HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-06-15_COUNCIL PACKETROLLCALL
AGENDA
EDINA HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
EDINA CITY COUNCIL
JUNE 15, 1992
7:00 P.H.
ADOPTION OF CONSENT AGENDA - Adoption of
Commissioners as to HRA items and by the
agenda items marked with an asterisk ( *)
are considered to be routine and will-be
separate discussion of such items unless
requests, in which case the item will be
in its normal sequence on the Agenda.
the Consent Agenda items is made by the
Council Members as to Council items. All
and in bold print are Consent Agenda items and
enacted by one motion. There will be no
a Commissioner or Council Member or citizen so
removed from the Consent Agenda and considered
EDINA HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
* I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of HRA Meeting of Jame 1, 1992
II. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS
III. RESOLUTION - Authorizing St. Louis Park Housing Authority to Administer Rental
Assistance Program in City
III. ADJOURNMENT
EDINA CITY COUNCIL
I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of the Regular Meeting of May 18, 1992
II. RECONSIDERATION HEARING OF IMPROVEMENT Affidavits of Notice by Clerk.
Presentation by Engineer. Public comment heard. Motion to close hearing. If
Council wishes to proceed, action by resolution. 3/5 favorable rollcall vote of
all members of Council to pass if improvement has been petitioned for; 4/5
favorable rollcall vote required if no petition.
A. Permanent Street Surfacing. Curb & Gutter
Improvement No. BA -293 - Valley View Road
Avenue to Crosstown Highway
B. Permanent Street Surfacing. Curb & Gutter
299 - West 66th Street from France Avenue
C. Storm Sewer Improvement No. STS -219
D. Traffic Signal Improvement No. TS -21 - Va
E. . Street Lighting Improvement No. L -36
Storm Sewer and Sidewalk
from West 69th Street and France
. and Sidewalk Improvement No. BA-
to Southdale Lane
Lley View Road/West 66th St
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. Waiver of Second Reading: 4/5 favorable rollcall vote
of all members of Council required to pass. Final Development Plan Approval of
Property Zoned Planned District: 3/5 favorable rollcall vote required to pass.
Conditional Use Permit: 3/5 favorable rollcall vote required to pass.
A. Final Rezoning - R -1 Single Dwelling Unit District to PCD -1. Planned
Commercial District - 3916 -3918 West 44th Street
B. Final Development Plan - McDonalds Restaurant -.3220 Southdale Circle
C. Request to Place Play Structure in Open Space /Conservation Easement - 6204
Fox Meadow Lane
*
*
n
Agenda
Edina City Council
June 15, 1992
Page 2
IV. SPECIAL CONCERNS OF RESIDENTS
V. AWARD OF BIDS /QUOTES
A. Redwood Benches and Trash Containers - Braemar Golf Course
B. Production Services "About Town" Magazine
C. Printing - "About Town" Magazine
VI. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.
A. Draft EIS I -494 - Comments
B. 100% Petition - Permanent Street Surfacing, Curb & Gutter - Parkwood Knolls
23rd Addition
C. 100% Petition -- Permanent Street Surfacing, Curb & Gutter - Wooddale Lakes
Addition
VII. INTERGOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES
VIII..SPECIAL CONCERNS OF MAYOR AND COUNCIL
IX. MANAGER'S MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS
X. FINANCE
A. Payment of Claims as per pre -list dated 06/15/91: Total $1,202,020.81 and
for confirmation of payment of Claims dated 6/10/92: $317,298.41.
SCHEDULE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS /EVENTS
Wed June 24 I -494 TDM Meeting 8:30.- 11:30 A.M. Decathlon Club
Fri July 3 INDEPENDENCE DAY OBSERVED - CITY HALL CLOSED
Mon July 6 1993 Budget Assumptions
Mon July 6 Regular Council Meeting
Mon July 20 Regular Council Meeting
5:00 P.M. Council Chambers
7:00 P.M. Council Chambers
7:00 P.M. Council Chambers
Poor Quality Document
Disclaimer
The original or copy of a document or page of a document
presented at the time of digital scanning contained within this
digital file may be of substandard quality for viewing, printing or
faxing needs.
COUNCIL
CHECK REGISTER FRI, JUN 12,.1992, 12:47 AM
page 1
CHECK•
DATE
CHECK AMOUNT,
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT P.O. $
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12244
06/15/92
$455'.87
BRW INC.
ARCH FEES
65459
CENTENNIAL LAK
PRO FEE ARCH/,
< *>
$455.87*
12245
06/15/92
$1,595.07
DORSEY & WHITNEY
LEGAL FEES
278534
CENTENNIAL LAK
PRO FEES LEG/
< *>
$1,595.07*
12246
06/15/92
$3,692.51
MILLER & SCHROEDER I
CONSTR INTEREST
060492
CENTENNIAL LAK
INTEREST OTHE
< *>
$3,692.51"
12247
06/15/92
$30.00
MULDER, KATHLEEN
REFUND PARKING PERMIT
828
50TH STREET
PARKING PERMI
<*>
$30.00*
12248
06/15/92
$30,00
PEIL, JEANNETTE
PARKING PERMIT REFUND
028
50TH STREET
PARKING PERMI
< *>
$30.00*
12249
06/15/92
$33.00
PETERSON, SCOTT R
REFUND PARKING PERMIT
891
50TH STREET
PARKING PERMI
< *>
833.00*
12250
06/15/92
$8,895.00
SHAW- LUNDQUIST ASSOC
CONSTRUCTION
R- 14HRA.
CENTENNIAL LAK
PARKS
< *>
$8,895.00"
12251.06/15/92
$1,018.30
VALUE RECREATION
PLAY EQUIPMENT
2492
GRANDVIEW
EQUIPMENT 449
< *>
$1,018'.30*
12252
06/15/92
$3,607.00
VEESENMEYER CONSTRUC
CONSTRUCTION
060192
GRANDVIEW
EQUIPMENT 462
< *>
$3,607.00*
$19,356.75*
COUNCIL CHECK SUMMARY FRI, JUN 12, 1992, 12:47 AM
page 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FUND k 01 $1.9,356.75
$19,356.75"
cv9l�-1 A
o e +, `cn�
REPORT/RECOMMENDATION
To: HRA
From: GORDON L. HUGHES
Date: JUNE 15, 1992
Subject:
AUTHORIZE ST. LOUIS PARK
HOUSING AUTHORITY TO AD-
MINISTER RENTAL ASSISTANCE
PROGRAM IN CITY
Recommendation:
Adopt attached resolution.
Agenda Item #
HRA
III.
Consent
❑
Information Only
❑
Mgr. Recommends
0
To HRA
❑
To Council
Action
❑
Motion
0
Resolution
❑
Ordinance
❑
Discussion
Info/ Background:
The Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA) recently awarded the
City of St. Louis Park's request for rental assistance for family
stabilization purposes. This program will provide rental
assistance for twenty -five low and moderate income families,
provided that they participate in the Employment Action Center's
Case Management, Vocational Counseling, and Job Placement
Programs in order to help them achieve self - sufficiency. MHFA's
approval of this funding request was based upon the presumption
that up to one -third of the assisted families may reside outside
of St. Louis Park. As such, the cities of Golden Valley,
Plymouth, Minnetonka, Hopkins, as well as Edina, have been asked
to participate in this program. If the Council chooses to
participate, the City of St. Louis Park would provide all
administrative services relative to the placement of a family:
There would be no expenses incurred by the City of Edina in
connection with this program. The attached letter from the City
of St. Louis Park and accompanying material, provides additional
details concerning the program.
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ST. LOUIS PARK HOUSING AUTHORITY TO
ADMINISTER RENTAL ASSISTANCE FOR FAMILY STABILIZATION PROGRAM
WITHIN THE CITY OF
WHEREAS, it is the purpose of the St. Louis Park Housing Authority ( "Authority ") to
provide housing opportunities to low and moderate income families to help them secure
safe, sanitary and affordable housing, and
WHEREAS, it is the purpose of the Employment Action Center ( "Center "), a division
of Multi- Resource Center, Inc., to provide case management, vocational counseling and, job
placement assistance to low and moderate income persons to help them achieve self
sufficiency, and
WHEREAS, the Center and the Authority have jointly prepared an application for
the Rental Assistance for Family Stabilization Program of the Minnesota Housing Finance
Agency ( "Agency "), and
WHEREAS, the application indicates that up to one -third of the families assisted
under this program may reside outside of the City of St. Louis Park, and
WHEREAS, the Agency has selected the Center and Authority to receive 25 vouchers
under the program in the amount of $203,000 over a three year period, and
WHEREAS, the Agency has .forwarded a proposed agreement for administration of
the program to the Authority and Center for execution, and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute 469.012. Subdivision 3 indicates that any two or more
housing authorities may join with one another in the exercise, either jointly or otherwise, of
any or all of their powers for the purpose of operating a housing project located within the
area of operation of any one or more of the authorities•and that an authority may by
resolution prescribe and authorize any other housing'authority so joining with it, to act on
its behalf with respect to any or all powers.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the St. Louis Park Housing Authority is
hereby authorized by the
pursuant to Minnesota Statute 469.012.Subdivision 3 to administer a Rental Assi stance or
Family Stabilization Program as funded by the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency, with the
Employment Action Center within the City of
This authorization shall extend for the term of the program and any renewals of the
program. The reserves
the right to operate the Rental Assistance for Family Stabilization Program or to enter into
other joint agreements to operate such a program.
Adopted by the
on
Chairman
Executive Director
2497- A:RES5
CITY OF
ST. LOUIS
PARK
May 20, 1992
Mr. Gordon Hughes
Executive Director
Edina.Housing and Redevelopment
Authority
4801 West 50th Street.
Edina, MN 55424
Dear Mr. Hughes:
As I indicated in our recent telephone conversation, the St.
Louis Park Housing Authority submitted a joint application with
the Employment Action Center for 25 vouchers under the Minnesota
Housing Finance Agency's recently funded.Rental Assistance for
Family Stabilization Program. Early in May the Housing Authority
received word that the funding. request has been approved.
Enclosed is the description of the program that was used to
solicit proposals. Recipients of vouchers under the approved
application will be required to participate in the Employment
Action Center's Case Management, Vocational Counseling and Job
Placement Programs to help them achieve self- sufficiency.
There is a significant demand.for this program in the western
suburbs outside of St. Louis Park and as a result the
application to the MHFA indicated that up to one -third of the
families assisted may reside outside of St. Louis Park. We
need your approval to operate this program within your
jurisdiction. Under Minnesota Statute, a housing authority may
prescribe and authorize another housing authority joining with it
to act on its behalf in its jurisdiction.
We are seeking approval from the Housing and Redevelopment
Authorities (or Economic Development.Authorities if applicable)
for Golden Valley, Plymouth, Minnetonka, Hopkins and Edina to
operate this program within their jurisdiction. Attached is a
resolution that you may use -to have your Housing Authority or EDA
authorize the St. Louis Park Housing Authority to administer this
program within your city.
Please have your HRA (or EDA) consider and hopefully approve this
resolution by the end of June so that we can commence
5005 Minnetonka Boulevard St. Louis Park, Minnesota 55416 -2290
Phone: 612-924-2500 Fax: 612-924-2663
Printed on recycled paper
Mr. Hughes
May 20,1992
Page 2
implementation of the program. Please send an originally
executed copy of the resolution to me for our file by July 1. If
you have any questions please call.
Sincerely,
�n
David Hagen, Director
Community Development
Enc.
2522:GEN30
-��.
y
State ofMinnesota
Department of Duman Services
Human Servica Building
444 IiEayemc Road
SG Paul, Min=s= 55155 .
INFORMATIONAL BULLETIN #92-8A February 19, 1992
TO: Chairperson, Board of County Commissioners
Attention: Director
Chairperson, Human Services Board
Attention: Director
Director, Employment and Training Service Provider
SUBJECT: Rental Assistance for Family Stabilization Program
I. PURPOSE
The purpose of this bulletin is to inform county human
service agencies (county agencies) and employment and
training service providers that the Minnesota Housing
Finance Agency (MHFA) has requested proposals for the Rental
Assistance for Family Stabilization Demonstration Program
(RAFS).
-.e0"
The 1991 Legislature created the RAFS program to provide
rent assistance to public assistance- recipients _who =:`s
participate in self - sufficient _ -- rogram is
administered -b and is funded through 7a 3 mi l
appropriation or e. 1992 =93 biennium.
MHFA has issued a request for proposals for the RAFS
program, and will select proposals for funding in counties
with the highest one -third of average Section 8 Existing
Fair Market Rents in the state. A list of these counties is
attached.
Proposals to operate a RAFS program must be jointly;
submitted by thg�l cal Section 8, housing agency ancr -a -self-
'sufficiency program: Self - sufficiency programs include: 1)
programs operated by certified employment and training
service providers, such as Work Readiness, STRIDE, and the
Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA); 2) 1 programs
ANFQUAL OPPORTUNRYFMPLOYPR
IAF 09 ''?_2 105 . r
INFORMATIONAL BULLETIN 492 -8A
February 19, 1992
Page 2
Minnesota Rules, parts 4900.3370 to 4900.3379, govern the RAYS
program. Under these rules, caretaker parents who receive public
assistance, participate in and comply with a self - sufficiency program,
and do not receive other forms of rent assistance_may participate in
the rental assistance program. Participants will be eligible for up f
;to $200 per month for up to 36 months.�f Rental assistance will be paid
directly to the participant's landlord.
NOTE: Since RAFS monthly payments will be-paid directly to the
participant's landlord or utility provider, these payments will
not be.counted as income for medical programs, cash assistance,
or Food Stamps (however—RA-9M __ntsorrentwiZZ reduce the
household's shelter costs for Food=- St�mpurppses ) RAFS project project proposals must be submitted to MHFA by 5:00 pm Wednesday,
April 1, 1992. Attached is a copy of the MHFA announcement regarding
the request for proposals.
yy.•
Minnesota Statutes, section 462A.205.
• � ; • vl�.. -I\ O
The blending of employment and training services with rental
assistance is expected.to provide a strong incentive for public
assistance recipients to participate in local self - sufficiency
programs. county agencies and.their employment and training service
providers are encouraged to investigate the feasibility of developing
a local RAFS program. A copy of the rules governing RAFS and a
Request for Proposals package may be obtained by calling Mary Strom at
(612) 296 -7684 or by writing to:.
Rental Assistance for Family
Stabilization Demonstration Program
Attn: Mary Strom
Minnesota Housing Finance Agency
400 Sibley Street, Suite 300
St. Paul, MN 55101
Sincerely,
mop
John Petraborg
Assistant Commissioner
Family Self - Sufficiency Administration
MINUTES
OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HALL
MAY 18, 1992
ROLLCALL Answering rollcall were Members Kelly, Paulus, Rice, and Mayor
Richards. Member Smith entered the meeting at 7:17 P.M. after adoption of the
Consent Agenda.
DONALD A. SCHLAEFER DAY PROCTJLI14ED Mayor Richards presented the following
proclamation which was unanimously adopted:
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, Donald A. Schlaefer has been a respected resident of the City of -Edina,
Minnesota, for many years; and
WHEREAS, he has been a member of the Boy Scouts of America for over forty years,
first as a scout, attaining the high rank of Eagle Scout, and then for oiler
thirty years as an adult leader, dedicating countless hours "in this capacity; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Schlaefer has been active as an adult leader and Scoutmaster for ten
years with Troop 68 at the Good Samaritan church in Edina, and also for ten years
with Troop 48 at the Calvary Lutheran Church in Edina; and
WHEREAS, he has provided outstanding leadership to hundreds of Boy Scouts who
have learned that Scouting is growing into responsible manhood, and learning to
be of service to others,,and has encouraged and guided numbers of Scouts to
attain the rank of Eagle Scout; and
WHEREAS, in addition to his involvement with the Boy Scouts, he has been active
in other civic minded activities including the Salvation Army Bellringers; and
WHEREAS, Donald A. Schlaefer has recently announced his retirement as an adult
leader in the Boy Scouts;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Frederick S. Richards, Mayor of Edina, Minnesota, do hereby
proclaim May 26, 1992, as
DONALD A. SCHLAEFER DAY
in the City of Edina, in recognition of his years of dedicated service to the Boy
Scouts of America.
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS APPROVED Motion was made by Member Kelly and was seconded
by Member Paulus to approve and adopt the Council Consent Agenda items as
presented.
Rollcall:
Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Richards
Motion carried.
*BID AWARDED FOR TANDEM DUMP TRUCK Motion was made by Member Kelly and was
seconded by Member Paulus for award of bid for one tandem dump truck to
recommended low bidder, Boyer Ford Truck, Inc., at ,$60,483.00.
Motion carried on rollcall vote - four ayes. .
*BID AWARDED FOR RUBBER TIRE ASPHALT ROLLER Motion was made by Member Kelly and
was seconded by Member Paulus for award of bid for one rubber tire asphalt roller
to recommended low bidder, Ziegler, Inc., at $43,030.26.
Motion carried on rollcall vote - four ayes.
*BID AWARDED FOR PAVING OF PATHWAY AT BRAEMAR GOLF COURSE Motion was made by
Member Kelly and was seconded by Member Paulus for award of bid for paving of
pathway at Braemar Golf Course to recommended low bidder, Metro Paving, at
$9,300.00.
Motion carried on rollcall vote - four ayes.
POLLY PETERSON BOWLES INTRODUCED (METROPOLITAN COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE - DISTRICT
11 At the invitation of the Council, Polly Peterson Bowles introduced herself
as the newly appointed Metropolitan Council Representative for District 11,
appointed to fill the unexpired term of Dottie Rietow who was appointed as
Commissioner of the Office of Waste Management.
Ms. Bowles explained that the Metropolitan Council is now in its budget process.
A top priority is the visioning process - what the region should look like in the
year 2015. Their draft broad mission statement is "To achieve the highest
quality living in a community setting with the flexibility to accommodate the
change in population and to compete in a world economy." Factors to be studied
in greater depth are: 1) education, 2) economy, 3) governance, 4) transportation,
5) telecommunication, and 6) quality of living. Input from the community at
large will be solicited.
In addition, the Council is revising the metropolitan investment framework - the
guide that sets forth policies for physical development of the region. They are
also working on a human investment framework - which looks at the kinds of things
the Council does for the people of the area. This has been controversial - is
this something the Council is best prepared to delve into. Currently, the
Council is compiling an inventory of what services are being provided with the
hope that it will be useful to the Council and to policy makers in the region.
Personally, she is involved in the new ventures program - an attempt to convene
forums of different levels of government and service providers of all kinds to
discuss how best to provide services effectively. The Metropolitan Council is
also involved in transit issues, the airport issue, safe water supply, non - source
pollution and the 800 megahertz radio system.
Serving on.the South Hennepin Human Services Planning Agency and in working with
the Hennepin Technical College Board, Member Smith said he felt integrating human
services would be a major accomplishment. Further; that the Council should talk
about solutions rather than just continuing on. Ms. Bowles answered that the
Council is attempting to establish a one -stop service for residents that may have
multiple needs. The service topic is being discussed in both the visioning
process and new ventures. An attempt is being made to educate people when young
so that more dollars are not spent down the road.
Member Rice asked about communication between the Edina City Council and her on
issues such as the airport. Ms. Bowles said she is available and would like
input from Edina. She added she appreciates receiving the minutes from the
Council meetings so she can keep current with the issues that Edina is dealing
with. She interjected that she wears a "regional hat" and represents people on a
regional basis.
Mayor Richards asked about the role of Metropolitan Council regarding the
Metropolitan Waste Control, Agency. Ms. Bowles said the Metropolitan Council
reviews their budget and sets policy which the Agency then carries out. Mayor -
Richards commented that costs for waste disposal have escalated beyond reason
since the Agency has taken over the treatment of waste water from the City. He
questioned whether suburbs such as Edina, who have gone through the development
phase and paid for its system, are financing waste disposal costs for other
communities in the metropolitan area. She said she would look into the matter as
she was aware that moving to a regional system has affected different communities
in different ways. Ms. Bowles thanked Council for the invitation and said she
hoped to continue the open communication. ,
TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MINUTES OF MAY 12, 1992, APPROVED Engineer Hoffman
briefly reviewed the discussion that occurred at the Traffic Safety Committee
meeting on May 12, 1992, concerning items in Section A and B of the Minutes as
follows:
Section A - Item 1. Traffic safety concerns on Valley View Road at Creek Valley
Road/West 66th Street. Engineer Hoffman explained that Valley View Road is
legally wide enough to be driven as a 4 -lane roadway. The consultant
recommended: 1) to officially stripe edge of roadway at. the intersection of
Antrim Road to narrow it to two lanes and provide for a center left turn lane, 2)
stripe edge of roadway at Valley View and Tracy to also constrict to two lanes,
and 3) possibility of striping the bridge over T.H. 62 .to constrict to two lanes
with a center left turn lane for both eastbound and westbound T.H. 62 traffic.
Shirley Hendrickson, 5700 Creek Valley Road, explained there were-two reasons for
this request: 1) speed /volume of traffic and the inability to enter the roadway
from Creek Valley Road safely, and 2) pedestrian safety. After hearing the
consultant at the Traffic Safety Committed meeting, she said she is comfortable
with the recommendations. She asked if a pedestrian crosswalk would be possible
in the area. Engineer Hoffman said the Committee does not feel a crosswalk in
the area would make it safer.
Member Kelly made a motion to approve the following action:
1: Approve the most recent version of the stiping layout.
2. Deny the "STOP" sign request.
3. Approve a sidewalk extension on the east side of Valley View running north.
4. Refer the bus stop relocation to MTC for further study.
5. Continue the enforcement efforts on Valley View Road.
6. Reopen discussions on the prospect of signalization at Antrim and Valley
View Road and also possible reconstruction of the drivway to the school.
Motion was seconded by Member Rice.
Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards
Motion carried.
Section A - Item 2. Request to install a "NO PARKING ANY TIME" sign on the north
side of Maloney Avenue between Van Buren Avenue and Jackson Avenue.
Member Rice made a motion to approve the following action:
1. To install,a "NO PARKING ANY TIME" sign on the north side of Maloney Avenue
between Van Buren Avenue and Jackson Avenue.
Motion was seconded by Member Paulus.
Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards
Motion carried.
Section A - Item 3. Discuss traffic safety concerns at 5555 West 78th Street. '
Engineer Hoffman explained that a large multiple shrub obstructs the view to the
west when yehicles.try to access West 78th Street and the road has a sharp
curvature in this area. The signal at Cahill Road would probably create a gap in
traffic large enough to alleviate some of the problem. Trimming the shrubs to
the west would also help.
Member_ Smith made a motion to approve the following action:
1. To remove the shrubbery to the west of the driveway.
2. To await further recommendation of the Traffic Safety Committee on a
traffic signal at West 78th Street and Cahill Road.
Motion was seconded by Member Kelly.
Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards
Motion carried.
Section B - Item 1. Request to upgrade the intersection of Minnehaha Boulevard
and West 52nd Street to a three -way "STOP".
Engineer Hoffman explained that the Traffic Safety Committee moved to deny the
"STOP" sign request,and installation of appropriate advisory signing. The
Committee also moved to conduct a traffic movement and pedestrian usage study for
the Arden Park area.
Linda Maetzold, 5110 Arden Avenue, representing the Arden Park neighborhood, said
the "STOP" sign request has strong neighborhood support as shown by the 50
signatures on the petition that was circulated. Their goal is to create a safe
pedestrian environment not only for the children but also for joggers and
walkers. There is a need to slow down traffic from Arden Avenue onto 52nd Street
which is used as a by -pass for the 50th & France area. Ms. Maetzold said it may
be the only park" in Edina without a "STOP" sign at the main base of the park.
Leslie Olson, 5117 Arden Avenue, informed Council there are now 14 children in
the area under eight years of age. Their .house would be closest to the proposed
"STOP" sign and they are very supportive of it.
Dr. David Groth, 5116 Arden Avenue, said his home is located on the curve, and
they have a good view of the speed of the vehicles. He expressed concern for the
safety of his five children who play in the front yard. Dr. Groth showed
pictures of an accident involving excessive speed and two cars, one of which
ended up in his front yard. Further, he said Arden Park is directed towards use
by small children.
Following brief discussion by the Council on the request, Member Kelly made a
motion to approve upgrading the intersection of Ninnehaha Boulevard and West 52nd
Street to a three -way "STOP ".
Motion was seconded by Member Rice.
Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith
Nays: Richards
Motion carried.
POINT OF FRANCE MEDIAN CROSSOVER AND DRIVEWAY DESIGN APPROVED FOR VALLEY VIEW
ROAD/WEST 66TH STREET PROJECT: COUNCIL TO RECONSIDER PROJECT ON 6/15/92
Mayor Richards recalled that at the meeting of April 6, 1992, the Council
conducted a public hearing and authorized a project to reconstruct Valley View
Road from the Crosstown Highway to W. 69th Street and W..66th Street from France
Avenue to Southdale Road., At that hearing residents from Point of France
requested a delay on the issue of the driveway and median opening as it relates
to their site.
Jason Rice, 6566 France Avenue (Point of France), questioned the process relating
to the public hearing and said the Point of France residents had not been given
adequate time to review the project. He insisted that the Council revisit the
issue of the previous authorization of the project. Responding to point of order
raised by Member Paulus, and repeated interruptions from the audience, Mayor
Richards stated that any remarks should address only the question of why the
Council should revisit the issue of project approval.
Elmer Johnson, Point of France resident, submitted the following reasons why the
project should be reopened. The plan is ill- conceived, has a poor basis and has
dangerous features. Charles Peterson, Point of France resident, interjected that
at the April 6, 1992, hearing he had questioned the integrity of the engineering
plan for the project. Further, that adequate notice had not been given.
Mayor Richards reiterated that the Council voted previously to authorize the
project. If in fact that action is flawed from a legal standpoint, e.g, was
proper notice given, was valid legal notice given, were people afforded the
opportunity to be heard, was vote properly taken to authorize the project, except
for the issue of ingress /egress at Point of France which was delayed to May 18,
1992, that issue should be addressed by some other forum. Mayor Richards
suggested that the Council now address the issue of ingress /egress relating to
Point of France and following that discuss the issue of reconsidering
authorization of the project. Attorney Gilligan opined that procedure would be
correct.
Member Kelly made a motion to open for public hearing the issue of ingress /egress
relating to Point of France. Motion was seconded by Member Smith.
Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards
Motion carried.
Mayor Richards then called for testimony on the issue of ingress /egress.as it
related to the Point of France residents.
Public Comments
Leo Wolk, President of the Point of France Association, reported that a survey
was taken at the suggestion of Engineer Hoffman at the meeting with Point of
France residents on April 28, 1992. Responses were received from 114 of the 144
units. The survey question was - If the City proceeds with the overall plan,
would you favor along West 66th Street: A) That the median crossing should remain
open? 103 voted yes, 11 voted no; B) Should there be a specific turn lane into
the Point of France driveway? 66 voted yes, 47 voted no; c) Do you favor the
City of Edina abandoning the entire proposed street improvement along West 66th
Street and Valley View Road? 112 voted yes, 5 voted no. Mr. Wolk observed that
the Point of France residents understand that their narrow parochial interest
should not determine the course of action for the whole City. However, they do
not understand who the project would benefit, possibly only those to the south.
He concluded by saying that even though the process was complied with legally,
the project is wrong and the Council should reconsider their action. The only
supportive item presented in favor of the project was a traffic study showing
that incrementally the traffic has increased on 66th Street; that increment is
not enough to justify the proposed $2 Million project.
Elmer Johnson, Point of France, submitted that the Point of France is a major
disturbance between two major traffic signals, e.g. the existing one at
66th /France and a new one to be installed at 66th/Valley View Road. No good
study was done to determine what would be best for ingress /egress - it was simply
eliminated., No accidents have occurred at.the median crossing and it does afford
Point of France residents access in most directions. If the median crossover is
removed there may be stacking of vehicles in front of their driveway and they
would have to cross three lanes of traffic within 200 feet to go anywhere but
north - a dangerous situation. The median crossover is a convenience for this
concentrated residence.
Don Brandt, Point of France, explained that Point of France residents used to
have an ingress /egress on France Avenue which has been removed. The median
crossover is the only access they now have and he urged that it be retained.
Catharine Abbott, Point of France, expressed concern that if the median crossover
is removed the grassy area will be filled in with concrete. It would not only
take away their access but would disrupt the natural drainage for runoff.
Diane Wicklund, 4209 Valley View Road, commented that nearly all traffic in and
out of Point of France goes either south or east and it would be impractical to
close the median crossing. Further, that she was opposed to the traffic light at
66th/Valley View Road and would like it to remain a STOP sign. She recalled that
a traffic signal. installed at that location in 1962 was later removed because of
traffic back -up.
Jason Rice, Point of France, pointed out that when the building was built, the
City determined the need for the crossover; there is no change today for that
need.
Bernard Gingold, Point of France, recalled that at the April 6, 1992, Council
meeting, one of the reasons presented for closing the crossover was the traffic
at W. 66th/Valley View Road. Since then he has watched the intersection . and the
most traffic seen at any one time coming from the Crosstown Highway has been four
cars which he did not believe to be congestion. He urged that the median
crossover be kept open.
Council Comment /Action
Mayor Richards asked Engineer Hoffman to respond to the concerns and issues that
have been raised and to speak to the required plan approvals.
Engineer Hoffman responded that at an evening meeting with residents of Point of
France on April 28, 1992, it was clear that they had serious concerns about
closing the median crossover. Staff recommended they develop a consensus opinion
for the Board of Directors to present at the May 18, 1992, Council meeting. He
added that many individuals did not understand the type of roadway function that
Valley View Road and W. 66th Street provide. A segment map from the 1980 Land
Use Plan was presented to them which indicated that the roadway is a minor
arterial road. At that meeting, the' residents were told to think about the issue
of the median crossover in terms of a 20 year plan. Apparently, the Point of
France residents feel the median crossover is safe enough to use. Staff is aware
that other-residents nearby have concerns about the project even though it is
primarily a reconstruction with appropriate lanes and turn lanes, given current
and projected conditions.
Engineer Hoffman explained that the roads that service the Southdale area have
been in place for forty plus years and are being systematically reconstructed as
follows: Phase l - 1991 - West 69th Street from Richfield boundary to France
Avenue. Phase 2 - 1992 - Valley View Road from the Crosstown Highway to W. 69th
Street and W. 66th Street from France Avenue to Southdale Road. Phase 3 - Future
cooperative project with MnDOT to treat W. 65th Street as a detached frontage
road directly into the Southdale- Fairview medical complex. Phase 4 - Future
reconstruction of W. 66th Street from York Avenue to France Avenue. Phase 5 -
Future reconstruction of York Avenue from W. 69th Street to the Crosstown
Highway. Residents on Southdale Road have periodically asked for some
improvement that would provide them a buffer from Southdale each time there has
been improvement and expansion in the Southdale commercial area. The project
would provide more green space between the homes on Southdale Road and Valley
View Road.
Engineer Hoffman said if the crossover were closed, it would be a grass median,
not depressed, with landscaping. The storm sewer design would address the
natural surface water drainage. The traffic signals (France/W. 66th and the
proposed signal at Valley View Road/W. 66th) would provide gaps in.traffic to
allow vehicles egressing from Point of France to cross over and make a left turn
or U -turn at the Valley View Road/W. 66th signal. Strgar- Roscoe - Fausch, Inc.,
consulting traffic engineers, have reviewed the proposed signal plan and have
concurred that it would work. Potentially, traffic volumes on W. 66th Street
could decrease if Phase 3 is constructed to direct traffic to the medical complex
via W. 65th Street. Engineer Hoffman indicated that the Point of France
residents have made a decision, e.g. retaining the median crossover, that staff
can support. The project plans must also be submitted to MnDOT for review and
approval, primarily as to safety and are in that review process now.
As background, Member Rice observed that some 20 years ago, when the issue of
rezoning the eight acres for construction of Point of France came before the
Council, the Council Chambers were filled with residents opposing the
construction. At that time the land was zoned C -3 which would have allowed any
commercial use except a gas station. Although it took 16 months to accomplish
the rezoning and approval for construction"of the apartment building, the end
result was an excellent, well designed and planned project and a less intense use
of the property than could have occurred under C -3 zoning. Member Rice said he
would support leaving the median crossover open, with the reservation that if
there are safety issues in the future the City could close the median crossover.
Also, that he would support the deceleration lane for the right turn in to Point
of France on westbound W. 66th Street and would now support the entire project.
Member Smith interjected that the reason for leaving-the decision on the
crossover median out of the project approval at the meeting of April 6, 1992, was
that Council members were open - minded on the issue and wanted input /consensus
from the Point of France residents. He said he would support leaving the median
crossover open. Also, that working with MnDOT for plan review and approval, and
to attempt to reduce the traffic on W. 66th Street made sense. Further, the City
is 'not in the business of identifying lay engineers to design roads; City staff
has that responsibility.
Member Smith made a motion to include the following in the Valley View Road/Vest
66th Street project approved April 6, 1992:
1) Continuance of the existing median crossover adjacent to Point of France on
Vest 66th Street,
2) Implementation of a deceleration lane for ingress to Point of France on
westbound Vest 66th Street.
Motion was seconded by Member Rice.
Rollcall:
Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards
Motion carried.
Mayor Richards asked for a review of the proposed funding for the Valley View
Road /West 66th Street project as now approved. Engineer Hoffman explained that
the total project cost estimated at $1,973.409.42 is proposed to be funded
primarily by state aid gas tax funds. The storm sewer portion of the project
would be paid from the utility fund; the traffic signal would be funded by state
aid gas tax funds and the street lighting would be funded by a state aid '
combination. Approximately $80,000 of the total 'cost is proposed to be specially
assessed at an estimated cost per front foot at $40.00 for commercial, $30.00 for
multiple family and $20.00 for single family. For Point of France the estimated
assessment would be $83.00 per. unit.
Further answering Mayor Richards, Engineer Hoffman said in order to commence the
project the City would need a permit from the Department of Natural Resources
(DNR). Currently, an application for a DNR permit is being reviewed by the
Watershed District, the Corps of Engineers, the Hennepin County Water & Soil
Conservation District. The project design plans have been reviewed by Hennepin.
County Public Works Department and the district level of MnDOT and is now at
MnDOT's central office. The design plans for the median crossover would now be
submitted. Staff would anticipate a response from MnDOT within a few weeks.
Mayor Richards then spoke to the issue of revisiting the previous action of the
Council which authorized the Valley View Road/West 66th Street project. He said
he would support the request to revisit the issue, however, in fairness it should
be done at another time to allow input from all benefitted residents. After
repeated disruptions, the following comments were heard on the issue of
revisiting the previous action of the Council.
Public Comment
Jim Jenewein, 6905 Southdale Road, emphasized that he was before Council three
years ago asking for a buffer from the traffic and noise on Valley View Road. He
said that, as a registered engineer, he. supported fully the plans for the
project. After being interrupted by the audience, he added that Point of France
residents should not dictate decisions for all the residents of Edina and that he
believed this to be an improvement project for the whole area. He reminded the
Council that they had previously approved the project and that the residents on
Southdale Road were relying on that.
As a point of order, Member Paulus requested that the next person speaking out of
turn be requested by the Mayor. to leave the Council Chambers for the duration of
the evening. She commented that Council meetings are not a debating forum
between Council Members and residents. Further, the audience will not be allowed
to verbally attack residents that are speaking.
_Diane Rice, Point of France, commented that this meeting has been run legally and
correctly. However, there is another term which we forget - justice. Justice,
sometimes means waiving legalities. Because of the emotion involved justice can
be shown by hearing those wishing to speak.
Glenn (Skip) Petersen, 4313 Cornelia Circle, reported that he and Don Brandt
visited the 157 homes between Southdale Road and Cornelia Drive. Few of the
residents had ever heard of this project. They left a map showing the project
area and some comments. Of the 157 homes only three were in favor of the project.
Subsequently, other literature was left and 22 residents asked for more details.
Barb Bellair, Point of France, submitted that the residents were angry because
they did not know about the project and they deserved a chance to be heard. She
said she is an educator and she would not teach the democratic process she has
observed at this meeting, e.g. limiting public comment to only one issue. She
asked the Council to reconsider its action, give the project more study and allow
further input on the concerns of residents.
Sal Scrogrum, stated that she was a professional photographer, not an Edina
resident, and was asked by some of the residents of Point of France to illustrate
the intersection in question (Valley View Road/W. 66th Street) with slides.
Their feeling is that it is an aesthetically pleasing intersection with a smooth
traffic flow that projects a feeling of safety. In contrast was a slide showing
the congested traffic at 66th /France. They feel the intersection at Valley View
Road/W. 66th Street does not need the larger structure to accommodate the
traffic.
Steve Kahn, 4317 Cornelia Circle, emphasized that Point of France residents are.
not the only people in the area that are concerned. He said he did not
understand what problem the project would solve as he has seen no more than four
cars stacked at the intersection. The existing roadways /intersection is an
effective boundary between a'very commercial area and a very peaceful area and he
would not like to see it change.
Jason Rice, Point of France, submitted that the proposed project to commercialize
what is now a neighborhood road would constitute anything but an improvement to
the residents of the neighborhood who will be impacted on a day to day basis.
Further, that a traffic signal will not slow traffic - vehicles will accelerate
to beat the yellow light. He stated they have experienced no traffic problems on
W. 66th Street between France Avenue and Valley View Road or on Valley View Road
that the proposed project would solve.
Don Brandt, Point of France, interjected that 85% of the people are opposed to
the proposed project and would like more justification for it.
Howie Walser, 6805 Southdale Road, said he sees this as a beautification project
that will improve the infrastructure of Edina, not as a project that will
increase traffic.
Elmer Johnson, Point of.France, made the following observations: 1) Although the
traffic study.met MnDOT standards, no personalized judgement was applied: It
measured the traffic flow on November 29, 1992 - the peak of the retail sales.
2) One entrance from Valley View Road and one entrance from W. 66th Street into
Cornelia Park will provide a by -pass to the proposed traffic light - a danger to
children using the park. 3) Future plans for W. 65th Street will complicate the
system - the whole plan should be developed at-one time, rather than piecemeal.
Carol Carlson, 6621 Cornelia Drive, said she. believed improving W. 66th Street to
six lanes would increase traffic and make crossing to the pool less safe for
pedestrians, especially children.
Juanita Holte, 6717 Southdale Road, asked whether there could be another informal
hearing so that people could understand the whole project.
Percy Ross, Point of France, said he believed the Valley View Road/W. 66th Street
intersection is beautiful and that he has experienced no traffic problems there.
Ray Nelson, 6909 Cornelia Drive, observed this is a confusing intersection and
needs improvement.
Jerry Clark, Point of France,.indicated there .is no pedestrian crossing to
Cornelia Park from Point of France.
Israel Newman, Point of France, voiced concern that the proposed traffic signal
at Valley View Road/W. 66th Street would ultimately.back up traffic during peak
hours and block the Point of France driveway.
Carol Cackle, Point of France, observed that when the Mall of America is opened
there will be -less traffic going to Southdale. She suggested that proposed plan
would force additional traffic into a neighborhood that is not equipped to handle
it.
Fred Wildauer, Point of France, commented that his neighbors are not asking
Council to abandon the project, only to reconsider it as to possible changes.
Diane Wicklund, 4209 Valley View Road, said she would like to see the street
improved but not to six lanes because it would be difficult for pedestrians to
cross. She reiterated her opposition to the proposed traffic light at
66th/Valley View Road.
Charles Petersen, Point of France, mentioned that he had made some claims at the
April 6, 1992, hearing and was asked by Council to corroborate those claims. He
said he had two civil engineers, two attorneys, two real estate appraisers who
would tell what would happen if the project goes through.
Ken Applebaum, Point of France, asked the Council to listen to the comments of
the residents who have voted for them in the past and said they are looking to
the Council to protect their homes so they can live out their lives there.
Diane Rice, Point of France, commented that no decision is sacrosanct - even the
U.S. Supreme Court rescinds decisions.
Hearing no further comments, Mayor Richards emphasized that, even though all
necessary procedures have been followed to order the project, if Council would
wish to reconsider the project again that, out of fairness to all, the matter be
placed on the Council Agenda for June 15, 1992, so that notices could be sent to
all residents that were noticed earlier for the project hearing.
