Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-06-07_COUNCIL MEETINGAGENDA EDINA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING JUNE 7, 1976 7:00 P.M. ROLLCALL MINUTES of May 17, 1976, approved as submitted or corrected by motion of , seconded by BICENTENNIAL COMMENDATION TO EDINA FROM PRESIDENT FORD I. PUBLIC HEARINGS ON ZONING MATTERS Action of Council by Ordinance. 4/5 favor- able rollcall vote to pass Second Reading. A. Second Reading 1. Ordinance No. 811 -A72 - Nelson Smith & Associates - Plat 71060, Parcel 5000 (4536 France Ave. S.) - R -1 Residential District to 0 -2 Office_ District 2. .Ordinance No. 811 -A74 - William Pearson - R -1 Residential District to R -2 Multiple Residence District - Generally located South of Vernon Avenue and West of Gleason Road 3. Ordinance No. 811 -A75 - Harliev Helle - R -1 Residential District to R -2 Multiple Residence District - Generally located South of Vernon Avenue and West of Gleason Road 4. Ordinance No. 811 -A76 - E. G. Thernell - R -1 Residential District to R -2 Multiple Residential District - N. 6' of Lot 2, Block 1, Killarney Shores II. AWARD OF BIDS Tabulations and Recommendations by City Manager. Action of Council by motion. A. Liquor Store Addition B. Water Treatment Chemicals C. Arden Park Shelter (Continued from 5/17/76) D. Public Improvements - SS -330 and Wm -301 (Continued from 5/17/76) (See IV -M) III. COMMUNICATIONS A. Edina American Legion Post 471 B. Petition - Transfer of On -Sale Beer License 1. Permanent Street Surfacing and Curb - Florence Lane IV. RECOMMENDATIONS AND REPORTS A. Planning Commission 1. Final Plat Approval A. Londonderry Replat - S- 75--17 (9/24/75) N. of Fabri -tek, E. of Lincoln Dr. b. Bri -Mar R.L.S. - S -76- 3'(3/31/76) S.E. corner 50th and Halifax Ave. 2. Set Hearing Dates a. Subdivisions 1) Gordon Schuster Registered Land Survey - Generally located South of Dewey Hill Road, East of Hyde Park, and West of Cahill Road S -76 -6 (6/2/76) 2) Dreis Addition - Generally located at the Southwest corner of View Lane and Vernon Avenue - S -76 -7 - (6/2/76) 3) Dalsin 1st Addition - Generally located at the Northeast corner of Laguna Drive and West Shore Drive - S -76 -8 (6/2/76) 4) Erickson Addition - Generally located South of W. 54th Street at Zenith Ave. - S -76 -11 (6/2/76) 5) Krahl's Mountain - Generally located South of Vernon Avenue and West of Arctic Way. S -76 -12 (6/2/76) b. Rezonings a) City of Edina - Lund's parking lot generally located at the Southeast corner of W. 50th Street and Halifax Avenue - C -2 and C -4 Commercial Districts to APD Automobile Parking District Z -76 -9 (6/2/76) c. City of Edina for a Flood Plain Permit for Arden Park Shelter Bldg. (6/2/76) B.• Traffic Safety Committee Minutes of June 2, 1976 (Lynmar Lane Traffic Report - Continued from 1/19/76) C. Storm Sewer Improvement No. St.S -150 Easements (Viking Hills) D. Suit - Irving J. Rynchek E. Set Hearing Dates - Appeals of Board of Appeals Decisions 1. Fountainwoods Apartments' 2. Richard Smith F. 100% Petition - 4911 Street Parking Lots (P -7 and P -8) June 7, 1976 Agenda Page Two F.(4)-Revenue Sharing G. Engineering Proposal for City Hall Garage H. Liquor Store Marketing Survey J. Appointment of City Representative for Veteran's Preference Hearing Panel K. Public Safety Management Consulting L. Appointment of Director of Public Safety M. Purchase of Watermain Easement - WM -301 N. Board of Review,Schedule 0. Suburban Rate Authority P. Summer Youth Employment - CETA Continuation V. ORDINANCES First Reading requires offering of ordinance only. 4/5 favorable. follcall vote if Second Reading should be waived. A. First Reading Ordinance No. 311 -A8 - Dog Licenses VI.. RESOLUTIONS A. Salary Resolutions - Fire Fighters' Cost of Living Adjustment B. Federal Heritage Preservation Funding VII. ANY OTHERS WHO DESIRE HEARING BEFORE COUNCIL VIII. FINANCE A. Purchase of Melody Lake Pumphouse Fencing B. Purchase of Sweeper Trailer ' C. Liquor Fund Reports as of 1/31/76/ 2/29/7.6, 3/31/76 D. Purchase of Bleachers - Park Department E. Purchase of light fixtures for Highland and Normandale parks F. Purchase of Chemicals G' Mill Pond Aquatic Weed Control H. Claims paid. Motion of seconded by and carried for payment of the following claims,as per.Pre -List: General Fund, $211,037.71; Park Fund, $7,078.50; Park Construction, $8,•345.70;.Swim- ming Pool, $126.23; Golf, $17,704.44; Arena, $7,037.97; Gun, $825.18,. Water, $18,329.46; Sewer. Fund, $2,131.12, Liquor Fund, $201,077.96; Construction, $405.87; IBR Fund, $936.05; Total, $475,036.18 EHLERS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS FIRST NATIONAL -SOO LINE CONCOURSE 507 MARQUETTE AVE. MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 339 -8291 (AREA CODE 612) June 1, 1976 File: Financial Consultants: Ehlers and Associates Please distribute to governing body members The first five months of 1976 have been good for munici- palities borrowing funds. Interest rates have been lower than those that prevailed all through 1975 and many com- munities were able to lower interest costs through ad- vance refundings while others financed new projects at relatively low interest costs. We aren't quite as opti- mistic about the balance of the year but recent sales have been highly competitive and underwriters report that bonds are moving although the upcoming calendar looks very busy. The current Dow Jones Index is 6.88 %, up from a 1976 low of 6.45 %. Dow -Jones Index 6.88% THE WALL STREET JOURNAL Monday, May 24, 1976 Those communities that have recently obtained a Moody's Investors Service, or Standard and Poor's bond rating are aware of the greatly increased emphasis on municipal financial con- trol in determining the quality of a credit. The experience and training of the local gov- ernment and finance officers, the quality and detail of financial statements are carefully scrutinized. Year -end balances are compared with those of preceding years. The philosophy followed by some localities that year -end balance should be near zero is taboo in the eyes of rating analysts. Some working capital should be carried over to enable the government to operate without short -term borrowing. Those municipalities that collect taxes and other revenues towards the end of a fiscal period should be carrying over larger amounts of capi- tal at the end of the fiscal year. What with legislative levy limits and cost controls, reversing a trend of diminishing year -end balances is quite difficult but, difficult or not, it will have to be accomplished if a bond rating is to be maintained or upgraded. Federal revenue sharing is scheduled to expire December 31, but many are of the opinion that Congress will continue it. Many municipal officials are commenting on how property taxes would increase if federal revenue sharing were not continued. Fortunately, many municipali- ties have been using revenue sharing funds for capital outlay and other one -time expenditures. Presumably, with that policy, discontinuance of revenue sharing would not immediately increase property