The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1975-08-04_COUNCIL MEETINGAGENDA ,EDINA CITY COUNCIL MEETING _AUGUST 4, 1975 7:00 P.M. ROLLCALL MINUTES of July 7, 1975, approved or corrected by motion of , seconded by I. PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT Presentation by Manager and Engineer. Spectators heard. If Council wishes to proceed, action by Resolution Ordering Improvement. 4/5 favorable rollcall vote to pass.. A. Watermain Improvement No. P -WM -294 - Doncaster Way from Croyden La. to Ayrshire Blvd. (Continued from 7/21/75) II. PUBLIC HEARING ON ALLEY VACATION Presentation by.Engineer. Spectators heard. If Council wishes to proceed, action by Resolution., 3/5 favorable rollcall vote to pass with petition of majority of abutting property owners. 4/5 favorable rollcall vote to pass if less than majority of abutting property owners sign petition or if no petition is presented. A. Block 5, Harriet Manor 2nd Addition (Between Abbott and Beard Avenues and between W. 59th and W. 60th Streets) (Continued from 7/21/75) III. PUBLIC HEARING ON PRELIMINARY PLAT Affidavits of Notice by Clerk. Presentation by Planning Department. Spectators heard. If Council wishes to proceed, action -by Resolution. 3/5 favorable rollcall vote to pass. A. Interlachen Hills 2nd Addition. - S -75 -11 (5/28/75) IV. PUBLIC HEARING ON EASEMENT VACATION Affidavits of Notice by Clerk. Presentation by Engineer. Spectators heard. If Council wishes to proceed, action by Resolu- tion.. 3/5 favorable rollcall vote to pass. -A. Lot 1, Block 1, Metro U. S. Construction Subdivision V. PUBLIC HEARING ON ON -SALE WINE LICENSES Affidavits of Notice,by.Clerk. Presenta- tion by City Manager. Spectators heard. VI. PUBLIC HEARING ON ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT .Affidavits of Notice by Clerk. Pre- sentation by Planning Department. Spectators heard. First'Reading requires offering of ordinance only. 4/5 favorable rollcall vote if Second Reading should be waived. A. Ordinance No. 811 -A62 - Requiring signs for proposed rezonings and subdivi- sions VII. AWARD OF BIDS Tabulations and recommendations by City Manager, Action of Council by Motion. A. Watermain Improvement No. P -WM -294 (Continued from 7/21/75) B. Chain Link Fencing Material VIII. COMMUNICATIONS A. Petition 1. 6" Water Line to 4936 France.Ave. S. B. L: M. Sampson - Townes Road Street Lights C. Ms. Linda Zacher Xerxes Ave. Barricade at Dead End Agenda - August 7, 1975 Page Two IX. RECOMMENDATIONS AND REPORTS A. Planning Commission 1. Final Plat Approval a. Warden Acres Austin Replat - S -75 -7 2. Lot Division a. Lots 11 and 12, Griffis Subdivision of Block 18, Mendelssohn - 529 Arthur St. - LD -75 -6 (7/30/75) 3. Modification of Densities in Comprehensive Plans - 4. Set Hearing Dates a. Subdivisions 1) Brown's Addition of Edina - 6621 Waterman Ave. - S -75 -15 (7/30/75) 2) Braemar Hills 8th Addition - North of W. 78th St.'and East of Gleason Road - S -75 -16 (7/30/75) b. Rezoning 1) W. 8 feet of Lot 1, Block 1, Vic Adams Addition - 3945 W. 49th St. R -1 Residential District to R -2 Multiple Residential District - Z -75 -6 (7/30/75) c. Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Adding a Minimum Building Size to the Commercial District (7/30/75) B: Monthly Hearing Meetings C. Set Hearing Date - Special Assessments D. Feasibility Report - Set Hearing Dates E. Change Morningside Area Storm Sewer Improvement Number from ST.S -144 to ST.S -145 F. Morningside Water Survey - Preliminary Report G. Election Questions H. Appointment of Election Judges for Special Election I. Northern States Power Contract - Southdale Lighting Project L -12 J. Traffic Safety Committee Minutes of July 24, 1975 K. C E A Jobs L. 1976 Budget Program M. Water Supply 0. No Smoking Areas - New Law P. Metropolitan Council Hearing - September 4, 1975 - 1:30 P.M. - Policies Concerning Fully Developed Area Q. Public Hearing on Procedures between Metropolitan Council and Metropolitan Waste Control Commission - 8/11/75 - 7:30 P.M. X. ORDINANCES First Reading requires offering of ordinance only. 4/5 favorable rollcall vote to pass if Second Reading should be waived. A. First Reading 1. Ordinance No. 451 -A3 - Requiring Signs for Proposed Rezonings and Plats 2. Ordinance No. 801 -A10 - Requiring Signs for Proposed Rezonings and Plats 3. Ordinance No. 1353 - Licensing and Regulating Health Clubs, Massage Parlors, Escort Services, etc. XI. RESOLUTIONS A. Resolution of Appreciation - Mrs. Marion Bailey B. Police Department Application for Funds C. 492 St. /Halifax Ave. - No Parking XII. FINANCE A. Liquor Report as of May 31, 1975 B. Claims Paid: Motion of , seconded by for.payment of the following claims as per Pre -List: General & Revenue Sharing, $64,284.36; Construction Fund, $4,871.02; Park Funds, $24,369.00; Water Fund, $16,447.10; Liquor Fund, $64,498.49; Sewer Fund, $7,511.91; Poor Fund, $400.00; Total, $182,381.88 EDINA WATER DEPARTMENT DO NOT SPRINKLE LAWNS ANY DAY BETWEEN 4 -8 P.M. Street addresses ending in an even number — 4608, 7130, etc., may sprinkle ONLY on even dates — August 2, 4, 6, etc. Street addresses ending in an odd number — 4609, 7131, etc., may sprinkle ONLY on odd dates — August 1, 3, 5, etc. Edina's water system can supply 24 million gallons of water daily from wells and storage. Average daily pumping year -round is only 5 million gallons. If everyone sprinkles all the time in hot dry weather, the system cannot meet the demand. Thanks for cooperating! sammeiAdams Patriot IIS.Postagep� R C HALLBERG 5504. BR OOKV I EW AVE EDINA MINNESOTA 55424 ad F c ry� 77]; -5 Xerxes S Richfield, Minnesota 55423 August 1, 1975 Gentlemen: Although there is no street in front of our home we have a traffic problem which is a nusiance and a hazzard. . Please consult the wttgched. diagra�... Xer:;es S ends just beforo our property bazins and resiz,es across the street. There are four substantial wooden posts at the south end of Xerxes. llowevcr� 1a tort -clists travel bot *.•Teen the posts and do al tho sidewalla or across the property ors wither s;.de of `.l e They do.this traveling either north or south. Since auto- mobiles can not got between the posts, the drivers trun into our neighbors.. driveway and.then drive directly across our lawn to where Xerxes resumes. Two months ago I spoke to a gentleman in the Edina City Engineer's office to see what could be done. He said he would .check into it. NothinG.'has been done. On July 30 I spoke to a lieutenant on the Richfield police force. Not only did he say he felt nothing could be done to enforce the law but he indicated he did not f4el it is a_nazzardl!! It"is my opinion that either Richfield or Edina had better find a wa;; to enforce the law or protective barriers should be provided for our property and for the boulevard on the west side of the street where neighborhood children play. It may be necessary for us to install a fence along the west and. north sides of our property - - -at the cities' expense. Sincerely, cc: Edina Mayor UGG�� Richfield Mayor Richfield Councilmen Luderlan Linda Zacher Luettinger Vn. i_ ,C D IN S+ /QOh'Irn/ AWN. 1004 DEPARTMENT of Health STATE OF MINNESOTA V Office Memorandum TO EFS Personnel and Local Health Agencies DATE: July 29, 1975 FROM 0, B. Schneider, Section Chiefs Environmental Field Services SUBJECT: The No Smoking Bill Attached is a news release which hopefully clarifies some of the questions concerning the new No Smoking Bill which goes into effect August 1, 1975. The important thing to remember about the that all public places, as defined, are made a no smoking Bill is area as that August 1st. The proprietor of a public place may then designate a smoking area. Local health departments will have the responsibility to see that the provisions of the law are enforced to the best of their ability. One important aspect will be to make sure signs are posted in all restaurants and other public places. If you have questions, please contact our office and we hope to have the answers. +a i1 I. l s� jr ''A �• A NEWS ROM FROM THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HECH July 30, 1975 Contact: Charles Schneider FOR INHEDIATE ;RELEASE (6,12) 296 -5335 FACT SHEET ON THE U11\1dESOTA CLEAN INDOOR AIR ACT * The Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act,:effective August 1, 1975, prohibits smoking in public_p ces and at public meetings except-in designated smoking areas that are-clearly identified by the use of signs. * A public place, as defined in the Act, is "any enclosed, indoor area used by the general public or serving as a place 'of work, including," but not limited to, restaurants, retail stores, offices and other commercial establishments, public conveyances, educational facilities, hospitals4 -nurs ing homes, auditoriums, arenas and meeting rooms, but excluding private, enclosed offices occupied, exclusively by smokers even though such offices may be visited by nonsmokers." * Where a public place consists of a single room, one side of the room must be posted as a NO SHOKING ALREA. * A bar is the only public place that -can be designated a SUIOKING AMA in its entirety. This designation must be posted conspicuously,on. all entrances normally used by the publics * Proprietors of public places shall make reasonable efforts to prevent smoking in public places by "posting appropriate signs, arranging seating to - 1;ORE. - 717 GELNS. , A-ME 3 ? l7l J.S.. € : C :.: . :ig , 35 -5271 y Y 11NNESOTA CLEAN INDOOR AIR ACT page 2 Provide a smoke -free area, asking smokers to refrain from smoking upon request of a client or employee suffering discomfort from the.;scnoke,.:or. any .abet means which may be appropriate." * The smoking prohibition does not apply in cases.where "an entire room or hall is used for a private social function and seating arrangements are under the control of the sponsor of the function and not of the proprietor or person in charge of the place." * The smoking prohibition also does not apply.to "factories, warehouses and similar places of work not usually frequented.;by the general public,," except that the Department of Labor and Industry in : consultation with the State Board of Health may restrict or prohibit smoking-In "those places of work where the close proximity of workers or the inadequacy of ventilation causes smoke pollution detrimental to the health and comfort of nonsmoking employees." * Proprietors of establishments, local health authorities and the Minnesota Department of Health are charged with responsibilities relating to the Act. Regulations that pertain to var,ious;provisions . of-the Act -are being drafted and will be presented at `a, public hearing in the near :future. * Notice will be given of the dates of the public hearing to consider proposed a regulations. Persons wishing to testify or submit written testimony will have that opportunity. MI+1M Vw- -s o �0 / K Owl w �� IN CI'ttif'9 P4 300 Metro Square Building, 7th Street and Robert Street, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 Area 612, 227 -9421 July 31, 1975 SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT Public Hearing on Implementation of Development Framework in the Fully Developed Area The Physical Development Committee of the Metropolitan Council will hold a public hearing September 4, 1975, at 1:30 P.M. in the Metropolitan Council Chambers, Metro Square Building, 7th and Robert Streets, St. Paul on ` implementation of the Council's Development Framework in the Central Cities and Fully Developed Suburbs. Implementation of the Development Framework is the major focus of the Physical Development Committee since the regional guide for development has been adopted. The Committee would like to get the same kind of citizen, business, and local government response to implementation efforts that it received in the preparation of Development Framework. The Committee has prepared the attached position statement to focus the public discussion. Your review, consideration, and response to the six questions contained in the position statement would be greatly appreciated and would help get