Member Kelly made a motion to place reconsideration of the Valley View Road/West
66th Street project on the Council Agenda for June 15, 1992, and to send notice
to those residents and businesses who were sent notice of the April 6, 1992,
public hearing on the project. Motion was seconded by Member Smith.
Member Smith commented that he felt this was a broader issue than just for
abutting properties and suggested that the notice area be expanded. Mayor -_
Richards said he would take the comment into consideration and work with the
Manager on expanding the mailing list beyond that legally required.
Member Rice asked that all who have concerns about the engineering study or any
other aspect of the project should send their specific concerns to the Council
prior to the June 15th meeting.
Member Paulus directed her comments to the Council and said that during the
lengthy discussion she has heard nothing to change her mind on the project, and
does not believe by reconsidering the project she will hear evidence to the
contrary. To the public she said that democracy is being elected at large by the
entire population to represent the entire City and that is a tough job. She
observed that the Council represents the population of the future as well as the
present, and decisions made today will affect those residents of tomorrow.
Member Smith asked that any reports countering staff recommendations be submitted
to staff for examination prior to June 15, 1992, to expedite the discussion.
Charles Peterson, Point of France, alleged that Member Paulus had a personal
interest in the project because of a relative living in the vicinity and a recent
real estate sale in the area.
Mayor Richards then called for vote on the motion.
Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Richards
Nays: Paulus
Motion carried.
REPORT GIVEN ON 50TH & FRANCE PARKING RAMPS Police Chief Swanson presented a
report on the 50th and France Parking Control Plan which summarized the results
of a six month enforcement effort that was authorized by the Council on May 20,
1991, and was commenced in September, 1991. At the request of representatives of-
the 50th & France Business and Professional Association, the report was not
presented earlier in order to allow ample opportunity for review and discussion
by members of the Association and others.
Hosmer Brown, member of the Association's parking committee, said that after
reviewing the report the committee had two observations:
1) Parking and movement is better even though there are violations.
2) Vandalism is still a concern (slashed tires, broken windows, stolen
hubcaps, broken emblems, defacing).
The parking committee is asking the Council to consider hiring a uniformed
parking monitor, who,would be authorized to issue tickets for violations, and
would be in constant radio contact with the Edina Police Department., The
Association believes this physical presence would be a real deterrent to solving
the vandalism problem. Parking violators could also be identified and could be
approached on a one -to one basis to try to get them to comply with the parking
regulations. The use of a monitor could reduce the amount-of police patrol and
presence that is necessary in the area. The committee felt the cost of the
monitor could be funded in one of these ways:
1. Fees from parking permits sold.
2. Assessment against property owners.
3. Proceeds from parking violation citations.
4. General fund of'the City.
The committee felt that vandalism and police protection is City wide, cost of
which is borne by tax dollars. This is not only for the merchants at*50th.&
France but for the entire community and would be an appropriate use of public
funds.
Jeff Meyer,,President of the 50th & France Association, emphasized that the
Association feels the presence of a monitor would help curtail vandalism of
employees' cars. Craig Miller, Spalon Montage, 3909 W. 49 1/2 Street, said he
was drawn to the area because of,the fine parking that was available. His
business draws 800 clients per week, 808 of which are women and safety for both
customers and employees is very important. He said the present system for ,
employee parking isolates those vehicles which have been targeted for vandalism.
Perry Anderson, Association member, praised the fine job done by the parking
committee and backed the comments made by Mr. Brown.
After a brief discussion, it was the consensus of the Council that Manager
Rosland bring back to the Council on July 6, 1992, a recommendation as to.funding
and staffing to provide the parking monitor.
PUBLIC HEARING TO BE HELD ON DRAFT I -494 EIS Engineer Hoffman advised Council
that the Draft Environmental Impact Statement has been completed for the
reconstruction of I -494 from I -394 in Minnetonka to the Minnesota River near the
airport. He referred to. "Inside Lane ", a newsletter to inform citizens about
I- 494'reconstruction plans, and presented a tentative agenda for the official
public hearing on June 10, 1992. Engineer Hoffman noted that staff is completing
arrangements to have Mn /DOT staff and the consultant hold an informal open house
on May 27 or May 28 in the Council Chambers. A notice will be mailed to property
owners potentially affected in Edina and also to property owners near I -494 on
the south border of the City.
Mayor Richards asked when the Council should submit formal comments on the I -494
EIS. Engineer Hoffman said that the Project Management Team board recommends
that council members attend the June 10, 1992, public hearing and then within the -
next 30 days adopt a resolution in response.
*FEASIBILITY REPORT PRESENTED FOR SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT NO. S -56: HEARING DATE SET
FOR JUNE 1. 1992 Engineer Hoffman presented a report for a sidewalk project
which-was petitioned for by property owners. The project has been reviewed and
is considered feasible. Staff would recommend hearing the following proposed
project on June 1, 1992:
IMPROVEMENT LOCATION ESTIMATED COST
Sidewalk Improvement No. 5 -56 Thielen Avenue $16,770.98
This project would be funded by special assessment.
Motion was made by Member Kelly and was seconded by Member Paulus for adoption of
the following resolution:
RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON
SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT NO. S -56
1. The City Engineer, having submitted to the Council a preliminary report as to
the feasibility of the proposed Sidewalk improvement, described in the form of
Notice of Hearing set forth below, and as to the estimated cost of such
improvement, said report is hereby approved and directed to be placed on file in
the office of the City Clerk.
2. This Council shall meet on Monday, June 1, 1992, at 7:00 P.M., in the Edina
City Hall, to consider in public hearing the views of all persons interested in
said improvement.
3. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to cause notice of the time,
place and purpose of said meeting to be published in the official newspaper once
a week for two successive weeks, the second of which publication is to be not
less than three days from the date of said meeting, and to mail notice to all
affected properties ,in substantially the following form:
(OFFICIAL PUBLICATION)
CITY OF EDINA
4801 W. 50TH STREET
EDINA, MINNESOTA
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
THIELEN AVENUE SIDEWALK
IMPROVEMENT No. S-56
The Edina City Council will meet at the Edina City Hall, on Monday, June 1, 1992
at 7:00 P.M., to consider the following proposed improvement to be constructed
under the authority granted by Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429. The approximate
cost of said improvement is estimated as set forth below:
Thielen Avenue
Estimated Cost
SIDEWALK IMPROVEI+IENT NO. S -56 $16,770.98
The area proposed to be assessed for a portion of the cost of proposed
improvement includes: Lots 1 thru 20, Thielen's Brookside Addition.
These properties are proposed to be assessed at $4.89 per square foot plus
$243.00 per lot for a tree.
Marcella M. Daehn, City Clerk
Motion carried on rollcall vote - four ayes.
FIELD USE FEE FOR YMCA APPROVED Manager Rosland indicated that the YMCA has been
using Yorktown Park for several years for their T -Ball program in the summer and
their soccer program in the fall. In years past, the YMCA has been charged a
field use fee of $500.00 per activity per year. The City has now established a
field use fee of $5.00 for each registrant participating in a youth athletic
program. When applied to the 459 kids registered in the YMCA t -ball program the
amount would be $2,295.00. The YMCA is now in the middle of a budget year and
$500 was budgeted for each sport. The Yorktown Park field is currently not a
scheduled field and maintenance includes only mowing, setting out bases and
keeping the infield level. The field is never chalked by City crews.
The Park Board discussed grandfathering in the YMCA at $500.00 per activity this
year and considered a charge of $3.00 per participant next year; two members were
in favor with eight opposed. The Park Board then moved to recommend to the
Council that the YMCA be grandfathered in this year at a field use fee of $500.00
for each activity.
Member Paulus made a motion to charge the YMCA a field usage fee of $500.00 /each
activity for use of Yorktown Park during 1992 and that future proposed fees be
determined and submitted to the YMCA before their budget process in November.
Motion was seconded by Member Kelly.
Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards
Motion carried.
FORMER EMPLOYEE. MARY NELSON'S DEATH NOTED Manager Rosland informed Council_of
the death of a former City employee, Mary Nelson. Mary was an accountant in the
Finance Department from 1972 until her retirement in 1986.
*CLAIMS PAID Motion was made by Member Kelly and was seconded by Member Paulus
to approve payment of the following claims as shown in detail on the Check
Register dated May 13, 1992, and consisting of 26 pages; General Fund
$219,600.48; Cable $1,242.19; Working Capital Fund $29,036.85; Art Center
$2,768.03; Capital Fund $758:45; Pool $9,416.31; Golf Course $21,552.95; Arena
$9,359.03; Gun.Range.$4,199.03; Edinborough /Centennial Lakes $29,254.89;
Utilities $36,659.58; Storm Sewer $10,638.24; Liquor Dispensary $86,856.00;
Construction Fund $105,455.70; General Fixed Assets $550.00 TOTAL $567,347.73;
and for confirmation of payment of the following claims as shown in detail on the
Check Register dated May 14, 1992, and consisting of 3 pages; General Fund
$99,810.13; Working Capital Fund $676.00; Liquor Dispensary $272,243.62, TOTAL
$372,729.75.
Motion carried on rollcall vote - four ayes.
There being no further business on the Council Agenda, Mayor Richards declared
the meeting adjourned at 10:40 P.M.
City Clerk
e
)W
U /•'�= E�1�OIM��
REPORT /RECOMMENDATION
To: Mayor & City Council
From: Francis fmarxa
City Engineer 1
Date: 15 June, 1992
Subject: Valley View Road
Public Improvements
South of Crosstown
Highway 62'
Recommendation:
Agenda Item # II.A. thru E.
Consent ❑
Information Only ❑
Mgr. Recommends ❑ To HRA
0 To Council
Action Motion
❑ Resolution
❑ Ordinance
Continuation of project subject to the modifications on
current plan.
Info/Background-
The City Council on May 18th, decided to review the project on
the June 15th Council meeting. On May 18th, the Council
modified the-plan approval to include leaving the median
opening inplace on W. 66th Street and authorizing a right turn
lane into the Point of France properties.
The staff sent out new'notices to an expanded area (see
attached map). The notices were re -sent to the original
affected area and a front page was added to indicate an infor-
mational notice to others in the area..
The staff also includes an analysis from our traffic consul-
tant which highlights some-of the reasons for the project
layout decisions (see attached exhibit). Staff also reviewed
the traffic counts and conducted an additional survey which
t
� r
Report /Recommendation
Agenda Item II.A. thru E.
Page Two
indicates warrants for traffic signal operation at W. 66th
Street and Valley View Road is appropriate.
The staff and consultant will make a full presentation at the
meeting on the plan elements and project layout.
N
o
6/5/92
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
City of Edina
VALLEY VIEW ROAD
FROM WEST 69TH STREET AND FRANCE AVENUE TO CROSSTOWN HIGHWAY
PERMANENT STREET SURFACING. CURB & GUTTER. STORM SEWER AND SIDEWALK
IMPROVEMENT NO. BA -293. S.A.P. 120 - 150 -05. (S.A.P. 120 - 159 -03)
WEST 66TH STREET
FROM FRANCE AVENUE TO SOUTHDALE LANE
PERMANENT STREET SURFACING. CURB & GUTTER. AND SIDEWALK
IMPROVEMENT N0, BA -299. S.A.P. 120 - 144 -06
STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENT N0, STS -219
VALLEY VIEW ROAD & WEST 66TH STREET TRAFFIC SIGNAL
IMPROVEMENT NO. TS -21. S.A.P. 120 - 150 -06
STREET LIGHTING
IMPROVEMENT NO. L -36. S.A.P. 120 - 150 -07
The Edina City Council will meet at the Edina City Hall, on Monday, June 15, 1992 at
7:00 P.M., to consider the following proposed improvements to be constructed under
the authority granted by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429. The approximate cost of
said improvements are estimated as set forth below. This project was reviewed by
City Council on April 6th and May 18th, 1992.
IMPROVEMENT NO.
S.A.P. NO,
ESTIMATED
COST
BA -293
120- 150 -05 (120 - 159 -03)
$
1,240,795.79
BA -299
120 - 144 -06
$
262,715.79
STS -219
$
264,803.44
TS -21
120 - 150 -06
$
91,560.00
L -36
120 - 150 -07
$
113,534.40
TOTAL VALLEY VIEW/W.
66TH ST. PROJECT
$
1,973,409.42
This project has been approved by Council but the project is being reviewed again
upon requests from residents in the area..
The project is a transportation and storm sewer improvement and is consistent with
the overall development of Edina. The project is funded by storm sewer utility
funds, municipal gas tax and special assessment.
The area proposed to be assessed for a portion of the cost of the proposed improve-
ments includes: Unplatted Parcel (Cornelia Park Pool) , Lot 1, Blk. 2, Southdale
Office Park Second Addn; Meets & Bounds Description Southdale Office Center
Unplatted, Commencing at NE corner of SE 1/4 thence South to NE Corner of South
Office Park 1st Addn., thence Westerly along Northerly line of said Addn to its
intersection with the centerline of Valley View Road, thence Northerly along said
centerline to North line of SE 1/4, Thence Easterly to Beginning Except Roads; Lots
thru 10, Blk. 3, Southdale First Addn; Lots 1 thru 13, Blk. 4, Southdale First Addn;
Lot 1, Blk. 1 South Office Park First Addn.; Tract A, RLS No. 1365; and Apartment
Ownership #79 - Point of France Condominiums. All units contained within Apartment
Ownership #79 (Unit 102 thru 1210 and Penthouse 1 thru Penthouse 12).
Citv Hall (612) 927 -8861
:301 WEST 30TH STREET FAX (612) 927 -7645
EDINA. MINNESOTA 55424 -1394 TDD (612) 927 -5461
Notice of Public Hearing
6/5/92
Page Two
These properties are proposed to be assessed at an estimated cost per front foot at
$40.00 for commercial, $30.00 for multiple family and $20.00 for single family. For
properties that have sidevards and backyards abutting the project, the assessment
rate is one -third of the above rates.
Your receipt of this notice is an indication that property : whose ownership is listed
to you is among those properties which are considered to be.benefited by the improve-
ment.
The proposed project would be the major following type of work:
(A) Reconstruct Valley View Road from W. 69th & France intersection to the Crosstown
Highway.
(B) Move the southbound lanes of Valley View Road further east to allow room for
construction of a berm between the homes on Southdale Road and Valley View Road.
(C) Reconstruct I.J. 66th from France Avenue to Southdale Road as part of the
reconstruction of Valley View Road and W. 66th Street.. which will provide a new
traffic signalized intersection with appropriate left turn lanes.
(D) Construct a sidewalk along Valley View Road on the west side to tie in the
sidewalks on W. 69th Street and W. 70th Street.
(E) Provide new street lighting and stormwater pipe changes as needed.
The project is primarily funded from gas tax revenues with stormwater utility funds
paying for a part of the stormwater changes and $79,218.70 assessed against abutting
property owners. The proposed assessment would be over a ten year period.
Any inquiries, comments and /or suggestions you may have regarding this improvement
may be forwarded to the City Council or Engineering Department prior to the hearing
or presented at the hearing itself. If you desire additional information, please
call me at 927 -8861 between 8:00 AM and 4:30 PM, Monday through Friday.
The City Council can take final action on the proposed project immediately upon the
close of the hearing.
.Thank you.
Francis J. H6ff. P.E.
Director of Public Works
and City. Engineer
PROPOSED PROJECT LOCATION
MPROVEMENT NOS. BA -293, BA -299, STS -219, TS -21 & L -36
I
I' �:'. LG. Y� �• all �I' a Z'f I• •'1. j.' ¢'1 i
� a• Zlr _ _ O�I
afl `iii mi; ali
ST 0 w
(n� \�� al. '',< ..��`��!!�++�!!� -���,, ''`����yy "" � IL �y���■. r�� x.64 TM I 't
F es -KJ - _.: �1\ `...... -tip\ j i 7'=
. 0 WEST t'
\ — \
�j WIC
all �l.
o ml. ST
M-,144 66TH 4
am
so \ Cornelia \.
`� of
I
0000 l59
Ol- �r O.1 o OIf I y// jIl -- w. 691H S7.
Fyn:
u' I 3�• �
TM 14 �_Qp 9500 S T
TO TM C 50M r
cc I'I >II <I 21 4
¢o; AN00VER RQ._ jimAVE LLE ., mil III �;�- T 18 N R24-
N
_ N
3LO vi
;8ELV10ERE l4/ m:l ¢I{ ztl ^I 31 32 Rp
—�! ui• o: WII OBI u�l �y42ELTON E'' ;•,
I R �,/ JI• I, W W_1 Ni d l I +4W
111. , I �OR_ R /�" ���'� I � I �I I I I ml! Q I ��:•.�
+� M
J { Ovhh 40 \L:9Rf` 1•w. �1 i;,72N01i_� T
r 31
JI _ TM_fl DR.
^� t m•.�I
OR,
IQ=
I{
zl
o�
"_�IdL10RII OR. l u
14TH ST. �•� f
1 �
S I
I
i (CC N ��
KEY PARK AW" 200 O
AV PARKLAwN AVE. AvE. ai{ ..`.I
cm :! l
Total Reconstruction****
Sidewalk Construction
Only (East Side)
w 76rs
1 ST
................. M1 8000
l36 a T.
8500
0 a I
a
INFORMATIONAL NOTICE
The Edina City Council is providing you with
an informational notice regarding a road
project on Valley View Road from West 69th
Street and France Avenue to the Crosstown
Highway, and on West 66th Street from
France Avenue to Southdale Road.
You are NOT proposed to be assessed for
any part of this project. See further
information on attached hearing notice.
VALLEY VIEW RD. & W. 69th ST.
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE -
MAILING AREA
Received Notice
of Public Hearing
Received Informa-
tion Notice on
Public Hearing
v�
sdA�• r �a�� 1 � �
oil'Amm
FAIRVIE w
SOOT OAL
H01 DITA
IQ � JI1_JouLQ—L-
SOUTHDALE
C SHOPPING CENTER
I!
bLIC
eRARY
m
IE
r4
VALLEY VIEW ROAD AT WEST 66TH STREET
TRAFFIC OPERATIONS REVIEW OF EXISTING INTERSECTION
The following is an item -by -item review of many of the traffic
operations issues regarding the design of the existing
intersection at this location. The list is keyed to an attached
map and the item numbers match those on that map. The first five
items are the ones that are most critical to overall traffic
operations. The remaining items, while also of concern and
needing correction, are less critical.
Map Number Comment
1. Northbound Valley View at Westbound 66th Street
- Northbound two -lane approach to "STOP" sign is
on inside of curve thereby creating difficulty
for vehicles in the left lane to see gaps in
westbound traffic. The intersection also
currently operates at an unacceptable level of
service. This second "STOP" sign located so
close to the "STOP" for eastbound 66th Street
would not be expected by many nonregular users
of the intersection.
2. Westbound 66th Street at Northbound Valley View
- Exit from "free" right to go northbound does not
have merge taper or even a yield taper. These
geometrics and heavy volume of right turns have
required that the northbound through traffic
yield.
However, this yield, in reality, only applies to
the northbound right lane. Traffic in that lane
forces itself into the left lane of the
northbound flow to avoid the free right traffic.
The use of "Yield" control in this situation is
nonstandard and requires that the sign be
located on the right side of the northbound
roadway. Traffic yielding to vehicles
approaching from a sharp angle back to the right
must look back through their vehicles to see any
available gaps. This is a problem for trucks or
vans.
1
3. Southbound Valley View at West 66th Street
- Existing intersection control is "ALL -WAY STOP"
which is inefficient for traffic volumes of this
magnitude and the intersection is also reaching
its capacity with the .existing geometrics.
Southbound left through lane becomes, a "trap"
lane with requirement to turn left.
4. Westbound 66th Street at Southbound Valley View
Left -lane
consequent
eastbound
straight.
westbound
change.
turns. into a
:e of a pote;
vehicle if a
through or
traffic due
"trap" lane with the
atial .head -on with an
westbound vehicle goes
sideswipes with other
to last second lane
5. Overall Intersection Design -
Pedestrian Movements
The use of all -way "STOP" control at the
intersection of 66th Street and southbound
Valley View Road would at first glance appear to
be a safe form of traffic control for.
pedestrians because it requires all vehicles to
stop. However, the traffic volumes are near
capacity and drivers tend to be more concerned
with not missing their turn than looking for
pedestrians.
At the intersection of westbound 66th Street and
northbound Valley View Road, a pedestrian that
is crossing the north leg of that intersection
has to contend with northbound traffic. Those
drivers have to react to the "Yield" sign and
look for gaps in the westbound free right
movement and would not likely be aware of
pedestrians, particularly those walking from the
west.
Left Turns
The overall existing intersection concept
requires that the two left -turn movements from
Valley View must cross each other's paths at two
locations, the two left turns from 66th operate
in a similar manner. A conventional
intersection would avoid the artificially
created additional conflicts by having the
opposing left turning movements pass in front of
each other
2
6. Valley View Road at South Ramp of T.H. 62
- The off ramp from Hwy 62 is constructed as a
"Yield" condition without adequate tapers for a
smooth merge. Drivers from Hwy 62, however, use
it as a merge, and as a result, the southbound
right lane is signed as a yield. This requires
the sign to be located on the right of
southbound traffic which is not the correct
placement.
Traffic yielding to vehicles approaching from a
sharp angle back to the right must look back
through their vehicles to see any available
gaps. This is a problem for trucks or vans.
7. Southbound Valley View at West 66th Street
The roadways give the appearance that both lanes
can turn left onto eastbound 66th Street. In
addition, traffic congestion entices some
drivers to make double left turns. The double
left is a problem if made when a through vehicle
has been trapped in the left lane and heads
straight through.
8. Eastbound 66th Street at Southbound Valley View
- The "through" move does not line up across the
intersection, and the potential for wrong way
movements is high.
9. Westbound 66th Street at Northbound Valley View
- Exit to "free" right to go northbound does not
have exit taper or turn lane. This makes the
intentions of the drivers unknown to other
drivers or to pedestrians until too late.
10. Westbound 66th Street at Northbound Valley View
- Heavy westbound right turn traffic to go north
and trap lane at west intersection cause .added
lane changing for westbound through traffic
through this intersection.
11. Northbound Valley View at Eastbound 66th Street
- Exit to "free" right to go eastbound does not
have.exit taper or turn lane. This makes the
intentions of those drivers unknown to other
drivers or to pedestrians until too late.
12. Northbound Valley View at Eastbound 66th Street
- Exit from "free" right to go eastbound does not
have merge taper or even a yield taper.
13. Northbound Valley View at Eastbound 66th Street
- Exit from "free" right to go eastbound is too
close to crossover that provides access to
Pointe of. France. This ,arrangement permits
abrupt cross -lane movements rather than smooth
merging and orderly lane changing. A vehicle
heading for Pointe of France would sit in the
free right while waiting for a gap .to cross
eastbound 66th Street thereby holding up regular
right turning traffic.
14. Eastbound 66th Street at Crossover
- There is no left -turn lane for deceleration or
storage.
15. Valley View Road Park Access
- .Access to park.is located on the busiest section'
of roadway in the area. Available gaps. for
traffic exiting the park are few in number.
Relocating park access to 66th Street will
enable park visitors to benefit from the control
provided by the traffic signal.
4
Yield
T
RC4«.P T
�rdM
E Q
Hwy Gz
C7
Vu I IeY V� icw 2d
Tra, Ff i'c
Pro6lemS
Operations
_Valley View Ind. &+ w W"V,
T
Nor}
9
r
Tar P
1
J
Pal ;} OP Frghce
l m LSD I2 I�
June 11, 1992
Mayor Richards and members of the City Council,
I first learned about "Project ValleyView" on
May 18, 1992 upon my return from a trip. No
previous notice of this rather ambitious
undertaking was given me - or indeed anyone else in my area. This, despite my
previous request as head of the Brookview Homeowners Association to receive City
.Council agendas and also in spite of the fact we would be directly affected. The
suggestion that Project ValleyView is being railroaded through, despite homeowners
objections and subsequent revelations about land dealings indirectly benefitting
?.:City Council memberW lead one to the inescapable conclusion the Council is not
dealing honestly with us. I've lost a great deal of faith in my city as a result
and so have many others.
I am absolutely opposed to Project ValleyView. Why fix it when "it ain't broke p
What possible good would a super highway be to no- where?
I am sure this is just the first step in making all of Valley View a major thoroughfare,
to Highway 100 and thereby relieving the frightful mess you've made of France Avenue.
City survey crews have already surveyed the area west of the Crosstown entrance. Last
summer (1991) I saw these crews and talked to them. When I called the city to inquire,
your people LIED to me and told me you had no surveyers in that area. Finally, when
I insisted that they told me they were from.the city, you backed down and informed
me that "it was just for a matter of record." Now I know. I'll never trust anyone
who speaks for the city again.
Our area's beauty and accessibility make it a prime target for exploitation. By their
arrogant and cynical approach to this matter, the City Council is revealed to be the
biggest exploiter.
Mrs. E. H. Eisenbrey
6228.Brookview Avenue South
Edina
Chair, Brookview Homeowners Association
r
#Yx MEMORANDUM *#
Date : May 29, 199;
To : Fred Richards, Glenn ,Smith, Jack: Rice
Peggy k::elly and Jane Paulus
From : Gary Thacher, Jim Jenewein and Nora Davis
Southdale Residents Association
6905 Southdale Road
Edina, MN 554,35
61 -96 -865
Re : Valley View Improvements
The Southdale Residents Association has requested us to write
in support of the Valley View Road improvements, approved(4 -1 vote)
at the council meeting on April 20th. We are aware, at the council
meeting of May 18th, the residents of "Point of France" were able
to influence the council in delaying the approved project. Our
council has advised us the total project was not open for debate or
delay. The agenda of May 18th indicated the issue of egress and
ingress from Point of France was open for discussion. Also, at the
.council meeting of April 0th Mayor Richards stated the
egress /ingress issue for 66th street would be discussed at the
council meeting of May 18th.
In visiting with Fran Hoffman, should the council delay the approved
phase I road improvements until the June 15th meeting, there is
insufficient construction time to complete the project in 1992.
Therefore, the total project will be delayed until 1993, which
ultimately will cost the taxpayer's additional monies and the state
appropriated funds to be placed on hold in a continuing perilous
financial. environment.
We urge you to advise engineering to continue the process of securing
the contracts for the total project, so phase I can be completed on
budget in '92 as approved.
We appreciate your time spent working on issues such as these. We
hope the above points encourage you to action.
Betty Fletcher
6566 France Ave. S.
Edina, MN 55435
May 19, 1992
Dear Mayor Richards,
I would like to thank you and commend you for your patience and
professionalism at last night's stormy session of the Edine City Council
.Meeting. I am saddened that some of my neighbors were out of line, but I
am not abl a to apol ogi ze or speak f or them. Each of them i s an i ndi vi dual
home owner and so am 1. We would prefer not being 1 umped together as
"think- alike" members of one residence in Edina.
I have been a resident of this neighborhood for over 35 years. When
my husband and I moved into our house on Cornelia Drive, 66th Street was
a dirt road with the nearest grocery store on Penn avenue. We watched
f rom our ki tchen wi ndow as the Southdal a water tower was bei ng bui 1 t.
I agree wi th the Southdal a Road resi dents that there i s a need f or a buf fer.
I question that. it needs to be bordered by a six lane highway with stop
lights.
Fifteen years ago we moved from our five bedroom house on
Cornelia Drive to a two bedroom unit here at Point of.France. We take up a
1 of 1 ess space and require f ewer servi ces. There are 140 home owners i n
thi s bui 1 di ng wi th 140 di f f erent i deas and tax statements. The great
majority of these Edina residents feel that the proposed plan for six lane
highways with extra stop lights i s detrimental to any residential
neighborhood, and we certainly agree that retaining the break in the
medi an i s a necessi ty f or us. The possi bl e f uture pl an f or redoi ng the
Crosstown exit on to 65th Street needs to be thought through very
carefully before proceeding with the present construction plans on Valley
View Road.
I hope that these insights may perhaps influence that council
members to go slowly and rethink how to proceed with this project.
Again, many thanks f or your sensi ti vi ty i n thi s matter.
Sincerely,
i
JOE C GIVENS
6566 France Avenue, #906
Edina, MN 55435
May 22,1992. c0 P
Frederick S. Richards, Mayor
City of Edina, MN
Regarding: Valley View Road/ West 66th. Street Project
Dear Mayor Richards:
I am of the opinion the city of Edina is well run and I do appreciate the work you and
the City Council do to keep our city one of the best places to live in the Country. You
have a tough job. Thanks!
I was present, but did not speak at, the City Council Meeting held on May 18. Thank
you for postponing action on the above project until your June 15 meeting. I
understand your request that any significant information be given to you, the Council
Members and the Engineer before the June 15 meeting. I am responding to this request
with the following observations which I intend to present at this meeting.
Intersection of Valley View Road and 66th. Street;
I was particularly intrigued by the statements made at the May 18th. meeting by the
woman who had lived on Valley View Road north of this intersection for all.of her life.
You will remember she said that traffic signal lights had been installed at this location at
least twice during her memory and that they were subsequently removed because they
did an unsatisfactory job of controlling traffic. She also predicted that any future traffic
lights installed here would also be doomed for failure.
My .condominium at the Point of France overlooks this intersection. I have been
observing the traffic through this intersection from my 9th. floor windows for the last
13 years. At present, this intersection is much different from most because it operates
°much like the traffic circles which are so prevalent in Europe. It handles a large volume
of traffic coming from the Crosstown Highway and all other directions continuosly
with rarely a delay of longer than 10 seconds for any car. There is not a 4 -way stop at
one location. The traffic almost behaves with robot precision - -cars move up to the stop
signs, pause briefly and move on just as if they were being controlled by someone
punching buttons from above. There is little confusion, frustration or delay.
For contrast consider, the traffic at 66th and France. Cars going either direction on
66th. Street usually pull to a stop, wait up to 2 minutes for the light to change and then
make a mad dash to get.across the intersection before the 20 second green signal goes
off. There is a lot of racing to beat the yellow light. Too often waiting cars do not make
it through the green light in time and must wait out another 2 minute cycle of the
lights.Often traffic will be backed up for 100 yards or more on both sides of the traffic
lights. At the same time this is going on there is practically no back -up of cars at the
intersection of 66th and Valley View Road. In my opinion the lights at the intersection
of 66th. and France do a worse job of handling the traffic than the circle system at
66th. Street and Valley View Road.
-2-
In general, my observation is that traffic lights tend to bunch traffic by delaying a
group of cars with a red light and then releasing them to go to the next light like a
stampeding herd of buffalo. We need more traffic "circles" which give a steady flow of
traffic rather than more traffic lights which delay traffic.
Conclusion The intersection of 66th. Street and Valley View Road works - don't ruin it
by trying to fix it. If it must be spruced up - keep the concept of a traffic "circle" in the
design. I am opposed to this project as it now stands because I believe the present .
road arrangement_ does a better job of meeting the needs of the Edina Community than
does the proposed design. Also I am fearful the proposed plan will box in the Point of
France residents making ingress into and egress out of the building very difficult.
Median crossover 66th. Street at Point of France
The principal problem here is the traffic which backs up from France avenue beyond
the crossover. It usually clears shortly after the traffic signal changes. Waiting a short.
time is much preferred over driving down to Valley View in order of make a U -turn
and come back to France Avenue. Please keep the median cross -over.
Walkway across Valley View Road to Cornelia Park
Valley
Many people walk across Valley View Road daily to walk or jog around Lake Cornelia.
It is very difficult to find a place to walk where you are not in danger of getting hit or
where you don't have to walk in the mud. I suggest a sidewalk be built on the north
side of 66th. Street would alleviate some of this problem.
Access to and traffic on Crosstown Highway
Crosstown highway is the really big problem. What is the use of improving the streets
receiving and feeding traffic to Crosstown if Crosstown can't handle the traffic. I know
you are all too familiar with these problems i.e. 15 minutes wait to get onto Crosstown
and very slow traffic rates after you get on it. These problems increase the amount of
traffic on both 66th. Street and on Valley View. Road and also cause much congestion at
France Ave where it goes over Crosstown. If studies are being made I suggest making
moving video pictures from the roof of the Point of France. The view from this roof of
all the areas, i.e. Crosstown Highway, France Avenue, 66th. Street and Valley View
Road is excellent. Videos made from here at rush times should be helpful in making
decisions about how to solve the problems.
I know you are trying to resolve these problems in a way which will best serve all the
people living in Edina including those most directly affected, that is, those people living
at the Point of France. Thank you for your cooperation.
Very truly yours,
Joe Givens
P.S. Please have copies of this letter distributed to the Council Members, the City
Engineer and others interested.
E. G. Johnson
6566 France Avenue, Apt 1409
Edina; IVIN, 55435
F. R. Richards, Mayor
City of Edina
Subject: Valley View Road/ "Wiest 66th St Project
Dear Mr. Mayor
At the city council meeting, May 18, 1992, you requested input
from Edina citizens regarding the proposed intersection at 66th St.
and Valley View Road. I am the . lay engineer -- as you so aptly put
it -- who demanded to be heard and left copies of a brief
description of the project and comments: Additional copies are
attached.
My comments are made as a resident of the Point of France
(POF), not a board member. Since I called the plan, 'Ill- conceived,
flawed, and dangerous,' I consider it necessary to qualify my
statements.
Ill Conceived: In my judgement the plan is ill- conceived
because it purports to be an improvement whereas common sense,
visual acuity, and experience as a driver, say otherwise. The
current system of widely dispersed, 4 -way stops works perfectly in
my estimation, an opinion shared by many of the audience who,
like myself, live nearby and use the intersection daily.
The current system works well because it uses the eyes,
brain, and other senses of each driver approaching the intersection,
all who stop to exercise judgement: Thus, traffic slows to a safe .
average speed and procedes in an orderly fashion. In my
estimation, someone decided a traffic light signal ;works better and
went ahead with the project without any real comparison of the
two systems to see which is best.. Further; in anticipation the new
i l
r 1 2
traffic system, the signs and road - striping of the current
intersection have not been upgraded or even well maintained.
Perhaps improvements in this respect are all that are needed?
Flawed: I said the plan was flawed because it uses standards
set up for an average case to justify the need for traffic lights
not the case in point. I refer to The Signal Justification Report
pepared for the City of Edina by Howard Needles Tammen u
Bergendoff dated February, 1991. This report uses for justification a
IVIN -TOT Warrent based upon two intersecting streets with two
lanes in all directions whereas the current intersection has two
additional free lanes, an equivalent free lane, and considerable
space between individual intersections -- nothing like the standard
used in the report.
The proposed system differs even more: It has three lanes in
two directions; three free turn lanes, and; one non - intended bypass
through the park between South Bound (SB) Talley View Road and
WB 66th. Thus, the above justification is based solely on the closest
standard available, not the actual case.
Peak Traffic Volumes: Justification is also based upon a
traffic count made only on a single day (Nov. 29, 1991): The peak of
the Christmas retail sales period -- the worst possible case.
Moreover, less- than -peak, 9 -11 and 1 -3 oclock periods of a less -than-
peak retail sales period (Jan 28, 1991) were used instead of the same
period, Nov. 29's hours -- a mixed bag to say the least! .... not a
representative test sample nor good engineering practice. Further, I
believe the count may be outdated: I understand the count must
be made for the 30th worst hour and within one year of the
project's start date
City_ Growth: Future. growth of retail, commercial, and
residential units in this section of Edina and associated traffic does
not %.arrent the restrictive traffic light control. Data supplied in
this regard by a letter from Mr. Hoffman, April 28, 1992, is
applicable: Adjusted Annual Daily Traffic figures vary from 10,775
vehicles in 1973 to 13,625 in 1975 -- an increase of 13X/yr. However,
- i 3
1975 to 1987 figures drop form 13,625 to 12,800 -- a decrease of
0.57./yr. Figures jump in 1989 to 14,500 -- an increase of 6.67./yr.
The sudden jumps are probably due to major retail store
improvements and are not useful for average growth calculations.
Considering the maturity of the area and impact of the future
mega -mall, it appears more likely that traffic volumes remain
about the same, not warrenting the change in traffic control at
66th St. and Valley View Road.
Adverse Interactions: Interaction of the traffic lights
between France and. Valley View was not dicussed in the signal
justification report nor apparently investigated by computer
means. Synchonization of two major traffic signals only 600 ft.
apart, each controlling parallel, high traffic roadways could be a
major problem, particularly when connected by a high traffic
minor roadway (66th) with a major residence (POF) exiting onto it.
While both signals probably operate on an Arterial Coordinated
Basis, cycle coordination of France Ave. traffic with respect to
Valley View will be next to impossible. The resulting interaction on
66th may cause vehicular back -up, blockage of POF ramp, and
otherwise impede traffic. This situation will be further complicated
by the addition of a traffic light signal at Valley View and 65th St.
which the City Engineer says will occur in the near future. All in
all, we have a system that works: Why chance a possibility of
complex signal interaction which will vary with traffic volume and
direction of peak travel?
Safety_: The new plan has dangerous features, namely: 1) A
non - intended bypass through the park, 2) Crossing three lanes of
traffic in 200 feet if POF median - crossing is deleted (reinstated), 3)
associated U -turns at both the Valley View and France Ave., and 4)
an increase in average speed due to the traffic light.
i} Bypass through Park: A 22 ft. wide entrance from Valley
View and a 36 ft ,vide entrance /exit from 66th, intersect before
entering a common parking area thus allowing traffic to by -pass
the. new traffic signal if drivers desire. These lanes are radiused to
4
deter but not preclude the possibility. Traffic from EB Hy 62 can
exit ;youth on Valley View and bypass the light to SvJB 66th. Or, EB
66th traffic can enter the park and try to exit .NB or SB on Valley
View to avoid the light. Either is extremely dangerous and may
result in vehicles backing -up and/or collisions. In any event, the
possibilities are extremely dangerous to pedestrians, especially
children.
2) Median Crossing: If deleted, POF residents desiring to go
in any direction but WB or NB; or SB France travelers turning WB
on 66th and thence SB on Valley View are. required to cross three
lanes of traffic in less than 200ft. inorder to get into the SB turn
lane on 66th -- a dangerous situation.
3) U- turns: As an alternative to the POF median- crossing,
U -turns on 66th at both Valley View and France were offered.
However U -turns are dangerous, especially in this case. For
example: The turning circle of a Cadillac varys from 42.5 to 44.0 ft.
wall to wall. A circle of this diameter puts a Cadillac -- and most
full -size cars -- going BNB on 66th, U- turning EB on 66th, into the.
free lane of traffic turning EB off Valley View onto 66th St. While
beating a dead horse, the point is important since we are not
assurred of the median crossing until the project is complete and
then perhaps not for long.
POF residents requesting retention of the median- crossing, are
not asking for more than exists in twos on all four sides of
Southdale. It is my understanding that these crosssings will
eventually all be controlled by traffic lights: This is also an
alternative for the POF median - crossing. Or, the POF median
crossing can be made with turn lanes to improve safety. Whatever,
this alternative warrents further study.
4) Traffic Speed Increase: Traffic Signals increase average
:speeds whether violated or not. Thus, a greater number of serious,
if not fatal accidents, can be expected by changing from a 4 -way
stop to traffic light signals. The author has wittnessed no accidents
at 66th and Valley View, but several on 66th and France where
. . b .
`1
traffic lights exist. Recently, one car turned over, coming to rest
completely upside down, reflecting the effect of greater speeds. Our
concerns were not solely POF as accused: Most of the above hazards
apply to all drivers and pedestrians.
Recommendations:
1) Leave System as is: In consideration of the above, the
author recommends leaving the intersection .as is, except: 1) .
repaving, 2) improving the system of traffic signs, 3) leaving the
median crossing, 4) storm sewer improvements, 5) add POF turn-in
lane to promote safety, and 5) satisfy complaints of Southdale Road
residents by bellying Valley View Road eastward (after leaving the
present intersection) to provide the separation and berm they
desire.
Cost Reduction: The above approach should reduce costs by
perhaps 307., estimating savings to the taxpayer of $592,000.
Park Entrance: I .recommend reconsideration of the park
entrances to preclude their use as a bypass, perhaps by separating
the parking areas they serve.
I hope this letter clarifies my position as one of the more
persistent objectors. I understand that council meetings must be
conducted with decorum. However, Rules of Order should not
substitute for democracy nor get in the way of homeowner's
rights.
