Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-04-02_COUNCIL PACKETAGENDA EDINA HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY EDINA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING APRIL 2, 1990 7:00 P.M. ROLLCALL I. APPROVAL OF JOINT HRA /COUNCIL MINUTES OF MARCH 19, 1990 II. ADJOURNMENT EDINA CITY COUNCIL PROCLAMATION - Volunteers Recognition Week - April 15 - 21, 1990 I. ADOPTION OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS All agenda items marked with an asterisk ( *) and in bold print are considered to be routine and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of such items unless a Council Member or citizen so requests, in which case the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of the Regular Meeting of March 5 and Joint HRA /Council Meeting of March 19, 1990. III. PUBLIC HEARING - DESIGNATION OF DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AND APPROVAL'OF TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLANS - A. West 44th Street and France Avenue B. Wooddale Avenue and Valley View Road C. West 70th Street and Cahill Road IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REPORTS ON PLANNING MATTERS Affidavits of Notice by Clerk. Presentation by Planner. Public comment heard. Motion to close hearing. Zoning Ordinance: First and Second Reading requires 4/5 favorable rollcall vote of all members of Council to pass. Final Development Plan Approval of Property Zoned Planned District: 3/5 favorable rollcall vote required to pass. * A. Final Development Plan - 7101 -13 Amundson Avenue - George Rosmides - Generally located at southeast corner of Cahill Rd and Amundson Av. (Contd from 3/19/90) (Continue to 4/16/90) B. Release of Restrictive Covenants - South Harriet Park Steiner Addition C. Lot Divisions 1. 7021 Wexford Rd and 7028 and 7100 Down Road 2. 6124 and 6128 Ewing Av So D. Appeal of Board of Appeals and Adjustments Decision - Sideyard setback variances - 4420 Vandervork Av E. Set Hearing Dates (4/16/90) * 1. Final Rezoning - R -1 Single Dwelling Unit District to PRD -2 - Ron Clark Construction - Generally located south of West 70th St and west of Cahill Rd * 2. Final Plat Approval - Highcroft Addition - Ron Clark Construction - Generally located south of West 70th St. and west of Cahill Rd * 3. Preliminary Rezoning Approval - PCD -4, Planned Commercial District to PCD -2, Planned Commercial District. Walgreen's by Semper Holdings, Inc., 4916 France Avenue South Agenda 4/2/90 Edina City Council Page Two * 4. * 5. * 6. Preliminary Rezoning and Preliminary Plat Approval - R -2, Double Dwelling Unit District to PRD -2, Planned Residence District. Schaefer Development. Preliminary Plat Approval Shadow Hill. (Vernon Court). Final Development Plan - Opus Corporation - Western National Mutual Insurance. 5350 West 78th St - 5309 Industrial Boulevard - Building Expansion. Final Development Plan - Gabbert and Beck - 6969 France Av So - Building Expansion for the Galleria V. ORDINANCES First Reading: Requires offering of Ordinance only. Second Reading: Favorable rollcall vote of majority of all members of Council required to pass. Waiver of Second Reading: 4/5 favorable rollcall vote of all members of Council required to pass. A. First Reading - On -Sale Wine License Ordinance Amendment VI. SPECIAL CONCERNS OF RESIDENTS A. Walnut Ridge Park (Continue to 4/16/90) VII. AWE A. * B. * C. * D. * E. * F. iRD OF BIDS Tow Truck with Recovery Unit (Contd from 3/5/90) Sand, Rock, Bituminous Material, Concrete Snow Plow and Wing Aerial Bucket Braemar Parking Lot Braemar Soccer Field Renovation VIII. RECOMMENDATIONS AND REPORTS A. I -494 EIS Update B. Report on Regulation of Private Parking Lots (Contd from 3/5/90) C. Vacancy on Recycling Commission D. Report on Dog License Process E. Feasibility Report - Storm Sewer Improvements IX. INTERGOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES A. MWCC General Advisory Committee Nomination B. AMM - Nomination to Board of Directors X. SPECIAL CONCERNS OF MAYOR AND COUNCIL XI. POST AGENDA AND MANAGER'S MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS A. Joint Council Recycling Commission Meeting - 4/16/90 - 6 :00 P.M. B. Closed Meeting to Discuss Labor Negotiations XII. FINANCE * A. Payment of Claims as per Check Register dated 4/2/90: Total $512,409.53, and Confirmation of payment of Claims as per Check Register dated 2/28/90: Total $$651,235.75. SCHEDULE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS /EVENTS Mon Apr 16 Regular Council Meeting 7:00 P.M. Council Room - Tues Apr 17 Volunteers Recognition Reception 5:00 P.M. Braemar Clubhouse Mon Apr 23 Board of Review 5:00 P.M. Council Room Sat May 5 Council Study Session 8:00 A.M. Braemar Clubhouse Mon May 7 Regular Council Meeting 7:00 P.M. Council Room Mon May 21 Regular Council Meeting 7:00 P.M. Council Room Poor Quality Document Disclaimer The original or copy of a document or page of a document presented at the time of digital scanning contained within this digital file may be of substandard quality for viewing, printing or faxing needs. MINUTES OF THE JOINT MEETING OF THE EDINA HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY /CITY COUNCIL HELD AT EDINA CITY HALL MARCH 19, 1990 ' A joint meeting of the Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority and the City Council was convened to consider concurrently: 1) Preliminary Report on Tax Increment Districts and 2) Extension of Resolution - Acquisition of Kunz Oil /Lewis Engineering Properties. Action was taken by the HRA and Council as .recorded. ROLLCALL Answering rollcall were Commissioners /Members Rice, Smith, Richards. Commissioner /Member Paulus entered the meeting at 7:12 p.m. MINUTES of the Joint HRA /Council Meeting of March 5, 1990 were approved as submitted by motion of Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Rice. Ayes: Rice, Smith, Richards Motion carried. PRELIMINARY REPORT PRESENTED ON TAR INCREMENT DISTRICTS; PUBLIC HEARING TO BE HELD ON 412/90 HRA Executive Director Gordon Hughes stated that in accordance with the Council's request, staff has prepared draft plans supporting the establishment of tax increment financing districts at Valley View Road and Wooddale Avenue, 44th Street and France Avenue, and 70th Street and Cahill Road. These preliminary plans have been prepared with the assistance of the Hoisington Group, planning consultant. J. Peter Meyers has also assisted staff in discussions with the business community. The plans are in the draft stage and the staff and consultant seek comment and direction concerning them from the HRA Commissioners. Plan Preparation and Review Process - Prior to commencing plan preparation, staff and the consultant met individually with the five or six key business persons from each of the three retail area. The purpose was to obtain their comments and recommendations concerning the area"and to determine if they had particular plans relating to their businesses. Subsequently, the consultant prepared preliminary land use and public improvement plans. On February 27, 1990 staff and the consultant conducted an open meeting with each of the three retail areas. The preliminary plans were presented and comments and recommendations were received from those in attendance. On February 28, 1990 the preliminary plans were presented to the Community Development and Planning Commission for informal review. Following these meetings, the consultant revised and refined the land use plans. At the same time, staff has drafted the narrative that will accompany the plans. The City's legal counsel is presently in the process of preparing the legal documents necessary for district establishment. Executive Director Hughes said that the purpose of the preliminary report at this meeting is to obtain comments and recommendations so that any revisions to these plans can be made prior to the public hearing on April 2, 1990. Individuals who were in attendance at the February 27, 1990 meeting have been invited as well as other individuals who have called to inquire about the plans. The Community Development and Planning Commission will again review the plans on March 28, 1990 and, hopefully, will pass a recommendation on to the Council. Status of Tax Increment Financing Legislation - Legislation adverse to tax increment financing has been introduced in both houses of the Legislature. Adoption of this legislation would likely restrict the City's ability to create these proposed tax increment financing districts. It would be important to establish these districts prior to April 30, 1990, when the proposed legislation would be effective. Preliminary Plans - Certain portions of the proposed legislation may affect districts that are created prior to April 30. In particular, it may affect the City's ability to amend existing tax increment financing plans at a later date. Therefore, the proposed retail plans provide for a wide range of public involvement based on the reasoning that it may be difficult to expand the scope of these plans in the future. The adoption of the tax increment financing plans and districts does not commit the City to implement the plans. Establishment of the districts would provide the financial basis for future City or HRA participation. Therefore, the plans should be viewed as schematic in nature. Finance Plans - Finance plans will be incorporated into the legal documents presented on April 2. As with the land use plans, a wide range of potential public expenditures is included, e.g. possible public acquisition of properties to facilitate development /redevelopment. These possible acquisitions include single family homes particularly at 44th and France. The strategy has been to include all possibilities recognizing that legislation may restrict the ability to expand plans in the future. Preliminary public cost budgets have been prepared, but staff has not attempted to determine if adequate tax increments will exist to support such expenditures. In staff's view, such analyses are best performed at the time specific projects are proposed. Summary - Executive Director Hughes reiterated that staff is anxious to hear the Council's reaction to the concepts in the land use plans, and secondly, some direction as to the amount of public involvement in the districts, particularly as it relates to the potential acquisition of private property for development or redevelopment. All three proposed districts are affected to some degree, at least in the draft stage, by the potential acquisition of property by the City to facilitate development /redevelopment. That is a policy question as to whether the City should be involved in that role or merely should be involved in the traditional public right of way type improvements such as was done at 50th and France. Tax increment financing is-more difficult under the present environment with the very short duration of districts that the City is faced with today, compared with the 50th and France District. Two of the proposed districts, e.g. Valley View /Wooddale and 70th /Cahill have at most an eight year life making it much more difficult to repay public costs. It is hoped that 44th /France can be established as a redevelopment district with a 25 -year life and, therefore, a greater ability to finance public cost. Executive Director Hughes then introduced Fred Hoisington,-Hoisington Group, noting that he was a former Edina City Planner and is very familiar with the three areas that are being studied. (Commissioner /Member Paulus entered the meeting at this point.) Fred Hoisington, consultant, then presented graphics of the three retail areas proposed for tax increment districts.. The graphics included the plan area,' existing conditions, analysis, redevelopment plan and public improvement plans. Mr. Hoisington presented the draft plans in some detail, which are summarized as follows: 44th and France Redevelopment Plan - The 44th and France area is a neighborhood scale commercial district. It was developed as "Downtown Morningside" in the 1930's and has maintained its original flavor. The 44th and France Redevelopment Plan area is generally bounded by 44th Street on the north, France Avenue on the east, 46th Street on the south and Eton Avenue extended on the west. The Plan Area contains a variety of residential and non - residential land uses. There are no vacant parcels within the Plan Area. The Plan Area is anchored by the retail uses on France Avenue. Non - residential buildings along West 44th Street and Sunnyside Road are primarily office uses. The character of the Plan Area is that of an urban, neighborhood scale retail district. All of the parcels have been developed. Portions of certain developed parcels contain steep slopes and low areas which provide ponding areas and open space. Some properties within the Plan Area receive water from Minneapolis. Electric utilities are above ground throughout the Plan Area. Parking for office and retail uses is provided in private parking lots and public on- street parking. The amount of off - street parking does not comply with current zoning requirements. Convenient parking is lacking for many businesses in the central part of the Plan Area. Most buildings in the Plan Area were constructed in the 1930's and 1940's. Most remain structurally sound but a significant percentage suffer from structural and life- safety code problems requiring substantial renovation or complete redevelopment. Much of the charm of 44th and France is its eclectic and somewhat haphazard development pattern. However, this has created some problems. The commercial area is not clearly defined and this has resulted in the conversion of some single family homes to non- residential'uses. It has also resulted in disinvestment in single family homes because they are isolated and relate only to non - residential uses. The lack of a clear definition of the retail center and transitional buffers is a blighting influence on single family homes nearby. The Edina Cleaners, located at France Avenue and Sunnyside Road, in addition to its original structure occupies what was originally the Westgate Theatre. In addition to its retail function it operates a large -scale dry cleaning plant. This industrial use is inappropriate in a neighborhood scale retail center. Parcels to the south contain inappropriate and obsolete land uses. Building conditions range from substandard to fairly good. The central portion of the business district is served by a relatively large surface parking area accessed from Sunnyside Road. The shared parking area is owned by a number of property owners. Poor access, grade differentials and no organization of the spaces and drive aisles makes this very inefficient parking. The office uses along 44th Street have an adverse effect on residential properties on the north side of 44th Street. This has resulted in a lack of maintenance and reinvestment resulting in substandard buildings. The Redevelopment Plan showed redevelopment in the area south of Sunnyside Road with office to the south and 15,000- 20,000 square feet of retail on the corner of Sunnyside /France. An entry feature on the corner would identify the area as a retail center. The large surfacing parking area would be improved and reorganized. Potential retail development could occur in the Linhoff building area, with possible expansion by Durr, Ltd. Low to medium density multi - family housing could occur on the north side of 44th Street to eliminate the existing conflict. Undergrounding of electric utilities and street landscaping would be included in public improvements to correct problems with public streets /sidewalks. Wooddale and Valley View Road Development Plan - The Wooddale and Valley View Road Plan Area is primarily a neighborhood scale commercial area. The area developed in the late 1950's and early 1960's. There has been some redevelopment in the area but it has maintained its original flavor. Deficiencies in the area are primarily related to serious traffic and parking problems. In addition, there exists at least one significant inappropriate use and some incompatibility between residential and commercial uses. Physical development is now outdated and is gradually deteriorating and is in need of upgrading. The Plan Area in general includes the tracts adjacent to the north side of Valley View Road from the Valley View Center west of Wooddale Avenue, extending to Oaklawn Avenue. The Plan Area is completely developed with urban, neighborhood retail features. All private utilities, except natural gas, are above ground. Parking conditions vary throughout the Plan Area. To the west of Wooddale at the Valley View Center a surplus of parking exists. All uses east of Wooddale have insufficient parking. Cars are often double parked or parked onto the City right of way. Parking lots are privately owned and some sharing does occur. Circulation within the area is difficult. In many instances there is not separation between sidewalk and street and /or parking and street. Numerous large access /egress points also exist. An analysis of the Plan Area showed general problems as: Broad expanses of pavement; no greenspace Poor signage; no continuity of architecture Too many driveways; to wide and undefined Disorganized parking area Lack of commercial district identify Limited expansion potential. Within the commercial area, activities at the Conoco Station are inappropriate and do not conform to the Zoning Ordinance requirements. Land use conflicts also exist between the commercial area and the adjacent residential properties to the north, particularly east of Kellogg. The public improvements project would include activities intended to correct non - conforming conditions in the boulevard area and to correct parking and circulation problems in the district. It would provide an identity for the commercial area as well as improving the appearance by providing landscaped boulevards and parking areas. Replacing above ground utilities with underground utilities is also included. The development project would remove the Conoco Station and replace it with off - street parking for the Clinic /Drug Store building and for the Sports Shop /Baskins Robbins building. Kellogg Avenue would no longer connect to Valley View Road to help isolate the residential area from the commercial district. The additional parking would allow the elimination of non - conforming and hazardous parking along the east and south side of the Clinic /Drug Store. These areas as well as others along the perimeter of the development would be landscaped and screened. Wooddale Avenue would be widened with the addition of a third lane for right and left hand turns. The Development Plan includes an addition of approximately 6,000 square feet to the southwest end of the existing Valley View Center. The site is under utilized and present parking would accommodate the additional floor space. The Plan also anticipates remodeling and upgrading of the present center concurrent with the expansion. 70th Street and Cahill Road Development Plan - The 70th Street and Cahill Road Plan Area is a diverse mix of residential, commercial and industrial uses. The area developed primarily between 1950 and 1975. The Plan Area is bounded by 70th Street to the north, the railroad right of way to the east, the northern boundary (from east to west) of the Gabberts building, Village Drive extended and the City of Edina park open space property to the south, and the rear lot lines of the single family homes fronting on Lanham Lane and Lee Valley Circle to the west. Land use in the Plan Area covers a full spectrum of uses. Five zoning districts are spread across the 17 parcels in the Plan Area which in total comprises approximately 27 acres. The Plan Area is essentially completely developed, however, land to building ratios are relatively high particularly west of Cahill Road. Open space is comprised of woods and steep slopes. There is also a grade separation which divides the commercial land east of Cahill into north and south components. The Plan Area is a part of the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District. Drainage from the area flows to the south along Cahill Road and east along West 70th Street. All private utilities, except natural gas, are routed above ground. In general, the broad land use categories of the Plan Area are appropriate. As currently utilized, however, the following land use problems exist: 1) Land Use Relationships - The transition between single family residential uses and higher intensity uses could be improved. 2) Under Utilized Parcels - Parcels in the Plan Area are of adequate size to accommodate reasonable development. However, land to building ratios are high and buildings are located in a manner which prevents infill development. Specifically, a) the former Edina School building, b) the old ,St. Patrick Church, and c) the commercial area between Amundson and Cahill Road. An analysis of the Retail Center identified the following problems: Buildings are disconnected Lacks unified orientation Lacks proper fit with market area General lack of evergreen and shrub plantings Access to shopping center is awkward and unclear Center building is on slope; rear of building faces Cahill Road and is difficult to lease Amundson Avenue no longer needed. Land Use related components of the Development Plan emphasize elimination of uses inconsistent with the Land Use Plan designations and encourage appropriate redevelopment, particularly west of Cahill Road. In addition, redevelopment of functionally obsolete buildings is anticipated, particularly in the retail portion of the Plan Area. Reestablishment of an appropriate portion of the Plan Area as a historical feature is also anticipated. Development and redevelopment should be principally accomplished privately with public acquisition for development kept to a minimum. Physical Development components of the Development Plan emphasize the upgrading of site and building features to meet contemporary user standards. As to relocation, it is the intent of the H.R.A. that current owners of properties designated for redevelopment be party to efforts to redevelop their properties. The Development Plan illustrates a number of projects in the Plan Area which encompass both public and private property: Public Improvements - This project would eliminate unnecessary streets, improve sidewalks and other public and private utility systems and would designate the historical significance of the Plan Area. Residential Project - This project would encourage development consistent with the land use designations of the Land Use Plan as amended in 1990. The project area is west of Cahill Road and south of 70th Street. Development may include single family residential to the far west of possibly 13 homes and as many as 21 attached dwellings on the east portion. Retail Project - This project is sensitive to immediate service area needs. The project would upgrade and /or create facilities which meet current user demands. A high priority would be to encourage the establishment of businesses to better serve the market area. It is anticipated that the retail project may take one of two possible directions: Alternative A - This alternative would involve the complete development of the commercial area. It would call for the elimination of.the five buildings in the existing commercial area, plus the 7075 Amundson building and the construction of two new buildings totaling 66,000 square feet. A greater number of tenants is also anticipated including potentially upscale convenience retailers. Public activities may include those in Alternative B as well as the following: - Soil correction and preparation - Street vacation - Land acquisition - Relocation of individuals and businesses - Land writedowns - Low interest loans - Sale of land to private developer. Alternative B - This alternative would involve the refurbishing of the existing commercial area. Retail floor areas and tenant users will not change significantly. Public activities may include the following: - Interest assistance for rehabilitation - Pedestrian /sidewalk improvements - Landscaping /streetscape improvements - Clearance and demolition - Identification and directional signage. Following the conclusion of the presentations by Mr. Hoisington, Mayor Richards called for public comment. Dr. Frank Sidell stated that he has owned the building at 3920 Sunnyside Road for 30 years, in which his practice is:focated, together with the parking lot. The Redevelopment Plan for the 44th and France Area would confiscate his parking lot and devalue his property. He said his son has joined his practice and future plans include expansion of the building. The Redevelopment Plan would be a large negative and would seriously jeopardize their building plans. Steve Soltau, 6100 Oaklawn Avenue, said the proposed closing of Kellogg would increase the traffic problems which now exist at the Oaklawn /Valley View triangular intersection. He objected to reorienting the parking for the clinic /drug store building towards the residential area. As a bus rider, he said he would like to see some parking included for bus riders. James Van Valkenburg stated that he represented the Edina Cleaners & Launderers at 4500 France Avenue South. He said that his clients are concerned that the removal of their existing building will put them out of business. Currently, they have approximately 2,000 customers per week, most of whom use the drop -off area in front of their facility. Also, because they are one of very few commercial cleaners in the metropolitan area they are concerned that they will lose that business. Sam Thorpe, owner of the Convention Grill property is under lease for 8 more years. believed that taking away the parking for value of the property. He said one of the Convention Grill is that they can usually at 3912 Sunnyside Road, stated that the Not knowing the financial setup, he that property would severely damage the advantages for customers coming to the find a parking place. Bill Schlink stated that he is the owner of the Unocal station at 5415 W. 70th Street. The development plan for the 70th Street and Cahill Road area does not show a service station. He said his station does serve a lot of customers in that neighborhood, is a good location and that there are other ways of accomplishing those projects that would be less costly. He cautioned against rushing into the r project. He said several of his customers who know of the plan are upset with the idea. Dr. Phillip Sidell said he had several concerns for the 44th and France Redevelopment Plan. First, he objected to the 4 -6 homes that would be lost and the affect on the remaining adjacent homes. Secondly, once this is passed it was his impression that the plan is the ideal or goal for the area and that future plans must fit into this mold. If someone would like to do remodeling or rebuilding that does not fit into the mold they would have a difficult time to get a variance or some other way to achieve that. Bob Roster stated he was a partner with his father in Roster's Conoco on Valley View Road. He said at times the U -haul trucks at their station may be unsightly but it appears that services stations of that type are marked territory for redevelopment. He mentioned that they are the oldest established U -haul dealership in Minnesota and have been providing this service for 32 years for the Edina community. They have adequate parking for their business but that the real problem was inadequate parking for Baskins Robbins and the bike shop. He mentioned when that corner was developed the last building built was the house next to the bike shop which lot should have been parking for that retail area. He He felt that house should also be included to provide future parking for that corner rather than acquiring his property. Also, that the houses to the north would not have to be removed if the parking could be addressed for the problem location. Mr. Roster pointed out that there is another house behind Best Reflections that has easement right's through the parking lot behind Baskins Robbins. He said that has not been addressed in the plans. Kathy Reckie stated she was the owner of Best Reflections at 4400 Valley View Road. She said they renovated the building about eight years ago and added parking for their customers. She said if the building is taken it would be devastating to lose her business and for those that work for her to lose their jobs. No further public comment being heard, Mayor Richards clarified that at this time no development or redevelopment project is being proposed to be undertaken. What the Council is doing is to make sure that any future Council has all the tools available to it to do whatever is reasonable, right and necessary to make sure that these areas can accomplish the objectives not only from the public side but what the private sector wants. The Council is not advocating any position as to taking of any businesses, demolishing of parking, etc. What the Council is trying to do is give itself the opportunity to look at all those issues if and when they might come before the Council. Mayor Richards said the tax increment financing districts are being considered because there is a window of opportunity that exists today that might not exist in the future, e.g. the use of financing mechanisms for public participation. If the Council decides on April 2 to establish these tax increment districts it does not mean that any of the plans presented would be implemented. That is yet to be decided. This is one step in the process that if not taken may preclude the Council from using one of the alternative tools that might otherwise be available to the public sector in dealing with some of these development and redevelopment issues that may come up in the future. Mayor Richards said this community has not seen a great deal of exercise by the Council in the taking of private property. This is a policy issue that needs to be discussed and debated as to: the Council exercising that power if the proper public purpose were found. He concluded by saying that it is important for the public to understand the process and what the Council is trying to accomplish. He said that just because a plan has been proposed he did not want anyone to think that it was a given that the plan would be implemented. He encouraged the audience to return on April 2 for the public hearing on whether to establish the proposed tax increment districts. Member Smith made a motion setting April 2, 1990, as the public hearing date on designation of the development district and approval of tag increment financing plans. Motion was seconded by Member Rice. Ayes: Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards Motion carried. Jan Salto, 6100 Oaklawn Avenue, said she was concerned because only one plan has been presented for each of the three areas. Mr. Hoisington explained that in talking with a number of the business people involved, they have gone through two or three iterations of the plans to get to this point. There has been a lot of consideration given to alternatives already and that would be an ongoing process. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ACQUISITION OF KURA OIL112KEIS ENGINEERING EXTENDED TO 8/1190 Executive Director Hughes recalled that on October 2, 1989 the HRA adopted a resolution concerning the acquisition of the Kunz Oil /Lewis Engineering properties for redevelopment purposes. The resolution was valid and effective only until December 31, 1989 and was further conditioned that acquisition could not occur until the HRA had received a signed and delivered redevelopment agreement for the property. On December 18, 1989 the HRA extended the resolution until March 30, 1990. Director Hughes advised that on March 15, 1990 staff received a proposal for tax increment financing assistance from Jerry's Enterprises and Opus Corporation regarding the subject property. No other proposals have been received to date. Based upon staff's estimate of the time needed to process the proposal for tax increment assistance as well as a rezoning of the property, staff would recommend extension of the resolution until August 1, 1990. Following some discussion on why this has been dragging on with no positive action indicated by Jerry's and Opus, Commissioner Smith moved adoption of the following resolution: RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED by the Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority that it hereby extends the provisions of the resolution adopted on October 2, 1989 and extended on December 18, 1990 relating to acquisition of certain property within the Grandview redevelopment area to August 1, 1990. Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Commissioner Paulus. Rollcall: Ayes: Paulus, Smith, Richards Nays: Rice Resolution adopted. Motion was made by Commissioner Smith and was seconded by Commissioner Paulus for adjournment of the H.R.A. Motion was carried unanimously. HRA Executive Director City Clerk P R O C L A M A T I O N WHEREAS, votuntems have enxiched the t i.6e o6 ouA community through ,the ilc concern, commitment, and generozity ob zpitit; and WHEREAS, votuwteelus aice a vitae resource to provide 6or the weU -being o6 our community and its c it,i.zenz; and WHEREAS, votunieeAizm embodLez a zpitit o6 giving and .bpixit o6 growth; and WHEREAS, the City o6 Edina ,cis proud o6 the e6 6ort6 o6 ouA vo.eu.nteeu and whzhes to thank them for thei,% dedicated service; NOW, THEREFORE, I, FredeA ck S. Richardb, Mayon of Edina, Minnesota, do hereby proctaim the week o6 Apr,,ii 15 - 21, 1990 ass: VOLUNTEER RECOGNITION WEEK ADOPTED this 2nd day o6 ApAit, 1990. Mayor c MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HALL MARCH 5, 1990 ROLLCALL Answering rollcall were Members Kelly, Paulus; Rice, Smith and Mayor Richards. FLAG CEREMONY CONDUCTED BY BROWNIE SCOUT TROOP NO. 1231: GIRL SCOUT WEEK PROCLAIMED: BOY SCOUT TROOP NO. 6 WELCOMED Members of Brownie Scout Troop No. 1231 opened the meeting by presenting the colors and leading the Pledge of Allegiance. Mayor Richards welcomed the members of the troop and thanked them for the flag ceremony. Mayor Richards then presented the following proclamation which was unanimously adopted by motion of Member Kelly, seconded by Member Paulus: PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, Girl Scouts of the United States of America recognizes that today's girls will be tomorrow's leaders; and WHEREAS, Girl Scouts of the United States of America is the largest voluntary organization for girls in the world and draws upon a large resource of positive adult role models; and WHEREAS, the Girl Scout Movement continues to emphasize leadership and personal and career development for girls; and WHEREAS, our community and world will be the direct beneficiaries of the skilled young women who are Girl Scouts; NOW, THEREFORE, I, Frederick S. Richards, Mayor of the City of Edina, do hereby proclaim the week of March 11 -17, 1990, to be GIRL SCOUT WEEK in the City of Edina, Minnesota. Mayor Richards 'also welcomed the members of Boy Scout Troop No. 6 from Lutheran Church of the Good Shepherd who said they were attending the Council Meeting because they are working on community badges. 1990 DECENNIAL CENSUS PROCLAMATION ADOPTED Mayor Richards presented the following proclamation which was adopted unanimously by motion of Member Kelly, seconded by Member Smith: PROCLAMATION - 1990 DECENNIAL CENSUS WHEREAS, the Decennial Census is mandated by Article 1, Section 2, of the United States Constitution for the purpose of apportioning the number of representatives each state shall receive to the U.S. House of Representatives; WHEREAS, population data obtained from the Decennial Census will be the basis for apportioning the Minnesota State Legislature; WHEREAS, funding for many essential state and federal programs is directly related to information gathered from the Decennial Census; WHEREAS, the State of Minnesota, its counties and cities will use census data as a vehicle for planning in many vital areas for our society and communities; WHEREAS, many organization and businesses consider data derived from the census when determining investments, future expansion and relocation plans; WHEREAS, it is important for everyone to promptly complete the questionnaire, including all persons who usually live in their household, and return it by April 1, 1990; WHEREAS, under protection of law, answers given on the census questionnaire remain completely private and confidential, and no one's individual identity and address will be released to any person, agency, department, or organization whatsoever; WHEREAS, the Decennial Census is required to count everyone regardless of their age, race, sex, color, place of birth, status of citizenship, and nature of domicile; WHEREAS, answering the census is safe, easy, and vital, and will help determine the manner in which we meet the challenges of the 21st century; NOW, THEREFORE, I, Frederick S. Richards, Mayor of the City of Edina, do urge the citizens of Edina to participate in the 1990 Decennial Census by completing and returning the census questionnaires by April 1, 1990. Accepting the proclamation was Janice Peak, Manager of the District Office for Western Hennepin County, located at 4444 West 76th Street. She said in this area the census is being completed by questionnaires which will be mailed on March 23 with the request that they be returned by April 1. Ms. Peak commented that they are also looking for individuals to fill temporary positions. JOHN REPRIOS COMMENDED UPON RECEIVING MRPA AWARD Manager Rosland introduced John Keprios, Assistant Director of Parks and Recreation, advising that he came to the City in 1977 and has done an outstanding job. At the Minnesota Recreation & Park Association Annual Conference banquet on March 1, John was the 1990 recipient of the Jack Niles Award. This award is made to a male member of MRPA with fifteen or less years of professional experience and outstanding service to the recreation and park field and MRPA. The Council joined in commending Mr. Keprios and expressed their appreciation for his dedication and service to the City. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS ADOPTED Motion was made by,Member Rice and was seconded by Member Smith to approve and adopt the consent agenda items as presented with the exception of the removal of item V.C. - Tow Truck with Recovery Unit. Rollcall: Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards Motion carried. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL FOR 7101 -13 AMUNDSON AV CONTINUED TO 3/19/90 Planner Craig Larsen recalled that the public hearing on the final development plan for 7101 -13 Amundson Avenue, generally located at the southeast corner of Cahill Road and Amundson Avenue, had been continued from the Council meeting of February 20. The proposal is for construction of a single story, 15,000 square Y foot office - warehouse building on the westerly portion of the site, south of Amundson Avenue. The request was heard before the Community Development and Planning Commission on January 3, 1990 and approval was recommended subject to certain modifications. He explained that in the interim, the proponent has agreed to allow the request to be withheld from Council consideration pending the outcome of a study as to the feasibility of creating a tax increment district in the Cahill /Amundson commercial area. That study is still under way and the proponent has been offered the opportunity to have the Council consider the original proposal even although ultimately it may be changed by the outcome of the study. Planner Larsen stated that the subject property measures approximately 3.5 acres in area and is developed with a single story warehouse building on the easterly portion of the site containing 37,500 square feet of floor area. The proponent is requesting permission to construct an additional building which would contain 15,000 square feet. The property is zoned PID, Planned Industrial District. Office and office - warehouse buildings are permitted uses in the PID District. In terms of zoning compliance, Planner Larsen said that the proposed site including the existing building and the new building would comply with the floor area ratio requirements and building coverage. The building side street setback was initially proposed at 65 feet from Cahill Road. That setback was increased to 75 feet which was one of the conditions of the Planning Commission for approval. All other setbacks comply with the exception of the parking setback from Amundson Avenue immediately north of the building. Planner Larsen pointed out that essentially there is no setback provided from Amundson Avenue. As to parking quantity, the PID District requires one space per 400 square feet of gross floor area; the proposal provides one space per 314 square feet of gross floor area. The proposal would comply with PID District requirements which encompass the entire site. Planner Larsen stated that the proposed building materials comply with ordinance requirements. At the time of application there was some outdoor storage occurring on the site which is not allowed in the PID District. The owner has taken steps to correct that. Additionally, the storm water drainage plan as initially submitted was not satisfactory to the City Engineer. Since that time the proponent's architect has met with,the Engineering Department and the grading plan as modified does meet the requirements of the City Engineer. Planner Larsen explained that the variances that remain on the property are those that relate to the setback from Amundson Avenue. Staff has supported those variances considering that the uses to the immediate north are commercial in nature and there is no negative impact on the residential areas to the west. The Planning Commission has recommended approval of those variances. He concluded that with the changes the proponent has made, in response to the Planning Commission, staff would recommend approval. Planner Larsen reiterated that the study relative to a tax increment district for the Cahill /Amundson commercial area is not complete and it is uncertain at this time whether this should remain an industrial site or should be incorporated somehow with the commercial areas to the north. In response to Member Rice, Planner Larsen said that the traffic to the building would flow one -way and that if this were divided from the main site there would be approximately 42 parking spaces on the subject property. Member Smith asked for a review of uses allowed in the commercial district versus industrial district. Planner,Larsen said that in the industrial use category there would be a wide range of office uses (service use, office use, industrial use, warehouse use). The parking qualities related to those uses are wide ranging from one per 2,000 square feet for a warehouse to one per 200 square feet for office. The commercial categorys include general retail in addition to office uses and the parking quantities would be much greater. Member Smith asked what retail uses could be put in place here, if any. Planner Larsen said none under the present zoning but there would be some service uses that would approximate retail such as doctor /dentist offices, travel /insurance agencies that could go in under the industrial use. Member Smith then asked if the subject parcel were severed from the other would the parking meet ordinance requirements. Planner Larsen said that the parking is being evaluated on an entire site basis at this time. If the sites were proposed for separation at a later date, at a minimum a parking easement would be required over both sites so that parking could be exchanged which could pose some problems. Member Smith said he was concerned about the parking and questioned if that is something that should be handled now. Planner Larsen said that would be addressed if there was a proposal to split the site at some future date. Mayor Richards called for comment from the proponent, George Kosmides. Mr. Kosmides responded that Planner Larsen had presented the case perfectly and basically had stated his intent. Mayor Richards asked the proponent if he owned the property to the east and if he had developed it - also what he proposed as the use for the new building. Mr. Kosmides said that he had purchased the property to the east about 12 years and that the new building was basically for speculation as he has had a lot of requests for rental of small areas, e.g. 2,000 or 5,000 square feet and that encouraged him to proceed with the project. Member Paulus commented that in theory she did not have a problem with what is proposed but would be hesitant to approve the proposal until the Council has made a decision regarding a tax increment district for this area. Member Rice stated that he felt the plan was woefully inadequate on parking considering the likelihood that the property would be developed and leased for some type of office, retail or semi - commercial use. Mayor Richards said he was concerned that there would be a problem concerning the parking demand encroaching onto the retail uses to the north. He said he could not support the proposal because he felt there would be too much building jammed onto the site. Mr. Kosmides argued that this property has been vacant for some time and that he would like to make something nice out of the land. He said that he would only lease out space for uses approved by the City and that he had no plans to sell the property. Further, that he had spent time and effort on the proposed project, had met with the staff and others in the areas, that he was anxious to go ahead because of the requests for rental in that area and asked that there be no prolonged delay. Mayor Richards clarified that what has been said is that the plan as presented is not acceptable and the Council believes it is not in the best interests of the City because of inadequate parking and setbacks. Mr. Kosmides commented that he would like to have the opportunity to bring his architect to the next meeting to explain and present the details of the proposed plan. Following further discussion, Member Paulus made a motion to deny the Final Development Plan for 7101 -13 Amundson Avenue as presented for the reason that it appears to meet the parking requirements in theory but in practice it does not. Motion was seconded by Member Rice. Mayor Richards asked for comment on the request of Mr. Kosmides that the matter be held over in order to allow the proponent's architect to make a further presentation. Member Smith commented that it would helpful in the proponent's understanding if he had his architect give us ,a short presentation at the next meeting. Further, that because the proponent had been asked to delay his presentation of the proposal the City should give him the opportunity he has requested. Member Paulus then stated she would withdraw the motion on the floor. The second was withdrawn by Member Rice. Member Smith then made a motion that the hearing on the Final Development Plan for 7101 -13 Amundson Avenue be continued to March 19, 1990. Motion seconded by Member Paulus. Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards Motion carried. WITHDRAWAL OF PETITION ACCEPTED FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, REZONING AND LOT DIVISION FOR LOTS 1. 2. AND 3. BLOCK 2. SMISEK ADDITION Planner Larsen advised that the proponent has withdrawn the petition for Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Rezoning and Lot Division for Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 2, Smisek Addition. Bill Bonner, proponent, has told staff that he does not wish to pursue a four -unit development for the subject property. Member Kelly made a motion to accept the request of the proponent, Bill Bonner, to withdraw his petition for Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Rezoning and Lot Division for Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 2, Smisek Addition. Motion was seconded by Member Smith. Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards Motion carried. *HEARING DATE SET FOR VARIOUS PLANNING MATTERS Motion was made by Member Rice and was seconded by Member Smith setting March 19, 1990 as hearing date for the following Planning matters: 1) Amendment to Comprehensive Plan - Medium Density. to Low Density Attached Residential and Quasi - Public to Low Density Attached Residential and Single Family Residential - Ron Clark Construction - Generally located south of West 70th Street and vest of Cahill Road 2) Repeal of Heritage Preservation Overlay District - Ron Clark Construction - Generally located south of vest 70th Street and vest of Cahill Road 3) Rezoning - R -1 Single Dwelling Unit District to PRD -2 Planned Residential District - Ron Clark Construction - Generally located south of West 70th Street and vest of Cahill Road 4) Preliminary Plat Approval for Ridgewood Addition - Ron Clark Construction - Generally located south of West 70th Street and vest of Cahill Road. 5) Final Rezoning and Final Plat Approval - Walker Methodist /FPI Services, Inc. - Generally located in the northwest quadrant of the York Av /Parklavn intersection. Motion carried on rollcall vote, five ayes. *BID AWARDED FOR FOUR WHEEL DRIVE LOADER Motion was made by Member Rice and was seconded by Member Smith for award of bid for a four wheel drive loader to recommended low bidder, Ziegler, Inc., at $84,330.00 (with trade -in). Motion carried on rollcall vote, five ayes. *BID AWARDED FOR DUMP TRUCK CAB & CHASSIS Motion was made by Member Rice and was seconded by Member Smith for award of bid for a dump truck cab and chassis to recommended low bidder, Astleford Equipment, Inc., at $37,385.00. Motion carried on rollcall vote, five ayes. AWARD OF BID FOR TOW TRUCK WITH RECOVERY UNIT CONTINUED TO 4/2190 Member Paulus explained that she had asked this to be removed from the consent agenda because she had questions about the purchase of the tow truck with recovery unit. In talking with Public Works Director Hoffman, she had asked him to present information that would justify this expenditure. Director Hoffman explained that this tow truck would be large enough to handle fire trucks, dump trucks, loaders and graders during breakdowns and flat tires. It would replace a 1973 service vehicle which is much too small to handle the larger equipment. Towing charges can range from $100 -170 per tow. Public Works staff has informed him that they use the service vehicle daily, that its live span is over and it needs to be replaced. This size is appropriate to service the approximate 225 vehicles and equipment of various types. He said he would recommend this as a good long term purchase that would last 15 -20 years and that if the purchase is delayed the cost will only go up. Member Paulus asked what the approximate cost would be for a tow truck the next size down in scale. Director Hoffman said it would estimate that at about $50,000. He explained that the wrecker /service system.that is added to the truck is what drives up the cost. After additional discussion, Member Smith made a motion to continue the award of bid for the tow truck with recovery unit to April 2, 1990 so that additional information could be provided on the needs for servicing and towing. Motion was seconded by Member Paulus. Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards Motion carried. *BID AWARDED FOR ONE TON 4 %4 PICKUP TRUCK Motion was made by Member Rice and was seconded by Member Smith for award of bid for a one ton 4x4 pickup truck to Grossman Chevrolet, Inc. at $16,785.00, per Hennepin County cooperative purchasing agreement. Motion carried on rollcall vote, five ayes *BID AWARDED FOR ONE TON CARGO VAN Motion was made by Member Rice and was seconded by Member Smith for award of bid for a one ton cargo van to recommended low bidder, Win Stephen Company, Inc., at $13,038.45. Motion carried on rollcall vote, five ayes. *BID AWARDED FOR 314 TON PICKUP TRUCK Notion was made by Member Rice and was seconded by Member Smith for award of bid for one 3/4 ton pickup truck to Grossman Chevrolet, Inc. at $11,268.00, per Hennepin County cooperative purchasing agreement. Motion carried on rollcall vote, five ayes. *BID AWARDED FOR TWO ADMINISTRATION CARS Motion was made by Member Rice and was seconded by Member Smith for award of bid for two administration cars to Rathert Chevrolet at $22,754.00, per State purchasing cooperative agreement. Motion carried on rollcall vote, five ayes. *BID AWARDED FOR TRAFFIC SIGNAL CABINET AND CONTROLLER Motion was made by Member Rice and was seconded by Member Smith for award of bid for one traffic signal cabinet and controller to Riddle Controls, Inc. at $8,430.00, per MNDOT cooperative purchasing agreement. Motion carried on rollcall vote, five ayes. *BID AWARDED FOR ASTRO TURF TEE MATS Motion was made by Member Rice and was seconded by Member Smith for award of bid for astro turf tee mats for Braemar Golf Course and Golf Dome to recommended low bidder, Wittek Golf Supply, at $5,695.00. Motion carried on rollcall vote, five ayes. *BID AWARDED FOR LIGHT FIXTURES AND LAMPS FOR GOLF DOME Motion was made by Member Rice and was seconded by Member Smith for award of bid for 20 light fixtures and lamps for Braemar Golf Dome to recommended low bidder, Graybar Electric Company, at $5,160.00. Motion carried on rollcall vote, five ayes. *BID AWARDED FOR BOBCAT WITH 25 H.P. ENGINE Motion was made by Member Rice and was seconded by Member Smith for award of bid for a bobcat with 25 h.p. engine for the Park Department to recommended low bidder, Tri -State Bobcat, Inc., at $8,093.00. Motion carried on rollcall vote, five ayes. *BID AWARDED FOR TRUCK CAB AND CHASSIS Motion was made by Member Rice and was seconded by Member Smith for award of bid for one 14,000 lb. CVW cab and chassis for the Park Department to Grossman Chevrolet, Inc. at $13,968.00, per Hennepin County contract #1184A9 -232. Motion carried on rollcall vote, five ayes. *BID AWARDED FOR 112 TON UTILITY VEHICLE Motion was made by Member Rice and was seconded by Member Smith for award of bid for one 1/2 ton utility vehicle for the Fire Department to recommended low bidder, Suburban Chevrolet, at $14,999.00. Motion carried on rollcall vote, five ayes. RECYCLING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION REGARDING GOODWILL TRUCK APPROVED Recycling Coordinator Janet Chandler commented that Goodwill Industries has provided a trailer at the Recyling Center for many years. On the average, 15 to 20 tons of household goods per month have been collected in this manner. In recent years, Goodwill has shifted to a different type of service - the attended donation center with a worker on duty. Unusable material is not accepted and the trailer is locked during non - operating hours. Goodwill has raised their standards of acceptable material to the extent that everything needs to be useable or wearable as is because they no longer repair any items. At this time, Edina has the only Goodwill trailer which is not an attended donation center. Because of a decline in quality of materials collected, Goodwill plans to withdraw its trailer service to Edina effective April 2. In January of 1990, the proportion of waste was 64% of donated goods with a disposal cost to Goodwill of $150 per trailer. Coordinator Chandler said that Goodwill presented several options for drop -off service to the Recycling Commission which included: 1) attended donation center, 2) attended donation center with reduced hours, 3) weekend only service, 4) one day each weekend, and 5) trailer only, weekends. The Recycling Commission considered the proposals and it was apparent that the recycling program could not absorb the cost of an attended donation center without exceeding the 1990 budget. The Commission recommended that the Goodwill-service be discontinued primarily because of the cost and commented that if there was money to spend they would prefer to have it spent to provide other services. On the matter of weekend service, the Commission felt that as long as a trailer was there', even on a limited basis, people would continue to drop off material and the City would probably have a continual clean -up problem. There are other options for residents, e.g. Goodwill drop -off locations in Eden Prairie and Bloomington as well as several agencies which offer pickup services. In conclusion, Coordinator Chandler said the Recycling Commission and staff propose the following: 1) Notification to the public through publicity in the Edina Sun - Current. 2) Immediate posting of signs at the Recycling Center. 3) Provision of flyers listing options for drop -off and pickup service, to be available at the Recyling Center. 4) Temporary increase in hours of staffing at Center to help inform the public and avert cleanup problems. Notion was made by Member Smith to approve the recommendation of the Recyling Commission to discontinue the Goodwill trailer service at the Recycling Center and that an informational flyer listing options for drop -off and pickup service be available at the Center for a reasonable period of time. Motion was seconded by Member Rice. Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards Motion carried. (Member Kelly left the meeting during discussion of the following agenda item.) REQUEST FOR SOUTHDALE POLICE OFFICER CONTINUED FOR ANALYSIS OF PRIORITIES AND BUDGET IMPLICATIONS Manager Rosland recalled that the Council had requested that staff investigate alternatives for funding costs associated with police officers assigned to the Southdale Center as requested by Southdale Center. Staff and the City Attorney have researched the following four questions summarized as follows: 1) Can the cost for such officers be assessed? Police protection does not fall within the range of municipal services or improvements that are assessable from a statutory standpoint. Such costs could be assessed if agreed to in advance by the benefitted parties. 2) Could the cost be assessed in a manner similar to the 50th & France maintenance district? No - statutes limit the 50th & France assessment process to a defined purpose such as the maintenance of plaza areas. Cost of police services is not included as a service that can be assessed in this manner. 3) Can the City create a service district comprising Southdale Center and thereby charge fees for additional police services? Yes - special legislation was adopted during the 1989 legislative session enabling the City to establish service districts. A district could be established provided that owners representing at least 25% of the district's tax capacity, or land area, petition for creation of the district. It could be vetoed by owners of 35% of the tax capacity or land area. There is one possible complication - under the enabling legislation, Edina can create only two service districts. The first district can be created solely by Edina; the second district must be a joint district with another city. If a service district would be established covering Southdale, and the City later wished to expand it to include a larger portion of southeast Edina for the purpose of financing a transit system, the argument could be made that the expansion is in fact creation of a second district. 