this implementation effort off the ground and headed in the right direction. If you have any questions, and if you can participate, please contact John Kari of the Council staff at 227 = 9.421. An Agency Created to Coordinate the Planning and Development of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Comprising: Anoka County 0 Carver County 0 Dakota County 0 Hennepin County 0 Ramsey County 0 Scott County 0 Washington County V METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Suite 300 Metro Square Building, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE POSITION STATEMENT "IMPLEMENTATION IN THE FULLY DEVELOPED AREAS" FOR September 4, 1975 Public Meeting 1 :30 P.M. Council Chambers ,.In March of 1975, the Metropolitan Council adopted the Development Framework Guide chapter. This chapter addresses the development and redevelopment issues of our Metro- politan Area. The Central Cities and fully developed first -ring suburbs are addressed specifically as areas of regional concern. (The Development Framework policies are at- tached.) Development Framework outlines a strategy to implement these policy objectives. It consists of a sequencing of actions to be undertaken by local governments, regional agencies, and state agencies. The strategy for the fully - developed area emphazizes the maintenance and reuse of existing structures and investments, recognizes the need for eventual redevelopment, and recognizes the importance of local government in achieving the Development Framework objectives. The success of any strategy for the Fully Developed Area is also strongly dependent upon consistent and compatible actions in the urbanizing and rural areas particularly in respect to the guiding and timing of new residential, commercial, and, industrial developments, to the provision of regional capital investments, and to the provision of regional capital investments, and to the provision of housing for low -and- moderate- income persons. The Physical Development Committee would like you to address the following questions and program statements at our September 4, 1975 public meeting. Your participation and thought- ful consideration is greatly appreciated and it will improve and aid the Council's imple- mentation efforts. Of particular interest is your feeling on what one program or effort on the part of the Council should be our first priority for attention and action. I. Private Investment Climate The Council feels that the overriding emphasis of public efforts and actions should be on the creation of a positive climate for private investment. The magnitude of the effort require to maintain, preserve, and redevelop the fully developed area on both,,a short and long -range basis is beyond the financial and administrative resources and capacities of government. Therefore, public actions which create a positive private investment climate are a practical necessity. What current public programs and practices (including tax policies, urban renewal, development review procedures) have strong positive or negative impacts on private investment or reinvestment? What programs exist or should exist at the local governmental level to stimulate or induce private investment? -2- II. Neighborhood Confidence 4 Confidence has been cited as a problem in attracting new residents and investment in the Fully Developed Area. Prospective residents and businesses are particularly reluctant to invest and locate in the Central Cities due to real or imagined school, security, en- _ vironmental, or social problems. What can be done at the regional level to deal with the school, security, environmental, and social problems that affect confi- dence in older developed areas? What local programs are being used and what programs could be used to build up confidence in these areas? III. Present Trends and Existing Programs There is some feeling if present trends continue (e.g. energy and economic situations which make centrally located existing structures and areas more valuable and viable) and if existing programs were more efficiently used and funded, they would be sufficient to address the maintenance, preservation, and redevelopment needs of the Fully Developed Area. Will the continuation of current trends and the use of existing programs be sufficient to achieve the Development Framework Goals and policies in the Fully Developed Area? Is there clear evidence that more im- plementation methods are required? IV. Regional Capital Investment One of the Council's highest priorities is to see that the regional capital investment system is consistent with Development Framewoik objectives. For the Fully Developed Area this means the allocation of and priority for investments to replace and maintain metropolitan systems serving existing development. Do the Council's policy plans for sewers, parks, transit, highways and the regional capital investment programs adequately and cor- rectly address the needs of the Central Cities and Fully Developed Suburbs? Do local capital investment priorities and procedures adequately address maintenance and reinvestment needs? V. Comprehensive Planning The Council believes that to implement its Development Framework plan, local units of government must be equipped with a city, -wide strategy that coordinates all the public development powers and agencies. This local strategy should be carried out and re- flected in all of the local implementation tools -- capital improvements programming, zoning, codes -- and in community applications for state and federal funding. It is important, too, that the local strategy is consistent and carries out the Development Framework. Since not all Fully Developed Communities have adopted compre- hensive plans, the Council proposes to use its A -95 Review Process to recommend against various federal funding until such time as there t -3- is an adopted plan for a long and short range development, redevelopment, preservation, and maintenance strategy. How should this review pro- cedure be used? What do you feel constitutes an official city -wide maintenance and redevelopment strategy? How long would it take to develop and adopt such a strategy? VI. Proposed New Programs There are a number of other programs that are discussed in the Development Framework Guide that are designed to facilitate private investment in Fully Developed Area. These programs address the problems of public coordination of plans and activities, the problems of adequate funding, and the problems of constructing housing for lower income persons and attracting middle income families to older neighborhoods. These program ideas have not been fully explored and will require detailing before their promise can be realized. A. Municipal Development Corporation -- one agency which would have all of the public development powers at its disposal to carry out the community's comprehensive plan and assure a continual process of renewal and maintenance activity. This would address the need for improved coordination of existing programs. B. Uniform Development Review Procedure -- a consistent and streamlined federal, state, and local review and permit process to minimize bureaucratic delay and cost to the private sector and ultimately to the consumer. C. Metropolitan Development Fund -- a revolving fund to support implementation efforts consistent with Development Framework. D. Metropolitan Banking and Land Cost Write -Down -- a program for reducing cost of new housing for low and moderate income persons in the urbanizing area and housing maintenance and rehabilitation in the fully developed areas. E. Housing Incentives -- various subsidy and grant programs to assure construction of housing for low and moderate income persons in the urbanizing area and housing maintenance and rehabilitation in the fully developed areas. F. Housing Re- Investment Program -- a program of financial incentives to. encourage moderate -to middle- income families to re- invest in older existing housing. What public roles and programs, including the above, should the Council advocate to attract private investment /reinvestment in Fully Developed Area? What should be the components of that regional strategy? What should receive highest priority? How should the strategy be stated and sequenced? DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK POLICIES FOR THE FULLY DEVELOPED AREA MAINTAIN TWO STRONG DIVERSIFIED METROPOLITAN CENTERS COMPRISING THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICTS OF MINNEAPOLIS AND SAINT PAUL AND THE RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL, AND INSTITU- TIONAL AREAS AROUND THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICTS. THIS POLICY SHOULD BE SUPPORTED BY ACTIONS TO: A. MAKE THE METROPOLITAN CENTERS INTO LIVING AND WORKING CENTERS TO ENCOURAGE MORE FAMILIES TO LIVE THERE BY DEVELOPING MEDIUM AND HIGH DENSITY HOUSING FOR A FULL RANGE OF INCOMES, PROVIDING RECREATIONAL OPEN SPACE, AND.MAXIMIZING USE OF SKYWAYS AND TRANSIT FOR MOVEMENT WITHIN THE CENTERS. B. MAINTAIN AND STRENGTHEN EMPLOYMENT AND SERVICES BY ATTRACTING INSTITUTIONS, OFFICE SPACE, PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, RETAILING, REGIONAL CULTURAL AND ENTER - TAINMENT FACILITIES, AND ACCOMMODATIONS FACILITIES WITHIN THE METROPOLITAN CENTERS. C. IMPROVE THE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY OF THE CENTERS BY PRESERVING THE SCENIC AND RECREATIONAL ASSETS OF THE RIVER AND RIVERFRONT AND PROVIDE INCREASED OPPORTUNITIES FOR PEOPLE TO ENJOY THEM. MAINTAIN AIR, WATER, AND NOISE QUALITY WITHIN STATE AND FEDERAL STANDARDS. II. PRESERVE AND MAINTAIN THE VAST RESOURCE OF HOUSING AND SERVICES IN THE FULLY DEVELOPED PART OF THE METROPOLITAN AREA. THE EMPHASIS SHOULD BE ON CREATING A CLIMATE OF CONFIDENCE AND CERTAINTY ABOUT THE FUTURE OF EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS IN ORDER TO ATTRACT THE PRIVATE IN -. VESTMENT NECESSARY FOR MAINTAINING INDIVIDUAL PROPERTIES. REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS SHOULD BE UNDERTAKEN ON A SELECTIVE BASIS TO UPGRADE DETERIORATED OR OBSOLETE AREAS. THIS POLICY SHOULD BE SUPPORTED AS FOLLOWS: A. STRENGTHEN INCENTIVES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR PRIVATE INVESTMENT IN FULLY DEVELOPED AREAS. GOVERNMENT SHOULD IDENTIFY AND REMOVE BARRIERS TO PRIVATE INVESTMENT. B. DIRECT PUBLIC SPENDING TOWARD REDUCING CRIME, IMPROVING EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES AND OTHER PROGRAMS, AND MAINTAINING STREETS, UTILITIES, AND OTHER PUBLIC FACILITIES. C. LOCAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD DEVELOP GUIDELINES FOR GROUPING REHABILITATION GRANTS AND LOANS WITHIN, INDIVIDUAL BLOCKS SO THAT SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT IS QUICKLY APPARENT. NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS SHOULD BE ORGANIZED TO IMPROVE NEIGHBORHOOD SECURITY, REDUCE HOUSING ABANDONMENT, IMPROVE NEIGHBORHOOD IMAGE AND MARKETING, ENCOURAGE HOUSING MAINTENANCE AND IMPROVEMENT, AND ASSIST. HOMEOWNERS IN SECURING HOME IM- PROVEMENT LOANS. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT DECISIONS SHOULD BE ENSURED. D. REDUCE INVOLUNTARY CONCENTRATIONS OF LOW- INCOME PERSONS, THE ELDERLY, HANDICAPPED, ETHNIC MINORITIES, AND OTHERS WHO DEPEND ON SPECIAL FACILITIES AND SERVICES BY PROVIDING HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES AND ASSOCIATED SOCIAL SERVICES FOR THEM THROUGHOUT THE PORTIONS OF THE METROPOLITAN AREA WHERE APPROPRIATE EMPLOYMENT AND PUBLIC SERVICES ARE AVAILABLE. E. EMPHASIZE NEW HOUSING AND FACILITIES IN CENTRAL CITY REDEVELOPMENT NEIGHBORHOODS OF THE TYPES AND DENSITIES THAT ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE MARKET PREFERENCES OF MIDDLE -AND- . UPPER- INCOME PERSONS IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE A MORE BALANCED AGE AND INCOME MIX, WHILE ENSURING THAT THE HOUSING CONDITIONS OF PRESENT RESIDENTS ARE IMPROVED THROUGH RE- LOCATION OR OTHER ACTIONS. F. REBUILD SELECTED COMMERCIAL AREAS WHERE MARKET ANALYSIS INDICATES STRONG POTENTIAL FOR COMMUNITY RETAIL- SERVICE CENTERS. REDEVELOP OBSOLETE COMMERCIAL LOCATIONS TO WHAT- EVER USES APPEAR MOST FEASIBLE AND DESIRABLE. G. DEVELOP PLANS FOR REMAINING ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS, CONSIDERING THEIR SCENIC AND RE- CREATIONAL VALUE AS WELL AS THEIR ECONOMIC VALUE. MAINTAIN AIR, WATER, NOISE QUALITY WITHIN STATE AND FEDERAL STANDARDS. H. DENSITY OF DEVELOPMENT SHOULD BE PLANNED BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE CAPACITY OF METROPOLITAN SEWER AND TRANSPORTATION SERVICE AND FEDERAL, STATE, AND METROPOLITAN ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS. v' f y0� O� 0w W .7 X " Q 300 Metro Square Building, 7th Street and Robert Street, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 Area 612, 227 -9421 July 28 , 1975 TO: METROPOLITAN AREA CITIZENS AND GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS SUBJECT: Public Hearing on Proposed Administrative and Operational Procedures for interaction between Metropolitan Council and Metropolitan Waste Control Commission The Metropolitan Council will hold a public hearing on the attached Administrative and Operational Procedures on Monday, August 11, 1975, at 7 :30 P.M. , at the Metropolitan Council Chambers, 300 Metro Square Building (enter from Jackson Street) , Seventh and Robert Streets, St. Paul. The proposed Administrative and Operational Procedures for the Metropolitan Council and the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission were prepared by the Council's Environmental and Transportation Committee as an amendment to the proposed Waste Management Development Guide /Policy Plan for which a public hearing was conducted on April 30, 1975, at the Council offices. The results of this hearing will be utilized by the Council and Committee as. it prepares final procedures. If you wish to speak; please let us know in advance either in writing or by calling Lowell Thompson at 227 -9421. You may also sign up to speak at the hearing. Those who register first will be scheduled to speak first. I hope you will attend the hearing and give us your thoughts on the proposed procedures. If you cannot attend I encourage you to send written comments to me and I will see that they are brought to the full attention of the Council. Sinc rel John Boland Chairman An Agency Created to Coordinate the Planning and Development of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Comprising: Anoka County 0 Carver County 0 Dakota County 0 Hennepin County 0 Ramsey County 0 Scott County 0 Washington County -1- Revised July 3, 1975 ADMINISTRATIVE AND OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES This section of the Development Guide contains the administrative and operational procedures the Council will follow when dealing with sewer associated matters with the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission. The procedures have been devised to help the Council and its staff handle sewer matters in an orderly and expeditious manner. To achieve this objective, the following three policies have been followed: A. The different steps in the sewer planning and budgeting process have been examined and are presented here in a way that shows the intent and relationship of each step to every other step and to the whole process. B. The respective roles of the Council and the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission are clarified. C. Important material and findings that the Council will expect the Commission to include in its reports and recommendations to the Council are included as are some specific requests the Council has with respect to programs controlled by the Commission. These procedures set the basic direction for managing the sewer planning and budgeting process but do not include all of the details that are likely to become part of the process. The main steps of the planning, programming and budget process on sanitary sewers that involve the Metropolitan Council are outlined below. This process incorporates the directives from the Metropolitan Reorganization Act of 1974 (MRA) , most of which take effect in April 1975. As a result of this 1974 legislation, the procedure presented here differs from the procedure followed in the past. Basically, the new procedure involves fewer formal Council reviews of sewer planning and programming work under way than was true in the past. The main steps of the process are: 1) Council prepares a Metropolitan Development Guide chapter that contains the policy plan requirements of the MRA. 2) Council reviews and approves the development program of the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission. 3) Council reviews and comments on plans and specifications For acquisition or hetterment of. interceptors or treatment worl"S 4) Council reviews and ro appves annual capital. improvements budget of the Waste Control Commission. (Note: seps 3 and 4 can be combined in actual practice.) 5) Council reviews and comments on establishment of or .proposed change in user charges recommended by Waste Control Commission 6) Council comments annually on charges user fees, or schedules of the Waste Control Commission and transmits the charges, fees or schedules plus its comments thereon to. the secretary of the Senate and chief clerk of the House .of Representatives. 7) Council authorizes the isstiance, negotiation and sale of general obligation Certificates of Indebtedness and determines the form, manner and terms of the Certificates. If the main steps in this process are to be effectively carried out, they must be supported by a number of ancillary activities. The main supportive activities that require establishment and adherence to procedures are: 1) Council defines the level of planning it will conduct. 2) Council recommends material to be in the local comprehensive sewer plans to the Waste Control Commission as well as a plan review procedure that involves the Council. 3) Council recommends criteria to Waste Control Commission for determining local interceptors and treatment plants to be taken into the metropolitan disposal system and approves the Commission's proposals for such takeover. 4) Council determines metropolitan benefits. 5) Council levies taxes for debt service of the metropolitan disposal system: 6) Council makes emergency appropriation to meet Waste Control Commission's current expenses if taxes, receipts and revenues are insufficient. 7) Council provides for deferment of payment of reserve capacity charges by local units of government. g) Council certifies to appropriate county auditors the amount of local governments' tax delinquency on payments to the Waste Control Commission. 9) Council reviews and decides on appeals from local governments relating to their disagreement with the Waste Control Commission on local governments' proposed system of user charges. 10) Council advises Waste Control Commission on sewer user charges including reserve capacity charges (SAC) . 11) Council defines program budgeting regulations in consultation with Waste Control Commission and adopts same. METROPOLITAN COUNCIL -WASTE CONTROL PROCEDURES MCP 1 COUNCIL POLICY PLAN A. HANDLING PROCEDURES Y . The policy plan and amendments thereto shall be considered initially by an appropriate comrnittee.,of the Council designated by the Chairman. 2. After review and recommendation to the Council by the appropriate committee, the Council shall forward the proposed policy plan to the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission for its review. 3. The Commission shall report its comments to the Council within 60 days following receipt of the plan. 4. The Council shall schedule a public hearing on the proposed policy plan to receive the comments of the Commission, local government units, and other interested persons no earlier than 60 days nor later than 120 days after submission to the Commission,on the request of a local government unit, a commission, or on its own initiative. 5. Not less than 15 days before the hearing the Council shall publish notice thereof in a newspaper or newspapers having general circulation in the metropolitan area, stating the date, time and place of hearing and the ._place_ where_ the proposed policy plan and Commission comments may be examined by any interested persons. In addition, notice of such hearing, together with a copy of the proposed plan or amendment, shall be mailed to all affected local governmental units. 6. The hearings shall be conducted in accord with Council procedures. All interested persons shall be permitted to present their views -on the policy plan and the hearing may be continued from time to time. 7. After receipt of the Commission's comments and the hearing, if any, the Council may revise the proposed plan giving appropriate considera- tion to all comments received and thereafter shall adopt the plan by resolution. 8. The Council shall engage in a comprehensive review of t!-le policy plan at least every four years following adoption thereof. -2- 9. An amendment to the adopted policy plan may be initiated by a resolution of the Council or the Commission authorizing amendment consideration. The resolution shall be accompanied by a description of the proposed amendment and the basis therefor. To the extent practicable, the Council and Commission shall initiate amendment consideration no more than twice a year. Affected local governmental units may petition the Council or the Commission at any time to consider the adoption of an amendment resolution. 10. Following adoption of a resolution authorizing amendment consideration, the Chairman of the Council shall designate an appropriate committee to consider the amendment, and thereafter these pro - cedures shall be followed in considering the requested amendment, provided that the Council, after Commission consideration and public hearing, if any, may modify or resolve not to adopt the pro- posed amendment. -3- MCP 2 SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT STUDIES General Discussion System improvement studies are used by the Council to determine a variety of sewage collection, treatment, and disposal needs based on regional growth policy: enlargement of existing facilities, forecasting need for new interceptor extensions, determination of regional sewer priorities, documentation of area sewage problems requiring regional solution, etc. These studies provide the critical land use and development data to determine the extent of need for each proposed improvement in the regional system. As such, they should be considered as an important part of the general planning and policy analysis that comprise the policy plan, and study recommendations should be reviewed by the Council as possible amendment or refinement of the adopted policy plan. The following procedures describe a continuing process for initiation, completion, and disposition of system improvement studies, relying upon joint participation and cooperation between Council and Commission staffs, and financing of costs . A. HANDLING PROCEDURES 1. The Council and Commission staffs shall jointly review and evaluate system improvement study needs as identified in the adopted policy plan to ensure the continued application of the policy plan to current - and projected development trends. To the extent practicable, this joint review should occur by May 1 of each year, beginning in 1975. 2. Following review and identification, the Council staff, with appropriate assistance from the Commission, shall prepare a Council work program statement describing the necessary system improvement studies proposed for the following year which includes a statement of the planning objectives, data needs, work schedule, staff, consultant use, if any, anticipated costs, and a management review and participation structure for each study. 3. Joint participation of the Council and Commission staffs in the initiation, management, review and completion of all studies shall be encouraged. Except as otherwise specified here or in the approved system improvement study statement, the Council shall be responsible for the management, review and completion of all such studies. 