: Ken Kane Subject: Feedback Chief Siitari - I was stopped for a minor traffic violation at 3:30 pm on 50th street right next to your office. Your officer, I did not get his name was very professional, polite, and was a good example of an officer of the law. As a 59 year old African American male, I have had many negative experiences with police officers over the year in Minneapolis, Edina, and Eden Prairie. However, your young officer was a fine example of how things have changed between the police, and my community over the years. He treated me with respect, and talked to me with a level of professionalism. He also stated that thing have changed, and Edina police believes in treating all citizens fairly, and with no bias. Whatever, you are doing, Chief Siitari with your diversity training of your officers, keep it up. My attitude toward white police officers stopping African American males has greatly improved with the behavior of this officer. I did not get his name or badge number, however, I a sure your log records will indicate who he is. Tell him "Thank You" personally from me. Regards Harry W. Davis, Jr. Minneapolis 2/25/2005 0 I.�� . g 4 fa ee MINUTES OF THE Edina Transportation Commission Thursday, January 27, 2005 Edina City Hall 4801 West 50t�' Street Community Room MEMBERS PRESENT: Fred Richards, Marie Thorpe, Jean White, Warren Plante, Joni Kelly Bennett, Les Wanninger, Dean Dovolis MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Steve Lillehaug, Sharon Allison 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Wanninger. ll. New Business a. 1-494 Corridor Commission Wanninger and White attended the 1-494 Corridor Commission meeting. Wanninger reported that the group clearly knows what their needs are, but it did not appear as though they had prioritized the issues and their plans do not include Highways 62 and 169. Wanninger believed that these highways should be a part of their discussion because changes to them would have positive effects on 1-494 as well as the reverse. He suggested that the ETC create a list of five priorities to present to the Commission for consideration. The group meets monthly. b. Letter from Jeanne K. Hanson Staff was directed to draft a response letter to Ms. Hanson indicating that the draft policy does not address covenant issues nor is it proposing street closures. All letters addressed to the ETC, whether individually or as a group, will be reviewed -by the Commissioners and a response letter drafted by staff and signed by the Chair. Motion made by Dovolis and seconded by Wanninger. Ayes: 7 Nays: 0 Motion carried. "Street Utility Fee" Bill Introduction in Minnesota Senate: Lillehaug stated he drafted letters for the Commissioners to sign supporting the street utility bill that was introduced by the Senate and a similar one by the House. (City Manager Hughes also sent a similar letter.) The bill will allow a city to implement a street utility similar to the storm and sanitary utility. The consensus is to not send the letters until the Commissioners have had a chance to consult with the Council regarding whether the Council; with the Commissioners support, should send the letters. Other things to consider is the possibility that the City's special assessment policy could be revised in the near future (Council is in the midst of reviewing it) and how to equitably 1 tax residents on streets that'have not yet been repaired and residents that have already been assessed. Ill. Old Business a. Update – FINAL DRAFT Transportation Commission Policy Jan 6 2005 Lillehaug stated the Council will be holding a public hearing on March 1'r—to discuss the ETC's Final Draft Policy. Richards said Bennett will be presenting her minority report to the Council also and asked that the Commissioners get a copy ahead of time so that they can respond. Richards said someone should give a presentation to the Council on March 1St describing how they arrived at the policy that is before the Council and also the Commissioners' response to Bennett's minority report. Wanninger suggested not doing any more editing to the final draft policy since it has already been sent to the Council for consideration. The consensus is to stop editing until a response is received from the Council b. Memorandum – 2003 Local Traffic Task Force Action Plan Update In a memo to the ETC, staff presented an update to the 2003 Local Traffic Task Force Action Plan on the six issue areas (Northeast Edina Area; Northwest Edina Area; Edina High School and Valley View Middle School Area; Edina Community Center Area; W. 70th Street; and France Avenue Area [Greater Southdale Area]) as follows: The root cause of the problems in the Northeast was identified as congestion on Hwy. 100 and in the 50"' & France area. With the delay of expansion of this highway until 2014, the City of St. Louis Park has invited the ETC to a joint meeting with them to discuss this issue. In addition to meeting with the City of St. Louis Park, staff was directed to schedule meeting(s) with the City of Richfield, City of Bloomington and other adjoining cities to discuss working jointly towards solutions of transportation /traffic issues that are common to all. Staff recommended that the ETC consider the Northwest and parts of the Edina Community Center area for the Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan (NTMP) once the policy is approved. A traffic study is in progress around the Edina Community Center area and the findings will be presented to the ETC at the February 24th meeting. The area bounded by Concord Avenue, Wooddale Avenue, Golf Terrace and Valley View Road was also recommended for the "NTMP for a basket -weave application of stop signs and /or traffic calming measures" due to "perceived traffic volume and speed..." Staff is scheduled to meet with the Edina High and Valley View Middle Schools' staff to discuss possible solutions to improve traffic flow in this area. Engineering staff has discussed improvements such as adding turn lanes on Valley View Road, a sidewalk along the south side of Valley View Road and an educational program to address drivers' behavior. Potential solutions for West 70th Street "include significant physical improvements that may require the redevelopment of properties adjacent to the roadway." Staff is "investigating improvements at the intersections of France Avenue with West 70th Street and West Shore Drive with West 70th Street, and improving the frontage road system at Highway 100 to encourage West 66th Street destined vehicles." A consultant is conducting a land use /transportation study for 'the France Avenue Area (Greater Southdale Area). A report should be ready within the next several months. 2 M Within the six areas identified by the Task Force are issue areas that staff believe are not applicable to the NTMP procedure. Therefore, staff recommended that the ETC make recommendations to the Council regarding studies and improvements for these areas, so that they can be budgeted as part of the Capital Improvement Program. Staff also recommended that issues typically caused by congestion within neighborhoods be addressed through the NTMP process once approved. After discussion, Wanninger motioned that they and Valley View Middle Schools Area as the philosophy of the NTMP, but not be limited by it. Ayes: 6 Nays: 1 Motion carried. select the Northwest Area and Edina High two projects to begin with and .follow the Dovolis seconded the motion. IV. Approval of Minutes Bennett motioned and Dovolis seconded approval of the corrected minutes of December 9, 2004. Bennett motioned to have changes made to the January 6, 2005 minutes. Her motion failed for a lack of support. Dovolis motioned and Plante seconded approval of the minutes as submitted. Meeting adjourned. Next meeting is'scheduled for February 24, 2005, 6:00 to 8:00 p.m. in the Community Room, Edina City Hall. 3 Feb -25 -05 09:14A TO: Mayor James Hovland FROM: Pat & Roger Harmon, 7129 Cornelia Drive, Edina, MN 55435 FAX #: 952 -926 -2593 TEL 0: 952- 926 -9500 DATE: February 25, 2005 RE: Revitalization of the Southdale Area We attended the meeting on 2/10/05 at the Braemar Golf Course and came away with these observations: I] We were not aware that this area was in need of such a drastic redo. 2] How much will it cost and who pays for it? 31 72 "d Street has been designated as a Neighborhood Connection. We live on Cornelia Drive (three houses North of 72nd Stl These streets are already heavily traveled by those motorists who are avoiding 70 St. &, France. We don't need more traffic! 4) Realign 70 St. into 60" St. Motorists can already take the "hook" from 70d' & 69'h . 5] How many people go from Fairview Southdale Hospital to Southdale Shopping Center? We're guessing not enough to justify a tunnel under 66d' St. 6] Congestion on France Ave. Yes, about 8 a.m., Noon, and 4 p.m. Not enough to warrant drastic changes. 7] Left turn lights are needed at Hazelton & France Ave in both directions. (But especially going West on Hazelton turning left onto France Ave.) 8] Replace the AMC theaters with a Hotel? Within 5 minutes of Southdale there are at least 8 hotels. Is there a room shortage? 9] High density housing will only aggravate the traffic situation in this area. 10] Target Southdale is about to undergo a major reconstruction to turn it into a Super Target. Has anyone told the executives at Target that the store faces the wrong way? 11] "Street - Fronted Retail" from Centennial Lakes to Southdale alathe Shopping area off of Hwy 94 in Maple Grove. We've talked to some people who have shopped this location and will not return. They found that they were moving their car from store to store. 12] The plan calls for additional retail. Has all of the space in Southdale Center been leased? We think not. We do feel that this area could use some tweaking here and there, but we are happy with the way it is. P. 01 A" Metropolitan Council February 2005 Thanks to the vision of previous generations, the Twin Cities area enjoys a regional park and open space system with few rivals across the globe. Now the Metropolitan Council needs your help to preserve the last best natural resources and outdoor recreation opportunities for future generations. Nearly a million new residents will be here to use the regional park system by 2030. To meet the growing need for recreation, the Metropolitan Council has prepared a draft 2030 Regional Parks Policy Plan. The plan includes a proposal to acquire and develop three new parks and seven new trails. A brochure summarizing the Regional Parks Policy Plan is enclosed. The complete plan is available online at www.metrocouncil.org /directions /parks /policyplan.htm or by calling the Regional Data Center at 651- 602 -1140. Join me for an overview of the plan: ■ March 2 — noon to I p.m. Association of Metropolitan Municipalities, 145 University Ave., St. Paul March 15 — 4 to 5 p.m. Burnsville City Hall, 100 Civic Center Parkway ■ March 22 — 7 to 8 p.m. French Regional Park, 12605 County Rd. 9, Plymouth Your feedback is welcome. The public record will remain open until 4:30 p.m. on April 20, 2005. To comment: • Testify at our public hearing on April 6 from 4 -6 p.m. at the Metropolitan Council, 230 E. Fifth St., St. Paul. You may register to speak by calling 651- 602 -1140. • Write the Metropolitan Council, 230 E. Fifth St., St. Paul, MN 55101 • Fax comments to 651- 602 -1464 • E -mail us at data.center@metc.state.mn.us • Call our Public Comment Line at 651.602.1500 (TTY 651.291.0904) Si Peter Bell Chair www.metrocouncil.org Metro Info Line 602 -1888 230 East Fifth Street ■ St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 -1626 • (651) 602 -1000 • Fax 602 -1550 • TTY 291 -0909 An Equal Opportunity Employer Regional Parks 03o Polic y Plan < 4 e y { ' N ±'` P. ' rte'.'