4) Could the City adopt an ordinance similar to the false alarm ordinance to cover costs? The false alarm ordinance provides a charge for an event that is not expected to occur. This is quite dissimilar to the Southdale police situation and therefore this method does not seem appropriate. Manager Rosland pointed out that the simplest method would be to enter into agreements with the benefitting parties whereby they agree to reimburse the City for costs of added police service on an annual basis, and if such costs are not reimbursed, to permit the City to levy the cost as an assessment. Member Smith commented that he felt if there is an area that needs patrolling the City should provide that. If the budget is limited then we should look at the priorities within that budget. He said he would like to see an analysis of the Police Department workload and how the Southdale needs for policing would fit in and what would not get handled, rather than just adding to the budget and then figuring out how the City can get some more revenue. He said he would not support the philosophy that if you can afford additional enforcement you will get it. Member Rice said that when the subject was last discussed he was in favor of the the staff recommendation. However, having thought about that and having discussions with others, he was convinced that the City should not appear to be giving preferential treatment to anyone in the community because they can afford more or request more. The question should be addressed with the existing law enforcement staff even if it means less speed patrols, etc. as public safety is crucial. Member Paulus commented that the average citizen may feel that because of what is happening in the Southdale area as to density they need greater law enforcement but at the same time don't take away from the needs of the rest of the community. A lot of the local citizens would say that Southdale should be taxed heavier since they are causing more of the problem even though they want protection when shopping there. Member Rice said he did not agree with that reasoning because shopping malls are like the streets of America and there are certain rights for citizens to be protected in them. Member Smith made a motion directing staff to bring back an analysis of police enforcement priorities that would include additional patrolling of Southdale Center. Motion was seconded by Mayor Richards who said that the report should not only look at reallocation of the existing police force but also look at the issue of what funding would be needed for a stronger enforcement program for the Southdale area. Ayes: Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards Motion carried. (Member Kelly rejoined the meeting at this point on the Agenda.) REPORT GIVEN ON ORDINANCES REGUTATING PRIVATE PARKING LOTS Planner Larsen recalled that at the last meeting the Council had asked for information on existing Edina ordinances that would apply to regulation of.private parking lots and had also asked that staff look into ordinances of first class cities regarding private parking lots. He explained that the following are used by staff to evaluate private parking lots: 1) Zoning Ordinance requirements in paragraph F of Section 8. Parking and Circulation which outlines the review process by the Engineer of any proposed traffic circulation system on a lot or tract, circulation within parking areas and driveway design. 2) Ordinance No. 612 (Adopting the Minnesota Uniform Fire Code) Section 7 - Fire Lanes, Section 1 -C specifies the width and clearance of roadways necessary to provide access for fire equipment and Uniform Fire Code Policy - Section 10.207. Planner Larsen said that, in talking with staff from Minneapolis, St. Paul, Duluth and Rochester, he learned that there is a uniformity throughout these cities in their review of how standards are applied to private parking lots and that it was similar to the procedure used by Edina staff. Also, those cities did not have more of a written policy or ordinance that Edina has. The City of Duluth does license parking lots, but it is basically an over - the - counter process. Minneapolis and St. Paul do license commercial parking lots and Minneapolis will be sending their ordinance. It does contain performance standards, e.g. landscaping and setbacks similar to Edina's, and also has specific requirements relative to signage, rate posting, etc. None of the cities' standards or policies differentiated between pay parking lots and non -pay lots. Member Smith asked Planner Larsen for his evaluation on the Southdale Medical Building parking lot given the City's ordinances and regulations. He said he felt that it does impact on the public streets. Planner Larsen responded that he had observed those activities on numerous occasions recently and that in his observations there is little or no impact on the public streets. There is little if any delay in entering the parking lot and momentary delays in entering sometimes from West 65th Street. He stated that there certainly are delays in exiting the lot, specifically on West 65th Street. The problem is that once you have paid there can be a delay in making a left hand turn and thereby vehicles are blocked that normally have a free right out. Ultimately a solution may be to ban left turns from the West 65th Street exit or force a widening of that exit to allow a free right lane. Engineer Hoffman commented that he concurred that there is no major impact on the public streets and in talking with Hennepin County they have made the same conclusion. Mayor-Richards questioned why the City should get involved from a public standpoint if there is no problem with emergency vehicles having ingress and egress to either Southdale Hospital or to the Southdale Medical Building. Member Rice referred to the Minneapolis ordinance which provided for recovering costs for inspection and policing of private parking lots. He submitted that there have been hundreds of hours of staff time spent on the matter since the owners of Southdale Medical Building installed paid parking. He said that other medical facilities have paid parking lots but you can drive to their entrances to drop someone off without taking a ticket and having to wait to get out. He added that he felt the Southdale Medical Building parking lot is one of worst situations that has ever been designed. Member Rice urged that if paid parking lots are to exist the City should consider licensing them and have some restrictions and standards that would be enforced. Member Paulus said that there has been pressure from the public, from both residents who use that facility and residents who are tenants. She felt we need to educate the public that there is not much that the City can do to solve the waiting to exit problems. Historically, that has been an important part of the community and the tragedy is that the good will that existed is being destroyed. Another concern of the general public is that other parking lots in the vicinity of Southdale will start charging for parking. Mayor Richards suggested that a letter be drafted that could be sent to anyone who had contacted either Council Members or staff regarding the parking situation at Southdale Medical Building. The letter would serve as a response and explain what steps the City has taken concerning access for emergency vehicles and impact on adjacent public streets. Further, that charging for parking is a private sector decision. Member Smith said he would like the Traffic Safety Committee to look at the possibility of a pedestrian crossing for West 66th Street and France Avenue with appropriate signing. After further discussion, it was the consensus of the Council that staff bring back.on April 2, 1990 an outline of points for discussion regarding additional action the City could consider on the issue. Also, that the building owners be invited to attend that meeting. Douglas Lambert, 6205 Hansen Road, said that he is a dentist and a tenant of Southdale Medical Building. He voiced his concerns regarding what has been happening since the building owners installed pay parking and said the tenants want the building to run well. He said the tenants group would be willing to work with the City in any capacity to made the Southdale Medical Building a good place to be. REPORT GIVEN ON REQUEST FOR BIKE LANES ON WEST 50TH STREET Engineer Hoffman referred to a letter from Donald and Sharon Fleischmann, 4914 Bruce Avenue, in which they had requested that bike lanes be added to West 50th Street between Wooddale and France Avenue to reduce traffic. He said that the reason for the letter was that he had talked with them several months ago regarding bike lanes. At that time he had told them he would not support their request and they could bring their request to the Council. Engineer Hoffman said that in reviewing the accident history for the past six years, both before and after the roadway reconstruction, the findings showed that the accident rate has dropped 20% since reconstruction. He said that he had explained to the Fleischmanns that biking on that roadway would not be a safe activity, that it has been a major arterial roadway since 1938 and it would not be appropriate to consider bike lanes. He said he had told them that, in his opinion, the roadway is working well given that type of roadway. It was the consensus of the Council that they concurred with the recommendation of the City Engineer and that this be communicated to Mr. and Mrs. Fleischmann. APPOINTMENTS MADE TO ADVISORY BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES Motion was made by Member Smith for consent of the Mayor's reappointment of individuals to advisory boards /commissions /committees as follows: Edina Art Center Committee (3 year term to 2 -1 -93) Dolores Dege, Elizabeth Eisenbrey, Judy Smith and Peter Spokes Board of Appeals (3 year term to 2 -1 -93) Rosemary Utne Community Development and Planning Commission (3 year term to 2 -1 -93) Nan Faust, Charles Ingwalson, Lee Johnson and Virginia Shaw Community Health Services Advisory Committee (2 year term to 2 -1 -92) Dr. Richard Cohan, Eileen Cooke, Sally Tang and Silas Weir Heritage Preservation Board (2 year term to 2 -1 -92) Garold Nyberg and Cy Stuppy Human Relations Commission (3 year term to 2 -1 -93) Doris Barman (City) and Shirley Hunt (City) Tom Oye (City) (term extended one year to 2 -1 -91 to stagger terms) Edina Park Board (3 year term to 2 -1 -93) Robert Christianson, Andrew Montgomery, and Jean Rydell Recycling Commission (2 year term to 2 -1 -92) Ardythe Buerosse, Robert Reid and Stephen Sando South Hennepin Human Services Council (2 year term to 2 -1 -92) Rev. Richard Preis and Jean Rifley Paul Gens (confirming reappointment to 2 -1 -91 for term expired 2 -1 -89) Motion was seconded by Member Rice. Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards Motion carried. Motion was made by Member Smith for consent of the Mayor's appointment of individuals to advisory board /commissions and committees as follows: Edina Art Center Committee Donald Peddie (partial term to 2 -1 -91) Community Development and Planning Commission David Byron (partial term to 2 -1 -92) Community Health Services Advisory Committee Ann Francis and Pam Moody (2 year terms to 2 -1 -92) Heritage Preservation Board Marilyn Curtis (2 year term to 2 -1 -92) Walter Sandison (Partial term to 2 -1 -91) Human Relations Commission David Hallet (School), Sharon Ming (School) (3 year terms to 2 -1 -93) Gary Dietz (City) (partial term to 2 -1 -92) Phyllis Kohler (School) (partial term to 2 -1 -92) Edina Park Board Beth Hall (3 year term to 2 -1 -93) Clifford Sour (partial term to 2 -1 -92) Recycling, Commission Ken Joyce (partial term to 2 -1 -91) Motion was seconded by Member Rice. Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards Motion carried. Mayor Richards reminded the Council that there is a vacancy (Bentley) on the Board of Appeals and that candidate names should be submitted to him. LMC 1990 CITY POLICIES AND PRIORITIES FOR LEGISLATIVE CONFERENCE DISCUSSED Manager Rosland recalled that copies of the LMC 1990 City Policies and Priorities were included in a prior Council packet for review and any discussion prior to the LMC Legislative Conference on March 14. He observed that most of the discussion in past years at the conference has concerned local government aids and tax increment financing. He said that Mayor Richards and he planned to attend the conference. Mayor Richards confirmed that the Council had no strong opposition to the policies and priorities as outlined. HENNEPIN COUNTY RECYCLING REFUNDING PROPOSAL PRESENTED Janet Chandler, Recycling Coordinator, advised that Hennepin County is considering adoption of a recycling funding assistance policy for 1991 based on a flat rate, not to exceed $1.50 per household /per month. The proposed policy also would exclude city administration costs from eligibility. At the public hearing on March 1, the matter was held over by the County Board of Commissioners to March 22. Although the proposed policy does not affect our 1990 budget, the impact can be demonstrated by using the current budget as an example: - Present policy, 1990 County funding anticipated is $293,000 - Proposed policy, 1990 County funding would be $252,000 ($1.50 x 14,000 households x 12 months) Mayor Richards said he felt the City should speak out and take issue with this. Member Paulus said she fully agreed because this would have an effect on recycling participation in that there would be no rationale for citizens to recycle. Member Smith concurred and suggested that an elected official of the City of Edina should provide testimony. It was the consensus of the Council that a letter be drafted for the Mayor's signature addressed to Commissioner Keefe that would state the Council's objection to the 1991 funding policy proposal and urge the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners to not change the present policy. MANHOLE HAZARD DISCUSSED Member Rice commented that there are a number of manhole in the streets that present a hazard to vehicles because they are positioned too low. Engineer Hoffman explained that there are some manholes on streets that after seal coating should have an additional collar to raise them. There also are some soil conditions where the manholes in the winter season pop up and down because of the frost. The policy is to keep them approximately 1/2 inch below the street level so that they are not hit by snowplowing equipment. City crews are in the process of surveying the manholes now so that corrections can be made. Manager Rosland asked that specific locations be reported to Public Works. TRAFFIC SIGNAL DEIAY AT VERNON /INTERIACHEN NOTED Member Kelly reported that the traffic signal at Vernon and Interlachen Boulevard does not appear to function properly because at times there are lengthy delays. Engineer Hoffman said that Hennepin County plans to rebuild the signal light this summer and that he will ask the County to check it. ART CENTER COMMENDED FOR CELEBRATE THE ARTS BENEFIT Member Paulus commended the Art Center staff and Board for their efforts in sponsoring the 3rd Annual Celebrate the Arts Benefit held on February 24. CONCERN REGARDING DOG LICENSES NOTED Member Paulus said that she had received a call from a resident who asked that the City consider a process for renewal of dog licenses by mail. She commented that if the renewal procedure were made easier there may be a higher percentage of dogs that would be licensed. The resident had also expressed frustration that the ordinance is not being enforced. After some discussion, Manager Rosland said that staff would provide background information to the Council regarding the current procedure and the feasibility of a renewal by mail process. NEWSPAPER ARTICLE REGARDING TREE ORDINANCES MENTIONED Member Paulus referred to an a recent article in the Star Tribune about municipalities that have adopted tree ordinances. The emphasis was on protecting existing trees when there is land development or additions to existing homes. She said that, because Edina is a mature community that is starting redevelopment and /or additions, the City might consider looking at this issue to determine if such an ordinance would be appropriate. INPUT SOUGHT ON CONTINUANCE OF SENIOR CENTER AT EDINA.COMMUNITY CENTER Member Smith said that the Community Education Services Board on which he serves as Council representative is seeking input relative to the continued existence of the Senior Center facility in the Edina Community Center. SWSCC GOALS AND OBJECTIVES PIANNING MEETING SCHEDULED FOR 4/4190 Member Smith reminded the Council that the Southwest Suburban Cable Commission will hold a goals and objectives planning meeting on April 4. He asked that the Council advise him of any thoughts or concerns that should be brought to that meeting. APRIL 14 COUNCIL STUDY SESSION TO BE RESCHEDULED Manager Rosland reminded the Council that their quarterly Council Study Session scheduled for.Saturday, April 14 falls on Easter weekend and suggested it be rescheduled. A possible date would be Saturday, May 5 if space is available at Braemar Clubhouse. AGENDA FOR COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLANNING RETREAT REVIEWED Manager Rosland proposed the following agenda for the Council Strategic Planning Retreat on Monday, March 12: 1) Update on Major Accomplishments - 1989 2) 1990 Internal Assessments /Management Goals 3) Strategic Planning on Major Issues and Priorities for 1990 -1991 He announced that Barbara Arney, Consultant for Government Training Service, would be the facilitator for the strategic planning portion of the meeting. COMPARABLE WORTH LAW CHANGES DISCUSSED Mayor Richards referred to a March 5th memorandum to the Council from Ceil Smith, Assistant to Manager, regarding comparable worth law (CWL) changes. Mayor Richards said he was concerned that in good faith the City of Edina has attempted to make an effort to treat everyone fairly and equitably. He asked for comment on that assumption and also for any recommendations as to whether the Council should attempt to communicate with legislators regarding the pending legislation. Manager's Assistant Smith said her report included graphics showing the changes that have taken place with the institution of the comparable worth adjustments that the City has made over the last three years. The goal has been to compress the spread of salaries in order to make them fall within the lines of the regression and thus create a reasonable and equitable internal relationship of the salaries of City employees. She said the City has made a good faith effort as evidenced by the substantial changes in the skewing of the salaries across the regression. Under the current law if someone were to analyze this they would come to the same.conclusion. Manager's Assistant Smith explained that the proposed changes in the existing CWL are extensive and significant. They constitute a virtual rewrite of major portions of the existing law. If enacted, the methodology for compensation analysis used by most jurisdictions would apparently have to be changed from the use of an "all jobs" regression analysis to the use of male and female line comparisons. This would probably result in the City having to make further comparable worth adjustments. Mayor Richards asked if she and the staff felt the City of Edina is in compliance with the CWL. Manager's Assistant Smith said that was correct. The City submitted documentation similar to the attachments to the memorandum and have never received acknowledgement one way or the other. She said she agreed with the position of the AMM Personnel Committee's recommendation that there be no further changes in the CWL until after the initial compliance date of 1991 and then possibly do a more in -depth analysis. Mayor Richards suggested that this position be communicated to our legislators to keep them informed and to assist them in looking at the proposed legislation. Manager's Assistant Smith said that there are a number of groups that are becoming very vocal about the issue and are attempting to get to the legislators to tell their side of the story instead of just listening to the Department of Employee Relations. *CLAIMS PAID Motion was made by Member Rice and was seconded by Member Smith to approve payment of the following claims as shown in detail on the Check Register dated 03/05/90 and consisting of 25 pages: General Fund $96,604.75, Communications $143.26, Art Center $62,866.32, Capital Fund $153.79, Swimming Pool Fund $750.00, Golf Course Fund $89,305.36, Recreation Center Fund $3,601.19, Gun Range Fund $848.24, Edinborough Park $13,486.54, Utility Fund $38,166.16. Liquor Dispensary Fund $3,111.64, Construction Fund $8,712.68, IMF Bond Redemption #2 $759.12, Total $318,509.05 and for confirmation of payment of the following claims as shown in detail on the Check Register dated 01/31/90 and consisting of 18 pages: General Fund $237,941.19, Art Center $1,613.27, Capital Fund $425.00, Swimming Pool Fund $113.07, Golf Course Fund $18,106.39, Recreation Center Fund $12,664.53, Gun Range Fund $53,7.78, Edinborough Park $13,344.06, Utility Fund $21,191.61, Storm Sever Utility $625.26, Liquor Dispensary Fund $201,678.95, Total $508,241.11. Motion carried on rollcall vote, five ayes. There being no further business on the Council Agenda, Mayor Richards declared the meeting adjourned at 9:57 p.m. City Clerk April 1990 Edina City Council Calendar SUNDAY MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY SATURDAY AT CITY HALL UNLESS INDICATED 3/26/1990 3 4 5 6 7 Daylight Savings — set ahead 1 hour 7:00pm CIS COUNCIL EDINA SCHOOLS SPRING REGULAR MEETING BREAK ENDS 8 9 10 11' 12 13 14 Good Friday 15 16 17 18 -19 20 21 Easter . 6: m CITY CO NCIU 5:00Pm VOLUNTEER RECYCLING COMM. RECEPTION at Braemar 7: m CITY COUNCIL Clubhouse REGULAR MEETING 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5: m BOARD OREVIEW 29 30 AT CITY HALL UNLESS INDICATED 3/26/1990 Mai 1990 Edina City ouncil Calendar SUNDAY MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY SATURDAY AT CITY HALL UNLESS INDICATED 3/26/1990 i' � A. o e � 0 All • ,N onpc""t�O� ess REPORT /RECOMMENDATION To: COUNCIL Agenda Item # III. From: GORDON L. HUGHES Consent ❑ Information Only ❑ Date: APRIL 2, 1990 Mgr. Recommends ❑ To HRA Subject: To Council DESIGNATION OF DEVELOP - Action ❑ Motion MENT DISTRICT AND AP- PROVAL OF TAX INCREMENT ❑ Resolution FINANCING PLANS - RETAIL AREAS ❑ Ordinance ❑ Discussion Recommendation: Adopt attached resolution approving development program and tax increment financing plans. Info /Background: April 2, 1990, is the scheduled public hearing for the proposed Tax Increment Financing Districts at Valley View Road and Wooddale Avenue, 44th Street and France Avenue and 70th Street and Cahill Road. In accordance with statutory requirements, notice of this hearing has been published in our official newspaper and notices have been sent to the Edina Board of Education and the Board of Commissioners of Hennepin County. Although not required by statute, we have sent individual mail notices to owners of property located within the proposed tax increment financing districts. Report /Recommendation April 2, 1990 Page Two Attached for your consideration are the following items: 1. The development program and tax increment financing plan for the proposed districts. 2. The minutes of the March 28, 1990, meeting of the Community Development and Planning Commission. Please note that these minutes are in draft form. 3. A memo from Eric Anderson, Assistant Finance Director, which estimates the impact of the proposed districts on the future tax burden of homesteaded property in the City. 4. A proposed Resolution of the City Council approving the program and plans. The development program and tax increment financing plans, which are attached, comprise the legal documents which establish of the districts. Please note that Exhibit B of this document references the planning studies which have been prepared by the staff and the Hoisington Group, which were distributed to you on March 19, 1990. Also, please note that Exhibit D of the document will be distributed to you at the April 2, 1990, hearing. This exhibit is the staff report concerning the qualification of the 44th & France area as a redevelopment district as opposed to an economic development district. C As noted above, one of the attachments is an estimate of the impact of the proposed tax increment districts on the tax burden of homesteaded property in the City. This impact is very difficult to calculate due to the complexity of the property tax system, especially school funding. Also, we must speculate on the timing of proposed development within the tax increment districts. Given these assumptions, our estimate is based on the impact which would occur five years after creating the tax increment financing districts. We believe that this reasonably estimates the maximum impact on homesteaded property which would be caused by the districts. ' 1 DEVELOPMENT /REDEVELOPMENT PLANS • Required prior to establishing T.I.F. districts • Conceptual, not final • Basis for estimating public costs and tax increment revenues • Framework for deciding location and amount of future public expenditures • Rely ultimately on market place decisions DEVELOPMENT /REDEVELOPMENT PLANS ARE NOT • Rezonings • Amendments to City's comprehensive plan • Site plans • Authorization to acquire private property • The only plans - property owners /developers may propose different plans DRAFT MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 28, 1990. Mr. Larsen explained what is needed this evening are Commissioners comments and /or recommendations on the proposed formation of three Tax Increment Districts within the City of Edina. The three areas are; 44th and France Avenue, Wooddale and Valley View Road, and 70th and Cahill Road. Chairman G. Johnson asked the Commission to note that he will retain the Chair but will not comment nor vote on the Tax Increment Issues. Chairman G. Johnson said to simplify the proposed issues, the Commission should focus their discussion on each increment district individually. * 44th and France Avenue South Commissioner Hale noted that the Tax Increment plan for 44th and France still indicates multiple housing. Mr. Larsen responded that that is correct. Mr. Larsen clarified that the Commission by it's action is not endorsing any specific project. The plan presented for 44th and France is a conceptual plan and the City is asking you to recommend the establishment of a tax increment district that may or may not include in the future multiple housing. Commissioner L. Johnson asked why so much detail is depicted on the drawings for the Tax Increment Districts. Mr. Larsen said, if after April 30, 1990, the proposed Tax Increment District does not show specific possibilities the City would be limited to what could possibly happen within the district. Mr. Larsen said in a sense we have looked at each district and indicated development /redevelopment to the maximum. He pointed out this does not mean it has to be developed to the maximum, it's just that we can't increase our scope but it can be decreased. Commissioner McClelland said she understands the concept of the Tax Increment District but in the area of 44th and France' she cannot support any multiple housing. Commissioner Workinger asked Mr. Larsen to explain the economics of establishing the district. Mr. Larsen said the reason we establish tax increment districts is to upgrade, modernize, and revitalize areas that in the future could become problems due to the ages of the buildings, and other factors. Continuing, Mr. Larsen said with tax increment the City would capture a higher tax base which would help pay for the public costs incurred in the area, and ultimately generate more taxes for all taxing jurisdictions. Commissioner McClelland asked if the plan is approved would each improvement come before the Commission and Council. Mr. Larsen said that is correct, each proposal would require a public hearing process for rezoning, subdivision, final development, etc. J /f Chairman G. Johnson asked the Commission to note the letter from Roberta Thorpe. The letter was so noted by the Commission. Dr. Sidell, 3920 Sunnyside Road told the Commission he has officed in the neighborhood for almost 31 years. He added he has done extremely well for a variety of reasons, including good medical care, easy access and parking. Dr. Sidell added he wants the individually of the area to remain intact and does not want to see its character changed. He told the Commission he has considered constructing an addition to his building but the establishment of a tax increment district would confuse that issue. Concluding, Dr. Sidell said the area works, and as the saying goes, "if it isn't broke, don't fix it. Mr. James Van Valkenburg, was present representing the property owners of the Edina Dry Cleaners. He said the dry cleaner employees 53 people, it is a well maintained building and 2,000 people use the cleaners every week. Mr. Van Valkenburg said the proposed tax increment plan does not solve the parking. He said you will still have to park your car and walk to you destination. Mr. Van Valkenburg said the cleaners is a buffer between residential and commercial and the use in his opinion is not industrial. He objected to the fact that the redevelopment plan removed the Edina Cleaners. Commissioner Workinger asked with respect to the low to medium density housing if the plan is approved in concept does that mean we are restricted to only multiple housing in that area. Mr. Larsen indicated any type of housing (single, double) located in the area labeled low to medium housing would be appropriate.' Commissioner L. Johnson asked if what is presented would become the standard. Mr. Larsen responded that it only suggests a use. Commissioner McClelland asked Mr. Larsen what is needed to present to the Legislature. Mr. Larsen said what is needed is what is a land use plan and a financial plan. Commissioner Palmer asked if the tax increment plan is approved does it give the City the right to take land. Commissioner McClelland added she understands how the district would work, but questioned if acquiring land would also include taking private residential property, which could be expensive to acquire. Mr. Larsen said yes, the City could obtain land, but has been reluctant in the past to condemn any land. Mr. Larsen said the HRA will try to negotiate with the property owner a fare market price. Mr Larsen agreed that land condemnation can be very costly for any City. Commissioner L. Johnson questioned if Minneapolis is part of this proposal. Mr. Larsen said at this time Minneapolis has not expressed an interest in this area -but in the past, if you note 50th and France, when Edina redeveloped that area Minneapolis in a fashion, followed suite. Mr. Larsen added it is hoped that that will also happen again. Commissioner L. Johnson moved to recommend to the City Council that it is appropriate to establish a tax increment district in this area, but added there are reservations regarding the land plan that is depicted in the proposal as presented, and Commission Members are not endorsing the "plan" but again, are recommending that this is an appropriate area for tax increment. Commissioner Palmer seconded the motion. Commissioners Workinger and McClelland asked that it be specifically noted, so that it doesn't slip out of N the minutes, that they do not approve of multiple housing within this neighborhood. Ayes; L. Johnson, McClelland, Workinger, Shaw, Palmer, Runyan, Hale. Chairman G. Johnson abstained. *Wooddale and Valley View Road Mr. Larsen explained that in this area (Valley View Shopping Center) there is enough space to redevelop and add an addition to the existing commercial area of approximately 6,000 square feet. Mr. Larsen added the Southwest Clinic and Valley View Drug area also have potential for possible expansion. This expansion would include re- orientation of the entrances and parking, thus providing safer parking and more green space. All this would hinge on acquiring the Conoco Station and one single family house immediately north of the station. Mr. Larsen told the Commission there is also a possibility of converting the beauty shop into two family dwellings. Commissioner McClelland asked if Mr. Larsen feels it is necessary to take the single family house to obtain adequate parking. Mr. Larsen said yes, they believe they need the one house when and if the time comes. He added adequate off - street parking is needed. Commissioner Palmer moved to recommend that -this area be deemed appropriate as a tax increment district, but request the ability to review each redevelopment on an individual basis. Commissioner McClelland seconded the motion. Ayes; Hale, L. Johnson, McClelland, Runyan, Palmer, Shaw, Workinger. Chairman G. Johnson abstained. *70th and Cahill Road Mr. Larsen with graphics pointed out to the Commission the two plans that are being studied for this area. He pointed out one plan is more aggressive in that requires removal of some buildings. The second plan does not require as extensive redevelopment. Commissioner Runyan pointed out the topography within this area can make redevelopment difficult. Mr. Larsen agreed, adding the proposal is very conceptual. He said it is desired to have the area retain the same amount of retail space that is now present, adding the City wants the retail area to work better and be fully leased. Commissioner McClelland asked why the Ron Clark development is depicted in the tax increment plan. Commissioner McClelland said a month ago no one mentioned this plan being in the tax increment district. Commissioner McClelland said it seems hardly fair to the homeowners of Highpointe to have to look at such a dense parcel, full of buildings, and then maybe they will also have to look at a parking lot to the east. Commissioner McClelland asked if the density of the Clark project was due to the rational behind tax increment. Mr. Larsen said this parcel has always been a part of the area and earmarked for redevelopment. He added tax increment did not drive the density up on the Clark project. The taxes levied to those single family houses and 21 townhouses could be used to improve the area. Mr. Larsen pointed out that the properties within the Clark project would be taxed, the same as other residential property and there is no break for them because they are in the tax increment district, their taxes may go into a fund designated to improve their immediate neighborhood. Mr. Bill Slenk owner of the service station on 70th and Cahill told the Commission he does not believe the project is good and that it will not help the area. He said the gas station is needed and should stay. Chairman G. Johnson clarified for Mr. Slenk that adoption of a tax increment district does not necessarily mean that his gas station would be removed. He added all the Commission is recommending is development of a tax increment district and its boundaries, individual redevelopments will be looked at individually. Commissioner McClelland said that the retail district in this location does need a boost in the arm. She pointed out the vacancies and frequency of turn -overs within this area. She said it has been a real problem in the past. Commissioner McClelland asked'Mr. Larsen the time frame for action on tax increment. Mr. Larsen said the time frame is eight years. Staff considers this location an economic development (8 years) versus a redevelopment district which has a life of 25 years. In this area something must be done in 8 years. Commissioner McClelland asked what type of areas are the other two. Mr. Larsen said Wooddale and Valley View, and 70th and Cahill Road are economic developments. 44th and France is earmarked as a redevelopment district with a life of 25 years. Commissioner L. Johnson said he is uncomfortable with the Ron Clark project supporting the tax increment within the neighborhood. He questioned why certain improvements couldn't be assessed to property owners. Mr. Larsen agreed that from a philosophical standpoint you could have a problem with it, and the City will certainly look at the possibility of assessing properties for a portion of improvements. Commissioner Members agreed that certain buildings in this area need revitalization but requested that the service station remain. Commissioner McClelland questioned what will happen to the Kosimides building. Mr. Larsen said at this time that project is on hold until the City Council determines what is appropriate for this area. Commissioner L. Johnson moved to recommend that this area be deemed appropriate as a tax increment district, he added this area is one area that needs revitalization before others. He noted he is not comfortable with it entirely and approval is subject to further review of the plan on an individual basis. Commissioner Hale seconded the motion. Ayes; Hale, McClelland, L. Johnson, Runyan, Palmer, Shaw, Workinger. G. Johnson abstained. Chairman Johnson said all three districts have been moved on to the Council with recommendations that tax increment districts be established subject to review on individual projects. 4 DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR DEVELOPMENT-DISTRICT NO. 2 and TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLANS FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICTS 90 -1 (44th and France), 90 -2 (Valley View and Wooddale) and 90 -3 (70th and Cahill), April 2, 1990 CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA L - -TABLE OF CONTENTS This Table of Contents is for convenience of reference only and is not part of the Development Program or the Tax Increment Financing Plan. Page I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 A. Statement of Need and Statutory Authority . . . . 1 B. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 II. DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 III. IV. A. Property To Be Included in Development District . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 B. Development Plan . . . . . . . . . . . 4 C. Operation of Development District 4 D. Estimated Capital and Administrative Costs . . . . 4 E. Property Acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 90 -1 (44TH AND FRANCE) . . . . . . . . . . . 6 A. Statement of Objectives and Development Program 6 B. Property To Be Included in Tax Increment District . . . . . . . . . 6 C. Estimated Capital and Administration Costs . . . . 6 D. Payment of Capital-and Administrative Costs . . . 6 E. Determination and Use of Tax Increment . . . . . . 7 F. Impact of Tax Increment Financing on Other Taxing Jurisdictions . . . . . . . . . 9 TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 90 -2 (VALLEY VIEW AND WOODDALE) . . . . . . . . . 10 A. Statement of Objectives and Development Program .10 B. Property To Be Included in Tax Increment District . . . . . . . . . . . . 10' C. Estimated Capital and Administration Costs . . . . 11 D. Payment of Capital and Administrative Costs . . . 11 E. Determination and Use of Tax Increment . . . . . . 12 F. Impact of Tax Increment Financing on Other Taxing Jurisdictions . . . . . . . . . . 13 i V. TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT - - - - -NO. -90 -3 (70TH- AND - CAHILL) ,- 14 A. Statement of Objectives.and Development Program 14 B. Property To Be Included in Tax Increment District . . . . 14 C. Estimated Capital and Administration Costs 14 D. Payment of Capital and Administrative Costs 15 E. Determination and Use of Tax Increment . . . . 15 F. Impact of Tax Increment Financing on Other Taxing Jurisdictions . . . . . . . . . . 17 VI. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROGRAM AND PLANS . . . . . . . 18 VII. AMENDMENTS TO PROGRAM AND PLANS . . . . . . . . 18 EXHIBITS A. Map of Development District No. 2 B. Development Plan C. List of Parcels in Tax Increment Financing District 90 -1 D. Staff Report Evidencing Tax Increment Financing District No. 90 -1 Meets Redevelopment District Criteria E. Estimated Tax Increment for Tax Increment Financing'District.90 -1 F. List of Parcels in Tax Increment Financing District 90 -2 .G. Estimated Tax Increment for Tax Increment -- Financing District No. 90 -2 H. List of Parcels in Tax Increment Financing District 90 -3 I. Estimated Tax Increment for Tax Increment Financing District 90 -3 I. INTRODUCTION A. Statement of Need and Statutory- Authority. The commercial areas in City of Edina located in the vicinity of West 44th Street and France Avenue, Valley View Road and Wooddale Avenue and West 70th Street and Cahill Road currently have certain deficiencies relating to traffic circulation, parking, land use and physical development which detracts from these areas. The City Council has determined that the City may be able to assist in the alleviation of such deficiencies and that in order to provide such assistance it is necessary to include these three areas in a Development District to be designated as Development District No. 2 and to take certain action pursuant to a Development Program (the "Program "). In order to finance the capital and administration costs of the Program, it is proposed that the City adopt tax increment financing plans (the "Plans "), which provide for the creation of Tax Increment Financing Districts 90 -1 (44th and France), 90 -2 (Valley View and Wooddale) and 90 -3 (70th and Cahill) (the "Districts "). The Program and the Plans are adopted by the City Council of the City pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047 and 469.174 to 469.179. B. Definitions. Each of the words and terms defined in this Section shall for all purposes of the Program and the Plan, have the meanings given to them in this Section B: "Bonds" means the tax increment bonds and any other obligations issued by the City, the principal of and interest on which are payable in whole or in part out of the Tax Increment, to finance or provide for the payment of the Capital and Administrative Cost. - "Bond Resolution" means any and all resolutions, ordinances, trust indentures or other documents under which any Bonds are sold, issued or secured. "Capital and Administrative Costs" means the total amount expended and to be expended by the City on Development Activities as provided in the Program and Plans. "Captured Tax Capacity" means for such Tax Increment District that portion of the Tax Capacity for such Tax Increment District in excess of the Original Tax Capacity for such Tax Increment District as adjusted from time to time, if any. "City" means the City of Edina, Hennepin County, Minnesota. "Development Activities" means all actions taken or to be taken by the City or HRA in establishing, implementing and carrying out the Program. "Development District" means Development District No. 2 of the City as established pursuant to this Program. "HRA" means the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Edina, Minnesota. "Original Tax Capacity" means the Net Tax Capacity of all taxable property in the Tax Increment District as most recently determined by the Commissioner of Revenue of the State of Minnesota as of the date of certification thereof by the County Auditor pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177 and as thereafter adjusted and certified by the County Auditor pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177. "Outstanding" when used with respect to the Bonds, means Bonds which have not been paid, redeemed or discharged in accordance with their terms or the terms of a Bond Resolution. "Parcel" means a lot, parcel or tract of plat of land comprising a single unit for purposes of assessment for real estate tax purposes, as of the date of adoption of this Plan. "Plans" means the Tax Increment Financing Plans for each of the Districts as approved and as supplemented and amended from time to time by the City Council of the City. "Program" means this Development Program as supplemented and amended from time to time by the City Council of the City. "Tax Capacity" means the net tax capacity of all taxable property in a District as determined from time to'time pursuant to state law. "Tax Capacity Rate" means with respect to taxes payable in any year the lesser of (i) the local taxing district tax capacity rates for taxes payable in such year or (ii) the "original tax capacity rate" for a Tax Increment District as defined and calculated in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, Subdivision la. "Tax Increment" means that portion of the ad valorem taxes generated by the extension of the Tax Capacity Rate to -2- the Captured Tax Capacity of taxable property in a Tax Increment District. "Tax Increment District 90 -1" means Tax'Increment Financing District 90 -1 (44th and France) of the City. "Tax Increment District 90 -2" means Tax-Increment Financing District 90 -2 (Valley View and Wooddale) of the City. "Tax Increment District 90 -3" means Tax Increment Financing District 90 -3 (70th and Cahill) of the City. "Tax Increment Districts" means collectively Tax Increment. Financing District 90 -1, 90 -2, and 90 -3. -3- II. DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 2 A. Property To Be Included in-Development District. The Parcels located in the City of Edina, Hennepin County, Minnesota, set forth in Exhibit A hereto, shall constitute the Development District. B. Development Plan. The Development Plan for the Development District appears as Exhibit B hereto. To the extent that any proposed uses in the Development Plan conflict with the City's Comprehensive Plan, such uses will not be permitted unless and until the Comprehensive Plan is amended to permit such use. C. Operation of Development District. Unless otherwise directed by the City, the maintenance and operation of the public improvements constructed in the District will be the responsibility of the HRA, as administrator of the District. Each year the HRA will submit to the City Council the maintenance and operation budget for the Development District for the following year. The HRA will administer the Development District pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.131; provided, however, that the HRA may exercise the powers listed in said Section 469.131 only at the direction of the City Council. D. Estimated Capital and Administrative Costs. The estimated Capital and Administrative Costs of the Program are as follows: capital Costs 44th and Valley View 70th and -4- France and Wooddale Cahill Property Acquisition $1,330,000 $153,800 $529,400 Demolition 200,000 40,000 150,000 Interest Assistance 175,000 100,000 150,000 Relocation 280,000 46,000 160,000 Public Improvements (Parking, Utilities, Landscaping, Street Vacation) 530,000 190,000 175,000 Historic Building Relocation - - 150.000 Total $2,515,000 $529,000 $1,314,400 -4- Financing and Administrative Costs and Contingency Legal_, _Fiscal and Administrative- Capitalized Interest Bond Discount Contingency Total $- 500,000 750,000 105,000 654,000 $2,009,000 The elements and costs shown above are estimated to be necessary based upon information now available. It is anticipated that the Capital and Administrative Costs may decrease or increase. The City reserves the right to pay any of the Capital and Administrative Costs from the proceeds of Tax Increment Bonds or directly from Tax Increment. E. Property Acquisition. In carrying out the Program the City may acquire certain property in the Development District. The Development Plan for the Development District envisions that it may be necessary for the City to acquire any right of way necessary for public improvements and to acquire the following property in the Development District to assist in the development of the property in the Development District in accordance with the Program: 44th and France Area Edina Cleaners Rapid Oil Storage Garage 4532 France Avenue South 4536 France Avenue South 3916 W. 44th Street 3918 W. 44th Street 3920 W. 44th Street 3924 W. 44th Street 3930 W. 44th Street 3936 W. 44th Street Valley View and Wooddale Roster's 6120 Kellogg 70th and Cahill Union Oil' Coit Warehouse -5- III. TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 90 -1 (44TH AND FRANCE) A. Statement of Obiectives and Development Program. See Section B of the Program. B. Property To Be Included in Tax Increment District. The Parcels located in the City of Edina, Hennepin County, Minnesota set forth on Exhibit C shall constitute the Tax Increment District No. 90 -1. C. Estimated Capital and Administration Costs. 1. Capital Proceeds. The capital proceeds.of the project, comprising the proceeds of sale of any land acquired by the City to private developers, are expected to be $0.00. 2. Capital and Administration Costs. The Capital and Administration Costs of the Development District, comprising the total costs expected to be incurred in carrying out the Development Activities by the City is expected to be as shown in Section D of the Program, plus interest to be paid on the Tax Increment Bonds during their term (other than interest paid from the proceeds.of the Tax Increment Bonds). Program. 3. Property to be Acquired. See Section E of the D. Payment of Capital and Administrative Costs. 1. In General. All Capital and Administrative Costs will be paid from Tax Increment either directly or indirectly by payment of debt service on Tax Increment Bonds issued to finance such cost or reimbursement for items of Capital and Administrative Costs paid directly by the City. 2. Issuance of Bonds. It is presently expected that all or a portion of the Capital and Administrative Costs will be financed by the issuance of the Tax Increment Bonds. The Tax Increment Bonds will be issued by the City under authority of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 475, and Sections 469.174 to 469.179. The principal amount of the Bonds is expected to be $6,370,000. The actual principal amount of the Bonds, however, may be less than or exceed this amount, and the right to issue the Bonds in an amount greater than $6,370,000 to finance such Capital and Administrative Costs is reserved. Similarly, the amount ffm allocated to capitalized interest covers interest payable on the Bonds (net of investment income on proceeds of the Bonds) at -an initial rate now - 'estimated to be approximately 8% per annum for a 18 -month period; and the City reserves the right to increase or decrease the amount of capitalized interest to correspond to the interest actually payable on the Bonds over the 18 -month period. 3. Security For Bonds. The Bonds will be general obligations of the City, and the City will pledge its full faith, credit and unlimited taxing powers to the payment of principal thereof and interest thereon. The principal of and interest on the Bonds are payable primarily, however, from the Tax Increments from one or more of the Tax Increment Districts and no ad valorem tax is expected to be levied for payment of the Bonds and interest thereon in the Bond Resolution. All Tax Increments will be pledged and appropriated to the payment of the Bonds and the interest thereon when due. In addition, such principal and interest will be paid from certain proceeds of the Bonds (capitalized interest) and interest earnings thereon. 4. Bond Terms. The terms of the Tax Increment Bonds are expected to be as set forth below; however, the right is reserved to adjust any and all terms of the Tax Increment Bonds to secure the best interest rate obtainable and to insure that the entire principal of and interest on the Tax Increment Bonds will be paid when due from the sources specified in paragraph 3. The Tax Increment Bonds will be issued in one or more series,'in the aggregate principal amount of $6,370,000,. will mature serially over a period of approximately twenty (20) years from the date of receipt by the City of the first Tax Increment from the Tax Increment Districts, will be subject to redemption prior to maturity, will bear a fixed rate or rates of interest from date of issue to maturity, payable semiannually commencing approximately six months after the issuance thereof, and will be sold at public or private sale. E. Determination and Use of Tax Increment. 1. Statutory Authority and Tax Increment District 90 -1 Eligibility as an Redevelopment District. Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10 defines a - "redevelopment district" as a tax increment financing district consisting of a portion of a development district which is 70% of the Parcels in which are occupied by buildings, streets, utilities or other improvements and 20% of the buildings are structurally substandard and the additional 30% of the buildings require substantial renovation or clearance to remove such existing conditions as: inadequate street layout, =7- incompatible uses or land use relationships, overcrowding of buildings on the land, excessive dwelling unit density, - obsolete buildings not suitable for improvement or conversion, or other identified hazards to the health, safety, and general well -being of the community. Based upon a report of City staff attached hereto as Exhibit D, the City believes Tax Increment District 90 -1 is a "redevelopment district" since the conditions set forth in the preceding paragraph are satisfied with respect to Tax Increment District 90 -1. 2. Original Tax Capacity. The Tax Capacity of all taxable property in Tax Increment District 90 -1 as most recently certified by the Commissioner of Revenue of the State of Minnesota, being the certification made in 1989 with respect to the Tax Capacity of such property as of January 2, 1989, is $116,578. 3. Current Tax Capacity. The current Tax Capacity of property in Tax Increment District 90 -1 is $116,578, the Original Tax Capacity. 4. Captured Tax Capacity. Captured Tax Capacity of all taxable District 90 -1, upon completion of the Increment District 90 -1 described in 2015) in Tax Increment District 90 -1, computed as follows: It is expected that the property in Tax Increment improvements in Tax the Program (taxes payable will'be $177,920, Estimated Tax Capacity . . . . . . $294,498 at Completion Less Original Tax Capacity . . . . 116,578 at Completion Estimated Captured Tax Capacity at Completion . . . . . $177,920 5. Tax Increment Calculation. Assuming the Anticipated Private Developments occur as described and provided in the Program it is estimated that the Tax Increment to be received each year for the duration of Tax Increment District 90 -1 will be as set forth in Exhibit E hereto. The estimated amount of Tax Increment set forth in Exhibit E is based upon a Tax Capacity Rate of .90098. 6. Duration of Tax Increment District 90 -1. It is estimated that Tax Increment District 90 -1 will remain in existence until 25 years from the date of receipt by the City -8- of the first Tax Increment from Tax Increment District 90 -1, or until the City's obligation to pay the Tax Increment Bonds and interest has been discharged.in accordance with the Bond Resolution. 7. Use of Captured Tax Capacity and Tax Increment. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, Subdivision 2, the City hereby determines that it will use 100% of the Captured Tax Capacity of property located in Tax Increment District 90 -1, and 100% of the Tax Increments to be derived therefrom, for the entire duration of Tax Increment District 90 -1. 8. Excess Tax Increment. The Tax Increment received from Tax Increment District 90 -1 in any year not needed to pay debt service on the Tax Increment Bonds coming due on or before August 1 of the following year, shall be used first to reduce any ad valorem property tax levied pursuant to and in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.61, Subdivision 3, and then shall be used to prepay or discharge outstanding Tax Increment Bonds or pay additional Capital and Administration Costs, all in accordance with the Bond Resolution. 9. Pooling of Tax Increment. Tax Increment received from Tax Increment District 90 -1 will be pooled by the City with all other Tax Increment received from the Tax Increment Districts and will be available for expenditure for any Capital and Administrative Costs, whether or not such Capital and Administrative Costs are incurred with respect to property included in Tax Increment District 90 -1._ F. Impact of Tax Increment Financing on Other Taxing Jurisdictions. The local government units other than the City which are authorized by law to levy ad valorem property taxes and in which Tax Increment District 90 -1 is located, are Independent School District No. 273, Hennepin County, the HRA, and various metropolitan area authorities, including the Metropolitan Council, the Metropolitan Transit Commission, the Metropolitan Airports Commission and the Metropolitan Mosquito Control District (the local government units). The taxing jurisdictions encompassing Tax Increment District 90 -1 will continue to receive taxes as if the Original Tax Capacity of Tax Increment District 90 -1 were unchanged, except for the increase in Original Tax Capacity described in Part F(2) of this Plan. This precludes the jurisdictions from benefiting from a portion of the increase in Tax Capacity which results from the improvements in Tax Increment District 90 -1 -9- described in the Program or other development of the taxable property in Tax Increment District 90 -1. In order to assess -the- -impact of -this on Hennepin County, Independent School District No. 273 and the City the following table indicates what percentage the anticipated Captured Tax Capacity of Tax Increment District 90 -1 at the completion of the improvements in Tax Increment District 90 -1 described in the Program (which occurs for taxes payable in 2015 as shown on Exhibit E hereto), is of the present total Tax Capacity for such taxing Jurisdiction'. Estimated Captured Tax Capacity Percent of Present at Completion Present Taxing Tax of Total Tax Jurisdiction Capacity Improvements Capacity Hennepin County $1,034,463,652 $177,920 .02% T.S.D. No. 273 63,744,885 177,920 .28% City of Edina 77,629,266 177,920 .23% If Tax Increment District 90 -1 were not created and the improvements occur in Tax Increment District 90 -1 as described in the Program, all of the Captured Tax Capacity of Tax Increment District 90 -1 would be available to the taxing jurisdictions, which would result in an increase in the tax capacity of such taxing jurisdictions in each year during the duration of Tax Increment District 90 -1 in an amount equal to the Captured Tax Capacity, IV. TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 90 -2 (VALLEY VIEW AND WOODDALE) A. Statement of Objectives and Development Program. See Section B of the Development Program. B. Property To Be Included in Tax Increment District. The Parcels located in the City of Edina, Hennepin County, Minnesota set forth on Exhibit F shall constitute Tax Increment District 90 -2. -10- C. Estimated Capital and Administration Costs. 1. Capital Proceeds. The capital proceeds of the project, comprising the proceeds of sale of any land acquired by the City to private developers, are expected to be $0.00. 2. Capital and Administration Costs. The Capital and Administration Costs of the Development District; comprising the total costs expected to be incurred in carrying out the Development Activities by the City is expected to be as shown in Section D of the Program, plus interest to be paid on the Tax Increment Bonds during their term (other than interest paid from the proceeds of the Tax Increment Bonds). 3. Property to be Acquired. See Section E of the Program. D. Payment of Capital and Administrative Costs. See Section D of the Plan for Tax Increment District 90 -1. E. Determination and Use of Tax Increment. 1. Statutory Authority and District Eligibility as an Economic Development District. Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 12 defines an "economic development district" as a tax increment financing district consisting of a portion of a development district which the authority finds to be in the public interest because it will discourage commerce, industry or manufacturing from moving their operations to another state, will result in increased employment in the municipality or will result in preservation and enhancement of the tax base of the municipality. The City believes Tax Increment District 90 -2 is an "economic development district" since the Development Activities to occur in Tax Increment District 90 -2 will result in preservation and enhancement of the tax base of the City. 2. Original Tax Capacity. The Tax Capacity of all taxable property in Tax Increment District 90 -2 as most recently certified by the Commissioner of Revenue of the State of Minnesota, being the certification made in 1989 with respect to the Tax Capacity of such property as of January 2, 1989, is $74,536, which amount is expected to be the Original Tax Capacity of Tax Increment District 90 -2, subject to adjustment of 4.24% per year pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, Subdivision 1, based on the average percentage increase in the assessed valuation of property in Tax Increment District 90 -2 during the last five years. see 3. Current Tax Capacity. The current Tax Capacity of property in Tax Increment District 90 -2 is $74,536, the Original Tax Capacity. 