Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2021-03-02 City Council Meeting Packet
Agenda City Council Meeting City of Edina, Minnesota VIRTUAL MEETING Tuesday, March 2, 2021 7:00 PM Watch the meeting on cable TV or at EdinaMN.gov/LiveMeetings or Facebook.com/EdinaMN. To participate in Community Comment and Public Hearing: Call 800-374-0221. Enter Conference ID 1074418. Give the operator your name, street address and telephone number. Press *1 on your telephone keypad when you would like to get in the queue to speak. A City sta7 member will introduce you when it is your turn. I.Call To Order II.Roll Call III.Pledge of Allegiance IV.Approval Of Meeting Agenda V.Community Comment During "Community Comment," the Mayor will invite residents to share issues or concerns that are not scheduled for a future public hearing. Items that are on tonight's agenda may not be addressed during Community Comment. Individuals must limit their comments to three minutes. The Mayor may limit the number of speakers on the same issue in the interest of time and topic. Individuals should not expect the Mayor or Council to respond to their comments tonight. The City Manager will respond to questions raised during Community Comments at the next meeting. A.City Manager's Response to Community Comments VI.Adoption Of Consent Agenda All agenda items listed on the Consent Agenda will be approved by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of items unless requested to be removed by a Council Member. If removed the item will be considered immediately following the adoption of the Consent Agenda. (Favorable rollcall vote of majority of Council Members present to approve, unless otherwise noted in consent item.) A.Approve Minutes: Work Session and Regular, Feb. 17, 2021 B.Approve Payment of Claims C.Request for Purchase: 2021 Chevy Tahoe Command Vehicle D.Request for Purchase: Two 2021 Ford Police Interceptor Explorers E.Request for Purchase: Two 2021 Ford F-150 Hybrid Pickups F.Resolution 2021-24: Authorizing Removal of a Levied Special Assessment G.Request for Purchase: SCADA Upgrade Phase II H.Request for Purchase: Public Works Carbon Monoxide & Nitrogen Dioxide Detection System Replacement I.Request for Purchase: Highway 62 Watermain Rehabilitation J.Request for Purchase: Design Services for Blake Road Reconstruction K.Request for Purchase: Residential Permit Review Support L.Approve TraBc Safety Report of January 26, 2021 M.Approve City Manager Employment Agreement N.Resolution No. 2021-26: Supporting Local Control for Local Elections O.Transportation Commission Appointment P.Approve 2021 Liquor License Renewals Q.Resolution No. 2021-27: Accepting Donations VII.Special Recognitions And Presentations A.COVID-19 Update B.Receive Street Funding Task Force Final Report and Recommendations VIII.Public Hearings During "Public Hearings," the Mayor will ask for public testimony after staE and/or applicants make their presentations. The following guidelines are in place to ensure an eBcient, fair, and respectful hearing; limit your testimony to three minutes and to the matter under consideration; the Mayor may modify times, as deemed necessary; avoid repeating remarks or points of view made by previous speakers. The use of signs, clapping, cheering or booing or any other form of verbal or nonverbal communication is not allowed. A.PUBLIC HEARING: Resolution 2021-14 Approving Proposed Application for 2021 Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program Funds and Authorizing Execution of Subgrantee Agreement B.PUBLIC HEARING: Resolution No. 2021-25 for a Conditional Use Permit with Variance Shepherd of the Hills Lutheran Church, 500 Blake Road South IX.Reports/Recommendations: (Favorable vote of majority of Council Members present to approve except where noted) A.Sketch Plan Review for 4404 Valley View Road X.Commission Correspondence (Minutes and Advisory Communication) A.Minutes: Transportation Commission, Jan. 21, 2021 B.Minutes: Human Rights & Relations Commission Jan. 26, 2021 XI.Aviation Noise Update XII.Mayor And Council Comments XIII.Manager's Comments A.Prep Memo for Mar. 2, 2021 City Council Work Session and Meeting XIV.Calendar of City Council Meetings and Events XV.Adjournment The City of Edina wants all residents to be comfortable being part of the public process. If you need assistance in the way of hearing ampliIcation, an interpreter, large-print documents or something else, please call 952-927-8861 72 hours in advance of the meeting. Date: March 2, 2021 Agenda Item #: V.A. To:Mayor and City Council Item Type: Other From:Sharon Allison, City Clerk Item Activity: Subject:City Manager's Response to Community Comments Information CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: None. INTRODUCTION: City Manager Neal will respond to questions asked at the previous council meeting. Date: March 2, 2021 Agenda Item #: VI.A. To:Mayor and City Council Item Type: Minutes From:Sharon Allison, City Clerk Item Activity: Subject:Approve Minutes: Work Session and Regular, Feb. 17, 2021 Action CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: Approve Minutes as presented. INTRODUCTION: ATTACHMENTS: Description Minutes: Draft Regular, Feb. 17 Minutes: Draft Work Session, Feb. 17 Page 1 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL VIRTUAL MEETING FEBRUARY 17, 2021 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Hovland called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and stated the meeting was being held remotely in compliance with Governor Walz’ Stay at Home Order then shared the procedure for public hearing and community comment. II. ROLLCALL Answering rollcall were Members Anderson, Jackson, Pierce, Staunton, Hovland. Absent: None. III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IV. MEETING AGENDA APPROVED AS PRESENTED Member Pierce made a motion, seconded by Member Anderson, to approve the meeting agenda as presented. Rollcall: Ayes: Anderson, Jackson, Pierce, Staunton, Hovland Motion carried. V. COMMUNITY COMMENT Roberta Castellano, 4854 France Avenue South, shared concerns regarding road reconstruction funding that included road classification by Residential Equivalency Unit and suggested a tier system similar to State of Minnesota that was tied to market value. She spoke about uniformity of reference and inquired about next steps. V.B. CITY MANAGER’S RESPONSE TO COMMUNITY COMMENTS No community comments were made at the last meeting. VI. CONSENT AGENDA ADOPTED AS AMENDED Member Staunton made a motion, seconded by Member Jackson, to approve the consent agenda as amended removing Items VI.L., Request for Purchase: Climate Action Plan Professional Services: VI.A. Approve minutes of the Special Meeting of January 30, 2021, Work Session and Regular Meetings of February 2, 2021 VI.B. Approve payment claims for Check Register Claims Pre-List dated February 5, 2021, totaling $587,175.11 and Check Register Claims Pre-List dated February 12, 2021, totaling $1,030,883.77 VI.C. Adopt Ordinance No. 2021-06; Setting Morningside Water Rates VI.D. Request for Purchase; awarding the bid to the recommended low bidder, Proposal for Public Work and Parks Maintenance Organizational Assessment, Novak Consulting Group, Inc., $51,000 VI.E. Request for Purchase; awarding the bid to the recommended low bidder, Proposal for Fire Chief Executive Search, Baker Tilly US, LLP, $23,500 VI.F. Request for Purchase; awarding the bid to the recommended low bidder, Minnesota Task Force One Replacement Rescue Airbags, MacQueen Emergency Group, $281,639 Minutes/Edina City Council/February 17, 2021 Page 2 VI.G. Request for Purchase; awarding the bid to the recommended low bidder, Target Carrier System for South Metro Public Safety Training Facility, Range Systems, Inc., $209,196 VI.H. Request for Purchase; awarding the bid to the recommended low bidder, 2021 Ford F150 Hybrid Pickup, Midway Ford, $39,870.92 VI.I. Request for Purchase; awarding the bid to the recommended low bidder, 2021 Ford Transit Van with Ecoboost Engine, Titan Machinery, Inc., $205,550 VI.J. Request for Purchase; awarding the bid to the recommended low bidder, Consulting Agreement for Improvement Project PW 20-003, SCADA Phase II, AE2S, $452,000 VI.K. Request for Purchase; awarding the bid to the recommended low bidder, Three-Year Home Energy Squad Contract, Center for Energy and Environment, $30,000 VI.L. Request for Purchase: Climate Action Plan Professional Services VI.M. Approve Encroachment Agreement at 5845 Oaklawn Avenue VI.N. Adopt Resolution No. 2021-19: Support Clean Cars Minnesota VI.O. Adopt Resolution No. 2021-20: To Support Better Building Standards in the State of Minnesota VI.P. Adopt Resolution No. 2021-22: City’s Policy of Prioritizing Flooding Issues VI.Q. Approve New On-Sale Wine and 3.2 On-Sale Beer Liquor License for Tamarind Clay Oven, Inc., dba Tamarind VI.R. Adopt Resolution No. 2021-23; Accepting Donations Rollcall: Ayes: Anderson, Jackson, Pierce, Staunton, Hovland Motion carried. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA: VI.L. REQUEST FOR PURCHASE: CLIMATE ACTION PLAN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, PALEBLUEDOT, LLC – AWARDED The Council stressed the importance of a climate action plan and asked for additional information regarding time period, communication plans, typical cost estimates, and the written proposal for review. Director of Engineering Millner explained community engagement included surveys, workshops, and youth engagement that led to an understanding of community values for integration. He then highlighted the vulnerability assessment regarding air pollution, greenhouse gas inventory, renewable energy, and actual climate action plan and actions to change the greenhouse gas curve. He spoke about implementation support and energy guides and said staff was excited to begin the project, then noted other firms were 4-5 times the cost. Mr. Millner said the goal was to complete the study by the end of 2021. He outlined how staff would use Better Together Edina and other meeting tools for input and how the proposed cost was in line with other communities. Member Staunton made a motion, seconded by Member Jackson, to approve the request for purchase, Climate Action Plan Professional Services, paleBLUEdot, LLC, $92,500. Rollcall: Ayes: Anderson, Jackson, Pierce, Staunton, Hovland Motion carried. VII. SPECIAL RECOGNITIONS AND PRESENTATIONS VII.A. FIRE CHIEF THANKS COUNCIL FOR SUPPORT The Council thanked Fire Chief Schmitz for his 38 years of public service and 25 years of service to Edina. Chief Schmitz shared the history of his service then expressed his gratitude to the Council and staff and stated it was his honor to serve the residents of Edina. VII.B. INTRODUCTION OF HANNA MADKOUR, PUBLIC ALLIES APPRENTICE Communications Director Bennerotte explained that Public Allies was a national social justice and equity program offered through AmeriCorps that had helped thousands of underrepresented young leaders serve our country, established successful pathways to careers, and brought communities together to work for the Minutes/Edina City Council/February 17, 2021 Page 3 common good. Public Allies Apprentice Madkour shared her background and excitement about working with the public as the City highlighted its inclusivity and said she appreciated the hands-on approach to city government. VIII. REPORTS/RECOMMENDATIONS VIII.A. CITY OBSERVANCES/DAYS OF SIGNIFICANCE – APPROVED Racial and Equity Coordinator Lee shared that with the Council's race and equity statement in mind, the Communications Department, in partnership with the Race and Equity Division, wanted to be more intentional in recognizing certain dates that celebrated the racial, cultural, and religious diversity in Edina. She said a list of dates had been created after feedback was received from staff groups, the Human Rights & Relations Commission, and the Communications Feedback Group. She stated that along with City holidays, the list included dates such as religious observances previously approved by the City Council. Ms. Madkour outlined ways the Council could recognize these city observances and days of significance in its communications through the City calendar, website, outdoor message board, and social media and noted the date list would be reviewed annually. Member Anderson made a motion, seconded by Member Pierce, to approve the list of Days of Significance for 2021, as amended to include Day of Remembrance. Rollcall: Ayes: Anderson, Jackson, Pierce, Staunton, Hovland Motion carried. VIII.B. 2021 BOARD AND COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS – APPROVED AS AMENDED Mr. Neal stated interviews had been conducted for 19 open Board and Commission seats. He spoke about how the process was different than previous years with a smaller selection committee who interviewed 36 applicants that included 14 alternates. The Council thanked all who applied and indicated it was impressed with the talented and dedicated residents who wanted to serve the City. The Council shared its appreciation for the format then asked more about the appointments to the Arts and Culture Commission. Mr. Neal explained the Arts and Culture Commission had one additional opening and staff recommended alternate Susan Johnson be appointed as a full member. Member Jackson made a motion, seconded by Member Staunton, to appoint new Board and Commission members. Rollcall: Ayes: Anderson, Jackson, Pierce, Staunton, Hovland Motion carried. VIII.C. PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT REPORT: LOCAL SPEED LIMIT EVALUATION – RECEIVED Transportation Planner Scipioni shared the public engagement report for local speed limit evaluation that included project timeline, participation level, public engagement participation, and summary. He said based on the public engagement, staff recommended the Council authorize staff to develop an implementation plan to reduce local speed limits citywide. He said generally the recommended speed limit was 25 mph with selected roads with higher traffic and regional significance at 30 mph. He outlined concerns shared during the process that included lack of public input, costs, enforcement, inconsistency with Minneapolis and St. Louis Park, and that some believed a more aggressive approach of 20 mph was not a priority at this time. The Council asked if lowering speed limits would impact exhaust emissions and if staff could share more about safety impacts of lowering speed limits. Mr. Scipioni said emissions benefits had not been explored but could. He shared data on the likelihood of injury reduction from a higher speed compared to a lower speed. Minutes/Edina City Council/February 17, 2021 Page 4 The Council asked about equity on roadways and suggested including examples of how this decreased speed limit was not a large impact to traveling time. Mr. Scipioni explained the differences between types of users that included pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists. Member Staunton made a motion, seconded by Member Jackson, to approve staff’s recommendation to implement uniform changes to local speed limits and authorize development of an implementation plan. Rollcall: Ayes: Anderson, Jackson, Pierce, Staunton, Hovland Motion carried. IX. COMMISSION CORRESPONDENCE (MINUTES AND ADVISORY COMMUNICATION) A. MINUTES: ARTS AND CULTURE COMMISSION, DECEMBER 17, 2020 B. MINUTES: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION, JANUARY 12, 2021 X. AVIATION NOISE UPDATE – None XI. MAYOR AND COUNCIL COMMENTS – Received XII. MANAGER’S COMMENTS – Received XIII. CALENDAR OF CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS AND EVENTS – Received XIV. ADJOURNMENT Member Jackson made a motion, seconded by Member Anderson, to adjourn the meeting at 8:39 p.m. Rollcall: Ayes: Anderson, Jackson, Pierce, Staunton, Hovland Motion carried. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Allison, City Clerk Minutes approved by Edina City Council, March 2, 2021. James B. Hovland, Mayor Video Copy of the February 17, 2021, meeting available. MINUTES OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION VIRTUAL MEETING WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2021 5:30 P.M. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Hovland called the meeting to order at 5:31 p.m. ROLL CALL Answering roll call were Members Anderson, Jackson, Pierce, Staunton, and Mayor Hovland. Staff in attendance: Scott Neal, City Manager; Lisa Schaefer, Assistant City Manager; MJ Lamon, Community Engagement Coordinator; Chad Millner, Engineering Director; Ryan Browning, IT Director; Don Uram, Finance Director; Stephanie Hawkinson, Affordable Housing Development Manager; Risi Karim, City Management Fellow; Jennifer Garske, Executive Assistant; and Sharon Allison, City Clerk. CITY’S USE OF TASK FORCES Manager Neal stated that staff was not expecting any action from Council on the use of task forces. He explained that they have been seeing more independent use of task forces that dissolve after serving their purpose and that staff would share feedback from people who have served on task forces, and from staff and residents. MJ Lamon, Community Engagement Coordinator, shared how Council’s strategic decisions, advisory groups perspective, and staff’s technical analysis supported each other. She explained that Edina had four advisory groups that were appointed by Council while some task forces were appointed by Council and the City Manager. Lamon said when forming a task force, it was important to select the correct public participation technique to get the desired outcome and using the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) model, Lamon said task forces participation goal would be to collaborate. She stated some ways that task forces could be used including soliciting diverse perspectives, input on complex topics, expertise in specific, and shared Edina’s types of advisory groups, their roles, and membership. Assistant City Manager Schaefer shared examples of what made task forces successful, what made them feel useful or not as useful, and challenges. City Council shared their experiences serving on task forces. CITY COUNCIL RETREAT TOPICS Assistant City Manager Schaefer stated that two days were scheduled for the retreat and one full day was dedicated to the budget work plan and process while half day was for topics that Council would like to discuss. The Council suggested several topics. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Hovland adjourned the meeting at 6:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ____________________________________________ Sharon Allison, City Clerk Minutes approved by the Edina City Council, March 2, 2021. ___________________________________________ James B. Hovland, Mayor Date: March 2, 2021 Agenda Item #: VI.B. To:Mayor and City Council Item Type: Claims From:Don Uram, Finance Director Item Activity: Subject:Approve Payment of Claims Action CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: Approve claims for payment: Check Register Claims Pre-List Dated 02.19.21 TOTAL $1,498,662.93 Check Register Claims Pre-List Dated 02.26.21 TOTAL $776,817.67 INTRODUCTION: Claims information for approval is attached. ATTACHMENTS: Description Check Register Claims Pre-List Dated 02.19.21 TOTAL $1,498,662.93 Check Register Claims Pre-List Dated 02.26.21 TOTAL $776,817.67 City of Edina, MN A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL Report generated: 02/18/2021 12:24User: LJeffersonProgram ID: apcshdsb Page 50 JOURNAL ENTRIES TO BE CREATED FUND SUB FUND DUE TO DUE FR 1000 General 171,994.302300 Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety 3,725.542600 Housing & Redvlpmt Authority 100,000.002600 Housing & Redvlpmt Authority 2,535.502600 Housing & Redvlpmt Authority 1,102.504000 Capital Projects 49,024.694200 Equipment Replacement 899.004400 PIR Capital Projects 69,114.125100 Art Center 57.485200 Braemar Golf Course 7,994.465200 Braemar Golf Course 824.005400 Edinborough Park 10,496.085500 Braemar Arena 4,355.495600 Braemar Field 297.525700 Centennial Lakes 6,154.785800 Liquor 321,208.305900 Utility Fund 65,471.825900 Utility Fund 503,119.495900 Utility Fund 36,466.476000 Risk Management 52,024.216100 Equipment Operations 43,591.226200 Information Technology 38,629.856300 Facilities Management 3,210.397100 PS Training Facility 1,357.147200 MN Task Force 1 5,008.589999 Pooled Cash Fund 1,498,662.93 TOTAL 1,498,662.93 1,498,662.93 ** END OF REPORT - Generated by Lonnia Jefferson ** City of Edina, MN A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL Report generated: 02/18/2021 12:24User: LJeffersonProgram ID: apcshdsb Page 1 CASH ACCOUNT: 9999 1012 Control BS - CashAP CHECK NO CHK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME INVOICE INV DATE PO CHECK RUN NET 20201209 02/19/2021 PRTD 151171 7TH STREET BEER COMPANY 1504 01/21/2021 20211902 444.00 CHECK 20201209 TOTAL: 444.00 20201210 02/19/2021 PRTD 141960 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES 1NN9-1L4L-TDHW 01/08/2021 20211902 2,059.69 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES 1RXF-NW4D-49VF 01/22/2021 20211902 369.99 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES 1WPQ-JJPN-D1HC 01/19/2021 20211902 -179.60 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES 19RV-7HYP-FYN6 01/19/2021 20211902 15.07 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES 1NR3-VNMR-QGNG 01/19/2021 20211902 65.97 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES 11RP-GR3X-JRD3 01/20/2021 20211902 73.20 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES 1QP4-WQGR-H7H1 01/20/2021 20211902 39.99 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES 1FMN-PMLW-P177 01/21/2021 20211902 12.99 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES 1KTT-DVTQ-TFP1 01/20/2021 20211902 338.25 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES 14F9-N9MN-36WQ 01/21/2021 20211902 899.00 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES 1HRJ-9KW9-41LG 01/21/2021 20211902 79.56 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES 14F9-N9MN-HCLK 01/21/2021 20211902 59.94 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES 1CPV-G94F-DPH1 01/21/2021 20211902 12.99 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES 14F9-N9MN-HVGD 01/21/2021 20211902 12.99 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES 14F9-N9MN-HVJ6 01/21/2021 20211902 12.99 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES 1XTF-MDL6-G3Q6 01/21/2021 20211902 12.99 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES 14F9-N9MN-HVQM 01/21/2021 20211902 12.99 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES 1CFP-R6TC-F1PV 01/21/2021 20211902 12.99 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES 1CFP-R6TC-JHP7 01/21/2021 20211902 89.97 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES 1CPV-G94F-NGYJ 01/22/2021 20211902 56.31 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES 1XTF-MDL6-PX6V 01/22/2021 20211902 26.99 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES 1TQ9-1JXM-QPRY 01/22/2021 20211902 18.00 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES 1RXF-NW4D-T4MK 01/23/2021 20211902 460.95 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES 1LYW-JT6M-T7CT 01/24/2021 20211902 7.99 City of Edina, MN A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL Report generated: 02/18/2021 12:24User: LJeffersonProgram ID: apcshdsb Page 2 CASH ACCOUNT: 9999 1012 Control BS - CashAP CHECK NO CHK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME INVOICE INV DATE PO CHECK RUN NET AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES 1HVN-7VMR-3HXR 01/18/2021 20211902 -264.35 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES 11D9-3X1M-CQN6 01/25/2021 20211902 99.50 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES 1HVN-7VMR-PC77 01/26/2021 20211902 137.98 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES 11R9-7JGX-4VW1 01/27/2021 20211902 135.98 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES 11M4-YJK7-61LQ 01/27/2021 20211902 1,138.95 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES 1CHV-YCLJ-DD3F 01/27/2021 20211902 187.83 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES 11M4-YJK7-FYWP 01/27/2021 20211902 50.31 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES 1JL6-3LJX-JK91 01/28/2021 20211902 82.80 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES 1FFD-CP31-4JYW 01/28/2021 20211902 27.66 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES 1LQ6-HGKH-4YGF 01/28/2021 20211902 245.63 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES 1CY6-MMM3-3PV7 01/28/2021 20211902 411.41 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES 14PH-FP67-FCLF 01/28/2021 20211902 62.91 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES 19D4-GHXH-CT1G 01/29/2021 20211902 53.11 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES 16CQ-C3HH-DRXP 01/29/2021 20211902 194.00 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES 14PH-FP67-H4WP 01/29/2021 20211902 14.91 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES 16FW-PLVL-KNVT 01/30/2021 20211902 520.88 CHECK 20201210 TOTAL: 7,671.71 20201211 02/19/2021 PRTD 100575 AMERICAN CYLINDER LLC 184119 01/20/2021 20211902 116.78 AMERICAN CYLINDER LLC 184116 01/20/2021 20211902 58.54 CHECK 20201211 TOTAL: 175.32 20201212 02/19/2021 PRTD 100630 ANCHOR PAPER COMPANY 10644247-00 01/26/2021 20211902 304.84 CHECK 20201212 TOTAL: 304.84 20201213 02/19/2021 PRTD 151441 ARAMARK UNIFORM AND CAREER APPEAL 1004964837 01/20/2021 20211902 505.80 ARAMARK UNIFORM AND CAREER APPEAL 1004967556 01/25/2021 20211902 204.18 City of Edina, MN A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL Report generated: 02/18/2021 12:24User: LJeffersonProgram ID: apcshdsb Page 3 CASH ACCOUNT: 9999 1012 Control BS - CashAP CHECK NO CHK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME INVOICE INV DATE PO CHECK RUN NET ARAMARK UNIFORM AND CAREER APPEAL 1004968790 01/26/2021 20211902 204.61 ARAMARK UNIFORM AND CAREER APPEAL 1004969894 01/27/2021 20211902 385.70 ARAMARK UNIFORM AND CAREER APPEAL 1004967608 01/25/2021 20211902 220.40 CHECK 20201213 TOTAL: 1,520.69 20201214 02/19/2021 PRTD 151756 ARBEITER BREWING COMPANY LLC 103 01/21/2021 20211902 69.00 ARBEITER BREWING COMPANY LLC 113 01/27/2021 20211902 96.00 ARBEITER BREWING COMPANY LLC 112 01/27/2021 20211902 96.00 CHECK 20201214 TOTAL: 261.00 20201215 02/19/2021 PRTD 114475 ARMOR SECURITY INC 234900 01/22/2021 20211902 240.44 CHECK 20201215 TOTAL: 240.44 20201216 02/19/2021 PRTD 100634 ASPEN EQUIPMENT CO 10225583 01/28/2021 20211902 561.25 ASPEN EQUIPMENT CO 10225584 01/28/2021 20211902 228.59 CHECK 20201216 TOTAL: 789.84 20201217 02/19/2021 PRTD 106304 ASPEN MILLS INC 267776 01/18/2021 20211902 318.80 CHECK 20201217 TOTAL: 318.80 20201218 02/19/2021 PRTD 101833 ATOM 20201265 01/27/2021 20211902 250.00 CHECK 20201218 TOTAL: 250.00 20201219 02/19/2021 PRTD 101718 AUTO PLUS - FORMERLY PARTS PLUS 380037866 01/26/2021 20211902 9.13 AUTO PLUS - FORMERLY PARTS PLUS 380035929 01/26/2021 20211902 -201.89 AUTO PLUS - FORMERLY PARTS PLUS 380038040 01/27/2021 20211902 106.75 AUTO PLUS - FORMERLY PARTS PLUS 380038136 01/28/2021 20211902 75.78 AUTO PLUS - FORMERLY PARTS PLUS 380038509 01/29/2021 20211902 36.68 AUTO PLUS - FORMERLY PARTS PLUS 380038534 01/29/2021 20211902 9.13 City of Edina, MN A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL Report generated: 02/18/2021 12:24User: LJeffersonProgram ID: apcshdsb Page 4 CASH ACCOUNT: 9999 1012 Control BS - CashAP CHECK NO CHK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME INVOICE INV DATE PO CHECK RUN NET AUTO PLUS - FORMERLY PARTS PLUS 380038535 01/30/2021 20211902 18.26 CHECK 20201219 TOTAL: 53.84 20201220 02/19/2021 PRTD 126262 BARKER HAMMER ASSOCIATES INC 113074 01/27/2021 20211902 2,049.90 BARKER HAMMER ASSOCIATES INC 113075 01/27/2021 20211902 1,049.95 CHECK 20201220 TOTAL: 3,099.85 20201221 02/19/2021 PRTD 100643 BARR ENGINEERING CO 23271728.00-15 01/24/2021 20211902 2,622.00 BARR ENGINEERING CO 23271827.00-5 01/25/2021 20211902 2,535.50 CHECK 20201221 TOTAL: 5,157.50 20201222 02/19/2021 PRTD 100672 BCA TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT SECT 16716 01/22/2021 20211902 75.00 CHECK 20201222 TOTAL: 75.00 20201223 02/19/2021 PRTD 101355 BELLBOY CORPORATION 0087669900 01/21/2021 20211902 13,690.85 BELLBOY CORPORATION 0087657000 01/21/2021 20211902 881.50 BELLBOY CORPORATION 0102643700 01/21/2021 20211902 37.67 BELLBOY CORPORATION 0087666000 01/21/2021 20211902 291.10 BELLBOY CORPORATION 0087633700 01/21/2021 20211902 5,980.10 BELLBOY CORPORATION 0087656900 01/21/2021 20211902 291.10 BELLBOY CORPORATION 0102643000 01/21/2021 20211902 23.35 BELLBOY CORPORATION 0087656800 01/21/2021 20211902 6,267.98 BELLBOY CORPORATION 0087707600 01/22/2021 20211902 176.60 BELLBOY CORPORATION 0087731100 01/26/2021 20211902 -86.75 BELLBOY CORPORATION 0102672200 01/28/2021 20211902 107.49 BELLBOY CORPORATION 0087749900 01/28/2021 20211902 3,266.38 BELLBOY CORPORATION 0087736800 01/28/2021 20211902 294.65 BELLBOY CORPORATION 0102690000 01/28/2021 20211902 309.21 City of Edina, MN A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL Report generated: 02/18/2021 12:24User: LJeffersonProgram ID: apcshdsb Page 5 CASH ACCOUNT: 9999 1012 Control BS - CashAP CHECK NO CHK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME INVOICE INV DATE PO CHECK RUN NET BELLBOY CORPORATION 0087737100 01/28/2021 20211902 2,872.20 BELLBOY CORPORATION 0102671200 01/28/2021 20211902 44.10 BELLBOY CORPORATION 0087736700 01/28/2021 20211902 209.10 BELLBOY CORPORATION 0087738200 01/28/2021 20211902 4,050.80 CHECK 20201223 TOTAL: 38,707.43 20201224 02/19/2021 PRTD 100648 BERTELSON BROTHERS INC WO-1108339-1 01/18/2021 20211902 99.22 BERTELSON BROTHERS INC WO-1108889-1 01/20/2021 20211902 53.47 BERTELSON BROTHERS INC WO-1109780-1 01/26/2021 20211902 94.83 CHECK 20201224 TOTAL: 247.52 20201225 02/19/2021 PRTD 130069 BFG SUPPLY COMPANY 1709636-00 01/22/2021 20211902 453.80 CHECK 20201225 TOTAL: 453.80 20201226 02/19/2021 PRTD 128914 BJKK DEVELOPMENT 30674 01/19/2021 20211902 90.54 CHECK 20201226 TOTAL: 90.54 20201227 02/19/2021 PRTD 142153 BLACK STACK BREWING INC 11193 01/21/2021 20211902 172.00 BLACK STACK BREWING INC 11191 01/21/2021 20211902 172.00 BLACK STACK BREWING INC 11192 01/21/2021 20211902 172.00 BLACK STACK BREWING INC 11279 01/28/2021 20211902 670.00 BLACK STACK BREWING INC 11280 01/28/2021 20211902 670.00 BLACK STACK BREWING INC 11281 01/28/2021 20211902 643.00 CHECK 20201227 TOTAL: 2,499.00 20201228 02/19/2021 PRTD 122688 BMK SOLUTIONS 163311 01/26/2021 20211902 36.54 CHECK 20201228 TOTAL: 36.54 City of Edina, MN A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL Report generated: 02/18/2021 12:24User: LJeffersonProgram ID: apcshdsb Page 6 CASH ACCOUNT: 9999 1012 Control BS - CashAP CHECK NO CHK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME INVOICE INV DATE PO CHECK RUN NET 20201229 02/19/2021 PRTD 132444 BOLTON & MENK INC 0263150 01/15/2021 20211902 1,840.00 CHECK 20201229 TOTAL: 1,840.00 20201230 02/19/2021 PRTD 105367 BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC 83925628 01/22/2021 20211902 294.75 BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC 83925629 01/22/2021 20211902 96.58 BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC 83919343 01/19/2021 20211902 264.00 BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC 83921618 01/20/2021 20211902 111.80 BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC 83927369 01/25/2021 20211902 826.88 BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC 83929276 01/26/2021 20211902 875.52 BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC 83931051 01/27/2021 20211902 1,304.55 BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC 83934343 01/29/2021 20211902 125.33 CHECK 20201230 TOTAL: 3,899.41 20201231 02/19/2021 PRTD 119351 BOURGET IMPORTS 175159 01/19/2021 20211902 429.25 BOURGET IMPORTS 175160 01/19/2021 20211902 531.25 BOURGET IMPORTS 175158 01/19/2021 20211902 293.50 BOURGET IMPORTS 175281 01/26/2021 20211902 964.50 BOURGET IMPORTS 175280 01/26/2021 20211902 1,022.25 BOURGET IMPORTS 175282 01/26/2021 20211902 608.75 CHECK 20201231 TOTAL: 3,849.50 20201232 02/19/2021 PRTD 117040 BOYER FORD TRUCKS INC 941486 01/27/2021 20211902 78.70 BOYER FORD TRUCKS INC 941713 01/29/2021 20211902 59.40 BOYER FORD TRUCKS INC 941230 01/29/2021 20211902 219.24 CHECK 20201232 TOTAL: 357.34 20201233 02/19/2021 PRTD 124291 BREAKTHRU BEVERAGE MINNESOTA WINE 1081229728 01/20/2021 20211902 2,031.40 BREAKTHRU BEVERAGE MINNESOTA WINE 1081229729 01/20/2021 20211902 2,038.37 City of Edina, MN A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL Report generated: 02/18/2021 12:24User: LJeffersonProgram ID: apcshdsb Page 7 CASH ACCOUNT: 9999 1012 Control BS - CashAP CHECK NO CHK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME INVOICE INV DATE PO CHECK RUN NET BREAKTHRU BEVERAGE MINNESOTA WINE 1081229727 01/20/2021 20211902 3,532.77 BREAKTHRU BEVERAGE MINNESOTA WINE 1081229725 01/20/2021 20211902 53.65 BREAKTHRU BEVERAGE MINNESOTA WINE 1081229726 01/20/2021 20211902 3,869.43 BREAKTHRU BEVERAGE MINNESOTA WINE 1081229730 01/20/2021 20211902 4,449.86 BREAKTHRU BEVERAGE MINNESOTA WINE 1081229732 01/20/2021 20211902 1,886.22 BREAKTHRU BEVERAGE MINNESOTA WINE 1081232251 01/27/2021 20211902 857.50 BREAKTHRU BEVERAGE MINNESOTA WINE 1081232253 01/27/2021 20211902 1,260.15 BREAKTHRU BEVERAGE MINNESOTA WINE 1001232295 01/27/2021 20211902 525.75 BREAKTHRU BEVERAGE MINNESOTA WINE 1081232252 01/27/2021 20211902 2,355.80 BREAKTHRU BEVERAGE MINNESOTA WINE R08055297 01/27/2021 20211902 -64.83 BREAKTHRU BEVERAGE MINNESOTA WINE R08055329 01/27/2021 20211902 -24.78 BREAKTHRU BEVERAGE MINNESOTA WINE 1081232294 01/27/2021 20211902 2,048.20 BREAKTHRU BEVERAGE MINNESOTA WINE 1081232249 01/27/2021 20211902 2,423.73 BREAKTHRU BEVERAGE MINNESOTA WINE 1081232246 01/27/2021 20211902 3,685.30 BREAKTHRU BEVERAGE MINNESOTA WINE 1081232250 01/27/2021 20211902 931.50 BREAKTHRU BEVERAGE MINNESOTA WINE 1081232247 01/27/2021 20211902 154.30 BREAKTHRU BEVERAGE MINNESOTA WINE 1081232248 01/27/2021 20211902 1,983.00 BREAKTHRU BEVERAGE MINNESOTA WINE 2080300957 01/13/2021 20211902 -70.00 CHECK 20201233 TOTAL: 33,927.32 20201234 02/19/2021 PRTD 124529 BREAKTHRU BEVERAGE MINNESOTA BEER 1081229731 01/20/2021 20211902 212.86 BREAKTHRU BEVERAGE MINNESOTA BEER 1091203335 01/26/2021 20211902 10,679.40 CHECK 20201234 TOTAL: 10,892.26 20201235 02/19/2021 PRTD 124529 BREAKTHRU BEVERAGE MINNESOTA BEER 1091201402 01/19/2021 20211902 6,292.30 BREAKTHRU BEVERAGE MINNESOTA BEER 1091201403 01/19/2021 20211902 994.00 BREAKTHRU BEVERAGE MINNESOTA BEER 1091201404 01/19/2021 20211902 2,581.00 City of Edina, MN A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL Report generated: 02/18/2021 12:24User: LJeffersonProgram ID: apcshdsb Page 8 CASH ACCOUNT: 9999 1012 Control BS - CashAP CHECK NO CHK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME INVOICE INV DATE PO CHECK RUN NET BREAKTHRU BEVERAGE MINNESOTA BEER 1091203333 01/26/2021 20211902 8,037.10 BREAKTHRU BEVERAGE MINNESOTA BEER 1091203334 01/26/2021 20211902 1,297.10 CHECK 20201235 TOTAL: 19,201.50 20201236 02/19/2021 PRTD 139440 BRENT RICHTER CONSULTING LLC 21-2032 01/22/2021 20211902 250.00 CHECK 20201236 TOTAL: 250.00 20201237 02/19/2021 PRTD 116408 BTR OF MINNESOTA LLC 37266 01/26/2021 20211902 339.36 BTR OF MINNESOTA LLC 37247 01/26/2021 20211902 277.17 BTR OF MINNESOTA LLC 37238 01/25/2021 20211902 172.13 BTR OF MINNESOTA LLC 37305 01/29/2021 20211902 189.19 CHECK 20201237 TOTAL: 977.85 20201238 02/19/2021 PRTD 100144 BUREAU OF CRIMINAL APPREHENSION 16744 01/25/2021 20211902 75.00 CHECK 20201238 TOTAL: 75.00 20201239 02/19/2021 PRTD 100144 BUREAU OF CRIMINAL APPREHENSION 16720 01/22/2021 20211902 75.00 CHECK 20201239 TOTAL: 75.00 20201240 02/19/2021 PRTD 142533 CADD ENGR SUPPLY INC INV123611 01/29/2021 20211902 279.00 CHECK 20201240 TOTAL: 279.00 20201241 02/19/2021 PRTD 119455 CAPITOL BEVERAGE SALES LP 2503397 01/19/2021 20211902 58.50 CAPITOL BEVERAGE SALES LP 2503392 01/19/2021 20211902 1,069.35 CAPITOL BEVERAGE SALES LP 2503388 01/19/2021 20211902 49.99 CAPITOL BEVERAGE SALES LP 2503391 01/19/2021 20211902 2,794.10 CAPITOL BEVERAGE SALES LP 2503390 01/19/2021 20211902 28.00 CAPITOL BEVERAGE SALES LP 2503398 01/19/2021 20211902 148.50 CAPITOL BEVERAGE SALES LP 2503389 01/19/2021 20211902 406.45 City of Edina, MN A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL Report generated: 02/18/2021 12:24User: LJeffersonProgram ID: apcshdsb Page 9 CASH ACCOUNT: 9999 1012 Control BS - CashAP CHECK NO CHK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME INVOICE INV DATE PO CHECK RUN NET CAPITOL BEVERAGE SALES LP 2503414 01/19/2021 20211902 296.80 CAPITOL BEVERAGE SALES LP 2506063 01/26/2021 20211902 1,589.50 CAPITOL BEVERAGE SALES LP 2506065 01/26/2021 20211902 117.00 CAPITOL BEVERAGE SALES LP 6250967 01/26/2021 20211902 -19.00 CAPITOL BEVERAGE SALES LP 2506062 01/26/2021 20211902 103.25 CAPITOL BEVERAGE SALES LP 2506070 01/26/2021 20211902 1,608.20 CAPITOL BEVERAGE SALES LP 2506069 01/26/2021 20211902 14.00 CAPITOL BEVERAGE SALES LP 2506068 01/26/2021 20211902 351.00 CAPITOL BEVERAGE SALES LP 2506084 01/26/2021 20211902 58.50 CAPITOL BEVERAGE SALES LP 2506085 01/26/2021 20211902 94.74 CAPITOL BEVERAGE SALES LP 2506086 01/26/2021 20211902 3,009.75 CHECK 20201241 TOTAL: 11,778.63 20201242 02/19/2021 PRTD 144675 CARLOS CREEK WINERY INC 20649 01/25/2021 20211902 72.00 CHECK 20201242 TOTAL: 72.00 20201243 02/19/2021 PRTD 160004 PRO-DIRECT FLOORING INC 1389 12/22/2020 20211902 6,849.04 CHECK 20201243 TOTAL: 6,849.04 20201244 02/19/2021 PRTD 130618 CHANHASSEN AUTO CENTERS LLC 21463 01/27/2021 20211902 150.00 CHANHASSEN AUTO CENTERS LLC 21467 01/26/2021 20211902 150.00 CHECK 20201244 TOTAL: 300.00 20201245 02/19/2021 PRTD 142028 CINTAS CORPORATION 4073843249 01/22/2021 20211902 63.28 CINTAS CORPORATION 4073300071 01/18/2021 20211902 9.86 CINTAS CORPORATION 4073300343 01/18/2021 20211902 39.01 CINTAS CORPORATION 40733300272 01/18/2021 20211902 26.36 CINTAS CORPORATION 40733300312 01/18/2021 20211902 36.88 City of Edina, MN A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL Report generated: 02/18/2021 12:24User: LJeffersonProgram ID: apcshdsb Page 10 CASH ACCOUNT: 9999 1012 Control BS - CashAP CHECK NO CHK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME INVOICE INV DATE PO CHECK RUN NET CINTAS CORPORATION 4073300331 01/18/2021 20211902 30.25 CINTAS CORPORATION 4073299671 01/18/2021 20211902 3.69 CINTAS CORPORATION 4073946465 01/25/2021 20211902 20.40 CINTAS CORPORATION 4073946472 01/25/2021 20211902 37.20 CINTAS CORPORATION 4073946453 01/25/2021 20211902 51.69 CINTAS CORPORATION 4073843348 01/25/2021 20211902 27.39 CINTAS CORPORATION 4073947060 01/25/2021 20211902 39.01 CINTAS CORPORATION 4073946988 01/25/2021 20211902 9.86 CINTAS CORPORATION 4073947124 01/25/2021 20211902 30.25 CINTAS CORPORATION 4073946980 01/25/2021 20211902 36.88 CINTAS CORPORATION 4073946977 01/25/2021 20211902 26.36 CHECK 20201245 TOTAL: 488.37 20201246 02/19/2021 PRTD 122317 CITY OF EDINA - COMMUNICATIONS COM-2382 01/21/2021 20211902 561.04 CHECK 20201246 TOTAL: 561.04 20201247 02/19/2021 PRTD 141530 CITY OF INVER GROVE HEIGHTS MN-TF1-12/14/20 12/14/2020 20211902 1,140.00 CHECK 20201247 TOTAL: 1,140.00 20201248 02/19/2021 PRTD 103216 CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS 3657 02/04/2021 20211902 10,520.91 CHECK 20201248 TOTAL: 10,520.91 20201249 02/19/2021 PRTD 146472 CITY WIDE MAINTENANCE OF MN I00079616 01/29/2021 20211902 756.00 CITY WIDE MAINTENANCE OF MN I00079623 01/29/2021 20211902 756.00 CITY WIDE MAINTENANCE OF MN I00079621 01/29/2021 20211902 3,627.00 CHECK 20201249 TOTAL: 5,139.00 City of Edina, MN A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL Report generated: 02/18/2021 12:24User: LJeffersonProgram ID: apcshdsb Page 11 CASH ACCOUNT: 9999 1012 Control BS - CashAP CHECK NO CHK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME INVOICE INV DATE PO CHECK RUN NET 20201250 02/19/2021 PRTD 120433 COMCAST HOLDINGS CORPORATION 0740105-01/21 01/18/2021 20211902 88.02 CHECK 20201250 TOTAL: 88.02 20201251 02/19/2021 PRTD 120433 COMCAST HOLDINGS CORPORATION 2539 01/26/2021 20211902 42.96 CHECK 20201251 TOTAL: 42.96 20201252 02/19/2021 PRTD 120433 COMCAST HOLDINGS CORPORATION 2550 01/25/2021 20211902 145.90 CHECK 20201252 TOTAL: 145.90 20201253 02/19/2021 PRTD 120433 COMCAST HOLDINGS CORPORATION 2720 01/26/2021 20211902 216.82 CHECK 20201253 TOTAL: 216.82 20201254 02/19/2021 PRTD 160015 COMMERCIAL FURNITURE SERVICES, IN 89178-0 01/21/2021 20211902 90.00 CHECK 20201254 TOTAL: 90.00 20201255 02/19/2021 PRTD 160002 COMMERCIAL INFRASTRUCTURE CABLING I10048 01/21/2021 20211902 3,411.21 COMMERCIAL INFRASTRUCTURE CABLING I10049 01/21/2021 20211902 632.00 COMMERCIAL INFRASTRUCTURE CABLING I10053 01/22/2021 20211902 183.00 CHECK 20201255 TOTAL: 4,226.21 20201256 02/19/2021 PRTD 124118 COMPLETE COOLING SERVICES 32548 01/28/2021 20211902 2,980.00 CHECK 20201256 TOTAL: 2,980.00 20201257 02/19/2021 PRTD 101329 CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS INC 0200732-IN 09/10/2020 20211902 233.00 CHECK 20201257 TOTAL: 233.00 20201258 02/19/2021 PRTD 129923 CONTEMPORARY INC V748830 01/19/2021 20211902 52.02 CHECK 20201258 TOTAL: 52.02 City of Edina, MN A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL Report generated: 02/18/2021 12:24User: LJeffersonProgram ID: apcshdsb Page 12 CASH ACCOUNT: 9999 1012 Control BS - CashAP CHECK NO CHK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME INVOICE INV DATE PO CHECK RUN NET 20201259 02/19/2021 PRTD 101403 CRYSTEEL MANUFACTURING INC LC00068945 01/18/2021 20211902 606.69 CRYSTEEL MANUFACTURING INC LC00068940 01/18/2021 20211902 381.41 CHECK 20201259 TOTAL: 988.10 20201260 02/19/2021 PRTD 103799 CURBSIDE LANDSCAPE & IRRIGATION 223381 01/20/2021 20211902 285.00 CURBSIDE LANDSCAPE & IRRIGATION 224080 01/24/2021 20211902 460.00 CHECK 20201260 TOTAL: 745.00 20201261 02/19/2021 PRTD 130169 CUSTOM BUSINESS FORMS INC 323563 01/20/2021 20211902 676.00 CHECK 20201261 TOTAL: 676.00 20201262 02/19/2021 PRTD 133169 DAIKIN APPLIED 3293927 01/29/2021 20211902 3,640.31 CHECK 20201262 TOTAL: 3,640.31 20201263 02/19/2021 PRTD 141837 DAIOHS USA INC 532324 01/20/2021 20211902 165.59 DAIOHS USA INC 532331 01/20/2021 20211902 619.95 CHECK 20201263 TOTAL: 785.54 20201264 02/19/2021 PRTD 104020 DALCO ENTERPRISES INC 3729560 01/19/2021 20211902 207.00 DALCO ENTERPRISES INC 3731072 01/21/2021 20211902 212.10 DALCO ENTERPRISES INC 3730761 01/21/2021 20211902 140.80 DALCO ENTERPRISES INC 3732936 01/26/2021 20211902 271.69 DALCO ENTERPRISES INC 3732925 01/26/2021 20211902 637.94 DALCO ENTERPRISES INC 3733547 01/27/2021 20211902 24.76 CHECK 20201264 TOTAL: 1,494.29 20201265 02/19/2021 PRTD 102195 BATTERIES PLUS BULBS P36055201 01/26/2021 20211902 192.95 CHECK 20201265 TOTAL: 192.95 City of Edina, MN A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL Report generated: 02/18/2021 12:24User: LJeffersonProgram ID: apcshdsb Page 13 CASH ACCOUNT: 9999 1012 Control BS - CashAP CHECK NO CHK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME INVOICE INV DATE PO CHECK RUN NET 20201266 02/19/2021 PRTD 100718 DELEGARD TOOL COMPANY 43075 01/22/2021 20211902 37.38 DELEGARD TOOL COMPANY 43455 01/26/2021 20211902 660.63 DELEGARD TOOL COMPANY 43881 01/27/2021 20211902 312.50 DELEGARD TOOL COMPANY 44013 01/28/2021 20211902 81.52 DELEGARD TOOL COMPANY 44185 01/29/2021 20211902 9.72 CHECK 20201266 TOTAL: 1,101.75 20201267 02/19/2021 PRTD 118805 DISCOUNT STEEL INC 5137956 01/18/2021 20211902 149.99 DISCOUNT STEEL INC 5139082 01/21/2021 20211902 107.75 DISCOUNT STEEL INC 5140680 01/27/2021 20211902 26.69 CHECK 20201267 TOTAL: 284.43 20201268 02/19/2021 PRTD 145811 EASTLAKE CRAFT BREWERY LLC 1225 01/26/2021 20211902 120.60 EASTLAKE CRAFT BREWERY LLC 1226 01/27/2021 20211902 114.00 CHECK 20201268 TOTAL: 234.60 20201269 02/19/2021 PRTD 102259 EASY PICKER GOLF PRODUCTS INC 0154395-IN 01/29/2021 20211902 1,293.95 CHECK 20201269 TOTAL: 1,293.95 20201270 02/19/2021 PRTD 132810 ECM PUBLISHERS INC 816653 01/28/2021 20211902 107.10 CHECK 20201270 TOTAL: 107.10 20201271 02/19/2021 PRTD 142458 EDINA MARKET STREET LLC 127 01/15/2021 20211902 297.46 EDINA MARKET STREET LLC 123 11/15/2020 20211902 520.92 EDINA MARKET STREET LLC 125 12/15/2020 20211902 409.19 CHECK 20201271 TOTAL: 1,227.57 20201272 02/19/2021 PRTD 100049 EHLERS AND ASSOCIATES 85890 01/11/2021 20211902 1,102.50 City of Edina, MN A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL Report generated: 02/18/2021 12:24User: LJeffersonProgram ID: apcshdsb Page 14 CASH ACCOUNT: 9999 1012 Control BS - CashAP CHECK NO CHK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME INVOICE INV DATE PO CHECK RUN NET CHECK 20201272 TOTAL: 1,102.50 20201273 02/19/2021 PRTD 148243 ELEVATED WELDING SERVICE LLC 65 01/29/2021 20211902 2,210.20 CHECK 20201273 TOTAL: 2,210.20 20201274 02/19/2021 PRTD 122792 EMERGENCY AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGIES JOR20091 01/20/2021 20211902 14,490.84 CHECK 20201274 TOTAL: 14,490.84 20201275 02/19/2021 PRTD 135208 ESCAPE FIRE PROTECTION INC 38213 01/27/2021 20211902 1,850.00 CHECK 20201275 TOTAL: 1,850.00 20201276 02/19/2021 PRTD 100146 ELLIOTT AUTO SUPPLY CO, INC 158-044529 01/18/2021 20211902 13.57 ELLIOTT AUTO SUPPLY CO, INC 1-Z24260 01/25/2021 20211902 386.00 ELLIOTT AUTO SUPPLY CO, INC 1-6727301 01/26/2021 20211902 14.72 ELLIOTT AUTO SUPPLY CO, INC 1-6726099 01/25/2021 20211902 147.26 ELLIOTT AUTO SUPPLY CO, INC 69-406284 01/22/2021 20211902 107.96 ELLIOTT AUTO SUPPLY CO, INC 69-406599 01/26/2021 20211902 7.02 ELLIOTT AUTO SUPPLY CO, INC 69-406737 01/28/2021 20211902 189.27 ELLIOTT AUTO SUPPLY CO, INC 69-406488 01/25/2021 20211902 -33.60 ELLIOTT AUTO SUPPLY CO, INC 69-406489 01/25/2021 20211902 -153.57 ELLIOTT AUTO SUPPLY CO, INC 69-407104 01/22/2021 20211902 186.99 CHECK 20201276 TOTAL: 865.62 20201277 02/19/2021 PRTD 147181 FALLING BREWERY - BERGMAN LEDGE L E2504 01/19/2021 20211902 420.00 FALLING BREWERY - BERGMAN LEDGE L E-2573 01/26/2021 20211902 180.00 FALLING BREWERY - BERGMAN LEDGE L E-2574 01/26/2021 20211902 240.00 CHECK 20201277 TOTAL: 840.00 City of Edina, MN A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL Report generated: 02/18/2021 12:24User: LJeffersonProgram ID: apcshdsb Page 15 CASH ACCOUNT: 9999 1012 Control BS - CashAP CHECK NO CHK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME INVOICE INV DATE PO CHECK RUN NET 20201278 02/19/2021 PRTD 126004 FERGUSON WATERWORKS 0468760 01/21/2021 20211902 523.28 FERGUSON WATERWORKS 0468719 01/26/2021 20211902 1,146.97 FERGUSON WATERWORKS 0468893 01/25/2021 20211902 75.00 CHECK 20201278 TOTAL: 1,745.25 20201279 02/19/2021 PRTD 101089 FIRST AID SERVICE INC 54099243 01/22/2021 20211902 96.20 CHECK 20201279 TOTAL: 96.20 20201280 02/19/2021 PRTD 130699 FLEETPRIDE INC 67432248 01/27/2021 20211902 356.98 CHECK 20201280 TOTAL: 356.98 20201281 02/19/2021 PRTD 102727 FORCE AMERICA DISTRIBUTING LLC 001-1508959 01/22/2021 20211902 1,323.00 FORCE AMERICA DISTRIBUTING LLC 001-1509327 01/25/2021 20211902 46.95 CHECK 20201281 TOTAL: 1,369.95 20201282 02/19/2021 PRTD 102456 GALLS PARENT HOLDINGS LLC BC1277496 01/21/2021 20211902 2,782.64 GALLS PARENT HOLDINGS LLC BC1274920 01/18/2021 20211902 63.00 GALLS PARENT HOLDINGS LLC BC1276312 01/20/2021 20211902 8,052.00 GALLS PARENT HOLDINGS LLC BC1280182 01/25/2021 20211902 8.50 CHECK 20201282 TOTAL: 10,906.14 20201283 02/19/2021 PRTD 100775 GENERAL SPORTS CORPORATION 3087 01/20/2021 20211902 40.00 CHECK 20201283 TOTAL: 40.00 20201284 02/19/2021 PRTD 130239 GLADWIN MACHINERY & SUPPLY CO SIM.82376 01/28/2021 20211902 112.98 CHECK 20201284 TOTAL: 112.98 20201285 02/19/2021 PRTD 130052 MARK SHIRLEY 1759 01/29/2021 20211902 750.00 City of Edina, MN A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL Report generated: 02/18/2021 12:24User: LJeffersonProgram ID: apcshdsb Page 16 CASH ACCOUNT: 9999 1012 Control BS - CashAP CHECK NO CHK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME INVOICE INV DATE PO CHECK RUN NET CHECK 20201285 TOTAL: 750.00 20201286 02/19/2021 PRTD 144412 WINEBOW MN00088976R 01/18/2021 20211902 -10.00 WINEBOW MN00089110 01/21/2021 20211902 488.75 WINEBOW MN00089109 01/21/2021 20211902 154.75 WINEBOW MN00089289 01/26/2021 20211902 1,106.02 WINEBOW MN00089288 01/26/2021 20211902 847.50 WINEBOW MN00089436 01/28/2021 20211902 771.75 WINEBOW MN00089439 01/28/2021 20211902 1,029.00 WINEBOW MN00089351 01/28/2021 20211902 154.75 WINEBOW MN00089453 01/28/2021 20211902 899.25 WINEBOW MN00089452 01/28/2021 20211902 900.25 CHECK 20201286 TOTAL: 6,342.02 20201287 02/19/2021 PRTD 103884 HANCO CORP 557870 01/25/2021 20211902 99.09 CHECK 20201287 TOTAL: 99.09 20201288 02/19/2021 PRTD 100797 HAWKINS INC 4864390 01/18/2021 20211902 12,006.76 HAWKINS INC 4868998 01/25/2021 20211902 3,080.70 CHECK 20201288 TOTAL: 15,087.46 20201289 02/19/2021 PRTD 143585 HENNEPIN COUNTY MEDICAL CENTER 67987 12/31/2020 20211902 2,870.10 HENNEPIN COUNTY MEDICAL CENTER 68249 01/31/2021 20211902 3,136.14 CHECK 20201289 TOTAL: 6,006.24 20201290 02/19/2021 PRTD 104375 HOHENSTEINS INC 382607 01/19/2021 20211902 1,057.50 HOHENSTEINS INC 382596 01/19/2021 20211902 963.00 HOHENSTEINS INC 382602 01/19/2021 20211902 50.40 HOHENSTEINS INC 382601 01/19/2021 20211902 626.25 City of Edina, MN A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL Report generated: 02/18/2021 12:24User: LJeffersonProgram ID: apcshdsb Page 17 CASH ACCOUNT: 9999 1012 Control BS - CashAP CHECK NO CHK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME INVOICE INV DATE PO CHECK RUN NET HOHENSTEINS INC 384106 01/26/2021 20211902 1,420.00 HOHENSTEINS INC 384108 01/26/2021 20211902 46.00 HOHENSTEINS INC 384120 01/26/2021 20211902 375.00 HOHENSTEINS INC 384058 01/26/2021 20211902 75.60 HOHENSTEINS INC 384057 01/26/2021 20211902 567.00 CHECK 20201290 TOTAL: 5,180.75 20201291 02/19/2021 PRTD 100417 HORIZON CHEMICAL CO 210126163-ER 01/27/2021 20211902 382.95 CHECK 20201291 TOTAL: 382.95 20201292 02/19/2021 PRTD 116680 HP INC 9011230254 01/20/2021 20211902 2,059.96 CHECK 20201292 TOTAL: 2,059.96 20201293 02/19/2021 PRTD 131544 INDEED BREWING COMPANY MN LLC 96937 01/19/2021 20211902 444.60 INDEED BREWING COMPANY MN LLC 96936 01/20/2021 20211902 1,405.20 INDEED BREWING COMPANY MN LLC 96935 01/19/2021 20211902 232.50 INDEED BREWING COMPANY MN LLC 97135 01/27/2021 20211902 141.60 INDEED BREWING COMPANY MN LLC 97134 01/25/2021 20211902 307.20 INDEED BREWING COMPANY MN LLC 97136 01/27/2021 20211902 188.10 CHECK 20201293 TOTAL: 2,719.20 20201294 02/19/2021 PRTD 100814 INDELCO PLASTICS CORPORATION INV233656 01/20/2021 20211902 104.15 INDELCO PLASTICS CORPORATION INV233661 01/20/2021 20211902 156.04 INDELCO PLASTICS CORPORATION INV234555 01/25/2021 20211902 226.76 INDELCO PLASTICS CORPORATION INV234564 01/25/2021 20211902 1,944.54 CHECK 20201294 TOTAL: 2,431.49 City of Edina, MN A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL Report generated: 02/18/2021 12:24User: LJeffersonProgram ID: apcshdsb Page 18 CASH ACCOUNT: 9999 1012 Control BS - CashAP CHECK NO CHK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME INVOICE INV DATE PO CHECK RUN NET 20201295 02/19/2021 PRTD 150898 INVICTUS BREWING INC 2389 01/21/2021 20211902 124.00 INVICTUS BREWING INC 2387 01/18/2021 20211902 93.00 INVICTUS BREWING INC 2388 01/21/2021 20211902 155.00 INVICTUS BREWING INC 2427 01/29/2021 20211902 101.00 INVICTUS BREWING INC 2428 01/27/2021 20211902 78.00 CHECK 20201295 TOTAL: 551.00 20201296 02/19/2021 PRTD 143913 JACK PINE BREWERY LLC 3757 01/19/2021 20211902 259.80 CHECK 20201296 TOTAL: 259.80 20201297 02/19/2021 PRTD 100828 JERRY'S ENTERPRISES INC 00590544-160 01/19/2021 20211902 58.96 CHECK 20201297 TOTAL: 58.96 20201298 02/19/2021 PRTD 100828 GREAT RIVERS PRINTING 65651 01/27/2021 20211902 324.03 CHECK 20201298 TOTAL: 324.03 20201299 02/19/2021 PRTD 100828 JERRY'S ENTERPRISES INC EQUIP OPER 01/21 01/25/2021 20211902 83.47 JERRY'S ENTERPRISES INC UTILITIES-1/21 01/25/2021 20211902 180.34 JERRY'S ENTERPRISES INC STREETS-1/21 01/25/2021 20211902 37.70 JERRY'S ENTERPRISES INC POLICE-1/21 01/25/2021 20211902 40.08 JERRY'S ENTERPRISES INC FIRE-1/21 01/25/2021 20211902 40.78 CHECK 20201299 TOTAL: 382.37 20201300 02/19/2021 PRTD 100741 JJ TAYLOR DISTRIBUTING CO OF MINN 3154336 01/20/2021 20211902 1,082.10 JJ TAYLOR DISTRIBUTING CO OF MINN 3154343 01/20/2021 20211902 340.25 JJ TAYLOR DISTRIBUTING CO OF MINN 3154338 01/20/2021 20211902 109.50 JJ TAYLOR DISTRIBUTING CO OF MINN 3154342 01/20/2021 20211902 2,452.34 JJ TAYLOR DISTRIBUTING CO OF MINN 3154341 01/20/2021 20211902 109.50 City of Edina, MN A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL Report generated: 02/18/2021 12:24User: LJeffersonProgram ID: apcshdsb Page 19 CASH ACCOUNT: 9999 1012 Control BS - CashAP CHECK NO CHK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME INVOICE INV DATE PO CHECK RUN NET JJ TAYLOR DISTRIBUTING CO OF MINN 3154339 01/20/2021 20211902 5,027.30 JJ TAYLOR DISTRIBUTING CO OF MINN 3154375 01/27/2021 20211902 1,063.65 JJ TAYLOR DISTRIBUTING CO OF MINN 3154373 01/27/2021 20211902 3,037.55 JJ TAYLOR DISTRIBUTING CO OF MINN 3154374 01/27/2021 20211902 5,890.60 JJ TAYLOR DISTRIBUTING CO OF MINN 3154373A 01/27/2021 20211902 153.75 CHECK 20201300 TOTAL: 19,266.54 20201301 02/19/2021 PRTD 100835 ARTISAN BEER COMPANY 3455591 01/21/2021 20211902 1,988.00 ARTISAN BEER COMPANY 3455593 01/21/2021 20211902 71.20 ARTISAN BEER COMPANY 3455592 01/21/2021 20211902 800.00 ARTISAN BEER COMPANY 3455586 01/21/2021 20211902 800.00 ARTISAN BEER COMPANY 3455587 01/21/2021 20211902 71.20 ARTISAN BEER COMPANY 3455585 01/21/2021 20211902 2,218.85 ARTISAN BEER COMPANY 3455588 01/21/2021 20211902 3,750.20 ARTISAN BEER COMPANY 3455590 01/21/2021 20211902 151.20 ARTISAN BEER COMPANY 3455589 01/21/2021 20211902 800.00 ARTISAN BEER COMPANY 3455098 01/19/2021 20211902 438.50 ARTISAN BEER COMPANY 3456652 01/28/2021 20211902 2,492.45 ARTISAN BEER COMPANY 3456651 01/28/2021 20211902 148.60 ARTISAN BEER COMPANY 3456653 01/28/2021 20211902 2,146.10 CHECK 20201301 TOTAL: 15,876.30 20201302 02/19/2021 PRTD 100835 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS 6147435 01/21/2021 20211902 113.88 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS 6147429 01/21/2021 20211902 291.57 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS 6147432 01/21/2021 20211902 389.88 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS 6148038 01/21/2021 20211902 174.22 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS 61448032 01/21/2021 20211902 194.38 City of Edina, MN A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL Report generated: 02/18/2021 12:24User: LJeffersonProgram ID: apcshdsb Page 20 CASH ACCOUNT: 9999 1012 Control BS - CashAP CHECK NO CHK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME INVOICE INV DATE PO CHECK RUN NET PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS 6148036 01/21/2021 20211902 1,725.68 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS 6148033 01/21/2021 20211902 389.88 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS 6148037 01/21/2021 20211902 481.01 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS 6147434 01/21/2021 20211902 2,297.69 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS 6147433 01/21/2021 20211902 1,824.42 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS 6147430 01/21/2021 20211902 262.45 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS 6147431 01/21/2021 20211902 1,481.55 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS 6148215 01/21/2021 20211902 146.95 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS 623444 01/26/2021 20211902 -49.19 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS 6151313 01/28/2021 20211902 161.19 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS 6151314 01/28/2021 20211902 1,812.50 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS 6151312 01/28/2021 20211902 27.84 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS 6151315 01/28/2021 20211902 2,578.22 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS 6151311 01/28/2021 20211902 551.04 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS 6151310 01/28/2021 20211902 527.39 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS 6151316 01/28/2021 20211902 73.19 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS 6151323 01/28/2021 20211902 232.76 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS 6151322 01/28/2021 20211902 3,086.72 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS 6151321 01/28/2021 20211902 1,563.68 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS 6151320 01/28/2021 20211902 161.19 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS 624719 01/29/2021 20211902 -6.67 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS 623443 01/08/2021 20211902 -2.44 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS 625389 02/10/2021 20211902 -7.32 CHECK 20201302 TOTAL: 20,483.66 20201303 02/19/2021 PRTD 100835 WINE MERCHANTS 7314800 01/21/2021 20211902 3,032.19 WINE MERCHANTS 7314721 01/21/2021 20211902 1,324.67 City of Edina, MN A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL Report generated: 02/18/2021 12:24User: LJeffersonProgram ID: apcshdsb Page 21 CASH ACCOUNT: 9999 1012 Control BS - CashAP CHECK NO CHK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME INVOICE INV DATE PO CHECK RUN NET WINE MERCHANTS 7314720 01/21/2021 20211902 4,452.68 WINE MERCHANTS 7315574 01/28/2021 20211902 4,290.24 WINE MERCHANTS 7315573 01/28/2021 20211902 2,428.57 WINE MERCHANTS 7315577 01/28/2021 20211902 1,214.28 WINE MERCHANTS 7315576 01/28/2021 20211902 48.38 WINE MERCHANTS 7315575 01/28/2021 20211902 4,349.61 WINE MERCHANTS 7315578 01/28/2021 20211902 3,406.28 WINE MERCHANTS 7315784 01/29/2021 20211902 2,253.57 WINE MERCHANTS 7315783 01/28/2021 20211902 2,253.57 CHECK 20201303 TOTAL: 29,054.04 20201304 02/19/2021 PRTD 100835 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO 1724040 01/21/2021 20211902 3,333.63 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO 1724038 01/21/2021 20211902 2,391.61 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO 1724032 01/21/2021 20211902 486.62 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO 1724035 01/21/2021 20211902 280.19 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO 1724036 01/21/2021 20211902 295.75 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO 1724039 01/21/2021 20211902 414.82 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO 129681 01/21/2021 20211902 -13.00 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO 129680 01/21/2021 20211902 -13.00 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO 1724027 01/21/2021 20211902 81.19 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO 1724028 01/21/2021 20211902 56.34 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO 1724029 01/21/2021 20211902 1,135.60 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO 1724026 01/21/2021 20211902 452.75 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO 1724030 01/21/2021 20211902 1,512.09 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO 1724031 01/21/2021 20211902 193.63 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO 1724033 01/21/2021 20211902 446.45 City of Edina, MN A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL Report generated: 02/18/2021 12:24User: LJeffersonProgram ID: apcshdsb Page 22 CASH ACCOUNT: 9999 1012 Control BS - CashAP CHECK NO CHK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME INVOICE INV DATE PO CHECK RUN NET JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO 1724034 01/21/2021 20211902 2,008.70 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO 1724037 01/21/2021 20211902 2,242.85 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO 1724725 01/21/2021 20211902 1,598.67 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO 1724724 01/21/2021 20211902 1,913.97 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO 1724722 01/21/2021 20211902 1,213.63 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO 1724723 01/21/2021 20211902 1,414.76 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO 1724721 01/21/2021 20211902 255.85 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO 1724720 01/21/2021 20211902 771.82 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO 1724717 01/21/2021 20211902 279.18 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO 130461 01/22/2021 20211902 -.59 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO 132204 01/26/2021 20211902 -31.47 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO 1729214 01/28/2021 20211902 1,070.28 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO 1729213 01/28/2021 20211902 1,482.10 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO 1729211 01/28/2021 20211902 1,411.95 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO 1729210 01/28/2021 20211902 1,407.92 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO 1729212 01/28/2021 20211902 6,181.32 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO 1729206 01/28/2021 20211902 1,979.33 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO 1729208 01/28/2021 20211902 1,009.94 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO 1729209 01/28/2021 20211902 306.61 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO 1729203 01/28/2021 20211902 3,014.26 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO 1729207 01/28/2021 20211902 1,055.33 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO 1729204 01/28/2021 20211902 177.19 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO 1729202 01/28/2021 20211902 38.19 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO 1729200 01/28/2021 20211902 422.26 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO 1729199 01/28/2021 20211902 1,098.25 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO 1729201 01/28/2021 20211902 532.76 City of Edina, MN A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL Report generated: 02/18/2021 12:24User: LJeffersonProgram ID: apcshdsb Page 23 CASH ACCOUNT: 9999 1012 Control BS - CashAP CHECK NO CHK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME INVOICE INV DATE PO CHECK RUN NET JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO 1729227 01/28/2021 20211902 389.37 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO 1729226 01/28/2021 20211902 2,482.14 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO 1729225 01/28/2021 20211902 1,051.90 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO 1729224 01/28/2021 20211902 49.19 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO 1729223 01/28/2021 20211902 3,716.94 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO 1729221 01/28/2021 20211902 1,642.10 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO 1729220 01/28/2021 20211902 744.79 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO 1729219 01/28/2021 20211902 1,045.13 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO 1729218 01/28/2021 20211902 81.19 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO 1729205 01/28/2021 20211902 324.19 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO 1730474 01/29/2021 20211902 1,428.64 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO 134217 01/27/2021 20211902 -.06 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO 134884 02/02/2021 20211902 -64.90 CHECK 20201304 TOTAL: 56,800.35 20201305 02/19/2021 PRTD 130789 KATZ, DAVID 974 01/27/2021 20211902 266.00 CHECK 20201305 TOTAL: 266.00 20201306 02/19/2021 PRTD 103409 KELBRO COMPANY 2585690 01/21/2021 20211902 60.88 CHECK 20201306 TOTAL: 60.88 20201307 02/19/2021 PRTD 100944 KIWI KAI IMPORTS INC 114571 01/19/2021 20211902 1,683.50 KIWI KAI IMPORTS INC 114569 01/19/2021 20211902 138.25 KIWI KAI IMPORTS INC 114579 01/19/2021 20211902 1,803.75 KIWI KAI IMPORTS INC 114583 01/19/2021 20211902 1,485.10 KIWI KAI IMPORTS INC 114573 01/20/2021 20211902 2,525.25 KIWI KAI IMPORTS INC 114576 01/20/2021 20211902 640.45 KIWI KAI IMPORTS INC 115322 01/27/2021 20211902 993.85 City of Edina, MN A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL Report generated: 02/18/2021 12:24User: LJeffersonProgram ID: apcshdsb Page 24 CASH ACCOUNT: 9999 1012 Control BS - CashAP CHECK NO CHK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME INVOICE INV DATE PO CHECK RUN NET KIWI KAI IMPORTS INC 115324 01/26/2021 20211902 81.25 KIWI KAI IMPORTS INC 115325 01/27/2021 20211902 1,015.45 CHECK 20201307 TOTAL: 10,366.85 20201308 02/19/2021 PRTD 151024 LA DONA SBC 4469 01/20/2021 20211902 148.00 LA DONA SBC 4468 01/20/2021 20211902 110.00 LA DONA SBC 4485 01/29/2021 20211902 112.00 LA DONA SBC 4484 01/27/2021 20211902 76.00 CHECK 20201308 TOTAL: 446.00 20201309 02/19/2021 PRTD 101220 LANO EQUIPMENT INC 03-809018 01/21/2021 20211902 70.08 CHECK 20201309 TOTAL: 70.08 20201310 02/19/2021 PRTD 100852 LAWSON PRODUCTS INC 9308165746 01/22/2021 20211902 918.65 LAWSON PRODUCTS INC 9308169824 01/25/2021 20211902 470.27 LAWSON PRODUCTS INC 9308180411 01/28/2021 20211902 1,476.37 LAWSON PRODUCTS INC 9308184272 01/29/2021 20211902 433.01 CHECK 20201310 TOTAL: 3,298.30 20201311 02/19/2021 PRTD 101552 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES 2021 Membership Dues01/28/2021 20211902 45.00 CHECK 20201311 TOTAL: 45.00 20201312 02/19/2021 PRTD 101552 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES 3041 02/01/2021 20211902 52,024.21 CHECK 20201312 TOTAL: 52,024.21 20201313 02/19/2021 PRTD 140403 LITE-ON TECHNOLOGY USA, INC 4112181299 01/25/2021 20211902 1,245.74 CHECK 20201313 TOTAL: 1,245.74 City of Edina, MN A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL Report generated: 02/18/2021 12:24User: LJeffersonProgram ID: apcshdsb Page 25 CASH ACCOUNT: 9999 1012 Control BS - CashAP CHECK NO CHK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME INVOICE INV DATE PO CHECK RUN NET 20201314 02/19/2021 PRTD 135867 LIBATION PROJECT 33078 01/19/2021 20211902 129.50 LIBATION PROJECT 33077 01/19/2021 20211902 259.00 LIBATION PROJECT 33216 01/25/2021 20211902 145.50 CHECK 20201314 TOTAL: 534.00 20201315 02/19/2021 PRTD 117026 LIFE-ASSIST INC 1068611 01/20/2021 20211902 226.56 CHECK 20201315 TOTAL: 226.56 20201316 02/19/2021 PRTD 100856 LINHOFF PHOTO 492 01/22/2021 20211902 45.00 CHECK 20201316 TOTAL: 45.00 20201317 02/19/2021 PRTD 100857 LITTLE FALLS MACHINE INC 360606 01/30/2021 20211902 1,877.03 CHECK 20201317 TOTAL: 1,877.03 20201318 02/19/2021 PRTD 100839 KAMAN INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGIES L397551 01/26/2021 20211902 54.41 KAMAN INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGIES N475630 01/29/2021 20211902 41.38 CHECK 20201318 TOTAL: 95.79 20201319 02/19/2021 PRTD 101792 LUBE-TECH 2519292 01/06/2021 20211902 100.00 CHECK 20201319 TOTAL: 100.00 20201320 02/19/2021 PRTD 101078 LUBE-TECH ESI 2527622 01/18/2021 20211902 707.41 CHECK 20201320 TOTAL: 707.41 20201321 02/19/2021 PRTD 146427 LUCID BREWING LLC 9293 01/19/2021 20211902 100.00 LUCID BREWING LLC 9292 01/20/2021 20211902 150.00 LUCID BREWING LLC 9361 01/26/2021 20211902 150.00 LUCID BREWING LLC 9362 01/26/2021 20211902 100.00 City of Edina, MN A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL Report generated: 02/18/2021 12:24User: LJeffersonProgram ID: apcshdsb Page 26 CASH ACCOUNT: 9999 1012 Control BS - CashAP CHECK NO CHK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME INVOICE INV DATE PO CHECK RUN NET CHECK 20201321 TOTAL: 500.00 20201322 02/19/2021 PRTD 141916 LUPULIN BREWING COMPANY 34543 01/20/2021 20211902 148.00 LUPULIN BREWING COMPANY 34544 01/20/2021 20211902 201.00 LUPULIN BREWING COMPANY 34545 01/20/2021 20211902 148.00 LUPULIN BREWING COMPANY 34735 01/27/2021 20211902 278.00 CHECK 20201322 TOTAL: 775.00 20201323 02/19/2021 PRTD 100864 MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT LLC P32093 01/20/2021 20211902 481.59 MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT LLC E01155 01/18/2021 20211902 130.00 MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT LLC P32151 01/22/2021 20211902 1,329.09 MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT LLC P32284 01/29/2021 20211902 632.38 MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT LLC 50176 01/19/2021 20211902 887.64 CHECK 20201323 TOTAL: 3,460.70 20201324 02/19/2021 PRTD 100864 MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT LLC 16635 12/28/2020 20211902 47.93 CHECK 20201324 TOTAL: 47.93 20201325 02/19/2021 PRTD 134063 MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY 22160144 01/20/2021 20211902 12,921.17 CHECK 20201325 TOTAL: 12,921.17 20201326 02/19/2021 PRTD 122878 MARTTI, DOROTHEA J 256 01/25/2021 20211902 330.00 CHECK 20201326 TOTAL: 330.00 20201327 02/19/2021 PRTD 141215 MAVERICK WINE LLC INV532599 01/19/2021 20211902 216.00 MAVERICK WINE LLC INV534682 01/26/2021 20211902 255.96 MAVERICK WINE LLC INV534671 01/26/2021 20211902 161.46 MAVERICK WINE LLC INV534676 01/26/2021 20211902 225.54 MAVERICK WINE LLC INV534661 01/26/2021 20211902 257.46 City of Edina, MN A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL Report generated: 02/18/2021 12:24User: LJeffersonProgram ID: apcshdsb Page 27 CASH ACCOUNT: 9999 1012 Control BS - CashAP CHECK NO CHK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME INVOICE INV DATE PO CHECK RUN NET MAVERICK WINE LLC INV534679 01/26/2021 20211902 225.54 CHECK 20201327 TOTAL: 1,341.96 20201328 02/19/2021 PRTD 101267 MBPTA 2021 Membership 01/27/2021 20211902 100.00 CHECK 20201328 TOTAL: 100.00 20201329 02/19/2021 PRTD 130477 MCDONALD DISTRIBUTING COMPANY 565535 01/20/2021 20211902 168.00 MCDONALD DISTRIBUTING COMPANY 565534 01/20/2021 20211902 250.00 MCDONALD DISTRIBUTING COMPANY 565537 01/20/2021 20211902 202.99 MCDONALD DISTRIBUTING COMPANY 565470 01/20/2021 20211902 42.00 MCDONALD DISTRIBUTING COMPANY 565536 01/20/2021 20211902 707.00 MCDONALD DISTRIBUTING COMPANY 566463 01/27/2021 20211902 891.00 MCDONALD DISTRIBUTING COMPANY 566462 01/27/2021 20211902 42.00 MCDONALD DISTRIBUTING COMPANY 566423 01/27/2021 20211902 84.00 MCDONALD DISTRIBUTING COMPANY 566422 01/27/2021 20211902 160.00 MCDONALD DISTRIBUTING COMPANY 566409 01/27/2021 20211902 354.00 CHECK 20201329 TOTAL: 2,900.99 20201330 02/19/2021 PRTD 101483 MENARDS INC 32483 01/19/2021 20211902 39.99 MENARDS INC 32856 01/25/2021 20211902 82.00 MENARDS INC 32487 01/19/2021 20211902 19.90 MENARDS INC 32662 01/22/2021 20211902 17.99 MENARDS INC 32680 01/22/2021 20211902 33.07 MENARDS INC 32658 01/22/2021 20211902 64.99 MENARDS INC 32923 01/26/2021 20211902 217.92 MENARDS INC 33069 01/28/2021 20211902 35.39 MENARDS INC 33066 01/28/2021 20211902 50.36 MENARDS INC 33064 01/28/2021 20211902 95.60 City of Edina, MN A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL Report generated: 02/18/2021 12:24User: LJeffersonProgram ID: apcshdsb Page 28 CASH ACCOUNT: 9999 1012 Control BS - CashAP CHECK NO CHK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME INVOICE INV DATE PO CHECK RUN NET MENARDS INC 33060 01/28/2021 20211902 106.79 MENARDS INC 33054 01/28/2021 20211902 97.81 MENARDS INC 33057 01/28/2021 20211902 19.99 CHECK 20201330 TOTAL: 881.80 20201331 02/19/2021 PRTD 100883 MESSERLI & KRAMER 387609 01/21/2021 20211902 6,500.00 MESSERLI & KRAMER 387610 01/14/2021 20211902 6,500.00 MESSERLI & KRAMER 387985 01/26/2021 20211902 6,500.00 CHECK 20201331 TOTAL: 19,500.00 20201332 02/19/2021 PRTD 100886 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL 0001119398 02/08/2021 20211902 493,781.47 CHECK 20201332 TOTAL: 493,781.47 20201333 02/19/2021 PRTD 102729 METROPOLITAN FORD LLC CM520993 01/22/2021 20211902 -50.00 METROPOLITAN FORD LLC 522394 01/22/2021 20211902 80.39 CHECK 20201333 TOTAL: 30.39 20201334 02/19/2021 PRTD 127639 MIDWAY FORD COMPANY 444360 01/22/2021 20211902 47.66 MIDWAY FORD COMPANY 445287 01/27/2021 20211902 80.39 MIDWAY FORD COMPANY 445170 01/26/2021 20211902 48.10 MIDWAY FORD COMPANY 522394 01/22/2021 20211902 80.39 CHECK 20201334 TOTAL: 256.54 20201335 02/19/2021 PRTD 101161 MIDWEST CHEMICAL SUPPLY INC 43883 01/25/2021 20211902 904.58 MIDWEST CHEMICAL SUPPLY INC 43884 01/25/2021 20211902 214.00 CHECK 20201335 TOTAL: 1,118.58 20201336 02/19/2021 PRTD 145395 MILK AND HONEY LLC 8024 01/19/2021 20211902 312.00 MILK AND HONEY LLC 8056 01/21/2021 20211902 312.00 City of Edina, MN A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL Report generated: 02/18/2021 12:24User: LJeffersonProgram ID: apcshdsb Page 29 CASH ACCOUNT: 9999 1012 Control BS - CashAP CHECK NO CHK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME INVOICE INV DATE PO CHECK RUN NET MILK AND HONEY LLC 8057 01/21/2021 20211902 312.00 CHECK 20201336 TOTAL: 936.00 20201337 02/19/2021 PRTD 127062 MINNEHAHA BUILDING MAINTENANCE IN 180173459 01/24/2021 20211902 16.13 MINNEHAHA BUILDING MAINTENANCE IN 180173458 01/24/2021 20211902 21.51 MINNEHAHA BUILDING MAINTENANCE IN 180173457 01/24/2021 20211902 5.38 CHECK 20201337 TOTAL: 43.02 20201338 02/19/2021 PRTD 102770 MINNESOTA CASTERS LLC 24692 01/25/2021 20211902 71.68 MINNESOTA CASTERS LLC 24709 01/29/2021 20211902 54.82 CHECK 20201338 TOTAL: 126.50 20201339 02/19/2021 PRTD 127320 MN CIT 555 01/22/2021 20211902 750.00 CHECK 20201339 TOTAL: 750.00 20201340 02/19/2021 PRTD 100899 MN DEPT OF LABOR & INDUSTRY ABR0253938X 01/30/2021 20211902 20.00 CHECK 20201340 TOTAL: 20.00 20201341 02/19/2021 PRTD 140955 MODIST BREWING LLC E-18951 01/19/2021 20211902 189.00 MODIST BREWING LLC E-19084 01/26/2021 20211902 350.00 MODIST BREWING LLC E-19083 01/26/2021 20211902 216.00 MODIST BREWING LLC E-19082 01/26/2021 20211902 134.00 CHECK 20201341 TOTAL: 889.00 20201342 02/19/2021 PRTD 100916 MOOD MEDIA 55862418 01/21/2021 20211902 327.08 CHECK 20201342 TOTAL: 327.08 20201343 02/19/2021 PRTD 143339 MR CUTTING EDGE 2886 01/18/2021 20211902 150.00 City of Edina, MN A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL Report generated: 02/18/2021 12:24User: LJeffersonProgram ID: apcshdsb Page 30 CASH ACCOUNT: 9999 1012 Control BS - CashAP CHECK NO CHK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME INVOICE INV DATE PO CHECK RUN NET CHECK 20201343 TOTAL: 150.00 20201344 02/19/2021 PRTD 100906 MTI DISTRIBUTING INC 1288532-00 01/25/2021 20211902 338.15 MTI DISTRIBUTING INC 1288531-00 01/26/2021 20211902 28.39 MTI DISTRIBUTING INC 1288792-00 01/27/2021 20211902 2,414.31 MTI DISTRIBUTING INC 1288851-00 01/27/2021 20211902 133.45 MTI DISTRIBUTING INC 1288851-01 01/29/2021 20211902 39.30 MTI DISTRIBUTING INC 1289044-00 01/29/2021 20211902 239.85 CHECK 20201344 TOTAL: 3,193.45 20201345 02/19/2021 PRTD 102592 MUNICIPAL LEGISLATIVE COMMISSION 2021-7 01/21/2021 20211902 10,500.00 CHECK 20201345 TOTAL: 10,500.00 20201346 02/19/2021 PRTD 100076 NEW FRANCE WINE CO 165397 01/20/2021 20211902 420.00 NEW FRANCE WINE CO 165394 01/20/2021 20211902 1,234.00 NEW FRANCE WINE CO 165395 01/20/2021 20211902 1,064.00 NEW FRANCE WINE CO 165608 01/27/2021 20211902 774.00 NEW FRANCE WINE CO 165610 01/27/2021 20211902 62.00 NEW FRANCE WINE CO 165609 01/27/2021 20211902 258.00 CHECK 20201346 TOTAL: 3,812.00 20201347 02/19/2021 PRTD 104350 NIKE USA INC 9975428083 01/13/2021 20211902 37.81 CHECK 20201347 TOTAL: 37.81 20201348 02/19/2021 PRTD 151528 NO WAIT INSIDE LLC 1383 01/25/2021 20211902 51.05 CHECK 20201348 TOTAL: 51.05 20201349 02/19/2021 PRTD 115622 NORMANDALE CENTER FOR 2021 Funding 01/01/2021 20211902 12,833.00 City of Edina, MN A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL Report generated: 02/18/2021 12:24User: LJeffersonProgram ID: apcshdsb Page 31 CASH ACCOUNT: 9999 1012 Control BS - CashAP CHECK NO CHK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME INVOICE INV DATE PO CHECK RUN NET CHECK 20201349 TOTAL: 12,833.00 20201350 02/19/2021 PRTD 115616 NORTH IMAGE APPAREL INC NIA14666A 01/21/2021 20211902 176.00 CHECK 20201350 TOTAL: 176.00 20201351 02/19/2021 PRTD 139023 NUSS TRUCK GROUP INC 7161870P 01/21/2021 20211902 24.16 NUSS TRUCK GROUP INC 7162233P 01/28/2021 20211902 181.54 CHECK 20201351 TOTAL: 205.70 20201352 02/19/2021 PRTD 102712 OFFICE OF MNIT SERVICES W20120579 01/15/2021 20211902 4,038.70 OFFICE OF MNIT SERVICES W20120582 01/15/2021 20211902 299.40 CHECK 20201352 TOTAL: 4,338.10 20201353 02/19/2021 PRTD 142885 OLIPHANT BREWING LLC 5907 01/26/2021 20211902 280.00 OLIPHANT BREWING LLC 5906 01/26/2021 20211902 280.00 CHECK 20201353 TOTAL: 560.00 20201354 02/19/2021 PRTD 100936 OLSEN CHAIN & CABLE CO INC 665751 01/29/2021 20211902 33.00 CHECK 20201354 TOTAL: 33.00 20201355 02/19/2021 PRTD 141965 OMNI BREWING COMPANY LLC E-8855 01/19/2021 20211902 212.00 OMNI BREWING COMPANY LLC E-8854 01/19/2021 20211902 201.00 CHECK 20201355 TOTAL: 413.00 20201356 02/19/2021 PRTD 999998 ANNA KESSLER 3441 02/03/2021 20211902 374.64 CHECK 20201356 TOTAL: 374.64 20201357 02/19/2021 PRTD 999998 CIGNA-OVERPAYMENT RECOVERY 3447 02/03/2021 20211902 55.56 CHECK 20201357 TOTAL: 55.56 City of Edina, MN A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL Report generated: 02/18/2021 12:24User: LJeffersonProgram ID: apcshdsb Page 32 CASH ACCOUNT: 9999 1012 Control BS - CashAP CHECK NO CHK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME INVOICE INV DATE PO CHECK RUN NET 20201358 02/19/2021 PRTD 999998 JAMES PETERSON 3445 02/03/2021 20211902 5.20 CHECK 20201358 TOTAL: 5.20 20201359 02/19/2021 PRTD 999998 NANCY LEA 3446 02/03/2021 20211902 50.00 CHECK 20201359 TOTAL: 50.00 20201360 02/19/2021 PRTD 999998 ROBERTA HOFFMAN 3448 02/03/2021 20211902 105.45 CHECK 20201360 TOTAL: 105.45 20201361 02/19/2021 PRTD 999995 INNOVATIVE BASEMENT SYSTEMS ED185737-REFUND 02/11/2021 20211902 206.65 CHECK 20201361 TOTAL: 206.65 20201362 02/19/2021 PRTD 104916 PAINTERS GEAR INC 60529 01/27/2021 20211902 3,269.52 CHECK 20201362 TOTAL: 3,269.52 20201363 02/19/2021 PRTD 118899 PARK CONSTRUCTION COMPANY ENG 20-2 #8 01/21/2021 20211902 148,746.54 CHECK 20201363 TOTAL: 148,746.54 20201364 02/19/2021 PRTD 119620 POMP'S TIRE SERVICE INC 210512744 01/19/2021 20211902 155.00 CHECK 20201364 TOTAL: 155.00 20201365 02/19/2021 PRTD 125979 PRECISE MRM LLC 200-1029252 01/27/2021 20211902 150.00 PRECISE MRM LLC 200-1029261 01/27/2021 20211902 1,000.00 CHECK 20201365 TOTAL: 1,150.00 20201366 02/19/2021 PRTD 124831 PRESSWRITE PRINTING INC 082582 01/29/2021 20211902 434.00 CHECK 20201366 TOTAL: 434.00 20201367 02/19/2021 PRTD 105690 PRO-TEC DESIGN INC 99546 01/18/2021 20211902 5,216.91 PRO-TEC DESIGN INC 99574 01/19/2021 20211902 423.38 City of Edina, MN A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL Report generated: 02/18/2021 12:24User: LJeffersonProgram ID: apcshdsb Page 33 CASH ACCOUNT: 9999 1012 Control BS - CashAP CHECK NO CHK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME INVOICE INV DATE PO CHECK RUN NET PRO-TEC DESIGN INC 99678 01/26/2021 20211902 18,576.41 PRO-TEC DESIGN INC 99679 01/26/2021 20211902 15,300.70 CHECK 20201367 TOTAL: 39,517.40 20201368 02/19/2021 PRTD 143618 PRYES BREWING COMPANY LLC W-18129 01/19/2021 20211902 318.00 PRYES BREWING COMPANY LLC W-18132 01/19/2021 20211902 274.00 PRYES BREWING COMPANY LLC W-18271 01/26/2021 20211902 238.00 PRYES BREWING COMPANY LLC W-18267 01/26/2021 20211902 229.00 PRYES BREWING COMPANY LLC W-18284 01/27/2021 20211902 264.00 CHECK 20201368 TOTAL: 1,323.00 20201369 02/19/2021 PRTD 112097 PUMP & METER SERVICE 33133-1 01/28/2021 20211902 430.00 PUMP & METER SERVICE 507790 01/29/2021 20211902 323.50 CHECK 20201369 TOTAL: 753.50 20201370 02/19/2021 PRTD 133627 REPUBLIC SERVICES #894 0894-005337234 01/25/2021 20211902 2,572.05 CHECK 20201370 TOTAL: 2,572.05 20201371 02/19/2021 PRTD 102420 RETROFIT COMPANIES INC 0110862-IN 01/18/2021 20211902 240.20 CHECK 20201371 TOTAL: 240.20 20201372 02/19/2021 PRTD 100977 RICHFIELD PLUMBING COMPANY 81450 01/28/2021 20211902 1,364.47 RICHFIELD PLUMBING COMPANY 81451 01/28/2021 20211902 539.30 CHECK 20201372 TOTAL: 1,903.77 20201373 02/19/2021 PRTD 102408 RIGID HITCH INCORPORATED 1928470628 01/29/2021 20211902 9.77 CHECK 20201373 TOTAL: 9.77 20201374 02/19/2021 PRTD 101000 RJM PRINTING INC 113416 01/20/2021 20211902 54.03 RJM PRINTING INC 113318 01/25/2021 20211902 2,197.20 City of Edina, MN A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL Report generated: 02/18/2021 12:24User: LJeffersonProgram ID: apcshdsb Page 34 CASH ACCOUNT: 9999 1012 Control BS - CashAP CHECK NO CHK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME INVOICE INV DATE PO CHECK RUN NET RJM PRINTING INC 113241 01/27/2021 20211902 273.26 CHECK 20201374 TOTAL: 2,524.49 20201375 02/19/2021 PRTD 101659 ORKIN 2057333989 01/19/2021 20211902 153.42 ORKIN 205735294 01/19/2021 20211902 30.00 ORKIN 205734717 01/19/2021 20211902 26.28 ORKIN 205735474 01/25/2021 20211902 45.00 ORKIN 205735470 01/26/2021 20211902 30.00 ORKIN 205735463 01/26/2021 20211902 30.00 ORKIN 2057353233 01/26/2021 20211902 32.10 ORKIN 205735469 01/26/2021 20211902 30.00 ORKIN 205735462 01/26/2021 20211902 30.00 ORKIN 205735473 01/26/2021 20211902 45.00 ORKIN 205735466 01/26/2021 20211902 30.00 ORKIN 205735464 01/26/2021 20211902 30.00 ORKIN 205735476 01/26/2021 20211902 60.00 ORKIN 205735467 01/26/2021 20211902 30.00 ORKIN 205735475 01/26/2021 20211902 45.00 ORKIN 205735472 01/26/2021 20211902 30.00 ORKIN 2057535468 01/26/2021 20211902 30.00 ORKIN 205783359 01/26/2021 20211902 30.00 ORKIN 205735471 01/26/2021 20211902 30.00 CHECK 20201375 TOTAL: 766.80 20201376 02/19/2021 PRTD 134173 SAFE-FAST INC INV241434 01/19/2021 20211902 225.43 CHECK 20201376 TOTAL: 225.43 City of Edina, MN A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL Report generated: 02/18/2021 12:24User: LJeffersonProgram ID: apcshdsb Page 35 CASH ACCOUNT: 9999 1012 Control BS - CashAP CHECK NO CHK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME INVOICE INV DATE PO CHECK RUN NET 20201377 02/19/2021 PRTD 100988 SAFETY KLEEN SYSTEMS INC R002755322 01/27/2021 20211902 124.21 CHECK 20201377 TOTAL: 124.21 20201378 02/19/2021 PRTD 141767 SALT SOURCE LLC 18318 01/21/2021 20211902 1,458.90 CHECK 20201378 TOTAL: 1,458.90 20201379 02/19/2021 PRTD 104151 SCHINDLER ELEVATOR CORP 8105544835 01/29/2021 20211902 774.45 CHECK 20201379 TOTAL: 774.45 20201380 02/19/2021 PRTD 101587 SENIOR COMMUNITY SERVICES Services for 2021 01/08/2021 20211902 17,155.00 CHECK 20201380 TOTAL: 17,155.00 20201381 02/19/2021 PRTD 144403 SENTEXT SOLUTIONS 191408 01/20/2021 20211902 299.00 CHECK 20201381 TOTAL: 299.00 20201382 02/19/2021 PRTD 144980 SHARAB SHRUBS 424347 01/21/2021 20211902 236.00 CHECK 20201382 TOTAL: 236.00 20201383 02/19/2021 PRTD 100998 SHERWIN WILLIAMS CO 9718-1 01/19/2021 20211902 57.59 SHERWIN WILLIAMS CO 9876-3 01/21/2021 20211902 83.96 CHECK 20201383 TOTAL: 141.55 20201384 02/19/2021 PRTD 101556 SHRED-IT USA 8181313816 01/22/2021 20211902 61.70 CHECK 20201384 TOTAL: 61.70 20201385 02/19/2021 PRTD 123473 SITEIMPROVE INC US-748 01/21/2021 20211902 6,279.18 CHECK 20201385 TOTAL: 6,279.18 20201386 02/19/2021 PRTD 100430 SNAP-ON INDUSTRIAL ARV/46699479 01/18/2021 20211902 200.52 SNAP-ON INDUSTRIAL ARV/46808677 01/28/2021 20211902 959.02 City of Edina, MN A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL Report generated: 02/18/2021 12:24User: LJeffersonProgram ID: apcshdsb Page 36 CASH ACCOUNT: 9999 1012 Control BS - CashAP CHECK NO CHK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME INVOICE INV DATE PO CHECK RUN NET SNAP-ON INDUSTRIAL ARV/46811153 01/28/2021 20211902 118.79 CHECK 20201386 TOTAL: 1,278.33 20201387 02/19/2021 PRTD 129891 SPACK SOLUTIONS INC 7997 01/21/2021 20211902 1,000.00 CHECK 20201387 TOTAL: 1,000.00 20201388 02/19/2021 PRTD 104672 SPRINT SPECTRUM LP 673184124-218 01/18/2021 20211902 140.64 CHECK 20201388 TOTAL: 140.64 20201389 02/19/2021 PRTD 146960 STACKED DECK BREWING 001889 01/26/2021 20211902 204.00 CHECK 20201389 TOTAL: 204.00 20201390 02/19/2021 PRTD 133068 STEEL TOE BREWING LLC 38037 01/20/2021 20211902 336.00 STEEL TOE BREWING LLC 38035 01/20/2021 20211902 540.00 STEEL TOE BREWING LLC 38036 01/20/2021 20211902 474.00 STEEL TOE BREWING LLC 38155 01/27/2021 20211902 153.00 CHECK 20201390 TOTAL: 1,503.00 20201391 02/19/2021 PRTD 100726 STEVEN BECKMAN CORPORATION D000008411 01/26/2021 20211902 1,506.67 CHECK 20201391 TOTAL: 1,506.67 20201392 02/19/2021 PRTD 146040 STRAYER, JUSTIN 5961 01/20/2021 20211902 293.00 STRAYER, JUSTIN 5960 01/20/2021 20211902 610.00 CHECK 20201392 TOTAL: 903.00 20201393 02/19/2021 PRTD 101015 STREICHERS INC I1477834 01/18/2021 20211902 131.00 STREICHERS INC I1480511 01/28/2021 20211902 134.99 CHECK 20201393 TOTAL: 265.99 City of Edina, MN A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL Report generated: 02/18/2021 12:24User: LJeffersonProgram ID: apcshdsb Page 37 CASH ACCOUNT: 9999 1012 Control BS - CashAP CHECK NO CHK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME INVOICE INV DATE PO CHECK RUN NET 20201394 02/19/2021 PRTD 101017 SUBURBAN CHEVROLET 116193 01/28/2021 20211902 40.39 SUBURBAN CHEVROLET CM117323 02/03/2021 20211902 -35.53 CHECK 20201394 TOTAL: 4.86 20201395 02/19/2021 PRTD 105874 SUBURBAN TIRE WHOLESALE INC 10176553 01/27/2021 20211902 36.00 CHECK 20201395 TOTAL: 36.00 20201396 02/19/2021 PRTD 106673 TAPCO I688878 01/27/2021 20211902 8,922.16 CHECK 20201396 TOTAL: 8,922.16 20201397 02/19/2021 PRTD 151379 TATTERSAL COMPANIES LLC EMLS012021 01/20/2021 20211902 105.00 TATTERSAL COMPANIES LLC EMLS012721 01/27/2021 20211902 325.00 CHECK 20201397 TOTAL: 430.00 20201398 02/19/2021 PRTD 122990 TELOCIN GROUP INC 359985 01/25/2021 20211902 1,861.41 CHECK 20201398 TOTAL: 1,861.41 20201399 02/19/2021 PRTD 151312 THREADS AND INKS 9778 01/22/2021 20211902 128.00 CHECK 20201399 TOTAL: 128.00 20201400 02/19/2021 PRTD 123129 TIMESAVER OFF SITE SECRETARIAL IN #M26182 01/28/2021 20211902 590.00 CHECK 20201400 TOTAL: 590.00 20201401 02/19/2021 PRTD 146436 TYLER TECHNOLOGIES INC 045-327898 01/22/2021 20211902 13,860.00 CHECK 20201401 TOTAL: 13,860.00 20201402 02/19/2021 PRTD 103973 ULINE INC 129390793 01/26/2021 20211902 544.25 CHECK 20201402 TOTAL: 544.25 City of Edina, MN A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL Report generated: 02/18/2021 12:24User: LJeffersonProgram ID: apcshdsb Page 38 CASH ACCOUNT: 9999 1012 Control BS - CashAP CHECK NO CHK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME INVOICE INV DATE PO CHECK RUN NET 20201403 02/19/2021 PRTD 100689 ULTIMATE SAFETY CONCEPTS INC 192867 01/23/2021 20211902 3,489.84 CHECK 20201403 TOTAL: 3,489.84 20201404 02/19/2021 PRTD 130874 UNITED RENTALS (NORTH AMERICA) IN 187476539-001 10/30/2020 20211902 216.00 CHECK 20201404 TOTAL: 216.00 20201405 02/19/2021 PRTD 143184 US DIGITAL DESIGNS INC 9762 01/12/2021 20211902 9,640.25 CHECK 20201405 TOTAL: 9,640.25 20201406 02/19/2021 PRTD 140009 US KIDS GOLF LLC IN2000936 01/20/2021 20211902 148.92 CHECK 20201406 TOTAL: 148.92 20201407 02/19/2021 PRTD 143544 VAN DYKE, ALICE K #45 01/25/2021 20211902 216.25 CHECK 20201407 TOTAL: 216.25 20201408 02/19/2021 PRTD 101058 VAN PAPER COMPANY 564334-00 01/28/2021 20211902 67.97 VAN PAPER COMPANY 564298-00 01/29/2021 20211902 414.03 VAN PAPER COMPANY 563833-01 01/29/2021 20211902 66.55 CHECK 20201408 TOTAL: 548.55 20201409 02/19/2021 PRTD 103252 VEAP INC (VOLUNTEERS ENLISTED TO 211262 01/01/2021 20211902 17,677.00 VEAP INC (VOLUNTEERS ENLISTED TO 211273 01/22/2021 20211902 100,000.00 CHECK 20201409 TOTAL: 117,677.00 20201410 02/19/2021 PRTD 140048 VECTOR SOLUTIONS INV20060 01/22/2021 20211902 3,758.00 CHECK 20201410 TOTAL: 3,758.00 20201411 02/19/2021 PRTD 144209 VENN BREWING COMPANY LLC 2265 01/28/2021 20211902 351.00 VENN BREWING COMPANY LLC 2266 01/28/2021 20211902 351.00 City of Edina, MN A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL Report generated: 02/18/2021 12:24User: LJeffersonProgram ID: apcshdsb Page 39 CASH ACCOUNT: 9999 1012 Control BS - CashAP CHECK NO CHK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME INVOICE INV DATE PO CHECK RUN NET CHECK 20201411 TOTAL: 702.00 20201412 02/19/2021 PRTD 101066 VIKING ELECTRIC SUPPLY S004347904.001 01/19/2021 20211902 13.86 VIKING ELECTRIC SUPPLY S004378967.001 01/28/2021 20211902 1.00 VIKING ELECTRIC SUPPLY S004378967.002 01/28/2021 20211902 18.75 CHECK 20201412 TOTAL: 33.61 20201413 02/19/2021 PRTD 119454 VINOCOPIA INC 0272083-IN 01/21/2021 20211902 114.50 VINOCOPIA INC 0272081 01/21/2021 20211902 694.00 VINOCOPIA INC 0272427-IN 01/28/2021 20211902 330.25 VINOCOPIA INC 0272428-IN 01/28/2021 20211902 787.88 VINOCOPIA INC 0272429-IN 01/28/2021 20211902 169.00 VINOCOPIA INC 0272430-IN 01/28/2021 20211902 619.75 VINOCOPIA INC 0272082-IN 01/21/2021 20211902 110.75 CHECK 20201413 TOTAL: 2,826.13 20201414 02/19/2021 PRTD 143468 VONDENKAMP, MARK 000383 01/21/2021 20211902 168.00 VONDENKAMP, MARK 000382 01/20/2021 20211902 159.00 VONDENKAMP, MARK 000424 02/05/2021 20211902 159.00 CHECK 20201414 TOTAL: 486.00 20201415 