Sincerely,
Elmer G Johnson
.. •
06/04/92 08:59 a 612 925 7693 GOPCO P.02
Fremont Fletcher
6566 France Ave. So.(208)
Edina, MN 55435
922 -1685
Mayor, Frederick S. Richards
Council members Peggy Kelly, Jane L. Paulus, Jack Rice,
and Glenn Smith
Dear AW,& ►,oi. (Z-I .co,
When I appeared before the Council on April 6th, I was
President of the Point of France Association. Having served
on the Board for the maximum six years, I was "retired'. at our
Annual Meeting on May 12th, and did not speak at your meeting
on the 18th. I appreciated the Council's understanding of our
concern about the proposed closing of the median on 66th and
the desired turn lane.
At the time of the earlier meeting, I was not aware of the
depth of concern about the rest of the project. We had not
really given that a considered analysis because our attention
had been focused on the median and turn lane. There now has
been more time for reflection on the "total picture ", and I
would like to express some of my own personal concerns
regarding the rest of the project.
1. Thank you for.retention of the median crossing.
2. Thank you for making provision for the turn lane into the
POF driveway. i would suggest, however, that the "cut"
into the east end of the lane be very abrupt and not gradual
as shown on the amended diagram. I think that the sharper
cut ,. together with a solid white line running the entire
length of the turn lane will reduce or eliminate the
possibility of following cars mistaking the turn lane for
the right turn lane onto Valleyview.
06/04/92 08:59 a 612 925 7693 GOPCO P.03
3. It seems to me that the configuration of the direct route
from the. Crosstown on 65th to France and the hospital
should be determined and made a part of any plan to upgrade
Valleyview before any final plan is adopted or construction
commenced. This could very well reduce the traffic on
Valleyview reducing the urgency for any upgrade, as well
as making good "taxpayer sense ".
4. The revision of the entrances and exits from the Park /Pool
area seem to be creating new. problems.. All cars. coming
from the Park and heading east or south would have to
cross the west bound traffic on 66th , perhaps into a stack
of cars, especially, if cars are leaving from an event, or
across relatively fast traffic, if there were to be signal at
Valleyview. Now, out bound traffic turns right to the stop
sign. The proposed plan also provides a. "short cut" turn
lane onto westbound 66th for traffic coming off the Cross-
town, which does not seem desireable.
5. Signalizing the 66th and Valleyview intersection will not
be an improvement in my view for at least four reasons.
First- The stop light will increase the waiting time fora
majority of the cars using the intersection. ( Even the right
turns from 66th onto Valleyview will have to yield or stop
and wait for fast traffic coming through on a green light,
where now they interweave on a "pulsed basis" because of
the stop sign at 66th. ) Second- The stoplight will result
in "stacking" cars in the westbound lane on 66th to a very
much greater degree than at present, and would adversely
affect our entrance /exit. Third- The speed of the cars that
do move at the stop /go light will be significantly increased
as cars race to get through on the green, make the yellow,
or beat the red. This will adversely affect the safety of
pedestrians going to or coming from the Park, increase the
severity of any accidents, and create unnecessary hazards
to the trraffic in and out of the Park on 66th. Fourth- The
present use of the arterial stop signs does require each car
to come to a momentary stop, thus slowing the speed in the
intersection, increasing the pedestrian crossing safety, but
� r �
06/04/92 09:00 $ 612 925 7693 GOPCO P.04
%till keeping the net number of cars passing through the
intersection at least equal to, and.probably exceeding,
the number going through a signalized intersection.
( I've waited a good deal longer than a minute waiting to
turn from 66th onto France, when NO CARS went through
the intersection on France. In effect, all traffic at the
intersection came to a complete halt for more than a
minute. )
6. The traffic count, according to the information from Fran
Hoffman, has increased from 13,625 vehicles on west 66th-
in 1975 (just when Southdale was opening) to 14,500 in
1991. This amounts to only about a 6 1/2 P increase in
sixteen years, even with all the new office buildings on
France south of 66th and all of the new office buildings on
66th east of France. This small increase does not seem to
warrant the expensive "upgrade ", when the only new develop-
ments in the area will be south of 75th on France.
7. Another concern which I have heard expressed is the fear
that the proposed adding of westbound lanes on 66th can
only mean that the eventual plan is to make 66th a four
lane throughway west of Valleyview to Highway 100 and
beyond. If this is true, then there certainly should be
more widespread notice and discussion about the present
proposal.
B. I lived on Cornelia Drive for twenty years before moving to
POF in 1976 and I have never been aware during that period
or during the last sixteen years of any excessive amount of
traffic on the southbound lane of Valleyview south of 66th.
There is a sight problem coming off of 68th, and an
easterly bulge at that point might be helpful. There
may be an abnormal noise factor, which trees and hedges
do not adequately muffle, but I have never personally ever .
heard anyone complaining of the noise. I would not
object to berming and fencing, although I am sure that
there are many places in Edina that are much worse from a
noise point of view than these blocks.
06/04/92 09:01 3 612 925 7693 GOPCO P.05
9. 1 am enclosing -a recent news item regarding Philadelphia's
replacing traffic lights with four -way stop signs for
economic and safety reasons. Maybe we should look a
little farther into the future right now, and skip the
temporary step of putting in stop lights.
This letter is longer than I intended it to be, but these
thoughts seemed to me to be pertinent regarding this proposal.
I am very much aware of the time and dedication that
it takes to serve as Council members and, especially, as Mayor
of the City of Edina. We should be, and are, proud of our fine
City. You deserve, but I'm afraid don't often get, the thanks of
all of the citizens of Edina. You certainly do have my thanks.
I hope this letter will be helpful.
Sincerely,
Fremont Fletcher
. to
t
06/04/92 09:02 a 612 925 7693 GOPCO
Philadelphia will oe one -
fourth of its 3.000 tlallic lights
with stop signs because they're .
cheaper and safer. intersections
with lights wiU be converted to - '
t four -way stops, which act like vis-
W speed bumps, said Howard.-- 1
Bissell, an engineer with the Fad
oral Highway Administration. The
@ change wiU save an estimated : •'_'
$500,000 a year in electricity and
maintenanoe. c`
P.06
41,
Memo
Date: June 15, 1992
To: Mayor of Edina
Edina City Council Members
From: Nanita Holte
6717 Southdale Road
Subject: Reconstruction Project of Valley View.
On June 4, 1992, about 20+ residents of the eastside of Southdale Road met with Mr. Fran Hoffman. The
purpose of this meeting was to become better informed of the project as we are going to be directly
affected by this project.
Enclosed is the survey that I sent out to these 30 resident homes before the meeting. There was about a
57% return. The comments on the objections appear to indicate misinformation on the project. It was my
perception that most of the objections were addressed by Mr. Hoffman. Of the 30 residents, there are
probably only 4 -5 residents that are opposed to the project.
In addition, Mr. Skip Petersen has canvassed our neighborhood regarding signing a petition. I know that
a few residents signed, but really did not know what they were signing. I received telephone calls asking
me what Mr. Petersen's purpose was, to which I couldn't reply.
In conclusion, it was felt that the project was provide the buffer from the commercial that has encroached
on the residential area. It would also provide some protection from torrential rain showers that have
caused so much damage in the past. The only reservation appear to be increased air and noise pollution
from an increase in the number of trucks traveling the road.
The semaphore issue was not quite so decisive. We would not be so directly affected by this part of the
project. However, before the meeting with Mr. Hoffman, only 50% were against the installation. More
residents may now decide that increasing traffic in the next few years would warrant installation. One
note —most residents are not satisfied with the short green light on 66th and France Avenue. The back -up
of traffic would be shortened by lengthening the green light by more than three car lengths.
Our thank you to Mr. Hoffman for meeting with us and having the patience to explain the project again.
His openness and friendliness were very much appreciated.
Sincerely,
Nanita Holte
6717 Southdale Road
.-,
I
East
Southdale Road
Residents June 15, 1!
Name
Phone
Address
Ralph MacHolda
927 -89fi7
6605 Southdale
Julianna and Marian Austin
922 -3419
6609 Southdale
Rick and Diana Hauritz
6613 Southdale
Chuck Flammang
922 -7569
6617 Southdale
Walter and Opal Posingies
922 -5332
6621 Southdale
Rolland and Theodora Blake
920 -1470
6701 Southdale
Carl Johnson
922 -5609
6705 Southdale
Dwight Trout
925 -5362
6709 Southdale
Robert and Betty Wheelock
6713 Southdale
William and Nanita Holte
6717 Southdale
Vernon Pettis
6801 Southdale
Howie and Liane Walser
920 -2161
6805 Southdale
Richard and Velta Davis
926-4887
6809 Southdale
J. Kenneth Harrington
922 -8041
6813 Southdale
Florence Olson
6817 Southdale
Philip R. Costello
6821 Southdale
Florence Helming
922 -8967
6825 Southdale
Milan K. Johnson
6829 Southdale
Gary R. and Nancy Thacher
926 -6401
6901 Southdale
Jim and Charlene Jenewein
926 -2865
6905 Southdale
Allyson J. Glessner
922 -9402
6909 Southdale
Raymond J. & Mary Ann Hans
926 -0765
6913 Southdale
E. Freeman
922-7511
6917 Southdale
Robert L. and Nora Davis
929 -4421
6921 Southdale
David R. and Mary McDonald
926-7860
6929 Southdale
G. Ray and Marlys Chase
926 -8193
6933 Southdale
Russ and Charlotte Johnson
925 -4638
6937 Southdale
Sharon K. Wagner
927 -6638
6941 Southdale
Paul and Glorian Green
925 -0419
6945 Southdale
Paul and Rebecca Saleh
926 -2849
6949 Southdale
June 4, 1992
1. Did you receive adequate notice for this project? [ 10 ] Yes [ 5 ] No
• One meeting last fall.
2. Was there adequate discussion regarding the project? [ 8 ] Yes [ 7 ] No
• We were notified by a letter to see the plans in the City Engineer's office on June 4 or 5, 1991.
• At the time.
3. Should there be more discussion before implementation? [ 9 ] Yes [ 7 ] No
4. Do you object to the reconstruction? [ 2 ] Yes [ 9 ] No [ 3 ] ?
• Not necessary at this time.
5. Please list concerns. (Use the back of sheet, if necessary.)
• Definitely need berm behind Southdale Road houses.
• Retain the fence along Valley View
• Definitely need better sight lines at 68th & Valley View to see traffic traveling south. Very bad
intersection.
• At present time, northbound Valley View and eastbound 66th intersection is very poor - difficult to
look east from VV—some drivers on 66th don't follow lane marking.
• I want them to just leave it alone; no improvement.
• If they must improve I want a higher berm, with 8' fence, no truck traffic and for Southdale Rd to
turn into a cul -de -sac at 66th (with no traffic going through to 66th) given the pool entrance will
change to that street.
• Little to no communication to local residents about plans (steam roller job).
• Impact on residents during construction and afterward not considered.
• Major benefits appear to be for Southdale complex; what will the assessment be for Southdale
versus residents.
• 3 lane of traffic behind Southdale Road.
• Assessments.
• Trucks will now be allowed on this parkway.
• Truck traffic
• Cost to families
• Stop light
• Being assessed for something that in the end will hurt my property value. I also object to more
truck traffic on what should be a parkway.
• The traffic on this stretch of road in no way justifies this expense or 6lanes. Except for France
Avenue, none of the connecting roads are 6 lanes. Not even busy Crosstown. This is a waste of
taxpayers money.
• 1) The entire city is being dictated to by a single condo association (a stacked deck). 2) The traffic
flow will certainly increase in the years to come and the time to plan is now —not when it happens.
3) The Point of France crossover must be closed for safety reasons. A right turn out and around
the block to 65th or a U -turn is a must. To cross an uncontrolled high density road at a 90° angle
is ludicrous. They not only put themselves in jeopardy, but they disregard the safety of the traffic
on 66th westbound. Their convenience is of no importance to me. 4) The work project was
passed once. What good is the Council vote if it can be disregarded. The Mayor was
stonewalled. 5) Don't think a stop and go is necessary at this time. Traffic flow is normal and
orderly. However, if traffic increases, it might be necessary. Suggest the intersection be wired at
this time so signals could be added at a later date.
• 1) Added traffic -3 lanes each. 2) Light would back up traffic on 66th. 3) Need adequate storm
sewers, and need drain field to divert water from downpours.
• The area at present is not well marked for traffic.
• There is no need for six lanes. Valley View road should be used for passenger traffic only.
6. Prioritize the top three (3) objections.
See other sheet.
7. What do you consider a remedy for this situation?
• Berm will improve the view. Too many buildings have gone up in the past 20 years and the view
has become very obstructed.
• 1) More information on the plans and alternatives. 2) Put the issue to a vote.
• 1) Adequate berms and vegetation to isolate the noise. 2) Use France and Xerxes as main roads
servicing Southdale.
• Remain status quo.
• If care is given to berm after project completed.
• Move Valley View Road east and make one intersection at 66th and VV without a light —leave park
entrance as it is.
• Could the City of Edina encourage the county to repair or pave the stretch of road between France
& Xerxes on 66th along with this project?
• The Council to vote for the entire city, not the benefit of the Point of France.
• Project, as proposed by Edina, is correct.
• Maintain VV as is, resurface roads rather than concrete and stopping drainage.
• A berm at least 15 feet high.
8. Do you think a semaphore (stop light) is appropriate for the intersection of 66th
and Valley View Road? [ 5 ] Yes [ 8 ] No [ 3 ] ?
• Don't know. Vehicle count would tell traffic engineers. Maybe they could be installed and not
used until future traffic counts indicate the need.
• Trucks should not be allowed on Valley View Road between 66th and 70th.
33.334
Preliminary
#1 -Did You Receive Adequate Notice for This Project?
n =15
6.67%
46.67%
#2 -Was there adequate discussion regarding the project?
n =15
Preliminary
53.33%
No
43.75%
N- Should there be more discussion before
implementation?
n =16
Preliminary
56.25%
Prioritization of Top Three Objections to Project
#1 #2
None
Leave it as is —with no improvement
Assessments for Southdale vs residents.
3 lanes of traffic
Truck traffic
Being assessed (hurting my property value)
#4
#4
None
Added traffic -3 lanes each
Cul -de -sac Southdale Rd at 66th St.
Little to no communication to local residents
Assessments
Cost to families
Heavier truck traffic (more noise & danger)
#3
#2
Light would back up traffic on 66th
#3
No truck traffic on W —like it was before
Impact on residents during construction
Trucks on parkway
Stop light
Changing park entrance & stop light
#2
#1
Would be no drain field.
glenn I. petersen, m.d.
4313 cornelia circle • edina, mn 55435
V -
,LZL"
c7.nec,�
IN
Man 1 .;
0� NO �i q ! ► Ev
as-,Q-
G
U
�pU,MUX.mo_u
T �
V -
,LZL"
c7.nec,�
IN
Man 1 .;
0� NO �i q ! ► Ev
as-,Q-
G
ell RK M&
1 .
U
ell RK M&
1 .
UP DATE ON VALLEY VIEW and 66th ST, PROJECT
Many thanks to those of you who telephoned, wrote letters and
showed up at the May i8th Council meeting.
IR SUPPORT: of the storm sewer, the berm and sound barrier for
it would benefit those in close proximity and probably prevent
flooding in the future.
IH SUPPORT: of the cross road across 66th St. for the Point of
France.
OPPOSED: to the remainder of the plan as proposed for unsafe
features, noise, pollution, increased traffic, more difficult
entrance and exit to the park and swimming pool, high density
lighting, back up traffic at semaphores etc.
AnEFFICIEHT COMPROMISg for the rest of the plan would be to
maintain it as is and resurface the roads and include the two
support plans.
We need your support at the Council meeting on June 15th.
Letters to the Mayor, City Council members and letters to the
Editor of the Sun Newspaper may be in order.
Once again, thanks for all your help and hope to see you at the
Council meeting on June i5th.
Skip Petersen
4313 Cornelia Circle
ph. 926 -9523
If you agree would you please sign this petition to be presented
to the Council....
i�
f,
a RALAAL
CL-
0.- NVI vJ ensue.
-Lka-e-
0
OF URGENT IMPORTXiCE: ALL CONCERTED EDINA CITIZENS NEED TO ATTE11D THE
10N M
Compelling Reasons For Delaying Valley View Road and West 66th Street Construction
Present Engineering Plans Are Inadeouate. For example, the proposed plan, requiring
many drivers heading for destinations to the east or south to cross three lanes of
traffic in order to make U -turns at the - proposed traffic semaphores /stop = and -cqo -
lights, or presenting them with the single remaining alternative choice of driving
around the block, can clearly be seen to result in the creation of unsafe, and po-
tentially disastrous, traffic patterns in the first instance, and of a substantial
increase in traffic by dozens or even h•.mdreds of vehicles in a confined area during
a given time period, in the latter case.
Upgrading Of The Crosstown Highway Is Not Planned, Nor Is Funding Available, For
10 To 15 Years. Accordingly, not only is there no current need for the proposed
creation of six lanes of cement highway for Valley View Road, but without the con-
struction of additional outlet ramps, and without major reconstruction of the Cross--
town Highway itself, the proposed Valley View Road reconstruction project can lead
only to massive traffic stagnation and congestion, with spillover into adjacent
residential neighborhood areas.
Good Will, Even Now, Has Been Lost By The City Of Edina. Our Edina city officials
need to restore citizen confidence in their local representative government, which
trust has been eroded by the railroading of construction projects. The inadequate,
if not frankly negligent, communications relating to a construction project of this
magnitude, and scheduled to begin in June, give the appearance of "no citizen input
wanted, none needed, and any offered shall be resented and rejected," each and all
such attitudes being clearly exemplified in the conduct of the proceedings at the
single, abbreviated, and legally- required public hearing held April 6.
Southdale Shopping Center VJill Be A Big Loser. In the rush to help increase the
commerce at the newly- renovated Southdale Mall by proposing construction of "gold -
plated" access roads and highways through neighboring residential areas, clearly
without the mandate of its citizens, namely the home owners and the electorate,
the City of Edina officials are causing great offense. With the competition being
exerted in the business climate by the Mall of America, in addition to that of other
new and newly - renovated shopping facilities, the generation of this project by their
own municipal governmental officials is, in fact, counterproductive to the welfare
of the very Southdale businesses for which it was planned to be beneficial.
Studies And Resulting Decisions Affecting The Point Of France Lake Are Years Away.
In addition to the analysis by Barr Engineering in response to requests.from the
City of Edina, a number of other factors will affect our lake, and, in fact, other
adjacent bodies of water located in the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District. For
example, the forthcoming change in Environmental Pollution Agency rules means that
Southdale Shopping Center will likely be advised to discontinue the current practice
of using aquifer water in conjunction with its heating and air conditioning needs.
Much of the water in our lake is the run -off from this Southdale source. By delay-
ing the proposed construction project, Edina officials, would be allowing the search
for, and the accumulation of, data and advice from other governmental and environ-
mental resource experts. Such additional studies would likely preclude the need for
a repeat reconstruction project which might otherwise become necessary as a conse-
quence of the current, premature schedule of construction.
SPECIAL NOTE: THE LAST CHANCE FOR THE
AIM HURRIED VOTE OF APRIL 6 WILL LIKELY
YO T R APPF,APMTCE ANT) VOTCE K.^YT'"1.
Donald E. Brandt
Telephone: 929 -9075
EDITIA CITY COLiVCL TO RE IMELY
BE AT ITS P ETINC O. _ TEASE
Sk ip Petersen
Telephone: 926 -9523
\7q
May 2, 1992
Information For The Edina Home Owners And Residents
In The Area Of Valley View Road And West 66th Street
Extensive reconstruction of Valley View Road from the Crosstown Highway to
the intersection of France Avenue and 69th Street, and of adjacent sections of
[Vest 66t1i Street, was approved by the City of Edina on April 6, following a brief
and limited public hearing. Among other major changes, the project includes:
* construction of an earth berm and sound wall adjacent to Valley View Road
* substantial new street lighting for the entire area
* installation of traffic'seraphores /stop lights at the intersection of
Valley View Road and I-lest 66th Street
* widening of Valley View Road to six lanes of concrete for three lanes of
traffic in each direction (iJote: the Crosstown Highway has only tvA
lanes of traffic in each direction, and will not be reconstructed for
at least 10 years)
* elimination of U -turn crossovers in the affected median strips
Our immediate neighborhood will likely suffer multiple adverse effects, similar
to those which have our neighbors at Point of France deeply concerned, such as:
* increased traffic that could spill over into our residential area, resulting
in a substantial increase in air pollution, noise, and traffic congestion
- - - -- and a decrease in safety, including pedestrian safety
* decreased property values, according to real estate people
* considerable inconvenience, and possible dumping of construction materials,
during the extended construction period which is planned
* diminished access to and egress from our homes on a permanent basis
We wonder why our Edina officials have not provided all of us with timely and
complete information about this major construction project, which has been in
the planning stage for years, likely carries with it assessments - - - -- and is
scheduled to begin in June.
If you are also concerned, please call.
Skip Petersen
4313 Cornelia Circle
Telephone: 926 -9523
Note: the attached map may help you understand the extent of the planned construction.
PROPOSED PROJECT LOCATION
IMPROVEMENT NOS. BA-293, BA-299, STS-219,
TS-21 & L-36
ira "I LziL', �Y-11 0 WI; '-3
.6
10,
S1
In
---- 7
77=
-WEST
6 Twi
Lake
cc
45& ST
YA
t9sm
Cornelia I
cc
10 Lai., Isz —
24
on
04
1000D
I ell
Q S ell
6_�
6as
I Loll iv�
�) �''
el i
jr
cc
14
ELLE G'2j!
5j9
-91
cc[ z
F 1 0, j LT,
0,
. Qck
ftW m
C -0.1 al i ill
ell zIl
o"t
01
ff IGILPOFiM
.KEY
Total Reconstruction oloe*
Sidewalk Construction
Only (East Side) mm�
PAR
W. 6
GIV ST I 1dq' 771
--————----
5=
T284 A24 tu CY
30+29
31 32 .0
13400
�31
.•
0
?4TI ST_j
0
ie
PARKLAWFG AVE.
0
..........
acm
c
r :y�
.. —Vj• /
C2 am�i �. 11 / /.
8 311. 9R' r sue. �j9� 4
ooe
N /' •�
W _ IS m d
!7 ' go
fQ
ca ao m �1 I �' ' O-& l9
2
43 55% pq i rp
2 �P.1 N5422T��''� I �'d'
N. 8. Cl
14:37 Pej °! �,,, A -42 -2i -
o n P 151 115 MID T 1 14 +51 68 �� ' R -710. _
END SL 14 +75.07 p L -526.'
o ro N N ° -'• _ .- T ■216. t
D 5 +43.47
8 AP ISL 15+48.20
o
m
N 47' I �I TH M. S. L P. 0. T. 13+98.19 -
P.C.L +14.
N. S. L P. 0. C..23 +85.94
Fa
23 +26.42 1
P. t
o�ot 149.43 �I
O TEND APER ISL 16+68.19
- - 15+6 O8 . - r
BEL TAPER 17 +2 55; ` I I 15'A BEL RAO.17 +15.99
t
BEG. TAPER ISL 17 +52.
END RAO.17+62. 56
I I I O BEL TAPER 18 +17.06
1 I 1
o ICI 1• ° •
I 1 I g
END TAPER ISL 18 +92.9 1 1 1 g O
BEL HAD. 19401L 93 / O a
BEL TAPER ISL 19 +86/10
MID TAPER ISL 20. 3.33 I I O ENO TAPER 19 +29.61
3' R. P. ISL 20 +18. I 1 O ee Be pp g LT.
I, °
5Y f 16 �9
20 20�- - -o- -- _ - - - --
[01ST41 UNITlI
I I I to FRANCE AVE
Go
6609 Southdale Road
Edina, MN 55435 -1650
June 5, 1992 -
Mr. Glenn L. Smith
Councilman, City of Edina
Edina-.,City Hall
4801 W. 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
Dear Glenn:
Re: Valley View Road Project
We understand that the Council will again consider the Valley
View Road Project at their meeting on June 15. Because
we won't be able to attend.that evening, we wanted to let
you know our feeling. We are in favor of the plan and hope
that the project will be approved on the 15th and that
work can be commenced soon so that it will be completed
this summer.
Last evening the residents on the east side of Southdale
Road met with the City Engineer. Fran Hoffman did an excellent
job of describing the project, the reasoning behind the
various changes, and responding to every question.
Good luck on the 15th!
Sincerely,
Julianna and Marian Austin
FEB, 259 1958
Southdale. to Add "
New -Off ice Center'
E A third stagg in the development of Southdale will add
an office center to the shopping and medical center facili-
ties, it was revealed i;"londay.
The new area. estimated to cost
:would boost to about 30 million dollars
in the- several hundred' acre Southdale
it started in 1956.
The original shoppinc cen-
ter cost 20 million dollars. A
six- story, million- dollar med-
ical center is now nearing; I, CW' =1 P•IW
completion, with almost all
facilities for 60 doctors and
dentists leased.
Developed in two sections,*'
ections; '
the new office portion of
Southdale will stretch north;
and south of Sixty-sixth; [;
street .along the.- west side I =
of France avenue.-
The section north of Six-
ty-sixth Will 'be known as Of=
fire Park and include eight
sites • for one or two -story
office buildings and. a pro -
posed 80 -unit motel on Its i
17 acres.
The section south of Suc-
ty- sizLY(directly across from
the shoppinc center) has sites
for as manv as six office
buildings on its 21 acres. Six -
story units are projected.
Robert 7.Crabb: % executive I
vice president of Southdale
Realty, ,who Monday night.
gained " the Edina village I
council's *clearance oh zoning
!for the protect, said each of
`the offices will be` designed;
;according to the wishes of;
the. leases.
Crabb said the " General
l5ervice Administration 1,a fed -
ij
oral agency leasinc space for;
goverr'nnent o f f i c e s1 h a s i
Jshowri interest iti occupying 'I
one:buildin-, of 54.000 square
feet net rental space.
Bruce Dayton, president of
.'Southdale Realtv and execu-
tivc vice president of Day -
iton's. said the need for an of -,
:ce development was created
5y "thle metropolitan area's
continuous expansion to the
i southwest,"
10 million dollars. .
the total invested,.
development store I
THE ,MINNEAPOLIS
')ties. Feb.. = 1958 ` 9A
J
ei 4 -�
REPORT /RECOMMENDATION
To:
Kenneth
Rosland ;
Agenda Item #
III. A.
From:
Craig Larsen
Consent
tf
Information Only
Date:
June 15,
1992 1
Mgr. Recommends
F-1
To HRA
Subject:
Z-91-2,
R-1, single �
❑
To Council
Dwelling
Unit to I
PCD -1 , Planned
Actions
Motion
i
Commercial
District;
3916 -18
West 44th
Resolution
Street,
Durr Ltd.
Ordinance
Discussion 1
Recommendation:
The Planning Commission recommends Final Rezoning approval subject
to:
1. Proof of Parking Agreement
2. Conservation Easement covering westerly 10 feet of
property.
INFO /BACKGROUND
The Final Rezoning request was heard by the Planning Commission at
their May 27, 1992, meeting.
The final Plans are consistent with the preliminary plan, which
were approved by the City Council on June 3, 1991.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE 1 -�
EDINA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION
HELD ON WEDNESDAY, . MAY 27,r 1992, 7:30 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman G. Johnson, R. Hale, N. Faust, H.
McClelland, D. Runyan, V. Shaw, G. Workinger
and D. Byron
MEMBERS ABSENT: L. Johnson, J. Palmer, C. Ingwalson
STAFF PRESENT:. C. Larsen, City.Planner
J. Hoogenakker, Secretary
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:
Commissioner Bryan moved approval of the April 29, 1992 meeting
minutes. Commissioner Hale seconded the motion. All voted aye;
motion carried.
II. OLD BUSINESS:
Z -92 -2 Final Rezoning
R -1, Single Dwelling Unit District to PCD -11
Planned Commercial District, Durr, Ltd.
3916 -3918 West 44th Street
Mr. Larsen informed the Commission the City Council granted
preliminary rezoning to PCD -1 on June 3,.1991. The proponent has
returned with Final Development Plans and is. request Final Rezoning
approval.
Mr. Larsen explained the Council attached three conditions to
preliminary approval. First, Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan.
The necessary Comprehensive Plan amendment was approved on June 3,
1991. Second, a conservation easement to protect the 10 foot wide
landscaped area along the westerly property line. Finally, a Proof
of Parking Agreement providing for City review of any change in
use.
Mr. Larsen pointed out the Final Development Plans are
consistent with plans given preliminary approval by the Commission
and Council last June.
Mr. Larsen concluded the.proposed plans are identical to those
given preliminary approval. Staff recommends Final Rezoning with
the following conditions:
1. Executed and Recorded Proof of Parking Agreement.
2. Conservation easement. over the westerly 10 feet of the
site.
Commissioner McClelland said it appears from the plans
presented that the proponent has met the conditions recommended by
city council.
Commissioner Workinger questioned when work would commence.
Mr. Larsen responded that he is not sure when work will commence
and added if they do not act within three years the proposal may
have to be re- heard.
Commissioner Faust moved to recommend Final Rezoning subject
to staff conditions. Commissioner Workinger seconded the motion.
Ayes; Faust, McClelland, Workinger, Bryan, Shaw, Johnson. Nays;
Hale. Motion carried.
1 Final Development Plan,
\ Southdale Circle
Mr. La
measures appro
Commercial Distr
The restaurant has
and a drive -thru
space parking lot.
informed the Commission subject property
ately one acre in size, zoned PCD -3, Planned
and is developed wit cDonald's restaurant.
s 5 indoor seats, an door patio seating area
I
S 3220
'ty. The exist* is supported by a 54
Mr. Larsen explaine at
a complete rebuild of the s
improvement not to change wo k
the northeasterly corner o
would have 105 seats and par
requires one space for three
on the major shift. n this
required.
P5nald's has submitted plans for
rant and parking lot. The only
e the concrete trash enclosure in
ite. The redeveloped restaurant
g spaces. The Zoning Ordinance
x c is plus one space per employee
about 50 spaces would be
The existi wilding is about 3, square feet in size and
has a basement he proposed building wo be about 4,400 square
feet but wo not have a basement. a proposed exterior
materials stucco,' split face concrete ock and a shingled
mansard r If the split face block were eplaced with face
brick exterior materials would compl with Ordinance
requir ents.
Mr. Larsen pointed out the -PCD -3 District requires a 50 foot
ding setback from all property lines. The proposed new
LOCATION MAP
REZONING
NUMBER
LOCATION
REOUEST
Z-92-2
3916 -3918 West 44th Street
Building and Parking Lot Expansion
EDINA PLANNING DERA
RTMENT
Z -92 -2
EDINA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 29, 1992
STAFF REPORT
Final Rezoning — - -- -� - - - -- - -- - - - - - - - --
R-1, Single Dwelling Unit District to PCD -1,
Planned Commercial District, Durr, Ltd.
3916 -3918 West 44th Street
The City Council granted preliminary rezoning to PCD -1 on June
3, 1991. The proponent has returned with Final Development Plans
and is request Final Rezoning approval.
The Council attached three conditions to preliminary approval.
First, Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. The necessary
Comprehensive Plan amendment was approved on June 3, 1991. Second,
a conservation easement to protect the 10 foot wide landscaped area
along the westerly property line. Finally, a Proof of Parking
Agreement providing for City review of any change in use.
The Final Development Plans are.consistent with plans given
preliminary approval by the Commission and Council last June. The
proposed two story plus basement addition will have a total floor
area of approximately 10,600 square feet. On -site parking will
increase to 28 spaces after redevelopment. However, the proposed
plans still requires a 22 space parking quantity variance. This is
unchanged from the preliminary plan. The proposed plans conform to
all other zoning ordinance requirements.
Recommendation:
The proposed plans are identical to those given preliminary
approval. Staff recommends Final Rezoning with the following
conditions:
1. Executed and Recorded Proof of Parking Agreement.
2. Conservation easement over the westerly 10 feet of the
site.
- -- �'-- -- - -- -- -- .� -- = 'fir- -r
FIR,
0_
-- p
- — - - - -- i � � In1� iii► ,
Ex�shHq Av,idl.,q � .: • r
i
P(- afbSEfl ADVIT104
-_DORK LTD. 20= 044
NBFn•F P EYAT104
• it Sl.uo �. .
. e�,91 .d1 f llun Il l.o,'17.., �fe� •111dd. i .:h•.,.. �IV:e.,�.ti � :141 ..rll� tltr. +,Ipinllf..11u,WL.I �.n„
`r'M!'
0
a Or
Ir' t►
I
�l is �l� � •...; ��--
7129I11111lu I] .IN 1.1
Plant Material
o.. rn.
r rJwua s..l
/ 12 -0 14 Isl u h _ _Itl _ 19 20
• _ _ -
�• °• wap -
21 27,1 26
t 7 '/ 77/ /
9 ; / /. / / /• D•VaL - LTD.
a �
WORTH
T
7
i
C
3'
iuiiuuu
0�
®0
r rJwua s..l
/ 12 -0 14 Isl u h _ _Itl _ 19 20
• _ _ -
�• °• wap -
21 27,1 26
t 7 '/ 77/ /
9 ; / /. / / /• D•VaL - LTD.
a �
WORTH
T
7
i
C
3'
iuiiuuu
MnaUTES
OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HALL
JUNE 3,1991
entered the meeting at 7:11 P.M. after the
CONSENT AGENDA ITEXS ADOPTED Motion was
Meaber Paulus to approve and adopt the
the exception of removal of Item V
Boulevard/Vernon Av.
Rollcall: j'r
Ayes: Kelly, Paul ,'Richards
Motion carried.
and
11..3.
kYffber Rice and was seconded by
nsent Agenda items as presented with
Signal Plan Approval - Interlachen
�'d n- rollcall vote, four ayes.
ORDINANCE NO. 825 -A40 GRANTED FIRST READING (PRET MI URY REZONING - R -1 TO PCD FOB
3916 AND 3918 IMT 44TH STREET - DURR. LTD.) Planner Larsen recalled that the subject
hearing was continued from May 6, 1991, for preliminary rezoning - R -1 Single Dwelling
Unit District to PCD -1, Planned Commercial District for property at 3926 and 3918 West
44th Street owned by Kenneth Durr of Durr, Ltd. The continuation was granted so that
the proponent could investigate financing options. The proposal. remains unchanged as
presented on May 6, 1991 - a two story addition of 10,600 square feet going westerly
from the existing Durr building for a total floor area of 20,100 square feet. There
would also be 20 parking spaces added to the site making a total of 28 parking spaces
If the Council grants preliminary approval it should be contingent on two subsequent
actions. An amendment to the Comprehensive Plan would be. required to designate the
subject property as Commercial from the current designation of High Density
Residential for the existing Durr building and Low Density Attached Residential for
the westerly two properties. A parking variance for 22 spaces as a furniture use
would also be necessary and would be considered by the Board of Appeals.
Public Comment:
John Sponsel, 3903 -05 Morningside Road, expressed concern that because of the sandy
soil conditions, construction of the retaining wall shown on the proposed landscaping
plan would cause damage to his double garage located five feet from the proposed wall.
Jo Ellen Hurr, representing the Edina Morningside Condominium Association, spoke to
the following concerns . about the proposed Durr development:
1) The increase in size by 112% would change the original retail
development scale and flavor of the area. A goal of the 44th /France .
Redevelopment Plan was to provide a transitional buffer for the single
family homes. Mr. Durr'.s plan does not provide the buffer.
2) Parking variance, if granted, would set a lenient .standard for further
redevelopment in the area. The proponent does not meet the hardship
requirements for granting the variance.
3)- S-etbauk --- -- -S#te- -plan in szapfag on -the - west - az� � `t
of the proposed new area. Trees shown to the north are not on the
proponent's property and should not be considered as part of the
landscape buffer provided by the proponent.
4) If the property is rezoned, would it allow another type of furniture
store that may not be perceived as a good neighbor.
John Rimarcik, owner of Convention Grill at 3912 Sunnyside Road, spoke in. favor of the
proposed Durr property expansion, and said he would be concerned as to what may come
into that property if Mr. Durr cannot expand and chooses to leave.
Wayne Courtney, 4313 Eton Place, said he was concerned about commercial encroachment
into the residential area and did not want to see the commercial area extended on West
44th Street any further than it is at the present time.. He added -that many of the
Morningside residents have the same concern.
Mayor Richards noted that letters objecting to the rezoning had been received from
Donald/Ruth Arndt, 3911.Morningside Road, and Lois /Dennis Lane, 4006 W. 44th Street.
A letter in support of the rezoning was received from Ernest Ring, 3918 W. 44th
Street.
Presentation by Proponent
Kenneth Durr, proponent, commented that at the May 6, 1991 meeting he had been
concerned about financing. Subsequently,. he has considered three other possible
locations, has had discussions with finance people concerning their present location
and the new locations, has talked to a broker about potential buyers for the existing
store and the two homes, and has investigated the sale of other owned properties to
finance the project in lieu of bank financing. After considering these options, his
first choice is to make the improvements and stay in Edina.
The Planning Commission has recommended approval of the proposed rezoning. The most
recent redevelopment plan proposal provides for commercial use of the property. As
proposed, it is not an.intense use of the property.
Mr. Durr then addressed comments and questions that have been raised, summarized as
follows:
1) Concern of Morningside Road resident regarding looking at parking
lot - The lot will beaten feet lower than the top of the hill and will
not be visible from Morningside Road.
2) Concern regarding damage to garage at 3903 -05 Morningside Road - In 36
years of building, they have successfully constructed higher retaining
walls in similar sandy conditions.
3) Concern about overnight parking lot problems - They want to avoid any
activity in the parking lot that is not related to their business and
any damage would be covered by liability insurance.
4) Concern, by condominium residents about the hill - There are. no plans to
change the grade on the hill; Durr, Ltd. does not own the hill.
5) Devaluation of adjacent properties - Because of the condition of the
existing two homes proposed to be rezoned, the expansion will be an
improvement.
6) Likes. Durr, Ltd. just as it is - Durr, Ltd. is a use that is
community friendly, is a quiet business and an asset to the community.
Mr. Durk concluded by saying that everyone has been appreciative of what Durr, Ltd.
has done to 'improve the corner and he has heard no criticism from the residents in the
neighborhood. He asked the residents to consider what other uses there might be of
the property if Durk, Ltd. relocated..
Council Comment
Member Kelly asked if the property were to be rezoned.could it be specific as to an
interior design - studio. Attorney Erickson responded that the categories in the Zoning
Ordinance are not that specific. If rezoned to Planned Commercial all. uses allowed
within that zoning would be allowed uses, if all other requirements were met.
V / J, i 1
115
Member Rice asked for clarification on the previous request by the proponent for
public financing assistance. Mr. Durr responded that none whatsoever is being
requested now; the project will be financed privately. Member Rice commented that
what has happened at 44th /France over the last 10 -12 years has all been positive.
Regarding parking, the proposed parking is inadequate and would be even more so in th
future if a more intense use of the property occurred. As to commercial encroachment
on the residential neighborhood, he suggested that the line be drawn at the westerly
property line of the.Durr proposal. Member Rice concluded by saying he favored the
proposed project and use.
Mayor Richards recalled that the issue of commercial encroachment on residential was
raised some years ago when the bank on West 50th Street proposed expansion and asked
if some similar action could be applied to the Durr proposal if. approved. Attorney
Erickson recalled that in addition to the zoning; the City did acquire a strip of land
from the bank on the west side as a buffer to be under the control of the property
owners to the west. He said imposing a conservation restriction would be similar
action.
Member Rice made a motion to approve preliminary rezoning from R -1, Single Dwelling
Unit District to PC -1, Planned Commercial District for property located at 3916 and
3918 V. 44th Street, and moved First Reading of Ordinance No. 825 -A40 as follows,
conditioned upon:.l) Amendment of the Comprehensive Plan, 2) Execution of a
conservation restriction on the westerly Darr property line to serve as a buffer, and
3) Parking variance be applied for and obtained and be specific to the use as,
proposed, so that if uses change so as to require more parking, more parking will have
to be provided to allow such changed uses:
ORDINANCE NO. 825 -A40
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE (NO. 825)
BY ADDING TO THE PIAffiQD COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (PCD -1)
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 thi
following thereto:
"The extent of the Planned Commercial District (Sub - District PCD -1) 'is
enlarged by the addition of the following property:
That part of the Vest 1/2 of Lot 80 lying South of the North
130 feet thereof, including adjacent 8' of Vest 44th Street
vacated, Morningside Addition.
