HomeMy WebLinkAbout1974-08-19_COUNCIL MEETING(Official Public, ,ion"
CITY OF MINA
iHtd�M99PIN COTNTY, IETNNESOTA
FOTI'CE OF ASSESSIMNI FOR
Sanitary Sever #297
IdatermaiLn 0268
THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL will meet- on Monday, August 19, ISM, at 7:00 P.M. to
hear and pass upon all objections= if any, to the following proposed assess-
ments„ These assessments are now on file in the Edina lit:y ;� f ,ces, ASol Test
Fiftieth Street and open to public inspection.. Assessments rill be payable' i.Tt
three equal installments over a period of three (3) ri.rst pa,ment o£ each
assessment will be payable with the taxes for the ye'ax 19747 collectible 'n
3975, with interest on the entire assessment; at the rate of 5% per annum from
the date of the resolution levying the assessment to December 31, 19750 To
each subsequent: installment: will be added interest- at the same rate for one
year on all unpaid installments. The owner of the pl.operty assessed for the
folla-aing improvements may pay the wha'.e of the assessment without interest to
the City Treasurer on or before November 15, 1974, or make payinent: with accrued
interest to the County Treasurer,
I. CONSTRUCTION OF SAF.T ARY SEWER VIO, 297
Gleason Road from Dewey Dili Road to 150W'south
20 CONSTRUCTION OF WATEMMIN NO, 268
Gleason Road from Dewey Hill Road to 1500' south
EY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNICIL
Florence DeFlaliberg
City:. Clerk
Please publish in Edina Sun on August 1, 1974
Please.send us 13 affidavits of publication
Please.send us 13 clippings
(Revised)
RDER& MY Cd9II►1SC IL MEMM
AO M 19a. 1974
xzm= of July 15, 1974a .appimed as submitted or coruect.ed by m+a!tion of o
secoadaO,., *
'Io L C HEmics cm -sPRCiAL ASSLsaw s Affidavits of Notice by Clerk. Ana'�.•ysis
of assessment by;City Manager. Spectators heard. If CmUMil wishes to proceed,
notion by Resolution Ordering Assessment. 315 favorable sollcall vote to pass
A. Street Improvement FAA -168 - Country Club Area
Ba Street Iumpamowrem> eut No., HA -197 - Pxoaperat Hills Area
C. Storm Sever 2uprmemmm,ent ST.S -117 -B -.Valley View Road - Dcran E02d
Da Sanitary Sorer' Imiprovemmment SS -302 -A - 5508 - .5516 Ve Lve.
go Sanitary Samar Improvement SS-305 - L3neoln Drive
To Street Improvement C ®112 - Lincoln Dave
0. Street Improeemment BA -190 - Lincoln Dative
H. sanitary Saves Tapmvmmmmen+t SS -312 - Hondo 2nd Addition
1. Street Improvement Aw172 - W. 62nd Street
Jo. Street ImpreQvemzment SA -196 - lee 'Palley Circle
Ko hater mAn Impmvem ent WM-278 - Roushar Frmitage Road - Vernon Ave.
LQ Hater main Improvement WM-286 - Bridge Leese
M. Storm Sever $mprevement ST.S -135 - Bertelsen Additions - R.L.S. 1129
Ho Street ImzBpmvement DA-192 - Parkwood Inolls 17th Addition
0. Street Improvement Bk-193 - Tupa Drive
ro Sanitary Sewer Eanpro vent SS-297 - Gleascu Road
Q. Water Main Improvemaent UN-268 - Gleason Coed
S. Street Improvement BA -178 - Hyde Park Addition
.11. nM&C K&AIMC �W 1C BD MMMSMSH'8' Affi&mits of Not-ice by Clerk. Freaenta-
Lion by Mmager and Engineer. Speet�rs iv+ear^d. if Ce�?�il �sT►as to pz+ec�eds
action by Resolution Ordering Improvement. 415 %vopable:rolleall vote to 2'438
A; Ornamental Street Lighting Imps vezent.P°L -9 - W. 70th Stmt
]MI. PLSLIC -� ZOO MATE SRS Affidavits of Notice by Clark. �sQnt&E;i0n
by Plamnsn. Spectators heard. First meading "uiras offering of ordinsn
only. 4/5 favorable aso►l ll vote to pass Wcond �aid&ub or if Secacd Reading
should be waived.
Ae First Rmuling
1. Roller Skating Arenas in Plainamd Industrial District �a /32/74)
2. Partnership Investments of Minnesotat Iuco - K 'W ' eernass •f OlE:sson toed
and Czesstowa Highway - 1-4 assideaial Distrrict to PMD-3 Pled
Bnsidential District Z -74-9 (7/31/74)
IV. ZMM HBARIMS eN LIMMM FIAT APPROVALS Affidavits. of Notice by Clet uk.
'Presentation by Planner. Spectators heard. If Ceuncil wishes to proceed, actic -a
by fsolution. 315 favorable rollcall vote to pass.
A. Hyde Pask 2nd .Addition S-74 -4 (7131114)
B. The Windings 8 -74 -10 (1131/74)
V. PUBLIC HZMNQ Ow BOARD OF AMALS AND S DECISION affidavits of
Notice by Clerk. Presentation by Planning Departm nt. Spectators heard.
Action of Council by ZesolutUm. 3/5 favorable =11tall vote to pass.
A. Calhoun Realty.
VIP Cd1ICATIO
A9 Petitions
1. Oiling - Parnell Ave. fram.W. 62nd Street to ko 63rd Street
20 Schaefer Baad, View Lane, Stauder Circle are €fie
B. Thomas To I far. h - Board of Appeals & Adjustments Decision Appeal - Set Hea?iriuz,
date - September 16, 1974
C... Countryside School Sidewalk (Ttacy Ave.)
1. M. Don B®lka
2. Petition for Immediate Install8tiOn
D. Gregory Do Gustafson - Beard of Appeals and Adjustments Decision Appeal
(Hearing 8- 74-25) 1 -
AL
gust 190 1974 Agenda
page Rm
Vill, =MENDIm.01gs AND VJM% 'S
A. Wooddale Bus Ebute
Do Rio 3. Edina weter Study (Continued from 8/5/74)
ca Men Prale a Stmt & Utf lity Agreements (Continued from 8f5/74)j
Do City Rage and Sea. Matan (Continued from 8/5/74)
E. SoutlWal.e ill TAcenses (Continued fga m $/5/74)
Po Notice of Claim ® William $eetz
q. Suit. s Walter Laughl: ,n
Do Confi,rmtLen of A.lternnte Member - Bz=d of Appeals and Adjustfwn?a
Z o Veraen Aqua a iguer Stage Xnterim Plaw
J. Doan AM= - Ordinance 611 Complaint
907 Housing lmpection Psa£CtfM3
Lo Traffic Safety Committee Minutes of August 13, 1974
M. Affirmitive Actin
�i s sir ,.r�:s� " � :t 'r u : ;y �'� � �, :t � • �; Lr;� ,
x WI_ z
A. CIMiM3 Paid. 110%'ien of — —,9 sawnded by s for pcwwnt
of the ftl UmIna chins aa per Pza- stn Ga=ral Fund, ;"3,aS.76;
Consts -amcl n Amd, $290,224.46; Pgrka, 449®704,89; Water Fund, 0,071.35;
Liquor d,. V15,125.37; Sewer Fund, $1.630.10; Tetal, $6499241.93
Do Aglite for Dredesen Park
C, Heating System at Braemar Clubhouse
(Offaciai r.;ublication)
CITY OF EDINA
140TICE OF ASSESS'= FOR
Street Improvements Humbered C -112.
A -172, DA -168, BA -178, BA -190,
RA -192, BA --193, BA -196 and BA -197
Watermains Numbered 278 and 286
Sanitary Sewers Numbered 302A, 305 and 31.2
Storm Sewer.,alffumbered 117 -B and 135
THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL dill meet on Monday, August 19, 1974, at 7:00 P,Y?, to
hear and pass upon all objections, if any, to the following proposed assess -
ments. These assessments are now on file in the Edina City offices, 4801 West
Fiftieth Street and open to public inspections. Assessments will be payable: in
ten equal installments over a period of tees (10) years. First payment of each
assessment will be payable with the twxes for the year 1974, collectible in
1975, with interest on the entire assessment at the rate of 5% per annum from
the date of the resolution levying the assessment to December 31, 1975.. To
each subsequent installment will be added interest at the same Tate for one
year on all unpaid installments. The oetner of the property assessed for the
following improvements may pay the whole of the assessment ui thou : interest to
the City Treasurer.on or before November 15, 1974, or make payment with accruied
interest to the County Treasurer.
CORSTRUCTION OF STREET 1RPR0VEq T NO, A -172
Vest 62nd Street from Concord Avenue to St. .Johns Avenue
COIXTRUCTION OF STREET ZERROVEMENT e Oa D2-.-168
Sunnyside Road from the er_st line of Block.. 2 of
Country Club District Fairway Section to Highway I00
Grimes Avenue from Sunnyside Road to the -north line of
See, 18, wp, 28, Range 24
Arden Avenue from W. 50th Street to Sunnydide Road.
Bruce avenue from W. 50th Street to S-= :�yside Road,
Casco Avenue from Country Club Read to Sunnyside Road
Dreuel Avenue from Country Club Road to,: Sunnyslde. Road
Edina Blvd from Country Club Road to Su- nnyside. Road
Moorland Avenue from Country Club Road to Sunnyside Road
Browndale Avenues from Country Club Road .to w. 44th Street
£dgebrook Place
Country Club Road fro. Arden Avenue to the south line of
the Nk Sec. 18, Twp 28, Range 24
Bridge Street from Arden Avenue to Hinnehaha Creel.
Mackey Street from Sunnys ide Road to north line of
Country Club District,. Brot ?n Section
03! CONSTRUCTION OLD STREET 114FROVE14ENT NO. BA- 178
Hyde Farb Drive from Dewey Hill Road to 45(3° f south
Hyde: Park Circle from Kyrie Park Drive west. to cul-de -sac
Igo COUSTAUCTaIGH OF STREET 1 ,11FROVEPENT NO. BA -190
Lincoln Drive from Londonderry Road to N lire of Prestige
2nd Addition,
--05- CONSTRUCTION OF STREET MPROVEP-1E1T IM. BA -192
Field Way from Londonderry Road westerly 725P 6
Deere Drive from Londonderry Road waste ..a y to
Biscayne Blvd.
Biscayne Blvd from Londonderry Road to Dovre Drive
( 6 CONSTRUCTION OF STREET LAnOVEME T NO. BA -193
Tupa Drive from East line of Breemar Hills 5th
Addition easterly to cul -de -sac
Official Publication
City of Edina
PB 2
07. CONS'TF.UCT10 17 OF STREET IX RGVM4RRT M. BA-196
Lee Valley. Circle from West 70th Street to West 70th SLreat
n o COx2STRUCTION OF S'TREE T- 4PROVENENT TO. BA-197
Antrim Road from West 70th Street to Dublin Road
Dublin Road from 'south -linc:_cr. L. r 4, brospact Hills to An?:rim Road
Merry Road from Dublin Road to coal -de -sac
Wexford Road from Kerry Road to cul= -de -sac
Doom,Road from Wexford Road to Lee Valley Road
Lee Valley Road from Dorn Road to Shannon Drive
Shannon Drive from Lee Valley Road to De�.�ey dill Road
Tralee Drive from Lee Valley Road to cul -de -sac
CGESTRUCTION OF STREET IMPROVE14ENT FO. C -112
Lincoln Drive from Londonderry Road to M line of L-restige
2nd Addition
,DO CONSTRUCTION OF WATE'RMUR RO, 278
Roushar Frontage Road and proposed frontage -road frorsa
Lincoln Drive to Vernon Avenue
Vernon Avenue from County Road 462 to Walnut Drive
Vernon Avenue from 'Tamarac Drive to the vast line of
Gleason Third Addition
1I CORSTRDC'TION OIL WATERMAIN no. 286
Bridge Lang: from Tomes Road to 320® crest.
61- CONSTRUCTION OF SANITAW1 SEVER NO. 302-A
Easement line from Vernon Avenue to service
#5508 and 05516 Vernon Avenue
�13o CONSTRUCTION OF SANITARY SEWER NO,, 312
Easement line from west line of Hondo 2nd Addition
to Shannon Drive: to Dublin Road
1� - CONSTRUCTION OF SANITARY SEWFAI F.O. 305
Lincoln Drive from 608 0 south of center line of
Londonderry Drive to south line of Nine ,File North Addition
05, CONSTRUCTION OF STORK SEWER NO. 135
Easement line between Lots 12 and 9, Block 2,
Bertelsen Addition and Tract G, R.L.5o #1129
from W. 76th Street north 2508; thence nest
508; thence north 2601
0fficial publication
City of Edina
pS 3
16 C0F'iSTRUCE10I1 OF STOMM SHUER NO. 1175
Lee Valley Road from Shannon Drive to Do.•tn Road
Down Road from Lee Valley Road to Kerry Road
Description of area proposed to be assessed: Commencing ,t a
point on the South Nine of the i"Wk Sec. 8, Twp. 116, Range 21,
said point being at the intersection of the Sly extension of
the West line of Lot 9, Blocs 3, Kemrich :Knolls Addition; ;hence,
Wly along the South line of the h1,14 of said Sec, 8, a distance
i�f869.901; thence My to the SE corner of Lot 1, Block 2,
rjeldheim Addition; thence northwesterly to a point in said Lot 1,
said point being 302 rest of the east line and 401 north of the .
