HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-07-02_COUNCIL PACKETAGENDA
EDINA HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
EDINA CITY COUNCIL
JULY 2, 1990
ROLLCALL
I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JOINT HRA /COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 4 AND HRA MINUTES OF
JUNE 18, 1990
II. AWARD OF BID - PROJECT SIGNAGE - CENTENNIAL LAKES PARK
III. ADJOURNMENT
- - -- -- -----EDINA-- CITY - COUNCIL - -- - -- -- - - -
I. ADOPTION OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS All agenda items marked with as 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 Joint HRA /Council Meeting of June 4 and Council Meetings
of May 7 and May 21, 1990
III. 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. Resolution - Cooperative Agreement With Hennepin County - CDBG Funds
B. Set Hearing Date (7/16/90
* 1. Preliminary Plat Approval - Lindell Addition, Lot 1, Block 1, Danen'a
Meadows - 7017 Antrim Road
* 2. Amendment to Edina Comprehensive Plan - Community Facilities Element
Park Plan
IV. 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. Second Reading ,
1. Ordinance No. 1322 - Licensing and Regulating the Sale of Cigarettes,
Imposing a Penalty and Repealing Ordinance No. 1321
V. SPECIAL CONCERNS OF RESIDENTS
A. Dr. Christian and Mary Schrock, 4500 Drexel Av - Policy on Curb
Cuts /Driveway Materials
B. David and Wendy Morris, 5116 Bedford Av - Condition of Alley
VI. AWARD OF BIDS
* A. Asbestos Abatement in Boiler Room
* B. Filter System - Municipal Pool
* C. Electric Transformer - Braemar Golf Course
* D. Tennis Court Resurfacing
Agenda
Edina City Council
July 2, 1990
Page 2
VII.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND REPORTS
A.
Insurance Renewals
B.
Recommendation - Apartment Recycling Program
C.
Replacement of Park Board Representative - Community
Services
Board
D.
Resolution - Certification of Correction of Plat
Errors
VIII.
INTERGOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES
IX.
SPECIAL CONCERNS OF MAYOR AND COUNCIL
X.
POST
AGENDA AND MANAGER'S MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS
A.
I -494 Update
B.
Fairview - Southdale Detoxification Center
XI.
FINANCE
A.
Payment of Claims per Check Register dated 07/02/90:
Total
$435,946.20
SCHEDULE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS /EVENTS
Wed July
4
INDEPENDENCE DAY OBSERVED
City
Hall
Closed
Mon July
16
Budget Assumptions
5 -7
p.m.
Mgrs Conf Rm
Council Meeting
7:00
p.m.
Council Room
Mon Aug
6
Regular Council Meeting
7:00
p.m.
Council Room
Mon Aug
20
Joint Meeting - Council /Building Construction
6:00
p.m.
Mgrs Conf Rm
Appeals Board
Regular Council Meeting
7:00
p.m.
Council Room
Thurs Aug
23
Budget Hearing
5 -7
p.m.
Mgrs Conf Rm
Tues Aug
28
Budget Hearing
5 -7
p.m.
Mgrs Conf Rm
Wed Aug
29
Budget Hearing
5 -7
p.m.
Mgrs Conf Rm
l;.
MINUTES OF THE JOINT MEETING OF THE
EDINA HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY /CITY COUNCIL
HELD AT EDINA CITY HALL
JUNE 4, 1990
A joint meeting of the Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority and the City
Council was convened to consider concurrently: 1) Parking Ramp Improvement P -4 -
North Side of West 49 1/2 Street, 2) 50th & France Renovation - 50th and France
Commercial District, 3) Award of Bids: Centennial Lakes Park Building -
Mechanical, Centennial Lakes Park Building - Electrical, Centennial Lakes
Maintenance Area - Fireproofing, Centennial Lakes Maintenance Area - Electrical,
4) Reappointments /Appointment - East Edina Housing Foundation Board. Action was
taken by the HRA and Council as recorded.
ROLI.CALL Answering rollcall were Commissioners /Members Kelly, Paulus, Rice and
Chairman /Mayor Richards. Commissioner /Member Smith was absent.
MINUTES of the Joint BRA/Council meetings of April 16 and May 7, 1990, were
approved as submitted by motion of Commissioner/Member Paulus, seconded by
Commissioner/Member Rice.
Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Richards
Motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING HELD ON PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS - PARKING RAMP IMPROVEMENT P -4 NORTH
SIDE OF WEST 49 1/2 STREET AND 50TH & FRANCE RENOVATION Affidavits of Notice were
presented, approved and ordered placed on file. HRA Executive Director Gordon
Hughes explained that Improvement HRA /90 -10 is an overall renovation of sidewalks,
street furnishings, pedestrian lighting, etc. The Parking Ramp Improvement P -4 is
a 154 car ramp to be located north of 491/2 Street. Owners and tenants of
property at 50th & France were notified of the public hearing as were residents
adjoining the proposed parking ramp.
50th and France History - The City and the HRA established the 50th & France
redevelopment area and the tax increment financing district in 1974. HRA
undertook the initial redevelopment project in 1975 and 1976. This project
included the construction of the 49 1/2 Street parking ramp, expansion of the 51st
Street parking ramp and numerous sidewalk, roadway, landscaping and lighting
improvements. In 1977 and 1978, additional improvements were undertaken,
including the carillon tower and fountain, and work in the vicinity of Arby's
Restaurant on France Avenue. In 1988, the 51st Street parking ramp was expanded
by approximately 115 spaces.
The initial redevelopment project was financed through a combination of special
assessments and tax increment financing. For these improvements, 20% of the
project costs were assessed against benefitted properties with the remaining 80%
financed through tax increment financing, State Aid, and CDBG Funds. The special
assessments, levied on a floor area basis, totaled approximately $2.15 /sq. ft. of
assessable floor area. The 1988 expansion of the 51st Street parking ramp was
likewise financed through a combination of special assessments and tax increment
financing. In this case, approximately 30% of the ramp costs were assessed
against the Edina Theatre, and the balance was financed by tax increments. No
businesses other than the Edina Theatre were assessed for the ramp expansion.
Status of Tax Increment District - On March 26, 1990, the City sold an additional
$3,000,000 of General Obligation Bonds for the 50th & France tax increment
district. This bond sale insured the existence of this tax increment district
through year 2008. This bond sale was undertaken based upon the contemplated
project cost for the improvements which are now being considered. At present in
excess of $900,000 in increments are being generated. The present principal and
interest payments on outstanding bonds is approximately $257,000 which will be
— completed in -- 1993 -. - - -At -this -point-9 - there -is- about -$650; 000 -- annually -of -- -excess -- -- - - - - --
increments. Commencing in 1994 with the repayment of outstanding bonds that would
then go up to $900,000 plus any or new development that might occur.
Renovation Project - Executive Director Hughes stated that the estimated cost of
the project is $2,134,000 proposed to be funded 80% through tax increment
financing and 20% specially assessed, the same method as the original project.
The resulting assessment would be approximately $1.14 per square foot of floor
area for the renovation project. As with the original project, it is recommended
that basement space at 50th and France used exclusively for storage be assessed at
at a 10% rate. Also, it is recommended that a credit be given for the floor area
of three enclosed malls.
Executive Director Hughes introduced Peter Jarvis, BRW, Inc., consultant for the
renovation project who explained they were asked to examine plant materials,
street furniture, lighting and pavement conditions and advise the City and the
50th & France Business Association about alternatives to improve the area and
update it to the 1990's and beyond. In summary, Mr. Jarvis explained that the
most significant changes would be replacement of existing sidewalks from curb to
storefront with concrete pavers, replacement of wood street furnishings and
bollards with metal furnishings, installation of new pedestrian lighting,
replacement of kiosks and the carillon tower with new structures and the
replacement of alley canopies.
Mr. Jarvis presented graphics illustrating the proposed changes and said he would
characterize it as an European village look with a deep green theme. The the
pavers would be replaced with concrete pavers which would be set on top of 3 1/2
inches of concrete and an inch of sand. From a maintenance standpoint this is the
best product to use because any refurbishing or utility work can be done without
resulting patch problems. New entry monuments are proposed to be placed east and
west, north and south of the district. These are preliminary plans that will pick
up the design of the light fixtures with the curved metal, with a redesigned logo
for the 50th and France area and a free flowing ribbon look. The entry monuments
are meant to compliment the replacement for the central feature in proximity to
the carillon.
One of the main concerns was the timing of the renovation work to ensure the least
amount of disruption of business and services. Phase I construction would begin
after Labor Day, 1990, and would conclude in advance of the Thanksgiving holiday.
Phase II would begin in the spring of 1991 and conclude before Memorial day.
Actual work would begin with a sawcut made 5 -6 feet out from the storefronts and
everything in that corridor would be removed. Rewiring, footings and foundation
work would be done necessary to support all of the street furnishings. Meanwhile,
off -site all the fabrication would be taking place in terms, of lights, bollards,
monuments, etc. When all underground work is completed in the corridor, it would
be temporarily paved with bituminous for the winter. Street furniture that has
been fabricated and completed would be installed by November. In April 1991, the
temporary pavement will be removed and in sections the sidewalk up against the
storefronts will come out. A concrete base will go in and in less than a working
week, segment by segment, the sidewalk will be finished.
Commissioner /Member Kelly inquired whether the fountain would be taken out. Mr.
Jarvis stated the fountain will remain. Commissioner /Member Paulus asked if metal
rather than wood would be better for protection against vandalism that occurs at
50th & France and if the construction plan is as cost effective as against ripping
everything out at once. Mr. Jarvis said wood could be vandalized more readily
than metal but nothing is vandalism - proof. As to cost, there would be a premium
of approximately 3 -5% which would be mainly on the paving. Commissioner /Member
Rice asked about the problem of heels getting caught in the pavers, if the type
selected was one of the samples that had been put in place behind the theatre,
their maintenance and . the maintenance for the light fixtures. Mr. Jarvis said
the paver selected was one of the samples but the difference is that unlike all
those it is a complete field of pavers as opposed to a paver area. The beauty of
this system is simply that there will be no settling but if it should occur a
vibrator run over the top would bring it flush again. Heels will not catch
because the pavers have a beveled surface. The life of the new light fixtures
will be much longer as the difference is wood versus metal. Relative to the entry
monuments, Commissioner /Member Rice asked when and how the final decision would be
made as to their design. Mr. Jarvis said that his staff was given direction at
the last meeting with the 50th and France Association for further refinement of
the ribbon concept and were asked to explore additional colors. Conceptually,
there was strong support for this approach but BRW was asked for some additional
design refinements (scale, color and actual configurations of the ribbons). The
final design would be brought back to the Council for approval.
Commissioner /Member Kelly asked if these were final plans, and asked specifically
as to the carillon and fountain. Mr. Jarvis said the bells will remain but with a
new metal structure. There would be another opportunity for review and discussion
of the final designs.
In response to questions of several businessmen who were present, Mr. Jarvis said
the north side of 50th Street where the sidewalks are narrower would be done
one -half at a time also. The contractor would be required to provide access for
pedestrians to all businesses on a daily basis when the project begins this fall
and continues in the spring. Also, the contractor would not be allowed to pile
dirt or use the area between the buildings and the street as a staging area for
supplies or equipment. However, everyone would know there is construction going
on but, hopefully, with the least amount of pain possible, and the project will be
great and exciting upon its completion. As to utility interruption, none is
planned but when underground work is being done there can be accidents. The
electrical circuitry for the lighting will be independent from service connections
to the buildings.
Parking Ramp Improvement - Executive Director Hughes explained that the parking
ramp project would be a 154 car parking facility to be located on the north side
of West 49 1/2 Street and would provide a net parking addition of 95 spaces. It
would be designed to accommodate an additional level in the future that would
contain 70 more spaces. The estimated cost of the project is $924,000 proposed to
to be split with 80% from tax increment financing and 20% from special assessment.
This is the same formula that was used with the first project except for one point
- it was recommended that a 200 square foot credit be granted for each private
parking stall provided by a property owner on site. It was also recommended that
the sum of all the credits should not serve to reduce the assessable area by more
than 50 %.
This project was proposed in response to a parking study done during the last half
of 1989. The results showed that during the peak hour occupancy was at 73% for
all public spaces at 50th & France. It should be noted that there 'is a parking
distribution problem public _parking located north of 50th_ Street exper.ienced_a_____.
peak hour average of 85% while public parking located south of 50th Street showed
a 62% average. The distribution problem would only get worse if the Walgreen's
proposal is approved and after the Sheridan's Antique Store is converted to
restaurant use. If the project is approved, construction would begin as soon,as
possible in the spring of 1991 with completion.by August.
Executive Director Hughes said the parking ramp site plan shows the entrance
located next to the Edina Realty building with a one -way traffic flow through the
ramp with the exit next to the Doctors' building. Elevations and final design
have not been completed on the parking deck, but there would be approximately 10
feet of space between the ramp and Edina Realty. On the west side the Doctors
Building is built right to the property line leaving only a 2 foot spacing between
the ramp and the building. The ramp would slope upward from the ends to the
middle with the ends being 14 feet high and the middle 19 feet high. The ramp
would be approximately 18 feet from the property line and 60 feet from the rear of
the homes to the north. Executive Director Hughes said Terry Hakkola of Walker
Parking Consultants was present and could answer questions concerning any
functional characteristics.
As to Council action, staff would recommend that the Council authorize these
projects, subject to agreement by the HRA to fund 80% of the project cost. This
would be a City project and staff would recommend a simple joint powers agreement
between the HRA and City to facilitate this funding and the construction. The
Council could approve both projects, either of them or neither, as they are not
dependent upon each other.
Commissioner /Member Rice asked if the rear setback of the ramp from the
residential properties is necessary and what would be there. Executive Director
Hughes explained that the Zoning Ordinance permits a zero setback between
buildings but requires a setback from the boundaries of a commercial district.
The north property line is a boundary of the district and the required setback has
to be not less than the height of the structure. In the case, because it is a 19
foot structure it would have to set back that distance from the residential
property line. Landscaping would be installed in the setback area.
Commissioner /Member Rice said one of the neighbors had said there is a problem now
with people parking on West 49th Street and cutting through the yards to the
commercial area and asked if fencing had been considered. Executive Director
Hughes said that at this point fencing has not been proposed; however, that could
be added.
Brian Duoos, Edina Realty, asked the proximity of the ramp to the Edina Realty
Building and if the design would be similar to the existing ramp on the street.
Executive Director Hughes said the design and circulation through the ramp would
be similar to the existing ramp. Terry Hakkola, Walker Parking Consultants,
explained that in order to maximize the use of the site the ramp would be 8 -10
feet from the Edina Realty property line. The ramp would function with one -way
traffic flow with parking and driving on all sloping floors. Mr. Duoos suggested
that the ramp have long term parking through a sticker system which may eliminate
the problem of people parking on West 49th Street and walking through those
properties. He said Edina Realty is in favor of the ramp but would like to see it
located as far away from their building as possible.
Floyd Hooten, Hooten Cleaners, said he wanted to cooperate with the City but was
concerned about an entrance and exit to his place of business. Executive Director
Hughes said one of the design parameters on the ramp was the ability to access
through the ramp to the rear of the Edina Realty Building and also to the rear of
the Doctors Building and Hooten Cleaners. The functional schematic shows the
entrance by the Edina Realty Building with exits to either the rear of the Edina
Realty building, the Doctors Building or Hooten Cleaners. He pointed out that
this does not present the sole means of access to the rear of those buildings.
There is an existing drive between the Post Office and Mr. Hooten's building and
also an existing drive between Edina Realty and Patio Village. The goal of the
ramp design was to maximize parking. The lot, although 180 feet wide, is very
short in depth for the purpose of providing structured parking. The shorter the
ramp gets the more difficult it is to obtain the vertical separation between
floors. Therefore, to sacrifice a portion of the width with a 20 foot drive isle
would cause design problems.
Hosmer Brown, said he was speaking for the 50th & France Business and Professional
Association Board of Directors and the Steering Committee. In concept, the
Association is delighted with the renovation for the commercial area and is also
in favor of the parking ramp concept as it is very much needed. 'He said the
Association would like to be able to have more input into the details and planning
of the ramp. Executive Director Hughes stated that staff has met with the
Steering Committee every two -three weeks since January and he would expect that
this would continue on the renovation as well as on the ramp in terms of building
materials, and details.
Chairman /Mayor Richards then called for action regarding the Parking Ramp
Improvement Project - P -4.
Commissioner/Member Bice introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION ORDERING PARKING RAMP IMPROVEMENT NO. P -4
BE IT RESOLVED by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) and the Council of
the City of Edina, Minnesota, that the BRA and Council heretofore caused notice of
hearing to be duly published and mailed to owners of each parcel within the area
proposed to be assessed on the following proposed improvement:
PARKING RAMP IMPROVEMENT NO. P -4
and at the hearing held at the time and place specified in said notice, the HRA
and the Council has duly considered the views of all persons, interested, and being
fully advised of the pertinent facts, does hereby determine to proceed with the
construction of said improvement including all proceedings which may be necessary
in eminent domain for the acquisition of necessary easements and rights for
construction and maintenance of such improvement; that said improvement is hereby
designated and shall be referred to in all subsequent proceedings as:
PARKING RAMP IMPROVEMENT NO. P -4
and the area to be specially assessed for a portion of the cost of the proposed
improvement shall include all properties within the 50th & France Business
District. A second to the motion was made by Commissioner /Member Kelly.
Commissioner /Member Rice inquired whether Patio Village and Edina Realty had been
informed that Walgreen's is coming into the area and that this may be a good time
to combine properties. Executive Director Hughes said he and Peter Meyers had
meet with Mr. Sather of Patio Village. The idea was pursued but it was not
possible to reach a meeting of the minds. Commissioner /Member Rice asked how many
actual parking spaces would be gained. Mr. Hakkola stated 95 spaces would be
added, plus or minus 5 spaces. Commissioner /Member Paulus asked if the exterior
- - would resemble the ramp across the street. Executive Director Hughes stated the
building materials have not been finalized yet. It would be bid out the way the
51st Street ramp was where different choices for exterior materials would be
alternate bids and would be brought back to the HRA /Council for a decision based
on the prices. Commissioner /Member Paulus asked if the HRA /Council commits to the
project now could the project be stopped at some later point. Chairman /Mayor
Richards stated that the City would have the right to reject the bids and
therefore the project would not go forward. Commissioner /Member Rice asked how
long the bid process would take. Executive Director Hughes said the suggested
project schedule would be preliminary design in four weeks, bidding documents
complete in September, bidding period in October and bids back in the fall.
Commissioner /Member Paulus commented that this is a large investment, that the
parking survey showed usage was not at 99% and that this would not actually
alleviate the parking problem unless the parking distribution /convenience issue is
solved.
Commissioner /Member Kelly asked if there would be another opportunity to discuss
the 80 -20 cost split. Executive Director Hughes commented that this would be
discussed again formally at the assessment hearing when the project is completed
and the final costs are known. The recommendation is if the HRA /Council wishes to
alter the formula it should be done now. Chairman /Mayor Richards said, as he
understood the sense of the motion, that the intent would be to assess the cost
20% to the benefitted properties with the recommended credits and that 80% would
be funded through tax increment financing. If there'is to be any change this
issue needs debating now.. Commissioner /Member Rice asked Executive Director
Hughes if, since he considered this split fair in 1974 -75, he still believed this
to be fair. Executive Director Hughes stated yes, but one point he should have
mentioned was that the Edina Theatre not be assessed for the new ramp, as they
alone paid for the expansion of the 51st Street ramp. Commissioner /Member Kelly
commented that property values in the last 15 years have increased and questioned
whether a 75 % -25% split would be reasonable. Chairman /Mayor Richards countered
that if that was the mind of the other Council Members they should speak up.
Commissioner /Member Rice said he hoped the 50th & France Association would
research better utilization of the existing parking spaces.
Perry Anderson, 50th & France merchant, questioned the fairness of the assessment
back to the tenants by giving credit for the open space mall areas. He said there
has been considerable change in the terms of leases over the last 15 years and
they feel that most of the assessment costs will be passed back to the tenants.
Executive Director Hughes reiterated that related to three buildings - Edina
Five -0, the Peterson Building and the Doctors Building. Executive Director Hughes
commented that staff felt there was some virtual inconsistency, but since that was
done in the prior assessment, it was considered a good idea from a policy
standpoint. If the mall areas were assessed there is no guarantee that the
tenants still would not pay for it, that would be between the landlord and the
tenant. The reason that was done in 1975 was that the HRA was encouraging
enclosed malls. One of the ways this happened was to grant this credit if a
business provided an enclosed mall. If that no longer is a critical issue, the
credit could be excluded. Commissioner /Member Rice commented that, although he
understood the concern of the tenants, this is a really a landlord /tenant issue
that the Council cannot address.
Earl Cohen, Childrens General Store, stated that the 50th and France merchants are
dealing with a very competitive environment, i.e., the Southdale expansion and the
new MegaMall, and feel it is important to keep expenses to a minimum. He said to
the extent there is tax increment money available they would like see it used for
the projects. Personally, he said he would like the split to remain at 20 % -80 %.
Trace Lund, Lund's and Edina Properties, inquired about the credit for parking.
Executive Director Hughes said the recommendation is that a 200 square foot credit
be granted for each private parking stall that is provided on site. However, that
credit, in concert with any other credit, cannot act to reduce the assessment by
more than 50 %. Even if, in theory, one could provide enough private parking to
reduce the assessment to zero it is recommended that the figure be placed at a 50%
level. Fifteen years ago there was just one project and in that case the entire
assessment got the 200 square foot private parking credit, not a parking project
and a streetscape project like this.
With no further comments being heard, Chairman /Mayor Richards called the vote on
the motion on the floor.
Rollcall:
Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Richards
Resolution adopted.
Chairman Richards next called for action on the proposed Renovation Project.
Commissioner /Member Rice asked if final design plans would be forthcoming.
Chairman /Mayor Richards stated that the only things left to be resolved were the
final design for the entry monuments and the focal point. Commissioner /Member
Rice asked if the 50th & France Association finds the preliminary plans
acceptable. Mr. Brown stated it was the consensus of the Steering Committee that
the renovation plans were acceptable.
Commissioner/Member Bice introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION ORDERING RENOVATION IMPROVEMENT HRA /90 -10
BE IT RESOLVED by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) and the Council of
the City of Edina, Minnesota, that the BRA and Council heretofore caused notice of
hearing to be duly published and mailed to owners of each parcel within the area
proposed to be assessed on the following proposed improvement:
RENOVATION IMPROVEMENT HRA /90 -10
and at the hearing held at the time and place specified in said notice, the HRA
and the Council has duly considered the views of all persons interested, and being
fully advised of the pertinent facts, does hereby determine to proceed with the
construction of said improvement including all proceedings which may be necessary
in eminent domain for the acquisition of necessary easements and rights for
construction and maintenance of such improvement; that said improvement is hereby
designated and shall be referred to in all subsequent proceedings as:
RENOVATION IMPROVEMENT HRA /90 -10
and the area to be specially assessed for a portion of the cost of the proposed
improvement shall include all properties within the 50th & France Business
District. A second to the motion was made by Commissioner /Member Paulus.
Rollcall:
Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Richards
Resolution adopted.
Commissioner/Member Rice then introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
FOR PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS AND
DIRECTING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS
FOR PARKING RAMP IMPROVEMENT P -4 AND
RENOVATION IMPROVEMENT HBA /90 -10
BE IT RESOLVED by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority and the Council of the
City of Edina, Minnesota:
1. The plans and specifications for the proposed improvements set forth in the
following Advertisement for Bids form, heretofore prepared by the ERA Executive
Director and the City Engineer, and now on file in the office of the City Clerk
are hereby approved.
2. The Clerk shall cause to be published in the Edina Sun - Current and
Construction Bulletin the following notice of bids for improvements:
(Official Publication)
CITY OF EDINA
4801 W. 50TH STREET
EDINA, MINNESOTA 55424
(Ad for bids to be inserted when finalized.)
A second to the motion was given by Commissioner /Member Kelly.
Rollcall:
Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Richards
Resolution adopted.
Commissioner/Member Paulus introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING JOINT POVERS AGREEMENT BETUEEN
THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND CITY COUNCIL
BE IT RESOLVED by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority and the Council of the
City of Edina as follows:
The Housing and Redevelopment Authority and the Council of the City of Edina do
hereby authorize the execution of a Joint Powers Agreement for construction and
assessment of the following projects:
1. Automobile parking ramp in the 50th and France District on the north side of 49
1/2 Street (designated as "Improvement P -4 ").
2. Renovation and reconstruction of sidewalks, street furnishings, pedestrian
lights and other improvements through out the 50th and France District
(designated as "Improvement HRA /90 -10 ").
A second to the motion was given by Commissioner /Member Kelly.
Rollcall:
Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Richards
Resolution adopted.
BID AWARDED FOR CENTENNIAL LAKES PARR BUILDING - MECHANICAL Notion was made by
Commissioner Rice for award of bid for Centennial Lakes Park Building mechanical
to recommended low bidder, Blaine Heating and Air Conditioning, at $104,542.00.
Motion was seconded by Commissioner Kelly.
Rollcall:
Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Richards
Motion carried.
BID AWARDED FOR CENTENNIAL LAKES PARR BUILDING - ELECTRICAL Notion was made by
Commissioner Paulus for award of bid for Centennial Lakes Park Building electrical
to recommended second bidder, Metro Electric, at $87,950.00. The low bidder,
Gebhart Electric, did not comply with the project specifications. Motion was
seconded by Commissioner Rice.
Rollcall:
Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Richards
Motion carried.
BID AWARDED FOR CENTENNIAL LAKES MAINTENANCE AREA - FIREPROOFING Notion was made
by Commissioner Rice for award of bid for Centennial Lakes Maintenance area
fireproofing to recommended low bidder, Bahl Insulation, at $13,120.00. Motion
was seconded by Commissioner Paulus.
Rollcall:
Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Richards
Motion carried.
BID AWARDED FOR CENTENNIAL LAKES MAINTENANCE AREA - ELECTRICAL Motion was made by
Commissioner Rice for award of bid for Centennial Lakes Maintenance Area
electrical to recommended low bidder, Vantage Electric, at $8,850.00. Motion was
seconded by Commissioner Paulus,
Rollcall:
Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Richards
Motion carried.
APPOINTMENT AND REAPPOINTMENTS MADE TO EAST EDINA HOUSING FOUNDATION Mayor
Richards said that in the past a member of the Planning Commission has always
served on the East Edina Housing Foundation Board; however John Bailey did not
seek to be reappointed. Mayor Richards recommended the appointment of John M.
Palmer, who is well qualified to serve on the East Edina Housing Foundation Board.
Chairman Richards also recommended the following reappointments to the Board:
Virginia B. Shaw, William F. Greer, Ronald L. Ringling and Robert Q. Schoening.
Member Rice made a motion to approve the appointment of John M. Palmer and the
reappointment of Virginia B. Shaw, William F. Greer, Ronald L. Ringling and Robert
Q. Schoening to the East Edina Housing Foundation Board. The motion was seconded
by Member Kelly.
Rollcall:
Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Richards
Motion carried.
Motion vas made by Commissioner Rice and was seconded by Commissioner Kelly for
adjournment of the H.R.A. Motion was carried unanimously.
HRA Executive Director
Acting City Clerk
MINUTES
EDINA HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
JUNE 18, 1990"
Answering rollcall were Commissioners Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith and Chairman
Richards.
MINUTES of the Joint HRA /Council Meeting of May 21, 1990 were approved as
submitted by motion of Commissioner Rice, seconded by Commissioner Kelly.
Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards
Motion carried.
There being no further business on the,HRA Agenda, motion of Commissioner Kelly
was seconded by Commissioner Rice for adjournment. Motion carried unanimously.,
Executive Director
A.
REQUEST FOR PURCHASE
V� .aye
TO:
HRA
FROM:
GORDON L. HUGHES, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
VIA:
Kenneth Rosland City Manager
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF
$5,000
DATE:
JULY 2, 1990
AGENDA
ITEM HRA II.
ITEM DESCRIPTION: PROJECT SIGNAGE - CENTENNIAL LAKES
Company
Amount of Quote or &d
1.
LEROY SIGNS
1.
: $ 8,215.00
2.
NORDQUIST SIGNS
2.
10,300.00
3.
CRAGG SIGNS
3.
15,553.00
4.
4.
5.
5.
RECOMMENDED QUOTE OR BID:
LeRoy Signs - $ 8,215.00
GENERAL INFORMATION:
The subject bids are for the fabrication and installation of
project identification signs for Centennial Lakes Park.
Signature
The Recommended bid is
Depart _ t
within budget not within
Kenneth Rosland, City Manager
Director
MINUTES
OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HALL
MAY 7, 1990
ROLLCALL Answering rollcall were Members Paulus, Rice, Smith and Mayor Pro -Tem
Kelly.
EDINA BICYCLE SAFETY MONTH Mayor Pro-Tem. Kelly presented the following
proclamation which was unanimously adopted:
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, safety of children is a major concern of the City of Edina; and
WHEREAS, children are especially vulnerable while riding bicycles in conjunction
with vehicular traffic; and
WHEREAS, education of children through school presentations can reduce bicycle
accidents; and
WHEREAS, education enforcement of bicycle rider errors can reduce bicycle
accidents; and
WHEREAS, the Edina Citizens' Safety Council has been the leader for twenty years
with programs to reduce bicycle accidents;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Peggy Kelly, Mayor Pro -Tem of the City of Edina', do hereby
proclaim the month of May as
EDINA BICYCLE SAFETY MONTH
and that the efforts of the community be directed to encourage the safety of
children in the month of May and throughout the year while involved in bicycling.
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS ADOPTED Motion was made by Member Smith and was seconded by
Member Rice to approve and adopt the consent agenda items as presented with the
exception of the removal of items V.A - Ordinance No. 613, V.B - Ordinance No.
803 -A4, V.0 - Ordinance No. 162 -A2, VII.B - Electric Golf Cars, VII.0 - Ice
Resurfacing Machine and VII.D - Goose Control Contract.
Rollcall:
Ayes: Paulus, Rice, Smith, Kelly
Motion carried.
*APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion was made by Member Smith and was seconded by Member
Rice to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of April 2, 1990.
Motion carried on rollcall vote, four ayes.
PUBLIC HEARING CONDUCTED ON SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT NO. S -47 (WEST 42ND STREET FROM
FRANCE AVENUE TO WEST CITY LIMITS: PETITION TO CONSTRUCT DENIED: TRAFFIC SAFETY
ISSUE REFERRED TO TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMITTEE Affidavits of Notice were presented,
approved and ordered placed on file.
Presentation by Engineer - Engineer Hoffman said that the public hearing on
Sidewalk Improvement No. S -47 was the result of a petition received from area
residents for construction of a sidewalk on West 42nd Street from the west City
limits to France Avenue. Reasons for the sidewalk were: 1) access to park, 2) MTC
bus stop on France, 3) school bus stops along West 42nd Street, and 4) busier
street than others (1,000 vehicles per day versus 500 or less on side streets.)
The Comprehensive Plan's policy on
sidewalks that improve and connect
to transit and recreation areas.
some of the side streets that dead
petition submitted for sidewalk is
Comprehensive Plan.
sidewalks includes: 1) Provide short link
the existing system, and 2) Provide sidewalks
In this case, there are existing sidewalks on
end at West 42nd Street. Staff felt that the
consistent with the goals and objectives of the
Notices of the public hearing on the proposed improvement were mailed to property
owners within an area generally bounded by the west City limits extended to
Morningside Road, on the south by Morningside Road, on the east by Scott Terrace
and the north City limits, identified as Area 1 for assessment purposes. Area 1
J
is the largest suggested proposed assessment area and includes all petitioners for
this project. The second proposed assessment area is bounded on the north by West
41st Street and on the south by Littel Street, identified as Area 2. Area 2 does
not include all the petitioners but would be more consistent with the potential
assessment district for this project.
Petition results following mailing of the public hearing notice:
Area 2 (170 lots) Outside of Area 2 (218 lots)
For 49 For 15
Against 63 Against 155
No response 58 No response 48
Within Area 2 more residents are interested in the sidewalk west of Grimes Avenue
than east of Grimes.
The sidewalk is proposed to be five feet wide and constructed of concrete. The
alignment will be varied to protect existing property features to the greatest
extent possible. The proposed project would be constructed in 1990.
The proposed project would be to place sidewalk on the south side of West 42nd
Street from the west City limits to Grimes Avenue because existing side street
sidewalks would tie -in the proposed walkway. The proposed sidewalk location from
Grimes to France on West 42nd would be'the north side due to ease of construction
on the north versus south side. The cross over point at Grimes and West 42nd
Street would be considered safe since a 4 -way STOP sign exists there.
The proposed project cost is estimated at $95,278.86 which would result in an
estimated assessment of $245.56 for each lot in Area 1 or if Area 2 is used, an
estimated assessment of $560.46 per lot. Residents in the area asked what
improvements they paid for in 1980. In 1978, 1979 and 1980 all the streets in the
Morningside area were rebuilt which included new storm sewer and watermain where
needed, sanitary sewer repair, new curb and gutter and new sidewalks. All the
construction costs were included in the project in total. At that time, residents
were asked if they wanted more sidewalks. The general consensus was not to
construct additional sidewalks but to replace existing sidewalks. The City
contributed $300,000 from the general fund for the project according to a-previous
policy for reconstruction. The net effect was that all property owners were
assessed at $29.40 per assessable lineal foot, with or without sidewalk.
Actions to be considered by the Council include: 1) Approve project as proposed,
2) Approve portion of project (west portion to access Weber Park), or 3) Reject
project due to lack of neighborhood support.
Public Comments
Speaking in opposition to the proposed Sidewalk Improvement No. S -47 were:
Mr. /Mrs. Peter Johnson, 4309 West 42nd Street; Sherry and Bruce Douglas, 3915 West
42nd Street; Susan Bidwell, 3912 West 42nd Street; Tim Damberger, 4004 Grimes
Avenue; Jim Robertson, 4224 West 42nd Street; Phillip Nelson, 3908 West 42nd
Street; John Peterson, 4239 Grimes Avenue; Robert Fletcher, 4301 West 42nd Street,
Clara Kiel, 4236 West 42nd Street; Helen Stafford, 4226 Grimes Avenue; Leroy
Wesley, 4211 Oakdale Avenue; Ronald Hale, 4228 Scott Terrace; Steve Goodwell, 3912
West 42nd Street; Alice Rose, 4011 Kipling Avenue; Nancy Keith, 4109 West 42nd
Street; Don Notvig, 4200 West 42nd Street; James Stones, 4000 West 42nd Street;
and Joe Chisler, 4219 Grimes Avenue.
Reasons stated for objection included loss of open space, cost of assessment,
increased taxes, burden of snow shoveling and maintenance, added liability
insurance costs, would draw children to front yards, previous assessment for
Morningside project in 1980, alternatives to address safety issues, loss of trees,
and would change character of area.
Speaking in support of the Sidewalk Improvement No. S -47 were: Ellen Guerin, 4406
West 42nd Street; Robert Lunieski, 4109 Monterey Avenue; William Obert, 4223 Lynn
Avenue; Fred Green, 4404 West 42nd Street; Mary Rogers, 4215 West 42nd Street; Pat
Corchran, 4109 Monterey Avenue; Brad Venius, 4407 West 42nd Street; Al Carufel,
4324 West 42nd Street; Mary Morrison, 4408 West 42nd Street; and Dave Lynch, 4504
West 42nd Street.
The major reasons cited in support was traffic safety for the children living and
playing in the area, and their ability to access Weber Park. Other reasons given
were access for adults to France Avenue bus stop, would increase feeling of
neighborhood, would increase property values, and increased traffic volumes on
West 42nd Street.
In response to a question from the audience as to who would be liable for any
accidents on the sidewalk, Attorney Erickson stated that City ordinances impose
the obligation on the property owner to keep the sidewalk free of debris and
snow /ice. If they fail to do so they could be liable for any resulting injuries,
in particular if the property owner made the condition worse than it was in the
first place.
Council Comments
Mayor Pro -Tem Kelly mentioned that the Council packet included copies of all
petitions and correspondence that had been received prior to the public hearing
concerning the proposed improvement. Receipt was acknowledged of additional
correspondence in opposition: Peter Johnson, 4309 West 42nd Street, and Lynette
Anderson, 4305 West 42nd Street.
Member Rice - The original petition failed to clearly state who would pay for the
the cost of constructing the sidewalk. If that information had been included
there likely would have been a different result. Although supportive of
sidewalks, it is questionable how those residents not living on West 42nd Street
would benefit, especially those on streets without existing sidewalks. As to the
issue of safety, good points have been made on both sides. If there was a
contiguous sidewalk system in the Morningside area it would contribute to safety.
Sidewalks do not resolve safety issues such as cars which do not stop for STOP
signs. The traffic safety issues could reviewed by the Traffic Safety Committee.
If the sidewalk is to be constructed the people who directly benefit should pay
for the cost, but there does not appear to be a strong majority in favor of that.
As presented, Member Rice said he would not be in favor of the project.
Member Paulus - The general welfare of all of Edina must be considered, not only
homeowners of long standing in the community but those of the future. Life styles
and the speed at which we live has changed greatly over the last 40 years. The
amount of time when parents are home to supervise children has changed markedly.
Whether that is the responsibility of the individual parent or the community can
be debated. Weber Park cannot be designated just as a Morningside park as it
draws from residents outside that area. Member Paulus said of particular concern
was the division that this proposal has brought to the neighborhood and the "how
it will affect me" orientation rather than the community as a whole. The cost
factor seems to be the underlying theme, but with an aging community costs will
come around again. Property values will not be detracted by adding sidewalk to
the neighborhood. To feel that any part of Edina is still a rural suburb is a
misconception - Edina is an inner city suburb to the urban area of Minneapolis.
Past history relating to children who have grown up in the neighborhood without
the benefit of sidewalk does not make the judgement call for today. For those
reasons, Member Paulus said that for the welfare of Edina she would support the
sidewalk project.