02/19/2021 PRTD 120784 WALSH GRAPHICS INC 15761 01/22/2021 20211902 2,686.96 WALSH GRAPHICS INC 15874 01/22/2021 20211902 364.00 CHECK 20201415 TOTAL: 3,050.96 20201416 02/19/2021 PRTD 123616 WATER CONSERVATION SERVICES INC 11020 01/19/2021 20211902 857.73 CHECK 20201416 TOTAL: 857.73 City of Edina, MN A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL Report generated: 02/18/2021 12:24User: LJeffersonProgram ID: apcshdsb Page 40 CASH ACCOUNT: 9999 1012 Control BS - CashAP CHECK NO CHK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME INVOICE INV DATE PO CHECK RUN NET 20201417 02/19/2021 PRTD 135181 WATERFORD OIL CO INC 116307 01/24/2021 20211902 1,502.51 CHECK 20201417 TOTAL: 1,502.51 20201418 02/19/2021 PRTD 103219 WENDEL ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES IN 353175 01/11/2021 20211902 3,825.00 CHECK 20201418 TOTAL: 3,825.00 20201419 02/19/2021 PRTD 150986 WILLIAMS SCOTSMAN INC 8456622 01/22/2021 20211902 1,166.66 CHECK 20201419 TOTAL: 1,166.66 20201420 02/19/2021 PRTD 101033 WINE COMPANY 161828 01/20/2021 20211902 689.55 WINE COMPANY 161831 01/20/2021 20211902 1,130.15 WINE COMPANY 161829 01/20/2021 20211902 1,602.25 WINE COMPANY 161830 01/20/2021 20211902 149.00 WINE COMPANY 162401 01/27/2021 20211902 1,073.20 WINE COMPANY 162400 01/27/2021 20211902 155.00 WINE COMPANY 162399 01/27/2021 20211902 1,230.85 WINE COMPANY 162402 01/27/2021 20211902 946.00 CHECK 20201420 TOTAL: 6,976.00 20201421 02/19/2021 PRTD 124503 WINSUPPLY EDEN PRAIRIE MN CO 205363 01 01/22/2021 20211902 3.74 WINSUPPLY EDEN PRAIRIE MN CO 205364 01 01/22/2021 20211902 82.27 WINSUPPLY EDEN PRAIRIE MN CO 205429 01 01/25/2021 20211902 100.45 CHECK 20201421 TOTAL: 186.46 20201422 02/19/2021 PRTD 142162 WOODEN HILL BREWING COMPANY LLC 2574 01/28/2021 20211902 298.80 CHECK 20201422 TOTAL: 298.80 20201423 02/19/2021 PRTD 142220 WOODEN HILL BREWING COMPANY 2568 01/21/2021 20211902 250.80 WOODEN HILL BREWING COMPANY 2580 01/29/2021 20211902 250.80 City of Edina, MN A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL Report generated: 02/18/2021 12:24User: LJeffersonProgram ID: apcshdsb Page 41 CASH ACCOUNT: 9999 1012 Control BS - CashAP CHECK NO CHK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME INVOICE INV DATE PO CHECK RUN NET WOODEN HILL BREWING COMPANY 2581 01/29/2021 20211902 236.10 WOODEN HILL BREWING COMPANY 2579 01/29/2021 20211902 149.70 CHECK 20201423 TOTAL: 887.40 20201424 02/19/2021 PRTD 127774 WORLDWIDE CELLARS INC R21-50022 01/19/2021 20211902 281.50 WORLDWIDE CELLARS INC R21-50021 01/19/2021 20211902 132.04 WORLDWIDE CELLARS INC R21-50132 01/26/2021 20211902 180.04 WORLDWIDE CELLARS INC R21-50136 01/26/2021 20211902 148.00 WORLDWIDE CELLARS INC R21-50130 01/26/2021 20211902 112.00 CHECK 20201424 TOTAL: 853.58 20201425 02/19/2021 PRTD 105740 WSB & ASSOCIATES R-017155-000-2 01/19/2021 20211902 444.50 WSB & ASSOCIATES R-015816-000-6 01/22/2021 20211902 172.00 WSB & ASSOCIATES R-017423-000-1 01/26/2021 20211902 1,362.00 WSB & ASSOCIATES R-017327-000-1 01/26/2021 20211902 2,794.50 CHECK 20201425 TOTAL: 4,773.00 20201426 02/19/2021 PRTD 101103 WW GRAINGER 9781585261 01/22/2021 20211902 406.18 WW GRAINGER 9781585253 01/22/2021 20211902 48.74 WW GRAINGER 9780844552 01/21/2021 20211902 1.18 WW GRAINGER 9783576565 01/25/2021 20211902 19.32 WW GRAINGER 9786162546 01/26/2021 20211902 406.18 WW GRAINGER 9790215553 01/29/2021 20211902 288.39 CHECK 20201426 TOTAL: 1,169.99 20201427 02/19/2021 PRTD 101572 ZARNOTH BRUSH WORKS INC 0183102-IN 01/21/2021 20211902 14.50 ZARNOTH BRUSH WORKS INC 0183154-IN 01/26/2021 20211902 11.80 City of Edina, MN A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL Report generated: 02/18/2021 12:24User: LJeffersonProgram ID: apcshdsb Page 42 CASH ACCOUNT: 9999 1012 Control BS - CashAP CHECK NO CHK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME INVOICE INV DATE PO CHECK RUN NET CHECK 20201427 TOTAL: 26.30 20201428 02/19/2021 PRTD 101091 ZIEGLER INC SW100227122 01/21/2021 20211902 494.11 ZIEGLER INC PC120077616 01/26/2021 20211902 65.52 CHECK 20201428 TOTAL: 559.63 20201429 02/19/2021 PRTD 136192 ZOLL MEDICAL CORPORATION 3218044 01/22/2021 20211902 392.78 ZOLL MEDICAL CORPORATION 3216497 01/21/2021 20211902 1,138.50 ZOLL MEDICAL CORPORATION 90049379 01/26/2021 20211902 2,587.50 CHECK 20201429 TOTAL: 4,118.78 NUMBER OF CHECKS 221 *** CASH ACCOUNT TOTAL *** 1,498,662.93 COUNT AMOUNT TOTAL PRINTED CHECKS 221 1,498,662.93 *** GRAND TOTAL *** 1,498,662.93 City of Edina, MN A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL Report generated: 02/25/2021 14:24User: LJeffersonProgram ID: apcshdsb Page 42 JOURNAL ENTRIES TO BE CREATED FUND SUB FUND DUE TO DUE FR 1000 General 142,346.652100 Police Special Revenue 283.552300 Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety 20,080.232500 Conservation & Sustainability 5,100.002600 Housing & Redvlpmt Authority 4,569.502600 Housing & Redvlpmt Authority 636.002600 Housing & Redvlpmt Authority 35,360.452600 Housing & Redvlpmt Authority 1,081.004000 Capital Projects 76,030.754200 Equipment Replacement 13,444.304400 PIR Capital Projects 4,007.235100 Art Center 2,730.005200 Braemar Golf Course 11,712.965200 Braemar Golf Course 2,492.395300 Aquatic Center 956.805400 Edinborough Park 1,844.195500 Braemar Arena 5,832.985600 Braemar Field 2,057.605700 Centennial Lakes 1,254.575800 Liquor 206,702.665900 Utility Fund 46,729.705900 Utility Fund 5,687.235900 Utility Fund 18,609.735900 Utility Fund 67,985.006000 Risk Management 692.656100 Equipment Operations 29,079.596200 Information Technology 31,530.456300 Facilities Management 3,148.807100 PS Training Facility 12,437.707200 MN Task Force 1 22,393.019999 Pooled Cash Fund 776,817.67 TOTAL 776,817.67 776,817.67 ** END OF REPORT - Generated by Lonnia Jefferson ** City of Edina, MN A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL Report generated: 02/25/2021 14:24User: LJeffersonProgram ID: apcshdsb Page 1 CASH ACCOUNT: 9999 1012 Control BS - CashAP CHECK NO CHK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME INVOICE INV DATE PO CHECK RUN NET 456868 02/26/2021 PRTD 120831 1ST SCRIBE INC 253550 02/01/2021 20210226 425.00 CHECK 456868 TOTAL: 425.00 456869 02/26/2021 PRTD 120796 ALERUS RETIREMENT AND BENEFITS C103496 02/05/2021 20210226 193.00 CHECK 456869 TOTAL: 193.00 456870 02/26/2021 PRTD 141960 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES 1GRX-MN4F-G9KV 01/31/2021 20210226 39.95 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES 1YHH-1R3H-JMJ6 01/31/2021 20210226 715.27 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES 1VHY-HM6X-LDHL 02/01/2021 20210226 137.92 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES 1LHY-7H1V-4K74 02/02/2021 20210226 142.46 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES 1PGF-33VY-9GPD 02/02/2021 20210226 14.98 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES 1WMV-WVCW-LX6T 02/03/2021 20210226 76.24 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES 1JPQ-W4LF-N1KT 02/03/2021 20210226 188.26 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES 1HWM-7QVR-GRYC 02/03/2021 20210226 180.77 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES 11FK-7P7N-GJ6H 02/04/2021 20210226 17.49 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES 1DR1-QQPY-GVHC 02/05/2021 20210226 25.98 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES 1CR1-T4R3-FL4L 02/06/2021 20210226 88.90 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES 1K34-R9XF-KQHT 02/06/2021 20210226 29.99 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES 1GCR-G493-JK7F 12/31/2020 20210226 -334.20 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES 1C73-3DD3-6LGV 12/31/2020 20210226 -43.99 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES 1W39-Y3MX-1TV9 12/31/2020 20210226 -49.99 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES 19NM-HMM3-KH7J 12/31/2020 20210226 -143.97 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES 17YV-CHHM-6XFW 02/13/2021 20210226 -26.99 CHECK 456870 TOTAL: 1,059.07 456871 02/26/2021 PRTD 114799 APPLIED ECOLOGICAL SERVICES INC 005660 01/31/2021 20210226 1,702.50 CHECK 456871 TOTAL: 1,702.50 City of Edina, MN A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL Report generated: 02/25/2021 14:24User: LJeffersonProgram ID: apcshdsb Page 2 CASH ACCOUNT: 9999 1012 Control BS - CashAP CHECK NO CHK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME INVOICE INV DATE PO CHECK RUN NET 456872 02/26/2021 PRTD 135988 APPRIZE TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INC 20012022021 02/01/2021 20210226 1,132.20 CHECK 456872 TOTAL: 1,132.20 456873 02/26/2021 PRTD 151441 ARAMARK UNIFORM AND CAREER APPEAL 1004975287 02/03/2021 20210226 505.80 CHECK 456873 TOTAL: 505.80 456874 02/26/2021 PRTD 151756 ARBEITER BREWING COMPANY LLC 126 02/06/2021 20210226 234.00 CHECK 456874 TOTAL: 234.00 456875 02/26/2021 PRTD 100634 ASPEN EQUIPMENT CO 10226082 02/05/2021 20210226 2,019.30 CHECK 456875 TOTAL: 2,019.30 456876 02/26/2021 PRTD 102774 ASPEN WASTE SYSTEMS OF MINNESOTA S1146354-020121 02/01/2021 20210226 271.17 CHECK 456876 TOTAL: 271.17 456877 02/26/2021 PRTD 100636 ASTLEFORD EQUIPMENT COMPANY INC 01P27275 02/05/2021 20210226 70.18 CHECK 456877 TOTAL: 70.18 456878 02/26/2021 PRTD 101718 AUTO PLUS - FORMERLY PARTS PLUS 380038712 02/02/2021 20210226 38.33 AUTO PLUS - FORMERLY PARTS PLUS 380039143 02/03/2021 20210226 16.13 AUTO PLUS - FORMERLY PARTS PLUS 380039260 02/04/2021 20210226 13.86 AUTO PLUS - FORMERLY PARTS PLUS 380040077 02/10/2021 20210226 -2.28 CHECK 456878 TOTAL: 66.04 456879 02/26/2021 PRTD 101355 BELLBOY CORPORATION 0087859000 02/04/2021 20210226 5,058.85 BELLBOY CORPORATION 0102712500 02/04/2021 20210226 102.77 BELLBOY CORPORATION 0087858900 02/04/2021 20210226 552.40 BELLBOY CORPORATION 0102712200 02/04/2021 20210226 37.67 BELLBOY CORPORATION 0087858400 02/04/2021 20210226 3,597.15 City of Edina, MN A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL Report generated: 02/25/2021 14:24User: LJeffersonProgram ID: apcshdsb Page 3 CASH ACCOUNT: 9999 1012 Control BS - CashAP CHECK NO CHK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME INVOICE INV DATE PO CHECK RUN NET BELLBOY CORPORATION 0087859200 02/04/2021 20210226 171.10 BELLBOY CORPORATION 0087859100 02/04/2021 20210226 1,523.40 CHECK 456879 TOTAL: 11,043.34 456880 02/26/2021 PRTD 117379 BENIEK PROPERTY SERVICES INC 155586 02/01/2021 20210226 950.00 CHECK 456880 TOTAL: 950.00 456881 02/26/2021 PRTD 143097 BERRY DUNN MCNEIL & PARKER LLC 394851 09/10/2020 20210226 2,550.00 CHECK 456881 TOTAL: 2,550.00 456882 02/26/2021 PRTD 128914 BJKK DEVELOPMENT 30761 02/05/2021 20210226 1,029.69 BJKK DEVELOPMENT 30755 02/03/2021 20210226 51.91 BJKK DEVELOPMENT 30748 02/03/2021 20210226 50.05 CHECK 456882 TOTAL: 1,131.65 456883 02/26/2021 PRTD 142153 BLACK STACK BREWING INC 11367 02/04/2021 20210226 695.00 BLACK STACK BREWING INC 11369 02/04/2021 20210226 281.00 BLACK STACK BREWING INC 11368 02/04/2021 20210226 281.00 CHECK 456883 TOTAL: 1,257.00 456884 02/26/2021 PRTD 125268 BLUE COMPACTOR SERVICES LLC FEB2021-4 02/04/2021 20210226 386.00 CHECK 456884 TOTAL: 386.00 456885 02/26/2021 PRTD 132444 BOLTON & MENK INC 0263772 01/26/2021 20210226 1,096.50 CHECK 456885 TOTAL: 1,096.50 456886 02/26/2021 PRTD 105367 BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC 83943106 02/05/2021 20210226 294.75 BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC 83943107 02/05/2021 20210226 294.75 CHECK 456886 TOTAL: 589.50 City of Edina, MN A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL Report generated: 02/25/2021 14:24User: LJeffersonProgram ID: apcshdsb Page 4 CASH ACCOUNT: 9999 1012 Control BS - CashAP CHECK NO CHK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME INVOICE INV DATE PO CHECK RUN NET 456887 02/26/2021 PRTD 119351 BOURGET IMPORTS 175403 02/02/2021 20210226 1,352.00 BOURGET IMPORTS 175402 02/02/2021 20210226 876.25 BOURGET IMPORTS 175401 02/02/2021 20210226 913.50 CHECK 456887 TOTAL: 3,141.75 456888 02/26/2021 PRTD 117040 BOYER FORD TRUCKS INC 941486X1 02/02/2021 20210226 19.54 BOYER FORD TRUCKS INC 941501X1 02/02/2021 20210226 149.25 BOYER FORD TRUCKS INC 942170 02/04/2021 20210226 7.86 CHECK 456888 TOTAL: 176.65 456889 02/26/2021 PRTD 120143 BRAKE & EQUIPMENT WAREHOUSE INC 01JQ3367 02/02/2021 20210226 124.32 CHECK 456889 TOTAL: 124.32 456890 02/26/2021 PRTD 100664 BRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION B241386 01/29/2021 20210226 1,426.00 CHECK 456890 TOTAL: 1,426.00 456891 02/26/2021 PRTD 124291 BREAKTHRU BEVERAGE MINNESOTA WINE 1081235367 02/02/2021 20210226 4,081.31 BREAKTHRU BEVERAGE MINNESOTA WINE 1081235366 02/02/2021 20210226 2,903.23 BREAKTHRU BEVERAGE MINNESOTA WINE 1081235365 02/02/2021 20210226 122.30 BREAKTHRU BEVERAGE MINNESOTA WINE 1081235364 02/02/2021 20210226 31.15 BREAKTHRU BEVERAGE MINNESOTA WINE 1081235368 02/02/2021 20210226 106.09 BREAKTHRU BEVERAGE MINNESOTA WINE 1081235377 02/03/2021 20210226 2,912.25 BREAKTHRU BEVERAGE MINNESOTA WINE 1081235376 02/03/2021 20210226 45.15 BREAKTHRU BEVERAGE MINNESOTA WINE 1081235378 02/03/2021 20210226 106.09 BREAKTHRU BEVERAGE MINNESOTA WINE 1081235379 02/03/2021 20210226 771.69 BREAKTHRU BEVERAGE MINNESOTA WINE 1081235380 02/03/2021 20210226 4,416.25 BREAKTHRU BEVERAGE MINNESOTA WINE 1081235370 02/03/2021 20210226 77.15 BREAKTHRU BEVERAGE MINNESOTA WINE 1081235373 02/03/2021 20210226 106.09 City of Edina, MN A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL Report generated: 02/25/2021 14:24User: LJeffersonProgram ID: apcshdsb Page 5 CASH ACCOUNT: 9999 1012 Control BS - CashAP CHECK NO CHK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME INVOICE INV DATE PO CHECK RUN NET BREAKTHRU BEVERAGE MINNESOTA WINE 1081235371 02/03/2021 20210226 530.68 BREAKTHRU BEVERAGE MINNESOTA WINE 1081235375 02/03/2021 20210226 829.75 BREAKTHRU BEVERAGE MINNESOTA WINE 1081235372 02/03/2021 20210226 1,030.15 BREAKTHRU BEVERAGE MINNESOTA WINE 1081235374 02/03/2021 20210226 208.65 CHECK 456891 TOTAL: 18,277.98 456892 02/26/2021 PRTD 124529 BREAKTHRU BEVERAGE MINNESOTA BEER 1091205279 02/02/2021 20210226 1,794.25 BREAKTHRU BEVERAGE MINNESOTA BEER 1091205280 02/02/2021 20210226 1,134.85 BREAKTHRU BEVERAGE MINNESOTA BEER RPA 55698 02/02/2021 20210226 -12.75 BREAKTHRU BEVERAGE MINNESOTA BEER R09316461 02/02/2021 20210226 -127.50 BREAKTHRU BEVERAGE MINNESOTA BEER 1091205321 02/02/2021 20210226 3,915.10 BREAKTHRU BEVERAGE MINNESOTA BEER 2080300954 02/05/2021 20210226 -60.00 CHECK 456892 TOTAL: 6,643.95 456893 02/26/2021 PRTD 119455 CAPITOL BEVERAGE SALES LP 2508602 02/02/2021 20210226 2,919.30 CAPITOL BEVERAGE SALES LP 2508537 02/02/2021 20210226 117.00 CAPITOL BEVERAGE SALES LP 2508588 02/02/2021 20210226 63.99 CAPITOL BEVERAGE SALES LP 2508664 02/02/2021 20210226 1,956.70 CAPITOL BEVERAGE SALES LP 2508677 02/02/2021 20210226 49.99 CAPITOL BEVERAGE SALES LP 2508589 02/02/2021 20210226 58.50 CAPITOL BEVERAGE SALES LP 2508587 02/02/2021 20210226 14.00 CAPITOL BEVERAGE SALES LP 2508586 02/02/2021 20210226 590.10 CAPITOL BEVERAGE SALES LP 2509544 02/04/2021 20210226 296.80 CHECK 456893 TOTAL: 6,066.38 456894 02/26/2021 PRTD 144675 CARLOS CREEK WINERY INC 20717 02/03/2021 20210226 72.00 City of Edina, MN A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL Report generated: 02/25/2021 14:24User: LJeffersonProgram ID: apcshdsb Page 6 CASH ACCOUNT: 9999 1012 Control BS - CashAP CHECK NO CHK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME INVOICE INV DATE PO CHECK RUN NET CHECK 456894 TOTAL: 72.00 456895 02/26/2021 PRTD 108517 CARVER COUNTY 20010918 12/31/2020 20210226 300.00 CHECK 456895 TOTAL: 300.00 456896 02/26/2021 PRTD 151771 CHRONOGOLF INC CGBRAEMAR-0002 02/01/2021 20210226 924.32 CHECK 456896 TOTAL: 924.32 456897 02/26/2021 PRTD 142028 CINTAS CORPORATION 4074570563 02/01/2021 20210226 36.88 CINTAS CORPORATION 4074570588 02/01/2021 20210226 30.25 CINTAS CORPORATION 4074570418 02/01/2021 20210226 26.36 CINTAS CORPORATION 4074570499 02/01/2021 20210226 9.86 CINTAS CORPORATION 4074570571 02/01/2021 20210226 39.62 CINTAS CORPORATION 4074570108 02/01/2021 20210226 3.69 CINTAS CORPORATION 4075135788 02/05/2021 20210226 63.20 CHECK 456897 TOTAL: 209.86 456898 02/26/2021 PRTD 146472 CITY WIDE MAINTENANCE OF MN I00079243 02/01/2021 20210226 1,395.00 CHECK 456898 TOTAL: 1,395.00 456899 02/26/2021 PRTD 145926 CLEARWATER ANALYTICS LLC 517054 02/01/2021 20210226 849.32 CHECK 456899 TOTAL: 849.32 456900 02/26/2021 PRTD 102165 ROGER CLEVELAND GOLF CO. INC 6218463 NO 01/06/2021 20210226 -650.00 ROGER CLEVELAND GOLF CO. INC 6202386 SZ 12/15/2020 20210226 656.60 ROGER CLEVELAND GOLF CO. INC 6201182 SZ 12/14/2020 20210226 262.60 ROGER CLEVELAND GOLF CO. INC 6197704 SZ 12/10/2020 20210226 525.20 ROGER CLEVELAND GOLF CO. INC 6162340 SZ 11/06/2020 20210226 1,522.50 ROGER CLEVELAND GOLF CO. INC 6162340 SZ Freight 11/06/2020 20210226 15.25 City of Edina, MN A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL Report generated: 02/25/2021 14:24User: LJeffersonProgram ID: apcshdsb Page 7 CASH ACCOUNT: 9999 1012 Control BS - CashAP CHECK NO CHK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME INVOICE INV DATE PO CHECK RUN NET CHECK 456900 TOTAL: 2,332.15 456901 02/26/2021 PRTD 142772 CREATIVE ARCADE 1024 02/01/2021 20210226 950.00 CHECK 456901 TOTAL: 950.00 456902 02/26/2021 PRTD 101403 CRYSTEEL MANUFACTURING INC LC00069219 02/02/2021 20210226 116.56 CHECK 456902 TOTAL: 116.56 456903 02/26/2021 PRTD 100699 CULLIGAN SOFTWATER SERVICE COMPAN 114X78762701 01/31/2021 20210226 19.10 CULLIGAN SOFTWATER SERVICE COMPAN 114X78885106 01/31/2021 20210226 42.62 CULLIGAN SOFTWATER SERVICE COMPAN 114X79001208 01/31/2021 20210226 45.82 CHECK 456903 TOTAL: 107.54 456904 02/26/2021 PRTD 103799 CURBSIDE LANDSCAPE & IRRIGATION 224445 01/31/2021 20210226 85.00 CURBSIDE LANDSCAPE & IRRIGATION 224901 02/05/2021 20210226 560.00 CHECK 456904 TOTAL: 645.00 456905 02/26/2021 PRTD 141837 DAIOHS USA INC 533986 02/03/2021 20210226 322.33 CHECK 456905 TOTAL: 322.33 456906 02/26/2021 PRTD 104020 DALCO ENTERPRISES INC 3736652 02/03/2021 20210226 2,168.74 CHECK 456906 TOTAL: 2,168.74 456907 02/26/2021 PRTD 151282 DIVERSYS LEARNING INC 8347 02/01/2021 20210226 12.95 CHECK 456907 TOTAL: 12.95 456908 02/26/2021 PRTD 100730 DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP 3640788 02/08/2021 20210226 1,081.00 DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP 3640789 01/31/2021 20210226 3,021.00 DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP 3640787 01/31/2021 20210226 636.00 City of Edina, MN A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL Report generated: 02/25/2021 14:24User: LJeffersonProgram ID: apcshdsb Page 8 CASH ACCOUNT: 9999 1012 Control BS - CashAP CHECK NO CHK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME INVOICE INV DATE PO CHECK RUN NET CHECK 456908 TOTAL: 4,738.00 456909 02/26/2021 PRTD 150827 DRASTIC MEASURES BREWING, LLC 1077 02/05/2021 20210226 617.00 DRASTIC MEASURES BREWING, LLC 1078 02/05/2021 20210226 212.50 DRASTIC MEASURES BREWING, LLC 1079 02/05/2021 20210226 281.00 CHECK 456909 TOTAL: 1,110.50 456910 02/26/2021 PRTD 145811 EASTLAKE CRAFT BREWERY LLC 1229 02/02/2021 20210226 133.20 CHECK 456910 TOTAL: 133.20 456911 02/26/2021 PRTD 142458 EDINA MARKET STREET LLC 121 10/15/2020 20210226 505.06 CHECK 456911 TOTAL: 505.06 456912 02/26/2021 PRTD 103594 EDINALARM INC 60714 02/01/2021 20210226 354.83 EDINALARM INC 60692 02/01/2021 20210226 432.25 CHECK 456912 TOTAL: 787.08 456913 02/26/2021 PRTD 100049 EHLERS AND ASSOCIATES 85892 01/11/2021 20210226 122.50 CHECK 456913 TOTAL: 122.50 456914 02/26/2021 PRTD 122792 EMERGENCY AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGIES JOR20089 02/05/2021 20210226 10,362.25 CHECK 456914 TOTAL: 10,362.25 456915 02/26/2021 PRTD 100146 ELLIOTT AUTO SUPPLY CO, INC 1-6738366 02/02/2021 20210226 24.16 ELLIOTT AUTO SUPPLY CO, INC 69-407196 02/03/2021 20210226 62.55 ELLIOTT AUTO SUPPLY CO, INC 69-407229 02/03/2021 20210226 41.16 ELLIOTT AUTO SUPPLY CO, INC 1-6737633 02/02/2021 20210226 111.46 ELLIOTT AUTO SUPPLY CO, INC 69-407245 02/03/2021 20210226 41.16 ELLIOTT AUTO SUPPLY CO, INC 69-407294 02/03/2021 20210226 7.92 ELLIOTT AUTO SUPPLY CO, INC 1-6741068 02/03/2021 20210226 52.46 City of Edina, MN A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL Report generated: 02/25/2021 14:24User: LJeffersonProgram ID: apcshdsb Page 9 CASH ACCOUNT: 9999 1012 Control BS - CashAP CHECK NO CHK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME INVOICE INV DATE PO CHECK RUN NET ELLIOTT AUTO SUPPLY CO, INC 69-407249 02/03/2021 20210226 250.24 ELLIOTT AUTO SUPPLY CO, INC 1-6742945 02/05/2021 20210226 26.97 ELLIOTT AUTO SUPPLY CO, INC 69-407708 02/09/2021 20210226 -19.55 CHECK 456915 TOTAL: 598.53 456916 02/26/2021 PRTD 147181 FALLING BREWERY - BERGMAN LEDGE L E-2627 02/03/2021 20210226 375.00 FALLING BREWERY - BERGMAN LEDGE L E-2628 02/04/2021 20210226 315.00 CHECK 456916 TOTAL: 690.00 456917 02/26/2021 PRTD 126004 FERGUSON WATERWORKS SC22325 01/31/2021 20210226 42.00 FERGUSON WATERWORKS 0468829 02/01/2021 20210226 592.67 CHECK 456917 TOTAL: 634.67 456918 02/26/2021 PRTD 116492 FINANCE AND COMMERCE INC 744959988 02/05/2021 20210226 357.61 CHECK 456918 TOTAL: 357.61 456919 02/26/2021 PRTD 105066 FITTING REFLECTIONS LLC 3086 02/03/2021 20210226 545.00 CHECK 456919 TOTAL: 545.00 456920 02/26/2021 PRTD 102727 FORCE AMERICA DISTRIBUTING LLC 001-1513008 02/05/2021 20210226 2,214.80 CHECK 456920 TOTAL: 2,214.80 456921 02/26/2021 PRTD 122414 FORKLIFTS OF MINNESOTA INC 01P8249630 02/03/2021 20210226 133.38 CHECK 456921 TOTAL: 133.38 456922 02/26/2021 PRTD 104716 GALE-TEC ENGINEERING INC 3032 02/02/2021 20210226 16,073.00 CHECK 456922 TOTAL: 16,073.00 456923 02/26/2021 PRTD 102456 GALLS PARENT HOLDINGS LLC BC1285547 02/01/2021 20210226 133.79 GALLS PARENT HOLDINGS LLC BC1287979 02/04/2021 20210226 262.15 City of Edina, MN A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL Report generated: 02/25/2021 14:24User: LJeffersonProgram ID: apcshdsb Page 10 CASH ACCOUNT: 9999 1012 Control BS - CashAP CHECK NO CHK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME INVOICE INV DATE PO CHECK RUN NET CHECK 456923 TOTAL: 395.94 456924 02/26/2021 PRTD 130239 GLADWIN MACHINERY & SUPPLY CO SIM.82414 02/01/2021 20210226 587.28 CHECK 456924 TOTAL: 587.28 456925 02/26/2021 PRTD 120079 GOODPOINTE TECHNOLOGY INC 4159 02/03/2021 20210226 2,612.50 CHECK 456925 TOTAL: 2,612.50 456926 02/26/2021 PRTD 100780 GOPHERS STATE ONE CALL 1000361 01/31/2021 20210226 50.00 GOPHERS STATE ONE CALL 1010361 01/31/2021 20210226 271.35 CHECK 456926 TOTAL: 321.35 456927 02/26/2021 PRTD 144412 WINEBOW MN00089639 02/02/2021 20210226 179.48 WINEBOW MN00089640 02/02/2021 20210226 327.50 WINEBOW MN00089651 02/02/2021 20210226 250.77 WINEBOW MN00089772 02/05/2021 20210226 2,176.25 CHECK 456927 TOTAL: 2,934.00 456928 02/26/2021 PRTD 100790 HACH COMPANY 12294863 01/25/2021 20210226 85.39 HACH COMPANY 12314250 02/05/2021 20210226 497.45 CHECK 456928 TOTAL: 582.84 456929 02/26/2021 PRTD 106431 HALL, MARY 2/11/21 Performance 02/05/2021 20210226 250.00 CHECK 456929 TOTAL: 250.00 456930 02/26/2021 PRTD 103085 HENNEPIN COUNTY ACCOUNTING SERVIC 1000157916 01/31/2021 20210226 1,609.47 HENNEPIN COUNTY ACCOUNTING SERVIC 1000158143 02/03/2021 20210226 1,816.70 HENNEPIN COUNTY ACCOUNTING SERVIC 1000158099 02/03/2021 20210226 3,142.40 HENNEPIN COUNTY ACCOUNTING SERVIC 1000158060 02/01/2021 20210226 174.00 City of Edina, MN A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL Report generated: 02/25/2021 14:24User: LJeffersonProgram ID: apcshdsb Page 11 CASH ACCOUNT: 9999 1012 Control BS - CashAP CHECK NO CHK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME INVOICE INV DATE PO CHECK RUN NET CHECK 456930 TOTAL: 6,742.57 456931 02/26/2021 PRTD 104375 HOHENSTEINS INC 385715 02/02/2021 20210226 369.00 HOHENSTEINS INC 385718 02/02/2021 20210226 294.00 HOHENSTEINS INC 385714 02/02/2021 20210226 459.00 HOHENSTEINS INC 385778 02/03/2021 20210226 127.50 HOHENSTEINS INC 218250 12/31/2020 20210226 581.00 CHECK 456931 TOTAL: 1,830.50 456932 02/26/2021 PRTD 131544 INDEED BREWING COMPANY MN LLC 97318 02/03/2021 20210226 879.25 INDEED BREWING COMPANY MN LLC 97317 02/02/2021 20210226 141.60 INDEED BREWING COMPANY MN LLC 97319 02/04/2021 20210226 791.40 CHECK 456932 TOTAL: 1,812.25 456933 02/26/2021 PRTD 146407 INGCO INTERNATIONAL CAP 11-600011/8 02/01/2021 20210226 1,000.00 CHECK 456933 TOTAL: 1,000.00 456934 02/26/2021 PRTD 150898 INVICTUS BREWING INC 2463 02/05/2021 20210226 62.00 CHECK 456934 TOTAL: 62.00 456935 02/26/2021 PRTD 116776 JASPERSEN ENTERPRISES INC 86606 02/01/2021 20210226 115.00 CHECK 456935 TOTAL: 115.00 456936 02/26/2021 PRTD 100828 JERRY'S ENTERPRISES INC PARKS MAINT-1/21 01/25/2021 20210226 820.06 CHECK 456936 TOTAL: 820.06 456937 02/26/2021 PRTD 102146 JESSEN PRESS INC 686305 01/29/2021 20210226 3,004.00 CHECK 456937 TOTAL: 3,004.00 City of Edina, MN A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL Report generated: 02/25/2021 14:24User: LJeffersonProgram ID: apcshdsb Page 12 CASH ACCOUNT: 9999 1012 Control BS - CashAP CHECK NO CHK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME INVOICE INV DATE PO CHECK RUN NET 456938 02/26/2021 PRTD 100741 JJ TAYLOR DISTRIBUTING CO OF MINN 3159210 02/02/2021 20210226 4,077.75 JJ TAYLOR DISTRIBUTING CO OF MINN 3159208 02/03/2021 20210226 170.70 JJ TAYLOR DISTRIBUTING CO OF MINN 3159207 02/03/2021 20210226 1,774.35 JJ TAYLOR DISTRIBUTING CO OF MINN 3159209 02/03/2021 20210226 3,618.15 CHECK 456938 TOTAL: 9,640.95 456939 02/26/2021 PRTD 103215 JOHN E REID & ASSOCIATES INC 88D8A0D6-0001 01/22/2021 20210226 575.00 CHECK 456939 TOTAL: 575.00 456940 02/26/2021 PRTD 100835 ARTISAN BEER COMPANY 3457658 02/04/2021 20210226 71.20 ARTISAN BEER COMPANY 3457657 02/04/2021 20210226 478.80 ARTISAN BEER COMPANY 3457661 02/04/2021 20210226 71.20 ARTISAN BEER COMPANY 3457660 02/04/2021 20210226 2,569.90 ARTISAN BEER COMPANY 3457659 02/04/2021 20210226 3,108.55 ARTISAN BEER COMPANY 3457042 02/01/2021 20210226 508.00 ARTISAN BEER COMPANY 499659 12/31/2020 20210226 -36.88 CHECK 456940 TOTAL: 6,770.77 456941 02/26/2021 PRTD 100835 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS 624376 02/01/2021 20210226 -6.00 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS 624247 02/02/2021 20210226 -5.15 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS 6154814 02/04/2021 20210226 216.18 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS 6154812 02/04/2021 20210226 1,154.28 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS 6154808 02/04/2021 20210226 1,029.17 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS 6154810 02/04/2021 20210226 1,453.33 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS 6154813 02/04/2021 20210226 1,534.28 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS 6154811 02/04/2021 20210226 792.29 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS 6154820 02/04/2021 20210226 1,534.28 City of Edina, MN A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL Report generated: 02/25/2021 14:24User: LJeffersonProgram ID: apcshdsb Page 13 CASH ACCOUNT: 9999 1012 Control BS - CashAP CHECK NO CHK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME INVOICE INV DATE PO CHECK RUN NET PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS 6154819 02/04/2021 20210226 88.19 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS 6154818 02/04/2021 20210226 1,618.44 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS 624720 02/04/2021 20210226 -16.15 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS 624721 02/04/2021 20210226 -3.92 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS 6154809 02/04/2021 20210226 404.72 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS 6154817 02/04/2021 20210226 832.61 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS 6154807 02/04/2021 20210226 1,175.32 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS 1655554 02/05/2021 20210226 338.07 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS 6154806 02/04/2021 20210226 393.01 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS 6155553 02/05/2021 20210226 467.76 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS 6154806CR 02/04/2021 20210226 -32.00 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS 6155555 02/05/2021 20210226 346.57 CHECK 456941 TOTAL: 13,315.28 456942 02/26/2021 PRTD 100835 WINE MERCHANTS 736308 02/02/2021 20210226 -14.66 WINE MERCHANTS 7316509 02/04/2021 20210226 1,730.71 WINE MERCHANTS 7316510 02/04/2021 20210226 4,712.09 WINE MERCHANTS 7316508 02/04/2021 20210226 2,061.85 WINE MERCHANTS 7315975 02/03/2021 20210226 226.50 WINE MERCHANTS 7317607 02/11/2021 20210226 82.50 CHECK 456942 TOTAL: 8,798.99 456943 02/26/2021 PRTD 100835 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO 132330 02/01/2021 20210226 -5.52 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO 133945 02/02/2021 20210226 -13.50 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO 133830 02/02/2021 20210226 -58.76 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO 1730475 02/02/2021 20210226 446.45 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO 1734182 02/04/2021 20210226 835.89 City of Edina, MN A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL Report generated: 02/25/2021 14:24User: LJeffersonProgram ID: apcshdsb Page 14 CASH ACCOUNT: 9999 1012 Control BS - CashAP CHECK NO CHK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME INVOICE INV DATE PO CHECK RUN NET JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO 1734183 02/04/2021 20210226 1,414.75 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO 1734184 02/04/2021 20210226 708.33 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO 1734185 02/04/2021 20210226 29.19 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO 1734188 02/04/2021 20210226 767.50 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO 1734190 02/04/2021 20210226 399.57 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO 1734193 02/04/2021 20210226 543.62 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO 1734172 02/04/2021 20210226 .39 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO 1734192 02/04/2021 20210226 4,979.36 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO 1734189 02/04/2021 20210226 909.36 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO 1734175 02/04/2021 20210226 1,987.30 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO 1734187 02/04/2021 20210226 2,939.74 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO 1734186 02/04/2021 20210226 549.46 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO 1734191 02/04/2021 20210226 2,341.89 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO 1734205 02/04/2021 20210226 450.78 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO 1734204 02/04/2021 20210226 470.95 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO 1734206 02/04/2021 20210226 3,487.61 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO 1734200 02/04/2021 20210226 1,072.23 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO 1734199 02/04/2021 20210226 387.54 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO 1734198 02/04/2021 20210226 29.19 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO 1734197 02/04/2021 20210226 719.83 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO 1734196 02/04/2021 20210226 376.99 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO 1734176 02/04/2021 20210226 583.45 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO 1734201 02/04/2021 20210226 399.57 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO 1734202 02/04/2021 20210226 909.36 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO 1734203 02/04/2021 20210226 1,505.28 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO 1734173 02/04/2021 20210226 .39 City of Edina, MN A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL Report generated: 02/25/2021 14:24User: LJeffersonProgram ID: apcshdsb Page 15 CASH ACCOUNT: 9999 1012 Control BS - CashAP CHECK NO CHK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME INVOICE INV DATE PO CHECK RUN NET JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO 1734181 02/04/2021 20210226 261.57 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO 1734180 02/04/2021 20210226 822.90 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO 1734179 02/04/2021 20210226 399.57 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO 1734171 02/04/2021 20210226 .39 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO 1734177 02/04/2021 20210226 909.36 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO 1734178 02/04/2021 20210226 2,293.69 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO 1734174 02/04/2021 20210226 350.07 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO 1734170 02/04/2021 20210226 407.35 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO 1734169 02/04/2021 20210226 116.38 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO 1734167 02/04/2021 20210226 626.54 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO 1734168 02/04/2021 20210226 121.83 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO 1735230 02/05/2021 20210226 19,206.59 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO 1735229 02/05/2021 20210226 9,054.53 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO 1735231 02/05/2021 20210226 19,223.25 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO 1738639 02/05/2021 20210226 516.97 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO 1738641 02/05/2021 20210226 453.09 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO 1738643 02/05/2021 20210226 1,761.29 CHECK 456943 TOTAL: 85,693.56 456944 02/26/2021 PRTD 103409 KELBRO COMPANY 2591047 02/04/2021 20210226 91.71 KELBRO COMPANY 2590986 02/04/2021 20210226 124.28 CHECK 456944 TOTAL: 215.99 456945 02/26/2021 PRTD 100944 KIWI KAI IMPORTS INC 116088 02/02/2021 20210226 608.25 KIWI KAI IMPORTS INC 116097 02/02/2021 20210226 152.25 KIWI KAI IMPORTS INC 116099 02/02/2021 20210226 836.65 KIWI KAI IMPORTS INC 116086 02/03/2021 20210226 196.50 City of Edina, MN A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL Report generated: 02/25/2021 14:24User: LJeffersonProgram ID: apcshdsb Page 16 CASH ACCOUNT: 9999 1012 Control BS - CashAP CHECK NO CHK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME INVOICE INV DATE PO CHECK RUN NET KIWI KAI IMPORTS INC 116092 02/03/2021 20210226 730.75 KIWI KAI IMPORTS INC 116098 02/03/2021 20210226 588.95 KIWI KAI IMPORTS INC 116096 02/02/2021 20210226 730.75 KIWI KAI IMPORTS INC 116095 02/02/2021 20210226 1,274.65 CHECK 456945 TOTAL: 5,118.75 456946 02/26/2021 PRTD 105269 KORTERRA INC 20791 02/01/2021 20210226 4,896.80 CHECK 456946 TOTAL: 4,896.80 456947 02/26/2021 PRTD 151024 LA DONA SBC 4498 02/04/2021 20210226 110.00 LA DONA SBC 4499 02/04/2021 20210226 72.00 CHECK 456947 TOTAL: 182.00 456948 02/26/2021 PRTD 116876 LANGUAGE LINE SERVICES 10173959 01/31/2021 20210226 30.08 CHECK 456948 TOTAL: 30.08 456949 02/26/2021 PRTD 133014 LARSON, DANIEL MICHAEL 02-02-2021 02/02/2021 20210226 3,136.00 CHECK 456949 TOTAL: 3,136.00 456950 02/26/2021 PRTD 134957 LEACH LAW OFFICE LLC 3161 01/31/2021 20210226 21,434.60 CHECK 456950 TOTAL: 21,434.60 456951 02/26/2021 PRTD 101552 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES 6346 01/21/2021 20210226 692.65 CHECK 456951 TOTAL: 692.65 456952 02/26/2021 PRTD 128234 LEFFLER PRINTING COMPANY 21356 02/04/2021 20210226 18,200.00 CHECK 456952 TOTAL: 18,200.00 456953 02/26/2021 PRTD 135867 LIBATION PROJECT 33364 02/02/2021 20210226 129.50 City of Edina, MN A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL Report generated: 02/25/2021 14:24User: LJeffersonProgram ID: apcshdsb Page 17 CASH ACCOUNT: 9999 1012 Control BS - CashAP CHECK NO CHK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME INVOICE INV DATE PO CHECK RUN NET CHECK 456953 TOTAL: 129.50 456954 02/26/2021 PRTD 144426 LIFE LINE BILLING SYSTEMS LLC 55471 01/31/2021 20210226 6,805.52 LIFE LINE BILLING SYSTEMS LLC 55472 01/31/2021 20210226 25.08 CHECK 456954 TOTAL: 6,830.60 456955 02/26/2021 PRTD 100858 LOGIS 49903 02/01/2021 20210226 43,018.50 LOGIS 49961 01/31/2021 20210226 4,293.75 LOGIS 49998 01/31/2021 20210226 34,050.20 CHECK 456955 TOTAL: 81,362.45 456956 02/26/2021 PRTD 101792 LUBE-TECH 2527622 01/15/2021 20210226 707.41 CHECK 456956 TOTAL: 707.41 456957 02/26/2021 PRTD 146427 LUCID BREWING LLC 9446 02/02/2021 20210226 100.00 CHECK 456957 TOTAL: 100.00 456958 02/26/2021 PRTD 141916 LUPULIN BREWING COMPANY 34871 02/03/2021 20210226 278.00 LUPULIN BREWING COMPANY 34870 02/04/2021 20210226 204.00 CHECK 456958 TOTAL: 482.00 456959 02/26/2021 PRTD 131685 MAILFINANCE INC 16295652 02/04/2021 20210226 36.05 CHECK 456959 TOTAL: 36.05 456960 02/26/2021 PRTD 134063 MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY 22190915 02/06/2021 20210226 1,199.57 MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY 22190913 02/04/2021 20210226 2,364.69 MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY 22190914 02/04/2021 20210226 560.57 MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY 22190912 02/04/2021 20210226 5,513.90 MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY 22190911 02/04/2021 20210226 3,866.99 City of Edina, MN A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL Report generated: 02/25/2021 14:24User: LJeffersonProgram ID: apcshdsb Page 18 CASH ACCOUNT: 9999 1012 Control BS - CashAP CHECK NO CHK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME INVOICE INV DATE PO CHECK RUN NET CHECK 456960 TOTAL: 13,505.72 456961 02/26/2021 PRTD 100869 MARTIN-MCALLISTER CONSULTING PSYC 13707 01/31/2021 20210226 550.00 CHECK 456961 TOTAL: 550.00 456962 02/26/2021 PRTD 122554 MATHESON TRI-GAS INC 23026760 01/31/2021 20210226 34.19 CHECK 456962 TOTAL: 34.19 456963 02/26/2021 PRTD 141215 MAVERICK WINE LLC INV537739 02/03/2021 20210226 159.96 CHECK 456963 TOTAL: 159.96 456964 02/26/2021 PRTD 130477 MCDONALD DISTRIBUTING COMPANY 567321 02/03/2021 20210226 319.00 MCDONALD DISTRIBUTING COMPANY 567397 02/03/2021 20210226 -7.50 MCDONALD DISTRIBUTING COMPANY 567314 02/03/2021 20210226 84.00 MCDONALD DISTRIBUTING COMPANY 567315 02/03/2021 20210226 1,831.00 MCDONALD DISTRIBUTING COMPANY 567312 02/03/2021 20210226 241.00 MCDONALD DISTRIBUTING COMPANY 568222 02/05/2021 20210226 2,029.00 CHECK 456964 TOTAL: 4,496.50 456965 02/26/2021 PRTD 101483 MENARDS INC 33447 02/03/2021 20210226 357.74 MENARDS INC 33355 02/02/2021 20210226 29.98 MENARDS INC 33349 02/02/2021 20210226 59.28 MENARDS INC 33361 02/02/2021 20210226 29.88 MENARDS INC 33544 02/05/2021 20210226 16.71 MENARDS INC 33622 02/06/2021 20210226 7.99 MENARDS INC 33304 02/01/2021 20210226 41.88 MENARDS INC 33308 02/01/2021 20210226 19.40 MENARDS INC 33305 02/01/2021 20210226 57.39 City of Edina, MN A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL Report generated: 02/25/2021 14:24User: LJeffersonProgram ID: apcshdsb Page 19 CASH ACCOUNT: 9999 1012 Control BS - CashAP CHECK NO CHK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME INVOICE INV DATE PO CHECK RUN NET CHECK 456965 TOTAL: 620.25 456966 02/26/2021 PRTD 104650 MICRO CENTER 8527276 01/28/2021 20210226 149.99 CHECK 456966 TOTAL: 149.99 456967 02/26/2021 PRTD 101559 MINNESOTA STATE FIRE CHIEFS ASSN 1826 12/02/2020 20210226 555.00 CHECK 456967 TOTAL: 555.00 456968 02/26/2021 PRTD 140955 MODIST BREWING LLC E-19308 02/02/2021 20210226 357.75 CHECK 456968 TOTAL: 357.75 456969 02/26/2021 PRTD 100916 MOOD MEDIA 55668093 10/01/2020 20210226 327.08 CHECK 456969 TOTAL: 327.08 456970 02/26/2021 PRTD 143339 MR CUTTING EDGE 2934 01/31/2021 20210226 190.00 CHECK 456970 TOTAL: 190.00 456971 02/26/2021 PRTD 135914 NARTEC INC 15454 02/04/2021 20210226 5.20 CHECK 456971 TOTAL: 5.20 456972 02/26/2021 PRTD 100076 NEW FRANCE WINE CO NFW-170102 02/03/2021 20210226 192.00 NEW FRANCE WINE CO NFW-170099 02/03/2021 20210226 216.00 NEW FRANCE WINE CO NFW-170098 02/03/2021 20210226 274.00 NEW FRANCE WINE CO 154376A 12/31/2020 20210226 416.00 CHECK 456972 TOTAL: 1,098.00 456973 02/26/2021 PRTD 142880 NORDIC SOLAR HOLDCO LLC INV-NSH001804 01/31/2021 20210226 2,771.39 CHECK 456973 TOTAL: 2,771.39 456974 02/26/2021 PRTD 105901 OERTEL ARCHITECTS 20-37.1 02/05/2021 20210226 4,132.50 City of Edina, MN A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL Report generated: 02/25/2021 14:24User: LJeffersonProgram ID: apcshdsb Page 20 CASH ACCOUNT: 9999 1012 Control BS - CashAP CHECK NO CHK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME INVOICE INV DATE PO CHECK RUN NET CHECK 456974 TOTAL: 4,132.50 456975 02/26/2021 PRTD 103578 OFFICE DEPOT 153878323001 02/05/2021 20210226 185.88 CHECK 456975 TOTAL: 185.88 456976 02/26/2021 PRTD 141965 OMNI BREWING COMPANY LLC E-8994 02/02/2021 20210226 183.00 OMNI BREWING COMPANY LLC E-8993 02/02/2021 20210226 210.00 CHECK 456976 TOTAL: 393.00 456977 02/26/2021 PRTD 999998 BCBS MN TERESA MAYER 10/02/2020 20210226 111.87 CHECK 456977 TOTAL: 111.87 456978 02/26/2021 PRTD 999998 BCBS OF MN REF CLAIM #21605731601/17/2020 20210226 92.20 CHECK 456978 TOTAL: 92.20 456979 02/26/2021 PRTD 999998 ALICE REDDER 3444 02/03/2021 20210226 1,421.40 CHECK 456979 TOTAL: 1,421.40 456980 02/26/2021 PRTD 999998 CAROLYN LARSON 3442 02/03/2021 20210226 1,461.40 CHECK 456980 TOTAL: 1,461.40 456981 02/26/2021 PRTD 999998 CAROLYN MICKELBERG 3443 02/03/2021 20210226 1,334.40 CHECK 456981 TOTAL: 1,334.40 456982 02/26/2021 PRTD 999995 TJB HOMES INC ED183248-REFUND #2 02/12/2021 20210226 10,000.00 CHECK 456982 TOTAL: 10,000.00 456983 02/26/2021 PRTD 999996 Allcox, Guinevere PARK & REC REFUND 02/12/2021 20210226 105.00 Allcox, Guinevere PARKS & REC REFUND 02/12/2021 20210226 67.00 CHECK 456983 TOTAL: 172.00 City of Edina, MN A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL Report generated: 02/25/2021 14:24User: LJeffersonProgram ID: apcshdsb Page 21 CASH ACCOUNT: 9999 1012 Control BS - CashAP CHECK NO CHK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME INVOICE INV DATE PO CHECK RUN NET 456984 02/26/2021 PRTD 999996 DAN KERSTEN 1331642-REFUND 02/11/2021 20210226 144.00 CHECK 456984 TOTAL: 144.00 456985 02/26/2021 PRTD 999996 TINA SABBY 1336028-REFUND 02/10/2021 20210226 408.60 CHECK 456985 TOTAL: 408.60 456986 02/26/2021 PRTD 999997 BERCAW,BENJAMIN 00112093-02/9/21 02/18/2021 20210226 77.51 CHECK 456986 TOTAL: 77.51 456987 02/26/2021 PRTD 999997 BERG,BETTY 00081487-02/9/21 02/18/2021 20210226 33.83 CHECK 456987 TOTAL: 33.83 456988 02/26/2021 PRTD 999997 CECCHI,DAVID 00109489-02/9/21 02/18/2021 20210226 225.00 CHECK 456988 TOTAL: 225.00 456989 02/26/2021 PRTD 999997 CHRISTIANSEN,SUSAN 00079930-02/9/21 02/18/2021 20210226 768.54 CHECK 456989 TOTAL: 768.54 456990 02/26/2021 PRTD 999997 CICUT,BERNARD 00123206-02/9/21 02/18/2021 20210226 42.97 CHECK 456990 TOTAL: 42.97 456991 02/26/2021 PRTD 999997 DEVRIES PROPERTIES & DESIGN 00126089-02/9/21 02/18/2021 20210226 48.10 CHECK 456991 TOTAL: 48.10 456992 02/26/2021 PRTD 999997 EMANUEL,JILL 00102878-02/9/21 02/18/2021 20210226 200.00 CHECK 456992 TOTAL: 200.00 456993 02/26/2021 PRTD 999997 EVINGER,DAVID 00079031-02/9/21 02/18/2021 20210226 16.25 CHECK 456993 TOTAL: 16.25 City of Edina, MN A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL Report generated: 02/25/2021 14:24User: LJeffersonProgram ID: apcshdsb Page 22 CASH ACCOUNT: 9999 1012 Control BS - CashAP CHECK NO CHK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME INVOICE INV DATE PO CHECK RUN NET 456994 02/26/2021 PRTD 999997 FELDKAMP,MATTHIAS 00113450-02/9/21 02/18/2021 20210226 10.24 CHECK 456994 TOTAL: 10.24 456995 02/26/2021 PRTD 999997 FOLEY,WILLIAM 00082976-02/9/21 02/18/2021 20210226 250.00 CHECK 456995 TOTAL: 250.00 456996 02/26/2021 PRTD 999997 FORSBERG,REBECCA 00122526-02/9/21 02/18/2021 20210226 303.96 CHECK 456996 TOTAL: 303.96 456997 02/26/2021 PRTD 999997 FREDRIKSEN,KATHLEEN 00079066-02/9/21 02/18/2021 20210226 23.89 CHECK 456997 TOTAL: 23.89 456998 02/26/2021 PRTD 999997 FROEHLING ANDERSON 00125182-02/9/21 02/18/2021 20210226 526.07 CHECK 456998 TOTAL: 526.07 456999 02/26/2021 PRTD 999997 GALLOWAY HOLDINGS LLC 00124649-02/9/21 02/18/2021 20210226 105.48 CHECK 456999 TOTAL: 105.48 457000 02/26/2021 PRTD 999997 GIANNAKAKIS,TONY 00077088-02/9/21 02/18/2021 20210226 16.86 CHECK 457000 TOTAL: 16.86 457001 02/26/2021 PRTD 999997 HACKER,CHRIS 00119869-02/9/21 02/18/2021 20210226 150.00 CHECK 457001 TOTAL: 150.00 457002 02/26/2021 PRTD 999997 HEGMAN,MARK 00082124-02/9/21 02/18/2021 20210226 44.39 CHECK 457002 TOTAL: 44.39 457003 02/26/2021 PRTD 999997 IH2 PROPERTY ILLINOIS LP 00119275-02/9/21 02/18/2021 20210226 9.26 CHECK 457003 TOTAL: 9.26 City of Edina, MN A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL Report generated: 02/25/2021 14:24User: LJeffersonProgram ID: apcshdsb Page 23 CASH ACCOUNT: 9999 1012 Control BS - CashAP CHECK NO CHK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME INVOICE INV DATE PO CHECK RUN NET 457004 02/26/2021 PRTD 999997 IHRKE,JAMISON 00114825-02/9/21 02/18/2021 20210226 91.57 CHECK 457004 TOTAL: 91.57 457005 02/26/2021 PRTD 999997 JOHNS,RICHARD 00076639-02/9/21 02/18/2021 20210226 95.69 CHECK 457005 TOTAL: 95.69 457006 02/26/2021 PRTD 999997 KOKTAVY,GARY 00077568-02/9/21 02/18/2021 20210226 14.85 CHECK 457006 TOTAL: 14.85 457007 02/26/2021 PRTD 999997 KOOREN,DOUG 00125391-02/9/21 02/18/2021 20210226 100.00 CHECK 457007 TOTAL: 100.00 457008 02/26/2021 PRTD 999997 LARSON,PEDER 00098394-02/9/21 02/18/2021 20210226 59.97 CHECK 457008 TOTAL: 59.97 457009 02/26/2021 PRTD 999997 LENSELINK,DENNIS 00082678-02/9/21 02/18/2021 20210226 86.69 CHECK 457009 TOTAL: 86.69 457010 02/26/2021 PRTD 999997 MACDONAGH,ELIZABETH 00120728-02/9/21 02/18/2021 20210226 344.03 CHECK 457010 TOTAL: 344.03 457011 02/26/2021 PRTD 999997 MACH,JOHN 00104927-02/9/21 02/18/2021 20210226 450.11 CHECK 457011 TOTAL: 450.11 457012 02/26/2021 PRTD 999997 MCNELLIS,ROBERTA 00100103-02/9/21 02/18/2021 20210226 1,913.68 CHECK 457012 TOTAL: 1,913.68 457013 02/26/2021 PRTD 999997 MONTGOMERY,MICHAEL 00078155-02/9/21 02/18/2021 20210226 291.59 CHECK 457013 TOTAL: 291.59 City of Edina, MN A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL Report generated: 02/25/2021 14:24User: LJeffersonProgram ID: apcshdsb Page 24 CASH ACCOUNT: 9999 1012 Control BS - CashAP CHECK NO CHK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME INVOICE INV DATE PO CHECK RUN NET 457014 02/26/2021 PRTD 999997 PETER RENEWAL LLC 00126352-02/9/21 02/18/2021 20210226 39.99 CHECK 457014 TOTAL: 39.99 457015 02/26/2021 PRTD 999997 POHLIDAL,RICHARD 00121902-02/9/21 02/18/2021 20210226 47.01 CHECK 457015 TOTAL: 47.01 457016 02/26/2021 PRTD 999997 POWELL,RON 00078099-02/9/21 02/18/2021 20210226 248.82 CHECK 457016 TOTAL: 248.82 457017 02/26/2021 PRTD 999997 ROMAN,MANUEL 00115879-02/9/21 02/18/2021 20210226 113.57 CHECK 457017 TOTAL: 113.57 457018 02/26/2021 PRTD 999997 RULAU,KYLE 00122287-02/9/21 02/18/2021 20210226 309.77 CHECK 457018 TOTAL: 309.77 457019 02/26/2021 PRTD 999997 SANDBERG,MAYNARD 00077597-02/9/21 02/18/2021 20210226 14.63 CHECK 457019 TOTAL: 14.63 457020 02/26/2021 PRTD 999997 SHAPIRO ENTERPRISES LTD 00120719-02/9/21 02/18/2021 20210226 16,869.50 CHECK 457020 TOTAL: 16,869.50 457021 02/26/2021 PRTD 999997 SHUMWAY PEDIANGCO, RUBY 00111108-02/9/21 02/18/2021 20210226 174.09 CHECK 457021 TOTAL: 174.09 457022 02/26/2021 PRTD 999997 SIAS,ELAINE 00077269-02/9/21 02/18/2021 20210226 243.03 CHECK 457022 TOTAL: 243.03 457023 02/26/2021 PRTD 999997 STATZ,ROBIN 00123495-02/9/21 02/18/2021 20210226 80.69 CHECK 457023 TOTAL: 80.69 City of Edina, MN A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL Report generated: 02/25/2021 14:24User: LJeffersonProgram ID: apcshdsb Page 25 CASH ACCOUNT: 9999 1012 Control BS - CashAP CHECK NO CHK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME INVOICE INV DATE PO CHECK RUN NET 457024 02/26/2021 PRTD 999997 SUNNY & JUNG KIM 3948 02/10/2021 20210226 208.10 CHECK 457024 TOTAL: 208.10 457025 02/26/2021 PRTD 999997 THE LUCILE A. SLOCUM FAMILY TRUST 00082093-02/9/21 02/18/2021 20210226 31.32 CHECK 457025 TOTAL: 31.32 457026 02/26/2021 PRTD 999997 TUFTE,TRAVIS 00122012-02/9/21 02/18/2021 20210226 210.11 CHECK 457026 TOTAL: 210.11 457027 02/26/2021 PRTD 999997 VALINET,GREG 00126159-02/9/21 02/18/2021 20210226 72.62 CHECK 457027 TOTAL: 72.62 457028 02/26/2021 PRTD 999997 VANDERLOO,HANNA 00122549-02/9/21 02/18/2021 20210226 93.36 CHECK 457028 TOTAL: 93.36 457029 02/26/2021 PRTD 999997 WITT,JOSEPH 00123506-02/9/21 02/18/2021 20210226 170.41 CHECK 457029 TOTAL: 170.41 457030 02/26/2021 PRTD 100940 OWENS TECHNOLOGY COMPANIES INC 92004 01/31/2021 20210226 1,504.87 CHECK 457030 TOTAL: 1,504.87 457031 02/26/2021 PRTD 100940 OWENS TECHNOLOGY COMPANIES INC 92089 01/31/2021 20210226 1,428.75 CHECK 457031 TOTAL: 1,428.75 457032 02/26/2021 PRTD 124239 PERSONNEL EVALUATION INC 39061 01/31/2021 20210226 20.00 CHECK 457032 TOTAL: 20.00 457033 02/26/2021 PRTD 102423 PLAISTED COMPANIES INC 40240 01/31/2021 20210226 396.89 CHECK 457033 TOTAL: 396.89 City of Edina, MN A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL Report generated: 02/25/2021 14:24User: LJeffersonProgram ID: apcshdsb Page 26 CASH ACCOUNT: 9999 1012 Control BS - CashAP CHECK NO CHK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME INVOICE INV DATE PO CHECK RUN NET 457034 02/26/2021 PRTD 119620 POMP'S TIRE SERVICE INC 210514629 02/02/2021 20210226 486.08 CHECK 457034 TOTAL: 486.08 457035 02/26/2021 PRTD 129706 PREMIUM WATERS INC 317975369 01/31/2021 20210226 13.00 PREMIUM WATERS INC 371985783 02/05/2021 20210226 26.19 CHECK 457035 TOTAL: 39.19 457036 02/26/2021 PRTD 105690 PRO-TEC DESIGN INC 97738 08/21/2020 20210226 8,609.29 PRO-TEC DESIGN INC 99721 01/31/2021 20210226 1,840.24 PRO-TEC DESIGN INC 99755 01/31/2021 20210226 13,597.76 PRO-TEC DESIGN INC 99851 01/31/2021 20210226 4,370.40 PRO-TEC DESIGN INC 99849 01/31/2021 20210226 5,661.94 CHECK 457036 TOTAL: 34,079.63 457037 02/26/2021 PRTD 160029 PT MARKETING, INC. 0105514-IN 02/02/2021 20210226 1,526.00 CHECK 457037 TOTAL: 1,526.00 457038 02/26/2021 PRTD 146269 RESSEMANN, SUZANNE 2693 01/31/2021 20210226 925.45 CHECK 457038 TOTAL: 925.45 457039 02/26/2021 PRTD 100977 RICHFIELD PLUMBING COMPANY 81372 01/14/2021 20210226 5,100.00 RICHFIELD PLUMBING COMPANY 81520 02/02/2021 20210226 3,747.58 CHECK 457039 TOTAL: 8,847.58 457040 02/26/2021 PRTD 101659 ORKIN 206930848 02/02/2021 20210226 142.36 CHECK 457040 TOTAL: 142.36 457041 02/26/2021 PRTD 100988 SAFETY KLEEN SYSTEMS INC 85200085-2100153560 02/04/2021 20210226 183.45 City of Edina, MN A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL Report generated: 02/25/2021 14:24User: LJeffersonProgram ID: apcshdsb Page 27 CASH ACCOUNT: 9999 1012 Control BS - CashAP CHECK NO CHK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME INVOICE INV DATE PO CHECK RUN NET CHECK 457041 TOTAL: 183.45 457042 02/26/2021 PRTD 144553 SALTCO LLC 56539 02/03/2021 20210226 237.32 CHECK 457042 TOTAL: 237.32 457043 02/26/2021 PRTD 101431 SCAN AIR FILTER INC 151545 02/03/2021 20210226 232.75 CHECK 457043 TOTAL: 232.75 457044 02/26/2021 PRTD 106322 SCHENCK, DAVID 158661 02/02/2021 20210226 538.51 CHECK 457044 TOTAL: 538.51 457045 02/26/2021 PRTD 104151 SCHINDLER ELEVATOR CORP 8105533407 02/01/2021 20210226 1,021.59 CHECK 457045 TOTAL: 1,021.59 457046 02/26/2021 PRTD 144182 SENSOURCE INC 47350 02/03/2021 20210226 720.00 CHECK 457046 TOTAL: 720.00 457047 02/26/2021 PRTD 134643 SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUN 173803 06/29/2020 20210226 84.00 CHECK 457047 TOTAL: 84.00 457048 02/26/2021 PRTD 100995 SHORT-ELLIOT-HENDRICKSON INCORPOR 394473 10/15/2020 20210226 538.84 SHORT-ELLIOT-HENDRICKSON INCORPOR 399118 01/13/2021 20210226 4,517.34 SHORT-ELLIOT-HENDRICKSON INCORPOR 399986 02/05/2021 20210226 35,360.45 SHORT-ELLIOT-HENDRICKSON INCORPOR 397441 12/09/2020 20210226 16,028.92 SHORT-ELLIOT-HENDRICKSON INCORPOR 400639 02/10/2021 22100003 20210226 336.23 CHECK 457048 TOTAL: 56,781.78 457049 02/26/2021 PRTD 101556 SHRED-IT USA 8181341333 01/31/2021 20210226 580.63 CHECK 457049 TOTAL: 580.63 City of Edina, MN A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL Report generated: 02/25/2021 14:24User: LJeffersonProgram ID: apcshdsb Page 28 CASH ACCOUNT: 9999 1012 Control BS - CashAP CHECK NO CHK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME INVOICE INV DATE PO CHECK RUN NET 457050 02/26/2021 PRTD 100999 SIGNAL SYSTEMS INC 13093705 02/03/2021 20210226 46.80 CHECK 457050 TOTAL: 46.80 457051 02/26/2021 PRTD 132195 SMALL LOT MN MN40511 02/05/2021 20210226 77.00 CHECK 457051 TOTAL: 77.00 457052 02/26/2021 PRTD 100430 SNAP-ON INDUSTRIAL ARV/46837477 02/01/2021 20210226 126.69 CHECK 457052 TOTAL: 126.69 457053 02/26/2021 PRTD 144772 SPEC RESCUE INTERNATIONAL INC 21-4I006 02/05/2021 20210226 22,420.00 CHECK 457053 TOTAL: 22,420.00 457054 02/26/2021 PRTD 104408 SPEEDWAY LLC 057501022100 02/01/2021 20210226 55.00 CHECK 457054 TOTAL: 55.00 457055 02/26/2021 PRTD 100181 SPEEDY KEYS 210234 02/05/2021 20210226 320.00 SPEEDY KEYS 210235 02/05/2021 20210226 320.00 CHECK 457055 TOTAL: 640.00 457056 02/26/2021 PRTD 101004 SPS COMPANIES INC S4078204.001 12/02/2020 20210226 15.26 CHECK 457056 TOTAL: 15.26 457057 02/26/2021 PRTD 146960 STACKED DECK BREWING 001925 02/02/2021 20210226 180.00 STACKED DECK BREWING 001924 02/03/2021 20210226 180.00 STACKED DECK BREWING 001926 02/04/2021 20210226 308.00 CHECK 457057 TOTAL: 668.00 457058 02/26/2021 PRTD 133068 STEEL TOE BREWING LLC 38272 02/02/2021 20210226 531.00 STEEL TOE BREWING LLC 38273 02/03/2021 20210226 330.00 STEEL TOE BREWING LLC 38274 02/03/2021 20210226 273.00 City of Edina, MN A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL Report generated: 02/25/2021 14:24User: LJeffersonProgram ID: apcshdsb Page 29 CASH ACCOUNT: 9999 1012 Control BS - CashAP CHECK NO CHK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME INVOICE INV DATE PO CHECK RUN NET STEEL TOE BREWING LLC 38391 02/05/2021 20210226 165.00 CHECK 457058 TOTAL: 1,299.00 457059 02/26/2021 PRTD 101015 STREICHERS INC I1482140 02/04/2021 20210226 124.90 STREICHERS INC I1483513 02/11/2021 20210226 269.28 CHECK 457059 TOTAL: 394.18 457060 02/26/2021 PRTD 133750 STRYKER SALES CORPORATION 3255035M 01/04/2021 20210226 4,656.00 STRYKER SALES CORPORATION 3254360M 01/04/2021 20210226 4,209.63 CHECK 457060 TOTAL: 8,865.63 457061 02/26/2021 PRTD 101017 SUBURBAN CHEVROLET 117323 02/02/2021 20210226 35.53 SUBURBAN CHEVROLET 785827 02/03/2021 20210226 210.31 SUBURBAN CHEVROLET 117278 02/02/2021 20210226 7.56 SUBURBAN CHEVROLET 117763 02/03/2021 20210226 57.97 CHECK 457061 TOTAL: 311.37 457062 02/26/2021 PRTD 105874 SUBURBAN TIRE WHOLESALE INC 10176612 02/01/2021 20210226 76.80 SUBURBAN TIRE WHOLESALE INC 10176678 02/03/2021 20210226 60.00 CHECK 457062 TOTAL: 136.80 457063 02/26/2021 PRTD 137993 TALKPOINT TECHNOLOGIES INC 0016101 02/05/2021 20210226 283.55 CHECK 457063 TOTAL: 283.55 457064 02/26/2021 PRTD 146347 TELEFLEX FUNDING LLC 9503567056 01/29/2021 20210226 1,225.50 CHECK 457064 TOTAL: 1,225.50 457065 02/26/2021 PRTD 103277 TITAN MACHINERY INC 15120088 02/01/2021 20210226 567.49 TITAN MACHINERY INC 15133929 02/03/2021 20210226 176.00 City of Edina, MN A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL Report generated: 02/25/2021 14:24User: LJeffersonProgram ID: apcshdsb Page 30 CASH ACCOUNT: 9999 1012 Control BS - CashAP CHECK NO CHK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME INVOICE INV DATE PO CHECK RUN NET CHECK 457065 TOTAL: 743.49 457066 02/26/2021 PRTD 101038 TOLL COMPANY 40131836 01/31/2021 20210226 34.04 CHECK 457066 TOTAL: 34.04 457067 02/26/2021 PRTD 104064 TRANS UNION LLC 01110147 01/28/2021 20210226 21.12 CHECK 457067 TOTAL: 21.12 457068 02/26/2021 PRTD 104064 TRANS UNION RISK AND ALTERNATIVE 269634-202101-1 02/01/2021 20210226 338.00 CHECK 457068 TOTAL: 338.00 457069 02/26/2021 PRTD 103218 TRI-STATE BOBCAT P50147 02/01/2021 20210226 455.29 TRI-STATE BOBCAT P50274 02/03/2021 20210226 154.46 CHECK 457069 TOTAL: 609.75 457070 02/26/2021 PRTD 146436 TYLER TECHNOLOGIES INC 045-328624 01/29/2021 20210226 8,820.00 TYLER TECHNOLOGIES INC 045-329565 01/31/2021 20210226 5,670.00 CHECK 457070 TOTAL: 14,490.00 457071 02/26/2021 PRTD 103973 ULINE INC 129620429 02/01/2021 20210226 1,186.82 CHECK 457071 TOTAL: 1,186.82 457072 02/26/2021 PRTD 140009 US KIDS GOLF LLC IN2001691 02/02/2021 20210226 193.33 US KIDS GOLF LLC IN2001828 02/04/2021 20210226 37.33 CHECK 457072 TOTAL: 230.66 457073 02/26/2021 PRTD 100050 USPS 4105 02/22/2021 20210226 5,222.47 CHECK 457073 TOTAL: 5,222.47 457074 02/26/2021 PRTD 143544 VAN DYKE, ALICE K #46 02/05/2021 20210226 3,400.00 City of Edina, MN A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL Report generated: 02/25/2021 14:24User: LJeffersonProgram ID: apcshdsb Page 31 CASH ACCOUNT: 9999 1012 Control BS - CashAP CHECK NO CHK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME INVOICE INV DATE PO CHECK RUN NET CHECK 457074 TOTAL: 3,400.00 457075 02/26/2021 PRTD 101058 VAN PAPER COMPANY 565011-00 02/04/2021 20210226 240.34 VAN PAPER COMPANY 565012-00 02/04/2021 20210226 50.72 VAN PAPER COMPANY 565017-00 02/04/2021 20210226 512.86 VAN PAPER COMPANY 565019-00 02/04/2021 20210226 14.75 VAN PAPER COMPANY 565009-00 02/04/2021 20210226 64.66 VAN PAPER COMPANY 565007-00 02/04/2021 20210226 773.06 VAN PAPER COMPANY 565019-01 02/05/2021 20210226 10.25 CHECK 457075 TOTAL: 1,666.64 457076 02/26/2021 PRTD 144209 VENN BREWING COMPANY LLC 2302 02/04/2021 20210226 246.00 VENN BREWING COMPANY LLC 2303 02/04/2021 20210226 264.00 VENN BREWING COMPANY LLC 2301 02/04/2021 20210226 153.00 CHECK 457076 TOTAL: 663.00 457077 02/26/2021 PRTD 141927 VER-TECH LABORATORIES INC INV000026929 02/04/2021 20210226 1,242.21 CHECK 457077 TOTAL: 1,242.21 457078 02/26/2021 PRTD 101064 VESSCO INC 81879 12/02/2020 20210226 46,800.00 CHECK 457078 TOTAL: 46,800.00 457079 02/26/2021 PRTD 148579 VIERKANT DISPOSAL LLC 3190 02/05/2021 20210226 67,985.00 CHECK 457079 TOTAL: 67,985.00 457080 02/26/2021 PRTD 101066 VIKING ELECTRIC SUPPLY S004390166.001 02/01/2021 20210226 300.00 CHECK 457080 TOTAL: 300.00 457081 02/26/2021 PRTD 119454 VINOCOPIA INC 0272878-IN 02/04/2021 20210226 68.50 VINOCOPIA INC 0272879-IN 02/04/2021 20210226 521.25 City of Edina, MN A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL Report generated: 02/25/2021 14:24User: LJeffersonProgram ID: apcshdsb Page 32 CASH ACCOUNT: 9999 1012 Control BS - CashAP CHECK NO CHK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME INVOICE INV DATE PO CHECK RUN NET VINOCOPIA INC 0272881-IN 02/04/2021 20210226 266.75 VINOCOPIA INC 0272880-IN 02/04/2021 20210226 475.75 VINOCOPIA INC 0272877 02/03/2021 20210226 105.50 VINOCOPIA INC 0272876 02/03/2021 20210226 202.75 CHECK 457081 TOTAL: 1,640.50 457082 02/26/2021 PRTD 120784 WALSH GRAPHICS INC 15884 02/01/2021 20210226 298.00 WALSH GRAPHICS INC 15887 02/01/2021 20210226 168.00 CHECK 457082 TOTAL: 466.00 457083 02/26/2021 PRTD 101033 WINE COMPANY 163017 02/03/2021 20210226 1,200.28 WINE COMPANY 163019 02/03/2021 20210226 1,715.27 WINE COMPANY 163023 02/04/2021 20210226 1,474.10 CHECK 457083 TOTAL: 4,389.65 457084 02/26/2021 PRTD 124503 WINSUPPLY EDEN PRAIRIE MN CO 205720 01 02/01/2021 20210226 399.36 WINSUPPLY EDEN PRAIRIE MN CO 205894 01 02/03/2021 20210226 118.94 WINSUPPLY EDEN PRAIRIE MN CO 205989 01 02/05/2021 20210226 36.20 CHECK 457084 TOTAL: 554.50 457085 02/26/2021 PRTD 148067 WITLINGO INC INV-COE-022021 02/01/2021 20210226 250.00 CHECK 457085 TOTAL: 250.00 457086 02/26/2021 PRTD 142162 WOODEN HILL BREWING COMPANY LLC 2584 02/03/2021 20210226 597.60 CHECK 457086 TOTAL: 597.60 457087 02/26/2021 PRTD 142220 WOODEN HILL BREWING COMPANY 2594 02/05/2021 20210226 406.50 WOODEN HILL BREWING COMPANY 2592 02/05/2021 20210226 110.70 City of Edina, MN A/P CASH DISBURSEMENTS JOURNAL Report generated: 02/25/2021 14:24User: LJeffersonProgram ID: apcshdsb Page 33 CASH ACCOUNT: 9999 1012 Control BS - CashAP CHECK NO CHK DATE TYPE VENDOR NAME INVOICE INV DATE PO CHECK RUN NET CHECK 457087 TOTAL: 517.20 457088 02/26/2021 PRTD 127774 WORLDWIDE CELLARS INC R21-50248 02/02/2021 20210226 329.50 WORLDWIDE CELLARS INC R21-50249 02/02/2021 20210226 72.04 CHECK 457088 TOTAL: 401.54 457089 02/26/2021 PRTD 101103 WW GRAINGER 9792938780 02/02/2021 20210226 29.93 WW GRAINGER 9794274374 02/03/2021 20210226 57.15 WW GRAINGER 9797546257 02/05/2021 20210226 83.96 WW GRAINGER 9797230563 02/05/2021 20210226 103.34 CHECK 457089 TOTAL: 274.38 457090 02/26/2021 PRTD 101091 ZIEGLER INC PC002212395 01/30/2021 20210226 709.34 ZIEGLER INC PC002212394 01/30/2021 20210226 1,878.50 ZIEGLER INC PC002212932 02/03/2021 20210226 383.08 ZIEGLER INC PC002213620 02/05/2021 20210226 4.32 ZIEGLER INC PC002213987 02/06/2021 20210226 200.07 CHECK 457090 TOTAL: 3,175.31 NUMBER OF CHECKS 223 *** CASH ACCOUNT TOTAL *** 776,817.67 COUNT AMOUNT TOTAL PRINTED CHECKS 223 776,817.67 *** GRAND TOTAL *** 776,817.67 Date: March 2, 2021 Agenda Item #: VI.C. To:Mayor and City Council Item Type: Request For Purchase From:Ryan Quinn, EMS Chief Item Activity: Subject:Request for Purchase: 2021 Chevy Tahoe Command Vehicle Action CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: Approve request for purchase for a 2021 Chevy Tahoe from Ranger Chevrolet for $50,784.64. INTRODUCTION: This vehicle replaces a 2007 pickup truck and will be equipped with lights and siren, to align with our stand-by officer program accommodating the 2019 addition of the EMS chief position. We are not increasing our allotted fleet. Fire command vehicles serve multiple functions and this model has been found to best serve our needs. ATTACHMENTS: Description request for purchase Request for Purchase Requisition Number Environmental Impact - item specific: 1 CITY OF EDINA 4801 W 50th St., Edina, MN 55424 www.EdinaMN.gov | 952-927-8861 12100023 Department:Fire Buyer:Ryan Quinn Date: 01/26/2021 Requisition Description:scheduled vehicle replacement Vendor:RANGER CHEVROLET Cost:$50,784.64 REPLACEMENT or NEW:REPLACEM - REPLACEMENT PURCHASE SOURCE:STATE K - STATE CONTRACT DESCRIPTION:replacing support vehicle with command vehicle BUDGET IMPACT:Within budget and repurposing replacement vehicle ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:vehicle Vehicle - Make/Model/Year requested vehicle:Chev/ Tahoe/2021 Vehicle - Make/Model/Year current vehicle (if replacement): Chev/ silverado/ 2011 Vehicle - Does purchase meet Green Fleet Recommendations? NO - NO Vehicle - If does not meet Green Fleet Recommendations, justification: SAFE/PER - DOES NOT MEET SAFETY/PERF NEED MPG:+ 1mpg Carbon Emissions:- 27 gm/mi COMMUNITY IMPACT:maintain command vehicle and emerg.response Date: March 2, 2021 Agenda Item #: VI.D. To:Mayor and City Council Item Type: Request For Purchase From:Jeff Elasky, Deputy Chief Item Activity: Subject:Request for Purchase: Two 2021 Ford Police Interceptor Explorers Action CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: Approve Request for Purchase of two 2021 Ford Police Interceptor Explorers from Tenvoorde Ford Inc. for $74,380. INTRODUCTION: These vehicles are on the equipment replacement schedule and will not increase the allotted fleet. Funding is through the Equipment Replacement account. Both vehicles meet the Green Fleet recommendations of better MP G then the previous models. This order was reviewed and approved by our Sustainability Coordinator for meeting the Green Fleet recommendations and performance exemption. Police service vehicles are limited to what the three major manufactures produce. Several years ago, Edina tested all the pursuit rated models and the Ford Explorer was the best vehicle for our needs. ATTACHMENTS: Description Request for Purchase: Two 2021 Ford Police Interceptor Explorers Request for Purchase Requisition Number Environmental Impact - item specific: 1 CITY OF EDINA 4801 W 50th St., Edina, MN 55424 www.EdinaMN.gov | 952-927-8861 12100057 Department:Police Buyer:Jeffrey Elasky Date: 02/16/2021 Requisition Description:Two semi-marked police vehicles. Vendor:TENVOORDE FORD INC Cost:$74,380.48 REPLACEMENT or NEW:REPLACEM - REPLACEMENT PURCHASE SOURCE:STATE K - STATE CONTRACT DESCRIPTION:2021 Ford Utility EcoBoost squads BUDGET IMPACT:Equipment replacement ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:Less CO2 and better MPG Vehicle - Make/Model/Year requested vehicle:Ford Utility 2021 Vehicle - Make/Model/Year current vehicle (if replacement): Ford sedan/utility 2017 Vehicle - Does purchase meet Green Fleet Recommendations? YES - YES Vehicle - If does not meet Green Fleet Recommendations, justification: SAFE/PER - DOES NOT MEET SAFETY/PERF NEED MPG:19 vs 17.5 Carbon Emissions: COMMUNITY IMPACT:Better fuel economy and less CO2 Date: March 2, 2021 Agenda Item #: VI.E. To:Mayor and City Council Item Type: Request For Purchase From:Jeff Elasky, Deputy Chief Item Activity: Subject:Request for Purchase: Two 2021 Ford F-150 Hybrid Pickups Action CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: Approve Request for Purchase of two 2021 Ford F-150 Hybrid Pickups from Midway Ford for $72,525. INTRODUCTION: These vehicles are on the equipment replacement schedule and will not increase the allotted fleet. Vehicles are used by our Animal Control officer and Community Service officers. Funding is through the Equipment Replacement account and Conservation/Sustainability fund. Both vehicles meet the Green Fleet recommendations of better MP G and less CO2 due to them being a hybrid powertrain. This order was reviewed by our Sustainability Coordinator and approved. ATTACHMENTS: Description Request for Purchase: Two 2021 Ford F-150 Hybrid Pickups Request for Purchase Requisition Number Environmental Impact - item specific: 1 CITY OF EDINA 4801 W 50th St., Edina, MN 55424 www.EdinaMN.gov | 952-927-8861 12100054 Department:Police Buyer:Jeffrey Elasky Date: 02/12/2021 Requisition Description:2021 Ford F-150 Hybrid Vendor:MIDWAY FORD COMPANY Cost:$72,525.20 REPLACEMENT or NEW:REPLACEM - REPLACEMENT PURCHASE SOURCE:STATE K - STATE CONTRACT DESCRIPTION:(2) F-150 Hybrid pickups BUDGET IMPACT:Equipment Replacement ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:Less CO2 and fuel used Vehicle - Make/Model/Year requested vehicle:Ford F-150 2021 Vehicle - Make/Model/Year current vehicle (if replacement): GMC 1500 2017 Vehicle - Does purchase meet Green Fleet Recommendations? YES - YES Vehicle - If does not meet Green Fleet Recommendations, justification: - MPG:24 vs 18 Carbon Emissions:Less CO2 COMMUNITY IMPACT:Better fuel economy and less CO2 in the air. Date: March 2, 2021 Agenda Item #: VI.F. To:Mayor and City Council Item Type: Report / Recommendation From:Bob Wilson, City Assessor Item Activity: Subject:Resolution 2021-24: Authorizing Removal of a Levied Special Assessment Action CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: Approve Resolution 2021-24 authorizing removal of a levied special assessment that was included with the property taxes payable in 2021. INTRODUCTION: A property owner is able to pay the balance of an existing special assessment levy by November 15 of any year so that the balance does not accrue to the following year's property tax statement. A special assessment balance was paid off in March of 2020, but it was not included in the report that was sent to Hennepin County. Therefore, a special assessment payment of $920.96 was included with the 2021 property tax statement. A resolution is required by Hennepin County to remove the principal and interest charges from the 2021 property tax statement. ATTACHMENTS: Description Resolution No 2021-24:Authorizing Removal of a Levied Special Assessment RESOLUTION NO. 2021-24 AUTHORIZING THE REMOVAL OF A LEVIED SPECIAL ASSESSMENT WHEREAS, a levied special assessment balance was paid to the City of Edina; and WHEREAS, the amount paid did not get reported to Hennepin County; and WHEREAS, a special assessment payment is included with the 2021 property tax statement; and WHEREAS, a resolution is required to direct Hennepin County to remove the principle and interest charges. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Edina City Council that the following special assessment principle and accrued interest be removed by Hennepin County: LEVY NO. PID AMOUNT TO REMOVE 20271 05-116-21-14-0006 $920.96 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of March, 2021 ATTEST: ___________________________ __________________________________ Sharon Allison, City Clerk James B. Hovland, Mayor STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )SS CITY OF EDINA ) CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting City Clerk for the City of Edina do hereby certify that the attached and foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of March 2, 2021, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this ____ day of _________________ , 20___. _________________________________ City Clerk Date: March 2, 2021 Agenda Item #: VI.G. To:Mayor and City Council Item Type: Request For Purchase From:Brian E. Olson, Public Works Director Item Activity: Subject:Request for Purchase: SCADA Upgrade Phase II Action CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: Approve request for purchase for SCADA Upgrade Phase II with Integrated Process Solutions for $1,287,880. INTRODUCTION: Bids were opened on Tuesday, February 23, 2021 at 10:00 am for upgrading our Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition (SCADA) system. Bid Results: Integrated Process Solutions $1,287,880.00 Primex $1,316,820.00 Telemetry and Process Controls $1,331,946.55 The Engineers estimate was $1,588,000 for the base bid. Attached is a letter of recommendation from the AE2S to move forward with this project utilizing Integrated Control Services for completion of this project which is expected in March of 2022. ATTACHMENTS: Description SCADA Award Recommendation February 24th, 2021 Brian Olson Public Works Director City of Edina 7450 Metro Blvd. Edina, MN 55439 RE: Recommendation for Notice of Award Edina SCADA Improvements Project – City Project # PWK 20-003 Phase 2 City of Edina, Minnesota Dear Mr. Olson, Pursuant to authority of the City Council and following proper legal advertisement, the bid opening for the Edina SCADA Improvements project was conducted on Tuesday, February 23rd, 2021 at 10:00 A.M. electronically through QuestCDN. A total of three (3) bids were received for the project. All bids were completed in accordance with the project specifications and all bids were opened and immediately posted online. The project consists of Contract generally consists of the removal of existing programmable logic controllers (PLCs), operator interface terminals (OITs), and the supply and installation of new PLCs, OITs, Ethernet switches, and other appurtenances for existing control panels located at thirteen (13) well houses, four (4) water treatment plants, four (4) water storage sites, nine (9) storm water lift stations, and twenty (20) sanitary lift stations. Complete control panel replacement for two (2) existing water treatment plants, one (1) existing storm water lift station and four (4) existing sanitary lift stations will be performed. The attached Bid Tabulation Summary presents a comparison of the bids to the Engineer’s opinion of probable cost for the project. Based on a review of the bids received, and pending City official’s acceptance of the contract price, Advanced Engineering and Environmental Services, LLC (AE2S) recommends that the City of Edina award a construction contract to Integrated Process Solutions Inc. Integrated Process Solutions Inc. was the lowest responsive and responsible bidder for a Base Bid price of $ 1,287,880.00. AE2S truly appreciates the opportunity to continue working with you on this very important project for the City of Edina. Should you have any questions or comments please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, AE2S Anthony Pittman Attachment Date: March 2, 2021 Agenda Item #: VI.H. To:Mayor and City Council Item Type: Request For Purchase From:Derik Otten, Facility Manager Item Activity: Subject:Request for Purchase: Public Works Carbon Monoxide & Nitrogen Dioxide Detection System Replacement Action CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: Approve Request for Purchase for Public Works Carbon Monoxide & Nitrogen Di-oxide Detection System Replacement with Harris Company for $64,864. INTRODUCTION: The P ublic Works Facility houses a large number of vehicles and equipment, the majority of which emit exhaust fumes and if left unmitigated can create a dangerous environment and loss of life. The building was designed to accommodate vehicles and a Carbon Monoxide & Nitrogen Di-oxide (CO.NO) detection system was installed to provide warning if/when the levels exceed those set by OSHA standards for permissible limits of human exposure. T he existing system is starting to fail and multiple sensors are no longer operational. The original sensors and the monitoring system has since become obsolete and replacement parts are not available. This purchase is to replace the sensors and monitoring system in its' entirety with a new system that can be integrated into the Building Automation System. The building automation system is proprietary and all work must be completed by the local representative, Harris Company. ATTACHMENTS: Description Request for Purchase: Public Works Carbon Monoxide & Nitrogen Di-oxide Detection System Replacement Contract Request for Purchase Requisition Number Environmental Impact - item specific: 1 CITY OF EDINA 4801 W 50th St., Edina, MN 55424 www.EdinaMN.gov | 952-927-8861 12100056 Department:Engineering Buyer:Derik Otten Date: 02/16/2021 Requisition Description:Public Works Facility CO.NO Sensor Replacement Vendor:HARRIS MECHANICAL SERVICES LLC Cost:$64,864.00 REPLACEMENT or NEW:REPLACEM - REPLACEMENT PURCHASE SOURCE:QUOTE/BD - QUOTE/BID DESCRIPTION:CO.NO Sensor Replacment BUDGET IMPACT:CIP-2021 Asset Preservation Funding ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:NA Vehicle - Make/Model/Year requested vehicle:NA Vehicle - Make/Model/Year current vehicle (if replacement): NA Vehicle - Does purchase meet Green Fleet Recommendations? NO - NO Vehicle - If does not meet Green Fleet Recommendations, justification: - MPG:NA Carbon Emissions:NA COMMUNITY IMPACT:NA APRIL 2018 A-1 IB CONTRACT NO. FC 21-02. THIS AGREEMENT made this 24th day of November 2020, by and between the CITY OF EDINA, a Minnesota municipal corporation (“City”) and Harris Companies (“Contractor”). City and Contractor, in consideration of the mutual covenants set forth herein, agree as follows: 1. CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. The following documents shall be referred to as the “Contract Documents,” all of which shall be taken together as a whole as the contract between the parties as if they were set verbatim and in full herein: A. This Agreement. B. Instructions to Bidders. C. City of Edina General Contract Conditions. D. Addenda numbers E. Specifications prepared by F. Plan sheets numbered G. Performance Bond. H. Payment Bond. I. Responsible Contractor Verification of Compliance J. Contractor’s bid dated January 14, 2021 K. Scope of Work The Contractor at a minimum shall provide the following services: Replace 22 CO.NO Sensors throughout PW Facility. Replace 2 CO.NO Sensors in Wash Bay—with weather tight enclosures. Install 5 new KMC Controllers. All associated wiring and devices required for installation. All required lifts and access to devices 24 hours of system testing. 4 hours of training by certified technician. All associated programing, graphics and interfaces to integrate new sensors into KMC Building Automation systems. The Contract Documents are to be read and interpreted as a whole. The intent of the Contract Documents is to include all items necessary for the proper execution and completion of the Work and to require Contractor to provide the highest quality and greatest quantity consistent with the Contract Documents. If there are inconsistencies within or among part of the Contract Documents or between the Contract Documents and applicable standards, codes or ordinances, the Contractor shall provide the better quality or greater quantity of Work or comply with the more stringent requirements. 1.1 Before ordering any materials or doing any Work, the Contractor shall verify measurements at the Project site and shall be responsible for the correctness of such measurements. No extra charges or compensation APRIL 2018 A-2 IB will be allowed on account of differences between actual dimensions and the dimensions indicated on the Drawings. Any difference that may be found shall be submitted to the City for resolution before proceeding with the Work. 1.2 If a minor change in the Work is necessary due to actual field conditions, the Contractor shall submit detailed drawings of such departure to the City for approval before making the change. The City shall not be required to make any adjustment to either the Contract Sum or Contract Time because of any failure by the Contractor to comply with the requirements of this paragraph. Actual or alleged conflicts or inconsistencies between the Plans and Specifications or other Contract Documents shall be brought to the City’s attention in writing, prior to performing the affected Work. The City’s directions shall be followed by the Contractor. 2. OBLIGATIONS OF THE CONTRACTOR. The Contractor shall provide the goods, services, and perform the work in accordance with the Contract Documents. 3. OBLIGATIONS OF THE CITY. The City agrees to pay, and the Contractor agrees to receive and accept payment in accordance with the Contractor’s bid $64,864. 4. PAYMENT PROCEDURES. A. Contractor shall submit Applications for Payment. Applications for Payment will be processed by City as provided in the General Conditions. B. Progress Payments; Retainage. City shall make 95% progress payments on account of the Contract Price on the basis of Contractor’s Applications for Payment during performance of the Work. C. Payments to Subcontractor. (1) Prompt Payment to Subcontractors. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 471.25, Subd. 4a, the Contractor must pay any subcontractor within ten (10) days of the Contractor’s receipt of payment from the City for undisputed services provided by the subcontractor. The Contractor must pay interest of 1½ percent per month or any part of a month to the subcontractor on any undisputed amount not paid on time to the subcontractor. The minimum monthly interest penalty payment for an unpaid balance of $100.00 or more is $10.00. For an unpaid balance of less than $100.00, the Contractor shall pay the actual penalty due to the subcontractor. (2) Form IC-134 required from general contractor. Minn. Stat. § 290.92 requires that the City of Edina obtain a Withholding Affidavit for Contractors, Form IC-134, before making final payments to Contractors. This form needs to be submitted by the Contractor to the Minnesota Department of Revenue for approval. The form is used to receive certification from the state that the vendor has complied with the requirement to withhold and remit state withholding taxes for employee salaries paid. D. Final Payment. Upon final completion of the Work, City shall pay the remainder of the Contract Price as recommended by City. 5. COMPLETION DATE. The Work must be completed and ready for final payment by May 21st, 2021. 6. CONTRACTOR’S REPRESENTATIONS. A. Contractor has examined and carefully studied the Contract Documents and other related data identified in the Contract Documents. APRIL 2018 A-3 IB B. Contractor has visited the Site and become familiar with and is satisfied as to the general, local, and Site conditions that may affect cost, progress, and performance of the Work. C. Contractor is familiar with and is satisfied as to all federal, state, and local Laws and Regulations that may affect cost, progress, and performance of the Work. D. Contractor has carefully studied all: (1) reports of explorations and tests of subsurface conditions at or contiguous to the Site and all drawings of physical conditions in or relating to existing surface or subsurface structures at or contiguous to the Site (except Underground Facilities) which have been identified in the General Conditions; and (2) reports and drawings of a Hazardous Environmental Condition, if any, at the Site. E. Contractor has obtained and carefully studied (or assumes responsibility for doing so) all additional or supplementary examinations, investigations, explorations, tests, studies, and data concerning conditions (surface, subsurface, and underground facilities) at or contiguous to the Site which may affect cost, progress, or performance of the Work or which relate to any aspect of the means, methods, techniques, sequences, and procedures of construction to be employed by Contractor, including any specific means, methods, techniques, sequences, and procedures of construction expressly required by the Bidding Documents, and safety precautions and programs incident thereto. F. Contractor does not consider that any further examinations, investigations, explorations, tests, studies, or data are necessary for the performance of the Work at the Contract Price, within the Contract Times, and in accordance with the other terms and conditions of the Contract Documents. G. Contractor is aware of the general nature of work to be performed by City and others at the Site that relates to the Work as indicated in the Contract Documents. H. Contractor has correlated the information known to Contractor, information and observations obtained from visits to the Site, reports and drawings identified in the Contract Documents, and all additional examinations, investigations, explorations, tests, studies, and data with the Contract Documents. I. Contractor has given City written notice of all conflicts, errors, ambiguities, or discrepancies that Contractor has discovered in the Contract Documents, and the written resolution thereof by City is acceptable to Contractor. J. The Contract Documents are generally sufficient to indicate and convey understanding of all terms and conditions for performance and furnishing of the Work. K. Subcontracts: (1) Unless otherwise specified in the Contract Documents, the Contractor shall, upon receipt of the executed Contract Documents, submit in writing to the City the names of the subcontractors proposed for the work. Subcontractors may not be changed except at the request or with the consent of the City. (2) The Contractor is responsible to the City for the acts and omissions of the Contractor's subcontractors, and of their direct and indirect employees, to the same extent as the Contractor is responsible for the acts and omissions of the Contractor's employees. (3) The Contract Documents shall not be construed as creating any contractual relation between the City and any subcontractor. (4) The Contractor shall bind every subcontractor by the terms of the Contract Documents. 7. WARRANTY. The Contractor guarantees that all new equipment warranties as specified within the bid shall be in full force and transferred to the City upon payment by the City. The Contractor shall be held responsible for any and all defects in workmanship, materials, and equipment which may develop in any part of the contracted service, and upon APRIL 2018 A-4 IB proper notification by the City shall immediately replace, without cost to the City, any such faulty part or parts and damage done by reason of the same in accordance with the bid specifications. 8. INDEMNITY. The Contractor agrees to indemnify and hold the City harmless from any claim made by third parties as a result of the services performed by it. In addition, the Contractor shall reimburse the City for any cost of reasonable attorney’s fees it may incur as a result of any such claims. 