4. The system improvement study statement shall be reviewed and approved by the Council on or before October 1 of each year as part of its annual work program proposed for the forthcoming year. 4- 5. Should the Council determine that Commission funding of planning studies is necessary, an appropriation to pay the expenses incurred by the Council and Commission to accomplish such studies shall be included in the Commission's budget for the forthcoming year. 6. Copies of all final system improvement study documents shall be submitted to the Commission for review and .recommendation to the Council. 7. Final reports shall be reviewed by an appropriate Council committee which shall consider Commission recommendations in its review. 8. Following Committee review and consideration, the Council shall act to approve, disapprove, or modify the recommendation of the Committee and shall indicate if policy plan or development program amendment is necessary as a result of its action. -5- MCP 3 DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM General Discussion The Metropolitan Reorganization Act of 1974 requires the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission to prepare a Development Program that indicates the program elements to be performed by the Commission in implementing the Council's policy plan. All .detailed technical planning, engineering, financing, scheduling and other information necessary to implement the policy plan during the planning period are to be described in the Development Program. Unless a longer period is specifically prescribed by the Council, the program shall cover a five year period. The first Program shall be prepared by the Commission in 1975, with the initial review and suggested revisions submitted by the Commission to the Council within two years following the Council's approval of the first Development Program. Once the Council has received the Development Program from the Commission, Council review and action shall be completed within 90 days. The Council shall review submitted Development Programs and suggested revisions thereto to determine their consistency with the adopted policy plan. The Council may approve or disapprove .the Development Program in whole or in part. Those portions of the Development Program which are disapproved by the Council must be revised by the. Commission and then resubmitted to the Council. A. HANDLING PROCEDURES 1. The Development Program shall be submitted to the Council on or before. . May 1 of the year preceding its effective date. The Referral Administrator will acknowledge receipt, notify local government units, and distribute the program to planning staff for review. Prior to submission to the Council, the Commission should solicit appropriate local governmental_ unit and citizen participation in the - -.... .preparation of the development program. The Commission shall adopt appropriate procedures to provide for the participation of all local governmental units and.other interested persons in the preparation of its proposed development program. 2. The Chairman shall designate an appropriate .Council committee to consider the Development Program. Council staff shall analyze the program for consistency with the adopted policy plan for the Commission, and prepare a report containing recommendations for action, for review by the committee. 3. The Council may hold a public hearing to consider the program and comments thereon on its own initiative or on the request of the submitting Commission. Notice of such hearing shall be published in accord with Council policy including specific notification to all affected governmental units and independent commissions. Such hearings shall be held within the 90 day review period prescribed by law and may not be held if the Commission requests such a hearing less than 30 days prior to the end of the review period prescribed by law. 4. Within 90 days of receipt of the program, the Council will review the recommendations of the committee and approve or disapprove the program in whole or in part, and transmit its decision to the Commission. The Council shall not approve the whole or any part of a Development Program which is not in conformance with the adopted policy plan. 5. If required by Council action, the Commission shall make appropriate revisions to the program and submit the same to the Council for review within 60 days. The Council may specifically condition the approval of any matter contained in a development program with reasonable subsequent conditions. 6. After approval by the: Council of the Development Program, the Commission shall implement the program. No action shall be taken by the Commission unless authorized by the program and, as appropriate, approved as part of its Capital Budget. 7. Approval of the Development Program by the Council will constitute consent of the Council for the Commission to apply for federal and state funds for projects approved as part of the program. 8. The Commission shall review the Development Program biennially for possible amendment. An amendment to the Development Program may be initiated by the submission of a resolution from the Commission to the Council suggesting the same and describing the reason therefor. Local government units, interested persons, or the Council may at any time petition the Commission to consider amendment. Upon receipt of a Commission resolution, the Council shall act thereon in accordance with these procedures, provided that the Council may, after full consideration, resolve not to adopt the proposed amendment. -7- B � CONTENT OF DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM The Metropolitan Reorganization Act lists descriptive criteria for each proposed improvement in the Development Program. The Council has identified below matters which it requires to be included in a proposed program. The listing is not definitive or all- inclusive, and project descriptions by the Commission must comply with the legal requirements and policy plan as well as these procedures. The MRA requirements are shown in capital letters, and the specific content and outline required by the Council follows. In the event that any of the following is inappropriate for any improvement contained in the development program, that should be noted together with a brief statement of the basis for that opinion. 1. The design standards of all proposed projects shall be identified for each project, as specified by Commission, state or federal regulations. 2. The relationship of each proposed project to the approved local sewer policy plan of each affected local government unit shall be indicated. 3. A DESCRIPTION OF THE IMPROVEMENT, ITS LOCATION, FUNCTIfN AND ESTIMATED COST. a. Point of discharge of the effluent, site location, design area of projected service, and staging area by metropolitan sewer service and metropolitan urban service boundaries. b. Estimated annual cost of each. improvement, with identification of planning, engineering, and construction costs, including direct and indirect costs as appropriate. C. Where appropriate, project locations should be shown on topographical map illustrations. d. For interceptors: permanent or interim use, gravity or force main design, design capacity for peak, average, and minimum flows, infiltration flow estimates, pipe diameter, and expected minimum flows for first five years of operation. e. For treatment plants: permanent or interim use, proposed treatment plant process and degree of treatment, wastewater design characteristics, including average domestic, commercial, industrial, and. total inflows, minimum and maximum flows, and conformance with NPDES effluent limitations. k 4, THE PROPOSED MANNER OF FINANCING AVAILABLE FOR THE IMPROVEMENT, AND THE SOURCES OF REVENUE PAYMENT OF SUCH COSTS. Total program improvement costs should be listed for each facility improvement along with the year the cost will be incurred . Include present and proposed debt service schedule.for each project. Description of revenue sources should include certified federal and state grants, anticipated future grants with year of receipt., invest- ment income, user fee income, and present and future bond requirements 5. A SCHEDULE SHOWING ON A YEARLY BASIS THE TIMING OF LAND ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION AND CAPITAL EXPENDITURES FOR THE IMPROVEMENT. Land acquisition, construction initiation and completion, and capital expenditure schedules should be shown for all proposed projects, for each year of the five -year development program interval. 6. A REVIEW AND DESCRIPTION ESO FOR THE IMPROVEMENT, ALTERNATIVES TO THE IMPROVEMENT (INCLUDING ALTERNATIVES NOT INVOLVING CAPITAL EXPENDITURES) , THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL EFFECTS OF THE IMPROVEMENT AND ALL ACTIONS AND STEPS THERETOFORE TAKEN BY THE COMMISSION WITH RESPECT TO THE IMPROVEMENT. a. Reference to and discussion regarding. specific finding of need contained in the approved policy plan justifying each proposed project. b. Description of alternatives should include existing and potential action by agencies other than the Commission, possible reliance upon other conveyance methods or treat- ment works, location and timing alternatives, and the advantages of each alternative including estimated costs. C. Environmental effects including specifically the_ protection open space elements described in the Protection Open Space chapter of the Metropolitan Development Guide, and other environmental information as appropriate. d. Social effects, both adverse and beneficial, including but not limited to the effect on public health and housing supply. e. Other information pertaining to all actions and steps taken heretofore by the Commission with respect to each improvement. ME 7. AN ESTIMATE OF THE PROBABLE IMPACT OF THE IMPROVEMENT ON THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE OTHER METROPOLITAN COMMISSIONS. a. Relationship to any existing or proposed regional park facility of the Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Commission, including proximity to facilities, shared -use potential of proposed facilities, and summary comment by the Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Commission as appropriate. b. Relationship to any existing or proposed facility or services of the Metropolitan Transit Commission, including conformance with timing of regional highway or transit improvements, and conformance of area of proposed sewer service with staging of highway or transit access, and summary comment by the Commission as appropriate. C. Relationship to existing or proposed facilities or services of other metropolitan boards and commissions, as appropriate. 8. AN ESTIMATE OF THE ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS OF THE IMPROVEMENT AND SOURCES OF REVENUE AVAILABLE FOR PAYMENT OF SUCH COSTS. a. Annual cost estimates for operation and maintenance of each proposed improvement, including equipment replacement, utilities, labor, and debt service. b. Revenue sources to meet annual costs, and. impact of improvement costs upon user fee schedules of affected service areas. 9. AN EVALUATION OF THE RELATIVE PRIORITY OF THE IMPROVEMENT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION OTHER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS DESCRIBED IN THE PROGRAM. Statement of the relationship�of each project to the priority criteria for allocation of metropolitan funds adopted in the Council policy plan. -9a- MCP 4 MUNICIPAL SEWER FACILITY ACQUISITION General Discussion Pursuant to authority granted to the Council, metropolitan area municipalities and the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission may propose the acquisition by the Commission of existing municipal sewerage facilities and the Council must approve such proposals prior.to Commission acquisition. It is the intent of these procedures to put an end to the period of initial metropolitan acquisition of local sewage facilities needed for the metropolitan system which began with the establishment of the Metropolitan Sewer Board in 1969. This procedure will become effective on January 1, 1976, at which time the Council's "Interceptor Definition and Criteria" will be superceded and replaced by this procedure. Until that time, the Council and Commission shall continue to process requests for local acquisitions pursuant to the Definition and Criteria approved by the Council November 25,1970. A. HANDLING PROCEDURES 1. Commission acquisitions of municipal sewerage facilities (hereinafter "local acquisitions ") and studies with regard to the same, shall be included as part of the Council's policy plan and the Commission's development program and capital budget and shall be approved or disapproved by the Council in accordance with the adopted policy plan, development program and capital budget procedures. 