HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-06-06_COUNCIL PACKETAGENDA
EDINA HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
EDINA CITY COUNCIL
JUNE 6, 2000
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 ( *) in bold print are Consent Agenda items and are considered
routine and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of such items
unless a Commissioner, Council Member or citizen so requests it. In such cases the item will be
removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in its normal sequence on the Agenda.
* I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF HRA -Regular, Meeting of May 16, 2000
Rollcall II. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS - as per pre -list dated 5/31/2000, TOTAL: $50,487.65
III. ADJOURNMENT
EDINA CITY COUNCIL
PROCLAMATION: 25TH ANNIVERSARY OF SOUTHDALE YMCA - JUNE 17, 2000
* I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Regular Meeting of May 16, 2000, and Special Meetings
of May 16, 2000 and May 30, 2000.
II. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REPORTS ON PLANNING MATTERS Affidavits of Notice
by Clerk. Presentation by Planner Public, Comment heard. Motion to close hearing.
Zonin Ordinances: First and Second Reading require 4/5 favorable rollcall of all
members of Council to pass. Waiver of Second Reading: 4/5 favorable rollcall of all
members of Council 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 SET HEARING DATE (6/20/00)
1. Final Rezoning and Final Site Plat Phase 1, and Preliminary Plat Approval
Grandview Square - Opus /Clark
2. Final Development Plan - 7701 Cahill Road - JK Steelar, Ltd./David Linner
* B. LOT DIVISION - 4700 Merilane and 4704 Merilane - Ed Noonan
III. AWARD OF BID
A. School Road Improvement A -189
* B. Two Single Axle Dump Truck Chasis, Public Works
* C. Two Submersible Sewage Pumps
Agenda /Edina City Council
June 6, 2000
Page 2
Rollcall
IV. RECOMMENDATIONS AND REPORTS
A. Acquisition of 4416 Valley View Road
B. Cable Franchise Ordinance - Bond Requirement
C. Authorize Notice of Intent to Franchise Cable Communications System
D. Final Sump Pump Inspection Report & Presentation
V. COMMUNICATIONS AND PETITIONS
A. Receive Petition Requesting Curb & Gutter from Residents of Maple Road (4811-
4836)
VI. CONCERNS OF RESIDENTS
VII. INTERGOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES
VIII SPECIAL CONCERNS OF MAYOR AND COUNCIL
IX. MANAGER'S MISCELLANEOUS ITEM
X. FINANCE
A. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS As Per Pre -List Dated 5/31/00 TOTAL: $1,319,101.48 And
CONFIRMATION OF CLAIMS as Per Pre -List Dated 6/1/00 TOTAL: $1,017,174.26
B. RESOLUTION CALLING FOR BOND SALE FOR SERIES 2000A AND 2000B
7 LL2 LO 0)
C. PROPOSED CALENDAR FOR YEAR 2001 BUDGET WORK SESSION
SCHEDULE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS
�I
Tues
Jun 20
Regular Council Meeting 7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Tues
Jul 4
INDEPENDENCE DAY OBSERVED - City Hall Closed
Wed
Jul 5
Regular Council Meeting 7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Tues
Jul 18
Regular Council Meeting 7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Tues
Aug 1
Regular Council Meeting 7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Tues
Aug 15
Regular Council Meeting 7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Mon
Sep 4
LABOR DAY OBSERVED - City Hall Closed
Tues
Sep 5
Regular Council Meeting 7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBER".
Tues
Sep 12
PRIMARY ELECTION DAY
Tues
Sep 19
Regular Council Meeting 7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
A(s as, 2 .dast) -
a Oui-4 £'CAL y
- Z L/az
l
l
�L //� �2 dssc -�.S . �it��y /�•C . 1 �l/���./� 4� �
rt;?"e-C .0wi- Iso: .
Y
Wj
1,S-(-6V,3 - 3Q33 CtJ dIL w -
Mayor Dennis Maetzold May 19, 2000
Council Members: Nan Faust, James Hovland, Scott Johnson, and Michael Kelly
Dear Mayor and City Council:
I am writing with my final comments to you on the Kunz -Lewis development process. I have scant hope
that I will persuade you to do anything other than you have already done —but you still have the
opportunity to correct a grievous error.
I encourage you to search your conscience and vote against final rezoning of the properties involved. My
understanding is that only two votes can stop rezoning and force changes in the development plan.
Before I begin with specific references, I want you to know that in the neighborhood meetings prior to
The Council Meeting on May 16, 2000, I advocated that to date you had done the neighborhood no harm
either actually or in your own estimations. Therefore, there was no need to presume enmity or retain
counsel. I suggested that local elected officials, particularly historically in Edina, were sensitive to the
opinions of their constituents, especially in relationship to neighborhood Parks and land use. I believed
then, and said as much, that the Council would not permit Sherwood Park to be used in the development,
nor were they likely to approve 55+ foot structures so close to the Hedwall & Tomale residences at 5232
and 5400 Edenmoor (southernmost portion of the development) or at higher elevations on the site.
Although the developer's spokesperson Heidi Kurtze consistently claimed that unnamed members of the
City Council encouraged Opus /Clark to locate buildings in Sherwood Park, I did not believe her.
Obviously, I was incorrect. I am still stunned that you have so completely disregarded the shared concerns
of the Richmond Hills neighborhood.
Mayor Maetzold, I appreciate your attention to the neighborhood's concerns and your vote on 5/16/00. 1
hope you will hold to your position.
Council Member Hovland, for your information, height and traffic have always been neighborhood
concerns about any redevelopment in the area. Those items have been clearly and consistently stated in
writing and in oral presentations throughout this process. To claim, as you publicly did, that I had never
raised the issue of building height bears no resemblance to the truth as contained in the public record. It is
true that I did not repeat content contained in previous letters —at the Council's request. I assumed, given
that request, Council Members read and retained important information. Indeed, my personal (as well as
that of many neighbors) opposition to the Opus /Clark development proposal, from the start of this process
last year, was due to the fact that they had the highest buildings closest to the existing single family homes
and also at the highest elevations on the site, their potential traffic impact, and their willingness— indeed
eagemess —to use Sherwood Park as an exploitable piece of land. We have never had a developer seek to
use Sherwood Park for buildings or for development landscape in the past. Never as in not once!
Remember that the other full -scale developer (Frauenschuh) not only left Sherwood Park intact to its
present configuration, but also added land to the Park. Their proposed buildings nearest the existing single
family homes were only 2 stories in height.
I would also note that Nan Faust, on 11/1/99, specifically asked Ron Clark if he would do something about
the height of the buildings. Although Mr. Clark indicated he would "do what was possible ", he clearly
knew then as now that he would make no effort, due to economics, to alter the building height.
Council Member Faust, you and those on the Council who voted with you, have accommodated all
concerns save those of the neighborhood. As Heidi Kurtze intoned on 5/16/00, you made adjustments for
the library, the senior center, their (not our) city traffic flow concerns, the "future residents" of the
development, etc., etc., etc. You have completely neglected the neighborhood concerns about Sherwood
Park, building height & appearance, and traffic flow. As you stated, the area you have allowed to be
appropriated from Sherwood Park was not used for scheduled recreation activities. It was used by parents
playing with & teaching various sports to their children, and children of all ages actually playing those
sports. I would emphasize again, this is a neighborhood park used by children who do not have safe access
to other play areas. Yes, the field was not regulation size for any sport. But children could play all field
sports and many other games there which require a long open space. "Regulation" fields are not required
for play. Further, they are generally reserved for organized activities. If you value Edina children and
families, you would see the value of this resource. You have coldly and deliberately taken this resource
from the neighborhood. "Adding" some area to the lower end of the Park —area which on all the drawings
appears nothing more than landscape buffer for the development deeded to the City for maintenance at
taxpayer expense, is not adequate replacement for the area taken. John Keprios conceded as much. Further,
the fiction that grading will improve the Park is just that —a fiction. The contour adjustments, placement of
the pump station, and existing grades at the existing homes & Sherwood Road prohibit any significant
change.
As for your measurements of remaining Park land during the meeting on 5/16/00, not only do I believe Mr.
Keprios' outline on the aerial map was overgenerous based on schematics previously distributed, may I ask
why the developer, or the City, did not distribute actual measurements in feet? I accept your, and Council
Member Kelly's, mocking of my "walking off' the measurements —but in the absence of real measures,
what was the option? Given that the road into the development (which will be far wider than Eden Circle)
from Sherwood cannot be shifted significantly to the North from the current location of Eden Circle, I
presume the 55 foot tall building will be located some 10 to 20 feet (as a setback) south of Eden Circle into
Sherwood Park. The building pad is 96 feet wide, although possibly wider at this point to accommodate the
garage entrance /exit onto Sherwood. Then there would be, at least, the claimed path/roadway to the Pump
Station, perhaps 10 feet wide, the landscape buffer—another 10 feet. In all this represents a total incursion
of @ 140 feet. Sherwood Park from Eden Circle to the property line at 5244 Edenmoor is @ 283 feet. .
You have cut the Park —at that point — virtually in half. I realize that here, as elsewhere in the "Park ", the
developer has probably assigned the pathway and the landscape buffer to the City, allowing you to call it
"parkland" and permitting the Edina taxpayer to pay for its maintenance. The reduction in usable open
space is the same, regardless of whether development landscape buffer is called "parkland" as a tissue thin
rationale for the destruction of usable Park area.
Your comments during the Fall decision making process comparing the appearance of the small businesses
in the area to. the old gravel pit across from the former France Avenue Drive -In Theatre rivaled only
Council Member Kelly's perorations on condemnation law in insensitivity. Unfortunately, your comments
did not approach his in accuracy. Your blatant disregard for the contribution of small businesses to the
Edina community in the name of some superior concept of appearance for appearances sake displays the
appalling type of elitism for which residents of Edina are too often stereotyped.
To add further insult to real injury, your call to my neighbor explaining your vote on 5/16/00 was extremely
disturbing. To claim that the reason you voted for Opus /Clark was that otherwise the WMEP school
proposal would resurface raises disturbing questions. Quite honestly, I cannot see how a school building
with Sherwood Park being preserved would be a worse project for this neighborhood than 55 -foot high
condominiums and loss of usable Park space. Unless, of course, either you are afraid of these particular
elementary school children, or are trying to scare the neighbors about them. Of course, to the best of my
knowledge, WMEP is not funded now, and seemingly would not be funded for another.2 years. As well,
there are many private developers still interested in the site.
Council Member Johnson, I realize you were not elected and do not intend to stand for office, but you
accepted a position which has some inherent obligations to the general public. I detected no interest on your
part in attending to citizen concerns about this development. Your focus appeared to be on being a good
team player and following the lead of co- managers Kelly and Faust. Your obligations to the citizens of
Edina, including those of us who reside in the Richmond Hills neighborhood, demand that you stand up for
what you believe —not go along to get along with your fellow members of the City Council.
Council Member Kelly, you have advocated from the first for Opus /Clark. I appreciate that you, from the
start of this process, have not pretended to care about anything other than the complete development by
Opus /Clark of this entire site without any regard to the existing neighborhood or small businesses. I do not
expect that to change now.
However, I would be remiss if I did not comment on five items:
1) You may believe the fiction that the developer's project landscaping "adds" to Sherwood Park
something other than a taxpayer expense for maintenance. I do not believe it, nor do my neighbors.
You have significantly changed the functioning of Sherwood Park to the severe detriment of children
and families in this neighborhood. It is a resource that once gone, cannot be replaced.
2) Viewed most charitably, your comments on 5/16/00 (as well as at several previous hearings) that you
have known the Rauenhorsts & Clarks your entire life, that they are friends as well as fine, upstanding
people may have been intended to impress the audience that they were in good hands.
However, it appeared to me, as well as to many in attendance, that your testimonials to these
individuals were nothing more than a public declaration of a very significant personal conflict of
interest regarding these developers. The neighborhood was not reassured either about the developers
or about your decision making process.
3) As on 11/1/99, your pointed explanation about the legal purposes of condemnation — "fair" payment
for physical property— although undoubtedly accurate, displayed an unforgivable disregard for the,
effects of your blithe decision to deprive several long standing small business people their
livelihoods. I have been attending Edina City Council meetings for the last ten years. Never have I
seen a particular member —let alone an entire Council— display such a blatant disregard for the
property and welfare of small business owners. There was no over -riding public purpose which was "
served by effectively condemning the Edina Pet Hospital, the Hair Salon, the Noonan Building, or
even the TAGS building. The veterinarian will suffer significant financial harm, as, most probably,
will the Hair Salon owner. Most, if not all, the remaining small businesses will suffer some negative
economic repercussions due to their unnecessary forced relocation precipitated by your decision on
11/1/99. Your actions in leading the drive to take these businesses without a second thought will live
in infamy in this community for many years.
4) Your lack of courage in addressing the school bus garage issue is amazing. You had the opportunity
to fix the problem on 11/1/99 by adopting the Jerry's proposal. Even if you could not choose that
option, rather than condemn school property, you chose to condemn private lands and dismember a
public park. It is bothersome that School Board property is treated with greater deference than private
property and parkland.
5) Finally, you claimed on 5/16/00, that the Richmond Hills neighborhood opposed many previous
developments for the Kunz -Lewis site. In point of fact, since 1990, only one proposed development
was universally opposed by the Richmond Hills neighborhood: the Rainbow Food store. In retrospect,
that would have proven a less intrusive site use than the Opus /Clark project. Many other
developments were supported in whole or in part by the neighborhood. The only development
proposal which has ever approached the united neighborhood opposition to the use of Sherwood Park
and the building height in the current, City Council approved Opus /Clark development plan was the
Rainbow proposal. And, quite frankly, even Rainbow did not come close to the united concern
regarding Opus /Clark. This neighborhood has consistently supported the responsible development of
the Kunz -Lewis site. In the past, our concerns were attended to by both developers and the City
Council. It is regrettable that such is no longer true.