taxes. However, it seems rather evident that if federal revenue sharing continues, municipalities will become so dependent upon this source of nourishment that later discontin- uance would be extremely difficult. It is rather interesting that local governments are in- creasingly expected to have balanced budgets when the federal government, sharing revenues, is running huge deficits. Unpopularity of bond issues seems to be spreading. Previously school issues carried the brunt of the voter turndowns, but the trend lately is that bonds for almost any purpose are meeting greater resistance. An apparent victim of this anti -bond trend was the proposed Wisconsin Constitution Amendment which would have increased general obligation borrowing for Wisconsin cities and villages from 5% to 10% of their full taxable value. Defeat of that referendum assures a continuation of back door revenue and assessment financing for Wiscon- sin municipalities. We hope to see you at one of the following conventions and conferences: Minnesota League of Municipalities Convention in Duluth -- June 9 -11; Wisconsin Clerks and Finance Officers Conference in Oconomowoc -- June 15 -17, and Minnesota Municipal Utilities Association meet- ing at Arrowwood Resort on June 20 -22. Very truly yours, ,EHLERS AND ASS IATES, INC. Seega wanson, Jr. P.S. -- Bob sends his regards. SUMMARY OF AREA BOND SALES Dow Jones 20 Year Net Bond Municipality Sale Date Type of Bonds Amount Maturity Index Rate Rating Norman County, MN 3/3/76 G.O. State Aid Road 325M 77/84 7.07% 5.09% A LeSeur, MN 3/8/76 Drainage Ditch 305M 78/96 7.16% 5.76% N/R New Brighton, MN 3/9/76 Permanent Improvement 660M 77/93 7.16% 5.77% A -1 Rice City, MN 3/23/76 State Aid Road 750M 77/83 6.97% 4.65% A Dakota County Area ISO 917 3/23/76 Building Unlimited Tax 5,355M 78/89 6.97% 5.57% A Alexandria Lake Area, MN 3/29/76 G.O. Dist. Disposal 3,800M 79/98 6.73% 6.18% A Steele County, MN 4/1/16 Nursing Home Revenue 350M 77/96 6.73% 6.51% N/R Minnetrista, MN 4/5/76 Refunding Improvement 3,895M 77/95 6.73% 6.47% Baa Bloomington I.S.D. 271 4/6/76 Cert. of Indebtedness 4,000M 77 6.73% 3.68% N/R Mpls, MN 4/6/76 Redevelopment Bonds 850M 78/92 6.73% 5.09% Aaa Mpls, MN 4/6/76 Housing Rehabilitation 2,900M 77/96 6.73% 5.19% Aaa Mpls, MN 4/6/76 Water Works- Various Purpose 13,000M 77/86 6.73% 4.44% Aaa Dassel /Cokato I.S.D. #466 4/7/76 Refunding School Building 2,450M 77/88 6.73% 5.37% A Yellow Medicine ISO #891 4/8/76 School Building 500M 79/90 6.73% 5.40% A Polk, MN 4/8/16 G.O. Water System 1,355M 79 6.73% 3.99% N/R Marshall, MN 4/8/76 Water System 995M 79 6.73% 4.45% N/R Waseca, I.S.D. #829, MN 4/8/76 Refunding 1,280M 77/92 6.73% 5.55% A -1 Wrenshall I.S.D. #100,MN 4/12/76 Refunding 1,020M 78/93 6.73% 6.03% A Columbia Heights, MN 4/12/76 Capital Improvement 1,020M 77/83 6.73% 4.41% A -1 Inver Grove Heights, MN 4/12/76 General Improvement Series E 1,225M 77/90 6.73% 5.31% A Shakopee I.S.D. #720, MN 4/12/76 Tax Anticipation 350M 77 6.73% 3.69% N/R Thief River Falls, MN 4/13/76 G.O. Improvement 390M 77/88 6.73% 5.32% Baa -1 Shoreview, MN 4/19/76 G.O. Improvement 895M 77/82 6.45% 5.77% N/R Lake Elmo, MN 4/20/76 G.O. Refunding 739M 76/92 6.45% 5.95% Baa -1 Buhl, MN 4/20/76 School Building 300M 79/92 6.45% 6.47% Baa St. Paul I.S.D. 625, MN 4/20/76 G.O. Unlimited Tax 6,400M 77/82 6.45% 4.29% Aa Madison, MN 4/20/76 Nursing Home 1,660M 79/94 6.45% 5.97% A Minn. Higher Ed. Facil. 4/20/76 First Mortgage Revenue 800M 77/94 6.45% 6.29% Baa -1 Superior San. Dist., MN 4/21/76 G.O. Revenue 4,000M 79/96 6.45% 5.88% A -1 Maplewood, MN 4/22/76 G.O. Improvement 1,990M 79/98 6.45% 6.00% N/R Rosemount, MN 4/26/76 G.O. Improvement 950M 78/96 6.45% 5.93% A North Suburban Hospital 4/27/76 G.O. Refunding 8,070M 77/92 6.45% 5.76% A -1 Clarissa, MN 4/27/76 G.O. Revenue Nursing Home 1,425M 79/96 6.45% 7.43% N/R Lakeville, MN 5/3/76 Fire Hall & Equipment 55M 78/87 6.45% 5.50% Baa -1 Halstad, MN 5/3/76 G.O. Nursing Home 1,170M 79/98 6.45% 6.93% A United Hospital Dist, MN 5/4/76 G.O. Medical Facility 4,75OM 78/98 6.45% 6.94% Baa -1 New Hope, MN 5/10/76 G.O. Refunding 1,270M 77/94 6.59% 5.99% A Northfield, MN 5/10/76 Tax Increment 265M 79/91 6.59% 5.69% A Prior Lake, MN 5/10/76 G.O. Park Bonds 280M 78/00 6.59% 6.85% Baa Minnetonka, MN 5/10/76 G.O. Improvement 12,000M 78/93 6.59% 6.03% A Empire, MN 5/11/76 G.O. Improvement 140M 78/91 6.59% 5.87% Baa Goodview, MN 5/13/76 G.O. Water Revenue 55M 77/82 6.59% 5.33% N/R Medford, MN 5/17/76 G.O. Water Revenue 160M 78/92 6.78% 6.33% N/R Dilworth, MN 5/18/76 G.O. Improvement 145M 79/92 6.78% 6.35% N/R Eagan, MN 5/18/76 Refunding 3,590M 77/93 6.78% 5.99% Baa -1 WISCONSIN Merrill, WI 2/10/76 Unlimited Tax Refunding 3,43OM 77/88 6.83% 5.50% A Manitowoc Co., WI 2/18/76 County Building 1,800M 77/86 6.97% 5.11% Aa Menomonie, WI 3/10/76 Refunding Unlimited Tax 3,500M 76/91 7.16% 5.79% A Wauwatosa, WI 3/16/76 Promissory Notes 780M 77/84 7.06% 4.83% Aa Oshkosh, WI 3/18/76 Corporate Purchase Tax 1,750M 77/91 7.06% 5.39% Aa Chippewa Falls, WI 3/23/76 Promissory Notes 1,000M 77/86 6.97% 5.19% N/R Greenfield, WI 3/24/76 G.O. Corporate Purpose 1,580M 78/91 6.97% 5.72% Aa Milwaukee, WI 3/24/76 Promissory Notes 8,500M 77/86 6.97% 4.83% Aa Greendale C.S.D., WI 3/24/76 Promissory Notes 300M 83/85 6.97% 5.11% A -1 Richland, WI 4/5/76 G.O. Corporate Purpose 800M 77/87 6.73% 5.11% A De Pere, WI 4/7/76 School Building 5,300M 77/90 6.73% 5.43% A -1 New Lisbon, WI 4/7/76 Promissory Notes 150M 77/86 6.73% 5.30% A Appleton, WI 4/1/76 Sewer System Mortgage 4,700M 79/95 6.73% 5.90% A Green Bay, WI 4/7/76 Corporate Purpose 2,630M 77/87 6.73% 4.66% A -1 Milwaukee Co., WI 4/13/76 Metro Sewer & Corp. Purpose 11,795M 77/91 6.73% 4.79% Aaa New Berlin, WI 4/13/76 Corporate Purpose Unlimited 5,900M 76/95 6.73% 5.44% A Kaukauna, WI 4/13/76 Electric System Mortgage 1,000M 77/86 6.73% 5.22% A -1 Hartland, WI 4/21/76 Corporate Purpose 690M 78/87 6.45% 5.50% Baa Algoma et.al., JSD 1, WI 4/21/76 G.O. Promissory Notes 400M 77/85 6.45% 5.01% Baa -1 JSD 1, Howard - Suamico, WI 5/10/76 School Building 1,700M 78/90 6.59% 5.85% A Onalaska, WI 5/11/76 Promissory Notes 575M 77/85 6.59% 5.13% A Port Wing SO, WI 5/13/76 School Building 800M 79/89 6.59% 6.24% N/. Trempleau County, WI 5/17/76 G.O. Hospital Bonds 1,300M 78/85 6.78% 5.22% A -1 SOUTH DAKOTA SO Building Authority, SO 3/23/76 Series 1976 Revenue 2,000M 77/01 6.97% 6.74% A -1 NORTH DAKOTA Hankinson PSD #8, NO 5/12/76 School Building Bonds 325M 78/90 6.59% 5.69% A IOWA Indianola, IA 3/2/76 Electric Revenue Bonds 3,300M 79/90 7.07% 6.22% A Cedar Rapids, IA 3/3/76 Essential Corporate Unlim. 