south line of said Lot 1; thence westerly 40° north of and parallel
to the north line of Dewey Hill Road to a point in Lot 19, Block 1,
Holand lst Addition, said point being 509 west of the east line;
thence northerly to a point on the north line of Lot 16, Block 1,
Holands 1st Addition, said point being 100' west of the east line
of Holands lst Addition; thence northwesterly to a point in most
northerly line of Lot 15, Block 1, Holands tat Addition, said point
700 northeasterly of the northwest corner of said Lot 15; thence
northwesterly to the west line of Lot 14, B1 c@@ Holands 1st Add-
ition said point being 700 north of the southwest corner of said
Lot 14; thence westerly to a point in the,west line of Lot 13, Block
1, Holands 1st Addition, said point being 506 north of the south -
west corner of said Lot 13; thence northwesterly to a point in the
north line of Lot 12, Block 1, Holands tat Addition, said point
being 1009 west of the northeast corner of said Lot 12; thence north-
erly to the northwest corner of Lot 4, Block 3, Prospect Hills 2nd;
thence northeasterly to a point on the north line of Lot 5, Block 3,
Prospect Hills 2nd Addition, said point being 201 northwesterly of
the northeast corner of said Lot 5; thence northwesterly to a point
on the west line of Lot 1, Block 3, Prospect Hills 2nd Addition, said
point being 1201 northerly of the southwest earner of said Lot 1;
thence northwesterly to a point on the east line of Lot 1, Block 2,
Prospect Hills 2nd Addition, said point being 300 north of the south-
east corner of said Lot l; thence northwesterly to a point on.the west
line of said Lot 1, said point being 70° north of the southwest corner
of said Lot 1; thence northwesterly to a point in the north line of
Lot 2, Block 1, Schey °s Park View 2nd Addition, said point being 100°
southwesterly from the northeast corner of said Lot 22; thence north-
westerly to a point in the north line o€ Lot 1, Flock 1, Schey ®s Park
View 2nd Addition, said point being 140 °,crest of the northeast corner
of said Lot 1, thence northwesterly to a point in the north line of
Lot 12, Prospect Hills Addn,, said point being 60° east of the north -
west corner of said Lot 12; thence northeasterly to a point in the
crest line of Lot 13, Prospect Dills Addition said point being 228,53,
northerly of the southwest corner of said lot 13; thence northwesterly
to a point in the east line of Lot 10, Prospect Hills Addition, said
point being 401 south of the northeast corner of said Lot 10; thence
Nally to the NE corner of.Lot 9, FrospecL :.Mills Addition; thence Poly
to the PTE corner of Lot 8, Prospect Hills Addition; thence north -
easterly to a point in the east line of Lot 7, Prospect Hills Addition;
said point being 60 0.northerly of the nerthsaest corner of Lot 6,
Prospect Hills Addno; thence northeasterly to a point in Lot A, RLS #971,
said point being 1000 east of the crest line and 1001 north of the south
line of said Lot A; thence easterly 100° north of and parallel to the
south line of said Lot A to the east line of said Lot A; thence south -
easterly to a point in the west line of Lot 4, Prospect dills Addno,
said point being 88034 north of the southwest cower of said Lot 4;
thence southeasterly to the southeast corner of said Lot 4; thence
northeasterly to a point on the uest line of Lot 2, Block 1, Al Petersen
Addition, said point being 50° Sly of the NU corner of said Lot 2;
thence SE1y to a point in that part of the west 8 acres of the NEk of
the FWk Section 8, Twp. 116, Range 21 lying south of the north 255,
thereof, except road, said point being 110® east of the west line and
Official Publication
City of Edina
Pg 4
350 south of the north line of said part of vest 8 acres; thence Ely
350 south of and parallel to the north line of said above described
property to the west line of Hondo Addition; thence Illy along the
xmst line of Hondo Addition to a paint is the west line of Lot 1,
Block 1 said point being 50• south of the N14 corner of said Lot 1;
thence northeasterly to a point in the north line of Lot 1, Block 1,
Hondo Addition, said point being 601 east of the northwest corner
of said Lot 1; thence easterly to the northwest corner of.Lot 1,
Block 2, Hondo Addition; thence southeasterly to a point in the south
line of said lot 1, said point being 509 east of the southwest corner
of said Lot 1; thence Sly to a point on the north line of Lot 4,
Block 2, Hondo Addition, said point being 500 east of the NU corner of
said Lot 2; thence SEly to a point on the north line of Lot 8, Block 1,
Hondo Addition, said point being 39.591 west of the ICE corner of said
Lot 8; thence Ely along the south line of Lanham bane to the M corner
of Lot 1, Block 3, Me Pa Johnson's Prospect Bills Addition; thence SEly
to a point in said Lot 1, said point being 400 east of the nest line
and 501 south of the north line of said Lot 1, thence Sly 401 east of
and parallel to the east line of Fleetwood Drive to a point in Lot 7,
Block 3, M.P. Johnson's Prospect Hills Addition, said point -being 351
south of the north line of said Lot 7; thence SEly to a point on the
north line of Lot 1, Block 2, Kemrich Knolls Addition, said point being
946900 *crest of the NE corner of said Lot 1; thence Sly to the Wd corner
of Lot 8, Block 3, Remrich Knolls Addition; thence Sly along the west
lines of Lots 8 & 9, Block 3, Kemrich KwI is Addition and.their Sly ext.
to point of beginning,
BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Florence B. Hallberg
City Clerk
Please publish in the Edina Sun on August 1, 1974
Please send us 13 affidavits of publication
Please send us 13 clipping3
ANALYSIS OF ASSESSMENT
LEVY NO. 5966
COUNTY WO. B168
POR s STREET IMPROVD-214T NO. DA -168
LOCATIONS. Sunnyside Road from the east line of Block 2 of
Country Club District Fairway Section to Highway 100
Grimes Avenue from Sunnyside Road to the north line of
Sec018, T,28, R,24
lVid n Avenue from W. 50th Street to Sunnyside Road
Bruce Avenue from W. 50th Street to Sunnyside Road
Casco Avenue from Country Club Road to Sunnyside Road
Drexel Avenue from Country Club Road to Sunnyside Road
Edina Blvd. from Country Club Road to Suanys•i de Road
Moorland Avenue from Country Club Road to Sunnyside Road
Brown.dale Avenue from Country Club Road to W. 44th Street
Edgebrook Place
Country Club Road from Arden Avenue to the south line,of
th N1- Sec.18, T,28, Ro24
Bridge Streets from Arden Avenue to Minnehaha Creek
Mackey Street from Sunnyside Road to north line of
Country Club District, Brown Section
CONTRACTOR: Bury and Carlson, Inc.
CONTRACT AMOUNT-. $512,453.59
Less Amount due from other funds:
Waterworks Fund $29,350.35
Seger Rental Fund 6,278000 35,628.35
$476,825024
ENGINEERING AND CLERICAL (10%)
47,682052
$524,507076
Work Order No0325 - Locate and repair cable breaks and
unload manholes
756036
Kenneth Co Simons - Arborist
556029
Robert M. McGuire
16025
Bulldog Grading, Inc. - retaining walls
515.07 ;•
Work Order hoo412 - weld drain bo,;
29.15
Sail Engineering Service - testing
7.50
Jerry's Hakdware - supplies
10o09
Bury & Carlson - additional work
625.00
Sod replacement
1,200.40•
Minnesota Tree, Inc.
200 OO
PUBLISHING AND SUPPLIES-.
100000
$528,525.04
Less one -half City snare
264,262.52
$264,262052
CAPITALIZED INTEREST @ 5%
.From.- May 21, 1973
Tor August 19, 11974
455 clays @ $36020 per day 16„582093
TOTAL. CONSTRUCTI(YA COST 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v $280,S4r5.45
ASSESSABLE UNITS - 37, 3456047 feet
ES`IIMTED ASSESSMENT - $8059 PER ASSESSABLE FOOT
PROPOSED ASSESSMENT - $70:52 PER ASSESSABLE FOOT
ASSESSABLE COST,.
COUNTY CIL4RGEo 518 Parcels @ $0.50 each parcel
TO BE SPREAD OVER 10 'YEARS - 1975 thru 1984
FIRST YEAR PAYABLE WITH 1974 TAXES COLLECTED IN 1975
FIRST YEAR'S INTEREST FIGURED @ 57. OF TOTAL PRIUCIPAL TIMES 1.37 (4 99 days)
$280,Va5.45
259.00
$281,104 450
ANALYSIS OF ASSESSMENT
XXVY PLO, 5966
COUIR Y NO. B197
FORo. STREET 1MPROi.►Et -%-VT NO. BA -197
LOCATIONS Antrim Road from West 70th Street to Dublin Road
Dublin Road from South line of Lot 4, Prospect Dills to Antrim Road
Kerry Road from Dublin Read to cul -de -sac
Westford Road from Kerry Road to cul -de -sac
Down Road from Westford Road to Lee Valley Road
Lee Valley Road from Down Road to Shannon Drive
Shannon Drive from Lee Valley Road to Dewey Dill Road
Tralee Brine from Lee Valley Road to cul -de -sac
CONTRACTOR.- Riegger Roadways, Inc.
CONTRACT AMOUBT
ENGINEERING AND CLERICAL (107o)o
No.64772 - Jerry's Hardware
Retaining Wall
PU13LIS19-ING AND SUPPLIES,.
$32,216.52
3j221.65
$35,433.17
10.32
275.00
$358723.49
50.00
$35,773.49
CAPITALIZED 1STEREST @ 57.
From: October 15, 1973
To-o August 19, 1974
308 days @ $4 o 9O per day
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . o . . . . . $37,282.27
ASSESSABLE blilTS: 4.7 2 13 lots
EST3.NKTED ASSESS? -M' T - $1,824.28 PER ASSESSABLE Lq.?
*PRQPQSED ASSESS?I_E?3T - $ 782.14 PEA'.. ASSESSABLE LOT
ASSESSABLE COST,.
COi -NrlY CHARGE: 51 Parcels @ $0.50 each parcel
TO DE SPREAD OVER 10 KERBS - 1975 tbru 1984
FIRST DEAR PAYABLE WITH 1974 TAKES COLLECTED IN 1975
FIRST YEAROS IfiNTZREST FIGURED @ 5% OF TOTAL PRINCIPAL TIMES 1.37 (499 days))
$371, 282.27
25.50
$37,,307.7'7,,307.77
ANALYSIS CF_ ASSESS0714T
FOR: STORKS SEWER NO. 117-B
LOCATION-,' Lee Valley Road from Shannon Drive to Dwn Road
Dorm (toad from Lee Valley Road to Kerry Road
C(RiTUXTOR s Riegger Roadway, Inc.
CONriAACT AMOUNT:
2NGINEBRING AID .CLERICAL (11%)-.
J3t LISHING AND SUPPLIES*
LEVY NO. 5964
CGtRiT1.1' NO. 3074
$44,756.62
40923.23
$49,679o85
50.00
Vi-9,729.85
C'.A?ITALI%ED 11STEREST @ 570
From: September 17, 1913
Toe August 19, 1974
336 days @ $607: per day 2,266.22
TOTAL CMISTRUCTIOM COST o 0 0 0 o n ... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o. o 0 o 0 0 o $51,996.07
ASSESSABLE UNITS: 2,575,338 square feet
ESTIMATED ASSESS DIT e gO.016 PER ASSESSABLE SQUARE FOOT
PROPOSED ASSESSMENT -- $0,02019 PER ASSESSAXLE SQUARE, FOOT
ASSESSABLE COST.-
$51,996007
COUNTY CFARGEo. 144 Parcels @ $0.50 each parcel 72.00
$52,06&07007
2 0 3
"J BE SPREAD OM 10 YEARS a 1975 thru 1981s Co �
* XRST YEAR PAYABLE WITH 1974 TADS COLLECTED IN 1975
,'ZRST YEAR'S INTEREST FIGURED @ 5% CRE TOTAL PRINCIPAL TINES 1.37 (499 days)
ADTALYSIS OF ASSESSM M1
FOR. SAKTA-RY SEWER NO; 302-A
LOCATIORso Hasevaent line from Vernon Ave-mue to service
No.5508 and PTo.5516 Vernon Avenue
COXTRACTOR.- G. L. Contracting, Inc.
CONT'j"RACT M10-u-brl'-.
ENG111,112MRING- AND CLERICAL '(12%)-.
PMLISRITZ AND SUPPLIES
LEVY 140. 5960
COUNTY WO. 2074
$3,015.50
361.36
11 f-
$3,377.36
15.00
$3,392036
CAPITALIZED INTEREST .@ 5%
J
Fi:cmo— October 15, 1973
Tog August 19, 1973
308 days @ $0.47 per day 144.76
$3,537.1-2
DEFERRED m Sanitary Sewer Fo, 302
TOTAL COST: $3,176.60
CAPITALIZED MEREST @ 67.
From: July 17., 1972
To: August 19, 1974
763 days @ X0.52 per day 396.76- 32573.36
TMIAL CONSTRIUCT10--al COST o . . . . . . . . . . . .
0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 $79110.48
ASSESSABLE bMITS-o 2 Lots
ESTIMMED ASSESS EW. ASSESS - $4,748.80 PER ASSESSMLE- LOT
MMOSED ASSESS MT - $3,555.24 PER ASSESSABLE LOT
ASSESSABLE COST., $7,110.48
COUMT-Y CHARGE: 2 Parcels @ $0.50 each parcel 1.00
TO BE SPRIHAD OVER 10 YEARS - 1975 thre 198•
FIRST, YEAR PAYABLE' TATITH 1974 TAXES COLMECTED IN 1975
FIRST YEA-P:,9.S MEREST FIMIED @ 5% OF TOTAL PRUICIPAL TINS 1.31 (499 days)
ANALYSIS OF ASSESSMENT
LEVY AIOo 5960
COW PTY NO. 2074
FOR-0 SARITARY SEVER CIO, 305
LOCATION- Lincoln Drive from 60° 9 south of centerline of Londonderry
Drive to south line of mime Mile North Addition
s- COKTRACTOR- . Barharossa & Sons, Inc.
COITIRACT AMOUNT- $8.,835.16
ENGINEERING AND CLERICAL Q12 m�- 1r060o22
$9,895.38
PUBLISHING AND SUPPLIES - 25000
$9,920038
CAPITALIZED INTEREST @ 5%
From- December 188 1972
Too August 19, 1974
609 days @ $10.36 per day 826.2&
� TO AL CONSTRUCTION COST o 0 0 0 0 0 o- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $10,748.64
!, ASSESSABLE UMITS- 4 Connections
ESTIMATED ASSESSMENT - $3,739053 PER ASSESSABLE C01,RDECTION
PROPOSED ASSESSMENT - $2,687o16 PER ASSESSABLE CCWTECTION
ASSESSABLE COST -
- COUBITY CHARGE: 2 Parcels @ $0o50 each parcel
T0. BE SPREAD OVER 10 YEARS o 1975 thru 1984
FIRST YEAR L'aiYAB E: WITH 1974 TAXES COLUCTED IN 1975
FIRST YEAR'S INTEREST FIGURED @ 5% OF TOTAL PRINCIPAL TINES 1o37 (499 days)
�i
$10,748.64
1000
$10,749064
PMALYSIS OF ASSESSM0 T
LE- VY Rio. 5965
COUNTY MO. 0112
FOR-. STREET IMPROVE EN NO. C -112
LOCATION: Lincoln Drive from Londonderry Road to North lice
of Prestige Second Addition
CONTRACTOR: Barbasosa & Sons, Irc.
Cow -RAPT AMOUNT: C -112 $31,003.32
C -112A 732274.02
$104,27734
ENGINEERING AND CLERICAL C10 %) s 10,427.73
$114,705.07
Due from Hennepin Countys
Street Improvement Noo C -132 $24,252.44
Street Im=provement No. C -112A 45,590.02
$69,842.46
Engineering Costs: 60984.25
$76,826.71
Amount chargeable to street,
Improvement Flo. C -115 $28,684.00
Engineering costs., 2,768 40 300452.40 1070279.11
$
7x425.96
Transferred from Wate=ain No.270s
C ®Y excavation (cross section. measure) 10,168.55
Sub- Grading street t 661.32
� $10,29087
Engineering Costss � 1,,082.90, 110912286
$19,338.82
Soil Engineering Services - Borings 9,580.00
No.62706 Aqua City Plumbing, Inc. - Revork, sprinkler system 430.73
No.62709 Midway Sign Company - Relocate sis{n 167.00
Work order No. 303 - Set yep barricades and load rock 412.17
$29,928.72
PUBLISHING AND SUPPLIES: 50.00
$29,978.72
CAPITALIZED .IbiTEliEST' @ 5%
From :, November 20,.1972
To: August 19, 1974
637 days @ $4.10 per day 22613.85
TOTAL CONSTRUCTIOU COST .... o o o .o o. o o 0 0 0 0 0. 0 . 0 0 $32,592.57
ASSESSABLE UNITS: 1,449081 feet �R -1
ASSESSABLE UNITSs 1,431.09 feet CPID➢
ESTIMATED ASSESSMENT - $8.00 PER ASSESSABLE FOOT CR-15
ESTIMATED ASSLSSI - $35.73 PER ASSESSABLE FOOT (PID)
PROPOSED
ASSESSM -'M
- $8.00
PER ASSESSABLE FOOT
(R -1)
PROPOSED
ASSESSMENT
- $14.67
PER ASSESSABLE FOOT
(PID)
ASSESSABLE COST: $37,592057
COUNTY CHAMEs 8 Parcels @ $0.50 each parcel 4.00
$32,596.57
TO BE SPREAD OVER 10 YEPAS - 1975 thru 1984 `..