Member Paulus made a motion to approve Sidewalk Improvement No. S -47 on West 42nd
Street from France Avenue to the west City Limits and that the costs of the
improvement be assessed against those property owners within Area 2 (the smaller
proposed assessment area.) Motion failed for lack of a second.
Member Smith made a motion to deny the petition for Sidewalk Improvement No. 5 -47
on West 42nd Street from France Avenue to the west City Limits and to refer the
issues of traffic safety that have been raised by the residents to the Traffic
Safety Committee for study. Motion was seconded by Member Rice.
Member Smith commented that he had not heard enough arguments in support of the
sidewalk project to support the project. However, he said he, too, was
disappointed by the divisive attitude of.the audience on this sidewalk issue.
Mayor Pro -Tem Kelly said she could support the project if there was a continuous
sidewalk system in the area. In this case, the proposed project would not connect
to such a system and would not satisfy the safety concerns as she saw them. Mayor
Pro -Tem Kelly then called for vote on the motion.
Rollcall:
Ayes: Rice, Smith, Kelly
Nays: Paulus
Motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING ON BITUMINOUS STREET SURFACING, CONCRETE CURB /GUTTER, STORM SEWER
AND STREET LIGHTING IMPROVEMENT NO. BA -291 CONTINUED TO 5/21/90 Member Rice made
a motion to continue the public hearing on Bituminous Street Surfacing, Concrete
Curb and Gutter, Storm Sewer and Street Lighting Improvement No. BA -281 to May 21,
1990. Motion was seconded by Member Smith.
Ayes: Paulus, Rice, Smith, Kelly
Motion carried.
*PRELIMINARY REZONING APPROVAL TO PCD -2 PLANNED COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (WALGREEN'S BY
SEMPER HOLDINGS) FOR 4916 FRANCE AVENUE CONTINUED TO 5/21/90 Motion was made by
Member Smith and was seconded by Member Rice to continue the public hearing on
Preliminary Rezoning Approval to PCD -2 Planned Commercial District for 4916 France
Avenue So., requested by Semper Holdings for Walgreen's, to the meeting of May 21,
1990.
Motion carried on rollcall vote, four ayes.
DRAFT ORDINANCE FOR COMMERCIAL PARKING LOTS DISCUSSED Planner Larsen presented a
first draft of a parking lot licensing ordinance for discussion as requested by
the Council. The ordinance would require a license for lots which restrict access
for whatever reason. As defined "Restricted Access Parking Lot" would mean a
parking lot which by mechanical.or other means (charging fees) controls access to
a privately owned parking lot. Those two means may have an impact on the public
street system and therefore licensing and reviewing plans for a restricted access
parking lot would be a legitimate function of the City. The ordinance would not
prohibit pay parking lots but would require them to be licensed and to meet the
standards as set out in the ordinance.
Planner Larsen reviewed the key requirements of the ordinance as follows:
1) Formal application process including application fee.
2) Yearly operating fee for a restricted access lot.
3) Review of application by Director of Public Works.
4) Requirement for liability insurance.
5) Inspections authorized and revocation of license if ordinance violations
are found.
6) Signage, landscaping and other performance requirements.
The ordinance closely follows the City of Minneapolis licensing ordinance. If the
Council wishes to proceed to adoption of a licensing ordinance, staff would
suggest that it be referred to staff and the City Attorney for further review and
refinement.
Member Smith asked how many lots the proposed ordinance would affect and also how
the license fee was determined. Planner Larsen replied that to his knowledge two
parking lots would fall under the ordinance provisions. As to the original
license fee of $500.00, that is staff's best estimate of the cost of reviewing a
parking lot plan. Member Smith said he would like to make it a requirement of the
ordinance that there be a clear, safe unrestricted access available for dropping
off /picking up of people.
Following discussion on some of the terminology in the draft ordinance, it was
generally agreed that staff was on the right track as to the key components of the
draft ordinance and that it be customized to the City of Edina.
Member Paulus made a motion that the draft ordinance for licensing of restricted
access parking lots be referred to the City Attorney and staff for review and
refinement and that it be brought back for consideration by the Council at the
June 6, 1990 meeting. Motion was seconded by Member Rice.
Don Sederhold, President of AARP Richfield, spoke in opposition to the paid
parking lot at the Southdale Medical Building and Fairview Southdale Hospital and
suggested that the license fee be greater.
Mayor Pro -Tem then called the vote on the motion.
Ayes: Paulus, Rice, Smith, Kelly
Motion carried.
LOT DIVISION APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS FOR LOTS 11, 12 AND 13, BLOCK 14, COUNTRY
CLUB FAIRWAY ADDITION Planner Larsen presented the request for division of lots
11, 12 and 13, Block 14, Country Club Fairway Addition. The subject property is
currently comprised of three 50' x 135' platted lots located on Country Club Road
just west of Bruce Avenue. The single family home known as 4209 Country Club Road
is built on the most westerly lot (Lot 13) and a portion of the middle lot (Lot
12). The remaining portion of Lot 12 is occupied by the driveway to a tuck -under
garage. The easterly lot (Lot 11) is occupied by an old tennis court.
On March 15, 1990, the proponent sought lot width and lot area variances from the
Board of Appeals and Adjustments in order to build a new home in place of the
tennis court on Lot 11. The Board reviewed the request and heard testimony from
neighbors who objected to the 50 foot lot. The Board felt that a home on a
50 -foot lot was not desirable and suggested that the proponent seek ways of
increasing the width and area of the lot and solve some of the problems with the
existing house.
The proponent has now returned and proposes that the easterly 20 feet of Lot 12 be
combined with Lot 11. The result would be a 70' x 136' parcel with an area of
9,400 square feet for the construction of the new dwelling. The remaining parcel
on which the existing home would remain would include the westerly 30' of Lot 12
and all of Lot 13. The parcel will measure 80' x 135' with an area of 10,800
square feet.
Planner Larsen pointed out that along Country Club Road between Wooddale and Bruce
five other homes face Country Club Road besides the parcels in question. The
widths of these lots are as follows: 100', 70', 80', 100' and 97'. The lots north
of the subject property on Drexel and Casco are 50' and 60' wide lots.
The Community Development and Planning Commission heard the proposal at its
meeting of May 2, 1990 and recommended approval subject to the conditions: 1) That
the existing two -car, tuck -under garage and driveway for the existing dwelling be
eliminated and that a new detached two -car garage be constructed in the rear of
the lot with a separate driveway, and 2) That a 5 -foot lot width variance be
granted for the new lot and that it be developed with a separate two -car, garage
and separate driveway. Planner Larsen emphasized that if the Council approved the
proposed lot division it would be referring it back to the Board of Appeals for
action on the variance request.
Member Paulus asked, if the Council were to grant the lot division as proposed,
how would the City be assured that the tuck -under garage and driveway for the
existing dwelling would be filled in. Planner Larsen explained that the proposal
would still have to go before the Board of Appeals and the Board, presumably,
would make that a condition to granting of the variance. Attorney Erickson
advised that'the City could impose a condition to the variance and if they failed
to comply with that condition the City could revoke the variance or proceed to
enforce it by court order.
Member Rice asked, if the existing house were to burn down, could three houses be
built on the three platted lots. Planner Larsen responded that, even though the
lots are owned together, the lots must meet the ordinance requirements for lot
width. In this case the lot widths are 50' each and would not meet ordinance
standards. Member Rice also asked why the City would require a new garage to be
built to the rear of the existing house. Planner Larsen said the City requires a
two -car in the single family district. Presumably, the lot division to develop
the easterly lot would make the existing tuck -under garage unusable because of the
turn radius required.
Member Smith said he was bothered by the fact that the new lot would not meet the
minimum lot width requirement and for that reason could not support the proposal.
Bruce Aamoth, 4203 Country Club Road, said he was pleased with the process since
the original proposal was heard by the Board of Appeals and would be in favor of
the lot division provided that there is good drainage from the new,lot.
Paul Curran, proponent, explained that the reason why the fill -in of the existing
garage and driveway is important is that the driveway radius would swing so wide
into the proposed new 70' lot that the garage would 'be inaccessible. As far as
filling in the existing garage beforehand, Mr. Curran said two things would take
place: 1) In the purchase agreement they would agree to erect the detached garage
and driveway as part of the condition for purchase of the property, and 2) The
earth from the construction of the new home would be needed to fill in the
existing garage and driveway so that it could not be done ahead of time. Member
Paulus commented that if the Council approved the lot division, she wanted it
known that the tuck -under garage and driveway for the existing dwelling would be
filled in so that the City would not have to spend taxpayers'.dollars to make it
happen.
Jack Curtis, 4400 West 50th Street, spoke to the proposal he had made to the Board
of Appeals. The design of the existing Vennum home with its under -the -house
garage and driveway access is an eyesore and problem for anyone attempting to use
it. He said he would like to see a house constructed on the existing tennis court
as in the past it became a "public course ". The issue could be resolved if the
underground garage were walled in and the driveway filled with the construction
fill from the new homesite. Mr. Curtis said he would like to see the garage for
the new home placed on the Vennum side adjacent to the new garage on the Vennum
lot. This would improve the view from his home which is the historical Baird
House.
Art Bartels, architect for the proponent, responded to Member Smith's concern that
the proposed lot division which would result in lots of 80' for the existing home
and 70' for the new lot versus two 75' lots as legally required. Following the
Board of Appeals meeting, they looked at trying to get near the 75'/75' split.but
that raised some concerns as to the positioning of the existing house. As pointed
out by staff, the proposed 70' new lot would have to go back for review to the
Board of Appeals concerning the variance and also the Heritage Preservation Board
which was seen as a positive action. Mr. Bartels displayed boards showing the
elevations of the existing and proposed new home on Country Club Road and how the
new home would be sited in relation to existing homes. Materials would be brick
and other materials fitting the neighborhood.
Member Paulus said she was somewhat concerned that, by approving the lot division
and granting the lot width variance, the City would be creating a precedent in the
Country Club Area and also other areas in Edina. Planner Larsen said staff
approaches variances on a case by case basis and does not consider that a single
variance in a micro -area will set a precedent for a larger area. In this case,
because of the variance staff will recommend to the Board of Appeals that the
proposal be reviewed by the Heritage Preservation Board which would not be the
case if both lots met the 75' lot width requirement.
Member Smith asked whether it would be possible to create two 75' lots. Planner
Larsen said that may be possible but this approach offers the City better control
over what will be built, ultimately will give a better product and will not create
a negative precedent. Member Smith asked who was notified about the variance.
Planner Larsen explained that for variances property owners within 200 feet are
notified. As a courtesy, the same property owners were notified that the Council
would be considering the lot division at this meeting. If approved by the
Council, the same property owners will be notified for the variance hearing by the
Board of Appeals. Member Smith said that after listening to the discussion he
could support the proposal.
Member Smith then introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption,
subject to: 1) Granting of the lot width variance by the Board of Appeals and if
appealed, by the City Council, and 2) The recommendation that the Board of Appeals
impose as a condition to the granting of the lot width variance that the existing
driveway be removed and a new two car garage be constructed to the rear of the
house at 4209 Country Club Road before a building permit is issued for the new
house on the easterly lot:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the following described property is at present a single tract of land:
Lots 11, 12 and 13, Block 14, COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT FAIRWAY SECTION, and
WHEREAS, the owner has requested the subdivision of said tract into separate
parcels (herein called "Parcels ") described as follows:
Tract A: Lot 13, and that part of Lot 12 lying westerly of the east 20.00
feet of said Lot 12, all in Block 14, COUNTRY CLUB FAIRWAY SECTION, according
to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota
and
Tract B: Lot 11, and that part of Lot 12 lying easterly of the east 20.00
feet of said Lot 12, all in Block 14, COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT FAIRWAY SECTION,
according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota; 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 Ordinance
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.
Member Rice said he would second the motion because there are enough positives in
the proposal from the standpoint of character and symmetry of the neighborhood and
the materials for the new house as opposed to what might happen there but that he
did not want the conditions for approval to be onerous.
Member Paulus asked if the City could issue a two -stage building permit, i.e. to
allow fill in of the tuck- under,garage and driveway before the construction on the
new house begins. Attorney Erickson said grading and site preparation could be
done before the building permit is issued. The variance statute talks in terms of
imposing conditions to insure compliance. That language seems to be broad enough
to encompass any reasonable condition the City may wish to impose to end up with
the plan that has been proposed before the Council.
Mayor Pro -Tem Kelly then called for vote on the motion for adoption of the
resolution.
Rollcall:
Ayes: Paulus, Rice, Smith, Kelly
Resolution adopted.
REPORT GIVEN ON MASSING ISSUE Planner Larsen recalled that the subject of
"massing" has been reviewed and discussed by the Council previously in connection
with the following two issues:
1) Proposed revision of setback regulations in the Fall of 1989. The focus
of the discussion was on new construction. The Minneapolis Builders Association
and local contractors provided comment on the proposal and its effects. No action
was taken.
2) In January of 1990, residents in the vicinity of a particular addition in
the Country Club District sought review of the addition's compliance with
regulations. The addition was found to be in compliance with City regulations and
policy.
Since that time, the staff was directed to review and monitor the massing issue.
Planner Larsen reviewed the following components as set out in his report dated
May 7, 1990: 1) Massing definition, 2) Existing method of regulation, 3) Massing
related resident concerns, 4) Country Club District construction activity
1980 -1988, and 5) Massing related action options.
Mayor Pro -Tem Kelly commented that the historical data presented in the report
specifically applied to the Country Club area. Any restrictive regulations the
City might consider adopting should apply to the City overall. Further, that the
report would not help her to form policy without more information from a planning
viewpoint. She said her interpretation of massing is covering up of green space,
specifically, where multi - family units are constructed adjacent to single family
areas.
Manager Rosland said that the intent of the report was to provide background
information to promote discussion by the Council on the massing subject. Staff is
looking for direction from the Council as to whether it wishes -to maintain the
existing regulations /policies or wants a lesser amount of building on lots.
Member Smith said that, in the case of the particular addition in the Country Club
District debated earlier this year, he felt there was some artificial
interpretation of the ordinance with which he did not agree. When huge houses go
up that are out of character with the neighborhood, that becomes an issue. He
said he has heard comments that the community does seem to be getting denser and
the development proposals that have been coming in are dense looking.
Member Paulus commented that density and massiveness are the problem. As an
example, the Clark development at 70th and Cahill under the density law is low,
but under the massing law is high. She said she would need help from legal
counsel and the Planning Department whether we can legally adopt an ordinance to
control massiveness. To rely on past history will not help because what is
happening with the future of Edina is totally different than the past.
Member Rice said there used to be several things in the community that served to
control massing, e.g. concern for neighbors, taste, monetary restraints. All of
those seem to be lacking now. Residents are building to the limit and then asking
for variances to build more. He said he would like staff to research whether any
city has a cubic foot ordinance whereby there would be some ratio as to cubic
footage allowed on a lot.
Nancy Horn, 4511 Browndale Avenue, stated that in the Country Club District it
started about two years ago and now one house after the other on small lots is
doubling in size. She mentioned that Lake Forest, Illinois had a similar issue
come before their Council and offered to find out how they handled the problem.
Jack Burbidge, 4518 Casco Lane, said he was concerned about the number of large
additions being added to the already large homes on small lots in the Country Club
District that change the appearance and character of the neighborhood. Another
concern is the renovators who come in and buy a house, build a huge addition on it
with no stake in the neighborhood themselves, and then sell it for a quick profit.
He said some additional controls are needed. He suggested. the Council immediately
direct the Planning Department to be conservative in interpreting the existing
ordinances. If there is a questionable case then the variance procedure should be
applied. In that way the concerns of the neighbors can be discussed openly and
the people for whose protection the setback, size and footprint requirements are
designed will be safeguarded..
Manager Rosland mentioned that some cities have architectural review boards,
however, past Councils have not wanted to get into that. If the Council wishes
staff can be more conservative in interpreting the ordinances. Staff will look at
cubic foot_ restrictions, review the Forest Lake ordinance and bring back
additional information to address the massing issue. He said his interpretation
of the Council's comments was that they wish to be more restrictive.
Member Paulus said that some of the other things to consider in looking at the
issue are solid walls constructed towards homes, roof lines, how it overlooks
private areas, etc. Another concern is the lack of control over what is
constructed in a historic neighborhood such as the Country Club District as well
as quality of materials that are used.
Member Rice added that after what has been discussed staff should have a better
idea of direction and he would like to see them come back with what are possible
tools the Council could use if they wish to address these concerns.
Member Kelly observed that she felt it important to get comment from various
neighborhood groups at some point in the process. Member Paulus suggested that
such input be obtained in a�-workshop setting.
Member Smith said creation of an architectural review board should be far down on
the list of proposals of what the City could consider as it would create other
problems.
Following the discussion it was the consensus of the Council to direct staff to
tighten the interpretation of existing ordinance requirements and to keep the
Council advised on the progress of a draft ordinance relating to massing.
*HEARING DATE OF 5121190 SET FOR PLANNING MATTERS Motion was made by Member Smith
and was seconded by Member Rice setting May 21, 1990 as hearing date for the
following Planning matters:
1) Preliminary Plat Approval - Subdivision of Lot 5, Block 1, Muir Woods
2) Final Rezoning Approval - Highcroft Townhomes, Ron Clark Construction - Cahill
Road and West 70th Street.
Motion carried on rollcall vote, four ayes.
ORDINANCE NO. 613 (UPDATING FIRE CODE) ADOPTED: SECOND READING WAIVED Member Rice
said he asked that Ordinance No. 613 be removed from the consent agenda because he
questioned if the City's Fire Code must meet the provisions of the State Fire
Code. Chief Paulfranz responded that Minnesota Statute requires that local fire
codes must meet the minimum provisions of the State Uniform Fire Code (UFC). By
adopting the proposed Ordinance No. 613 the City would be adopting the 1988 UFC;
currently the City is enforcing the 1982 UFC.
Member Rice also asked how this would affect the City's ordinance on barbecues.
Chief Paulfranz said we would be adopting the state requirements regarding
barbecues, that we can be more restrictive than the UFC but not less restrictive.
The City's current ordinance on barbecues prohibits the use of barbecues on ,
balconies in multiple dwellings except those of all masonry construction. Under
the new ordinance use of open flame barbecues on balconies would be prohibited in
multiple dwellings of three units or more regardless of type of construction.
Member Rice made a motion to adopt Ordinance No. 613 as follows, with waiver of
Second Reading:
ORDINANCE NO. 613
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE MINNESOTA UNIFORM FIRE CODE
AND THE NATIONAL FIRE CODE BY REFERENCE, ESTABLISHING
A BUREAU OF FIRE PREVENTION, REQUIRING PERMITS,
AUTHORIZING ESTABLISHMENT OF FIRE LANES, IMPOSING A
PENALTY AND REPEALING ORDINANCE NOS. 612, 621 AND 631
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
Section 1. Adoption of Codes and Standards. There is adopted and
incorporated herein by reference as an ordinance of the City:
(a) The Minnesota Uniform Fire Code promulgated by the Department of Public
Safety of the State of Minnesota, published in the State Register on
May 22, 1989, and adopted as published in the State Register on
September 25, 1989, (which Code is hereinafter referred to as the
"MUFC ") with the changes and omissions hereinafter set forth;
(b) The 1988 Edition of the Uniform Fire Code, as published by the
International Conference of Building Officials and the Western Fire
Chiefs Association (hereinafter referred to as "UFC "), with the changes
and omissions hereinafter set forth.
Section 2. Codes and Ordinance on File. One copy of each of the following
codes, with the changes and omissions hereinafter set forth, each marked "Official
Copy ", shall be filed in the office of the Clerk prior to publication of this
ordinance and shall remain on file and available for use and examination by the
public:
(a) MUFC;
(b) UFC.
The Clerk shall furnish copies of said codes or standards at cost to any person
upon request. Also, additional copies of this ordinance shall be kept in the
office of the fire department for distribution to the public.
Section 3. Definitions.
(a) Wherever the term "jurisdiction" is used in the MUFC, it shall mean
the City of Edina.
(b) Wherever the term "chief" is used in the MUFC, it shall mean the Chief
of the Edina Fire Department or his authorized representative.
Section 4. Establishment of the Bureau of Fire Prevention.
(a) The Bureau of Fire Prevention is hereby established in the Fire
Department of the City. It shall be operated under the supervision of
the Chief of the Fire Department. The members of the Bureau of Fire
Prevention shall be the Chief of the Fire Department, an Assistant Chief
of the Fire Department and all Inspectors of the Fire Department. The
Chief of the Fire Department from time to time may appoint Inspectors of
the Fire Department.
(b) A report of the Bureau of Fire Prevention shall be made annually and
transmitted to the Manager. It shall contain all proceedings under this
ordinance with such statistics as the Chief of the Fire Department may
wish to include therein; the Chief of the Fire Department shall also
recommend any amendments to this ordinance which in his judgment shall
be desirable.
Section 5.. Enforcement: Appeals. The provisions of this ordinance shall be
enforced by the Building Official and the Bureau of Fire Prevention in accordance
with Section 3 through 10, inclusive, of Ordinance No. 471. Appeals from any
order made by the Building Official or the Bureau of Fire Prevention shall be made
in accordance with Sections 3 through 10, inclusive, of Ordinance No. 471.
Section 6. Permit Fee. The fee for each permit required by this ordinance
and for each annual renewal.thereof shall be established by Ordinance No. 171.
All permits unless otherwise noted shall expire one year from the date of
issuance.
Section 7. Orders Establishing Fire Lanes.
(a) The Bureau of Fire Prevention is hereby authorized to order the
establishment of fire lanes on public or private property as may be
necessary to comply with the MUFC and in order that the travel of fire
equipment may not be interfered with and that access to fire hydrants or
buildings may not be obstructed.
(b) Fire lanes in existence prior to the effective date of this ordinance
shall be permitted to remain using their present signs so long as such
signs are maintained in good repair and condition. The first and last
sign shall mark the limits of the fire lane. If the Bureau of Fire
Prevention determines that such signs are not maintained as herein
required, it may require signing as provided in paragraph c) of this
Section.
(c) Fire lanes established or existing fire lanes changed following the
effective date of this ordinance shall be marked by signs, not more than
50 feet apart, bearing the words, "NO PARKING, FIRE LANE, BY ORDER OF
FIRE CHIEF ", with the first and last sign marking the limits of the fire
lane. The signs shall have red letters and a red border on a white
background, shall be 12 inches by 18 inches in size, and shall otherwise
comply with the standards from time to time established by the Chief for
such signs.
d) When the fire lane is on public property or public right -of -way, the sign
or signs shall be erected and maintained by the City, and when on
private property, they shall be erected by the owner at his expense
within 30 days after he has been notified of the order and thereafter
shall be maintained by the owner at his expense. After such signs are
erected, no person shall park a vehicle on or otherwise occupy or
obstruct the fire lane.
(e) Whenever any member of the Bureau of Fire Prevention of a Police Officer
finds a vehicle unattended and obstructing a fire lane, such member of
the Bureau of Fire Prevention or Police Officer is hereby authorized to
provide for removal of such vehicle to the nearest convenient garage or
other place of safety outside the limits of the fire lane, at the
expense of the owner.
(f) Violations of this section are exempted from the provisions of Section 8
of this ordinance and instead shall be governed and enforced by
Ordinance No. 175.
Section 8. Violation. No person shall be convicted of violating this
ordinance unless he or she shall have been given notice of the violation in
writing and a,reasonable time to comply.
Section 9. Penalty. Any person violating any provision of this ordinance or
of any order made pursuant hereto shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to
penalties pursuant to Ordinance No. 175:
Section 10. Amendments to the MUFC and UFC.
(a) Article 4 "Permits ", of UFC is included in its entirety with the
following changes:
(1) Section 4.108,1.1 of UFC is amended to read as follows: "Where a
single container or the aggregate of interconnected containers is
500 or more gallons water capacity, the installer shall obtain a
permit and plan approval from the Chief."
(b) Article 10, "Fire Protection" of UFC as adopted by MUFC is amended as
follows:
(1) Section 10.301 of UFC as adopted by MUFC is amended by adding
thereto a new subsection (g), reading as follows: "(g) Permits
for installation of fire protection systems shall be secured as
provided for in City Ordinance No. 645, and fees established as
provided for in City Ordinance No. 171."
(c) Article 11, "General Precautions Against Fire" of OFd as adopted by MUFC
is amended as follows:
(1) Section 11.117(a) of UFC as adopted by MUFC is amended by deleting
the phrase "when required by the Chief ".
Section 11. Interpretation. In the event of a conflict between the
provisions of the MUFC, UFC, and the Minnesota State Building Code, as adopted by
the ordinances of the City of Edina, the provisions of this ordinance, the most
stringent provision shall apply.
Section 12. Repealer. Ordinances 612, 621 and 631 are repealed in their
entirety.
Section 13. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect immediately
upon its passage and publication.
ATTEST:
Mayor
City Clerk
Motion for adoption of the ordinance was seconded by Member Smith.
Rollcall:
Ayes: Paulus, Rice, Smith, Kelly
Ordinance adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 803 -A4 (DELETING LIMITATION OF SERVICE BY PLANNING COMMISSION
MEMBERS) ADOPTED: SECOND READING WAIVED _Member Rice said he had asked this
ordinance to be removed from the consent agenda because he felt the prior action
taken by the Council concerning boards and commissions dealt with the issue.
Attorney Erickson explained that this is a "housekeeping" amendment to delete the
limitation on service of Commission members to be consistent with the prior action
of the Council on this subject. Also, the "automatic termination provisions"
could present difficulties, e.g. a member who may have been "automatically"
terminated by virtue of the ordinance language may yet appear at a Commission
meeting and vote on a controversial matter. Parties opposing the action could
then take the position that the vote of that member was improperly cast and the
Commission action was void.
Member Rice moved adoption of Ordinance No. 803 -A4 as follows, with waiver of
Second Reading:
ORDINANCE NO. 803 -A4
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 803
TO DELETE LINITATION ON SERVICE BY COMMISSION MEMBERS,
TO CORRECT ORDINANCE REFERENCES, AND TO ALLOW COUNCIL TO REPLACE
ANY COMMISSION MEMBER NOT HAVING A LEGAL RESIDENCE IN THE CITY
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
Section 1. .Section 2 of Ordinance No. 803 is hereby amended to delete
therefrom the following sentence:
"However, no Commission members shall be reappointed to the Commission
if he or she has served on the Community Development and Planning
Commission for a cumulative period of twelve or more years (whether or
not consecutive)."
Sec. 2. References in Ordinance No. 803 to other ordinances of the City are
hereby amended and corrected as follows:
a. References to "Platting Ordinance (No. 801)" are changed to "Platting
Ordinance (No. 804) ";
b. References to "Zoning Ordinance (No. 811)" are changed to "Zoning
Ordinance (No. 825) ";
c. Reference in the heading of Ordinance No. 803 to Ordinance No. 801 is
corrected to No. 802; and
d. Reference to the "Flood Plain Management Ordinance (No. 815)" is changed
to the "Flood Plain Overlay District (Sect. 21 of Ordinance No. 825) ".
Sec. 3. The neat to the last sentence of Section 2 of Ordinance No. 803 is
hereby amended to read as follows:
"Commission members who discontinue legal residence in the City may be
removed from office by the Mayor with the consent of a majority of members
of the Council."
Sec. 4. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage
and publication.
ATTEST: Mayor
City Clerk
Motion for adoption of the ordinance was seconded by Member Paulus.
Rollcall:
Ayes: Paulus, Rice, Smith, Kelly
Ordinance adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 1620A2 (REMOVAL OF BOARD AND COMMISSION MEMBERS) ADOPTED; SECOND
READING WAIVED Attorney Erickson explained that he had proposed 'the ordinance
amendment to change an automatic removal from office to a permissive removal of
board and commission members who fail to attend three consecutive meetings or four
meetings in 12 months. The concern is that an automatic removal may result in
someone being removed from office "automatically" but who thereafter may continue
to attend and vote which would then give rise to questions about the propriety of
the meeting and validity of the vote.
Member Rice made a motion to adopt Ordinance No. 162 -A2 as follows, with waiver of
Second Reading:
ORDINANCE NO. 162 -A2
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 162
TO PROVIDE THAT FAILURE TO ATTEND REGULAR OR SPECIAL
MEETINGS OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS MAY RESULT IN REMOVAL FROM OFFICE
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
Section 1. Section 2 of Ordinance No. 162 is hereby amended to read as
follows:
"Sec. 2. Removal. Any public member of either the Edina Park Board,
Edina Human Relations Commission, Edina Environmental Quality Commission,
Teen Recreation Board, Building Construction Appeals Board, Board of
Appeals and Adjustment, the Planning Commission, or any other board
or commission hereafter created or approved by the City Council, who
fails to attend three (3) consecutive meetings thereof, whether regular
or special, or who fails to attend any four (4) meetings, whether
regular or special, in the span of twelve consecutive months, may be
removed from office by the Mayor with the consent of a majority of
the members of the Council."
Sec. 2. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect immediately on its
passage and publication.
ATTEST: Mayor
City Clerk
Motion for adoption of the ordinance was seconded by Member Paulus.
Rollcall:
Ayes: Paulus, Rice, Smith, Kelly
Ordinance adopted.
CONCERNS OF RESIDENTS HEARD Trapping of Beavers in Nine Mile Creek - Leo Hopf,
6625 Naomi Drive. Jim Zimmerman said he has an office on Ohms Lane and would
speak on behalf of Mr. Hopf to express their concern regarding City personnel
setting snares to catch beavers in Nine Mile Creek in the vicinity of Ohms Lane.
In talking with City staff, it was confirmed that the policy is to trap and kill
the beavers that have been cutting down trees and building a dam. As an
alternative, they proposed that the City live trap the beavers for relocation and
volunteered to help with relocating the beavers.
Engineer Hoffman explained that the City policy has been when beavers block a
stream or pond that causes flooding upstream staff contacts the Department of
Natural Resources (DNR) for a licensed trapper. According to the DNR, it is
unlawful in the State of Minnesota to transport live beavers. For the record,
Chief Swanson said he had agreed with Mr. Hopf to hold off on trapping until this
could be brought to the Council. The process was developed through the 1977 -78
era when the City.banned use of leg hold traps as being inhumane. Subsequently,
that ordinance was amended to allow leg hold traps to be used under certain
circumstances, e.g. trapper licensed by the State of Minnesota and with the
written permission of the City Manager. In this case, the trapper did not get
permission from the City. If the trapping were to resume the trapper would follow
the procedure as required by ordinance. The problem in this case was that the
beavers were in a watershed area and if that got blocked there would be damage to
the upstream area. Removal of the dam is an alternative, but history has shown
that the beavers will rebuild the dam almost as fast as it is removed. The answer
to effectively control the damming of Nine Mile Creek is to remove the beavers.
The use of live traps would present a hazard to other animals and /or people.
Member Paulus asked how many times per year the City receives requests to remove
beavers. Chief Swanson so far this year there have been two requests; annually
the City gets 3 -4 calls. This has been one of the few that has involved a
watershed. Most of the time the complaints come from residents that live near
water areas where the beavers are cutting down trees on their property for food.
Following further discussion, it was suggested that the concerned residents work
with the DNR to change the law regarding transporting beavers.
Animal Control Ordinance - Roger Dreher, 1 Spur Road, referred to his recent
appeal to the Minnesota Court of Appeals stemming from a citation he had received
for his barking dog. The Appeals Court had ruled that Edina's Animal Control
Ordinance was unconstitutionally vague on the matter of whether a dog's barking
disturbed others. He said this would provide an opportunity for the City to
review the ordinance with a critical eye because he believed that no dog owner in
the city would be in compliance. Laws like that cause people to ignore the law.
Given the situation in the Animal Control Ordinance, Mr. Dreher said it would be
reasonable to assume that within the various City ordinances there are other
equally potentially unwise provisions. He suggested that the City review the
ordinances on a regular basis, check what is happening in the courts and attempt
to keep the ordinances clear. Finally, an issue like this could easily be avoided
if the City had a mechanism in place that would enable people to settle
neighborhood disputes in a lot of situations outside of the legal system.
Mayor Pro -Tem Kelly commented that the West Suburban Mediation Board would do just
that, that the expenses he had incurred was because he chose to appeal the case,
that the ordinances are there to insure the quality of life for Edina's citizens
and, generally speaking, are enforced on a complaint basis. Further, the City
does periodically review its ordinances. Mr. Dreyer said that had he known of the
mediation services he would have sought to resolve the issue through those means.
Location of Dog Kennel - Henry Langer, 7101 Antrim Court, protested a warning
notice he had received that the location of his dog kennel was in violation of the
Animal Control Ordinance No. 312. He said he had built his home in 1984 and at
that time the building plans were checked by the City Building Department, which
plans included the location of the kennel. When he constructed a privacy fence
the City inspector checked it for height and no one said at that point that the
kennel location was illegal. Now the City is requesting that the kennel be moved
to be in compliance. Mr. Langer said he had no place to move it to without
destroying his yard. He asked for a waiver or some financial assistance to deal
with the situation.
Mayor Pro -Tem asked for background information on this case. Chief Swanson said
that in the past dog barking was the cause of complaints from the neighbors. In
the recent past, the location of the kennel was complained about. The Animal
Control Officer issued a warning notice on May 7, 1990. The notice asked for a
one day compliance that the dogs be removed and a 30 day compliance that the
kennel be removed. Chief Swanson said he had talked with Mr. Langer and suggested
a five day process in which he would check with the Planning and Building staff to
see if in their reviews they would have caught the illegal location of the kennel.
Mr. Langer explained that his wife is a piano teacher and a lot of her students
enter the studio through the back yard. He said if he removed the door to the
kennel it would comply with the ordinance, e.g. the entire yard can be used to
keep the dogs. If one dog was leashed within the kennel (that would leave the
yard if it were not) it would violate the ordinance.
Following some discussion, Manager Rosland suggested that staff investigate the
kennel location situation. Further, that dog barking is a sincere problem and may
also be part of the picture. He said the City would work with the systems in
place to deal with Mr. Langer's concern.
AWARD OF BID FOR RETAINING WALL - BRAEMAR GOLF COURSE LESSON AREA CONTINUED TO
5/21/90 Motion was made by Member Rice and was seconded by Member Smith to
continue the award of bid for retaining wall at Braemar Golf Course Lesson Area to
May 21, 1990, because of the absence of Mayor Richards who had asked for
additional information.
Ayes: Paulus, Rice, Smith, Kelly
Motion carried.
BID AWARDED FOR ELECTRIC GOLF CARS Manager Rosland explained that staff is
recommending award,to second low bidder because the low bidder did not meet
specifications. He said the low bidder, Minnesota Golf Cars, Inc. is aware that
he did not meet specifications.
Motion was made by Member Rice for award of bid for 15 electric golf cars to
recommended bidder, Golf Car Midwest, at $34,695.00. Motion was seconded by
Member Smith.
Ayes: Paulus, Rice, Smith, Kelly
Motion carried.
BIDS REJECTED FOR ICE RESURFACER - PHASE I CENTENNIAL LAKES Motion was made by
Member Rice to reject all bids for an ice resurfacer for Phase I Centennial Lakes.
Motion was seconded by Member Paulus.
Ayes: Paulus, Rice, Smith, Kelly
Motion carried.'
BID AWARDED FOR GOOSE MANAGEMENT CONTRACT Member Paulus asked if under the goose
management contract any citizen could request removal of geese. Assistant Manager
Hughes said it would require a certain concentration of geese to make a drive
feasible. He said there is only a three week window at the end of June or first
part of July when the geese are flightless.
Member Rice made a motion for award of bid for a three year goose management
contract to sole bidder, University of Minnesota, at $21,000.00. Motion was
seconded by.Member Smith.
Ayes: Paulus, Rice, Smith, Kelly
Motion carried.
*BID AWARDED FOR MILL POND WEED HARVESTING Motion was made by Member Smith and
was seconded by Member Rice for award of bid for Mill Pond weed harvesting to
recommended low bidder, Minnetonka Weed Eaters, at $7,840.00.
Motion carried on rollcall vote, four ayes.
*BID AWARDED FOR RE -WORK OF PEAT - FAIRWAY #2 - BRA_EMAR GOLF COURSE Motion was
made by Member Smith and was seconded by Member Rice for award of bid for re -work
of peat at #2 fairway at Braemar Golf Course to recommended low bidder, Perkins
Landscape, at $5,808.00.
Motion carried on rollcall vote, four ayes.
UPDATE GIVEN ON TAX INCREMENT DISTRICTS Manager Rosland referred to a memorandum
dated April 16, 1990 from Assistant Manager Hughes concerning the tax increment
districts approved by the Council on April 1, 1990 (44th & France, Valley View &
Wooddale and 70th Street and Cahill Road).
Based on the Council's action, it is staff's understanding that projects and
proposals associated with these districts should be generated by the property
owners and the development community rather than the staff. Therefore, staff has
not initiated any discussions with property owners or developers concerning
projects in these three areas.
Subsequently, there has been some discussion that the Council may wish to consider
the continuation of dialogue between the City and property owners through the
City's consultant, Peter Meyers, or entertain any proposals by developers.
Manager Rosland said staff is'looking for direction from the Council as to what
staff should or should not do.
Mayor Pro -Tem Kelly asked for clarification of the additional restrictions on the
tax increment financing bill that was passed by the Legislature at the end of the
session. Assistant Manager Hughes referred to a letter dated May 7, 1990 from
Attorney Jerry Gilligan in which he explained the restrictions. For districts for
which the request for certification was filed during April 1990, the bill provided
that the amendments are effective for such districts if by June 1, 1991 none of
the following actions are taken: (i) a development agreement is entered into by
the City for a site in the district, (ii) bonds were issued to finance project
costs, or (iii) the City acquires property in the district after April 1, 1990.
The effect of this on the three districts recently created is that unless one of
the conditions is met for each such district by June 1, 1991, such district will
no longer qualify as a tax increment district after such date.
After some discussion, it was the consensus of the Council that staff be
authorized to retain the services of Peter Meyers, consultant, for approximately a
total of 45 hours to facilitate discussion with the property owners on potential
development /redevelopment in the three districts and that staff then report back
on what progress has been made.