7,000M 77/95 7.07% 5.54% Aaa Underwood, IA 3/24/76 School Building 1,750M 77/96 6.97% 6.03% A Black Hawk County, IA 4/12/76 County Care Facility 2,750M 77/87 6.73% 4.66% Aa Mr. Warren Hyde City Manager Edina, Minnesota Dear Warren: We would like person to fill the for the city. May 159 1976 to give you our recommendation on a po8itioii of public safety director Our ad hoc committee of three met in November to formulate an approximate job description for this position which we consider secondary only to the city. manager's. We set up criteria upon which to judge uni- formly each candidate and drew up a list of specific questions to ask each. Attached is a sample of our applicant rating form which we each.filled out independ- ently after reviewing written material submitted and conducting a personal interview. We gave each of ten candidates a composite score, and in some cases checked. further references. We also gave special weight to applicants presently serving the city, since we felt it is important to promote from within wherever possible. Edina is very fortunate to have a number of well — qualified men already on its public safety staffs, and we appreciate the fine cooperation shown by all the staff. One of these men emerged as being extremely well —liked by the rest of the employees, in addition to having excellent personal attributes and a good educational background. He has outstanding job performance and command experience. He seems to be a chaL1 -cnge— oriented, budget— conscious man ,rho possesses a rare combinatimn..of friendliness and firmnees^vith a real sensitivity to the needs of the community. Consequently, we feel that Robert J.. Buresh, our present fire chief, would make a fine public safety director, if he. will accept the position. We also feel strongly that a management study of the police, fire, and building inspection departments as recommended by you could be a great tool to Buresh in implementing a more efficient administration. Furthermore, Hyde --page 2 it is our opinion that the police and fire departments need a thorough evaluation with emphasis on encouraging and developing command experience and career development within the departments. We hope you will convey our enthusiasm for the man and the study to the city council., Sincerely, Helge Thomsen Roy Ricliardson Virginia Shaw CITY OF EDINA As at March 31, 1976 ASSETS CURRENT ASSETS: Cash: Demand Deposits $323,198.79 Working Fund 39500.00 $ 326,698.79 Investments 102,954.86 Due from Other Funds 174.75 Loan'to Other Funds 415,000.00 Inventory: Liquor $473,831.79 Wine 149,625.90 Beer and.Mix .19,927.70 643,385.39 Prepaid Expenses: Unexpired Insurance $ 10,967.48 Supplies Inventory 400.00 11,367.48 TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS $1,499,581.27 FIXED ASSETS AT COST Land Land Improvements Buildings Furniture and Fixtures Leasehold Improvements Less: Allowance for Depreciation and Amortization CURRENT LIABILITIES: Trade Accounts Payable Accrued Payroll SURPLUS: Invested in Fixed Assets Unappropriated $151,448.85 $ 21,803.72 455,911.08 149,325.01 3,035.55 $630,075.36 194,672.75 435,402.61 586,851.46 TOTAL ASSETS $2,086,432.73 LIABILITIES AND SURPLUS $ 67,235.67 8,104.51 $ 75,340.18 $ 586,851.46 1,424,241.09 2,011,092.55 TOTAL LIABILITIES AND SURPLUS $2,086,432.73 s OPERATING EXPENSES ScCing OveAccd Administrative TOTAL OPERATI EXPENSE NET OPEP ;Tid PROFIT OTHER INCOME: Cosh Discount Cash over or under Income an inver Other NET INCOM! $ 13,468.27 $ 15,970.71 2,860.84 5,915.88 $ 12,573.60 $ 42,012.58 $ 16,096.02 $ 15,398.36 $ 12,450.39 $ 4,800.26 13,576.98 3,093.81 6,812.24 4,854.29 43,944.77 $ 2,627.75* $ 14,760.34 232.97* 572.35 $ 123.21.$ 896.36* 54.03* 1,932.19* 1,183.36* 7.956.21 37,987.90* $ 19865.18 $ 4,086.18 $ 2,780.60 $ 8,731.96 $ 1,129.78 $ LIQUOR DISPENSARY FUND 1,327.09 $ 4,408.56 $ 735.40 $ 2,134.49 $ 1,453.51 $ 4,323.40 11.07 15.83* 5.39.* COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF INI;OME AND EXPENSE ' 35.26* 57.40 3.84 17.70 •19.43 62.79* 25.66* .60* 6.42% 8.09% CITY OF EDIPIA 1.71 1.65 4,695.00 4,695.00* .46 ' 4,695.00* 1,873.75 2,202.29 Three Months Ending March 31, 1976 and March 31, 1975 309.57 1,564.18 2P202.29 1,649.81 5,416.28 $ 3,738 33 $ 6,272 64 $ 4,425 02 $ 14,435 99 $ 6,116,05 $ 1,916.43 $ 1,384.49 $ 9,416_.97 $ 2,377.72* ' INCREASE•DECREASE* ' 5,019.02 c 4aa_ns s 94.065.91 S 15.910.07 $ 53.465.03 $ 22,256.16 $ 46,357.83_$__17,819.92 $ 107% $18,767.11* $12,291.92 *$ 1,909.85 *$ 32,968.88* 1q76 Grandview ' Tota] 50th St. Ynv -HAle - . frandview Total -" '50th St. • Yorkdale CrandView Total 0 4 York�lirla ALES: $122,270.21 $220,308.93 $169,601.40 $ 512,180.54 $167,152.91 $252,878.94 $163,567.53 $ 583,599.38 $44,882.70* $32,570.01 *$ 6,033.87 $ 71,418.84* Liquor 37,798.10 82,398.62 56,671.47 176,868.19 54,000.30 89,629.94 51,368.43 194,998.67 16,202.20* 7,231.32* 5,303.04 18,130.48* Wine 35,202.49 63,495.14 42,741.05 141,438.68 54,343.56 75,949.61 40,539.81 170,832.98 19,141.07* 12,454.47* 2,201.24 29,394.30* deer 3,178.98 6,726.59 4,465.95 14,371.52 4,881.98 7,702.86 4,859.46 17,444.30 1,703.00* 976.27* 393.51* '3,07 .7 Mix and Miuertaneoy. $198,449.78 $372,929.28 $273,479.87 $ 844,858.93 $280,378.75 $426,161.35 $260,335.23 $ 966,875.33 $81,928.97* $53,232.07*$13,144.64 $122,016.40* Less bottle refunds 3,671.07 5,968.30 4,695.55 14,334.92 4,616.18 6,464.03 4,241.26 15,321.47 945.11* 495.73* 454.29 986.55* . NET SALES J194,778.71 $366,960.98 $268,784.32 $ 830,524.01 $275,762.57 $419,697.32 $256,093.97 $ 951,553.86-.-$80,983.86* $52,736.34*$12,690.35 $121,029.85* 'CST OF SALES: Inventory - January $172,534.05 $214,596.83 $219,022.28 $ 606,153.16 $191,471.96 $210,403.16 $218,397.83 $ 620,272.95 $18,937.91* $ 4,193.67 $ 624.45 $ 14,11.9.79* Purchases 174,188 61 310,248.65 250,604.83 735,042.09_ 241,453.47 371,783.18 235,228.63 848,465.28 67,264.86* 61,534.53* 15,376.20. 113,324.19* $346,722.66 $524,845.48 $469,627.11 $1,341,195.25 $432,925.43 $582,186.34 $453,626.46 $1,468,738.23 $86,202.77* $57,340.86*$16,000.65 $127,542.98* Inventory- Mch.31 180,566.17 220,742.02 242,077.20 643,385.39 202,496.64 239 857.55 240,691.57 683,045.76 21,930.47* 19,115.53* 1,385.63 39,660.37* $166,156.49 $304,103.46 $227,549.91 $ 697,809.86 $230.428.79 $342,328.79 $212,934.89 $ 785,692.47 64,272.30* $38,225.33*$149615.02 87,8 2.61* GROSS PROF $ 28,622,22 $ 62,857.52 $ 41,234.41 $ 132,714.15 $ 45,333.78 $ 77,368.53 $ 43,159.08 $ 165,861.39 $16,711.56* $14,511.01 *$ 1,924.67 *$ 33,147.24* s OPERATING EXPENSES ScCing OveAccd Administrative TOTAL OPERATI EXPENSE NET OPEP ;Tid PROFIT OTHER INCOME: Cosh Discount Cash over or under Income an inver Other NET INCOM! $ 13,468.27 $ 15,970.71 2,860.84 5,915.88 $ 12,573.60 $ 42,012.58 $ 16,096.02 $ 15,398.36 $ 12,450.39 $ 4,800.26 13,576.98 3,093.81 6,812.24 4,854.29 43,944.77 $ 2,627.75* $ 14,760.34 232.97* 572.35 $ 123.21.$ 896.36* 54.03* 1,932.19* 1,183.36* 7.956.21 37,987.90* $ 19865.18 $ 4,086.18 $ 2,780.60 $ 8,731.96 $ 1,129.78 $ 1,951.69 $ 1,327.09 $ 4,408.56 $ 735.40 $ 2,134.49 $ 1,453.51 $ 4,323.40 11.07 15.83* 5.39.* 21.82* 18.30* 35.26* 57.40 3.84 17.70 •19.43 62.79* 25.66* .60* 6.42% 8.09% Other income 4,695.00 1.71 1.65 4,695.00 4,695.00* .46 .54 4,695.00* 1,873.75 2,202.29 1,649.81 5,725.85 309:57 309.57 1,564.18 2P202.29 1,649.81 5,416.28 $ 3,738 33 $ 6,272 64 $ 4,425 02 $ 14,435 99 $ 6,116,05 $ 1,916.43 $ 1,384.49 $ 9,416_.97 $ 2,377.72* $ 4,356.21 $ 3,040.53 $ 5,019.02 c 4aa_ns s 94.065.91 S 15.910.07 $ 53.465.03 $ 22,256.16 $ 46,357.83_$__17,819.92 $ 86,433.91 $18,767.11* $12,291.92 *$ 1,909.85 *$ 32,968.88* PERCENT 70 NET SALES:. 