FIRST YEAR PAYABLE WITH 3974 'FIXES COLLECTED IN 1975
FIRST YEAR'S INTEREST FIGURED @ 57. OF 'TOTAL PRINCIPAL TIMES 1.37 (499 days)
'ANALYSIS OF-ASSESSMENT
LEVY NO. 5966
COUNTY VO. B190
FORQ- STREET Ik1PROVMZ- ,NT N.O. BA -190
LOCATION: Lincoln Drive from Londonderry Road to North line of
Prestige Second Addition
C('TRACjOto Rieggez Roadways, Inc.
CONTRACT AMOUNT.*
BP -190 $41,383021
BA -190A ___6.17 000000
$47,561021
ENCINEERIN -G AND CLERICAL (10 %�-- �s,�7S6o 12
152o317.33
Due from Hennepin County:
Street Improvement No. BA -190 $10,364.65
Street Inpxovement No. BA -190A 6,178.00
$16,542065
Engineeritig Costs 1,054.26 18 96091
$34,120042
Curb & Gutters 1,200.00
PUBLISHING AND SUPPLIES: 50000
$35,370.42
CAPITALIZED INTEREST @ 57,
From: August 200 1973
To-. August 19, 197:
364 days @ 4085 per day 1,762003
TOTAL CoqSTR.uCTION COST 0 0 0 0 0 u 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 u u o o e c c 0 0 .►37,132045
ASSESSABLE UNITS: 1,449081 feet (R -1)
ASSESSABLE UNITS$ 1,431009 feet (PID)
ESTIMIATED ASSESSMENT - $12000 PER ASSESSABLZ FOOT (R -13
ESTDWAED ASSESSME -13T - $16000 rER ASSESSABLE FOOT (PID)
PROPOSED ASSESSP€M - $12000 PEP, ASSESSABLE LOOT (R -l�
PROPOSED ASSESSNEWL - 013.79 JtR ASSESSABLE a OM - QPIDD
ti
ASSESSSABUR. COST. $3e,132045
COLMY CHARGEo8 Parcels @ $0050 each parcel 4000
$37,136045
TO BE SPREAD OVER 10 YEARS - 1975 thru 1984
FIRST YEAR PAYABLE WITH 1974 TAKES COLUCTED IN 1975
FIRST YEAR ° S IflTEREST FIGURED @ 5% OF TOTAL PRINCIPAL TT-NES 1.37 0499 days)
ANALYSIS OF ASSESSVE`MW
LEVY 1x00 5960
COMRY NO. 2074
FOAs SANITARY SEA ISO, 312
LOCATION-. Easement Lime from West lice.o€ Hondo Second Addition
to Shannon Drive to Dublin Road
CON-TRACTOR.- Riegger Roadways, Inc.
GN.TRACi AMOUNT-
$6,230029
CNGINEERIItC AND CLERICAL (12 %)s
747063.
06,977092
.'- UBLISHIIvG AND SUPPLIES.
25000
$7,002092
CAPITALIZED INTEREST @ 5%
Froms October 15, 1973
To: August 19, 1974
308 days @ 0096 per day
295068
,7, 298 a 60 .
Less one lot deterred for granting easement (8116- 2I- Pareel 1520)
1,216043
-
$60082017
-Add deferred amount from Sanitary Sewer No. 255s
5 lots @ $1,977083
9,889013
TOTAL CVASTRUCT 0V COST 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 00
015,971.30
ASSESSABLE UNIT;- S Lots
PROPOSED ASSESSMENT.- $3,194026 PER ASSES&ABLF LOr
ASSESSABLE COST-
$15,971030
COUNTY CHARGE: 5 Parcels @.$0.50 each parcel
2050
$15,973.80
`0 BE SPREAD OVER 10 YE ARS o 1975 thru 1984
IRST Yi3AR PAYABLE WITH 1974 TAKES COLLECTED IN 1975
-IRST YEAR ° S 0TSREST FIGURED @ 57, OF TOTAL PRINCIPAL TIWS 1.37 (499 days
ANALYSIS OF ASVZSSiYielYT
LEM NO. 5967
COUNTY NO. A172
FORS STREET IMROVEMM NO. A -172
LOCATI(Ms Nest 62nd Street from Concord Avenue to St. Jobus Avenue
CONTRACTOR: RLegger Roaftays, Inc.
CONTRACT MOUNT: $4,097098
ENGINEEERMG AND CLERICAL Q14 % ➢: 573072
$4,671.70
PUBLISHING AND SUPPLIES: 15.00
$4,$4,6860x'0070
CAPITALIZED INTEREST @ 5%
From: October 15, 1973
To: August 19, 1974
308 days @ $0.64 Per day 196082
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST a o, o a o. o o a o a o o, o o o n o, o o $4,883052
ASSESSABLE UNITS: 688,719 feet
ES'gINATED ASSESSMW - $13090 PE@ ASSESS,ABLE FOOT
PROPOSED ASSESSNENT - $ 7009 PER ASSESSABLE F00T
ASSESSABLE COST:
COUNTY CHARGE: 6 Parcels @ $0050 each parcel
TO BE SPREAD OVER 10 YEARS - 19775 thrau 1984
FIRST YEAR PAYABLE WITH 1974 TAXES COLLECTED IN 1975
FIRST YEAR'S INTEREST FIGURED @ 5% OF TOTAL. PRIMPAL TIMES 1,37 0499 days
$4,883052
3000
$4,88605252
ANALYSIS OF ASSESSMENT
LEVY NO. 5966
COUNTY ADO. B196
FOR.- STREET IMPROVEMENT NO. BA -196
LOCATION -, Lee Valley Circle from West 70th Street to West 70th Street
CONTRACTOR: Riegger Roadways, Inc.
CONTRACT AMOUNT: $129137.45
ENGINEERING AND CLERICAL (Z12�.- 12456.49
$139593.94
PUBLISHING AND SUPPLIES: 35.00
$13,628.94
CAPITALIZED INTEREST @ 570
From: October 159 1973
Too August 19,,1974
308 days @ $1.87 per day 574.99
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST . . . . . . . o . . . o . . . . . . . . . . . $14,203.93
ASSESSABLE UNITS.- 1,327.47 feet
ESTIMATED ASSESSMENT _ $14.47 PER ASSESSABLE FOUT
PROPOSED ASSESSMENT - $10.70 PER ASSESSABLE FOOT
ASSESSABLE COST,.
COUNTY CHARGE,. 11 Parcels @ $0.50 each parcel
TO BE SPREAD OVER 10 YEARS - 19775 thru 1984
FIRST YEAR PAYABLE WITH 1974 TAXES COLLECTED IN 1975
FIRST YEAR'S INTEREST FIGURED @ 5% OF TOTAL PRINCIPAL TIMES 1.37 (499 days)
$149203.93
5.50
$14,209.43
ARALYSIS OF ASSESS WT
EST114ATED ASSESSMENT $0.04089 PER ASSESSABLE SQUARE FOOT
PROPOSED ASSESSMT m $0.03709 PER ASSESSABLE SQUARE FOOT
ASSESSABLE COST,
COUNTY CHARGE, 30 Parcels @ $MO each parcel
TO BE SPREAD 017EA 10 YIMARS - 1975 f hru 1984
FIRST YFAM PAYABLE WITH 1974 TAKES COLLECTED IN 1975
FIRST YEAR'S INIERWr FIGUIRED @ Y/. OF TOTAL PRINCIPAL TIMES 1.337 (499 days)
$104,963.22
_ _MO
$104,96$022
LEVY M 5962
"
COUNTY NO. 4074
FM WATEMAIN K- O. 278
BCAII�Si, Roushat Frontage Bead and proposed Frontage Read from
Lincoln Drive to Vernon. Avenue
Vernon Avenue from County Road 462 to Walnut Drive
Vernon Avenue from Tamarac Drive to the crest 'line of
Gleason.. Third Addition
CO°s MOTOR: Go L. Contracting Company
Barbarossa and Sons, Inc,
CO;v'TC'i. AIyIO3T, Go L. Coietractcaixeg Company
$78, ®15x89
Barbaaossa and Sous, Inc.
s,"3o75
--
$86,999.64
WGIMEE IM AND CLERICAL (lOX) -.
8, 699 0 64
$95,699.28
PUBLISHING AND SUPPLIES,
75000
$95,774.28
CADITALME D MEREST @ 5%
From: September 18, 1972
To, August 19, 1974
700 days @ $13012 Per day
92188094
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a o 0 o e o 0 0 0. o 0
0 0 0 0. $104,%3.22
ASSESSABLE UNITS. 2,829,960 square feet
EST114ATED ASSESSMENT $0.04089 PER ASSESSABLE SQUARE FOOT
PROPOSED ASSESSMT m $0.03709 PER ASSESSABLE SQUARE FOOT
ASSESSABLE COST,
COUNTY CHARGE, 30 Parcels @ $MO each parcel
TO BE SPREAD 017EA 10 YIMARS - 1975 f hru 1984
FIRST YFAM PAYABLE WITH 1974 TAKES COLLECTED IN 1975
FIRST YEAR'S INIERWr FIGUIRED @ Y/. OF TOTAL PRINCIPAL TIMES 1.337 (499 days)
$104,963.22
_ _MO
$104,96$022
ANALYSIS OF. ASSESSMU.0
LEVY NO. 5962
COUNTY NO. 4074
FOEs WATERMAIN NO. 286
LOCATIOR.- Bridge Lane from Townes Road to 320 ft writ
CONTRACTOR.- The Other Sewer and Water Company
CONTRACT AMOUNT. $5,213.88
ENCINEERI NG AND CLERICAL (12%).* 625.66
-� ��,839a54
PUBLISHING AID SUPPLIES, 25600
$5,864054
CAPITALIZED INTEREST @ 57.
Fromm October 15, 1973
Too Angust.19, 1974
308 days @ $.80 per day 246,42
TOTAL COUSTRUCTION COST. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $6,110.96
ASSESSABLE UNITS: 4 connections
PROPOSED ASSESSmur - $1,527.74 PER ASSESSABLE CONItCTION
ASSESSABLE COST.
56,110.96
COi� -'Y CHARGE: 4 Parcels @ $0.50 each parcel - 2.00
9j $6,112.96
TO BE SPREAD OVER 10 YEARS - 1975 thru 1984
FIRST YEAR PAYABLE WITH 1974 TAXES COLLECTED IN 1975
FIRST YEAR ®S INTEREST FIGURED @ 5% On TOTAL: PRINCIPAL TIMES 1.37 0499 days)
ANALYSIS OF ASSES MI NE
FORo STOM SEWER NOo 135
LOCATION o. Easement line between Lots ? 2• and 9, Block 2,
Bertelsen Addition and Tract G. R.L.S. Noo1129
ftera W. 76th St north 250'J; thence West 501;
th :pace north 260°
GONTRACTLRo Go L. Contracting, Inca
CONTRACT MOUNT-.
ENGIWEERINTG AND CLERICAL
Rio o 64260 m Bacimmns, Inc.
PUBLISHING AND SUPPLIES,.
LEVY NO. 5964
COUNTY NOo3O74
$9,87loOS
1.184o53
511,055.61
125050
$11,181.11
35.00
$11,2160II
CAPITALIZED INTEREST @ 57.
From. November 19, 1973
Too August 19, 1974
273 days @ $1o53 per day 432031
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a o ... 0 0 0 :. 11,64-8.42
ASSESSABLE UNITS., 71,001 square feet
ESTIt9A'TED ASSESSMENT o
Lot 8 and 9, Block 2, Bertelsen Addition $6,441.70
Tract A, Registered Laren Survey No. 1270 $5,55199
PROPOSED. ASSESS' o
Lot 8 and 9, Block 2,-Bertelsen Addition $6,256.26
Tract A, Registered Lana Survey No. 127O $5,392016
ASSESSABLE COST.-
COMATY CSARGEo. 2 Parcels @ $0.50 each parcel
TO BE SPREAD OVER 10 YEARS - 1975 thre 1984
FIRST YEAR PAYABLE WITH 1974 TAXES COLLECTED IN 1975
FIRST SEAR °S 3N"33TEnST FIGURED @ 57. OF TOTAL PRINCIPAL TIMS 1037 0499 days)
$11,648.42
100
$11,649.42
r
t,
ANALYSIS OF ASSESSMENT.
1JEW Ao. 5966
CGNTY NO. 5192
FORS STREET 1MOVE14ENT Rio. SA -192
LOCATION: Field Tay from Londanderry Road €resterly 725'
Dovre Drive from Londonderry Road westerly to
Biscayne Blvd.
Biscayne Blvd. from.Londonderry Road to Dovrte Drive
CONTRACTOR: Riegger Roadways, Inc.
._ COMTRACT MOUNT: o $23 a 651.64
ENGINEERIEG AE D CLERICAL Q10 %Do 2�36F�.15
$26,049.82
PUBLISMIG AND SUPPLIES.- 50.00
$26,099.82
_ CAPITAL ZED Igaa'EREST @ 5
Froms July 16® 1973
Tos August 19, 1974
599:_days @ $3.62 Per day
1,445.24
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $27,545.06
ASSESSABLE UNITS: 48156.15 feet
ESTIMTED ASSESSD- -MNT m $13.33 PER ASSESSABLE FoOrt
PROPOSED ASSESSM-._Eff e $ 6.55 PER ASSESSABLE FOOT
E, ASSESSABLE COST: $27,545.06
COU13TY CHARGE: 36 Parcels @ $0650 each Parcel 16.00
$27,563.06
TO BE SPREAD OVER 10 YEARS - 1975 thrui 1954
FIRST YEA, PAYABLE WITH 1974 TAKES-COLLECTED IN 1975
FIRST YEAR'S INTEREST FIGURED @ 57. OF TOTAL PRINCIPAL. TINES 1.37 (499 days)
ANALYSIS OF ASSESSMENT
FOR. STPXET IFt� ROV�I3T NO. BA -193
LOCATI6Io Tupa mare from East line of Bxac -ar: Hi.11s 5th
Addition easterly to coal -de -sac
CONTRACTOR., Riegge6 Roadways, Inc.
