The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1978-01-09_COUNCIL MEETING(Revised) AGENDA EDINA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 9, 1978 7:00 P.M. ROLLCALL MINUTES OF November 7, December 5 and'29, 1977, approved as presented by motion of seconded by RESOLUTION OF CONDOLENCE - JOHN HEEGAARD RESOLUTION OF CONGRATULATIONS — GYMNASTICS TEAM I. PARKLAND DEDICATION POLICY II. REPORTS AND PUBLIC HEARINGS ON PLANNING MATTERS Affidavits.of Notice by Clerk. `Presentation by Planning Department. Spectators heard., First Reading of. Zoning Ordinance requires offering of Ordinance only.. 4 /5.favorable rollcall vote to pass Second Reading or if Second Reading should be waived.: Divi- sions, Plats, Flood Plain Permits and Appeals from Administrative or Board. of Appeals and Adjustments decisions require action by Resolution. 3/5 favorable rollcall vote to pass. A. Year IV - Community Development Block Grant Program (Second Hearing) B. Southwest Edina Plan Amendment - Continue to February 6, 1978 C. Brookview Heights 5th Addition Preliminary Plat - Generally located East of Cahill Road and Nine Mile Creek, West of M.N.& S.,.Tracks and North of W. 70th St.(an extension of Limerick Lane) - S -77 -21 (11/30/77) (Continued from December 19, 1977) D. Edina Interchange 6th Addition - Report E. Set Hearing Dates 1. Madsen Property - R -1 Single Family District to Planned Residential District PRD -3 - Generally located North of Dewey Hill Road and North of William Wardwell Lewis Park, and West of Cahill Road Z -78 -1 (1/4/78) 2. Parkwood Knolls 20th Addition - Generally located South of Interlachen Blvd., North of Parkwood Road, West of Schaefer Road and.East of Lincoln Drive - S -78 -1 (1/4/78) F. Amendment of Ordinance No bU3 -A3 III. SPECIAL CONCERNS OF RESIDENTS IV. RECOMMENDATIONS AND REPORTS A. Appointment of Boards and Commissions B. Abandon Watermain Improvement No. WM =316 D. City Share of Legal Fees for SAC Charge Suit E. Settlement of Flood Claims F. Special Concerns of Mayor and Council G. Post Agenda and Manager's Miscellaneous items January y, 19 ,o [ geLlda Page Tw,o•_ V. AWARD OF.BIDS Tabulations and recommendations by City Manager. Action-of Council `by motion. A.. 4 -Wheel Drive Articulated Loader (Continued from-12 /.29/77) VI. COMMUNICATIONS A. Petitions '* 1. Street-Name Change - Eden Prairie Road to Whitehall (Way /Drive /Road) VII. RESOLUTIONS A. Designation of Official Newspaper B. Annual Technical and Engineering Assistance Agreement C. Agency Agreement D. Resolution Designating Official Depository, Signatory Authorization,. and Approving Assignment in Lieu of Bond 1. First Edina National Bank 2. First Southdale National Bank. 3. Americana State Bank 4. Southwest Fidelity State Bank E. Facsimile Signature Resolution F. Destruction of Old Records VIII-. ANY OTHERS WHO DESIRE HEARING BEFORE COUNCIL IX. FINANCE A. Liquor Fund as of 11/30/77 B. Claims Paid. Motion of seconded by , for pay - ment of the following claims per Pre -List: General Fund, $53,282.34; Park Fund, $1,447.77; Art Center, $257.09; Park Construction, $17,700.00; Golf Course, $860.74; Arena, $8,507.56; Gun Range, $459.35,: Water Works, $5,726.80; Sewer Fund, $97,770.91;: Liquor Fund $34,486.83; Construction Fund, $7,234.60 IBR Fund, $3,375.00; Total, $231,108.99 I 9► -.,OCAT�ON MAP a jr 1 E Yu� `VAl l '►':�� o t NORMAN--{ ti DALE" - d PARK - HI L I PARK". CIR 66 rM T �ctr.� }i�;:, .i 1, ~—' Is it St V subdivision Brookview Heights 5th Addition REQUEST NUMBER: S -77 -21 LOCATION: E. of Cahill Rd. & 9 Mile Creek W. of M.N. & S R.R. tracks & N or th REQUEST: 18 lot single family Plat 1 0. 250 5111) 7130 1000 village glace ins depmrtment village of sdina Illy ti PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT November 2, 1977 S -77 -21 Brookview Heights 5th Addition. C. Jacobson. Generally located east of Cahill Rd. and 9 Mile Creek, west of the M.N. & S. Railroad tracks and north of W. 70th Street (an extension of Limerick Lane). Refer to: Attached preliminary plat, grading plan, and parkland dedication report. The subject property is a 13 acre.tract of land located between the M.N.S. Railroad tracks and Nine Mile Creek immediately south of W. 66th Street. An 18 lot single family subdivision is proposed which would be served by the southerly extension of Limerick Drive. The average lot size for the subdivision would be 18,700 square feet which is somewhat larger than existing single family lots located easterly and westerly of the subject property. Nearly one half of the subject property lies within the flood plain of Nine Mile Creek. The proponent has submitted a grading plan for the site which has been reviewed by staff and the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District. The Watershed District has indicated that the proposed grading plan complies with its rules and regulations in that a flood plain encroachment of less than 20% is proposed. The remaining fld.od plain lands have been designated as Outlot A which measures 3.93 acres. The proponent has indicated his intent to dedicate this outlot to the City. A .200 foot wide strip of land abutting the west side of the subject property and bisected by Nine Mile Creek was dedicated to the City in conjunction with a previous subdivision. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the proposed subdivision and flood plain permit in that: 1) the proposed land use is in conformance with the Western Edina Plan. 2) lot sizes are generally consistent and somewhat larger than surrounding subdivisions. 3) proposed flood plain encroachment is within standards of the City and the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District. Approval is recommended with the following conditions and modifications: 1) a deed to the City of Edina for Outlot A. 2) adequate erosion control measures to prevent sediments resulting from site grading from entering the flood plain lands and Nine Mile Creek. 3) t o ontained in the engineering r iGtn %ks r�OP05EZD STREET GRADES Fm,- Cow-lyl= jo::.ob-5on, Devetoocv - INC PZ ;7- L: L.E 4 Y- o, 0- C) c --0,-- I" too, veet C—.0, . .. ............. . .. ........ . . ......... L I 'IA E P! C K.', D p I V E: .. . ....... .. .... ....... .. .... .. ... - . ....... ........ . . . ........ .. . ... ........ .. . .... ............ . . .... .... ........ .. . ............. ....... . ... .. . ....... .. . ... ...... . ...... .. ..... ... .. ... . ......... - .. ...... . ............ ... ..... .. .......... * . a .... ..... . ..... .. 41 ....... ... ... . ...... .... ....... . .. ......... . . ... ..... . .. ............. . .. ........ . . ......... L I 'IA E P! C K.', D p I V E: .. . ....... .. .... ....... .. .... .. ... - . ....... ........ . . . ........ .. . ... ........ .. . .... ............ . . .... .... ........ .. . ............. ....... . ... .. . ....... .. . ... ...... . ...... .. ..... ... .. ... . ......... - .. ...... . ............ ... ..... .. Ii :f — COT 'f 3 -.r. I.C. .1 . a .... ..... . ..... .. 41 . . ... ..... ........... .......... .... .. .... ... ........ ...... ... . ..... .... 4 . ......... ........... . . ..... .. .... .. . .... ...... ... ... . . .... . .. ...... ....... ....... .. ........ ....... . ... ... . . . ...... ..... .... . ... ...... ... .. .. .... .... ... .. ....... .. . ..... ...... .... ... ........ . .. ... . . . . . .... .. ........... ........ .... ........... .... 4 . . . . ... .. .. ... ... .......... ...... . ...... ... ......... . . ...... I . ....... .... .. ..... ...... . ....... .. ..... . ........ ..... . . ... . .......... .. ............. ...... .. .. . .... . ... ... .... ... . ........ .. .......... . . . ...... ... . .... .. . . .... .......... . . ........ ... . . ..... . ....... ... . ........ . .......... . p ... ... ... ... .. ........... ..... ...... . .. ...... .......... - .. .. . .. .- .. ......... ;. .. .. . ..... ..... . I ...... ... ... ... ... .. . .. ........... . ........... .................. . .... ..... . .. . ... .......... ......... .. . ......... .. ....... ...... ..... .................. ... .... .... ... .......... ... .............. 4 . . . . ...... . ...... I....... ................. . 4 ................................. ........ . ... .. ............. --! - .................. .. ........... .. . . ........ .. . . ..... . ............. . ..... ......... .. ... ........ .... . .. . .... ..... ... .. .. . .... . .... .. .. ...... ... ........ .. ........ . ....... ............. . ...... .. .. ...... .. .... . . .. ......... ........ . .. .. ........... .... ...... . ..... .......................... ....... .. ..... . ... . .... ............. .... ......... ........... .. ... .. ...... ... .. ........ ..... .... . . ... ...... .... . : .. .:: .:�. ...... . ...... . ........ ...... ..... .. .... ...... .......... . . ....... . :: : . ............ ... . . ...... . . ........ . . .... ...... ........ .... ..... ...... - — -------- ...... .... .... ............. ........ 4: ... ...... . ............. . . ... ....... . . .. ...... . ...... ..... ... j f . . .... ... ..... .. ... j .. . ............... . ........ ..... .......... ....... . .... .... .... ..... ... ............. .. .. ............ ............... . .. ...... ............. ... ................ .. ......... . .... ......... . .. ............ .. . ... .... A .. ........... . . ..... I .... .... .. . . ...... . . .. . . ...... . ... ... ... ....... .. *.�,:�: . ..... . .. . ..... .. ........ . . .......... .. ... ....... ..... .. ..... . . .. .... ..... .... .... . ... . . ....... .... ............ .. ..... .......... . i .. . .. .. .. ...... ....... . ........ - ...... ... ............. .. 4 ... .......... �'z�� ........ . ...... ............. .. ...... . ....... . . . .— ..... ..... I . ..... .. ........... ................. ............ .... ... .... Ii :f — COT 'f 3 -.r. I.C. .1 T1 r 17, kh Cc) Z5._cyi--5,?F-r OD y 179 6` Cat' 7 t J \ k 41 830 - 1 �^ 9 ' r b" 10 z2, goo sp � r � I =Y; a OUTLOT D r= 171,23,c> So rT 3.93 AGRE'l I II Subdivision No. S 7-21 SUBDIVISION DEDICATION REPORT TO: Planning Commission Park Board Environmental Quality Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBDIVISION NAME: LAND SIZE: LAND VALUE: 5- t'i' (By: Date: ) The developer of this subdivision has been required to A. grant an easement over part of the land �� B. dedicate , o of the land EJC. donate $ as a fee in lieu of land As a result of applying the following policy: A. Land Required (no density or intensity may be used for the first 5% of land dedicated) 1. If property is adjacent to an existing park and the addition beneficially expands the park. 2. If property is 6 acres or will be combined with future dedications so that the end result will be a minimum of a 6 acre park. 3. If property abuts a natural lake, pond, or stream. K4. If property is necessary for storm water holding or will be dredged or otherwise improved for storm water holding areas or ponds. D 5. If the property is a place of significant natural, scenic or his- toric value. 1 1 6. B. Cash Required II1. In all other instances than above. !—s 2 October 26, 1977 TO:' Gordon Hughes, Director of Planning FROM: Robert C. Dunn, City Engineera,Q� SUBJECT: Utility and Miscellaneous Engineering Considerations Proposed Brookview Heights 5th Addition A review of preliminary information submitted raised the following preliminary utility and miscellaneous engineering concerns regarding proposed Brookview Heights 5th Addition that must be resolved before final approval can be recommended: rl. Continue watermain through plat to connect with main running from Brook Drive to Ridgeview. 2. Street grade proposed results in unworkable sanitary sewer situation. From low spot at north end of plat run 0.6% grade south resulting in 1.5 to 2.0' raise in grade at Station 7 +00 3. Run storm sewer completely through plat.from east to west along north line of plat to handle backyard and street drainage. 4. Extend all storm sewers completely through lots. 5. City should acquire rear portions of Lots 8 and 9 west of "cattle pass" under railroad for waterway and pedestrian way. 6. Need Developer's Agreement. November 2, 1977 City Council of Edina _ j�ttn; Ana Planning CorLmission Inasmuch as the home owners from 6700 -,Ad -eview D~. through 6720 ?Zi.d -eview Dr. have sustained water dama;;es from the flood of August 31, 1977 and have endured the r)roble!a of water in their basements from other hard rainfalls, we petition the menbers of the city council to make necessary a(ijustments to imp-rove the water runoff through the culvert located to the north of 6700 qid7eview Dr. Since much of the rater darra -e sustained from the Au:-ust 31, 1977 flood included the backin- up of sewer *.oaten, as well as surface water, pe would also petition the city council to make necessary improvements to the storia setter servicin- this area. Lastly, *.-re petition the city co,,ncil fo~ assurance that the building of the 5th. Broo'.view 3abrivision addition i.7ill improve the water run -off and increase the Eton se *.rer canzcity for our area. . 44d�/_/ �. ll -�> 7 7 7 iertainin,; to the rr000se l Fifth drookviea Subdivision under Gon-:i,ierKtion (rf the &dins Ylar,nina, Commission, .November 2, 1977 The Nine Mile Creek, in the area beti.reen firookvie•a hive and Limerick Drive, is a beautiful area for witai {'e .and wild flowers, trees, and bushes ,. It is also only a. few feet from the proposed Fifth 3rro�v4,iw Subdivision. Along the creek are s number of fl oo %!plain reservoirs that hold back dra.ina:ze .pater after storris atxt :luting sprin- run -off* before the project is approved, the re >i lents of this are affected by the the ?Lannin�� Commission seri -:)usly consider the affects a. can one �,nrti�rutar f- •'.Ly, the 01-ens. The .)r. thaw of a:Yt the rain of A ust 31, 1977, produced flood lev# -? s in the are:-i of the ,Possible subdivision hi-hoelthan any previ ,usly recorded. :come hydrolo,-,isty . called it the Two Hundred Year Rain in this area. tith the recent construction -townstr3m, levels at The Olsen hone, ')725 Cahill hoa�3, were vary close to flooding,, the residence. There is a 2reaeral concern of area residents that continual alteration of the flo,),Iplair, by the filling pr :)posed, some thirteen per cent, will cause pro,rsrty lama ;e . qe wouLd like to ask further ?etaile-d �tuc!v of possible floo:din;; in tt a area after the present hit,nwsy 100 :truction upstream is completed. It sop9ars that the next sprin , t!:aw or other unu!,uaLly wet, springs will require more water holding capacity than the fl �,rdpLzin ca:koulation shorn for a lu0 -year rainfall. :he Fifth Brookview Subdivision is the last undeveloped non -city owned floodplain property up stream from the industrial area nor :ierin,� on the 7000's of CahilL bad. Perhaps a stu?v -haul.' be made - burin; the spring thaw of 1978 to determine the ade;uacy.of the area of the floodplain. o; Petition -2 Furthmrmore, if the Fifth Br,-)okview Subdivision is approve Y, tho; fol!.owing requests are also male of the Planning Commission: 1) To reduce the fill in the floodplain and alone the creek banks, specifically =Ilona, lots nine through 12, seventeen and ei: -hteen and the creek banks on lots twelve through fifteen. The creek meaniers in this low area and has meandered quite beyon,l what is shown on the City Planner's maps. The creek is much closer to the proposed gradin; than the floodplain ordinance intended. It is understood that the ori-Anal :700 -foot -wide strip owned by the city was to meet the ordinance requirements. However, the ordinance was to protect the creek, an:i the creek gill not have suf!'icient setback at its present relationship to the proposed gracing. 2) Raise the �;ase level of the proposel house on lot eighteen one foot so that it is at the recocznizea level limit above the floodplain. 3) , He.iuce the slope of the fill bank on lots twelve through eighteen. 4) Change the fill location on lot eizht to reluee the bank evosion resulting from storm water run off from the "cow path" c4lvert under the railroad tricks. 5) Consider surface storm drainage cross lots seventeen and eighteen. 4 2sck yard drainage for Limderick Drive's east sine and front yards both e ::ist and west on Limerick !)rive, must pass through this area. A storm se.,rer will carry silt and pollutants into the creek without the natural filtration now present on what will become lots seventeen and eighteen. 6) 4e ask that no construction be allowed without protection for the creek and park area. Bailing alone the creek seems to be essential before grading is begun. It also seems very important that ground cover be put onto the graded hips as soon as possible after grading this extensive area to prevent major eroision and serious sedimentation of the creek. 7) We ask that there be no parking alon:; Limerick Drive durin; the construction and that load restrictions also be in effect during this time. s b Petition -3 8)4e ask that noise levels be monitored durin; comtruction esc -ecially if piles are driven. 9) ?lease require that the contractor loin- the siie preparation especially when .rivin, piles be bonded for sub= -eauent d;,mare to area residences. the rlLannin;� is the duly appointed representatives of the residents of Mina. ve res^ectfully request y')nr v•;lued considerations of our cm--erns. cl�ase dive full 1-�a1 name, ie. Marilyn F. Smith, not r-s. Alliam smith � / � 1D IIl � �i�LG � f� • _ ZIJ L 3ined, Please give full 3:jdress Data i z 66 1-7 C VI ///7 ',-7 •s r. • i z 66 1-7 C VI ///7 ',-7 0 Petition -3 8)+ie ask that noi'3e levels be monitored durin; construction especially if piles are driven. 