Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-08-15_COUNCIL PACKETAGENDA EDINA HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY EDINA CITY COUNCIL AUGUST 15, 1994 7:00 P.M. ROLLCALL ADOPTION OF CONSENT AGENDA - Adoption of the Consent Agenda is made by the Commissioners as to HRA items and by. the Council Members as to Council items. All agenda items marked with an asterisk ( *) and in bold print are Consent Agenda items and are considered to be routine and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of such items unless a Commissioner or Council Member or citizen so requests, in which case the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in its normal sequence of the Agenda. * I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of HRA Meeting of August 1, 1994 III. PAYMENT OF HRA CLAIMS as per pre -list dated 08/11/94 Total: $4,630.48 IV. ADJOURNMENT EDINA CITY COUNCIL * I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Regular Council Meeting of August 1, 1994 II. 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 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 Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan - Planned Commercial District PCD -4 and Single Dwelling Unit District R -1 to Planned Residence District PRD -4. and Preliminary Plat Approval - 4101 West 50th Street, 5014, 5016, 5024 Halifax Avenue (Contd from 8 /1/94) * B. Preliminary Rezoning - Planned Commercial District. PCD -4 to Planned Commercial District PCD -3 and Final Development Plan - 3500 West 69th Street (Contd from 8/1/94) (Continue to 9/7/94) C. Final Plat Approval - Fink Addition - 6520 Interlachen Blvd D. Request for Partial Release of Conservation Restriction - Mark Dalquist Addition * E. CDBG 1994 (Year %%) Subreciyient and Third Party Agreements III. PUBLIC HEARING ON VACATION OF UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT 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 required to pass. A. Utility and Drainage Easement - Lot 5, Block 7, Woodbury Park Near Lake Harriet (3617 West 55th Street) Agenda Edina City Council August 15, 1994 Page Two IV. AWARD OF BIDS * A.. One 2.75 4 -Wheel Drive Articulated Loader (Coutd from 7/18/94) * B. One 3.5 4 -Wheel Drive Articulated Loader (Contd from 7/18/94) * C. Building Repair - Halifax Well House V. RECOMMENDATION AND REPORTS A. Approval of Traffic Safety Staff Report of August 9, 1994 B. Metropolitan Mosquito Control District Update - Kyle Beadle C. Nine Mile Creek Watershed Appointment Recommendation * D. Intinerant License - Civic Groups * E. Approval of Labor Agreement - Local 49 Operating Engineers * F. Feasibility Report - Sunnyside Alley - Set Hearing Date (09/07/94) G. Park Board Recommendation - Lake Cornelia Playground Equipment Plan H. Park Board Recommendation - Adopt -A -Park Program VI. CONCERNS OF RESIDENTS VII. INTERGOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES VIII. SPECIAL CONCERNS OF MAYOR AND COUNCIL IX. MANAGER'S MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS A. Backyard Drainage - 5536 Mirror Lakes Drive X. FINANCE A. 1993 Annual Financial Report /Auditor Management Letter B. Payment of Claims as per pre -list dated 08/11/94 Total: $875,601.54 and for confirmation of payment of Claims dated 08/04/94 Total: $332,061.53 SCHEDULE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS /EVENTS Thurs Aug 18 1995 Preliminary Budget Hearing 5:00 P.M. Council Chambers Thurs Aug 25 1995 Preliminary Budget Hearing 5:00 P.M. Council Chambers Mon Sept 5 LABOR DAY - CITY HALL CLOSED Wed Sept 7 Regular Council Meeting 7:00 P.M. Council Chamber - Tues Sept 13 State Primary Election (Polls Open 7:00 A.M. - 8:00 P.M. Mon Sept 19 Regular Council Meeting 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers MINUTES- - OF THE EDINA HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AUGUST 1, 1994 ROLLCALL Answering rollcall were Commissioners Paulus, Rice, Smith, and Richards. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS ADOPTED Motion was made by Commissioner Smith and was seconded by Commissioner Rice to approve the HRA Consent Agenda items as presented. Rollcall: Ayes: Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards Motion carried. *MINUTES OF BRA MEETING OF JULY 18, 1994 Motion was made by Commissioner Smith and was seconded by Commissioner Rice to approve the HRA Minutes of July 18, 1994, as presented. Motion carried on rollcall vote - five ayes. CLAIMS PAID Commissioner Smith made a motion to approve payment of the BRA claims as shown in detail on the Check Register dated July 28, 1994, and consisting of one page totaling $14,782.84. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Rice. Rollcall: Ayes: Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards Motion carried. There being no further business on the HRA Agenda, Chairman Richards declared the meeting adjourned. Executive Director COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu Aug 11 1994 01:02:27 Page 1 CHECK NO DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM OBJECT PO NUM. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- O8/15/94 $17.18 DEPENDABLE COURIER courier 263933 CENTENNIAL LAK MISC 012611 $17.18* 08/15/94 $72.00 FACILITY SYSTEMS remodeling 5482 GRANDVIEW EQUIPMENT 012612 $72.00* 08/15/94 $4,541.30 NEW LIFE COMMUNICATION speaker system 21282 CENTENNIAL LAK EQUIPMENT 012613 $4,541.30* $4,630.48 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HALL AUGUST 11 1994 ROLLCALL Answering rollcall were Members Paulus, Rice, Smith, and Mayor Richards. Member Kelly arrived at 7:05 P.M. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS APPROVED Motion was made by Member Smith and was seconded by Member Rice to approve and adopt the Council Consent Agenda as presented with the exception of removal of Item IV.B. - Award of Bid - Police Car Equipment. Rollcall: Ayes: Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards Motion carried. *MINUTES OF THE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETINGS OF JULY 5 AND JULY 18, 1994 APPROVED Motion was made by Member Smith and was seconded by Member Rice to approve the minutes of the Regular Council Meetings of July 5, 1994 and July 18, 1994. Motion carried on rollcall, vote - four ayes. PUBLIC HEARING HELD: FINAL REZONING, AMENDMENT TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - PLANNED COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, PCD -4 AND SINGLE DWELLING UNIT DISTRICT. R -1 TO PLANNED RESIDENCE DISTRICT, PRD -4 AND PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL (4101 WEST 50TH STREET, 5014. 5016 AND 5024 HALIFAX AVENUE) CONTINUED TO AUGUST 15, 1994 Presentation by Planner Associate Planner Aaker informed the Council that the applicant is requesting final rezoning from Planned Commercial District, PCD -4 and Single Dwelling Unit District, R -1 to Planned Residence District, PRD -4, preliminary plat approval and amendment of the Comprehensive Plan for 4101 West 50th Street from Commercial to High Density Residential. The subject property is located in the southwest corner of 50th Street and Halifax Avenue. On May 16, 1994 the Council granted preliminary rezoning to the subject redevelopment. The approved plan calls for a 24 unit, three story condominium development. Included in the approval was a building setback variance for the easterly side of the building. At its closest point, the building provides a 21 foot setback where 36 feet is required. A total of 56 parking spaces are provided of which 40 are under - building spaces. The under - building count is four greater than contained in the preliminary plan. The proponent has submitted plans in support of the request for final rezoning approval. Included in those plans are the grading plan, landscape plan and schedule, and final site plan and building elevations as illustrated. The proposed plan is essentially identical to the plan given preliminary approval. The exterior materials will be a combination of brick and stucco. The grading plan, however, is slightly different than the preliminary plan. The ground elevation at the building was shown at 887 on the preliminary plan. The final grading plan raises the elevation to 890 feet. According to the proponent, the change was necessary to accommodate the garage entry and assure proper drainage. The City Engineer has reviewed the revised grading plan and has had his concerns addressed concerning the drainage on the west side of the site. The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District is scheduled to review the plan at its August meeting. The final development plans are consistent with those given preliminary approval. Density, parking and landscaping comply with ordinance requirements. The building setback variance along the east property line remains the only variance required. At its meeting of June 29, 1994, the Planning Commission recommended final rezoning, preliminary plat approval and amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and the 50th and France Avenue Plan, subject to: 1) Final plat approval, 2) Landscaping bond, 3) Watershed District grading permit. The modified landscape plan shows larger and taller trees on the south and west sides of the property. Because the revised landscape plan was submitted just prior to completion of the Council packets, staff did not have an opportunity to suggest that the maple trees along the south side be increased from three inches to four inches in diameter and that the spruce trees along the west be increased from six feet and eight feet in height to ten feet to be more consistent with suggestions of the Planning Commission. Presentation by Proponent Mark Haymaker, Haymaker Construction, explained the two major grading changes incorporated in the plan that were recommended by the landscape architect. First, the drainage to the west of the building that would abut the adjoining properties was directed away from the alley and towards the parking area by increasing the swale. Second, in order to get the surface water and underground drainage off the site, it was necessary to raise the grade at the back of the parking lot and at the building so water would drain to Halifax Avenue. The garage floor elevation was raised three feet to keep water from the lower level. He added that the request for setback - variance remains the same because the building height as it relates to required setbacks has not changed. Tracy Eichorn - Hicks, attorney for proponent, pointed out that when the original plan was presented the building height was at 39 feet. Subsequently, the mansard roof level was lowered reducing the building overall height to 36 feet. Council Comment /Action Member Smith voiced concern with what the building height would actually be because of the increase in grade elevation. Mr. Haymaker stated that the first floor building elevation is at 890 feet and there is no change to the height of the structure; it remains at 36 feet as represented previously. He reiterated that grade changes have been made to redirect the surface water as suggested at the previous hearings and to meet the watershed district requirements. Member Paulus asked for clarification of the proposed grades changes. Engineer Hoffman recalled that concerns were raised about west side building drainage onto property to the west. He clarified that the grade changes were made to assure that surface water would not drain onto the single family property to the west. Also, Sunde Land Surveying was asked to add swales on both the north and south sides of the public alley going to the west to drain water down the alleyway. Any internal grade changes on the site would not negatively impact the property to the west. Responding to Mayor Richards, Mr. Haymaker stated that the landscape plan has been modified to include four inch caliper maple trees rather than three inch and for eight to 10 foot spruce trees rather than six to eight foot trees. Associate Planner Aaker answered Member Rice that a developer's agreement would not be necessary on this property because a landscaping bond would be a condition of granting final rezoning and the watershed district would examine the final grading plan. Member Rice then asked what percentage of the building exterior would be brick and stucco. Mr. Haymaker responded that he would get those calculations but the building would be predominately modular size dark brick construction with accents. Member Smith said he was still confused about the building elevation as the draft Planning Commission minutes indicated that the ground elevation at the building was shown at 887 feet on the preliminary plan and that the final grading plan raises the elevation to 890 feet. Mr. Haymaker explained that the grade would be lower than the first floor elevation to provide security for first floor occupants. After further discussion and questions regarding building height, elevation and grades as shown on the preliminary plan and as now presented, Mayor Richards commented that one of the most important issues about this development was the height of the proposed building and that the reasons for the grade changes may be valid. He suggested that the hearing be continued so that watershed district staff and the project engineer could be present to offer explanations for the proposed grade changes and to clarify the building elevation. Member Smith made a motion to continue the hearing on Final Rezoning, Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan - Planned Commercial District, PCD -4 and Single Dwelling Unit District, R -1 to Planned Residence District, PRD -4 and Preliminary Plat Approval to August 15, 1994, to allow the proponent to respond to the questions raised by Council. Member Rice seconded the motion. Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING ON PRELIMINARY REZONING, PLANNED COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, PCD -4 TO PLANNED COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. PCD -3 AND FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR 3500 WEST 69TH STREET CONTINUED TO AUGUST 15. 1994 Affidavits of Notice were presented, approved and ordered placed on file. Presentation by Planner Associate Planner Aaker informed Council that the applicant is requesting a rezoning from Planned Commercial District, PCD -4 to Planned Commercial District, PCD -3. The subject property is located in the south central area of the Southdale Center property. The site was formerly developed with a service station but is currently vacant. The proposed rezoning would make the zoning for this site consistent with the zoning of the shopping center. The proposed rezoning would allow for the redevelopment of this site for a banking facility. The development envisions a building with 1,826 square feet of floor area along with four drive - through teller lanes. The site plan illustrates 10 parking spaces, including one disabled parking space. The primary exterior material shown for the building is brick. Associate Planner Aaker explained that the proposed building would meet the 50 foot setback required by the PCD -3 District. The plan also would meet ordinance requirements for parking, parking setbacks and stacking spaces for the drive - through lanes. The proponents have submitted plans that meet the requirements for final rezoning. The plans included grading, drainage and landscaping plan and schedule. The proponents are requesting that Council waive Second Reading of the rezoning. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the zoning on the majority of the shopping center site. The proposed development meets all zoning ordinance standards and requires no variances. Development of this site will not change or interfere with the existing ring road system. At its meeting of June 29, 1994, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the rezoning and also recommended that Council waive Second Reading of the rezoning. Presentation for Proponent Paul Sevenich, Assistant Manager of Southdale Center, stated he represented the owner, Equitable Life Assurance Society, and had nothing to add to the presentation made by Planner Aaker. He explained that the tenant requested waiver of Second Reading for the rezoning, for possible occupancy by mid - November. Council Comment /Action Member Rice expressed concern with the proposed building mass /height on the small site and questioned whether that amount of height was necessary. Joe Ryan, Oppidan Investment Company, said he was developing the site for Marquette Bank. The purpose of ,the design is driven by the desires of Marquette and Southdale Center /Equitable Life /General Growth Companies to create something tasteful and somewhat residential looking, similar to other'Marquette facilities. Approximate usable area in the building would be 1900 square feet with an open upper area to give a bigger feel. Member Rice asked about the number of employees in the facility and whether the proposed six parking spaces would be adequate. Mr. Ryan said the bank would have four employees who would park in the Southdale Center employee overflow parking lot. He elaborated that the banking industry has changed to a drive - through service area age. Member Rice noted that the site had not been posted with signable indicating the proposed rezoning and asked if notices had been sent. Associate Planner Aaker stated notices had been mailed but could not answer why the site was not posted. Mayor Richards asked what would happened if another similar request was made on the Southdale perimeter. Mr. Sevenich noted that the subject site is zoned as a separate parcel and if a similar request was made it would require rezoning as a separate parcel. He explained that the parking ratio for the Center's gross leasable area would make this prohibitive unless additional parking decks were built. Member Kelly commented about the traffic from the Galleria on 69th Street, the existing boulevards and how that would impact the banking facility. Mr. Sevenich noted that the bank site would be accessed from the Southdale Center ring road. Member Smith concurred that stacking of vehicles could occur. Mr. Sevenich explained that the bank use would actually stagger vehicle departures from the site at one and one -half minute intervals. Member Paulus asked'what guarantee the City would have that there would be no stacking of vehicles onto the public streets as exists now at peak times at TCF on West 66th Street. Mr. Sevenich explained that the proposed plan meets the criteria of City ordinances. The site would accommodate four cars in the chambers with room to stack six vehicles in each of the four lanes. Member Rice asked if each side of the building would be signed in addition to a monument sign. Mr. Ryan answered that Oppidan is directed by General Growth with regard to signage on the building. Also that nothing has been determined as to the size of the possible monument sign but they would probably maximize the signage as allowed by City rules. Mayor Richards then called for public comment on the proposed development. No comment or objection was heard. Mayor Richards commented that the Council has raised a number of issues and concerns, e.g. the building height /structure, procedure concerning posting rezoning sign, traffic impact, vehicle parking, and concern for similar future perimeter development requests. He elaborated that the Council is saying this is an asset that has been in Edina for a long time, is one of its most valuable assets, and that the Council as a regulatory body wants to make sure that nothing will be done that may diminish the value of this property known as 'Southdale'. Member Paulus made a motion to continue the public hearing on the request for preliminary rezoning from Planned Commercial District, PCD -4 to Planned Commercial District, PCD -3 and final development plan approval for 3500 West 69th Street to August 15, 1994, to allow the proponent to address the issues and concerns raised by the Council. Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Richards Motion carried. (Member Smith was temporarily absent during the vote) PUBLIC HEARING HELD: FINAL PLAT APPROVED FOR LEWIS RIDGE TOWNHOMES Presentation by Planner Associate Planner Aaker presented the request for final plat approval for Lewis Ridge Townhomes (Lot 2, Block 1 and Outlot B, Lewis Ridge). The subject property is located east of Cahill Road and is zoned Planned Residential District, PRD -3. The proposal as submitted would replace a 54 unit condominium building with a 15 unit townhome development. The overall density would be reduced to six units per acre instead of 11.9 units per acre with a net density of 5.2 units per acre. Access to the development would be from Lewis Ridge Drive which is a private street. The Council reviewed and approved the preliminary plat and final development plan on June 20, 1994. Subdivision dedication was satisfied with Phase I of this development. The proposed project has not been modified from preliminary plat approval. Staff would recommend final plat approval, subject to: 1) Executed developer's agreement, and 2) Executed access easement to Lewis Ridge Parkway. Presentation by Proponent Ron Clark, Ron Clark Construction, stated he was developer of the Lewis Ridge Townhomes and had nothing further to add, but offered to answer any questions. Public Comment Mayor Richards then called for public comment on the request for final plat approval. No comment or objection was heard. Council Comment /Action Member Rice introduced the following resolution and moved adoption, subject to: 1) Executed developer's agreement, and 2) Executed access easement to Lewis Ridge Parkway: RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT FOR LEWIS RIDGE TOWNHOMES BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, that that certain plat entitled "LEWIS RIDGE TOWNHOMES", platted by Ron Clark Construction, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, and American Bank, a Minnesota banking association, and presented at the regular meeting of the City Council of August 1, 1994, be and is hereby granted final plat approval. Motion was seconded by Member Kelly Rollcall: Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards Resolution adopted. APPEAL FROM ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DECISION UPHELD TO DENY REQUEST FOR 31 FOOT LOT WIDTH VARIANCE AND 28 FOOT FRONTYARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR 5908 VERNON AVENUE Presentation by Planner Associate Planner Aaker informed Council that David Thomas and Virginia Leach have requested a 31 foot lot depth variance and a 28 foot front yard setback variance to construct a new single dwelling unit. The subject lot is a platted Lot that is located on the north side of Vernon Avenue, south of Dundee Road and is an undeveloped single dwelling lot. - The subject property is deficient in lot depth; the ordinance requires a minimum 120 foot lot depth as measured from a straight line connecting the mid -point of the front and rear lot lines. The lot has a measured depth of 89 feet, therefore, a 31 foot lot depth variance is requested. - The subject property also requires a front yard setback variance. A new dwelling must respect the frontyard setback of the neighboring property. The westerly adjacent lot is the only other lot on the block facing Vernon Avenue. The dwelling next door maintains a 58 foot frontyard setback, therefore, to maintain a 30 foot frontyard setback, a 28 foot frontyard setback variance is requested. Graphics were presented showing the proposed building footprint and the side elevations. Associate Planner Aaker elaborated that the subject property was subdivided in 1971. In 1980 identical variances as those now requested were processed and approved for the purposes of constructing a new dwelling unit on the lot. The Board's 1980 approval was appealed to the City Council by a neighbor. The Council approved the variances with findings. A building permit was never issued in 1980, therefore the variances lapsed. In 1987, the applicant submitted an application for the same variances requested in 1980. The building footprint was identical to the previous request. The Board denied the variance request, however not on the grounds of its appropriateness. The Board recognized the right to develop the property but denied the request on the grounds that the plans presented were not considered sensitive to the topography and that the home did not maintain the character and symmetry of the neighborhood. The current proposal. is to construct a single dwelling unit within the same building envelope as the other two previous requests. The home is a two story walkout with brick siding and finishes. The 1987 proposal was denied based on the type of home design. The current design appears to be similar to the previous requests. The proposed home is well within the requirements of the Code as to building height and lot coverage and meets all setback standards with the exception of the frontyard setback. On July 7, 1994, the Zoning Board of Appeals heard and denied the applicant's request for variance. The applicant has requested a hearing before the City Council to appeal the Zoning Board of Appeal's decision. Member Rice asked what the height of the proposed home.was from the rear walkout elevation to the roof top. Allan Hastings, surveyor for proponent, answered that the height :ras about 32 feet. Presentation by Proponent David Thomas, 6220 Orchid Drive, Excelsior, MN, explained that the reason construction did not go forward in 1980 was that the abutting property owners on Dundee Road would not sign an easement for sewer and water mains to service the new house. He mentioned that the property has been for sale for a time, it is overgrown with woods and is a 'goofy' little lot. Mr. Thomas said three architects have worked on the design for the house and he felt the home would be an addition to the neighborhood. Public Comment Richard Hinkie, 5600 Dundee Road, stated that his home was north of the subject property and one house to the east. He asked the Council to look at the proposal from two perspectives. First, should anything be built on the site. When the lot was first platted the City .thought it was 20 feet deeper than it actually was due to an administrative error which contributed 'to the setback variances being requested. The utility, easement mentioned by Mr. Thomas was signed 14 years ago and runs between 5600 and 5540 Dundee Road. Two large trees would be lost by installation of utilities to service the subject lot. A curb cut onto Vernon Avenue is a safety concern for all vehicles traveling Vernon and the proposed residents. A larger issue is that of drainage because the houses on Dundee Road are considerably below the elevation of the subject property. Second, if the Council feels something should be built on the site, the following should be considered. The lot is basically a flat lot,- the net effect of the proposed walkout would be a three and a half story house that would be sited 10 -14 feet above the homes on Dundee Road. A quality home design should blend with the natural terrain. Under this proposal there would be no blending - a lot of ground would be moved to make this work (four foot of fill). The existing trees are a sound buffer for Vernon Avenue - removing those and putting structure in will only make the noise worse for the neighborhood. The 1987 Zoning Board suggested that the house be redesigned - nothing has happened as this is the same plan. To make it work Mr. Hinkie said he had suggested to the owners in 1987 that the house be turned 90 degrees and backed into the hill. Mr. Hinkie concluded his remarks by noting the requested variances have been turned down twice by the Zoning Board of Appeals and should be again because no new information has been brought forth. He added that one of the great joys of living in Edina is the care with which the City protects its heritage and guides its future development. If a home is built on the site, at the least it should fit in with the existing neighborhood. Dorothy McIntyre stated that she and Sylvia Logerquist are co- owners of the property at 5540 Dundee Road - the parent lot from which the subject lot was subdivided in 1971. Ms. McIntyre said they opposed the proposed development because of its negative affect on their property and the neighborhood. She recited background information beginning prior to the lot division in 1971 when the original property was owned by Margaret Willis and the subsequent hearings in 1980, 1987 and on July 7, 1994, before the Zoning Board of Appeals for variances on the subject property. Ms. McIntyre pointed out that research of the minutes when the lot was proposed for subdivision indicated that, although the lot would meet the minimum lot area requirements, the east side would be about 40 -50 feet short of meeting the minimum 120 feet lot depth requirement. Further, that the necessary access to Vernon Avenue would be questionable and that despite possible difficulties in development of the lot to be created, the staff recommended approval. In June of 1971 the City Council did subdivide the lot and Mrs. Willis subsequently offered it for sale. It was then purchased in 1980 by David Thomas. The file also noted that a village staff member stated that the survey of the lot was submitted after the Council approved the subdivision and illustrated a lot depth which was less than a previous graphic causing the lot to be -smaller than the minimum lot standard required by ordinance. Ms. McIntyre said these were the actions in 1971 which created the situation which has now gone on for nearly 23 years. She asked the Council to consider the impact of the proposal to the homes on Dundee Road. Continuing, Ms. McIntyre told Council that they purchased the property at 5540 Dundee Road in 1979. They first learned of the lot's problems in 1980 when the City notified them of the hearing for variances. They and other neighbors presented testimony opposing the variances as being excessive and severe and that the proposed dwelling would have a negative affect on neighboring properties. In 1980 the Zoning Board granted the variances but limited its approval to the condition that the variances were limited to the plans presented which at that time showed a much lower and smaller structure intended to be sensitive to the area. At that time no building permit was issued and the variances expired and while the reason is not known, Ms. McIntyre said it had nothing to do with a easement for utilities that occurred four years later. At the second hearing in 1987, the plans for the dwelling had expanded to a three -level structure. At that hearing and the recent hearing in July,1994 the Zoning Board of Appeals denied the request for variances based on the plans not being sensitive to. the topography and not maintaining the character and symmetry of the neighborhood. Ms. McIntyre said they would hope that the Council would not grant the variances and that the lot would remain as it is today on the premise that the ordinance requirement that there be an undue hardship unique to this property and not self - imposed has not been met. Ms. McIntyre said their position is that the claim of hardship is not valid, does not meet the intent of the ordinance and should not be corrected by the City. In closing, she noted that the Zoning Board of Appeal ,'s action on July 7, 1994, did recognize that the proposed dwelling would not blend well, would be very tall from the rear and would be detrimental to the neighbors. She said it would not be an asset to the neighborhood. Also, there is concern about surface water drainage if the house is constructed as they have not experienced water problems over the years they have lived there. David Thomas, proponent, responded that the proposed home would not be visible from Vernon Avenue as two stories of it will be buried into the bank on the west portion of the lot and that he believed it would be an asset to the neighborhood. He added that the surveyor has taken great pains to make sure that surface water will drain away from the homes on Dundee Road. Concerning the utilities, Mr. Thomas said they have tentative arrangements for sewer and water service via the boulevard from Heather Lane. Mr. Thomas said the property was subdivided before he purchased the property and he has been paying taxes on it for over 15 years believing it was a buildable lot. Council Comment /Action Member Rice commented that, while the owner does have a right to develop his - property, no other homes in the area have such height as the one proposed. He said he was not concerned about the frontyard setback variance and felt the suggestion to cant the house at an angle may give it more aesthetic quality for the neighbors on Dundee Road. He concurred that it would appear as a massive, high building to the property owners on Dundee because of the fall off of the grade. Concerning traffic safety, although a concern, other residents have driveways onto Vernon Avenue and that should not preclude development of this property. He concluded that in its present state, he could not support the proposal. Member Kelly submitted that the proposed house would not conform to the character and symmetry,of the neighborhood. Also, that access onto Vernon Avenue is a safety issue. and she would support denial of the requested variances but did not want to prohibit the proponent from coming back with another plan. Attorney Gilligan responded that the Council would need to act on this appeal from the Zoning Board of Appeals's decision to deny the requested variances. Such action would not preclude the proponent from submitting another request for variances when the process would start over again with no time limit restriction. Member Smith said he supported the comments made by Members Kelly and Rice and . suggested the proponent go back to the drawing board. Member Kelly made a motion to affirm the decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals to deny the 31 foot lot depth variance and the 28 foot front yard setback variance to construct a single duelling unit on a platted lot at 5908 Vernon Avenue. Motion was seconded by Member Smith. Rollcall: Ayes: Kelly, Paulus. Rice, Smith, Richards Motion carried. RESIDENT CONCERN REGARDING WATER BILL FOR 4832 WESTBROOK LANE EXPRESSED Nora Jarmel, 4832 Westbrook Lane, expressed concern with her $43.25 quarterly water bill. She said she lives alone, waters sparingly and believes the charge to be too much. Manager Rosland said he would ask staff to look at her billing, possibly check her water meter and get back to her. *BID AWARDED FOR EDINA AQUATIC CENTER PUBLIC ADDRESS AND SOUND SYSTEM Motion was made by Member Smith and was seconded.by Member Rice for award of bid for the Edina Aquatic Center public address and sound system to recommended low bidder, MTS Northwest Sound, Inc., at $6,598.00. Motion carried on rollcall vote - four ayes. BID AWARDED FOR POLICE SQUAD CAR EQUIPMENT Member Rice said he asked this item be removed from the Consent Agenda for an explanation as why the expenditure is needed. Chief Bernhjelm explained that the manufacture of police cars by General Motors and Ford Motor is a small part of their total market. Therefore, their cars are built for the majority of vehicles -not the minority and the new 1994 model police vehicles are made with dual air bags. It is necessary to replace the interior siren and emergency light controls which had been positioned on an overhead console to the right of the driver which would be.in the air bag deployment zone. Both the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and National Highway Safety Administration (NHSA) recommend that the passenger side air bag not be disabled. If not done and the air bag is deployed, it could knock this equipment loose causing problems for the driver, e.g. injury and /or loss of control of the vehicle, etc. After brief discussion, Member Rice made a motion for award of bid for police squad car equipment to sole bidder, Streicher's, at $14,846.31. Motion was seconded by Member Smith. Rollcall: Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards Motion carried. *CHANGE ORDER APPROVED TO ADD KEYSTONE WALL AT 13TH TEE OASIS (BRAEMAR GOLF COURSE ) Motion was made by Member Smith and was seconded by Member Rice to approve a change order in the amount of $2,044.00 to Perkins Landscape Contractors for construction of a keystone retaining wall at the 13th tee oasis. Motion carried on rollcall• vote - four ayes. TEMPORARY HERBICIDE MORATORIUM ADOPTED Manager Rosland recalled that at the Council meeting of July 18, 1994 staff was directed to establish a plan and a process to address the recommendations of the Edina Community Health Services Advisory Committee (ECHSAC) regarding the use of herbicides on City property. Mayor Richards called for comment on the recommendation;-no Council lor public comment was heard. Member Smith introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION IMPOSING TEMPORARY HERBICIDE MORATORIUM WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, has referred to its Community Health Services Advisory Committee (CHSAC) the matter of spraying herbicides on park ground and other public properties in the City because of citizen concerns; WHEREAS, the CHSAC has considered and discussed the issue of herbicide spraying and has recommended to the City Council that it immediately require City departments to discontinue applying herbicides to the grounds, waters, facilities and equipment at the 38 City parks and miscellaneous public properties in the City by imposing a temporary herbicide moratorium; WHEREAS, the CHSAC has also recommended that while the temporary herbicide moratorium is in effect the Edina Parks Department research and propose an implementation plan on the use of herbicides; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Edina City Council that from August 1, 1994 to and including March 31, 1995, subject to earlier termination or extension by the Edina City Council, the Edina Park Department staff and other City employees shall not: 1. Spray or otherwise apply-herbicides to the grounds, waters, facilities, and equipment at the 38 City parks and at miscellaneous public properties in the City. 2. However, excepted from this moratorium are revenue facilities in the City parks system including the Braemar Golf Course, Normandale Golf Course, Braemar Arena, Edinborough Park, Arneson Gardens, Courtney Ballfields and Van Valkenburg Park. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Edina Parks Department and associated City offices research and propose an implement plan intended to achieve the following: A. Discontinuance of the spraying or application of pesticides by the City or its contractors in as many locations and situations as possible. B. Management of playing fields and open grassy areas of City parks and other public properties for weed, insect and disease control by alternative means involving no or significantly less use of potentially hazardous chemicals. C. In general use park areas, spraying shall not be conducted for the primary purpose of improving the aesthetic appearance of grassy areas. Only more critical issues of turf management such as surface safety, wind and water erosion control, serious insect infestation, control of water runoff, and the health of trees and related vegetation shall be justification for targeted pesticide application. D. Inform the residents of the City regarding lower cost - reduced hazard approaches to park and ground management. Help citizens to accept a higher "weed tolerance" and slower acting methods of problem control. Motion was seconded by Member Paulus. Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards Resolution adopted. CELLULAR ANTENNA INSTALLATION APPROVED AT EDINA FIRE DEPARTMENT SITE Manager Rosland explained that representatives of USWest /New Vector Group, Inc. have approached City staff for the purpose of discussing the erection of a single monopole tower on the grounds of the Edina Fire Department. The proposed tower would replace the existing public safety tower which is located on the fire station itself. The public safety antennas would be transferred from the existing tower to the new monopole. In addition, USWest would install a cellular telephone antenna on the monopole. By letter dated July 24, 1994, Jaymes B. Littlejohn, attorney for USWest, has outlined the basic terms of a proposed agreement with respect to the erection and operation of the tower: 1) ,USWest would pay all costs associated with the erection of the monopole and relocation of the City's public safety antennas. 2) USWest proposes to pay a rental of $1,00.0 per month attach their antennas to the tower. 3) Term of the lease is five years - renewable for four periods. 4) Rent increase provided if USWest elects to renew the five year periods. A project booklet illustrating the height and location of and antennas as well as the existing public safety antenna lease contemplates the construction of a small addition to of which will be used by USWest for equipment storage. for their right to subsequent five year lease for subsequent the proposed monopole was presented. The the fire station, part Manager Rosland pointed out that public safety antennas and towers are exempt from the requirements of the antenna ordinance_. However, private antennas, such as that proposed by USWest are subject to the ordinance. Due to the height of the USWest antenna, a variance would be required. This.variance was considered and granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals at its July 21, 1994 meeting. The variance, of course, would be of no affect unless the Council agrees to proceed with the lease agreement. The lease provides for the possibility of four extensions, each of which would be for an additional five year term. The proposed annual rent for each of the terms is as follows: first renewal - $14,400; second renewal - $17,280; third renewal - $20,736; and fourth renewal - $24,883.10. If the cell site remains for the entire 25 years the City would receive a total of $446,496.. Staff would recommend that Council authorize execution of the Option and Lease Agreement. Member Smith asked if there would be space on the Fire Department grounds for erection of a second tower to provide for another user. Chief'Paulfranz responded that there probably would be space; however, there is a provision in the lease agreement that would allow another cellular provider to place another antenna on this monopole. The only restriction is that the second provider would have to maintain 20 feet vertical or horizontal distance from the USWest antenna. Member Paulus asked if the monthly rental is a fair and typical rate. Bernie Wong, USWest, said that the $1,000 per month lease rate is standard; USWest has leases running from $250 to $1,200 per month. He confirmed that the site could accommodate another monopole but typically another cellular provider would co- locate on the same monopole and could do so at a distance of 20 feet below the USWest antenna. The position would depend on what the objectives are and how far a signal is being transmitted. Mayor Richards commented that 25 years is a long. time and while the rental of $1,000 per month may be the market rate today, it may well be below the market rate in the future depending on inflation. Mr. Wong said that issue has been addressed by the four percent per year increase in rental fee. Member Rice asked if USWest has any lease agreements with a CPI escalator. Mr. Wong said they do have but both USWest and the lease holders favor the stated rent. Attorney Littlejohn interjected that cellular rates have been decreasing since 1983. Member Smith made a motion to approve execution of the Option and Lease Agreement with USQest/New Vector Group, Inc. subject to the modification that this lease would not preclude the City from erecting an additional similar antenna on the site. Motion was seconded by Member Paulus. Member Rice offered an amendment to the motion to provide for either the stated rent increases in the negotiated contract or one -half of the CPI, Minnesota all items, whichever is greater. Motion was seconded by Member Smith. Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards Motion carried. Mayor Richards then called for vote on the main motion as amended. Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice. Smith, Richards .Motion carried. Member Smith moved adoption of the following resolution, subject to: 1) the modification that this lease would not preclude the City from erecting an additional similar antenna on the site, and 2) that the lease provide for either the stated rent increases in the contract or one -half of the CPI (Minnesota all items), whichever is greater: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING OPTION AND LEASE AGREEMENT WITH USWEST BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Edina, Minnesota, that it hereby authorizes and directs the Mayor and Manager to execute the Option and Lease Agreement with USWest for a cellular antenna site at the Edina Fire Station, 6250 Tracy Avenue. Motion was seconded by Member Rice. Rollcall: Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards Resolution adopted. RESOLUTION ADOPTED TO CHANGE ORDER OF COUNCIL AGENDA Manager Rosland informed Council that staff has discussed the order of the Council Agenda and would recommend that the order be changed by moving the item Concerns of Residents down on the agenda. This would allow residents who have gone through a process under the Recommendations and Reports item to be heard prior to those residents who just appear at the meeting and ask to speak. Member Smith suggested leaving the agenda in its present order but limiting the introduction of an issue by a resident with- deliberation or decision of the issue on a future agenda.- Member Paulus said her concern was that a special interest group could appear and railroad an issue through by not following a process whereby the issue would be an.agenda item with notice to all affected residents. Member Rice commented that he felt it would be more fair if all followed a process. Member Paulus introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Edina, Minnesota, that it hereby amends the order for the Council Agenda by moving the item "Concerns of Residents" down to follow the item "Recommendations and Reports ". Motion was seconded by Member Rice. Rollcall: Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Richards Nays: Smith Resolution adopted. 1994 ETHICS LEGISLATION DISCUSSED REGARDING PROHIBITION OF GIFTS TO PUBLIC OFFICIALS Mayor Richards said that he had asked Manager Rosland and Attorney Gilligan to clarify the recent legislation (Chapter 377) regarding prohibitions of gifts to public officials which becomes effective on August 1, 1994. Attorney Gilligan had opined that given the uncertainties of the Ethics Legislation it would be best for the City officials and employees to proceed cautiously. Manager Rosland asked for direction concerning the type of invitations from private clubs that have been made to City staff in the past which included support staff as well as department heads. It was generally agreed that the support staff would not be subject to the prohibition because they are not officials or employees who are in a public position to make or recommend major decisions regarding the expenditure or investment of public money. Also discussed and approved was a draft letter which would be sent to vendors under the signatures of the Mayor and Manager concerning this new l,aw which would ask that vendors refrain from offering any gift or other consideration to our elected or appointed officials, which would include the City Council, members of advisory boards and commissions and all fulltime employees. *RESOLUTION ADOPTED APPOINTING PRIMARY ELECTION JUDGES Motion was made by Member Smith and was seconded by Member Rice for adoption of the following resolution: RESOLUTION APPOINTING PRIMARY ELECTION JUDGES BE IT RESOLVED by the Edina City Council that the individuals named on the list as presented and on file in the office of the City Clerk be appointed as election judges for the primary Election to be conducted on September 13, 1994; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk be and is hereby authorized to make any substitutions or additions as may be deemed necessary. Motion carried on rollcall vote - four ayes. REPORT GIVEN ON MEETING BETWEEN DEVELOPER /PARKVOOD KNOLLS COALITION CONCERNING PARKWOOD KNOLLS 22ND ADDITION Chuck Webster, 6645 Interlachen Boulevard, informed Council that on Tuesday, July 26, 1994 representatives of the Parkwood Knolls Coalition had met with developer Harvey Hanson and his associates, regarding the Parkwood Knolls 22nd Addition development. He said it was an encouraging meeting and the developer had presented several alternate plans that seemed promising. Mr. Webster said it is their intent to keep working with the developer to try to accomplish their main objectives: 1) to minimize through traffic in their neighborhoods, and 2) to increase lot size in the northeast portion of the development. He said they realize a compromise will have to be reached with the developer and they hope a mutually agreeable plan can be presented to Council in the near future. He concluded by saying he was appearing so that the report would be of public record. *PETITION FOR SIDEWALK (SOUTH SIDE PARKLAWN AVENUE) REFERRED TO ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT FOR PROCESSING Motion was made by Member Smith and was seconded by Member Rice to refer the petition for sidewalk on the south side of Parklawn Avenue to the Engineering Department for processing. Motion carried on rollcall vote - four ayes. POLICE SCHOOL LIAISON OFFICER APPROVED Manager Rosland said the Edina School District has proposed contracting with the Police Department for the services of a Police School Liaison Officer (PSLO) beginning September 1, 1994. The PSLO program was begun in Edina in 1965. The program's intent is to improve communications between the schools and the Police Department, provide opportunities to build positive relationships between youth and police, coordinate services to youth in need, and to help provide law enforcement needs in the district, with primary focus on the middle schools and high school. The school district has proposed having an officer in the schools each day during the school year - a commitment of 172 days of a 260 day work year or 66% of a full time officer. The district would pay the actual costs of the officer's salary and benefits for that time and has currently levied approximately $39,500 for this purpose. No additional appropriation for 1994 would be necessary due to unanticipated vacancies in the Police Department. Hiring would occur when the candidate selection process is completed, estimated as late November. Staff would recommend: 1) to authorize the contract for PSLO with the Edina School District for the 1994- 95.school year, and 2) to authorize the addition of one police officer position to the Police Department. Member Kelly made a motion to: 1) authorize the contract for PSLO with the Edina School District for the 1994 -95 school year, and 2) authorize the addition of one police officer position to the Police Department. Member Smith seconded the motion. Rollcall: Aves: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards Motion carried. CLAIMS PAID Member Kelly made a.motion to approve payment of the following claims as shown in detail on the Check Register dated July 28, 1994 and consisting of 28 pages: General Fund $113,534:28; C.D.B.G. $18,990.00; Communication $26,369.78; Working Capital $9,600.59; Art Center $7,290.25; Swimming Pool $4,256.11; Colf Course $97,005.89; Ice Arena $6,439.10; Gun Range $144.60; Edinborough /Centennial Lakes $18,371.39; Utility Fund $298,479.31; Storm Sewer $1,817.46; Liquor Fund $62,588.89; Construction Fund $772.34; TOTAL $665,659.99. Member Rice seconded the motion. Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards Motion carried. There being no further business on the Council Agenda, Mayor Richards declared the meeting adjourned at 9:37 P.M. Mayor rf REPORT/RECOMMENDATION TO: Kenneth Rosland Agenda Item # II. A - FROM: Kris Aaker Consent Information Only Mgr. Recommends To HRA DATE: August 15, 1994 To Council SUBJECT: 2-94-1, S -94 -3, Final Action Motion Rezoning and Preliminary Plat Resolution Approval for 4101 West 50th Street, and 5014,5016,5024 Halifax E Ordinance Avenue E] Discussion Recommendation: The Planning Commission recommends Final Rezoning, Preliminary Plat approval, and amendment to Comprehensive Plan and 50th and France Avenue Plan subject to: 1. Final Plat Approval 2. Landscaping Bond 3. Watershed District Grading Permit Info /Background: The subject proposal was considered and tabled by the council at their August 1, 1994, meeting. The proponents have returned with a revised landscape plan for council consideration. The proponents have indicated to city staff they are prepared to respond to council concerns raised at the August 1, 1994, council meeting. The revised landscape plan has increased the size of the "Crimson King" Maples along the south property boundary from three inches to four inches and have increased the size of the Black Hills Spruce located along the west property boundary from six and eight feet to eight and ten feet. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HALL AUGUST 1, 1994 ROLLCALL Answering rollcall were Members Paulus, Rice, Smith, and Mayor Richards. Member Kelly arrived at 7:05 P.M. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS APPROVED Motion was made by Member Smith and was seconded by Member Rice to approve and adopt the Council Consent Agenda as presented with the exception of removal of Item IV.B. - Award of Bid - Police Car Equipment. Rollcall: Ayes: Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards Motion carried. *MINUTES OF THE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETINGS OF JULY 5 AND JULY 18, 1994 APPROVED Motion was made by Member Smith-and was seconded by Member Rice to approve the minutes of the Regular Council Meetings of July 5, 1994 and July 18, 1994.. Motion carried on rollcall vote - four ayes. PUBLIC HEARING HELD; FINAL REZONING, AMENDMENT TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - PLANNED COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. PCD -4 AND SINGLE DWELLING UNIT DISTRICT. R -1 TO PLANNED RESIDENCE DISTRICT. PRD -4 AND PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL (4101 WEST 50TH STREET, 5014, 5016 AND 5024 HALIFAX AVENUE) CONTINUED TO AUGUST 15. 1994 Presentation by Planner Associate Planner Aaker informed the Council that the applicant is requesting final rezoning from Planned Commercial District, PCD -4 and Single Dwelling Unit District, R -1 to Planned Residence District, PRD -4, preliminary plat approval and amendment of the Comprehensive Plan for 4101 West 50th Street from Commercial to High Density Residential. The subject property is located in the southwest corner of 50th Street and Halifax Avenue. On May 16, 1994 the'Council granted preliminary rezoning to the subject redevelopment. The approved plan calls for a 24 unit, three story condominium development. Included in the approval was a building setback variance for the easterly side of the building. At its closest point, the building provides a 21 foot setback where 36 feet is required. A total of 56 parking spaces are provided of which 40 are under - building spaces. The under - building count'is four greater than contained in the preliminary plan. The proponent has submitted plans in support of the request for final rezoning approval. Included in those plans are the grading plan, landscape plan and schedule, and final site plan and building elevations as illustrated. . The proposed plan is essentially.identical to the plan given preliminary approval. The exterior, materials will be a combination of brick and'stucco. -- The grading plan, however, is slightly different than the preliminary plan. The ground elevation at the building was shown at 887 on the preliminary plan. The final grading plan raises the elevation to 890 feet. According to the proponent, the change was necessary to accommodate the garage entry and assure proper drainage. The City Engineer has reviewed the revised grading plan and has had his concerns addressed concerning the drainage on the west side of the site. The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District is scheduled to review the plan at its August meeting. The final development plans are consistent with those .given preliminary approval. Density, parking and landscaping comply with ordinance requirements. The building setback variance along the east property line remains the only variance required. At its meeting of June 29, 1994, the Planning Commission recommended final rezoning, preliminary plat approval and amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and the 50th and France Avenue Plan, subject to: 1) Final plat approval, 2) Landscaping bond, 3) Watershed District grading permit. The modified landscape plan shows larger and taller trees on the south and west sides of the property. Because the revised landscape plan was submitted just prior to completion of the Council packets, staff did not have an opportunity to suggest that the maple trees along the south side be increased from three inches to four inches in diameter and that the spruce trees along the west be increased from six feet and eight feet in height to ten feet to be more consistent with suggestions of the Planning Commission. Presentation by Proponent a Mark Haymaker, Haymaker Construction, explained the two major grading changes incorporated in the plan that were recommended by the landscape architect. First, the drainage to the west of the building that would abut the adjoining properties was directed away from the alley and towards the parking area by increasing the swale. Second, in order to get the surface water and underground drainage off the site, it was necessary to raise the grade at the back of the parking lot and at the building so water would drain to Halifax Avenue. The garage floor elevation was raised three feet to keep water from the lower level. He added that the request for setback variance remains the same because the building height as it relates to required setbacks has not changed. Tracy Eichorn - Hicks, attorney for proponent, pointed out that when the original plan was presented the building height was at 39 feet. Subsequently, the mansard roof level was lowered reducing the building overall height to 36 feet. Council Comment /Action Member Smith voiced concern with what the building height would actually be because of the increase in grade elevation. Mr. Haymaker stated that the first floor building elevation is at 890 feet and there is no change to the height of the structure; it remains at 36 feet as represented previously. He reiterated that grade changes have been made to redirect the surface water as suggested at the previous hearings and to meet the watershed district requirements. Member Paulus asked for clarification of the proposed grades changes. Engineer Hoffman recalled that concerns were raised about west side building drainage onto property to the west. He clarified that the grade changes were made to assure that surface water would not drain onto the single family property to the west. Also, Sunde Land Surveying was asked to add swales on both the north and south sides of the public alley going to the west to drain water down the alleyway. Any internal grade changes on the site would not negatively impact the property to the west. Responding to Mayor Richards, Mr. Haymaker stated that the landscape plan has been modified to include four inch caliper maple trees rather than three inch and for eight to 10 foot spruce trees rather than six to eight foot trees. Associate Planner Aaker answered Member Rice that a developer's agreement would not be necessary on this property because a landscaping bond would be a condition of granting final rezoning and the watershed district would examine the final grading plan. Member Rice then asked what percentage of the building exterior would be brick and stucco. Mr. Haymaker responded that he would get those calculations but the building would be predominately modular size dark brick construction with accents. Member Smith said he was still confused about the building elevation as the draft Planning Commission minutes indicated that the ground elevation at the building was shown at 887 feet on the preliminary plan and that the final grading plan raises the elevation to 890 feet. Mr. Haymaker explained that the grade would be lower than the first floor elevation to provide security for first floor occupants. After further discussion and questions regarding building height, elevation and grades as shown on the preliminary plan and as now presented, Mayor Richards commented that one of the most important issues about this development was the height of the proposed building and that the reasons for th'O- grade changes may be valid. He suggested that the hearing be continued so that watershed district staff and the project engineer could be present to offer explanations for the proposed grade changes and to clarify the building. elevation. Member Smith made a motion to continue the hearing on Final Rezoning, Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan - Planned Commercial District, PCD -4 and Single Dwelling Unit District, R -1 to Planned Residence District, PRD -4 and Preliminary Plat Approval to August 15, 1994, to allow the proponent to respond to the questions raised by Council. Member Rice seconded the motion. Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING ON PRELIMINARY REZONING, PLANNED COMKIMCIAL DISTRICT, PCD -4 TO PLANNED COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, PCD -3 AND FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR 3500 WEST 69TH STREET CONTINUED TO AUGUST 15, 1994 Affidavits of Notice were presented, approved and ordered placed on file. Presentation by Planner Associate Planner Aaker informed Council that the applicant is requesting a rezoning fronu.Planned Commercial District, PCD -4 to Planned Commercial District, PCD -3. The subJect property is located in the south central area of the Southdale Center',-property. The site was formerly developed with a service station but is currently vacant. The proposed rezoning would make the zoning for this site cons istent;..with the zoning of the shopping center. The proposed rezoning would allow for the redevelopment of this site for a banking facility. The development envisions a building with 1,826 square feet of floor area along with four - `drive- through teller lanes. The site plan 'illustrates 10 parking spaces, including one disabled parking space. The primary exterior material shown for the building;,is brick. Associate Planner Aaker explained that the proposed building would meet the 50 foot setback required by the PCD -3 District. The plan also would meet ordinance requirements for parking, parking setbacks and stacking spaces for the drive - through lanes. The proponents have submitted plans that meet the requirements for final rezoning. The plans included grading, drainage and landscaping plan and schedule. The proponents are requesting:.that Council waive Second Reading -of the rezoning. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the zoning..on the majority of the shopping center site. The proposed development meets.- zoning ordinance standards and requires no variances. Development of his site will not change or interfere with the - existing ring road system. At its meeting of June 29, 1994, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the rezoning and also recommended that Council waive Second Reading of the rezoning. Presentation for Proponent Paul Sevenich, Assistant Manager of Southdale Center, stated he represented the owner, Equitable Life Assurance Society, and had nothing to add to the presentation made by Planner Aaker. He explained that the tenant requested waiver of Second Reading for the rezoning for possible occupancy by mid - November. y, i� t C �. REPORT /RECOMMENDATION TO: Kenneth Rosland FROM: Kris Aaker DATE: August 15, 1994 SUBJECT: S -94 -5, final Plat approval Fink Addition 6520 Interlachen Boulevard Agenda Item # z z . c. n Consent Information Only 0 Mgr. Recommends n To HRA 0 To Council Action n Motion n Resolution Ordinance Discussion Recommendation: Final Plat approval conditioned on: 1. Subdivision dedication based on unimproved land value of $130,000. 2. Grading Plan prior to issuance of building permit. Info /Background: The City Council granted preliminary plat approval for the Fink Addition on February 22, 1994. Conditions imposed included driveway location, grading, drainage and tree removal. The grading plan illustrates a 12 foot driveway which will drain in a 25 foot wide drainage easement area along the easterly side of the new lot. One tree a 30 foot Maple, will be removed for driveway construction. Final details will be addressed prior to the issuance of a building permit for the new lot. SUBDIVISION DEDICATION REPORT TO: Planning Commission Park Board Environmental Quality Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBDIVISION NAME: / LAND SIZE: ( / ) (BY: Subdivision No. r LAND VALUE: /\ ✓, The developer of this subdivision has been required to A. grant an easement over part of the land B. dedicate o of the land C. donate $ as a fee in lieu of land As a result of applying the following policy: A. Land Required (no density or intensity may be used for the first 5% of land dedicated) 1. If property is adjacent to an existing park and the addition u beneficially expands the park. 2. If property is 6 acres or will be combined with future dedications so that the end result will be a minimum of a 6 acre park. 3. If property abuts a natural lake, pond, or stream. 4. If property is necessary for storm water holding or will be dredged or otherwise improved for storm water holding areas or ponds. 17 5. If the property is a place of significant natural, scenic or his- toric value. 6 B. Cash Required ED1. In all other instances than above. El 2. `160 MISUM OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HALL FEBRUARY 22, 1994 ROLLCALL Answering rollcall were Members Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith and Mayor Richards. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS APPROVED Motion was made by Member Smith and was seconded by Member Rice to approve and adopt the Council Consent Agenda items as presented with the exception of removal of.item V.A. - (16) 1994 Golf Cars. Rollcall: Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards Motion carried. *MINUTES OF REGULAR AND CLOSED COUNCIL MEETINGS OF FEBRUARY 7. 1994, APPROVED Motion was made by Member Smith and was seconded by Member Rice to approve the minutes of the Regular Council Meeting and Closed Council Meeting of February 7, 1994. Motion carried on rollcall vote - five ayes. PUBLIC HEARING HELD ON PREQ[IRARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR FINK ADDITION (6520 INTERLACHEN BOULEVARD): Affidavits of Notice were presented, approved and ordered placed on file. Presentation by Planner Planner Larsen stated that the subject property, located at 6520 Interlachen Boulevard, is a developed single dwelling unit lot with a lot area of 62,397 square feet. The property measures 192 feet in width by approximately 322 feet in depth. The existing dwelling is in the southwesterly portion of the property and fronts on Interlachen Boulevard. A request to subdivide the property to create one new lot has been received. The existing dwelling would remain. The proposed subdivision would create a new lot to the north or rear of the existing dwelling. The new lot would have access provided by a dedicated 40 foot wide right of way along the easterly edge of the property with a hammerhead type of turnaround at the end. The Zoning Ordinance requires at least 30 feet of frontage on an improved public street. The proponents have submitted two alternatives for improvement of the right of way. First, the right of way could be improved with a 26 foot wide public street. Second, a 20 foot wide private drive could be constructed within the right of way. The second alternative would require a variance from the requirement of frontage on a improved public street. The proponents would prefer the second alternative and are requesting a lot width variance. Proposed lot sizes and dimensions are as follows: Lot Width Lot Depth Lot Area Lot Width to Perimeter Ratio Lot 1 150 feet 160 feet 23,233 s.f. .24 Lot 2 196 feet 173 feet 30,948 s.f. .33 Median lot sizes and dimensions within the 500 foot surrounding neighborhood are: Lot Width Lot Depth Lot Area 115 feet 160 feet 19,300 s.f. The proposed lots meet or exceed size and dimension standards as established by the 500 foot neighborhood required by the Zoning Ordinance. 2/22/94 161 Engineer Hoffman was asked to review the proposal and made the following observations: 1) The proposed private driveway on public right of way is unnecessary, 2) The amount of disturbance necessary to construct the roadway is not the most feasible engineering solution, 3) Public right of way and associated costs not warranted for initial or long term costs to City for operation and maintenance of a public street, and 4) If subdivision is approved with frontage on Interlachen Boulevard, a 12 foot driveway off the street with widening near the building site is recommended to minimize associated grading disturbance. The Planning Commission heard the proposal on two occasions. At its meeting of January 5, 1994, the Commission voted unanimously to deny the requested right of way dedication to the City. The Commission then by a four to four vote moved to recommend preliminary plat approval with a variance for lot width to allow construction of a private driveway. Presentation for Proponent Kathy O'Connell, McCombs Frank Roos and Associates, stated that she was representing the proponents, Margaret and Dr. Robert Fink. She explained that they have considered several scenarios and felt the one chosen would work best for the Finks, the surrounding neighbors, the City and would be the best solution environmentally. The intent of the proposal was to meet all City ordinance requirements. The Finks have lived in their home for many years and want to build a smaller home on the new lot. They have received no opposition to their proposal from the neighbors. In response to one concern regarding drainage, she pointed out that all the storm water would drain to a low spot in the northwest corner of the Fink's property. Ms. O'Connell displayed a graphic comparing the proposed plat with surrounding lots, noting that the proposal maintained the character of the neighborhood. She said the Fink's intention was to submit a proposal without variances and one that respected their neighbors. By putting in a private 20 foot wide drive versus a public street with cul -de -sac, the Finks would be able to preserve a row of trees between their property and the adjacent neighbors to the east. Member Rice asked what type of house was proposed for the new lot. Dr. Fink said they want a smaller house and are proposing to build a 3,000 square foot, single story walk -out brick house for use as their own home and not for speculation. Public Comment Hank Brooks, 4928 Ridge Road, informed Council that between his house and the Fink home there is quite a steep hill and that his home is the low point. His home has drain tile and a sump pump and yet this past summer they had seepage into the basement and water standing in their backyard. He expressed fear that with construction of a road and removal of trees it would cause more drainage onto their property. Further, a large part of the charm of their backyard would be lost with the proposed subdivision because of lost vegetation and retaining walls that would be needed. Bruce Peterson, 4920 Ridge Road, said they purchased their home because of the natural wild area on the rear of the Fink property and were not aware this lot could be subdivided. He noted that at the first Planning Commission meeting there was concern about this being a neck lot. Mr. Peterson also pointed out that if the new house were sited as proposed, the sideyard would be adjacent to their backyard. If this is approved, he said he would like some assurance that there would be more than the minimum 10 foot sideyard setback so that if a, future owner would desire to add onto the house the addition would not come right up to their backyard lot line. Further, he equated the proposed driveway to having an alley behind his lot and said surface water is a problem in that area. 2/22/94 "MIA Ms. O'Connell restated that the reason why the proponents preferred the 20 foot private drive versus the standard public street right of way was to avoid removing the row of trees between the Fink and Brooks properties. The private drive would not be centered on the public right of way but would be shifted away from the Brooks' property line. Only two trees are proposed to be removed and those are in the location for the new house. She added that the back portion of the property would remain wild and the proposed drive would not go behind the Peterson property. Council Comment /Action Member Smith introduced the following resolution and moved adoption, subject to 1) grant of variances for lot width and lot width to perimeter ratio, 2) exact location for construction of a 20 foot private driveway, 3) specific vegetation to be removed, 4) surface water drainage plan, 5) impact of sideyard setback, and 6) final plat approval: RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR FINK ADDITION BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, that that certain plat entitled "FINK ADDITION ", platted by Robert J. Fink and Margaret M. Fink, husband and wife, and presented at the regular meeting of the City Council of February 22, 1994, be and is hereby granted preliminary plat approval. Motion was seconded by Member Rice. Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards Resolution adopted. LOT DIVISION APPROVED FOR LOTS 4 AND 5 PARKWOOD KNOLLS (5501 LONDONDERRY ROAD) Presentation by Planner Planner Larsen explained that the subject property, located at 5501 Londonderry Road, comprises two single dwelling lots which have been combined and developed with one single dwelling building. The proposed lot division would combine Lot 4 and part of Lot 5 to support the existing home, leaving the balance of Lot 5 as a site for a new single dwelling development. The proposed new building site (balance of Lot 5) would measure approximately 185 feet by 140 feet with a lot area of about 39,000 square feet. The new building site would be similar in size and shape to neighboring lots and would conform with ordinance requirements. Staff would recommend approval of the lot division. At its meeting of February 2, 1994, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the lot division with two conditions: 1) adjustment of the new, westerly property line to provide a setback of 20 feet for the new house, and 2) driveway access to the new building site should be from Londonderry Road or Stauder Circle only. Planner Larsen recalled an appeal of a Zoning Board of Appeals decision recently before Council that concerned access to lots east of the subject property, with proposed access off of Parkwood Road. Mayor Richards stated he wanted assurance that this modification of the lot line, if approved, would not allow access to undeveloped lots lying south and east of the subject lot in the future. Planner Larsen said the proposed lot division would only affect Lots 4 and 5 and the subject of access to lots to the east could be made a condition for granting the proposed lot division. Presentation for Proponents Jeff Schoenwetter, 4401 Valley View Road, JMS Companies, said the request before Council is a realignment of the property line between Lots 4 and 5. The current lot line bisects the westerly portion of the house. The purpose of the proposed realignment is to allow the proponents to sell and save the existing Frank Lloyd Wright house on Lot 4. In response to the Planning Commission, new surveys have been submitted showing the setback of 20 feet for the new house. With regard to access to the new building site, Mr. Schoenwetter said it was his understanding July 29,1994 Attention: Council Members, City Planner, Mayor Regarding: Case File S -93 -5 6520 Interlachen Boulevard Dr. and Mrs. Robert Fink On the East side of Lot 2 of the Robert Fink property we are requesting a deed restriction requiring a 25' setback that restricts anv future structures or hard surface areas from being constructed within these setback limits. This would move the setback line (SBL') on Sheet 2 of submitted drawings in line with the Utility and Drainage Easement and permanently maintain a freeflow -of water from the adjoining properties to the East. This area is at the lowest he point of all the adjacent properties. With the new building pad being skewed within the property, the East setback line should not be defined as a "10' side setback. It should be maintained as a 25' rear setback the same as our adjoining properties or future owners of this property would be allowed to expand to within 10' of the rear of the adjoining properties, or build a hard surface parking area within 10' of the.rear of our properties. I brought up this concern at a Planning Commission Meeting and at a Council Meeting. It was also discussed with Robert Fink on a personal level and he assured me that a deed restriction with a 30' setback would be no problem if that is what we feel is needed to protect our property value in the future against a huge expansion of the modest 3000 Square foot home proposed by the Finks. We have studied sheets 1 -4 of plans submitted by the Finks indicating the 10' Easterly side setback on Sheet 2, not a 25' or 30' as discussed. Sheet 3 gives us little information as to how the drive will terminate at the future house. We would recommend a modest turnaround area as not to create a parking lot affect, or a guest parking area behind our homes. "Thank you for vour attention, Bruce & Debbie Peterson 4 920 Ridge Road \ 1 -Norflt line of I Ic�\lJorlll 321.70 Ft. of I 2! \ 17 scuYh 351, 1 {1. o `81ock 32, Mendels5obfl\ I \ \ I TILI } DRAI 957.47 � \ . I (955.12 25 x \` 960.42 \(D ,\ I \ \ 1 �O 7. 1 \ 9 E 67 j 1 1 N _ _ Il \ ' 195,55 X70 IZ ' 11 r 4.10 357.42 — 'X._X-�- - } -K - -X --�- -x— x -�. X .Al 4--x-- ---k�/1(- J(-.. -. ..x-- -X _. ....�-�r \- - - -- -'--- -- ' 02 1 � 1 g70.9T_ rCnC C 955.60 r 14° of oodx 1 A� `- OUND \' 14' Move td n A 5 h I^ .`.- J 55 •air 1 I 16.5 v, /- 67.72 \ 1 «`y f y 955. B?, 16 1 969. 7 9G 9.37 11 19S6. 9 �°+ 1=RAAIE 51ILU f. I r - r!'� i.��ji 1S"�1 0 970.12 I•.- < 1S`4i..P np -.. r,+l>6fj.Hc Pirle 3 S` 90' 1 ` �! 5.10 7. s 6 -4 -EI cIr'c _ )_ � f 9 9. 64 - - - - --- Y 0 "6 R. 13 t v I I 958.4 z r- °>�•1.07� 957. 4P ? .ol lnn r.nnd .l i l,l C _ )S 7. 79 rC .5G. 11 t 1 I 613 gc9.A7. b o , T c.1 I Z (0242 67 r' Q 9170.67 of \ ('� 41 �Prle i► 80 1,.1�'��l,lrL A.90 N � 911 (v \ \ - \ Q 30' 7r; ple 960.63 p 016 SP 971. r f 18`5 rurp 1 \ �lonwnad 1 ^ ' °'r 7.72 m'. `` ,�, 955.82 ,� 6 • � ;:�� �. � +:<,Lall� a, s `t d�74'� f � Sao d�•s 1 I a� `►s ��,�954�6Z .a 1 Lf IT OF 361C. t I .ne ♦ r95 'goo GG ♦ 096B.13 24 "A 3h � •�:• `'"•� �, 958.42 ♦ `,�� \ 9G4.07 s 337. 40 969.87 971.6 • \ \ 30 7r�plt Cjft IS Spruce.�� 9435 -- 975.70 _ 97 \ '76.80 6.05 / ! 979.20 ^ 9L7, 0� 6� --978.10 4, .�° .o •\ '� L I" \ 1 r reen �� 1 aA4.T1. \ - 12.55 978.0 `Door S'11= 976.10 975.30 a �► A '1 0 -E.er9 ��G 73 I BUILDING G.05 7.8 ■ v `^ •Cl,���,ne 1 � 1 N0. 6520 z7.1s 582 '+ ^' 7G. 70 � . Gas meteroy 983.6G,0 76 5 r e ��r" Od5.96 d, SAQS ) 9d 1.03 \ 4.45 2nopy- co 98Z• 17 984.84 , ^ e, 983.89 i 983.44 986.70 584.73 ! Q,'8a.�� / ►; 902.991 r �� 18 °wt�p1• �oe�Map e R ET f W .c584.I7 9at.10 9so.sc 7.70 191.97_9? i 956.6'7 I X57,35 18-Sox Elder n 4 \ N v. in L \ � 1 N ws t4 955.4 7 955. d �. u I 44 .s to W W 0 1 Q v, LU F; 1 1 W 2 Q 1 956.11 N° Mo i 956.6'7 I X57,35 18-Sox Elder n 4 \Y \ (9G2.�3 q � \ N v. in L \ olu N ws t4 v 0 m v � 44 .s to W W 0 \Y \ (9G2.�3 q � RESOLUTION GRANTING FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR FINS ADDITION BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, that that certain plat entitled "FINK ADDITION ", platted by Robert J. Fink and Margaret M. Fink, husband and wife., and presented at the regular meeting of the City Council of August 15, 1994, be and is hereby granted final plat approval. ADOPTED this 15th day of August, 1994. 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 duly adopted by the Edina City Council at its regular meeting of August 15, 1994, and as recorded in the Minutes of said regular meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this 16th day of August, 1994. Marcella M. Daehn City Clerk h� + r S EXITST'DiG MINTGUP rROPO OU CONTOURS R05-1 N I Noon St M41115 m IKANCERING MORrc (fi1RfIII- PIVIR0 FUN(E C)'? APPROVED EQlR _) EROSION CONTROL FENCE DETRIL I i= AGENDA ITEM CITY OF EDINA MEMORANDUM DATE: August 15, 1994 TO: Mayor & City Council FROM: Francis Hoffman, City Engineer SUBJECT: Change in Grading Plan - Fink Addition As part of the preliminary plat approval, a requirement was established to prevent water run -off to the properties to the east. A small berm was established to channel any hard - surface run -off to a natural swale which runs north of the property. This additional drainage will be accounted for when and if the property to the north is developed. I REMARKS REVISIONS BE DISTURBED ................... SHALL BE APPROXIMATELY 12,345 &F OR iq% oF,rilE PLA La (W;1NEERIK FIFIBRIC (MIRAFI-EII'VIR0 FEI'lIkE OR PIPPROVED LOURL) EROSION CONTROL FENCE DETRI'L EXI! ?Rol -R0' I On 4. at 11111I ;E ED HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY ME OR D I UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AMA DILLY REGISTER DIRECT ED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE Or- M M I ESO INNESOTA. 10364 EWE PREPARED FOR: OR. & "S. ROSERT FWK r� rA A. ae REPORT/RECOMMENDATION TO: Kenneth Rosland FROM: Kris Aaker DATE: August 15, 1994 SUBJECT: Conservation Restriction Release - Mark Dalquist Addition Recommendation: Info /Background: Agenda Item # II. D . Consent Information Only Mgr. Recommends To HRA 0 To Council Action Motion 0 Resolution n Ordinance E] Discussion Mark Dalquist Addition is a four lot subdivision which was given final plat approval on February 1, 1993. At that time the city imposed a conservation restriction covering all areas within 100 feet of the ordinary high water mark of the two ponds. The proposed release would eliminate the first 19 feet of the open space portion of the restriction on Lot 4, and the first 23 feet of the open space portion of the restriction on Lot 5, thus, increasing the buildable area of lots 4 and 5. OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HALL JUNE 20, 1994 ROLLCALL Answering rollcall were Members Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith and Mayor Richards. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS APPROVED Motion vas made by Member Smith and was seconded by Member Kelly to approve and adopt the Council Consent Agenda items as presented. Rollcail: Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards Motion carried. RESOLUTION OF COMMENDATION ADOPTED - EDINA HIGH SCHOOL 1994 GIRLS' GOLF TEAM Motion of Member Paulus was seconded by Member Kelly and carried unanimously for adoption of a Resolution of Commendation for the Edina High School 1994 Girls, Golf Team. Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards Motion carried. *MINUTES OF THE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 6 1994 APPROVED Motion vas made by Member Smith and vas seconded by Member Kelly to approve the minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of June 6, 1994. Motion carried on rollcall vote - five ayes. PUBLIC HEARING HELD: SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT NO. S -66 ORDERED (COURTRY CLUB DISTRICT) Affidavits of Notice were presented, approved and ordered placed on file. Presenta-4 -on by Engineer Engineer Koffman stated that staff is reviewing all sidewalks in the City for Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance and compliance to City Ordinance 1200 regarding sidewalk maintenance. Staff has completed the ADA requirements relating to curb ramps in the Country Club District. The intention is to repair curb and gutters in the Country Club District next spring prior to sealcoating the streets. Therefore, it would seem prudent to do any needed sidewalk repair this season. The sidewalk panels proposed for replacement were marked earlier and obviously this is a subjective process. Staff believes that at least eighty percent of the marked. panels should be replaced, with the remaining twenty percent being replaced for overall appearance of the District. The City conducts these replacement projects about once per decade so some panels were judged not to be adequate to last the next ten years. This oroi'ect would be similar to projects completed in 1967, 1973 and 1985 in the Country District. Upon examination the condition of the sidewalks were broken into three categories: 1. `!ark panels for replacement in violation of Ordinance 1200 (greater than 11/2 inch vertical separation); approximately 40 percent of the panels. 2. `!ark panels for replacement which have less than 1/2 inch vertical separation but not even with adjoining panels (approximately 35 - 40 percent). 3. Mark panels for replacement which are cracked, spalled surface or uneven (approximately 20 percent). Most comments by residents have been about these panels. Member Rice introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ORDERING SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT NO. 5 -66 BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City--of-Edina, Minnesota, that this Council heretofore caused notice of hearing to be- duly- published and mailed to owners of each parcel within the area proposed to be assessed on the following proposed improvement: SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT NO. 5 -66 , and at the hearing held at the time and place specified in said notice, the Council has duly considered the views of all persons interested, and being fully advised of the pertinent facts, does hereby determine to proceed with the construction of said improvement, including all proceedings which may be necessary in eminent domain for the acquisition of necessary easements and rights for construction and maintenance of such improvement; that said improvement is hereby designated and shall be referred to in all subsequent proceedings as SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT NO. S -66, and the area to be specially assessed therefor shall include all of the Country Club District, Fairway, and Brown Sections. Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Member Kelly. Rollcall: Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards Motion carried. PARTIAL RELEASE OF CONSERVATION RESTRICTION FOR MARK DALQUIST ADDITION DENIED Affidavits of notice were presented, approved and ordered placed on file. Presentation by Planner Planner Larsen reminded Council that on February 1, 1993, the Mark Dalquist addition received final plat approval for a four Lot subdivision located west of Schafer Road and south of Interlachen Boulevard. At that time the Council imposed a conservation restriction on the plat covering an area 100 feet up from the ordinary high water mark of the two ponds located on the north and south of this property that affected the lots within the subdivision. The City has received a petition requesting a partial release of the conservation restriction, i.e. the upper 50 feet on both sides of the new street designated as open space area, to create more buildable area for each lot. The first 25 feet of the residual 50 foot restriction for each lot would remain as a natural condition area in which nothing could be altered. The second 25 feet for each lot would remain designated as open space area (yard with no buildings). Presentation by Proponent Ron Clark, Ron Clark Construction, Inc., presented a graphic depicting proposed building pads for homes on the four lots in the allowable building area and the difficulty he has experienced in attempting to build on the lots. The partial release of 50 feet of the conservation restriction would allow these lots to become buildable. He explained that the proposed homes (ramblers on the lots off the street and two story homes on the rear lots) are homes they have built over and over again in the last five years and represent the type of homes customers are looking for, but do not fit on these lots. Mr. Clark said that since the plat was approved, they have met with 20 - 23 people, of these they have attempted to design homes for nine. When plans are laid out to scale on the buildable area the homes end up undesirable because the rooms are small. He said if these had been four pre - existing lots not subject to the subdivision process a conservation restriction of only 50 feet from the ordinary high water mark would have been required. He observed that in the general vicinity, many homes are, sited within 25 to 50 feet of wetland areas. Mr. Clark concluded by stating that all lots in the subdivision exceed the median lot area and run in size from 1.25 to 1.5 acres and' in looking at the ratio of building coverage to land there is a lot of room on these lots. Member Rice informed Council that he had inquired of Mr. Clark at a social event how building was going on the Mark Dalquist Subdivision and Mr. Clark had said not well because the buildable areas were too restrictive. Member Rice said he had encouraged Mr. Clark to bring this back 'to-Council as he felt it was not the Council's intent to design a subdivision that was•unbuildable. Member Rice said he had anticipated some minor adjustments and was astounded that the conservation restriction release request was for 50 feet which he would not support. Public Comment Ed Glickman, 5217 Schaefer Road, asked Mr. Clark what has changed in the last 16 months. Mr. Clark responded that it was his experience in meeting with approximately 22 potential customers. That area of Edina has a certain "air" about it and to try to sell an 1800 to 2000 square foot home is not what people are looking for there. He said he had made a mistake in thinking he could work with the imposed conservation restriction. Continuing, Mr. Glickman stated he would speak to two issues regarding this petition: procedural and substantive. Procedural - 1) The law for vacation of easements requires that a petition be brought by the majority of the property owners affected by this requested change. The petition was signed by R.E. Clark, Inc. At least five other homeowners who abut the property did not sign the petition. 2) The Law also requires .14 days posted and published notice and the notice was posted on June 10, 1994, four days short of the required time. The notice was published on June 1, 1994 (L4 days before the hearing). However, Council met on June 6, to set the public hearing for June 20, 1994. Neighbors who attended the June 6, 1994 meeting gave numerous reasons to not hold the hearing on June 20, but the Council did set the hearing date for June 20, 1994. He alleged that staff had not followed proper procedure to hear this petition. Substantive - Mr. Glickman quoted from the minutes of the Council meeting of November 16, 1992, "Ron Clark interjected that he understood the Council would not approve the five lot subdivision with variances and would not consider the alternate two lot subdivision at this meeting. He asked if the Council would consider approving the five lot subdivision with no variances as he would be prepared to move forward on that basis." In February, 1993, Council approved the subdivision, subject to a conservation easement. Mr. Glickman said nothing has changed, Mr. Clark has made a bad business decision and it is not the City's place to maximize the developer's profit. The release of this easement does not fall within the purview of the statutes. According to City Attorney Gilligan, conservation easements are governed by the procedure for vacation of streets and alleys. Mr. Glickman submitted that this is not a street or alley that is not being used and the property owner is burdened by it. The conservation easement does not run from Mr. Clark to the City of Edina, it runs to the people of the State of Minnesota. It is to preserve water quality and wildlife; it is not the Citv's to give away. He argued that it could not conceivably be in the public interest to do so and urged Council to deny the request. Regarding procedure, `Savor Richards said that if staff proceeded to publish notice or hearing in anticipation of a date the Council may set they did so at their own risk; he clarified that only the. Council sets hearing dates. Council has communicated as best thev can to give those who would be affected or impacted by a decision ample opportunity to be heard. Mayor Richards said this Council and town has done a good job in that they: 1) do not rush to judgement, 2) do not get hung up on technicalities, and 3) give everyone, regardless of their views, an opportunity to be heard. Patrick Manthei, 6413 Interlachen Boulevard, said a decision must be made, but the issue is the still the same. On June 6, 1994, he had asked to have the public hearing delaved to allow more affected neighbors a chance to attend. He submitted that it was not fair to ask the neighbors to come back to re -hear the same issue. Mr. Manthei recalled that when the plat was being considered `:r. Claris was asked on repeated occasions if he could build in the allotted area and his answer was yes: By allowing this- 50 -foot conservation vacation a precedent would be set so -that everyone who. .wanted to encroach on a conservation easement would have a right to do so. He concluded that the developer only wants to maximize his profit. Ted Pier. :021 Ridge Road, said he had great respect for the Council's uniform application of law for all citizens of Edina. There have been many prior meetings of the Planning Commission and the Council on exactly the same subject which led up to approval of the subdivision. During the hearings by the Planning Commission there was extensive discussion on how to arrange the lots so there would be no need for variances. Mr. Clark agreed to no variances and to follow the same set of laws the rest of the citizens of Edina follow. Mr. Pier said there is no legitimate reason for granting the petition and it should be denied. Betsy Robinson, 5021 Ridge Road, said -the proposal Mr. Clark is now presenting is nearly 100 percent bigger than what was originally agreed upon. She said the neighbors should not have to bear the burden of the mistake made by Mr. Clark that this would be highly valuable and profitable property. Ms. Robinson asked the Council to deny the - petition and suggested that Mr. Clark consider building fewer homes on the property. Counci'_ Action Member Paulus stated she would support the subdivision as previously approved and not grant the partial release of the conservation easement. She said that as a Council ".ember she represented both residents and proponents and was disturbed by some of the comments that had been made, i.e. procedure, legality, fairness, vulnerability. She said that it took restraint to stay with her original opinio: rather than to vote in favor of Mr. Clark because of citizen response. While the established process sometimes takes long hours, she believed in this case it would be a win situation for Edina. Member Paulus said the Council is serious about wetland and natural area protection and has denied requests to encroach on such areas. Although this particular subdivision is difficult it may be telling us that not every parcel of land in Edina is a buildable situation. She reiterated that she would stand by the position taken when the subdivision was approved and would vote for denial of the petition. Member Rice commented that he did not intend for this matter to become this controversial; it was an attempt to talk about the issue. He said he would not support the proposal because he felt it was excessive. Member Rice made a motion to deny the request for partial release of the conservation restriction for the Hark Dalquist Addition. Motion was seconded by Member Paulus. Mayor Richards stated he would not support the total relinquishment of the 100 foot conservation restriction. As to the comment that you can't take this away from the public, he submitted that were it not for the action of the Council the conservation restriction would not have been imposed in the first place and what you take you can give. He pointed out that Mr. Clark's product on other developments has benefitted the City well and the City would end up on the short end if Mr. Clark was forced to build something that would not be similar to what exists in that neighborhood today. A more reasoned approach may be to look at this on a lot by lot basis where some deviation of the 100 foot conversation restriction may result in an end product all can live with. Member Kelly said she believed the property should be developed in some reasonable fashion, but a 50 foot variance is too much. She said she would support the motion but would not preclude giving Mr. Clark the opportunity to come back wit: a reasonable developmenc for the property. Mayor Richards then called for vote on the motion. Aves: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards Motion carried. FINAL DEVELOF!SENT PLAN AND PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVED FOR LEHIS RIDGE TOWNHOMES (LOT 2. BLOCK 1 AND OUTLOT B. LEWIS RIDGE) Affidavits of Notice were presented, approved and ordered placed on file. Presentation by Planner Planner Larsen presenced the request for Final Development Plan and Preliminary Plat approval for the Lewis Ridge Townhomes located on Lot 2, Block 1 and Outlot B, Lewis Ridge Parkway. The subject property is zoned Planned Residence District (PRD -3). The approved zoning anticipated a three story, 54 unit condominium building which would be the mirror image of the existing Lewis Ridge which has not been developed. A proposal has been submitted by a new property owner which would replace the 54 unit condo building with a 15 unit townhouse development. As a result, the overall density would be reduced to approximately six units per acre with a nec of approximately 5.2 units. per acre. Access co t ^e development would be by Lewis Ridge Drive, a private screet. It is staff's understanding that necessary easements to utilize this access to service the 15 unit 7_oject are in place. The proposed development requests two setback variances. First, unit 12 along the north property line maintains a 30 foot setback where 35 feet is required. All other building setbacks comply with ordinance standards. Second, along the easterly property line, the drive aisle comes within six feet of the property line; ten feet is the required setback. Thus, a five foot building setback variance and a four foot parking setback variance are requested. The proposed exterior materials and landscaping plan meet or exceed ordinance minimums. The buildings will be. primarily stucco with brick fronts and wood shake roofs. Two unit types will be constructed, one with 2,720 square feet and the other with 2,880 square feet of floor area. The proposed use would be consistent with PRD -3 zoning which makes no distinction between townhouses and apartment style condominiums except that townhouses are required to have two enclosed parking spaces. The switch to townhouses would reduce densicv and would lower the expected trip generation from the site. Staff would support granting the two requested variances. The combination of grade change and landscaping should eliminate any negative_ impact on adjacent properties. in both cases, the grade on adjacent properties is significantly above the grade on this site. At its meeting on June 1, 1994, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Final Development Plan and Preliminary Plat, subject to: 1) Final Plat• Approval, 2) Developers Agreement, 3) Watershed District Grading Permit, and (4) Permanent easement for access to Lewis Ridge Parkway. Presentation by Developer Ron Clark, Ron Clark Construction, commented that on the north side of the parcel a finger.of land comes out to Cahill Road which is the access point for the development which they close not to use because of the terrain. Also, La Chataignier condominiums are immediately to the south and have a permanent monument there. Mr. Clark said he had mec numerous times with the Lewis Ridge Condominium owners and has negotiated and purchased from them an easement to use ME MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HALL DECEMBER 21, 1992 ROL CALL answering rollcall were Members Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith and Mayor Richards. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS APPROVED Motion vas made by Member Kelly and was seconded by Member Smith to approve and adopt the Council Consent Agenda items as presented, with the exception of removal of IV. B - 1993 Park and Recreation Information Brochure. Rollcall: Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards Motion carried. KELLY MCHULTY HOMETOWN DAY PROCLAIMED Mayor Richards presented the following proclamation which vas unanimously adopted: PROCLAMATION WHEREAS. the City of Edina, Minnesota is actively concerned and involved in nurturing and supporting the educational and physical development and achievements of its natives and residents. and WHEREAS, the achievements academically and athletically of our native citizen. Kelly McNulty are a source of great community pride and interest as she represents our hometown in the nation and at the University of Minnesota as an accomplished athlete and student. and WEaMFAS, she will be especially honored during ceremonies at the University of Minnesota: and "HOMETOWN DAYS" celebration of her achievements is representative of the recognition our City supports. THEREFORE. as Mayor of the City of Edina. Minnesota, I hereby do ordain and declare the date of January 17. 1993, as KELLY MCNULTY EDINA HOMETOWN DAY in the City of Edina. *MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER 7 1992: SPECIAL BUDGET MEETINGS OF JULY 6 AUGUST 3 SEPTEMBER 1. NOVEMBER 30 AND DECEMBER 9. 1992 APPROVED. Motion vas made by Member Kelly and vas seconded by Member Smith to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of December 7, 1992 and special budget meetings of July 6, August 3, September 1, November 30 and December 9, 1992. Motion carried on rollcall vote - five ayes. - PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVED FOR MARK DALOUIST ADDITION (LOT 11. AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 324) Presentation by Planner Planner Larsen recalled that the subject property is approximately 10.5 acres of vacant land with one dwelling unit in the far southwesterly corner. The subdivision proposal was last considered by the Planning Commission at their meeting of December 2, 1992. At that meeting, the Commission considered a revised preliminary plat which contains no variances, meets the lot size and dimension standards of the subdivision ordinance and provides for a 100 foot conservation easement for all of the four new lots. The revised plat also slightly modifies "the location of the existing sanitary sewer at the developers' expense to allow more siting flexibility for the house that would ultimately be constructed on Lot 3. The Planning Commission recommended approval subject to the following conditions: 1) Final plat approval. 2) Developers agreement. 12/21/92 60 3) Subdivision dedication. 4) Executed and recorded conservation easement. 5) Installation of coniferous landscaping along southerly property line to screen new driveway from adjacent property. Planner Larsen noted that written correspondence in opposition to the proposed subdivision was received from Edward Glickman, 5217 Schaefer Road; Evelyn Young, 5016 Schaefer Road; and Peggy Carlisle, 5013 Ridge Road. Betsy Robinson, 5021 Ridge Road, submitted a letter from Sunde Engineering, Inc., a firm hired by the neighborhood to do an independent engineering study concerning water runoff. Presentation by Develoner Ron Clark, CDS Partners, asked Council approval of the proposed subdivision as now presented with no variances. Previously, they requested variances because of a hardship due to the infringement of the finger of water on the north lot and the location of the sanitary sewer. Following the strong signal from the Council to eliminate all variances, the developers are proposing to move the existing sanitary sewer line between Lots 2 and 3 approximately 25 feet to the south, cost to be borne by the developers. This would remove the pressure from the northerly lot with the finger of water and would provide two nice size building pads on chose lots. Mr. Clark observed that the smallest Lot in the proposed subdivision would be larger than the median lot in the neighborhood and the subdivision would exceed the neighborhood medians in lot width and depth. There would also be very generous spacing between the proposed homes. The homes on Lots 2, 3 and 4 would be ramblers with approximately 4,000 - 6,000 square feet of floor space. Lot 1 would be a two story home with approximately 4,000 square feet on the top two floors. Mr. Clark introduced Greg Frank, engineer with McCombs Frank Roos, and noted that he would be available to answer questions. Public Comment Betsy Robinson, 5021 Ridge Road, read into the record a letter from Bernie Nelson, 5008 Schaefer Road, who expressed concern that surface water runoff would flood his property. She spoke to the December 18, 1992, letter from Sunde Engineering, Inc. which included the following concerns: 1) the land - locked ponds on the property have no outlet via a storm sewer, and 2) the lowest floor elevation of the proposed homes should not be constructed lower than two feet above the surface overflow elevation or flooding could occur. Ms. Robinson said she was also concerned about the following: 1) increase in surface water runoff, because of the added hard surfaces, will overburden the water holding capacity of the area, 2) raising the cul -de -sac grade from 940 to 943 will directly affect the water quality of ponds because any natural filtering will be lost, and 4) any alteration in grading and hard surface coverage could cause potential flood damage and loss of usable land to the neighbors. She asked that the Council comply with the City's ordinance listing the guidelines and criteria for evaluating plats and subdivisions; specifically, impact of the proposed development on the environment and whether the physical characteristics of the property are such that it is not suitable for the type of use proposed. Edward Glickman, 5217 Schaefer Road, recalled that when the subject plat was initially proposed, the Planning staff excluded water in calculating lot size which necessitated the request for the lot depth variances. Discussion regarding lot depth by the Planning Commission at its meeting of May 27, 1992, resulted in a request by the developer for legal interpretation. The City Attorney issued an opinion dated July 15, 1992, that water should be included in figuring lot depth. At the Council Meeting of July 20, 1992, Planning staff said that if it is accepted by the Council that lot depth includes ponding areas, no lot depth 12/21/92 61 variances would be required. Mr. Glickman pointed out that the Council never adopted or rejected the opinion letter but decided to refer the matter back to the Commission for its recommendation because of this new circumstance. He argued that authorities usually give opinions on what was done in the past and that the intent of the drafters of the ordinance should be given more weight than the opinion of the City Attorney. He asked: 1) what the intent of the City Council was when the ordinance was drafted, 2) that the City Attorney's opinion on lot depth be put to a formal motion and vote, and 3) that the Council be aware that, in adopting that opinion, the course and operation of plat considerations are being changed by including water in figuring lot depth, contrary to what was -done in the past. Patrick Manthei, 6413 Interlachen Boulevard, questioned why the City Planner has continued to support this subdivision. He mentioned that sometime ago he had applied for a 10 foot front yard setback variance and was told that variances are not granted on an economic hardship alone. Mr. Manthei said he there is a bias from the Planner on the part of the developers that was not been shown to homeowners. He concurred with Mr. Glickman in challenging the opinion of the City Attorney to include water in calculating lot depth because of the results. In conclusion, he said the neighbors' main concern is that there will be a mass of homes surrounding the ponds that will resemble a hotel complex that will not be in keeping with the character and symmetry of the neighborhood. Ann Emerv, 6316 Westwood Court, stated that her home was flooded in 1987 during the 100'vear storm. Since then runoff from Schaefer Road has caused the pond between Parkwood Road and Westwood Court to flood twice resulting in major damage to her property. Jeff Anderson, 6205 Parkwood Road, informed Council that in his neighborhood the storm sewers cannot handle the water runoff as it bubbles up out of the sewers because of.the pressure. While he does not object to the proposal, he advised the Council that any development of this type could impinge on the storm sewers in the area. In response, Engineer Hoffman said that Parkwood Road improvements would be done in the spring but that these improvements were not tied to the proposed Dalquist subdivision. Roger Podany, 5204 Larada Lane, stated he lives directly across from the proposed development, has not had a water problem before and does not want any flooding problems to develop because of the subdivision. Proponent Response Mark Dalquist, 5012 Schaefer Road, pointed out that the sewer line adjoining the Podany property is a sanitary sewer, not a storm sewer and would not be affected by water runoff. In response to the concerns raised by Mr. Nelson, Mr. Dalquist. said they are not proposing to change the drainage from what exists now. He mentioned that his own basement is at the same elevation as that of Mr. Nelson and at no time has there been danger of basement flooding. Ron Clark responded to Mr. Manthei that the proposed lots are not small and lot area does not include water. The smallest proposed lot is larger than the median lot in-the neighborhood. Council Comment /Action Mayor Richards observed this has been a long and arduous process. He pointed out that a proposed subdivision must receive preliminary and final approval before it is developed. Although the issue of surface water drainage is important, he said he has confidence that the water issues will be properly addressed by the Nine - Hile Creek Watershed District and Barr Engineering if preliminary plat approval is granted. The issue of most concern to him is that of land use and whether it 62 12/21/92 '_s consistent and compatible with the neighborhood. Common sense would say thpt the owners have the right to subdivide this 10.5 acres of land which is privately owned as are the ponds. Mayor Richards said he would support the proposed subdivision as now presented with no variances and as recommended by the Planning Commission. Member Rice commented that, after months of deliberation, the aerial exhibit of the area has convinced him that the proposed subdivision is an appropriate use of the land and should be approved. As to whether, aesthetically, or design -wise, or market -wise, three or four lots is better is a question for the marketplace. Considering all the facts that have been presented, he said he would support the proposal. Member Rice then introduced the following resolution and moved adoption, subject to, 1) final plat approval, 2) developers agreement, 3) subdivision dedication, 4) executed and recorded conservation easement and 5) installation of coniferous landscaping screening along the southerly property line: RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL FOR MARK DALQUIST ADDITION BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City -of Edina, Minnesota, that that certain plat entitled "MARK DALQUIST ADDITION ", platted by (names to be inserted vhen known) and presented at the regular meeting of the City Council of December 21, 1992, be and is hereby granted preliminary plat approval. Motion was seconded by Member Kelly. Member Smith commented that. from the beginning the Council has been concerned about the drainage issues and will get the right answers. He said he would support the subdivision without variances as now as proposed. Member Paulus expressed empathy for both sides and compared the proposed Dalquist subdivision with the recent one approved in Indian Hills where before there had been woods and two acre lots. With the high demand for land in Edina and property owners not willing to pay the high tax burdens on these large properties, more and more subdivisions will take place. Member Paulus said legally there is no reason for this subdivision not to go forward and she would support it. Mayor Richards then called for vote on the motion. Rollcall: Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards Resolution adopted. *HEARING ON PRELIMINARY PLAT CONTINUED TO 1/4/93 FOR GARNAAS ADDITION (LOT 15, 5128 SKYLINE DRIVE) Motion was made by Member Kelly and was seconded by Member Smith to continue the hearing on preliminary plat approval for the Garnaas Addition (Lot 15, 5128 Skyline Drive) to January 4, 1993. Motion carried on rollcall vote - five ayes. *BID AWARDED FOR 5.000 DOZEN RANGE BALLS (BRAEMAR GOLF COURSEI Motion was made by Member Kelly and was seconded by Member Smith for award of bid for 5,000 dozen range balls with "Braemar 3" Logo to recommended low bidder, Spalding Sports Worldwide, at $25,150.00. Motion carried on rollcall vote - five ayes. BID AWARDED FOR 1993 PARK AND RECREATION INFORMATION BROCHURE Member Kelly said she has asked this item to be removed from the consent agenda to inquire whether staff had considered selling advertising in the Park and Recreation information brochure to help defray the cost. It was the consensus of the Council to discuss the issue at the January 4, 1993 meeting. FINAL PIAT APPROVED FOR MARK DALOUIST'ADDITION (LOT 11- AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO.'324) Presentation by Planner Planner Larsen presented the request for final plat approval of the Mark Dalquist j Addition. He recalled that the subject property is approximately 10.5 acres of l vacant land with one dwelling unit in the far southwesterly corner. At the December 21. 1992 meeting, Council granted preliminary plat approval for the five !� lot subdivision. The ,developers received a grading permit from the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District on January 26, 1993. A developer's agreement has been executed and the appropriate bond has been submitted to the City Engineer. The recommended conservation easement would require the maintenance of natural conditions 25 feet upland -from the ordinary high water mark and open space conditions for the remaining 75 feet. Open space does not allow buildings but would allow the area to be landscaped and maintained as yard area for the new homes. The Planning Commission and staff would recommend final plat approval conditioned on: 1) Developer's agreement, 2) Executed and recorded conservation easement, 3) Subdivision dedication based on an unimproved land value of $600,000, and 4) Installation of coniferous landscaping screening along the southerly property line. Public Comment Mayor Richards then called for comments or objections from the audience. No comment was heard. Council Comment /Action Member Rice asked if structures like swing sets or tennis courts would be allowed within the 25 foot conservation easement. Planner Larsen said permanent structures would be prohibited without Council permission. Mayor Richards asked if the neighbors were informed of the Nine Creek Watershed District meeting. Ron Clark, CDS Partners, responded that several neighbors were in attendance at the meeting and the District gave unanimous approval for the grading permit. `;ith regard to the coniferous landscaping screening along the southerly property 11ne. Mavor Richards asked if a minimum size had been specified. Planner Larsen said this has been worked out privately by a letter of agreement between David Schall and representatives of the home to the south of the Schall home. Member Smith asked that the agreement letter be incorporated within the developer's agreement. Mr. Clark said the proponents would have no problem with that. Member Smith introduced the following resolution and moved adoption, subject to: 1) Developer's agreement, 2) Executed and recorded conservation easement, 3) Subdivision dedication fee of $48,000, and 4) Installation of coniferous landscaping screening along the southerly property line: RESOLUTION GRANTING FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR MARK DALQUIST ADDITION BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, that that certain plat entitled "MARK DALQUIST ADDITION ", platted by CDs Partners, a Minnesota general partnership, and Eastern Heights State Bank of St. Paul, a Minnesota corporation, and presented at the regular meeting of the City Council of February 1, 1993, be and is hereby granted final plat approval. Motion was seconded by Member Rice. Rollcall: Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards Resolution adopted. *LOT DIVISION APPROVED - 6449 MCCAULEY TRAIL. 6453 MCCAULEY TRAIL Motion was made by Member Kelly and was seconded by Member Smith for adoption of the following resolution: RESOLUTION pHEBP.AS, the following described property is at present a single tract of land: Lot 3, Block 1, McCauley Heights, 8th Addition, and ymatus , the owner has requested the subdivision.of said tract into separate parcels (herein called "Parcels ") described as follows: All that part of Lot 3, Block 1. McCauley Heights 8th Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying South of a line described as follows: Beginning at a point on the Vest line of said Lot 3 a distance of 57.4 feet North of the most Southwest corner of said Lot 3 (North 3 degrees 361 13" East assumed bearing of the West line of said Lot 3). The point of beginning of the line to be described, thence South 87 degrees 34' 27" East to the Easterly line of said Lot 3 and there terminating, and All that part of Lot 3, Block 1, McCauley Heights 8th Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying North of a line described as follows: Beginning at a point on the Vest line of said Lot 3 a distance of 57.4 feet North of the most Southwest corner of said Lot 3 (North 3 degrees 36. 13" East assumed bearing of the, Vest line of said Lot 3). The point of beginning of the line to be described, thence South 87 degrees 341 27" East to the Easterly line of said Lot 3 and there terminating. Subject to a driveway easement over the Vest 20 feet thereof. vmaLEAS, the requested subdivision is authorized under Code Section 810 and it has been determined that compliance with the subdivision and zoning regulations of the City of. Edina will create an unnecessary hardship and said Parcels as . separate tracts of land do not interfere with the purpose of the subdivision and zoning regulations as contained in the City of Edina Code Sections 850 and 810; NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby resolved by the City Council of the City of Edina that the conveyance and ownership of the second above described Parcels as separate tracts of land is hereby approved and the requirements and provisions of Code Sections 850 and 810 are hereby waived to allow said - division and conveyance thereof as separate tracts of land, but only to the extent permitted under Code Section 810 and Code Section 850 and subject to the limitations set out in Code Section 850 and said Code Sections are not waived for any other purpose or as to any other provisions thereof, and further subject, however, to the provision that no further subdivision be made of said Parcels _unless made in compliance with the pertinent ordinances of. the City of Edina or with the prior approval of this Council as may be provided for by those ordinances. Resolution adopted on rollcall vote - five ayes. *NEARING DATES SET FOR PLANNING MATTERS ?lotion was made by Member Kelly and was seconded by Member Smith setting February 16, 1993 as hearing date for the following Planning matters: 1. Planned Office District - POD -1 to Automobile Parking District, APD BTO Development/Fairview Development Corporation, 6400 France Avenue 2. Final Development Plan - 6975 York Avenue South, Semper Holdings/Walgreens Motion carried on rollcall vote -.five ayes. BUILDING PERMIT MOVING FEE CHALLENGED Kenneth R. Ernst, President of the Minnesota Building Movers Association (MBMA.), spoke to his letter of January 15, 1993, in which he expressed concern with the high permit fees being charged by the City for wide loads passing through Edina on city streets. He introduced William Doepke, long time member of MBMA and a resident of Edina. Mr. Ernst pointed out' that building movers are some of the nation's largest recyclers of materials and in order to do this the method needs to be practical and affordable. In the future they see dozens of houses requiring removal in Richfield and the south Minneapolis area that would end up as lake homes, on a farm or in a small town. MBMA members does not object to obtaining a permit but do not want to pay a $206.00 permit fee for each move. Further, the cities of Minneapolis, Bloomington and Eden Prairie do not charge for pass- through city permits. Hennepin County charges $15.00 to go anywhere and the State of Minnesota charges $15.00 for anywhere in the state. It was noted that John Schirmang, Building Official, had submitted data in support of the City's building moving permit fee in which he documented problems the City has experienced in the past with movers that caused damage. The report concluded that even at the permit fee of $206.00 the City may not recover all expenses. Mr. Doepke explained that while there are 70 -80 housemovers in the state, only 15 -20 are members of the Minnesota Building Movers Association. The MBMA is attempting to build morale, customer relations and self- policing. He said the movers that do not belong to the MBMA are the ones creating the problems. He suggested the City not give permits to those who are not responsible. Mayor Richards commented that this is similar to a user fee whereby the cost is paid by those who are users rather than by the taxpayers. It was the consensus of the Council that if the MBMA submitted alternatives to staff, i.e. pass - through permit, bond, deposit etc., Council would be willing to consider such proposal if the City interests were protected. *BID AWARDED FOR FILTRATION SYSTEM FOR ZERO DEPTH POOL Motion was made by Member Kelly and was seconded by Member Smith for award of bid for filtration system for zero depth pool to recommended low bidder,. USA Aquatics, at $9,186.00. Motion carried on rollcall vote - five ayes. *BID AWARDED FOR ENGINEERING COMPUTER WORK STATION Notion was made by Member Kelly and was seconded by Member Smith for award of bid for an engineering computer work state to recommended low bidder, Office Products of Minnesota, at $8,572.67. Motion carried on rollcall vote - five ayes. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PARTIAL RELEASE OF CONSERVATION RESTRICTION IN THE CITY OF EDINA HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA Ciiy of LIdina NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Edina, Hennepin County, Minnesota, will meet at the Edina City Hall, 4801 West 50th Street on August 15, 1994 at 7:00 P.M., for the purpose of holding a public hearing on the proposed partial release of the restriction for conservation purposes as follows: That part of Lot 4, Block 1, MARK DALQUIST ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying within a strip of land 19.00 feet in width and the southerly line of said strip is described as follows: Commencing at the southwest corner of Lot 3 said Block 1; thence on an assumed bearing of North 00 degrees 28 minutes 37 seconds West, along the west line of said Lot 3, a distance of 148.07 feet; thence North 77 degrees 07 minutes 51 seconds East 26.15 feet; thence South 53 degrees 44 minutes 46 seconds East 47.63 feet; thence South 71 degrees 33 minutes 54 seconds East 41.31 feet; thence on a bearing of East 46.93 feet to the point of beginning; thence North 55 degrees 41 minutes 32 seconds East 74.03 feet; thence North 23 degrees 57 minutes 45 seconds East 35.84 feet; thence North 55 degrees 10 minutes 32 seconds East 57.76 feet; thence North 74 degrees 51 minutes 09 seconds East 110.84 feet to the intersection with the east line of said Lot 4 and said line there terminating. That part of Lot 5, Block 1, MARK DALQUIST ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying within a strip of land 23.00 feet in width and the northerly line of said strip is described as follows: Commencing at the southwest corner of Lot 2 said Block 1; thence on an assumed bearing of North 89 degrees 31 minutes 23 seconds East, along the south line of said Lot 2, a distance of 35.17 feet; thence North 14 degrees 02 minutes 10 seconds East 110.71 feet; thence North 28 degrees 04 minutes 21 seconds East 56.72 feet: thence North 40 degrees 36 minutes 05 seconds East 92.28 feet; thence North 50 degrees 38 minutes 26 seconds East 66.44 feet to the point of beginning; thence North 79 degrees 41 minutes 43 seconds East 61.91 feet; thence South 71 degrees 33 minutes 54 seconds East 126.17 feet; thence North 74 degrees 03 minutes 17 seconds East 34:18 feet to the intersection with the east line of said Lot 5 and said line there terminating. City Hall (612) 927 -8861 4801 WEST 50TH STREET FAX (612) 927 -7645 EDINA, MINNESOTA 55424 -1394 TDD (612) 927 -5461 All persons who desire to be heard with respect to the question of whether or not the above partial release of the conservation restriction is in the public interest and should be made shall be heard at said time and place. BY ORDER OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL. Marcella M. Daehn City Clerk CONSTRUCTION, INC. 7500 West 78th Street Edina, Minnesota July 6, 1994 X5439 (612) 947 -3000 Mr. Craig Larson tax (612) 947 -3030 City of Edina 4801 West 50th Street Edina. MN 55424 Re: Conservation Easement Harold Woods Lane Edina, MN Dear Mr. Larson: Enclosed is a plat of the subject property showing the 100 feet restricted area which was granted to the City of Edina required by the city council upon subdivision of this property. This letter is to request vacation of a portion of the restricted area on two of the lots as shown by hatch marks on the enclosed plat and described as follows: Lot #4 Request a 19 feet vacation which would reduce the restricted area from 100 feet to 81 feet. Lot #5 Request a 24 feet vacation which would reduce the restricted area from 100 feet to 76 feet. In both cases, the 25 feet Natural Condition Area would remain unchanged and I believe this is the more important restriction to safeguard -the ponding areas. I am in the process of redesigning homes for actual clients that I have been working with on the above two lots. Both clients have made additional floor plan concessions to shape each home so it will best conform to the buildable area. We have made significant progress in limiting the additional space needed for these homes. The 2 lots will be staked prior to the public hearing showing the current 100 feet restricted line as well as the requested vacation area. I hope this will be helpful to view the site constraints first hand and to realize the substantial restricted area that would remain after the granting of this application. 1 will advise you when the lots have been staked. Si ely, 0%.^— Ronald E. Clark REC /cw Enclosure Designer/ Builder/ Developer MN Builder License #0001220 . GI �I oI P 0 N D 1 I m r J� I rZi - CONTOUR LINE N 937.60 CO l0 " \ 2 11 Hti / P / 5'i\O� SETBPCK LINE:._..•... - - --i I � OP EN � � o / h c 0 �2 a 13 NOODS LANE A r� 71• 41 - 43 I % \ - .•SEiBRCN LINE. -' / 61 9T1 JI .5q.. At a I r sP C N y • A � �� C 0' I� / C CONCI rIOry o = I y I � R LSNE. '310 CONt 'D r = I b o` %9 N ti `I m � 35.17 v>,.4 I N 89'31'23" E zo r SOUTH LINE OE LOT 2 r .r cz r <z >v I � H 9 I r H c z m I, a < y _ 1 Re: Dalquist Addition - Release of Conservation Restrictions Dear Kell: Enclosed is a copy of a letter I received from Judson Jones, an attorney representing Ed Glickman, informing me that Mr. Glickman has instructed him to seek recourse with the District Court in the event the City releases the Dalquist conservation restrictions. If you have any questions, please give me a call. ji iIG:cmn Enclosure cc: '✓Craig Larsen Kris Aaker Yours truly, berg ne P. Gil igan DoiRsEY & WHITNEY A Parrs WCLQ WO P�ressrox.i CoWOUnoxs N' Eh Yo R x PILLSBURY CENTER SOUTH ROCHESTER, ITT WASHINC;TON. D. C. 220 SOUTH SIXTH STREET BILLINGS MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402-1498 DENVER (612) 340-2600 GREAT FALLS FAX(612)340 -2868 ORANGE COUNTY. CA MISSOULA L0ND0 JEROMEP.GIUIGAN DES MOINES (612) 340.2962 BRUSSELS FARGO August 4, 1994 Mr. Kenneth Rosland City of Edina 4801 Nest 50th Street Edina, NLN 55424 Re: Dalquist Addition - Release of Conservation Restrictions Dear Kell: Enclosed is a copy of a letter I received from Judson Jones, an attorney representing Ed Glickman, informing me that Mr. Glickman has instructed him to seek recourse with the District Court in the event the City releases the Dalquist conservation restrictions. If you have any questions, please give me a call. ji iIG:cmn Enclosure cc: '✓Craig Larsen Kris Aaker Yours truly, berg ne P. Gil igan (. UDS: ~N D. JONES LAWYER' 1625 PARK AVENUE MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55404 -1694 TELEPHONE 612/332-861 1 August 2, 1994 Jerry Gilligan, Esq. Dorsey & Whitney 220 South 6th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Re: City of Edina Conservation Easements - Dahlquist Subdivision Dear Mr. Gilligan: I represent Mr. Edward Glickman, who has brought to my attention your memo to the City Council dated July 1, 1994 regarding the procedure for the release of conservation restrictions. Mr. Glickman is concerned that the city may rely on this procedure to release the conservation easements on the Dahlquist subdivision, although the developer has already been denied a variance from the ;cater -line setback requirements. Mr. Glickman and a number of other residents feel the city should follow its own ordinances in this case, which require the dedication of a perpetual easement in order to protect the city's wetlands. The city's ordinances do not outline any circumstance ai,der which. these easements may be released. The developer has accepted the restrictions and dedicated the easements; there is no hardship on the land, and there is no policy justification for releasing these easements. Accordingly, my client has instructed -^e to seek writs of certiorari and mandamus in the event the City releases these conservation easements. Four ery truly, J n D. Jones •TDJ/ bk CC: Ed Glickman Edward W. Glickman 5217 Schaefer Road Edina, MN 55436 Phone 612 - 935-0625 Fax 612- 935 -0210 HAND DELIVERED August 12,1994 The Edina City Council City of Edina 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 Re: Mark Dahlquist Addition Dear Council Member: As you know, I and the great majority of the neighborhood oppose the release of the conservation easements by the,city. A number of especially concerned neighbors have hired an attorney to look into this matter. He has told us that the procedure under which your application is made is flawed and that we will have a reasonable likelyhood of success in District Court to stop the process. We have decided to retain the attorney and instructed him to draft the necesary papers in advance of the meeting so that we can immediately commence legal action and challenge the city. I write this letter in part to advise you of our intention to stop the release of the conservation easement by the City of Edina and in part to fulfill the demand requirements of the rules and case law. I have enclosed a copy of all the legal papers neccesary to commence legal action to demonstrate to you the seriousness of our intention. If you proceed with the application and approve it, we will file these papers in court on Tuesday morning. I realize that you are in the business of government. You are only trying to do what you think best for the city. The problem is that the process is not well founded in law or common sense. We believe that the proper procedure is a request for a variance under the conditions outlined in that Ordinance. I have great sympathy with the problems you are facing with an ill - founded City Council -- _ August 12, 1994 Page 2 subdivision. I respectfully suggest that you and the neighborhood will benefit if you change the four lots into three. If you did so, from your point-of view neighborhood opposition which is only directed to the release of the conservation easement will disappear and three houses will allow the developer to provide the proportionately larger homes which his prospective customers appear to want and the city will get a finished subdivision more in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood. I urge you this one last time to reconsider and deny the application. If you proceed, you will only incur unnecessary delay, expense and frustration. I have been authorized by the other named plaintiffs to speak on their behalf and will pleased to discuss this matter prior to the City Council meeting. Very-truly yours Edward W. Glickman Encl. STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN Edward Glickman and Ann Glickman, Ted Pier and Betsy Robinson, Patrick Mantyh and Ingrid Mantyh Petitioners / Plaintiffs V. Edina City Council, City of Edina, and Ron Clark Construction, Inc., a Minnesota Corporation Respondents / Defendants DISTRICT COURT FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT Court File No. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI, PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS,AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT Petitioners/ Plaintiffs state and allege as follows: PROCEDURAL INTRODUCTION 1. This is a petition for a writ of certiorari made pursuant to Minn. Stat. ch. 606, a petition for a writ of mandamus made pursuant to Minn. Stat. ch. 586, and a complaint requesting a declaratory judgment made pursuant to Minn. stat. ch. 555. FACTUAL INTRODUCTION 2. Petitioners/ Plaintiffs Edward Glickman and Ann Glickman, Ted Pier and Betsy Robinson and Patrick Mantyh and Ingrid Mantyh, are all individual residents of the Interlachen/ Parkwood Knolls neighborhood and live within 500 feet of the subject property. 3. The Interlachen /Parkwood Knolls neighborhood is a residential neighborhood made up of well- maintained homes heavily forested and surrounded by small lakes and ponds abounding with wildlife. The residents of LZterlachen / Parkwood Knolls are very active in their efforts to maintain the natural habitat surrounding their homes. 4. Respondent/ Defendant Ron Clark Construction, Inc. (" Clark ") is a Minnesota Corporation owned and operated by Ron Clark, and is engaged in the business of developing real estate andconstructing residential homes. 5. From April through December, 1992, Clark along with two other individuals formed CDS Partners and sought approval from the City of Edina to subdivide a ten (10) acre parcel of land that was to become known as Lots 1 through 5, Block 1, Mark Dahlquist Addition located at Harold Woods Lane and Schaefer Road in Northwest Edina. All five lots abut two small ponds. See legal description and map attatched as Exhibit A. 6. The City of Edina has an Ordinance (Land Use, Platting and Zoning - Land Dedication; Sect. 810.13 Subd. 2) drafted, adopted and ratified by the Edina City Council which states in pertainent part: "Where any plat or subdivision adjoins a ...pond ...a strip of land running along all sides which are contiguous to such ... pond ... from a line 100 feet upland from the ... pond ...as measured from the high water mark ... shall be... subjected to a perpetual easement in.favor of the City ... for the purpose of protecting the hydraulic efficiency and natural character and beauty of such ... pond ... (emphasis added)" See full text of said Ordinance attatched as Exhibit B. 7: The City of Edina has an an Ordinance (Land Use, Platting and Zoning - Variances; Section 810.05 Subd.1) drafted, adopted and ratified by the Edina City Council which states in pertainent part: "In conjuction with the preliminary or final approval of a plat or subdivision the Council may grant variances from the provisions of this section. "See full text of said Ordinance attached as Exhibit C . 8. The City of Edina has drafted, ratified and adopted a Comprehensive Land Use Plan as required by State Law (Minn. Stat. Annot. Sect. 394.22, subd. 2, 1991) which is incorporated into its Ordinances by reference (Land Use, Platting and Zoning - Definitions etc.; Section 810.02 Subd.1). See Full text of said Ordinance attatched as Exhibit D. 9. The Comprehensive Land Use Plan specifically states as a matter of public policy the cities goal: "To protect and manage significant remaining natural resources ... and mitigate despoilation of ... waterbodies and water courses caused by unsound land use practices" See Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Goals, Objectives, and Policies attatched as Exhibit E. 10. The Comprehensive Land Use Plan also states: "Of primary importance in Edina are types 3, 4 and 5 wetlands due to their hydrologic and wildlife benefits. These wetlands are also designated as public waters by he Minnesota Deparment of Natural resources." See Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Environmental Protection Element pages 2 & 3 attatched as Exhibit F. 11. On seven (7) different public hearings in front of the Edina Planning Commission (4 / 20 / 92, 5 / 27 / 92, and 10 / 28 / 92) and the Edina City Council (7 / 20 / 92, 9 / 8 / 92,10 / 5 / 92, and 11 / 16 / 92) Clark sought a variance from the Land Dedication Ordinance which mandates a 100' perpetual conservation easement surrounding the water about new subdivisions. Each and every time he was denied a variance because of failure to meet the six (6) criteria set forth in the Variance Ordinance. 12. On November 16, 1992, at the Edina City council meeting Mayor Richards stated: "He would not support the approval of the four lot subdivision with the requested variances." Council Member Paulus stated: " ... historically the council has denied variances from the 100 foot [conservation] easement." Clark stated that he agreed to "move forward' with the condition of the 100' conservation easement. See full text of minutes of November 16, 1992 meeting attatched as Exhibit G. 13. Subsequently on December 21, 1992 preliminary plat approval was given with the condition of the 100' conservation easement. On February 1, 1993 final plat approval for the Mark Dahlquist Addition was granted by the Edina City Council subject to an: "executed and recorded conservation easement" Said Easements appear as dedications on the recorded plat. See full text of minutes of February 1, 1993 meeting attatched as Exhibit H. 14. On June 20, 1994, Clark applied to the City of Edina for a partial release of a conservation restriction as it related to Lots 2 through 5, Block 1, Mark Dahlquist Addition. The sole basis for Clark's requested relief was that "he had made a mistake in thinking he could work with the imposed conservation easement" and as such could not sell the lots with such small building pads. The Edina City Council denied the application unanimously. See full text of June 20, 1994 meeting attatched as Exhibit I . 15. On August 15, 1994, Clark applied to the City of Edina for a partial release of the restriction for conservation purposes as it relates to Lots 4 and 5. Block 1, Mark Dahlquist Addition This time the basis for Clark's request was that he had two "actual clients "who needed the additional space. Clark paid no consideration for the release. There was no finding of public purpose for the release. The Edina City Council approved the application unanimously. See Clark letter dated July 6,1994 attatched,as Exhibit J. 16. Every allegation in this petition and complaint are incorporated by reference into each of the following claims. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTTORARI 17. Petitioners/ Plaintiffs hereby petition the District Court pursuant to Minn. Stat. ch. 606 for a writ of certiorari to review the August 15, 1994 resolution of the Edina City Council granting the partial release of the restriction for conservation purposes against Lots 4 and 5, Block 1, Mark Dahlquist Addition. The grounds for the writ of certiorari is that the resolution violates the City of Edina's Ordinaces concerning Land Dedication and Variances and its Comprehensive Land Use Plan and as such is not in conformance with law, is arbitrary and capricious, and constitutes an abuse of discretion by the Edina City Council. PETITION FOR WRIT OF-MANDAMUS 18. Petitioners/ Plaintiffs hereby petition the District Court pursuant to Minn. Stat. ch. 586 for a writ of mandamus compelling the City of Edina to rescind its August 15, 1994 resolution to partially release the restriction for conservation purposes against Lots 4 and 5, Block 1, Mark Dahlquist Addition and compelling the City of Edina to rescind or revoke the release of the conservation easement on the basis that such resolution violates the City of Edina's Ordinances concerning Land Dedication and Variances and its . Comprehensive Land Use Plan -and as such is not in conformance with law, is arbitrary capricious, and constitutes an abuse of discretion. COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT 19. The action of the Edina City Council in authorizing, and the action of the Edina City Council in granting the partial release of the restriction for conservation purposes against Lots 4 and 5, Block 1, Mark Dahlquist Addition violates the City of Edina's own Land Dedication and Variance Ordinances and Comprehensive Land Use Plan and as such is not in conformance with law, is arbitrary and capricious, and constitutes an abuse of discretion. 20. Petitioners/ Plaintiffs are entitled to declaratory judgment pursuant to Minn. Stat. ch. 555 that the resolution of the City Council attatched as Exhibit - , is null and void, and that the release of the conservation easement is invalid as a matter of law. 21. Petitioners/ Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration pursuant to Minn. Stat. ch. 555 against Respondent/ Defendant Ron Clark Consruction Inc. a Minnesota Corporation that its inability to sell the subdivided land is not sufficient grounds for the City's release of its conservation easement. PRAYER FOR RELIEF - - - WHEREFORE, Petitioners/ Plaintiffs request: 22. A writ of certiorari in the form attatched hereto as Exhibit K be granted by the Court, 23. An alternative writ of mandamus be granted by the Court in the form attatched hereto as Exhibit L . 24. A judgment and decree be entered by this Court; a. Declaring that the resolution of the Edina City Council authorizing the partial release of the restriction for conservation purposes held by the City of Edina against the Mark Dahlquist Addition is arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable, and constitute an abuse of discretion, and therfore are null and void. b. Declaring that Ron Clark Construction Inc. a Minnesota Corporation inability to sell the lots is not sufficient basis for a release . of the conservation easement. 25. An order of the Court granting the Petitioner/ Plaintiffs such other, further, or different relief, whether legal or equitable, as the Court deems proper, together with costs, disbursements, and attorney's fees incurred on behalf of the Petitioners/ Plaintiffs herein. Dated: August 16, 1994 Judson D. Jones ( #52516) Law Center Building 1625 Park Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55404 612 7332 -8611 Attorney for Petioners /Plaintiffs ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Petitioners/ Plaintiffs acknowledge that costs, disbursements and reasonable attorneys fees and witness fees may be awarded to the opposing party pursuant to Minn. Stat. Sect. 549.21 subd. 2 . Dated: August 16, 1994 Judson D. Jones ( #52516) Law Center Building 1625 Park Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55404 612 - 332 -8611 Attorney for Petioners /Plaintiffs 0 � l 1 n WOODS LANE MIMI LINE OF EOI 2 I 0 U U I J i i n U O A..1r Ir Ii� City of Edina NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PARTIAL RELEASE OF CONSERVATION RESTRICTION IN THE CITY OF EDINA HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Edina, Hennepin County, Minnesota, will meet at the Edina City Hall, 4801 West 50th Street on August 15, 1994 at 7:00 P.M., for the purpose of holding a public hearing on the proposed partial release of the restriction for conservation purposes as follows: - That part of Lot 4, Block 1, MARK DALQUIST ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof. Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying within a strip of land 19.00 feet in width and the southerly line of said strip is described as follows: Commencinlp, at the southwest corner of Lot 3 said Block 1; thence on an assumed bearing of North 00 degrees 28 minutes 37 seconds West, along the west line of said Lot 3, a distance of 148.07 feet: thence North 77 degrees 07 minutes 51 seconds East 26.15 feet; thence South 53 degrees 44 minutes 46 seconds East, 47.63 feet; thence South 71 degrees 33 minutes 54 seconds East 41.31 feet; thence on a bearing of East 46.93 feet to the point of beginning; thence North 55 degrees 41 minutes 32 seconds East 74.03 feet; thence North 23.degrees 57 minutes 45 seconds East 35.84 feet; thence North 55 degrees 10 minutes 32 seconds East 57.76 feet; thence North 74 degrees 51 minutes 09 seconds East 110.84 feet to the intersection with the east line of said Lot 4 and said line there terminating. That part of Lot 5, Block 1, MARK DALQUIST ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying within a strip of land 23.00 feet in width and the northerly line of said strip is described as follows: Commencing at the southwest corner of Lot 2 said Block 1; thence on an assumed bearing of North 89 degrees 31 minutes 23 seconds East, along the south line of said Lot 2, a distance of 35.17 feet; thence North 14 degrees 02 minutes 10 seconds East 110.71 feet; thence North 28 degrees 04 minutes 21 seconds East 56.72 feet; thence North 40 degrees 36 minutes 05 seconds East 92.28 feet; thence North 50 degrees 38 minutes 26 seconds East 66.44 feet to the point of beginning; thence North 79 degrees 41 minutes 43 seconds East 61.91 feet; thence South 71 degrees 33 minutes 54 seconds East 126.17 feet. thence North 74 degrees 03 minutes 17 seconds East 34.18 feet to the intersection with the east line of said Lot 5 and said line there terminating. -I- City Hall (612) 927 -8861 4801 WEST 50TH STREET FAX (612) 927 -7645 EDINA, MINNESOTA 55424 -1394 TDD (612) 927 -5461 w9��f 1. 5 City of Edina NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PARTIAL RELEASE OF CONSERVATION RESTRICTION IN THE CITY OF EDINA HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the .City Council of the City of Edina, Hennepin Countv, Minnesota, will meet at the Edina City Hall, 4801 West 50th Street on June 20, 1994 at 7:00 P.M., for the purpose of holding a public hearing on the proposed partial release of the restriction for conservation purposes as follows: That part of Lots 2 and 5, Block 1, MARK DALQUIST ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, that lies within a 50.00 foot strip of land and the westerly and northerly line of said str'_c described as follows: Commencing at the southwest corner of said Lot 2; thence on an assumed bearing of North 89 degrees 31 minutes 23 seconds East, along the south line of said Lot 2, a distance of 35.17 feet to the point of beginning; thence North 14 degrees 02 minutes 10 seconds East 110.71 feet; thence North 28 degrees 04 minutes 21 seconds East "56.72 feet; thence North 40 degrees 36 minutes 05 seconds East 92.28 feet; thence North 50 degrees 38 minutes 26 seconds East 66.44 feet; thence North 79 degrees 41 minutes 43 seconds East 61.91 feet; thence South 71 degrees 33 minutes 54 seconds East 126.17 feet; thence North 74 degrees 03 minutes 17 seconds East 34.18 feet to the intersection with the east line of said Lot 5 and said line there terminating. That part of Lots 3 and 4, Block 1, MARK DALQUIST ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying within a strip of land 50.00 feet in width and the southerly line of said strip described as follows: Commencing at the southwest corner of said Lot 3; thence on an assumed bearing of North 00 degrees 28 minutes 37 seconds West, along the west line of said Lot 3, a distance of 148.07 feet to the point of beginning; thence North 77 degrees 07 minutes 51 seconds East 26.15 feet; thence South 53 degrees 44 minutes 46 seconds East 47.63 feet; thence South 71 degrees 33 minutes 54 seconds.East 41.31 feet; thence on a bearing of East 46.93 feet; thence North 55 degrees 41 minutes 32 seconds East 74.03 feet; thence North 23 degrees 57 minutes 45 seconds East 35.84 feet; thence North 55 degrees 10 minutes 32 seconds East 57.76 feet; thence North 74 degrees 51 minutes 09 seconds East 110.84 feet to the intersection with the east line of said Lot 4 and said line there terminating. -1- City Hall (612) 927 -8861 7801 WEST 50TH STREET FAX (612) 927 -7645 EDINA. MINNESOTA 55424 -1394 TDD (612) 927 -5461 City of Edina - -Land use, Platting and zoning 810.13 Agreement then alleged by the City. C. Any letter of credit required by the City shall be from a national or state bank approved by the City, shall be unconditional and irrevocable, shall be for the full amount of the unpaid improvement costs, and shall provide that funds will be paid to the City solely upon written demand from time to time of the City to the extent of any default by the applicant as to the terms of the Agreement then alleged by the City. D. If there is more than one applicant, all shall join in the Agreement, and shall be jointly and severally obligated to perform the obligations of applicant under the Agreement. Subd. 3 Development Contracts. When preliminary or final approval has been given to a plat or subdivision, and if modifications or conditions have been imposed in connection with such approval, the applican t shall enter into a Development Contract (herein called the "Development Contract ") embodying the modifications and conditions of approval, and containing such other terms and conditions as the City may require to impose, enforce and make effective such modifications and conditions. The Development Contract shall be placed of record if requested by the City, at the expense of applicant. 810.13 Land Dedication or Cash Contribution. Subd. 1 Dedicating a Portion of Plat or Subdivision. A reasonable portion of any proposed plat or subdivision shall be dedicated to the City for public use for streets, roads, sewer lines, electric lines, gas lines, water lines and facilities, storm water drainage and holding areas or ponds and similar utilities and improvements. The Planner and Engineer shall recommend to the Council what portion is reasonable, the location, the need and the use. '�ubd. 2 Land Adjoining Lakes, Ponds or Streams. Where any plat or subdivision adjoins a natural lake, pond or stream, including streams which flow only intermittently, a strip of land running along all sides which are contiguous to such lake, pond or stream, which strip shall extend from a line 100 feet upland from the lake or pond, as measured from the high water mark, and 100 feet from the centerline of the stream, shall be either (i) dedicated to the City for public use, or (ii) subjected to a perpetual easement in favor, of the City over and in said land and the bed and water body of such lake, pond or stream, for the purpose of protecting the hydraulic efficiency and the natural character and beauty of such lake pond or stream. The Commission shall determine which of these options is more appropriate and shall recommend to the Council one of said options. In either case there shall also then be granted to the City the right of ingress to and egress from the said strip of land with workers, equipment and material. Also, where the easement is determined to be in the best interest of the City, said easement shall also provide 810-18 EXNII�IT 8 City of Edina - _ - _ Land Use, Platting and Zoning 810.1 that the owners of the areas as to which such easement is granted shall not make, do or place any fill, grading, improvement or development of any kind on or to such easement area, or raise the level of the easement area in any way, but all such right to fill, grade, improve and develop, and to raise the level of the easement area, shall be granted by said easement to the City. Subd. 3 Land for Public Use. In addition to the dedication to be made pursuant to Subd. 1 and 2 of this Subsection, and if the Council reasonably determines that it will need to acquire a portion of land within the plat or subdivision for the purposes stated in this Subd. 3 as a result of approval of the plat or subdivision, then, as to such plat or subdivision, a reasonable portion of the land therein shall be dedicated to the public or preserved for conservation purposes or for public use as parks, playgrounds, trails, wetlands or open space, provided that, at the option of the City, the owner or owners shall contribute to the City an amount of cash equal to the fair market value of the land otherwise required to be so dedicated or preserved, or dedicate and preserve a part of such land and contribute the balance of such land value in cash. Land then set aside and dedicated for public recreation purposes pursuant�to Subsection 850.13 (Planned Residential District) of this Code may be considered as set aside and dedicated under this Section to the extent required hereunder in connection with such plat or subdivision, but then only to the extent that such land is in excess of the open space then required by Section 85' of this Code. Any money so paid to the City shall be placed in a special fund ar. used only for the acquisition or development of land for conservation purposes, parks, playgrounds, trails, wetlands, and open space. For purposes of this Section, "fair market value of the land" is defined as the fair market value of the land within such plat or subdivision, as determined by the City Assessor, as of the date the plat or subdivision is granted final approval by the Council. It is the policy of the City, as a general rule, to require dedication of land in the following instances: A. If the property to be dedicated is adjacent to an existing public park or playground and the additional property will beneficially expand the park or playground; B. If the property to be dedicated is six acres or more in size, or is expected to be combined with future acquisitions by the City so that a public park with a minimum of six acres will result; C. If the property to be dedicated abuts or adjoins a natural lake, pond or stream, or a wetland then protected by then applicable state or federal laws or statutes; D. If the property to be dedicated is necessary or desirable for a storm water holding or ponding area, or is an area which the City intends to have dredged or otherwise improved for storm water holding areas or ponds; c 810-19 City of Edina Land' Use, Platting and Zoning 810.06 published, (ii) no sign need be erected, and (iii) only a survey prepared and signed by a Minnesota registered land surveyor showing the proposed lot division need be filed with the Planner together with the required fee and such additional information that, in the opinion of the Planner, is necessary for evaluation of the lot division and determination that it is consistent with the requirements of this Section. 810.05 Variances. Subd. 1 Grant by Council- In connection with the preliminary or final approval of a plat or subdivision the Council may grant variances frl-.m the provisions of this Section. The Council shall grant variances only upon finding that an unusual hardship exists as to the land within the plat or subdivision, and specifically that: A. The hardship is not a mere inconvenience; B. The hardship is due to the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical condition of the land; C. The condition or conditions upon which the request for a variance is based are unique to the property being platted or subdivided and not generally applicable to other property; D. The hardship is caused by this Section and not by the applicant; E. The variance will result in an improved plat or subdivision; and F. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the land within the plat or subdivision"or in the neighborhood. A grant of a variance by the Council shall be deemed to include a favorable finding on each of the variance grounds set out above even if not specifically set out in the approval resolution or the minutes of the Council meeting. Subd. 2 Conditions. In granting a variance the Council may impose conditions to ensure compliance with the purpose and objectives of this Section and other applicable provisions of this Code and to protect adjacent properties. The conditions may be made a part of any Development Contract required by Subsection 810.12. 810.06 Denial of Permits. A building permit or other permit for the development or improvement of any,parcel, tract, or lot may be denied for any of the reasons set out in this Subsection: Subd. 1 Violations of M.S. 462. If the parcel, tract or lot is conveyed in violation of the provisions of M.S. 462. 810-4 EYHLF31T c, City of Edina Land Use, Platting and Zoning 810.02 Section 810 - Plats and Subdivisions 810.01 Purpose and Objectives. The purpose and objectives of this Section are to provide for the orderly, economic and safe development of land and urban services and facilities; to facilitate adequate provision for transportation, water, sewage, storm drainage, schools, parks, playgrounds and other public services and facilities; to promote the public health, safety and general welfare by establishing physical standards, design requirements and procedures for plats and subdivisions of land; to allow flexibility in design of plats and subdivisions; to develop a consistency with and to help implement the zoning, building and other applicable sections and provisions of this Code; to support and further the City's Comprehensive Plan ' by establishing uniform procedures and regulations for plats and subdivisions to preserve and enhance the value and viable economic use of property; to protect the character and symmetry of neighborhoods in the City; and to protect and further, and not frustrate, legitimate investment backed expectations of property owners. 810.02 Definitions; Zoning Ordinance; Construction Rules; Severability. Subd. 1 Definitions. Unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, the following words, terms and phrases, shall have the stated meanings: Applicant. All persons, whether one or more, who request approval by the City of a plat, subdivision or lot division pursuant to this Section. Commission. The Planning Commission of the City. Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan of the City containing the elements set within M.S. 462.352, Subd. 5, adopted by the City in 1980, pursuant to applicable Minnesota Statutes, as now or hereafter amended or modified, and including any similar plan or plans as may supersede or be substituted for the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan is incorporated into this Section by this reference as completely as if fully set out. Median. The value (being, in this Section, lot area, lot depth or lot width, as the case may be) in an ordered set of such values below which and above which there is an equal number of such values, or which is the arithmetic mean of the two middle values if there is no one such middle value. Neighborhood. All lots in the Single Dwelling Unit District as established by Section 850 of this Code which are wholly or partially within 500 feet of the perimeter of the proposed plat or subdivision, except however, those lots used for publicly owned parks, playgrounds, athletic facilities and golf courses, and except those lots used for conditional uses as established by Section 850 of this Code. If the neighborhood includes only a part of a lot, 810-1 . EXNTBTT D GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES GOAL: The goal of the environmental- protection element is to protect and manage significant remaining natural resources-, improve the health and diversity of the urban forest, preserve Edina's cultural, historic, and architectural heritage, and mitigate despoilation of land forms, waterbodies, and water courses caused by pollution and unsound land use practices. Objective: Protect the integrity, quality, hydrologic efficiency, and enhance the recreational use and enjoyment of Nine Mile Creek and Minnehaha Creek. Policies : Regulate all uses within the 100 year floodplain by restricting encroachments to levels which will not unduly diminish the flood carrying capacity of Nine Mile Creek and hlinnehaha Creek. Require that all buidings constructed in floodplain areas have a ground floor elevation of at least one foot above the maximum anticipated 100 year flood- plain elevation. Update and amend Edina's floodplain management ordinance to reflect the findings and requirements of the Flood Insurance Study conducted by the Federal Insurance Administration. Continue to .utilize upland storage basins to lessen peak flood discharges of. the creeks. Restrict creek crossings with utilities and roadways where suitable alternatives are available. Require the dedication of or the grant of scenic and open space easements over all lands adjacent to and 100 feet upland of the creeks in conjunction with the subdivision or development of properties. Require the dedication of appropriate floodplain areas in conjunction with the subdivision or development of properties. In cooperation with the appropriate watershed district,reduce the potential for erosion and creek sedimentation by requiring installation of temporary and permanent erosion control measures for major soil alteration activities. Continue to participate with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District to enhance the use of this creek for canoeing through the construction of canoe landings and portage trails and the removal of obstructions. In cooperation with the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District, implement the Mud Lake /Bredesen Park Improvement Project. Develop pathways and trails where possible through the Nine Mile Creek corridor to intersect with and provide the construction of pathway trails in Hopkins and Bloomington. EXHIL3IT E Comprehensive Land Use Plan Environmental Protection Element Page 2 The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District is responsible for the overall water management plan for Minnehaha Creek and its drainage area. Edina and several other jurisdictions have petitioned to District to undertake a basic land and water improvement project. This project will improve Minnehaha Creek in terms of lessening peak flood discharges, increasing low level flows, and enhancing recreational uses of the creek. Edina will continue to cooperate with the District to regulate the use of floodplain areas and enhance the quality and recreational potential of Minnehaha Creek. C.Lakes, Ponds, and Wetlands Edina contains numerous lakes, ponds, and wetlands which are scattered throughout the community. All of these waterbodies are relatively small. Lake Cornelia, which is located in east central Edina, measures approximately 50 acres in area and is the largest waterbody in the City. Minor Lake, Arrowhead Lake, Indianhead Lake. and Lake Edina measure 20 to 30 acres in area. Remaining water bodies in the City measure less than 20 acres in area. All lakes and ponds in Edina are relatively shallow. Sampling of the major lakes in the City has revealed maximum depths of 6 to 8 feet. Most lakes and ponds are underlain by varying depths of peat and muck soils. Due to the depth and composition of the major waterbodies in the City, significant fish populations do not exist. Test nettings conducted for Lake Cornelia by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources revealed the presencE of carp, black bullheads, brown bullheads, green sunfish, pumpkinseeds, and hybrid sun- fish. The preponderance of green sunfish and black bullheads in this test netting indicates a situation where more desirable gamefish cannot survive due to low dissolved oxygen concentrations and other;actors. Thus, an increase in the size and variety of the fish population for Lake Cornelia and other City lakes probably depends upon artificial aeration and frequent re- stocking. Wetlands located within Edina have been surveyed by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. These wetlands have been classified according to the United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Circular 39. This circular defines the following eight types of wetlands found in Edina: Type I. Seasonally flooded basins or flats. Soil may be waterlogged seasonably but generally well drained during summer months. Type 2 Inland fresh meadows. Soil is generally waterlogged during most of the year. Vegetation includes grasses and sedges. Type 3. Inland shallow marshes. Soil is often covered with six inches of water. Vegetation is primarily aquatic and includes cattails, bulrushes and other emergent vegetation. EXHIBIT F- Comprehensive Land Use Plan Environmental Protection Element Page 3 Type 4. Inland deep marshes. Soil is covered with six inches to three feet of water. Vegetation includes cattails, reeds, and other emergents as well as submerged vegetation. Type 5. Inland open water. Shallow ponds with less than ten feet of water and fringed by emergent vegetation. Type 6. Shrub swamps. Soil is usually waterlogged. Vegetation includes alders, willows, and dogwoods. Type 7. Wooded swamps. Soil is waterlogged. Vegetation includes tamaracks and white cedar. Type 8. Bogs. Soil is waterlogged. Vegetation includes mosses and sedges. Of primary importance in Edina are types 3, 4 and 5 wetlands due to their hydrologic and wildlife benefits. These wetlands are also designated as public waters by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. D. Water Quality As with most urban settings, surface water quality in Edina is generally deteriorating. This deterioration has resulted primarily from increased run -off caused by ever expanding impervious surfaces within the City. Such runoff is extremely rich in nutrients, most notably phosphorous, which contributes to the accelerated growth of algae and other acquatic vegetation. D'e -icing salts, sediments, and debris are also carried to watercourses and waterbodies by runoff. Investigations conducted in recent years reveal that nearly all Edina water - bodies are highly eutrophic. These lakes are characterized by very low transparency, high phosphorus and nitrogen concentrations, organic sediments, high concentration and frequent blooms of algae, and lush growths of submerged aquatic vegetation. Due to the proximity of waterbodies to residential areas, the City applies aquatic herbicides on many lakes and ponds to control excessive algae blooms and submerged vegetation. II. Upland Vegetation Due to the fully developed status of Edina, the presence of unaltered upland plant communities is very limited. Past development activities have severely altered or eliminated these natural resources. Fortunately, however, many remnants of native plant communities have been retained in Edina's park and open space system. I ­ . A ---- I T=t to vetccmd a -- ­'•s ____ -- ;City of *dinA. With this Proalam"I= is g locally owned and W. _ - cow=iry. Firstat ftrsing Services . gffUCT to car a Company and joins the other fins Edina hags health care :operated , �yaaa ff"Ith Care iza= of Edina. a to the Cit .agencies in pzvrid1Z9 car yjr_3tat Nursing Services- Mayor in2 the proclamation was Doug King Of kccept - t­­ 4 the other home health care agencies - in Edina: Interim Health Cars. Ards noted samar it an Home Care and Ca -reVan Medical System. 'Good seconded Notion vas made by Member smith and was yNwLher tally to ,pro" and adopt the Council Consent Agenda itens as -Aye,% Kelly Paulus. R ice, Smith. Richards Led 4. 'Ic E J. MotiOn vas side by Member A or 4tas of the ,. a secondect by Member X6117 to APPrave the Co=ail M = Smith'and va 1lA_LZ.eetingsl6f October -19 and Wavember 2.. 1992. J ayes. five a on X ti6n-carried C _T^w wf% rV kNTTD t side of Larsen recalled that the subject property is located on the won Planner La - south of interlachen Boulevard and is comprised of 10.5 acres Schaefer RoAd,� to create four now -p I roponents had submitted a five lot subdivISion request -heard the The access off liarold Woods Lane. Council previously lots with the October 5 =eating 1buildabla 10 osal on juiv 20. September 8, and October 5, 1992. At 1992, V -prop extending the period for approval to November 2, 'Althe developers agreed to th the understanding that any land the matter was continued to that date wl n on October 25. proposal be heard by the Planning CO=i5s1O to the pr he matter was modifi,cations November 2. 1992, at the request of the proponents, t -'04 continued to November 16, 1992 property with j16' 16- `�ubdivisjon of the subdivision continues to propose a five lot The subdiv � pond and four lots betvaen the two P011cls he souther the 10LE on to the southwear, of t 'Size and dim •Int. dimensions of i of the property. The on the northerly port on s continue to comply wiLh proposals. -�- All of the lot V� pr( remain tha.sams as-Prev'ous. dards"'-of the subdivision ordinance. The homes the lot size and dimension stan conservation easement 4 and 5 would most the 100 toot c prcjp�aied for Lots 2. ary high water mark. Lot 3. the northwesterly mane from the ordinary requiring a 50 foot gatbaciL satback requirement foot setback from the pond thus raqu an a lot, Propo 9 a pond.'- a,edge 0 ce fro f ti, Varian 'planhing Commission heard the modified preliminary Flat and On October 29 the' polls as to the conservation easement setback. number of several informs. denial of the etc. formal action was to recommend dated ab ot. e The Commi now presented. Planner Larson noted that a 10ttst f. imi"ry plat as 5217 Schaefer ROAQ, Pro 9' 1992"'wa's" received from Edward W. . ., Glickman, tinvember , 9 posed subdivision. objecting to the pro t Planning Commission minutes nr 14em.ber Rice asked about the discussion in the on the north pond with the "fingern of water I althouph he nas rega diTiv, possible filling in Of _ C. planner Larson said that SCMIL omr;nqation in an area to that as •have obtained a "tionwids P nor Been it, he understood thathe developers 4fingor' oj wacit on th%� I Issued by the Army Corps of Engineers to relocate the a"ar conservation 3 and 4 thus allowing for a gre .. i cc%trmor, lot. line between Lots -Ond p,:,rwit would` be flexibility in siting the houses, A SOC easement and more from the Nine ML16 Greek Watershed District under ttie. Fedora EX H1 E51T G� a0d AS139 N .granted preliminary approval... "Avmit until after the city �has �q":,.s 'all, .1.1 rg 0 .0 Jr. oneiit .otne, .,4for.CDS Partners, 'noted that he had recently been retained t .%, t'iT"* reviewed all the - documents pertaining to the proposed atiad that the requested variance was appropriate concluded oft'her '.harmful to the c-ommunIty,or injurious to any property reat: benef it to the platting property and meets the test of the rms'of granting a variance...: He' briefly reviewed the process to d 'that the original request was for a 50 foot variance from 0 :.foot conservation easement on'the proposed four now lots. -The Sion' reco=Mended denial of that proposal. Subsequsntly, the sad I the . v I ariance request and asked for a 25 foot variance on three o.ot.-Variance 'on Lot 3. The Commission again recommended denial. 1992,:.-.*thi"-COmmizs' ion' heard the current proposal: foot ._;s a ibdck %variance on: Lot .3 as measured from the actual share lattor c-'s-hore. -:and ,&;%,not ':the ine, I ,f oot `kVarianddl-on -'each'of Lbts 2 4, and 5 for extension of porches, :kd'-'o ir -!T d t i a a N, -V eferince" to t. a :filling -in of the water "finger", Mr. Brill said d opt on Mr.-,'B'rill 'commented that the Glickman lettar dated November 9. 1992, contained a serious allegation that Mr. Dalquist had "used the easement to his benefit by asking for and receiving from the City a property tax abatement based on the 100 foot easement which reduced his property taxes for the last 14 years by arguing that the restrictive nature of the easement reduced the marketability of his property". if that were true it would be contradictory for Mr. Dalquist to now ask for removal of the -restriction. ' Mr. Brill presented the assessor's card which shoved that the estimated fair' market value had risen from $3.570 in 1961 to $51,000 in 1978 (the year referred to by Mr. Glickman), to the current valuation of $600,000. He emphasized that Mr. Dalquist had'nover asked for or P; received a-tax abatement on the property. foot setback variance .:-,Resarding the requested 50 f for Lot 3, Mr. Brill submittad PC ad that if not granted a 142s I staff has supported tho request and his stated that - s desirable development would result, spacing i.e. undesirable spa between the v -relatively largo homes likely to be built on these lots. Further, Mr. Brill referenced the provisions of the City's sub division ordinance and opined that the ill provisions Of , , . - roposed subdivision with the variances being requested maets -P ' ip. Fe &1:7c. observed that the ordinance and the six criteria for undue hardship. the ordin .p ii owner, Ruth Schaefer,'--in 1972 had agreed to grant an easement a vious property 'through the property for a sanitary sewer to service residant3 on Ridge Road. At sewer connections were providad for the subject property with the that time six . V. *­�- developed only if the 100 foot conservation Wassumption that six lots could be ,;I�.�;assum 1"easqment setback were waived. Michael Cair, McCombs Frank Roos Assoc etas, a inted out on a graphic the six sewer stubs and the restrictive buildable area Mr. Brill said that the On each lot if the loo root setback were maintained. I prop arty has a Special condition an expectation that there could be buildable ,-�?Vlots developed similar to what was shovn on the engineer's drawing when t ­' tary sever was constructed with waiver of the 100 foot setback. • sani s constrained by the -the development Of the proposed subdivision i of the sanitary sewer running through the property, and the logical location ,'pincement for the access road. Mr. "Brill asked that the Council exercise discretion in J In concl ion -71 4-j. 4 S. NOISNIL808 AS139 910E1,178900 6T:01 V661/9T/9b I nsidering.,tne regLLdYL rai...+•wcs .rr -� - ---- ....._- es.s that come before the Council. He mentioned the tJooddalg Lakes Addition .4 "a here';variances were granted under similar circumstances. e w ov .recently`, 5021= Ridge Road, said she ob j acted to the current proposal for Qbinson, 1pw ons j hardship ,in `support of the variances is only an economic hardship. 2° �Goun il. at a previous meeting said they would not entertain any .es.ts far;Niariances. kr1 t r' unitary . sawerinstalled in 1972 cannot_be claimed as a hardship �_. -.._ Gauss he, eed.signed by Mark Aalquist when he purchased the property stated x y 1r "'c ;.- 3 at,ha.was :.subject to zoning laws and restrictions on the property at the time j(Ms. .'Robinson read a letter from Ann Rutledge, 5116 Ridge Road, C•,P1t, •.Ia y'. 9 eccing the c_irciimstances in 1971 that lad to the construction of the _ anitary's&war oti the subject property.) ' and may be filled in - ;Concern that the water "finger" on the northerly p y ter.: t'he_..plat is japproved. �. ra _:. r� Concurrence with the objections raised by Edward Clickman in his letter ;off: ' 19 9 2_ : �L i 4,.. "•'• �, 1► ti , : -z; , �4. amD_er': i;. '. i y^�•:, t,::3,. - 'Q)�!''6wi °PaCition-that: was presented previously signed by 54 adjacent naigiibors ... y . ,.p. y .. p g a' F.that stated t expect the Cit Council to uphold the zoning laws and �•L regulstioris of'the CLty.." ;:..' a 'I conclusion; Ms. Robinson asked the Council to vote the proposal down so that n ,4 would be terminated. {•,. Ted Pier, 5021 Ridge Road, made the following comments in objec tion to the n,�, proposed subdivision: 1. Nature and character of neighborhood, specifically the wildlife, should be maintained. ..� S '. ,... 2. All hardship claims proposed by developers are a matter of economics. line does not qualify as a hardship. 3. Existing sanitary saver 4. No legal weight or moral implication exists concerning the six sewer stubs constructed in 1972. =;5 Mr. Pier said that because the developers have consistently failed ;o miser- the hardship criteria that the proposed subdivision be turned down. x -•��- _Bernie Nelson. 5008 Schaefer Road, said that he has the lowest, lot in the area . - a'.1 and asked who would be responsible if his property is flooded because of ei er filling in of the pond or from more run-off following construction on the �;�;•! proposed subdivision. 5012 Schaefer Road, said he was disturbed by the allegations and Mark Dalquist, r;6 ?, ;untruths in Edward Clickman's latter of November 9, 1992. Fill or. that toy never asked for nor rocelved any tax abatement on the subject proparry and .i;.,'any statement to the contrary is false. Further, the facts he had pby copy ' ?�' concerning the sanitary sewer cons tructed in 1972 was substantiated by copy of `the latter from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency dated January 24, 1972. , `copy of the Notice of Public Bearing for Sanitary Sewer Project SS-3U3 dated February 25," 1972, and copy of the Council Minutes dated Haccn 6, 1972. Mr. Dalquist said he believed that in return for this easement Ruth Schaefer received-the six sewer connections, with 'connection chargas def until the property was developed. with the Expectation of six building cnncluaion, Mr. Dalquiat said he felt the present proposal for four lots was reasonable and appropriate. al ,.x , � •`; +•,i:.'. .,'�r,,,,.,t• i 1 C'OmmetlCl C CiOtt _., .,.:. .• : . 4 .. for tha Member Kelly asked for comment from Planner Larsen on the lot andZccmparison of proposed four lots, a previous variance request in the area, +� g© 3E,'Jd HOS11120a AS133 9T6Eb08990 61:UT V66T /ST /'9y0: , IJ iis�llNr. r+:.+•....,....:.. s. tw: p.'..:, a. L.:U...:.i,.�.►,.;..r.M.:...�.. ,... .. ................. .- ....:.:wt,. -- ' �wlrrti•/:: ir. �i ..— .......- .+...:..,1...�Li.1, �..: r. :ww:1::r.,G..o::S.�i4ff1Y�S.• - •• r--r-- - - - ••••••��•••••• .iv.�•et ..olr:bii conLlrmsa tnat me Qur�lots meat or exceed the median average for lot width, lot depth and lot area k` q Y�, pp years ago a proposal skYe uired b ordinance. Further, that a roximately five vubdivide apt.:lot -at Inter lachen /Blake with rs uast for variance to reduce the 1(V,foot ronservaLion adsemenZ :;.wTk to 70 Sr :: (j LbaC was caaie4- Ara rsldaatiflad s dent:_clarihad that -the request was for a 15 foot variance, Planner Larsen eca"Id-thae'.the Wooddaie Lakes subdivision started as an eight lot subdivision ,3. „�,.�:.,. and,: was; approved for six lots with 50 foot variances granted on all lots abutting a ;ate 1Ik or;Richards observed that the comment made by the proponents that the same ,iteria should be applied to all is fair. Although staff did support the ` ori'ance request, the final judgement is the responsibility of the Council who a'presents all the citizens. Although the Wooddale Laces subdivision was - meriCionnd,`he did not:feel it applied to the proposal before the Council. Thera ar'easonable retu rn on the subject property for three, four or five lots. In he.'Wooddale Lakes case, the land could be considered undevelo able with no -' econamtc' return 'if the 100 foot conservation easement were upheld, Further, he .. Sol,, W... Ruth Schaefer had an expectation of three or four lots being eloped -on' the - property eve . He felt the 'development of Lot 1 was somewhat of a subterfuge and was contrary and 'incons is tent with the normal process. If the lots :cannot be developed without a variance, a three lot subdivision should e considared.:=.Mayor Richards said he would not support approval of the four lot ti �� subdivision with the requested variances. q �• e,�ti:..: Member Rice noted that during the course of the hearings, tao or three neighbors have told the Council that their variance requests had not been granted which indicated that everyone has been treated similarly. To grant a variance, the Council must find in the affirmative for all six criteria and justification has not been mat for all criteria. Further he did not feel the City committed to a r y ;--.six lot subdivision because of the six sewer stubs and even if so the present .., ;Council is not bound. :`:',::Ron Clark, CDS Partners, interrupted and clarified that there are two proposals before the Council. As indicated by letter from Michael Gair dated November 12, 1992, if the Council does not feel it appropriate to act on the five lot � subdivision with variances, they are proposing a two lot subdivision to divide off Lot 1 (the Schell Inc) and the debated area as an outlot. This would construction financing nd provide a legal dascri Lion in order to 8 P g p �L;;Y�• +i : "' convey title to Lot 1. Mayor Richards said he assumed that the Council was considering the recommendation of the Planning Commission on the proposal that was presented on October 28, 1992. 'Continuing, Member Rice said he believed four houses could be built on the lots Avithouc variances, ti t hat the u`C.r -pro grty_Ieifluld ha ha _ er served by develoLin &_it rh thren laza . He concluded that he would not vote for any variances on the '�'W". "subject property at this time. Zmembar Paulus emphasized that the Council and the Planning Commission is very tough on variances and that, historically, the Council has denied variances from ? ;.�.- ;;;:the 100 foot conservation easement. She said she has heard no new evidence to ',chan a her decision not to rant the variances. .z:. R g In response to Mayor Richards as to procedure on the five lot subdivision, Planner Larsen said the Council could: 1) deny the proposed plat, or 2) approve ;.,.. the plat without variances, or 3) make modifications to the plat. Regarding the alternate t•�o lot subdivision, Planner Larsen explained that the purpose was to allow the owners of Lot 1 to secure permanent mortgage financing. Staff had recommended that, if. the developers needed more time to work on the north portion ```':60 39Vd NOSNISO�g AS13d 9lEcb0$930 6i :0I 0661/5;1/.90 1-2 foot setbacic VEVAncc ea "au" ,Cr _Lot.3 and a IOU '4AwA' 'ally. A 'SaEonded by, Member a the is an important issue in this case becaux r K l ly.,.commented density • a AVsensitive to flooding. '�ar'ds' said he would-support the motion with the understanding that, if aYV r, Ric Lot 1 to obtain q- pr - oponent .desires to 'come back for purP0586 Of 50gregat" he would C . onsidar that change sufficient in order to hear a rl'�jjjjni. f inancing ion-with an outlet. f j lot -subdiv s roposa or.a* an Id not approve the five cted that he understood nter the Council wOu 0 r d would not consider the alternate two lot • ot.j�,su Ilft2ion with..variances an t-A 1 .114.. _­.. -I . ' P , 1Ha'7Azked'if the Council would consider approving vis on _ie'this meat ng. :; Id be prepared to move ,W' subdivision he would e 'j4W _.j 6 j ' ' )n variances as T 4�divisic 3 hit'� basis: 5!1�_ d on the motion 00 44; , '. as to stay i "d for a point of order so 1. ... - '.Member the motion. xhards th-en call for vote • f lo6j Havor FU Rice 77 ith 'RIC a: R,01,Lc char Lis ily, Pau us, 21, "'Ayes: Irs" "' "Motion car ied. N r n PQA EAU a Rzslolq 4:-' 1 -6 21M ST-PY-E-4- Planner Larson presented the 00 follo a request to allow a roof mounted satellite IwiT g chronology of tl- a variance 62nd Street: q Ld"h anterjLn at 5325 West a OrdinanC6 7. 