WNTRACT AM0 I T o
ENGINEERING AND CLERICAL (14,%)o,
PUBLISBMW AND SUPPLIES.
eRRFY AiOo 5966
COUNTY NO. 3193
$1,823.04
255.23
$2,078027
15 -000
$2,093.27
CAPITALIZED INTEREST @ 5%
From: -August 20, 19773
Too August 29, 1974
3W daps @!$Oo34 per day _ 123077
;;. /s��yy��7q grpy�/�r�eg COST
TOTAL C�71y gZSiUtaly g�-1 COS o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o $2,217.01
ASSESSABLE UNITS-. 4 Lots
4:
ESTI1ATEE3 ASSESS 4E T -- $1,20Ro73 PE.q ASSESSABLE LoT
PROPOSED ASSESSMNT m $ 55426 PER ASSESSABLE LOT
ASSESSABLE COST:
C=1TY CHARGE.- 4 Parcels @ $0.50 each .parcel 2.00
$2,219004
5
m L975 t��a L9g4
TO BE SPREAD OVER 10 YEARS
FAST YEAR PAYABLE WXTB. 1974 TAXES COLI TFD .14 1915
FIRST YEAR'S INTEREST FIGURED @ 5% OF TOTAL PRINCIPAL TTMS 1.37 (499 days)
y�
i�
c.
S
4,
f
J
C
r .
ANALYSIS L1 ASSESSS'3 P-1
LEW NOo 5961
COUNTY NO; 2O74
F'CR- o SANITARY SEVM NO. 297
LOCATIONo Gleason Road from Dewey Hill Road to 1500° South
CMITRACTOR., Q.F oSo Construction, Inc.
L19CdARAC !SY'}.VBe�A7d o -
$27,244-.94
- MG1111MIM AND CLERICAL (117.)
2,996.9e4
$30.241.88
PUBLISHING AND SUPPLIES
5OoO0
X30, 291 o BS
CAPITALIZED INTEREST @ 5%
From: No ember J9n E973
TO August 19, 1974:
277 daps @ $4o27 per clap
1ng .17
_ TOTAL CONSTRUMVION COST .......... 0000 0-- 0000000000000000000000c00000000
$31AS &05
ASSESSABLE 6R11TS o 13 Lots
ESTIMATED ASSES1r- iT o $1,839.23 E'ER ASSESSABLE WT
PROPOSED ASSESS 3T o �2,419o85 PER ASSESSABLE &0T
_ ASSESSABLE COST.-
431,458.05
COMM CH tGEs 13 Parcels @ W15 each parcel
1.95
_
$31,460.00
s° TO BE SPRM— D OVER ► YEARS W 1975 thru 1977
FIRST YEAR PAYABLE WITH 1974E TIKES COLL F?-1975 —'-
FIRST YEAROS 1TvEEREST FIGUMED @ S%.l TOTAL PRINCIPAL TID
1.37 (499 claps)
ANALYSIS OF ASSESSMENT
LEVY No. 5963
COO1;TY NO. 4074
FOR NAil1RMAIN 50. 268
LOCATIONS. Gleason Road from Dewey Mill Road to 1500' South
CONTRACTOR: Q.R.S. Constructiact, Inca
C%4'TRACT AMOUNT s $19,709080
ENGD- BERIFGG MD CLERICAL (12%).- 2,363.18
$22,074.98
Less Water Works Fund Share difference in
cost of 12 inch chain and 6 inch main 8,621.34
$13,453064
PUBLISHM AND SUPPLIES: 35.00
$13,488064
CAPITALIZED INTEREST @ 5%
From. November 19, 1973
Too August 19, 1973
273 days @ $lo85 per day 505.08
TOTAL CONSTit=ION COST o a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o. o o o o o o o $139993:72
ASSESSABLE UNITS.- 13 Lots
i
ESTIMATED ASSESSMENT - $1,531003 PER ASSESSABLE LOT
PROPOSED ASSES M- NT - $1,076 :44 PER ASSESSABLE LOT
ASSESSABLE COST. $13,993.72
COUNTY CRARGEo 13 Parcela @ MAS each parc8l 1095
,995067
TO BE SPREAD OVER 3 YEARS - 1975 thru 1977
FIRST YEAR PAYABLE WITH 1974 TARES C®LLECTED IN 1975
FIRST YEAR'S INTEREST FIGURED @ 5% OF TOTAL PRINCIPAL. TIMES 1,39 (499 days)
ANALYSIS OF ASSESSMENT
LEVY NO. 5966
COMITY NO. B179
FORS STREET IMOYc OMT NO. BA -lag
LOCATION: Hyde Park Drive from Dewey Hill Road to 4501 O.South
Hyde Park Circle from Hyde Park Drive east to cul -de -sac
CONTRACTOR.* Bury & Carlson, Inc.
CONTRACT AMOUNT: $10,164.20
ENGINEERING AND CLERICAL (12%).- l n gig o 70
$11,383.90
No.53420 - G. L. Contracting, Inc. 433.92
Facture seal coating 723.52
Remove & replace 220 LIP drieeove3
curb @ $6.00 per L/F 1,320.00
60 tons bituminous asphalt concrete
@ $15.00 per ton 900.00
514,761.34
PUBLISHING AND SUPPLIES.* 35.00
$14,796.34
CAPITALIZED INTEREST @ 511.
From: June 21, 1971
To: August 19, 1974
1154 days @ $2.03 per day 2 339.69
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $17,13.6.03
ASSESSABLE UNITS.* 1,027.34 feet
ESTIMATED ASSESSMENT - $11.92 PER ASSESSABLE FOOT
PROPOSED ASSESSMT - $16.63 PER ASSESSABLE FOOT
ASSESSABLE COST.* $17,136.03
COMYKY CHARGE: 8 Parcels @ $0.50 each parcel 4.00
$17,,140.03
TO BE SPREAD OVER 10 YMRS - 1975 thru 1954
FIRST YEAR PAYABLE WITH 1974 TAXES COLLECTED TN 1975
FIRST YEAR'S INTEREST FIGURED @ '57. OF TOTAL PRIMCIPAL TIMES 1.37 (499 days)
W. E. JOHNSTON
5836 Queen Ave. So.
Minneapolis, Minn. 55410
Mr. J.N.Dalen
Edina Cit Hall
Edina- Minn_
Dear Mr. Dalen:
Area Code 612 - 922 -0770
August 14th 1974.
Concerning special assessments on Gleason Road:
The development of Hyde Park was started in 1967.
At -- that -time Gleason Road was planned for 1969 and was
started then. Since then the financial climate has changed,
and single family dwelling construction has dropped about
65% in Edina. We have been tied to the Gleason Road cony
struction time which in turn is tied to state money which
slowed down. Only now, August 1974, is Gleason Road
completed.
We have been and are being taxed on unaccessible lots , some
with no permits from Nine Mile Creek District _-
pletion xe_g1M_t9 for which have been denied. We have had
no cooperation or replies to our letters asking for help
in obtaining such permits. That can be substantiated from
permit denials and unanswered corespondence to the city
concerning the matter in our files.
We feel that under the circumstances all assessments on
Gleason Road should be for ten years and assumable. We surely
would not have ordered the work done this year with the
market as it is and has been for some time.
Five years, rather than one year,have elapsed since the
original agreement was made. The completion of Gleason
Road was the controlling factor in our being able or unable
to market our property. Having no control over Gleason Road
construction -the extra four years was not our fault..
The clause in the original agreement =. which mentioned
Gleason Road is outdated by four years. That agreement had
the year 1970 in mind..
It is our contention that the Gleason Road assessments
should be treated as we discussed them in 1971, under the
rules of installation,of utilities through properties
without the request of the owners. The rules so related, as
we understand them, is " ten' years assumable for all
assessments.
Will you please present this to the council for further
consideration. With best regards, I remain,Sincerelz/11, ��y/
- IY •!.' • tJ V1111.7 1i V11, 11,jgLLC t Ql 11 ac r e. +.op+++�... .+ ..
To.Residents of Stauder Circle, Schaefer Road, and View Lane:
It is now three years since 42 families in our area presented a petition to our
Village government for traffic relief. The problem was then and is now
'residential streets being used as collector streets ".
Traffic Count - Cars /day
(See attached map)
The corner of Schaefer Road and View Lane now carries 2n1n cars /dav as compared
with 1600 cars /day in 1972. This is an increase of 410 cars /clay in two vears. _
?do traffic counts were taken on Schaefer Road west of View Lane and continuing
onto Stauder Circle (8).. It does appear, however, that this is the most highly
travelled section of all.
Many Village meetings have been held, and various recommendations have been made:
August 1971 Petition presented to the Council citing the problem, asking for
relief, and signed by 42 families.
October 1971 Traffic Safety Committee recommended that relief be granted.
February 1972 Traffic counts made by Village.
May 1972 Village Council accepted Traffic Safety Committee report and voted to:
1. Connect Walnut to Londonderry.
2. Continue Londonderry west to Dominick Drive.
3. Hake a future connection in the northwest to the 7th Street and
County Road 18 interchange.
The motion made by Richard Johnson urged the earliest implementation.
10 funding was provided or discussed.
March 1973 Traffic Safety Committee ordered an origin destination study for
Parkwood Knolls.
Result -- it was determined that twice as many cars (199 cars /day)
would use a new southern connection (1•Talnut- Londonderry) as compared
to the west (111 cars /day.)
July 1973 The Village staff decided to connect Walnut- Londonderry first and
sent out a public hearing notice for assessment.
1972
1974
1.
View Lane
950
'= 1FOn
127
= 2010
2.
Schaefer Road
off Vernon
fib
3.
South Knoll at
Blake Road.
250
39n
4.
Knoll Drive at
'Blake Road
110
135
5.
Idylwood Drive
at Blake Road
125
175
5.
Parkwood Road
at Blake Road
90
130
7.
Schaefer Road
at Interlachen Blvd.
1200
(See attached map)
The corner of Schaefer Road and View Lane now carries 2n1n cars /dav as compared
with 1600 cars /day in 1972. This is an increase of 410 cars /clay in two vears. _
?do traffic counts were taken on Schaefer Road west of View Lane and continuing
onto Stauder Circle (8).. It does appear, however, that this is the most highly
travelled section of all.
Many Village meetings have been held, and various recommendations have been made:
August 1971 Petition presented to the Council citing the problem, asking for
relief, and signed by 42 families.
October 1971 Traffic Safety Committee recommended that relief be granted.
February 1972 Traffic counts made by Village.
May 1972 Village Council accepted Traffic Safety Committee report and voted to:
1. Connect Walnut to Londonderry.
2. Continue Londonderry west to Dominick Drive.
3. Hake a future connection in the northwest to the 7th Street and
County Road 18 interchange.
The motion made by Richard Johnson urged the earliest implementation.
10 funding was provided or discussed.
March 1973 Traffic Safety Committee ordered an origin destination study for
Parkwood Knolls.
Result -- it was determined that twice as many cars (199 cars /day)
would use a new southern connection (1•Talnut- Londonderry) as compared
to the west (111 cars /day.)
July 1973 The Village staff decided to connect Walnut- Londonderry first and
sent out a public hearing notice for assessment.
4
July 1973 The Council referred it back to the Traffic Safety Committee. In
addition, the Council voted not to permit =development of the
northwest property until roads are established and connected.
Fall 1973 A Council vote decided to establish a Traffic Studv Task Force.
Spring 1974 The Task Force met and presented their Western Edina Circulation
Plan to the Village Council. For the relief of Parkwood Knolls
traffic problem the following was recommended:
Task Force majority recommended:
1: A western connection be established.
2. Streets be blocked in three places.
3. Cadillac Lane be opened.
Task Force minority and the consultant recommended:
1. A western connection be established.
2. A road be constructed through the southern edge of the park
from Londonderry to Vernon at Gleason Road.
3. A northern connection be made.
Action by the Council to date (July 1974):
1. A western connection is to he made between Lincoln Drive and Parkwood
Lane. The planned completion date is Fall of 1975.
Streets were blocked for two weeks, and then the blocks were removed. Many
felt the blocks helped relieve traffic. Because the resolution of this
problem is at least two years away and the Village Council is not acting on
establishiftg the needed southern connection, the-only relief for traffic that
can be taken now is to re- institute the - blocks.
The blocks can be modified in a way that improves traffic flow and access to
the park:
a. Londonderry at Stauder -- block eastern portion of intersection and
thus permit north -south traffic to the park.
b. Schaefer Road between South Knoll Drive and Stauder -- place block in
the middle of the block closing the road completely. This would
eliminate previous problem of violators turning left.
c. View Lane at South Knoll Drive -- place blocks as before.
According to the Village attorney these blocks can only be used temporarily.
Philosophically, many people are opposed to blocking streets when the real solution
is to open additional streets. Consequently, we are asking for these blocks only
until additional exits and entrances are opened.
An interested neighbor will call on you to answer your questions, get your input
into this problem, and ask you to sign a petition-in-- support..
.�� v '
o C, c, "o
310
1245
JA
70
1680
1080
200
600 1
10 0 250
5
ij (I t)
iii
FIGURE a
ADDITIONAL
1985 DAILY
TRIPS Gr-NERATED
- -r
.g
go
0,11"'
If
lit
0-4
4'
August 15, 1974
Dear Council Members:
Enclosed are copies of two,petitions signed
by families this past.week who live along the
"Traffic Corridor" of Parkwood Knolls. These
families live on Schaefer Road from Vernon to
Stauder,Circle, View Lane from Vernon to Schaefer
Road, and on Stauder Circle beginning at Schaefer
Road to Londonderry.
Thirty -three families signed the petition
requesting the road blocks be replaced until.
additional exists and entrances can be established.
Twenty -seven families signed the petition
request a moratori1 um on ' "a; -^ ^ ^- ^ +,,,, ^ +A ^„
until additional entrances
established..
We respectfully reque
consideration on these twc
the long awaited traffic r
hood until a permanent sol
S1
Ll
Ll
vI - -.
�1
The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Council of the Village of Fdina
The undersigned are residents of Parkwood Ynolls and are very
concerned with the traffic problem in our neighborhood. We
respectfully petition the council (at the Monday night August
19, 1974 meeting) to declare a moratorium on any future residential
construction in Parkwood Knolls until additional exits and entrances
can be established.
Name Street Address Date
„i
Moratorium of Parkwood Knolls Construction
The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Council of the Village of Edina
The undersigned are residents of Parkwood Ynolls and are very
concerned with the traffic problem in our neighborhood. We
respectfully petition the council (at the Monday night August
19, 1974 meeting) to declare a moratorium on any future residential
construction in Park-wood Ynolls until additional exits and entrances
can be established.
Name Street Address Date
r
Moratorium of Park-wood Knolls Construction
The Honorable Mayor and Members of the -Council of the Village of Fdina
.The undersigned are residents of Parkwood Ynolls and are very
concerned with the traffic problem in our neighborhood. We
respectfully petition the council (at the Monday night August
19, 1974 meeting) to declare a moratorium on any future residential
construction in Parkwood Knolls until additional exits and entrances\
can be established. \
.Name' street Address Date
kk
�J
NW M,06 -
.. C: ,
R/ J �1
! ! _.��
Moratorium of Parkwood Knolls Construction
The Honorable Mayor and Menbers of the Council of the Village of Pdina
The undersigned are residents of Parkwood Knolls and'are very
concerned with the traffic problem in our neighborhood. We
respectfully petition the council (at the Monday night August .