DOG LICENSING RENEWAL PROCESS APPROVED Manager Rosland recalled that a process
for renewal of dog licenses has been under consideration by the Council. Staff
had prepared and presented a report at the March 19, 1990 meeting on dog licensing
which included facts as to rational for licensing, number of licenses issued,
number of renewals, estimates of the dog population and estimated cost for renewal
mailout notices which had been recommended by staff.
Member Rice made a motion to approve
presented and recommended by staff.
Ayes: Paulus, Rice, Smith, Kelly
Motion carried.
the dog licensing renewal process as
Motion was seconded by Member Smith.
REQUEST FOR VACATION OF PORTION OF DUGGAN PLAZA DENIED Manager Rosland recalled
that at the meeting of April 16, 1990, the Council acknowledged receipt of a
letter from E. David Reyes, 701 Fourth Avenue South, Minneapolis, requesting the
City to vacate a small center island in Duggan Plaza (PIN 04- 116 -21 -34 -0061) so
that he could purchase the lot and build a home on it. The letter was referred to
staff for further study and recommendation.
Ownership of that property in the event of vacation has been researched by
Attorney Erickson and he has by letter dated April 23, 1990 opined that based on
his findings the end result of a vacation and reconveyance by the City would be
that the property owner to the north would own two 35 foot strips of land, one
north and one south of the island in the middle of the street and the State of
Minnesota would own the island in the middle of the street. The.County may be
willing to sell the island to the adjoining property owner north of the vacated
street. Because of the complexity of the ownership of the small island and
adjoining strips of land if the City were to grant the vacation,-.staff would
recommend that the request be denied.
Member Rice made a motion to deny the request of E. David Reyes for vacation of
the small center island in Duggan Plaza (PIN 04- 116 -21 -34 -0061) and that staff
inform Mr. Reyes of the Council's decision. Motion was seconded by Member
Paulus.
Ayes: Paulus, Rice, Smith, Kelly
Motion carried.
REPORT GIVEN ON COURT OF APPEALS DECISION - ANIMAL CONTROL ORD. NO. 312 Manager
Rosland referred to the Minnesota Court of Appeals decision handed down on
April 17, 1990 on the appeal of Roger H. Dreher on a citation for violation of the
City's Animal Control Ordinance No. 312. The Court ruled that the ordinance is
unconstitutionally vague. Staff and the City Prosecutor are researching various
alternatives to this decision and will report their recommendations to the
Council.
FEASIBILITY REPORT PRESENTED: STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENT NOS. STS -204, STS -205 AND
STS -206 APPROVED Engineer Fran Hoffman advised that the following projects have
been reviewed for feasibility and were consistent with the City's overall
stormwater management program. The storm sewer projects are recommended to be
funded through the stormwater utility fund.
Engineer Hoffman explained that Storm Sewer Improvement No. STS -205 would solve
flooding in winter conditions as happened on March 11, 1990 in.an unusual
rainstorm event. The affected property owners were advised by letter that this
would not solve the excessive flooding problems experienced during the 1987
rainstorm. Tony Becker, 5536 Mirror Lakes Drive, said he was in favor of the
project and that they need all the help they can get in that low area.
In addition, Engineer Hoffman advised that the City had received a request for an
emergency overflow system from the neighbors bordering the Walnut Ridge Park area.
The request is to provide an overflow pipe under Vernon Avenue where Nine Mile
Creek comes out of Walnut Ridge Park. Staff is aware that Nine Mile Creek
Watershed District is reviewing this type of improvement in light of the 1987
(Federal disaster) rainstorm event. Staff would recommend that the City request
the Nine Mile Watershed District Board to review and fund this type of project.
Member Smith introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
FOR PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS AND
DIRECTING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS
FOR STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENT NOS. STS -204, STS -205 AND STS -206
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA:
1. The plans and specifications for the proposed improvements set forth in the
following Advertisement for Bids form, heretofore prepared by the City Engineer
and now on file in the office of the City Clerk are hereby approved.
2. The Clerk shall cause to be published in the Edina Sun and Construction
Bulletin the following notice of bids for improvements:
(Official Publication)
.CITY OF EDINA
4901 W. 50TH STREET
Estimated Cost
STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENT NO. STS -204
$17,801.28
Location: Easement Line - Parkwood Knolls Addition
Description: Replacement of an existing pipe and pond
outlet located north of Parkwood Road and east of
Westwood Court
STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENT NO. STS -205
16,327.36
Location: Easement Line - East Sunnyslope Road
Description: Replacement of existing catch basin
and pipe on East Sunnyslope Road and.addition of a
backyard drain west of East Sunnyslope Road
STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENT NO. STS -205
5,885.60
Location: Easement Line - Dundee Road
Description: Extending an existing storm sewer into
backyard area which is low point for several backyards.
Area was flooded in frozen ground /rain conditions in
March; neighbors have petitioned for this addition
Engineer Hoffman explained that Storm Sewer Improvement No. STS -205 would solve
flooding in winter conditions as happened on March 11, 1990 in.an unusual
rainstorm event. The affected property owners were advised by letter that this
would not solve the excessive flooding problems experienced during the 1987
rainstorm. Tony Becker, 5536 Mirror Lakes Drive, said he was in favor of the
project and that they need all the help they can get in that low area.
In addition, Engineer Hoffman advised that the City had received a request for an
emergency overflow system from the neighbors bordering the Walnut Ridge Park area.
The request is to provide an overflow pipe under Vernon Avenue where Nine Mile
Creek comes out of Walnut Ridge Park. Staff is aware that Nine Mile Creek
Watershed District is reviewing this type of improvement in light of the 1987
(Federal disaster) rainstorm event. Staff would recommend that the City request
the Nine Mile Watershed District Board to review and fund this type of project.
Member Smith introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
FOR PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS AND
DIRECTING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS
FOR STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENT NOS. STS -204, STS -205 AND STS -206
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA:
1. The plans and specifications for the proposed improvements set forth in the
following Advertisement for Bids form, heretofore prepared by the City Engineer
and now on file in the office of the City Clerk are hereby approved.
2. The Clerk shall cause to be published in the Edina Sun and Construction
Bulletin the following notice of bids for improvements:
(Official Publication)
.CITY OF EDINA
4901 W. 50TH STREET
EDINA, MINNESOTA 55424
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS
STORM SEWER
CONTRACT 90 -7 (ENG)
IMPROVEMENT NOS. STS -204. STS -205, STS -206
BIDS CLOSE MAY 31, 1990
SEALED BIDS will be received and opened in the Council Chambers in Edina City
Hall, 4801 West 50th Street at 11:00 A.M., Thursday, May 31, 1990. The Edina City
Council will meet at 7:00 P.M., Monday, June 4, 1990 to consider said bids. The
following are approximate major quantities:
711 LF 12 & 15" Storm Sewer Pipe
2 EA Manholes
3 EA Catch Basins
125 TONS Cl. 5A
1,232 SY Sod
Bids shall be in a sealed envelope with a statement thereon showing the work
covered by the bid. Bids should be addressed to the City Engineer, City of Edina,
4801 West 50th Street, Edina, Minnesota 55424, and may be mailed or submitted
personally to the City Engineer. Bids received by the City Engineer, either
through the mail or by personal submission, after the time set for receiving them
may be returned unopened.
Work must be done as described in plans and specifications on file in the office
of the City Clerk. Plans and specifications are available for a deposit of $25.00
(by check). Said deposit to be returned upon return of the plans and
specifications with a bona fide bid. No bids will be considered unless sealed and
accompanied by bid bond or certified check payable to the City of Edina in the
amount of at least ten (10) percent of all bids. All plans mailed, enclosed
separate check for $5.00 payable to the City of Edina for postage and handling.
BY ORDER OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL.
Marcella M. Daehn
City Clerk
Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Member Rice.
Rollcall:
Ayes: Paulus, Rice, Smith, Kelly
Resolution adopted.
Member Smith made a motion directing staff to request the Nine Mile Creek
Watershed District Board to review and fund a project for an emergency overflow
system for Nine Mile Creek under Vernon Avenue where it comes out of Walnut Ridge
Park. Motion was seconded by Member Rice.
Ayes: Paulus, Rice, Smith, Kelly
Motion carried.
*ON -SALE WINE LICENSE /ON -SALE BEER LICENSE APPROVED FOR SCOTT KEE'S TOUR DE FRANCE
RESTAURANT, 4924 FRANCE AV SO Motion was made by Member Smith and was seconded by
Member Rice to approve issuance of an on -sale wine license and on -sale 3.2 beer
license for Scott Kee's Tour de France Restaurant at 4924 France Avenue So. _
Motion carried on rollcall vote, four ayes.
*RESOLUTION ADOPTED APPROVING NAME CHANGE FROM ROGERS CABLESYSTEMS TO KBL
CABLESYSTEMS OF THE SOUTHWEST. INC. - DBA PARAGON CABLE Motion was made by Member
Smith and was seconded by Member Rice to adopt the following resolution:
RESOLUTION GIVING APPROVAL TO A CHANGE OF NAME OF
GRANTEE FROM ROGERS CABLESYSTEMS OF THE SOUTHWEST, INC.
TO KBL CABLESYSTEMS OF THE SOUTHWEST, INC. D /B /A PARAGON CABLE
WHEREAS, Rogers Cablesystems of the Southwest, Inc. ( "RCTSI ") is the current
grantee under the cable communications ordinance ( "Franchise ") of the City of
Edina, Minnesota ( "City "); and
WHEREAS, RCTSI desires to change its corporate name to KBL Cablesystems of the
Southwest, Inc.', c/b /a Paragon Cable ( "KBLCSI ") and has requested the City's
approval of the name change; and
WHEREAS, RCTSI does not intend to make any changes to its ownership structure or
to the control of its operations, but desires only to change its name; and
WHEREAS, KBL Cable, Inc. ( "KBLC ") and KBLCOM Incorporated ( "KBLCOM ") are the
guarantors of RCTSI's obligations under the Franchise pursuant to a Consent
Agreement and Guaranty of Performance given to the City; and
WHEREAS, the Southwest Suburban Cable Commission ( "SWSCC ") reviewed the request
for approval of RCTSI's name change and found no reason to disapprove of the
request, provided KBLC, KBLCOM, and KBLCSI first acknowledge and agree in a
writing acceptable to SWSCC's member cities that KBLCSI is the corporate successor
of RCTSI for all purposes under the Franchise and that KBLC and KBLCOM reaffirm
their status as guarantors of KBLCSI's obligations under the Franchise; and
WHEREAS, the City joins in the foregoing findings of SWSCC.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. The city hereby consents to and approves the change of the name of the
grantee under the Franchise from Rogers Cablesystems of the Southwest, Inc. to KBL
Cablesystems of the Southwest, Inc., d/b /a/ Paragon Cable, provided KBLCOM
Incorporated, KBL Cable, Inc., and KBL Cablesystems of the Southwest, Inc. first
file with the City an Acknowledgement and Consent in a form and substance
acceptable to the City.
2. The City declares that as of the time of this Resolution, the Franchise and
all agreements entered into by RCTSI in connection therewith shall remain in full
force and effect, except that KBL Cablesystems of the Southwest, Inc. shall be
deemed to have been substituted as grantee and shall be obligated as RCTSI's
successor in interest to perform all of RCTSI's duties and obligations thereunder.
Passed and adopted this 7th day of May, 1990, by the City of Edina.
CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA
ATTEST:
By
Its Mayor
City Clerk
Motion carried on rollcall vote, four ayes.
*ORDINANCE NO. 1120 -A5 (TO CHANGE NAME OF GRANTEE) ADOPTED: SECOND READING WAIVED
Motion was made by Member Smith and was seconded by Member Rice to adopt.Ordinance
No. 1120 -A5 as follows, with waiver of Second Reading:
ORDINANCE NO. 1120 -A5
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 1120
TO CHANGE THE NAME OF GRANTEE
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
Section 1. That Article I, Section 2, Paragraph J of said Ordinance be
amended to read as follows:
"J. "Grantee" is KBL Cablesystems of the Southwest, Inc., a Minnesota
corporation, d/b /a/ Paragon Cable."
Sec. 2. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon adoption and
publication, provided that it shall become effective only if all of the Cities of
Eden Prairie, Edina, Hopkins, Minnetonka and Richfield adopt an ordinance similar
to this Ordinance within sixty (60) days after the adoption of this Ordinance.
ATTEST:
CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA
By
Its Mayor
By
City Clerk Its Manager
Motion carried on rollcall vote, four ayes.
REQUEST FROM CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS FOR SUPPORT ON FUNDING PROPOSAL TO STUDY
CONTAMINATION RISKS ON UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER CONTINUED TO 5/21/90 Motion was
made by Member Rice and was seconded by Member Smith to continue the request from
the City of Minneapolis for support on a funding proposal to study contamination
risks on the Upper Mississippi River to May 21, 1990.
Ayes: Paulus, Rice, Smith, Kelly
Motion carried.
CONFLICT NOTED 'WITH 1990 AMN ANNUAL MEETING ON 5/16/90 Manager Rosland poinied
out that the Futures Commission meeting is scheduled for May 16 which is in
conflict with the AMM Annual Meeting on the same date. He said it was important
for the Council Members to attend the Futures Commission meeting and that he would
have someone from staff monitor the AMM meeting.
INC 1990 ANNUAL CONFERENCE SCHEDULED FOR JUNE 12 -15 Manager Rosland reminded the
Council Members that the 1990 League of Minnesota Cities Annual Conference will be
held in Duluth, MN on June 12 - 15. He said he would attend with someone from
staff and that reservations will be made for any Council Member wishing to go.
APPROVAL GIVEN TO SUPPORT CITY OF RICHFIELD REGARDING DUAL TRACT AIRPORT STUDY
Manager Rosland said he had received a call from Mayor Steve Quam of the City of
Richfield advising that the City of Minneapolis is insisting on a one tract study
regarding the Minneapolis International Airport (relocation). Richfield is asking
for a letter of support from the City of Edina saying we encourage a dual tract
study which include keeping the airport at its present location. It was the
consensus of the Council that Manager Rosland write a letter of support as
requested.
CLAIMS PAID Motion was made by Member Smith and was seconded by Member Rice to
approve payment of the following claims as shown in detail on the Check Register
dated 05/07/90 and consisting of 34 pages: General Fund $410,715.37,
Communications $682.73, Art Center $56,674.33, Golf Course Fund $38,604.99,
Recreation Center Fund $4,677.18, Gun Range Fund $71.54, Edinborough Park
$11,381.12, Utility Fund $254,676.91, Storm Sewer Utility $5,466.57, Liquor
Dispensary Fund $5,095.75, Construction Fund $32,231.00, Total $820,277.49 and for
confirmation of payment of the following claims as shown in detail on the Check
Register dated 03 -31 -90 and consisting of 18 pages: General Fund $267,085.95, Art
Center $1,367.95, Swimming Pool Fund $68.27, Golf Course Fund $15,269.73,
Recreation Center Fund $11,533.75, Gun Range Fund $563.01, Edinborough Park
$11,699.99, Utility Fund $16,520.86, Storm Sewer Utility $596.04, Liquor
Dispensary Fund $205,166.15, Total $529,871.70.
Motion carried on rollcall vote, four ayes.
There being no further business on the Council Agenda, Mayor Pro -Tem Kelly
declared the meeting adjourned at 12:30 a.m.
City Clerk
MINUTES
OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HALL
MAY 21, 1990
ROLLCALL Answering rollcall were Members Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith and Mayor
Richards.
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.
Rollcall:
Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards
Motion carried.
*MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 16, 1990 APPROVED Motion was made by Member
Rice and was seconded by Member Smith to approve the minutes of the regular
meeting of April 16, 1990.
Motion carried on rollcall vote, five ayes.
PUBLIC HEARING CONDUCTED; STREET IMPROVEMENT NO. BA -291 ORDERED Affidavits of
Notice.were presented, approved and ordered placed on file. Engineer Hoffman
stated the purpose of the public hearing was to consider reconstruction plans for
West 69th Street from France Avenue to Xerxes Avenue. The project is being heard
as part of the City's capital improvements plan and in conjunction with the
expansion of the Galleria block. Also, staff has met with Southdale Center
management and they are in agreement with the proposed layout for reconstruction.
The project would consist of new street with concrete curb and gutter, street
lighting, sidewalk on the south side with a crossing to Southdale, and trees in
the median. The storm sewer modifications will be on the east end of the project.
which will connect the piping to the Adams Hill /Centennial Lakes system. This
will assist in lowering the flood potential along the homes in the Southdale Road
area and the Southdale Office Center.
The street would be constructed with two lanes each direction and with two major
entrance points to Southdale /Galleria similar to what was constructed on France
Avenue in 1981 with two new traffic signals. The number of driveways and median
crossings would be reduced on the south side from seven openings to four, and on
the north side from five to four. Additionally, a pedestrian crossing will be
located from the walkway from Edinborough.
The estimated project cost of $1,067,123.43 is proposed to be funded,as follows:
Special Assessment ($40.00 per assessable foot) $192,000.00
State Aid Gas Tax 675,000.00
Stormwater Utility 200,000.00
Schedule for the project would be late 1990 start and completion in early summer
1991. Staff would recommend approval of the project and adoption of a resolution
for no parking on both sides of West 69th Street (State Aid requirement). A
letter in support of the project has been received from Warren Beck, Gabbert and
Gabbert Company, owner of the real estate adjoining 69th Street between France and
York Avenues.
Member Rice asked if the pedestrian crossing would be at the same location as the
future transit crossing and why improvements for York Avenue and West 66th Street
are not included. Engineer Hoffman replied that eventually the transit crossing
would be at the same point as the pedestrian crossing. York Avenue and West 66th
Street are in the capital plan for reconstruction over the next four years. This
project is being proposed now in conjunction with the Galleria expansion.
Mayor Richards then called for comment from the public on the proposed
improvement. No comments or objections were heard.
Member Rice introduced the following resolutions and moved their adoption:
RESOLUTION ORDERING STREET IMPROVEMENT NO. BA -291
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, that this Council
heretofore caused notice of hearing to be duly published and mailed to owners of
each parcel within the area proposed to be assessed on the following proposed
improvement:
BITUMINOUS STREET SURFACING, CONCRETE-CURB AND GUTTER, STORK SERER AND
STREET LIGHTING IMPROVEMENT NO. BA -291
and at the hearing held at the time and place specified in said notice, the
Council has duly considered the views of all persons interested, and being fully
advised of the pertinent facts, does hereby determine to proceed with the
construction of said improvement including all proceedings which may be necessary
in eminent domain for the acquisition of necessary easements and rights for
construction and maintenance of such improvement; that said improvement is hereby
designated and shall be referred to in all subsequent proceedings as BITUMINOUS
STREET SURFACING, CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER, STORK SEWER AND STREET LIGHTING
IMPROVEMENT NO. BA -291, and the area to be specially assessed for a portion of the
cost of the proposed improvement shall include Tract C, RLS 1455; the Southerly
220' of Tract 4, Tract H, the Westerly 310' and Easterly 230.88' of Tract-M, RLS
629; Tracts A & D, RLS 1171; Tracts A & B, RLS 1366; and Tract A, RLS 1466.
RESOLUTION
Relating to Parking Restrictions On
S.A.P. 120 - 159 -02 from France Avenue to Xerxes Avenue
in the City of Edina, Minnesota.
THIS RESOLUTION, passed this 21st day of May, 1990, by the City of Edina in
Hennepin County, Minnesota. The Municipal corporation shall hereinafter be called
the "City ".
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the City has planned the improvement of MSAS 159 (West 69th Street) from
France Avenue to Xerxes Avenue, and .
WHEREAS, the City, will be expending Municipal State Aid Funds on the improvement
of this Street, and
WHEREAS, this improvement does not provide adequate width for parking on both
sides of the street, approval of the proposed construction as a Municipal State
Aid Street project must therefore be conditioned upon certain parking
restrictions, and
WHEREAS, the extent of these restrictions that would be necessary prerequisite to
the approval of this construction as a Municipal State Aid project in the City,
has been determined.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED: That the City shall ban the parking of
motor vehicles on both sides of NSAS 159 (West 69th Street) at all times.
DATED this 21st day of May, 1990.
ATTEST:
Motion for adoption of
Rollcall:
Ayes: Kelly, Paulus,
Resolutions adopted.
City of Edina, Minnesota.
By
Mayor
the resolution was seconded by Member Kelly.
Rice, Smith, Richards
FINAL REZONING TO PRD -2 PLANNED RESIDENCE DISTRICT AND FINAL PLAT (HIGHCROFT)
APPROVED FOR RON CIARK DEVELOPMENT (70TH & CAHILL): HERITAGE PRESERVATION OVERLAY
DISTRICT REPEALED Affidavits of Notice were presented, approved and ordered
placed on file.
Presentation by Planner
Planner Craig Larsen recalled that.at the meeting of April 16, 1990, the Council
had considered the final rezoning and final plat proposal for property generally
located south of West 70th Street and west of Cahill Road. At that time the
Council referred the request back to the Community Development and Planning
Commission to reconsider the final rezoning on the townhouse portion of the
proposed development. The Council also said they wanted a firm recommendation on
the marker to commemorate the Cahill Settlement.
On May 2, 1990 the Planning Commission considered the final rezoning and again
voted to recommend approval for rezoning to PRD -2 for the townhouse portion of the
project. The Historical Society, the Heritage Preservation Board and the Park
Board have considered the design and location of the Cahill Settlement historic
marker. All three boards are recommending that the marker be constructed in the
northeast corner of the townhouse development. In addition, they recommended
schematic Plan "B" for the marker, e.g. with retaining wall set into the hill and
with a kiosk that mimics the old St. Patrick's Church bell tower.
Conditions that were imposed at preliminary approval, in staff's opinion, have
been complied with. Staff would recommend final rezoning and final plat approval
and adoption of the ordinance repealing the Heritage Preservation Overlay
District, subject to: 1) Developer's agreement, 2) Executed slope easement and
easement for commemorative marker, and 3) Subdivision dedication based on an
unimproved land value of $1,800,000.
Member Kelly asked, if approval is given, what recourse the City would have with
regard to the landscaping. Planner Larsen explained that the PRD -2 zoning would
require a minimum of 52 overstory trees, based on the perimeter of the site . The
developer would be bound by the landscape plan that has been submitted which shows
53 overstory deciduious trees and 92 conifer trees for a total of 145. The
developer must post a landscaping bond or letter of credit equal to 150% of the
cost of the landscaping to insure that the landscaping is put in and survives one
full growing season if the site is irrigated and two seasons if it is not.
Member Rice asked for comment on the letter dated May 21, 1990 from Dale
Kiedrowski, 5704 West 70th Street, in which he presented new information and data
in support of a reduction to 12 lots for the single family portion of the
development. Planner Larsen observed that, although he did not disagree with any
of Mr. Kiedrowski's calculations, people are reaching different conclusions based
on those numbers. Secondly, as to the conservation easement taking away land from
the single family homes, those homes still would retain the ownership of that
land. The easement is to insure that there be open space and protection of those
slopes.
Presentation by Proponent
Ron Clark, proponent, submitted that it has been difficult for the neighbors and
others who have followed the proposed project to really visualize what it will
look like when it is built out, landscaped and totally completed. It was
suggested that it may be helpful to take photos to illustrate the various
setbacks, elevations, landscaping and berming for the site. Mr. Clark said that
they have taken those photographs and proceeded to show slides which were
explained by Mike Gair, consultant for the project.
In summary, Mr. Gair explained that a change in the plan has been made for the
westerly nine unit townhouse cluster. The second story of the westerly unit
farthest from West 70th Street has been eliminated and a single level rambler with
walkout is proposed to mitigate the massing of the four unit most westerly
building. There has been a considerable reduction in the bulk of the townhouse
buildings from the original plan with the number of units reduced from 25 units to
21 units. There were three accesses along West 70th Street; now only two are
proposed. The westerly townhouse building is set back 90 feet from West 70th
Street. The two twin buildings are set back 30 feet and are two unit buildings as
opposed to the previous six - units. In the case of the single family lots, all
meet or exceed the median lot area, size and dimension requirements of the
500 -foot neighborhood. The conservation easement has been imposed to protect the
existing slopes and woodlands on the rear of the properties. Final architecture,
building design and orientation of those homes will be the subject of individual
preference and engineering consideration within the City code. The townhomes are
proposed to sell at $225- 300,000 and the single family homes at $300- 700,000. The
development plan meets the requirements of City ordinances with the exception of
variances for single family Lots 7 and 13. All townhome lots meet or exceed
ordinance requirements.
Public Comment
For the record, it was noted that correspondence regarding the development had
been received from Dale Kiedrowski, 5704 West 70th Street; Bette Kent, 5913 Ewing
Avenue So; John Helland and Linda Smithson, and Kermit Wilson, 7525 Cahill Road,
and has been made available to the Council.
The following spoke in opposition to the proposed development: Henry Rutledge,
5501 Village Drive, expressed concern about losing green space and whether the
landscaping would be adequate. Dale Kiedrowski, 5704 West 70th Street, said he
was concerned about the crowded land use, substandard lots in the single family
portion, and that private space was being compromised. Ted Steen, 5524 West 70th
Street, objected to the density of the townhome portion and suggested that the two
twin units closest to West 70th Street be eliminated. Joe Alexander, 5600
Hillside Court, said he hoped that the oak trees and the wild area would be
preserved and that there would be access to the wild area for neighborhood
children. Mike Lilja, 5809 McGuire Road, said he would like to see public access
to the park area from the north. John Helland, 5720 McGuire Road, mentioned the
value of the wild life area and that access should be available to the local
neighborhood. Linda Smithson, 5608 West 70th Street, stated that the list of
citizens that are opposed to the development has grown to 265 in number, that the
central issue is the density and massing of the townhouse proposal, and that many
of the neighbors could endorse Mr. Steen's suggestion that the two twin units next
to West 70th Street be eliminated which would open up the development. Thurl
Quigley, 5804 West 70th Street, spoke to the issues of density and massing and
suggested that unless the density is reduced the proposal be tabled until the
Council has addressed the massing issue. He also mentioned concern about the loss
of oak trees and the access to Lewis Park which the neighborhood has been using
for years. Charles Lawrence, 5701 McGuire Road, said he still had concern about
increased traffic from the townhouses, that he had hoped the neighbors could have
input into what is developed on the property,.and that in looking at the existing
multi - family units on Cahill Road all that is seen is pavement and garage doors
with a little green for accent.
The following spoke in support of the development: Darlene McDonald, 5501 Village
Drive, who mentioned the density is lower than ordinance requirements and that
Edina needed more one level townhomes. Lyle Sours, 5547 Village Drive, stated
that the proposal exceeds ordinance requirements and he supported the proposal as
presented.
Council Comment
Member.Smith asked the developer to respond to the issue of public access to the
park. Mr. Clark said that the site is extremely difficult to design nice housing
on and yet achieve an acceptable level of privacy for future buyers. If the site
is further encumbered with a trail through the middle or on the west side of the
single family homes it would strangle any change of success. He pointed out that
there is access to the park via the sidewalk along West 70th Street and Cahill
Road.
Member Rice asked about the issue of the oak trees on the easterly portion of the
site. Mr. Gair said he did not have the exact number'that would come out but the
engineering concept was to keep the townhomes out of the oak areas.
Mayor Richards responded to some of the comments that had been made regarding
single family versus multi - family. The single family home is the predominant
housing stock in the community as validated by the City's Mission Statement.
However, the Council also has an obligation to look at a broader perspective as to
variety and choices of housing stock. The Comprehensive Plan was last reviewed in
1987 and there are three members who were on the Council at that time that said
this land was to be developed as medium density. The proposal under consideration
is consistent with the low end of what the Plan designated for the site. The
issue of massing is a difficult one. However, when applied to the Country Club
District (with five foot setbacks from existing structures) it is a different
concept in comparision with the southwest quadrant of the City. He questioned
whether it is relevant and can be applied to the proposal under consideration. As
to routine approval of variances, he said that is not the reality as he has seen
the process. Mayor Richards concluded by saying that he would support the
proposal because he felt the 13 single family housing units and the 21 townhome
units as proposed are reasonable.
Member Smith then moved Second Reading and adoption of Ordinance No. 825 -A35 as
follows, subject to the following conditions: 1) Developer's agreement, 2)
Executed slope easement and easement for commemorative marker, and 3) Subdivision
dedication:
ORDINANCE NO. 825 -A35
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE (NO. 815)
BY ADDING TO THE PLANNED RESIDENCE DISTRICT (PRD -2)
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
Section 1. Section 6 of Ordinance No. 825 of the City is amended by adding
the following thereto:
"The extent of the Planned Residence District (Sub- District PRD -2) is
enlarged by the addition of the following property:
That part of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 8,
Township 116, Range 21, lying north of the north line of the south 32 acres
thereof, which lies easterly of the following described line:
Commencing at the northwest corner of said Northwest Quarter of the
Northeast Quarter of Section 8; thence on an assumed bearing of North 89
degrees 49 minutes 20 seconds East, along the north line of said Northwest
Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, 477.30 feet to the point of beginning;
thence South 32 degrees 10 minutes 40 seconds East 99.84 feet; thence South
06 degrees 09 minutes 10 seconds East 162.11 feet; thence South 56 degrees
39 minutes 03 seconds East 43.97 feet to the intersection of the north
line of said South 32 acres and said line there terminating."
Sec. 2. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage
and publication.
L.1VM4 *46
Mayor
City Clerk
Motion for adoption of the ordinance was seconded by Member Rice.
Rollcall:
Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards
Ordinance adopted.
Member Smith introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption, subject
to: 1) Developer's agreement, 2) Executed slope easement and easement for
commemorative marker, and 3) Payment of subdivision dedication fee in the amount
of $144,000 based on unimproved land value of $1,800,000:
RESOLUTION GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL
FOR CLARKS 2ND ADDITION
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, that that
certain plat entitled "CLARKS 2ND ADDITION ", platted by Ron Clark Construction,
Inc., a Minnesota corporation, and American National Bank and Trust Company, a
national banking association, and presented at the regular meeting of the City
Council of March 19, 1990 be and is hereby granted final plat approval.
Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Member Rice.
Member Paulus made the following comments for the reason that she would be the
swing vote on the development proposal: 1) Green.space - in looking at the
characteristics between west and east Edina, west Edina has larger lots. In
looking at the projection of what will happen as more acreages are subdivided, the
residents will have to understand that this trend will result in less green space.
2) Multiple housing cannot be created with greater green space. The amount of
streets and driveways that are needed is a characteristic of townhouse
development. 3) Time was taken to consider the development proposal as evidenced
by referring it back to the Planning Commission.. 4) The tone for this development
was set by the Council months ago. The developer has come through with what was
asked and to stop it at this point would be difficult from a legal standpoint.
Member Kelly commented that the hardest decision for her was the rezoning as she
had wanted this to be all single family housing. However, the Council must look
at the highest and best use of the land. It also must be economically viable and
should maintain the integrity of the neighborhood. The reworking of the plan has
addressed those issues as best as can be done. Single family homes on the east
portion of the property just would not work because of the 270 foot depth. She
said she would support the motion because she felt it will be a successful
project.
Member Smith remarked that the Council has tried to position the development to
balance the best interest of the neighbors against the reality of what would
ultimately be developed there. He said he supported the proposal because the land
use designation has been reduced from medium to low density, it creates a buffer,
and the modifications that have been made are good.
Mayor Richards then called for vote on the motion on the floor.
Rollcall:
Ayes:, Kelly, Paulus, Rice,.Smith, Richards
Resolution adopted.
Member Smith introduced Ordinance No. 825 -A34 for Second Reading and moved its
adoption as follows:
ORDINANCE NO. 825 -A34
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE (NO. 825)
TO REMOVE PROPERTY FROM THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
Section 1. Section 6 of Ordinance No. 825 of the City is hereby amended by
removing the following described property from the Heritage Preservation Overlay
District (HPD):
"That part of the Northwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 8, Township
116, Range 21 described as follows:
Commencing at the Northeast corner of the Northwest one quarter of
Northeast one quarter thence South 15.5'rods, thence West
15.5 rods, thence North 15.5 rods, thence East 15.5 rods to beginning; and
Commencing in the North line of Northwest one quarter of Northeast one
quarter at a point 914.4 feet East from the Northwest corner thereof, then
South 271.8 feet to North line of South 32 acres of Northwest one quarter
of Northeast one quarter, then East to Northeast corner of said 32 acres,
then North 16.55 feet, then West 15.5 rods, then North 239.2 feet, then
IV
Vest 161.6 feet to beginning except roads."
Sec. 2. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage
and publication.
ATTEST:
Mayor
City Clerk
Motion for adoption of the ordinance was seconded by Member Rice.
Rollcall:
Ayes:' Kelly,.Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards
Ordinance adopted.
PRELIMINARY REZONING APPROVAL GRANTED FOR VALGREEN'S, 4916 FRANCE AVENUE SOUTH
Planner Larsen recalled that the request for preliminary rezoning from PCD -4 to
PCD -2 for property at 4916 France Avenue South was heard by the Council at its
April 16, 1990 meeting. The proposal was to remove the existing gas station at
France Avenue and West 49 1/2 Street and to construct in its place a Walgreen's
drug store. The hearing was continued to allow the proponent to address the
issues raised by the Council.
The site plan presented at that time showed the long orientation of the proposed
Walgreen's building along France Avenue, served by one way parking accessed off of
France Avenue and exiting on West 49 1/2 Street.
Since the April 16 meeting, the proponents have met with City staff and the Board
of the 50th and France Business Association. In response to comments and
criticisms of the Council and the Association, the proponents have submitted
revised plans for consideration. Changes to the proposed development are:
1) The building has been rotated 90 degrees so that the long axis is now
along France Avenue.
2) Building length has been reduced from 110 feet to 105 feet with a
resulting reduction in floor area of 390 square feet.
3) Parking is relocated to the west side of the building with the main
access off 49 1/2 Street. Circulation is changed from one -way to
two -way, and the number of spaces is increased from 16 to 17. The curb
cut on France Avenue was moved slightly to the north to allow further
stacking space.
4) The blind pedestrian crossing at the southwesterly corner of the property
has been removed providing a safer condition for pedestrians using 49 1/2
Street.
5) The display windows are now located'on the 49 1/2 Street side of the
building. The long axis along France Avenue will be treated with opaque
glass panels instead of brick. Upper windows will remain transparent.
Planner Larsen mentioned that in addition to the site plan and design concerns,
questions were raised as to the amount of the parking assessment. He referred to
a memorandum dated May 21, 1990 from Assistant Manager Hughes which explained the
history of the proposed assessment of $2.15 /square foot. If the Council should
decide to continue past practice the parking assessment would be $9,430. The
amount has been lowered due to the reduction in building size and the addition of
one parking space on site.
Presentation by Proponent
David Runyan, representing the proponent, said the changes had been fairly
presented and added these comments:
1) The use of two -way traffic circulation is a good approach for the site,
and one additional parking space has been provided.
2) The safety on the southwesterly corner of the site has been improved.
3) The building has been reduced in size in order to make the reorientation
work.
4) The facade on the France Avenue side will have bays that are glazed to
appear as though there are windows which could be removed if needed. The
appearance of the store has been softened somewhat. The building will
have "mood lighting" on the France and 49 1/2 Street sides to add
interest.
Member Kelly asked how the City would be assured that the building that is
constructed is of the design and materials as presented. Planner Larsen explained
that the request is for Planned Commercial District zoning and if approved would
be for the particular building for which plans have been submitted as now
modified.
Member Smith noted that the Walgreen's building would be located closer to the
existing housing to the north and said he was concerned that the light from the
fixtures may shine into those windows. Mr. Runyan explained that these are
"shoebox" fixtures so that the light would only shine down onto half of the drive
aisle.
Member Paulus said she felt this would still look like .a 1990 building in an area
of the town that was developed in the 1930 -1940 era and wondered if the look could
be softened with a facade so that it would blend in better. Mr. Runyan said there
would be no chrome /mirror and that they would try to pick up some of the brick
feeling along the street. In addition, detail would be added to the brick
exterior so that it would not have a flat brick appearance. The type of light
fixtures on the piers would also give it a more traditional look.
Public Comment
Hosmer Brown, 50th & France business owner, said he was present primarily to
present a resolution and motion passed by the 50th & France Business &
Professional Association on April 26, 1990. He welcomed Walgreen's to the 50th &
France corner commenting that they have been cooperative as evidenced by the
revised plan. Because the 50th & France renovation project will include new
street lights, he suggested that the light fixtures for the Walgreen's building be
of a type that would blend in with the new street lights.
In summary, the motion stated that the Board favored the building of the
Walgreen's store at France and West 49 1/2 Street contingent on the following:
1) Due to current /projected traffic the Association requested:
a. A left hand turn semaphore arrow at the intersection of France /West 49
1/2 Street in the north bound lane on France, and
b. A left hand turn semaphore arrow at the intersection of France /West 50th
Street in the south bound lane on France.
2) That the loading zone originally in front of Harvey Hanson Realty in the east
bound lane on West 49 1/2 Street be reinstated.
3) That in light of the current parking situation, the impending new restaurant,
renovation of the Peterson Mall and the Walgreen's store, that the Council make
a commitment to the construction of a new ramp on the north side of West 49 1/2
Street at the location of the municipal parking lot.
4) That the "smaller" Walgreen's building as shown to the Association with two -way
traffic flow and right angle parking be accepted as the most desirable plan.
Mayor Richards submitted that the issue of the parking ramp would be addressed at
the public hearing scheduled for June 4 and that the traffic issues should be
directed to the Traffic Safety Committee for their recommendation.
Member Kelly said she was concerned about setting a precedent on the parking
variance, with the assumption that the extra parking demand would be in the
proposed ramp. Planner Larsen pointed out that there is a provision in the Zoning
Ordinance that addresses this area specifically where the bulk of the parking to
support these businesses is through public parking ramps.
Member Rice said he still felt there is too much building for the parking provided
although he was encouraged by the support for the project from the 50th and France
Business & Professional Association. He said that the land use was excellent but
that he criticized the parking and felt we should look further at that.