Finally, you have subjected this neighborhood to an extremely long development schedule while at the
same time, by your actions, told the developer that they can ignore neighborhood concerns with impunity.
I have absolutely no hope that the developer will take into account this neighborhood during construction
activities. They have learned, and learned well, that there is no such need.
I did not expect any of you to agree with or concede all neighborhood concerns. I did expect that the
neighborhood would be persuasive regarding Sherwood Park and building height near the residences on
Edenmoor. I hoped for a different traffic pattern, and adjustments on overall residential building height .
and appearance.
I see no real point in pursuing remedies for your decisions through the Courts.
However, I do not intend to remain silent on what I perceive to be a gross dereliction of responsibility on
your part to this neighborhood and to your duties as elected representatives.
I apologize for sending this correspondence to your homes, but feel common courtesy requires that you
receive it before I submit it for publication or general distribution. At this point, I feel my only option is to
publicly express my concerns in the available media about the site development.
Sincerely,
John M. Menke
5301 Pinewood Trail
Edina, MN 55436
952- 922 -2608
Q/L2 C-O/a!£ S 4�
�!2/eES�d•�OF�%G'E dpi �*-� /�cC.c%L—
Ar
MEMO
TO: Craig Larson
FROM: John enk(e
RE: Kunz /Lewis site development
DATE: 1/12/98
I very much appreciate your efforts to keep me and the Richmond Hills
Neighborhood informed of developments on this site; and thank you
for copies of the responses to the RFP.
Unfortunately, due to the holiday season, my illness, and the number of
responders, the neighborhood has not had time to generate an appropriate
response.
I will attend the Council "Working" session on 1/13/98 in hopes that the
Council's intent will narrow the focus; and allow us to develop a
thoughtful response.
Generally, the neighborhood would prefer low
maximum of 3 stories in height; residential
feel to the buildings; if residential - -lower
if office -'-- normal office hours, rather than
Personally, the school alternatives intrigue
them well enough.
impact alternatives with a
:)r residential "friendly"
numbers, non - transient population;
continuous use.
me, but we do not understand
Thank you for your assistance, and for including us in this process.
October 17, 1999
Mayor Dennis Maetzold
Council Members;
Nan Faust
James Hovland
Scott Johnson
Michael Kelley
Dear Mayor and Council Members;
We write concerning the redevelopment proposals currently under consideration for the Kunz -Lewis site.
We reside at 5301 Pinewood Trail in the Richmond Hills neighborhood. Our home overlooks Sherwood
Park and the proposed redevelopment site. We have been Edina residents since 1978 and have occupied
our present home since 1990.
You currently have four proposals remaining for your consideration. We have ranked them in our order of
preference.
Most preferred:
1. Eden Village. Developers: Jerry's Enterprises, Laukaa - Jarvis & Namron Co.
Acceptable:
2. Edenmoor. Developer: Frauenshuh
3. The Residences at Grandview (no hotel). Developer: Stuart Companies
Unacceptable:
4. Grandview Square. Developers: Ron Clark Construction & Opus Northwest
Our preferred choice is Eden Village.
Positives:
• It preserves the small businesses, which currently serve as a good transition from the residential
neighborhood to the commercial area at Grandview.
• It preserves the neighborhood park.
• Jerry's has the longest history of dealing responsibly with the neighborhood regarding development
issues.
• It directs all new traffic from the Kunz -Lewis site directly onto Eden Avenue, directs bus garage
development traffic onto Vernon Avenue, and appears to have the potential for the least direct traffic
impact on the neighborhood.
• It is the only development proposal for the north side of Eden Avenue which offers the opportunity to
keep traffic on Vernon Avenue rather than Eden Avenue.
Negatives:
• For sale residential near existing residential area is three to four story heights plus the roof.
Acceptable choices
Edenmoor
Positives:
• Housing units closest to the neighborhood are the least tall.
• Developers have a history of considering neighborhood impact.
Negatives:
• Creates a large office and retail space south of Eden Avenue.
• Potential for increased traffic on Sherwood Road.
• Significant increase in traffic on Eden Avenue.
• Removes all small businesses currently providing a buffer to Grandview.
Residences at Grandview
Positives:
• All residential except for library and senior center.
• Least overall traffic impact.
Negatives:
• All rental housing
• Creates primary traffic pattern onto Sherwood Road.
• Bus garage entrance/exit onto Eden Circle is poorly placed.
• No history of soliciting or considering neighborhood input.
Unacceptable choice
Grandview Square
Negatives:
• Traffic for all 190 residential units will be via Sherwood Road creating a substantial traffic increase.
• Residential units are four stories with a one to two story roof.
• Residential units surround the eastern and most of the northern border of the park.
• The unit proposed for the beauty parlor site would rival the highest of the large apartment buildings on
the north side of Vernon Avenue.
• Has commercial uses south of Eden Avenue.
• Proposes a 4 -way intersection at Eden Avenue/Link Road/Eden Circle.
• Has one of the two greatest impacts on total area traffic and the greatest impact on Sherwood Road
traffic.
• Has no history of dealing with the neighborhood (did make a presentation when invited).
• Views Sherwood Park as an exploitable asset. Even in their new plan, they suggest using a portion of
the park. The original plan relocated the park out of the neighborhood.
Our concerns, as they have for nine years, focus on:
• Traffic/neighborhood access.
• Overall height of the development.
• General impact on the neighborhood.
• Developer's interest in dealing with the neighborhood concerns.
We believe Eden Village offers the neighborhood and the City the best redevelopment proposal. Jerry's
Enterprises and their partners have a history of responsible development and have shown an interest in
respectful consideration of neighborhood concerns.
We encourage you to select Eden Village as the development proposal.
Thank you for your consideration,
John Menke Judith Brumfield
October 31, 1999
Mayor Dennis Maetzold
Council Members;
Nan Faust
James Hovland
Scott Johnson
Michael Kelley
Dear Mayor and Council Members;
I write to encourage you to pause and consider the following before you vote for selection of a developer
for the Kunz -Lewis site.
Your vote on November 1" is important to the City of Edina, the Richmond Hills neighborhood, and
several small businesses. I write now at the urging of my neighbors.
I implore you to consider the following before you vote:
* Most residents of the Richmond Hills neighborhood value the small businesses abutting their
neighborhood. The Vet, the Salon, and Noonan have been good neighbors.
* Most residents favor the Eden Village proposal by Jerry's, Laukaa- Jarvis, and Namron —it is quick to
completion, respectful of the park and the residential neighborhood, and, according to your analysis, had
no funding gap.
* Laukaa -Jarvis has managed a multi -use, multi -owner complex in Edina well for many years. This bodes
well for the long term in this development.
At your work session on October 26'",1999, several members of the CounciI/HRA seemed to have some
preference for the Eden Village proposal. Please search your hearts and minds —if the choice is close for
you, listen to the small businesses and homeowners in the neighborhood and select the Eden Village
proposal.
Neighborhoods and small businesses are important to the quality of life here in Edina. The preferences of
the neighborhood and encouragement of small businesses should be a concern of the Council and HRA.
Sincerely,
John Menke
5301 Pinewood Trail
Edina, MN 55436
612- 922 -2608
March 29, 2000
Mayor Dennis Maetzold
Council Members;
Nan Faust
James Hovland
Scott Johnson
Michael Kelley
Dear Mayor and Council Members;
I write to request that you reject the current Opus /Clark proposed development plan, and instruct them to
submit a revised plan which takes no land from Sherwood Park.
Last Fall, during the process of selecting a developer for the Kunz -Lewis site. Opus Northwest and Ron
Clark Construction's original proposal for their development, "Grandview Square ", entirely eliminated the
existing neighborhood park, Sherwood Park.
Their second proposal, presented to the HRA, the City Council, and the Richmond Hills neighborhood in a
neighborhood meeting, left Sherwood Park as it currently is.
As you will recall, residents of Richmond Hills expressed their concern to this developer and to the City
Council that land in Sherwood Park not be used in this development. Both the developer and the City
Council gave assurances that existing parkland would not be used in this de%-clopment.
On Monday March 27, 2000, I attended a presentation by Opus/Clark at Our Lady of Grace. Their most
recent proposal involves `:reallocating" a very large piece of Sherwood Park to their "to«n square" and
siting four story condo /townhouses on the park.
They claim that this will increase parkland; further they claim the neighborhood will have access to the
"town square ". At best, these claims are a pleasant fiction.
Opus /Clark's current proposal eliminates useful park space. This space is currently used by the
neighborhood. In addition to the variety of sports, including but not limited to football, volleyball, soccer,
baseball, and softball, played or practiced by neighborhood children; that space provides a wide open play
area for kite flying, Frisbee, running, etc. Such space is not readily available elsewhere in the area.
The Richmond Hills neighborhood uses the existing Sherwood Park. It is the only city park readily and
safely available to children in the neighborhood. In addition to recreational activities, Sherwood Park has
served as a gathering place for neighbors and a wonderful location for birthday and graduation parties (my
son's university graduation party was held there).
Sherwood Park has also been a buffer between the existing single family homes in Richmond Hills and the
business activity of the Grandview area.
I described the developer's claims regarding their use of the Park as, at best, a pleasant fiction. By changing
Sherwood Park's present space, there will no longer be sufficient open space for athletic or recreational
activities (other than jogging in place). Even though access is provided from the remnant of Sherwood Park
to the proposed town square, I doubt children & adolescents will be welcome there --even should they
desire to use that limited space. By several accounts, Mr. Clark believes that proximity to park areas such
as Sherwood Park are a detriment to his developments, or at least to their expeditious sale. He may well be
correct. I suspect that means he will seek to actively discourage uses of the Park and the town square which
provide this effect.
Neighborhoods and neighborhood parks are important to the quality of life here in Edina. The preferences
of the existing neighborhood should be a concern of the Council, the HRA,.the Planning Commission, and
the Park Board.
Please reject the developer's proposal and clearly indicate that no current land in Sherwood Park is to be
used in this development.
Sincerely, G`....G`
John Menke
5301 Pinewood Trail
Edina, MN 55436
612- 922 -2608
April 12, 2000
Mayor Dennis Maetzold
Council Members Nan Faust, James Hovland, Scott Johnson, and Michael Kelley.
Dear Mayor and Council Members;
I write again to request that you reject the current Opus/Clark proposed development plan, and instruct
them to submit a revised plan which takes no land from Sherwood Park.
I look forward to speaking with you at the meeting on April 18, 2000 as you discuss the Overall
Development Plan Approval and Preliminary Rezoning for the "Kunz- Lewis" property. I am
supplementing my previous letter of March 29, 2000 with additional comments toward the same purpose-
s loss of land or change in boundaries to the current Sherwood Park.
At the Planning Commission Hearing on 3/29/00 and the Park Board Hearing on 4/11/00, Opus/Clark
advanced two primary reasons for their current and renewed incursion into Sherwood Park:
1) The Edina City Council desires and encourages it; and
2) The Hennepin County Library wants to be visible from Vernon.
I find the rationale that you desire, have encouraged, or will tolerate the incursion into Sherwood Park not
believable. I, and my neighbors, attended your meetings last Fall during which we believe you made it
clear that Sherwood Park was not to be used in this development. We value your support of existing
neighborhoods and parkland. I do not believe that you intend the Richmond Hills neighborhood to bear a
disproportionate share of the cost of this development. The loss of Sherwood Park in its current
configuration would negatively affect all 48 existing homeowners in Richmond Hills. The reconfiguration
and loss of area from Sherwood Park would affect all property owners' quality of life as well as both the
perceived and the real economic value of their property. The dominating character of proposed large
buildings would exacerbate these losses.
I encourage you to consider the following points:
1) Sherwood Park is an integral part of the existing neighborhood and has been so for over 50 years.
Homeowners purchased or built homes here, in part, due to Sherwood Park.
2) Sherwood Park has been an important buffer for the Richmond Hills neighborhood from the
relatively low (one to two stories, flat roofed) small businesses in the area. It will be an even more
important buffer from the proposed relatively tall (four stories, peaked roof, 50+ feet tall) and dense
proposed condo /townhouse units immediately adjacent to the park.
In the developer's proposal, the developer claims no net loss of parkland. That does not appear accurate:
1) The developer's new "additions" to the eastern and northeastern comers of the Park appear to be no
more than 21 feet wide. They are used in the developer's drawing as "landscape buffer" to the
development—not as open park space. Landscape buffer should not count as park space. In fact,
Sherwood Park appears to be reduced from 1.55 acres to @.9 acres —a 42% reduction in area.
2) The developer proposes to take an area of open parkland approximately 225 feet by 135 feet from
an open area of the park that is only 283 feet by 135 feet.
3) The "townsquare" in the center of the development created to "replace" the open play area of
Sherwood Park will not be conducive to play. It is surrounded by streets, reduced by the need for
two -way traffic on the northwest side, and will be dominated by the development owners. This
"townsquare" is not intended —and will not be used by neighborhood children —as play area.
4) The relocated child play area is not conducive to child safety.
5) This is not the proposed land use you accepted last Fall.
6) The proposed development nearest the Richmond Hills single family homes continues to be too tall.
There has been no reduction in height of the proposed condo / townhomes. Instead, the developer has
placed them closer to existing single family homes while maintaining their 50+ foot height.
Please reject the current Opus/Clark redevelopment plan.
Do not permit the developer to use any of the existing land in Sherwood Park for the development— either
for construction of buildings or for landscape buffer.
Delay approval of this redevelopment and rezoning until both the land use issues and design issues are
clear. Please know the design and dimensions of the proposed buildings prior to approval.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
John Menke
5301 Pinewood Trail
Edina, MN 55436
612 - 922 -2608
May 12, 2000
Mayor Dennis Maetzold.
Council Members Nan Faust, James Hovland, Scott Johnson, and Michael Kelley.