2. The Council or the Commission may recommend the amendment of the policy plan to include the possible acquisition of a local facility in accordance with MCPl. No direct requests for the acquisition of local facilities shall be procedded other than those that are included in the policy plan. B. CRITERIA 1. In considering the inclusion of a.local acquisition.tn a policy plan, the Council and Commission shall give consideration to any factors relevant to such a determination.. However, local sewerage, line or pipe acquisition to be included in the policy plan, must at a minimum, satisfy the following conditions: a. Be designed for use primarily as arterial sewers receiving flow from connecting main or trunk sewers and conveying sewage from a number of drainage areas; and b. Have been designed to serve areas wholly within the metropolitan urban service area; and .m c. Meet.at least one of the following: 1) Be designed to receive an average daily flow of at least 500,000 gallons per day from or serve at least 1,000 developable acres in local governmental units other than the one in which it is primarily located; or 2) Is located in one local governmental unit, and conveys or is designed to convey at least 90 percent of the ultimate sewage flow originating in an upstream local governmental unit; or 3) Is needed to directly connect other facilities owned or to be constructed by the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission. -10- MCP 5 CAPITAL BUDGET AND PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS General Discussion Pursuant to the Metropolitan Reorganization Act, the Commission must prepare and submit a proposed budget covering the following year to the Council. The first such budget to be prepared in 1975 shall cover the year 1976. The complete budget (operating and capital inclusive) should be submitted to the Council by August 1 of the year preceding its effective data. The Council shall act to approve or disapprove those parts of the budget relating to revenues and expenditures for capital improvements by October 1. These procedures prescribe the detail and form of the capital improvements budget. Before December 15 of each year, the Commission after obtaining approval of the Council for any changes in the proposed capital improvements budget, shall by resolution adopt the final budget (operating and capital inclusive) which shall be filed with the Council on or before December 20 of each year. Thereafter, the Council shall file the Commission budget together with comments, if any, with the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives no later than January 15 of each year. During 1977, the Council shall adopt program budget regulations and the Commission shall submit its budget for 1978 in the form established by those regulations. The Metropolitan Reorganization Act states that the Council is to review and comment on plans and specifications for the acquisition or betterment of inter- ceptors orVreatment works authorized by the policy plan and the Development Program. Once the Council has commented and other necessary governmental approvals have been obtained, the Commission may proceed with bids and contract awards. It is recommended that the plans and specifications for interceptors or treatment works included in the proposed capital budget be submitted for review to the Council simultaneously with the proposed capital budget, although as separate referrals. This practice will help reduce the number of separate and time - consuming Council and committee reviews. A. Handling Procedures 1. The complete budget, together with plans and specification, shall be submitted to the Council no later than August 1 of the year preceding its effective data. The Referral Administrator shall acknowledge re- ceipt of the same, notify local governmental units, and transmit the documents to the planning staff for review. The Chairman of the Council shall designate an appropriate Standing Committee of the Council to consider the submitted budget. 2. The Council shall hold a public hearing on the proposed capital budget to receive comments of the Commission, local governmental units and other interested persons on the request of an affected local governmental unit, the Commission, or on its own initiative. -11- 3. The Council shall approve or disapprove in whole or in part, the capital budget by October 1. Council review and comment on plans and specifications submitted by the Commission shall, to the extent practicable, accompany budget approval. 4. The Commission may offer appropriate. submissions necessary to achieve Council approval of the capital budget at any time prior to November 30. B. Definition of the Capital Budget 1. "Capital improvements" shall be considered to mean any project or activity involving the provision of service or any construction, renovation, acquisition, replacement, reconstruction or expansion of any structure or facility of a permanent nature to be leased, owned, or funded by the Commission during the budget year which will cost in excess of $100,000. The description of.a facility as "interim" or "temporary" shall not affect its classification for purpose of this definition. 2. "Capital improvements funds" shall mean any funds used to pay for any capital improvement, or for any engineering, design, or planning activity or study in connection with any contemplated capital improvement. 3. The Council shall provide specific interpretation regarding the above at any time on the request of the Commission. C. Contents of the Capital Budget 1. The capital budget shall contain a specific listing of all capital improvement funds estimated to be on hand and estimated to be received during the year from all sources, including service charges, in such detail as the Council may prescribe. 2. In addition, a description of the authorization for each improve- ment as specified in the Development Program approved by the Council should be included. 3. The expected cost of each improvement, the basis for estimate, and the amounts of appropriations needed to pay for each improve- ment should be given. 4. Any likely impact of improvement costs upon service charge schedules, including reserve capacity charges, for each affected service area should be described. 5. An annual cost estimate for operation and maintenance of each proposed improvement, including equipment replacement, utilities, labor, and debt service should be included. -12- 6. A description of measures which have been or will be taken with' respect to each improvement to ensure compliance with the adopted policy plan and development program should be given, including, but not limited to, restriction on the construction or use of an improvement prior to the submission of a local sewer policy plan. 7. Specification as to a. contingency fund which shall not include an amount in excess of 10% of the total capital budget. 8. Status of funding requests. The Commission, in its capital budget submission, shall advise the Council of the status of applications for federal and state funds for projects previously authorized by the Council. D. Final Budget Effect: Amendment 1. Following approval of the final budget, the Commission may commence any project or activity or make any appropriation approved as part of the capital budget. 2. The Commission shall spend money for capital improvements only in accord with the approved budget and with the appropriations contained therein except in .the case of emergencies for which a procedure shall be prepared by the Commission and approved by. the Council. 3. The Commission may request that the Council approve an amendment to the capital budget to transfer appropriations or for other purposes at any time following the Commission's adoption of the final budget. The Council shall act to approve or disapprove a requested amendment within 30 days following the receipt of such a request unless a longer review period is specifically granted by the Commission. -13- MPC 6 COMMISSION FINANCING REGULATIONS General Discussion As a result of amendments to the Metropolitan Council Act and the Metropolttan Sewer Act over the last several years, revisions to pro- cedures used by both agencies to establish user charge schedules, defer current cost charges for reserve capacity, and review local government systems of charges are necessary. These legislative amendments place greater responsibility upon the Commission for determination of proper cost and location arrangements, with the Council in-the role of mediator in the event of Commission -local government disagreement. . These procedures are discussed below. A. User Charges 1. Thirty days beforW6�pption or change in any user charges or fees or schedule of user charges or fees, the Commission" shall forward the proposed charges or fees to the Council for review and comment preferably at the same time it forwards its Development Program to the Council. 2. Upon receipt of the proposed charges'or fees, the Referral Administrator shall acknowledge receipt to the Commission and then forward the material to planning staff for review. 3. An appropriate Council committee will perform the initial review and make recommendation to the Council. 4. For the purposes of providing local governments with adequate opportunity to comment on the proposed user charges, the Council may call a public hearing to receive testimony and review the comments bf the committee. 5. Within thirty days of receipt of the proposed user charges, the Council shall forward its comments to the Commission. 6. On or before January 15 of each year, the Council shall transmit the statement of charges, user fees or schedules of the Commission and its comments thereon to the Secretary of the Senate and Chief Clerk of the House of Representatives. B. Deferment of Payment 1. The Council shall consider 611 requests of local government units submitted by resolution of the governing body, after consideration by the Commission, to defer payment of all or a part of the current costs -14- of acquisition, betterment, and debt service.of estimated unused capacity which are allocated by the Commission to a local government. 2. Upon receipt of such a request, the Referral Administrator shall acknowledge the request, forward it to planning staff for review, and notify the Commission of its review. 3. An appropriate Council committee shall perform the initial review and make recommendation to the Council. 4. The Council, after considering the comments of the committee, may by. resolution provide for deferment of payment. Such resolution may specify time(s) for repayment, rate of interest on delinquencies, and other appropriate matters. 5 Copies of the resolution shall be sent to the local government unit and the Commission. C. • System of Charges 1. Upon receipt of a request from a local government unit, and after review and final action by the Commission, the Council shall review the decision of the Commission regarding the system of charges proposed by.that local government unit for waste treatment services. 2. The Referral Administrator shall acknowledge the "request and notify the Commission, and then forward the request to planning staff for review. 3. Within thirty days of receipt of the request, an appropriate committee shall initiate review of the proposed system of charges, and then forward its recommendations to the Council. 