14.69% 17.13% 15.34% 15.98% 16.44% 18.43% 16.85% 17.43% Gress profit Operating expenses 14.82 9.56 11.07 11.28 10.59 7.85 10.4_3 9.34 Operating profit .13*°l 7.57% 4.27% 4.70% 5.85% 10.58% 6.42% 8.09% Other income 1.92 1.71 1.65 1.74 2.22 .46 .54 .99 N`T INCOME 1.79% 9.28% 5.92% 6.44% 8.07% 11.047 6.96% 9.08% .1 a m FIXED ASSETS AT COST: $ 3569328.58 3,500.00 $ 359,828.58 102,954.86 174.75 415,000.00 $ 444,126.62 131,643.24 20,018.17 595,788.03 $ 1 1,482.48 400.00 1,882.48 $1,475,628.70 Land $ 151,448.85 Land Improvements $ 21,803.72 Buildings 455,911.08 Furniture and Fixtures 149,325.01 Leasehold Improvements 3,035.55 $630,075.36 Less: Allowance for Depreciation and Amortization 192,237.75 437,837.61 589,286.46 TOTAL ASSETS $2,064,915.16 CURRENT LIABILITIES: Trade Accounts Payable Accrued Payroll SURPLUS: Invested in Fixed Assets Unappropriated LIABILITIES AND SURPLUS $ 66,180.21 4,141.59 $ 70,321.80 589,286.46 1,405,306.90 1,994,593.36 TOTAL LIABILITIES AND SURPLUS $2,064,915.16 LIQUOR FUND BALANCE SHEET CITY OF EDINA As at February 29, 1976 ASSETS CURRENT ASSETS: Cash: Demand Deposits Working Fund Investments Due from Other Funds Loan To Other Funds Inventory: Liquor Wine Beer and Mix Prepaid Expenses: Unexpired Insurance Supplies Inventory TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS FIXED ASSETS AT COST: $ 3569328.58 3,500.00 $ 359,828.58 102,954.86 174.75 415,000.00 $ 444,126.62 131,643.24 20,018.17 595,788.03 $ 1 1,482.48 400.00 1,882.48 $1,475,628.70 Land $ 151,448.85 Land Improvements $ 21,803.72 Buildings 455,911.08 Furniture and Fixtures 149,325.01 Leasehold Improvements 3,035.55 $630,075.36 Less: Allowance for Depreciation and Amortization 192,237.75 437,837.61 589,286.46 TOTAL ASSETS $2,064,915.16 CURRENT LIABILITIES: Trade Accounts Payable Accrued Payroll SURPLUS: Invested in Fixed Assets Unappropriated LIABILITIES AND SURPLUS $ 66,180.21 4,141.59 $ 70,321.80 589,286.46 1,405,306.90 1,994,593.36 TOTAL LIABILITIES AND SURPLUS $2,064,915.16 LIQUOR DISPENSARY FUND I. COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF INCOME AND EXPENSE CITY OF EDINA Two Months Ending February 29, 1976 and February 28, 1975 INCRUSE•DECREJISE0 1976 Or York�tAlp Grandview ' Total 50th St. Yorkdele Grandview Total %50th St. Yorkdale Grandview Total J+LES= $ 79,589.97 $144,688.73 $113,096.59 $ 337,375.29 $107,625.24 $159,918.61 $104,417.73 $ 371,961.58 $ 28,035.27* $15,229.88 *$ 8,678.86 $ 34,586.29* Liquor 25,280.59 54,086.11 37,972.83 117,339.54 34,314.45 54,637.77 319815.20 120,767.42 9,033.86* 551.65* 6,157.63 3,427.88* Wine 22,944.93 40,729.30 27,620.98 91,295.21 32,997.54 47,016.98 25,206.87 105,221.39 10,052.61* 6,287.68* 2,414.11 139926.18* leer 2,106 64 4,316 19 2,978 65 9,401.48 3,037.49 4,690.97 _3,022.28 10,750.74 930.85* 374.78* 43.63* 19349.26* Mix and Miseettaneov't $129,922.13 $243,820.34 $181,669.05 $ 555,411.52 $177,974.72 $266,264.33 $164,462.08 $ 608,701.13 $ 48,052.59* $22,443.99 *$17,206.97 $ 53,289.61* Less bottle refunds 2,452.41 3,831.01 3,145 52 9,428 94 2,952.62 4,101.67 2,693.34 9,747.63 500.21* 270.66* 452.18 318.69* NET SALES $127,469.72 $239,989.33 $178,523.53 $ 545,982.58 $175,022.10 $262,162.66 $161,768.74 $ 598,953.50 $ 47,552.38* $22,173.33 *$16,754.79 $ 529970.92* CCST OF SALES: Inventory - January 1 $172,534.05 $214,596.83 $219,022.28 $ 606,153.16 $191,471.96 $210,403.16 $218,397.83 $ 620,272.95 $ 18,937.91* $ 4,193.67 $ 624.45 $ 14,119.79* Purchases 98,487 71 _194,009.49 155,756.75 448,253.95 180,388.13 263,975.49 166,245.75 610,609.37 81,900.42* 69,966.00* 10,489.00 162.355.42* $271,021.76 $408,606.32 $374,779.03 $1,054,407.11 $371,860.09 $474,378.65 $384,643.58 $1,230,882.32 $100,838.33* $65,772.33 *$ 9,864.55*$176,475.21* inventory- Feb.28 162,321 29 209,839 22 223,627 52 595,788.03 225,576.09 260,229.27 250,021.18 _735,826.54 63,254.80* 50,390.05* 26,393.66* 140,038.51* $1089700.47_$198.767.10 $151,151.51 $ 458,619.08 $146,284.00 $214,149.38 $134,622.40 $ 495,055.78_$ 37,583.53* $15,382.28*$16,529.11 $ 36,436.70* GROSS PRORt $18,769.25 $ 41,222.23 $ 27,372.02 $ 87,363.50 $ 28,738.10 $ 48,013.28 $ 27,146.34 $ 103,897.72 $ 9,968.85* $ 6,791.05 $ 225.68 $ 16,534.22* I OPERATING EXPENSES $ Selling Overhead Administrative TOTAL OPERATI $ EXPENSE NET OrER:.T.gd $ PROFIT OTHER INCOME: Cash Discouat Cash over or under Income on inve•. Other NET INCOM! 9,252.71 $ 10,681.93 $ 8,733.59 $ 28,668.23 $ 9,537.22 $ 8,689.18 $ 6,596.50 $ 24,822.90 $ 284.51* $ 1,992.75 $ 2,137.091 3,845.33 2,053.10 3,873.06 3,341.92 9,268.08 2,190.97 4,832.55 3,288.76 10,312.28 137.87* 959.49* 53.16 1,044.20* 7,984.43 8,058.66 7,661.83 23,704.92 7,943.87 8,608.57 7.463.86 24,016.30 40.56 _ 549.91* 197.97 311.38_* 9,290.24 $ 22,613.65 _$_19,737.34 $ 61,641.23 $ 19,672.06 $ 22,130.30 $ 17,349.12 59,151.48 $ 381.82* $ 483.35 $ 2,388.22 $ 2,489.75 520.99*$ 18,608.58 $ 7,634.68 $ 25,722.27 $ 9,066.04 $ 25,882.98 $ 9,797.22 $ 44,746.24 $ 9,587.03* $ 7,274.40 *$ 2,162.54 *$ 19,023.97* 964.63 2,875.24 5.24* 12.35* 1,749.07 38.02 5,588.94 20.43 841.84 10.56 3,130.00 1,406.49 980.27 31.13* 10.60 3,228.60 9.97* 3,130.00 PERCENT TO NET SALES:. 14.72% 17.18% 15.33% 16.00% 16.43% 18.319. 16.787 17.357 Grass profit Operating erpense� 15.13 9.42 11.06 11.29 11.25 8.44 10.72 9.88 Operating profit .41 %* 7.75% 4.27% 4.71% 5.18% 9.87% 6.06% 7.477 Other inccme 2.15 2.11 1.93 2.06 2.38 .52 .61 1.09 NET INCOME 1.74% 9.86% 6.20% 6.777 7.56% 10.39% 6.47% . 8.56% 122.79 1,468.75 768.80 15.80* 18.78 27.42 3,130.00* 2,360.34 30.40 3,130.00* 5.459.68 . Ir 13.55* I 1 LIQUOR FUND BALANCE SHEET CITY OF EDINA. As at January.31, 1976 ASSETS CURRENT ASSETS: Cash: Demand Deposits Working Fund Investments Due from Other Funds Loan To Other Funds Inventory: Liquor Wine Beer and Mix Prepaid Expenses: Unexpired Insurance Supplies Inventory TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS FIXED ASSETS AT COST: $ 339,468.45 3,500.00 $ 342,968.45 102,954.86 .174.75 415,000.00. $ 454,077.57 140,529.74 19,525.95 614,133.26 $ 1,932.48 400.00 2,332.48 $1,477,563.80 Land $ 151,448.85 Land Improvements $ 21,803.72 Buildings 455,911.08 Furniture and Fixtures 149,325.01 Leasehold Improvements 3,035.55 $630,075.36 Less: allowance for Depreciation and Amortization 189,802.25 440,272.61 591,721.46 TOTAL ASSETS $2,069,285:26 LIABILITIES AND SURPLUS CURRENT LIABILITIES: Trade Accounts Payable. $ 84,247.79 Accrued Payroll 4,763.74 $ 89,011.53 SURPLUS: Invested in Fixed Assets $ 591,721.46 Unappropriated 1,388,552,27 1,980,273.73 TOTAL LIABILITIES AND SURPLUS $2,069,285.26 OPERATING EX°ENSES: Seifing $ Orcrhad Administrative TOTAL OPERATI EXPE!:S- NET OPERAT!Nry PROFIT $ 0TH "R INC04tE 5,127 $ 6,208. $ 4,895 LIQUOR DISPENSAR i( FUND $ 3,776 $ 3,890 $ 2,670 $ 10,337 $ 1,350 $ 2,318 766 2,243 1,610 4,620 1 674 1,639 1,572 COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF INCOME AND EXPENSE 3,258 3,201 9,761 3,842 3,216 101,545 r" 9.194 $ 11.709 $ 9,706 _$ 30,610 CITY OF ED NA $ 7,458 $ 24,767 $ 1;256 $ 2,339 2,275 $ $ 3 3,322 $ $ 2,550 $ $ 8,147 $ $ 2,220 $ $ 781 $ $ 550 $ $ 3,551 One Month Ending January 31, 1976 and January 31, 1975 $ 8,686 $ $ 15,359 $ $ 6,580 $ $ 30 6Z6 1976 1975 INCREASE- DECREASE* 50th St. Yorkdole- Grandview Total 50th St. YOrkd Ile Grandview Total 50th St. Yorkdale Grandview Total SALES: Liquor $ 40,807 $ 74,513 $ 59,551 $174,871 $ 54,341 '$ 82,162 $ 52,454 $188,957 $13,534* $ 7,649* $ 7,096 $ 14,086* Wire 12,942 28,028 19,696 60,666 16,769 26,493 15,637 58,898 3,826* 1,535 4,060 1,768 Ever 12,183 20,599 14,556 47,338 16,231 23,364 12,446 52,041 4,048* 2,765* 2,110 4,703* Mix and Miscellaneous 1098 2,159 1,527 4,784 1,599 2,313 1,491 5,403 501* 154* 36 619* $ 67,030 $125,299 $ 95,330 $287,659 $ 88,940 $134,332 $ 82,028 $305,299 $21,909* $ 9.033* $13,302 $ 17,639* refunds Less bottle r 12269 1,977 1,687 4,932 1,469 2,124 1,_3.51 _ 4,943 •,2n0 * • 148* 336 10 herefuns $ 65,761 $123,322 $ 93,643 $282,727 $ 87,471 $132,208 $ 80,677 $300,356 $21,709* $ 8,885* $12,966 $ 17,629* COST OF SALES: lnvcnto.r- lanucry,%72,534 $214,597 $219,022 $606,153 $191,472 $210,403 $218,298 $620,273 $18,938* $ 4,194 $ 624 $ 14,120* Furchases 57,429 106,474 81,694 245,597 105,013 153,663 98,749 _ 357,425 _ 47,585* 47,188* 17,055* 111,828* $229,962 $321,07.1 $300,716 $851,750 $296,485 $364,066 $317,147 $977,698 $66,523* $42,994* $16,431* $125,948* invenfo 173,863 �`an.31 218,988 221,281 614,133 223,418 255,807 249,959 729,183 49,556* 36,817* 28,677* 115,650* 56,099 102,083 79,435 $237,617 73,067 $108,259 $ 67,188 $248,515 $16,967* $ 6,177* $12,244 $ 10,898* GROSS PROF$F 9,662 $ 21,239 $ 14,208 $ 45,109 14,404 $ 23,948 $ 13,488 $ 51,841 4,742* $ 2,709* 719 $ 6,732* OPERATING EX°ENSES: Seifing $ Orcrhad Administrative TOTAL OPERATI EXPE!:S- NET OPERAT!Nry PROFIT $ 0TH "R INC04tE 5,127 $ 6,208. $ 4,895 $ 16,229 $ 3,776 $ 3,890 $ 2,670 $ 10,337 $ 1,350 $ 2,318 766 2,243 1,610 4,620 1 674 1,639 1,572 3,885 .92 .604 . 3,301 3,258 3,201 9,761 3,842 3,216 101,545 186* 583* 9.194 $ 11.709 $ 9,706 _$ 30,610 $ 7,938 $ 9,371 $ 7,458 $ 24,767 $ 1;256 $ 2,339 467 $ 9,530 $ 4,502 $ 14,499 $ 6,466 $ 14,577 $ 6,030 $ 27,074 $ 5,998* $ 5,048* Cash Disc�:nt $ 554 $ $ 1 1,122 $ $ 892 $ $ 2,569 $ $ 543 $ $ 814 $ $ 545 $ $ 1,903 Cash ov =r or under 3 3* 8 8 5 5 7 7 3 33* 5 5 2 21* !nc3:r.e on investmcr's 1 1,565 1 1,565 O -LCr 1,721 $ $ 2 2,202 $ $ 1,650 $ $ 5,573 $ $ 105 1 105 2,275 $ $ 3 3,322 $ $ 2,550 $ $ 8,147 $ $ 2,220 $ $ 781 $ $ 550 $ $ 3,551 NET INC01a4$ 2 $ 1 12,852 $ $ 7,051 $ $ 22,646 $ $ 8,686 $ $ 15,359 $ $ 6,580 $ $ 30 6Z6 $ 11 $ 308 7* 31, 1,565* 1,615 29202 $ 54 2, 541 $ 5.944* $ 2.507' $ 2,225 38 15* $ 2,248 $ 1,529* $ 348 3 1,650 2,001 471 $ 5,893 735 784* $ 5.844 $ 12,575* $ 667 26 1,565* $ 5,468 $ 4,596 S 7.980 *� MEMORANDUM June 4, 1976 MEMO TO: Mayor Van Valkenburg Council Members FROM: Ken Rosland, Director Park and Recreation Department SUBJECT: Purchase of Bleachers Bleachers _which were to be placed at the Braemar Baseball Complex were to be ten row bleachers. Due to the small area, bids were taken on five row elevated bleachers to get height. There is only one company that bid five row elevated bleachers. These five row bleachers also have hand rails and back railing for safety purposes which accounts for the added expense. Below are the bid quotations from two companies regarding regular bleachers nd also the bid for the five row elevated bleachers. I. Miracle Equipment - $690.00 per bleacher (Only supplier of the five row elevated Bleacher) for a total of $4,140.00 2. Stadiums-Unlimited - $485.00 per bleacher for a total of $2,910.00 3. Hamel and Associates, Inc. - $575.10 per bleacher for a total of $3,450.60. Recommend awarding the bid to Miracle Equipment for six 5 row elevated bleachers for a total of $4,140.00. M E M O R A N D U M June 7, 1976 MEMO TO: Mayor Van Valkenburg Council Members FROM_: _Ken Ros Land, Director -- Park and Recreation Department SUBJECT: PURCHASE OF LIGHT FIXTURES FOR NORMANDALE AND HIGHLANDS PARK The following are the two bids received for the purchase of 24 light fixtures for Normandale and Highlands Park. These are replacement fixtures for the hockey rinks. I. Westinghouse - 24 -1500 watt fixtures at $133.47 each for a total of $3,203.28 2. Northstar Lighting - 24 -1500 watt fixtures at $212.00 each for a total of $5,088.00 Recommend award to Westinghouse for a total of $3,203.28. -r; -r P Yy U" MEMORANDUM TO: Council and.City Manager FROM: Gordon Hughes, Environmental Planner SUBJECT: Aquatic Weed Control - Mill Pond Staff recommends retaining Aquatic Weed Cutters, Inc. to cut and remove aquatic vegetation from the Mill Pond. Total estimated cost is $2,500.00. No other firms in the area provide this service. The City does not have staff or equipment to provide this service. The estimated cost is within the budget. GH:ln June 4, 1976 June 8, 1976 Yours very.truly, City Clark enclosure DATE: May 26, 1976 TO: All CETA Sub - Agents HeNN @PIN FROM: William C. Brumfield, CEiA Administrator l,%C6- COUNTY SUBJECT: Extens ion of CETA Contracts Contingent on approval by the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners, the current CEI'A Public Service Emlayment contracts will be extended from June 30, 1976, to September 30, 1976. The Title VI funding allocations for the transition quarter (June 30 to September 30) have not been allocated as of this date; therefore, we intend to fund all currently authorized positions with the available Title II funds. Funding beyond September 30, 1976, will be contingent upon receipt of additional Federal CETA dollars. Please execute the enclosed amendment to your 1976 CEI'A contract and return as soon as possible. W'CB /ss Enclosure COMPREHENSIVE EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING ACT Amendment to Agreement Number 1038 THE AGREEMENT, made and entered into on the 01- 28 -197S between the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota and City of -Edina covering the furnishing of Comprehensive Employment and Training Act funds to Contractor is hereby extended from June 30, 1976, to September 30, 1976- No other terms or conditions of the Agreement shall be altered by this Amendment. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have signed this.Amendment to Agree- ment this 7 c day of , 19 7 I� CITY By is ayor //And, Its City Clerk COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, STATE OF MINNESOTA ATTEST: By. Deputy County Auditor Chairman of.Its County Board Upon proper execution, this Agreement And will be legally valid and binding and Deputy County Administrator upon date of approval is in compliance with all laws relating to the subject matter hereto. Assistant County Attorney Date: Approved as to execution Assistant County Attorney Date: A L f , DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIONS THIS DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIONS, Made this day of 1976, by GRACE M. SWANSON, a widow and not remarried .