9) .?lease require that the contractor Join: the site preparation especially when driving piles be bonded for subsequent damage to area residences. The rlannin,r Commission.is the duly appointed representatives of the residents of Ldina. ve resoectfully request your vilued considerations of our concerns. elease ?ive full legal name, ie. Marilyn F. Smith, not eirs. vAlliam Smith Si :med, Please give full .address , -X6 Date :7, 21 7� a - • I Petiti-.,n-3 +� 8)Ae ask that noise levels be monitorel iurin.; construction a�pecially if piles are :riven. y) rlease require that the c ^ntractor doimf the site preparation especially -.when Irivim,, piles be bonded for subsequent clai,agre to area residences. The elannin :? Commis:i.-)n is the duly appointed representatives of the residents of rdina. ve resoectfutly request y )ur v -lue(i considerations of our c)ncerns. Si %fined, rlease r,ivm full le?al name, ie. Marilyn F. Smith, not rirs. 4illinin Smith Please 7ive Full a6dress �."A l � 1. r LSZj,�,� n Da to jai l0, !3/%J j- �� /% 7. 1,117 . a i Z05 0 Petition -3 8)4e ask that noise levels be monitored durin;, construction especially if piles are driven. 9) elease reauire that the aDntractor doin the site preparation especially when Arivin piles be bonded for subsequent dama.ae to area residences. The rlanning, Commission is the duly -Appointed representatives of the residents of t;dina. ,re resoectfully request y:)ur valued considerations of our concerns. r1ease dive full legal name, ie. Marilyn F. Smith, not sirs. Alliam Smith Si;,ned, Please give full address Date /'D ?,/; -, ", I ��/ ; 3 5cl Y- 77 _77 1 Petition -3 8)4e ask that noise levels be monitored durin,; construction a s Dec ially if piles are driven. elease require that the contractor doing the site preparation e�.peciaLly .,!hen Arivinal piles be bonded for subsequent damage to area residences. The r1annini, Coinmis:3i:)n is the duly appointed representatives of the residents of Mina. -ve resoactfully request y-)ur vqlued considerations of our concerns. SLgned, r1ease Give full legal name, ie. Marilyn F. Smith, not eirs. iilliam Smith Please give full address Date Qcc, 70 013,1 101-31)9/9 t Petition -3 8)4e ask that noise levels be monitore7 Burin; construction especially if piles are driven. 9) i�lease require that the contractor doing the si�e preparation especially when '.rivingl piles be bonded for subsequent dar„aoe to area residences. The rlannin? Commis. ;i.in is the duly appointed representatives of the residents of Mina. ; +e respectfully request y,ur valued u- insiderations of our concerns. elease ,?ive full legal name' ie. Marilyn F. Smith, not rirs.,., Nilliam Smith Signed, Please give full address bate L' W", Petition-3 8)ne ask that noise levels be monitoraJ Burin construction especially if piles are iriven. 9) rl . case reauire that the contractor loin,-- the site preparation especially -.,:hen 'rivin-' piles be bonded for subseaueriL cIarriaoe to area re s ide nee s. The elarLnin;7 Commis3i.-)n ils the duly appointed representatives of the residents of Edina. ve resoectfuLly request y,)ur valued considerations of our cincerns. ,'lease :dive full le-gal name, 4 .Le. Marilyn F. !x'mith, not .6,,Lrs. Pilliam Smith I r-ZA ee� 7 Si:�ned, Please give full address ;late 0 q RIdle L, ieja A7 2 7 7 7 �� (Dy v-Laj z -77 _Z -7:7 Nine Mile Creek Watershed District Mr. Carlyle D. Jacobson 5700 Johnson Drive Edina, Minnesota 55424 Re: Brookview Heights 5th Addition Dear Mr. Jacobson: 4344 IDS CENTER MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55402 September 21, 1977 The Board of Managers of the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District has reviewed the plans and grading and land alteration permit dated September 19, 1977, as submitted to the District for the above referenced project. The Managers find that the plans are in accordance with the policies of the District and, therefore, approve of the grading and land alteration permit subject to the following conditions: 1. The District will require that all hay bales as shown on the erosion control plan be installed prior to the commencement of land alteration. These bales must remain in place and be properly maintained until all altered areas on the site have been restored. Also, the District will require that addition- al bales be installed across the small swale area on Lot 17 of the development to prevent sediment from being discharged into Nine Mile Creek. 2. The District will require that detailed storm sewer plans for the development be submitted for review and approval. 3. The District will require that all altered areas on the site be restored by November 1, 1978. 4. The District requests to be notified 48 hours prior to the com- mencement.of land alteration. If you have any questions regarding the District's comments, please contact us at 920 -0655. ours trul 0 John D. Dickson BARR ENGINEERING CO. JDD /dd Engineer for the District cc: Mr. Raymond Haik Approved by the Board of Managers Mrs. Phyllis Larsen MILE CREEK RSHED DISTRICT Mr. Gordon Hughes / resident Date: --FA6 7 7 COMMENTS TO THE CITY OF EDINA PLANNING COMMISSION RE: PROPOSED BROOKVIEW HEIGHTS 5TH ADDITION November 2, 1977 Keith R. Thomson I request that you not approve the proposed subdivision due to a number of questions and concerns. First: The ever - increasing pressure of more people living within a limited area has created a substantial swing in public policy toward preservation of all kinds of our country's resources. Not just the quantity, but also the quality. These include energy, water, air, and our natural land 'environments, along with birds, animals, and waterfowl. The amount of fill and the dramatic restructuring of the land within this property should not be condoned. . In the years 1961 -1965 when the initial thoughts were given to the 9 Mile Creek watershed, no one was even dreaming of today's concern for the environment. While the "20% fill" guideline has been used over all these years, I suggest that the basic public policy which was imbedded in the assumptions underlying the "rule of 20 % ", has changed. And the rule has not. Second: Our city planner took a great deal of time to explain to us why the 20% rule made sense, and in truth, I have trouble refuting his logical arguments. Which gets us back to the basic assumptions underlying that rule. The rule has been applied rather consistently up to the present time, from the early 1960's. We question "proof" of this rule such as: a) The recent so- called "200 -year rain." Statistically, can you prove that this won't happen again for another 200 years? or even another 10? b) The spring flood of 1977, which in some areas, was worse than the "200 -year rain." Statistically, how do we get two of these events in the same year? In the past several years, many noted scientists and climatologists have spoken in the press and written about a prolonged drought, a persistent cooling trend over the U.S. and other northern hemisphere areas, a decline in the ozone layer surrounding the earth, and a shift in the path of the traditional westerly air currents that move across the U.S. Whatever differences these scientists have, they agree on one thing: that the earth's weather is going to be more variable and volatile than it has ever been in the visible -past. I submit that the events such as our recent rain and the spring flood are not abnormal, 11200 -year type" events, but are more likely to become the norm. Does the 20% fill guideline stand up under changed assumptions? I think not. Thirdly: The neighborhood to be affected by this development has had barely a week and a half to even consider the possible impact, while the developer, Mr. Jacobson, has had up to 15 years and certainly two or three, to plan and prepare his proposal. I propose at the very least, you delay the schedule of hearings to allow people to respond in an equally informed manner. Fourthly: The last and perhaps most important point concerns the Olsen property. I believe a recent survey shows the house is located dangerously close if not below, the present floodplain level. Given the events of the past year and the greater variability of weather I referred to above, I believe that any one of you, put in the Olsen's place, would not want even an extra foot of fill put in the adjoining property. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT November 30, 1977 S -77 -21 Brookview Heights 5th Addition. Refer to: November 2, 1977 Staff Report and excerpts from the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District Overall Plan The Planning Commission will recall that the subject subdivision was continued on November 2, 1977, for consideration of questions raised by surrounding property owners. Most of these questions concerned the effect of the proposed subdivision on Nine Mile Creek and its flood plain. Staff has reviewed these questions and concerns and submits the following information: 1) Effects upon the Olsen home - 6725 Cahill Road? The Olsen home was constructed shortly after establishment of the watershed district and prior to adoption of the City's flood plain ordinance. Unfortunately, the Olsen home was constructed about one foot lower than the 100 year flood plain elevation of Nine Mile Creek. However, Barr Engineering Company, hydrologists for the Nine Mile Creek WatersiLed District computes that the proposed Brookview Heights 5th Addition will increase the flood elevation of Nine Mile Creek by approximately one inch. Thus, staff concludes that the requested subdivision's effect on the Olsen home is insignificant. 2) Effect of Highway 100 improvement on flood plain elevations: Staff has reviewed the plans for Highway 100 improvements. We find that these improvements have in the'past and will in the future replace obsolete and undersized culverts with larger culverts. Thus, we believe that flood plain elevations will decrease rather than increase as a result of these improvements. Nevertheless, we have requested the watershed district to review flood plain elevations in the vicinity of 70th Street. However, we believe that effects of Highway 100 improvements on flood plain elevations should have no bearing upon the review of Brookview Heights 5th Addition. 3) Probablity of 200 year rainfall? We cannot prove statistically that the 200 year rain will not happen again for 200 years. Such a rainfall which occurred on August 30, 1977, could happen again tomorrow. However, the probability of such an occurrence is statistically shown to occur once in every 200 years. For food plain management purposes, the City, the State, the watersled district, and the Federal Government use the 100 year frequency rainfall as a criterion. S -77 -21 Brookview Heights 5th Addn. Page 2 November 30, 1977 4) Effect of climate changes on flood plain elevations? Staff cannot answer this question. We believe a comprehensive study undertaken at great cost would be necessary to document such changes in climatic conditions. 5) Effect of "20% encroachment" rule. Since its creation. in 1961, the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District has enforced a regulation of allowing only 20% encroachment into the flood plain. Thus flood plain elevations which are used by the watershed district and the City assume a total encroachment or loss of 20% of the flood plain. On past occasions we have allowed the maximum 20% encroachment on several properties such as the Wallace Kenneth property and Fountainwoods apartments. In many other cases the City and watershed district have approved developments utilizing less than 20% of the flood plain. Brookview Heights 5th Addition proposes an encroachment of 13% which is well below the maximum allowed. The remainder of the flood plain (4 acres) would be dedicated to the City. 6) The 200 foot wide breenbelt along Nine Mile Creek. Nine Mile Creek meanders extensively throughout the area between Valley View Road and 70th Street. As part of previously approved subdivisions,. a .200 wide greenbelt was obtained in the. vicinity of the proposed subdivision. Obviouslys the creek does not run straight through this greenbelt, but meanders from side to side. Nevertheless, we believe that a green belt of this width is adequate to protect the natural character of the creek. Recommendation: On November 2, 1977, staff recommended approval of this subdivision with some conditions and modifications. Staff continues to recommend approval. Staff believes this proposal conforms with all City requirements regarding flood plain management and dedication of parks and open space lands. GH:ks 11/23/77 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT November 2, 1977 S -77 -21 Brookview Heights 5th Addition. C. Jacobson. Generally located east of Cahill Rd. and 9 Mile Creek, west of the M.N. & S. Railroad tracks and north of W. 70th Street (an extension of Limerick Lane). Refer to: Attached preliminary plat, grading plan, and parkland dedication report. The subject property is a 13 acre tract' of land located between the M.N.S. Railroad tracks and Nine Mile Creek immediately south of W. 66th Street. An 18 lot single family subdivision is $roposed which would be served by the southerly extension of Limerick Drive. The average lot size for the subdivision would be 18,700 square feet which is somewhat larger than existing single family lots located easterly and westerly of the subject property. Nearly one half of the subject property lies within the flood plain of Nine Mile Creek. The proponent has submitted a grading plan for the site which has been reviewed by staff and the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District. The Watershed District has indicated that the proposed grading plan complies with its rules and regulations in that a flood plain encroachment of less than 20% is proposed. The remaining flood plain lands have been designated as Outlot A which measures 3.93 acres. The proponent has indicated his intent to dedicate this outlot to the City. A 200 foot wide strip of land abutting the west side of the subject property and bisected by Nine Mile Creek was dedicated to the City in conjunction with a previous subdivision. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the proposed subdivision and flood plain permit in that: 1) the proposed land use is in conformance with the Western Edina Plan. 2) lot sizes are generally consistent and somewhat larger than surrounding subdivisions. 3) proposed flood plain encroachment is within standards of the City and the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District. Approval is recommended with the following conditions and modifications: 1) a deed to the City of Edina for Outlot A. 2) adequate erosion control measures to prevent sediments resulting from site grading from entering the flood plain lands and Nine Mile Creek. Oiks �„ 3) those items contained in the attached preliminary engineering report. H. Additional Projects The District will undertake such other projects as are petitioned for, provided that they are in general conformity with the Overall Plan and in agreement with the purposes of the District. S E C T I O N V BASIC WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN A. General Increasing urban development may be expected to increase flood problems in the District. Buildings, streets, parking lots and other impervious surfaces prevent much of the rainfall from soaking into the ground. Since storm water is not tolerated, lawns and streets are graded to remove excess water as quickly as possible. Urbanization also increases the pressure for development of the remaining open land and hence increases the potential for flooding. Presently, runoff water is stored in ponds and depressions in the upper parts of the watershed. Surface water which reaches the creek spreads over broad marshes in the flood plain. Regulation and control over these remaining open lands is needed to prevent the loss of needed water storage sites within the District. The Managers recognize the desire to remove storm water from lawns and streets as quickly as possible, however, the resulting increased flows must be handled if problems are to be avoided. The District has two choices. (1) The increased runoff can be rushed toward the outlet without storage. This method will involve large storm sewers, very large channels and bridges and extensive erosion control. (2) The second alternative is to reduce the flood flows by storage in locations where the sites will be an asset to the community during the long period between floods. The basic water management plan for the District seeks to retain and provide water storage facilities. These water storage facilities unquestionably are beneficial in controlling the floods and reducing costs of flood control works. They can also be valuable public assets during the long span of time between floods. The public, in fact, will be primarily aware of the value of these facilities in terms of beauty, recreation and parks. Most of the water storage sites will be the natural marshes, lakes, ponds and flood plain which will be retained with little modification. Others will require modifi- cation to make the storage areas compatible with an urban community and the land use determinations of the municipalities. The principal features of the District's basic Water Management Plan are .shown on page 22. B. 105th Street Constriction The 1600 acres south of the line of 94th Street in Bloomington are directly tributary to the steep portion of Nine Mile Creek just discussed. Much of this area is already platted and it is likely that streambank erosion will occur during the bigger storms. To protect against such conditions, a constriction should be constructed in