9. MISCELLANEOUS. A. Terms used in this Agreement have the meanings stated in the General Conditions. B. City and Contractor each binds itself, its partners, successors, assigns and legal representatives to the other party hereto, its partners, successors, assigns and legal representatives in respect to all covenants, agreements, and obligations contained in the Contract Documents. C. Any provision or part of the Contract Documents held to be void or unenforceable under any Law or Regulation shall be deemed stricken, and all remaining provisions shall continue to be valid and binding upon City and Contractor, who agree that the Contract Documents shall be reformed to replace such stricken provision or part thereof with a valid and enforceable provision that comes as close as possible to expressing the intention of the stricken provisions. D. Data Practices/Records. (1) All data created, collected, received, maintained or disseminated for any purpose in the course of this Contract is governed by the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minn. Stat. Ch. 13, any other applicable state statute, or any state rules adopted to implement the act, as well as federal regulations on data privacy. (2) All books, records, documents and accounting procedures and practices to the Contractor and its subcontractors, if any, relative to this Contract are subject to examination by the City. E. Copyright/Patent. Contractor shall defend actions or claims charging infringement of any copyright or patent by reason of the use or adoption of any designs, drawings or specifications supplied by it, and it shall hold harmless the City from loss or damage resulting there from. If the equipment provided by the Contractor pursuant to this Agreement contains software, including that which the manufacturer may have embedded into the hardware as an integral part of the equipment, the Contractor shall pay all software licensing fees. The Contractor shall also pay for all software updating fees for a period of one year following cutover. The Contractor shall have no obligation to pay for such fees thereafter. Nothing in the software license or licensing agreement shall obligate the City to pay any additional fees as a condition for continuing to use the software. F. Assignment. Neither party may assign, sublet, or transfer any interest or obligation in this Agreement without the prior written consent of the other party, and then only upon such terms and conditions as both parties may agree to and set forth in writing. G. Waiver. In the particular event that either party shall at any time or times waive any breach of this Agreement by the other, such waiver shall not constitute a waiver of any other or any succeeding breach of this Agreement by either party, whether of the same or any other covenant, condition or obligation. H. Governing Law/Venue. The laws of the State of Minnesota govern the interpretation of this Agreement. In the event of litigation, the exclusive venue shall be in the District Court of the State of Minnesota for Hennepin County. I. Severability. If any provision, term or condition of this Agreement is found to be or becomes unenforceable or invalid, it shall not affect the remaining provisions, terms and conditions of this APRIL 2018 A-5 IB Agreement, unless such invalid or unenforceable provision, term or condition renders this Agreement impossible to perform. Such remaining terms and conditions of the Agreement shall continue in full force and effect and shall continue to operate as the parties’ entire agreement. J. Entire Agreement. This Agreement represents the entire agreement of the parties and is a final, complete and all inclusive statement of the terms thereof, and supersedes and terminates any prior agreement(s), understandings or written or verbal representations made between the parties with respect thereto. K. Permits and Licenses; Rights-of-Way and Easements. The Contractor shall procure all permits and licenses, pay all charges and fees therefore, and give all notices necessary and incidental to the construction and completion of the Project. The City will obtain all necessary rights-of-way and easements. The Contractor shall not be entitled to any additional compensation for any construction delay resulting from the City’s not timely obtaining rights-of-way or easements. L. If the work is delayed or the sequencing of work is altered because of the action or inaction of the City, the Contractor shall be allowed a time extension to complete the work but shall not be entitled to any other compensation. M. Responsible Contractor. This contract may be terminated by the City at any time upon discovery by the City that the prime contractor or subcontractor has submitted a false statement under oath verifying compliance with any of the minimum criteria set forth in Minn Stat. § 16C.285, subd. 3. CITY OF EDINA CONTRACTOR BY: ____________________________ BY: ____________________________ City Manager Its AND ___________________________ Its Regional Sales Director APRIL 2018 D-1 IB Date: March 2, 2021 Agenda Item #: VI.I. To:Mayor and City Council Item Type: Request For Purchase From:Chad A. Millner, P.E., Director of Engineering Item Activity: Subject:Request for Purchase: Highway 62 Watermain Rehabilitation Action CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: Approve Request for Purchase for Highway 62 Watermain Rehabilitation Design and Construction Services with SEH for $32,000. INTRODUCTION: A watermain pipe under Highway 62 at Valley View Rd was recently identified to have significant pipe wall loss. The loss is estimated to be greater than 50%. Staff is proposing rehabilitation by structural liner to prevent impacts to the highway in the event of a watermain break. ATTACHMENTS: Description Request for Purchase: Highway 62 Watermain Rehabilitation Design and Construction Agreement Request for Purchase Requisition Number Environmental Impact - item specific: 1 CITY OF EDINA 4801 W 50th St., Edina, MN 55424 www.EdinaMN.gov | 952-927-8861 12100060 Department:Engineering Buyer:Chad Millner Date: 02/19/2021 Requisition Description:TH62 at VVRD Watermain Rehab Vendor:SHORT-ELLIOT-HENDRICKSON INCORPORATED Cost:$32,000.00 REPLACEMENT or NEW:REPLACEM - REPLACEMENT PURCHASE SOURCE:SERVIC K - SERVICE CONTRACT DESCRIPTION:TH62 at VVRD Watermain Rehab BUDGET IMPACT:Funded by Construction Bond Proceeds ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:Rehabilitation creates less GHG compared to new Vehicle - Make/Model/Year requested vehicle: Vehicle - Make/Model/Year current vehicle (if replacement): Vehicle - Does purchase meet Green Fleet Recommendations? - Vehicle - If does not meet Green Fleet Recommendations, justification: - MPG: Carbon Emissions: COMMUNITY IMPACT:Resilient Water Distribution System Engineers | Architects | Planners | Scientists Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc., 10901 Red Circle Drive, Suite 300, Minnetonka, MN 55343-9302 SEH is 100% employee-owned | sehinc.com | 952.912.2600 | 800.734.6757 | 888.908.8166 fax SUPPLEMENTAL LETTER AGREEMENT February 19, 2021 RE: City of Edina, Minnesota TH 62 at Valley View Road Watermain Rehabilitation Project SEH No. EDINA 159633 14.00 Mr. Chad Millner, PE Director of Engineering City of Edina Engineering and Public Works Facility 7450 Metro Boulevard Edina, MN 55439 Dear Chad: Thank you for expressing interest in SEH’s professional services for the 2021 TH 62 at Valley View Rd. Watermain Rehabilitation Project. Specifically, the project consists of preparing plans, specifications and bid documents for the rehabilitation of the trunk watermain under TH 62, at Valley View Road. We will provide these services in accordance with the City of Edina’s Agreement for Professional Engineering Services dated June 14, 2013 with SEH, herein called the Agreement. SCOPE In the summer of 2020, SEH completed a non-evasive acoustic based condition assessment of several areas of the City’s watermain system. The results of that assessment indicated that the 12-inch main crossing TH 62 at Valley View Rd. has an average wall loss of 52%, which puts it in the “poor” range strongly recommending that the City considering rehabilitating this pipe. The attached Figure 1 illustrates the subject pipe location. SEH met with City staff on February 11, 2021 to discuss the alternatives and approximate costs for rehabilitating this trunk main. At the conclusion of the meeting, staff directed SEH to prepare plans, specifications and bid documents for the project, considering cured-in-place pipe lining or flexible slip lining, using the Primus, pull in liner product Our scope includes preparation of the Bidding Documents, Bidding Assistance, and Construction Administration through completion of the project. Specific tasks related to each of those items, along with our key assumptions, are outlined in the attached detailed Task Hour Budget, but the primary key tasks include the following: Bidding Documents Analysis between cured-in-place-pipe lining and a flexible slip lining will be done, prior to selecting the method for rehabilitation to include in bidding documents. Once the City selects the final product, we will move into the design phase. Plan sheets will be in GIS or PDF format. Mr. Chad Millner, PE February 19, 2021 Page 2 Topographical survey is anticipated to establish locations of existing valves; 4 hours of survey time has been included in the attached task hour budget. We are assuming the existing as-built plans provide adequate profile information to incorporate into the plans to provide prospective bidders data on the number of horizontal or vertical bends they will encounter as part of the project. (i.e. no extraordinary CCTV or pipe investigation was included in the budget). A project design kickoff meeting to discuss various design elements requiring City staff input such as desired liner thickness, operating system details, testing requirements, etc. Location of proposed access pits and required watermain removals and improvements at each location. Temporary water is not anticipated for the crossing but may need to be addressed in the neighborhood north of TH 62, depending on the final resolution of available or potential addition of isolation valves. This will be further evaluated during design. If temporary water is determined to be needed, the project manual will outline the requirements the contractor will need to follow as they lay out their temporary water system. Every attempt will be made during design to eliminate or minimize any temporary water, including the installation of an additional isolation valve ahead of time if necessary. A detailed traffic control plan will be developed for the project as the access pits will generally be in high traffic areas, surrounding the off and of ramps for TH 62 and Valley View Rd. It is assumed the City will obtain any easements from property owners, if such a need arises. Project manual and special provisions, including all City front end documents and technical specifications will be developed Obtaining MDH and MnDOT permits. At least one pit will be located in the TH 62 right of way, but past experience on water main rehabilitation projects in the metro area have not resulted in any issues obtaining the permits. Permit fees are a reimbursable expense. Preparing the final Opinion of Probable Cost. Deliverables would consist of final construction plans, Project manual, and final engineers estimate, along with any minutes from meetings or design memorandums. Bidding Assistance The City will take care of all bidding services. SEH is available to answer bidder questions. SEH to review the bid results and offer a recommendation to the City. Construction Administration Scheduling and conducting the Preconstruction Meeting. Providing up to 10 hours per week of project engineer construction oversight. It is assumed that the project will be completed in 4 weeks. Contract Administration which consists of shop drawing review, coordination of schedule between contractor and City staff, and providing quantities for the City to process pay vouchers. It is assumed that the City will be providing notification to adjacent residents and businesses during the project. SCHEDULE We understand that the City wants to complete this rehabilitation work during the 2021 construction season. The City will provide input into the final contract schedule to accommodate low peak flow periods Mr. Chad Millner, PE February 19, 2021 Page 3 and when the trunk main can be taken out of service. We prepared the production schedule below to achieve this. Milestone No. Description Date 1 Council contract Authorization and NTP March 2, 2021 2 Complete Bidding Documents for City Review Early April 2021 3 Advertise for Bids Late April 2021 4 Open Bids / Award May 2021 5 City’s CIPP Contractor Rehabilitates the Watermain May – October 31, 2021 6 Final Completion Date November 15, 2021 COMPENSATION Our proposed hourly not-to-exceed fee reported by our task hour budget for Data Collection, Design, Bidding Assistance and Construction Phase is as follows: Data Collection/Design/Bidding $23,400 Construction Services $8,600 Total $32,000 This amount includes our reimbursable expenses and will not be exceeded without prior authorization from the City. Our fees to prepare Bidding Documents, assist the City with bidding, and provide part-time construction phase services are normal and customary in the industry for this type of specialized work. We will invoice the City monthly on an hourly basis for our labor. Our invoices will also include our expenses. Additional work, if authorized by the City, shall be billed at agreed upon rates. As always, we look forward to working with you and your staff to apply trenchless pipe rehabilitation tools on the City’s 2019 trunk watermain rehabilitation project. We are prepared to start immediately upon receiving the notice to proceed. Please contact Dave Hutton with questions and comments at 612.255.8747 or dhutton@sehinc.com. Respectfully submitted, SHORT ELLIOTT HENDRICKSON INC. Toby Muse PE (Lic. MN) David E. Hutton, PE (Lic. MN, ND, WI) Associate, Client Service Manager Project Manager Accepted this ____ day of _____________, 2021 CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA By: ____________________________________ Name Title: ___________________________________ X:\AE\E\EDINA\159333\1-genl\10-setup-cont\03-proposal\Valley View TH 62 Proposal Letter.docx Prepared by: AQBReviewed by: DEHPM Grad Eng. GIS Analyst Survey Tech Admin Tech ExpensesTotal1.14 41.24261.32 8 4141.441.52 81.62 462.14 48 4562.22 82.32 84142.42 8102.52 8102.62 8103.1 2243.22 8103.31 123.4213Task #3 - Bidding AdministrationPrepare Ad for BidRespond to bidder questionsAttend Bid openingRecommendation letter and awardQA/QC reviewData Collection - Record plans, GIS base mapping, City standards specifications, etc.City staff meetings - assumes 2 meetings. Project kickoff meeting and a meeting to review draft plans and specsProject Name: TH 62 at Valley View Road Watermain Rehabilitation ProjectClient: City of Edina, MinnesotaSEH Project No. EDINA 159333Date: 2/19/21Billing TitleTask #1 - Project ManagementTraffic Control PlanTopographic field surveyingProject Manual PreparationDetail pages and temporary water plans if necessary. Statement of Estimated Quantities and Opinion of Probable CostAgency Review and Permitting including MnDOT and MDHEvaluate trenchless rehabilititaion methods, including: cured-in-place-pipe and a flexible, slip liner.Conduct day-to-day Project Management of team, administration, coordination with client, monthly scheduling, invoicing and general correspondenceThere will be one set of Plan Sheets for the watermain consisting of the following pages: Location Map, Cured-In-Place-Pipe Method Layout, Water System Removals Plan, Traffic Control, Resoration PlanTask #2 - Preparation of Bid DocumentsPage 1 of 2 PM Grad Eng. GIS Analyst Survey Tech Admin Tech ExpensesTotalBilling Title4.14264.22 354.32 8104.440404.54414 20 4 4 2 N/A 30$3,176.32 $2,211.20 $581.25 $456.06 $221.89 $6,646.7214 88 4 4 N/A 100$3,176.32 $9,729.28 $581.25 $443.78 $196.40 $14,127.025 113 N/A 19$1,134.40 $1,216.16$332.83 $2,683.398 552 N/A 65$1,815.04 $6,080.80$221.89 $464.00 $8,581.7341 174 8 4 11 N/A 214$9,302 $19,237 $1,162 $456 $1,220 $660 $32,038.86Task #1 - Project ManagementTask Hours SummaryTask Hours SummaryTask Fee SummaryProject SummaryTask Hours SummaryTask Fee SummaryTask #4 - Construction ServicesTask Fee SummaryTask #2 - Preparation of Bid DocumentsTask Fee SummaryProject Hours SummaryProject Fee SummaryTask #3 - Bidding AdministrationTask Hours SummaryFinal post lining CCTV review and approvalSubmittals, shop drawing review and approvalTask #4 - Construction ServicesContract AdministrationPreconstruction conferenceConstruction Observation - part time assumes 10 hours per week for four weeksPage 2 of 2 G!.G!. G!. G!. G!.G!. G!.G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. G!. !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(GV 1412 GV 1418 GV 1420 GV 1989 GV 2680 GV 2682 GV 2683 GV 2689 GV 2995 GV 2936 GV 2937 GV 2942 GV 2943 GV 3174 GV 3179GV 3180 GV 3181 GV 3182 GV 3874 GV 3869 GV 3870 GV 4907 GV 4910 GV 4911 GV 5236GV 5237 GV 5561 GV 2993 GV 2994 GV 2940 GV 4912 GV 966 Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan,Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand),NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Figure 1 10901 RED CIRCLE DR. STE 300MINNETONKA, MN 55343-9302PHONE: (952) 912-2600FAX: (888) 908-8166TF: (800) 734-6757www.sehinc.com Map by: abrelandProjection: HENNEPIN COUNTYSource: CITY OF EDINA, ESRI Project: EDINA 159333 Print Date: 2/16/2021 2021 Watermain Rehabilitation TH 62 at Valley View Road Edina, MN This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey map and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, information, and data gathered from various sources listed on this map and is to be used for reference purposes only. SEH does not warrant that the GeographicInformation System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and SEH does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking, or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. The user of thismap acknowledges that SEH shall not be liable for any damages which arise out of the user's access or use of data provided.Path: X:\AE\E\EDINA\155479\5-final-dsgn\51-drawings\90-GIS\2020 EL WM Testing\GIS Maps\Highway Crossings\Highway Crossings.mxd Date: March 2, 2021 Agenda Item #: VI.J. To:Mayor and City Council Item Type: Request For Purchase From:Chad A. Millner, P.E., Director of Engineering Item Activity: Subject:Request for Purchase: Design Services for Blake Road Reconstruction Action CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: Approve Request for Purchase preliminary design services for Blake Road Reconstruction with WSB for $151,998. INTRODUCTION: Blake Road from the Hopkins border to Scriver Rd is scheduled for street reconstruction in 2022. The project cost is estimated at $3.5 million. This contract is aligned with typical engineering costs related to preliminary design These services are specialty skills related to transportation, water resources and permitting near Mirror Lakes that internal city staff does not have. These services are funded from municipal state aid (MSA) funds. ATTACHMENTS: Description Request for Purchase: Design Services for Blake Road Reconstruction Design Services Agreement Request for Purchase Requisition Number Environmental Impact - item specific: 1 CITY OF EDINA 4801 W 50th St., Edina, MN 55424 www.EdinaMN.gov | 952-927-8861 12100062 Department:Engineering Buyer:Chad Millner Date: 02/23/2021 Requisition Description:Prelim Design Services for Blake Rd Reconstruction Vendor:WSB & ASSOCIATES Cost:$151,998.00 REPLACEMENT or NEW:REPLACEM - REPLACEMENT PURCHASE SOURCE:SERVIC K - SERVICE CONTRACT DESCRIPTION:Prelim Design Services for Blake Rd Reconstruction BUDGET IMPACT:Funded by MSA Funds ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:Impacts considered with design Vehicle - Make/Model/Year requested vehicle: Vehicle - Make/Model/Year current vehicle (if replacement): Vehicle - Does purchase meet Green Fleet Recommendations? - Vehicle - If does not meet Green Fleet Recommendations, justification: - MPG: Carbon Emissions: COMMUNITY IMPACT:Supports City's transportation network C:\Plots\CSAH 48 - Steele County\CSAH 48 Letter Proposal.docx701 XENIA AVENUE S | SUITE 300 | MINNEAPOLIS, MN | 55416 | 763.541.4800 | WSBENG.COMFebruary 22, 2021 Mr. Chad Millner, PE Director of Engineering City of Edina 7450 Metro Boulevard Edina, MN 55439 Re: Scope of Design and Engineering Services for Blake Road Preliminary Design Dear Mr. Millner: WSB is pleased to submit this scope of services for the preliminary design and concept comparison for the Blake Road project. We feel we are a good fit to provide services for this project as we have the expertise and ability to coordinate the challenges with this project. Below is a summary of our proposed scope. Please feel free to review and provide feedback to us at your earliest convenience. CONSULTANT SERVICES Task 1 - Project Management 1.1 – General Coordination Project Management is an essential task to ensure the project remains on schedule and on budget. Andrew Plowman will serve as the project manager on the project, and it will be his duty to perform a majority of the tasks to make this project successful. 1.2 – Project Meetings Andrew will facilitate project meetings to review progress, brainstorm ideas and coordinate with other additional agencies. WSB will also attend up to 2 city meetings (council, transportation commission, etc.). Additional meetings with agencies such as watersheds, utilities, etc. are covered in other sections. Task 2 – Roadway Concept Design 2.1 – Topographic Survey and Base Mapping It is understood that Centerpoint Energy has completed some survey at the project location. WSB will analyze the existing survey shots and complete a topographic survey for the additional areas needed. WSB will prepare a detailed topographic base drawing and digital terrain model (DTM) of the area which will compile the data from Centerpoint Energy and the new shots completed by WSB. 2.2 – Traffic Analysis WSB will analyze the traffic operations of the Blake Road/Interlachen Boulevard intersection alternatives. It is anticipated a mini-roundabout, standard roundabout and turn-lane will be analyzed. The traffic operations will be based on City-provided turning movement counts, projection and peak hour factors. WSB will utilize VISSIM software to model the operations, provide a level of service and provide a simulation. Mr. Chad Millner, PE February 22, 2021 Page 2 C:\Plots\Edina - Blake\Blake Road Letter Proposal.docx 2.3 – Concept Design WSB will develop up to three primary geometric concepts. This will include using the typical section provided by the City and alternatives for the intersection of Blake Road and Interlachen Boulevard. The concepts will include standard and mini-roundabout options, and one other alternative which may include the addition of turn lanes. 2.4 – Construction Limits WSB will generate construction limits based on the typical sections and the design alternatives. The construction limits will aid in determining costs, impacts to utilities, aquatic resources and right of way. 2.5 – Stormwater Management Plan WSB will develop a stormwater management plan to outline permitting requirements and stormwater management needs for the three geometric concepts from Task 2.3. This plan will identify rate control, volume control, and water quality treatment requirements for the three concepts. The plan will also quantify the floodplain needs associated with each of the three concepts. Improvement options to address stormwater management needs for each of the concepts will be outlined and evaluated at a preliminary level to help develop stormwater management recommendations. The deliverable is anticipated to be in memo format with exhibits to depict concepts and improvement options. 2.6 – Preliminary Storm Sewer Design Preliminary storm sewer layout will be developed serve each of the three concept designs in Task 2.3. Preliminary storm spacing calculations and pipe design computations will be completed to help result in an accurate preliminary design cost estimate. This will not include profiles for storm sewer but will include a general conflict review based on other utilities in the area. 2.7 – Cost Estimates WSB will complete cost estimates for up to three alternatives. This will include the cost of the construction improvements, right of way and utility relocations (as applicable). 2.8 – Alternative Comparison Matrix and Summary Report WSB will compare the alternatives in the form of a comparison matrix. The matrix will compare items such as; cost, operations, impacts to:(right of way, aquatic resources, utilities, etc.), permitting timeline, influence on multi-modal components and construction staging. The matrix will lead to an overall summary report that will detail the options and provide a recommendation of the proposed improvement. 2.9 – Final Alternative Visualization WSB’s visualization group will complete a three-dimensional rendering of the preferred concept. This visualization can be carried into a public engagement process and help the public understand the proposed improvements. Task 3 – Water Resources and Permitting 3.1 – Wetland Delineation and Report WSB will perform a water resource delineation within the project area to document existing wetlands, lakes, and other aquatic resources. Delineations will be completed in conformance with the US Army Corps of Engineers and MN Board of Water and Soil Resources’ guidance documents. Boundaries of aquatic resources will be demarcated with pink pin flags and surveyed using sub-meter accuracy GPS units. Data from the delineation will be compiled into a wetland delineation report and submitted to the City for review prior to submitting to the agencies for approval. This task includes one on-site field verification meeting with the agencies to approve the boundaries. Mr. Chad Millner, PE February 22, 2021 Page 3 C:\Plots\Edina - Blake\Blake Road Letter Proposal.docx 3.2 – Agency Meetings/Coordination WSB will meet with the regulatory agencies to provide an overview of the project and gather feedback prior to submittal of permit applications. This task assumes one meeting with each of the regulatory agencies (Watershed Districts, DNR, and USACE/WCA TEP). 3.3 – Permits/Approvals WSB will prepare permit applications and coordinate review and approval with the regulatory agencies. We are including this task in the preliminary design scope because some of the permits may be time sensitive, and others may be similar with any of the options chosen. This task includes preparation of all application materials including narratives, alternatives analysis, required modeling, and impact and mitigation exhibits. We anticipate that permits will be required from the following agencies: • Department of Natural Resources • Wetland Conservation Act • US Army Corps of Engineers • Nine Mile Creek Watershed District • Minnehaha Creek Watershed District • MN Pollution Control Agency We plan to coordinate early with both watersheds to determine how the permitting regarding Mirror Lake will be handled given the location on the watershed jurisdictional boundary. We expect that mitigation for impacts to Mirror Lake (both the lake itself and associated FEMA floodplain) will be required at a 1:1 ratio, to be provided within the basin. The necessary hydrologic and hydraulic modeling or no-rise work will be completed as part of this effort. Any additional wetland mitigation required beyond the 1:1 ratio will be provided via purchase of credits from an approved wetland bank. No onsite mitigation monitoring is expected. Fees associated with application reviews and purchase of wetland credits is not included with the fee estimate. Task 4 – Utility Coordination 4.1 – Utility Identification and Correspondence We will compile survey and utility information acquired from Centerpoint Energy, City GIS and as-built data, Gopher State One Call mapping, and supplemental survey information to identify the location of all utilities in the project area. We will establish a contact person for each utility company and track correspondence. 4.2 – Utility Depiction With the information compiled during task 4.1, we will develop an existing utility base map in CAD software. 4.3 – Utility Information Meeting WSB will facilitate a Utility Information Meeting, send out concept materials, draft agendas and complete meeting minutes. At the meeting, the utilities will be asked to ensure the locations of the existing utilities, whether they have their own easement for the location of their utility or if they are there by permit and the timing and complexity of possible relocations of their facilities. 4.4 – Utility Impact to Design Alternatives WSB will analyze how the utilities (existing or new) may impact roadway alternatives, these impacts will be summarized and compared in the roadway alternatives matrix. WSB will consider the following: Mr. Chad Millner, PE February 22, 2021 Page 4 C:\Plots\Edina - Blake\Blake Road Letter Proposal.docx : How well the roadway alternatives accommodate the existing utility infrastructure including potential staging risks related to relocations, Potential costs of relocations that could be incurred by the City (for instance the burial of overhead lines), Design coordination with Centerpoint Energy for the new 24” gas main, And the implementation of new watermain on the Blake Road land bridge. Task 5 – Structural Design 5.1 – Structural Concepts As a part of the Concept Design task, WSB’s structural staff will develop structural options for up to three primary geometric concepts. This will include the use of cast-in-place walls, sheeting piling walls with and without concrete facing, and another wall type (to be determined). Large block walls and many other wall types are not recommended due to the high water level. 5.2 – Structural Computations and Summary WSB will complete design computations for each option that will include information related to size of retaining walls and any needed backfill and support. In addition, the WSB team will summarize the risks and benefits involved with each wall type and this information will be entered into the alternative matrix. Aesthetic features such as railing types, textures, colors, and lighting types (if desired) will also be vetted. Schedule The project is scheduled to be constructed in 2022. WSB will begin developing the concepts, vet the alternatives with the City and provide a recommended alternative by July, 2021. This will allow for adequate time to complete the final design and plan production by December, 2021 for construction to begin in the spring of 2022. PROPOSED FEE We understand this project cost is based on cost plus fixed fee. We propose to complete this project for the below proposed fee below: Total Project Fee: ............................................................................$151,998 I have attached a summary of our fees based upon the above scope of work. WSB will invoice the City of Edina for the actual hours worked at each employee classification with the current WSB hourly rate up to the Total Project Fee. No work in excess of the Total Project Fee will be completed without prior written approval from the City of Edina. Mr. Chad Millner, PE February 22, 2021 Page 5 C:\Plots\Edina - Blake\Blake Road Letter Proposal.docx This letter represents our understanding of the project scope. If you are in agreement, please sign on the space provided and return one original signed copy to us for our records. We will start immediately upon receipt of the signed agreement. Sincerely, WSB Andrew Plowman, P.E. Project Manager, Director of Transportation – Design (MN/ND) ACCEPTED: City of Edina By: ______________________________________ _________ Date: 2/22/2021 Task Description Estimated Hours Task Cost Project Manager Design Lead/Utility Coordinator Graduate Engineer CAD Technician/ Visualization Hydraulic Design Lead Hydraulic Design Support Structural Engineer Traffic Engineer Environmental Lead Environmental Scientist Survey Technician 2-Person Survey Crew Clerical Total 1 Project Management 112 $19,400 1.1 General Coordination 40 4 4 8 56 $9,464 1.2 Meetings 32 8 4 12 56 $9,936 2 Roadway Concept Design 530 $74,300 2.1 Topographic Survey and Base Mapping 4 16 32 52 $9,204 2.2 Traffic Analysis 32 32 $4,640 2.3 Concept Design 24 16 24 24 88 $12,248 2.4 Constructon Limits 4 16 24 16 60 $7,528 2.5 Stormwater Management Plan 12 32 44 $5,832 2.6 Preliminary Storm Sewer Design 8 48 56 $7,008 2.7 Cost Estimates 4 16 24 4 8 12 68 $9,288 2.8 Alternative Comparison Matrix and Summary Report 40 16 8 8 72 $11,128 2.9 Final Alternative Visualization 4 54 58 $7,424 3 Water Resources and Permitting 279 $31,226 3.1 Wetland Delineation and Report 4 2 28 4 38 $3,600 3.2 Agency Meetings/Coordination 8 16 12 4 12 52 $6,404 3.3 Permits/Approvals 24 80 6 75 4 189 $21,222 4 Utility Coordination 62 $8,840 4.1 Utility Identification and Correspndence 8 4 12 $1,548 4.2 Utility Depiction 16 8 24 $3,328 4.3 Utility Information Meeting 2 4 6 $940 4.4 Utility Impact to Design Alternatives 4 16 20 $3,024 5 Structural Design 136 $18,232 5.1 Strucural Concepts 4 12 40 16 72 $10,092 5.2 Structural Computations and Summary 4 36 12 12 64 $8,140 SUBTOTAL 158 116 140 166 72 180 56 32 12 115 16 32 24 $151,998 Labor Rates $184 $143 $101 $130 $174 $117 $184 $145 $164 $98 $152 $199 $84 Labor Subtotal $29,072 $16,588 $14,140 $21,580 $12,528 $21,060 $10,304 $4,640 $1,968 $11,270 $2,432 $6,368 $2,016 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST OF SERVICES $151,998 Date: March 2, 2021 Agenda Item #: VI.K. To:Mayor and City Council Item Type: Request For Purchase From:Zuleyka Marquez, PE, Graduate Engineer Item Activity: Subject:Request for Purchase: Residential Permit Review Support Action CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: Approve Request for Purchase for Residential Permit Review Support with Bolton & Menk for $40,000. INTRODUCTION: The volume of plan reviews along with the required onsite inspections are high between the months of May and October and the Engineering Services Division does not always have the capacity to meet the demands of the plan reviews in a timely manner. Thus, the Engineering Services Division is requesting support for plan review of residential projects during these months. These services will be funded by a combination of utility funds and right- of-way permit revenue. ATTACHMENTS: Description Request for Purchase: Residential Permit Review Support Residential Permit Review Support Agreement Request for Purchase Requisition Number Environmental Impact - item specific: 1 CITY OF EDINA 4801 W 50th St., Edina, MN 55424 www.EdinaMN.gov | 952-927-8861 12100061 Department:Engineering Buyer:Chad Millner Date: 02/22/2021 Requisition Description:Residential Permit Review Support Vendor:BOLTON & MENK INC Cost:$40,000.00 REPLACEMENT or NEW:REPLACEM - REPLACEMENT PURCHASE SOURCE:SERVIC K - SERVICE CONTRACT DESCRIPTION:Residential Permit Review Support with Bolton & Menk BUDGET IMPACT:Utility Funds & ROW Permit Revenue ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:Service Contract Vehicle - Make/Model/Year requested vehicle: Vehicle - Make/Model/Year current vehicle (if replacement): Vehicle - Does purchase meet Green Fleet Recommendations? - Vehicle - If does not meet Green Fleet Recommendations, justification: - MPG: Carbon Emissions: COMMUNITY IMPACT:Supports City Regulations N:\Proposals\Edina\2021 Residential_Small Site Review\FOR REVIEW_Proposal Residential and Small Site Reviews.docx February 19, 2021 Mr. Ross Bintner, P.E. Engineering Services Manager RBintner@EdinaMN.gov RE: PROPOSAL: Residential and Small Site Review Support Dear Mr. Bintner, Bolton & Menk, Inc. is pleased to present this proposal for professional engineering services in support of the city’s residential and small site plan review. As a part of this proposal, we describe our understanding of the project, detail our proposed scope and schedule of work, and provide our fees for service. This proposal is being offered as a Supplemental Agreement to our June 18, 2013 Master Agreement for Professional Engineering Services with the City of Edina. PROJECT UNDERSTANDING The City of Edina has requested this proposal from Bolton & Menk to support the City’s residential and small site plan reviews. The volume of plan reviews along with the required onsite inspections are high between the months of May and October and City staff does not always have the capacity to meet the demands of the plan reviews in a timely manner. The City is requesting support for plan review of residential and small sites beginning in May and ending in October, it is expected to average 1 day per week. Bolton & Menk will use the City of Edina’s guidance documents for site plans and single/double dwelling units as they relate to stormwater management, erosion and sediment control and site survey as a guide for our reviews. It is expected the reviews that are prepared will be saved/filed on the City’s Project Dox system. SCOPE OF WORK Bolton & Menk will provide a detailed review, in a format acceptable to the City (City to provide a sample of approved review documentation), utilizing city review standards. We are proposing Lani Leichty, Sr. Project Engineer, to lead this initiative for Bolton & Menk. All work will be coordinated directly with Lani and he will have the support of a project engineer for the reviews. Lani has extensive stormwater management, drainage and grading expertise and provides similar plan review for other metro communities. It is expected that Lani will spend 3 hours per week coordinating and reviewing the final plan review and answering questions from builders/applicant. Lani will have support from a young engineer (EIT or PE), who is expected to dedicate, on average, 8 hours per week to plan reviews for this initiative. Our team will be available to provide additional support throughout the summer if there are staff vacations, or a higher volume of workload than anticipated. Proposal: Residential and Small Site Review Support Date: February 19, 2021 Page: 2 N:\Proposals\Edina\2021 Residential_Small Site Review\FOR REVIEW_Proposal Residential and Small Site Reviews.docx SCHEDULE OF WORK Bolton & Menk understands these reviews are time critical and we will work with the City to meet the required turnaround times for each review, if additional time is expected to be required, we will inform the City immediately. PROPOSED FEES Bolton & Menk proposes to complete the above scope of work on an hourly basis, with an estimated project limit of $40,000. The fees for the individual tasks below are estimates. Average Weekly Services Project Oversight & Coordination (3 hrs/week, 22 weeks) $ 12,000 Plan Review (8 hrs/week, 22 weeks) $ 24,000 Project Start-up, Process Improvement Meetings, Etc. Estimate, as needed $ 4,000 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $ 40,000 Should additional time be required for reviews, these services will be discussed in advance. Personnel rates for anticipated staffing are as follows: Senior Project Engineer: $180 per hour Graduate Engineer or Project Engineer (PE): $112-136 per hour If you find this proposal satisfactory, your signature of this proposal will constitute acceptance of the terms outlined and your authority for us to proceed. Please call if you wish to discuss this proposal. We look forward to providing these professional engineering services to you on this project and appreciate your consideration of Bolton & Menk, Inc. Sincerely, Bolton & Menk, Inc. Sarah E. Lloyd, P.E. Principal Engineer Signed Date Printed Name Date: March 2, 2021 Agenda Item #: VI.L. To:Mayor and City Council Item Type: Report / Recommendation From:Nick Bauler, Traffic Safety Coordinator Item Activity: Subject:Approve Traffic Safety Report of January 26, 2021 Action CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: Approve the Traffic Safety Report of January 26, 2021. INTRODUCTION: The Transportation Commission reviewed the report at their February 18, 2021 regular meeting; comments are included in the attached staff report. ATTACHMENTS: Description Traffic Safety Report of January 26, 2021 March 2, 2021 Mayor and City Council Nick Bauler, Traffic Safety Coordinator Traffic Safety Report of January 26, 2021 Information / Background: The Traffic Safety Committee (TSC) review of traffic safety matters occurred on January 26. The Traffic Safety Coordinator, City Engineer, Streets Public Service Worker, Transportation Planner, Police Sergeant, Public Works Director and Assistant City Planner were in attendance for these meetings. On each of the items, persons involved have been contacted and the staff recommendation has been discussed with them. They were informed that if they disagree with the recommendation or have additional facts to present, they can submit correspondence to the Transportation Commission and/or to City Council prior to the March 2 regular meeting. Section A: Items on which the Traffic Safety Committee recommends action A1. Request for crosswalk markings over Cahill Rd and Amundson Ave at W 70th St • Resident is requesting markings following completion of shared-use path on south side of W 70th St. • The new SUP connects to the Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail. • Both locations are stop-controlled. • 132 pedestrian crossing were observed in one day with a peak hour of 22 crosses. • One crash was reported at Cahill Rd and W 70th St in the last 10 years. • Current pedestrian crossing policy recommends marked crosswalks at multi-use trail crossings. Staff recommends installing crosswalk markings at both locations as warranted by the current crossing policy. W 70th St at Cahill Rd and Amundson Ave STAFF REPORT Page 2 Section C: Items on which the Traffic Safety Committee recommends further study C1. Request to slow traffic on northbound Normandale Rd between W 70th St and W 66th St • Existing typical section (from west to east) includes a 6’ shoulder, 12’ drive lane, and 8’ parking lane. • Parking is restricted on the west side. • 85-percentile speeds range from 35-36.8 mph. • Normandale Rd is scheduled for an overlay in 2021. • A sidewalk is recommended along Normandale Rd in the future. • Suggested solutions include updating lane striping, installing curb extensions or narrowing the roadway. Staff recommends reviewing future sidewalk plans to possibly coincide with future road work. Section D: Other traffic safety items handled D1. A request was made for a crosswalk on Halifax Ave between W 50th St and W 51st St at the entrance of the parking lot. The resident was concerned with seniors crossing at this location. A crosswalk did not meet warrants as two signalized crossings are nearby and minimum crosses were not reached. D2. A submission was made about trucks blocking a driveway on Grimes Ave while possibly working on utilities. Upon review, the company was working on soil borings prior to a future reconstruction project. The resident was informed, and the crew completed its work. D3. A spotlight was reported to be directed towards Gleason Rd from a residence causing visual impairment at night and continued placement of political signs in place. The Planning Department was informed and contacted the resident regarding these concerns. D4. A resident was concerned with excess turnaround traffic on Long Brake Trl and requested a No Outlet sign. Upon video analysis, the amount of traffic on Long Brake Trl was consistent with the number of homes within the cul-de-sac and no sign is warranted. D5. A resident contacted the City stating 30 mph speed limit signs were incorrectly replaced on W 58th St between France Ave and Xerxes Ave as part of the recent reconstruction project. The resident was informed that since the on-street bike lanes were removed as part of the project, the 25-mph speed limit was no longer permitted by State Aid guidelines. D6. A resident was concerned with drivers not stopping for pedestrians crossing Interlachen Blvd at Vandervork Ave. This crossing meets the City’s warrants and the EPD was advised to consider additional enforcement. D7. A request was made for additional crossing treatments at W 42nd St and Grimes Ave as a resident mentioned vehicles are failing to stop for crossing students. The current crosswalk meets warrants and the EPD advised to consider additional enforcement. Normandale Rd between W 66th St and W 70th St STAFF REPORT Page 3 D8. A request was made for all-way stop control at Mirror Lakes Dr and Northwood Dr. This request was previously reviewed by the Committee and no warrants were met. Since there has been no significant changes to adjacent traffic patterns, staff continues to recommend no action. D9. A request was made to reduce the restrictions for no-right-turn-on red from southbound Normandale Rd to westbound W 70th St. Restrictions are Monday-Friday from 6 am to 6 pm and were implemented to add gaps in traffic to improve safety for southbound vehicles on Rabun Dr, approximately 200 feet west of the intersection. Staff recommends no changes to current safety restrictions. D10. A concern was raised regarding vehicles failing to stop at the intersection of W 70th St and Cahill Rd. This request was forwarded to the EPD for enforcement. D11. A resident requested a speed study on Hibiscus Ave for data to clarify need for a sidewalk. As City Council approved staff’s recommendation not to construct a sidewalk on Hibiscus Ave last year, a justification study was deemed unnecessary. D12. A request was made for a crosswalk over Valley View Rd at Hillside Rd. The resident was concerned with their kids crossing from the south side of Valley View Rd. Since there is no sidewalk connection on the south side and few properties, staff believes a crosswalk would not be warranted. Date: March 2, 2021 Agenda Item #: VI.M. To:Mayor and City Council Item Type: Report / Recommendation From:Scott H. Neal, City Manager Item Activity: Subject:Approve City Manager Employment Agreement Action CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: Approve City Manager employment agreement and 2021 compensation adjustment. INTRODUCTION: See attached staff report and proposed employment agreement. ATTACHMENTS: Description Staff Report: Approve City Manager Employment Agreement Proposed 2021-23 City Manager Employment Agreement March 2, 2021 Mayor and City Council Scott Neal, City Manager Approve City Manager Employment Agreement Information / Background: Pursuant to the February 2, 2021 direction from the City Council, I met with Mayor Hovland and Deputy Mayor Staunton to review my current employment agreement and compensation. My current three-year employment agreement expired on December 31, 2020. We reached a mutual agreement on a new three- year agreement which is attached. The new terms and material changes in the new employment agreement are as follows: • Establishes a new three-year term commencing January 1, 2021 • Clarifies language around the City’s commitment to be a Plan Sponsor for the International City/County Management Association Retirement Corporation (ICMA-RC), but does not commit the City to making financial contributions to the ICMA-RC on my behalf, except for my voluntary payroll deductions. The ICMA-RC plan is available to all fulltime City employees. • Establishes my 2021 annual salary to be $186,345, effective January 1, 2021. This amount is 1.2% higher than my 2020 annual salary, which is the limit under the Minnesota local government salary cap. The new agreement commits both parties to enter into good faith negotiations regarding a potential adjustment of my salary should there be a statutory change in the salary cap law during the term of the agreement. • Increases my annual paid vacation leave from 160 hours per year to 180 hours per year. • Eliminates a past category of paid leave called supplementary non-accruing paid (SNAP) leave and creates a new form of paid leave called supplementary paid time off (SPTO) leave. The material difference between the two types of leave is that I can bank the SPTO leave into the future. I could not do that with SNAP leave. • Modifies a commitment from the City in section 9 to support my attendance at the International City/County Management Association’s Senior Leadership Institute (SEI). The new agreement allows me to pursue an alternative to the SEI as long as the alternative is relevant to my job and comparable in cost. STAFF REPORT Page 2 • Adds a new section 18 for extension and renewal. The new section allows both parties to mutually agree to extend the employment agreement, with no material changes, for additional two-year periods starting in January 2024. Proposed Compensation for 2021 The following is my proposal for my compensation for 2021, which is consistent with my employment agreement and the limitations of the MN local government salary cap. Current: $184,136 Requested: $186,345 (per my employment agreement) Rate of Increase: 1.2% (approved CPI growth by MN Dept of Management & Budget) Amount of Increase: $2,209 Recent Salary Rates of Increase City Manager Edina Union/Non-Union Employees • 2021 1.2% 3.0% • 2020 1.8% 3.0% • 2019 2.5% 3.0% • 2018 2.0% 3.0% • 2017 1.6% 3.0% • 2016 0.2% 2.5% • 2015 1.7% 2.5% • 2014 1.0% 2.0% In previous years, the Council has considered the long-term impacts of the inequity in the rate of growth in my annual salary compared to the rate of growth of the annual salaries of the City’s union and non-union employees. If this inequity continues for a long enough period, it will create a salary compression in our top leadership team and other related compensation complications down the hierarchy. The Council has considered this inequity and has generously granted me a lump sum increase in paid leave that has been roughly equivalent in cash value to the difference between my allowable pay increase and the market adjustment increase granted to union and non-union City employees. The computation for such an action for 2021 looks like this: • 2021 general Edina city employee market adjustment of +3% if applied to my 2020 salary = $5,524 • My allowable pay increase for 2021 (+1.2%) = $2,209 • Difference = $3,315 • My hourly wage rate for 2021 = $89.58 • Difference/hourly wage rate ($3,315/89.58) = 37 • Requested hours of lump sum supplementary paid time off = 37 hours I would appreciate the Council’s consideration of repeating this compensation adjustment again for 2021. 1 ) EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT THIS EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is made and entered into effective this ____ day of ________________, 2021, by and between the CITY OF EDINA, a Minnesota municipal corporation (“Employer” or “City”) and SCOTT H. NEAL ("Employee"). The Employer and Employee are collectively referred to herein as “the Parties”. The parties agree as follows: 1. POSITION. Employer agrees to employ Employee as its City Manager and as the Executive Director of its Housing and Redevelopment Authority. Employee agrees to serve in these positions in accordance with state statutes and City ordinances and to perform such other legally permissible and proper duties and functions as the City Council shall from time to time assign to him. 2. TERM AND TERMINATION. The term of this Agreement shall be three (3) years commencing on the effective date of this Agreement, which shall be January 1, 2021 (“Effective Date”). (a) Nothing in this Agreement shall prevent, limit or otherwise interfere with the right of the Employee to resign at any time during the term of this Agreement by giving notice and otherwise complying with the conditions set forth in this Agreement; and 2 (b) Nothing in this Agreement shall prevent, limit or otherwise interfere with the right of the Employer to terminate the services of the Employee at any time, at the sole discretion of the Employer, in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. 3. PENSION PLAN. Employer shall contribute to the MN-PERA system on behalf of the Employee as required by State law. As further permitted by state law, the Employee may make salary contributions to his established 457 tax shelter program previously established with the International City/County Management Association Retirement Corporation (ICMA-RC). Employer agrees to continue to serve as an Employer Plan Sponsor for the ICMA-RC during Employee’s term of employment. No contribution shall be required by Employer to Employee’s ICMA-RC account. 4. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION. Employer agrees to conduct an annual performance review of Employee during the first fiscal quarter of each calendar year. The review shall be in accordance with specific criteria developed jointly by the Employer and the Employee. Such criteria may be added to or deleted as the Employer may from time to time in consultation with the Employee. The Employer shall provide the Employee with a written performance review and provide adequate opportunity for the Employee to discuss the review with the Employer in closed session, as allowed by Minnesota State Statutes. The failure of the Employer to conduct the annual review during the first fiscal quarter of the calendar year shall not affect the parties' respective rights to terminate this Agreement or any other rights under the Agreement; nor shall it prevent the Employee from receiving the 3 annual salary increase as provided in section 5 of this Agreement beginning as of the Effective Date and on each annual renewal date thereafter. 5. SALARY. The annual salary of the Employee as City Manager shall be determined by mutual agreement of the Employer and the Employee, and subject only to the terms of this Agreement, and the Minnesota local government employee salary cap (Minn. Stat. 43A.17). Subject to receiving satisfactory performance reviews by the Employer, the Employer and Employee mutually agree to following: (a) Commencing the Effective Date hereof, Employee’s annual salary shall be $186,345. On each annual anniversary date during the term of this Agreement, Employee's annual salary shall be adjusted to equal the Minnesota local government employee salary cap in effect on that renewal date, as modified by the City’s salary cap waiver, and subject to a satisfactory performance review by the Employer. (b) Further provided that if there is a material change in the state statute regarding the salary cap during the term of this Agreement, the Parties agree to enter into good faith negotiations regarding potential adjustment to the annual salary of the City Manager. 6. PAID LEAVE. Employee shall earn paid sick leave at the rate of 3.69 Ihours per payroll period and paid vacation leave at the rate of 6.95 hours per payroll period. The Employee shall accrue no more than 600 hours of paid sick leave and no more than 400 hours of paid vacation leave during the term of employment. 100% of Employee's accrued paid vacation 4 time and 50% of Employee's accrued paid sick leaves are compensable at severance, subject to the terms of section 15 of this Agreement. If Employee has reached the salary limit requirements of M.S. 43A.17, Sub. 9, Employee shall receive equivalent hours above the limit in supplemental paid time off leave (SPTO). The amount of SPTO is determined by the City Council. SPTO shall be credited to Employee as a lump sum and may be used as earned, maintained in a paid leave (SPTO) bank or cashed out upon separation of employment. Employee shall have the option to reduce hours of paid leave by converting it to cash compensation, or by transferring hours of leave into the Employee’s SPTO account, no more than once each year at the Employee's then hourly rate of pay in increments of no less than hour 40 hours and no more than 120 hours. Beginning on the Effective Date, Employee shall be entitled to paid holiday leave, bereavement leave, floating holiday leave, leave without pay (collectively “Paid Leave”) on the same basis as the City's Department Director employees are receiving Paid Leave effective January 1, 2021. Any future changes to the City's Paid Leave policies shall not change the level of Paid Leave benefit for the Employee during the term of this Agreement, unless otherwise agreed to, in writing, by the Parties. 7. BENEFITS. In lieu of the City contribution to the employee cafeteria plan, Employee may elect and Employer shall pay 100% of the cost to provide hospital, medical and dental insurance to Employee and his dependents under any qualified plan selected by Employee, which qualified plan is also offered to other employees by the City. Employee will receive employer-paid life insurance and long-term disability as is provided to all other full-time 5 City employees. If Employee wishes to receive benefits offered by the City other than those described herein, Employee shall pay 100% of such cost to the City. 8. DUES AND SUBSCRIPTIONS. Employer shall budget and pay the professional dues, subscriptions, and travel and subsistence expenses for Employee which are deemed reasonable and necessary for Employee's continued participation in national, regional, state and local associations necessary and desirable including: International City/County Management Association, Minnesota City/County Management Association, National League of Cities and the League of Minnesota Cities. Employee shall use good judgment in his outside activities so he will not neglect his primary duties to the Employer. 9. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT. Employer agrees to provide the Employee the opportunity, at Employee's discretion, to attend the International City/County Management Association's Senior Executive Leadership Institute (ICMA-SEI) at the University of Virginia's Darden School of Business in Charlottesville, Virginia. Employer agrees to budget and pay for all expenses related to Employee's attendance at the ICMA-SEI, including tuition, books, materials, travel and lodging. Or, in the alternative, Employee may pursue, at the Employer’s cost, other equivalent professional development opportunities if the subject matter is directly related to developing or improving the Employee’s professional competencies as a City Manager or local government leader. Such alternative professional development opportunities shall be at an equivalent cost to the ICMA-SEI. 10. CIVIC CLUB MEMBERSHIP. Employer recognizes the desirability of representation in and. before local civic and other organizations. Employee is 6 authorized, at the Employer's expense, to become a member of such civic clubs or organizations as deemed appropriate by Employee and Employer, including, but not limited to, the Edina Chamber of Commerce and the Edina Noon Rotary Club. 11. AUTOMOBILE. Employee shall be reimbursed for the use of his personal automobile on City business on a per mile basis in accordance with then existing IRS regulations. 12. WORK TOOLS. Employer agrees to provide Employee with contemporary technology devices such as a mobile telephone, computer and other devices, and to pay the monthly or annual service charges, which are, in the judgment of the Employee, necessary to accomplish the work of the Employee. Employer acknowledges the Employee may make regular personal use of the devices. Employee recognizes that devices and tools provided to the Employee by the Employer under this section of the agreement are and remain property of the Employer. Employee agrees to return said property to the Employer no later than the Employee's final date of employment. 13. GENERAL EXPENSES. Employer shall reimburse Employee for reasonable miscellaneous job-related expenses, including employee recognition expenses, which Employee will incur from time to time, when provided the appropriate Employer required documentation. 14. HOURS OF WORK. It is mutually understood the Employee is a FLSA-exempt employee without set hours of work, but is expected to be available at all times and to engage in those hours of work, subject only to illness, injury and scheduled annual vacations, that are necessary to fulfill the obligations of the City Manager's position. It is understood that the position of City Manager requires attendance at evening meetings and· occasionally at 7 weekend meetings. It is understood by Employee that additional compensation and compensatory time shall not be allowed for such additional expenditures of time. It is further understood that Employee may absent himself from the office to a reasonable extent in consideration of extraordinary time expenditures for evening and weekend meetings at other than normal working hours. Employee may engage in teaching, consulting, speaking or perform other non-City connected activities for which he is compensated without consent of the Employer provided the activities do not diminish the Employee's ability to perform the essential duties of the City Manager position, as described in sections 1 and 14 herein, and provided the activities do not conflict with the interests of the Employer. Employee agrees to provide written notice to Employer of activities conducted under this section of the Agreement. 15. TERMINATION. In the event that Employee is terminated by the Employer during such time that Employee is willing and able to perform the duties of City Manager, then in that event, Employer agrees to pay Employee at the time of receipt of his last pay check a lump sum cash payment equal to six (6)- months aggregate salary, plus all accrued hours of all forms of paid leave, including, vacation, SPTO, sick and holiday leave times, and to continue to provide and pay for the benefits set forth in paragraph 9 for a period of six (6) months following termination. However, in the event Employee is terminated because of his malfeasance in office, gross misconduct, conviction for a felony, or conviction for an illegal act involving personal gain to Employee, then Employer shall have no obligation to pay the termination benefits. 8 If Employer at any time during the employment term reduces the salary or other financial benefits of Employee in a greater percentage than any across-the-board reduction for all non-union City employees, or if Employer refuses, following written notice, to comply with any other provisions of this Agreement benefitting Employee, or Employee resigns following a formal suggestion by Employer that he resign, then Employee may, at his option, be deemed to terminated on the effective date of Employee's resignation and the Employee shall also be entitled to receive the termination benefits set forth above. If Employee voluntarily resigns his position with Employer, Employee agrees to give the Employer thirty (30) days advance written notice. If Employee voluntarily resigns his position with Employer, there shall be no termination benefits, with the exception of compensable paid leave benefits, as provided in paragraph 6 hereof, due to Employee. 16. INDEMNIFICATION. The Employer shall defend and indemnify the Employee against and for all losses sustained by the Employee in direct consequences of the discharge of the Employee's duties on the behalf of the Employer. In the event the Employee serves on boards of directors of City-related legal entities, the Employer shall extend the same indemnification benefits and protections to Employee for the City-related entity as is provided for the Employee for actions taken on behalf of the Employer. Employer may compromise and settle, without the consent of Employee, any such claim or suit and pay the amount of the settlement or judgment rendered thereon. This covenant shall survive the termination of this Agreement, but shall not obligate the Employer to pay punitive or exemplary damages which may be awarded but Employer may, in its sole discretion, elect to do so to the extent authorized by law. 9 17. OTHER CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT. Subject to any amendments, the City's ordinances, City Employee policies and state statutes are all incorporated herein except to the extent that they conflict with this Employment Agreement. In the event of such a conflict, the language of this Employment Agreement shall be controlling. 18. EXTENSION AND RENEWAL. If both parties mutually agree, and provide mutual written notice to the other, this Agreement may be extended, with no material changes, for additional two-year periods, beginning in January 2024, without additional action by the Employer. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Employer has caused this Agreement to be signed and executed on its behalf by its Mayor and City Clerk, and Employee has signed this Agreement, in duplicate, the day and year first written above. EMPLOYER: EMPLOYEE: CITY OF EDINA SCOTT H. NEAL BY: ______________________________ BY: ________________________________ Mayor City Manager DATE: ____________________________ DATE: _____________________________ AND SHARON ALLISON BY: ______________________________ City Clerk DATE: ____________________________ Date: March 2, 2021 Agenda Item #: VI.N. To:Mayor and City Council Item Type: Report / Recommendation From:Scott Neal, City Manager Item Activity: Subject:Resolution No. 2021-26: Supporting Local Control for Local Elections Action CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: Approve Resolution No. 2021-26 supporting local control for local elections. INTRODUCTION: Councilmember Staunton has requested this resolution be placed before the City Council for a show of support for legislation that would allow all cities, including statutory cities, to allow local voters to determine the methodology of electing their local elected officials. The author of the resolution, Fair Vote Minnesota, is seeking support for legislative change to allow cities to use ranked choice voting, if approved at a referendum of local voters. The position expressed in this resolution is the same position previously authorized by the City Council in the City’s 2021 Legislative Platform. If approved, City staff will provide an executed copy of the resolution to Fair Vote MN and make the public aware of the action. ATTACHMENTS: Description Resolution No. 2021-26: Supporting Local Control for Local Elections RESOLUTION NO. 2021-26 SUPPORTING LOCAL CONTROL FOR LOCAL ELECTIONS WHEREAS, all townships and school districts, 86 of 87 counties, and 85 percent of cities fall under statutory rules for the conduct of local elections and must ask permission of the Legislature to make changes to these rules; and WHEREAS, local charter (or home rule) cities that hold elections in even years along with state and federal elections must comply with restrictive state partisan ballot design requirements; and WHEREAS, there are no consistent rules for the administration of Ranked Choice Voting in local jurisdictions in Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the Local Options provision in the Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) bill aims to remove regulatory barriers and extend authority to adopt RCV to local statutory jurisdictions; and WHEREAS, the RCV Local Options provision allows the flexibility to efficiently include ranked and unranked elections on a single ballot; and WHEREAS, the RCV Local Options provision provides consistent standards for the administration of RCV in cities that choose to use it; and WHEREAS, the League of Minnesota Cities supports the need for consistent RCV rules for use in Minnesota cities for both even and odd-year local elections; and WHEREAS, the RCV local options provision contains no mandates, but simply provides local jurisdictions with the permission and tools they need to consider and implement RCV if they wish; and WHEREAS, a growing number of cities have adopted RCV -- including Minneapolis, St. Paul, St. Louis Park, Bloomington and Minnetonka -- and more cities are exploring RCV because it provides a number of benefits over current expensive and low-participation local elections, including: ● Making voting simpler and more efficient for voters by eliminating the need for local nonpartisan primaries and consolidating two elections into one; ● Saving the cost of primaries altogether in cities with odd-year local elections; ● Demonstrably increasing voter participation; Dated: March 2, 2021 Attest: Sharon Allison, City Clerk James B. Hovland, Mayor STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) SS CITY OF EDINA ) CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting City Clerk for the City of Edina do hereby certify that the attached and foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of March 2, 2021, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this _______ day of ___________________, 2021. City Clerk Date: March 2, 2021 Agenda Item #: VI.O. To:Mayor and City Council Item Type: Report / Recommendation From:MJ Lamon, Community Engagement Coordinator Item Activity: Subject:Transportation Commission Appointment Action CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: Approve the appointment of Andy Lewis to the Transportation Commission to a term ending 3/1/24. INTRODUCTION: The Transportation Commission recently had a resignation which leaves an unscheduled vacancy. Andy Lewis was selected from the Board and Commission alternate list approved by City Council on February 17, 2021, and he accepted the appointment. Date: March 2, 2021 Agenda Item #: VI.P. To:Mayor and City Council Item Type: Report / Recommendation From:Sharon Allison, City Clerk Item Activity: Subject:Approve 2021 Liquor License Renewals Action CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: Approve 2021 Liquor License Renewals. INTRODUCTION: Applications for liquor license renewals were received for 2021. Background checks were completed by the Police Department and Lt. Conboy recommends approval for April 1, 2021 to March 31, 2022. Lt. Conboy's report is attached. ATTACHMENTS: Description 2021 Liquor License Renewals City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 Police Department Phone 952-826-1610 • Fax 952-826-1607 • www.EdinaMN.gov Date: 02/26/2021 To: Sharon Allison cc: Chief Dave Nelson From: Lt. Dan Conboy Subject: Liquor License Renewals Background checks have been completed for the 2021-2022 licensing period. The review was conducted for the following liquor licenses: On-Sale Intoxicating and Sunday Sale, Wine and 3.2 Beer On-Sale, 3.2 Off- Sale, Brew Tap and Sunday Sale and Club On-Sale and Sunday Sale. The below listed restaurants, stores and country clubs comply with Edina City Code. An unqualified recommendation for approval of these renewal applications is warranted. ON-SALE INTOXICATING AND SUNDAY SALE • AMC Theater • Big Bowl • Buffalo Wild Wings • Cocina Del Barrio • CoV Edina • CRAVE • Dave & Buster’s • Edina Grill Restaurant • Homewood Suites • McCormick & Schmick’s Seafood Restaurant • Nakamori Japanese Bistro • P.F. Chang’s China Bistro • Pajarito • Pinstripes • Pittsburgh Blue • Poolside Bistro • Rare • Raku Japanese Restaurant • Red River Kitchen • Salut Bar Americain • Tavern 23 Page 2 City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 • Tavern on France • The Cheesecake Factory • The Hilltop • Town Hall Station • Westin Edina Galleria WINE AND 3.2 BEER ON –SALE • Barnes and Noble • Beaujo’s Wine Bar & Bistro • Brookdale Edina • Cahill Bistro • Coconut Thai • Davanni’s Pizza and Hot Hoagies • D’Amico & Sons • Good Earth Restaurant • Hello Pizza • Lunds & Byerly’s France Avenue • Marriott Residence Inn • Master Noodle • Peoples Organic Coffee and Wine Café • Restoration Hardware • Shake Shack • The Lynhall No. 3495 • TJ’s of Edina BEER 3.2 OFF-SALE • Cub Foods • Jerry’s Foods BREW TAP AND SUNDAY SALE • Wooden Hill Brewing Company CLUB ON-SALE AND SUNDAY SALE • Edina Country Club • Interlachen Country Club Date: March 2, 2021 Agenda Item #: VI.Q. To:Mayor and City Council Item Type: Report / Recommendation From:Sharon Allison, City Clerk Item Activity: Subject:Resolution No. 2021-27: Accepting Donations Action CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: Approve Resolution No. 2021-27 accepting donations. INTRODUCTION: To comply with State Statute, all donations to the City must be accepted by resolution and approved by two- thirds majority of the Council. See attached resolution with list of donations. ATTACHMENTS: Description Resolution No. 2021-27: Accepting Donations RESOLUTION NO. 2021-27 ACCEPTING DONATIONS ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF EDINA WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute 465.03 allows cities to accept grants and donations of real or personal property for the benefit of its citizens; WHEREAS, said donations must be accepted via a resolution of the Council adopted by a two thirds majority of its members. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Edina City Council accepts with sincere appreciation the following listed grants and donations on behalf of its citizens. Parks & Recreation • Edina Baseball Association $9,920 Four portable pitching mounds for bullpens on Fields 1 and 3 at Courtney Fields Dated: March 2, 2021 Attest: Sharon Allison, City Clerk James B. Hovland, Mayor STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) SS CITY OF EDINA ) CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting City Clerk for the City of Edina do hereby certify that the attached and foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of March 2, 2021, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this _______ day of ___________________, 2021. City Clerk Date: March 2, 2021 Agenda Item #: VII.A. To:Mayor and City Council Item Type: Report / Recommendation From:Jeff Brown, Community Health Admin; Nick Kelley, Interim Public Health Director, Bloomington PH Item Activity: Subject:COVID-19 Update Information CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: Information Only. INTRODUCTION: Staff to update Council on City COVID-19 case data and planning. Date: March 2, 2021 Agenda Item #: VII.B. To:Mayor and City Council Item Type: Report / Recommendation From:Chad A. Millner, P.E., Director of Engineering Item Activity: Subject:Receive Street Funding Task Force Final Report and Recommendations Action CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: Receive Street Funding Task Force Final Report and Recommendations. INTRODUCTION: The Task Force has been meeting since June 2020 discussing how to fund street reconstruction. The Task Force will be available for questions. The City appreciates all the time and effort given by the Task Force. This will fulfill the responsibilities of the Task Force. It is anticipated that the Council would use these recommendations for future discussions for the 2022/2023 budget. ATTACHMENTS: Description Street Funding Task Force Final Report and Recommendations Staff Presentation CITY OF EDINA STREET RECONSTRUCTION FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS February 22, 2021 City of Edina, Engineering Department www.EdinaMN.gov Street Funding Task Force 1 Table of Content Executive Summary…………………………………………………………………….2 Purpose Statement……………………………………………………………………..5 Objective / Goals………………………………………………………………………5 Vision Statement……………………………………………………………………….5 Task Force Initiation…………………………………………………………………...5 Subcuts (i.e. Sub-Soil Quality)…………………………………………………………7 Task Force Understandings…………………………………………………………....7 Historical Data………………………………………………………………………....8 Engagement…………………………………………………………………………....10 Funding Options: Local Residential Properties……………………………………….13 Funding Options: Municipal State Aid Street Reconstruction………………………..17 Assessments: Other Property Classes………………………………………………..17 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………….18 Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………………19 Appendices…………………………………………………………………………….20 2 Executive Summary The Street Funding Task Force was created by the City Council in response to concerns regarding assessments. The concerns became more apparent during public hearings for potential 2020 street reconstruction projects. Over the course of ten months and sixteen meetings the Task Force did in-depth data gathering and discussion with area experts regarding: 1) Historical reconstruction costs by neighborhood. 2) Composition of specific costs included or excluded in prior special assessments. 3) Funding alternatives used by other Twin City metro communities, including special assessments, tax levies, and franchise fees shown in Appendix M. 4) Legal and financial obstacles to changing the policy with respect to both residents previously assessed and properties that have not yet been assessed. 5) The concept of equity, should the Task Force conclude that a change needed to be made. 6) Edina’s use of a 100% assessment strategy was clearly an outlier. 7) State statute chapter 429 which requires assessments financially benefit those assessed and again clearly realized the current 100% assessment strategy was no longer legally and financially sustainable. Ultimately, the Task Force concluded that a change in policy did need to be made. This report presents two recommendations for the City Council to consider with respect to funding street reconstruction. Each option assumes the costs of subcut will be paid entirely by city taxes beginning in year one, and that the new option will begin in year two and transition over a 15-year period. • Option 1 replaces the current 100% special assessment with a 50% assessment and 50% city taxes. • Option 2 replaces the 100% assessment with 100% city taxes. In addition, the Task Force recommends that: 1. The cost of subcut (sub-soil correction) should no longer be included in special assessments but rather be paid entirely by city tax levy beginning in year one (fiscal year 2022). 2. The cost of boulevard retaining walls in the City right-of-way should no longer be included in special assessments but rather be paid entirely by city tax levy beginning in year one (fiscal year 2022) 3. City staff should draft, and the City Council should approve, a street light policy. At a minimum, the policy should establish a standard for location and quality of lighting which would be paid for by the City (example: Active Routes to Schools for Safety). 3 4. The City Finance Department should draft a policy to earmark a pool of dollars from the annual tax levy for street reconstruction. The purpose of this pool would be to fund specific costs including 1) the City’s portion of future street reconstruction, 2) subcut, 3) retaining walls, and 4) street lighting. And, if so determined by the Staff and the Council, the funding of MSA street reconstruction above that funded by the State. When considering a change in taxation policy, “equity” or “fairness” is an issue that must be addressed. In this case, fairness to those who have experienced a special assessment but also fairness in terms of future taxation policy. To that end, the Task Force recognized that the current method of street assessment is both fair and unfair at the same time. It is fair in that all residents are subject to the same rules. It is unfair in that a resident may pay significantly more or less based on A) the density of their particular neighborhood project, as defined by the City, B) the quality of the street’s sub-soil (“subcut”) and/or C) the possibility of retaining wall replacement on City owned boulevard. It is also unfair that some people may live many years in Edina and never experience a special assessment, while others may relocate within the City and experience more than one special assessment. The Task Force believes both Option 1 and Option 2 are more fair than the current system, though we realize either will seem unfair to those residents who currently reside in Edina and have previously experienced a special assessment. The Task Force sought advice from legal counsel on what could be done to lessen the financial impact on those residents if a change is made. Unfortunately, there is no legal method to refund or apply different tax rates to those previously assessed. In an attempt to lessen this burden on current residents who have had special assessments, the Task Force has recommended a 15-year transition period for both options. Via Better Together Edina, the Task Force surveyed residents and, not surprisingly, the most common comment from those previously assessed was that they had paid, did not want to pay for others’ assessments and were due some compensation to avoid being doubly impacted. Those not yet assessed similarly commented on a need to slowly transition homeowners who have been assessed or find some way to adequately treat those who have paid assessments, and also advised the City to use or raise other monies for road reconstruction. Consistent with our vision statement, the Task Force recommendations are in alignment with the City of Edina budget goals. City of Edina budget goals Strong Foundation: Maintain physical assets and infrastructure. Livable City: Plan for connected and sustainable development. Reliable Service: Maintain service levels that best meet the needs of the community. Better Together: Foster an inclusive and engaged community. 4 Staff would like to thank the Street Funding Task Force community member volunteers for their contributions. The unique points of view that each brought to the process added value and influenced the recommendations. Ann Swenson (chair), Concord Neighborhood David Alkire, Minnehaha Woods Neighborhood Chip Howard, Countryside Neighborhood Kathy Kelly, Normandale Park Neighborhood Hamid Mohtadi, Prospect Knolls Neighborhood Matt Scherer, Edina Transportation Commission and Indian Hills Neighborhood Ralph Zickert, Lake Cornelia Neighborhood 5 Purpose Statement Develop recommendations for street reconstruction and maintenance funding. Objective / Goals The Task Force will provide recommendations for street reconstruction and maintenance funding and recommend a transition plan from current methods. The recommendations will be considered by the City Council and changes could be incorporated into an update of the assessment policy. The Task Force has come to understand that the 2016 increase to street maintenance funding is adequate and did not require analysis. Vision Statement To develop a funding solution that A) is viewed by a plurality of residents as equitable, B) is able to maintain Edina’s roadways to an appropriate standard, and C) is financially and legally sustainable. Task Force Initiation The special assessment of Edina residents for roadway reconstruction costs began in late 1990’s and early 2000’s. From the beginning, residents of all property classes and values have expressed concerns with assessments. During the public hearing for a scheduled 2020 street reconstruction project, it became apparent that the City’s ability to justify the benefit of a projected $32,000 assessment to each property owner, as required by State statute 429, would likely not survive a legal challenge. Further, due to the numerous cost variables imbedded in the current assessment policy it was evident that a re- evaluation of the City’s street reconstruction funding policy was necessary. This initiative is not related to only high value properties, it is a concern for all properties. To address the issue, Council asked the City Manager to form a task force to review the issue. The Street Funding Task Force charge was developed and approved by the City Manager. A copy of the charge is included in the Appendix A. Contrary to the perception of some residents, the impetus for the Task Force and a reevaluation of City policy was not to ease the financial burden of street reconstruction on large, high value properties. In fact, both Task Force recommendations ease the future tax burden on low to median value housing in relationship to properties above the median value. A call for Task Force members was issued and 7 members were selected from 19 applicants. The members of the Task Force are listed below with notation as to whether they have personally experienced a special assessment for street reconstruction. Ann Swenson (chair), Concord Neighborhood (previously assessed) David Alkire, Minnehaha Woods Neighborhood (previously assessed) 6 Chip Howard, Countryside Neighborhood Kathy Kelly, Normandale Park Neighborhood (previously assessed) Hamid Mohtadi, Prospect Knolls Neighborhood Matt Scherer, Transportation Commission and Indian Hills Neighborhood (previously assessed) Ralph Zickert, Lake Cornelia Neighborhood The Task Force conducted 16 meetings since June 2020. The Task Force was provided data from experts in the fields of engineering, finance, assessing, and legal. These experts were internal staff and outside consultants. Discussions were related to the following. 1. Historical reconstruction costs by neighborhood. 2. Composition of specific costs included and excluded in prior special assessments. 3. Methods of taxation available to raise sufficient funds. 4. Funding alternatives used by other Twin City metro communities, including special assessments, tax levies, and franchise fees. 5. Alternative methods of allocating costs back to residents. 6. Fairness and equity issues should the Task Force conclude that a change is needed. 7. Legal and financial obstacles to changing the policy with respect to both residents previously. assessed ad propertied that have not yet been assessed. From these meetings, the Task Force has come to understand that: 1. The current method of street assessment is both fair and unfair at the same time. a. It is fair in that all residents are subject to the same rules. b. It is unfair in that a resident may pay significantly more or less based solely on the density of their neighborhood, the sub-soil quality (“subcut”) and / or the need for retaining wall reconstruction on City owned boulevard. c. It is unfair that some people will live 30 or more years in Edina and never experience a special assessment. d. It is unfair that some people will experience more than one special assessment. e. It is unfair that the current policy assumes all properties within a neighborhood reconstruction project benefit equally and that properties outside of the project are assumed to receive no benefit. Example, the current policy allocates all the costs to the residents that live on the street while other residents get to use the same street free of charge. 2. Edina’s current method of allocating 100% of street reconstruction costs as special assessments is an outlier among the Twin Cities metro communities. 3. Any change to the current system will be unfair to those residents who have previously experienced a special assessment and still reside in Edina. 7 Subcuts (i.e. Sub-Soil Quality) Street reconstruction standards and uses have changed significantly since the 1950’s and 1960’s when many of Edina’s streets were initially constructed. These changes now require removal of the poor subsoils during reconstruction. A key learning of the Task Force was the inherent unfairness of subcut costs on assessments. Assessments to a homeowner can be up to 52% higher on an individual project depending on extent of improvement needed to the sub-soil or subcuts. The discussion centered around the randomness of purchasing a property that has bad subsoils, which is something the homeowner would not know. Task Force Understandings The Task Force members had general agreement on the following items. 1. The proof of benefit required by Minnesota state statute 429 will make it increasingly difficult for Edina’s current policy of 100% special assessment to withstand legal challenge, and therefor Edina’s current policy needs to be changed. Edina has been an outlier as compared to other cities in this regard. 2. To not use franchise fees as a payment method. Edina already uses franchise fees for the Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety (PACS) & Conservation and Sustainability (CAS) funds. We have reason to believe it would be difficult and unacceptable to increase those. 3. If special assessments were to continue, that assessments do not exceed 50% of the cost so as to A) easily meet the benefit criteria of state statue 429, and B) be more aligned with other metro community taxation policies. 4. To use a longer transition to reduce the impact on residents that have already been assessed. The 15-year transition matches the typical payback period for residents that choose to finance their assessment. 5. To no longer have subcut and retaining walls in the assessments, if assessments continue at some level. 6. That removing subcuts alone will not be sufficient to meet the objectives of the task force. 7. To suggest the council direct staff to create a streetlight standard or policy. The policy could detail where streetlights should be installed (example: Active Routes to School for safety) as a standard or locations where the residents could suggest streetlights. If the city creates a streetlight policy, streetlight installations that meet that standard should not be assessed. Streetlights requested by residents outside the policy should be assessed, if assessments continue at some level. 8 8. Excessive debt for street reconstruction is not an appropriate use of the City’s debt capacity and could have negative bond ratings implications. Historical Data Edina’s transportation system provides the public pathways to key destinations. Trips along this system occur 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, in a variety of modes for a variety of reasons. Residents, businesses, emergency services and others expect that this system will meet their mobility needs safely, efficiently and effectively. In order to achieve these goals, regular evaluation is needed to rehabilitate existing components and ensure these systems meet future demands. Since approximately 1998 to 2019, 80 of the 164 miles of local streets (or ~50%) have been reconstructed and funded by special assessments. If this pace continues, all local streets will be reconstructed in a period of 50 years since commencement of reconstruction. Although a majority of these streets were initially constructed in the 1950s and 1960s with a design life of 30 years, many have surpassed their intended design life due to reactive maintenance operations. Our goal with the street reconstruction program is to level out annual street reconstruction needs to better align with an industry-standard 50-year design life. A key component to reaching this goal was our recent fully-funded street maintenance program. Since approximately 2001 to 2019, 13 of the 42 miles of Municipal State Aid (MSA) designated streets (or ~30%) have been reconstructed and funded by a combination of MSA and special assessments. MSA streets are funded with 20% assessments and 80% MSA funding from the state highway users fund. Current funding allows 0.5 mile of MSA reconstruction every year. At this pace, it will take an additional 60 years to reconstruct the remaining 29 miles of MSA designated streets. The pavement condition index (PCI) is a measure of the pavement condition on a scale of 0 to 100 with 100 being a brand-new street. The historical network average PCI can be found in Appendix F. Each year, one quadrant of the city is field inventoried to update PCI ratings. Staff uses PCI information as one of the main data points to develop the 5-yr street reconstruction program. This program is updated on a yearly basis. Local street reconstruction has been funded entirely with special assessments to benefitting properties. Assessments are levied against properties that benefit from the project on a Residential Equivalent Unit (REU) basis; one REU being equivalent to one single-family residential property (not based on street frontage or lot size). In recent years, Edina property owners have challenged the property benefits of these assessments under MN State Statue Chapter 429. A consultant (WSB) was hired December 2020 to review and analyze historical street reconstruction data from 2007 to 2018. They reviewed the itemized bid tabulations, final payments, residential equivalent units (REUs) and assessment calculations for local reconstruction and municipal state aid (MSA) street reconstruction. There were 54 local and 7 MSA street reconstruction projects, 9 respectively. The data was adjusted to 2019 dollars with an inflation rate of 2%. A summary of the data is shown below. Local Street Reconstruction Data The data revealed the following for 54 local street reconstruction projects. a. Average Assessment per REU = $9,100 b. Average Assessable Project Costs = $4.13 M c. Subcut Range 2019 Dollars = $1,500 - $1,700,000 d. Subcut % of Total Assessable Project Cost Range = 1% - 52% e. Subcut Average 2019 Dollars = $200,000 f. Subcut Average Percent of Assessments = 15% g. Subcut 90th Percentile = $420,000 h. Average Aesthetics = $13,100 (0.5% of total project cost) i. Inflation since 2007 = 2% The subcut totals per project adjusted to 2019 dollars for all 54 projects is included in Appendix B. The actual average assessment per year per REU is plotted and compared to the average assessment in 2007 of $8,000 with a 2% inflation rate in Appendix C. Aesthetics include irrigation systems, pet fences, landscaping, and fence repairs located in the right-of-way and within the construction limits. Municipal State Aid (MSA) Street Reconstruction Data The data revealed the following for 7 MSA street reconstruction projects. a. Average Assessment per REU = $4,300 b. Average Assessable Project Costs = $265,000 c. Subcut Range 2019 Dollars = $10,000 - $60,000 d. Subcut % of Total Assessable Project Cost Range = 3% - 18% e. Subcut Average 2019 Dollars = $29,000 f. Subcut Average Percent of Assessments = 9% g. Average Aesthetics = $1,100 10 Engagement One of the City’s goals is to “Foster an engaged and inclusive community.” The City does this by using a strategy to guide engagement work. In addition, City Council has established a Community Engagement value statement which reinforces our strategy. Community Engagement Statement As the Edina City Council, we are dedicated to fostering an engaged community built on a foundation of trust. We will do this by intentionally focusing on equity, diversity and inclusion and creating a dialogue of perspectives. We will build trust by demonstrating our engagement principles of Relationships, Equity, Inclusivity, and Accountability. • Relationships: make relationships foundational; strengthen relationships and build new ones; develop a trust between the City and residents • Equity: engage with residents where they are; remove barriers for participation; provide multiple options for participation • Inclusivity: strive to provide meaningful engagement opportunities; invite underrepresented groups to participate; make all feel welcomed and valued • Accountability: make a plan; do what we say we are going to do; don’t change the rules; make a decision; communicate how participation influenced decision The value statement and the City’s overall Community Engagement Strategy guides plans and implementation of public engagement. The City’s community engagement strategy utilizes best practices by the International Association of Public Participation (IAP2). Due to COVID, the Task Force used virtual methods to communicate and engage residents with the project. The engagement conducted was at the consult level on the IAP2 spectrum. The promise to the community was to keep them informed, listen to, and acknowledge concerns and aspirations and provide feedback on how public input influenced the decision. City staff and the Task Force did this by making meeting videos available, answering questions and publicly providing responses, making documents and information on the project available, and providing an opportunity for individuals to submit feedback using Better Together Edina. This report will also share the input received, what we heard and what we did. Equity Statement We are dedicated to creating an environment in our community where residents have equitable opportunities to participate in their city government and access the City’s institutions, facilities, and services. Our commitment to diversity, equity, inclusion will be a continuous process of learning and adapting to the multiple needs of all in our community, while consistently applying an equity lens in all decisions and interactions. Our vision of a welcoming Edina involves removing systemic and institutional barriers to create opportunities for all in the community to thrive. 