4. The Council, after consideration of the comments of the committee shall determine whether the local government unit's system of charges appears to be in compliance with appropriate federal law and regulations. 5. Copies of the Council's determination shall be sent to the local govern- ment unit and the Commission. -15- MPC 7 DECLARATION OF METROPOLITAN SEWER BENEFIT General Discussion The Metropolitan Sewer Act provides that the Metropolitan Council may determine that a particular interceptor or a portion thereof is of substantial benefit to the Metropolitan Area as a whole. In June, 1972; the Council adopted policy guidelines for determining metropolitan sewer benefit, after extensive discussion with local governments and sewer service area advisory. boards. The metropolitan benefit concept has not yet been, applied by the Council, but a procedure incorporating the adopted policy guidelines is outlined below in the event that a request for such declaration be made. A. Handling procedures 1.. The Council, commission, or any local government unit may initiate a request that a particular interceptor or part there ©f be declared of metropolitan benefit. 2. Such request shall be treated as a proposed amendment to the Council policy plan for the commission. 3. Amendment of the policy plan for the purpose of declaration of metropolitan benefit shall be in accordance with the provisions of the Metropolitan Reorganization Act governing the adoption and amendment of the commission policy plan. 4. The Council may determine that a particular interceptor or some portion thereof is of substantial benefit to the Metropolitan Area as a whole, and the current costs allocable to such benefit shall be allocated according to Minnesota Statutes, Section 473.05, Subdivision 5, if: a. The interceptor eliminates the need for a treatment works not existing on January 1, 1970, which could have been constructed consistent with Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and Metropolitan Development Guide standards in effect when the decision is made to construct the inter- ceptor, or eliminates the need for a treatment works exist- ing on January 1, 1970 or improvements to it; and b. The decision to build the interceptor was or is made to protect or improve 'a water resource of metropolitan signi- ficance. The term "water resource of metropolitan signifi- cance" shall include any lake or any portion of a major river used as a source of municipal water supply or desig- nated by the Metropolitan Council as a water area to be protected. -16- c S. Once. an, interceptor has been determined to be of metro- politan benefit, the costs eligible for allocation under the metropolitan benefit provision shall be those current costs incurred after December 31, 1971. 6. When the Council makes a determination of metropolitan benefit, the Sewer Board shall compute the amount of current costs al- locable thereto in preparing its budget each year. The amount of current costs allocated to a service area in such year and the current costs that would have been,allocated to the service area if the lowest cost disposal system alternative had been retained, selected or constructed consistent with paragraph one. -17- MCP 8 BOND ISSUE A. Substantive Procedure 1. Additional debt service of new offerings should be kept to the amount necessary to amortize the issue over 30 years or less with even annual combined payments of principal and interest. 2. Correlation of new debt service with outstanding debt to provide a uniform annual debt service budget and to permit reduction of the term of new offerings by use of the "drop -off" of retired issues. 3. The right of redemption should be reserved to the fullest practical extent and call premiums should be discouraged. 4. Subsequent issues should be correlated to, the necessary capital programs to provide for a quarterly issuance and should be combined accordingly. 5. Any Council agency fiscal demands may be combined in subsequent issues to provide for flexibility within the programs. MCP 9 LOCAL SEWER POLICY PLAN General Discussion The Metropolitan Reorganization Act of 1974 requires each local government in the Metropolitan Area to prepare and adopt a local sewer policy plan similar to the Council's policy plan as soon as practicable after the adoption of the initial policy plan by the Council. The local plans and amendments to this local plan are to be submitted to the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission for review and approval. Such plans should include the collection, treatment and disposal of all sanitary sewage including on -site sewage disposal facilities.. The local sewer policy plan is an important means of determining the impact of local systems upon the regional system as well as future system expansions or modifications. The Council adopts the following procedures for its participation in the Commission review of local comprehensive sewer plans to ensure con- formity to regional development policy and metropolitan sewer system expansion. A.' Handling Procedures 1. The Commission shall submit local sewer policy plans and proposed amendments thereto to the Metropolitan Council for review and comment, before the Commission takes final action on a plan. The Referral Administrator will acknowledge receipt and forward the plan to staff for review. 2. After staff review, a staff referral memorandum will be forwarded to the Commission discussing the local sewer plan and its relationship to regional development policy. The Commission shall arrange a joint meeting of Commission and Council staff with the affected local government units to discuss Commission and Council staff comments on the local sewer plan. 3. Any subsequent meetings initiated by Council or.Commission staff with the local government unit shall include mutual notification between the Council and Commission. 4. An appropriate committee of the Council will review the plan and staff comments, and forward a recommendation to the Council. The Council will review the committee findings and then transmit its recommendations to the Commission. 5. Before approving any local sewer policy plan not in conformance with the Council policy plan and the Development Framework, the Commission must first receive notification that the Council has amended the policy plan to accommodate this variation. -19- 6. The Council, in those cases where review of the entire sewer policy plan cannot be made because information regarding adjacent local governments or proposed regional facilities is.:either uncertain or unavailable, shall reserve comment on those features and make its recommendations to the Commission only on those. plan elements which, in its judgement, are clearly understood. The Commission should condition its approval of the local sewer policy plan accordingly. 7. Subsequent to such review and approval by the Council and Commission, any local government proposing to alter or improve any existing sewers or other disposal facilities in a manner not specifically approved by the Commission in its review of the local sewer policy plan, shall submit its proposal to the Commission for review, as a plan amendment before application to the MPCA for a sewer construction permit. 8. All amendments to an approved local sewer policy plan shall be re- viewed by the Council and Commission in accordance with the above procedures. B. Content of Local Comprehensive Sewer Plans 1. Local government units are expected to use the 1980, 1990, and 2000 population and employment data included in the policy plan for overall direction on development. If a local unit of govern- ment determines that the programmed availability of metropolitan sewer service conflicts with local need, it may request the Council and Commission to consider amendment of the policy plan or development program. Such requests will be considered pursuant to administrative and operational procedures established by the Council 2. The local sewer policy plan submitted to the Commission for review should be consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan of the local government unit. 3. The local sewer policy plan should contain the following information at a level of detail sufficient to describe the existing and future sewer issues and recommend solutions and appropriate facilities. a. Community Physical Facilities Surface water drainage districts, including area or subarea boundaries, area of district and subdistricts in acres, drainage direction, points of collection, ponding areas, rivers, streams, floodplains, ponds, lakes, and wetlands. -20- b. Existing and Proposed Sewerage Facilities 1. Location, size, capacity, and design flows for existing and proposed laterals and trunk sewers, lift stations, forcemains and septic tank pumpage and other waste.disposal sites in the collection system. 2. Any, sewerage facilities being used jointly with another local governmental unit indicating area of service, the number of connections and service flow volume. 3. Location, type and capacity of all existing treatment facilities for public use whether municipally or privately owned should be identified including their appropriate National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. . 4. Existing sewered population and estimated increase to sewered population, by year, for the next five years. 5. Existing and projected (for next five years) sewered connections and /or residential equivalent. C. Community Development 1. Description and location map of existing sewerage problems, including on -site sewage disposal systems, malfunction problems and needs associated with continued operation of existing treatment facilities, whether imunicipally or privately. owned and sewer system capacity limitations.. 2. Existing land use, including existing (where practicable) pro- posed streets, highways, open space, etc. consistent with an adopted comprehensive community plan. 3. Existing and projected ultimate zoning and land use, including designated open space, floodplain and similar restricted areas . 4. Any proposed changes in governmental boundaries affecting the community, including any areas designated for orderly annexation by the Minnesota Municipal Commission. d. Design Considerations for New Sewerage Facilities 1. .. Design time period and design. population. 2. Design per capita flows -- average and maximum. -21- 3. Minimum design standards for the control of inflow /infiltration into the sewer system. 4. Types, amounts and strength of waste water including domestic commercial, industrial and institutional as well as identification of individual industrial dischargers whose average daily flow exceeds 50 thousand gallons or exceeds five per cent of the total .local governmental flow or contains toxic wastes. 5. Sewer system design data for areas of service outside the community boundaries. 6. Time schedule for construction by year for the first five -year period and by five -year periods for twenty years, includi ng a local sewer construction program adopted by the local government unit. Connection to the metropolitan and /or local system is required within two years of service availability consistent with the Council policy plan and the Waste Control Commission rules and regulations. 7. Time table for upgrading all non - municipal treatment plants that do not meet state effluent and water quality standards as identified in the NPDES permit or for terminating plant operations. e. On -Site Sewage Disposal Facilities 1. Areas of the community where on -site systems are permitted as temporary and permanent facilities delineated on a map by SCS soil class including high ground water table, steep slopes and underlying rock close to ground surface. 2. Regulations and ordinances adopted by the local governing body for design, installation, operation and maintenance of .on -site sewage disposal systems. 3. Administration procedure of permit to install system including fees, licensing and bonding of installers. 