That part of the East 1/2 of Lot 80 lying South of the North
1301 thereof, including adjacent 8' of Vest 44th Street
vacated, Morningside Addition.
Sec. 2. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage and
publication. Motion for preliminary rezoning was seconded by Member Kelly.
For the record, Mayor Richards clarified that no tax increment financing has been
granted for the proposed project and that by granting preliminary rezoning approval
the Council would not be attempting to save the 44th /France Tax Increment District.
Rollcall:
Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards
First Reading granted.
RIMecon-ded by Mem r a us setting June 17, 1991, as b
Planning matters:
1) Conditional Use Permit - St. Patrick's Chur
- -- — I)- -morel imlinAry Plat Appryat - - -
Muir goods.
Motion carried on ur ayes.
Ick's Lane,
Rlnch! 1, —_ _ --
J
14
e �, ...
ch
O
REPORT/RECOMMENDATION
To: Kenneth Ro s l and i Agenda Item # T T T • B.
From:
Craig Larsen
j Consent
Information Only
li Date:
i
June 15, 1992
1 Mgr. Recommends
I 1
To HRA
Subject:
P-92-1, Final
Ex I
To Council
Development Plan,
—,
McDonald's, 3220
Action
Motion
Southdale Circle
i
Resolution
Ordinance
o
!
Discussion i
Recommendation:
The Planning Commission recommends approval of the attached,
revised Final Development Plans with one change. That change would
replace the crab trees with larger four inch caliper ash trees.
INFO /BACKGROUND
The attached full size plans reflect the modifications recommended
by the Planning Commission. The building setback and landscaped
area have both been made four feet greater. This produces a
building setback of 28 feet and a landscaped area of 9.5 feet.
LOCATION AP
>r,1
HERITAGE RR I
O t
la /// �� I K � • - r
FAIRVIEW (-
S OU T OA L ---� --�,
HO ! TA
r—�
65 H
� W
2
Q
I3 IQ
ooQ � O C
e
i
1 O 7,F S i I j�
SOUTHDALE ` 1
01
SHOPPING CENTER
1
• Vt El
x
�.
FINAL DEVELOPMENT
NUMBER -R-92 -1 PLAN.
LOCATION McDonald' s , 3220 Southdale Circle
REQUEST Rebuild of the restaurant
EDINA PLANNING D_E ARTMENT-
Executed and Recorded Proof of Parking Agr ent.
2. Conservation easement over the westerl feet of the
e.
Commissioner Clelland said i appears from the plans
presented that the p nent has met a conditions recommended by
city council.
Commissioner Workinger stioned when work would commence.
Mr. Larsen responded that i of sure when work will commence
and added if they do no act wit three years the proposal may
have to be re- heard.
.Commission aust moved to recommenclnal Rezoning subject
to staff co ions. Commissioner Workinger conded the motion.
Ayes, Faust, McClelland, Workinger, Bryan, Shaw, Johnson. Nays;
Hale. Motion carried.
P -92 -1 Final Development Plan, McDonald's 3220
(� Southdale Circle
Mr. Larsen informed the Commission the subject property
measures approximately one acre in size, is zoned PCD -3, Planned
Commercial District, and is developed with a McDonald's restaurant.
The restaurant has 105 indoor seats, an outdoor patio seating area
and a drive -thru facility. The existing use is supported by a 54
space parking lot.
Mr. Larsen explained that McDonald's has submitted plans for
a complete rebuild of the restaurant and parking lot. The only
improvement not to change would be.the concrete trash enclosure in
the northeasterly corner of the site. The redeveloped restaurant
would have 105 seats and 85 parking spaces. The Zoning Ordinance
requires one space for each three seats plus one space per employee
on the major shift. In this case about 50 spaces would be
required.
The existing building is about 3,500 square feet in size and
has a basement. The proposed building would be about 4,400 square
feet but would not have a basement. The proposed exterior
materials are stucco, split face concrete block and a shingled
mansard roof. If the split face block were replaced with face
brick the exterior materials would comply with Ordinance
requirements.
Mr. Larsen pointed out the PCD -3 District requires a 50 foot
building setback, from all property lines. The proposed new
building provides the necessary setback from the north, west and
south property lines, but provides only a 24 foot setback from the
easterly property line. Thus, a 26 foot building setback variance
is requested. Continuing, Mr. Larsen said in commercial districts
parking setbacks are required only at the boundary of the district.
In this case the only boundary is along the easterly property line
where a 10 foot setback is required. The proposed plan suggests a
five foot setback. Thus, a five foot parking setback.variance is
required..
Mr. Larsen concluded the proposed redevelopment is a result of
McDonalds efforts to address accessibility standards prescribed by
the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). In order to meet the
standard extensive internal remodeling would be required. The
proponents have chosen instead to pursue a redevelopment of the
site. The proposed plan offers a number of improvements. Most
notably, more on -site parking And increased stacking space for the
drive -thru window. The plan also re- orients the window board to
the south away from the residents to the east. On the negative
side both the building and parking /drive aisle areas are moved
closer to,the east property line, and would require variances as
proposed.
Staff would recommend approval of the Final Development Plan
with the following modifications:
1. Parking /drive aisle setback be increase to 10 feet along
the easterly property line. Also, the proposed crab
trees should be replaced with larger (5 inch caliper).
overstory deciduous trees.
2. The building should be moved west to provide a greater
setback from the east property line. This would
eliminate some parking. Approximately 15 spaces would be
lost.
3. Replace split face concrete with face brick on building
exterior, and reface trash enclosure to match new
buildings.
Mr. Chuck Barnes, representing McDonalds Corporation was
present to respond to questions from the Commission.
Chairman Johnson questioned if the fences that presently
separate McDonalds from the residential properties would stay. Mr.
Larsen said the fence would stay. Continuing, Mr. Larsen said
there will also be new plantings installed and the squawk box will
be relocated toward the south away from the residences.
Mr. Craig Barnes explained the reason McDonalds is rebuilding
results from the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) . He said in
the beginning McDonalds planned to just do internal remodeling, but
the intensity of the remodel made razing the building a much more
workable response to this act. Mr. Barnes indicated that he does
not have a problem with the suggestions indicated by staff. He
stated brick will be used, additional landscaping will.be planted
and the trash enclosure will be refaced. Mr. Barnes said the
reason the landscaping plans indicated plantings that do not exceed
a certain height is due to the overhead power lines. He said he
will be willing to work with staff on the planting of overstory
trees. Mr. Larsen said what he wanted to achieve as a result of
recommending planting of overstory trees was vegetation would grow
over the fence height which would `soften the impact of the
structure.
Commissioner Workinger noted Mr. Barnes indicated he would
support the changes recommended by staff including the
recommendation that the new building be moved farther away from the
east property. line. Commissioner Workinger questioned if Mr.
Barnes felt that proposal was best. Mr. Barnes indicated that
McDonalds believes the originally submitted plan is best, but would
be able to "live with" the proposal recommended by staff. He
explained that he feels the proposal submitted by McDonalds affords
better traffic flow and preferable handicapped parking that would
not interfere with the drive -thru flow.
Commissioner Shaw asked if McDonalds would retain the outdoor
eating space. Mr. Barnes said it is the intent of McDonalds to
retain the outdoor eating area.
Commissioner Faust asked Mr. Barnes the time frame for
construction to commence, and to be completed. Mr. Barnes said
McDonalds is aiming for construction to commence on August 26,
1992, and re -open for business toward the end of November.
Commissioner Workinger said he believes McDonalds should be
commended for responding to the ADA. Continuing, Commissioner
Workinger said that while he understands staff's proposal to
increase the setback for the new building from the residential
properties he feels the plan originally submitted is preferable.
He pointed out traffic flows better in the McDonalds proposal, and
the location of the handicapped parking stall is better on the
original proposal. Commissioner Workinger said he can support the
re -build but believes the plan presented by McDonalds works better.
Mr. Barnes said their plan required variances, and he
understands the reasoning behind staff's proposal which locates the
new building farther from the residential properties, and
eliminates variances.
Commissioner Runyan pointed out that it appears that McDonalds
indicate the parking stalls at 20 feet. He questioned Mr. Larsen
if the city still requires 18 feet for parking stalls. Mr. Larsen
responded the city requires 18 feet for parking stalls..
Commissioner Runyan suggested reducing the stalls to 18 feet which
would allow for more spacing, resulting in locating the building
farther from the easterly property line.
Mr. Larsen stated staff thought the plan submitted by
McDonalds was a very good plan but decided to revise a plan that
pulled the building farther away from the residential properties.
Mr. Larsen said to .date McDonalds has been a good neighbor, and the
city has had no complaints from the neighbors regarding McDonalds.
A discussion ensued with Commission Members in agreement that
the plan submitted by McDonalds is preferable to the revised plan
suggested by staff, and if McDonalds decreases the size of parking
stalls the building will be able to be pulled back from the
residential property line.
Commissioner Runyan moved to recommend Final Development Phan
approval of the original plan as submitted by McDonalds. It is
further recommended that the setback from the east property line be
increased from 516" to 916" resulting from a reduction in parking
stall length from 20 feet to 18 feet as required by our ordinance.
Approval is recommended subject to the replacing of the split face
concrete with face brick on the building exterior, and refacing
trash enclosure to match new the new building. Approval is
recommended to include McDonalds working with city staff to
implement the new landscaping. Commissioner Hale seconded the
motion. All voted aye ;. motion carried.
EDINA_COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 27, 1992
STAFF REPORT
P -92 -1 Final Development Plan, McDonald's 3220
Southdale Circle
The subject property measures approximately one acre in size,
is zoned PCD -3, Planned Commercial District, and is developed with
a McDonald's restaurant. The.restaurant has 105 indoor seats, an
outdoor patio seating area and a drive -thru facility. The existing
use is supported by a 54 space parking lot.
McDonald's has submitted plans for a complete rebuild of the
restaurant and parking lot. The only improvement not to change
would be the concrete trash enclosure in the northeasterly corner
of the site. The redeveloped restaurant would have 105 seats and
85 parking spaces. The Zoning Ordinance requires one space for
each three seats plus one space per employee on the major shift.
In this case about 50 spaces would be required.
The existing building is about 3,500 square feet in size and
has a basement. The proposed building would be about 41400 square
feet but would not have a basement. The proposed exterior
materials are stucco, split face concrete block and a shingled
mansard roof. If the split face block were replaced with face
brick the exterior materials would comply with Ordinance
requirements.
The PCD -3 District requires a 50
all property lines. The proposed
necessary setback from the north, west
but provides only a 24 foot setback
line. Thus, a 26 foot building setback
commercial districts parking setbacks
boundary of the district. In this case
the easterly property line where a 10
The proposed plan suggests a five foot
parking setback variance is required.
Recommendation:
foot building setback from
new building provides the
and south property lines,
from the easterly property
variance is requested. In
are required only at the
the only boundary is along
foot setback is required.
setback. Thus, a five foot
The proposed redevelopment is.a result of McDonalds efforts to
address accessibility standards prescribed by the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA). In order to meet the standard extensive
internal remodeling would be required. The proponents have chosen
instead to pursue a redevelopment of the site.. The proposed plan
offers a number of improvements. Most notably, more on -site
parking and increased stacking. space for the drive -thru window.
The plan also re- orients the window board to the south away from
the residents to the east. On the negative side both the building
and parking /drive aisle areas are moved closer to the east property
line, and would require variances as proposed.
Staff would recommend approval of the Final Development Plan
with the following modifications:
1. Parking /drive aisle setback be increase to 10 feet along
the easterly property line. Also, the proposed crab
trees should be replaced with larger (5 inch caliper)
overstory deciduous trees.
2. The building should be moved west to provide a greater
setback from the east property line. I would suggest a
setback of approximately 42 feet, or an 8 foot variance
instead of the requested 26 foot variance. This would
eliminate some parking, however, considering the number
of excess spaces, according. to code, I think it is a
desirable trade off. Approximately .15 spaces would be
lost.
3. Replace split face concrete with face brick on building
exterior, and reface trash enclosure to match new
buildings.
-
ffJERRL win
II
ORIGINAL SITE
PLAN
�A,_ �- .-
.
Eh(Nf rt 9TmA0< AlIL01tL
atr r rwR
N
I
I
- RELOCATE
- I E%IST IrO
E%ff Slm ,
F'� � � — �
I
— —
Fr]SIIND Cmtl6Tf
9l dennpE BUILDING
nln vane r.wo.mnla um r
rnuu *D.
I W
XINEAPRI9
vo n lw vvO,a eennnls n
I
Sf
- -
V
I 4
6•R
I
..
CSC. -WE
ra. Bmrlr Rru.rnew.DV.
.. I H !2
- eErcnoEa I „.
10P K TOR H/i\
_
6'R
nnr
t'R CUT~ 'R
"1111w
6 t !'./- R AMA'M
o r
wvaa rmw van ,a mmnn
-
FIRE XYplpll 1'•
ELEV aal. If
EXISTIM
XCOUILD'S
1
i
P
-
. u�
vvv. vm.uvu. rn. rxvlDUa m..
nun r r.l. r r.• mllr
- — — — — — — ID 51m i
RELOCATE EXISTING
FLAG ROLE
RELDfiTE EXISTING
FNTRRxCE SIGN
SOUT HDALE ,� p c
B•
60'R
{'R
9,
p 1'A
b, •M %6i-
YRIE! mD6! fl6
NOTE:^�
1 ALL DIIENSIOxS TD FACE R CURB.
z SEE 51ltVEY Fm BOIfiDARY
WK.— m0 BEOI IHCS.
!. 0.L ElF%RTIP4
EL: I'll" mD f�41UIlI0rKEYf511rO
6. E%19TIN0 [6SRElE CVIBS
10 RCWIIN INDICATED BI
—1. Y c1i1fPTIW
men)
moron BpF aXM1LK {• oman RDO (a m f) M!
.... TRM EaAIi..ITUIWG fW110 9ML Z !• Y.t
R9mffll a1. YXIEMIVOn m1t5! fMl�lx i aB. BS. vF OIL
mnU61 (m 001 !LC' OtaXl) fOaKlfn 10 RS{ wa4nl
�1:. COGlR RaYMM {X4 t Y UN)FIKOIQD AI
. F.1.- Ix t• mt! vITX K aIR rI1RAlnfnl 40 .•
al t0'ri0',WTM Nd! atsniLlNU vITX
/ /(r. `�
V,V,
0
TELE— BOY -
Y
-
ena o.[nFn wm aRPI1FD vllX raEDm al.
O
I
g _
�rgyQu
6
o
�'
s
-
0
C55
fFa!
vvvCCC,,, S
LDTL LIDMIM 1¢CmK ✓ lm
LOT LZ Llovtl�0 {TalrO. ir. I-l00 -Llaxl Il
T uanlxD Na19r[p' .� 'a. TnT °,." r a.c.
Fl—
YA
LX
I
E %ISIIMO EDNL£
s-1.a
�
I.—Tim
,orw
fYF4
f! .a�9 ,
if
aau]
❑
t0'R
�
C
� !
urlurr 1—TIM
- -
g
- I
rRRNSfaRKn
T� mD
SIDE TYRE LO Tim
I 6•R
a
rVwaD n' lo0i 1 lroYiTIrB�K.
-
[. lisvl
aL00il, ;Ox; XIVNE90Ta {f VD
ain: 6rlirRi I I1 - {f m
kl
�
F
a
e
I
LEOENO
' -
�
a
- I
■ 1
1 1,
1 1
11NLf1 aomf 99
3220 SOUTHDALE CIRCLE
Cllr STATE
FIRM
ORTE
BY
I
I
-
'
_
EDINA MINNESOTA
RaLTBIX)aY
{ '
camrr
HENNEPIN
nm crFafn
as -BUILT
-
REG16/a OvO. M
M/W= 29 -7'1
CORIOMTE fuG. M.
SP
' -
MODIFIED SITE PLAN REJECT BY COMMISSION
. rrr••60wr•r rrrrrrlr
wwr+rrrrs rrr ,
• �= = � -rte +YY
rrw rrwrr•rwrrrr►
a +6.26.6. ■rrra w�•r
r 6.w 6.w Y rrw. r 6060 r r r
• w +wrrrr� rrr .Y
6.6.6.6. rrw•r•a
• rrr rrw+r wrrrrwr
rsr ■rwrrrrrr�
�r •rrr
• rrr�rirrrrur 60.6.6.
r 60+•••60 rrrw�rw
6./w w r r 6060 •rrr 6. r +•
wrr +rlw 6060 r r_ e r
w6.
• rrrr•rrr�rrrrrr ��
rrrrwrrrr•r�+r -
• rwrrrrwrriwr•r
�a
r rrwwrrwrrr� rrr
rlYYrrr 6.w rrrrw)
r wrr w�•+r r rlrro
r rrrrrrrr4rwrrw
w rr.w+ 60•.6.6..6. w
o- w 6060 �• +•• r•• rw
5220 SOUTHDALE CIRCLE 1 111111111 1
stn 90r1 •1.116. loR
EDINR III"SOIR FWXWA 6.r 6.rnr
mum nwr nano
WH E ►IN r-lunt
M/1to1, u - 6.a 2 9 r -71 am"Im... a SP _ 1
116.6./ 6060 r w•6. 606.2 w w a6. a
Irrr •r " R •Ia11 �A r A rrrY
/ / /r•
ran. rar ro•r1 606.1• r � lorw r
w 1.aa r M w 6.l• 6. M 26.6.6..1.6. Y
V)V1
I
a1r1 rdl r r'rltirrr w• tr• •1A
d 1
r• ar0 N �1r 6060. 116.6. 6060 /.
O
r w.rrri rrr•rr�
• r= rrr wrwrr rrr
•+6.w �i �� w�rr�
��
0
Nt 111016. !a•Mtlr
1
6060tH ~00 •r•11r I6.•. 6.600"
•"• mmOM r ON V twur r •a
t i ...1ar•1.10 •Y•
I �n
O '
6..•w 6.w rrrrrrrrrr
- latlrr Mtr•r11•
Q
Q
,� a s • r r
r •� • r r•
• w6. • r •r
,1
roam trrlrn No
'
6.r
■6.l w
3E
ara
r
.IYMt Irr•wtml
Yw 6060 \y I6.•• Yin•" t6..
6060 4 6.••11.16.6. r" 111n
-
026.26.26.. 6..•w 116.6.
Ir111 mm 0.11 rl•/rr
a
4w
EE
r MM
4
6006. M w6.
5220 SOUTHDALE CIRCLE 1 111111111 1
stn 90r1 •1.116. loR
EDINR III"SOIR FWXWA 6.r 6.rnr
mum nwr nano
WH E ►IN r-lunt
M/1to1, u - 6.a 2 9 r -71 am"Im... a SP _ 1
�t
t
�; h 0
u-
GENERAL NOTES �
w
1.
c SD's ROAD SIGN SIGN CONTRFCTOft-
COtVAT Ate WIRING THE SENMqL C00RACTOR.
.
WM3, ANCHCOt SOLTS, COMIT. AtO WIRING FOR ALL OTHR
SIGM ARE BY T - CONTRACTER
3 IT To C, TI T THE LOT ' PMI-
WMR FOR LOT LIGHTING Is BY T i CONTRACTOR. LIOW-
INS
OWJER/DPERATOR
.
BASES FOR FLASPOLES ARE BY THE GENERAL CONTRMTOR-
TS AM BY THE FLAWOU %FPLIER.
PROPOSED UTILITIES IN SCHEMATIC ONLY- EXACT
TI oNs Sfo-L BE DF-TEM41NED TO ALLOU FOR THE MMT
ECOWHICAL INSTALLATION,
L
S.
THE CONTRACTOR TF wrTH ALL UTILrTY COWANIES
TO DETERMIME MMt POINT ' I T T EXISTING
UTILITY. TO T W- BUILDING ELECTRICAL PLUMBING
DRAWINGS FOR UrILITY $MICE ENTRANCE LOCATIONS# SIZES-
CIRCUITIW.
°.
ALL ELEVATIOM SHDWN ARE IN REFERENCE TO THE BEWRVW
AtO T BE VERIFIED Y T _ COWWTOR AT
w
S.
FINISH T°I L BE Sm ABOVE FINISH
PAVEWENT.
1,t.8
f
ALL LANDSCAPE [ T
r
T . FINISH I °I
AND SFRIWLER SYSTEM Y THE T
.
L r LIGNITNO CONCWE FOOTINGS T WITH THE SOILS
FWPMT RECOMMe"TIONS FOR THIS PWTICULAR srTE.
11.
REFER TO SITE DETAILS F D- T. AND B.D. LOCATIOW
PAVING SPECIFICATION
TAE x' L ? ROCK L. �
z.
re L L` BASE
COURSE ��� (Mn SPEC
�� AND � NG G ` MIN OIL
T DOT E . #2341 °° 5
-SHAL'
nL 2 Y` " V T t MFT T
GENERAL S
u�
I
M004140'3 ROAD ,;
IT WTI T
BOLTS, rT. F T
I W TRACT
.
IT TO LWATIOM SHOW AT THE LOT PMI-
WM FOR .T LISHTINS 13 SY TWE GENERAL T,. LIOW-
INQ FIXTURES. IT. AND VIRIM THE
OWNER/OPERATOR.
r
SAWS FOR FLAGPGLF-S BY THE G&AML CONTRACTOR.
fXXTS ARE BY T14E FLAGPa.E SAPPLIER.
-
S.
PROPOWD UTILtTrES IN SCM.94ATIC ONLY. EXACT
LOCATIOM TO ALLOW FOR THE MOST
EM40MICAL It6TALLATTON.
S.
THE CWRACTOR SMALL COMINATE WITH ALL UTILITY
TO I T POINT OF SfRVICE CONNECTION T EXISTING
UTILITY. TO T W- BUILDING ELECTRICAL PLUMBING
DRAWINGS f0ft UTILITY M LOCATIONS, SIZES, AND
CIRCUITING.
T.
ALL 8-EVATIONS SHOWN IN REFERENCE T THE DENCRVM
AND T BE VERIFIED Y THE GEMMIL CWWTOR T
S.
FINISH T'I FINISH
PAVEMEW.
«
AU, L # QfW0 TO V BELOW
T « FINISH WMIND, LANDSCAPItO,
AO SPRIWLEft SYSTE" T
.
LOT LIGHITNG CONCRETE FOOTD40S TO COWORN WITH THE 30ILS
/MANHOLE
EXISTING
CONCRETE STOWAGE BUILDING
uj
L
T W_ SION CONTWCTOR4
WIRINS ARE BY T T
>.
..
a.
k
if
,.
K
T # COMIT, AND WIRINS FOR ALL OTWER
},T
x
I Y T - COWWCTER
"--EXISTING CONCRETE
314" EMPTY COtWIT TO LOCATIONS THE LOOT PERT-
STORAGE BUILDING
ING FIT F. IT, APO WIRING Y T
b.
O' T
C
BASES FOR FLAM'OLES ARE BY T
1/2"C 3/4"C
..." s.
SOLTS ARE Y THE FLAGPOLE
L-L
s
C
5,*
PROPOM UFILITIES ARE SHOWN IN SCHEMATIC ONLY. EXACT
LOMTIONS $HALL BE DETERMINED TO ALLOWFOR THE MOST
mu wa
t
z
NEW
s E
ECONWCAL INSTALLATION.
br
s
k
T T L COORDINATE WITHALL UTILITYCOMPWIES
E
s
"\---EXISTING
BENCHM
UTILITY. REFER TO THE BUILDING ELECTRICAL AND PLUMBING
EXISTING PI4
1 BOARD FENCE ON P
TOP OF TOP NUT
OF 2,5'+/— RETAINING WALL
FIRE HYDRANT
`
ALL T IN REFERENCE TO THE BENCHMARK
EL EV 883-39
AND T IFI Y T .. i`iT T
g.�,jy $$,,
ui
8.
FINISH WALK AND CUM ELEVATIONS L FINISH
L
uj
L
T W_ SION CONTWCTOR4
WIRINS ARE BY T T
T # COMIT, AND WIRINS FOR ALL OTWER
I Y T - COWWCTER
3�
314" EMPTY COtWIT TO LOCATIONS THE LOOT PERT-
METER FOR LOT LIG*fflNG IS BY T T A LIOW-
ING FIT F. IT, APO WIRING Y T
O' T
C
BASES FOR FLAM'OLES ARE BY T
SOLTS ARE Y THE FLAGPOLE
5,*
PROPOM UFILITIES ARE SHOWN IN SCHEMATIC ONLY. EXACT
LOMTIONS $HALL BE DETERMINED TO ALLOWFOR THE MOST
ECONWCAL INSTALLATION.
uj
T T L COORDINATE WITHALL UTILITYCOMPWIES
TO DETERMIW T POINT -MI SMICE CONNECTION T EXISTING
UTILITY. REFER TO THE BUILDING ELECTRICAL AND PLUMBING
DMINGS FOR UTILITY LOCATIOMo SIZES- AND
f$
7.
ALL T IN REFERENCE TO THE BENCHMARK
AND T IFI Y T .. i`iT T
g.�,jy $$,,
ui
8.
FINISH WALK AND CUM ELEVATIONS L FINISH
PAVEMENT.
uj
7.
ALL LfNDSCAPE AMM SMALL BE F009H GftkDED TO e BELOW
TOP OF ALL M. FINISH GMING, LANDSWING-
AND SMTWLER SYSTEMS Y Tt /WEMTOR.
10m
LOT LISHITNO CONCRETE FOOTINGS TO Ti THE SOILS
I T RECOMENDATIONS FOR THIS PARTICLLAR SITFa
11.
REFER TO SITE AILS FOR D. T. AND S-IL LOCATIONS
PAVINO FTN.
(MINIKA4 3" TOTAL COWACTED T" THICKNESS)
PAVEMENT BASE SHALL CRUD (CLASS ) OVER
o.
TYPAR FABRIC. BITUMINOUS 'I L 13E 3" BASE
COLPSE CONTAINING ,MIN. 4.5% OIL CONTENT DOT SPEC.
#2331 AND 2 " WEARING LASE CONTAINING-MIN. 5.0% OIL
®'m
EXISTING CONCRETE
STORAGE BUILDING
MINNEAPOLIS
EXISTING
7'+/- BOARD FENCE
Ltt
OF 2.5'+/ RETAINING WALL
1.
L' x T T CONTRACTOR-
ALL, DIMENSIONS TC PEKE CE CURB.
. SEE SURVEY FOR OUNDI AY'
DIMENSIONS AND BEARINGS.
SHOWN ARE
I A ELEVATIONS
`
;SEE SURVEY FOR EXISTING
"
'PROPOSED.
ELEVATIONS S AND CONDITIONS.
EXISTING CONCRETE CURBS
TO REMAIN INDICATED EX
OWNER/OPERATOR. .
4.
s
z
r
f
CL
S.
z
LWATIONS SHALL BE DETERMINED TO ALLOW FOR THE MOST
ECONOMICAL INSTALLATION.
Ui
m
.
THE _ T - SHALL COORDINATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES
A,4,4711' Uf
E s
&,
4k
CIRGUITING.
7#
ALL ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE IN REFERENCE TO THE BENCHMARK
EXISTING GARAGE
AND KJST BE VERIFIED Y THE GENERAL NT TCR AT
„M
x
.✓°.x;A.a- i ^+ „.w .'f :, a.:;
i t
ate.,. .. r
t ;
£
E
q m
p/" twA m2
k �a
t
.n.
d
LL
_
zi -�''` ,w» &�""w$xi..d- ..., ..,,.
Y o- mss, r y
'*w$f E; xll,! : t"�t #�✓ $-"a %`�'
w.w«
p u
r
} f
$ t w
{
r
v, q
u
x
11.
REFER TO SITE DETAILS FOR D.T. AND B.D. LOCATIONS
a
' r ac I
a '
i J
� 3
w°
f
Ltt
1.
L' x T T CONTRACTOR-
CONDUIT DIRT Y T L T T
por H T' s JITt 8 WI F L OT
I Y T AL C' T
3.
f L T`Y IT TO LOCATIONS W T THE LOT I°
L.CT` LTCHTI IS BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR. LIGHT-
ING IXT o BASES, POLES, CONDUIT, AND WIRING ARE BY THE
OWNER/OPERATOR. .
4.
BASES FOR FLAGPOLES ARE BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR ANCHOR
z
BOLTS Y THE FLAGPOLE L.I _ _.
CL
S.
PROPOSED UTILITIES ARE SHOWN IN . TIC ONLY. EXACT
LWATIONS SHALL BE DETERMINED TO ALLOW FOR THE MOST
ECONOMICAL INSTALLATION.
Ui
m
.
THE _ T - SHALL COORDINATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES
TO DETERMINE EXACT POINT OF SERVICE CONNECTION AT EXISTING
UTILITY. REFER TO T UILDING ELECTRICAL AND PLUMBING
DRAWINGS FOR UTILITY SERVICE ENTRANCE LOCATIONS, IZ a AND
CIRGUITING.
7#
ALL ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE IN REFERENCE TO THE BENCHMARK
AND KJST BE VERIFIED Y THE GENERAL NT TCR AT
FINISH WALK AND CURB ELEVATIONS SHALL BE 6" ABOVE FINISH
PAVEMENT.
>
LL
.
ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS SHALL BE"ROUGH GRADED TO " BELOW
TOP OF ALL WALKS AND CURBS. FINISH GRADING, LANDSCAPING,
AND FEZ LE ` SYSTEMS ARE BY THE OWNER/OPERATOR.
1.
LOT LIGHITNG CONCRETE TI C COWORM WITH THE SOILS
REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THIS PARTICULAR ITT.
11.
REFER TO SITE DETAILS FOR D.T. AND B.D. LOCATIONS
3; (Planned Commercial District 3
SES NOTIE #3 -j (
aa:
� 03
KITCHEN
ii
05
Ila:
NT
LE
t Al
:
11411
-4-
SES NOTIE #3 -j (
aa:
� 03
KITCHEN
05
Ila:
NT
LE
t Al
11411
-4-
L '..
D
s it
-
REPORT/RECOMMENDATION
a.e
To:
Kenneth Rosland
i Agenda Item #
III' C.
From.
Craig Larsen
Consent
1
Information Only
Date:
June 15, 1992
Mgr. Recommends
To HRA
I�i
Subject:
Request to Place
I x1
To Council
Play Equipment in
Action
X
Motion
Conservation Ease-
ment, 6204 Fox
Meadow Lane.
!
'_
Resolution
-
Ordinance
Discussion
Recommendation:
The property owners at 6204 Fox Meadow Lane are requesting city
approval to locate a play system within a Conservation Easement in
their rear yard. The Conservation Easement essentially covers
their entire rear yard. The easement does not allow the placement
of any structure in the'easement area without written approval by
the City (see paragraph 1 on page 2).
The owners have supplied a letter explaining their request, a
survey showing the proposed location and a picture of the play
system.
A courtesy notice was sent to several nearby property owners to
advise them of the request by the McCormick's.
June 4, 1992
Ms. Marcella Daehn
City of Edina /City Clerk
4801 W. 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
Dear Ms. Daehn,
We have been working with Kristine Paulson- Aaker on approval for placing a
'play system' on a conservation easement ( #1438393) in our backyard. Since the
easement prohibits placement of any structures in this area without 'express prior
written approval of Edina', we would like to ask the city council for permission to
place the 'play system' in this area. This is the only area in the yard that the play
system could be placed on since our front yard is small (and landscaped) and there
is no room on either side of our house. The backyard (grass) is sloped except for
the proposed placement area.
The 'play system' (photo enclosed) is constructed of redwood and includes
swings, a slide, and a play platform. It is free standing. It is approximately 28
feet long (with the slide) and 12 feet wide. The dimensions and location are
shaded in on the enclosed site survey of our property.
Secondarily, if the above is approved, could we also have. permission to place
some pea gravel about the base to keep the area from becoming a mud bath when
it rains. The gravel could then be replaced with sod when the system is removed.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
i�YV4
Paul and Janie McCormick
6204 Fox Meadow Lane
Edina, MN 55436
3800 +ss•.. I
r
! / i
o
ti
y
5C'R \!:1 h('!': M /C//.4EL //ALLEY NowES
DESCR TPT In':: I i F. HIucr; ! r1,%K PODS OF
!STICRI ACHE \.
Bc lier•eb^• that this .s a i rue and correct
r•eprese•ntatllm W a sur%ec 1,: the boundaries of thr
land %n—e urscrlbeu and W . .c iucal ion o, a, i
bui ldinL! . ari , tirercun, and all cisihic uncraacil-
mentti. :1 am. iron ur on said land.
baled (Ills 1611. da" of ";,t%'. �'3•i.
i!:!.:) :: \DIt:G. I':.'.
>u,•c t•��In�.
.111nCSlllJ II C�! 1 5l 1'a'
lot,
.,u i:.: a,arrnC• snuN'n arc il.s u.
O:nulca, c• nrupnsca c: c•. al iun.
PROPOSED:
94% 3�
iiascmon' I�I��„�. ej go_ 33
• s*q•sz �+
`1 Iry
rIINr V% Ir
it s! V ED
-c s -zz -s
BY
G:[q of Ecma B,dg. Dept.
T�Arf I T Alt) • `=
I
r
1
vas+rr
N U,) pls•cz
Q•
-
/
9y�rz
C-
r
V
(; Cj
I
3
/
O
kd
N
=
ti.�
S.89 1152 11E,
V�
3768
io 0 Z,
=
io.g
1 ,
%/ r �
��
ivn
s•/T•T q
11l
all t'!
.may
947
9 SH `
i vn n _
= '
jY
t�CO rz'•^IirF
M
az
_ ,' /3urLi3�N6
�
=oearr rs 9q8
\
5C'R \!:1 h('!': M /C//.4EL //ALLEY NowES
DESCR TPT In':: I i F. HIucr; ! r1,%K PODS OF
!STICRI ACHE \.
Bc lier•eb^• that this .s a i rue and correct
r•eprese•ntatllm W a sur%ec 1,: the boundaries of thr
land %n—e urscrlbeu and W . .c iucal ion o, a, i
bui ldinL! . ari , tirercun, and all cisihic uncraacil-
mentti. :1 am. iron ur on said land.
baled (Ills 1611. da" of ";,t%'. �'3•i.
i!:!.:) :: \DIt:G. I':.'.
>u,•c t•��In�.
.111nCSlllJ II C�! 1 5l 1'a'
lot,
.,u i:.: a,arrnC• snuN'n arc il.s u.
O:nulca, c• nrupnsca c: c•. al iun.
PROPOSED:
94% 3�
iiascmon' I�I��„�. ej go_ 33
• s*q•sz �+
`1 Iry
rIINr V% Ir
it s! V ED
-c s -zz -s
BY
G:[q of Ecma B,dg. Dept.
T�Arf I T Alt) • `=
/O' �L'Illoqe -&-o i/ity -eose enf
S.89 °5218 E.
6204 FOX MEADOW LANE
I
II
ScoLE: '
To7,ac L o T ffira.l i s Z/OZ 9 s. F
/NG� o/JrNG %�EC.rS f •��OC//
� 5 Z601 .5 F.
vas+rr
N U,) pls•cz
-
�I
9y�rz
/O' �L'Illoqe -&-o i/ity -eose enf
S.89 °5218 E.
6204 FOX MEADOW LANE
I
II
ScoLE: '
To7,ac L o T ffira.l i s Z/OZ 9 s. F
/NG� o/JrNG %�EC.rS f •��OC//
� 5 Z601 .5 F.
r
•s� 1 LEI -�r-
I s l 1
o�
• ' `� ..S ;IF2 ^t.X! .14.E
Z- 't- r3 %
CONSERVATION RESTRICTION
(Open Space)
THIS INDENTURE, Made this �D -day of
1981, between DONALD D. BYERLY and MARLYS J. BYERL ,
husband and wife (hereinafter called "Owner," whether one
or more), and the CITY OF EDINA, a municipal corporation -
under the laws of the State of Minnesota (hereinafter called
"Edina ").
WITNESSETH:
That Owner, in consideration of One Dollar ($1.00)
and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of
which is hereby acknowledged, does hereby Grant, Bargain,
Sell and Convey unto Edina, its successors and assigns,
Forever, a Conservation Restriction pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes S 84.64, for the purposes and on the terms
hereinafter specified, over, on and across the tract or
parcel of land lying and being in the County of Hennepin
and the State of Minnesota, described in Exhibit A attached
hereto and made a part hereof (hereinafter called "Easement
Area ") .
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD THE SAME, Together with all
the hereditaments and appurtenances thereunto belonging,
or in anywise appertaining, to Edina, its successors and
assigns,.Forever. And Owner, for Owner and Owner's heirs,
representatives., successors and assigns, covenants with
Edina, its successors and assigns, that it is well seized
..
in fee of the Easement Area , and has good right to convey
the interests therein pursuant hereto, and that the
Easement Area is free from all encumbrances except real
estate taxes and installments of special assessments
payable therewith which are not yet due. And the Easement
Area, in the quiet and peaceable possession of Edina, its
successors and assigns, for the purposes. hereby ,granted,
against all persons lawfully claiming or to claim the
whole or any part thereof, subject to the encumbrances
hereinbefore mentioned, Owner will warrant and defend.
The purpose of this Conservation Restriction is
to assure that the Easement Area shall at all times remain
as open space and constitute scenic surroundings. To
accomplish this purpose, Owner, for Owner and Owner's
heirs, representatives, successors and assigns, does
hereby covenant and agree that:
1. No buildings, roads, signs, billboards or
other advertising of any kind, and no utilities or other
structures of any kind shall be hereafter erected or
placed on or above any part of the Easement Area without
the express prior written approval of Edina.
2. No soil or other substance or material shall
be dumped or placed as landfill on the Easement Area
without the express prior written approval of Edina.
3. No trash, waste or unsightly or offensive
materials shall be dumped or placed on the Easement Area.
-2-
4. No loam, peat, gravel, soil, rock or otter
material substance shall be excavated, dreaged or removed
-from the Easement Area without the express prior written
-approval of Edina. -` -
5. No activities detrimental to drainage, flood
control, water conservation, erosion control, or soil
conservation, or other acts or uses detrimental to the
.Easement- Area as a scenic open space shall be conductea or
permitted to ue conducted on the.Easement Area.
- 6. The Easement. Area shall at all-times be kept
planted, shrubbed, sodded and otherwise landscaped
thereinafter collectively called "landscaping ") -by Owner,
Owner's heirs, representatives, successors and assigns, in
a,manner reasonably acceptable to Edina. `
- 7. The Easement Area, including landscaping,
shall be maintained at all times by Owner, Owner's heirs,
representatives, successors and assigns, in-full
compliance with all applicable ordinances-.of -Edina now or
hereafter enacted,
8. This Conservation Restriction shall not
operate to grant to Edina the right to use or improve, or
to permit the public to use or improve, the Easement -Area
as or for a park.
9. The rights and remedies given by Minnesota
Statutes § 84.65'shall be available to Edina. -Also, it
there shall be a violation or breach, or an attempt to
.3-
ti
violate or breach, any of the terms, covenants or
conditions of this Conservation Restriction, Edina may
prosecute any proceedings at law or in equity against the
person, firm or corporation violating or breaching, or
attempting to violate or breach, any such term, covenant
or condition, to either prevent such violation or breach
or to recover damages for such violation or breach. Also,
Edina, in the event of such violation or breach, without
notice, may, at its option, undertake to perform the term,
covenant or condition so violated or breached, and the
cost incurred, including attorneys' fees, with interest at
the highest rate then allowed by law, or, if no maximum
rate is applicable, then at the rate of twelve percent
(12 %) per annum, shall be payable by Owner, Owner's heirs,
representatives, successors and assigns, on demand made by
Edina, its successors and assigns, and Owner, Owner's
heirs, representatives, successors and assigns shall also
pay all costs of collection thereof, including attorneys'
fees, with interest thereon as above provided, iF payment
is not made on demand, whether suit be brought or not. In
addition to other remedies then available for collection
of such costs and interest, Edina may charge such costs
and interest against the Easement Area and any other
property then included in the same tax parcel. as the
Easement Area, in the same manner as special assessm?nts
-4-
(without, however, any notice or hearing of any kind) and
collect the same with the real estate taxes against the
whole of such tax parcel which are payable in the year
following the year such costs and interest are so charged.