1992 codified as cil on P.p r adopted by City Coun .: ''Antenn n 815 of -the- City Cod 4.. Section Inspector received a complaint 1992, Building i 11 roof at 5325 West Vo" - September 10, 'bee' installed On �,On or about the Id. n a Building Official and of th a satellite dish antenna h :;Dish was removed at:the'request 62nd Street: , U Soccion 67D requirements owner was a�dvisad of locate dish antenna on roof was received from applicant t o loca eals on Variance Board of App request A", , i5n sfiptamber' 21"1992, a-.id was heard by -the Zonin request. d to deny the variance. ­1992.7,i 'Board vote city Council 1i October. Is decision on OctObsr 5 1992. licant appealed the Board !,.,_kA pp in, on October 19. 1992. The hearing peal of the variance den rected to prepare heard the appeal 1992, and staff was di continued to November 2, was s variance.. proposed findings in support of denial of th meeting to allow staff to bar 2, 1992, matter was continued at the Novem .The =a lyze �ha property for other locations engineer to ana an independent _The report anp-36 signals. to satellite y allow regabn-ab re the two -thar may roof op and the front yard near the stro8t 8 ..1,­­,­-conc1:uded that ths, jocetions ­ �7-DVL z,rrport denial ruf the yari&nca request have been f .­, t proposed findinp �6ur.c .1 this date. arsd -and-jLresent .: " T t- S E. T iS T `9 0 J L T S 7 S i., yl i A .% • V"Ph' '� -���; Ytl iiqusness Of `the property • -•°�. *04 971, ,,. seta of property in the ayorRichards...obsarVed that this is a fully-developed al because he does not seal ,.�.,•,. r. -.s. ort the_. p. P k line.': 1aEr Hs acid he would not swop ordinance i .,<. a i�rdsip has shown other than that the requirements of the existing ng 3,r +' $�: ��ac4` =•1-a -- to be built on the new lot. t 'slloa a now home ;$� 1 5��:e: {dam r •':�..' i '..' �fh eraber.Kelly commented that within Edina there are many unique developments. ,, . ,,,_,•:- • topography and characteristics , she could not y ��i18.�this: property has unique variances reQ�sested. -r Po largt �. y' r t: -the .4 y .cup,.. ,ti;J'.rl'. ,,. , bars LEIt this matter should " ;- iyor.Richards submitted that. unless thaiCOwasiincumbent to take action on the r, tube continuad for additional information, �rsliminary plat approval.. request `. for p dirt i ,... , "'+ ,• .._ ,. , }, :�; :. �.�it... �.. i `- Casvaas �d as as dA•. i roTSl �i tii� reliainar7 Plat s9P .°';, . =` ` rovida for the sitis� Nembor.faith tbsa asoved P a ree2mt to p r yl z ► 1) Developer t. g pr�sentsd. coaditipned upon, to the nor' Lot. and 2) Dodicatiaa of lend to Arid t of house to bo canatrac d on Pat Kotion was seconded b}• Member sutgicienC to s►aintain the, esistiss: pa+ the City ,h .r:• -a ; fi.:* Aya r Paulus Sm l th Rice Richards '��w�M ;i� � •Nays : Kelly. � au' Motion failed. B ADD � LMD DA .��� the nark DalquL8t F ° ~• i,::flaner Larson presented the requsstM.for final Plat approval imacely 10.5 acres of _ neia :: "Addition. He recalled that the subject property is aPP vacant land with one dwelling unit in the far southwesterly corner forttha five ��,r• 1992 casaeing, Council granted preliminary p Approval •, ''.Decembcr 21, rading permit from the Nins bile + P_ i lot subdivision, The developers received a g ar's a =semen- has been r i Crook uatsrshed- District on January 26, 1999. A dad to t 7 �o =sate bond has been submitted to the City Engineer. The f -executed and the app. p conservation easement would requirehtwaterimarkaand open natural Ations 23 feet upland from the ordinary hig.,� - •,- . �.. c o na L conditionse for th• remaining 75 feet. Open apace done nosrdlaraabfo =dLhosnewt r-is would ai'c'+ the area to be landscaped and maintain" as y j r •r, ; ; -�:` .hom4a. _ :- •`... ...,:'._. - toned'.'.. Approval coedit }.... ! :'r.�'•:E o Planning .Comsaise:on and staff would recoamend final plat epP 1) Developer itgree baaed)vnKan unimprovedelanddvalueeo a$600,000 mend ti ute!d and 3) Subdivision dedication southerly property ^, ,.• ...'{ Installation of coniferous landscaping screening along the i.1 ins ..:( pub r '± Mayor Richards then called for comments or objections from the - audiancs. No corsment was heard. ,=t, S,9 u:zsS .Sent i. e t i Member Rica asked it structures like swing sots or tennis courts allowed within the 25 foot conservation easement. Planner Larsen said permanent i+ Ems, structures would be prohibitad without Council permission. riayor Richards asked if the neighbor s were informed of the Nina Creak Watershed ? District meeting. Ron Clark.. CDs Partners, responded that several neighbors wari�� U; in attendance at the meeting gnu the District gave unanimous approval for the -: _ . 11 "grading permit. �� EX.HI61T n �N - 'rF+TIio` ^rte {.. _.lj. ; i•.t.::. Y,r::. ;_.i'• .. •etc' u.`•f r f `F c . ,, •uic� regard to .e coniferous laildsespiny, r.ci i:�y sleep the southerly' property ! 4 �.,;:1 it:a, ugyor Richards &sired if a :aininu -m site had bean specified. Plan Larsen _ :.''dry Said this has been aoricad out privately by a - letter of aar,Fttent between David ' rf Schell a.1d :epreaa:it:ativvy of the home to the south of the Schell home. xember n;� �• - :•',,;+ -Smith a &ksd that the agr$sslesnc 1nCter be :rto:parated within the developer" dgr9emant. Mr. Clark said tha proponants Would have no problcm with. that. Heabar Smith iZtT- _4= -.gd tbo fallow±ng rvssalutim Ani so d adr3pti4a. subja�C tui 1) D,,eiapor'a afire ssrt. 2) Uacztsd and rtCOr-"isd consarwratio'n eaeeoufl =. 3� eubdiYisicu dadi"ti M. fsc of 848,000, and 4) Igstabl4tita of coaiforous laadsrtpts:g scr,sonia;, along the ae7st:hsrl�l propar�y lithe RnO2.rMON 4'R�►8'!�&C MILL YT.:.'IY AP�p9�3. : g IT tZsoLYffii by tha city C�sil of tha City qt pairs. Iiluaatsaka, that that pertain plat eistitlad "w DAW71S'i ®DDI71W. platted by CDS Partners. a Q� !�: him &loss gp>aar&I O.ars:narship, std astern BaiSbr.2 $tars ZA" of St. teal. • 0 r :.Mitaaao :a carporat4an, and present:od st the regaldY :asating vP ti3ss Cit7 Go�ycil "o! 'lQUruary..l. 1993, b,2 and is hereby graatad tirai plat approval. `��Hotior van ascondad by 14subtr Ricp. •y `', kyes. .Kelly, Paulus Rion. Suit's. fiic arda ' •. Rea- °.title ^. .,,opted. , r►t s nX `i Pt'° 9 - 6449 rli.csc" ST. 64�'�,:'��'!'�i.�1' �4:1, i4nrioa .ass ssrdn bq 3:sabsr ,;ally and was seccaded Lv Maabar Smith for adcrptios o! the toll r'-rin: reaul:etica: P. O:A'iYQa • ' ;; :.�,, :. ": a tract of ::i• . afaaut K ais> the follosrir-a described proportT is at F- Sth LdLitiOU amt Lot 3, 81xic 1. 3oTeCaulay Raight>a. the, ovaar bons requeateed tha subdivisirII of said tract Lnto aeparstss ;', :'; parcels (haerein eallad "Parcels °) described ffia iollt►as: All tbnt part of Lot 3. Block 1. XCCAu1a7 04 hta 8th dlditin. u :tmap!st Cc tq, K1x:n9sata. lying �umth of sa ling de#crib•ad 63 fvllassra: f gygi=i.sa at a mint ors the gabt line of gaiei Lot 3 a 414tc=c of 57.4 fast rtL+ of the lost South vest coraar of acid LOt 3 (gart:3e ;� :,,.,'.;e, .• . 3 degs�aan 36r 13" YA&t aaru*ad bsarir4 of the WO&C lies of said Late 3) . : p..,nt of 0AZj= = :9f tba lino tO be described. thcues Socsth 'I"itie► 37 dwarses 341 27* 3.sest to the Saatuolq litre o! said Ivt 3 trod theta tmpssis�rjr.�, an>i .. All that part of Lot 3, Bl"t-l. xcCaoiay wai ats 2tbs uAitlaxt, Uti:spin h g lie dasarit4d as fo =Iowa: Is G tt;7. �i�tas•rita. lye G*W:'t o a a at a point oa t" Vast 1L•sm of said Lot a a dictanc* of j7.4 foot Roth of the most Southve tC coruar of said Lot 3 Mrt h 3 ds�Y9aes Z6' 13" P&st assumed blaring of the Vogt 1Lna of saki Lox 3) T & gVint cf baginning of th3 line to be deacst•i bad. thasncs South 8T dagrraa 34' 27" Eas e to the P.esttrly liu® of said Iot 3 and those rarsinztiiiL* - Sub jcct tv a dx"r"my maaa"at v-rar the blast 20 feet a�tsteuY . tlirj requVatud subdivislun is Authorized %Meer Cade Section 210 &AA it 'bas L,: *n d6ttra! and that co"li ce vita! the �s+sbdiviaior. and zoning reg"a'ticus of the City of Edi will c_eata as ersaacoaaar7 bardsLip end acid PatCOla as aeparaea t:aesa of leise:d do rot iner:f9ra eith tha ptssr�aas of the aubdivia an eYQ ':saint regulatioaa as cornteaiU&e. in the Ci[Y of EQSria Code Scctioua 280 and Slq; NOS. ron. it es btreby resolved by thee. City CCAUCil of the CLZT o! 8airs► thst the a=rel &ntd atsd °"'warship of the sacwd above described aareaLs as r�sss d! &,,,grate tre:eta of land is hareity apprvvud and t:sa regsjx=Vnta "ad p Code 84ctioas 2SO and $10 are hireby waived to allow aaid divisian add COaTTs %ag thannof a• sepgrate tract• or land, but =11 to the &=*at p+Mitted under Colo 'I OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL- -HELD AT CITY HALL JUNE 20, -1994 ROLLCALL Answering rollcall were Members Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith and Mayor Richards. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS APPROVED Motion was made by Member Smith and was.seconded by Member Kelly to approve and adopt the Council Consent Agenda items as presented. Rollcall: Ayes: Kelly., Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards Motion carried. RESOLUTION OF COMMENDATION ADOPTED - EDINA HIGH SCHOOL 1994 GIRLS' GOLF TEAM Motion of Member Paulus was seconded by Member Kelly and carried unanimously for adoption of a Resolution of Commendation for the Edina High School 1994 Girls' Golf Team. Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards Motion carried. *MINUTES OF THE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 6. 1994, APPROVED Motion was made by Member Smith and was seconded by Member Kelly to approve the minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of June 6, 1994. Motion carried on rollcall vote - five ayes. PUBLIC HEARING HELD; SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT NO. 5 -66 ORDERED (COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT) Affidavits of Notice were presented, approved and ordered placed on file. Presentation by Engineer Engineer Hoffman stated that staff is reviewing all sidewalks in the City for Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance and compliance to City Ordinance 1200 regarding sidewalk maintenance. Staff has completed the ADA requirements relating to curb ramps in the Country Club District. The intention is to repair curb and gutters in the Country Club District next spring prior to sealcoating the streets. Therefore, it would seem prudent to do any needed sidewalk repair this season. The sidewalk panels proposed for replacement were marked earlier and obviously this is a subjective process. Staff believes that at least eighty percent of the , marked panels should be replaced, with the remaining twenty percent being replaced for overall appearance of the District. The City conducts these replacement projects about once per decade so some panels were judged not to be adequate to last the next ten years. This project would be similar to projects completed in 1967, 1973 and 1985 in the Country Club District. Upon examination the condition of the sidewalks were broken into three categories: 1. Mark panels for replacement in violation of Ordinance 1200 (greater than 1/2 inch vertical separation); approximately 40 percent of the panels. 2. Mark panels for replacement which have less than 1/2 inch vertical separation but not even with adjoining panels (approximately 35 - 40 percent). 3. Mark panels for replacement which are cracked, spalled surface or uneven (approximately 20 percent). Most comments by residents have been about these panels. -EXHUNT I Member,Rice introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ORDERING SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT NO. S -66 BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City--of- -Edina, Minnesota, that this Council heretofore caused notice of hearing to be -duly- published and mailed to owners of each parcel within the area proposed to be assessed on the following proposed improvement: SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT NO. S -66 and at the hearing held at the time and place specified in said notice, the Council has duly considered the views of all persons interested, and being fully advised of the pertinent facts, does hereby determine to proceed with the construction of said improvement, including all proceedings which may be necessary in eminent domain for the acquisition of necessary easements and rights for construction and maintenance of such improvement; that said improvement is hereby designated and shall be referred to in all subsequent proceedings as SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT NO. S -66, and the area to be specially assessed therefor shall include all of the Country Club District, Fairway and Brown Sections. Motion for adoption of the resolution was , seconded -by Member Kelly. Rollcall: Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards Motion carried. PARTIAL RELEASE OF CONSERVATION RESTRICTION FOR MARK DALOUIST ADDITION DENIED Affidavits of Notice were presented, approved and ordered placed on file. Presentation by Planner Planner Larsen reminded Council that on February 1, 1993, the Mark Dalquist addition received final plat approval for a four lot subdivision located west of Schafer Road and south of Interlachen Boulevard. At that time the Council imposed a conservation restriction on the plat covering an area 100 feet up from the ordinary high water mark of the two ponds located on the north and south of this property that affected the lots within the subdivision. The City has received a petition requesting a partial release of the conservation restriction, i.e. the upper 50 feet on both sides of the new street designated as open space area, to create more buildable area for each lot. The first 25 feet of the residual 50 foot restriction for each lot would remain as a natural condition area in which nothing could be altered. The second 25 feet for each lot would remain designated as open space area (yard with no buildings). Presentation by Proponent Ron Clark, Ron Clark Construction, Inc., presented a graphic depicting proposed building pads for homes on the four lots in the allowable building area and the difficulty he has experienced in attempting to build on the lots. The partial release of 50 feet of the conservation restriction would allow these lots to become buildable. He explained that the proposed homes (ramblers on the lots off the street and two story homes on the rear lots) are homes they have built over and over again in the last five years and represent the type of homes customers are looking for, but do not fit on these lots. Mr. Clark said that since the plat was approved, they have me.t with 20 - 23 people, of these they have attempted to design homes for nine. When plans are laid out to scale on the buildable area the homes end up undesirable because the rooms are small. He said if these had been four pre- existing lots not subject to the subdivision process a conservation restriction of only 50 feet from the ordinary high water mark would have been required. He observed that in the general vicinity, many homes are sited within 25 to 50 feet of wetland areas. Mr. Clark concluded by stating that all lots in the subdivision exceed the median lot area and run in size from 1.25 to 1.5 acres and in looking at the ratio of building coverage to land there is a lot of room on these lots. Member Rice informed Council that he had inquired of Mr. Clark at a social event how building was going on the Mark Dalquist Subdivision and Mr. Clark had said not well because the buildable areas were too restrictive. Member Rice said he had encouraged Mr. Clark to bring this back-to- Council as he felt it was not the Council's intent to design a subdivision that was - unbuildable. Member Rice said he had anticipated some minor adjustments and was astounded that the conservation restriction release request was for 50 feet which he would not support. Public Comment Ed Glickman, 5217 Schaefer Road, asked Mr. Clark what has changed in the last 16 months. Mr. Clark responded that it was his experience in meeting with approximately 22 potential customers. That area of Edina has a certain "air" about it and to try to sell an 1800 to 2000 square foot home is not what people are looking for there. He said he had made a mistake in thinking he could work with the imposed conservation restriction. Continuing, Mr. Glickman stated he would speak to two issues regarding this petition: procedural and substantive. Procedural - 1) The law for vacation of easements requires that a petition be brought by the majority of the property owners affected by this requested change. The petition was signed by R.E. Clark, Inc. At least five other homeowners who abut the property did not sign the petition. 2) The law also requires 14 days posted and published notice and the notice was posted on .June 10, 1994, four days short of the required time. The notice was published on June 1, 1994 (14 days before the hearing). However, Council met on June 6, to set the public hearing for June 20, 1994. Neighbors who attended the June 6, 1994 meeting gave numerous reasons to-not hold the hearing on June 20, but the Council did set the hearing date for June 20, 1994. He alleged that staff had not followed proper procedure to hear this petition. Substantive - Mr. Glickman quoted from the minutes of the Council meeting of November 16, 1992, "Ron Clark interjected that he understood the Council would not approve the five lot subdivision with variances and would not consider the alternate two lot subdivision at this meeting. He asked if the Council would consider approving the five lot subdivision with no variances as he would be prepared to move forward on that basis." In February, 1993, Council approved the subdivision, subject to a conservation easement. Mr. Glickman said nothing has changed, Mr. Clark has made a bad business decision and it is not the City's place to maximize the developer's profit. The release of this easement does not fall within the purview of the statutes. According to City Attorney Gilligan, conservation easements are governed by the procedure for vacation of streets and alleys. Mr. Glickman submitted that this is not a street or alley that is not being used and the property owner is burdened by it. The conservation easement does not run from Mr. Clark to the City of Edina, it runs to the people of the State of Minnesota. It is to preserve water quality and wildlife; it is not the City's to give away. He argued that it could not conceivably be in the public interest to-do so and urged Council to deny the request. Regarding procedure, Mayor Richards said that if staff proceeded to publish notice of hearing in anticipation of a date the Council may set they did so at their own risk; he clarified that only the Council sets hearing dates. Council has communicated as best they can to give those who would be affected or impacted by a decision ample opportunity to be heard. Mayor Richards said this Council and town has done a good job in that they: 1) do not rush to judgement, 2) do not get hung up on technicalities, and 3) give everyone, regardless of their views, an opportunity to be heard. Patrick Manthei, 6413 Interlachen Boulevard, said a decision must be made, but the issue is the still the same. On June 6, 1994, he had asked to have the public hearing delayed to allow more affected neighbors a chance to attend. He submitted that it was not fair to ask the neighbors to come back to re -hear the same issue. Mr. Manthei recalled that when the plat was being considered Mr. Clark was asked on repeated occasions if he could build in the allotted area and his answer was yes. By allowing this - 50 -foot conservation vacation a precedent would be set so that everyone who-wanted to encroach on a conservation easement would have a right to do so. He concluded that the developer only wants to maximize his profit. _Ted..Pier, 5021 Ridge Road, said he had great respect for the Council's uniform application of law for all citizens of Edina. There have been many prior meetings of the Planning Commission and the Council on exactly the same subject which led up to approval of the subdivision. During the hearings by the Planning Commission there was extensive discussion on how to arrange the lots so there would be no need for.variances. Mr. Clark agreed to no variances and to follow the same set of laws the rest of the citizens of Edina follow. Mr. Pier said there is no legitimate reason for granting the petition and it should be denied. Betsy Robinson, 502.1 Ridge Road, said the proposal Mr. Clark is now presenting is nearly 100 percent bigger than what was originally agreed upon. She said the neighbors should not have to bear the burden of the mistake made by Mr. Clark that this would be highly valuable and profitable property. Ms. Robinson asked the Council to deny the petition and suggested that Mr. Clark consider building fewer homes on the property. Council Action Member Paulus stated she would support the subdivision as previously approved and not grant the partial release of the conservation easement. She said that as a Council Member she represented both residents and proponents and was disturbed by some of the comments that had been. made, i.e. procedure, legality, fairness, vulnerability. She said that it ,took restraint to stay with her original opinion rather than to vote in favor of Mr. Clark because of citizen response. While the established process sometimes takes long hours, she believed in this case it would be a win situation for Edina. Member Paulus said the Council is serious about wetland and natural area protection and has denied requests to encroach on such areas. Although this particular subdivision is difficult it may be telling us that not every parcel of land in Edina is a buildable situation. She reiterated that she would stand by the position taken when the subdivision was approved and would vote for denial of the petition. Member Rice commented that he did not intend for this matter to become this controversial; it was an attempt to talk about the issue. He said he would not support the proposal because he felt it was excessive. Member Rice made a motion to deny the request for partial release of the conservation restriction for the Mark Dalquist Addition. Motion was seconded by Member Paulus. Mavor Richards stated he would not support the total relinquishment of the 100 foot conservation restriction. As to the comment that you can't take this away from the public, he 'submitted that were it not for the action of the Council the conservation restriction would not have been imposed in the first place and what you take you can give. He pointed out'that Mr. Clark's product on other developments has benefitted the City well and the City would end up on the short end if Mr. Clark was forced to build something that would not be similar to what exists in that neighborhood today. A more reasoned approach may be to look at this on a lot by lot basis where some deviation of the 100 foot conversation . restriction may result in an end product all can live with. Member Kelly said she believed the property should be developed in some reasonable fashion, but a 50 foot variance is too much. She said she would support the motion but would not preclude giving Mr. Clark the opportunity to come back with a reasonable development for the property. Mayor Richards then called for vote on the motion. - Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards - Motion carried. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVED FOR LEWIS RIDGE TOWNHOMES (LOT 2, BLOCK 1 AND OUTLOT B. LEWIS RIDGE) Affidavits of Notice were presented, approved and ordered placed on file. Presentation by Planner Planner Larsen presented the request for Final Development Plan and Preliminary Plat approval for the Lewis Ridge Townhomes located on Lot 2, Block 1 and Outlot B, Lewis Ridge Parkway. The subject property is zoned Planned Residence District (PRD -3). The approved zoning anticipated a three story, 54 unit condominium building which would be the mirror image of the existing Lewis Ridge which has not been developed. A proposal has been submitted by a new property. owner which would replace the 54 unit condo building with a 15 unit townhouse development. As a result, the overall density would be reduced to-approximately six units per acre with a net of approximately 5.2 units per acre. Access to the development would be by Lewis Ridge Drive, a private street. It is staff's understanding that necessary easements to utilize this access to service the 15 unit project are in place. The proposed development requests two setback variances. First, unit 12 along the north property line maintains a 30 foot setback where 35 feet is required. All other building setbacks comply with ordinance standards. Second, along the easterly property line, the drive aisle comes within six feet of the property line; ten feet is the required setback. Thus, a five foot building setback variance and a four foot parking setback variance are requested. The proposed exterior materials and landscaping plan meet or exceed ordinance minimums. The buildings will be primarily stucco with brick fronts and wood shake roofs. Two unit types will be constructed, one with 2,720 square feet and the other with 2,880 square feet'of floor area. The proposed use would be consistent with PRD -3 zoning which makes no distinction betwegn townhouses and apartment style condominiums except that townhouses are required to have two enclosed parking spaces. The switch to townhouses would reduce density and would lower the expected trip generation from the site. Staff would support granting the two requested variances. The combination of grade change and landscaping should eliminate any negative impact on adjacent properties. In both cases, the grade on adjacent properties is significantly above the grade on this site. At its meeting on June 1, 1994, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Final Development Plan and Preliminary Plat, subject to: 1) Final Plat _ Approval, 2) Developers Agreement, 3) Watershed District Grading Permit, and (4) Permanent easement for access to Lewis Ridge Parkway. Presentation by Develoner Ron Clark, Ron Clark Construction, commented that on the north side.of the parcel a finger of land comes out to Cahill Road which is the access point for the development which they close not to use because of the terrain. Also, La Chataignier condominiums are immediately to the south and have•a permanent monument there. Mr. Clark said he had met numerous times with the Lewis Ridge Condominium owners and has negotiated and purchased from them an, easement to use July 6, 1994 Mr. Crail? Larson City of Edina 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 Re: Conservation Easement Harold Woods Lane Edina. MN Dear Mr. Larson: CONSTRUCTION. INr 7500 West 78th Sh Edina, Minnesota 55.139 (612) 947 -3000 tax (tilt) 947-3010 Enclosed is a plat of the subject property showing the 100 feet restricted area which was granted to the City of Edina required by the city council upon subdivision of this property. This letter is to request vacation of a portion of the restricted area on two of the lots as shown by hatch marks on the enclosed plat and described as follows: Lot #4 Request a 19 feet vacation which would reduce the restricted area from 100 feet to 81 feet. Lot #5 . Request a 24 feet vacation which would reduce the restricted area from 100 feet to 76 feet: In both cases. the 25 feet Natural Condition Area would remain unchanged and I believe this is the more important restriction to safeguard the ponding areas. I am, in the process of redesigning homes for actual clients that I have been working with on the above two lots. Both clients have made additional floor plan concessions to shape each home so it will best conform to the buildable area. We have made significant progress in limiting the additional space needed for these homes. The 2 lots will be staked prior to the public hearing showing the current 100 feet restricted line as well as the requested vacation area. I hope this will be helpful to view the site constraints first hand and to realize the substantial restricted area that would remain after the granting of this application. I will advise you when the lots have been staked. Si elv. 0,.,— Ronald E. Clark REC /cw Enclosure EX H 161T J Designer/ Builder/ Developer MN Builder License s0001220 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN Edward Glickman and Ann Glickman, Ted Pier and Betsy Robinson, Patrick Mantyh and Ingrid Mantyh Petitioners /Plaintiffs V. Edina City Council, City of Edina, and Ron Clark Construction, Inc., a Minnesota Corporation Respondents / Defendants. DISTRICT COURT FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT Court File No. WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO: Respondents/ Defendants Edina City Council and the City of Edina: You are hearby ordered to return to this Court within 20 days from the date of service hereof the record, exhibits, and all other files and records and proceedings concerning the release of the conservation easement encumbering Lots 1 through 5, Block 1, Mark Dahlquist Adition so that such action may be reviewed by this court. Let the service of this writ and petition be made by a delivery of a copy of the writ and petition, to the Edina City Attorney, on behalf of Respondents /Defendants Edina City Council and City of Edina within the time period prescribed by Minn. Stat. ch. 606, such service is deemed to be sufficient in all respects. � 1: Witness The Honorable Judge of District Court, and the seal thereof this _ day of August, 1994. Judge of District Court STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN DISTRICT COURT FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT Edward W. Glickman, Ted Pier and Betsy Robinson Petitioners /Plaintiffs V. Edina City Council, City of Edina, and Ron Clark Construction, Inc., a Minnesota Corporation Respondents / Defendants Court File No. ALTERNATIVE WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO: Respondents/ Defendants Edina City Council and the City of Edina: Whereas it manifestly appears to the Court by the petition of the Petitioners/ Plaintiffs, the parties beneficially interested herein, that the Respondent/ Defendant City of Edina acted arbitrarily, capriciously, and abused its discretion in releasing a conservation easement running against Respondent/ Defendant Ron Clark Construction Inc. a Minnesota Corporation, and that there is not a pliant, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law: Now, therefore, the Court commands you that immediately upon the receipt of this writ to rescind the August 15, 1994 resolution partially releasing the restriction for conservation purposes encumbering Lots 4 and 5, Block 1, Mark Dahlquist Addition, and make a return to this writ showing you have done so, or that you make a return of this writ pursuant to Minn. Stat. Sect. 586.06 on or before 20 days from the date of service hereof explaining why Exhibit L you have not done so and that you further show cause before this Court, at on 1994 at o'clock, why you have not done so. Witness the Honorable Judge of District Court, and the seal thereof, this day of August, 1994. Order Allowing Writ The within alternative writ of mandamus is hereby allowed, to be heard a a special term of the District court for Hennepin County at on at ; service threof is directed to be made by delivery to and leaving with the edina City Attorny, on behalf of Respondents / Defendants, a copy of said writ, such service is deemed to be sufficient in all respects. Dated: August, 16,1994 Judge of District Court STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN Edward Glickman and Ann Glickman, Ted Pier and Betsy Robinson, Patrick Mantyh and Ingrid Mantyh Petitioners / Plaintiffs V. Edina City Council, City of Edina, and Ron Clark Construction, Inc., a Minnesota Corporation Respondents / Defendants. I. INTRODUCTION DISTRICT COURT FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT Court File No. MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF - PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND ALTERNATIVE WRIT OF MANDAMUS The present petitions seek a writ of certiorari and an alternative writ of mandamus to obtain judicial review of a resolution of the Edina City Council authorizing- the - partial - release -of -a- conservation - restriction, and - the - city's subsequent partial release of the conservation easement. The Edina City Council was acting in an adjudicatory role with respect to the release of the conservation easement. Judicial review of the council's action by certiorari is appropriate under Minn. Stat. ch. 606, and under an alternative writ of mandamus authorized by Minn. Stat. ch 586. In exercising its adjudicatory function the council made several errors of law, including its position that it had legal authority to release the conservation easement under Minn. Stat. 84.64. The Council also erroneously concluded that; a) it did not have to apply its own Variance Ordinance, (Land Use, Platting and Zoning - Variances; Section 810.05 Subd.11_b) it did not have to apply its own Land Dedication Ordinance, (Land Use, Platting -and Zoning - Land Dedication; Section 810.13 Subd. 2), c) ignored two sections of its own Comprehensive Land Use Plan ( Environmental Protection Element and Goals), d) it had no need for factual findings to support their decision to release the conservation easement such as being in the public interest or, indeed, any other legally sufficient reason, and e) accepting the reasoning that economic benefit of a developer is sufficient justification. II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND In April, 1992, David Scall, Mark Dahlquist and Ron Clark Construction Inc. a Minnesota Corporation formed CDS Partners and sought approval from the Edina City Council to subdivide and subsequently develop a ten (10) acre parcel of land that was to become known as Lots 1 through 5, ,Block 1, Mark Dahlquist Addition located at Harold Woods Lane and Schaefer Road in Northwest Edina. All five lots abut two small ponds. On seven (7) different public hearings in front of the Edina Planning Commission (4/20/92,5/27/92, and 10/28/92) and the Edina City Council (7 / 20 / 92, 9 / 8 / 92, 10 / 5 / 92, and 11 / 16 / 92) Clark sought a variance from the Land Dedication Ordinance which mandates a 100' perpetual conservation easement surrounding the water about new subdivisions. Each and every time he was denied a variance because of failure to meet the six (6) criteria set forth in the Variance Ordinance. On November 16, 1992, at the Edina City Council meeting Mayor Richards stated: "He would not support the approval of the four lot subdivision with the requested variances." Council Member Paulus stated: " ... historically the council has denied variances from the 100 foot [conservation] easement." Clark stated that he agreed to "move forward' subject to the condition of the 100' conservation easement. Subsequently on December 21,1992 preliminary plat approval was given with the condition of the 100' conservation easement. On February 1, 1993 final plat approval for the Mark Dahlquist Addition was granted by the Edina City Council subject to an: "executed and recorded conservation easement" Said easements appear as dedications on the recorded plat. On June 20, 1994, Clark applied to the City of Edina for a partial release of a conservation restriction as it related to Lots 2 through 5, Block 1, Mark Dahlquist Addition. The sole basis for Clark's requested relief was that "he had made a mistake in thinking he could work with the imposed conservation easement" and as such could not sell the lots with such small building pads. The Edina City Council denied the application unanimously. On August 15, 1994, Clark applied to the City of Edina for a partial release of the restriction for conservation purposes as it relates to Lots 41and 5. Block 1, .Mark Dahlquist Addition This time the basis for Clark's request was that he had two "actual clients "who needed the additional space. Clark paid no consideration for the release. There was no finding of public purpose for the release. The Edina City Council approved the application unanimously. III. THE COURT SHOULD ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO REVIEW THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL'S RESOLUTION. A writ of certiorari in the district court is authorized by Minn. Stat. ch 606 as a means of obtaining judicial review of actions taken by public bodies or public officials. See generall y Mc Farland & Keppel, Minnesota Civil Practice Sect. 2731(2d ed.1990). Certiorari is most appropriate in cases, such as the present, to review " a quasi - judicial proceedings presenting a legal question." White Bear Rod & Gun Club v. City of Hugo. 388 N.W. 2d 739,742 (Minn. 1986). Here, neither the Minnesota Statutes nor the Edina Ordinances provides any mechanism for seeking judicial review of a city council resolution. The judicial review procedures of the Administrative Procedures Act also do not apply, since the City of Edina does not constitute-an "agency" within_the meaning of the APA. See Minn. Stat. Sect. 14.02 Subd. 2. The issues presented in the petition for certiorari are primarily legal in nature, such as whether the city had authority under law to release the conservation easement under Minn. Stat. Sect 84.64 and ignore its own Land Dedication and Variance Ordinances and Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Thus, a writ of certiorari under Minn. Stat. Sect. 606.01 should be issued as an appropriate means of reviewing the Edina City Council Resolution. IV. A WRIT OF ALTERNATIVE MNDAMUS SHOULD ISSUE COMPELLING RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS TO RESCIND THE RELEASE OF THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT Petitioners/ Plaintiffs also request that a writ of alternative mandamus under Minn. Stat. ch. 586 issue to compel Respondents/ Defendants to revoke the release of the conservation easement issued by the City of Edina. Mandamus is also an appropriate writ to seek judicial review of the decision of a local official or government body. A writ of mandamus may be issued to a local unit of government to compel performance of a duty. Minn. Stat. Sect. 586.01 provides: the writ of mandamus may be issued to any inferior tribunal, corporation, board or person to compel the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as an duty resulting from an office, trust, or station. It may require an inferior tribunal to exercise its judgment or proceed to the discharge of any of its function, but it cannot control judicial discretion. While a mandamus proceeding is not ordinarily employed to seek review of the decision of a local government body, since it is usually not issued to control the exercise of discretion by local official, it may be so used where the local official or government body has acted arbitrarily, capriciously or unreasonably. Curtis Oil v City of North Branch 364 N.W. 2d 880 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985). In CUM v. Young 285 Minn. 387, 394,173 N.W. 2d 410,414 (1969) the Minnesota Supreme Court discussed the role of mandamus; This Court has repeatedly held, as have other courts, that mandamus will not lie to control the excersise of discretion of municipal and other governmental bodies or boards, having the duty of making decisions involving judgment and discretion but that such remedy will lie in those cases, among others, where such boards or bodies have acted arbitrarily, caprici_oussly or r aSnnably. Id. ( quoting State Ex. rel. Gopher Sales Co V City of Austin 246 Minn. 514, 518. 75 N.W.2d 780, 783 (1956)). See also State ex rel. Lewis v City Council of Minneapolis. 140 Minn. 433, 434, 168 N.W. 188 (1918) (action of city council that is "purely arbitrary or [is] predicated on a ground not warrented by law ... issubject to direction by the court and mandamus should issue. "); Minneapolis- Honev-%vell Remulator Co. v. Nadasy. 76 N.W. 2d 671, 673 (1956) (mandamus appropriate where municipality's refusal to issue a building permit was based on the village council's incorrect interpretation of controlling law); Curtis Oil, supra (city's denial of a rezoning application was arbitrary and, therefore, the trial court did not err by granting a writ of mandamus requiring the city to rezone the property). In this case, the Edina City Council acted arbitrarily annd capriciously by ignoring the requirements of its own Land Use, Platting and Zoning Ordinaces; 1) Land Dedication, which mandates a perpetual 100' set back from water in new subdivisions, 2) Variances, by releasing a perpetual easement under authority other than their variance requirements, 3) Comprehensive Land Use Plan; by compromising the integrety of the city's ground water against their own plan. The Edina City Council also acted arbitrarily and capriciously in concluding that they; 1) had authority to release a conservation easement under Minn. Stat. Section 84.64 and not take into account the mandatory provisions of their own Ordinances, 2) had no need to make factual findings to support their release of the conservation easement, such as a public purpose for the release, and 3) could base their decision to sell based on the submission of Clark that he needed the release for economic considerations. Accordingly, mandamus is an appropriate means of challanging the Edina City Council's resolution. The procedures for the Court's consideration of a petition for an alternative writ of mandamus are provided by statute. A copy of Minn. Stat. ch 586 is attatched. The Court, in its writ, identifies a date for the submission of a return by the respondent. Minn. Stat. Section 586.03. The return by the respondent may take the form of an answer as in regular civil action. The writ also provides the respondent with two alternatives, hence the name "alternative" writ of mandamus: respondent may either do the requested act and so certify to the Court or it may, on a specified hearing date, show cause why it has not done so. Minn. Stat. Section 586.12. Petitioners/ Defendants suggest that the hearing take place concurrently with the hearing on the petition for a writ of certiorari requesting the same relief - an order of the Court directing the Respondents/ Defendants to rescind or revoke the release of the conservation easement. V. CONCLUSION. For the reasons stated above, The Court should issue its writs of certiorari and alternative mandamus to review the resolution of the Edina City Council releasing the conservation easement. Dated: August 16, 1994 Respectfully submitted Judson D. Jones (#52516) Law Center Building 1625 Park Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55404 612 - 332 -8611 Attorney for Petioners /Plaintiffs r additional and case for cases MANDAMUS § 586.01 Rules of Civil Procedure The ii-rit of mandamus was abolished by Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 81.01(2), effective July 1, 1959. Relief formerly available under the writ was obtainable by appropriate action or motion corder the rules. The tt•rit of mandamus it-as restored by the amendment of the Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 81.01(2) and Appendix A, effective February 1, 1968. Chapter 586 of the Alimcesota Statutes will control procedure for the issuance of the writ. See notes following Rule 81.01(2) and Appendix .4. Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure Chapter 5S6 is superseded with respect to appellate practice and procedure by the Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure, effective February 1, 1968. See Rules 120, 147.02, and Appendix A. Rule 147.02 aped Appendix A, pertaining to statutes superseded by the Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure, ivere not included in those rules as revised in 1983. 586.01. Issuance of writ, judicial discretion not controlled The writ of mandamus may' be issued to any- inferior tribunal, corporation, board, or person to compel the performance of an act which the law specially enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station. It may require an inferior tribunal to exercise its judgment or proceed to the discharge of anv of its functions, but it cannot control judicial discretion. County boards, redistricting, see § 375.025. Courts. writs directed to, see Rules Civ.App.Proe., Rules 120. 121. Employment and economic development, enforcement of orders, see § 26S.673. General assistance, compelling payments, see § 256D.13. Fees, Appellate courts, see § 357.08; Rules Civ.App.Proc., Rule 121.03. District courts, see § 357.021. Insurance holding companies, see § 60D.12. Jurisdiction, see § 484.03. Municipal tcmporarV improvement bonds. remedy of holders, see § 429.091. Occupational safety and health, serious and imminent dangers, see § 182.662. Power to issue mandamus, see § 480.04. Tull bridges, remedy of holders, sec § 431.55. Veterans, enforcing rights to preference in civil service, see §§ 197.355, 197.36. Zoning and planning, Counties, see § 394.37. 175 Historical Note Derivation: Gen.St.IS93, §§ 5974, 5975. St.1927, § 9722. Gcn.St.I878, c. 80, §§ I, 2. Gen.St.1923, § 9722. Gen.St.1S66, c. 80, §§ I, 2. Gen.St.1913, § 5266. Pub.St.1S58. c. 73. § 3. Rcv.Laws 1905. § 4556. Rev.St. (Tcrr.) c. 53, § 3. Cross References County boards, redistricting, see § 375.025. Courts. writs directed to, see Rules Civ.App.Proe., Rules 120. 121. Employment and economic development, enforcement of orders, see § 26S.673. General assistance, compelling payments, see § 256D.13. Fees, Appellate courts, see § 357.08; Rules Civ.App.Proc., Rule 121.03. District courts, see § 357.021. Insurance holding companies, see § 60D.12. Jurisdiction, see § 484.03. Municipal tcmporarV improvement bonds. remedy of holders, see § 429.091. Occupational safety and health, serious and imminent dangers, see § 182.662. Power to issue mandamus, see § 480.04. Tull bridges, remedy of holders, sec § 431.55. Veterans, enforcing rights to preference in civil service, see §§ 197.355, 197.36. Zoning and planning, Counties, see § 394.37. 175 t. I li I ill ,i. i l: I. jI -1 I j I i ll 1l� lit r =11 f �t� +lei 1 � i I� ti iY '1 =Ili § 586.01 Note 112 % %,here theretofore propene had not been occu. pied as homestead, in absence of timly e de- mand for assessment asn,omestcad on asses- sor, local board of review, or county board of equalization. State ex rel. Hendrickson V. Strom, 1936, 193 Minn. 173. 269 N.W. 371. MANDAMUS 113. Zonine and planning, subjects and pur. poses of relief Rights of plaintiffs to variance from setback requirements of zoning ordinance could be de- termined and enforced in single action, wheth. er it be called mandamus or mandator_• injunc- tion. Curry v. Young, 1969, 285 ,Minn. 3S7, 173 NAV.2d 410. 586.02. Issuance on information The writ shall issue on the information of the party beneficially interested, but it shall not issue in any case where there is a plain, speedy, and adequate remedv in the ordinary course of law. Derivation: Si.1927. § 9723. Gen.S1.1923, § 9723. Gen.Si.1913, § S267. Rev. Laws 1905. § 4;57. Historical Note Gen.St.I894, § 5976. Gen.St.137S..c. S0, § 3. Gen.St.IS66, c. S0, § 3. Pub. St. IS5$. c. 7i, § 5, Rc %.Si. (Terr.), c. 83. § 5. Cross References COL" Is. "rits directed to, see RUICS Civ.App.Proc.. Rules 120, 121. Laic Review Commentaries Judicial icvic%v by means of extraordinary Zoning and the law of eminent domain:. remedies in Alinnrsota. Stephan A. Riesen- Minnesota adopts the enterprise- arbitration feld, John A. Bauman, and Richard C. %tax. test. 1981, 3 Win. Mitchell L.Rev. 781. well. May. June 1949, 33 Minn. Law Rcview 570, 685. Library References Mandamus 43(1). C.J.S. Mandamus § 17 et seq. WESTLAW Electronic Research See WESTLAW Electronic Research Guide following the Preface. Notes of Decisions Amendment of Information 14 Title to and possession of office 8 Appeal as an adequate remedy 3 Corporations 10 County officers and boards 6 Elections 9 Existence and adequacy of other remedy Information and belief 13 Municipal officers and boards 7 Nature and existence of rights to be protect ed or enforced 4 Party beneficially Interested 1 Railroads I1 State officers and boards 5 Taxation 12 1. Partv beneficially Interested If petitioner cannot show with certainty that 2 it is beneficially interested party in action to compel government official to perform duty, then it does not have standing for mandamus. Friends of Animals & Their Environment (FATE) v. Nichols. App.1984, 350 NAV.2d 489. Plaintiff, as a resident and taxpayer of the Town of Canosia and,St. Louis County, had an interest in ensuring that the town zoning ordi- nances were enforced, which was sufficient to 196 Al 2. PI: not :- tour: out t ....US I MANDAMUS _ - § 586.03 Note .2 77, Gil ailway proper Id suit - wherc t iously h cross - late ex sfcr R. I.. R.A. sold as 1 ludCd ,lilllll L' idol to .t -n Iax n Ihcir !laic of 1,1d an unJCI Ilanu �ckson. .cn on the Must be MICn1 is Ic and to can- e. Dis- U9, 108 rrC the Isonal such City \V. 793, L c its "")CI, to I'll and nolhcr ,If IhC %linnc. ,88, 39 586.03. Alternative or peremptory writ, contents The writ of mandamus is either alternative or peremptory. The alternative writ shall state concisely the facts showing the obligation of the defendant to perform the act, and the defendant's ornission so to do, and command the defendant that immediately after the receipt of a copy of the writ, or at some other specified time, the defendant do the required act, or show cause before the court out of which the writ issued, at a specified time and place, «•hy the defendant has not done so, and that the defendant then and there make a return to the writ, with a certificate thereon of having done as commanded. The peremptory writ shall be in similar form, except that the words requiring defendant to shoe- cause shall be ornitted. amended by Lays 1986, c. 444. Historical Note Derivation: Gen.St.1878, c. S0, § 4. St.1927. § 9724. I.atcs IS75. c. 63, § 1. Gen.St,1923. § 9724. Gcn.St.1866, c. 80, § 4. Gcn.St.1913, § 8268. Rev,l.a,.%s 1905. § 4;58. Pub.St.1558, e. 73. § 6. Rey.Sl. (Tenn), c. S3, 6. Gcn.S1. 1 Sao, § So77� § Cross References Courts, %%I its directed to, sec Rules Civ.App.Proe.. Rules 120, 121. Law Review Commentaries Appealable orders, prohibition, and manda- fold, John A. Bauman, and Richard C. Max - mus in Minnesota. Nov. 1966. 51 Minn. Law well. May, June 1949, 33 Minn. Law Review Review I1_. 570, 635. Judicial review by means of extraordinary remedies in Minncsota. Stephan A. Riesen- Llbrary References Mandamus al, 160(1), 182. C.J.S. Mandamus §§ I et seq., 313 ct seq. Notes of Decisions Defenses 7 Demurrer 6 Form and contents of writ 2 Nature of writ 1 Notice 4 Return 5 Subjects and purposes of relief 3 I. Nature of writ A writ of mandamus to command Commis. sioner of Highways to take appropriate action to bring about condemnation proceedings rela- tive to certain land owned by petitioners was a "civil action" which gave Commissioner an op- portunity to answer and set up either that the land teas not damaged or that the state pro- posed to remedy or had remedied the construc- tion %%hich caused the damage, and therefore that it did not seek to acquire an casement or title. State ex rel. Schmitt y. Hoffmann, 1951, 233 Minn. 186, 46 NAV.2d 468. 2. Form and contents of writ The mandate of a writ of mandamus to corn pet an electric light company to furnish service should be merely that the respondent must furnish the service, without specifying the manner in which the duty is performed. State t. Consumers' Powcr Co., 1912, 119 Minn. 225, 01 I DAMUS d for, the v. Olson, us to the I him to I case on ,se having ;ettlemcnt rt forth a case, nor variance e alicrna- case, and iad been hould be IcDonald. relator is the trust. asurer of of mon- is in his but not amount .In er has ii school :id to the :I-,I, %kith reasurer. :ge a de- land the Is of the ufficient rict trea. moneys Ind then s order. �jil. 406. :s on its :c books or prop. ould be _cs and :t is not I. G. M. 9.36, 222 cc mor. v. Bau- _'3. :nd can - moncv, had in MANDAMUS education to reduce salary whenever it deemed necessary, promise of board when reducing stipulated salary that, if more moncv came from delinquent tax collections than estimated %khen reduction was made, such excess would be distributed pro rata to teachers was without consideration, precluding use of mandamus to compel board to distribute excess actually ac- cruing. Id. Where city ordinance directed railroad to depress its tracks at intersection with certain street and care• the street over the tracks by a bridge, and it appeared that if the depression %%as made it would be necessary to separate the grade at other crossings at parallel streets and the ordinance made no such direction and did not declare the necessity nor make a plan, the ordinance was insufficient basis upon which to sustain mandamus proceeding to compel rail- road to depress its tracks. State ex rel. City of St. Paul V. Chicago. M. & St. P. Rv. Co., 1916. 135 Minn. 277, 160 N.W. 773. L.R.A.1917C, 117-4. In mandamus proceedings to compel a rail - ay corporation to bride its uacks %%here they cross a public sweet. the a ial Court. upon the hearing of a return to an alici natiyc writ is sued under this section may determine from the evidence what plan ought to be adopted to best accomplish the desired object, and may entirely disregard plans and specifications for such a bridge, made a. part of said writ, and may order the bridge to be constructed in accordance with new plans and specifications: and, for the purpose of determining the kind of a bridge to be built, may have expert cyidence on the subject. State c% rel. Citv of Duluth V. St. Paul & D.R. Co., 1599, 75 Minn. 473. 7S N. W. 87. 4. Notice Under the rule of the supreme court which provides that notice of an application for a peremptory writ of mandamus must be given to the defendant, on an application without notice thc' moving papers must be so full and explicit as to cut off ever• possibility of a valid excuse being made for refusal to do the act sought to be enforced. Harkins v. Sencerbox. 1858, 2 Minn. 344. Gil. 297: Harkins v. Board of Sup'rs of Scott County, IS58, 2 Minn. 3.32. Gil. 294. The fact that the denial of a peremptory writ in the first instance would involve great hard- ship is no ground for its granting without no- 586.04. Peremptory writ § 586.04 lice to respondent, where a clear and incontro. vertible case is not presented. Home Ins. Co. v. Schcffcr, IS67. 12 Minn. 352, Gil. 261. The rule of the supreme court which pro- vides that, on application for a peremptory writ of mandamus, notice of the application must be given to defendant. will be adhered. to in all cases save where the duty sought to be enforced is very clear, and public or private rights will be jeopardized by delay. Harkins v. Board of Sup'rs of Scott County, IS58. 2 Minn. 342, Gil. 204. 5. Return Where candidate for office of police chief brought mandamus action to compel mayor and city council to appoint him, and alicrna- tivc writ Was made returnable 1%ko days after issuance and counsel for respondents asked for several days in which to plead, but court did not rule on the motion, and no motion for judgment on the pleadings %vas or could Kaye been made and there was no evidence adduced to support allegations of the petition, a judg. ment rendered would be rc%crsed, State cx icl. Brenner v. Hodapp, 1950. 230 Minn. 20S. I NAV 2d 18S. Where candidate for office of police chief brought mandamus action to compel mayor and city council to appoint him, but on return days respondents' counsel asked for two or three days within which to plead and no emer- gency was invoked and court did not rule on the motion, action was neither in default nor at issue, and a motion for judgment on the pleadings could not have been entertained. Id. Demurrer Under this section and §§ 556.06 to 586.08, the respondent may demur to the petition and alternative writ in a mandamus case. State v. Cook. 1912, 119 Minn. 407, 138 N.W. 432, Ann. Cas.191413, S8. 7. Defenses Whether a particular act or thing required by public authorities in exercise of police power is arbitrary and unreasonable is a judicial ques- tion and may be raised by the person proceed- ed against by wav of defense in mandamus proceeding to compel performance of the thing required. State cx rel. City of Minneapolis v. Minneapolis St. Ry. Co., 1953, 238 Minn. 218, 56 N.W.2d 564. 'ontract When the right to require the performance of the act is clear, and it is -card of apparent that no valid excuse for nonperformance can be given, a peremptory 203 - I § 586.04 111ANDA11US writ may be allowed in the first instance. In all other cases the alternative writ shall first issue. Historical Vote Derivation: Gcn.Si.IS94, § 5978. St.1927. § 9725. Gen.St.187S, c. 80, § 5. Gen.St.1923, § 9725. Gen.St.1866, e. S0, § 5. Gen.St.1913, § 8269. Pub.St.1858, c. 73. § 7. Res'.L3% %s 1905, § 4559. Rev.St. (Terr.), c. S3, § 7. Cross References Courts. %grits directed to, see Rules Ciy.App.Proc.. Rules 120, 121. Mandamus a 18 0. CJ.S.Mandamus § 3.73 ct seq. Conditions precedent 3 Issuance I Nature of acts to be performed Review 4 Library References Notes of Decisions do. Clark v. 13uc11. -roan. IS ;S. 2 . %linn. 3:6, Gil. 2aS. 2 1. Issuance The peremptory w ly writ on i,sucs, in the first instance. %%here the moving papers preclude the possibiliiv of any valid c.�cuse brine con- sistent with the facts therein contained.- Har. kins y. Senccrio.c, 1858, 2 Minn. 344, Gil. 297; Harkins y. Board of Supervisors of Scott Co., 1858. 2 Minn. 342, Gil. 294. Under this section, a percmpton• writ %sill not be granted if any of the facts relied upon in the application arc disputable. Home Ins. Co. V. Schcffer. IS67, 12 Minn. 3S2. Gil. 261. The granting of a peremptory writ of manda- mus in the first instance sliould only be upon a state of unquestionable facts. Icaying no room for doubt as to the right to compel tl:e per- formance of the act sought to be compelled. and %khere it is manifest that no valid excuse for nonperformance can be gi%cn. Id. 2. Nature of acts to be performed A writ of mandamus will not lie to compel an officer to do an act, x%hich syithout its command, it would not be lawful for him to 3. Conditions precedent % %here party had not complied kith district court rule requiring a party moving for chance of venue to do so %%ith clue diligence, petition for peremptory �crit of mandamus to compel dljll'ICI court judge to erant motion for change of %cnue was denied. Roper y. Interstate Pow - cr Co.. 1943. 213 Minn. =97, 6 N. %%'.2d 625. Peremptory mandamus granted ex party on Petition of relator. %%ithout previous opportuni- ty afforded to board of county commissioners, Mho %ycre respondents. to be heard, command. ing board to consider and determine matters alleged in petition for removal of county scat, irrespective of matter of notice, %vas erroneous. State cx rrl. Nicolin y. Board of County Corn - missioncrs, IS90, 42 Minn. 2S4, 44 ,iNAV. 64. 4. Review The granting of writs of peremptory manda- mus being, as provided by § 5S6.11, within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the district court, all order refusing an application for such writ is appealable, though made by the judge at chambers. State y. Churchill, 1370, 15 Minn. 455, Gil. 369. 586.05. Writ; court order; service Writs of mandamus shall be issued upon the order of the court or judge, which shall designate the return dav, and direct the manner of service thereof, and service of the same shall be by copies of the writ, order allowing the same, and petition upon which the writ is granted. 204 1NDAAiUS I ,MANDAMUS - § 586.06 alternative nn. 346• Gil ,pith district for chance Ice, petition a to compel :i for change crS131C Pow - v. %V.2d 625. ex partc on s opportuni- •imissioners, 1. command - ine matters county seat, s erroneous. ounty Com. ;4 N.W. 6.3. ,ory manda. Within the [lie district lication for lade by the ,ill, 1870, 15 or judge, F service allowing I Notes of Decisions Service 2 Validity I 1. Validity I "ovision in this section that court allo%%ine mandamus shall direct manner of set inc it is not insalid. State \. Adams Lip. Co.. IS96, 66 Minn. 271. 6S NAY. 1085. 38 L.R.A. 225. 2. Service An order of the court or judge granting an alternative writ of mandamus, that it be served as by law provided, by copy, \%as a sufficient compliance with this section. State v. Brother- hood of American Yeomen. 1910, 111 Minn. 39, 126 NAV. 404. At common law the courts have always pos- sessed the right and authority to direct the 586.06. Answer manner of scrvicc of writs of mandamus, and �%i[h respect to service upon private corrora. lions the rule has been that scrvicc should be made on the head officer or -upon the select body or person %kithin the corporation %%hose province it is to put in motion the mnchincry necessary to secure performance of the duty. State es rel. Railroad d, Warehouse Coniunis- sion y. Adams Express Co_, IS96. 