the valley near the old mill site at about 105th Street. This constriction would be of such capacity that it would have no effect on the normal flows or upon the minor floods which the channel can handle without erosion. When the channel capacity is exceeded, the con- striction would back the water up behind a dike and temporarily store the water in the valley until it can be carried downstream without damage. C. Marsh Lake Site The marsh lying east of France Avenue in the vicinity of 94th Street in Bloomington is the last .chance to catch and store the flood water before it flows into the steep channel descending to the Minnesota River. The Marsh Lake development is shown on the Water ranagement Plan and in more detail on page 23. This project has been completed by the City of Bloomington and the Watershed District. In addition to its function as a storm water detention basin, it is proposed that the area be retained as a wildlife refuge. The Marsh Lake project represents a conscious effort made early in Bloomington's development to preserve and utilize a significant natural area of the community. Unless such an effort is made throughout the District, all of the land will be covered by artificial works of man and most wildlife will disappear from the area. If an island of natural wild conditions is to be retained in this watershed, this location seems most feasible. In addition to its flood water storage and wildlife value, Marsh Lake will be an area of openness and rustic beauty. The land within the 805 foot contour should be retained for storage purposes. The normal water level has been established at elevation 799. D. Mount Normandale Lake Site A 135 acre lake will be created in the Nine Mile Creek Valley just west of Normandale Avenue in Bloomington. This area is now part of the broad marsh flood plain. The control structure and dam along Normandale Avenue are the major construction required. The proposed lake is shown on the Water Management Plan and in more detail on page 25. The City of Bloomington and the District have previously cooperated on a feasibility study of this site. They are presently cooperating on the final design. The plan shows a normal water level at elevation 810 with an average depth of six feet. At this elevation, the shores will be steep enough to minimize problems with aquatic vegetation along the shoreline. During floods, the lake level will rise, storing excess waters, then fall as the water is slowly released into the creek downstream. On the average of once in 100 years, it is expected to rise about four feet to elevation 814. E. Mud Lake Site The marsh area lying between Vernon Avenue and Crosstown Highway 62 is an ideal site for flood water storage. A meandered lake known as Mud Lake makes up most of the marsh. Several alternatives were set forth in a detailed report prepared by the District for the Village of Edina. These include continuation as a marsh, or constructing dikes between small knolls and across Nine Mile Creek to enlarge Mud Lake. The site is shown on the Water Management Plan and in more detail on page 27. This plan shows the site as a natural area. If a lake is developed, the normal water level will be about elevation 860 with a maximum water depth of 14 feet, an average depth of 5' feet and a lake area of approximately 120 acres. The shoreline will be steep enough to minimize trouble with aquatic vegetation. During floods the lake level will rise to store excess water until it can flow slowly out into the creek down- stream. A rise of 3' feet in the lake level is expected to occur on the average of once in 100 years. At the proposed normal level of elevation 860 the lake will back up a short distance north of Vernon Avenue. F. Smetana Lake The South Fork of Nine Mile Creek flows through a small lake west of County Road 18 known locally as Smetana Lake. It has deep.open water in the center and a broad fringe of marsh around the edge. This lake can be improved_ by raising the water level approximately four feet to about elevation 838 by constructing a dam in the outlet channel. This would bring the water level up against the steeper slopes of the surrounding hillsides. An additional advantage is that it makes possible a diversion to Anderson Lakes if such a diversion proves desirable or feasible as a means of maintaining the level of Anderson Lakes and Bush Lake. ° G. Anderson and Bush Lakes The principal concern in the Anderson and Bush Lake area is the stabil- ization of the lake levels. The District in cooperation with the City of Bloomington and the Hennepin County Park Reserve District has completed a study to determine the recommended outlet size and location, for each of the lakes. This study recommended that the Bush Lake well be used as the primary source of water if lake augmentation is considered necessary to maintain satisfactory water levels. H. Flood Plain Zoning To alleviate flood damages there should be a combination of structural 26 r t � 1 P r works and regulations of developments in the flood plain. Buildings and other valuable improvements which can be damaged by water should not be built in areas reached by flood waters. To insure that such is the case, the District has established flood zones in which construction is restricted. Maps of the flood plain have been made available to all municipalities. State law requires the adoption of municipal flood plain and shoreland ordinances. Platting and development are encroaching into the flood plain area of Nine Mile Creek. Flood zones to regulate development cannot, however, be precisely determined until the flood control facilities are planned in detail. To permit some balance between regulation and planning, a relatively conserva- tive flood zone has been established along the main channel as part of this Overall Plan. The Flood Plain I:ap is shown on page 29. I. Phase I. Flood Zone - Overall Plan The flood zone elevations at various points along the creek are shown on the profile on page 30. No improvements which c:an be damaged by water will be permitted below the indicated elevation. Since many of the proposed storage basins are not yet constructed, the natural marshes are the principal means of flood protection. Accordingly, the net encroachment onto the flood plain will be restricted to 20 percent or less of the flood plain area of the parcel being considered for development. If filling is requested as part of a- municipal public land development plan around the Marsh Lake, Mount Normandale Lake and Mud Lake sites, it may be permitted on lands outside the limits of the proposed lakes upon a showing of public necessity. J. Phase II. Flood Zone - Detailed Design Detailed design of the basic water management system will permit re- finement of the flood zone elevations. It also provides information for deter- mination of the right -of -way required for the creek and storage sites and the sizes of culverts and bridges. The detailed design will provide a reliable, workable framework for planning and platting of adjoining property. The restrictions on encroachments upon the flood plain will be determined as part of the detailed design. The Managers believe that the enforcement of the building restrictions protecting the flood zones can best be accomplished by the municipalities, through their building, zoning and platting ordinances and the flood plain and shorelands ordinances to be adopted. K. Phase III Flood Zone - Basic Water Management Facilities After the basic water management facilities are constructed in accord- ance with the detailed plan prepared in Phase II, the flood zones will be subject to modification and some of the land in the flood plain may be avail- able for development. Building must still be restricted below the new flood zone elevation. S E C T I O N VI ENGINEERING DATA A. County Ditches At present there are three county ditches in the District. The loca- tion of these three ditches are shown on page 32. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 112.65, the Board of County Commissioners of Hennepin County has transferred jurisdiction over the county ditches to the Managers., County Ditch 1 forms the main channel of Nine Mile Creek through the marshes in Bloomington beginning at the junction of the North and South Forks and ending just south of 98th Street. As part of the Marsh Lake project, a dam was placed in County Ditch 1 for water control and maintenance purposes, in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 106. County Ditch 34 begins at Birch Island Lake and joins the South Fork of Nine Mile Creek at Bryant Lake. County Ditch 41 forms the channel of the North.Fork near the southeast corner of Hopkins. It extends approximately one -sixth of a mile on the west side of County Road 18 and three - fourths of a mile on the east side. B. Storm Sewers Approximately one -half of the watershed is storm sewered. The Watershed District has reviewed the storm sewers that have been constructed since the adoption of the Overall Plan. This review has been concerned with a� LOCATION 7 1- INTERLACHEN Fit MAP �%r A i7 -4 subdivision REQUEST NUMBER: 5 -78-1 LOCATION:S• of Interlachen Blvd., N. of Parkw3od "'Id., W. of Schaefer, & REQUEST: "'Coln. Approximately -50 R-1 lots. J I ifa Ir .ij1,,e 4)r effine PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT January 4, 1978 S -78 -1 Parkwood Knolls 20th Addition. Refer to: attached graphic, exerpts from Western Edina Circulation Plan, Council minutes. The subject property is a 102 acre tract of land located in the northwestern part of the city. This property is the last remaining tract of vacant land remaining in this section of the city. The proponents have submitted a proposed development plan for the entire 102 acre parcel. However, only the southeastern 23 acres are proposed for immediate development. For procedural purposes, staff recommends that the development plans for the entire 102 acre tract be considered as a prelimi- nary plat. If this preliminary plat is approved, then the proponents would return with a final plat for only the 23 acre tract which would be called Parkwood Knolls 20th Addition. The entire preliminary plat proposed 176 single family lots. These lots are generally in the 16,000- 21,000 square foot range. These lots are generally similar in size to other Parkwood Knolls lots to the south and west of the subject property but considerably smaller than lots located to the east. ,Existing ponds and low areas on the subject property are proposed to be used as storm water holding ponds. Of the 176 total lots, 47 lots are proposed for inclusion in Parkwood Knolls 20th Addition. The preliminary plat proposed to extend several roads to serve the subject property. Among these are Willow Wood Road, Larada Road, Larada Lane, Ridge Road, Malibu Drive, and Interlachen Boulevard. In regard to Interlachen Boulevard, the plat does not propose to extend this road on a straight align- ment directly to County Road 18. Rather, a circuitous arrangement is proposed to discourage excessive through traffic. Traffic Considerations Traffic circulation is of primary concern in the northwestern section of the city. In 1974, a citizens' committee, the Western Edina Task Force, together with a traffic consulting firm,prepared the "Western Edina Circulation Plan." This committee analyzed existing traffic patterns and perceived traffic excesses in the western Edina area and the recommended various alter- natives to alleviate present and future traffic problems. The committee identified four "issue areas" in the western Edina area which required roadway improvements. The subject property is located in "issue area 4" of the com- mittee's plan. . - r Planning Commission Staff Report Parkwood Knolls 20th Addition Page 2 January 4, 1978 Attached are exerpts from the Western Edina Circulation Plan which deal with issue area 4. As shown, three general roadway alternatives were analyzed for issue area 4. The committee and its consultant recommended a plan whereby Malibu Drive was extended northerly to the County Road 18 interchange, Ridge Road was extended to serve the subject property as were Willow Wood Road and Larada Lane. The committee and the consultant also recommended the cul- de- sacing of Interlachen Boulevard. Following completion of the Western Edina Circulation Plan, the Council held numerous hearings regarding the plan's adoption. On July 1, 1974, the Council tabled consideration of circulation patterns for issue area 4 until a develop- ment proposal was submitted for the northwest Edina area. It was also stated that when such a plan was submitted, it should include some access to the north at the Maloney Avenue - County Road 18 interchange. Parkland Dedication As part of previous Parkwood Knolls subdivisions, the proponents and the City have entered into agreements whereby parkland dedication was deferred until the City determined the location of a park in northwestern Edina. Recently, the City acquired a large tract of land for parks north of the subject property. Therefore, the proponents are suggesting that the accrued parkland dedication from previous Parkwood Knolls subdivisions together with the parkland dedica- tion from the subject property be located adjacent to the recently acquired City property. Staff has computed that the accrued parkland dedication plus a 5- percent dedication for the subject property would total 6.8 acres. The proponents are proposing a 5.65 acre aedication. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat in that: 1. The proposal conforms with the Western Edina Land Use Plan. 2. The proposal conforms with the Western Edina Circulation Plan with the exception of the extension of Interlachen Boulevard. 3. Lot sizes are generally compatible with surrounding properties. 4. The proposed extensions of streets to serve the subject property are war- ranted and provide for the maximum dispersal of traffic generated from the subject property as well as existing developments. 5. Low areas are appropriately used as storm water holding areas. 6. Adequate access has been provided to Outlot B of Interlachen Hills 3rd Addition. Planning Commission Staff Report Parkwood Knolls 20th Addition Page 3 January 4, 1977 7. Dedication of parkland adjacent to existing City property is desirable. In regard to Interlachen Boulevard, it again must be stated that the Western Edina Circulation Plan did not recommend extension of this street. However, it should be noted that the Western Edina Task Force considered only one possible alignment of Interlachen Boulevard extended; that alignment being the straight westerly extension of Interlachen Boulevard. The task force was thus concerned that such an extension would turn Interlachen Boulevard into a higher traffic volume collection street. Staff believes, however, that the circuitous alignment proposed by the preliminary plat would discourage excessive through traffic and would improve the dispersal of traffic generated from the subject property. Staff recommends approval with the following conditions and modifications: 1. Malibu Drive must be extended to the County Road 18 interchange immediately as part of final approval for Parkwood Knolls 20th Addition. 2. The proposed parkland dedication for the entire preliminary plat must be made immediately. The Park Board should be advised that the proponents are indicating a dedication of 1.15 acres less than required. Thus, either an additional 1.15 acres should be dedicated or cash in lieu of such an acreage should be required. 3._ The name of Larada Lane should:be.changed to avoid confusion with Larada Road. 4. The property lines of lots located west of Malibu Drive extended should be re- aligned slightly to correspond with the existing R -2 zoning of the southernmost lot. 5. In conjunction with the extension of Malibu Drive, a grading plan for the entire property should be prepared. :6. An executed developer's agreement which includes public improvements to Parkwood Knolls 20th Addition as well as Malibu Drive. GLH:nr 12 -30 -77 Subdivision No. . SUBDIVISION1 DEDICATION REPORT TO: Planning Commission Park Board Environmental Quality Commission. FROM: Planning Department fn I C SUBDIVISION NA4E: LAND SIZE: -I.(o Q LAND VALUE: (By: Date: ) The developer of'this subdivision-has been required to A. grant an easement over part of the land B. dedicate r� % of the land C. donate $ as a fee in lieu of land As a result of-applying the following policy: A. Land Required (no density or intensity may be used for the first 5% of land dedicated) 1. If property is adjacent to an existing park and the addition beneficially expands the park. 2. If property is,o acres or will be combined with future dedications so that the end result will be a minimum of a 6 acre park. 3. If property abuts a natural lake, pond, or stream. 4. If property is necessary for storm water holding or will be dredged or otherwise improved-for storm water holding areas or ponds.. 5. If the property is.a place of significant natural, scenic or his - toric value. n 6. B. Cash Required II1. In all other instances than above. �2. O e-A T---- an t J// f V5 Af 11W us ....• ......... rl 11 ...... ...... At. I ULI v -1ILLL 141 1 "7 /* cr IMM LZ d j�q i e+ 0 ERRY DRIVE I t _ � 1 �IN Bull- IN 1. l��N 11 t �1 IINIIN� Him loss INN ME milli III Issue Area 4 The 1. traffic issue within Area 4 is how should Interlachen Blvd. and Ridge Road relate the street system that will service the Issue Area and relate to the proposed interchange at County Road 18. The alternative street plans to resolve the issue include (Figure 12): , Alternative 1: extend Intgrlachen Blvd: to County Road T8 and to develop the street system with connections to Interlachen, Malibu, Ridge.