4. Enforcement procedure of construction including inspection policy and personnel qualifications to insure construction in accordance with adopted standards. -22- 5. Monitoring and maintenance procedure including a system of records for on -site sewage disposal systems with dates and type of inspection, condition of facility, maintenance, program activity including authorized pumping of system and location of satisfactory disposal site of pumping. Monitoring program data should include water quality tests of. private wells. f. Local Sewer System Improvements As provided by law, at the time each local government applies to the MPCA for a permit to alter or improve its disposal system, it shall file with the Commission a copy of the application together with the design data and a location map of the project. The Commission will review its application to determine conformance with the approved sewer policy plan of the applicant community. If an application is inconsistent with the approved .plan, the Commission shall so notify the local government units and the Council, and request the MPCA to deny the permit application. If consistent with the approved plan, the Commission shall notify the local govern- ment units, the Council and MPCA. At that time the MPCA can proceed to.process the permit application. g. Ordinances and Regulations Ordinances and regulations required as part of the policy plan to carry out thevarious local requirements in accordance with minimum standards: 1. Adoption of Metropolitan Waste Control Commission rules and regulations. 2. Adoption of ordinances regulating the prohibition /permission for infiltration /inflow into the sanitary sewer system. 3. Adoption of ordinances regulating the use of floodplains, wetlands, steep slopes, open space, drainageways and so forth. 4. Adoption of ordinance regulating the installation of the local sewer system. 5. Ordinance permitting or prohibiting septic tank pumping and both sewage holding tank pumpage or other waste water disposal into .local sanitary sewer systems. RLSOLUTIO41 WHERZAS, the City of Edina will be expanding Municipal S a+te Aid Funds on the improvement of W. 49-� Street and Halifax Avenue; Lo • 5T tL &-s . _'� WHEREAS, the improvement does not conform to the approved minim= standards as previously adopted for such Municipal State dial Streets and approval of the proposed construction as a Municipal. State Aid Street must, therefore, be conditioned upon certain parking restrictions; and WHEREAS, the extent of these restrictions would be a necessary pre- .•, requisite to the approval of this construction as m Municipal State $d project in the City has b6on determined; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Edina City Council that parking on the above mentioned streets be restricted so that no perking is per- mitted on either side of V. 4911 Street and Halifax Avenue. ADOPTED this 4th day of August, 1975. i STATE OF t HRESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPlti) SS CITY OF EDITIA ) 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 August 4, 1975, and as recorded in the 11inutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this 'fth day of August. 1975. City Clerk �� J 4L'� /� 1 , C EDINA CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 10, 1975 7:00 P.M. (MORNINGSIDE SCHOOL) ROLLCALL I. PUBLIC HEARING ON MORNINGSIDE AREA IMPROVFM4'NTS Affidavits.of Notice by Clerk. Presentation by City Manager and Engineer. Spectators heard. If Council wishes to proceed, action by Resolution - ordering Improvement. 4/5 favorable rollcall vote to pass. A. Project P -BA -204 - Curb and Gutter, Street surfacing B. Project P -S -11 - Sidewalks C. Project.P -ST.S. -144 - Storm Sewer II. HRA FEASIBILITY STUDY a P S 0 1FILMON, BE IT M SOLV a that t City Goulcil hereby appoints Wayne W. 1;enleLL, girector of Public Safety for t e City of Edina, as the sal con titu ed ag.,eiit for the City of Edina for t1a purpose of making appli ati a for r i - bu se Ent fads to defray "he cost o£ salaries, expenses and s stlt#ce e: @m es a=rm q t basic tla ; R o£ Pe. e officers o£ t e City o£ E Una mio have alter 4 a certified tr i=ing course apps v d by the Minnesata Peace Offices Ilain±=R 5oard. ADOPTED GJS 6t day of &u st, 1975, Sf A1 OF ]IxK J z ) COUNTY Of N, c mErI2 ) SS CITY 011.7 zed A ) %E I' C 01 CITY C I, the undcrsignod. au \7 a niatea Edina, do !iareb m certify that Llie try and complete co77 of a resol aL its etin[ of ; nday Aua ust 4 of Sala re.Sular r etinG. and acting city CIerL Eor G m City o£ attached and £oie R resolution is a JLion aionited by L§e Edina City Couicil . 1975, and as recorded in tie minutes 2I1 sS : hand d seal of said City t is Eta day 0£ August, 1)75. � City clerk EDINA CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 3, 1975 7:00 P.M. ROLLCALL MINUTES of February 3, 1975, approved as presented or corrected by motion of ,. seconded by - I. PUBLIC HEARING ON COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACT Affidavits of Notice. by Clerk. Pre- sentation by Planning Department. Spectators heard.. If Council wishes to pro- 6eed, action by Resolution._ 3115 favorable rollcall.vote to pass. II. COMMUNICATIONS III. RECOMMENDATIONS AND REPORTS A. Open Space Reports (Continue).. B. Merit Award -.W. 70th Street C. Request for Feasibility Repoit.and Design Development for.S.Oth and France D. Work Session IV. RESOLUTIONS A. Environmental Quality Commission - Support of Returnable Containers B. Hennepin. County Bicentennial Affiliation V. ORDINANCES Presentation by City.Manager. First Reading requires offering of ordinance only. 4/5 favorable rollcall vote to pass if Second.Reading should . be waived. A. First Reading 1. Ordinance No. 1221 -A1 - Park Board Membership 2. Ordinance No. 162 -A1 - Attendance at Board and Commission Meetings VI. ANY OTHERS WHO DESIRE HEARING BEFORE COUNCIL VII. FINANCE A. Purchase of Truck Bodies - .Sewer and Water. Department B. Liquor Funds as of December 31, 1975 C. Liquor Fund Operating.-,Expense for year 1974 D. Claims Paid. Motion of seconded by for pay- ment of the following claims per pre -.list dated March 3,'1975: General Fund, $24,464.14; Construction Fund; $637.52; Park Funds, $10,270.67; Water Fund, $4,077.17; Liquor Fund, $55,338.54; Sewer Fund, $53,687.76; Total, $148,475,80 RESOLUTION R S 4801 WEST FIFTIETH STREET • EDINA, MINNESOTA 55424 `i:: IT RESOLVED that the Edina City Council hereby appoints ?ayne W. Bennett, Director of ?ubl.ic Safety for the City of. Edina, as the duly constituted agent for the City of Edina for the purpose of making aoo_lication for reir -r- bursement funds.to defray the cost of salaries, expenses and substitute ex�ensPs duri�� the basic training of Peace Officers of the City of Edina ;'ta gave attended a certified training course approved by the rlinnesota Feaca Officer Training Board. `.';01fEU this 5th day of August, 1974. STATE OF. MINNESOTA CT—_,Y v_H sI_ \a CERTIFICATE, OF CITY CLERK 927 -8861 8 1 the d;.rly ao-)ointed and acting City Clerk for the City of Edina, o her?'-)y certify that the attached and foregoing resolution is a tru.2 and complete cony of a resolution duly adopted by the Edina CiLv Council eet_in, of Mondav, Aug st, 5. 1974, and as recorded in Hip -I _.:rtes of ;,ai.d Eegmlar vleeting. =._`HESS .y 1 -1-id and seal of said City this nth day of August, 1974. GENE SYLVESTRE ASSOCIATES, ►'�.�:I1.�I�i,4i'11,t 1�1'.1:ti:�i1�•14�p� Pi:�1•►:1G:1.10. ►:11: }.GO ; >,;�1' 116 Briar Lane, Minnetonka, July 25, 1975 Mr. Warren Hyde City Manager City of Edina 4801 West 50th Street Edina, Minnesota 55424 Dear Warren, Here is a summary of,our consultative activities for the June 30 -July 25, 1975 period: TYPE OF HOURS CONSULTING MiAT WAS DONE SPENT DATES GENERAL Met with HRC Budget Committee to develop proposed 1976 HRC budget 2.0 6/30 Continued work in helping develop plans for "Peoplemak- 5.5 7/1- 17 -22 -23 ing" Family Life Workshop for September, including con- tacting possible keynote speaker,.-and resource people. Prepared grant proposal for funding.of portion of Workshop by Minnesota Humanities Commission. Contacted former HRC members inviting them to presentation 4.5 7/1 -3 -7 to City Council of Minnesota League of Human Rights Commis- sion Award. Met with HRC chairman and vice - chairman to discuss goals of2.5 7/2 HRC and role of consultant. Discussed with representatives from Youth Action proposal 2.0 7/3 -8 -10 to be made to City Council for partial funding of future activities and programs of the group. Discussed with HRC Newsletter Committee chairwoman possible2.5 7/16 -18 C for next 'issue. Discussed with HRC chairman various activities and programs planned and contemplated by HRC. 1.5 7/16 -17 Prepared discussion materials for monthly meeting.. Attended meeting. 6.5 7/14 -15 Helped develop tentative schedule of community education 3.0 7/14 -17 -21 forums for Fall- Winter period, including possible cooper- ative programs with City Jaycees, Chamber of Commerce and Fairview Southdale -2- GENERAL Prepared monthly status report consultative activities 2.0 7/25 (cont:) for City Manager and HRC chairman. EDUCATION Discussed HRC Education CamLittee members possible devel- 2.0 7/7 -9 opment of citizen steering committee that would work with HRC in helping to implement School District's AAP. HOUSING Discussed with HRC vice - chairman and Housing Ca mittee 3.5 7/7 -9 -23 chairmen development of congregational information programs about-moderate-income housing opportunities. Worked with representatives from City congregations on . 7.5- 7/7- 14- 16 -23 -24 renting units for Vietnamese refugees moving into City. Arranged and attended meetings with representatives from City congregations, denominational social service agencies and long -time Vietnamese residents to discuss opportunities -for commLuty education programs in City. TOTAL HOURS Sincerely, �� Gene Sylvestre c.c.: Joel Jennings COMMERCIAL AREA PATROL - INCIDENT STATISTICS Juice 1, 1975 - June 30,-1975 C DATE TIME INCIDENT LOCATION DISP. 75005032 6/1/75 1518 Medical Emergency Target A &A 75005o43 6/2/75 0324 Shoplifting Byerly's CBA 75005052 6/2/75 0935 Indecent Exposure Fox & Duck Lots CONT 75005055 6/2/75 1025 PD Accident Hazelton & France OTH 75005059 6/2/75 1303 PD Accident Penney's A &A 7;005063 6/2/75 1426 PD Accident 66th & France 0TH 75005066 6/2/75 1459 Indecent Exposure Tiger Lot CBA 7;005067 6/2/75 1559 Shoplifter Target CBA •75005069 6/2/75 1459 Car Fire Tiger Lot A &A 75005070 6/2/75 1803 Shoplifter Dayton's CBA 75005077 6/2/75 2333 Stolen Auto Yorktown Parking Lot OTH ',5005082 6/3/75 0157 Alarm County Seat A &A 75005084 6/3/75 0954 Alarm 7101 France A &A 15005123 6/4/75 1230 Locked Vehicle Camel Lot A &A 75005141 6/4/75 2035 Armed Robbery Threat Donaldson's. INA 75005150 6/5/75 0003 H &R PD Accident Southdale Bowl Lot A &A 75005167 6/5/75 1056 Gas Wash Down 3501 West 66th. Street A &A 75005173 6/5/75 1517 Shoplifter Roz - Southdale CBA 75005179 6/5/75 1900 Shoplifter Dayton's CBA 75005189 6/5/75 2312 Alarm Team Electronics A &A .75005206 6/6/75 1354 Account Closed Check Hurrah - Southdale 0TH ',5005219 6/6/75 2025 Shoplifter Target CBA 7;005222 6/6/75 2134 Possession Marijuana Southdale Bowl CBA. 7;005237 6/7/75 0722 Drinking in Public Byerly's GOA /UTL 75005246 6/7/75 1316 Shoplifter Spencer Gifts CBA 75001527 6/7/75 1422 Shoplifter Dayton's CBA 75005250 6/7/75 1500 Shoplifter Donaldson's CBA 75005252 6/7/75 1500 Medical Emergency Henn.County Library A &A 75005256 6/7/75 1600 Theft Village Green CONT 7;005257 6/7/75 1602 PD Accident Target A &A 7500528 6/7/75 1639 Possible Counterfeit Zapata's UNF 75005259 6/7/75 1640 Lost Child Southdale A &A 75005262 6/7/75 1850 Warrant Arrest /Open Bottle McDonald's CBA 75005268 6/7/75 2038 Shoplifter Dayton's CBA 75005287 6/8/75 0208 DWI 70th and France CBA 75005309 6/8/75 1628 Shoplifter Penney's CBA 75005335. 