Member Smith introduced Ordinance No. 825 -A36 for First Reading as follows:
ORDINANCE NO. 825 -A36
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 825
BY REZONING PROPERTY TO PCD -2 PLANNED COMMERCIAL DISTRICT
FROM PCD -4 PLANNED COMMERCIAL DISTRICT
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
Section 1. Section 6 of Ordinance No. 825 of the City is amended by adding
the following thereto:
"The extent of the Planned Commercial District (PCD -2) is enlarged by the
addition of the following property:
Lots 21 and 22, also the south 42.5 feet of Lot 20, also the north 7.5 feet
of Lot 23, Auditors Subdivision No. 172, according to the recorded plat
thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Except
That part of Lot 22 and the north 7 1/2 feet of Lot 23, Auditors
Subdivision No. 172, Hennepin County, Minnesota, according to the recorded
plat thereof, lying southerly and easterly of the following described line:
Beginning at a point on the east line of said Lot 22 distant 27.84 feet
north from the southeast corner of, said lot; thence southwesterly 38.38
feet along a curve tangent to said east line, concave to the northwest,
radius 25.00 feet, central angle 87 degrees 58 minutes 04 seconds; thence
tangent to said curve 110.95 feet, to a point in the west line of said
Lot 23 distant 2.40 feet south of the northwest corner thereof.
The extent of the Planned Commercial District (PCD -4) is reduced by removing.
the property described above from the PCD -4 District."
Sec. 2. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage
and publication.
Motion for First Reading of the ordinance-was seconded by Member Rice.
Following further discussion on the building materials and the parking issue,
Mayor Richards called the motion on the floor.
Rollcall:
Ayes: Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards
Nays: Kelly
First Reading granted.
PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVED FOR LOT 5. BLOCK 1. MUIR WOODS ADDITION Affidavits of
Notice were presented, approved and ordered place on file. Planner Larsen
presented the request for preliminary plat approval for subdivision of Lot 5,
Block 1, Muir Woods, located at 7120 Valley View Road.
The subject property is a developed single family lot with an area of 81,073
square feet. The proposed subdivision would create one additional new lot. The
resulting two lots would have areas of 40,073 square feet and 41,630 square feet.
The "neighborhood" as defined by Ordinance No. 804 includes 27 developed single
family lots. Median areas and dimensions for the neighborhood are as follows:
Median lot area: 14,500 square feet
Median lot width: 93 feet
Median lot depth: 152 feet
The two lots in the proposed subdivision have the following areas and dimensions:
The Subdivision Ordinance No. 804 sets the neighborhood median lot area, width,
and depth as minimum standards for proposed new lots. Both lots in the proposed
subdivision exceed the neighborhood requirements. In addition, both lots exceed
the minimum lot area to perimeter ratio of 0.1.
The proposed subdivision is essentially identical to a subdivision given
preliminary approval by the Planning Commission and Council in 1987. The
proponents did not return for final approval within the required one year period.
Thus the proposal was automatically denied.
In summary, Planner Larsen said the proposed subdivision meets or exceeds
requirements of the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances and that no variances are
required. The proposal is essentially the same as one previously approved with
the only difference being that this proposal would not save the existing dwelling..
Staff would recommend approval subject to: 1) Final plat approval,
2) Subdivision dedication, and 3) Utility connection charges.
The Community Development and Planning Commission heard the proposal at its
meeting of May 2, 1990 and recommended approval subject to conditions outlined by
staff and with the additional condition that a scenic easement for Lots 1 and 2 be
implemented to protect the wooded steep slopes and vegetation on the east and west
edges of the lot and that the driveway be located to cause minimal impact on the
slopes and vegetation.
Planner Larsen said that the proponent, Jane Cunningham, was present to answer any
questions. Mayor Richards asked Ms. Cunningham if she understood that the issue
of the scenic easement and the driveway location must be resolved prior to final
plat approval. Ms. Cunningham answered that she did. No further comment or
objection was heard.
Member Rice introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLAT
FOR CUNNINGHAM ADDITION
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, that that
certain plat entitled "CUNNINGHAM ADDITION ", platted by Jane A. Cunningham, a
single person, and presented at the regular meeting of the City Council of May 21,
1990, be and is hereby granted preliminary plat approval.
Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Member Kelly.
Rollcall:
Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards
Resolution adopted.
*REPORT GIVEN ON SIGN ORDINANCE NO. 451 RELATING TO CAMPAIGN SIGNS In the 1990
session, the Legislature amended the Fair Campaign Practices Act to address
"non - commercial signs. The effect of the amendment is to prevent cities from
regulating in any way signs posted between August 1 and ten days after the
election in a general election year. Currently, the City regulates the location,
size and number of signs posted on private property.
The statute refers to non - commercial signs, but the amendment is to the Fair
Campaign Practices Act. The statute does not define non - commercial signs. In the
Lot 1
Lot
2
Lot
area:
40,073 square feet
41,630
square feet
Lot
width:
145 feet
265
feet
Lot
depth:
260 feet
157
feet
Lot
width to
perimeter ratio: 0.19
0.30
The Subdivision Ordinance No. 804 sets the neighborhood median lot area, width,
and depth as minimum standards for proposed new lots. Both lots in the proposed
subdivision exceed the neighborhood requirements. In addition, both lots exceed
the minimum lot area to perimeter ratio of 0.1.
The proposed subdivision is essentially identical to a subdivision given
preliminary approval by the Planning Commission and Council in 1987. The
proponents did not return for final approval within the required one year period.
Thus the proposal was automatically denied.
In summary, Planner Larsen said the proposed subdivision meets or exceeds
requirements of the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances and that no variances are
required. The proposal is essentially the same as one previously approved with
the only difference being that this proposal would not save the existing dwelling..
Staff would recommend approval subject to: 1) Final plat approval,
2) Subdivision dedication, and 3) Utility connection charges.
The Community Development and Planning Commission heard the proposal at its
meeting of May 2, 1990 and recommended approval subject to conditions outlined by
staff and with the additional condition that a scenic easement for Lots 1 and 2 be
implemented to protect the wooded steep slopes and vegetation on the east and west
edges of the lot and that the driveway be located to cause minimal impact on the
slopes and vegetation.
Planner Larsen said that the proponent, Jane Cunningham, was present to answer any
questions. Mayor Richards asked Ms. Cunningham if she understood that the issue
of the scenic easement and the driveway location must be resolved prior to final
plat approval. Ms. Cunningham answered that she did. No further comment or
objection was heard.
Member Rice introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLAT
FOR CUNNINGHAM ADDITION
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, that that
certain plat entitled "CUNNINGHAM ADDITION ", platted by Jane A. Cunningham, a
single person, and presented at the regular meeting of the City Council of May 21,
1990, be and is hereby granted preliminary plat approval.
Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Member Kelly.
Rollcall:
Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards
Resolution adopted.
*REPORT GIVEN ON SIGN ORDINANCE NO. 451 RELATING TO CAMPAIGN SIGNS In the 1990
session, the Legislature amended the Fair Campaign Practices Act to address
"non - commercial signs. The effect of the amendment is to prevent cities from
regulating in any way signs posted between August 1 and ten days after the
election in a general election year. Currently, the City regulates the location,
size and number of signs posted on private property.
The statute refers to non - commercial signs, but the amendment is to the Fair
Campaign Practices Act. The statute does not define non - commercial signs. In the
opinion of the City Attorney, by letter dated May 11, 1990, the City would have
control over location of the signs and it would be a fair interpretation of the
statute to restrict the "non - commercial" signs to "campaign material ". The City
will also continue to require that signs be posted only on private property.
UPDATE GIVEN ON RESEARCH OF MASSING ISSUE Manager Rosland informed the Council
that, based upon the Council action of May 7, 1990, staff is pursuing the
following areas of research on the "massing" issue:
A., Urban Land Institute research service - Looking for alternative
approaches to development limits on single family lots.
B. LMC research service - Looking for similar information as ULI but on
state level.
C. Contacting similarly situated suburban communities nationwide to see if
they have experienced similar problems - Contact by Planning Department.
D. Review of Building Scale Study for the City of Lake Forest, Illinois -
Copies have been provided for the Council's review.
In conducting the research staff will be looking for the traditional as well as
the non - traditional approaches to restrict development on single family lots.
Examples of traditional approaches would be setbacks, lot coverage and height
limitations. Non - traditional approaches may include: floor area ratios, cubic
area limits, and rules to insure compatibility in an existing neighborhood.
The result of staff's research will be a draft ordinance for Council consideration
by the second meeting in July or the first meeting in August. The draft ordinance
would be more restrictive than the City's present ordinance.
A separate but related issue is the historical integrity of the Country Club area
as it relates to its place on the National Register of Historic Places. The
Heritage Preservation Board will be reviewing recent construction activity in the
area. The result of the Board's review may include recommendations for some form
of design control. This would be subject to review and approval by the Council.
It was the consensus of the Council that the proposed areas of research would
serve to address the massing issue and concerns of the Council.
PUBLIC HEARING CONDUCTED* RESOLUTION ADOPTED REIATING TO ISSUANCE OF REVENUE BONDS
TO FINANCE MULTIFAMILY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AND APPROVING MULTIFAMILY HOUSING
PROGRAM Pursuant to due notice given, a public hearing was conducted on a housing
program of the City under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C, and the issuance of
revenue bonds in order to finance a 72 -unit multifamily residential facility to be
constructed primarily for rental to persons 55 or older at the northwest corner of
the intersection of York Avenue South and Parklawn Avenue.
Assistant Manager Hughes stated that in accordance with the Council's direction of
April 16, 1990, a public hearing has been scheduled and the necessary documents
have been prepared for consideration of the subject revenue bond issue. A draft
resolution would provide for the approval of the housing program for the project.
It would also grant preliminary approval to the project including the issuance of
revenue bonds for project financing and would authorize the submission of the
housing program to the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA). If adopted, final
bond documents will then be prepared. Assuming approval by MHFA, the Council
could expect to consider final approval in 60 to 90 days.
The Council was asked to particularly note Section 2.05 and 2.06 of the
resolution. Section 2.05 provides that the developers will pay all costs
associated with the issuance of the bonds whether or not the development program
is carried out. Section 2.06 notes that the City retains the right to not issue
the bonds if it determines that the issuance is not in the City's best interest.
Assistant Manager Hughes referred to a letter dated May 17, 1990, from Keith S.
Jans, Director of Capital Improvement for Walker Management and Development, Inc.
which addressed three issues which staff had raised concerning the proposal. The
letter verifies that Walker Methodist, Inc. will guarantee to pay all operating
deficits and debt service on the bonds. The letter also proposed a City fee in
connection with the bond issue of $25,000. This is proportional to the fee that
the City has received for other bond issues in the City.
Mr. Jan's letter also addressed the concept of a covenant that the property will
remain taxable during the life of the bonds. Because this property is within the
South East Edina Tax Increment Financing District, the collection of tax
increments from the development is important. The letter verifies that Walker
will agree not to pursue a tax exempt classification for the property during the
time that the bonds are outstanding. This covenant, however, would be conditioned
upon certain tax increment collection levels being achieved. In staff's opinion,
this covenant should be unconditional.
If the Council wishes to proceed with the revenue bonds, staff would recommend
adoption of the resolution, conditioned upon a guarantee from Walker Methodist, a
City fee of $25,000, and an unconditional covenant that the property will remain
taxable during the life of the bonds.
Keith Jans, Director of Capital Development for Walker Management and Development,
stated that the third condition concerning the unconditional covenant is somewhat
unusual. He said Walker questioned why this covenant should be imposed when they
are not requesting any tax increment assistance for the project. Mayor Richards
pointed out that the staff is recommending an unconditional covenant that the
property will remain taxable during the life of the bonds, not the life of the
project. Mr. Jans said because they would like to have the bond issue approved,
Walker would concede on that issue.
For the record, Mayor Richards noted that a memorandum dated May 18, 1990 had been
received from Henry Hyatt in objection to the project and the issuance of bonds
for the reason that the development would be directly competitive to Edina Park
Plaza. No further comment or objections were heard.
Member Rice introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption, subject to
1) Guarantee from Walker Methodist, 2) City fee of $25,000, and 3) unconditional
covenant that the property will remain taxable during the life of the bonds:
RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE ISSUANCE OF REVENUE BONDS
PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES, CHAPTER 462C, FOR THE
PURPOSE OF FINANCING A MULTIFAMILY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT;
GIVING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO THE DEVELOPMENT, APPROVING A
MULTIFAMILY HOUSING PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZING PREPARATION OF NECESSARY DOCUMENTS
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota (the "City ") as
follows:
Section 1. Recitals.
1.01. By the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C, as amended (the
"Act "), the City is authorized to plan, administer, issue and sell revenue bonds
or obligations to make or purchase loans to finance one or-more multifamily
housing developments within its boundaries which revenue bonds or obligations
shall be payable solely from the revenues of the development or other security
pledged therefor.
1.02. The Act provides that, prior to issuing revenue bonds or obligations
to finance a multifamily housing development, the City must develop a housing
plan, and after holding a public hearing thereon after notice published at least
thirty days prior thereto, submit the housing plan for review to the Metropolitan
Council.
1.03. Pursuant to the Act, this Council has adopted a housing plan.
1.04. The Act further provides that the City may plan, administer and make
or purchase a loan or loans to finance one or more developments of the kinds
described in subdivisions 2,3,4 and 7 of Section 462C.05 of the Act upon adoption
of a program setting forth the information required by subdivision 6 of Section
462C.05 of the Act after a public hearing thereon after fifteen days published
notice and upon approval by the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency as provided by
Section 462C.01 of the Act on the basis of the considerations stated in Section
462C.04 of the Act.
1.05. Representatives of Walker Assisted Living Corporation I, a Minnesota
nonprofit corporation (the "Developer "), have advised this Council of its desire
to acquire land located within the geographical limits of the City at the
northwest corner of the intersection of York Avenue South and Parklawn Avenue and
construct and equip thereon a multifamily rental housing development containing
approximately 72 units, together with parking and related and subordinate
facilities designed for rental primarily to persons 55 or older and for frail
elderly who require managed assistance with daily activities but do not need to be
institutionalized (the "Development "). Total development and financing costs are
presented estimated by the Developer to be approximately $6,000,000.
1.06. Representatives of the Developer have requested that the City issue
its revenue bonds in one or more series (the "Bonds ") pursuant to the authority of
the Act in such aggregate principal amount as may be necessary to finance all or a
portion of the costs of the Development and make the proceeds of the bonds
available to the Developer, directly or indirectly, for the acquisition,
construction and equipping of the Development, subject to agreement by the
Developer to pay promptly the principal of and interest on the Bonds.
1.07. A multifamily housing program has been prepared pursuant to the
requirements of subdivision 5 of Section 462C.05 of the Act for the Development
and the issuance of the Bonds (the "Program "), a copy of which is attached as
Exhibit A hereto. A copy of the Program has been submitted to the Metropolitan
Council for review and comment as required by the Act.
1.08. At a public hearing, duly noticed and held on May 21, 1990, in
accordance with the Act and Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986,
as amended, on the Program, any comments on the Program submitted by the
Metropolitan Council were presented to the Council and all parties who appeared at
the hearing were given an opportunity to express their views with respect to the
Program and interested persons were given the opportunity to submit written
comments to the City before the time of the hearing.
Section 2. Ayprovals and Authorization.
2.01. The Program is hereby approved and it is hereby found and determined
that it would be in the best interests of the City to issue the Bonds under the
provisions of the Act in an amount currently estimated to be $6,900,000 to finance
all or a portion of the cost of the Development.
2.02. The Development and the issuance of the Bonds to finance the
development is hereby given preliminary approval by the City. The Bonds shall not
be issued until the .Program has been reviewed by the Minnesota Housing Financing
Agency as provided by the Act until the other requirements of the Act have been
satisfied, until the requirements of Section 145 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986, as amended (the "Code ") and all other provisions of the Code, necessary in
order to assure the tax exemption of the interest on any of the Bonds be interest
on which is intended to be excludable from federal income taxation have been
satisfied, and until the City, the Developer and the purchaser or purchasers of
the Bonds have agreed upon the details of the Bonds and the provisions for their
payment. The principal of, premium, if any, and interest on each Bond, when, as
and if issued, shall be payable solely from the revenues of the Development and
the property pledged to the payment thereof and shall not constitute a debt of the
City within the meaning of any constitutional and statutory limitation. The City
Attorney and other officers of the City are authorized to initiate preparation of
such documents as may be appropriate to the financing of the Development setting
forth the detailed terms of the Bonds, the security therefor and the provisions
for payment of the principal, premium, if any, and interest thereon in compliance
with state and federal statutes and regulations.
2.03. Pursuant to subdivision 1 of Section 462C.07 of the Act, in the making
of the loan to finance acquisition, construction and equipment of the Development
and the issuance of the Bonds or other obligations of the City, the City may
exercise, within its corporate limits, any of the powers of the Minnesota Housing
Finance Agency may exercise under Chapter 462A, Minnesota Statutes, without
limitation under the provisions of Chapter 475, Minnesota Statutes.
2.04. In accordance with Section 462C.04, subdivision 2 of the Act, the
Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to cause the Program to
be submitted to the Minnesota Housing Financing Agency for review. The Mayor,
City Manager, City Attorney and other officers, employees and agents of the City
are hereby authorized and directed to provide the Minnesota Housing Financing
Agency with any preliminary information needed for this purpose.
2.05. The Developer has agreed to pay directly or through the City any and
all costs incurred by the City in connection with the Development whether or not
the Program is rejected by the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency; whether or not
the Development is carried to completion; and whether or not the Bonds are issued.
2.06. The City retains the right, in its sole discretion, to withdraw from
participation, and, accordingly, not issue the Bonds should the City at any time
prior to the issuance thereof determine that it is in the best interest of the
City not to issue the Bonds.
Passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota this
21st day of May, 1990.
EXHIBIT A
PROGRAM FOR A MULTIFAMILY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
EDINA, MINNESOTA
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C (the "Act ") the City of Edina
(the "City ") has been authorized to develop and administer programs of multifamily
housing developments under the circumstances and within the limitations set forth
in the Act. In particular, Section 462C.05, subd. 1(a), provides that the City
may assist in the acquisition of a site and the construction of a new development.
Minnesota Statutes, Section 462C.07 authorizes such programs for a multifamily
housing development to be financed by revenue bonds issued by the City.
It is proposed that the City issue one or more series of multifamily housing
revenue bonds (the "Bonds ") to finance the acquisition and construction of a
72 -unit multifamily housing development located at the northwest corner of the
intersection of York Avenue South and Parklawn Avenue in the City (the "Project ").
The Project will be owned by Walker Assisted Living Corporation I, a Minnesota
nonprofit corporation (the "Borrower "). The Borrower is an affiliate of Walker
Residence Group. The Project will be rented primarily to persons 55 or older and
is designed for frail elderly who require managed assistance with daily activities
but do not need to be institutionalized. Assisted living services will be
provided to the occupants of the Project, including the availability of three
meals daily, housekeeping, transportation, security, social and recreational
activities and managed care services.
Living units in the Project will consist of a series of separate cluster
groups with four or five units per cluster, each surrounding a common social area.
The cluster group will contain a mixture of studio and one - bedroom units including
kitchens. The units will be specially designed for frail elderly persons. The
common area amenities include a main parlor, dining room, library and social
activities room.
In establishing this multifamily housing program (the "Program ") the City has
considered the information contained in the City's 462C housing plan, of which
this Program forms a part (the "Housing Plan "), including particularly (1) the
availability and affordability of other government housing programs; (2) the
availability and affordability of private market financing for the acquisition of
multifamily housing units (3) the recent housing trends and future needs of
persons and families residing and expected to reside in the City.
The City, in adopting this Program, has further considered the Program and
its compliance with the Housing Plan and its objectives and the cost to the City.
SUBSECTION A. Program for Financing the Project. It is proposed that the
City facilitate the financing of the Project. To do this, the City expects to
issue the Bonds, the proceeds of which will be lent to the Borrower and applied to
pay the costs of the Project.
It is contemplated that the Bonds shall mature in not more than thirty (30)
years and will be priced to the market at the time of issuance. The principal
amount of Bonds to be issued will not exceed $6,900,000.
The City will hire no additional staff for the administration of the Program.
The City intends to select and contract with a trustee experienced in trust
matters to administer the Bonds.
Insofar as the City will be contracting with underwriters, legal counsel,
bond counsel, the trustee, and others, all of whom will be reimbursed from bond
proceeds or amounts paid by the Borrower, no administrative costs will be paid
from the City's budget with respect to this Program. The Bonds will not be
general obligation bonds of the City, but are expected to be paid from revenues of
the Project and any additional collateral pledged by the Borrower or an affiliate.
SUBSECTION B. Standards and Requirements Relating to the Financing of the
Proiect Pursuant to this Program. The following standards and requirements shall
apply with respect to the operation of the Project by the Borrower pursuant to
this Program:
1. The proceeds of the sale of the Bonds will be used to finance the
Project, pay'costs of issuance of the Bonds and establish a reserve fund for the
Bonds. The funds will be made available to the Borrower pursuant to the terms of
the Bond offering, which may include certain covenants to be entered into between
the City and the Borrower.
2. The Borrower will not arbitrarily reject an application from a proposed
tenant because of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital
status, age or status with regard to public assistance or disability.
3. The Project will be operated primarily for the benefit of elderly
persons.
SUBSECTION C. Severability. The provisions of this Program are severable
and if any of its provision, sentences, clauses or paragraphs shall be held
unconstitutional, contrary to statute, exceeding the authority of the City or
otherwise illegal or inoperative by any court of competent jurisdiction, the
decision of such court shall not affect or impair any of the remaining provisions.
SUBSECTION D. Amendment. The City shall not amend this Program while Bonds
authorized hereby are outstanding to the detriment of the holders of the Bonds.
ATTEST:
Mayor
City Clerk
Motion for adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Member Kelly.
Rollcall:
Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards
Resolution adopted.
REQUEST OF R.M.(RED) AND CAROL SMITH. 4001 WEST 48TH STREET. TO VACATE PUBLIC ROAD
EASEMENT ON PART OF LOT 19, WHITE OARS FOURTH ADDITION WITHDRAWN Manager Rosland
informed the Council that R.M.(Red) and Carol Smith, 4001 West 48th Street, have
withdrawn their request that the City vacate what they believed to be a public
road easement adjoining their property on the East (Part of Lot 19, White Oaks
Fourth Addition) for the reason that they have sold the property.
EXECUTION OF QUIT CLAIM DEED AUTHORIZED TO RELEASE TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT
FOR SANITARY SEWER ON LOT 36, BLOCK 1. OSCAR ROBERTS FIRST ADDITION Engineer
Hoffman explained that the City obtained a temporary construction easement for a
sanitary sewer in 1957 on Lot 36, Block 1, Oscar Roberts First Addition. The
easement was to end upon completion of the sewer construction. However, since the
easement lacked an end date, the request is to clear the issue and title to the
property by quit claim deed from the City. Staff would recommend granting the
quit claim deed as requested.
Member Rice introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota that it hereby
directs the Mayor and City Clerk to execute on behalf of the City a Quit Claim
Deed on the property described as follows:
That part of Lot 36, Block 1, Oscar Roberts First Addition lying within the
South 30 feet of the North 60 feet of the East 3/4 of the South 1/2 of the
Northeast 1/4 of Section 31, Township 28 North, Range 24 West.
Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Member Kelly.
Rollcall:
Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, . Smith, Richards
Resolution adopted.
RESOLUTION ADOPTED RELATING TO DETO% CENTER Dr. David Walsh, Fairview Southdale
Hospital, advised the Council that in a cost cutting measure the Hennepin County
Board of Commissioners has voted to discontinue the contract with the Fairview
Receiving and Evaluation Center (FREC) which has provided safe detoxification over
the past ten years for the southwest suburban communities.
Dr. Walsh introduced Bob Sjostrom, 5816 Lyle Circle, who stated he was a
recovering alcoholic and gave testimony as to his personal experience with FREC.
He said he has been astonished at the competence, care and love that the staff has
shown in follow -up care through the sponsoring of AA groups. He emphasized the
need for a center of that type in the southwest suburbs.
As background, Dr. Walsh explained that Minnesota counties are mandated by state
law to provide detoxification services for county residents or persons found
inebriated in the county. In response to a request from Hennepin County in 1980
Fairview Southdale Hospital opened the FREC which is located at Hwy. 168 and
Valley View Road. In the past ten years FREC has provided safe detoxification for
over 16,000 persons with the demand increasing each year.
The detox center is counted on by the southwest suburban communities for two
reasons: 1) It provides a safe environment for inebriated persons to detoxify and
receive referrals for additional help, and 2) It provides a resource for the
community police departments to bring intoxicated individuals who are creating a
public nuisance or a threat to safety while maintaining a safe and tranquil
community. Last year there were 2,300 admissions, with the southwest suburbs
representing the majority of those admissions. In 1989 there were 186 individuals
brought to the receiving center from Edina, with 149 actually being residents.
On April 17, 1990 the Hennepin County commissioners voted to no longer have a
contract with FREC. Since that action, Fairview Hospital has heard from many
different individuals from the southwest suburbs, including Edina, about the need
to have that position re- examined. The concern is what is going to happen if the
services of FREC are no longer available. The Fairview Southdale Hospital Board
met last week and has authorized the hospital to continue to provide the service
to see if there is any political solution to get funding restored. To that end,
Dr. Walsh presented a resolution for the Council to consider asking the Hennepin
County Board to reconsider their action. He said it would also be hoped that
there would be some leadership from the affected communities (Bloomington, Eden
Prairie, Edina, Hopkins, Richfield, St. Louis Park) in making an appeal to the
Board of Commissioners. Dr. Walsh said the other communities have been contacted
and all are very receptive to this approach and see this as an important issue.
In response to Mayor Richards, Chief Swanson said the main concern of the Police
Department is convenience. If intoxicated people have to be transported to the
facility at Plymouth or Minneapolis it will add 15 -20 minutes each way for each
transport. In addition, the officers feel that FREC is a more caring place than
the detox center on Chicago Avenue in Minneapolis and is geared to the population
of the southwest suburbs as opposed to the core city population.
Member Kelly said she became aware of this situation at the last South Hennepin
Human Services Council meeting. She said the other cities are really working hard
on keeping the facility open and that she felt Edina should join in that effort.
Member Smith suggested that the resolution acknowledge the fact that funding cuts
must be made by the Hennepin County Board but they be on a pro -rata basis. Member
Kelly said she would agree but did not understand why not all the clients are
charged.
Member Rice asked if FREC had an adequate number of beds or whether there are more
than are used. Dr. Walsh answered that detox admissions ebb and flow; a week ago
on Friday night there were 13 admissions that had to be turned away. Member Rice
said he felt strongly about this issue and that a facility must be maintained for
the suburban communities.
Mayor Richards said it boils down to a political question - there are only so many
dollars and the County is faced with budget restraints. He said our position
should be that, in all fairness as taxpayers also, it does not seem equitable to
reduce funding for this suburban facility to zero. The City in concert with the
other affected communities should present that to the County Board.
Member Kelly then introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption, for
circulation to the other affected communities:
RESOLUTION
WHERE S :
- The Hennepin County Board of Commissioners has voted not to extend the
contract for the Fairviev Receiving and Evaluation Center beyond May 31,
1990, and
- One suburban facility does not have adequate capacity to serve the needs
of the suburban communities, and
- The distance of the Plymouth facility presents time and personnel
problems, and
- The community relies on Fairview Receiving and Evaluation Center to
provide safe detoxification for inebriated persons, and
- Intoxicated people vho cannot be admitted to a detoxification center
present a threat and danger to the safety and tranquility of the
community, and
- The role of detox is to provide early intervention and prevention of harm
to others, and
- The south suburban communities of Hennepin County have the largest
population and receive the lowest level of detoxification services, and
- The City of Edina understands the need for certain Hennepin County budget
cuts;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Edina City Council asks the Hennepin
County Board of Commissioners to continue the funding for detoxification.services
with the Fairview Receiving and Evaluation Center in Eden Prairie, but that this
funding be done so that available funds for all Hennepin County detox centers are
distributed on a pro -rata basis.
ADOPTED this 21st day of May, 1990.
Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Member Paulus.
Rollcall:
Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards
Resolution adopted.
MANAGER TO RESPOND TO CONCERN OF RESIDENT REGARDING SALT DAMAGE TO LAWN Manager
Rosland explained that the City's normal procedure has been to replace sod that
has been damaged by snowplows but to not repair salt damage to lawns. He said he
would write a letter to Miriam H. Manfred, 5227 Oaklawn Avenue, explaining that
policy.
*BID AWARDED FOR AIR CONDITIONING - BRA —MAR CATERING KITCHEN Motion was made by
Member Rice and was seconded by Member Smith for award of bid for air conditioning
for the Braemar catering kitchen to recommended low bidder, Flare Heating & Air
Conditioning, at $5,335.00.
Motion carried on rollcall vote, five ayes.
*BID AWARDED FOR AIR CONDITIONING - SENIOR CENTER Motion was made by Member Rice
and was seconded by Member Smith for award of bid for air conditioning for the
Senior Center at the Edina Community Center to recommended low bidder, Flare
Heating.and Air Conditioning, at $6,703.00.
Motion carried on rollcall vote, five ayes.
*BID AWARDED FOR HOIST FOR UTILITY TRUCK Motion was made by Member Rice and was
seconded by Member Smith for award of bid for hoist for utility truck to
recommended low bidder, LaHass Manufacturing b Sales, Inc., at $6,985.00.
Motion carried on rollcall vote, five ayes.
TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MINUTES OF 5/15/90 APPROVED: "STOP" SIGNS TO BE INSTALLED
ON WEST 54TH STREET AT MINNEHAHA BOULEVARD Engineer Hoffman referred to Section B
of the Traffic Safety Committee Minutes concerning a request from area residents
for "STOP" signs on West 54th Street at Minnehaha Boulevard. The vote on the
request was 2 -2 (only four members present) resulting in the request being denied.
Engineer Hoffman explained that in November, 1989, residents from the area had
appeared at the Traffic Safety Committee meeting requesting speed enforcement and
control and "STOP" sign consideration. The Committee had recommended to the
Council that traffic enforcement be increased on West 54th Street, that 25 m.p.h.
advisory signs be installed and that the results be reviewed in May, 1990. Since
that time, the Traffic Enforcement Unit had performed nine hours of enforcement
and conducted 10 speed surveys in April, 1990. The surveys showed that the signs
were not as effective as the enforcement efforts in achieving speed reduction.
Of the 1,500 vehicles surveyed in 1990, the 85th percentile speed was 31 -21 m.p.h.
Also, only two of the 1,500 vehicles were in excess of 40 m.p.h. Because of the
split vote, the issue before the Council is whether or not to install the "STOP"
signs as requested.
Mayor Richards asked Chief Swanson how he would have voted on the matter had he
been at the meeting. Chief Swanson answered, that based on clear warrants, e.g.
traffic volumes, accidents and general speed characteristics of the roadway, he
did not believe the "STOP" signs are warranted.
Dennis LaFrance, 5357 Oaklawn Avenue, said when the matter was brought to the
Traffic Safety Committee in November, 1989, a petition for the "STOP" signs was
presented signed by 71 residents. He explained that the neighborhood is a very
pedestrian oriented neighborhood with many children and elderly people who all use
the streets for recreational walking and for access to nearby Arden Park. Their
concerns were: 1) That the speed on West 54th Street was excessive, and 2) That
it was difficult for pedestrians to cross West 54th Street safely to access Arden
Park. Although the advisory 25 m.p.h. signs have helped, there are conflicting
signs which indicate 30 m.p.h. speed zone that should be removed. They felt
strongly that "STOP" signs at Minnehaha Boulevard would help reduce speeds plus
allow pedestrian crossing at that point.
Following further discussion by the Council, Mayor Richards made a motion to
approve installation of three way "STOP" signs at the intersection of West 54th
Street and Minnehaha Boulevard and that the pedestrian crosswalks be striped.
Motion was seconded by Member Smith.
Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards
Motion carried.
Member Paulus then moved approval of the following recommended action listed in
Section A of the Traffic Safety Committee Minutes of May 15, 1990:
1) To refer the matter of pedestrian safety concerns on West 50th Street between
Halifax and France Avenues to the Police Department for enforcement efforts at
their discretion,
2) To prohibit parking on the west side of Barrie Road approximately 25 feet
south of the driveway of 6423 Barrie Road, and to restrict parking to 3 hours on
the west side from this point to West 65th Street,
3) To install "NO PARKING - NO STOPPING - ANYTIME" signs on the west side of the
east frontage road in front of the Edina Community Center,
and to acknowledge Section C of the Minutes.
Motion for approval was seconded by Member Kelly.
Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards
Motion carried.
RECOMMENDATION PRESENTED ON CIGARETTE VENDING MACHINES Manager Rosland presented
a report prepared by David Velde, Sanitarian, on cigarette vending machines as
requested by the Council some time ago.
As of March 16, 1990, 13 communities in Minnesota have banned the sale of
cigarettes by vending machines,Ancluding Bloomington, Richfield and St. Louis
Park. Fourteen other communities have adopted ordinances that restrict vending
machine sales to certain locations such as bars, workplaces or other areas not
frequented by minors. Seven other communities are considering a total ban or
restricted areas for cigarette sales by vending machines.
The Edina Community Health Services Advisory Committee met on April 12, 1990, to
consider a draft ordinance which would prohibit the sale of cigarettes from
vending machines in Edina. The Committee recommended adoption of such an
ordinance.
Manager Rosland suggested that the Council consider holding a public hearing on
the proposed ordinance to prohibit sale of cigarettes from vending machines so
that the vending companies and the public would have the opportunity to express
their views.
Member Paulus made a motion setting June 18, 1990, as date for a public hearing to
consider a proposed ordinance to prohibit sale of cigarettes from vending machines
and that licensed vending companies be so notified. Motion was seconded by Member
Kelly.
Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards
Motion carried.
REPORT PRESENTED ON TREES IN COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT Park & Recreation Director
Kojetin presented a report on replanting of trees in the Country Club District.
He recalled that Bright Dornblaser, 4630 Drexel Avenue, had written a letter to
Mayor Richards in the Fall of 1989 asking the City to consider the replanting of
trees in the Country Club District where trees have been removed because of Dutch
elm disease. In subsequent discussion with Mr. Dornblaser, his concern was that
the cathedral look of the elm trees be continued.
Research indicated that only elms give this type of appearance. The National Elm
Institute has a program of re- introducing the elm back into communities throughout
the United States. These elm trees are seedlings from a group of disease
resistant trees in the Wisconsin area.
A meeting with the Country Club Neighborhood Association has been scheduled for
May 30, 1990 at which time this information will be presented for discussion.
Conversations so far with residents have all been positive for replanting with elm
trees.
MINNEAPOLIS REQUEST FOR SUPPORT OF CONTAMINATION STUDY DISCUSSED Engineer Hoffman
recalled that the request from the City of Minneapolis for support on a
contamination study of the upper Mississippi River was continued at the last
meeting so that additional information could be obtained.
He reported that an alternative water supply study is being conducted. Staff
believes that the issues should be reviewed together because one of the prime
alternatives in the Minneapolis study is to have surface water be the main water
source, with ground water being the back -up supply. In an interview with a
consulting firm retained by Minneapolis, staff was asked as to the feasibility of
hooking the Edina water system to the Minneapolis system to make the surface water
optimization theory work.
In addition, a Metropolitan Council report suggests a regional water system
similar to the regional sewer system operated by the Metropolitan Waste Control
Commission.
Engineer Hoffman said that his response to the feasibility of hooking the Edina
system to the Minneapolis system was basically negative. In talking to other
nearby suburbs not on the Minneapolis water system, it was the consensus that all
have an adequate well water supply. If the situation should arise whereby we
would need to look at contingency plans it would take a lot of technical change to
hook -up make Edina's system to Minneapolis because the Minneapolis system has much
lower pressure.
Staff response is that the Council needs to think about the bigger issue in terms
of a regional water system. However, that may not make things better locally as
the Edina water system is well planned, the City has a lot of wells and is able to
meet its high per capita water use demand.
Following discussion, it was the consensus of the Council that the City's response
should be to take a strong position of non - support.
BOND REFUNDING PROPOSAL FOR VERNON TERRACE PRESENTED: RESOLUTION ADOPTED GIVING
PRELIMINARY APPROVAL Manager Rosland presented the request outlined in a letter
dated May 16, 1990 from James Van Valkenburg, representing the Electrical Workers
Union Pension Plan, for consideration by the,Council of issuance of refunding
bonds for the Vernon Terrace project.
The proposal is to raise $6,000,000 (net) in new bonds and to pay the current
bondholders 55% of their claims. Court approval will be sought by First Trust of
St. Paul, current trustee for the bondholders. The trustee has determined that
this is the best solution for the bondholders. The new bonds will be guaranteed
by the Electrical Workers Annuity Plan and Pension Fund which have assets of over
$70,000,000. Currently, the Vernon Terrace Project has 118 units rented out of a
total of 146 and is showing progress. At 118 rented units, the project will
support the new bonds and their repayment.
James Van Valkenburg stated that the current bond issue is in default and this is
an attempt to pay off the current bondholders at approximately 55 %. He reiterated
that the request is for approval to issue bonds to refund the multifamily mortgage
revenue bonds for the Vernon Terrace Project. The new bonds will be guaranteed by
by the two pension funds which have substantial assets. The financial projections
show that the current level of building rentals will support the new bonds. Mr'.
Van Valkenburg said the request is for preliminary approval which will be
non - binding if the Council should, prior to issuance of the refunding bonds,
determine that issuance is not in the City's best interest.
Mayor Richards asked what would happen if the City takes no action. Mr. Van
Valkenburg said the existing bonds are in default and the bondholders would
receive less; the project itself would go through bankruptcy proceedings.
Member Rice asked Attorney Erickson why this is before the Council. Attorney
Erickson explained that the City is the issuer of the bonds, but otherwise has no
obligations. The bond resolution proposed specifically states that the refunding
bonds shall be payable solely from the revenues and funds pledged thereto and
shall never constitute a charge, lien or encumbrance upon any property of the
City. What is pledged is the revenues from the Vernon Terrace Project, similar to
the existing revenue bonds that the City also merely issued, pledged the revenues
from the project, which apparently have not been adequate, with no other source
with which to pay them.