4. Captured Tax Capacity. It is expected that the Captured Tax Capacity of all taxable property in Tax Increment District 90 -2, upon completion of the improvements in Tax Increment District 90 -2 described in the Program (taxes payable 2000) in Tax Increment District 90 -2, will be $10,468, computed as follows: Estimated Tax Capacity . . . . . . $123,373 at Completion Less Original Tax Capacity . . . . 112,904 at Completion Estimated Captured Tax Capacity at Completion . . . . . $ 10,468 5. Tax Increment Calculation. Assuming the improvements in Tax Increment District 90 -2 occur as described and provided in the Program hereto it is estimated that the Tax Increment to be received each year for the duration of Tax Increment District 90 -2 will be as set forth in Exhibit G hereto. The estimated amount.of Tax Increment set forth in Exhibit G is based upon a Tax Capacity Rate of .90098. 6. Duration of the Tax Increment District 90 -2. It is estimated that Tax Increment District 90 -2 will remain in existence until the 8 years from the date of receipt of the first Tax Increment from Tax Increment District 90 -2 or 10 years from the date of approval of this Plan, whichever is earlier, or until the City's obligation to pay the Tax Increment Bonds and interest has been discharged in accordance with the Bond Resolution. 7. Use of Captured Tax Capacity and Tax Increment. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, Subdivision 2, the City hereby determines that it will use 100% of the Captured Tax Capacity of property located in Tax Increment District 90 -2, and 100% of the Tax Increments to be derived therefrom, for the entire duration of Tax Increment District 90 -2. 8. Excess Tax Increment. The Tax Increment received from Tax Increment District 90 -2 in any year not needed to pay debt' service on the Tax Increment Bonds coming due on or before August 1 of the following year, shall be used first to reduce any ad valorem property tax levied pursuant to and in accordance -12- with Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.61, Subdivision 3, and then shall be used to prepay or discharge outstanding Tax Increment Bonds or-pay additional Capital and - Administration Costs, all in accordance with the Bond Resolution. 9. Pooling of Tax Increment. Tax Increment received from Tax Increment District 90 -2 will be pooled by the City with all other Tax Increment received from the Tax Increment Districts and will be available for expenditure for any Capital and Administrative Costs, whether or not such Capital and Administrative Costs are incurred with respect to property included in Tax Increment District 90 -2. F. Impact of Tax Increment Financing on Other Taxing Jurisdictions. The local government units other than the City which are authorized by law to levy ad valorem property taxes and in which Tax Increment District 90 -2 is located, are Independent School District No. 273, Hennepin County, the HRA, and various metropolitan area authorities, including the Metropolitan Council, the Metropolitan Transit Commission, the Metropolitan Airports Commission and the Metropolitan Mosquito Control District (the local government units). The taxing jurisdictions encompassing Tax Increment District 90 -2 will continue to receive taxes as if the Original Tax Capacity of Tax Increment District 90 -2 were unchanged, except for the increase in Original Tax Capacity described in Part F(2) of this Plan. This precludes the jurisdictions from benefiting from a portion of the increase in Tax Capacity which results from the improvements in Tax Increment District 90 -2 described in the Program or other development of the taxable property in Tax Increment'District 90 -2. In order to assess the impact of this on Hennepin County, Independent School District No. 273 and the City the following table indicates what percentage the anticipated Captured Tax Capacity of Tax Increment District 90 -2 at the completion of the improvements in Tax Increment District 90 -2 described in the Program (which occurs for taxes payable in 2000 as shown on Exhibit G hereto), is of the present total Tax Capacity for such taxing jurisdiction. -13- Taxing Jurisdiction Hennepin County I.S.D. No. 273 City of Edina Present Tax Capacity $1,034,463,652 63,744,885 77,629,266 Estimated Captured Tax Capacity at Completion of Improvements $10,468 10,468 10,468 Percent of Present Total Tax Capacity less than .01% .02% .01% If Tax Increment District 90 -2 were not created and the improvements occur in Tag Increment District 90 -2 as described in the Program, all of the Captured Tax Capacity of Tax Increment District 90 -2 would be available to the taxing jurisdictions, which would result in an increase in the tax capacity of such taxing jurisdictions in each year during the duration of Tax Increment District 90 -2 in an amount equal to the Captured Tax Capacity. V. TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 90 -3 (70TH AND CAHILL) A. Statement of Objectives and Development Program. See Section A of the Development Program. B. Property To 8e- Included in Tax Increment District 90 -3. The Parcels located in the City of Edina,.Hennepin County, Minnesota set forth on Exhibit H shall constitute Tax Increment District 90 -3. C. Estimated Capital and Administration Costs. 1. Capital Proceeds. The capital proceeds of the project, comprising the proceeds of sale of any land acquired by the City to private developers, are expected to be $0.00. 2. Capital and Administration Costs. The Capital and Administration Costs of the Development District, comprising the total costs expected to be incurred in carrying out the Development Activities by the City is expected to be as shown in Section D of the Program, plus interest to be paid on the Tax Increment Bonds during their term (other than interest paid from the proceeds of the Tax Increment Bonds). -14- 3. Property to be Acauired. See Section E of the Program. D. 'Payment of Capital and Administrative Costs. See Section D of the plan for Tax Increment District 90 -1. E. Determination and Use of Tax Increment. 1. Statutory Authority and District Eligibility as an Economic Development District. Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 12 defines an "economic development district" as a tax increment financing district consisting of a portion of a development district which the authority finds to be in the public interest because it will discourage commerce, industry or manufacturing from moving their operations to another state, will result in increased employment in the municipality or will result in preservation and enhancement of the tax base of the municipality. The City believes Tax Increment District 90 -3 is an "economic development district" since the Development Activities to occur in Tax Increment District 90 -3 will result iri the preservation and enhancement of the tax base of the City. 2. Original Tax Capacity. The Tax Capacity of all taxable property in Tax Increment District 90 -3 as most recently certified by the Commissioner of Revenue of the State of Minnesota, being the certification made in 1989 with respect to the Tax Capacity of such property as of January 2, 1989, is $270,426, which amount is expected to be the Original Tax Capacity of Tax Increment District 90 -3, subject to adjustment of 5.10% per year pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, Subdivision 1, based on the average percentage increase in the assessed va-luation of property in Tax Increment District 90 -3 during the last five years. 3. Current Tax Capacity. The current Tax Capacity of property in Tax Increment District 90 -3 is $270,426, the Original Tax Capacity. 4. Captured Tax Capacity. It is expected that the Captured Tax Capacity of all taxable property in Tax'Increment District 90 -3, upon completion of the improvements in Tax Increment District 90 -3 (taxes payable 2000) in Tax Increment District 90 -3, will be $306,941, computed as follows: -15- Estimated Tag Capacity . . . . . . $751,65.0 at Completion Less Original Tag Capacity . . . . 444,709 at Completion Estimated Captured Tag Capacity at Completion . . . . . $306,941 5. Tag Increment Calculation. Assuming the improvements in Tag Increment District 90 -3 occur as described and provided in the Program hereto it is estimated that the Tag Increment to be received each year for the duration of Tag Increment District 90 -3 will be as set forth in Exhibit I hereto. The estimated amount of Tax Increment set forth in Exhibit I is based upon a Tax Capacity Rate of .90290. 6. Duration of the Tag Increment District 90 -3. It is estimated that Tax Increment District 90 -3 will remain in existence until the 8 years from the date of receipt of the first Tax Increment from Tax Increment District 90 -3 or,10 years from the date of approval of this Plan, whichever is earlier, or until the City's obligation to pay the Tax Increment Bonds and interest has been discharged in accordance with the Bond Resolution. 7. Use of Captured Tax Capacity and Tax Increment. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, Subdivision 2, the City hereby determines that it will use 100% of the Captured Tax Capacity of property located in Tax Increment District 90 -3, and 100% of the Tax Increments to be derived therefrom, for the entire duration of Tax Increment District 90 -3. 8. Excess Tax Increment. The Tax Increment received from Tax Increment District 90 -3 in any year not needed to pay debt service on the Tax Increment Bonds coming due on or before August 1 of the following year, shall be used first to reduce any ad valorem property tax levied pursuant to and in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.61, Subdivision 3, and then shall be used to prepay or discharge outstanding Tax Increment Bonds or pay additional Capital and Administration Costs, all in accordance with the Bond Resolution. 9. Pooling of Tax Increment. Tax Increment received from Tax Increment District 90 -3 will be pooled by the City with all other Tax Increment received from the Tag Increment Districts and will be available for expenditure for any Capital and Administrative Costs, whether or not such Capital and Administrative Costs are incurred with respect to property included in Tag Increment District 90 -3. -16- F. Impact of Tax Increment Financing on Other Taxing Jurisdictions. The local government units other than the City which are authorized by law to levy ad valorem property taxes and in which Tax Increment District 90 -3 is located, are Independent School District No. 273, Hennepin County, the HRA, and various metropolitan area authorities, including the Metropolitan Council, the Metropolitan Transit'Commission, the Metropolitan Airports Commission and the Metropolitan Mosquito Control District (the local government units). The taxing jurisdictions encompassing Tax Increment District 90 -3 will continue to receive taxes as if the Original Tax Capacity of Tax Increment District 90 -3 were unchanged, except for the increase in Original Tax Capacity described in Part F(2) of this Plan. This precludes the jurisdictions from benefiting from a portion of the increase in Tax Capacity which results from the improvements in Tax Increment District 90 -3 described in the Program or other development of the taxable property in Tax Increment District 90 -3. In order to assess the impact of this on Hennepin County, Independent School District No. 273 and the City the following table indicates what percentage the anticipated Captured Tag Capacity of Tax Increment District 90 -3 at the completion of the improvements in Tag Increment District 90 -3 described in the Program (which occurs for taxes payable in 2000 as shown on Exhibit I hereto), is of the present total Tag Capacity for such taxing jurisdiction. Estimated Captured Tax Capacity Percent of Present at Completion Present . Taxing Tax of Total Tax Jurisdiction Capacity Improvements Capacity Hennepin County $1,034,463,652 $306,941 .03% I.S.D. No. 273 63,744,885 306,941 .48% City of Edina 77,629,266 306,941 .40% If Tax Increment District 90 -3 were not created and the improvements occur in Tax Increment District 90 -3 as described in the Program, all of the Captured Tax Capacity of Tax Increment District 90 -3 would be available to the taxing jurisdictions, which would result in an increase in the tax -17- capacity of such taxing jurisdictions in each year during the duration of Tax Increment District 90 -3 in an amount equal to the Captured Tax Capacity. VI. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROGRAM AMENDMENT AND PLANS The Program and the Plans shall be implemented on behalf of the City by the City Council and the HRA as administrator of the Program. The City shall sell and issue. Tax Increment Bonds in the amounts needed to finance the Capital and Administrative Costs, less any portion thereof to be paid directly from Tax Increment and shall use so much of the proceeds of the Tax Increment Bonds available and Tax Increment derived from the Districts to pay such Capital and Administrative Costs as is necessary. VII. AMENDMENTS TO PROGRAM AND PLANS The City reserves the right to amend the Program and the Plans, subject to the provisions of state law regulating such action. The City specifically reserves the right to enlarge the geographic area included in any District, to increase the Capital and Administrative Costs and the principal amount of Tax Increment Bonds to be issued to finance such Capital and Administrative Costs, by following the procedures specified in Section 469.175, Subdivision 4, if and when it is determined to be necessary for the payment of additional Capital and Administrative Costs. This Program and Tax Increment Financing Plans were adopted by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota on the 2nd day of April, 1990. Mayor City Manager 51-15 Exhibit A Map of Development District No. 2 Morninaside Rd. W 1 � � o O j a ai a jjj''''''��� ❑❑ �a _ ul 0 m o o:0 D � I i C7, p 1 - a St• i ua✓ I � El� ggth i a i I 45th �a CITY OF EDINA PROJECT AREA PLANS 44TH AND FRANCE AVE. Hoisington Group Inc o loo 200 300 A -1 Project Area and Tax Increment Financing District Boundaries Figure 1 PLAN AREA 1 �1- CITY OF EDINA PROJECT AREA PLANS WOODDALE AND VALLEYVIEW AVE. Hoisington Group Inc S'��bo tSo ioo A -2 id. Project Area and Tax Increment Financing District Boundaries Figure 1 PLAN AREA 70th St. W. - -�� - -� �t 1 IT Bli Fot Q o I CITY OF EDINA PROJECT AREA PLANS 70TH AND CAHILL AVE. Hoisington Group Inc. o roe 200 roo J t It.--- — -: J . Amundson P r� s —f Project Area and Tax Increment i _ ❑ FMtancbV District Boundaries Figure 1 PLAN AREA Exhibit C List of Parcels in Tax Increment Financing District 90 -1 (44th and France) 07- 028- 24 -44 -0055 07- 028 -24 -44 -0056 07- 028 -24 -44 -0058 07- 028-24 -44 -0059 07- 028 -24 -44 -0060 07- 028 -24 -44 -0061 07- 028 -24 -44 -0062 07- 028 -24 -44 -0063 07- 028 -24 -44 -0064 07- 028 -24 -44 -0065 07- 028 -24 -44 -0066 07- 028 -24 -44 -0067 07- 028 -24 -44 -0068 07- 028 -24 -44 -0069 07- 028 -24 -44 -0070 07- 028 -24 -44 -0071 07- 028 -24 -44 -0073 07- 028 -24 -44 -0075 07- 028 -24 -44 -0077 07- 028 -24 -44 -0081 07- 028 -24 -44 -0082 07- 028 -24 -44 -0083 07- 028 -24 -44 -0086 07- 028 -24 -44 -0128 07- 028 -24 -44 -0130 07- 028 -24 -44 -0134 07- 028 -24 -44 -0135 07- 028 -24 -44 -0137 07- 028 -24 -44 -0138 07- 028 -24 -44 -0140 07- 028 -24 -44 -0141 07- 028 -24 -44 -0142 07-028 -24 -44 -0147 1 Exhibit E Projected Tax Increment for Tax Increment Financing District 90 -1 (44th and France) Original Tax Coapleted Adjusted Captured Capacity Projected Tan Tax Tax intension Tax Assessed Pay - Capacity Capacity Capacity Rate Increment 1989 1990 116,578 116,578 0 90.098$ 0 1990 1991 118,910 116,578 2,332 90.0988 2,101 1991 1992 121,288 116,578 4,710 90.098% 4,243 1992 1993 177,932 116,578 61,354 90.098% 55,278 1993 1994 181,490 116,578 64,912 90.0988 58,485 1994 1995 185,120 116,578 68,542 90.0988 61,755 1995 1996 188,822 116,578 72,244 90.0984 65,091 1996 1997 206,196 116,578 89,618 90.0988 80,744 1997 1998 210,320 116,578 93,742 90.0988 84,459 1998 1999 214,526 116,578 97,948 90.0988 88,249 1999 2000 218,817 116,578 102,239 90.0988 92,115 2000 2001 223,193 116,578 106,615 90.0988 96,058 2001 2002 227,657 116,578 111,079 90.0988 100,080 2002 2003 232,210 116,578 115,632 90.0988 104,182 2003 2004 236,854 116,578 120,276 90..0988 108,366 2004 2005 241,591 116,578 125,013 90.0988 112,634 2005 2006 246,423 116,578 129,845 90.0988 116,988 2006 2007 251,352 116,578 134,774 90.0988 121,428 2007 2008 256,379 116,578 139,801 90.0988 125,957 2008 2009 261,506 116,578 144,928 90.0988 130,577 2009 2010 266,736 116,578 150,158 90.0988 135,290 2010 2011 272,071 116,578 155,493 90.0988 140,096 2011 2012 277,512 116,578 160,934 90.0988 144,999 2012 2013 283,063 116,578 166,485 90.0988 149,999 2013 2014 288,724 116,578 172,146 90.098% 155,100 2014 2015 294,498 116,578 177,920 90:0988 160,303 Exhibit F List of Parcels in Tax Increment Financing District 90 -2 (Valley View and Wooddale) 19- 028-24 -34 -0091 19- 028 -24 -34 -0092 19- 028 -24 -34 -0093 19- 028 -24 -34 -0094 19- 028 -24 -43 -0058 19- 028 -24 -43 -0059 19- 028 -24- 43-0060 19- 028 -24 -43 -0061 19- 028 -24 -43 -0062 19- 028 -24 -43 -0063 19- 028 -24 -43 -0064 19- 028 -24 -43 -0076 19- 028 -24 -43 -0077 19- 028 -24 -43 -0078 Exhibit G Projected Tax Increment for Tax Increment Financing District 90 -2 (Valley View and Wooddale) Completed Original Teat Afilma-s-ed _ PAY caDSclty 1989 1990 74,536 1990 1991 76,027 1991 1992 77,547 1992 1993 107,403 1993 1994 109,551 1994 1995 111,742 1995 1996 113,977 1996 1997 116,257 1997 1998 118,582 1998 1999 120,953 1999 2000 123,373 Original Tax Adjusted Captured Capacity Projected Tax Tax Extension Tam Goacciity Capacity Rate - Incumixt 74,536 0 90.0988 0 77,696 0 90.0988 0 80,991 0 90.0988 0 84,425 22,979 90.0988 20,703 88,004 21,547 90.0988 19,413 91,736 20,007 90.0988 18;026 95,625 18,352 90.0988 16,535 99,680 16,577 90.0988 14,935 103,906 14,676 90.0988 13,222 108,312 12,642 90.0988 11,390 112,904 10,468 90.0988 9,432 Exhibit H List of Parcels in Tax Increment Financing District 90 -3 (70th and Cahill) 08- 116 -21 -i1 -0003 08- 116 -21 -11 -0005 08- 116 =21 -11 -0008 08- 116 -21 -11 -0009 08- 116 -21 -11 -0010 08- 116 -21 -11 -0019 08- 116 -21 -11 -0020 08- 116 -21 -11 -0021 08- 116 -21 -11 -0022 08- 116-21 -11 -0023 08- i16 -21 -11 -0024 08- 116 -21 -12 -0001 08- 116 -21 -12 -0002 08- 116 -21 -12 -0003 08- 116 -21 -12 -0004 08- 116 -21 -12 -0005 08- 116 -21 -12 -0006 Exhibit I Projected Tax Increment for Tax Increment Financing District 90 -3 (70th and Cahill) Original Tax. Completed Adjusted Captured Capacity Projected Tax Tax TAX Extension Tax Assam aci Capacity Caflacitx Rate Increment 1989 1990 270,426 270,426 0 90.290% 0 1990 1991 275,835 284,218 0 90.2908 0 1991 1992 374,087 298,713 75,374 90.2908 68,055 1992 1993 474,304 313,947 160,357 90.2908 144,787 1993 1994 576,526 329,958 246,568 90.290% 222,626 1994 1995 680,793 346,786 334,006 90.2908 301,574 1995 1996 694,408 364,472 329,936 90.2908 297,899 1996 1997 708,297 383,061 325,236 90.2908 293,656 1997 1998 722,463' 402,597 319,866 90.2908 288,807 1998 1999 736,912 423,129 '313,783 90.2908 283,314 1999 2000 751,650 444,709 306,941 90.2908 277,137 I MEMORANDUM To: Gordon Hughes, Assistant City Manager From: Eric Anderson, Assistant Finance Directo Re: New Tax Increment District Effects Date: March 22, 1990 Summary: As per your request, I have completed an analysis of the effects of collapsing the three new tax increment districts after five years of development. The results, reflected in the tables below, show the effects on a homeowner's property tax bill for the three major taxing jurisdictions (City, County, & School District). Assumptions: Major assumptions are: • Tax dollars were calculated for homesteaded property • Tax levy amounts are held constant for the City and the County. The School district levy partially changes due to the recent referendum. • Development occurs for all three new districts as reflected in the preliminary dis- closure documents • Tax extension rates stay constant during the five year period Conclusion: Given these assumptions, Table 1 shows the net effect on three tax bills, if all three dis- tricts were collapsed in 1995. An owner of a $150,000 homesteaded property would pay $4.99 less in property taxes. TABLE I -All Districts Combined - Net Effect on Tax Bills Jurisdiction Extension Rates $150,000 $250,000 $500,000 City - 0.075% (2.12) (4.37) (10.00) County -0.011% (0.32) (0.66) (1.52) School -273* - 0.090% (2.55) (5.26) (12.05) Total* - 0.117% $4.99 $10.29 $23.56 * - City, County & School Rates reflect 92% of a property tax bill 1, Table 2 Wooddale & Valley View - Effects on Prop.Tax Bills * - School District rates reflect only 1/3 the benefit of other taxing jurisdictions due to their state funding process + - City, County & School District Rates reflect 92% of property tax bills Extension Market Values 150,000 250,000 500,000 Jurisdiction + Rate With TO in Place City 12.959% 365.44 754.21 1,726.14 County 27.916% 787.23 1,624.71 3,718.41 School -273. 42.369% 11. 94.81 .2.465.88 5.643.55 Total 83.244% 2,347.48 4,844.80 11,088.10 Without TO in Place City 12.955% 365.34 754.01 1,725.66 County 27.915% 787.22 1,624.68 3,718.34 School -273* 42.365% 1.194.70 2.465.65 5,643.04 Total 83.236% 2,347.26 .4,844.34 11,087.04 Net Result City - 0.004% (0.10) (0.21) (0.47) County -0.001% (0.02) (0.03) (0.07) School -273* - 0.004% .11 0.22 (0.51) Total - 0.008% $0.22 $0.46 $1.06 * - School District rates reflect only 1/3 the benefit of other taxing jurisdictions due to their state funding process + - City, County & School District Rates reflect 92% of property tax bills Table 3 - 44th & France - Effects on Prop. Tax Bills * - School District rates reflect only 1/3 the benefit of other taxing jurisdictions due to their state funding process + - City, County & School District Rates comprise 92% of property tax bills Extension Market Values 150,000 250,000 500,000 Jurisdiction + Rate With TO in Place City 12.959% 365.44 754.21 1,726.14 County 27.916% 787.23 1,624.71 3,718.41 School -273 42.369% 1,194.81 2.465.88 5.643.55 Total 83.244% 2,347.48 4,844.80 11,088.10 Without TO in Place City 12.947% 365.10 753.50 1,724.51 County 27.914% 787.18 1,624.60 .3,718.16 School -273* 42.356% 1,194.43 2.465.88 5,641.79 Total 83.217% 2,346.71 4,843.21 11,084.47 Net Result City - 0.012% (0.34) (0.71) (1.63) County - 0.002% (0.05) (0.11) (0.25) School -273* - 0.013% (0.37 ) 0.77 1.7 Total - 0.027% $0.77 $1.59 $3.63 * - School District rates reflect only 1/3 the benefit of other taxing jurisdictions due to their state funding process + - City, County & School District Rates comprise 92% of property tax bills Table 4 - 70th & Cahill - Effects on Prop. Tax Bills * - School District rates reflect only 1/3 the benefit of other taxing jurisdictions due to their state funding process + - City, County & School District Rates comprise 9A of property tax bills Extension 150,000 250,000 500,000 Jurisdiction + Rate With TO in place City 12.959% 365.44 754.21 1,726.14 County 27.916% 787.23 1,624.71 3,718.41 School -273 45.295% 11277.32 2,636.17 6.033.29 Total 86.170% 2,429.99 5,015.09 11,477.84 Without TO in place City 12.900% 363.77 750.76 1,718.24 County 27.907% 786.98 1,624.19 3,717.21 School -273* 45.222% 12. 75.25 2.631.90 6.023.52 Total 86.028% 2,426.00 5,006.85 11,458.97 Net Result City - 0.059% (1.67) (3.45) (7.90) County - 0.009% (0.25) (0.52) (1.20) School -273* - 0.073% 2.07 4.27 9.77 Total - 0.142% $4.00 $8.25 $18.87 * - School District rates reflect only 1/3 the benefit of other taxing jurisdictions due to their state funding process + - City, County & School District Rates comprise 9A of property tax bills JIr f} M E M O R A N D U M TO: File, 44th and France Redevelopment District FROM: Building Department and Planning Department SUBJECT: Building condition in Redevelopment Plan Area. DATE: April 2, 1990 The purpose of this memorandum is to document the condition of certain structures within the plan area. Specifically, the following structures are found to have defects in structural elements or a combination of deficiencies in essential utilities and facilities, light and ventilation, fire protection including adequate egress, layout and condition of interior portions, or similar factors, which defects or deficiencies are of sufficient total significance to justify substantial renovation or clearance. 4500 France Avenue South. Edina Cleaners The property includes two buildings. In 1977 the Edina Cleaners acquired the Westgate Theatre, made a pass.through connection and expanded its commercial cleaning operation into the vacated theatre. Results of a February 24, 1990, code compliance inspection are attached. 4532 France Avenue South. Single family home used as commercial office. Pre 1920 construction. The following deficiencies are noted: * Foundation is cracked and settled. Front entry badly deteriorated, in danger of collapse. * Rear stoop - landing has broken away from foundation and settled. * Holes in plaster ceilings in kitchen and second floor bedroom. * Evidence of plumbing leaks. * No insulation * Most windows are lacking screens and storm windows. * Prime windows in poor condition ` 4540 France Avenue South. Single family dwelling. Pre 1916 construction The following deficiencies are noted: * Cracks in foundation. * Prime windows in poor condition. * Lacking some storm windows. * Old hot water boiler with asbestos wrapped pipes. * Electrical system below code requirements. 3916 West 44th Street. Single family home. Constructed approximately 1905. The following deficiencies are noted: * Coal conversion hot water furnace, Pipe wrapped in asbestos. * Electrical system does not street code. Wiring includes non- conforming nob and tube wiring. * Galvanized water pipe system. Should be changed to copper. * Front porch settled 8 inches from house and must be reconstructed. * East side of garage has settled. * 20 plus year old roof that is deteriorated and shows signs of leakage on interior. * All interior surfaces are in poor condition. 3918 West 44th Street. Single family home. Constructed approximately 1930. * Electrical system does not meet code requirements. * Older roof in deteriorated condition. * Cracks in foundation, signs of some settling. F-21 M CITY OF 4"EDINA 4801 WEST 50TH STREET, EDINA, MINNESOTA 55424 12- 927 -8861 3 -30 -90 On February 14, 1990, a Code Compliance inspection was made at: 4500 France Ave. Edina Dry- Cleaners. The following non - conforming conditions were noted: 1. Non - conforming exit system was existing in most of the plant area. It was also noted that exit doors were either locked or barricaded. This is a serious condition. 2. Noted exposed electric wires in restroom directly off store front. 3. A full two hour separation is required around the boiler and this was not in place. Present condition does not allow proper fire protection. 4. Solvent use and storage shall be verified by the Edina Fire Marshall for proper use and protection. 5. Exterior tank storage to be reviewed by Edina Fire Marshall. 6. The wood roof is leaking in numberous locations. It appears that there may be some decay of the roof boards and joist which could possibly result in roof failure. 7. The wood roof joist are supported by a steel truss which appears to have signs of corrosion. 8. The block walls and floors have somecracks which may be pertinent to the building structure. 9. Boiler is very old, but appears in good shape. Relief valve needs to be piped down to within 18" of the floor. Boiler room .has no make up air piped into it. A boiler room is required to be in a 2 -hour room. 10. No make up air is piped in for the air being exhausted in building (dryers, ect.) 11. Roof drains appear to be draining into sanitary sewer. 12. Equipment using City water does not appear to have proper back flow preventers. e It THOMSEN NYBECIE JOHNSON BOUQUET AN VALKENBURG OHNSTAD & SNIITH, P.A. EDINA CITY COUNCIL Agenda Item III.A LAW OFFICES SUITE 600, EDINBOROUGH CORPORATE CENTER EAST 3300 EDINSOROUGH WAY, MINNEAPOLIS ( EDINA), MINNESOTA 55435 (612) 835 -7000 • FAX: (612) 835 -9450 GLENN G. NYBECK MARSH J. HALBERG OF COUNSEL: GORDON V. JOHNSON WILLIAM E. SJOHOLM JACK W. CARLSON JOHN K. BOUQUET THOMAS R. KELLEY RICHARD D. WILSON, P.A. JAMES VAN VALKENBURG DENNIS M. PATRICK HERBERT P. LEFLER, III MARK G. OHNSTAD PHILIP SIEFF HELGE THOMSEN. RETIRED DONALD D. SMITH DAVID J. MCGEE March 30, 1990 RE: 44th and France HRA TIF Proposal Mayor Richards and Members of the Council: Our office represents the Edina Cleaners who is vitally involved in this proposal. Some thoughts to consider: We appeared at the Planning Commission meeting on March 28, 1990 where this was discussed - the commission was very concerned as to several points. 1. They did not want to approve a plan of development without much more study. 2. The density of the proposed multifamily was unacceptable. 3. The project was time driven and not by a specific proposal. 4. No plan should be implemented without an in depth analysis of the financial impact as a TIF District; without a review of the impact on the merchants and they just did not like the plan. 5. They approved the district reluctantly but not the plan. We recognize the time limits, the possible legislative changes, the fact that the proposals are tentative, and the fact that no developer is in mind or in place. ✓ ti -2- Our specific concerns and comments: 1. This proposal not only moves our business - it puts us out of business. We do commercial laundry for hotels and to shut down for 30 -60 -90 days while we moved would mean we would lose the customers. Edina Cleaners has 53 employees (who also shop at the 44th and France area). The Stotts family and Edina Cleaners have been on this corner 30 years. 2. We bring a minimum of 2000 people per week to the corner. 3. Parking: a. Our employees park in a space behind our building. b. Customers come in through the parking in front. Cleaner's customers won't park a long way and walk and carry their belongings. c. Parking in the overall area is no further than one would find at a large shopping center, e.g. 50th and France or Southdale. 4. Our Building: a. Is well maintained. b. Is of an age and style that is compatible with the building the plan seeks to preserve. c. Is a buffer to westerly expansion on Sunnyside. 5. We do not like the label "industrial" placed on our operation. That conjures smoke stacks and noise which is not our situation. We are within our zoning requirements. 6. The financial projections show a cost of $3,665,550 and an increment return of $2,494.577 for a $1,170,973 shortgage. Even extending the bonds 10 more years produces a shortfall. -3- 7. As Dr. Seidel has stated and Dr. Pirsch's letter reflects - to put this in a district makes for extreme uncertainty. Do we expand? Do we remodel? Do we sell and move out? Who would buy property with the possibility of a condemnation hanging over their purchase? 8. New generations are now involved (Dr. Seidel's son and David Stotts' son, Lee) which is a great positive to this continued vitality of the area. 9. We have approximately 35,000 square feet of property which is a substantial portion of the whole area. 10. Dr. Seidel wants to expand and Dr. Pirsch does not want to be moved out of his building. We are cognizant of the Mayor's remarks that even if adopted this is not necessarily the plan and that you do not want to put anyone out of business. We are very concerned about this project. We are afraid of the impact on us. We are opposed to it. Thus we request a denial of the proposed creation of a T.I.F. district and of the plan. Neighbors often, after an external scare, come up with better ideas to revitalize and continued successful operations in an area. If, after you, review this and view the area, you have any questions I would appreciate the opportunity to answer you. Mr. Stotts and I will attend the April 2, 1990 HRA Council meeting and can answer questions then also. JVV:jd cc: Council members Kenneth Rosland Gordon Hughes Craig Larsen Dr. Seidel Dr. Pirsch Mr. Stotts Agenda Item III.A. Thomas R. Pirsch, D.D.S., PA 3930 Sunnyside Road Edina, N.N 55424 March 27, 1990 Yayor Fred'Richards 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 Dear Mr. Richards: I am the owner of a dental practice and a building at 3930 Sunnyside Road, in the 44th & France Tax Increment Financina District. I am writing because I will be unable to attend the April 2nd Council Meeting.. I hadn't realized, until I recently saw a map of the proposed changes, how disasterous this would be for me and the three other owners of buildinas on the north side of Sunnyside Road. To start with, if implemented, this program would absolutely preclude me from ever selling my practice upon retirement, removing a potentially significant portion, of my post- retirement income. This is because no dentist would buy a practice that was in danger of a forced relocation. Re- location of a dental office is particularly difficult and expensive because of all the extra plumbing and wiring in volved. This pleasant building and pleasant location is one of the major advantages of my practice. The ability to own one's own buildina and avoid the hassles of. renting, includ- ina having a landlord charge for parking, is a real asset. If a new building were constructed to house a dental office, if I or a•buyer wanted to return to this area, we would be obliaated to relocate for at least a year and make an addi- tional move back. It wouldn't be possible. It would mean premature retirement for me and no. sale of my practice to anyone else. The second problem would be I couldn't even sell my building when I needed to. If condemnation occurred too soon, I get rremature retirement - if too late, there would be no buyers for a building, however desirable, with a condemnation hang- ing over. I am not plannina retirement in the near future, but one never knows. have bgen a resident of Yorningside since 1936, a resident of Edina since 1965. There has been a Firsch dental office en this corner since 1928. The building is attractive, I feel, and does not need to be condemned.- It was built in 1954 and has been well maintained. We have been good citizens: taxes paid, snow shoveled, grass cut and watered, flower box Mayor Fred Richards Page 2 planted, trim painted and parking lot maintained. The foregoing applies in some measure to the other three owners of buildings in the Plan. I urge you to leave us out of this proposed plan. Sincerely, Dr. Thomas R.'P' sch, D.D.S. c.c.: Council Members Mr. James VanValkenburg Agenda Item III.A March 25, 1990 To whom it may concern: I am writing to you in- regards to the tax increment district the city is considering at-44th and France' Avenue. My name is Roberta Thorpe and I own the.land and .building at 3912 Sunnyside Road: (The Convention Grill) Please allow me a few minutes of your time to express my concerns regarding this. First of all, I am opposed to the city taking my land and others to.make a public parking lot. It would limit any future expansion on the property and has no benefit to the Convention Grill. I do not feel the approach the city is taking in regards to parking is a.very good solution. I suppose parking may be a problem at times but the majority of the time it- isn't. Having a parking lot with only.one entrance and_one exit on Sunnyside Road is going to create a congested - busy area. There are now ap roximately five or six accesses to the existing.parking areas from 4th Street, France Avenue,, and Sunnyside Road. Traffic can flow easily in.and out at a. slower pace with no congestion in any one area. I am against this one entrance and exit onto Sunnyside from one public narking lot. The other factor I am opposed to is putting in a "strip" shopping area.. How boring and tiring it would be to see another one built anywhere. I feel it would destroy the charm of the existing area of smaller individual buildings, some having grass, trees and shrubs. There really is no need for more retail shops in this area with 50th and France,: Calhoun Square, Miracle Mile and other areas so close by. The majority of the existing buildings are solid,sound structures. T.o.force owners to tear down and rebuild or relocate would be extremely costly both dollar -arise and emotionally. Individual ownership of the existing properties is extremely Important. The third area I'd like to expound on is the higher density housing; proposed on 44th Street. I am also against this because we wdulda lose "wonderful.mature trees" and the "open space" of yards with green grass and shrubs. I feel these homes fit the area and are, In a sense, buffers to the surrounding; homes. Who wants another building (except a developer) like the one north of Durr, Inc. or anything similar to it? I don't believe people should be forced to leave their homes for higher density housing to be built. The area south of the Edina Cleaners is questionable. Again,I don't feel a "strip" shopping area is the answer. I personally don't like to see homes rezoned to accommodate a business. Another factor to this improvement plan is the Minneapolis side of France Avenue (mainly the gas station) which will take away from any improvements that may: be made on the Edina, side unless it is replaced or made more appealing. Lastly, the Edina Cleaners which brings many I people to this area should be carefully considered. Like the o,,�Yner said, "to tear his building down would put him out -of- business. "`. How many others..will be put out -of- business orl decide to, relocate if this plan is im- plemented? Not to mention the people being.forced to move from their homes. Please consider-all of these factors when-making your decision. Thank you for your time. Most sincerely, Roberta Thorpe Copies sent. to: Mayor Richards Council Members City Planning Commission . s Agenda Item III.6 March 28, 1990 Edina, City Council 4801 W. 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 Attention: Mayor Fred Richards 9 Council Members In response to the proposal before you on the city development of Woodale and Valley View Rd. About eight years Ego we lost our lease at 44th enc France. We had to find E new location for our business. At that time we found the 4400 Valley Visw.Rd. property. which was zoned C - 4 service station use. To utilize the property Kathy and I had to obtsin new zoning. We did extensive remodeling to'tha- building for our use. and had to satisfy parking, landscaping., drive way, curb 8 gutter requirements. Which we did ! Why would a small husban and wife business do all this? It was for one reason. It was so we would have some control over our own destiny. It was so we wouldn't hove to wake up Monday morning to find out.that we had lost our lease. Your term "designated area from Valley View Center east to Kellogg as comercial. The area between Kellogg and Oaklawn as high denity residential" this must mean that I don't exist !! 1. The Edina Land Use Plan originally adopted in 1981 a plan for 4400 Valley View Rd. to be used for high density residential. Kathy and I- Ecquired new zoning, on Dec. 1981. Why didn't the Edina Land Use chE.nga the plan to reflect us as part of the business district, with the new zonino set forth by The Edina City Council. I assumed that when The Edina City Council changed the zoning.from C -4, to C -1 NOT 2 -F You would think this would be the end of it. 4400 VALLEY VIEW ROAD, EDINA MN 55424 / (612) 926 -6020 2. From my prospective being the last piece of property to have full filled the requirements of the city. I should be up to date. We do not park cars on the side- walk, our, green is all most the only greenspace in the business area, and we have planted trees and shrubs. 3. As for "COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL INCOMPATIBLIY CONFLICTS" each and every business with the exception of Mobil has single family on one or more sides. Why are we being singled out for removal. We are the only property in compliance with city ordinances. If you let the proposal go ahead, the development plan that is shown on figure 4 will be viewed by future councils as the APPROVED PLAN. Sincerely Byron Recke Agenda Item III.B 10fiter's fatno (110noto 4416 Valley View Road, Edina, MN 55424 Distributers of Petroleum Products 3inte 1956 March 27, 1990 Subject: Wooddale Ave & Valley View Rd Project City of Edina Minn. Mr. Fred Richards, Mayor Dear Sir: For 34 years, I have been a part of the City of Edina. My Son has been with the business for over 18 years. Together we have watched the City grow.and prosper. We want to be able to continue that. We have taken care of Edina residents' moving and hauling needs for 32 years, and auto servicing and repairs for 34 years. The City claims that the Wooddale /Valley View area has a parking problem. We do not feel that we are a part of that, because we have always been able to handle our own parking needs. The property across Kellogg Ave, does have a parking problem. Years ago the City issued permits for that property, and evidently did not take into consideration, the footage needed for parking.The lot immediately adjacent to the North line of that property should have been held for parking, but the City allowed the home to be built. The business building and home were all built by the same person. Several years back, it was suggested to curb Kellogg Ave at the Valley View intersection, and green strip it, but nothing ever came of it. We felt that this might better control most of the loose parking situation at tkis intersection. There must be other options for the City to consider, other than the one plan that the City has shown to date. We do not advocate the acquisition of any one persons property, idcluding our own, for any thing such as a parking lot, when it is not needed. Whensit comes to the needs of a City and it's residents, we feel tbiat we have become an important part of those needs. It is not our desire to stop progress within the City, but to be a part of it. r Page 2 We are urging the Mayor, and all of the Council members, to take every little item into consideration, before any final steps are taken, concerning the Valley View Road and.Wooddale Ave project. Respectfully Yours, R.L. RNaValley r R View Service Edina Rental Center vrm enc 5 rlr Agenda_ Item_III.. B_ DATE: March 26,1990 TO: City of Edina Attention: Council Members SUBJECT: Designation of development district and approval .of tax increment financing plans 1. My,name is Lois A. Roen - Brickley and I live at 6120 Kellogg Avenue South. I am located in one of the areas where you are planning a development district. I understand one of the present plans would include taking my homesite. 2. I have owned and lived at this homesite for 25 years. I understand that if this proposed district is passed the City of Edina my acquire my home at anytime in the next 10 years. 3. I have started a remodeling plan, which I hearing of the possible plans of the City have discussed with real.tors the possibil "home in the-future and understand that at difficult or near impossible to sell with the City of Edina acquiring the property. A very concerned homeowner and Edina resident Lois A. Roen - Brickley have halted upon of Edina, also I ity of selling my best it would be the possibility of of 25 years. April 2, 1990 The Hon. Frederick S. Richards The Mayor of The City of Edina City Hall Dear Mayor, Agenda Item III.B The undersigned are all residents of the City of Edina who will be affected by redevelopment activities proposed for the Wooddale and Malley View Road Project Area. Each of us has opinions about the proposed development plan which we will express individually this evening. However, we are of one mind that Roster's Conoco Station is the most significant blight in our neighborhood. In assessing the problem within the Wooddale and Valley View area, the T.I.F. plan notes that certain activities at the Conoco Station are , inappropriate and do not conform to the City's zoning ordinance. Specific nonconforming activities listed in the T.I.F. Plan include: 1. Use of the site for small engine repair, 2. Use of the site as an equipment and vehicle rental facility, 7. Outdoor storage of merchandise and equipment, and 4. Outdoor storage of commercial vehicles. To this list could be added: 1. Outdoor storage of-junk cars, 2. Outdoor storage of worn tires, - Storage of vehicles on the boulevard, and 4. General debris such as pallets, a barrel, a metal pole, a door, cardboard, etc. lying about on the ground. We understand that some of the nonconforming activities are exempt from requirements of the City's zoning ordinance since these activi- ties predate enactment of that ordinance. However, we believe that some of the activities listed above are not exempt and the scope of others exceeds that permitted by-any grandfather clause. Creating a T.I.F. District for the Wooddale and Valley View Road Area and implementing the proposed development plan would eliminate Roster's Conoco Station and, thus, the associated blight affecting our neighborhood. But the proposed development is a long range plan whose feasibility is questionable and timetable for com -pletion Is uncertain. The actual plan implemented, if a T.I.F. District - 2 - were created, may differ from that now proposed. However, enforcing the City's zoning ordinance so as to eliminate nonconforming uses and reduce the scope of grandfathered activities would immediately mitigate the blighting influence of the Conoco Station. While our neighborhood is now viable, we are concerned about the gradual aecline within the plan area and would like to see existing deficiencies corrected. Proz)er code enforcement would be an inex- pensive and quick way to deal with at least some of these deficiencies and reduce blight. Therefore, we requeat that the City of Edina immediately enforce its zoning ordinance against Roster's Conoco Station. lv oyl P(, � X04! Gov o cl-� cc: Mr. Gordon Huehes Mr. C wt: j "u-se", �P��°5,wpin5 eKC.(.o5.� Sincerely, Zl-rZL�17 �WOQ_�Fa3� 6117 �< I L I Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 2 AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLANS FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICTS 90-1, 90-2 AND 90-3 MAKING FINDINGS AND REQUESTING CERTIFICATION OF THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICTS 90-1, 90 -2 AND 90-3 as follows: BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, 1. On April 2, 1990, this Council held a public hearing on the designation of Development District No. 2 (the "Development District ") and the adoption of the Development Program for Development District No. 2 (the "Program ") and on the adoption of the Tax Increment Financing Plans for Tax Increment Financing Districts 90 -1, 90 -2 and 90 -3 (the "Tax Increment Districts "), after notice of public hearing was published in the official newspaper of the City not less than 10 days prior to the date of the hearing. The City has consulted with its planning department on the designation of the Development District. All persons desiring to be heard at the hearing were given an opportunity to express their views. 2. Copies of the Program and the Tax Increment Financing Plans have been presented to this Council and,are ordered placed on file with the City Clerk. The forms of the Program and Tax Increment Financing Plans are hereby approved and are incorporated herein by reference. 3. The Program and Tax Increment Financing Plans and the designation of the Development District and establishment of the Tax Increment Financing Districts are hereby approved. 4. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, subdivision 3, it is hereby found for the reasons set forth in the Program and Tax Increment Financing Plans that: (A) Tax Increment Financing Districts 90-2 and 90-3 are each an "economic development district" as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, subdivision 12. (B) Tax Increment Financing District 90 -1 is a "redevelopment district" as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, subdivision 10. • (C) The proposed development outlined in the Program in the opinion of this Council would not occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and therefor the use of tax increment financing is deemed necessary. (D) The Tax Increment Financing Plans conform to the general plan for the development of the City as a whole in that it aids in the development of the property in the Development District in a manner that alleviates deficiencies in the Development District as set forth in the Program. (E) The Tax Increment Financing Plans will afford maximum opportunity consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole for the development of the area included in the Development District by private enterprise in that it alleviates deficiencies in the Development District as set forth in the Program. (F) The .City elects the method of tax increment computation set forth in Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, subdivision 3, clause (a). S. The City Manager is authorized and directed to request that the appropriate officials of Hennepin County to establish the Tax Increment Districts for the premises in the City described in the Tax Increment Financing Plans. Passed by the Council this 2nd day of April, 1990. Attest: City Clerk 2 Mayor The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Member . and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, and was signed by the Mayor, whose signature was attested by the City Clerk. 3 r' 04/05/90 09:18 f t - -tiC r X612 340 2644 Dorsey & Wh i t.riey Councilmember Rice made a motion for the adoption of the following resolution as it relates to the 44th and France area which was duly seconded by Councilmember Paulus, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Councilmembers Rice, Smith, Paulus and Mayor Richards; and the following voted against the same: Councilmember Kelly; Councilmember Smith made a motion for the adoption of the following resolution as it relates to the Wooddale and galley View area which vas duly seconded by Councilmember Rice, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Councilrnernbers Rice, Smith, Paulus and Mayor Richards; and the following voted against the same: Councilmember Kelly; Councilmember Smith made a motion for the adoption of the following resolution as it relates to the 70th and Cahill area which was duly seconded by Councilmember Rice, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Councilmembers Rice, Smith, Paulus, Kelly and Mayor Richards; and the following voted against the same: none; whereupon the following resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, and was signed by the Mayor, whose signature was attested by the City Clerk. 16 002 T ' J 04/05/90 09:18 $612 340 2644 Dorsey & ft it.ney Z 003 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 2 AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLANS FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTTRICTs 90 -1, 90 -2 AND 90 -3 MAKING FINDINGS AND REQUESTING CERTIFICATION OF THE TAX. INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICTS 90 -1, 90 -2 AND 90 -3 BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, as follows: 1. On April 2, 1990, this Council held a public hearing on the designation of Development District No. 2 (the "Development District ") and the adoption of the Development Program for Development District No. 2 (the "Program ") and on the adoption of the Tax Increment Financing Plans for Tax Increment Financing Districts 90 -1, 90 -2 and 90 -3 (the "Tax Increment Districts "), after notice of public hearing was published in the official newspaper of the City not less than 10 days prior to the date of the hearing. The City has consulted with its planning department on the designation of the Development District. All persons desiring to be heard at the hearing were given an opportunity to express their views- 2. Copies of the Program and the Tax Increment Financing Plans have been presented to this Council and are ordered placed on file with the City Clerk. The forms of the Program and Tax Increment Financing Plans are hereby approved and are incorporated herein by reference. 3. The Program and Tax Increment Financing Plans and the designation of the Development District and establishment of the Tax Increment Financing Districts are hereby approved. 4. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, subdivision 3, it i5 hereby found for the reasons set forth in the Program and Tax Increment Financing Plans that: (A) Tax Increment Financing Districts 90 -2 and 90 -3 are each an "economic development district" as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, subdivision 12. (B) Tax Increment Financing District 90 -1 is a "redevelopment district" as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, subdivision 10. 04/05/90 09-19 $612 340 2644 Dorsey & Whitney 2004 (C) The proposed development outlined in the Program in the opinion of this Council would not occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and therefor the use of tax increment financing is deemed necessary. (D) The Tax Increment Financing Plans conform to the general plan for the development of the City as a whole in that it aids in the development of the property in the Development District in a manner that alleviates deficiencies in the Development District as set forth in the Program. (E) The Tax Increment Financing Plans will afford maximum opportunity consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole for the development of the area included in the Development District by private enterprise in that it alleviates deficiencies in the Development District as set forth in the Program. (F) The City elects the method of tax increment computation set forth in .Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, subdivision 3, clause (a). 5. The City Manager is authorized and directed to request that the appropriate officials of Hennepin County to establish the Tax Increment Districts for the premises in the City described in the Tax Increment Financing Plans. Attest: Passed by the Council this 2nd day of April, 1990. City Clerk 2 Mayor r A. V4 g3 ao • ,NCORPOR^H • see REPORT /RECOMMENDATION To: Kenneth Rosland From: Craig Larsen Date: April 2, 1990 Subject: Release .of Restrictive Covenants, South Harriet Park Steiner Addition Recommendation: INFO /BACKGROUND Agenda Item # TV B. Consent ❑ Information Only ❑ Mgr.. Recommends ❑ To HRA ❑ To Council ` Action x ❑ Motion ❑ Resolution ❑ Ordinance ❑ Discussion The City Council approved the subject plat on March 3, 1986. The attached restrictive covenants were imposed as a condition prior to receiving a building permit. The restrictive covenants were never signed or recorded. Consequently, we have refused to issue building permits for the two lots. The attached letter from Mr. Gislason, one of two parties to the plat, is requesting the City Council to remove the restrictions as a condition of the plat. The restrictions are structured as a private covenant. Seven nearby properties are given standing to enforce provisions of the covenants. These property owners have been notified of Mr. Gislason's request to be heard by the City Council. Section 1, paragraph A through H. set forth design criteria for houses on the two new lots. The intent of the provisions was to ensure that design, materials, and scale of the new homes would be similar to that currently existing in the neighborhood. GISLASON, MARTIN & VARPNESS, P.A. ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW ROBERT W. GISLASON JAMES T. MARTIN- JOHN E. VARPNESS- MICHAEL G. SWANSON* PATRICK M. CONLIN KXRTMD CIVIL TRIAL SMCIALIST BY THE NATIONAL BOARD OF TRIAL ADVOCACY -ALSO ADMITTED TO PRACTICE IN WISCONSIN March 9, 1990 Mr. Craig Larson, City Planner Edina City Hall 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 Re: Removal of Special Building Restrictions Steiner's Addition, South Harriet Park Dear Mr. Larson: 7600 PARKLAWN AVENUE SOUTH SUITE 444 MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55435 TELEPHONE 612/831.5793 FAX 612/831 -7358 LEGAL ASSISTANT GLORIA DEEB I respectfully request that you place this request for the removal of special building restrictions on the proposed subdivision of our lot and the adjacent lot to the north called Steiner's Addition, South Harriet Park on the agenda of the next meeting of the Edina City Council. I believe that it has been common knowledge for at least the last 20 years that there is more than sufficient land to create two more very desireable and buildable lots facing 52nd Street and adding them to the tax rolls of our City. The late Dr. Richard Tudor first investigated this possibility in the 1960s and, at that time, was told that there was no reason why it couldn't be done. At that time, my four young children and their playmates were enjoying the luxury of a 407 foot yard that was enclosed with a living wall of trees, plants and-shrubs with three separate levels or terraces; so I was unwilling to subdivide it at that time notwithstanding the location of Arden Park across the street. But I did agree with him that his idea was a good one, and that the day would come when I would agree to do it. We continued to be good friends for the rest of his life. When Dr. Tudor retired and sold his house, he advised the purchaser of the likelihood of a future subdivision; and that information was subsequently passed on to the next purchaser, Dr. Richard W. Steiner. It seemed that every three or four years since the 1960s, I have had an inquiry from some one as to when we would be subdividing that land. It's a subject I have discussed on various occasions with our former city manager and with our then mayor, Jim Van Valkenberg, who is an old friend. I never heard of anyone objecting to the idea. At the time Dr. Steiner was getting his house ready to put on the market, he approached me and asked if I would agree to putting the eastern part of our two lots together and creating a subdivision of two buildable lots. We then employed a surveyor who prepared the plat on file in your office and agreed that the two proposed lots should be highly desireable and that the land remaining would be more than adequate for our existing homes. Dr. Steiner agreed to do the work that would be necessary to obtain council approval. Signs were erected giving notice of the proposed subdivision, and I started to receive inquiries from prospective purchasers. My next involvement was some months later when Dr. Steiner requested me to sign a document containing a series of special building restrictions on the property. That was my first knowledge or information concerning any possible problems. I was informed that one particular gentleman living on Juanita Avenue had some objections to the subdivision and had contacted and attempted to solicit support for his objections from everyone within a radius of at least several blocks. Although I have never met Mr. Tarbox, I understand that he is an attorney. At Dr. Steiner's request, I reviewed the proposed document containing a number of special building restrictions that he said were agreeable to himself and Mr. Tarbox. I was also informed that the Edina Council had approved the proposed subdivision subject to these special building restrictions. All this was without my knowledge, permission and consent. As a practicing lawyer for some 39 years and an adjunct professor of law at the William Mitchell College of Law for 20 of those years, I believe that I can truthfully and accurately inform you that special building restrictions of this type have been and are generally looked on with disfavor by judges, lawyers and realtors. But, as a courtesy to Dr. Steiner, I examined them very carefully. My first reaction was that they were ridiculous and would adversely and unreasonably affect the marketability of the two new lots. Dr. Steiner told me that he agreed with me, but had not consulted with an attorney and felt that the only way he could get council approval was to yield to Mr. Tarbox's demands. I advised Dr. Steiner that I planned to continue to live in this neighborhood for many years and that I would not agree to 2 expose my new neighbors to any restrictions that I considered unreasonable. I have since discussed the situation on two separate occasions with you, members of your staff, and others connected with our city. Without intending to embarrass anyone, I believe that it is fair to say that no one other than Mr. Tarbox seriously believes that these burdensome restrictions are either necessary or desirable. It is only fair to you and the members of our council that I provide specific explanations for at least some of my many objections to these restrictions. 