•° .. °� S�' B ,#�a� Y� r* e•q,•. .eT�"" � d,' `v'"y'�F'�e^3_ t - "�, �i §�i '�� 'l�,^!•t n best places A renowned parks system preservation Expanding the system Thanks to the vision and commitment of previous generations, the To meet the needs of the region in 2030, the Council proposes a seven -county Twin Cities area enjoys a regional parks and open variety of changes to the current regional parks system. Among space system with few rivals across the globe. them: More than 100 years ago, visionaries like Horace Cleveland and Charles Loring helped establish an outstanding network of drives, parks and boulevards around the lakes and rivers of Minneapolis and St. Paul. In response to state legislation, the Metropolitan Council in 1974 designated about 31,000 acres of existing parks owned by counties, cities and special park districts as "regional recreation open space." Those parks had about five million visits in 1975. Between 1974 and 2004, the Council — with both regional and state funds — invested $367 million to help local park agencies develop these parks as well as acquire and develop new parks and trails for the growing metropolitan population. Today, the system includes: 52,000 acres • 47 regional parks and park reserves • Six special recreation features, such as the zoo and conservatory at Como Park • 22 regional trails (170 miles currently open to the public) • 30.5 million visitors annually (2003 estimate) Between 1970 and 2000, the population of the seven -county area grew from 1.87 million to 2.64 million. The Council projects that by 2030 nearly one million more people will live in the region. Now is the time to identify and preserve the last best natural resources and outdoor recreational opportunities in the region for future generations. Preserving our future As it works to preserve and expand the regional parks system, the Council will be guided by five major policies: • Identify and protect, forever, lands with high - quality natural resources that are desirable for regional parks system activities. Provide adequate and equitable funding to acquire, develop and rehabilitate regional parks and trails. Provide a regional system of recreation opportunities for all residents while maintaining the integrity of the natural resource base. Promote master planning and integrated resource planning across jurisdictions. Protect the public investment in the regional parks system. Designate two existing county parks and three trails as "regional." In Washington County, Pine Point Park . In Ramsey County, Tony Schmidt Park In Ramsey County/St. Paul, three regional trails - Trout N Brook, Summit Avenue, and Lexington Parkway Acquire and develop three new parks. Search areas include: Northwestern Anoka County Empire Township in Dakota County ■ Blakeley Township in Scott County Acquire and develop seven new trails. Search areas include: The Crow River, in Carver County and Three Rivers Park District Both a north /south and an east /west trail traversing Dakota County An east /west trail traversing Scott County In Three Rivers Park District, a trail connecting parts of Baker Park Reserve; a trail connecting Baker and Crow - Hassan Park Reserves; and a trail connecting Crow -Hassan and Elm Creek Park Reserves Acquire land within the current boundaries of 30 existing parks and four trails Acquire natural- resource lands adjacent to six existing parks and six existing trails - OV The last best places To meet the needs of the region beyond 2030, the Council propos- es to acquire four new regional parks or reserves and three new trails. These parks would not be developed until after 2030, but the opportunity to acquire them will likely be lost if the lands aren't identified and purchased before 2030. The goal is to secure the last best places, complete the acquisition of the regional park system, and secure opportunities for future generations, just as our predecessors did for us. Search areas include: Parks — Miller Lake area and Minnesota River Bluff and Ravines in Carver County; southwestern Dakota County; and Cedar Lake area in Scott County. • Trails — northwestern Anoka County; central to south Carver County; and Minnesota River to Spring Lake in Scott County. _ — % S l 1 -a ti 'J, Regional Parks.,5ysiem • - 2030 and Beyond Regional Parks, Regional Park Reserves and,' r Special Use Facilities with Existing or Approved Boundaries ' °i ' J - -', Regional Trails I ` Existing; Operi to the Public ' I j� i Under Acquisition, Development, Planned or Proposed (not open to the public) — - �_ Regionally Important Natural Resource Areas ( - 'Parks and Trails and Search Areas Search Corridors 1� ANQ� -` r —j I a 1 A' i, - Boundary Adjustments ' V Recognition of Regional Status , a ) . New Units Needed by 2030 Com IeLn the System r "' 3 r f WASHIN&OR S' v HENNEPJN 1 ^, I c,. -s N. I �J R t. — — -- _SOY i r7, j 1 J. 5 • € °r ;._Ll �"iZ.l .,ILL. -_ y f r;'-� � c it a �� I - ^7- 17 a• I CARVED l I _ I rye L Ile 4 J I I r I l It . i I i 0 5 10 15 20 Miles h" AJ �` ��, A&J � P6LAL %� tjMfvu Ar 4JJ- dblk rL AITV JA- 4 rio R KAY MITCHELL ��4iN ppt CLERK TO THE BOARD �? 1NN &6p BOARD OF HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMISSIONERS A -2400 GOVERNMENT CENTER MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 5548 7-0240 February 18, 2005 TO: Various Municipalities PHONE 612 -348 -5433 FAX 612- 348-870I RE: HENNEPIN COUNTY APPOINTMENT TO MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT BOARD Enclosed please find a copy of an extract from the minutes of the February 8,2005, meeting of the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners. Please note, that Pamela Blixt and Richard Miller were both reappointed for a three year term to expire March 8, 2008. Yours truly, J dy umley Deputy Clerk of the Board Encl. 00'417 ,1-7 - Tuesday, February 08, 2005 Applications had been solicited to fill two vacancies on the Minbehaha Creek Watershed District Board and interviews were conducted at the February 1, 2004 committee meetings with the selection progressed to today's board meeting. Applicants were: Walter Bauch, Pamela Blixt,Richard Broberg, Casey Cunningham, Michael Darrow, Dr. MaryAnn Feldman, Dr. Vincent Garry, John Helling, Gregory Hennes, Maxwell Larson, Richard Miller, Larry Olson and Gregory Schellet. A vote was taken on the first vacancy, as follows: Commissioner Nomination Koblick Blixt Steele " Opat Miller. Stenglein Darrow Dorfman Blixt McLaughlin " Johnson " Accordingly, Pamela Blixt was reappointed. A vote was taken on the second vacancy and Richard Miller was unanimously reappointed. ATTEST: -Clerk of thg Co Board EDINA HUMAN RIGHTS & RELATIONS COMMISSION TUESDAY, JANUARY 25, 2005 7:00 PM — MAYOR'S CONFERENCE ROOM Members Present Members Absent Student Mary Brindle Carol Carmichiel Jennifer Watkins Amy Frankfurt Jim Campbell Idelle Longman Betsy Flaten Staff Sharon Ming Susan Heiberg Andy Otness Wayne Prochniak Eileen Supple Jennifer Watkins, a junior at Edina High School, was introduced and welcomed. She has applied to serve as the student representative to the Commission. Jennifer is interested in both local and international government. She attended the Normandale French Immersion School, plays the piano and violin, and is on the Quizbowl Team. Approval of Minutes Sharon Ming seconded Eileen Supple's motion to amend the Commission minutes of December 14,2004; the motion carried. Nominating Committee's Slate of Officers The Committee — consisting of Andy Otness, Janice Joshua, Amy Frankfurt and Betsy Flaten— submitted the following slate of officers for 2005: • Chair — Wayne Prochniak • 1s` Vice Chair —Eileen Supple • 2 °d Vice Chair — Mary Brindle Job descriptions will be developed for the two Vice Chair positions. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Fundine The Commissioners reviewed the proposed CDBG budget for 2005 submitted by Joyce Repya, Associate Planner: • Greater Minneapolis Daycare Association (GMDCA) $ 8,191 • Housing & Outdoor Maintenance for the Elderly (H.O.M.E.) $ 9,280 • Community Action for Suburban Hennepin (CASH) $ 4,191 • HomeLine $ 4,191 TOTAL $25,853 Mary Brindle seconded Sharon Ming's motion to fund the providers as follows: • GMDCA $ 8,000 • H.O.M.E. $11,853 • CASH $ 5,000 • HomeLine $1,000, The motion failed to carry. Mary Brindle seconded Eileen Supple's motion that "the Commission cannot make a recommendation this year due to lack of information, such as the number of families served and the cost of the services; the intention for next year is to begin the process earlier." The motion failed to carry. Mary Brindle seconded Sharon Ming's motion that a funding recommendation be made by the end of the meeting; the motion carried. Mary Brindle seconded Sharon Ming's motion to fund GMDCA in the amount of $8,000; the motion carried. Mary Brindle seconded Sharon Ming's motion to fund C.A.S.H. in the amount of $5,000; the motion failed to carry. After considerable discussion regarding the Commission's role in the process and the time needed to make an educated recommendation, Idelle Longman seconded Amy Frankfurt's motion to support the Planning Department's recommendation to fund the agencies in the following amounts: • GMDCA $ 8,191 • H.O.M.E. $ 9,280 • CASH $ 4,191 • HomeLine $ 4,191 TOTAL $25,853 The motion carried. Mary Brindle seconded Sharon Ming's motion to have three Commissioners meet with Joyce in November to discuss the CDBG guidelines and then communicate with and gather information from the four service organizations; the motion carried. It was agreed that this would allow the Commissioners to be better prepared for the process again next January. Work Plan Wayne Prochniak presented the work plan calendar for discussion. The intent is to establish permanent goals that are long -range and reflective of the Commission. The Executive Committee will meet and prepare a strategic plan to present at the February Commission meeting. Items to include within the work plan are: • CDBG proposal recommendation in January • Meeting with the City Council • Meeting with the School Board • Identification of speakers to invite to specific meetings • Review of the Bias/Hate Crime Response & Prevention Plan • Review of the brochure • Timing of the funding process Human Services Funding Form Mary Brindle presented the newly- created "Request for Human Services Funding" form that had been edited at the Commission's meeting in December. Andy Otness seconded Eileen Supple's motion to approve the form as revised; the motion carried. Volunteer Recognition Reception Wayne Prochniak recommended that a committee be formed — consisting of Jim Campbell, Carol Carmichiel and Betsy Flaten —to review the process for Commission inclusion in the City's annual Volunteer Recognition Reception at Edinborough Park in April. The committee will report back to the whole Commission at the February meeting with a possible recommendation for recognizing a particular person or group. Human Relations Award The proposed Human Relations Award and criteria, developed by Mary Brindle, will be brought back to the Commission in February for discussion. New Member Recruitment The Commissioners were encouraged to consider candidates to be recruited to the Commission for appointment. It was suggested that the Commission make a presentation to parents at Cornelia School to arouse interest in the Commission within the