Member Rice mentioned that he had talked to First Trust of St. Paul, the current
trustee, and in their judgement the bondholders would get the same amount of money
if the City takes no action, but they would not receive it for 9 -10 months. In
reviewing the appraisal of the property, Member Rice said it was on the
conservative side but within a reasonable range of value for the property.
Member Kelly raised the following questions and concerns:
1) Why issue bonds for $6,000,000 when the appraisal on the property is
$5,850,000. Kent Richey, of Leonard, Street and Deinard acting as bond counsel,
explained that the actual amount will be approximately $6,850,000. This will
provide the funds to pay off the current bondholders. The $850,000 will be used
for a reserve of six months and to pay cost of issuance. That reserve would be
held to protect the bondholders in case within any six -month period the revenues
of the project are insufficient. The reserve would tide them over until the
revenues are collected. The key to the refunding proposal is that there are two
pension funds that are guaranteeing the payment of the $6,850,000 bonds.
2) What will it take to make the building pay for itself and how will the
operating costs be paid? It has been said that if the building was fully rented
it would not pay for itself - now the statement has been made that at 118 units
rented the project will support the new bonds with no certainty that the 118 units
will remain occupied. Mr. Richey said projections show that the project will
break even at an 88% occupancy level which is projected to be achieved in 1991
At this time the project is approaching 82% occupancy, e.g. 121 units spoken for
through August. If the current debt structure is implemented with $6,850,000 the
pension funds will actually have to feed the project until that level is reached.
Senior housing never achieves 100% occupancy because of turnover (age, illness,
death). Their long term projection is 92% occupancy and it is on that projection
that the pension funds have decided to invest in the project.
3) Why should the project not be allowed to go through bankruptcy
proceedings? It is in a tax increment district and the City has invested
considerable public money in public improvements to make this facility work.
However, it has not worked and part of the problem is that the rents are too high.
The tax increment district was created to meet a public need and maybe that need
is not being met with what is there. Issuing the refunding bonds will only
compound the problem. In addition, it does not look good to have a project in
default under the name of Edina bonds. In response, Mr. Richey recited the
history on the project. The project carried $12,600,000 in original bonds. Since
that time the pension funds, as second mortgage holder, have put about $2,500,000
into the project. About a year ago the project went into default and could not
pay the debt service. The pension funds carried that debt for a little while but
has said it cannot keep on doing so. They approached the trustee and offered a
very conservative price to purchase the project. The trustee rejected the offer
and shopped for a better price, offering it to other investment banking houses and
to developers. Their goal was to get the best price for the bondholders and to
protect the name of the City of Edina as issuer of the bonds. After several
months of negotiating the trustee concluded that the pension funds offer was the
best and would provide the highest return to bondholders. The other offers were
also predicated on receiving new bond financing from the City. If the project
goes into bankruptcy .the recovery the bond holders will receive will be much
lower. During the interim period, the level of maintenance, service and operation
of the project for the current tenants cannot be assured. It is true that at some
point the value may be driven so low'that someone could buy it and be able to
lower the rents. Mr. Richey said while it is clearly in the discretion of the
Council to make that election, they would suggest that given the concerns of the
existing bondholders, the existing tenants and the fact that the project is now on
the road to recovery, bankruptcy may not be the most prudent course. Dave
Anderson, representing the pension funds, commented that the rents were lowered in
June of 1988 when they first became involved in the project.
Mr. and Mrs. Cornelius H. Renich, 5406 Creek View Lane, said they were current
bondholders and were of the opinion that the City should not issue refunding bonds
for the project but should let it go into bankruptcy.
Member Paulus asked if the project went into bankruptcy would it remain functional
during that time period. Mr. Van Valkenburg said probably it would, possibly it
would not. From his observations of bankruptcy proceedings it is not'a good
alternative as the bondholders will end up with a lot less dollars. The court
would appoint a trustee to handle it and their concern, obviously, would be to pay
off whatever obligations there are and whether there is enough money to run it
could be in doubt.
Member Rice asked if this property is under an.agreed upon tax valuation that
would remain in place. Mr. Van Valkenburg responded that there is a binding
agreement.
Member Smith raised the following questions and issues:
1) Does the pension funds management have experience in operating the
building? Mr. Richey said they are taking it on as an investment and their policy
is to hire a manager. The thought is that the existing management company would
continue because the price is right. However, they have the right to remove the
management company if the project is not being managed properly.
2) Would the pension funds get any of the bond proceeds as second mortgage
holder? Mr. Richey said they would not, the bond funds would go to pay off the
current bondholders.
3) Is there any possibility that after the present bondholders get paid
their 558 recovery on the bonds that they could stay in and participate on a
second basis, e.g. non - interest soft dollars on a performance basis. Mr. Richey
said that may be possible legally but from a business standpoint the pension funds
would find that an unattractive ownership proposition. They are already. taking a
risk by guaranteeing the new bonds.
4) When will the current bondholders get their payoff under the proposed
refunding bonds versus under bankruptcy? Mr. Richey said they could anticipate
receiving the money no later than July, 1990. If bankruptcy were involved they
may be looking at years.
Attorney Erickson spoke to the question concerning the operation of the building
if the project went into bankruptcy. He said he disagreed with the comment that
the building possibly would not remain in operation. Normally, the mortgagee
would take over the building, rent it for what he could get and pay the ongoing
expenses. If there was some revenue left over it would go for payment of
principal and interest. The building would be operated as normally as possible
and the residents would hardly know. This issue should not be a part of the
Council's discussion or vote on the proposal being presented. Attorney Erickson
said if the proponents disagree with these comments they should say so.
No further comments or objections were heard. Member Rice introduced the
following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION GIVING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO
ISSUANCE OF BONDS TO REFUND MULTIFAMILY MORTGAGE
REVENUE BONDS (VERNON TERRACE PROJECT) OF THE CITY
WHEREAS, the City of Edina, Minnesota (the "City ") previously issued its
Multifamily Mortgage Revenue Bonds (Vernon Terrace Project) dated as of December
1, `986 (the "Prior Bonds "), the proceeds of which were loaned to Grandview
Development Company Limited Partnership, a Minnesota limited partnership (the
"Original Company "); and
WHEREAS, a corporation owned or controlled by the trustees of the Electrical
`Yorkers Local No. 292 Annuity Plan and Electrical Workers Local No. 292 Pension
Fund (the "Company ") proposes to purchase the project financed with the Prior
Bonds; and
AREAS, the Company has requested the City to grant preliminary approval for
issuance of bonds (the "Refunding Bonds ") pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter
462C to refund in whole or part the Prior Bonds;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council-of the City of Edina,
Minnesota, as follows:
1. The City hereby gives approval to the issuance of the Refunding Bonds.
2._ Notwithstanding the foregoing, (a) all terms and conditions of the
Refunding Bonds and any security therefor shall be in substance and form
satisfactory to the City; (b) adoption of this Resolution shall not establish any
legal obligation of the City to issue any or all of the Refunding Bonds; (c) the
City retains the right not to issue all or any portion of the Refunding Bonds
should the City or its Council determine prior to issuance of the Refunding Bonds
that it is in the best interest of the City not to issue all Refunding Bonds;
(d) the Refunding Bonds shall be limited obligations of the City payable solely
from the revenues and funds pledged thereto and shall never constitute a charge,
lien or encumbrance, legal or equitable, upon any property of the City, except
revenues and amounts specifically pledged to the payment thereof, and shall not
constitute a general obligation or debt of the City within the meaning of any
constitutional or statutory limitation.
3. The officers and employees of the City are hereby authorized to execute
and deliver such other agreements, certificates or instruments, and take such
other actions as may be necessary and desirable to proceed with issuance of the
Refunding Bonds.
Adopted May 21, 1990.
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Motion for adoption of
Rollcall:
Ayes: Kelly, Paulus,
Abstaining: Richards
Resolution adopted.
Mayor
the resolution was seconded by Member Paulus,
Rice, Smith
(Trustee for Bondholder)
*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 05/21/90 and consisting of 31 pages: General Fund $269,399.99,
Communications $13,846.94, Art Center $15,010.91, Capital Fund $812.68, Swimming
Pool Fund $150.00, Golf Course Fund $35,631.28, Recreation Center Fund $5,965.17,
Gun Range Fund $486.03, Edinborough Park $22,863.72, Utility Fund $12,908.92,
Storm Sewer Utility $2,872.00, Liquor Dispensary Fund $96,792.48, Construction
Fund $582,234.56, IMP Bond Redemption #2 $800.00, Total $1,059,774.68, and for
confirmation of payment of the following claims as shown in detail on the Check
Register dated 04/30/90 and consisting of 19 pages: General Fund $370,127.74,
Communications $577.50, Art Center $1,134.78, Swimming Pool Fund $68.27, Golf
Course Fund $19,045.87, Recreation Center Fund $13,404.18, Gun Range Fund $562.70,
Edinborough Park $12,618.67, Utility Fund $21,353.42, Storm Sewer Utility $966.92,
Liquor Dispensary Fund $253,333.53.
Motion carried on rollcall vote, five ayes.
There being no further business on the Council Agenda, Mayor Richards declared the
meeting adjourned at 12:05 a.m.
City Clerk
i
04e���
0
AQ
• , Rte• `O/
iBeB
To:
From:
Date:
REPORT /RECOMMENDATION
KENNETH ROSLAND
CRAIG LARSEN
JULY 2, 1990
Subject: JOINT COOPERATION
AUKEEMENT WITH•HENNEPIN
COUNTY FOR CDBG FUNDS
Recommendation:
Agenda Item #
III.
A.
Consent
[X]
Information Only
❑
Mgr. Recommends
[]
To HRA
0
To Councii
Action
0
Motion
❑
Resolution
❑
Ordinance
❑
Discussion
Authorize Mayor and Manager to execute agreement.
Info /Background
dur current Joint Cooperation Agreement with Hennepin County will expire
September 30, 1990. The attached agreement would renew and extend the
agreement for three years. There are no changes from the prior three year
agreement. The agreement regulates the use of CDBG funds.
Contract No. 4641 o
JOINT COOPERATION AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into by and between the COUNTY OF
HENNEPIN, State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY," and the
CITY OF F-dino— , hereinafter referred to as "COOPERATING
UNIT," said parties to this Agreement each being governmental units of the
State of Minnesota, and is made pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section
471.59;
WITNESSETH;
COOPERATING UNIT and COUNTY agree that it is desirable and in the
interests of their citizens that COUNTY secure Community Development Block
Grant funds as an Urban County within the provisions of the Act as herein
defined and, therefore, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises
contained in this Agreement, the parties mutually agree to the following terms
and conditions.
I. DEFINITIONS
The definitions contained in 42 USC 5302 of the Act and 24 CFR Part 570.3
of the Regulations are incorporated herein by reference and made a part
hereof, and the terms defined in this section have the meanings given them:
A. "Act" means Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of
1974-as amended (42 U.S.C. 5301 et.sea.).
B. "Regulations" means the rules and regulations promulgated pursuant
to the Act, including but not limited. to 24 CFR Part 570.
C. "HUD" means the United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development.
D. "Cooperating Unit" means any city or .town in Hennepin- County which
has entered into a cooperation agreement which is identical to this
Agreement, as well as Hennepin County which is a party to each
Agreement.
E. "Statement of Objectives and Projected Use of Funds" means the
document bearing that title or similarly required statements or
documents submitted to HUD for authorization to expend the annual
grant amount and which is developed by the COUNTY in conjunction
with COOPERATING UNITS as part of the Community Development Block
Grant program.
F. "Metropolitan City" means any city located in whole or in part in
Hennepin County which is certified by HUD to have a population of
50,000•or more people.
II. PURPOSE
The purpose of this Agreement is to authorize COUNTY and COOPERATING UNIT
to cooperate to undertake, or assist in undertaking, community renewal and
lower income housing activities, specifically urban renewal and publicly
assisted housing and authorizes COUNTY to carry out these and other eligible
activities for the benefit of eligible recipients who reside within the
corporate limits of the COOPERATING UNIT which will be funded from annual
Community Development Block Grants from Fiscal Years 1991, 1992 and 1993.
III. AGREEMENT
A. The term of this Agreement is for a period commencing on the
effective date of October 1, 1990, terminating no sooner than the
end of the program year covered by the Statement of Objectives and
Projected Use of Funds for the basic grant amount for the Fiscal
Year 1993 as authorized by HUD subsequent to the effective date and
for such additional time as may be required for the expenditure of
funds granted to the County for such period.
B. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, this'Agree-
ment shall be terminated at the end of the three -year program period
during which HUD withdraws its designation of COUNTY as an Urban
County under the Act.
C. This Agreement shall be executed by the appropriate officers of
COOPERATING UNIT and COUNTY pursuant to authority granted them by
their respective governing bodies, and a copy of the authorizing
resolution and executed Agreement shall be filed promptly by the
COOPERATING UNIT in the Hennepin County Office of Planning and
Development, and in no event shall the Agreement be filed later than
August 17, 1990.
D. COOPERATING UNIT and COUNTY shall take all actions necessary to
assure compliance with the urban county's certification required by
Section 104(b) of the Title I of the Housing and Community Develop -
ment'Act of 1974, as amended, including Title VI of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, the Fair Housing Act, Title VIII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1968, Section 109 of Title I of the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1974, and other applicable laws.
IV. ACTIVITIES
COOPERATING UNIT agrees that awarded grant funds will be used to under-
take and carry out within the terms of this Agreement certain projects
involving one or more of the essential activities eligible for funding under
the Act. COUNTY agrees and will assist COOPERATING UNIT in the undertaking of
such essential activities by providing the services specified in this Agree-
ment. The parties mutually agree to comply with all applicable requirements
of the Act and the Regulations and other relevant Federal and /or Minnesota
statutes or regulations. in the use of basic grant amounts. Nothing in this
Article shall be construed to lessen or abrogate COUNTY's responsibility to
assume all obligations of an applicant under the Act, including the develop-
ment of the Statement of Objectives and Projected Use of Funds pursuant to 24
CFR 570.300 et.sea.
2
A. COOPERATING UNIT further specifically agrees as follows:
1. COOPERATING UNIT will in accord with a COUNTY established
schedule prepare and provide to COUNTY, in a prescribed form,
an annual request for the use of Community Development Block
Grant Funds consistent with this Agreement, program regulations
and the Urban Hennepin County Statement of Objectives.
2. COOPERATING UNIT acknowledges that, pursuant to 24 CFR 570.501
(b), it is subject to the same requirements applicable to
subrecipients, including the requirement for a written Sub -
recipient Agreement set forth in 24 CFR 570.503. The Sub -
recipient Agreement will cover the implementation requirements
for each activity funded pursuant to this Agreement and shall
be duly executed with and in a form prescribed by COUNTY.
3. COOPERATING UNIT acknowledges that it is subject to the same
subrecipient requirements stated in 2. above in instances where
an agency other than itself is undertaking an activity pursuant
to this Agreement on behalf of COOPERATING UNIT. In such
instances a written Third Party Agreement shall be duly
executed between the agency. and COOPERATING UNIT in a form
prescribed by COUNTY.
4. , COOPERATING UNIT shall implement all activities funded for each
annual program pursuant to this Agreement within eighteen (18)
months of the authorization by HUD to expend the basic grant
amount.
(a) Funds for all activities not implemented within eighteen
(18) months shall be added to the next annual basic grant
amount received by COUNTY and allocated according to the
procedures set forth in and comply with all conditions of
this Agreement.
(b) Implementation period extensions may be granted upon
request in cases where the authorized activity has been
initiated and /or subject of a binding contract to proceed.
5. COOPERATING UNIT shall use funds provided pursuant to Section
V. of this Agreement to undertake no more than three (3) grant
funded activities administered by the COOPERATING UNIT. Each
activity shall have a budget of at least seventy -five hundred
dollars ($7,500), or the total amount of the planning alloca-
tion of COOPERATING UNIT if less than seventy -five hundred
dollars ($7,500). A COOPERATING UNIT may assign less than
seventy -five hundred dollars ($7,500) to an activity when the
activity is one that is programmed by at least one other
COOPERATING UNIT and administered by only one COOPERATING UNIT
on behalf of the others, provided that the total activity
budget is at least seventy -five hundred dollars ($7,500).
3
6. COOPERATING UNIT will take actions necessary to accomplish the
community development program and housing assistance goals as
contained in the Urban Hennepin County Housing Assistance Plan.
7. COOPERATING UNIT shall ensure that all programs and /or activi-
ties funded in part or in full by grant funds received pursuant
to this Agreement shall be undertaken affirmatively with regard
to fair housing, employment and business opportunities for
minorities and women. It shall in implementing all programs
and /or activities funded by the basic grant amount comply with
all applicable Federal and Minnesota Laws, statutes, rules and
regulations with regard to civil rights, affirmative action and
equal employment opportunities and Administrative Rule issued
by the COUNTY.
8. COOPERATING UNIT that does not affirmatively further fair
housing within its own jurisdiction or that impedes action by
COUNTY to comply with its.fair housing certification shall be
prohibited from receiving CDBG funding for activities.
9. COOPERATING UNIT shall participate in the citizen participation
process as established by COUNTY in compliance with the
requirements of the Housing and Community Development Act of
1974, as amended.
10. COOPERATING UNIT shall comply with all of the administrative
guidelines of the COUNTY now in effect or as hereafter promul-
gated.
11. COOPERATING UNIT shall prepare, execute, and cause to be filed
all documents protecting the interests of the parties hereto or
any other party of interest as may be designated by the COUNTY.
B. COUNTY further specifically agrees as follows:
1. COUNTY shall prepare and submit to HUD and appropriate review-
ing agencies on an annual basis all plans, statements and
program documents necessary for receipt of a basic grant amount
under the Act.
2. COUNTY shall provide, to the maximum extent feasible, technical
assistance and coordinating services to COOPERATING UNIT in the
preparation and submission of the request for funding.
3. COUNTY shall provide ongoing technical assistance to COOPERAT-
ING UNIT to aid COUNTY in fulfilling its responsibility to HUD
for accomplishment of the community development program and
housing assistance goals.
4. COUNTY shall upon official request by COOPERATING UNIT agree to
administer local housing rehabilitation grant programs funded
pursuant to the Agreement, provided that COUNTY shall receive
twelve percent (12 %) of the allocation by COOPERATING UNIT to
the activity as reimbursement for costs associated with the
administration of COOPERATING UNIT activity.
4
5. COUNTY may, as necessary for clarification and coordination of
program administration, develop and implement Administrative
Rules consistent with the Act, Regulations and HUD administra-
tive directives.
V. ALLOCATION OF BASIC GRANT AMOUNTS
Basic grant amounts received by the COUNTY under the Act shall be
allocated as follows:
A. COUNTY shall retain ten percent (10 %) of the annual basic grant
amount for the undertaking of eligible activities.
B. The balance of the basic grant amount shall be apportioned by COUNTY
to COOPERATING UNITS in accordance with the formula stated in part C
of this section for the purpose of allowing the COOPERATING UNITS to
make requests for the use of funds so apportioned. The allocation
is for planning purposes only and is not a guarantee of funding.
C. Each COOPERATING UNIT will use as a target for planning purposes an
amount which bears the same ratio to the balance of the basic grant
amount as the average of the ratios between:
I. The population of COOPERATING UNIT and the population of all
COOPERATING UNITS.
2. The extent of poverty in COOPERATING UNIT and the extent of
poverty in all COOPERATING UNITS.
3. The extent of overcrowded housing by units in COOPERATING UNIT
and the 'extent of overcrowded housing by units in all COOPERAT-
ING UNITS.
4. In determining the average of the above ratios, the ratio
involving the extent of poverty shall be counted twice.
D. It is the intent of this section that said planning allocation
utilize the same basic elements for allocation of funds as are set
forth in 24 CFR 570.4. The COUNTY shall develop these ratios based
upon data to be furnished by HUD. The COUNTY assumes no duty to
gather such data independently and assumes no liability for any
errors in the data furnished by HUD.
E. In the event COOPERATING UNIT does not request its planning alloca-
tion, or a portion thereof, the amount not requested shall be added
to the next annual basic grant amount received by COUNTY and
allocated according to the procedures set forth in and comply with
all conditions of this Agreement.
VI. FINANCIAL MATTERS
A. Reimbursement to the COOPERATING UNIT for expenditures for the
implementation of activities funded under the Act shall be made
upon receipt by the COUNTY of Summary of Project Disbursement form
and Hennepin County Warrant Request, and supporting documentation.
E
B. All funds received by COUNTY under the Act as reimbursement for
payment to COOPERATING UNITS for expenditure of local funds for
activities funded under the Act shall be deposited in the County
Treasury.
C. COOPERATING UNIT and COUNTY shall maintain financial and other
records and accounts in accordance with requirements of the Act and
Regulations. Such records and accounts will be in such form as to
permit reports required of the County to be prepared therefrom and
to permit the tracing of grant funds and program income to final
expenditure.
D. COOPERATING UNIT and COUNTY agree to make available all records and
accounts with respect to matters covered by this-Agreement at all
reasonable times to their respective personnel and duly authorized
federal officials. Such records shall be retained as provided by
law, but in no event for a period of less than three years from the
last receipt of program income resulting from activity implementa-
tion. COOPERATING UNIT and COUNTY shall perform all audits as may
be required of the basic grant amount and resulting program income
as required under the Act and Regulations.
E. COOPERATING UNIT shall inform COUNTY of any income generated by the
expenditure of CDBG funds it has received and shall pay to COUNTY
all program income generated except as derived from activities with
an approved revolving account. When program income is generated by
an activity that is only partially assisted with CDBG funds, the
income shall be prorated to reflect the percentage of CDBG funds
used.
1. COUNTY will retain ten percent (108) of all program income paid
to COUNTY to defray administration expenses.
2. The remaining ninety percent (908) of the program income paid
to COUNTY shall be credited to the grant authority of COOPERAT-
ING UNIT whose project generated the program income and shall
be used for fundable and eligible CDBG activities consistent
with this Agreement.
3. COOPERATING UNIT is authorized to retain program income derived
from projects with an approved revolving account provided such
income is used only for eligible activities in accordance with
all CDBG requirements as they may apply.
4. COOPERATING UNIT shall maintain appropriate records and make
reports to COUNTY as may be needed to enable COUNTY to monitor
and report to HUD on the use of any program income.
5. Any program income that is on hand or received subsequent to
the closeout or change in status of COOPERATING UNIT shall be
paid to COUNTY.
A
F. Should an approved activity-be determined to represent an ineligible
expenditure of grant.funds, the COOPERATING UNIT responsible shall
reimburse the COUNTY for such ineligible expense.
1. All reimbursements for ineligible expenditures shall be added
to the next annual basic grant amount received by COUNTY and
allocated according to the procedures set forth in and comply
with all conditions of this Agreement unless decreed otherwise
by an Federal regulatory body or by final determination of a
court of competent jurisdiction.
2. When it is determined by the COUNTY that grant funds have been
expended on an eligible activity and through no fault of the
COOPERATING UNIT the project fails or is no longer eligible,
the return of grant funds shall be reallocated in the same
manner as program income in Section VI.E. of this Agreement
unless decreed otherwise by a Federal regulatory body or by
final determination of a court of competent jurisdiction.
VII. REAL PROPERTY ACQUISITION OR IMPROVEMENT
The following provisions shall apply to real property acquired or
improved in whole or in part using CDBG funds.
A. COOPERATING UNIT shall promptly notify COUNTY of any modification or
change in the use of real property from that planned at the time of
acquisition or improvement including disposition and comply with
24 CFR 570.505.
B. COOPERATING UNIT shall reimburse COUNTY the greater of the actual
sale proceeds or an amount equal to the current fair market value
(less any portion thereof attributable to expenditures of non -CDBG
funds) of property acquired or improved with CDBG funds that is sold
or transferred for a use which does not qualify under the CDBG
regulations.
C. Program income generated from the disposition or transfer of
property prior to-or subsequent to the closeout, change of status or
termination of this Agreement shall be treated as stipulated in
Section VI, paragraph E of this Agreement.
VIII. METROPOLITAN CITIES
Any metropolitan city executing this Agreement shall defer their entitle-
ment status and become part of Urban Hennepin County.
7
IX. EXECUTION
COOPERATING UNIT, having signed this Agreement, and the Hennepin County
Board of Commissioners having duly approved this Agreement on
19_, and pursuant to such approval and the proper County official
having signed this Agreement, the parties hereto agree to be bound by the
provisions herein set forth.
Upon Proper execution, this
Agreement will be legally
valid and binding:
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, STATE OF MINNESOTA
By:
Chairman of its County Board
'Assistant County Attorney _
Deputy /Associate County Administrator
Attest:
Date: -1
APPROVED AS TO EXECUTION:
Assistant County Attorney
Date:
CITY OF
Deputy County Auditor
By:
Its
And:
Its
CITY MUST CHECK ONE:
The City is organized pursuant to:
Plan A Plan B Charter
RESOLUTION
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, that it
hereby authorizes and directs the Mayor and Manager to execute on behalf of
the City the Joint Cooperation Agreement with Hennepin County (Contract
No. A04790) to continue the Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block
Grant Program for federal fiscal years 1991, 1992 and 1993.
ADOPTED this 2nd day of July, 1990.
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) SS
CITY OF EDINA ) CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK
I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting City Clerk for the City of Edina, do
hereby certify that the above and foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the -
Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of July 2, 1990 and as recorded in the
Minutes of said Regular Meeting.
WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this 3rd day of July, 1990.
Marcella M. Daehn
City Clerk
U)
O
a�
REPORT /RECOMMENDATION
To: KENNETH ROSLAND
From. DAVID A. VELDE
Date: JULY 2, 1990
Subject: AN ORDINANCE LICENSING
1UVL KLUULAIINU 'lilt, SALT;
OF CIGARETTES, IMPOSING
A PENALTY AND REPEALING
ORDINANCE NO. 1321.
Recommendation:
Agenda Item #
IV.
A. 1.
Consent
❑
Information. Only
;lam
Mgr. Recommends
❑
To HRA
[�
40�
U)
O
a�
REPORT /RECOMMENDATION
To: KENNETH ROSLAND
From. DAVID A. VELDE
Date: JULY 2, 1990
Subject: AN ORDINANCE LICENSING
1UVL KLUULAIINU 'lilt, SALT;
OF CIGARETTES, IMPOSING
A PENALTY AND REPEALING
ORDINANCE NO. 1321.
Recommendation:
Agenda Item #
IV.
A. 1.
Consent
❑
Information. Only
Mgr. Recommends
❑
To HRA
[�
To Council
Action
❑
Motion
❑
Resolution
0
Ordinance
❑
Discussion
Approve second reading of Ordinance No. 1322 to prohibit the sale of cigarettes
from vending machines in the City of Edina. Section 6 of Ordinance No. 1322
"Termination of Existing Licenses for Vending Machines" should be changed so
that existing cigarette vending machine licenses will be revoked as of August
1, 1990.
Info /Background
On June 18, 1990, the City Council held a public hearing to consider Ordinance
No. 1322 which will prohibit the sale of cigarettes by vending machine. The
Edina City Council gave First Reading of the Ordinance and scheduled second
reading for July 2, 1990.
On June 20, 1990, the Edina Sun Current published an article describing the
testimony at the public hearing and the action taken by the Edina City Council.
The article stated that final consideration of the Ordinance will be heard on
July 2, 1990.
ORDINANCE NO. 1322
AN ORDINANCE LICENSING AND REGULATING THE
SALE OF CIGARETTES, TERMINATING LICENSES FOR
EXISTING CIGARETTE VENDING MACHINES, IMPOSING
A PENALTY AND REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 1321
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
Sec. 1. License Required. No person shall keep cigarettes for retail sale
in the City of Edina or sell cigarettes at retail in the City of Edina unless such person
shall have in effect a valid license to do so obtained from the City of Edina.
Sec. 2. License Procedure and Control; Penalties. The provisions of
Ordinance No. 141 of the City, including the enforcement and penalty provisions
thereof, shall apply to all licenses required by this ordinance and to the holders of
such licenses.
Sec. 3. ARDlications. The applicant shall state the following in the
application for a license in addition to the information required by Ordinance
No. 141:
(a) The applicant's name and business address;
(b) The telephone number at the business in the City of Edina
where cigarettes are to be sold; and
(c) The location or locations in the City of Edina where the sale
of cigarettes is proposed to be conducted.
Sec. 4. License Fee. The license fee shall be as provided in Ordinance
No. 171 of the City.
Sec. 5. Rules and Regulations.
(a) No license shall be issued for the sale of cigarettes at a
movable place of business.
(b) No person shall sell any cigarette to any person under the age
of 18 years.
(c) No person shall sell or keep for sale any cigarette containing
any controlled substance as defined in Ordinance No. 1014 of the City of
Edina, except nicotine or tobacco.
`f
(d) No person shall be granted a license for, or permit, any
vending machine to be used to sell cigarettes to any person.
Sec. 6. Termination of Existing Licenses for Vending Machines. All
licenses previously issued by the City for vending machines to sell cigarettes in the
City of Edina are revoked as of July 1, 1990. License fees paid for such revoked
licenses shall be refunded pro rata based on the then remaining term of the license,
upon application made by the licensee for such refund.
Sec. 7. Violation to be Reported. The Chief of Police or his /her deputy
shall notify the City Manager or his /her designated representative of any violation
of any of the provisions of this ordinance.
Sec. 8. Penalty. Any person violating this ordinance shall be subject to
the penalties set forth in Ordinance No. 175 of the City. Such penalties may be
imposed in addition to suspension or revocation of license as provided in
Ordinance No. 141, or impounding of a vending machine or machines.
Sec. 9. Repealer. Ordinance No. 1321 is hereby repealed in its entirety.
Sec. 10. Effective Date.This ordinance shall be in full force and effect
immediately upon its passage and publication.
First Reading:
Second Reading:
Published in the Edina Sun - Current on
ATTEST:
City Clerk
2
Mayor
Agenda Item: V.A.
To: Marcella Doehn, City Clerk
Fred Richards, Mayor
Peggy Kelly, Council Member
Jane Paulus, Council Member
Bernard Rice, Council Member
Glenn Smith, Council Member
From: Dr. Christian and Mary Schrock
Date: June 26, 1990
Re: City Council Meeting July 2, 1990
We are requesting to be placed on the City Council agenda for
the July 2nd meeting to discuss the policy on curb cuts and driveway
materials used between the city sidewalk and the street. Our proposed
driveway and landscaping project was presented to the City Council on
June 18 by Fran Hoffman. We were not notified that it was to be on
the agenda, nor was our landscaper. We feel that we have a right to
present the rationale and background for our proposal and would like
to do that at the July 2nd meeting.
We originally conceived of the circular driveway concept when
we started thinking about our son, Eric, turning 16 this summer and
starting to drive. Our home is located at one of the busiest
intersections in Country Club, on the corner of Sunnyside and Drexel.
When backing out of our driveway, traffic can be coming from five
directions: 1) east on Sunnyside, 2) west on Sunnyside 3) north on
Drexel 4) north on Wooddale , and 5) south on Wooddale.
As adult, experienced drivers we have found it very difficult to back
out of our driveway, and in fact, have experienced several near
accidents. We very much want to avoid any preventable, dangerous
situations for our upcoming teenage drivers and therefore thought that
a circular driveway would be a logical solution. This way we could
drive out forward rather than having to back out. Safety was the
prime motivation for our proposal.
We are very concerned with maintaining the integrity of the
architecture and historic standards of the Country Club district.
Having lived in the Country Club section for 15 years, we are very
much aware of and strong proponents of maintaining the character of
the neighborhood. For this reason we do not want to put in asphalt or
plain concrete driveway; we are willing to make the extra investment
and put in a driveway of brick pavers similar to the pavers just
installed at Edina Country Club.
I would also like to review the sequence of events and
conversations relating to our project. I brought a rough sketch of our
proposal last winter to the Planning Department and spoke with Phil
Dommer. I wanted to find out if there were any restrictions that would
apply to our plan. He said that the driveway on the west could go
right to the lot line; the driveway to the east would be limited by
the survey marker at the end of the arc coming off Drexel. He said it
looked like a good plan and that when our landscaper had the detailed
drawings finished, he should bring them by and get the permit for the
curb cuts.
We proceeded, based on this conversation, to hire a landscape
architect, draw up plans, and choose materials. Our landscaper, Al
Hipps, had several conversations with the planning department to make
sure that we were complying with any city requirements. His
communications with the city began last March and April. We were never
told of any potential problems until Friday, June 22, when someone
finally returned Al's phone calls. He had been calling repeatedly to
get the permit for the curb cuts. You can imagine our surprise when
we were told that the City Council had now established a policy
denying more than one curb cut in Country Club. Not only had we never
been given an indication of any problem; we were never informed that
our project was on the agenda; we had a right to be at the meeting.
Fran Hoffman told Al Hipps that our project in particular was
never discussed and that the policy was a generic one. However, after
listening to the tape of the meeting, it is clear that our plan was
shown to the Council. Also, the location of our home was named as
being at the corner of Sunnyside and Drexel. Also, Mr. Hoffman on the
tape says that he told the homeowners "no" on this proposal. I have
never met Mr. Hoffman. He never told the landscape architect no
either. Also, according to the tape, one of the reasons for requesting
a denial is the narrowness of the lots in Country Club. Because we
have a large corner lot, we have 224 feet fronting the street. This is
certainly much more than the standard 50 -70 foot lot widths in the
middle of the block and should be taken into consideration regarding
this request.
I would invite any of you to come and attempt to back out of
our driveway between 7:30 and 8:30 in the morning and between 4:30 and
6 :00 in the evening. I think then you would understand the reasoning
for our proposed change in configuration.
We will be waiting to hear from you regarding the approximate
time that this issue will be addressed on the July 2nd agenda.
Thank you for your time in considering this matter.
CITY OF EDINA
DATE: June 29, 1990
TO: Ken Rosland, City Manager
FROM: Fran Hoffman, Director of Public Work*
SUBJECT: 4500 Drexel - Mr. & Mrs. Schrock
The attached letter is actually a request for a variance to our City policy
in the Country Club District.
As it relates to this specific project, I had instructed Mr. Hipps on June
12th (when he dropped the plan off for me to review) that the issue of
concrete sidewalk and concrete driveway existed. Additionally, I indicated
that he would not hear from us until the week of June 18 -22. At the June
14th staff meeting, I brought the issue in for discussion and suggestion
that the City Council possibly should review the issue of the Country Club
District and use of the public right -of -way.
At the June 18th Council meeting, the Council voted to continue the
following direction: (1) concrete sidewalks, (2) concrete driveway between
sidewalk and street, and (3) one curb opening. I informed Mr. Hipps that
was the Council direction and if he or client wished to pursue the layout,
then they should request a variance from the policy.
Finally, I did have a telephone discussion with Mr. Schrock at some point in
mid - spring about the issues mentioned above, but I was not aware of a solid
proposal until Mr. Hipps delivered the plan for review.
RON KRur=Gr=R & ASSOCIATES, INC.,
REGISTERED L A N D SURVEYORS
6440 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE, EDEN PRAIRIE, MINN. 55344 PHONE 612-941.3030
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
Survey tQr_ DR. SCHROX lJob No Bk. 441.0 Pa
I
%n
I hereby certify that this is 'a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of
-PAIrld fairway Sirdl'oa- Hel"- County, Minnesota and of the location of all buildings thereon, and all
visible encroachments. it any, from or on said land. Surveyed by me this ein. M 19
RON KRUEGER & ASSRIATYEE�S§,INC.
CrA'rP7 Mr-P� L.� -^ A
Lj
<
Ism
11
DR. and MRS. GERALD SCHROCK
revisions, 4500 DREXEL AVENUE dale, fbD
tgud(�a(Dw OR& EDINA, MINNESOTA 55424 dmwn by,
sheets, -L or -L
t
AGENDA ITEM: V.B.
To: Edina City Council
Date: June 28, 1990
Page: 1
The following items concern the issue of paving of the gravel
service alley located between the 5100 block of Bedford Avenue
and Oxford Avenue:
The Problem
The condition of the alley is dependent on weather conditions.
In dry weather, the passage of each vehicle on the alley creates
a very large cloud of dust which then settles in and on the
homes. parked cars, patio furniture. etc. and also must be
breathed by anyone down wind at the time. In wet weather the
clay /gravel /sand surface erodes leaving deep ruts and puddles
which are hard to drive over and difficult to walk or ride a
bicycle over. The supporting ground for abutting paved driveways
has also been eroded to the point that the paved driveways are
also crumbling off and washing downstream. It should be noted
that the alley is designated in the plat survey to serve as a
drainage easement. The problem is now further irritated_ by the
fact that the several refuse hauling operators now must make
separate pickup runs for yard waste and recycling. increasing the
heavy truck traffic and deepening the ruts.
The situation is not only an inconvenience, but is also a
potential safety hazard and detracts from the neighborhood
appearance and from property values.
Subsequent associated problems include constant loose sand and
gravel on the pavement through the intersection at 51st Street
and Bedford Avenue which is not only unsightly, but creates a
safety hazard for cars and bicycles. The washout eventually ends
up in the storm sewer system which not only incurs cost for clean
out, but poses a possible flooding hazard if the storm sewers
were to become sufficiently clogged.
/A
c
To: Edina City Council
Date: June 28. 1990
Page: 2
History
Due to the arrangement of different styles of homes constructed
on properties abutting the alley. the pavement issue has never
been resolved. Half of the properties have detached garages
which are accessed from the alley, while the other half have
attached garages which are accessed from the street. Also. some
of the properties with garages which are accessed by the alley
are rental properties in which the non - resident property owner is
not directly affected by problem. As indicated in the enclosed
diagram. there has never been a 51% majority of property owners
who are both residents and use the alley for access to their
property. For this reason, all previous attempts to petition for
passage of an assessment to pave the alley have failed.
Possible Solutions
The affected residents request that a study be made of recurrent
costs of gravel, grading, street clean up, and storm sewer
clean out and repair. and compare that to the cost of asphalt
surfacing of the alley. Could the upkeep cost savings to the
city be applied towards the cost of asphalt pavement?