(herein called "Swanson "), and MAYNARD J. STUCKI and - FLORENCE M. STUCKI, husband and wife (herein collectively called "Stucki "), and MARK B. NELSON and NELSON, husband and wife (herein collectively called "Nelson," and Swanson, Stucki, and Nelson are herein sometimes collectively called "Owners "). WHEREAS, the Owners hold all of the right, title, and interest in and to certain real property located in Hennepin County, Minnesota, de- scribed as follows: Lot 1, Block 1, Mark Nelson First Addition, according to the - recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota (herein called "Property ")•, and WHEREAS, the Owners desire to provide for the proper and orderly development and utilization of the Property pursuant to Owners.' plans there- for, and recognizing the limiting factors of size and shape and its location . adjoining single- family residential areas. NOW, THEREFORE, the Owners do hereby impose upon the Property,.' and each and every part thereof, the following covenants and restrictions, which shall operate as equitable covenants and restrictions passing with the title to the Property, and to each and every part thereof, and shall apply.to and bind each and every present and future owner, occupier, and encumbrancer of the Property, or any part thereof, to -wit: 1. The Property shall be used only for business and professional offices, including, without limitation, use.as an interior design studio, with related automobile parking. 2. Not more than four (4) parking stalls shall be developed on the Property, two (2) immediately to the west and two (2) immediately to the east of the existing building on the Property, unless more are requested by the Owners and approved by the Edina City Council, or unless more are required by the Edina City Planner to relieve congestion or other traffic problems on the Property. 3. Blacktop and permanent curb shall be installed and maintained - in all parking areas from time to time on the Property. 4. All portions of the Property that from time to time are not hard- surfaced shall be landscaped pursuant to plans to be submitted to...and approved by, and such landscape work shall be bonded in favor of, the City of Edina, all pursuant to City of Edina Ordinance No. 404, and any amend- ments thereto. 5. All improvements now or hereafter on all or any part of the Property shall at'all times be screened from adjacent single - family residen- tial areas by screening material or devices acceptable to the Edina City Planner. 6. All landscaping and screening material or devices from time to time on the Property, or any part thereof, shall at all times be kept in a healthy, well - maintained condition, and, as to nonvegetative material, in a good state of repair. -2- 7. The Property shall be subject to all applicable statutes and ordinances now or hereafter enacted or existing, and such statutes and ordinances shall be effective as to the Property even though.more restric- tive than or in addition to the covenants and restrictions herein contained. 8. Except as otherwise provided in paragraph 2 hereof, the covenants and restrictions herein contained may be released only by the City of Edina and may be released as to all or any.part of the Property by the City of Edina, at any time and from time to time, by its sole act. Any such release shall be made or done by resolution of the Edina City Council and shall be effective only upon the recording of such resolution in the same office in which this instrument has been recorded. 9. If any provision of this instrument is for any reason held to be invalid or unenforceable as to all or any part of the Property, or any person or.circu.nstance, the application of such provision to the portions of -the Property, or to persons or circumstances, other than those as to which it shall be held.invalid and unenforceable, shall not be affected thereby, and all provisions of this instrument in all other respects shall remain in full force and effect and be valid and enforceable. .10. If any person shall violate or .attempt to violate any of the covenants and restrictions herein contained, it shall be lawful for the City of Edina, or any person owning any portion of the Property, to prosecute any proceedings at law or in equity against the person or persons - violating . or attempting to violate any such covenant or restriction, and either to prevent such violation or to recover damages therefor, including reasonable attorneys' fees. -3- IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Owners have caused this instrument to be duly executed the day and year first above written. GRACE M. SWANSON MAYNARD J. STUCKI FLORENCE M. STUCKI MARK B. NELSON STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) NELSON The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1976, by GRACE M. SWANSON, a widow and not remarried. -4- CONSENT The undersigned, the holder of a mortgage on the Property as described in the Declaration of Restrictions to which this Consent is at- tached, does hereby consent to the imposition-of the covenants and.restric- tions on the Property pursuant to the foregoing Declaration of Restrictions, and hereby agrees that its interest in the Property as mortgagee, and the lien of its mortgage, are subject and subordinate to said covenants and restrictions. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Consent has been duly executed this day of STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) , 1976. FARMERS AND MECHANICS SAVINGS BANK OF MINNEAPOLIS by and Its Its The foregoing Consent was acknowledged before me this day of 1976, by and as and respectively, of FARRIERS AND MECHANICS SAVINGS BANK OF MINNEAPOLIS, on behalf of the Bank. CITY OF EDINA EDINA ARDEN PARK SHELTER BID TABULATION CONTRACTOR PRICE G I. M. A. Barr Inc. $40,995.00 2. Bud Johnson Construction 42,790.00 3. Fetz Construction Inc. 44,760.00 4. Keho Construction Co. 45,000.00 5. Elder Jones 46,296.00 6. ABJ Enterprises 48,768.00 7. Mosher Madsen 49.260.00 8. Crawford Merz 49,750.00 9. Gillespie and Assoc. 52,498.00 0. McCall and Co. 55,544.00 Recommend award to 'M. A. Barr Inc. for the Arden Park Shelter in the amount of $40,995.00. VM Vvaxtbr Chartaro PiUrkir abirtg - .eighth Ntgtvr 11 19 tower euli�, issuesr tx 55402 24 May 1976 Mr. Frederick S. Richards Councilman.for the City. of Edina 4801 West 50th Street Edina, Minnesota 55424 Dear Councilman Richards: One of your constituents, Mr. Del M. Johnson, furnished to me a copy of the ordinances recently adopted by the City of Edina relating to the control and prevention of shade tree diseases, and relating to the subsidy for removal of diseased Elm trees. As one who has been.very active in the fight against this greatest of environmental disasters, I wish to commend you and your City for.its strong action. Please convey my regards and best wishes to your colleagues on the City Council and also my hope that you will continue a strong program of tree disease control combined with an effective program for replanting different species now, so that Edina, like its large sister-to the North, can remain a beautiful city, of which we can all be proud. As a former resident of Edina, I am especially appreciative of your action. With all best wishes, I am Very sincerely yours, Donald C. Willeke, Chairman State Shade Tree Advisory Committee DCW /nlw cc: Del M. Johnson 4904 Bruce Avenue Edina, Minnesota 55424 RESOLUTION APPROVING BRI -MAR REGISTERED LAND SURVEY BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, that that certain Registered Land Survey, presented for approval by Bri -Mar Company, Inc., and located on the Southeast corner of 50th and Halifax Avenue, and presented at the regular meeting of the Edina City Council of June 7, 1976, be and is hereby granted final approval. ADOPTED this 7th day of June, 1976. 