19, 1974 meeting) to declare a moratorium on any future residential
construction in Parkwood Knolls until additional exits and entrances
can be established.
Name Street Address Date
Moratorium of Parkwood Knolls Construction
I
11V
The.undersigned. are residents of Parkwood Knolls and are very
concerned with. the traffic problem in our neighborhood. t•Te
respectfully petition the council (at the Monday night August
19, 1974 meeting) to re -place the blocks (Alternate #6j Issue
Area 2) in the improved form until additional exits and entrances
can be established.
Name Street Address Date
1—
Re -plate the I blockades
The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Council of the village of Edina
The undersigned. are residents of Parkwood Knolls and are very
concerned with the traffic problem in our neighborhood. I -To
respectfully petition the council (at the Monday night August
19, 1974,meeting) to re -place the blocks (Alternate #6, Issue
Area 2) in the improved form until additional exits and entrances
can be established.
Name. Street Address Date
Re- plate the 3 blockades
0
`2
The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Council of the village of Edina
The undersigned are residents of Parkwood Knolls and are very
concerned with the traffic problem in our neighborhood. I•►e
respectfully petition the council.(at the Monday night August
19, 1974 meeting) to re -place the blocks (Alternate #6, Issue
Area 2) in the improved form until additional exits and entrances
can be established.
Name Street Address Date
7 T'"
Re -place the 3 blockades
Of
The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Council of the Ifiliage of. Edina
The undersigned are residents of Parkwood Knolls and are very
concerned with the traffic problem in our neighborhood. We
respectfully petition the council (at the Monday night August
19, 1974 meeting) to re -place the blocks (Alternate #6. Tssue
Area 2) in the improved form until additional exits and entrances
can be established.
Name Street Address Date
i
The honorable Mayor and Members of the Council of the Village of Edina
The undersigned are residents of Parkwood Knolls and are very
concerned with the traffic problem in our neighborhood. Ve
respectfully petition the council (at the Mondav night August
19, 1974 meeting) to re -place the blocks (Alternate #6, Issue
Area 2) in the improved form until additional exits and entrances
can be established.
Name Street Address Date
Re -place the 3 blockades
4
j1 , C -
August 17, 1974
Isis. Florence Hallberg, Village Clerk
Village Hall
4.801 West Fiftieth Street
Edina, Minnesota
Re; Sidewalk on east side of Tracy from Hillside to Benton
Dear Iris. Hallberg,
We are writing in.reference_to the August 8, Sun Newspaper article "Sidewalk in
Limbo". We would. like to state the reasons why we feel strongly that a sidewalk- -
should be put in now.
1. the visibility for either walking along Tracy or crossing Tracy is very poor
because of the crest of the hill at Benton and the curving roadway
2. in order to cross where school patrols are stationed (Benton and Tracy)
children must walk up the east side of Tracy
- this is exactly opposite the school safety program which teaches children
to walk facing the traffic (west side)
- in winter it is impossible to stay off mh.e street because of the snow
piled on the walking area
3. rather than walk along Tracy to Benton they must cross Tracy to the school yard
- visibility for crossing is extremely poor because of curving and hilly roads
4. Tracy is a main fire truck route and because of the poor visibility it is im-
possible to see emergency vehicles (or general traffic) approaching
5. Countryside School is the only elementary school located on a heavily tra-
fficked street that does not have access by sidewalk
6. Tracy is the main access to school during off school hours when there are no
school patrols on duty - also main access to Countryside park
7. in winter - due to ice - a driver would have difficulty stopping even if he
did see children in the street
8. construction and maintenance of this sidewalk would cause no burdens to the
individual property owners along Tracy, because it would be paid for by
Minnesota State Aid funds
9. the Countryside PTA - Dec. 1973 - realizing the hazards to students, reco-
mmended the installation of a sidewalk
10. this is not the first request for a sidewalk - when the school was first opened
parents asked for a sidewalk - a compromise was reached to have a bus stop on
Countryside Rd. - this is now at Benton and Tracy which does not solve the
problem.
We ask you to seriously consider the dangerous traffic conditions the Countryside
children are forced to cross or walk along. Why wait until a child is killed or
seriously injured before installing a sidewalk? Take the action nowg
cc to Eugene Davis principal J- 2 r
Robert C. Dunn, Public Works
A,-,tec/ C54
&az� 4Z�Z�
rU rK,,,o.
;�I-Ile I
g.
-�U3 a�4j-� Li
Q ,�
c
s
i
A,-,tec/ C54
&az� 4Z�Z�
rU rK,,,o.
;�I-Ile I
g.
-�U3 a�4j-� Li
Q ,�
Will
5521 Countryside Road
Edina, Minnesota 55436
14
7 6
7- j-Z
,.
z
asxl
t
Z-k
IL 14 1 ,
VL", L--Y
y
YL(I
GUSTAFSON, GUSTAFSON AND AUSTIN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SUITE 312
7400 METRO BOULEVARD
HARRY GUSTAFSON MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55435
WALTER C. GUSTAFSON
CURTIS E. AUSTIN _ TELEPHONE 835 -7277
MICHAEL J. ADAMS
GREGORY D. GUSTAFSON
August 19, 1974
Mrs. Florence Hallberg
City Clerk
City of Edina
City Hall
Edina, Minnesota
Dear Mrs. Hallberg:
I have been advised by Mr. Harold Sands and yourself to
submit this letter in connection with the variance granted Mr.
Robert DeBray at 4502 Browndale Avenue, which variance was given
preliminary approval on August 15, 1974 (Hearing #B- 74 -25).
We appeared on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Robert G. Gisselbeck in
opposition.to the proposed side yard setback variance.
You are hereby notified on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Robert G.
Gisselbeck of their intention to appeal said variance within
the 45 day period during which Mr. Sands informs us such an
appeal must be made. Mr. and Mrs. Gisslebeck are presently
on an extended visit to Florida with a return date which is
not yet definitely scheduled. Therefore, we would urge the
council to take notice of their intention to appeal, but to
delay scheduling an appearance on this matter before the council
until we can determine a relatively convenient time for the
Gisselbeck's to make such an appearance.
We have been informed by Mr. Sands that no building
permits will be issued in connection with the disputed project
pending an ultimate determination of the merits of the variance.
We assume that Mr. Michaels and Mr. - Mosher of the building
department have been so notified.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
GUST?i�SON, GUSTAF ,5ON �N"D AUSTIN
Gregor Gustafson,
GDG /cle
Ott -A
330 Metro Square Building, Saint Paul,
w uV Minnesota 55101 Phone 612/227 -7343
OPERATIONS AND REGULATIONS COMMITTEES MEETING
MONDAY, AUGUST 19, 1975
3:30 PM
TO: MEMBERS OF THE OPERATIONS AND REGULATIONS COMMITTEES
A joint meeting of the Operations and Regulations Committees of the Twin Cities
Area Metropolitan'Transit Commission will be held in the Metropolitan Transit
Commission Conference Room, 330 Metro Square, 7th and Robert Streets, St. Paul,
MN 55101, on Monday, August 19, 1974, at 3:30 PM by order of the Chairmen of the
Committees. v
Matters to be brought before the meeting for the Committees consideration are set
forth on the following tentative agenda.
TENTATIVE AGENDA
1) Call to Order
2) Minutes of August 5, 1974 -
3) PETITION #74 -37 - MTC /TOD Minneapolis Route #36 - Reroute from Wooddale
4) PETITION #74 -33A - Richfield Bus Company - Unauthorized Operation of Service
in Bloomington
0
5)
PETITION #74 -40
- Rice- Edgerton Lines - Extension in Little Canada - Make Perm.
6)
PETITION #74 -43
- South -West St. Paul Transit Company - Continue Temporary Cottage
Grove Authority; Request for Subsidy
7)
PETITION #74 -42
- The Jonathan Association - Temporary Authority & Subsidy
8)
OPER #74 -32 - Minneapolis School Board Request
9)
Status Report -
Contract with Daylite Window Systems, Inc.
10)
CIP #3.02a -74 -3
- Brake Lathe Specifications
11)
OPER #74 -33 - MTC /TOD Route #94B - Intercity Express - 90 Day Report
12)
PETITION #74 -41
- MTC /TOD Minneapolis Route #45 - Extend to Maple Grove
13)
Other matters which may come properly come before the Committees for consideration
14)
Adjournment
0
TWIN CITIES AREA METROPOLITAN TRANSIT COMMISSION
PETITION #74 -37
MTC /Transit Operating Division
and City of Edina
Minneapolis Route #36 - Reroute from
Wooddale
PETITIONER: MTC /Transit Operating Division
PARTIES TO THE PETITION: City of Edina
DATE OF PETITION: August 7, 1974
BACKGROUND OF PETITION:
On June 5, 1974, the Commission ratified Petition #74 -23 authorizing the extension
of Route #36 from - Excelsior Boulecard and Wooddale Avenue in St. Louis Park to
Southdale Shopping Center, via Wooddale Avenue and other streets in Edina. At
that time, Mr. Warren Hyde, Edina City Manager, informed the Commission that the
City had concurred in the routing but that some objections might be raised in the
future by residents regarding the operation of buses on Wooddale Avenue.
The extension of the service began on July 15, 1974, and generated opposition from
the residents along Wooddale Avenue between 44th and 50th Streets. That opposition
is explained in Mr. Olsen's letter of August 7, 1974.
The Edina City Council has requested that Route #36 be operated on streets other than
Wooddale.Avenue between 44th and 50th Streets, and has concurred in the routing pro-
posed by the Transit Operating Division.
At its meeting on August 7, 1974, the MTC referred this portion of the Petition to
the Committees for their review. (Other portions of the Petition, regarding temporary
extension of service to Ridgedale Shopping Center, were approved as Petitions 74 -38 and
74-39.
SUMMARY OF PETITION:
Petitioner requests temporary authority (for the remainder of the original temporary
authority) to reroute Route #36 in Edina from the intersection of Wooddale Avenue and
44th Street to Brookside Avenue to 50th Street to Wooddale Avenue, and in reverse,
thereby deleting service on Wooddale Avenue between 44th and 50th Streets.
COMMUNITY COMMENTS:
Attached is a copy of a letter from Mayor Van Valkenberg in support of the City's request
and the petition.
Also attached is a copy of a letter from several residents in the area which explains
some of the objections to the present routing on Wooddale Avenue. In summary, these
objections are:
1) The route will increase congestion or traffic hazards because the street has
substantial auto traffic, is narrow and difficult for opposing vehicles to
pass where cars are parked on one side of the street.
There is heavy concentration of school bus and walking activity along the route.
0
The improved frequency of service proposed for the route (15 minute headways
in the rush hour) will further congest the area.
2) The Hennepin County Route Ridership Study proposed $115,000 of street improve-
ments in the area to better accommodate the bus service. Widening the (City
maintained and improved) - street is opposed by the residents. (A map is attached)
3) There is adequate bus service on other routes on 44th and on 50th .
Attached to the letter was a copy of the petition signed by about 425 residents
in the area (one page is attached) .
Some other residents of the area favor the present location of the present route.
Also, there appears to be favorable reaction to the proposed route by residents
along the proposed route.
r
OPERATIONS COMMITTEE ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner ,
seconded by Commissioner and (carried /failed) to recommend
(approval /denial) of the petition to reroute the service for the remainder of its
temporary authority. (August 19, 1974)
REGULATIONS COMMITTEE ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner ,
seconded by Commissioner , and (carried /failed) to (approve /deny)
the petition to reroute the service for the remainder of its temporary authority.
(August 19, 1974)
COMMISSION RATIFICATION: , 1974
r- 1
Metropolitan Transit Commission
z
Gentlemen:
4801 WEST FIFTIETH STREET • EDINA, MINNESOTA 63424
92%8861
August 13, 1974
We appreciated Mr. Olson's attendance and
presentation at our August 5th meeting regarding the Wooddale
bus. We are concerned that there may be a change from that
understanding.
We feel that this additional swing to the West
to Brookside and to serve the 50th and Grandview areas will
be a favorable improvement.
I hope that if there are any questions on this
new routing that you will advise.
Yours truly,
4 Y r a
James Van Valkenburg,-'
Mayor
NV: ) d J,
AUG 1974 �1Cr%j
ME7ROpOlITAN °
lunkISSION ANSITw/
AEG l 4 v
h`E71,'J ?�'IITq rr T
CQ�14SRO AiVSIT ��
August 14, 1974
Metropolitan Transit Commission
330 Metro Square Building
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
Atten: Mr. Bob Schiff
Gentlemen:
On Monday, August 5, 1974, the Edina City Council
unanimously voted to remove and relocate bus Route 36A between
44th Street and 50th Street in the Country Club district of
Edina. This action was taken because of the overwhelming
opposition, as evidenced by a copy of the enclosed Petition.
The residents are opposed to the use of Wooddale Avenue between
44th and 50th Streets by Route 36A for-the following reasons:
1. According to Minnesota Statute 473A, one of the
MTC's responsibilities is the protection and advancement of the
public health, safety, and welfare of the metropolitan transit
area, and in order to provide for adequate public transit within
the area, reduce the traffic congestion and hazards on the state
and other highways and streets therein.
a. The use of Wooddale between 44th and 50th Streets
does not meet these standards and, indeed, it creates
more traffic congestion and increases the hazards to'
the safety of the residents. As evidence of this
congestion, Mr. Fran Hoffman, Assistant City Engineer,
cited that, within a 24 hour period, 3;975 cars pass
through the intersection of Bridge Street and Wooddale,
i.e. 46th Street and Wooddale.
b. The street is only 24 feet wide between 44th and
50th Streets. Parking is restricted to the West side
at present because of this narrow width. The movement
of two automobiles in onnosite directions at the same
time is already difficult and the buses make it
impossible for the normal flow and usage of the
street by residents going to and from their oronerty
and by the above - mentioned transients.
z
Metropolitan Transit Commission -2- August 14, 1974
c. Page 38 of the Final Report, Hennepin County,
Route - Ridership Improvement Project states that
this route will provide 15 minute headways during
the peak periods and 30 minute service during the
off peak period. Wooddale Avenue is presently used
as a school bus route and, since, Route 36A operates
from 6:30 a.m. to 7 p.m. daily, we feel that the
following points should be considered:
i. nine school buses pick up students in the
area;
ii. in addition, four buses travel through
the Country Club area enroute to the Junior
and Senior High Schools;
iii. four buses transport students to
Wooddale Elementary.
All 18 buses use the 50th and Wooddale intersection
going to school between 7 a.m. and 9:10 a.m. and
returning in the afternoon between 2:37 p.m. and
3:45 p.m.
iv. the population of Wooddale Elementary
located at 50th Street and Wooddale was 552
as of June, 1974. Between 300 and 350 students
walk to school. These "walkers" already have
far too many cars to contend with and must walk
out of their way to reach existing school safety
crossings.