Dear Mayor and Council Members;
I write again to request that you reject the current Opus/Clark proposed development plan, and instruct
them to submit a revised plan which takes no land from Sherwood Park. As you are aware, the developers
requested a continuance from the originally scheduled meeting of April 18, 2000 in order to revise their
plan. I had the opportunity to view their plan on May 11, 2000. They continue to propose a plan which uses
land currently in Sherwood Park. They have not changed the height or basic configuration of the residential
units closest to the existing homes in the neighborhood, and they have not changed the traffic pattern. .
I look forward to speaking with you at the meeting on May 16, 2000 as you discuss the Overall
Development Plan Approval and Preliminary Rezoning for the "Kunz- Lewis" property. I am
supplementing my previous letters of March 29 and April 12, 2000 with additional comments toward the
same purpose —no loss of land. or change in boundaries to the current Sherwood Park.
• The "new, revised" plan continues to call for the use of (by the developers'. figures) .33 acres of
Sherwood Park. This is over 21% of the Park's total area, and at least 35% of the flat open play area on the
West Side of the Park.
• The developers continue to claim that Sherwood Park was intended to be part of the overall
development from the beginning.
• Despite assurances givemto Council members Hovland and Faust on 11/1/99 by Ron Clark that there
were no contingencies affecting the developers ability to proceed with the development and that
residential building height issues could be addressed, the developer now claims that building codes
require construction changes over four stories -so height adjustments cannot economically be made.
• Options do appear available to the developer:
1) Reduce "footprint" area of the office building and increase its height — permitting movement
of the westernmost residential unit to the eastern complex (moving it out of the park).
2) Increase height of office complex and reduce number of residential units.
3) Move the secondary entrance /exit from Sherwood Road to under the raised deck parking area
associated with the office complex — permits a shift in residential units further from the
neighborhood.
4) Rethink and/or renegotiate the library's participation in the development. We are aware that
TIF cannot subsidize a new City Hall —but I suspect the combined remodeling costs in the
current plan (I also assume not TIF eligible) could be spent building a new City Hall on top of
the Senior Center.
I support the development of the Kunz Lewis site. I have no serious problems with the mixed -use
development. But, I ask you please do npt require the existing neighborhood to pay a disproportionate
price for a development which benefits the entire City.
I note that on May 16, 2000 you will also be considering a tax referendum proposal for increasing
recreational facilities and City Park improvements. Ordinarily, I would be a strong advocate for this
proposal. However, I find myself in the extraordinary position in which I cannot reconcile supporting a
proposal to increase my taxes for Parks and recreational facilities when the City Park across the street from
my home maybe reduced in size to accommodate a private developer.
Please reject the current Opus/Clark redevelopment plan.
Do not permit the developer to use any of the existing land in Sherwood Park for the development— either
for construction of buildings or for landscape buffer.
Delay approval of this redevelopment and rezoning until both the land use issues and design issues are
clear. Please know the design and dimensions of the proposed buildings prior to approval.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
John Menke
5301 Pinewood Trail
Edina, MN 55436
612 - 922 -2608
Petition
To: Edina City Council
From: Richmond Hills Neighborhood Association
Subject: Grandview Square Development
We, the residents of the Richmond Hills neighborhood oppose ceding any portion of our existing
neighborhood park, "Sherwood Park", to the "Grandview Square" development. It is of vital importance
to us that you remember, as we do, that the City Council stated that the park would be left intact, a
commitment also made by the Ron Clark representative at the late -fall neighborhood presentation
meeting!
On March 27, 2000, OPUS/Ron Clark presented its site plan to the Neighborhood Association. It was a
shock to observe that "Sherwood Park" was dramatically reduced in size by four -story condominiums!
This is completely unacceptable. We all believed in good faith that the developer would honor the
commitment made to preserving Sherwood Park, as indicated on the plan he created and presented to
the Association and the City Council in late fall — a plan he used to gain our approval and support. (See
attached site plan . and overview).
A considerable number of Association neighbors pointed out at Council meetings and in letters to the
Council the need for keeping the park intact. Those reasons included:
1.) The park is a Vital part of this neighborhood.
- people buy homes here because'of the park.
- there is a growing number of children in the area, who need and use the park.
- we hold neighborhood functions there.
- our grandchildren enjoy it.
2.) The park acts as a "buffer" between our neighborhood and the higher - traffic, commercial
area.
- this need will be even greater with the increased congestion and traffic generated from
the new development.
- Sherwood Park was initially proposed by developers as offering a good "buffer"
between the existing neighborhood and a new development, indicating to us
acknowledged understanding of its importance.
3.) The proposed residential buildings taking over the park area are four stories high, totaling
approximately 52 feet! If allowed to be developed as proposed, they would be an overwhelming
presence to all nearby housing and tower over the entrance to our existing neighborhood.
4.) The park at our entrance meets a BASIC NEED. This is a unique land- locked area and we
have no practical alternative for a park. We use and enjoy Sherwood Park. We have been told
throughout this matter that both the developer and the City . Council would respect the needs of
the citizens who live in the area. It has always been Edina's practice to carefully consider these
needs. Please don't let indifference or financial-appeal outweigh them....
October 31, 1999
To: Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Re: Kunz/Lewis Redevelopment
Many of us in the Richmond Hills Neighborhood are concerned over the recent choice for development
of this area. Being the closest to the site, we have natural reasons for our concern, inasmuch as we have
to "live" with whatever is constructed there on a daily basis.
Our concern with "Grandview Square" is that it is just too "Grand "! The number and scale of the
building proposed would rise above, and dwarf most of the residential community adjoining it. It also
means purchasing or condemning all business properties south of Eden.
"Eden Village" on the other hand has always been the least invasive and most compatible proposal for
both the adjoining neighborhood and the existing business firms; including the following positive
reasons:
• It avoids multiple, costly condemnations.
• Therefore it honors the right of these businesses to continue operating, as they had planned (with
the exception of the `TAGS" property).
• It directs all new it is from the site to Eden Avenue, thus avoiding substantial traffic problems
onto Sherwood Ave.
• Financial: As far as we know, there are no short or long term concerns with this development, thus
the city of Edina would have one of the least concerns financially.
• The City of Edina has a long and satisfactory history of working with this development team.
• All industrial/commercial uses are kept north of Eden Avenue, maintaining the compatibility of the
residential complex proposed.
Thus, we hope you will give due weight and consideration to these important concerns, not only for the
adjoining residents, but for the City of Edina as well.
We also, hope you will give respectful concern to the Richmond Hills Neighborhood request that
building height nearest our area be kept to a maximum that does not unduly impact our homes.
Thank you for your consideration of this request.
Arthur L. Heiam
5205 Richwood Drive
Edina, MN
P G P 72- E ?E 2 -� 2EC J 06 ,
�-'s ,tom •jc,•� r° ,�o -�- -J 77d 'd
l
December 6, 1999
John Menke
5301 Pinewood Tr.
Edina MN 55436
Re: Grandview Square
Dear Mr. Menke:
CONSTRUCTION
75M Nest 78th Street
Edina, Minnesota
55-1: 9
(612) 947 -3MI
fax (612) 947-3030
On behalf of Opus Corporation and Ron Clark Construction, we are writing to give you a
progress report on the Grandview Square development. As you know, the City Council
approved the Opus /Ron Clark plan at their November 1St meeting. Since that time, we
have been working with City staff on the Letter of Intent.
The attached site plan is a requirement of the Letter of Intent, but it is not the final plan.
The plan has been revised to address the needs of the Hennepin County Library. We
have reversed the configuration of the office building and senior center/library from our
last site plan. The library will face Eden Avenue with the senior center positioned
below, facing the interior of the site.
We are continuing to work on the residential and office components and this plan should
be considered `a work in progress" as it relates to the design work and the
positioning /size of the residential units and office space.
We intend to complete the Letter of Intent with the City of Edina by the end of this year
and then move forward with more formal site planning. In early 2000, we will be
meeting with the senior center and library staff in more detail and we will also be holding
a neighborhood meeting to receive your comments and input on the site plan. These
meetings will be done prior to submitting a final plan to the City of Edina for the zoning
and planning approvals. We know that traffic, density, and site design are of interest to
you and we plan to discuss these items with you in more detail..
Thank you for your interest in Grandview Square. We look forward to working with you.
Sincerely,
Heidi Kurtze
Project Development Manager
cc: Gordon Hughes, City Manager
Construction and Desi9z
MN Builder License ! 0901'' -2!J
http J /w%M - R09V0art.cors
MINUTES
OF THE JOINT MEETING OF THE
EDINA HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
AND EDINA CITY COUNCIL
HELD AT CITY HALL ON
MAY 16, 2000 - 7:00 P.M.
ROLLCALL Answering rollcall were Commissioners Faust, Hovland, Johnson, Kelly, and Chair
Maetzold.
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS APPROVED Motion made by Commissioner Hovland and
seconded by Commissioner Johnson approving the Edina Housing and Redevelopment
Authority Agenda as presented.
Rollcall:
Ayes: Faust, Hovland, Johnson, Kelly, Maetzold
Motion carried.
*MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA HOUSING AND
REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY FOR MAY 2. 2000, APPROVED Motion made by
Commissioner Hovland and seconded by Commissioner Johnson approving the Minutes
of the Edina Housing and Redevelopment authority for May 2, 2000.
Motion carried on rollcall vote - five ayes.
PRELIMINARY REZONING AND OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN - OPUS /CLARK
- GRANDVIEW SQUARE APPROVED Affidavits of Notice were presented, approved
and ordered placed on file.
Staff Presentation
Manager/ Executive Director Hughes reviewed the actions needed: to review the
preliminary rezoning and overall development plan; to consider and approve an indemnity
agreement and a condemnation resolution with respect to the acquisition of parcels; to
approve a land exchange agreement with Hennepin County with respect to the Library;
and lastly to accept the assignment of a purchase agreement for the 5201 Eden Circle
building. Mr. Hughes added that the Council had been provided with a draft
redevelopment agreement for review purposes, however, staff recommended no action on
that agreement until the time of final zoning of the redevelopment.
Planner Larsen reviewed the actions that had occurred regarding the development thus far.
He stated the initial action occurred November 1, 1999, when the City Council /HRA
awarded the redevelopment rights to a team made up of Opus Northwest LLC and Ron
Clark, Inc. Following that award and the Letter of Intent being signed in December of 1999,
the developer began to develop plans to rezone the property for the necessary City
approvals. The first of the City approvals would be the preliminary rezoning and approval
of the overall development plan for the site. Currently, the project area includes all non-
residential properties south of Eden Avenue, and west of the railroad tracks. Using a
graphic depiction Mr. Larsen, showed the properties that are currently owned by the HRA
and Zoned R -1. He also showed the two properties that have been Zoned commercial PCD-
2, the one property which was zoned office and the industrial parcel. The redevelopment
proposal would take all of the properties and rezone them to Mixed Development District
1
No. 4 which is a medium density mixed development district. The original plan contained J
80,000 square feet of office space, 190 condominium units, a 20,000 square foot library and a
15,000 square foot senior center. At the end of March, the Planning Commission reviewed a
site plan that had one change from the original. The library and senior center moved to the
west and became a two -story building with the senior center on the lower level and the
library on top, each at 20,000 square feet. The Planning Commission recommended
approval with several conditions as outlined in the Council packet. Mr. Larsen said the
Park Board reviewed the plan April 11, 2000. At staff's request the Park Board
consideration was limited to the impact of the proposed development on Sherwood Park.
Both the Planning Commission and Park Board have made similar recommendations to the
City Council, asking that the developer address the site plan and attempt to minimize the
impact on the existing park. The developer has spent the time between April 11 and May
16, 2000, redesigning their site plan. He explained the modified site plan presented by the
developers was, intended to address the concerns raised by the Planning Commission and
Park Board. Mr. Larsen reported the plan has been modified by removing 18 condominium
units from the project and .shifting the remaining units back from the park as much as
possible; increasing the office building to 88,000 square feet. The library and senior center
remain the same. Mr. Larsen said the action necessary was the overall development plan
and preliminary rezoning. He added that the Planning Commission recommended the
following eleven conditions of approval:
1. Final Rezoning;
2. Final Plat;
3. Final Site Plan approval for each phase;
4. Development Agreement between the City, Hennepin County and Grandview
Square LLC;
5. Developer's Agreement covering public improvements;
6. Watershed District Permits;
7. City Engineer approval of Eden Avenue curb cuts;
8. Road adjacent to park /plaza and senior center should be changed from one -way
to two -way;
9. Eliminate parking on southerly cul de sac to provide turnaround for emergency
vehicles;
10. Maintain access to well house; and
11. Staff and developer should work to revise site plan to preserve as much of the
park as possible in its present location and size.
Mr. Larsen noted that conditions 8 -11 had been addressed, in the opinion of staff, in the
revised site plan presently before the council.
Proponent Presentation
Heidi Kurtze, Project Development Manager/ Executive Director, Ron Clark Construction,
said she had the entire development team available to . answer any questions. Ms. Kurtze
reviewed the goals of the City that were part of its RFP process: create a multi- purpose
neighborhood in a key area of redevelopment for the City; create a senior center for Edina;
create a new library enabling the City to expand and renovate City Hall; create a European
village "feel" in the redeveloped area; and creation of a stronger more vital tax base in the
Grandview area. Creation of the senior center was of high importance in the
redevelopment. The new library will allow Hennepin County to take advantage of the
2
��- technological changes and improve their parking situation. Ms. Kurtze said these were a
great number of objectives to accomplish with a small amount of land and limited
resources. Ms. Kurtze said she believed the Opus /Ron Clark team was chosen because of
their long standing reputation and the strength of their financial commitment to the City.