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 June 7, 1976, and as recorded in the minutes of said regular meeting. _ WITNESS. my hand and seal of said City this 8th day of June, 1976. City Clerk RESOLUTION GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL TO LONDONDERRY REPLAT BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, that that certain plat entitled "Londonderry Replat ", platted by Londonderry Development Company, a Limited Partnership and by Eberhart Investments, Inc., its General Partner, and presented at the meeting of the Edina City Council of June 7, 1976, be and is hereby granted final plat approval. ADOPTED this 7th day of June, 1976. 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 June 7, 1976, and as recorded in the minutes of said regular meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this 8th day of June, 1976: City Clerk EDINA PUBLIC SCHOOLS Independent School District 4273 RESULTS REGULAR ELECTION May 189 1976 (ifs IC FrIl o A O .t O N .+ .0 V 0 .� > N � d d 00 .Or a u ,�.1 8 O +� PRECINCT 2. Village Hall I �f 2U 7 Il'� 33`f `/E) 13s Z3� y7 3s/ uooddale 4. Mornin side I: 2 b 9 1 ;" �� .? ��Q S. Highlands 13S /M 1y �S �(� /�o 6. Countryside 7. Normandale Luth. Ly7 9L L� Edina -East Lower 1 / 7 u J 9 U y� 27 8. Division Bldg. 9. Concord 10. Creek Valley ASS 176, Z- 3 3 y I %3 31 Z 11. Cahill 12. Cornelia I i % 1 3 .Lutheran Church 3. of the Master St. Peter's 9 3 2 13 14. Lutheran Church / Edina -West 15. Lower Div. Bldg. Southdale- Hennepin 6. Libra O I X , \ TOM �•� Y May 19, 1976 The City Planning Department City of Edina 4801 West 50th Street Edina, Minnesota 55424 ITT fife In7 ,urance Coiljora i. John P. Carroll Vice President & Director of Agencies ITT Life Insurance Corporation Shelard Towers, Suite 1600 600 South County Road 18 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55426 Telephone: (612) 545 -2100 Gentlemen: It is my understanding that Mr. J. J. Nagengast has on file with your department a plat map for the construction of three (3) houses on a lot faced by Doron Drive and Valley View Road. There is a question existing as to the property involved which has not as of this time been cleared. Part of Doron Drive was vacated by the City of Edina in 1967, one -half (1/2) of which reverted according to the tax assessors' office to the property I now own at 5616 Doron Drive. The plat submitted by Mr. Nagengast violates the division of this piece of property in accordance with the tax assessors' office of the County of Hennepin and also the City of Edina. I have made no agreement to re- divide this property in accordance with Atr.-Nagengast's proposed plan to you. The question of the Title to this property was brought up by me in d City Council meeting held last June, 1975, and also was brought up by w to the City Planning Department the first week in May, 1976. ...`F This letter is simply to advise you of the fact that there is not a clear Title on a portion of the property that Mr. Nagengast intends to include in one of these lots. Sincerely, John Carroll (Home Residence) JPC 5616 Doron Drive /Jm cc: City Engineers Office Edina, Mi. Tax Assessors' Office Phone: 941 -2583 City of Edina City Council (NOTE) GREG SAYS THAT MR. CARROLL IS THE ONLY PERSON WHO.THINKS'THAT MR. NAGENGAST DOES NOT OWN THE PROPERTY. FBH SUBURBAN RATr AUTUORITY i1AY 14, 1976 3601 Park Center Boulevard 1100 First National,Bank Building Idinneapolis, Minnesota 55416 t-iinneapolis, 1- iirnesota 55402 Telephone: 922 -8055 Telephone: 333 -0543 TO: SRA Directors and P.1ternates FROM: Dan Driggs, Chairman - Suburban mate Authority SUBJ: The Future of the SRA As you all.know, the SRA has, since its annual,r-eeting in January of this year, been involved in a rather extensive self - examination to chart out a course for its future. A special Ccr:1r.ittee on Goals and the SRA Finance Cornittee have prepared thoughtful reports on this subject and their recom.ciendations were, in substance, adopted by the Board at the Epril 21, quarterly meeting. You have all read the reports and those of you present at the April meeting know the thorough discussion the reports received and the kinds of basic policy questions raised by their recommendations. It is quite clear that the majority of present ERA members think it best that SRA continue to perform its role of providing a strong consorter - oriented role in gas and electric utility regulation by the Public Service Coruaission. I think it's fair to say also that most mer& -ers have no precise concept of the exact nature or extent of that role, but are convinced that w4th the flexible approach embodied in the policys adopted at the April meeting,, SRA will be able to make an appropriate response to utility regulation issues as they arise. It's equally clear, however, that a cooperative organization like ERA cannot, and probably should not, continua without the support of its member cities, both in principle and in adequate financing. In this correction, many of you have pointed to the problem of convincing the members of your nuricipal councils that SRA has had and can continue to have a beneficial effect on the quality of utility rate regulation. Because of this concern, the Board asked me to set out some of the reasons uhy a City should consider continuing its participation in the organization. all of the arvimments in favor of continuing were spelled out in the reports adopted by the Board and the discussions at the last two Board meetings, but let me try to summarize then► as succinctly as I can. I. Deed for a Consumer Advocate in PSC Proceedings: The present SRA was expanded from its original 26 members because it appeared to many r:Lunicipal officials, when the PSC first began operation in 1975, that there was a need for municipal participation in rate proceedings to represent the cities' interests as well as those of the consumers they represent. Thereafter, perhaps partly in response to the reorganization of the SRA, the PSC developed the concept of the Participating Department Staff (PDS) which presents its own independent case. The SRA and PDS cases in the 1975 VSP proceedings took sinilar Positions on sor.:e issues and differed on others. In several instances it was the SF.ti viewpoint which was finally adopted by the PSC. The overall result was, for the most part, favorable. The extent of participation by the PDS and its funding in future