11 Public engagement does not mean that everyone will always agree on decisions that are made. Edina is made up a of a diverse population with very different interests and approaches. The City will listen to all the different opinions and, where possible, incorporate them in the decision-making process in a strategic and balanced way. Public Engagement Feedback The public was notified of the engagement portion of the project with the following. 1. Press release issued Dec. 18 and pushed out on all social media channels. 2. Story in early January episode of “Agenda: Edina,” filmed Dec. 17, aired Jan. 1-14 3. Article in January issue of Edition: Edina, dated Jan. 1. Mailed first week of January. Social media push to remind residents to provide feedback week of January 11 prior to Jan. 19 deadline The website had 2,100 total visits and 324 engaged, 966 informed and 1,600 aware users, respectively. The feedback form was active from December 18, 2020 until January 19, 2021 at noon. 313 feedback forms were collected. All feedback forms are provided in Appendix G. Some members of the community choose to submit comments directly to the city council and/or staff by email. The emails that have been made available to staff have been included in Appendix H. Approximately 10 questions were received and answered at the site. The data from the feedback forms were sorted in 3 ways – all forms, forms from residents who have not been previously assessed for street reconstruction and forms from residents who have been previously assessed for street reconstruction. A summary of the three data groups is provided in Appendix I. What We Heard The following summary of comments made on the resident feedback form are presented in a subjective order of priority based on the perceived frequency of being made. The first comment in each section is far and away the most common opinion expressed. Comments from Previously Assessed Residents • I have paid for my street and it was very costly for me. How is it fair for me to have to pay for other streets? They didn’t help me pay for mine. Can I get a refund or have my future taxes adjusted for what I have already paid in or will be paying over future years? There must be some creative solution so previously assessed residents are not doubly impacted. Many expressed anger in these comments. 12 • Now that wealthy neighborhoods are getting their streets reconstructed the system is being modified. Big lots and big homes should pay more. • We should keep the current system in place until all the streets are reconstructed. Wouldn’t this be the fairest way to proceed? Why not provide more extended financing options to repay future assessments? • Neither option is fair and equitable. • I don’t like either option, but I have to choose one of them to complete the survey. The 50/50 option is the less unfair one. • All the tear-downs and garbage collections bring heavy trucks into the neighborhoods. Get these parties to pay their fair share of the reconstruction costs. • Tax the residents that have not had assessments first and then phase in residents that have already been assessed. • Residents bought their homes knowing that potential assessments were part of the cost. It is unfair to change the rules now. • The current system is broken and never should have been instituted. There doesn’t seem to be a truly equitable solution, but getting away from assessments is the right thing to do. • The rising cost of reconstruction should cause the City to cut its own costs and manage the projects more effectively in order to keep the costs down. • Only fund the subcut through tax levy. Leave the rest of the projects under assessment. • Create a special tax district encompassing all the non-assessed areas and have these taxes pay for the reconstruction until all roads are redone. Comments from Not Previously Assessed Residents • Find a way to transition homeowners who have been recently assessed by charging them a lower tax levy position to start and work up to a full share after a few years. • There needs to be a way to adequately treat those who have paid assessments recently or in the past five to ten years; suggestions included delaying tax increases, assessing a lessor tax, exempting them from the new approach. • Reduce permitted large truck and garbage haulers on our streets, and charge them for the wear and tear on the roads. This will prolong the useful lives of the roads. • Everyone should contribute, have some “skin in the game” as road reconstruction is a basic city function. Streets are used by everyone and we as a community should bear the costs. • Scrutinize the City’s budget to cut unnecessary costs, including staff costs, and use funds to pay for some of the reconstruction costs. • Increase fees and taxes on teardowns and new high-density buildings and use funds for street reconstruction. • Concern that commercial and leased properties are not paying their share, questioning if their taxes will be raised. • Assessments can be devasting to an unsuspecting homeowner. Putting the cost into the tax rolls eliminates ugly surprises on this score. • The biggest equity issue is the fact that people may live in the City for many years and never pay anything for reconstruction. Sharing in the cost relieves this inequity. 13 • The City should improve communications to residents so that they understand assessments and also be more transparent about upcoming reconstruction projects if assessments in some form are to be retained. • Different options for retaining assessments were offered, e.g., replace REU with lot size, vary the percentages paid by residents. Funding Options: Local Residential Properties Historically, street reconstruction special assessments have averaged $4.1M and $0.4 M per year for local and MSA street reconstruction, respectively. Continued funding of reconstruction at that level with inflation will achieve the quality of roadways targeted by the City. The total funding needed going forward is $4.5M per year with a 2% inflation rate. The Task Force would recommend the funding be flexible to either local or MSA street reconstruction as staff sees fit based on the street reconstruction program. The assumptions with respect to inflation and levy increases have been applied consistently across the options presented. The Task Force is recommending 2 funding options for consideration with a 16-year transition time for both options. These are the same options presented for public feedback. None of the options recommend keeping the status quo. In anticipation of council questions, the Task Force also would like to present the estimated financial impacts of faster transition periods. These are shown in Appendix J. All the options listed in the table below propose removing subcut costs from the assessments immediately in year 1 of the transition. The funding options below assume a subcut annual expenditure of $950,000 per year. Subcut occurs every year but the actual amount is dependent on the sub-surface soils. The Task Force recommends creating a “street improvement fund” or “right-of-way improvement fund” to carry the balance of subcut dollars for years of less need. The name and type of fund should be decided by staff. This fund could be used to fund new and replacement retaining wall and streetlights along with other street or right-of-way improvements. The fund could also be considered to accelerate MSA construction if fund balance allows. The Task Force recommends creating a policy to define eligible expenses for this fund. 14 Table 1. ESTIMATED Funding Option Impacts to Assessments, Levy & Taxes Impact to City Tax Levy Impact to Taxes Paid by Median Value House (5) % Reduction in Special Assessments by Year Annual $$$ Increase in Levy (3) Annual % Increase in Levy (3) Annual $$$ Tax Increase to Median Value House (1)(3) Annual % Tax Increase to Median Value House (1)(3) Option # 1 --- 50% Special Assessments / 50% Tax Levy Dollars transition over 16-years Year 1 21.1% $950k (2) 2.3% $37.90 2.46% Year 2 - 16 1.9% $100k -$211K (4) 0.2% $4.28 0.28% Option # 2 --- 100% Tax Levy Dollars transition over 16-years Year 1 21.1% $950k (2) 2.3% $37.90 2.46% Year 2 - 16 5.3% $260K-$510K (4) 0.6% $10.49 0.67% (1) Increase on City portion of property tax levy only. Median Value Home = $551,300 (2) $950,000 is an estimated subcut amount for year 1. (3) All values are estimates with a 2% annual inflation factor. Estimated impacts are related to the future market value of the city. Increases or decreases in market value will impact the values shown in the table. (4) The ranges reflect the estimated impact of the decrease in assessments and impacts of inflation during the transition period. Typically, the levy increase gradually during the transition period to account for these forces. (5) See Informational Flyer on Proposed 2020 City of Edina Tax Levy in Appendix N for a Comparison of 2019 City Property Tax to other Cities. 15 Table 2. ESTIMATED Cumulative Tax Impacts Compared to Assessment Reductions YEAR (s) 1 (2022) 6 (2027) 11 (2032) 16 (2037) Total Tax Collected During Transition Option #1: 50% City Tax Cumulative Tax Impacts on Median Value House (1) $37.90 $292 $652 $1,120 $1,120 (3) Estimated Assessment During Transition: (A) If median value home is in average assessment neighborhood (2) $7,890 $6,925 $5,960 $5,000 (B) If median value home is in high assessment neighborhood (4) $19,720 $17,315 $14,910 $12,500 Tax on Median Value Home in Final Transition Year $102 Option #2: 100% City Tax Cumulative Tax Impacts on Median Value House (1) $37.90 $385 $994 $1,865 $1,865 (3) Estimated Assessment During Transition: (A) If median value home is in average assessment neighborhood (2) $7,890 $5,260 $2,630 $0 (B) If median value home is in high assessment neighborhood (4) $19,720 $13,150 $6,575 $0 Tax on Median Value Home in Final Transition Year $195 Difference in Cumulative Tax Impacts Between Options #1 and #2 $745.20 (1) Median Value Home = $551,300 (2) Started with a $10,000 Assessment with subcut reduction. (3) All values are estimates with a 2% annual inflation factor. Estimated impacts are tied to future market value of the city. Increases or decreases in market value will impact the values shown in the table. (4) Started with a $25,000 Assessment with subcut reduction. 16 Advantages and Disadvantages of Funding Options (Not in Ranked Order) Questions to consider when creating advantages and disadvantages. 1. Does it prove or provide benefit? 2. Do we have a policy similar to neighboring communities? 3. What level of impact to taxes does it have on residents? 4. How does it affect current and recently assessed residents? Option #1: 50% Special Assessments / 50% Tax Levy Dollars with 16-year transition 1. Advantages a. Eventually all residents will have some assessments b. Property owner can see what the assessment funds c. Legal and accepted process used by other cities d. 50% funding directly corresponds to specific project costs and location e. Keeps street reconstruction portion of the tax levy lower for all residents than 100% option f. Tax-exempt / non-profits are still part of the funding solution g. Reduction in potential challenges regarding the benefit of improvements h. Gradual movement to 50% tax funded which reduces financial shock to homeowners 2. Disadvantages a. Long transitions subjects property owners to bear uncertainties with project costs b. 50% of local streets have been completed under 100% Special Assessment Policy c. Recently assessed properties do not support Option #2: 100% Tax Levy Dollars with 16-year transition 1. Advantages a. Stable revenue stream b. Smaller monthly or annual fees instead of assessment c. No need to prove benefit to property owner d. Gradual movement to 100% tax funded which reduces financial shock to homeowners e. Easy to understand and administer f. Legal and accepted method used by other cities 2. Disadvantages a. Long transitions subjects property owners to bear uncertainties with project costs b. Change in policy doesn’t benefit previously assessed properties c. Greater tax levy amount d. Funds are not directly tied to specific project costs or location after 16-years e. Cannot include tax exempt / non-profit into funding solution. There are 557 tax exempt properties out of 21,344 properties or 2.6%, of which 450 are city properties. 17 f. 50% of local streets have been completed under the 100% Special Assessment Policy g. Recently assessed properties do not support Funding Options: Municipal State Aid Street Reconstruction The current assessment policy splits funding with adjacent property owners at 20% special assessments and 80% MSA funding. The MSA funding is distributed to the city from the State’s Highway Users Tax Distribution Fund to assist local governments with the construction and maintenance of streets on the state aid system. These funds are generated from fuel tax, vehicle registration and vehicle sales. The Task Force funding recommendations account for the assessment portion of MSA streets. The recommendation for MSA streets is to mirror the option and transition period the council would consider for local street reconstruction. Assessments: Other Property Classes The current assessment policy details how to assess other property classes such as multi-family residential, industrial and utility, commercial – office and retail, institutional – city owned buildings, institutional – city owned open space, institutional – schools – public and private, institutional – places of worship, and mixed use. These other property classes are calculated per unit, per 1000 SF gross floor area from the assessing department, or a combination of methods for mixed use sites. A table of the recent assessments to other property classes in shown in Appendix K. This method for other property classes has historically been legally sustainable most of the time. Legal challenges have not occurred. Recent adjustments to the policy have been made to other property classes to ensure continued legal sustainability. There are two specific examples using 100% assessments that may have been challenging to defend. In one case the project did not go forward and in another it is scheduled for a 2021 street reconstruction. These are Lincoln Drive from Londonderry Road north to the cul-de-sac and an apartment complex within the 2021 Melody Lake A & B, Grandview A, Birchcrest C Neighborhood Roadway Reconstruction (Melody Lake). Recall the Lincoln Drive project had an estimated assessment of $1,145 per REU’s with a range of assessments over the 7 properties of $7,900.50 to $133,782. This project only had assessable properties on one side of the street due to Nine Mile Creek. A benefit letter was provided by an appraiser that provided an average benefit range of $25,000 to $60,000. The benefit would have been met if properties lined both sides of the street or if the assessment was lowered to 50% as proposed with Option #1. Recall the 2021 Melody Lake Project had an apartment complex within the project area with an estimated assessment of $290,400 with 12 REU’s using $24,200 per REU. This project had much subcut. Without subcut the estimated assessment was estimated at $17,200 per REU or $206,400. A benefit letter was provided by an appraiser that provided an average benefit range of $60,000 to $108,000 for this apartment complex. If subcut is removed and the assessment is lowered to 50% as proposed in Option #1, this assessment would fall within the benefit range. The issue with this example is the timing as it relates to the potential construction in 2021 and the 16-year proposed transition. 18 Conclusion The Task Force’s work has reinforced the understanding that street reconstruction funding is a difficult and challenging topic, especially when moving from an existing strategy to a new option. Priorities of the city change over time as does the understanding of methods to fund street reconstruction. These changes in priorities and understandings require changes to funding methods that may not align with infrastructure replacement schedules or resident expectations. The two funding options presented meet the objectives stated in the Vision; A) is viewed by a plurality of residents as equitable, B) is able to maintain Edina’s roadways to an appropriate standard, and C) is financially and legally sustainable. 19 Acknowledgements Staff would like to thank the Task Force for their contributions. The unique points of view that each brought to the process added value and influenced the recommendations. Ann Swenson (chair), Concord Neighborhood David Alkire, Minnehaha Woods Neighborhood Chip Howard, Countryside Neighborhood Kathy Kelly, Normandale Park Neighborhood Hamid Mohtadi, Prospect Knolls Neighborhood Matt Scherer, Edina Transportation Commission and Indian Hills Neighborhood Ralph Zickert, Lake Cornelia Neighborhood The Task Force would like to thank the following staff or consultants for their contributions. Chad Millner, Engineering Director, Co-Staff Liaison Don Uram, Finance Director, Co-Staff Liaison MJ Lamon, Community Engagement Coordinator Jennifer Bennerotte, Communications Director Liz Moore, Engineering Administrative Coordinator Bob Wilson, City Assessor Scott Neal, City Manager David Kendall, City Attorney, Campbell Knutson Law Justin Bossert and Erica Odegard, WSB Consulting Engineers League of MN Cities Research Staff 20 Appendix Appendix A: Street Funding Task Force Charge Appendix B: Subcut Totals Adjusted to 2019 Dollars for 54 Local Street Projects from 2007 to 2018 Appendix C: Actual Average Assessments Compared to Inflation Impacts Appendix D: 50% Assessment / 50% Tax Option Graph of Assessment per REU w/ 2% Inflation, Starting with an $8,000 assessment in 2007. Appendix E: 100% Tax Option Graph of Assessment per REU w/ 2% Inflation, Starting with an $8,000 assessment in 2007 Appendix F: Network Average Pavement Condition Index Graphic Appendix G: Better Together Feedback Forms Appendix H: Emails Received Feedback Appendix I: Data Summary of Better Together Edina Feedback Forms Appendix J: Tables of Financial Impacts of Other Transition Periods Appendix K: Historical Assessments of Other Property Classes and Impacts with Option #1 Appendix L: Frequently Asked Questions Brochure Appendix M: Table of Funding Methods for Neighboring Communities Appendix N: Informational Flyer on Proposed 2020 City of Edina Tax Levy Appendix A: Street Funding Task Force Charge EDINA ADVISORY TASK FORCE I STREET FUNDING TASK FORCE I CITY OF EDINA Page 1 CITY MANAGER TASK FORCE CHARGE PROJECT: STREET FUNDING TASK FORCE PURPOSE Develop recommendations for street reconstruction and maintenance funding OBJECTIVE / GOALS The Task Force will provide recommendations for street reconstruction and maintenance funding and recommend a transition plan from current methods. The recommendations will be considered by the City Council and changes would be incorporated into an update of the assessment policy. METHODOLOGY - Review current policies and practices of the City - Review policies and practices of other communities - Review available funding tools OUTCOMES - The Task Force is asked to provide City Council a report including recommendations for street reconstruction and maintenance funding along with a transition plan for moving from the current to the new process. The report will support City Staff in updating the assessment policy and developing an implementation plan. TIMELINE March 2020 through March 2021 KEY DATES March 2020 City Council approval of Task Force Charge April-May 2020 Outreach and recruitment of applicants May 2020 City Manager appoints Task Force members November 2020 Task Force presents update to City Council (work session) January 2021 Task Force presents draft recommendations to City Council (work session) February 2021 City Council considers adoption of the recommendations March 2021 Recommendations incorporated into assessment policy COMMITMENT EDINA ADVISORY TASK FORCE I STREET FUNDING TASK FORCE I CITY OF EDINA Page 2 - Appointed members will be asked to fulfill their work until Council considers final recommendations in February 2021 - Appointed members should expect to meet at least monthly with additional off-line work - Appointed members should consider project timeline prior to accepting an appointment MEETINGS - The Task Force will establish their schedule including meeting times and dates as needed to complete the work - Conclusion of work must fall into the indicated timeline - Meetings will be open to the public LEVEL OF AUTHORITY CITY MANAGER The City Manager has the authority to: - Establish and appoint Task Force members - Appoint/remove members - Designate the Staff Liaison and any additional staff support needed - Authorize financial resources - Enter into a service contract with subject matter experts/consultants TASK FORCE The Task Force has the authority to: - Conduct public engagement and collect input using the City’s public engagement protocols - Provide input on the recommendations - Develop a report and make recommendations which will be presented to City Council for consideration TASK FORCE LEADERSHIP The City Manager will designate a member of the Task Force to serve as the Chair and another member as the Vice Chair. The role of the Chair will be to: - Prepare the meeting agenda - Lead meetings and facilitate discussions - Maintain meeting decorum - Encourage participation of all members The Vice Chair will support the Chair as needed and perform the Chair duties if the Chair is unavailable. STAFF LIAISON The City Manager will designate the Staff Liaison(s) to the Task Force. The role of the Liaison(s) will be to: - Support the Task Force Chair in preparing agendas and meeting materials - Provide technical expertise and access to City resources - Relay information from City Manager to Task Force and vice versa - Submit packet materials for City Council review The Task Force will not direct the work of the Liaison(s). EDINA ADVISORY TASK FORCE I STREET FUNDING TASK FORCE I CITY OF EDINA Page 3 RESOURCES AVAILABLE The Task Force will have access to City resources available to other advisory groups (i.e. marketing/communications, meeting supplies, etc.). Other resources may be allocated at the discretion of the City Manager. MEMBERSHIP APPLICATION The City of Edina’s Volunteer Edina program will manage the recruitment, application and onboarding process. CONSIDERATIONS & COMPOSITION The composition of the task force will be up to 7 members with a variety of perspectives, experiences and geographical locations. Composition will include members that have and have not been assessed for street reconstruction. Members must be residents of Edina. The Transportation Commission will select one commissioner to be considered for appointment. Members, Chair and Vice Chair will be appointed by the City Manager. B Appendix B: Subcut Totals Adjusted to 2019 Dollars for 54 Local Street Projects from 2007 to 2018 $0 $200,000 $400,000 $600,000 $800,000 $1,000,000 $1,200,000 $1,400,000 $1,600,000 $1,800,000 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Subcut in 2019 Dollars by Chronological Order 2007 to 2018 $0 $200,000 $400,000 $600,000 $800,000 $1,000,000 $1,200,000 $1,400,000 $1,600,000 $1,800,000 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 Subcut in 2019 Dollars by Project by Year C Notes: Graphics shows the dollar value of subcuts in 2019 dollars by project year and in chronological order. Graphics also show the % cost of the subcut as compared to the total assessable project costs in 2019 dollars by project year and in chronological order. 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Subcut % of Total Assessable Project Cost in 2019 Dollars by Chronological Order 2007 to 2018 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 Subcut % of Total Assessable Project Cost in 2019 Dollars by Project by Year D Appendix C: Actual Average Assessments Compared to Inflation Impacts Notes: Graphic created to compare actual average assessments per year to the 2007 average assessment per REU of $8,000 increased yearly with a 2% inflation rate. $0 $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 $10,000 $12,000 $14,000 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Actual Assessment per REU vs Assessment per REU w/ 2% Inflation Actual Inflation E Appendix D: 50% Assessment / 50% Tax Option Graph of Assessment per REU w/ 2% Inflation, Starting with an $8,000 assessment in 2007 Notes: Graphic created to show impacts of inflation on an average assessment beginning in 2007 including a change in policy to the 50% assessment / 50% tax option in 2021. Assumptions include: 1. Average assessment per REU in 2007 $8,000 per REU 2. 2.00% Average Inflation 3. 15% Reduction for Subcut Yr 1 in Year 2021 4. 4.83% Reduction in Assessments Transitions over 2022 to 2037 $0.00 $2,000.00 $4,000.00 $6,000.00 $8,000.00 $10,000.00 $12,000.00 $14,000.00 200720092011201320152017201920212023202520272029203120332035203720392041204320452047204950% Assessment / 50% Tax Option Local Streets Impacts of Inflation F Appendix E: 100% Tax Option Graph of Assessment per REU w/ 2% Inflation, Starting with an $8,000 assessment in 2007 Notes: Graphic created to show impacts of inflation on an average assessment beginning in 2007 including a change in policy to the 100% tax option in 2021. Assumptions include: 1. Average assessment per REU in 2007 $8,000 per REU 2. 2.00% Average Inflation 3. 15% Reduction for Subcut Yr 1 in Year 2021 4. 7.67% Reduction in Assessments Transitions over 2022 to 2037 $0.00 $2,000.00 $4,000.00 $6,000.00 $8,000.00 $10,000.00 $12,000.00 $14,000.00 100% Tax Option Local Streets Impacts of Inflation G Appendix F: Network Average Pavement Condition Index (PCI) H Appendix G: Better Together Feedback Forms Feedback Form SURVEY RESPONSE REPORT 30 January 2019 - 20 January 2021 PROJECT NAME: Street Funding Task Force SURVEY QUESTIONS Feedback Form : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 20 January 2021 Page 1 of 51 Q1 Have you been assessed for street reconstruction in the past 20 years in Edina? 168 (53.7%) 168 (53.7%)145 (46.3%) 145 (46.3%) Yes No Question options Mandatory Question (313 response(s)) Question type: Radio Button Question Feedback Form : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 20 January 2021 Page 2 of 51 Q2 What type of property was assessed? 168 (100.0%) 168 (100.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) Residential Commercial Retail Non-residential Question options Mandatory Question (168 response(s)) Question type: Radio Button Question Feedback Form : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 20 January 2021 Page 3 of 51 Q6 Is your property listed in our "Anticipated Roadway Reconstruction Map?" 94 (30.0%) 94 (30.0%) 219 (70.0%) 219 (70.0%) No Yes Question options Mandatory Question (313 response(s)) Question type: Radio Button Question Feedback Form : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 20 January 2021 Page 4 of 51 Q9 Would you be open to a faster transition (less than 16 yrs) knowing it will decrease special assessments and raise city taxes faster? 131 (41.9%) 131 (41.9%) 182 (58.1%) 182 (58.1%) No Yes Question options Mandatory Question (313 response(s)) Question type: Radio Button Question Feedback Form : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 20 January 2021 Page 5 of 51 Q10 How many years would you be comfortable with? 6 6 38 38 20 20 67 67 5 years 8 years 10 years 16 years Question options 25 50 75 100 125 150 Number of years to transition. Mandatory Question (131 response(s)) Question type: Likert Question Feedback Form : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 20 January 2021 Page 6 of 51 Q10 How many years would you be comfortable with? 16 years : 6 10 years : 38 8 years : 20 5 years : 67 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Number of years to transition. Feedback Form : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 20 January 2021 Page 7 of 51 Q12 The Task Force's vision statement is to develop a funding solution that is:A) viewed by a plurality of residents as equitable,B) is able to maintain Edina’s roadways to the City’s standard, andC) is financially and legally sustainable.Do you feel v... 46 46 107 107 89 89 42 42 74 74 24 24 104 104 140 140 Definitely disagree Somewhat disagree Somewhat agree Definitely agree Question options 100 200 300 400 Option 1 is equitable. Option 2 is equitable. Mandatory Question (313 response(s)) Question type: Likert Question Feedback Form : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 20 January 2021 Page 8 of 51 Question type: Likert Question Feedback Form : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 20 January 2021 Page 9 of 51 Q12 The Task Force's vision statement is to develop a funding solution that is:A) viewed by a plurality of residents as equitable,B) is able to maintain Edina’s roadways to the City’s standard, andC) is financially and legally sustainable.Do you feel v... Option 1 is equitable. Feedback Form : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 20 January 2021 Page 10 of 51 Definitely agree : 46 Somewhat agree : 89 Somewhat disagree : 74 Definitely disagree : 104 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 Feedback Form : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 20 January 2021 Page 11 of 51 Q13 The task force reviewed funding options including special assessments, city taxes, and franchise fees. They also discussed that approximately half of the streets have been Definitely agree : 107 Somewhat agree : 42 Somewhat disagree : 24 Definitely disagree : 140 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Option 2 is equitable. Feedback Form : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 20 January 2021 Page 12 of 51 Screen Name Redacted 12/18/2020 08:56 AM I recently paid $18,000 for my new street. How is making me pay for others new streets in the future equitable to me or anyone else who recently paid? I don’t see any way you can make changes to this system. It’s not good, but changing it scr$ws many residents with recently new streets. I guess you could give me a refund. Screen Name Redacted 12/18/2020 09:15 AM Just get it done ! Catch up on the deferred maint, please . Edina should not have worse streets than Richfield and other cities . Edina is the best . Screen Name Redacted 12/18/2020 09:45 AM Look, even if we don't live on the road that is assessed we ALL drive on these roads multiple times daily and ALL benefit in maintaining our property value if infrastructure is kept up in Edina. The fairest is to use all of taxes to repair streets and not charge individual residents just because they happen to live on a street that needs repair. Screen Name Redacted 12/18/2020 10:07 AM Given so many have already paid in raising taxes (result of 2) is not equitable. The only ones on task force that wanted this were a couple that are up for assessments soon. They seem to be only responding for their own interest. Most of the members were thinking on behalf of the entire city. Screen Name Redacted 12/18/2020 10:18 AM Take monies being devoted to low-income housing development. Screen Name Redacted 12/18/2020 11:17 AM A dedicated special street fund yearly. These assessments have become a hardship on many long time residents who are on fixed incomes and live in modest homes. Screen Name Redacted 12/18/2020 11:56 AM This issue was raised by one of the wealthiest neighborhoods in Edina when it came their turn to be assessed. I'm a retiree living on a modest fixed income and am paying my assessment in full. Now because you live on an outsized street to accommodate your large, expensive homes, you say "the system is unfair". Now you want me, with both options, to subsidize your assessment with my taxes. I oppose both options. Pay your assessment in full like all the rest of us have done. I reject both options even though I have to choose one to register my comments. I support a valid 3rd option: No change. Screen Name Redacted 12/18/2020 01:16 PM In November 2020 I sent $10,300 check to the city for my street (Zenith) reconstruction but now you want to change the rules?! What a load of crap. If parkwood knolls can’t pay like I did LAST MONTH too bad. Sell your house for the 6 figure price appreciation that no doubt occured THIS YEAR! Screen Name Redacted 12/18/2020 01:32 PM I have already had to pay the full price for street repair. It was a struggle and I do not feel I should pay for someone else's street through taxes. I do not reconstructed and that there is no legal way to refund past assessments. Are there other potential ideas to fund street reconstruction or considerations the Task Force may have missed? Feedback Form : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 20 January 2021 Page 13 of 51 have a lot of money at this point in my life. Screen Name Redacted 12/18/2020 07:04 PM I have already been required to pay my entire assessment. I will not be paying down someone else’s assessment after being assured that mine will not be refunded. Sounds like poor planning by the city. Either refund all who have paid for their assessment already and figure out a new plan or only charge those affected by the “new” project. Completely ridiculous and discrimanatory against those that have already paid for their assessments. I would never choose or vote for either of your options that are unfairly affecting others financial stability Screen Name Redacted 12/18/2020 08:59 PM So, we just paid 100% and now you want to give the next guy a mostly free ride ? Boy, that sure sounds fair. Not! Screen Name Redacted 12/19/2020 07:20 AM While Option 1, of the two options , is preferable, it is still unfair to those 50% of Edina residents that have already paid the full assessment to have their street done. People have had to remortgage their homes to pay the assessment and now your asking them for a tax increase to help decrease the load for others. This does not seem fair or equitable. Screen Name Redacted 12/19/2020 10:36 AM What about residents who have already paid? Will you give a rebate? Less taxes? Wipe out the loan they are currently paying? We are still paying for our street assessment done in 2012. At the time the cost was 6% of the value of our home. I think you need to also think of those that have already paid. You can’t change mid stream and expect everyone to be happy. Please consider loan forgiveness or better yet a rebate or decreased taxes for those that have already paid. Screen Name Redacted 12/19/2020 10:47 AM We paid an assessment that was over 6% of our home value at the time which is significant. Additional assessments placed on individuals like me and other homeowners who paid an assessment is not equitable or fair. Screen Name Redacted 12/19/2020 10:58 AM We paid our assessments, (being part of homeowners who already had their street reconstructed) other homeowners can and should pay for theirs. We, and others, were given the installment payment options. We will not support this unequal treatment of the past residents. The 100% plan asks those who have paid their fair share, to pay again --with our tax dollars -- for street reconstruction of others. Harsh as it sounds, if you can't afford city assessments, perhaps you are living in the wrong city. As for 7. (below); Option 3, leave well enough alone. Screen Name Redacted 12/19/2020 11:30 AM Go ahead and change the rules for those who have not had their street redone yet. Leave those of us with current assessments out of it. Doesn't really matter which plan would be used, but those of us with recent redos need to be exempt! As for question 7, neither is acceptable. Screen Name Redacted 12/19/2020 12:01 PM Do not raise taxes (or the proportion needed to cover the costs of the streets) on those who have already been assessed. We were assessed 13K for our street that was not in disrepair in the first place. I do not think it is fair to ask people who have already been assessed to pay even more. Feedback Form : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 20 January 2021 Page 14 of 51 Screen Name Redacted 12/19/2020 12:24 PM Keep it 100% assessment as individual homeowners have been already paying so why should people now get the city to tax and receive a discount. I’m fully paying for my assessment Screen Name Redacted 12/19/2020 12:31 PM Calculate a lessor tax for the homeowners that have had an assessment in the last five years and gradually increase the tax amount for the next five years until it’s equal to current levels. If home ownership has changed they are not eligible for a five year reduction. Screen Name Redacted 12/19/2020 02:01 PM Is there a way to transition those who have been assessed with lower taxes - with an "opposite" transition? Screen Name Redacted 12/19/2020 02:27 PM There may be other options I'm not aware of, but I do think it's extremely necessary to get away from special assessments as they are a HUGE burden on taxpayers. In addition, from an individual federal income tax perspective, special assessments are (often) considered non deductible taxes and so less attractive than city taxes. IMO, Option 2 is somewhat rather than definitely equitable because as you indicate, there is no way to make this completely equitable. But spreading the cost of all street repairs over all homeowners/taxpayers is the most equitable, given we all drive on many streets in Edina and thus contribute to their degradation. Screen Name Redacted 12/19/2020 02:39 PM There should simply be a maximum assessment amount residents are responsible for. Like $25,000. Anything above that is payed by taxes. It also gives the city an incentive to keep costs low. Screen Name Redacted 12/19/2020 03:48 PM The option you already ruled out, leave as is until you finish the city. The fact that it has been over 20 years and it isn't done, people who are residents and paid amounts that are likely similar with inflation to the levels people are upset about now it is frustrating to think that we will now need to pay for their work. The underlayment concerns, it's basically like saying we are going to pay more for someone who happened to buy a house on the creek where there may or may not be flooding. I do not mind tax increases in general but would rather other things be addressed, like failing sidewalks, support for the parks systems, maintaining the new plantings on France near Southdale. Switching midstream to have it covered by an increase in taxes for everyone, especially with so little area left to complete, because one group was able to complain loudly enough this time, when it hasn't worked before despite trying, is difficult to stomach as a long time resident who did what it took to make it happen (we both got second jobs) when we had ours. It feels the most fair and transparent to move to a fully tax model AFTER the remaining neighborhoods are done. This is then transparent going forward as part of your taxes as a current or future home owner and spreads out the onus in the future, rather than doubly penalizing all of us who have already quite significantly paid our dues. Screen Name Redacted 12/19/2020 06:52 PM Using revenue from municipal owned businesses such as the liquor stores Feedback Form : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 20 January 2021 Page 15 of 51 Screen Name Redacted 12/20/2020 02:52 AM Borrow the funds. To raise my taxes now after having severely socked me for years for our neighborhood’s projects is an affront. I already paid for my roads. Why should I have to pay again to fix someone else’s. Changing your approach now is the epitome of unfair. Forcing me to choose between two bad options is wrong but I will vote for the least unpalatable of the two. Shame on you for not having a “leave our current harebrained scheme alone” choice. Screen Name Redacted 12/20/2020 05:25 AM I think the City should implement a better communication system that will ensure that all current and future homeowners are made aware of impending special assessments in their area. Even though this information is currently available on the City of Edina website, I would venture to guess that 90% of current and future homeowners don't know how to locate this information. If homeowners were aware of these special assessments at least 5 years out, it would allow them to make better preparations for that future special assessment so that they aren't financially blind-sided by an assessment. Screen Name Redacted 12/20/2020 07:58 AM So, The City of Edina failed to think ahead, charged the poorer neighborhoods in excess of what they now want to charge the wealthier neighborhoods, and is now asking US (those of us who do not have a large voice to complain because we don't live in mansions) to tell the city how to rectify the city's lack of prudence and economic justice?!! Unbelievable. So, I as a single retired person paid (borrowed to pay) what makes the city "uncomfortable" to charge those wealthier than myself. I am outraged. Shame on you!!!!! How do you sleep at night? You ask me to choose between the two options below and probably this note will not go through without my choosing one. I choose neither. This is an economic travesty. Now I have to pay extra taxes because the city is "uncomfortable" charging the Parkwood Knoll folks for any more than what most of us have already paid, and in addition our increased taxes have to finance the Parkwood Knolls folks pockets and the city's discomfort with the Parkwook Knoll's folks complaints? You have failed most of your citizens. You ask me what to do? Check with other cities. What have they done to prevent this? (So you will know how to manage this better for next time). What to do now: what is fair. If someone owns a million dollar house, that would say to me they might have to consider expenses needed to upkeep that mansion's obligations (if they live in the city of Edina). What should not happen is that the folks who already paid have to pay for those who have not paid yet because their houses are way too big for them to pay up. Screen Name Redacted 12/20/2020 08:01 AM Would it be possible to delay tax increases (due to road construction) for those who have already paid assessments in the past 10 years? i.e. Those who have paid assessments would not see their road funding taxes increase for 10 years? The rest of us would likely pay more during the 10 year period but it would be more fair for those who have already paid. Screen Name Redacted 12/20/2020 08:41 AM The home I purchased included specific road qualities based on it’s affordability. I do NOT believe I should be responsible to pay for larger homes (having a larger road footprint) with more amenities (sidewalks, street Feedback Form : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 20 January 2021 Page 16 of 51 lighting etc.) when I don’t have those features. I’m not sure what communities this proposal is including as having similar policies as the two options being proposed but I do know that the bordering city of Minneapolis assesses residents for their own streets/sidewalks. This proposal appears to be the more wealthy homeowners in Edina attempting to have lower income earners help them pay their bills. I vote NO. Screen Name Redacted 12/20/2020 11:52 AM The large number of garbage trucks passing over each street each week would seem to be on of the contributors to the long-term degradation to the city streets. The introduction of increased fees to trash haulers could be a way to generate additional revenue for street reconstruction while also providing an incentive for haulers who have a smaller customer base to discontinue their business in Edina and thus reduce total heavy truck traffic on city streets. Alternatively, I would personally love to see the city take over trash service or license specific operators to specific neighborhoods to reduce truck traffic further. Screen Name Redacted 12/20/2020 12:18 PM It will never be completely fair. Our road that we live on has had poor drainage issues has looked terrible for many years. The main reason neighbors did not want it done in the past was due to the assessment. I agree it is a lot of money but it does need to be done sometimes and we do have to maintain these areas if we want to preserve our city's standard. Screen Name Redacted 12/20/2020 01:50 PM We own a 1952 house that has had some remodeling. Like most of the houses in our neighborhood we have a tiny lot: Our house is 5 FEET from the property line to the north and south and our house is 10 FEET from our neighbors house to the north and 15 FEET to our neighbors house to the south. We have an alley in back. Our house is assessed around $500,000 and we sent a check to Edina 1 month ago for $10,300 or about 2% of our houses value. Many of the homes in our neighborhood have been torn down and now they sell for a million dollars so we have paid a higher percentage of our homes value than many. What is 2% of the median home value in Prospect Knolls? What is the average lot size and how many feet between the homes? If you are not going to refund us our money then KEEP THE ASSESSMENTS THE WAY THEY ARE! The price appreciation in Prospect Knolls in 2020 ALONE will more than make up for a $30,000 assessment. Give me a break, Edina! This is the most regressive taxation switch I can imagine. I am checking option 1 below but I want I further analysis regarding percentage assessment that you are so concerned about and keep the current system in place. If they can't afford it they can sell their home and move 10 feet away from me. Screen Name Redacted 12/20/2020 02:23 PM Since my street (Bernard PL) in Melody Lakes will be reconstructed in 2021 I support the new assessment program to begin immediately. I also believe there should be some adjustment for the projects completed in 2020 and 2019 Screen Name Redacted 12/20/2020 07:56 PM For those who have paid for reconstruction, the increase in property taxes should be increased at a lower rate to offset their past payments. Also, some may still be paying off or are about to be assessed several thousands of Feedback Form : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 20 January 2021 Page 17 of 51 dollars for street reconstruction. If assessments haven't been done (i.e. 2020 street reconstruction projects), the assessments should be delayed pending the decisions adopted by council from this taskforce. Screen Name Redacted 12/20/2020 08:06 PM I am still paying off my over $20K + road assessment. If you shift to 100% city funded streets, then I fully expect the remainder of my unpaid assessment to be waived. It is absolutely so unfair for you to select some residents to pay tens of thousands of dollars and others not to pay. I live in a rambler on a street with multimillion dollar homes. I had to pay the same amount as all of my million dollar neighbors. And our street is a "cut through" to all the schools and Hwy 100. Literally hundreds of people drive down my street daily, yet I was assessed to pay for the street. If you have the city pay for the new streets going forward and raise taxes to do so, then you are giving DOUBLE the negative impact to me and my neighbors. This is horrible and unacceptable. The ONLY fair options are to 1. provide property tax credits in the amount of the full assessments back to all of us who have already paid and waive the unpaid portion of the assessements owed, or 2. charge other residents for their streets. Please do the right thing. If you have the city pay for the streets and raise taxes, I will not be able to afford to live here anymore. Screen Name Redacted 12/20/2020 08:17 PM Sure. Excuse those who have paid the assessment in the last eight to ten years from paying the increase in tax for roads for next eight to ten years - or what is deemed fair. Otherwise, you are unfairly taxing those who have already paid their assessment to pay for those who have not. Tax us all equally when you get to the break even point. Screen Name Redacted 12/20/2020 09:06 PM My street was redone a couple years ago and I am paying off the assessment year-by-year. To raise my taxes to pay for other peoples streets does not seem equitable. I’m living off my savings as I am retired now and an increase in taxes would be a burden for me. We had no say when our streets were redone and so I have a little hope that the citizens will have any say in any more financial burdens that the city decides we should pay for whether it be organic recycling or streets on the other side of town. And don’t get me started about sidewalks that are put in so close to the street that the resident shovels it and then the snow plow goes by and fills it in with heavy thick street snow. The sidewalks are poorly thought out. Just a place for people to toilet their pets. Very disappointed in city planning and administration. Screen Name Redacted 12/21/2020 07:13 AM As a transplant to MN, I was shocked to see that Edina assessed for roads. We looked at houses that were passing the assessment fees on to the buyer. We promptly rejected those homes. Sadly, they also appeared to be homes of older residents and I’ve always wondered if these assessments force sales and then drive prices down. We definitely mention this to other transplants moving to MN for our company. Screen Name Redacted 12/21/2020 07:45 AM We are in the group that has already been assessed. It doesn't make sense that we paid for 100% of our assessment and in effect now thru Option 1 or 2 would pay for everyone else's construction through general tax. A creative funding approach must exist. Feedback Form : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 20 January 2021 Page 18 of 51 Screen Name Redacted 12/21/2020 07:57 AM Asking citizens who have already paid for 100% of road projects in front of their own home to then take on responsibility for other road projects is nonsensical. The City should expect legal challenges should they attempt this. Screen Name Redacted 12/21/2020 07:58 AM The only way to accomplish, " A) viewed by a plurality of residents as equitable", would be to find a legal way to make whole the current residents of Edina that have already paid 100% of a street assessment for their property or that currently owe 100% of a street assessment for their property. I believe this could be accomplished if you limit it to current residents only that have either paid 100% of a street assessment or that owe some remaining portion of a street assessment. Rather than provide a refund, the city could provide future tax credits for those residents in an amount proportionate to what future residents would be paying for street assessments. This could apply to both residents that have paid assessments entirely or that currently have an outstanding balance. Any prior resident that has paid an assessment but is no longer a current resident of Edina because they have sold their property would not be eligible for any future tax credits. The same could apply for anyone that sells a property - the tax credit could expire or go away upon sale. I understand the city would want to avoid litigation, but there are ways to make this legally feasible and equitable for all current Edina residents that have already been subject to 100% of the street assessment fees. Screen Name Redacted 12/21/2020 08:05 AM I live on a corner lot and our streets/ neighborhood was completed 9 years ago. I’ve been paying my assessments each year since, painfully, but appreciative. Now you’re telling me I get to help pay for everyone else? Not happy, no one has been there for me and my financial obligations. Living among millionaires and I’m helping them pay their contributions to this city. BS! Better come up with a plan that is less of a financial burden for those already dutifully paying in! Screen Name Redacted 12/21/2020 08:06 AM If you cannot legally refund those who have paid for street construction then you certainly should not tax those residents. All residents who have already paid should receive tax relief and not pay for other road reconstruction through their taxes. I would not move forward with either option. And you need to create a third option for the question below because I wouldn’t vote for either 1 or 2. This is pure marketing 101!! It’s like you’re forcing those who disagree to agree to one of your options. Screen Name Redacted 12/21/2020 08:07 AM Since past payments cannot be redressed, it is grossly unfair to tax these citizens again under Option 2. Option 1 is a much more equitable to share the burdern with those most directly benefitted. Screen Name Redacted 12/21/2020 08:09 AM Look to special assessments for private developments that tear down existing homes and rebuild out (near to) setbacks. The continued process of redevelopment in neighborhoods is destroying/ reducing lifespan of recently reconstructed streets that existing homeowners are being assessed for currently. For example, our ‘new’ street has been dug up twice for utility Feedback Form : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 20 January 2021 Page 19 of 51 connections for private home rebuild projects. Along with the stress of continuous stream of heavy trucks on our neighborhood streets. There needs to be compensation for existing homeowners in these situations. Also, an ‘of value’ street cut fee for developers by City to help costs with quality repair of the street (ie not just patching). Screen Name Redacted 12/21/2020 08:12 AM Instead of either of these options, I suggest that the city delay the change until ALL streets have been rebuilt. After that, then switch to having ALL reconstruction costs borne by city taxes. I do not support either currently proposed option because neither option is equitable. Those property owners who have already been subject to assessments would also incur costs for other reconstruction in the city under both proposed plans, paying in full for their own properties AND for the properties of those who are now crying crocodile tears about their proposed assessments. It was a hardship for me to pay the assessments but I did it without complaint, knowing that this is the system Edina uses. Don’t change the system until the current reconstruction plan is completed. Screen Name Redacted 12/21/2020 08:13 AM It seems very unfair for those who have already been accessed and paid.Now my taxes go up to help the wealthy in Park.Knolls. Screen Name Redacted 12/21/2020 08:17 AM As someone who was just assessed thousands of dollars for road work in 2019, I strongly object to Option 2. These largest properties presumably have the largest property prices and are therefore owned by some of the more affluent members of Edina. They must be asked to pay their fair share for road work. If their fair share is greater than what we were assessed, they should have the same options for deferred payments that we did, and they are in a better position to afford it. Please don’t let this be yet another example where those who have more than enough financial resources get a better deal than those who are less financially secure. If the price tag is $30k for a house valued in excess of $1mill, that’s a one-time assessment of 3% or less for roads that will last decades. If the new roads will last 30 years, that’s $1000 per year, very manageable for people who can afford these properties in the first place. It is grossly unfair to expect those of us who have paid for our own roads to also have our tax burden increased to support the most affluent in our community. THAT is downright unjust. Screen Name Redacted 12/21/2020 08:22 AM When contemplating putting this burden on low income seniors in Edina the City is acting downright mean and malicious. The City of Edina at this point should stop and look at what this excessive spending is doing to residents. Screen Name Redacted 12/21/2020 08:33 AM We are among those have previously been assessed 100% for our street reconstruction, so now having to pay part or all of other streets is more than a little irritating. Screen Name Redacted 12/21/2020 08:34 AM I assume businesses are also assessed the same as residential homes. Screen Name Redacted In your communication about the options, make it very clear upfront that all Feedback Form : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 20 January 2021 Page 20 of 51 12/21/2020 08:47 AM current assessments must be paid before the change in funding and before those families have their taxes increased. Otherwise it reads as though people must pay their current assessments (yes, I have two in “teacher town” 50/50 on two separate projects) and pay higher taxes at the same time to reduce the cost for those in bigger houses and bigger lots and likely bigger incomes. That’s where people will stop reading and stop supporting. Put it in fourth grade reading capability. The public needs vote on this. I support 100% funding with taxes after I’m done with my assessments. And yes I understand that that means I pay my assessment and I immediately start paying for other peoples assessments even though it comes in the form of taxes. I’m a team player And believe in the good of the community. Screen Name Redacted 12/21/2020 08:47 AM Why not keep the current system but increase the repayment period. If a home is sold the remaining assessment due can be paid out of the home sellers profits. Screen Name Redacted 12/21/2020 09:05 AM As someone who has already paid in full for my street to be repaved, these new proposals are extremely upsetting. With two kids in college, finding money to pay IN FULL for our street was a huge hardship. Now, future residents are getting off the hook on the backs of those of us who have already paid. This is extremely unfair. My taxes will not be used to fund streets when no one helped us. i would move to a different city if this is how my taxes are being used in the future. This is unfair and unjust. Screen Name Redacted 12/21/2020 09:08 AM Per street - First time around. the residents pay 100% special assessment. Next time 50% assessment, and 50% taxes. Screen Name Redacted 12/21/2020 09:14 AM Higher tax on new construction of multi unit (more than 5) rental properties. As population increases with higher density housing they should bare more of the burden of financing road repair. Screen Name Redacted 12/21/2020 09:17 AM Those of us that have recently had a special assessment from road construction must be considered for a grace period in the transition to avoid double "taxation". I believe our neighborhood just started paying on the assessment and any additional requirement to pay taxes on additional reconstruction would be inequitable while we are still paying for the recently completed work. Screen Name Redacted 12/21/2020 09:30 AM Please all require the City of Edina to make readily available the special assessment information to residents and potential buyers of property. Currently my annual Hennepin county tax assessment comes w/ an Edina flyer advertising our "low" tax rates yet it doesn't include any information regarding the large assessments. I feel this is false advertising. Screen Name Redacted 12/21/2020 09:31 AM Calculate an average lot size for Edina. Have the city pay the cost of that average and pro-rate the cost required by lots larger than average. Also look at the charge to high density dwellings, as they likely increase street traffic volume and frequency. Screen Name Redacted The city should use tax money from all residents and companies to pay for Feedback Form : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 20 January 2021 Page 21 of 51 12/21/2020 09:40 AM street reconstruction. The city is collecting money from so many condo projects and tear down projects and this should be used for the streets. Screen Name Redacted 12/21/2020 09:41 AM What will you do for those of is who had to pay $25,000 only a few months ago?? If these neighborhoods get a break on the costs, then I will iij insist one one as well (reteoactive). Totally UNfair Screen Name Redacted 12/21/2020 10:18 AM As a resident that just recently had his street reconstructed and is now paying the special assessment, I feel that is completely unfair and unequitable to make a change to pay for the reconstruction fully via levy. One option might be to take the median special assessment value over the past five years, adjust it for inflation and use that figure as the amount assessed to the individual property owner. Or, figure out that figure by linear foot of roadway and use that as the assessment cost. The linear foot option might be the most equitable. Screen Name Redacted 12/21/2020 10:26 AM No. Screen Name Redacted 12/21/2020 10:39 AM Require contractors to warranty their work so homeowners don't receive numerous solicitations to buy sewer line insurance. Sewer line insurance is merely an attempt to shift cost of shoddy work (e.g. improper backfilling) to homeowner. Screen Name Redacted 12/21/2020 11:00 AM I think those residents that are balking at paying their assessment (Fox Meadow +) should be fully assessed for the roads in front of their property, just like the rest of us. In light of arguments for keeping the single family front lawn history of Edina and not developing multiple family units through the city, there should be a price for status quo. Maybe they could pay into the affordable housing fund for the city to develop. Screen Name Redacted 12/21/2020 11:02 AM My assessment 2 years ago was about $15K on a home valued at less than $45K. That is about 3% of home value. A $30K assessment on a $2M home in Prospect Knolls would be about 1.5% of the home value. I realize not all homes in that area have those values, but it is important to what I am about to suggest. Those of us who have paid the full cost should not now have to pay for much or all of everyone else's future assessments. I suggest a 3rd option: Home owners pay the full assessment up to a percentage of their assessed home value, after which one of the options you are considering (preferably 50/50) would kick in to pay for the balance. The only way to make either of your options equitable for the many who have paid for their full assessment is to refund either 50 or 100% (depending on which option you choose) of what we have paid for any homeowners who were assessed during the last 10 years. Screen Name Redacted 12/21/2020 11:30 AM Our street underwent reconstruction approximately 10 years ago. Since there, there have been MANY tear-downs & rebuilds on our street. The residents who lived on the street paid for the reconstruction via special assessments, but we have absolutely no control over the extreme use our street has seen with all of the heavy-duty construction vehicles required for Feedback Form : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 20 January 2021 Page 22 of 51 tear-downs & rebuilds. If we were paying for assessments via taxes, it would mean that residents would not be unfairly held accountable for excess usage of a street they are paying to reconstruct. Also, I believe it would especially help protect lower-income residents because it would not slap them with a costly reassessment that they have no choice or control over! Screen Name Redacted 12/21/2020 11:59 AM it is difficult, but laws and such change all the time. It is unfortunate that some residents were assessed 100% before this change but that's just how the world works. Screen Name Redacted 12/21/2020 12:18 PM You can provide us with a tax credit or reduce the special assessment taxed against our home for the property street reconstruction that occurred within the past two years in our Countryside neighborhood . We're paying for as an addition to our property taxes over TEN years. Why should we have to pay for other property owners' special assessments at 50% through an increase in our taxes AND pay for our own property special assessment? This proposal is greatly inequitable. Either provide us the same discount as the other property owners or require everyone to pay 100% of the street assessment. Screen Name Redacted 12/21/2020 01:03 PM The special assessments put in place during these past few years include an interest charge on any amounts not paid up front. I propose eliminating that interest charge during the transition period which could help offset the double charge for the work already done and covering future work at the same time. Screen Name Redacted 12/21/2020 02:03 PM Leave it the way it is. Can’t change it now without extreme unfairness. I won’t vote for either of these stupid options! Screen Name Redacted 12/21/2020 04:43 PM Wondered why Rolling Green streets are so bad. Now I know why- they wanted to wait and have all the residents pay for their streets. Guess wealth still talks when it comes to Edina. Keep the system as it is! Screen Name Redacted 12/21/2020 06:18 PM We were NAILED with a $20k bill in 2018 that was greater that 6% of our home value. The project took 4 months, with most of the time with ABSOLUTLEY NO PROGRESS. The job was pure crap. We have pooling at the end of our driveway, because the contractor - the one that provided the biggest kickbacks to City Clowncil members and their families - didn't know how to grade a street. The re-seeding of the yard was weed infested. Everyone in the city should get to enjoy the complete incompetence of the City Clowncil, and PAY FOR IT just like we did. The richest of the rich don't want to pay. They can go pound sand. They can't pay for their kids education.... They can't pay their fair share in taxes, they rape the general public . . . All so they can enjoy their mid 6 figure income with no responsibility to society. Screen Name Redacted 12/21/2020 07:04 PM Don't you dare make me pay for any other residents assessment while I am still paying mine from several years ago. You can not change funding now! You should have thought this out before starting these projects over a decade ago. Feedback Form : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 20 January 2021 Page 23 of 51 Screen Name Redacted 12/21/2020 07:21 PM Have you not considered only spreading the new “shared” taxes from those that have not had a recent special assessment? Or just sticking with status quo? As a homeowner who was recently assessed this seems like a load of baloney to basically for my own and then someone else too. Of course you are going to get people who haven’t recently paid saying that having the general tax base cover it all is a great idea, but it is also ridiculously unfair to those that just did pay for such a project. Phase in as slowly as possible and charge at least 50%. Screen Name Redacted 12/21/2020 07:39 PM When new construction vehicles destroy streets. Charge the builders a fee. Screen Name Redacted 12/21/2020 07:42 PM I am really disappointed in the task force just know looking at this. There were city town halls back when our neighborhood was being assessed and the fees were extremely high. We were told at that time that this is the way it is done and that since this has been the way we can not change it as it is not fair. We are still paying off our special assessment that was over $15,000 and now you want me to pay even more to pay for someone else’s road that they will only be assessed for 50% of that cost? I just don’t understand why this was not looked at before the city undertook this huge road redo project in the city. May suggestion would be a gradual phase in of 80% property owner/20% city tax over the next 5 years then drop that to 75% owner/25% tax for 5 years and so on until you get to the 50%/50% mark. Screen Name Redacted 12/21/2020 07:46 PM Add the special assessment to the properties individual property taxes and amortize for some time period, 16-20 years. No roads get redone within 20 years (this might change if we stop doing subcuts.) Houses with longer curb lengths will have a known higher tax value. We have the data to do this accurately. Screen Name Redacted 12/21/2020 07:47 PM A period where a previously assessed homeowner doesn’t have to pay for new streets Screen Name Redacted 12/21/2020 08:09 PM Take the average of past assessments and add inflation costs, and the homeowner would be responsible for that amount, and the remaining funding would be spread out over the total tax payer base of Edina. Residents should not be responsible for the Subcuts, a special fund should cover those costs. As a homeowner who paid their full assessment in the past, it would NOT be fair to change how this is assessed after 50% of the homeowners already paid their assessment in full. The city started this special assessment program and has only completed 50% of the projects. The city should complete 100% of the reconstruction before changing how it is funded. Once all residential streets have been completed under the current plan, a better more equitable plan can be introduced. It is not at all equitable to ask 50% of your residents to pay over and above their property assessment. Screen Name Redacted 12/21/2020 08:36 PM Tax tobacco and alcohol more. Also, I am still paying off my special assessment and still have $11,100 left. I’m a teacher and a single parent of 3 kids 100% of the time. This is a huge expense for me! Now you want to raise Feedback Form : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 20 January 2021 Page 24 of 51 my taxes to pay for streets while and I’m still paying off my special assessment? That doesn’t make sense! Why can’t you tax people who have not had a special assessment immediately and then phase other people in based on how recently they were assessed and based on if they have finished paying off their assessment? That would make a lot more sense and would be equitable! Screen Name Redacted 12/21/2020 09:36 PM Continue with the status quo. I do not understand why people who paid for premium homes are getting special treatment. I think $35k is 100% acceptable on a $1M plus home - it's less than 3.5% of a million $ home. Proportionally, my reconstruction bill was more than 12% of my home value (done within the last 5 years). So, why should we have paid a higher proportion? Please do an analysis relative to home value rather than dollar value. Also, Q7 isn't an accurate way to represent the data as you're not allowing for a response that is neither. This is going to get A LOT of people upset. Screen Name Redacted 12/22/2020 05:33 AM Find other areas in the budget to shrink to pay for it. I do think the people who live on the street use it most and benefit most from added sidewalks so it makes sense to have to pay more personally for my own street that I use multiple times each day but agree that are public streets are used by all and we should all be contributing Screen Name Redacted 12/22/2020 07:22 AM neither of these options are equitable to those who have paid assessment recently Screen Name Redacted 12/22/2020 08:45 AM Data regarding what large lot land holder pay in city taxes otherwise is not present in the discussion above. If the street assessments are proportional to the taxes otherwise, then phasing in full city tax for the street assessments makes sense. If not proportional, it does not, and penalizes small home/small lot land-holders. Lot size is directly correlated to land value, housing value, and strongly associated with high income. So if taxes otherwise are truly based on land/home values, then it makes sense. Screen Name Redacted 12/22/2020 09:03 AM 100% based on the size of the street you’ll benefit from. If you have a larger home, you pay more, if you’re not having work done on your steeet you don’t pay anything. If you have retaining walls etc...then that’s the risk when you buy a property. I’m NOT paying for someone else’s assessment having just paid my own with zero help. Screen Name Redacted 12/22/2020 09:18 AM Continue the 100% assessment w/ finance options! Screen Name Redacted 12/22/2020 10:01 AM There needs to be a way to adequately reimburse those that have paid for assessments in the recent past. Recent is a relative term, I’ll leave that up to those on the council. To people who say it’s not my street or I don’t want sidewalks, you chose to live in a city. That comes with the knowledge that there will be streets and sidewalks in various places. Those will need to be maintained. In my research, most cities don’t charge the homeowner for the Feedback Form : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 20 January 2021 Page 25 of 51 full construction of a street in front of their property. I was shocked to find out that was the case here, after moving from Minneapolis. It was not mentioned by the realtor, and I guess I made assumptions. Taxes were lower, which I thought was unusual, but, I did not realize the implications of that. To all of a sudden to get hit with a $20-$40,000 bill, payable over a decade or more, doesn’t change the fact that it might be catastrophic for some families. Homeowners have no control over when that bill comes due, and who can set aside $40,000 for a possible upgrade of the road, when they aren’t even able to fix up their home? When people choose to live in a city or suburb, they choose to have all of the resources available, and they have to understand that it comes with financial implications. But we need to make it affordable, or at least have it built into the cost of the home via the taxes when someone purchases a home in Edina. That way there are no surprises. It should not be something that forces someone to move because they lost the lottery on road improvements that year. IMHO Screen Name Redacted 12/22/2020 10:17 AM Streets are used by everyone. We as a community should bear the cost of streets. The current method of having homeowners pay for the street is not how this is done in 99% of cities. Just make the switch and stop worrying about hurting feelings. Screen Name Redacted 12/22/2020 11:40 AM Special assessments on Home Builders. How about taking the average assessment cost over the last 10 years or so, and that is the baseline that residents pay. Any cost above that is city funded. It is completely unequitable to have a home that had had the worst streets (60+ years old) be forced to pay 100% of them, whereas streets with the least urgent need (2020 and beyond) get the benefit of ALL Residents paying for it. Screen Name Redacted 12/22/2020 02:07 PM I don’t have any great ideas. Screen Name Redacted 12/22/2020 05:48 PM As a resident who has already been charged a full assessment within the past few years and who also lives in a rather middle-class part of town, it comes as no shock that once these new rounds of assessments have now come upon the more affluent neighborhoods that, all of a sudden, these 100% resident-paid assessments may no longer be legally binding and, (whoops!) those residents that have already recently paid theirs, there's nothing to be done. Let me ask the council this - are you governing on behalf of the entire Edina population? Or are you governing only for those affluent individuals that would benefit from such a beneficial change in policy? If you to actually move forward with a policy change in this regard, a special consideration needs to be done for those residents that have been recently affected by the old policy. Otherwise, I'm afraid the council is choosing to show their true colors and loyalties, and it's not to the whole of Edina but rather to the few influential and affluent amongst us. Screen Name Redacted 12/22/2020 06:31 PM I would like the working group to take into consideration the variation in lot and street frontages across the city and that the concerns leading to the working group are disproportionately from larger lots with greater street Feedback Form : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 20 January 2021 Page 26 of 51 frontage and therefore higher assessments. While it is reasonable to seek alternatives to the current approach, especially in benchmarking other cities with similar development patterns, moving to a partial or full city-tax paid approach would in effect provide a subsidy to those homeowners at the expense of those with smaller lots and street frontage. While it is true that those lots may have higher property tax assessments, it's unlikely that that would fully offset the cost borne by other homeowners and especially renters in the city. I do believe it would be reasonable for a prospective homebuyer to consider future street reconstruction and assessment in their buying decision - as noted above, we were aware going in to purchasing our home in 2018 that we would be up for assessment in 2023/2024 and would need to begin saving to that end. Screen Name Redacted 12/22/2020 07:05 PM The City is collecting enormous hidden fees and surcharges from our Centerpoint, Xcel Energy and cable TV bills. Also collecting organic recycling fees from 100% of residents, that 70% of residents do not use. Use these fees to pay for street repair. Maybe get rid of some of the many supervisors, coordinators and other non-essential bloat at City Hall, and use their former employment expenses to pay for street repair. Screen Name Redacted 12/23/2020 06:42 AM Rip the bandage off faster and make the change now. The phased in approach just creates more angry residents who will still pay significant assessments over the next 5 to 16 years and then have their property taxes go up. If you're worried about the people who have already paid, why create a lot more of them? Because I'm likely to be assessed in Jan '23, it would be in my financial interests to maintain the current system if using a phased approach, as a change will likely only reduce my assessment by 1/16 or 1/32 (And hopefully 100% of the subcut costs). Still, the current system is problematic because it creates a major equity issue that's as serious as the one that will be raised by folks who've already been assessed. There are many people who lived in Edina for 30 or more years and then moved who never paid for streets. If I left now, I'd have enjoyed 34 years of Edina residency without ever paying. Nearly every home within a block has turned over, some multiple times, since I've been here, and none of those folks contributed to street reconstruction. That's a lot of 10-30 year residents not kicking in their share. This is not equitable. Instead it's like lottery nobody wants to win. Whoever happens to live on a street when it needs to be reconstructed pays for it. Everyone else need not contribute. Let's spread the cost out to everyone who lives in Edina and makes use of city-provided infrastructure. Thanks to the task force for its work. This is a thorny issue that I'm glad you are working to resolve. Screen Name Redacted 12/23/2020 09:13 AM Having no expertise in this area and not having studied the practice of other cities, I have nothing to add. I feel for residents that, in the past, have borne the full cost of such improvements; on the other hand, I think policymakers have to look forward and residents have to understand that policy changes will often create backward looking inequities that cannot be compensated. Seems to me that option 1 has the best mix of assigning responsibility for road improvements to those that 1) most directly benefit from them and 2) Feedback Form : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 20 January 2021 Page 27 of 51 indirectly benefit from them (all residents of the city). Screen Name Redacted 12/24/2020 07:36 AM Laws and regulations are changed all the time, and there will always be groups that feel disenfranchised. The Federal government implements taxes on things that didn't used to be taxed (i.e. Soc. Sec.) and removes tax credits with great regularity. Things change! In the past, Edina has spent large sums to benefit select groups (i.e. bike lanes) that we all had to pay for whether or not we benefit from them. This is no different. The council needs to be courageous to correct this long-standing problem, and incorporate street repairs into the tax budget, a cost that should be shared by all, because all our streets are used by all. Screen Name Redacted 12/24/2020 08:10 AM Why do we have to use city taxes on this? I don't see what the value of a home has to do with the cost of repairing a road. If the assessment is less than $30k, then charge the higher income houses that total fee instead of doing a 50/50 split? Additionally, can you provide documentation to those of us who have already paid these fees that the value of our houses has increased by what we have paid? Seems odd that we are now running into this issue when it should have clearly been identified and communicated before these projects began Screen Name Redacted 12/24/2020 11:06 AM No comment. Screen Name Redacted 12/24/2020 11:13 AM To have the street in front or side of your home paid for by the people who use and live there every day is the most equitable. It is a part of home ownership and a consideration when purchasing or choosing to stay in a home. I find it interesting that Parkwood Knolls with its very expensive homes and large lots became the issue over this. I have paid off street assessments on 2 different homes within Edina and in less than 10 years. We aren’t wealthy and these were small lots. Assessments were sizable!!! Now the suggestion is that I should pay for Parkwood Knolls and other new street construction as well? This truly doesn’t seem fair. The city taxes have gone up every year as homes have been re-assessed and assessed. However, I know of homes (newer) that have not been assessed near their current market level. So, I see Parkwood Knolls, as an example, with their property values not being re-assessed and we would pay for their new roads? This does not seem fair at all. Screen Name Redacted 12/24/2020 11:18 AM If you change the funding from assessment to tax based, and you cannot legally refund those of us who have already paid an assessment, then you should at least exempt us from paying even more through the taxation. You should also convert any unpaid assessment balances on which you are charging a hefty finance charge to being funded by the tax. Screen Name Redacted 12/24/2020 03:22 PM No Screen Name Redacted After reading the website, it does seem odd that a special assessment is Feedback Form : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 20 January 2021 Page 28 of 51 12/26/2020 04:08 PM used at all. It is like the city hiring a contractor to repair a city road and then sending the bill to the homeowner that lives there. I think city taxes make more sense. It seems that maintaining roadways and infrastructure should be a basic city function and paid for by taxes. Then the city doesn't have to spend all this time debating how much each homeowner owes, they just raise or lower city taxes, make a budget and pay for the roads. Screen Name Redacted 12/27/2020 07:38 AM Unify city garbage service under one contractor like recycling and compost. City can add a surcharge to the garbage service fee paid by all residents. Garbage trucks are some of the largest and heaviest loads that our streets carry and we currently have 5+ contractors driving their trucks over the streets on a weekly basis. This will reduce the load, and damage done to our streets and provide a revenue stream to the city. Screen Name Redacted 12/27/2020 11:29 AM We do not think so. Screen Name Redacted 12/27/2020 12:02 PM Our street was reconstructed in 2007. We were charged close to 100% of the reconstruction costs which was $8,000. The $8,000 worked out to $128/foot for our lot. I would prefer a funding option where the city establishes a fixed charge per foot that would cover an average of 80% of the costs with the city paying the rest. I am assuming that Edina has records covering past reconstruction and associated costs that could be used to come up with the fixed charge. The fixed charge could be reviewed every three years and adjusted as needed. The advantage of this approach is that homeowners (prospective buyers) will know what future assessments will be for their property with the city paying for any unknowns such as subcuts. Screen Name Redacted 12/27/2020 01:54 PM Keep as is-this is not fair to those who have already paid huge amounts and will now see our taxes increase as well. Screen Name Redacted 12/28/2020 05:21 AM I have seen some proposal of an assessed value caps? This certainly seems more reasonable to all of us who have paid in FUll our assessments. Came up because of costs on big lots and expensive properties. I am sur that the rich will stay rich and the poor will pay for it/ Screen Name Redacted 12/28/2020 08:19 AM Special assessments are ok when they are reasonable but $15,000 is too much especially on a $400,000 house. Screen Name Redacted 12/28/2020 09:21 AM Having paid $12,000 out of pocket it seems residents should be assessed for at least some of the project. Screen Name Redacted 12/28/2020 09:22 AM How does residential construction contribute to roadway deterioration? Is sign off on roadway restoration a condition of final permit approval? Screen Name Redacted 12/28/2020 02:48 PM Should not have to pay for special assessments. City should figure out how to budget more Eddie fly. Perhaps we have too many frivolous people on the payroll. Feedback Form : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 20 January 2021 Page 29 of 51 Screen Name Redacted 12/28/2020 04:43 PM Option #3: Use the current system up to a percentage of the property's assessed value, after which either the 50/50 or 100% proposition would kick in. An example of how it would work with a $30K assessment and 3% of home value, the 100% option for paying the assessment in excess of the 3% cap. As others have noted on Nextdoor, there is a wide variety of home values in neighborhoods such as Prospect Knolls, which has from around $500K to $2M, and this system would take that into account to provide the most equitable solution. For example, Home assessed at $500K pays $15K ( $500K X .03) leaving $15K ($30K - $15K) paid by the city. Home assessed at $750K pays $22.5K ($750K X .03), with $7.5K ($30K - $22.5K) paid by the city. Home assessed at $1M will pay the full assessment ($1M X .03 = $30K). Thus, the higher the home value, the lower the percentage of the home's value that will be paid. For example, the owner of a $2M home will only pay 1.5% of their home value ($30K/$2M). Thank you for giving this your serious consideration. We appreciate the work you do for the city, and hope you can help maintain a financially diverse citizenry by having the city pay for street assessments for the lower priced homes, while higher priced homes pay some or all (see above examples) of the assessments in order to keep property taxes relatively low. Screen Name Redacted 12/28/2020 05:11 PM Should have thought of this before you did half the streets and charged us the full amount! That was a tremendous hit when the dollar was worth more. Screen Name Redacted 12/28/2020 06:01 PM I was assessed the full amount of the street reconstruction a number of years ago. Our neighborhood asked the city for relief but were turned down because it was considered our street (versus a city street). People in other neighborhoods felt that we should pay the full amount because it is "our street" even though we are a big cut through area with people from other areas of Edina, St. Louis Park and Minneapolis cutting through. If people are receiving relief I am wondering what the City will do to make it equitable for us, Screen Name Redacted 12/28/2020 06:19 PM I’m curious what options were discussed to ensure that businesses operating within Edina help pay for roadways. Commercial traffic tends to be larger vehicles (heavier) which by far is most impactful on roadway longevity. Screen Name Redacted 12/28/2020 07:07 PM For those areas where lots size may vary resulting in difficulty in demonstrating a special benefit- could the city set up a district to better distribute costs among immediate users of the roads? It seems incredibly unfair that areas of the city where perhaps owners have less access to legal services were assessed full cost of reconstruction. It is my understanding from our neighbors that with the assessments came an associated result of some older homeowners being unable to pay, needing to sell quickly, and then loss of “affordable” housing when homes were sold for under market value for tear down. Screen Name Redacted 12/28/2020 08:43 PM Less than 50% funded by taxes. More than 50% funded by property owner. Having already paid 100% for street construction, it is tough to have taxes raised to pay for others. Feedback Form : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 20 January 2021 Page 30 of 51 Screen Name Redacted 12/29/2020 05:20 AM I fundamentally disagree with your assessment of fairness. I chose to to buy my specific property and I agreed to a specific price knowing roads, city services and taxes are part of the deal. For the Task Force to suggest otherwise is stunningly ignorant. Changing the deal I agreed to initially is a possibility I acknowledge but don't tell me it's fair or equitable. Screen Name Redacted 12/29/2020 06:25 AM those that purchase homes, know there is the potential for assessments - it's the standard way of keeping their neighborhood in good condition - it's part of home ownership. to be equitable would have been to have this conversation prior to any street work to be started - i paid for mine, it is not FAIR for me to also pay for others - if you raise taxes, i would expect to be reimbursed. are the people on the task force, are their neighborhood assessments coming up - why is this coming up at this time....pay your own way. people do not have to live in Edina or own a home.... to the question below, why is not there a 3rd option of owners pay for their own street improvement this is very bias the way this survey is written. also being i have to choose one - i don't agree with either Screen Name Redacted 12/29/2020 07:20 AM The modest Edina neighborhoods have already paid the full amount for their streets. Now you are suggesting that these people also pay increased taxes as the wealthy neighborhoods are excused from paying the direct assessment. Consider changing the process after the second half of the streets have been done. This would be more equitable. Charging the modest Edina neighborhoods twice in effect will open up the City to litigation as well. Another approach would be to increase the taxes only in the neighborhoods that need new streets. Screen Name Redacted 12/29/2020 08:54 AM Faster tax change implementation to coincide with areas about to be assessed for road repairs. Delaying tax changes for areas that were recently assessed. Hybrid approach for soon in time road repair. Elongate the repayment term until the tax change is implemented. Buy back the debt for recent assessments. Screen Name Redacted 12/29/2020 09:08 AM Keep current plan, owners pay 100%, but allow them better financing options Screen Name Redacted 12/29/2020 09:28 AM I have paid for 3 assessments. I paid for 6929 Hillcrest and lived there 2005- 22008- $10,000. I then moved to sig. others home at 5905 Tamarac lane and paid that $10k+ assessment. Then we moved to a condo at 4075 W. 51st st. and paid that $3k assessment. If you are going to stop assessing then first all of the homes in edina have to go through the remaining street reconstruction and be assessed or we should get a partial refund. Only after every street has had to pay for one should the burden be switched over to taxes 100%. Maybe you could get rid of some of the totally unnecessary large salaries at the city such as the "builder supervisor" for new construction, and the "economic development director" and apply those to the infrastructure and/or police. Screen Name Redacted Do what the people who have already been assessed---have the property Feedback Form : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 20 January 2021 Page 31 of 51 12/29/2020 11:26 AM owners pay their share---not half and not zero. I did not get to pay half or pay zero when my streets were fixed. Come on, you can't change the rules in the middle. The poorer sections of Edina had to pay their share. Now the richer sections want a break. No way. Neither option is acceptable. Screen Name Redacted 12/29/2020 02:49 PM I live in the Creek Valley neighborhood on Creek Valley Road. As you are aware, the high school construction project in 2019 resulted in an abundance of industrial equipment and heavily loaded dump trucks to travel up and down Creek Valley Rd 8 – 10 hours each day for more than a year. This has caused severe degradation of our road, and its contour in some areas, where large pools of rainwater, and snowmelt that freezes, causes slippery conditions for motorists and pedestrians without any drainage capability. And according to the City of Edina Anticipated Roadway Re-construction 2020 – 2025, there are no near-term plans to correct these conditions on our road. I am completely opposed to 100% city funding of road projects that will likely raise property taxes on all Edina residents with little to no benefit to those residents that will use or enjoy those street improvements. I believe in public- private partnerships where residents that benefit from a public project have some skin in the game. By sharing half the cost of street improvements with the city in exchange for a better road and a minor improvement in their home’s market value, this puts less of a financial burden on those residents that will not use or enjoy that benefit. Screen Name Redacted 12/29/2020 04:59 PM City is responsible to provide average road condition for all Edina not just taking care of municipal main streets. I feel ashamed on the condition of the road in my area. It is not the responsibility of the residents to decide when their streets need road construction and repair. Of course, due to the high special assessment fees, residents may decide not to agree to re-construct the road. Hence the road condition in my area is worse than some village roads in the 3rd world countries. Taxing everyone the same amount is very fair, and Edina will finally the mainstream of Twin Cities surrounding Towns. A 16 year transition is way too long for a solution to this major issue. Screen Name Redacted 12/29/2020 05:33 PM Will commercial and leased property taxes increase to cover road construction? People using or visiting commercial properties use the roads as do people who are renting. Under the current method of only assessing homeowners when their street is repaired a fair number of people are never assessed even though using the roads. If the task force could show how much in additional taxes will be collected from sources not currently funding roads (but using the roads) that may help Edina citizens feel better about the change. An additional funding option would be a hybrid approach. Pause road construction for three years and begin collecting additional taxes for road repair. After three years, Implement option 1 with a three year phase in and then move to option 2 with a five year phase in. (Or some combination of the above.). I realize this may not keep Edina roads at the desired standard for a short period of time but may be more acceptable to more people. Screen Name Redacted 12/29/2020 06:29 PM Those who have been assessed in the past ten years could be exempted from tax increases for a period of time, perhaps to compensate those Feedback Form : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 20 January 2021 Page 32 of 51 homeowners for the costs they have already incurred. Screen Name Redacted 12/29/2020 10:22 PM We are long time residents in Parkwood knolls and had our assessment years ago. I cannot remember the number exactly, but it was between 14000.00 and 16000.00. We paid this in full which was a burden to our family. I understand that things change, but this is completely unfair to the homeowners who have already been charged their assessment prior to this proposed change. Taxes did not help us with our bill and now we will be taxed to pay other's bills. I know you have heard this from many others and rather than doling out excuses, you should find a way to solve this inequitable situation for the people who have paid their assessments in full. Screen Name Redacted 12/29/2020 11:36 PM Perhaps this is already done, but I’d hope reconstruction isn’t done until absolutely necessary. It should not be done just to make our twon look nice! Screen Name Redacted 12/30/2020 07:19 AM Is there a way to temporarily reduce property taxes in those neighborhoods where the streets have already been completed, for example over 5 years? If a 5 year plan is approved, This tax reduction would provide them some relief and alleviate their sense of paying not only for their own streets but also the rest of the city. Yes, this temporarily would increase taxes for the remaining properties, then after the 5 year period all taxes would be returned to status quo. Screen Name Redacted 12/30/2020 08:10 AM My concern is that we are now paying for other neighborhoods' reconstruction costs when they did not contribute to any assessment costs in the 2008-2009 road construction in the Country Club project. Any special assessments should be paid for by the residents of the neighborhood in which construction is being completed. I.E. Prospect Knolls Neighborhood residents should pay for 50% of the street reconstruction by special assessments. The remaining 50% would be paid for by all Edina residents and businesses with city taxes. Screen Name Redacted 12/30/2020 08:58 AM Stop building all these high rises and use funding for street maintenance. People in these high rises will not be paying the large assessments but are using the streets. Screen Name Redacted 12/30/2020 03:57 PM It seems that since half of the streets have had reconstruction and assessments already, that history could be used to develop a hybrid model that uses such historical data to develop a direct assessment that would be then capped using a reasonable calculation from the history, with the rest of the cost covered by city taxes. The capped assessment should likely eliminate the cost of the subcut from the equation. Screen Name Redacted 12/30/2020 06:21 PM ***Neither option is fair.