If such charges are not paid, the whole of such tax parcel
may be sold and conveyed in the same manner as lands
forfeited for nonpayment of real estate taxes are sold and
conveyed.
10. The terms, covenants and conditions hereof
shall run with the land and shall be binding on all
present and future owners and occupiers of the Easement
Area, and shall only inure to the benefit of Edina, its
successors and assigns, and may be amended or modified at
anv time and from time to time, by the sole act of Edina
and the then owner of the Easement Area, and may be
released at any time by the sole act of Edina.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, Owner has caused these
,.presents to be executed the day and year first above
written.
Donald D. Byerly
Ma lys J. Byerly ^'
This instrument is exempt from State Deed Tax.
-5-
200' B1 ak:e Road
`dina,.Minnesota 554 36
June 11, 199
TO THE MEMBERS OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL:
This letter is in response to the request by Paul and Janice McCormick,
6204 Fox: Meadow Lane to place a structure on Open Space Conservation
Easement #1438393.
To place the proposed structure, would be in direct violation of our
Deeded 75 foot Use Easement on the rear of our property down to the lake.
We have included Exhibits A & B, which were attached to our original
purchase agreement for the 'lot.. These ex hibits are highlighted as
appropriate.
We also object to their request for the following reasons:. Edina has
consistently made a strong effort to conserve natural resources, including
habitat for wildlife. As homeowners sharing a portion of this Easement,
we are privileged to be able to enjoy wildlife in their natural. habitat.
We see several families of Wood Ducks that seem to return, for some
unknown reason, March 27th of each year. Housing is provided to ensure
tl Lei W continued existence in the middle of a large metropolitan area.
During the eight years we have lived in our home, we have seen the deer
count decline, now down to only 1 or ? with each new structure added
around the pond. The Conservation Easement has obviously assisted these
animals to attempt to live in concert with humans, i.e. it has provided a.
"safe" barrier between humans and animals. We also enjoy each year the
ritual of turtles coming out of the pond and up.onto our lawns to
carefully lay their eggs for the next generation. These things can only
= ontinue with the Conservation Easement intact. An added benefit of this
is the beautiful tranquil setting created by all of the lawns, trees, etc.
sloping down to the lake creating a park-like atmosphere.
The former owners of 6204 Fox Meadow Lane, the Whitneys, had a small girl
for whom they built a large terraced permanent sandbox: type structure that
adjoins the deck: of the present owners.. This is not indicated on the site
survey submitted to the city by the McCormick's. This area is quite
private in that it is beautifully landscaped around it. The former owners
had, on this setting, a very large play system structure such as Mr. &
Mrs. McCormick: propose. They also had room for a doll house that was
appropriate for small children to play in. Clearly there is adequate
space to utilize, that would not compromise the Conservation Easement, nor
our Deeded Use Easement.
We firmly request that the Easement be left intact, so that humans and
wildlife can continue to share the backyard with appropriate space and
safety for each. Such action can only enhance the future for the next
generation of humans and wildlife.
Due to circumstances beyond our control, we are unable to attend the
Council Meeting.
Sincere y,
Bengt E. & Ann L. Nilsson
Enclosures
.. MEA o
•�.- I ./ ,
LANE
2 2
I f
c 3 I , 7
► It
.rss•/ovr'w /is sv
.b,
s FOX MEADOW
OUTLOT
A •Y
LANE
I
I
►
SHEET 2 OF 2 SHEETS
OC
EGAN,FIES INC. JR.T. DOC. NC
0
PONDS
OF
I N T E R L H E N
RE No SAK,
.
1..
•f'i`
t
—- . �I� - .YS3•I I! I✓ /9000•
I
i o\
► IL 10. 2w
'.
3 , ,
BEARINGS SHOWN ARE ASSUMED
-. ,�
1 6 `' s ir•s.'re E �f000
-,DENOTES IRON MONUMENT
LDENOTES JUDICIAL LANDMARK
l� 'f J
w of
C
6
! pr •,n •'.1 •rl 1 •51.1 „] ul f•w h.yl
:FOX
,
A
' , II•n.,-�f
�
.Il
•*..1];� O.II •.fl •M. ••1 in:.,.l 'r ,rt ..If
.. MEA o
•�.- I ./ ,
LANE
2 2
I f
c 3 I , 7
► It
.rss•/ovr'w /is sv
.b,
s FOX MEADOW
OUTLOT
A •Y
LANE
I
I
►
SHEET 2 OF 2 SHEETS
"RIDER" TO THAT PURCHASE AGREEMENT
0
DATED DECEMBER 20, 1982,
RESPECTING LOT 7, BLOCK 1, "OAK PONDS OF INTERLACHEN"
$31,000.00 by the parties entering into a Contract for Deed providing for monthly installments
in the amount of $280.00 or more, to include interest, which shall begin to accrue on the date
of closing, at the rate of ten percent (10 %) per.annum. Said monthly payments of principal and
interest shall commence thirty (30) days after the date of closing and shall continue on the
same day of each month thereafter until February 1, 1984, at which time the entire unpaid
principal balance together with accrued interest shall be due and payable in. full. Payments
shall be applied first to accrued interest, and second to the reduction of principal balances.
Buyer has the right to prepay this Contract for Deed at any time without penalty.
Buyer, at his sole expense, within nine (9) months from the date of commencement of construction,
shall improve lot as follows: sod and maintain the side yards and the front yard of his lot
including right of way to street (boulevard), and pave and maintain driveway from garage to street
Buyer, at his sole expense, within eight (8) months from the date of commencement of construc-
tion shall complete exterior of house according to plans and specifications. Upon submission
of house plans and site plan showing location of house and driveway on lot to Seller, Buyer .must
also submit color chip showing exterior color of house.
The terms, covenants and conditions of this Purchase Agreement shall survive the closing of this
transaction and therefore shall continue in full force and effect after the closing.
Buyer acknowledges that Seller has informed Buyer that the subject premises are to be subject to
certain protective covenants and that a copy of the same has been delivered to Buyer. Buyer
further acknowledges that Buyer has reviewed said protective covenants and hereby approves the.
same and agrees that Buyer shall not object to Seller's title to the subject premises by reason
of the existence of said protective covenants or anything contained therein provided, however,
nothing herein contained shall preclude Buyer from objecting to Seller's title to the subject
premises in the event that any existing condition of the subject premises is violative of any of
the terms and conditions of the protective covenants.
Seller agrees to have the following services installed.in the subject development at Seller's
expense: underground (if available) telephone service, electrical and natural gas. Any refundsr
lo.f monies deposited at the City or utility companies shall be the sole property of the Seller.
Except as expressly set forth, herein. Seller shall not be required to make any improvements
which are not specifically outlined in this Agreement to the subject premises of any kind as a
condition herein as a precedent or subsequent to the sale contemplated herein. Without limiting
the generality of the foregoing, it is understood that the cost of terracing, lot grading, soil
testing, sodding, landscaping, tree planting, retaining walls, tree removal and water and sewer
connection or hook -up charges shall be the sole obligation of Buyer.
Notwithstanding anything contained herein to the contrary, it is understood that the obligations
of Buyer pursuant to this Purchase Agreement are contingent upon the following:
1. Lot to be approved by architect. .
2. .Ability to obtain building permit on lot.
3.. Satisfactory soil sample testing for lot.
4. Lawyer's approval of title and purchase agreement for lot.
5. As shown on Exhibit A, the area which is approximately 75' in width which lies
directly west of Lot 7, and which is the northerly part of Lot 5, Block 1, Oak
Ponds of Interlachen is marked in "green ".; it is agreed by the Seller that
the Buyer will have an easement right to use this area along with the
owner of Lot 5, Block 1; however, neither the owner of Lot 7 nor the owner of
Lot 5 will be permitted to construct any building in this easement area and,
in fact, neither will be permitted to alter the existing vegetation unless
the owners of Lot 5, Lot 7 and the Seller, herein, are of mutual accord. Seller
! shall render to Buyer this easement at the time, the contract for deed is
aid in ull.
uyer has right to commence construction of home at time of closing and final
balloon payment due.on final closing of home on or before February 1, 1984.
In the event that Buyer does not obtain satisfaction of the conditions set forth above on or
before February 1, 1983, Buyer shall have the option, exercisable by written notice given to
Seller on or before February 1, 1983, to (1) waive satisfaction of any thing unsatisfied condi-
tion; or (2) elect to terminate this Purchase Agreement, in which latter event, this Purchase
Agreement shall be null and void and of no further effect, and neither party shall have any
further liability to the other hereunder except that the earnest money referred to herein shall
be refunded immediately to Buyer, provided nothing contained in this last sentence shall be
construed to prevent Buyer from waiving satisfaction of any unsatisfied condition or terminating
this Purchase Agreement prior to February 1, 1983.
This offer to be void, if not accepted in writing by Buyer no later than 12:00, noon,
° T : REQUEST FOR PURCHASE
�v.
TO: Mayor Richards and Council Members
- - - - — FROM. - -- Bob-- Kojetin; --Park and Recreation Department
VIA: Kenneth Rosland City Manager
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $5.000
DATE: June 3, 1992 AGENDA ITEM v. A.
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Redwood benches and trash containers, for Golf Course
Company Amount of Quote or &d
1. Minnesota Ironworks 1. $5,775.00
2. Flanagan Sales 2. $6,120.00
3. Earl F. Anderson 3. $6,823.16
4. 4.
5. 5. ,
RECOMMENDED QUOTE OR BID:
Minnesota Ironworks $5,775.00
GENERAL INFORMATION:
New.benches and trash containers for new tee oasis, which is part of the
continual upgrading of all the tees.at the 18 hole course at
Braemar Golf Course.
The Recommended bid is
94,
y
within'budget not within
enneth Rosldnd. City
WallinVf inance Director ,
QUOTATION - - - -
LOCAL: (612) 633 -1906 FAX: 612 - 633 -2019
FLANAGAN SALES, INC.
Suppliers of Park Recreational Equipment & Site Amenities
P.O. BOX 12886. ST. PAUL, MN 55112 WATS MN 800 - 362.3508
1460 W. CTY. RD. C. RROSEVILLE. MN 551113 OTHER STATES 800 -328 -3557
Braemar
L
In compliance with your .request of
May 27, 1992.
DATE
CONTACT PERSON: Todd Anderson
PROJECT:
J TELEPHONE:
5/20/92 Site Furnishings
for a price quotation on
supplied by
Victor Stanely we wish to submit the following:
Quantity
Catalog
Number
Description
Unit Price
Extension
9
HPF -24
Redwood Waste container without lid
$369.00
$3,321.00
9
#8
6' bench, 2 x 4 redwood slats, direct bury
$295.00
$2,655.00
Quoted price is supply only
Quotation in effect until: June 22, 1992
Sub -Total $6,120.00
Edina, MN
61% Includ
We quote you as above F.O.B.
Sales Tax
Shipment can be made in: 4 -6 weeks aro
Included
Freight
Terms: 20 days ner invoice
TOTAL
IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR ORDERING
The purchase order should be made outto :
r anagan Sales, Inc. They w ill invoice you upon shipment
. .
Send the order to. FLANAGAN SALES, INC. as shown above, thereby authorization can be completed before the order is processed.
3. TO EXPEDITE SH I PMENT, three items should showon your purchase request tax exemption number(if exempt), ADDRESS FOR . SILLING, andADDRESS
FOR DELIVERY.
F qe SN SALES, INC.
sy
Flanag
n
Earl F. Andersen, Inc.
9808 James Circle
Bloomington. MN 55431
Phone: 612 - 884 -7300
MN WATS: 1- 800 - 862 -6026
FAX: 612-884-5619
complete consulting, design, layout and Installation services.
•
BRAEMAR GOLF COURSE.
6364 Dewey Hill Road
Edina, MN 55434
Attn; Todd Anderson
Park and Playground Equipment
: Traffic Control Signs and Products
3 Site Furnishings
7 Custom Signs and Markings
* Bleacher and Stadium Seating
7 Traffic Marking Products
9 Scoreboard
3 Sign Post Mounting Systems
* Floating Docks
7 Architectural Signage
3 Nature/Boardwalks
QUOTATION
Date May 28, 1992
Your Ref. No.
• TERMS: Net 30 Days )p
To Be Arranged ❑
j QUANTITY DESCRIPTION PRICE EACH TOTAL
9 DuMor. #39 -60R 6 Foot .Benches $364.00 $3,276.00
9 DuMor #44 -OOR Redwood Receptacles 371.00 3,339.00
i
Less loo Discount 661.50
Installation prices based on prevailing wages. SUBTOTAL
El YES
SALES TAX
j ❑ NO FREIGHT 482.69
INSTALLATION
TOTAL
F.O.B. Factory ❑ Destination KI WE ARE AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Shipment approx. 4 weeks after receipt of order.
NOTE: This quotation valid for 30 days.
Please write for confirmation after that date. By G
ICHAEL DORSEY
REQUEST FOR PURCHASE
TO: MAYOR RICHARDS AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY
COUNCIL
FROM: RALPH CAMPBELL, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNICATIONS
VIA: Kenneth Rosland. City Manager
- - -= - -
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $5.000
DATE 11 JUNE 1992
AGENDA ITEM V • B
ITEM DESCRIPTION: "ABOUT TOWN" PRODUCTION SERVICES
Company
Amount of Quote or Bid.
�• J. PATRICK MOORE & COMPANY
11,182.50
2.
2.
3.
3.
4.
4.
5.
5.
RECOMMENDED QUOTE OR BID:
J. PATRICK MOORE & COMPANY
GENERAL INFORMATION:
"ABOUT TOWN" MAGAZINE
PRODUCTION SERVICES
SPRING 1992 EDITION
The Recommended bid is
r �
within budget not with' b et Jot n Firn
Kenneth Rosland Cit Ma ger
na
REQUEST FOR PURCHASE
TO: MAYOR RICHARDS AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: RALPH CAMPBELL, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNICATIONS
VIA: Kenneth Rosland. City Manager
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $5.000
DATE: 11 JUNE 1992 AGENDA ITEM V: C
ITEM DESCRIPTION: "ABOUT TOWN" MAGAZINE PRINTING SERVICES
Company Amount of Quote or Bid
�• J. PATRICK MOORE & COMPANY 8,854.38
2. 2.
3. 3.
4. 4.
5. 5.
RECOMMENDED QUOTE OR END:
J. .PATRICK MOORE & COMPANY
GENERAL INFORMATION:
"ABOUT TOWN" MAGAZINE
PRINTING
SPRING 1992 EDITION
� A
AOV
Signat re Dep ent
The Recommended bid is
within budget not with' bu Jo I• Finan Director
Kenneth Rosiand C• y Manager
o
e7.
�v
REPORT /RECOMMENDATION
To: Mayor & City Council
From: Jane Paulus, Fran
Hoffman, I -494 Proj.
Mgmt. Team Members
Date: 17 June, 1992
Subject: I -494 Draft Environ-
mental Impact
Statement
Recommendation:
Agenda Item #
Consent ❑
Information Only F
Mgr. Recommends
To HRA
Q
To Cou
Action 0
Motion '
❑
Resotuti
❑
Ordinan
Authorize letter of transmittal or resolution to Minnesota
Department of Transportation regarding Draft Environmental
Impact Statement.
Info /Background
ncii
on
ce
The Minnesota Department of Transportation conducted a public
hearing at the Edina Community Center on June 10th, 1992. The
City of Richfield and City of Bloomington had statements read
into the record supporting Build Alternatives involving adding
two lanes which is Alternative 2 and or 2A (see pages 1 -6 of
attached executive summary). The reason for supporting this
position is that the right -of -way purchases are almost the same
for adding one or two lanes. Also, by supporting alternatives
adding two lanes, one lane could be used for high occupancy
vehicles (HOV).
The following individual comments should be included in the
transmittal:
Report/Recommendation
Agenda Item VI.A.
Page Two
°(A) A build alternative
to existing and
congestion.
to expand I -494 is important due
expected increasing traffic
(B) The single point design alternative for East Bush Lake
Road interchange. This design has the least
environmental impact, is the lowest cost, requires the
smallest amount of right -of -way acquisition, and is
the most efficient interchange. design. The folded
diamonds to the east alternative is not acceptable due
to the extensive impact upon business properties and
the high cost of right -of -way' acquisition. Full
access at East Bush Lake Rod is very important to
mobility in southern Edina.
(C) The 1500 foot long, $35 -40 million main line
bridge /viaduct at Nine Mile Creek, proposed as a
mitigation measure for wetland and 6(f) park land
impacts, does not appear to be justified given-the
limited scope of impact and the ability. to provide
replacement park land and to create replacement value
wetlands at a much smaller public cost. The mainline
bridge over Nine Mile Creek should be designed for
drainage and flood control only.
(D) The Final EIS should include a construction staging
plan and schedule. All efforts should be, made to
retain mobility and access during the construction
period.
(E) The 77th Street /T.H. 100 interchange alternative
should be analyzed to provide the minimum disruption
to adjacent properties as opposed to the maximum
design which involved taking of homes and businesses.
(F) A corridor -wide construction mitigation program should
be developed and Mn /DOT should provide a Congestion
Mitigation Coordinator to implement the mitigation and
transportation demand management strategies.
(G) Sidewalks and consideration for bike lane crossing
over I -494 connecting regional recreational facilities
should be included in bridge designs over I -494.
Examples of such locations as Normandale Lake from
Edina and the recreational facilities west of
Normandale Lake.
Report/Recommendation
Agenda Item VI.A.
Page Three
(H) The City encourages Mn /DOT to continue to analyze
energy consumption and supports efforts to develop
alternative transportation technologies (such as
electric and natural gas vehicles) to help reduce air
quality problems.
(I) Mn /DOT should develop a comprehensive ,relocation
program to encourage business retention. The final
design and right -of -way needs should be identified as
soon as possible to facilitate business and land use
planning decisions.
We would suggest that the City Council discuss the issue of HOV
lanes and the 77th Street Interchange alternative prior to
finalizing the transmittal to Mn /DOT.
June 10, 1992
I -494 Land Acquisition and Relocation
The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) is governed by State and Federal Laws
to provide relocation payments and services to all persons and businesses regardless of race,
color, religion, sex or national origin, displaced as a result of State or Federal Aid Highway
construction. The 1970 Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies
Act passed by Congress, and as amended, provides for these benefits and assistance.
All persons lawfully occupying real property will be informed of their eligibility to receive such
payments as: moving expenses, appraisal fees, housing supplements, closing costs and interest
differential payments. Businesses may be eligible for such payments as: moving expenses,
actual direct loss of tangible personal property, reestablishment expenses, fixed payment options,
searching fees and appraisal fees.
These payments and the eligibility requirements to receive them are further explained in a booklet
entitled, "Relocation Your Rights and Benefits." A more general pamphlet describing an owners
basic legal rights and the procedures that Mn/DOT follows is entitled, "A Guide to Property
Owners." Both publications are available this evening in the right -of -way area and at the
reception desk outside the auditorium.
As Mn/DOT proceeds towards highway design and negotiations with landowners, the relocation
staff will personally contact and counsel all occupants in affected properties concerning their
potential relocation benefits. The Department will assist all persons displaced to locate housing
which meets decent, safe and sanitary standards and is within their financial means..
The District relocation staff will assist displaced persons through the entire process. If you have
any questions concerning relocation, one of the Relocation Advisors can be contacted at 591-
4648.
Our District Right -of -Way Engineer, and several of his staff are available this evening, in the
adjacent hallways, to discuss right -of -way procedures and the relocation program.
N10730C
DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Fo*
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT FEDERAL HIGHWAY METROPOLITAN
OF TRANSPORTATION ADMINISTRATION COUNCIL
1.0 SUMMARY
1.1 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND NEED
1.1.1 Proposed Action
The proposed major federal action is the reconstruction of I -494 in
Hennepin County, Minnesota, between I -394 on the west and the
Minnesota River on the east. The segment of I -494 included in this study
serves the Cities of Minnetonka, Eden Prairie, Edina, Bloomington, and
Richfield and the Twin Cities International Airport. The project location,
project limits, and corridor study area (the Corridor) are shown on Figure
1.1.
Alternatives under consideration include a ' no -build alternative, a
transportation system management (TSM) alternative, and two build
alternatives. The build alternatives consist of the addition of one or two
lanes in each direction to I-494 throughout the project area with an option
of designating one lane in each direction for high occupancy vehicles
(HOV's). Interchanges throughout the project area would be reconstructed
to provide preferential HOV access, increase capacity, and improve safety.
1.1.2 Need for Proposed Action
The proposed reconstruction of I -494 is needed to increase the capacity of
I -494 in order to adequately handle existing and future travel demand in
the Corridor and maintain the mobility in the Corridor that exists today.
The proposed reconstruction will also improve the overall safety of the
highway by upgrading the roadway to current design standards.
Existing Capacity Deficiencies
The peak hour traffic volumes on many segments of I -494 within the study
area have reached the capacity of the existing roadway. This results in
reduced speeds and frequently in stop and go traffic in the .AM and PM
peak. hours. Most of the east/west portion of I -494 in the. study area•
currently operates at Level of Service "E" or "F" in the peak hours as does
1 -1
Lornaor oway /Area
® Project Limits
Source: Metropolitan Council Transportation Policy Plan
DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT
STATEMENT
Figure 1.1
PROJECT LOCATION
0 5 10 Mlles
I --- !�!J I
Im494
RECONSTRUCTION
1-394 TO MINNESOTA RIVER J
the segment of I -494 north of TH 7. As volumes continue to increase, the
length of time that this congestion exists will also continue to increase.
An accident or other incident on the facility can cause congestion lasting
several hours.
Projected Economic Development
The I -494 Corridor is the second largest and fastest growing commercial
real estate market in the Twin Cities metropolitan area. More than 50
million square feet of office, industrial and warehouse space currently
exists in the Corridor study area, with another .12 million square feet of
commercial retail space. The cities in the Corridor are projecting the
amount of office space will increase by 85 percent between 1988 and the
Year 2010 with more than a 100 percent increase in the Cities of
Bloomington and Eden Prairie. More than a 80 percent increase in retail
floor space is also projected in the Corridor between 1988 and. 2010.
These projections are consistent with the Metropolitan Council's
population and employment forecasts for the Corridor for the Year 2010.
Future Transportation Demand
The economic growth that is expected in the Corridor is expected to
increase the number of vehicle trips in the Corridor by about 45 percent.
The total number of vehicle miles of travel is expected to increase by
about the same amount. Analysis of the 2010 traffic forecast indicates that
without improvements to I -494 there will be significant increases in traffic
on other roadways in the Corridor including collector streets which serve
residential areas. The increased traffic will reduce the level of service on
these streets unless improvements are made.
Future Travel Times.
The time it takes to make an average trip in the I -494 Corridor is expected
to increase by 60 percent given the forecast growth in traffic and no
improvements to I -494. The average travel time for a trip on I -494 is
expected to double. unless demand is severely restricted through ramp
metering. Severe ramp metering would have a significant negative impact
on traffic operations on local streets.
Roadway Design Deficiencies
Most of I -494 was built in the early 1960s under different design standards
than apply today. In addition, most of the facility is beyond its original
design life. These two factors account for most of the roadway
1 -3.
deficiencies that exist on I -494 today. Following is a list of some of the
existing deficiencies on I -494.
o The sight distance at some of the curves on the I -494 mainline is
sufficient for only a 50 mile per hour design speed. Today a 70
mile per hour design speed is desirable for this type of facility.
o Between TH 77 and TH 100, the left shoulder on the mainline
lanes is four feet wide and the right shoulder is six feet wide.
AASHTO recommends a 12 foot shoulder on both sides of the
mainline, where there are three or more lanes in each direction and
more than 250 trucks per hour in the peak direction.:
o Between Nicollet and Lyndale Avenues, the distance from the edge
of the traffic lanes to the retaining wall is inadequate for snow
storage and is restrictive to traffic flow.
o Several of the bridges over I -494 have 14 feet 6 inches of
clearance between the road surface and the bottom of the bridge.
o The distance between many interchanges on I-494 is less than one
mile, and entrance and exit ramps on the mainline are so closely
spaced that there are conflicts on the mainline between traffic
entering and traffic exiting the freeway.
o The existing storm drainage system on I -494 is inadequate and
ponding of water occurs in low areas on I -494 with storms that
occur with relative frequency.
o A section of I -494 at East Bush Lake Road is in the Nine Mile
Creek floodway. The roadway is approximately 5 feet below the
100 -year flood elevation of Nine Mile Creek at this location. In
1987, this section of highway was closed for two weeks following
a major storm because the road was under water.
Safety
The combination of substandard roadway geometrics and traffic demand
that exceeds capacity has resulted in average accident rates on I -494 that
are slightly higher than the average accident rates of similar type facilities
in the Twin. Cities Metropolitan Area.
1 -4
The average accident rate on four -lane suburban freeways in the Twin
Cities Metropolitan Area for the three -year period from 1988 through 1990
was 0.9 accidents per million vehicle miles (mvm). During the same three
year period, I -494 between Minnetonka Boulevard and Excelsior Boulevard
had an average accident rate of 1.0 accident .per million vehicle miles.
The segment between TH 169/212 and TH 100 had an average accident
rate of 1.1 accidents per million vehicle miles.
The average accident rate on six -lane urban freeways for the same three
year period was 2.3 accidents per million vehicle miles. Between Xerxes
and Nicollet the average accident rate on I -494 was 2.6 accidents per
million vehicle miles.
1.2 ALTERNATIVES
Complete descriptions of the proposed action and alternatives are provided
in Chapter 2.0 and Chapter 3.0 (Description of Alternatives). Provided
here are brief descriptions of the alternatives studied in this DEIS, which
include:
o No -Build Alternative
- Maintenance projects
- Ramp metering
- Preferential access on some ramps
. o Transportation System Management Alternative:
Travel demand management
Ramp metering and preferential access for HOV's
Increased transit services
Improvements to adjacent arterials such as traffic signal
optimization
- Maintenance projects
o Build Alternative 1:
Add one lane in each direction to the I -494 mainline between
I -394 and TH 212 (Flying Cloud Drive) and between TH 100
and the Minnesota River
Add two lanes in each direction between TH 212 and TH 100
1 -5
o Build Alternative 1A:
This alternative is the same as Alternative 1 except that one
lane in each direction between I -394 and the Minnesota River
would be designated for high occupancy vehicles (HOVs).
o Build Alternative 2:
Add two lanes in each direction throughout the entire length
of the corridor, except for the section between TH 212 and
TH 100 where three general traffic lanes in each direction
would be added. Under this alternative, one lane in each
direction (two lanes between TH 212 and TH 100) could be
added initially and right -of -way reserved, for another lane in
each direction to be added as needed in the future.
o Build Alternative 2A:
An option with Alternative 2 is to designate one of the added
lanes in each direction as an HOV lane. With this option, the
HOV lanes could be added initially with right -of- -way reserved
for a general traffic lane in each direction to be added as
needed in the future.
All the Build Alternatives assume that I -494 will be upgraded to meet
current design standards. This will involve reconstruction of the existing
interchanges and, in some cases, changes in access. All interchanges will
provide preferential HOV access.
New interchanges are analyzed at the following locations:
- Oakland Road
- Baker Road
- Highwood Drive (on CSAH 18)
- Washington Avenue
The closure of interchanges at Nicollet Avenue and 12th Avenue is also
analyzed.
1 -6
1.3 OTHER GOVERNMENTAL ACTIONS IN THE
. I -494 CORRIDOR
Other government actions that affect travel in the I -494 Corridor include
the following:
o Roadway Projects:
TH 12 is being upgraded to a freeway (I -394) from Wayzata
to downtown Minneapolis. The project will be substantially
complete in 1992.
- CSAH 18 is proposed to be upgraded from south of I -494 to
TH 101. The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)
has been issued.
TH 5 is being widened from a two4ane to a four -lane divided'
highway from Prairie Center Drive to Chanhassen.
A new TH 212 is proposed from I -49.4 west to Cologne. The
FEIS has been prepared.
Reconstruction of I -35W is proposed from Washington
Avenue to I -35E. The DEIS is being prepared.
- A corridor study is being conducted for TH 77 from TH 62 to
I -494.
- Reconstruction of the TH 77 and 1 -494 interchange area was
recently completed.
o 'Travel Demand Management and Transportation System
Management:
- Installation of ramp meters are proposed on 1 -494 on -ramps
throughout the project corridor.
- A planned transit center is being constructed as part of the.
Mall of America (MTC).
- The cities in the Corridor are considering a travel demand
management ordinance to increase ridesharing and reduce
peak hour travel.
1.4 MAJOR ALTERNATIVES- ELIMINATED
In addition to the alternatives under evaluation in this document, others
were considered but eliminated. Detailed descriptions of all the
alternatives and the process by which they were either retained or
eliminated, can be found in Chapter 3.0. A list of the alternatives that
were eliminated includes:
1 -7
o New corridor location for I-494
o Light rail transit in the I -494 Corridor
o Various interchange locations and design alternatives that did not
provide adequate capacity or meet design criteria.
1.5 SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The environmental consequences of each alternative are summarized in
Table. 5.1. The No -Build and the TSM Alternatives are essentially the
same. The impacts of adding one lane versus two lanes are also very
similar since most of the impact is related to reconstruction of interchanges
rather than the number of lanes added to the highway.
A brief description of the beneficial and adverse impacts of the project
follows. The discussion compares the Build Alternative with.the No -Build
Alternative, but the No -Build is also applicable to the TSM Alternative.
1.5.1 Beneficial Impacts
Capacity
The travel demand in the Corridor is expected to increase by 45 percent
by the Year 2010. Since most segments of I -494 are currently at capacity
in the peak hour, the additional travel demand will lengthen the rush hour
and increase travel on other roadways in the I -494 Corridor. Ramp
metering is. being implemented by Mn/DOT .on I -494 and, therefore, is
considered part of the No -Build Alternative. With the No -Build and TSM
Alternatives, I -494 would be managed to maintain efficient operating
conditions on the I -494 mainline, but traffic demand on local streets would
increase substantially and queues at the ramp meters would have a
negative impact on traffic operations on local streets.
Build Alternative 1 would have sufficient capacity between TH 62 and the
Minnesota River to serve the forecast 2010 demand at an acceptable level
of service. However, north of TH 62, Build Alternative 1, does not have
sufficient capacity to provide an adequate level of service for the forecast
2010 demand. If the one additional through lane in each direction on I-
494 is designated as an HOV lane, the general purpose lanes on I -494,
from I -394 to CSAH 18, will not have sufficient capacity to serve the
forecast peak hour demand in these lanes. _
Build Alternative 2 would provide sufficient capacity throughout the
Corridor to serve the forecast 2010 peak hour demand at an acceptable
level of service. If one of the additional through lanes is designated as an
IWI
TABLE 1.1
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
ENVIRONMENTAL
ISSUES
Social and Economic
Impacts
O Total Acquisitions
(Parcels)
O Partial Acquisitions
(Parcels)
• Households Displaced
• Businesses Displaced
• Employees Displaced
• Special Social Groups
Affected
• Impact on
Neighborhoods
o Community and
Neighborhood Facilities
Affected
o Impact on Businesses
ALTERNATIVES
TRANSPORTATION BUILD
SYSTEM ALTERNATIVE 1
NO -BUILD MANAGEMENT ADD 1 LANE'
None
None
May be minor
May be minor
acquisition for bypass
acquisition for bypass
lanes on ramps
lanes on ramps
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Increased traffic on
neighborhood streets
No Impact
None
Increased traffic on
neighborhood streets
No Impact
BUILD
ALTERNATIVE 2
ADD 2 LANES`
232 -266 1 232 -266
212 -247 I 212 -247
270 -290
270 -290
80 -158
80 -158
2,200 -3,200
2,200- 3,200
None
None
Change in access to
Change . in access to
highway in some
highway in some
locations
locations
Park impacts and some Park impacts and some
trails affected I trails affected
None Change in access to
highway. in some
locations
Change in access to
highway in some
locations
Continued on next page
Table 1.1 Continued
ENVIRONMENTAL
ISSUES
NO- BUILD
• Lost Tax Resources None
(Millions Annually)
• Capital Lost (Millions) Not Estimated
• Right -of -Way Cost Not Estimated
(Millions)
Transportation Service
o Segments of I -494 Entire length from
Where Demand will I -394 to Minnesota
Exceed Capacity2 River
• Average Travel Time on 38 Minutes
I -494 from I -394 to TH
77 on Typical Weekday
in Year 2010
• Daily Vehicle Hours of 344,000
Travel in 1 -494 Corridor'
• Average Travel Time 4.5 Minutes
For Average Trip in
I -494 Corridor on
Typical Weekday3
Air Quality
o Selected Receptors
ALTERNATIVES
TRANSPORTATION BUILD
SYSTEM ALTERNATIVE 1
MANAGEMENT ADD 1 LANE'
None $2.2 -$3.9
Not Estimated $541 -$612
Not Estimated $140 -$165
BUILD
ALTERNATIVE 2
ADD 2 LANES'
$2.2 -$3.9
$582 -$650
$140 -$165
Entire length from
I -394 to TH 7
None
I -394 to Minnesota
River
38 Minutes
20.4 Minutes
19.2 Minutes
344,000
253,000
249,000
4.5 Minutes
3.3 Minutes
3.3 Minutes
No violations of State No violations of State No violations of State No violations of State
Air Quality Standards I Air Quality Standards I Air Quality Standards I Air Quality Standards
Continued on next page
Table 1.1 Continued
ENVIRONMENTAL
ISSUES
ALTERNATIVES
TRANSPORTATION BUILD
SYSTEM ALTERNATIVE.I
NO -BUILD MANAGEMENT ADD 1 LANE'
BUILD
ALTERNATIVE 2
ADD 2 LANES'
o Annual CO Emissions in
30,800
30,800
17,600
17,600
Corridor (Tons/Year)
Energy - Annual.
167
167
153
153
Consumption in I -494
Corridor _(Millions of
Gallons)
Noise - Receivers
2174
2174_
3625
3625
Exceeding Federal Noise
Abatement Criteria
Surface Water Drainage
Periodic Flooding of
Periodic Flooding of
Proposed storm sewer
Proposed storm sewer
Mainline
Mainline
system includes
system includes
retention ponds for rate
retention ponds for rate
control and treatment
control and treatment
Water Quality
No Impact
No Impact
Improved Water
Improved Water
Quality with retention
Quality with. retention
ponds
ponds
Floodplains
No Impact
No Impact
Encroachment on
Encroachment on
Minnehaha Creek,
Minnehaha Creek,
County Ditch 34, South
County Ditch 34, South
Fork Nine Mile Creek
Fork Nine Mile Creek
and North Fork Nine
and North Fork Nine
Mile Creek
Mile Creek
Continued on next page
Table 1.1 Continued
ENVIRONMENTAL
ISSUES NO -BUILD
Wetlands No Impact
Vegetation - Woodlands No Impact
Affected (Acres)
Wildlife No Impact
Sites to be Acquired with None
Potential Soil or
Groundwater
Contamination
Construction Impacts No Impact
Visual Quality No Change
Parklands
o Total Parkland Impacted No Impact
(Acres)
ALTERNATIVES
TRANSPORTATION
BUILD
BUILD
SYSTEM
ALTERNATIVE 1
ALTERNATIVE 2
MANAGEMENT
ADD 1 LANE'
ADD 2 LANES'
No Impact
29 to 41 Wetlands
29 to 41 Wetlands
9.3 -12.8 Acres
9.3 -12.8 Acres
No Impact
9.3 -14.3
9.3 -14.3
No Impact
No Significant Impact
No Significant Impact
None
69 -78
69 -78
No Impact
No Change
No Impact
Traffic congestion and Traffic. congestion and
noise noise
Opportunity to enhance Opportunity to enhance
visual quality. Multi- visual quality. Multi-
level interchanges in level interchanges in
residential areas are residential areas are
potential adverse visual potential adverse visual
impact. impact.
%l
6.2 -9.5
Continued on next page
Table 1.1 Continued
' Range of impacts are due to alternative interchange designs at selected locations in the corridor. In most environmental categories,
the impact is the same for adding one lane or two lanes.
2 Assumes capacity of 2,000 vphAane.
s Only includes portion of trip within 1 -494 Corridor or study area.
4 Includes 103 along I -35W from ,66th Street to 90th Street.
5 Includes 241 along I -35W from 66th Street to 90th Street.
N
ALTERNATIVES
TRANSPORTATION
BUILD
BUILD
ENVIRONMENTAL
SYSTEM
ALTERNATIVE 1
ALTERNATIVE 2
ISSUES
NO -BUILD
MANAGEMENT
ADD 1 LANE'
ADD 2 LANES'
0 6F Parkland Impacted
No Impact
No Impact
0.3 -1.1
0.3 -1.1
(Acres)
Cultural Resources
• Potential Historic Sites
No Impact
No Impact
5
5
Affected
• Potential Archaeological
No Impact
No Impact
5
5
Sites Affected
' Range of impacts are due to alternative interchange designs at selected locations in the corridor. In most environmental categories,
the impact is the same for adding one lane or two lanes.
2 Assumes capacity of 2,000 vphAane.
s Only includes portion of trip within 1 -494 Corridor or study area.
4 Includes 103 along I -35W from ,66th Street to 90th Street.
5 Includes 241 along I -35W from 66th Street to 90th Street.
N
HOB/ lane, the general purpose lanes on I -494, north of TH 62, will not
have sufficient capacity to serve the forecast peak hour demand in these
lanes.
Safety
f
The combination of additional capacity and improved geometric design on
I -494 will reduce the average accident rate on I -494. In addition, because
I -494 will be able to. serve more of the travel demand in the Corridor,
there will be fewer vehicle miles of travel on other roadway facilities in
the Corridor which have higher average accident rates than I -494. The
combination of a reduced accident rate on I -494 and fewer vehicle miles
on other roadways is expected to result in approximately 20 percent fewer
accidents in the Corridor with the Build Alternatives as compared to the
No -Build or TSM alternatives. This is a reduction of approximately 1,700
accidents per year in the Corridor.
Air Quality
Analysis showed that because the project would lead to a reduction in
traffic volumes on city streets and would improve the flow of traffic on
I -494, there would be an improvement in air quality throughout the
Corridor as a whole. The Build Alternatives will reduce carbon monoxide
emissions in the Corridor by approximately 13,000 tons per year, or
43 percent compared to the No -Build Alternative.
Travel Time
The improvements proposed under the Build Alternatives on I -494 would
save approximately 95 thousand hours of travel time a day within the I-
494 Corridor compared to the No -Build Alternative with the same level of
travel demand.
Energy
Because improvements on I -494 would reduce congestion and improve
overall travel speeds in the Corridor, the improvements would save
approximately 13 million gallons of fuel per year compared to the No-
Build Alternative with the same level of travel demand. This is a
reduction of approximately 8 percent. Although the construction of the
improvements is expected to require about 54 million gallons of fuel, the
project would save this amount in a little over-four years.
1 -14
Drainage
The project would involve upgrading .of the storm drainage system on
I -494, which would eliminate periodic flooding of low spots on 1 -494.
Visual Quality
A significant number of new bridges and structures are proposed with the
Build Alternatives. These bridges and structures may be looked on as a
adverse visual impact where they are visible from adjoining residential
areas.
However, the project presents an opportunity to implement design and
landscape treatments which would enhance the visual quality of the
highway. corridor and the surrounding communities. Such treatments
would give the Corridor an identity based on form, colors, materials,
textures, ornamentation on various structures, signage, lighting, grading
and landscaping.
1.5.2 Adverse Imaacts -
Right -of -Way Acquisition
Right -of -way acquisitions associated with the project would affect between
444 and 523. parcels. These are broken out into 232 to 266 total
acquisitions and 212 to 247 partial acquisitions. Of the total acquisitions,
between 142 to 153 would be residential affecting 270 to 290 households.
There would be 90 to 113 non- residential total acquisitions affecting 80 to
158 businesses. Mn/DOT's relocation program and the availability of
suitable alternative property would mitigate the impacts of these
acquisitions.
Reduction in Tax Revenues
Property acquisitions described above would affect property tax revenues
currently realized by State, County, and municipal units of government.