Could a variance in the petition system be allowed so that the
issue could be passed by a majority of the property owners which
are actually serviced by the alley, and any assessed charges be
fairly pro -rated so that property owners actually using the alley
would pay a greater share?
Would the city consider taking care of the problem as a basic
maintenance project or city improvement project? Could this be
tied into the current city drainage improvement project for flood
prevention?
i
To: Edina City Council
Date: June 28, 1990
We. the residents affected by the current condition of the service
alley located on the 5100 block between Bedford Avenue and Oxford
Avenue. are in support of investigation into and notification of
any alternative measures which could be taken towards pavement of
the alley.
Signature
Address
Phone
5-1 6 13co t=oe n
q29- 775-7
qa 7
<� Zoo,4 aAre-
4
O
W- 51 st Street
X
5101 151001
5109
F51 0 8]
as
51 13
LU :b.
-i
*0
-j
51211
51 16
5125
5129
5131
5120
5128
REQUEST FOR PURCHASE
TO: Mayor & Council Members
FROM: Susan Wohlrabe
VIA: Kenneth Rosland, City Manager
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $5.00
DATE- June 26, 1990
AGENDA ITEM V I. A_
ITEM DESCRIPTION: ASBESTOS ABATEMENT IN BOILER ROOM - CITY HALL
Company Amount of Quote or �d
1. EnviroNet, Inc.
2. Mavo, Systems
3. Rem-Con, Inc.
4.
5.
RECOMMENDED QUOTE OR BID:
EnviroNet, lnc. $7,078.00
GENERAL INFORMATION:
1. $7,078.00
2. $7,800.00
3. $9,750.00
4.
5.
The scope of the work is the removal and disposal of exterior
asbestos insulation from pipes, boiler and breeching.
Signature
The Recommended bid is
within budget not
Department
budget ..John Wallin. F4ance Director
Kenneth Rosland City M
4
-4A.
° el( REQUEST FOR PURCHASE
Y! .0'
3".'::"
TO: Mayor and Council :Members
FROM: Bob Kojetin, Director of Park and Recreation
VIA: Kenneth Rosland, City Manager
-SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $5,000
DATE: June 27, 1990 AGENDA ITEM VI.B
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Filter System for Edina Muncipal Wading Pool
Company Amount of Quote or Bd
All American Pfechanical, Inc. $8,492.00
2. 2.
3. 3
4. 4.
5. 5.
RECOMMENDED QUOTE OR BID:
All American Mechanical, Inc. $8,492
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Emergency installation of wading pool filtration system at the
Edina Muncipal Pool.
This item is not within the budget, but due to health standards
requiring separate filtration systems for wading pools, the nool
could. not be onened until the system had been renaried. Recommend
that this be funded from the developer's fund.
Signature Departm t
The Recommended bid is ..E
within budget not within bydgph Wallin, Figance Director
Kenneth Rosland City Manager
REQUEST FOR PURCHASE
r
TO: Mayor and Council Members
FROM: Bob Kojetin, Director of Park and Recreation
VIA: Kenneth Roslandt City Manager
SUBJECT. REQUEST FOR PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $5,000
DATE. June 27, 1990 AGENDA ITEM vz. C.
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Company
1. Metro Electric
2.
i
3.
4.
5.
Electric Transformer change at Braemar Golf-Course
Amount of Quote or ENd
1. $8,765.44
2.
3.
4.
5.
RECOMMENDED QUOTE OR BID:
Metro Electric $8,765.44
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Emergency change -over of large transformer for lighting system at
i
Braemar Club House and transformer at Citv Pumn House.
Removal of the overhead lines and installation of underground feed
from i,orthern States Power for Braemar Golf Course parking lot and
municipal hump house.
i
Signatux
The Recommended bid is
within budget not
Kenneth RoslAnd City Manager
e Director
91. ttt
REQUEST FOR PURCHASE
RASE
J .
•` �bR�rwV.�:
TO: Mayor and Council Members
FROM: Bob Kojetin, Director of Parks and Recreation
VIA: Kenneth Rosland City Manager
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $5 000
DATE: June 23, 1990
AGENDA ITEM VI. D.
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Resurfacing of 5
tennis courts.
Companv
Amount of Quote or Bid
1,
GODher State Sealcoat, Inc.
1.
$11,750.00
2;
Finley Bros. Enterprises
2,
$12,503.60
3.
Carlson- Lavine, Inc.
3,
$17,442.00
4.
Recreational Surfacers, Inc.
4,
$17,230.00
5.
-
5.
RECOMMENDED QUOTE OR END:
Gopher STate Sealcoat, Inc. $11,750.00
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Resurface 5 tennis courts, one at each of the following parks:
[walnut Ridge, Todd, Lake Cornelia, Lake Edina, Yorktown.
Sigrtature DepartrrL
en
t
The Recommended bid is
within budget not within budget , hm Vallin, Fina. a Director
Kenneth Rosland City Managep
O Le
TO:
REQUEST FOR PURCHASE-
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CEIL SMITH
VIA: Kenneth Rosland City Manager
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $5.00
DATE:
JULY 2, 1990
AGENDA ITEM VII . A.
ITEM DESCRIPTION: GENERAL & LIQUOR LIABILITY,
WORKERS' COMPENSAION,
Company AUTO LIABILITY
Amount of Quote or Bid
1.
HOME INSURANCE COMPANY
1.
$ 497,224.00
2.
LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES INSURANCE TRUST 2.
506,420.00
3.
ST. PAUL FIRE & MARINE
3.
741,686.00
4.
4,
5.
5.
RECOMMENDED QUOTE OR BID:
HOME INSURANCE - $497,224.00
GENERAL INFORMATION:
The quotation from Home Insurance represents a 23% decrease in premium
costs over last.year. As you know, the insurance from Home is a
retrospectively rated program and because of a substantial drop in
claims this past policy year, we are receiving a lower quotation. In
addition to the favorable rate, the City this year received a retro-
adjustment check in the amount of $238,273.00. Our total retro-
adjustment for the five years we have been on the program is $567,777.00
i
Administration
The Recommended bid is
within budget not within budget Jo allin, Fji ance Director
Kenneth Rosland. City
jar
REQUEST FOR PURCHASE
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CEIL SMITH
VIA: Kenneth Rosland, City Manager
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $5.00
DATE. JULY 2, 1990
AGENDA ITEM vII.A.
ITEM DESCRIPTION: PROPERTY INSURANCE
Company Amount of Quote or 13id
HARTFORD INSURANCE $ 43,669.00
2. AFFILIATED INSURANCE 2. 48,269.00
3. 3.
4. 4.
5. 5.
RECOMMENDED QUOTE OR BID:
HARTFORD INSURANCE - $43,669.00
GENERAL INFORMATION:
The broker, Frank B. Hall & Co., went to four additional markets
on behalf of the City. Three of the four markets would not provide
• a quotation because they could not compete with the Hartford
Insurance Program. Hartford's renewal rate is the same as last
year's rate in spite of a 100,000 fire loss at the Golf Dome.
��.
Signature
The Recommended bid is — X—
within budget not
Kenneth
Administration
allin,
City Manager
Director
A.,
e'' REQUEST FOR PURCHASE
H
ry -3 ' r .ayi
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CEIL SMITH
VIA: Kenneth Rosland City Manager
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $5.00
DATE: JULY 2, 1990 AGENDA ITEM VII.A.
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Company
1,
FIREMAN'S FUND
2.
HOME INSURANCE
3.
ST. PAUL COMPANIES
4.
5.
EQUIPMENT INSURANCE
RECOMMENDED QUOTE OR BID:
FIREMAN'S FUND - $6,361.00
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Amount of Quote or Bid
1 $ 6,361.00
2. 7,010.00
3. 7,456.00
4.
5.
This is insurance on the City's Equipment other than automobiles,
items such as sweepers, loaders, generally large equipment.
This premium reflects no increase.
Signature
The Recommended bid is x —
within budget not
Kenneth
Administration
Departm t
y
let Jo aI in, Fina a Director
)sian . City Manager
's
ow e 4, .
;V1
Cn
• �N�DRPOMS�v •
IBBB
REPORT /RECOMMENDATION
To: Ken Rosland
From: Recycling Commission
& Janet Chandler
Date: July 2, 1990
Subject: Apartment Recycling
Agenda Item # VI I . B.
Consent ❑
Information Only ❑
Mgr. Recommends ❑
To HRA
❑
To Council
Action 11
Motion
❑
Resolution
❑
Ordinance
❑
Discussion
Recommendation:
- Approval of Part 1 of the program, to include an additional 230 units
in the present household pickup program.
- Approval to prepare ordinances as listed in Part 2.
- Approval for staff to prepare a promotional flyer for apartments.
- Decision on funding of apartment recycling.
Info /Background:
In April, City Council met informally with the Recycling Commission.
As a result of the discussion, the Recycling Commission and staff were
asked to report back with recommendations on the following:
*Apartment and condominium recycling program
*Compost program
*Review of present recycling program; plans for 1991
The following report addresses apartment recycling. Reports on the
remaining two topics will be submitted very soon.
Attachments:
-May 3 letter to apartments,condominiums and haulers
- Agenda of June 14 meeting with the same group
- Letter from Bill Belanger, Manager of Edina Park Plaza
.s
3
LETTER TO HAULERS, MANAGERS & OWNERS
As a first step in the planning process, a letter was sent to all Edina
apartment and condominium managers and owners, and all Edina garbage
haulers, informing them that apartment recycling policy would soon be
considered by City Council. A survey was also included, asking for
information on recycling programs currently underway in Edina apartments.
BACKGROUND DATA
Our research yielded the following information:
POPULATION 44,943 TOTAL DWELLING UNITS 21,237
13,684 Single family, duplex & townhomes now in city program
230 Small (to 8 unit) apt, manor homes, townhomes to be added
13,914 Total city program
3,614 Condominium units ... 2,158 (60 %) units now recycling
3,709 Apartment units....... 323 ( 9 %) units now recycling
7,323 Total apt & condo units (buildings larger than 8 units)
HAULERS
12 Garbage haulers serve Edina (residential and commercial)
4 Garbage haulers are providing recycling service in Edina apartments.
1 Recycling -only hauler is serving Edina apartments.
.Most haulers are willing and equipped to provide recycling service.
INFORMATIONAL MEETING
Apartment managers, condo representatives and haulers were invited to
attend an informational meeting on June 14. Forty persons attended this
meeting, representing a third of Edina's apartments and condominiums.
Speakers Tom Moline of BFI, Ken DuFresne of Waste Management and Rick
Williams of "Mr. Recycle" described the recycling services they are
providing for Edina apartments. Their comments are summed up as follows:
- Recycling systems must be individually designed for each building.
Successful systems can be worked out for most situations, even in
buildings with garbage chutes.
- Several types of dumpsters or carts can be provided by haulers.
- Contamination of recyclables is a problem. For example; one bag of
garbage tossed into a recycling container can mean the loss of the
entire contents for recycling purposes.
- Recycling service costs money, but this cost may be balanced out by
reduced garbage fees. Generally, larger buildings will realize a
benefit more easily than small buildings.
- When management really backs recycling, the chances for success are
very good. Resident recycling committees can also help promote
recycling.
e
4
Two apartment managers who have initiated successful recycling programs
also spoke: Elie Reid and John Rocheford.
Mr. Rocheford manages buildings at 7200 York, 7220 York and Fountainwoods
with a total of 790 condominium units, which are now recycling about 11
tons of newspaper, glass and cans per month. He reported a savings of 1/3
to 1/2 on the garbage bills as a result of the recycling program. The
residents, many of whom are retired, have strongly supported the program.
In Mr. Rocheford's opinion, recycling today is a good management practice.
Mrs. Reid manages an apartment complex in Minnetonka with a "yuppie"
population. She has had very good response from the tenants. The
maintenance staff, which was less than enthusiastic at the beginning, now
fully supports the program and have found it to be less work than they
anticipated. Containers for recyclables are located on each floor in the
"trash rooms" next to the garbage chutes. The recyclables are picked up
daily from the trash rooms and placed in the large dumpsters in the lower
level of the building by the maintenance staff. With this system,
contamination has been kept to a minimum.
Both managers stressed the importance of informing the residents through
flyers, newsletters, posters etc. Mrs. Reid also mentioned that the
positive image of recycling can be used in promotional information about
the apartment complex.
Frank Gibbs of the Hennepin County staff described the County's role in
waste management and promotion of recycling programs. The County Board
will soon be discussing policy issues regarding apartment recycling
programs. The current staff proposal is to fund pilot projects through the
Minnesota Multi- housing Association in order to study recycling costs in
buildings of various sizes. If the County Board approves this plan, the
results would not be in until spring of 1991, and the issue of funding of
apartment recycling would not be resolved until that time.
POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
The Recycling Commission and Staff considered several questions in arriving
at its recommendations for apartment recycling:
• Should there be one recycling hauler.city -wide for apartments?
• Recommendation: Keep an open system for apartment recycling.
- Recycling has started, with 5 garbage and recycling haulers success-
fully providing the service for Edina apartments & condos.
-Many garbage haulers would lose a significant portion of their
business if one hauler had a contract for all recycling.
-With a one - hauler system, apartment managers would lose the
opportunity to choose the service they prefer.
- Competition should work to keep the rates down.
-An "open" system is consistent with the present garbage system.
5
* Should the city mandate apartment recycling? If so, to whom should the
mandate apply -- apartment owners and condo associations? residents? haulers?
* Recommendations:
Effective January 1991.
1. Require apartments and condominiums to set up recycling _programs.
2. Include apartment & condo residents in the source separation
requirements of Ordinance 715.
3. Reauire haulers to provide recycling service to apartments & condos
-It is reasonable and fair that all residents be expected to
participate if a convenient recycling program is provided.
- Although some apartment managers expressed concern that they not be
placed in an enforcement position, the ordinance could be worded to
make clear that enforcement is the responsibility of the City.
• Should the city fund apartment recycling? If so, to what extent?
• Recommendation: if Council chooses to fund apartment recycling, the
amount of funding should not exceed the current funding of the single
family program which is 208 (Hennepin County 808.)
The Recycling Commissioners individual recommendations ranged from no
funding to 208 funding, and included a suggestion that perhaps some other
way could be found to credit apartments and condominiums. The factors
considered were:
' -Cost of apartment recycling service varies from $1 to $1.40 per unit
per month. Annual cost for multi -units would be $87,000 to $123,000.
-Since current recycling program costs are covered by the General
Fund, it would be fair for multi- housing owners and residents to
receive a recycling benefit also.
-To be consistent with-the household pickup program now in place, the
City could fund 208 of apartment recycling expenses.
Annual Cost to City $18,000 to $25,000
Annual benefit to:
100 unit apartment $240 to $336
50 unit apartment $120 to $168
Total apartment buildings or complexes: 59
44 have less than 100 units
33 have less than 50 units
Total condominiums: 31
17 have less than 100 units
10 have less than 50 units
- Additional city administrative expenses would be incurred in setting
up a rebate system.
-Small buildings would receive very little compensation. The greatest
benefit would go to larger buildings, where recycling can probably be
set up on a break -even (or better) basis without city funding.
- County funding does not seem likely at this time.
0
*What other support should the City offer?
Recommendation:
Develop and provide a promotional flyer for each apartment resident.
Inform managers and associations of options for recycling service.
-A promotional flyer from the City would be effective in gaining the
participation of residents.
*How can the City keep track of recycling tonnage from apartments, to make
sure that this material is credited toward Edina's recycling goals?
_ Recommendation: Require that haulers report recycling tonnages as a
condition of licensing. effective January. 1991.
-The information originates from the haulers' records.
-It would be easier to obtain this information from the small list of
haulers than from each apartment and condominium.
7
APARTMENT AND CONDOMINIUM RECYCLING PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS
Part 1:Add approximately 230 units to the present household pickup pro rg am.
* These units include apartment buildings of 8 units or less, new
townhomes, and manor homes, all of which are eligible for funding
by Hennepin County.
* Provide recycling containers for these units. Hennepin County will
fund $5 each.
* Order an additional number of containers for future replacements to
make a total order of 1,000. County funding would not cover these.
* Service to start in August if possible.
Costs -- August through December, 1990
Total Henn Co Edina
Pickup service @ $1.90 /unit /month $2,185 $1,748 $ 437
Recycling containers, 1000 @ $5.85 $5,850 $1,150 $4,700
$8,035 $2,898 $5,137
Part 2: Recycling for apartments and condominiums of more than 8 units.
* Adopt an ordinance requiring apartment owners and condominium
associations to set up recycling programs within their buildings by
January 1, 1991.
* Amend Ordinance 715 to require source separation of recyclables by
apartment and condominium residents, effective January 1, 1991.
* Develop and provide a promotional flyer for distribution to all
apartment and condominium residents.
* Amend Ordinance 1301 to require garbage and recycling haulers, as a
condition of licensing, to provide recycling service to apartments
and condominiums and to report to the City the recycling tonnage
from these buildings, effective January 1, 1991.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Approval of Part 1 of the program
Approval to prepare ordinances as listed above
Approval for staff to prepare a promotional flyer for apartments
Decision on funding of apartment recycling
.I
DATE: MAY 3, 1990
TO: APARTMENT OWNERS, APARTMENT AND CONDOMINIUM PROPERTY MANAGERS, &
EDINA GARBAGE HAULERS, RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL
FROM: JANET CHANDLER, RECYCLING COORDINATOR, CITY OF EDINA
SUBJECT: APARTMENT AND CONDOMINIUM RECYCLING
The Edina City Council has recently directed City Staff and the Recycling
Commission to formulate a recycling plan for apartments and condominiums
for consideration by the Council in June. The first step in the process is
to get input from apartment managers and garbage haulers on the questions
listed below:
-Which apartments in Edina currently have recycling programs?
-Which garbage haulers provide, or are willing to provide recycling
pickup for apartments?
-What special problems are encountered in pickup of recyclables?
(from the haulers standpoint)
-What problems can be anticipated from the building management
standpoint, in setting up recycling programs?
-What are the components of successful-.apartment recycling programs?
In its deliberations, City Council will probably also consider whether to
make it mandatory for apartment owners to set up recycling programs, or for
haulers to provide this'service. (Council passed a mandatory recycling
ordinance for single - family and duplex residents in 1989.)
Another consideration is whether or not Hennepin County will extend its
recycling funding policy to provide for apartment recycling. The County
Board is expected to consider this policy soon -- perhaps we will have an
answer by June.
Judging from the number of calls I have received, a great many apartment
residents and managers would like to have recycling programs underway in
their buildings. Earth Week programs have also heightened the interest in
recycling. It does seem that the time is now!
Your cooperation in completing the enclosed questionnaire will help in
planning a successful recycling program. A discussion meeting could also
be scheduled later, if the majority are interested.
J ,
CITY OF
EDINA
J
4801 WEST 50TH STREET. EDINA, MINNESOTA 55424
612- 927 -8861
YOU ARE INVITED TO ATTEND AN
INFORMATIONAL MEETING ON APARTMENT & CONDOMINIUM RECYCLING
THURSDAY JUNE 14, 7:30 PM
EDINA CITY HALL, COUNCIL CHAMBERS
4801 West 50th Street
AGENDA
* Introduction: The City's Role; Recycling Program
and Policies
-Janet Chandler, Recycling Coordinator
* Recycling Service & Systems That Work
-Tom Moline, BFI
-Ken DuFresne, Waste Management- Savage
-Rick Williams, Mr. Recycle
* Managing Successful Recycling Programs
-John Rocheford, Property Manager
-Elie Reid, Property Manager
* The County Perspective
-Frank Gibbs, Hennepin County Recycling Staff
THERE WILL BE TIME FOR QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS.
THE PURPOSE OF THIS MEETING IS TO SHARE EXPERIENCE AND INFORMATION.
HOSTED BY THE CITY OF EDINA RECYCLING COMMISSION: Ardythe Buerosse, Chr.
Virginia 'Bodine, Ina Hays, Robert Reid, Steve Sando and Lev Wood
Call Janet Chandler at City Hall if you have questions 927 -8861.
D/
EDINA
RECYCLES
1�1
('.' •. m
Edina Park Plaza
_0F E D 1 N B O R O U G H
An Active Life° Retirement Community
dune S. 1990
Ms. Janet Chandler
Recycling Coordinator
City of Edina
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
Dear Ms. Chandler:
I regret that I will not be able to attend your June 14th information
meeting regarding recycling for apartment buildings.
As General Manager of an 18- story, 202 -unit building with a full
Restaurant and Housekeeping department, I wanted to briefly give you
my experience with recycling. In October of last year, I signed an
agreement with Mr. Recycle. Our building recycles cans (aluminum and
steel), glass, office paper, and cardboard. Newspapers will be
picked up by Mr. Recycle, however, there is currently a surcharge for
this service as I am told that there is a glut of newsprint in the
market. The program has been well received by the building residents
and our staff has worked out the logistics of transferring the
recyclable material from the apartments to the recycling containers.
The containers are rotated and cleaned by Mr. Recycle and the pica -up
service has been very efficient. We are saving between 30 -40% on our
refuse bills by using recycling We have decreased the amount of
pickups and the size of our refuse containers from our trash hauler.
We are not reimbursed for the recycled material. The sole financial
benefit has been the reduction of our trash bill. We do pay for the
pickup of the recycled material, however, it is a very minimal
charge.
The single greatest benefit for our building has been the recycling
of cardboard. With frequent move-ins, a Restaurant, and Housekeeping
Depart,ment,.we accumulate hundreds of cardboard boxes a week. We
have purchased thru Mr. Recycle, a cardboard baler. The cost was
approximately $3,800.00. This piece of equipment has already paid
for itself. We no longer have to load our trash container with empty
boxes which take tip space. Instead we have cardboard bales which are
picked up by Mr. Recycle as part of the service. I have attached a
spec sheet of the cardboard baler for your reference.
Edina Park Pkzra • Edinbomugh , 3330 Edinborough Way • Edina. Minnesota 55435.612/831,4084
I am very happy with the program that we are using and would not like
to see any additional restrictions or charges imposed by the City for
the service. Although I am very happy with Mr. Recycle, this letter
i-- not intended as an endorsement for them. The program that I have
outlined happens to work very well for us. However, each building is
different and this will have to be taken into consideration in your
discussions. I hope this experience will benefit you and your group.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
'
�N / vv'
Bill Be
General
Edina Park Plaza • Edinborough • 3330 Edinborough Way • Edina, Minnesota 55435.612/831 -4084
A.
o e
0
itletl
To: Council Members
REPORT/RECOMMENDATION
From: Mayor Richards
Date: June 28, 1990
Subject:
COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD
Recommendation:
Agenda Item #
vll.c.
Consent
❑
Information Only
❑
Mgr. Recommends
❑
To HRA
0
To Council
Action
0
Motion
❑
Resolution
❑
Ordinance
❑
Discussion
That Chip Sour of the Park Board replace Bob Christianson as the Park Board
appointee of the Community Services Board effective July 1, 1990. This term
goes to February 1, 1991.
,ilk
u
a
O e C�
iauu
REPORT /RECOMMENDATION
To: KENNETH ROSLAND,
CITY MANAGER
From: CRAIG LARSEN
CITY PLANNER
Date: JULY 2, 1990
Subject:
RESOLUTION OF
CERTIFICATION OF
CORRECTION OF PLAT ERRORS
Recommendation:
Adopt following Resolution:
Agenda Item # VII . D
Consent ❑
Information Only ❑
Mgr. Recommends ❑
To HRA
0
To Council
Action ❑
Motion
Resolution
❑
Ordinance
❑
Discussion
RESOLVED, that the City of Edina does request that the Hennepin County Surveyor's
Office review and check for accuracy all data on all certificates of correction
submitted to the Edina City Council for approval pursuant to Minnesota Statutes,
Section 505.176, and that each such certificate be signed and approved as to
accuracy by the Hennepin County Surveyor's office before being submitted to
the Edina Citv Council for approval.
Info /Background:
The attached letter from Thomas Erickson provides the background for this
Resolution.
Dc)RSEY & WHITNEY
A P &A77T8169MIP IMCLVn.MO VPO.*+..•+ 6,
350 PARR Av8NVE
NEW TOUR, NEW TORK 10004
2WOO FIRST IiAN}C 1'I.AC;L� L`,:+.9T
340 PiE9T \ATTONAL BANK ATTTL7ftN0
(218)413-9300
�11NNKA1'U1.xy, MINNF,tiQTA !11402
ROCURATRU.MINRBAOTA 53000
:,*n e1n.9IRCrICTTT A"NnR, x. w.
(612) 340 -21600
(507)3EA -7156
o1N®IOrON, D. C. 20036
TELII% 20-06015
315 r1RST NATIONAL nexx n1771MINn
(904) OS >•A7n0
WLYSATA.MENNEBOTA 53301
—
rnx (oi a) 844)- wun+s
( 419) 475 -0373
anACSCKUnCR STREET
LONDON 8C3Y OAT, R!f)4AN71
;2n0 r7RFT TNTTfARTATZ CILMTIfU
00- 42(o•nnu
All.Liva", MOIfTAxA 601o0
_—
( 466) 0114• nf")
J„ RCS T7OW"TtT
SooO 1AUi6, FRANCE
TiQMA$ F. E3ICIS$0*i. P.
Lul DAVIDSON RIALDINA
:I1 -411 •AG• R0.4A
.
(C12 � iid0 � $6710
RAT FALLS, MONTANA 59401
(4OG1 7e7- aGae
PAR EAST 111YANCIf CRN"If
" - ---'
I2-A- EONO
M7 EAST TROVr 6T86RT
tlry0.4.7510.1'7!1
X10008LA, MONTANA 58802
(406) M•dT711A
June 14, 1990
Mr. Kenneth E. Rosland
Manager
City of Edina
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, Minnesota 55424
Re: Certificates of Corrections of Plat Errors
Dear Ken:
I return to you the letter dated June 12, 1990 from the Hennepin
County Surveyor wherein he requests a resolution of the Edina City Council
requesting participation by the County Surveyor's office in the checking; of
certificates of correction given to correct errors in plats of record. As you requested, I
have reviewed the statutes regarding certificates of correction. Minnesota Statutes,
Section 505.176 does provide that a certificate of correction must first be approved by
the governing body of the area involved and a certificate to that effect must be
signed by the Clerk and attached, to the certificate of correction before it ran ha filed
by the County Recorder. By the enclosed letter the County Surveyor's office is
offering to check the certificates of correction that are proposed for recording and to
advise the City, in writing, that a certificate has been checked and found correct.
With the information provided by the County Surveyor's office the City Council
can then approve the certificate of correction.
I have been advised by Mr. Gary Backer of the County Surveyor's office
that there. will be no fee charged by the County for this service.
D(-)RsEY & WH IT` L:Y
Mr. Kenneth E. Rosland
June 14, 1990
Page 2
It appears to me to be a service that the City should use, and I
recommend the adoption of a resolution requesting said participation and review by
the Hennepin County Surveyor's office.
Very trul} yours,
f
Thomas S. Erickson
TSE:kks
Enclosure
SURVEYOR
A703 Government Center
HENNEPIN Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487-0073
LFUPhone (612) 348 -3131 .a
Crossroads To Service
June 12, 1990
Kenneth E. Rosland. Manager
City of Edina
4801 West 50th Street
E(yina, MN 55424 = 1394"'
Dear Mr. Rosland:
In 1851 the territorial government of Minnesota enacted legislation to hermit
filing of lots and blocks for building sites in the form of subdivision plats.
Since that time over 12,000 plats, representing hundreds of thousands of lots have
been filed in our county. In any human endeavor errors and /or omissions creep into
projects and the subdivision plat is no exception.
In the 1950's the legislature provided the surveyor a means to put the public on
notice that there was an error in a plat and to state the correct data. over the �
years numerous Certificates of Correction have been filed. in 1976 the legislature ?n14,,
provided that the municipality as well as a surveyor had to sign the Certificate of Sri
Correction before the County Recorder could accept the document for filing. This �S0-'
action provides the municipality with notice but few agencies are able to tell if
the new data is any better than the old.
The purpose of this letter'is to offer the service of this office to provide your
municipality with assurance that the data on a Certificate of correction is in fact
correct. we could check the data provided by the surveyor by comparing the new
data against the old. if correct we would sign the certificate stating the
information has been checked. we would conduct our review before the certificate
' s gubfhitted to the municipality so that passage through your system would be as
expeditious as possible.
If this proposal is acceptable a resolution by your governing body requesting our
participation would be appropriate. This would give us authorization to do the
work as part of the County's continuing service to the municipalities and to
contact the surveyors about the change in procedure. if you have -any questions
please let me know.
Sincerely yours,
0
Bernard H. Larson, County Surveyor
HENNEPIN COUNTY
an equal ooportunitV emplOyer
RESOLUTION
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, that it hereby requests
that the Hennepin County Surveyor's Office review and check for accuracy all data
on all certificates of correction submitted to the Edina City Council for
approval, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.176, and that each such
certificate be signed and approved as to accuracy by the Hennepin County
Surveyor's Office before being submitted to the Edina City Council for approval.
ADOPTED this 2nd day of July, 1990.
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) SS
CITY OF EDINA ) CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK
I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting City Clerk for the City of Edina, do
hereby certify that the above and foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the
Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of July 2, 1990 and as recorded in the
Minutes of said Regular Meeting.
WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this 3rd day of July, 1990.
Marcella M. Daehn
City Clerk
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Southeast Edina Property Owners /Managers
FROM: Frederick S. Richards, Mayor
SUBJECT: TRANSIT MEETING
DATE: July 2, 1990
Len Levine, Minnesota's Commissioner of Transportation, is interested in
examining the possibilities of demonstrating a "high tech" people -mover in the
Southdale /Edinborough transit corridor. He has asked Larry Laukka, President
of Improve -494, a non - profit travel management entity, to organize a meeting
of Southeast Edina property owners and managers and city officials to discuss
the ideas.
Please join with us on Wednesday, July 11, at 9:00 AM in the Board Room
(second floor) of Southdale First Bank, 7001 France Avenue South. Call Susan
Wohlrabe at 927 -8861 to confirm your availability.
FSR /sw
Enclosure
TRANSIT MEETING
Ken Rosland, City of Edina, 4801 West 50th Street, Edina, MN 55424
Bob Stehlik, 1st Bank Southdale, 7001 France Avenue South, Edina, MN 55435
Dennis Maetzold, Marquette Bank Edina, 6500 France Avenue South, Edina, MN 55435
George Hite, Target Headquarters, 33 South 6th Street, Minneapolis, MN 55440 -1392
Roger Rovick, Edina Realty, 4015 West 65th Street, Edina, MN 55435
Boyd Stofer, United Properties, 3500 West 80th Street, Bloomington, MN 55431
Greg Maltby, Cambridge Capital, Southdale Medical Bldg., 6545 France Avenue South,
Edina, MN 55435
Doug Robinson, Fairview Southdale Hospital, 6401 France Avenue South, Edina, MN
55435
Dave Hindy, Southdale Center Management, 6750 France Avenue South, Edina, MN 55435
Warren Beck, Gabbert & Beck, 3510 West 70th Street, Edina, MN 55435
Al Kempf, Leisure Lane Center, 7101 France Avenue South, Edina, MN 55435
Jim Bernklau, Yorktown Fashion Mall, c/o Tycon Companies, 321 University Avenue SE,
Minneapolis, MN 55414
Mike Maley, Byerly's, 7171 France Avenue South, Edina, MN 55435
Marla Catt, Hawthorn Suites, 3601 Minnesota Drive, #880, Bloomington, MN 55435
Peter Jarvis, BRW, 700 South 3rd Street, Minneapolis, MN 55415
Dick Wolsfeld, BRW, 700 South 3rd Street, Minneapolis, MN 55415
Barb Senness, Metropolitan Council, Mears Park Center, 230 East 5th Street,,St.
Paul, MN 55101
T
07 -02 -90 PAGE
ACCOUNT NO. INV.
# P.O. # MESSAGE
30- 4224 - 781 -78
1990 CITY
OF EDINA
10- 4201 - 508 -50
CHECK REGISTER
10- 4204 - 504 -50
CHECK NO.
DATE
AMOUNT
VENDOR
ITEM DESCRIPTION
183700
06/19/90
75.00
CINDY KATZ
PERFORMANCE
7/8/90
10- 4260 - 440 -44
75.00 *
10- 4266- 440 -44
183701
06/19/90
60.00
NANCY JURKOVICH
REFUND
10- 4266 - 440 -44
60.00 *
10- 4266 - 440 -44
183702
06/19/90
3,573.00
SHHSC
HUMAN SERVICES
3,573.00 *
183703
06/19/90
195.50
LMHRC
DUES
195.50 *
183704
06/19/90
160.48
AQUA CITY IRRIGN
REPAIR SPRINKLER
160.48 *
183705
06/19/90
73.20
HELMARK FOODS
HOT DOGS
73.20 *
183706
06/19/90
18.00
DEBBIE SCHROEDER
REFUND
18.00 *
183707
06/19/90
30.00
BETTY STRUM
REFUND
30.00 *
183708
06/19/90
33.70
DOUGLAS BAGLEY
BOOK
33.70 *
183709
06/19/90
150.00
ANDREW MEDZIS
CLOTHING
ALLOWANCE
183709
06/19/90
150.00-
ANDREW MEDZIS
CLOTHING
ALLOWANCE
183709
06/19/90
150.00
ANDREW MEDZIS
CLOTHING
ALLOWANCE
150.00 *
183710
06/19/90
150.00
GREGORY SMEGAL
CLOTHING
ALLOWANCE
150.00 *
183711
06/19/90
150.00
WILLIAM LUTTS
CLOTHING
ALLOWANCE
150.00 *
183712
06/19/90
150.00
BRUCE GATES
CLOTHING
ALLOWANCE
150.00 *
183713
06/19/90
150.00
JAMES SMITH
CLOTHING
ALLOWANCE
150.00 *
183714
06/19/90
150.00
JOSEPH STRUZYK
CLOTHING
ALLOWANCE
150.00 *
183715
06/19/90
150.00
DARRELL TODD
CLOTHING
ALLOWANCE
150.00 *
183716
06/19/90
150.00
MARTIN SCHEERER
CLOTHING
ALLOWANCE
150.00 *
183717
06/19/90
150.00
DOUGLAS BAGLEY
CLOTHING
ALLOWANCE
150.00 *
1
07 -02 -90 PAGE
ACCOUNT NO. INV.
# P.O. # MESSAGE
30- 4224 - 781 -78
30- 3505 - 000 -00
10- 4201 - 508 -50
10- 4204 - 504 -50
60- 2040 - 033 -11
6907IN
26- 4624 - 683 -68
3790 7065
10- 1145- 000 -00
30- 3505 - 000 -00
10- 4502 - 440 -44
10- 4260 - 440 -44
10- 4260 - 440 -44
10- 4266 - 440 -44
10- 4266- 440 -44
10- 4266 - 440 -44
10- 4266 - 440 -44
10- 4266- 440 -44
10- 4266 - 440 -44
10- 4266 - 440 -44
10- 4266 - 440 -44
10- 4266 - 440 -44
1
1990 CITY
OF EDINA
CHECK REGISTER
CHECK NO.
DATE
AMOUNT
VENDOR
ITEM DESCRIPTION
183718
06/19/90
150.00
PATRICK RUNNING
CLOTHING
ALLOWANCE
150.00
*
183719
06/19/90
150.00
DAVID RADATZ
CLOTHING
ALLOWANCE
150.00
*
183720
06/19/90
150.00
ROBERT LAWSON
CLOTHING
ALLOWANCE
150.00
*
183721
06/19/90
150.00
JAMES JULKOWSKI
CLOTHING
ALLOWANCE
150.00
*
183722
06/19/90
150.00
JAMES SINGLETON
CLOTHING
ALLOWANCE
150.00
*
183723
06/19/90
150.00
JOHN MALONEY
CLOTHING
ALLOWANCE
150.00
*
183724
06/19/90
150.00
RONALD SAMUELSON
CLOTHING
ALLOWANCE
150.00
*
183725
06/19/90
150.00
STEPHEN LANDRY
CLOTHING
ALLOWANCE
150.00
*
183726
06/19/90
150.00
RICHARD MYRE
CLOTHING
ALLOWANCE
150.00
*
183727
06/19/90
150.00
LeROY LISK
CLOTHING
ALLOWANCE
150.00
*
183728
06/19/90
150.00
WILLIAM BOWLER
CLOTHING
ALLOWANCE
150.00
*
183729
06/19/90
150.00
RICHARD VERNON
CLOTHING
ALLOWANCE
150.00
*
183730
06/19/90
150.00
RICHARD HELMER
CLOTHING
ALLOWANCE
150.00
*
r
183731
06/19/90
150.00
ALLEN ROTHE
CLOTHING
ALLOWANCE
150.00
*
183732
06/19/90
300.00
MN REC /PARKS ASSN
GENERAL SUPPLIES
300.00
*
183733
06/19/90
137.00
YELLOW PAGES
YELLOW PAGES
137.00
*
183734
06/19/90
38.32
JIMMY JINGLE
MEETING EXPENSES
38.32
*
183735
06/19/90
29.00
CORPORATE REPORT
SUBSCRIPTION
29.00
*
183736
06/19/90
190.00
MARKET PROMOTIONS
ADVERTISING
07 -02 -90 PAGE
ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE
10- 4266 - 440 -44
10- 4266 - 440 -44
10- 4266 - 440 -44
10- 4266 - 440 -44
10- 4266 - 440 -44
10- 4266 - 440 -44
10- 4266 - 440 -44
10- 4266 - 440 -44
10- 4266 - 440 -44
10- 4266- 440 -44
10- 4266- 440 -44
10- 4266 - 440 -44
10- 4266 - 440 -44
10- 4266 - 440 -44
10- 4504 - 624 -62 0386 8215
10- 4256- 510 -51 575056
10- 4504 - 507 -50 017053
10- 4204 - 140 -14
30- 4214- 781 -78 8264
2
1990 CITY OF EDINA
CHECK NO. DATE
183737
* * * * * *
183739
183739
183739
183740
183741
183741
183741
183742
183743
183743
183744
183745
183746
183747
183748
183749
183750
183751
183751
183752
183753
06/19/90
06/19/90
06/19/90
06/19/90
06/19/90
06/19/90
06/19/90
06/19/90
06/19/90
06/19/90
06/19/90
06/19/90
06/19/90
06/19/90
06/19/90
06/19/90
06/19/90
06/19/90
06/26/90
06/21/90
06/21/90
06/22/90
AMOUNT
190.00 *
2,518.00
2,518.00 *
31.37
5.80
19.21
56.38 *
600.00
600.00 *
766.48-
766.48
766.48
766.48 *
92.41
92.41 *
589.61
132.12
721.73 *
37.98
37.98 *
16.62
16.62 *
18.00
18.00 *
22.00
22.00 *
22.00
22.00 *
60.00
60.00 *
25.00
25.00 *
1,070.25
25.00
1,095.25 *
25.00
25.00 *
238.00
CHECK REGISTER
VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION
LEAGUE OF MN CITIES
LINDA J MARGL
LINDA J MARGL
LINDA J MARGL
ESPECIALLY FOR
PAT GREER
PAT GREER
PAT GREER
BOB BRAMWELL
TED PAULFRANZ
TED PAULFRANZ
POLLY PFEIFFER
DEB RATELLE
JIM TANGENOFF
PAT BIERSDORF
DEBORAH UHLEMANN
LINDA ENG
NOLA JOHNSON
OMNI PRODUCTION
OMNI PRODUCTION
VFIS
LARRY THAYER
LMC BUILDNING
MILEAGE
PARKING
MEETING EXPENSES
RENTAL
SERVICES
SERVICES
SERVICES
MILEAGE
CONFERENCE /SCHOOL
REPAIRS
OFFICE SUPPLIES /POOL
REFUND /T -SHIRT
REFUND
REFUND
REFUND
REFUND
REFUND
PAGING SYSTEM
GENERAL SUPPLIES
SERVICES
CLASS /BOOKS
07 -02 -90 PAGE 3
ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE
10- 4204 - 140 -14
10- 4208 - 160 -16
10- 4208 - 160 -16
10- 4216 - 160 -16
30- 4224 - 781 -78
30- 4201 - 780 -78
30- 4201 - 780 -78
30- 4201 - 781 -78
30- 4208 - 781 -78
10- 4202 - 440 -44
10- 4248 - 560 -56
26- 4516 - 681 -68
10- 3500 - 000 -00
10- 3500 - 000 -00
10- 3500 - 000 -00
10- 3500 - 000 -00
10- 3500 - 000 -00
10- 3500- 000 -00
28- 1300 - 000 -00 5620
28- 4504 - 702 -70 BR6129 8291
10- 4502 - 440 -44
10- 4202 - 600 -60
* * * -CKS
1990 CITY
OF EDINA
CHECK REGISTER
07 -02 -90 PAGE 4
CHECK NO.