*** If it is not possible to do anything retroactively for those who have paid their street assessments in full during the last 5-10 years, then figure out a way to adjust their city taxes in the future. There are other options that should be considered that may be a bit messy until they are figured out, but it is not impossible to do so. What if residents sue the city for their past street assessments being discriminatory ? ** I strongly believe that option one or two are NOT the only equitable choices we have. ** Feedback Form : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 20 January 2021 Page 33 of 51 Screen Name Redacted 12/31/2020 09:10 AM The people who are currently paying off the assessment would be exempt from tax increases until their assessment is paid. Screen Name Redacted 12/31/2020 09:19 AM No additional ideas. Screen Name Redacted 12/31/2020 09:24 AM Seems like there are a lot of legal ways/reasons not to make the people whole that have already paid. That should of been looked at when the street repair started. I will take a $ credit on my city taxes. My house value did not increase by anything due to the road repair. Now you want me to subsidize all the people with big valuable lots? Does that mean I can sue the city? This is so typical of government. It is a joke. It is so slanted. Your questions are asked in a way that you get the answers you want. Question # 7, which option do you prefer? How about none of the above? Has the task force looked elsewhere to see what other cities in the US have done with this issue? Edina can't be the only city in the US that is this bad. Go back to the drawing board and do what you were elected to do. Screen Name Redacted 12/31/2020 10:12 AM I had to pay for my street reconstruction that I did not ask for. I was assessed and expected to pay without the help of everyone else in the city. Why should I now be forced to pay 50-100% of someone else's street reconstruction? I am not benefitting from them having a smoother street? Screen Name Redacted 12/31/2020 10:39 AM Everyone that has already been through this and has Paid tens of thousands of dollars to pay 100% of the fees and now you would like us to pay for other people to have this done. It is completely unacceptable. Screen Name Redacted 12/31/2020 10:52 AM Do not tax or assess those addresses that have already been assessed or taxed. Don't make this harder then it is. The city was wrong in the way they did this in the past and those that believed in the City should not be penalized for that. To me neither option is an option. This needs a lot more attention then a "task force" we need to find out how this was illegally pushed through and what can be done for those that already paid. People are not happy! Screen Name Redacted 12/31/2020 12:17 PM Why not complete the rest of the streets under the current assessment rules with the city covering the sub par soil and then switch to option2. There is no fair or equitable option to those that have already paid the assessment. We should not have to subsidize other taxpayers who have no been assessed. Double taxing is wrong. Where was the city council when the many of us thought the assessment was unfair before? No other city assessed that way plus it is a very regressive tax. Screen Name Redacted 1/01/2021 01:30 PM Keep the system as-is. You have stacked this survey to only give two options, both of which require increasing taxes on those who have already paid 100% of the assessment. This is a biased and un-fair survey and it is wrong not to include the ability for citizens to indicate a preference for leaving the system as-is. It is unfair to increase taxes on properties that have already paid past assessments. The cost of street re-construction should be paid by the properties who benefit from the work. Don't change the game half way Feedback Form : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 20 January 2021 Page 34 of 51 through once have the people have already paid the 100% assessment. Screen Name Redacted 1/02/2021 07:53 AM Classify cost of road construction according to the amount of public use Screen Name Redacted 1/02/2021 08:54 AM can't think of any Screen Name Redacted 1/02/2021 09:25 AM We paid in full our assessment in Birchcrest and it is not fair that we are now being asked to pay for larger more expensive streets on larger lots. we have a small lot and had to budget and save in order to pay for the assessment - not fair that we are now penalized and need to pay for others. I'd like less than 50% option suggest a 25% paid by City option which requires other homeowners to pay at least the amount that we paid. Screen Name Redacted 1/02/2021 04:00 PM Why should those of us assessed 100% in the past pay taxes on those that do not need to pay? We pay twice they pay zero for the same benefit. Otherwise give us our assessment back which was around $13,000 in 2010. We pay to live in this beautiful city. Screen Name Redacted 1/02/2021 04:46 PM My comment does not pertain to this question but shouldn't the curb and road improvements currently scheduled for Spring 2021 be put on hold until this is resolved? Screen Name Redacted 1/03/2021 08:24 AM Please coordinate and standardize on a single garbage hauler per address to reduce wear and tear from 6x as many garbage trucks as necessary. I believe the City of St Paul recently did this while preserving the current amount of market share to each of their haulers. Screen Name Redacted 1/03/2021 08:41 AM While this is not necessarily a funding option, the residents of Edina need to know, at least 5 years in advance, when the next major reconstruction of neighborhood streets will occur. That would give residents a somewhat adequate amount of time to build a reserve or accrual in their savings or checking account to pay for their share of neighborhood street construction at the time of project completion. The only fair system, in my opinion, is to continue to pay 100% of the costs of the construction project. Unfortunately, the way this new system is presented, it appears that there was some dollar threshold hit for street project assessment where those with the largest pieces of property would be subsidized by the residents of the rest of the city. I don't mean to be unsympathetic, but homebuyers need to be aware of special assessments and how they are assigned. Before buying a house in Edina, we checked how street assessments were assigned, so we knew what to expect. There are positives and negatives to living in Edina. For us, the positives outscored the negatives. We were able to accumulate/save much of the assessment over a 3 year period by saving a certain amount each month, so we were prepared. I think the 50% option allows a break for those with larger pieces of property, but also holds them somewhat responsible for what they own. It appears to be the fairer of the two options as presented. Feedback Form : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 20 January 2021 Page 35 of 51 Screen Name Redacted 1/03/2021 09:20 AM Street and sewer reconstruction has been a point of contention since 1998 when the project began. As each street has been accessed, the residents have voiced their concern about the expense. Until 2020, residents have basically been told that they must pay the entire expense to maintain the roads and services. I believe each home owner has felt that the expense has been high. As the city is now working on the streets with larger lots, it stands to reason that these homes have more street to be responsible for. If they had smaller lots, there would be more homeowners to cover the cost of the roads. It is a price they pay for having a larger lot. Back in 1998 it was predicted that the assessments for a home could run as high as $26,000. The city did not feel it was necessary to change the process at that time. It is unfair that the homeowners who have paid the assessment for their own streets should subsidize the construction of the homeowners that have not paid yet. In the articles and the overview of the project, you mention briefly that the present policy of a special assessment is still on the table. It appears to me that you have already decided that option one or two are the only choices available. If you insist that these are the only options, why not consider charging these homeowners the maximum amount that homeowners in the past have been charged, and then go to your option one or two for the remainder of the assessment.. Change the assessment policy after all the homeowners have paid the first round of upgraded streets and sewers. Screen Name Redacted 1/03/2021 11:30 AM I would love to have the city step in and determine one garbage hauler for the whole town. This would substantially reduce the wear and tear on our streets. Screen Name Redacted 1/03/2021 05:02 PM There has to be a way to partial refund some of the previous assessments. Screen Name Redacted 1/03/2021 07:18 PM It seems we should continue with the same process as in the past - that is what would be equitable. Giving future property owners whose property is now being assessed a break is not fair to those of us that have already had to pay. If you have a bigger lot, then you should have to pay more, that is how the system was set up. You can't change it halfway through, and then send the additional taxes back on people that already paid. I know the committee is wanting to go a different direction. If the concern is that the "market benefit" is no longer being met, I would question how it was met in the past when property values were more stagnant than they are now. Now they are rising, so the market benefit argument does not seem as valid as it once may have been. I do not believe a legal challenge would be successful (non-lawyer). Screen Name Redacted 1/04/2021 07:31 AM I assume these ideas have been addressed, but just in case: - Additional fees on new and rebuilt construction, particularly tear-downs. The city has an explosion of high value new builds. It seems reasonable to assess these a fee to help underwrite road construction. - Commercial fees based on traffic volumes. Southdale, the hospital, Galleria etc have real estate value, but their Feedback Form : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 20 January 2021 Page 36 of 51 impact is likely much larger on surrounding roads than the proportional value of a house on a quiet street. This may already exist... Screen Name Redacted 1/04/2021 10:57 AM Possibly those households get taxed at a lesser amount. However most residents use many of the city's streets so the cost is shared to some degree. Screen Name Redacted 1/04/2021 06:11 PM Streets should be funded by taxes within the city's budget. The city should manage the overall budget to keep tax increases low. Screen Name Redacted 1/05/2021 08:34 AM As this is the only space for comments I offer the following: Provide an example of typical assessment cost per year using the 15 payable period with the specified interest. Compare that to the annual cost of the two options. This tax should be dedicated to street reconstruction, not made part of the general fund. This is to ensure that the funds are used for the intended purpose and that the infrastructure is maintained. Can that be specified? Investments by property owners in the right of way areas should not be covered by either option. Property owners should be aware that they assume the risk of having to rebuild personal property if they choose to invest in the public right of way. The current assessment policy uses a REU that based on traffic generation of one residential lot, regardless of lot size or amount of street frontage. It might be fairer or less regressive to change the REU going forward to be based on lot size. If you choose to live on a large lot, your taxes for street maintenance will be higher. Screen Name Redacted 1/05/2021 10:18 AM Your search for "fairness" mostly ignores those who have recently paid assessments. They need to be treated more fairly. Screen Name Redacted 1/05/2021 10:54 AM Build another liquor store. Screen Name Redacted 1/05/2021 02:53 PM What percent of the streets that need to be rebuilt have the high assessments? How does this compare to the past areas , when the full assessment has already been paid? I would imagine that with the downturn in oil prices, the estimates from last year may now be high- has this been considered? If the street repair does not equitably increase the value of the house, maybe the street does not need to be repaired? Screen Name Redacted 1/05/2021 02:57 PM The volume of heavy trucks in neighborhoods from tear down/new construction activity are destroying residential streets. Assess tear downs with a fee to help cover road repair/construction. $10-$20k minimum. Screen Name Redacted 1/05/2021 06:29 PM I don't think that people who have already paid should be included in the tax increase. They would be paying twice. I agree with no refund. Screen Name Redacted 1/05/2021 06:31 PM One way is to look at ways to lower the city's budget and use those dollars for the roads given the current need and broken system. cutting back. for instance, any of the social issues that are being funded (special interest, etc), would in my opinion, NOT belong in the public square and should lose Feedback Form : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 20 January 2021 Page 37 of 51 funding. Any other areas where city government is duplicative or inefficient would be eyes to keep on the budget. I saw you changed this Feedback Form (since Sunday when I had prepped my reply and not saved it--). I will restate what I intended to say: I strongly believe the REU model and private pay for public roads is a broken model as the public roads belong at the public city tax level (vs in personal home budgets). I have observed and known neighboring communities who are astonished that we have such an archaic and dysfunctional method to pay for are roads in Edina. The REU is entirely a myth and should never have been deployed as its not equitable nor, again, does it belong in a personal budget. Other cities have never experienced the breakdown we currently are experiencing, so it's time to make the correction. With that said, there will always be those behind the curve of needed change and those in front of it. To attempt to "pay back" past payor parties is a recipe for disaster as it will never be satisfied. It's time for a HOLISTIC change of placing this ALL back into the city's hands and not take a 'halve-sey" approach as portrayed in Option 1. That's like trying to walk down the old road that is already broken; while attempting to find a new road, the one that can be effective. Let's do this right this time and head straight down the effective road~~ the one we should have been on all along. I highly encourage the Task Force to NOT walk down two roads and therefore, enlist option 2. Screen Name Redacted 1/05/2021 07:13 PM Utility credit and or prioritize and or subsidize cost of burying and or cleaning up utility lines. Or provide street lighting or other amenities to make up for past cost that would add value and accessibility to the area. Screen Name Redacted 1/05/2021 07:23 PM Cut expenses from other city services to fund road construction. This city wastes so much money on unnecessary expenditures, it should be easy to fund the road construction without new taxes. Screen Name Redacted 1/06/2021 05:14 AM Are home rebuilds /remodels assessed additional tax for wear and tear on streets? Does those funds make it to the street budget? Screen Name Redacted 1/06/2021 07:38 AM I think that maintaining our city streets is a shared responsibility regardless of the location of the project and should be budgeted and managed like any other city project. If funding is not available, then the project should be held up until it is. I will see no benefit from the current street work scheduled for our street. It will not increase the value of my home and actually may decrease it if changes are made the detriment our property. Unless a street is in a horrible state, it has no impact on my purchasing of a home. However, the payment of a large assessment that is current or forecasted in the future would change my view of purchasing a home. So, when I sell my home it most likely will be a negative. Screen Name Redacted 1/06/2021 10:41 AM How much will home builders be paying to replace our streets? There are currently four new homes being built within one block of my home. Four. The strain on our roads from all the heavy trucks is far more than I contribute. I live alone and have worked from home for the last 10 years. How is it equitable to have residents carry the burden of replacing the roads when we Feedback Form : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 20 January 2021 Page 38 of 51 are not solely responsible for their wear and tear? Screen Name Redacted 1/06/2021 01:29 PM People who have paid an assessment in previous few (5?) years should not pay any additional taxes for a few (5?) years. Screen Name Redacted 1/06/2021 02:43 PM If past special assessments can't be refunded, you need to continue the same system for those homeowners who haven't been reconstructed yet until we reach the end of the cycle Screen Name Redacted 1/07/2021 07:47 AM No further ideas that I know about Screen Name Redacted 1/07/2021 09:00 AM How the solutions can be seen as equitable I don't know. What make you think those that have already had their streets done are not going to sue? I have talked with many neighbors and friends, and no one sees the task force as being fair. It is just being run by the rich. something really fair needs to be done. Edina did not think this out before they started the road project initially. Other suburban areas are a lot smarter. Do not tell me a refund is not possible. Anything is possible and we have lots of tax money with all these Macmansions being built in Edina. Come up with a better plan for a "better Edina". I am not voting on #7 because neither option is acceptable. Screen Name Redacted 1/07/2021 11:39 AM The city pays for curb and gutter. In the case of Down Road, there is not need for curb or gutter, so why doesn't the City donate those funds into the construction cost to lower the assessment? Also, Down Road is a major thru way, the cul de sacs that are part of the Parkwood Knolls project are not. Is it possible construct the thru roads as a "best" job, and do a 'lesser' job on the cul de sacs? Screen Name Redacted 1/07/2021 03:42 PM I DO NOT support a local Sales Tax Screen Name Redacted 1/07/2021 06:26 PM 1. Grants or other areas that the City has extra funds should be used to pay for the higher street assessments. 2. Taxes for frontage of parks, and other properties utilized by the public to be paid with municipal taxes. 3. Reduce taxes for residents that have already paid the assessments in full. This should have been thought through prior to the project start. Re-bid the project with additional contractors. 4. It seems that there have been items included in the street construction on some streets that should not have been and should be city responsibility, such as the pump station on 62nd Street. 5. The city should be more transparent as to what items are included in a the street repairs if it is outside of the basic scope and the residents of the street should be able to vote on accepting the additional costs or not, especially if it exceeds the estimates by more than 7%. The city needs to closely monitor the bids and put a cap on the contractor for change orders. 6. I do not like either of the options that are being proposed. 50% is a large % to be taxed by the Edina residents that have already paid the full assessments, even though it is being implemented over several years. Maybe it should be capped at the highest assessment charged to date with a 3% annual increase each year. Feedback Form : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 20 January 2021 Page 39 of 51 The difference on costs should be paid with grants, other street funding received by the city or extra funds form other departments. I know this takes more work, but it's the city's job to work on behalf of the residents. 7. With all of the new development, there should be new taxes received from street that have already been completed to add back to the street coffers. I also feel there is too much development and the charm of Edina is disappearing. I am happy to see that you are trying to focus commercial development to the Southdale and 50th and France areas. Stop approving the cheaply built apartment buildings everywhere. Too much density in residential neighborhoods. Screen Name Redacted 1/08/2021 08:25 AM I sustained the financial burden of paying my assessment on my own. Making me now pay for others with no back compensation assessments is totally unjust. I do not accept just a blanket statement that legally there is no way to compensate those that have already paid. 1) I believe you owe it to us to give a full explanation as to why it is illegal. 2) There needs to be transparency to show a real effort has been made to find a way to legally compensate those who paid the full assessment in the past. In the past 20 years my property taxes have more than tripled. Maintaining the streets should be a high priority for the city and you should have enough money to maintain our streets with the funding you have provided you prioritize correctly. Additional levies are not acceptable. As to those who bought houses where streets are longer and more winding, etc. This situation has been known for many years, they should have done their due diligence when they bought those houses. The big lots in prime areas are a premium and they should pay for it. Not expect those of us who can't afford those properties to subsidize them when they did not subsidize us. I am saying I prefer option 1, but strongly object to any change in the process without compensation to those who have paid. Screen Name Redacted 1/08/2021 09:20 AM I do not perceive either of the currently proposed options to be even remotely equitable or acceptable. I will answer survey question 7 regarding preferred option only because this electronic survey can only be submitted if one of the 2 options is selected. Property owners in neighborhoods with recently reconstructed streets have already paid $1,000’s more than what will be assessed to neighborhood property owners in either of the proposed options for future street reconstructions. I admit to not being a city legal/finance expert but as a voter I see little in the proposed options that addresses the significant overall tax inequity I perceive in these 2 options. The stated finding that there is no legal way to refund past assessments does not change the proposed neighborhood inequity in net past/future assessed taxes that still needs to be addressed. If past neighborhood street assessments cannot be adjusted, then some equitable adjustment to future city tax assessments needs to be developed to credit those who have recently paid in full for street assessments. Screen Name Redacted 1/08/2021 10:50 AM Some consideration must be made for neighborhoods that have already been assessed. Our streets were done in 2019. It would not be equitable to raise my taxes for other people's streets when we are paying for our own. Feedback Form : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 20 January 2021 Page 40 of 51 Perhaps a tax break could be given to those who have paid for their own assesment. Interesting that City government wasn't sensitive to this issue for neighborhoods with smaller lots like ours!!! Screen Name Redacted 1/09/2021 08:18 AM Due to Covid19 my husband lost his job & since he's an immigrant he cannot claim unemployment (no Permanent Resident can receive unemployment if work under 10 years). We are silently struggling & receive no public assistance. I have lived in this house for 40+ years & always paid all taxes on time & in full. We've watched our street crumble to pieces as truck after truck enters daily to teardown 7+ houses on our street in past 2 years. Then cracks appear in the street & our home as the construction teams pound steel beams deep into the ground during winter months. Do they have to pay for any of this street destruction? They certainly never paid for our windows cracking or things that fell from shelves & broke from all the pounding. There is no way we could afford to pay $30k or even $15k out of pocket by 2022 or 2023. You would put us under due to social-economic inequities. Screen Name Redacted 1/09/2021 02:04 PM I was assessed $10K 4 years ago. Neither option is fair. Screen Name Redacted 1/09/2021 04:28 PM I am 100% behind the idea of transfering the cost of road construction to city taxes. I would imagine most people would gladly pay an extra $16 per month to avoid getting hit with an unexpected bill of several thousand dollars. I would personally like the change over to happen as soon as possible rather than phase it in over 16 years, but I worry about those that have already been assessed and are currently paying in full for the road repairs. From the FAQ it sounds like there may be no legal way currently to repay some of the costs they are currently paying. Could this be something that could be done via a ballot measure? Screen Name Redacted 1/10/2021 10:41 AM I don't have expertise in this area. I hope that the options under consideration were informed by doing rigorous research on what best-in-class cities across the nation have in place. Screen Name Redacted 1/10/2021 11:44 AM Dear Edina City Council Street Task Force, Thank you for engaging the community for input on the future of street reconstruction in Edina. From the information provided, it is clear the Edina City Council has thoughtfully considered the complex issue at hand and provided two options for consideration, while omitting the option to retain the current process for funding street reconstruction in Edina. • Option 1: Half of the street reconstruction paid for by special assessments and the other half paid with municipal taxes. a. Having half of the street reconstruction paid for by special assessments and the other half paid with municipal taxes appears problematic for the following reasons. i. Many property owners have paid for, or are in the process of paying, assessments imposed under a differing cost schedule. What will be done for property owners have already paid assessments at an incrementally different rate? ii. It appears this change could potentially result in higher taxes or corresponding cuts in services both of which are issues worthy of thoughtful consideration and discussion. iii. The Feedback Form : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 20 January 2021 Page 41 of 51 proposed 50% special assessment benefiting primarily the owners of large lots doesn’t seem quite fair to the rest of the city with modest sized lots. It doesn’t seem inherently unfair that residents with larger lots should pay more given the larger size of their frontage just as a larger house often cost more than a smaller house. Additionally, although the cost cited (e.g. ~$30,000.00) may seem eye popping at first glance one must keep in mind that these costs will be amortized along a substantial timeline at a low interest rate which will support a sustainable payment structure. iv. Increased density is often cited as a means to mitigate climate change. The proposed change primarily benefits larger lots which would appear to run counter to the city’s important efforts to do our collective part to mitigate climate change. • Option 2: All street reconstruction paid for with municipal taxes. a. Having all street reconstruction paid for with municipal taxes appears problematic for the following reasons: i. This change may result in higher taxes or corresponding cuts in services both of which are issues worthy of thoughtful consideration and discussion. This would be a substantial change to the current funding mechanism for future of street reconstruction in Edina. It would be helpful to understand in greater detail where the existing process is deficient before implementing such a substantial change. ii. Many property owners have paid for, or are in the process of paying, assessments imposed under the current special assessment process. What will be done for property owners who have already paid assessments at a different incremental rate? Street reconstruction is a never-ending critical infrastructure undertaking. A detailed and well communicated transition plan may be appropriate for a change of this magnitude. iii. 100% funding of street reconstruction through municipal taxes will substantially strain the current municipal tax base potentially making the city less competitive as compared to neighboring municipalities. A change of this order could also potentially result in tax increases or reduced services to address potential funding shortfalls. iv. Increased density of often cited as a means to mitigate climate change. Moving to a system where street reconstruction is 100% funded through municipal takes may not be well aligned with climate goals. “Option 3”, though not explicitly listed, is to continue with the status quo. With a substantial portion of street reconstruction in work, or complete, it is unclear how substantial changes to the funding process can be equitably implemented at this juncture. It’s understood that street reconstruction is a never-ending process, therefor substantial changes to the funding process must be carefully considered by all community constituents. We sincerely believe, in the interest of fairness to all the city’s residents, it is best to continue with the existing process for funding future of street reconstruction in Edina. With interest rates at record lows, and Edina’s AAA credit rating it’s clear the existing process for funding future of street reconstruction in Edina is working well, sustainable, and fundamentally fair to all the city’s residents. The current process for funding street reconstruction in Edina has served the city and its residents well for decades and will continue to meet future needs. The two proposed changes appear unnecessary and could potentially have unintended consequences for our community. Sincere thanks to the Edina City Council for engaging the Feedback Form : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 20 January 2021 Page 42 of 51 community on this important topic. Screen Name Redacted 1/10/2021 12:57 PM Is there a way to identify properties that have already paid the assessments for their streets, and decrease the added tax burden to those households? What are the new multi household dwellings contributing to support the infrastructure of our roads? A $32k assessment is simply not an option for ANY single household! Screen Name Redacted 1/11/2021 04:08 AM Increase taxes for only those that have their streets updated. Screen Name Redacted 1/11/2021 10:53 AM First thanks for tackling a tough challenge. I think your 50/50 recommendation and more importantly the phasing is a creative solution for a solution that does not have a perfectly equitable path. The only alternative I would want clarity on is whether simply removing the amount of subcut from the assessment and leaving the rest of the funding as is was considered? I think many who have already paid assessments would consider this acceptable with a sense that households are still carrying the same cost of the linear feet of road reconstruction except when subsoil was a challenge. I think based on the past assessment policy, people would expect that people who choose to live in less dense areas would pay a higher amount based on a somewhat consistent rate of linear feet of roadway. Screen Name Redacted 1/11/2021 11:26 AM My understanding is that street assessments are calculated on the total property assessed value and don't take into consideration the distinction between improvement value and land value. If that is in fact correct, I would suggest assessing the tax in a pro-ratable manner consistent with the improvement value of the property paying the assessed tax as being the most equitable outcome. While assessments are already based on a percentage of the overall property value, the value of the improvement itself is not always weighed in conjunction with the special assessment itself. Logically, larger parcels are worth more as are larger improvements and as such, the assessment they pay should be greater. But if the total assessed value is the overall calculating factor with no consideration to the AS IS value and utilization of the improvement upon it, then I think the assessments can be inequitably skewed in certain circumstances. For example, if Property A is a 10000 sq ft lot with a tax assessed value of $400k and an improvement value of $175k, and Property B is a 7000 sq ft lot with a tax assessed value of $200k and an improvement value of $375k, assuming otherwise comparable lots and street frontage, but for the size, the value of the street improvement is going to have a more significant impact on the improvement value of Property B, but a more substantial cost in relation to the improvement value of Property A. Arguably, the street improvement has somewhat less significance in relation to the benefit for Property A than it does Property B. In the above example, the special assessment could be levied at an equal rate based on land value, but then pro-rated to account for a different rate in relation to improvement value, with a forgivable balance if the property owner of Property A does not undertake any major Feedback Form : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 20 January 2021 Page 43 of 51 improvements on the property within the assessment period. If a property with a pro-rated tax assessment is sold, either the prorated balance can be paid at closing with the forgivable balance following the property for the duration of the assessment period, or negotiated to be assumed or paid by the new owner with the same restriction: if the new owner undertakes any major improvements, the un-prorated balance becomes due and payable prior to assessment period expiring. Taxation, in general, should be uniform and in accordance with the benefit directly received by the tax payer. To increase the indirect tax on all tax payers in a community for a benefit they won't directly realize, is the opposite of equitable and arguably unlawful. For this reason, I would completely object to Option 2 where all the street costs are paid with city taxes. I would also object to Option 1 with an overall indiscriminate 50% of the cost be paid by city taxes for the same reason, as I don't find the argument behind that reasonable or supported, because then ultimately we are increasing the tax burden on all residents, most likely those with smaller lots covering a difference for those with larger, more valuable lots, which affects the lower value properties more negatively and inequitably as the burden ultimately becomes greater on them. However, realizing that there are instances of higher cost street improvements on certain parcels vs. other parcels as noted in the above example, I would be open to considering that the forgivable portion of an assessment on lower valued improved properties after the assessment period expires, be transferred back to the city and paid with city taxes at that juncture. In this proposed scenario, albeit more complicated for assessing and collection purposes, the increase in overall city taxes would presumably be less in the long run, but it still provides for a reduction and more equitable distribution of the higher cost incurred by some properties overall. I'm not sure what savings the above consideration might actually result in, and perhaps it would be so nominal that it wouldn't be worthwhile, but if it would result in significant tax payer savings, then I think it's worth entertaining as the most equitable outcome. Screen Name Redacted 1/11/2021 06:05 PM I think homeowners can provide funding for repaving streets - accessment should be spread out over 10 years. City should bear the cost of all infrastructure improvements which might be made at the time the street is redone like: waste sewer, rain sewer, water and other utilities under the street. When streets are redone if practical all power should move underground to reduce damage to power lines etc... Screen Name Redacted 1/12/2021 09:26 AM When assessing property taxes, consider those that have paid or are paying assessments to have a "break" in property taxes vs others who have not had to shoulder the assessment fee!!! Screen Name Redacted 1/12/2021 01:28 PM WElive on 58th Street. Will your recommendation be retroactive, as we have not been assessed yet. Screen Name Redacted 1/12/2021 01:43 PM Street Funding Task Force January 12, 2021 City of Edina Ladies and Gentlemen: We have been reviewing the Street Funding Task Force questions and answers and find several issues on which to comment. We are Feedback Form : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 20 January 2021 Page 44 of 51 owners (since 1968) who experienced the previous assessments for street improvements (circa 1970+) at a time when the old assessment policy was in effect. As we own a corner lot, we at that time had to pay 133% of the assessments of similar sized lots which we considered to be grossly unfair, with protests ignored. However we were assured that the street assessment was a one-time cost item. All future street improvements would be paid by general taxation. . At some time following, the City Council made the decision that property owners would be assessed for street improvements/replacement. About that time the streets in the Country Club Addition were to be improved/replaced and the owners would be assessed. A protest ensued and it was said, at the time, that the City paid the cost without assessments. We are whole heartedly in support of city wide taxation for future street improvements since by virtue of residence wherever the location; we all use city streets for one purpose or other. Our reasoning for this opinion follows. 1. Rebuilding streets does not necessarily mean that the assessments increase a property value equal to the assessment. We concur with the Task Force on this conclusion. 2. The inequity of assessments generally comes from existing owners who pay the cost of the improvement assessments at the time of a property sale. The assessments then become a bargaining point, often effectively reducing a net sale to the existing owner and thereby negating the theory of property value improvement. 3. Short term single family residential property owners, multiple family property renters, condominium owners, and commercial/industrial tenants all depend on the use of streets. Annual payment of property taxes for street improvements, do not allow those residents and street users to escape from street maintenance contribution. Commercial/industrial, and multifamily tenants, in one way or other in periodic rentals are then required to pay equally the cost of street maintenance. 4. General Taxation for street maintenance and replacement by the City requires all resident street users to contribute to the cost of maintenance. This is basically no different than paying a pro rata share of the cost of general operating expenses. A concern is that the taxes collected for street maintenance might be considered a general fund item without designation and then used for other purposes. This tax allotment should be designated for the specific function. The issue of equity for residence owners who have already paid assessments in full may possibly be addressed in the following manner. With computer records, or by resident application, identification should not be difficult. 1. We are of the opinion the number of residents falling into this category are few and could easily be identified by assessed properties. A process of refund for property assessed owners still in ownership, without interest, is a possibility except for normal annual installments if paid through property taxes. Previous installments would be considered a use tax. 2. Residents currently paying assessments in annual installments could receive an assumption of all future assessment payments by the City without refunds of previously paid installments which would be considered a use tax 3. Recognizing the need for capital to assume prior assessments, The City might have to collect larger tax payments for one or two years, or defer some future projects by one or Feedback Form : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 20 January 2021 Page 45 of 51 two years. Berge and JoAnn Hansen 5120 West 58th Street Edina, MN 55436 Cell Phone 612-201-9575 bergehhansen@gmail.com Screen Name Redacted 1/12/2021 07:43 PM I do feel bad for those Edina residents that have paid special assessments in the past few years, but I am very glad the city/task force is making a change now. Putting 100% on the special assessments that seemed to keep getting higher and higher each time seemed quite burdensome. This new policy decision affects us all. High value homes, low value homes, big lots, small lots...however I strongly believe that not ALL expenses should be taxed. The neighborhoods with special assessments will benefit more, thus they should pay 50% (or some other percentage). Eventually each street/neighborhood will have it's share. Screen Name Redacted 1/13/2021 07:56 AM I do not believe it is fair to the residents, including myself who had to pay 100% of our reconstruction. I believe the residents who have not had to pay for their own reconstruction should have to pay their fair share. We were assessed for our roads that were based on future use, even though Interlachen Country Club was on the one who drove wear and tear to the streets based on historical use. That wasn’t fair either. Screen Name Redacted 1/13/2021 09:37 AM Remove the subcut costs from the assessments and continue assessing the property owners for 100% of the remaining costs. Screen Name Redacted 1/14/2021 11:46 AM We have already paid for our street reconstructions in the past 5 years. We hope we do not have to pay for other peoples' street constructions. Screen Name Redacted 1/14/2021 02:32 PM Why not credit the assessment plus given rate of interest (3.25% October 2017) to the utility bill for the properties impacted by assessments. Yes, this will raise everyone’s utility rates but it will be no different than the increase to everyone’s property taxes to support future road improvements. To help resolve the stress and anxiety caused by this issue, neighborhoods paying road improvement assessments should have snow plowing/salting prior to all other streets in the city, including those of the mayor and town council. Start with 2021 assessments and work backwards to the early 2000s to set the priority. Once these neighborhoods are snow free, the roads department may begin plowing the remainder of the city. Subsequent plowing will also occur in this order. We paid more, we should receive more services. This has been very stressful, show us some love! Finally, start investigating options to reduce future roadway reconstruction. Are all those trash hauling trucks, recycling trucks and now the organic deposal truck helping us reduce the costs of maintaining our streets? Screen Name Redacted 1/14/2021 08:32 PM I prefer neither of the options. If various residencies with lots that could fit 4 houses in other municipalities are complaining for their roadway construction, how is that our problem? In an age of housing shortages, wouldn't we want to make it easier to subdivide a lot which would allow multiple residences to bear the cost of a special assessment? This is blatantly unfair for people who are paying for other citizens with higher property values and much larger lot sizes to reduce their overall tax liabilities. How has this been fine for 20 years Feedback Form : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 20 January 2021 Page 46 of 51 and all of the sudden it's not fair? I read the FAQ's and don't buy it. In my opinion a select few people with large lot sizes are complaining because they have more of their individual roadway to bear the cost. How can municipal governments carve out special tax incentives for businesses or sections of commercial districts but not make accommodations for certain residential sections? Would it not be feasible to provide a reimbursement of property taxes paid for residential addresses that had already had a special assessment? If it's easy enough to tax citizens on residential roadways that they'll drive on then it has to be easy to provide some form of credit or reimbursement. Screen Name Redacted 1/15/2021 09:35 AM When you aren't able to retroactively refund an assessment, you have basically made any option not fair. I was financially strapped with my assessment, which was higher than most of the previous years. I am still paying for it. Why does someone now get to have their assessment halved or totally paid for by me. Neither option is fair to all past residents who have had to pay for their streets! Screen Name Redacted 1/15/2021 09:46 AM None. Glad we're getting to it now, but Option 2 should have been implemented a long time ago. Screen Name Redacted 1/16/2021 01:14 PM Yes, the status quo which is to require those that are impacted/benefited by reconstruction to be required to pay their share of that. I'm directly impacted, but do not think it is equitable or fair for people in other areas of Edina to have to fund these projects. Let's think with common sense. Screen Name Redacted 1/16/2021 01:18 PM There should no change in the tax assessments. Everyone should pay whatever it costs for their portion of the road construction whether it be $30,000 or $60,000. Those people have lives most of us can only dream about. Their land is worth millions, in many cases, and there is no reason that the rest of us should subsidize their lifestyle. We are so tired of the entitlement mentality. Now we are being asked to subsidize these people. Our assessment was $13,000, but the real cost to us was more like $20,000 with everything we had to fix after the city refused to pay for much of what they damaged in the process. The airborne spores, from the digging, ruined the stain on the house. It was full of black mold all over the outside. That alone cost 4500.00 to repaint. We had to pay to have our driveway put back to the original state since the city balked at the 3200.00 cost. They only covered 1800.00. We had to pay for sod and sprinkler parts since the city only wanted to spray seed and not put in the same Toro parts we had. That was about $1000.00. The construction loosened all the top stones on our walls. We had to dig up our Lilies to protect them, only to have a contractor dump all their toxic chemicals where the Lilies needed to be replanted. We caught him in the act and reported it to the city. Mohammed came and cleaned out a lot of it. These people with all their land won't have the same impact on their houses. They are often much farther from the street, so I fail to see how $30,000 is too much for them to pay. There should be a 3rd option for question 7, no change at all. You claim you cannot refund those of Feedback Form : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 20 January 2021 Page 47 of 51 us that have already paid our assessments. Then any changes should be a nonstarter. In the future people should be taxed on the value of their land. That is the fair way to do assessments. Rich people should not be subsidized. Screen Name Redacted 1/16/2021 02:28 PM Yes, definitely. For those areas that have not had been assessed, a special taxing district should be created, and the cost of the road repairs be assessed in those areas - not with assessments but with a special tax. 100% of the costs should assessed in those areas. It would be less than actual assessments, and have the benefit of assessing the road costs equally among all residents who live in Edina, even for short periods of time. Someone complained that they had lived in Edina for 30 years, and people had come and gone and never had to pay for the roads, and now if you live in Edina in one particular time, you get a big assessment. As for the assessed areas, those areas would be added to the special tax district at the end of the of their 16 year periods, and begin contributing to the special tax. Asking assessed homeowners to pay 100% of their assessment AND additional taxes to pay for other neighbors road is manifestly unfair. I will answer #7 below as Option 1, but I don't think either option is fair. Screen Name Redacted 1/17/2021 09:11 AM Edina is seeing massive turnover as our residents age and sell and expand their homes. This evolution & growth could be used to finance part of the roadway modernization efforts. There are several ways to raise revenue that could be earmarked for public roadway improvements. 1) create zones perhaps based on neighborhood boundaries and collect revenue to offset future repair and reconstruction costs in that zone 2) increase fees for new or modified curb cuts, driveways, utility lines that access City roadways 3a) use general fund monies to prepare preliminary plans for future road/curb/ sidewalk layout 3b) require developers/homeowners to install new curb, gutter, sidewalks etc. on the property when homes are torn down and rebuilt or when they are remodeled at more than 50% of value 4) implement a 'tear down' tax to support improved roads that serve this new generation of families 5) obtain state approval to apply a small tax/fee (0.5% to 1.0%) to real estate sales and earmark those new fees to maintain and improve public roadways 6) have City general fund pay for ALL extra-ordinary costs (major retaining walls, bridges, bike trails, etc) but have local property owners pay for street reconstruction In November 2020, our family paid to have our streets rebuilt. This was a fair investment in our property. When we moved to Edina, we were aware of the street assessment policy and chose to purchase a home in a neighborhood that we loved and was affordable to us. It seems extremely unfair to basically make our family pay twice. We urge the City Council to think about other creative ways to provide safe streets in a fair and equitable manner. Screen Name Redacted 1/17/2021 02:09 PM An additional way to mitigate the cost of street reconstruction is reducing the actual cost, but the process of arriving at the cost of road repair is nontransparent. How extensive is the City's evaluation for competitive bidding? Does the City primarily work with 1 service provider? Note regarding the transition period: Long transition periods of 8, 10, and 16 years are Feedback Form : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 20 January 2021 Page 48 of 51 postponing the inevitable. The transition period should be short enough to leave no doubt that the new funding mechanism will be 100% in place whenever the next round of assessments takes place. Screen Name Redacted 1/17/2021 06:58 PM 1) Assessing home owners disadvantages households of average or below incomes. Retirees and those on fixed incomes are especially hard hit. If it is a property tax, folks have a chance of recouping some funds back on their Property Tax Refund. 2)When I was assessed for Wooddale years ago the terms of the assessment were horrible. You could pay it all up front or extend it out with interest. There was no prepayment option. I financed it elsewhere to pay in advance rather than agree to those hideous terms. 3) Streets are used by many folks not just those that live on the street. They are a public good and should be paid for by the public. Screen Name Redacted 1/18/2021 06:22 PM Street funding methods should have been brought up before construction began 14 years ago, and not change after half the streets have been redone and property owners on them have paid 100% of the cost. We view the 50% proposal as unfair, and the 100% proposal as grossly unfair, to those of us who have already been assessed and paid the assessment. Screen Name Redacted 1/18/2021 08:32 PM --Do not assess those residents who have already paid for their street reconstruction...only spread the cost to those 50% who still need to have reconstruction done...or, do a "higher percent" for those residents who need to have the road reconstruction done vs those residents who have already paid.for their road reconstruction.. --Also, set a maximum that a resident can be assessed...for example $10,000 or $15,000, or $20,000...above that seems excessively high to the respective resident...especially if a resident is retired and on a "fixed income"....I am confident very few residents budget for this cost/expenditure. --I feel very strongly that it is inappropriate and inequitable to spread this over 16 years...that is too long and is has very little benefit to those residents who have their road reconstruction done over the next 5 years or so Screen Name Redacted 1/18/2021 09:00 PM Thank you to the task force and staff for this difficult project. No doubt many options have been explored. I do wish there was a clear-cut best answer and I just wonder if scenarios have been considered from outside the state of Minnesota? Could there be another hybrid that has yet to be considered? Given the two options presented and given that some residents are already paying 100%, it seems like the most equitable of the two options is #1. That said, I'm wondering if after all Edina streets have gone through replacement, if moving towards option #2 (100% city tax) would be the best long-term solution. It's my understanding that the proposed new tax would be a property tax levy which currently is allowed as an income tax deduction (in most cases, depending upon tax filing status). Assessments, however, can't be deducted. So, in theory, there is more benefit to property owners in option#2--at least eventually. For now, however, option #1 may be the way to go. Good luck, city council, with this decision! Screen Name Redacted 1/19/2021 08:15 AM Special benefit must be the controlling consideration in setting special assessments. The city can assess 100% of project costs, up to the special Feedback Form : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 20 January 2021 Page 49 of 51 benefit amount. The starting place is a fair, accepted, best practice method for determining special benefit. One option is having representative appraisals done for projects and setting the assessment at no more than the lowest special benefit. This makes assessments uniform. The controlling consideration for the 50% recommendation is project cost, not special benefit. The hope is it would put the assessment within the ballpark of special benefit if special benefit were actually determined by an accepted method. It is as arbitrary as 60% or 40%. The fact that about 50% of streets have been reconstructed is beside the point. Again, the controlling consideration is setting assessments must be special benefit, not whether people were untreated unfairly in the past. Question 4 required an answer. I do not support any phase in. The option of no phase in was not provided and so answers to this question will not capture those who share this view. Question 7 required an answer. I chose option 2 but support what I said above, which is that the city can assess 100% (or any %) of project costs UP TO the special benefit amount. I thank the task force, staff and consultants for the time they put into this project. I am not confident the council will choose a course of action that I support. The concern about "fairness" to those who have paid special assessments in the past has been too primary in this process. Council members who levied excessive assessments are unlikely to say "I'm sorry. We were wrong. We over-assessed some (most) of you, knowing you weren't likely to fight it and the city needed the revenue. Now, we're worried some of you are getting savvy and successful challenges seem more likely. We've been told we need to make a change. We know it doesn't seem fair, but it's not fair to continue to over-assess residents. It wasn't fair of us to over-assess you. We take full responsibility and we're sorry." Screen Name Redacted 1/19/2021 09:36 AM Increase city sales taxes Optional question (212 response(s), 101 skipped) Question type: Essay Question Feedback Form : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 20 January 2021 Page 50 of 51 Q14 This is not a vote, but a way to gauge the general preference between the two options the Task Force has recommended. What option would be your preference? 183 (58.5%) 183 (58.5%) 130 (41.5%) 130 (41.5%) Option 2: All (or 100%) of the street reconstruction paid for with city taxes Option 1: Half (or 50%) of the street reconstruction paid for by special assessments and the other half (or 50%) paid for with city taxes Question options Mandatory Question (313 response(s)) Question type: Radio Button Question Feedback Form : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 20 January 2021 Page 51 of 51 I Appendix H: Emails Received Feedback 1 Liz Moore From:MJ Lamon Sent:Tuesday, January 12, 2021 9:40 AM To: Cc:; Chad Millner Subject:RE: Street Reconstruction Proposal Hello , I received your email and have shared with the Engineering department. MJ MJ Lamon, Community Engagement Coordinator 952‐826‐0360 | Fax 952‐826‐0390 MLamon@EdinaMN.gov | EdinaMN.gov Stay informed about the City's response to COVID‐19 at EdinaMN.gov/Coronavirus. Need a hand or want to help? Visit BetterTogetherEdina.org/COVID‐19. Share your thoughts and ideas with the City online! Visit www.BetterTogetherEdina.org. ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: < Sent: Thursday, January 7, 2021 6:10 PM To: MJ Lamon <MLamon@EdinaMN.gov> Cc: < Subject: Street Reconstruction Proposal EXTERNAL EMAIL ALERT: This email originated from outside the City of Edina. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I have comments but could not find how to include them in the survey, so I am sending them directly. First, Option 1 proposes 50% be assessed. I assume this means to the adjacent properties. Second, under both Options basically the same amount of funds needs to be spend, although some timing differences will occur. a. If bonding will be required, Option 2, 100% City Funds, will incur greater expense for underwriting and placing the bids. b. I like Option 1, if operating expenses can be reduced sufficiently to cover some or all of the up front 50%. It may require some “nice to have” items on the Capital Improvement Plan to be deferred or eliminated. c. Assuming operating expenses can not be reduced enough to provide funding for either Option, then the City needs to increase taxes. This can hurt 2 groups in Edina: 1) Senior Citizens, not all, on fixed income, and 2) Affordable Housing…any increase in Housing Expense makes these unit more difficult to develop. Final observations ‐ a. “Means Test” should be considered. Possibly credit homes valued at $XXX,XXX or less to off set the increase in real estate taxes due to their road reconstruction. 2 b. Streets benefit more than just the adjacent property which is why I favor Option 1. Share the benefit and share the expense. I think I incorrectly marked my survey. Please change to Option 1. PS ‐ please acknowledge receipt, thanks. 1 Liz Moore From:Chad Millner Sent:Thursday, January 14, 2021 1:07 PM To: Subject:RE: Street Reconstruction Funding Meeting Response Before 1-19-2021 Thanks you the email. I will add it to our correspondence. Have you visited the project site and submitted a feedback form? https://www.bettertogetheredina.org/street‐funding‐task‐force Thanks, Chad Chad Millner, Director of Engineering 952-826-0318 | Fax 952-826-0392 7450 Metro Blvd. | Edina, MN 55439 cmillner@EdinaMN.gov | EdinaMN.gov Stay informed about the City’s response to COVID-19 at EdinaMN.gov/Coronavirus. Need a hand or want to help? Visit BetterTogetherEdina.org/COVID-19. Share your thoughts and ideas with the City online! Visit www.BetterTogetherEdina.org. From: < Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2021 12:59 PM To: Chad Millner <cmillner@EdinaMN.gov> Subject: Street Reconstruction Funding Meeting Response Before 1‐19‐2021 EXTERNAL EMAIL ALERT: This email originated from outside the City of Edina. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello Chad, I am sending you our thoughts on your upcoming meeting, asking for residents' input on any changes that might be made. Below, I am copying the City of Edina's email, so you are sure of what I am addressing. and I live on the corner of . Our streets were reconstructed over a few years, one street in 2015 and the other street in 2017. Since we are on the corner, we were under construction for a few years. We are retired and on a fixed income. We did pay for our assessments in full. Approximately 13,000. Of course, we do not want to pay for other folks' streets being reconstructed. Please consider that we certainly do not want to be taxed more or pay for anyone else's responsibility. Here is what the City's email stated: "Option 1: Half (50 percent) of the street reconstruction paid for by special assessments and the other 50 percent paid with municipal taxes. Option 2: All (100 percent) of the street reconstruction paid for with municipal taxes. The Council might approve one of the options or continue the current special assessment policy. If the City Council approves a change, the task force recommends the preferred option be phased in." 2 I hope that by taking the time to send this email, our concerns will be taken into consideration. Thank You, Chad! 1 Liz Moore From:Chad Millner Sent:Thursday, January 14, 2021 1:42 PM To: Subject:Future Street Funding Thanks for your comments noted below. I will include them with the rest of the communications on this matter. Thanks, Chad Chad Millner, Director of Engineering 952-826-0318 | Fax 952-826-0392 7450 Metro Blvd. | Edina, MN 55439 cmillner@EdinaMN.gov | EdinaMN.gov Stay informed about the City’s response to COVID-19 at EdinaMN.gov/Coronavirus. Need a hand or want to help? Visit BetterTogetherEdina.org/COVID-19. Share your thoughts and ideas with the City online! Visit www.BetterTogetherEdina.org. From: Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2021 1:19 PM To: Edina Mail <mail@EdinaMN.gov> Subject: Alternatives for for Future Street Funding EXTERNAL EMAIL ALERT: This email originated from outside the City of Edina. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Greetings to whom it may concern, Since I have been unable to access the Better Together Edina website, I wanted to relay this way, my thoughts about future street funding. Option 1: Half of the street reconstruction paid for by special assessments and the other half paid with municipal taxes is a viable option. My husband and I have resided in Edina a bit over one year. It was a struggle to find a "retirement" style home that didn't have a street reconstruction assessment with a hefty price tag. As my husband and I were searching for a home, we noted numerous streets in Edina in need of repair, but the cost to residents bordered on prohibitive. Other cities have lesser expensive alternatives for their residents. Fortunately, for us, we did not purchase a home with a street repair assessment. I would appreciate your forwarding this information to the staff working on this issue. Thank‐you. Sincerely, Edina 1 Liz Moore From: Sent:Tuesday, January 19, 2021 3:22 PM To:jhovland@hovlandrasmus.com; James Hovland; James Pierce; Carolyn Jackson; Kevin Staunton; Ron Anderson; Scott H. Neal; Jennifer Bennerotte; Chad Millner Subject:Edina Street Reconstruction feedback EXTERNAL EMAIL ALERT: This email originated from outside the City of Edina. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mayor Hovland and members of Council On 12/21/2020 I received an email asking me to provide feedback on the funding for street reconstruction "through Tue. Jan 19". I took this to mean through the close of business. This afternoon I discovered that the feedback form had been closed at noon. Why is this? This gives the appearance of the time being improperly described or changed, and with no notice to the residents. For what its worth, the City embarked on the current financing program and should continue to do so. To do otherwise is manifestly unfair to the residents who have already paid for the reconstruction of their streets. To change the system now is an admission of the complete lack of foresight at the outset, and to identify and manage the risks involved. When did the current program of street reconstruction start? If I had to pick between the two options which were presented (we were not told if and what others were discussed), I would reluctantly choose the 50% option as the lesser of two evils. Please also consider this letter as a formal request for information about the reconstruction of the 5400 and 5500 blocks of Kellogg Avenue, and the 5400 and 5500 blocks of Oaklawn Avenue in Minnehaha Woods. The streets were reconstructed in about 2013. They continue to settle and crack. Please address three questions: 1. Why is the settlement and cracking taking place? 2. How and when is the City of Edina going to repair the streets? 3. Who is going to pay for any street repairs? I should also point out that Chad Millner, the City Engineer, worked as a site engineer on the project, having been working directly or indirectly for S.E.H. at that time. I leave it to you to decide who should perform any assessment. Thank you and sincerely tel cc. S. Neal, City Manager J. Bennerotte, City of Edina C. Millner, City Engineer 1 Liz Moore From: Sent:Tuesday, January 19, 2021 4:48 PM To:Chad Millner Cc:MJ Lamon Subject:Re: Your question on Street Funding Task Force EXTERNAL EMAIL ALERT: This email originated from outside the City of Edina. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Chad, I was going to fill the feed back page (this afternoon at 4:45) but it came back telling me: CLOSED: This survey has concluded. The text I read said feedback would be taken through January 19. I’m sending this note because I want to be sure that my comments submitted in the Q & A part of the bettertogetheredina page are considered. I received this email below with my comments which I forward to you. Thank you for all the good work done by you and your team. On Jan 19, 2021, at 4:40 PM, Better Together Edina <notifications@engagementhq.com> wrote: Better Together Edina Hi Thank you for your question on Street Funding Task Force. Feedback / Question re Edina Street funding options. Why did City of Edina set up street replacement project ( ~ 12 years back? ) with adjacent home owners participating in the funding? I think it would be helpful to know this reasoning as we consider other options. In my inquiry with another professional involved in this field of municipal roads. I am told that it is not common for owners of adjacent properties to 2 be assessed for the cost of street replacement. I’m told it is most common that this cost is usually payed by city funds. City funds of course supported with property taxes of all property owners. Whether this is true or not I think it would be helpful to learn what it was that caused our city of Edina to implement this plan of having adjacent property owners participate in funding major street replacement. We are now hearing reasons why adjacent property owners don’t want to pay - what were the reasons that our city decided to have them pay when this whole effort of street replacement began? 2) How do other successful cities our size handle this issue and why? There are may cities similar to Edina across the country, and professional organizations involved in sharing experiences and good policy ideas. There are progressive and conservative organizations and I think it is important that we consider input from both. The working group has likely researched this topic with other cities and these organizations and I am likely remiss in not seeing it among group’s supporting documents but if not, we don’t need to reinvent the wheel, we can learn a lot from the experiences of other cities. i.e. what is it about cities like Minneapolis that the causes the quality of their streets to be so poor, or what policies are implemented by other cities that causes the quality of their streets to be so well maintained. 3) With the proposed 16 year phase in and the map showing street replacement projects for only the next at most 4 or 5 years, property owners will continue to pay some through out the rest completion of the street repair project - we will address again in 50 years. Respectfully submitted We aim to get back to you as soon as possible with a response. Thank you, City of Edina Other projects that might interest you Public Hearing: Right of Way Vacation - 5932 Abbott Avenue South An application was received on November 30, 2020 from Bellin Construction, requesting that the... View Project Bright Lights Edina 'Tis the season to brighten up the night!Despite the challenges of 2020, the Edina community... View Project COVID-19 Virtual Memorial Wall Behind every COVID-19 statistic is a person. Someone's grandfather. Your favorite teacher from... View Project 3 View all projects You are receiving this email because you participated on Better Together Edina. Powered by EngagementHQ 1 Liz Moore From:Edina Mail Sent:Tuesday, January 19, 2021 8:36 AM To:Chad Millner Subject:FW: Proposal to allocate the road improvements Hi Chad, I did forward this email to council but wanted to make sure you had this for this deadline and your possible reply to resident. Lynette Biunno, Receptionist 952‐927‐8861 | Fax 952‐826‐0389 lbiunno@EdinaMN.gov | EdinaMN.gov Stay informed about the City's response to COVID‐19 at EdinaMN.gov/Coronavirus. Need a hand or want to help? Visit BetterTogetherEdina.org/COVID‐19. ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Sent: Monday, January 18, 2021 3:39 PM To: Edina Mail <mail@EdinaMN.gov> Subject: Proposal to allocate the road improvements EXTERNAL EMAIL ALERT: This email originated from outside the City of Edina. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To the Edina City Council: Concerning the proposed change in who pays the cost of the road improvements Around Christmas I read about the committee and their proposal as to how they wanted to allocate the cost of the road improvements in Edina. I read about it in Nextdoor and then briefly on the Edina website. I was kind of busy during this time… I understand, some people have larger lots than others. And because of this, their improvement costs will be greater since the cost is based on their lot size. And it sounds as if they have already hired an attorney to litigate their grievances.This is a concern going forward. And so the ideas are that the cost either totally comes out of our taxes or partially, 50%, comes out of our city taxes. So, either way, I would be paying for their improvements. I’m sorry, I am still paying for my road improvements! I’m at a loss as to why I should pay for theirs, just because their lot line is larger. And the question seems to be if the improvements would increase their property value. No one asked us if there would be an improvement to our property value when our road work was done.. And I believe our street also hired an attorney because we were upset that the road width was being decreased by 3’. There was a petition signed by all the neighbors asking that this not be done; but it was. Still is annoying. Anyway, to the point. No, I do not want to pay for someone elses’ road improvement costs. I don’t believe they helped pay for mine. 2 Finally, I know you have a 5 or 10 year plan as to when and how this construction is going to take place. But I would ask you to STOP and take a look at things. There is a pandemic going on! There are many people who have lost their jobs and are trying to pay their mortgages, stay in their homes and pay their taxes. In Edina! This is not the time to say, oh, these people feel they are being charged too much and they want our help. Doesn’t sit well. Please think about this! Perhaps delay this work a year and think very carefully what you are asking for in the future. Sincerely, 1 Liz Moore From:MJ Lamon Sent:Tuesday, January 19, 2021 8:52 AM To: Cc:Chad Millner Subject:RE: Email in response to the proposed change in Edina street assessments. Hello Confirming I received this email. Passing it to Engineering. MJ MJ Lamon, Community Engagement Coordinator 952-826-0360 | Fax 952-826-0390 MLamon@EdinaMN.gov | EdinaMN.gov Stay informed about the City’s response to COVID-19 at EdinaMN.gov/Coronavirus. Need a hand or want to help? Visit BetterTogetherEdina.org/COVID-19. Share your thoughts and ideas with the City online! Visit www.BetterTogetherEdina.org. From: Sent: Monday, January 18, 2021 4:16 PM To: MJ Lamon <MLamon@EdinaMN.gov> Subject: Email in response to the proposed change in Edina street assessments. EXTERNAL EMAIL ALERT: This email originated from outside the City of Edina. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. The task force for Edina street assessment has shared information,, but more information is needed to make an informed decision. An example is: “In order to do so, the assessed properties need to see a benefit in their property values equal to or greater than the assessment.” How is this statement measured? According to the Comprehensive Housing Market Analysis For The City of Edina, Minnesota: The Edina home resale price was lowest in 2011 when it decreased to $339,900. Between 2011 and 2017, the median resale value increased 30% ($102,725). The median home resale value in 2018 was $440,500, a decrease of -0.5% from 2017 ($443,625). Through September 30, 2019, the median resale price was $465,000, an increase of 5.6% from 2018 ($440,500). Can street improvements only be done then when property values are rising? That would make some of us now go back and see if our assessed value has added value to our home? The Prospect Knolls neighborhood is not an example I would have chosen to make my point if I was on the task force. According to Zillow and Realtor.com The single family homes currently for sale are asking 1,850,000, 2,395,000 and 2,725,000. Home prices do not need to increase but barely 2% to cover the 30,000 mentioned by the City Council (That they are NOT COMFORTABLE WITH) The task force mentions the percentage of people who pay upfront, early, and the 15 year plan, but does not mention what portion of Edina residents are currently paying assessments on their own properties. Also according to the Comprehensive Housing Market Analysis For The City of Edina, Minnesota Of Edina’s owner households, 22% are cost burdened (pay 30% or more of their income for housing costs). Most owner households that are cost-burdened are age 65 or older. The proportion of cost burdened owner households in Edina (22%) is higher than the Twin Cities Metro Area (20%) and Remainder of the PMA (17%). The Task Forces Vision Statement is to develop a funding solution that is: 1. 2. 3. viewed by a plurality of residents as equitable, 2 4. 5. 6. 7. able to maintain Edina's roadways to the City's standard, and 8. 9. 10. 11. financially and legally sustainable. 12. 1.Unfortunately you pointed out that legally the city can not alter assessments which are in progress which makes an equitable solution unattainable. The 2 choices: pay for all or pay for ½. Both are unequitable especially to the 22% stated above that also deserve the task force’s consideration. The fact that some people may be financially hurt by your decision makes me uncomfortable. 2. Of course, we all want our roadways maintained. Maybe the task force needs to think of a creative way to accomplish this. ½ or all is this the best we can do? 3. More information is needed I hope more information will be forthcoming for the citizens of Edina before the City Council votes. E-MAIL CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The contents of this e-mail message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, copying, or storage of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. 