The project financing does tie into the site plan development. The developer will be making
a $3,700,000 equity contribution to the project. The funds will be used to retire 1997 bonds
issued to pay for acquisition of the Kunz /Lewis properties. The funds also help cover the
public costs associated with the new development of the library / senior center, public
administrative costs, and public improvements on the site. New bonds will be issued to pay
for the construction of the library and senior center. The developer's note will be
subordinate to the City's bonds, meaning the City has minimal risk, being in the senior
position to be paid back when the taxes come on line. Tax increment is being used to cover
the site improvements and acquisition- costs, but this is limited to a ten -year period. The
district expires in 2010 which puts some constraints on the project, but is a benefit to the
City since due to the short life the developer is only being reimbursed for a portion of site
improvements. The project, when complete, will create over a million dollars in annual
taxes. Ms. Kurtze said that the short life of the tax increment district and the land area to be
redeveloped have put constraints on the developer in both the timing of construction and
the project's design.
Ms. Xurtze reviewed the five site plans beginning with the plan submitted as part of the
RFP process. Originally Opus /Clark proposed 190 residential units with 80,000 square feet
of office. The senior center and library were on one level side by side over the bus garage.
Also below the office building, plaza and public space, a very large underground
public /private parking area housing the Edina School District's bus garage. While this plan
allowed the developer to become a finalist, they were asked to reconsider the use of the
park land. Opus /Clark shifted the 190 residential units .out of the park entirely which
substantially reduced ,the central plaza area. The senior center /library and bus garage
remained relatively unchanged in the plan, but the office building was turned to the side as
well as the residential area re- oriented towards the north side of Eden Circle.
Upon selection as the developer, several changes to the site plan occurred. The bus garage
issue was eliminated from the plan. This eliminated the -need for the underground
structured parking. Hennepin County expressed, the need for a more prominent location on
the site with greater visibility and access from Vernon Avenue. Therefore, the plan flipped
the office and senior center /library putting them on the western portion of the site. The
traffic and City Engineer recommended two access points instead of one for the park. The
first plan had one entrance for the residential space and one for the senior center /library
office space. Providing two accesses would allow for better circulation but, resulted in
separate parking areas for the office and senior center /library; and forced the residential
units south into Sherwood Park's western edge. This was the plan submitted with the
Letter of Intent to the City Council in 1999. Ms. Kurtze stated that she personally sent this
plan along with a letter to all the Richmond Hills neighborhood group in December. She
added she also used this plan for her presentation to the Vernon Terrace residents in
January. Ms. Kurtze stated the developer did not receive any verbal or written feedback so
the plan was refined until it was presented to the March 2000, Planning Commission.
3
J
Ms. Kurtze reported that the fourth plan expanded the plaza area and created a link
between the plaza and Sherwood Park. This link shifted the housing slightly into the park.
The plan met with considerable objection from the neighborhood group. The neighborhood
asked that the developer leave the play area (tot lot), leave the backstop in place, and
eliminate the housing units on the western edge of the park. The Planning Commission did
approve the plan, but asked the developer to work to minimize impact on the park noting
that eliminating any use of the park would be desirable. Ms. Kurtze said the developers
have revised the plan to the one which is before the Council. The plan reduced the
residential units to 170, increased the office building to 88,000 square feet, while leaving the
library and senior center the same. She said that a small section of the park (.33 acres) along
the western edge of the parking has still been incorporated into the residential
development. However, that land has been replaced within Sherwood Park by adding
green -space where Eden Circle currently sits. The redesign results in a net gain to the park,
but in a different configuration. The developer believes the current plan meets the
redevelopment objectives and responds to the Planning Commission and Park Board
requests, while still maintaining a financially viable development. Ms. Kurtze said the plan
was presented to the Park Director, and she reported, he agreed with the new
configuration. She added the developer believes the plaza area depicted on this last site
plan is very important to the new residential and office development. Library staff have
indicated excitement about potentially holding children's reading time in the plaza. Specific
programming has not been determined, but the developer intends to work closely with the
Park Department to develop its plans for passive use.
Ms. Kurtze acknowledged that comments will be received from people who do not support
the proposed overall development plan, but she said in her opinion, much of this
discontent is in response to any change to the redevelopment area and not to one specific
plan or another. Ms. Kurtze asked the Council to remember /Commissioner that many
people who will benefit from this development will not be heard, citing the developer's
waiting list of 92 names for the residential development. She said 75 of those people are
current Edina residents who want to move out of their homes, but stay in Edina.
Member/ Commissioner Kelly asked for confirmation of his understanding that the site
plan results in an increase in park land. Jack Buxell confirmed that before the
redevelopment the park had 13,500.01 square feet and after development the park will have
13,680.45 square feet. Mr. Hughes reviewed the change in the parkland using an aerial
photograph of the area.
Member/ Commissioner Faust said she had several questions. Would the development
require a parking variance? Mr. Larsen replied the plan met Edina's code requirements for
parking. Do City standards allow a public street to have a median strip and trees; and could
someone explain the street circulation? Mr. Buxell explained the access /egress points to the
development and pointed out the internal circulation. Member/ Commissioner Faust stated
she had understood that Opus would be constructing the senior center and library. Mr.
Hughes answered that under the redevelopment agreement they would be the construction
Manager of the senior center and library and provide to the HRA a guaranteed maximum
cost. However, under state law, they would still have to publicly bid the components, but
would serve as the architect and construction Manager. Member/ Commissioner Faust
asked what components of the development would be built during Phase One and Phase
Two and the proposed time table. Ms. Kurtze said that Phase One is the office building and
forty units of the first residential building, to be started fall of 2000 and completed by
December 2001. Phase Two would be the remaining 32 units of the first building, the
beginning of the second building, and the senior center /library. Phase Two is planned to
begin construction during 2001 completed by December of 2002. Phases Three and Four
would be the completion of the remainder of the residential development if everything
goes well in 2004. Member/ Commissioner Faust asked if more units were sold up front
would the construction schedule be moved forward. Ms. Kurtze said that could be a
possibility, but would be unlikely because of the volume of individual options to the
construction. Member/ Commissioner Faust asked if the NURP ponds are adequate for the
site. Engineer Hoffman answered that a preliminary review from the watershed districts
indicate they are adequate.
Member/ Commissioner Kelly asked if the environmental studies will delay construction.
Ms. Kurtze stated the Phase II's have been completed, however, there are issues, but the
developer will hopefully know the parameters and needs by June. Member/ Commissioner
Kelly asked when the plaza will be developed. Ms. Kurtze answered the plaza will be
developed during Phase One.
Member/ Commissioner Hovland asked the developer what would be the effect on the
proposed redevelopment if the existing configuration of Sherwood Park was not altered as
proposed. Ms. Kurtze said the development would loose an additional 30 residential units
which could not be recouped by another increase in the office building. The office building
as proposed is as large as can be supported by parking on the site. The loss of thirty more
units would most likely preclude the developer's ability to proceed with the project due to
the additional loss of potential taxes. Member/ Commissioner Hovland expressed concern
to the City Attorney about the indemnification agreement, regarding the relocation costs.
Attorney Gilligan explained the indemnification agreement had been amended since the
Council's packet was sent out.
Mayor /Chair Maetzold asked if the developer were to leave the existing park as is, could a
story be added to the east residential building. Ms. Kurtze explained the buildings were as
high as they can be using wood frame construction. Beyond four stories construction
switches to commercial code which adds substantial costs which would make the project
not financially feasible. Mayor /Chair Maetzold asked for specific perimeter descriptions of
the north side and east side of the park in terms of landscaping and a potential sidewalk.
Mr. Buxell said that the buildings have about fourteen feet of patio located eight feet from
the edge of the sidewalk. There will be an eight -foot landscaping space between the edge of
the building side of the sidewalk and the structure leaving the 14 -foot patio area that will
most likely include plantings. Wally Case, landscape architect, explained that along that
edge is a common sidewalk serving both the residents and people using the park. They also
have a combination of over -story deciduous canopy trees along the sidewalk. There are
some existing trees the developer will attempt to preserve along the edge and along the
edge of the residential area. In addition, there will be lower shrub plantings to further
separate the park from the residential area. Mayor /Chair Maetzold asked what the height
5
of the trees would be that are to be planted. Mr. Case replied the landscaping will meet the
City code requirements with respect to percentage of small trees. They will range from 2"
caliper to 51/2 " caliper trees. He said the larger trees will be selectively placed primarily to
the perimeter of the project. Flexibility is needed in utilizing the smaller trees since they
actually grow better due to less transplant shock. Mayor /Chair Maetzold asked if a person
stood in the middle of the park would the feeling be that of a park or as part of the
residential development. Mr. Case replied that once the trees get growing well, a person
would be surrounded by large trees. He pointed out that there are trees already in existence
on the north and western sides of the park. Eventually the deciduous trees will be 40 -60 feet
high. There will also be a heavy planting of coniferous trees approximately six to eight feet
in height, on the site.
Public Comment
John Menke, 5301 Pinewood Trail, stated that he could not support the rezoning until the
Sherwood Park issue is resolved. Mr. Menke said there are 48 houses in Richmond Hills
and these residents do not want any land taken from Sherwood Park. He added they do not
agree with the developer's statement that the latest plan results in a net gain of parkland.
Mr. Menke stated Richmond Hills supports redevelopment, however, they are gravely
concerned about loosing Sherwood Park. Mr. Menke said that when the City received RFP's
originally, in October of 1997, the proposals were supposed to be compatible with the
existing and surrounding neighborhood. The current Grandview Square proposal has
multifamily housing 50 -54 feet in height, next to existing single family homes. Mr. Menke
said that the letter he received from Heidi Kurtze did not include any graphic depiction of
the site plan as Ms. Kurtze had previously stated. Mr. Menke said that Sherwood Park is
very important to the. Richmond Hills neighborhood because of all the neighborhood play
that happens in it. The part of the park that Grandview Square will take is the only flat area
and is used often by older children (even adults) to play soccer, football, baseball, etc. Mr.
Menke urged the Council to not rezone or approve the redevelopment until Sherwood Park
is left alone.
Art Heiam, 5205 Richwood Drive, stated that he wanted it pointed out that Heidi Kurtze's
letter states that only a few neighbors are concerned. Mr. Heiam said that Sherwood Park
will be devastated. He added that because of the slope, the land lost was virtually the only
area that children could play any sort of game.
Steve Loehr, 5216 Richwood Drive, asked if the current park was going to be taken, then
expanded with land from Eden Circle how would it be configured and who would be the
planned users of the expanded park.
Dr. Dan Shebuski, Edina Pet Hospital, 5237 Eden Avenue, stated he had owned the pet
hospital since 1976. Dr. Shebuski added that he invited the Council and City staff to visit
his hospital to see the type of operation it is, but no one came to see him. Dr. Shebuski
added that he recently hired another veterinarian with the thought of selling him the
practice and retiring. Now, because Dr. Shebuski s building is being taken against his will,
he is not only loosing his livelihood, but also his retirement. The Edina Pet Hospital is one
of 26 veterinary practices within a six -mile radius. He said that statistics show 86% of the
people choose a vet hospital based upon location. Therefore, moving him to another
C.1
location, damages his practice. Dr. Shebuski said he needs to continue his business in the
same area and that he needs to own the land and building.
Jack Abrahamson, 5209 Richwood Drive, said it would be extremely difficult to endorse the
proposed redevelopment. Mr. Abrahamson said that in his experience OPUS was a very
fine company, but the proposed redevelopment puts 47 -48 homes into a tunnel. He added
that a problem exists now with parking on Sherwood because of the doctors' office in the
Edina Realty building. This problem will increase with the proposed redevelopment. Mr.
Abrahamson said if there is an increase in green space there is a loss of playable area. He
added that the four homes abutting the park are in the TIF District. Attorney Gilligan
corrected Mr. Abrahamson, stating no residential homes are in the TIF District. Mr.
Abrahamson concluded asking that because of the traffic problem, the loss of parkland and
the lack of sympathy on the part of the developers to the adjacent neighborhood, the
Council should not rezone the property, but look again at different redevelopment plans.
Jean Shebuski, said that she and her husband are asking the redevelopment be delayed. She
said they have lived through seven months of extreme hardship and that the developers
have not been negotiating in good faith. Mrs. Shebuski contended they were offered less for
their pet hospital than they paid twenty -five years ago. She believes a new plan should be
submitted that includes the pet hospital.
Pat Olk, 5315 Pinewood Trail, commented that it appears the problem with the site is that
the Edina Bus Garage is not included. Mr. Olk asked if the City could somehow make the
Edina School District relocate the bus garage. Mayor /Chair Maetzold said that was a very
complex issue that has been attempted to be resolved for many years.
Linda Presthus, explained she was a Park Board Member/ Commissioner. She informed the
neighbors that the Park Board had reviewed the plan. Ms. Presthus explained her belief
that the play area was to be expanded and the entire park re- graded.
Judith Menke, 5301 Pinewood Trail, said she felt insulted as a neighbor by Ms. Kurtz's
assertion that the neighbors are objecting to any change. The Richmond Hills neighborhood
has attempted to stay informed because they realize that the property must be redeveloped.
However, Sherwood Park, needs to accommodate children from toddlers to, teens and as
proposed, use by older area children will be lost. Mrs. Menke stated the Richmond Hills
neighborhood would like to stay actively involved in the development, but the developer
has not listened to the neighborhood.
Margery Peters, 5120 Duggan Plaza expressed her concern over the redevelopment.
Rod Krause, attorney for Ed Noonan, stated he wanted the Council to understand that the
proposed redevelopment should not involve Ed Noonan s building. Mr. Krause asked the
Council to revisit the scale of the project. He added that Mr. Noonan was very concerned
about the timing of the proposed redevelopment. Mr. Krause said they were unable to get a
response from the developer's representatives. They need a firm understanding of the
project's time table.
7
Leonard Hadden, President of Cross Technology, 5201 Eden Avenue, explained his firm
has 40 employees working three shifts a day. Mr. Hadden said he would be willing to re-
locate, but it will be difficult to do so. He said he sympathized with the neighbors. Mr.