It is .estimated that the total annual, effect of the project on property tax
revenues would be between $2.2 million and $3.9 million (1990 dollars).
This, range is between .7 percent and 1.3 percent of total annual property
tax revenues for the cities affected by the project. It is anticipated,
however, that development/redevelopment opportunities in the corridor will
result in the future expansion of the existing property tax base.
1 -15
Displacement of Employees
The relocation of between 80 to 158 businesses in the - Corridor would
affect approximately 2,200. to 3,200 workers. This impact would be
mitigated through Mn/DOT's relocation program, which would assist
employers in identifying and securing relocation sites. Thus, employers
would have an opportunity to relocate their businesses and resume
operations with their existing work force.
Storm Water Runoff and Water Quality
Because of increased impervious surface in the I -494 right -of -way and
increased traffic on I -494, the project could potentially degrade the water
quality in water bodies receiving runoff from 1 -494. The increased runoff
could also result in a flood stage increase in the receiving water bodies.
Replacement of existing storm sewer facilities and installation of dual
purpose ponds at the outlets of the storm sewer system have been proposed
as mitigation measures to address this problem. The ponds would function
as: 1) treatment facilities for water quality and 2) rate control facilities to
limit the discharge rate from the improved roadway. Analysis indicated
that, compared to the existing condition, the dual purpose ponds would
serve to improve the quality of roadway runoff that is eventually
discharged into receiving water bodies. The project would also raise the
elevation of the roadway above the 100 -year storm floodplain in the
segment between West Bush Lake Road and TH 100.
Wetlands
Under worst -case conditions, as many as 41 wetlands, representing
approximately 12.8 acres, could be impacted by the project. A qualitative
evaluation of these impacts indicated that acquisition/filling of 16 of the
41 wetlands would significantly affect the physical environment in at least
one of the following areas: flood flow, .water quality, wildlife habitat, fish
habitat, shoreline anchoring, visual/aesthetic, or special features.
For a project of this. type, the following steps are pursued with regard to
wetlands: 1) avoid, 2) minimize, 3) mitigate (replace within or outside the
Corridor). Because a preferred alternative has not been selected, analysis
has not yet been conducted to determine the extent to which impacts to the
16 wetlands can be avoided by shifts in the alignment. Avoidance
measures that have been identified include increasing the grade on slopes
next to the roadway and protecting with guardrail, use of retaining walls,
1 -16
U
and changes in horizontal and vertical alignment. The only mitigation
measure. under consideration is to develop compensation wetlands in
upland open space areas within the corridor.
Construction Impacts
During .construction on I -494 there will be a reduction in the capacity of
I -494 on those segments that are under construction. Mn/DOT will-
maintain a minimum of two lanes in each direction at all times during
construction. Between TH 100 and 34th Avenue Mn/DOT will _try to
maintain three lanes in each direction. However, during construction the
traffic lanes may be narrower, shoulders may be narrower, clearances to
fixed objects may be less, curves may be sharper and sight distance may
be less. All of these factors will reduce .the capacity of the lanes that are
provided. The reduction in capacity will result in more congestion and
delay in the corridor. The mitigation of this impact will require a strong.
travel demand management program and increased use of other parallel
roadways in the corridor. A coordinated traffic management system for
the corridor would help to maximize capacity and minimize the use of
residential streets during the construction period.
Another significant construction impact is noise. Noise impacts during
construction are regulated by the Minnesota Pollution. Control Agency, the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and local governments. Where
noise walls will be constructed as part of the project, Mn/DOT will
construct the noise wall as early in the construction process as feasible.
Other potential construction impacts that will require mitigation are dust,
soil erosion, access changes, and visual.
Parkland
There are 14 parks which abut segments of the proposed project. The
build alternatives will potentially impact seven of the parks abutting the
project. Both the add one lane and the add two lane alternatives will
impact the same parks. The differences in impacts will be minor. In
general the add two lane alternative will require a strip of right -of -way 12
feet wider than the add one lane alternative. The avoidance alternatives
are the same for both build alternatives.
The parks that will potentially be impacted are a linear park in Minnetonka
on the west side of I -494 just south of Oakland Road, Topview Park in
Eden Prairie, Tierney's Woods in Bloomington, Hyland - Corridor Park in
Bloomington, Beaverbrook Field in Bloomington, Roosevelt Park in
Richfield, and Washington Park in Richfield.
1 -17'
The need for right -of -way from the Minnetonka linear park are avoided if
an interchange is not constructed at Oakland Road and steeper slopes or
retaining walls are used north of Stone Road. Taking of parkland at
Topview Park could be avoided by using steeper slopes. To completely
avoid taking park land at East Bush Lake Road will require acquisition of
two large office buildings or elimination of the interchange at East Bush
Lake Road. The alternative to taking parkland at Roosevelt Park and
Washington Park is to take church property or commercial development
on the south side of the road.
Cultural Resources
There are nine archaeological sites that will be impacted-by the build
alternatives. The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) needs to
determine the significance of the sites. Once a determination of eligibility
to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) has been made,
mitigation measures can be considered. The BRW archaeologist
considered five of the sites significant enough for additional evaluation.
There are thirty structures that may be eligible to the NRHP. The build
alternatives will take nine of the structures and will require right -of -way
from parcels of four other structures. The remaining seventeen structures
are outside the construction limits. BRW considered five of the 30
structures significant enough for additional evaluation..
1.6 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY
There are no areas of significant controversy that have been raised to date.
Hennepin County wanted Light Rail Transit considered in the Corridor, but
this alternative was dropped because it was not supported by ridership
forecasts.
1.7 PROJECT SCHEDULE AND COSTS
1.7.1 Environmental Review Process
A public hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement is proposed
in April of 1992. A Final Environmental Impact Statement is expected to.
be released in September of 1992. The Record of Decision is expected in
February 1993.
1 -18
1.7.2 Proiect Implementation
Construction of the proposed project will take approximately ten years,
partly because of anticipated funding availability. Implementation of the
project would be phased to ensure that the entire Corridor is not affected
during the same time period. Instead, construction work would be initiated
and completed, within given segments of the Corridor, before initiating
work within additional segments. Construction work within each segment
could take from one to three years.
1.7.3 Project Cost
Cost estimates for the . build alternatives range from $541.5 to $612.0
million for Build Alternative 1 and from $582.5 to $650.1 million for
Build Alternative 2. These estimates are for construction .only and do not
include right -of -way acquisition or mitigation costs. The estimated right-
of-way costs are between $140 and $165 million.
1.8 PERMITS AND APPROVALS
Approvals and permits that may be required for the I -494 reconstruction
project are shown in Table 1.1.
1.9 COORDINATION
A Project Management Team composed of representatives of the cities in
the corridor and other affected agencies met regularly to discuss and
resolve issues related to the design of I -494. The Project Management
Team included representatives from the Federal Highway Administration,
the Minnesota Department of Transportation, the Metropolitan Council, the
Regional Transit Board, the Metropolitan Airports Commission, Hennepin
County, and the cities of Minnetonka, Eden Prairie, Edina, Bloomington
and Richfield.. The analysis methodology used to determine the impacts
of the project relative to the different subject areas. followed standard
practices. In some areas meetings were held with local, state or federal
agencies with "approval" or "permit" authority to discuss the appropriate
analysis methodology. The cooperating agencies were given a preliminary
draft of the DEIS for review and comment.
1 -19
TABLE 1.2
AGENCY APPROVALS AND PERMITS
TYPE OF APPROVAL
GOVERNMENT AGENCY OR PERMIT
o Federal:
- Federal Highway Administration - Access change approvals
- Location and design
approvals
Record of Decision
- U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers - Section 404 Permit
o S tate:
Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources
- Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency
o Regional:
- Local Watershed Districts
- Metropolitan Council
- Work in Protected Waters
Permit
- Groundwater
Appropriation Permit
- Air Quality Indirect
Source Permit
- 401 Water Quality
Certification
- District approvals /permits
- Grading and land
alteration permits
- EIS approval as Joint Lead
Agency
- Controlled access highway
approval
o Local:
Cities of Minnetonka, - Layout approvals and
Eden Prairie, Edina, review of construction
Bloomington, and Richfield plans
and Hennepin County
1 -20
ic
A. A
9e I�.4 En
REPORT /RECOMMENDATION
To: Mayor & City Council
Agenda Item #
-ii--B
& c
From: Francis Hoffman
City Engineer
Consent
❑
Information Only
❑
_
Date: 15 June, 1992
Mgr. Recommends
❑
To HRA
Subject: 100$ Petition
❑g
To Council
Permanent Street Surfacing
with Concrete Curb & Gutter
Action
0
Motion
Improvement Nos. BA -300 &
BA -301
❑
Resolution
❑
Ordinance
Recommendation:
Authorize Improvement.Projects BA -300 and BA -301, Permanent
Street Surfacing with Concrete Curb & Gutter.
Info /Background:
The developers of the following improvements have petitioned
the City to construct permanent street surfacing with concrete
curb and gutter. The estimates of cost are as follows:
Improvement BA -300 (Wooddale Lakes Addition) $ 16,226.68
Rose Court - Wooddale Avenue to Cul -de -Sac
Improvement BA -301 (Parkwood Knolls 23rd Addition) $ 33,294.21
Malibu Dr. - North Line of Parkwood Knolls 15th
Addition to South line of Landmark Addition.
These projects are part of the developer's agreement with the
City, and staff would recommend authorizing said projects.
❑ SIDEWALK
❑ ALLEY PAVING ❑ WATERMAIN
❑ STORM SEWER ❑ SANITARY SEWER ❑ STREET LIGHTING
❑ CURB AND GUTTER ONLY 0 PERMANENT STREET ❑ OTHER:
SURFACING WITH
CURB AND GUTTER
To the Mayor and City Council:
The persons who have signed this petition ask the City Council to consider the improvements listed above
to the locations listed below.
Wooddale Lakes Addition between and
LOCATION OF IMPROVEMENT BY STREET NAME ADDRESS ADDRESS
between
LOCATION OF IMPROVEMENT BY STREET NAME
between
LOCATION OF IMPROVEMENT BY STREET NAME
between
LOCATION OF IMPROVEMENT BY STREET NAME
ADDRESS
ADDRESS
ADDRESS
and
ADDRESS
and
ADDRESS
and
ADDRESS
IMPORTANT NOTE: THE PERSONS WHO HAVE SIGNED THIS PETITION UNDERSTAND THAT
THE CITY COUNCIL MAY ASSESS THE COSTS OF THESE IMPROVEMENTS AGAINST THE
PROPERTIES BENEFITING FROM THE IMPROVEMENTS IN AMOUNTS DETERMINED BY THE
COUNCIL AS AUTHORIZED BY CHAPTER 429, MINNESOTA STATUTES.
PROPERTY OWNER'S OWNER'S NAME PROPERTY ADDRESS OWNER'S
SIGN TU (PRINTED) PHONE
X �.rc1z �. �SAMI� Wooddale Lakes Addition
This Tp e't} tion was circulated
by-)CA .� ri /iL y,v�ll try �1ec ,�
L4 *6 7
� •3. P_ 71, �ac�,�/l.�flci ?mss �y�� dd9- -�LZ�C
ADDRESS �.� f%iJ�, PHONE
` e e R spaceTorr�more signatures on the back or you may attach extra pages.
SEPTEMBER ,9w
❑ SIDEWALK ❑ ALLEY PAVING ❑ WATERMAIN
❑ STORM SEWER ❑ SANITARY SEWER ❑ STREET LIGHTING
❑ CURB AND GUTTER ONLY ® PERMANENT STREET ❑ OTHER:
SURFACING WITH
CURB AND GUTTER
To the Mayor and City Council:
The persons who have signed this petition ask the City Council to consider the improvements listed above
to the locations listed below.
Parkwood Knolls 23rd Addition between and
LOCATION OF IMPROVEMENT BY STREET NAME ADDRESS ADDRESS
LOCATION OF IMPROVEMENT BY STREET NAME
LOCATION OF IMPROVEMENT BY STREET NAME
LOCATION OF IMPROVEMENT BY STREET NAME
between
between
ADDRESS
and
and
ADDRESS
ADDRESS ADDRESS
between and
ADDRESS ADDRESS
IMPORTANT NOTE: THE PERSONS WHO HAVE SIGNED THIS PETITION UNDERSTAND THAT
THE CITY COUNCIL MAY ASSESS THE COSTS OF THESE IMPROVEMENTS AGAINST THE
PROPERTIES BENEFITING FROM THE IMPROVEMENTS IN AMOUNTS DETERMINED BY THE
COUNCIL AS AUTHORIZED BY CHAPTER 429, MINNESOTA STATUTES.
PROPERTY OWNER'S
SIGNATURE
X '9I e- &n
3-, 46115
Go ,
This petition was circulated by:
OWNER'S NAME
(PRINTED)
l/ t6eZ G 4 Saa'!
PROPERTY ADDRESS
OWNER'S
PHONE
W
ADDRESS PHONE
J' There6is: space for more signatures on the back or you may attach extra pages.
�i)i SEPTEMBER 1990
RESOLUTION
I -494 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), dated April 1992, for
I -494 Reconstruction from I -394 to the Minnesota River has been prepared
jointly by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn /DOT), the Federal
Highway Administration and the Metropolitan Council, and
WHEREAS, on June 10, 1992, Mn /DOT conducted a public hearing on the DEIS to
provide the opportunity for testimony by all individuals, businesses, agencies
and municipalities that may be affected by the proposed reconstruction, and
WHEREAS, this Council has reviewed the DEIS as presented at the June 10, 1992,
public hearing;
BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, hereby
submits the following comments on the I -494 DEIS:
1) A build alternative to expand I -494 is important due to
existing and expected increasing traffic congestion. The City
supports Build Alternatives 2 or 2A, to add two lanes in each
direction throughout the entire length of the corridor, because
right -of -way acquisition purchases for Build Alternative 1 (to add
one lane in each direction) is almost the same as for Build
Alternative 2 (to add two lanes).
2) The single point design alternative for the East Bush Lake
Road interchange has the least environmental impact, is the lowest
cost, requires the smallest amount of right -of -way acquisition,
and is the most efficient interchange design. The folded diamonds
to the east alternative is not acceptable due to the extensive
impact upon business properties and the high cost of right -of -way
acquisition. Full access at East Bush Lake Road is very important
to mobility in southern Edina.
3) The 1500 foot long, $35 -40 Million main line bridge /viaduct at
Nine Mile Creek, proposed as a mitigation measure for wetland and
6(f) park land impacts, does not appear to be justified given the
limited scope of impact and the ability to provide replacement
parkland and to create replacement value wetlands at a much
smaller public cost. The main line bridge over Nine Mile Creek
should be designed for drainage and flood control only.
41
Resolution
I -494 Draft EIS
Page 2
4) The Final EIS should include a construction staging plan and
schedule. All efforts should be made to retain mobility and
access during the construction period.
5) The 77th Street /T.H. 100 interchange alternative should be
analyzed to provide the minimum disruption to adjacent properties
as opposed to the maximum design which involves taking of homes
and businesses.
6) A corridor -wide construction mitigation program should be
developed and Mn /DOT should provide a congestion mitigation
coordinator to implement the mitigation and transportation demand
management strategies.
7) Sidewalks and consideration for bike lane crossings over I -494
connecting regional recreational facilities should be included in
bridge designs over I -494. Examples: locations such as Normandale
Lake from Edina and the recreational facilities west of
Normandale Lake.
8) The City of Edina encourages Mn /DOT to continue to analyze
energy consumption and supports efforts to develop alternative
transportation technologies (such as electric and natural gas
vehicles) to help reduce air quality problems.
9) Mn /DOT should develop a comprehensive relocation program to
encourage business retention. The final design and right -of -way
needs should be identified as soon as possible to facilitate
business and land use planning decisions.
ADOPTED this 15th day of June, 1992.
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) SS
CITY OF EDINA ) CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK
I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting City Clerk for the City of Edina
do hereby certify that the attached and foregoing Resolution is a true and
correct copy of the Resolution dauly adopted by the Edina City Council at its
regular meeting of June 15, 1992, and as recorded in the Minutes of said
regular meeting.
WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this 18th day of June, 1992.
Marcella M. Daehn
City Clerk
COUNCIL
CHECK REGISTER THU, JUN
11, 1992, 12:30 AM
page 1
CHECK#
DATE
CHECK AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT
P.O. #
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
127698
06/15/92
$153.00
1993 WALKER CUP MATC
TICKETS
060892
ADMINISTRATION
DUES &
SUBSCR
< *>
$153:00*
127700
06/15/92
$667.81
AAGARD
GARBAGE
181
GENERAL MAINT
RUBBISH
REMOV
06/15/92
$107.54
AAGARD
GARBAGE
1698
FIRE DEPT. GEN
RUBBISH
REMOV
06/15/92
$134.42
AAGARD
GARBAGE
1696
CITY HALL GENE
RUBBISH
REMOV
06/15/92
$667.81
AAGARD
GARBAGE
181
PW BUILDING
RUBBISH
REMOV
06/15/92
$107.54
AAGARD
GARBAGE
1701
LITTER REMOVAL
RUBBISH
REMOV
06/15/92
$430.15
AAGARD
GARBAGE
1172
LITTER REMOVAL
RUBBISH
REMOV
06/15/92
$107.54
AAGARD
GARBAGE
1161
LITTER REMOVAL
RUBBISH
REMOV
06/15/92
$53.77
AAGARD
GARBAGE
1695
ART CENTER BLD
RUBBISH
REMOV
06/15/92
$161.30
AAGARD
GARBAGE
1253
POOL OPERATION
RUBBISH
REMOV
06/15/92
$645.23
AAGARD
GARBAGE
1702
CLUB HOUSE
RUBBISH
REMOV
06/15/92
$144.29
AAGARD
GARBAGE
1700
MAINT OF COURS
RUBBISH
REMOV
06/15/92
$322.62
AAGARD
GARBAGE
1689
ARENA BLDG /GRO
RUBBISH
REMOV
06/15/92
$425.87
AAGARD
GARBAGE
1694
BUILDING & GRO
RUBBISH
REMOV
06/15/92
$36.75
AAGARD
GARBAGE
1424
50TH ST OCCUPA
RUBBISH
REMOV
06/15/92
$63.63
AAGARD
GARBAGE
1425
YORK OCCUPANCY
RUBBISH
REMOV
06/15/92
$159.22
AAGARD
GARBAGE
1423
VERNON OCCUPAN
RUBBISH
REMOV
06/15/92
$39.28
AAGARD
GARBAGE
2299
GUN RANGE
RUBBISH
REMOV
< *>
$4,274.77*
127701
06/15/92
$9.15
ACTION MESSENGER
DELIVERY SERVICE
86032
ADMINISTRATION
SVC CONTR
EQU
< *>
$9.15*
127702
06/15/92
$154.28
ADVANTAGE
GENERAL SUPPLIES
908894
CENTENNIAL LAK
GENERAL
SUPPL
2304
06/15/92
$243.72
ADVANTAGE
GENERAL SUPPLIES
908907
CENTENNIAL LAK
GENERAL
SUPPL
2304
< *>
$398.00*
127703
06/15/92
$217.06
ALBINSON
BLUE PRINT SUPPLIES
119112
ENGINEERING GE
BLUE PRINTING
9638
06/15/92
$33.93
ALBINSON
BLUE PRINT SUPPLIES
120631
ENGINEERING GE
BLUE PRINTING
9638
< *>
$250.99*
127704
06/15/92
$681.00
ALSTAD, MARIAN
AC INSTRUCTOR
060892
ART CENTER ADM
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$681.00*
127705
06/15/92
$123.00
ALTERNATOR REBUILD
REPAIR PARTS
007898
EQUIPMENT OPER
REPAIR
PARTS
1632
< *>
$123.00"
127706
06/15/92
$950.00
AMERICAN LASER CUT G
VEHICLE GRAPHICS
66396
EQUIPMENT OPER
ACCESSORIES
1690
06/15/92
$917.05
AMERICAN LASER CUT G
GENERAL SUPPLIES
66386
POOL-OPERATION
GENERAL
SUPPL
06/15/92
$37.25
AMERICAN LASER CUT G
GENERAL SUPPLIES
66478
POOL OPERATION
GENERAL
SUPPL
06/15/92
$70.00
AMERICAN LASER CUT G
POOL SIGN
66456
POOL OPERATION
GENERAL
SUPPL
< *>
$1,974.30*
127707
06/15/92
$213.00
AMERICAN LINEN
LAUNDRY
053192
GRILL
LAUNDRY
06/15/92
$74.36
AMERICAN LINEN
LAUNDRY
053192
YORK SELLING
LAUNDRY
06/15/92
$8'.67
AMERICAN LINEN
LAUNDRY
053192
VERNON OCCUPAN
LAUNDRY
06/15/92
$162:90
AMERICAN LINEN
LAUNDRY
053192
FIRE DEPT. GEN
LAUNDRY
06/15/92
$150.68
AMERICAN LINEN
LAUNDRY
053192
CITY HALL GENE
LAUNDRY
06/15/92
$11.70
AMERICAN LINEN
LAUNDRY
053192
PUBLIC HEALTH
GENERAL
SUPPL
06/15/92
$62.74
AMERICAN LINEN
LAUNDRY
053192
50TH ST OCCUPA
LAUNDRY
< *>
$684.05*
127708.06/15/92
$157.00
AMERICAN PLANNING AS
APA DUES
7/92 -6/9
PLANNING
DUES &
SUBSCR
COUNCIL
CHECK REGISTER THU, JUN
11, 1992, 12:30 AM
page 2
CHECK #.
DATE
CHECK AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT
P.O. #
---------------------------
<*>
7 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$157.60*
127709
06/15/92
$39.00
AMERICAN PRESSURE IN
REPAIR PARTS
13026
PW BUILDING
REPAIR PARTS
1872
< *>
$39.00*
127710
06/15/92
$175.00
AMERICAN RED CROSS
SERVICES
7255
POOL OPERATION
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$175.00*
127711
06/15/92
$146.59
AMERICAN SHARECOM
TELEPHONE
00100949
CENT SVC GENER
TELEPHONE
< *>
$146.59*
127712
06/15/92
$1,000.00
ANCHOR PAPER
GENERAL SUPPLIES
647503 -0
CENT SVC GENER
GENERAL SUPPL
1963
< *>
$1,000.00*
127713
06/15/92
$60.00
ANDERSON, CHERI
PERFORM CL 6/13/92
052192
ADMINISTRATION
PRO SVC OTHER
< *>
$60.00*
127714
06/15/92
$60.00
ANDERSON, KATHRYN
REFUND SWIMMING
060992
GENERAL FD PRO
REGISTRATION
< *>
$60.00*
127715
06/15/92
$41.90
AQUA ENGINEERING
GENERAL SUPPLIES
32982
SNOW & ICE REM
GENERAL SUPPL
1620
06/15/92
$126.70
AQUA ENGINEERING
GENERAL SUPPLIES
33133
SNOW & ICE REM
GENERAL SUPPL
1724
< *>
$168.60*
127716
06/15/92
$105.00
ARTS MIDWEST
CONT ED
060392
ADMINISTRATION
CONF & SCHOOL
< *>
$105.00*
127717
06/15/92
$50.00
ASPLUND COFFEE
COST OF GOODS SOLD
39766
VANVALKENBURG
CST OF GO FOO
3715
< *>
$50.00*
127718
06/15/92
$418.00
ASSOCIATED SUPPLY CO
GENERAL SUPLLIES
3610
POOL OPERATION
GENERAL SUPPL
< *>
$418.00*
127719
06/15/92
$79.00
AT & T INFO SYSTEM
TELEPHONE
51880986
CENT SVC GENER
TELEPHONE
06/15/92
$28.89
AT & T INFO SYSTEM
TELEPHONE
51880958
ART CENTER BLD
TELEPHONE
< *>
$107.89*
127720
06/15/92
$13.35
AT &T CONS PROD DIV
TELEPHONE
05 -25/8-
PUMP & LIFT ST
TELEPHONE
06/15/92
$16.01
AT &T CONS PROD DIV
TELEPHONE
5- 26/8 -2
PUMP & LIFT ST
TELEPHONE
< *>
$29.36*
127721
06/15/92
$206.71
AUTOMOTIVE WHOLESALE
REPAIR PARTS
41506
EQUIPMENT OPER
REPAIR PARTS
1852
06/15/92
$129.79
AUTOMOTIVE WHOLESALE
REPAIR PARTS
41541
EQUIPMENT OPER
REPAIR PARTS
1937
< *>
$336.50*
127722
06/15/92
$48.00
BACH -BILL
GENERAL SUPPLIES
060892
CENTENNIAL LAK
GENERAL SUPPL
< *>
$48.00*
127723
06/15/92
$1,116.20
BACHMANS
OAK BICOLOR
41865
WORK. CAP. PRO
ACCTS REC MIS
1061
< *>
$1,116:20*
127724
06%15/92
$84.85
BANKSYSTEMS
VISA TAPES
007768
VERNON SELLING
CST OF GDS MI
< *>
$84.85*
127725
06/15/92
$157.50
BARNARD ELECTRONICS
ALARM REPAIR
0011418-
BUILDING & GRO
SVC CONTR EQU
2226
COUNCIL
CHECK REGISTER THU, JUN
11, 1992, 12:30 AM
page 3
CHECK#
DATE
CHECK AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT
P.O. #
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
< *>
$157.50*
127726
06/15/92
$647'.90
BARRETT MOV /STORE
VOTING EQUIP
C1897.2
JUDGES - SCHOOL
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$647.90*
127727
06/15/92
$1,664.30
BARRETT SPORTSWEAR
GENERAL SUPPLIES
1246
ATHLETIC ACTIV
GENERAL SUPPL
< *>
$1,664.30*
127728
06/15/92
$31.55
BATTERY WAREHOUSE
REPAIR PARTS
182404
EQUIPMENT OPER
REPAIR PARTS
.1847
06/15/92
$322.80
BATTERY WAREHOUSE
REPAIR PARTS
183208
EQUIPMENT OPER
REPAIR PARTS
1752
06/15/92
$18.95
BATTERY WAREHOUSE
REPAIR PARTS
2141
MAINT OF COURS
REPAIR PARTS
2141
< *>
$373.30*
127729
06/15/92
$358.50
BECKER ARENA PRODUCT
PAINT
013727
ARENA BLDG /GRO
PAINT
1793
06/15/92
$221.18
BECKER ARENA PRODUCT
REPAIRS
013720
ARENA ICE MAIN
CONTR REPAIRS
2298
< *>
$579.68*
127730
06/15/92
$2,095.60
BEER WHOLESALERS
BEER
052992
GRILL
CST OF GDS BE
06/15/92
$36.60
BEER WHOLESALERS
GENERAL SUPPLIES
052992
RANGE
GENERAL SUPPL
06/15/92
$1,429.20
BEER WHOLESALERS
BEER
MAY 1098
YORK SELLING
CST OF GDS BE
06/15/92
$47.10
BEER WHOLESALERS
MIX
MAY 1098
YORK SELLING
CST OF GDS MI
06/15/92
$315.50
BEER WHOLESALERS
BEER
MAY 50TH
50TH ST SELLIN
CST OF GDS BE
06/15/92
$16.20
BEER WHOLESALERS
BEER
MAY 50TH
50TH ST SELLIN
CST OF GDS MI
< *>
$3,940.20*
127731
06/15/92
$100.00
BENNETT -WAYNE
POLICE SERVICES
JUNE
RESERVE PROGRA
PERS SERVICES
< *>
$100.00*
127732
06/15/92
$128.50
BERGFORD TRUCKING
LIQUOR DELIVERY
MAY 1992
50TH ST SELLIN
CST OF GD LIQ
06/15/92
$217.50
BERGFORD TRUCKING
LIQUOR DELIVERY
MAY 1992
YORK SELLING
CST OF GD LIQ
06/15/92
$241.00
BERGFORD TRUCKING
LIQUOR DELIVERY
MAY 1992
VERNON SELLING
CST OF GD LIQ
< *>
$587.00*
127733
06/15/92
$31.76
BERTELSON BROS. INC.
GENERAL SUPPLIES
785280
POLICE DEPT. G
GENERAL SUPPL
06/15/92
$184.90
BERTELSON BROS. INC.
GENERAL SUPPLIES
785362
POLICE DEPT. G
GENERAL SUPPL
06/15/92
$55.05
BERTELSON BROS. INC.
OFFICE SUPPLIES
785510
ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE SUPPLI
1975
06/15/92
$626.58
BERTELSON BROS. INC.
GENERAL SUPPLIES
785305
CENT SVC GENER
GENERAL SUPPL
06/15/92
$80.64
BERTELSON BROS. INC.
GENERAL SUPPLIES
785305B1
CENT SVC GENER
GENERAL SUPPL
06/15/92
$38.56
BERTELSON BROS. INC.
GENERAL SUPPLIES
787248
CENT SVC GENER
GENERAL SUPPL
< *>
$1,017.49*
127734
06/15/92
$45.85
BEST COPY STORES
GENERAL SUPPLIES
060292
POLICE DEPT. G
GENERAL SUPPL
< *>
$45.85*
127735
06/15/92
$6.88
BEST LOCK OF MPLS
GENERAL SUPPLIES
026506
BUILDING MAINT
GENERAL SUPPL
1408
< *>
$6.88*
127736
06/15/92
$5,449.61
BFI OF MN INC
REFUSE
920500 -1
50TH STREET RU
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$5,449.61*
127737
06/15/92
$52.00
BFU SERVICE GROUP
SANITATION
920500 -2
MAINT OF COURS
SVC CONTR EQU
2275
06/15/92
$148.47
BFU SERVICE GROUP
SERVICE
920500 -2
BUILDING MAINT
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$200.47*
127738
06/15/92
$36.91
BLACK, JENNY
GENERAL SUPPLIES
060992
PLAYGROUND & T
GENERAL SUPPL
COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER THU, JUN
11, 1992, 12:30 AM
page 4
CHECK#
DATE
CHECK AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT
P.O. #
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<*>
$36.91*
127739
06/15/92
$35.91
BLEVINS CONCESSIONS
PIZZA.OVEN
4207395-
POOL CONCESSIO
CST OF GD F00
< *>
$35.91*
127740
06/15/92
$100.00
BLOOD DAVID
POLICE SERVICES
JUNE
RESERVE PROGRA
PERS SERVICES
< *>
$100.00*
127741
06/15/92
$50.00
BLUMBERG,SUE
PERFORM CL 6/6/92
052192
ADMINISTRATION
PRO SVC OTHER
< *>
$50.00*
127742
06/15/92
$1,250.00
BOUSTEAD ELECTRIC &
REPAIRS
330429
POOL OPERATION
CONTR REPAIRS
2128
< *>
$1,250.00*
127743
06/15/92
$107.82
BOYER TRUCKS
REPAIR PARTS
135253
EQUIPMENT OPER
REPAIR PARTS
1957
06/15/92
$73.70
BOYER TRUCKS
REPAIR PARTS
135568
EQUIPMENT OPER
REPAIR PARTS
1956
< *>
$181.52*
127744
06/15/92
$214.00
BRAUN INTERTEC
CONSTRUCTION
006243
SIDEWALK
CIP
< *>
$214.00*
127745
06/15/92
$246.00
BROWN TRAFFIC PRODUC
REPAIR PARTS
8455
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
REPAIR PARTS
9912
< *>
$246.00*
127746
06/15/92
$115.00
BRUMFIELD ADRIANE
AC INSTRUCTOR
060892
ART CENTER ADM
PROF SERVICES
06/15/92
$8.33
BRUMFIELD ADRIANE
ART WORK SOLD
060892
ART CNTR PROG
RETAIL SALES
< *>
$123.33*
127747
06/15/92
$360.00
BRYANT, BETSY
AC INSTRUCTOR
060892
ART CENTER ADM
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$360.00*
127748
06/15/92
$144.80
BUD LARSON SALES
TOOLS
0944
GENERAL MAINT
TOOLS
1850
< *>
$144.80*
127749
06/15/92
$100.00
BUTLER GEORGE
POLICE SERVICES
JUNE
RESERVE PROGRA
PERS SERVICES
< *>
$100.00*
127750
06/15/92
$143.08
CALLAHAN,FRAN
MILEAGE
060492
PUBLIC HEALTH
MILEAGE
<*>
$143.08*
127751
06/15/92
$564.25
CARLSON PRINTING
GENERAL SUPPLIES
054613
CENT SVC GENER
GENERAL SUPPL
2047
06/15/92
$242.25
CARLSON PRINTING
GENERAL SUPPLIES
054612
CENT SVC GENER
GENERAL SUPPL
2047
06/15/92
$275.35
CARLSON PRINTING
PRINTING
054681
ADMINISTRATION
PRINTING
2225
06/15/92
$101.70
CARLSON PRINTING
PRINTING
054659
ADMINISTRATION
PRINTING
2227
06/15/92
$124.10
CARLSON PRINTING
PRINTING
054660
ADMINISTRATION
PRINTING
2228
< *>
$1,307.65*
127752
06/15/92
$16.87
CARLSON STORE FIX CO
GENERAL SUPPLIES
55888
BUILDING & GRO
GENERAL SUPPL
1232
< *>
$16.87*
127753
06/15/92
$460.87
CARLSON, DAVID
CONT ED
060592
POLICE DEPT. G
CONF & SCHOOL
< *>
$460.87*
127754
06/15/92
$87.00
CARMICHAEL, TARA
AC INSTRUCTOR
060892
ART CENTER ADM
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$87.00*
COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER THU, JUN 11, 1992, 12:30 AM
page 5
CHECK#
DATE
CHECK AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT
P.O. #
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
127755
06/15/92
$87.23
CATCO
REPAIR PARTS
392887
EQUIPMENT OPER
REPAIR PARTS
1950
< *>
$87.23"
127756
06/15/92
$85.08
CEDAR LAKE FLORAL
GENERAL SUPPLIES
543172
CONTINGENCIES
GENERAL SUPPL
< *>
$85.08"
127757
06/15/92
$71.82
CELLULAR ONE
PHONE RENTAL
MAY 21,
FIRE DEPT. GEN
EQUIP RENTAL
06/15/92
$50.72
CELLULAR ONE
PHONE RENTAL
MAY 21,
FIRE DEPT. GEN
EQUIP RENTAL
06/15/92
$158.16
CELLULAR ONE
TELEPHONE
052192
POLICE DEPT. G
EQUIP RENTAL
< *>
$280.70*
127758
06/15/92
$92.00
CHECK REGRIGERATION
SERVICES
00071281
CENTENNIAL LAK
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$92.00*
127759
06/15/92
$329.40
CITY BEER
BEER
MAY 1180
YORK SELLING
CST OF GDS BE
06/15/92
$128.00
CITY BEER
BEER
MAY 50TH
50TH ST SELLIN
CST OF GDS BE
< *>
$457.40*
127760
06/15/92
$13.50
CITYWIDE WINDOW SERV
WINDOW CLEANING
32196
50TH ST OCCUPA
CONTR REPAIRS
06/15/92
$13.50
CITYWIDE WINDOW SERV
WINDOW CLEANING
32197
YORK OCCUPANCY
CONTR REPAIRS
06/15/92
$13.50
CITYWIDE WINDOW SERV
WINDOW CLEANING
32198
VERNON OCCUPAN
CONTR REPAIRS
< *>
$40.50*
127761
06/15/92
$102.24
CLASSIC POOLS PLUS I
GENERAL SUPPLIES
0028240
POOL TRACK GRE
GENERAL SUPPL
2224
< *>
$102.24*
127762
06/15/92
$29.95
CLEAR WATER COOLERS
GENERAL SUPPLIES
92054786
ART CENTER ADM
GENERAL SUPPL
< *>
$29.95*
127763
06/15/92
$672.95
COCA COLA BOTTLING
MIX
MAY 1194
YORK SELLING
CST OF GDS MI
06/15/92
$406.66
COCA COLA BOTTLING
MIX
MAY 50TH
50TH ST SELLIN
CST OF GDS MI
< *>
$1,079.61"
127764
06/15/92
$429.00
COMM CENTER
GENERAL SUPPLIES
90034
ADMINISTRATION
GENERAL SUPPL
1829
< *>
$429.00*
127765
06/15/92
$166.72
COMMERCIAL FURNITURE
REPAIRS
00032168
CITY HALL GENE
CONTR REPAIRS
2139
< *>
$166.72*
127766
06/15/92
$149.75
COURSE SAVERS
GENERAL SUPPPLIES
060992
MAINT OF COURS
GENERAL SUPPL
< *>
$149.75*
127767
06/15/92
$380.00
COURTNEY, C WAYNE
SERVICES JUNE 1992
JUNE 199
ADMINISTRATION
PROF SERVICES
< ">
$380.00*
127768
06/15/92
$195.52
CREATIVE PROMOTIONS
GENERAL SUPPLIES
53178
TENNIS INSTRUC
GENERAL SUPPL
1066
< ">
$195.52*
127769
06/15/92
$1,386'.67
CRIMMINS TIMOTHY J M
MEDICAL SERVICES
JUNE
FIRE DEPT. GEN
PROF SERVICES
< ">
$1,386.67"
127770
06/15/92
$29.00
CSI
REPAIRS
16853
EQUIPMENT OPER
CONTR REPAIRS
1951
< *>
$29.00"
127771
06/15/92
$26.00
CULLIGAN
CULLIGAN SERVICE
8903585
GENERAL FD PRO
CONTR SERVICE
COUNCIL
CHECK REGISTER THU, JUN 11, 1992, 12:30 AM
page 6
CHECK#
DATE
CHECK AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT
P.O. #
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
< *>
$26.00*
127772
06/15/92
$1,645.75
CURTIS 1000
EMBLEMS
6300325
EQUIPMENT OPER
ACCESSORIES
7743
< *>
$1,645.75*
127773
06/15/92
$335.74
CUSHMAN MOTOR CO..
REPAIR PARTS
53234
EQUIPMENT OPER
REPAIR PARTS
1311
06/15/92
$119.76
CUSHMAN MOTOR CO.
REPAIR PARTS
53563
MAINT OF COURS
REPAIR PARTS
1677
06/15/92
$94.00
CUSHMAN MOTOR CO.
REPAIR PARTS
53677
MAINT OF COURS
REPAIR PARTS
1788
06/15/92
$17.82
CUSHMAN MOTOR CO.
REPAIR PARTS
53787
MAINT OF COURS
REPAIR PARTS
1894
06/15/92
$71.25
CUSHMAN MOTOR CO.
REPAIR PARTS
53974
MAINT OF COURS
REPAIR PARTS
2067
< *>
$638.57*
127774
06/15/92
$65.01
CUSTOM FIRE APP
REPAIR PARTS
003996
EQUIPMENT OPER
REPAIR PARTS
1774
< *>
$65.01*
127775
06/15/92
$30.00
D.C. HEY CO.
COPY MACHINE
275088
ADMINISTRATION
SVC CONTR"EQU
<ik>
$30.00*
127776
06/15/92
$40.15
DANIEL SMITH
COST OF GOODS SOLD
7001412
ART SUPPLY GIF
CST OF GD F00
9056
06/15/92
$82.58
DANIEL SMITH
COST OF GOODS SOLD
7020408
.ART SUPPLY GIF
CST OF GD FOO
9933
< *>
$122.73*
127777
06/15/92
$22.00
DANS REGISTER SERVIC
GENERAL SUPPLIES
051192
VANVALKENBURG
GENERAL SUPPL
< *>
$22.00*
127778
06/15/92
$353.20
DAVE S FOOD WAGON
DAIRY
5/92
GRILL
CST OF GD F00
9030
< *>
$353.20*
127779
06/15/92
$101.50
DAVIDSEN DIST. INC.
MIX
1250 YOR
YORK SELLING
CST OF GDS MI
06/15/92
$65.25
DAVIDSEN DIST. INC.
BEER
1250 YOR
YORK SELLING
CST OF GDS BE
< *>
$166.75*
127780
06/15/92
$838.80
DCA INC
FEE FOR SERVICE
49650
CENT SVC GENER
HOSPITALIZATI
< *>
$838.80*
127781
06/15/92
$3,455.00
DECORATING DENNIS PA
CONSTRUCTION
060992
PARKS
CIP
< *>
$3,455.00*
127782
06/15/92
$950.00
DELEGARD TOOL CO.