1 Liz Moore From: Sent:Tuesday, January 19, 2021 11:55 PM To:Chad Millner Subject:Street Funding Task Force input Attachments:Informational Sheet_Maple Road to White Oaks_Early 2003.pdf; 2004-10-19_COUNCIL PACKET_Street Recon_Maple to White Oaks, pp.29-41.pdf EXTERNAL EMAIL ALERT: This email originated from outside the City of Edina. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Chad, I entered a Q&A on Jan 8 regarding final date for input. After submitting that, I found the answer in the FAQ section: “Comments and questions are being collected on this page through Tuesday, Jan. 19” 2 So, I read about it more, and considered the material. This evening, I went back and found that the BT feedback form is closed, and that a different, earlier deadline was stated as noon on Jan 19. And now I see that there are more pieces of info that have been posted. So it goes. Since my understanding from the FAQ was that I had the entire day, I am submitting some comments to you via this email. The info at BT seemed a bit scattered, so it was a little hard to work through, like there were too many places to have to look in order to try to piece things together. First, under the tab “Learn About the Project”, Heading: “Fairness and Tax Impacts”, Para 2, Sentence 4: “The current policy that assesses 100% of the costs was adopted by council in the early 2000's.” My response: I don’t believe that is correct. I don’t think it was new in the 2000’s. I seem to recall complaints about the assessment back then, and that the City Council was reluctant to examine alternatives, I seem to recall that it was because that’s the way it Edina had always done it, and the Council had the same concerns then, that have continued since then, about fairness to properties assessed in the past. It seems to me that in the Maple Road to White Oaks project in 2003—which included 49th Street among others— was the first in which any amount of curb and gutter was paid for out of the utility fund instead of through the special assessment. I live on the corner of 49th and France, so I was part of that project. See attached PDF: Informational Sheet_Maple Road to White Oaks_Early 2003 You can see in Para. 1, that White Oaks Road and Meadow Road had opted out of any curb and gutter at the very beginning of the project planning process, and that curb and gutter was going to be added to Maple Road. The project was completed in 2003. See attached PDF: 2004‐10‐19_COUNCIL PACKET_Street Recon_Maple to White Oaks, pp.29‐41 Oct 19, 2004 was the Assessment Hearing. In this PDF is the spreadsheet which broke down the assessment components by address, and the components additional to the base assessment were apportioned only against the applicable properties (Street lights; curb and gutter). You can see that the only properties being assessed for curb and gutter were on Maple Road. The water main used to break periodically on 49th St, down around the low area at the intersection with Townes Road. Local ducks appreciated it! The water main was replaced on 49th St, along with the other utilities, so this meant trenching on both sides of the road. I seem to recall something about the sandy base, that 49th was sand, and maybe something about soil stability combined with the utility work. I have not yet found a specific statement about paying for the 49th St. curb and gutter, but I am quite certain that the decision was made to pay 49th St curb and gutter out of the utility fund. I made that statement in the passive, because I don’t know if it was strictly an Engineering decision, or if the decision was specifically vetted with the City Council (CC). Both sides of 49th got all new curb and gutter, and, as you can see in the assessment spreadsheet, none of the 49th St properties were assessed for it. I could be wrong on some aspect, but this memory would make sense if there was an issue of soil instability + the necessary utility work, such that replacing curb was not due to the quality of any given curb segment, but due to the utility work, so maybe that led to a rationale to pay it out of utilities. 3 After that, my memory was that CC later built on that precedent and formalized the practice. Maybe it had something to do with the high cost of assessments back then! Residents complaining about street recon assessments is nothing new! Or maybe with utility replacements, it just made sense! Maybe a little of both! Recently, when watching a CC video, I saw the CC comment on street funding. I don’t recall which CC meeting it was. Was it a recent meeting? Maybe. I have watched so many, I just don’t know, feeling bug‐eyed. In any case, Mayor Hovland said that he thought the change was made in 2005. That is possible, given the timeline that it would fit into. Our project was completed in 2003, the assessment hearing was late in 2004, so it would make sense if the CC built on the precedent as early as 2005. I hope this info and the attachments are helpful. I am happy to help in any way that I can. Now to move on to some other comments. Regarding the street recon funding, I think we first need to have a firm base to work from, just like a street! Q1: What is that base? A: I think that is the Statutes. The Statutes tell us that the City can assess properties for the work, but that the amount of the assessment is limited. Q2: Does the City want to comply with the Statutes? A: If so (and I cannot answer that, the CC must answer that question), then the City must try to devise its assessments to at least reasonably comply with the Statutes. We know some things about assessments. 1) Many if not most people who have been subjected to a street recon assessment, would have liked for the assessment to be smaller. 2) Residents have complained about the amounts of the assessments for a long time. 3) The assessments have presented a financial hardship for some, but are hardly a blip on the radar for others. Q3: How can the City ensure that it is complying with the Statutes? A: By making sure that the assessments are low enough so that the City is not straddling the line, so to speak. In the case of the White Oaks C project, a subset of the project area residents appealed the assessment to the courts. The City’s own 3rd party appraiser determined a project market value that was less that the assessed amount. The court remanded the case back to the City to reduce the assessment from roughly $24,000 down to $21,000. The City made the adjustment only for those 6 properties which appealed. Either way, that is a lot of “special benefit”, and a very large assessment. One question I have is why the White Oaks C was not combined with the Morningside A. I would like to see some discussion of that. White Oaks C was an incredibly small number of properties, 18 in total, so it just seems odd. Actually, I was surprised back in 2003, that it was not included in our project area. Q3a: Oh, and that is another matter, which is, is the chosen project area large enough? I will leave it at that for now Also, in the judge’s court order, the assessment as a percentage of “average home value” was described, but the Task Force did not delve into the matter in this way. Maybe this could help guide the city? Reading through the White Oaks C materials, it looks like the City’s 3rd party appraiser might be able to contribute a good deal of information to help with this matter. 4 Q4: Is it reasonable to have some amount of citywide tax? Except for those who don’t drive, we all drive/walk/bike on roads for which we were not assessed under the current policy. And most people have family, friends, and service vehicles come to their homes using roads for which the property owner was never assessed. A: So, yes, it is reasonable from this perspective to distribute at least some amount of the cost citywide. Further, the City already distributes some costs across the City, including curb and gutter, and lesser forms of street maintenance (right?). Q5: Again, is it reasonable to have some amount of citywide tax? A: Does the improvement in one project area provide a market value improvement to homes in other areas? If you consider a citywide tax in the abstract, that is to say, if one were to consider a citywide tax as an abstract form of an assessment for the purpose of discussion, what could one say about it? Some areas have no traffic other than within their own neighborhood, or their own street, so it really doesn’t matter to anyone but them as to how bad their roads are. But for the rest of us, I think it is fair to say, that if the nearby roads that we use are in good condition, even if they were not in our project area, it is good for our home’s value. It enhances the quality of life in our own area. Over in Mpls, nearby, there is a stretch of road that is in very poor condition, it is either or both Drew or Chowen between 49th St. and 50th St. With the current snow and ice pack, you can’t clearly view it right now. I am not sure if either one of those roads is paved. I know that in the old days, Mpls just oiled the roads, that was the old‐ timey finish. I am sure some have never been paved, but I don’t know which ones those would be. In any case, if Edina’s roads looked like whichever is the worst of those two stretches, I am pretty confident that it would have a negative impact beyond those particular street portions. I am speculating, but you would have to see the poor road condition to really understand. Q6: Is fairness a primary consideration for the base material, the issue of subcuts? A: I personally don’t think so. I think the issue is the statutes, and getting the assessments comfortably below the project market value to the affected/assessed properties. And, beyond that, nothing prevents the City from further reducing the assessments, right? I don’t recall that the matter of curb and gutter was controversial. It might have been, I might have just missed it. But I just don’t think it was. Maybe there is something in the 2005 records that would clarify this. All I can say is that it was not controversial in our project. Personally, I wish that the City had periodically examined the funding issue, and maybe removed some aspect or percentage from the assessments every 5 years or so. Just think, 2004 is nearly 20 years ago! In reading BT, I was not comfortable with the statement that removing the subcuts ‘might not be enough’. First, if the subcuts are highly variable in cost, then how was the estimation of a 24% assessment reduction made? Second, if it is not enough, then why not, and how much would it take to be compliant? I just did not see the discussion that I would have expected. The suggestion is, that if only the cost of subcuts is removed, that the street recon projects next in line are going to be over‐assessed. Is that correct? Basically, this is just hanging unaddressed. So it is hard to give an opinion about Choice 1 or Choice 2, when the Task Force has not provided the detail as to at what point does the City fall comfortably within the project market value constraint. I think the task force should address this directly. Maybe there is some discomfort in openly addressing it? We have a project waiting, right? In Prospect Knolls. Has that been postponed indefinitely? Is there an upcoming project, or projects, that the task force and the City could examine? I think it is good to consider real examples. In other words, let’s say the City removes subcuts, then does the Prospect Knolls project. Based on whatever historical data the City has accumulated, and whatever the project cost at this point might be estimated at, is the City afraid that Prospect Knolls might still go to court and succeed, or just that someone whom the CC does not want to offend will be angry? If there is a concern that the 24% is not 5 enough, then maybe we should talk more about getting the assessment amount down lower, and sooner. And I want to clarify, that it should not be a matter of fear of being taken to court. I think the City is best positioned if it is sincerely attempting to conform to the project market value constraint. Q7 (a collective of questions): Is it appropriate to include in the street recon assessment, the cost of restoring private property located within the City easement? Could the communal cost of private property restoration be assessed separately from the street recon? In other words, what does the project market value constraint apply to? Does it apply to restorative work, or does it just apply just to the street project itself? It seems to me that it is different. If you are restoring private property, that is fundamentally different from the project market value that might occur when the street itself is reconstructed. I think I read that the Task Force is planning to work more on the matter of private property in the easement, so I just want to offer these questions. Q8: Regarding retaining wall/assessments/citywide tax, are there retaining walls in the City easement that were not installed by the City? I would like to see more info about the status of this matter in Edina. I am thinking of the recent (a few years ago) lawsuit by a nearby resident up on 47th and Drew in Mpls. That case was decided by a jury, which determined that Mpls was responsible for the wall restoration. I am sure you are aware of it. So, for now, I just want to say that I hope this will be discussed in much greater detail in the future when the matter of personal items in the City easement is further explored. Q9: Can the dread of street recon assessments and the financial impact be seen as a Quality of Life issue? A: I think so, not for everyone, but at least for some. As to the Options that the Task Force is weighing, I do like a gradual transition. I like the goal of 50‐50. However, does 16 years get the City where it needs to go soon enough? I would really like this question to be directly answered, and I would like to see some other options laid out. Again, I think that changes should have been made periodically over the years past, and I think that it would be good to periodically examine the issue and make changes going forward. Thanks Chad. Thanks to you and to the Task Force for working on this matter. 1 Liz Moore From:MJ Lamon Sent:Tuesday, January 12, 2021 9:40 AM To: ; Chad Millner Subject:RE: Street Reconstruction Proposal Hello , I received your email and have shared with the Engineering department. MJ MJ Lamon, Community Engagement Coordinator 952‐826‐0360 | Fax 952‐826‐0390 MLamon@EdinaMN.gov | EdinaMN.gov Stay informed about the City's response to COVID‐19 at EdinaMN.gov/Coronavirus. Need a hand or want to help? Visit BetterTogetherEdina.org/COVID‐19. Share your thoughts and ideas with the City online! Visit www.BetterTogetherEdina.org. ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Sent: Thursday, January 7, 2021 6:10 PM To: MJ Lamon <MLamon@EdinaMN.gov> Cc: Subject: Street Reconstruction Proposal EXTERNAL EMAIL ALERT: This email originated from outside the City of Edina. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I have comments but could not find how to include them in the survey, so I am sending them directly. First, Option 1 proposes 50% be assessed. I assume this means to the adjacent properties. Second, under both Options basically the same amount of funds needs to be spend, although some timing differences will occur. a. If bonding will be required, Option 2, 100% City Funds, will incur greater expense for underwriting and placing the bids. b. I like Option 1, if operating expenses can be reduced sufficiently to cover some or all of the up front 50%. It may require some “nice to have” items on the Capital Improvement Plan to be deferred or eliminated. c. Assuming operating expenses can not be reduced enough to provide funding for either Option, then the City needs to increase taxes. This can hurt 2 groups in Edina: 1) Senior Citizens, not all, on fixed income, and 2) Affordable Housing…any increase in Housing Expense makes these unit more difficult to develop. Final observations ‐ a. “Means Test” should be considered. Possibly credit homes valued at $XXX,XXX or less to off set the increase in real estate taxes due to their road reconstruction. 2 b. Streets benefit more than just the adjacent property which is why I favor Option 1. Share the benefit and share the expense. I think I incorrectly marked my survey. Please change to Option 1. PS ‐ please acknowledge receipt, thanks. 1 Liz Moore From: Sent:Tuesday, January 12, 2021 9:16 AM To:Chad Millner Subject:street finance future funding EXTERNAL EMAIL ALERT: This email originated from outside the City of Edina. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Chad Millner, I am writing to comment on the City Council proposals to finance future street funding in Edina that were presented in the january 2021 community flyer sent to city residents. I live on Idylwood Lane in a neighborhood that paid the full assessment costs of reconstruction, $10,800, in 2010. The options presented in the January 2021 community flyer represent a double taxation that is being proposed for me and all others in my neighborhood. The streets involved in the 2010 project extended from Blake Road to Schaefer Road and included: South Knoll Drive Knoll Drive Idylwood Lane Parkwood Road Schaefer Road form Stouder to Westwood Court I, and my neighbors, are therefore seeking an exemption from any additional taxation to fund street projects having already paid the full costs, $10,800, of street reconstruction in our neighborhood. The proposals for funding street projects represents a double taxation and I protest. With kindest regards and best wishes, Street Funding Task Force Better Together Edina Feedback Form It is the Street Funding Task Force charge to provide City Council with recommendations. The Task Force has created two options possible option that the City Council may consider. Before the Task Force submits their final recommendations to the city council, they would like feedback on what option individuals prefer and why. The Task Force may decide to send one or both to Council for consideration. • Option 1: Half (50%) of the street reconstruction paid for by special assessments and the other half (50%) paid with city taxes • Option 2: All (100%) of the street reconstruction paid for with city taxes Reminders: Both options are shown with a 16 year transition period and subcuts will no longer be included as part of the assessment. (Choose any one option) (Required) 0, vo. 61u.L.el ./i 7)/L' .01i g a 744;7 ,ts 1d ell-le a 6 11),e-StA-L-te-A--).aa Page 1 of 3 Have you been assessed for street reconstruction in the past 20 years in Edina? g L11-2-1 t ) zte,, 4e1 zdz424 e-41 (717) ,e4/tttl Street Funding Task Force Better Together Edina Answer this question only if you have chosen Yes for Have you been assessed for street reconstruction in the past 20 years in Edina? What type of property was assessed? (Choose any one option) (Required) pOriesidential q Commercial q Retail q Non-residential Is your property listed in our "Anticipated Roadway Reconstruction Map?" (Choose any one option) (Required) 111 Yes y•No Would you be open to a faster transition (less than 16 yrs) knowing it will decrease special assessments and raise city taxes faster? (Choose any one option) (Required) q Yes 0,2 No Answer this question only if you have chosen Yes for Would you be open to a faster transition (less than 16 yrs) knowing it will decrease special assessments and raise city taxes faster? How many years would you be comfortable with? (Required) Questions 16 years 10 years 8 years 5 years Number of years to transition. The Task Force's vision statement is to develop a funding solution that is: A) viewed by a plurality of residents as equitable, B) is able to maintain Edina's roadways to the City's standard, and C) is financially and legally sustainable. Do you feel vision statement A is achieved in the options? Required) Questions Definitely agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Definitely disagree Option 1 Is equitable. Option 2 is equitable. Note: Option 1: Half (or 50%) of the street teconstruction paid for by special assessments and the other half (or 50%) paid for with city taxes Option 2: All (or 100%) of the street reconstruction paid for with city taxes The task force reviewed funding options including special assessments, city taxes, and franchise fees. They also discussed that approximately half of the streets have been reconstructed and that there is no legal way to refund past assessments. Are there other potential ideas to fund street reconstruction or considerations the Task Force may have missed? -Aeket46,e- A44-) c) Me- " 11/Lee--7? Page 2 of 3 Aettipz-7 0-ed ar-4-€AY Street Funding Task Force Better Together Edina This Is not a vote, but a way to gauge the general preference between the two options the Task Force has recommended. What option would be your preference? (Choose any one option) (Required) ...) ...ErOptIon 1: Half (or 50%) of the street reconstruction paid for by special assessments and the other half (or 50%) paid for with city taxes El Option 2: All (or 100%) of the street reconstruction paid for with city taxes aso to r/t.e J42:24}.4A,Ldi eike LGA ,t ,t )db -2 GG Ljto-tt-- ab--"A- oi-c-1 •7<7 lte4zeevosizi-i-4 s o jil Le_a_J 7 ,0 1 Page 3 of 3 Street Funding Task Force Better Together Edina Feedback Form It is the Street Funding Task Force charge to provide City Council with recommendations. The Task Force has created two options possible option that the City Council may consider. Before the Task Force submits their final recommendations to the city council, they would like feedback on what option individuals prefer and why. The Task Force may decide to send one or both to Council for consideration. • Option 1: Half (50%) of the street reconstruction paid for by special assessments and the other half (50%) paid with city taxes • Option 2: All (100%) of the street reconstruction paid for with city taxes Reminders: Both options are shown with a 16 year transition period and subcuts will no longer be included as part of the assessment. Have you been assessed for street reconstruction in the past 20 years in Edina? (Choose any one option) (Required) 2'lfes r] No Page 1 of 3 OA) ° ''-'110(-)1-, Street Funding Task Force Better Together Edina Answer this question only if you have chosen Yes for Have you been assessed for street reconstruction in the past 20 years in Edina? What type of property was assessed? (Choose any one option) (Required) residential q Commercial q Retail EI Non-residential Is your property listed in our "Anticipated Roadway Reconstruction Map?" (Choose any one option) (Required) q Yes EI115 Would you be open to a faster transition (less than 16 yrs) knowing it will decrease special assessments and raise city taxes faster? (Choose any one option) (Required) q Yes laKlo Answer this question only if you have chosen Yes for Would you be open to a faster transition (less than 16 yrs) knowing it will decrease special assessments and raise city taxes faster? How many years would you be comfortable with? (Required) Questions 16 years 10 years 8 years 5 years Number of years to transition. The Task Force's vision statement is to develop a funding solution that is: A) viewed by a plurality of residents as equitable, B) is able to maintain Edina's roadways to the City's standard, and C) is financially and legally sustainable. Do you feel vision statement A is achieved in the options? Required) Questions Definitely agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Definitely disagree Option 1 is equitable. Option 2 is equitable. 4.•'''" Note: Option 1: Half (or 50%) of the street reconstruction paid for by special assessments and the other half (or 50%) paid for with city taxes Option 2: All (or 100%) of the street reconstruction paid for with city taxes The task force reviewed funding options including special assessments, city taxes, and franchise fees. They also discussed that approximately half of the streets have been reconstructed and that there is no legal way to refund past assessments. Are there other potential ideas to fund street reconstruction or considerations the Task Force may have missed? Page 2 of 3 Street Funding Task Force Better Together Edina This is not a vote, but a way to gauge the general preference between the two options the Task Force has recommended. What option would be your preference? (Choose any one option) (Required) t'L Option is Half (or 50%) of the street reconstruction paid for by special assessments and the other half (or 50%) paid for with city taxes El Option 2: All (or 100%) of the street reconstruction paid for with city taxes 9 d it—c A -I e< S -I c c-i Lae de4 ec 5 it i 4 A,)--, e-ot 64 01' - c / 14:0,1 170 77 AiLyzi-Pd_ 04-51 ,:=297-51 -Art o-t-7-40-d Page 3 of 3 Street Reconstruction in Edina Dear Edina City Street Funding Task Force, Thank you for engaging the community for input on the future of street reconstruction in Edina. From the information provided, it is clear the Edina City Council has thoughtfully considered the complex issue at hand and provided two options for consideration, while omitting the option to retain the current process for funding street reconstruction in Edina. Option 1: Half of the street reconstruction paid for by special assessments and the other half paid with municipal taxes. a. Having half of the street reconstruction paid for by special assessments and the other half paid with municipal taxes appears problematic for the following reasons. i. Many property owners have paid for, or are in the process of paying, assessments imposed under a differing cost schedule. What will be done for property owners have already paid assessments at an incrementally different rate? ii. It appears this change could potentially result in higher taxes or corresponding cuts in services both of which are issues worthy of thoughtful consideration and discussion. iii. The proposed 50% special assessment benefiting primarily the owners of large lots doesn’t seem quite fair to the rest of the city with modest sized lots. It doesn’t seem inherently unfair that residents with larger lots should pay more given the larger size of their frontage just as a larger house often cost more than a smaller house. Additionally, although the cost cited (e.g. ~$30,000.00) may seem eye popping at first glance one must keep in mind that these costs will be amortized along a substantial timeline at a low interest rate which will support a sustainable payment structure. iv. Increased density is often cited as a means to mitigate climate change. The proposed change primarily benefits larger lots which would appear to run counter to the city’s important efforts to do our collective part to mitigate climate change. Option 2: All street reconstruction paid for with municipal taxes. a. Having all street reconstruction paid for with municipal taxes appears problematic for the following reasons: i. This change may result in higher taxes or corresponding cuts in services both of which are issues worthy of thoughtful consideration and discussion. This would be a substantial change to the current funding mechanism for future of street reconstruction in Edina. It would be helpful to understand in greater detail where the existing process is deficient before implementing such a substantial change. ii. Many property owners have paid for, or are in the process of paying, assessments imposed under the current special assessment process. What will be done for property owners who have already paid assessments at a different incremental rate? Street reconstruction is a never-ending critical infrastructure undertaking. A detailed and well communicated transition plan may be appropriate for a change of this magnitude. iii. 100% funding of street reconstruction through municipal taxes will substantially strain the current municipal tax base potentially making the city less competitive as compared to neighboring municipalities. A change of this order could also potentially result in tax increases or reduced services to address potential funding shortfalls. iv. Increased density of often cited as a means to mitigate climate change. Moving to a system where street reconstruction is 100% funded through municipal takes may not be well aligned with climate goals. “Option 3”, though not explicitly listed, is to continue with the status quo. With a substantial portion of street reconstruction in work, or complete, it is unclear how substantial changes to the funding process can be equitably implemented at this juncture. It’s understood that street reconstruction is a never-ending process, therefor substantial changes to the funding process must be carefully considered by all community constituents. We sincerely believe, in the interest of fairness to all the city’s residents, it is best to continue with the existing process for funding future of street reconstruction in Edina. With interest rates at record lows, and Edina’s AAA credit rating it’s clear the existing process for funding future of street reconstruction in Edina is working well, sustainable, and fundamentally fair to all the city’s residents. The current process for funding street reconstruction in Edina has served the city and its residents well for decades and will continue to meet future needs. The two proposed changes appear unnecessary and could potentially have unintended consequences for our community. Sincere thanks to the Edina City Council for engaging the community on this important topic. From:Edina Mail To:Chad Millner Subject:FW: Street assessments curbs Date:Wednesday, January 20, 2021 9:36:12 AM Attachments:image001.gif Lynette Biunno, Receptionist952-927-8861 | Fax 952-826-0389lbiunno@EdinaMN.gov | EdinaMN.gov Stay informed about the City’s response to COVID-19 at EdinaMN.gov/Coronavirus. Need a hand or want to help? VisitBetterTogetherEdina.org/COVID-19. From: Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2021 7:37 PM To: Edina Mail <mail@EdinaMN.gov> Subject: Street assessments curbs EXTERNAL EMAIL ALERT: This email originated from outside the City of Edina. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. We've paid for our curbs via an assessment and now the city wants to reimagine manner of funding for curbs going forward. I strongly disagree with this change. If the city chooses to make such a significant change, again, I disagree with, is the city prep8to reimburse us? Thank you for your consideration. From:Edina Mail To:Chad Millner Cc:James Hovland; Kevin Staunton; Mary Brindle; Mike Fischer; Ron Anderson Subject:FW: Assessment on Future Street Funding Date:Wednesday, January 20, 2021 9:26:31 AM Attachments:image001.gif Lynette Biunno, Receptionist 952-927-8861 | Fax 952-826-0389lbiunno@EdinaMN.gov | EdinaMN.gov Stay informed about the City’s response to COVID-19 at EdinaMN.gov/Coronavirus. Need a hand or want to help? VisitBetterTogetherEdina.org/COVID-19. From: Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2021 4:49 PM To: Edina Mail <mail@EdinaMN.gov> Subject: Fwd: Assessment on Future Street Funding EXTERNAL EMAIL ALERT: This email originated from outside the City of Edina. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I am not going to write another note. states my sentiments exactly. I do have a couple additional comments. I have heard the original home owner assessments were illegal, is this the case? If yes, this needs a lot more attention before anyone moves forward and should be reviewed by an attorney that is not on the Edina payroll. I feel as if the Edina citizens have been misinformed. Please address this matter before any vote or action takes place. Begin forwarded message: From: Date: January 19, 2021 at 4:35:14 PM CST To: mail@edinamn.gov Subject: Assessment on Future Street Funding To the Mayor and the City council members, My understanding is that this needs to be in today 1/19. I was shocked regarding this topic of the new type of assessment you are considering. When Wayne Houle and the City Council proposed all of us paying out of pocket for our assessments years ago, the question was raised “will we all be assessed the same way?” Clearly this is switching horses in midstream and not fair to all of us who have paid our complete assessment. I am in complete disagreement with this proposal and would like to know how we will be kept out of this additional assessment or reimbursed for 50% of our initial assessment. What you gave me a choice of was City pay all and we all get reassessed or property owner pay half. None of those choices are acceptable. This should be treated the same for all. Everyone pays in full until the city is completed. Sincerely January 8, 2021 Chad Millner, Director of Engineering Edina Street Reconstruction Task Force Mayor Hovland Edina City Council Re: the three cited options put forth for citizens to “vote” on regarding future street reconstruction in Edina. Long story short: None of them work for me because none of them are equitable Dear All- I am a resident who has already paid, in full as a single-person house owner soon to be retired when the street repair was done in my neighborhood. I gather from the three options put forth that my particular circumstance means about as much as it did when I was anxious about the final amount: I was told I had time to think about it and this is why the city had warned us all in time, so we could pay for it when the bill came due. My story, I am sure, was not at the top of the heap for hardship already caused (my bill is still on a Home Equity loan). My neighbors moved, trying to avoid the repair cost. There are others who were trying to put kids though college, just trying to keep family expenses within the budget. Do you have any idea how that feels to me to now be asked to pay for others’ bills while they pay nothing?!? Astonishing to me that anyone would even have the audacity to present this to community members who have already paid. But more to the point toward full transparency: how was it decided, and at what point, did it become “too much”? (It was too much for me when the reconstruction was done in my neighborhood, but I was not heard). Though I spoke at the time. If this new attempt to re-arrange the whole system of payment mid-stream has any sense of fairness, I think there should be an open explanation about what prompted this turn-around when others were not heard, and why such a drastic relinquishment of the future would-be payers to contribute their fair share. So there are two problems to address, it seems to me: 1) How this happened in the first place? Who is responsible for the short-sightedness? I urge whomever it was, and whomever it is that feels it is ok to put this on the backs of residents who have already paid to reach out to other communities to be educated on how other suburbs have done it (and yes, they have done it differently and not one of them had a portion of their residents pay for themselves and again for everyone else whose reconstruction came after). My point is, there are people who can figure this out. Go find them and ask questions. I would say do that right now, as the three options offered are unacceptable. 2) What to do about the mounting and extraordinary expense going forward: A) NO ONE SHOULD PAY LESS THAN THE BIGGEST AMOUNT ALREADY PAID. B) There should be a formula that figures in square footage of the homes, with larger homes paying incrementally more, and in addition to the largest sum already paid to date. Again, I would urge the city to seek help with financial projections this time, and not to rely on whomever did the original formula. C) The city may have to cut back on what it wants to do if it cannot afford it. There is an adage that many of us try to live by and I think it appropriate here: if you cannot afford it, don’t buy it. (For example, the grand plan of sidewalks connecting throughout Edina…..sounds very pretty. But several neighborhoods including mine have nixed that idea as we were never asked about it, don’t want to shovel the sidewalks, maybe think the city is again dreaming too big if they cannot even get through this needed street reconstruction without getting into dire financial difficulty). I shutter to think about what our taxes will be if these beautifying ideas come before the needed street concerns. And again: who did the calculations for the sidewalk vision? Will that also be something that the city begs from its taxpayers as the expense is seen to have been miscalculated? And lastly, I would advise to just say plainly: we are in over our heads. Please do not attach the word equitable to the three options cited. There is always, I think, loss of credibility when people don’t present the truth. Most of us can see this is not equitable. I would advise stopping (which you have) without continuing until you can arrive at something significantly more equitable than what has been presented thus far in these three options. Sincerely, J Appendix I: Data Summary of Better Together Edina Feedback Forms The data from the feedback forms were sorted in 3 ways – all forms, forms from residents that have not been previously assessed for street reconstruction and forms from residents that have been previously assessed for street reconstruction. A summary of the three data groups is provided. • All Feedback Forms o 100% residential properties o 94 or 30% included in 5-yr Reconstruction Plan o 131 or 42% in favor of faster transition o Options equitable? Option #1: 135 or 43% agree Option #2: 149 or 48% agree o Option Preference Option #1: 183 or 58% Option #2: 130 or 42% • 145 forms from not previously assessed properties o 100% residential properties o 78 or 53.8% included in 5-yr Reconstruction Plan o 107 or 73.8% in favor of faster transition o Options equitable? Option #1: 74 vs 71 (disagree vs agree) Option #2: 32 vs 113 (disagree vs agree) o Option Preference Option #1: 44 or 30.3% Option #2: 101 or 69.7% • 168 forms from previously assessed properties o 100% residential properties o 16 or 9.5% included in 5-yr Reconstruction Plan o 144 or 85.7% not in favor of faster transition o Options equitable? Option #1: 104 vs 64 (disagree vs agree) Option #2: 132 vs 36 (disagree vs agree) o Option Preference Option #1: 139 or 82.7% Option #2: 29 or 17.3% K The following graphics show the results of all the feedback forms for a few specific questions from Better Together Edina. Question 1: Have you been assessed for street reconstruction in the past 20 years in Edina? L Question 9: Would you be open to a faster transition (less than 16 yrs) knowing it will decrease special assessment and raise city taxes faster? M Question 14: This is not a vote, but a way to gauge general preference between the two options the Task Force has recommended. What option would be your preference? N Appendix J: Tables of Financial Impacts of Other Transition Periods In anticipation of council questions, the task force also would like to present the estimated financial impacts of faster transition periods. Option # 1: ESTIMATED Financial Impacts with 6-year, 11-year and 16-year Transitions. Impact to City Tax Levy Impact to Taxes Paid by Median Value House % Reduction in Special Assessments by Year $$$ Increase in Levy % Increase in Levy $$$ Tax Increase to Median Value House (1)(3) % Tax Increase to Median Value House (1)(3) Option # 1B --- 50% Special Assessments / 50% Tax Levy Dollars transition over 6-years Year 1 21.1% $950k (2) 2.3% $37.90 2.46% Year 2 - 6 5.8% $284k -$330K 0.6% $11.35 0.74% Option # 1C --- 50% Special Assessments / 50% Tax Levy Dollars transition over 11-years Year 1 21.1% $950k (2) 2.3% $37.90 2.46% Year 2 - 11 2.9% $151K-$211K 0.3% $6.05 0.39% Option # 1 --- 50% Special Assessments / 50% Tax Levy Dollars transition over 16-years Year 1 21.1% $950k (2) 2.3% $37.90 2.46% Year 2 - 16 1.9% $100k -$211K 0.2% $4.28 0.28% O Option # 2: ESTIMATED Financial Impacts with 6-year, 11-year and 16-year Transitions. Impact to City Tax Levy Impact to Taxes Paid by Median Value House % Reduction in Special Assessments by Year $$$ Increase in Levy % Increase in Levy $$$ Tax Increase to Median Value House (1)(3) % Tax Increase to Median Value House (1)(3) Option # 2B --- 100% Tax Levy Dollars transition over 6-years Year 1 21.1% $950k (2) 2.3% $37.90 2.46% Year 2 - 6 15.8% $740k -$865K 1.7% $29.65 1.92% Option # 2C --- 100% Tax Levy Dollars transition over 11-years Year 1 21.1% $950k (2) 2.3% $37.90 2.46% Year 2 - 11 7.9% $381K-$530K 0.9% $15.20 0.99% Option # 2 --- 100% Tax Levy Dollars transition over 16-years Year 1 21.1% $950k (2) 2.3% $37.90 2.46% Year 2 - 16 5.3% $260k -$510K 0.6% $10.49 0.67% P ESTIMATED Cumulative Tax Impacts Compared to Assessment Reductions YEAR (s) 1 (2022) 6 (2027) 11 (2032) 16 (2037) Total Option #1B: 50% City Tax Cumulative Tax Impacts on Median Value House (1) $37.90 $398 $398 (3) Estimated Assessment During Transition (2) $7,890 $5,000 Option #1C: 50% City Tax Cumulative Tax Impacts on Median Value House (1) $37.90 $318 $750 $750 (3) Estimated Assessment During Transition (2) $7,890 $6,440 $5,000 Option #1: 50% City Tax Cumulative Tax Impacts on Median Value House (1) $37.90 $292 $652 $1,120 $1,120 (3) Estimated Assessment During Transition (2) $7,890 $6,925 $5,960 $5,000 Option #2B: 100% City Tax Cumulative Tax Impacts on Median Value House (1) $37.90 $672 $672 (3) Estimated Assessment During Transition (2) $7,890 $5,000 Option #2C: 100% City Tax Cumulative Tax Impacts on Median Value House (1) $37.90 $455 $1,253 $1,253 (3) Estimated Assessment During Transition (2) $7,890 $6,440 $5,000 Option #2: 100% City Tax Cumulative Tax Impacts on Median Value House (1) $37.90 $385 $994 $1,865 $1,865 (3) Estimated Assessment During Transition (2) $7,890 $6,925 $5,960 $5,000 (1) Median Value Home = $551,300 (2) Started with a $10,000 Assessment. (3) All values are estimates. Estimated impacts are tied to future market value of the city. Increases or decreases in market value will impact the values shown in the table. Q Appendix K: Historical Assessments of Other Property Classes and Impacts with Option #1 Assessment Year Project Property Type REU's Final Street Assessment Impact of Option 1: 50% Assessment 2016 15-3 Church 8.37 $49,887.54 $24,943.77 2016 15-4 Public School 10 $95,377.33 $47,688.67 2017 16-3 City Owned 5 $30,789.94 $15,394.97 2017 16-5 City Owned 20.8 $108,956.90 $54,478.45 2018 17-1 Apartment 59 $33,646.02 $16,823.01 2018 17-1 Office 13.88 $7,918.08 $3,959.04 R Appendix L: Frequently Asked Questions FAQ Street Funding How is street reconstruction in Edina currently funded? The City’s Utility Fund covers the cost of curb and gutter and other utility improvements in a neighborhood roadway reconstruction project. Under the City’s current Special Assessment Policy, residents are assessed the rest of the project cost, or 100% of the cost for the street reconstruction portion of the project. Why isn’t the value of a home considered when special assessments are levied? The courts have been very clear that the assessment must be uniform across the same class of properties in an assessed area. Because single-family residences are in the same class of properties and receive the same benefit of a new street, home valued at $300,000 and $600,000 in a project area would have the same special assessment. Why is a change to the City’s Special Assessment Policy being considered? The current policy may not be financially or legally sustainable. Recent estimates for special assessments in neighborhoods with homes of all sizes have climbed to $32,000, a figure that is not sustainable. Under State Statutes, the City can assess properties for public improvements, but the benefit to property values must be equal to or greater than the assessment. As assessments climb, it may be difficult for the City to prove the market benefit. What are the options being considered? The City Manager’s Street Funding Task Force is collecting feedback on two options: Option 1 (50/50): Half of the street reconstruction paid for by special assessments and the other half paid for with City taxes. Option 2: All of the street reconstruction paid for with City taxes. If the City Council approves a change, the Task Force recommends the preferred option be phased in over a period of 16 years. The 16 years represents a transition period during which the costs each year gradually move from the current 100 percent assessment policy to the new option. Due to the high cost of “subcuts” in some projects and to make assessments more equitable, the Task Force also recommends the cost of any be removed from special assessments beginning in Year 1 of the transition period. The cost of all subcuts would be paid for with new City taxes. What’s a subcut? Currently, special assessments for street reconstruction in Edina can vary by up to 28 percent because of the soils underneath the existing street. Most local streets are built with 4 inches of bituminous or asphalt pavement and 8 inches of gravel. The soils needed to support those 12 inches vary greatly by location. The material underneath the 12 inches is called “subbase” and when it needs to be removed, it is called “subcut.” When the material has a lot of sand or gravel, no or little subcut is required. When the material is wet or includes a lot of clay, a large subcut can be required. How would the City phase in the new policy? The cost of subcuts would be removed from special assessments in the first year. After the first year, assessments would be reduced by a certain percentage each year. In the case of Option 1 (half taxes, half assessments), assessments would be reduced each year until it reached half the cost of a project at Year 16. In the case of Option 2 (all taxes), assessments would be reduced each year until it reached no assessment at Year 16. The street by my house was recently reconstructed and I paid a special assessment. Will I be impacted by a change in the policy? Yes. If the City Council approves Option 1 or Option 2, all taxpayers will begin paying for street reconstruction each year. In the first year of either option, City taxes on the median-valued home would increase by approximately $40 for funding street reconstruction. In the remaining 15 years of the transition of either option, City taxes on the median-valued single-family home would increase by $4-9 per year for funding street reconstruction. The current estimates based on a 16-year transition would increase City taxes for funding street reconstruction on the median family home by either $100 (Option 1) or $175 (Option 2) respectively. Note that higher-valued homes would pay more in City taxes and lesser valued homes would pay less. Can the City refund residents who have been previously assessed for street reconstruction? No; the State Statute that allows the City to assess for public improvements is very clear on this matter. If the special assessments were validly levied and collected, there is no way for the City to refund previously paid special assessments. If the City made a mistake in the assessment, finds the assessment to be excessive, or hears from the City Attorney that the assessment is or may be invalid, the City Council may reassess affected parcels. Under the current policy, residents may pay their special assessments up front or over the course of 15 years. What percentage of residents pay up front? Approximately one-third of special assessments are paid off immediately and do not show up on tax statements. Another one-third of property owners pay off their special assessment early during the 15-year re-payment period. The remaining one-third pay it off over the entire re- payment period. If a change is made, could residents who are still paying off a previous special assessment be taxed differently? Minnesota’s power of taxation is found in Article X of the Constitution of the State of Minnesota. The article states that taxes will be uniform. The City cannot tax properties of the same class differently based on the fact that they were previously subject to a special assessment. All single-family residential properties must have the same tax rate. What happens with a special assessment that has been levied on a property when it is sold? Typically during the sale of a home, the buyer and seller negotiate paying off the assessment into price of the home. What is the current interest rate for special assessments not paid in full? The City borrows money to fund street reconstruction. The interest rate applied to unpaid portions of the special assessments is 1 percent above the rate at which the City borrows. Prior to 2020, that rate was typically between 3 and 4 percent. If the 50/50 option is adopted, how would paying off the entire assessment upfront enable the property owner to take advantage of the cost shifting reductions in interest? If Option 1 is adopted, the costs would be split 50/50 between the property owner and the City. This split includes the respective amount of interest to fund the project. If the owner decides to pay the entire assessment upfront (50 percent of the cost), they would not pay the long-term interest on their portion of the cost. The City’s portion, including the interest, would be covered by the City as officials see fit. Approximately what percentage of single-family homes have paid for a street reconstruction project under the current Special Assessment Policy? The City has reconstructed approximately half of the local streets. Therefore, approximately half of the properties have paid an assessment. Approximately 4% of properties change owners per year. If they moved into a neighborhood after street construction, some property owners within a recently constructed street may not have paid for an assessment. We anticipate it will take approximately 20-25 years to complete reconstruction of the remaining local streets. Did the Task Force consider removing the subcut cost from the assessment, but otherwise leave the Special Assessment Policy as is? The task force reviewed how this would impact assessments and the ability of the City to continue to assess properties for public improvements. The Task Force felt just removing subcut was not enough and that it would still be difficult to prove the market benefit required by State Statute. Why doesn’t the City consider the impacts of heavy trucks when it comes to funding streets? The streets are designed to handle expected truck traffic based on current standards. Truck traffic occurs from garbage trucks, busses, moving and delivery trucks. Many of those provide services required and requested by residents. The design of streets would not change with small variations in truck traffic volumes. S Appendix M: Table of Funding Methods for Neighboring Communities Name Funding Method St. Louis Park Franchise Fees Minnetonka Franchise Fees Hopkins Special Assessments - LESSSER of 70% or cap rate of $94.31 / LF (cap used most of the time) and Property Taxes Bloomington Special Assessments and Property Taxes: ~25% assessments single family / ~50% assessments other properties classes Minneapolis Special Assessments and Property Taxes: ~25% assessments Eden Prairie Franchise Fees Richfield Property taxes and/or franchise fees T Appendix N: Informational Flyer on Proposed 2020 City of Edina Tax Levy The CITY ofEDINAStreet Funding Task Force Final Recommendations City Council Meeting March 2, 2021 The CITY ofEDINA Discussion Topics 1.Task Force 2.Public Engagement Report 3.Task Force Understandings 4.Final Recommendations www.EdinaMN.gov 2 Street Funding Task Force The CITY ofEDINA •Ann Swenson (chair), Concord Neighborhood (previously assessed) •David Alkire, Minnehaha Woods Neighborhood (previously assessed) •Chip Howard, Countryside Neighborhood •Kathy Kelly, Normandale Park Neighborhood (previously assessed) •Hamid Mohtadi, Prospect Knolls Neighborhood •Matt Scherer, ETC and Indian Hills Neighborhood (previously assessed) •Ralph Zickert, Lake Cornelia Neighborhood www.EdinaMN.gov 3 Street Funding Task Force The CITY ofEDINA Schedule •April –May 2020 Outreach & Recruitment •May 2020 City Manager Appoints Members •November 2020 Task Force Presents Update to Council •March 2, 2021 Task Force Presents Final Recommendations •March 2021 Council Retreat to Discuss 2022 –2023 Budget •April 2021 Update to Assessment Policy Public Hearing is not legally required to change policy www.EdinaMN.gov 4 Street Funding Task Force The CITY ofEDINA Meetings •16 meetings from June 30, 2020 until Feb. 9, 2021 •Starting with Meeting #5 All Recorded and Live Streamed on Edina YouTube www.EdinaMN.gov 5 Street Funding Task Force The CITY ofEDINA Purpose / Goal •Develop recommendations for street reconstruction funding Vision Statement •To develop a funding solution that A) is viewed by a plurality of residents as equitable, B) is able to maintain Edina’s roadways to the City’s standard, and C) is financially and legally sustainable. www.EdinaMN.gov 6 Street Funding Task Force The CITY ofEDINA •Based on Community Engagement and Equity Statements •Mid December to January 19. •Press release, story in episode of “Agenda: Edina”, article in “Edition: Edina”, social media posts •2,100 total site visits •313 feedback forms •BetterTogetherEdina www.EdinaMN.gov 7 Public Engagement Summary The CITY ofEDINA Funding Recommendations 1.50% Special Assessment/50% Tax Levy Dollars transition over 16-years 2.100% Tax Levy Dollars transition over 16-years www.EdinaMN.gov 8 Public Engagement Summary The CITY ofEDINA What We Heard –Previously Assessed •I have paid for my street and it was very costly for me. How is it fair for me to have to pay for other streets? They didn’t help me pay for mine. Can I get a refund or have my future taxes adjusted for what I have already paid in or will be paying over future years? •Now that wealthy neighborhoods are getting their streets reconstructed the system is being modified. Big lots and big homes should pay more. •We should keep the current system in place until all the streets are reconstructed. Wouldn’t this be the fairest way to proceed? Why not provide more extended financing options to repay future assessments? •Neither option is fair and equitable www.EdinaMN.gov 9 Public Engagement Summary The CITY ofEDINA What We Heard –Not Previously Assessed •Find a way to transition homeowners who have been recently assessed by charging them a lower tax levy position to start and work up to a full share after a few years. •There needs to be a way to adequately treat those who have paid assessments recently or in the past five to ten years; suggestions included delaying tax increases, assessing a lessor tax, exempting them from the new approach. •Everyone should contribute, have some “skin in the game” as road reconstruction is a basic city function. Streets are used by everyone and we as a community should bear the costs. www.EdinaMN.gov 10 Public Engagement Summary The CITY ofEDINA •100% residential properties responded •Appendix has all feedback forms •313 Forms 58% preferred Option #1 42 % preferred Option #2 www.EdinaMN.gov 11 Public Engagement Summary The CITY ofEDINA 1.The current method of street assessment is both fair and unfair at the same time. 1.It is fair in that all residents are subject to the same rules. 2.It is unfair in that a resident may pay significantly more or less based solely on the density of their neighborhood, the sub-soil quality (“subcut”) and / or the need for retaining wall reconstruction on City owned boulevard. 3.It is unfair that some people will live 30 or more years in Edina and never experience a special assessment. www.EdinaMN.gov 12 Understandings The CITY ofEDINA 1.The current method of street assessment is both fair and unfair at the same time. 1.It is unfair that some people will experience more than one special assessment. 2.It is unfair that the current policy assumes all properties within a neighborhood reconstruction project benefit equally and that properties outside of the project are assumed to receive no benefit. Example, the current policy allocates all the costs to the residents that live on the street while other residents get to use the same street free of charge. www.EdinaMN.gov 13 Understandings The CITY ofEDINA 2.Edina’s current method of allocating 100% of street reconstruction costs as special assessments is an outlier among the Twin Cities metro communities. 3.Any change to the current system will be unfair to those residents who have previously experienced a special assessment and still reside in Edina. 4.100% assessment strategy is no longer legally and financially sustainable. 5.A change in policy needs to occur. 6.No legal way to refund past assessments 7.No legal way to tax previously assessed properties at different rates. www.EdinaMN.gov 14 Understandings The CITY ofEDINA Funding Recommendations 1.50% Special Assessment/50% Tax Levy Dollars transition over 16-years 2.100% Tax Levy Dollars transition over 16-years Appendix: Financial calculations for 6-year and 11-year transition options. www.EdinaMN.gov 15 Street Funding Task Force The CITY ofEDINA Recommendations 1.Cost of subcut no longer be included in assessments –paid by taxes in year 1. 2.Cost of retaining walls no longer be included in assessments –paid by taxes in year 1. www.EdinaMN.gov 16 Street Funding Task Force The CITY ofEDINA Recommendations 3.City staff should draft a street light policy. Minimum establish required locations of lights (ex. Active Routes to Schools for safety) 4.City staff should draft policy of eligible expenses for pool of annual tax levy dollars for street reconstruction (ex. subcut, walls, lights, etc.) www.EdinaMN.gov 17 Street Funding Task Force The CITY ofEDINA 1. 50% Special Assessment/50% Tax Levy Dollars transition over 16-years www.EdinaMN.gov 18 Street Funding Task Force % Reduction in Special Assessments by Year $$$ Increase in Levy % Increase in Levy $$$ Tax Increase to Median Value House (1)(3) % Tax Increase to Median Value House (1)(3) Option # 1 ---50% Special Assessments / 50% Tax Levy Dollars over 16-years Year 1 21.1% $950k (2) 2.3%$37.90 2.46% Year 2 -16 1.9%$100k -$211K 0.2%$4.28 0.28% The CITY ofEDINA 2. 100% Tax Levy Dollars transition over 16-years www.EdinaMN.gov 19 Street Funding Task Force % Reduction in Special Assessments by Year $$$ Increase in Levy % Increase in Levy $$$ Tax Increase to Median Value House (1)(3) % Tax Increase to Median Value House (1)(3) Option # 2 ---100% Tax Levy Dollars over 16-years Year 1 21.1% $950k (2) 2.3%$37.90 2.46% Year 2 -16 5.3%$260K-$510K 0.65%$10.49 0.67% The CITY ofEDINA www.EdinaMN.gov 20 YEAR (s)1 (2022)6 (2027)11 (2032)16 (2037)Total Option #1: 50% City Tax Cumulative Tax Impacts on Median Value Home (1)$37.90 $292 $652 $1,120 $1,120 (3) Estimated Assessment During Transition (2)$7,890 $6,925 $5,960 $5,000 Tax on Median Value Home in Final Transition Year $102 Option #2: 100% City Tax Cumulative Tax Impacts on Median Value Home (1)$37.90 $385 $994 $1,865 $1,865 (3) Estimated Assessment During Transition (2)$7,890 $5,260 $2,630 $0 Tax on Median Value Home in Final Transition Year $195 Difference in Cumulative Tax Impacts Between Options #1 and #2 $745.20 The CITY ofEDINA Other Topics •Municipal State Aid Policy –20% assessed / 80% MSA funds Match option for local streets •Pet Fences, Irrigation Systems, Fences –things in ROW Continue to fund as part of the project •Other Property Classes –Apartments, Churches, Commercial Match option for local streets –keep REU calculations www.EdinaMN.gov 21 Street Funding Task Force The CITY ofEDINA Conclusion •Street funding is a difficult and challenging topic •Priorities and funding understandings change over time •Change in understandings requires changes to funding methods that may not align with resident expectations •The two funding options meet the objectives of the task force charge www.EdinaMN.gov 22 Street Funding Task Force The CITY ofEDINA HUGE THANK YOU •Ann Swenson (chair), Concord Neighborhood (previously assessed) •David Alkire, Minnehaha Woods Neighborhood (previously assessed) •Chip Howard, Countryside Neighborhood •Kathy Kelly, Normandale Park Neighborhood (previously assessed) •Hamid Mohtadi, Prospect Knolls Neighborhood •Matt Scherer, ETC and Indian Hills Neighborhood (previously assessed) •Ralph Zickert, Lake Cornelia Neighborhood www.EdinaMN.gov 23 Street Funding Task Force Date: March 2, 2021 Agenda Item #: VIII.A. To:Mayor and City Council Item Type: Report / Recommendation From:Stephanie Hawkinson, Affordable Housing Development Manager Item Activity: Subject:PUBLIC HEARING: Resolution 2021-14 Approving Proposed Application for 2021 Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program Funds and Authorizing Execution of Subgrantee Agreement Action CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to close the public hearing at noon, March 8, 2021 and to continue action on these items to the March 16, 2021 City Council meeting. INTRODUCTION: The CDBG Program is a federal entitlement program administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and managed by Hennepin County to oversee the distribution of funds to cities. The funds are to be used for improvements of housing and providing a suitable living environment for persons with low and moderate incomes. Edina’s estimated 2021 CDBG budget allotment is estimated to be $164,706, which is an increase to what was allocated in 2020. This increase is due to an increase in the number of households experiencing overcrowding. When HUD establishes the 2021 CDBG budget later this spring, Edina will be notified of any changes to its allotment. If a change in the budget occurs, the amount will be adjusted accordingly. Of the $140,000 total allocation, 15% ($24,706) is set aside for Public Services which is administered by Hennepin County, and $140,000 is available for the Community Development portion of the CDBG allocation which is approved by the City Council. ATTACHMENTS: Description Staff Report: Resolution No. 2021-14 Approving 2021 CDBG Funds and Agreement Resolution 2021-14: Approving 2021 CDBG Funds and Agreement CDBG Income Limits CDBG LowMod Income Map CDBG Award History Homes Within Reach Application Homes Within Reach Budget Staff Presentation March 2, 2021 Mayor & City Council Stephanie Hawkinson, Affordable Housing Development Manager PUBLIC HEARING: Resolution No. 2021-14 Approving Application for 2021 Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program Funds and Authorizing Execution of Subgrantee Agreement Information / Background: The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program is a federal entitlement program administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and managed by Hennepin County to oversee the distribution of funds to cities. The funds are to be used for improvements of housing and providing a suitable living environment for persons with low and moderate incomes. Edina’s estimated 2021 CDBG budget allotment is $164,706, which is a slight increase from what was received in 2020. The increase reflects an increase in the number of households living in overcrowded conditions. According to Hennepin County, the number of households living in overcrowded housing has increased by 47% in Edina. This often occurs when larger families can only afford to live in smaller apartments, such as a family of five living in a 2-bedroom apartment. When HUD establishes the 2021 CDBG budget later this spring, Edina will be notified of any changes to its allotment. If a change in the budget occurs, the amount will be adjusted accordingly. Of the $164,706 total allocation, 15% ($24,706) is set aside for Public Services which is administered by Hennepin County, and $140,000 is available for the Community Development portion of the CDBG allocation which is approved by the City Council. Staff proposes the following expenditure of the 2021 Community Development funds: 1. Homes Within Reach, $80,000--to continue the City’s efforts to enhance opportunities for affordable single-family ownership, staff recommends approving the application from West Hennepin Affordable Housing Land Trust (WHAHLT) to provide affordable homeownership opportunities through their Homes Within Reach program. This program uses the Community Land Trust model for income eligible homebuyers. The Community Land Trust model removes the market value of the land from the mortgage equation, thus reducing the cost of a home for a work-force family by approximately 30-50 percent. WHAHLT owns the land and the homeowner owns the home. In 2019 WHAHLT closed on one house in Edina in partnership with the Come Home 2 Edina program. The 2021 funds will be combined with the funds allocated in 2019 and 2020 to acquire at least one additional STAFF REPORT 2020 CDBG Recommendation Page 2 home. As home prices are relatively high in Edina, and our CDBG allocation relatively small, sometimes multiple years of allocation need to be combined in order to acquire one house. Since 2007, the City has provided approximately $1,514,005 in CDBG assistance to WHAHLT, assisting with the purchase, rehabilitation and resale of 14 Edina homes to income eligible buyers. 2. The Rehabilitation of Private Property, $60,000--this program is facilitated by Hennepin County and provides deferred repayment loans of up to $30,000 to make structural improvements to owner occupied homes with no more than 4 dwelling units per property. Eligibility for the program is based on household income. The income limits may not exceed 120% of the Area Median Income (AMI). This program helps low- and moderate-income homeowners address maintenance and rehabilitation needs. The current balance in the rehabilitation program is approximately $28,116 (program income). Interest in rehabilitation loans have increased this past year with four households on the waiting list. Because of the increased interest, staff recommends that $60,000 of the 2021 allocation be available for private property rehabilitation. In previous years, 1992 through 2014, the City Council gave an annual allocation of housing rehabilitation funds. In multiple years the allocation was $80,000. We stopped doing this in 2015 because loans were repaid making available program income. The program income has either been reallocated to the Homes Within Reach program (in 2018) or lent out again causing a low balance. ATTACHMENTS: 1. CDBG Income Limits 2. CDBG LowMod Area Map 3. 2014 – 2019 CDBG Budget Breakdown 4. 2021 Funding Request RESOLUTION NO. 2021-14 RESOLUTION APPROVING PROPOSED APPLICATION FOR 2020 URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM FUNDS AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT WITH URBAN 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 2021 Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant funds; BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Edina approves the following project for funding from the 2021 Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program and authorizes submittal of the proposal to Urban Hennepin County/Consolidated Pool. Activity Budget Homes Within Reach – Affordable Housing $80,000 Homeownership Rehabilitation $60,000 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby authorizes and directs the Mayor and its’ City Manager to execute the Subrecipient Agreement and any required Third Party Agreement on behalf of the City to implement the 2021 Community Development Block Grant Program. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that should the actual amount of FY2021 CDBG available to the city be different from the preliminary amount provided to the city, the City Council hereby authorizes the city manager/administrator to adjust the following activity budget to reflect the actual amount of funding available. ADOPTED this 16th day of March, 2021 ATTEST: ______________________________ _________________________________ Sharon Allison, City Clerk James B. Hovland, Mayor STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) SS CITY OF EDINA ) CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting City Clerk for the City of Edina do hereby certify that the attached and foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of March 16, 2021, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this _______ day of ___________________, 2021. ________________________ City Clerk U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HUD STATE:MINNESOTA --------------------- 2020 ADJUSTED HOME INCOME LIMITS --------------------- PROGRAM 1 PERSON 2 PERSON 3 PERSON 4 PERSON 5 PERSON 6 PERSON 7 PERSON 8 PERSON Duluth, MN-WI MSA 30% LIMITS 16150 18450 20750 23050 24900 26750 28600 30450 VERY LOW INCOME 26900 30750 34600 38400 41500 44550 47650 50700 60% LIMITS 32280 36900 41520 46080 49800 53460 57180 60840 LOW INCOME 43050 49200 55350 61450 66400 71300 76200 81150 Fargo, ND-MN MSA 30% LIMITS 18800 21450 24150 26800 28950 31100 33250 35400 VERY LOW INCOME 31300 35800 40250 44700 48300 51900 55450 59050 60% LIMITS 37560 42960 48300 53640 57960 62280 66540 70860 LOW INCOME 50050 57200 64350 71500 77250 82950 88700 94400 Grand Forks, ND-MN MSA 30% LIMITS 18550 21200 23850 26500 28650 30750 32900 35000 VERY LOW INCOME 30950 35400 39800 44200 47750 51300 54850 58350 60% LIMITS 37140 42480 47760 53040 57300 61560 65820 70020 LOW INCOME 49500 56600 63650 70700 76400 82050 87700 93350 La Crosse-Onalaska, WI-MN MSA 30% LIMITS 16150 18450 20750 23050 24900 26750 28600 30450 VERY LOW INCOME 26900 30750 34600 38400 41500 44550 47650 50700 60% LIMITS 32280 36900 41520 46080 49800 53460 57180 60840 LOW INCOME 43050 49200 55350 61450 66400 71300 76200 81150 Mankato-North Mankato, MN MSA 30% LIMITS 17800 20350 22900 25400 27450 29500 31500 33550 VERY LOW INCOME 29650 33900 38150 42350 45750 49150 52550 55950 60% LIMITS 35580 40680 45780 50820 54900 58980 63060 67140 LOW INCOME 47450 54200 61000 67750 73200 78600 84050 89450 Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI HUD 30% LIMITS 21700 24800 27900 31000 33500 36000 38450 40950 VERY LOW INCOME 36200 41400 46550 51700 55850 60000 64150 68250 60% LIMITS 43440 49680 55860 62040 67020 72000 76980 81900 LOW INCOME 54950 62800 70650 78500 84800 91100 97350 103650 Le Sueur County, MN HUD Metro FMR Area 30% LIMITS 17800 20350 22900 25400 27450 29500 31500 33550 VERY LOW INCOME 29650 33900 38150 42350 45750 49150 52550 55950 60% LIMITS 35580 40680 45780 50820 54900 58980 63060 67140 LOW INCOME 47450 54200 61000 67750 73200 78600 84050 89450 Effective Date: July 1, 2020 Page 1 of 11 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HUD STATE:MINNESOTA --------------------- 2020 ADJUSTED HOME INCOME LIMITS --------------------- PROGRAM 1 PERSON 2 PERSON 3 PERSON 4 PERSON 5 PERSON 6 PERSON 7 PERSON 8 PERSON Mille Lacs County, MN HUD Metro FMR Area 30% LIMITS 15300 17450 19650 21800 23550 25300 27050 28800 VERY LOW INCOME 25450 29050 32700 36300 39250 42150 45050 47950 60% LIMITS 30540 34860 39240 43560 47100 50580 54060 57540 LOW INCOME 40700 46500 52300 58100 62750 67400 72050 76700 Sibley County, MN HUD Metro FMR Area 30% LIMITS 15750 18000 20250 22450 24250 26050 27850 29650 VERY LOW INCOME 26200 29950 33700 37400 40400 43400 46400 49400 60% LIMITS 31440 35940 40440 44880 48480 52080 55680 59280 LOW INCOME 41900 47900 53900 59850 64650 69450 74250 79050 Rochester, MN HUD Metro FMR Area 30% LIMITS 21250 24300 27350 30350 32800 35250 37650 40100 VERY LOW INCOME 35450 40500 45550 50600 54650 58700 62750 66800 60% LIMITS 42540 48600 54660 60720 65580 70440 75300 80160 LOW INCOME 54950 62800 70650 78500 84800 91100 97350 103650 Fillmore County, MN HUD Metro FMR Area 30% LIMITS 15950 18200 20500 22750 24600 26400 28250 30050 VERY LOW INCOME 26600 30400 34200 37950 41000 44050 47100 50100 60% LIMITS 31920 36480 41040 45540 49200 52860 56520 60120 LOW INCOME 42500 48600 54650 60700 65600 70450 75300 80150 Wabasha County, MN HUD Metro FMR Area 30% LIMITS 16350 18650 21000 23300 25200 27050 28900 30800 VERY LOW INCOME 27200 31050 34950 38800 41950 45050 48150 51250 60% LIMITS 32640 37260 41940 46560 50340 54060 57780 61500 LOW INCOME 43500 49700 55900 62100 67100 72050 77050 82000 St. Cloud, MN MSA 30% LIMITS 17050 19500 21950 24350 26300 28250 30200 32150 VERY LOW INCOME 28450 32500 36550 40600 43850 47100 50350 53600 60% LIMITS 34140 39000 43860 48720 52620 56520 60420 64320 LOW INCOME 45500 52000 58500 64950 70150 75350 80550 85750 Aitkin County, MN 30% LIMITS 15300 17450 19650 21800 23550 25300 27050 28800 VERY LOW INCOME 25450 29050 32700 36300 39250 42150 45050 47950 60% LIMITS 30540 34860 39240 43560 47100 50580 54060 57540 LOW INCOME 40700 46500 52300 58100 62750 67400 72050 76700 Effective Date: July 1, 2020 Page 2 of 11 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HUD STATE:MINNESOTA --------------------- 2020 ADJUSTED HOME INCOME LIMITS --------------------- PROGRAM 1 PERSON 2 PERSON 3 PERSON 4 PERSON 5 PERSON 6 PERSON 7 PERSON 8 PERSON Becker County, MN 30% LIMITS 15300 17450 19650 21800 23550 25300 27050 28800 VERY LOW INCOME 25450 29050 32700 36300 39250 42150 45050 47950 60% LIMITS 30540 34860 39240 43560 47100 50580 54060 57540 LOW INCOME 40700 46500 52300 58100 62750 67400 72050 76700 Beltrami County, MN 30% LIMITS 15300 17450 19650 21800 23550 25300 27050 28800 VERY LOW INCOME 25450 29050 32700 36300 39250 42150 45050 47950 60% LIMITS 30540 34860 39240 43560 47100 50580 54060 57540 LOW INCOME 40700 46500 52300 58100 62750 67400 72050 76700 Big Stone County, MN 30% LIMITS 15300 17450 19650 21800 23550 25300 27050 28800 VERY LOW INCOME 25450 29050 32700 36300 39250 42150 45050 47950 60% LIMITS 30540 34860 39240 43560 47100 50580 54060 57540 LOW INCOME 40700 46500 52300 58100 62750 67400 72050 76700 Brown County, MN 30% LIMITS 16050 18350 20650 22900 24750 26600 28400 30250 VERY LOW INCOME 26750 30600 34400 38200 41300 44350 47400 50450 60% LIMITS 32100 36720 41280 45840 49560 53220 56880 60540 LOW INCOME 42800 48900 55000 61100 66000 70900 75800 80700 Cass County, MN 30% LIMITS 15300 17450 19650 21800 23550 25300 27050 28800 VERY LOW INCOME 25450 29050 32700 36300 39250 42150 45050 47950 60% LIMITS 30540 34860 39240 43560 47100 50580 54060 57540 LOW INCOME 40700 46500 52300 58100 62750 67400 72050 76700 Chippewa County, MN 30% LIMITS 15400 17600 19800 22000 23800 25550 27300 29050 VERY LOW INCOME 25700 29350 33000 36650 39600 42550 45450 48400 60% LIMITS 30840 35220 39600 43980 47520 51060 54540 58080 LOW INCOME 41100 46950 52800 58650 63350 68050 72750 77450 Clearwater County, MN 30% LIMITS 15300 17450 19650 21800 23550 25300 27050 28800 VERY LOW INCOME 25450 29050 32700 36300 39250 42150 45050 47950 60% LIMITS 30540 34860 39240 43560 47100 50580 54060 57540 LOW INCOME 40700 46500 52300 58100 62750 67400 72050 76700 Effective Date: July 1, 2020 Page 3 of 11 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HUD STATE:MINNESOTA --------------------- 2020 ADJUSTED HOME INCOME LIMITS --------------------- PROGRAM 1 PERSON 2 PERSON 3 PERSON 4 PERSON 5 PERSON 6 PERSON 7 PERSON 8 PERSON Cook County, MN 30% LIMITS 15300 17450 19650 21800 23550 25300 27050 28800 VERY LOW INCOME 25450 29050 32700 36300 39250 42150 45050 47950 60% LIMITS 30540 34860 39240 43560 47100 50580 54060 57540 LOW INCOME 40700 46500 52300 58100 62750 67400 72050 76700 Cottonwood County, MN 30% LIMITS 15300 17450 19650 21800 23550 25300 27050 28800 VERY LOW INCOME 25450 29050 32700 36300 39250 42150 45050 47950 60% LIMITS 30540 34860 39240 43560 47100 50580 54060 57540 LOW INCOME 40700 46500 52300 58100 62750 67400 72050 76700 Crow Wing County, MN 30% LIMITS 15300 17450 19650 21800 23550 25300 27050 28800 VERY LOW INCOME 25450 29050 32700 36300 39250 42150 45050 47950 60% LIMITS 30540 34860 39240 43560 47100 50580 54060 57540 LOW INCOME 40700 46500 52300 58100 62750 67400 72050 76700 Douglas County, MN 30% LIMITS 16700 19050 21450 23800 25750 27650 29550 31450 VERY LOW INCOME 27800 31800 35750 39700 42900 46100 49250 52450 60% LIMITS 33360 38160 42900 47640 51480 55320 59100 62940 LOW INCOME 44450 50800 57150 63500 68600 73700 78750 83850 Faribault County, MN 30% LIMITS 15300 17450 19650 21800 23550 25300 27050 28800 VERY LOW INCOME 25450 29050 32700 36300 39250 42150 45050 47950 60% LIMITS 30540 34860 39240 43560 47100 50580 54060 57540 LOW INCOME 40700 46500 52300 58100 62750 67400 72050 76700 Freeborn County, MN 30% LIMITS 15300 17450 19650 21800 23550 25300 27050 28800 VERY LOW INCOME 25450 29050 32700 36300 39250 42150 45050 47950 60% LIMITS 30540 34860 39240 43560 47100 50580 54060 57540 LOW INCOME 40700 46500 52300 58100 62750 67400 72050 76700 Goodhue County, MN 30% LIMITS 18250 20850 23450 26050 28150 30250 32350 34400 VERY LOW INCOME 30400 34750 39100 43400 46900 50350 53850 57300 60% LIMITS 36480 41700 46920 52080 56280 60420 64620 68760 LOW INCOME 48650 55600 62550 69450 75050 80600 86150 91700 Effective Date: July 1, 2020 Page 4 of 11 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HUD STATE:MINNESOTA --------------------- 2020 ADJUSTED HOME INCOME LIMITS --------------------- PROGRAM 1 PERSON 2 PERSON 3 PERSON 4 PERSON 5 PERSON 6 PERSON 7 PERSON 8 PERSON Grant County, MN 30% LIMITS 15300 17450 19650 21800 23550 25300 27050 28800 VERY LOW INCOME 25450 29050 32700 36300 39250 42150 45050 47950 60% LIMITS 30540 34860 39240 43560 47100 50580 54060 57540 LOW INCOME 40700 46500 52300 58100 62750 67400 72050 76700 Hubbard County, MN 30% LIMITS 15300 17450 19650 21800 23550 25300 27050 28800 VERY LOW INCOME 25450 29050 32700 36300 39250 42150 45050 47950 60% LIMITS 30540 34860 39240 43560 47100 50580 54060 57540 LOW INCOME 40700 46500 52300 58100 62750 67400 72050 76700 Itasca County, MN 30% LIMITS 15300 17450 19650 21800 23550 25300 27050 28800 VERY LOW INCOME 25450 29050 32700 36300 39250 42150 45050 47950 60% LIMITS 30540 34860 39240 43560 47100 50580 54060 57540 LOW INCOME 40700 46500 52300 58100 62750 67400 72050 76700 Jackson County, MN 30% LIMITS 15750 18000 20250 22450 24250 26050 27850 29650 VERY LOW INCOME 26250 30000 33750 37450 40450 43450 46450 49450 60% LIMITS 31500 36000 40500 44940 48540 52140 55740 59340 LOW INCOME 41950 47950 53950 59900 64700 69500 74300 79100 Kanabec County, MN 30% LIMITS 15300 17450 19650 21800 23550 25300 27050 28800 VERY LOW INCOME 25450 29050 32700 36300 39250 42150 45050 47950 60% LIMITS 30540 34860 39240 43560 47100 50580 54060 57540 LOW INCOME 40700 46500 52300 58100 62750 67400 72050 76700 Kandiyohi County, MN 30% LIMITS 15400 17600 19800 22000 23800 25550 27300 29050 VERY LOW INCOME 25700 29400 33050 36700 39650 42600 45550 48450 60% LIMITS 30840 35280 39660 44040 47580 51120 54660 58140 LOW INCOME 41100 47000 52850 58700 63400 68100 72800 77500 Kittson County, MN 30% LIMITS 15400 17600 19800 21950 23750 25500 27250 29000 VERY LOW INCOME 25600 29250 32900 36550 39500 42400 45350 48250 60% LIMITS 30720 35100 39480 43860 47400 50880 54420 57900 LOW INCOME 40950 46800 52650 58500 63200 67900 72550 77250 Effective Date: July 1, 2020 Page 5 of 11 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HUD STATE:MINNESOTA --------------------- 2020 ADJUSTED HOME INCOME LIMITS --------------------- PROGRAM 1 PERSON 2 PERSON 3 PERSON 4 PERSON 5 PERSON 6 PERSON 7 PERSON 8 PERSON Koochiching County, MN 30% LIMITS 15300 17450 19650 21800 23550 25300 27050 28800 VERY LOW INCOME 25450 29050 32700 36300 39250 42150 45050 47950 60% LIMITS 30540 34860 39240 43560 47100 50580 54060 57540 LOW INCOME 40700 46500 52300 58100 62750 67400 72050 76700 Lac qui Parle County, MN 30% LIMITS 15300 17450 19650 21800 23550 25300 27050 28800 VERY LOW INCOME 25450 29050 32700 36300 39250 42150 45050 47950 60% LIMITS 30540 34860 39240 43560 47100 50580 54060 57540 LOW INCOME 40700 46500 52300 58100 62750 67400 72050 76700 Lake County, MN 30% LIMITS 15550 17750 19950 22150 23950 25700 27500 29250 VERY LOW INCOME 25900 29600 33300 36950 39950 42900 45850 48800 60% LIMITS 31080 35520 39960 44340 47940 51480 55020 58560 LOW INCOME 41400 47300 53200 59100 63850 68600 73300 78050 Lake of the Woods County, MN 30% LIMITS 15300 17450 19650 21800 23550 25300 27050 28800 VERY LOW INCOME 25450 29050 32700 36300 39250 42150 45050 47950 60% LIMITS 30540 34860 39240 43560 47100 50580 54060 57540 LOW INCOME 40700 46500 52300 58100 62750 67400 72050 76700 Lincoln County, MN 30% LIMITS 15300 17450 19650 21800 23550 25300 27050 28800 VERY LOW INCOME 25450 29050 32700 36300 39250 42150 45050 47950 60% LIMITS 30540 34860 39240 43560 47100 50580 54060 57540 LOW INCOME 40700 46500 52300 58100 62750 67400 72050 76700 Lyon County, MN 30% LIMITS 16500 18850 21200 23550 25450 27350 29250 31100 VERY LOW INCOME 27500 31400 35350 39250 42400 45550 48700 51850 60% LIMITS 33000 37680 42420 47100 50880 54660 58440 62220 LOW INCOME 44000 50250 56550 62800 67850 72850 77900 82900 McLeod County, MN 30% LIMITS 16050 18350 20650 22900 24750 26600 28400 30250 VERY LOW INCOME 26750 30600 34400 38200 41300 44350 47400 50450 60% LIMITS 32100 36720 41280 45840 49560 53220 56880 60540 LOW INCOME 42800 48900 55000 61100 66000 70900 75800 80700 Effective Date: July 1, 2020 Page 6 of 11 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HUD STATE:MINNESOTA --------------------- 2020 ADJUSTED HOME INCOME LIMITS --------------------- PROGRAM 1 PERSON 2 PERSON 3 PERSON 4 PERSON 5 PERSON 6 PERSON 7 PERSON 8 PERSON Mahnomen County, MN 30% LIMITS 15300 17450 19650 21800 23550 25300 27050 28800 VERY LOW INCOME 25450 29050 32700 36300 39250 42150 45050 47950 60% LIMITS 30540 34860 39240 43560 47100 50580 54060 57540 LOW INCOME 40700 46500 52300 58100 62750 67400 72050 76700 Marshall County, MN 30% LIMITS 16000 18250 20550 22800 24650 26450 28300 30100 VERY LOW INCOME 26600 30400 34200 38000 41050 44100 47150 50200 60% LIMITS 31920 36480 41040 45600 49260 52920 56580 60240 LOW INCOME 42600 48650 54750 60800 65700 70550 75400 80300 Martin County, MN 30% LIMITS 15300 17450 19650 21800 23550 25300 27050 28800 VERY LOW INCOME 25450 29050 32700 36300 39250 42150 45050 47950 60% LIMITS 30540 34860 39240 43560 47100 50580 54060 57540 LOW INCOME 40700 46500 52300 58100 62750 67400 72050 76700 Meeker County, MN 30% LIMITS 16100 18400 20700 23000 24850 26700 28550 30400 VERY LOW INCOME 26850 30700 34550 38350 41450 44500 47600 50650 60% LIMITS 32220 36840 41460 46020 49740 53400 57120 60780 LOW INCOME 42950 49100 55250 61350 66300 71200 76100 81000 Morrison County, MN 30% LIMITS 15300 17450 19650 21800 23550 25300 27050 28800 VERY LOW INCOME 25450 29050 32700 36300 39250 42150 45050 47950 60% LIMITS 30540 34860 39240 43560 47100 50580 54060 57540 LOW INCOME 40700 46500 52300 58100 62750 67400 72050 76700 Mower County, MN 30% LIMITS 15500 17700 19900 22100 23900 25650 27450 29200 VERY LOW INCOME 25800 29500 33200 36850 39800 42750 45700 48650 60% LIMITS 30960 35400 39840 44220 47760 51300 54840 58380 LOW INCOME 41300 47200 53100 58950 63700 68400 73100 77850 Murray County, MN 30% LIMITS 16300 18600 20950 23250 25150 27000 28850 30700 VERY LOW INCOME 27150 31000 34900 38750 41850 44950 48050 51150 60% LIMITS 32580 37200 41880 46500 50220 53940 57660 61380 LOW INCOME 43400 49600 55800 62000 67000 71950 76900 81850 Effective Date: July 1, 2020 Page 7 of 11 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HUD STATE:MINNESOTA --------------------- 2020 ADJUSTED HOME INCOME LIMITS --------------------- PROGRAM 1 PERSON 2 PERSON 3 PERSON 4 PERSON 5 PERSON 6 PERSON 7 PERSON 8 PERSON Nobles County, MN 30% LIMITS 15300 17450 19650 21800 23550 25300 27050 28800 VERY LOW INCOME 25450 29050 32700 36300 39250 42150 45050 47950 60% LIMITS 30540 34860 39240 43560 47100 50580 54060 57540 LOW INCOME 40700 46500 52300 58100 62750 67400 72050 76700 Norman County, MN 30% LIMITS 15300 17450 19650 21800 23550 25300 27050 28800 VERY LOW INCOME 25450 29050 32700 36300 39250 42150 45050 47950 60% LIMITS 30540 34860 39240 43560 47100 50580 54060 57540 LOW INCOME 40700 46500 52300 58100 62750 67400 72050 76700 Otter Tail County, MN 30% LIMITS 15300 17450 19650 21800 23550 25300 27050 28800 VERY LOW INCOME 25450 29050 32700 36300 39250 42150 45050 47950 60% LIMITS 30540 34860 39240 43560 47100 50580 54060 57540 LOW INCOME 40700 46500 52300 58100 62750 67400 72050 76700 Pennington County, MN 30% LIMITS 15400 17600 19800 22000 23800 25550 27300 29050 VERY LOW INCOME 25700 29350 33000 36650 39600 42550 45450 48400 60% LIMITS 30840 35220 39600 43980 47520 51060 54540 58080 LOW INCOME 41100 46950 52800 58650 63350 68050 72750 77450 Pine County, MN 30% LIMITS 15300 17450 19650 21800 23550 25300 27050 28800 VERY LOW INCOME 25450 29050 32700 36300 39250 42150 45050 47950 60% LIMITS 30540 34860 39240 43560 47100 50580 54060 57540 LOW INCOME 40700 46500 52300 58100 62750 67400 72050 76700 Pipestone County, MN 30% LIMITS 15300 17450 19650 21800 23550 25300 27050 28800 VERY LOW INCOME 25450 29050 32700 36300 39250 42150 45050 47950 60% LIMITS 30540 34860 39240 43560 47100 50580 54060 57540 LOW INCOME 40700 46500 52300 58100 62750 67400 72050 76700 Pope County, MN 30% LIMITS 16250 18600 20900 23200 25100 26950 28800 30650 VERY LOW INCOME 27100 31000 34850 38700 41800 44900 48000 51100 60% LIMITS 32520 37200 41820 46440 50160 53880 57600 61320 LOW INCOME 43350 49550 55750 61900 66900 71850 76800 81750 Effective Date: July 1, 2020 Page 8 of 11 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HUD STATE:MINNESOTA --------------------- 2020 ADJUSTED HOME INCOME LIMITS --------------------- PROGRAM 1 PERSON 2 PERSON 3 PERSON 4 PERSON 5 PERSON 6 PERSON 7 PERSON 8 PERSON Red Lake County, MN 30% LIMITS 16300 18600 20950 23250 25150 27000 28850 30700 VERY LOW INCOME 27150 31000 34900 38750 41850 44950 48050 51150 60% LIMITS 32580 37200 41880 46500 50220 53940 57660 61380 LOW INCOME 43400 49600 55800 62000 67000 71950 76900 81850 Redwood County, MN 30% LIMITS 15300 17450 19650 21800 23550 25300 27050 28800 VERY LOW INCOME 25450 29050 32700 36300 39250 42150 45050 47950 60% LIMITS 30540 34860 39240 43560 47100 50580 54060 57540 LOW INCOME 40700 46500 52300 58100 62750 67400 72050 76700 Renville County, MN 30% LIMITS 15400 17600 19800 22000 23800 25550 27300 29050 VERY LOW INCOME 25700 29350 33000 36650 39600 42550 45450 48400 60% LIMITS 30840 35220 39600 43980 47520 51060 54540 58080 LOW INCOME 41100 46950 52800 58650 63350 68050 72750 77450 Rice County, MN 30% LIMITS 17300 19800 22250 24700 26700 28700 30650 32650 VERY LOW INCOME 28850 33000 37100 41200 44500 47800 51100 54400 60% LIMITS 34620 39600 44520 49440 53400 57360 61320 65280 LOW INCOME 46150 52750 59350 65900 71200 76450 81750 87000 Rock County, MN 30% LIMITS 15300 17450 19650 21800 23550 25300 27050 28800 VERY LOW INCOME 25450 29050 32700 36300 39250 42150 45050 47950 60% LIMITS 30540 34860 39240 43560 47100 50580 54060 57540 LOW INCOME 40700 46500 52300 58100 62750 67400 72050 76700 Roseau County, MN 30% LIMITS 15300 17450 19650 21800 23550 25300 27050 28800 VERY LOW INCOME 25450 29050 32700 36300 39250 42150 45050 47950 60% LIMITS 30540 34860 39240 43560 47100 50580 54060 57540 LOW INCOME 40700 46500 52300 58100 62750 67400 72050 76700 Steele County, MN 30% LIMITS 17000 19400 21850 24250 26200 28150 30100 32050 VERY LOW INCOME 28350 32400 36450 40450 43700 46950 50200 53400 60% LIMITS 34020 38880 43740 48540 52440 56340 60240 64080 LOW INCOME 45300 51800 58250 64700 69900 75100 80250 85450 Effective Date: July 1, 2020 Page 9 of 11 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HUD STATE:MINNESOTA --------------------- 2020 ADJUSTED HOME INCOME LIMITS --------------------- PROGRAM 1 PERSON 2 PERSON 3 PERSON 4 PERSON 5 PERSON 6 PERSON 7 PERSON 8 PERSON Stevens County, MN 30% LIMITS 17600 20100 22600 25100 27150 29150 31150 33150 VERY LOW INCOME 29300 33450 37650 41800 45150 48500 51850 55200 60% LIMITS 35160 40140 45180 50160 54180 58200 62220 66240 LOW INCOME 46850 53550 60250 66900 72300 77650 83000 88350 Swift County, MN 30% LIMITS 15300 17450 19650 21800 23550 25300 27050 28800 VERY LOW INCOME 25450 29050 32700 36300 39250 42150 45050 47950 60% LIMITS 30540 34860 39240 43560 47100 50580 54060 57540 LOW INCOME 40700 46500 52300 58100 62750 67400 72050 76700 Todd County, MN 30% LIMITS 15300 17450 19650 21800 23550 25300 27050 28800 VERY LOW INCOME 25450 29050 32700 36300 39250 42150 45050 47950 60% LIMITS 30540 34860 39240 43560 47100 50580 54060 57540 LOW INCOME 40700 46500 52300 58100 62750 67400 72050 76700 Traverse County, MN 30% LIMITS 15300 17450 19650 21800 23550 25300 27050 28800 VERY LOW INCOME 25450 29050 32700 36300 39250 42150 45050 47950 60% LIMITS 30540 34860 39240 43560 47100 50580 54060 57540 LOW INCOME 40700 46500 52300 58100 62750 67400 72050 76700 Wadena County, MN 30% LIMITS 15300 17450 19650 21800 23550 25300 27050 28800 VERY LOW INCOME 25450 29050 32700 36300 39250 42150 45050 47950 60% LIMITS 30540 34860 39240 43560 47100 50580 54060 57540 LOW INCOME 40700 46500 52300 58100 62750 67400 72050 76700 Waseca County, MN 30% LIMITS 15800 18050 20300 22550 24400 26200 28000 29800 VERY LOW INCOME 26350 30100 33850 37600 40650 43650 46650 49650 60% LIMITS 31620 36120 40620 45120 48780 52380 55980 59580 LOW INCOME 42150 48150 54150 60150 65000 69800 74600 79400 Watonwan County, MN 30% LIMITS 15300 17450 19650 21800 23550 25300 27050 28800 VERY LOW INCOME 25450 29050 32700 36300 39250 42150 45050 47950 60% LIMITS 30540 34860 39240 43560 47100 50580 54060 57540 LOW INCOME 40700 46500 52300 58100 62750 67400 72050 76700 Effective Date: July 1, 2020 Page 10 of 11 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HUD STATE:MINNESOTA --------------------- 2020 ADJUSTED HOME INCOME LIMITS --------------------- PROGRAM 1 PERSON 2 PERSON 3 PERSON 4 PERSON 5 PERSON 6 PERSON 7 PERSON 8 PERSON Wilkin County, MN 30% LIMITS 15300 17450 19650 21800 23550 25300 27050 28800 VERY LOW INCOME 25450 29050 32700 36300 39250 42150 45050 47950 60% LIMITS 30540 34860 39240 43560 47100 50580 54060 57540 LOW INCOME 40700 46500 52300 58100 62750 67400 72050 76700 Winona County, MN 30% LIMITS 16300 18600 20950 23250 25150 27000 28850 30700 VERY LOW INCOME 27150 31000 34900 38750 41850 44950 48050 51150 60% LIMITS 32580 37200 41880 46500 50220 53940 57660 61380 LOW INCOME 43400 49600 55800 62000 67000 71950 76900 81850 Yellow Medicine County, MN 30% LIMITS 15300 17450 19650 21800 23550 25300 27050 28800 VERY LOW INCOME 25450 29050 32700 36300 39250 42150 45050 47950 60% LIMITS 30540 34860 39240 43560 47100 50580 54060 57540 LOW INCOME 40700 46500 52300 58100 62750 67400 72050 76700 Effective Date: July 1, 2020 Page 11 of 11 50th St W 6 th St W Hi A K LAKE HARRIET 54th St W Birch Belmore Ln 45th St W 58th St W 60th St W 69th St W 65th 67th St W 62nd W Ben ve Interlachen Blvd 66thSt Hi e Golf Ter 73rd St W Av ew Rd 34th StW 40thSt W Gro St tW 76th St W Maloney Ave 51stSt W y 39th St W r St th St Bra d 35th St W e St d St W 49thStW 33rd St W Goodrich St Boyce St 61st St W 75th St W 46th St W W 68th St W 52nd St W 64th St W 4th StW 42nd St W 57th St 1 t 56th St W 41st St W2ndStNE Brook Hamilton St Dewey Hill Rd k Dr Minne ota D n 36 hSt d Ln Fuller St Gilford Dr dal ambridg StNE 77th St W Kn Su ys Ann Ln hSt W St 53 21 32 31 20 5 17 158 17 3 3 31 17 100 100 7 62 169 169 212 494 ST. LOUIS PARKHOPKINS RICHFIELD EDINA MINNEAPOLIS EDEN PRAIRIE $177300 $103594 $138424 $74696 $135833 $103917 $155185 $56346 $125541 $141750 $77723 $62243 $78224 $80032 $111927 $53675 $56811 $129659 $89104 $168036 $76613 $63860 $69119 $77580 $55095 $105750 $250001 $90129 $99955 $60402 $142202 $79840 $134265 $100475 $82375 $74413 $101310 $141838 $90508 $76989 City of Edina Low to Moderate Income Tracts Median Household Income Levels Relative to 2020 Area Median Income (AMI) Hennepin Disclaimer:This map (i) is furnished "AS IS" with no representation as to completeness or accuracy; (ii) is furnished with no warranty of any kind; and (iii) is not suitable for legal, engineering or surveying purposes. Hennepin County shall not be liable for any damage, injury or loss resulting from this map. Publication date:12/17/2020 Data sources:American Community Survey (2015-2019), Hennepin County 0 1.50.75 Miles Low to Moderate Income Tracts Median Household Income (% of AMI) <= $31,000 (30% AMI) <= $51,700 (50% AMI) <= $78,500 (80% AMI) Greater than 80% AMI City Boundaries Edina Other Cities Area Median Income In 2020, the area median income for a household of four is $103,400. 