DATE
AMOUNT
VENDOR
ITEM DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE
238.00
*
183754
06/21/90
20.00
GAIL MCNALLY
REFUND
10- 3500 - 000 -00
20.00
*
183755
06/21/90
10.00
BONNIE GRAFT
REFUND
10- 3500 - 000 -00
10.00
*
183756
06/21/90
20.00
SHERYL CAIN
REFUND
10- 3500 - 000 -00
20.00
*
183757
06/21/90
90.29
BANKSYSTEMS
CREDIT CARD SUPPLIES
50- 4516- 820 -82
09870
8196
183757
06/21/90
90.29
BANKSYSTEMS
CREDIT CARD SUPPLIES
50- 4516 - 840 -84
09870
8196
183757
06/21/90
90.29
BANKSYSTEMS
CREDIT CARD SUPPLIES
50- 4516 - 860 -86
09870
8196
270.87
*
183758
06/21/90
89.53
MIDWEST SPORTS MKTG
GENERAL SUPPLIES
28- 4504 - 702 -70
021990
8073
89.53
*
183759
06/21/90
48.00
NEVCO SCOREBOARD CO
REPAIR SCOREBOARD
28- 4248 - 702 -70
85556
8135
48.00
*
183760
06/21/90
86.01
AUTO GARAGE DOOR CO
REPAIRS
28- 4248 - 702 -70
8004
86.01
*
183761
06/21/90
56.61
AT &T
PHONE
23- 4256 - 612 -61
56.61
*
183762
06/21/90
50.00
MARILYN J BOE
PERFORMANCE 10/18/90
30- 4224 - 781 -78
50.00
*
183763
06/21/90
50.00
DAVID WEST
PERFORMANCE 8/26/90
30- 4224 - 781 -78
50.00
*
183764
06/21/90
60.49
CINDY WAKNITZ
MILEAGE
30- 4208 - 781 -78
60.49
*
183765
06/22/90
85.00
JOANNE GARRAHY
REFUND
30- 3507 - 000 -00
85.00
*
183766
06/22/90
29.95
BUSINESSWEEK
SUBSCRIPTION
10- 4204 - 160 -16
29.95
*
183767
06/22/90
195.00
M&S ROOFING
ROOF PATCH
10- 4540 - 520 -52
2974
8163
195.00
*
183768
06/22/90
15.63
AEI ELECT PARTS
ELECTR PARTS
40- 4504 - 801 -80
15.63
*
183769
06/22/90
142.47
HOFFERS INC
GLASS
10- 4540 - 520 -52
157760
7822
142.47
*
183770
06/22/90
3,920.00
MTKA SEAWEED EATERS
MILL POND HARVEST
10- 4200 - 358 -30
7571
3,920.00
*
183771
06/22/90
471.50
SCHUELLERS
FLOWERS
10- 4504 - 390 -30
7767
1990 CITY
OF EDINA
CHECK REGISTER
07 -02 -90 PAGE 5
CHECK NO.
DATE
AMOUNT
VENDOR
ITEM DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O.
# MESSAGE
471.50
*
183772
06/22/90
200.00
DAVID TEICH
HAY BALER
60- 1300 - 289 -04
200.00
*
183773
06/22/90
3.39
TRANSPORT WHITEGMC
KEY
10- 4540 - 560 -56
23884
8021
3.39
*
183774
06/22/90
83.70
EP GUNDERSON
REFUND
10- 3095- 490 -49
83.70
*
183775
06/25/90
82.83
SOUTHVIEW JR HIGH
REPAIRS
10- 4201 - 621 -62
82.83
*
183776
06/25/90
253.52
WILSON ACCESSORIES
SUPPLIES
10- 4504- 623 -62
153485
8055
253.52
*
183777
06/25/90
420.00
LANDSHAPES INC
PRO SERVICES
60- 1300 - 290 -04
26399
420.00
*
183778
06/25/90
3,936.00
LUIS HERNANDEZ
REFEREE
27- 4100 - 667 -66
3,936.00
*
183779
06/25/90
44.70
METRO ELECTRIC
ELECTRIC REP
27- 4248 - 663 -66
8359
44.70
*
183780
06/25/90
3,084.00
NSP
LIGHTING INSTALLED
60 -1300- 033 -11
413033
3,084.00
*
183781
06/25/90
150.00
MN SAFETY COUNCIL
SCHOOL
10- 4202 - 280 -28
29466
150.00
*
183782
06/25/90
693.00
N LIGHT PRO SHOP
CLAY TARGETS
29- 4648- 722 -72
23648
8308
693.00
*
183783
06/25/90
280.00
IDELLE PETERSON
PRO SERVICES
30- 4201 - 782 -78
20490
8371
280.00
*
183784
06/25/90
119.30
STEVE MARSTON
PRO SERVICES
10- 4201 - 420 -42
119.30
*
1
183785
06/25/90
29.95
BOTTOM LINE
DUES
10- 4204 - 420 -42
29.95
*
183786
06/25/90
1.25
PEGS STATIONERS
GENERAL SUPPLIES
10- 4504 - 420 -42
1.25
*
183787
06/25/90
270.00
MPLS TECH INSTITUTE
CONT ED
10- 4202 - 420 -42
53109
270.00
*
183788
06/25/90
80.00
SOCCER EXPRESS
MEETING EXPENSES
10- 4206 - 430 -42
80.00
*
183789
06/26/90
375.00
METRO WATER
GENERAL SUPPLIES
28- 4504 - 702 -70
5001
7727
375.00
*
1990 CITY
OF EDINA
CHECK REGISTER
CHECK NO.
DATE
AMOUNT
VENDOR
ITEM DESCRIPTION
183790
06/26/90
59.98
STATE SUPPLY CO
REPAIR
59.98
*
183791
06/26/90
128.27
DAVID BLOOD
REIMBURSEMENT
128.27
*
183792
05/26/90
23.20
THERMAX CORP
FILTERS
183792
06/26/90
28.10
THERMAX CORP
BULBS
51.30
*
183793
06/26/90
20.00
BARB F ARNOLD
REFUND
20.00
*
183794
06/26/90
25.00
ELENA ADAMS
REFUND
25.00
*
183795
06/26/90
10.00
LAURA AULIK
REFUND
10.00
*
183796
06/26/90
25.00
JANE YANDA
REFUND
25.00
*
183797
06/26/90
60.00
MARK BRETHEIM
REFUND
60.00
*
183798
06/26/90
25.00
PAUL ROTH
REFUND
25.00
*
183799
06/26/90
25.00
GERMAINE BURESH
REUND
25.00
*
183800
06/26/90
90.00
PAT BENSON
CLEANING
183800
06/26/90
90.00
PAT BENSON
CLEANING
180.00
*
183801
06/26/90
487.00
WARREN ANDERSON
SIGN
487.00
*
183802
06/26/90
488.40
JOANNA FOOTE
TEMP EMPL
488.40
*
183803
06/26/90
470.76
US WEST COMM
BURY PHONE CABLE
470.76
*
183804
06/26/90
47.58
H.A &J.L. WOOD INC
TREES /SHRUBS
47.58
*
183805
06/26/90
377.00
SHERATON COLO
SCHOOL
377.00
*
183806
06/26/90
20.00
RANDY MCKAY
REFUND
20.00
*
183807
06/26/90
18.00
MARILYN SEVERSON
REFUND
07 -02 -90 PAGE
ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE
28- 4248 - 702 -70 33115 7995
10- 4266 - 420 -42
27- 4504- 662 -66 24780 8200
27- 4504 - 662 -66 24806 8262
10- 3500- 000 -00
10- 3500 - 000 -00
10- 3500 - 000 -00
10- 3500 - 000 -00
10- 3500 - 000 -00
10- 3500- 000 -00
10- 3500 - 000 -00
27- 4201 - 662 -66 30585 8277
27- 4201 - 662 -66 30586 8278
27- 4604 - 664 -66 8370
12- 4120 - 434 -43 6944
60- 1300 - 005 -20 A00856 8341
10- 4560 - 644 -64 340836
10- 4202 - 640 -64
10- 3500 - 000 -00
10- 1145 - 000 -00
6
1990 CITY
OF EDINA
CHECK REGISTER
07 -02 -90 PAGE 7
CHECK NO.
DATE
AMOUNT
VENDOR
ITEM DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE
18.00
*
183808
06/26/90
68.00
STATE OF MINNESOTA
LICENSE FEES
10- 4310 - 560 -56
68.00
*
183809
06/26/90
59.00
JENNY WEISOR
CANCELLED CLASS
23- 3500 - 000 -00
59.00
*
183810
06/26/90
59.00
DANA WEISER
CANCELLED CLASS
23- 3500 - 000 -00
59.00
*
183811
06/26/90
61.00
YAFFA GELPE
CANCELLED CLASS
23- 3500 - 000 -00
61.00
*
183812
06/26/90
63.00
LINDA SCHENCK
CANCELLED CLASS
23- 3500 - 000 -00
63.00
*
183813
06/26/90
51.00
EDYTHE BLUSKE
CANCELLED CLASS
23- 3500- 000 -00
51.00
*
183814
06/26/90
45.90
GINNY THOMSON
CANCELLED CLASS
23- 3500 - 000 -00
45.90
*
183815
06/26/90
24.00
GERALDINE GIESE
CANCELLED CLASS
23- 3500 - 000 -00
24.00
*
183816
06/26/90
63.00
JEAN WINDCHILL
CANCELLED CLASS
23- 3500 - 000 -00
63.00
*
183817
06/26/90
3,500.00
NORTHERN LIGHTER
FIREWORKS
10- 4504 - 505 -50
5952
3,500.00
*
183818
06/26/90
486.33
CAROLES VIKING ENT
GENERAL SUPPLIES
10- 4504 - 646 -64
7848
486.33
*
183819
06/26/90
27.00
CSI
REPAIRS
27- 4248 - 664 -66
28092 8302
27.00
*
183820
06/26/90
50.00
THE JOLLY NOBLES
SERVICE 8/5/90
30- 4224 - 781 -78
50.00
*
1
183821
06/26/90
75.00
DON BATES
SERVICES
30- 4224 - 781 -78
75.00
*
183822
06/26/90
75.00
BOB WALSER
SERVICES 8/16/90
30- 4224 - 781 -78
75.00
*
183823
06/26/90
75.00
DAVID MALMBERG
SERVICES 8/19/90
30- 4224 - 781 -78
75.00
*
183824
06/26/90
50.00
THE VETS
SERVICES 8/19/90
30- 4224 - 781 -78
50.00
*
183825
06/26/90
40.00
JAZZ ETC
SERVICES 8/26/90
30- 4224 - 781 -78
40.00
*
1990 CITY OF EDINA
CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT
183826
06/26/90
50.00
10- 4226 - 420 -42
4502
50.00 *
183827
06/26/90
36.39
4502
AIRSIGNAL
36.39 *
xxxxxx
REBUILD
AIRSIGNAL
183A03
06/22/90
100.70
xxxxxx
AIRSIGNAL
100.70 *
183A21
06/19/90
195.71
195.71 *
xxxxxx
183A29
06/26/90
36.68 96.66
183A29
06/22/90
54.22
98.88
90.90*
xxxxxx
183A31
06/22/90
52.00
183A31
06/22/90
13.53
183A31
06/25/90
46.57
183A31
06/22/90
6.50
183A31
06/22/90
32.00
150.60 *
xxxxxx
183A33
06/22/90
1,872.10
1,872.10 *
xxxxxx
183A39
06/22/90
49.50
183A39
06/22/90
162.94
183A39
06/22/90
366.07
183A39
06/22/90
373.69
183A39
06/22/90
70.89
1,023.09
xxxxxx
_
183A41
06/26/90
428.48
183A41
06/25/90
329.28
183A41
06/25/90
584.27
xxxxxx
1,342.03
183A43
06/26/90
186.94
CHECK REGISTER
VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION
MPLS COMMODORES SERVICES 8/28/90
PARAGON CABLE SERVICE CONTRACT
07 -02 -90 PAGE 8
ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE
30- 4224 - 781 -78
30- 4288 - 782 -78
* ** -CKS
A -Z RENTAL EQUIP RENTAL 27- 4504 - 664 -66 83876 8202
* ** -CKS
ADT SECURITY SYS. ALARM SERVICE 30- 4304 - 782 -78 8264
* ** -CKS
ALBINSON DRAFTING SUPPLIES 10- 4570 - 260 -26 658247 5352
ALBINSON NORTH ARROWS 10- 4570 - 260 -26 657306 5352
* ** -CKS
AIRSIGNAL
PAGER
SERVICE
10- 4226 - 420 -42
4502
AIRSIGNAL
PAGER
SERVICE
10- 4248 - 540 -54
4502
AIRSIGNAL
UNIFORMA /RESERVES
10- 4266 - 430 -42
REBUILD
AIRSIGNAL
PAGER
SERVICE
12- 4248 - 434 -43
4502
AIRSIGNAL
PAGER
SERVICE
40- 4248 - 801 -80
4502
AEC ENG /DESIGNERS PRO SERVICES /ENG
ALTERNATOR
REBUILD
REBUILT
ALTERNATOR
REBUILD
REBUILT MAGNETO
ALTERNATOR
REBUILD
EARMUFF /CARTRIDGE
ALTERNATOR
REBUILD
GENERAL SUPPLIES
ALTERNATOR
REBUILD
GENERAL SUPPLIES
AMBASSADOR SAUSAGE MEAT
AMBASSADOR SAUSAGE MEAT
AMBASSADOR SAUSAGE MEAT
AM LASER CUT GRAFIX GENERAL SUPPLIES
* ** -CKS
40- 4201 - 800 -80 2788
* ** -CKS
10- 4540 - 560 -56 14984 8158
10- 4540- 560 -56 7031 7967
10- 4642-301 -30 7029 7968
40- 4504- 801 -80 7026 7894
40- 4504 - 802 -80 7028 7949
* ** -CKS
27- 4624 - 663 -66 5506
27- 4624 - 663 -66 5506
27- 4624 - 663 -66 5506
* ** -CKS
28- 4504 - 702 -70 65447 8108
1990 CITY
OF EDINA
CHECK REGISTER
07 -02 -90
PAGE 9
CHECK NO.
DATE
AMOUNT
VENDOR
ITEM DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O.
#
MESSAGE
186.94
*
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
183A45
06/25/90
250.00
AMER. PHOTO COPY
EQUIP MAIT
10- 4274 - 420 -42
518191
8257
183A45
06/25/90
174.09
AMER. PHOTO COPY
GENERAL SUPPLIES
10- 4504 - 420 -42
F33274
424.09
*
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
183A49
06/22/90
153.71
AMERICAN LINEN
LAUNDRY
27- 4262 - 663 -66
5515
153.71
*
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
183A53
06/26/90
131.61
AMERICAN SHARECOM
PHONE
10- 4256 - 510 -51
131.61
*
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
183A57
06/19/90
73.60
AMMONIA HOUSE
GENERAL SUPPLIES
28- 4504- 704 -70
017926
7792
73.60
*
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
183A91
06/22/90
40.00
AUTO SOUND /ENTRONIX
PARTS
10- 4248 - 560 -56
182068
7928
40.00
*
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
183807
06/19/90
1,271.92
BADGER METER INC
WATER METERS
40- 1220 - 000 -00
630618
5189
1,271.92
*
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
183813
06/25/90
841.40
BARR ENGINEERING
PRO ENG SERVICES
41- 4201 - 900 -90
841.40
*
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
183B18
06/22/90
60.22
BATTERY WAREHOUSE
BRAKE PAD
10- 4540- 560 -56
23907
8161
60.22
*
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
183B27
06/19/90
297.12
BERGFORD TRUCKING
LIQUOR DELIVERY
50- 4626 - 822 -82
183827
06/19/90
494.00
BERGFORD TRUCKING
LIQUOR DELIVERY
50- 4626 - 842 -84
183B27
06/19/90
539.00
BERGFORD TRUCKING
LIQUOR DELIVERY
50- 4626 - 862 -86
1,330.12
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
183B30
06/26/90
22.36
BERTELSON BROS. INC.
PENCIL SHARPENER
10- 4504 - 160 -16
578440
183B30
06/19/90
6.28
BERTELSON BROS. INC.
STAMP HOLDER
10- 4504 - 440 -44
573444
183B30
06/19/90
156.18
BERTELSON BROS. INC.
OFFICE SUPPLIES
10- 4504 - 510-51
576720
1990 CITY
OF EDINA
CHECK REGISTER
CHECK NO.
DATE
AMOUNT
VENDOR
ITEM DESCRIPTION
183630
06/26/90
244.12
BERTELSON BROS. INC.
GENERAL SUPPLIES
183630
06/19/90
80.64
BERTELSON BROS. INC.
GENERAL SUPPLIES
183630
06/26/90
244.12-
BERTELSON BROS. INC.
GENERAL SUPPLIES
183630
06/26/90
8.70
BERTELSON BROS. INC.
PENS
183630
06/26/90
344.12
BERTELSON BROS. INC.
GENERAL SUPPLIES
183630
06/19/90
87.94
BERTELSON BROS. INC.
OFFICE SUPPLIES
183630
06/19/90
204.37
BERTELSON BROS. INC.
OFFICE SUPPLIES
183630
06/19/90
144.67
BERTELSON BROS. INC.
OFFICE SUPPLIES
183630
06/26/90
19.00
BERTELSON BROS. INC.
MARKERS
183630
06/19/90
8.51
BERTELSON BROS. INC.
REINFORCEMENTS
183630
06/25/90
108.25
BERTELSON BROS. INC.
FILE
183630
06/25/90
29.04
BERTELSON BROS. INC.
URNS
1,220.06 *
kkkk **
183632
06/26/90
27.25
BEST LOCK OF MPLS
KEYS
183632
06/22/90
92.00
BEST LOCK OF MPLS
KEYS
119.25 *
183637
06/25/90
44.00
BISHOP TRAVEL CENTER
CONTINGENCY
44.00 *
183661
06/25/90
2,205.50
BOUSTEAD ELEC & MFG.
REPAIR MOTOR
2,205.50 *
k k k k k
183677
06/25/90
359.85
BRAUN
PRO ENG SERVICES
359.85 *
k * k * * k
183679
06/22/90
182.40
BROCK WHITE
POLYFILM
183679
06/22/90
61.50
BROCK WHITE
CURB /GUTTER JOINT
k * * *kk
243.90 *
183681
06/25/90
3,438.51
BRW INC.
PRO ENG SERV
183681
06/25/90
6,165.76
BRW INC.
PRO ENG SERV
9,604.27 *
183682
06/26/90
136.72
BRUNSON INSTRUMENT
SURVEY EQUIP
183682
06/26/90
214.37
BRUNSON INSTRUMENT
SURVEY EQUIP
183682
06/26/90
214.37-
BRUNSON INSTRUMENT
SURVEY EQUIO
183682
06/26/90
214.37
BRUNSON INSTRUMENT
SURVEY EQUIO
183682
06/26/90
652.16
BRUNSON INSTRUMENT
LOCATOR
1,003.25
183683
06/26/90
181.80
BRYAN ROCK PROD. INC
BALLFIELD AG -LIME
07 -02 -90 PAGE 10
ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE
10- 4504 - 510 -51 578440
10- 4504 - 510 -51 576643
10- 4504 - 510 -51 578440
10-4504- 510 -51 578434
10- 4504 - 510 -51 578440
10- 4504 - 510 -51 576717
10- 4504 - 624 -62 576717
10- 4504 - 624 -62 576720
10- 4504- 661 -66 578440
10- 4516- 440 -44 576775
10- 4901 - 540 -54 576862
27- 4504 - 662 -66 574513 2090
27- 4504 - 661 -66 5490 8382
40- 4540- 802 -80 5070 7940
10- 4201 - 500 -50
40- 4248 - 801 -80 284987 8210
60- 1300 - 289 -04 855
10- 4504 - 301 -30 7886
10- 4504 - 314 -30 7440
60- 1300 - 289 -04
60 -1300- 290 -04
10- 4504 - 260 -26
10- 4504- 260 -26
10- 4504 - 260 -26
10- 4504 - 260 -26
10- 4604 - 260 -26
58193
58193
080680 5253
080756 5253
080756 5253
080756 5253
080749 5253
10- 4522 - 642 -64 96041 6709
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
1990 CITY
OF EDINA
CHECK REGISTER
07 -02 -90
PAGE 11
CHECK NO.
DATE
AMOUNT
VENDOR
ITEM DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. #
MESSAGE
181.80 *
xxxxxx
x*x -CKS
183891
06/25/90
20.00
BURY & CARLSON INC.
DUMP CHARGES
10- 4504- 301 -30
34647
20.00 *
xxxxxx
x*x -CKS
183C01
06/19/90
62.82
C & S DISTRIBUTING
COST /GOODS SOLD
23- 4624 - 613 -61
106778 7717
183C01
06/19/90
189.84
C & S DISTRIBUTING
COST /GOODS SOLD
23- 4624 - 613 -61
106723 7717
252.66 *
xxxxxx
* ** -CKS
183C17
06/22/90
53.60
CDP
TONER
10- 4504- 540 -54
53.60 *
xxxxxx
xx* -CKS
183C25
06/25/90
43.45
CHAPIN PUBLISHING CO
ADVERTISING
30- 4214 - 781 -78
114381 8377
43.45 *
*xxxxx
xx* -CKS
183C33
06/21/90
25.50
CITY OF EDINA
WATER
23- 4258 - 612 -61
183C33
06/21/90
20.50
CITY OF EDINA
WATER
27- 4258 - 662 -66
183C33
06/21/90
205.40
CITY OF EDINA
WATER
27- 4258 - 662 -66
183C33
06/21/90
20.50
CITY OF EDINA
WATER
27- 4258 - 662 -66
183C33
06/21/90
20.50
CITY OF EDINA
WATER
28- 4258 - 702 -70
183C33
06/21/90
20.50
CITY OF EDINA
WATER
28- 4258 - 702 -70
183C33
06/21/90
816.40
CITY OF EDINA
WATER
30- 4258 - 782 -78
183C33
06/21/90
27.10
CITY OF EDINA
WATER
50- 4258- 841 -84
1,156.40 *
xxxxxx
xxx -CKS
183C39
06/22/90
2,528.33
CLEAN -FLO LAB
LAKE CLEANER
10- 4201 - 358 -30
5361 6831
2,528.33 *
xxxxxx
i
* ** -CKS
183C49
06/22/90
1,736.00
COMPUTERLAND
LASER PRINTER
10- 4902 - 440 -44
8072
1,736.00 *
*x *x **
* ** -CKS
183C73
06/25/90
28.32
COPY EQUIPMENT INC.
MEETING EXPENSE
10- 4206 - 430 -42
025751
28.32 *
*x *xxx
xxx -CKS
183C78
06/22/90
78.18
CRESCENT ELECTRIC
WIRE
10- 4540 - 322 -30
7952
78.18 *
xxxxxx
* *x -CKS
1990 CITY
OF EDINA
VENDOR
ITEM DESCRIPTION
CHECK NO.
DATE
AMOUNT
183C85
06/19/90
PETRI DISH
24.80
REPAIR PARTS
CERT HYD SPEC
MOTOR
24.80
* * * * **
D.C. HEY CO.
SERVICE CONTRACT
183C87
06/22/90
179.00
i89 -2e-
183C87
06/22/90
226.76
239--
405.76*
* * * * **
183C89
06/19/90
30.80
* * * * **
30.80
183C93
06/22/90
267.88
267.88
* * * * **
183D07
06/21/90
55.95
183D07
06/26/90
48.13
104.08
* * * * **
183D24
06/19/90
19.00
183D24
06/19/90
27.00
183D24
06/19/90
6.00
183D24
06/19/90
2.01
183D24
06/19/90
.50
* * * * **
54.51 *
183D33
06/26/90
514.50
183D33
06/26/90
89.25
* * * ***
603.75 *
183D47
06/22/90
16.35
16.35 *
* * * * **
183D70
06/19/90
104.40
183D70
06/21/90
724.96
829.36 *
* * * * **
183D85
06/21/90
1,378.75
CHECK REGISTER
VENDOR
ITEM DESCRIPTION
CULLIGAN
WATER SERVICE
CURTIN MATHESON SCI
LAB SUPPLIES
CURTIN MATHESON SCI
PETRI DISH
CUSHMAN MOTOR CO.
REPAIR PARTS
CERT HYD SPEC
MOTOR
D.C. HEY CO.
CONTRACTED REPAIRS
D.C. HEY CO.
SERVICE CONTRACT
DIANE SANKEY
DIANE SANKEY
DIANE SANKEY
DIANE SANKEY
DIANE SANKEY
DAVIS- EUGENE
DAVIS- EUGENE
DEPENDABLE COURIER
DPC INDUSTRIES
DPC INDUSTRIES
UPGRADE LICENSE
RENEW TABS
LATE FEE /PLATES
REPAIRS
POSTAGE
WEED CONTROL
MILEAGE
COURIER /AUDIT
CHEMICALS
CHEMICALS
DUFFEY PAPER CO. PAPER /XEROX
07 -02 -90 PAGE 12
ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE
10- 4200 - 482 -48
* ** -CKS
10- 4504 - 482 -48 8175
10- 4504 - 482 -48 8155
* ** -CKS
27- 4540 - 664 -66 43911 8060
* ** -CKS
10- 4540 - 560 -56 73570 7882
* ** -CKS
23- 4248 - 612 -61 176494 8090
30- 4288 - 781 -78 178037
* ** -CKS
10- 4202 - 281 -28
10- 4310 - 560 -56
10- 4310 - 560 -56
10- 4540 - 520 -52
40- 4504 - 810 -80
* ** -CKS
60- 4100 - 985 -90
60- 4208 - 985 -90
* ** -CKS
10- 4802 - 160 -16 156586
* ** -CKS
26- 4564 - 682 -68 778085 7773
26- 4564 - 682 -68 778441 7883
* ** -CKS
10- 4504 - 510 -51 B12830 8144
1990 CITY
OF EDINA
CHECK REGISTER
CHECK NO.
DATE
AMOUNT
VENDOR
ITEM DESCRIPTION
183D85
06/19/90
85.25
DUFFEY PAPER CO.
PAPER
183D85
06/25/90
47.75
DUFFEY PAPER CO.
PAPER
1,511.75
*
183D86
06/26/90
203.41
DENNYS 5th AV BAKE
BAKERY GOODS
203.41
*
* * * * **
183E02
06/25/90
543.58
E KRAEMER & SONS INC
FILL MATERIAL
543.58
*
* * * * **
183E20
06/21/90
85.00
ECOLAB PEST ELIM.
SERVICE CONTRACT
85.00
*
183E21
06/26/90
1,800.00
ECOMARC INC
ODOR CONTROL
1,800.00
*
* * * * **
183E71
06/26/90
58.00
ELVIN SAFETY SUPPLY
SAFETY EQUIP
183E71
06/25/90
84.22
ELVIN SAFETY SUPPLY
GOGGLES /GLOVES
142.22
*
* * * * **
183E75
06/19/90
300.00
EMPLOYEES CLUB
SUPPLIES
* * * * **
300.00
*
183E94
06/25/90
118.00
ESS BROS & SONS
GRATES
183E94
06/26/90
330.00
ESS BROS & SONS
STORM SEWER GRATES
448.00
*
* * * * **
183F08
06/25/90
108.48
FAIRVIEW HOSPITSL
PRO SERVICES
183F08
06/25/90
54.88
FAIRVIEW HOSPITSL
PRO SERVICES
183F08
06/19/90
8.00
FAIRVIEW HOSPITSL
DRUGS /AMBULANCE
183F08
06/19/90
307.06
FAIRVIEW HOSPITSL
DRUGS /AMBULANCE
183F08
06/19/90
365.45
FAIRVIEW HOSPITSL
DRUGS /AMBULANCE
* * **
843.87
*
* *
183F11
06/21/90
275.81
FEED RITE CONTROL
POOL CHEMICALS
183F11
06/21/90
2,187.50
FEED RITE CONTROL
H2O CHEMICALS
2,463.31
*
* * * * **
183F37
06/19/90
102.50
FLOYD LOCK & SAFE CO
REPAIR SAFE
07 -02 -90 PAGE 13
ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE
10- 4504 - 510 -51 812831 8144
10- 4504 - 510 -51 B13117
27- 4624 - 663 -66 8067
40- 4504 - 803 -80 10980 7094
30- 4288 - 782 -78 13508 8300
40- 4504 - 801 -80 3198 8166
10- 4642 - 644 -64
40- 4504 - 801 -80
10- 4504- 500 -50
8238
8240
41- 4552 - 900 -90 2039 8324
41- 4552 - 900 -90 2087 8337
10- 4201- 420 -42
10- 4201 - 420 -42
10- 4510 - 440 -44 286892 8111
10- 4510 - 440 -44 286881 8111
10- 4510 - 440 -44 286867 8111
26- 4564 - 682 -68 141284
40- 4622 - 805 -80 140871 7342
50- 4248 - 861 -86 D19032
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
1990 CITY
OF EDINA
CHECK NO.
DATE
183F37
06/26/90
xxxxxx
183G15
06/25/90
xxxxxx
222.50
183G48
06/25/90
xxxxxx
183G62
06/25/90
* *xxxx
48.00
183G79
06/26/90
xxxxxx
183H28
06/22/90
183H28
06/22/90
xxxxxx
183H33
06/25/90
183H34
06/19/90
183H34
06/19/90
xxxxxx
183H36
06/26/90
183H37
06/19/90
183H37
06/19/90
183H37
06/19/90
xxx *xx
450.00
183H56
06/22/90
xxxxxx
183I05
06/25/90
07 -02 -90 PAGE 14
ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE
50- 4626 - 861 -86 D19260
* ** -CKS
27- 4630 - 663 -66 5509
* ** -CKS
27- 1340 - 000 -00 1566 7698
* ** -CKS
27- 4624 - 663 -66 5517
* ** -CKS
27- 4100 - 661 -66
* ** -CKS
40- 4504 - 801 -80 35145 7764
40- 4540 - 802 -80 34329 7251
* ** -CKS
10- 4286- 220 -22
10- 4250 - 644 -64 20104
10- 4250 - 644 -64 20114
* ** -CKS
10- 4510 - 440 -44 827 5058
10- 4202 - 440 -44 22496 8112
10- 4202 - 440 -44 22496 8112 •
10- 4202 - 440 -44 22496 8112
* ** -CKS
10- 4540 - 520 -52 176061 7828
* ** -CKS
10- 4502 - 420 -42
CHECK REGISTER
AMOUNT
VENDOR
ITEM DESCRIPTION
120.00
FLOYD LOCK & SAFE CO
RE -KEY LOCKS
222.50
*
48.00
GEM TAP SERV
BEER LINES
48.00
*
34,695.00
GOLF CAR MIDWEST
NEW GOLF CARS
34,695.00
*
102.00
GRANDMA S CUPBOARD
POPCORN
102.00
*
2,706.00
GREUPNER -JOE
PRO SERVICES
2,706.00
*
450.00
HAYDEN- MURPHY EQUIP
HOSE
450.00
HAYDEN- MURPHY EQUIP
HOSE
900.00
*
586.20
HENN CTY SHERIFF
WORKHOUSE /JAIL
586.20
*
105.00
HENN COUNTY TREAS.
WOODCHIPS
37.50
HENN COUNTY TREAS.
TREE DEBRIS
142.50
*
508.82
HENN CTY MED CENTER
AMBULANCE ORDERS
• 508.82
*
108.00
HENN TECH CENTER
HAZ MAT III TRG
108.00
HENN TECH CENTER
HAZ AMT III TRG
108.00-
HENN TECH CENTER
HAZ AMT III TRG
108.00
*
26.98
HIRSHFIELDS
PAINT
26.98
*
25.90
I C M A
BOOKS /PAMPHLETS
07 -02 -90 PAGE 14
ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE
50- 4626 - 861 -86 D19260
* ** -CKS
27- 4630 - 663 -66 5509
* ** -CKS
27- 1340 - 000 -00 1566 7698
* ** -CKS
27- 4624 - 663 -66 5517
* ** -CKS
27- 4100 - 661 -66
* ** -CKS
40- 4504 - 801 -80 35145 7764
40- 4540 - 802 -80 34329 7251
* ** -CKS
10- 4286- 220 -22
10- 4250 - 644 -64 20104
10- 4250 - 644 -64 20114
* ** -CKS
10- 4510 - 440 -44 827 5058
10- 4202 - 440 -44 22496 8112
10- 4202 - 440 -44 22496 8112 •
10- 4202 - 440 -44 22496 8112
* ** -CKS
10- 4540 - 520 -52 176061 7828
* ** -CKS
10- 4502 - 420 -42
1990 CITY
OF EDINA
CHECK REGISTER
07 -02 -90
PAGE 15
CHECK NO.
DATE
AMOUNT
VENDOR
ITEM DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. #
MESSAGE
25.90
* * *k *x
* ** -CKS
183J27
06/21/90
17.52
JERRYS FOODS
FUTURES MEETING
10- 4206 - 500 -50
183J27
06/26/90
16.03
JERRYS FOODS
MISC
10- 4504 - 440 -44
183J27
06/26/90
61.33
JERRYS FOODS
MEETING EXPENSES
12- 4206 - 434 -43
183J27
06/21/90
25.48
JERRYS FOODS
GENERAL SUPPLIES
23- 4504 - 611 -61
183J27
06/19/90
137.03
JERRYS FOODS
FOOD
27- 4624 - 663 -66
257.39 *
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
183J41
06/22/90
398.55
JIM HATCH SALES
SHOVELS /VESTS
10- 4580 - 301 -30
10402
6993
398.55 *
* *k * **
* ** -CKS
183J74
06/22/90
77.42
JUSTUS LUMBER
PREHUNG DOOR
10- 4540 - 520 -52
35168
7157
183J74
06/22/90
143.27
JUSTUS LUMBER
LUMBER /STEEL
10- 4540- 520 -52
37329
7472
183J74
06/22/90
140.51
JUSTUS LUMBER
DRYWELL /SCREWS
10- 4540 - 520 -52
35064
7142
183J74
06/22/90
80.39
JUSTUS LUMBER
LUMBER
10- 4540 - 520 -52
40609
7798
183J74
06/22/90
2.69
JUSTUS LUMBER
BIT
10- 4580 - 301 -30
35172
7157
444.28 *
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
183J99
06/26/90
40.00
JANET CANTON
MILEAGE /LOGIS
10- 4208 - 160 -16
40.00 *
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
183K23
06/26/90
87.19
KELLY SERVICES INC
TEMP
10- 4201- 490 -49
87.19 *
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
183K35
06/22/90
60.36
KNOX COMM CREDIT
STUDS
10- 4504- 507 -50
606177
7899
183K35
06/26/90
13.98
KNOX COMM CREDIT
HARDWARE
10- 4540 - 646 -64
625061
8133
183K35
06/22/90
25.24
KNOX COMM CREDIT
SHELFiFOR GRILL
27- 4504 - 663 -66
581702
8154
183K35
06/26/90
44.33
KNOX COMM CREDIT
GENERAL SUPPLIES
28- 4504 - 702 -70
625704
8298
183K35
06/19/90
58.38
KNOX COMM CREDIT
GENERAL SUPPLIES
28- 4504 - 702 -70
581803
8
183K35
06/19/90
155.60
KNOX COMM CREDIT
PAINT /LUMBER
30- 4544 - 782 -78
581981
8047
357.89 *
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
183L01
06/21/90
615.00
LINDA KOZAK
SERVICES 6/20- 7/3/90
30- 4201 - 781 -78
615.00 *
183L02
06/22/90
450.00
LABOR RELATIONS ASN.