WELDER FOR SHOP
42248
MAINT OF COURS
MACH. & EQUIP
1909
< *>
$950.00*
127783
06/15/92
$60.00
DEMPSEY, DAUN
REFUND /SWIMMING
052792
GENERAL FD PRO
REGISTRATION
< *>
$60.00*
127784
06/15/92
$28.18
DEPENDABLE COURIER
COURIER SERVICE
205759.
CENT SVC GENER
POSTAGE
< *>
$28.18*
127785
06/15/92
$842.00
DICKER, TOBIE
AC INSTRUCTOR
060892
ART CENTER ADM
PROF SERVICES
06/15/92
$60.00
DICKER, TOBIE
PT MAINT AC
060892
ART CENTER BLD
SALARIES TEMP
< *>
$902.00*
127786
06/15/92
$468.00
DIETRICHSON, BILL
AC INSTRUCTOR
060892
ART CENTER ADM
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$468.00*
127787
06/15/92
$80.94
DISPATCH COMM /MN
RENTAL
20025
CENTENNIAL LAK
SVC CONTR EQU
COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER THU, JUN 11, 1992, 12:30 AM
page 7
CHECK#
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATE
CHECK AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT
P.O.
< *>
$80.94*
127788
08/15/92
$80'.00
DISPLAY INC
GENERAL SUPPLIES
4843
ATHLETIC ACTIV
GENERAL SUPPL
< *>
$80.00*
127789
06/15/92
$157.15
DIST LAUNDRY
LAUNDRY
051292
POOL TRACK GRE
LAUNDRY
06/15/92
$76.95
DIST LAUNDRY
LAUNDRY
052092
POOL TRACK GRE
LAUNDRY
06/15/92
$104.65
DIST LAUNDRY
LAUNDRY
043092
POOL TRACK GRE
LAUNDRY
< *>
$338.75*
127790
06/15/92
$14,763.06
DORSEY & WHITNEY
LEGAL
278641
LEGAL SERVICES
PRO SVC - LEG
< *>
$14,763.06*
127791
06/15/92
$21.96
DOTZENROD, TOM
REFUND /5825 KELLOGG
A 060492
UTILITY PROG
ACCOUNTS REC.
< *>
$21.96*
127792
06/15/92
$213.01
E KRAEMER & SONS INC
DUMP CHARGES
26108
STREET RENOVAT
DUMPING CHARG
< *>
$213.01*
127793
06/15/92
$92.65
E -Z -GO TEXTRON
REPAIR PARTS
0241342
GOLF CARS
REPAIR PARTS
1824
06/15/92
$287.08
E -Z -GO TEXTRON
REPAIR PARTS
0243195
GOLF CARS
REPAIR PARTS
1891
06/15/92
$400.80
E -Z -GO TEXTRON
REPAIR PARTS
246052
GOLF CARS_
REPAIR PARTS
1965
< *>
$780.53*
127794
06/15/92
$151.73
EAGLE WINE
MIX
569459
VERNON SELLING
CST OF GDS MI
< *>
$151.73*
127795
06/15/92
$264.00
EARL F. ANDERSON
GENERAL SUPPLIES
114585
PAVEMENT MARKI
GENERAL SUPPL
1615
06/15/92
$69.96
EARL F. ANDERSON
REPAIR PARTS
114661
PARKING RAMP
REPAIR PARTS
1760
< *>
$333.96*
127796
06/15/92
$198.40
EAST SIDE BEVERAGE
MIX
1300 50T
50TH ST SELLIN
CST OF GDS MI
06/15/92
$5,842.70
EAST SIDE BEVERAGE
BEER
1300 50T
50TH ST SELLIN
CST OF GDS BE
06/15/92
$385.50
EAST SIDE BEVERAGE
MIX
1300 YOR
YORK SELLING
CST OF GDS MI
06/15/92
$15,656.75
EAST SIDE BEVERAGE
BEER
1300 YOR
YORK SELLING
CST OF GDS BE
< *>
$22,083.35*
127797
06/15/92
$80.00
EASYBAR OF MINNESOTA
REPAIRS
2805
CLUB HOUSE
CONTR REPAIRS
2352
< *>
$80.00*
127798
06/15/92
$25.00
EATON, MARK
REFUND TENNIS
060992
GENERAL FD PRO
REGISTRATION
< *>
$25.00*
127799
06/15/92
$408.25
ED PHILLIPS & SONS
BEER
2934
VERNON SELLING
CST OF GDS BE
06/15/92
$42.80
ED PHILLIPS & SONS
MIX
2646
VERNON SELLING
CST OF GDS BE
< *>
$451.05*
127800
06/15/92
$223.78
EMER MED. PRODUCTS
AMBULANCE SUPPLIES
108257
FIRE DEPT. GEN
FIRST AID SUP
1654
< *>
$223.78*
127801
06/15/92
$300.00
EMPLOYEES CLUB
GENERAL SUPPLIES
JUNE
CONTINGENCIES
GENERAL SUPPL
< *>
$300.00*
127802
06/15/92
$29,723.00
ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEM
CONSTRUCTION
060992
PARKS
CIP
< *>
$29,723.00*
COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER THU, JUN 11, 1992, 12:30 AM
page 8
CHECK#
------------------------=-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATE
CHECK AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT
P.O. #
127803
06/15/92
$94.92
EVANS, JACKIE
MILEAGE
060192
CONSTRUCT PROG
MILEAGE
06/15/92
$36.08
EVANS, JACKIE
GENERAL SUPPLIES
060992
PLAYGROUND & T
GENERAL SUPPL
< *>
$131.00*
127804
06/15/92
$2,019.19
FEED RITE CONTROL
WATER CHEMICALS
177168
WATER TREATMEN
WATER TRTMT S
1169
06/15/92
$1,421.62
FEED RITE CONTROL
WATER CHEMICALS
177333
WATER TREATMEN
WATER TRTMT S
1169
06/15/92
$560.56
FEED RITE CONTROL
WATER CHEMICALS
177609
WATER TREATMEN
WATER TRTMT S
1169
06/15/92
$459.17
FEED RITE CONTROL
REPAIRS
177794
POOL OPERATION
CONTR REPAIRS
< *>
$4,460.54*
127805
06/15/92
$26,025.00
FIRST TRUST
BOND INTEREST
83331 -00
IBR #2 PROG
INTEREST BOND
06/15/92
$39,150.00
FIRST TRUST
BOND INTEREST
83325 -01
ADMINISTRATION
INTEREST BOND
06/15/92
$72,563.75
FIRST TRUST
BOND INTEREST
23 -83325
ADMINISTRATION
INTEREST BOND
06/15/92
$20,090.50
FIRST TRUST
BOND INTEREST
23 -83325
ADMINISTRATION
INTEREST BOND
06/15/92
$67,259.50
FIRST TRUST
BOND INTERESR
23 -83325
ARENA ADMINIST
INTEREST BOND
06/15/92
$423,478.75
FIRST TRUST
BOND INTEREST -EDIN
23 -83325
GENERAL FD PRO
DUE FROM HRA
< *>
$648,567.50*
127806
06/15/92
$190.84
FORESTRY SUPPLIERS I
GENERAL SUPPLIES
377223 -0
BUILDING & GRO
GENERAL SUPPL
1972
< *>
$190.84*
127807
06/15/92
$11.00
FORSETH, JOEL
COMM ED DL
060492
FIRE DEPT. GEN
LIC & PERMITS
< *>
$11.00*
127808
06/15/92
$250.20
GARMENT GRAPHICS INC
GENERAL SUPPLIES
101943
RANGE
GENERAL SUPPL
2146
< *>
$250.20*
127809
06/15/92
$1,101.52
GARTNER REFRIG INC.
REPAIRS
007902
ARENA ICE MAIN
CONTR REPAIRS
2038
06/15/92
$390.63
GARTNER REFRIG INC.
REPAIRS
007882
ARENA ICE MAIN
CONTR REPAIRS
2151
< *>
$1,492.15*
127810
06/15/92
$300.00
GEISHEKER, PATRICIA
AC INSTRUCTOR
060892
ART CENTER ADM
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$300.00*
127811
06/15/92
$131.00
GILLIS, LOUISE
AC INSTRUCTOR
060892
ART CENTER ADM
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$131.00*
127812
06/15/92
$185.00
GOLF CAR MIDWEST
REPAIR PARTS
7690
GOLF CARS
REPAIR PARTS
1792
< *>
$185.00*
127813
06/15/92
$30.00
GREGORY, BETSY
REFUND SWIMMING
060992
GENERAL FD PRO
REGISTRATION
< *>
$30.00*
127814
06/15/92
$12,877.00
GREUPNER, JOE
JUNE LESSONS
060992
ADMINISTRATION
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$12,877.00*
127815
06/15/92
$879.20
GROVE NURSERY CENTER
TREES
38623
WORK. CAP. PRO
ACCTS REC MIS
9775
< *>
$879.20*
127816
06/15/92
$210.00
GRUBERS POWER EQUIP
FERTILIZER SPREADER
14338
GENERAL TURF C
TOOLS
1034
06/15/92
$378.77
GRUBERS POWER EQUIP
REPAIR PARTS
14914
MOWING
REPAIR PARTS
1989
06/15/92
$29.90
GRUBERS POWER EQUIP
REPAIR PARTS
14960
MOWING
REPAIR PARTS
2014
< *>
$618.67*
127817
06/15/92
$321.00
GUST, MARGARET
AC INSTRUCTOR
060892
ART CENTER ADM
PROF SERVICES
COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER THU, JUN 11, 1992, 12:30 AM
page 9
CHECK#
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATE
CHECK AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT
P.O. #
<*>
$321.00*
127818
06/15/92
$1,573.00
HALLMAN
ENGINE OIL
128864
EQUIPMENT OPER
LUBRICANTS
1708
< *>
$1,573.00*
127819
06/15/92
$249.00
HARMON GLASS & GLAZE
GENERAL SUPPLIES
40017359
STREET REVOLVI
GENERAL SUPPL
1952
< *>
$249.00*
127820
06/15/92
$201.64
HARMON GLASS
WINDSHIELD
72001490
EQUIPMENT OPER
EQUIP RENTAL
1769
< *>
$201.64*
127821
06/15/92
$978.00
HARRIS COMMUNICATION
PHONES
9201931-
EDINB /CL PROG
MACH. & EQUIP
1801
< *>
$978.00*
127822
06/15/92
$137.00
HAYWA, PHYLLIS
AC INSTRUCTOR
060892
ART CENTER ADM
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$137.00*
127823
06/15/92
$68.09
HEDBERG AGGREGATES
GENERAL SUPPLIES
436874
ARENA ICE MAIN
GENERAL SUPPL
2034
06/15/92
$94.55
HEDBERG AGGREGATES
GENERAL SUPPLIES
43738
ARENA ICE MAIN
GENERAL SUPPL
2043
< *>
$162.64*
127824
06/15/92
$83.00
HEDGES, DIANA
P &R MAINT
060892
ART CENTER ADM
CRAFT SUPPLIE
< *>
$83.00*
127825
06/15/92
$394.28
HEIMARK FOODS
MEAT
053092
GRILL
CST OF GD F00
< *>
$394.28*
127826
06/15/92
$157.28
HELENA CHEMICAL COMP
WEED SPRAY
047162
GENERAL TURF C
WEED SPRAY
2011
< *>
$157.28*
127827
06/15/92
$3,412.81
HENNEPIN COUNTY TREA
WORKHOUSE /JAIL
000645
LEGAL SERVICES
BRD & RM PRIS
< *>
$3,412.81*
127828
06/15/92
$52.92
HINTON, LAURA
MILEAGE
060192
CONSTRUCT PROG
MILEAGE
< *>
$52.92*
127829
06/15/92
$100.00
HOFFMAN- WILLIAM
POLICE SERVICES
JUNE
RESERVE PROGRA
PERS SERVICES
< *>
$100.00*
127830
06/15/92
$184.00
HOLMQUIST. EVIE
AC INSTRUCTOR
060892
ART CENTER ADM
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$184.00*
127831
06/15/92
$29.82
HOOTENS
LAUNDRY
MAY
POLICE DEPT. G
LAUNDRY
< *>
$29.82*
127832
06/15/92
$2,484.00
HYDRO SUPPLY CO
WATER METERS
4661
UTILITY PROG
INVENTORY WAT
8536
< *>
$2,484.00*
127833
06/15/92
$105.00
IAAO
DUES
749131
ASSESSING
DUES & SUBSCR
< *>
$105.00*
127834
06/15/92
$19.45
ID CHECK GUIDE
GENERAL SUPPLIES
117381
YORK SELLING
GENERAL SUPPL
<*>
$19.45*
127835
06/15/92
$1,202.19
IMPULSE CONCEPTS
REPAIRS
3385 -2
BUILDING MAINT
CONTR REPAIRS
2125
COUNCIL
CHECK REGISTER THU, JUN 11, 1992, 12:30 AM
page 10
CHECK#
DATE
CHECK AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT
P.O. #
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<*)
$1,202.19*
127836
06/15/92
$1811.65
IOS
GENERAL SUPPLIES
K84942
CITY HALL GENE
GENERAL SUPPL
2072
< *>
$181.65*
127837
06/15/92
$140.06
ISLAND ENTERPRIZES
GENERAL SUPPLIES
1971
BUILDING MAINT
GENERAL SUPPL
2261
< *>
$140.06*
127838
06/15/92
$873.15
JAFFEE,JAY
PRO SERVICES
060192
COMMUNICATIONS
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$873.15*
127839
06/15/92
$40.00
JANET CANTON
MILEAGE
060992
FINANCE
MILEAGE
< *>
$40.00*
127840
06/15/92
$245.60
JERRYS PRINTING
PRINTING
C11717
ADMINISTRATION
PRINTING
< *>
$245.60*
127841
06/15/92
$100.00
JOHNSON WALTER
POLICE SERVICES
JUNE
RESERVE PROGRA
PERS SERVICES
< *>
$100.00*
127842
06/15/92
$34.79
JOHNSON, RALPH
CONT ED
060492
ASSESSING
CONF & SCHOOL
< *>
$34.79*
127843
06/15/92
$30.00
JOHNSON, TERRI
REFUND SWIMMING
060992
GENERAL FD PRO
REGISTRATION
< *>
$30.00*
127844
06/15/92
$87.84
KAMAN INDUST TECH
GENERAL SUPPLIES
A717185
CIVIL DEFENSE
GENERAL SUPPL
1727
06/15/92
546.50
KAMAN INDUST TECH
REPAIR PARTS
A717910
MAINT OF COURS
REPAIR PARTS
2114
< *>
$134.34*
127845
06/15/92
$15.00
KEANE, SUSAN
REFUND TENNIS
060992
GENERAL FD PRO
REGISTRATION
< *>
$15.00*
127846
06/15/92
$120.00
KELM, SUZIE
ADVERTISING
060892
ART CENTER ADM
ADVERT OTHER
< *>
$120.00*
127847
06/15/92
$15.00
KIRKLIN, MARTHA
REFUND TENNIS
060992
GENERAL FD PRO
REGISTRATION
< *>
$15.00*
127848
06/15/92
$8.26
KNOX COMM CREDIT
GENERAL SUPPLIES
024672
GOLF DOME
GENERAL SUPPL
9300
06/15/92
$85.88,
KNOX COMM CREDIT
LUMBER
014794
BUILDING MAINT
LUMBER
9837
06/15/92
-$51.44
KNOX COMM CREDIT
INVOICE PD TWICE
006700
CITY HALL GENE
GENERAL SUPPL
06/15/92
- $475.01
KNOX COMM CREDIT
INVOICE PD TWICE
006701
WORK. CAP. PRO
CIP
06/15/92
$84.23
KNOX COMM CREDIT
GENERAL SUPPLIES
019266
MAINT OF COURS
GENERAL SUPPL
1791
06/15/92
$40.05
KNOX COMM CREDIT
LUMBER
020458
BUILDING MAINT
LUMBER
1923
06/15/92
$106.11
KNOX COMM CREDIT
LUMBER
020425
BUILDING MAINT
LUMBER
1999
06/15/92
$41.98
KNOX COMM CREDIT
REPAIR PARTS
020455
BUILDING MAINT
REPAIR PARTS
2000
06/15/92
$96.65
KNOX COMM CREDIT
GENERAL SUPPLIES
020590
MAINT OF COURS
GENERAL SUPPL
1985
06/15/92
$49.98
KNOX COMM CREDIT
LUMBER
020838
BUILDING MAINT
LUMBER
2087
06/15/92
$26.82
KNOX COMM CREDIT
LUMBER
020829
BUILDING MAINT
LUMBER
2088
06/15/92
$268.50
KNOX COMM CREDIT
LUMBER
020994
RANGE
LUMBER
2142
< *>
$282.01*
127849
06/15/92
$270.54
KOKESH ATHLETIC
GENERAL SUPPLIES
63629
PLAYGROUND & T
GENERAL SUPPL
2229
06/15/92
$78.90
KOKESH ATHLETIC
GENERAL SUPPLIES
63502
FIELD MAINTENA
GENERAL SUPPL
1958
COUNCIL
CHECK REGISTER THU, JUN 11, 1992, 12:30 AM
page 11
CHECK#
DATE
CHECK AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT
P.O..#
---------------------------'---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<*>
$349.44*
127850
06/15/92
$45 -i28
KOOLE, DIANE
CONT ED
060492
ASSESSING
CONF & SCHOOL
< *>
$45.28*
127851
06/15/92
$54.15
KUETHER DIST. CO.
MIX
MAY 50TH
50TH ST SELLIN
CST OF GDS MI
06/15/92
$3,765.30
KUETHER DIST. CO.
BEER
MAY 50TH
50TH ST SELLIN
CST OF GDS BE
c *>
$3,819.45*
127852
06/15/92
$210.00
LAKE RESTORATION INC
AQUATIC WEED TREATMEN
2343
PONDS & LAKES
PROF SERVICES
2022
06/15/92
$138.00
LAKE RESTORATION INC
LAKE CLEANING
977
MAINT OF COURS
SVC CONTR EQU
1491
< *>
$348.00*
127853
06/15/92
$197.70
LANDSCAPE PRODUCT CE
FERTILIZER
501001
MAINT OF COURS
FERTILIZER
1968
< *>
$197.70*
127854
06/15/92
$87.93
LAWSON PRODUCTS
REPAIR PARTS
1748789
EQUIPMENT OPER
REPAIR PARTS
1604
06/15/92
$408.91
LAWSON PRODUCTS
REPAIR PARTS
1748790
DISTRIBUTION
REPAIR PARTS
1605
06/15/92
$248.07
LAWSON PRODUCTS
EYE WASH
1748791
GENERAL MAINT
SAFETY EQUIPM
1606
06/15/92
$149.95
LAWSON PRODUCTS
GENERAL SUPPLIES
1748792
EQUIPMENT OPER
GENERAL SUPPL
1607
< *>
$894.86*
127855
06/15/92
$790.00
LAYNE MINNESOTA CO.
REPAIRS
18154
PUMP & LIFT ST
CONTR REPAIRS
9682
06/15/92
$670.00
LAYNE MINNESOTA CO.
REPAIRS
18158
BUILDINGS
CONTR REPAIRS
2099
< *>
$1,460.00*
127856
06/15/92
$22.80
LEEF BROS. INC.
LAUNDRY
053092
MAINT OF COURS
LAUNDRY
< *>
$22.80*
127857
06/15/92
$576.00
LEITNER COMPANY
TOPDRESSING
133337/1
MAINT OF COURS
SOD & DIRT
9292
< *>
$576.00*
127858
06/15/92
$388.00
LETN
CONT ED
63990
POLICE DEPT. G
CONF & SCHOOL
< *>
$388.00*
127859
06/15/92
$196.75
LIEN INFECTION CON
SERVICES
060192
GRILL
PROF SERVICES
06/15/92
$97.93
LIEN INFECTION CON
SERVICES
060192
GOLF DOME
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$294.68*
127860
06/15/92
$4,090.12
LOGIS
DATA PROCESSING
059227/0
FINANCE
DATA PROCESSI
06/15/92
$6,026.40
LOGIS
DATA PROCESSING
059227/0
ASSESSING
DATA PROCESSI
06/15/92
$2,206.78
LOGIS
DATA PROCESSING
059227/0
GENERAL(BILLIN
DATA PROCESSI
06/15/92
$587.34
LOGIS
DATA PROCESSING
059227/0
GENERAL FD PRO
DUE FROM HRA
06/15/92
$327.40
LOGIS
DATA PROCESSING
059227/0
LIQUOR 50TH ST
DATA PROCESSI
06/15/92
$327'.40
LOGIS
DATA PROCESSING
059227/0
LIQUOR YORK GE
DATA PROCESSI
06/15/92
$327.40
LOGIS
DATA PROCESSING
059227/0
VERNON LIQUOR
DATA PROCESSI
< *>
$13,892.84*
127861
06/15/92
$79.90
LYNDALE GARDEN CTR
GENERAL SUPPLIES
77646
BUILDING & GRO
GENERAL SUPPL
2133
< *>
$79.90*
127862
06/15/92
$249.48
M AMUNDSON
CIGARETTES
12930
VERNON SELLING
CST OF GDS MI
06/15/92
$393.90
M AMUNDSON
CIGARETTES
12929
50TH ST SELLIN
CST OF GDS MI
06/15/92
$359:81
M AMUNDSON
CIGARETTES
12962
YORK SELLING
CST OF GDS MI
06/15/92
$250.41
M AMUNDSON
CIGARETTES
13045
VERNON SELLING
CST OF GDS MI
COUNCIL
CHECK REGISTER THU, JUN
11, 1992, 12:30 AM
page 12
CHECK#
DATE
CHECK AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT
P.O. #
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
127862
06/15/92
$358.26
M AMUNDSON
CIGARETTES
13137
YORK SELLING
CST OF GDS MI
< *>
$1,611.86*
127863
06/15/92
$162.02
MAC QUEEN EQUIP INC.
REPAIR PARTS
24768
EQUIPMENT OPER
REPAIR PARTS
1759
06/15/92
$2,741.05
MAC QUEEN EQUIP INC.
REPAIR PARTS
24878
EQUIPMENT OPER
REPAIR PARTS
1751
< *>
$2,903.07*
127864
06/15/92
$250.00
MADSON,JOHN
SERVICES JUNE 1992
JUNE 199
ADMINISTRATION
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$250.00*
127865
06/15/92
$4,960.56
MAGNUSON SOD CO.
GENERAL SUPPLIES
053192
SNOW & ICE REM
GENERAL SUPPL
1372
< *>
$4,960.56*
127866
06/15/92
$71.90
MARK VII SALES
MIX
MAY 50TH
50TH ST SELLIN
CST OF GDS MI
06/15/92
$3,697.10
MARK VII SALES
BEER
MAY 50TH
50TH ST SELLIN
CST OF GDS BE
06/15/92
$52.70
MARK VII SALES
MIX
1573 YOR
YORK SELLING
CST OF GDS MI
06/15/92
$7,487.50
MARK VII SALES
BEER
1573 YOR
YORK SELLING
CST OF GDS BE
<*>
$11,309.20*
127867
06/15/92
$119.00
MCCARTHY, LOWELL
MILEAGE
060992
WEED MOWING
MILEAGE
< *>
$119.00*
127868
06/15/92
$253.78
MCNEILUS STEEL
REPAIR PARTS
0113526
PUMP & LIFT ST
REPAIR PARTS
1692
06/15/92
$63.60
MCNEILUS STEEL-
REPAIR PARTS
0113766
EQUIPMENT OPER
REPAIR PARTS
1710
< *>
$317.38*
127869
06/15/92
$285.00
MECO
TOOLS
414705
GENERAL MAINT
TOOLS
1517
< *>
$285.00*
127870
06/15/92
$100.00
MERFELD -BERT
POLICE SERVICES
JUNE
RESERVE PROGRA
PERS SERVICES
< *>
$100.00*
127871
06/15/92
$421.80
MERIT SUPPLY
PAINT
30008
DISTRIBUTION
PAINT
1726
06/15/92
$455.00
MERIT SUPPLY
GENERAL SUPPLIES
29995
PUMP & LIFT ST
GENERAL SUPPL
1745
06/15/92
$463.80
MERIT SUPPLY
CLEANING SUPPLIES
30116
BUILDING & GRO
CLEANING SUPP
1988
06/15/92
$445.00
MERIT SUPPLY
CLEANING SUPPLIES
30152
CENTENNIAL LAK
CLEANING SUPP
2064
06/15/92
$141.00
MERIT SUPPLY
GENERAL SUPPLIES
30197
BUILDING MAINT
GENERAL SUPPL
06/15/92
$498.20
MERIT SUPPLY
GENERAL SUPPLIES
30232
CENTENNIAL LAK
GENERAL SUPPL
2204
< *>
$2,424.80*
127872
06/15/92
$5,544.00
METRO WASTE CONTROL
SAC CHARGES
MAY 1992
GENERAL FD PRO
BUILDING PERM
< *>
$5,544.00*
127873
06/15/92
$9.54
METROQUIP INC
GENERAL SUPPLIES
76263
BUILDING & GRO
GENERAL SUPPL
< *>
$9.54*
127874
06/15/92
$215.73
METZ BAKING CO
BREAD
053092
GRILL
CST OF GO FOO
06/15/92
$195.82
METZ BAKING CO
BREAD
053192
GRILL
CST OF GD FOO
06/15/92
$14.08
METZ BAKING CO
COST OF GOODS SOLD
060992
VANVALKENBURG
CST OF GO F00
< *>
$425.63*
127875
06/15/92
$80.00
MGCSA
DUES
JUNE 199
MAINT OF COURS
MILEAGE
06/15/92
$80.00
MGCSA
DUES
JUNE 199
MAINT OF COURS
MILEAGE
< *>
$160.00*
COUNCIL
CHECK REGISTER THU, JUN 11, 1992, 12:30 AM
page 13
CHECK#
DATE
CHECK AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT
P.O. #
---------------------
127876
06/15/92
- - - - -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$150.65
MIDWEST ASPHALT COR.
GENERAL SUPPLIES
1109
DISTRIBUTION
GENERAL SUPPL
06/15/92
$939.72
MIDWEST ASPHALT COR.
ASPHALT
7338
GENERAL MAINT
BLACKTOP
06/15/92
$220.49
MIDWEST ASPHALT COR.
ASPHALT
7338
DISTRIBUTION
BLACKTOP
06/15/92
$226.83
MIDWEST ASPHALT COR.
ASPHALT
7386
PUMP & LIFT ST
BLACKTOP
1367
06/15/92
$754.81
MIDWEST ASPHALT COR.
ASPHALT
7437
GENERAL MAINT
BLACKTOP
1367
06/15/92
$2.609.74
MIDWEST ASPHALT COR.
ASPHALT
7437
STREET RENOVAT
BLACKTOP
06/15/92
$466.78
MIDWEST ASPHALT COR.
ASPHALT
7437
DISTRIBUTION
BLACKTOP
06/15/92
$1,310.56
MIDWEST ASPHALT COR.
ASPAHLT
7488
GENERAL MAINT
BLACKTOP
1367
06/15/92
$4,025.64
MIDWEST ASPHALT COR.
ASPHALT
7488
STREET RENOVAT
BLACKTOP
06/15/92
$905.24
MIDWEST ASPHALT COR.
ASPHALT
7488
DISTRIBUTION
BLACKTOP
< *>
$11,610.46*
127877
06/15/92
$493.56
MIDWEST CHEMICAL SUP
PAPER SUPPLIES
6194
CITY HALL GENE
PAPER SUPPLIE
1974
< *>
$493.56*
127878
06/15/92
$39.90
MIDWEST MACHINERY IN
REPAIR PARTS
6546
EQUIPMENT OPER
REPAIR PARTS
1628
< *>
$39.90*
127879
06/15/92
$83.40
MIDWEST VENDING WHSL
COST OF GOODS SOLD /CA
MAY 30,
GRILL
CST OF GD F00
06/15/92
$92.40
MIDWEST VENDING WHSL
COST OF GOODS SOLD
060692
GRILL
CST OF GD F00
2353
< *>
$175.80*
127880
06/15/92
$211.03
MINNEGASCO
GAS
052192
CITY HALL GENE
HEAT
06/15/92
$467.43
MINNEGASCO
GAS
052192
ARENA BLDG /GRO
HEAT
06/15/92
$466.21
MINNEGASCO
GAS
052192
ARENA BLDG /GRO
HEAT
06/15/92
$1,590.46
MINNEGASCO
GAS
052192
PW BUILDING
HEAT
06/15/92
$455.14
MINNEGASCO
GAS
052192
BUILDING & GRO
HEAT
06/15/92
$1,410.51
MINNEGASCO
GAS
052192
GOLF DOME
HEAT
< *>
$4,600.78*
127881
06/15/92
$270.00
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT
ASSESSING LICENSES
JUNE 199
ASSESSING
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$270.00*
127882
06/15/92
$150.00
MINNESOTA GOLF
ADVERTISING
050792
ADMINISTRATION
ADVERT OTHER
< *>
$150.00*-
127883
06/15/92
$161.66
MMBA
DUES
MAY 1992
LIQUOR 50TH ST
DUES & SUBSCR
06/15/92
$161.67
MMBA
DUES
MAY 1992
LIQUOR YORK GE
DUES & SUBSCR
06/15/92
$161.67
MMBA
DUES
MAY 1992
VERNON LIQUOR
DUES & SUBSCR
< *>
$485.00*
127884
06/15/92
$50.00
MN BRICK AND TILE CO
GENERAL SUPPLIES
20214
BUILDING & GRO
GENERAL SUPPL
1798
< *>
$50.00*
127885
06/15/92
$650.80
MN DEPT OF
FUEL TAX
MAY 92
EQUIPMENT OPER
GASOLINE
< *>
$650.80*
127886
06/15/92
$935.00
MN PARENT MAGAZINE
ADVERTISING
JUNE
COMMUNICATIONS
ADVERT OTHER
< *>
$935.00*
127887
06/15/92
$2,542.00
MN STATE TREA /BLG IN
SURCHARGES
MAY 1992
GENERAL FD PRO
BUILDING PERM
< *>
$2,542.00*
127888
06/15/92
$48.88
MN SUBURBAN NEWS
AD FOR BIDS CONT 92 -4
5552
ADMINISTRATION
ADVERTISING L
06/15/92
$45.76
MN SUBURBAN NEWS
ADVERTISING
5645
ADMINISTRATION
ADVERTISING L
COUNCIL
CHECK REGISTER THU, JUN 11, 1992, 12:30 AM
page 14
CHECK#
DATE
CHECK AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT
P.O. #
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
127888
06/15/92
$1,946..00
MN SUBURBAN NEWS
PRINTING
79120
ADMINISTRATION
PRINTING
< *>
$2,040'.64*
127889
06/15/92
$522.00
MN. BAR
MIX
MAY 1630
YORK SELLING
CST OF GDS MI
06/15/92
$141.90
MN. BAR
MIX
1630 50T
50TH ST SELLIN
CST OF GDS MI
< *>
$663.90*
127890
06/15/92
$243.56
MN. TORO INC.
REPAIR PARTS
261918
EQUIPMENT OPER
REPAIR PARTS
1754
06/15/92
$84.02
MN. TORO INC.
REPAIR PARTS
263632
EQUIPMENT OPER
REPAIR PARTS
1843
06/15/92
$10.64
MN. TORO INC.
REPAIR PARTS
264256
MAINT OF COURS
REPAIR PARTS
1789
06/15/92
$287.30
MN. TORO INC.
GENERAL SUPPLIES
264885
CENTENNIAL LAK
GENERAL SUPPL
1973
06/15/92
$161.00
MN. TORO INC.
REPAIR PARTS
264837
MAINT OF COURS
REPAIR PARTS
1895
06/15/92
$119.57
MN. TORO INC.
REPAIR PARTS
265433
MAINT OF COURS
REPAIR PARTS
1789
06/15/92
$19.80
MN. TORO INC.
TOOLS
265268
CENTENNIAL LAK
TOOLS
1973
06/15/92
$72.88
MN. TORO INC.
REPAIR PARTS
268830
MAINT OF COURS
REPAIR PARTS
2144
< *>
$998.77*
127891
06/15/92
$100.00
MN. VALLEY WHOLESALE
CONSTRUCTION
M32193 -0
CONSTRUCT PROD
CIP
9801
< *>
$100.00*
127892
06/15/92
$9.58
MN. WANNER
REPAIR PARTS
0015110-
GENERAL TURF C
REPAIR PARTS
2013
06/15/92
$3.58
MN. WANNER
REPAIR PARTS
15156
GENERAL TURF C
REPAIR PARTS
2092
< *>
$13.16*
127893
06/15/92
$192.91
MODEL STONE
HAND CURB
141058
DISTRIBUTION
CONCRETE
1369
< *>
$192.91*
127894
06/15/92
814.50
MONARCH MARKETING
OFFICE SUPPLIES
309104
LIQUOR 50TH ST
OFFICE SUPPLI
< *>
$14.50*
127895
06/15/92
$45.00
MOTT, LUCY
CLEANING
311559
CLUB HOUSE
SVC CONTR EQU
1570
< *>
$45.00*
127896
06/15/92
$609.00
MUNICILITE CO
REPAIR PARTS
3709
EQUIPMENT OPER
REPAIR PARTS
1454
< * >.
5609.00 *.
127897
06/15/92
$123.00
MYERS, LOIS
ART WORK SOLD
060892
ART CNTR PROG
RETAIL SALES
< *>
$123.00*
127898
06/15/92
$75.00
N.T.O.A.
DUES
062692
POLICE DEPT. G
DUES & SUBSCR
< *>
$75.00*
127899
06/15/92
$231.60
NAME BRAND SPORTS
UNIFORMS
5221
CENTENNIAL LAK
LAUNDRY
1899
< *>
$231.60*
127900
06/15/92
$174.93
NEBCO /L.L. DISTRIBUT
CONCESSIONS
526292
VANVALKENBURG
CST OF GD F00
3715
06/15/92
$167.50
NEBCO /L.L. DISTRIBUT
COST OF GOODS SOLD
537271
VANVALKENBURG
CST OF GD F00
3715
06/15/92
$21.30
NEBCO /L.L. DISTRIBUT
COST OF GOODS SOLD
537270
VANVALKENBURG
CST OF GD F00
< *>
$363.73*
127901
06/15/92
$39.41
NIELSEN SHEET METAL
GENERAL SUPPLIES
0011543
CLUB HOUSE
GENERAL SUPPL
2030
< *>
$39.41*
127902
06/15/92
$100.00
NISSEN DICK
POLICE SERVICES
JUNE
RESERVE PROGRA
PERS SERVICES
< *>
$100.00*
COUNCIL
CHECK REGISTER THU, JUN
11, 1992, 12:30 AM
page 15
CHECK#
DATE
CHECK AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT
P.O. 4
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
127903
06/15/92
$119.98
NO STAR TURF
REPAIR PARTS
450750
MAINT OF COURS
REPAIR
PARTS
1966
06/15/92
$113.10
NO STAR TURF
FERTILIZER
052692
GENERAL TURF C
FERTILIZER
1881
06/15/92
$160.99
NO STAR TURF
REPAIR PARTS
052992
MAINT OF COORS
REPAIR
PARTS
2068
< *>
$394.07*
127904
06/15/92
$107.16
NORTHERN
GENERAL SUPPLIES
83763
CENTENNIAL LAK
GENERAL
SUPPL
1744
06/15/92
$164.95
NORTHERN
GENERAL SUPPLIES
536100
MAINT OF COURS
GENERAL
SUPPL
1967
< *>
$272.11*
127905
06/15/92
$219.96
NORTHSTAR ICE
ICE
1688 50T
50TH ST SELLIN
CST OF
GDS MI
06/15/92
$387.48
NORTHSTAR ICE
ICE
1688 YOR
YORK SELLING
CST OF
GDS MI
< *>
$607.44*
127906
06/15/92
$100.00
NORTHWESTERN TIRE CO
TIRES
06751
EQUIPMENT OPER
TIRES &
TUBES
< *>
$100.00*
127907
06/15/92
$159.00
NOVAK'S GARAGE
SERVICES
B6418
CENTENNIAL LAK
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$159.00*
127909
06/15/92
$21.55
NSP
POWER /LIGHT
JUNE
GENERAL MAINT
LIGHT &
POWER
06/15/92
$19,862.77
NSP
POWER /LIGHT
JUNE
ST LIGHTING RE
LIGHT &
POWER
06/15/92
$2,917.53
NSP
POWER /LIGHT
JUNE
ST LIGHTING OR
LIGHT &
POWER
06/15/92
$3,171.19
NSP
POWER /LIGHT
JUNE
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
LIGHT &
POWER
06/15/92
$92.38
NSP
POWER /LIGHT
JUNE
PONDS & LAKES
LIGHT &
POWER
06/15/92
$106.49
NSP
POWER /LIGHT
JUNE
PONDS & LAKES
LIGHT &
POWER
06/15/92
$2,815.15
NSP
POWER /LIGHT
JUNE
PARKING RAMP
LIGHT &
POWER
06/15/92
$902.91
NSP
POWER /LIGHT
JUNE
FIRE DEPT. GEN
LIGHT &
POWER
06/15/92
$47.49
NSP
POWER /LIGHT
JUNE
CIVIL DEFENSE
LIGHT &
POWER
06/15/92
$1,607.75
NSP
POWER /LIGHT
JUNE
CITY HALL GENE
LIGHT &
POWER
06/15/92
$2,125.67
NSP
POWER /LIGHT
JUNE
PW BUILDING
LIGHT &
POWER
06/15/92
$507.92
NSP
POWER /LIGHT
JUNE
BUILDING & GRO
LIGHT &
POWER
06/15/92
$4,824.88.