80% of AMI is capped at the U.S. national family income, which is why the value is $78,500 and not the true 80% value. Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). DRAFT 2016-2021 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Estimated 2021CDBG BUDGET $115,571 (-1.6%)$122,652 $140,000 (+8.8%)$136,470 (-3%)$157,418 (+13%) $164,706 PublicService: 15%$17,336 $18,398 $24,000 $20,470 $23,612 $24,706 SCS - H.O.M.E.$8,676 $9,098 CAPSH $4,597 $4,911 HOME Line $4,063 $4,389 Community Development:85%$98,235 $104,254 $116,000 $116,000 $133,806 $140,000 Rehab of Pvt. Pro $32,000 $60,000 WHAHLT Aff. Hsg.$98,235 $104,254 ($116,000 + $152,000 reallocated funds) $268,000 $84,000 $133,806 $80,000 Single RFP through Hennepin County Single RFP through Hennepin County Single RFP through Hennepin County Single RFP through Hennepin County 2016-2019 CDBG Budget Page 1 1 Hennepin County CDBG Funding Request Form 2021 Program Year Organization Information Agency/Organization Name: West Hennepin Affordable Housing Land Trust dba Homes Within Reach Address: 5101 Thimsen Ave., Suite 202, Minnetonka, MN 55345 Organization Type: Organization Type: Organization Type: Organization Type: ☐Government ☐Government ☐Government ☐Government x x x x NonNonNonNon----Profit Profit Profit Profit ☐For☐For☐For☐For----Profit Profit Profit Profit ☐Other:☐Other:☐Other:☐Other: Click here to enter text. Name of Primary Contact: Brenda Lano-Wolke Title of Primary Contact: Executive Director Primary Contact Email: BrendaL@homeswithinreach.org Primary Contact Phone: 952-401-7071 Activity Information Activity Name: Housing Activities – Affordable Homeownership Amount of 2021 CDBG Funding Request: $80,000 Use of CDBG Funds (e.g. acquisition, rehabilitation, construction): West Hennepin Affordable Housing Land Trust (WHAHLT), dba, Homes Within Reach (HWR) is requesting a 2021 CDBG award of $80,000 from the City of Edina to continue offering the Community Land Trust program in the City of Edina, which provides housing for working families that would be otherwise unable to buy a home, offering both communities and homebuyers the ability to sustain permanently affordable homeownership. Requested CDBG funds along with other matching funds will provide the resources for the acquisition of land, rehabilitation and projects costs to create and preserve long-term affordable housing for a low-to-moderate income work-force household in the City of Edina. Description of Activity: As a Community Land Trust, HWR creates and preserves unique long-term affordable homeownership opportunities for working families who provide essential services to Hennepin County suburban communities. Service providers such as custodians, teachers, municipal workers, retail staff, office personnel, food prep staff, customer service representatives, and many more who are unable to purchase a home in the communities where they work and live. The major objective of creating affordable homeownership is to offer an opportunity for low-to-moderate income work- force households in becoming homeowners, which in turn adds value to the family unit and the community. Creation of affordable homeownership using the HWR Community Land Trust practice is achieved by acquiring and retaining the ownership of real property, rehabilitating and then selling the improvement (home) to buyers who earn less than 80% Area Median Income (AMI). The CLT practice of retaining ownership of the land protects the investment of the subsidy made possible by multiple funders. HWR establishes affordability by using the Community Land Trust practice which removes the value of the land from the mortgage equation to create initial affordability. The homes cost less than market rate homes because HWR homebuyers purchase only the house (Improvements) and enter into a Ground Lease with WHAHLT – HWR to secure the long-term rights and use of the land. This land trust practice offers long-term affordability (99-year lease), where each affordable home will offer homeownership to 7-12 families throughout the life of the lease. 2 Homes are made permanently affordable for work-force homeowners through contractual controls embedded in the Ground Lease, which allows homeowners to secure long-term rights to the land. Homeowners have full use of the land and are responsible for the property and payment of all real estate taxes on the house and the parcel of land. A homeowner may sell his/her property to a like qualified buyer - a resale restriction that ensures permanent affordability that is tied to the Community Land Trust. Please refer to Exhibit 1 – How the Community Land Trust Works. Location Address (if applicable): At this point in time, the proposed housing activity has no determined property addresses. Once funding is awarded and finalized, HWR will search to acquire properties based on multiple conditions, which include but are not limited to location, purchase price, size of parcel of land and house, condition of property, applicants needs and available matching contributions. Description of Project Service Area (if applicable): Anticipated Accomplishments (complete a, b, or c below): a.) Housing activities: #Housing Units: One b.) Public Facilities activities: List Census Block Groups served by the facility: c.) All other activities: #People Served: Activity Need, Consistency with Plans, and Public Support Who is the target clientele? What populations will benefit from the activity? HWR’s target market is households with incomes at 80% or less of Area Median Income (AMI). In practice, HWR has served households between 32% and 79% AMI, the average program wide AMI is 59% for new sales and 62% for resales. Furthermore, the Community Land Trust homes remain affordable between consecutive generations of homeowners for one home. This recycling of funds from owner to owner ensures the home remains affordable for workforce families over a long period of time – 99-year lease. Therefore, the funding not only supports the initial buyer’s household but multiple households thereafter without additional funding. HWR proposed housing activity of creating and sustaining affordable homeownership is a unique tool for many suburban communities in Hennepin County, because of the many challenges and obstacles inherent in providing suburban work-force homeownership. Long-term affordability and suburban land values are components of why HWR, a Community Land Trust, is an important tool in providing affordable homeownership options in the suburbs of Hennepin County. The cost of the land is a major component of a HWR project’s budget and subsidy. HWR has experienced land values that typically range from $60,000 to $200,000 in thirteen (13) Hennepin County suburbs served by the organization. In 2002, WHAHLT-HWR was formed in response to a growing need for affordable housing among low-to-moderate income work-force families overburdened with housing expense and with the least possible options available to own a home. HWR went to work with a singular vision to transform people’s lives through homeownership by using the Community Land Trust practice. Since 2007, the HWR program has served working families in Edina. Please refer to the profile chart on the next page. Since that time, HWR has capitalized on opportunities to adjust to our current rapidly-changing housing market with low inventory and rising prices, to help working families in Edina become homeowners by acquiring, rehabilitating and selling properties through our proven Community Land Trust practice. 3 Categories 2002-2020 2002-2020 Comments HWR Edina Totals Totals Total HWR Parcels 164 14 HWR Households 162 14 HWR Resale 31 2 HWR Total Families Served 193 16 HWR Average Income Served $44,746 $48,845 2020 Avg Income - $53,458 HWR Area Median Income Served (%) 59% 60% Income and family size drives AMI calculation HWR Average Final Mortgage Amount $958 $1,076 Includes PITI HWR Average Sale Price $131,518 $142,100 In 2020 purchase price was $154,000 HWR Percentage of Households of Color Served 39% 25% Initial sales of 162 homes HWR Single Female Heads of Households Served 56.00% 31.25% Initial sales of 162 homes Number of Communities Served 12 1 To date, HWR has assisted sixteen families in becoming Edina homeowners. The target market for Edina is households with 50% - 80% Area Median Income. Over the past 13 years, HWR has served households between 34% to 76% AMI in the City of Edina. The program average Area Median Income (AMI) in Edina is 60% and 50% for resales. What community needs does this activity address? The Community’s need for the program is that in today’s market, many suburban communities are confronted with the fact that entry-level properties are overpriced for the majority of work-force households who work or live in the suburban communities of Hennepin County and provide essential community services. Increased home values have taken place because of a reduction in supply and increase in demand, while wages have not increased accordingly and cannot keep pace with increased housing costs. Today homeownership is out of reach for too many Minnesotans who work hard but don’t earn enough to afford a mortgage, and this is compounded by the fact that market forces can no longer produce entry-level price homes in communities like Edina where the HWR median home sale was $155,000 in 2020 (Please refer to Exhibit 2 – 2020 Preliminary Sources and Uses) and according to Neighborhood Scout as of December 2020, the median home value in Edina is $561,798. At HWR we have seen first-hand how homeownership for work-force families stabilizes lives, enables greater community and economic participation, and builds assets to pass on to the next generation. Housing is a multiplier, a basic need that impacts every part of life: education, health, economic success and we are committed to preserving and cultivating the HWR Community Land Trust program to create more long-term affordable land trust homeownership options for work-force families in communities such as Eden Prairie. The following chart illustrates the median price to purchase a home in the City of Edina according to the Minneapolis Area Association of Realtors, increasing 20% from 2016 through 2020. 4 HWR Target Area Median Prices - Five Years According to Minneapolis Area Association of Realtors Community 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Change from 2019 to 2020 Change from 2016 Bloomington - East $ 210,000 $ 232,000 $ 244,500 $ 257,000 $ 275,000 7.00% 31% Bloomington - West $ 250,000 $ 264,750 $ 280,000 $ 300,000 $ 315,000 5.00% 26% Crystal $ 235,000 $ 252,000 7.23% NA Brooklyn Park $ 214,400 $ 230,000 $ 250,000 $ 265,000 $ 283,000 6.79% 32% Eden Prairie $ 308,500 $ 330,000 $ 339,000 $ 356,900 $ 380,000 6.47% 23% Edina $ 435,010 $ 460,000 $ 449,900 $ 466,750 $ 520,000 11.41% 20% Golden Valley $ 290,275 $ 314,000 $ 309,900 $ 339,500 $ 371,000 9.28% 28% Maple Grove $ 256,700 $ 270,000 $ 297,000 $ 314,780 $ 335,000 6.42% 31% Minnetonka $ 307,500 $ 335,000 $ 348,000 $ 355,500 $ 399,000 12.24% 30% New Hope $ 220,000 $ 225,000 $ 245,000 $ 257,500 $ 290,000 12.62% 32% Plymouth $ - $ - $ 367,300 $ 380,000 $ 390,000 2.63% NA Richfield $ 221,625 $ 235,000 $ 251,000 $ 269,900 $ 290,000 7.45% 31% St. Louis Park $ 245,000 $ 262,500 $ 287,000 $ 304,000 $ 326,000 7.24% 33% Homes Within Reach supports work-force families who provide essential services to the community and surrounding suburbs who typically cannot afford to purchase an entry-level home in Edina, such as custodians, teachers, municipal workers, retail staff, office personnel, food prep staff, customer service representatives and many more. How does the activity address a goal identified in the 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan? Note: Specify which Strategy and Goal the activity addresses. The HWR program, in the City of Edina, meets the Hennepin County Consolidated high priority for offering homeownership assistance by creating long-term affordable homeownership using the Community Land Trust practice allowing HWR to acquire and retain ownership of real property, rehabilitating and then selling the improvement (home) to work-force buyers in the suburbs of Hennepin County earning less than 80% Area Median Income (AMI). The HWR program meets another high priority of the Consolidated Plan with its program requirement, HWR applicants must complete Homestretch Classes. HWR also requires homeowners to receive HUD Housing Counseling when/if crises such as foreclosure prevention or other financial concerns occur. In recent years, HWR has worked with Hennepin County and other non-profits to create customized housing solutions to support the needs of several HWR homeowners with family members who are physically disabled. How does the activity meet other locally identified community development needs? Community development needs benefit from the HWR Community Land Trust program through specific activities and outcomes that include the following: Expands Homeownership Opportunities: HWR’s CLT program expands homeownership opportunities and the three principals of the program continues to appeal and offer options to the targeted market, which include the cost of homes, the quality of home and their location. Three features of the HWR program which continue to appeal to our applicant pool is the cost of homes, the quality of homes and their locations. Retains Community Wealth: The HWR program makes maximum use of existing buildings and community’s infrastructure. Edina’s infrastructure is a major selling point to the buyer, and in return, the new family provides value and benefits with respect to the community’s growth, delivery of services, increasing the labor pool available to local businesses, reducing freeway congestion given the opportunity so a worker can live near their work, adding younger households to the community where the population is often aging and providing the mechanism to invest in long term affordable housing. 5 Enhances Residential Stability: HWR like other CLT organizations support homeowners before and after the purchase of the home. Homeowners are required to attend a homebuyer education class before purchasing their home. Furthermore, HWR continues to support homeowners after they move into their home, especially during times of crisis and change in their lives. Providing a long-term practice for families to become homeowners, stabilizes families and in turn, adds value to the community, where they work and or live. In addition, HWR program provides assistance in maintaining neighborhoods as they age. With the aging process taking place there is a need to renew the residential base and support the seniors in moving from their detached home to a suitable arrangement as they age. Preserves Housing Affordability: Community Land Trust homes remain affordable between consecutive generations of homeowners. This recycling of funds from owner to owner ensures the home remains affordable for low-to-moderate income families over a long period. Describe any community or private partnership support: Community support and partnership is important, and it began in 2001 with the City of Minnetonka sponsoring the development of WHAHLT as a Community Land Trust (CLT) to create and preserve long-term affordable homeownership in Minnetonka, with the goal to expand the program in the suburbs of Hennepin County. Over the Years, WHAHLT applied the CLT model developed for Minnetonka and expanded its outreach to a total of thirteen communities over the past nineteen years and the City of Edina is one of those communities. Today, HWR partners with organizations like NeighborWorks Home Partners, who administers a fix-up loan program for CLT homeowners and providers who offer credit counseling to assist prospective applicants who need to repair their credit in order to qualify for a mortgage through Community Action Partnership of Hennepin County and other accredited providers funded by Minnesota Housing. When homeowners are in a time of crisis, HWR works with homeowners and refers them to city/county/private resources to assist them with their challenges and needs. In addition, HWR collaborates with the Minneapolis Community Land Trust with data collection and continues to be a member of the Minnesota CLT Coalition and the Grounded Solution Network, where the organization works with its peers on lobbying initiatives, development of best practices, resources and products the CLT’s offer to current and future homeowners. Implementation Schedule Projects may begin on or after July 1, 2021. Projects must be complete by June 30, 2022. Note: Priority given to projects that can be completed by March 30, 2019. The following are major tasks of the proposed activity process and they can overlap each other. Task Anticipated Completion Date Acquisition/Rehab of Property: Property Search, Selection, Offer, Due Diligences/Multiple Inspections, Predevelopment documentations to Funders, Acquisition/Rehab, LC Approval, Purchase of Property, Development of Scope of Work-Specifications and Rehab Plan & Execute 6 + Months Selling of Home Process: HWR Application, Mortgage Application and Approval, Homebuyer Class, Selection of Home, Board Committee Interview, Finalize Income Eligibility, Execute PA, Homebuyer Inspection 3-6 Months Closing Process: Attorney Review with Buyer, Final Home Inspection, Transfer Utilities, Coordination with Funders, Buyers & Closer 60 days Closing Project: Final Bills, Finalize Project Sources & Uses, submit Paper Work to Funders for Payment, pay off LC Commitment. 90 -120 Days 6 Activity Budget Note: Projects involving the acquisition, rehabilitation, and/or construction of housing or public facilities should submit a detailed source and uses budget in Microsoft Excel format in lieu of completing this section. 2021 Funding Sources Amount Secured? CDBG $80,000 Application in Process Other local funds: Met Council $40,000 Committed Other federal funds: HOME Partnership $65,000 Committed State Minnesota Housing $70,000 Committed (Attach separate pages if necessary) Has this activity received CDBG funding in previous years? ☐☐☐☐ Yes ☐☐☐☐ No If Yes, describe: Uses of 2021 CDBG Funds (e.g. staff time, materials, etc.) Amount Please refer to Exhibit 2 – Preliminary Sources & Uses Click here to enter text. (Attach separate pages if necessary) Staff Capacity Describe staff capacity and experience relevant to administering this activity: West Hennepin Affordable Housing Land Trust (WHAHLT) dba Homes Within Reach (HWR), is a non-profit organization, dedicated to creating and preserving affordable homeownership for low-to-moderate income, working households in suburban Hennepin County. (80% or less AMI). HWR began with a singular vision to transform people’s lives through homeownership utilizing the Community Land Trust practice in one city, Minnetonka. Today, while the overall vision remains the same, HWR’s service area has grown from one Hennepin County suburban community to 13 communities. As communities understand the benefits and value of the program, we will expand to additional communities in suburban Hennepin County. HWR has demonstrated its capacity and expertise as a small non-profit organization by sustaining and growing its target market, assisting 193 low-to-moderate income families become homeowners, who, if not for HWR and the CLT program, would not have been able to purchase a home in these communities. HWR has provided ongoing support and assistance to its homeowners over the past 18 years. The Community Land Trust program creates long-term affordability through its contractual controls rooted in the Ground Lease, which has been developed, managed and enforced by the HWR staff for the past eighteen years. HWR performs a diverse scope of services to manage the organization's purpose of creating and preserving long-term affordable homeownership. The steady growth over the years is supported by the HWR staff and its team of consultants and specialized vendors, (contractors, realtors, attorneys, appraisers, closer, auditor etc.) who deliver the expertise, skills and services to undertake the operational responsibilities in creating and preserving affordable homeownership using the Community Land Trust program. 7 List the names, position titles, and brief qualifications of staff who will be primarily responsible for delivering this activity (attach additional pages if necessary): Staff implements and monitors the Homes Within Reach program goals, practices and procedures, which are embedded in a variety of documents that include, but are not limited to, the Ground Lease and its addendums, procedural checklists that incorporate funding resources, real estate and organizational compliance requirements and the Annual Goals approved by the Board of Directors. HWR Staff The HWR staff includes the following. Executive Director Project Administrator Administrative Support The HWR staff implements and monitors the Homes Within Reach program objectives and procedures, which are embedded in a variety of documents that include, but are not limited to, the ground lease and its addendums, procedural checklists that incorporate funding, real estate and organizational compliance requirements and annual goals supporting the organization’s strategic plan, developed and approved by the Board of Directors. ● Executive Director Brenda Lano-Wolke has held the position of Executive Director since January 4, 2021. HWR Executive Director manages and supervises the non-profit organization, which includes, but not limited to; providing fund development; housing production and project development; organizational and financial oversight; product development; marketing and community education; and board development. She offers expertise and experience in business development, housing and organizational/leadership skills due to previous work experience in serving as the Community Development Manager for Carver County Housing and Redevelopment Authority and administrating the Carver County Community Land Trust. ● Project Administrator Doris Gruis is HWR Project Administrator since June 2006 and provided third party accounting services to WHAHLT since January of 2005. Her responsibilities include but are not limited to, working with WHAHLT/HWR applicants in the areas of screening applicant’s qualifications, homebuyer education, recruitment, and community education and providing bookkeeping and accounting services to the organization. Doris is a CPA and applies her experience and skills in working with small business owners to working with HWR applicants and vendors. ● Administrative Support Dianne Greer is HWR Administrative Coordinator, responsibilities include but are not limited to working with HWR inquiries during the initial application process and provide administrative support to the organization’s operating and selling responsibilities. Key Vendors There are several key service providers critical in assisting HWR in the acquisition of property and the transactional activities of the Community Land Trust; buying, selling and transferring ownership of the home and executing the Ground Lease, which secures the property rights to the homeowner. ● Land Title Inc. provides closing services for both the purchase and sale transactions for HWR. ● House Masters provides inspection services, in addition to Hennepin County and Contractor inspection. ● Hennepin County provides PIRA and HQS Assessments. ● Energy Audit is provided by GPS Inspections and Neighborhood Energy Center. ● Appraisal Partners Inc. provides appraisal service for acquired properties. ● Counselor Realty works with HWR in acquiring properties. ● WHAHLT’s attorney, William Henney provides legal services with respect to all closing documents, reviews legal contracts and other organizational matters, and ● North Risk Partners - acts as HWR insurance broker. HWR has worked with several contractors in creating affordable homeownership. However, we have worked with TJU Construction as the general contractor on a majority of our projects. However, these providers offer HWR a 8 variety of services that include but are not limited to, inspections during the selection and acquisition phases, participation in the review process, homeowner education, contracting and creating the rehabilitative scope of services. In an effort to stay current with building and environmental compliance requirements, contractors continue to participate in educational and certification seminars with respect to completion of courses in lead abatement, energy education and other green community requirements through organizations like mngreenstar and other educational providers for residential building contractors and hire third party experts to implement radon, blower test/energy audits, HERS rating and where applicable, paint inspection risk assessment (PIRA). Lending Institutions Alerus Mortgage, Bremer Bank, US Bank, Mortgages Unlimited and Trustone Home Mortgage are the five lending institutions that currently offer mortgages to HWR applicants. The mortgage bankers representing each of the institutions are experienced with the Community Land Trust practice and HWR and can assist the prospective homebuyer/land trust applicant with home financing options offered by the bank. Attorney for Buyers Gregory A. Lang, Dave Hansen and Kellen Fish are available for buyers to select to review the Ground Lease and other pertinent closing documents prior to closing. The attorneys attend closing with the buyers to assist the applicant with questions concerning the closing process and or Land Trust documents. Education Providers Community Action Partnership of Hennepin County 8800 Highway #7, Suite 401 St. Louis Park, MN 55426 Phone: 952-933-9639 Fax: 952-933-8016 www.caphennepin.org PRG, Inc. 2017 East 38th Street Minneapolis MN 55407 Phone: 612-721-7556 x-72 www.prginc.org African Families Development Network 3207 Cedar Ave S Minneapolis, MN 55407 Phone: 612-724-0000 www.afdnminnesota.org Carver County Community Development Agency 705 N Walnut St., Chaska, MN 55318 Phone: 952-556-2801 https://carvercda.org/rentalhousing/housing-classes NeighborWorks Home Partners 533 Dale Street N. St. Paul, MN 55103 Phone: 651-292-8710 www.nwhomepartners.org Home Ownership Center 1000 Payne Avenue Suite 200 St. Paul, MN 55130 Phone) 651-659-9336 Fax) 651-659-9518 www.hocmn.org Dakota County Community Development Agency 1228 Town Centre Drive Eagan, MN 55123 Phone: 651-675-4471 www.dakotacda.org 9 HWR Project Team Chart Team Member Name Phone Number E-mail Developer WHAHLT - HWR 952-401-7071 brendaL@homeswithinreach.org Project Manager Brenda Lano-Wolke 952-401-7071 brendaL@homeswithinreach.org Project Coordinator Doris Gruis 952-401-7071 dgruis@homeswithinreach.org Fiscal Manager Doris Gruis 952-401-7071 dgruis@homeswithinreach.org Construction Contractor/builder TJU Construction 612-386-5217 tuzzell@comcast.net Consultant: Strategic Planning, Marketing Joan Nichols 651-323-8409 joannichols55@gmail.com Consultant: Evan Stark Design Vicki Stark 612-309-3995 www.esdgraphic.com Home Mortgage Lender: Alerus Mortgage Pat Gleason 952-847-9834 Pat.Gleason@alerus.com Home Mortgage Lender: Bremer Bank Nancy Healy 651-486-3248 njhealy@bremer.com Home Mortgage Lender: US Bank Kathy Luebke 651-778-2617 Kathy.luebke@usbank.com Home Mortgage Lender: Mortgages Unlimited Twila Hanks 612-998-7747 thanks@muihomeloans.com Home Mortgage Lender: Trustone Home Mortgage Tim Volkenant 612-425-2936 Tim.Volkenant@trustone.org Realtor for purchase only Counselor Realty 952-473-9500 Vicki@counselor-realty.com Other: Land Title Inc. Cindy Meyer 651-697-6102 cmeyer@landtitleinc.com Other: Attorney William Henney 952-474-4406 Bhenneylaw@cs.com Other: Credit Counselor Osborne Strickland 763-300-2644 Ows.firsthomenetwork@gmail.com Other: Credit Counselor Community Action of Hennepin County 952-933-9639 homeownership@caphennepin.org Other: Credit Counselor FamilyMeans 651-789-4014 www.familymeans.org/contact-us- budget-credit-counseling.html Other: Hennepin County Lead Control Michael Jensen 612-348-2114 Michael.Jensen@hennepin.us Other: House Masters David Sroga 952-926-9943 David.sroga@housemaster.com Other: Appraisal Partners Inc. Sue Eckman 763-503-9354 seckman@appraisal-patners.com Other: Residential Energy Consultant Gary P. Simonson 612-227-7694 simonsonenergy@comcast.net Other: Center for Energy and Environment Phil Anderson 651-789-5713 panderson@mncee.org Other: Buyer Attorney Gregory A. Lang 952-470-6361 greg@langlawoffice.com Other: Buyer Attorney Dave Hansen 952-474-4406 dah@davidhansenlaw.com Other: Buyer Attorney Kellen Fish 612-337-9094 ktfish@ktflawfirm.com Other: North Risk Partners (Ins. Broker) Mark Lenz 651-379-7876 mlenz@northriskpartners.com 2021 Edina CDBG Application Exhibit 2 January 2021 Sources: Homebuyer Mortgage $170,000 City of Edina CDBG $80,000 Matching Funds $165,000 Total $415,000 Uses: Acquisition Costs $340,000 Closing Costs $2,200 Inspections/Testing $2,600 Acquisition costs $344,800 HOME & Adm Fee $15,000 Project/Holding/LC/Closing Costs $13,750 Rehab Costs $43,000 Total $416,550 Name of Property Date: Undetermined - proposed the creation of one affordable home Preliminary Sources & Uses for Proposed Edina Housing Project The CITY of EDINA 2021 CDBG BUDGET Community Development Block Grant Program The CITY of EDINACDBG BUDGET 2019 -2021 www.EdinaMN.gov 2 2019 2020 2021 FINAL FINAL PROPOSED EDINA’S BUDGET: $136,470 $157,418 $164,706 Public Services:15%$ 20,470 $ 23,612 $ 24,706 Community Development:85%$ 116,000 $ 133,806 $ 140,000 The CITY of EDINACDBG BUDGET OVER TIME www.EdinaMN.gov 3 $0 $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $250,000 199219931994199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021Edina's CDBG Allocation Total Allocation Community Development Portion The CITY of EDINA2021 CDBG Recommended Budget Planning Budget: $164,706 PUBLIC SERVICES : $24,706 (15%) •Awarded through a single RFP process through Hennepin County COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: $140,000 (85%) •Homes Within Reach $80,000 •Homeowner Rehab $60,000 www.EdinaMN.gov 4 The CITY of EDINA2021 Community Development WHAHLT: West Hennepin Affordable Housing Land Trust Homes Within Reach Program •Provides affordable homeownership opportunities using the Community Land Trust model for income eligible homebuyers. •Since 2007, 14 single family houses have been acquired. The 2021 allocation will be combined with remaining 2019 and 2020 allocations. •Edina’s allocation helps leverage other sources. Requesting: $80,000 Recommend: $80,000 www.EdinaMN.gov 5 The CITY of EDINAHomes Within Reach HWR Target Area Median Prices -Five Years According to Minneapolis Area Association of Realtors Community 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Change from 2019 to 2020 Change from 2016 Bloomington -East $ 210,000 $ 232,000 $ 244,500 $ 257,000 $ 275,000 7.00%31% Bloomington -West $ 250,000 $ 264,750 $ 280,000 $ 300,000 $ 315,000 5.00%26% Crystal $ 235,000 $ 252,000 7.23%NA Brooklyn Park $ 214,400 $ 230,000 $ 250,000 $ 265,000 $ 283,000 6.79%32% Eden Prairie $ 308,500 $ 330,000 $ 339,000 $ 356,900 $ 380,000 6.47%23% Edina $ 435,010 $ 460,000 $ 449,900 $ 466,750 $ 520,000 11.41%20% Golden Valley $ 290,275 $ 314,000 $ 309,900 $ 339,500 $ 371,000 9.28%28% Maple Grove $ 256,700 $ 270,000 $ 297,000 $ 314,780 $ 335,000 6.42%31% Minnetonka $ 307,500 $ 335,000 $ 348,000 $ 355,500 $ 399,000 12.24%30% New Hope $ 220,000 $ 225,000 $ 245,000 $ 257,500 $ 290,000 12.62%32% Plymouth $ -$ -$ 367,300 $ 380,000 $ 390,000 2.63%NA Richfield $ 221,625 $ 235,000 $ 251,000 $ 269,900 $ 290,000 7.45%31% St. Louis Park $ 245,000 $ 262,500 $ 287,000 $ 304,000 $ 326,000 7.24%33% www.EdinaMN.gov 6 The CITY of EDINARehabilitation of Private Property •The City paused funding 2015-2018, 2020 as there were program proceeds. •Currently approximately $3,846 remain in this pool, with five applicants on the waiting list. •Hennepin County manages this fund. •In the past few years, half the recipients were seniors. •The income limits may not exceed 120% of the Area Median Income (AMI). •Financing to homeowner structured as a deferred loan. Requesting: $60,000 www.EdinaMN.gov 7 The CITY of EDINANext Steps •Closing public comment period at noon on March 8 •Return to City Council on March 16 for approval of Resolution 2021-14 www.EdinaMN.gov 8 Date: March 2, 2021 Agenda Item #: VIII.B. To:Mayor and City Council Item Type: Report / Recommendation From:Kris Aaker, Assistant Planner Item Activity: Subject:PUBLIC HEARING: Resolution No. 2021-25 for a Conditional Use Permit with Variance Shepherd of the Hills Lutheran Church, 500 Blake Road South Action CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to close the public hearing at noon, March 8, 2021 and to continue action on these items to the March 16, 2021 City Council meeting. INTRODUCTION: The Church is proposing renovation of the existing parking lot areas on-site. The improvements are to be phased with the entire parking lot design submitted for review including a future drop-off canopy. There would be an increase of one parking stall. On February 24, 2021, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and unanimously recommended approval. ATTACHMENTS: Description Staff Memo to Planning Commission, Feb. 24, 2021 Resolution No. 2021-25: Conditional Use Permit with Variance Better Together Public Hearing Comment Report Applicant Narrative and Plans Civil, Grading, and Drainage Plans February 24, 2021 Planning Commission Kris Aaker, Assistant City Planner PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit with a 5.41- foot setback variance for parking resurface improvements and entrance canopy for Shepherd of the Hills Church at 500 Blake Road South. Information / Background: Shepherd of the Hills Church, the applicant, has submitted a phased plan for improvements to the existing parking lot and drive aisles on the property located at 500 Blake Road South. No decrease in parking space is proposed with the resurfacing plan providing one additional parking stall. A future south façade drop-off canopy is also proposed. To accommodate the application, the following is requested: A Conditional Use Permit for the existing religious institution. Religious Institutions are a conditional use within the R-1, Single Dwelling Unit District. Parking facilities and other uses which are accessory to conditional uses, are permitted by section 36- 435(3) of the zoning ordinance. A 5.41-foot setback variance on the south side of the middle lot to allow slightly less than a 3- foot expansion along the south edge of the lot to accommodate code compliant standardized parking stalls and drive aisles. SUPPORTING INFORMATION The property has been occupied by Shepherd of the Hills Lutheran Church since 1957 and will continue to operate as a church use into the future. The church is proposing to renovate the existing nonconforming parking lot structure as it currently exists. There will be some formalization of parking space size, drive aisle widths, and geometries that will slightly modify the location of existing spaces and curbing. Shepherd of the Hills indicated they are not proposing to add any parking, but also do not want to reduce any parking spaces. The plan will result in an increase in one parking stall. Maintaining the existing lot and parking spaces reduces the potential STAFF REPORT Page 2 for on street parking in the residential neighborhood and helps to accommodate larger events including funerals and weddings. The parking areas are showing cracks in asphalt and deterioration in sidewalks, curbing, and in the stormwater grading. The CUP with variance will allow the church to renovate the aging parking lot and bring the parking stalls and drive aisles up to city code standards. The construction will be a phased based on funding with the middle/central parking lot, which is the one directly south of the building, to be renovated first. The church has submitted the entire parking lot build-out design for CUP review. The church has indicated they do not have funding to renovate the entire parking lot at one time. The plan is coordinated in phases to implement quickly once funding can be obtained in the future. The design of a future south façade drop-off canopy is also being submitted and shown in plan. The church is not expecting to build this structure during the initial phase of the project. The church would like to install footings for the structure during the initial phase which would eliminate the need to remove, patch and repair the new construction to install the footings. The renovated parking lot will include these items: 1. New pavement and parking space striping. 2. New concrete curbing for the parking and drive areas. 3. A pedestrian friendly path to the building entrance. 4. New concrete sidewalks. 5. Upgraded site lighting. 6. A rain garden that infiltrates a portion of the storm water. 7. Better control of the rainwater in the southeast and northwest parking areas. 8. A connection between the southeast parking lot and the main parking area. 9. Elimination of the Maloney access to the northwest parking area. 10. A future entrance canopy. The renovated parking lot is expected to operate in a similar fashion as it does now. One exception is having a connection between the smaller lot in the southeast end of the property and the main parking lot. This connection will make more parking available to people that might have gone through the main lot without finding a spot, without having to go out onto Blake Road. Another exception is to eliminate the parking access drive from Maloney at the northwest parking lot and installing the access so that it comes from the main driveway through the property. Circulation within the site will be improved with one fewer drive aisle connection to a street. The City prefers fewer driveway connections to streets if possible. The applicant is asking to extend the boundary of the main parking lot, which is south of the building, between 2 and 3 feet to the south. This would be between the northeast corner of the property at 6404 Mendelssohn Lane and the trash enclosure at the west end of the Church property. The parking lot curb line and the property line are not parallel which results in a setback dimension that varies. The current setback between the existing curb and the property line varies between 10"-0" on the east end to about 7'-6" on the west end. The new setbacks would be about 7'-8" on the east end and about 4'-5" on the west end. STAFF REPORT Page 3 By increasing the setback, the church has stated it will relieve the site of the practical difficulties of nonconforming aisles and parking lot stall size - all drive aisles for the 60-degree parking can be 18'- 0" wide and the Parking spaces can all be 18'-0" x 9'-0" which meets the zoning ordinance. Without the setback change the parking spaces and drive aisles would each be smaller and nonconforming. Surrounding Land Uses Northerly: Single Family Residences; zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and Guided Low Density Residential. Easterly: Single Family Residences; zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and Guided Low Density Residential. Southerly: Single Family Residences; zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and Guided Low Density Residential. Westerly: Single Family Residences; zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and Guided Low Density Residential. Existing Site Features The subject property, 500 Blake Road South, is in the south west corner of Blake Road and Maloney Ave. and is the current site of the Shepherd of the Hills Church with existing parking lot. The church also currently owns a residential dwelling unit property adjacent to the west at 6424 Mendelssohn Road, (west of the church) . Planning Guide Plan designation: PSP, Public/Semi-Public Zoning: R-1, Single Dwelling Unit District Site Circulation, Traffic & Parking No additional parking spaces are required with the proposed project, Parking requirements for churches and other religious institutions are based on the maximum seating capacity of the largest places of assembly. The sanctuary space will remain with the same number of exiting seats. No change is proposed for interior spaces of the building, no changes in program planning and no increase in capacity is proposed for the building. STAFF REPORT Page 4 Building/Building Material The building materials on the proposed canopy addition will match the existing building. No other building materials will be changed as part of the project. Engineering The Engineering Department has reviewed the subject property for street and utility concerns, grading, stormwater, erosion, sediment control and for general adherence to the relevant ordinance sections. The Engineering memo is attached. Compliance Table City Standard Proposed Canopy South Side – Parking Middle lot/ South Side– Parking South West and East lots 50 - feet 10 feet/7.5 - feet existing nonconforming 10 feet interior/20 feet to ROW 80+- feet 4.59- feet* (2.9 -feet closer) (matching existing nonconforming) PRIMARY ISSUES/STAFF RECOMMENDATION Conditional Use Permit Primary Issues • Are the plans proposed reasonable to minimize impacts for the conditionally permitted Use? Yes, the proposal is an existing parking resurface and will not impact surrounding properties. The proposed project is the resurfacing and slight reconfiguration of existing parking areas on the subject property. The traffic generated from this project will remain the same, have minimal impact on the surrounding intersections and does not currently change the level of service. Per the requirements of a conditional use permit it can be determined that the project: 1. Does not have an undue adverse impact on governmental facilities, utilities, services or existing or proposed improvements. 2. Will generate traffic within the capacity of the streets serving the property; 3. Does not have an undue adverse impact on the public health, safety or welfare; STAFF REPORT Page 5 4. Will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of other property in the vicinity; 5. Conforms to the applicable restrictions and special conditions of the district in which it is located; and 6. Is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Staff believes that the above criteria are met. Churches are a Conditional Use in the R-1 zoning district in the City. The Church use on the property currently exists and is not expanding on site. The site would not have an adverse impact on governmental facilities, utilities, or services. The existing roads will continue to support the site with reduced curb cut access to Maloney Ave. The parking lot resurfacing of existing conditions will not change existing impact on adjacent property. • Is the proposed variances justified? Minnesota Statues and Section 36-98 of the Edina Zoning Ordinance require that the following conditions must be satisfied affirmatively. The proposed variance will: 1) Relieve practical difficulties that prevent a reasonable use from complying with ordinance requirements. Reasonable use does not mean that the applicant must show the land cannot be put to any reasonable use without the variance. Rather, the applicant must show that there are practical difficulties in complying with the code and that the proposed use is reasonable. Shepherd of the Hills church and associated parking currently have non-conforming setbacks on site with previous setbacks obtained and approved in years past. The proposed setback variance will allow for the parking to be more code compliant, increase interior circulation with one less driveway connection to a street, (Maloney). The southeast and west lots will be designed to tie into the existing parking areas more appropriately improving interior circulation. The practical difficulty is the existing nonconforming location of the church and parking lots. The proposal makes minimal changes with new interior circulation changes providing convenient and safe access within the church property. 2) There are circumstances that are unique to the property, not common to every similarly zoned property, and that are not self-created? The existing parking layout and building allow for the proposed improvements to be possible in just a few locations. The proposed layout was determined by the existing nonconforming conditions. Due to the location of the existing building and parking areas, there are limited opportunities for parking area changes to occur. The proposed lot re-arrangement is within STAFF REPORT Page 6 the confines of existing setbacks except for the middle lot which is currently less than 3 feet closer than existing to the lot line. 3) Will the variances alter the essential character of the neighborhood? The proposed variances will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The building will remain with the new canopy matching the existing building materials. Parking areas will have improved interior circulation and provide one less connection to a street. Staff Recommendation Recommend that the Planning Commission approve the Conditional Use Permit with a 5.41- foot setback variance for parking resurface improvements and entrance canopy at Shepherd of the Hills Church at 500 Blake Road South. Approval is subject to the following findings: The proposal meets the conditional use permit criteria in Section 36-305 of the City Code and Minnesota Statues and Section 36-98 of the Edina Zoning Ordinance for variance approval. Approval is subject to the following Conditions: Subject to staff approval, the site must be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the following plans, unless modified by the conditions below: Plans date stamped January 8, 2021 and February 10, 2021. • Canopy materials presented at the Planning Commission and City Council meeting. • Screening is to be installed between the main lot and west residential property as per section 36-1457of the City Code. The property owner is responsible for replacement of 6-foot-tall solid wall fencing along the middle and south east lots if removed or needs replacement and all required landscaping that dies. • The Final Lighting Plan at permit application must meet all minimum requirements per Section 36- 1260 of the City Code. • Compliance with the conditions and comments listed in the Engineer’s memo. Deadline for a city decision: May 7, 2021 DATE: 2/4/2021 TO: Cary Teague – Planning Director FROM: Zuleyka Marquez, PE – Graduate Engineer RE: 500 Blake Rd S – Conditional Use Permit Review The Engineering Department has reviewed the subject property for street and utility concerns, grading, stormwater, erosion and sediment control and for general adherence to the relevant ordinance sections. This review was performed at the request of the Planning Department; a more detailed review will be performed at the time of building permit application. Plans reviewed included Site Survey, Summary of Work The applicant proposes resurface and modify existing parking areas. Easements No comments. Grading and Drainage The existing site drains to the north and south. Most of the existing parking lots drain south via stormwater pipe into Mirror Lake to the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District. The north and northwest parking lot drain north via surface flow to the Minnehaha Watershed District. With the proposed changes to the northwest parking lot, that drainage pattern will be shifted south. Stormwater Mitigation A Grading and Drainage Plan and Drainage/Hydraulic Engineering Design Report were reviewed. The applicant proposes to install a filtration basin with 430 CF of capacity. Applicant to submit final as-built showing site grades and filtration basin. Rate and volume are reduced to the north and south subwatersheds. Floodplain Development No comment. Erosion and Sediment Control An erosion and sediment control plan was not submitted for review. A plan may be required at permit review depending on the amount of soil disturbance proposed. Street and Driveway Entrance The applicant proposes to close the curb cut on Maloney Ave. Standard plate 500 applies to the new curb and gutter. The applicant also proposes modifications and replacement of two other existing driveway entrances on Blake Rd S. This work will require driveway entrance permits and inspections. Standard plate 410 applies to commercial driveway aprons. Note, at least 50’ are required from between the driveway and the nearest return of the intersection of two streets. Applicant to redesign and demonstrate compliance. Maloney Ave was reconstructed in 2011. Refer to standard plates 540 and 543 apply for any road damage. Additionally, reconstruction of Blake Rd S is planned for 2022. Note, bicycle facilities are planned along Blake Rd S and Maloney Ave and a primary sidewalk along Blake Rd S. In anticipation of the 2022 Blake Road reconstruction, city staff anticipates some need for temporary easements. City staff would suggest moving the shrub lines of the SE parking lot, west. This would limit potential impacts with the city’s project. Public Utilities No comment. Miscellaneous The site is located within subwatersheds HO_9 and ML_20, which drain to Minnehaha Creek and Nine Mile Creek, respectively. Nine Mile Creek Watershed permit and/or Minnehaha Creek Watershed permits may be required. Applicant to verify with watershed districts. A well is located onsite at 6424 Mendelssohn Lane, Shepherd of the Hills Lutheran Church property. State law requires that a well that is not in use must be sealed unless the property owner has a maintenance permit for the well (Minnesota Statutes, section 103I.301). Applicant to coordinate with the Minnesota Department of Health and provide the City with a well sealing record. RESOLUTION NO. 2021- 25 APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH VARIANCE FOR SHEPHERD OF THE HILLS LUTHERAN CHURCH AT 500 BLAKE ROAD BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, as follows: Section 1. BACKGROUND. 1.01 The subject property is Shepherd of the Hills Lutheran Church located at 500 Blake Road. The request is for a Conditional Use Permit with variance to resurface and modify existing parking areas. The Church is proposing a renovation of all existing parking lot areas on-site. The improvements are to be phased with the entire parking lot design submitted for review including a future drop-off canopy on the south side of the building. There is some formalization of parking space size, drive aisle widths, and geometries. The plan proposes a 5.41-foot setback variance that slightly modifies the location of existing spaces and curbing along the south side of the middle parking lot. 1.02 The property is legally described as follows: Block 001 Addition: Ascension Addition, Lot 001 BLK Addition: Mendelssohn Heights, Lot 002 BLK 001 Addition: Mendelssohn Heights, Lot 07 BLK 001 Addition: Mendelssohn Heights 1.03 To accommodate the request, the following land use applications are requested: 1. A Conditional Use Permit. 2. A 5.41- foot setback variance. 1.04 On February 24, 2021 the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the request. 1.05 On March 2, 2021, the City Council held a public hearing on the Conditional Use Permit with variance. RESOLUTION NO. 2021-25 Page 2 Section 2. FINDINGS 2.01 Approval is based on the following findings: The proposal meets the conditional use permit criteria in Section 36-305 of the City Code as follows: a. Does not have an undue adverse impact on governmental facilities, utilities, services or existing or proposed improvements; b. Will generate traffic within the capacity of the streets serving the property; c. Does not have an undue adverse impact on the public health, safety or welfare; d. Will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of other property in the vicinity; e. Conforms to the applicable restrictions and special conditions of the district in which it is located, as imposed by this chapter; and f. Is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Minnesota Statues and Section 36-98 of the Edina Zoning Ordinance require that the following conditions must be satisfied affirmatively. The proposed variance will: 1) Relieve practical difficulties that prevent a reasonable use from complying with ordinance requirements. Shepherd of the Hills church and associated parking currently have non-conforming setbacks on site with previous setbacks obtained and approved in years past. The proposed setback variance will allow for the parking to be more code compliant, increase interior circulation with one less driveway connection to a street, (Maloney). The southeast and west lots will be designed to tie into the existing parking areas more appropriately improving interior circulation. The practical difficulty is the existing nonconforming location of the church and parking lots. The proposal makes minimal changes with new interior circulation changes providing convenient and safe access within the church property. 2) There are circumstances that are unique to the property, not common to every similarly zoned property, and that are not self-created? The existing parking layout and building allow for the proposed improvements to be possible in just a few locations. The proposed layout was determined by the existing nonconforming conditions. Due to the location of the existing building and parking areas, there are limited opportunities for parking area changes to occur. The proposed lot re-arrangement is within the confines of existing setbacks except for the middle lot which is currently less than 3 feet closer than existing to the lot line. RESOLUTION NO. 2021-25 Page 3 3) Will the variances alter the essential character of the neighborhood? The proposed variances will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The building will remain with the new canopy matching the existing building materials. Parking areas will have improved interior circulation and provide one less connection to a street Section 3. APPROVAL NOW THEREFORE, it is hereby resolved by the City Council of the City of Edina, approves the Conditional Use Permit with setback variance for Shepard of the Hills Church at 500 Blake Road. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 3.01 Subject to staff approval, the site must be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the following plans, unless modified by the conditions below: • Plans date stamped January 8, 2021 and February 10, 2021. • Canopy materials presented at the Planning Commission and City Council meeting. • Screening is to be installed between the main lot and west residential property as per section 36-1457of the City Code. The property owner is responsible for replacement of 6-foot-tall solid wall fencing along the middle and south east lots if removed or needs replacement and all required landscaping that dies. • The Final Lighting Plan at permit application must meet all minimum requirements per Section 36- 1260 of the City Code. • Compliance with the conditions and comments listed in the Engineer’s memo. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, on March 16, 2021. RESOLUTION NO. 2021-25 Page 4 ATTEST: Sharon Allison, City Clerk James B. Hovland, Mayor STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )SS CITY OF EDINA ) CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting City Clerk for the City of Edina do hereby certify that the attached and foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of March 16, 2021, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this ____ day of __________________, 2021. _________________________________ City Clerk Survey Responses 30 January 2019 - 21 February 2021 Public Hearing Comments Better Together Edina Project: Public Hearing: Conditional Use Permit at 500 Blake Road South, Shepherd of the Hills VISITORS 8 CONTRIBUTORS 2 RESPONSES 2 0 Registered 0 Unverified 2 Anonymous 0 Registered 0 Unverified 2 Anonymous Respondent No:1 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Feb 02, 2021 07:37:30 am Last Seen:Feb 02, 2021 07:37:30 am IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name Anne Kaminsen Q2.Address 404 Arthur Street, Edina, MN 55343 Q3.Comment From the description, this sounds like a worthwhile project and I'm sure it will make the church look even better. I love the addition of a pedestrian path and a rain garden. It's not clear to me what impact this would have in terms of potential road closures (maybe none since it is a parking lot), but if there is impact it would of course be great to minimize it where possible/communicate it to neighbors ahead of time. Thank you! Respondent No:2 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Feb 19, 2021 13:04:46 pm Last Seen:Feb 19, 2021 13:04:46 pm IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name Joseph Hoffman Q2.Address 6305 Maloney Ave. Edina Q3.Comment My wife and I are generally quite supportive of this church. We are not members, but we're grateful for the way they allow our neighborhood to vote there. It's a lovely building and I'm sure they can use additional parking. This seems like a worthy need for a variance. Application for an Amendment to the Conditional Use Permit Shepherd of the Hills Lutheran Church 500 Blake Road South The property has been occupied by Shepherd of the Hills Lutheran Church since 1957 and operates as a typical church. Church operations are intended to continue into the future. The church desires to improve the aesthetic appeal of the building and grounds to create a better invitation and welcome to members, guests, and the neighborhood. Over the last several years the church has been able to fund a variety of improvements both inside and outside the building. The parking lot, though functional, needs aesthetic improvement. The aging of the parking structure is showing with cracks in asphalt, sidewalks, curbing, and in the stormwater grating. Approval of the CUP would allow the church to renovate the aging parking lot and beautify the property. The church is proposing to renovate the existing parking lot structure as it currently exists. There is some formalization of parking space size, drive aisle widths, and geometries which are being proposed which slightly modifies the location of existing spaces and curbing. Shepherd of the Hills is not proposing to add any parking, but also does not want to lose any parking spaces. Parking spaces are most valuable by reducing street parking, which is appreciated by the neighbors, but also during larger events such as funerals and weddings. The renovated parking lot is expected to operate in a similar fashion as it does now. One exception is having a better connection between the smaller lot in the southeast end of the property and the main parking lot. This connection would make more parking available to people that might have gone through the main lot without finding a spot, without going out onto Blake Road. Another exception is to eliminate the parking access drive from Maloney at the northwest parking lot and installing the access so that it comes from the main driveway through the property. The church does not believe they have the funding to renovate the entire parking lot currently. They are proposing to renovate the largest and most central parking lot which is the one directly south of the building. They have submitted the entire parking lot design to the review process in hopes of gaining the CUP for the entire project. That way, the parking lot design is coordinated and once funding can be obtained, move swiftly ahead with construction in the future. The design of a future drop-off canopy is also being submitted. The church is not expecting to build this structure during the initial phase of the project. The church would like to install footings for the structure during the initial phase which would eliminate the need to remove, patch and repair the new construction to install the footings. The renovated parking lot will include these items: 1. New pavement and parking space striping. 2. New concrete curbing for the parking and drive areas. 3. A pedestrian friendly path to the building entrance. 4. New concrete sidewalks. 5. Upgraded site lighting. 6. A rain garden that infiltrates a portion of the storm water. 7. Better control of the rainwater in the southeast and northwest parking areas. 8. A connection between the southeast parking lot and the main parking area. 9. Elimination of the Maloney access to the northwest parking area. 10. A future entrance canopy. Thank you for your consideration! Edina, Hennepin, MetroGIS, Edina, Hennepin, MetroGIS | © WSB & Associates2013, © WSB & Associates 2013 500 Blake Road January 26, 2021 1 in = 94 ft / 607 sq ft1'-3.6"18'-9.4"18'32'-8"68'-3" 18'9'9'18'9'18'(10) EQUAL SPACES = 90'-0"18'9'7'-6"8'9'18'18'-0"117'18'9' 36'8'18'5'18'6'-6" 40'-2"18'-0 " 8'-10"12'-5"16'-11"62'-6"13'-8"8'-11"8' 18'4'-5"7'-8"18'-3" 24'18'10'197'-5"12'18'26'-6"18'27' 54' 4'-6"18' 4'-6"17'-11"11'-11"20'5'18'28'-4"207'-10"197'-5"10'20'20'20'20'20'10' 20'10'83'-2"11'-1"83'-2"EXISTINGRETAININGWALLRAISEDCROSSWALKPHASE 1WITHIN LINESPROPERTY LINE31199923333331133PROPERTY LINE EXISTINGSIGNPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTYLINE911PROPERTY LINE3355551313933111155343211111231119CANOPY ABOVE -SHOWN WITHDASHED LINES17141616161618181PHASE 1 WITHINLINESPHASE 1 WITHINLINESTAPERED CURBTAPERED CURBTAPEREDCURB1919202020EDGE OF EXISTINGBITUMINOUS CURBEXTENT OF BUMPEROVERHANG ALLOWEDEDGE OF EXISTINGTREELINETAPERED CURBCROSSWALK20PARKING SETBACKPARKING SETBACKPARKING SETBACKTRENCH DRAINALONG CURBPROPERTYLINEPROPERTY LINEPARKINGSETBACK666666623244432121232221EXISTINGCONCRETESURFACEBITUMINOUS PARKING AREA & DRIVEWAYEXISTING TRASHENCLOSUREEXISTINGRAMBLERWALK-OUTEXISTINGBITUMINOUSDRIVEWAYEXISTING CONCRETE SURFACEBITUMINOUS DRIVEWAY EXISTING BITUMINOUS PARKING AREA & DRIVEWAYMALONEY AVENUEBITUMINOUSPARKING AREAMENDELSSOHN LANEBLAKE ROAD EXISTINGSHLCBUILDINGPED.PED.PED.PED.PED.1920191013899BITUMINOUS PARKING AREA & DRIVEWAYBITUMINOUSPARKING AREADROPOFFEXISTINGSINGLEFAMILY HOMEEXISTINGSINGLEFAMILY HOMEEXISTINGSINGLEFAMILY HOMECHURCHPROPERTYTYP. SPACE = 9' x 18'60° PARKING ANGLER 3'R 3'R 3'R 4'R 4'R 3'R 3'R 3'R 5'(19) EQUAL SPACES =(19) EQUAL SPACES =R 5'60°90°TYP. SPACE = 9' x 18'90° PARKING ANGLETYP. SPACE = 9' x 18'60° PARKING ANGLE60°18 TOTAL SPACESR 10'R 22'15 TOTAL SPACES60°R 3'60°23 TOTAL SPACES90°TYP. SPACE = 9' x 18'90° PARKING ANGLE(8) EQUAL SPACES =7(20) EQUAL SPACES =(13) EQUAL SPACES =TOTAL PHASE 1PARKING SPACES = 63ACC.AISLEACC.AISLEFILTRATION BASINR 3'ACC.AISLER 6'-8"FUTURE EXPANDEDEXISTINGR 3'R 10'R 9'R 3'300 SEATS IN THE SANCTUARY/3 = 100PARKING SPACES REQUIRED85 PARKING SPACES SOUTH LOT + 15SPACES NORTH LOT + 18 SPACES WESTLOTS = 118 SPACESR 26'(4) EQUAL SPACES = (6) EQUAL SPACES =R 5'R 15'R 5'R 15'R 3'UPUPR 10'20 SHRUBS @ 4'-0" O.C.15 SHRUBS @ 4'-0" O.C.16 SHRUBS @ 4'-0" O.C.31 SHRUBS @ 4'-0" O.C.16 SHRUBS @ 4'-0" O.C.19 SHRUBS @ 4'-0" O.C. 10 SHRUBS @ 4'-0" O.C.R 5'R 5'310 FOURTH AVENUE SOUTHSUITE 1000MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55415TEL: 612.333.2279FAX: 612.339.2336CONSULTANTCERTIFICATIONI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSEDPROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATEOF MINNESOTA.DATE:PRINTED NAME:REG. NO. 51331COMMISSION NO.:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:DATE:BID ISSUE DATE:REVISION DATES:PROJECT TITLEOWNERSHEET TITLESHEETSHEET NO.OF500 BLAKE ROAD SOUTHEDINA, MN 55343NATHAN M. LICHTYNLNL10/26/2020PLOT DATE:SHEPHERD OF THE HILLS18-11NOVEMBER 20, 2020XLUTHERAN CHURCHPARKING LOT RENOVATIONSHEPHERD OF THE HILLSLUTHERAN CHURCHNOVEMBER 20, 2020500 BLAKE ROAD SOUTHEDINA, MN 55343PRELIMINARY DRAWINGNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONSITE SURVEY 310 FOURTH AVENUE SOUTH SUITE 1000 MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55415 TEL: 612.333.2279 FAX: 612.339.2336 CONSULTANT CERTIFICATION I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY REGISTERED ARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. DATE: PRINTED NAME: REG. NO. 16909 COMMISSION NO.: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: DATE: BID ISSUE DATE: REVISION DATES: PROJECT TITLE OWNER SHEET TITLE SHEET SHEET NO. OF 500 BLAKE ROAD SOUTH EDINA, MN 55343 KEVIN C. BUSCH KCB/AM/JF KCB 12/23/2020PLOT DATE: SHEPHERD OF THE HILLS 18-11 DEC. 23, 2020 X LUTHERAN CHURCH PARKING LOT RENOVATION SHEPHERD OF THE HILLS LUTHERAN CHURCH MONTH XX, 2020 500 BLAKE ROAD SOUTH EDINA, MN 55343 PRELIMINARY DRAWING NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SITE PLAN KEYNOTES 1. BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT - MILL & OVERLAY, REFER TO DETAIL 2/C2.0 2. BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT - NEW, REFER TO DETAIL 3/C2.0 3. CONCRETE CURB. B618 DESIGN REFER TO DETAIL 1/C2.0 4. CONCRETE CURB - SURMOUNTABLE DESIGN - REFER TO DETAIL 1/C2.0 5. CONCRETE PAVING, REFER TO DETAIL 4/C2.0 6. NEW LIGHT FIXTURE, REFER TO DETAIL 2/C2.0 7. RELOCATED EXISTING SHED. 8. TREE. 9. EXISTING LIGHTPOLE TO REMAIN -- PROTECT FROM DAMAGE. 10. EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN -- PROTECT FROM DAMAGE. 11. EXISTING CONCRETE STEPS AND LANDING TO REMAIN -- PROTECT FROM DAMAGE. 12. EXISTING STONE RETAINING WALL TO REMAIN -- LINE UP WITH NEW CONCRETE CURB (SEE PLAN). 13. STRUCTURAL COLUMNS -- SEE CANOPY PLAN. 14. CANOPY (ABOVE) -- SEE PLAN. 15. VESTIBULE -- SEE PLAN. 16. SIGN. 17. TRASH ENCLOSURE TO REMAIN. 18. 4" PAINT LINE. 19. LINE OF EXISTING PARKING LOT EDGE. 20. EXISTING CONCRETE SIDEWALK. 21. 3ft CURB CUT 22. DRAINAGE CHANNEL EROSION PROTECTION, REFER TO DETAIL 7/C2.0 23. PAVEMENT REMOVAL AND TURF ESTABLISHMENT AREA -- SEE PLAN. BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME QUANTITY CONTAINER SIZE PICEA PUNGENS GLOBOSA BLUE SPRUCE DWARF GLOBE SHRUB #5 CONTAINER127 TOTAL SYMBOL 1'-3 5/8"18'-9 1/2"18'-0"32'-8 1/4"68'-2 5/8"18'-0"9'-0 " 9'-0"18'-0"9'-0" 1 8 ' - 0 " (10) EQUAL SPACES = 90'-0"18'-0"9'-0" 7'-6" 8'-0" 9'-0" 1 8 ' - 0 " 18'-0"117'-0"18'-0"9'-0"36'-0"8'-0" 1 8 ' -0 "5'-0"18'-0"6'-6"40'-2"18'-0"8'-10"12'-5"16'-10 3/4"62'-6" 13'-8"8'-10 5/8"8'-0"18'-0"4'-5 1/8"7'-8 1/4"18'-3 3/8"24'-0"18'-0"10'-0" 197'-5 1/2"12'-0" 18'-0"26'-6"18'-0"27'-0"54'-0"4'-6"18'-0"4'-6"17'-11"11'-10 3/4"20'-0" 5'-0 " 18'- 0 " 28'-4" 207'-10 1/8" 197'-5 1/2" 10'-0" 20'-0"20'-0"20'-0"20'-0"20'-0"10'-0"20'-0"10'-0"83'-1 5/8"11'-1"83'-1 5/8" 607 sq ft EXISTINGRETAINING WALL RAISED CROSSWALK PHASE 1 WITHIN LINES PROPERTY LINE 3 11 99 9 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 11 3 3 PROPERTY LINE EXISTING SIGN PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE 9 11 PROPERTY LINE 3 3 55 55 1313 9 3 3 1111 55 3 43 2 1111 12 3 11 1 9 CANOPY ABOVE - SHOWN WITH DASHED LINES 17 14 16 161616 18 18 1 PHASE 1 WITHIN LINES PHASE 1 WITHIN LINES TAPERED CURB TAPERED CURB TAPERED CURB 19 19 20 2020 EDGE OF EXISTING BITUMINOUS CURB EXTENT OF BUMPER OVERHANG ALLOWED EDGE OF EXISTING TREELINE TAPERED CURB CROSSWALK 20 PARKING SETBACK PARKING SETBACK PARKING SETBACK TRENCH DRAIN ALONG CURB PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PARKING SETBACK 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 23 2 44 4 3 21 21 23 22 21 EXISTINGCONCRETE SURFACE BITUMINOUS PARKING AREA & DRIVEWAY EXISTING TRASH ENCLOSURE EXISTING RAMBLER WALK-OUT EXISTINGBITUMINOUS DRIVEWAY EXISTING CONCRETE SURFACE BITUMINOUS DRIVEWAYEXISTING BITUMINOUS PARKING AREA & DRIVEWAY MALONEY AVENUE BITUMINOUS PARKING AREA MENDELSSOHN LANE BLAKE ROADEXISTING SHLC BUILDING PED. PED. PED. PED. PED. 19 20 19 1013 8 9 9 BITUMINOUS PARKING AREA & DRIVEWAY BITUMINOUS PARKING AREA DROPOFF EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOME EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOME EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOME EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOME CHURCH PROPERTY TYP. SPACE = 9' x 18' 60° PARKING ANGLE R 3' R 3' R 3' R 4' R 4' R 3' R 3' R 3' R 5' (19) EQUAL SPACES = (19) EQUAL SPACES = R 5' 60° 90° TYP. SPACE = 9' x 18' 90° PARKING ANGLE TYP. SPACE = 9' x 18' 60° PARKING ANGLE 60° 18 TOTAL SPACES R 10' R 22' 15 TOTAL SPACES 60° R 3' 60° 23 TOTAL SPACES 90° TYP. SPACE = 9' x 18' 90° PARKING ANGLE (8) EQUAL SPACES = 7 (20) EQUAL SPACES =(13) EQUAL SPACES =TOTAL PHASE 1 PARKING SPACES = 63 ACC. AISLE ACC. AISLE FILTRATION BASIN R 3' ACC. AISLE R 6'-8" FUTURE EXPANDED EXISTING R 3' R 10' R 9'R 3' 300 SEATS IN THE SANCTUARY/3 = 100PARKING SPACES REQUIRED 85 PARKING SPACES SOUTH LOT + 15SPACES NORTH LOT + 18 SPACES WESTLOTS = 118 SPACES R 26'(4) EQUAL SPACES =(6) EQUAL SPACES =R 5' R 15'R 5' R 15' R 3' UP UP R 10' 20 SHRUBS @ 4'-0" O.C.15 SHRUBS @ 4'-0" O.C.1 6 S HR U B S @ 4'- 0 " O. C .31 SHRUBS @ 4'-0" O.C.16 SHRUBS @ 4'-0" O.C.19 SHRUBS @ 4'-0" O.C.10 SHRUBS @ 4'-0" O.C.R 5' R 5' N A1.0 SITE PLAN 1" = 20'-0" 1 A1.0 SITE PLAN LANDSCAPE SCHEDULE NO SCALE 2 A1.0 607 sq ft19201910138997300 SEATS IN THE SANCTUARY/3 = 100PARKING SPACES REQUIRED85 PARKING SPACES SOUTH LOT + 15SPACES NORTH LOT + 18 SPACES WESTLOTS = 118 SPACESP1MH: 17P1MH: 17P4MH: 12P4MH: 12P3MH: 8P3MH: 8C1MH: 8C1MH: 8C1MH: 8C1MH: 8C1MH: 8W2MH: 14W2MH: 14W1MH: 8W1MH: 8W1MH: 8P2MH: 12F1MH: 12F1MH: 12P6MH: 17P5MH: 12P5MH: 12P5MH: 17P3MH: 12P3MH: 120.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.10.10.20.30.20.10.00.00.10.10.20.50.81.00.70.10.00.10.20.41.02.13.62.90.20.00.10.20.51.43.57.911.71.00.00.10.20.61.63.88.613.61.40.10.10.30.61.53.04.94.50.80.10.10.30.71.72.83.52.81.10.10.10.30.82.24.65.94.11.60.10.20.30.82.68.113.86.72.00.20.20.20.41.14.511.03.80.90.30.40.40.40.30.20.20.10.10.00.20.20.20.10.10.10.10.20.30.50.70.70.60.50.30.20.30.40.60.80.80.70.50.30.20.40.60.40.30.40.40.40.30.20.10.20.20.40.61.01.41.51.20.80.50.40.50.71.21.51.71.30.80.50.73.07.63.50.50.70.80.70.50.30.20.20.40.71.21.92.62.92.31.40.80.60.81.32.12.93.32.51.50.80.92.34.22.50.81.31.61.50.90.50.30.30.51.01.83.14.85.54.72.31.10.81.22.03.55.46.15.02.41.00.91.52.11.71.32.23.02.71.50.60.30.40.61.22.34.47.711.27.52.81.11.11.52.54.88.712.68.02.61.21.22.34.53.20.81.63.05.74.51.60.80.80.60.71.12.34.99.716.610.24.02.71.91.72.45.09.516.210.04.73.01.92.87.54.50.61.32.64.85.85.33.52.01.10.70.91.63.15.49.314.510.35.62.71.81.92.94.68.615.810.95.62.61.30.90.60.40.71.13.914.013.46.83.31.50.80.70.91.32.06.613.911.25.83.01.71.31.32.16.512.510.15.42.91.40.70.30.20.41.45.010.411.06.13.51.70.90.50.50.71.94.97.16.54.32.51.50.91.02.04.66.35.83.92.21.30.60.30.10.51.63.75.65.74.32.71.60.90.50.40.71.42.63.83.62.71.71.00.60.81.42.43.43.22.41.50.90.50.30.20.41.12.03.03.12.62.11.51.00.70.70.60.91.41.91.91.51.00.60.40.50.81.31.71.71.30.90.50.30.20.10.30.71.21.61.81.92.12.41.62.14.41.30.60.81.01.12.71.50.50.41.06.03.51.10.90.70.40.30.20.10.10.30.50.81.01.21.63.85.72.23.614.32.20.50.50.62.011.97.01.30.81.99.25.81.40.70.40.30.20.10.10.20.30.60.80.90.91.32.93.70.60.70.61.22.62.93.63.31.62.02.54.21.40.40.20.10.10.00.20.51.12.01.70.80.50.52.35.61.40.60.82.82.60.82.90.10.10.00.00.40.82.45.72.93.212.41.70.30.41.30.81.62.43.51.44.16.80.71.85.913.10.61.43.04.73.14.70.00.00.50.81.31.51.20.90.50.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.20.30.40.60.60.50.40.20.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.20.20.20.30.30.30.30.20.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.20.30.20.20.20.20.20.20.10.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.30.40.60.50.30.20.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.12.30.30.10.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.30.61.11.51.20.60.20.10.10.10.10.20.30.30.20.10.20.20.10.21.31.31.43.20.50.10.00.00.00.00.00.10.20.51.22.43.73.21.20.30.10.10.10.51.71.71.72.73.23.31.70.90.40.30.20.30.30.20.10.00.00.00.00.10.20.61.53.98.96.61.10.10.00.10.59.37.14.54.67.99.99.55.62.71.40.50.20.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.10.10.41.13.37.43.70.10.00.00.12.18.26.63.73.23.93.23.63.11.60.80.40.20.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.20.50.80.40.10.00.00.00.31.63.63.52.11.41.10.70.90.70.60.40.20.10.1Luminaire ScheduleSymbolQtyLabelArrangementLLFDescriptionLum. Watts5C1SINGLE0.910VANLED28NFFR28.08752F1SINGLE0.910X34-55L_12055.32P1BACK-BACK0.910ALED4T150N1541P2SINGLE0.910ALED2T78N79.54P3SINGLE0.910ALED26N29.82P4SINGLE0.910ALED4T78N76.23P5SINGLE0.910ALED4T50N54.13W1SINGLE0.910ENTRA1214.42W2SINGLE0.910W34-35L-83033.61P6SINGLE0.910ALED4T150N154SHEPHERD HILLS DRAWN BY: J.PYTLESKI DATE: 01/04/2021 SCALE: 1/16"=1'-0"E100JOE HANLEY COLLINS LIGHTING PLAN REVISIONS #DATE DESCRIPTION 310 FOURTH AVENUE SOUTH SUITE 1000 MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55415 TEL: 612.333.2279 FAX: 612.339.2336 CONSULTANT CERTIFICATION I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY REGISTERED ARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. DATE: PRINTED NAME: REG. NO. 16909 COMMISSION NO.: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: DATE: BID ISSUE DATE: REVISION DATES: PROJECT TITLE OWNER SHEET TITLE SHEET SHEET NO. OF 500 BLAKE ROAD SOUTH EDINA, MN 55343 KEVIN C. BUSCH KCB/AM/JF KCB 12/8/2020PLOT DATE: SHEPHERD OF THE HILLS 18-11 MONTH XX, 2020 X LUTHERAN CHURCH PARKING LOT RENOVATION SHEPHERD OF THE HILLS LUTHERAN CHURCH MONTH XX, 2020 500 BLAKE ROAD SOUTH EDINA, MN 55343 PRELIMINARY DRAWING NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION2'-0" 27'-8" 2'-0" 1'-0" EXISTING BUILDING EXISTING ROOFTOP 8"x8" TUBE STEEL COLUMN 2'x2' BRICK PIER STANDING SEAM METAL FASCIA EDGE FLASH 8"x8" TUBE STEEL COLUMN EXISTING CANOPY EDGE APPROX. LINE OF GRADE ELEV. = 49' - 9 3/4" ELEV. = 41' - 0" 2'-0"2'-0" 2'-0" 1'-0" 16'-0" 12'-0"APPROX. LINE OF GRADE AT TOP OF CURB EXISTING BUILDING EXISTING ROOFTOP 8"x8" TUBE STEEL COLUMN 2'x2' BRICK PIER STANDING SEAM METAL FASCIA EDGE FLASH EXISTING BUILDING ELEV. = 49' - 9 3/4" ELEV. = 41' - 0" 2'-0" 27'-8" 2'-0" 1'-0" ELEV. = 49' - 9 3/4" ELEV. = 41' - 0" EXISTING ROOFTOP 8"x8" TUBE STEEL COLUMN 2'x2' BRICK PIER STANDING SEAM METAL FASCIA EDGE FLASH 8"x8" TUBE STEEL COLUMN EXISTING CANOPY EDGE APPROX. LINE OF GRADE VESTIBULE WINDOW SOUTH ELEVATION CANOPY 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 A2.0 WEST ELEVATION CANOPY 1/4" = 1'-0" 3 A2.0 EAST ELEVATION CANOPY 1/4" = 1'-0" 2 A2.0 A2.0 ELEVATIONS NOTES: 1) DIRECTION OF TRANSVERSE GUTTER SLOPE TOMATCH DIRECTION OF ADJACENT PAVEMENT SLOPE2)CONSTRUCT CURB AND GUTTER IN ACCORDANCE WITHMNDOT SPEC. 2531.EXISTINGAGGREGATE BASEMATERIALVARIES5-11 IN.EXISTING BIT.PAVEMENT3 12 - 5 INCH.MILL BIT.PAVEMENT3 - 4 INCH.TACK COATPER MNDOTSPEC. 23572 INCH. TYP. NON-WEARING COURSEVARIES, 1-2 INCH WEARING COURSEBIT. PAVEMENTMNDOT SPEC. 2360TYPE SPWEB240B6 IN. MNDOT SPEC. 3138CLASS 5 AGG. BASECOMPACT PER MNDOTSPEC. 2105.3.F.3PENETRATION INDEXMETHODTACK COATPER MNDOTSPEC. 23572 INCH. TYP. NON-WEARING COURSE2 INCH TYP. WEARING COURSEBIT. PAVEMENTMNDOT SPEC. 2360TYPE SPWEB240BSCARIFY & RECOMPACTEDUPPER 8 INCHES OF SUBGRADETO 100% STD. PROCTOR DRY DENSITY4 IN. MNDOT SPEC. 3138CLASS 5 AGG. BASECOMPACT PER MNDOTSPEC. 2105.3.F.3PENETRATION INDEXMETHOD6 INCH TYP.CONCRETE PAVEMENTMNDOT SPEC. 2461.2.FTYPE 35F2SCARIFY & RECOMPACTEDUPPER 8 INCHES OF SUBGRADETO 100% STD. PROCTOR DRY DENSITY12 IN. EXPANSION JOINTW/ FULL DEPTH JOINTFILLER, 60 IN. O/CCIVIL DETAILSCONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER - TYP.1LIGHTPOLE FOUNDATION - DESIGN E, TYP.5MILL & OVERLAY BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT TYP.2NEW BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SECTION TYP.3CONCRETE SIDEWALK & PATIO SECTION TYP.4INLET PROTECTIONCHANNEL EROSION PROTECTION76310 FOURTH AVENUE SOUTHSUITE 1000MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55415TEL: 612.333.2279FAX: 612.339.2336CONSULTANTCERTIFICATIONI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSEDPROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATEOF MINNESOTA.DATE:PRINTED NAME:REG. NO. 51331COMMISSION NO.:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:DATE:BID ISSUE DATE:REVISION DATES:PROJECT TITLEOWNERSHEET TITLESHEETSHEET NO.OF500 BLAKE ROAD SOUTHEDINA, MN 55343NATHAN M. LICHTYNLNL10/26/2020PLOT DATE:SHEPHERD OF THE HILLS18-11NOVEMBER 20, 2020XLUTHERAN CHURCHPARKING LOT RENOVATIONSHEPHERD OF THE HILLSLUTHERAN CHURCHNOVEMBER 20, 2020500 BLAKE ROAD SOUTHEDINA, MN 55343PRELIMINARY DRAWINGNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONC2.0C2.0C2.0C2.0C2.0C2.0C2.0C2.0 9"7' 6"8"18'-0"13'-8"8' 10 58"20' 0"EXISTINGRETAININGWALLPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINETAPEREDCURBTAPERED CURBEXISTINGBITUMINOUSDRIVEWAYEXISTING CONCRETE SURFACEPED.R 4'R 4'TYP. SPACE = 9' x 18'60R 6'-8"82' 0"61' 0"17' 2"8"17'11"1'19R 3'R 3'R 3'R 9'21' 0"310 FOURTH AVENUE SOUTHSUITE 1000MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55415TEL: 612.333.2279FAX: 612.339.2336CONSULTANTCERTIFICATIONI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSEDPROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATEOF MINNESOTA.DATE:PRINTED NAME:REG. NO. 51331COMMISSION NO.:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:DATE:BID ISSUE DATE:REVISION DATES:PROJECT TITLEOWNERSHEET TITLESHEETSHEET NO.OF500 BLAKE ROAD SOUTHEDINA, MN 55343NATHAN M. LICHTYNLNL10/26/2020PLOT DATE:SHEPHERD OF THE HILLS18-11NOVEMBER 20, 2020XLUTHERAN CHURCHPARKING LOT RENOVATIONSHEPHERD OF THE HILLSLUTHERAN CHURCHNOVEMBER 20, 2020500 BLAKE ROAD SOUTHEDINA, MN 55343PRELIMINARY DRAWINGNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONGRADING & DRAINAGEPLAN - SE& NWPARKING LOTGRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN - NW LOT1Grading Notes:1.The Contractor shall visit the site, review all constructiondocuments and field verify the Existing Conditions prorto bidding. No additional compensation will be given forwork that could have been identified by a site visit orconstruction document review.2.Initial Site Surveying was performed byDemars-Gabrial Associates (612-751-6785).3.It is the Contractors responsibility to determine and verifyall Existing Utility locations. A Private Utility Locate shallbe performed prior to Construction. Contact Property Ownerif Utilities are damaged during Construction.4.No reconstructed slopes are to exceed 3H:1V.5.All grading operations shall be conducted in a mannerto minimize to potential for Site Erosion.6.Topsoil shall be stripped and salvaged from disturbed areas.At least 6 inches of Topsoil shall be placed in graded area.Seed and Fertilizer shall be distributed within Topsoil.7.A MnDOT Spec. 3885.2 Category 30 Erosion ControlBlanket shall be placed in all disturbed areas. Installationshall be per the Manufacturers RecommendationsGRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN SE LOT DRIVEWAY RETURN2C1.0C1.0C1.0 310 FOURTH AVENUE SOUTHSUITE 1000MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55415TEL: 612.333.2279FAX: 612.339.2336CONSULTANTCERTIFICATIONI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSEDPROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATEOF MINNESOTA.DATE:PRINTED NAME:REG. NO. 51331COMMISSION NO.:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:DATE:BID ISSUE DATE:REVISION DATES:PROJECT TITLEOWNERSHEET TITLESHEETSHEET NO.OF500 BLAKE ROAD SOUTHEDINA, MN 55343NATHAN M. LICHTYNLNL10/26/2020PLOT DATE:SHEPHERD OF THE HILLS18-11NOVEMBER 20, 2020XLUTHERAN CHURCHPARKING LOT RENOVATIONSHEPHERD OF THE HILLSLUTHERAN CHURCHNOVEMBER 20, 2020500 BLAKE ROAD SOUTHEDINA, MN 55343PRELIMINARY DRAWINGNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONFILTRATION BASINDETAILSFILTRATION BASIN - PLAN VIEW1SPLASHBLOCK ASSEMBLY - TYP.2DETAIL - DRAINAGE PIPE CLEANOU - TYP.SECTION - FILTRATION BASIN43C2.0C2.0C2.0C2.0C2.0 GALE-TEC ENGINEERING, INC. 801 TWELVE OAKS CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 832 WAYZATA, MN 55391 TELEPHONE (952) 473-7193 FAX (952) 473-1492 www.gale-tec.com November 13, 2020 Mr. Peter Barrott Sheppard of the Hills Lutheran Church Facilities Manager Via email Re: Drainage/Hydraulic Engineering Design Report for Site Work at Sheppard of the Hills Lutheran Church at 500 Blake Rd in Edina, MN Dear Mr. Barrott: We are pleased to provide you with this hydraulic engineering report for the above referenced project. Enclosed please find our report, which includes a description of our understanding of the project, a description of the proposed construction and phasing, as well as proposed stormwater management systems to be implements. This report can be submitted as part of the Nine Mile Creek Watershed Permit application. If you have any questions concerning our report, please do not hesitate to contact us. Respectfully, GALE-TEC ENGINEERING, INC. Nathan M. Lichty, P.E. Senior Project Engineer I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a Registered Professional Engineer under Minnesota Statute, Sections 326.02 to 326.15. _________________________________ Nathan M. Lichty Date: 11/13/2020 Reg. No. 51331 Sheppard of the Hills Lutheran Church Site Work at 500 Blake Rd in Edina, MN ____________________________________________________________________ Gale-Tec Engineering, Inc., November, 2020 2 1.0 INTRODUCTION Parking Lot improvements to the Sheppard of the Hills Lutheran Church, located at 500 Blake Rd in Edina, have been proposed. Improvements will consist of a mill and overlay of the majority of the current parking lots as well as curb replacement. Installation of some additional parking lots/spaces, and some minor parking lot realignments have also been proposed. The goal of the project is to improve parking lot functionality, address pavement deterioration issues and to add some additional parking stalls along the western and northwestern parking lots on the property. This report was developed to address the project requirements associated with Nine Mile Creek Watershed District Rules for Site Redevelopment (Section 4.2.3), specifically Rules Section 4.3, Stormwater Management Standards. Subsequent sections will discuss: 1) the Existing Conditions and Proposed Site Improvements 2) Stormwater Treatment Requirements 3) Hydraulic Analysis of Existing and Proposed Parking Lot Facilities considering Design Storm Events 3) Design and Implementation of a Stormwater Treatment Filtration Basin for the project 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS & PROPOSED SITE IMPROVMENTS Impervious surfaces on the Sheppard of the Hills Property consist of the church structure as well as a series of four (4) separate parking lots and two (2) concrete slab patios located adjacent to the main church entrances. Diagrams depicting the existing site layout and the proposed site improvements are included in the Appendix. Soil/Site Conditions A Geotechnical Engineering Report, dated October 23, 2010, a prepared by Gale-Tec Engineering, Inc. indicates that the site subgrade soils generally consist of a medium stiff to stiff sandy clay to silty clay soils. The report identifies the subgrade soils as Minnesota Pollution Control Associated Class D, with respect so soil infiltration. The report also provides recommendations for the proposed pavement section. The report indicates that an adequate aggregate base section is present to support the parking lot, assuming at least four (4) inches of bituminous pavement. The existing parking lot contains at least 4 inches of bituminous pavement at all soil boring locations. The report recommends a 4 inch mill and overlay of the existing bituminous parking lot pavement, thus not exposing the underling soils within the existing parking lot locations during construction. Sheppard of the Hills Lutheran Church Site Work at 500 Blake Rd in Edina, MN ____________________________________________________________________ Gale-Tec Engineering, Inc., November, 2020 3 Church Structure The church structure contains an impervious roof that is approximately 17,250 square feet. Structure drainage consists of multiple downspouts that discharge stormwater onto two of the four parking lots, the main north and main south lots. Concrete patios and walk ways located on the south side of the church structure contain 1,800 SF of concrete pavement, which will be removed and replaced as part of site improvements No changes existing structure have been proposed as part of this project. Main South Parking Lot The Main South Lot located adjacent to the church and contains a total impervious square footage of 30,460 SF. This parking lot contains two (2) catch basins, one on the north side of the parking lot near the church main entrance and one located on the southern portion of the parking lot. These structures are connected via a 12 inch diameter RCP pipe and convey stormwater off the site by the same size pipe. Improvements to this parking lot include installation of a stormwater filtration basin, or rain garden, to replace an existing catch basin as well as concrete curb replacement and bituminous pavement replacement. This parking lot will be reconstructed using a mill and overlay within the same footprint and thus minimizing any additional impervious surface in this area. A filtration basin is proposed to be constructed at the location of an existing catch basin. The existing catch basin will be used as the overflow structure for the proposed filtration basin. The filtration basin will be 1.5ft in depth and contain a total storage volume of 430ft3. The base of the filtration basin will contain a 1ft thick layer of Filter Topsoil Borrow over an approximately 1¼ft thick layer of medium filter aggregate. A series of 4 inch drainage pipe will be placed at the base of the gravel filter layer. The 4 inch drainage pipe will discharge into the existing catch basin, which will convey the treated stormwater off of the site. Filtration Basin design details are discussed in Section 5. A typical filtration basin cross section is depicted in Figure No. 1. Figure No. 1: Filtration Basin Cross Section North Parking Lot The other main parking lot is located on the north side of the church structure. This lot is connected to the south lot via a driveway that extends along the west side of the church structure. The north lot and driveway also exit onto Maloney Ave. The driveway is sloped Sheppard of the Hills Lutheran Church Site Work at 500 Blake Rd in Edina, MN ____________________________________________________________________ Gale-Tec Engineering, Inc., November, 2020 4 to drain stormwater into the main south parking lot, while the north parking lot drains to the north east onto Maloney Ave. The connecting driveway and north parking lot contain approximately 9,000 SF of impervious surface. The north parking lot will be mill and overlayed within the same footprint, resulting in minimal additional impervious surface. The driveway will be reconstructed with the same square footage but a small additional parking lot, approximately 1725 SF, will be added to the west off of the driveway. This new parking lot will drain stormwater into the Main South parking lot. The location of the new west parking lot is shown on the attached Plans. South East Parking Lot A secondary parking lot is located to the south and east of the Main South parking lot. This lot, referred to as the Southeast Lot is not current connected to the Main South lot and has a separate driveway approach off of Blake Rd. This parking lot contains 7,500 SF of impervious surface and currently drains stormwater to the south to Mendelssohnn Lane via overland flow. Improvements to this parking lot will include a mill and overlay of the bituminous pavement as well as a new driveway connection to the Main South parking lot and construction of a grass lined drainage channel to Mendelssohn Lane. The additional impervious surface due to the driveway return will be approximately 450 SF. As a replacement to the current overland flow, stormwater will be channeled and drained from the Southeast Lot via a vegetated drainage swale. Installation of this swale will reduce flowrates and treat the stormwater run off. See the attached Plans for swale details. Northwest Parking Lot Another secondary parking lot, referred to as the Northwest parking lot is located adjacent to the north parking lot and driveway. The existing lot contains 3,800 SF of impervious surface and drains to the north to Maloney Ave via a driveway. Site improvements include a mill and overlay of the existing parking lot, increasing the lot size and connecting it to the north parking lot and driveway. The parking lot will increase in size by approximately 2,000 SF and will now drain to driveway and Main South Parking Lot. Site Grading Outside of Parking Lot Areas With the exception of the church building, whose stormwater run-off is conveyed to the existing Main South and North parking lots, the pervious areas of the property generally away from the existing and proposed parking lots towards the surrounding residential streets, or to their own catchbasin, such as the vegetated area to the northwest of the existing church structure. There will be minimal site grading outside of the existing parking lot area. Additionally, minimal grade changes are anticipated within the existing parking lots. Sheppard of the Hills Lutheran Church Site Work at 500 Blake Rd in Edina, MN ____________________________________________________________________ Gale-Tec Engineering, Inc., November, 2020 5 Summary & Proposed Construction Phasing The site, considering the proposed site improvements, contains approximately 75,500 SF of impervious surfaces, which increases the total amount of impervious surface by approximately 4,180 SF. This increase is due to enlarging the Northwest Parking Lot (2,000 SF), constructing a new, small West parking Lot (1,725 SF) and a new driveway return between the Southeast Lot and the Main South Lot (450 SF). Due to financial limitations, the property owner is proposing to perform the parking lot improvements in two phases. Phase 1 would include a mill and overlay and curb installation along the Main South Parking Lot, curb and replacement of the southern concrete patios/walkways to meet current ADA standards, and installation of a new driveway return to connect the Main South Parking Lot to the Southeast Parking Lot. The proposed filtration basin would be installed as part of Phase 1. Phase 2 of the project will include a mill and overlay of the smaller surrounding parking lots (North, Southeast and Western Driveway) as well as installation of the new Western parking Lot and increasing the size of the Northwest Parking Lot. Phase 1 and Phase 2 reconstruction details are shown on the attached Project Plans. 