6/9/75 0847 Truck Fire(Garbage) 66th and France A &A 75005345 6/9/75 1255 Insufficient Funds 7101 France Avenue CONT 75005351 6/9/75 1449 PD Accident Southdale Med.Bldg. A &A 75005352 6/9/75 1458 PI Accident 70th and France 0TH :5005355 6/9/75 1624 PI Accident 66th and France 0TH ;500 >365 6/9/75 2100 Info. on a H &R McDonald's A &A 75005372 6/10/75 0009 Egg Throwers 70th and France GOA /UTL 75005374 6/10/75 0053 Medical Emergency 6616 Xerxes South A &A 75005380 6/10/75 0550 3M Alarm Henn. County Library A &A 7005382 6/ 10/75 0834 Located Juvenile Southdale Center ROA 75005386 W/10/75 1006 Alarm (Waterflow) 3400 West 70th A &A 75005391 6/10/75 1246 Shoplifter Target CBA ';5005399 6/10/75 1719 Shoplifting Donaldson's CBA Co ° = °rcial Area Patrol ncident Statistics June 1, 1975 -June 30, 1975 Page 2 DATE TIME INCIDENT LOCATION DISP. 6/11/75 0605 Alarm Donaldson's A &A 6/11/75 0952 Registration Tiger Lot A &A 6/11/75 1551 Theft Jackson Graves CONT 6/11/75 1708 Shoplifter Penney's CBA 6/11/75 2245 Customer Problem Southdale Bowl A &A 6/11/75 2355 Possession Marijuana Byerly's CBA 6/12/75 1007 PI Accident 70th and France 0TH 6/12/75 1159 PD Accident 69th and Xerxes ROA 6/12/75 1211 Shoplifter Target CBA 6/12/75 1521 Shoplifter Byerly's CBA 6/12/75 1926 Auto Theft Southdale UNF 6/13/75 1444 PD Accident 70th and France UTL 6/13/75 1459 PI Accident 70th and France OTH 6/13/75 1702 PD Accident. W.66th -W.of York 0TH 6/13/75 2000 PD Accident W. 69th and York 0TH 6/13/75 2021 Threats House of. Large Sizes INA 6/14/75 0228 DWI 66th and France CBA 6/14/75 0403 Driving after Curfew/ Vandalism Byerly's Parking Lot CBA 6/14/75. 1213 Shoplifter Donaldson's CBA 6/14/75 1345 Shoplifter Dayton's CBA 6/14/75 1515 PD Accident 72nd and France 0TH 6/14/75 1530 PD Accident Byerly's 0TH 6/14/75 1708 IPD Accident 66th and France A &A 6/14/75 1925 PI Accident 70th and York INA 6/14/75 2344 Missing Juvenile Southdale Bowl A &A 6/15/75 1119 Theft 7151 York,Apt. 904 CONT 6/15/75 1612 Warrant Arrest Southdale Cinema Lot ROA. 6/15/75 2352 Alarm /Open Door Donaldson's Car Care A &A 6/16/75 0438 Recovered Bicycle Sound of Music INA 6/16/75 1420 Accident Info. Target A &A 6/16/75 1523 Shoplifter Donaldson's CBA 6/16/75 1523 Shoplifter Donaldson's CBA 6/16/75 1619 Theft from Auto Key Cadillac INA 6/17/75 0225 Alarm County Seat A &A 6/17/75 1253 Stolen Vehicle 6969 France UNF 6/17/75 1336 Fraud 6969 France CONT 6/17/75 1827 Theft of Motorcycle Rooster Lot CONT 6/17/75 2100 DK Assist Southdale Bus Stop A &A 6/18/75 0023 Alarm Donaldson's A &A 6/18/75 0045 Curfew /Illegal Operation of Pinball Machine Southdale Bowl CBA 6/18/75 0803 Alarm 3505 Hazelton A &A 6/18/75 0823 Vandalism 7001 York INA 6/18/75 1340 Parking Byerly's Lot A &A 6/18/75 1400 Recovered Stolen Vehicle 3455 w. 69th ROA 6/18/75 1900 Miscellaneous 327 Southdale Center INA 6/18/75 1515 Shoplifter Dayton's CBA 6/18/75 2020 Shoplifter Dayton's CBA 6/19/75 0030 Curfew Southdale Bowl CBA Commercial Area Patrol Incident Statistics June.l, 1975 -June 30, 1975 Page 3 C#f DATE TILE INCIDENT LOCATION DISP. 75005718 6/19/75 1042 Theft by Check 3534 W. 70th Street CONT 75005720 6/19/75 1113 Gas Leak Dayton's Overflow Lot A &A 75005726 6/19/75 1209 PD Accident 70th St. at France OTH 75005727 6/19/75 1214 Shoplifter Dayton's CBA 75005729 6/19/75 1425 Shoplifter Dayton's CBA 75005732 6/19/75 1518 Shoplifter Dayton's CBA 75005734 6/19/75 1605 Theft from Auto Gabbert's CONT 75005635 6/19/75 1636 Auto Theft Gopher Lot UNF 75005752 6/19/75 2332 Alarm Donaldson's Car Care A &A 75005756 6/20/75 0022 Theft from Auto Southdale Bowl Lot CONT 75005758 6/20/75 0100 Alarm Target A &A 75005765 6/20/75 0911 Alarm 7001 York A&A 75005769 6/20/75 1016 Medical Assist Southdale Center A &A 75005770 6/20/75. 1252 Shoplifter Dayton's CBA 75005775 6/20/75 1529 Shoplifter Dayton's CBA 75005776 6/20/75 1430 Forgery Buttery's,Jackson Graves, Shaino,7s CONT 75005778 6/20/75 1650 Theft Target CONT 75005780 6/20/75 1722 Theft Parker Hanley CONT 75005792 6/20/75 2233 Suspicious Person Dayton's Garden Center GOA /UTL 75005790' 6/21/75 0012 Alarm Audio King A &A 75005799 6/21/75 0055 Stalled Vehicle Check NB France /69th A &A 6/21/75 0358 Open Door /Alarm Famous Brand Shoes A &A :75005802 75005803 6/21/75 0508 Alarm Donaldson's Car Care A &A 75005806 6/21/75 0754 Suspicious Auto Red Owl GOA /UTL 75005816 6/21/75 1515 Alarm 3429 Hazelton /Jones Office Machines A &A 75005819 6/21/75' 1527 Shoplifter Donaldson's CBA, 75005823 6/21/75 1605 Theft Southdale CONT 75005824 6/21/75 1636 PI Accident 69th and France OTH 75005838 6/22/75 0027 Alarm Audio King A &A 75005840 6/22/75 0042- Curfew- Southdale Bowl CBA 75005857 6/22/75 1544 Shoplifter Dayton's CBA 75005861 6/22/75 1725 Forgery Dayton's CBA 75005872 6/22/75 2144 Abandoned Bicycle Southdale OTH 75005882 6/23/75 0142 Shoplifter /Curfew /P &C Byerly's CBA 75005892 6/23/75 1056 Keys locked in vehicle Duck Lot A &A 75005896 6/23/75 1230 Theft 7151 York South A &A 75005904 6/23/75 1900 H &R PD Acc.- Information Raccoon Lot A &A 75005907 6/23/75 2020 Medical Emergency Tiger Lot A &A. 75005908 6/23/75 2037 Theft from Auto Rabbit Lot INA 75005909 6/23/75 2049 Harassment -Info. Alligator Lot A &A 75005910 6/23/75 2038 Shoplifting Dayton's CBA 75005924 6/24/75 0251 Theft from,Auto Southdale Bowl CONT 75005942 6/24/75 1317 Shoplifter- Donaldson's CBA 75005950 6/24/75 1605 Shoplifter Donaldson's UNF 75005956 6/24/75 1843 Shoplifting /Poss.Marij. Dayton's CBA 75005973 6/25,/75 0209 PD Accident 72nd and France OTH 75005977 6/25/75 0953 Alarm 3505 West 69th A &A 75005979 6/25/75 1117, Theft from Auto Fox Lot INA 75005980 6/25/75 1109 Shoplifter /Resisting Arrest Penney's CBA Cc-_e_ ci al Area Patrol Inc_^e =�t Statistics j- e 1, 1975 -Jane 30, 1975 C- DATE TI14E 7500;986 6/25/75 1518 75005990 6/25/75 1530 75005993 6/25/75 1629 75005304 6/25/75 1724 75000018 6/26/75 0917 75006027 6/26/75 1425 75o06033 6/26/75 1809 75006C41 6/26/75 2223 75006042 6/26/75,, 2311 75006066 6/27/75 1616 75006067 6/27/75 1722 75006070 6/27/75 214o 75006087 6/28/75 0401 7j00697 6/28/75 1107 75006097 6/28/75- 1258 75006101 6/28/75 1402 75006103 6/28/75 1814 75006105 6/28/75 1851 7 nn�i- 5 06__0 6/28/75 2208 75006'12 6/28/75 2230 750 -0- 6/29/75 1025 75006/35 6/29/75 1314 750061L2 6/29/75 1742 750061'3 6/29/75 1821 75oc6157 6/30/75 1035 75Co6165 6/30/75 1210 706167 6/30/75 1230 �0 0:S16 6/30/75 1352 750�6i7' ' 6/30/75 1551 75006175 6/30/75 1553 Page 4 INCIDENT LOCATION Shoplifter Penney's Bicycle Theft Henn. County Library Theft of M/C Parts Rooster Lot Shoplifter Target Locked Vehicle Kangaroo Lot Shoplifter 150 Southdale Center Alarm . '3429 Hazelton Theft from Auto Target Alarm Polly Berg H &R PD Accident 66th and France Shoplifting Donaldson's Poss.of Controlled Substance Lost Property Southdale Alarm(Safe) Byerly's Theft Southdale Bridal Shop Exposer Tiget Lot Theft Southdale Bridal Shop Theft Donaldson's Alarm 3517 Hazelton Road PD Accident Target Suspicious Persons Southdale Bowl Holdup Alarm J.B.Hudson Alarm Scandival Imports Misc.Officer York & Hazelton Shoplifter Penney's Shoplifting /Resisting Arrest Donaldson's Lost Child Galleria Insufficient Fund Check J. Riggings Suspicious Persons Alligator Lot Theft from Auto /Vandalism Southdale Ford. Shoplifter Dayton's DISP. CBA 0TH INA CBA A &A CBA UNF INA A &A A &A CBA A &A A &A INA CONT CONT CONT A &A A &A A &A A &A A &A A &A CBA CONT A &A CONT A &A CONT CBA FIXED ASSETS AT COST: Land .Land Improvements Buildings Furniture and Fixtures Leasehold Improvements Less: Allowance for Depreciation and Amortization Construction in Progress TOTAL ASSETS $151,448.85 $ 21,644.06 455,911.08. 145,264.59 3,035.55 $625,855.28 170,478.40 455,376.88 $606,825.73 3,482.92 610,308.65 $2,189,706.68 LIABILITIES AND SURPLUS CURRENT LIABILITIES: Trade Accounts Payable Accrued Payroll TOTAL CURRENT LIABILITIES SURPLUS: Invested in Fixed Assets Unappropriated TOTAL LIABILITIES AND SURPLUS $ 224,455.80 6,639.00 $ 231,094.80 $ 610,308.65 1,348,303.23 1,958,611.88 $2,189,706.68 LIQUOR FUND BALANCE SHEET CITY OF EDINA As of May 31,1975 ASSETS CURRENT ASSETS: Cash: Demand Deposits $384,959.62 Working Fund 3,500.00 $ 388,459:62 Due from Other Funds 18,775.00 Loan to Other Funds 415,000.00 Accrued Interest 7,825.00 Inventory: $580,827.05 Liquor 162,481.76 Wine Beer and Mix 2,799.30 746,108.11 Prepaid Expenses: Unexpired Insurance $ 2,830.30 Supplies Inventory 400.00 3,230.30 TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS $1,579,398.03 FIXED ASSETS AT COST: Land .Land Improvements Buildings Furniture and Fixtures Leasehold Improvements Less: Allowance for Depreciation and Amortization Construction in Progress TOTAL ASSETS $151,448.85 $ 21,644.06 455,911.08. 145,264.59 3,035.55 $625,855.28 170,478.40 455,376.88 $606,825.73 3,482.92 610,308.65 $2,189,706.68 LIABILITIES AND SURPLUS CURRENT LIABILITIES: Trade Accounts Payable Accrued Payroll TOTAL CURRENT LIABILITIES SURPLUS: Invested in Fixed Assets Unappropriated TOTAL LIABILITIES AND SURPLUS $ 224,455.80 6,639.00 $ 231,094.80 $ 610,308.65 1,348,303.23 1,958,611.88 $2,189,706.68 LIQUOR DISPENSARY FUND COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF INCOME AND EXPENSE CITY OF EDINA Five Months Ending May 31, 1975 and May 31, 1974 OPERATING EXPENSES: Selling $ 29,061, Overhead 5,398 Administrative 17,538 TOTAL OPERATING$ 51,997 EXPENSES NET OPERATING 27,352 $ 27,582 10,782 19,028 $ 57,39 $ 22,172 1975 $ 26,188 $ 23,826 $ 18,397 1474 $ 2,873 $ 3,756 $ 3,775_ INCREASE- DECREASE* 8,954 50th St. Yorkdale- Grandview Total 50th St. Southdale Grandview Total 50th St. Yorkdole 17,001 Grandview Total SALES: $294,442 $440,856 $302,990 $1,038,288 $289,899 $382,587 $263,499 $ 935,985 $ 4,543 $ 58,269 $ 39,491 $102,303 Liquor Wine 88,650 149,029 88,089 325,768 83,289 127,345 68,855 279,489 5,361 21,684 7,825 19,234 46,279 Beer 105,397 143,268 80,867. 329,532 86,079 110,151 61,665 257,895 19,319 33,117 4,687 19,202 71,638 Mix and Miscellaneous 9,515 13,972 9,638 33,125 8 706 10,608 7,90 27,223 809 3,364 1,729 5,902 $498,004 $747,125 $481,584 $1,726,713 $467,973. $630,691 $401,928 $1,500,592 $30,032 $116,434 $ 79,656 $226,122 Less bottle refunds 8,457 11,342 7,962 27,761 7,417 9,387 7,413 24,217 1,040 1,955 $ 549 3,544 NET SALES $489,547 $735,783 $473,622' $1,698,952 $460,556 $621,304 $394,515 $1,476,375 $28,992 $114,479 $ 79,107 $222,578 COST OF SALES: Inventory - January 1$191,472. $210,403 $218,398 $ 620,273 $183,230. $202,960 $165,390 $ 551,580 $ 8,242 $ 7,443' $ 53,008 $ 68,693 Purchases 442,928 651,247 438P668 1,532,843 422 580 544,377 355,721 1,322,678 20 348 106 870 10.44% 82,947 210,165 $634,400 $861,651 $657,066 $2,153,116 $605,810 $747,337 $521,111 $1,874,258 $28,590 $114,313 $135,955 2.14 $278,858 Inventory --May 31 224,202 260,105 261,801 746,108 225,249 246,948 191,954 664,151 1,047* 13,157 69,847 81,957 $410,198 $601,546 $395,265 $1,407,008 $380,561 $500,389 $329,157 $1,210,107 $29;637 $1019156 $ 66,108 $196,901 GROSS PROFI$ 79,349 $134,237 S 78,357 $ 291,946 $ 79,995 $120,915 $ 65,358 $ 266,268 $ 645* $ 13,323 $ 12,999 $ 25,677 OPERATING EXPENSES: Selling $ 29,061, Overhead 5,398 Administrative 17,538 TOTAL OPERATING$ 51,997 EXPENSES NET OPERATING 27,352 $ 27,582 10,782 19,028 $ 57,39 $ 22,172 $ 78,815 $ 26,188 $ 23,826 $ 18,397 $ 68,411 $ 2,873 $ 3,756 $ 3,775_ $ 10,404 8,954 25,134 8,978 9,550 8,738 27,266 3,580* 1,232 216 2,132* 17,001 53,567 12,070 12,227 - 10,668 34,965 5,468 _6,801 6,333 18,602 $ 48,127 $ 157,516 $ 47,236 $ 45,603 $ 37,803 $ 130,642 $ 4,761 $ 11,789 $ 10,324 $ 26,874 $ 76,845 $ 30,230 $ 134,430 $ 32,759 . $ 75,312 $ 27,555 $ 135,626 $ 5,406* $ 1,534 $ 2,675 $ 1,197* N PROFIT OTHER INCOME: $ 1,942 $ 3,168 $ 2,410 $ 7,520 $ 2,309 $ 2,959 $ 2,025 $ 7,293 $ 367* $ 209 $ 385 $ 227 Cash Discount 3 50* 50 3 43 10 104 157 40* 60* 54* 154* Cash over or under Income on investments 7,825 7,825 3,138 3,138 4,687 4,687 Other 724 724 641 641 83 83 $ 10,494 $ 3,118 $ 2,460 $ U.072 $ 61,131 $ 2,969 $ 2,129 $ 11,229 $ 4,363 $ 149 $ 331 $ 4,843 NET INCOME$ 37,846 $ 79,963 $ 32,690 $ 150,502 $ 38,890 $ 78,281 $ 29,684 $ 146,855 $ 1,043* $ 1,683 $ 30006 $ 3,646 PERCENT TO NET SALES: Gross profit 16.21% 18.24% 16.54% 17.18% 17.37% 19.46% 16.56% 18.03% Operating expenses 10.62 7.80 10.16 9.27 10.26 7.34 9.58 8.85 Operating profit 5.59% 10.44% 6.38% 7.91% 7.11% 12.12% 6.98% 9.18% Other income 2.14 .42 .52 ..95 1.33 .48 .54 .76 NET INCOME 7.73% 10.86% 6.90% 8.86% 8.44% 12.60% 7.52% 9.94%