1) First, they imply a lack of confidence in the competence and judgment of those staff members of our city government who are entrusted with the responsibility for approving and granting permits for proposed construction. I personally believe that the City of Edina has the best staff in this state and that they can be and should be fully trusted to insure that any proposed new construction be in general conformity with existing neighborhoods as well as in compliance with all building codes and standards. 2) Second, they unreasonably expose any buyer to the unreasonable risk of litigation expenses -- not only his own legal expenses, but also all of the legal costs, expenses and fees of whatever litigious person should elect to sue him or her. By way of example if (a) the buyer of one of these lots should build a new home that is one inch more than 25 feet from the top of the foundation to the highest point of his roof, or (b) build a 1 and 1/2 car garage; or (c) build a 2 and 1/2 car garage; or (d) build a garage with a floor one inch higher than two feet about the center of 52nd Street; or (e) use any concrete, stone, stucco in the exterior of his home would appear to be liable as a matter of law to any unfriendly neighbor and /or pathological litigant that chose to sue him. In such an event, being required to pay not only his own legal costs, but all the legal fees of the party suing him could "be disastrous. Such expenses are not covered in a standard policy of homeowner's insurance. As a practicing lawyer, I would advise any client who consulted me to avoid any such exposure by finding other land to build on. - 3 3) A number of these restrictions are just simply ridiculous and totally unnecessary. For example, it should be instantly obvious to anyone that the houses to be constructed will have to face 52nd Street; they are not located on Juanita or Halifax or Minnehaha Boulevard. Does anyone believe that the City of Edina would ever grant a building permit for anything other than one (1) single family dwelling on each lot? Now, Mr. Tarbox may personally have genuine fears that someone will try to build a filling station, or a condominium, or a grocery store on one of those lots, but that does not mandate the implementation of a requirement to do what is already instantly obvious as well as already controlled by our zoning laws. The City of Edina would clearly not grant a building permit for the construction of a new home facing 52nd STreet unless the north side of the new home was in line with the other homes on the south side of 52nd Street; this would necessarily leave more than 40 feet between the rear of the house and the southern lot line Has anyone ever even heard of.a house that has any wall that is not less than 100 percent glass? Why shouldn't a garage floor be more than two feet above the center of an adjacent street? My home on Minnehaha Boulevard has a garage floor that is more than four feet above the street. Why does Mr. Tarbox insist that garages be not less than no more than two car garages? My home has only a one car garage as do may of the nearby houses on Juanita and Halifax Avenues. What is wrong with a 1 and 1/2 or 2 and 1/2 car garage if a family needs a place to store bicycles or wants a workbench? Why should limitations or the choice of building materials be etched in granite? We live in an era of tremendous technological advances. Why should newer, safer, more efficient, and more attractive materials that modern science may develop in the future be excluded from use in only these two lots in the City of Edina. One of the reasons I and most of our friends have chosen Edina as a place to live is that we like our neighborhoods, we like our neighbors, and we both like and trust in the good judgment and fairness of our city government and its excellent staff who, so far, have done a superior job in supervising its growth and development. 4 To impose special building restrictions on just two building lots that are different than the rest of the residential areas of the city with such onerous exposures for legal expense would, in my opinion, be unnecessary, unfair, and discriminating. It would clearly lower their value and impair their marketability. I respectfully urge that the Edina City Council take action to remove these restrictions. Respectfully _submitted, Robert W. Gislason . 5205 Minnehaha Boulevard Edina, MN 55424 Telephone: 831 -5793 P.S. I herewith attach a photocopy of the restrictions and penalties that one man,'Mr. Tarbox, seeks to impose on these two Edina lots in perpetuity. Copies of this letter being delivered or mailed to Mr. Tarbox as well as the other residents at the address shown in Exhibit A. Each of .them is invited to call me and discuss any concerns they might have. 5 DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS THIS DECLARATION, Made this day of 198_, by Richard W. Steiner, a single person, and Robert V. Gislason and Patricia C. Gislason, husband and wife (herein called the "Declarants "). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Declarants are the owners of the real property located in the County of Hennepin described as follows: Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, South Harriet Park Steiner Addition, according,to the plat thereof on file in the office of the County Recorder in and for said County, (herein individually called a "Lot" and together called the "Lots "). NOW THEREFORE, the Declarants hereby declare, impose upon and make both of the Lots subject to the following covenants, conditions, and restrictions, which shall operate as restrictions passing with the conveyance of both Lots and every part of both Lots, and shall apply to and bind each and every owner and occupier, and claimant of an interest in, any Lot or any part of any Lot, and their successors -in- interest to -wit: 1. Structure Criteria. All structures hereafter constructed, placed or erected on the Lots will conform to the following criteria and guidelines: A. there shall be,no more than one (1) single family dwelling (herein called "House ") on each Lot; B. Houses shall face and have their front entrances on West 52nd Street; C. Houses shall be subject to a forty foot (401) rear setback requirement such that no House shall be within forth feet (401) of the rear (South) boundary of the Lot on which it is located; D. Houses shall not exceed one and one -half (1 -1/2) stories in height and shall not measure more than twenty -five feet (25') from the top of the foundation to the highest point of the roof; E. the gable roof pitch of Houses shall be six- twelfths (6/12) or greater; F. Houses shall have attached garages with the capacity for not less than, and not more than, two (2) automobiles. The elevation of the garage floor, as measured on a line running from East to West at the center of the garage, shall be not more than two feet (2') above the center line of West 52nd Street. Garages shall, in all respects, comply with the ordinances of the City of Edina; G. the materials for the exterior of Houses shall be brick, shakes, lap siding, or a combination of these materials. The width of exposed shakes and lap siding shall not exceed twelve inches (12 ") per row; H. the North faces of Houses shall be less than one hundred percent (100 %) glass such that the front walls of the Houses shall not be all glass. 2. Run with the -Land. The covenants, conditions, and restrictions of this Declaration shall run with the land and shall be binding upon the owner or owners of the Lots, their respective legal representatives, heirs, successors and assigns. 3. Enforcement. Enforcement of these covenants, conditions, and restrictions may be by any record fee owner, or -2- contract for deed buyer, of any Lot or any of the parcels of real property described in Exhibit A attached, and enforcement shall, be by any proceedings at law or equity against any person or persons violating or attempting to violate any thereof, either to restrain such violation or recover damages therefor, and failure by any person to enforce or seek enforcement of any provision of this Declaration shall in no event be deemed a waiver of the right to do so for any subsequent violation. In any action to enforce any provision of this Declaration, the losing party or parties shall pay the court costs and the reasonable attorneys' fees of the prevailing party. 4. Notice. At the time that an application is made for any building permit with respect to either or both of the Lots, the owner or owners.of the Lot or Lots for which such application is made shall provide written notice that an application has been made for a building permit to the record fee owner or owners or contract for deed buyers of the seven (7) parcels of real property described in Exhibit A attached. Notice shall be deemed to have been given when it is deposited in the United States mail, postage prepaid, registered or certified, return receipt requested, and addressed to such owner or owners or contract for deed buyers. 5. Severabilitv. Invalidation of any of the provisions herein, or the application of any thereof to any persons or in any circumstances shall not affect any of the -3- other provisions, or the application thereof to any other person or in any other circumstances, which shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Declarant has caused these presents to be duly executed the date first above written. Richard W. Steiner Robert V. Gislason Patricia C. Gislason STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 19 by Richard W. Steiner, a single person, and Robert V.,Gislason and Patricia C. Gislason, husband and wife. Notary Public -4- EXHIBIT A The real property located in the County of Hennepin described as follows: 5128 Juanita Avenue South Lot 4, Block 4, Glenview Addition 5209 Minnehaha Boulevard Lot 40, Block 2, South Harriet Park Second Addition 5200 Halifax Avenue South Lot 1, Block 2, South Harriet Park Second Addition 5204 Halifax Avenue South Lot 2, Block 2, South Harriet Park Second Addition 5208 Halifax Avenue South Lot 3, Block 2, South Harriet Park Second Addition 5137 Juanita Avenue South Lot 11, Block 3, Glenview Addition 5136 Indianola Avenue South Lot 10, Block 3, Glenview Addition LO I m a C/ Y at that certain plat entitled "EDINA OAKS ", platted by Robert A. Ro s and Eleanor B. Roberts, First Bank Southdale, and Rudy Trones Construc Inc., and presented at the Regular Meeting of the City Counci March 3, 1986, be and is hereby granted preliminary plat approval Motion for adoption of the resolution was s "hided by Member Turner, commenting that two criteria stated in the Compre ive Plan (e.g. retaining the character and symetry of the neighborhood an a topography /vegetation of a lot proposed for subdivision) have been taken ' consideration by the proposed five lot plat. She added that the draina s a potentially difficult issue and requested that staff take special c hen the roadway is constructed. No further comments being heard, May ourtney called for a rollcall vote. Rollcall: , Kelly, Richards, Turner, Courtney FINAL PLAT APPROVED FOR SOUTH HARRIET PARK STEINER ADDITION. Mr. Larsen presented the request for final plat approval for the South Harriet Park Steiner Addition, generally located east of Minnehaha Boulevard and south of West 52nd Street. He recalled that preliminary approval was granted by the Council on February 3, 1986, subject to certain restrictions on the property. He said that those restrictions are being prepared and will be placed on record when the plat.is recorded. Staff would recommend final plat approval subject to: 1) payment of a subdivision dedication, 2) an executed developer's agreement, and 3) that no building permits will be issued until the City has evidence that the restrictions have been recorded against the plat. No objections being heard, Member Richards introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption subject to payment of a $3,200.00 subdivision dedication fee, an executed developer's agreement, and that no building permits be issued until the City has evidence that the restrictions have been recorded: RESOLUTION GRANTING FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR SOUTH HARRIET PARK STEINER ADDITION BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota that that certain plat entitled "SOUTH HARRIET PARK STEINER ADDITION ", platted by Richard W. Steiner, a single person, and Robert V. Gislason and Patricia G. Gislason, husband and wife, and presented at the Regular Meeting of the City Council of March 3, 1986, be and is hereby granted final plat approval. Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Member Bredesen. Rollcall: Ayes: Bredesen, Kelly, Richards, Turner, Courtney Resolution adopted. the Minnesota Tennants Union and was present to state a complaint aga' n Edina landlord with regard to improper eviction notices. He sta rther that they were planning to stage a protest picket at the home of andlord and in talking with the Police Department has been advised tha c eting in front of any dwelling in the City is prohibited. Mr. Sterns ed they were prepared to challange the ordinance as unfair and uncons ' ional and suggested the Council consider amending the ordinance. Me Richards said he appreciated hearing Mr. Sterns' viewpoint and had he nothing that would suggest the Council consider amending the ordinance. He gested that if there has been a violation of-law that the Union pursue it g the legal remedies available. Member Turner stated that the ordinance r ing picketing had recently been review concerning another matter. No fo action was taken. ONCERN STATED EAMRDING SNOW IN DRIVEWAYS. Victoria Lenander, 3907 Sunnyside Road, said plowed di it 04-"fiad called the Street Department regarding the snow that had been her driveway and sidewalk, adding that as a senior she found it get help to shovel it out. She suggested that the plowing be done MINUTES F Answering rollcall were edesen, Kelly, Richards, Turner and Mayor Courtney. PIINUTES o cial Meeting of January 25, 1986 were approved as submitted by m Imber Turner, seconded by Member Kelly. PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVED FOR LOTS 41 AND 42, BLOCK 2, SOUTH HARRIET PARK 2ND ADDITION. Affidavits of Notice were presented by Clerk, approved and ordered placed on file. Planner Craig Larsen recalled that the request for preliminary plat approval for Lots 41 and 42, Block 2, South Harriet Park 2nd Addition, generally located east of Minnehaha Boulevard and south of W. 52nd Street, had been continued from the Council Meeting of January 6, 1986 pending agreement between the proponents and concerned neighbors on certain deed restrictions. The subject property consists of two, individually developed single dwelling lots and the owners are proposing a four lot subdivision which would create two new buildable lots. Mr. Larsen said that since that meeting the neighbors and staff have gone over a list of restrictions proposed by the neighborhood group and agreement has been reached on a list of restrictions that would be imposed on the property by way of a private covenant. A graphic was presented showing the proposed plat. The new lots would measure 81.5 feet and 80 feet in width. The proposed restrictions are: 1) dwelling must front on West 52nd Street, 2) dwellings must be single family, 3) dwellings on Lot 1 and Lot 2 must maintain a 40 -foot rear yard, 4) dwellings must be no greater than 1.5 stories, or 25 feet from the peak to foundation line, 5) roof pitch of dwellings shall be 6 on 12 or greater, 6) garage floor elevations shall be no more than 2 feet above elevation at center line of street, 7) siding material shall be brick, cedar shingles, lap siding, or a combination thereof, 8) each dwelling shall have no more than a two car garage, and 9) north faces of the two new dwellings shall be less than 100% glass. Staff would recommend pre - liminary plat approval with the following conditions: 1) execution of the private deed restriction, 2) developer's agreement covering the extension of the watermain to West 52nd Street to serve the properties, and 3) subdivision dedication. Mr. Larsen advised that Richard Steiner, proponent, and repre- sentatives of the neighborhood were present to confirm that an agreement had been reached. No objections being heard, Member Bredesen introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption, subject to the conditions identified by staff: RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR SOUTH HARRIET PARK STEINER ADDITION BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota that that certain plat entitled "South Harriet Park Steiner Addition ", platted by Richard i.JI. Steiner, a single person, and Robert V. Gislason and Patricia C. Gislason, husband and wife, and presented at the regular meeting of the City Council of February 3, 1986 be and is hereby granted preliminary plat approval. Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Member Kelly. Rollcall: Ayes: Bredesen, Kelly, Richards, Turner, Courtney Resolution adopted. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVED FOR 5555 WEST 78TH STREET (HOYT DEVELOPMENT). Affidavits of Notice were presented by Clerk, approved and ordered placed on file. Mr. Larsen advised that the subject property, located south of West 78th Street and south of Cahill Road extended, measures approximately 5 acres in size and is zoned Planned Industrial District, PID. Until recently the property was developed with a small industrial building. Final plan approval 61041LIN 9 [o io , w1wiln, MINI 94; . 4i` . r2- =,tic mu. 4 aw, . . . . . . . . . . ... Win lip a V t4,Z. WIN t. T ZZ. K3 a;: Aq. alai ' d . w a +: ~ r ^R 3 ae�r SPA +/ X,ll %act .4 the maw awl All sail 'Mew NO I A op. Mae :11JI'A"10 M 10 LAW a WMAI 010110 rews "Fc a 'ev., Ism CARDARELLE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Land Surveyors 8110 Eden Road Phone (612)941 -3031 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Certificate ®f �urbep Survey For Richard Steiner Book Page File C151 -85 5201 Minnehaha Boulevard Edinal MN 55424 PROPOSED LOT DIVISION LOTS 41 AND 421 BLOCK 2, SOUTH HARRIET PARK 2ND ADDITION r� #5201 #5205 BOL�E� Q 1�1 . NEST 52ND STREET . ? 32 - - /34�c %r$ 76 # z° � Y LOT 1 LOT 2 °;z8:: 14. /0g72 A 78 ' w� ± Ll #5209 Scale: 1" =501, I `.ral,y a„gfy dwo"h. isas sad earrsd ..p -a Wil.a of a .wvgr of** baaadarlem of Lots 41 and 42. Block 21 South Harriet Park 2nd Addi inn waasfia Gwtp. MYaassMa oad sf " I - -1 a of all beadisp -1 a. sad all .Wbh aaasadnasts, If any. fran or as Bald had. Sw my od by aw We •aye N 3cmher / 1f 9 CAKDAMM & AS=MiS, INC. ♦ ` O LOT 1 LOT 2 °;z8:: 14. /0g72 A 78 ' w� ± Ll #5209 Scale: 1" =501, I `.ral,y a„gfy dwo"h. isas sad earrsd ..p -a Wil.a of a .wvgr of** baaadarlem of Lots 41 and 42. Block 21 South Harriet Park 2nd Addi inn waasfia Gwtp. MYaassMa oad sf " I - -1 a of all beadisp -1 a. sad all .Wbh aaasadnasts, If any. fran or as Bald had. Sw my od by aw We •aye N 3cmher / 1f 9 CAKDAMM & AS=MiS, INC. Ever- CASES 398 ARGUED AND DETERMINED IN THE 425 SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA 553 T. JOSEPH OLSEN v. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS. 449 449 115 N. W. (2d) 734. 403 out of June 1, 1962 —No. 38,420. d Bank 80 Zoning—zoning ordinance— denial of permit for authorized use—when rt5, Re- proper. - - - - - -- - 476 1. nder com rehensive zonin ordinance of city of . inneapoh� itendent enacted pursuant to Minn St 462.18 city is bound to comply with` �tetitis, provisions, and_class.ification of property to such ordinance, 581 ub'ect oni to exce tion that if there is evidence that a nuisance wil Appel- result (, from a commercial use authorized therein, in a particular 86 neig orhood, city may deny application for permit for such use. 'eterson, It may not deny such permit merely because it may disagree with 413 some prior council in its determination that a certain classification of property under zoning ordinance was justified. &Life 101 Same —sae— denial of permit for gasoline filling stat1 °° —when arbitrary. m 135 2. This court has held that a gasoline filline station is not a nuisance per se, or of a questionable nature in itself, but on the con- trary is of a useful character and necessity in these days of heavy automotive traffic. 346 = gee-- same — same - -same. 3. Where claim that gasoline station proposed for plaintiff's prop- : erty would constitute a nuisance in neighborhood is not raised; and { where proposed plans and mode of operation planned therefor are indicative that no nuisance will result from its operation; and where 5 2 263 MINNESOTA REPORTS other evidence submitted is adequate to support court's finding to such effect, held such finding must be sustained on appeal. Evidence that city has approved special permits for a large number of gas stations within its boundaries, many of which were in near vicinity of schools, playgrounds, and residences, held indicative that here city acted arbitrarily and capriciously in denying plaintiffs ap_ plication for special permit because of proximity of plaintiff's property to school, playground, and residences. Apps and error — review — findings of trial court, 4. On appeal from district court, this court must consider find- ings in the light of evidence submitted most favorable to prevailing Party. Such findings will not be reversed unless manifestly contrary to evidence. Rule in Kiges v. City of St. Paul, 240 Minn. 522, 62 N. W. (2d) 363, followed. Zoning— zoning ordinance— denial of permit for gasoline filling station__ when arbitrary. 5. Testimony of witnesses and evidence submitted at trial con- sidered and held adequate to support court's finding that construction and operation of gasoline filling station on property classified for commercial purposes under comprehensive zoning ordinance would not result in traffic, fire, or safety hazards. Sam arne--denial of permit for authorized use—when proper. 6. Classification of propert under comprehensive zonin ordi- nance must ovem and may not be restricted except where it is {shown that nuisance will result from use of ro en rmitted there - Under. City may not nutiifv and destro • definite and valuable inter- / gists in real ro ert by arbitrarih' lacin restrictions thereon seater than those provided in comprehensive zoning ordinance. Exer- jcise of >»]tce *ower does not authorize arbttran intermeddlinY by ctt with nvate ownership of property though its acts be labeled for yreservation of health, safety or general welfare. - - labeled - - -- - l Action in the Hennepin County District Court wherein plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment that the action of defendant city in denying his application for a building permit was void. After findings for plaintiff, Paul J. Jaroscak, Judge, defendant appealed from an order denying its motion for a new trial and from the judgment entered. Affirmed. OLSEN c. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS 3 D. J. Shama, Acting City Attorney, and Paul T. Aitken, Assistant City Attorney, for appellant. Josiah E. Brill, Jr., and Brill & Brill, for respondent. THOMAS GALLAGHER, JUSTICE. Action by T. Joseph Olsen to compel the city of Minneapolis to grant his application for a permit for the erection and maintenance of a gasoline filling station on his property on the southwest corner of 58th Street and Penn Avenue South in Minneapolis. The court made findings and ordered judgment in effect requiring the city to grant the application described. Defendant's subsequent motion for amended findings or, in the alternative, for a new trial was denied. This appeal by the city is from the judgment entered and from the order denying defendant's motion for amended findings or a new trial. The city contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the trial court's finding that it had acted arbitrarily and capriciously in denying plaintiffs application; and that it had thereby deprived Plaintiff of property and property rights without due process; and that the court was without jurisdiction to enjoin defendant from in- terfering with plaintiffs erection of the gasoline filling station on the plans and specifications approved by the building inspector of the city, and from interfering with the use thereof by plaintiff and his assignees, in the operation of such gasoline filling station. In substance, it contends that the evidence was sufficient to establish that the council had acted reasonably in denying plaintiff's application for the permit in that such evidence clearly indicated that traffic hazards, fire hazards, blight, devaluation of property, hazards to children, and detriment to the general health, safety, and welfare would result from the oper- ation of a gasoline filling station on this property. With respect to such issues, the trial court found as follows: "That ever since the 7th day of April, 1924, there has been in force and in effect in the City of Minneapolis a comprehensive zoning ordinance by virtue of which the property of the plaintiff herein - before described was classified and zoned within the `commercial' 4 263 MIN\ESOTA REPORTS district, which classification permits the erection and operation of a gasoline filling station, in addition to many other commercial uses. "That shortly prior to the commencement of this action, plaintiff had prepared complete plans and specifications for the erection of such a building for the purpose of engaging in the retail gasoline fillin; station business. That he submitted the same to the Building Inspector of the City of Minneapolis, a person duly authorized by law to determine whether or not such plans and specifications complied with the building ordinances of said City, and on the 14th day of January, 1960. the said Building Inspector, through one of his duly authorized representatives, approved said plans and specifications but refused to issue a permit for the erection of said building unless and until the City Council of the City of Minneapolis granted a Special Council Permit therefor required by the ordinances aforesaid. "That at or about the same time, the plaintiff submitted said plans and specifications to the Fire Marshal of the State of Minnesota for approval pursuant to State statutes governing such matters and the same was duly approved by.said Fire Marshal. "That at or about the same time, said plans and specifications were duly submitted by the plaintiff, pursuant to ordinance. to the Minneapolis Fire Department, Fire Prevention Bureau. and the same were duly approved. "That at or about the same time said plans and specifications were submitted by the plaintiff. pursuant to ordinance, to the department of the City Engineer of the City of Minneapolis and the same was duly approved with respect to the matters of traffic and sidewalks. "That said plans and specifications comply in all respects with all statutory and ordinance provisions applicable to such matters. s a • s t "That, at the time plaintiff made application for a Special Council Permit, the manner of delivery and storage of inflammable liquids, including gasoline and oil, was fully regulated by the Statutes of the State of Minnesota and under such statutes by the order of the Fire Marshal, and his determination that the plans and specifications of the plaintiff complied with statutory requirements is conclusive be- tween these parties on the question of possible fire hazard. OLSEN v. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS 5 "That under circumstances substantially the same as those under which plaintiffs application was denied, the City Council of the City of Minneapolis has heretofore granted a great many Special Council Permits for the erection and operation of gasoline filling stations in the City of Minneapolis; there had been arbitrary and capricious discrimination between plaintiff and other applicants to whom such permits were granted, thereby denying plaintiff equal protection under the law'as required by the State and Federal Constitutions. "That many, if not all, of the commercial uses (other than gas- oline filling stations) that are permitted under the zoning ordinance would create problems more serious with respect to traffic than those problems, if any, which would exist if a gasoline filling station is permitted at this location. * * * "That the erection of a gasoline filling station on the premises here- in involved would increase the traffic to a negligible degree * * * and * * * any such increase would be less than the increased traffic brought about by many other types of commercial uses authorized under the zoning law; ' * *. "That the use of said premises for a gasoline filling station would not materially increase the hazard to school children or to pedestrians, nor to vehicles or to persons in vehicles. "That the erection and operation of a gasoline filling station of the type set forth in plaintiff's application for a Special Council Permit and as described by the testimony of witnesses in this action will not constitute a nuisance. "That the effect on the market value of adjoining property resulting from the erection of a gasoline filling station on the premises herein involved would be of a very minimum character * * * no more than should justly be expected by one erecting a residence in a commercial district or immediately adjacent thereto. "That the denial of said application by the City Council * ' * was arbitrary, unreasonable, invalid and in violation of the plaintiffs con- stitutional rights for the following reasons: • • s • • "(b) That the use of said land for such purpose would not be 6 263XINNESOTA REPORTS harmful to the health, morals, safety or public welfare of the com- munity; "(c) That it would not constitute a fire hazard or a traffic hazard to have said land used for such purpose; "(d) That in actual practice the said City Council • * • has • ' over a period of years granted Special Council Permits for the erection and operation of retail gasoline filling stations in the City of Minneapolis under circumstances substantially the same as the cir- cumstances under which the plaintiff's application for such a permit was denied; "(e) Th4t the denial of said petition deprives paintiff of _his con- stitutional rights contrary to Section 7 of Article 1 and Section 13 of said Article 1 of the Constitution of the State of Minnesota and of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America: "(f) That the denial of said petition takes plaintiff's property with- out just compensation first paid or secured, contrary to Article 1, Section 13 of the Constitution of the State of Minnesota." In its conclusions, the court determined: "That the action of the City Council of the City of Minneapolis in denying plaintiff's application ' * was unreasonable, capncious. confiscatory. arbitrary and void. '°That the action denied plaintiff dual protection under the law in violation of the constitutional provisions of both the State of Minnesotai and the United States." The court thereupon ordered that: "The d:fendant, its agents and officers be enjoined from interfer- ring with the erection by the plaintiff of the improvements set forth in the plans and specifications approved by the Building Inspector of the City of Minneapolis and from interferring with the use. and occupancy thereof, either by plaintiff, his tenants, assignees, or transferees, when erected for the purpose of engaging in the operation of a retail easoline filling station." 1. It is undisputed that under the comprehensive zoning ordinance OLSEN c. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS of Minneapolis, upheld by this court in State ex rel. Beery v. Houghton, 164 Minn. 146, 204 N. W. 569, 54 A. L. R. 1012, plaintiff's property is presently zoned for commercial purposes. The original zoning or- dinance was enacted under and pursuant to L. 1921, c. 217, 3 1, as amended by L. 1923, c. 364, ; 1. The present statute, Minn. St. 462.18, provides: "For the purpose of promoting the public health, safety, order, con- venience, prosperity and general welfare, any city of the first class in the state acting by and through its governing body, may by or- dinance regulate the location, size, and use of buildings, the height of buildings, the arrangement of buildings on lots, and the density of population therein, may make different regulations for different districts thereof, and may acquire or prepare and adopt a compr°- hensive city plan for such city or any portion thereof for the future physical development and improvement of the city, in accordance with the regulations made as aforesaid, and may thereafter alter the regulations or plan, such alterations, however, to be made only after there shall be filed in the office of the city clerk a written consent of the owners of two- thirds of the several descriptions of real estate situate within 100 feet of the real estate affected,' and after the affirmative vote in favor thereof by a majority of the members of the governing body of such city * * * Under the comprehensive zoning ordinance of defendant, Minne- apolis City Charter and Ordinances ( Perm. ed.) 1:31. all property within the city is classified as to location, size, use, and height of buildings, their arrangement on lots, and density of population. This ordinance was amended March 12, 1929, to include property within the boundaries of Richfield annexed by the city in 1927, wherein plaintiff's property is located. Plaintiffs property is thereby clas- sified for commercial use. Section 5 of the zoning ordinance provides as follows: "In the Commercial District all buildings and premises, except as 'See, State ex rel. Foster v. City of Minneapolis, 255 Minn. 249, 97 N. W. (2d) 273. 8 263 MINNESOTA REPORTS otherwise provided in this ordinance, may be used for any use per- mitted in the Multiple Dwelling District or for any other use except Th the following: [listing 32 exclusions]." wo Gasoline filling stations are not listed within the exclusions. However, in€ after enactment of the zoning ordinance in 1924, the defendant's ab: city council adopted an ordinance, Minneapolis Code of Ordinances, ter 220.010, commonly called the Special Permit Ordinance, which W, provides in part: Cc "No person shall hereafter build, re -build, enlarge, alter, place, 90 keep, use or maintain, within the City, any structure or premises for any of the following described occupations, industries or uses, du unless such person shall have first obtained permission from the City an Council so to do: Pe s s s • • he "Gasoline filling stations ' ' '." It was under this latter ordinance that the city council acted here in denying plaintiffs application for permit to build and maintain the gasoline filling station on his property at 58th Street and Penn Avenue South zoned for commercial use. If the basis of the council's denial of plaintiffs application was that a gasoline filling station at this location would constitute a nui- sance, there would have to be a finding to this effect. In deciding this question, the council does not have authority to deny a special permit merely because it may disagree with some preceding council in its determination that classification of plaintiffs property under a zoning ordinance for commercial purposes was justified. The council as now constituted is bound by the comprehensive zoning classifi- cation, subject only to the exception that, if there is evidence that a nuisance will result from a commercial use in a particular neigh- borhood, in its discretion it may deny an application for special per- mit to conduct a business which would constitute a nuisance there. 2. On this question, it is of some significance to note that this court has held that the operation of a gasoline filling station does not of itself constitute a nuisance. Thus, in Crescent Oil Co. v. City of Minneapolis, 175 Minn. 276, 278, 221 N. W. 6, 7, it was stated: OLSEN v. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS 9 per- "* * * Filling stations are a necessity in modern motor traffic. :cept The keeping of an oil supply upon the premises of auto users would be an intolerable source of inconvenience and of daneer. Fill - °ver, ing stations are usually well kept. They are not resorts for objection - ant's able people. They are not loafing places. They are not of the charac- aces ter of many lines of business which easily tend to become nuisances." hich We again stated in a subsequent appeal in this case, Crescent Oil Co. v. City of Minneapolis, 177 Minn. 539, 540, 225 N. W. 904, 'ace, 905: uses "The trial court correctly held ' * that the business of con - Ises, ducting a gasolene filling station was not of a questionable nature City and was not apt to become a nuisance; was neither hurtful nor pernicious but of a useful character and a necessity in these days of heavy motor traffic." 3. Whether the gasoline filling station here proposed would con - aere stitute a nuisance in the neighborhood described does not appear the to be an issue in the present proceedings. The point is not argued 'enn in the city's brief nor was it urged during the trial of the case. Counsel for defendant stated in open court that "there's no claim was there's any nuisance here." Plans and specifications indicate that every aui- effort has been made to make the station attractive and to shut it ling off from adjoining property. Its hours of operation will be limited, vial minimum lighting extending directly only to the perimeter of the prem- ncil ises will be installed, and offensive odors will be eliminated through der modern equipment. No heavy repair work will be permitted on auto- '161 mobiles, and no used or new tires will be stored outside the station. Under these circumstances the court was justified in finding that hat the erection and operation of the station "will not constitute a nui- gh- sance" and that other commercial uses authorized under the zoning er- ordinance, without special permit, would be more oppressive and create ,re. greater inconveniences and hazards in the neighborhood. Further, it his seems unlikely that the city could validly advance the "nuisance" yes claim in view of the fact that it has approximately 2,000 filling stations ;ity within its boundaries, many of which admittedly are in close proximity ;d; to schools, playgrounds, and residential structures. 10 263 MINNESOTA REPORTS 4. Regarding fire, traffic, health, and safety hazards, which the city contended would follow if the permit were granted, it appears quite definitely that the city's claims were not established. The ap- plicable rule here does not differ from that as to findings of fact of a district court in other types of litigation. It is expressed in Kiges v. City of St. Paul, 240 Minn. 522, 539, 62 N. W. (2d) 363, 374, as follows: "While this court must search the record to ascertain whether any erroneous rules of law have been applied and act accordingly, it must on appeal consider the testimony in the light most favorable to the prevailing party. When an action is tried by a court without a jury, its findings of fact are entitled to the same weight as the verdict of a jury and will not be reversed on appeal unless they are manifestly contrary to the evidence, and such rule applies whether the appeal is from a judgment or from an order granting or denying a new trial. Lipinski v. Lipinski, 227 Minn. 511, 35 N. W. (2d) 708." See, also, Gunderson v. Anderson, 190 Minn. 245, 251 N. W. 515. 5. At the trial the testimony of expert witnesses and other evi- dence was submitted with respect to the issues described. We have carefully examined all of such evidence and conclude that therein the trial court's findings have adequate support. Mr. Alfred C. Godward, a civil engineer with experience in the field of land development and planning, who had served defendant city in various capacities including that of park engineer. planning engineer, traffic engineer, engineer of the Board of Estimate and Taxation, and con- sulting engineer to the Minneapolis Housing Authority, and who bad been active in behalf of the enactment of the original comprehensive zoning ordinance here involved, testified that the operation of a filling station at the proposed site would not interfere with traffic to any great extent if approximately 120 cars were to be serviced there each day; that with present -day equipment and methods of operation fire hazards have been almost completely eliminated; that the glare from station lighting has been eliminated by modern lighting fixtures; that access to and from gasoline stations has been so regulated by city ordinance that traffic hazards have been reduced to a minimum; OLSEN v. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS 1 that today gasoline stations constitute one of the very acceptable uses for property zoned as commercial; and that a gasoline station would not interfere with traffic to as great an extent as would many other com- mercial uses for which no permit would be required. With respect to other claimed hazards, the evidence established that the specifications for plaintiff's gasoline station had been approved by the state fire marshal under Minn. St. 73.171 and that the fire prevention bureau of defendant city had approved them as a pre- requisite for the special permit. Sergeant Gerald E. Willar, a member of the Minneapolis Police Department, called by the city, testified that any interference with traffic from a gasoline station such as here pro- posed would be hardly noticeable and in any event negligible. With reference to school hazards (Armatage School is approximately 400 feet from the proposed gasoline station), Sergeant Walter Helin of the Minneapolis Police Department testified that he has been with the department for 20 years and that for the past 12 years he has been in charge of school safety patrols for the city and during all that time he had never known or heard of a child being injured because of traf- fic around a gasoline filling station. 6. The trial court's findings, amply supported by the evidence de- scribed, make it clear that the city had no sound basis for circum- venting the uses and classifications of property prescribed :•.nd authorized under the comprehensive zoning ordinance. The ordinance must govern except where it is shown by competent and reliable evidence that because of special circumstances a nuisance %%A] result from the use of property in a certain location in the manner other- wise authorized. But--h- it seems obvious that the 6tv's "underlying ,1110tive in deny nz plaintiff the permit was its conclusion that th- i operation of a gasoline filling station in the location described would violate the "nei ^_hborhood c it sought to insure Th • V determination of plaintiff's rights on such a basis cannot be permitted It US settled that purely aesthetic considerations do not form a sound basis for nullifying or destroying definite or valuable in in prop e without compensation therefor to the owner. State ex rel. Lacht- man v. Houghton, 134 Minn. 226, 158 N. W. -1017, L. R. A. 1917F, 1050; Jefferson County v. Timmel, 261 Wis. 39, 51 N. W. (2d) 12 263 MINNESOTA REPORTS 518; Sic-el v. Adams (Fla.) 44 So. (2d) 427. One who has acquired property zoned for p3rticulsr purposes under a comprehen- sive zoning- ordinance should be entitled to rely thereon as against the arbitrary enactment of amendments thereto which result in the diminution in value or the restriction of his rights and interests in such property. State ex rel. Foster v. City of Minneapolis, 255 Minn. 249, 97 N. W. (2d) 273: State, by Lord, v. Pahl, 254 Minn. 349, 95 N. W. (2d) 85; Binder v. Village of Golden Valley, 260 Minn. 418, 110 N. R'. (2d) 306; Phipps v. City of Chicago, 339 Ill. 315, 171 N. E. 289; Western Theological Seminary v. City of Evanston, 325 Ill. 511, 156 N. E. 778; Id. 331 I11. 257, 162 N. E. 863; Evanns v. Gunn, 177 Misc. 85, 29 N. Y. S. (2d) 368, affirmed, 262 App. Div. 865. 29 N. Y. S. (2d) 150: Matter of Dubow v. Ross, 175 Misc. 219, 22 N. Y. S. (2d) 610; Matter of Pelham View Apts. v. Switzer. 130 Misc. 545, 224 N. Y. S. 56; City of Coldwater v. Williams Oil Co. 288 Mich. 140, 284 N. W. 675; Sandenburgh v. Michigamme Oil Co. 249 Mich. 372. 228 N. W. 707; Vine v. Zabriskie, 122 N. J. L. 4. 3 A. (2d) 886; Clifton Hills Realty Co. v. City of Cincinnati. 60 Ohio App. 443, 21 N. E. (2d) 993; State ex rel. Schroedel v. Pagels, 257 Wis. 376, 43 N. NN'. (2d) 349: Rosenberg v. Village of Arhitefish Bay, 199 Wis. 214. 225 N. W. 838; Wasilewski v. Biedrzycki. 180 Wis. 633. 192 N. W'. 989. While it is true that a number of courts have held that the issuance of a permit to erect a structure for a permitted use under a zoning ordinance does not create a vested right that cannot be cut off by subsequent amendment, Matter of Fox Lane Corp. v. Mann, 216 App. Div. 813, 215 N. Y. S. 334; Brett v. Building- Commr. 250 Mass. 73, 145 N. E. 269: City of Lansing v. Dawley, 247 Mich. 394, 225 N. W. 500, we feel that in justice the better rule is to give full accord to the rights of property owners based upon interests therein arising out of comprehensive zoning ordinances.2 =1n Ki_es v. Cite of St. Paul, 240 Minn. 522, 62 N. W. (2d) 363, in- volving a comprehensive zoning- ordinance which included plaintiff's prop - erty. it was held that a building permit issued to plaintiff prior to passage of an ordinance rezoning his property did not create any vested rights where be had not commenced excavation under the permit until 51,1 months after its issuance, and where the building code ordinance provided OLSEti c. CITY OF MINNrEAPOLIS 13 In conclusion the court's language in White's Appeal, 287 Pa. 259, 266, 134 A. 409, 412, 53 A. L. R. 1215, seems particularly ap- plicable here. There it was stated: the power to * * regulate does not extend to an arbi- trary, unnecessary or unreasonable intermeddling with the private ownership of property, even though such acts be labeled for the pres- ervation of health, safety and general welfare The exercise must have a substantial relation to the public good within the spheres held proper. It must not be from an arbitrary desire to resist the natural operation of economic laws or for purely aesthetic consider- ations: * * *." Based upon the foregoing principles and under the facts outlined. it must follow that the trial court's determination finds adequate sup- port and that accordingly the order and judgment appealed from must be affirmed. Affirmed. that the permit would expire if no work had been done above the founda- tion within 3 months. Whether plaintiff had vested rights under prior com- prehensive zoning ordinance was not determined. Later in State ex rel. Berndt v. Iten. 259 Minn. 77, 106 N. W. (2d) 366, this court recognized the principle that under certain circumstances vested rights may be ac- quired as a result of existing zoning ordinances, citing 58 Am. Jur., Zon- ing, § 182; Huff v. City of Des Moines, 244 Iowa 89, 56 N. W. (2d) 54; David A. Ulrich, Inc. v. Town of Saukville, 7 Wis. (2d) 173, 96 N. W. (2d) 612. In State ex rel. Howard v. Village of Roseville, 244 Minn. 343, 70 N. W. (2d) 404, on the issue of financial loss arising from zoning ordinance where owner had acquired property alter zoning ordinance had gone into effect, it was held that he was presumed to have acquired it with full knowledge of such ordinance. In State ex rel. Foster v. City of Minneapolis, 255 Minn. 249, 97 N. W. (2d) 273, this court cited Leighton v City of Minneapolis (D. Minn.) 16 F. Supp. 101, wherein, with reference to Minneapolis Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, the Federal District Court had stated (255 Minn. 253, 97 N. W. [2d] 276): "* * * When zones are established, citizens buy and improve property relying on the restrictions provided by law. They have a right to the permanency and security that the law should afford." &Ioz'2-� -ea­e __ 21_�Iio STATE ER REL. FOSTER v. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS 249 disposition of this case does not come within any of the three situations provided by § 278.07. It is ordered that the clerk's disallowance of costs and disbursements be and is hereby affirmed. STATE EX REL. MELVILLE FOSTER AND ANOTHER v. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS AND ANOTHER. 97 N. W. (2d) 273. May 1, 1959 —No. 37,609. Zoning— zoning ordinances -- validity of provision for rezoning. 1 -2. Provision in M. S. A. 462.18 that after adoption of com- prehensive zoning ordinance governing body of municipality may subsequently rezone property included therein but only after written consent of owners of two-thirds of the several descriptions of property situate within 100 feet of the real estate to be rezoned, held invalid in so far as it authorizes city council to adopt ordinance rezoning relators' premises from "commercial" to "residential" classification. Case distinguished. 3. Leighton v. City of Minneapolis (D. Minn.) 16 F. Supp. 101, distinguished and applied. Zoning— zoning ordinances — validity of provision for rezoning. 4. Statute or ordinance which confers power on some property owners to control the property rights of others and which grants no standard by which such power is to be exercised is invalid. Mandamus in the Hennepin County District Court to compel Donald Erickson, building inspector of the city of Minneapolis, to issue a building permit for a proposed office building to relators, Melville Foster and Mary B. Foster. The court, William C. Larson, Judge, found that the petition should be dismissed and the alternative writ quashed, and relators appealed from the judgment entered. Reversed and remanded. Brill & Brill, for appellants. Charles A. Sawyer, City Attorney, and D. J. Shama, Assistant City Attorney, for respondents. �GVv 252 255 MINNESOTA REPORTS respect to the matter in hand. • + • • • "There are elements in the case which suggest that the action of the Council was an arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of power. The property had been zoned for many years as `Commercial.' No attempt to build on the property has ever been made aside from the present proposed project of the relators. It is triangular in shape and is sur- rounded on all sides by highways. There is other commercial property of a very substantial nature nearby and there are indications that there will be further commercial development of a substantial nature in the immediate vicinity in the very near future. • • • It seems fair to say that the property has no substantial value for residential purposes and that it is very unlikely it will ever be utilized for this purpose because of its somewhat unusual physical lay -out and its immediate proximity to traffic on all sides, • • •." This is an appeal by relators from the judgment subsequently entered in accordance with the trial court's determination. 1. We are of the opinion that the consent clause of § 462.18, as a prerequisite to the exercise of the city council's legislative authority to amend the comprehensive zoning ordinance, constitutes an unlawful delegation of power to impose restrictions on real property, and renders this_provision_-of the statute_ invalid. It is well settled that — a municipa corporation may not condition restricted uses of property upon the :corporation nsent of private individuals such as the owners of adjoining property; and that It is an unreasonable exercise of police power to rest control of J property uses in the hands of the owners of other property. Matter of Concordia Collegiate Inst. v. Miller, 301 N. Y. 189; 93 N. E. (2d) 632, 21 A. L. R. (2d) 544. As stated in 37 Am. Jur., Municipal Corporations, § 162: "• • • W_ here an ordinance • • • attempts to confer power on some property holders virtually to control and dispose of the property rights of others. and creates no standard by which the power thus given is to be exercised. so that the property holders who desire and have the authority to establish the regulations may do so solely for their overt interests, or even capriciously. constitutional limits have been violated. STATE E% REL. FOSTER V. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS 253 The consent provision is an unlawful delegation of legislative authority and discretion, with no rule or standard to guide those whose j decision will control." 2. In the instant case the consent clause in § 462.18 does not merely set in force an authorized power delegated to the council but in substance grants to adjoining owners the right to empower the council to act to impose property restrictions where otherwise it would have no such authority. As such, it is in contravention of U. S. Const. Amend. XIV. Washington ex rel. Seattle Title Trust Co. v. Roberge, 278 U. S. 116, 49 S. Ct. 50, 73 L. ed. 210; Eubank v. City of Richmond, 226 U. S. 137, 33 S. Ct. 76, 57 L. ed. 156; Matter of Concordia Collegiate Inst. v. Miller, 301 N. Y. 189, 93 N. E. (2d) 632, 21 A. L. R. (2d) 544. 3. Respondent relies upon Leighton v. City of Minneapolis (D. Minn.) 16 F. Supp. 101. There, plaintiff was denied a permit to erect a commercial building under the comprehensive zoning ordinance here involved because her property had been classified as "multiple dwelling" thereunder and she had failed to obtain the necessary consent of two- thirds of the several descriptions of real property situate within 100 feet of her premises to enlarge such classification by changing it to "commercial." But here relators were denied a permit to erect a commercial building upon premises which at the time of their purchase were zoned "commercial" because two-thirds of the adjacent property owners had instituted proceedings to empower the city council to rezone relators' property from "commercial" to "residential." Certainly a purchaser of real property is entitled to place some reliance upon zoning ordinances which have classified the property being purchased. As stated in Leighton v. City of Minneapolis (16 F. Supp. 106) : "' ' ' When zones are established, citizens buy and improve property relying on the restncUons provided b law. The have a ri t to the_ permanency and security that the law should afford." 4. The injustice of the situation under the attempted rezoning of relators' property here is evidenced by the fact that application of the rezoning ordinance has divested relators' property of all substantial value without compensation to relators. All this is brought about at the 1� A <j. CONSENT IV.C.1. LOCATION MAP LOT DIVISION NUMBER LD -90 -3 L O C A T 10 N 7032 Wexford Road 7028 and 7100 Down Road EDINA PLANNING DEPARTMENT i // DRAFT OF MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ON MARCH 28, 1990. LD -90 -3 7032 Wexford Road and 7028 and 7100 Down Road Dave Rovick, Lee Chapman and James Harman Mr. Larsen informed the Commission the subject proposal would split off the rear portion of 7028 Down Road and divide the property between the owners of 7032 Wexford Road and 7100 Down Road. Parcel A would be attached to 7032 Wexford and Parcel B would be attached to 7100 Down Road. Mr. Larsen concluded staff recommends approval. This is a division we have been working to accomplish for some time. It will prevent an attempt to subdivide .the rear portion of 7028 for a new homesite. We would, however, recommend a conservation easement covering parcel A and B. The easement would prevent building on the parcels without Council approval. Commissioner L. Johnson moved to recommend approval subject to the conservation easement covering parcels A and B. Commissioner Workinger seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried. In EDINA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT MARCH 28, 1990 LD -90 -3 7032 Wexford Road and 7028 and 7100 Down Road Dave Rovick, Lee Chapman and James Harman The subject proposal would split off the rear portion of 7028 Down Road and divide the property between the owners of 7032 Wexford Road and 7100 Down Road. Parcel A would be attached to 7032 Wexford and Parcel B would be attached to 7100 Down Road. Recommendation Staff recommends approval. This is a division we have been working to accomplish for some time. It will prevent an attempt to subdivide the rear portion of 7028 for a new homesite. We would, however, recommend a conservation easement covering parcel A and B. The .easement would prevent building on the parcels without Council approval. 1 ronls have not Set 1:0 cstsb t I sll property line It as shown. Building locations are per information providtxl by client. Rlcroarhments, it any. iro- not shown. L. V L� S VT Lc+ is I O m I I ad � 0 / t 8S •76 L_ Val r j W 1. L—J U cc Q a 'fbZ.B"i ---- - - - - -- IV lop i -1 /1 /p 1 - ,Lr),L 0 T SEW Car. tot 131 1 �. I I r- N N I I nA A. ol*FAIN r [•l k, M ;,, I.\ Li FAIRVI ®� HO DA t i k. 0,11m01\'I&VAre JINA PLANNING DFPAP ,I DRAFT OF MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 28, 1990 LD -90 -4 6124 and 6128 Ewing Avenue South The estate of R. Englehardt and Tom Prin. Mr. Larsen informed the Commission the proposed lot division would transfer the southerly five feet of 6124 Ewing Avenue to 6128 Ewing Avenue. The transfer would allow for a conforming setback for the garage on 6128 Ewing Avenue. Both lots would then conform to Zoning Ordinance requirements. Mr. Larsen concluded staff recommends - approval. Commissioner Hale moved to recommend lot division approval. Commissioner L. Johnson seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT MARCH 28, 1990 LD -90 -4 6124 and 6128 Ewing Avenue South The estate of R. Englehardt and Tom Prin. The proposed lot division would transfer the southerly five feet of 6124 Ewing Avenue to 6128 Ewing Avenue. The transfer would allow for a conforming setback for the garage on 6128 Ewing Avenue. Both lots would then conform to Zoning Ordinance requirements. Recommendation Staff recommends approval. AND ASSOCIATES ENG'RS. a CERTIFICAT ao . SOT WE 9-7590 MIN % (7-6 25' 24 l 27 121.22" N' - . -40 - -- � z !t1 3 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a surrey of the boundaries of Lot 1, Block 1, Farmer's Second Addition, sennepin County, Minnesota and of the location of all buildings, if any, from or on said land. As surveyed by me this lot day of J1ily 1959 �`• -� A 4 1 .A-Wly i r �iUi� �i�'v1,7 II'.J�E�.ril^.'R VlLLA E OF EDINA Scale x,,_20` .G ATE RM NO 566 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the following described tracts of land constitute various separate parcels: Lot 3, Block 1, ENGLEHARDT'S ADDITION, and Lot 1, Block 1, FARMER'S SECOND ADDITION WHEREAS, the owners of the above tracts of land desire to subdivide said tracts into the following described new and separate parcels (herein called "Parcels "): Lot 3, Block 1, ENGLEHARDT'S ADDITION, except the south 5 feet, and Lot 1, Block 1, FARMER'S SECOND ADDITION, and the south 5 feet of Lot 3, Block 1, ENGLEHARDT'S ADDITION; and WHEREAS, it has been determined that compliance with the Subdivision and Zoning Regulations of the City of Edina will create an unnecessary hardship and said Parcels as separate tracts of land do not interfere with the purposes of the Subdivision and Zoning Regulations as contained in the City of Edina Ordinances Nos. 804 and 825; NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby resolved by the City Council of the City of Edina that the conveyance and ownership of said Parcels as separate tracts of land is hereby approved and the requirements and provisions of Ordinance No. 804 and Ordinance No. 825 are hereby waived to allow said division and conveyance thereof as separate tracts of land but are not waived for any other purpose or as to any other provision thereof, and subject, however, to the provision that no further subdivision be made of said Parcels unless made in compliance with the pertinent ordinances of the City of Edina or with the prior approval of this Council as may be provided for by those ordinances. ADOPTED this 2nd day of April, 1990. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) SS CITY OF EDINA) CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK I, the undersigned and duly appointed and acting City Clerk for the City of Edina, do hereby certify that the attached and foregoing Resolution is a true and correct copy of the Resolution duly adopted by the Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of April 2, 1990 and as recorded in said Regular Meeting. Marcella M. Daehn City Clerk RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the following described tracts of land constitute various separate parcels: Lot 12, PROSPECT HILLS, and Lot 2, Block 1, GRIFFITH ADDITION, and Lot 1, Block 1, SCHEY'S PARK VIEW 2ND ADDITION WHEREAS, the owners of the above tracts of land desire to subdivide said tracts into the following described new and separate parcels (herein called "Parcels "): Lot 12, PROSPECT HILLS, except that part of Lot 12, PROSPECT HILLS lying southeasterly of a line running from a point in the easterly line of Wexford Road distant 67.26 feet southerly measured along said easterly line, from the southwesterly corner of Lot 13 said PROSPECT HILLS, to a point in,.the northeasterly line of said Lot 13, distant 50.00 feet northwesterly, measured along said northeasterly line, from the southeasterly corner of said Lot 13 and lying westerly of a line drawn from a point on the above described line distant 97.08 feet northeasterly along said line from the easterly line of Wexford Road to a point on the south line of said Lot 12 distant 139.81 feet easterly along said south line from the most westerly corner of said Lot 12. Subject to easements of record, if any; and Lot 2, Block 1, GRIFFITH ADDITION, and that part of Lot 12, PROSPECT HILLS lying southeasterly of a line running from a point in the easterly line of Wexford Road distant 67.26 feet southerly measured.along said easterly line, from the southwesterly corner of Lot 13 said PROSPECT HILLS, to a point in the northeasterly line of said Lot 13, distant 50.00 feet northwesterly, measured along said northeasterly line, from the southeasterly corner of said Lot 13 and lying westerly of a line drawn from a point on the above described line distant 97.08 feet northeasterly along said line from the easterly line of Wexford Road to a point on the south line of said Lot 12 distant 139.81 feet easterly along said south line from the most westerly corner of said Lot 12. Except the east 54.03 feet as measured at right angles to the east line thereof. Subject to easements of record, if any; and Lot 1, Block 1, SCHEY'S PARK VIEW 2ND ADDITION, and the east 54.03 feet, as measured at right angles to the east line, of the following described property: That part of Lot 12, PROSPECT HILLS lying southeasterly of a line running from a point in the easterly line of Wexford Road distant 67.26 feet southerly, measured along said easterly line, from the southwesterly corner of Lot 13 said PROSPECT HILLS, to a point in the northeasterly line of said Lot 13, distant 50.00 feet northwesterly, measured along said northeasterly line, from the southeasterly corner of said Lot 13 and lying westerly of a line drawn from a point on the above described line distant 97.08 feet northeasterly along said line from the easterly line of Wexford Road to a point on the south line of said Lot 12 distant 139.81 feet easterly along said south line from the most westerly corner of said Lot 12. Subject to easements of record, if any. Resolution - Lot Division Page 2 WHEREAS, it has been determined that compliance with the Subdivision and Zoning Regulations of the City of Edina will create an unnecessary hardship and said Parcels as separate tracts of land do not interfere with the purposes of the Subdivision and Zoning Regulations as contained in the City of Edina Ordinances Nos. 804 and 825; NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby resolved by the City Council of the City of Edina that the conveyance and ownership of said Parcels as separate tracts of land is hereby approved and the requirements and provisions of Ordinance No. 804 and Ordinance No. 825 are hereby waived to allow said division and conveyance thereof as separate tracts of land but are not waived for any other purpose or as to any other provision thereof, and subject, however, to the provision that no further subdivision be made of said Parcels unless made in compliance with the pertinent ordinances of the City of Edina or with the prior approval of this Council as may be provided for by those ordinances. ADOPTED this 2nd day of April, 1990. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) SS CITY OF EDINA) CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK I, the undersigned and duly appointed and acting City Clerk for the City of Edina, do hereby certify that the attached and foregoing Resolution is a true and correct copy of the Resolution duly adopted by the Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of April 2, 1990 and as recorded in said Regular Meeting. Marcella M. Daehn City Clerk .4� 4 91N A. �. Cn 0 • • � ~�bRVOW���p/ lees REPORT /RECOMMENDATION To: Kenneth Rosland From: Philip S. Dommer Date: April 2, 1990 Subject: Appeal of a decision by the Edina Board of Appeals to deny 1.5 foot sideyar setback variances in cas B -90 -9 Recommendation: Agenda Item # 1V. D. Consent Information Only ❑ Mgr. Recommends ❑ To HRA To Council Action 0 Motion ❑ Resolution ❑ Ordinance ❑ Discussion Refer to attached minutes and staff report. Info /Background: The Board of Appeals and Adjustments met on March 15, 1990, to review the subject variance. Four members of the Board were present at the hearing. Action on the request by the Board resulted in a tie vote. The proponent was given the option of tabling the request, but chose instead to have the item stand as a denial so that this appeal could be made. Since the hearing the proponent has checked with designers who believe that a second floor cannot structurally be added to the dwelling at the required set- back because there are no load bearing walls to carry the addition. Single story additions are also not possible since the home is at the maximum 25% lot coverage limit. MEETING OF THE EDINA BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS HELD ON THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 1990 AT 5:30 P.M. EDINA CITY HALL MANAGER'S CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Gordon Johnson, Helen McClelland, Len Olson, Mike Lewis and Geof Workinger STAFF PRESENT: Philip Dommer, Senior Planner Joyce Repya, Associate Planner Jackie Hoogenakker, Secretary I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: January 18, 1990 Mr. Lewis moved for approval of the January 18, 1990 Board of Appeals and Adjustments Meeting Minutes. Mrs. McClelland seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried. B -90 -9 Star Marie Anderson- Atwater 4420 Vandervork Avenue Zoning: R -1 Request: A 1.5 foot sideyard setback variance to the north and a 1.5 foot sideyard setback variance to the south to create second floor living space. Mrs. McClelland excused herself from the meeting. Mr. Dommer told the Board the subject property is separated on the north and south sides by a sideyard setback of five feet. Each of the dwellings on those properties are one story dwellings. They are of similar size and layout. Mr. Dommer explained the homeowners desire to increase the living space by adding a second floor to the dwelling. It would create an additional 1116 square feet. Mr. Dommer'pointed out the Edina Zoning Ordinance requires that the sideyard setback would increase by six inches, for every foot above fifteen feet that the height increases. An additional 1.5 foot sideyard setback is needed in order to build the proposed addition. Mr. Dommer told the Board the properties of 4432 and 4436 have second story construction similar to the proposed. However, they are neighbors and are similar in appearance. Mr. Dommer concluded Staff recommends that the variance not be granted. The properties on both sides of the subject property are single story dwellings. The home at 4428 Vandervork in particular will be negatively impacted since it will be between two 2 story homes. Staff believes that an addition to the home is appropriate, but would recommend it meet the setback requirement to reduce the impact. Ms. Anderson - Atwater, and her brother Mr. Anderson who is a builder were present. Mr. Dommer suggested that it may be possible to realize an addition by notching the addition in 1 1/2 feet on each side. Mr. Dommer submitted a photo showing a home in the block where the second story was set in 1 1/2 feet on each side. Mr. Anderson told the Board the reason for the setback is due to a problem created by having to construct the addition on the bearing or supporting walls. He explained that if the addition were constructed off the bearing walls, as suggested, it would eventually cave in. He added he considered the the option recommended by staff but in that house in would not work. Mr. L. Olson asked Ms. Anderson - Atwater if she researched constructing an addition off the rear of her house. Ms. Anderson - Atwater explained to Mr. Olson and the Board that she did consider constructing the addition in the rear of her property, but in researching this possibility found that the City did not wish to sell it's land to her. She pointed out she has no choice but to construct up because her property backs up to city property. Mr. Workinger asked Ms. Anderson - Atwater if she had retained other developer's or architect's to design the addition, and if so, did any propose a different solution. Ms. Anderson - Atwater said that she retained three different architectural firms and all of them indicated the best way to expand the property is the way it is presented to them this evening. A discussion ensued with Mr. Workinger and Mr. Lewis indicating they could not support the granting of the variance because a precedent.would be set. They also noted construction could negatively impact one.neighbor. Mr. Lewis suggested tabling the meeting allowing for time for redesign. Ms. Anderson - Atwater repeated that she has already had three firms look into this problem and all have come to the same conclusion, if she cannot buy more land the addition will have to go up, or else she will have to request a variance for lot coverage for a single story addition to the rear. Mr. G. Johnson and Mr. Olson expressed belief that Ms. Anderson - Atwater has a hardship, in that she cannot expand out the rear of her home because of city owned property and that if she expands off the bearing walls as indicated by staff the proper beam support would not be realized. Mr. G. Johnson said a variance is determined if there is a hardship and he added he believes she has a hardship. Mr. Olson moved for variance approval. Mr. G. Johnson seconded the motion. Upon a roll call vote; Ayes, Olson, Johnson, Nays, Lewis, Workinger. Motion failed. Mr. Johnson explained to Ms. Anderson - Atwater that this decision can.be appealed if she so chooses, to the City Council. Mr. Johnson added if that is her decision she should submit'a letter within 10 days requesting an appeal of their decision. LOCATION MAP VARIANCE NUMBER B -90 -9 LOCATION 4420 Vandervork Avenue R E 0 U E S T A 1.5 foot sideyard setback variance to the north A 1.5 foot sideyard setback variance to the south EDINA PLANNING DEPARTMENT w EDINA BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS STAFF REPORT MARCH 15, 1990 B -90 -9 Star Marie Anderson - Atwater 4420 Vandervork Avenue Zoning: R -1 Request: A 1.5 foot sideyard setback variance to the north and a 1.5 foot sideyard setback variance to the south to create second floor living space. The subject property is separated on the north and south sides by a sideyard setback of five feet. Each of the dwellings on those properties are one story dwellings,, They are of similar size and layout. The homeowners desire to increase the living space by adding a second floor to the dwelling. It would create an additional 1116 square feet. The Edina Zoning Ordinance requires that the sideyard setback would increase by six inches, for every foot above fifteen feet that the height increases. An additional 1.5 foot sideyard setback is needed in order to build the proposed addition. The properties of 4432 and 4436 have second-story construction similar to the proposed. However, they are neighbors and are similar in appearance. Recommendation Staff recommends that the variance not be granted. The properties on both sides of the subject property are single story dwellings. The home at 4428 Vandervork in particular will be negatively impacted since it will be between two 2 story homes. Staff believes that an addition to the home is appropriate, but would recommend it meet the setback requirement to reduce the impact. IM i i �h CARDARELLE & ASSOCIATES, INC. P. O. BOX 24021 LAND SURVEYORS • 941.3030 • EDINA, MINN. 55424 CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY Surrey For: " _ , ;, File No._ + Book__ —Page—,-, 45 ' JT -- u G ` I U N 0 8 Duet✓ 11 �.-� a I �� c I tj h aZ 45 YP/R- BUILDING INSPECTOR VILLAGE OF EDINA I hereby, certify that this it a true and arred rpl- ___ "on of o survey of the boundaries of County, Min to ai .isible •naeochments, if any, from er an said land. Surrayed by me tM RECEIVE"' ► L t�r� -zS3 • Orion of i all CARDARELLE & ASSOCIATES, INC STATF QF[:_ NA ASAA Q IL 1V mAsmj%Tp- EO -- -- \ M&T(A kPAIST. _ CTU LF-r-r �,71I-�ATIOQ y4 " -1 -o \ \, �xIST1 a.WATIOrJ `f" I ` \ � �— V4" = I -J -I ((c ) ¢ooF J�►ts � � o• ss► - - - - -- �,r►ovz.e .1 - kr+rlovE b t�sT eooF - -- Ll -- 12" NMs N rir- (MAIL H w-wsT) ��D,¢ �,6 V �•T O r�l Y4`� _�. o a, oILe— REPORT /RECOMMENDATION ��X� To: KEN ROSLAND, MANAGER From: MARCELLA NI. DAEHN, CLERK Date: MARCH 27, 1990 Subject: ON -SALE WINE LICENSES ORDINANCE NO. 902 -A1 Recommendation: Info /Background Agenda Item #V. A. Consent ❑ Information Only ❑ Mgr. Recommends ❑ To HRA ❑ To Council Action ❑ Motion ❑ Resolution ❑ Ordinance ❑ Discussion The Council adopted the wine licensing ordinance on April 1, 1985 which allowed sales of wine only in qualifying restaurants. Sec. 43 of the ordinance provided for automatic termination of all previously issued licenses and also stated that no licenses shall be issued after July 1, 1990. (Copy attached.) The Council may wish to consider the following options: 1) Extend the sunset provision to a future date. 2) Repeal the sunset provision as stated in Sec. 43. If the Council should elect to take neither of the above actions with the intent to let the ordinance provisions for wine licensing expire, the Council may wish to hold a public hearing on the issue of terminating wine licensing in the City. Drafts of amendments to the ordinance are attached for the two options above. ORDINANCE NO. 902 -A1 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 902 TO ALLOW SALES OF WINE ONLY IN QUALIFYING RESTAURANTS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1. Definitions. To Section 1 the following definitions are added and amended as follows: "Bar" means a counter or similar kind of place or structure at which wine is served but not in conjunction with regular full menu service. "City" means the City of Edina. "Commissioner" means the State Commissioner of Public Safety. "Council" means the Council of the City of Edina. "Licensed Premises" means the area shown in the application as the place where wine will be served and consumed. "Meal" means entrees and sandwiches offered on a restaurant menu. "Person" means and includes any individual, partnership, association, trust, institution, corporation or municipality. "Restaurant" means an establishment, under control of a single proprietor or manager, having appropriate facilities for serving meals and where in consideration of payment therefor, meals are regularly served at tables to the general public, and which employs an adequate staff to provide the usual and suitable service to its guests. This definition amends and supersedes the definition of "Cafe" or "restaurant" in Ordinance No. 902. "State" means the State of Minnesota. "Wine" means vinous beverage created by fermentation. Sec. 2. Sec. 21, No Liquor in Restaurants, is hereby amended by adding at the beginning thereof the words "Except as permitted under Part H of this Ordinance, ". Sec. 3. Part H is hereby added as follows: "PART H. ON SALE OF WINE ONLY IN RESTAURANTS." 186 -1A -1 prior to the date of expiration of the license. Applications for renewal of an existing manager's license shall be made at least 30 days prior to and not earlier than 150 days prior to the date of expiration of the license. The renewal application may incorporate by reference all information contained in the original application, to the extent such information is then true, current and applicable. If, in the judgment of the City Council as to on -sale wine licenses, and in the judgment of the City Manager as to manager's licenses, good and sufficient cause for the applicant's failure to apply for a renewal within the time provided is shown, the City Council, or City Manager, as the case may be, may, if the other provisions of this ordinance are complied with, grant the application notwithstanding such failure to timely apply. (d) No on -sale wine license shall be transferred to any person or premises by the person or from the premises to whom and for which the license was granted, by any means whatsoever, including, without limitation, devise, descent or involuntarily by the operation of law, without the person and premises to whom and to which the license is to be transferred having first submitted an application containing all of the information required in an original application, and complying with all requirements for an original license, and receiving the approval of the Council, and where required, the Commissioner, provided that an application for transfer may refer to, and incorporate therein by reference, the information set forth in the original application for the license to be transferred, to-the extent such information is then true, current and applicable. (e) Manager's license shall be personal to the person to whom it is issued and shall not be transferable. (f) Any change in the persons named in the original application for an on -sale wine license or any change in such original application, as required by Sec. 37 of this ordinance, including any increase in the size or seating capacity of the licensed premises, shall be deemed a transfer for purposes of this ordinance; provided, however, if the licensee is a limited partnership, a change in the limited partners of 10% or less' cumulatively over the then license period shall not be deemed a transfer; and provided further, however, that if the licensee is a corporation, a change in stock ownership of 10% or less cumulatively over the then license period shall not be deemed a transfer. Sec. 38. Financial Requirements for an On -Sale Wine License. (a) Investigation Fees and Deposit - At the time of original application, the applicant shall deposit $500 with the City of Edina for the Investigation Fee. Should the investigation require an out -of -state investigation, an additional $2,000 shall be deposited prior to further processing of the application by the City. The cost of the investigation shall be based on the expense involved, but in no event shall it exceed $500 if the investigation is limited to the State of Minnesota or $10,000 -3- liquor license, including a wine -only on -sale license, revoked for any violation of any statutes, ordinances or regulations relating to the manufacture, sale, distribution or possession of intoxicating liquor or wine. 6) Have a manager, licensed under Sec. 42 of this Part H, in charge of and on the licensed premises at all times during which the licensed premises are open for business. 7) Sign a statement indicating that he or she has reviewed and understands the pertinent sections of this-Ordinance and of State laws and regulations. 8) Not have applied for nor hold a federal wholesale or retail liquor dealer's special stamp or a federal or state gambling or gaming stamp or license. 9) Not be an employee or elected official of the City of Edina. 10) Not have falsified any information given either in the application or in the process of investigation. 11) On renewal, not have been found in violation of any provision of this ordinance or applicable State statutes or regulations. 12) If an individual, be a U.S. citizen. 13) Not be financially indebted to a person who is disqualified under subparagraphs 5, 7 and 11 of this paragraph (a). (b) Licensed Premises - The licensed premises must meet the following requirements: 1) Be in a PC1, PC2 or PC3, or Mixed Development District or be in a restaurant permitted in the R -1 District, as established by the City Zoning Ordinance. 2) Have an exclusive entrance from or exit to the exterior of the building in which the licensed premises are located. Entrances from or exits to a public concourse or public lobby meet this requirement. 3) Be under the control of the licensee. 4) Be a restaurant having facilities for seating not fewer than 25 guests at one time. 5) Have a valid food establishment license and have a kitchen approved by the City Public Health Sanitarian. -5- s (h) Licensees under this Part H may sell wine during the same hours on Sunday as holders of Sunday sale licenses may sell intoxicating liquor. (i) The'City inspections authorized by Sec. 12(g) of this ordinance are anticipated to be made at least twice during each license period. (j) All applicable provisions of State statutes and regulations shall be complied with in connection with the on -sale of wine. Sec. 41. Suspension and Revocation. The enforcement, suspension and revocation provisions of Ordinance No. 141 shall apply to all licenses issued under Part H of this ordinance, except to the extent inconsistent with applicable State statutes and regulations, and in the event of such inconsistencies, the State statutes and regulations shall apply. Sec. 42. Manager's License. (a) The manager(s) or person(s) in charge of a licensed premise shall be an individual or individuals. (b) Each individual manager shall apply for an individual manager's license on application forms provided by the City Clerk. The application shall be processed in a manner similar to that for an on -sale wine license. Each application shall describe the licensed premises to be managed by the applicant. The manager's license shall be restricted to the licensed premises described in the application. (c) No investigative fees shall be required for a manager's license application, but if investigated with an application for an on -sale wine license and if investigation of the proposed manager for the licensed premises results in additional expense, or out -of -state investigation, additional deposits may be required to be made under Sec. 38. (d) The applicant for a manager's license, in order to be granted a manager's license hereunder, shall and must comply with all requirements of this ordinance, State statutes and regulations which are applicable to an applicant for a manager's license under this Part H, and including, without limitation, Sec. 39(a) and Sec. 40 of this Part H. (e) The license fee is listed in Ordinance No. 171. The provisions of Sec. 38(b) apply to this Sec. 42, except that no refund of the license fee shall be made. Sec. 43. Automatic Termination. The provisions of this Part H shall terminate automatically at 12:01 A.M.. on July 1, 1990. No licenses shall be issued under this Part H after said time and date. All licenses then previously issued under this Part H also shall automatically terminate at such time and date and thereafter no wine shall be sold under such licenses. -7- ORDINANCE NO. 902 -A2 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 902 -A1 TO EXTEND THE AUTOMATIC TERMINATION DATE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1. Sec. 43 of Ordinance No. 902 -A1 is hereby amended to read as follows: "Sec. 43. Automatic Termination. The provisions of this Part H shall terminate automatically at 12:01 A.M. on No licenses shall be issued under this Part H after said time and date. All licenses then previously issued under this Part H also shall automatically terminate at such time and date and thereafter no wine shall be sold under such licenses." Sec. 2. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect immediately upon its passage and publication. First Reading: Second Reading: ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor ORDINANCE NO. 902 -41 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 902 -A1 TO DELETE AUTOMATIC TERMINATION PROVISION THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1. Sec. 43 of Ordinance No. 902 -A1 is hereby repealed in its entirety. Sec. 2. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect immediately upon its passage and publication. First Reading: Second Reading: ATTEST: ZI (City cilt5v 186 -1A -2 M r 186 -1A -2 M E M O R A N D U M TO: Kenneth R. Rosland, City Manager FROM: Craig G. Swanson, Chief of Police DATE: March 30, 1990 SUBJECT: REPORT ON WINE LICENSING I have reviewed the Edina Police Department's role in the wine licensing process. The review period encompasses April, 1985 through March, 1990. The below comments summarize that review. All licenses have been regularly inspected. The inspections have been both instructional appointments and no- notice visits. Discrepancies have been noted and the licensees have corrected them in a reasonable period. Discrepancies are best characterized as omissions and have not been of the magnitude to affect the license. No enforcement actions have been initiated under City Ordinance or State Statute in connection with the on -sale of wine. Calls for service to licensed establishments have been consistent with calls to similar non - licensed restaurants. The only problem area in the wine licensing process for the Police Department has been the timeliness and accuracy of documents necessary for licensing of establishments and managers. Both the City Administration, through the City Clerk, and the Police Department are working to minimize this problem. If you have questions concerning these comments, please contact me. r •: Craig G. Swanson Chief of Police EDINA POLICE DEPARTMENT REQUEST FOR PURCHASE ° TO: Mayor & City Council FROM: Francis Hoffman, Director of Public Works VIA: Kenneth Rosland City Manager. SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $5 000 DATE 5 March, 1990 AGENDA ITEM VII. A. ITEM DESCRIPTION: one Recovery Vehicle (Tow Truck) Company Amount of Quote or Bid 1, Twin Cities Wrecker Sales. .1, $ 69,940.00 2., Lakeland Ford, Inc.. 2, $ 73,705.04 3. Ast-leford.Equipment, Inc. 3; $ 74,208.00 4. 4.. 5. 5. RECOMMENDED. QUOTE OR BID: Twin Cities Wrecker Sales GENERAL INFORMATION: $ 69,940.00 This purchase is a tow vehicle large enough to handle fire trucks, our dump trucks, loaders and graders during breakdowns and flat tires. This will replace Unit 30 -270, a. 1973 vehicle which is much too small to handle our newer equipment. This purchase will be funded from the equipment replacement fund under central services equipment operation (560 account) and equipment replacement fund of the street department (300 account). S'gnat ell The Recommended bid is within budget not Public Works - Streets & Equipment Department operation Finance Director Rosland yCV Manager CITY L-,P PnTNA PUBLIC WORKS nEPARTMENT MEMnRANnum DATE: March 30, 1990 TO- Fran Hoffman, Ci tv Pnoi nAr-r A Ci rimcr-or of Publ ic' Works FROM: . Gene Bartz, Superintendent. of Public, Works SUBJECT: SHOP TRIJCK The. shop. rrt.jr.k. 'we. would lik-e. to pure-hjse, should be. eqUiPlDe-Cl wit.h a startina unit., gas tanks, air tank, push bar, plus hook. This vehicle would 1973 :'/4 replace. unit. number 30.270 which 'is a 1 :1. ton pick-up wit.h A. wrecker on the back. Because. of its age.; !.;nit. rit - safe. to Use even on cars or _j p jMber ­�n.�70 i s i.in p i r.k-( r iun k- in the past we have used Our large. loader to retrieve any down trucks, which is not, the purpose of a, loader with i og chains. kjt.jr track record has bee n good, however, with th .. no maior accidents. The shop truck we. are asking for is not large. e-nougn to re-•reive anything bigger than our d ' ump trucks, but would be able to tow fire. trucks, graders, loaders, etc. We would continue to have. that. contract•e.d out as we. have in the past, we have to retreive. vehicles for many reasons fue-1 malfu.n.ction, acCidpntA. when we mus,11• use water pumns, u (sch as this spring or r. i me A of 'Inclement. weather this tini - . woU -!: I d be sed to winch pumnc -:,m nank varIs a n d h a d - t o - r e a c. h a r. rs On ar, e.xtrpmelv -:Clrl day we w l I 'he callea on -1.n re+reivp in ro 20 squad a r i (I admini.stral-- Ivp cars frnm Cit - y H;.j 1 1 nl ijA what ever anni.imi.ilAtes d u r , n a e Ma i I y n p e. r a t -. on ....jr !last cCntra tow was March '.:7,th. T"it= r.All was placed at C.te ^; 1'1 P.M, Thp tow tru rrive.Cl. at. -70 C. k a AF. P.M, at ;_i cost cl V52 inr a nAr, I arger iin r. -os- a ill nimum of 0, to :7, 1 _2 e. r ,� a i. js m i le-age. nliJS S15 for air hnok-un. n I ijs $1c or Mroppinc the d r i v r-. Chant., M i 11 1P _.r T w i n a es t. -. ma t P.;,, h 0 u rs r;=..z-, r, o n q e i­ mp. Matt. Tcwinq est.iMatc-s 1 hnt.jr depending on how busy, etc, ' During R w;_jj!- nould be as l one. as 8 hourA. WP I e e he response time is a very ir-.innrtant. WhAn ambtjlanc^es .:.re. 7W11 . _.h P. r q the 011ange.r of -,:'-ie di ri ja-, f rri= - -. na . nr t1ip ijnit `.el b e. n i n acid t- •h e d r i i a. s C t,,7, 1. e.n.. . When any vAhinle JS Onwn r he i j.q P (I -For -1: ts (I P..,, i a r a t P. ri n i i r n cDs e Nnt m-n I y r1r) we. i JA e s4- u,;t= n' ',he vehicjil�.6. hi.it -)n r. nr i mi- S ;3 1 sn, • The ne.w .;;hnn i-.rt.j(,-k would be-able t.,7j f!jP1 fire. trunks at. Flre. �ii:eneC The. !jew shop truck would also be used to cnange. i..-)ade.r rlres t 4. , that, when loaded, weigh 1 ton per tire. A*i-• presen L- 1 Me We have' no way to nhange flat tires t.hat occur away from the. shop. The. usefl.1l life of this new r i a woLJ -ld be 15 years: with an average cost to own of approximately $46:50 per year-. T -believe. the safety iqSLJe-8 WF the. very Irrant our getting Versati 1e. 1--ype of trLJc.k we Are after, h 0 ��'Mmllll t t ` RAE t '.. J M E M O R A N D U M DATE: March 14, 1990 TO: Fran Hoffman Director of Publ -r" s FROM: Ted Paulfran Fire Chief SUBJECT: PUBLIC WORKS TOW WITH RECOVERY UNIT At our last Council Meeting, March 5, 1990, it was apparent to me that some confusion exists involving the City's "need" for this type of equipment. From the Fire Department perspective, the need is, on occasion, critical. 1. We do not have back -up fire trucks. When one is out -of- service, we need attention fast and on occasion, a tow. This unit is not large enough to lift a fire truck, but could field service and tow a vehicle out of traffic or off the roadway. 2. We do have a back -up ambulance, but with present service demand, both the primary and back -up are frequently in service. In addition, our experience with break -downs has been poor and we cannot leave a unit unattended on the public roadway. The present tow truck -will not safely handle an ambulance. It is important to us to have quick diagnostic work, service and a tow when necessary. The proposed unit will address a major portion of our needs, and is a basic sensible approach to this equipment problem. M E M O R A N D U M TO: Fran Hoffman, Director of Public Works FROM: Captain Leonard Kleven, Police Department DATE: March 30, 1990 SUBJECT: TOWING /SERVICE TRUCK The Edina Police Department has need of a towing /service truck on average of once per week. Circumstances requiring such a vehicle include: ** Breakdowns due to high demands on electrical systems at emergency scenes. Squad cars suffer breakdowns on a regular basis since the cars are run 16 -24 hours per day in all kinds of weather. ** Accidents - Although infrequent, we do have squad cars involved in accidents that require they be towed to Public Works. ** Weather /Terrain - Snow storms, floods, sand and mud have all caused tow requests in the past. Emergency responses sometimes require squad cars to go off - road into gravel pits, golf courses, parks, etc., in life- threatening situations. ** Flat Tires - Squad cars carry no spare tires or tools due to the amount of emergency equipment carried in the trunk. While the tires can sometimes be changed at the scene, it is often safer to tow the vehicle. ** Support Vehicles - Animal Control, Community Service, and unmarked Investigative vehicles, many of which are high - mileage units, also break down from time to time, occasionally outside the city limits. ** Private Towing - If we are to rely on local tow companies,, we can expect to wait for service along with others re- questing service. During inclement weather or emergency situations, private tows can be delayed for hours. Since we don't have an excess inventory of emergency units, our ability to provide emergency service could be threatened. Respectfully, Leonard Kleven Captain EDINA POLICE DEPARTMENT A.1 >4 REQUEST FOR PUR CHASE TO: Mayor & City Council FROM: Francis.Hoffman,.Director of Public Works VIA: Kenneth Rosland City Manager SUBJECT.: REQUEST FOR PURCHASE IN-EXCESS OF $5,000 DATE. 2,Ap'rill.1990 AGENDA ITEMV I I. B. ITEM DESCRIPTION: Sand, Rock, Bitiminous Material, & Concrete Company Amount of Quote or ENd See Attached Tabulation. 2. 2. 3. 3. 4, 4. 5. 5. RECOMMENDED QUOTE OR BID: Award to companies as.listed on attached sheet. GENERAL INFORMATION: This is the bid establishing the prices for certain materials used in public works projec'ts. The prices are.firm.for a period of one year (1 April, 1990 to I April, 1991). The funds for',the purchases come from the money allocated to the operati . ng'section of the budget (300 accounts). . . 'e Sigrfatur -- The Recommended bid is within budget not Public Works Department Finance Director 31and,'(Zjy Manager 1 i� \�7 SAND, ROCK, BITUMINOUS MATERIAL &.CONCRETE LOW BID Comparative 1989/1990 Change of Percent ITEM COMPANY 1990 1989 + or - Delivered Prior Lake Aggregate 3.03 2.89 + 5.0% Sand Delivered Model Stone 8.35 8.35 0% Buckshot Delivered Edward Kraemer & Sons 5.30 5.19 + 2.2% Class II Limestone Delivered Dresser Trap Rock 13.25 11.85 +11.8% Seal Coat Chips Picked Up Commercial Asphalt 16.20 14.95 + 8.4% At Plant Asphalt #2331* 2331 Fine* Midwest Asphalt 19.10 15.60 +22.4% #2341* Midwest Asphalt 19.20 16.20 +18.5% Winter Mix Midwest Asphalt 39.00 28.00 +39.0% Delivered Model Stone 44.00 42.00 + 4.75% Concrete ** (Cu.Yd.) (Cu.Yd) Cut Back Koch Refining .708 .80 -11.5% Asphalt (Gal.) (Gal.) Delivered All items per ton,except as noted. * These items are awarded on basis of total cost per ton including trucking and labor. ** Award based on lower delivery charge than other bidder. * ** Award on asphalt to Midwest or Commercial should also include award to other company if one of the asphalt plants is down. . R r REQUEST FOR PURCHASE HASE S TO: Mayor & City Council FROM: Francis Hoffman, Director of Public Works VIA: Kenneth Rosland City Manager SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $5.00 DATE ? April, 1990 AGENDA ITEMv11.C. ITEM DESCRIPTION: one Reversible Snow Plow and Wing Company Amount of Quote or &d LaHaas Mfg. & Sales $ 10,558.00 2. Little Falls Machine. 2. $ 10,885.00 3. 3. 4. 4. 5. 5. RECOMMENDED QUOTE OR BID: LaHaas Mfg. & Sales $ .10,558.00 GENERAL INFORMATION: This purchase is a snow plow and wing for Unit #25 -450. The purchase is funded from the equipment replacement fund. Pnhlir Wnrks - Streets ;Signature Department The Recommended bid is within budget not wit u� ohn Wallin, Finance Director enneth Rosland,CCity Manager ° REQUEST FOR PURCHASE �:� ,,, o o:; SE TO: Mayor.and Council Members FROM: Bob Kojetin, Director Park and Recreation Department VIA: Kenneth Rosland City Manager SUBJECT. REQUEST FOR PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $5,000 DATE: March 30, 1990 AGENDA ITEM.VII.D. ITEM DESCRIPTION: 1990 Ford F -800 lift truck (Aerial bucket) Company Amount of Quote or ENd 1• Road Machinery & Supply $67,108.00 2 • Truck Utilities 2 • $72,483.00 3. 3 4. 4. 5. 5, RECOMMENDED QUOTE OR END. Road Machinery & Supply $67,108.00 GENERAL INFORMATION: Trade in of one 1975 Ford Hy- ranger bucket truck fora new 1990 Ford.F -800 lift truck '(trade in value'of $19,000) i ture Department The Recommended bid is X_ within budget not Kenneth Rosland, City. Director 9,%14 A. A,Il� O e �' c' . :e REQUEST FOR PURCHASE TO: Mayor and Council Members FROM: Bob Kojetin, Director Pa.rk and Recreation Department VIA: Kenneth Rosland City Manager SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $5.00 DATE: March 30, 1990 AGENDA ITEM VII. ITEM DESCRIPTION: Braemar Golf Course parkin -, lot reconstruction Company Amount of Quote or E§d 1. Alber Construction, Inc., 1, $168,951.20 2. Bury & Carlson, Inc. 2, $172,482.00 3. GIgI Asphalt .Corp. 3. $181,890.55 4• 11idwest Asphalt Corp. 4. $1.55:992.65 5 • DMJ Corporation 5 . $188,936.55 (Eight more bidders listed on back) RECOMMENDED QUOTE OR BID: Alber Construction, Inc._ $168,951.20 GENERAL INFORMATION: Thirteen companies submitted bids on Braemar Golf. Course narkinv lot . reconstruction. Approved orginally with Bonds for expansion of golf course Sign re Depart The Recommended bid is X within budget not within „b get n allin, Finance Director y Kenneth Rosland ity Manager Continuation of bidders for Braemar Golf course parking.lo_t reconstruction. 6. Valley Paving, Inc. $190,.160.50 7. Alexander Construction Co, Inc. $190,322.60 •8. McNamara Contracting Co., Inc. $193,302.05 9. Stenger Excavating Co. $193,607.50 10. Widmer, Inc. $195,077.50 11. Hardrives, Inc. $196,554.15 12..Barber Construction Co., Inc. $199,589.90 13. G.L. Contracting $202,683.40 �lrTA..lrl 0 REQUEST FOR PURCHASE o ; SE TO: Mayor and Council Members FROM: Bob Kojetin, Director Park and Recreation Department VIA: Kenneth Rosland, City Manager SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $5,000 DATE: March 28., 1990 AGENDA ITEM VII.F ITEM DESCRIPTION: Braemar Soccer Field Renovation Company Amount of Quote or Bid 1. Perkins Landscape 1. $9,789.00 2. DMJ Corporation 2, $11,265.00 3. F. F. Jedlicki Inc. 3. $12,490.00 4. 4. 5. 5. RECOMMENDED QUOTE OR BID: Perkins Landscape $9,789.00 GENERAL INFORMATION: Excavate and fine grade field to accomodate new soccer field. behind Braemar Arena. [,Widening present field from 60 yard soccer /footbal field to a regulation soccer field, 80 yards wide, which is 95 feet wider than present field. The Recommended bid is within budget not within enneth Rosland, Wallin, Fina ce Director r Manager ro A. C REPORT /RECOMMENDATION To: Mayor & City Council From: Jane Paulus, Fran Hoffman, I -494 PMT Date: 2 April, 1990 Subject: I -494 EIS Update Recommendation: No action required. Agenda Item # VIII-A. Consent ❑ Information Only ❑ Mgr. Recommends ❑ To HRA ❑ To Council Action ❑ Motion ❑ Resolution ❑ Ordinance ❑ Discussion Info/Background- Attached is a memorandum and sketches to give you an idea of the process that is done in evaluating I -494 alternatives. This first area of review is the area immediately south of Edina between TH 100 and old County Road 18. City staff has been working with Mn /DOT, Hennepin County, consultant and other cities staff to develop and reduce the number of alternatives in each area that should be studied in detail. The three sketches are a product of evaluating over five plus alternatives in the first area. March 14, 1990 BRW, Inc. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY IN THE TH 169 INTERCHANGE AREA ALTERNATIVES PROPOSED FOR FURTHER STUDY Alternative 1 Split diamond between Washington Avenue and West Bush Lake Road with the existing half- diamond interchange at East Bush Lake Road. Option A: Fully directional interchange at TH 169. Option B: Partial directional interchange at TH 169 with loops in the northeast and southwest quadrants. Alternative 3 Full diamonds at Washington Avenue and East Bush Lake Road. Option A: Fully directional interchange at TH 169. Option B: Partial directional interchange at TH 169'with loops in the northeast and southwest quadrants. DESIGN.FEATURES TO'BE ADDRESSED IN FUTURE STUDIES o Options to maintain route continuity between the north and south legs of TH 169 as this roadway crosses I -494. o Eliminating the existing access between the south leg of TH 169 (west of Prairie Center Drive) and I -494 to the east and providing access between Prairie Center Drive and I -494 to the west. o The feasibility of moving the proposed frontage road north of I -494 farther to the south. o Alternatives to the proposed ramps at Highwood Drive that provide access to and from the south -on CSAH 18. ALTERNATIVES TO BE DROPPED FROM FURTHER STUDY Half diamond to the west, at Washington Avenue, full diamond at East Bush Lake Road. Full diamond at west Bush Lake Road, half diamond to the east at East Bush Lake Road. Split diamond between West Bush Lake Road and East Bush Lake Road. Interchange Alternative a. Interchange Alternative b. ALTERNATIVE 1 Outside Half Diamonds at Washington Ave. and West Bush Lake Rd. a. Fully Directional Interchange at T.H.169 b. Partial Directional Interchange at T.H.169 Legend: Proposed Local Access and Frontage Roadways Existing Roadways Note: System interchange at T.H.5/212 and T.H.100to be addressed in the future and will be coordinated with T.H.169 improvements. NORTH NO SC -_= Illlllllft RECONSTRUCTION MINNESOTA RIVER TO 1-394 Interchange Alternative a. Interchange Alternative b. ALTERNATIVE 3 East Bush Lake Rd./ Washington Ave. Full Diamonds a. Fully Directional Interchange at T.H.169 b. Partial Directional Interchange at T.H.169 Legend: - -- Proposed Local Access and Frontage Roadways Existing Roadways Note: System interchange at T.H.5/212 and T.H.100 to be addressed in the future and will be coordinated with T.H.169 improvements. NORTH '1 NO SCALE 1=49.4 RECONSTRUCTION MINNESOTA RIVER TO 1-394 r /9�r1A. Cn >1.� �0 REPORT /RECOMMENDATION To: Kenneth Rosland From: Craig Larsen Date: April 2, 1990 Subject: Regulation of Private Parking Lots Recommendation: INFO /BACKGROUND Agenda Item # VIII. B. Consent ❑ Information Only ❑ Mgr. Recommends ❑ To HRA To Council Action ❑ Motion ❑ Resolution ❑ Ordinance ❑ Discussion The City of Minneapolis requires a license for all parking lots containing 10 or more parking spaces. All parking lots are subject to design standards and are reviewed by the Department of Public Works. Commercial parking lots, those charging for parking, are subject to further requirements, including signage and stacking spaces. All parking lot licenses are granted by the City Council. A copy of the complete ordinance is attached for your review. Key elements of the Ordinance relating to Commercial Lots are highlighted below. I have indicated the areas where we currently have Ordinance authority for review and approval. Edina Ordinance Minneapolis Ordinance None Required 1. Licenses required for all parking lots containing 10 or more spaces. Free Parking: License for initial application only. I M Commercial lots: Yearly license required, Fee between $100 -$300. .2. Performance Requirements: All Parking Lots: A. Yes A. Hard surface required B. Yes B. Setbacks required C. Yes C. Landscaping, & screening required D. Yes D. Design and layout subject to approval of City Engineer No Ordinance Requirement 3. Stacking spaces at entrance (Note: Stacking spaces were required for review by City 1 space for self -serve ticket vendor and Engineer 3 or 4 for attended lots. No Requirements 4. Sign Requirements A. Name and phone # of licensee B. Hours of operation C. Rates, including minimum rate and maximum rate for 12 and 24 hours. D. Size of signs is defined in Ordinance No Ongoing or Periodic 5. Inspections. Authorized as deemed necessary inspections required. by Department of Licenses. NO. • 8/2/02 1st Reading _ Ref. to Comm. Public Hearing 2nd Reading & Final Passage 82 -Or- AN ORDINANCE of the CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS Dote Date to Mayor Date Returned Date Resubmitted to Council AltlprmPn raricnnr Cintar anti 11 bits presents the following ordinance: Repealing and reenacting Title 13, Chapter 319 of the Minneapolis Code of Ordinances relating to Licenses and Business Regulations: Open Air Motor Vehicle Parking Lots. The City Council of the City of Minneapolis do ordain as follows: Section 1. That Chapter 319 of the Minneapolis Code of Ordinances be and is hereby repealed. Section 2. That a new Chapter 319 of the Minneapolis Code of Ordinances be enacted to read as follows: "319.10. Definitions. "Attendant Parking ". means the practice of having the motor vehicle operated by the licensee between the motor vehicle reservoir area and the parking area, and between the parking area and the exits. "Commercial Parking Lot" means a parking lot which charges a fee for parking or storing motor vehicles. "Fee" means anything of value, including but not limited to, money, tokens, or requiring the purchase of goods or services as a condition precedent to the privilege of parking a motor vehicle. "Free Parking Lot" means a. parking lot for which no fee is charged for parking or storing motor vehicles and which is operated for the benefit of persons such as, but not limited to, employees, members, customers, patrons, clients or visitors. "Motor Vehicle" means every- vehicle which is self- propelled and not deriving its power from overhead wires. "Motor, Vehicle Reservoir Area" means the area at the entrance of a commercial parking lot between the property line and the line at which a ticket or claim check is received or a fee is paid. "Parking Lot" means any open air place with ten (10) or more parking spaces used for the parking or storing of motor vehicles,, 319.20. License Required. No person shall own or operate or in any way offer to operate a parking lot without first obtaining a license for that lot as provided in this chapter. 319.30. Application for License. Any person desiring to be licensed to own or operate a parking lot shall file an application with the Department of Licenses and Consumer Services on forms provided by the Department. The application shall contain such information as the Department may require, including plot plans and the street address of the applicant's residence, the name of the owner of the lot and the name of the manager or operator of the lot if different than the owner. No application shall be considered completed unless plot plans have been .approved by the Department of Inspections and Department of Public Works with regards to all requirements of this ordinance. 319.40. Procedure. Prior to the issuance of a license, the City Council shall determine if the parking lot complies with all the provisions of this chapter, other applicable provisions of the Code, and state statutes and regulations. If all such provisions are met and proper application has been made, the City Council may grant the license. 319.50. Classes of Licenses: Commercial Parking Lots. Licenses granted for commercial parking lots under this chapter shall be designated as either "Class All or "Class B" licenses. A "Class A" commercial lot may charge any rate that a "Class B" lot can charge, or may charge a rate based upon any fraction of a month. "Class B" commercial parking lots shall be limited to charging customers for parking on a month -by -month contractual basis only. A "Class B" parking lot shall have no pay boxes or other available means on the premises, by which a more frequent than monthly fee may be charged for parking. 319.60. License Fee. The annual license fee for a. commercial parking lot licensed under this chapter shall be: Class A Class 8 0-50 spaces $100.00 0-50 spaces $50.00 51 -100 spaces $150.00 51 -100 spaces $100.00 101 -200 spaces .$250.00 101 -200 spaces $150.00 Over 200 spaces $400.00 Over 200 spaces $300.00 The license fee for a free parking lot shall be fifty dollars ($50.00), which shall be payable only when the original application is made and when the license is transferred to a new licensee. There shall be a $50.00 surcharge for each commercial parking lot license for a new location not previously licensed under this chapter. 319.70. Expiration Date. A commercial parking lot licenses issued under this chapter shall expire on Septen r 1st of each year.. 319.80. Transfer of Licenses. No license issued under this chapter shall be transferable except upon application in the same' m -inner as for a new lot, and approval by the City Council. 319.90. Insurance Required. eh applicant for a license under this chapter at all times shall keep in full force and of a public liability insurance policy written by an insurance company authorized to-do business in this state, in the following amounts: Not less than five thousand dollars ($5,000) property damage; twenty -five thousand dollars ($25,000) for injury or death of one person; and fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) for each occurrence. A copy of the policy or certificate of insurance shall be filed with the Department of Licenses and Consumer Services. The policy or certificate shall contain an endorsement as provided by section 259.160 of this Code of Ordinances. No cancellation of any insurance policy shall be valid except upon thirty (30) days prior written notice to the Department of Licenses and Consumer Services. 319.100. Revocation Suspension, Refusal to Renew. A license granted under this chapter may be revoked, suspended or not renewed by the City Council for good cause. Violations of any of the terms of this chapter shall be cause for revocation, suspension, or refusal to renew a license. 319.110. Inspections Required; Notice, Correction of Violations. (a) At such times as deemed necessary, the Department of Licenses and Consumer Services shall inspec eve parking lot located within the city. In the event a parking lot is found not in complia -ce with any of the provisions pursuant to this chapter a written notice shall be served personally upon the licensee of such parking lot or by mail at the residential address as appearing on the license application. (b) The written notice shall describe the violation and shall be signed by the Director of Licenses and Consumer Services. The notice shall require the licensee to correct the listed violations within thirty (30) days after date of service of such notice or to show cause why such license should not be revoked at the next meeting of the appropriate city council committee following the thirty (30) day period. The notice shall contain a return to be signed by the server thereof attesting the manner in which the notice was served 319.120. Paving Required. ;(a) The ground or floor space of �all;parking lots shall be surfaced with concrete of either the cement or asphalt type. (b) A parking lot which was properly licensed on August 1, 1982 and which had surfaced its lot prior to August 1, 1982 by the double penetration seal coat method may continue to use that method provided the materials and applicRtion process conform to standards established by the Director of Licenses and Consumer Services, based on recommendations from the Director of Public Works. _ parking lot using the double - penetration seal coat paving method shall resurface the lt a minimum of once a year. (c) The ground or floor surface of `all parking lots shall be maintained so as to provide a smooth, level surface for parking and shall be kept free of depressions, cracks, gaps, holes, and similar surface aberrations, as well as dust, rocks, dirt and other debris. 319.130. Driveways. 'Each parking lot shall have at least one driveway which shall be adequate to afford safe and- efficient ingress and egress to the parking facility. All driveway locations, the width of driveways, location of self- service ticket vendors, location of attendant buildings and the interior circulation systems shall be approved by the Department of Public Works. 319.140. Drainage. A�1 parking lots shall be constructed with a drainage system adequate to prevent the free flow of water into the sidewalk or into properties adjacent to the parking lot. 319.150. Motor Vehicle Reservoir. A— =m.mercial___parking lot shall have a motor vehicle reservoir area at each entrance. The motor vehicle reservoir area for an attended commercial parking lot with a ' vehicle capacity of fifty (50) or less motor vehicles shall have at least three (3) eight and one half (8 1/2) foot by twenty (20) foot spaces. All other attended commercial parking lots shall have at least four (4) eight and one half (8 1/2) by twenty (20) foot spaces. Where a self - service ticket vendor is used, the motor vehicle reservoir area shall have at least one eight and one half (8 1/2) foot by twenty (20) foot space for the purpose of receiving tickets. The motor vehicle reservoir area shall be conspicuously outlined with pavement paint and shall not be used for the parking or storage of motor vehicles. 319.160. Placement of Cars. No car shall be parked in a manner which blocks any fire escape or exit door of any building adjoining the parking lot. In no case shall cars be parked in a manner that would prevent reclamation of any car upon request. At no time shall any driver with a current claim check be refused the opportunity to obtain his • car, provided the driver has paid accumulated parking charges. 319.170. Placement of Pay Box. In all Class "A" commercial parking lots using a pay box of any kind, said box shall be conspicuously placed near the entrance to the lot, or in such place that the patron of the lot can easily locate the box. All Class "A" commercial parking lots which use pay envelopes shall have an adequate supply on hand at. the lot and accessible to the patrons at all time. 319480. Claim Check. 'When a car is left for parking in an attended Class "A" commercial parking lot, the driver shall be furnished with a claim check on which shall be printed the full name of the operator and the address of the parking lot. A claim check is not required where cars are parked or stored in a manner that would be allowed under a Class "B" license and when some memorandum in writing is given the person patronizing the lot stating the monthly fee and showing the full name and address of the operator and the address of the parking lot as they appear on the license application. 319.190. Parking Spaces and Aisles when no Attendant Parking. �A arking lots shall have conspicuously marked spaces which shall open directly upon an aisle of such width and design as approved by the City Engineer unless the lot has an attendant on duty at all times. 319.200. Landscaping, Fencing, and Bumper Curbs. (a) arking lots shall be landscaped. The landscaping requirement shall be met by complyitwith one of the following alternatives: (1) Maintaining a buffer yard at least five (5) feet in depth along each property line, except at places of entrance and exit, which is contiguous to a street or residential district. Each yard shall be planted and adequately maintained in living sod, shrubbery or trees and shall be defined by a six (6) inch curb along the perimeter of the buffer yard. A buffer yard may be used as a place to store snow. (2) Erecting an architectural screen at least 30 Inches in height and planting trees along each property line, except at places of entrance and exit, which is contiguous to a street or residential district. The architectural screen shall be a wall or fence of wood, ornamental block, brick, metal or combination thereof. Posts may be either wood or metal. When wood is used In an architectural screen, It shall, at a minimum, be rough -sawn, pressure - treated west coast fir or hemlock at least #2 common. The height of the top of the screen should equal that of the posts. The design of the architectural screen shall be according to the prototype approved by the City Council. Trees shell be planted along each property line which is contiguous to a street or residential district. Trees shall be chosen from a list of approved species adopted by the Director of Licenses and Consumer Services based on recommendations of the Park Board Chief of Forestry. The list shall prescribe a minimum size and maximum interval for each species, and all trees shall be planted in conformity with the appropriate size and interval. (3) Erecting an architectural screen at least 30 inches in height along each property line, except at places of entrance and exit, which is contiguous to a street or residential district, and constructing landscaped areas at each corner of the parking lot. The architectural screen shall be a wall or fence of wood, ornamental block, brick, metal or combination thereof. Posts may be either wood or metal. When wood is used in an architectural screen, it shall, at a minimum, be rough-sawn, pressure - treated west coast fir or hemlock at least #2 common. The height of the top of the screen should equal that of the posts. The design of the architectural screen shall be according to the prototype approved by the City Council. Landscaped areas shall each be at least 20 square feet, defined by a raised curb or berm, and planted and maintained with trees and sod, shrubbery or living ground cover. (b) Wherever a buffer yard is used, the parking lot shall maintain bumper curbs at least six (6) inches in height for all parking spaces to prevent motor vehicles from coming in contact with the yard. Wherever an architectural screen is used, bumper curbs shall not be required, provided that the screen is of adequate strength to act as a bumper post. (c) No parking lot licensee shall park or allow to be parked any motor vehicle on such lot in such a manner that any part of said motor vehicle extends over or beyond the property line, or over and into any street, sidewalk, alley, or driveway, or in such a manner that any part of said motor vehicle comes into contact with any wall, planter, shrubbery or building. (d) If a provision of a zoning ordinance imposes a more stringent landscape and screening requirement than is found in this chapter, the provisions of the zoning ordinance shall be controlling. 319.210. Attendant Buildings. Attendant buildings shall be accessible to all reservoir areas and located no closer than five (5) feet from the sidewalk adjacent to any entrance or exit. Minimum standards for the materials and general design of attendant buildings shall be as follows: (a) Attendant building shall have a minimum floor area sufficient to accommodate the normal complement of station - operating personnel. The building shall be enclosed and weathertight. It shall be equipped with an operable and lockable door and window. It shall be set on a curb or platform rising a minimum of six (6) inches above the adjacent lot paving. Service connections shall be in accordance with this Code. (b) Materials of construction shall be compatible with the screening design and should respect the character of the surrounding neighborhood. Materials used in construction shall be of a permanent nature such as brick, stone, concerete, wood, terra - cotta, prefinished metal, tile and other similar materials. (c) All building plans shall be submitted to the Department of Inspections for approval so as to insure their compliance with all building codes. A building permit shall be required for construction of said building. 