Hadden said in his opinion the biggest users of the park are the TAGS' mothers waiting for
children who are taking gymnastics and his own Cross employees. He urged the Council to
make a decision and move forward because in his opinion, businesses do not survive in a
period of great uncertainty.
Council Discussion and Action
Member /Commissioner Johnson made a motion closing the public hearing at 8:45 p.m.
Member/ Commissioner Kelly seconded the motion.
Ayes: Faust, Hovland, Johnson, Kelly, Maetzold.
Motion carried.
Member/ Commissioner Faust asked staff what kind of park Sherwood Park was and if it is
currently designed for softball? Park Director Keprios explained it was considered a mini -
park, two acres or less and not scheduled with any activities such as softball. The park
serves the neighborhood for a one - quarter mile radius. The park is designed to allow
younger children to play, but he said it would not be adequate for baseball or organized
activities. He continued stating that in his professional opinion the proposed layout will
offer the best design in light of the proposed redevelopment and the existing parkland.
Member/ Commissioner Faust continued asking if the parking was studied when the
medical office building was relocated. Mr: Larsen said the parking meets Edina's code, but
he acknowledged it does spill out. He added this is believed to be happening because of the
construction, but a parking improvement has been approved for the location.
Member/ Commissioner Kelly said that his only regret with the proposed redevelopment
was that the bus garage has not been included. He acknowledged that the City cannot force
th e school district to relocate the bus garage. Member/ Commissioner Kelly said he
believed the proposed redevelopment was well designed and thought out. He added that
one of the advantages of being a long time Edina resident is that he knows Mr. Clark, Mr.
Brown and Mr. Lund and had a great deal of respect for their professional judgement and
their strong history of positive development. Member/ Commissioner Kelly stated he
understood the neighbor's concern regarding the proposed buildings' height, but the site
must be developed. This plan is as good as any plan that has been previously presented. He
said it was a fact that the park is being increased in size and he believes the people of the
community will be benefited by the ability to walk through the park, the neighborhood,
and the plaza to either the library or the senior center.
Member/ Commissioner Kelly also spoke to the condemnation process. The condemnation
process was designed to provide people with a fair price for their property. It provides, not
only a fair price for the property, but it provides relocation benefits. In his years of practice
in the real estate area, the people who were most opposed to condemnation are those who
are not willing to settle for a fair price. Condemnation is not designed to provide a windfall,
it is an opportunity to find a fair price through the use of a neutral party. As a result,
Member/ Commissioner, Kelly stated he believed condemnation was an important part of
getting the development accomplished. He stated his strong support for the proposed
ru7
redevelopment, noting the strong development team, a well- planned and thought out
proposal, an increase in park land exclusive of the plaza, and added benefits from the
plaza, library and senior center.
Member/ Commissioner Faust stated her concern with the final plan was the residences
and stated the park has not only been made whole, but actually improved.
Member/ Commissioner Faust said that she and Member/ Commissioner Hovland just
measured the plan and the residences will be 200 feet from the lot line of the proposed
condominiums. This seems very adequate and she added her support to the project.
Mayor /Chair Maetzold stated he had very strong concerns about the park. He said he took
to heart the lawn play for older children for soccer, youth baseball and so on. Mayor /Chair
Maetzold expressed his concern for the loss of "playable" area even though the square
footage remains the same or increases. Mayor /Chair Maetzold asked the Park Director to
comment on the loss of the area where pick -up games could be played. Mr. Keprios stated
he also was sympathetic to the neighbors understanding the situation. In the best of all
worlds he would like to see the existing park left alone or added to, however, he also
understands the compromise that has been proposed. As far as the park's function, it is
debatable when you loose the type of linear design you may loose a little bit of that type of
play. In his opinion, the proposed design would be better offering more feeling of openness
than leaving the park in the current configuration crowded by the condominiums.
Reorienting of the park is further limited by the well- house located in the center of the
park. Mayor /Chair Maetzold continued stating that with more participation in soccer this
was a great place for kids in the neighborhood to gather and play. The neighbors are
loosing an important amenity unless it can be replaced somehow. Mayor /Chair Maetzold
indicated that he probably will vote against the plan, because in March he spent some time
in Washington D.C. lobbying in favor of Denali National Park. One issue was about ten
acres that was attempting to be preserved from commercial development so in his heart he
supports preserving park land and for this reason does not support the plan.
Member/ Commissioner Hovland noted the proposed redevelopment plan is very complex.
The plan has all the elements asked for in the RFP. He added the problems created tonight
came _ about because of the library's need to have greater visibility. This has caused
problems that no one foresaw. Member/ Commissioner Hovland stated he had one
problem and that was in November when Ron Clark was asked what would happen if the
proposed redevelopment needed to be downsized. Mr. Clark answered that they would
have to modify their proposal and develop in the best interest of the City. He stated he
found it troubling that now the developer must have the neck of the park in order to make
the development viable. Member/ Commissioner Hovland questioned whether the decision
should be pushed back and an attempt made to solve the problem. If the library is the core
problem, then maybe the library staff should be spoken with. If forced to vote he would,
because he finds Member/ Commissioners Kelly and Faust arguments compelling but also
finds merits in the Mayor /Chair's concerns. He added that perhaps the Wanner property
should be included in the redevelopment at this time.
Member/ Commissioner Johnson said that when he was appointed to the City Council they
had already decided that redevelopment was needed with the site. After a deliberative
9
process, the Council (without Member/ Commissioner Johnson) determined the best use of
the redevelopment property would be a mixed use development. Member/ Commissioner
Johnson got involved about the time the City had eleven RFP's from eleven developers. The
Council narrowed them down to three finalists and after much discussion unanimously
voted in favor of the Opus /Clark team because of their proposal, reputations, and past
experience. Member/ Commissioner Johnson said he personally checked with the City
Attorney of the City of Minnetonka that the proponent had done an outstanding job in
attempting to meet the needs of their city and its citizens. From what he had heard today,
there has been an effort by the developer to accommodate the needs of the City and
respond to the neighbors concern within the constraints of the land available. It is hoped
that with re- grading and reconfiguration; a more desirable park will be available for the
residents. Coupling this with the ability to walk through the property over to the library,
there appears to have been an enhancement. Member/ Commissioner Johnson stated he
also checked with someone knowledgeable in this area, as to the effect over time on the
value of the homes in the Richmond Hills neighborhood. His source's opinion was that
over time the values would be increased. Member/ Commissioner Johnson added that in
his opinion, the developer has dealt with the business in an above -board manner. He added
that he also is concerned about the height issue on the residences and the "tunnel effect ".
The proposal seems a very reasonable plan. Member/ Commissioner Johnson said he
believed the process the Council started was rational, that due notice has been given to all,
and that uncertainty is very undesirable from a business standpoint. For these reasons, to
delay the decision is not in the City's or the developers best interest.
Member/ Commissioner Johnson said he intends to vote in favor of the proposal.
Member/ Commissioner Faust commented that she and Member/ Commissioner Kelly
have been looking at the proposed redevelopment property for three years. The decision
was not made easily, they have been wrestling with it for a long time. She acknowledged
hearing from the neighbors and from eleven developers so this was not an easy decision.
Member/ Commissioner Hovland acknowledged the height concern expressed by
Member/ Commissioner Johnson. In November of 1999, no one had expressed any concern
over height. At that time it was a non - issue. Member/ Commissioner Hovland said that he
found Member/ Commissioner Johnson's comments persuasive and in spite of having
tremendous difficulty he would also vote in favor of the project moving forward.
HRA Actions
Mr. Hughes noted that the "Redevelopment Agreement" was provided for informational
purposes only. The agreement is still in the process of being redrafted and will be presented
to the HRA when the final rezoning is presented June 20, 2000. The other items that can be
acted on this evening would be to accept the Assignment of the Purchase Agreement for
5201 Eden Circle. By accepting that assignment, the HRA would be agreeing to acquire the
5201 Eden Circle property which is commonly known as the TAGs property even if this
development did not receive the final approval at the June 20, 2000, meeting. This means
the City would be taking on the responsibility of to acquiring the property.
Mr. Hughes said the Indemnification Agreement relates to the condemnation resolution.
Staff recommended adopting the Indemnification Agreement before the resolution because
10
• the developers would be indemnifying the HRA from any claims resulting from the
condemnation of other properties; and any action taken by the property owners relative to
the condemnation even if the project was later abandoned by the HRA because it did not
proceed.
Mr. Hughes explained that the condemnation resolutions would apply to all four pieces of
property in the area even though one of the properties, 5201 Eden Circle, would have a
negotiated purchase. Lastly, the Land Exchange Agreement where Hennepin County and
the City would agree to exchange the new library for the old library. Mr. Hughes said this
agreement has a number of contingencies that would need satisfaction. The contingencies
include: county approval of the construction plans for the new building and various
condominium documents that will not occur until later this summer. Hennepin County has
not yet approved the exchange, but the City, by approving the exchange, moves it onto the
Board's agenda for consideration in June.
Member/ Commissioner Faust asked if voting on the condemnation was a vote for a quick -
take condemnation or any kind of condemnation the developer requests. Mr. Hughes said
that specifics on any actual proceedings will be brought back for review. The intent at this
point was to adopt the resolution, but to still acquire the property through negotiation. At
this time it is not known if some properties will require the 90 -day action or whether the
longer process will be followed.
Commissioner Kelly made a motion to accept and approve the Indemnification
Agreement as prepared and drafted by staff. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion.
Rollcall:
Ayes: Faust, Hovland, Johnson, Kelly, Maetzold
Motion carried.
Commissioner Kelly made a motion to accept and approve the Assignment Purchase
Agreement for 5201 Eden Circle as prepared and drafted by staff. Commissioner Faust
seconded the motion.
Rollcall:
Ayes: Faust, Hovland, Johnson, Kelly, Maetzold
Motion carried.
Commissioner Kelly introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
HRA RESOLUTION NO. 2000-3
RESOLUTION OF CONDEMNATION
WHEREAS, it is necessary, advisable, and in the public interest that the Housing
and Redevelopment Authority of Edina, Minnesota (the "HRA"), a body politic and
corporate under the laws of the State of Minnesota, acquire for redevelopment purposes,
and pursuant to the redevelopment plan entitled, "Grandview Area Redevelopment
Plan" dated May 30, 1984, approved by the HRA on June 18, 1984, as amended by
amendments approved by the HRA on April 7, 1997, and December 7, 1999, (as so
amended, the "Redevelopment Plan ") and a redevelopment project being undertaken
pursuant thereto (the "Redevelopment Project "), property within the area subject to the
Grandview Redevelopment Plan; and
11
WHEREAS, in order to accomplish the objectives and purposes set out in the If
Redevelopment Plan and the Redevelopment Project, it is necessary that the properties
described on Exhibit A attached hereto and hereby made a part be redeveloped; and
WHEREAS, the HRA has been advised that said property will not be made
available for redevelopment in a manner that would allow the HRA to undertake the
Redevelopment Project and meet the objectives and purposes of the Redevelopment
Plan and the Redevelopment Project unless it is acquired by eminent domain; and
WHEREAS, in order to undertake the Redevelopment Project and provide for the
redevelopment of said property in a manner that would meet the objectives and
purposes of the Redevelopment Plan and Redevelopment Project, it will be necessary to
procure the same by the right of eminent domain.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that in order to undertake the
Redevelopment Project and provide for the redevelopment of the property described on
Exhibit A hereto in a manner that would meet the objectives and purposes of the
Redevelopment Plan and Redevelopment Project the HRA proceed to acquire the
property described on Exhibit A hereto and all interests therein under its power of
eminent domain; and that the attorneys for the HRA be instructed and directed to file
the necessary petition or petitions therefor and to prosecute such action or actions to a
successful conclusion, or until it is abandoned, dismissed or terminated by the HRA or
the Court; and that the attorneys for the HRA, the Director and Executive Director of the
HRA and the Chairman and Secretary of the HRA do all things necessary to be done in
the commencement, prosecution and successful termination of such eminent domain
proceedings.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that it is hereby found and declared that the
acquisition of the property described on Exhibit A hereto and all interests therein by the
HRA under its power of eminent domain is necessary to redevelop blighted and
substandard areas in the area subject to the Grandview Redevelopment Plan.
EXHIBIT A
5201 EDEN CIRCLE
Lot 3, Block 1, Wanner Addition, together with an easement over and
across the south 25 feet of Lot 2, Block 1, Wanner Addition, according to
the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
5244 EDEN CIRCLE
All of Lot 7, Block 1, and that part of Lots 5 and 6, Block 1, Edenmoor,
Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying North and East of the Northerly line
of Eden Circle (formerly known as Downing Street) as described in
Document No. 31643311;
Also, the Southerly six feet of Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Edenmoor, Hennepin
County, Minnesota.
523 7 EDEN A VENUE
Lot 2, Block 1, Edenmoor, Hennepin County, Minnesota, except the south
six feet thereof, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County,
Minnesota.
5241 EDEN AVENUE
Lot 3, Block 1, Edenmoor, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin
County, Minnesota.
Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion.
12
Rollcall:
Ayes: Faust, Hovland, Johnson, Kelly, Maetzold
Motion carried.
Commissioner Kelly made a motion granting City staff the authority to proceed in the
process with Hennepin County to pursue the land exchange as presented in the proposal
prepared by staff. Commissioner Faust seconded the motion.
Rollcall:
Ayes: Faust, Hovland, Johnson, Kelly, Maetzold
Motion carried.
Mr. Hughes noted the redevelopment will go back to the Planning Commission at their
May 31, 2000, meeting and come back to the HRA /City Council at their meeting, June 20,
2000.
CLAIMS PAID Motion made by Commissioner Johnson approving the Check Register
dated May 10, 2000, and consisting of one page totaling $541,261.59. Commissioner Kelly
seconded the motion.