immigrant population. Adjournment There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:40 PM. Respectfully submitted, Wayne Prochniak, 1s` Vice Chair Edina Human Rights & Relations Commission League of Minnesota Cities Financing Local Government Task Force �MC145 University Avenue West, Si Paul, MN 55103 -2044 (651) 281 -1200 - (800) 925 -1122 L ojM �o 06- Fax: (651) 281 -1298 - TDD. (651) 281-1290 P. www.lmnc.org ciao Task Force Members February 14, 2005 Pat Born Finance Director City of Minneapolis Dam B° City Manager Dear City Official: City of Dawson Minnesota Association . of small cities As you may be aware, a few weeks ago we held a press conference to Ron Dicklich announce a report from a new task force of the League of Minnesota Cities. Executive Director Range Association It is titled Renew the Partnership: A Principled Approach to Financing of Municipalities and Schools City Government and was developed by the Financing Local Government John Ellenbecker Task Force. Mayor City of SL Cloud Coalition of Greater Minnesota cities The Task Force itself is a unique and important coming- together of the city John Gunyou community. Task Force members were city officials, elected and appointed, City Manager City of Minnetonka from across the state and included representatives of the Association of Municipal Legislative Commission Metropolitan Municipalities, the Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities, the Pat Hentges League of Minnesota Cities, the Minnesota Association of Small Cities, the City Manager City of Mankato Municipal Legislative Commission, and the Range Association of Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities Municipalities and Schools. These groups achieved a unity on fiscal issues that Judy Johnson has not been seen since the Minnesota Miracle of the 1970s. Building upon this Mayor City of Plymouth unity, the Task Force will continue its work on other. fiscal issues not fully League of Minnesota Chies addressed in this first report. Veld Mulznleks Councilmember chy of sL Paul Park ''file purpose of this Task Force was to analyze local funding issues, explore A.ssociatlon of Metropolitan current problems in the state -local fiscal relationship, and propose solutions Municipalities that benefit the collective interests of all Minnesotans. From this starting point, Samantha Orduno Former City Manager the Task Force met over many months and came to agreement on five M of on of Richfield Association of principles that should be the foundation for an effective fiscal relationship metropolitan between cities and the State: Accountability, Certainty, Flexibility, Adequacy Municipalities Nelda Remus and Equity. Recommendations for how to achieve each of these principles City perk Zimmerman were then developed. These recommendations should be viewed as a starting City of Minnesota Association point for discussion with state legislators and administration officials. of Small Cities Matt Smith Finance Director The recommendations were also developed understanding the diversity of �,, � sL Pour Voxiand fiscal situations and opportunities among Minnesota cities. While not all the Mark Mayor tools recommended will be viable options for all communities, the Task. Force City of Moorhead League of Minnesota believes that cities should have more options to choose from in determining Cities what makes sense to fund city services. Mark winson Chief Administrative Officer M of Duluth Enclosed is a printed copy of the report and an executive summary. We have Gene Winstead also enclosed talking points to assist you in communicating the contents of the Mayor City of Bloomington Legislative report to others, such as business groups, civi c groups and to the general public Municipal Commission at a council meeting. Additional tools, such as a PowerPoint presentation, are posted on our website and available on CD upon request. If you have any questions about the report or want more information on any of the recommendations it contains, please contact Eric Willette, the League's Policy Research Manager, at 651- 281 -1245 or willette @lmnc.orQ. Sincerely. Judy Johnson LMC President Mayor, City of Plymouth " � I-V_ of Mimew C-i- Cibar Task Force Members Pat Bom . Finance Director City of Minneapolis Dave Bum City Manager City of Dawson Minnesota Association of Small cities Ron Didkllch Executive Director Range Association of Municipalities and Schools John Ellenbecker Mayor City of St Cloud Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities John Gunyou City Manager City of Minnetonka Municipal Legislative Commission Pat Hentges City Manager City of Mankato Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities Judy Johnson Mayor City of Plymouth League of Minnesota Cities Veld Mulznleks Counclimember City of St Paul Park Association of Metropolitan . Municipalities Samantha Orduno Former qty Manager City of Richfield Association of Metropolitan Municipalities Nelda Remus City perk City of Zimmerman Minnesota Association of Small Cities Matt Smith Finance Director City of St Paul Mark,Voxland Mayor City of Moorhead League of Minnesota Cities Mark Winson Chief Administrative Officer City of Duluth Gene Winstead Mayor City of Bloomington Municipal Legislative Commission League of Minnesota Cities Financing Local Government Task Force 145 University Avenue West, St Paul, MN 55103 -2044 (651) 281 -1200 • (800) 925 -1122 Fax: (651) 281 -1298 • TDD: (651) 281 -1290 www.Imnc.org Financing Local Government Task Force Report Talking Points . Background • For the past seven months a group of 14 mayors, council members, and appointed officials have met as an ad hoc Task Force to develop recommendations charting a new course for state -local fiscal relations and to determine a better way of financing the city services Minnesotans rely on. . • The end product of their efforts, a report titled Renew the Partnership: A Principled Approach to Financing City Government, is a roadmap to guide policymakers toward renewal of a productive and forward- looking intergovernmental partnership. • The sense of unity among members of the city community involved in this -project was, itself, important and extraordinary. • Participating organizations with representatives on the Task Force include the League of Minnesota Cities, the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities, the Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities, the Minnesota Association of Small Cities, the Municipal Legislative Commission, and the Range Association of Municipalities and Schools. Why action is needed • Budget uncertainties and volatility resulting from deep cuts in state revenue Sharing and levy limits are taking their tolls. Cities have had to pull back on community priorities like economic development, public safety, parks, libraries, streets, and infrastructure. (ADD SPECIFIC EXAMPLES FROM YOUR CITY) • In addition to service cuts, cities have taken extraordinary measures to squeeze out every efficiency, to partner for economies of scale, and to develop creative ways of making sure quality of life does not dip beyond an acceptable level. Many cities, however, have very few options left to bridge the funding gaps created by the state's budget problems. (ADD SPECIFIC EXAMPLES FROM YOUR CITY) • All Minnesota residents and businesses should receive adequate levels of municipal services at relatively similar levels of taxation. The state has a crucial role in providing financial assistance to cities with high needs or low fiscal capacity. This role has diminished,.though, as cuts to city aids and credit reimbursements represented a disproportionate share of the state's most recent budget - balancing actions. • Minnesotans expect their state and. local governments to work in proactive, efficient, and cooperative ways to meet community needs. • State and local leaders must commit to talking to, listening to, and respecting each other. We need to start viewing each other as partners, rather than as adversaries or interest groups. What is the report all about? 0 Cities are asking for a state -local partnership based on five basic principles: certainty, flexibility, accountability, adequacy, and equity. Accountability - State and local governments should work together to clarify their roles and responsibilities in providing, regulating, and paying for public services. Cities and the state must also exercise sound financial stewardship and be accountable for the efficient and effective management of tax dollars. Flexibility — Prudent financial stewardship, efficiency, and innovation are best fostered when the state pulls back on preemptions and mandates,. and allows local governments greater flexibility and control related to local revenue and spending decisions. Certainty — For cities to be responsible stewards and innovative managers, they need greater - certainty in the level of state funding received from,year -to -year and throughout each year. Equity— Minnesotans have a vested interest in ensuring that every city can provide the basic levels of service residents and businesses rely on, and all citizens should receive these levels of services at relatively similar levels of taxation. Achieving equity of this nature requires financial assistance to cities that have high needs or low fiscal capacity. Adequacy — If state lawmakers truly see public safety, economic development, good roads, and strong neighborhoods as priorities, state revenue sharing with the local governments that have major responsibilities in these areas must be viewed as.a priority. • The report is about more than funding for cities — it's about cities having the flexibility and resources to ensure good quality of life for all Minnesotans. Note to city officials: The complete Task Force report outlines specific recommendations for actions the state should take to improve the state -local fiscal partnership. If you receive questions from reporters or others and require additional background information, feel free to contact Eric Willette, Policy Research Manager, willette(@lmnc.org or 651 -281 -1245. You may also refer reporters to Don Reeder, Public Relations Coordinator, dreeder(iOnnc.org or 651- 215 -4031. (Jan 2005) TASK FORCE MEMBERS Pat Bom Finance Director City of Minneapolis Dave Bovee City Manager City of Dawson Minnesota Association of Small Cities Ron Dicklich Executive Director Range Association of Municipalities and Schools John Blenbecker Mayor City of St Cloud . Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities John Gunyou City Manager City of Minnetonka Municipal Legislative Commission Pat Hentges City Manager City of Mankato Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities Judy Johnson Mayor City of Plymouth League of Minnesota Cities Veid Mu¢nieks Councilmember City of St Paul Park Association of Metropolitan Municipalities Samantha Orduno Former City Manager City of Richfield Association of Metropolitan Municipalities Nelda Remus City Clerk City of Zimmerman Minnesota Association of Small Cities Matt Smith Finance Director City of St Paul MarkVoAand Mayor City of Moorhead League of Minnesota Cities Markwnson Chief Administrative Officer City of Duluth Gene Winstead Mayor City of Bloomington Municipal Legislative Commission Renew the Partnership,. A PRINCIPLED APPROACH TO FINANCING CITY GOVERNMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A Report From the League of Minnesota Cities FINANCING LOCAL GOVERNMENT TASK FORCE Association of Metropolitan Municipalities Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities League of Minnesota Cities Minnesota Association of Small Cities Municipal Legislative Commission Range.Association of Municipalities and Schools JANUARY 2005 the organizations represented on the Financing Local Government Task Force endorse the report and intend that it be a living document As such, we pledge to work collaboratively going forward with the goal of encouraging and facilitating its recommendations. Full report available on the LMC web site at: www.Imnc.org ACCOUNTABILITY • CERTAINTY • ADEQUACY • FLEXIBILITY • EQUITY Since the inception of the Minnesota Miracle in the early 1970s,the local govern- ment finance system has been based on the belief that, except for the property tax, cities should have limited taxing authority. In return, state collected sales and income taxes have been distributed to cities generally based on need and their property tax capacity relative to other cities. The main goal of the Minnesota Miracle has been ensuring that Minnesotans receive adequate public services without paying inordinately different taxes, regardless of where they live. At the conclusion of the 2004 legislative session, the LMC Board of Directors formed the Financing Local Government Task Force to review the state -local fiscal partnership. The Task Force concluded that the current system is not serving Minnesotans well or ensuring the state's competitiveness in an increasingly global economy. The Task Force made a number of recommendations with the intent of starting an ongoing dialogue about the state -local partnership. These recommendations are designed to serve as a roadmap to guide state policymakers and city officials in working together to reform the system over the next several years. These recommendations are organized according to the Task Force's guiding principles for a viable state- city partnership: ■ ACCOUNTABILITY • CERTAINTY • ADEQUACY • FLEXIBILITY • EQUITY Some are closely integrated —a policy goal may be realized by more than one recommendation. Some options may bring about improvements for certain cities but create challenges for others. While some recommendations lend themselves to short -term implementation, others may require more in -depth planning and represent longer -run options. FINANCING LOCAL GOVERNMENT TASK FORCE REPORT - JANUARY 2005 Recommendations ACCOUNTABILITY Cities believe that a viable partnership with the stare requires cities and the state to communicate effectively with each other and with the public about their roles and responsibilities. Cities and the state must also exercise sound financial stewardship, including maximizing efficiencies in service delivery and other means of cost containment whenever possible. Elected officials must stand accountable for the decisions they make on behalf of citizens. Public agencies must be accountable to elected officials and the public. Less obviously, governments must be accountable to each other. When the state and federal governments impose mandates, the lines of accountability are blurred. Cities are careful stewards of public resources. Minnesotans paid 15.6 percent of their personal income for state and local government in 2004, down from 17.4 percent in 1990. The city share fell from 3.5 percent to 3.1 percent over that time. The Task Force agrees that state and local governments should work together to clarify their roles and responsibilities in providing, regulating, and paying for public services. It recommends the following: ■ Transform market value homestead credit reimbursement into a direct credit to individuals. The market value homestead credit (MVHC) reimbursement structure undermines accountability by enabling the state to reduce or even eliminate the reimbursement to local governments, while preserving the credit to the homeowner. The structure adds unnecessary confusion, since cities whose reimbursements were cut in 2003 and 2004 were forced to certify property tax levies that were higher than what they actually received. ■ Create an advisory commission on intergovernmental relations. A commission would provide an opportunity for legislators and administration officials to meet with their local partners to find the most effective and efficient ways to meet the needs of Minnesota residents and businesses. Participants would cooperatively and proactively address emerging issues, share creative solutions to public issues, and examine the long -term, broad cumulative impacts of policies. J'• ■ Remove existing barriers to effectiveness. The state should remove existing barriers to cities exploring opportunities for collaboration, sharing innovative practices, and applying new technologies. The state should allow local officials to implement smart ideas, such as posting notices on city web sites in lieu of publication and using design /build contracts. ■ Empower local decision - making on local budgets. Artificial caps should be rejected.The state should authorize local officials to determine what revenues are necessary to provide the services demanded by.citizens and businesses. CERTAINTY. Cities need to have more certainty and predictability in all of their available revenue sources, including the property tax and the amount of funding they receive from local government aid (LGA) and similar programs. The current practice of almost annual adjustments to LGA and similar programs and the imposition of levy limits do not allow for prudent financial planning and decisions. The city budgeting process presents many challenges. Decision - makers strive to make wise spending choices, using resources efficiently and meeting service demands. When revenues upon which cities depend to deliver services are uncertain, budgeting becomes even more complicated. Periodic uncertainty in some budget years may encourage careful identification of spending. priorities and exploration of new efficiencies. Significant, ongoing uncertainty about revenues, however, hampers cities' ability to effectively provide services to citizens. In order to increase the certainty of revenues on which the state and cities rely, the Task Force recommends that the state: ■ Reform the state tax structure to increase stability of revenues. The state should re- examine its revenue system and consider policy changes, such as reducing reliance on the corporate income and capital gains taxes, and broadening the sales tax base to include more goods and services. ■ Renew the state -local partnership. The state should be a more reliable partner in providing public services and infrastructure. The annual uncertainty surrounding aid payments from the state should be remedied to enable cities to provide the critical services upon which citizens and businesses rely. ADEQUACY The revenue sources available to cities and the state must raise adequate funds to meet city needs, to fund mandates, and to maintain Minnesota's long -term competitiveness. To enable effective public services and a high quality of life, state and local governments need adequate revenues. Governments must carefully prioritize spending and work to maximize the effectiveness with which they spend public dollars. In tough times, less critical services must be curtailed. But when a lack of revenue results in basic services being cut, vital infrastructure improvements being delayed, and the state's long -term competitiveness being compromised, we must consider a different path. The Task Force believes that the state should adequately fund its commitments to the public services upon which Minnesotans depend and recommends the following: • Fully fund local government aid (LGA). LGA is the critical program that ensures all Minnesota communities can provide the services and infrastructure necessary to achieve economic prosperity. The program's funding was disproportionately cut in 2003, leaving property -poor and high -need communities struggling to provide necessary services. • Implement a metro -area sales tax to fund transportation and transit This would provide a critical, reliable, additional revenue source that would be more like, the national norm of paying for regional transit through a regional tax source. • Increase state revenues. The state should increase general revenues, while being mindful of impacts on our most vulnerable citizens, to preserve and enhance the services upon which our future depends. Further cuts to aids for cities to fund education or other needs are unacceptable. RENEW THE PARTNERSHIP: A PRINCIPLED APPROACH TO FINANCING CITY GOVERNMENT FLEXIBILITY As cities have become increasingly diverse in their characteristics, a "one-size-fits-all" system that limits all cities to the property tax as the major, non -state aid revenue source is increasingly unworkable. Some cities have sufficient property tax base to sustain an adequate service level, but many do not. Cities should have greater access to other tax and revenue sources than currently permitted. Cities face a wide range of unique circumstances involving their tax base, the mix of revenues on which they depend, where users of their services come from, and their population makeup. Cities also vary in which services they are responsible for financing and delivering. We believe that a full toolkit of revenue options is important so that city officials can best link users of a service with those who pay for it, provide an adequate amount of basic services despite cities'varying ability to pay, and work to ensure stability of city revenues during economic downturns by relying on several sources of funding. In order to enhance the flexibility of cities in funding services, the Task Force recommends the state: • Supportrevenue diversification. The state should recognize the diverse circumstances. facing cities, and allow them to choose from a wider variety of tools to finance city services and infrastructure. . These would include a local sales tax for capital projects; street and other utilities; impact fees; and mechanisms to capture revenues from all users. • Enhance local revenue and spending autonomy. The state should not impose artificial caps on cities, but should increase the autonomy given to city officials to make revenue - raising decisions. Cities should have authority to make spending decisions that best meet the needs of their communities. C LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES L 145 University Avenue West CW. St. Paul, Minnesota 55103 -2044 EQUITY All citizens should receive adequate levels of municipal services at relatively similar levels of taxation. This means the state should provide financial assistance to cities that have high needs, low fiscal capacity, or both. Of the principles discussed in the report, equity may be the hardest to measure and the most subjective —what appears equitable to one person may seem patently unfair to another. Historically, some of the thorniest issues regarding our state- local finance system revolve around differing interpretations of equity. The Minnesota Miracle reforms addressed equity issues by creating a system of centralized revenue collection and decentralized service delivery. At that time, the state initiated its first sales tax to fund a complex new system of inter- governmental aids, including LGA. The Legislature must continually monitor the system for tax burden equity, considering both ability to pay and to whom the benefits accrue. The Task Force recommends that the state do the following in order to enhance the equity of our state -local finance system: ■ Mitigate excessive property tax burdens. The state should fully fund the LGA program. The state should target more property