2. In re: MN Stat. 473A.06 "The commission shall have
the right to use ... any state highway or other public roadway or lane
thereof, or any bridge or tunnel or other appurtenance of such
roadway, without payment of any compensation therefor, provided
such does not interfere unreasonably with the public use or main-
tenance of the roadway or appurtenance or entail any substantial
additional costs for maintenance thereof ... 11
a• This section of Wooddale between 44th and 50th
Streets is not supported by the State, but rather
by general Edina city taxes, because of the afore-
mentioned narrow width and because of the fact that
it was constructed with a material known as Warrenite
which is no longer available and which is not
recognized for state classification.
b. Additional costs cited for Route 36A from the
Final Report, Hennepin County, Route - Ridership
Improvement Project are:
i. Page 38 cites, "Implementation of this
route and proposed service will increase
annual operational costs by about $124,000."
Metropolitan Transit Commission -3- August 14, 1974
ii. Page 58, Table 4, Costs of Street Related
Improvements by Community. Reconstruction-of
Wooddale between 44th and 50th Streets to make
it suitable for bus traffic.at a cost of $115,000.
This $115,000. is a substantial additional cost
for a bus route over and above the maintenance
costs.
3. At the present time, the Country Club residents are
adequately serviced by existing bus routes on 44th Street and 50th
Street which connect to north and south routes on France Avenue and
several other intersections.
Mr. Louis B. Olson, Assistant General Manager of the MTC/
Operating Division, formally pronosed relocating Route 36A as of
August 19, 1974. His proposal was endorsed by all factions at the
Edina City Council meeting held August 5, 1974. This rerouting, as
proposed by Mr. Olson, would serve an additional copulation base
and various commercial properties at Vernon Avenue.
We would appreciate it if you would duplicate this
communication and the enclosed Petition so that they will be
included in the packets distributed to the members of the Operations
and Regulations Committee for its Monday, August 19, open hearing.
Qtf"Heiberg
�Mr. & Mrs. Lawre
:e C. Schneider
Respectfully yours,
C-'
Louis C. Lick, •M. D.
1-14'1
(CO AUG 1974 d'N July 16, 1974
CD AIETRUPOLIMN FRgNSIT PETITION COI,NIISSION „ti
e L�Ij
idents of Ed ina who live in an area bordered
:!s;:h Stort1h, 50th Street on the south, Browndale
on the west, and Arden Avenue on Vae East (more commonly
o„ n as the Country Club Section), are opposed to-the Metropolitan
Transit.Commission using.Wooddale Avenue, or any of the streets con-
fined within said area, as a bus route - specifically, the new Route
36A, which was started on July 15, 1974, and -runs on Wooddale Avenue
between 44th Street and 50th. Street. We insist on irrkruediate action
to stop and correct this gross error in judgment.
,'• . � � �' � : �'�— =. � 1 X11. � � /.' l� ' �1�.
I
15oq n1 ,
LL
L / /
I 1
1 •.� C
Cj, � I
1
15oq n1 ,
LL
L / /
QQ ED
Z E P To 0
E U
S I.1110
A E EXISTIN LOT
SHELARD PARK
AND RIDGEDALE s ry. 0.1".0co
I a1E
IF
. .......................................
BUS . .........
LLOUT
��UTILIZE UP T 25
lvD
CEW 1�4
P/R SPACES IN 1
$RACE EXI N LOT
L•I[ ST
• bEdNTEAS TION
331411�'S UPG"(C�E''
900
..........
vALKER ST
R
. ........
ORO-APD
w 35msr
:7-
LA.1 5
BLVD
EYCELSOR I
...........
PEAK PERIOD AND OFF-PEAK PERIOD SERVICE...-
AND STREET RELATED FEATURES
WEkxlcN Wv 0
% 5m ST
5.. ST
SW TAM
AD v
Lm Eg
111110N WE
fill
NORTH 1974
SCALE . ............. 62a ST
112 1 SOUTHDALE AND TVV
MILE CITIES INTERNATIONAL
AIRPORT VIA 66TH ST.
legoand
®
LOCAL SERVICE
EXISTING LOCAL BUS SHELTER
0
PROPOSED LOCAL BUS SHELTER
PROPOSED NEIGHBORHOOD
BUS SHELTER
PROPOSED PARK /RIDE LOT
RECONSTRUCT ROAD TO
9 TON DESIGN
I IMRLEMENTATION PLAN FOR PEAK. AND
OFF PEAK PERIOD SERVICE
1-3 YEARS: COMPLETE ROUTE AND
STREET RELATED FEATURES
FIGURE 13
ROUTE 36 PROFILE
HENNEPIN COUNTY
STUDY AREA I
TRANSIT
ROUTE- RIDERSHIP
IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM
TRANSIT OPERATING DIVISION
MTC3118 NICOLLET AVE.- MINNEAPOLIS, MINN. 55408 - 612-827-.4071
LOUIS B. OLSEN
Assistant General Manager
July 26, 1974
Mr. Warren C. Hyde
City Manager
City of Edina
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, Minnesota 55424
Dear Warren:
On July 15, 1974 the St. Louis Park Crosstown Route 436 was extended to
Southdale Shopping Center via Wooddale Avenue. .
You will recall that at the Commission meeting where our request to extend
Route 36 was considered, you mentioned to myself and Willard Little that we
could anticipate some reaction from residents along Wooddale Avenue between
44th and 50th Streets due to the narrowness of Wooddale Avenue and due to
the type of residences.
On Tuesday, July 16, the Transit Operating Division began receiving calls
from persons living on Wooddale Avenue between 44th and 50th Streets. To
date a total of 17 calls have been received objecting to our running on
Wooddale between 44th and 50th Streets. In addition we are advised that a
petition is being circulated objecting to service in the aforementioned area
and that petition, when completed, will be forwarded to the City of Edina, the
Metropolitan Transit Commission and the Transit Operating Division (MTC).
Last week, after becoming aware of the situation, I talked to your Public
Works Director, Robert C. Dunn, advising him of the situation and indicated
the Transit Operating Divisions willingness to (1) assign small (QT type)
buses to this route, or (2) develop an alternative routing for Route 36.
I went on to explain to Mr. Dunn that this route required four (4) buses and
that though we currently have four (4) small buses available, should one of
the small buses break down, be in an accident, or require service, there would
be no way we could guarantee another small bus and in all likelihood the replacement
would be a large bus. Mr. Dunn indicated that he doubted that assignment of a
small bus would satisfy the objections of those complaining.
Mr. Dunn and I agreed that we should examine alternatives prior to your return
to town and be prepared to make an alternative recommendation for the rerouting
of Route 36.
f-
Mr. Warren C. Hyde
City Manager
City of Edina
2
July 26, 1974
In this regard Mr. Fred Heywood of the Transit Operating Division staff and
Mr. Francis Hoffman your Assistant City Engineer for Traffic and Transportation
had a meeting in the area and agreed that as an alternative the rerouting as
shown on Exhibit A would be acceptible to both the Transit Operating Division
and Mr. Hoffman. Due to. Transit Operating Division contract constraints the
earliest possible time that such a rerouting could be made would be August 19,1974.
At this point the Transit Operating Division has taken no action pending your
return, but will be willing to make any reasonable adjustment that is in the
best interests of the City of Edina, the residents of the area, the passengers
using this route and the Metropolitan Transit Commission.
After your return please feel free to call me at your convenience in order that
we may discuss this matter further. Should I be unavailable, please feel free
to discuss the situation with Mr. Fred Heywood of our Research Department who
can be reached at 827 -4071, extension 243.
S' cerely,
s B. Olsen
Assistant General Manager
LBO:pec
Attachment
c: Robert C., Dunn
Francis Hoffman
Willard Little
Fred T. Heywood
K. E. Burkhardt
L. Alick
Commissioner L. Staples, Jr.
Commissioner L. Thiel
C. D. Andre
H. W. Springer
R. S. Shiff
U
. w
•a Prase,#
R 0.1 e. .3 b feb 06,0 j
e
A �. .' � .1 Y t �{ •� J +•• 'I•I II _i`_�.�' a 4, ;_ }1/ YI. 3 •: l' __ —.�
T 117 tj R21
ll. 20/
ILI
nr9F
UL ' r —_t : - rI b y r r
z
nt 't y23!6Gio F SA: _; i .IIi�` Sltvy__- �.+ �. 1 11 • rc — n :7 •H _
CA.CADE L4. 't ' f ryi �`r1" > u. tPc L•.- % 't-'r;
l-' r. O t 4R T
tp
CRE ;CRCH- � .t d .9TH
C i Z• O •t APO -
1N7EkLACHEt: B:vD.i, �L.. w� 1 K1 1� m era p� ;i`..�,i rr _ T_ r� )r
C INT c R - ACH =_VC f 4I .. r _ i 4 ri J '•L \ nT,{ ,T. - _ _ or 4. ° CIR. .7 6D o G ri r ++tt KKK T r 4 i +I _
Loko '^ RLOSSCI•:-.
_� .PHCOK LA y., 1
S G y -' I a/ O -• '4 r v W. 48 T H ST.
<\ V(i_•- m 5.2 .'.r '�.: �• 7
MILLPOND PL. °-
NORTH:YO , p, CkOYCEN LA s oc�. cd ' �H 11 0`' e '6. 49TH ST. . w n ', — w I t: (,T !
90 �ZS.AH ` r.; 3 S',M.MiT AVE. ui '- -'y--
t r r > 10 PROCr,StOc .AVE.
C, .tILaC i x J cri ` C) -ti: r f58 tl _r. 11 ` w 41 - (V
S7. 12 ARCA�IA AVE. J ,y ? )15 z a 1 =3
S.OR c c t' 3t u y 13 ":EST'+R00\ LAy ci ` 'Z
14 TFCELEN AVE. z. O c: F C•ROvr- vn G > \ ! 5 r r I v
w;H Y I4 ' �-+ aJY Aj� KIC }.t_ RICH'.+- 6;'S -AUPA AVE.
�� tr - a Dn ,i F �c = _ Jam!_ L_� ►_
:i �V� - -F GCL
r AVE. -i r\ 7
'tin 7Dl O d t DN //I F P v1EVr c^ CR. I f
:4 1 O.�h� ; 0 r K t.� .l- TN - x - SlT:-1 CT
.P•D. r1' c .(`a e'/ Er1T AVE "I i
$r•. - _ u,l c, oY�J _ < -� O:.R I [`R. - <
I _ ` v
^'� Q T. F. .'P�. �'> O - ,Y 5 H
w. S6 T1 > >� J _ •n cT
'. •i-j-�_�j:G:',� {C'j`.rID., ^y! -N J OF ,'Y.' •.1.•_ TrIR vrt. N 1.,ST. <I Z ��• /�O Yr'. _._.
TEN Q, a o _t .0• <- ul w w r
'rl�J W. 57v rf' M:1tJD
ALE > �J' �i_t.! •�; 1't. 4 ` N N vi vi v' i
'ca at P.- /.� Fo N. CO C• A u O J: i-. ;T
•4,r r.p TI GRC'✓E ST y •b �f, O J W 0:'. CCF'.)T �F:L ~ROOK LA ^l�..P w ul t.• i
GR0 0 i s 1 K >
2 J S T. S O 4' ^ J 'f• •:r w i ¢ d 5 9; 4 ST.
y�.
\'IEV: ' aENTC<r`tn O a AVE ' �•� u_.1 u w
nn ► z > > i
cT. o
t- C, 59TH -
r S G �O In 2 '..1 I I C U .' _ f ` t:; p ~ 7
R t) A' 59T! $ T. = u O't, > SCF+C OL RD. ° w � � � `-
,O TH ,d - tl
u t -AND RD FO7SL! _I
A. GO ?H
PC 4 =P
OJ `i S• '.•' S o V .1' R:' W. '•I ST = ST. '° Z C. __ I. < �� 1 - W Q o07•, 5'
JEFF CL? v r (a 1 -° . u - .a r,1 ST S c•1 - 1
LL
,ytV �� 91RCH CF.EST ,i' W. 62 \D ST. G c. � v 52 r:3 51 , \< �' 02 1 ,l �luti 4 at ; CY'
CREST', �i' -
I iii pp"
cl
4
Cry - _ 'i' S•• - �} t.l I a x 1 � , > ���� -- -� �j �•j' t {{�% c'
C) c, c i
-J � Lo -- �: I I -1 � � :,t '�• v. -.� -_ {--
1U Til a ST. c _ - W
I `� /_ ,L �- - ✓'I • �Q c.' o :, -n
1' `� -.1 '.E rt^ °+ }' J�_ -i _ <1 •� �t'�ii �+ .: a `�� �'n :.III' --�:� __ _/ { {' l��_Oit;Hp:.LE -'+
J _ll`'�1: tl .°t :< 'r ��'S f-t '� - „- `' `„ A.'.�• {I '_n ,1 ST i ..'- CFF'IVG
f
Vr "!.L FY
, J : 1• ^. Tr ST '� rl \,' !r•; i_i i.,l';' ;� �\ \. F. `:TEF _
- %,t t
'A•- u. t :(F ,r. 1 -'('., � •• � �- 1
�1J�1,J i.lui�ll•I, \�'-1 , \r', v t• �ffY ,` I• 'i •t �_�. � <. _ _ - - - -__ _
17.ti1tC,ik.D1t;_I r.�i _l- \ /��5,_� - {1 r °� `'�� .�i.,.:•l -/• (�
77.�
Juty 30, 1974
Seymour H. Levitt, M.D.
6413.Cherokee Trait
Minneapotis, Minnesota 55435
Edina City Council
4801 west 50th Street
Edina, Minnesota 55424
TO: Members of the Edina City Councit
RE: Property of Mr. Victoraen, Southwest cornet
of Gleason in the Crosstown, Intersection o4
Gteason and the Crosztown Highway
I was pteb ent at the meeting o4 the City Council
on Juty 8th at which - .tame the above mentioned property
was rezoAed itom single 4amity dwettings to combined
mutt.ipte tesidenee.s. That is, perintss. ion was given
to Mt. Victorsen to put an apartment building on
his ptopetty ptev.iourty not zoned 4or this.
As in past meetings, I was impressed by what
I betieve is a tack oA eohcetn by the City Council
Aor the &pptoptiate r.ightA of the citizens in this
community. I cannot understand how you, in att
good conscience. could vote to rezone thus .ptoaerty
and attow an apartment to be built in this area.
gout decision was apparentty made on the basis
ob the bottow.ing "evidence ": 1'.) That the Ptann.ing
Commission had stated that s.ingte jam.ity dwett.ings
could not be built and sold on this ptopetty. I
would tike to know how the Ptann.ing Commission
and the City Ptannet came to this conctusion. Is
there evidence o4 this other than his own opinion?
2) Somehow the City oA Edina was obtigated to make
cetta.tn that Mr. Victorsen's ptopetty provided him
the highest proj.it poss.ibte. When Mt. V.ietohsen
bought the property, it was zoned" bor. :.6ingte bamity
Juty 30, 1974
Page Two
dwelt ings, and there is no tceabon that I know ob that
he on any others devetopen should be able to buy
pnopenty and then have it rezoned to bu.itd apartments.