NSP
POWER /LIGHT
JUNE
BUILDING MAINT
LIGHT &
POWER
06/15/92
$3,272.11
NSP
POWER /LIGHT
JUNE
CLUB HOUSE
LIGHT &
POWER
06/15/92
$258.40
NSP
POWER /LIGHT
JUNE
MAINT OF COURS
LIGHT &
POWER
06/15/92
$227.90
NSP
POWER /LIGHT
JUNE
POOL OPERATION
LIGHT &
POWER
06/15/92
$6,877.10
NSP
POWER /LIGHT
JUNE
ARENA BLDG /GRO
LIGHT &
POWER
06/15/92
$255.59
NSP
POWER /LIGHT
JUNE
GUN RANGE
LIGHT &
POWER
06/15/92
$2,153.22
NSP
POWER /LIGHT
JUNE
PUMP & LIFT ST
LIGHT &
POWER
06/15/92
$24,380.32
NSP
POWER /LIGHT
JUNE
DISTRIBUTION
LIGHT &
POWER
06/15/92
$671.78
NSP
POWER /LIGHT
JUNE
50TH ST OCCUPA
LIGHT &
POWER
06/15/92
$936.21
NSP
POWER /LIGHT
JUNE
YORK OCCUPANCY
LIGHT &
POWER
06/15/92
$532.59
NSP
POWER /LIGHT
JUNE
VERNON OCCUPAN
LIGHT &
POWER
06/15/92
$34.01
NSP
POWER /LIGHT
JUNE
GOLF DOME
LIGHT &
POWER
06/15/92
$5,837.82
NSP
POWER /LIGHT
JUNE
BUILDING & GRO
LIGHT &
POWER
06/15/92
$575.20
NSP
POWER /LIGHT
JUNE
CENTENNIAL LAK
LIGHT &
POWER
< *>
$85,015.93*
127910
06/15/92
$42.87
NW,GRAPHIC SUPPLY
CRAFT SUPPLIES
196062
ART CENTER ADM
CRAFT SUPPLIE
1901
06/15/92
$282.26
NW GRAPHIC SUPPLY
COST OF GOODS SOLD
196062
ART SUPPLY GIF
CST OF
GD F00
1901
< *>
$325.13*
127911
06/15/92
$192.00
ODLAND, DOROTHY
AC INSTRUCTOR
060892
ART CENTER ADM
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$192.00*
127912
06/15/92
$117.15
OFFICE PRODUCTS
GENERAL SUPPLIES
168627
FIRE DEPT. GEN
GENERAL
SUPPL
2032
COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER THU, JUN
11, 1992, 12:30 AM
page 16
CHECK#
DATE
CHECK AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT
P.O. #
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
127912
06/15/92
$35.50
OFFICE PRODUCTS
GENERAL SUPPLIES
168386
POLICE DEPT. G
GENERAL SUPPL
< *>
$152.65*
127913
06/15/92
$281.72
OLD DUTCH FOODS
CHIPS
052992
GRILL
CST OF GD F00
< *>
$281.72*
127914
06/15/92
$256.50
ONEONONE COMPUTER TR
TRAINING TAPE
1307667
CENT SVC GENER
GENERAL SUPPL
2296
06/15/92
$137.25
ONEONONE COMPUTER TR
TRAINING TAPE
1326124
CENT SVC GENER
GENERAL SUPPL
2296
< *>
$393.75*
127915
06/15/92
$74.00
OTIS SPUNKMEYER INC
COST OF GOODS SOLD
7093
ARENA CONCESSI
CST OF GD FOO
9041
06/15/92
$74.00
OTIS SPUNKMEYER INC
COOKIES
7255
GRILL
CST OF GD F00
9041
06/15/92
$111.00
OTIS SPUNKMEYER INC
COOKIES
7257
POOL CONCESSIO
CST OF GD F00
< *>
$259.00*
127916
06/15/92
$66.85
PAPERDIRECT INC
SUPPLIES
15179630
COMMUNICATIONS
GENERAL SUPPL
< *>
$66.85*
127917
06/15/92
$237.00
PARK NIC MED CTR
PHYSICAL
051692
FIRE DEPT. GEN
PHYS EXAMS
< *>
$237.00*
127918
06/15/92
$804.42
PAT GREER
SERVICE JUNE 1992
JUNE 199
ADMINISTRATION
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$804.42*
127919
06/15/92
$2,593.00
PC TAILORS
EQUIP
104848
POLICE DEPT. G
EQUIP REPLACE
06/15/92
$2,402.00
PC TAILORS
EQUIP
104847
POLICE DEPT. G
EQUIP REPLACE
< *>
$4,995.00*
127920
06/15/92
$38.19
PEDERSON, EDWARD
REIMBURSEMENT
060192
ASSESSING
CONF & SCHOOL
< *>
$38.19*
127921
06/15/92
$287.35
PEPSI COLA BOTTLING
MIX
MAY 1726
YORK SELLING
CST OF GDS MI
06/15/92
$1,995.45
PEPSI COLA BOTTLING
PEPSI
MAY GC
GRILL
CST OF GD F00
06/15/92
$207.36
PEPSI COLA BOTTLING
MIX
MAY 50TH
50TH ST SELLIN
CST OF GDS MI
< *>
$2,490.16*
127922
06/15/92
$29.90
PLUNKETTS
GENERAL SUPPLIES
410227
ARENA BLDG /GRO
GENERAL SUPPL
< *>
$29.90*
127923
06/15/92
$2,632.00
POSTMASTER
POSTAGE
060992
COMMUNICATIONS
MAG /NEWSLET E
< *>
$2,632.00*
127924
06/15/92
$55.72
POSTMASTER
POSTAGE
052792
CENT SVC GENER
POSTAGE
< *>
$55.72 *.
127925
06/15/92
$195.00
POSTMASTER
POSTAGE
060892
CENT SVC GENER
POSTAGE
< *>
$195.00*
127926
06/15/92
$141.29
POWER SYSTEMS
GENERAL SUPPLIES
0014281
ARENA BLDG /GRO
GENERAL SUPPL
2213
< *>
$141.29*
127927
06/15/92
44,281.50
PRECISION TURF /CHEM
FEETILIZER
001304
CENTENNIAL LAK
FERTILIZER
1304
06/15/92
$123.98
PRECISION TURF /CHEM
CHEMICALS
001317
MAINT OF COURS
CHEMICALS
1964
06/15/92
$101.44
PRECISION TURF /CHEM
FERTILIZER
001303
CENTENNIAL LAK
FERTILIZER
1112
.06/15/92
$224.25
PRECISION TURF /CHEM
WEED SPRAY
001337
GENERAL TURF C
WEED SPRAY
1991
COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER THU, JUN 11, 1992, 12:30 AM
page 17
CHECK#
DATE
CHECK AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT
P.O. #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------=---------
127927
06/15/92
$77.20
PRECISION TURF /CHEM
REPAIR PARTS
001373
MAINT OF COURS
REPAIR PARTS
1984
< *>
$4,808.37*
127928
06/15/92
$67.50
PRINTERS SERV INC
BLADE SHARPENING
74055
ARENA ICE MAIN
EQUIP MAINT
< *>
$67.50*
127929
06/15/92
$22.67
PRIOR WINE COMPANY
MIX
569663
VERNON SELLING
CST OF GDS MI
06/15/92
$21.78
PRIOR WINE COMPANY
MIX
571453
VERNON SELLING
CST OF GDS MI
< *>
$44.45*
127930
06/15/92
$56.18
QUALITY WINE
MIX
001165 -0
VERNON SELLING
CST OF GDS MI
< *>
$56.18*
127931
06/15/92
$2,375.00
R &R SPECIALTIES INC
REPAIRS
016409
ARENA ICE MAIN
CONTR REPAIRS
1910
< *>
$2,375.00*
127932
06/15/92
$48.00
RADIO INSTALLS
RADIO RENTAL
25983
FIRE DEPT. GEN
EQUIP RENTAL
8571
< *>
$48.00*
127933
06/15/92
$99.95
RADIO SHACK ACCT REC
GENERAL SUPPLIES
46042
BUILDING & GRO
GENERAL SUPPL
7852
06/15/92
$149.03
RADIO SHACK ACCT REC
GENERAL SUPPLIES
46335
BUILDING & GRO
GENERAL SUPPL
7852
06/15/92
$12.64
RADIO SHACK ACCT REC
REPAIR PARTS
057648
50TH ST OCCUPA
REPAIR PARTS
1770
06/15/92
$53.81
RADIO SHACK ACCT REC
GENERAL SUPPLIES
011662
BUILDING & GRO
GENERAL SUPPL
< *>
$315.43*
127934
06/15/92
$200.00
READY, MARY
AC INSTRUCTOR
060892
ART CENTER ADM
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$200.00*
127935
06/15/92
$320.45
RED WING SHOES
SHOES
287573
GENERAL MAINT
SAFETY EQUIPM
06/15/92
$204.85
RED WING SHOES
SHOES
287573
PUMP & LIFT ST
SAFETY EQUIPM
< *>
$525.30*
127936
06/15/92
$25.00
REITZ, CAROL
REFUND TENNIS
060992
GENERAL FD PRO
REGISTRATION
< *>
$25.00*
127937
06/15/92
5431.41
REM SUPPLIES
GENERAL SUPPLIES
01764
BUILDING & GRO
GENERAL SUPPL
2148
06/15/92
$134.12
REM SUPPLIES
GENERAL SUPPLIES
01768
GUN RANGE
GENERAL SUPPL
1729
< *>
$565.53*
127938
06/15/92
$220.00
RESCUE ONE
GENERAL SUPPLIES
5038
FIRE DEPT. GEN
GENERAL SUPPL
9548
< *>
$220.00*
127939
06/15/92
$112.28
RETAIL DATA SYS MN
INK CARTRIDGES
11652
VERNON SELLING
CST OF GDS MI
< *>
$112.28*
127940
06/15/92
$93.70
REX DISTR.
MIX
MAY 50TH
50TH ST SELLIN
CST OF GDS MI
06/15/92
$3,638.70
REX DISTR.
BEER
MAY 50TH
50TH ST SELLIN
CST OF GDS BE
06/15/92
$8,990.90
REX DISTR.
BEER
1787 YOR
YORK SELLING
CST OF GDS BE
06/15/92
$70.65
REX DISTR.
MIX
1787 YOR
YORK SELLING
CST OF GDS MI
< *>
$12,793'.95*
127941
06/15/92
$68.00
RIFFEY, JANE
AC INSTRUCTOR
060892
ART CENTER ADM
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$68.00*
127942
06/15/92
$62.40
RITEWAY
REPAIR PARTS
110064 -M
EQUIPMENT OPER
REPAIR PARTS
1347
COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER THU, JUN 11, 1992, 12:30 AM
page 18
CHECK#
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATE
CHECK AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT
P.O. •
< *>
$62.40*
127943
06/15/92.
$611.19
ROAD RESCUE
REPAIR PARTS
127951
EQUIPMENT OPER
REPAIR PARTS
1955
06/15/92
$485.07.
ROAD- RESCUE
REPAIR PARTS
127931
EQUIPMENT OPER
REPAIR PARTS
1954
06/15/92
$187.77
ROAD RESCUE
REPAIRS
128170
FIRE DEPT. GEN
CONTR REPAIRS
1658
< *>
$734.03*
127944
06/15/92
$78.35
ROCKLER, SHELDON
SPRINKLER HEAD REPAIR
920202
SNOW & ICE REM
GENERAL SUPPL
< *>
$78.35*
127945
06/15/92
$727.88
ROGER'S BODY SHOP
REPAIRS
268065
EQUIPMENT OPER
CONTR REPAIRS
1387
< *>
$727.88*
127946
06/15/92
$96.80
ROL -DRI
GENERAL SUPPLIES
R233715
TENNIS INSTRUC
GENERAL SUPPL
2135
< *>
$96.80*
127947
06/15/92
$6,548.10
ROLLINS OIL CO
GASOLINE
43510
EQUIPMENT OPER
GASOLINE
1996
06/15/92
$625.30
ROLLINS OIL CO
GASOLINE
43513
EQUIPMENT OPER
GASOLINE
1996
< *>
$7,173.40*
127948
06/15/92
$98.00
ROOT- O -MATIC SEWER S
REPAIRS
052992
BUILDING MAINT
CONTR REPAIRS
2086
< *>
$98.00*
127949
06/15/92
$120.00
ROXANNE SEIDEL
SERVICES JUNE 1992
JUNE 199
ADMINISTRATION
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$120.00*
127950
06/15/92
$1,200.00
RTW INC
FEE FOR SERVICE
5/1/92 -5
CENT SVC GENER
INSURANCE
< *>
$1,200.00*
127951
06/15/92
$278.00
RUDQUIST, MONICA
AC INSTRUCTOR
060892
ART CENTER ADM
PROF SERVICES
06/15/92
$11.20
RUDQUIST, MONICA
ART WORK SOLD
060892
ART CNTR PROG
RETAIL SALES
< *>
$289.20*
127952
06/15/92
$25.00
SANKEY, DIANE
GENERAL SUPPLIES
060892
PUMP & LIFT ST
GENERAL SUPPL
06/15/92
$15.00
SANKEY, DIANE
GENERAL SUPPLIES
060892
SNOW & ICE REM
GENERAL SUPPL
06/15/92
$0.31
SANKEY, DIANE
GENERAL SUPPLIES
060892
PW BUILDING
GENERAL SUPPL
< *>
$40.31*
127953
06/15/92
$25.64
SANKEY, MOREAU J
CONT ED
060492
ASSESSING
CONF & SCHOOL
< *>
$25.64*
127954
06/15/92
$164.56
SCHWARTZ, S.A. JR
UNIFORM ALLOWANCE
060292
POLICE DEPT. G
UNIF ALLOW
< *>
$164.56*
127955
06/15/92
$189.99
SEARS
GENERAL SUPPLIES
SR -75 -16
CENTENNIAL LAK
GENERAL SUPPL
1898
< *>
$189.99*
127956
06/15/92
$85.45
SECOA
GENERAL SUPPLIES
62980
BUILDING & GRO
GENERAL SUPPL
1827
< *>
$85.45*
127957
06/15/92
$100.00
SHEPARD JOHN
POLICE SERVICES
JUNE
RESERVE PROGRA
PERS SERVICES
< *>
$100.00*
127958
06/15/92
$72.60
SHIRLEY, TOM
REIMBURSEMENT
5384
CENTENNIAL LAK
GENERAL SUPPL
< *>
$72.60*
COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER THU, JUN 11, 1992, 12:30 AM
page 19
CHECK•
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATE
CHECK AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT
P.O. •
127959
06/15/92
$161.40
SIGN -TIFIC
SIGNS
18455
STREET NAME SI
SIGNS & POSTS
1953
< *>
$161..40*
127960
06/15/92
$223.00
SOKKIA MEASURING SYS
GENERAL SUPPLIES
101828
ENGINEERING GE
GENERAL SUPPL
8346
06/15/92
$73.00
SOKKIA MEASURING SYS
GENERAL SUPPLIES
101976
ENGINEERING GE
GENERAL SUPPL
8396
<*>
$296.00*
127961
06/15/92
$240.00
SOMERS, FRED
AC INSTRUCTOR
060892
ART CENTER ADM
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$240.00*
127962
06/15/92
$48.20
SOUTHHAM BUSINESS CO
CLIPPING SERVICE
WPO18070
ADMINISTRATION
ADVERT OTHER
06/15/92
$277.72
SOUTHHAM BUSINESS CO
AD FOR BIDS IMPROVEME
CPCO1944
ADMINISTRATION
ADVERTISING L
< *>
$325.92*
127963
06/15/92
$75.00
SOUTHSIDE BIG BAND
SERVICES 7/5/92
7/5/92
ADMINISTRATION
PRO SVC OTHER
< *>
$75.00*
127964
06/15/92
$226.40
SOUTHSIDE DISTR. CO.
MIX
MAY 1845
YORK SELLING
CST OF GDS MI
06/15/92
$12,522.65
SOUTHSIDE DISTR. CO.
BEER
MAY 1845
YORK SELLING
CST OF GDS BE
06/15/92
$3,742.00
SOUTHSIDE DISTR. CO.
BEER
MAY 50TH
50TH ST SELLIN
CST OF GDS BE
06/15/92
$45.30
SOUTHSIDE DISTR. CO.
MIX
MAY 50TH
50TH ST SELLIN
CST OF GDS MI
< *>
$16,536.35*
127965
06/15/92
$78.96
SPS
REPAIR PARTS
1876809
PUMP & LIFT ST
REPAIR PARTS
1707
06/15/92
$164.82
SPS
REPAIRS
1887901
ARENA BLDG /GRO
CONTR REPAIRS
1702
< *>
$243.78*
127966
06/15/92
$434.16
STAR TRIBUNE
HELP WANTED ADS
1224
ADMINISTRATION
ADVERT PERSON
< *>
$434.16*
127967
06/15/92
$32.90
STREICHERS
UNIFORMS
48843.1
POLICE DEPT. G
UNIF ALLOW
06/15/92
$23.25
STREICHERS
AMMUNITION
48841.1
POLICE DEPT. G
AMMUNITION
< *>
$56.15*
127968
06/15/92
$1,297.24
STRGAR - ROSCOE -FAUSH
CONSTRUCTION
0870945
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
CIP
< *>
$1,297.24*
127969
06/15/92
$70.00
STROMMEN, PETER
GENERAL SUPPLIES
1326789
ATHLETIC ACTIV
GENERAL SUPPL
< *>
$70.00*
127970
06/15/92
$8.36
SUBURBAN CHEVROLET
REPAIR PARTS
167148
EQUIPMENT OPER
REPAIR PARTS
06/15/92
$1,201.47
SUBURBAN CHEVROLET
BODY REPAIR
8605
EQUIPMENT OPER
CONTR REPAIRS
1868
06/15/92
$972.03
SUBURBAN CHEVROLET
REPAIRS
8629
EQUIPMENT OPER
CONTR REPAIRS
1922
< *>
$2,181.86*
127971
06/15/92
$413.28
SUBURBAN TIRE & AUTO
GENERAL SUPPLIES
28307
EQUIPMENT OPER
GENERAL SUPPL
1862
*
*
127972
06/15/92
$150.00
SUSAN FRAME
OFFICE ADM AC
060892
ART CENTER ADM
SALARIES TEMP
06/15/92
$384.00
SUSAN FRAME
AC INSTRUCTOR
060892
ART CENTER ADM
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$534.00*
127973
06/15/92
$5,251.24
SW SUB CABLE COMM
3RD QUARTER
060492
COMMUNICATIONS
PRO SVC OTHER
< *>
$5,251.24*
COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER THU, JUN 11, 1992, 12:30 AM
page 20
CHECK$
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATE
CHECK AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT
P.O. N
127974
06/15/92
$100.00
SWANSON HAROLD
POLICE SERVICES
JUNE
RESERVE PROGRA
PERS SERVICES
< *>
$100.00*
127975
06/15/92
$279.29
SYSCO MN
CLEANING SUPPLIES
MAY
GRILL
CLEANING SUPP
06/15/92
$2,928.84
SYSCO MN
COST OF GOODS SOLD
MAY
GRILL
CST OF GD F00
06/15/92
$377.23
SYSCO MN
GENERAL SUPPLIES
MAY
GRILL
GENERAL SUPPL
06/15/92
$57.31
SYSCO MN
GENERAL SUPPLIES
MAY
RANGE
GENERAL SUPPL
< *>
$3,642.67*
127976
06/15/92
$2,220.00
T R CRAIG INC
CONSTRUCTION
060992
PARKS
CIP
< *>
$2,220.00*
127977
06/15/92
$12.43
TARGET
GENERAL SUPPLIES
053092
PARK ADMIN.
GENERAL SUPPL
06/15/92
$14.78
TARGET
PHOTO SUPPLIES
053092
SPECIAL ACTIVI
PHOTO SUPPLIE
06/15/92
$9.53
TARGET
GENERAL SUPPLIES
053092
PLAYGROUND & T
GENERAL SUPPL
< *>
$36.74*
127978
06/15/92
$450.00
TERRY ANN SALES CO
PAPER CUPS
1252
GRILL
GENERAL SUPPL
2274
< *>
$450.00*
127979
06/15/92
$220.88
TESSMAN SEED INC
GENERAL SUPPLIES
106349
SNOW & ICE REM
GENERAL SUPPL
1526
< *>
$220.88*
12798006/15/92
$250.00
THE FLYERS
PERFORM CL 7/11/92
060592
ADMINISTRATION
PRO SVC OTHER
< *>
$250.00*
127981
06/15/92
$40.00
THE LITTLE BLIND SPO
REPAIRS
1315
CITY HALL GENE
CONTR REPAIRS
2203
< *>
$40.00*
127982
06/15/92
$370.00
THE PRINT SHOP
MONTHLY NEWSLETTER
19174
SENIOR CITIZEN
GENERAL SUPPL
1883
< *>
$370.00*
127983
06/15/92
$37.50
THE WINE SPECTATOR
WINE MAGAZINE
1266
VERNON SELLING
CST OF GDS MI
06/15/92
$42.00
THE WINE SPECTATOR
WINE MAGAZINE
31728
VERNON SELLING.CST
OF GDS MI
< *>
$79.50*
127984
06/15/92
$11,329.57
THOMSEN - NYBECK
PROSECUTING
051592
LEGAL SERVICES
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$11,329.57*
127985
06/15/92
$14,088.50
TMI COATING INC
ONSTRUCTION
053192
POOL CIP
CIP
< *>
$14,088.50*
127986
06/15/92
$80.00
TOENSING, JAMES
PERFORM CL 6/20/92
052192
ADMINISTRATION
PRO SVC OTHER
< *>
$80.00*
127987
06/15/92
$1,128.26
TOIVONEN PAINTING
PAINT
052892
POOL OPERATION
PAINT
<*>
$1,128.26*
127988
06/15/92
$6.62
TOLL COMPANY
WELDING SUPPLIES
178819
EQUIPMENT OPER
WELDING SUPPL
1761
06/15/92
$218.81
TOLL COMPANY
TOOLS
180080
MAINT OF COURS
TOOLS
1981
06/15/92
$55.00
TOLL COMPANY
GENERAL SUPPLIES
180272
MAINT OF COURS
GENERAL SUPPL
1982
< *>
$280.43*
127989
06/15/92
$880.00
TOM HORWATH
FORESTRY
060392
TREES & MAINTE
PROF SERVICES
06/15/92
$112.00
TOM HORWATH
TRIMMING
060392
TREE TRIMMING
PROF SERVICES
COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER THU, JUN 11, 1992, 12:30 AM
page 21
CHECK#
DATE
CHECK AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT
P.O. #
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
127989
06/15/92
$236:04
TOM HORWATH
MILEAGE
060392
TREES & MAINTE
MILEAGE
< *>
$1,228.04*
127990
06/15/92
$130.08
TRIARCO ARTS & CRAFT
CRAFT SUPPLIES
26760
ART CENTER ADM
CRAFT SUPPLIE
1902.
< *>
$130.08*
127991
06/15/92
$200.00
TROGE'S REPAIR SERVI
GENERAL SUPPLIES
052692
BUILDING & GRO
GENERAL SUPPL
2223
< *>
$200.00*
127992
06/15/92
$49.00
TWIN CITY BEDLINER I
REPAIR PARTS
8816
EQUIPMENT OPER
REPAIR PARTS
9190
< *>
$49.00*
127993
06/15/92
$520.00
TWIN CITY GAR. DOOR
REPAIR PARTS.
2456
PW BUILDING
REPAIR PARTS
1528
< *>
$520.00*
127994
06/15/92
$76.00
TWIN CITY ROSE CLUB
MULCH.
060192
MAINT OF COURS
FERTILIZER
06/15/92
$57.00
TWIN CITY ROSE CLUB
MULCH
060192
GENERAL MAINT
GENERAL SUPPL
< *>
$133.00*
127995
06/15/92
$229.35
TWIN CITY SAW SERVIC
GENERAL SUPPLIES
3630
TREES & MAINTE
GENERAL SUPPL
2002
< *>
$229.35*
127996
06/15/92
$2,853.86
UNIFORM UNLIMITED
UNIFORMS
MISC
POLICE DEPT. G
UNIF ALLOW
06/15/92
$360.00
UNIFORM UNLIMITED
UNIFORMS
MISC
RESERVE PROGRA
UNIF ALLOW
< *>
$3,013.86*
127997
06/15/92
$1,027.04
UNITED ELECTRIC CORP
ELECTRIC FIXTURES
67SI 180
PARKS
CIP
2036
< *>
$1,027.04*
127998
06/15/92
$63.88
UNIVERSAL MED SERV
OXYGEN
771380
FIRE DEPT. GEN
FIRST AID SUP
8899
< *>
$63.66*
128000
06/15/92
$49.14
US WEST COMM.
TELEPHONE
JUNE
DARE
TELEPHONE
06/15/92
$51.06
US WEST COMM.
TELEPHONE
JUNE
FIRE DEPT. GEN
TELEPHONE
06/15/92
$3,429.57
US WEST COMM.
TELEPHONE
JUNE
CENT SVC GENER
TELEPHONE
06/15/92
$151.74
US WEST COMM.
TELEPHONE
JUNE
BUILDING & GRO
TELEPHONE
06/15/92
$267.48
US WEST COMM.
TELEPHONE
JUNE
SKATING & HOCK
TELEPHONE
06/15/92
$110.67
US WEST COMM.
TELEPHONE
JUNE
SENIOR CITIZEN
TELEPHONE
06/15/92
$102.38
US WEST COMM.
TELEPHONE
JUNE
BUILDING MAINT
TELEPHONE
06/15/92
$505.16
US WEST COMM.
TELEPHONE
JUNE
CLUB HOUSE
TELEPHONE
06/15/92.
$57.98
US WEST COMM.
TELEPHONE
JUNE
MAINT OF COURS
TELEPHONE
06/15/92
$101.55
US WEST COMM.
TELEPHONE
JUNE
POOL OPERATION
TELEPHONE
06/15/92
$220.74
US WEST COMM.
TELEPHONE
JUNE
ARENA BLDG /GRO
TELEPHONE
06/15/92
$54:72
US WEST COMM.
TELEPHONE
JUNE
GUN RANGE
TELEPHONE
06/15/92
$262.17
US WEST COMM.
TELEPHONE
JUNE
CENTENNIAL LAK
TELEPHONE
06/15/92
$84.21
US WEST COMM.
TELEPHONE
JUNE
PUMP & LIFT ST
TELEPHONE
06/15/92
$63.91
US WEST COMM.
TELEPHONE
JUNE
DISTRIBUTION
TELEPHONE
06/15/92
$151,.98
US WEST COMM.
TELEPHONE
JUNE
50TH ST OCCUPA
TELEPHONE
06/15/92
$168.88
US WEST COMM.
TELEPHONE
JUNE
YORK OCCUPANCY
TELEPHONE
06/15/92
$118'.68
US WEST COMM.
TELEPHONE
JUNE
VERNON OCCUPAN
TELEPHONE
< *>
$5,952.02*
128001
06/15/92
$22.90
US WEST PAGING
TELEPHONE
06008282
PARK MAINTENAN
TELEPHONE
<*>
$22.90*
COUNCIL
CHECK REGISTER THU, JUN 11, 1992, 12:30 AM
page 22
CHECK#
DATE
CHECK AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT
P.O. 4
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
128002
06/15/92
$1,849.24
VAN PAPER CO.
PAPER CUP
403256
GRILL
CST OF GO F00
9945
06/15/92
$326.00
VAN PAPER CO.
PAER CUPS
403256
ARENA CONCESSI
CST OF GD F00
06/15/92
$81'.50
VAN PAPER CO.
PAPER CUPS
403256
POOL CONCESSIO
CST OF GD F00
<*>
$2,256.74*
128003
06/15/92
$55.00
VANKAMPEN, DONNA
PERFORM CL 6/6/92
052192
ADMINISTRATION
PRO SVC OTHER
< *>
$55.00*
128004
06/15/92
$48.00
VAUGHN DISPLAY
GENERAL SUPPLIES
0047730
ADMINISTRATION
GENERAL SUPPL
1980
< *>
$48.00*
128005
06/15/92
$132.92
VERSATILE VEHICLE
REPAIR PARTS
8937
GOLF CARS
REPAIR PARTS
1101
< *>
$132.92*
128006
06/15/92
$170.39
VESSCO
REPAIR PARTS
11489
PUMP & LIFT ST
REPAIR PARTS
1997
< *>
$170.39*
128007
06/15/92
$40.00
VIDEO TRANSFER STUDI
SERVICES
28479
POLICE DEPT. G
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$40.00*
128008
06/15/92
$57.47
VIXO, FRANK P
SPRINKLER HEADS /TAX
060592
SNOW & ICE REM
GENERAL SUPPL
< *>
$57.47*
128009
06/15/92
$528.75
VOSS LIGHTING
REPAIR PARTS
204587
PW BUILDING
REPAIR PARTS
1258
06/15/92
$141.00
VOSS LIGHTING
REPAIR PARTS
205454
PW BUILDING
REPAIR PARTS
1598
06/15/92
$71.60
VOSS LIGHTING
REPAIR PARTS
205533
YORK OCCUPANCY
REPAIR PARTS
1259
06/15/92
$180.75
VOSS LIGHTING
REPAIR PARTS
205751
CITY HALL GENE
REPAIR PARTS
1598
06/15/92
$351.75
VOSS LIGHTING
CONSTRUCTION
205924
WORK. CAP. PRO
CIP
1743
< *>
$1,273.85*
128010
06/15/92
$365.50
WALDOR PUMP & EQUIP
REPAIRS
20232
PUMP & LIFT ST
CONTR REPAIRS
2265
< *>
$365.50*
128011
06/15/92
$100.00
WALSH WILLIAM
POLICE SERVICES
JUNE
RESERVE PROGRA
PERS SERVICES
< *>
$100.00*
128012
06/15/92
$1,660.00
WENDY ANDERSON ENTER
SERVICES
052992
ADMINISTRATION
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$1,660.00*
128013
06/15/92
$45.00
WERT, CAPRICE
CLEANING
311558
CLUB HOUSE
SVC CONTR EQU
1569
< *>
$45.00*
128014
06/15/92
$105.03
WESTPHAL,ANITA
MILEAGE
060992
FINANCE
MILEAGE
< *>
$105.03*
128015
06/15/92
$252.00
WICKER, CYD
AC INSTRUCTOR
060892
ART CENTER ADM
PROF SERVICES
< *>
.$252.00*
128016
06/15/92
$105.86
WILLIAMS STEEL
REPAIR PARTS
415405 -0
DISTRIBUTION
REPAIR PARTS
1848
<*>
$105.86*
128017
06/15/92
$825.00
WILSON'S NORTH WEST
TREES
11231
WORK. CAP. PRO
ACCTS REC MIS
2127
< *>
$825.00*
128018
06/15/92
$348.32
WITTEK GOLF SUPPLY
GENERAL SUPPLIES
94829
ADMINISTRATION
GENERAL SUPPL
1828
COUNCIL
CHECK REGISTER THU, JUN 11, 1992, 12:30 AM
page 23
CHECK#
DATE
CHECK AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT
P.O. #
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
128018
06/15/92
$116.54
WITTEK GOLF SUPPLY
RANGE PAILS
94836
RANGE
RANGE
BALLS
2201
< *>
$464.86*
128019
06/15/92
$11.00
WOODCOCK, JEFFREY
COMM END DL
060492
FIRE DEPT. GEN
LIC &
PERMITS
< *>
$11.00*
128020
06/15/92
$74.70
WRIGHT LINE
GENERAL SUPPLIES
052292
INSPECTIONS
GENERAL
SUPPL
< *>
$74.70*
128021
06/15/92
$100.00
WROBLESKI -HENRY
POLICE SERVICES
JUNE
RESERVE PROGRA
PERS SERVICES
< *>
$100.00*
128022
06/15/92
$869.75
XEROX CORP
MAINT CHARGE
03336693
CENT SVC GENER
EQUIP
RENTAL
< *>
$869.75*
128023
06/15/92
$3,248.77
ZIEGLER INC
REPAIRS
WM34608
EQUIPMENT OPER
CONTR
REPAIRS
1.335
06/15/92
$2,218.94
ZIEGLER INC
REPAIRS
WM34899
EQUIPMENT OPER
CONTR
REPAIRS
1335
06/15/92
$138.57
ZIEGLER INC
REPAIR PARTS
KC67483
EQUIPMENT OPER
REPAIR
PARTS
1758
06/15/92
$6.16
ZIEGLER INC
REPAIR PARTS
KC68570
EQUIPMENT OPER
REPAIR
PARTS
1851
06/15/92
$850.00
ZIEGLER INC
HATCH HOOK
G0829401
EQUIPMENT REPL
EQUIP
REPLACE
9461
06/15/92
$96,944.00
ZIEGLER INC
EQUIPMENT
G0803101
EQUIPMENT REPL
EQUIP
REPLACE
8695
< *>
$103,406.44*
$1,202,020.81*
COUNCIL
CHECK SUMMARY
THU, JUN 11, 1992, 12:30 AM page 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FUND #
10
$696,193.52
FUND #
12
$9,758.24
FUND #
15
$8,964.56
FUND #
23
$6,486.08
FUND #
26
$19,262.39
FUND #
27
$170,512.82
FUND #
28
$81,026.58
FUND #
29
$483.71
FUND #
30
$23,454.45
FUND #
40
$41,538.08
FUND #
41
$408.87
FUND #
50
$79,610.39
FUND #
60
$36,998.88
FUND #
66
$27,322.24
$1,202,020.81•
City of Edina
06/10/92
VOID, TYPED.& REVERSED
A/P
CHECK
REGISTER
Page 1
WED, JUN
10, 1992,
9:19 PM - , -req: LINDAD ---- - - loc:
FINANCE - - -- -job: 2326 #J724
-----------
prog: CK200 <1.07 > - - -- report id: CKREG - --
Check
ID. Payee Name . _
Date_
_Check Amount
Type
Subs Rel_To
Note
ED
121939
1183
CITY OF EDINA
05/08/92
0.00
HW
TR
Hand
Written
ED
121941
1727
PERA
05/11/92
1,363.93
HW
TR
Hand
Written
ED
121942
1727
PERA
05/11/92
29,219.07
HW
TR
Hand
Written
ED
121943
1727
PERA
05/11/92
19.62
HW
TR
Hand
Written
ED
121944
1336
FIDELITY BANK
05/11/92
20,355.52
HW
TR
Hand
Written
ED
121962
1183
CITY OF EDINA
05/22/92
0.00
HW
TR
Hand
Written
ED
121963
1336
FIDELITY BANK
05/26/92
20,538.12
HW
TR
Hand
Written
ED
121964
1727
PERA
05/26/92
19.62
HW
TR
Hand
Written
ED
121965
1727
PERA
05/26/92
29,410.55
HW
TR
Hand
Written
ED
121975
1198
COMMERCIAL LIFE INSURANCE CO
05/29/92
430.10
HW
TR
Hand
Written
ED
121976
1347
FORTIS BENEFITS
05/29/92
1,801.87
HW
TR ..
Hand
Written.
S U B T 0 T A L S:
Total Void Machine Written
0.00
Number
of
Checks
Processed:
0
Total Void Hand Written
0.00
Number
of
Checks
Processed:
0
Total Machine Written
0.00
Number
of
Checks
Processed:
0
Total Hand Written
103,158.40
Number
of
Checks
Processed:
'11
Total Reversals
0.00
Number
of
Checks
Processed:
0
Total Cancelled Checks
0.00
Number
of
Checks
Processed:
0
S U B T O T A L
103,158.40
City of Edina 06/10/92
VOID, TYPED & REVERSED'A /P
-prog:
CHECK.REGISTER
CK200.
<1.07 > - - --
Page 2
report id: CKREG ---
WED, JUN 10, 1992, 9:19 PM - = -req: LINDAD-- -- - -loc:
FINANCE - - -- -job: 232#J724----------
6
Check Payee ID. Payee Name
Date Check Amount Type
Subs Rel To Note
______ ------
-------------------
--- -- -- -- ---- .-- ---- -- _= _=_===_ = == == m== == = = = ===_
-------------
----
G R A N D T O T A L S:
Total Void Machine Written
0.00
Number
of
Checks
Processed:
0
Total Void Hand.Written
0.00
Number
of
Checks
Processed:
0
Total Machine Written
0.00
Number
of
Checks
Processed:
0
Total Hand Written
103,158.40
Number
of
Checks
Processed:
11
Total Reversals
0.00
Number
of
Checks
Processed:
0
Total Cancelled Checks
0.00
Number
of
Checks
Processed:
.0
G R A N D T 0 T A L
103,158.40
City
06/11/92
CHECK
REGISTER Page 1
THU, JUN
11, 1992,
7:34 PM -eq: LINDAD---- - -loc:
FINANCE--- -
-&ob: 2341D #J985----------
-prog: 00 <1.07> - - -- report id: CKREG ---
<1.
Check
Payee ID.
Payee Name
Date
Check Amount
Type
Subs
Rel To Note
ED
121560
2008
WORLD CLASS WINE
06/09/92
118:00
HW
TR
Hand
Written
ED
121945
1298
EAGLE WINE
06/09/92
1,530.42
HW
TR
Hand
Written
ED
121946
1307
ED PHILLIPS & SONS
06/09/92
7,450.84
HW
TR
Hand
Written
ED
121947
1392
GRIGGS COOPER & CO.
06/09/92
11,858.43
HW
TR
Hand
Written
ED
121948
1497
JOHNSON WINE CO.
06/09/92
24,576.75
HW
TR
Hand
Written
ED
121949
1721
PAUSTIS & SONS
06/09/92
174.00
HW
TR
Hand
Written
ED
121950
1763
PRIOR WINE COMPANY
06/09/92
1,518.15
HW
TR
Hand
Written
ED
121951
1772
QUALITY WINE
06/09/92
11,845.49
HW
TR
Hand
Written
ED
121952
2280
SALUD AMERICA
06/09/92
68.00
HW
TR
Hand
Written
ED
121953
2008
WORLD CLASS WINE
.06/09/92
118.00
HW
TR
Hand
Written
ED
121954
1298
EAGLE WINE
06/09/92
3,105.78
HW
TR
Hand
Written
ED
121955
1307
ED PHILLIPS & SONS
.06/09/92
10,403.89
HW
TR
Hand
Written
ED
121956
1392
GRIGGS COOPER & CO.
06/09/92
11,604.17
HW
TR
Hand
Written
ED
121957
1497
JOHNSON WINE CO.
06/09/92
14,834.68
HW
TR
Hand
Written
ED
121958
1763
PRIOR WINE COMPANY
06/09/92
1,925.17
HW
TR
Hand
Written
ED
121959
1772
QUALITY WINE
06/09/92
12,611.88
HW
TR
Hand
Written
ED
121961
1721
PAUSTIS & SONS
06/09/92
746.35
HW
TR
Hand
Written
ED
121966
1298
EAGLE WINE
06/09/92
1,931.72
HW
TR.
Hand
Written
ED
121967
1307
ED PHILLIPS & SONS
06/09/92
9,721.15
HW
TR
Hand
Written
ED
121968
1392
GRIGGS COOPER & CO.
06/09/92
11,304.51
HW
TR
Hand
Written
ED
121969
1497
JOHNSON WINE CO.
06/09/92
18,825.33
HW
TR
Hand
Written
ED
121970
1721
PAUSTIS & SONS
06/09/92
676.00
HW
TR
Hand
Written
ED
121971
1763
PRIOR WINE COMPANY
06/09/92
1,778.83
HW
TR
Hand
Written
ED
121972
1772
QUALITY WINE
06/09/92
10,926.08
HW
TR
Hand
Written
ED
121973
2280
SALUD AMERICA
06/09/92
76.00
HW
TR
Hand
Written
ED
121977
1298
EAGLE WINE
06/09/92
11404.21
HW
TR
Hand
Written
ED
121978
1307
ED PHILLIPS & SONS
06/09/92
6,597.17
HW
TR
Hand
Written
City of Edina
06/11/92
LINDAD---- - -1oc:
VOID, TYPED & REVERSED A/P CHECK REGISTER Page 2
FINANCE - - -- - job: 2341 #J985 ----------- prog.: CK200.<1.07> ---- report id: CKREG - --
7:34 PM _06'11/92
eq:
Check
Payee ID.
Payee Name
Date
Check Amount
=ma
Type
.m ==
Subs Rel
=xa= n =aaxa
To
Note
maamaaaaaxammaaaaa=
aCa= eta== am= na = = = ==
ms= xaamaa
ED 121979
amaa= as = =a
1392
== asaaaa= m= amamxmammmaammamaama■
GRIGGS COOPER & CO.
■maamam■
06/09/92
amaammxmia
10,771.05
HW
TR
Hand
Written
ED 121980
1497
JOHNSON WINE CO.
06/09/92
14,369.09
HW
TR
Hand
Written
ED 121981
2366
MN CROWN DIST
06/09/92
136.09
HW
TR
Hand
Written
ED 121982
1721
PAU.STIS & SONS
06/09/92
751.60
HW
TR
Hand
Written
ED 121983
1763
PRIOR WINE COMPANY
06/09/92
1,541.20
HW
TR
Hand
Written
ED 121984
1772
QUALITY WINE
06/09/92
8,030.43
HW
TR
Hand
Written
ED 121985
2441
WINE MERCHANTS
06/09/92
381.00
HW
TR
Hand
Written
ED 121986
2008
WORLD CLASS WINE
06/09/92
428.55
HW
TR
Hand
Written
S U B T 0 T A L S:
Total Void Machine Written
0.00
Number
of
Checks
Processed:
0
Total Void Hand Written
0.00
Number
of
Checks
Processed:
0
Total Machine Written
0.00
Number
of
Checks
Processed:
0
Total Hand Written
214,140.01
Number
of
Checks
Processed:
35
Total Reversals
0.00
Number
of
Checks
Processed:
0
Total Cancelled Checks
0.00
Number
of
Checks
Processed:
0
S U B T 0 T A L
214,140.01
City of Edina 06/11/92
VOID, TYPED & REVERSED A/P
CHECK
REGISTER
Page 3
THU, JUN 11, 1992, 7:34 PM - - -req: LINDAD ---- - - loc:
FINANCE - --- - job: 2341 #J985 -----------
prog: CK200 <1.07 > - - --
report id: CKREG - --
Check Payee ID. Payee Name
Date Check Amount Type
Subs Rel
To Note
G R A N D T 0 T A L S:
Total Void Machine Written
0.00
Number
of
Checks
Processed:
0
Total Void Hand Written
0.00
Number
of
Checks
Processed:
0
Total Machine Written
0.00
Number
of
Checks
Processed:
0
Total Hand Written
214,140.01
Number
of
Checks
Processed:
35
Total Reversals
0.00
Number
of
Checks
Processed:
0
Total Cancelled Checks
0.00
Number
of
Checks
Processed:
0
G R A N D T 0 T A L
214,140.01