319.220. Lighting. Parking lots which are equipped with lights shall have such lights arranged in a manner so -that- residential structures shall be shielded from direct rays of light and so as not to exceed an intensity of illumination greater than three (3) footcandles measured at the residence district boundary, or ten (10) footcandles measured at the contiguous street right -of -way line. 319.230. Signs . (a) Every Class "A" licensee shall maintain information signs on the parking lot. No information signs are required for Class "B" lots except that when signs are used they shall conform to the requirements of this section when applicable. Said signs shall show the name and telephone number of the licensee or attendant, the licensee's number under which he is operating, and the rates charged for parking or storing automobiles on said premises. Such signs shall state the minimum rate, the maximum rate for 12 hours, and the maximum rate for 24 hours, and if there is no maximum rate, the sign shall so indicate. Such signs shall also state the rate for special events. No change in the posted rates shall be effective until notice of such change has been given not less than 24 hours prior to the effective time of the change in schedule by posting the same on the premises. Signs shall be either 3 feet by 5 feet horizontal, 3 feet by 5 feet vertical, or 5 feet by 10 feet horizontal, permanently mounted with a minimum height to the bottom of sign of 8 feet and a maximum height to top of sign of 15 feet, and shall conform to all City codes regarding erection and construction. All signs shall be plainly visible to the public, and shall be printed in the "Standard Alphabet of Highway Signs" (Series "E") - Series "C" or "D" may be permitted upon approval to accommodate necessary long verbage. Layout of sign graphics shall be according to the approved prototypes as approved by the City Council on file with the Department of Inspections which establishes the standards pertaining to size of sign, color, size of lettering, placement of information and identification symbols. Signs may include a business logo. In no case shall any letters or numerals be less than 3 inches in height. The green color used shall be "outdoor advertising association standard" #144 -L medium green. (b) Signs on one -way streets need only display required graphics on the side facing traffic flow. In such cases the opposite face shall be painted white. (c) Free parking lots may place -no more than one freestanding information sign at each entrance. The sign shall not be required to adhere to the above graphic requirements, but shall be limited to a maximum size of 15 square feet and in no case shall the longest dimension exceed 5 feet. (d) Except as permitted in this section, it shall be unlawful to attach signs to or display graphics of any type on licensed attendant buildings except to attach or incorporate Into the building design a sign which specifies the hours of attendant duty, the location of keys after attendant hours, the name and phone number of licensee, and any other information essential to the normal operation of the lot. (e) All parking lots which engage in towing of unauthorized vehicles shall post such practice on a sign at each lot entrance, or on an informational sign, or on the outside of an attendant building. In addition, the sign shall include the lot owner's name, license or permit number, name and telephone number of Class "A" tower used. Letters on such signs shall be at least one (1) inch in height. 319.240. Charges Limited to Those On Sign. Maximum Lost Ticket Charge. No parking lot shall charge any greater sum for parking a motor VBhicle than is provided for on the entrance signs. No parking lot shall charge a lost ticket charge greater than the maximum rate for each 24 hour period in which a car was actually parked in the lot. 319.250. Alterations. It shall be unlawful for any parking lot operator to make any alterations In the approved plot plan layout pertaining to entrance and exit location; width and grade; design and location of attendant building; landscaping area or screening; location of signs; location of lighting; without first securing the approval of the Department of Public Works and the Department of Licenses and Consumer Services. 319.260. Maintenance. No licensee, or other person in charge of any parking lot shall place upon the street, alley, curb, sidewalk or boulevard any accumulations of snow, ice, dirt, rubbish or other dangerous or unwholesome substances or of any water or waste by reason of washing or cleaning of automobiles; and each licensee shall at all times keep all driveways leading to said parking lot and sidewalks and boulevards adjacent to said parking lot free and clear of all accumulations of snow, ice, dirt, weeds, rubbish or other dangerous or unwholesome substances. All snow originating in entrances or upon the lot itself shall be hauled away at the lot owner's or operator's expense or placed well back on private property. Each licensee shall at all times keep all surface areas of said parking lot free and clear of all accumulations of dirt, weeds, rubbish, or other dangerous or unwholesome substances. Attendant buildings, landscaping, fences, walls, planters and shrubbery shall be kept clean and in good condition at all times. Trees, plants, and grass shall be well tended and shall be replaced without delay if damaged, diseased, or dead. All surfaces required to be paved shall be maintained with a smooth level surface and shall be kept free of depressions, cracks, gaps, holes or similar surface aberrations. 319.270. Keys Left In Vehicles. Whenever keys to motor vehicles are required to be left in the vehicle or with an attendant, an attendant must be on duty at all reasonable times and when such attendant is not on duty, the keys to the said motor vehicles shall be made available to the owners of such vehicles at some suitable place not more than 150 feet distant from the parking area. Where no suitable place is available within 150 feet, the license applicant shall submit to the Department of Licenses and Consumer Services the location of the nearest suitable place subject to review of the Department of Licenses and Consumer Services and approval by the City Council. In all instances, the location of key storage shall be made known to the tow desk of the Police Department. 319.280. . Unauthorized Use of Vehicles. No parking lot personnel shall use or permit the use of any motor vehicle left for parking for any purpose whatsoever unless authorized in writing by the owner or operator of such vehicle. 319.290. Transferring Vehicle to Another Lot. No parking lot personnel shall transfer any vehicle to another parking lot without the consent of the owner or person in charge of said vehicle unless such vehicle is parked without permission or payment. 319.300. Reports to Police. Each licensee shall immediately report to the Police Department the license number and make of the motor vehicle parking in the lot for a period longer than 48 hours after the termination of the parking agreement.- No vehicle shall be reported more than once on any consecutive stay. Every licensee shall notify the Police Department within 24 hours of any claim made by reason of any loss or theft occurring upon the licensed premises. r 319.310. Prohibited Acts. (a) The licensee of a parking lot shall not permit the repairing except in an emergency, dismantling or wrecking of any motor vehicle or the storage of any junk motor vehicle on the parking lot. (b) No person shall charge, or offer to charge, a fee for parking on any property other than a properly licensed commercial parking lot. 319.320. Compliance Time Schedule. (a) Parking lots in operation prior to September 1, 1982 shall have until.June 1, 1983 to comply with the paving requirements of section 319.120, the landscaping requirements of section 319.200, and the provision of section 319.210 regarding the placement of attendant buildings. (b) The City Council may grant one extension of time to a parking lot to comply with the paving requirements of section 319.120 and the landscaping requirements of section 319.200. An extension of time may be granted only to a parking lot on property scheduled for development in the immediate future. A licensee seeking an extension of time shall do so by petition to the Department of Licenses and Consumer Services. When a petition has been filed, a hearing shall be scheduled before the standing committee of the City Council responsible for licenses. No extension of time shall be granted unless the licensee shows that plans actually exist for the development of the property in the immediate future and that there are particular hardships and practical difficulties In the way of carrying out paving and landscaping without delay. When an extension of time is granted, it shall be in writing and shall specify the date upon which paving and landscaping improvements must be completed. No extension of time shall be granted for a period longer than twelve (12) months. An extension of time shall be deemed to run with the property on which the parking lot is located. No parking lot shall be granted more than one extension of time, regardless whether the license is transferred to a different licensee, or whether the property or the business thereon is later sold, leased, or otherwise transferred." Alderman 0"adzic Aye may N.V. Atli I Ovra Suat Mdartnan Scanon Aye Nav N.V. Atm. Ovrd. Suat 019nan Noward 0au n Rodnnstav� WMta Senulatad Slater Carbon Pre RainvdN Kapian X INDICATES VOTE — N.V. - Not Voting Aba. - Absent Ovra . Vote to 0ve►nge Surf Vote to Sustain 1ASSED 19 APPROVED NOT APPROVED _ 19 VETOED ATTEST _ _ cl.rk pre"de"t of eavneil Mapr ye � �0 \�bRaaeMt °v� REPORT /RECOMMENDATION To: COUNCIL 14EMBERS Agenda Item # VIII.0 From: FRED RICHARDS, MAYOR Consent ❑ Information Only ❑ Date: MARCH 27, 1990 Mgr. Recommends ❑ To HRA Subject: VACANCY ON RECYCLING ❑ To Council COMMISSION Action ❑ Motion ❑ Resolution ❑ Ordinance ❑ Discussion Recommendation: Info /Background: I have been informed to the Recycling Com March 5th meeting to Please give me names position. that Ken Joyce is unable to accept appointment nission. You will recall that he was appointed at our fill a partial term to 2 -1 -91. of individuals that you wish to nominate for this q. 1. I,i4 O. )1181n .0 REPORT /RECOMMENDATION To: KEN ROSLAND, MANAGER From: CRAIG SWANSON CHIEF OF POLICE Date: APRIL 2, 1990 Subject: DOG LICENSING Recommendation: Info /Background: Agenda Item # viii.D Consent ❑ Information Only 0 Mgr . Recommends ❑ To HRA ❑ To Council Action ❑ Motion ❑ Resolution ❑ Ordinance ❑ Discussion As requested by the Council, the attached report summarizes background information regarding licensing of dogs in the City and provides an estimate as to cost of mailing out renewal notices. 0 M E M O R A N D U M TO: Kenneth E., Rosland, City Manager FROM: Craig G. Swanson, Chief of Police SUBJECT: Dog Licensing DATE:_._ March 26, 1990 The attached "draft" form is provided in accordance with the Council's,request The form would be sent out in November anticipating the December 31st license expiration. A letter acknowledging the license renewal would be sent to those who choose to use the mailing format. As recommended in my memo to you on March 16, 1990, I would encourage the use of any unanticipated revenue to identify and license currently unlicensed dogs. Conservative estimates are that the number of unlicensed dogs exceeds the total that are or have been licensed. As many as 1500 unlicensed dogs may exist in Edina. To identify unlicensed dogs, the following examples might be implemented. * Authorize veterinarians to sell licenses at the time of initial rabies vaccinations. * Have veterinarians hand out the attached renewal card at the time of initial rabies vaccinations. * Set up vaccination /licensing clinics at reduced rates. * Request veterinarians to provide a list of vaccinated dogs. * Discuss a "life time" license. * Discuss "free licensing" of cats and dogs that have been vaccinated and spayed or neutered. If you have questions or comments, please contact me. Craig . Swanson Chief of Police M E M O R A N D U M TO: Kenneth E. Rosland FROM: Craig G. Swanson SUBJECT: PgZ Licensing DATE: March 16, 1990 At the March 5, 1990, Council meeting, questions arose regarding notification to dog owners for license renewal. Facts about licensing include: * Rationale for licensing: - A means of identifying stray or lost dogs and establishing proof of ownership. - A mechanism for assuring that animals are vaccinated against rabies. * Total licenses issued: 1989 - 570 1988 - 585 1987 - 629 * Renewals: 55% previously licensed 34% licensed during preceding year 11% never licensed before * Estimates of the dog population: - Approximately 1,000 dogs licensed during 1984 -1989. - 60%+ of dogs are never licensed. - Estimated 2,500 dog population in Edina. * Renewal mailout cost (1,000 addresses): printed mailer - $300.00 postage 140.00 labels - 28.00 staff time (mailout only) - 60.00 $528.00 I recommend a renewal mailout. It will generate a larger percentage of renewals. Revenue from the renewals will generate $2,000 to $4,000. I further recommend that this revenue be used to attack the larger problem of unlicensed dogs. If you have questions or comments, please contact me. CRAIG SWANSON CHIEF F POLICE T= IIELP US HELP YOU. MA EL OR BRNG LN YOUR APPUCATION TODAY' All dogs over 6 months of age must be licensed with the City. M licenses axpire December 3lstof the year in which they are issued. The license tae you receive must be worn by your dog at all times. Licensing provides the City with a method of ins&.ng that dogs are properly vaccinated against rabies. Additionally, du'g owners receive tremendous value from a license in that authorities make every ef!br-, to return lost dogs to their homes when they are wearng a current license. All other dogs are transported to the animal shelter in Bloomington where impounding and boarding are charged NMUMONIS :0 CZFHAN —00 — rrul :o: log Lcew- city of Uen ?-&r'e,7eWZxw-tej-,v Edmhjine. MN 55U-L F!MW Uldwid $4.00 fo.-&= ag :a be 1-cersmd—Stake etcks pay-Ajk w. Coy -iEden LICENSE :APPLICATION Nmer's name Address — Home prune # Emergtnei 4 Dog's nacre (!st) Breed Color Sex: M ❑ F M Rabies Tag Date Vet Clinic Dog's name (2nd') Bmed Color XW. Sex: M CI F CI E Rabies Tag V Due Vet Clinic WK)IMANT NOTICE ApUcsdom MU not be unmpted wi'hout =mpltta tabus VJCdMWGn WOMMU011- ThIS iAf*n=I0A 3 On your MtAMS Of vu=nadoa P!=w .*= )*v: vcc cH rJc if necaaary. aasoixa xorsmmus t oms,%;aon jxviaom Ma r Animal Control _Laws Strictly -Enforced 6 -foot leash required „ \ animal waste , _ clean -up a� required nuis in 5 UM �F "u nxad area z-;rZ, -Q6 MT. 9) • Slr „sod 'S"i i 3:�!rt^s tzx__ Mosat U!W 'VMIP3 • laa ;s 1po51saM lost, 3uaL:.. -QdaC a3TIcd euMZ r Animal Control _Laws Strictly -Enforced 6 -foot leash required „ \ animal waste , _ clean -up a� required nuis in 5 ao9�Se 1Jce cited t� No Dogs PARK RULES. No Tethered or Una ended Dogs o e r Cn �N�baroM'��v/ leas REPORT /RECOMMENDATION To: Mayor & City Council From: Francis Hoffman City Engineer Date: 2 April, 1990 Subject: Stormwater Projects Recommendation: Agenda Item # VIII. E. Consent ❑ Information Only ❑ Mgr. Recommends ❑ To HRA ❑ To Council Action ❑ Motion ❑ Resolution ❑ Ordinance ❑ Discussion Authorize to bid projects as recommended. Info /Background: The following are stormwater projects proposed to be constructed during 1990 and funded from the stormwater utility. Section I: W. 76th St. & Parklawn, Edina Lake Park $ 9,040.00 Section II: Edina Manor - Grimes & Halifax Avenues 56,492.00 South of W. 58th St. Section IIA: Edina Manor - Grimes & Halifax Avenues 17,902.00 from MH CB X64 to MH #5 Section III: Sunnyside Ave. & Browndale Ave. to Creek 97,885.50 Section IV: W. 64th St. between Xerxes and Pond 37,795.00 Section V: Yorktown Park Strip from Adams Hill Pond 105,016.00 to Centennial Lakes $324,130.50 Staff will present each with the use of a graphic at the Council meeting. �1 o� e >4 0 \NC0peee ��0� REPORT /RECOMMENDATION To: Mayor & Council From: John Wallin Finance Director Date: April 2, 1990 Subject: Opening for the MWCC Advisory Committee Recommendation: Agenda Item # IX-A. Consent ❑ Information Only ❑ Mgr. Recommends ❑ To HRA ❑ To Council Action ❑ Motion ❑ Resolution ❑ Ordinance 0 Discussion Discussion on the remaining opening for the MWCC Advisory Committee. Info /Background: Pauline Langsdorf of the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission has asked that we be made aware of a remaining opening for the MWCC Advisory Committee for an elected official from either St. Louis Park, Edina, Richfield or Bloomington (Precinct.F). The applications for the position were to be closed on March 15, 1990, however the MWCC will welcome applications at least until the Committee positions are chosen during mid - April. Attached is an application for the Advisory Committee. m J Date APPLICATION FOR METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMIVIISSION GENERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT Metropolitan Waste Control Commission Mears, Park Centre, 230 E. Fifth St. St. Paul, MN 55101 612 222 -8423 NAME: last first middle ADDRESS: street number municipality or township zip code MAILING ADDRESS (if different from home address): street number city state zip code PHONE: Home Business METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTOL COMMISSION PRECINCT (see enclosed map) CATEGORY OF MEMBERSHIP: NAME OF GROUP REPRESENTED: Elected Municipal Official Municipal Staff Environmental Group Representative Industry Representative At -Large Senior Citizen EMPLOYMENT: Please be specific in providing beginning and ending dates for employment and membership in civic and similar organization- Employing firm, agency I Address Position Years with agency Other work experience (optional): Beginning date Employing firm, agency Beginning, ending dates Employing firm, agency Beginning, ending dates Employing firm, agency Beginning, ending dates CIVIC, PROFESSIONAL AND COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES: Organization Beginning, ending dates Position Organization Beginning, ending dates Position Organization Beginning, ending dates Position (OVER) OTHER INFORMATION (Please give beginning, ending dates, if applicable.) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The following information is optional and is sought solely for the purpose of broadening citizen participation in the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission's decision - making process. Sea Race/National Origin _ Female Male American Indian/Alaska Native Asian or Pacific Islander Black Hispanic —Caucasian Other (specify) Check if the following applies to you: _ 60 years of age or older REFERENCES (optional): A: full name relationship mailing address full name mailing address If you have any questions, call the Commission at (612) 229 -2102. Return to: Metropolitan Waste Control Conunission Mears Park Centre 230 East Fifth Street St. Paul, MN 55101 Attention: Pauline Langsdorf phone number relationship phone number Metropolitan Waste Control Commission Mears Park Centre, 230 East Fifth Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 612 222 -8423 January 25, 1989 To Elected Municipal Government Representatives: The Metropolitan Waste Control (MWCC) is seeking applicants for the General Advisory Committee to the Commission which was authorized by the MWCC in December 1989. We are seeking eight members who are elected municipal government representatives, one member from each MWCC precinct. We are contacting your city /township to inform you of the formation of this advisory committee. If you or someone from your elected body wish to apply please submit the enclosed application. An informational sheet explaining the duties of the advisory committee, and a map indicating MWCC Precincts are enclosed. Applications are to be submitted by March 15, 1990 to: Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (6th Floor) Attn: Lurline Baker -Kent, Chair 230 East 5th Street St. Paul, MN 55101 If you need more information regarding this advisory committee, call Pauline Langsdorf (229 - 2102). Equal Opportunity /Affirmative Action Employer O Metropolitan Waste Control Commission Mears Park Centre, 230 East Fifth Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMMISSION 612 222 -8423 GENERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE WHAT IT IS; HOW TO APPLY WHAT IS THE GENERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE? This is a new committee designed to serve a function somewhat similar to the former Sewer Service Advisory Boards that existed metro -wide before legislation in 1987 did away with the six service areas to establish one sewer service area. The job of this advisory committee is to focus on the sewer service needs of the communities of the Twin Cities seven county metropolitan area and to advise the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (MWCC) on issues related to these needs. This new advisory committee will be formed in the spring of 1990 and will consist of 25 members and a Chair appointed by the Chair of the MWCC. Citizens serving on this committee should have a strong interest in the effective and efficient collection and treatment of the metropolitan area's wastewater. ITS PURPOSE The purpose of this advisory committee is to develop recommendations to the MWCC related to metropolitan area wastewater service and treatment with a focus on planning and managing for the future. The MWCC Commission will refer topics to be studied by the advisory group. These might include MWCC's budget, toxics control, odors, residual solids management, water quality issues, communication and public education efforts. HOW THE METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMMISSION FITS IN The MWCC is charged with collecting and treating the wastewater of the Twin Cities area, to preserve and protect the environment. The MWCC serves 105 communities in the seven counties and treats more than 275 million gallons of sewage per day. The MWCC owns and operates 11 wastewater treatment plants and provides a series of interceptor sewer pipes to link the communities to the MWCC wastewater treatment plants. The agency is governed by a board of Commissioners that sets the agency's policy and represents geographic precincts throughout the seven -county metro area. The MWCC obtains a majority of its funding through user service charges. The Metropolitan Council, the chief planning and coordinating agency for the Metropolitan Area, determines which portions of the seven county metropolitan area are to have sewer service. The MWCC provides the sewer service to the areas designated by the Metropolitan Council. HOW MEMBERS TO THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ARE SELECTED Advisory committee members are appointed by the MWCC Chair. The MWCC will ask for recommendations for committee members from the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities (AMM), the Metropolitan Area Managers Association (MAMA), individual cities and townships, local Chambers of Commerce,'and various environmental organizations. The MWCC Chair will serve as General Advisory Committee Chair or will appoint a MWCC Commissioner to Chair the committee. The Committee will consist of one elected official and one appointed official from each MWCC precinct. There will be four members representing environmental groups, and four members representing industry. One at-large senior citizen member will represent economically disadvantaged senior citizens. Members serve staggered three -year terms. (Initially members will be appointed to one, two, or three year terms to establish the rotation process.) Equal Opportunity /Affirmative Action Employer -MD-(D Metropolitan Waste Control Commission Iw•t.taNt.Rt 4. I ■.KN I ■U —% I o.• c.o.a I I I •••Nt• a.•e•t• 114+000 t.lt «twa iKSi a/at �r I •1tw SC.wOu .o.tsr ara I ..•.., N.tN ..d ■° 11. 41N a.fa I • tu.HU co". .•wM Cf ■It..Iat L M.IN NawttaNN i ft 111Y1\ r.! OAr• / w.GO I 1 la".410. Kat..K6 WASHINGTON CO. fOK••M .aw.t t•..l MNO 1 wNN aNKlwo' T - -�•—� • I . ••OMaA Nti .N. 0 =' I fiKlw.Ia• t1 -M NKar, w V M.t HE/INE N CO. Mar! wl•at K� '• °�• G..wr. I rNr IllaN.tw O SI :Rt (n x R•M � •OMYY� ft. W �ta «. r • •na.oN iwi` ••.tnw • Nat• ■aM ►t —, ,.■ � - � i .asr 1 I I O.O.• `� 11A Sfu CO. a.■11.00 I I NawttaNN i ft 111Y1\ � OAr• / l.■al./.� «wa.wo0o I ..Ia•17w1 I • 1� (I''�l roN I r UOyO 1� II • I 1.w• «0 y.ar•• J 0 A t1 -M NKar, w L , • Nlt .00.w.. \ — -- r¢ •.!• 1 l• .•M \wIw t1 Wiau.! (jY I 4faN.lYS«. .Nrltu •r•ro/t 17 .l•Nf• NIG.Ia \t .!. IM G.l ! °I - CN /.. � CAIIVEII CO. 1 4.4" N04.111 tOtt.y 4600" Vi Jy lwy I awl°° OAIIOTA CO. jJ.Nwca � I •y�i� 1 t•.H. y� «• I '`SO. I t01M O.wa G.l. � N «Y 1 •.•.t.RGt "k"4 —loco I 411"l0. I I .M• .w ■t la. \.! •Ot1.e. /! Y1M.1yCt• . a °4t .\11.16\ r.4K MIND I S.. 1°.rf.Sfe +.rtfK. I I I I •1.w 110. � I...l 1..Yl /l1• I l"-G lrl I 141{"1 , WtllaaG rrw.l I - a I •a..rl1N SCOTT Co. I .. «..tN I I S1. I I w1w.••.Il iJ -! I•r• I I..-.! .I ..I II• I uu1 n...t I -111.. :lo.....1 tv•t •. • I I ° I 11 •a . KWI I I I l la• I II 1II r.0"_ — oN.. .1laS S 10 I• 70 » G•114.Y1 1••11.•. + I r I 440 asociaion of metropolitan municipalities March 21, 1990 AGENDA ITEM: IX,B. BULLETIN TO: Member City Officials FROM: Walter Fehst, President RE: NOMINATIONS FOR BOARD OF DIRECTORS - ANNUAL MEETING, WEDNESDAY EVENING, MAY 16TH. 1. NOMINATIONS WANTED FOR BOARD OF DIRECTORS: A Nominating Committee consisting of the following individuals was appointed by the Board of Directors on March 1, 1990. Chair: Gary Bastian, Maplewood Councilmember and Past President; Jerry Dulgar, Crystal Manager; Tom Egan, Eagan Mayor; Edwina Garcia, Richfield Councilmember; Sharon Klumpp, Oakdale Administrator; Peggy Kelly, Edina Councilmember; Paula Maccabee, St. Paul Councilmember, Dennis Schneider, Fridley Councilmember; and Dave Unmacht, Prior Lake Manager. The offices of President, Vice - President and eight directors are to be filled. DUE TO THE TWO -TERM LIMITATION, THERE WILL BE AT LEAST FIVE NEW BOARD MEMBERS ELECTED. The Board meets the first Thursday evening of each month and its main duties and responsibilities are to adopt a yearly budget, determine the yearly priorities for legislative lobbying; and coordinate and direct staff activities. We are asking for your help in identifying candidates for the Board of Directors and Volunteers /Nominations are needed from all parts of the Metropolitan Area. ACTION REQUESTED: NOMINATIONS /RECOMMENDATIONS INCLUDING A BRIEF RESUME SHOULD BE SENT TO THE ATTENTION OF VERN PETERSON IN THE AMM OFFICE BY NO LATER THAN FRIDAY, APRIL 6TH., 1990. GET THOSE NOMINATION$ IN THE MAIL AS SOON AS POSSIBLE! -1- 183 university avenue east, st. paul, minnesota 55101 (612) 227 -4008 2. WEDNESDAY EVENING, MAY 16TH. IS THE DAY SELECTED FOR THE AMM ANNUAL MEETING: The 1990 AMM Annual Meeting has been scheduled for Wednesday evening, May 11p 1990. Many of the meeting details have not been finalized as yet but it will be a dinner meeting beginning with a social hour starting at 5:30 P.M. Please mark your calendars now for this important meeting. A notice, agenda and reservation. information will be mailed in about four weeks. 3. RTB CHAIR'S LOCAL OFFICIALS ADVISORY COMMITTEE ESTABLISHED; VOLUNTEERS SOUGHT: At the request of the AMM, Mike Ehrlichmann Chair of the Regional Transit Board is establishing an RTB Chair's Advisory Committee. By agreement with Mr. Ehrlichmann, the AMM will seek volunteers from within member cities and provide a list to him of two officials for each committee position. Tentatively, the Committee composition targeted for 7 officials from Hennepin County cities, 3 from Ramsey cities, 2 each from Anoka and Dakota County cities, and 1 each from Washington, Scott, and Carver cities for a total of 17 persons. This is a fairly good geographic representative of the area population. The basic task of the committee will be to provide input from the city perspective on major transportation /transit policy issues and to develop innovative and creative ideas for short and mid term transit improvements throughout the area. The Committee will act. as a two -way communications conduit between the RTB and cities supplying information and alternative scenarios for.consideration by the RTB on transit policy.' Both the AMM Board and RTB Chair hope that the committee will be active and provide meaningful input. Therefore, local officials wishing to serve should be prepared to spend the necessary time. The Committee once formed, will determine meeting times, length, and and frequency but one can expect at least one meeting per month of 2 to 3 hours duration. The previous Advisory Committee met at 4 P.M. Mr. Ehrlichmann expressed a desire to have as many members as possible be elected officials versus appointed. ACTION REQUESTED: If you or someone from your city would like to serve on the RTB Chair's Advisory Committee, please call Carol Williams, Roger Peterson or Vern Peterson at 227 -4008 by April 5, 1990. The Board of Directors will consider the nominees at its April 5 meeting. OF= t •- 4. AMM MEMBERSHIP AT ALL TIME HIGH: The City of Shoreview has recently become the 68th. member of the AMM! This is the largest membership in the 16 year.history of the AMM. Nearly 90 percent of all the people living in the Twin City Metropolitan Area reside in the 68 member cities. We are delighted to welcome Shoreview into AMM membership and look forward to working with their city officials in the comming months and years. Dick Wedell is Mayor, Dwight Johnson is Manager and the Councilmembers are Sandy Martin, David McGraw, Richard Sundberg and Ben Withhart. DISTRIBUTION NOTE: This bulletin has been mailed individually to all Mayors,* Councilmembers and Managers. -3 ,WE F�°,�RE . \ WE DARE I�'•"r� WE SHARE March 30, 1990 1 l /Mr. Fred Richards, Mayor Edina City Hall 4801 West 50th Street y Edina, MN 55424 Dear Fred,, PUBLIC SCHOOLS This letter is a follow -up to a recent conversation that I understand you had with Sarah Jones, - Chairperson of the Edina Board of Education. The purpose of that conversation as well as this letter is to ask that you consider putting the matter of excess tax increment revenue from the 1988 school tax referendum before the Edina City Council. Enclosed with this letter is a copy of the resolution approved by the Board of Education several months ago as well as Superintendent Smyth's letter to the City Manager. The background information to the resolution explains how the excess revenue concept works. If the shift of revenue from the city to the school district is approved it will not actually increase revenue for the school district. The district's subsequent levy authority (to be approved in the fall of 1990 for the school year 1991 -92) will be reduced by the amount of the excess tax increment revenue. In effect, the whole thing is revenue neutral for the school district. With the reduction adjustment to the levy authority there is, of course, a small reduction to Edina taxpayers. This is an excellent opportunity for the Edina City Council and the Edina Board of Education to work together in a way that will benefit the tax - paying citizens in the school district who are also residents of the city by reducing taxes slightly. It is not a significant amount of tax dollars, but nevertheless an opportunity for some positive publicity in the community through a joint effort of the two local taxing authorities. If you would like to discuss this matter not hesitate to give me a call or you may Gordon Hughes on the city staff. Gordon this matter together so that we are both it. 5701 NnRMANnAl F Sincerely, ROAD E D I N A MINNESOTA 55424 612- 920 -2980 am es A. Hamann Assistant Superintendent for Business Services JAH /mef Enc. cc: Sarah Jones Ray Smyth further please do wish to visit with and I have studied knowledgeable about 'N EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYE? W.j C'R R E W f 0 A R E W E 8 N A R E 1 I June 22, 1989 P U B L I C S C N 0 0 L S • 1907 F I F T Y F I V E Mr. Ken Rosland, City Manager Edina City Hall 4801 West 50th Street Edina, Minnesota 55424 Dear Ken, You may be aware that legislation passed during the 1988 session provides for some changes with respect to tax increment financing districts. One of the changes makes it permissible for a city to rebate to a school district excess tax increment revenue generated by a school district referendum levy. The Edina Board of Education recently approved a resolution to request that such a rebate be made. I have enclosed a copy of that resolution. The purpose of this letter is to ask you to put this matter on the agenda of a future meeting of the Edina City Council for consideration. Members of your staff, Gordon Hughes and Erik Anderson, have met with Jim Hamann on this to review the provision in the law and to work up the financial numbers. You may want to visit with any or all of them for more information. Your early attention to resolution of this request by the Board of Education will be very much appreciated. FIFTY FIVE mef Enc. W E 8 T 7 0 T N S T R E E T E 0 1 N A N N 5 5 4 3 5 812.144.3513 ,myth :nt AN EQUAL OPPORTUN'TY EMPLOYER FOR ACTION INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 273 Regular Meeting, June 12, 1989 Volume 60, Report 403 SUBJECT: EXCESS TAX INCREMENT REVENUE FROM THE 1988 REFERENDUM Be it Resolved, That The Board of Education Request the Edina City Council to rebate the excess tax increment revenue resulting from the 1988 referendum for the fiscal year 1989 -90 and annually thereafter. BACKGROUND INFORMATION The City of Edina contains four tax increment financing districts, two of which (50th and France District and Grandview District) are inclusive within the school district. When these TIF districts were established the base or first year valuation of the districts was captured for taxing jurisdictions such as the school district or county, which means that tax revenue for the school district from the TIF districts remains fixed for a 20 to 25 year period. Because the TIF districts do increase in value the- city is able to generate incremental tax revenue (difference between the fixed amount and current or incremental valuation). These incremental tax revenues are used to retire the development bonds and other costs of development. When the voters of the school district authorized by referendum an additional levy, the result of applying the additional levy on the incremental or current value is the generation of "windfall" revenue to the development (TIF). district. This phenomenon directs revenue to the TIF district through no action on the part of the city instead of producing revenue for the school district for whose benefit the levy was created. The 1988 amendments to the Minnesota Tax Increment Financing Act include a provision whereby a city with tax increment financing districts may pay excess tax increment revenue generated by a referendum levy to the school district 689 (clause 3 of Subdivision 10 added to M.S. 469.177). Payment by a city to a,school district of the excess tax increment revenue must be approved by'a majority vote of the city governing body. The additional referendum levy approved by voters in the Edina School District on October 18, 1988, will generate excess tax increment revenue during 1989 -90 in the two TIF districts inclusive within the school district as follows: 50th and France District $33,370 Grandview District 15,690 Total $49,060 '-690 Agenda Item XI.A M E M O R A N D U M TO: Recycling Commissioners FROM: Susan Wohlrabe SUBJECT: RECYCLING COMMISSION /CITY COUNCIL LIAISON MEETING DATE: March 23, 1990 Monday, April 16, is the date scheduled for the Recycling Commission /City Council's Liaison Meeting. It will be held at 6:00 PM in the Manager's Conference Room, prior to the Council Meeting at 7:00 PM. -This meeting replaces the individual liaison assignment of a Council Member to your Commission. It is a time when mutual concerns can be discussed, and it is intended to be an informal session - -you may have an agenda if you wish. sw cc: Mayor & Council Members Janet Chandler O (Le REPORT /RECOMMENDATION ass To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL Agenda Item # XI.B From: KEN ROSLAND, MANAGER Consent ❑ Information Only ❑ Date: MARCH 29, 1990 Mgr. Recommends ❑ To HRA Subject: CLOSED MEETING TO DISCUS 0 To Council LABOR NEGOTIATIONS Action 0 Motion ❑ Resolution ❑ Ordinance ❑ Discussion Recommendation: That the Council by motion schedule a closed meeting to discuss labor negotiations immediately following adjournment of the Regular Meeting on April 2, 1990. Info /Background I would like to meet with the Council, -in a closed meeting for the purpose of discussing labor negotiations. The Open Meeting statute provides that a a governing body of a public employer may by a majority vote in a public meeting decide to hold a closed meeting to consider strategy for labor negotiations. The time of commencement and place of the closed meeting shall be announced at the public meeting. 4510 Edina Boulevard Edina, Minnesota 55424 March 26, 1990 Ms. Jane Paulus 4617 Moorland Avenue Edina, Minnesota 55424 Dear Ms, Paulus: I an prompted to write to you because of the article in the Tribune Shelter section on March 24. It concerns the reaDdling of a small house on the corner of Wooddale and Country Qub in the Country Club areae I have always felt that the lots in Country Club were too small for the houses. Lately it seems to aye that.several people have been enlarging these houses almost up to the lot line. I refer in particular to a house at 4515 Moorland which now has its garage pushed right up against its neighbor's back fence. I do net knew any of the parties Invol"d in the Wooddale house, nor do I Know arW of the neighbors. I do feel, however, that the Country Club area is on the National Register of Historic Places fbr a reason. If builders and others continue to come into our neighborhood and "nearly triple the size" of the houses, the character of Country Club is going to be lost. I have lived here for over twenty years, and I would be most unhappy if one of my neighbors built within three feet of my lot line. Are there no zoning laws against this? If there are special variances and loopholes, shouldn't they be closed? Thank you for your attention. Yours truly, Mary Ann MacLennan G. FY.BUREAU OF PUBLIC SERVICE A -2307 Government Center HENNEPIN Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487 -0237 Phone (612) 348 -4077 -.March 28, 1990 The Honorable Frederick S. Richards Mayor, City of Edina 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 Dear Mayor Richards: The County Board at its meeting of March 27, 1990, approved the attached resolution that affects yard waste management. The resolution outlines the County's charges for handling yard waste at any of its disposal sites. Cities opting to manage the composting or landspreading of their yard waste without County involvement are eligible for a rebate from the County. Schedule A, attached to the resolution, shows the amounts which cities are eligible to receive. We will provide information soon about how a city may request a rebate. We.will continue to cooperate with those cities needing disposal sites for yard waste this year and will provide information where the landspreading sites are and the hours the sites will be open to receive yard waste. sig6erely, r Vern T. Genzlin Associate County Administrator cc: Mr. Kenneth E. Rosland, Manager Attachment HENNEPIN COUNTY an equal opportunity employer 90 RESOLUTION NO.-90-3-299 719 00424 The following resolution was offered by Commissioner Spartz, seconded by Commissioner Jude:. WHEREAS, Board Resolution 90- 2 -31R1 and 90- 2 -32R1 outlined the intent of the County yard waste composting program for 1990; and WHEREAS, To date, no yard waste transfer sites have been identified and permitted by any municipality, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Hennepin County yard waste composting program for 1990 will be organized as follows: 1. All material coming into a County operated site must be in bulk form; no bags will be allowed. 2. The County will charge $30 per ton if scales are available or $10 per cubic yard for yard waste coming into the County system. 3. The County will operate a compost site in Hassan and charge haulers for the material delivered. The site will be in operation from April 2 - May 31, 1990. 4. The County will contract with one or more farmers for the landspreading of yard waste. The County will have personnel at each designated landspreading site to record the cubic yards of material delivered. Haulers will be charged on the basis of recorded material delivered. 5. Cities opting to manage the composting or landspreading of their yard waste without County involvement will be eligible for a rebate from the County. This rebate will correspond to the portion of the solid waste tip fee paid by the city's residents for yard waste composting, and is based on a calculated rate of $1.90 of the $95.00 tip fee. *Schedule A (.attached) shows the amounts which cities may be eligible to receive under this policy. 6. If a city selects and permits a yard waste transfer site, the city will operate the site. The County will transport the material to a County- identified landspreading or composting site and charge the city for the material at the $30 per ton or $10 per-cubic yard rate, depending upon availability of a scale at the site. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That staff be directed to execute contracts with one or more farmers for landspreading of yard waste for in 1990. The question was on the adoption of the resolution and there were Five YEAS and No NAYS as follows: COUNTY OF HENNEPIN BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS YEA NAY OTHER Jeff Spartz X Randy Johnson X John Keefe ABSENT John E. Derus _ X Tad Jude _ X Mark Andrew, Vice Chairman _ X Sam S. Sivanich, Chairman _ ABSENT RESOLUTION ADOPTED. ATTEST: Clerk of County oard *Note: On File Vith Clerk of the Board MAP 2 7 19QO J SCHEDULE A Estimated Yard Waste Rebate to Municipalities Based on MSW Projections for 1990 x 1.90 /T Total Tons % Billable Yard Waste City Per Year Distribution Tons Surcharge Bloomington 108,122 10.60 72,580 $137,902 Brooklyn Center 23,892. 2.35 16,090 30,571 Brooklyn Park 35,859 3.52 24,102 45,794 Champlin 4,979 .49 3,355 6,375 Corcoran 2,048 .20 1,369 2,601 Crystal 15,302 1.50 10,271 19,515 Dayton (PT.) 2,008 .20 1,369 2,601 Deephaven 1,565 .16 1,095 2,081 Eden Prairie 42,562 4.18 28,621 54,380 Edina 55,751 5.47 37,454 71,163 Excelsior 3,135 .31 2,123 4,034 Fort Snelling 89 .01 68 129 Golden Valley 40,347 3.96 27,115 51,519 Greenfield 683 .07 479 910 Greenwood 282 .03 205 390 Hanover (PT.) 116 .02 137 260 Hassan Twp. 803 .08 548 1;041 Hopkins 24,622 2.42 16,570 31,483 Independence 1,084 .11 753 1,431 Long Lake 2,760 `" .27 1,849 3,513 Loretto 141 .02 137 260 Maple Grove 18,788 1.85 12,667 24,067 Maple Plain 1,945 .19 1,301 2,472 Medicine Lake 197 .02 137' 260 Medina 1,164 .12 822 1,562 Minneapolis 372,846 36.56 250,334 475,635 Minnetonka 44,518 4.37 29,922 56,852 Mtka Beach 273 .03 205 390 Minnetrista 1,405 .14 959 1,822 Mound 3,734 .37 2,533 4,813 New Hope 20,022 1.97 13,489 25,629 Orono 3,130 .31 2,123 4,034 Osseo 4,632 .46 3,150 5,985 Plymouth 54,113 5.31 36,359 69,062 Richfield 25,824 2.54 17,392 33,045 Robbinsdale 9,369 .92 6,299 11,968 Rockford (PT.) 197 .02 137 260 Rogers 1,016 .10- 685 1,302 St. Anthony (PT.) 2,057 .21 1,438 2,732 St. Bonifacius 758 .08 548 1,041 St. Louis Park 48,250 4.73 32,387 61,535 Shorewood 2,146 .21 1,438 2,732 Spring Park 671 .07 479 910 Tonka Bay 805 .08 548 1,041 Wayzata 5,115 .51 3,492 6,635 Woodland 241 .03 205 390 Others 30,629 2.83 19,381 35,853 Totals 1,019,995 100.00 684,720 $1,300,000 o� 00, 2 .Su�G'�,� , t° I sG� IC,A L$ _ 5 BUGS Why co /ds are so touchin bD•ME -DOWN colds 9 ' timer Xa by People tpuc'Ou8 t _ tant M ZhaNe wb �� irgpofi- Your: dat,s�� ar -� �Y. sgps• Pau! Doueuent- �di beyond .,0� Qhie ? p1 COF" the sta o thing fthe touch their � :osea a You era';` NO then Jump o �e4 You touch y� d bog fhds ha W' in. Ptems el Iratory lracC Cold Ys, otv dP In One to four Q Y mot: And soft JmOd -headache QQ ceoise14 r000q e. zetwicogw 0 Z%�°° but OW► �Vf L / - o yA /yo alr-GROUP 7625 Parklown • Edina, Minnesota 55435 (612) 830-1111 March 28, 1990 Mr. Frederick Richards Mayor Edina City Council 4801 W. 50th Street Edina, Minnesota 55424 Dear Mr. Richards: We would like to take a moment to say thank you and congratulate the many members of the Edina City departments that were so helpful and cooperative in our accident at the Edina Professional Building on France Avenue. City manager, Kenneth Rosland, John Schirmang, Chief Building Official, Ted Paulfranz, Fire Chief, Terrence K. Kehoe, Assistant Fire Chief., James Michalko, Supervisor of Inspections and to all of the people who assisted them, a marvelous job was done in coordinating and responding to what could have been a very serious situation. This accident goes under the category of one of those unforeseen and unpredictable things that happen in life. With their cooperation, our staff was able to respond immediately and effectively with a minimal amount of disruption to tenants in the building and their customers. Once again, thank you very much for a job well done! Sincerely, JLT GROUP i Z� �^ Jerry L. Trooien Kurt Williamson Ron Johnson JLT /dy KW /dy RJ /dy rt MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 1990, 7:30 P.M. EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Gordon Johnson, Nan Faust, Helen McClelland, Robert Hale, Lee Johnson, Geof Workinger, David Runyan, Charles Ingwalson MEMBERS ABSENT: John Bailey, John Palmer, Virginia Shaw STAFF PRESENT: Craig Larsen, City Planner Fran Hoffman, City Engineer Jackie Hoogenakker, Secretary I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Commissioner Runyan moved for approval of the January 31, 1990 Community Development and Planning Commission Minutes. Commissioner Workinger'seconded the motion. Commissioner McClelland asked to have the minutes revised for Agenda Item, Z -90 -1, correct the spelling of Mr. Everson's name from-Iverson to Everson and to add after her statement "she will not support development of a neck lot " nor a building pad cut into a hill and a substandard lot. Regarding the townhouse proposal Commissioner McClelland wants added," Doubles or a four plex maximum ". Commissioner Hale asked'to have the minutes revised for Z -90 -1 to add his comments; they are as follows: 1) Commissioner Hale asked if the driveway easement for Lot 13 couldn't run easterly to the driveway for the townhouses. Mr. Larsen said this was being considered. 2) Commissioner Hale asked about the "emergency overflow" on lot 9 as shown on sheet 6 of 8, and wouldn't this cause problems with the steep slope and with the townhouses below. 3) Commissioner Hale asked if there were any restrictions on the driveway width which would apply to the 25 foot wide neck lot. Mr. Larsen said no. Z -90 -2 4) Commissioner Hale noted that there is residential directly across the pond and very expensive residential across the pond to the north.' 5) Commissioner Hale asked Mr. Larsen if Section 11(b) of Ordinance No. 804 as it applies to property adjoining a pond and calling for a 100 foot setback would apply. Mr. Larsen said no. With the above mentioned requested revisions the Commission all voted aye to approve the minutes for January'31, 1990. II. OLD BUSINESS: Z -90 -1 Ron Clark Construction, Inc., R -1, Single Dwelling Unit District to PRD -3, Planned Residential District. S -90 -1 Preliminary Plat Approval for Ridgewood Addition. Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Medium Density Residential to Low Density Residential 7 Mr. Larsen reminded the Commission at their last meeting suggestions were made to the Developer, Mr. Clark and a number of those suggestions are presented this evening in a revised plan. Mr. Larsen asked the Commission to note the changes as follows: Mr. Larsen pointed out the preliminary plat continues to illustrate 13 lots. Minor lot line adjustments are made on lots 7,8,9,10 and 13. As a result the number of variances on lot 7 are reduced from 3 to 2. Lot 7 now has the required 30 feet on frontage on a public street. Lot width and lot depth to perimeter ratio variances are still required. Also, portions of lots 9 and 10 have been added to lot 13 to allow more flexibility in siting a new home. However, Lot 13 still requires a lot depth variance. Mr. Larsen explained the previous proposal contained 25 units in one 7 unit building and 3 six unit buildings. The revised proposal illustrates 21 units with no building larger than 4 units. The result is that the development now meets our definition for Low Density Attached Residential. Low Density Attached Residential allows up to six units per acre and up to 4 units per building. The revised plan also allows for a PRD -2 zoning compared to the previous PRD -3 zoning. The proposed plan complies with all requirements of the PRD -2 district, including lot coverage and number of units per building. Mr. Larsen said the proposed site plan also reduces to 2 the number of curb cuts serving the townhouse development. One is at the far west side of the property near the crest of the hill. The second lines up with Limerick Lane. Mr. Larsen told the Commission that although the Commission previously voted to amend the Comprehensive Plan to Medium Density Residential, it may want to consider Low Density Residential for the townhouse site. The Plan defines Low Density as follows: LOW DENSITY ATTACHED RESIDENTIAL (0 -6 DU /acre). This designation is intended to include two family dwellings, townhouses, and other multi - family developments containing a maximum of four dwelling units per building or structure. Single family dwellings may also be a compatible use in such areas. It is intended that this designation will provide a variety of housing types in relatively close proximity to single family residential areas and will represent a transitional use between single family areas on high volume roadways or more intense uses. Although a maximum of 6 DU /acre is noted, maximum densities will be influenced by surrounding single family densities. Mr. Larsen noted the Commission has previously taken action on repeal of the Heritage Preservation Overlay District and the Comprehensive Plan Amendments. Actions remaining are: 1. Amend recommendation on Comprehensive Plan to change townhouse portion of the plan to Low Density Attached Residential. 2. Preliminary rezoning from R -1 to PRD -2 for townhouse portion of the site. 3. Preliminary Plat approval for 13 single family lots, 21 townhouse lots and one outlot (townhouse common areas). 2 Staff Recommended Conditions: 1. Final Rezoning 2. Final Plat Approval 3. Parkland Dedication 4. Developers Agreement 5. Landscaping Plan and Bond 6. Investigation of Historical Park Near 70th and Cahill Mr. Larsen told the Commission he became aware today, relative to the Historical Designation and Historical Park that there is some confusion and that it may be his fault. Mr. Larsen said the Heritage Preservation Board (HPB) which considered this request recommended that the building could be removed, but the site where the foundation is, or the use of some of the foundation materials on the site, should be designated as historically significant. Mr. Larsen said on a staff level this recommendation was taken a step further to include the' possibility of expanding the historical area to other corners of the Cahill settlement. Mr. Larsen said the reason this approach was investigated was due to the proposed residential character of the development on the west, and the renovation taking place on the commercial side of Cahill where the Old Cahill School and the store were located. Mr. Larsen said staff never meant to take away from the HPB's recommendation, but more to expand the area of search for historical significance. Mr. Larsen asked the Commission to note that investigation of a Historical Park is one of the points that needs to be addressed and a solution found for final approval. Commissioner McClelland asked Mr. Larsen what the lot depth is for Lot 13. Mr. Larsen said at its shallowest point Lot 13 is 120 feet deep. This depth complies with the minimum requirements of the zoning ordinance but not with the lot depth of the properties in the surrounding neighborhood as'defined in Subdivision Ordinance No. 804. Commissioner L. Johnson asked Mr. Larsen if the slopping concerns would be addressed at this level or could they be part of the Developer's Agreement. Mr. Larsen said it could be made part of the Developer's Agreement if the Commission so requested, but those concerns, regardless would be addressed by the Engineering Department before final approval. Mr. Ron Clark, proponent, Nancy Horn, and Mike Gair Mr. Clark's representatives, Gary Nyberg, Heritage Preservation Board, and interested residents were present. Mr Gary Nyberg, representative from the Heritage Preservation Board addressed the Commission informing them that the Board felt the church was architecturally insignificant, however, the site has historic significance. The Board recommended that a pocket`be developed similar to the one near the Edina Mills site and that it be developed on the west side of Cahill Road. It was also recommended that some of the foundation from the church should be incorporated into the development of a pocket park. Mr. Nyberg said that was their recommendation to the Edina City Council. Commissioner L. Johnson asked Mr. Nyberg if the HPB considered locating the pocket park on the east side of Cahill Road. Mr. Nyberg said at the time this item was considered that was not mentioned as a possibility,. Mr. Nyberg added that he feels since this is the last remaining piece still intact, the pocket 3 park should be located on or near the original site of the church. Commissioner Runyan asked Mr. Nyberg if the HPB had any specific recommendations for a pocket park, and did they look at the possibility of a commemorative marker. Mr. Nyberg said the most logical suggestion from their meeting was to incorporate and /or use the footings to create a commemorative marker, and have the pocket park constructed similar to the Edina Mills Park. Mr. Nyberg said the Board found this solution to make the most sense due to the size of the church and the high cost of upkeep and the removal of the church from the site. Chairman Johnson asked how much space does the Board think will be needed for the park. Mr. Nyberg responded that he has no idea, but probably the size of the Edina Mills Park. Commissioner Runyan asked if the Board wants the whole foundation incorporated into the park. Mr. Nyberg replied that the Board would like to see some of the stones from the foundation used to commemorate the site, and have some parking nearby if possible. Commissioner L. Johnson pointed out that since the land is privately owned, who would fund the purchase of the land for the park and what funds would be used to maintain it? Mr. Larsen answered that that is difficult to access because at this level the Planning Commission and the Heritage Preservation Board do not have the power to allocate funds for a park. Continuing, Mr. Larsen explained the City Council is the body that will study this aspect of the proposed development and will make their decision. Mr Larsen said that is why staff has expanded it's search for a park and proposed an alternative to the park being located on the site. Staff looked at the original Cahill settlement which included all corners of 70th and Cahill Road. Commissioner Faust said in a way that puts the cart before the horse. She added how can the developer design a project if they do not know what the Council wants to do about the historical aspect of the site. Mr. Larsen said that is true, but it is a factor the developer is aware of, and if final approval is granted the development will have to reflect what the Council has ordered. Mr. Mike Gair presented to the Commission the revisions that have taken place as a result of their recommendations. Mr. Gair pointed out the site is 12.8 acres. The revised proposal depicts 21 townhouses and 13 single family homes. The price of the single family homes will be between $350 thousand - $700 thousand. The price of the townhouses will be between $250 thousand - $300 thousand. Mr. Gair pointed out Mr. Clark is a quality builder and has constructed many quality houses and townhouses in the City. Continuing, Mr. Gair said the townhouses would be stucco, brick, and cedar shakes. Mr. Gair pointed out that the project would create an excellent tax base for the City and the single family homes would add children to the Edina school system. With graphics Mr. Gair pointed out the proposed development site and how it relates to the surrounding area. Mr. Gair added that the change in the number of townhouses from 25 to 21 give the townhouse site zoning potential for Low Density Attached versus the previous request for Medium Density Attached. He added there are no attached units more than four, and the rest are two and three unit buildings. Mr. Gair noted that the previous plan had three accesses and the revised plan indicates two. Mr. Clark addressed the Commission informing them he has worked hard on this project to decrease the density. He told the Commission he is willing to work with the Council and City to come to an agreement on the park. Continuing, Mr. Clark said he will construct a quality development and will work hard to provide adequate screening and buffering and perimeter landscaping that everyone would find acceptable. Mr. Clark said he will cooperate in any way possible to make this development blend into the community and to address any individual concerns. LA! Commissioner Faust said she doesn't understand how there can be 188 less townhouses and only 3 1/28 less land coverage. She asked if the size of the townhouses have been increased. Mr. Gair said the townhouses have not been increased in size. Commissioner Faust asked the size of the townhouses. Mr. Gair said the townhouses are 30 feet X 83 feet. They will have 1600 square feet on the main level, with a total of 2000 square feet for the footprint, which includes the garage. Commissioner L. Johnson explained that the 188 decrease in townhouses is taken from the original townhouse total of 25 minus the 4, which is an 188 decrease. The 3 1/28 decrease in land coverage is taken from the whole development. Commissioner Hale . asked why the driveway access for Lot 13 doesn't access via the drive from the townhouse development rather that West 70th Street. Mr. Gair said the reason for that is because of the grade. It is too steep. Commissioner Runyan agreed adding that the slope for that driveway access would be around 108. Commissioner Workinger said he doesn't like the idea of any type of easements on properties. He added he wants to make sure a driveway easement isn't added to' Lot 13 after final approval. Commissioner Workinger said he wants Lot 13 to remain as presented. Chairman G. Johnson said from a legal standpoint if the future property owners agree an easement can be created. Commissioner L. Johnson said that maybe to prevent that from happening it could become part of the Developer's Agreement. Commissioner L. Johnson questioned Mr. Gair on where the slope easement would be located. Mr. Gair said their slope easement would not extend to the erosion control line. He added this would leave flexibility for structure placement. Mr. Gair asked Commissioner L. Johnson if his idea was to have the slope easement and erosion control line be coincidental. Commissioner L. Johnson said that he would feel more comfortable if the slope easement extended to the erosion control line. Commissioner McClelland commented that she has concerns about substandard lots within a new development. Commissioner McClelland said she would'like to have one lot removed from the single family subdivision. She added if one lot is removed variances would not be required and the proposed neck lot would be removed. Continuing, Commissioner McClelland said that as a result of the new Subdivision Ordinance the Commission should look very carefully at developments that require variances. Mr. Larsen explained that the new subdivision ordinance is a guideline to aide in their review process. Commissioner McClelland told the Commission she walked the site for a second time and was appalled by the condition, size, and state of repair of the retaining walls on the back side -of the property. She noted that there is erosion present and agrees with Commissioner L. Johnson that the slope easement should be coincidental with the erosion line. Commissioner McClelland submitted to the Commission a graphic that shows 12 lots instead of the proposed 13 and reduced the number of townhouses from the proposed 21 to 16. Commissioner McClelland said she has a grave concern regarding Lot 7 which would create a neck lot if approved. She pointed out the steepness in topography in the northwest corner and the steep retaining walls. Linda Smithson, 5608 West 70th Street told the Commission the neighborhood is not interested in multi family housing on the site. She said the poll taken 5 indicates the neighborhood wants the site to remain single family. She pointed out low density is to be influenced by the density of the single family neighborhood. Ms. Smithson added she wants the density decreased in the middle section. She pointed out the twin homes on the northwest corner have the appearance of single family residences, adding that type.of low density development is the type of guidance she would like to see in this development if there is to be multiple housing at all. Continuing, Ms. Smithson said if there is to be a park, the townhouse development would appear tighter than what has been presented. Ms. Smithson said the view of the roof lines would be detrimental to the value of the homes across the street. Mr. Miles Hersey, property owner at Highpointe, told the Commission when he purchased his property he was told the site would remain as is, due to the historical significance of the land. He added he does not want to look at roof lines and would prefer to look at a pocket park. Mr. Hersey said he would like to see a pocket park developed on the site. Mr. Hersey asked Mr. Clark what the height of the buildings would be on the portion of the historical site. Mr. Gair answered that the buildings located on the historical site are one story buildings. Mrs. Darlene McDonnel, resident of Highpointe, told the Commission Mr. Clark made no promise to her regarding the historical aspect of the site next to Highpointe. She pointed out.he did not own the site and therefore had no control over the site. Continuing, she said when she first purchased her condo she was concerned about the dumpster situation at the school because it was kept very messy. Since that time garbage containment has improved. She added the only change that has taken place for her is that instead of a second set of condominiums being developed Mr. Clark chose to develop townhouses because the market became soft for condo's. Mrs. McDonnel said she is very happy at Highpointe and Mr. Clark builds a quality project. Donna Ebert, 7004 Lee Valley Circle, said she does not know many facts but asked when Mr. Everson bought the property was there anything that said you have to keep the site historical. Mr. Everson said when he purchased the property that was not considered, he added he knew the church was historical but he did not know that he couldn't in the future develop his property. Ms. Ebert added she is in favor of the project and believes that it will not deteriorate the value of nearby properties and said it has to be better than looking at the school across the street. She added it is a great tax base and will improve the property,around it and enhance the value. Mr. Lowell Swanson, owner of a unit at Highpointe, asked if emergency vehicles can get into and out of the site as proposed. Mr. Swanson also questioned if the water runoff on the project will change if the site is developed. Mr. Hoffman said emergency vehicles usually fight fires from the perimeter of townhouse projects. He added the drainage plan presented is adequate. Mr. Hoffman said no developer designs for a 100 year flood, as occurred in 1987. Mr. Hoffman said if the property did not flood during that time they were very lucky because many places received damage. He concluded that this development should not have a negative impact regarding drainage. Mr. Swanson asked where snow would be stored. Mr. Hoffman said on a townhouse site the snow issue is "their issue ". They can haul the snow away, store the snow on the grass or do whatever. The City has no requirement for snow removal. 