-Road, Larada Lane and Willow Wood. Alternative. 2: cul -de -sac Interlachen Blvd. and develop _ the street system with connections to the same streets as. -in Alternative 1. Altern'a. - 3:. cul -de -sac Interlachen Blvd. and Ridge Road and develop the street system with connection to the same streets as in Alt ernative 1 ezc2;�t.Ridgc.2oad. The full development of-the single family residential land in the Issue Area is expec.-Led to generate an additional 3900 trips per day. The street system developed for the Issue Area will have to support these trips. If Interlachen were open to County Road 18, it is estimated that 403 -of the additional trips or 1560 i 1 vehicles per day would travel to the east. 23 ems. LTERNA . :PVE21 ucwf i -j I ISSUE AREA 4 'Alternative .1 Strengths Alternative 1 1eaknesses ' maximum residential accessibility.. transforming a local street, Interlachen, in- ' best emergency vehicle access. to a collector.. ' negative traffic volume and land use" impact on homes along Interlachen. Alternative 2 Steen the Alternative 2 Weaknesses • increases residential accessibility. • increases emergency vehicle access. ' good local /collector street reIa .ion.ship. �,�:.,.._ �L., _ y� /111.01 Ilu.vl c- J Jl.l C: 11 vl S hlternative 3 t:c4l:rles:.2s� ' minimum.increase in resi- dential accessibility to the.east. ' negative traffic volume impact to the south and east.. The evaluation of 'the above alternatives led to the selection of Alternative 2 as best meeting the evaluation criteria. !I (18' M CUL-DE-SAC cr '---'--CLOSE- 7�� t, - RIGHT TURN ONLY—, 4!� FIGURE 14 RECOMMENDED CIRCULATION PLAN OF TASK FORCE MAJORITY TWS MAP IS pr,.t_:J,%prn Fri FLANNNG R!Pr,nS7S AND f:'K)t �D VOT ['�- !"C-1 FO Wl!!:P:-- ACCUHAi• MLASUiiciliOif:2 AkL --------- RE-Q-UlrLo l,'TERI- AJHEr\., SLVP Mirror \ LG*8 n \ v � Im- : . - , - L .J - - I , . . cr -CUUfi-SAQ a su (18 - Ic r l l� FIGURE 15 RECOMMENDED CIRCULATION PLAN OF CONSULTANT ND SLIGHT MINORITY, OF TASK FORCE I THIS VAP IS pR(P-'.=lFn FO;T PLANNING PL;R-OSES A►-'!j FOT ! IH SCALED WHEH-- ACCL,,JC fv—::ASU,60.lEN(S ARE REGUI;'tFD r%, Tw J i 1. r7"- Zw° �- FIGURE 15 RECOMMENDED CIRCULATION PLAN OF CONSULTANT ND SLIGHT MINORITY, OF TASK FORCE I THIS VAP IS pR(P-'.=lFn FO;T PLANNING PL;R-OSES A►-'!j FOT ! IH SCALED WHEH-- ACCL,,JC fv—::ASU,60.lEN(S ARE REGUI;'tFD r%, Tw J i 1. r7"- MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HALL ON MONDAY JULY 1, 1974 Answering rollcall were Council members Courtney, Johnson, Schmidt, Shaw and Mayor Van Valkenburg. MINUTES of June 3, 1974, were approved as presented by motion of Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilman Courtney and carried. ISSUE AREA 2 CON'TINU'ED• ISSUE AREA 4 OF WESTERN EDINA TRAFFIC TASK FORCE TABLED UNTIL FURTIILR PL%TTL••D. { Issue Area 4 - Mr. Dunn recalled that at the meeting of June 3, 1974, Issue Area 4 had been continued to this meeting to give residents 'an-opportunity to study -� the matter further. Mr. Jack Liebenberg, 5112 Ridge Road, said that he repre- sented twenty -four property owners on Ridge Road and Interlachen Blvd., and that his group does not feel that decisions made on any of the other Issue Areas in Western Edina have any impact or effect on Issue Area 4. He said that he had talked with Messrs. Carl and Harvey Hansen, the major property owners of the undeveloped property in the area, and that they had no definite plans or plats to submit for final development at the present time and that it might be several years before they are ready to do so. As requested by Mr. Liebenberg, Councilman Johnson's motion was then seconded by Councilman Courtney to table to. consideration of the traffic circulation pattern for Issue Area 4, with the Q understanding that when and if Mr. Hansen comes in with overall development 00 plans for the property that he owns, that the plat should include some access a= to the North at the Maloney Avenue interchange. On rollcall there were five w ayes and no nays and the motion was carried. Issue Area 2 - Mr. Dunn recalled that at the meeting of June 3, 1974, the City Attorney had been directed to render an opinion as to whether the City could legally construct a road connecting Walnut Drive and Londonderry Road as pro - posed in Alternative 1 and as to whether the City could legally build a road across existing park land to connect Londonderry Drive with Gleason Road as proposed in Alternative 5. Mr. Erickson had also been requested to determine whether or not a road has already been established from Walnut Drive to London- derry Road over and across Nine Mile Creek. Mr. Erickson summarized his opinion on the road between Walnut Drive and Londonderry Road by stating that if the Council believes that it is now in the best interest of the City to open the road, it should not do so without first obtaining a declatory judgment that the road exists or that the property across Nine Mile Creek was conveyed to the City free of any implied restriction that it be used for park purposes. He said that if the Council believes the road should not now be opened, it is recommended that no action now be taken either to vacate or abandon the road and that the City can best retain its future options relative to this connect- ion by taking no such action at this time. Mr. Erickson summarized his opinion as to whether or not the City could build a road across existing park land to connect Londonderry Drive with Gleason Road by saying that it would appear that the City cannot legally construct that portion of the road which would run through the park unless approval would be granted by the Secretary of HUD and unless the deed from the Minnesota Conference of the United Church of Christ, whereby a part of the road area was conveyed to Edina, could be changed to allow such use. In reply to questions of Mr. Lloyd Cherne, 5704 View Lane, Mt. Erickson listed the following three conditions under which the conversion of HUD lands could be used for public roads: 1. The conversion is essential to the orderly development and growth of the area involved; 2. The conversion is in accord with the comprehensively planned development of the urban area; and 3. The open -space land is being or will be replaced without cost to the Federal Government by other open space land or at least equal fair market value at the time of conversion and of nearly as feasible equivalent usefulness and location. ! Mr. Erickson clarified that a more serious problem was that the land between Londonderry Road and the HUD parcels had been dedicated for park purposes by the Minnesota Conference of the United Church of Christ, which property the City has no authority under the law to divert. Mr. Cherne suggested that the property could be deeded back to the church and then use condemnation through eminent . domain for the road. Mr. Erickson told Mr. Cherne that specific legislative authority would be necessary for such action. Mr. Cherne then suggested that if the land could be given back to the church, the road built and assessed against the church, that the church would be probably "more than glad" to give the pro- perty back to the City for -road purposes. He also suggested that the City could do an environmental study to satisfy NEPA and that the Council could declare a moratorium on any additional building in the area. Mr. Cherne added that this r- 10G 7/1/74 i road uoul:: be needed for a collector road if Carl Hansen is to continue to develop his property. Mr. William D. Stickel, 5900 Tamarac Lane, said that his property abuts the park and reminded Council that on June 3, 1974, 87% of the home owners had indicated that they would not want the road through the park. Councilman Johnson then moved, based on the attorney's opinion, that Alternative 1, the construction of a road connecting Walnut Drive and Londonderry Road, be tabled. Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Schmidt and on rollcall there were five ayes and no nays and the motion carried. Mr. Hyde then recalled that the Park Board and the Envir- onmental Quality Commission' had both recommended against Alternative 5 under which the City would build a road across existing park land to connect Londonderry Drive with Gleason Road. Councilman Courtney's motion was then seconded by Councilman tri Johnson that Alternative 5 of Issue Area 2 be tabled for further study. On roll - call there were five ayes and no nays and the motion carried. Council's attention was then called to a letter signed by the owners of seven properties requesting placement of STOP signs at the intersection of Continental Drive and Stauder Circle and at the blind corner across from 6508 Stauder Circle. Dr. Lloyd Pear- son, 5700 View Lane, requested specific action for Issue Area 2. He said that it would soon be three years since neighbor's presented their petition for traffic relief and that before long there would be 4,500 trips per day at the intersection of View Lane and Schaefer Road. He objected that the trial blockade at Schaefer Road and South Knoll Drive which were supposed to permit right turns only going South on Schaefer Road had been improperly placed so that drivers could go around the blockade. He also contended that the blockades were not left up long enough to obtain sufficient information on traffic patterns. With the aid of the view - graph, Dr. Pearson made the following suggestions: 1. Installation of the blockade at Londonderry Road and Stauder Circle should be on the East side of the intersection to permit access to the park but prevent access to the East. 2. Installation of the blockade at Schaefer Road and South Knoll Drive should be moved to the middle of the block of Schaefer Road between South Knoll Drive and Stauder Circle. 3. Reinstall the blockade at South Knoll Drive and View Lane. Following considerable discussion, Councilman Courtney amended his motion to the effect that the suggestions of Dr. Pearson also be referred to the Traffic Safety Committee.and that Mr. Wolsfeld work with the Committee. The motion also called for continuing the matter to July 15, 1974. Councilman Courtney's amended motion was seconded by Councilman Johnson and on rollcall there were five ayes and no nays and the motion carried. Mr. Wolsfeld suggested that the blockades be set up one at a time to obtain the effect of each individual blockade. Mr. Erickson said that he would have an opinion before the next Traffic Safety Committee Meet- ing as to the legality of closing the streets. STORM SEVER IITROVL LNT ST.S -139 APPROVED. Mr. Dunn recalled•that at the meeting of June 3, 1974, Storm Sewer Improvement ST.S -139 proposed to be constructed in Gleason Road from Dewey Hill Road to approximately 900 feet South of the South line of Hyde Park Drive had been continued to work out details with the developers of Hyde Park 2nd Addition. He said that the details had not been completely final- ized as yet but recommended approval in view of the fact that no objections were heard at this meeting. Councilman Johnson thereupon offered the following resolu- tion and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ORDERING STOR`1 SEWER IMPROVE'KENT ST.S -139 BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, that this Council heretofore caused notice of hearing to be duly published and mailed to owners of . each parcel within the area proposed to be assessed on the following proposed improvement: 1. CONSTRUCTION OF CITY STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENT NO. ST.S -139 IN THE FOLLOWING: Gleason Road from Dewey Hill Road to approximately 900 feet South of the South line of Hyde Park Drive and at the hearing held at the time and place specified in said notice, the . Council has duly considered the views of all persons interested, and being fully advised of the pertinent facts does hereby determine to proceed with the construe - tion.of said improvement as described in Notice of Public Hearing and including all proceedings which may be necessary in eminent domain for the acquisition of necessary easements and rights for construction and maintenance of such improve- ment; that said improvement is hereby designated and shall be referred to in all subsequent proceedings as STORM SEWER IMTROVEMENT N0. ST.S -139; and the area to be specially assessed therefor shall include all lots and tracts of land within the following described boundaries: Commencing at the Northeast corner of Outlot "D" Hyde Park Addition; thence Sly and SEly along the West line of Gleason Road to the most Nly corner of Outlot "C" Hyde Park Addition; thence SWly -.- --i I I Ar&#tects Erorews Planners 1021 LaSalle Amnie Mwmapoks Munesota 55403 (612) 332 1401 December 29, 1977 Mr. Gordon Hughes Director of Planning City of Edina 4801 West 50th Street Edina, Minnesota 55424 Re: Parkwood Knolls 20th Addition Dear Mr. Hughes: a(F��J)"r,165) ,Q I understand there will be a hearing concerning the above referenced proposed addition on January 4, 1978. Unfortunately, I will be out of town and unable to attend; so I am writing you expressing my opposition to a portion of the proposed addition and asking that my opposition be recorded in the minutes of that meeting. Specifically I am opposed to the extension of Ridge Road into the new addition. The plat submitted by Mr. Hansen does not indicate Ridge Road extended and I understand from your planner, Mr. Harold Sand that your department has initiated this modification to Mr. Hansen's submittal. Mr. Sand enumerated many planning principles why the extension of Ridge Road should be made and in my mind pushed aside reasons that it should not be made. If Ridge Road were opened it would increase traffic considerably on a road that is too narrow for dny increased traffic load. Traffic speeds would naturally increase and this concerns me greatly as a father. The next obvious solution in the eyes of your planners would be to widen the road. How insensitive, to asthetically destroy the charm and character of a country road and enviornmentally harm the area by taking out the beautiful trees and scrubs that now line the road. I ask you to reconsider this recommendation by your department in light of safety, asthetics, enviornment, cost and the wishes of the residences of Ridge Road. There are other segments of the project I wish to comment on but brevity prevents me from doing so in this letter. I hope to have a chance to comment in future meetings on this subject. Sincerely, Gv. �E-.N W.R. Nordgren, AI Residence: 5016 Ridge Road WRN /bw cc: Jack Licbenberg JOHNSON & ILDSTAD ATTORNEYS AT L..AW att EDEN 100 BUILDING 0100 EDEN AVENUE EDINA. MINNESOTA 00436 TELEPHONE (612) 9aS-aa4a January 3, 1978 Interchange Investors, Inc. 7400 Metro Boulevard Edina, Minnesota 55436 ATTENTION: R. V. Gisselbeck RE: The South 190 Feet of Lots 5 and 6, Edina Interchange Center Gentlemen: This is written regarding the above described real estate purchased by you in 1965. The First Southdale National Bank has proposed to purchase this land, closing scheduled for December 28, 1977. Upon application to the City of Edina, the bank was informed that in order to obtain a building permit these two lots would have to be replatted so that the lot line dividing them would be drawn in an easterly and westerly direction instead of a north and south direction. We are also informed that the City of Edina will charge a fee of $10,500 for their requirement of replatting the lots as stated. It is my opinion that the law of Minnesota is overwhelmingly against permit- ting a fee or permit charge as stated. To obtain a license or permit, a person may be charged a reasonable fee to cover the labor and expense of issuing a license or permit. St. Paul -vs- Dow 32 NW 860; 37 M. 20. Power to license is not a power to license for purposes of revenue and thus to tax. Mpls. RW -vs- Mpls. 52 NW2 120; 236 M. 109. Fees charged must be 'In reasonable relation to the costs involved in adminis- tering licensing system. Barron -vs- Mpls. 4 NW2 622; 212 M. 566. Ramaly -vs- St. Paul 33 NW2 19; 226 M. 406 Fee imposed as cost of a license or permit must be reasonable. 