Rollcall:
Ayes: Faust, Hovland, Johnson, Kelly, Maetzold
Motion carried.
There being no further business on the HRA Agenda, Chair Maetzold declared the joint meeting
adjourned at 9:20 P.M.
Executive Director
13
COUNCIL
CHECK k-�ISTER
31 -MAY -2000 (1, ,) page 1
CHECK NO
DATE
CHECK AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT PO NUM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13544
06/06/00
$324.00
BRAUN INTERTEC
CONCRETE TESTING
189493
CENTENNIAL LAK
PARKS
< *>
$324.00*
13545
06/06/00
$20,990.98
BRW INC.
ARCHITECT FEES
515 -0015
CENTENNIAL LAK
PRO
FEE ARCH /E
06/06/00
$7,388.68
BRW INC.
ARCHITECT FEES
515 -0023
CENTENNIAL LAK
PRO
FEE ARCH /E
< *>
$28,379.66*
13546
06/06/00
$18,122.50
DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
LEGAL FEES
777445
GRANDVIEW
PRO
FEES LEG /S
06/06/00
$524.89
DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
LEGAL FEES
777445
CENTENNIAL LAK
PRO
FEES LEG /S
< *>
$18,647.39*
13547
06/06/00
$1,656.25
EHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC
GRANDVIEW TIF CONSULT
17292
GRANDVIEW
PROFESSIONAL S
< *>
$1,656.25*
13548
06/06/00
$12.66
RITZ CAMERA CENTERS
FILM PROCESSING
03750427
50TH STREET
PRO
FEE ARCH /E 4759
< *>
$12.66*
13549
06/06/00
$32.20
WALKER PARKING CONSULTAN
WASTE MGMT DESIGN SER
211064
50TH STREET
PRO
FEE ARCH /E
06/06/00
$1,435.49
WALKER PARKING CONSULTAN
49 -1/2 ST. RAMP DESIG
211065
50TH STREET
PRO
FEE ARCH /E
< *>
$1,467.69*
$50,487.65*
COUNCIL CHECK SUMMARY
31 -MAY -2000 (16:40) page 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FUND # 01 HOUSING & REDEVELOP AUTHOR $50,487.65
$50;487.65*
40-
e CA Celebrating
VIVO
(Groundbreaking 1972)
eve vats
Fun Run /Walk
Magic Island in Pool
25th Anniversary Celebration
Magic Show
Climbing Wall
Crafts
Caricature Artist
Carnival Games & Face Painting
Story Time
Bingo
Button Making
Teddy Bear Band
pect
�5 years of
* �espows�eact�
It's a Celebration!
Join us on...
Saturday
June 17,, 2000
Noon -5:00 p.m.
�u�pwgDW�,�V�
Moog. wq
Southdale YMCA 7355 York Ave S.1 !Edina IMN 55435
Phone -- (952) 835 -2567
v
YMCA
We build strong kids.
strong lamilies, strong communities.
o
1888
A PROCLAMATION.
WHEREAS, the mission of the YMCA is, "To develop the total person — spirit, mind and body — through character
development programs that build strong kids, strong families and strong communities "; and
WHEREAS, hallmarks of the YMCA are Caring, Honesty, Respect and Responsibility, and these Christian
principles have been put into practice in YMCA programs for 150 years, operating in 90 countries; and
WHEREAS, the YMCA has specially designated teams that visit businesses, schools, service and health
organizations and churches to share knowledge and experience, promoting the people, facilities and programs
of the Southdale YMCA; and
WHEREAS, locally, the Southdale branch of the YMCA originated in 1937 as the Washburn YMCA, and in
1975 was re- located to 7355 York Avenue South; and
WHEREAS, the YMCA has a history of providing the community financial assistance to welcome anyone to
participate in its programs and services; and
WHEREAS, service of the Southdale YMCA goes. far beyond the boundaries of Edina including
Bloomington, Eden Prairie, Richfield and South Minneapolis; and
WHEREAS, the YMCA has assisted in founding many internationally known civic organizations: Scouts,
Campfire, USO, Toastmasters and has served as a model for the Peace Corps; and sports with the invention
of basketball in 1891 and volleyball in 1895; and
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Dennis F. Maetzold, Mayor of the City of Edina, do hereby proclaim June 17, 2000,
as a day of celebration in honor of the
25th ANNIVERSARY OF THE SOUTHDALE YMCA
in the City of Edina to recognize the positive contributions made by the "Y" to our quality of life.
Mayor Dennis F. Maetzold
i
MINUTES OF THE JOINT MEETING
OF EDINA CITY COUNCIL AND THE
EDINA HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
HELD AT CITY HALL
MAY 16, 2000 - 7:00 P.M.
A joint meeting of the Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority and the City Council was
convened to consider the actions needed to proceed with redevelopment of Grandview Square.
Action was taken by the HRA and the City Council as recorded.
ROLLCALL Answering rollcall were Members Faust, Hovland, Johnson, Kelly, and Mayor
Maetzold.
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS APPROVED Motion made by Member Hovland and seconded
by Member Johnson approving the Council Consent Agenda as presented.
Rollcall:
Ayes: Faust, Hovland, Johnson, Kelly, Maetzold
Motion carried.
NATIONAL PUBLIC WORKS WEEK, MAY 21 -27, 2000 PROCLAIMED Mayor Maetzold
explained that public works services in the City are an important part of our everyday lives.
Motion made by Member Hovland, seconded by Member Faust introducing the following
proclamation and moving its adoption:
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, public works services provided in our community are an integral part of
our citizens' everyday lives; and
WHEREAS, the support of an understanding and informed citizenry is vital to the
efficient operation of public works systems and programs such as water, sewers, streets and
highways and public buildings; and
WHEREAS, the health, safety and comfort of this.community greatly depends on these
facilities and services; and
WHEREAS, the quality and effectiveness of these facilities, as well as their planning,
design and construction, is vitally dependent on the efforts and skill of public works officials;
and
WHEREAS, the efficiency of the qualified and dedicated personnel who staff public
works departments is materially influenced by the people's attitude and understanding of the
importance of the work they perform; and
WHEREAS, the City of Edina public works staff has planned an Open House for 4 - 7
P.M. Thursday, May 18 at the public works building, to educate the public; and
NOW, THEREFORE, I , Dennis F. Maetzold, Mayor of the City of Edina, do hereby
proclaim the week of May 21- 27 as
NATIONAL PUBLIC WORKS WEEK,
in the City of Edina and call upon all citizens and civic organizations to acquaint themselves
with the issues involved in providing public works services and recognize the contributions
the Public Works officials make every day to our health, safety, comfort and quality of life.
Dated the 16th day of May, 2000.
Ayes: Faust, Hovland, Johnson, Kelly, Maetzold
Motion carried.
Page 1
Minutes/Edina City Council/May 16, 2000
r
*MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF MAY 2, 2000, APPROVED Motion made by
Member Hovland and seconded by Member Johnson approving the Minutes of the Regular
Meeting of May 2, 2000.
Motion carried on rollcall vote 'five, ayes.
PRELIMINARY REZONING AND OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN - OPUS /CLARK -
GRANDVIEW SQUARE APPROVED Affidavits of Notice were presented, approved and
ordered placed on file.
Staff Presentation
Manager Hughes reviewed the actions needed: to review the preliminary rezoning and overall
development plan; to consider and approve an indemnity agreement and a condemnation
resolution with respect to the acquisition of parcels; to approve a land exchange agreement with
Hennepin County with respect to the Library; and lastly to accept the assignment of a purchase
agreement for the 5201 Eden Circle building. Mr. Hughes added that the Council.had been
provided with a draft redevelopment agreement for review purposes, however, staff
recommended no action on that agreement until the time of final zoning of the redevelopment.
Planner Larsen reviewed the actions that had occurred. regarding the development thus far. He
stated the initial action occurred November 1, 1999; when the City Council /HRA awarded the
redevelopment rights to a team made up of Opus Northwest LLC and Ron Clark, Inc. Following
that award and the Letter of Intent being signed in December of 1999, the developer began to
develop plans to rezone the property for the necessary City approvals. The first of the City
approvals would be the preliminary rezoning and approval of the overall development plan for
the site. Currently, the project area includes all non - residential properties south of Eden Avenue,
and west of the railroad tracks. Using a graphic depiction Mr. Larsen, showed the properties that
are currently owned by the HRA and Zoned R -1. He also showed the two properties that have
been Zoned commercial PCD -2, the one property which was zoned office and the industrial
parcel. The redevelopment proposal would take all of the properties and rezone them to Mixed
Development District No. 4 which is a medium density mixed development district. The original
plan contained 80,000 square feet of office space, 190 condominium units, a 20,000 square foot
library and a 15,000 square foot senior center. At the end of March, the Planning Commission
reviewed a site plan that had one change from the original. The library and senior center moved
to the west and became a two -story building with the senior center on the lower level and the
library on top, each at 20,000 square feet. The Planning Commission recommended approval
with several conditions as outlined in the Council packet. Mr. Larsen said the Park Board
reviewed the plan April 11, 2000. At staff's request the Park Board consideration was limited to
the impact of the proposed development on Sherwood Park. Both the Planning Commission and
Park Board have made similar recommendations to the City Council, asking that the developer
address the site plan and attempt to minimize the impact on the existing park. The developer has
spent the time between April 11 and May 16, 2000, redesigning their site plan. He explained the
modified site plan presented by the developers was intended to address the concerns raised by
the Planning Commission and Park Board. Mr. Larsen reported the plan has been modified by
removing 18 condominium units from the project and shifting the remaining units back from the
park as much as possible; increasing the office building to 88,000 square feet. The library and
senior center remain the same. Mr. Larsen said the action necessary was the overall development
Page 2
Minutes/Edina City Council/May 16, 2000
plan and preliminary rezoning. He added that the Planning Commission recommended the
following eleven conditions of approval:
1. Final Rezoning;
2. Final Plat;
3. Final Site Plan approval for each phase;
4. Development Agreement between the City, Hennepin County and Grandview Square
LLC;
5. Developer's Agreement covering public improvements;
6. Watershed District Permits;
7. City Engineer approval of Eden Avenue curb cuts;
8. Road adjacent to park /plaza and senior center should be changed from one -way to
two -way;
9. Eliminate parking on southerly cul ,de sac to provide turnaround for emergency
vehicles;
10. Maintain access to well house; and
11. Staff and developer should work to revise site plan to preserve as much of the park as
possible in its present location and size.
Mr. Larsen noted that conditions 8 -11 had been addressed, in the opinion of staff, in the revised
site plan presently before the council.
Proponent Presentation
Heidi Kurtze, Project Development Manager, Ron Clark Construction, said she had the entire
development team available to answer any questions. Ms. Kurtze reviewed the goals of the City
that were part of its RFP process: create a multi- purpose neighborhood in a key area of
redevelopment for the City; create a senior center for Edina; create a new library enabling the
City to expand and renovate City Hall; create a European village "feel" in the redeveloped area;
and creation of a stronger more vital tax base in the Grandview area. Creation of the senior center
was of high importance in the redevelopment. The new library will allow Hennepin County to
take advantage of the technological changes and improve their parking situation. Ms. Kurtze said
these were a great number of objectives to accomplish with a small amount of land and limited
resources. Ms. Kurtze said she believed the Opus /Ron Clark team was chosen because of their
long standing reputation and the strength of their financial commitment to the City.
The project financing does tie into the site plan development. The developer will be making a
$3,700,000 equity contribution to the project. The funds will be used to retire 1997 bonds issued to
pay for acquisition of .the Kunz /Lewis properties. The funds also help cover the public costs
associated with the new development of the library/ senior center, public administrative costs,
and public improvements on the site. New bonds will be issued to pay for the construction of the
library and senior center. The developer's note will be subordinate to the City's bonds, meaning
the City has minimal risk, being in the senior position to be paid back when the taxes come on
line. Tax increment is being used to cover the site improvements and acquisition costs, but this is
limited to a ten -year period. The district expires in 2010 which puts some constraints on the
project, but is a benefit to the City since due to the short life the developer is only being
reimbursed for a portion of site improvements. The project, when complete, will create over a
million dollars in annual taxes. Ms. Kurtze said that the short life of the tax increment district and
the land area to be redeveloped have put constraints on the developer in both the timing of
construction and the project's design.
Page 3
Minutes/Edina Ci!y Council/May 16, 2000
Ms. Kurtze reviewed the five site plans beginning with the plan submitted as part of the RFP
process. Originally Opus /Clark proposed 190 residential units with 80,000 square feet of office.
The senior center and library were on one level side by side over the bus garage. Also below the
office building, plaza and public space, a very large underground public /private parking area
housing the Edina School District's bus garage. While this plan allowed the developer to become
a finalist, they were asked to reconsider the use of the park land. Opus /Clark shifted the 190
residential units out of the park entirely which substantially reduced the central plaza area. The
senior center /library and bus garage remained relatively unchanged in the plan, but the office
building was turned to the side as well as the residential area re- oriented towards the north side
of Eden Circle.
Upon selection as the developer, several changes to the site plan occurred. The bus garage issue
was eliminated from the plan. This eliminated the need for the underground structured parking.
Hennepin County expressed the need for a more prominent location on the site with greater
visibility and access from Vernon Avenue. Therefore, the plan flipped the office and senior
center /library putting them on the western portion of the site. The traffic and City Engineer
recommended two access points instead of one for the park. The first plan had one entrance for
the residential space and one for the senior center /library office space. Providing two accesses
would allow for better circulation but, resulted in separate parking areas for the office and senior
center /library; and forced the residential units south into Sherwood Park's western edge. This
was the plan submitted with the Letter of Intent to the City Council in 1999. Ms. Kurtze stated
that she personally sent this plan along with a letter to all the Richmond Hills neighborhood
group in December. She added she also used this plan for her presentation to the Vernon Terrace
residents in January. Ms. Kurtze stated the developer did not receive any verbal or written
feedback so the plan was refined until it was presented to the March 2000, Planning Commission.