tax relief to individuals through the circuit. breaker and related programs when taxes increase rapidly or when burdens are excessive relative to income. In addition, the state should provide adequate tax relief to all types of property in low property - wealth and high -need communities. ■ Conned the costs and benefits forservices. The state should provide cities with tools that align service costs with service beneficiaries. For example, a . local sales tax may be a useful tool for a regional center to capture revenues from commuters, tourists, and tax - exempt property that place a burden on its infrastructure. When charging users is not feasible or appropriate, the state should adequately compensate communities for overburden through LGA or other mechanisms. TEL 651.281.1200 FAX 651.281.1299 800.925.1122 VVEB www.imnc.org TDD 651 .281 .1290 EDINA HUMAN RIGHTS & RELATIONS COMMISSION TUESDAY, DECEMBER 14, 2004 7:00 PM — COMMUNITY ROOM Members Present Mary Brindle Carol Carmichiel Jim Campbell Betsy Flaten Amy Frankfurt Janice Joshua Idelle Longman Sharon Ming Wayne Prochniak Members Absent Andy Otness Eileen Supple Guests Katie Stanton Mary Stanton Jean White Staff Susan Heiberg Approval of Minutes Jim Campbell seconded Sharon Ming's motion to approve the Commission minutes of November 16, 2004; the motion carried. Sharon Ming seconded Wayne Prochniak's motion to edit the Commission minutes of October 26, 2004, as follows: In the paragraph on bullying, it was changed to read "Chace Anderson was invited to the December Commission to discuss ways to work together and to create a response to situations when they occur. The subcommittee will present a power point at this meeting." The motion carried. Decline of Reappointment In a letter, Mel Ogurak indicated that he had not accepted a position of reappointment to the Commission by the Mayor. He thanked the Commissioners for the positive experience and he indicated that he was grateful to have played a part in the Commission's name change. Janice Joshua has submitted her resignation as well. LMHRC Annual Statewide Essay Contest Idelle Longman shared that the League of Minnesota Human Rights Commissions is hosting an Essay Contest regarding "experienced or witnessed discrimination" with a deadline of March 31, 2005. In order to get involved in this State Essay Contest, a commission must first sponsor a contest at a local school. It was recommended that the HRRC connect with the School's Diversity Committee as well as plan a get - together with the School Board to discuss ways to raise awareness. Amy Frankfurt will contact Valley View Middle School to see if there might be an interest in the Essay Contest, and Idelle Longman will contact South View Middle School. With priority setting at the Commission meeting in January, it could be evaluated at that time. Anti - Bullying Subcommittee Amy Frankfurt reported that she would have the opportunity to attend the principals' meeting in January in order to learn about the schools' position on bullying. She presented a ten - minute non - verbal animated film set to a drumbeat called "Bully Dance," which was about dealing with bullies.. It was produced by the National Film Board of Canada and was a 2001. Notable Children's Video.. Amy also presented a PowerPoint created by James Backstrom, Dakota County Attorney, in order to talk to parents about bullying.. Material from the author, Stan Davis, and the researcher, Dr. Dan.Olweus, was included. Dr. Olweus has done groundbreaking research on bullying, and his work is the foundation of all current bullying prevention interventions—school - wide, classroom - level, and individual. It has been reported that every day approximately 160,000 children miss school because of fear of bullying. It is obvious that bullying has lasting effects on everyone involved —the bully, the victim and the bystander. The impact on the victim is significant; it often lasts into adulthood. Effective punishment for a bully in school is having to call his/her parent... Raising the level of awareness within the community. is vital, but it may take a while to make a real impact. The question raised by the Commission is:. "How does this issue fit within the' mission of this Commission ?" And, "Where can this Commission partner with the broader community? " —i.e. Connecting With Kids, church groups, Park & Recreation. The Commissioners questioned their role in and out of the schools and whether there should be collaborative training with the schools. Noting that Highlands Elementary has started an anti - bullying program, contact could be made with Jenny Norlin- Weaver to find out what the school staff is doing overall. It was noted that after the meeting with the principals in January, more information can be shared at the February. Commission meeting. Additionally reported was that the School District's Bias/Hate Crime Response Plan is going forward for final approval. A meaningful opportunity for the Commission would be a joint meeting with the School Board and the City. Council in order to discuss these issues. Commission Brochure Mary. Brindle shared the updated Commission brochure, with the changes and additions of phone numbers and names, including the Minnesota Department of Human Rights.. Wayne Prochniak seconded Sharon Ming's motion to approve, print and distribute this newly- edited brochure; the motion carried. It was suggested that the brochure be reviewed annually along with the Response Plan. Commission Award Mary Brindle presented a Press Release and Nomination Form for a new Human Rights and Relations Award, which could be an opportunity for Martin Luther King Day.. Questions raised were: 1) Does the Commission want to do this award? 2) Would. this award be in honor of Tom Oye? It was noted that the Commission would receive publicity from this award, as it would go before many organizations. The concept of this award will be considered with the Commission's work plan at the January meeting. Request for Human Services Funding Mary Brindle presented the funding application with the proposed changes. The Commission will study it to prepare for discussion at the January meeting. Nominating Committee Amy Frankfurt reported on the process developed for the Nominating Committee to secure a slate for leadership of the Commission. Each one will call selected Commissioners to find out their vision for the next two years, the role they see for themselves, and their consideration of a leadership position on the Commission. A slate will be presented at the January Commission meeting. Affordable Housing Task Force Sharon Ming reported that the Edina Housing Initiative is communicating with the City Council regarding land use of the Valley View/Wooddale property. This Initiative dovetails with the Task Force, and a shared issue is the developer's commitment for affordable housing and its sustainability. The Task Force is meeting twice a month at City Hall with Carol Mork of the Housing Initiative on board. Human Rights Day and Forum Idelle Longman, Carol Carmichiel and Jim Campbell attended the Minnesota Department of Human Rights 21st Annual Conference in St. Paul on December 3'd. The keynote speaker was Morris Dees who has successfully tracked and fought domestic terrorists for 20 years as the chief trial counsel for the Southern Poverty Law Center. Youth Appointment Jennifer Watkins, a junior at Edina High School, submitted an application for consideration of a student appointment to the Commission. As the Bylaws indicate, the Commission can make this appointment, and the student would be a non -voting member. Carol Carmichiel seconded Sharon Ming's motion to invite Jennifer to join the Commission; the motion carried. Wayne Prochniak will extend the invitation to her. Diversity Dialogues Carol Carmichiel discussed the creation of diversity dialogues in Edina in 2005 and how an interest could be generated. The School District's Diversity Council is still active and a means for collaboration in this effort, and the Commission's representation remains important. Adiournment There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:20 PM. Respectfully submitted, 7�' Bets Flatenhair Y Edina Human Rights & Relations Commission BF /sh l' r X= \_rJ \ \. t , % i� •,tr 06� -O���e - �i stir r � F x \ \. t , % Say r IC71 r ° rIV6 /v eh -N�� A r S � 4 �Ei k ; �OV Stcec4s so Paop�e coy S4* ocovrd. o�i�► Vift "ou�do�Y�o� �' P n�n h) 4,ov.M,,,�p.� il- WefeljF ibryou WE :�U�It}0� 'f� $C�'100�. pAC2R�S40�a� Q( � �,urY,,�a*oarcoua�t- Nang o�- wt� US . — oUr LAJV sF 6na SAWO up 1, r Z 0 U U Z U w a Company news Harrisburg, Pa. -based GeoDecisions has acquired St. Louis -based Kinetic Solutions. Youngstown, Ohio -based Utility Land has merged with Kansas City, Mo. -based TranSystems. White Plains, N.Y. -based Malcolm Pirnie has acquired Aurora, Colo. - based Rick Giardina & Associates. Denver -based Gates has acquired Salem, N.H. -based Mectrol's polyurethane power transmission and motion control belt busi- ness. The new company is named Gates Mectrol. Cumberland, Maine. based Corporate Fleet Leasing has acquired Uniondale, N.Y. -based American Vehicle Funding. Omaha, Neb. -based HDR has acquired Portland, Ore. - based LCA Town Planning & Architecture. Farmingdale, N.Y. - based Admit Computer Services has acquired the Court Management Software Branch of Ottawa, Canada -based Harris Computer Systems. Columbia, Md. -based Telvent GIT, an IT services provider, has acquired majority equity in Fort Collins, Colo. -based Miner & Miner, a GIS software developer. 18 February 2005 Want some on r - dina, Minn., owns a monopoly on its local liquor stores. Vernon, Conn., owns a textile mill. Phoenix is financing the construction of a 1,000 -room hotel. Municipal leaders, especially those under pres- sure from their constituents to show an improvement in the local economy, often see enterprise operations as rev- enue builders. While the desert climate and excellent golf courses around metro- Phoenix are a draw to out- of- towners, Community and Economic Development Director Pat Grady says the city has been underserved in the hotel market for decades. After lob- bying unsuccessfully for an investor to finance a 1,000 - room hotel, and after losing a court battle to enter into a public - private partnership, the city council voted to pub- licly finance the $350 million hotel itself. The new building fries with ,j shored -up a $600 million city investment in an adjacent convention center expansion project that hinged on an adequate supply of down- town hotel accommodations. Grady says Sacramento, Austin and Kansas City all have embarked on similar projects. However, Satya Thallam, a fiscal policy analyst More> The second edition of "Roots to Power: A Manual for Grassroots Orga nizing" by Lee Staples, clinical professor at Boston University School of Social Work, is a guide that shows regular folks how to organize in pursuit of collective action. The how -to manual outlines tactics, strategies, methods and techniques for community leaders to follow when setting goals, selecting issues, campaigning for those issues, - 1 recruiting members, lobbying politicians and communicating with the media. Staples has been actively engaged in grassroots community organizing since the 196Os, and the book draws heavily on his experiences. Published by Praeger, the book is available at local bookstores or online at www.praeger.com in trade paper for $24 and hardcover for $97.95.. W www.americancityandcounty.com Z Ito, all .ilar n, a ire> city 1 Z4 f1 om CITY BUSINESS Continued> at the Goldwater