51 Am. Jur. Sec. 30 -1- January 3, 1978 Interchange Investors, Ind. -2- In an ordinance regulating vending machines, fee of $1.00 for 1� and $5.00 for 5� unit was.a "revenue measure" and invalid although labeled as a license fee. Barron -vs- Mpls. (See Above). $35.00 license fee were administrative.costs to city were 75¢, in a business not a public nuisance, is invalid. Mpls. St. RW -vs- Mpls. (See Above). Atlantic & Pacific Tele. -vs- Philadelphia 190 US 160. Where a license fee is authorized to support police supervision, the ex- pense of such supervision determines the amount of charge. It may not act arbitrarily or unreasonably but may impose such a charge as will cover the necessary espense of issuing it. Minnesota Digest Licenses & Municipal Corporations No. 7 Minnesota Digest. Where village ordinance required operators of gasoline filling stations to pay annual license fee of $35 for first pump and $10 for each additional pump, and there was no showing that such business was of a questionable nature or was being operated in such manner that it might become a nuisance and thus necessitate extra cost to village for policing activities, and cost of issuing licenses in all categories in village was approximately 75 cents each, ordinance was unreasonable and invalid and at least part of prescribed license was a disguised tax. State -vs- Labors Direct Service 232 M 175; 44 NW2 823. Fee should be intended to cover expenses directly or indirectly incurred, including services of officers. Lyon -vs- Mpls. 63 NW2 585; 241 M. 439. We find no justification or support whatsoever in the law for this $10,500 charge whether:it be called a permit fee, license, or tax. Your interest loss is at the rate of $270 per week. CC: Mr. Sidney Gislason - Attorney City Attorney — Edina Sincer ly, Paul Owen Jo i f-Nf-"v A'Y`l d-NXT 4 A T � of zoning REQUEST NUMBER: Z -78 -1 N. of Dewey Hill Rd. & W. W. LOCATION: Lewis Park, & W. of Cahill Rd. REQUEST: R -1 to PRD -3 and a 120- unit, aRartment proposal. village planning denartrnent v llage of edina PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT _ January 4, 1978 Z -78 -1 Madsen Property (Cahill Road Condominiums) R -1 Single Family Residence to PRD-3 Planned Residential District Refer to: Attached graphics and Council minutes The subject property is an 11.70 acre parcel located north of William Wardwell Lewis Part: and south of Braemar Oaks Apartments. The proponents are requesting a rezoning to PRD-3 to facilitate the construc- tion of two 60 -unit condominium buildings. Each building is proposed to be three stories in height. The subject property presently does not have frontage on any public street. However, according to the Southwest Edina Plan (see attached graphic), Amundson Avenue is proposed to traverse the western portion of the property. The City has retained right -of -way across the property for this roadway. Pending the construction of Amundson Avenue (which may or may not occur), access to the subject property is provided to Cahill Road by way of a 60 -foot wide temporary roadway easement. The Southwest Edina Plan also indicates that the section of the subject property lying west of Amundson Avenue should be dedicated for park purposes. This dedication would complete a "buffer strip" extending from Cahill School to Dewey Hill Road. Approximately two years ago, the City Council adopted a density reduction formula for multi- family dwellings in the "plan" areas of the city. According to the Southwest Edina Plan, the subject property is allowed a maximum of 12 units per acre. However, using the density reduction for- mula, staff has preliminarily determined that the subject property is allowed slightly over 6 units per acre, or about 60 units total. Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the preliminary development plans in that: 1. The proposal does not conform to the Southwest Edina Plan in regard to Amundson Avenue and parklands lying west of Amundson Avenue. 2. The proposal does not conform to the report of the Open Space Commit- tee. 3. The proposal does not conform to the density reduction plan dated August 4, 1977. 4. The proposal indicates development on roadway easements for Amundson Avenue presently held by the City of Edina. GL11: nr 12 -29 -77 250 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HALL SEPTEMBER 12, 1977 Answering rollcall were members Richards, Schmidt, Shaw and Courtney who served as Mayor Pro Tem in the absence of Mayor Van Valkenburg. MINUTES of August 15, 1977, were approved as submitted by motion of Councilman Shaw, seconded by Councilwoman Schmidt. Ayes: Courtney, Richards, Schmidt, Shaw Nays: None Motion carried. EDINA WOMEN'S SOFTBALL TEAM CONGRATULATED. Councilman Shaw offered the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION OF CONGRATULATIONS WHEREAS, during the 1977 Edina Adult Slo -Pitch Softball Season, sixteen young ladies of an Edina Women's Softball Team, sponsored by Country Club Markets, under the able direction of Coach Larry Kallin, have continued to exemplify the highest goals of good sportsmanship and outstanding proficiency; and WHEREAS, the team efforts have been rewarded by winning the Edina Women's play- offs championship and by being the first Edina Women's Softball Team to win the AA Women's Recreational State Tournament; and WHEREAS, during this past softball season, these young ladies have represented Edina in the highest manner; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and City Council that the outstanding accomplishments of the Country Club Markets Softball Team deserve the sincere gratitude of the citizenry of Edina for the exemplary manner in which the team has conducted itself and for the great credit the team has brought to the commun- ity; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that appropriate copies of this resolution be presented to Jennifer Aanestad, Marcy Amble, Patty Bergren, Gail Berkley, Sue Berstein, Jackie Burger, Leigh Ann Clemmer, Kitty Cress, Kris Duryea, Sue Griebenow, Sue Huff, Christi Hulse, Finny Johnston, Karen Oelschlaeger, Susan Pudvan, Cassie Spokes, and to Coach Larry Kallin. Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Councilwoman Schmidt and unanimously carried. 1978 CITY BUDGET PRESENTED. Mr. Hyde presented the 1978 Budget, reflecting a mil rate increase from 8.4 to 10.0. He advised that this mil rate is low in compari- son with other municipalities and listed the causes for the increase as a continued growth in population, additional miles of streets and sidewalks to be maintained, new public facilities requiring servicing and ever increasing costs for services and supplies. Councilman Richards' motion setting a special budget meeting for September 15, 1977, at 8:00 p.m, in the City Hall Conference Room was seconded by Councilman Shaw. Ayes: Courtney, Richards, Schmidt, Shaw Nays: None Motion carried. IMPROVEMENTS NOS. P -C -124, P -BA -226, P -BA -227 ABANDONED; LAND ACQUISITION ONLY AUTHORIZED FOR P -C -126. Mr. Hyde recalled that public hearings on the following improvements had been continued from August 1, 1977, so that the City Attorney could determine if Grading and Graveling Improvement No. P -C -126 can be reduced to land acquisition for possible future road right -of -way and whether the cost of the land acquisition can then be included in a'future improvement project for the con- struction of the road. Public hearings were then conducted on the following improvements and action taken as hereinafter recorded. A. GRADING AND GRAVELING IMPROVEMENT NO. P -C -124 IN THE FOLLOWING: Amundson Avenue from Cahill Road to Dewey Hill Road B. STREET IMPROVEMENT NO. P -BA -226 IN THE FOLLOWING: Amundson Avenue from Cahill Road to Dewey Hill Road C. GRADING AND GRAVELING IMPROVEMENT NO. P -C -126 IN THE FOLLOWING: Delaney Blvd. from Dewey Hill Road to W. 78th Street D. PERMANENT STREET SURFACING AND CONCRETE. CURB AND GUTTER IMPROVEMENT P -BA -227 City Attorney Erickson advised that the City has statutory authority to acquire such land as is reasonably needed, or may be reasonably needed for future road right -of -way for Improvement P -C -126 and that the cost of the land acquisition may be assessed as a part of the cost of the later road improvement. If the road is actually constructed at a future date, a further public hearing will be required for the later road improvement. Mr. Erickson clarified that, should the City acquire the land and decide subsequently that the road is not to be built, the property may be disposed of if no longer needed for any public purpose. 14 _r 9/12/17 251 Mr. Erickson also opined that "should the Council authorize the land acquisition portion of the project, and thereafter, in the process of acquiring the property by eminent domain, should that method become necessary, should the Council decide to abandon the project, it may do so, unilaterally, provided it does so prior to the expiration of the time for appeal from the award of the commissioners, and provided it has not theretofore taken possession of the property, and provided further that the City itself has not filed an appeal from any commissioners' award. Should it dismiss subsequent to the initiation of the condemnation pro- ceedings, the City will, in any event, be liable for reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, incurred by the landowner." Council's attention was also called to a memorandum from Mr. Gordon Hughes which concluded that 1) The concepts and design for Amundson /Delaney Road as contained in the Southwest Edina Plan and the County Road 18 /Valley View Road Report continue to be valid; 2) Projected traffic volumes for Gleason Road without improvements to the roadway system will be excessive and unacceptable; 3). Construction of the - proposed Amundson /Delaney system will alleviate anticipated excessive traffic volumes on Gleason Road; 4) Major residential development West of Cahill Road apparently will precede full development of the industrial area; traffic circu- lation patterns for such residential development will rely to a great extent on Amundson /Delaney Road; 5) The Cahill Road cul -de -sac is an essential element of the proposed roadway system; however, construction of the cul -de -sac may not be (o essential for several years. Mr. Hughes recommended that 1) The Southwest Edina O Plan should not be amended and should retain the proposed roadway system; 2) Amundson /Delaney Road should be constructed as development pressures warrant and Vshould be constructed in conjunction with residential development West of Cahill Q Road; 3) The Cahill Road cul -de -sac should remain as part of the roadway system, but need not be implemented until warranted. Mr. Dunn said that he concurred with Q Mr. Hughes recommendations but clarified that the improvements could not be con- ; strutted until construction of T.H. 100 is complete. He expressed concern that people inquiring about the area be told that the proposed road is a "plan" only and that the road may actually never be built. Mr. Hyde suggested that Improve - ments Nos. P -C -124, P -BA -226 and P=BA -227 be abandoned at this time and that only the land acquisition be authorized for Improvement No. C -126 at this time. Mr. and Mrs. Robert Burns of Dewey Hill Road both spoke in support of the South- west Edina Plan and the road patterns proposed, contending that residents had pur- chased property in reliance on the Plan. Mrs. Burns recalled that the Plan had been stressed in the court case brought against the City for its denial for R -5 zoning proposed for the corner of Cahill Road and Dewey hill Road. She suggested that residents on Lanham Lane and Fleetwood Drive opposed the construction of the proposed road only because it would spoil their view. An unidentified gentle- man who lives on Dewey Hill Road said -that Council should not only consider future property owners, but should also consider present property owners who bought their property in reliance on the Plan. Councilman Richards denied that he had ever advocated changing the Southwest Edina Plan. He spoke of his feeling that it is important to put people on notice that the road may never be built inasmuch as conditions are different now than in 1971 when the Plan was adopted. He said that he could not justify spending money on building a road which may only alleviate a small percentage of thru traffic. Councilman Shaw then moved that Improvements Nos. P -C -124, P -BA -226 and P -BA -227 be abandoned at this time. The motion was seconded by Councilwoman Schmidt. Ayes: Courtney, Richards, Schmidt, Shaw Nays: None Motion carried. Councilman Shaw offered the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING GRADING AND GRAVELING IMPROVEMENT NO. C -126 AS TO ACOUISITION OF LAND ONLY BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, that this Council heretofore caused notice of hearing to be duly published and mailed to owners of each parcel within the area proposed to be assessed on the following proposed improvement: CONSTRUCTION OF GRADING AND GRAVELING IMPROVEMENT NO. P -126 IN THE FOLLOWING: i Delaney Blvd. from Dewey Hill Road to W. 78th Street and at the hearing held at the time and place specified in said notice, the Council has duly considered the views of all persons interested, and being fully advised of the pertinent facts does hereby determine to proceed with the acquisi- tion of road right -of -way only at this time and that the City proceed to use every reasonable effort to procure the property described as follows: Outlot 1, Heath Glen by negotiation and through purchase, if possible, and under the City's right of eminent domain, if necessary, and that the City staff and Attorney be instructed and directed to use every reasonable effort to procure the above property by negotiation and direct purchase, but, if not successful, to file the necessary petition in eminent domain to acquire such property and prosecute such action to 9/12/77 252 a successful conclusion until abandoned, dismissed, or terminated by the City or the Court; that the City staff and Attorney and the Mayor, Manager and Clerk do all things necessary to be done in the acquisition of said property by negotiation and purchase and, if necessary, by eminent domain; that said improvement is hereby designated and shall be referred to in all subsequent proceedings as GRADING AND GRAVELING IMPROVEMENT NO. C -126 and the area proposed to be specially assessed therefor shall include areas sub- sequently determined by the City Council to be benefited by the construction of a road over and across the land to be acquired for such road pursuant to the fore- going resolution, which assessment may include the cost of the land acquisition and the cost of constructing the road. Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Councilwoman Schmidt. Rollcall: 1 Ayes: Courtney, Richards, Schmidt, Shaw Nays: None Resolution adopted. Councilman Richards then moved that there be no amendment to the Southwest Edina Plan at this time, but that the staff be instructed to advise all interested property owners, prospective property owners and the general public that the South- west Edina Plan continues to include Amundson /Delaney Road, but that this road may or may not be constructed at a later date, and, further, that the Cahill Road cul -de -sac may not become a reality. Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Schmidt. Ayes: Courtney, Richards, Schmidt, Shaw Nays: None Resolution adopted. SPECIAL ASSESSMEiviS LEVIED FOR VARIOUS IHPROVaiEirS. Mr. Hyde recalled that Special Assessment Hearings for Street Improvements Nos. BA -202, BA -206, BA -208, BA -212, BA -215, BA -216 and Watermain Improvement No. WM -270 had been continued from August 15, 1977, because legal notices had not been published in time to give the thirty day notice now required by law. Hearings were then conducted as fol- lows. A. STREET IMPROVEMENT NO. BA -202 IN THE FOLLOWING: Dovre Drive from Parkwood Lane to Lincoln Drive Mr. Hyde presented Analysis of Assessment showing total construction cost of $100,987.65, proposed to be assessed against 617.61 assessable feet at $21.00 per foot (for Nine Mile North 2nd Addition only) and against 408 assessable build- ing sites at $215.73 per site, against estimated assessment of $25.00 per assess- able foot for Nine Mile North 2nd Addition and $260.00 per assessable building site. No objections were heard and none had been received prior thereto. (See Resolution Ordering Assessment later in Minutes.) B. STREET IMPROVEMENT NO. BA -206 IN THE FOLLOWING: Parkwood Lane from Londonderry Road to North line of Parkwood Knolls 19th Addition Dovre Drive from East line of Parkwood Knolls 19th Addition to West line of Parkwood Knolls Addition Field Way from East line of Parkwood Knolls 19th Addition to Parkwood Lane Mr. Hyde presented Analysis of Assessment showing total construction cost of $39,945.24, proposed to be assessed against 36 assessable lots at $1,109.59 per lot, against estimated assessment of $1,517.12 per assessable lot. No objections were heard and none had been received prior thereto. (See Resolution Ordering Assessment later in Minutes.) C. STREET IMPROVEMENT NO. BA -208 IN THE FOLLOWING: Lanham Lane from South line of M.P. Johnson's Prospect Hills 3rd Addition to Fleetwood Drive Mr. Hyde presented Analysis of Assessment showing total construction cost at $22,668.39, proposed to be assessed against 18 1/3 assessable lots at $1,236.48 per lot, against estimated assessment of $1,407.95 per lot. No objections were heard and none had been received prior thereto. (See Resolution Ordering Assess- ment later in Minutes.) D. STREET IMPROVEMENT NO. BA -212 IN THE FOLLOWING: Dale Avenue from W. 56th Street to W. 57th Street Mr. Hyde presented Analysis of Assessment showing total construction cost at $9,779.06, proposed to be assessed against 1,058.34 assessable feet at $9.24 per foot against estimated assessment of $21.48 per assessable foot. No object- ions were heard and none had been received prior thereto. (See Resolution Order- ing Assessment later in Minutes.) E. STREET IMPROVEMENT NO. BA -215 IN THE FOLLOWING: McCauley Terrace from McCauley Trail East to cul -de -sac Mr. Hyde presented Analysis of Assessment showing total construction cost at $8,430.58, proposed to be assessed against 574.29 assessable feet at $14.68 per foot against estimated assessment of $19.43 per assessable foot. No objections r LIQUOR FIJ'31) BALANCE S fi-ZZ T CITY OF EDINA AS AT NOVEMBE?: 30, 1977 ASSETS CURRENT ASSETS: Cash: Demand Deposits Working Fund Loan To Other Funds Inventory: Liquor Wine Beer and Mix Prepaid Expenses: Unexpired Insurance Supplies Inventory TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS FIXED ASSETS AT COST: Land Land Improvements Buildings Furniture and Fixtures Leasehold Improvements Less: Allowance for Depreciation and Amortization Construction in Progress CURRENT LIABILITIES: Trade Accounts Payable Accrued Payroll SURPLUS: Invested in Fixed Assets Unappropriated TOTAL ASSETS $ 24,488.13 481,643.80 151,075.01 3,035.55 $660,242.49 $ (1,861.82) 3,500.00 $ 315,551.69 246,882.30 35,091.88 $ 1,638.18 415,000.00 598,525.87 $ (464.49) 400.00 (64.49) $1,015,099.56 $ 152,518.85 242,442.46 417,800.03__ $ 570,318.88 247,360.10 817,678.98 LIABILITIES AND SURPLUS TOTAL LIABILITIES AND SURPLUS $1,832,778.54 $ 66,652.25 4,474.00 $ 71,126.25 $ 817,678.98 943,973.31 1,761,652.29 $1,832,778.54 _ LIQUOR DISPENSARY FUND COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF INCOME AND EXPENSE CITY OF EDINA Eleven Months Ending November 30, 1977 and November 30, 1976 INCREASE - DECREASE' 1977 1976 r1 «. YOrk'i le Grandview Total. 