Ms. Kurtze reported that the fourth plan expanded the plaza area and created a link between the
plaza and Sherwood Park. This link shifted the housing slightly into the park. The plan met with
considerable objection from the neighborhood group. The neighborhood asked that the
developer leave the play area (tot lot), leave the backstop in place, and eliminate the housing
units on the western edge of the park. The Planning Commission did approve the plan, but asked
the developer to work to minimize impact on the park noting that eliminating any use of the park
would be desirable. Ms. Kurtze said the developers have revised the plan to the one which is.
before the Council. The plan reduced the residential units to 170, increased the office building to
88,000 square feet, while leaving the library and senior center the same. She said that a small
section of the park (.33 acres) along the western edge of the parking has still been incorporated
into the residential development. However, that land has been replaced within Sherwood Park
by adding green -space where Eden Circle currently sits. The redesign results in a net gain to the
park, but in a different configuration. The developer believes the current plan meets the
redevelopment objectives and responds to the Planning Commission and Park Board requests,
while still maintaining a financially viable development. Ms. Kurtze said the plan was presented
to the Park Director, and she reported, he agreed with the new configuration. She added the
developer believes the plaza area depicted on this last site plan is very important to the new
residential and office development. Library staff have indicated excitement about potentially
holding children's reading time in the plaza. Specific programming has not been determined, but
the developer intends to work closely with the Park Department to develop its plans for passive
use.
Page 4
Minutes/Edina City Council/May 16, 2000
Ms. Kurtze acknowledged that comments will be received from people who do not support the
proposed overall development plan, but she said in her opinion, much of this discontent is in
response to any change to the redevelopment area and not to one specific plan or another. Ms.
Kurtze asked the Council to remember that many people who will benefit from this development
will not be heard, citing the developer's waiting list of 92 names for the residential development.
She said 75 of those people are current Edina residents who want to move out of their homes, but
stay in Edina.
Member Kelly asked for confirmation of his understanding that the site plan results in an
increase in park land. Jack Buxell confirmed that before the . redevelopment the park had
13,500.01 square feet and after development the park will have 13,680.45 square feet. Mr. Hughes
reviewed the change in the parkland using an aerial photograph of the area.
Member Faust said she had several questions. Would the development require a parking
variance? Mr. Larsen replied the plan met Edina's . code requirements for parking. Do City
standards allow a public street to have a median strip and trees; and could someone explain the
street circulation? Mr. Buxell explained the access/ egress points to the development and pointed
out the internal circulation. Member Faust stated she had understood that Opus would be
constructing the senior center and library. Mr. Hughes answered that under the redevelopment
agreement they would be the construction manager of the senior center and library and provide
to the HRA a guaranteed maximum cost. However, under state law, they would still have to
publicly bid the components, but would serve as the architect and construction manager.
Member Faust asked what components of the development would be built during Phase One
and Phase Two and the proposed time table. Ms. Kurtze said that Phase One is the office
building and forty units of the first residential building, to be started fall of 2000 and completed
by. December 2001. Phase Two would be the remaining 32 units of the first building, the
beginning of the second building, and the senior center/ library. Phase Two is planned to begin
construction during 2001 completed by December of 2002. Phases Three and Four would be the
completion of the remainder of the residential development if everything goes well in 2004.
Member Faust asked if more units, were sold up front would the construction schedule be moved
forward. Ms. Kurtze said that could be a possibility, but would be unlikely because of the volume
of individual options to the construction. Member Faust asked if the NURP ponds are adequate
for the site. Engineer Hoffman answered that a preliminary review from the watershed districts
indicate they are adequate.
Member Kelly asked if the environmental studies will delay construction. Ms. Kurtze stated the
Phase II's have been completed, however, there are issues, but the developer will hopefully know
the parameters and needs by June. Member Kelly asked when the plaza will be developed. Ms.
Kurtze answered the plaza will be developed during Phase One.
Member Hovland asked the developer what would be the effect on the proposed redevelopment
if the existing configuration of Sherwood Park was not altered as proposed. Ms. Kurtze said the
development would loose an additional 30 residential units which could not be recouped by
another increase in the office building. The office building as proposed is as large as can be
supported by parking on the site. The loss of thirty more units would most likely preclude the
developer's ability to proceed with the project due to the additional loss of potential taxes.
Member Hovland expressed concern to the City Attorney about the indemnification agreement,
Page 5
Minutes/Edina City Council/May 16, 2000
regarding the relocation costs. Attorney Gilligan explained the indemnification agreement had
been amended since the Council's packet was sent out.
Mayor Maetzold asked if the developer were to leave the existing park as is, could a story be
added to the east residential building. Ms. Kurtze explained the buildings were as high as they
can be using wood frame construction. Beyond four stories construction switches to commercial
code which adds substantial costs which would make the project not financially feasible. Mayor
Maetzold asked for specific perimeter descriptions of the north side and east side of the park in
terms of landscaping and a potential sidewalk. Mr. Buxell said that the buildings have about
fourteen feet of patio located eight feet from the edge of the sidewalk. There will be an eight -foot
landscaping space' between the edge of the building side of the sidewalk and the structure
leaving the 14 -foot patio area that will most likely include plantings. Wally Case, landscape
architect, explained that along that edge is a common sidewalk. serving both the residents and
people using the park. They also have a combination of over -story deciduous canopy trees along
the sidewalk. There are some existing trees the developer will attempt to preserve along the edge
and along the edge of the residential area. In addition, there will be lower shrub plantings to
further separate the park from the residential area. Mayor Maetzold asked what the height of the
trees would be that are to be planted. Mr. Case replied the landscaping will meet the City code
requirements with respect, to percentage of small trees. They will range from 2" caliper to 51/2 "
caliper trees. He said the larger trees will be selectively placed primarily to the perimeter of the
project. Flexibility is needed in utilizing the smaller trees since they actually grow better due to
less transplant shock. Mayor Maetzold asked if a person stood in the middle of .the park would
the feeling be that of a' park or as part of the residential development. Mr. Case replied that once
the trees get growing well, a person would be surrounded by large trees. He pointed out that
there are trees already in existence on the north and western sides of the park. Eventually the
deciduous trees will be 40 -60 feet high. There will also be a heavy planting of coniferous trees
approximately six to eight feet in height, on the site.
Public Comment
John Menke, 5301 Pinewood Trail, stated that he could not support the rezoning until the
Sherwood Park issue is resolved. Mr. Menke said there are 48 houses in Richmond Hills and
these residents do not want any land taken from Sherwood Park. He added they do not agree
with the developer's statement that the latest plan results in a net gain of parkland. Mr. Menke
stated Richmond Hills supports redevelopment, however, they are gravely concerned about
loosing Sherwood Park. Mr. Menke said that when the City received RFP's originally, in October
of 1997, the proposals were supposed to be compatible with the existing and surrounding
neighborhood. The current Grandview Square proposal has multifamily housing 50 -54 feet in
height, next to existing single family homes. Mr. Menke said that the letter he received from
Heidi Kurtze did not include any graphic depiction of the site plan as Ms. Kurtze had previously
stated. Mr. Menke said that Sherwood Park is very important to the Richmond Hills
neighborhood because of all the neighborhood play that happens in it. The part of the park that
Grandview Square will take is the only flat area and is used often by older children (even adults)
to play soccer, football, baseball, etc. Mr. Menke urged the Council to not rezone or approve the
redevelopment until Sherwood Park is left alone.
Art Heiam, 5205 Richwood Drive, stated that he wanted it pointed out that Heidi Kurtze's letter
states that only a few neighbors are concerned. Mr. Heiam said that Sherwood Park will be
Page 6
Minutes/Edina City Council/May 16, 2000
devastated. He added that because of the slope, the land lost was virtually the only area that
children could play any sort of game.
Steve Loehr, 5216 Richwood Drive, asked if the current park was going to be taken, then
expanded with land from Eden Circle how would it be configured and who would be the
planned users of the expanded park.
Dr. Dan Shebuski, Edina Pet Hospital, 5237 Eden Avenue, stated he had owned the pet hospital
since 1976. Dr. Shebuski added that he invited the Council and City staff to visit his hospital to
see the type of operation it is, but no one came to see him. Dr. Shebuski added that he recently
hired another veterinarian with the thought of selling him the practice and retiring. Now,
because Dr. Shebuski s building is being taken against his will, he is not only loosing his
livelihood, but also his retirement. The Edina Pet Hospital is one of 26 veterinary practices within
a six -mile radius. He said that statistics show 86% of the people choose a vet hospital based upon
location. Therefore, moving him to another location, damages his practice. Dr. Shebuski said he
needs to continue his business in the same area and that he needs to own the land and building.
Jack Abrahamson, 5209 Richwood Drive, said it would be extremely difficult to endorse the
proposed redevelopment. Mr. Abrahamson said that in his experience OPUS was a very fine
company, but the proposed redevelopment puts 47-48 homes into a tunnel. He added that a
problem exists now with parking on Sherwood because of the doctors' office in the Edina Realty
building. This problem will increase with the proposed redevelopment. Mr. Abrahamson said if
there is an increase in green space there is a loss of playable area. He added that the four homes
abutting the park are in the TIF District. Attorney Gilligan corrected Mr. Abrahamson, stating no
residential homes are in the TIF District. Mr. Abrahamson concluded asking that because of the
traffic problem, the loss of parkland and the lack of sympathy on the part of the developers to the
adjacent neighborhood, the Council should not rezone the property, but look again at different
redevelopment plans.
Jean Shebuski, said that she and her husband are asking the redevelopment be delayed. She said
they have lived through seven months of extreme hardship and that the developers have not
been negotiating in good faith. Mrs. Shebuski contended they were offered less for their pet
hospital than they paid twenty-five years ago. She believes a new plan should be submitted that
includes the pet hospital.
Pat Olk, 5315 Pinewood Trail, commented that it appears the problem with the site is that the
Edina Bus Garage is not included. Mr. Olk asked if the City could somehow make the Edina
School District relocate the bus garage. Mayor Maetzold said that was a very complex issue that
has been attempted to be resolved for many years.
Linda Presthus, explained she was a Park Board member. She informed the neighbors that the
Park Board had reviewed the plan. Ms. Presthus explained her belief that the play area was to be
expanded and the entire park re- graded.
Judith Menke, 5301 Pirewood Trail, said she felt insulted as a neighbor by Ms. Kurtz' s. assertion
that the neighbors are objecting to any change. The Richmond Hills neighborhood has attempted
to stay informed because they realize that the property must be redeveloped. However,
Sherwood Park, needs to accommodate children from toddlers to teens and as proposed, use by
Page 7
Minutes/Edina Citv Council/May 16, 2000
older area children will be lost. Mrs. Menke stated the Richmond Hills neighborhood would like
to stay actively involved in the development, but the developer has not listened to the
neighborhood.
Margery Peters, 5120 Duggan Plaza expressed her concern over the redevelopment.
Rod Krause, attorney for Ed Noonan, stated he wanted the Council to understand that the
proposed redevelopment should not involve Ed Noonan's building. Mr. Krause asked the
Council to revisit the scale of the project. He added that Mr. Noonan was very concerned, about
the tuning of the proposed redevelopment. Mr. Krause said they were unable to get a response
from the developer's representatives. They need a firm understanding of the project's time table.
Leonard Hadden, President of Cross Technology, 5201 Eden Avenue, explained his firm has 40
employees working three shifts a day. Mr. Hadden said he would be willing to re- locate, but it
will be difficult to do so. He said he sympathized with the neighbors. Mr. Hadden said in his
opinion the biggest users of the park are the TAGS' mothers waiting for children who are taking
gymnastics and his own Cross employees. He urged the Council to make a decision and move forward because in his opinion, businesses do not survive in a period of great uncertainty.
Council Discussion and Action
Member Johnson made a motion closing the public hearing at 8:45 p.m. Member Kelly
seconded the motion.
Ayes: Faust, Hovland, Johnson, Kelly, Maetzold.
Motion carried.
Member Faust asked staff what kind of park Sherwood Park was and if it is currently, designed
for softball? Park Director Keprios explained it was considered a mini -park, two acres or less
and not scheduled with any activities such as softball. The park serves the neighborhood for. a
one - quarter mile radius. The park is designed to allow younger children to play, but he said it
would not be adequate for baseball organized activities. He continued stating that in his
professional opinion the proposed layout will offer the best design in light of the proposed
redevelopment and the existing parkland. Member Faust continued asking if the parking was
studied when the medical office building was relocated. Mr. Larsen said the parking meets
Edina's code, but he acknowledged it does spill out. He added this is believed to be happening
because of the construction, but a parking improvement has been approved for the location.
Member Kelly said that his only regret with the proposed redevelopment was that the bus garage
has not been included. He acknowledged that the City cannot force the school district to relocate
the bus garage. Member Kelly said he believed the proposed redevelopment was well designed
and thought out. He added that one of the advantages of being a long time Edina resident is that
he knows Mr. Clark, Mr. Brown and Mr. Lund and had a great deal of respect for their
professional judgement and their strong history of positive development. Member Kelly stated
he understood the neighbor's concern regarding the proposed buildings' height, but the site must
be developed. This plan is as good as any plan that has been previously presented. He said it was
a fact that the park is being increased in size and he believes the people of the community will be
benefited by the ability to walk through the park, the neighborhood, and the plaza to either the
library or the senior center.
Page 8
Minutes/Edina City Council/May 16, 2000
Member Kelly also spoke to the condemnation process. The condemnation process was designed
to provide people with a fair price for their property. It provides, not only a fair price for the
property, but it provides relocation benefits. In his years of practice in the real estate area, the
people who were most opposed to condemnation are those who are not willing to settle for a fair
price. Condemnation is not designed to provide a windfall, it is an opportunity to find a fair price
through the use of a neutral party. As a result, Member Kelly stated he believed condemnation
was an important part of getting the development accomplished. He stated his strong support for
the proposed redevelopment, noting the strong development team, a well- planned and thought
out proposal, an increase in park land exclusive of the plaza, and added benefits from the plaza,
library and senior center.