cases, however, is unknown. Participation by the SRA can provice another voice to bolster that of the PDS and insure continued presentation of a highly qualified .municipal and consumer point of view before the PSC. II. The SRA till Trot Duplicate PSC Activity But Mather Supplement It: The PSC is charged by law with setting utility rates which guarantee a fair return to the companies regulated while being fair and reasonable to customers. Thus, it rust impartially balance the companies needs for revenues against evidence presented by others on that question. Without the SRA insuring that all relevant factors of both law and fact.are in fact considered by the PSC, that necessary balance may not be achieved. Even if the SRA Ooes nothing more than monitor a given rate proceeding as an intervenor, its presence and the fact that it represents at least indirectly a substantial majority of the utility's customers anal a large number of municipal - governments can go far tocrards insuring that balanced view of a rate case. It is probably accurate to say that in every state with rate regulatory bodies, an independent consumer - oriented group of some form plays this supplementary role in rate cases. III. S2he SRA Played a fajor Pole in the First i'SP Case and Can Do The Sable in the Future. No one has suggested that the SPM's participation in the 1975 NSP .rate case was not significant. It is possible, of course, that the principle of original cost rate base, the n.ethod of determining rate of return on cormon equity, and other ir:,.portant principles of rate making (rot to mention the substantial reduction in revenues allowed) W -Ould have occured without SP,A intervention. The fact remains, however, that nany of these major questions were part of SBA's case, and without that case the result may have been r?uch less favorable. Rate •regulation is a continuously changing field and as new concepts .are .intro"uced, the-SRA can perform the vital role of insuring that they are subjected to the closest kind of independent study. In this connection, SRA participation in the first iiinnegasco filing is essential, because of the possible precedent setting nature of the case, as well as because of SRA's long history of actual regulation of the Company's suburban division. IV. The City's Voice in Rate Proceedi Heard Through Cooperative action: s Can Most Effectively be Only the largest cities have the resources to intervene and actively participate in rate proceedings. iven.then, participation is limited because of the substantial cost. All SRA members know the value of cooperative action which can make the small voice of many the persuasive and influential arguments of one. Without the joint effort of an organization such as SRA, all but a few cities will in effect abandon any input into the decision - making processes of the PSC. With cooperative action, each city's presence is felt at the PSC, for a very low expenditure.of funds. V. Once Dissolved, It is Unlikely That SRA Could Ever Be Reorganized: Those of you involved in the original formation of SRA in 1961 and its reorganization in 1974 -75 know the long and difficult process of organizing so many cities for joint action. If the SRA is dis- banded now, and.the need for it at some future time becomes imperative, the difficulties of reorganization, financing, and staffing, in adequate time to play an effective role would be staggering. It seems a much wiser course to continue on with an ongoing viable organization, even at a much lower level of activity, than to risk the possibility of not being able to regroup as an effective unit. VI. The Cost of Continued Participation Is Far Outweighed By the Savings It Can Achieve: Under the finance plan developed by the SRA, annual membership fees will be $.u15 per capita (e.g.'$75 for a city of 5,000 population) . The cost of the first i,.innegasco case will be borne by present SRA assets, and any future costs will be incurred only after SRA Board action specifically outlining the scope of participation and funds to be expended. The costs of the NSP case amounted to about $.075 Per capita; thus, a city of 5,000 might in a year when a major case is processed have total costs of $450. Tlhen measured against the $18 - $20 per household rate reduction of the 1975 NSP case, the cost of participation in SRA seems small indeed. I know these kinds of summary arguments omit many other important points that you may want to elaborate on further with your own City Council. I do think, however, they are the most important points to discuss with them when.considering continued SRA membership. It night also be helpful to review for you the method of budgeting for SEA costs established by the SRA Joint Powers Agreement and s;:ppleL-ented by the policies adopted by the Board. The procedure is as follows: 1. The Board must by two- thirds vote, prior to August 11 establish the level of contributions to be made by menbers. 2. The contributions are payable in semi- annual installments or before February 1 and August 1 in the ensuing year. 3. The only assessments to be made in 1976 for payment in 1977 are the x.015 per capita administrative charge. 4. Assessments for rate case proceedings, which would be designed to recoup expenditures from, the Rate Case Fund, would be assessed prior to August 1977 for payment the sub - sequent year or over a period of years if the Board so directs. No funds for rate case proceedings would be expended without formal action of the Board of Directors. 5. Charges to non -metro affiliates. would be made on a cost -of- service billing at the time of any rate case proceedings for irr.ediate payment. I hope these co=tients are helpful to you and responsive to your request. Let rae add a personal corient by urging each of you to present as forcefully as you can the case for continuing the Suburban Rate Authority. .Yours very truly, Dan Briggs Dan Briggs, Robbinsdale Chairnan 0r t . M E M O R A N D U M MEMO TO: Mayor Van Valkenburg Council Members FROM: Ken Rosland, Director Park and Recreation Department SUBJECT: Purchase of Chemicals Recommend purchase of 60 gallons of Pennamine - D weed killer and 10 gallons of Diquat from Barzen Chemicals of Minneapolis. This bid was taken through the Hennepin County bid system and Barzen Chemicals was low bidder. Although the City of Edina was:not Included, Barzen will ex- tend that price to the City. The breakdown in cost is as follows: Pennamine D Weed Killer at $12.25 per gallon for a total cost of $735.00 Diquat at $38.50 per gallon for a total cost of $385.00 TOTAL PURCHASE $1,120.00 WATER TREATMENT CHEMICALS BIDS OPENED 11:00 A.M., JUNE 7, 1976 Jones Chemical Anderson Chemical Hawkins Chemical, Inc. Van Waters & Roger Hydro Fluosilicic Acid $ 8.00 /Cwt. * $ 13.20 /Cwt. * $ 7.50 /Cwt. * $ 8.05 /Cwt . * * * 15 Gallon Containers (150 #) ** 30 Gallon Containers (300 #) /ol Liauid Chlorine 150# Cyl . $ 18.91 /Cyl. $ 25.00 /Cyl. $ 25.00 /Cyl. $ 18.90 /Cyl. Recommend award to Van Waters & Roger because one supplier and 30 gallon containers are desirable.