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.