LIQUOR INTERVIEWS
10- 4212 - 510 -51
450.00 *
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
183L06
06/19/90
3,324.60
LAKE RESTORATION
WEED CONTROL
41- 4201 - 902 -90
6721
8029
1990 CITY OF EDINA CHECK REGISTER 07 -02 -90 PAGE 16
CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE
183L06
06/19/90
288.00
183LO6
06/21/90
696.80 696.88 -
183LO6
06/25/90
140.00
7673
LAWSON
4,449.40* 4.448.69 k
k *kkkk
10- 4504 - 560 -56
7802
183L22
06/22/90
60.00
10- 4540 - 520 -52
7675
60.00 *
k * k * k k
SWITCHES
10- 4620 - 560 -56
183L28
06/22/90
263.49
183L28
06/22/90
347.39
183L28
06/22/90
130.00
183L28
06/22/90
118.48
183L28
06/22/90
171.47
183L28
06/22/90
81.87
183L28
06/22/90
175.61
183L28
06/22/90
475.74
183L28
06/22/90
193.29
183L28
06/22/90
440.95
2,398.29 *
k k k k k
18304
06/19/90
15.75
15.75 *
* k k k * k
183L36
06/25/90
243.00
243.00 *
k* k k k k
183L52
06/21/90
307.85
307.85 *
k k k k k k
183L56
06/25/90
30.27
183L56
06/25/90
6.46
183L56
06/25/90
6.75
183L56
06/21/90
13.11
56.59
* * k * k k
183L60
06/19/90
3,098.43
183L60
06/19/90
2,579.42
183L60
06/19/90
4,005.42
183L60
06/19/90
1,866.67
183L60
06/19/90
311.76
183L60
06/19/90
311.76
LAKE RESTORATION WEED TREATMENT
LAKE RESTORATION WEED TREATMENT
LAKE RESTORATION WEED TREATMENT
LANDSCAPE & TURF RONSTAR
41- 4201 - 902 -90 8032 8189
41- 4201 - 902 -90 7672 8041
41- 4201 - 902 -90 7338 8325
27- 4564 - 664 -66 4611 8256
LAWSON
PRODUCTS
GENERAL SUPPLIES
10- 4504 - 301 -30
7752
LAWSON
PRODUCTS
RIVETS
10- 4504 - 325 -30
7673
LAWSON
PRODUCTS
LABEL KIT
10- 4504 - 560 -56
7802
LAWSON
PRODUCTS
REPAIR PARTS
10- 4540 - 520 -52
7675
LAWSON
PRODUCTS
SWITCHES
10- 4620 - 560 -56
7674
LAWSON
PRODUCTS
BOLTS /NUTS /WASHERS
10- 4620 - 560 -56
7674
LAWSON
PRODUCTS
GENERAL SUPPLIES
30- 4504 - 782 -78
7843
LAWSON
PRODUCTS
REPAIR PARTS
40- 4540 - 801 -80
7674
LAWSON
PRODUCTS
BLADES
40- 4540 - 801 -80
7676
LAWSON
PRODUCTS
TOOL /DIE KIT
40- 4580- 803 -80
7801
LEEF BROS. INC.
PRO SERVICES
23- 4201 - 612 -61
LEFFLER PRINTING OFFICE SUPPLIES
LINJO ASSOC H2O TREATMENT
LINHOFF PRINTWS /SLIDES
LINHOFF PRINTS /SLIDES
LINHOFF PRINTS /SLIDES
LINHOFF PHOTO PROCESSING
LOGIS
DATA
PROCESSING
LOGIS
DATA
PROCESSING
LOGIS
DATA
PROCESSING
LOGIS
DATA
PROCESSING
LOGIS
DATA
PROCESSING
LOGIS
DATA
PROCESSING
30- 4516 - 781 -78 4209 7996
30- 4564 - 783 -78 2570 8301
10- 4201 - 505 -50 170522
10- 4201 - 505 -50 172314
10- 4201 - 505 -50 171653
12- 4215- 434 -43 172245
10- 4233 - 160 -16
10- 4233 - 200 -20
10- 4233 - 420 -42
40- 4233 - 800 -80
50- 4233 - 820 -82
50- 4233 - 840 -84
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
1990 CITY OF EDINA
CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT
183L60
06/19/90
311.77
* ** ***
SUPPLY
12,485.23 *
183L80
06/19/90
67.96
MERIT
SUPPLY
67.96 *
* * * * **
SUPPLY
CLEAING SUPPLIES
183L82
06/26/90
7.56
183L82
06/22/90
144.05
MERIT
SUPPLY
151.61 *
* * * * **
SUPPLY
TAR /ASPHALT REMOVER
183M01
06/22/90
34.47
MERIT
SUPPLY
34.47 *
* * * * **
183M18
06/26/90
138.15
MERIT
SUPPLY
138.15 *
* * * * **
SUPPLY
GENERAL SUPPLIES
183M22
06/22/90
359.04
MERIT
SUPPLY
359.04 *
* * * * **
SUPPLY
CLEANING SUPPLIES
183M27
06/22/90
498.75
183M27
06/26/90
281.30
183M27
06/26/90
465.10
183M27
06/26/90
465.10
183M27
06/26/90
465.10 -
183M27
06/22/90
408.70
183M27
06/22/90
483.05
183M27
06/22/90
149.80
183M27
06/22/90
453.25
183M27
06/19/90
303.90
183M27
06/21/90
211.10
183M27
06/25/90
198.30
183M27
06/26/90
451.00
183M27
06/26/90
396.00
183M27
06/19/90
460.80
183M27
06/19/90
489.00
183M27
06/25/90
490.32
5,740.37 *
* * * * **
183M29
06/26/90
136.00
183M29
06/26/90
110.00
246.00 *
CHECK REGISTER 07 -02 -90 PAGE 17
VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE
LOGIS DATA PROCESSING 50- 4233 - 860 -86
* ** -CKS
LYNDALE GARDEN CTR TREES /FLOWERS /SHRUBS 30- 4560- 782 -78 38331 8107
LYNDALE HARDWARE
LYNDALE HARDWARE
M & I IND SUPPLY
MCGARVEY COFFEE
MCNEILUS STEEL
TOOLS
GENERAL SUPPLIES
DRILL BIT
COFFEE
TUBES
MERIT
SUPPLY
PAINT STRIPPER
MERIT
SUPPLY
GARBAGE BAGS
MERIT
SUPPLY
CLEAING SUPPLIES
MERIT
SUPPLY
CLEANING SUPPLIES
MERIT
SUPPLY
CLEAING SUPPLIES
MERIT
SUPPLY
LINENS /TOWELS
MERIT
SUPPLY
TAR /ASPHALT REMOVER
MERIT
SUPPLY
CLEANER
MERIT
SUPPLY
TAR /ASPHALT REMOVER
MERIT
SUPPLY
CLEANING SUPPLIES
MERIT
SUPPLY
CLEANING SUPPLIES
MERIT
SUPPLY
GENERAL SUPPLIES
MERIT
SUPPLY
GENERAL SUPPLIES
MERIT
SUPPLY
GENERAL SUPPLIES
MERIT
SUPPLY
GENERAL SUPPLIES
MERIT
SUPPLY
GENERAL SUPPLIES
MERIT
SUPPLY
CLEANING SUPPLIES
MESSERLI & KRAMER AMBULANCE COLLECT
MESSERLI & KRAMER AMBULANCE COLLECT
10- 4580 - 646 -64 316812 8340
30- 4504- 782 -78 339177 8299
10- 4580 - 560 -56 5357 7827
27- 4624 - 662 -66 327320 7184
10- 4620 - 560 -56 70820 7746
10- 4504 - 325 -30 24426 7893
10- 4504 - 645 -64 24501 8043
10- 4504 - 646 -64 24533 8165
10- 4504 - 646 -64 24533 8165
10- 4504 - 646 -64 24533 8165
10- 4512 - 540 -54 24402 7880
10- 4620 - 560 -56 24448 7943
10- 4620 - 560 -56 24399 7875
10- 4620 - 560 -56 24400 7876
26- 4512 - 682 -68 24482 802,0
28- 4512 - 702 -70 24516 8142
30- 4504 = 782 -78 24574 8212
30- 4504 - 782 -78 24601 8363
30- 4504- 782 -78 24588 8309
30- 4504 - 782 -78 24532 8204
30- 4504 - 782 -78 24518 8197
30- 4512 - 782 -78 24573 8288
10- 3180 - 000 -00
10- 3180 - 000 -00
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
1990 CITY
OF EDINA
CHECK
REGISTER
07 -02 -90
PAGE 18
CHECK NO.
DATE
AMOUNT
VENDOR
ITEM DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O.
#
MESSAGE
* * *k *k
* ** -CKS
183M32
06/26/90
220.83
M AMUNDSON
CIGARETTES
50- 4632 - 862 -86
183M32
06/19/90
265.74
M AMUNDSON
CIGARETTES
50- 4632 - 862 -86
486.57 *
* k * k
* ** -CKS
183M35
06/19/90
218,619.58
METRO WASTE CONTROL
SEWER SERVICE
40- 4312 - 812 -80
505007
218,619.58 *
k * * * k #
* ** -CKS
183M38
06/21/90
75.00
MIAMA
DUES
28- 4204 - 701 -70
8293
183M38
06/21/90
75.00-
MIAMA
DUES
28- 4504- 701 -70
8293
183M38
06/21/90
75.00
MIAMA
DUES
28- 4504 - 701 -70
8293
75.00 *
183M39
06/19/90
271.85
MID - CENTRAL
PROTECTION GEAR
10- 4574 - 440 -44
5970
7234
271.85 *
* k k * k
* ** -CKS
183M42
06/22/90
1,241.90
MIDWEST ASPHALT
COR.
BLACKTOP
10- 4524 - 301 -30
183M42
06/22/90
9,991.00
MIDWEST ASPHALT
COR.
BLACKTOP
10- 4524 - 314 -30
183M42
06/22/90
1,054.35
MIDWEST ASPHALT
COR.
BLACKTOP
40- 4524 - 803 -80
12,287.25
* k * k * k
* ** -CKS
183M46
06/21/90
48.40
METZ BAKING CO
HOT DOD BUNS
26- 4624 - 683 -68
6148
183M46
06/25/90
113.54
METZ BAKING CO
BREAD
27- 4624 - 663 -66
5511
183M46
06/25/90
105.60
METZ BAKING CO
BREAD
27- 4624- 663 -66
5511
267.54 *
*k * *k*
* ** -CKS
183M53
06/19/90
448..55
MILHOFF STEEL
PUMP REPAIR
40- 4248 - 801 -80
100550
7942
448.55 *
i
183M54
06/19/90
174.00
MILLER -DAVIS CO.
MINUTE BOOK
10- 4504 - 100 -10
667173
8105
174.00 *
* *k *k*
* ** -CKS
183M58
06/22/90
326.25
MILLIPORE
LAB SUPPLIES
10- 4504 - 482 -48
63650
8146
326.25 *
k* k k k k
* ** -CKS
183M60
06/22/90
24.45
MILWAUKEE TOOL CO.
CORDLESS DRILLS
10- 4580 - 301 -30
7833
24.45 *
* k * k
* ** -CKS
1990 CITY
OF EDINA
18.33
MN
CHECK REGISTER
ADVERTISING
CHECK NO.
DATE
AMOUNT
183M75
VENDOR
18.33
ITEM DESCRIPTION
183M68
06/22/90
71.98
MN
CELLULAR
PHONE
CAR PHONE
183M68
06/25/90
77.65
MN
CELLULAR
PHONE
EQUIP RENTAL
183M68
06/25/90
46.50
MN
CELLULAR
PHONE
EQUIP RENTAL
183M68
06/25/90
157.89
MN
CELLULAR
PHONE
EQUIP RENTAL
183M68
06/25/90
56.92
MN
CELLULAR
PHONE
EQUIP RENTAL
183M68
06/25/90
125.99
MN
CELLULAR
PHONE
EQUIP RENTAL
183M68
06/25/90
18.30
MN
CELLULAR
PHONE
EQUIP RENTAL
183M68
06/25/90
29.21
MN
CELLULAR
PHONE
EQUIP RENTAL
183M68
06/26/90
22.17
MN
CELLULAR
PHONE
PHONE USAGE
183M68
06/25/90
25.61
MN
CELLULAR
PHONE
EQUIP RENTAL
259.80
MN.
632.22 *
REPAIR PARTS
27- 4540 - 664 -66
124327
7994
183M69
06/19/90
215.85
MCC /MIDWEST
TORO INC.
CRAFT SUPPLIES
183M69
06/19/90
258.50
MCC /MIDWEST
COST /GOODS SOLD
183M69
06/19/90
100.00
MCC /MIDWEST
COST /GOODS SOLD
574.35 *
* * * * **
07 -02 -90 PAGE 19
ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE
10- 4204 - 100 -10
10- 4226 - 420 -42
10- 4226 - 420 -42
10- 4226 - 420 -42
10- 4226 - 420 -42
10- 4226- 420 -42
10- 4226 - 420 -42
10- 4226 - 420 -42
10- 4226 - 440 -44
10- 4266 - 420 -42
23- 4588 - 611 -61 39621A 7708
23- 4624 - 613 -61 39621A 7708
23- 4624 - 613 -61 39621B 8085
183M75
06/26/90
18.33
MN
VIETNAM VET
ADVERTISING
50- 4214 - 822 -82
183M75
06/26/90
18.33
MN
VIETNAM VET
ADVERTISING
50- 4214- 842 -84
183M75
06/26/90
18.34
MN
VIETNAM VET
ADVERTISING
50- 4214 - 862 -86
55.00 *
* * * * **
183M80
06/19/90
10.03
MN
SUBURBAN NEWS
NOTICE OF HEARING
10- 4210- 140 -14
8004
10.03 *
183M81
06/22/90
38.41-
MN.
TORO INC.
CREDIT
27- 4540 - 664 -66
125431
8095
183M81
06/22/90
86.89
MN.
TORO INC.
REPAIR PARTS
27- 4540 - 664 -66
124643
7994
183M81
06/22/90
18.89
MN.
TORO INC.
REPAIR PARTS
27- 4540 - 664 -66
125267
8079
183M81
06/22/90
259.80
MN.
TORO INC.
REPAIR PARTS
27- 4540 - 664 -66
124327
7994
183M81
06/22/90
21.86
MN.
TORO INC.
MOWER PARTS
27- 4540 - 664 -66
125405
8095
349.03 *
* * * * * *
183M85
183M85
* * * * **
183M87
183M87
183M87
* * * * **
06/22/90
06/21/90
06/26/90
06/26/90
06/26/90
33.36
326.50
359.86
18.33
18.33
18.34
55.00
183M90 06/22/90 302.60
183M90 06/22/90 220.75
183M90 06/22/90 174.00
MN. WANNER
MN. WANNER
MN AMVETS NEWS
MN AMVETS NEWS
MN AMVETS NEWS
MODEL STONE CO
MODEL STONE CO
MODEL STONE CO
VALVES
POOL GRATE REPLACE
ADVERTISING
ADVERTISING
ADVERTISING
HAND CURB
CONCRETE
HAND CURB
10- 4504 - 560 -56 75412
26- 4201- 682 -68 075510
50- 4214- 822 -82
50- 4214 - 842 -84
50- 4214 - 862 -86
10- 4528 - 314 -30 87156 7098
10- 4528 - 314 -30 86801 7098
10- 4528 - 314 -30 87543 7098
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
1990 CITY
OF EDINA
CHECK REGISTER
07 -02 -90
PAGE 20
CHECK NO.
DATE
AMOUNT
VENDOR
ITEM DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O.
#
MESSAGE
697.35
*
xxxxxx
x** -CKS
183M92
06/19/90
62.75
MONARCH MARKETING
OFFICE SUPPLIES
50- 4516 - 860 -86
475871
183M92
06/26/90
3.90
MONARCH MARKETING
REPAIRS
50- 4516- 860 -86
486479
66.65
*
xxxxxx
x** -CKS
183M97
06/19/90
6,374.14
MPLS FINANCE DEPT.
WATER PURCHASED
40- 4640 - 803 -80
6,374.14
*
x *xxxx
* ** -CKS
183N13
06/26/90
43.45
MUZAK
ADVERTISING
50- 4214 - 822 -82
183N13
06/26/90
43.45
MUZAK
ADVERTISING
50- 4214 - 862 -86
86.90
*
xxxxxx
*x* -CKS
183N16
06/19/90
35.03
NSP
POWER /LIGHT
40- 4252 - 801 -80
35.03
*
*xxxx*
xx* -CKS
183N22
06/25/90
494.99
NATL GUARDIAN SYS.
ALARM
27- 4304 - 662 -66
245903
183N22
06/26/90
117.59
NATL GUARDIAN SYS.
ALARM SERVICE
28- 4304 - 702 -70
245905
183N22
06/26/90
173.24
NATL GUARDIAN SYS.
ALARM SERVICE
50- 4304 - 821 -82
245997
785.82
*
xxxxxx
xx* -CKS
183N31
06/19/90
31.50
NEBCO DISTRIBUTING
PRETZELS
26- 4624 - 683 -68
023646
7070
183N31
06/25/90
20.20
NEBCO DISTRIBUTING
CONCESSIONS
26- 4624- 683 -68
023696
7070
51.70
*
xxxxxx
*x* -CKS
183N48
06/22/90
33.62
NO STAR TURF
REPAIR PARTS /MOWER
27- 4540 - 664 -66
240941
8148
183N48
06/19/90
95.08
NO STAR TURF
REPAIR PARTS
27- 4540- 664 -66
237740
7983
183N48
06/19/90
138.47
NO STAR TURF
MOWER PARTS
27- 4540- 664 -66
240940
8148
183N48
06/22/90
477.78
NO STAR TURF
GAS TANK /REPLACE
27- 4540 - 664 -66
241470
8211
744.95
*
xxxxxx
x*x -CKS
183N54
06/21/90
100.28
NORTHERN AIRE
TESTING TABLETS
26- 4504 - 682 -68
1336
8028
100.28
*
xxxxxx
xx *-CKS
183N72
06/19/90
965.34
NORTHWESTERN TIRE CO
TIRES
10- 4616 - 560 -56
965.34
*
xxxxxx
*** -CKS
1990 CITY
OF EDINA
CHECK REGISTER
07 -02 -90
PAGE 21
CHECK NO.
DATE
AMOUNT
VENDOR
ITEM DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O.
#
MESSAGE
183N76
06/22/90
123.70
NTCC
COMPRESSOR
50- 4540 - 841 -84
61542
7816
123.70 *
* ** -CKS
183N82
06/19/90
170.64
NW GRAPHIC SUPPLY
COST /GOODS SOLD
23- 4624 - 613 -61
173082
7716
183N82
06/19/90
19.13-
NW GRAPHIC SUPPLY
CREDIT
23- 4624 - 613 -61
173164
151.51 *
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
183N96
06/22/90
8.12
MINN COMM PAGING
SERVICE /RENTAL
10- 4226 - 301 -30
183N96
06/22/90
24.36
MINN COMM PAGING
SHORT TERM RENTAL
40- 4504 - 801 -80
6581
32.48 *
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
183017
06/22/90
95.00
OFFICE PRODUCTS
CABLE
10- 4504 - 510 -51
113822
183017
06/22/90
14.95
OFFICE PRODUCTS
DISKETTES
10- 4504 - 510 -51
113297
183017
06/22/90
90.00
OFFICE PRODUCTS
TAPE /BACKUP COMPUTER
10- 4901 - 440 -44
112645
6293
199.95
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
183024
06/25/90
382.35
OFFSET PRINTING
PRINTING
10- 4600 - 420 -42
30929
7921
183024
06/25/90
196.00
OFFSET PRINTING
PRINTING
10- 4600 - 420-42
30907
7922
578.35 *
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
183036
06/26/90
144.06
OLSON CHAIN & CABLE
CLIMBING TOOLS
10- 4580 - 644 -64
99776
8031
183036
06/19/90
21.72
OLSON CHAIN & CABLE
PARTS
27- 4540- 664 -66
99769
8078
165.78 *
183037
06/22/90
182.75
BILL OLSON
DIRT
10- 4504 - 318 -30
7105
182.75 *
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
183P08
06/25/90
9,739.00
PERKINS LSCAPE CONST
SOD
60- 1300 - 016 -29
8305
9,739.00 *
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
183P11
06/19/90
30.40
PARK NIC MED CTR
SHOTS
10- 4201 - 440 -44
30.40 *
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
183P31
06/26/90
500.00
PETER COTTON
TRAINING
10- 4201 - 440 -44
500.00 *
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
183P35
06/26/90
61.00
PETERSON- BARBARA
MILEAGE
30- 4208 - 781 -78
1990 CITY OF EDINA
CHECK NO. DATE
183P35
06/25/90
183P35
06/25/90
183P35
06/19/90
183P35
06/19/90
183P35
06/25/90
183P36
183P36
183P36
183P36
183P36
183P36
183P36
183P36
183P36
183P36
183P36
183P36
183P36
183P36
183P36
183P36
183P36
183P36
183P36
183P36
06/26/90
06/26/90
06/26/90
06/26/90
06/26/90
06/26/90
06/26/90
06/26/90
06/26/90
06/26/90
06/26/90
06/26/90
06/26/90
06/26/90
06/26/90
06/26/90
06/26/90
06/26/90
06/26/90
06/26/90
* * * * **
183P48
06/22/90
183P48
06/21/90
* * * * **
PETERSON- BARBARA
183Q20
06/22/90
183Q20
06/22/90
* * * * **
183Q22 06/26/90
183Q22 06/26/90
* * * * **
183R12 06/25/90
* * * * **
183R22
06/26/90
AMOUNT
25.00
31.46
27.53
65.82
26.01
236.82
12.65
3.20
78.13
20.00
18.00
66.44
12.00
51.95
4.22
22.55
11.28
2.00
20.13
5.00
5.96
5.46
59.27
1.42
22.64
9.50
431.80
383.84
12.00
995.84
*
22.80
49.92
72.72
252.02
111.30
363.32 *
13.40
13.40 *
49.50
CHECK REGISTER
07 -02 -90 PAGE 22
VENDOR
ITEM DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE
PETERSON- BARBARA
POSTAGE
30- 4290 - 781 -78
PETERSON- BARBARA
GENERAL SUPPLIES
30- 4504 - 781 -78
PETERSON- BARBARA
GENERAL SUPPLIES
30- 4504- 782 -78
PETERSON- BARBARA
OFFICE SUPPLIES
30- 4516 - 781 -78
PETERSON- BARBARA
OFFICE SUPPLIES
30- 4516 - 781 -78
PETTY CASH
MEETING EXPENSES
10- 3220 - 000 -00
PETTY CASH
MEETING EXPENSES
10- 4201 - 505 -50
PETTY CASH
CONFERENCES
10- 4202 - 200 -20
PETTY CASH
CONFERENCES
10- 4202 - 490 -49
PETTY CASH
CONFERENCES
10- 4202 - 504 -50
PETTY CASH
MEETING EXPENSES
10- 4206 - 140 -14
PETTY CASH
MEETING EXPENSES
10- 4206 - 160 -16
PETTY CASH
MEETING EXPENSES
10- 4206 - 200 -20
PETTY CASH
MEETING EXPENSES
10- 4206 - 500 -50
PETTY CASH
MILEAGE
10- 4208 - 140 -14
PETTY CASH
MILEAGE
10- 4208 - 160 -16
PETTY CASH
MILEAGE
10- 4208 - 200 -20
PETTY CASH
MILEAGE
10- 4208 - 480 -48
PETTY CASH
MILEAGE
10- 4208 - 510 -51
PETTY CASH
SUPPLIES
10- 4504 - 200 -20
PETTY CASH
SUPPLIES
10- 4504 - 600 -60
PETTY CASH
SUPPLIES
10- 4504 - 624 -62
PETTY CASH
KITCHEN SUPPLIES
10- 4514 - 520 -52
PETTY CASH
SUPPLIES
28- 4504- 702 -70
PETTY CASH
PARKING
50- 4208 - 860 -86
PIONEER RIM & WHEEL (2
checks)
* ** -CKS
SERVICES
10- 4540 - 560 -56
149073 7659
PIP PRINTING
PRINTING
30- 4600- 781 -78
7404 8294
* ** -CKS
QUICK SERV BATTERY
FILTER
10- 4540 - 560 -56
42518 7866
QUICK SERV BATTERY
FILTER
10- 4540- 560 -56
42516 7811
r
* ** -CKS
QUIK PRINT
CARDS
27- 4600 - 661 -66
20176 8388
QUIK PRINT
PRINTING
27 -4600- 661 -66
20106 8383
* ** -CKS
RADIO SHACK
GENERAL SUPPLIES
10- 4504 - 420 -42
017445
REM SUPPLIES
WORK GLOVES
10- 4504 - 646 -64 1141 8339
* ** -CKS
1990 CITY
OF EDINA
CHECK REGISTER
07 -02 -90
PAGE 23
CHECK NO.
DATE
AMOUNT
VENDOR
ITEM DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O.
#
MESSAGE
183R22
06/19/90
484.92
REM SUPPLIES
GENERAL SUPPLIES
30- 4504 - 782 -78
1139
8266
534.42
** ** **
* ** -CKS
183R25
06/26/90
134.60
RENTAL EQUIP & SALES
REPAIRS
10- 4540 - 644 -64
12036
8049
183R25
06/26/90
134.60
RENTAL EQUIP & SALES
REPAIRS
10- 4540 - 644 -64
12036
8049
183R25
06/26/90
134.60-
RENTAL EQUIP & SALES
REPAIRS
10- 4540 - 644 -64
12036
8049
134.60
* * ** **
* ** -CKS
183R31
06/22/90
21.53
RETAIL DATA SYS MN
OFFICE SUPPLIES
30- 4516 - 781 -78
1178
6766
183R31
06/19/90
50.00
RETAIL DATA SYS MN
CASH REG EXPLAN
50- 4233 - 860 -86
2230
183R31
06/19/90
680.60
RETAIL DATA SYS MN
REGISTER TAPES
50- 4248 - 841 -84
2081
8143
752.13 *
* ** * **
*** -CKS
183R33
06/19/90
4,766.35
REX DISTR.
BEER
50- 4630 - 822 -82
4,766.35 *
* ** * **
* ** -CKS
183R37
06/22/90
51.30
RIDDLE CONTROL PROD.
FLASHER
10- 4540 - 330 -30
900524
7750
183R37
06/22/90
153.00
RIDDLE CONTROL PROD.
DETECTOR
10- 4540 - 330 -30
900504
7502
204.30 *
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
183R51
06/25/90
334.38
RFG PET & SUPPLY
SUPPLIES /ANIMAL CONT
10- 4504 - 470 -47
70469
334.38 *
* ** * **
* ** -CKS
183R53
06/26/90
48.04
ROBERT B. HILL
SALT
10- 4504 - 440 -44
23762
5054
183R53
06/26/90
48.04-
ROBERT B. HILL
SALT
10- 4504 - 440 -44
23762
5054
183R53
06/26/90
48.01
ROBERT B. HILL
SALT
10- 4504 - 440 -44
23762
5054
48.01 *
** ** **
** *-CKS
183R83
06/22/90
204.10
RUFFRIDGE JOHNSON
MISC SUPPLIES
10- 4580 - 301 -30
61928
7759
204.10 *
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
183R98
06/19/90
96.00
ROXANNE SEIDEL
PRO SERVICES /JULY
30- 4201 - 781 -78
96.00 *
183R99
06/19/90
89.30
RUTH SCHMOLL
PETTY CASH
10- 4504 - 440 -44
89.30 *
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
183506
06/19/90
204.39
SEARS
TOOLS /AMBULANCE
10- 4580 - 440 -44
7228
1990 CITY
OF EDINA
CHECK REGISTER
07 -02 -90
PAGE 24
CHECK NO.
DATE
AMOUNT
VENDOR
ITEM DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. #
MESSAGE
204.39 *
* R
* ** -CKS
183S24
06/26/90
25.00
SESAC
LICENSE
28- 4204 - 701 -70
285825
25.00 *
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
183534
06/22/90
64.59
SOUTHDALE FORD
MOTOR
10- 4540 - 560 -56
240831
183534
06/22/90
64.59
SOUTHDALE FORD
MPTPR
10- 4540 - 560 -56
240831
183S34
06/22/90
64.59-
SOUTHDALE FORD
MPTPR
10- 4540 - 560 -56
240831
64.59 *
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
183S40
06/22/90
4,130.00
SPAULDING
RANGE BALLS
27- 4636 - 666 -66
8306
183S40
06/22/90
4,130.00
SPAULDING
RANGE BALLS
27- 4636 - 667 -66
8306
8,260.00 *
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
183547
06/22/90
174.00 - i?8 -86-
SIR SPEEDY PRINT
WARNING POSTERS
10- 4504 - 301 -30
38085
7590
174.00* �*
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
183551
06/26/90
88.60
ST PAUL CANDY /TOBAC
CIGARS
27- 4624 - 663 -66
16205
5516
88.60
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
183S72
06/22/90
28.50
STREICHERS
PARTITION
10- 4620 - 560 -56
102551
8157
183S72
06/25/90
465.00
STREICHERS
SAFETY EQUIP
10- 4642- 420 -42
102552
493.50 *
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
183577
06/22/90
18.75
SUBURBAN CHEVROLET
REPAIR WORK
10- 4248 - 560 -56
103737
18.75 *
0
183S78
06/22/90
29.25
SUBURBAN PLUMB SUP
HOSE
10- 4540 - 520 -52
8045
183S78
06/26/90
33.03 39..6-
SUBURBAN PLUMB SUP
PLBG PARTS /POOL
10- 4540 - 646 -64
8054
62.28* �}
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
183S96
06/26/90
90.00
AMY SMITH
CLEANING
27- 4201 - 662 -66
30590
8280
183S96
06/26/90
90.00
AMY SMITH
CLEANING
27- 4201 - 662 -66
30587
8279
180.00 *
* * ** **
** *-CKS
183T05
06/25/90
32.00
THE PRINT SHOP
FUTURES
10- 4201 - 505 -50
92530
8367
32.00 *
1990 CITY
OF EDINA
CHECK REGISTER
CHECK NO.
DATE
AMOUNT
VENDOR
ITEM DESCRIPTION
183T08
06/26/90
120.09
TARGET
SUPPLIES
* * * *
120.09
*
183T10
06/25/90
464.00
TERRY ANN SALES CO.
CUPS
183T10
06/26/90
411.70
TERRY ANN SALES CO.
SUPPLIES
875.70
*
k * * k k k
183T13
06/26/90
990.00
TOM HORWATH
FORESTRY
183T13
06/26/90
101.23
TOM HORWATH
MILEAGE
1,091.23
*
k * * k * k
183T26
06/26/90
114.34
THERMAL CO
REPAIR
114.34
*
k k k *
183T40
06/22/90
110.67
TOLL COMPANY
PROPANE
183T40
06/22/90
77.82
TOLL COMPANY
PROPANE
188.49
*
183T42
06/26/90
123.43
TOOLS BY OLSEN
CLIMBING TOOLS
183T42
06/19/90
77.41
TOOLS BY OLSEN
TOOL SUPPLIES
200.84
*
183T50
06/22/90
53.60
TOWN & COUNTRY DODGE
REPAIR PARTS
53.60
*
183T53
06/19/90
6,800.20
TRACY OIL
GASOLINE
6,800.20
*
k *kk **
183T72
06/25/90
285.60
TROPICAL SNO
SOFT ICE
* k k * k *
285.60
*
183T74
06/19/90
9.50
TURF SUPPLY CO.
SOIL TEST
9.50
*
k k
07 -02 -90 PAGE 25
ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE
* ** -CKS
27- 4504 - 663 -66
* ** -CKS
27- 4504 - 663 -66 1069 8360
27- 4504 - 663 -66 1072 8387
* ** -CKS
10- 4201 - 644 -64
10- 4208 - 644 -64
* *k -CKS
28- 4248 - 704 -70 Q31073 8287
* ** -CKS
10- 4620 - 560 -56 497061 8162
40- 4504 - 803 -80 37868 7960
* ** -CKS
10- 4580 - 644 -64 26321 8031
27- 4504 - 664 -66 26367 8078
* ** -CKS
10- 4540 - 560 -56 49530 6981
* ** -CKS
10- 4612 - 560 -56 T19057 7962
* ** -CKS
26- 4624 - 683 -68 10391 7689
* ** -CKS
27- 4504 - 664 -66 30053 7906
* ** -CKS
1990 CITY
OF EDINA
* ** -CKS
CHECK REGISTER
7870
CHECK NO.
DATE
AMOUNT
VENDOR
ITEM DESCRIPTION
183T86
06/21/90
112.94
TWIN CITY FILTER
GENERAL SUPPLIES
* ** -CKS
40- 4540 - 801 -80 002030 7964
112.94
10- 4510 - 440 -44
759900 5805
* * ** **
* ** -CKS
10- 4514 - 520 -52
183U14
06/22/90
67.84
UNITED ELECTRIC CORP
GFI BREAKER
183U14
06/22/90
259.10
UNITED ELECTRIC CORP
CORDS
183U14
06/22/90
82.09
UNITED ELECTRIC CORP
COIL
183U14
06/22/90
120.87
UNITED ELECTRIC CORP
ELECT PARTS
* * * * **
529.90
183U25
06/26/90
86.96
UNIVERSAL MED SERV
OXYGEN
86.96
* * * * **
183V15
06/19/90
479.28
VAN PAPER CO.
PAPER SUPPLIE
479.28
*
* * * * **
183V30
06/19/90
441.40
VANTAGE ELECTRIC
PRO SERVICES
441.40
*
* * * * **
183V43
06/21/90
99.88
VERSATILE VEHICLE
CART PARS
183V43
06/21/90
21.50
VERSATILE VEHICLE
CART PARTS
183V43
06/21/90
25.25
VERSATILE VEHICLE
GOLF CAR PARTS
183V43
06/21/90
118.98
VERSATILE VEHICLE
CART PARTS
183V43
06/21/90
248.77
VERSATILE VEHICLE
CART PARTS
514.38
*
* * * * **
183V80
06/22/90
86.00
VOSS ELECTRIC SUP
LAMPS
86.00
*
* * * * **
183W08
06/22/90
127.38
W.W. GRAINGER
PARTS /ELECTR
183WO8
06/22/90
164.80
W.W. GRAINGER
BALL WASHER MOTOR
292.18
*
* * * * **
183W10
06/26/90
65.28
MERWYN WALKER
MILEAGE
* * * * **
65.28
*
183W13
06/21/90
59.84
WALDOR PUMP & EQUIP
WASTE WATER FILTER
07 -02 -90 PAGE 26
ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE
28- 4504 - 702 -70 8909 8130
* ** -CKS
27- 4540 - 665 -66
6496
* ** -CKS
10- 4540 - 390 -30
7870
7551
10- 4540 - 520 -52
8014
8030
40- 4540 - 801 -80
7823
7626
40- 4540- 802 -80
7930
7479
* ** -CKS
40- 4540 - 801 -80 002030 7964
* ** -CKS
10- 4510 - 440 -44
759900 5805
* ** -CKS
10- 4514 - 520 -52
313972 8198
* ** -CKS
30- 4201 - 782 -78
11183 8289
* ** -CKS
27- 4540 - 665 -66
6496
7553
27- 4540- 665 -66
6488
7551
27- 4540 - 665 -66
6559
8030
27- 4540 - 665 -66
6512
7626
27- 4540 - 665 -66
6475
7479
* ** -CKS
10- 4504- 540 -54 269630 7501
* ** -CKS
10- 4540 - 540 -54 7470
27- 4540 - 666 -66
* ** -CKS
27- 4208 - 661 -66
* ** -CKS
40- 4540 - 801 -80 002030 7964
1990 CITY
OF EDINA
CHECK REGISTER
CHECK NO.
DATE
AMOUNT
VENDOR
ITEM DESCRIPTION
59.84 *
* * * * **
183W66
06/22/90
46.68
WILLIAMS STEEL
FUEL CYLINDER
46.68 *
* * * * **
183W76
06/26/90
191.50
WITTEK GOLF SUPPLY
SUPPLIES
* * * * **
191.50 *
183W81
06/22/90
16.00
WM H MCCOY
PROPANE
183W81
06/22/90
8.00
WM H MCCOY
PROPANE
183W81
06/22/90
16.00
WM H MCCOY
PROPANE
183W81
06/22/90
16.00
WM H MCCOY
PROPANE
56.00 *
* * * * **
183Z01
06/19/90
130.50
ZACKS IND CLEANING
SUPPLIES
130.50 *
* * * * **
79,779.39
79, 98.89-
FUND 10 TOTAL
GENERAL FUND
569.34
FUND 12 TOTAL
COMMUNICATIONS
1,583.71
FUND 23 TOTAL
ART CENTER
2,332.73
FUND 26 TOTAL
SWIMMING POOL FUND
57,641.67
FUND 27 TOTAL
GOLF COURSE FUND
2,836.63
FUND 28 TOTAL
RECREATION CENTER FUND
693.00
FUND 29 TOTAL
GUN RANGE FUND
9,466.62
FUND 30 TOTAL
EDINBOROUGH PARK
241,322.81
FUND 40 TOTAL
UTILITY FUND
5,738.80
5,?@8 -.88
FUND 41 TOTAL
STORM SEWER UTILITY
9,339.39
FUND 50 TOTAL
LIQUOR DISPENSARY FUND
24,642.11
FUND 60 TOTAL
CONSTRUCTION FUND
435,946.20*
TOTAL
07 -02 -90 PAGE 27
ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE
* ** -CKS
10- 4504 - 301 -30
* ** -CKS
27- 4504 - 666 -66 36307 8064
* ** -CKS
10- 4504 - 301 -30 58101 7869
10- 4504 - 301 -30 56251
10- 4504- 301 -30 57002 7743
10- 4504 - 301 -30 41251 7476
* ** -CKS
27- 4504 - 664 -66 07132
* ** -CKS