50th St. _ _yorl'dnle Grandview Total '50th St. 1'orkdale Grandview Total $344,570.26 $ 927,233.84$ 834,263.51 $2,106,067.61 $436,670.77$ 884,893.41 $ 766,291.96$2,087,856.14$ 92,100.51* $ 42:,340.43 $ 67,971.55 $ 18,211.47 "r 104,822.09 378,961.88 318,597.89 802,381.86 119,024.01 313,071.96 229,738.41 661,834.38 14,201.92* 65,889.92 88,859.48 140,547.43 100,587.28 315,574.90 242,344.02 658,506.20 143,798.91 300,765.14 231,302.23 675,866.28 43,211.63* 14,809.76 11,041.79 17,360.08* 9 408.07 31 304.40 24 714.00 65 426.47 12 653.53 29 770.89 24 426.02 6-6-,850.44 32245.46* 19533.51 287.98 __I.,.423-97* cr.d ..iseellon ro 559,387.70 $1,653,075.02$1,419,919.42 $3,6329382.14 $712,147.22$1,528,501.40 $1, 251, 758.62$3,492,407.24$152,759.52* $124,573.62 $168,160.80 $139,974.90 54 669.52 1291 955.51 162659.37 311,31, 591.57 29t926.02 Lcss boct.erefun6s 17 748 64 1 595 537.09$1,365,249.90 $3,502,426.63 $695,487.85$1,494,909.83 $1, 221, 832.60$3,412,230.28$153,848.21* $100,627.26 $143,417.30 $ 90,196.35 tiE7 SALU $541,639. $ , C,';T C= SALES: : :n�orT$109,208.09 218,953.44 195,512.91 523,674.44 172,534.05 214,596.83 219,022.28 606,153.16 63,325.96* 4,356.61 23,509.37* 82,478.7 Fcrch::cs 467 085.68 1,368,413,08 1 219 531.14 3 055 029.90 560 364.75 1 7_56 307.71 1,033,620.64 2 850 293.10 93 279.07* 112 105.37 185 910.50 204 736.80 $576,293.77 $1,587,366.52$1,415,044.05 $3'598 525.87 $133,298.92$1,2107,398.59 $ 1�204�035 .64$3�554�733.15$118�591.38* $121 989.34 $140 394.76 $143,792.072 kyento7 -Hov.30 114,707.54 239 387 93 244,430.40 , L + ■ _ $461 586.23 1 347 978.59$1,170.613.65.12,980,178.47. 599 599 88$1,253,505 95 ;1,048,607.28$2,901,713.11$138,013.65* $ 94,472 64 $122,006.37 $ 11 465.3 CROSS Pao 80,053.41 $ 247,558.50$ 194,636.25 $ 5 ?.2,248.16 $ 95,887.97$ 241,403.88 $ 173,225.32$ 510,517.17$ 15,834.56* $ 6,154.62 $ 21,410.93 $ 11,730 99 C :'.A T ING Ehr "ENSES -; 39,648.40 65,040.52 57,117,45 161,806.37 47,686.91 60,284.02 49,469.26 157,440.19 8,038.51* 4,756.50 7,648.19 4,366.18 c :d 11,512.63 30,605.20 24,004.06 66,121.89 11,532.42 25,084.37 19,905.11 56,521.90 19.79* 5,520.83 4- ,098.95 9,599.99 36 469.61 44 563.87 37 656.33 118 689.81 45.898-15 50 303.85 45 728.99 141 930.99 9,428.54* 5 739.98* 8 072.66* 23 241.18* TOTAL CFE-7.ATit 87 630.64 140 209.59 118 777.84 346 618.07 105 117.48$ 135 672.24 115,103 . 36 355 893.08 17,486.84* 4.537.35 3.674.48 $ 9,275.01* ExFE�.E NET C r E :.;"i�icr 2,577.23*$ 107,348.91$ 75,858.41 $ 175,630.09 $ 9,229.51*$ 105,731.64 $ 58,121.96$ 154,624.09$ 1,652.28 $ 1,617.27 $ 17,736.45 $ 21,006.00 FF.OFIT 0":Eii. INCOME: . Oc :�7isccuet 6,605.47 18,823.90 17,392.38 42,821.75 6,047.11 15,113.47 12,607.30 33,767.88* 558:260* 3,710.43 34.84 4'726.58 9 +061.21 Cc:h o +cr or under 8.38 129.96* 63.02 58.56* 8.58 164.80* 36.45 119.77 2,857.51 2,857.51 -0- -0- 2,857.51 : -.e on i- +e• 2,857.51 + * 2.16 433.03* C cr 3,068.91 1 414.66 1 651.97 6 135.54 2 716.47 2 202.29 1 649.81 6 568.57 352.44 787.63 $ 12,540.27 $ 20,108.60$ 19 107.37 51 756.24 .8,772.16$ 17 150.96 14 293.56 40 216.68$ 3 768.11 2 957.64 4 813.81 $ ll. 539.56 N INCOM $ 4,963 04 $ 127,457.51S 94,965 78 $ 227,386 33 $ 457 35*$ 122,882 60 $ 72,415.52$ 194,840.77$ 5,420 39 $ 4,574.91 $ 22,550.26 $ 32,545.5 =.cEVT TO NET SALES:. 14.787. 15.52% 14.26% 14.91% 13.79% 16.15% 14.18% 14.969, G-ca profit C :;- -m :ing expenses 16.18 8.79 8.70 9.90 15.11 9.08 9.42 10.43 C';cr :r :-g pr *fit 1.40 %* 6.73% 5.56% 5.01% 1.32 %* 7.07% 4.76% 4.53% C:h_r incc -nc 2.31 1.26 1.40 1.48 1.25 1.15 1.17 1.18 NET INCOM .917. 7.99% 6.96% 6.49% .07% 8.22% 5.93% 5.71% CITY`OF EDINA December 14, 1977 TO: MANAGER, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: FINANCE DIRECTOR SUBJECT: LEGAL FEES - SAC LAWSUIT Enclosed find copies of memo from James R. Merila, Director of Public Works, Brooklyn Center. Because we were not informed of higher cost of the appeal, before it was incurred, we feel that we should pay one -half of the difference and attorneys should reduce the bill for balance. We recommend a payment to Brooklyn Center as follows: Original billing $3598 Adjustment .1208 Recommended payment $2390 • MEMO TO: Plaintiff Municipalities in S.A.C. Lawsuit FROM: James R. Merila,:P.E., Director of Public Works. City of Brooklyn Center DATE: September 14, 1976 SUBJECT: Final Lawsuit Report and Cost Allocation On December-22, 1975, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Metropolitan Sewer Board in the.S.A.C. lawsuit. Enclosed are the.following financial documents for billing.your community for its proportionate share of the remaining costs .incurred by the City of Brooklyn Center for the S.A.C.1awsuit. 1) Billing invoice. 2) Summary of legal fees and related costs for appeal. 3) Monthly detailed itemization of legal fees and related costs for appeal. 4) Attorney's memorandum dated.July 25, 1974. The total legal costs paid by the City of Brooklyn Center for the lawsuit are $51,494.76. $27,146.94 was incurred prior to the appeal and $24,347.82 was incurred for the appeal.. The appeal costs is approximately $17,000 more than was estimated at the time we embarked on the appeal. The basic reasons for.the increase incosts are explained in the attorney's memorandum dated July 251 1974. Allocation of S.A.C. Lawsuit Costs on March 4, 1974, each community received a billing for its pro- portionate share of costs paid by the City of Brooklyn Center for the S.A.C. lawsuit, prior to the appeal, amounting to $27,126.94. The costs were allocated to the participating municipalities in accordance with my memo to plaintiff municipalities dated February 51 1974. Table No. 1 shows the allocated.amounts and the amounts paid by the individual municipalities. All municipalities except Forest Lake and Roseville paid their respective allocated amounts. Forest Lake limited their participation to $100, while Roseville limited their participation to $833. Neither community wanted to.continue with the appeal costs. This leaves an unpaid balance of $2,466 for legal fees prior to the appeal. TABLE I INITIAL ALLOCATION OF S.A.C. LAWSUIT COSTS, (Fees Prior to Appeal.- March 6, 1974) Municipality Per Cent Allocated Paid Balance 1. Brooklyn Center 9.116 $ 2,474.94 $2,474.94 -0- 2. Columbia Heights 3..746 1,017.00 1,017.00 -0- 3. Edina 12.225 3,319.00 3,319.00 -0- 4. Forest Lake .697 189.00 100.00 89.00 5. Fridley 9.720 2,639.00 2,639.00 -0- 6. Golden valley 5.451 1,480.00 1,480.00 -0- 7. Hopkins 7.221 1,960.00 1,960.00 -0- 8. Maplewood 9.162 2,487.00 2,487.00 -0- 9. North St. Paul 2.671 725.00 725.00 -0- 10. Plymouth 8.226 2,233.00 2,233.00 -0- 11. Robbinsdale 2.162 587.00 587.00 -0- 12.' Roseville _ 11.824 � 3,210.00 833.00 2,377.00 13. St. Anthony 1.660 450.00 450.00 -0- 14. South St. Paul 9.164 2,488.00 2,488.00 -0- 15. White Bear Lake 6.955 1,888.00. 1,888.00 -0- 100.000 $27,146.94 $24,680.94 2,466.00 -1- 74 i a On February 7, 1974, a memo was sent to the intervener plaintiffs in the S.A.C. lawsuit inviting them to participate in helping finance the lawsuit. In response to the memo, the City of Brooklyn. Center has received a total of $1,000 from the following municipal- ities: Municipality Amount Paid Credit River Township $100 Dellwood $100 Eagan $700 Stillwater Township 100 $1,000 Table No. II shows a summary of legal fees paid and participating payments received by the City of Brooklyn Center for the S.A.C. lawsuit. The summary shows a balance of $25,813.82 for the final cost allocation. TABLE NO. II Summary of Legal Fees and Payments Description Amount Balance Fees Prior to Appeal $27,146.94 Payments Received from Initial Allocation 24,680.94 Unpaid Balance $ 2,466:00 Payments Received from Interveners 1,000.00 1,466.00 Fees for Appeal 24,347.82 Balance for Final Allocation 25,813.82 Final Allocation The final allocation of remaining lawsuit costs utilizes the same formula and data as used for the initial allocation with the deletion of Forest Lake and Roseville. Table No. III shows the derivation of the revised composite ratio for the formula and the allocation of the remaining S.A.C. lawsuit costs of $25,814. If you have any questions regarding legal points of the lawsuit,, please call Mr. Richard Schieffer at 561 -3200. If you have I any questions regarding the allocation of the lawsuit costs, please call Mr. James Merila at 561 -5440. I would like again to take this opportunity to thank you and your other community representatives for the fine cooperation that we have received during the processing of the lawsuit. q / 0nd -. V-o - _ 1 1 - -7 COO . ��• r. TABLE III FINAL ALLOCATION OF REMAINING S.A.C. LAWSUIT COSTS 1972 Assessed Actual Ratios (1) (2) Valuation 1972 Estimated Assessed Population Est. Composite Allocated Previously Balance To Municipality, (million) Population Benefit Valuation Benefit Ratio Amount - Paid Be Paid . Brooklyn Center $91.032 36,371 $85,765 .08501 .11428 .10873 .10419 $ -2,. 690.17' -('$ 2,690 -0- Columbia Heights 55.073 24,079 17,134 .05144 .07566 .02172 .04264 1,101 / %( -0- $ 1,101 Edina 283.618 45,712 58,800 .26486 .14362 .07455 .13940 -0- 3,598 Fridley 95.588 31,500 101,230 .08928 .09897 .12834 .11123 2,872 1`401' 1,000 1,872 Golden.Valley 114.519 24,627 25,305 .10695 .07339 .03208 .06213 1,604 �G; -� -0- 1,604 Hopkins 61.824 17,000 86,716 .05775 .05342 .10994 .08276 2,136 -0- 2,136 w Maplewood 92.963 27,827 96,708 .08682 .08744 .12260 .10487 2,707 -0- 2,707' No. St. Paul 21.701 12,371 24,819 .02026. .03888 .03147 .03052 788 j :" -0- 788 Plymouth 84.141 22,500 89,710 .07858 .07071 .11374 .09419 2,432 j -,`a -0- 2,432 Robbinsdale 44.315 17,061 10230 .04139 .05361 .00156 .02453 633 r'r'^ -0- 633. St. Anthony 32.650 9,731 5,707 .03049 .03060 .00724 .01888 487 n T -0- 487 So. St. Paul 52.b34 25,200 115,000 .04935 .07918 .14580 .10503 2,711 0 -0- 2,711 White Bear Lake 40.498 24,261 80,636 .03782 .07624 .10223 .07963 2,055; -.0- 2,055 $1,070.806 318,340 $788,760 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000 $ 25,814 $ 3,690_ $ 22,124 /Lly� (1) Composite ratio consists of 1 part assessed valuation, l part population, and 2 parts estimated benefit. ' (2) Allocated amount rounded to the nearest $1 figure. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 INVOICE TO TELEPHONE NO. 561.5440 City Manager Warren Hyde Cifji of Edina 4801 4!est 50th Street Edina, Mn 55424 OUR NUMBER O DATE 9/15/76 ISSUING DEPARTMENT Public Utilities APPROVED BY RECEIPT TO 72123400000 TERMS- NET CITY 00K LYN CENTER 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE (612) 561 -5440 LEGAL FE L-3 AND RELATED COSTS PAID BY THE CITY OFF BROCKLYN CENTER. IN CC)NINECT.AO'.N WITH AN A'P AL TO THE MINNESOTA SUPREME COURT OF THE D',STR:CT CO-RT. R''L N(; 1.!J THE LAWSUIT AGA[1JST THE METROPOLITAN SEWER BOARD RLLATIVE TC, "SAC" CHARGES Paid to Sohi�-;..vr, Hadley, Bdk-i- & Jensen, Law Offices, $21,061.53 Paid to N.W. Bri..f Printing Co. 3,286.29 Total Appeal Gort_? (Detail Attached) S21.3fI7.82 I hereb- v under the penalties of perj.,ry that the expenses listed thi have been paid by the City of Brooklyn Center. Paul W. Holmlund City Trea ;• .,rar "?lie .Sourer ,eq New &Y " FEES PAID TO. SCHIEFFER, HADLEY, BAKKE & JENSEN, LAW OFFICES JANUARY, 1974 75.00 1/4 Research_ re: appealable orders $ 48.75 1/8. Research re: appealable orders; draft Notice of Filing, Notice of Appeal, Notice 112.50 3/4 of partial transcript; corres. re: transcription 75.00 3/5 of record; Memo to Plaintiff re: status of 150.00 3/6 circler; corre�. with various attorneys re: 281.25 3/7 service of process 406.25 1/9 Research re: appealable orders 65.00 1/11 Exam naticm of Court File 8.15 1./1 '1 Corre_,. an d. service cif Notice of Appeal; Notice of filling, etc. 65.00 $ 593.15 Plus Costs Advanced: 1/16. Photo copies of documents 11.04 1 /11 Brooklyn .Printing, copies 66.77 1/17 Pc -Gtage for Trial Brief 61.74 1/1.8 Copies of Trial Brief documents 182.68 1/18 Transcript on appeal 102.40 1/24 Filing of Appeal 20.00 1/31 Misc. exp. on S. B. 13.07 457.70 Total Paid, January, 1974 (Pd. ch. #5394, ' 2- 25 -74) $ 1,050.85 FEBRUARY, 197,1 2/25 Review Appeal procedures 93.75 2/27 Revi::w Min'netonka's Brief & Research printing requirements 9.35 2/28 Research re: Rules of Civil Procedure 112.50 Total. Paid, February, 1974 (Pd. ch. #227624, 3- 25 -74). $ 215.60 MARCH, 197411, 3`1 Preparation cf. Appendix 75.00 3/3 Research and draft Appendix. 150.00 3/4 Cf /Levine, Dever & Froberg re: consolidation of Appeal.,:;; research and drafting of Appendix 112.50 3/4 Cf /Printer and delivery of proofs 75.00 3/5 Research on Appeal 150.00 3/6 Research re: Brief 281.25 3/7 Research re: App::al 300.25 0 MARCH, 1974_(ccntin-:eri 3/7 Re: -arch re- Appeal (Mr. Carson) 187.50 3/8 Re., --,arch re: Appeal 243.75 3/8 Ra. > >r irc;i re: Alp cal (Mr. Carson) 300.00 11 Cf /Mr. Dever, Mr. Froberg & Research re: App& -il. 243.75 3/12 Revi --w and draft. Responsive Motion & & aftida, °�'.� t: M��ticn for Consolidation /Cf/ 3/13 l'rjnt-.�r & C1 --,r1: of Supreme Court re: extension 112.50 3/1 3 R,- z,:irch re- appeal. (Mr. Carson) 93.75 3/] 3 Deaf° 1-g31 1 ,s.ie & statement of argument 206.25 3/14 Pr;;�.ar,iticn and drafting of legal issues 1.87.50 3/15 Pre; irc •;tate neat of fari- on appeal 300.00 3/16 R:3se3r6h & t_iraft arg�-.Yn nt 300.00 3/15 R•D;� earc i & Draft on Injunction 300.00 3%22 & Drdit Merru-, (Mr. Carson) 3/24 300.50 3/27 Research re: Appeal 37.50 Bye Mr. Sn-th 3/11 Rri:� E�arcn re, Motion for consolidation & Cf/Mr. Frcb -erg & Mr. Dever; 3/.12 168.75 3/13 Res -!arch re° Order Striking Pleadings 11.2.50 3/14 ServiLc, of Mc•ti;.n in Opposition to Cc;� . L'aatic: and extension; research re: ordertri:. =g pleadings 150.00 Toi:al I'a .:i, Mar&,, 1 974 (Pd. ch. #5514, 4 -22 -74'1 $ 4,388.25 APRIL, 19 �i 1'r�pr ci Mci:ion, Notice, Affidavits a :-;1 Curd -.ir f.:•r of Time 56.25 4j R re, 300.00 4/5 ec-nnection charges 375.00 T.:.;• ii :'3 i, April., 1974 (Pd, ch. #5546, 731.25 ci_i 7;'6, �'r �•�r':i':_ ::s yF;3 ,iF;Nearance on oral u�f-ra the. Stipreme Court on & ic-i ion 300.00 9 at,.d service of Nctice of appeal fry : i Ure1 �r t. if F::ibr .,ary 8, 1974; Cf /Court Rop( r. -,r :ir,ci order Transcript: 56.25 M;j- ;, 1974 (1'd. ch. #5621, 6 -1 9 -;' 11 $ 356.25 .' "14M BRIEF PRINTING CO., TESTTMOW-TRANTSCRIPTION COST JS COSTS ADVA%rC-',.D -..,- , RI — --------- f pd. cne 4�6531 6 $ 1,443.45 )-9-74 6/6 Cf Poss , Willis and various other 01— c i rj ,- i .- Doherty's letter re: costs 6, %'? 3 175.00 6/25 R7-1-3earc.! ana' u-'raft Me-mo re: cost-, and Cf/Po hen, et al s;, Chen, t r: .- of cl-sts and al.2-bur,,,- aments; r_ :o prc.-gres-j of appeal 105.00 19Y:;I cirl. #5748, 7-22 $ 280.00 �2 R r c'- a`: cn Br-'ef - Conso"4at-d - A 1 375.00, 7/25 -,-j� h R-- ir an-d craft on Brief - Consolidated A i -t pmi? <-i 375.00 7;`216 Dr iiFt- cf of 300.00 7 29 Duif;:`L--- of .' 281 25 3:- Dr of Issues 3-1.50 Di i St.at:ome-nt of .15s ---ms 225.00 To,i-51 Paie 19e4 �Pd ch. #5798, , • 8-j 2-741 1 593.1's A UG T, 19 8,/ 1 Rt-:�--aarc`l r•.:;- Sew-.er Board Brief 300,1J0 Board Brief 300.00 8/5 PrIz!jedf:--i of Facts .225.00 246.25) A n t.rative agencies 75.00 R j r:__L� r �j _i) 150.00 r- -, 1� �_it. -07 rlE!): ;7 C; f Fact:. 3 00 . 0 0 4- rw�2 S 41 -11 1 - Fact. 4,12.50 r -�r Levine, Clerk, and drafti ng 206 ;25 8, . C `-Z"i L SI, ipulat-Ion; a 4: c n c. f arc r 3 r j-ument 243.75 8"'I5 At - 3n IL 215.00 8 (-; ,, � A r i t 206,25 A 243.75 2,43.75 r -i .i r -: ci! 3i 8. 75 2 c Ara_ m ent, 318.75 / 23 S,-. -j"Y' r!- 1.11.50 8/24 Study Transcript: 9/2 Final Draf±• cf Sewer Board Brief 375.00 9/3 Table of Contents 37.50 8/25 375.00 187.50 8/26 Study Trans -cript 412.50 8/27 Study Transcript 150.00 8/28 Re ,earth on Sewer Board Brief 487.50 8/29 Re7c-arch and Drafting 487.50 8/30 Re, _arch and Draf l-.ng 262.50 8/31 Research and Draft:i.ng 375.00 $ 6,490.00 C: :..As Atll %an - --d- 7/24 Ob anr, Copy of judgment an6 Dec;r o 2.50 2.50 Total Pa-,d, Awl :;r, 1974 (Pd. ch. #5897, 9- 23-74) $ 6,•192.50 SEPTEMBER. .1974 9 /;t F:n.a: Draft --f Sew - :r Board Brief 375.00 9/2 Final Draf±• cf Sewer Board Brief 375.00 9/3 Table of Contents 37.50 9;�1 DST "i*e 1.rc c't- reading material 375.00 9/5 Dic ?ate prof -read nnv Rrinf 375.00 9/6 Final reading and deliver to printer 300.00 Total Paia, Sect- -mber, 1.974 (Pd. ch. #5923, 10- 15 -74) $ 1,837.50 NOVEMBER, 1914 l l;'; 8 Cf j Levine re, Filing of Brief 9.35 Total :Pa d, Nr-_vember, 1.97.1 (Pd. ch. #6066, 12 -9 -7;) $ 9.35 DEC'EMrIL_R, 197J 1 2;'26 Cf','T, :,n Hay-, ,Iraft Motion and Stipulaticr. fcr c_ f t .-me to file Reply; cr S -prcmc Court re: 18.70 1974 (Pd. ch. #25590, $ 18.70 Brief 93.75 & r -_:vf . w Ro pnndent's Brief 150.00 -28 R•.:vr•.�w Brief 56.25 Tc' d 19iS (f d. ch. X055479, 2- -2� -`r 5) $ 300A0 FEBRIJAR_:' , 1975 2/6 Review Sewer Beard Brief 2/7 1'r -�q ara irl—n of Reply Brief 2/9 Review Appellant's Brief 2110 Research re. Reply Brief 2111 2/12 Research and draft. Reply 211/13 l'rocf r ,ad and make revisions on Reply Brief - Total Pa 1, Febr -:aty, 1975 (Pd. ch. #083479, 3-24-75) MARCH, 1975 3/1.1 and Clem cf. Supreme Court 31/13 Cf /Di_A. Co-_ rt Clerk re- Exhibits, pr- :!par3tii -n of Exhibil- List; .Cf /Clee< of S•--rpra -:e Cc,srt and delivery and filing of Exriib'�:s 28 ccp .es of R7�r ly Brief Total Paid, Marc-eh, 4915 (Pd. ch. #105479, .1 -1.4 -; 5) A EL, :1975 _ -4 4/3 Review 'Bri of and Exhibits and prel;,3r: -c"t_ ..! for oral argument 4/5 Pn-ip-,r :3ricr, L:f c:ral argument . 