Institute, a Phoenix -based public policy research organization, does not support municipalities dabbling in traditionally pri- vate enterprise. "[Big cities] have gone so far outside their core functions and what they do best. A city council should not circumvent the market, which is an efficient way of says Town Administrator Larry Shaffer. In Vernon's case, that meant taking possession of the mill property and form- ing a not - for -profit entity that would lease the mill to a private manufacturer. "The town is a risk - adverse organi- zation," Shaffer says. "Simply getting into a business to raise revenue isn't enough. f! "The town is a risk adverse g erse organization Sim I etting into imply raise revenue isn t enough. allocating resources," he says. Empty coffers and unem- ployment concerns, however, often make it difficult for a local government to turn a blind eye. The Rockville sec- tion of Vernon, once world - renowned for producing fine wool cloth, fell into decline decades ago when most of its mills closed. "When [the Amerbelle Textiles Mill owner] notified us they were going to dissolve the busi- ness and vacate the prem- ises, thereby eliminating 117 badly needed jobs, we had no choice but to get involved," At minimum, you must be able to measure and speak to public benefit. The mill situ- ation was highly unusual for us, but ultimately it met our core business goals: to pre- serve and create additional jobs, stabilize the tax base and eliminate blight." I/- In Edina, where the city council refers to its residents as "customers" as well as taxpayers, city enterprises are old hat. The city holds a monopoly on liquor stores, which generate a cool million dollars annually, help lower taxes and subsidize an art center. "Historically, [the city running private businesses] hasn't been a problem," says Eric Anderson, Edina's assis- tant city manager. Multiple golf courses and an aquatic center are other examples of the city's busi- nesses created to improve the quality of life in the commu- nity. For each of its ventures, however, the city prepares a well - researched business plan complete with competitive, environmental and market- ing analyses. "I think it is becom- ing more commonplace as cities struggle to derive rev- enues from non - traditional sources," says Christopher Hoene, research manager for the Municipalities in Transi- tion Program at the Washing- ton -based National League of Cities. "Given voter antipa- thy toward most taxes and that state and federal funding for city programs isn't likely to increase anytime soon ... cities are having to try and be more entrepreneurial about their activities." And for some local gov- ernments, private business is an acceptable alternative to super- sizing taxes. Ic — Annie Gentile is a Vernon, Conn. -based freelance auriter. & 6X: Rather than participate in these formalities, I'd rather wait and see who the real governor is. ff — Washington Sen. Dan Sweck, R- Rochester, who skipped the swearing -in ceremony of the state's 22nd governor, Democrat Christine Gregoire, on Jan. 12, 2005. The election was made more bitter by the 129 -vote difference between Gregoire and her opponent, Republican Dino Rossi. Water water everywhere Park Hills, Mo., has con- tracted with St. Louis -based engineering firm Horner & Shifrin to analyze its water distribution system and define improvements. Richmond, Calif., has expanded its wastewater services contract with Houston -based Veolia Water to manage the city - owned stormwater collection systems. Purissima Hills and Sky- line County, Calif., Water Districts have retained Pleasanton, Calif. -based Pakpour Consulting to develop and maintain their hydraulic distribution model, engineering drawings, and standard plans and specifications. Aberdeen, Md., has contracted with Schaum- burg, III. -based USFilter to retrofit its Aberdeen Proving Grounds Wastewater Treat- ment Plant. The Olivenhain Munici- pal Water District and San Diego Water Department have signed an agreement to provide recycled water to area golf courses in the San Dieguito Valley. San Francisco has contracted with Huntsville, Ala. -based ADS Environ- mental Services to install and operate temporary flow meters and to collect flow information for the city's combined sewer system. February 2005 19 INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 273 Regular Meeting, February 14, 2005 Room 349, Edina Community Center AGENDA Determination of Quorum and Call to Order Approval of Minutes of Special Meeting of January 18, 2005 Approval of Minutes of Special Meeting of January 18, 2005 Approval of Minutes of Meeting of January 24, 2005 HEARINGS OF INDIVIDUALS, DELEGATIONS, AND PRESENTATION'OF PETITIONS FROM THE PUBLIC REGARDING ITEMS BEFORE THE BOARD FOR ACTION OR ON ANY OTHER ISSUE ( *SEE ATTACHED DETAIL) ➢ Brain- Friendly Activities at Concord — 5th Grade Students Mimi Ansel, Caitlin Boardson, Jack McGarry, Tucker O'Neil, Henry Ross, and Libby Shirley; and Teachers Stephanie Blachowiak and Colin Friden, Concord Elementary School REPORT ➢ Superintendent's Objectives — Dr. Kenneth Dragseth ACTION 328 2005 -2006 BRRRG Actions 329 Personnel Recommendations 330 Expenditures Payable on February 14, 2005, appended 331 Class Size Guidelines for Resident and Nonresident Students, 2005 -2006 : WRY: iL l 332 Community Education Services Personnel Recommendations 333 Commendation of Jay Willemssen, the Business Office Staff, Dr. Kenneth Dragseth, and the Edina School Board 334 Commendation of Edina High School AP French Literature Students and Teacher Dr. Barbara Anderson 335 Commendation of Amy Heinzerling, Edina High School 2004 Graduate 336 Commendation of Kevin Friede, Grade 12 337 Gift from Concord Elementary School PTO 338 Gift from Countryside Elementary School PTO 339 Gift from Anonymous Donor 564 -566 567 -569 570 571 -572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 563 340 Gifts from Creek Valley Elementary School PTA 581 341 Gift from Highlands Elementary School PTA 582 342 Gift from Dr. Marc and Mrs. Kay Conterato 583 343 Gift from Steve and Ann Burbidge 584 344 Gift from Granite Construction 585 345 Gifts from TCF.National Bank 586 346 Gift from Wells Fargo 587 INFORMATION 347 Bond Fund Expenditures Payable on February 4, 2005 588 -589 348 Enrollment as of January 28, 2005 590 349 Edina High School Softball Team Trip to Orlando 591 350 Edina High School Thespian Tour to New York City 592 351 Recognition of Staff 593 Adjournment *Persons who wish to address the Board are requested to complete and submit an appropriate form to the Board Secretary prior to the designated hearing time. When recognized, each individual shall identify himself /herself and the group represented, if any. He /She shall then state the reason for addressing the Board and shall be limited in time at the discretion of the Board Chair. Individual employees of the School District or representatives of employee organizations shall have utilized administrative procedures before making a request to address the Board. 595 INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 273 Regular Meeting, February 28, 2005 Room 349, Edina Community Center AGENDA Determination of Quorum and Call to Order Approval of Minutes of Meeting of February 14, 2005 HEARINGS OF INDIVIDUALS, DELEGATIONS, AND PRESENTATION OF PETIT FROM THE PUBLIC REGARDING ITEMS BEFOI ANY OTHER ISSUE ( *SEE ATTACHED DETAIL) PRESENTATION ➢ Early Childhood Special Education: Children, Families, and Staff — Kathryn Hagen, Coordinator; and Jan Fritze, Cheryl Guy, Sara Lakso, Deb Reding, Megan Schneider, and Kate Strand, Early Childhood Special Education Staff REPORTS ➢ Special Services Penny Kodrich, Director, and Berit Peterson, Health Services Coordinator" ➢ CBOC and ECC Design Development — Peyton Robb, Board of Education, and Ted Rozeboom, Rozeboom Miller Architects ➢ K -Plus Update — Dr. Chace Anderson, Assistant Superintendent, and Dr. Jenni Norlin- Weaver, Director of Teaching & Learning ACTION 352 Personnel Recommendations 596 -601 353 Expenditures Payable on February 28, 2005, appended 602 354 Consulting Services for the District's Cabling Infrastructure 603 355 Consultant for- Implementing Security System 604 J CONSENT 356 Gifts from Concord Elementary School PTO 605, 357 Gift from Dr. Thomas Martens 606 358 Gift from Target Stores 607 359 Gift from the Edina Basketball Association 608 INFORMATION 360 Bond Fund Expenditures Payable on February 17, 2005 609 -610 361 Highlands Grades 4/5 Baker Park Near Wilderness Trip 611 362 Recognition of Staff 612 Adjournment *Persons who wish to address the Board are requested to complete and submit an appropriate form to the Board Secretary prior to the designated hearing time. When recognized, each individual shall identify himself /herself and the group represented, if any. He /She shall then state the reason for addressing the Board and shall be limited in time at the discretion of the Board Chair. Individual employees of the School District or representatives . of employee organizations shall, have utilized administrative procedures before making a request to address the Board. L-J-h a -v YY\ q5 clq�s -T-. \0,, � m u�. VU w � Francis :an Friars of the Atonement — Graymoor A Note Prom: Raymond E. O'Connell 4612 Valley View Rd. Edina, MN 55424 L-J-h a -v YY\ q5 clq�s -T-. \0,, � m u�. VU w � Francis :an Friars of the Atonement — Graymoor February 25, 2005 James Hovland Scot Housh Linda Mascia Ann Swenson City of Edina 4801 West 50`h Street Edina, MN 55424 RE: Application of Ralph Overholt for appointment to Edina City Council Dear Mayor & Council Members: I support the application of Ralph Overholt for appointment to Edina City Council because: - He represent Edina through his connection with our church, school, civic and athletic institutions. - He will be a positive force for the City by finding opportunities instead of problems. - Finally, he will help insure we get satisfaction for our government services by listening and advocating on our behalf. Thank you for your support, time and courtesy. Si9fc(#ly, Spencer, D.D.S. 18 February 2005 Edina Ambulance 4801 West Fiftieth Street Edina, Minnesota 55424 Reference: Patient # 050244 — Call Number 050528 — Dorothy Eike Patient Gentlemen: We would like to thank you for the quality service you performed when you took my wife from Dr. Carlson's (Allina Clinic) office to Abbott on 02/10/05. Enclosed are a copy of your invoice and an executed copy of your authorization ve form. Thank you, Jack Eike 5713 Vernon Avenue South Edina, Minnesota 55436 2238 Telephone: 952 9291022 — ro ep ks ,r X&*rk 4 MAR -01 -2005 12:06 CITY CLERK CITY OF ST, LOUIS PARK February 28, 2005 Mr. Gordon Hughes, City Manager City of Edina 4801 W. 50" St. Edina MN 55424 SUBJECT: City of Edina Transportation Commission Policy Dear Mr. Hughes: 952 924 2170 P.02 Thank you very much for meeting with St. Louis Park city officials in January to discuss the draft Edina Transportation Commission Policy. As we were discussing the draft policy, it seemed to become clear to the group that traffic and transportation issues and concerns transcended neighborhood and municipal boundaries. As the City of Edina considers adopting the draft policy, the City of St. Louis Park respectfully requests that the policy consider the impacts of traffic related actions, impacts, and solutions on neighborhoods adjacent to but outside the municipal boundaries of Edina. As discussed during our meeting in January, St. Louis Park is willing to work in a similar fashion with Edina as we deal with traffic related issues. In fact, we would be more than happy to meet with City of Edina staff to discuss ways we could forge a partnership in the area of neighborhood traffic concerns and issues. again, I want to thank you for your time in meeting with us to discuss matters of interest relating to the City of Edina's Transportation Commission Policy. Tom HIrmeni City Manager cc: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director Mayor and City Council 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard St. Louis Park, Minnesota 55416 -2290 Phone: 952 - 924 -2500 Fax: 952- 924 -2170 Hearing Impaired: 952 - 924 -2518 Website: www.stlouispark.org Prinh J dry n'ruchel pupe,. Tonight you will hear arguments both pro and con regarding the policy. It really boils down to a few questions. 