66 :Minn. 271, 68 N.W. 1085, 3S L.R.A. 225. The common -law rule that service of tyrits of mandamus may be made on private corpora- tions by service on the head officer, or on the select body or person within the corporation whose province it is to put in motion the ma- chinery necessary to secure performance of the duty, is applicable to a joint -stock association. Id. On the return day of the alternative writ, or such further day as the court shall allow, the party upon whom the writ is served may show cause by answer made in the same manner as an answer to a complaint in a civil action. Derivation: St.1927, § 9727. Gen.St.1923. § 9727. Gcn.St.1913, § 8271. Rcv.Laws 1905, § 4561. Historical Note Gen.St.1894, § 5980. Gen.St.1878, c. S0, § 7. Gen.St.1866, c. S0, § 7. Pub.St.1858, c. 73, § 9. Rcv.St. (Terr.), c. 83, § 9. Cross References Courts, writs directed to, see Rules Civ.App.Proc., Rules 120, 121. 381039 M &A.-8 205 Historical Note Derivation: Gen.St.1894, § 5979. St.1927, § 9726. Gen.St.1878, c. 80, § 6. Gen.St.1923, § 9726. Laws 1875, c. 68, § 2. Gen.St.1913, § 8270. Gen.St.1866, c. 80, § 6. Lays 1909, c. 408, § 1. Pub.St.1858, c. 73, § 8. Rc \,.La%% -s 1905, § 4560. Rev.St. (Terr.), c. 83, § 8. Cross References Courts, writs directed to, see Rules Civ.App.Proc., Rules 120, 121. District courts, power to issue %%rits of mandamus, sec § 48.1.03. Supreme court, power to issue tyrits of mandamus, sec § 480.04. Library References Mandamus x160(1), 182. C.J.S. Mandamus § 313 et seq. Notes of Decisions Service 2 Validity I 1. Validity I "ovision in this section that court allo%%ine mandamus shall direct manner of set inc it is not insalid. State \. Adams Lip. Co.. IS96, 66 Minn. 271. 6S NAY. 1085. 38 L.R.A. 225. 2. Service An order of the court or judge granting an alternative writ of mandamus, that it be served as by law provided, by copy, \%as a sufficient compliance with this section. State v. Brother- hood of American Yeomen. 1910, 111 Minn. 39, 126 NAV. 404. At common law the courts have always pos- sessed the right and authority to direct the 586.06. Answer manner of scrvicc of writs of mandamus, and �%i[h respect to service upon private corrora. lions the rule has been that scrvicc should be made on the head officer or -upon the select body or person %kithin the corporation %%hose province it is to put in motion the mnchincry necessary to secure performance of the duty. State es rel. Railroad d, Warehouse Coniunis- sion y. Adams Express Co_, IS96. 66 :Minn. 271, 68 N.W. 1085, 3S L.R.A. 225. The common -law rule that service of tyrits of mandamus may be made on private corpora- tions by service on the head officer, or on the select body or person within the corporation whose province it is to put in motion the ma- chinery necessary to secure performance of the duty, is applicable to a joint -stock association. Id. On the return day of the alternative writ, or such further day as the court shall allow, the party upon whom the writ is served may show cause by answer made in the same manner as an answer to a complaint in a civil action. Derivation: St.1927, § 9727. Gen.St.1923. § 9727. Gcn.St.1913, § 8271. Rcv.Laws 1905, § 4561. Historical Note Gen.St.1894, § 5980. Gen.St.1878, c. S0, § 7. Gen.St.1866, c. S0, § 7. Pub.St.1858, c. 73, § 9. Rcv.St. (Terr.), c. 83, § 9. Cross References Courts, writs directed to, see Rules Civ.App.Proc., Rules 120, 121. 381039 M &A.-8 205 AUS 'ion of to con - agreed .-operly school such a istrict's all its tonally C. and Id. infor! suffi. Iamus. Minn. cnee. ticipal i of a .it the duly ?y the of the the the ops at levant Cit}, e pas - :s was ,)rs of idant, td af. i, arc to a 94, 53 -ie de- ice to n the iciest r has an is- -ham. Gil. MANDAMUS 4. Demurrer In mandamus proceeding by stockholder of trust company to compel inspection of comps. ny's books and records, company's answer at- tempting to allege future intended harm as a prediction or inference based on past and present instances of such harm %vas dcmurra- ble, where allegations of answer relative to future as well as past and present conduct on part of company and officers and stockholders related to acts in themselves proper or consist- ed of mere conclusions. State ex rel. G. N1. Gustafson Co. v. Crookston Trust Co., 1946, 222 Minn. 17, 22 NAV.2d 911. An answer attempting to set forth that a stockholder seeking inspection did not do so in good faith for a proper purpose but for the improper purpose of doing harm to corpora- tion, and consisting of allegations which either did not constitute defensive hatter or were mere conclusions of law was demurrable. Id. In mandamus proceeding by stockholder of trust company pay to compel inspection of trust curnpanv's books and records, allegations in corporations answer relating to stockholder's disturbing and disrupting compam's business and discouraging company's customers from doing business with trust company and relat- ing to stockholder's lack of good faith in seek- ing inspection were mere conclusions of law rendering the answer demurrable. Id. The answer of the defendant street raihvav in a mandamus proceeding instituted by the city of St. Paul to require it to extend its line sufficiently presented the question of reason- § 586.07 ableness as against demurrer. State v. St. Paul City Ry. Co., 1913, 122 Minn. 163, 1.32 NAV. 136. The respondent may demur to the petition and alternative writ in a mandamus case. State v. Cook. 1912, 119 Minn. 407, 13S N.W. 432. Ann.Cas.1914B, SS. 5. Set -off and counterclaim In mandamus by the state to compel a coun. ty treasurer to pay over taxes collected for the state• the treasurer cannot plead, by wav of set -off or counterclaim, that other tnonev for. merly collected by the treasurer had been lost through the failure of banks in which deposit- ed, and that notwithstanding such loss the amount had been paid to the state in the expec- tation that the loss would be made good by the banks and their bondsmen, as such ,set -off or counterclaim has no connection with the sub- ject- matter of the mandamus proceedings, and as the state does not, by instituting a suit• consent chat demands may be made against it other than those connected "ith the subject - matter thereof. State % H0193tc. 1909, 107 Minn. 71. 119 N.W. 792. 6. Estoppel Although representative of citl government advised applicant for food license that applica- tion %kas refused, because of certain reason, in mandamus proceedings, city was not prevent- ed thereby from pleading and relying on all its reasons. State v. Citv of Minneapolis, 1925, 16.3 Minn. 49, 204 NAV. 632. 586.07. Default; new matter in answer; demurrer If no answer is made, a peremptory mandamus shall be allowed a,,ainst the defendant. If an answer is made, containing ne%v matter, the plaintiff Inav demur thereto,, or, on the trial or other proceedings, may make any valid objection to its sufficiency, or may rebut it by evidence either in direct denial or by way of avoidance. Amended by Laws 1956, c. 444. Derivation: S1.1927, § -9728. Gen.St.1923. § 9728. Gen.St.1913. § 8272. Rev-Laws 1905. § 4562. Historical Note Gen.St.1894, § 5981. Gcn.St.IS78, c. 80, § 8. Gcn.St.1866, c. 80. § S. Pub.St.1858, c. 73. § 10. Rcv.St. (Terr.), c. 83, § 10. Cross References Costs on demurrer or motion, see Code of Rules for District Courts, Pt. I, Rule 7. Courts, writs directed to, see Rules Civ.App.Proc., Rules 120, 121. 207 0 1 I I tl �I 'I C �.I I., :III t} I.f t� I I� }ICI :III' `I!k' .11ll �I I ( f § 586.07 Library References Vandamus x165, 172, I8I(3). C.J.S. Mandamus § 297 ct scq. Dotes of Decisions Demurrer I Judgment or order 3 Reply 2 Vacating default judgment 4 1. Demurrer In mandamus proceedings, respondent's dc- mu-cr should have been to petition and ahcr- na:i%c %yrii rather than merely to the petition. Stare ex rel. Stenzel y. Kreger, 1941. 210 Minn. 509, 299 N.W. 2. .y demurrer in mandamus proceeding sca,c : :es all preceding pleadings. State ex rel. \'elect y. liardstone Brick Co. of Little Falls, JQ27. 172 Minn. 32S. 215 N.\ \'. IS6. 2. Reply ; : :ceations of ans%%er in mandamus stand as If cc::icd tyithout reply. State y. Youngquist, 1S >. 178 .Minn. 442. 227 N.W. S91. 3. Judgment or order % %hcre candidate for office of police chief brought mandamus action to compel mayor and city council to appoint him, and alterna- tive urit was made returnable two days after issuance and counsel for respondents asked for sc%cral days in which to plead, but court did not rule on the motion, and no motion for judgment on the pleadings was or could have been made and there was no evidence adduced to support allegations of the petition, a judg- ment rendered would be reycrscd. State cx 586.08. Pleadings, issues, trial MANDAMUS rcl. Brenner v. Hodapp, 1950, 230 Minn. 20S, 41 N.W.2d 188. Where candidate for office of police chief brought mandamus action to compel mayor and city council to appoint him, but on return day respondents' counsel asked for two or three days within which to plead and no emer- bency was involved and court did not rule on the motion, action was neither in default nor at issue, and a motion for judgment on the pleadings could not have been entertained. Id. A motion for judgment upon the return to an alternative writ of mandamus may be made at the place the writ is made returnable. State y. City of Waseca, 1911, 116 Minn. 40, 133 N.W. 67. 4. Vacating default judgment \ \'here district court in granting motion to %acate default ,judgment against counn• %kas convinced that a meritorious defense on the merits existed, the countv's failure to set forth with particularity the nature of the defense was determinative, and licnce supreme court % %ould remand entire matter to district court to allow its consideration of the defense in rela- tion to the merits of the petition for %%rit of mandamus: in addition, the district court must evaluate petitioner's assertion that the panicu- lar tract of land had been classified inconsist- ently as residential for purposes of assessment and as agricultural for zoning purposes. Thompson v. Spring Lake Tp., 1977. 257 N.W. 2d 388. No pleading or written allegation, other than the writ, answer, and demur. rer, shall be allowed. They shall be construed and amended, and the issues tried, and further proceedings had, in the same manner as in a civil action. The demurrer need not be noticed for argument, but the issues raised thereby may be disposed of as are other objections to the pleadings. Derivation: St.1927, § 9729.. Gen.St.1923, § 9729. Gen.Sl.1913. § 8273. Rev.Laws 1905. § 4563. Historical Note b1: Gen.St.1894, § 5982. Gen.St.1878, c. 80. § 9. Gen.St.1866, c. 80. § 9. Pub.St.1858, c. 73, § IL Rev.St. (Terr.), c. 83, § 11. EIZ iZI 'OZI saing •:)oJd•ddy'A!D saing aas oI patoanp stu.ss •sunoD '101 ;)Ind ••aoJd-ddd'A!D saln -i aas - suotl:m l!Aio ut leaddy saDuaJaia-d ssoJj 'saouDJDjDJ oyuDds JapuDB annuelsgnsuou jo le -AOwaJ Dyl pazuoylne Iuawpuawe 9861 a41 •UO17o3s stye uI IJnoD atuaJd .ns ayI Joi sleadde jo UnOD ayI patmitsgns uoisiAaJ aql -sDBpnf sleaddy jo unoJ jo uoit -oDla jo Jauuew ayI Joi pap!.%oJd osle pue lead -dy jo unoo ayI oI sJauew snOIJeA Jo leadde Joj XIlcJauDS popl.soJd 'LtZ.'D '£861 sme-1 'SI § '£8 'o '('JJal) 'IS'AD'd O)ON 1eD1JOISIH 'SI § 'EL 'o '858i'IS'9nd '£I '01 §§ '08 'o '9981 *13,Uzo 'tl '01 §§ 'O8 .o 'saulS'uao 'L869 'E86S §§ 't68I'IS'ua0 t95t § 'S061 sme-l'ADd 'tLZS § '£161 *)S'uaD '0£L6 § 'EZ61'IS'ua9 'OE16 § 'LZ6i'IS :uotle.%IJaQ rrr 'D '9861 s."NC -1 'ES61 'I ' _9nd '.Ila '961 § 'LIZ 'o 'ES61 SANE-1 Xq papuauly s0seo li.��0 Ja1.{lo ul se snulepueut ui sleadde jo 1Jnoo 01.11 01 J11 11MIS iJnoo IDIJISip oql wo-ij leadde uN •,Celap lnoq)im papJeAVe aq IIELIS snulepueul riJOlduiojod e pue 'sluaulasJngsip pue slsoo 1.IIIAX Ja1.{Ia501 'pautelsns 02eulep 01.11 JDA030.1 1le1.ls 'luawSpnf u;)mB st oym jp1meld y )leadde :jjlluleld ioj luau 2pnp '60'985 'IL9 "AVN £I 'orr 'tit IN 6Z 'Z331 'PICUOQa1V 'A IpiwtloS 'laJ sa a1rtS payscnb Dq Plno.%% ii a.tneuJDilu Dill 'nw yarns sc.N% pa.N%0tls n.tepIJJC Dill tlortl,,N Ieyl pue 'asea paluas ayI ul IIDSUI of atop - uodsaJ ,ill pa.nnboj IiJm .1AlICUJalle ayI yonl.�t ltl,)LU011'IS 0111 DaUI.'Lty% C Se.N% DJDyI puC 'pal.tasui aq pinoils rttoutaiCls poJaJIoJ(I letll ,.is pino.) I.mo, outo.tdnq will os 'su.N% It luipx . ou 'aseD jo tuDivatcls pDsodoJd jo Xdoo 111.10) las IOU pip 1J.%CpylC aJay:11 aauclJeA 'SI '611 'AVN LIZ 1861 'uutlV £LI 'LZ61 'slllnfl -A -INJILIT19 'sJOIUIDJ .1.q Butpeald miloajap jo .iomu.N% IOU se.N% Jo.sssue 01 sntopuodso.t olgeua of rttawuJnofpe Bulyse pue Buueaddu 'snwepucw Joj BulpaoDoJd ul J3AleA1 'tl '199 'AVN Or '9Zr -UU!IV 6£ 'SSSI 'PIa:%% % DtJ.tnD 'laJ xa DIc1S -sDns -s! Dy1 ulyn.%t pDOcJgwa pue patuasDJd 'IUteld -LuoD ;)III .Cg apettl DseD a11 yn.tt 1uDISlsuoo ulJOj ,Cut: ut jatloJ Dyt tucJB ,Cew unoo Dtp 'But - pDaooJd snwepucw C Ut ButJCDy Dili uodn 'IZZ 'AVN LL '[L£ 'uu!IV rL '8681 TUC] -DdoD 'A uosuDIAOIN 'laJ xD D)CIS 'uotloe ltnu .CJeutpJO lie lit sC Dwes Dill 'AXel Jo suotsnlouoo s unoo Dill uodn 1uDwSpnf lcwoj C jo ,CJtua Dill DICIdUMIL103 60'98c- § puC uonoas still 60'989 § 'L8 'M'N SL '£Lr 'UU!IV SL '6631 ­OD '2J'(] 19 Ined 'IS 'A illnln4 )o rinJ pi za a1e1S 'veld mDu y1i.n aoucpJo»c ut aSp!Jq jo uouonJlsuoD JopiO pue 'pannugns sucld p.tc3aJslp pinoo 'loafgo p i!sap Dill yst,duto:) --)C Isoq pino.�t ucld 1ril.�� Douapt.+a Dili woJj aunuJalap pinoo IJnoJ ayI um% D.%uuuJallc Dyt oI u.tnlaJ Dill )0 5uuCDt{ Dyl uodn 'lao.us otlgnd e sso- oe syJen su DSpuq of uonc.todJoa ne.ttlte.t lodutoo 01 jUtpDD:)oJd snutcpucw ul pl uJAt DLp jo )Duz)lpDgosip c ystund of sButpaDDoJd ut payoeadwl AIICJa - lelloo Dq Iouueo puewutoJ 01 unoo.Dyt Jo UOII .otpsunf ayI ulynAt st yotym IDC Dutos Jo Bulop alit 8uiput:u,utoD snwepucw jo ILIA% Xiotdwa -Jad a jo aDuensst Dyl Bupxuip )uawBpnf b 'St-01 'MVN L01 'ZOI 'uUM 86 '9061 's9ulpplO -A DICIS -UO1IDC leulBuo ayI lit uortow nq si ApawDJ a.%!snlDZa Dyt 'JadoJd uoncDylpow s1i BuuapuaJ tuaw9pnf ayI o1 IuanbDsgns Dsuc s1aCj snutepuew ut DJoy,N% 'pl -s9ulpeold Dyl uo IuDwBpnf Joi snwep AICLU lit Uottow a uo JadoJd IOU aJe.sButpu! j 'OL6 'A1'N 191 '1 S I 'UUIIV 6ZI 'S161 'ANOIJea -A DIetS -uJmDJ ay1 U! JDUeut ANDU Jo suoneBalle ayI pue uJmoJ Dyl Aq panlutpe nJ.tx Dtp jo suollcBallu Dyl o1 yool Iltm unoo ayI 'sBulpeald Dill uo luaut9pnf Job SDAOUI Jo1Cl31 DJayNt 'uonoas stilt Jo .+w!A ul SnWVUNVIV Ja.rsue ay; aAlteuJDlle lsnw Bulp ,Cq s8uipco; 'rz , -i)OH 'A Jt', szuipeald a - slwwoo 'p: pue leap i uoaJDy1 pa paDnp i pe -wa :Ced of 01 IUDwIJt: .Cq snwepu 0£Z '0961 -pauleualu: a41 Uo Ilia Jou gnejap uo alnJ IOU -JawD ou p Jo oAt) Job u1maJ uo n Jo.Ceut lads JDIgD ZIZ'Zr61 't AMD aJDAt s attics of .w -put) Bulilj pasolo se.N% -ueut 9u1Jal mel jo suo! "AVN I E I -yIJON IeaJ -uoo SCAN 1 -IIVJ ayI ua IDDJIS a will 'taaJls asel Dia)p% -syoe nuedwoo pt 'M'N 96Z *1 'A pun-I -laJ -w yl a Ie ur -Ja. %O IUCJJI aouap!AD :B paBJeyoslp papJeme ,Cl paBJeyoslp 81 Z 'uUM , SfIM 'I I r i t § 586.09 Note 8 for a new trial; an order denying a motion that the peremptory writ issue is not appeal- able. State v. McKellar, 1904, 92 Minn. 242, 99 N.W. 807. An order directing the issuing of a perempto- ry writ of mandamus is appealable. State v. Teall, 1898, 72 Minn. 37, 74 N.W. 1024. 9. Scope and mode of review On appeal from a judgment quashing a writ of mandamus, the allegations of the petition were required to be accepted as true. Farmers & Merchants Bank of Cochrane, Wis.. v. Bill - stcin, 1939, 204 Minn. 22.3. 2S3 NAV. 138. Statements of trial court, incorporated in mandamus order, directing issuance of build- ing permits to lumber dealer which had not obtained permit from city council as required by ordinance, that ordinance was passed to preycnt such dealer from getting a permit and that denial of permit by council would be un- reasonable where dealer had complied with all legal requirements, were improper subjects of findings of Tact and not entitled to considera- 586.10. Fines for neglect of duty MANDAMUS Lion as such on review. State ex rcl. Rose Bros. Lumber & Supply Co. v. Clousing, 1936. 198 Minn. 35, 268 N.W. 844. Supreme Court must disregard theories of trial where record shows conclusively as mat- ter of law that on merits relator was not enn- tled to peremptory writ of mandamus. State ex rcl. Eycns v. City of Duluth. 1936, 195 Minn. 563. 263 NAV. 912. When order, on motion to change place of trial to promote convenience of witnesses and ends of justice, is reviewed by mandamus, only matters presented to trial court can be con- sidered by Supreme Court, as latter court sits in review and does not try facts. State v. District Court of Pope County. Sixteenth Judi- cial Dist.. 1924, 161 Minn. 176, 20: NAV_ 298. On appeal in mandamus to compel issuance of permit for erection of a factory within a prescribed residential district. in a city of the first class. order refusing it %kill be reversed only %%here there is no evidence to sustain findings of the court. State v. Houehton. 1919, 1 4 Minn. 2S, 170 NAV. S53. When a peremptory mandamus is directed to a public officer, body, or board, commanding the performance of any public duty specially enjoined by la%y, if it shall appear to the court that such officer, or an}, member of such body or board, without just excuse, has refused or neglected to perform the duty so enjoined, it may impose a fine of not more than 5250, which fine, when collected, shall be paid into the state treasury; and the payment thereof shall be a bar to an action for any penalty incurred by such officer or member, by reason of the refusal or neglect. Amended by Laws 1986, c. 4.4. Derivation: St.1927, § 9731. Gen.St.1923, § 9731. Gen.St.1913, § 8275. Rev.Laws 1905, § 4565. Gen.St.1894, § 5984. Historical Dote Gen.St.1878. c. 80, § 11. Gen.St.1866, c. 80, § 11. Laws 1862, c. 18, § 2. Pub.St.1858, c. 73, § 16. Rcv.St. (Terr.), c. 83. § 16. Llbrary References Fines «1'/:. C.J.S. Officers and Public Employees § 206 Offices and Public Employees x115. et seq. States a79. 22. C.J.S. States §§ 125 et seq., 325. C.J.S. Fines § I et seq. 586.11. Jurisdiction of district and appellate courts The district court has exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases of manda- mus, except where the writ is to be directed to a district court or a judge 216 DAMUS I MANDAMUS - - § 586.11 ex rel. Rose busing, 1936, I theories of iycly as Mal- -vas not enti- amus. State 6, 195 Minn. nge place of :itnesses and idamus, oniy can be ton- er court sits is. State y. ocenth Judi - ); N.W. 29S. pel issuance 'IN %%ithin a I city of the be rcycrscd to sustain ghton, 1919, body, or tioined by If such rm the hich fine, nt thereof )fficer or wees § 206 IF manda- a judge thereof in the judge's official capacity, in which case the court of appeals has exclusive original jurisdiction, or except where the writ is to be'directed to the court of appeals or a judge thereof in the judge's official capacity. If the writ is to be directed to the court of appeals or a judge thereof in the judge's official capacity, the supreme court or a judge thereof has original jurisdic- tion. The rules of civil appellate procedure shall apply in all proceedings on the writ. Amended by Laws 1983, c. 216, art. 2, § 8, eff. Aug. 1, 1983; Laws 1983. c. 247, § 196, eff. Aug. 1, 1983; Laws 1986, c. 44.1. Historical Note Derivation: St.1927, § 9732. Gen.St.1923. § 9732. Gen.St.1913, § 8276. Rcv.La%%,s 1905, § 4566. Gen.St.1894, § 5985. Gcn.St.1878, c. 80, § 12. Gen.St. I S66. c. S0, § 12. Last's IS62, c. 18. § 3. Pub.St.1858, c. 73. § 17. Amendment to Rev.St. (Terr.), p. 15. § 63. Rev.St. (Tcrr.), c. 83. § 17. Laws 1983, c. 216, art. 2. § S. corrected a minor typographical error in this section, as amended by laws 1983. c. 247. Laws 1983, c. 247, § 196, rewrote this sec. tion, cyhich formerly provided: "The district court has cxclusiyc original jur- isdiction in all cases of mandamus, except cohere such writ is to be directed to a district court or a judge thereof in his official capacity. in which case the supreme court has exclusive original jurisdiction. In such case the supreme or a judge thereof, shall first make an order, returnable in term, that such district court or judge show cause before the court cc by a peremptory cc rit of mandamus should not issue, and upon the return day of such order the district court or judge may show cause b�• affidavit or record ecidcncc; and, upon the hearing, the supreme court shall acyard a peremptory alit or dismiss the order. In case of emergency, a special term of the supreme court may be appointed for the hear- ing." The 1956 amendment authorized the remov- al of nonsubstantive gender specific references. Constitutional Provisions Constitution, Art. 6, § 2, provides in part: "The supreme court consists of one chief judge and not less than six nor more than eight associate judges as the legislature may estab- lish. It shall have original jurisdiction in such remedial cases as are prescribed b_v law•, and appellate jurisdiction in all cases, but there shall be no trial by jury in the supreme court. rhe legislature may establish a court of appeals and provide by law for the number of its judges, who shall not be judges of any other court, and its organization and for the review of its decisions by the supreme court. The court of appeals shall have appellate jurisdic- tion over all courts, except the supreme court, and other appellate jurisdiction as prescribed by law... Constitution. Art. 6, § 3, provides: "The district court has original jurisdiction in all civil and criminal cases and shall have appellate jurisdiction as prescribed by law." Cross References Appellate courts, power to issue writs of mandamus, see § 480.04 Courts, writs directed to, see Rules Civ.App.Proc., Rules 120, 121. District courts, power to issue writs of mandamus, see § 484.03. Law Review Commentaries Appealable orders, prohibition, and manda- mus in Minnesota. Nov. 1966, 51 Minn. Law Review 115. 217 CERTIORARI Chapter 606 WRIT OF CERTIORARI Section 606.01. Certiorari. within «•hat time writ issued. 606.02. Time for service. 606.03. Surety for costs in civil case. 606.04. Costs. 606.05. Dismissal. costs. 606.06. Certiorari: administrative decisions. WESTLAW Electronic Research WISTLAW �uppicments .Minnesota Statutes Annotated and is useful for additional research. Inter a citation in Insta -Cite for display of any parallel citations and case historv. L-:nter a :onstilulion, statute or rule citation in a case law database for cases of interest. Example query for Insta -Cite: IC 17S NAV.2d SSS Example qucr\, for Minnesota Constitution: M.S.A.Const. Const. Constitution is 10 X ; 3 6 Example quern for statute: 169.141 Also, see the WE:STLAW Electronic Research Guide following the Preface. Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure Chapter 606 is superseded with respect to appellate practice and procedure by the Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure, effective February 1, 1968. See Rule 120 attd Appetrdix A. See, also, Rule 115. 606.01. Certiorari, within what time writ issued No writ of certiorari shall be issued, to correct any proceeding, unless such writ shall be issued within 60 days after the party applying for such writ shall have received due notice of the proceeding sought to be revicwcd thereby. Historical Note Derivation: Gen.St.1913. § 3313. St.1927, § 9769. La%vs 1909, c. -410. § I. Gen.St.1923. § 9769. 532 CERTIORARI WRIT OF CERTIORARI -- § 606.02 _r of law compels rninistrative find - finding so made h the court must v. Civil Service NAV.2d 57.3. of policy are for al determination. ermine questions rent reverses dc- :::ice agency, the ` urther proceed- - rtiorari proceed - -.c%- upon reversal L! precise course ough the court's cencv, court can �,crformance of a 7r• duty. Id. ', -?nus Board that the state %k hcn in the military kill not be dis. cre was evidence etch conclusion, ong principic .t V. Soldiers' .:.esota, 1924, 15S ` indings had cN- � ri had been ap- Of parties did case. State ex Co., of Bashko, 1082. so far as parties .-son seeking writ --nce so as to be ,f matters in con - s Corp. v. Prout, ':.2d 328. :y to proceedings - ertiorari must be made and certi- mmission, whose .y, and a return o the writ -is con - ex rel. DePonti t. Paul Metropoli- t3, 226 Minn. 272, That aviation company was a taxpayer Nyas not alone sufficient to entitle it by certiorari to review proceedings of metropolitan airports commission involving exercise of a legislative or administrative function. without a showing that company possessed an interest not com- mon to ail taxpayers. Id. An actor who participates, with or without formal pleading or intervention. as an active contcstant,on merits for the determination of issues of lacy or fact, and who by outcome of proceeding will be bound and affected, either favorably or adversely, with respect to an as- serted interest peculiar to him as distinguished from an interest common to the public or other taxpayers in general, is a "party to pro- ceeding" entitled to review proceeding by cer. tiorari. Id. 16. Collateral attack 1 certiorari proceeding to rcyicw rclator's conviction for contempt in violatinv temporary injunction was a "collateral attack'' on injunc- tion which would fail unless injunction k%as shown to be a nullity. Reid y. Independent Union of All Workers. 1937,'_00 Mine. _99.'_75 N AV. 300. 17. Scope and extent of rcvlcw Supreme Court, in reviewing an order or determination of an administrative board, will go no further than to determine whether cvi. dence was such that it might reasonably make the determination in question. Sevcik v. Com- 606.02. Time for service tnissioncr of Taxation, 1960, 257 Minn. 92, 100 NAV.2d 678. The scope of review on certiorari is limited to reviewing the facts, jurisdiction, of adminis- trative agency, regularity of its proceedings, whether orders or determinations sti•crc arbi. trary, oppressive. unreasonable, fraudulent, under an erroneous theory of law or without evidence to support the findings and does not include a reyie\v de noyo. Sellin v. City of Duluth, 1957, 2.33 ,Minn. 333. 80 NAV.2d 67. Certiorari lies to rcvic%v quasi - judicial acts and proceedings of a municipal body to deter- mine, through an inspection of record, if body had jurisdiction and kept within it, and to examine the c%idence, not for purpose of weighing esidence. but to ascertain whether it furnished any legal and substantial basis for action taken. Bcck v. Council of City of St. Paul, 1952, 235 Minn. =6, 50 NAV.2d 81. In certiorari to review a holding of the de- paruncnt of commerce, this court makes but a limited rc%iew and disturbs its holding only in the event than it is beyond its jurisdiction, or atbitrar• and oppressive, or without founda- tion in the c\idencc. State cx eel. Ilardstone Brick Co. y. Department of Commerce Securi tics Division, 1935. 174 Minn. 200, 219 NAV. Sl. In cases brought to supreme court by certio- rari, this court reviews only the qucstions of law presented by the record; it cannot make findings of fact nor pass upon or determine questions of fact. Kostelec v. A. Guthrie & Co.. 1924, 161 Minn. 1 =3, 201 N.W. 141. Such writ must also be served upon the adverse party within such period of 60 days. Derivation: St.1927. § 9770. Gcn.St.1923, § 9770. Historical Note Gen.Si.1913. § 531.3. Lays 1909, c. 410, § '_. Cross References Petition for writ and writ, filing and service, see Rules Ciy.App.Proc.. Rules 115.03, 116.03. Time of sen•ice, generally, see Rules Civ.App.Proc., Rules 115.01, 116.01. Llbrary References Administrative Law and Procedure 0=722. C.J.S. Public .-Administrative Law and Proce- 724 durc §§ 204 ct seq.. 211. 539 ed not ce j el. Boetci:cr I +{ -1 V.W. 7; . .'ial Conlmn- not screed Jays. Sate • `onunissiun, 1 dies a:;cr claim. nu- as prupc: -0 \line. ':01 :I )Il aL:l il`C It ;a rc Cuuc:�� r \ice of writ -un Of lime to ,liorari to re- ;nission Must ,arrier -ithin -111. 19.10. ' -OS corrtpcnsauon time ,%::i)in review a%�'ard must be ob- -oth Industrial 'Ithin the ntne (lover in Pcu- c%'iesv decision compensation :h employer in :thin whlch to bound by limi- on employer's nice of %%rit on me so limited. c responsible WRIT OF CERTIORARI Derivation: St.1927. § 9771. GcIl.S1.1923. § 9i 1. 11i.,torical Note GCn.Si.1913. "1 I.a i S 1009, C. 410. j ; Library References ldminisuati�e I_a\v and procedure �7-6. nunrsuativc Law and i'roce C.J.S. Public Ad dure § 19S et seq. f D cisions Notes o 1• Endorsement Affidavit Of curet%ship by third part}• filed with district court did not remedy defect that crostcd when pe:itwner. an attornC�', slpned. as surety. writ of certiorari of Civil Servicc Com- mission decision. PCtersun c. Cite of Minnc apulis, App.'to?7, 77. JlCquirenlcnl that cash wru ul cCruorarl C Ci%d SCr%ICC Comm�si`Ity'yluUll be cftol �l !lv sonic respunslb!e I I,cunonCr, • lilt .• aS ,.I as nut sausflCLI •hrn uturllev, Cncursed .irlt m his dual CaPaC:t\ CtinunCr r.d a;tornC�'. I'cicr >u 1 1- C:t == Filine of surelc bond with the ClCrk of dIS trio cuurl be empiu.'ec of " puhCC dCpart ntcnt scekin; rcvtc\ %' of cuv Cl%'ll scl %lcc Co- mission's Su S-a1111ng r econlmcndattun 'O department head to dlSChargc enlPluvee lur § 606.04 c cis ions !t)SS ,a; nnl wfficicnt to fulfill stint ury IC�cirCnlCllt that Cash w It of cent, l)ahllll cull C'SC be Cn iursed by some ICSI pelSi!!1 ,. -�S surety for costs. and the \Nrlt of nnneS . >i,.;t ul I \l invh n eapu li f>a, tally dei,ce as Cernnrarl issued wl Service CItI ` C1 e C C IoF7, _ti C:IC \\?d 192. .rrr Cnr, It 'CC of Cin' p111iCC c!CparnnCn \\! l ( i,Ili sCr\'ICc ColrinllSSUUI'S ,��'nCC .lcpartnlcnl hCa�i�; rc"nn� hc�ll Ill" \ \Cal'UiI .. lay and did n,n I'h1:1111 \\I it "f Cirliural l 1O dl�ll Ill 17, 1966.: t i did nut 113%C i�u;t�i „rIl C ".�luls' =�l by sonic resp[,nSlhle pCr. n xr "Cl ur COSI;. the >C�und �.rlt as (.a III\ dC(eCti�r. Id. 606.04. Costs re\ailing on a \Writ of �ertiurari in any procccdin- of 11111} The parl\• p nature shall be cntilicd to costs aeu' I�o�ellof��ilerla \` 111 \�sation` tile 11cou "t�uf to ha\'c been brou�ht for tilt_ I l ,tc \ailing p, tv. appeals rrla\ a\�ard do c. 247. Costs § '06 ell`At:_. 1 1953: l.a\vs 19S6• c. 44�. Amended b% Law's 1983. c. 1{istorical Note Tile iu�3 'wendtttcrlt substituted the ' cc�tnd the last sentence• Derivation: „f appCals' ft'l 'Court" in St.1927, § 97i7• made older nurrsubslanll�c ChanLd Gen.St.1973, § 9772. The 19c6 anxlldnlent autholizcd the rcmo� Gen.St.1913. § 3316. al of nonsubstanti c gender specific references. Laws 1000, c. 110. § 3. Cross References Costs and disbursements, scc Rules Civ.App.Proc., Rules 11:.05, 116.03. Library References Administrative Law and Procedure co726' C.J.S. Public Administrative Law and PI.00e durc § 199 et scq. 541 NVOLVIN• , NEGLIGENCE ' privilege, word: product !sted. issuance of writ —In general :n;nadon of probationary prtnC; pal :,tion of earlier suspension and is. those orders could be reviewed 'ollowing nunrenewai of the con ,)ugh certiorari was not suu�nt s of the suspension and trans:er. ,iependent School Dist. No -1• V W.2d 392 review granted. me for issuance of writ f Litchfield, App-19S-,. 404 volume) reversed 4.20 N,W 2d uld not have been aggrieved, for running of 60-day period during f certiorari must be issued, before school year of his five -near unre- of absence, as it was not until then .t to reinstatement, if there was a fired; the incorrect notice given him s placed on leave five years earlier e of closure of the school year did the teacher, as compelling immedi- ould violate principles of ripeness judicial resources. Matter of John - .!2, 481 N.W.2d 882, review granted N.W.2d 255. rendered in quasi-judicial proceed- contested case conducted according rative Procedure Act under § 14.63 compensation case, due notice provi- -6.01 setting forth when writ of cer- .t be issued is same notice that is `..v Administrative Procedure Act or - ompensation Act under § 1 of Litchfield, 1988, 420 N.W.2d 604 . ce was provided within meaning of setting forth when writ of certiorari sued when candidates for police e - :)romotion were informed by p WRIT OF CERTIORARI written notice that their promotion had been denied; notice commenced running of GO da- imitation period for filing writ of certiorari, and candidates' filing of writ 1S months later was untimely. Bahr v. City of Litchfield, -1988: 420 N.W.2d 604. When decision was made in Police Civil Service Commission proceeding in which officers. who had applied for promotion within police force. were denied promotion, due notice within mean. ing of this section setting forth when writ of certiorari shall be issued was defined by Com. mission's own rules for notifying candidates of decision and, if Commission had not adopted formal rules, court would determine whether notice given constituted due notice; at minimum notice given must be in writing and be reason- ably calculated to reach candidate. Bahr v. City of Litchfield. 1958, 430 N.w.2d 604. Due notice provision of this section setting forth when writ of certiorari shall be issued does not require personal service of written notice to commence 60-day limitation period within which writ of certiorari may issue to review civil ser- cice commission promotion decision. Lahr % City of Litchfield. 1958, 420 N.W.2d 604. h• F,xtension of time for issuance of writ School teacher's challenge of less senior teacn- er's reinstatement was timely and proper. trough teacher initially diti not request hearing when school district proposed to place him ;':"'I ethers on unrequested lone of absence, actin❑ § 606.06 Note 1 which reinstated less senior teacher occurred well after teacher's original placement on leave. and thus, at time he was piaced on leave, he had nothing to challenge. Collins v. Independent School Dist. No. 745, App-19S7, 416 N.W.2d 174. 606.03. Repealed by Laws 1991, c. 17. r. 1 606.05. Dismissal, costs 14. Jurisdiction District court lacked jurisdiction to issue writ of mandamus compelling school district to recon- sider its decision to close elementary school in view of adequacy of remedy of review by writ of certiorari, notwithstanding facts cited as new and in need of examination involving actual re- modeling costs of high school building to which elementary program would be moved and impact of new emplo %'ers on projected enrollment fig- ures: in fact, those issues were considered by school district before it made its closure decision. Silver Bav Area Citizens Concerned for Quality E;duc. v. Lake Superior school Dist. No. 381• App.1989. 448 N.W.2d 92. review denied. Is. Ilearing Review by writ of certiorari of school board decision is 'based soleiv on record before school district so that hearing c not requirement before petitioning for certiorari: court acts in appellate capacity by reviewine school hoard's record. , hatever that record :".t ht he, regardless of whether hearing was pr I i,l below. Dokmo v. lndcpendcnt School Dist. N�1 11. : \noka -Henne pin. 1:)90, 459 N.\1' '_' t lT 1. rehearing denied. Notes of Decisions rather than to individual commissioners, did not require that certiorari be discharged. hatter of Brown, App-1989, 434 N. \t'.2d 277, review de nied. 3. Dismissal Addressing writ of certiorari seeking review' of city civil service commission's decision uphold• ing city police officer's discharge to Commission. 606.06. Certiorari; administrative decisions Notes of Decisions In general 1 1. In general Failure of city police officer to serve writ of certiorari upon two of three commissioners who participated in decision upholding officer's dis- charge precluded appeilate review of Commis- sion's decision. Matter of Brown. App.19S9, 434 N.W.2d 277, review denied. INDEX CONSULT GENERAL INDEX POCKET PART 77 _fl , CONSTRUCTION, INC. 7500 West 78th Street Edina, Minnesota 55439 (612) 947 -3000 fax(612)947 -3030 August 10, 1994 Mayor Richards City Council Members City of Edina Re: Harold Woods Lane Conservation Easement Dear Mayor Richards and Council Members: In my ongoing efforts to design conforming homes on Harold Woods Lane, I am again scheduled to be on,: the council agenda August 15. I would like each council member to have as much information as possible and therefore enclose the following for your review. I have continued to work with two prospective buyers for lots 4 and 5, trying to shape each home to fit within the city requirements. The enclosed redesigned plans for lots 4 & 5 are very linear in order to keep the depth to a minimum. These are not large homes and cannot be compared in size to the new, larger homes on Schaefer Road. Lot #4 - -On lot 4 I am requesting a 19 feet vacation of the "Open Area" Conservation Easement which would reduce the restricted area from 100 feet to 81 feet. Please note on the drawing that the deck and porch would be on post footings and they are the primary living spaces that are inside the 100 feet line. Lot #5 - -On lot 5 I am requesting a 24 feet vacation of the "Open Area" Conservation Easement which would reduce the open area from 100 feet to 76 feet. This is the more restricted lot because there is not only the rear setback from the pond but also a wetland area on the east part of the lot. While I could mitigate some of this wetland area and locate_ the home .further. to -the — — etthe position I am requesting is better ecologically. As on lot 4, it is primarily the deck, porch plus garage end of the home that would be inside the 100 feet area. The bulb of the cul de sac requires the garage end of the home to be further to the south or closer to the pond. In both cases the 25 feet "Natural Condition" Conservation Easement, which is the first 25 feet from the pond, would remain unchanged. I believe this is the more important restriction to safeguard the ponding areas. Designer/ Builder/ Developer MN Builder License #0001220 Mayor Richards City Council Members August 10, 1994 Page 2 The 100 feet Conservation Easement was not a requirement of the D.N.R., Watershed District or any other legislative body. It was required only by the Edina City Council as part of the original subdivision. If these had been existing lots not subject to subdivision, the current Edina ordinance would allow the new home to be sited within 50 feet of the ponds. Furthermore, the D.N.R. suggests a 50 feet setback from ponds of this type, and the city council was consistent with this at the Wooddale Lakes addition ( Wooddale and 64th Street) by unanimously approving a 50 foot conservation easement around their ponds. Approval of my request would still leave 81 feet and 76 feet of conservation area which is far in excess of the D.N.R. standards and of what you approved at Wooddale Lakes. Please keep in mind this is not a request for a variance. It is a request on two lots only for "vacation" of a small portion of the 100 feet Conservation Easement, which by other standards and past actions was an excessive requirement. Please give this your careful consideration and I ask you to act favorably upon it. Sincerely, Ronald E. Clark REC /cw `1 x r toe 3 � `1 lvv A x r-k O T0: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: REPORT/RECOMMENDATION Mayor and Council Kris Aaker August 15, 1994 Year XX 1994 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Subrecipient and Third Party Agreements with Hennepin County Recommendation: Agenda Item # I I. E . Information Only. ❑ Mgr. Recommends ❑x Action ❑ R El Consent To HRA To Council Motion Resolution Ordinance Discussion Authorize execution of the attached Subrecipient and Third Party Agreements by Mayor and Manager. Info /Background: The CDBG budget for Year XX 1994 has now been approved by H.U.D.. The attached agreements contain the federal rules for spending our allocation of $197, 821. Edina's budget, which was approved by the Council in April is as follows: Adaptive Recreation Program: $ 1,500 H.O.M.E. (Housing & Outdoor Maintenance for Elderly) $ 24,074 Child Day Care $ 13,490 CASH Home Line $ 2,000 Removal of Architectural Barriers $116,757 Rehablitation of Private Property $ 40,000 $197,821 Because Hennepin County is the recipient of the H.U.D. funds it is necessary for the city to enter into the Subrecipient Agreement with the county to enable them to release the funds to US. a sw The Third Party Agreements which are entered -into- -with Senior Community Services (H.O.M.E.), Community Action for Suburban Hennepin (Home Line), and Greater Minneapolis Day Care Association (Child Day Care) obligate these public service providers to spend their allotted funds in accordance with federal guidelines. Attached for your review is a copy of the Subrecipient Agreement as well as the Third Party Agreement with Senior Community Services (The two other agreements are identical in form). RESOLUTION NO. - -- RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR .1994 (YEAR XX) URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM WHEREAS, the City of EnTNA has executed a Joint Cooperation Agreement with Hennepin County for the purpose of participating in the 1994 (Year XX) Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program; and WHEREAS, Hennepin County is the recipient of an annual grant from.the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for purposes of the program, and the City is a subrecipient under the program and receives a share of the grant; and WHEREAS, program regulations require that the City and County execute a Subrecipient Agreement which sets forth the specific implementation processes for activities to be undertaken with program funds. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the EDINA City Council hereby authorizes and directs the Mayor and the City Council to execute the Subrecipient Agreement on behalf of the City. ATTEST: Date Mayor r� SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into by and between the COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, STATE OF MINNESOTA, hereinafter referred to as "RECIPIENT," A -2400 Government Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487, and the cities executing this Master Agreement, each hereinafter respectively referred to as "SUBRECIPIENT," said parties to this Agreement each being governmental units of the State of Minnesota, and is made pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59: WITNESSETH WHEREAS, Recipient has received a $3,688,000 Federal Fiscal Year 1994 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) entitlement allocation under Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, to carry out various. community develop- ment activities in cooperation with Subrecipient, according to the implementing regulations at 24 CFR Part 570; and WHEREAS, Federal Fiscal Year 1994 CDBG funds and any resulting program income have been approved by Recipient for use by Subrecipient for the implementation of eligible and fundable community development activity /ies as included in and a part of the 1994 Statement of Objectives and Projected Use of Funds, Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program and as set forth in Exhibit 1 to this Agreement; and WHEREAS, the Subrecipient agrees to assume certain responsibilities for the implementation of the approved activities described in Exhibit 1, said responsibilities being specified in part in the Joint Cooperation Agreement effective October 1, 1993, executed between Recipient and Subrecipient on June 20, 1993 and in the 1994 Statement of Objectives and Projected Use of Funds, Urban Hennepin County CDBG Program and the Certifications contained therein. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereunto do hereby agree as follows: 1. SCOPE OF SERVICES A. The Subrecipient shall expend all or any part of its CDBG allocation only on those activities identified in Exhibit 1, subject to the requirements of this Agreement and the stipulations and requirements set forth in Exhibit 1 to this Agreement. B. The Subrecipient shall take all necessary actions, not only to comply with the stipulations as set out in Exhibit 1, but to comply with any requests by the Recipient in that connection; it being understood that the Recipient is responsible to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for ensuring compliance with such requirements. The Subrecipient also will promptly notify the Recipient of any changes in the scope or character of the activity /ies which it is implementing. 2. TERM OF AGREEMENT The effective date of this Agreement is July 1 , 1994. The termination date of this Agreement is December 31, 1995, or at such time as the activity /ies constituting part of this Agreement are satisfactorily completed prior thereto. Upon expiration, the Subrecipient shall relinquish to the Recipient all program funds unexpended or uncommitted and all accounts receivable attributable to the use of CDBG funds for the activities described in Exhibit 1, as may be amended. 3. THIRD PARTY AGREEMENTS The Subrecipient may subcontract this Agreement and /or the services to be performed hereunder, whether in whole or in part, only with the prior consent of the Recipient and only through a written Third Party Agreement acceptable to the Recipient. The Subrecipient shall not otherwise assign, transfer, or pledge this Agreement and /or the services to be performed hereunder, whether in whole or in part, without the prior consent of the Recipient. 4. AMENDMENTS TO AGREEMENT Any material alterations, variations, modifications or waivers of provisions of this Agreement shall only be valid when reduced to writing as an Amendment to this Agreement signed, approved and properly executed by the authorized representatives of the parties. An exception to this process will be in amending Exhibit 1 to this Agreement. Exhibit 1, shall be deemed amended to conform to any amendments to the Final Statement of Community Development Objectives and Projected Use of Funds, as such amendments occur. Any amendments to the Statement of Objectives and Projected Use of Funds, which constitute substantial changes, must be accompanied by documentation that a local public hearing was conducted and by an authorizing resolution. Amendments which do not constitute substantial changes may be handled administratively. Hennepin County Office of Planning and Development staff may approve administrative amendments provided they are eligible, fundable and satisfy the Urban Hennepin County Statement of Objectives. Substantial change is defined as a change in (1) beneficiary; (2) project location; (3) purpose; or (4) scope, (more than a 50 % increase or decrease in the original budget or $10,000, whichever is greater), in any authorized activity. The total budget of multi - community activities will be used in determining substantial change. 2 i' 5. PAYMENT OF CDBG FUNDS The Recipient agrees to provide the Subrecipient with CDBG funds not to exceed the Hennepin County authorized budget to enable the Subrecipient to carry out its CDBG- eligible activity /ies as described in Exhibit 1 . It is understood that the Recipient shall be held accountable to HUD for the lawful expenditure of CDBG funds under this Agreement. The Recipient shall therefore make no payment of CDBG funds to the Subrecipient and draw no funds from HUD /U.S. Treasury on behalf of a Subrecipient activity /ies, prior to having received a proper Hennepin County Warrant Request form from the Subrecipient for the expenses incurred, as well as copies of all documents and records needed to ensure that the Subrecipient has complied with the appropriate regulations and requirements. 6. INDEMNITY AND INSURANCE A. The Subrecipient does hereby agree to release, indemnify, and hold harmless the Recipient from and against all costs, expenses, claims, suits or judgments arising from or growing out of any injuries, loss or damage sustained by any person or corporation, including employees of Subrecipient and property of Subrecipient, which are caused by or sustained in connection with the tasks carried out by the Subrecipient under this Agreement. . B. The Subrecipient does further agree that in order to protect itself as well as the Recipient under the indemnity agreement provisions hereinabove set forth it will at all times during the term of this Agreement and any renewal thereof, have and keep in force: a single limit or combined limit or excess umbrella commercial and general liability insurance policy of an amount of not less than $1 million for property damage arising from one occurrence, $1 million for damages arising from death and /or total bodily injuries arising from one occurrence, and $1 million for total personal injuries arising from one occurrence. Such policy shall also include contractual liability coverage protecting the Recipient, its officers, agents and employees by a certificate acknowledging this Agreement between the Subrecipient and the Recipient. C. The Subrecipient's liability, however, shall be governed by the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 466. 7. CONFLICT OF INTEREST A. In the procurement of supplies, equipment, construction, and services by_ the Subrecipient, the conflict of interest provisions in 24 CFR 85.36 and OMB Circular A -1 10 shall apply. B. In all other cases, the provisions of 24 CFR 570.611 shall apply. 3 8. DATA PRIVACY The Subrecipient agrees to abide by the provisions of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act and all other applicable state and federal laws, rules, and regulations relating to data privacy or confidentiality, and as any of the same may be amended. The Subrecipient agrees to defend and hold the Recipient, its officers, agents, and employees harmless from any claims resulting from the Subrecipient's unlawful disclosure and /or use of such protected data. 9. SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION A. If the Subrecipient materially fails to comply with any term of this Agreement or so fails to administer the work as to endanger the performance of this Agreement, this shall constitute noncompliance and a default. Unless the Subrecipient's default is excused by the Recipient, the Recipient may take one or more of the actions prescribed in 24 CFR 85.43, including the option of immediately cancelling .this Agreement in its entirety. B. The Recipient's failure to insist upon strict performance of any provision or to exercise any right under this Agreement shall not be deemed a relinquishment or waiver of the same. Such consent shall not constitute a general waiver or relinquishment throughout the entire term of the Agreement. C. This Agreement may be cancelled with or without cause by either party upon thirty (30) days' written notice according to the provisions in 24 CFR 85.44. D. CDBG funds allocated to the Subrecipient under this Agreement may not be obligated or expended by the Subrecipient following such date of termination. Any funds allocated to the Subrecipient under this Agreement which remain unobligated or unspent following such date of termination shall automatically revert to the Recipient. 10. REVERSION OF ASSETS Upon expiration or termination of this Agreement, the Subrecipient shall transfer to the Recipient any CDBG funds on hand or in the accounts receivable attributable to the use of CDBG funds, including CDBG funds provided to the Subrecipient in the form of a loan. Any real property under the control of the Subrecipient that was acquired or improved, in whole or in part, using CDBG funds in excess of $25,000 shall either be: A. Used to meet one of the national objectives in 24 CFR 570.208 and not used for the general conduct of government until: Or, (1) For units of general local government, five years from the date that the unit of general local government is no longer considered by HUD to be a part of Urban Hennepin County; or (2) For any other Subrecipient, five years after expiration of this Agreement. 0 B. Not used in accordance with A. above, in which event the Subrecipient shall pay to the Recipient an amount equal to the current market value of the property less any portion of the value attributable to expenditures of non -CDBG funds for acquisition of, or improvement to, the property. The payment is program income to the Recipient. No payment is required after the period of time specified in A. above. 11. PROCUREMENT The Subrecipient shall be responsible for procurement of all supplies, equipment, services, and construction necessary for implementation of its activity /ies. Procurement shall be carried out in accordance with the "Common Rule" Administrative Requirements `in 24 CFR 85 and all provisions of the CDBG Regulations in 24 CFR 570 (the most restrictive of which will take precedence). The Subrecipient shall prepare, or cause to be prepared, all advertisements, negotiations, notices, and documents; enter into all contracts; and conduct all meetings, conferences, and interviews as necessary to ensure compliance with the above described procurement requirements. The Recipient shall provide advice and staff assistance to the Subrecipient to carry out its CDBG- funded activity /ies. 12. ACQUISITION, RELOCATION, AND DISPLACEMENT A. The Subrecipient shall be responsible for carrying out all acquisitions of real property necessary for implementation of the activity /ies. The Subrecipient shall conduct all such acquisitions in its name, or in the name of any of its public, governmental, nonprofit agencies as authorized by its governing body, which shall hold title to all real property purchased. The Subrecipient shall be responsible for preparation of all notices, appraisals, and documentation required in conducting acquisition under the latest applicable regulations of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act of 1970 and of the CDBG Program. The Subrecipient shall also be responsible for providing all relocation notices, counseling, and services required by said regulations. The Recipient shall provide advice and staff assistance to the Subrecipient to carry out its CDBG- funded activity /ies. B. The Subrecipient shall comply with the acquisition and relocation requirements of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 as required under 24 CFR 570.606(a) and HUD implementing regulations at 24 CFR 42; the requirements in 24 CFR 570.606(b) governing the residential antidisplacement and relocation assistance plan under section 104(d) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (the Act); the relocation requirements of 24 CFR 570.606(c) governing displacement subject to section 104(k) of the Act; and the requirements of 24 CFR 570.606(d) governing optional relocation assistance under. section 105(a)(1 1) of the Act.. 5 13. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Recipient shall determine the level of environmental review required under 24 CFR Part 58 and maintain the environmental review record on all activities. The Subrecipient shall be responsible for providing necessary information, relevant documents, and public notices to the Recipient to accomplish this task. 14. LABOR STANDARDS EMPLOYMENT, AND CONTRACTING The Recipient shall be responsible for the preparation of all requests for HUD for wage rate determinations on CDBG activities undertaken by the Subrecipient. The Subrecipient shall notify the Recipient prior to initiating any activity, including advertising for contractual services which will include costs likely to be subject to the provisions on Federal Labor Standards and Equal Employment Opportunity and related implementing regulations. The Recipient will provide technical assistance to the Subrecipient to ensure compliance with these requirements. 15. PROGRAM INCOME If the Subrecipient generated any program income as a result of the expenditure of CDBG funds, the provisions of 24 CFR 570.504 shall apply, as well as the following specific stipulations: A. The Subrecipient will notify the Recipient of any program income within ten (10) days of the date such program income is generated. When program income is generated by an activity only partially assisted with CDBG funds, the income shall be prorated to reflect the percentage of CDBG funds used. B. That any such program income must be paid to the Recipient by the Subrecipient as soon as practicable after such program income is generated unless the Subrecipient is permitted to retain program income. C. Recipient will retain ten percent (10 %) of all program income paid to Recipient to defray administration expenses. The remaining ninety percent (90 %) of the program income paid to the Recipient shall be credited to the grant authority of Subrecipient whose project generated the program income and shall be used for fundable and eligible CDBG activities consistent with this Agreement. D. The Subrecipient further recognizes that the Recipient has the responsibility for monitoring and reporting to HUD on the use of any such program income. The responsibility for appropriate recordkeeping by the Subrecipient and reporting to the Recipient by the Subrecipient on the use of such program income is hereby recognized by the Subrecipient. The Recipient agrees to provide technical assistance to the Subrecipient in establishing an appropriate and proper recordkeeping and reporting system, as required by HUD. �.1 E. That in the event of close -out or_ change in status of the Subrecipient, any program income that is on hand or received subsequent to the close -out or change in status shall be {paid to Recipient as soon as practicable after the income is received. The Recipient agrees to notify the Subrecipient, should close -out or change in status of the Subrecipient occur. 16. USE OF REAL PROPERTY The following standards shall apply to real property under the control of the Subrecipient that was acquired or improved, in whole or in part, using CDBG funds: A. The Subrecipient shall inform the Recipient at least thirty (30) days prior to any modification or.change in the use of the real property from that planned at the time of acquisition or improvements including disposition. The Subrecipient will comply with the requirements of 24 CFR 570.505 to provide affected citizens the opportunity to comment on any proposed change and to consult with affected citizens. B. The Subrecipient shall reimburse the Recipient in an amount equal to the current fair market value (less any portion thereof attributable to expenditures of non - CDBG funds) of property acquired or improved with CDBG funds that is sold or transferred for a use which does not qualify under the CDBG regulations. Said reimbursement shall be provided to the Recipient at the time of sale or transfer of the property referenced herein. Such reimbursement shall not be required if the conditions of 24 CFR 570.503(b)(8)(i) are met and satisfied. Fair market value shall be established by a current written appraisal by a qualified appraiser. The Recipient will have the option of requiring a second appraisal after review of the initial appraisal. C. Any program income generated from the disposition or transfer of real property prior to or subsequent to the close -out, change of status or termination of the Joint Cooperation Agreement between the Recipient and the Subrecipient shall be repaid to the Recipient at the time of disposition or transfer of the property. 17. ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS The uniform administrative requirements delineated in 24 CFR 570.502 and any and all administrative requirements or guidelines promulgated by the Recipient shall apply to all activities undertaken by the Subrecipient provided for in this Agreement and to any program income generated therefrom. 18. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY A. During the performance of this Agreement, the Subrecipient agrees to the following: In accordance with the Hennepin County Affirmative Action Policy and the County Commissioners' Policies Against Discrimination, no person shall be excluded from full employment rights or participation in, or the benefits of, any program, service or activity on the grounds of race, color, creed, religion, age, 7 sex, disability, marital status, affectional /sexual preference, public assistance status, ex- offender status, or national origin; and no person who is protected by applicable federal or state laws against discrimination shall be otherwise subjected to discrimination. B. The Subrecipient will furnish all information and reports required to comply with the provisions of 24 CFR Part 570 and all applicable state and federal laws, rules, and regulations pertaining to discrimination and equal opportunity. 19. NON - DISCRIMINATION BASED ON DISABILITY A. The Subrecipient shall comply with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, to ensure that no otherwise qualified individual with a handicap, as defined in Section 504, shall, solely by reason of his or her handicap, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination by the Subrecipient receiving assistance from the Recipient under Section 106 and /or Section 108 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended. B. When and where applicable, the Subrecipient shall comply with, and make best efforts to have its third party providers comply with, Public Law 101 -336 Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, Title I "Employment," Title II 'Public Services" - Subtitle A, and Title III "Public Accommodations and Services Operated By Private Entities" and all ensuing federal regulations implementing said Act. 20. LEAD -BASED PAINT The Subrecipient shall comply with the Lead -Based Paint notification, inspection, testing and abatement procedures established in 24 CFR 570.608. 21. FAIR HOUSING The Subrecipient shall be prohibited from receiving CDBG funds for activity /ies subject to this Agreement should it not affirmatively further fair housing within its own jurisdiction or impede action taken by Recipient to comply with the fair housing certification. 