4 .,'ti :3.,d review case law -1/6 Pr '.p::xf ' t r3i. argW i.`•.1 3_' ;? -J./7 }'r�r ,r:.� =:i :�. And appearance on oral To?:.3? PaIJ, Aril, .1 975 (.Pd. ch. #1474%9, 5- 2, -7:5? TOTAL i"A ;D SCiE-- -FFrR, HADLE- , .BAKKE & JENSEN, LAW (`F'i:CE FEES PAID TO N,W. BRiEF PRINTING CO. l':3 3 9- 23 -..l Br; .f- :cr i =lair; .:.ft's 56.25 262.50 187.50 300.00 150.00 37.50 $ 993.75. 9.35 93.75 103.10 98.53 $ 201 .63 337.50 2.16.20 187.50 .227.50 150.00 5 18.18.10 521 , 061.53 $286.29 RICHARD J. SCHIEFFER - CHARLES S. HADLEY PAUL J. SAKKE DAVID L.JENSEN TERRY C. SMITH JEFFREY A. CARSON OF COUNSEL WILLIAM J. FLEMING MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: LAW OFFICES SCRIEFrER. HADLI:Y, HAKKi1 & JENSF:N 610 BROOKDALE TOWERS 57*!'.AVENUE NORTH AT BROOKOALE CENTER . MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA SS430 TELEPHONE 612 S61- 3200 July 25, 1974 Plaintiff Municipalities in SAC Lawsuit R. J. Schieffer, Attorney for Plaintiffs ANOKA OFFICE 2115 THIRD AVENUE N. ANOKA.MINNESOTA 55303 TELEPHONE 612/421-1737 On June 6, 1974 we wrote you regarding the attempt by the Sewer Board to collect from your municipality a pro rata share of the attorneys fees incurred by the Sewer Board in this litigation. As we•noted' in that memo, there is no way that the Metropolitan Council and the Metropolitan Sewer Board could reauire Plaintiffs to pay those costs. The Board and Council agree that these costs cannot legally be charged to Plaintiffs as is indicated in the accompanying correspondence from Mayors.Cohen and Hilde.' You may recall that we filed our appeal from the trial court's original order in January of 1974. This appeal challenged the court's ruling which stated that the SAC method was a legal and enforceable method of collecting sewer costs ur:der the State Statute. We have felt from the beginning that the Sewer Beard and Council ,had' violated this statute in setting up the SAC method. In March of 1974 the trial court handed down its second decision, holding that the SAC method was a fair and reason- able method of collecting these costs and reaffirming its earlier decision that the SAC method is legal under- the statute. Since the attorneys took no action to docket this judgment, we filed no appeal from that judgment and continued to work on our brief on the appeal from the trial court's original order. It was our intention to appeal only from the trial court's original order since it Lrivolved only legal questions and would not require the transcribing and printing of all of the testimony taken at the trial. This method of appeal would save us considerable expense both in terms of the cost of transcribing the testimony and the lawyer's time in reading it and writing a brief on it. However, in March of 19.74.the Sewer Board attorneys asked us to cooperate in • combining the appeals from both of the trial court's orders. `;'e declined to cooperate stating that the judgment had not been docketed, that the appeal rights would exist until 90 days after the docketing of the judgment and that there was no advantage whatever in combining the appeals. The Sewer Board attorneys brought on a motion before the Supreme Court asking for consolidation of the appeals. Briefs were filed and arguments heard in May of .1974 with the court ruling on May 14, 1974 that the request for consolidation was premature. L Plaintiff Municipalities in SAC Lawsuit July 25,. 1974 Page Two In the meantime, the judgment has been docketed and appeal rights were set to expire on June 4, 1974. -We had hoped to persuade the court to extend the time for expiring of appeal rights so that we could argue the appeal on the trial court's original order and perhaps end the controversy with a single appeal. F-,owever; (as we had realized from the beginning) the Supreme Court really has no power to extend appeal rights and we were therefore forced to file an appeal from the trial court's second judgment on May 28th of 1974. The Supreme Court then did consolidate the two appeals and set up an accelerated schedule for filing of briefs so that the matter can be heard on final argument in the early fall of 1974. Our consolidated brief must be filed on August 23, .1974 and we are therefore proceeding to re -write the portions thereof which have already. been written and adding to it the issues from the appeal which. was consolidated witin the o= iginal appeal. Therefore, we should have a final decision from the Supreme Court in this matter before the end of 1974. Sincerely, SCHIEFFER, HADLEY,. BAKKE & JENSEN ev Ric6W2�if er RJS:sf Encl. . MEMO TO: Plaintiff Municipali-�_-ies in SAC Lawsuit FROM: James R. Merila, Director of P,.;blic Works City of.B=ooklyn Center. DATE: January 30, 197: SUBJECT REVIEW OF ' FINANCIAL ASPECTS OF SAC LAW; 'JIT Now that the legal aspects of the SAC lawsuit have been re- viewed, it is time to bring all of you up -to -date relative to the. financial status of the lawsuit. The following items are attached for your information: 1) an itemized statement of costs that the attorneys have submitted to the City of Brooklyn Center; 2) a monthly accumulation of those costs; and 3) a tabulation of the various communities' participation commitments through the Joint Powers Agreements. The estimated cost of the lawsuit through January is $25,038.00. It is estimated that the appeal costs will be approximate- ly $7,000,00 ($5,000.00 for legal.fees and $2,000.00 printing costs), for an estimated grand total of $32,000.00. The $25,03e.00 for the d.1str.ict lawsuit is approximately $10,000.00 more than was estimated at the time we embarked on the law- suit. The basic reasons for the increase in lrecral costs are: 1. The unpredictability of costs for a lawsuit as complex as this one. 2. The expansion of the lawsuit by the Metropolitan Sewer Board. 3. The increase in the number of communities involved. 1. The unpredictability of ..the Lawsuit. . The principal issue of the lawsuit . was the legal question of whether the Metropolitan Sewer Board had the authority to charge and collect reserve capacity by a method such as SAC, other than as des -. cribed in the statute. It was the consensus.of all communities and .their represent- atives, as well as Mr. Joe Summers, the attorney who was retained to work with Mr..Schieffer but recently.was appointed as a Judge in.Ramsey County, that the Metropolitan Sewer Board did riot have -that authority. -2- As Mr. Richard Schieffer has described in his memo, one of the first steps taken was to request a summary judgment from the Judge relative to the legal'issues. However, the Judge rule.1 against us and declared that the Metropolitan Sewer Board can use any method they choose, as long as it is reasonable. At this point, the attorneys requested the Judge to give a final decision regarding the lawsuit so that the decision could be appealed to the Supreme Court without the anticipated lengthy trial on the "reasonableness" factor. The Judge declared that he would not render a final decision until he had heard . the case relative to reasonableness. Consequently, nearly two weeks was spent in court hearing the reasonableness issue. You will notice in the itemized statement that the costs involved in December and January are approximately $10,900.0 and are primarily the costs involved with the trial. If 1--he Judge would have ruled in our favor regarding the legal question, there would have been very little legal fees in December and the lawsuit expenses would have been in the estimated area of $15,000.00. It is very similar to having a tiger by the tail -- either you hang on and fight or you get eaten up. The reasonableness issue has been argued and it is felt that that pa-,t of the case is strongly supported for appeal to the Supreme Coxir'i.. 2. The expansion of the lawsuit The lawsuit was expanded by the Metropolitan Sewer Board, as described by Mr. Schieffer's memo. 3. The additional communities involved Each of the communities that entered into the lawsuit re- quired specific attention. Originally there were 16 communities. and after papers were filed personally to each community, a total of 31 communities were involved as.plaintiffs in the lawsuit. Brooklyn Center's position The City of Brooklyn Center has assumed the leadership and financial responsibility of the lawsuit because the leaders of the community feel very strongly that the integrity of local government must be protected.. The threat.of total metropolitan government take- over exists if local government does not fight to uphold the principle set forth by the legislature in making the Metropolitan Council a planning and coordinating agency. J r c• -3- Each time the. Metropolitan Council, Sewer Board, or repre- sentatives of the State of Minnesota, such as the Tax Commissioner, assume more power by their own interpretation of the laws and are not challenged when they do so, local government loses more control. It is fortunate that the courts offer a forum when it is necessary to provide openness and representation of local government to metro and state affairs. Such is the case of the tax levy limitation lawsuit initiated by the City of Brooklyn Center a couple of years ago. Even though the lawsuit was involved with the Tax Commissioner's interpretation of the legislative act, it created other beneficial spin - offs such as it opened the doors to the Governor's office so that a Task Force of muni- cipal officials was appointed to work, with the Governor's chief tax advisor to modify the law so that local communities could continue to properly operate by providing service to the residents of their communi- ty. The lawsuit also out into perspective the Tax Commissioner's inter- pretation of the laws created by the legislature. Another example of what lawsuits can do is the case of the City of Burnsville's lawsuit relative to the Disparity iict in 1971. This act was passed primarily as benefit to the core cities and the outlying communities, much in the same concept and philosophy. as intended by the SAC. It is my understanding :-hat Burnsville won the lawsuit on a district level, but it is being -- ,ppealed to the Supre:ue. Court in the future. I heard recently that one of the City Councilman in a neigh- boring community feels that their community should lead the wav in a lawsuit when the occasion arises for upholding.the integrity of local government at their community, because he recognizes the good image and the goodwill that a community gets by initiating a. lawsuit. As I have stated before, the City of Brooklyn Center has assumed the responsibility of the lawsuit and plans to.see it throua3a to a final decision in the Supreme Court if necessary. At the time the lawsuit was initiated, it was estimated to cost approximately $15,000.00. The Joint Powers Agreements committed a total of $12,500.00 from the participants (not including Brooklyn Center). Recognizing that the present cost is approximately $25,000.00 and appeal costs are estimated to be another $7,000.00, for a total of approximately $32,000..00, the City of Brooklyn Center invites the other participants to expand their participation. Although the City of Brooklyn Center is determined to see the lawsuit to conclusion, the City would prefer to contribute up to $5,000.00 for its share of the lawsuit. Therefore, the Citv of Brook- lyn Center invites the other communities to increase their participa- tion to at least $27,000.00. JRM;rc J - December 27, 1977 10 TO: Kenneth E. Rosland, City Manager FROM: Robert C. Dunn, Director of Public Works and City Engineer SUBJECT: Project, WM -316 -Project, WM -316 was approved by the City Council on January 17, 1977. Bids were received on April 29, 1977. Previous to the opening of bids, during the field work required preparatory to construction. a right -of -way problem of long standing on Interlachen Blvd. was rediscovered. The problem was such that it obviously could not be resolved in time to do the work in 1977 so the project was not awarded. Little progress is being made towards resolving the right -of -way problem (it involves Hennepin County since Interlachen Blvd. is CR 20). I therefore recommend that Project WM -316 be abandoned by the City Council so that it will no longer be carried on the Assessor's records as a pending assessment and that the affected property.owners be notified of the action. Respectfully submitted, Robert C. Dunn, P.E. Director of Public Works and City Engineer RCD /lkw cc: F. Hoffman December 28, 1977 Fellow Mayor: SUBJECT: CITY OF ROBBINSDALE 4221 LAKE ROAD •ROBBINSDALE, MINNESOTA 55422 TELEPHONE: (612) 537 -4534 DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES TAX INCREMENT FT_NANCTNG - -TNE FISCAL TOOL FOR THE REDEVELOPi1ENT OF THE CITIES IN MINNESOTA Since 1968 the City of Robbinsdale has used Tax Increment Financing (TIF) tc redevelop substandard and dilapidated housing and replace it TTith new dwellings that provide decent, energy efficient housing while curbing bligh-t in our community. k'e also plan to use TIr^ in our downtown redevelopment efforts which are focused on the commercial core, much of which was constructed in the 1920's and is deteriorating. The Robbinsdale story is no doubt not much different than in most communities in Minnesota. The seriousness of the story is that the 1innesota Legislature seems to be bent on crippling both the ability of local communities to determine what their needs are and the ability to be able to proceed with providing their own local solu- tions -- planning, community needs, and financing of the plans for the community. The Minnesota House, in HF 1191, would virtually eliminate the use of TIF for most small communities in Minnesota. The Senate Tax Increment Subcommittee appears to be getting on the same track, although they are not looking at any particular bill at this time, as based upon their "policy discussions" to date. Tax Increment Financing is about the last local financing method left. To get Federal Funds, we send out money to Washington and "If lucky" get some back. We're told what to spend it on specifically, and how to spend it. There is now talk of a state redevelopment fund. In this case we would be sending money to St. Paul and have it parceled back with directions again on how to spend it. Tax Increment, as it is now called, though more appropriately perhaps it should be called "Local Redevelopment Financing", with the legislative changes that are being proposed by the Joint Task Force of the League of Minnesota Cities/ Minnesota NAHRO would make this fiscal redevelopment tool an even better mechanism. I am enclosing a copy of a recent newspaper item that best explains what is now occurring, in the Senate Tax Increment Subcommittee, as commented on by our City Manager, John Fischbach. (07EQ Fellow Mayors December 28, 1977 Page 2 Your help to maintain Tax Increment Financing, by contacting your own State Senator and Representative, now is vital to preserve our ability as municipal leaders to provide housing, the rehabilitation of our downtown areas, stimulate economic development and to provide more job opportunities, needed local goods and services as well as our tax base. If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me at 542 -5866 or John Fischbach at 537 -4534. Sincerely, kWLVey Harvey Lange v Mayor, City of Robbinsdale P. S. The next meeting of the Senate Subcommittee is scheduled for 9:30 A. M., Wednesday, January 4, 1978 in Room 112 of the Capitol. WE NEED YOU, AND ALL YOUR COUNCIL MEMBERS AND HRA MEMBERS, TO BE PRESENT TO SHOW THE SENATE THAT WE CARE AND WE'RE WATCHING! This will be an all -day meeting. Please attend. r_. . Mary M. Forsythe �' :"' - �- District 39A ,' ''' f ';' Hennepin County Committees: Appropriations+. -` Division on Health, Welfare f3? and Corrections Health and Welfare Labor - Management Relations Rules and Legislative Administration Mayor James Van Valkenburg City of Edina 4801 West 50th Street Edina, Minnesota 55424 Dear Jim: Minnesota House of Representatives Martin Olav Sabo. Speaker December 13, 1977 I received the copy of your letter to Dick Kremer. I have been involved in hearings in the last few weeks concerning mandated services of House File 1. I am quite sure after talking to some of the powers that be that House File 1 will not be acted upon during the next Session and probably will be changed very much if it ever becomes law. It is my guess that rather than House File 1, as we know it now, we will be giving block grants for social services and keeping health services as is. I am sure that the role of those involved with the community health services have been effective in this change. I still believe in the philosophy of block grants with control on the county level, but I do see the problem in combining health and social services. We will work on the problem and come up with a better solution. Sincerely, Mary M. Forsyth State Represen tive MMF /amg Reply to: Minnesota House of Representatives, State Capitol, St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 Telephones: Office (612) 296 -4363; Home (612) 927 -6613 i G. .1 , WILLIAM G. KIRCHNER Senator 37th District 6625 Lyndale Avenue South Richfield, Minnesota 55423 Phone: Office: 296-4115 Home: 869 -6830 Commissioner Richard E. Kremer Board of Hennepin County Commissioners 2400 Government Center Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487 Dear Dick: sel"Ante State of Minnesota December 16, 1977 I sit on the Senate Health and Welfare Committee and have listened for many hours to a presentation on Senate File 459 as it relates to House File 1. During