1. Is the policy consistent with Vision 20/20? 2. Does the policy lay out a process that can be applied to any neighborhood traffic issues? 3. Are projects evaluated relative to each other versus on an ad hoc basis? 4. Is the process fair? Does it provide objective standards to evaluate and prioritize projects? 5. Should the City make the decision on what tools can be used? 6. Does the process allow for input from streets that may see a change in traffic due to any traffic- related project? 7. Is there testing before implementation? 8. Does City Council make the final decision on any projects? 9. Does the policy focus on safety rather than driver convenience? At the end of the evening, if you make safety your priority and can answer yes to these questions, then I ask you to move forward on this issue and adopt this policy. Thank you. Kittv O'Dea What is the Edina Transportation Commission? The Edina Transportation Commission (ETC) was estab- lished 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, but not maintenance activities, of the City; to initiate, review and comment on plans to enhance mass transit or other transportation opportunities in the City; to evaluate methods for traffic calming and other speed and volume mitigation measures and to recommend their implementation where appropriate; and to review the findings of the Local Traffic Task Force and offer recommendations for implementa- tion. The eight members of the ETC represent all geographic areas of Edina. What is the policy? The Edina Transportation Commission Policy was developed as a supplement to the City of Edina Transportation Plan. The purpose of this policy is to guide the City in the identification and evaluation of traffic and transportation issues in the community. The policy was cre- ated to encourage public input and decisions that will be made on quantitative, qualitative and objective factors. What has changed in Edina and why is the policy needed? According to the Metropolitan Council's annual Twin Cities survey, traffic congestion is the top problem facing the region. Thirty -seven percent named traffic congestion the single -most important problem. Nearly everyone — 90 percent of those surveyed in 2004 -- think con- gestion has gotten worse in the past year. Congestion on the regional roadway system and the failure of that system to accommodate the continued growth in traffic volumes has created and exacerbated traf- fic volumes, speed and congestion on local streets. These deficien- cies are adversely affecting the quality of life in Edina. The policy sets the framework and procedure to address these issues to improve the local transportation system. How was the policy developed? The policy was drafted by the ETC, which is made up of representa- tives of all areas of Edina. However, all residents had a hand in shap- ing the policy in that the public was encouraged to comment on its draft. After an open house was held in December 2004 to gather more opinions from the public, the ETC revised the draft policy based on comments received and recommended it to the City Council for approval. What will happen if the City Council approves the policy? By adopting the Transportation Commission Policy, the City Council will establish the guidelines by which decisions regarding transportation facilities are made in Edina. It will be revised as necessary to respond to changing conditions and needs, both locally and regionally. The policy will be circulated widely so the residents and the business community are aware of the opportunities and limitations that the policy provides, thus enabling all interested parties to voice their concerns and issues with full knowledge. Does the policy identify and address specific nieghborhoods? No. The policy was not created with a specific neighborhood in mind. Rather, the policy creates a forum to address local traffic congestion, volume and speed issues, as well as broader regional and local trans- portation goals. Based on the guidance of City ordinances and the proposed policy, the ETC will evaluate these issues and recommend mitigation measures and solutions to the City Council. Traffic safety issues such as roadway signing, crosswalks, striping and pedestrian issues will continue to be managed by the City Engineering staff. What is a Neighborhood Transportation Management Plan? Neighborhood Traffic Management Plans include local, collector and arterial street studies and neighborhood area studies. These studies would be conducted by the City Engineering Department. These plans are required to respond to traffic problems that are symptomatic of wider problems, such as congestion or lack of capacity on the arte- rial system. Does the policy only address traffic calming? Although the policy consists of a considerable and specific Neighborhood Transportation Management Plan (NTMP) process, the policy also outlines an action plan that sets up a strategy to address both short-term and long -term goals and the steps necessary to implement the specific transportation policies for local roadways. How will those who live or own businesses in an area where traf- fic management is proposed be notified? The policy lays out a procedure that ensures public representation to those directly and indirectly impacted by potential traffic calming measures. The policy outlines several measures of public involve- ment. The City will notify those most affected with a mailed notice. In addition, public notices are placed in the City's legal publication, the Edina Sun - Current, and posted on the City's website. All meetings of the ETC and City Council are open to the public. Interested residents and business owners are encouraged to share their opinions at those meetings or in advance. za Recycled Paper 10% Post - Consumer Fiber GEOFF MICHEL Assistant Minority Leader Senator — District 41 133 State Office Building 100 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd. Saint Paul, MN 55155 -1206. Phone: (651) 296 -6238 Fax: (651) 296 -5241 E -Mail: sen.geoff.michel@senate.mn March 1, 2005 TO: Mayor Jim Hovland Edina City Council Edina Residents FR: State Senator Geoff Michel RE: Transportation Update from the State Capitol cli�� h;i _ €ar ii �i:ar, i r d_u_g_�itI ,�i �Nfie.rrrlfY1fXI fIf1_r.1III.F Senate State of Minnesota Attached is a summary of the "Minnesota Moves" transportation funding package that I am sponsoring in the Senate. This is one of six substantive proposals that have been introduced this year in the legislature. The Minnesota Moves package was developed by the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce and is supported by our local Edina Chamber. This is a comprehensive plan that addresses highway and transit needs throughout the state. Projects that impact Edina include the addition of two lanes on Hwy 100 between 36th Street and Cedar Lake Road; the addition of a high- occupancy vehicle /transit lane on I -35W from 46th Street to I -94; and the reconstruction of the intersection of I -494 and I- 35W. I would appreciate your feedback and counsel. You can reach me at (651)296 -6238 or via -e-mail to sen.geoff michel(a senate.mn Edina • West Bloomington COMMITTEES: Commerce Committee • Education Policy Committee • Pension Commission State Government Budget Committee t . Minnesota Moves FASTER: Summary A long -term transportation funding plan developed by the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce The Problem Minnesotans are stalled in traffic — literally. The Urban Mobility Report, released in September 2004, confirmed what Minnesotans know firsthand. Twin Cities motorists waste more time sitting in traffic than in other cities of similar size, according to a review of traffic trends in 85 urban areas across the nation. In 1982, Twin Cities travelers spent an average of three hours per year waiting in traffic. Today, the wait is 42 hours. In the metro area alone, motorists are wasting 93,000 gallons of fuel. Congestion, especially during rush hour, impedes the movement of people and goods. The delays have a direct impact on the state's economy. Minnesota Moves is a proposal of the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce and reflects a business vision for the future of transportation. The plan was adopted by the Minnesota Chamber Board of Directors in December 2004. The proposal will be presented to the 2005 Legislature. The economic vitality of all Minnesotans depends on an integrated and well - funded transportation/transit network. Minnesota Moves proposes to accomplish this by targeting priority projects across the state. Transportation infrastructure is at a crossroads. Stop -gap measures through bonding and other avenues have addressed pressing needs, but policy - makers have stalled for nearly two decades on enacting significant and stable funding for the system. Minnesota's fuel tax — a user fee— was last increased in 1988. Funding is stagnant, but transportation and transit needs are not sitting idle. The impact. is widespread in metropolitan and rural areas spanning from reduced economic productivity to more injuries and fatalities. For example, Minnesota has the nation's second fastest growing congestion rate; and 70 percent of the state's fatal crashes occur in Greater Minnesota. Doing nothing will threaten the competitiveness of the state. State officials predict another 635,000 people and 312,000 jobs between 2000 and 2025 in the five -state region. The Department of Transportation estimates the state needs 99 new lane miles per year to keep pace with demand. Minnesota Chamber of Commerce Jan. 26, 2005 The Principles Minnesota Moves was developed under the notion that a funding -only solution isn't working. This plan also proposes to let voters know what they are buying by linking new revenues with specific projects. Minnesota Moves strategically invests new resources around the acronym FASTER and addresses highway, transit, rail, air and port. On average, 54 percent of the new money is targeted for state highways (29 percent for metro, 25 percent for Greater Minnesota), 25 percent for transit, 18 percent for local roads and 3 percent for air /port/rail. FASTER represents: Freeways in the metropolitan area. Complete the existing beltway to be at least three continuous lanes and removal of bottlenecks. Support the FAST lanes concept for expansion in viable corridors. Alternatives: Invest in nonhighway modes of travel, including air service at regional trade centers and improvements to rail and ports. State and local roads: Expand and maintain interregional corridors and the 10 -ton road network. Accelerate bridge replacements. Transit: Develop an integrated Twin Cities transit network. Invest in Greater Minnesota transit systems. Economic development: Enhance planning and program delivery at all government levels to