22. LOBBYING A. No federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the Subrecipient, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any Federal Grant, the making of any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement. D B. If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement Subrecipient will complete and submit Standard Form -LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying," in accordance with its instructions. 23. USE OF EXCESSIVE FORCE BY LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES Subrecipient has adopted and is enforcing a policy prohibiting the use of excessive force by law enforcement agencies within its jurisdiction against any individuals engaged in non - violent civil rights demonstrations; and a policy of enforcing applicable state and local laws against physically barring entrance to or exit from a facility or location which is the subject of such non - violent civil rights demonstrations within its jurisdiction. 24. OTHER CDBG POLICIES The Subrecipient shall comply with the applicable section of 24 CFR 570.200, particularly sections (b) (Special Policies Governing Facilities); (c) (Special Assessments); (f) (Means of Carrying Out Eligible Activities); and (j) (Constitutional prohibitions Concerning Church /State Activities). 25. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE The Recipient agrees to provide technical assistance to the Subrecipient in the form of oral and /or written guidance and on -site assistance regarding.CDBG procedures and project management. This assistance will be provided as requested by the Subrecipient, and at other times at the initiative of the Recipient when new or updated information concerning the CDBG Program is received by the Recipient and deemed necessary to be provided to the Subrecipient. 26. RECORDKEEPING The Subrecipient shall maintain records of the receipt and expenditure of all CDBG funds, such records to be maintained in accordance with OMB Circulars A -87 and the "Common Rule" Administrative Requirements in 24 CFR 85 and in accordance with OMB Circular A -1 10 and A -122, as applicable. All records shall be made available upon request of the Recipient for inspection /s and audit /s by the Recipient or its representatives. If a financial audit /s determines that the Subrecipient has improperly expended CDBG funds, resulting in the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) disallowing such expenditures, the Recipient reserves the right to recover from the Subrecipient such disallowed expenditures from non -CDBG sources. Audit procedures are specified below in Section 22 of this Agreement. 9 27. ACCESS TO RECORDS The Recipient shall have authority to review any and all procedures and all materials, notices, documents, etc., prepared by the Subrecipient in implementation of this Agreement, and the Subrecipient agrees to provide all information required by any person authorized by the Recipient to request such information from the Subrecipient for the purpose of reviewing the same. 28. AUDIT The Subrecipient agrees to provide Recipient with an annual audit consistent with the Single Audit Act of 1984, (U.S. Public Law 98 -502) and the implementing requirements of OMB Circular A -128, Audits of State and Local Governments, and, as applicable, OMB Circular A -1 10, Uniform Requirements for Grants to Universities, Hospitals and Non - Profit Organizations. A. The audit is to be provided to Recipient on July 1 of each year this Agreement is in effect and any findings of noncompliance affecting the use of CDBG funds shall be satisfied by Subrecipient within six (6) months of the provision date. B. The audit is not required, however, in those instances where less than $25,000 in assistance is received from all Federal sources in any one fiscal year. C. The cost of the audit is not reimbursable from CDBG funds. D. The Recipient reserves the right to recover from the Subrecipient's non -CDBG funds any CDBG expenses which are disallowed by an audit. 10 r! THIRD PARTY AGREEMENT URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into by and between the CITY /IES executing this Master Agreement, hereinafter referred to as "City," and the SENIOR COMMUNITY SERVICES, heinafter referred to as "Provider," 10709 Wayzata Boulevard, Minnetonka, MN 55305: WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the City is a cooperating unit in the Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) by virtue of a Joint .Cooperation Agreement effective October 1 , 1993 and executed between the City and Hennepin County pursuant to MSA 471.59; and WHEREAS, the City executed a Subrecipient Agreement with Hennepin County effective July 1, 1994 which allocates funds from the Fiscal Year 1994 Urban Hennepin County CDBG Program for the purpose of supporting the activities as set forth in Exhibit 1 to this Agreement, hereinafter referred to as "Activities." NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises contained in this Agreement, the parties hereto mutually agree to the following terms and conditions: SCOPE OF SERVICES A. Provider agrees to carry out Activities for the City as described in Exhibit 1, subject to the requirements of this Agreement and the stipulations and requirements set forth in Exhibit 1. B. Provider shall take all necessary actions required to implement Activities and to comply with any related requests by the City, it being understood that the City is responsible to Hennepin County for ensuring compliance with such requirements. Provider also will promptly notify the City of any changes in the scope or character of the Activities. 2. TERM OF AGREEMENT The effective date of this Agreement is July 1, 1994. The termination date of this Agreement is December 31, 1995, or at such time as the Activities are satisfactorily completed prior thereto. Upon expiration, Provider shall relinquish to the City all program funds unexpended or uncommitted for the Activities. 3. NON - ASSIGNMENT Provider shall not assign, subcontract, transfer, or pledge this Agreement and /or the Activities to be performed hereunder, whether whole or in part, without the prior consent of the City. 4. AMENDMENTS TO AGREEMENT Any material alterations, variations, modifications, or waivers of the provisions of this Agreement shall only be valid when reduced to writing as an Amendment to this Agreement signed, approved and properly executed by the authorized representatives of the parties. All Amendments to this Agreement shall be made a part of this Agreement by inclusion as a numbered Exhibit, which shall be attached at the time of any Amendment. Substantial change is defined as a change in 0 ) beneficiary; (2) project location; (3) purpose; or (4) scope, (more than a 50% increase or decrease in the original budget or $ 10,000, whichever is greater), in any authorized Activity. The total budget of multi - community activities will be used in determining substantial change. 5. PAYMENT OF CDBG FUNDS' The City agrees to provide Provider with CDBG funds not to exceed the budget as described in Exhibit 1, to enable Provider to carry out the Activities. It is understood that the City shall be held accountable to Hennepin County for the lawful expenditure of CDBG funds under this Agreement. The City shall, therefore, make no payment of funds to Provider and draw no funds from Hennepin County on behalf of Provider prior to having received from Provider a request for reimbursement, including copies of all documents and records needed to ensure that Provider has complied with all appropriate regulations and requirements. 6. INDEMNITY AND INSURANCE A. Provider does hereby agree to release, indemnify, and hold harmless the City from and against all costs, expenses, claims, suits, or judgments arising from or growing out of any injuries, loss, or damage sustained by any person or corporation, including employees of Provider and property of Provider, which are caused by or sustained in connection with the tasks carried out by Provider under this Agreement. B. Provider does further agree that, in order to protect itself as well as the City under the indemnity agreement provisions hereinabove set forth, it will at all times during the term of this Agreement and any renewal thereof have and keep in force: a single limit or combined limit or excess umbrella commercial and general liability insurance policy of an amount of not less than $ 1,000,000 for property damage arising from one occurrence, $1 ,000,000 for damages arising from death and /or total bodily injuries arising from one occurrence, and $ 1,000,000 for total personal injuries arising from one occurrence. Such policy shall also include contractual liability coverage protecting the City, its officers, agents, and employees by a certificate acknowledging this Agreement between Provider and the City. 2 7. CONFLICT OF INTEREST A. In the procurement of supplies, equipment, construction, and services by Provider, the conflict of interest provisions in 24 CFR 85.36 and OMB Circular A -1 10 shall apply. B. In all other cases, the provisions of 24 CFR 570.611 shall apply. S. DATA PRIVACY Provider agrees to abide by the provisions of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act and all other applicable state and federal laws, rules, and regulations relating to data privacy or confidentiality, and as any of the same may be amended. Provider agrees to defend and hold the City, its officers, .agents, and employees harmless from any claims resulting from Provider's unlawful disclosure and /or use of such protected data. 9. SUSPENSION AND TERMINATION A. If Provider materially fails to comply with any term of this Agreement or so fails to administer the work as to endanger the performance of this Agreement, this shall constitute noncompliance and a default. Unless Provider's default is excused by the City, the City may take one or more of the actions prescribed in 24 CFR 85.43, including the option of immediately cancelling this Agreement in its entirety. B. The City's failure to insist upon strict performance of any provision or to exercise any right under this Agreement shall not be deemed a relinquishment or waiver of the same. Such consent shall not constitute a general waiver or relinquishment throughout the entire term of the Agreement. C. This Agreement may be cancelled with or without cause by either party upon 30 days written notice according to the provisions in 24 CFR 85.44. D. CDBG funds allocated to Provider under this Agreement may not be obligated or expended by Provider following such date of termination. Any funds allocated to Provider under this Agreement which remain unobligated or unspent following such date of termination shall automatically revert to the City. 10. REVERSION OF ASSETS Upon expiration or termination of this Agreement, Provider shall transfer to the City any CDBG funds on hand or in the accounts receivable attributable to the use of CDBG funds, including CDBG funds provided to Provider in the form of a loan. Any real property acquired or improved, in whole or in part, using CDBG funds in excess of $25,000 shall either be: 3 'r A. Used to meet one of the national objectives in 24 CFR 570.208 and not used for the general conduct of government until: (1) For units of general local government, five years from the date that the unit of general local government is no longer considered by HUD to be a part of Urban Hennepin County; or (2) For any other Provider, five years after expiration of this Agreement; Or, B. Not used in accordance with A. above, in which event Provider shall pay to the City an amount equal to the current market value of the property less any portion of the value attributable to expenditures of non -CDBG funds for acquisition of, or improvement to, the property. The payment is program income to the City. No payment is required after the period of time specified in A. above. 11. PROCUREMENT Provider shall be responsible for procurement of all supplies, equipment, services, and construction necessary for implementation of the Activities. Procurement shall be carried out in accordance with the requirements of 24 CFR Part 85, and OMB Circulars A -110, A -122, as applicable. Provider shall prepare, or cause to be prepared, all advertisements, negotiations, notices, and documents; enter into all contracts; and conduct all meetings, conferences, and interviews, as necessary, to ensure compliance with the above described procurement requirements. 12. ACQUISITION RELOCATION AND DISPLACEMENT A. Provider shall be responsible for carrying out all acquisitions of real property necessary for implementation of Activities. Provider shall conduct all such acquisitions in its name and shall hold title to all real property purchased. Provider shall be responsible for preparation of all notices, appraisals, and documentation required in conducting acquisition under the latest applicable regulations of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act of 1970 and of the CDBG Program. Provider shall also be responsible for providing all relocation notices, counseling, and services required by said regulations. B. Provider shall comply with the acquisition and relocation requirements of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as required under 24 CFR 570.606(a) and HUD implementing regulations at 24 CFR Part 42; the requirements in 24 CFR 570.606(b) governing the residential anti - displacement and relocation assistance plan under section 104(d) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (the Act); the relocation requirements of 24 CFR 570.606(c) governing displacement subject to Section 104(k) of the Act; and the requirements of 24 CFR 570.606(d) governing optional relocation assistance under Section 105(a)(11) of the Act, as pertaining to the Activities. 4 13. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Provider shall provide all necessary information and relevant documents to the City to enable the City and Hennepin County to maintain the environmental review record on all Activities. 14. LABOR STANDARDS, EMPLOYMENT, AND CONTRACTING The City shall be responsible for the preparation of all requests to Hennepin County for HUD wage rate determinations on Activities. The Provider shall notify the City prior to initiating Activity, including advertising for contractual services, which will include costs likely to be subject to the provisions of Federal Labor Standards and Equal Employment Opportunity and related implementing regulations. 15. PROGRAM INCOME Any program income generated as a result of any. Activities shall be forwarded immediately to the City upon receipt by Provider and the provisions of 24 CFR 570.504 shall apply. 16. USE OF REAL PROPERTY The following standards shall apply to real property acquired or improved through Activities, in whole or in part, using CDBG funds: A. Provider shall inform the City at least 30 days prior to any modification or change in the use of the real property from that planned at the time of acquisition or improvements, including disposition. B. Provider shall reimburse the City in an amount equal. to the current fair market value (less any portion thereof attributable to expenditures of non -CDBG funds) of property acquired or improved with CDBG funds that is sold or transferred for a. use which does not qualify under the CDBG regulations. Said reimbursement shall be provided to the City at the time of sale or transfer of the property. Such reimbursement shall not be required if the conditions of 24 CFR 570.503(b)(8)(i) are met and satisfied. Fair market value shall be established by a current written appraisal by a qualified appraiser. The City will have the option of requiring a second appraisal after review of the initial appraisal. 17. ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS The uniform administrative requirements delineated in 24 CFR 570.502 and any and all administrative requirements or guidelines promulgated by Hennepin County shall apply to all Activities undertaken by Provider as provided in this Agreement and to any program income generated therefrom. 67 18. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY A. During the performance of this Agreement, Provider agrees to the following: In accordance with the Hennepin County Affirmative Action Policy and the County Commissioners' Policies Against Discrimination, no person shall be excluded from full employment rights or participation in, or the benefits of, any program, service or activity on the grounds of race, color, creed, religion, age, sex, disability, marital status, affectional /sexual preference, public assistance status, ex- offender status, or national origin; and no person protected by applicable federal or state laws against discrimination shall otherwise be subjected to discrimination. B. Provider will furnish all information and reports required to comply with the provisions of 24 CFR Part 570 and all applicable state and federal laws, rules, and regulations pertaining to discrimination and equal opportunity. 19. NON - DISCRIMINATION BASED ON DISABILITY A. Provider shall comply with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, to ensure that no otherwise qualified individual with a handicap, as defined in Section 504, shall, solely by reason of his or her handicap, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination by Provider receiving assistance from the City under Section 106 and /or Section 108 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended. B. When and where applicable, Provider shall comply with Public Law 101 -336 Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, Title I "Employment," Title II "Public Services" - Subtitle A, and Title III "Public Accommodations and Services Operated By Private Entities" and all ensuing federal regulations implementing said Act. 20. LEAD -BASED PAINT Provider shall comply with the Lead -Based Paint notification, inspection, testing 'and abatement procedures established in 24 CFR 570.608. 21. FAIR HOUSING Provider shall be prohibited from receiving CDBG funds for Activities subject to this Agreement if it impedes actions taken by the City to comply with the City's fair housing certification. 59 22. LOBBYING A. No federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of Provider, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any federal contract, the making of any federal grant, the making of any federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement. B. If any funds other than federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement Provider will complete and submit Standard Form -LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying," in accordance with its instructions. 23. OTHER CDBG POLICIES Provider shall comply with the general condition of 24 CFR 570.200, particularly sections: (b) Special policies governing facilities; (f) Means of carrying out eligible activities; and (j) Constitutional prohibitions concerning church /state activities. 24. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE The City agrees to provide technical assistance to Provider in the form of oral and /or written guidance and on -site assistance regarding CDBG procedures and project management._ This assistance will be provided as requested by Provider, and at other times at the initiative of the City when new or updated information concerning the CDBG Program is received by the City from Hennepin County and deemed necessary to be provided to Provider. 25. RECORDKEEPING AND ACCESS TO RECORDS Provider shall maintain records for the receipt and expenditure of all CDBG funds it receives, such records to be maintained in accordance with OMB Circular A -1 10 and A -. 122, as applicable. All records shall be made available upon request of the City for monitoring by the City. The City shall have authority to review any and all procedures and all materials, notices, documents, etc., prepared by Provider in implementation of the Activities and Provider agrees to provide all information required by any person authorized by the City to request such information from Provider for the purpose of reviewing the same. 7 26. AUDIT A. Provider agrees to provide City or Hennepin County with an annual audit report consistent with the provisions of OMB Circular A -1 10 Uniform Requirements for Grants to Universities, Hospitals and Non - Profit Organizations, OMB Circular A- 122 Cost Principles for Non - Profit Organizations, and OMB Circular A -133 Audits of Institutions of Higher Education and Other Non - Profit Institutions. (1) The audit report is 'to be provided to City or Hennepin County on July 1 of each year this Agreement is in effect and any findings of non - compliance affecting the use of CDBG funds shall be satisfied by Provider within 6 months of the provision date. (2) The audit is not required, however, in those instances where less than $25,000 in assistance is received from all federal sources in any one fiscal year. (3) The cost of the audit is not reimbursable from CDBG funds. (4) City reserves the right to recover from Provider the full amount of any CDBG funds found to be improperly expended or otherwise disallowed. B. Provider's assurance and certification regarding its financial management system is attached hereto as Exhibit 2 and incorporated herein by reference. FP RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR 1994 (YEAR XX) URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM WHEREAS, the City of Edina has executed a Joint Cooperation Agreement with Hennepin County for the purpose of participating in the 1994 (YEAR XX) Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program; and WHEREAS, Hennepin County is the recipient of an annual grant from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for purposes of the program, and the City is a subrecipient under the program and receives a share of the grant; and WHEREAS, program regulations require that the City and County execute a Subrecipient Agreement- which sets forth the specific implementation processes for activities to be undertaken with program funds. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Edina City Council hereby authorizes and directs the Mayor and Manager to execute the Subrecipient Agreement on behalf of the City. ADOPTED this 15th day of August, 1994 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 duly adopted by the Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of August 15, 1994, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this 16th day of August, 1994. Marcella M. Daehn City Clerk r1 l q; o Ce: t4 Cn REPORT /RECOMMENDATION TO: Mayor & City Council FROM: Francis Hoffma /' City Engineer; / ;i 4 1 " DATE: 15 August, 1994 SUBJECT: Vacation of Utility and Drainage Easement - 3617 W. 55th St. Recommendation: Agenda Item # III.A. ❑ Consent Information Only ❑ Mgr. Recommends ❑ To HRA X❑ Action .❑ To Council Motion Resolution Ordinance Discussion The City staff has reviewed the request and would recommend vacating only a sufficient amount of the easement to accomplish the requested building addition, subject to the NSP issue being resolved. As such, staff would recommend this matter be heard Monday evening but the issue may need to be continued to the September 7th Council meeting so that details can be worked out between NSP, City staff and the homeowner. Info /Background: A request has been made to vacate a portion of a ten foot wide sideyard utility and drainage easement for the purpose of adding a garage addition to the property. NSP objects to the vacation of the easement as they have an overhead line which serves both the requesting property and the property to the west. NSP staff has stated that they are willing to change their position if the property owner and NSP can relocate the service wires with the homeowner being responsible for the costs. rNorM line of Lot 5 extended west -North line of Lot S W. 55th St. ,BEAST _ SET IROM - 90.00 r -30 - r 1 I N 10.00 ' 5 o n� � •70.0 � 41 �•�" N 21.90 41 �t U 49.30 N0.3617 m° re 0 1-STORY DWELLING ,. I, o (WALK OUT) 0 N 47,40 I o Op N O C) (V . Z I To k 7.031 SET IRON T741 SURVE PROPE LEGAL '4,4J 24.00 N W QD r— cf In 1 here o �t am a CD— 0 ON .....� /v ♦cv I o Op N O C) (V . Z I To k 7.031 SET IRON T741 SURVE PROPE LEGAL • KEY •• Requested area of vacation —� City's recommended vacation area NOTE 1. Th en, X 2. Ar 0 0 _j V) L.- -O o ar T CER7 W r— cf In 1 here o �t am a CD— 0 ON -4 cr> 0 Dated p 4 0 N v C �a • KEY •• Requested area of vacation —� City's recommended vacation area NOTE 1. Th en, X 2. Ar 0 0 _j V) L.- -O o ar T TO: Mayor & City Council REQUEST FOR PURCHASE FROM: Francis Hoffman, Director of Public Works VIA: Kenneth Rosland, City Manager SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $5,000 DATE: - 15 August, 1994 AGENDA ITEM ITEM DESCRIPTION: 2.75 Cubic Yard Articulated 4 -Wheel Drive Loader Company Amount of Quote or Bid 1. St. Joseph Equipment, Inc. 1. $, 44,083.00 2. Ziegler, Inc. 2. $ 50,789.00 3. Midwest Machinery, Inc. 3. $ 57,000.00 4. 4. 5. 5. RECOMMENDED QUOTE OR BID: Ziegler, Inc. GENERAL INFORMATION: $ 50,789.00 This purchase is a replacement for an existing loader which is on the 5 year guaranteed repurchase (fife cycle costing) program. This purchase is funded from the equipment replacement fund. See attached memorandum for additional information. .h_ Si ture The Recommended Bid is X within budget not within bud Public Works - Streets Department get hn 1�1(allin, Finoce Director Kenneth Rosidnd, City CITY OF EDINA MEMORANDUM DATE: August 15, 1994 TO: Mayor & City Council FROM: Francis Hoffman, Director of Public Works -� ' SUBJECT: 2.75 Cubic Yard Articulated 4 -Wheel Drive Loader The purchase procedure for this loader is the same as the 3.5 cubic yard loader. Please review that procedure on Council Agenda Item IV.B. before reading the balance of this memorandum. On this purchase, the order of the bids is different with the low bid being St. Joseph Equipment (Case) at $44,083.00 vs. Ziegler (Caterpillar) at $50,789.00 vs. Midwest Machinery (John Deere) at $57,000.00. However, staff is recommending the second bid to the City Council. Staff has evaluated the specifications of all three vendors and has determined that the equipment provided by Ziegler best meets the City needs. All three vendors are aware of our recommendation and have not taken exception to the recommendation. The articulated loader is the backbone of our Public Works fleet and as such is carefully analyzed when purchasing new equipment. The Caterpillar Model 938F better meets the intent of the specifications than the Case Model 721 B or the John Deere Model 624G. As such, staff is recommending that the 938F Caterpillar articulated loader be purchased. Staff will be prepared to discuss this item further if City Council so desires. TO: Mayor & City Council REQUEST FOR PURCHASE FROM: Francis Hoffman, Director of Public Works VIA: . Kenneth Rosland, City Manager SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $5,000 DATE: 15 August, 1994 AGENDA ITEM ITEM DESCRIPTION: 3.5 Cubic Yard Articulated 4 -Wheel Drive Loader Company 1. St. Joseph Equipment, Inc. 2. Midwest Machinery, Inc. 3. Ziegler, Inc. 4. 5. RECOMMENDED QUOTE OR BID: St. Joseph Equipment, Inc. GENERAL INFORMATION: i Amount of Quote or Bid 1. $ 53,623.00 2. $ 65,800.00 3. $ 71,065.00 4. 5. $ 53,623.00 This purchase is a replacement for an existing loader which is on the 5 year guaranteed repurchase (life cycle costing) program. This purchase is funded from the equipment replacement fund. See attached memorandum for additional information. Public Works - Streets Signatu Department The Recommended Bid is within budget not within budget Jo Wallin, F' ance Director Kenneth Ros and, City Manger CITY OF EDINA MEMORANDUM DATE: August 15, 1994 TO: Mayor & City Council Public FROM. Francis Hoffman, Director o f Works SUBJECT: 3.5 Cubic Yard Articulated 4 -Wheel Drive Loader The City bid for a replacement loader was done in three methods. The first method was strictly a new machine with a trade -in of the existing machine. St. Joseph Equipment (Case) was low net bid at $51,309.00 vs. 65,800.00 for Midwest Machinery (John Deere) vs. 71,065.00 for Ziegler (Caterpillar). The second method includes requiring the bidder to provide a guaranteed maintenance cost to the City. In other words, if maintenance cost exceeds the bid figure, the company will pay the additional maintenance cost. Midwest Machinery (John Deere) had the lowest maintenance cost number but it did not change the order of the lowest bid. Finally, we bid a total cost package in which they agree to repurchase the loader within five years at a guaranteed price. For all three vendors, the repurchase price ranged from $79,000.00 to $80,000.00. As such, staff would recommend this purchase be awarded to St. Joseph Equipment for the Case loader at a net price of $53,623.00 compared to $65,800.00 for the John Deere loader or $71,065.00 for the Caterpillar loader. TO: Mayor & City Council REQUEST- -FOR PURCHASE FROM: Francis Hoffman, Director of Public Works VIA: Kenneth Rosland, City Manager SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $5,000 DATE: 15 August, 1994 AGENDA ITEM iv. c. ITEM DESCRIPTION: Pump House Renovation - 5233 Halifax Avenue Company 1. Noonan Construction, Inc. 2. Plekkenpol Builders, Inc. 3. 4. 5. RECOMMENDED QUOTE OR BID: Noonan Construction, Inc. GENERAL INFORMATION: Amount of Quote or Bid 1. $ 9,187.00 2. $ 12,234.00 3. 4. 5. $ 9,187.00 This project is to renovate the exterior and roof of the Halifax Well Pump House. This project will be funded from the Sewer and Water Utility Fund. This is part of our annual maintenance work to keep our infrastructure in good shape. i N. �, Public Works - Utilities `J Sign6ture�� Department The Recommended Bid is x within budget not within budget Kenneth Rosland, City iLk,�, Ilin, Finapce Director a, REPORT/RECOMMENDATION TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL FROM: CRAIG G. SWANSON TRAFFIC SAFETY DATE: AUGUST 15, 1994 SUBJECT: TRAFFIC SAFETY STAFF REPORT Agenda Item # V. A. Consent ❑ Information Only ❑ Mgr. Recommends ❑ To H A ❑ To Council Action ® Motion ❑ Resolution ❑ Ordinance ❑ Discussion Recommendation: Motion to accept the recommendation. InfoBackground: A special item is included at the beginning of the staff report. On a technical basis, the staff recommends the change in parking restrictions to allow Sunday parking on France Avenue. The neighborhood has been advised of the recommended change and residents may want input on the matter. TRAFFIC SAFETY STAFF REVIEW AUGUST 2. 1994 The staff review of traffic safety matters occurred on August 2, 1994. Staff present included the City Engineer, the Chief of Police, the Traffic Safety Coordinator, and the Public Works Traffic Control Specialist. The Assistant City Manager was not present. From that review, the below recommendations are provided. On each of the items, persons involved have been contacted and the staff recommendation has been discussed with them. They have also been informed that if they disagree with the recommendation or have additional facts to present, they can be included on the August 15, 1994 Council agenda. SPECIAL ITEM: Request through Hennepin County to allow limited parking on Sundays on France Avenue in the 4700 -4900 blocks to accommodate church parking sought by Good Shepherd Church. The staff discussed the facts surrounding this request. France Avenue is a border street between Minneapolis and Edina. Municipalities have the authority to regulate parking and in this case, west side authority is under the purview of Edina. During weekdays over 12,000 vehicles utilize France Avenue. It functions as a minor arterial roadway. Parking restrictions exist to accommodate this traffic. Sunday morning traffic is greatly reduced and volume could easily be handled while allowing parking. However, the history of parking restrictions along France Avenue has been controversial in the past with inconsistencies between Edina and Minneapolis. Citizen participation has been important to those issues. The staff does not oppose permitting Sunday parking on a technical, policy, or warrant basis. Given the staffs technical endorsement, affected residents along France Avenue as well as the 50th Street Business Association, have been given an informational letter, including these comments, and the fact that the Edina City Council will review the matter during the Traffic Safety portion of the August 15th, 1994 Council meeting. TRAFFIC SAFETY STAFF REVIEW August 2, 1994 Page 2 SECTION A: Requests on which the staff recommends approval. (1) Request for "Dead End" or "No Outlet" on Jay Place at W. 50th Street. The request is consistent with City of Edina Policy and the staff recommends the installation. (2) Request for a Council resolution. establishing "No Parking Anytime" parking restrictions on Vernon Avenue between TH 100 and Blake Road. Restrictions on both sides of the road. Hennepin County staff made the request after reviewing existing use of roadway and the apparent lack of "No Parking" signs on the street. The staff recommends adoption of the resolution. SECTION B: Requests on which the staff recommends denial of request. (1) Request to upgrade to a "Stop" sign the "Yield" sign controlling eastbound traffic entering Braemar Boulevard from the link to Valley View Road. The staff discussed traffic patterns, volumes and the accident history of the intersection. The highest volume travels on Braemar Boulevard along the northerly border of the golf course and links to Valley View Road prior to its southerly path along the-westerly border of the golf course. The volume ranks with collector roadways with a notable morning and evening rush hour peak. No accidents have been reported over a three year search period. The staff could not identify warrants sufficient to upgrade the signage and recommends against any change. (2) Request to sign Brookside Terrace to "One -Way" southbound. The staff discussed the facts relating to Brookside Terrace in relationship to making it a one -way southbound street. The northerly end of Brookside Terrace between W. 44th Street and Motor Street is a public roadway. The southerly end of Brookside Terrace is a narrow gravel roadway that is described as a private road although the City of Edina does perform certain TRAFFIC SAFETY STAFF REVIEW - August 2, 1994 Page 3 maintenance on it. Ten homes are serviced by Brookside Terrace with the greatest concentration at the northerly end. No accidents were reported on Brookside Terrace during a three year search period. Traffic counters were utilized at both ends of Brookside Terrace over a two day period. Average daily traffic was less than 120 vehicles per day which approximates the number of trips per day generated by ten homes. The requestor suggests the one -way change due to non - neighborhood traffic that may be attempting to reach other streets in a nearby neighborhood. Allegedly, that traffic enters Brookside Terrace at the south end, realizes it cannot get through to the other neighborhood, makes a turnabout or otherwise adds unwanted volume. The staff discussed the facts in light of the request. The staff would not recommend a one -way street for the public portion of Brookside Terrace. The concentration of homes is to the north, driving habits have been established, and needless travel to the south would be necessary and possibly ignored by some drivers. The private -like portion of the roadway, if brought into the public domain by petition and /or regulated by the City, might establish the requirement for other improvements and change the character of what now exists. The contention that the road is being used by non - neighborhood traffic may be true, however, to do so, drivers must enter a driveway -like dirt road to cross a railroad track and pass by a clearly posted "Private Road" sign. Given the lack of accidents, the very low volume, and the lack of a recommendation to change the public portion of the roadway, the staff recommends no change be made to Brookside Terrace. (3) Request for warning signs or "Stop" signs on Branson Street at Oakdale Avenue to control speed and volume. Oakdale Avenue forms a "T" intersection with the westerly end of Branson Street. The requestor states that many vehicles, not from the neighborhood use the route of Branson Street and Oakdale Avenue, as a "cut through" to avoid the Grimes Avenue and Morningside Road intersection. The "Stop" sign request is made with the intent of decreasing speed and volume. The facts reviewed by the staff include speed, volume, and accident information. One accident was reported in the area during June of 1992. It TRAFFIC SAFETY STAFF REVIEW August 2, 1994 Page 4 was of a minor nature and no Police report was made. Traffic counters were utilized for a 48 -hour period and a daily average of 295 vehicles was recorded. A brief speed survey was conducted and no vehicles were traveling at or over 30 MPH. The staff discussed these facts and concluded that volume of vehicles approximates the number of trips generated by the neighborhood. Speed was below the normal residential pattern and one accident is below the warrants for a "Stop" sign. The staff also concluded that the roadway with its hills, curves and corners would not serve as an attractive cut - through route. The staff recommends denial based on lack of warrants and the request being outside City of Edina policies. (4) Request for "Stop" signs on Benton Avenue at Johnson Drive. The staff reviewed warrants and policy regarding the multiway "Stop" sign request. Three accidents were reported at or near the intersection during a 3- year search period. All occurred in 1992 of which two (2) were reported to the Police. Both reported accidents involved a one car skidding accident. Previous studies of Benton Avenue revealed that vehicles have difficulty negotiating the curves at 30 MPH or greater. This precludes an enforcement effort of speed limit violations. Benton Avenue is a collector roadway and carries approximately 2000 vehicles daily. In the past, Benton Avenue near Johnson Drive was re- engineered. Sidewalks, improved curbing, and bollards and chains were installed to protect pedestrians. These physical barriers do however, cause property damage to vehicles if they leave the traveled portion of the roadway. The staff further discussed the westbound approach on Benton Avenue at Johnson Drive. It was concluded that the geometrics and sight distances would not be sufficient for an unfamiliar driver -to enter the curves and react to a posted "Stop" sign at Johnson Drive. Driver reactions especially during inclement weather might cause greater skidding ad loss of control than exists presently. Currently, warning signs and a 20 MPH advisory speed is posted. The staff reviewed the policies and warrants for a multi -way "Stop" sign as related to the facts presented. The staff concluded and recommends the denial of the "Stop" sign request. TRAFFIC SAFETY STAFF REVIEW - August 2, 1994 Page 5 (5) Request for "No Turn on Red" for westbound Londonderry Road at the northbound entrance to TH 169. The staff discussed the intersection, the problem of traffic "Back -up" and jurisdiction of the turning movement in conjunction with the signal lights. A brief observation of the intersection does confirm a "back up'- condition during the evening rush hour. This is due to freeway metering and the very high volume of traffic. The staff concluded that restricting turning would have little impact on overall congestion. Furthermore the staff determined the signals are under the jurisdiction of the Minnesota Department of Transportation. The staff does not support recommending MDOT establish restrictions. (6) Request to upgrade intersection controls with an additional "Stop" sign and /or crosswalks at Grove Street at Stuart Avenue, Wycliffe Road and Arbour Avenue. The staff concluded that warrants for "Stop" signs do not exist at the intersection, however, after the start of school at Countryside School. pedestrian counts should be conducted to determine if a crosswalk should be installed. SECTION C: Requests which are deferred to a later date or referred to others. (1) Request for parking restrictions on Wooddale Avenue at Wooddale Glen to improve visibility. The request was made by a non - Wooddale Glen resident. The staff discussed the issue and concluded that the visibility problem is intermittent and residents on Wooddale Glen should be sampled as to their need for parking restrictions. RESOLUTION RELATING TO PARKING RESTRICTIONS ON CSAH 17 (France Avenue) from West 47th Street to West 49th Street (West Side) in the City of Edina, Minnesota. THIS RESOLUTION passed the 15th day of August, 1994, by the City of Edina in Hennepin County, Minnesota. The Municipal corporation shall herinafter be called the "City', WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the "City' has reviewed a request for parking on CSAH 17 (France Avenue) from West 47th Street to West 49th Street. WHEREAS, the "City' has allowed Sunday morning parking on other collector (high - volume) streets in Edina. WHEREAS, this request does not appear to affect traffic operations due to the low traffic volumes on Sunday mornings. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED: that the "City' would allow parking on France Avenue between West 47th Street and West 49th Street from 8:30 A.M. to 12:30 P.M. on Sundays. Dated this 15th day of August, 1994. 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 was duly adopted by the Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of August 15, 1994, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this August 16, 1994. City Clerk RESOLUTION RELATING TO PARKING RESTRICTIONS On CSAH 158 (Vernon Avenue) from T.H. 100 to Blake Road in the City of Edina, Minnesota. THIS RESOLUTION passed this 15th day of August, 1994, by the City of Edina in Hennepin County, Minnesota. The Municipal corporation shall hereinafter be called the "City", WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the "City" has reviewed the operation of CSAH 158 from T.H. 100 to Blake Road, WHEREAS, this traffic operation does not provide adequate width for parking on both sides of -the street. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS THEREBY RESOLVED: that the "City', shall ban the parking of motor vehicles on both sides of CSAH 158 between T.H. 100 and Blake Road. Dated this 15th day of August, 1994. 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 was duly adopted by the Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of August 15, 1994, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this August 16, 1994. City Clerk �r REPORT/RECOMMENDATION TO: COUNCIL MEMBERS Agenda Item # v . C . FROM: MAYOR RICHARDS Consent ❑ Information Only ❑ DATE: AUGUST 15, 1994 Mgr. Recommends ❑ To HRA SUBJECT: ❑ To Council NINE MILE CREEK Action 0 Motion WATERSHED DISTRICT APPOINTMENT ❑ Resolution RECOMMENDATION ❑ Ordinance ❑ Discussion Recommendation: InfoBackground: I received the attached letter from LuAnn B. Tolliver who is interested in being re- appointed by the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners to the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District Board. All members of the Board are appointed at large. Ms. Tolliver has asked the City to support her re- appointment. Aileen Kulak, Watershed District Chair, also supports her re- appointment. July 20, 1994 Fred Richards, Mayor City of Edina 4801 West 50th Street Edina, Minnesota 55424 Honorable Mayor Richards: I am writing this letter to indicate my interest in being re- appointed will be to the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District Board. This fall my first three year term and am currently seeking ment for a second term. I feel I have been a dedicatdord�erahave ete a and contributing to this reg ua��Y bodY Durngthe lasthree years, and have attended I have missed only one regularly scheduled meeting all Special Meetings. I also have been active on a sub - committee of board members working on the District's Overall Watershed District uple of Plan (509 Plan), which will be complete within the next coenthusiasm months. I feel I bring knowledge, experience, energy and to the Board. I am asking the City of Edina to consider supporting my re- appointment by writing a letter to Kay Mitchell at Hennepin County. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, LuAnn B. Tolliver Nine Mile Creek Watershed District Manager 14901 Williams Lane Minnetonka, MN. 55345 (over) 7-7.,� - ��k � REPORT /RECOMMENDATION TO: Kenneth Rosland Agenda Item # V. D. FROM: David A. velde ❑ Consent Information Only ❑ Mgr. Recommends ❑ To HRA DATE: August 15, 1994 ® To Council SUBJECT: License fee waiver for Action ❑ Motion itinerant food establishments operated ❑ Resolution by non - profit service clubs ❑ Ordinance © Discussion Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a policy to waive the license fee for itinerant food establishments operated by non - profit service clubs which meet the following criteria: The non - profit service club has purchased one fee based itinerant food establishment license for the current license year. The licensed fee waiver request is presented to the City Council during a regularly scheduled Council Meeting at least five days prior to the scheduled event. Info /Background On July 18, 1994, staff was directed by City Council to develop an ordinance to permit non - profit service clubs such as the Edina Rotary the ability to obtain one license for an itinerant food stand per year. Subsequent to the July 18, 1994 meeting, staff has investigated several options to permit a service club to obtain one license for multiple events in one year. In each case, legal consul has advised staff that the City cannot grant such a permit based upon the fact that the applicant is a service club without granting equal treatment to the for - profit itinerant food establishments. The purpose behind the fee per event for an itinerant food establishment is to recover the cost of inspecting the food stands at each event. Therefore, staff does not believe it would be prudent to adopt an ordinance amendment which would permit all itinerant food stands the option of obtaining one license for all events occurring in the City during one license year. It would be very difficult fo, staff to anticipate the number of events and manpower requirements for each event to determine ai. annual fee. As an alternative, the City Council could adopt a policy which allows non - profit service clubs the option of purchasing the first itinerant food establishment license at full cost. If the service club were to participate in additional events during the year, they could petition the City Council for a waiver of the fee for each subsequent event. This fee waiver would then appear on the City Council agenda, perhaps as a consent item, for approval or denial. Staff would still continue to inspect the itinerant food establishments as before, but the inspection would be gratis. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Kenneth E. Rosland, City Manager FROM: Jerry Gilligan DATE: August 12, 1994 RE: Itinerant Food Establishment Licenses for Service Organizations The Edina Morningside Rotary Club has requested that the City consider issuing an annual itinerant food establishment license. Presently the City Code provides for the issuance of a itinerant food establishment license on an event basis and the fee for each license is $70. This request was discussed by the City Council at its July 18th meeting and a question was raised as to whether the City could provide for an annual license for itinerant food establishments operated by public service organizations. In regulating businesses and activities the general rule is that regulations and license fees imposed by the City must apply equally to all persons within the same class, where the circumstances and conditions are similar. Any classifications or differences in regulation must be based upon reasonable distinctions which are germane to the purpose of the regulation. This uniformity in regulation is required by constitutional requirements of due process and equal protection laws. The City requires licenses for itinerant food establishments for public health reasons and the license fee is intended to cover City costs related to background checks of applicants and inspection of the food establishment. I understand from talking to Dave Velde that there is no difference between the type of inspection or review undertaken by the City with respect to itinerant food establishments operated by public service organizations and establishments operated by other vendors. The fact that an establishment is operated by a public service organization is not a valid distinction since the same public health concerns are involved-with each food establishment irregardless of the operator. Consequently, there does not appear to be any reasonable distinctions to justify allowing an annual license for service organizations only. If the City Council wishes to amend the City Code to authorize an annual itinerant food establishment license it could not limit the availability of an annual license to service organizations or other community based nonprofit organizations without risking a challenge by another vendor that the ordinance invalidly discriminates against other vendors. JPG:cmn DORSEY & WHITNEY A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CoRPORATION5 01 VU REPORWRECOMMENDATION TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL Agenda Item # V.E. FROM: CELL SMn H Consent Information Only ❑ DATE: AUGUST 15, 1994 Mgr. Recommends ❑ To HRA SUBJECT: © To Council 1994 CONTRACT - LOCAL 49 Action ❑ Motion OF THE INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ❑ Resolution ENGINEERS ❑ Ordinance ❑ Discussion Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the agreement between the City and Local 49 with the following changes: WAGES - 2.0% - The percent of increase is within budget and similar to the wage increase given to other employees. INSURANCE - $40.00 per month - This is within budget and the same increase given to other employees. UNIFORMS - City will provide uniforms and personal safety equipment allowance of $450.00 per employee. This is within budget and equal to other union employees of the City. 24 HOUR RECALL PAY - Increased $15.00 per day. this is within the budget. PREMIUM PAY FOR EARLY MORNING ICE RINK MAINTENANCE - $2.75 over their regular rate of pay will be paid to park employees who report to work at 4:00 A.M. until their regular start time of 7:00 A.M. This is within budget. REPORT/RECOMMENDATION TO: Mayor & City Council Agenda Item # v.F. FROM: Francis Hoffman) ® Consent City Engineer o Information Only ❑ Mgr. Recommends ❑ To HRA DATE: 15 August, 1994 To Council SUBJECT: Feasibility Report - Action Motion Improvement E -34 Sunnyside Alley ❑ Resolution Set Hearing Date 7 September, 1994 ❑ Ordinance ❑ Discussion Recommendation: Set Public Hearing Date of 7 September, 1994 for alley project on Sunnyside Road. Info /Background: The City received a petition for paving the portion of alley from #4114 thru #4216 Sunnyside Road. Staff reviewed the petition and project area and would agree the project is feasible. The estimated cost is $24,000.00 if bituminous material is used and $45,882.00 if concrete is used. The project would be assessed against the 13 properties benefitting from the improvement. We therefore recommend the Public Hearing be held on 7 September, 1994. This project is subject to easements being granted for a public alley. REPORWRECOMMENDATION TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL FROM: JOHN KEPRIOS DIRECTOR DATE: AUGUST 15, 1994 SUBJECT: LAKE CORNELIA PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT PLAN PROPOSAL Recommendation: Agenda Item # V.G. Consent ❑ Information Only ❑ Mgr. Recommends ❑ To HRA El To Council Action 0 Motion ❑ Resolution ❑ Ordinance ❑ Discussion To go forward with the concept of the Lake Cornelia Park playground equipment plan and make it a community funded project. InfoBackground: See attached memorandum with the full project description. CITY OF EDINA PARK AND RECREATION_DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: August 10, 1994 TO: Mayor Frederick Richard ,and City Council members. Y� FROM: John Keprios, DirectoI(� SUBJECT: Lake Cornelia Playground Equipment Plan proposal. This is a request that the Edina City Council approve the Edina Park Board's unanimously approved recommendation "TO GO FORWARD WITH THE CONCEPT OF THE LAKE CORNELIA PARK PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT PLAN AND MAKE IT A COMMUNITY FUNDED PROJECT." The Lake Cornelia Park Equipment Plan concept was presented to the Edina Park Board by staff at the Tuesday, July 12, 1994, Park Board meeting. PROJECT DESCRIPTION This recommendation involves a new and innovative playground equipment plan for Lake Cornelia Park playground area. This is a unique one -of -a -kind theme park for a public playground area based on the movie classic, "Wizard of Oz." The playground area is currently named "Somewhere Over the Rainbow." Copyright patents on the name and concept are currently being researched. The concept is to make this a community project to be funded completely through donations. Part of the recommended approach will be to sell "gift bricks" along the yellow brick road (path around the playground equipment), as well as, attempt to secure corporate sponsorships. If the City Council accepts this approach as a viable method to fund the project, it is recommended that the Edina Foundation be asked to serve as the fiscal agent to handle donations and purchase the equipment and installation for the project. The concept being recommended by the Edina Park Board is essentially two -fold: 1. Approve this unique playground equipment plan for Lake Cornelia Park. Approve the community project fund - raising approach as an acceptable method to fund the project. A playground equipment consultant currently estimates the purchase and installation of the playground equipment, safety surfaces and amenities to be approximately $200,000. REPORT/RECOMMENDATION TO: MAYOR AND' COUNCIL Agenda Item # V.H. FROM: JOHN KEPRIOS Consent ❑ DIRECTOR Information Only ❑ DATE: AUGUST 15, 1994 Mgr. Recommends ❑ To HRA SUBJECT: © To Council "ADOPT -A- PARK" PROGRAM Action ® Motion ❑ Resolution ❑ Ordinance ❑ Discussion Recommendation: To accept the concept of the "Adopt -A- Park" program. InfoBackground: See attached memorandum outlining the program description, program guidelines and goals of the proposed "Adopt -A- Park" program. DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT CITY OF EDINA PARK AND RECREATION__DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM August 10, 1994 Mayor Frederick Richards. and City Council members John Keprios, Adopt -A -Park Director, Program sta f recommendation. This is a request that the Edina City Council approve the Edina Park Board's unanimously approved recommendation "TO ACCEPT THE CONCEPT OF THE ADOPT -A -PARK PROGRAM." The Adopt -A -Park Program concept was presented to the Edina Park Board by staff at the Tuesday, July 12, Park Board meeting. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION Adopt -A -Park is a volunteer -based public service program designed primarily to assist their community by picking up litter in their designated Edina park. It enables citizens to contribute to a cleaner environment. Litter clean -up is expensive. Citizens lending a hand to keep parks clean will help the City save money on maintenance costs. Volunteers will also be asked to identify safety hazards and freely communicate to the Edina Park and Recreation Department other issues concerning their designated park. A litter free community is inviting to visitors and prospective new citizens and businesses. The Adopt -A -Park program affords a high quality of park maintenance at no additional cost to the tax - payers. Once implemented, the program can have a dramatic and positive effect on the entire park system as well as the community as a whole. Residents of all ages will take on a new feeling of ownership and pride in their public parks and will provide a valuable service to the community that otherwise would not be available. This volunteer effort will save tax dollars and allow maintenance crews to devote time and effort to other important projects. PROGRAM GUIDELINES Volunteer's Commitment 1. Adopt -A -Park is open to community groups, civic groups, athletic associations, churches, and individual citizens who may choose park sites on a first come, first served basis. 2. The group shall sign an Adopt -A -Park Agreement form that specifies a minimum commitment of two years. 3. The volunteer group agrees to pick up their designated park a minimum of two times per year, preferably once in the Spring, once during the Summer and again in the Fall. 4. The group shall arrange litter pick up dates a minimum of 48 hours in advance with the Edina Park Maintenance Department. -2- 5. The group shall collect'aluminum cans in separate bags for recycling. - - 6. The group shall place filled trash bags at an agreed upon location within the park. 7. The group shall promptly inform the Edina Park Maintenance Department of observed safety hazards in their designated park. City of Edina's Commitment 1. The City of Edina will provide, at the group's designated park, a personalized Adopt -A -Park sign that identifies the approved volunteer group during their period of Commitment. The signs will be small brown signs similar in color to our standard park signs with white lettering. 2. The City of Edina will provide an Adopt -A -Park agreement to be signed by participating groups or individuals. 3. The volunteer group will receive a certificate of appreciation from the City. 4. The Edina Park Maintenance Department will provide all necessary plastic bags, brooms, shovels and access to park shelter buildings. 5. The Edina Park Maintenance Department will pick up and properly dispose of filled bags of litter and aluminum cans. 6. The City of Edina will request local newspaper coverage of the group's efforts. GOALS OF THE PROGRAM The following 36 park sites Adopt -A -Park program: 1. Alden Park 2. Arden Park 3. Arneson Acres Park 4. Birchcrest Park 5. Braemar Park (walking .playground and picnic 6. Bredesen Park 7. Browndale Park 8. Chowen Park 9. Cornelia School Park 10. Countryside Park would be ideally suitable for the path, areas only) 11. Creek Valley School Park 12. Fox Meadow Park 13. Garden Park 14. Heights Park 15. Highlands Park 16. Krahl Hill Open Space 17. Lake Cornelia Park 18. Lake Edina Park 19. Lewis Park 20. McGuire Park 21. Moore Property 22. Normandale Park 23. Pamela Park 24. Robert J. Kojetin Park 25. Sherwood Park 26. Strachauer Park 27. Tingdale Park 28. T. Lea Todd Park 29. Tupa Park 30. Utley Park 31. Van Valkenburg Park 32. Walnut Ridge Park 33. Weber Field Park 34. Williams & Wooddale Park 35. York Park 36. Yorktown Park If approved by the City Council, the Park and Recreation Department will produce a promotional flyer for distribution to civic groups, churches, businesses and associations. Additional publicity will be placed the Park and Recreation Department Activities Calendar, the local newspaper, and the City of Edina news publication, "About Town." f COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu Aug 11 1994 00:59:27 Page 1. CHECK-NO DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM OBJECT PO NUM. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 08/15/94 $50.00 A LOLLIPOP EXPERIENCE SERVICES 082794 ED ADMINIS.TRAT PROF SERVICES 148067 $50.00* 08/15/94 $98.32 A -O -K RENTAL CENTER GENERAL SUPPLIES 10196 ED BUILDING & GENERAL SUPPLI 08/15/94 $40.68 A -O -K RENTAL CENTER GENERAL SUPPLIES 10257 ED BUILDING & GENERAL SUPPLI 148068 $139.00* 08/15/94 $153.18 A.M. LEONARD TOOLS 10554560 PUMP & LIFT ST TOOLS 148069 $153.18* 08/15/94 $43.00 AAGARD ENVIRONMENTAL S RUBBISH REMOVAL 71861 YORK OCCUPANCY RUBBISH REMOVA 08/15/94 $43.00 AAGARD ENVIRONMENTAL S RUBBISH REMOVAL 71859 VERNON OCCUPAN RUBBISH REMOVA 08/15/94 $43.00 AAGARD ENVIRONMENTAL S RUBBISH REMOVAL 71860 50TH ST OCCUPA RUBBISH REMOVA 148070 $129.00* 08/15/94 $28.42 AASEN, LAURIE MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE 072894 METER READING MILEAGE 148071 $28.42* 08/15/94 $17.25 ACTION MESSENGER PROFESSIONAL SERVICE .141622 ED BUILDING & PROF SERVICES 148072 $17..25* 08/15/94 $261.45 ADVANCE LIGHTING INC CONTRACTED REPAIRS 49340 ARENA BLDG /GRO CONTR REPAIRS 148073 $261.45* 08/15/94 $10.04 AGGRESSIVE INDUSTRIES SALES TAX 022089. MAINT OF COURS GENERAL SUPPLI 148074 $10.04* 08/15/94 $16.51 ALPHAGRAPHICS PRINTING 21947 ED ADMINISTRAT PRINTING 08/15/94 $46.75 ALPHAGRAPHICS GENERAL SUPPLIES 22020 COMMUNICATIONS GENERAL SUPPLI 08/15/94 $10.22 ALPHAGRAPHICS PRINTING 22031 ED ADMINISTRAT PRINTING 148075 $73.48* 08/15/94 $53.25 ALTERNATOR REBUILD REPAIR PARTS 19677 EQUIPMENT OPER REPAIR PARTS 08/15/94 $129.32 ALTERNATOR REBUILD REPAIR PARTS 19676 EQUIPMENT OPER REPAIR PARTS 148076 $182.57* 08/15/94 $159.77 AMERICAN LINEN LAUNDRY 073194 CITY HALL GENE LAUNDRY 08/15/94 $145.26 AMERICAN LINEN LAUNDRY 073194 ED BUILDING & LAUNDRY 08/15/94 $31.79 AMERICAN LINEN LAUNDRY 073194 50TH ST OCCUPA LAUNDRY 08/15/94 $43.03 AMERICAN LINEN LAUNDRY 073194 VERNON OCCUPAN LAUNDRY 08/15/94 $10.93 AMERICAN LINEN LAUNDRY 073194 LABORATORY LAUNDRY 08/15/94 $66.93 AMERICAN LINEN LAUNDRY .073194 YORK OCCUPANCY LAUNDRY 08/15/94 $205.25 AMERICAN LINEN LAUNDRY 073194 FIRE DEPT. GEN LAUNDRY 08/15/94 $69.32 AMERICAN LINEN LAUNDRY 0731 GRILL LAUNDRY 148077 $732.28* 08/15/94 $315.00 AMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS CONT ED /ENG 080994 PWKS ADMIN GEN CONF & SCHOOLS 08/15/94 $730.00 AMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS CONT ED /ENG 080994 TRAINING CONF & SCHOOLS 08/15/94 $365.00 AMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS CONT ED /ENG 080994 SUPERV. & OVRH CONF & SCHOOLS 148078 $1,410.00* COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu Aug 11 1994 00:59:27 Page 2 CHECK NO --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM OBJECT PO NUM. 08/15/94 $99.86 AMERICAN SERVICES CORP CONTRACTED REPAIRS 001478 YORK OCCUPANCY CONTR REPAIRS 148079 $99.86* 08/15/94 $65.75 AMSTERDAM PRINTING & L PRINTING 588398 ED ADMINISTRAT PRINTING 148080 $65.75* 08/15/94 $13.33 AMVETS CONVENTION YEAR ADVERTISING NA29096 50TH ST SELLIN MAG /NEWSLET EX 08/15/94 $13.34 AMVETS CONVENTION YEAR ADVERTISING NA29096 VERNON SELLING MAG /NEWSLET EX 08/15/94 $13.33 AMVETS CONVENTION YEAR ADVERTISING NA29096 YORK SELLING MAG /NEWSLET EX 148081 $40.00* 08/15/94 $126.63 ANDON GENERAL SUPPLIES 54907 CENTENNIAL LAK GENERAL SUPPLI 148082 $126.63* 08/15/94 $80.00 APWA DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 072694 PWKS ADMIN GEN DUES & SUBSCRI 148083 $80.00* 08/15/94 $13.24 AQUA ENGINEERING GENERAL SUPPLIES 8206 SNOW & ICE REM GENERAL SUPPLI 5124 148084 $13.24* , 08/15/94 $303.75 ASPLUND COFFEE COST OF GOODS SOLD F 0729999 ARENA CONCESSI CST OF GD FOOD 148085 $303.75* - 08/15/94 $23.52 ASTLEFORD INTL REPAIR PARTS T11875 EQUIPMENT OPER REPAIR PARTS 148086 1 $23.52* 08/15/94 $16.65 AT & T INFO SYSTEM TELEPHONE 52136107 CENT SVC GENER TELEPHONE 08/15/94 $28.89 AT & T INFO SYSTEM TELEPHONE 52134651 ART CENTER BLD TELEPHONE 148087 $45.54* 08/15/94 $21.68 AT &T CONSUMER PRODUCTS TELEPHONE 072994 BUILDING MAINT TELEPHONE 148088 $21.68* 08/15/94 $50.29 AT &T TELEPHONE 071894 CENTENNIAL LAK TELEPHONE 148089 $50.29* 08/15/94 $382.05 AVR INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 13552 TODD PARK GENERAL SUPPLI 08/15/94 $282.70 AVR INC CONCRETE 13255 STREET RENOVAT CONCRETE 08/15/94 $286.22 AVR INC CONCRETE 12761 STREET RENOVAT CONCRETE 08/15/94 $283.00 AVR INC CONCRETE 12399 STREET RENOVAT CONCRETE 08/15/94 $316.25 AVR INC CONCRETE 12842 DISTRIBUTION CONCRETE 148090 $1,550.22* 08/15/94 $350.00 AXLE & SPINDLE REPAIR CONTRACTED REPAIRS 3659 EQUIPMENT OPER CONTR REPAIRS 148091 $350.00* 1 08/15/94 $13.26 AXT,- LYLE COST OF GOODS SOLD F 080994 GUN RANGE CST OF GD FOOD 08/15/94 $18.26 AXT, LYLE COST OF GOODS SOLD F 072694 GUN RANGE CST OF GD FOOD 148092 $31.52* y ! COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu Aug 11 1994 00:59:27 Page 3 CHECK NO ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM OBJECT PO NUM. 08/15/94 $89.46 BACHMANS NURSERY WHOLE PLANTINGS & TREES 69285 MAINT OF COURS PLANT & TREES 08/15/94 $419.77 BACHMANS NURSERY WHOLE COST OF GOODS SOLD 649150 MAINT OF COURS CST OF GD FOOD 148093 $509.23* 08/15/94 $53.16 BACHMANS COST OF GOODS SOLD 1108091 GOLF ADMINISTR CST OF GD FOOD 148094 $53.16* 08/15/94 $45.00 BARNHART, DUANE AC INSTRUCTOR 080994 ART CENTER ADM PROF SERVICES 148095 $45.00* 08/15/94 $147.30 BARR ENGINEERING COMPA PROF ENG SERVICES 23273541 GENERAL STORM PROF SERVICES 148096 $147.30* 08/15/94 $144.50 BARRY SIEWERT CREATION GENERAL SUPPLIES 8313N CENTENNIAL LAK GENERAL SUPPLI 08/15/94 $2,100.00 BARRY SIEWERT CREATION PROFESSIONAL SERVICE 8213N CENTENNIAL LAK PROF SERVICES 148097 $2,244.50* 08/15/94 $64.16 BAUER BUILT INC REPAIR PARTS 324708 EQUIPMENT OPER REPAIR PARTS 08/15/94 $58.81 B_AUER BUILT INC REPAIR PARTS 322837 EQUIPMENT OPER REPAIR PARTS 148098 $122.97* 98/15/94 $85.00 BELL, BRUCE MENIER SERVICES 082794 ED ADMINISTRAT PROF SERVICES 148099 I $85.00* 08/15/94 $86.95 BELLBOY CORPORATION COST OF GOODS SOLD B 58337 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS BEE 08/15/94 $90.58 BELLBOY CORPORATION COST OF GOODS SOLD B 58742 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS BEE 08/15/94 $203.67 BELLBOY CORPORATION COST OF GOODS SOLD M 201076 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 08/15/94 $58.21 BELLBOY CORPORATION COST OF GOODS SOLD M 201053 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS MIX 08/15/94 $83.53 BELLBOY CORPORATION COST OF GOODS SOLD M 201055 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 08/15/94 $64.00 BELLBOY CORPORATION COST OF GOODS SOLD B 77009 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS BEE 08/15/94 $114.10 BELLBOY CORPORATION COST OF GOODS SOLD B 59083 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS BEE 148100 $701.04* 08/15/94 $100.00 BENNETT, WAYNE POLICE SERVICES 081594 RESERVE PROGRA PERS SERVICES 148101 $100.00* 08/15/94 $342.30 BERGFORD TRUCKING COST OF GOODS SOLD L 080594/V VERNON SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 08/15/94 $271.22 BERGFORD TRUCKING COST OF GOODS SOLD L 080594/Y YORK SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 08/15/94 $158.90 BERGFORD TRUCKING COST OF GOODS SOLD L 080594/5 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD LIQU 148102 $772.42* 08/15/94 $235.00 BERNHJELM, WILLIAM CONT ED /POLICE 080894 POLICE DEPT. G CONF & SCHOOLS 148103 $235.00* 08/15/94 $16.25 BERTELSON BROS. INC. GENERAL SUPPLIES 1627470 INSPECTIONS GENERAL SUPPLI 08/15/94 $7.97_ BERTELSON BROS. INC. GENERAL SUPPLIES 1627470 ADMINISTRATION GENERAL SUPPLI 08/15/94 $8.43 BERTELSON BROS. INC. GENERAL SUPPLIES 1627470 PW BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLI 08/15/94 $31.48 BERTELSON BROS. INC. GENERAL SUPPLIES 1627470. PARK ADMIN. GENERAL SUPPLI 08/15/94 $228.41 BERTELSON BROS. INC. GENERAL SUPPLIES 1627470 CENT SVC GENER GENERAL SUPPLI COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu Aug 11 1994 00:59:27 Page 4 CHECK NO DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM OBJECT PO NUM. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 08/15/94 $56.38 BERTELSON BROS. INC. 95 BUDGET COSTS 1632420 SPECIAL ASSESS GENERAL SUPPLI 08/15/94 $82.81 BERTELSON BROS. INC. OFFICE SUPPLIES 1610870 FIRE DEPT. GEN OFFICE SUPPLIE 08/15/94 $34.07 BERTELSON BROS. INC. GENERAL SUPPLIES 1592830 STREET NAME SI GENERAL SUPPLI 08/15/94 $63.28 BERTELSON BROS. INC. GENERAL SUPPLIES 1608810 CENT SVC GENER GENERAL SUPPLI 08/15/94 $8.43 BERTELSON BROS. INC. GENERAL SUPPLIES 1608810 PW BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLI 08/15/94 $23.45 BERTELSON BROS. INC. GENERAL SUPPLIES 1608810 FIRE DEPT. GEN GENERAL SUPPLI 08/15/94 $1.70 BERTELSON BROS. INC. GENERAL SUPPLIES 1608810 ADMINISTRATION GENERAL SUPPLI 08/15/94 $16.18 BERTELSON BROS. INC. GENERAL SUPPLIES 1608810 ENGINEERING GE GENERAL SUPPLI 08/15/94 $5.92 BERTELSON BROS. INC. GENERAL SUPPLIES 1608810 ELECTION GENERAL SUPPLI 08/15/94 $39.03 BERTELSON BROS. INC. OFFICE SUPPLIES 1608880 POLICE DEPT. G OFFICE SUPPLIE 148104 $623.79* 08/15/94 $66.OQ BEST MAID COOKIE COMPA COST OF GOODS SOLD F 0192 POOL CONCESSIO CST OF GD FOOD 148105 $66.00* 08/15/94 $75.00 BETSWORTH, JACKI SERVICES CL /EB 090894 ED ADMINISTRAT PRO SVC OTHER 148106 $75.00* 08/15/94 $88.64 BFI OF MN INC RUBBISH REMOVAL 94070011 ED BUILDING & RUBBISH REMOVA 08/15/94 $24.32 BFI OF MN INC RUBBISH REMOVAL 94070011 CLUB HOUSE RUBBISH REMOVA 08/15/94 $5,105.56 BFI OF MN INC REFUSE 94070010 50TH STREET RU PROF SERVICES 148107 $5,218.52* 0 $65.26 BIFFS INC' PROFESSIONAL SERVICE BI031315 FIELD MAINTENA PROF SERVICES 0/15/94 /15/94 $65.26 BIFFS.INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICE BI031316 FIELD MAINTENA PROF SERVICES 08/15/94 $130.,52 BIFFS INC RUBBISH REMOVAL BBI03131 MAINT OF COURS RUBBISH REMOVA 14;8108 $261.04* 08/15/94 $200.00 BIG WORK COMPANIES REPAIR PARTS 072694 PW BUILDING REPAIR PARTS 148109 $200.00* 08/15/94 $126.73 BILL OLSON SOD & BLACK DIRT 7869 TREES & MAINTE SOD & DIRT 08/15/94 $108.63 BILL OLSON SOD & BLACK DIRT 7867 TREES & MAINTE SOD & DIRT 08/15/94 $108.63 BILL OLSON SOD & BLACK DIRT 7866 TREES & MAINTE SOD & DIRT 148110 $343.99* 08/15/94 $28.82 BLACK, DICK GENERAL SUPPLIES 19358951 ED ADMINISTRAT GENERAL SUPPLI 148111 $28.82* 08/15/94 $42.55 BLIMPIE PLAYGROUND SUPPLIES 034254 PLAYGROUND & T GENERAL SUPPLI 148112 $42.55* 08/15/94 $100.00 BLOOD, DAVID POLICE SERVICES 081594 RESERVE PROGRA PERS SERVICES 148113 $100.00* 08/15/94 $506.00 BONGAARTS, VINCENT UNIFORM ALLOWANCE 072994 POLICE DEPT. G UNIF ALLOW 148114 $506.00* 08/15/94 $30.00 BOUSTEAD ELECTRIC & MF BALANCE DUE 381199. LIFT STATION M CONTR REPAIRS 148115 $30.00* COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu Aug 11 1994 00:59:27 Page 5 CHECK NO --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DATE CHECK AMOUNT. VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM OBJECT PO NUM. 08/15/94 $83.41 BOYER TRUCKS REPAIR PARTS 333062 EQUIPMENT OPER REPAIR PARTS 08/15/94 $2.03 BOYER TRUCKS REPAIR PARTS 313897 EQUIPMENT OPER REPAIR PARTS 08/15/94 $45.27 BOYER TRUCKS REPAIR PARTS 319311X1 EQUIPMENT OPER REPAIR PARTS 148116 $130.71* 08/15/94 $37.50 BRAUN INTERTEC PROF ENG SERV 025237 STREET IMPROVE CIP 148117 $37.50* 08/15/94 $249.25 BRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS IN INFIELD MIXTURE 02944 FIELD MAINTENA INFIELD MIX 148118 $249.25* 08/15/94 $50.70 BUEHLL, KIM SALES OTHER 080994 ART CNTR PROG SALES OTHER 148119 $50.70* 08/15/94 $49.88 BUILDERS SQUARE GENERAL SUPPLIES 14451066 CENTENNIAL LAK GENERAL SUPPLI 08/15/94 $369.89 BUILDERS SQUARE PAINT 00109557 CENTENNIAL LAK PAINT 148120 $419.77*- 08/15/94 $500.00 BUSCH VIDEO PRODUCTION PROFESSIONAL SERVICE 071594 ED ADMINISTRAT PROF SERVICES 148121 $500.00* 88/15/94 $100.00 BUTLER, GEORGE POLICE SERVICES 081594 RESERVE PROGRA PERS SERVICES 148122 i $100.00* 08/15/94 $125.00 CALGREN, MEGAN PROFESSIONAL SERVICE 080194 COMMUNICATIONS PROF SERVICES 148123 $125.00* 08/15/94 $112.84 CALLAHAN, FRAN MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE 080494 PUBLIC HEALTH MILEAGE 148124 $112.84* 08/15/94 $50.00 CANTON, JANET MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE 080994 FINANCE MILEAGE 148125 $50.00* 08/15/94 $10.73 CARLSON PRINTING GENERAL SUPPLIES 00059609 CENT SVC GENER GENERAL SUPPLI 148126 $10.73* 08/15/94 $259.20 CARTWHEEL CO COST OF GOODS SOLD F 28987 CENTENNIAL LAK CST OF GD FOOD 148127 ,$259.20* 08/15/94 $33.75 CARVER, JUDY CONTRACTED REPAIRS 2101 GENERAL MAINT CONTR REPAIRS 148128 $33.75* 08/15/94 $75.03 CASTLE INDUSTRIES INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 1254 GENERAL MAINT GENERAL SUPPLI 148129 $75.03* 08/15/94 $387.00 CATAPULT INC CONFERENCES & SCHOOL 33001588 CENT SVC GENER CONF & SCHOOLS 148130 $387.00* 08/15/94 $177.77 CATCO ACCESSORIES 350041 EQUIPMENT OPER ACCESSORIES COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu Aug 11 1994 00:59:27 Page 6 CHECK NO DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM OBJECT PO NUM. -----------------------------------------7--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 148131 $177.77* 08/15/94 $5,100.00 CBS INC /WLTE FM -NW 484 ADVERTISING OTHER 70151 CENTENNIAL LAK ADVERT OTHER 148132 $5,100.00* 08/15/94 $45.10 CEDAR LAKE FLORAL FLOWERS 561254 CITY COUNCIL GENERAL SUPPLI 148133 $45.10* 08/15/94 $92.53 CELLULAR ONE GENERAL SUPPLIES 0720 DISTRIBUTION GENERAL SUPPLI 08/15/94 $16.08 CELLULAR ONE CELLULAR PHONE 072994 DISTRIBUTION GENERAL SUPPLI 08/15/94 $16.32 CELLULAR ONE CELLULAR PHONE 072994 DISTRIBUTION GENERAL SUPPLI 08/15/94 $76.11 CELLULAR ONE GENERAL SUPPLIES 071394 GENERAL MAINT GENERAL SUPPLI 08/15/94 $22.76 CELLULAR ONE EQUIPMENT RENTAL 072994/P GENERAL MAINT EQUIP RENTAL 148134 $223.80* 08/15/94 $255.28 CERTIFIED POWER TRAIN REPAIR PARTS 130759 EQUIPMENT OPER REPAIR PARTS 148135 $255.28* 08/15/94 $492.33 CHEM CONCEPTS SAFETY EQUIPMENT 0596 EQUIPMENT OPER SAFETY EQUIPME 148136 $492.33* 08/15/94 $340.00 CHESNEY, JEAN AC INSTRUCTOR 080994 ART CNTR PROG SALES OTHER 148137 $340.00* 0/15/94 $1,143.75 CHILDREN'S SATELLITE N ADVERTIS'ING OTHER 1129 CENTENNIAL LAK ADVERT OTHER 148138 i $1;143.75* 08/15/94 $60,600.00 CITY OF BLOOMINGTON AGREEMETN MN DRIVE 080994 GENERAL STORM PROF SERVICES 08/15/94 $13,390.21 CITY OF BLOOMINGTON SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS 080994 IBR #2 PROG OTHER PAYABLES 148139 $73,990.21* 08/15/94 $4,698.40 CITY OF EDEN PRIAIRE I494 CORRIDOR DUES 7899 ADMINISTRATION PROF SERVICES 148140 $4,698.40* 08/15/94 $14.38 CITY WIDE WINDOW SERVI CONTRACTED REPAIRS 59361 YORK OCCUPANCY CONTR REPAIRS 08/15/94 $14.38 CITY WIDE WINDOW SERVI WINDOE CLEANING 59362 VERNON OCCUPAN CONTR REPAIRS 08/15/94 $14.38 CITY WIDE WINDOW SERVI CONTRACTED REPAIRS 59363 50TH ST OCCUPA CONTR REPAIRS 148141 $43.14* 08/15/94 $460.00 COCA COLA BOTTLING COM VAN VALKENBURG PARK 073194 VANVALKENBURG CST OF GD FOOD 08/15/94 $55.50 COCA COLA BOTTLING COM COST OF GOODS SOLD M 01932416 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS MIX 08/15/94 $104.70 COCA COLA BOTTLING COM COST OF GOODS SOLD M 01941920 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 08/15/94 $429.00 COCA COLA BOTTLING COM COST OF GOODS SOLD M 1479425 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 08/15/94 $156.40 COCA_ COLA BOTTLING COM COST OF GOODS SOLD M 01990380 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS MIX 148142 $1,205.60* 08/15/94 $34.00 COLBY, SUSAN CLASS REFUND 072794 ART CNTR PROG REGISTRATION F 148143 $34.00* 08/15/94 $9.83 COMPUTER CITY ACCOUNT CABLE 474477 FIRE DEPT.. GEN EQUIP REPLACEM A 0 COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu Aug 11 1994 00:59:27 Page 7 CHECK NO DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM OBJECT PO NUM. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------_-------- 148144 $9.83* 08/15/94 $1,386.67 CRIMMINS MD, TIMOTHY J MEDICAL SERVICES 081594 FIRE DEPT. GEN PROF SERVICES 148145 $1,386.67* 08/15/94 $426.00 CRITTER CONTROL PROFESSIONAL SERVICE 23931 MAINT OF COURS PROF SERVICES 08/15/94 $170.40 CRITTER CONTROL PROFESSIONAL SERVICE 23909 GENERAL TURF C PROF SERVICES 08/15/94 $127.80 CRITTER CONTROL PROFESSIONAL SERVICE 23908 GENERAL TURF C PROF SERVICES 08/15/94 $213.00 CRITTER CONTROL CONTRACTED REPAIRS 23914 PONDS & LAKES CONTR REPAIRS 08/15/94 $85.20 CRITTER CONTROL PROFESSIONAL SERVICE 23912 GENERAL TURF C PROF SERVICES 148146 $1,022.40* 08/15/94 $28.40 CULLIGAN CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 073194 LABORATORY CONTR SERVICES 08/15/94 $7.25 CULLIGAN GENERAL SUPPLIES 0731 CITY HALL GENE GENERAL SUPPLI 148147 $35.65* 08/15/94 $124.02 CUSHMAN MOTOR CO. REPAIR PARTS 67147 CENTENNIAL LAK REPAIR PARTS 08/15/94 $69.02 CUSHMAN MOTOR CO. REPAIR PARTS 66911 MAINT OF COURS REPAIR PARTS 148148 $193.04* 08/15/94 $55.27 CUSTOM POOLS REPAIR PARTS 73510 MAINT OF COURS REPAIR PARTS 148149 $55.27* 08/15/94 $31.50 D.C..HEY CO. SERVICE CONTRACTS EQ 417658 ED ADMINISTRAT SVC CONTR EQUI 148150 I $31.50* 08/15/94 $300.00 DAHL, TIM SERVICES CL /EB 080294 CENTENNIAL LAK PRO SVC OTHER 148151 $300.00* 08/15/94 $76.68 DALE GREEN CO. GENERAL SUPPLIES 070194 SNOW & ICE REM GENERAL SUPPLI 148152 $76.68* 08/15/94 $30.00 DAMUTH, GINNY REFUND SKATING EDINB 080294 EDINB /CL PROG LESSON PRGM IN 148153 $30.00* 08/15/94 $7.40 DANS REGISTER SERVICE GENERAL SUPPLIES 080394 GOLF ADMINISTR GENERAL SUPPLI 148154 $7.40* 08/15/94 $129,811.95 DAVE PERKINS CONTRACTI CONSTR. IN PROGRESS 94 -3 #2 STORM SEWER CIP 148155 $129,811.95* 08/15/94 $59.90 DAYSTARTER REPAIR PARTS 5088 EQUIPMENT OPER REPAIR PARTS 08/15/94 $48.14 DAYSTARTER REPAIR PARTS 5192 EQUIPMENT OPER REPAIR PARTS 08/15/94 $28.50 DAYSTARTER REPAIR PARTS 5075 EQUIPMENT OPER REPAIR PARTS 08/15/94 $119.11 DAYSTARTER REPAIR PARTS 5084 EQUIPMENT OPER REPAIR PARTS 08/15/94 $131.83 DAYSTARTER REPAIR PARTS 5076 EQUIPMENT OPER REPAIR PARTS 08/15/94 $139.30 DAYSTARTER REPAIR PARTS 4297 EQUIPMENT OPER REPAIR PARTS 08/15/94 $102.55 DAYSTARTER REPAIR PARTS 5063 EQUIPMENT OPER REPAIR PARTS 08/15/94 $248.00 DAYSTARTER REPAIR PARTS 5054 EQUIPMENT OPER REPAIR PARTS 148156 $877.33* COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu Aug 11 1994 00:59:27 Page 8 CHECK NO ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7----------------------- DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM OBJECT PO NUM. 08/15/94 $267.40 DAYTIMERS OFFICE SUPPLIES 15296666 ED ADMINISTRAT OFFICE SUPPLIE 148157 $267.40* 08/15/94 $889.35 DCA INC FEE FOR SERVICE 64013 CENT SVC GENER HOSPITALIZATIO 08/15/94 $889.35 DCA INC FEE FOR SERVICE 64901 CENT SVC GENER HOSPITALIZATIO 148158 $1,778.70* 08/15/94 $15,000.00 DEDUCTIBLE STATEMENT DEDUCTIBLE 071894 CONTINGENCIES PROF SERVICES 148159 $15,000.00* 08/15/94 $68.00 DICKER, JONAH PART TIME MAINT ART 080994 ART CENTER BLD PROF SERVICES 148160 $68.00* 08/15/94 $1,056.00 DICKER, TOBIE AC INSTRUCTOR 080994 ART CENTER ADM PROF SERVICES 08/15/94 $32.50 DICKER, TOBIE ART WORK SOLD 080994 ART CNTR PROG SALES OTHER 148161 $1,088.50* 08/15/94 $256.00 DISCOM RADIO SERVICE 552655 EQUIPMENT OPER RADIO SERVICE 148162 $256.00* 08/15/94 $78.28 DISPATCH COMM /MN RADIO SERVICE 15184 EQUIPMENT OPER RADIO SERVICE 148163 $78.28* 0$/15/94 $14,071.03 DORSEY & WHITNEY LEGAL 374834 LEGAL SERVICES PRO SVC - LEGA 148164 $14,071.03* 08/15/94 $236.05 E -Z -GO TEXTRON CART PARTS 0759139 GOLF CARS REPAIR PARTS 148165 $236.05* 08/15/94 $826.35 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE BEER GOLF COURSE 080194 GRILL CST OF GDS BEE 08/15/94 $39.75 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE COST OF GOODS SOLD M 398328 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 08/15/94 $23.40 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE COST OF GOODS SOLD M 398387 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 08/15/94 $2,049.05 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE COST OF GOODS SOLD B 398328 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS BEE 08/15/94 $1,532.80 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE COST OF GOODS SOLD B 398386 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS BEE 08/15/94 $607.10 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE COST OF GOODS SOLD B 398326 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS BEE 08/15/94 $542.50 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE COST OF GOODS SOLD B 400373 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS BEE 08/15/94 $2,194.45 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE COST OF GOODS SOLD B 395189 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS BEE 08/15/94 $545.30 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE COST OF GOODS SOLD B 395187 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS BEE 08/15/94 $2,858.80 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE COST OF GOODS SOLD B 395254 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS BEE 148166 $11,219.50* 08/15/94 $106.50 ECOLAB PEST ELIMINATIO SERVICE CONTRACTS EQ 2858319 ED BUILDING & SVC CONTR EQUI 08/15/94 $90.53 ECOLAB PEST ELIMINATIO SERVICE'CONTRACTS EQ 2858323 ED BUILDING & SVC CONTR EQUI 148167 $197.03* 08/15/94 $48.60 EDINA FIVE O FLORIST FLOWERS 073194 GOLF ADMINISTR PROF SERVICES 148168 $48.60* 08/15/94 $137.05 EDWARD KRAEMER & SONS GENERAL SUPPLIES 47549 DISTRIBUTION GENERAL SUPPLI COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu Aug 11 1994 00:59:27 Page 9 CHECK NO DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM OBJECT PO NUM. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 148169 $137.05* 08/15/94 $58.12 EGGHEAD SOFTWARE WINDOW 3.1 11208658 EQUIPMENT REPL EQUIP REPLACEM 148170 $58.12* 08/15/94 $334.54 ELECTRONIC DESIGN COMP CONTRACTED REPAIRS 12916 -IN POOL OPERATION CONTR REPAIRS 148171 $334.54* 08/15/94 $494.76 ESS BROS & SONS PIPE 9511 SEWER TREATMEN PIPE 148172 $494.76* 08/15/94 $644.80 EVANS LARSON COMMUNICA PROFESSIONAL SERVICE SPLASH00 CENTENNIAL LAK PROF SERVICES 148173 $644.80* 08/15/94 $26.61 EXPLORERS POST 925 GENERAL SUPPLIES 080894 RESERVE PROGRA GENERAL SUPPLI 148174 $26.61* 08/15/94 $99.50 FACILITY SYSTEMS REMODELING 5433 CITY HALL EQUIP REPLACEM 148175 $99.50* 08/15/94 $488.05 FASTSIGN GENERAL SUPPLIES 072094 50TH ST OCCUPA GENERAL SUPPLI 148176 $488.05* 08/15/94 $1,117.29 FEED CONTROL WATER TREATMENT SUPP 41508 WATER TREATMEN WATER TRTMT SU Q8/15/94 $300.88 ,RITE FEED RITE CONTROL WATER TREATMENT SUPP 41509 WATER TREATMEN WATER TRTMT SU 08/15/94 $1,642.03 FEED RITE CONTROL WATER CHEMICALS 41113 WATER TREATMEN WATER TRTMT SU 08/15/94 $311.85 FEED RITE CONTROL CHEMICALS 41111 POOL OPERATION CHEMICALS 148177 $3,372.05* 08/15/94 $719.50 FIRST TRUST FISCAL AGENT GRANDVI AUG 1 GENERAL FD PRO DUE FROM HRA 08/15/94 $735.50 FIRST TRUST FISCAL AGENT EB 080194 GENERAL FD PRO DUE FROM HRA 08/15/94 $696.25 FIRST TRUST FISCAL AGENT 0801 IBR #2 PROG FISCAL AGENT C 148178 $2,151.25* 08/15/94 $313.83 FLEXIBLE PIPE TOOL COM GENERAL SUPPLIES 2203 SEWER CLEANING GENERAL SUPPLI 148179 $313.83* 08/15/94 $89.97 FOWLER ELECTRIC GENERAL SUPPLIES 876410 MAINT OF COURS GENERAL SUPPLI 08/15/94 $216.02 FOWLER ELECTRIC GENERAL SUPPLIES 867460 MAINT OF COURS GENERAL SUPPLI 148180 $305.99* 08/15/94 $75.00 FRAGALE, ANNETTE SERVICES 082094 ED ADMINISTRAT PROF SERVICES 148181 $75.00* 08/15/94 $35.75 FRAME, SUSAN ART WORK SOLD 080994 ART CNTR PROG SALES OTHER 148182 $35.75* 08/15/94 $206.18 FRANKLIN QUEST COMPANY CONFERENCES & SCHOOL 7029799 ART CENTER ADM CONF & SCHOOLS 08/15/94 - $44.88 FRANKLIN QUEST COMPANY CONFERENCES & SCHOOL 11067017 COMMUNICATIONS CONF & SCHOOLS 148183 $161.30* COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu Aug 11 1994 00:59:27 Page 10 CHECK NO ----------------------------------------------------------------=---------------------------------------------------------------- DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM OBJECT PO NUM. 08/15/94 $21.52 G & K SERVICES LAUNDRY 072994/C CENTENNIAL LAK LAUNDRY 148184 $21.52* 08/15/94 $1,000.00 G.V. LARSEN & ASSOC PROFESSIONAL SERVICE 080594 CENTENNIAL LAK PROF SERVICES 148185 $1,000.00* 08/15/94 $160.00 GADEN, MELANIE PT AC OFFICE ADM 080994 ART CENTER ADM PROF SERVICES 148186 $160.00* 08/15/94 $256.25 GANZER DIST INC COST OF GOODS SOLD B 182220 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS BEE 148187 $256.25* 08/15/94 $202.50 GARDER, DOUG AC INSTRUCTOR 080994 ART CENTER ADM PROF SERVICES 148188 $202.50* 08/15/94 $219.72 GARTNER REFRIGERATION CONTRACTED REPAIRS 114324 ARENA BLDG /GRO CONTR REPAIRS 148189 $219.72* 08/15/94 $191.17 GENERAL BINDING. GENERAL SUPPLIES 12191297 CITY HALL GENE GENERAL SUPPLI 148190 $191.17* 08/15/94 $2,441.25 GOLF CRAFT PRO SHOP PURCHASE 080994 GOLF PROG INVENTORY SUPP 148191 I $2,441.25* 08/15/94 $192.30 GOODIN CO. GENERAL SUPPLIES 3902291 TANKS TOWERS & GENERAL SUPPLI 148192 $192.30* 08/15/94 $166.00 GOVERNMENT TRAINING SE CONFERENCES & SCHOOL 2708 ADMINISTRATION CONF & SCHOOLS 148193 $166.00* 08/15/94 $60.72 GRAINGER GENERAL SUPPLIES 49864096 ST LIGHTING OR GENERAL SUPPLI 08/15/94 $313.69 GRAINGER REPAIR PARTS 49864106 PW BUILDING REPAIR PARTS 08/15/94 - $87.46 GRAINGER GENERAL SUPPLIES 49527115 GENERAL MAINT GENERAL SUPPLI 08/15/94 $253.94 GRAINGER GENERAL SUPPLIES 49604791 GENERAL MAINT GENERAL SUPPLI 08/15/94 $369.88 GRAINGER REPAIR PARTS 49527549 PW BUILDING REPAIR PARTS 08/15/94 $107.10 GRAINGER PAINT 49528104 DISTRIBUTION PAINT 148194 $1,192.79* 08/15/94 $35.50 GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO. REPAIR PARTS 50062813 PW BUILDING REPAIR PARTS 08/15/94 $551.84 GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO. GENERAL SUPPLIES 10492616 CENTENNIAL LAK GENERAL SUPPLI 08/15/94 $33.44 GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO. REPAIR PARTS 10493523 PW BUILDING REPAIR PARTS 148195 $620.78* 08/15/94 $4,379.00 GREUPNER, JOE GOLF LESSONS 080894 GOLF ADMINISTR PRO SVC - GOLF 148196 $4,379.00* 08/15/94 $18,767.44 GROUP HEALTH INC HOSPITALIZATION 2589005 CENT SVC GENER HOSPITALIZATIO 148197 $18,767.44* I COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu Aug 11 1994 00:59:27 Page 11 CHECK NO DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM OBJECT PO NUM. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 08/15/94 $340.80 GRUBERS POWER EQUIPMEN TOOLS 20040 GENERAL MAINT TOOLS 08/15/94 $340.80 GRUBERS POWER EQUIPMEN GENERAL SUPPLIES 20040 STREET NAME SI GENERAL SUPPLI 148198 $681.60* 08/15/94 $30.00 HALL, MARILYN SERVICES CL /EB 082094 ED ADMINISTRAT PRO SVC OTHER 148199 $30.00* 08/15/94 $214.97 HALLMAN OIL COMPANY GENERAL SUPPLIES 268339 MAINT OF COURS GENERAL SUPPLI 08/15/94 $91.59 HALLMAN OIL COMPANY GENERAL SUPPLIES 268128 PUMP & LIFT ST GENERAL SUPPLI 08/15/94 $152.08 HALLMAN OIL COMPANY LUBRICANTS 267872 EQUIPMENT OPER LUBRICANTS 148200 $458.64* 08/15/94 $29.25 HANNA, JUNE ART WORK SOLD 080994 ART CNTR PROG SALES OTHER 148201 $29.25* 08/15/94 $30.00 HAPPY FACES SERVICES CL /EB 082094 ED ADMINISTRAT PRO SVC OTHER 08/15/94 $30.00 HAPPY FACES SERVICES CL /EB 082794 ED ADMINISTRAT PRO SVC OTHER 148202 $60.00* 08/15/94 $573.00. HARMON GLASS & GLAZE REPAIR PARTS 24004663 ED BUILDING & REPAIR PARTS 148203 $573.00* 88/15/94 $409.69 HARMON GLASS CONTRACTED REPAIRS 72002318 EQUIPMENT OPER CONTR REPAIRS 148204 $409.69* i 08/15/94 $119,883.00 HARRIS HOMEYER CO. INSURANCE 062994 CENT SVC GENER INSURANCE 148205 $119,883.00* 08/15/94 $43.22 HEALY, BONALYN SALES OTHER 080994 ART CNTR PROG SALES OTHER 148206 $43.22* 08/15/94 $85.20 HEDGES, DIANA CRAFT SUPPLIES ART C 080994 ART CENTER ADM CRAFT SUPPLIES 148207 $85.20* 08/15/94 $260.00 HEIDI POSY- LOOSER ART WORK SOLD 080994 ART CNTR PROG SALES OTHER 148208 $260.00* 08/15/94 $245.85 HEIMARK -FOODS COST OF GOODS SOLD F 072994 GRILL CST OF GD FOOD 148209 $245.85* 08/15/94 $598.45 HENNEPIN COUNTY MEDICA FIRST AID SUPPLIES 3474 FIRE DEPT. GEN FIRST AID SUPP 148210 $598.45* 08/15/94 $32.48 HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIF EQUIPMENT MAINTENANC 21131 POLICE DEPT. G EQUIP MAINT 148211 $32.48* 08/15/94 $235.80 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASU TREE WASTE DISPOSAL 063094 TREES & MAINTE RUBBISH REMOVA 148212 $235.80* 08/15/94 $4,841.52 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASU WORKHOUSE /JAIL 002547 LEGAL SERVICES BRD & RM PRISO COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu Aug 11 1994 00:59:27 Page 12 CHECK NO DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM OBJECT PO NUM. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 148213 $4,841.52* 08/15/94 $372.75 HIRSHFIELD'S PAINT MFG LINE MARKING POWDER 030299 FIELD MAINTENA LINE MARK POWD 148214 $372.75* 08/15/94 $40.00 HOCH, MARYLEE REFUND SWIMMING 072794 GENERAL FD PRO REGISTRATION F 148215 $40.00* 08/15/94 $68.16 HOFFERS INC LINE MARKING POWDER 133916 FIELD MAINTENA LINE MARK POWD 148216 $68.16* 08/15/94 $100.00 HOFFMAN, WILLIAM POLICE SERVICES 081594 RESERVE PROGRA PERS SERVICES 148217 $100.00* 08/15/94 $37.18 HOME JUICE COST OF GOODS SOLD M 26668 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 08/15/94 $13.98 HOME JUICE COST OF GOODS SOLD M 26671 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS MIX 148218 $51.16* 08/15/94 $686.13 HONEYWELL INC CONTRACTED REPAIRS 372PT557 POOL TRACK GRE CONTR REPAIRS 08/15/94 $831.80 HONEYWELL INC CONTRACTED REPAIRS 372PT796 POOL TRACK GRE CONTR REPAIRS 08/15/94 $144.25 HONEYWELL INC CONTRACTED REPAIRS 377PT708 POOL TRACK GRE CONTR REPAIRS 148219 $1,662.18* 00 /15/94 $93.72 HORIZON CHEMICAL CO IN GENERAL SUPPLIES 418 POOL TRACK GRE GENERAL SUPPLI /15/94 $90.53 HORIZON CHEMICAL CO IN CHEMICALS 423 POOL TRACK GRE CHEMICALS 148220 1 $184.25* 08/15/94 $140.65 HORWATH, TOM MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE 080894 TREES & MAINTE MILEAGE 148221 $140.65* 08/15/94 $46.00 HOVEY, DIANE CLASS REFUND 072694 ART CNTR PROG REGISTRATION F 148222 $46.00* 08/15/94 $707.80 HUNERBERG CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTED REPAIRS 071194 BUILDINGS CONTR REPAIRS 148223 $707.80* 08/15/94 $3.26 HYDRO SUPPLY CO WATER METERS 0007217- UTILITY PROG INVENTORY WATE 148224 $3.26* 08/15/94 $30.10 IDENTIFICATION SERVICE SALES TAX 00098403 GOLF ADMINISTR GENERAL SUPPLI 148225 $30.10* 08/15/94 $70.00 INGMAN LAB INC. CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 0794CED LABORATORY CONTR SERVICES 148226 $70.00* 08/15/94 $92.00 INTERIM PROFESSIONAL SERVICE• 21701808 CENTENNIAL LAK PROF SERVICES 148227 $92.00* 08/15/94 $462.00 INTERIOR COMMUNICATION SERVICE CONTRACTS EQ 11301 ED BUILDING & SVC CONTR EQUI 148228 $462.00* % COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu Aug 11 1994 00:59:27 Page 13 CHECK NO --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM OBJECT PO NUM. 08/15/94 $264.00 INTERLACHEN TRAVEL CONFERENCES & SCHOOL 032613 INSPECTIONS CONF & SCHOOLS 148229 $264.00* 08/15/94 $257.60 INTERNATIONAL CONFEREN BOOKS & PAMPHLETS 23273541 INSPECTIONS BOOKS & PAMPHL 148230 $257.60* 08/15/94 $35.51 INTERSTATE DETROIT DIE REPAIR PARTS 170719 PUMP & LIFT ST REPAIR PARTS 148231 $35.51* 08/15/94 $70.50 JACKSON LANDSCAPE SUPP GENERAL SUPPLIES 6823 SNOW & ICE REM GENERAL SUPPLI 148232 $70,.50* 08/15/94 $100.00 JAMES, WILLIAM F POLICE SERVICES 081594 RESERVE PROGRA PERS SERVICES 148233 $100.00* 08/15/94 $50.99 JERRYS PRINTING PRINTING E1744 SWIM INSTRUCT PRINTING 08/15/94 $82.04 JERRYS PRINTING PRINTING E1669 PARK ADMIN. PRINTING 08/15/94 $162.63 JERRYS PRINTING PRINTING E1749 ART CENTER ADM PRINTING 08/15/94 $7.03 JERRYS PRINTING SALES TAX E1195. POOL ADMIN PRINTING 08/15/94 $5.99 JERRYS PRINTING SALES TAX E1451. ATHLETIC ACTIV GENERAL SUPPLI 08/15/94 $3.89 JERRYS PRINTING SALES TAX E1043. PARK ADMIN. PRINTING 148234 1 $312.57* 08/15/94 $1,917.00 JIM HATCH SALES HYDRANT MARKERS 3747 DISTRIBUTION GENERAL SUPPLI 08/15/94 $393.03 JIM HATCH SALES TOOLS 3727 GENERAL MAINT TOOLS 08/15/94 $358.00 JIM HATCH SALES SAFETY EQUIPMENT 3773 GENERAL MAINT SAFETY EQUIPME 08/15/94 $112.46 JIM HATCH SALES GENERAL SUPPLIES 3728 STREET NAME SI GENERAL SUPPLI 148235 $2,780.49* 08/15/94 $15.30 JOHN H. FOSTER CONTRACTED REPAIRS 12991890 LIFT STATION M CONTR REPAIRS 08/15/94 $238.11 JOHN H. FOSTER CONTRACTED REPAIRS 12977330 LIFT STATION M CONTR REPAIRS 148236 $253.41* 08/15/94 $66.02 JOHNS, DICK GENERAL SUPPLIES CL/ 080894 CENTENNIAL LAK GENERAL SUPPLI 148237 $66.02* 08/15/94 $345.35 JOHNSON, E "MARKRUD" GENERAL SUPPLIES 3634 MAINT OF COURS GENERAL SUPPLI 148238 $345.35* 08/15/94 $18.50 JOHNSON, NAOMI GENERAL SUPPLIES 080994 ART CENTER BLD GENERAL SUPPLI 08/15/94 $21.43 JOHNSON, NAOMI ART WORK SOLD ART CE 080994 ART CNTR PROG SALES OTHER 08/15/94 $70.40 JOHNSON, NAOMI CRAFT SUPPLIES 080994 ART CENTER ADM CRAFT SUPPLIES 148239 $110.33* 08/15/94 $100.00 JOHNSON, WALTER POLICE SERVICES 081594 RESERVE PROGRA PERS SERVICES 148240 $100.00* 08/15/94 $20.28 JP FOODSERVICES INC COST OF GOODS SOLD F 073194 NORMANDALE GC CST OF GD FOOD 08/15/94 $3,640.99 JP FOODSERVICES INC COST OF GOODS SOLD F 0731 GRILL CST OF GD FOOD COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu Aug 11 1994 00:59:27 Page 14 CHECK NO DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM OBJECT PO NUM. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 08/15/94 $28.40 JP FOODSERVICES INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 0731 CENTENNIAL LAK GENERAL SUPPLI 08/15/94 $238.53 JP FOODSERVICES INC CLEANING SUPPLIES 0731 GRILL CLEANING SUPPL 08/15/94 $545.94 JP FOODSERVICES INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 0731 GRILL GENERAL SUPPLI 148241 $4,474.14* 08/15/94 $44.99 JUSTUS LUMBER PAINT 86918 CENTENNIAL LAK PAINT 08/15/94 $402.14 JUSTUS LUMBER PAINT 86821 CENTENNIAL LAK PAINT 08/15/94 $322.38 JUSTUS LUMBER PAINT 88076 CENTENNIAL LAK PAINT 08/15/94 $187.10 JUSTUS LUMBER PAINT 86916 CENTENNIAL LAK PAINT 08/15/94 $122.18 JUSTUS LUMBER PAINT 85485 CENTENNIAL LAK PAINT 08/15/94 $448.28 JUSTUS LUMBER LUMBER 78500 CENTENNIAL LAK LUMBER 148242 $1,527.07* 08/15/94 $82.16 KAMAN INDUSTRIAL TECHN REPAIR PARTS 2108517 MAINT OF COURS REPAIR PARTS 148243 $82.16* 08/15/94 $75.00 KARAI, JAY PERFORM CL /EB 090194 ED ADMINISTRAT PRO SVC OTHER 148244 $75.00* 08/15/94 $325.00 KEHOE, TERRENCE CONFERENCES & SCHOOL 080894 INSPECTIONS CONF & SCHOOLS 148245 $325.00* 08/15/94 $212.99 KNOX COMM CREDIT TOOLS 112253 GENERAL MAINT TOOLS 0 /15/94 - $121.35 KNOX COMM CREDIT GENERAL SUPPLIES 112016CM GENERAL MAINT GENERAL SUPPLI 0$/15/94 $180.24 KNOX COMM CREDIT GENERAL SUPPLIES 112016 GENERAL MAINT GENERAL SUPPLI 08/15/94 $50.32 KNOX COMM CREDIT CONTRACTED REPAIRS 113728 NORMANDALE GC CONTR REPAIRS 08/15/94 $18.03 KNOX COMM CREDIT LUMBER 113146 CLUB HOUSE LUMBER 08/15/94 $95.85 KNOX COMM CREDIT TOOLS 110531 GENERAL MAINT TOOLS 08/15/94 $135.20 KNOX COMM CREDIT GENERAL SUPPLIES 111384 SNOW & ICE REM GENERAL SUPPLI 08/15/94 $26.59 KNOX COMM CREDIT GENERAL SUPPLIES 111219 GENERAL MAINT GENERAL SUPPLI 08/15/94 $17.54 KNOX COMM CREDIT REPAIR PARTS 113008 MAINT OF COURS REPAIR PARTS 08/15/94 $68.23 KNOX COMM CREDIT GENERAL SUPPLIES 111420 STREET REVOLVI GENERAL SUPPLI 08/15/94 $44.70 KNOX COMM CREDIT GENERAL SUPPLIES 1112920 BUILDING MAINT GENERAL SUPPLI 148246 $728.34* 08/15/94 08/15/94 148247 08/15/94 148248 08/15/94 148249 08/15/94 08/15/94 08/15/94 08/15/94 148250 $2,837.60 $3,069.45 $5,907.05* $262.52 $262.52* $22.50 $22.50* $814.45 $723.10 $1,698.75 $527.75 $3,764.05* KOCH MATERIALS CO ROAD OIL KOCH MATERIALS CO ROAD OIL - KREMER SPRING & ALIGNM REPAIR PARTS KRONLOKKEN, KRISTEN KUETHER DIST. CO KUETHER DIST. CO KUETHER DIST. CO KUETHER DIST. CO REFUND TENNIS 0710905 STREET RENOVAT ROAD OIL 0709602 STREET RENOVAT ROAD OIL 054929 EQUIPMENT OPER REPAIR PARTS 080994 GENERAL FD PRO REGISTRATION F COST OF GOODS SOLD B 000790 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS BEE COST OF GOODS SOLD B 111699 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS BEE COST OF GOODS SOLD B 111155 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS BEE COST OF GOODS SOLD B 111242 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS BEE COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu Aug 11 1994 00:59:27 Page 15 CHECK NO --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM OBJECT PO NUM. 08/15/94 $29.25 KURMIS, IRMA ART WORK SOLD 080994 ART CNTR PROG SALES OTHER 148251 $29.25* 08/15/94 $221.00 LABOR RELATIONS ASN. FEE FOR SERVICE 060194 ADMINISTRATION PROF SERVICES 148252 $221.00* 08/15/94 $39.00 LADNER, GWENDOLYN CLASS REFUND 072694 ART CNTR PROG REGISTRATION F 148253 $39.00* 08/15/94 $993.00 LAKE RESTORATION INC AQUATIC TREATMENT 1686 PONDS & LAKES PROF SERVICES 08/15/94 $200.00 LAKE RESTORATION INC POND TREATMENT 4169 PONDS & LAKES PROF SERVICES 08/15/94 $427.00 LAKE RESTORATION INC POND TREATMENT 3028 PONDS & LAKES PROF SERVICES 08/15/94 $247.00 LAKE RESTORATION INC. POND TREATMENT 2144/2 PONDS & LAKES PROF SERVICES 08/15/94 $354.00 LAKE RESTORATION INC POND TREATMENT 3566 PONDS & LAKES PROF SERVICES 08/15/94 $133.00 LAKE RESTORATION INC POND TREATMENT 3012 PONDS & LAKES PROF SERVICES 08/15/94 $400.00 LAKE RESTORATION INC POND TREATMENT 4169/2 PONDS & LAKES PROF SERVICES 08/15/94. $496.25 LAKE RESTORATION INC WATER TREATMENT 393/4 CENTENNIAL LAK SVC CONTR EQUI 08/15/94 $740.00 LAKE RESTORATION INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICE 3562 PONDS & LAKES PROF SERVICES 148254 $3,990.25* 08/15/94 $432.61 LAWSON PRODUCTS ACCESSORIES 1073190 EQUIPMENT OPER ACCESSORIES 88/15/94 $63.67 LAWSON PRODUCTS GENERAL SUPPLIES 1088705 PW BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLI 48/15/94 $487.40 LAWSON PRODUCTS REPAIR PARTS 1088703 PUMP & LIFT ST REPAIR PARTS 88/15/94 $276.39 LAWSON PRODUCTS GENERAL SUPPLIES 1085414 ST LIGHTING OR GENERAL SUPPLI 08/15/94 $270.59 LAWSON PRODUCTS GENERAL SUPPLIES 1088704 ST LIGHTING OR GENERAL SUPPLI 08/15/94 $65.90 LAWSON PRODUCTS TOOLS 1086131 EQUIPMENT OPER TOOLS 08/15/94 $419.48 LAWSON PRODUCTS REPAIR PARTS 1073188 EQUIPMENT OPER REPAIR PARTS 148255 $2,016.04* 08/15/94 $300.00 LEBERT, ANITA CHAIRS FOR NORMANDAL 080294 GC CIP CIP 148256 $300.00* • 08/15/94 $25.88 LEEF BROS. INC. LAUNDRY 073194/G MAINT OF COURS LAUNDRY 148257 $25.88* 08/15/94 $209.54 LIEN INFECTION CONTROL SERVICE CONTRACTS EQ 080194 CLUB HOUSE SVC CONTR EQUI 148258 $209.54* 08/15/94 $25.00 LINDBLOM, ADAM OVERPAYMENT IMPOUND 072794 GENERAL FD PRO DOG LIC & OTHE 148259 $25.00* 08/15/94 $300..00 LINDENFELSER LANDFILL RUBBISH REMOVAL 063094 BUILDING MAINT RUBBISH REMOVA 148260 $300.00* 08/15/94 $37.50 LINHOFF PHOTOGRAPHIC SUPPLIE 249021 FIRE DEPT. GEN PHOTO SUPPLIES 148261 $37.50* 08/15/94 $129.69 LONG LAKE TRACTOR & EQ REPAIR PARTS 190103 EQUIPMENT OPER REPAIR PARTS 148262 $129.69* COUNCIL CHECK.REGISTER' Thu Aug 11 1994 00:59:27 Page 16 CHECK NO --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE_ PROGRAM OBJECT PO NUM. 08/15/94 $30.00 LONNING, CAROLYN SERVICES 0716 ED ADMINISTRAT PRO SVC OTHER 148263 $30.00* 08/15/94 $543.87 LUNAR EMPIRE INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 37024 PLAYGROUND & T GENERAL SUPPLI 148264 $543.87* 08/15/94 $100.00 LUND, KAREN ART WORK SOLD 080994 ART CNTR PROG SALES OTHER 148265 $100.00* 08/15/94 $31.88 LYNDALE GARDEN CTR GENERAL SUPPLIES 93024 _ GENERAL STORM GENERAL SUPPLI 08/15/94 $42.51 LYNDALE GARDEN CTR GENERAL SUPPLIES 93022 GENERAL STORM GENERAL SUPPLI 08/15/94 $95.83 LYNDALE GARDEN CTR GENERAL SUPPLIES 89708 GENERAL MAINT GENERAL SUPPLI 148266 $170.22* 08/15/94 $56.00 LYREK, JULIE CLASS REFUND 072694 ART CNTR PROG REGISTRATION F 148267 $56.00* 08/15/94 $417.75 M AMUNDSON COST OF GOODS SOLD M 30603 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 08/15/94 $334.20 M AMUNDSON COST OF GOODS SOLD M 30629 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS MIX 08/15/94 $159.82 M AMUNDSON COST OF GOODS SOLD M 30520 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 08/15/94 $116.97 M AMUNDSON COST OF GOODS SOLD M 30862 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 08/15/94 $415.05 M AMUNDSON COST OF GOODS SOLD M 30673 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 0$/15/94 $133.68 M AMUNDSON COST OF GOODS SOLD M 30751 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS MIX 0$/15/94 $284.07 M AMUNDSON COST OF GOODS SOLD M 30795 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 148268 $1,861.54* 08/15/94 $54.00 M. SHANKEN COMMUNICATI WINE SPECTATOR 106838 LIQUOR 50TH ST DUES & SUBSCRI 08/15/94 $54.00 M. SHANKEN COMMUNICATI WINE MAGAZINE .071594 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 148269 $108.00* 08/15/94 $400.00 MADSON, JOHN SERVCIES CL /EB 080194 ED ADMINISTRAT PROF SERVICES 148270 $400.00* 08/15/94 $225.00 MARK VII SALES COST OF GOODS SOLD B 281761 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS BEE 08/15/94 $142.50 MARK VII SALES COST OF GOODS SOLD B 283347 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS BEE 08/15/94 $1,896.20 MARK VII SALES COST OF GOODS SOLD B 281721 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS BEE 08/15/94 $423.75 MARK VII SALES COST OF GOODS SOLD B 283375 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS BEE 08/15/94 $456.10 MARK VII SALES COST OF GOODS SOLD F 072994 GRILL CST OF GD FOOD 08/15/94 $880.00 MARK VII SALES COST OF GOODS SOLD B 072994 GRILL CST OF GDS BEE 08/15/94 $64.00 MARK VII SALES COST OF GOODS SOLD M 284484 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 08/15/94 $2,252.85 MARK VII SALES COST OF GOODS SOLD B 284483 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS BEE 08/15/94 $129.75 MARK VII SALES COST OF GOODS SOLD B 281247 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS BEE 08/15/94 $64.00 MARK VII SALES COST OF GOODS SOLD M 278963 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 08/15/94 $56.35 MARK VII SALES COST OF GOODS SOLD M 278965 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 08/15/94 $20.40 MARK VII SALES COST OF GOODS SOLD M 278962 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS MIX 08/15/94 $1,049.25 MARK VII SALES COST OF GOODS SOLD B 278961 SOTH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS BEE 08/15/94 $11.00 MARK VII SALES COST OF GOODS SOLD M 281763 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 08/15/94 $1,190.10 MARK VII SALES COST OF GOODS SOLD B 281764 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS BEE 08/15/94 $61.25 MARK VII SALES COST OF GOODS SOLD M 281720 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS MIX COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu Aug 11 1994 00:59:27 Page 17. CHECK NO DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM OBJECT PO NUM. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 08/15/94 $53.10 MARK VII SALES COST OF GOODS SOLD M 281718 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS MIX 08/15/94 $1,443.40 MARK VII SALES COST OF GOODS SOLD B 278964 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS BEE 08/15/94 $847.55 MARK VII SALES COST OF GOODS SOLD B 281719 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS BEE 08/15/94 -$3.00 MARK VII SALES COST OF GOODS SOLD B 264478CM VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS BEE 148272 $11,263.55* 08/15/94 $306.00 MARTIN - MCALLISTER PROFESSIONAL SERVICE 6798 POLICE DEPT. G PROF SERVICES 148273 $306.00* 08/15/94 $809.40 MCCAREN DESIGN TREES, FLOWERS, SHRU 00011263 ED BUILDING & TREES FLWR SHR 08/15/94 $362.10 MCCAREN DESIGN FERTILIZER 00011261 ED BUILDING & FERTILIZER 148274 $1,171.50* 08/15/94 $127.60 MCCARTHY, LOWELL MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE 080994 WEED MOWING MILEAGE 148275 $127.60* 08/15/94 $35.09 MCGUIRE AUTO SUPPLY GENERAL SUPPLIES 080194/P PUMP & LIFT ST GENERAL SUPPLI 08/15/94 $2,772.36 MCGUIRE AUTO SUPPLY REPAIR PARTS 080194/P EQUIPMENT OPER REPAIR PARTS 08/15/94 $94.79 MCGUIRE AUTO SUPPLY GENERAL SUPPLIES 080194/P FIRE DEPT. GEN GENERAL SUPPLI 08/15/94 $499.04 MCGUIRE AUTO SUPPLY ACCESSORIES 080194/P EQUIPMENT OPER ACCESSORIES 148276 $3,401.28* 88/15/94 $41.00 MELIN, KIM CLASS REFUND 080394 ART CNTR PROG REGISTRATION F 148277 I $41.00* 08/15/94 $12.69 MENARDS BALANCE DUE 424701.` ED BUILDING & GENERAL SUPPLI 08/15/94 $12.69 MENARDS GENERAL SUPPLIES 4713 GENERAL TURF C GENERAL SUPPLI 148278 $25.38* 08/15/94 $250.57 MENARDS GENERAL SUPPLIES 1958 CENTENNIAL LAK GENERAL SUPPLI 148279 $250.57* 08/15/94 $100.00 MERFELD, BURT POLICE SERVICES 081594 RESERVE PROGRA PERS SERVICES 148280 $100.00* 08/15/94 $439.09 MERIT SUPPLY CLEANING SUPPLIES 36665 PW BUILDING CLEANING SUPPL 08/15/94 $456.03 MERIT SUPPLY GENERAL SUPPLIES 36666 BUILDING MAINT GENERAL SUPPLI 08/15/94 $318.28 MERIT SUPPLY GENERAL SUPPLIES 36667 BUILDING MAINT GENERAL SUPPLI 08/15/94 $174.39 MERIT SUPPLY CLEANING SUPPLIES 36712 ED BUILDING & CLEANING SUPPL 08/15/94 $477.65 MERIT SUPPLY GENERAL SUPPLIES 36583 PARKING RAMP GENERAL SUPPLI 08/15/94 $418.11 MERIT SUPPLY CLEANING SUPPLIES 36671 ED.BUILDING & CLEANING SUPPL 148281 $2,283.55* 08/15/94 $438.00 METRO ATHLETIC SUPPLY COST OF GOODS SOLD F 2955 ARENA CONCESSI CST OF GD FOOD 08/15/94 $48.88 METRO ATHLETIC SUPPLY GENERAL SUPPLIES 2818 PATHS & HARD S GENERAL SUPPLI 148282 $486.88* 08/15/94 $3,147.08 METRO PAVING INC BLACKTOP PATH WORK 2373 MAINT OF COURS SHARED MAINT 148283 $3,147.08* COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu Aug 11 1994 .00:59:27 Page 18 CHECK NO DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM OBJECT PO NUM. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 08/15/94 $200.00 METZGER, JUDY CALENDAR COVER WINNE 080494 PARK ADMIN.- PROF SERVICES 148284 $200.00* 08/15/94 $300.00 MGA COMPUTERIZED HANDICA 459041 GOLF PROG COMPUTR HANDIC 08/15/94 $70.00 MGA COMPUTERIZED HANDICA 459073 GOLF PROG COMPUTR HANDIC 08/15/94 $360.00 MGA GENERAL SUPPLIES 080394 MAINT OF COURS GENERAL SUPPLI 148285 $730.00* 08/15/94 $696.38 MIDWEST ASPHALT COR. GENERAL SUPPLIES 16414 DISTRIBUTION GENERAL SUPPLI 08/15/94 $127.90 MIDWEST ASPHALT COR. BLACKTOP 16414 GENERAL'MAINT BLACKTOP 08/15/94 $187.90 MIDWEST ASPHALT COR. BLACKTOP 16600 GENERAL MAINT BLACKTOP 08/15/94 $766.49 MIDWEST ASPHALT COR. GENERAL SUPPLIES 16600 STREET RENOVAT GENERAL SUPPLI 148286 $1,778.67* 08/15/94 $83,476.89 MIDWEST ASPHALT CORPOR CONSTR. IN PROGRESS 94 -4 #2 STREET IMPROVE CIP 148287 $83,476.89* 08/15/94 $6,759.58 MIDWEST ASPHALT CORPOR CONSTR. IN PROGRESS 94 -2 #4 ST. IMPROV BA CIP 148288 $6,759.58* 1 08/15/94 $483.15 MIDWEST CHEMICAL SUPPL PAPER SUPPLIES 10822 CITY HALL GENE PAPER SUPPLIES 148289 $483.15* 00/15/94 $157.16 MIDWEST SPORTS MARKETI GENERAL SUPPLIES 114967 ARENA BLDG /GRO GENERAL SUPPLI 148290 ! $157.16* 08/15/94 $192.00 MIDWEST VENDING WHOLES COST OF GOODS SOLD F 072794 GRILL CST OF GD FOOD 148291 $192.00* 08/15/94 $483.22 MILLIPORE GENERAL SUPPLIES 1121189 LABORATORY GENERAL SUPPLI 148292 $483.22* 08/15/94 $1,252.94 MILSCO ENGINEERING CONTRACTED REPAIRS 072894 -1 BUILDING MAINT CONTR REPAIRS 5467 148293 $1,252.94* 08/15/94 $69.50 MILWAUKEE ELECTRIC TOO TOOLS 25633800 GENERAL MAINT TOOLS 148294 $69.50* 08/15/94 $140.00 MINNEAPOLIS & SUBURBAN CONTRACTED REPAIRS 30240 DISTRIBUTION CONTR REPAIRS 08/15/94 $1,027.50 MINNEAPOLIS & SUBURBAN CONTRACTED REPAIRS 30228 DISTRIBUTION CONTR REPAIRS 08/15/94 $900.00 MINNEAPOLIS & SUBURBAN CONTRACTED REPAIRS 30229 DISTRIBUTION CONTR REPAIRS 148295 $2,067.50* 08/15/94 $22.75 MINNEAPOLIS AUTO PARTS SALES TAX 04089033.EQUIPMENT OPER REPAIR PARTS 148296 $22.75* 08/15/94 $143.08 MINNEAPOLIS SPOKESMAN ADVERTISING PERSONNE 10537 CENT SVC GENER ADVERT PERSONL 148297 $143.08* 08/15/94 $84.52 MINNEGASCO HEAT 081594 PW BUILDING HEAT COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu Aug 11 1994 00:59:27 Page 19 CHECK NO DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM OBJECT PO NUM. ----------------------------------------7---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 08/15/94 $757.28 MINNEGASCO HEAT 081594 ARENA BLDG /GRO HEAT 08/15/94 $57.04 MINNEGASCO HEAT 081594 CITY HALL GENE HEAT 08/15/94 $392.93 MINNEGASCO HEAT 081594 ED BUILDING & HEAT 08/15/94 $33.12 MINNEGASCO HEAT 081594 DISTRIBUTION HEAT, 148298 $1,324.89* 08/15/94 $41.55 MINNESOTA BAR SUPPLY COST OF GOODS SOLD M 200664 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 08/15/94 $7.19 MINNESOTA BAR SUPPLY COST OF GOODS SOLD M 200665 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 08/15/94 $85.00 MINNESOTA BAR SUPPLY COST OF GOODS SOLD M 200661 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 08/15/94 $43.10 MINNESOTA BAR SUPPLY COST OF GOODS SOLD M 200663 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS MIX 148299 $176.84* 08/15/94 $170.61 MINNESOTA CONWAY ACCESSORIES 205241 EQUIPMENT OPER ACCESSORIES 148300 $170.61* 08/15/94 $65.00 MINNESOTA ELEVATOR INC SERVICE CONTRACTS EQ 070352 ED BUILDING & SVC CONTR EQUI 148301 $65.00* 08/15/94 $86.23 MINNESOTA GLOVE INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 95789 GENERAL MAINT GENERAL SUPPLI 148302 $86.23* 0,8/15/94 $396.80 MINNESOTA PIPE & EQUIP PIPE 15555 GENERAL STORM PIPE Oi8/15/9.4 $492.03 MINNESOTA PIPE & EQUIP REPAIR PARTS 15354 PUMP & LIFT ST REPAIR PARTS 08/15/94 $41.26 MINNESOTA PIPE & EQUIP REPAIR PARTS 15356 DISTRIBUTION REPAIR PARTS 148303 j $930.09* 08/15/94 $22.33 MINNESOTA SUN PUBLICAT HRG HAYMAKER & GGM 12972 ADMINISTRATION ADVERTISING LE 148304 $22.33* 08/15/94 $17.14 MINNESOTA TORO DIST CO REPAIR PARTS 444789 MAINT OF COURS REPAIR PARTS 08/15/94 $16.27 MINNESOTA TORO DIST CO REPAIR PARTS 444079 MAINT OF COURS REPAIR PARTS 08/15/94 $45.35 MINNESOTA TORO DIST CO REPAIR PARTS 444788 MAINT OF COURS REPAIR PARTS 08/15/94 $222.17 MINNESOTA TORO DIST CO REPAIR PARTS 444078 MAINT OF COURS REPAIR PARTS 08/15/94 $481.29 MINNESOTA TORO DIST CO REPAIR PARTS 444077 MAINT OF COURS REPAIR PARTS 08/15/94 $429.74 MINNESOTA TORO DIST CO REPAIR PARTS 440649 EQUIPMENT OPER REPAIR PARTS 08/15/94 $20.78 MINNESOTA TORO DIST CO REPAIR PARTS 440816 CENTENNIAL LAK REPAIR PARTS 08/15/94 $22.01 MINNESOTA TORO DIST CO REPAIR PARTS 440817 CENTENNIAL LAK REPAIR PARTS 08/15/94 $94.20 MINNESOTA TORO DIST CO REPAIR PARTS 440765 EQUIPMENT OPER REPAIR PARTS 08/15/94 $95.88 MINNESOTA TORO DIST CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 442191 CENTENNIAL LAK GENERAL SUPPLI 148305 $1,444.83* 08/15/94 $19.00 MINNESOTA WANNER REPAIR PARTS 0022939 BUILDING MAINT REPAIR PARTS 148306 $19.00* .08/15/94 $34.49 MINVALCO REPAIR PARTS 4071317 PW BUILDING REPAIR PARTS 148307 $34.49* 08/15/94 $85.91 MISSION SERVICE SUPPLY CASSETTE TAPES 53140 CITY COUNCIL GENERAL SUPPLI 148308 $85.91* COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu Aug 11 1994 00:59:27 Page 20 CHECK NO DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM OBJECT PO NUM. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 08/15/94 $148.04 MITCHELL INTERNATIONAL DATA PROCESSING 1334904 EQUIPMENT OPER DATA PROCESSIN 148309 $148.04* 08/15/94 $30.00 MN CHAPTER IAAI MEMBERSHIP FIRE 080894 FIRE DEPT. GEN DUES & SUBSCRI 148310 $30.00* 08/15/94 $1,439.80 MN STATE TREA /BLG IN SURTAX JULY 199 GENERAL FD PRO SURTAX 148311 $1,439.80* 08/15/94 $4.49 MOBILE CELLULAR UNLIMI SALES TAX 8967432. DISTRIBUTION REPAIR PARTS 148312 $4.49* 08/15/94- $99.92 MODEL STONE CONSTR. IN PROGRESS 2076129 GC CIP CIP 148313 $99.92* 08/15/94 $300.00 MONARCH SERVICES CL /EB 082494 ED ADMINISTRAT PRO SVC OTHER 148314 $300.00* 08/15/94 $59.45 McCONNELL, ANN MILEAGE /GOLF COURSE 080294 GOLF ADMINISTR MILEAGE 148315 $59.45* 08/15/94 $55.43 NAPA AUTO PARTS REPAIR PARTS 088159 EQUIPMENT OPER REPAIR PARTS 148316 $55.43* 0 ;/15/94 $.07 NEBCO.EVANS DISTRIB GENERAL SUPPLIES 306472 GRILL GENERAL SUPPLI 08/15/94 $97.29 NEBCO EVANS DISTRIB GENERAL SUPPLIES 306471 GRILL GENERAL SUPPLI 08/15/94 $52.15 NEBCO EVANS DISTRIB COST OF GOODS SOLD F 298523 POOL CONCESSIO CST OF GD FOOD 08/15/94 $672.09 NEBCO EVANS DISTRIB COST OF GOODS SOLD F 303912 ARENA CONCESSI CST OF GD FOOD 08/15/94 $46.34 -. NEBCO EVANS DISTRIB COST OF GOODS SOLD F 282226 VANVALKENBURG CST OF GD FOOD 08/15/94 $97.90 NEBCO EVANS DISTRIB COST OF GOODS SOLD F 292754 VANVALKENBURG CST OF GD FOOD 148317 $965.84* 08/15/94 $117.29 NELSON RADIO COMMUNICA CONTRACTED REPAIRS 16829 EQUIPMENT OPER CONTR REPAIRS 08/15/94 $106.20 NELSON RADIO COMMUNICA CONTRACTED REPAIRS 16828 EQUIPMENT OPER CONTR REPAIRS 148318 $223.49* 08/15/94 $576.00 NELSON, J THOMAS AC INSTRUCTOR 080994 ART CENTER ADM PROF SERVICES 148319 $576.00* 08/15/94 $351.13 NEWMAN TRAFFIC SIGN SIGNS & POSTS 2020515 STREET NAME SI SIGNS & POSTS 148320 $351.13* 08/15/94 $11.60 NIELSEN, PATRICIA MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE 072694 METER READING MILEAGE 148321 $11.60* 08/15/94 $100.00 NISSEN, DICK POLICE SERVICES 081594 RESERVE PROGRA PERS SERVICES 148322 $100.00* 08/15/94 $424.01 NORCOSTCO GENERAL SUPPLIES 153870 CENTENNIAL LAK GENERAL SUPPLI 08/15/94 $28.67 NORCOSTCO GENERAL SUPPLIES 154589 CENTENNIAL LAK GENERAL SUPPLI COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu Aug 11 1994 00:59:27 Page 21 CHECK NO DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM OBJECT PO NUM. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 148323 $452.68* 08/15/94 $2,788.00 NORMAN, JIM PAINT HOUSE 080594 CDBG PROG PROF SERVICES 148324 $2,788.00* 08/15/94 $316.00 NORTH MEMORIAL MEDICAL CONT ED POLICE 080894 POLICE DEPT. G CONF & SCHOOLS 148325 $316.00* 08/15/94 $370.62 NORTH STAR CONCRETE CO PIPE 5445201 GENERAL STORM PIPE 148326 $370.62* 08/15/94 $197.94 NORTH STAR TURF REPAIR PARTS 87587 EQUIPMENT OPER REPAIR PARTS 08/15/94 $50.80 NORTH STAR TURF REPAIR PARTS 87684 EQUIPMENT OPER REPAIR PARTS 148327 $248.74* 08/15/94 $73.96 NORTHERN AIRGAS FIRST AID SUPPLIES 67521 FIRE DEPT. GEN FIRST AID SUPP 148328 $73.96* 08/15/94 $150.00 NORTHERN BALANCE & SCA CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 4289 LABORATORY CONTR SERVICES 148329 $150.00* Q8/1S/94 $.51.02 NORTHERN GENERAL SUPPLIES 228735TI GENERAL MAINT GENERAL SUPPLI 148330 I $51.02* 68/15/94 $4.89 NORTHLAND ELECTRIC SUP REPAIR PARTS 387488 CLUB HOUSE REPAIR PARTS 148331 $4.89* 08/15,/94 $111.60 NORTHSTAR ICE COST OF GOODS SOLD M 25463 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 08/15/94 $130.20 NORTHSTAR ICE COST OF GOODS SOLD M 27666 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 08/15/94 $83.88 NORTHSTAR ICE COST OF GOODS SOLD M 25465 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 08/15/94 $63.90 NORTHSTAR ICE COST OF GOODS SOLD M 26540 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS MIX 08/15/94 $63.90 NORTHSTAR ICE COST OF GOODS SOLD M 24354 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS MIX 148332 $453.48* 08/15/94 $225.20 NORTHWEST GRAPHIC SUPP COST OF GOODS SOLD F 221304 ART SUPPLY GIF CST OF GD FOOD 08/15/94 $85.15 NORTHWEST GRAPHIC SUPP COST OF GOODS SOLD 221235 ART SUPPLY GIF CST OF GD FOOD 148333 $310.35* 08/15/94 $109.11 NORTHWESTERN TIRE CO TIRES & TUBES NW12315 EQUIPMENT OPER TIRES & TUBES 08/15/94 $388.39 NORTHWESTERN TIRE CO TIRES & TUBES NW12284 EQUIPMENT OPER TIRES & TUBES 08/15/94 $203.39 NORTHWESTERN TIRE CO TIRES & TUBES NW12124 EQUIPMENT OPER TIRES & TUBES 08/15/94 $160.75 NORTHWESTERN TIRE CO HAZ. WASTE DISPOSAL NW12234 SUPERV. & OVRH HAZ. WASTE DIS 08/15/94 $235.77 NORTHWESTERN TIRE CO TIRES & TUBES NW12567 EQUIPMENT OPER TIRES & TUBES 08/15/94 $94.68 NORTHWESTERN TIRE CO TIRES & TUBES NW12721 EQUIPMENT OPER TIRES & TUBES 08/15/94 $381.27 NORTHWESTERN TIRE CO TIRES & TUBES NW12486 EQUIPMENT OPER TIRES & TUBES 148334 $1,573.36* 08/15/94 $125.23 NOVAK'S GARAGE CONTRACTED REPAIRS 7898 CENTENNIAL LAK CON_TR REPAIRS 148335 $125.23* COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu Aug 11 1994 00:59:27 Page 22 CHECK NO DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM OBJECT PO NUM. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 08/15/94 $2,201.38 NSP LIGHT & POWER 081594 CENTENNIAL LAK LIGHT & POWER 08/15/94 $9,306.70 NSP LIGHT & POWER 081594 ED BUILDING & LIGHT & POWER 08/15/94 $39.92 NSP LIGHT & POWER 081594 GOLF DOME LIGHT & POWER 08/15/94 $1,608.92 NSP LIGHT & POWER 081594 VERNON OCCUPAN LIGHT & POWER 08/15/94 $1,630.55 NSP LIGHT & POWER 081594 YORK OCCUPANCY LIGHT & POWER 08/15/94 $1,014.97 NSP LIGHT & POWER 081594 50TH ST OCCUPA LIGHT & POWER 08/15/94 $29,218.57 NSP LIGHT & POWER 081594 DISTRIBUTION LIGHT & POWER 08/15/94 $38.70 NSP LIGHT & POWER 081594 CIVIL DEFENSE LIGHT & POWER 08/15/94 $2,521.49 NSP LIGHT & POWER 081594 CITY HALL GENE LIGHT & POWER 08/15/94 $2,711.50 NSP LIGHT & POWER 081594 PW BUILDING LIGHT & POWER 08/15/94 $3,921.65 NSP , LIGHT & POWER 081594 BUILDING MAINT LIGHT & POWER 08/15/94 $5,064.53 NSP LIGHT & POWER 081594 CLUB HOUSE LIGHT & POWER 08/15/94 $22.29 NSP LIGHT & POWER 081594 PONDS & LAKES LIGHT & POWER 08/15/94 $706.78 NSP LIGHT & POWER 081594 PUMP & LIFT ST LIGHT & POWER 08/15/94 $223.67 NSP LIGHT & POWER 081594 GUN RANGE LIGHT & POWER 08/15/94 $10,586.44 NSP LIGHT & POWER 081594 ARENA BLDG /GRO LIGHT & POWER 08/15/94 $61.78 NSP LIGHT & POWER 081594 NORMANDALE GC LIGHT & POWER 08/15/94 $1,902.70 NSP LIGHT & POWER 081594 POOL OPERATION LIGHT & POWER 08/15/94 $20,756.56 NSP LIGHT & POWER 081594 ST LIGHTING RE LIGHT & POWER 08/15/94 $3,286.67 NSP LIGHT & POWER 081594 ST LIGHTING OR LIGHT & POWER 08/15/94 $3,938.52 NSP LIGHT & POWER 081594 TRAFFIC SIGNAL LIGHT & POWER 08/15/94 $504.57 NSP LIGHT & POWER 081594 MAINT OF COURS LIGHT & POWER 0$/15/94 $7.60 NSP LIGHT & POWER 081594 GENERAL STORM LIGHT & POWER 0$/15/94 $177.96 NSP LIGHT & POWER 081594 PONDS & LAKES LIGHT & POWER 08/15/94 $3,019.14 NSP LIGHT & POWER 081594 PARKING RAMP LIGHT & POWER 08/15/94 $684.14 NSP LIGHT & POWER 081594 FIRE DEPT. GEN LIGHT & POWER 148337 $105,157.70* 08/15/94 $192.00 ODLAND, DOROTHY AC INSTRUCTOR 080994 ART CENTER ADM PROF SERVICES 148338 $192.00* 08/15/94 $271.36 OLD DUTCH FOODS COST OF GOODS SOLD F 072994 GRILL CST OF GD FOOD 148339 $271.36* 08/15/94 $12,680.96 OMNI PRODUCTS INC RAILROAD CROSSING SU L11241 STREET EQUIP REPLACEM 148340 $12,680.96* 08/15/94 $58.58 ORKIN CONTRACTED REPAIRS 073094 CITY HALL GENE CONTR REPAIRS 148341 $58.58* 08/15/94 $22.00 ORVIS, JOAN SERVICES /ADAPTIVE RE 080994 SPECIAL ACTIVI PROF SERVICES 148342 $22.00* 08/15/94 $81.00 OTIS SPUNKMEYER INC COST OF GOODS SOLD F 1003578 GRILL CST OF GD FOOD 08/15/94 $74.00 OTIS SPUNKMEYER INC COST OF GOODS SOLD F 1003429 GRILL CST OF GD FOOD 148343 $155.00* 08/15/94 $7,694.36 OUTSIDE SERVICES INC CONTRACTED REPAIRS 072094 TREES & MAINTE CONTR REPAIRS 148344 $7,694.36* COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu Aug 11 1994 00:59:27 Page 23 CHECK NO DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM OBJECT PO NUM. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 08/15/94 $132.81 PAGING NETWORK OF MINN GENERAL SUPPLIES A000311 GENERAL MAINT GENERAL SUPPLI 148345 $132.81* 08/15/94 $28.70 PAINTERS GEAR REPAIR PARTS 12441 SEWER CLEANING REPAIR PARTS 148346 $28.70* 08/15/94 $13.42 PAPER WAREHOUSE GENERAL SUPPLIES 47292 CENT SVC GENER GENERAL SUPPLI' 148347 $13.42* 08/15/94 $1,123.20 PAPERDIRECT INC PRINTING 66107850 COMMUNICATIONS PRINTING 148348 $1,123.20* 08/15/94 $40.40 PARK NICOLLET MEDICAL HEPATITIS B SHOT 073094 POLICE DEPT. G PROF SERVICES 08/15/94 $727.10 PARK NICOLLET MEDICAL PRE EMPLOYMENT EXAM 073094 CENT SVC GENER ADVERT PERSONL 148349 $767.50* 08/15/94 $30.00 PARZYCK, AMY ART WORK SOLD 080994 ART CNTR PROG SALES OTHER 148350 $30.00* 08/15/94 $75.00 PATHFINDERS RESOURCES CONFERENCES & SCHOOL 080894 PUBLIC HEALTH CONF & SCHOOLS 148351 $75.00* 88/15/94 - $148.00 PAUSTIS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD B 42077CM VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS BEE 08/15/94 $91.25 PAUSTIS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD B 42711 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS BEE 48/15/94 $111.00 PAUSTIS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD W 42710 YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE 08/15/94 $32.45 PAUSTIS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD W 42712 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE 08/15/94 $49.00 PAUSTIS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD B 42710 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS BEE 08/15/94 $37.50 PAUSTIS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD B 42493 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS BEE 08/15/94 $73.50 PAUSTIS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD W 42539 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE 08/15/94 $32.45 PAUSTIS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD W 42076. VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE 08/15/94 $117.00 PAUSTIS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD W 42540 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE 08/15/94 $55.00 PAUSTIS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD W 42541 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE •148352 $451.15* 08/15/94 $8,080.00 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT SY PROF ENG SERV 4495 ENGINEERING GE EQUIP REPLACEM 148353 $8,080.00* 08/15/94 $2,242.20 PEPSI COLA BOTTLING COST OF GOODS SOLD F 073094/G GRILL CST OF GD FOOD 08/15/94 $299.60 PEPSI COLA BOTTLING COST OF GOODS SOLD F 073194/G NORMANDALE GC CST OF GD FOOD 08/15/94 $40.00 PEPSI COLA BOTTLING COST OF GOODS SOLD F 30502226 POOL CONCESSIO CST OF GD FOOD 08/15/94 $60.00 PEPSI COLA BOTTLING COST OF GOODS SOLD F 31207719 POOL CONCESSIO CST OF GD FOOD 08/15/94 $72.00 PEPSI COLA BOTTLING COST OF GOODS SOLD M 33496110 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 08/15/94 $118.80 PEPSI COLA BOTTLING COST OF GOODS SOLD -M 33696311 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 08/15/94 $236.00 PEPSI COLA BOTTLING COST OF GOODS SOLD F 32702708 ARENA CONCESSI CST OF GD FOOD 08/15/94 - $29.25 PEPSI COLA BOTTLING COST OF GOODS SOLD M 32196110 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 148354 $3,039.35* 08/15/94 $53.25 PERKINS LANDSCAPE CONT GENERAL SUPPLIES 072694 GENERAL STORM GENERAL SUPPLI 08/15/94 $450.00 PERKINS LANDSCAPE CONT PROFESSIONAL SERVICE 062094 PATHS & HARD S PROF SERVICES 08/15/94 $573.70 PERKINS LANDSCAPE CONT SHARED MAINTENANCE 070694 MAINT OF COURS SHARED MAINT COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu Aug 11 1994 00:59:27 Page 24 CHECK NO DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM OBJECT PO NUM. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 148355 $1,076.95* 08/15/94 $850.00 PERSONNEL DECISIONS PROFESSIONAL SERVICE JI29389 INSPECTIONS PROF SERVICES 08/15/94 $850.00 PERSONNEL DECISIONS PROFESSIONAL SERVICE JI29649 INSPECTIONS PROF SERVICES 08/15/94 $850.00 PERSONNEL DECISIONS FEE FOR SERVICES JI29388 INSPECTIONS PROF SERVICES 148356 $2,550.00* 08/15/94 $424.33 PETERSON, IDELLE GENERAL SUPPLIES 561492 CENTENNIAL LAK GENERAL SUPPLI 08/15/94 $134.95 PETERSON, IDELLE GENERAL SUPPLIES 561490 CENTENNIAL LAK GENERAL SUPPLI 148357 $559.28* 08/15/94 $80.00 PETT, BARBARA REFUND SWIMMING 072694 GENERAL FD PRO REGISTRATION F 148358 $80.00* 08/15/94 $32.87 PETTY CASH GENERAL SUPPLIES 080894 ARENA BLDG /GRO GENERAL SUPPLI 08/15/94 $28.25 PETTY CASH GENERAL SUPPLIES 080894 SPECIAL ACTIVI GENERAL SUPPLI 08/15/94 $75.85 PETTY CASH MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE 080894 GENERAL(BILLIN MILEAGE 08/15/94 $9.55 PETTY CASH GENERAL SUPPLIES 080894 PARK ADMIN. GENERAL SUPPLI 08/15/94 $5.50 PETTY CASH MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE 080894 INSPECTIONS MILEAGE 08/15/94 $4.79 PETTY CASH PAPER SUPPLIES 080894 CITY HALL GENE PAPER SUPPLIES 08/15/94 $5.40 PETTY CASH CONFERENCES & SCHOOL 080894 HUMAN RELATION CONF & SCHOOLS 08/15/94 $25.01 PETTY CASH MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE 080894 FINANCE MILEAGE 08/15/94 $34.93 PETTY CASH MISCELLANOUS 080894 FINANCE MISCELLANOUS 08/15/94 $6.66 PETTY CASH GENERAL SUPPLIES 080894 ADMINISTRATION GENERAL SUPPLI 0$/15/94 $15.00 PETTY.CASH MEETING EXPENSE 080894 ASSESSING MEETING EXPENS. 