the last session I worked with the City Attorney from Bloomington -. —_We formulated an amendment which I had successfully attached to S. F. 459. That amendment would have eliminated the double taxation feature referred to by Mayor Van Valkenburg from Edina. I was a little confused as I followed his letter. I believe he was saying he was for the idea of local control but afraid of the Hennepin County Welfare administration. To that extent, I agree with him. Several of us asked enough questions in regard to S. F. 459 that it was laid over last year. During the interim it has had further hearings. At our last meeting about a week ago, Senator Perpich rather indicated that he was fed up with the issue and probably would let the bill die in 1978. I, too, favor local control of these expenditures but this bill gets down to the question of how we can keep Hennepin County Welfare office from more bureaucratic expenditures and high salaries. Perhaps some more study of the bill will help us to find ways to make home expenditure truly local within the communities. Most of us do not trust the free spending administrative outlook on the part of the County Welfare Department. I hope as you work with county government over the years you will find ways of restraining their easy salary- spending attitude. I do feel that the Health Department built up in Bloomington and selling services to Richfield and Edina is a very fine economical operation. I under- stand St. Louis Park is interested in joining in also. I believe the same. program would be far more expensive if placed in the County. Best wishes. WGK:lw cc: Otto Bang Mary Forsythe Ray Pleasant James Van Valkenburg CO�9�11'1'7'I:1•:S l�in:uuc Sincerely, W. G. Kirchner llealth. Welfare any! urrectiuns Transportation i �� `J i j FIRST BANK SYSTEM, INC. MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55480 DONALD R.GRANGAARD CHAIRMAN CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER November 29, 1977 f IMayor James VanValkenburg 4801 West 50th Street Edina, Minnesota 55424 Dear Mayor VanValkenburg: Now that the 1977 United Way Campaign has come to a suc- cessful close, I'd like to take this opportunity to recog- nize the key role you and your staff played in this success. Your personal involvement, the dedication of your employee i campaign team, and the generosity of your employees were major contributing factors in the greatest United Way vic- tory the Minneapolis area has ever seen. Seeing-how this community responds to an ambitious chal- lenge was a very rewarding experience for me. Knowing that we have committed and responsive leaders such as yourself, ensures a rewarding experience for this commu- nity for many years.to come. The 10% increase your employee campaign produced is a laudatory performance by any standards. On behalf of the entire Campaign Cabinet, United Way staff and the many thousands who will use United Way services, I express a heartfelt "thank you ". Sincerely, PROGRAM Friday and Saturday, January -28, L'hotel Sofitel, Bloomington, at t 1 1 and -494 and Highway 100 Friday, January 27 SPECIAL KICKOFF PROGRAM (optional) Sponsored by Women in City Government (See information. elsewhere in brochure) 7:00 p.m. "How to Take the Hot Air Out of Politics /...... Dorothy McGlaughlin - -- - Communication Between -Male - -- and -David Dotlich and Female Colleagues" 9:00 Social Hour Saturday, January 28 CONFERENCE 8:00 a.m. Final Registration 8:45 Some Survival Tactics for the Newly Elected Official ....... Meg Bye 9:00 Councils —What They Can and Can't Do ............ David Kennedy (A look at their forms, functions, authorities, and limitations) The Open Meeting Law ............................ James Holmes Personal Liability, Conflict of Interest and You .......... Stan Peskar 12:00 p.m. Lunch Resources Available to Cities ....................... Donald Slater 1:15 Governing Your City (Practical tips in three critical areas) WHO SHOULD ATTEND? The conference will speak pri- marily to newly elected mayors and council members; however, any incumbent elected official or - appointed employee interested in the program will be most welcome. REGISTRATION Register in advance by mailing the attached form. Multiple registrations may be made by let- ter or by duplicating the form. Registrations should be received by Friday, January 20, 1978. FEE The conference fee of $30 in- cludes tuition, materials, luncheon and breaks and is paya- ble with registration. The cost of the optional Friday evening pro- gram is $5.00 (light refreshments included). CANCELLATION SMALLER CITIES Fees will be fully refunded for can - Personnel and Labor Relations .................. Patrick McGarvey cellations received by January 25. Budgeting and Finance .. ............................... Jon Elam Alternates will be accepted at any Planning and Zoning ............................... Gunnar lsberg time. LARGER CITIES Personnel and Labor Relations ........................ Jerre Miller Budgeting and Finance .............. Lyle Haney and Ruth Franklin Planning and Zoning ........................... To Be Announced 2:45 Refreshment Break 3:00 No City Is An Island ......................... Lyall Schwarzkopf and (how to relate with other governments to Jon Elam benefit your city; hints on lobbying and locating monetary resources) CONCURRENT SESSION: FOR MAYORS ONLY... Harvey Lange and (experienced mayors share insights and Alcuin Ringsmuth information on the special roles, responsibilities, problems and concerns of this office) 4:00 Adjourn ACCOMMODATIONS L'hotel Sofitel is holding a block of rooms for participants. Those needing rooms should contact the hotel directly at the earliest oppor- tunity (5601 W. 78th Street, Bloomington, MN 55434, 612/- 835- 1900). FOR INFORMATION Carol Schoeneck Government Training Service 636 Minnesota Building Fourth and Cedar Streets St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 612/222 -7409 REGISTRATION FORM CONFERENCE FOR NAME NEWLY ELECTED OFFICIALS — January 28,1978- AFFILIATION POSITION TELEPHONE ADDRESS CITY ZIP • Please register me for: Saturday Conference ($30.00) Friday Kickoff Program - Special Mayors Sesson on Saturday (included in conference fee) Amount Enclosed $ Please make check payable to Government Training Service, 636 Minnesota Build- ing, Fourth and Cedar Streets, St. Paul, MN 55101 (612/222 -7409) and return by January 20, 1978. 301AM;NINNU INSIMI IA00 sail!(] e3osauu!vy to an6ea-I JoloaJ!Q 9A11n09x3 `JalelS Pleuo(] s!lodeauu!vy to Al!(] Taal(] A1!(]'ldoNziumgoS IleAl uo!le!oossv sioAevy 'luap!saJd pue NA8d al!eM 30 40 joAevy'43nws6u!8 u!noly sail!(] elosauu!vy to en6eaq lasuno(] 1eJ8u9E ` 8)Jsad MIS suiNdOH 10 40 JoAevy '19ll!vy aiiap salg!oossv a0pue(]'1u9p!s9Jd u!146nelDoW A43ojo(] 911!A9Mgq ;o A3!(] aoleJls!u!wPV Al!(] A9NUDoVY 5i014Ud elepsu!gq% to Al!(] J0ABVY 'a6ueq AOMBI -I zmea(] pug uaue'o J911190-1 '9a9n939-1 'ale!oossv Pug lelsAjojo Al!(] AauaolJV Al!D'APauua}l p!AE(] saauueld Pug s1083!404 Noaquenp +g wna43eS `9 43eVy `M!AOS bu!uueld to J0109a1(]'6a9gs1 jeuunD Now that the elections are over, it's time to take your seat on the council and to meet the growing challenge of governing your city. Recognizing the tough job and serious responsibilities confronting you, the Govern- ment Training Service is offering a one -day Conference for Newly Elected Officials to ease the transition. The conference is a timely opportunity which will: • give you the knowledge and awareness of a coun- cil's powers and constraints; • suggest tips from experienced officials and man- agers on your responsibilities in personnel and labor relations, finance, and planning and zoning; • identify ways in which your city is linked with other governments, and discuss your role in maximizing these relationships to benefit your community; • gather your newly elected colleagues to exchange ideas. uaneJD V aayoJ!N `sawlOH Aawollv'sawloH sawer sp!dv8 uoo(] to Apo J0139a10 90ueu13 `AaueH GIA-1 sp!dea u000 to Al!(] 3uelun000v;aigo Pug ENOUV to A3!(] iauo!ssiwwo(] `ui1Nugj3 Ulna Aal!VV `ossegeM `woqueS'anaD lnuleM aoleJls!u!wpy APP 'we13 uor glosau IVY 10 AI!sJaA!un uo!3eo!unwwoo peads ;o luawpeda(] 401130(] p!Ae(] 0VV_1 `luap!saJd Pug 43nln(] to Al!(] aagwavy 1punoo `eAq 69vy :A1Inoe_q all to sjegweW CONFERENCE FOR NEWLY ELECTED OFFICIALS SATURDAY, JANUARY 28,1978 L'HOTEL SOFITEL, BLOOMINGTON PRESENTED BY GOVERNMENT TRAINING SERVICE IN COOPERATION WITH THE LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT TRAINING SERVICE The Government Training Service is a public, joint powers organization providing training, education and consulting services to public officials, employees, and employers in the state of Minnesota. Its members in- clude the League of Minnesota Cities, the Association of Minnesota Counties, the University of Minnesota, the School Boards Association, State Planning Agency, and the State Department of Personnel. UPCOMING * PROGRAMS The Government Training Service is planning a series of follow -up sessions for those officials who would like further information on the following areas of respon- sibility: Personnel and Labor Relations Budgeting and Finance Planning and Zoning SPECIAL KICKOFF PROGRAM FOR VETERAN AND NEWLY ELECTED OFFICIALS: `'HOW TO TAKE THE HOT AIR OUT OF POLITICS/ COMMUNICATION BETWEEN MALE AND FEMALE COLLEAGUES" Friday, January 27, 1978 ■ 7:00 p.m. ■ Sponsored by Women in City Government Elected officials today face numerous difficult deci- sions. Achieving the best results in any given situation is influenced by many factors. One of the most critical is the ability to communicate openly with colleagues about the issues. . This has never been an easy task. But recently, a new variable has been introduced into the process: More women are helping to make those decisions. Women and men elected officials can work together effectively. It requires some knowledge of communica- tion barriers and methods for change, plus some shared commitment. Led by Dorothy McGlaughlin and David Dotlich, this program offers insights and suggestions for developing a productive working relationship on the council (and enhancing group decision - making skills as an added bonus). The leaders come to this session highly qualified as associates in a firm which has pioneered the development of programs in male /female com- munication for business, industry and government. Why not invite a colleague or two for an evening of pre- sentations, small group discussion and sociability. ALL elected officials are welcome! Registration Fee: $5.00. Pre - registration requested by mailing the attached form. THE ARCHITECTURAL OFFICES, PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION TO: Mr. James Van Valkenburg Mayor, City of Edina FROM: Jack Ovick DATE: November 30, 1977 SUBJ: Fire at 4626 South France Avenue November 19, 1977 I would like to commend the speed with which the fire call was answered. Secondly, I would like to commend the first police officer answering the call who provided fire extinguishers and had the forethought to close off the door to the basement so that l helflames were contained in the lower level Iand damage to my upper contained. / I would also like to commend the efficient way.the volunteers organized their manpower and machinery and specifically laid out the hoses in order to extinguish the flames. Mr. Meyer, Fire Inspector, stayed around for an hour after the fire was out and helped me to take which could have started u from the that were still smouldering p again Two firemen came to my house at 9 :00 Saturday evening to gain access to the 4626 house to see that there wasn't any re- kindling. Thank you. An experience like this makes me aware that the tax paid to our city is well spent on performance as mentioned above. cc: Mr. Warner Hyde, City Manager Edina Public Safety (Fire and Police) MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55410 • TEL. 61'""'o- 5713 Melody Lane Edina, Minnesota 55436 December 7, 1978 Mayor James Van Valkenburg City of Edina 4.801 West 50th St. Edina, Minnesota Dear Mayor and Council Members: On behalf of all the interested parties I want to thank you for your interest and concern regarding the restoration and preservation of Melody Lake. Your proposed action for this spring indicates real response to the problems. Please feel free to contact us if we can be of help . to you. Sincerely, Lou Op an RESOLUTION APPROVING ASSIGNMENT OF SECURITIES IN LIEU OF BOND (FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF MINNEAPOLIS) BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, approve the assignment by its depository, the First National Bank of Minneapolis, Minnesota, of the following securities as good and sufficient collateral for the Public Funds of the City of Edina deposited at said depository: City of Bridgeport, Conn., General Public Improvement Bond Issue of 1966, Series A, 3.90 %, due 9/1/83, $220,000.00 City of Bridgeport, Conn., Public School Bond Issue of 1966, 3.90 %, due 9/1/83, $110,000.00 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 December 19, 1978, and as recorded in the minutes of said regular meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this 16th day of January, 1978. City Clerk sto 0 He t1sycass I",& G'+IL 1 C'Ull IQ, 11111 11 lu-- JLC1 %j%j -tL-F 16 January 1978 James Van Valkenburg Mayor City of Edina Dear Mayor: Jaycee Week has arrived for over one -half million Jaycees across our country. Here in Edina, we currently have 75 members and as usual are very involved in community activities. This month we have already had activities for -the senior citizens, the special childrens group, and arranged for scholarship funds for two Edina Students to attend the State Youth Leadership Seminar. Yet to come this month is our own membership meeting and the Distinguished Service Award & Bosses Night Dinner on Tuesday, the 31st of January. This letter is a request for you to consider honoring our organ- ization by proclaiming this Jaycee Week in Edina. Our membership would be very honored by such a proclamation. Sorry about the short notice of this request. Thank you for your time and consideration on this matter. Sincerely, ��-10 Thomas M. Gabrik President, Edina, Jaycees H- 944 -1368 B- 451 -0111 ° RESOLUTION OF CONGRATULATIONS TO EDINA EAST HIGH SCHOOL GYMNASTIC TEAM WHEREAS, following a season of intense competition, the Edina East High School Gymnastic Team has won the opportunity to participate in various gymnastic events; and WHEREAS, in these various post season meets, the Edina High School Gymnastic Team has won fourth place in the State Gymnastic Meet, first place in the Region IV Meet, and second place in the Lake Conference League; and WHEREAS, the Edina East High School Gymnastic Team scored the highest .number of points ever to be made in the history of Region IV Meets; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Edina City Council does hereby express its sincere congratulations to the members of the team; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution be spread upon the pages of the Minutes Book of the Edina City Council and that a suitable copy be presented to each member of the team. ADOPTED this 9th day of January, 1978. M E M O R A N D U M TO: Edina City Manager, K. Rosland and Edina Mayor, J. Van Valkenburg FROM: Bob Kojetin, Director of Edina Park and Recreation Department DATE: January 9th, 1978 SUBJECT: Resolution for the Edina East High School Gymnastic Team First Place Region IV Second Place Lake Conference School and Region team record - highest points scored in meet (136.07) Fourth Place in State meet I will receive additional information on the individual boys' accomplishments from Bob Hoecherl. B. K. plb �• � Z is b l'" � - ublic Schools Edina P Ed!na_N►est Seconda►-;, ti Schools g Valley View RoaiO" Edi Minnesota 5543 sr , Z� / ;- � etc,' c s_ ! 2 h LS —ih_C. -v P I �%'' -- /— - PLC / h— C �' y; .; `e e t,c e d �� = - -- 1` - 2 i 6C5ic, - SCr?rFN'�/ -Cc_Ej ✓ J 3C: +_._v? ilJO_ch_G�_. a /�� 7' Lh� c /c n - — �h cry i'hdrv�'J�2 � __�Ce � ,�r�ilhh,l,•�1. —� -- - -' - - -- - -- — _ P t UC J % _ �j�ic?1�tCKty - L -• -- 1 I / -� // d n - — - -' -- �• � Z is b l'" � - ublic Schools Edina P Ed!na_N►est Seconda►-;, ti Schools g Valley View RoaiO" Edi Minnesota 5543 sr , Z� – - - - -— - -- —- - -- —/ s s�le A, _ ST s J _id- LPG — -- 1� - -�/ /ems_- , , 1e �« - -- LcCjP..,-- -- -%V �S c 9.0 c 6,2' RESOLUTION OF CONGRATULATIONS TO EDINA EAST HIGH SCHOOL GYMNASTIC TEAM WHEREAS, following a season of intense competition, the Edina East High School Gymnastic Team,has won the opportunity to participate in various gymnastic events; and WHEREAS, in these various post season meets, the Edina East High School Gym- nastic Team has won fourth place in the State Gymnastic Meet, first place in the Region IV Meet, and second place in the Lake Conference League; and WHEREAS, the Edina East High School Gymnastic Team scored the highest number of points ever to be made in the history of Region IV Meets; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Edina City Council does hereby express its sincere congratulations to Kevin Crippa, Tom Cullen, Scott Dorn, Dave Flynn, Rocko Gammello, Clyde Getty, Jim Horowitz, Eric Jarchow, Kurt Jarchow, Steve Klos, John Kuenak, Ed Loomis, Brian Meeker, Chris Norgren, Matt O'Donoghue, Todd Roth, Rolf Steinkamp, Stewart Steinkamp and to Coaches Bob Koercherl, Rick Cossette and Mark Howell; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution be spread upon the pages of the Minutes Book of the Edina City Council and that an appropriate copy be presented to the team and to the coaches. ADOPTED this 9th day of.January, 1978. Mayor I