6 Ms. Nancy Askoy, 5600 West 70th Street asked since more children are being born, etc. and more school space is being needed is it wise to sell the school building to a private developer if it may be needed as a school. Commissioner Faust told Ms. Askoy that she spoke with Sara Jones and was told that the City cannot afford to moth -ball a building for 20 years and put in on line. Commissioner Faust told the Commission Sara Jones indicated that the Community Center and Highlands School will take care of City needs. Commissioner Faust pointed out the school is already privately owned. Lyle Sellors, 5547 Village Drive, told the Commission he believes Mr. Clark has done a good job with the plan and agrees there needs to be a transition between the single family homes and the commercial area. Mr. Clark's low density townhouses meets that need. Commissioner McClelland told the Commission she is still concerned about the density of the townhouse proposal. She said Cahill has alot of traffic on it and she cannot support housing so close to that intersection. Commissioner McClelland added that she supports development of a pocket park on the site where the church is located. Commissioner McClelland referred to her plan and pointed out that in her plan curb cuts would be eliminated and the density would be decreased to 16 units. She pointed out her plan would leave enough room to incorporate the pocket park. Commissioner McClelland also added this plan would greatly increase green space and an open feeling. Concluding, Commissioner McClelland said she wants to see 1 lot out of the single family proposal bringing that proposal to 12 lots, reduction in townhouse units from the proposed 21 to 16 and a pocket park placed on site. Mrs. Lindvell, resident of the area, told the Commission she feels the proposal is too dense. Commissioner Runyan commented that he felt the price of the units being developed should add to and increase neighborhood property values. Residents asked Commissioner Runyan if he would like to live across from the proposal. Commissioner Runyan said in his opinion this development is good for the City of Edina as a whole. He said there is adequate open space and added that single family homes all the way to Cahill Road does not make good sense. Ms. Ebert, of Lee Valley Circle, said again that she is in favor of the project. She said this is the first time she, as a resident in the area, has ever been given information before hand on what is going to be developed within her neighborhood. She added the proposal makes good planning sense. She said in her opinion what is there now is undesirable, and what is presented will look better than the school and the church which isn't even clearly identified as historically significant. Commissioner Hale said he is a bit confused on where the one and two story townhouse's are located. With graphics, Mr. Gair pointed out the locations of the one and two story townhouses on the site. The one story townhouses are located on the east end and the two story units are in the middle. Chairman G. Johnson questioned if that townhouse situation should be flip- flopped. Commissioner Faust said she has a real concern between the transition of the proposed townhouses and the proposed single family homes. She expressed concern that the transition area is not large enough. 7 Commissioner Ingwalson told the Commission he believes the plan is sound and the low density transition between the commercial and the single family units is appropriate. Commissioner Ingwalson expressed concern over the pocket park and said it is unfortunate that this issue wasn't resolved before this meeting. Mr. Larsen explained that a parkland dedication of cash could occur, or the pocket park could be located on the site. Mr. Larsen commented he agrees that the situation regarding the park is fuzzy. Commissioner Ingwalson asked if after the Council makes their decision regarding the park would the proposal come back to the Commission for review. Mr. Larsen said the townhouse portion would come back to the Commission for final approval. The park aspect will be part of the townhouse plan. Commissioner Faust asked Mr. Larsen what is the requirement for parkland dedication. Mr. Larsen said when the City does not want land for parkland dedication they require cash. Commissioner Hale asked Mr. Clark if he considered single family homes where the westerly 9 townhouse units are located. Mr. Clark said putting single family homes farther to the east did not work well. Continuing, Mr. Clark explained the natural place to break the transition between single family homes and townhouses is where the terrain changes. Mr. Clark said that seemed to be the logical place to make that transition. Commissioner Hale asked if they located houses in that area how many would there be. Mr. Clark said at a guess around 4 single family houses. Mr. Clark noted that they toyed with the idea of zero lot line dwellings in that area. Chairman Johnson asked the Commission for their opinions on the single family proposal. Commissioner McClelland said she cannot support the single family proposal as presented with a substandard lot and a neck lot. It's a new development that requires variances. Commissioner Workinger said he has no objection to the single family proposal but still feels uncomfortable with the density of the townhouse development. Commissioner Faust told the Commission she agrees with Commissioner McClellands observations and indicated she is favorable to Commissioner McClellands redesign. Commissioner L. Johnson told the Commission he likes the single family portion of the development. He added the best use of the topographical features is the way it has been developed. He added the intent in using the land for housing is to be creative and with the neck lot the land is not abused at all. Commissioner L. Johnson said if he has a concern it is with Lot 5 because it may be built down the hill. Continuing, he added the way this has been laid out is good and he added Lot 7 is an ideal lot. He reiterated that he wants the slope easement to be coincidental with the erosion control line. He noted that maybe the slope easement could be relaxed for Lot 4 but not the others. He added he has a concern that does not include the numbers or shape of the lots, but is the waterflow that goes over the rotted timber walls next door. Commissioner L. Johnson pointed out Mr. Clark does not have control over that, adding it is his understanding that Mr. Hoffman will carefully review waterflow questions and concerns. Commissioner L. Johnson said he would also like to see Lot 13 0 orientated to the east, the way it is shown, Lots 9 10, 13 all relate very well to the townhouses. Commissioner Runyan said he agrees with Commissioner L. Johnsons points. He added he could also see the slope easement relaxed a bit for Lot 5, but snug for Lots 9, 10. Commissioner Ingwalson said he concurs with the plan presented. Commissioner Hale added he agrees. Dorothy Omen, Lanham Lane, said she feels Commissioner McClell'ands plan is good. Chairman Johnson asked the Commission for their opinions on the townhouse project. Commissioner L. Johnson said he is in favor of the townhouse proposal. He added the two, three, and four unit buildings are an appropriate transition from the commercial to single family. He pointed out if this project would be developed with single family houses the number of houses that could be developed within this area are around 10. Commissioner L. Johnson pointed out that massing and sizing in his opinion is not a stumbling block. Commissioner L. Johnson said he would like to see a little more park like atmosphere but added he feels an attempt has been made. Commissioner L. Johnson said in his opinion the development is appropriate and will be good for Edina. Commissioner Ingwalson concurred with Commissioner L. Johnson and said it is a good use of the site. He added single family houses on this corner does not make sense. Continuing, he said the park is still an issue, but if Mr. Clark is willing to take the consequences on where the Council locates the park, he has no problem. Commissioner Workinger said the density on the westerly portion of the site is still a concern for him. It appears too dense. The transition between Lot 13 and Lot 9 and the townhouse development is still a little to tight. Commissioner Runyan said he likes the project, and Mr. Clark has made every effort to respond to the concerns of the Commission. He added this plan is superior to what was previously proposed. Commissioner Runyan said given the land the proponent has to work with, this project has been designed very well. Commissioner McClelland said the plan is too dense, an allowance must be made for the pocket park at this time, and added it is not necessary to develop every parcel in Edina to its maximum. Commissioner McClelland said she want to see less density and sides with the residents. Commissioner Hale said the driveway is still a problem. Commissioner Faust said she believes this part of Edina has been "dumped" on and it is important to respond to these neighbors. She added Mr. Clark's doubles on crosstown are fabulous and suggested that he develops doubles. Commissioner Faust said she cannot vote for this because the pocket park has not been addressed to her satisfaction. 7 Commissioner L. Johnson moved to recommend approval subject to the change in the Comprehensive Plan from Medium Density Attached Residential to Low Density Attached Residential, to recommend preliminary rezoning approval from R -1 to PRD -2, and to recommend preliminary plat approval for 13 single family lots, 21 townhouse lots, and one outlot, approval subject to staff recommendations and that the staff recommendations include a recommendation for a slope easement closer to the 910 line for lots 6, 7 and 8 and at the 900 line for lots 4 and 5. Staff recommendations include: Final Rezoning, Final Plat Approval, Parkland Dedication, Developers Agreement, Landscaping Plan and Bond and Investigation of a Historical Park Near 70th and Cahill. Commissioner L. Johnson said the Council should not be prejudiced in any way as they consider the pocket park as recommended in #6 of staff's recommendations. Commissioner Runyan seconded the motion. Marsh Everson pointed out Cahill Road is the buffer between the commercial area and residential neighborhood. Upon roll call vote: Mrs. Faust, Nay; Mr. Hale, Nay; Mr. L. Johnson, Aye; Mrs. McClelland, Nay; Mr. Rynyan, Aye; Mr. Workinger, Nay; Mr. Ingwalson, Aye; Mr. G. Johnson, Aye. Motion failed on a 4 -4 vote. Chairman G. Johnson said the .proposal is to be forwarded to the Council with no recommendation. III. OTHER BUSINESS: Tax Increment Districts Mr. Larsen explained to the Commission City Staff is looking into the possibility of creating tax increment districts in three areas within the City. Due to the time constraints regulated by the County the City of Edina has to establish these districts before April 30, 1990 to take advantage of tax increment. Mr. Fred Hoisington was present to explain the three areas the City has earmarked as being potential tax increment districts. Mr. Hoisington explained to the Commission the City of Edina has indicated three areas where they feel development of a tax increment district. would be beneficial to the City. These areas are: 1) France Avenue and 44th Street, 2) Wooddale and Valley View Road, and 3) Cahill Road and West 70th Street. Mr. Hoisington pointed out that these are areas where there seems to be deterioration and /or where the buildings are aged and traffic and parking circulation and safety are problems. Mr. Hoisington noted that this plan, does not include any property within Minneapolis. * 44th and France Avenue Mr. Hoisington explained that the plan for the area of France Avenue and 44th Street would involve West 44th Street to the rear of the properties along Eton Avenue and follow a line to West 46th Street. This proposal would call for the 10 removal of seven single family houses, possibly nine total. Removal of the dry cleaners in indicated, which at the present time is an illegal use. The . redevelopment plan would include low density to medium density multi - family housing, retail and office improvements, parking lot improvements, landscaping improvements, and relocating the utility lines underground. A discussion ensued with Members of the Commission indicating they do not want to see multi - family housing in that area. Commission, Members also noted that in the past it has been very hard to work with the owners of the dry cleaners and if they choose not to be involved with this project the redevelopment plan would not work as presented. Commission - Members also pointed out the topography of the area would create some steep parking areas. The Commission also wanted noted that this area of Edina is very unique and fun and they do not in any way want that destroyed. Mr. Larsen agreed that this area of Edina is unique and the purpose and the goal of it's redevelopment is not to destroy it's character. * Wooddale and Valley View Mr. Hoisington told the Board the improvement area includes Valley View Center, west to Kellogg Avenue and the area between Kellogg and Oaklawn. Mr. Hoisington pointed out that within the commercial area, activities at the Conoco Station are inappropriate and do not conform to the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Hoisington explained to the Commission that this commercial area in Edina is in decay and has some very serious circulation problems and hazardous parking areas. This area also has poor signage, too many driveways, lack of commercial district identity and limited expansion potential. The goal for this area is to solve these problems and retain a lucrative commercial area. Commission Members agreed that this area has some problems and suggested that maybe the commercial aspect could be relocated all in one area in the Valley View Shopping Center. The Valley View Shopping Center has adequate parking and if Baskins Robbins and the bike shop were to move into that area some of the problems could be solved. It was the consensus of the Commission to leave this area alone at the present time. 70th Street and Cahill Road Mr. Hoisington explained to the Commission the area for consideration is bounded by 70th Street to the north, the railroad right -of way to the east, the northern boundary (east to west) of the Gabberts building, Village Drive extended and the City of Edina park open space property to the south, and the rear lot lines of the single family homes fronting on Lanham Lane and Lee Valley Circle to the east. Mr. Hoisington pointed out that the commercial area is having a real struggle. and does not seem to hit the market. Mr. Hoisington said that it is believed that the retail area could take off if it is marketed and presented in the right way. Mr. Hoisington said the residential project for the area is to encourage development consistent with land use designations. Residential development may include 13 single family homes and as many as 21 doubles or attached units. 11 Members of the Commission suggested that a market study be implemented for this area. They agreed that this area in Edina does need some "cleaning up ". Commissioner L. Johnson commented that he feels the gas station should be left in the area because neighborhood gas stations are important to the residents of the area. Mr. Larsen said this proposal will be before the City Council on March 19, 1990 and will come back to you for further comments on March 28, 1990. IV. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 11:10 p.m. 12 WE Ex Hoogenakker, ' 1990 CITY OF EDINA CHECK REGISTER CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION 062T20 03/26/90 9.35 THE PRINT SHOP PRINTING 062T20 03/26/90 119.69 THE PRINT SHOP PRINTING 129.04 * * * * ** 079742 03/26/90 172.50 MN SAFETY COUNCIL DUES' 172.50 * * * * ** 091R65 03/26/90 94.20 ROLLINS OIL CO. MORROR HEAD 091R65 03/26/90, 94.20- ROLLINS OIL CO. MORROR,HEAD .00 * * * * ** (see also 092T96) 091T96 03/26/90 877.30 TWIN CITY GAR. DOOR REPAIR TO DOOR 877.30 *1t*Mlk It ' 092700 03/26/90 49.34 JANET CHANDLER MILEAGE /PARKING 49.34 092701 03/26/90 25.76 FIRST-BANK MPLS REFUND 25.76 092702 03/26/90 32.10 JOHN FOX REFUND 32.10 092703 03/26/90 73.00 MN DEPT OF TREES 73.00 092704 03/26/90 79.00 SIGN -TIFIC SIGNAGE 79.00 092705 03/26/90 147.55 APRES INC PARTY DINNER MEETING 147.55 (3.checks) * * * * ** INDRANI MALLICK 092708 03/26/90 75.00 PERFORMANCE 092708 03/26/90 80.00 C.LONNING PERFORMANCE 092708 03/26/90 100.00 CURTIS HEAD PERFORMANCE 255.88 092709 03/26/90 35.00 F &M DIST INC REFUND 35.00 092710 03/26/90 269.44 LEVERING WOOD GENERAL SUPPLIES 269.44 092711 03/26/90 1,091.35 JASON INVESTMENTS REFUND 1,091.35 04 -02 -90 PAGE 1 ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE 10- 4504 - 510 -51 13154 10- 4504 - 510 -51 10- 4204 - 140 -14 10- 4540 - 560 -56 93850 6221 10- 4540 - 560 -56 93850 6211 10- 4540 - 440 -44 3371 3850 ,10- 4504- 507 -50 40- 3800 - 000 -00 40- 3800 - 000 -00 10- 4560 - 644 -64 50- 1300 - 003 -00 06239 6606 10- 4206 - 100 -10 6582 6607 30- 4224 - 781 -78 30- 4224 - 781 -78 30- 4224 - 781 -78 10- 3055 - 000 -00 10- 4504 - 507 -50 40- 3800 - 000 -00 * ** -CKS * ** -CKS * ** -CKS * ** -CKS * ** -CKS 1990 CITY OF EDINA CHECK NO. DATE 092712 03/26/90 092713 03/26/90 092714 03/26/90 092715 03/26/90 092715 03/27/90 092716 03/26/90 092717 03/26/90 092717 03/26/90 092718 03/26/90 092719 03/26/90 092720 03/26/90 092721 03/26/90 092722 03/26/90 092723 03/26/90 092724 03/26/90 092724 03/26/90 092724 03/26/90 092725 03/26/90 092725 03/26/90 092725 03/26/90 092726 03/26/90 092727 03/26/90 092728 03/26/90 r CHECK REGISTER AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION 10.00 MIDWEST GANG DUES 10.00 * 33.28 BRIGADE UNIFORM ALLOWANCE 33.28 * 56.00 DON WENDLING EQUIP MAINT 56.00 * 267.90 US WEST BOOKS /PAMPHLETS 329.90 US WEST BOOKS /PAMPHLETS 597.80 * 1,487.00 MARY D WALTERS PHONE CONSULTING 1,487.00 * 180.00 KTMA TV ADVERTISING 310.00 KTMA TV ADVERTISING 490.00 * i 298.56 STAR TRIBUNE ADVERTISING 298.56 * 290.00 SPECIALIZED GRAPHICS DOOR HANGERS 290.00 * 358.93 MARLIN IND DIV TRAINING 358.93 * 26.25 MAPCO SAND /GRAVEL CO SAND 26.25 * 10.00 ARDYTHE BUEROSSE SUPPLIES 10.00 * 39.15 HARMON GLASS GLASS 39.15 * 90.49 AM LEONARD SOCKET /BLADE 90.49- AM LEONARD SOCKET /BLADE 90.49 AM LEONARD SOCKET /BLADE 90.49 * 199.40 CITYLINE SERVICE CONTRACT 142.40 CITYLINE SERVICE CONTRACT 148.80 CITYLINE SERVICE CONTRACTS 490.60 * 351.40 THE FOURSONE UNIFORM ALLWANCE 351.40 * 78.74 BRC ELECT MIDWEST PRINT PAPER TAPES 78.74 * 55.00 CLIFF JOHNSON PRINTING 04 -02 -90 PAGE ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE 10- 4204 - 420 -42 10- 4266 - 420 -42 4901 10- 4274 - 420 -42 2751 10- 4502- 420 -42 4398 10- 4502 - 420 -42 4398 10- 4256 - 510 -51 27- 4214 - 667 -66 756401 6595 27- 4214- 667 -66 756402 6595 27- 4214 - 667 -66 6593 40- 4248 - 803 -80 1893 6515 10- 4202 - 281 -28 3644 10- 4504 - 301 -30 106978 6186 10- 4504 - 507 -50 10- 4504 - 646 -64 6262 10- 4580 - 301 -30 72711 6349 10- 4580 - 301 -30 72711 63449 10- 4580 - 301 -30 72711 63449 30- 4288 - 781 -78 483 6736 30- 4288 - 781 -78 484 6693 30- 4288 - 781 -78 482 6621 10- 4266 - 420 -42 10- 4504 - 180 -18 23- 4600- 611 -61 6531 2 1990 CITY OF EDINA CHECK REGISTER 04 -02 -90 PAGE 3 CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE 55.00 * * * * * ** *** -CKS 092734 03/26/90 60.48 TROPHY WORLD PLAQUES 27- 4600 - 661 -66 6634 6678 60.48 * 092735 03/26/90 39.95 THOMPSONS TRACK LITE 27- 4540 - 662 -66 101402 6670 39.95 * 092736 03/26/90 183.16 MIKE SIITARI UNIFORM ALLOWANCE 10- 4266 - 420 -42 183.16 * 092737 03/26/90 50.00 MN PROJECT ON SCHOOL 10- 4202 - 420 -42 50.00 * 092738 03/26/90 300.00 MGIA CONFERENCE 10- 4202 - 420 -42 300.00 * 092739 03/26/90 209.60 MEDIA DEVELOP IND GENERAL SUPPLIES 12- 4504 - 434 -43- 892627 5951 209.60 * 092740 03/26/90 475.00 TOM-ELVIDGE REFUND 27- 3432 - 000 -00 475.00 * 092741 03/26/90 .60.00 AM TRAFFIC SAFETY SCHOOL 10- 4202 - 281 -28 60.00 * * * * * ** * ** -CKS 092743 03/26/90 165.00 ALARMLOCK PROF SERVICES 30- 4201- 782 -78 6218 165.00 * 092744 03/26/90 25.00 DRUG ABUSE UPDATE SUNSCRIPTION 10- 4204 - 504 -50 1302 25.00 * * * * * ** . * ** -CKS 092746 03/26/90 875.00 LINDA KOZAK SERV 3- 28/4 -10 30- 4201 - 781 -78 875.00 * 092747 -03/26/90 959.38 JAMES CONSTR CO NEW COUNTER /PRO SHOP 27- 1332 - 000 -00 1043 5949 959.38 * 092748 03/26/90 484.83 FLEX- O -LITE INC GLASS BEADS 10- 4544 - 335 -30 105081 5687 484.83 * 092749 03/26/90 13,038.45' WIN STEPHENS COMP 1 TON CARGO VAN 10- 4901 - 305 -30 26051 6264 13,038.45 * 092750 03/26/90 540.00 KBL -TV ADVERTISING 27- 4214 - 667 -66 646 6518 540.00 * 092751 03/26/90 680.00 KARE 11 ADVERTISING 27- 4214 - 667 -66 210052 6517 680.00 * 1990 CITY OF EDINA CHECK NO. DATE 092752 03/26/90 092753 03/26/90 092754 03/26/90 092755 03/26/90 092756 03/26/90 092757 03/26/90 092758 03/26/90 092759 03/26/90 092760 03/26/90 092761 03/26/90 092762 03/26/90 092763 03/26/90 092764 03/26/90 092765 03/26/90 092766 03/26/90 092766 03/26/90 092766 03/26/90 092766 03/26/90 092766 03/26/90 092766 03/26/90 092767 03/26/90 092768 03/26/90 04 -02 -90 PAGE CHECK.REGISTER # MESSAGE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION 15,439.00 SPALDING GOLF RANGE BALLS 15,439.00 * 30- 4224 - 781 -78 11,577.00 RATHERT EQUIP REPLACEMENT 11,577.00 * 30- 4224 - 781 -78 50.00 PAT FUHR PERFORMANCE 50.00 * 10- 4502- 440 -44 100.00 AMY ANDERSON PERFORMANCE 100.00 * 30- 3505 - 000 -00 75.00 FRANK TOWGAS PERFORMANCE 75.00 * 23- 4504 - 611 -61 50.00 PAT FUHR PERFORMANCE 50.00 * 23- 4600 - 611 -61 50.00 ROYAL SIL -O -ETS PERFORMANCE j 50.00 * 35.00 SHIRLEY OLSON PERFORMANCE 35.00 * 200.00 KNOCK NAGOW DANCERS PERFORMANCE 200.00 * 60.00 BRAIN RICHARDS PERFORMANCE 60.00 * 15.00 US CHAMBER OF BOOK 15.00.* 93.62 RUTH SCHMOLL FD PETTY CASH 93.62 * 305.00 ROY J HANSON AMBULANCE REFUND 305.00 * 10.00 ROBERT JOHNSON REFUND 10.00 * 8.50 NAOMI JOHNSON DUES 41.78 NAOMI JOHNSON ADVERTISING 41.52 NAOMI JOHNSON GENERAL SUPPLIES 9.95 NAOMI JOHNSON REPAIR PARTS 62.39 NAOMI JOHNSON CRAFT SUPPLIES 11.30 NAOMI JOHNSON PRINTING 175.44 * 1,034.00 ST PAUL FABRICATING CONSTRUCTION 1,034.00 * 220.00 MICROFACS INC SERVICE CONTRACT /FAX 04 -02 -90 PAGE ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE 27- 4636 - 666 -66 C17200 10- 4904 - 420 -42 50089 5257 30- 4224 - 781 -78 30- 4224 - 781 -78 30- 4224 - 781 -78 30- 4224 - 781 -78 30- 4224 - 781 -78' 30- 4224 - 781 -78 30- 4224 - 781 -78 30- 4224 - 781 -78 10- 4502- 440 -44 10- 4504 - 440 -44 10- 3180- 000 -00 30- 3505 - 000 -00 23- 4204 - 611 -61 23- 4214 - 611 -61 23- 4504 - 611 -61 23- 4540- 613 -61 23- 4588- 611 -61 23- 4600 - 611 -61 60- 1300 - 015 - 2020044 4575 10- 4288 - 510 -51 3461 6682 4 1990 CITY OF EDINA CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT 220.00 * 092769 03/26/90 10.00 10.00 * 092770 03/26/90 32.00 32.00 * 092771 03/26/90 32.00 32.00 * 092772 03/26/90 32.00 32.00 * 092773 03/26/90 450.00 450.00 * 092774 03/26/90 4,468.10 4,468.10 * 092775 03/26/90 l 450.00 450.00 * 092776. .03/26/90 220.82 220.82 092777 03/26/90 45.00 45.00 * 092778 03/26/90 4,500.00 4,500.00 * 092779 03/26/90 95.00 95.00 * 092780 03/26/90 3,072.63 3,072.63 * 092781 03/26/90 4,000.00 4,000.00 * 092782 03/26/90 3,415.18 3,415.18 * 092783 03/26/90 10.50 10.50 * 092784 03/26/90 10.00 10.00 * 092785 03/26/90 210.00 - 210.00 * 092786 03/26/90 1,024.00 1,024.00 * CHECK REGISTER VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION MN MAYORS ASSN RONALD KING SUZANNE CROWE MICHELLE SHARP FRANK FISCHER EDINA HIGH SCHOOL DAVE LANGHOLTZ MIDWEST SPORTS MUG COUGAR SPORTS MOODY INVESTORS SERV U OF M INDECO STANDARD & POORS RICHARD G LARSON DAVID RAFTER GENERAL CINEMA CORP J THOMAS NELSON MARGARET MCDOWELL DUES REFUND REFUND REFUND SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES COST OF GOODS GENERAL SUPPLIES BOND ISSUE WORKSHOP PROF SERVICES BOND INSURANCE PRO SERVICES ,BOOKLET /AICP REFUND AC INSTRUCTOR AC INSTRUCTOR 04 -02 -90 PAGE 5 ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE 10- 4202 - 100 -10 28- 3500 - 000 -00 28- 3500 - 000 -00 28- 3500 - 000 -00 28- 4224 - 701 -70 28- 4224 - 701 -70 28- 4224 - 701 -70 28- 4504- 702 -70 021562 6526 28- 4504 - 702 -70 6526 10- 1145 - 000 -00 10- 4202 - 480 -48 10- 4201 - 500 -50 10- 1145 - 000 -00 189712 30- 4201 - 781 -78 10- 4502- 120 -12 10- 3072 - 000 -00 23- 4201 - 611 -61 23- 4201 - 611 -61 1990 CITY OF EDINA CHECK NO. DATE 092787 03/26/90 092788 03/26/90 092789 03/26/90 092790 03/26/90 092791 03/26/90 092792 03/26/90 092793 03/26/90 092794 03/26/90 092795 03/26/90 092796 03/26/90 092797 03/26/90 092798 03/26/90 092799 03/26/90 092800 03/26/90 092801 03/26/90 092802 03/26/90 092803 03/26/90 092804 03/27/90 092805 03/27/90 04 -02 -90 PAGE ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE 23- 4201 - 611 -61 23- 4201 - 611 -61 23- 4201 - 611 -61 23- 4201 - 611 -61 23- 4201 - 611 -61 23- 4201 - 611 -61 23- 4201 - 611 -61- 23- 4201 - 611 -61 23- 4201 - 611 -61 23- 4201 - 611 -61 23- 4201 - 611 -61 23- 4201 - 611 -61 23- 4201 - 611 -61 23- 4201- 611 -61 23- 4201 - 611 -61 23- 4201 - 611 -61 23- 4201 - 611 -61 10- 4202 - 420 -42 017225 10- 4202 - 420 -42 6 CHECK REGISTER AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION 48.00 ANN LENOBLE AC INSTRUCTOR 48.00 * 180.00 NICK LEGEROS AC INSTRUCTOR 180.00 * 42.00 HARRY HEIM AC INSTRUCTOR 42.00 * 240.00 MARGARET GUST AC INSTRUCTOR 240.00 * 450.00 PAT GEISHEKER AC INSTRUCTOR 450.00 * 30.00 KATHY GUSTAFSON AC INSTRUCTOR 30.00 * 540.00 JEAN GRAPP AC INSTRUCTOR 540.00 * 360.00 SUSAN FRAME AC INSTRUCTOR 360.00 * 263.00 BILL DIETRICHSON AC INSTRUCTOR 263.00 * 655.00 TOBIS DICKER AC INSTRUCTOR 655.00 * 180.00 BETSY BRYANT AC INSTRUCTOR 180.00 * 24.00 ADRIANE BRUMFIELD AC INSTRUCTOR 24.00 * 663.00 MARIAN ALSTAD AC INSTRUCTOR 663.00 * 156.00 CYD WICKER AC INSTRUCTOR 156.00 * 150.00 MONICA RUDQUIST AC INSTRUCTOR 150.00 * 72.00 DAVID RICKERT AC INSTRUCTOR 72.00 * 192.00 DOROTHY ODLAND AC-INSTRUCTOR 192.00 * 300.00 CITY OF ST PAUL CONT ED 300.00 * 90.00 MATSA SCHOOL 04 -02 -90 PAGE ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE 23- 4201 - 611 -61 23- 4201 - 611 -61 23- 4201 - 611 -61 23- 4201 - 611 -61 23- 4201 - 611 -61 23- 4201 - 611 -61 23- 4201 - 611 -61- 23- 4201 - 611 -61 23- 4201 - 611 -61 23- 4201 - 611 -61 23- 4201 - 611 -61 23- 4201 - 611 -61 23- 4201 - 611 -61 23- 4201- 611 -61 23- 4201 - 611 -61 23- 4201 - 611 -61 23- 4201 - 611 -61 10- 4202 - 420 -42 017225 10- 4202 - 420 -42 6 1990 CITY OF EDINA CHECK REGISTER 04 -02 -90 PAGE 7 CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION 'ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE 90.00 * 092806 03/27/90 243.00 IAWP SCHOOL 10- 4202 - 420 -42 243.00 * 092807 03/27/90 15.00 ANTI VEHICLE CRIME MEMBERSHIP 10- 4204 - 420 -42 15.00 * 092808 03/27/90 50.00 DR DOUG WALLACE FEE '10- 4201- 500 -50 50.00 * 092809 03/27/90 985.50 GC ACCESSORIES ACCESSORIES /GC 27- 4504 - 664 -66 5619 985.50 * 092810 03/27/90 3,152.25 MILLS ADVERTISING MAGAZINE EXP 12- 4215 - 434 -43 50328 3,152.25 * 092811 03/27/90 520.00 DESIGNWRITE STUDIO DESIGN /LAYOUT 12- 4201 - 434 -43 11026 520.00 * 092812 03/27/90 112.00 LOCO EXPO ADVERTISING 50- 4214 - 822 -82 092812 03/27/90 112.00 LOCO EXPO ADVERTISING 50- 4214 - 842 -84 092812 03/27/90 111.00 LOCO EXPO ADVERTISING 50- 4214 - 862 -86 335.00 092813 03/27/90 36.67 THE MN JAYCEES ADVERTISING 50- 4214 - 822 -82 092813 03/27/90 36.67 THE MN JAYCEES ADVERTISING 50- 4214 - 842 -84 092813 03/27/90 36.66 THE MN JAYCEES ADVERTISING 50- 4214 - 862 -86 110.00 092814 . 03/27/90 30.00 BIRD TIME SYSTEM TIME CARD RACK 27 -4516- 661 -66 902132 6739 30.00 * 1 092815 03/27/90 1,149.00i,i?g.gam_ COMPUTERS PLUS FURNITURE 25- 4900 - 001 -26 12305 5719 1,149.00 *1,1?9.99 092816 03/27/90 130.00 DAN M CMAHON REIMBURSEMENT 10- 4202 - 281 -28 130.00 * 092817 03/27/90 24.83 CITY OF BROOKLYN PK MAMA LUNCH 10- 4206 - 140 -14 3584 24.83 * 092818 03/27/90 6,479.00 DCA INC FEE FOR SERVICE 10- 4156 - 510 -51 37845 6,479.00 * 092819 03/27/90 80.81 COUNTS MED EQUIPMENT AMBULANCE SUPPLIES 10- 4510 - 440 -44 109114 5420 80.81 * 092820 03/27/90 15.00 MARTIN SCHEERER REIMBURSEMENT 10- 4202 - 440 -44 15.00 * 092821 03/27/90 125.00 ESPECIALLY FOR REFUND 10- 3055 - 000 -00 .125.00 * 092822 03/27/90 258.90 THE FITNESS STORE WEIGHT EQUIP 10- 4504 - 440 -44 010688 5409 1990 CITY OF EDINA * ** -CKS CHECK REGISTER 6620 CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION 258.90 * * ** -CKS 092823 03/27/90 35.00 NATIONAL CERT BOARD CERTIFICATION * ** -CKS 10- 4504 - 560 -56 35.00 * 10- 4540 - 560 -56 * * * * ** * ** -CKS 092A09 03/26/90 818.28 AAA REGISTRATION EXP 818.28 * 10- 4256 - 510 -51 * * * * ** * ** -CKS 092A17 03/27/90 1,316.58 ADS TO GO MARKETING EXP 092A17 03/27/90 1,316.58 ADS TO GO MARKETING EXP 092A17 03/27/90 1,316.57 ADS TO GO MARKETING EXP 3,949.73 * * * * * ** 092A21 03/26/90 185.50 ADT SECURITY SYS. ALARM SERVICE 185.50 * * * * * ** 092A27 03/26/90 53.30 ART GOKEY MILEAGE 53.30 * * * * * ** 092A36 03/26/90 103.87 AUTOMOTIVE WHSL INC REPAIR PARTS 103.87 * 092A39 03/26/90 199.80 ALTERNATOR REBUILD CASTER 092A39 03/26/90 90.00 ALTERNATOR REBUILD REBUILT 289.80 * * * * * ** 092A41 03/26/90 209.58 AMBASSADOR SAUSAGE COST OF GOOD 092A41 03/26/90 179.70 AMBASSADOR SAUSAGE CONCESSIONS 389.28 * 092A53 03/26/90 136.82 AMERICAN SHARECOM TELEPHONE 136.82 * * * * * ** 092A76 03/26/90 129.55 ASPLUND COFFEE COST OF GOODS 129.55 * * * * * ** 04 -02 -90 PAGE 8 ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE 10- 4204 - 600 -60 * ** -CKS 10- 4310 - 560 -56 * ** -CKS 50- 4214 - 822 -82 EDA025 50- 4214 - 842 -84 EDA025 50- 4214 - 862 -86 EDA025 * ** -CKS 30- 4304- 782 - 78-308969 6620 * ** -CKS 40- 4208 - 806 -80 * ** -CKS 10- 4540 - 560 -56 99697 6013 * ** -CKS 10- 4504 - 560 -56 1756 6275 10- 4540 - 560 -56 14776 6320 * ** -CKS 28- 4624 - 703 -70 6169 28- 4624 - 703 -70 * ** -CKS 10- 4256 - 510 -51 * ** -CKS 28- 4624 - 703 -70 47962 6428 * ** -CKS 1990 CITY OF EDINA 10- 4540 - 560 -56 1431 CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT 10- 4540 - 560 -56 092A96 03/26/90 154.00 REPLACE BATTERY 27- 4540- 664 -66 005331 154.00 * kkkkkk . 1310 6426 092A98 03/26/90 388.03 6596 BLEVENS CONS SUPPLY 388.03 * k k k k k 6426 BERGFORD TRUCKING LIQUIOR DELIVERY :B 0903 03/26/90 68.26 BERGFORD TRUCKING LIQUOR DELIVERY 50- 4626 - 842 -84 68.26 * kkkkkk LIQUOR DELIVERY 50- 4626 - 862 -86 092605 03/26/90 20.00 10- 4504 - 160 -16 092605 03/26/90 3.30 PENS' 092605 03/26/90 10.63 BERTELSON BROS. INC. BINDER COVERS 10- 4504 - 260 -26 33.93 BERTELSON BROS: INC. PENS i 551855 kkkkkk BERTELSON BROS. INC. CROY CARTRIDGE 10- 4504 - 510 -51 092607 03/26/90 880.56 GENERAL SUPPLIES 10- 4504 - 510 -51 553985 880.56 k k k k k k 092618 03/26/90 45.64 092818 03/26/90 41.82 092B18 03/26/90 22.95 110.41 kkkkkk 092824 03/26/90 221.53 092624 03/26/90 84.13 092824 03/26/90 131.28 436.94 kkkkkk . 092B27 03/26/90 136.00 092B27 03/26/90 311.50 092B27 03/26/90 282.50 730.00 kkkkkk 092830 03/26/90 14.46 092630 03/27/90 4.32 092B30 03/27/90 71.60 092830 03/26/90 11.42 092B30 03/27/90 158.40 092830 03/26/90 51.30 CHECK REGISTER VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION AUTOMOBILE SERV CTR REPAIR WORK AVR INC CONCRETE BENSON SAFETY GLASSES BACH -BILL BOILER LIC FEE BACH -BILL GENERAL SUPPLIES BACH -BILL OFFICE SUPPLIES BADGER METER INC WATER METERS 04 -02 -90 PAGE 9 ACCOUNT NO. INV._ # P.O. # MESSAGE 10- 4248- 560 -56 6717 6402 40- 4540- 803 -80 18787 1044 10- 4642 - 301 -30 288277 30- 4204 - 781 -78 30- 4504 - 782 -78 30- 4516 - 781 -78 40- 1220 - 000 -00 617958 6415 BATTERY WAREHOUSE SEALED BEAM 10- 4540 - 560 -56 1431 6102 BATTERY WAREHOUSE BATTERY 10- 4540 - 560 -56 2783 6397 BATTERY WAREHOUSE REPLACE BATTERY 27- 4540- 664 -66 005331 6424 BLEVENS CONS SUPPLY REPAIR PARTS 28- 4248 - 703 -70 1310 6426 BLEVENS CONS SUPPLY COST OF GOODS 28- 4624 - 703 -70 6596 BLEVENS CONS SUPPLY COST OF GOODS 28- 4624 - 703 -70 6426 BERGFORD TRUCKING LIQUIOR DELIVERY 50- 4626 - 822 -82 BERGFORD TRUCKING LIQUOR DELIVERY 50- 4626 - 842 -84 BERGFORD TRUCKING LIQUOR DELIVERY 50- 4626 - 862 -86 BERTELSON BROS. INC. DICTIONARY 10- 4504 - 160 -16 551875 BERTELSON BROS. INC. PENS' 10- 4504 - 160 -16 554212 BERTELSON BROS. INC. BINDER COVERS 10- 4504 - 260 -26 554212 BERTELSON BROS: INC. PENS 10- 4504 - 440 -44 551855 BERTELSON BROS. INC. CROY CARTRIDGE 10- 4504 - 510 -51 554740 BERTELSON BROS. INC. GENERAL SUPPLIES 10- 4504 - 510 -51 553985 * ** -CKS * ** -CKS * ** -CKS * ** -CKS * ** -CKS * ** -CKS * ** -CKS * ** -CKS 1990 CITY OF EDINA CHECK NO. DATE 092830 03/26/90 092830 03/26/90 092830 03/27/90 R R R R R MESSAGE :: 02672 03/26/90 RRRRRR 10- 4504 - 510 -51 092878 03/27/90 092878 03/26/90 R R R R R M STAMP PAD 092C01 03/26/90 092C01 03/26/90 R/�R RRR 09X05 03/27/90 092C05 03/27/90 092C05 03/27/90 092C05 03/27/90 R X09 :::** 03/26/90 092C09 03/26/90 RRRRRR 092C16 03/26/90 092C17 03/26/90 092C17 03/26/90 BRAEMAR CLUBHOUSE STRATEGIC PLANNING 092C22 03/26/90 092C22 03/26/90 R R R R R R * 092C25 03/26/90 092C25 03/26/90 CHECK REGISTER 04 -02 -90 PAGE 10 AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO.:INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE 60.19 BERTELSON BROS. INC. GENERAL SUPPLIES 10- 4504 - 510 -51 15.69 BERTELSON BROS. INC. STAMP PAD 10- 4516- 140 -14 2.38 BERTELSON BROS. INC. HIGHLIGHTERS 10- 4516 - 440 -44 554212 389.76 * * ** -CKS 35.35 BRAEMAR CLUBHOUSE STRATEGIC PLANNING 10- 4206 - 100 -10 35.35 * * ** -CKS 470.12 BRISSMAN- KENNEDY INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 10- 4504 - 520 -52 152301 6689 126.95 BRISSMAN- KENNEDY INC CLEANING SUPPLIES 10- 4512 - 520 -52 6419 597.07 * ** -CKS 93.60 C & S DISTRIBUTING COST /GOODS SOLD 23- 4624 - 613 -61 102029 6307 109.52 C & S DISTRIBUTING COST /GOODS SOLD 23- 4624 - 613 - 61102538 6529 203.12 * ** -CKS 7.00 CAMPBELL -RALPH PARKING /CONF 12- 4202 - 434 -43 173.69 CAMPBELL -RALPH PHOTO SUPPLIES 12- 4508 - 434 -43 20.58 CAMPBELL -RALPH PHOTO SUPPLIES 12- 4508 - 434 -43 29.95 CAMPBELL -RALPH EQUIPMENT 12- 4902 - 434 -43 231.22 * ** -CKS 153.10 CARLSON PRINTING BUSINESS CARDS 10- 4504 - 510 -51 47387 293.60 CARLSON PRINTING PRINTING 10- 4600 - 600 -60 47411 6749 446.70 * ** -CKS 55.37 CATCO FITTINGS 10- 4540 - 560 -56 345247 6284 55.37 * 67.50 CDP TONER 10- 4504 - 540 -54 99.82 CDP COPY RENTAL 10- 4504 - 540 -54 167.32 * * ** -CKS 5.01 CERT POWER TRAIN REPAIR PARTS 10- 4540 - 560 -56 60213 6400 25.03 CERT POWER TRAIN REPAIR PARTS 10- 4540 - 560 -56 59995 6266 30.04 * ** -CKS 100.70 CHAPIN PUBLISHING CO AD FOR BIDS 10- 4210 - 140 -14 110451 40.87 CHAPIN PUBLISHING CO ADVERTISING 30- 4214 - 781 -78 110896 6746 1990 CITY OF EDINA CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT CLAREYS SAFETY EQUIP PAL ALARMS CLAREYS SAFETY EQUIP 2 PIKE POLE COMM OF TRANSPORTATION G9MM OF REVENUE SERVICES CONTACT MOBILE COW 899989 - CURTIN MATHESON SCI CURTIN MATHESON SCI CURTIS 1000 CUSHMAN MOTOR CO. D.C. HEY CO. D.C. 'HEY CO. DAY - TIMERS INC SWITCH /REPAIR WORK LAB SUPPLIES LAB SUPPLIES LETTERHEAD REPAIR PARTS CONTRACTED REPAIRS SERVICE CONTRACT OFFICE SUPPLIES 10- 4574 - 440 -44 53957 5405 10- 4901 - 440 - 44.53958 5406 60- 1300 - 289 -04 81518 10- 4294 - 560 -56 14664 6398 10- 4504 - 482 -48 6611 10- 4504 - 482 -48 6611 10- 4504 - 510 -51 27- 4540 - 664 -66 42393 6442 23- 4248 - 612 -61 157656 6305 30- 4288 - 781 - 78.162472 6767 30- 4516 - 781 -78 6745 * ** -CKS * ** -CKS * ** -CKS * ** -CKS * ** -CKS * ** -CKS 141.57 * * * * ** 04 -02 -90 PAGE 11 092C33 03/26/90 25.50 092C33 03/27/90 20.50 092C33 03/26/90 27.10 092C33 03/26/90 55.90 092C33 03/26/90 20.50 092C33 03/26/90 20.50 092C33 03/26/90 20.50 092C33 03/26/90 20.50 - 092C33 03/26/90 815.10 092C33 03/26/90 27.10 EDINA WATER 1,012.20 * * * * * ** OF EDINA 092C38 03/27/90 485.50 092C38 03/27/90 140.00 28- 4258- 708 -70 CITY t 625.50 * * * * * ** WATER 28- 4258 - 708 -70 092C51 03/27/90 163.75 WATER 30- 4258 - 782 -78 163.75 * * * * * ** EDINA WATER 092C65 03/26/90 188.95 188.95 * * * * * ** 09X86 03/26/90 233.36 299.96 092C87 03/26/90 187.84 421.20* -* 092C88 03/26/90 71.94 71.94 092C89 03/26/90 48.60 48.60 * * * * ** 092D07 03/26/90 70.70 092D07 03/27/90 48.13 118.83 * * * * ** 092D37 03/26/90. 61.48 CLAREYS SAFETY EQUIP PAL ALARMS CLAREYS SAFETY EQUIP 2 PIKE POLE COMM OF TRANSPORTATION G9MM OF REVENUE SERVICES CONTACT MOBILE COW 899989 - CURTIN MATHESON SCI CURTIN MATHESON SCI CURTIS 1000 CUSHMAN MOTOR CO. D.C. HEY CO. D.C. 'HEY CO. DAY - TIMERS INC SWITCH /REPAIR WORK LAB SUPPLIES LAB SUPPLIES LETTERHEAD REPAIR PARTS CONTRACTED REPAIRS SERVICE CONTRACT OFFICE SUPPLIES 10- 4574 - 440 -44 53957 5405 10- 4901 - 440 - 44.53958 5406 60- 1300 - 289 -04 81518 10- 4294 - 560 -56 14664 6398 10- 4504 - 482 -48 6611 10- 4504 - 482 -48 6611 10- 4504 - 510 -51 27- 4540 - 664 -66 42393 6442 23- 4248 - 612 -61 157656 6305 30- 4288 - 781 - 78.162472 6767 30- 4516 - 781 -78 6745 * ** -CKS * ** -CKS * ** -CKS * ** -CKS * ** -CKS * ** -CKS CHECK REGISTER 04 -02 -90 PAGE 11 VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE * ** -CKS CITY OF EDINA WATER 23- 4258- 612 -61 CITY OF EDINA WATER 27- 4258- 662 -66 CITY OF EDINA WATER 27- 4258 - 662 -66 CITY OF EDINA WATER 27- 4258- 662 -66 CITY OF EDINA WATER 28- 4258 - 702 -70 CITY OF EDINA WATER 28- 4258 - 702 -70 CITY OF EDINA WATER 28- 4258- 708 -70 CITY OF EDINA WATER 28- 4258 - 708 -70 CITY OF EDINA WATER 30- 4258 - 782 -78 CITY OF EDINA WATER 50- 4258 - 841 -84 CLAREYS SAFETY EQUIP PAL ALARMS CLAREYS SAFETY EQUIP 2 PIKE POLE COMM OF TRANSPORTATION G9MM OF REVENUE SERVICES CONTACT MOBILE COW 899989 - CURTIN MATHESON SCI CURTIN MATHESON SCI CURTIS 1000 CUSHMAN MOTOR CO. D.C. HEY CO. D.C. 'HEY CO. DAY - TIMERS INC SWITCH /REPAIR WORK LAB SUPPLIES LAB SUPPLIES LETTERHEAD REPAIR PARTS CONTRACTED REPAIRS SERVICE CONTRACT OFFICE SUPPLIES 10- 4574 - 440 -44 53957 5405 10- 4901 - 440 - 44.53958 5406 60- 1300 - 289 -04 81518 10- 4294 - 560 -56 14664 6398 10- 4504 - 482 -48 6611 10- 4504 - 482 -48 6611 10- 4504 - 510 -51 27- 4540 - 664 -66 42393 6442 23- 4248 - 612 -61 157656 6305 30- 4288 - 781 - 78.162472 6767 30- 4516 - 781 -78 6745 * ** -CKS * ** -CKS * ** -CKS * ** -CKS * ** -CKS * ** -CKS 1990 CITY OF EDINA CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT 61.48 * kkkkkk 092D39 03/26/90 1,420.08 1,420.08 * kkkkkk 092D47 03/27/90 8.18 8.18 * kkkkkk 092D85 03/26/90 453.00 092D85 03/26/90 1,266.25 1,719.25 * kkkkkk 092E05 03/26/90 f 6,897.00 092E05 03/26/90 2,000.00 092E05 03/26/90 800.00 092E05 03/26/90 2,689.43 092E05 03/26/90 2,689.43 - 092E05 03/26/90 2,689.43 12,386.43 * kkkkkk 092E20 03/26/90 85.00 85.00 * k k k k k k 092E32 03/26/90 540.70 540.70 * kkkkkk 092E75 03/26/90 300.00 300.00 * kkkkkk 092E81 03/26/90 35.14 35.14 * kkkkkk 092F02 03/26/90 3.60 092F02 03/26/90 272.19 k k k k k k 275.79 * CHECK REGISTER VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION DAYTONS CAM CORDER DEPENDABLE COURIER COURIER SERVICE DUFFEY PAPER CO. DUFFEY PAPER CO. E. H. RENNER & SONS E. H. RENNER & SONS E. H. RENNER & SONS„ E. H. RENNER & SONS'. E. H. RENNER & SONS E. H. RENNER & SONS ECOLAB PEST ELIM.. EASTMAN KODAK CO EMPLOYEES CLUB ENGINE PARTS SUPPLY FACILITY SYSTEMS FACILITY SYSTEMS PAPER PAPER PUMP REPAIR WELL #2 REPAIR PUMP REMOVAL PUMP SHAFT PUMP SHAFT PUMP SHAFT SERVICE CONTRACT EQUIP MAINT SUPPLIES PARTS COVER PLATES CHAIR 04 -02 -90 PAGE 12 ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE * ** -CKS 12- 4902 - 434 -43 * ** -CKS 10- 4201 - 140 -14 150467 . * ** -CKS 10- 4504- 510 -51 65784 6585 10- 4504 - 510 -51 85785 6585 * ** -CKS 40- 4248 - 801 -80 2071 4271 40- 4248 - 801 -80 2073 6612 40- 4248 - 801 -80 2072 3985 40- 4540 - 801 -80 2070 5216 40- 4540 - 801 -80 2070 5216 40- 4540 - 801 -80 2070 5216 * ** -CKS 30- 4288 - 782 -78 P33754 6690 * ** -CKS 10- 4288 - 510 -51 * ** -CKS 10- 4504- 500 -50 * ** -CKS 10- 4540 - 560 -56 106727 6009 * ** -CKS 10- 4504 - 520 -52 45877 10- 4901 - 510 -51 45878 6615 * ** -CKS 1990 CITY OF EDINA CHECK REGISTER CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION 092F11 03/26/90 2,083.43 FEED RITE CONTROL WATER CHEMICALS 2,083.43 kkkkkk . 092F21 03/26/90 3,368.00 FLANAGAN SALES LIGHTS FOR DOME 3,368.00 * kkkkkk 092F47 03/27/90 51.70 FOWLER ELECTRIC TOOLS 51.70 * kkkkkk 092F50 03/26/90 43.86 FRED G ANDERSON MATERIAL 092F50 03/26/90 40.98 FRED G ANDERSON OIL BASE 092F50 03/26/90 7.34 FRED G ANDERSON MATERIAL 092F50 03/26/90 20.49 FRED G ANDERSON MATERIAL 092F50 03/26/90 i .37.38 FRED G ANDERSON PAINT 150.05 kkkkkk ; 092F56 03/27/90 3,592.00 FRANK B. HALL & CO. INSURANCE 3,592.00 * kkkkkk 092F59 03/26/90 146.51 FRANK J. ZAMBONI GENERAL SUPPLIES 146.51 * kkkkkk 092F76 03/26/90 21.51 FLAHERTY EQUIP CORP RINGS 092F76 03/26/90 182.12 FLAHERTY EQUIP CORP PISTON /RINGS 203.63 092G09 03/27/90 195.00 GOVT TRAIN SERV CONT ED 092G09 03/26/90 15.00 GOVT TRAIN SERV WORKSHOP 092G09 03/27/90 20.99 CONF /LODGING 289.00 * CRAGUN' S CONF . CTR. kkkkkk 092G24 03/27/90 52.00 GEN. COMMUNICATIONS INSTALLATION 092G24 03/27/90 27.30 GEN. COMMUNICATIONS RADIO SERVICE 092G24 03/26/90 286.25 GEN. COMMUNICATIONS MAINT CONTRACT 092G24 03/27/90 43.20 GEN. COMMUNICATIONS' SPEAKER 408.75 kkkkkk 04 -02 -90 PAGE 13 ACCOUNT NO. INV. M P.O. # MESSAGE 40- 4622 - 805 -80 136281 1670 * ** -CKS 27- 4540 - 667 -66 4546 * ** -CKS 27- 4580 - 664 -66 39980 1061 * ** -CKS 10- 4540 - 520 -52 74036 5925 10- 4540 - 520 -52 73975 5727 10- 4540 - 520 -52 74051 5992 10-4540-520-52-74002 6484 10- 4540 - 520 -52 73978 5730 * ** -CKS 10- 4260 - 510 -51 * ** -CKS 30- 4504 - 782 -78 15213 6747 * ** -CKS 10- 4540 - 560 -56 6256 10- 4540 - 560 -56 6256 * ** -CKS 10- 4202 - 420 -42 7091 10- 4202 - 600 -60 12- 4202 - 434 -43 * ** -CKS 10- 4248 - 440 -44 62192 6057 30- 4248 - 440 -44 63308 5051 10- 4294 - 560 -56 33042 10- 4504 - 440 -44 62192 6057 * ** -CKS 1990 CITY OF EDINA CHECK REGISTER 04 -02 -90 PAGE 14 CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE 092626 03/26/90 28.04 GENERAL OFFICE PROD GENERAL SUPPLIES 10- 4504 - 420 -42 28.04 * * * * ** * ** -CKS 092G62 03/26/90 68.00 GRANDMA S CUPBOARD FOOD 27- 4624 - 663 -66 5517 68.00 * * * * ** * ** -CKS 092672 03/26/90 45.00 GARY SMIEJA GENERAL SUPPLIES 40- 4504 - 803 -80 45.00 * * * * ** DAN'S REGISTER SERVICE ** *-CKS 092G99 03/26/90 162.00 POPPER GA&W REG44Z R REPAIRS .27- 4248 - 663 -66 6678 092699 03/26/90 50.00 GOPHER CASH REGISTER REPAIRS 27- 4248 - 666 -66 10434 6602 --24-2-.-949--* ( 2 checks) * * * * ** * ** -CKS 092H09 03/26/90 684.00 HALLMAN OIL 10- 4618 - 560 -56 51298 6352 684.00 * * * * ** * ** -CKS 092H23 -03/27/90 2,188.00 HARRIS HOMEYER CO. INSURANCE 10- 4260 - 510 -51 092H23 03/27/90 27,829.00 HARRIS HOMEYER CO. INSURANCE 10- 4260 - 510 -51 092H23 03/27/90 2,188.00 HARRIS HOMEYER CO. INSURANCE 10- 4260 - 510 -51 092H23 03/27/90 27,829.00 HARRIS HOMEYER CO. INSURANCE 10- 4260 - 510 -51 092H23 03/27/90 5,194.00 HARRIS HOMEYER CO. INSURANCE 10- 4260 - 510 -51 092H23 03/27/90 182.00 HARRIS HOMEYER CO. INSURANCE 10- 4260 - 510 -51 092H23 03/27/90 5,194.00 HARRIS HOMEYER CO. INSURANCE 10- 4260 - 510 -51 092H23 03/27/90 1,484.00 HARRIS HOMEYER CO. INSURANCE 10- 4260 - 510 -51 72,088.00 * * * * * ** * ** -CKS 092H33 03/27/90 373.44 HENN CTY SHERIFF WORKHOUSE /JAIL 10- 4286 - 220 -22 373.44 * 092H34 03/27/90 5,616.56 HENN COUNTY TREAS. WORKHOUSE /JAIL 10- 4286 - 220 -22 20968 092H34 03/26/90 7,157.80 HENN COUNTY TREAS. WORKHOUSE /JAIL 10- 4286 - 220 -22 20928 12,774.36 * * * * * ** * ** -CKS 092H56 03/26/90 13.98 HIRSHFIELDS PAINT 10- 4540 - 540 -54 124795 6314 13.98 * * * * * ** * ** -CKS 092H74 03/26/90 72.08 HOOTEN CLEANERS LAUNDRY 10- 4262 - 420 -42 092H74 03/26/90 8.48 HOOTEN CLEANERS LAUNDRY 10- 4262 - 440 -44 1990 CITY OF EDINA CHECK REGISTER i 04 -02 -90 PAGE 15 CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE 80.56 * kkkk *k k -kk -CKS 092I09 03/26/90 95.00 IAAO DUES 10- 4204 - 200 -20 716736, 95.00 * . kkkkkk kkk -CKS 092I49 03/26/90 94.49 INMAC PRINTER STAND 10- 4504 - 260 -26 6457 092I49 03/26/90 26.93 INMAC OFFICE SUPPLIES 30- 4516- 781 -78 6522 121.42 * kkkkkk - kkk -CKS 092J23 03/26/90 156.45 JR JOHNSON SUP TREES /FLOWERS /SHRUBS 30- 4660 - 782 -78 68568 6622 156.45 * kkkkkk - kkk -CKS 092J27 03/26/90 jo 26.47 JERRYS FOODS GENERAL SUPPLIES 23- 4504- 611 -61 26.47 kkkkkk kkk -CKS 092J74 03/26/90 43.89 JUSTUS LUMBER CHISEL 10- 4540 - 520 -52 26316 5913 092J74 03/26/90 24.08 JUSTUS LUMBER DRYWALL 10- 4540 - 520 -52 27517 6015 092J74 03/26/90 155.21 JUSTUS LUMBER FIRE GRID 10- 4540 - 520 -52 26776 5996 092J74 03/26/90 16.27 JUSTUS LUMBER CHAIN BOLT 10- 4540 - 540 -54 27602 6111 092J74 03/26/90 180.59 JUSTUS LUMBER LUMBER 10- 4540 - 540 -54 28131 6259 092J74 03/26/90 166.96 JUSTUS LUMBER REPAIR PARTS 10- 4540 - 540 -54 27824 6184 092J74 03/26/90 18.91 JUSTUS LUMBER GALV BOX 10 -4540- 540 -54 26856 6003 092J74 .03/26/90 488.22 JUSTUS LUMBER REPAIR PARTS 40- 4540 - 802 -80 28316 6285 1,094.13 kkkkkk _ kkk -CKS 092J99 03/27/90 40.00 JANET CANTON MILEAGE /LOGIS 10- 4208 - 160 -16 40.00 * kkk -CKS K :::*:: 03/27/90 135.76 KAMAN BEARING & SPLY REPAIR PARTS 27- 4540 - 664 -66 6462 135.76 * kkkkkk kkk -CKS 092K35 03/26/90 19.29 KNOX COMM CREDIT MATERIAL 10- 4504 - 318 -30 612509 6190 092K35 03/27/90 26.99 KNOX COMM CREDIT SHELVING 10- 4504 - 440 -44 600881 092K35 03/26/90 105.99 KNOX COMM CREDIT SHEETROCK 10- 4540 - 520 -52 600663 6544 092K35 03/26/90 29.29 KNOX COMM CREDIT MATERIAL 10- 4540 - 540 -54 600998 6499 092K35 03/26/90 87.06 KNOX COMM CREDIT MATERIAL 10- 4540 - 540 -54 612094 6199 092K35 03/26/90 61.64 KNOX COMM CREDIT PLUMBING PARTS 10- 4540- 646 -64 600931 6497 092K35 03/26/90 71.51 KNOX COMM CREDIT REPAIR PARTS 10- 4540 - 646 -64 601050 6180 092K35 03/26/90 56.60 KNOX COMM CREDIT LUMBER 10- 4604 - 646 -64 612038 6358 1990 CITY OF EDINA CHECK NO. DATE 092K35 03/26/90 092K35 03/26/90 * * * * ** 6180 092K51 03/26/90 * * * * ** GENERAL SUPPLIES 092K63 03/26/90. lf * Rf* LAWSON 092L28 03/26/90 092L28 03/26/90 092L28 03/26/90 092L28 03/26/90 092L28 03/26/90 092L28 03/26/90 092L28 03/26/90 092L28 03/26/90 092L28 03/26/90 092L28 03/26/90 092L28 03/26/90 092L28 03/26/90 092L28 03/26/90 092L28 03/26/90 092L28 03/26/90 092L28 03/26/90 092L28 03/26/90 478.07 LAWSON 092L30 03/26/90 09200 03/26/90 * * * * ** LAWSON 092L34 03/26/90 * * * * ** 6180 092L66 03/26/90 * * * * ** REPAIR PARTS 092L70 03/26/90 09200 03/26/90 AMOUNT 162.75 215.73 836.85 332.00 332.00 170.50 170.50 CHECK REGISTER VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION KNOX COMM CREDIT LADDER KNOX COMM CREDIT REPAIR PARTS KREMER SPRG & ALGN KUSTOM ELECTRONICS SPRING FOR TRUCK EQUIP MAINT 04 -02 -90 PAGE 16 ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE 27- 4504 - 667 -66 638247 6361 40- 4540- 802 -80 638538 6286 10- 4540 - 560 -56 19917 6255 10- 4274 - 420-42 42.87 LAWSON PRODUCTS TIE STRAP 10- 4504 - 301 -30 6180 84.41 LAWSON PRODUCTS GENERAL SUPPLIES 10- 4504 - 322 -30 6106 193.16 LAWSON PRODUCTS GENERAL SUPPLIES 10- 4504 - 322 -30 6108 397.12 LAWSON PRODUCTS GENERAL SUPPLIES 10- 4504 - 325 -30- 5619 j 476.27 LAWSON PRODUCTS GENERAL SUPLLIES 10- 4504 - 325 -30 6181 66.33 LAWSON PRODUCTS STRAP 10- 4504 - 560 -56 6181 220.26 LAWSON PRODUCTS GENERAL SUPPLIES 10- 4504 - 646 -64 6107 365.52 LAWSON PRODUCTS FASTENERS 10- 4540 - 560 -56 6179 478.07 LAWSON PRODUCTS REPAIR PARTS 10- 4540 - 560 -56 6105 467.52 LAWSON PRODUCTS REPAIR PARTS 10- 4540 - 560 -56 6180 470.18 LAWSON PRODUCTS REPAIR PARTS 10- 4540- 560 -56 6106 347.31 LAWSON PRODUCTS PARTS 10- 4620 - 560 -56 6181 486.18 LAWSON PRODUCTS KITS 10- 4620 - 560 -56 5915 60.23 LAWSON PRODUCTS SAFETY EQUIP 10- 4642 - 560 -56 5916 396.98 LAWSON PRODUCTS SAFETY EQUIP 40- 4504- 802 -80 6104 365.69 LAWSON PRODUCTS BOLTS 40- 4540- 801 -80 6179 471:40 LAWSON PRODUCTS SEAL KITS 40- 4540- 803 -80 6483 5,389.50 3,429.12 487.10 3,916.22 15.75 15.75 184.20 184.20 125.00- 125.00 LAYNE MINNESOTA CO LAYNE MINNESOTA CO LEEF BROS. INC POWER CABLE #12 WELL REPAIR LAUNDRY LONG LAKE FORD TRACT CONTRACTED REPAIRS LUCY ROSCHE LUCY ROSCHE CLEANING CLEANING 40- 4540 - 801 -80 17057 6356 40- 4540 - 801 -80 17058 6548 23- 4201 - 612 -61 10- 4248 - 560 -56 101352 6364 27- 4201 - 662 -66 30570 4909 27- 4201 - 662 -66 30570 4909 * ** -CKS * ** -CKS * ** -CKS * ** -CKS * ** -CKS * ** -CKS * ** -CKS 1990 CITY OF EDINA CHECK NO. DATE 092L70 03/26/90 092M02 03/26/90 092M02 03/26/90 092M02 03/26/90 092M02 03/26/90 092M02 03/26/90 092M02 03/26/90 * * * * ** 2809 092M10 03/26/90 * * * * ** 6188 092M16 03%27/90 * * * * ** 10- 4620 - 560 -56 092M19 03/26/90 092M19 03/26/90 092M19 03/26/90 092M19 03/26/90 * * * * ** 6594 092M22 03/26/90 092M22 03/26/90 092M22 03/26/90 092M22 03/26/90 092M22 03/26/90 092M23 03/26/90 092M23 03/26/90 092M23 03/26/90 092M27 03/27/90 092M27 03/27/90 092M27 03/26/90 092M27 03/26/90 092M27 03/26/90 092M27 03/26/90 092M27 03/26/90 092M27 03/26/90 t AMOUNT 125.00 125.00 491.66 833.30 325.44- 325.44 325.44 108.58 1,758.98 104.95 104.95 421.40 421.40 46.56 2,381.57 17.10 139.40 2,584.63 443.67 358.88 438.62 412.77 471.31 2,125.25 * 175.00 350.00 350.00 875.00 * 30.00- 30.00 467.50 383.55 380.00 327.25 495.00 90.30 CHECK REGISTER VENDOR- ITEM DESCRIPTION LUCY ROSCHE CLEANING MAC QUEEN EQUIP INC MAC QUEEN EQUIP INC MAC QUEEN EQUIP INC MAC QUEEN EQUIP INC MAC QUEEN EQUIP INC MAC QUEEN EQUIP INC MARSHALL & SWIFT MCCAREN DESIGNS MCGUIRE AUTO SUPPLY MCGUIRE AUTO SUPPLY MCGUIRE AUTO SUPPLY MCGUIRE AUTO SUPPLY MCNEILUS STEEL MCNEILUS STEEL MCNEILUS STEEL MCNEILUS STEEL MCNEILUS STEEL MARKETING FACTORS MARKETING FACTORS MARKETING FACTORS MERIT SUPPLY MERIT SUPPLY MERIT SUPPLY MERIT SUPPLY MERIT SUPPLY MERIT SUPPLY MERIT SUPPLY MERIT SUPPLY PUMP SWEEPER PARTS SWEEPER PARTS SWEEPER PARTS SWEEPER PARTS SOLENOID VALVE SUPPLIES TREES /FLOWERS /SHRUBS GENERAL SUPPLIES REPAIR PARTS TOOLS PARTS STEEL RODS STEEL MATERIAL STEEL MATERIAL SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES 04 -02 -90 PAGE 17 ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE 27- 4201 - 662 -66 30570 4909 * ** -CKS 10- 4540 - 560 -56 2616 6016 10- 4540- 560 -56 1885 5365 10- 4540 - 560 -56 2809 5365 i0- 4540 - 560 -56 2809 5365 10- 4540 - 560 -56 2809 5365 10- 4540 - 560 -56 2686 6188 * ** -CKS 10- 4504 - 200 -20 * ** -CKS 30- 4580 - 782 -78 2622 6768 * ** -CKS 10- 4504 - 440 -44 10- 4540 - 560 -56 10- 4580 - 560 -56 10- 4620 - 560 -56 10- 4540 - 560 -56 48134 6120 10- 4620 - 560 -56 49219 6247 10- 4620 - 560 -56 48892 6189 40- 4504 - 801 -80 49530 6251 40- 4540 - 803 -80 48516 6131 50- 4201 - 820 -82 50- 4201 - 840 -84 50- 4201 - 860 -86 AMBULANCE COLLECT 10- 3180 - 000 -00 AMBULANCE COLLECT 10- 3180 - 000 -00 HEAVY DUTY CLEANER 10- 4504 - 560 -56 23688 6127 CLEANING SUPPLIES 10- 4504 - 646 -64 23825 6492 ICE MELT 10- 4520 - 318 -30 23705 6197 PRESSURE WASH 10- 4620 - 560 -56 23722 6208 WASH /WAX 10- 4620 - 560 -56 23689 6126 POLYLINERS 27- 4512- 667 -66 23700 6594 * ** -CKS * ** -CKS 1990 CITY OF EDINA CHECK REGISTER 04 -02 -90 PAGE 18 CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE 092M27 03/26/90 499.00 092M27 03/26/90 489.95 092M27 03/26/90 358.80 10- 4204 - 140 -14 807727 MN. 3,491.35 " kkkkkk EQUIP RENTAL 092M29 03/27/90 42.00 092M29 03/27/90 30.00 092M29 03/27/90 500.00 TEL. EQUIP 572.00 kkkkkk MN. CELLULAR 092M32 03/26/90 113.74 092M32 03/26/90 227.17 TEL. EQUIP 340.91 kkkkkk MN. CELLULAR 092M35 03/26/90 218,619.58 10- 4226 - 420 -42 MN. 218,619.58 k k k k k k 092M44 03/27/90 164.92 10- 4226 - 420 -42 MN. 164.92 kkkkkk EQUIP RENTAL 092M46 03/26/90 39.56 092M46 03/26/90 27.50 67.06 k M k k k k 092M60 03/26/90 63.95 092M60 03/26/90 43.10 092M60 03/26/90 37.10 144.15 kkkkkk 092M68 03/26/90 88.20 092M68 03/27/90 166.75 092M68 03/27/90 28.20 092M68 03/27/90 16.80 092M68 03/26/90 25.84 092M68 03/27/90 42.75 092M68 03/27/90 8.80 092M68 03/27/90 10.50 092M68 03/27/90 72.60 092M68 03/27/90 24.90 485.34 kkkkkk MERIT SUPPLY CLEANING SUPPLIES MERIT SUPPLY CLEANING SUPPLIES MERIT SUPPLY PAINT MESSERLI & KRAMER AMBULANCE COLLECT MESSERLI & KRAMER AMBULANCE COLLECT MESSERLI & KRAMER SERVICES M AMUNDSON M AMUNDSON CIGARETTES CIGARETTES 28- 4512- 702 -70 23850 6535 30- 4512 - 782 -78 23896 6687 40- 4504- 803 -80 23723 6207 10- 3180 - 000 -00 10- 3180 - 000 -00 12- 4201 - 434 -43 50- 4634 - 862 -86 50- 4634 - 862 -86 METRO WASTE CONTROL SEWER CHARGES 40- 4312 - 812 -80 505004 MIDWEST CHEM SUPPLY SUPPLIES 10- 4514 - 520 -52 27471 6605 METZ BAKING CO BREAD 27- 4624 - 663 -66 5511 METZ BAKING CO COST OF GOODS 28- 4624 - 703 -70 MILWAUKEE TOOL CO. TOOLS MILWAUKEE TOOL CO. TOOLS MILWAUKEE TOOL CO. BALL /PARTS 40- 4580 - 801 -80 6341 40- 4580 - 801 -80 6485 40- 4580 - 801 -80 6177 MN. CELLULAR TEL. CAR PHONE 10- 4204 - 100 -10 MN. CELLULAR TEL. CAR PHONE 10- 4204 - 140 -14 807727 MN. CELLULAR TEL. EQUIP RENTAL 10- 4226 - 420 -42 MN. CELLULAR TEL. EQUIP RENTAL 10- 4226- 420 -42 MN. CELLULAR TEL. EQUIP RENTAL 10- 4226 - 420 -42 MN. CELLULAR TEL. EQUIP RENTAL 10- 4226 - 420 -42 MN. CELLULAR TEL. EQUIP RENTAL 10- 4226 - 420 -42 MN. CELLULAR TEL. EQUIP RENTAL 10- 4226 - 420 -42 MN. CELLULAR TEL. EQUIP RENTAL 10- 4226 - 420 -42 MN. CELLULAR TEL. EQUIP RENTAL 10- 4226- 420 -42 * ** -CKS * ** -CKS * ** -CKS * ** -CKS * ** -CKS * ** -CKS * ** -CKS * ** -CKS 1990 CITY OF EDINA CHECK NO. DATE 092M70 03/27/90 kkkkkk 092M80 03/26/90 092M80 03/26/90 092M80 03/26/90 092M81 03/27/90 092M81 03/26/90 092M81 03/26/90 092M81 03/26/90 092M81 03/27/90 092M82 03/26/90 092M82 03/26/90 092M82 03/26/90 f kkkkkk 092M93 03/27/90 k *kk ** 092M97 03/26/90 kkkkkk 092N14 03/26/90 092N14 03/26/90 092N14 03/26/90 kkkk *k 092N18 03/26/90 k *kk *k 092N22 03/26/90 092N22 03/26/90 092N22 03/26/90 092N22 03/26/90 kkkkkk 09ZN33 03/26/90 AMOUNT 138.00 138.00 * 24.63 43.66 48.73 117.02 * 180.00 60.00 45 .19' 68.28- 195.97 412.88 * 30.00 30.00 30.00 90.00 * 146.00 146.00 * 4,394.50 4,394.50 * 33.33 33.34 33.33 100.00 * 186.26 186.26 * 216.72 117.59 173.24 184.78 692.33 149.00 CHECK REGISTER VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION MN. CONWAY NOZZLE REPAIR MN SUBURBAN NEWS MN SUBURBAN NEWS MN SUBURBAN NEWS MN. TORO INC. MN. TORO INC. MN. TORO INC. MN. TORO INC. MN. TORO INC. MN. TROOPER MN. TROOPER MN. TROOPER MOTOROLA MPLS FINANCE DEPT NARCOFFICER NARCOFFICER NARCOFFICER NATL CAMERA EXCH NATL GUARDIAN SYS. NATL GUARDIAN SYS. NATL GUARDIAN SYS. NATL GUARDIAN SYS. NELSON RADIO COMM NOTICE PUBLIC HRG NOTICE PUBLIC HRG AD FOR BIDS IRRIGATION SCHOOL SCHOOL REPAIR PARTS CREDIT MOWER PARTS ADVERTISING ADVERTISING ADVERTISING 12 BATTERIES WATER ADVERTISING ADVERTISING ADVERTISING PHOTO SUPPLIES SECURITY REPAIRS ALARM ALARM SERVICE ALAARM SERVICE SIREN REPAIR 04 -02 -90 PAGE 19 ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE 10- 4248 - 440 -44 14982 5815 10- 4210 - 140 -14 87002 10- 4210 - 140 -14 87003 10- 4210 - 140 -14 87001 27- 4202 = 664 -66 27- 4202 - 664 -66 27- 4540 - 664 -66 27- 4540 - 664 -66 27- 4540- 664 -66 50- 4214 - 822 -82 50- 4214 - 842 -84 50- 4214 - 862 -86 102413 6278 101806 6332 100406 6046 102099 102588 6601 10- 4504 - 440 -44 6058 40- 4640 - 803 -80 50 -4214- 822 -82 50- 4214 - 842 -84 50- 4214 - 862 -86 10- 4508 - 420 -42 252244 6588 10- 4504 - 646 -64 6738 28- 4304- 702 -70 207488 50- 4304 - 821 -82 207584 50- 4304 - 861 -86 207583 10- 4540 - 560 -56 15698 6399 * ** -CKS * ** -CKS * ** -CKS * ** -CKS * ** -CKS * ** -CKS * ** -CKS 1990 CITY OF EDINA CHECK REGISTER CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION 149.00 kkkkkk 092N48 03/27/90 9.97 NO STAR TURF REPAIR PARTS 092N48 03/26/90 77.60 NO STAR TURF MOWER PARTS 87.57 k k k* k k 092N72 03/26/90 550.00 NORTHWESTERN TIRE CO JUNK TIRES 092N72 03/26/90 1,099.44 NORTHWESTERN TIRE CO TIRES 1,649.44 k k k k k k 092N82 03/26/90 63.23 NW GRAPHIC SUPPLY COST /GOODS SOLD 092N82 03/26/90 498.00 NW GRAPHIC SUPPLY COST /GOODS SOLD 092N82 03/26/90 117.02 NW GRAPHIC SUPPLY COST /GOODS SOLD 678.25 kkkkkk 092N96 03/26/90 67.00 MINN COMM PAGING SERVICE CONTRACT 67.00 k k k k k k 092017 03/26/90 50.00 OFFICE PRODUCTS CABLES 092017 03/26/90 22.00 OFFICE PRODUCTS GENDER MENDER 092017 03/26/90 35.00 OFFICE PRODUCTS CABLES 107.00 k k k k k k 092024 03/26/90 509.60 OFFSET PRINTING TIME CARDS 092024 03/26/90 291.00 OFFSET PRINTING PRINTING 092024 03/26/90 457.00 OFFSET PRINTING PRINTING 1,257.60 092027 03/26/90 3,995.00 OLD DOMINION BRUSH BROOM STICK C3,995.00 * 092P28 03/26/90 .58 PLANT EQUIP INC CONTROL VALVE 177.58 * kkkkkk 092P48 03/26/90 451.53 PIP PRINTING PRINTING 092P48 03/26/90 57.50 PIP PRINTING OUTSIDE PRINTING 092P48 03/26/90 121.10 PIP PRINTING PRINTING 630.13 kkkkkk 04 -02 -90 PAGE 20 ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE * ** -CKS 27- 4540 - 664 -66 204091 6421 27- 4540 - 664 -66 204090 6421 * ** -CKS 10- 4310 - 560 -56 8447 6339 10- 4616 - 560 -56 *** -CKS 23- 4624 - 613 -61 170065 6306 23- 4624 - 613 -61 170258 6309 23- 4624 - 613 -61 170302 6309 * ** -CKS 30- 4288 - 782 -78 6608 * ** -CKS 10- 4504 - 510 -51 103351 5873 10- 4504 - 510 -51 705450 6313 10- 4504 - 510 -51 103570 5873 * ** -CKS 10- 4504 - 510 -51 30616 5792 10- 4600 - 420 -42 30724 6447 10- 4600 - 420 -42 30725 6445 **A-CKS 10- 4534 - 310 -30 3361 5912 40- 4540 - 805 -80 12248 6182 * ** -CKS 23- 4600- 611 -61 6740 6308 30- 4600 - 781 -78 6782 6691 30- 4600- 781 -78 6749 6589 * ** -CKS 1990 CITY OF EDINA CHECK REGISTER CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION 092P64 03/27/90 219.80 POMMER CO. INC. 2 PLAQUES 219.80 RRRRRR 092P78 03/26/90 78.00 PRINTERS SERV INC BLADES SHARPENED 78.00 * RRRRRR 092Q20 03/26/90 69.36 QUICK SERV BATTERY FILTERS 69.36 * RRRtIRR • 092R25 03/26/90 215.70 RENTAL EQUIP & SALES TOOLS 092R25 03/26/90 329.00 RENTAL EQUIP & SALES REPLACE CHAIN SAW 544.70 RRRRRR j 092R31 03/27/90 21.53 RETAIL DATA SYS MN_. OFFICE SUPPLIES 21.53 R R R R R R 092R35 03/26/90 340.00 RICHFIELD PLUMB CO PLUMBING REPAIRS 340.00 092R49 03/27%90 201..31 ROAD RESCUE LIGHT BOXES 092R49 03/26/90 36.86 ROAD RESCUE FLASHER 238.17 * RRRRRR 092R53 03/27/90 28.80 ROBERT B. HILL SALT 28.80 * RRRRRR 092R59 03/26/90 352.60 ROCHESTER MIDLAND GENERAL SUPPLIES 352.60 * RRRR *R • 092R65 03/26/90 94.20 ROLLINS OIL CO. MORROR HEAD 092R65 03/26/90 94.20 ROLLINS OIL CO. MIRROR HEAD 092R65 03/26/90 94.20- ROLLINS OIL CO. MORROR HEAD 94.20 kR * *RR 092R79 03/27/90 106.25 RTW INC. FEE'FOR SERVICE 04 -02 -90 PAGE 21 ACCOUNT N0. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE 10- 4504 - 440 -44 021481 5810 RRR -CKS 28- 4274 - 704 -70 47604 * ** -CKS 10- 4540 - 560 -56 35698 6203 * ** -CKS 10- 4580 - 301 -30 11526 6204 10- 4901 - 650 -64 11622 6498 * ** -CKS 30- 4516- 781 -78 1178 6766 RRR -CKS 27- 4248 - 662 -66 9535 6677 * ** -CKS 10- 4510- 440 -44 030113 5800 10- 4540- 560 -56 20313 6401 * ** -CKS 10- 4504- 440 -44 22418 5.054 * ** -CKS 28- 4504 - 702 -70 6442 **A-CKS 10- 4540 - 560 -56 93850 6211 10- 4540 - 560 -56 93850 6221 10- 4540- 560 -56 93850 6221 10- 4260- 510 -51 * ** -CKS 1990 CITY OF EDINA CHECK NO. DATE 092R79 03/27/90 092R79 03/26/90 * * * * ** 10- 4540 - 560 -56 092S09 03/26/90 * * * * ** SOUTHDALE FORD 092S27 03/26/90 * * * * ** 092S34 03/26/90 092S34 03/26/90 092S34 03/26/90 092S34 03/26/90 092S34 03/26/90 092S34 03/26/90 092S35 03/26/90 092S35 03/26/90 233077 092S45 03/26/90 092S45 03/26/90 092S45 03/26/90 092S45 03/26/90 * * * * ** 50- 4236 - 821 -82 092S72 03/26/90 092S72 03/26/90 * * * * ** 50- 4236 - 841 -84 092S77 03/26/90 092S77 03/26/90 092S77 03/26/90 092S77 03/26/90 092S77 03/26/90 092S77 03/26/90 092S77 03/26/90 092S78 03/26/90 092S78 03/26/90 AMOUNT 289.85 21.25 417.35 127.15 127.15 26.74 26.74 CHECK REGISTER VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION RTW INC. FEE FOR SERVICE RTW INC. FEE FOR SERVICE SCHAFER EQUIP CO SHERWIN WILLIAMS RACK FOR VAN PAINT TRAY LINERES 04 -02 -90 PAGE 22 ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE 10- 4260 - 510 -51 10- 4260- 510 -51 10 -4580- 301 -30 150317 6011 40- 4544 - 801 -80 35077 6318 29.15 SOUTHDALE FORD HOSE ASSM 10- 4540- 560 -56 232574 46.13 SOUTHDALE FORD MOTOR ASSM 10- 4540 - 560 -56 233175 36.37 SOUTHDALE FORD REPAIR PARTS 10- 4540 - 560 -56 232897 9.41 SOUTHDALE FORD SWITCH 10- 4540 - 560 - 56233503 129.83 SOUTHDALE FORD LINK ASSM 10- 4540 - 560 -56 233004 8.74 SOUTHDALE FORD BUSHING 10- 4540 - 560 -56 233077 259.63 * 38.95 SOUTHERN VACUUM FLOOR MAINT 50- 4236 - 821 -82 42.95 SOUTHERN VACUUM VACUUM REPAIR 50- 4236 - 841 -84 81.90 * 2.96 ST. PAUL BOOK NAME TAGS 10- 4206 - 100 -10 921742 46.16 ST. PAUL BOOK SUPPLIES 10- 4504 - 325 -30 848382 6269 11.96 ST. PAUL BOOK GENERAL SUPPLIES 10- 4504 - 420 -42 921882 16.69 ST. PAUL BOOK OFFICE SUPPLIES 10- 4516 - 600 -60 920575 6569 77.77 24.00 STREICHERS UNIFORM ALLWANCE 10- 4266- 420 -42 M69164 6502 147.70 STREICHERS MAPLIGHT 10- 4620- 560 -56 68727 6005 171.70 100.00 SUBURBAN CHEVROLET - REPAIR WORK 10- 4248 - 560 -56 98713 171.50 SUBURBAN CHEVROLET REPAIR WORK 10- 4248 - 560 -56 6896 48.49 SUBURBAN CHEVROLET MODULE 10- 4540- 560 -56 122970 72.00 SUBURBAN CHEVROLET WIRE SET 10- 4540- 560 -56 122281 21.68 SUBURBAN CHEVROLET LATCH 10- 4540 - 560 -56 122221 2.30 SUBURBAN CHEVROLET HOSE 10- 4540 - 560 -56 122558 12.10 SUBURBAN CHEVROLET VALVE 10- 4540 - 560 -56 122765 428.07 62.35 SUBURBAN PLUMB SUP PLUMBING PARTS 10- 4540 - 646 -64 6380 32.48 SUBURBAN PLUMB SUP PLUMBING PARTS 10- 4540 - 646 -64 6342 * ** -CKS * ** -CKS * ** -CKS * ** -CKS * ** -CKS * ** -CKS 1990 CITY OF EDINA CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT 092S78 03/26/90 80.24 092S78 03/26/90 282.48 092S78 03/26/90 236.91 GENERAL SUPPLIES 40- 4504 - 802 -80 694.46 kkRkkR 092S80 03/26/90 1,750.00 10- 4612- 560 -56 T17317 1,750.00 RRRRkR 092S90 03/26/90 39.60 3371 3850 39.60 R R R R k R 60930 5811 092S97 03/27/90 283.05 6345 283.05 Rk *Rkk l 092T08 03/26/90 49.98 092T08 03/26/90 67.99 117.97 Rkkkkk 092T10 03/26/90 413.50 092T10 03/26/90 360.00 092T10 03/26/90 128.00 .901.50 * RRkRkR 092T14 03/26/90 45.24 45.24 * kkkRRR 092T40 03/26/90 32.43 092T40 03/26/90 59.50 092T40 03/26/90 34.18 126.11 RRRRRR 092753 03/26/90 4,000.08 4,000.08 *kkRkk 092T96 03/26/90 352.00 092T96 03/27/90 246.50 092T96 03/26/90 2,035.00 CHECK REGISTER VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION SUBURBAN PLUMB SUP REPAIR PARTS SUBURBAN PLUMB SUP REPAIR PARTS SUBURBAN PLUMB SUP REPAIR PARTS SUBURBAN RATE SWANSON BROTHERS SEH TARGET TARGET TERRY ANN SALES CO TERRY ANN SALES CO TERRY ANN SALES CO TEXGAS CORP. TOLL COMPANY TOLL COMPANY TOLL COMPANY TRACY OIL (see also 092T96) TWIN CITY GAR. DOOR TWIN CITY GAR. DOOR TWIN CITY GAR. DOOR SRA DUES SAND PRO ENG SERVICES GENERAL SUPPLIES PHOTO SUPPLIES 04 -02 -90 PAGE 23 ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE 40- 4540 - 801 -80 6175 40- 4540 - 801 -80 6281 40- 4540- 803 -80 6337 * ** -CKS 10- 4201 - 506 -50 * ** -CKS 10- 4504- 301 -30 26096 6276 * ** -CKS 40- 4201 - 800 -80 6871 * ** -CKS 10- 4504 - 440 -44 12- 4508 - 434 -43 * ** -CKS GARBAGE BAGS 27- 4504- 663 -66 1048 6676 PAPER CUPS 27- 4504- 663 -66 1045 6675 SHOP TOWELS 27- 4504 - 664 -66 1034 6163 * ** -CKS PROPANE 10- 4504 - 301 -30 6482 * ** -CKS CAPS WELDER 10- 4504 - 560 -56 107190 5765 PROPANE 10- 4610 - 560 -56 488036 6486 GENERAL SUPPLIES 40- 4504 - 802 -80 35474 6176 * ** -CKS GASOLINE 10- 4612- 560 -56 T17317 6477 * ** -CKS REPAIR TO DOOR 10- 4248 - 440 -44 3371 3850 DOOR REPAIR 10- 4248 - 440 -44 60930 5811 DOOR SECTION 10- 4540 - 540 -54 1878 6345 1990 CITY OF EDINA CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT 092T96 03/26/90 2,886.00 092T96 03/26/90 104.50 5,624.00 R *RRRR 092U08 03/26/90 3,312.15 092U08 03/26/90 698.35 092U08 03/26/90 297.00 092U08 03/27/90 51.30 4,358.80 R R R R R R 092V10 03/26/90 475.11 475.11 * R R * R 092V15 03/26/90 457.80 457.80 * RRR * ** 092V46 03/26/90 370.86 370.86 * * * *RRR 092W44 03/26/90 181.35 181.35 * R R * R R * 092W49 03/26/90 190.14 190.14 RRkRRR 092W66 03/26/90 41.13 -4i.98- 41.13 *1 -* RRRRRR 092W76 03/26/90 140.10 092W76 03/26/90 5,898.93 6,039.03 * R R R R R 092X05 03/26/90 160.00 160.00 * R * R R 092Z05 03/26/90 109.05 CHECK REGISTER VENDOR . ITEM DESCRIPTION TWIN CITY GAR. DOOR TWIN CITY GAR. DOOR UNIFORM UNLIMITED UNIFORM UNLIMITED UNIFORM UNLIMITED UNIFORM UNLIMITED GAS DOOR . ROLLERS UNIFORM ALLOWANCE UNIFORM ALLOWANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES BADGES VALLEY INDUSTRIAL LP FUEL VAN PAPER CO. SUPPLIES VESSCO REPAIR PARTS WEST WELD SUPPLY CO. WESTSIDE EQUIPMENT WILLIAMS STEEL WITTEK GOLF SUPPLY WITTEK GOLF SUPPLY XEROX CORP. ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE TUBES /GUIDE VALVE HYDRAULIC LIFT HARD HAT SPRAY ,REPAIR PARTS GOLF MATS COPY DEVELOPER SAFETY EQUIP 04 -02 -90 PAGE 24 ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE 10- 4540- 540 -54 1898 5708 10- 4540- 560 -56 60798 6128 * ** -CKS 10- 4266 - 420 -42 10- 4266 - 430 -42 10- 4504 - 420 -42 10- 4504 - 440 -44 20931 **A-CKS 28- 4612 - 704 -70 * ** -CKS 10-4514-520-52-301486 6599 * ** -CKS 40- 4540 - 805 -80 7483 6136 * ** -CKS 10- 4610- 560 -56 82262 5851 **A-CKS 10- 4248 - 560 -56 22440 5869 * ** -CKS 10 -4620r 560 -56 * ** -CKS 27- 4540 - 666 -66 24973 6455 27- 4636 - 667 -66 21833 6451 * ** -CKS 10- 4504 - 510 -51 * ** -CKS 28- 4642 - 701 -70 a 1990 CITY OF EDINA CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT 6322 10- 4540 - 560 -56 109.05 10- 4540 - 560 -56 6322 10- 4540 - 560 -56 092Z14 03/26/90 9.45 092Z14 03/26/90 24.79 - 092Z14 03/26/90 3.1.80 092Z14 03/26/90 24.79 092Z14 03/26/90 7.16 092Z14 03/26/90 21.79 70.20 * * * * ** 191,458.21 191458.11- 6,122.13 7,180.76 1,149.00 1 ,g-e- 32,206.97 8,385.54 8,609.16 r 249,023.35 7,076.66 1,197.75 512,409.53* 5 ' "'° "' CHECK REGISTER VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ZIEGLER INC ZIEGLER INC ZIEGLER INC ZIEGLER INC ZIEGLER INC ZIEGLER INC FUND 10 TOTAL FUND 12 TOTAL FUND 23 TOTAL FUND 25 TOTAL FUND 27 TOTAL FUND 28 TOTAL FUND 30 TOTAL FUND 40 TOTAL FUND 50 TOTAL FUND 60 TOTAL TOTAL DEFLECTO DEFLECTO REGULATOR /GASKET DEFLECTO ROD DEFLECTO GENERAL FUND COMMUNICATIONS ART CENTER CAPITAL FUND GOLF COURSE FUND RECREATION CENTER FUND EDINBOROUGH PARK UTILITY FUND LIQUOR DISPENSARY FUND CONSTRUCTION FUND .04 -02 -90 PAGE 25 ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE * ** -CKS 10- 4540 - 560 -56 6322 10- 4540 - 560 -56 6322 10- 4540 - 560 -56 6258 10- 4540 - 560 -56 6322 10- 4540 - 560 -56 6274 10- 4540- 560 -56 632 * ** -CKS ;1 Ge 1990 CITY OF EDINA CHECK REGISTER 02 -28 -90 PAGE 1 CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE 031700 03/01/90 47.96 R M LUTZ CONT ED 10- 4202 - 420 -42 MANUAL -0369 egteif9 M LUTZ UNlFeRM AkEeWANeE iB 4266 428 42 - -M,4NHAt -- 031700 03/01/90 67.18 R M LUTZ UNIFORM ALLOWANCE 10- 4266 - 420 -42 MANUAL 115.14* 4;.96 * * * * ** * *" -CKS 032M98 03/01/90 1,198.73 MINNEGASCO HEAT 10- 4254 - 440 -44 MANUAL 032M98 03/01/90 1,627.90 MINNEGASCO HEAT 10- 4254 - 520 -52 MANUAL 032M98 03/01/90 7,728.91 MINNEGASCO HEAT 10- 4254 - 540 -54 MANUAL 032M98 03/01/90 2,140.64 MINNEGASCO HEAT 10- 4254 - 646 -64 MANUAL 032M98 03/01/90 273.50 MINNEGASCO HEAT 23- 4254 - 612 -61 MANUAL 032M98 03/01/90 1,418.01 MINNEGASCO HEAT 27- 4254- 662 -66 MANUAL 032M98 03/01/90 291.23 MINNEGASCO HEAT 27- 4254- 664 -66 MANUAL 032M98 03/01/90 4,880..59 MINNEGASCO HEAT 27- 4254 - 667 -66 MANUAL 032M98 03/01/90 5,167.19 MINNEGASCO HEAT 28- 4254 - 702 -70 MANUAL 032M98 03/01/90 6,646.94 MINNEGASCO HEAT 30- 4254 - 782 -78 MANUAL 032M98 03/01/90 428.17 MINNEGASCO HEAT 40- 4254- 801-80 MANUAL 032M98 03/01/90 3,766.13 MINNEGASCO HEAT 40- 4254 - 803 -80 MANUAL 032M98 03/01/90 94.07 MINNEGASCO HEAT 50- 4254- 821 -82 MANUAL 032M98 03/01/90 418.94 MINNEGASCO HEAT 50- 4254 - 841 -84 MANUAL 032M98 03/01/90 318.25 MINNEGASCO HEAT 50- 4254 - 861 -86 MANUAL 36,399.20 * * * * ** * *" -CKS 032U27 03/01/90 676.76 US WEST COMM TELEPHONE 10- 4256 - 510 -51 MANUAL 032U27 03/01/90 473.93 US WEST COMM TELEPHONE 10- 4256 - 622 -62 MANUAL 032U27 03/01/90 53.06 US WEST COMM TELEPHONE 10- 4256 - 628 -62 MANUAL 032U27 03/01/90 16.06 US WEST COMM TELEPHONE 23- 4256 - 612 -61 MANUAL 032U27 03/01/90 52.41 US WEST COMM TELEPHONE 27- 4256 - 662 -66 MANUAL 032U27 03/01/90 188.06 US WEST COMM TELEPHONE 27- 4256- 667 -66 MANUAL 032U27 03/01/90 98.92 US WEST COMM TELEPHONE 28- 4256- 702 -70 MANUAL 032U27 03/01/90 294.88 US WEST COMM TELEPHONE 30- 4256 - 782 -78 MANUAL 032U27 03/01/90 98.92 US WEST COMM TELEPHONE 50- 4256- 702 -70 MANUAL 032U27 03/01/90 98.92- US WEST COMM TELEPHONE 50- 4256 - 702 -70 MANUAL 032U27 03/01/90 102.64 US WEST COMM TELEPHONE 50- 4256- 821 -82 MANUAL 032U27 03/01/90 112.07 US WEST COMM TELEPHONE 50- 4256 - 841 -84 MANUAL 2,068.79 * ** -CKS 033A82 03/01/90 46.25 AT &T TELEPHONE 10- 4256 - 510 -51 MANUAL 033A82 03/01/90 1.68 AT &T TELEPHONE 10- 4256- 628 -62 MANUAL 47.93 " ** -CKS 033A84 03/01/90 12.35 AT &T TELEPHONE 10- 4256- 510 -51 MANUAL 12.35 * ** -CKS 033C33 03/01/90 137,000.00 CITY /EDINA PAYROLL TRANSFER 50- 1010- 000 -00 MANUAL 033C33 03/01/90 137,000.00- CITY /EDINA PAYROLL TRANSFER 50- 1010 - 000 -00 MANUAL 1990 CITY OF EDINA CHECK NO. DATE RRRRRR 036F14 03/01/90 036F14 03/01/90 R R R * R * AMOUNT 00 * 15,149.28 553.46 15,702.74 CHECK REGISTER VENDOR FIDELITY BANK FIDELITY BANK 02 -28 -90 PAGE 2 ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE * ** -CKS FICA 10- 4149 - 510 -51 MANUAL MEDICARE 10- 4162 - 510 -51 MANUAL * ** -CKS 037E11 03/08/90 9.03- EAGLE WINE 50- 3710 - 822 -82 MANUAL 037E11 03/08/90 12.92- EAGLE WINE 50- 3710 - 842 -84 MANUAL 037E11 03/08/90 1.02- EAGLE WINE 50- 3710 - 842 -84 MANUAL 037EII 03/08/90 3.77- EAGLE WINE 50- 3710 - 862 -86. MANUAL 037EII 03/08/90 2.31- EAGLE WINE 50- 3710 - 862 -86 MANUAL 037E11 03/08/90 4.31- EAGLE WINE 50- 3710 - 862 -86 MANUAL 037E11 03/08/90 25.87- EAGLE WINE 50- 3710 - 862 -86 MANUAL 037E11 03/08/90 2.13- EAGLE WINE 50- 3710 - 862 -86 MANUAL 037E11 03/08/90 451.44 EAGLE WINE 50- 4628 - 822 -82 MANUAL 89?EH 89�91�98 H?.65 EAGLE WfNE WINE 5e 4620 842 84 MANUAL--- - 037E11 03/08/90 646.19 EAGLE WINE 50- 4628- 842 -84 MANUAL 037EII 03/08/90 51.00 EAGLE WINE 50- 4628 - 842 -84 MANUAL 037E11 03/08/90 188.59 EAGLE WINE 50- 4628 - 862 -86 MANUAL 037E11 03/08/90 115.50 EAGLE WINE 50- 4628 - 862 -86 MANUAL 037EII 03/08/90 106.48 EAGLE WINE 50- 4628 - 862 -86 MANUAL 037EII 03/08/90 1,293.58 EAGLE WINE 50- 4628 - 862 -86 MANUAL 037E11 03/08/90 215.68 EAGLE WINE 50- 4628 - 862 -86 MANUAL 037E11 03/01/90 20.54 x,165.29 EAGLE WINE MIX 50- 4632 - 822 -82 MANUAL * * * * ** 3,027.64* * ** -CKS 037E26 03/08/90 2.01- ED PHILLIPS 50- 3710 - 822 -82 MANUAL 037E26 03/08/90 23.17- ED PHILLIPS 50- 3710 - 842 -84 MANUAL 037E26 03/08/90 3.06- ED PHILLIPS 50- 3710 - 842 -84 MANUAL 037E26 03/08/90 4.23- ED PHILLIPS 50- 3710 - 862 -86 MANUAL 037E26 03/08/90 4.23- ED PHILLIPS 50- 3710 - 862 -86 MANUAL 037E26 03/08/90 4.23 ED PHILLIPS 50- 3710 - 862 -86 MANUAL 037E26 03/08/90 100.62 ED PHILLIPS 50- 4626 - 822 -82 MANUAL 037E26 03/08/90 153.44 ED PHILLIPS 50- 4626 - 842 -84 MANUAL 037E26 03/08/90 1,158.88 ED PHILLIPS 50- 4626 - 842 -84 MANUAL 037E26 03/08/90 211.64 ED PHILLIPS 50- 4626 - 862 -86 MANUAL 037E26 03/08/90 211.64 ED PHILLIPS 50- 4626 - 862 -86 MANUAL 037E26 03/08/90 211.64- ED PHILLIPS 50- 4626 - 862 -86 MANUAL 037E26 03/08/90 189.95 ED PHILLIPS 50- 4628 - 822 -82 MANUAL 037E26 03/08/90 591.75 ED PHILLIPS 50-4628 - 822 -82 MANUAL 037E26 03/08/90 599.30 ED PHILLIPS 50- 4628 - 822 -82 MANUAL 037E26 03/08/90 33.60- ED PHILLIPS 50- 4628 - 842 -84 MANUAL 037E26 03/08/90 1,150.60 ED PHILLIPS 50- 4628 - 842 -84 MANUAL 037E26 03/08/90 775.53 ED PHILLIPS 50- 4628 - 842 -84 MANUAL 037E26 03/08/90 760.25 ED PHILLIPS 50- 4628 - 842 -84 MANUAL 037E26 03/08/90 845.55 ED PHILLIPS 50- 4628 - 862 -86 MANUAL 037E26 03/08/90 685.85 ED PHILLIPS 50- 4628- 862 -86 MANUAL 037E26 03/08/90 216.00 ED PHILLIPS 50- 4628 - 862 -86 MANUAL 7,373.29 * a I 1990 CITY OF EDINA CHECK REGISTER 02 -28 -90 PAGE CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR' ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE ■■. ■.� ... -CKS 037G82 03/08/90 17.36- GRIGGS COOPER 50- 3700 - 842 -84 MANUAL 037G82 03/08/90 19.19- GRIGGS COOPER 50- 3710- 822 -82 MANUAL 037G82 03/08/90 60.95- GRIGGS COOPER 50- 3710 - 842 -84 MANUAL 037G82 03/08/90 41.12- GRIGGS COOPER 50- 3710- 862 -86 MANUAL 037G82 03/08/90 959.55 GRIGGS COOPER 50- 4626 - 822 -82 MANUAL 037G82 03/08/90 3,047.27 GRIGGS COOPER 50- 4626 - 842 -84 MANUAL 037G82 03/08/90 2,056.24 GRIGGS COOPER 50- 4626 - 862 -86 MANUAL 037G82 03/08/90 182.01- GRIGGS COOPER 50- 4628 - 822 -82 MANUAL 699,992 O 2,109.66- .9D GRises eeePER 58 4628 842 84 MANUA6 - 037G82 03/08/90 114.32- GRIGGS COOPER 50- 4628 - 862 -86 MANUAL 3,518.45" * ** -CKS 037J62 03/08/90 4.67- JOHNSON WINE 50- 3710 - 822 -82 MANUAL 037J62 03/08/90 4.67- JOHNSON WINE 50- 3710- 822 -82 MANUAL 037J62 03/08/90 4.40- JOHNSON WINE 50- 3710 - 822 -82 MANUAL 037J62 03/08/90 4.67 JOHNSON WINE 50- 3710 - 822 -82 MANUAL 037J62 03/08/90 21.55- JOHNSON WINE 50- 3710 - 822 -82 MANUAL 037J62 03/08/90 1.57- JOHNSON WINE 50- 3710 - 822 -82 MANUAL 037J62 03/08/90 60.00- JOHNSON WINE 50- 3710 - 842 -84 MANUAL 037J62 03/08/90 7.27- JOHNSON WINE 50- 3710 - 842 -84 MANUAL 037J62 03/08/90 1.30- JOHNSON WINE 50- 3710 - 842 -84 MANUAL 037J62 03/08/90 4.66- JOHNSON WINE 50- 3710- 842 -84 MANUAL 037J62 03/08/90 7.83- JOHNSON WINE 50- 3710 - 862 -86 MANUAL 037J62 03/08/90 58.82- JOHNSON WINE 50- 3710- 862 -86 MANUAL 037J62 03/08/90 11.54- JOHNSON WINE 50- 3710 - 862 -86 MANUAL 037J62 03/08/90 .96- JOHNSON WINE 50- 3710 - 862 -86 MANUAL 037J62 03/08/90 1,078.08 JOHNSON WINE 50- 4626 - 822 -82 MANUAL 037J62 03/08/90 4.80 JOHNSON WINE 50- 4626 - 822 -82 MANUAL 037J62 03/08/90 14.40 JOHNSON WINE 50- 4626 - 842 -84 MANUAL 037J62 03/08/90 3,001.02 JOHNSON WINE 50- 4626 - 842 -84 MANUAL 037J62 03/08/90 2,940.16 JOHNSON WINE 50- 4626 - 862 -86 MANUAL 037J62 03/08/90 12.80 JOHNSON WINE 50- 4626- 862 -86 MANUAL 037J62 03/08/90 2.00. JOHNSON WINE 50- 4628 - 822 -82 MANUAL 037J62 03/08/90 470.20 JOHNSON WINE 50- 4628 - 822 -82 MANUAL 037J62 03/08/90 9.60 JOHNSON WINE 50- 4628 - 822 -82 MANUAL 037J62 03/08/90 470.20- JOHNSON WINE 50- 4628 - 822 -82 MANUAL 037J62 03/08/90 437.06 JOHNSON WINE 50- 4628 - 822 -82 MANUAL - 037J62 03/08/90 4.40 JOHNSON WINE 50- 4628 - 822 -82 MANUAL 037J62 03/08/90 157.96 JOHNSON WINE 50- 4628 - 822 -82 MANUAL 037J62 03/08/90 465.80 JOHNSON WINE 50- 4628- 822 -82 MANUAL 037J62 03/08/90 129.72 JOHNSON WINE 50- 4628 - 842 -84 MANUAL 037J62 03/08/90 8.40 JOHNSON WINE 50- 4628 - 842 -84 MANUAL 037J62 03/08/90 463.94 JOHNSON WINE 50- 4628- 842 -84 MANUAL 037J62 03/08/90 726.16 JOHNSON WINE 50- 4628 - 842 -84 MANUAL 037J62 03/08/90 6.80 JOHNSON WINE 50- 4628 - 842 -84 MANUAL 037J62 03/08/90 1.60 JOHNSON WINE 50- 4628 - 842 -84 MANUAL 037J62 03/08/90 97.29 JOHNSON WINE 50- 4628 - 862 -86 MANUAL 037J62 03/08/90 1,151.72 JOHNSON WINE 50- 4628 - 862 -86 MANUAL 037J62 03/08/90 7.60 JOHNSON WINE 50- 4628 - 862 -86 MANUAL 037J62 03/08/90 21.60 JOHNSON WINE 50- 4628 - 862 -86 MANUAL 1990 CITY OF EDINA CHECK REGISTER 02 -28 -90 PAGE 4 CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE 037J62 03/08/90 1.20 JOHNSON WINE 50- 4628 - 862 -86 MANUAL 037J62 03/08/90 781.03 JOHNSON WINE 50- 4628 - 862 -86 MANUAL 11,340.57 " * * ■��■ * ** -CKS 037P32 03/01/90 25,046.68 P.E.R.A. PERA 10- 4145 - 510 -51 MANUAL 25,046.68 * ** -CKS 037P82 03/08/90 3.25- PRIOR WINE 50- 3710 - 822 -82 MANUAL 037P82 03/08/90 3.25- PRIOR WINE 50- 3710- 822 -82 MANUAL 037P82 03/08/90 3.25 PRIOR WINE 50- 3710 - 822 -82 MANUAL 037P82 03/08/90 9.17- PRIOR WINE 50- 3710 - 842 -84 MANUAL 037P82 03/08/90 _2.03- PRIOR WINE 50- 3710 - 842 -84 MANUAL 037P82 03/08/90 13.76- PRIOR WINE 50- 3710 - 862 -86 MANUAL 037P82 03/08/90 142.38- PRIOR WINE 50- 4628 - 822 -82 MANUAL 037P82 03/01/90 19.95- PRIOR WO WINE 50- 4628 - 822 -82 MANUAL 037P82 03/01/90 19.95 PRIOR WO WINE 50- 4628 - 822 -82 MANUAL 037P82 03/01/90 19.95 PRIOR WINE WINE 50- 4628 - 822 -82 MANUAL 037P82 03/08/90 142.37 PRIOR WINE 50- 4628 - 822 -82 MANUAL 037P82 03/08/90 142.38 PRIOR WINE 50- 4628 - 822 -82 MANUAL 037P82 03/08/90 101.74 PRIOR WINE 50- 4628 - 842 -84 MANUAL 037P82 03/08/90 458.53 PRIOR WINE. 50- 4628 - 842 -84 MANUAL 037P82 03/08/90 687.86 PRIOR WINE 50- 4628 - 862 -86 MANUAL 1,382.24 * * * * ** * ** -CKS 037Q16 03/08/90 15.92- QUALITY WINE 50- 3710 - 822 -82 MANUAL 037Q16 03/08/90 .68- QUALITY WINE 50- 3710 - 822 -82 MANUAL 037Q16 03/08/90 4.68- QUALITY WINE 50- 3710 - 822 -82 MANUAL 037Q16 03/08/90 5.98- QUALITY WINE 50- 3710 - 822 -82 MANUAL 037Q16 03/08/90 55.70- QUALITY WINE 50- 3710 - 842 -84 MANUAL 037Q16 03/08/90 27.11- QUALITY WINE 50- 3710 - 842 -84 MANUAL 037Q16 03/08/90 7.81- QUALITY WINE 50- 3710 - 842 -84 MANUAL 037Q16 03/08/90 18.53- QUALITY WINE 50- 3710 - 842 -84 MANUAL 037Q16 03/08/90 .17 QUALITY WINE 50- 3710 - 862 -86 MANUAL 037Q16 03/08/90 12.90- QUALITY WINE 50- 3710 - 862 -86 MANUAL 037Q16 03/08/90 2.36- QUALITY WINE 50- 3710 - 862 -86 MANUAL 037Q16 03/08/90 46.69- QUALITY WINE 50- 3710 - 862 -86 MANUAL 037Q16 03/08/90 298.80 QUALITY WINE 50- 4626 - 822 -82 MANUAL 037Q16 03/08/90 796.40 QUALITY WINE 50- 4626 - 822 -82 MANUAL 037Q16 03/08/90 1,355.25 QUALITY WINE 50- 4626 - 842 -84 MANUAL 037Q16 03/08/90 2,784.30 QUALITY WINE 50- 4626 - 842 -84 MANUAL 037Q16 03/08/90 390.20 QUALITY WINE 50- 4626 - 842 -84 MANUAL 037Q16 03/08/90 2,334.45 QUALITY WINE 50- 4626- 862 -86 MANUAL 037Q16 03/08/90 465.47 QUALITY WINE 50- 4628 - 822 -82 MANUAL 037Q16 03/08/90 67.63 QUALITY WINE 50- 4628- 822 -82 MANUAL 037Q16 03/08/90 1,848.74 QUALITY WINE 50- 4628 - 842 -84 MANUAL 037Q16 03/08/90 1,283.64 QUALITY WINE 50- 4628 - 862 -86 MANUAL 037Q16 03/08/90 16.92- QUALITY WINE 50- 4628 - 862 -86 MANUAL 037Q16 03/08/90 234.93 QUALITY WINE 50- 4628 - 862 -86 MANUAL 037Q16 03/01/90 .03 QUALITY WINE MIX 50- 4632 - 822 -82 MANUAL s 1990 CITY OF EDINA CHECK REGISTER 02 -28 -90 PAGE 5 CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV..# P.O. # MESSAGE 037Q16 03/01/90 .03 QUALITY WINE MIX 50- 4632 - 862 -86 MANUAL 11,644.76 * kkkkkk * ** -CKS 037T49 03/08/90 549.50 TOW DISTRIBUTING 50- 4628 - 862 -86 MANUAL 549.50 * kkkkkk * ** -CKS 039N16 03/01/90 24.51 NSP POWER 10- 4252 - 301 -30 MANUAL 039N16 03/01/90 97.19 NSP POWER 10- 4252 - 321 -30 MANUAL 039N16 03/01/90 24,603.23 NSP POWER 10- 4252 - 322 -30 MANUAL 039.N16 03/01/90 108.94 NSP POWER 10- 4252 - 330 -30 MANUAL 039N16 03/01/90 62.41 NSP POWER 10- 4252 - 330 -30 MANUAL 039N16 03/01/90 3,104.46 NSP POWER 10- 4252 - 330 -30 MANUAL 039N16 03/01/90 2,778.38 NSP POWER 10- 4252 - 375 -30 MANUAL 03SN16 03/01/90 1,005.24 NSP POWER 10- 4252 - 440 -44 MANUAL 03SN16 03/01/90 45.99 NSP POWER 10- 4252- 460 -46 MANUAL 039N16 03/01/90 1,380.75 NSP POWER 10- 4252 - 520 -52 MANUAL 039N16 03/01/90 2,266.07 NSP POWER 10- 4252 - 540 -54 MANUAL 039N16 03/01/90 '2,213.18 NSP POWER 10- 4252 - 646 -64 MANUAL 039N16 03/01/90 4,208.37 NSP POWER 10- 4252 - 646 -64 MANUAL 039N16 03/01/90 733.70' NSP POWER 23- 4252 - 612 -61 MANUAL 03SN16 03/01/90 265.08 NSP POWER 26- 4252 - 682 -6.8 MANUAL 039N16 03/01/90 1,363.76 NSP POWER 27- 4252 - 662 -66 MANUAL 039N16 .03/01/90 204.09 NSP POWER 27- 4252 - 664 -66 MANUAL 039N16 03/01/90 688.44 NSP POWER 27- 4252 - 667 -66 MANUAL 039N16 03/01/90 9,165.10 NSP POWER 28- 4252 - 702 -70 MANUAL 039N16 03/01/90 489.72 NSP POWER 29- 4252 - 722 -72 MANUAL 039N16 03/01/90 6,383.49 NSP POWER 30- 4252 - 782 -78 MANUAL 039N16 03/01/90 2,209.09 NSP POWER 40- 4252 - 801 -80 MANUAL 039N16 03/01/90 4,400.94 NSP POWER 40- 4252 - 803 -80 MANUAL 039N16 03/01/90 69.86 NSP POWER 40- 4252 - 803 -80 MANUAL 039N16 03/01/90 4,921.34 NSP POWER 40- 4252- 803 -80 MANUAL 039N16 03/01/90 3,087.58 NSP POWER 40- 4252 - 803 -80 MANUAL 039N16 03/01/90 36.99 NSP POWER 40- 4252 - 804 -80 MANUAL 039N16 03/01/90 476.61 NSP POWER 41- 4252 - 902 -90 MANUAL 039N16 03/01/90 723.72 NSP POWER 50- 4252- 821 -82 MANUAL 039N16 03/01/90 737.65 NSP POWER 50- 4252 - 841 -84 MANUAL 039N16 03/01/90 386.11 NSP POWER 50- 4252 - 861 -86 MANUAL 78,241.99 kkkkkk * ** -CKS 039U27 03/01/90 3;150.21 US WEST COMM TELEPHONE 10- 4256- 510 -51 MANUAL 039U27 03/01/90 776.60 US WEST COMM TELEPHONE 10- 4256 - 622 -62 MANUAL 039U27 03/01/90 98.82 US WEST COMM TELEPHONE 23- 4256- 612 -61 MANUAL 039U27 03/01/90 24.91 US WEST COMM TELEPHONE 26- 4256 - 682 -68 MANUAL 039U27 03/01/90 201.92 US WEST COMM TELEPHONE 27- 4256 - 662 -66 MANUAL 039U27 03/01/90 35.00 US WEST COMM TELEPHONE 27- 4256 - 664 -66 MANUAL 039U27 03/01/90 101.64 US WEST COMM TELEPHONE 28- 4256 - 702 -70 MANUAL 039U27 03/01/90 37.92 US WEST COMM TELEPHONE 29- 4256- 722 -72 MANUAL 039U27 03/01/90 78.12 US WEST COMM TELEPHONE 40- 4256- 801 -80 MANUAL- 039U27 03/01/90 68.26 US WEST COMM TELEPHONE 40- 4256- 803 -80 MANUAL 1990 CITY OF EDINA CHECK NO. DATE 039U27 03/01/90 kkkkkk 040776 0 43*:6 kk kkkkkk 044E11 044E11 044E11 044E11 044E11 044E11 044E11 044EII 044E11 044E11 kkkkkk 044E26 044E26 044E26 044E26 044E26 044E26 044E26 044E26 044E26 044E26 044E26 044E26 044E26 044E26 044E26 044E26 044E26 044E26 044E26 044E26 kkkkkk 044G82 044G82 CHECK REGISTER 02 -28 -90 PAGE 6 AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE 111.53 US WEST COMM TELEPHONE 50- 4256 - 861 -86 MANUAL 4,684.93 * * ** -CKS 03/01/90 15.00 MN GFOA DUES 10- 4204 - 160 -16 MANUAL 15.00 * * ** -CKS 03/01/90 991.25 JAMES CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTION 27 -1332- 000 -00 MANUAL 991.25 * ** -CKS 03/08/90 7.79- EAGLE WINE 50- 3710 - 822 -82 MANUAL 03/08/90 11.92- EAGLE WINE 50- 3710 - 842 -84 MANUAL 03/08/90 44.65- EAGLE WINE 50- 3710 - 862 -86 MANUAL 03/08/90 1.21- EAGLE WINE 50- 3710 - 862 -86 MANUAL 03/08/90 389.44 EAGLE WINE 50- 4628 - 822 -82 MANUAL 03/08/90 595.91 EAGLE WINE 50- 4628 - 842 -84 MANUAL 03/08/90 60.69 EAGLE WINE 50- 4628 - 862 -86 MANUAL 03/08/90 2,232.40 EAGLE WINE 50- 4628 - 862 -86 MANUAL 03/01/90 108.44 EAGLE WINE MIX 50- 4632- 842 -84 MANUAL 03/01/90 82.67 EAGLE WINE MIX 50- 4632 - 862 -86 MANUAL 3,403.98 * ** -CKS 03/08/90 5.73- ED PHILLIPS 50- 3700 - 862 -86 MANUAL 03/08/90 14.95- ED PHILLIPS 50- 3710 - 822 -82 MANUAL 03/08/90 14.75- ED PHILLIPS 50- 3710 - 842 -84 MANUAL 03/08/90 10.42- ED PHILLIPS 50- 3710 - 842 -84 MANUAL 03/08/90 2.03- ED PHILLIPS 50- 3710 - 862 -86 MANUAL 03/08/90 747.51 ED PHILLIPS 50- 4626 - 822 -82 MANUAL 03/08/90 737.63 ED PHILLIPS 50- 4626 - 842 -84 MANUAL 03/08/90 521.04 ED PHILLIPS 50- 4626 - 842 -84 MANUAL 03/08/90 101.62 ED PHILLIPS 50- 4626- 862 -86 MANUAL 03/08/90 70.85- ED PHILLIPS 50- 4626 - 862 -86 MANUAL 03/08/90 131.20 ED PHILLIPS 50- 4628 - 822 -82 MANUAL- 03/08/90 208.00 ED PHILLIPS 50- 4628 - 822 -82 MANUAL 03/08/90 335.50 ED PHILLIPS 50- 4628 - 822 -82 MANUAL 03/08/90 313.00 ED PHILLIPS 50- 4628 - 842 -84 MANUAL 03/08/90 923.61 ED PHILLIPS 50- 4628- 842 -84 MANUAL 03/08/90 788.31 ED PHILLIPS 50- 4628 - 842 -84 MANUAL 03/08/90 1,125.23 ED PHILLIPS 50- 4628 - 862 -86 MANUAL 03/08/90 .00 ED PHILLIPS 50- 4628 - 862 -86 MANUAL 03/08/90 622.51 ED PHILLIPS 50- 4628 - 862 -86 MANUAL 03/08/90 621.95 ED PHILLIPS 50- 4628 - 862 -86 MANUAL 7,058.38 * ** -CKS 03/08/90 5.00- GRIGGS COOPER 50- 3700 - 822 -82 MANUAL 03/08/90 22.50- GRIGGS COOPER 50- 3700 - 862-86 MANUAL 1990 CITY OF EDINA CHECK REGISTER CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV 044G82 03/08/90 36.45- GRIGGS COOPER 50- 3710 - 822 -82 044082 03/08/90 81.49- GRIGGS COOPER 50- 3710 - 842 -84 044G82 03/08/90 91.22- GRIGGS COOPER 50- 3710 - 862 -86 044G82 03/08/90 4,074.46 GRIGGS COOPER 50- 4626 - 842 -84 044G82 03/08/90 4,561.02 GRIGGS COOPER 50- 4626- 862, -86 044G82 03/08/90 1,822.62 GRIGGS COOPER 50- 4628- 822 -82 044G82 03/08/90 .00 GRIGGS COOPER 50- 4628 - 822 -82 044G82 03/08/90 .00 GRIGGS COOPER 50- 4628 - 862 -86 10,221.44 * * * * ** 044J62 03/08/90 4.70- JOHNSON WINE 50- 3710 - 822 -82 044J62 03/08/90 52.02- JOHNSON WINE 50- 3710 - 822 -82 044J62 03/08/90 22.17- JOHNSON WINE 50- 3710 - 822 -82 044J62 03/08/90 3.02- JOHNSON WINE 50- 3710 - 822 -82 044J62 03/08/90 8.84- JOHNSON WINE 50- 3710 - 842 -84 044J62 03/08/90 11.91- JOHNSON WINE 50- 3710 - 842 -84 044J62 03/08/90 66.22- JOHNSON WINE 50- 3710 - 842 -84 044J62 03/08/90 11.77- JOHNSON WINE 50- 3710- 862 -86 044J62 03/08/90 9.53- JOHNSON WINE 50- 3710 - 862 -86 044J62 03/08/90 49.68- JOHNSON WINE 50 -3710- 862 -86 044J62 03/08/90 12.00 JOHNSON WINE 50- 4626 - 822 -82 044J62 03/08/90 152.74- JOHNSON WINE 50- 4626 - 822 -82 044J62 03/08/90 1,108.82 JOHNSON WINE 50- 4626 - 822 -82 044J62 03/08/90 5.20 JOHNSON WINE 50- 4626 - 822 -82 044J62 03/08/90 2,601.10 JOHNSON WINE 50- 4626- 822 -82 044J62 03/08/90 3,310.70 JOHNSON WINE 50- 4626 - 842 -84 044362 03/08/90 16.40 JOHNSON WINE 50- 4626 - 842 -84 044J62 03/08/90 14.00 JOHNSON WINE 50- 4626- 862 -86 044J62 03/08/90 2,484.18 JOHNSON WINE 50- 4626 - 862 -86 044J62 03/08/90 55.29- JOHNSON WINE 50- 4628 - 822 -82 044J62 03/08/90 2.40 JOHNSON WINE 50- 4628- 822 -82 044J62 03/08/90 471.27 JOHNSON WINE 50- 4628 - 822 -82 044J62 03/08/90 8.40 JOHNSON WINE 50- 4628- 822 -82 044J62 03/08/90 301.99 JOHNSON WINE 50- 4628 - 822 -82 044J62 03/08/90 1,191.08 JOHNSON WINE 50- 4628 - 842 -84 044J62 03/08/90 11.20 JOHNSON WINE 50- 4628 - 842 -84 044J62 03/08/90 14.40 JOHNSON WINE 50- 4628- 842 -84 044J62 03/08/90 885.52 JOHNSON WINE 50- 4628 - 842 -84 044J62 03/08/90 23.20 JOHNSON WINE 50- 4628 - 862 -86 044J62 03/08/90 954.54 JOHNSON WINE 50- 4628 - 862 -86 044J62 03/08/90 9.60 JOHNSON WINE 50- 4628 - 862 -86 044J62 03/08/90 1,178.36 JOHNSON WINE 50- 4628 - 862 -86 044J62 03/08/90 10.32- JOHNSON WINE 50- 4628 - 862 -86 044J62 03/01/90 76.99 JOHNSON WINE MIX 50- 4632 - 842 -84 14,223.14 * * * * ** 044P20 03/08/90 6.00 PAUSTIS & SONS 50- 4628 - 822 -82 044P20 03/08/90 252.75 PAUSTIS & SONS 50- 4628 - 822 -82 044P20 03/08/90 164.75 PAUSTIS & SONS 50- 4628 - 842 -84 044P20 03/08/90 4.00 PAUSTIS & SONS 50- 4628 - 842 -84 04020 03/01/90 25.00 PAUSTIS & SONS MIX 50- 4632 - 862 -86 02 -28 -90 PAGE 7 # P.O. # MESSAGE MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL * ** -CKS MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL * ** -CKS MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL 1990 CITY OF EDINA. CHECK NO. DATE *::*pk k k 0 03/01/90 kkkkkk 044P82 03/08/90 044P82 03/08/90 044P82 03/08/90 044P82 03/08/90 044P82 03/08/90 044P82 03/08/90 k k k k k k 044Q16 044Q16 044Q16 044Q16 044Q16 044Q16 044Q16 044Q16 044Q16 044Q16 044Q16 044Q16 044Q16 044Q16 044Q16 044Q16 044Q16 044Q16 044Q16 044Q16 044Q16 044Q16 044Q16 044Q16 044Q16 044Q16 kkk k'kk 046700 kkkkkk 046A82 AMOUNT 452.50 5,000.00 5,000.00 2.69 - 9.07- 7.69- 134.70 453.40 384.74 953.39 CHECK REGISTER VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION POSTMASTER PRIOR WINE PRIOR WINE PRIOR WINE PRIOR WINE PRIOR WINE PRIOR WINE POSTAGE 02 -28 -90 PAGE 8 ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE * ** -CKS 10- 4290 - 510 -51 MANUAL * ** -CKS 50- 3710 - 822 -82 MANUAL 50- 3710 - 842 -84 MANUAL 50- 3710 - 862 -86 MANUAL 50- 4628 - 822 -82 MANUAL 50- 4628 - 842 -84 MANUAL 50- 4628 - 862 -86 MANUAL * ** -CKS 03/08/90 .72- QUALITY WINE 50- 3710 - 822 -82 MANUAL 03/08/90 11.84- QUALITY WINE 50- 3710 - 822 -82 MANUAL 03/08/90 4.90- QUALITY WINE 50- 3710 - 822 -82 MANUAL 03/08/90 33.23- QUALITY WINE 50- 3710 - 842 -84 MANUAL 03/08/90 2.38- QUALITY WINE 50- 3710 - 842 -84 MANUAL 03/08/90 1.08- QUALITY WINE 50- 3710 - 842 -84 MANUAL 03/08/90 3.11- QUALITY WINE 50- 3710 - 842 -84 MANUAL 03/08/90 14.30- QUALITY WINE 50- 3710 - 842 -84 MANUAL 03/08/90 17.43- QUALITY WINE 50- 3710 - 862 -86 MANUAL 03/08/90 3.07- QUALITY WINE 50- 3710 - 862 -86 MANUAL 03/08/90 8.96- QUALITY WINE 50- 3710 - 862 -86 MANUAL 03/08/90 .56- QUALITY WINE 50- 3710 - 862 -86 MANUAL 03/08/90 62.56- QUALITY WINE 50- 3710 - 862 -86 MANUAL 03/08/90 592.01 QUALITY WINE 50- 4626 - 822 -82 MANUAL 03/08/90 1,661.25 QUALITY WINE 50- 4626 - 842 -84 MANUAL 03/08/90 155.60 QUALITY WINE 50- 4626 - 842 -84 MANUAL 03/08/90 448.20 QUALITY WINE 50- 4626 - 862 -86 MANUAL 03/08/90 3,127.84 QUALITY WINE 50- 4626- 862 -86 MANUAL 03/08/90 489.45 QUALITY WINE 50- 4628- 822 -82 MANUAL 03/08/90 72.10 QUALITY WINE 50- 4628 - 822 -82 MANUAL 03/08/90 1,426.25 QUALITY WINE 50- 4628 - 842 -84 MANUAL 03/08/90 237.30 QUALITY WINE 50- 4628 - 842 -84 MANUAL 03/08/90 107.40 QUALITY WINE 50- 4628 - 842 -84 MANUAL 03/08/90 55.90 QUALITY WINE 50- 4628 - 862 -86 MANUAL 03/08/90 306.00 QUALITY WINE 50- 4628 - 862-86 MANUAL 03/08/90 1,739.90 QUALITY WINE 50- 4628 - 862 -86 MANUAL 10,255.06 * ** -CKS 03/01/90 43.50 J LONG MILEAGE 10- 4208 - 420 -42 MANUAL 43.50 * * ** -CKS 03/01/90 28.01 AT &T TELEPHONE 27- 4256 - 662 -66 MANUAL 1990 CITY OF EDINA 10.00 CHECK REGISTER CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION 046A82 03/01/90 3.38 AT &T TELEPHONE 046A82 03/01/90 4.08 AT &T TELEPHONE 046A82 03/01/90 2.18 AT &T TELEPHONE PETTY CASH 37.65 046873 03/01/90 046A83 03/01/90 4.01 AT &T TELEPHONE 046A83 03/01/90 96.29 AT &T TELEPHONE 046A83 03/01/90 2.11 AT &T TELEPHONE 046A83 03/01/90 12.07 AT &T TELEPHONE 046A83 03/01/90 57.49 AT &T TELEPHONE PRINTING 046B73 171.97 40.80 GC 046A84 03/01/90 16.95 AT &T TELEPHONE 436.80 COMM 16.95 SALES TAX RRRRRR 046B73 03/01/90 10.00 GC PETTY CASH DUES 046B73 03/01/90 50.00 GC PETTY CASH REPAIR 046B73 03/01/90 51.42 GC PETTY CASH LAUNDRY 046873 03/01/90- 117.63 GC PETTY CASH GENERAL SUUPLIES 046873 03/01/90 75.13 GC PETTY CASH OFFICE SUPPLIES 046B73 03/01/90 28.02 GC PETTY CASH OFFICE SUPPLIES 046873 03/01/90 25.00 GC PETTY CASH REPAIR PARTS 046B73 03/01/90 38.80 GC PETTY CASH PRINTING 046B73 03/01/90 40.80 GC PETTY CASH CONCESSIONS 046C51 03/01/90 436.80 COMM REV SALES TAX kRRRRR 046C51 03/01/90 11.44 COMM REV SALES TAX 046C51 03/01/90 257.40 COMM REV FUEL TAX 046C51 03/01/90 146.80 COMM REV SALES TAX 046C51 03/01/90 3,815.30 COMM REV SALES TAX 046C51 03/01/90 590.04 COMM REV SALES TAX 046C51 03/01/90 76.80 COMM REV SALES TAX 046C51 03/01/90 1,022.55 COMM REV SALES TAX 046C51 03/01/90 448.44 COMM REV SALES TAX 046C51 03/01/90 5,941.88 COMM REV SALES TAX, 046C51 03/01/90 11,323.78 COMM REV SALES TAX 046C51 03/01/90 9,232.54 COMM REV SALES TAX 32,866.97 RRRRRR 047C33 03/01/90 128,000.00- CITY / EDINA PAYROLL TRANSFER 047C33 03/01/90 128,000.00 CITY / EDINA PAYROLL TRANSFER .00 RRRRRR 047L32 03/01/90 65.00 LEAGUE OF MN CITY REGISTRATION 65.00 R R R R R R 02 -28 -90 PAGE 9 ACCOUNT NO.. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE 27- 4256 - 664 -66 MANUAL 28- 4256 - 702 -70 MANUAL 40- 4256 - 803 -80 MANUAL 10- 4256 - 510 -51 MANUAL 10- 4256 - 510 -51 MANUAL 10- 4256 - 622 -62 MANUAL 23- 4256 - 612 -61 MANUAL 23- 4256 - 612 -61 MANUAL 10- 4256 - 622 -62 MANUAL * ** -CKS 27- 4204 - 661 -66 MANUAL 27- 4248 - 663 -66 MANUAL 27- 4262 - 663 -66 MANUAL 27- 4504- 667 -66 MANUAL 27- 4516 - 661 -66 MANUAL 27- 4516 - 667 -66 MANUAL 27- 4540- 667 -66 MANUAL 27- 4600 - 661 -66 MANUAL 27- 4624 - 663 -66 MANUAL * ** -CKS 10- 3357 - 000 -00 MANUAL 10- 4612 - 560 -56 MANUAL 23- 3357 - 000 -00 MANUAL 27- 3357 - 000 -00 MANUAL 28- 3357 - 000 -00 MANUAL 29- 3357 - 000 -00 MANUAL 30- 3357 - 000 -00 MANUAL 40- 3357- 000 -00 MANUAL 50- 3357 - 001 -00 MANUAL 50- 3357 - 002 -00 MANUAL 50- 3357 - 003 -00 MANUAL * ** -CKS 50- 1010 - 000 -00 MANUAL 50 -1010- 000 -00 MANUAL * ** -CKS 10- 4202 - 140 -14 MANUAL * ** -CKS 1990 CITY OF EDINA CHECK REGISTER 02 -28 -90 PAGE 10 CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. 4 P.O. # MESSAGE 047P70 03/01/90 175.00 POSTMASTER POSTAGE 10- 4290 - 510 -51 MANUAL 175.00 * * * * * ** * ** —CKS OS1E11 03/08/90 .92— EAGLE WINE 50- 3710 - 822 -82 MANUAL 05lE11 03/08/90 8.35— EAGLE WINE 50- 3710 - 822 -82 MANUAL 051E11 03/08/90 5.99— EAGLE WINE 50- 3710 - 842 -84 MANUAL 05lE11 03/08/90 1.56— EAGLE WINE 50- 3710 - 842 -84 MANUAL 051EII 03/08/90 17.26— EAGLE WINE 50- 3710 - 862 -86 MANUAL 051E11 03/08/90 45.99 EAGLE WINE 50- 4628 - 822 -82 MANUAL 051E11 03/08/90 417.48 EAGLE WINE 50- 4628 - 822 -82 MANUAL 051EII 03/08/90- 78.00 EAGLE WINE 50- 4628 - 842 -84 MANUAL 051E11 03/08/90 299.39 EAGLE WINE 50 -4628- 842 -84 MANUAL 051E11 03/08/90 862.87 EAGLE WINE 50- 4628 - 862 -86 MANUAL 051E11 03/01/90 57.26 EAGLE WINE MIX 50- 4632- 822 -82 MANUAL 05lE11 03/01/90 133.60 EAGLE WINE MIX 50- 4632 - 842 -84 MANUAL 05lE11 03/01/90 204.64 EAGLE WINE MIX 50- 4632 - 862 -86 MANUAL 2,065.15 * * * * ** * ** —CKS 051E26 03/08/90 1.69— ED PHILLIPS 50- 3710 - 822 -82 MANUAL 051E26 03/08/90 7.91— ED PHILLIPS 50- 3710 - 822 -82 MANUAL 051E26 03/08/90 1.29— ED PHILLIPS 50- 3710 - 842 -84 MANUAL 051E26 03/08/90 26.92— ED PHILLIPS 50- 3710 - 842 -84 MANUAL 051E26 03/08/90 19.01— ED PHILLIPS 50- 3710 - 862 -86 MANUAL 051E26 03/08/90 1.58— ED PHILLIPS 50- 3710 - 862 -86 MANUAL 051E26 03/08/90 84.55 ED PHILLIPS 50- 4626 - 822 -82 MANUAL 051E26 03/08/90' 395.76 ED PHILLIPS 50- 4626 - 822 -82 MANUAL 051E26 03/08/90 64.60 ED PHILLIPS 50- 4626 - 842 -84 MANUAL 051E26 03/08/90 1,346.28 ED PHILLIPS 50- 4626 - 842 -84 MANUAL 051E26 03/08/90 79.25 ED PHILLIPS 50- 4626 - 862 -86 MANUAL 051E26 03/08/90 950.70 ED PHILLIPS 50- 4626- 862 -86 MANUAL 051E26 03/08/90 887.76 ED PHILLIPS 50- 4628- 822 -82 MANUAL 051E26 03/08/90 562.65 ED. PHILLIPS 50- 4628 - 822 -82 MANUAL 051E26 03/08/90 185.00 ED PHILLIPS 50- 4628 - 822 -82 MANUAL 051E26 03/08/90 198.00 ED PHILLIPS 50- 4628- 842 -84 MANUAL 051E26 03/08/90 915.10 ED PHILLIPS 50- 4628 - 842 -84 MANUAL 051E26 03/08/90 928.30 ED PHILLIPS 50- 4628 - 842 -84 MANUAL 051E26 03/08/90 915.10— ED PHILLIPS 50- 4628- 842 -84 a MANUAL 051E26 03/08/90 915.10 ED PHILLIPS 50- 4628 - 842 -84 MANUAL 051E26 03/08/90 68.00 ED PHILLIPS 50- 4628 - 862 -86 MANUAL - 051E26 03/08/90 601.10 ED PHILLIPS 50- 4628 - 862 -86 MANUAL 051E26 03/08/90 580.18 ED PHILLIPS 50- 4628 - 862 -86 MANUAL 051E26 03/01/90 153.50 ED PHILLIPS BEE 50- 4630 - 842 -84 MANUAL 051E26 03/01/90 38.05 ED PHILLIPS BEER 50- 4630 - 862 -86 MANUAL 7,980.38 * * * * ** * ** —CKS 051F14 03/01/90 15,456.35 FIDELITY BANK FICA 10- 4149 - 510 -51 MANUAL 051F14 03/01/90 555.32 FIDELITY BANK INSURANCE 10- 4162 - 510 -51 MANUAL 16,011.67 * 1990 CITY OF EDINA CHECK REGISTER 02 -28 -90 PAGE 11 CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE * ** -CKS 051G82 03/08/90 5.00- GRIGGS COOPER 50- 3700 - 842 -84 MANUAL 051G82 03/08/90 3'1.67- GRIGGS COOPER 50- 3710 - 822 -82 MANUAL 051G82 03/08/90 104.09- GRIGGS COOPER 50- 3710 - 842 -84 MANUAL 051G82 03/08/90 10.26- GRIGGS COOPER 50- 3710 - 862 -86 MANUAL 051G82 03/08/90 27.71- GRIGGS COOPER 50- 3710 - 862 -86 MANUAL 051G82 03/08/90. 4.78- GRIGGS COOPER 50- 3710- 862 -86 MANUAL 051G82 03/08/90 1,583.34 GRIGGS COOPER 50- 4626 - 822 -82 MANUAL 051G82 03/08/90 5,204.49 GRIGGS COOPER 50- 4626 - 842 -84 MANUAL 051G82 03/08/90 238.83 GRIGGS COOPER 50- 4626- 862 -86 MANUAL 051G82 03/08/90 1,385.34 GRIGGS COOPER 50- 4626 - 862 -86 MANUAL 051G82 03/08/90 512.97 GRIGGS COOPER 50- 4626- 862 -86 MANUAL 051G82 03/08/90 .00 GRIGGS COOPER 50- 4628- 842 -84 MANUAL 8,741.46 * ** -CKS 051J62 03/08/90 12.00- JOHNSON WINE 50- 3700 - 842 -84 MANUAL 051J62 03/08/90 4.00- JOHNSON WINE 50- 3700 - 842 -84 MANUAL 051J62 03/08/90 9.75- JOHNSON WINE 50- 3700 - 862 -86 MANUAL 051J62 03/08/90 7.48- JOHNSON WINE 50- 3710 - 822 -82 MANUAL 051J62 03/08/90 40.11- JOHNSON WINE 50- 3710 - 822 -82 MANUAL 051J62 .03/08/90 3.54- JOHNSON WINE 50- 3710 - 822 -82 MANUAL 051J62 03/08/90 71.43- JOHNSON WINE 50- 3710 - 842 -84 MANUAL 051J62 03/08/90 8.07- JOHNSON WINE 50- 3710 - 842 -84 MANUAL 051J62 03/08/90 13.24- JOHNSON WINE 50- 3710 - 842 -84 MANUAL 051J62 03/08/90 7.26- JOHNSON WINE 50- 3710 - 862 -86 MANUAL 051J62 03/08/90 37.20- JOHNSON WINE 50- 3710 - 862 -86 MANUAL 051J62 03/08/90 6.29- JOHNSON WINE 50- 3710 - 862 -86 MANUAL 051J62 03/08/90 9.80 JOHNSON WINE 50- 4626 - 822 -82 MANUAL 051J62 03/08/90 2,006.02 JOHNSON WINE 50- 4626 - 822 -82 MANUAL 051J62 03/08/90 18.40 JOHNSON WINE 50- 4626 - 842 -84 MANUAL 051J62 03/01/90 92.09 JOHNSON WINE LIQUOR 50- 4626 - 842 -84 MANUAL 051J62 03/08/90 3,479.17 JOHNSON WINE 50- 4626- 842 -84 MANUAL 051J62 03/08/90 1,860.02 JOHNSON WINE 50- 4626 - 862 -86 MANUAL 051J62 03/08/90 9.80 JOHNSON WINE 50- 4626 - 862 -86 MANUAL 051J62 03/08/90 748.93 JOHNSON WINE 50- 4628 - 822 -82 MANUAL 051J62 03/08/90 .97- JOHNSON WINE 50- 4628 - 822 -82 MANUAL 051J62 03/08/90 352.11 JOHNSON WINE 50- 4628 - 822 -82 MANUAL 051J62 03/08/90 6.00 JOHNSON WINE 50- 4628- 822 -82 MANUAL 051J62 03/08/90 8.40 JOHNSON WINE 50- 4628 - 822 -82 MANUAL 051J62 03/08/90 .97- JOHNSON WINE 50- 4628 - 822 -82 MANUAL 051J62 03/08/90 .97 JOHNSON WINE 50- 4628 - 822 -82 MANUAL 051J62 03/08/90 1,326.63 JOHNSON WINE 50- 4628 - 842 -84 MANUAL 05062 03/08/90 .00 JOHNSON WINE 50- 4628 - 842 -84 MANUAL 05062 03/08/90 14.40 JOHNSON WINE 50- 4628 - 842 -84 MANUAL 051J62 03/08/90 8.38- JOHNSON WINE 50- 4628 - 842 -84 MANUAL 051J62 03/08/90 805.43 JOHNSON WINE 50- 4628 - 842 -84 MANUAL 051J62 03/08/90 .00 JOHNSON WINE 50- 4628- 842 -84 MANUAL 051J62 03/08/90 17.60 JOHNSON WINE 50- 4628 - 842 -84 MANUAL 051J62 03/08/90 6.40 JOHNSON WINE 50- 4628 - 862 -86 MANUAL 051J62 03/08/90 628.53 JOHNSON WINE 50- 4628 - 862 -86 MANUAL 051J62 03/08/90 727.55 JOHNSON WINE 50- 4628 - 862 -86 MANUAL 1990 CITY OF EDINA CHECK REGISTER .CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV 051J62 03/08/90 14.40 JOHNSON WINE 50- 4628- 862 -86 O51J62 03/08/90 .00 JOHNSON WINE 50- 4628 - 862 -86 1.10- PRIOR WINE 11,901.96 051P82 03/08/90 2.62- * * * * ** 50- 3710 - 822 -82 O5082 03/08/90 2.28- PRIOR WINE 051P20 03/08/90 134.75 PAUSTIS & SONS 50- 4628 - 862 -86 O51P20 03/08/90 581.55 PAUSTIS & SONS 50- 4628- 862 -86 O51P20 03/08/90 4.00 PAUSTIS & SONS 50- 4628- 862 -86 O51P20 03/08/90 8.00 PAUSTIS &.SONS 50- 4628 - 862 -86 PRIOR WINE 50- 4628- 842 -84 728.30 03/08/90 470.30 PRIOR WINE * * * * ** 051P32 03/01/90 25,011.58 P.E.R.A. PERA 10- 4145 - 510 -51 25,011.58 * * * * ** 051P82 03/08/90 1.10- PRIOR WINE 50- 3710 - 822 -82 051P82 03/08/90 2.62- PRIOR WINE 50- 3710 - 822 -82 O5082 03/08/90 2.28- PRIOR WINE 50- 3710- 842 -84 O5082 03/08/90 9.41- PRIOR WINE 50- 3710 - 842 -84 O51P82 03/08/90 5.60- PRIOR WINE 50- 3710 - 862 -86 O5082 03/08/90 54.95 PRIOR WINE 50- 4628- 822 -82 O51P82 _03/08/90 131.17 PRIOR WINE 50- 4628- 822 -82 O51P82 03/08/90 114.13 PRIOR WINE 50- 4628- 842 -84 O5.1P82 03/08/90 470.30 PRIOR WINE 50- 4628- 842 -84 O51P82 03/08/90 280.15 PRIOR WINE 50- 4628 - 862 -86 O51P82 03/01/90 65.17 PRIOR WINE MIX 50- 4632- 822 -82 1,094.86 * * * * ** 051Q16 03/08/90 5.30- QUALITY WINE 50- 3710 - 822 -82 O51Q16 03/08/90 7.69- QUALITY WINE 50- 3710 - 822 -82 O51Q16 03/08/90 .97- QUALITY WINE 50- 3710 - 822 -82 051016 03/08/90 17.31- QUALITY WINE 50- 3710 - 822 -82 O51Q16 03/08/90 1.46- QUALITY WINE 50- 3710 - 842 -84 051Q16 03/08/90 .76 QUALITY WINE 50- 3710 - 842 -84 051Q16 03/08/90 .76- QUALITY WINE 50- 3710 - 842 -84 051Q16 03/08/90- .76- QUALITY WINE 50- 3710 - 842 -84 O51Q16 03/08/90 10.80- QUALITY WINE 50- 3710 - 842 -84 051Q16 03/08/90 2.21- QUALITY WINE 50- 3710 - 842 -84 051Q16 03/08/90 16.22- QUALITY WINE 50- 3710 - 842 -84 051Q16 03/08/90 2.28 QUALITY WINE 50- 3710 - 842 -84 051Q16 03/08/90 59.59- QUALITY WINE 50- 3710 - 842 -84 O51Q16 03/08/90 5.69- QUALITY WINE 50- 3710 - 862 -86 O51Q16 03/08/90 2.21- QUALITY WINE 50- 3710 - 862 -86 O51Q16 03/08/90 11.96- QUALITY WINE 50- 3710 - 862 -86 O51Q16 03/08/90 865.90 QUALITY WINE 50- 4626 - 822 -82 051Q16 03/08/90 110.66 QUALITY WINE 50- 4626- 842 -84 051Q16 03/08/90 2,980.08 QUALITY WINE 50- 4626 - 842 -84 O51Q16 03/08/90 539.72 QUALITY WINE 50- 4626 - 842 -84 O51Q16 03/08/90 597.94 QUALITY WINE 50- 4626 - 862 -86 02 -28 -90 PAGE 12 # P.O. # MESSAGE MANUAL MANUAL * ** -CKS MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL * ** -CKS MANUAL * ** -CKS MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL * ** -CKS MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL 1990 CITY OF EDINA 13,128.75 GROUP HEALTH CHECK REGISTER MANUAL CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION 051Q16 03/08/90 529.50 QUALITY WINE 50- 4628- 842 -84 051Q16 03/08/90 767.90 QUALITY WINE MED CENTER 051Q16 03/08/90 96.40 QUALITY WINE 50- 4202 - 860 -86 051Q16 03/08/90 75.80 QUALITY WINE 051Q16 03/08/90 75.80 QUALITY WINE 21,294.50 051Q16 03/08/90 226.80- QUALITY WINE 21,294.50 * 051Q16 03/08/90 75.80- QUALITY WINE 03/01/90 051Q16 03/08/90 145.75 QUALITY WINE 054U27 051Q16 03/08/90 1,616.30 QUALITY WINE TELEPHONE 051Q16 03/08/90 568.55 QUALITY WINE COMM 051Q16 03/08/90 219.85 QUALITY WINE WEST COMM TELEPHONE 8,747.66 03/01/90 16.06 US kkkkkk COMM TELEPHONE 054U27 . 14.87 053736 03/01/90 40.00 MN MUNC BEV ASSN CONVENTION 053736 03/01/90 120.00 MN MUNC BEV-ASSN CONVENTION 053736 03/01/90 40.00 MN MUNC BEV ASSN CONVENTION 054U27 03/01/90 200.00 US WEST COMM kkkkkR 054G86 03/01/90 13,128.75 GROUP HEALTH INSURANCE MANUAL 50- 4628 - 842 -84 13,128.75 * 50- 4628 - 842 -84 MANUAL 50- 4628- 842 -84 MANUAL kkkkkk MANUAL 50- 4628- 842 -84 MANUAL 50- 4628- 842 -84 MANUAL 50- 4628- 862 -86 054M24 03/01/90 17,437.20 MED CENTER INSURANCE 50- 4202 - 820 -82 MANUAL 17,437.20 * MANUAL 50- 4202 - 860 -86 MANUAL kkkkkk 054P42 03/01/90 21,294.50 PHP INSURANCE 21,294.50 * 054U27 03/01/90 294.42 US WEST COMM TELEPHONE 054U27 03/01/90 374.66 US WEST COMM TELEPHONE 054U27 03/01/90 23.96 US WEST COMM TELEPHONE 054U27 03/01/90 45.57 US WEST COMM TELEPHONE 054U27 03/01/90 16.06 US WEST COMM TELEPHONE 054U27 03/01/90 14.87 US WEST COMM TELEPHONE 054U27 03/01/90 179.03 US WEST COMM TELEPHONE 054U27 03/01/90 142.06 US WEST COMM TELEPHONE 054U27 03/01/90 106.34 US WEST COMM TELEPHONE 054U27 03/01/90 490.31 US WEST COMM TELEPHONE 054U27 03/01/90 16.06 US WEST COMM TELEPHONE 054U27 03/01/90 16.06 US WEST COMM TELEPHONE 054U27 03/01/90 16.06 US WEST COMM TELEPHONE 1,735.46 kkkkkk 057H83 03/01/90 160,000.00 HRA TRANSFER 02 -28 -90 PAGE 13 ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE 50- 4628- 822 -82 MANUAL 50- 4628- 822 -82 MANUAL 50- 4628 - 822 -82 MANUAL 50- 4628 - 842 -84 MANUAL 50- 4628 - 842 -84 MANUAL 50- 4628- 842 -84 MANUAL 50- 4628 - 842 -84 MANUAL 50- 4628- 842 -84 MANUAL 50- 4628- 842 -84 MANUAL 50- 4628- 862 -86 MANUAL 50- 4628 - 862 -86 MANUAL 50- 4256- 841 -84 * ** -CKS 50- 4202 - 820 -82 MANUAL 50- 4202 - 840 -84 MANUAL 50- 4202 - 860 -86 MANUAL * ** -CKS 10- 4156- 510 -51 MANUAL * ** -CKS 10- 4156 - 510 -51 MANUAL * ** -CKS 10- 4156 - 510 -51 MANUAL * ** -CKS 10- 4256 - 510 -51 MANUAL 10- 4256- 622 -62 MANUAL 10- 4256 - 628 -62 MANUAL 10- 4256 - 646 -64 MANUAL 23- 4256 - 612 -61 MANUAL 27- 4256- 662 -66 MANUAL 27- 4256 - 667 -66 MANUAL 28- 4256 - 702 -70 MANUAL 30- 4256 - 782 -78 MANUAL 40- 4256 - 803 -80 MANUAL 50- 4256 - 821 -82 MANUAL 50- 4256- 841 -84 MANUAL 50- 4256 - 861 -86 MANUAL * ** -CKS 10- 1145 - 000 -00 MANUAL 1990 CITY OF EDINA CHECK REGISTER 02 -28 -90 PAGE 14 CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE 160,000.00 * RRRRRR *** -CKS 058767 03/01/90 1,774.87 DELTA DENTAL INSURANCE 10- 4260 - 510 -51 MANUAL 1,774.87 * RRR *RR RRR -CKS 058825 03/01/90 21.00 COMM PUBLIC SAFETY LICENSING FEE 10- 4642 - 420 -42 MANUAL 21.00 RRRRRR RRR -CKS 058E11 03/08/90 2.18- EAGLE WINE 50- 3710- 822 -82 MANUAL 058E11 03/08/90 .92- EAGLE WINE 50- 3710 - 822 -82 MANUAL 058EII 03/08/90 18.73- EAGLE WINE 50- 3710 - 842 -84 MANUAL 058E11 03/08/90 1.88- EAGLE WINE 50- 3710 - 862 -86 MANUAL 058E11 03/08/90 15.72- EAGLE WINE 50- 3710 - 862 -86 MANUAL 058E11 03/08/90 109.24 EAGLE WINE 50- 4628 - 822 -82 MANUAL 058E11 03/08/90 45.99 EAGLE WINE 50- 4628 - 822 -82 MANUAL 058E11 03/08/90 936.69 EAGLE WINE 50- 4628 - 842 -84 MANUAL 058E11 03/08/90 785.84 EAGLE WINE 50- 4628 - 862 -86 MANUAL 058E11 03/08/90 93.99 EAGLE WINE 50- 4628 - 862 -86 MANUAL 1,932.32 058E26 03/08/90 .40 ED PHILLIPS 50 4628- 822 -82 * ** -CKS 058E26 03/08/90 4.10- ED PHILLIPS 50- 3710- 822 -82 MANUAL 058E26 03/08/90 1.75- ED PHILLIPS 50- 3710 - 822 -82 MANUAL 058E26 03/08/90 2.43- ED PHILLIPS 50- 3710 - 842 -84 MANUAL 058E26 03/08/90 17.46- ED PHILLIPS 50- 3710 - 842 -84 MANUAL 058E26 03/08/90 2.98- ED PHILLIPS 50- 3710 - 862 -86 MANUAL 058E26 03/08/90 87.94 ED PHILLIPS 50- 4626 - 822 -82 MANUAL 058E26 03/08/90 205.14 ED PHILLIPS 50- 4626 - 822 -82 MANUAL 058E26 03/08/90 873.22 ED PHILLIPS 50- 4626 - 842 -84 MANUAL 058E26 03/08/90 121.56 ED PHILLIPS 50- 4626- 842 -84 MANUAL 058E26 03/08/90 149.00 ED PHILLIPS 50- 4626 - 862 -86 MANUAL 058E26 03/08/90• 270.98 ED PHILLIPS 50- 4628 - 822 -82 MANUAL 058E26 03/08/90 266.95 ED PHILLIPS 50- 4628- 822 -82 MANUAL 058E26 03/08/90 678.75 ED PHILLIPS 50- 4628 - 822 -82 MANUAL 058E26 03/08/90 866.95 ED PHILLIPS 50- 4628 - 842 -84 MANUAL 058E26 03/08/90 326.00 ED PHILLIPS 50- 4628 - 862 -86 MANUAL 058E26 03/08/90 549.95 ED PHILLIPS 50- 4628 - 862 -86 MANUAL 058E26 03/08/90 415.45 ED PHILLIPS 50- 4628 - 862 -86 MANUAL 058E26 03/01/90 199.50 ED PHILLIPS BEER 50- 4630 - 862 -86 MANUAL 058.E26 03/01/9.0 42.80 ED PHILLIPS BEER 50- 4632- 862 -86 MANUAL 5,025.87 ** RRRRRR RRR -CKS 058G82 03/08/90 47.91- GRIGGS COOPER 50- 3710 - 822 -82 MANUAL 058G82 03/08/90 2.73- GRIGGS COOPER 50- 3710 - 842 -84 MANUAL 058G82 03/08/90 83.08- GRIGGS COOPER 50- 3710 - 862 -86 MANUAL 058682 03/08/90 2,395.44 GRIGGS COOPER 50- 4626 - 822 -82 MANUAL 1990 CITY OF EDINA 5.10- JOHNSON CHECK REGISTER 50- 3710 - 822 -82 CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV 058G82 03/08/90 136.52 GRIGGS COOPER 50- 4626 - 842 -84 058G82 03/08/90 4,153.79 GRIGGS COOPER 50- 4626 - 862 -86 058G82 03/08/90 78.00- GRIGGS COOPER 50- 4628 - 842 -84 058G82 03/08/90 16.34- GRIGGS COOPER 50- 4628 - 862 -86 50- 3710 - 842 -84 058J62 6,457.69 * 5.66- JOHNSON WINE * * * * ** 058J62 03/08/90 5.10- JOHNSON WINE 50- 3710 - 822 -82 058J62 03/08/90 64.92- JOHNSON WINE 50- 3710 - 822 -82 058J62 03/08/90 6.53- JOHNSON WINE 50- 3710 - 822 -82 058J62 03/08/90 12.15- JOHNSON WINE 50- 3710 - 842 -84 058J62 03/08/90 8.62- JOHNSON WINE 50- 3710- 842 -84 058J62 03/08/90 108.55- JOHNSON WINE 50- 3710 - 842 -84 058J62 03/08/90 5.66- JOHNSON WINE 50- 3710 - 862 -86 058J62 03/08/90 68.49- JOHNSON WINE 50- 3710 - 862 -86 058J62 03/08/90 13.47- JOHNSON WINE 50- 3710 - 862 -86 058J62 03/08/90 20.83 JOHNSON WINE 50- 4626 - 822 -82 058J62 03/08/90 3,245.96 JOHNSON WINE 50- 4626 - 822 -82 05BJ62 03/08/90 5,427.55 JOHNSON WINE 50- 4626- 842 -84 058J62 03/08/90 33.32 JOHNSON WINE 50- 4626 - 842 -84 058J62 03/08/90 3,424.57 JOHNSON WINE 50- 4626 - 862 -86 058J62 03/08/90 20.09 JOHNSON WINE 50- 4626 - 862 -86 058J62 03/08/90 14.70 JOHNSON WINE 50- 4628 - 822 -82 058J62 03/08/90 509.03 JOHNSON WINE 50- 4628 - 822 -82 058J62 03/08/90 4.90 JOHNSON WINE 50- 4628- 822 -82 058J62 03/08/90 651.59 JOHNSON WINE 50- 4628 - 822 -82 058J62 03/08/90 861.51 JOHNSON WINE 50- 4628 - 842 -84 058J62 03/08/90 21.07 JOHNSON WINE 50- 4628 - 842 -84 058J62 03/08/90 1,214.52 JOHNSON WINE 50- 4628 - 842 -84 058J62 03/08/90 11.76 JOHNSON WINE 50- 4628 - 842 -84 058J62 03/08/90 1,346.25 JOHNSON WINE 50- 4628 - 862 -86 058J62 03/08/90 565.95 JOHNSON WINE 50- 4628 - 862 -86 058J62 03/08/90 15.19 JOHNSON WINE 50- 4628 - 862 -86 058J62 03/08/90 13.72 JOHNSON WINE 50- 4628 - 862 -86 17,109.02 * * * * * ** 058N12 03/01/90 2,257.50 MUTUAL BENEFIT INSURANCE 10- 4158 - 510 -51 2,257.50 * * * * * ** 058P20 03/08/90 2.00 PAUSTIS & SONS 50- 4628 - 822 -82 058P20 03/08/90 96.95 PAUSTIS & SONS 50- 4628 - 822 -82 05BP20 03/08/90 97.50 PAUSTIS & SONS 50- 4628 - 842 -84 058P20 03/08/90 2.00 PAUSTIS & SONS 50- 4628 - 842 -84 058P20 03/08/90 4.00 PAUSTIS & SONS 50- 4628 - 862 -86 058P20 03/08/90 253.45 PAUSTIS & SONS 50- 4628 - 862 -86 058P20 03/01/90 25.00 PAUSTIS & SONS MIX 50- 4632 - 822 -82 480.90 * * * * ** 058P82 03/08/90 6.40- PRIOR WINE 50- 3710 - 822 -82' 02 -28 -90 PAGE 15 # P.O. # MESSAGE MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL * ** -CKS MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL * ** -CKS MANUAL * ** -CKS MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL * ** -CKS MANUAL 1990 CITY OF EDINA CHECK REGISTER 02 -28 -90 PAGE 16 CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE 058P82 03/08/90 10.01- PRIOR WINE 50- 3710 - 842 -84 MANUAL 058P82 03/08/90 1.10- PRIOR WINE 50- 3710 - 842 -84 MANUAL 058P82 03/08/90 2.26- PRIOR WINE 50- 3710 - 862 -86 MANUAL 058P82 03/08/90 4.97- PRIOR WINE 50- 3710 - 862 -86 MANUAL 058P82 03/08/90 320.00 PRIOR WINE 50- 4628 - 822 -82 MANUAL 058P82 03/08/90 500.62 PRIOR WINE 50- 4628 - 842 -84 MANUAL 058P82 03/08/90 54.95 PRIOR WINE 50- 4628- 842 -84 MANUAL 058P82 03/08/90 112.90 PRIOR WINE 50- 4628 - 862 -86 MANUAL 058P82 03/08/90 248.49 PRIOR WINE 50- 4628- 862 -86 MANUAL 058P82 03/01/90 41.11 PRIOR WINE MIX 50- 4632 - 842 -84 MANUAL 1,253.33 RRRRRR RRR -CKS 058Q16 03/08/90 4.88- QUALITY WINE 50- 3710 - 822 -82 MANUAL 058Q16 03/08/90 6.07- QUALITY WINE 50- 3710 - 822 -82 MANUAL 058Q16 03/08/90 2.46- QUALITY WINE 50- 3710 - 822 -82 MANUAL 058Q16 03/08/90 1.12- QUALITY WINE 50- 3710 - 822 -82 MANUAL 058Q16 03/08/90 26.13- QUALITY WINE 50- 3710 - 822 -82 MANUAL 058Q16 03/08/90 52.27- QUALITY WINE 50- 3710 - 842 -84 MANUAL 058Q16 03/08/90 8.08- QUALITY WINE 50- 3710 - 842 -84 MANUAL 058Q16 03/08/90 1.86- QUALITY WINE 50- 3710 - 842 -84 MANUAL 058Q16 03/08/90 3.11- QUALITY WINE 50- 3710 - 842 -84 MANUAL 058Q16 03/08/90 1.57- QUALITY WINE 50- 3710 - 842 -84 MANUAL 058Q16 03/08/90, 2.46- QUALITY WINE 50- 3710 - 862 -86 MANUAL 058Q16 03/08/90 .87- QUALITY WINE 50- 3710 - 862 -86 MANUAL 058Q16 03/08/90 6.05- QUALITY WINE 50- 3710 - 862 -86 MANUAL 058Q16 03/08/90 47.91- QUALITY WINE 50- 3710 - 862 -86 MANUAL 058Q16 03/08/90 1,306.69 QUALITY WINE 50- 4626- 822 -82 MANUAL 058Q16 03/08/90 243.86 QUALITY WINE 50- 4626 - 822 -82 MANUAL 058Q16 03/08/90 155.53 QUALITY WINE 50- 4626 - 842 -84 MANUAL 058Q16 03/08/90 2,611.84 QUALITY WINE 50- 4626 - 842 -84 MANUAL 058Q16 03/08/90 93.36 QUALITY WINE 50- 4626 - 842 -84 MANUAL 058Q16 03/08/90 2,395.87 QUALITY WINE 50- 4626- 862 -86 MANUAL 058Q16 03/08/90 246.00 QUALITY WINE 50- 4628 - 822 -82 MANUAL 058Q16 03/08/90 603.95 QUALITY WINE 50- 4628- 822 -82 MANUAL 058Q16 03/08/90 111.60 QUALITY WINE 50- 4628 - 822 -82 MANUAL 058Q16 03/08/90 805.60 QUALITY WINE 50- 4628 - 842 -84 MANUAL 058Q16 03/08/90 156.75 QUALITY WINE 50- 4628- 842 -84 MANUAL 058Q16 03/08/90 603.05 QUALITY WINE 50- 4628 - 862 -86 MANUAL 058Q16 03/08/90 86.80 QUALITY WINE 50- 4628 - 862 -86 MANUAL 058Q16 03/08/90 246.00 QUALITY WINE 50- 4628 - 862 -86 MANUAL 9,502.06 RRRRRR RRR -CKS 058T49 03/08/90 6.72- TOW DISTRIBUTING 50- 3710- 862 -86 MANUAL 058T49 03/08/90 82.40 TOW DISTRIBUTING 50- 4628 - 822 -82 MANUAL 058T49 03/08/90 2.25 TOW DISTRIBUTING 50- 4628 - 822 -82 MANUAL 058T49 03/08/90 274.75 TOW DISTRIBUTING 50- 4628 - 862 -86 MANUAL 058T49 03/08/90 3.75 TOW DISTRIBUTING 50- 4628 - 862 -86 MANUAL 356.43 RRRRRR _ RRR -CKS 065E11 03/08/90 12.02- EAGLE WINE 50- 3710 - 822 -82 MANUAL 1990 CITY OF EDINA CHECK REGISTER 02 -28 -90 PAGE 17 CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE 065E11 03/08/90 32.88- EAGLE WINE 50- 3710 - 842 -84 MANUAL 065E11 03/08/90 21.16- EAGLE WINE 50- 3710 - 862 -86 MANUAL 065E11 03/08/90 1.20- EAGLE WINE 50- 3710- 862 -86 MANUAL 065E11 03/08/90 601.08 EAGLE WINE 50- 4628 - 822 -82 MANUAL 065E11 03/08/90 1,644.21 EAGLE WINE 50- 4628 - 842 -84 MANUAL 065E11 03/08/90 59.95 EAGLE WINE 50- 4628 - 862 -86 MANUAL 065E11 03/08/90 1,058.20 EAGLE WINE 50- 4628- 862 -86 MANUAL 3,296.18 * * * *** * * *-CKS 065E26 03/08/90 17.29- ED PHILLIPS 50- 3710 - 822 -82 MANUAL 065E26 03/08/90 .92- ED PHILLIPS 50- 3710 - 842 -84 MANUAL 065E26 03/08/90 15.60- ED PHILLIPS 50- 3710 - 842 -84 MANUAL 065E26 03/08/90 6.91- ED PHILLIPS 50- 3710- 842 -84 MANUAL 065E26 03/08/90 345.87 ED PHILLIPS 50- 4626- 842 -84 MANUAL 065E26 03/08/90 46.39 ED PHILLIPS 50- 4626 - 842 -84 MANUAL 065E26 03/08/90 780.36 ED PHILLIPS 50- 4626 - 842 -84 MANUAL 065E26 03/08/90 433.31 ED PHILLIPS 50- 4628 - 822 -82 MANUAL 065E26 03/08/90 864.82 ED PHILLIPS 50- 4628 - 822 -82 MANUAL 065E26 03/08/90 450.35 ED PHILLIPS 50- 4628 - 822 -82 MANUAL 065E26 03/08/90 707.70 ED PHILLIPS 50- 4628 - 822 -82 MANUAL 065E26 03/08/90 1,247.47 ED PHILLIPS 50- 4628 - 842 -84 MANUAL 065E26 03/08/90 1,112.75 ED PHILLIPS 50- 4628 - 842 -84 MANUAL 065E26 03/08/90 478.05 ED PHILLIPS 50- 4628 - 842 -84 MANUAL 065E26 03/08/90 138.00 ED PHILLIPS 50- 4628 - 842 -84 MANUAL 065E26 03/08/90 25.50 ED PHILLIPS 50- 4628 - 842 -84 MANUAL 065E26 03/08/90 645.31 ED PHILLIPS 50- 4628 - 862 -86 MANUAL 065E26 03/08/90 229.95 ED PHILLIPS 50- 4628 - 862 -86 MANUAL 065E26 03/08/90 69.00 ED PHILLIPS 50- 4628 - 862 -86 MANUAL 065E26 03/08/90 560.50 ED PHILLIPS 50- 4628 - 862 -86 MANUAL 8,094.61 R R R R R R * * * -CKS 065G82 03/08/90 33.30- GRIGGS COOPER 50- 3700 - 822 -82 MANUAL 065G82 03/08/90 22.82- GRIGGS COOPER 50- 3700 - 822 -82 MANUAL 065G82 03/08/90 30.08- GRIGGS COOPER 50- 3700 - 842 -84 MANUAL 065G82 03/08/90 29.51- GRIGGS COOPER 50- 3700 - 842 -84 MANUAL 065G82 03/08/90 110.39- GRIGGS COOPER 50- 3700 - 862 -86 MANUAL 065G82 03/08/90 13.51- GRIGGS COOPER 50- 3700 - 862 -86 MANUAL 065G82 03/08/90 42.16- GRIGGS COOPER 50- 3700 - 862 -86 MANUAL 065G82 03/08/90 39.57- GRIGGS COOPER 50- 3710 - 822 -82 MANUAL 065G82 03/08/90 73.81- GRIGGS COOPER 50- 3710 - 842 -84 MANUAL 065G82 03/08/90 55.59- GRIGGS COOPER 50- 3710 - 842 -84 MANUAL 065G82 03/08/90 16.41- GRIGGS COOPER 50- 3710- 862 -86 MANUAL 065082 03/08/90 1,978.53 GRIGGS COOPER 50- 4626 - 822 -82 MANUAL 065082 03/08/90 3,690.78 GRIGGS COOPER 50- 4626 - 842 -84 MANUAL 065G82 03/08/90 2,779.40 GRIGGS COOPER 50- 4626 - 842 -84 MANUAL 065G82 03/08/90 820.70 GRIGGS COOPER 50- 4626 - 862 -86 MANUAL 065G82 03/08/90 .00 GRIGGS COOPER 50- 4628 - 822 -82 MANUAL 065G82 03/08/90 .00 GRIGGS COOPER 50- 4628 - 822 -82 MANUAL 065G82 03/08/90 .00 GRIGGS COOPER 50- 4628 - 842 -84 MANUAL 065G82 03/08/90 .00 GRIGGS COOPER 50- 4628 - 842 -84 MANUAL 065G82 03/08/90 .00 GRIGGS COOPER 50- 4628 - 862 -86 MANUAL 1990 CITY OF EDINA 50- 4628 - 862-86 CHECK REGISTER CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION 065G82 03/08/90 .00 GRIGGS COOPER 50- 3710 - 842 -84 065G82 03/08/90 .00 GRIGGS COOPER MANUAL 50- 4628 - 822 -82 MANUAL 8,802.26 MANUAL 50- 4628 - 842 -84 k k k k k k 50- 4628 - 862 -86 MANUAL * ** -CKS 065P20 03/08/90 203.34 PAUSTIS & SONS 065P20 03/08/90 5.00 PAUSTIS & SONS 208.34 kktYkkk 065P82 03/08/90 3.83- PRIOR WINE 065P82 03/08/90 7.94- PRIOR WINE 065P82 03/08/90 .61- PRIOR WINE 065P82 03/08/90 8.85- PRIOR WINE 065P82 03/08/90 191.71 PRIOR WINE 065P82 03/08/90 396.91 PRIOR WINE 065P82 03/08/90 30.45 PRIOR WINE 065P82 03/08/90 442.42 PRIOR WINE 1,040.26 k k k k k k 101010 03/01/90 67.18 6718 10426642042 67.18 k k k k k k 364,012.68 FUND 10 TOTAL GENERAL FUND 1,354.50 FUND 23 TOTAL ART CENTER 289.99 FUND 26 TOTAL SWIMMING POOL FUND 14,792.15. FUND 27 TOTAL GOLF COURSE FUND 15,269.03 FUND 28 TOTAL RECREATION CENTER FUND 604.44 FUND 29 TOTAL GUN RANGE FUND 14,454.20 FUND 30 TOTAL EDINBOROUGH PARK 20,007.41 FUND 40 TOTAL UTILITY FUND 476.61 FUND 41 TOTAL STORM SEWER UTILITY 219,974.74 222, 22_. 65 FUND 50 TOTAL LIQUOR DISPENSARY FUND 651,235.75* TOTAL 02 -28 -90 PAGE 18 ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE 50- 4628 - 862 -86 MANUAL 50- 4628 - 862-86 MANUAL * ** -CKS 50- 4628 - 842 -84 MANUAL 50- 4628 - 842 -84 MANUAL * ** -CKS 50- 3710 - 822 -82 MANUAL 50- 3710 - 842 -84 MANUAL 50- 3710 - 842 -84 MANUAL 5073710 - 862 -86 MANUAL 50- 4628 - 822 -82 MANUAL 50- 4628 - 842 -84 MANUAL 50- 4628 - 842 -84 MANUAL 50- 4628 - 862 -86 MANUAL * ** -CKS 10- 4266 - 420 -42 MANUAL * ** -CKS .