0 ®/15/94 $18.75 PETTY CASH MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE 080894 ADMINISTRATION MILEAGE 08/15/94 $8.90 PETTY CASH MEETING EXPENSE 080894 CITY COUNCIL MEETING EXPENS 08/15/94 $5.00 PETTY CASH MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE 080894 PUBLIC HEALTH MILEAGE 08/15/94 $2.65 PETTY CASH GENERAL SUPPLIES 080894 ASSESSING GENERAL SUPPLI 08/15/94 $37.86 PETTY CASH MEETING EXPENSE 080894 ADMINISTRATION MEETING EXPENS' 148360 $316.97* 08/15/94 $273.60 PIP PRINTING PRINTING 14200 COMMUNICATIONS PRINTING 148361 $273.60* 08/15/94 $541.89 PLUMBING & HEATING REP REPLACE SEWER LINE 2085 DISTRIBUTION CONTR REPAIRS 148362 $541.89* 08/15/94 $51.00 PLUMMER, JEANNE CLASS REFUND 072794 ART CNTR PROG REGISTRATION F 148363 $51.00* 08/15/94 $75.00 PONZIO, RICK SERVICES 082794 ED ADMINISTRAT PROF SERVICES 148364 $75.00* 08/15/94 $686.93 PRECISION LANDSCAPE REMOVAL TREE 072094 TREES CIP 148365 $686.93* 08/15/94 $415.19 PRECISION TURF /CHEM CHEMICALS 005015 MAINT OF COURS CHEMICALS 08/115/94 $116.03 PRECISION TURF /CHEM CHEMICALS 004970 MAINT OF COURS CHEMICALS 148366 $531.22* COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu Aug 11 1994 00:59:27 Page 25 CHECK NO --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM OBJECT PO NUM. 08/15/94 $268.48 PRO PRINT & GRAPHICS GENERAL SUPPLIES 1582 CENTENNIAL LAK GENERAL SUPPLI 08/15/94 $152.30 PRO PRINT & GRAPHICS GENERAL SUPPLIES 1583 CENTENNIAL LAK GENERAL SUPPLI 148367 $420.78* 08/15/94 $345.00 PROGRESSIVE CONSULTING PROF ENG SERV 9302209 GENERAL(BILLIN PROF SERVICES 148368 $345.00* 08/15/94 $237.00 PRYOR RESOURCES INC CONT ED POLICE 080894 POLICE DEPT. G CONF & SCHOOLS 148369 $237.00* 08/15/94 $395.00 QM ENTERPRISES REFUND SPLASH 080394 EDINB /CL PROG SPONS INCOME 148370 $395.00* 08/15/94 $2,421.00 QUALITY FLOW SYSTEMS REPAIR PARTS 1702 WATER TREATMEN REPAIR PARTS 148371 $2,421.00* 08/15/94 $75.91 QUICK SERVICE BATTERY REPAIR PARTS 05680 EQUIPMENT OPER REPAIR PARTS 148372 $75.91* 08/15/94 $89.46 R &R SPECIALTIES INC CONTRACTED REPAIRS 19574 ARENA BLDG /GRO CONTR REPAIRS 0,8/15/94 $2,193.83 R &R SPECIALTIES INC CONTRACTED REPAIRS 19551 ARENA ICE MAIN CONTR REPAIRS 148373 i $2,283.29* 48/15/94 $20.00 RAND, RUTH REFUND ADAPTIVE REC 080194 GENERAL FD PRO REGISTRATION F 148374 $20.00* 08/15/94 $111.53 REACH EQUIPMENT ACCESSORIES B95681 EQUIPMENT OPER ACCESSORIES 148375 $111.53* 08/15/94 $204.90 RECYCLIGHTS HAZ. WASTE DISPOSAL 405862 SUPERV. & OVRH HAZ. WASTE DIS 148376 $204.90* 08/15/94 $97.98 REM SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES 4206 ED BUILDING & GENERAL SUPPLI 08/15/94 $499.70 REM SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES 4211 ED BUILDING & GENERAL SUPPLI 08/15/94 $454.87 REM SUPPLIES CLEANING SUPPLIES 4247 CENTENNIAL LAK CLEANING SUPPL 148377 $1,052.55* 08/15/94 $657.11 RESCUE SYSTEMS INC EQUIPMENT REPLACEMEN 14845 FIRE DEPT. GEN EQUIP REPLACEM 148378 $657.11* 08/l5/94 $1.00 REX DISTRIBUTING CO COST OF GOODS SOLD B 95724. 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS BEE 08/15/94 $958.10 REX DISTRIBUTING CO COST OF GOODS SOLD B 98969 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS BEE 08/15/94 $1,308.80 REX DISTRIBUTING CO COST OF GOODS SOLD B 98946 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS BEE 08/15/94 $1,798.16 REX DISTRIBUTING CO COST OF GOODS SOLD B 98945 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS BEE 08/15/94 $2,467.10 REX DISTRIBUTING CO COST OF GOODS SOLD B 98028 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS BEE 08/15/94 $1,352.00 REX DISTRIBUTING CO COST OF GOODS SOLD B 98029 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS BEE 08/15/94 $1,567.70 REX DISTRIBUTING CO COST OF GOODS SOLD B 98026 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS BEE 08/15/94 $36.90 REX DISTRIBUTING CO COST OF GOODS SOLD M 98029 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 148379 $9,489.76* COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu Aug 11 1994 00:59:27 Page 26 CHECK NO --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM OBJECT PO NUM. 08/15/94 $3.00 RICHARDS, MARY REFUND SWIMMING 080994 GENERAL FD PRO REGISTRATION F 148380 $3.00* 08/15/94 $375.00 RICHFIELD PLUMBING CO SERVICE CONTRACTS EQ 6254 CLUB HOUSE SVC CONTR EQUI 08/15/94 $89.40 RICHFIELD PLUMBING CO SERVICE CONTRACTS EQ 6261 CLUB HOUSE SVC CONTR EQUI 148381 $464.40* 08/15/94 $300.00 RIEKENA, JOE GOLF LESSONS 080394 RANGE GENERAL SUPPLI 148382 $300.00* 08/15/94 $482.17 RIGS AND SQUADS CONTRACTED REPAIRS 3384 FIRE DEPT. GEN CONTR REPAIRS 148383 $482.17* ' 08/15/94 $33.02 ROBERT B. HILL GENERAL SUPPLIES 44398 FIRE DEPT. GEN GENERAL SUPPLI 148384 $33.02* 1 08/15/94 $11,195.00 ROLLINS HUDIG HALL OF INSURANCE 119824 CENT SVC GENER INSURANCE 08/15/94 $3,731.00 ROLLINS HUDIG HALL OF INSURANCE 120384 CENT SVC GENER INSURANCE 08/15/94 $4,893.06 ROLLINS HUDIG HALL OF INSURANCE 119834 CENT SVC GENER INSURANCE 148385 $19,819.06* 08/15/94 $144.40 ROLLINS OIL CO WELDING SUPPLIES 29607 MAINT OF COURS WELDING SUPPLI_ 148386 I $144.40* 06/15/94 $283.12 RUBENSTEIN & ZIFF CRAFT SUPPLIES 274623 ART CENTER ADM CRAFT SUPPLIES 148387 $283.12* 08/15/94 $552.00 RUDQUIST, MONICA AC INSTRUCTOR 080994 ART CENTER ADM PROF SERVICES 08/15/94 $43.55 RUDQUIST, MONICA ART WORK SOLD 080994 ART CNTR PROG SALES OTHER 148388 $595.55* 08/15/94 $60.36 S.E.A. INC TRAIL MARKER WM0116 PATHS & HARD S GENERAL SUPPLI 5528 08/15/94 $332.63 S.E.A. INC PAINT WMO110 PAVEMENT MARKI PAINT 148389 $392.99* 08/15/94 $99.71 SA -AG INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 54059 GENERAL MAINT GENERAL SUPPLI 148390 $99.71* 08/15/94 $60.85 SALUD AMERICA COST OF GOODS SOLD W 080494 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE 148391 $60.85* 08/15/94 $48.11 SAVOIE SUPPLY CO INC EQUIPMENT MAINTENANC 012684. 50TH ST OCCUPA EQUIP MAINT 148392 $48.11* 08/15/94 $376.63 SCAN AIR FILTER REPAIR PARTS 2099 PW BUILDING REPAIR PARTS 148393 $376.63* 08/15/94 $4,_745.00 SCHMIDT, MICHAEL AMMUNITION 114014 GUN RANGE AMMUNITION. 148394 $4,745.00* %. COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu Aug 11 1994 00:59:27 Page 27 CHECK NO --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM OBJECT PO NUM. 08/15/94 $474.00 SCHUELLER'S PLANT GENERAL SUPPLIES 080194 STREET REVOLVI GENERAL SUPPLI 4272 148395 $474.00* 08/15/94 $302.40 SCOTT COUNTY NURSERY.I COURSE BEAUTIFICATIO 390 MAINT OF COURS COURSE BEAUTIF 148396 $302.40* 08/15/94 $410.90 SEARS TOOLS 62697741 FIRE DEPT. GEN TOOLS 148397 $410.90* 08/15/94 $3,000.00 SHAMROCK BROADCASTING ADVERTISING OTHER 827801 CENTENNIAL LAK ADVERT OTHER 148398 $3,000.00* 08/15/94 $100.00 SHEPARD, JOHN POLICE SERVICES 081594 RESERVE PROGRA PERS SERVICES 148399. $100.00* 08/15/94 $132.25 SHERWIN WILLIAMS PAINT 82639 BUILDINGS PAINT 08/15/94 $264.25 SHERWIN WILLIAMS GENERAL SUPPLIES 76128 STREET NAME SI GENERAL SUPPLI 08/15/94 $37.12 SHERWIN WILLIAMS PAINT 72309 STREET NAME SI PAINT 08/15/94 $207.51 SHERWIN WILLIAMS PAINT 70444 STREET NAME SI PAINT 08/15/94 $57.15 SHERWIN WILLIAMS REPAIR PARTS 71632 CITY HALL GENE REPAIR PARTS 148400 $698.28* 08/15/94 $108.86 SHIRLEY, TOM GENERAL SUPPLIES 080494 CENTENNIAL LAK GENERAL SUPPLI 148401 i $108.86* 08/15/94 $239.00 SMITH, CECELIA DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 080894 ADMINISTRATION DUES & SUBSCRI 148402 $239.00* 08/15/94 $3,625.00 SOUTH HENNEPIN REGIONA PROFESSIONAL SERVICE 080294 SOUTH HENNEPIN PROF SERVICES 148403 $3,625.00* 08/15/94 $3,251.30 SOUTHSIDE DISTRIBUTORS COST OF GOODS SOLD B 39486 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS BEE 08/15/94 $1,207.00 SOUTHSIDE DISTRIBUTORS COST OF GOODS SOLD B 39487 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS BEE 08/15/94 $360.85 SOUTHSIDE DISTRIBUTORS COST OF GOODS SOLD B 39632 50TH ST "SELLIN CST OF GDS BEE 08/15/94 $1,809.60 SOUTHSIDE DISTRIBUTORS COST OF GOODS SOLD B 39631 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS BEE 148404 $6,628.75* 08/15/94 $39.13 SPECIAL EFFECTS ART WORK SOLD 080994 ART CNTR PROG SALES OTHER 148405 $39.13* 08/15/94 $1,108.88 STAR TRIBUNE HELP WANTED ADS 073194 CENT SVC GENER ADVERT PERSONL 148406 $1,108.88* 08/15/94 $66.10 STERLING FENCE INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 18129 GENERAL MAINT GENERAL SUPPLI 148407 $66.10* 08/15/94 $50.00 STORYBOOK FUN SERVICES CL /EB 082094 ED ADMINISTRAT PROF SERVICES 148408 $50.00* COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu Aug 11 1994 00:59:27 Page 28 CHECK NO DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM OBJECT PO NUM. --------------7------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 08/15/94 $266.84 STRGAR- ROSCOE -FAUSH PROF ENG SERV 0942076/ ENGINEERING GE PROF SERVICES 148409 $266.84* 08/15/94 $3.20 SUBURBAN CHEVROLET REPAIR PARTS 207351 EQUIPMENT OPER REPAIR PARTS 08/15/94 $9.20 SUBURBAN CHEVROLET REPAIR PARTS 206694 EQUIPMENT OPER REPAIR PARTS 08/15/94 $331.32 SUBURBAN CHEVROLET REPAIR PARTS 206658, EQUIPMENT OPER REPAIR PARTS 148410 $343.72* 08/15/94 $424.97 SUBURBAN PROPANE GENERAL SUPPLIES 071494 GENERAL MAINT GENERAL SUPPLI 148411 $424.97* 08/15/94 $398.54 SUN ELECTRIC TOOLS 40713006 EQUIPMENT OPER TOOLS 148412 $398.54* 08/15/94 $100.00 SWANSON, HAROLD POLICE SERVICES 081594 RESERVE PROGRA PERS SERVICES 148413 $100.00* 08/15/94 $499.44 SWEENEY BROS TRACTOR REPAIR PARTS 45692 EQUIPMENT OPER REPAIR PARTS 148414 $499.44* 08/15/94 $30.54 TARGET GENERAL SUPPLIES 65862 POOL•OPERATION GENERAL SUPPLI 148415 $30.54* 0/15/94 $25.70 TELEPHONE ANSWERING CE GENERAL SUPPLIES 071694 GENERAL MAINT GENERAL SUPPLI 148416 ! $25.70* I 08/15/94 $256.88 THE ARROWHEAD FIREWORK GENERAL SUPPLIES 9761 GOLF ADMINISTR GENERAL SUPPLI 18417 $256.88* 08/15/94 $152.00 THE CONNECTION ADVERTISING OTHER 00017532 ED ADMINISTRAT ADVERT OTHER 148418 $152.00* 08/15/94 $477.05 THE HOWE COMPANY FERTILIZER I281563 CENTENNIAL LAK FERTILIZER 148419 $477.05* 08/15/94 $118.22 THE KANE SERVICE PROFESSIONAL SERVICE 5710536 POOL TRACK GRE PROF SERVICES 148420 $118.22* 08/15/94 $159.31 THE LUTZ COMPANY CONTRACTED REPAIRS 8983 NORMAN. MAINT. CONTR REPAIRS 148421 $159.31* 08/15/94 $532.30 THE PUBLISHING GROUP PROFESSIONAL SERVICE 3853212 NORMANDALE GC PROF SERVICES 148422 $532.30* 08/15/94 $72.00 THE WINE COMPANY COST OF GOODS SOLD W 9267 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE 08/15/94 $340.00 THE WINE COMPANY COST OF GOODS SOLD W 9297 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE 148423 $412.00* 08/15/94 $1,679.07 THOMAS & SONS CONSTRUC CONSTR. IN PROGRESS 93 -8 FIN SIDEWALK CIP 148424 $1,679.07* COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER 'Thu Aug 11 1994 00:59:27 Page 29 CHECK NO --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM OBJECT PO NUM. 08/15/94 $197.03 THOMPSON MEDICAL SPECI TOOLS 30318 FIRE DEPT. GEN TOOLS 148425 $197.03* 08/15/94 $58.00 THORKELSON, LAURA UNIFORMS 080194 POOL OPERATION LAUNDRY 148426 $58.00* 08/15/94 $31.95 THORPE DISTRIBUTING CO COST OF GOODS SOLD M 38461 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 08/15/94 $2,432.50 THORPE DISTRIBUTING CO COST OF GOODS SOLD B 38461 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS BEE 08/15/94 $3,027.90 THORPE DISTRIBUTING CO COST OF GOODS SOLD B 38909 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS BEE 08/15/94 $83.35 THORPE DISTRIBUTING CO COST OF GOODS SOLD M 38909 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 08/15/94 $685.00 THORPE DISTRIBUTING CO COST OF.GOODS SOLD B 38799 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS BEE 148427 $6,260.70* 08/15/94 $80.00 TOENSING, JAMES PERFORM CL /EB 080694 ED ADMINISTRAT PRO SVC OTHER 148428 $80.00* 08/15/94 - $59.20 TOLL GAS & WELDING SUP REPAIR PARTS 276441 EQUIPMENT OPER REPAIR PARTS 08/15/94 $157.12 TOLL GAS & WELDING SUP WELDING SUPPLIES 276440 EQUIPMENT OPER WELDING SUPPLI 148429 $97.92* 08/15/94 $113.04 TOMBSTONE PIZZA CORPAR COST OF GOODS SOLD F 072394 VANVALKENBURG CST OF GD FOOD. 08/15/94 $376.80 TOMBSTONE PIZZA CORPAR COST OF GOODS SOLD F 346215 POOL CONCESSIO CST OF GD FOOD 148430 i $489.84* 08./15/94 $81.04 TOOLS BY OLSEN TOOLS 83327 CENTENNIAL LAK TOOLS 118431 $81.04* 08/15/94 $55.00 TRETTEL, KATHY SERVICES CL /EB 0827 *082 ED ADMINISTRAT PRO SVC OTHER 148432 $55.00* 08/15/94 $78.33 TULL BEARINGS INC REPAIR PARTS 38233 EQUIPMENT OPER REPAIR PARTS 148433 $78.33* 08/15/94 $70.50 TWIN CITIES EMPLOYMENT HELP WANTED ADS 3287 CENT SVC GENER ADVERT PERSONL 148434 $70.50* 08/15/94 $295.00 TWIN CITIES GOLF DIREC ADVERTISING OTHER 801 NORMANDALE GC ADVERT OTHER 08/15/94 $250.00 TWIN CITIES GOLF DIREC ADVERTISING OTHER 801 CLUB HOUSE ADVERT OTHER 08/15/94 $250.00 TWIN CITIES GOLF DIREC ADVERTISING OTHER 801 GOLF ADMINISTR ADVERT OTHER 148435 $795.00* 08/15/94 $55.00 U.S. INDENTIFICATION M BOOKS & PAMPHLETS PO 072994 POLICE DEPT. G BOOKS & PAMPHL 148436 $55.00* 08/15/94 $407.25 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED UNIFORM ALLOWANCE 453885 FIRE DEPT. GEN UNIF ALLOW 148437 $407.25* 08/15/94 $256.39 UNISTRUT NORTHERN GENERAL SUPPLIES 63720 STREET NAME SI GENERAL SUPPLI 08/15/94 $237.66 UNISTRUT NORTHERN GENERAL SUPPLIES 63031 STREET NAME SI GENERAL SUPPLI COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu Aug 11 1994 00:59:27 Page 30 CHECK NO DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM OBJECT PO NUM. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 148438 $494.05* 08/15/94 $74.36 UNITED ELECTRIC CORP REPAIR PARTS 3138500 CLUB HOUSE REPAIR PARTS 08/15/94 $419.77 UNITED ELECTRIC CORP GENERAL SUPPLIES 31023301 PARKING RAMP GENERAL SUPPLI 08/15/94 $279.42 UNITED ELECTRIC CORP GENERAL SUPPLIES 31289400 ST LIGHTING OR GENERAL SUPPLI 08/15/94 $464.87 UNITED ELECTRIC CORP REPAIR PARTS 31048800 FIRE DEPT. GEN REPAIR PARTS 08/15/94 $297.24 UNITED ELECTRIC CORP REPAIR PARTS 30.493700 CITY HALL GENE REPAIR PARTS 08/15/94 $70.67 UNITED ELECTRIC CORP REPAIR PARTS 31322400 DISTRIBUTION REPAIR PARTS 08/15/94 $5.33 UNITED ELECTRIC CORP REPAIR PARTS 30281300 CITY HALL GENE REPAIR PARTS 08/15/94 $279.96 UNITED ELECTRIC CORP REPAIR PARTS 30986000 CITY HALL GENE REPAIR PARTS 08/15/94 - $204.48 UNITED ELECTRIC CORP REPAIR PARTS 95138100 PW BUILDING REPAIR PARTS 08/15/94 $326.10 UNITED ELECTRIC CORP REPAIR PARTS 31023300 BUILDING MAINT REPAIR PARTS 148439 $2,013.24* 08/15/94 $135.00 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOT CONFERENCES & SCHOOL 072794 TRAINING CONF 9c SCHOOLS 08/15/94 $80.00 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOT PROFESSIONAL SERVICE 605670 TRAINING PROF SERVICES 148440 $215.00* 08/15/94 $29.58 US WEST CELLULAR TELEPHONE 070694. ADMINISTRATION DUES & SUBSCRI 08/15/94 $73.09 US WEST CELLULAR TELEPHONE 080494 ADMINISTRATION DUES & SUBSCRI 08/15/94 $7.76 US WEST CELLULAR TELEPHONE 072094 INSPECTIONS TELEPHONE 08/15/94 $337.61 US WEST CELLULAR TELEPHONE 40625291 INSPECTIONS TELEPHONE 148441 $448.04* 04/15/94 $155.65 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE 081594 VERNON OCCUPAN TELEPHONE 03/15/94 $119.29 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE 081594 SENIOR CITIZEN TELEPHONE 08/15/94 $114.64 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE 081594 PUMP & LIFT ST TELEPHONE 08/15/94 $232.38 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE 081594 SKATING & HOCK TELEPHONE 08/15/94 $184.49 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE 081594 ART CENTER BLD TELEPHONE 08/15/94 $183.82 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE 081594 50TH ST OCCUPA TELEPHONE 08/15/94 $109.87 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE 081594 COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE 08/15/94 $4,533.79 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS _ TELEPHONE 081594 CENT SVC GENER TELEPHONE 08/15/94 $52.78 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE 081594 FIRE DEPT. GEN TELEPHONE 08/15/94 $56.42 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE 081594 DARE TELEPHONE 08/15/94 $336.70 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE 081594 CENTENNIAL LAK TELEPHONE 08/15/94 $51.65 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE 081594 GUN RANGE TELEPHONE 08/15/94 $252.99 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE 081594 ARENA BLDG /GRO TELEPHONE 08/15/94 $215.50 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE 081594 YORK OCCUPANCY TELEPHONE 08/15/94 $121.25 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE 081594 POOL OPERATION TELEPHONE 08/15/94 $73.85 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE 081594 MAINT OF COURS TELEPHONE 08/15/94 $931.53 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE 081594 CLUB HOUSE TELEPHONE 08/15/94 $195.15 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE 081594 BUILDING MAINT TELEPHONE 148443 $7,921.75* 08/15/94 $3,034.47 USAQUATICS PROFESSIONAL SERVICE 10170 POOL OPERATION PROF SERVICES 148444 $3,034.47* 08/15/94 $52.80 VAN 0 LITE INC REPAIR PARTS 75344 EQUIPMENT OPER REPAIR PARTS 08/15/94 $47.80 VAN 0 LITE INC ACCESSORIES 76818 EQUIPMENT OPER ACCESSORIES 148445 $100.60* COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu Aug 11 1994 00:59:27 Page 31 CHECK NO --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM OBJECT PO NUM. 08/15/94 $162.95 VAN PAPER CO. GENERAL SUPPLIES 025141 GRILL GENERAL SUPPLI 148446 $162.95* 08/15/94 $100.00 VANDELAC, MATT GOLF LESSONS 080394 RANGE GENERAL SUPPLI 148447 $100.00* 08/15/94 $256.71 VANTAGE ELECTRIC PROFESSIONAL SERVICE 13026' ED BUILDING & PROF SERVICES 148448 $256.71* 08/15/94 $532.00 VERSATILE VEHICLE DAILY RENTAL GOLF CA 1423 GOLF CARS LEASE LINES 08/15/94 $1,624.00 VERSATILE VEHICLE DAILT RENTAL GOLF CA 1424 GOLF CARS LEASE LINES 148449 $2,156.00* 08/15/94 $39.00 VIKING AUTOMATIC SPRIN REPAIR PARTS 34946 PW BUILDING REPAIR PARTS 08/15/94 $165.00 VIKING AUTOMATIC SPRIN REPAIR PARTS M27261 PW BUILDING REPAIR PARTS 148450 $204.00* 08/15/94 $495.23 VOSS LIGHTING GENERAL SUPPLIES 242866 STREET REVOLVI GENERAL SUPPLI 08/15/94 $216.50 VOSS LIGHTING GENERAL SUPPLIES 242823 ELECTION GENERAL SUPPLI 08/15/94 $444.11 VOSS LIGHTING GENERAL SUPPLIES 242865 STREET REVOLVI GENERAL SUPPLI 08/15/94 $495.23 VOSS LIGHTING GENERAL SUPPLIES 243200 STREET REVOLVI GENERAL SUPPLI 0/15/94 $495.23 VOSS LIGHTING GENERAL SUPPLIES 242534 STREET REVOLVI GENERAL SUPPLI 0.8/15/94 $109.08 VOSS LIGHTING REPAIR PARTS 242639 PW BUILDING REPAIR PARTS 148451 I $2,255.38* 08/15/94 $40.00 VU, BAUHUA REFUND SWIMMING 080994 GENERAL FD PRO REGISTRATION F 148452 $40.00* 08/15/94 $195.77 WACO SCAFFOLDING & EQU GENERAL SUPPLIES 546990 ED BUILDING & GENERAL SUPPLI 148453 $195.77* 08/15/94 $100.00 WALBRIDGE, DAVID SERVICES CL /EB 082094 ED ADMINISTRAT PROF SERVICES 148454 $100.00* 08/15/94 $22.42 WALDOCH CRAFTS INC SALES TAX 12775. EQUIPMENT OPER ACCESSORIES 148455 $22.42* 08/15/94 $93.96 WALKER, MERWYN MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE 080894 GOLF ADMINISTR MILEAGE 148456 $93.96* 08/15/94 $100.00 WALSH, WILLIAM POLICE SERVICES 081594 RESERVE PROGRA PERS SERVICES 148457 $100.00* 08/15/94 $390.00 WARNING LITES OF MINNE GENERAL SUPPLIES 825 BRIDGES GUARD GENERAL SUPPLI 08/15/94 $463.96 WARNING LITES OF MINNE GENERAL SUPPLIES 58626 GENERAL MAINT GENERAL SUPPLI 08/15/94 $481.50 WARNING LITES OF MINNE GENERAL SUPPLIES 768 BRIDGES GUARD GENERAL SUPPLI 148458 $1,335.46* 08/15/94 $90.00 WERT, CAPRICE CLEANING 16343 CLUB HOUSE SVC CONTR EQUI COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu Aug 11 1994 00:59:27 Page 32 CHECK NO DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM OBJECT PO NUM. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 148459 $90.00* 08/15/94 $406.59 WEST WELD SUPPLY CO. TOOLS 13486 EQUIPMENT OPER TOOLS 08/15/94 $145.60, WEST WELD SUPPLY CO. TOOLS 13493 EQUIPMENT OPER TOOLS 08/15/94 $299.27 WEST WELD SUPPLY CO. WELDING SUPPLIES 13426 EQUIPMENT OPER WELDING SUPPLI 08/15/94 $474.84 WEST WELD SUPPLY CO. ACCESSORIES 13251 EQUIPMENT OPER ACCESSORIES 148460 $1,326.30* 08/15/94 $12.80 WESTLINK PAGING TELEPHONE 008282 BUILDING MAINT TELEPHONE 148461 $12.80* 08/15/94 $185.96 WILBUR -ELLIS CHEMICALS 667681 MAINT OF COURS CHEMICALS 148462 $185.96* 08/15/94 $65.55 WILLIAMS STEEL TOOLS 56132203 DISTRIBUTION TOOLS 08/15/94 $129.15 WILLIAMS STEEL TOOLS 56132202 PUMP & LIFT ST TOOLS 148463 $194.70* 08/15/94 $46.00 WILSON, PEG CLASS REFUND 072794 ART CNTR PROG REGISTRATION F 148464 $46.00* 08/15/94 $495.59 WITTEK GOLF SUPPLY CONTRACTED REPAIRS 56862 NORMANDALE GC CONTR REPAIRS 148465 $495.59* 0$/15/94 $338.25 WORLD.CLASS WINES INC COST OF GOODS SOLD W 39150 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE 08/15/94 $264.85 WORLD CLASS WINES INC COST OF GOODS SOLD W 39152 YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE 08/15/94 $214.05 WORLD CLASS WINES INC COST OF GOODS SOLD W 39021 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE 08/15/94 $66.00 WORLD CLASS WINES INC COST OF GOODS SOLD W 15917 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE. 148466 $883.15* 08/15/94 $100.00 WROBLESKI, HENRY POLICE SERVICES 081594 RESERVE PROGRA PERS SERVICES 148467 $100.00* 08/15/94 $211.00 YARUSSO, LINDA CLASS REFUND 080394 ART CNTR PROG REGISTRATION F 148468 $211.00* 08/15%94 $111.93 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE SAFETY EQUIPMENT 54065813 ARENA ADMINIST SAFETY EQUIPME 148469 $111.93* 08/15/94 $447.09 ZIP PRINTING GENERAL SUPPLIES 2080 FIRE DEPT. GEN GENERAL SUPPLI 148470 $447.09* 08/15/94 $50.00 ZUHRAH SHRINE CONCERT SERVICES CL /EB 082194 ED ADMINISTRAT PRO SVC OTHER 148471 $50.00* $875,601.54 COUNCIL CHECK SUMMARY Thu Aug 11 1994 01:01:42 Page 1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FUND # 10 GENERAL FUND $327,707.07 FUND # 11 C.D.B.G. $2,788.00 FUND # 12 COMMUNICATION $1,633.54 FUND # 15 WORKING CAPITAL $22,271.91 FUND # 23 ART CENTER $5,780.04 FUND # 26 SWIMMING POOL $6,446.32 J FUND # 27 GOLF COURSE $39,088.79 FUND # 28 ICE ARENA $16,312.97 .FUND # 29 GUN RANGE $5,051.84 FUND # 30 EDINB /CENT LAKES $42,068.68 FUND # 40 UTILITY FUND $45,685.51 FUND # 41 STORM SEWER $65,557.21 FUND # $0 LIQUOR FUND $59,358.21 FUND # d0 CONSTRUCT FUND $221,764.99 FUND # 66 IBR #2 FUND $14,086.46 $875,601.54 COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER FOR HAND CHECKS Thu Aug 4 1994 00:59:50 Page 1 CHECK NO DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM OBJECT PO NUM. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 07/01/94 - $137,000.00 CITY OF EDINA PAYROLL TRANSFER 070194 LIQUOR PROG CASH 07/01/94 $137,000.00 CITY OF EDINA PAYROLL TRANSFER 070194 LIQUOR PROG CASH 144444 $.00* 07/06/94 $2,304.48 KERRISON, DAWN CLOSURE OF RAGER ACC 063094 teen dance pro EQUIP REPLACEM 144445 $2,304.48* 07/06/94 $26,251.47 FIDELITY BANK MEDICARE /FICA 070194 GENERAL FD PRO PAYROLL PAYABL 144446 $26,251.47* 07/06/94 $19.62 PERA PERA 070194 GENERAL FD PRO P.E.R.A. PAYAB 144447 $19.62* 07/06/94 $28,614.48 PERA PERA 070194 GENERAL FD PRO P.E.R.A. PAYAB 144448 $28,614.48* 07/18/94 $727.50 KNUTSON, KAREN AC INSTRUCTOR 071094 ART CENTER ADM PROF SERVICES 144450 $727.50* 07/15/94 $225,000.00 CITY OF EDINA PAYROLL TRANSFER 071594 LIQUOR FROG CASH 07/15/94 - $225,000.00 CITY OF EDINA PAYROLL TRANSFER 071594 LIQUOR PROG CASH 144451 $.00* 107/18/94 $26,402.78 FIDELITY BANK MEDICARE /FICA 071894 GENERAL FD PRO PAYROLL PAYABL 144452 $26,402.78* 07/19/94 $19.62 PERA PERA 071594 GENERAL FD PRO P.E.R.A. PAYAB 144453 $19.62* 07/19/94 $28,679.34 PERA PERA 071594 GENERAL FD PRO P.E.R.A. PAYAB .144454 $28,679.34* 07/28/94 $516.00 COMMERCIAL LIFE INSURA INSURACNE 072594 CENT SVC GENER HOSPITALIZATIO 144455 $516.00* 07/29/94 $183,000.00 CITY OF EDINA PAYROLL TRANSFER 0782994 LIQUOR PROG CASH 07/29/94 - $183,000.00 CITY OF EDINA PAYROLL TRANSFER 072994 LIQUOR PROG CASH 144456 $.00* 07/29/94 $26,977.44 FIDELITY BANK MEDICARE /FICA 072994 GENERAL FD PRO PAYROLL PAYABL 144457 $26,977.44* 07/11/94 $178.40 EAGLE WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD M 43040 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 07/11/94 $770.78 EAGLE WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD M 43041 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 07/11/94 $292.48 EAGLE WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD W 43051 YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE 07/11/94 $169.38 EAGLE WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD W 43047 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE 147303 $1,411.04* 07/11/94 $533.15 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD W 49195 YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE 07/11/94 $841.70 ED "PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD W 45198 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER FOR HAND CHECKS Thu Aug 4 1994 00:59:50 Page 2 CHECK NO DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM OBJECT PO NUM. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------_------------------ 07/11/94 $901.67 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD W 49258 YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE 07/11/94 $1,327.39 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD L 49291 YORK SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 07/11/94 $621.63 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD W 49325 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE 07/11/94 $18.60 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD B 49326 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS BEE 07/11/94 $241.58 ED PHILLIPS &.SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD L 49327 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD LIQU 07/11/94 $667.41 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD W 49338 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE 07/11/94 $379.80 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD W 49182 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE 07/11/94 $18.60 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD B 49339 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS BEE 07/11/94 $192.92 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD W 50362 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE 07/11/94 $675.74 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD L 49340 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 07/11/94 $225.95 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD W 49435 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE 07/11/94 $385.23 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD W 49455 YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE 07/11/94 $337.10 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD W 49457 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE 07/11/94 $45.10 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD M 49458 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 07/11/94 $22.35 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD W 50344 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE 147305 $7,435.92* 07/11/94 $3,034.55 GRIGGS COOPER & CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD L 43043 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 07/11/94 $1,161.04 GRIGGS COOPER & CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD L 43046 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 07/11/94 -$6.99 GRIGGS COOPER & CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD W 06004 YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE 07/11/94 $684.28 GRIGGS COOPER & CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD L 43048 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD LIQU 07/11/94 $1,844.65 GRIGGS COOPER & CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD L 43055 YORK SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 07/11/94 $550.75 GRIGGS COOPER & CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD L 43050 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD LIQU 07/11/94 $1,741.61 GRIGG$ COOPER & CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD L 43053 YORK SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 147306 $9,009.89* 07/11/94 $697.26 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD L 2155760 YORK SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 07/11/94 $2,979.71 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD L 2155778 YORK SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 07/11/94 $848.36 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD W 2155786 YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE 07/11/94 $729.92 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD W 2157360 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE 07/11/94 $806.95 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD W 2155752 YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE 07/11/94 $98.99 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD M 2157378 VERNON SELLING CST bF GDS MIX 07/11/94 $235.51 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD W 2157501 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE 07/11/94 $771.48 JOHNSON'WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD L 2157386 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 07/11/94 $2,600.22 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD L 2157394 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 07/11/94 $192.93 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD W 2157402 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE 07/11/94 $33.97 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD W 2157410 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE 07/11/94 $645.32 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD W 2157428 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE 07/11/94 $63.32 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD W 2157444 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE 07/11/94 $303.58 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD W 2157451 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE 07/11/94 $45.00 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD M 2157469 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS MIX 07/11/94 $513.37 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD L 2157477 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD LIQU 07/11/94 $1,476.24 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD L 2157485 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD LIQU 07/11/94 $106.73 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD W 2157493 SOTH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE 147308 $13,148.86* 07/11/94 $1,150.99 PRIOR WINE COMPANY COST OF GOODS SOLD W 43044 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE 07/11/94 $162.36 PRIOR WINE COMPANY COST OF GOODS SOLD W 43042 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE 07/11/94 $50.74 PRIOR WINE COMPANY COST OF GOODS SOLD M 43045 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 0 "7/11/94 $821.52 PRIOR WINE COMPANY COST OF GOODS SOLD W 43054 YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER FOR HAND CHECKS Thu Aug 4 1994 00:59:50 Page 3 CHECK NO DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR . DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM OBJECT PO NUM. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 07/11/94 $266.07 PRIOR WINE COMPANY COST OF GOODS SOLD W 43049 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE 07/11/94 $55.44 PRIOR WINE COMPANY COST OF GOODS SOLD W 43052 YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE 147309 $2,507.12* . 07/11/94 $704.81 QUALITY WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD W 200948 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE 07/11/94 $1,069.15 QUALITY WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD W 200949 YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE 07/11/94 $1,013.52 QUALITY WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD L 200999 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD LIQU 07/11/94 $605.66 QUALITY WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD W 200947 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE 07/11/94 $4,344.86 QUALITY WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD L 201005 YORK SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 07/11/94 $70.00 QUALITY WINE- COST OF GOODS SOLD B 201179 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS BEE 07/11/94 $3,124.56 QUALITY.WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD L 201006 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 07/11/94 $261.76 QUALITY WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD L 201095 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 1.47310 $11,194.32* 07/18/94 $191.96 EAGLE WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD W 45348 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE 07/18/94 $101.28 EAGLE WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD W 45349 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE 07/18/94 $409.76 EAGLE WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD W 45347 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE 07/18/94 $889.38 EAGLE WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD W 45350 YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE 07/18/94 $113.35 EAGLE WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD M 45351 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS MIX .147668 $1,705.73* 07/18/94 - $244.00 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD W 150606 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE '07/18/94 $320.13 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD L 51500 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD LIQU 107/18/94 $1,139.15 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD L 51506 YORK SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 07/18/94 ,$482.55 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD W. 51578 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE 07/18/94 $1,083.99 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD W 51579 YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE 07/18/94 $607.78 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD W 51580 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE 07/18/94 $264.71 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD W 51679 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE 07/18/94 $618.79 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD W 51688 YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE 07/18/94 $440.49 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD W 51689 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE 07/18/94 $66.00 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD W 51891 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE 07/18/94 $44.70 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD W 51892 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE 07/18/94 $147.00 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD W 51893 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE 07/18/94 $629.12 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD L 51507 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 07/18/94 $206.50 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD W 51895 YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE 07/18/94 $700.00 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD W 51896 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE 147669 $6,506.91* 07/18/94 $962.45 GRIGGS COOPER & CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD L 45564 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 07/18/94 $913.31 GRIGGS COOPER & CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD L 45565 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 07/18/94 $678.09 GRIGGS COOPER & CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD L 45566 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD LIQU 07/18/94 - $46.98 GRIGGS COOPER & CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD W 06116 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD.WINE 07/18/94 $34.01 GRIGGS COOPER & CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD L 45567 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD LIQU 07/18/94 $1,744.96 GRIGGS COOPER & CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD L 45571 YORK SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 07/18/94 $99.35 GRIGGS COOPER & CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD M .45568 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS,MIX 07/18/94 $1,033.07 GRIGGS COOPER & CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD L 45569 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD LIQU 07/18/94 $1,253.08 GRIGGS COOPER & CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD L 45570 YORK'SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 147670 $6,671.34* 07/18/94 $89.99 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD M 2185973 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS MIX COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER FOR HAND CHECKS Thu Aug 4 1994 00:59:50 Page 4 CHECK NO DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM OBJECT PO NUM. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 07/18/94 $271.19 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD L 2185981 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 07/18/94 $1,763.52 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD L 2185999 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 07/18/94 $657.03 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST.OF GOODS SOLD W 2186005 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE 07/18/94 $82.18 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD W 2186021 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE 07/18/94 $608.48 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD W 2186039 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE 07/18/94 $18.00 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD M 2186047 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS MIX 07/18/94 $668.81 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD L 2186054 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD LIQU 07/18/94 $1,085.10 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD L 2186062 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD LIQU 07/18/94 $164.38 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD W 2186070 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE 07/18/94 $895.15 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD W 2.186446 YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE 07/18/94 $788.29 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD W 2185965 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE 07/18/94 $27.00 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD M 2186450 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 07/18/94 $537.2.7 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD W 2186484 YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE 07/18/94 $793.14 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD L 2186468 YORK SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 07/18/94 $1,657.09 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD L 2186476 YORK SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 147672 $10,106.62* 07/18/94 $653.61 PRIOR WINE COMPANY COST OF GOODS SOLD W 44878 YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE 07/18/94 $610.35 PRIOR WINE COMPANY COST OF GOODS SOLD W 44947 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE 07/18/94 $25.24 PRIOR WINE COMPANY COST OF GOODS SOLD M 44948 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS MIX 147673 $1,289.20* 07/18/94 $26.95 QUALITY WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD B 201930 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS BEE 07%18/94 $539.76 QUALI Y WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD W 202553 YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE 07/18/94 $1,523.14 QUALI�Y WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD W 202581 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE 07/18/94 - $30.00 QUALITY WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD L 201859 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 07/18/94 $834.66 QUALITY WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD W 202582 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE 07/18/94 $70.95 QUALITY WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD W 203420 YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE . 07/18/94 $1,029.62 QUALITY WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD L 203123 YORK SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 07/18/94 $1,637.59 QUALITY WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD L 203124 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 07/18/94 $977.39 QUALITY WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD L 203128 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD LIQU 07/18/94 $290.02 QUALITY WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD W '203290 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE 07/18/94 $41.62 QUALITY WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD B 203328 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS BEE 07/18/94 $353.10 QUALITY WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD B 203358 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS BEE 147674 $7,294.80* 07/25/94 $80.24 EAGLE WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD W 47565 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE 07/25/94 $118.80 EAGLE WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD W 47698 YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE 07/25/94 $491.44 EAGLE WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD W 47566 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE 07/25/94 $146.91 EAGLE WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD M 47567 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 07/25/94 $345.82 EAGLE WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD W 47568 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE 07/25/94 $84.64 EAGLE WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD W 47569 YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE 07/25/94 $99.10 EAGLE WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD W .47570 YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE 07/25/94 $67.46 EAGLE WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD M 47571 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 147678 $1,434.41* 07/25/94 $375.50 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD W 44557 YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE 07/25/94 $33.03 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD W 50974 YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE 07/25/94 - $11.79 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD -W 150332 YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE 07/25/94 $98.23 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD W 52483. 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE 0 COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER FOR HAND CHECKS Thu Aug 4 1994 00:59:50 Page 5 CHECK NO DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM OBJECT PO NUM. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 07/25/94 $219.60 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD W 53687 YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE 07/25/94 $162.92 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD L 53681 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD LIQU 07/25/94 $309.60 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD W 53683 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE 07/25/94 $931.69 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD L 53685 YORK SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 07/25/94 $1,004.63 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD L 53688 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 07/25/94 $936.43 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD W 54199 YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE 07/25/94 $615.40 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD W 53689 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE 07/25/94 $142.00 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD W 54678 YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE 07/25/94 $132.00 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD W 54791 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE 07/25/94 $357.25 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD W 53748 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE 07/25/94 $42.80 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD B 53749 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS BEE 07/25/94 $1,190.50 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD W 53752 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE 07/25/94 $39.55 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD B 53753 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS BEE 07/25/94 $266.81 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD W 53825 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE 07/25/94 $685.77 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD W 53829 YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE 07/25/94 $684.63 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD W 53831 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE 147680 $8,216.55* 07/25/94 $2,217.23 GRIGGS COOPER & CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD L 47695 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 07/25/94 $1,110.45 GRIGGS COOPER & CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD L 47696 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD LIQU 07/25/94 $1,130.55 GRIGGS COOPER & CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD L 47697 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD LIQU ;07/25/94 $2,212.33 GRIGGS COOPER & CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD L 47699 YORK SELLING CST OF GD LIQU '07/25/94 $1,426.95 GRIG S COOPER & CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD L 47700 YORK SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 07/25/94 $1,628.54 GRIG�S COOPER & CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD L 47694 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 147681 $9,726.05* 07/25/94 $3,862.22 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD L 2221034 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 07/25/94 $192.93 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD W 2221042 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE 07/25/94 $913.96 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD W 2221059 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE 07/25/94 $856.92 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD W 2224012 YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE 07/25/94 $1,535.24 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD L 2224020 YORK SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 07/25/94 $2,959.98 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD L 2224038 YORK SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 07/25/94 -$1.60 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD L 0044297 YORK SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 07/25/94 $106.73 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD W 2224046 YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE 07/25/94 - $61.04 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD W 2184398 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE 07/25/94 $740.65 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD W 2224061 YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE 07/25/94 $95.25 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD W. 2224079 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE 07/25/94 $841.46 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD W 2224087 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE 07/25/94 $18.00 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD M 2224095 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS MIX 07/25/94 $581.86 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD L 2224103 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD LIQU 07/25/94 $890.24 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD L 2224111 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD LIQU 07/25/94 $226.91 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD W 2224129 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE 07/25/94 -$5.85 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD W 2184406 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE 07/25/94 - $160.84 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD L 2184414 YORK SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 07/25/94 - $19.53 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD W 2184422 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE 07/25/94 $19.53 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD W 2220994 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE 07/25/94 $754.44 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD W 2221000 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE 07/25/94 $53.99 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD M 2221018 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 07/25/94 $1,658.24 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD L 2221026 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 147683 $16,059.69* COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER FOR HAND CHECKS Thu Aug 4 1994 00:59:50 Page 6 CHECK NO ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------=---------------- DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM OBJECT PO NUM. 07/25/94 $117.81 PRIOR WINE COMPANY COST OF GOODS SOLD W 47216 YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE 07/25/94 $957.83 PRIOR WINE COMPANY COST OF GOODS SOLD W 47215 YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE 07/25/94 $108.90 PRIOR WINE COMPANY COST OF GOODS SOLD W 47209 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE 07/25/94 $25.24 PRIOR WINE COMPANY COST OF GOODS SOLD M 47214 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS MIX 07/25/94 $1,341.10 PRIOR WINE COMPANY COST OF GOODS SOLD W 47210 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE 07/25/94 $228.48 PRIOR WINE COMPANY COST OF GOODS SOLD W 47213 50TH. ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE 07/25/94 $55.44 PRIOR WINE COMPANY COST OF GOODS SOLD W 47212 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE 07/25/94 $50.49 PRIOR WINE COMPANY COST OF GOODS SOLD M 47211 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 147684 $2,885.29* 07/25/94 -$8.58 QUALITY WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD W 202356 YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE 07/25/94 $4,305.92 QUALITY WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD L 205201 YORK SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 07/25/94 $942.95 QUALITY WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD W 204535 YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE 07/25/94 $3,203.59 QUALITY WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD L 205202 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 07/25/94 $584.24 QUALITY WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD W 204551 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE 07/25/94 $1,096.74 QUALITY WINE COST -OF GOODS SOLD W 204552 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE 07/25/94 $36.58 QUALITY WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD W 204990 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE 07/25/94 $287.28 QUALITY WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD B 205011 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS BEE 07/25/94 $17.50 QUALITY WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD B 205013 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS BEE 07/25/94 $549.70 QUALITY WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD B 205015 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS BEE 07/25/94 $1,131.19 QUALITY WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD L 205198 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD LIQU 147685 $12,147.11* 08/01/94 $960.89 EAGLE':WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD W 49963 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE 08/01/94 $811.30 EAGLE WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD W 49964 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE 08/01/94 $1,707.75 EAGLE WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD W 49966 YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE 08/01/94 $22.67 EAGLE WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD M 49965 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 148046 $3,502.61* 08/01/94 - $47.62 ED PHILLIPS & SONS CASH DISCOUNTS 151037 YORK SELLING CASH DISCOUNTS 08/01/94 $368.99 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD L 55946 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD LIQU 08/01/94 -$6.43 ED PHILLIPS & SONS CASH DISCOUNTS 150919 VERNON SELLING CASH DISCOUNTS 08/01/94 $1,388.30 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD L 55953 YORK SELLING , CST OF GD LIQU 08/01/94 $216.00 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD W 56690 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE 08/01/94 $31.50 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD M 55954 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 08/01%94 $760.84 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD L 55955 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 08/01/94 $31.50 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD M 55956 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 08/01/94 $178.75 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD W 56024 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE 08/01/94 $500.16 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD W 56028 YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE 08/01/94 $485.01 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD W 56032 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE 08/01/94 $1,111.63 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD W 56082 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE 08/01/94 $21.40 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD B 56083 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS BEE 08/01/94 $942.00 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD W 56091 YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE 08/01/94 $1,108.17 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS'SOLD W -56092 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE 08/01/94 $22.45 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD W 56093 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE 08/01/94 $1,187.70 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD W 56323 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE 08/01/94 $1,572.80 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS -SOLD W 56327 YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE 08/01/94 $2,690.50 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD W 56328 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE 148048 $12,563.65* COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER FOR HAND CHECKS Thu Aug 4 1994 00:59:50 Page .7 CHECK NO --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM OBJECT PO NUM. 08/01/94 $2,081.73 GRIGGS COOPER & CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD L 49999 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 08/01/94 $90.53 GRIGGS COOPER & CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD L 48901 YORK SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 08/01/94 $2,022.36 GRIGGS COOPER & CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD L 50000 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 08/01/94 $185.33 GRIGGS COOPER & CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD M 50005 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 08/01/94 $786.04 GRIGGS COOPER & CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD L 50001 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD LIQU 08/01/94 $772.96 GRIGGS COOPER & CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD L 50002 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD LIQU 08/01/94 $2,720.26 GRIGGS COOPER & CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD L 50003 YORK SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 08/01/94 $2,570.32 GRIGGS COOPER & CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD L 50004 YORK SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 148049 $11,229.53* 08/01/94 -$4.52 JOHNSON WINE CO. CASH DISCOUNTS 2199990 YORK SELLING CASH DISCOUNTS 08/01/94 $177.36 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD W 2230456 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE 08/01/94 $456.54 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD W 2251650 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE 08/01/94 $269.97 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD M 2251668 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 08/01/94 $3,848.50 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD L 2251676 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 08/01/94 $664.24 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD W 2251684 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE 08/01/94 $592.29 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD W 2251692 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE 08/01/94 $80.99 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD M 2251700 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS MIX 08/01/94 $1,353.15 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD L 2251718 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD LIQU 08/01/94 $124.43 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD W 2251726 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE 08/01/94 $346.52 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD W 2251734 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE 08/01/94 $588.90 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD W 2255917 YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE 108/01/94 $179.98 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD M 2255925 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS MIX :08/01/94 -$5.71 JOHNSON WINE CO. CASH DISCOUNTS 2199982 YORK SELLING CASH DISCOUNTS 08/01/94 $4,839.95 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD L 2255933 YORK SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 08/01/94 $179.99 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD L 2260362 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD LIQU 08/01/94 $228.44 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD W 2255941 YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE 08/01/94 $808.03 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD W 2255966 YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE 148051 $14,729.05* 08/01/94 $390.25 PRIOR WINE COMPANY COST OF GOODS SOLD W 49480 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE 08/01/94 $848.22 PRIOR WINE COMPANY COST OF GOODS SOLD W 49479 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE 08/01/94 $972.91 PRIOR WINE COMPANY COST OF GOODS SOLD W 49481 YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE 08/01/94 $42.52 PRIOR WINE COMPANY COST OF GOODS SOLD W 50754 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE 08/01/94 $25.24 PRIOR WINE COMPANY COST OF GOODS SOLD M 49482 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 148052 $2,279.14* 08/01/94 $17.50 QUALITY WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD B 206912 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS BEE 08/01/94 $2,563.46 QUALITY WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD L 206952 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD LIQU 08/01/94 $166.25 QUALITY WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD B 206913 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS BEE 08/01/94 $335.15 QUALITY WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD B 206914 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS BEE 08/01/94 $2,562.15 QUALITY WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD W 206950 YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE 08/01/94_ $4,769.73 QUALITY WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD W 206951 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE 08/01/94 $1,125.44 QUALITY WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD L 207101 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 08/01/94 $3,452.85 QUALITY WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD L 207105 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 08/01/94 $1,418.36 QUALITY WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD L 207107 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD LIQU 08/01/94 $2,083.08 QUALITY,WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD L 207106 YORK SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 148053 $18,493.97* COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER FOR HAND CHECKS Thu Aug 4 1994 00:59:50 Page 8 CHECK NO DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM OBJECT PO NUM. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- $332,061.53 .)I a COUNCIL CHECK SUMMARY FOR HAND CHECKS Thu Aug 4 1994 01:02:34 Page 1. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FUND # 10 GENERAL FUND $137,480.75 FUND # 15 WORKING CAPITAL. $2,304.48 FUND # 23 ART CENTER $727.50 FUND # 50 LIQUOR FUND $191,548.80 $332,061.53