Untess there is some spec.ib.ic instance in this case.
ob which we were not made aware at the meeting, I
see no peason why Mrs. V.ictonsen should have any
mo,.e- cons.iderat.ion than any other devetoper on
property owner. 3) The assumption was made that
the tnabb.ic on tocat roads brom the apartment
bu.itd,inq would be .less. than that oA s.ingte bam.ity
dwettings, this is blatant nonsense and purse
sophistry.
I can see absotutety no just.ib.icat.ion Jot nezon.ing
this pnopenty based on the evidence that has been
placed bebore the City Counc.it by the City Ptannen
on Mr. V.ictorsen. The rezoning ob this property
would be a ztap in the bace to the citizens who
have bought property and have t ived ..in this atcea.
It would .prov.ide an undes.inabte situation both
.ins o ban as the tnab b.ic, the zoning o6 the area,
the property values, and the ent.ine development
ob this region.
The City Cbunc.it has another opportunity to demonstrate
to the citizens that they are concerned about the
.ind.iv.iduat citizen and the development ob Edina
and do not wish to override the desires and wishes
o6 the mat on.ity o6 the .ind.iv.iduatz t iv.ing in this
area to sat.is b y the pets onat pro b.it motive o6 the
man who happens to own the property. I hope they
w.itt assume their respons.ib.itity to the citizens.
S.inceret y,
Seymour H. Levitt, M.D.
SHL: j ch
1
MEM0RA,N D U M
July 22, 1974
TO: Warren C. Hyde, City Manager
FROM: Robert J. Buresh, Assistant Fire Chief
SUBJECT: D. M. Akins' letter of July 14, 1974, to Edina City Council
In view of the letter which Mr. Akins sent to the Edina City Council, I
thought it would be appropriate that I bring you up to date on.this matter,
in case you have to make some recommendations or decisions regarding't►le
action taken on it.
In 134 apartment buildings in Edina which are required to have fire alarm
and detection systems, only two have not been installed and this is one of
them. In both instances, ownership of the building was transferred before
the written order became due.
The original order on this building was written to Mr. H. L. Schmelz on
December 11, 1968. In the two years which he was given to install the
alarm system, compliance was not obtained. We then met with Mr. Schmelz
and attempted to work out a reasonable plan of correction commensurate
with the budget he had to work with. He seemed very sincere and obtained
bids from several contractors to do the work. After a considerable amount
of delay using various tactics with us, he informed us that he had sold the
building to a Mr. Dean Akins. We immediately started legal proceedings
against Mr. Schmelz to obtain compliance with the order. After Mr. Schmelz
was served his court appearance notice by the Sheriff, he and Mr. Akins
came into my office and made anagreement with me that they would proceed
to get current bids on the project, have the system installed and work out
the cost between them. No positive:- action was taken by them on the in-
stallation of this system for several months so I therefore sent Mr.. Akins
an official notice on December 29, 1972, ordering compliance.. I am enclosing
a copy of this order for your review. I informed him at our meeting and
during several conservations of his right to appeal this order but he never
exercised it until now which is considerably longer than the 30 days stated
in Ordinance No. 611, Section 7, of which he received a copy.
I would also like to respond briefly to the foui'items which he specifically
mentioned in his letter:
1. N.F.P.A. #72A, 1967 edition, Local Protective Signaling Systems, was the
latest nationally recognized standard available when we originally drafted
this ordinance. At that time we gave serious consideration to drafting our
own standard regarding smoke detection equipment but upon further investigation
we found that most of these devices were still causing a lot of problems
with false alarms and their overall reliability was still questionable.
In recent years we have accepted products of combustion detectors (as an
equivalency) in lieu of the system specified in N.F.P.A. #72. An example
of this would be the apartment building located at 3901 West 49th Street
where we accepted this type of system in 1972. I am also enclosing a copy
of a letter verifying this. This item is just another foot dragging
technique of Mr. Akins as I went over these systems and the alternate methods
of compliance very thoroughly with him.
T0: Warren C.
July 22, 1974
Page 2
Hyde, City Manager
2. As I previously stated, over one hundred of these systems have been
installed in apartment buildings in the City of Edina, most of which were
installed in existing buildings. We have worked very closely with building
owners and contractors installing these systems in order that the cost
could be held to a minimum and installation could be accomplished in both
new and existing structures without significally affecting the asthetics.
In 1968 when we first adopted our alarm and detection ordinance, we gave
much consideration before applying the requirements to existing apartment
buildings. We justified our decision based on several facts which were:
a. To provide equal life safety and fire protection to all residents of
apartment buildings in Edina.
b. By not exempting existing buildings we would not give an unfair
economic advantage to a favored few at the expense of the safety of
many.
C. To provide early detection of fire in our large structures, therefore
being able to take a more conservative approach toward municipal fire
protection.
It appears that our decision was not too bad at the time as by far the
majority of suburbs surrounding Minneapolis and St. Paul adopted similar
ordinances shortly thereafter and the State Building Code has now followed
most of the guidelines which we established regarding fire protection for
new buildings.
Incidentally we have never had a fire death or a serious fire in any of our
buildings since they were equipped with these systems although we have had
many small fires which were detected very early and we were able to extinguish
quite rapidly. They have proven their value in many instances..
3. To this date the courts have upheld local fire prevention codes when
dealing with existing structures. The State Building Code deals with new
buildings. The portion of the Uniform Building Code which deals with existing
buildings (Section 203 Unsafe Buildings) was not even adopted as state law.
It's a local option. The State has been very much aware that we have been
requiring alarm and detection systems in existing buildings and to.this date
we have never received any notification from them that we are violating a
state law.
4. As I previously stated our fire prevention ordinance covering existing
buildings and the State Building Code which covers new buildings are two
different laws. Mr. Akins clearly comes under the requirements of our local
fire prevention code. I do not know where he is receiving some of the
information which he states in his comments. I have been a member of the
Fire and Life Safety Committee of the State Building Code since its inception
and have worked towards bringing our local codes together in order that we
could develop the uniformity: desired by the state and yet not dilute the
fire protection requirements which were in existence in many of the communities
of the State when they adopted the State Building Code. We have since
modified the State Code over the years of its existence and it now includes
A
TO: Warren C.
July 22, 1974
Page 3
Hyde, City Manager
nearly all of the requirements which we were enforcing many years .ago.
We do not have redundancy and at this time the only significant conflict
which remains between the State Building Code and our local fire prevention
ordinance is the sprinklering of certain warehouses.
Based on the fact that three similar appeals have already been heard by
the Edina Building Code Board of Appeals regarding these systems and all
decisions were rendered in favor of Code enforcement and the fact that Mr.
Akins did not appeal his order within 30 days of notice, as required in
Ordinance No. 611, Section 7, I question whether this request warrants a
Board of Appeals meeting.
Also, in case you have not already heard, our sprinkler requirement!;for
Clancy's which they appealed to the State, was upheld by the State Board
of Appeals and the contract has been let by Mr. Lund for the installation
of the system.
If any further explanation of this matter is desired please do not hesitate
to contact me.
RJB /dd
L
D.M. Akins
July 14, 1974
Edina Village Council
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, Minnesota 55424
Peference: Ord. No. 611, Sections 5(b), 5(c) and Section 7
Gentlemen:
I have received notification that the 10 unit apartment which.I own at
5416 West 70th Street does not comply with Ord. 611, Section 5(c).
In proceeding with compliance action, several factors have come to light
which add significant confusion to this matter and I believe it would be-
desirable to resolve some of these items before proceeding with Ord. 611
compliance. Specifically, in accordance with 611, Section 7, I am appdaling
to the council to hold all action on the 70th Street property in abeyance
until the following items have been reviewed, clarified, substantiated, and
or revised as applicable.
1. Technical considerations called out by Section ,C - Alarm Systems per
1967 N.F.P.A. No. 72
Officers of the cognizant State Building Code Division (Mr. Rogers,
Mr. Chester Zimniewicz) have indicated heat sensitive systems specified
by 611 are not as.desirable as newer types approved by the State Bui ld-
ing Code Division.
The apparent discrepancy between the alarm systems required by Edina
vs the newer State approved and recommended systems should be resolved.
2. Review of Ordinance provision 611, Section 5, b - "Application.........
::..to all existing multiple occupancy buildings after................."
The council may want to reconsider the practicality of requiring the
same fire safety provisions in both new and old construction. It would
seem that some structural type safety features might be desirable and
prat icl in new construction but impractical to add once a structure
is built. The State Code, Richfield, Minneapolis and all other local,
codes that I am aware of, do make a distinction in terms of ..what is
practical in new vs old construction.
3. Jurisdiction - State of Minnesota Uniform Code vs Edina Local Code
The State of Minnesota Department of Administration, the State Fire
Marshal, and the State Building Code Division maintain that alarm
system requirements in apartment buildings, new and old, in Edina as well
as all other areas, are governed by provisions of the State Uniform Code.
The State Department of Administration is currently in litigation to
clarify via the court that this was the legal intent of the State
legislature.
Since the Edina Ordinance differs significantly with the State Code, I
believe it is important to clarify this before proceeding with compliance
action.
7
r�
D.M. Akins
July 14, 1974
Continued...
4. Merits of having two applicable Codes and or Ordinances
The State of Minnesota appears to have competant people that have develop,V
ed a Code that duplicates the Edina effort. The State has a staff that
can maintain the Code in a current status condition. For example, last
week they specified eight companies and fourteen model numbers of alarm
systems that have received their approval. Edina handled the same matter
by officially requesting compliance with an obsolete 7 year old specifica-
tion plus verbal statements to check around and bring in whatever you find
for our approval. Considering the fact that 'the State has an applicable
Ordinance, they maintain it current, they provide service to help with
compliance, the State agencies believe the intent was to relieve villages
And cities from these burdens, the State effort reduces redundency and
needless government expense, it would appear reasonable that the Edina
Council would want to study whether the city could use the State Code and
perhaps gain some of the advantages that the legislature intended. If the
study proves that we should continue to "go our own way ", the legislature
- and -State agencies may benefit from facts and thought that support our
position. Along with this, If :Edina ends up with supplemental or con-
flicting provisions, the logic behind the differences should of .course
receive careful review and then the pertinate facts should be spelled
out so that people within our city can understand why we have ttaken'a
different position.
I will be glad to help in any way that I can to expedite action on any of,
the above factors.
Thank you for your attention, judgement, time and effort on this requested
appeal.
S' Iince re ly,
Dean M. Akins
DEAN M. AKINS
6801 Hillside Lane
Minneapolis,, Minn. 55435
cc i Mr. Ted Paulfranz, Edina Fire Dept.
CITY OF EDINA
August 16, 1974
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: Warren C. Hyde
SUBJECT: HOUSING INSPECTION PRACTICES
VI/ ,K
PA
tL ✓✓C
Attached is a memo summarizing the results of inquiries to Blooming-
ton, St. Louis Park, Richfield, and Minneapolis. Only St. Louis Park has the
ordinance requiring that homes offered for sale be inspected by city personnel.
Minneapolis has a "code compliance inspection" under the provisions of Chapter 43
of the Code of Ordinances. This provides that the owner of any building may
obtain a Certificate of Code Compliance. If a certificate is issued, it clearly
indicates it is not a guarantee. Minneapolis charges $20 for a one- or two -
family dwelling. The preamble to the enacting ordinance is interesting. It
follows:
"43.010. Certificate of Code Compliance; Purpose. Believing
that community fear of present code enforcement programs is
based in part on the unreasoned fear that people will be
forced to meet standards beyond those required for health
and safety; and
Believing that the citizens of the City of Minneapolis have
displayed an earnest desire to preserve the livability of
their community and deserve the opportunity to voluntarily
meet basic minimum standards for health and safety, there
is hereby created a voluntary, code compliance program. "..
Based on the number of changes in water meter billings, I would
estimate some 1200 homes are sold each year in Edina. This would take at'
least one full -time inspector plus additional clerical help. According to
St. Louis Park's review of its program after one year of operation, "the most
common problems occur in electrical categories. Other frequent problems are
water heater malfunctions and no anti - siphon ballcocks in flush tanks. The
number of major or extremely serious problems have not been too numerous to
date and, in most cases, are usually found in older structures ".
Because Edina has not had a city electrical code and not having
required 100 amp. service, as was discussed several years ago, we would probably
encounter primarily electrical problems also. St. Louis Park's tract houses
of the immediate post -war II period were fortunately not duplicated here and the
relatively higher percentage of custom -built homes in Edina would probably
decrease the number of violations or corrections required.
HOUSING INSPECTION PRACTICES
Page Two
I am not convinced that there is a real need for this type of
governmental intervention here in what has been a civil buyer - seller relation-
ship. If a program is mandated, the fee would be $25 per inspection, and an
additional inspector's position authorized.
The question on licensing roofers, siding applicators and private
driveway contractors was included because of an inquiry from Mrs. Schmidt.
Warren C. Hyde
City Manager
WCH /hd
In a letter dated June 17, 197. Mr. .and Mrs. Garoutte inquired as to the
possibility of an Inspection Ordinance similar to that of St. Louis dark.
They indicated that they had had several problems with their house that could
have been avoided if such a program were in operation in Edina.
Information was requested from St. Louis Park as well as from Richfield,
Bloomington, and Minneapolis on the Ordinances and Housing Inspection Programs
now in force. The following is a brief summary as to what was involved in the
St. Louis Park Program and what the cities of Richfield, Bloomington and
Iinneapolis have also done in this area.
1) ': -41hy was the St. Louis Park Ordinance ;;'1192 passed?
In conversations v.ith I1r. Sewell, St. Louis Park Housing Inspector, I was
informed that their City had a housing ordinance passed in the early 1960's
but that it was very inadequate. As a result the City Stall initiated action
to adopt a new, stronger-Housing Inspection Ordinance. Mr. Sewell indicated
that at the outset the public v:as very much opposed to this ordinance, the
result being that the Mayor appointed a fourteen member committee made up
entirely.of opposition people,.to study the matter. This committee then met with
City staff to study and discuss the issue and to become better informed. The
committee eventually, i.2th a majority opinion of twelve, reversed itself and
recommended that a stronger Housing Inspection Ordinance should definit�y be
p -ssed. 14ith this recommendation the City Council was able to pass the Ordin-
ance with most of the unfavorable public opinion bypassed.
The Ordinance, number 1192, was then passed on July 17, 1972. idr. Sei;ell
did indic: :.te that the ordin� rice could be even stronger but that some conces-
sions were made alas to items that r:ould be grandfathered in. These would be
items not _llovied in new construction, but because they are now part of the
build i n;., c :nci t.rould c :use undue hardship without a great deal of benefit, ti:ey would
cc ;'110r_(j to stay.
r
The City of Richfield does not at this time have such an ordinance, hots-
ever, they are currently preparing an ordinance similar to St. Louis.Park:'.s
and expect to present it to the Council this year.
The City of Bloomington has discussed the above ordinance but have decided
not to pursue a policy of Occupancy Certificates upon occupancy or otmership
changes.
The City of I,Linneapolis has a Voluntar -f Code Compliance Ordinance, but
nothing that could be compared to the mandatory St. Louis Park Ordinance.
2) Inspections per month in St. Louis Park.
Figures for the first eight months, October 1972 through 1.1ay 1973, show
that COl initial inspections and 521 follovi-ao inspections were performed.