emphasize the relationship between transportation and job creation. Revenue: Establish efficiency benchmarks and clear accountability for program operations. Invest an additional $600 to $750 million annually for the next 15 years. Parameters of plan Minnesota's transportation needs are estimated at $1.1 billion annually, but taxpayers cannot realistically absorb such a permanent increase in the state budget. Minnesota Moves proposes to inject about $6 billion over 10 years into major transportation and transit projects. After that, most new revenues will be available for use as desired by their oversight unit of government. Putting money toward these priority concerns also ensures that other work in the Department of Transportation long -range plans — reconstruction and construction — will remain on schedule. Minnesota Chamber of Commerce Jan. 26, 2005 Minnesota Moves does not present itself as a cure -all, but rather is an accelerated funding plan to address priority projects that will make a difference in people's lives and the state's economy. Parameters of the plan — i.e. the 5 -cent fuel -tax increase — are an acknowledgement that there are limits as to what legislators and the public will support. By voting "yes" on a constitutional amendment, Minnesotans will be committing money and holding the Department of Transportation accountable to completing specific projects. The list was compiled in conjunction with long -range plans of the Department of Transportation and Metropolitan Council. (Lists and maps of proposed projects are attached.) Paying for the plan Minnesota Moves strikes a balance between increasing money and achieving greater efficiency in transportation operations. Proposed funding will be predictable and balanced among statewide needs. The new transportation money comes from use -based taxes and/or fees. (Revenue sources are spelled out in an accompanying chart.). Citizens are inherently skeptical of government proposals to spend more money without accompanying accountability. Minnesota Moves emphasizes the need to reduce costs. Reforms are recommended to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of state transportation operations and policies with a targeted annual savings of $60 million. (Efficiencies are spelled out on an accompanying sheet.) Furthermore, citizens will have final say by a vote in the 2006 general election. Projects and funding will be spelled out in a proposed amendment to the Minnesota Constitution and enabling legislation. The Players Minnesota Moves is a business vision for the state's transportation needs. The premise is simple: Investment in transportation/transit will stimulate the economy. The plan is a culmination of nearly a year of study with meetings conducted across the state. Growing support is broad -based throughout metropolitan and rural Minnesota. The draft plan was sent out less than two weeks ago, and already a number of organizations have signed on in support. The Chamber anticipates this list will grow substantially in the coming days. Minnesota Chamber of Commerce Jan. 26, 2005 Associations Central Corridor Partnership Metropolitan Coalition of Chambers Minneapolis Downtown Council Minnesota Shopping Center Association National Association of Industrial and Office Properties Chambers of Commerce Anoka Area Chamber of Commerce Cloquet/Carlton County Chamber of Commerce Edina Chamber of Commerce Elk River Area Chamber of Commerce Chamber of Commerce of Fargo Moorhead International Falls Area Chamber of Commerce Marshall Area Chamber of Commerce Minneapolis Downtown Council Minneapolis Regional Chamber of Commerce Northern Dakota County Chambers of Commerce Red Wing Area Chamber of Commerce Saint Cloud Area Chamber of Commerce Saint Paul Area Chamber of Commerce Saint Peter Chamber of Commerce Twin Cities North Chamber of Commerce TwinWest Chamber of Commerce Willmar Area Chamber of Commerce Minnesota Chamber of Commerce Jan. 26, 2005 I f 1 Associations Central Corridor Partnership Metropolitan Coalition of Chambers Minneapolis Downtown Council Minnesota Shopping Center Association National Association of Industrial and Office Properties Chambers of Commerce Anoka Area Chamber of Commerce Cloquet/Carlton County Chamber of Commerce Edina Chamber of Commerce Elk River Area Chamber of Commerce Chamber of Commerce of Fargo Moorhead International Falls Area Chamber of Commerce Marshall Area Chamber of Commerce Minneapolis Downtown Council Minneapolis Regional Chamber of Commerce Northern Dakota County Chambers of Commerce Red Wing Area Chamber of Commerce Saint Cloud Area Chamber of Commerce Saint Paul Area Chamber of Commerce Saint Peter Chamber of Commerce Twin Cities North Chamber of Commerce TwinWest Chamber of Commerce Willmar Area Chamber of Commerce Minnesota Chamber of Commerce Jan. 26, 2005 Minnesota Moves FASTER: Metro Highway Projects FY2008- FY2012 - FY2013- FY2017 MnDOT FY08 -FY23 Minnesota Chamber of Commerce Jan. 26, 2005 2005 Transportation Funding Proposals FUNDING Minnesota Transportation Association of Governor Senator Senator SOURCES Moves Alliance MN Counties Pawlenty's Day's Murphy/ Starts Jan. 2007 Starts in 2005 Starts in 2005 Proposal, Proposal Senator (sales tax in 2006) (sales tax in Starts June Starts in Ourada Starts 2006 ) 2007 2005 in 2005/2007 Form of Proposal Constitutional Sales tax Sales tax MVST NO MVST Amend. - 2006 referendum — referendum — Constitutional Constitutional 2005 2005 Amend. — Amend. — 2006. 2006 Sales tax referendum - 2005. Motor Fuels Tax 5 -cents 6 -cents I' year. 5 -cents 0 year, NO 5 cents 10 cents phased Increase 6 -cents 2 °d year. 5 -cents 2nd year in over 3 yrs. License Tab Fee NO YES - $170M NO NO NO YES - $140m Increase increase increase '/2 cent Sales Tag NO YES YES NO NO YES in Metro Area Other Regional NO YES '/2 -cent YES '/2 -cent NO NO NO Sales Taxes authorized in authorized in other regions. other regions. Indexing Motor NO YES YES NO NO YES Fuels Tax TH Bonds YES- $150M/yr. YES - $ l OOM/yr. Yes - $100M/yr. YES - NO Yes - $100 - for 5 years for 10 years for 10 years. $450m/yr. for $200m yr. for 10 years 10 GO Bonds YES - $65M/yr. YES - $181M/yr. YES - $60M/yr. NO NO NO for 10 years Wheelage Tax NO YES - remove YES - remove NO NO NO current $5 cap. current $5 cap. Street Utility Fee NO YES - on trip NO NO NO NO generation Developer Fees NO NO Yes NO NO NO FAST Lanes YES - $201V/yr. YES - $251v/yr. NO YES — 1 -2 NO NO or 1-2-projects over 10 years. projects over over 10 years 10 years Efficiencies $60M/yr. for 10 NO $45M annually NO NO NO ears Metro Regional NO YES - Increase NO NO NO NO Bonds bond authority from $32M to $54M Federal Funds $160Wyr. NO $125M annually Uses '/2 new NO NO captured for list federal of projects for funding for 10 yrs. debt service. Transfer YES -80% YES NO YES — 100% Surcharge on Yes — 100% Additional MVST $125 MVST new vehicles, $75 used vehicles. Regional Local Match Increase levy Increase levy NO NO NO property tax levy authority by authority by — Regional Rail $32m. $20m. Authorities Project Specific YES NO NO NO NO NO TOTALS $6B over 10 $1.274B /yr. $1.01131yr. $7.15 billion $260m/yr. + $1.0 - $1.2B /yr. ears over 10 years TIF CO 2 OFFICE OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY ATTORNEY AMY KLOBUCHAR COUNTY ATTORNEY February 25, 2005 Mayor James Hovland 4801 W. 50th St. Edina, MN 55424 -1394 Dear Mayor Hovland: I'm pleased to send you the Year 2004 Annual Report and Year 2005 Goals for the Hennepin County Attorney's Office. These two publications offer detailed information about our work during the past year and our plans for the current year. The mission of the County Attorney's Office encompasses a wide range of services both for criminal prosecution and for legal counsel to Hennepin County government. As County Attorney, I'm very focused on meeting our many responsibilities and promoting accountability by working in the most cost - effective manner and keeping our priorities clear. For example, we continue to focus on the aggressive prosecution of violent and career criminals. We're also pursuing civil commitments against predatory sex offenders who remain a serious danger to the community. We also continue to take on complex financial crime cases — including investment swindles, embezzlements, tax evasion, financial fraud against seniors and identity theft. Whether someone commits a crime with a crowbar or a computer, they must be held equally accountable to the law. We remain committed to building stronger, closer connections with our communities and schools — with our award - winning community prosecution initiative as well as our safe schools and truancy intervention efforts. Preventing crime is also a community-wide priority. Minnesotans have always believed that the best way to fight crime is not only to get tough with criminals, but to invest in kids. We need to help kids stay out of trouble and succeed in life —for the sake of the individual child as well as for our own future prosperity and public safety. A growing volume of economic research shows that it's a very smart investment which returns substantial benefits for all of us. All of our work at the County Attorney's Office is about helping to make our communities even better, safer places for everyone to live and work. I'm proud of what our lawyers and staff do every day to be responsive to the needs of the local communities we serve, producing the very best results and the very best value for the public dollars entrusted to us. I hope you'll find these two enclosed publications to be informative. Please don't hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, AftZ �I AMY KLOBUCHAR Hennepin County Attorney C -2000 GOVERNMENT CENTER 300 SOUTH SIXTH STREET MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55487 PHONE: 612-348-5550 www.hennepinattorney.org HENNEPIN COUNTY IS AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 88�0-9Z8-Z56 IL' a01M oisnS HeO oseold `uO'IewJOJui WOw JOJ -aolueo Al!unwwoo pjoijgoi�j oql ao HeH 40 euip3 le oouenpe ui ao coop eqj le ggejieny s}o�oil g$ 'S '3Ad 131HHVH IDOL Wn121011and 700HJ5 HD1H anuic i 'W'd L "Wed f SOOZ 'ZI H3HVW 'AVGHnldS m 0 ea731114318 aNa VNla3 '31 HIVdd N3a3 'NOIDNIW0078 WOMl S311171OVSla 1nOH11M aNd H11M SH013V Afl 33NVWH0dHJd 33S -ISnW V A MUSICAL ABOUT DREAMS COMING TRUE IN UNEXPECTED WAYS! Adaptive Recaeation & Learning Exchange algissod uaaq anvy jou prnom uogdnpoid siyl 'dray gdgi moyl +M 'siouop atvaud puv 8umi7 luapuadapul p!y 01 a.»nosag uoyvjjodsuos,L 'swvl8ord y.)vdgno puv 8uigj!l splm%P3 19 'adntvlsY8a7 v�osauutn ay! nq uoyvudoddv uv puv uoyvpungd ty8iuwly ayt wojfjuv18 v vwolfl!dunoj vjdV jvui8ay uvpjododla`y 'uoyvpungg ladoy,) jtgj -owayy 8u.trlauS mog 'uol8ulwoolg fo uoyvpunod uoyvdnP3 'gnlj Cmoy uvgp3 uoyvpunof .u!unwwo j vu!P3 'uoyvpuno3 ainvjd uaP3 5fng isag nq papao.,d spud aq ijvd w ajq!gsod apvw st sauy+gvsy ypm aldoad Hof ,fireyav s LL J4,1S.1110I1 Nl ZDA21I120Q 96ue43x3 fiuiweeI R uoiieemH amidepd d. F9 f� ►t • f- Good Evening, We are fortunate to have some of our actors with us tonight to acknowledge "The Perfect Show" proclamation. The actors will share the words I have typed below. I am copying the "script" for all of you in case you have a difficult time understanding any of them. Thank you, Susie Miller > Andy: What do you get when you mix 43 adults of all abilities Mike: 6 high school students, 2 energetic directors, Ellen: dozens of volunteers and fabulous music? All: THE PERFECT SHOW Andy: Please join us Mike: at Richfield High School Ellen: on March 12 at 3pm or 7pm Andy: And It is only $5 All: Thank you!