3.0 STORMWATER TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS Watershed District Standards state that if less than 50% of the impervious pavement will be disturbed as part of the project, then stormwater treatment shall only be required to the “disturbed, replaced and net additional impervious surface on the project site.” Additionally, the Standards state “disturbed areas as those where underlying soils are exposed in the course of redevelopment.” Watershed District Staff, in an email dated April 3, 2020, indicated that a mill and overlay of existing bituminous pavement would not likely qualify as disturbed areas, as native soils will not be exposed as part of parking lot reconstruction. Relative to this project, our interpretation of the Watershed District Standards and subsequent discussion with Watershed District Staff indicates that the regulated impervious surface requiring stormwater treatment are areas where new bituminous pavement sections will be installed, this will require disturbance/exposure of the underlying soils. Per these requirements, we estimate a total regulated impervious surface of 4,180 SF, which is much less then 50% of the total impervious surface on the site (75,500 SF). Watershed District Standards require that stormwater retention be provided for 1.1 inches of run off from the regulated impervious surface. Based on these requirements, we estimate a required retention volume of 380 ft3 (4,180 SF x (1.1 inch/12inches per ft)). Watershed District Standards also require site improvements to limit peak runoff flows to that from existing conditions for all locations where stormwater leaves the site and to Sheppard of the Hills Lutheran Church Site Work at 500 Blake Rd in Edina, MN ____________________________________________________________________ Gale-Tec Engineering, Inc., November, 2020 6 provide for at least 60% removal of total phosphorous and 90% removal of total suspended solids from site runoff of the regulated stormwater run off. To accommodate these requirements, a stormwater filtration basin, consisting of an initial stormwater storage pond and underlain by filtration topsoil and granular filter layers will be required. Drainage pipes, placed at the base of the underling granular filter, will be required to collect the filtered storm water and convey it to the existing storm sewer system. An overflow structure will also be required to reduce the potential for parking lot flooding. The design details of this system and its proposed location are discussed in Section 5. 4.0 HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED SITE STORM WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Watershed District Standards require that stormwater modeling be performed to demonstrate that the proposed redevelopment limits or reduces stormwater run-off flow rates from those of the existing site for all locations where stormwater leaves the site. Flowrates are determined for the 2, 10 and 100 year storm event assuming a nested 24hr rainfall distribution. This hydraulic analysis was performed using the computer program SWMM, version 5.1, a stormwater run-off modeling program developed by the U.S. EPA. The rainfall depths used for the analysis were determined from NOAA Atlas 14 model for the 2 year, 10 year and 100 year storm events. The MSE-3 model for nested 24hr rainfall distribution was used for this analysis. This analytical model was developed by the Minnesota NRCS and is commonly used for storm sewer system design for MnDOT and MPCA projects. The rainfall depths used for the analysis are shown in Table No. 1, while the MSE-3 precipitation distribution graph is shown in Figure No. 1. Table No. 1: Rainfall Depth for Significant Precipitation Events based on Atlas-14 Data for Edina/Hopkins, MN Storm Event 2 Year Event 10 Year Event 100 Year Event Rainfall Depth (in) 2.8 inches 4.1 inches 7.4 inches Sheppard of the Hills Lutheran Church Site Work at 500 Blake Rd in Edina, MN ____________________________________________________________________ Gale-Tec Engineering, Inc., November, 2020 7 Figure No. 1: 24hr Precipitation Distribution Graph for MSE-3 The site stormwater model was developed for each individual parking lot and the existing storm sewer catch basins were modeled as collection nodes, where inlet and flowrates were measured. Parking lots areas that drain out to the surrounding residential streets were modeled as outfall points, where flowrates and overall volumes are measured. Figure No. 2 illustrates the drainage areas based on existing site conditions, while Figure No. 3 illustrates the drainage areas based on the proposed parking lot reconstruction. Sheppard of the Hills Lutheran Church Site Work at 500 Blake Rd in Edina, MN ____________________________________________________________________ Gale-Tec Engineering, Inc., November, 2020 8 Figure No. 2: Drainage Areas based on Existing Site Conditions Sheppard of the Hills Lutheran Church Site Work at 500 Blake Rd in Edina, MN ____________________________________________________________________ Gale-Tec Engineering, Inc., November, 2020 9 Figure No. 3: Drainage Areas based on Proposed Site Improvement The results of the analysis for the existing conditions are shown in Table No. 2, while the results of the analysis for the proposed parking lot improvements are shown in Table No. 3. Figure No. 4 shows the depth of water in the proposed rain garden for the design storm events with respect to time. Sheppard of the Hills Lutheran Church Site Work at 500 Blake Rd in Edina, MN ____________________________________________________________________ Gale-Tec Engineering, Inc., November, 2020 10 Table No. 2: Drainage Summary of Existing Conditions 2 Year Storm Event (2.7 in) 10-Year Storm Event (4.3 in) 100-Year Storm Event (7.4 in) Drainage Area Impervious Area (ac) Max. Flowrate, Q (cfs) Total Runoff Vol. (MG) Max. Flowrate, Q (cfs) Total Runoff Vol. (MG) Max. Flowrate, Q (cfs) Total Runoff Vol. (MG) Main South Lot Section A 1.1 1.5 0.08 2.4 0.13 4.1 0.22 Main South Lot Section B 0.3 0.4 0.02 0.7 0.03 1.1 0.06 Northwest/North Lot 0.28 0.4 0.02 0.6 0.03 1.0 0.056 Southeast Lot 0.17 0.2 0.01 0.4 0.02 0.7 0.035 Table No. 3: Drainage Summary of Proposed Improvements 2 Year Storm Event (2.7 in) 10-Year Storm Event (4.3 in) 100-Year Storm Event (7.4 in) Drainage Area Impervious Area (ac) Max. Flowrate, Q (cfs) Total Runoff Vol. (MG) Max. Flowrate, Q (cfs) Total Runoff Vol. (MG) Max. Flowrate, Q (cfs) Total Runoff Vol. (MG) Main South Lot Section A 1.1 1.3 0.06 1.3 0.11 1.3 0.14 Main South Lot Section B/Northwest & West 0.42 0.6 0.03 0.9 0.04 1.6 0.08 North Lot 0.20 0.3 0.01 0.4 0.02 0.75 0.04 Southeast Lot 0.17 0.2 0.01 0.4 0.02 0.65 0.03 The results of the analysis indicate that with the inclusion of the filtration basin constructed within the Main South Parking Lot, Section A, reduces the maximum flow rate and total run off volume exiting the lot. The proposed construction will also transfer flowrates from the northwest lot to the South main lot, Section B. This explains the reduction of flow for the north parking lot while showing a slight increase for the southern section of the main south lot (Main South Lot Section B). When Main South Lot Section A and B are combined, a minimal flowrate increase and slight decrease in total stormwater volume (0.01 MG) are observed. The flow rate out of the southeast lot remains constant. The reduction in flow rate and volume for each parking lot are shown in Table No. 4. Sheppard of the Hills Lutheran Church Site Work at 500 Blake Rd in Edina, MN ____________________________________________________________________ Gale-Tec Engineering, Inc., November, 2020 11 Table No. 4: Summary of Flowrate and Volume Reduction for each Parking Lot 2 Year Storm Event (2.7 in) 10-Year Storm Event (4.3 in) 100-Year Storm Event (7.4 in) Drainage Area Max. Flowrate Reduction (cfs) Total Runoff Vol. Reduction (MG) Max. Flowrate Reduction (cfs) Total Runoff Vol. Reduction (MG) Max. Flowrate Reduction (cfs) Total Runoff Vol. Reduction (MG) Main South Lot Section A -0.2 -0.02 -1.1 -0.02 -2.8 -0.08 Main South Lot Section B/Northwest & West +0.2* +0.01* +0.2* +0.01 +0.5 +0.02 North Lot -0.1 -0.01 -0.2 -0.01 -0.25 -0.015 Southeast Lot 0 0 0 0 0 0 *Rate increases are due to added impervious pavement flowing to Main South Lot Section B. When combined with Main South Lot Section A, a minimal flow reduction and total run-off reduction of 0.01 MG are observed. The reduction in flow rate and volume reduction observed during the analysis indicate that thet proposed site improvements meet the Watershed District Standards requirement of not net increase in flowrate and stormwater volume. This is primarily due to the filtration basin and its temporary storage during the design rainfall events. A design of the Stormwater Filtration Basin is given in the subsequent section. 5.0 STORMWATER FILTRATION BASIN & BIOSWALE DESIGN 5.1 Filtration Basin In order to meet District Watershed Standards with respect to stormwater management, a filtration basin will be required to be installed on the site. A filtration basin, as opposed to an infiltration basin is required due to the site impervious cohesive soils. Sizing As discussed in Section No. 1, an approximately 430ft3 filtration basin storage volume is required. The MPCA stormwater manual recommends filtration basin be at least 1½ft in depth, the depth between the pond base and the overflow structure and contain an approximately ½ ft freeboard between the overflow structure elevation and the parking lot grade. Assuming these depths, 3H:1V pond sideslopes and an approximately trapezoidal shape, a pond base area of at least 600ft2 is required. Location The filtration basin is proposed to be placed in the Main South Parking lot at the location of the existing catchbasin near the church’s main entrance. The existing precast catch basin and casting will remain in place and will serve as the filtration basin overflow structure. The drainage pipes placed at the base of the filtration basin will connect to the existing Sheppard of the Hills Lutheran Church Site Work at 500 Blake Rd in Edina, MN ____________________________________________________________________ Gale-Tec Engineering, Inc., November, 2020 12 precast catchbasin, approximately 1ft above the catchbasin outlet pipe flowline. The location of the filtration basin in shown on the attached Project Plans. Components – Pond Inlets/Pretreatment District Watershed Standards and the MPCA stormwater manual require stormwater pretreatment prior to stormwater entrance into a filtration basin. The purpose of pretreatment is to remove debris and large particles from the inflowing stormwater. For this filtration basin, a series of 4 inch precast concrete blocks will be constructed as steps, extending from a curb cut at the parking lot grade to the pond base. At the pond base, a vertically oriented block will be placed around the perimeter of the splash block assembly to serve as a forebay and sedimentation basin. The precast concrete block will consist of dry cast Modular Block Wall Retaining wall cap blocks that are specially cast to be resistant to long term degradation from salt. MnDOT maintains an approved product list of retaining wall block manufacturer’s and block types. The retaining wall block caps are approximately 18 inches wide, 12 inch long and 4 inches in height. Two (2) inlets into the filtration basin will be included, one on the north side of the basin and one of the south side of the basin. The hyrdraulic analysis indicates that a peak flowrate of approximately 1.3 ft3/sec occurs during the 10 year design storm event. The inlets will be approximately 3ft wide and assuming a 4 inch water depth, two inches below the top of the curb, the stormwater velocity was estimated to be approximately 1.3 ft/sec. The primary purpose of the splashblock assembly is to reduce the stormwater velocity as it enters the filtration basin. This will reduce erosion potential along the filtration basin sideslopes as well as reduce the stormwater velocity as it enters the stilling basin. Splashblock and stilling basin detail are shown on the attached Project Plans. Component – Pond Filtration Material At the base of the basin, an approximately 3 inch thick layer of Type 6 shredded mulch (MnDOT Spec. 3882.2.F), and a 1ft thick specialty topsoil layer (MnDOT Spec. 3788.2 Filtration Topsoil Borrow) are placed over an approximately 1¼ft thick gravel drainage layer (MnDOT Spec. 3149, Medium Filter Aggregate). According to the MPCA stormwater manual, a 1.5ft thick sand filter inclusion results in approximately 85% total suspended solids (TSS) removal and approximately 50% total phosphorus (TP) removal. The inclusion of an organic filter layer, consisting of a compost/sand mix (MnDOT Filtration Topsoil Borrow) increases the TSS and TP removal to the 60% (TP) and 90% (TSS) removal threshold required by the District Stormwater Standards. According to the District Standards, water stored in the filtration basin shall be drained through the basin over a period of 48 hours. The Filtration Topsoil Borrow is specified to contain an infiltration rate of 4 inches/hour. The underlying Medium Filter Aggregate is estimated to contain an infiltration rate of 14.7 inches/hour. To estimate the basin drawdown time, a falling head permeability analysis was performed to model the water drawdown within the filtration basin, specifically the 1ft thick Filtration Topsoil Borrow, Sheppard of the Hills Lutheran Church Site Work at 500 Blake Rd in Edina, MN ____________________________________________________________________ Gale-Tec Engineering, Inc., November, 2020 13 due to its lower permeability. The filtration basin was initially assumed to be at 100% capacity, with a water depth of 1.5ft. The results of the analysis indicate that approximately 17 hours will be required for 1.5ft of water to drain through the 1ft thick layer of Filtration Topsoil Borrow. This value is less than the 48 hr required time frame. Component – Underdrains A series of 4 inch diameter thermoplastic, perforated drainage pipe (MnDOT Spec. 3245.2 Type 1) will be installed at the base of the granular filter layer within the filtration basin. The drainage pipe will be installed at a 6ft spacing within the filtration basin and will be collected by a header pipe, which will drain into the existing catch basin within the filtration basin. Figure No. 5 depicts the location of the drain tile and filtration basin inlets. Further details are included on the attached Project Plans. . APPENDIX 1. Project Site Plan & Drainage Structure Plans 2. Sample Output Report from SWMM Analysis CNY LED Series Performance Package Color Temperature 2 Voltage Finish CNY LED P0 3,500 lumens1 P1 4,500 lumens P2 6,600 lumens P3 11,100 lumens P4 14,000 lumens 40K 4000K 50K 5000K MVOLT 3 120-277V DDB Dark bronze WH 4 White One Lithonia Way • Conyers, Georgia 30012 • Phone: 800.279.8041 • www.lithonia.com © 2017-2020 Acuity Brands Lighting, Inc. All rights reserved CNY LED Rev. 02/19/20 CNY LED LED Canopy/Ceiling Luminaire Ordering Information EXAMPLE: CNY LED P1 50K MVOLT DDB NOTES 1. The combination of P0 50K WH is not available. 2. Correlated color temperature (CCT) shown is nominal per ANSI C78, 377-2008. 3. MVOLT driver operates on any line voltage from 120-277V (50/60 Hz). 4. Available with P0 or P1 only. Catalog Number Notes Type Hit the Tab key or mouse over the page to see all interactive elements. Introduction The CNY LED canopy luminaires are energy efficient and budget friendly, perfect for replacing up to 400W metal halide luminaires while saving up to 80% energy costs. Quick mount mechanism significantly reduces the installation time. An LED array and translucent lens create uniform and visually comfortable illumination. CNY LED luminaires are DLC Premium listed and deliver quick payback! CNY LED P0/P1/P2 CNY LED P3/P4 Width:10"14" Height:4.5"6" Depth:10"14" Weight: 6.5lbs 13lbs Specifications FEATURES & SPECIFICATIONS INTENDED USE CNY LED luminaires are ideal, energy-efficient replacements for up to 400W MH canopy or ceiling luminaires. The CNY LED provides years of maintenance-free illumination for schools, malls, offices, parking areas, covered walkways and loading docks. CONSTRUCTION Cast-aluminum, corrosion-resistant housing with polyester powder paint for lasting durability. Castings are sealed with a one-piece gasket. Rated for outdoor installations, -40ºC minimum ambient. Frosted lens is designed for uniform light distribution. ELECTRICAL Includes an MVOLT (120-277V) driver. LEDs maintain 70% of light output at 50,000 or more hours of service life (L70/50,000 hours). INSTALLATIONMounts to a recessed junction box or surface mount with three conduit entry points. Can be pendant mounted with ¾ NPT pendant stem provided by others. Quick mount mechanism significantly reduces installation time - no need to open the luminaire for installation. LISTINGS UL Listed to U.S. and Canadian safety standards for wet locations. Tested in accordance with IESNA LM-79 and LM-80 standards. DesignLights Consortium® (DLC) Premium qualified product. Not all versions of this product may be DLC Premium qualified or DLC qualified. Please check the DLC Qualified Products List at www.designlights.org/QPL to confirm which versions are qualified. Can be used to comply with California Title 24 Part 6 High Efficacy LED light Source Requirements. WARRANTY Five-year limited warranty. Complete warranty terms located at: www.acuitybrands.com/support/customer-support/terms-and-conditions Note: Actual performance may differ as a result of end-user environment and application. All values are design or typical values, measured under laboratory conditions at 25 °C. Specifications subject to change without notice. Accessories Ordered and shipped separately. CNYBCP 14 Inch x 14 Inch Beauty Cover Plate One Lithonia Way • Conyers, Georgia 30012 • Phone: 800.279.8041 • www.lithonia.com © 2017-2020 Acuity Brands Lighting, Inc. All rights reserved CNY LED Rev. 02/19/20 Performance Data Full photometric data report available within 2 weeks from request. Contact Acuity Tech Support.Photometric Diagrams LEGEND 0.1 fc 0.2 fc 0.5 fc 1.0 fc CNY LED - Mounting height = 10 Line Art Performance Package Lumens Input Power Lumens Per Watt CNY LED P0 3,500 27W 130 CNY LED P1 4,500 35W 127 CNY LED P2 6,600 52W 128 CNY LED P3 11,000 86W 128 CNY LED P4 13,900 109W 128 4/18/2018 Template Print http://www.visual-3d.com/tools/template/Print.aspx?SessionID=5885381 1/1 Visual - Template Tool These lighting calculation results are for general informational purposes only and are provided without warranty as to accuracy, completeness, reliability orotherwise. Results are based on user provided data and data provided from publicly available sources; actual field conditions may affect calculated output. Visitwww.Visual-3D.com . Design InformationProjectDescription Wednesday, April 18, 2018NameCompanyPhoneEmail [ A ] - CNY LED P1 Manufacturer Acuity BrandsConfiguration Single Lamp Lumens 4476Orientation Single Lamp Quantity 1Mounting Height 10 Light Loss Factor 1Arm Length 1Input Power 35.4Tilt 0Max Illuminance 15Area > 0.5fc 1250 4/18/2018 Template Print http://www.visual-3d.com/tools/template/Print.aspx?SessionID=5885381 1/1 Visual - Template Tool These lighting calculation results are for general informational purposes only and are provided without warranty as to accuracy, completeness, reliability orotherwise. Results are based on user provided data and data provided from publicly available sources; actual field conditions may affect calculated output. Visitwww.Visual-3D.com . Design InformationProjectDescription Wednesday, April 18, 2018NameCompanyPhoneEmail [ B ] - CNY LED P2 Manufacturer Acuity BrandsConfiguration Single Lamp Lumens 6601Orientation Single Lamp Quantity 1Mounting Height 10 Light Loss Factor 1Arm Length 1Input Power 51.9Tilt 0Max Illuminance 21Area > 0.5fc 1638 4/18/2018 Template Print http://www.visual-3d.com/tools/template/Print.aspx?SessionID=5885381 1/1 Visual - Template Tool These lighting calculation results are for general informational purposes only and are provided without warranty as to accuracy, completeness, reliability orotherwise. Results are based on user provided data and data provided from publicly available sources; actual field conditions may affect calculated output. Visitwww.Visual-3D.com . Design InformationProjectDescription Wednesday, April 18, 2018NameCompanyPhoneEmail [ C ] - CNY LED P3 Manufacturer Acuity BrandsConfiguration Single Lamp Lumens 10755Orientation Single Lamp Quantity 1Mounting Height 10 Light Loss Factor 1Arm Length 1Input Power 86.6Tilt 0Max Illuminance 34Area > 0.5fc 2125 4/18/2018 Template Print http://www.visual-3d.com/tools/template/Print.aspx?SessionID=5885381 1/1 Visual - Template Tool These lighting calculation results are for general informational purposes only and are provided without warranty as to accuracy, completeness, reliability orotherwise. Results are based on user provided data and data provided from publicly available sources; actual field conditions may affect calculated output. Visitwww.Visual-3D.com . Design InformationProjectDescription Wednesday, April 18, 2018NameCompanyPhoneEmail [ D ] - CNY LED P4 Manufacturer Acuity BrandsConfiguration Single Lamp Lumens 13900Orientation Single Lamp Quantity 1Mounting Height 10 Light Loss Factor 1Arm Length 1Input Power 109.1Tilt 0Max Illuminance 44Area > 0.5fc 2463 10" 4 1116 " 14" 6 14 " 31 2" 234" 434" 314" Visual - Template Tool These lighting calculation results are for general informational purposes only and are provided without warranty as to accuracy, completeness, reliability or otherwise. Results are based on user provided data and data provided from publicly available sources; actual field conditions may affect calculated output. Visit www.Visual-3D.com . Design Information Project Description Monday, September 10, 2018 Name Company Phone Email [ A ] - CNY LED P0 50K Mvolt Manufacturer Lithonia Lighting Configuration SingleLamp Lumens 3473 Orientation SingleLamp Quantity 1 Mounting Height 10Light Loss Factor 1 Arm Length 1Input Power 26.4 Tilt 0Max Illuminance 11 Area > 0.5fc 1038 Page 1 of 1Template Print 9/10/2018http://www.visual-3d.com/tools/template/Print.aspx?SessionID=1261344 CNY LED P0 CNY LED P1 CNY LED P4CNY LED P3CNY LED P2 Catalog Number Notes Type CONTRACTOR SELECT QTE LED Page 1 of 2 QTE LED Floodlights The QTE LED floodlight is ideal to replace up to 500W Halogen lamps, and comes with knuckle or yoke mount options. This is an extremely cost effective solution, great for illuminating yards, driveways, signage, patios, warehouses as well as for security applications. FEATURES: ¡Replaces up to 500W Quartz Halogen, saves 80% energy ¡Knuckle and yoke mount options available, good for ground mount as well! ¡Cost effective and energy efficient, payback within one year Catalog Number UPC Description Replaces Up To Lumens Input Watts CCT Voltage Finish Pallet Qty QTE LED P1 40K 120 THK DDBM6 191848090787 FLOODLIGHTS 150W HALOGEN 2,500 24W 4000K 120V DARK BRONZE 163 QTE LED P2 40K 120 THK DDBM6 191848093436 FLOODLIGHTS 300W HALOGEN 4,000 40W 4000K 120V DARK BRONZE 162 QTE LED P2 40K 120 YK DDBM6 191848093474 FLOODLIGHTS 300W HALOGEN 4,000 40W 4000K 120V DARK BRONZE 162 QTE LED P3 40K 120 THK DDBM6 191848092590 FLOODLIGHTS 250W METAL HALIDE / 500W HALOGEN 6,750 66W 4000K 120V DARK BRONZE 108 QTE LED P3 40K 120 YK DDBM6 191848092606 FLOODLIGHTS 250W METAL HALIDE / 500W HALOGEN 6,750 66W 4000K 120V DARK BRONZE 108 Contractor Select™ One Lithonia Way, Conyers, GA 30012 | 770-922-9000 | www.lithonia.com © 2018 Acuity Brands Lighting, Inc. All rights reserved. Rev. 12/20/19 Page 2 of 2CONTRACTOR SELECT QTE LED INTENDED USE:QTE LED is suitable for replacing up to 500W Quartz Halogen or 250W Metal Halide. It is ideal for landscape, signage, and general purpose lighting in commercial and residential applications. CONSTRUCTION:Die-cast aluminum housing has integral heat sink fins to optimize thermal management. Rated for - 40°C to 40°C ambient temperature. Tempered glass lens is fully gasketed. Available with knuckle and yoke mount. ELECTRICAL:LEDs are directly coupled to the housing to maximize heat dissipation and lifespan (L70 / 50,000 hrs). 6 kV surge protection. INSTALLATIONMounts easily to junction box or under building cove. Suitable for ground mount applications. LISTINGS:UL Certified to US and Canadian safety standards. Wet location listed. DesignLights Consortium® (DLC) qualified product. Not all versions of this product may be DLC qualified.Please check the DLC Qualified Products List at www.designlights.org/QPL to confirm which versions are qualified. WARRANTY:5-year limited warranty. Complete warranty terms located at: www.acuitybrands.com/CustomerResources/Terms_and_conditions.aspx Note: Actual performance may differ as a result of end-user environment and application. All values are design or typical values, measured under laboratory conditions at 25 °C. Specifications subject to change without notice. Specifications Dimensions All dimensions are inches (centimeters) unless otherwise indicated. QTE P1-P2 KNUCKLE QTE P1-P2 YOKE QTE P3 KNUCKLE QTE P3 YOKE 6 11/16”[16.9cm] 5”[12.7cm] 6 7/16” [16.34cm] 3 3/16” [8.13cm] 6 11/16”[16.9cm] 3 5/8”[9.2cm] 7 5/8”[19.35cm] 5”[12.7cm] 2 15/16”[7.4cm] 3 1/4”[8.3cm] 7 15/16”[20.18cm] 5 7/8”[14.88cm] 3 7/16”[18.77cm] 4”[10.16cm] 7 15/16”[20.18cm] 3 5/8”[9.2cm] 8 7/16”[21.51cm] 5 7/8”[14.88cm] 2 15/16”[7.4cm] 4”[10.16cm] Project Catalog #Type Prepared by Notes Date PS500001EN page 1March 4, 2020 3:10 PM Quick Facts • Lumen packages range from 7,100 - 48,600 lumens (50W - 350W) • Replaces 70W up to 1,000W HID equivalents • Efficacies up to 148 lumens per watt • Energy and maintenance savings up to 85% versus HID solutions • Standard universal quick mount arm with universal drill pattern Interactive Menu • Ordering Information page 2 • Mounting Details page 3 • Optical Configurations page 3 • Product Specifications page 3 • Energy and Performance Data page 4 • Control Options page 5 Dimensional Details Prevail XL Prevail 17-7/8" [454mm]39-5/8" [1006mm] 3-11/16"[94mm] 13-15/16" [354mm]26-13/16" [681mm] 2-3/4"[70mm]6-15/16"[177mm] 7-1/8"[180mm] Prevail Prevail XL Area / Site Luminaire Lumark PRV / PRV-XL Prevail LED Typical Applications Outdoor • Parking Lots • Walkways • Roadways • Building Areas CLASS A Product Certifications Product Features LumenSafe Technology LumaWatt Pro WaveLinx PRV / PRV-XL PrevailLumark PS500001EN page 2March 4, 2020 3:10 PM Product Family 1, 2 Light Engine 3 Driver Voltage Distribution Mounting (Included)Color PRV=Prevail C15=(1 LED) 7,100 Nominal LumensC25=(2 LEDs) 13,100 Nominal LumensC40=(2 LEDs) 17,100 Nominal LumensC60=(2 LEDs) 20,000 Nominal Lumens D= Dimming (0-10V)UNV= Universal (120-277V)347=347V480=480V 4 T2=Type IIT3=Type IIIT4=Type IVT5=Type V SA=Standard Versatile ArmMA=Mast Arm WM=Wall Mount Arm AP=GreyBZ=BronzeBK=BlackDP=Dark PlatinumGM=Graphite MetallicWH=WhitePRV-XL=Prevail XL C75=(4 LED) 26,100 Nominal Lumens C100=(4 LED) 31,000 Nominal Lumens C125=(4 LED) 36,000 Nominal Lumens C150=(6 LED) 41,100 Nominal Lumens C175=(6 LED) 48,600 Nominal Lumens Options (Add as Suffix)Accessories (Order Separately) 17 7030=70 CRI / 3000K CCT 5 7050=70 CRI / 5000K CCT 5 HSS=House Side Shield 6 L90=Optics Rotated 90° Left R90=Optics Rotated 90° Right 10K=10kV/10kA UL 1449 Fused Surge Protective Device HA=50°C High Ambient Temperature 7 PER=NEMA 3-PIN Twistlock Photocontrol Receptacle PER7=NEMA 7-PIN Twistlock Photocontrol Receptacle MSP/DIM-L12=Integrated Sensor for Dimming Operation, 8' − 12' Mounting Height 8, 9 MSP/DIM-L30=Integrated Sensor for Dimming Operation, 12' − 30' Mounting Height 8, 9 MSP-L12=Integrated Sensor ON/OFF Operation, 8' − 12' Mounting Height 8, 9 MSP-L30=Integrated Sensor ON/OFF Dimming Operation, 12' − 30' Mounting Height 8, 9 MS/DIM-L20=Motion Sensor for Dimming Operation, 9' − 20' Mounting Height 9, 10 MS/DIM-L40W=Motion Sensor for Dimming Operation, 21' − 40' Mounting Height 9, 10 MS-L20=Motion Sensor for ON/OFF Operation, 9' − 20' Mounting Height 9, 10 MS-L40W=Motion Sensor for ON/OFF Operation, 21' − 40' Mounting Height 9, 10 ZW=Wavelinx-enabled 4-PIN Twistlock Receptacle 9, 11, 12 ZW-SWPD4XX=Wavelinx Wireless Sensor, 7' − 15' Mounting Height 9, 11, 12, 13 ZW-SWPD5XX=Wavelinx Wireless Sensor, 15' − 40' Mounting Height 9, 11, 12, 13 LWR-LW=LumaWatt Pro Wireless Sensor, Wide Lens for 8' − 16' Mounting Height 9, 14 LWR-LN=LumaWatt Pro Wireless Sensor, Narrow Lens for 16' − 40' Mounting Height 9, 14 (See Table Below)=LumenSafe Integrated Network Security Camera 15, 16 PRVWM-XX=Wall Mount Kit 8 PRVMA-XX=Mast Arm Mounting Kit 8 PRVSA-XX=Standard Arm Mounting Kit 8 PRVXLSA-XX=Standard Arm Mounting Kit (for Prevail XL) 15 PRVXLWM-XX=Wall Mount Kit (for Prevail XL) 15 PRVXLMA-XL=Mast Arm Mounting Kit (for Prevail XL) 15 MA1010-XX=Single Tenon Adapter for 3-1/2" O.D. TenonMA1011-XX=2@180° Tenon Adapter for 3-1/2" O.D. TenonMA1017-XX=Single Tenon Adapter for 2-3/8" O.D. TenonMA1018-XX=2@180° Tenon Adapter for 2-3/8" O.D. Tenon HS/VERD=House Side Shield 6, 18 VGS-F/B=Vertical Glare Shield, Front/Back 18 VGS-SIDE=Vertical Glare Shield, Side 18 OA/RA1013=Photocontrol Shorting CapOA/RA1014=NEMA Photocontrol − 120VOA/RA1016=NEMA Photocontrol − Multi-Tap 105-285VOA/RA1201=NEMA Photocontrol − 347VOA/RA1027=NEMA Photocontrol − 480VISHH-01=Integrated Sensor Programming Remote 19 FSIR-100=Wireless Configuration Tool for Occupancy Sensor 20 SWPD4-XX=WaveLinx Wireless Sensor, 7' − 15' Mounting Height 12, 13, 21 SWPD5-XX=WaveLinx Wireless Sensor, 15' − 40' Mounting Height 12, 13, 21 WOLC-7P-10A=WaveLinx Outdoor Control Module (7-PIN) 22 NOTES: 1. DesignLights Consortium® Qualified. Refer to www.designlights.org Qualified Products List under Family Models for details. 2. Customer is responsible for engineering analysis to confirm pole and fixture compatibility for applications. Refer to installation instructions and pole white paper WP513001EN for additional support information. 3. Standard 4000K CCT and 70CRI. 4. Only for use with 480V Wye systems. Per NEC, not for use with ungrounded systems, impedance grounded systems or corner grounded systems (commonly known as Three Phase Three Wire Delta, Three Phase High Leg Delta and Three Phase Corner Grounded Delta systems). 5. Use dedicated IES files on product website for non-standard CCTs. 6. Option will come factory-installed. House Side Shield not suitable with T5 distribution or C60 lumen package. 7. Not available with C60 lumen package. 8. Only available in PRV configurations C15, C25, C40 or C60. 9. Controls system is not available with photocontrol receptacle (PER or PER7) or other controls systems (MS, MSP, ZW or LWR). 10. Utilizes the Wattstopper sensor FSP-211. 11. Sensor passive infrared (PIR) may be overly sensitive when operating below -20°C (-4°F). 12. In order for the device to be field-configurable, requires WAC Gateway components WAC-PoE and WPOE-120 in appropriate quantities. Only compatible with WaveLinx system and software and requires system components to be installed for operation. See website for more Wavelinx application information. 13. Replace XX with sensor color (WH, BZ, or BK). 14. LumaWatt Pro wireless sensors are factory installed and require network components LWP-EM-1, LWP-GW-1, and LWP-PoE8 in appropriate quantities. See website for LumaWatt Pro application information. 15. Only available in PRV-XL configurations C75, C100, C125, C150, or C175. 16. Not available with 347V, 480V, or HA options. Consult LumenSafe system product pages for additional details and compatability information. 17. Replace XX with paint color. 18. Must order one per optic/LED when ordering as a field-installable accessory (1, 2, 4, or 6). 19. This tool enables adjustment to Integrated Sensor (MSP) parameters including high and low modes, sensitivity, time delay, cutoff and more. Consult your lighting representative at Eaton for more information. 20. This tool enables adjustment to Motion Sensor (MS) parameters including high and low modes, sensitivity, time delay, cutoff and more. Consult your lighting representative at Eaton for more information. 21. Requires Wavelinx-enabled 4-PIN twistlock receptacle (ZW) option. 22. Requires 7-PIN NEMA twistlock photocontrol receptacle (PER7) option. The WOLC-7 cannot be used in conjunction with other controls systems (MS, MSP, ZW or LWR). Product Family Camera Type Data Backhaul L=LumenSafe Technology D=Dome Camera C=Cellular, Customer Installed SIM Card A=Cellular, Factory Installed AT&T SIM Card V=Cellular, Factory Installed Verizon SIM Card S=Cellular, Factory Installed Sprint SIM Card E=Ethernet Networking Product Family 1 Light Engine Voltage Distribution Options (Add as Suffix) PRVS=Prevail C15=(1 LED) 7,100 Nominal Lumens C25=(2 LEDs) 13,100 Nominal Lumens C40=(2 LEDs) 17,100 Nominal Lumens C60=(2 LEDs) 20,000 Nominal Lumens UNV= Universal (120-277V)347=347V 2 T3=Type IIIT4=Type IV MSP/DIM-L30= Integrated Sensor for Dimming Operation, Maximum 30' Mounting Height 2 PRVS-XL=Prevail XL C75=(4 LED) 26,100 Nominal Lumens C100=(4 LED) 31,000 Nominal Lumens C125=(4 LED) 36,000 Nominal Lumens C150=(6 LED) 41,100 Nominal Lumens C175=(6 LED) 48,600 Nominal Lumens NOTES:1. All stock configurations are standard 4000K/70CRI, bronze finish, and include the standard versatile mounting arm. 2. Only available in PRVS configurations C15, C25, C40 or C60. Ordering Information SAMPLE NUMBER: PRV-XL-C75-D-UNV-T4-SA-BZ LumenSafe Integrated Network Security Camera Technology Options (Add as Suffix) Stock Ordering Information PRV / PRV-XL PrevailLumark PS500001EN page 3March 4, 2020 3:10 PM Pole Mount Arm (PRV) 4-15/16"[125mm]3-3/4"[96mm] 6-15/16"[177mm]4"[102mm] 4-7/8"[124mm] 1-1/4" [32mm] 9/16"[15mm]Dia. Hole 5-11/16"[144mm]3-1/8"[78mm] 7-1/8"[180mm]4"[102mm] 4-7/8"[124mm] 1-7/16" [34mm] 1/2"[14mm]Dia. Hole 6"[153mm]3-1/4"[83mm] 2-1/2"[64mm]O.D. 7-13/32"[188mm]4-1/8"[104mm] 3"[76mm]O.D. 3-5/16"[84mm]O.D. 8"[203mm]7"[178mm] 6"[152mm] 5"[127mm]3"[76mm] 13/32"[11mm]Dia. Hole6"[152mm]2-3/8"[60mm] 8"[203mm]7-1/8"[181mm] 7/16"[12mm]Dia. Hole 5-1/8"[130mm] Pole Mount Arm (PRV-XL)Versatile Mount System Wall Mount (PRV) Mounting Configurations and EPAs NOTE: For 2 PRV’s mounted at 90°, requires minimum 3” square or 4” round pole for fixture clearance. For 2 PRV-XL’s mounted at 90°, requires minimum 4” square or round pole for fixture clearance. Customer is responsible for engineering analysis to confirm pole and fixture compatibility for applications. Mast Arm Mount (PRV)Mast Arm Mount (PRV-XL) Wall Mount (PRV-XL) PRV-C15 (7,100 Nominal Lumens)PRV-C25/C40/C60 (13,100/17,100/20,000 Nominal Lumens) PRV-XL-C75/C100/C125 (26,100/31,000/36,300 Nominal Lumens)PRV-XL-C150/C175 (41,100/48,600 Nominal Lumens) Wall Mount Arm Mount SingleEPA 0.92 (PRV)EPA 1.12 (PRV-XL) Arm Mount 2 @ 180°EPA 1.35 (PRV)EPA 2.25 (PRV-XL) Arm Mount 2 @ 90°EPA 1.42 (PRV)EPA 2.13 (PRV-XL) Arm Mount 4 @ 90°EPA 1.63 (PRV)EPA 2.52 (PRV-XL) Arm Mount 3 @ 90°EPA 1.63 (PRV)EPA 2.52 (PRV-XL) Product Specifications Construction • Single-piece die-cast aluminum housing • Tethered die-cast aluminum door Optics • Dark Sky Approved (3000K CCT and warmer only) • Precision molded polycarbonate optics Electrical • -40°C minimum operating temperature • 40°C maximum operating temperature • >.9 power factor • <20% total harmonic distortion • Class 1 electronic drivers have expected life of 100,000 hours with <1% failure rate • 0-10V dimming driver is standard with leads external to the fixture Mounting • Versatile, patented, standard mount arm accommodates multiple drill patterns ranging from 1-1/2" to 4-7/8" • A knock-out on the standard mounting arm enables round pole mounting • Prevail: 3G vibration rated • Prevail XL Mast Arm: 3G vibration rated • Prevail XL Standard Arm: 1.5G vibration rated Finish • Five-stage super TGIC polyester powder coat paint, 2.5 mil nominal thickness Shipping Data • Prevail: 20 lbs. (9.09 kgs.) • Prevail XL: 45 lbs. (20.41 kgs.) Mounting Details Optical Configurations PRV / PRV-XL PrevailLumark PS500001EN page 4March 4, 2020 3:10 PM Power and Lumens (PRV) Light Engine C15 C25 C40 C60 Power (Watts)52 96 131 153 Input Current @ 120V (A)0.43 0.80 1.09 1.32 Input Current @ 277V (A)0.19 0.35 0.48 0.57 Input Current @ 347V (A)0.17 0.30 0.41 0.48 Input Current @ 480V (A)0.12 0.22 0.30 0.35 Distribution Type II 4000K Lumens 7,123 13,205 17,172 20,083 BUG Rating B2-U0-G2 B2-U0-G2 B3-U0-G3 B3-U0-G3 3000K Lumens 6,994 12,965 16,860 19,718 Type III 4000K Lumens 7,111 13,183 17,144 20,050 BUG Rating B1-U0-G2 B2-U0-G3 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G4 3000K Lumens 6,982 12,944 16,832 19,686 Type IV 4000K Lumens 7,088 13,140 17,087 19,984 BUG Rating B1-U0-G3 B2-U0-G4 B2-U0-G4 B3-U0-G5 3000K Lumens 6,959 12,901 16,777 19,621 Type V 4000K Lumens 7,576 14,045 18,264 21,360 BUG Rating B3-U0-G3 B4-U0-G3 B4-U0-G4 B5-U0-G4 3000K Lumens 7,438 13,790 17,932 20,972 Power and Lumens (PRV-XL) Light Engine C75 C100 C125 C150 C175 Power (Watts)176 217 264 285 346 Input Current @ 120V (A)1.50 1.84 2.21 2.38 2.92 Input Current @ 277V (A)0.66 0.82 0.97 1.04 1.25 Input Current @ 347V (A)0.54 0.66 0.79 0.84 1.02 Input Current @ 480V (A)0.40 0.48 0.57 0.62 0.74 Distribution Type II 4000K Lumens 26,263 31,231 36,503 41,349 48,876 BUG Rating B3-U0-G3 B3-U0-G4 B4-U0-G4 B4-U0-G4 B4-U0-G5 3000K Lumens 25,786 30,664 35,840 40,598 47,989 Type III 4000K Lumens 26,120 31,061 36,304 41,124 48,610 BUG Rating B3-U0-G5 B3-U0-G5 B3-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 3000K Lumens 25,646 30,497 35,645 40,377 47,727 Type IV 4000K Lumens 26,098 31,035 36,274 41,089 48,569 BUG Rating B3-U0-G5 B3-U0-G5 B3-U0-G5 B3-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 3000K Lumens 25,624 30,471 35,615 40,343 47,687 Type V 4000K Lumens 28,129 33,450 39,097 44,287 52,349 BUG Rating B5-U0-G5 B5-U0-G5 B5-U0-G5 B5-U0-G5 B5-U0-G5 3000K Lumens 27,618 32,843 38,387 43,483 51,398 Lumen Maintenance Configuration TM-21 Lumen Maintenance (50,000 Hours) Theoretical L70(Hours) Up to PRV-C60 at 25ºC 91.30%194,000 Up to PRV-C60 at 40ºC 87.59%134,000 Up to PRV-XL-C175 at 25ºC 91.40%204,000 Up to PRV-XL-C175 at 40ºC 89.41%158,000 Lumen Multiplier Ambient Temperature Lumen Multiplier 10ºC 1.02 15ºC 1.01 25ºC 1.00 40ºC 0.99 Energy and Performance Data View PRV IES files View PRV-XL IES files Cooper Lighting Solutions1121 Highway 74 SouthPeachtree City, GA 30269P: 770-486-4800www.cooperlighting.com © 2020 Cooper Lighting SolutionsAll Rights Reserved. Specifications and dimensions subject to change without notice. PRV / PRV-XL PrevailLumark PS500001EN page 5March 4, 2020 3:10 PM Control Options 0-10V (D) The dimming option provides 0-10V dimming wire leads for use with a lighting control panel or other control method. Photocontrol (PER and PER7) Photocontrol receptacles provide a flexible solution to enable “dusk-to-dawn” lighting by sensing light levels. Advanced control systems compatible with NEMA 7-pin standards can be utilized with the PER7 receptacle. Dimming Occupancy Sensor (MSP and MS) These sensors are factory installed in the luminaire housing. When a sensor for dimming operation (/DIM) option is selected, the luminaire will dim down to approximately 50 percent power after five minutes of no activity detected. When activity is detected, the luminaire returns to full light output. When a sensor for ON/OFF operation is selected, the luminaire will turn off after five minutes of no activity. These occupancy sensors include an integral photocell that can be activated or inactivated with the programming remote / configuration tool for “dusk-to-dawn” control or “daylight harvesting”. Note: For MSP sensors, the factory preset is ON (Enabled), and for MS sensors, the factory preset is OFF (Disabled). The programming remote / tool is a wireless tool that can be utilized to change the dimming level, time delay, sensitivity and other parameters. A variety of sensor lenses are available to optimize the coverage pattern for mounting heights from 8’-40’. WaveLinx Wireless Control and Monitoring System Available in 7-PIN or 4-PIN configurations, the WaveLinx Outdoor control platform operates on a wireless mesh network based on IEEE 802.15.4 standards enabling wireless control of outdoor lighting. Use the WaveLinx Mobile application for set-up and configuration. At least one Wireless Area Controller (WAC) is required for full functionality and remote communication (including adjustment of any factory pre-sets). WaveLinx Outdoor Control Module (WOLC-7P-10A) A photocontrol that enables astronomic or time-based schedules to provide ON, OFF and dimming control of fixtures utilizing a 7-PIN receptacle. The out-of-box functionality is ON at dusk and OFF at dawn. WaveLinx Wireless Sensor (SWPD4 and SWPD5) These outdoor sensors offer passive infrared (PIR) occupancy and a photocell for closed loop daylight sensing. These sensors can be factory installed or field-installed via simple, tool-less integration into luminaires equipped with the Zhaga Book 18 compliant 4-PIN receptacle (ZW). These sensors are factory preset to dim down to approximately 50 percent power after 15 minutes of no activity detected. These occupancy sensors include an integral photocell for "dusk-to-dawn" control or daylight harvesting that is factory-enabled. A variety of sensor lenses are available to optimize the coverage pattern for mounting heights from 7'-40'. LumaWatt Pro Wireless Control and Monitoring System (LWR-LW and LWR-LN) The Eaton’s LumaWatt Pro powered by Enlighted is a connected lighting solution that combines LED luminaires with an integrated wireless sensor system. The sensor controls the lighting system in compliance with the latest energy codes and collects valuable data about building performance and use. Software applications turn the granular data into information through energy dashboards and specialized apps that make it simple and help optimize the use of other resources beyond lighting. Coverage Side Area (Feet) For mounting heights from 8' to 12' (-L12) 12 8 0 20 15 10 105 15 2050 30 22 15 157.5 22 307.5 030 20 0 Coverage Side Area (Feet) For mounting heights from 12' to 30' (-L30) Coverage Side Area (Feet) For mounting heights from 9' to 20' (-L20) 30 20 0 Coverage Side Area (Feet) For mounting heights from 21' to 40' (-L40W) 20 15 10 5 0 20 18 15 12 9 6 63 9 12 15 1830 20 50 30 0 30 50401020102040 Coverage Side Area (Feet) For mounting heights from 8' to 12' (-L12) 12 8 0 201510105152050 Coverage Side Area (Feet) For mounting heights from 16' to 40' (SWPD) FPO 0 10 20 30 4010203040 40 30 20 0 Coverage Side Area (Feet) For mounting heights from 8' to 16' (LWR-LW) 16 0 Coverage Side Area (Feet) For mounting heights from 16' to 40' (LWR-LN) 0 10 20 30 4010203040 40 30 20 0 24 18 8 0 8 18 24 LumenSafe (LD) The LumenSafe integrated network camera is a streamlined, outdoor-ready camera that provides high definition video surveillance. This IP camera solution is optimally designed to integrate into virtually any video management system or security software platform of choice. No additional wiring is needed beyond providing line power to the luminaire. LumenSafe features factory-installed power and networking gear in a variety of networking options allowing security integrators to design the optimal solution for active surveillance. XTOR CROSSTOUR LED APPLICATIONS: WALL / SURFACE POST / BOLLARD LOW LEVEL FLOODLIGHT INVERTED SITE LIGHTING Lumark SPECIFICATION FEATURES Construction Slim, low-profile LED design with rugged one-piece, die-cast aluminum hinged removable door and back box. Matching housing styles incorporate both a small and medium design. The small housing is available in 12W, 18W and 26W. The medium housing is available in the 38W model. Patented secure lock hinge feature allows for safe and easy tool-less electrical connections with the supplied push-in connectors. Back box includes three half-inch, NPT threaded conduit entry points. The universal back box supports both the small and medium forms and mounts to standard 3-1/2” to 4” round and octagonal, 4” square, single gang and masonry junction boxes. Key hole gasket allows for adaptation to junction box or wall. External fin design extracts heat from the fixture surface. One- piece silicone gasket seals door and back box. Minimum 5” wide pole for site lighting application. Not recommended for car wash applications. Optical Silicone sealed optical LED chamber incorporates a custom engineered mirrored anodized reflector providing high-efficiency illumination. Optical assembly includes impact-resistant tempered glass and meets IESNA requirements for full cutoff compliance. Available in seven lumen packages; 5000K, 4000K and 3000K CCT. Electrical LED driver is mounted to the die-cast housing for optimal heat sinking. LED thermal management system incorporates both conduction and natural convection to transfer heat rapidly away from the LED source. 12W, 18W, 26W and 38W series operate in -40°C to 40°C [-40°F to 104°F]. High ambient 50°C models available. Crosstour luminaires maintain greater than 89% of initial light output after 72,000 hours of operation. Three half-inch NPT threaded conduit entry points allow for thru-branch wiring. Back box is an authorized electrical wiring compartment. Integral LED electronic driver incorporates surge protection. 120- 277V 50/60Hz or 347V 60Hz models. Finish Crosstour is protected with a Super durable TGIC carbon bronze or summit white polyester powder coat paint. Super durable TGIC powder coat paint finishes withstand extreme climate conditions while providing optimal color and gloss retention of the installed life. Warranty Five-year warranty. The patented Lumark Crosstour™ LED Wall Pack Series of luminaries provides an architectural style with super bright, energy efficient LEDs. The low-profile, rugged die-cast aluminum construction, universal back box, stainless steel hardware along with a sealed and gasketed optical compartment make the Crosstour impervious to contaminants. The Crosstour wall luminaire is ideal for wall/surface, inverted mount for façade/canopy illumination, post/bollard, site lighting, floodlight and low level pathway illumination including stairs. Typical applications include building entrances, multi-use facilities, apartment buildings, institutions, schools, stairways and loading docks test. DESCRIPTION 12W, 18W, 26W 5-3/4" [146mm] 38W 6-5/8" [168mm] 12W, 18W, 26W6-3/4" [171mm]38W8" [203mm] 12W, 18W, 26W 3-5/8" [92mm] 38W 4" [102mm] DIMENSIONS CERTIFICATION DATA Dark Sky Approved (Fixed mount, Full cutoff, and 3000K CCT only) UL/cUL Wet Location Listed LM79 / LM80 Compliant ROHS Compliant ADA Compliant NOM Compliant Models IP66 Ingressed Protection Rated Title 24 Compliant DesignLights Consortium® Qualified* TECHNICAL DATA 40°C Maximum Ambient Temperature External Supply Wiring 90°C Minimum EPA Effective Projected Area (Sq. Ft.): XTOR1B, XT0R2B, XT0R3B=0.34 XTOR4B=0.45 SHIPPING DATA: Approximate Net Weight: 3.7 – 5.25 lbs. [1.7 – 2.4 kgs.] 10" [254mm] 17-1/2" [445mm] 10"[254mm] 17-1/2" [445mm] ESCUTCHEON PLATES *www.designlights.org Catalog #Type Date Project Comments Prepared by TD514013EN March 12, 2020 9:33 AM Specifications and dimensions subject to change without notice. Cooper Lighting Solutions1121 Highway 74 SouthPeachtree City, GA 30269P: 770-486-4800www.cooperlighting.com LUMEN MAINTENANCE POWER AND LUMENS BY FIXTURE MODEL CURRENT DRAW XTOR CROSSTOUR LED 100 010203040506070809010075 80 85 90 95 Hours (Thousands)Lumen Maintenance (Percent)50°C 40°C 25°C TD514013EN March 12, 2020 9:33 AM page 2 Voltage Model Series XTOR1B XTOR2B XTOR3B XTOR4B 120V 0.103A 0.15A 0.22A 0.34A 208V 0.060A 0.09A 0.13A 0.17A 240V 0.053A 0.08A 0.11A 0.17A 277V 0.048A 0.07A 0.10A 0.15A 347V 0.039A 0.06A 0.082A 0.12A Ambient Temperature TM-21 Lumen Maintenance (72,000 Hours) Theoretical L70 (Hours) XTOR1B Model 25°C > 90%255,000 40°C > 89%234,000 50°C > 88%215,000 XTOR2B Model 25°C > 89%240,000 40°C > 88%212,000 50°C > 87%196,000 XTOR3B Model 25°C > 89%240,000 40°C > 88%212,000 50°C > 87%196,000 XTOR4B Model 25°C > 89%222,000 40°C > 87%198,000 50°C > 87%184,000 LED Information XTOR1B XTOR1B-W XTOR1B-Y XTOR2B XTOR2B-W XTOR2B-Y XTOR3B XTOR3B-W XTOR3B-Y XTOR4B XTOR4B-W XTOR4B-Y Delivered Lumens (Wall Mount)1,418 1,396 1,327 2,135 2,103 1,997 2,751 2,710 2,575 4,269 4,205 3,995 Delivered Lumens (With Flood Accessory Kit) 1 1,005 990 940 1,495 1,472 1,399 2,099 2,068 1,965 3,168 3,121 2,965 B.U.G. Rating 2 B1-U0-G0 B1-U0-G0 B1-U0-G0 B1-U0-G0 B1-U0-G0 B1-U0-G0 B1-U0-G0 B1-U0-G0 B1-U0-G0 B2-U0-G0 B2-U0-G0 B2-U0-G0 CCT (Kelvin)5,000 4,000 3,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 CRI (Color Rendering Index)70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 Power Consumption (Watts)12W 12W 12W 18W 18W 18W 26W 26W 26W 38W 38W 38W NOTES: 1 Includes shield and visor. 2 B.U.G. Rating does not apply to floodlighting. Specifications and dimensions subject to change without notice. Cooper Lighting Solutions1121 Highway 74 SouthPeachtree City, GA 30269P: 770-486-4800www.cooperlighting.com XTOR CROSSTOUR LED STOCK ORDERING INFORMATION ORDERING INFORMATION TD514013EN March 12, 2020 9:33 AM page 3 Sample Number: XTOR2B-W-WT-PC1 Series 1 LED Kelvin Color Housing Color Options (Add as Suffix)Accessories (Order Separately) XTOR1B=Small Door, 12W XTOR2B=Small Door, 18W XTOR3B=Small Door, 26W XTOR4B=Medium Door, 38W [Blank]= Bright White (Standard), 5000K W=Neutral White, 4000K Y=Warm White, 3000K [Blank]= Carbon Bronze (Standard) WT=Summit White BK=Black BZ=Bronze AP=Grey GM=Graphite Metallic DP=Dark Platinum PC1=Photocontrol 120V 2 PC2=Photocontrol 208-277V 2, 3 347V=347V 4 HA=50ºC High Ambient 4 WG/XTOR=Wire Guard 5 XTORFLD-KNC=Knuckle Floodlight Kit 6 XTORFLD-TRN=Trunnion Floodlight Kit 6 XTORFLD-KNC-WT=Knuckle Floodlight Kit, Summit White 6 XTORFLD-TRN-WT=Trunnion Floodlight Kit, Summit White 6 EWP/XTOR= Escutcheon Wall Plate, Carbon Bronze EWP/XTOR-WT= Escutcheon Wall Plate, Summit White NOTES: 1. DesignLights Consortium® Qualified and classified for both DLC Standard and DLC Premium, refer to www.designlights.org for details. 2. Photocontrols are factory installed. 3. Order PC2 for 347V models. 4. Thru-branch wiring not available with HA option or with 347V. XTOR3B not available with HA and 347V or 120V combination. 5. Wire guard for wall/surface mount. Not for use with floodlight kit accessory. 6. Floodlight kit accessory supplied with knuckle (KNC) or trunnion (TRN) base, small and large top visors and small and large impact shields. 12W Series 18W Series 26W Series 38W Series XTOR1B=12W, 5000K, Carbon Bronze XTOR2B=18W, 5000K, Carbon Bronze XTOR3B=26W, 5000K, Carbon Bronze XTOR4B=38W, 5000K, Carbon Bronze XTOR1B-WT=12W, 5000K, Summit White XTOR2B-W=18W, 4000K, Carbon Bronze XTOR3B-W=26W, 4000K, Carbon Bronze XTOR4B-W=38W, 4000K, Carbon Bronze XTOR1B-PC1=12W, 5000K, 120V PC, Carbon Bronze XTOR2B-WT=18W, 5000K, Summit White XTOR3B-WT=26W, 5000K, Summit White XTOR4B-WT=38W, 5000K, Summit White XTOR1B-W=12W, 4000K, Carbon Bronze XTOR2B-PC1= 18W, 5000K, 120V PC, Carbon Bronze XTOR3B-PC1= 26W, 5000K, 120V PC, Carbon Bronze XTOR4B-PC1= 38W, 5000K, 120V PC, Carbon Bronze XTOR2B-W-PC1= 18W, 4000K, 120V PC, Carbon Bronze XTOR3B-W-PC1=26W, 4000K, 120V PC, Carbon Bronze XTOR4B-W-PC1= 38W, 4000K, 120V PC, Carbon Bronze XTOR2B-347V= 18W, 5000K, Carbon Bronze, 347V XTOR3B-347V=26W, 5000K, Carbon Bronze, 347V XTOR4B-347V=38W, 5000K, Carbon Bronze, 347V XTOR2B-WT-PC1=18W, 5000K, 120V PC, Summit White XTOR3B-PC2=26W, 5000K, 208-277V PC, Carbon Bronze Date: March 2, 2021 Agenda Item #: IX.A. To:Mayor and City Council Item Type: Report / Recommendation From:Cary Teague, Community Development Director Item Activity: Subject:Sketch Plan Review for 4404 Valley View Road Discussion CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: No action requested. Provide the applicant non-binding feedback on a potential development application. INTRODUCTION: The City Council is asked to consider a sketch plan request to redevelop 4404 Valley View Road. This site was part of the Edina Flats project, and was to have a two-story, four (4) unit condo built on it. The applicant is proposing to build a three-story thirteen (13) unit condo on the site. All the units would be for affordable housing. ATTACHMENTS: Description Staff Memo to Planning Commission, Feb. 24, 2021 Site Location and Zoning Applicant Narrative & Plans Revised Site Plan with Setbacks Pages from the Valley View/Wooddale Small Area Plan Approved Edina Flats Project City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 City Hall • Phone 952-927-8861 Fax 952-826-0389 • www.CityofEdina.com Date: February 24, 2021 To: Planning Commission From: Cary Teague, Community Development Director Re: Sketch Plan Review – 4404 Valley View Road The Planning Commission is asked to consider a sketch plan request to redevelop 4404 Valley View Road. This site was part of the Edina Flats project, and was to have a two- story, four (4) unit condo built on it. The applicant is proposing to build a three-story thirteen (13) unit condo on the site. All the units would be for affordable housing. Overall, Edina Flats was 1.27 acres in size and was to have 18 units built. With the proposal for nine (9) additional unit, the project would contain twenty-seven (27) units total. The site is guided in the Comprehensive Plan as NN, Neighborhood Nod, which allows up to thirty (30) units per acre. The overall density proposed would be 21 units per acre. This request requires a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to increase the height limit from 2 stories and 30 feet tall to 3 stories and 35 feet tall; a conditional use permit for the use; and variances for setbacks, height, and floor area ratio. The tables on the following page demonstrates how the proposed new building(s) would comply with the existing PCD-1 Standards on the lot. Please note that several variances would be required under the existing zoning standards. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 Compliance Table City Standard (PCD-1) Proposed Front – Kellogg Avenue Front – Valley View Road Side – North lot line Rear – West lot line 35 feet 35 feet 35 feet 25 feet 5 feet* 0 and 1.8 feet* 9 and 14.5 feet* 5 feet* Building Height 2-stories and 30 feet 3 stories & 35 feet** Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 1.0 1.14* Density 30 units per acre (27 units) 21 Parking 1 enclosed space per unit – 13 units. (City Council may require the provision of additional exposed spaces as a condition of approval in the CUP) 13 exposed spaces* *Requires Variance Issues/considerations: Proposed Density & Affordable Housing. The density was calculated as part of the Edina Flats overall development. (See attached approved plans for Edina Flats) The development density in the Edina Flats project was 14 units per acre (18 units on 1.27 acres). The proposed density is 21 units per acre (27 units on 1.27 acres). The increase in density is justifiable given that all 13 units proposed would meet the city’s affordable housing policy. Therefore, 48% of the units within the Edina Flats project would be for affordable housing. Owner occupied affordable housing is a goal in the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Owner occupied affordable housing has been difficult for the city to achieve. Proposed heights. The proposed height of 3 stories and 35 feet, exceeds the zoning code and comprehensive plan requirement of 2 stories and 30 feet. However, as the table above demonstrates, the proposed buildings would only be 5 feet taller than an allowed 2-story building. (See attached documents from the Valley View/Wooddale small area plan.) Gateway to Valley View Wooddale Node. As outlined in the Valley View/Wooddale small area plan, this site is seen as the gateway to this commercial node. The large right-of-way on the corner provides an opportunity to provide some kind of gateway public art. (See item c. on page 48 in the attached pages from the Valley View/Wooddale small area plan.) City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 Traffic and parking. A traffic and parking study would be required. Setbacks. As demonstrated in the table above, the proposed setbacks are tight. Landscaping should be provided along the north and west lot lines to minimize impacts. There is a large amount of right-of-way along Kellogg (about 17 feet) and Valley View (15- 30 feet), which would give the appearance of a greater setback. Landscaping. As mentioned above landscaping would be important to minimize impacts to the north and east. Year-round landscaping should be included along these lot lines. Sustainability. The applicant will be required to address the City’s Sustainability Questionnaire as part of a formal application. The Metropolitan Council's Extreme Heat map shows this area of Edina can reach 99.57 degrees during extreme heat events, nearly 10 degrees hotter than surrounding areas. The University of Minnesota's Solar Suitability map rates this location as "good" for solar roof installations with a grade of 83 out of 100, and an estimated payback of solar installation of 8 years. Green roofs reduce the urban heat island effect, reducing amount of greenhouse gas emissions trapped in the atmosphere and energy needs to cool a building. Rooftop solar generates emission-free energy and can help insulate a building further reducing energy needs. Financing options such as PACE (Property Assessed Clean Energy) exist for multi-family affordable developments. Consider installing Electric Vehicle chargers, or wiring some parking stalls to be EV-ready (we typically ask for 50% but a lower number seems right for an affordable development) Ensure space is available in Trash area to accommodate waste receptacles for organics, recycling and landfill waste. February 10, 2021 City of Edina Planning Department Attn: Cary Teague, Planning Director Edina City Hall 4801 W. 59th Street Edina, MN 55424 Project: Multi-Family Affordable for Sale Development Location: 4404 Valley View Road, PID: 1902824430076 Subject: Sketch Plan Narrative This presentation for Sketch Plan Review describes and illustrates the redevelopment of a surface parking lot located at 4404 Valley View Road to a three-story affordable for-sale condominium building with surface parking lot and associated site improvements and amenities. Current Use and Reasons for Redevelopment: The lot size of the property is 11,691 square feet (0.27 acre). It is zoned PCD-1 Planned Commercial. The property is currently used as a surface parking lot. The current use is not achieving the highest and best potential for the property. Redeveloping this property to a multi-family for sale condominium is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood and the Wooddale Valley View Small Area Plan. Proposed Development: The proposed development is a three-story multi-family building consisting of 13 units with a total of approximately 12,800 square feet. This building meets the City Code density requirements of a maximum of 30 units per acre. The development will be for affordable for-sale units, which is consistent with the city’s goals of providing additional home ownership at more affordable price ranges. The residential units will range in size from 520 square feet for one-bedroom unit to 950 square feet for a two-bedroom unit. Parking for these residences will be at a surface parking lot accessed from Valley View Road, with a parking ratio of one stall per residential unit. No rezoning changes are required for this development. A revision to the Comprehensive Plan will be needed to address the story limit. The site plan will require the following amendments and variances: · Increase in building height from two stories to three stories based on the Comprehensive Plan Wooddale Valley View Small Area Plan. · Increase in floor area ratio (FAR) from 1.0 to 1.14. · Yard setbacks including Front Yard (Valley View) from 35’ to 1’-9”, Side Yard (Oaklawn Avenue) from 25’ to 5’ and Rear Yard (north) from 25’ to 14’-6”. City and Neighborhood Betterment: The proposed development will benefit the City of Edina and the surrounding neighborhood in the following ways: · It will replace a surface parking lot. · It will create a multi-family building that conforms with the context of the Valley View Neighborhood Node. · It will create much needed affordable for-sale residences. · The change in number of stories permitted is consistent with the adjoining parcels that are north of Valley View Road directly to the west of this property. Additionally, the increase in number of stories will permit additional affordable for-sale residential units. · The 13 residential units will not create traffic issues with the neighborhood. · The entrance to the development is from Valley View Road, which will enhance the vitality of that street while maintaining the more residential character of Oaklawn Avenue. · The building and proposed site improvements are pedestrian friendly by strengthening the corner location and providing smaller parking lots between main structures. · The proposed development will improve on the existing landscaped areas. The development has not to date had a neighborhood meeting but will be scheduling one prior to the hearing before the planning commission and city council. A report of the feedback from this neighborhood meeting will be made available to the commissioners and council members. We look forward to presenting this development in the Sketch Plan Review before the Edina Planning Commission and the Edina City Council. Sincerely yours, DJR Architecture, Inc. Scott England Principal W/D DWREF.Rentable Area Legend 1 BR 2 BR AMENITY BIKE CIRCULATION COMMON AREA MECH TRASH 950 SF 2 BR 950 SF 2 BR 520 SF 1 BR 245 SF MECH 13 PARKING STALLS PROPERTY LINE 315 SF AMENITY 265 SF TRASH OAKLAWN AVENUEVALLEY VIEW ROAD AVENUE EXTG HOUSEEXTG GARAGE EXTG BUILDING EXTG PARKING LOT 175 SF BIKE 18'-0"24'-0"18'-0"5'-0" 2'-6 3/8" 850 SF CIRCULATION MAIL STOOPSTOOPSTOOPEXTG TRANSFORMERS8'-6"8'-6"8'-6"8'-6"8'-6"8'-6"8'-0"8'-0"8'-0"8'-6"8'-6"8'-6"8'-6"8'-6"950 SF 2 BR 520 SF 1 BR 950 SF 2 BR 610 SF 1 BR 630 SF CIRCULATION 610 SF 1 BR 5"15'-8"15'-8"15'-8"15'-8"15'-8"5"5"15'-8"39'-0 1/4"5"5"39'-2"39'-2"5"79'-2"55'-6 1/4" 950 SF 2 BR 520 SF 1 BR 950 SF 2 BR 610 SF 1 BR 610 SF 1 BR 630 SF CIRCULATION 5"15'-8"39'-0 1/4"5"5"39'-2"39'-2"5"5"15'-8"15'-8"15'-8"15'-8"15'-8"5"55'-6 1/4"79'-2"Copyright 2020 DJR Architecture, Inc. PLANS AND MATRIX EDINA, MN 4404 VALLEY VIEW ROAD 20-057 02/05/21 1" = 30'-0" FLOOR PLAN -LEVEL 1 1" = 30'-0" 02 -Rentable Area 1" = 30'-0" 03-Rentable Area SITE AREA: PID Numbers: 1902824430076 SF 11,273 sf Acres .25 acre ZONING CLASSIFICATION: Current Zoning: PCD-1 (Planned Commercial Distrcit) Small Area Plan: Wooddale Valley View SAP PROJECT DATA: Allowable/Req: Proposed: Base FAR: 1.0 11,273 1.14 or 12,852 GSF TOTAL GSF 12,852 GSF Building Height: 3 stories or 36'-0" 3 stories Density: 30 units /acre x units/acre Units: 13 13 units Req. Parking Swc 36-1312 Residential: 13 stalls 13 stalls Bicycle Parking: 1 stall 20 stalls (5% of req'd parking) SETBACKS: PROPOSED: Front 35* 1'-9" bldg / 0 parking Side 25* 5'-0" Rear 25* 14'-6" *or Building Height if greater N Area Schedule (Rentable) Name Level Area 1 BR LEVEL 1 520 SF 2 BR LEVEL 1 1,904 SF LEVEL 1 2,424 SF 1 BR LEVEL 2 1,747 SF 2 BR LEVEL 2 1,904 SF LEVEL 2 3,652 SF 1 BR LEVEL 3 1,747 SF 2 BR LEVEL 3 1,904 SF LEVEL 3 3,652 SF Grand total: 13 9,728 SF 3,652 / 4,284= 85% EFFICENT Area Schedule (Gross) Name Level Area 1 BR LEVEL 1 520 SF 2 BR LEVEL 1 1,904 SF AMENITY LEVEL 1 317 SF BIKE LEVEL 1 178 SF CIRCULATION LEVEL 1 853 SF MECH LEVEL 1 245 SF TRASH LEVEL 1 266 SF LEVEL 1 4,284 SF 1 BR LEVEL 2 1,747 SF 2 BR LEVEL 2 1,904 SF CIRCULATION LEVEL 2 632 SF LEVEL 2 4,284 SF 1 BR LEVEL 3 1,747 SF 2 BR LEVEL 3 1,904 SF CIRCULATION LEVEL 3 632 SF LEVEL 3 4,284 SF Grand total 12,852 SF LEVEL 1 100' -0" LEVEL 2 110' -10 3/16" LEVEL 3 121' -8 3/8" ROOF TRUSS BEARING 130' -9 1/2" T/O PARAPET 135' -1" Copyright 2020 DJR Architecture, Inc. PRELIMINARY CONCEPT ELEVATION EDINA, MN 4404 VALLEY VIEW ROAD 20-057 02/05/21 1/8" = 1'-0"1 WEST PRELIMINARY CONCEPT ELEVATION Rentable Area Legend 1 BR 2 BR AMENITY BIKE CIRCULATION COMMON AREA MECH TRASH 950 SF 2 BR 950 SF 2 BR 520 SF 1 BR 245 SF MECH 13 PARKING STALLS PROPERTY LINE 315 SF AMENITY 265 SF TRASH OAKLAWN AVENUEVALLEY VIEW ROAD AVENUE EXTG HOUSEEXTG GARAGE EXTG BUILDING EXTG PARKING LOT 175 SF BIKE 5'-0 1/8"18'-0"24'-0"18'-0"5'-0" 2'-6 3/8" 850 SF CIRCULATION MAIL STOOPSTOOPSTOOPEXTG TRANSFORMERS8'-6"8'-6"8'-6"8'-6"8'-6"8'-6"8'-0"8'-0"8'-0"8'-6"8'-6"8'-6"8'-6"8'-6"9'-3 1/4"14'-6"1' -8".55'-6 1/4"5'- 0".SET BACK LINE 950 SF 2 BR 520 SF 1 BR 950 SF 2 BR 610 SF 1 BR 630 SF CIRCULATION 610 SF 1 BR 5"15'-8"15'-8"15'-8"15'-8"15'-8"5"5"15'-8"39'-0 1/4"5"5"39'-2"39'-2"5"79'-2"55'-6 1/4" 950 SF 2 BR 520 SF 1 BR 950 SF 2 BR 610 SF 1 BR 610 SF 1 BR 630 SF CIRCULATION 5"15'-8"39'-0 1/4"5"5"39'-2"39'-2"5"5"15'-8"15'-8"15'-8"15'-8"15'-8"5"55'-6 1/4"79'-2"Copyright 2020 DJR Architecture, Inc. PLANS AND MATRIX EDINA, MN 4404 VALLEY VIEW ROAD 20-057 02/17/21 1" = 30'-0" FLOOR PLAN -LEVEL 1 1" = 30'-0" 02 -Rentable Area 1" = 30'-0" 03-Rentable Area SITE AREA: PID Numbers: 1902824430076 SF 11,273 sf Acres .25 acre ZONING CLASSIFICATION: Current Zoning: PCD-1 (Planned Commercial Distrcit) Small Area Plan: Wooddale Valley View SAP PROJECT DATA: Allowable/Req: Proposed: Base FAR: 1.0 11,273 1.14 or 12,852 GSF TOTAL GSF 12,852 GSF Building Height: 3 stories or 36'-0" 3 stories Density: 30 units /acre x units/acre Units: 13 13 units Req. Parking Swc 36-1312 Residential: 13 stalls 13 stalls Bicycle Parking: 1 stall 20 stalls (5% of req'd parking) SETBACKS: PROPOSED: Front 35* 1'-9" bldg / 0 parking Side 25* 5'-0" Rear 25* 14'-6" *or Building Height if greater N Area Schedule (Rentable) Name Level Area 1 BR LEVEL 1 520 SF 2 BR LEVEL 1 1,904 SF LEVEL 1 2,424 SF 1 BR LEVEL 2 1,747 SF 2 BR LEVEL 2 1,904 SF LEVEL 2 3,652 SF 1 BR LEVEL 3 1,747 SF 2 BR LEVEL 3 1,904 SF LEVEL 3 3,652 SF Grand total: 13 9,728 SF 3,652 / 4,284= 85% EFFICENT Area Schedule (Gross) Name Level Area 1 BR LEVEL 1 520 SF 2 BR LEVEL 1 1,904 SF AMENITY LEVEL 1 317 SF BIKE LEVEL 1 178 SF CIRCULATION LEVEL 1 853 SF MECH LEVEL 1 245 SF TRASH LEVEL 1 266 SF LEVEL 1 4,284 SF 1 BR LEVEL 2 1,747 SF 2 BR LEVEL 2 1,904 SF CIRCULATION LEVEL 2 632 SF LEVEL 2 4,284 SF 1 BR LEVEL 3 1,747 SF 2 BR LEVEL 3 1,904 SF CIRCULATION LEVEL 3 632 SF LEVEL 3 4,284 SF Grand total 12,852 SF LEVEL 1 100' -0" LEVEL 2 110' -10 3/16" LEVEL 3 121' -8 3/8" ROOF TRUSS BEARING 130' -9 1/2" T/O PARAPET 135' -1" Copyright 2020 DJR Architecture, Inc. PRELIMINARY CONCEPT ELEVATION EDINA, MN 4404 VALLEY VIEW ROAD 20-057 02/05/21 1/8" = 1'-0"1 WEST PRELIMINARY CONCEPT ELEVATION Date: March 2, 2021 Agenda Item #: X.A. To:Mayor and City Council Item Type: Minutes From:Andrew Scipioni, Transportation Planner Item Activity: Subject:Minutes: Transportation Commission, Jan. 21, 2021 Information CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: Receive the minutes of the Transportation Commission from January 21, 2021. INTRODUCTION: See attached minutes. ATTACHMENTS: Description Minutes: Transportation Commission, January 21, 2021 Draft Minutes☐ Approved Minutes☒ Approved Date: February 18, 2021 Minutes City Of Edina, Minnesota Transportation Commission WebEx January 21, 2021 I. Call To Order Chair Richman called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. II. Roll Call Answering roll call were Commissioners Ahler, Johnson, Kane, Lafferty, Plumb-Smith, Richman, Atri, Khariwala. Late: Commissioner McCarthy Absent: Commissioners Scherer, Clark Staff present: Transportation Planner Andrew Scipioni III. Approval Of Meeting Agenda Motion was made by Commissioner Ahler and seconded by Commissioner Kane to approve the agenda. Motion was made by Commissioner Johnson and seconded by Commissioner Kane to amend the agenda to include a local speed limit discussion under Reports/Recommendations. All voted aye. Motion carried. IV. Approval Of Meeting Minutes Motion was made by Commissioner Johnson and seconded by Commissioner Lafferty approving the December 17, 2020 meeting minutes. All voted aye. Motion carried. V. Reports/Recommendations Commissioner McCarthy arrived at 6:15. A. Traffic Safety Report of December 17, 2020 The Commission reviewed the Traffic Safety Report of December 17, 2020. Motion was made by Commissioner Johnson and seconded by Commissioner Lafferty to approve the Traffic Safety Report of December 17, 2020 with the recommendations that Item B1 (crosswalk request at Valley View Road and Cheyenne Trail) be revisited when school is in session and that Item D4 (concerns about signal timing on W 77th Street) be removed until the issue is resolved. All voted aye. Motion carried. B. 2021 Work Plan Updates • #1 Organized Trash Collection – VANTAGE project team prepared a charter; kick-off meeting is tentatively scheduled for mid-February. Richfield is looking at switching to organized collection. Draft Minutes☐ Approved Minutes☒ Approved Date: February 18, 2021 • #2 Street Funding Task Force – No update. • #3 CloverRide – Commissioners suggested reaching out to Yorktown Continental about resident outreach. The current service contract expires in June. • #4 Traffic Safety Reports – Staff will present the 2020 summary report at the next meeting. • #5 Capital Improvement Projects – Staff will present the 2020 annual report at the next meeting, along with PACS Fund policy updates and equity criteria. • #6 Traffic Impact Studies & TDM – Council reviewed a sketch plan for 4917 Eden Ave, TIS is being prepared. C. Local Speed Limit Discussion The Commission discussed staff’s recommendation for reducing speed limits citywide. Comments from Commissioners included: • Some Commissioners wrote to City Council in support of 20 mph default speed limits. • The City should make sure the change is meaningful, and 20 mph is a safer speed. • Safety data supports a lower speed limit, and it accommodates multi-modal transportation. • Costs have not been presented yet. It seems inappropriate for Commission to provide a recommendation without considering cost. • Would rather see the City construct more sidewalk and bike lanes than install/replace signs. • The catalyst for this evaluation was Council direction, new legislative authority and guiding documents like the Comprehensive Plan and the Living Streets Plan. • What is the difference between 20 mph and 25 mph? Just because Minneapolis is doing something does not mean Edina should as well. • What is the rush to make this change now? How many traffic fatalities does Edina have? Why not wait to see how things go for other cities? • Like the idea of 20 mph, but not for Edina. • Important to account for the pandemic’s impact on public engagement. If people are not able to provide input, they are more likely to see this change as an inconvenience. The City should ask for input when people have the capacity. • Having examples from other cities would be helpful. The report references cities that are not comparable to Edina. • The City can be a leader rather than waiting to see the successes/failures of other cities. The supporting data may not be perfect, but the rationale is consistent with common sense. Cost is a factor, but it is not the Commission’s area of expertise. • Can we break down where people are concerned about speed? If concerns are mostly on roads the City does not control, the changes will not be as effective. France Ave is one of the most unfriendly pedestrian areas in the city. • After the last meeting, the impression was that the Commission was supportive of the 25-mph approach. • Staff is not explicitly asking the Commission for a recommendation, but they can provide one to Council, if desired. • Generally, the uniform approach is less expensive. The relative cost is important to note. • Based on the lack of engagement, maybe this should not be a City priority right now. Draft Minutes☐ Approved Minutes☒ Approved Date: February 18, 2021 • There may be unintended consequences to making this change; the City should take its time. • Speed limits impact people’s perception of safety as well as their actual safety. VI. Chair and Member Comments A. Street Funding Task Force Update Commissioner Scherer was absent; no update was provided. Commissioner Johnson asked if the traffic safety report will be available before next month’s meeting. Staff clarified that it will be included in the agenda packet online. Commissioner Lafferty is enjoying being on the Commission. Commissioner McCarthy enjoyed the discussion tonight and hearing the viewpoints of others. Commissioner Richman noted that annual elections will take place at the next meeting and Commissioners should consider whether they would like to serve as Chair or Vice Chair. Richman will participate in interviews for prospective Commissioners; the ETC has one vacancy. Richman recommends that current Commissioners are asked what skill sets they would like as part of next year’s interview process. VII. Staff Comments • Hennepin County has placed traffic cameras on France Ave between W 54th St and Highway 62 where restriping occurred. After a week, they will review the footage for instances of unsafe traffic behavior. • Bird approached the City about scooters; staff informed them that this is not a priority at this time. • Metro Transit announced a construction delay for SWLRT; it will likely not open in 2023 as previously anticipated. VIII. Schedule of Meeting and Events as of January 15, 2020 For information purposes only, no discussion. IX. Adjournment Motion was made by Commissioner Johnson and seconded by Commissioner Plumb-Smith to adjourn the January 21, 2021 meeting at 7:47 p.m. All voted aye. Motion Carried. Draft Minutes☐ Approved Minutes☒ Approved Date: February 18, 2021 TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE J F M A M J J A S O N D # of Mtgs Attendance % Meetings/Work Sessions 1 1 NAME Ahler, Mindy 1 1 100% Johnson, Kirk 1 1 100% Kane, Bocar 1 1 100% Lafferty, Peter 1 1 100% McCarthy, Bruce 1 1 100% Plumb-Smith, Jill 1 1 100% Richman, Lori 1 1 100% Scherer, Matthew 0 0% Atri, Nihar (s) 1 1 100% Clark, Anna (s) 0 0% Khariwala, Anand (s) 1 1 100% Date: March 2, 2021 Agenda Item #: X.B. To:Mayor and City Council Item Type: Minutes From:Risi Karim, City Management Fellow Item Activity: Subject:Minutes: Human Rights & Relations Commission Jan. 26, 2021 Information CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: Receive the HRRC minutes from the January 26,2021 meeting INTRODUCTION: ATTACHMENTS: Description HRRC Approved Minutes 1.26.21 Draft Minutes☐ Approved Minutes☒ Approved Date: February 23,2021 Minutes City of Edina, Minnesota Human Rights & Relations Commission Virtual Meeting, WebEx, Jan. 26, 2021, 7 p.m. I. Call To Order Chair Beringer shared information for virtual meeting guidelines for Commissioners and those watching or listening in to the meeting. Chair Beringer called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. II. Roll Call Answering Roll Call: Chair Beringer, Commissioners Edwards, Epstein, Felton, Ismail, Ross, Nelson, and Student Commissioners Lichtenberger and Mirza Staff Present: Heidi Lee, Race & Equity Coordinator and Risi Karim, City Management Fellow Absent: Student Commissioner Borene Late: Commissioner Stringer Moore III. Approval of Meeting Agenda Motion by Commissioner Nelson to approve the Dec 1, 2020 meeting agenda, seconded by Commissioner Ross. Roll call vote. Motion carried. IV. Approval of Meeting Minutes Commissioners indicated the following changes to the draft minutes: • No changes Motion by Commissioner Ross to approve the January 26, 2021 meeting minutes, seconded by Commissioner Epstein. Roll call vote. Motion carried. V. Special Recognitions & Presentations A. City Observed List • Staff Liaison Lee gives a presentation to the Commission regarding the list of holidays that are currently observed and recognized by the City of Edina. Staff Liaison Lee also gathered feedback from the Commissioners regarding additional holidays and observances that the City of Edina should consider giving recognition to. VI. Reports/Recommendations A. Approval of Schedule Change Draft Minutes☐ Approved Minutes☒ Approved Date: February 23,2021 Motion by Commissioner Ross to approve changing the start time for the November 16th and December 7th HRRC meeting from 7:00pm to 5:30pm, Seconded by Commissioner Felton. Roll call vote. Motion carried. B. 2020 Human Rights & Relations Commission Work Plan • The Commission discussed the Work Plan with the following updates: o #6 Bias Offense Review - The subcommittee has completed the task of creating definitions to differentiate the differences between bias offenses and bias incidents. As the subcommittee moves into their final steps, they are seeking joint approval from the Police Chief and subcommittee members before sending the proposed changes to council. o #4 Artwork and Décor Assessment Rubric for City Owned Facilities - Staff Liaison Lee shared with the Commission that due to City Hall construction there will be a delay on sending out the video. Construction at City Hall is scheduled to be completed by mid-March and upon its completion Staff Liaison Lee will then share the video with the public. C. 2021 Human Rights & Relations Commission Work Plan • The Commission discussed the Work Plan with the following updates: o #1 Days of Remembrance - Commissioner Stringer Moore shared that she would be reaching out to former HRRC member Pat Arseneault to garner more information about how the event was conducted in years past. - Commissioner Ross suggested to the Commission that the event may have to be held virtually this year. o #3 Sharing Values Sharing Community - Commissioner Felton shares with the Commission the idea of coordinating a showing of “Jim Crow of the North” followed by a Q&A for the event. - Chair Beringer encourages Commissioner Felton to move forward with the planning and seeking clarification from the city about the scope of the event and to come back and share with the Commission once planning is further along. o #5 Bias Offense Review - Commissioner Epstein shares with the Commission that the subcommittee has one more meeting with the Chief of Police where they will seek clarification on one item before marking the review officially complete. o #6 Review and comment on staff proposed plan to identify barriers for participation and reach communities of color through different modes and feedback. - Staff Liaison Lee will be meeting with Parks & Recreation staff to determine a timeline for the creation of the plan and when that plan will be made available to the subcommittee for review and comment. VII. Chair and Member Comments • Commissioner Felton inquires about the nomination and selection process for the Chair & Vice Chair position for the 2021-2022 HRRC Cycle. Draft Minutes☐ Approved Minutes☒ Approved Date: February 23,2021 • Commissioner Nelson notes to the Commission the passing of Henry Aaron ,an American professional baseball right fielder who played 23 seasons in Major League Baseball. • Commissioner Stringer Moore share with the Commission that President Biden has signed numerous Executive Orders aimed at closing the gaps caused by gender and racial disparities. VIII. Staff Comments • Staff Liaison Lee announces that the EEC is recruiting community members for the climate action working group, the group will help develop the city’s Climate Action Plan with a focus on equity. Expertise in the field of environment and sustainability is not required to participate in the working group. IX. Adjournment Motion by Commissioner Felton to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Commissioner Nelson. Roll call vote. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:26 p.m. Date: March 2, 2021 Agenda Item #: XIII.A. To:Mayor and City Council Item Type: From: Item Activity: Subject:Prep Memo for Mar. 2, 2021 City Council Work Session and Meeting CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: INTRODUCTION: ATTACHMENTS: Description Prep Memo 1 Sharon Allison From:Scott H. Neal Sent:Tuesday, March 2, 2021 3:37 PM To:James Hovland; 'James Hovland'; Kevin Staunton; Ron Anderson; James Pierce; Carolyn Jackson Cc:Lisa Schaefer; Sharon Allison Subject:Prep Memo for March 2, 2021 City Council Work Session and Meeting Good Afternoon Everyone - Here’s the final prep memo for our meetings tonight. Work Session The Work Session presentation will be led by Jessica Cook from Ehlers. Jessica is the economic analyst we work with to design rate structures for our utility functions. She is very knowledgeable about our utility systems and works closely with our Finance Department. Staff do not need a decision on utility finance tonight. Discussion only City Council Meeting Consent Agenda: Council Member Anderson has asked that item VI.N. be pulled from the Consent Agenda. This is the item entitled “Resolution No 2021-26: Supporting Local Control Over Local Elections”. Council Member has asked for a brief explanation of Ranked Choice Voting and the purpose of the resolution. We have two important special presentations for the Council tonight. The first presentation will be a joint presentation from Nick Kelley from Bloomington Public Health and Jeff Brown, our Community Health Administrator. They will share information about infection and death rates, recommended protective measures and strategies for vaccination. There is no action for the Council on this item. The second special presentation is the formal presentation of the Street Funding Task Force final report and recommendations. Chad Millner will handle most of the presentation. Staff are requesting the Council “receive” the report by majority vote of the Council and thank the task force for their work. Sketch Plan: The proponent of tonight’s sketch plan review says he needs ten minutes for his presentation. That’s all I have for tonight. See you all at 5:30 pm. Scott Scott H. Neal, City Manager 952-826-0401 | Fax 952-826-0390 sneal@EdinaMN.gov | EdinaMN.gov Stay informed about the City’s response to COVID-19 at EdinaMN.gov/Coronavirus. Need a hand or want to help? Visit BetterTogetherEdina.org/COVID-19. Follow me on Twitter. Date: March 2, 2021 Agenda Item #: XIV. To:Mayor and City Council Item Type: Other From:Sharon Allison, City Clerk Item Activity: Subject:Calendar of City Council Meetings and Events Information CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: None; information only. INTRODUCTION: Date Time Meeting/Event Location Tues, Mar 2 5:30 p.m.Utility Rate Study Virtual 7:00 p.m.City Council Regular Meeting Virtual T hurs, Mar 4 5-9:00 p.m.Council Retreat Virtual T hurs, Mar. 11 7:30 a.m.Housing and Redevelopment Authority Virtual Sat, Mar. 13 8-Noon Council Retreat Virtual Tues, Mar. 16 5:30 p.m.Morningside Flood P rotection / Green Building Policy Virtual 7:00 p.m.City Council Regular Meeting Virtual Wed, Mar. 24 7:00 p.m.Special Joint Meeting with Planning Commission – Land Use Training Virtual T hurs, Mar. 25 7:30 a.m.Housing and Redevelopment Authority Virtual