This was an - verage of 140 plus inspections per month. The fig-are as of June
1974, is between 190 and 200 inspections ner month, an average of close to
10 per t;oric day. It should be noted that the Ci t7 feels that if this trend
of increasing inspections keeps up more persomel ;ould have to be added.
The City of Richfield frith no program in operation does not have any
ins-,,ections. JTot applicable.
The City of Bloomington also t;-ithout a. proorsm. Not applicable.
The City of linneapolis with its voluntary cerapliance is ranr ng 30
to 35 inspections per month.
3) Problems found in the City -of St. LOUIS Perk.
There h-.ve not been L:ny major problems detected so far in the administra-
t for. o�' the proc;r.-_m. ',:hen first pro -Dosed there ;:as some public on�osiU but
t�iis l:.s no-,,, developed into suplcort.
City of Richfield : i.th no nroSrvra, not .., -:li c-ble.
Ci t�; of ?loornir� toil, not <._cpli ceble.
Cit7 of 'Eirule.apolis t,itlr 01-11;• -- Volunt-= pracram ha-s no problems.
S
v'
4) Do fees cover costs?
The City of St. Louis Park has a >10.00 per unit inspection fee, this
does not cover the costs. That mould run >20.00 to 4 >25.00 per inspection..
City of Richfield, not applicable.
City of Bloomington, riot applicable.
City of Minneapolis, cost -is not covered,"a new fee schedule is being con-
C>
sidered.
5) Any litigation? '
The City of St. Louis Park has not been involved in any litigation.
City of Richfield, not applicable.
City of Bloomington, not applicable. .
City of Minneapolis, owner may appeal to Board of Appeals, othert-rise nog
litigation.
6) Hot-r many people make inspections?
In St. Louis Park only one man is responsible, with back up help and
expertiz e through the electrical, plumbing, heating and building inspectors.
City of Richfield, not applicable.
City of Bloomington, not applicable.
City of Minneapolis, six inspectors presently all in the Building inspection
dept.
7) Are roofers, siders, driveway repair people licensed?
St. Louis P.::rk does not ::t the present time license these people, however,
it does require permits to roof or side a. building. They also have the most
nor. - permit violations in thct area.
Tae City Gf iiichf ield does not require the above licensing.
The City of uloomington also does not license the above but is interested.
Tile City of i:inneapolis is presently writing an ordinance to license "Home
Improveament" contractors. Tiii s should then cover these people.
%
CITY OF EDINA
August 15, 1974
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: -Warren C, Hyde
SUBJECT: , "AFFIRMATIVE ACTION" EMPLOYMENT POLICY
For the past several months, in accordance with Federal legis-
lation, regulations, and court decision, Gary West has been preparing the
attached material as the City of Edina's Affirmative Action employment policy.
He has consulted with several persons knowledgeable in the field, including
the Office of Voluntary Compliance, Equal'Employment Opportunity.Commission
in Chicago. We are confident the Affirmative Action policy and program, as
prepared, will meet the requirements set forth in the statutes and federal
EEO regulations. I recommend your approval of the policy statement.
In essence, the verbiage sets forth in writing what the employ-
ment and personnel policies have been for a considerable period of time. You
may recall that in 1963, Edina was among the very first to hire members of
minority groups in the Police Department. For several years, we have adver-
tised vacancies in the minority newspapers and early in the game of human
rights. I offered one leader of the American Indians an opportunity to pro
vide manpower for our tree work with no success. We have had very, very few
minority group members indicate any interest in working for the City, few of
those have applied and even fewer have appeared for examinations.
You are aware, I am certain, from the press reports of the
wheel- spinning and costs incurred by several public agencies in this area
in formulating similar programs and litigation involving hiring practices.
The Edina Human Relations Commission has indicated interest
in the general problem, and I understand they will be hearing from the
Hennepin County Affirmative Action Director in the near future. The attached
material will be submitted to the Commission members.
J
Warren C. Hyde
WCH /hd
Attachment
37-3
M E M O R A N D U M
August 16, 1974
MEMO TO: Edina City Council
FROM: Ken Rosland
After thorough investigation of what base material should be under the
bike paths at Mud Lake, we have come to the conclusion that the flotation
of the black top path should be aglite material. This is needed in the
areas where the soil is very peaty and not stable.
The only distributor of aglite is North Central Light Weight Concrete for
a total cost of $1,536.15.
Recommend purchase of 209 cubic yards of aglite at $7.15 per yard for a
total of $1,536.15 from North Central Light Weight Concrete.
M E M O R A N D U M
August 16, 1974
MEMO TO:_ Mr. Warren C. Hyde
FROM: Ken Rosland
SUBJECT: Heating system at the Braemar Clubhouse
We have three quotes regarding the installation of a new gas fired forced
air furnace,and removing all of the old boiler and all of the air handling
equipment now in the clubhouse.
As you know, the reason we.want to replace this equipment is that it is in
very poor condition. We have had extensive and expensive repairs to the
boiler and it will continue until it is replaced.
The three quotes are as follows:
I. Vogt. Company - $4,884.00
2. Centraire - $8,384.00
3. Allan Air Conditioning - $7,600.00
Recommend award to Vogt Company for $4,884.00.
r"
CVlllage of Tdina
f-
4001 WEST FIFTIETH STREET - EDINA. MINNESOTA 05424
August 15, 1974
Seymour H. Levitt, M. D.
6413 Cherokee Trail
Edina, Minnesota 55435
Dear Dr. Levitt;
I have yours of July 30th, which of course was also published
in the Edina Sun. I do not wish to be argumentative in this letter, but
would like to perhaps comment and explain a few of the items that are
mentioned in your letter.
Obviously single family dwellings can be built and sold on
this property. I also know that from an examination of other tracts
where this type of consideration was before us, that the detailed
analysis indicated that there would be a greater removal of trees,
grading and general desecration of the property than with a multiple.
Single family requires more roadway, yard space, pool space, tennis
courts and the like. That is not to say that a single family is not
appropriate because certainly that has been the tendency and direction
of this council for many years . However, we must recognize that on
occasion we do a better job of preserving the property for the benefit of
all of the citizens by a zoning other than single family.
It is also my feeling here that the agreement by Mr. Victorsen,
which will be reduced to recordable form, providing for an open space
easement is very much to the advantage of the entire Village and parti-
cularly the people in your immediate area.
Whether Mr. Victorsen makes a profit on this transaction or not
is of no concern to the City Council. I do not think that Mr. Victorsen
927 -8861
r'
Seymour H. Levitt, M. D. -2- August 15, 1974
has been treated any differently than any other developer, except that
perhaps he has had to hold this property much longer than others, has
I would assume, paid substantial amounts of funds in taxes and in
development costs and the like. Those costs are of no concern to me
and whether he makes a profit is of no concern. However, we do have
some very important language in the Minnesota Courts that indicates
that people do have rights to develop their property to the highest and
best use. That has not yet been completely defined, but it does give
unto him some recognition that the judicial process is involved here
as well.
I indicated in my comments at the hearing that we could not
.obviously hide a building of this size, but that It was my feeling that
by putting theapartment building on the north of this tract, and that
with the probable rents from buildings of this size, that most of the
tenants therein would be primarily interested in getting to the crosstown
and to their respective businesses and shopping. My point was that I
thought there would probably be less school children in that particular
area as a result and that would hopefully not further increase the traffic
on Gleason Road. You, of course, have been active in the concern In
connection with Gleason Road and I would assume would want anything
done to keep traffic from that road, and that was one of my feelings. I
obviously have no specific evidence as to who in fact will live in the
building, or where they will drive, and all we can do is to look at general
predictions and history of other buildings In this municipality and others .
No building of any kind, whether it is single family or multiple,
or even commercial is completely desirable to a person who has already
moved into an area. As I have indicated in the past, and as I have more
recently indicated to Mr. Orrin Haugen, the spokesman for your area,
I feel that this mixture of some single family on the south, a substantial
amount of green area, the open space easement, putting the apartment on
the north side as it abuts Highway 62, my feeling as to the traffic, the
fact that this ties in to the general development plan of the Village, and
some of the other items mentioned above led me to vote in favor of this
rezoning. Obviously I would like to be financially situated that we could
Seymour H. Levitt, M.D.
-3- August 15, 1974
have many and more areas of nothing but open space. I have not been
furnished with any evidence that indicates that the municipality as a
whole is willing to purchase the remaining open space in Edina for
preservation. I hope that some of it can be, and we do in fact have
an open space committee working diligently on that matter.
I am taking the liberty of sending a copy of your letter and of
my letter to Orrin Haugen, who was a classmate of mine at the University
of Minnesota Law School, and who has been a long time personal friend.
TVV: i d
cc: Mr. Orrin Haugen
Council
Yours truly,
r Y'dmesVan Valkenburg ,
y -•
Mayor
EHLERS AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS
FIRST NATIONAL -SOO LINE CONCOURSE 507 MAR12UETTE AVE. MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 339 -8291 (AREA CODE 6121
August 1, 1974
File: Financial Consultants: Ehlers and Associates
Please distribute to governing body members
The "bottom fell out of the bottom" of the tax exempt bond market was the way it
was expressed. It had been thought that 6% on the index was sort of a peak but
then it zoomed to 6.93% (as of July 15). The weakness in other sectors finally
caught up with municipal bonds.
Dow Jones Index 6.93%
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
Monday, July 15, 1974
Part of the problem is that banks, big city
as well as country banks, are almost
entirely out of the municipal field. And
many of those who would normally buy gen-
eral obligation bonds for such things as
sewer, water, hospitals, schools, etc. are
investing in higher yielding industrial and
huge industrial pollution control revenue
obligations.
Another part of the problem is the huge supply of tax exempts including mammoth
issues of housing and pollution control bonds which have invaded the "traditional"
tax exempt market.
And of course the major cause of higher interest rates all around is inflation and
the great political and economic uncertainties facing the world.
The idea of the Federal Reserve Bank is that higher interest rates will dampen
borrowing, expansion and spending, but we've observed that high and rising inter-
est rates have an exact opposite effect. Those who see interest rates going up
along with say 1% per month rising construction costs, actually accelerate their
borrowings while they can still get the money within statutory limits. This of
course exacerbates the problem. The process of gradualism - inching up interest
rates by eighths and quarters of percents - brings about the very thing the money
managers want to prevent.
What to do? Well, a project may perhaps be postponed. But, unless construction
inflation is curbed, this might mean that a year later construction costs will be
10 to 12% higher. Even if the interest rate is lower, the community will be
paying interest on a higher amount. And there is no assurance that interest
rates will decline.
Split the issue, selling part now to get the project going and sell part
later in the hope of lower interest will prevail. This raises another
question: Suppose the second offering doesn't sell within statutory
interest limits?
. YK
i
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
Monday, July 15, 1974
Part of the problem is that banks, big city
as well as country banks, are almost
entirely out of the municipal field. And
many of those who would normally buy gen-
eral obligation bonds for such things as
sewer, water, hospitals, schools, etc. are
investing in higher yielding industrial and
huge industrial pollution control revenue
obligations.
Another part of the problem is the huge supply of tax exempts including mammoth
issues of housing and pollution control bonds which have invaded the "traditional"
tax exempt market.
And of course the major cause of higher interest rates all around is inflation and
the great political and economic uncertainties facing the world.
The idea of the Federal Reserve Bank is that higher interest rates will dampen
borrowing, expansion and spending, but we've observed that high and rising inter-
est rates have an exact opposite effect. Those who see interest rates going up
along with say 1% per month rising construction costs, actually accelerate their
borrowings while they can still get the money within statutory limits. This of
course exacerbates the problem. The process of gradualism - inching up interest
rates by eighths and quarters of percents - brings about the very thing the money
managers want to prevent.
What to do? Well, a project may perhaps be postponed. But, unless construction
inflation is curbed, this might mean that a year later construction costs will be
10 to 12% higher. Even if the interest rate is lower, the community will be
paying interest on a higher amount. And there is no assurance that interest
rates will decline.
Split the issue, selling part now to get the project going and sell part
later in the hope of lower interest will prevail. This raises another
question: Suppose the second offering doesn't sell within statutory
interest limits?
. YK
Sell short term temporary bonds hoping to refund them say in two years at lower
rates. But suppose the temporary bonds can't then be refunded within the
statutory limits?
Sell the entire issue and invest the proceeds during construction. In a recent
case we could show 6% arbitrage earnings. If we take that for 1 year (half the
construction period), the arbitrage earning would reduce the net interest rate
by about 1/2 of 1 %. (Caution: do not discount the entire earnings during con-
struction as a competitor asserted a coupled of years ago.) If the bonds are
set up with say a 10 or 11 year par call and if interest rates do decline later,
the issue can be refunded at a lower rate (under present laws and regulations).
Should local property taxes and local government be saved? I recently participated
in a panel discussing the evils and virtues of local government and property taxes.
A sort of working hypothesis was that local property taxation for local purposes
is regressive, oppressive, unequal, inequitable and, therefore, bad. Some would
abolish local property taxes and substitute some sort of "progressive" federal,
state or regional tax which would be distributed "according to need ". This raises
the question: Is local government itself worth saving?
Manifestly local taxes vary substantially depending on what different communities
finance. If a community decides that it wants minimum services, manifestly it
will have lower taxes than another which furnishes "free" garbage collection and
streets, subsidized sewer and water service, full -time fire department vs. volunteer
or contracted protection, etc. There may be nothing wrong with each community's
decision freely made. But if everyone contributes to the "pot" (central tax
collection), everyone-will expect the same service. No community can decide to
have more or less. Thus, local decisions - and local government - will not be
permitted, and the cost of government will skyrocket as now low service, low tax
communities demand and get their new, government issue service. Without local
taxing power there can be no real local decision making.
Hoping your summer has been and is enjoyable, we are
Very truly �yours, ""��
EHLERS, ASSOC Il�A F,8 ;' "C .
F &Eri�Fie��
RLE:jr
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF FnTNA
August 19, 1974
Warren C. Hyde
Gary West
Robert Dunn
1974 SALARY ADJUSTMENT FOR METER READERS IN WATER DEPT.
As you know, it dust occurred to us that the meter readers
of the Water Department are not covered by the Local.No. 49 contract and
should have had a salary adjustment at the first of the year along with.
the other unorganized employees. Since our discovery of this error
didn't take place until after a tentative settlement had been reached
with the 49'ers, and because in the past meter readers' wages have been
tied to light equipment operators, I would recommend that an adjustment
on the order of 7.6 percent, the same as the light equipment operators,
be made.
As non -union employees, they are also entitled to the full
one -half cost sharing of dependent's hospitalization insurance by the
City. The rates for '74 would be $4.89/hr. ( $391.20 /biweekly, $847.60 /mon.)
or a $60.67 /mon, increase vs. a $65.00 /mon. increase for light equipment
operators. This salary adjustment should be paid retroactive to January 1.
Bob and I agree it wouldn't be hard to replace meter readers
at this salary and checking with our neighboring communities, St. Louis
Park is the only one.with comparable wages. The other communities use
part -time labor or casual labor at 1/2 to 2/3 the cost of ours.
GW /hd
. . 1��f4