Member Faust stated her concern with the final plan was -the residences and stated the park has
not only been made whole, but actually improved. Member Faust said that she and Member
Hovland just measured the plan and the residences will be 200 feet from the lot line of the
proposed condominiums. This seems very adequate and she added her support to the project.
Mayor Maetzold stated he had very strong concerns about the park. He said he took to heart the
lawn play for older children for soccer, youth baseball and so on. Mayor Maetzold expressed his
concern for the loss of "playable" area even though the square footage remains the same or
increases. Mayor Maetzold asked the Park Director to comment on the loss of the area where
pick -up games could be played. Mr. Keprios stated he also was sympathetic to the neighbors
understanding the situation. In the best of all worlds he would like to see the existing park left
alone or added to, however, he also understands the compromise that has been proposed. As far
as the park's function, it is debatable when you loose the type of linear design you may loose a
little bit of that type of play. In his opinion, the proposed design would be better offering more
feeling of openness than leaving the park in the current configuration crowded by the
condominiums. Reorienting of the park is further limited by the well- house located in the center
of the park. Mayor Maetzold continued stating that with more participation in soccer this was a
great place for kids in the neighborhood to gather and play. The neighbors are loosing an
important amenity unless it : can be replaced somehow. Mayor Maetzold indicated that he
probably will vote against the plan, because in March he spent some time in Washington D.C.
lobbying in favor of Denali National Park. One issue was about ten acres that was attempting to
be preserved from commercial development so in his heart he supports preserving park land and
for this reason does not support the plan.
Member Hovland noted the proposed redevelopment plan is very complex. The plan has all the
elements asked for in the RFP. He added the problems created tonight came about because of the
library's need to have greater visibility. This has caused problems that no one foresaw. Member
Hovland stated he had one problem and that was in November when Ron Clark was asked what
would happen if the proposed redevelopment needed to be downsized. Mr. Clark answered that
they would have to modify their proposal and develop in the best interest of the City. He stated
he found it troubling that now the developer must have the neck of the park in order to make the
development viable. Member Hovland questioned whether the decision should be pushed back
and an attempt made to solve the problem. If the library is the core problem, then maybe the
library staff should be spoken with. If forced to vote he would, because he finds Members Kelly
and Faust arguments compelling but also finds merits in the Mayor's concerns. He added that
perhaps the Wanner property should be included in the redevelopment at this time.
Page 9
Minutes/Edina City Council/May 16, 2000
Member Johnson said that when he was appointed to the City Council they had already decided
that redevelopment was needed with the site. After a deliberative process, the Council (without
Member Johnson) determined the best use of the redevelopment property would be a mixed use
development. Member Johnson got involved about the time the City had eleven RFP's from
eleven developers. The Council narrowed them down to three finalists and after much discussion
unanimously voted in favor of the Opus /Clark team because of their proposal, reputations, and
past experience. Member Johnson said he personally checked with the City Attorney of the City
of Minnetonka that the proponent had done an outstanding job in attempting to meet the needs
of their city and its citizens. From what he had heard today, there has been an effort by the
developer to accommodate the needs of the City and respond to the neighbors concern within the
constraints of the land available. It is hoped that with re- grading and reconfiguration, a more
desirable park will be available for the residents. Coupling this with the ability to walk through
the property over to the library, there appears to have been an enhancement. Member Johnson
stated he also checked with someone knowledgeable in this area, as to the effect over time on the
value of the homes in the Richmond Hills neighborhood. His source's opinion was that over time
the values would be increased. Member Johnson added that in his opinion, the developer has
dealt with the business in an above -board manner. He added that he also is concerned about the
height issue on the residences and the "tunnel effect ". The proposal seems a very reasonable
plan. Member Johnson said he believed the process the Council started was rational, that due
notice has been given to all, and that uncertainty is very undesirable from a business standpoint.
For these reasons, to delay the decision is not in the City's or the developers best interest.
Member Johnson said he intends to vote in favor of the proposal.
Member Faust commented that she and Member Kelly have been looking at the proposed
redevelopment property for three years. The decision was not made easily, they have been
wrestling with it for a long time. She acknowledged hearing from the neighbors and from eleven
developers so this was not an easy decision.
Member Hovland acknowledged the height concern expressed by Member Johnson. In
November of 1999, no one had expressed any concern over height. At that time it was a non -
issue. Member Hovland said that he found Member Johnson's, comments persuasive and in spite
of having tremendous difficulty he would also vote in favor of the project moving forward.
Member Kelly made a motion granting Preliminary Rezoning (Ordinance No. 850 -A18) to
Mixed Development District (MDD4) to the Eden Avenue Redevelopment Project as
presented at the regular meeting of the City Council on May 16, 2000, based upon the
following conditions:
1. Final Rezoning;
2. Final Plat;
3. Final Site Plan approval for each phase;
4. Development Agreement between the City, Hennepin County and Grandview
Square LLC;
5. Developer's Agreement covering public improvements;
6. Watershed District Permits; and
7. City Engineer approval of Eden Avenue curb cuts.
Member Faust seconded the' motion.
Rollcall:
Ayes: Faust, Hovland, Johnson, Kelly
Page 10
Minutes/Edina City Council/May 16, 2000
Nay: Maetzold
Motion carried.
Member Kelly made a motion introducing the following resolution and moving its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-55
GRANDVIEW SQUARE
OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, that the Overall
Development Plan dated May 11, 2000, by Grandview Square LLC for the Eden Avenue
Redevelopment Project presented at the regular meeting of the City Council on May 16, 2000,
be and is hereby approved with the following conditions:
1. Final Rezoning;
2. Final Plat;
3. Final Site Plan approval for each phase;
4. Development Agreement between the City, Hennepin County and Grandview
Square LLC;
5. Developer's Agreement covering public improvements;
6. Watershed District Permits; and
7. City Engineer approval of Eden Avenue curb cuts.
Member Faust seconded the motion.
Rollcall:
Ayes: Faust, Hovland, Johnson, Kelly
Nay: Maetzold
Motion carried.
Mr. Hughes noted the redevelopment will go back to the Planning Commission at their May 31,
2000, meeting and come back to the HRA /City Council at their meeting, June 20, 2000.
RESOLUTION 2000 -56 APPROVED - GRANTING OLINGER RIDGE ADDITION FINAL
PLAT Affidavits of Notice were presented, approved and ordered placed on file.
Planner Larsen noted that the proponents had met the four conditions imposed April 18, 2000,
when they received preliminary plat approval for Olinger Ridge. Mr. Larsen said staff support
granting final plat approval subject to Subdivision Dedication based on a al land value of
$92,000.00.
Member Johnson introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-56
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, that that certain
plat entitled, "OLINGER RIDGE ", platted by Delores D. Change, and presented at the regular
meeting of the City Council on May 16, 2000, be and is hereby granted final plat approval.
Passed and adopted by the Edina City Council this 16a' day of May, 2000. Member Faust
seconded the motion.
Member Kelly excused himself from the Council Chambers temporarily.
Rollcall:
Ayes: Faust, Hovland, Johnson, Maetzold.
Page 11
Minutes/Edina City Council/May 16, 2000
Resolution adopted
ORDINANCE NO. 2000 -5 ADOPTED AMENDING SECTION 450 SWIMMING POOLS
Sanitarian Velde explained the reason for the proposed ordinance amendment was to bring
Edina's code into compliance with State Statute. The amendment would address three items in
the Swimming Pool Code: spa pool deck elevations, access barriers, and chlorine concentration.
Mr. Velde stated the first section would allow the required deck to be lower than the top rim of a
spa pool. Spa pools are typical 30 to 34 inches in height and no larger than 100 square feet in area.
Mr. Velde said staff believed this relation would not interfere with live saving efforts. The second
section would allow homeowners who have spa pools to use a rated safety cover instead of
fencing to prevent toddlers from accessing the pool. Under the present Code, the homeowner
would be required to fence the spa pool area. An ASTM rated safety cover is acceptable by the
Uniform Building Code as barrier. The third section of the amendment increases maximum
allowable chlorine residual from 3.0 ppm to 5.0 ppm. This is consistent with the state swimming
pool code and the industry standard. He noted Staff added the requirement that spa or pool
covers lock to the ordinance.
Member Faust introduced the following Ordinance and moved granting First Reading with
waiver of Second Reading:
Edina Ordinance No. 2000 - 5
An Ordinance Amending Section 450 of the City Code Changing Deck Requirement, Fencing
Requirements and Updating Water Chemistry Requirements
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDINA ORDAINS:
Section 1. The second paragraph of Subd. 7 of Subsection 450.06 is hereby replaced with the
following:
"Except, a deck is not needed around the perimeter of a special purpose pool providing
the following conditions are met:
A. The pool is accessible from at least one side by a deck.
B. The deck is no less than four feet wide as measured perpendicular to the pool side
and no less than eight feet long as measured parallel with the pool side.
C. The special purpose pool is not located within four feet of a residential swimming
'pool.
D. The deck elevation is no lower than the elevation at the base of the special
purpose pool or no more than 9 inches above the normal water line of the special
purpose pool."
Section 2.- Subd.1 of Subsection 450.16 is amended to read as follows:
"Subd. 1. Free Chlorine. The free chlorine content shall be maintained between five -
tenths (0.5) and five (5.0) parts per million."
Section 3. Subsection 450.24 of the City Code is amended by adding a new last sentence as
follows:
"Except a special purpose pool need not meet the fence requirement provided:
A. The special purpose pool is equipped with a safety cover listed in accordance
with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard F 1346,
"Standard Performance Specification for Safety Covers and Labeling Requirements
for All Covers for Swimming Pools, Spas and Hot Tubs."
B. The safety cover is secured in place at all times the special purpose pool is not
occupied."
Page 12
Minutes/Edina City Council/May 16, 2000
Section 4. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon adoption.
Attest
City Clerk
Member Hovland seconded the motion.
Rollcall:
Ayes: Faust, Hovland, Kelly, Maetzold
Nay: Johnson
Ordinance No. 2000 -5 adopted.
Mayor
ORDINANCE NO. 2000 -6 ADOPTED AMENDING SECTION 740 CHANGING THE
LICENSE TERM FOR PARKING GARAGES Mr. Velde explained that staff is requesting the
change -in the license term for parking garages located in multi- family residential housing. Mr.
Velde stated that they believe more realistic inspection results are obtained during winter months
than during summer months.
Mayor Maetzold made a motion granting First Reading and waiving Second Reading for the
following ordinance:
Edina Ordinance No. 2000 - 6
An Ordinance Amending Section 740
By Changing License Term
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDINA ORDAINS:
Section 1. Section 740.04 Subd. 3 shall be amended to read as follows:
"Subd. 3. Term. Licenses issued pursuant to this Section shall expire on January 318t of
each calendar year."
Section 2. The term of current licensees shall be extended until January 31, 2001.
Section 3. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon adoption.
Attest
City Clerk Mayor
Member Faust seconded the motion.
Rollcall:
Ayes: Faust, Hovland, Johnson, Kelly, Maetzold
Ordinance No. 2000 -6 adopted.
*BID AWARDED FOR TYPE III AMBULANCE FOR FIRE DEPARTMENT Motion made by
Member Hovland and seconded by Member Johnson approving the award of bid for a Type
III Ambulance on a Ford E -350 super duty chassis to lowest recommended bidder meeting
specifications, North Central Ambulance Sales at $98,507.00.
Motion carried on rollcall vote - five ayes.
*BID AWARDED FOR SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS - WEST 62ND STREET LIFT
STATION, FORCEMAIN AND DIVERSION PIPE, CONTRACT NO. 00 -1, ENGINEERING
Motion made by Member Hovland and seconded by Member Johnson for award of bid for
Sanitary Sewer Improvements at West 62nd Street Lift Station, Forcemain and Diversion Pipe,
Contract No. 00 -1, Engineering, to recommended low bidder, Northdale Construction
Company at $898,351.31.
Motion carried on rollcall vote - five ayes.
Page 13
Minutes/Edina City Council/May 16, 2000
*BID AWARDED FOR ONE CARGO VAN FOR PUBLIC WORKS Motion made by Member
Hovland and seconded by Member Johnson for award of bid for one cargo van for Public
Works to sole bidder, Superior Ford through State Contract No. 424727, at $18,066.00.
Motion carried on rollcall vote - five ayes.
*BID AWARDED FOR TWO DUMP TRUCK BOXES - ONE TANDEM AND ONE SINGLE
AXLE FOR PUBLIC WORKS Motion made by Member Hovland and seconded by Member
Johnson for award of bid for two dump truck boxes - one tandem and one single axle for
Public Works to sole bidder, J. Craft, Inc. under State Contract #425123, at $96,344.00.
Motion carried on rollcall vote - five ayes.
*TRAFFIC SAFETY REVIEW OF MAY 1, 2000 APPROVED Motion made by Member
Hovland and seconded by Member Johnson approving the Traffic Safety Staff Review of May
11 2000, Section A as recommended by staff as follows:
1. Installation of NO PARKING ANYTIME sign restricting parking on the east side of
Drew Avenue, south of the driveway at 6533 Drew to West 661h Street;
2. Moving of NO PARKING BEGINS HERE sign from its present location on the
north side of the east driveway entrance to 6400 Barrie Road to a point 21 feet north
of that location;
3. Adding 25 MPH advisory plaques to the present pedestrian awareness signs already
in place on Ayrshire Boulevard at Lochloy Drive for eastbound traffic and on
Ayrshire Boulevard at Duncraig for westbound traffic; and
4. Removal of NO PARKING SCHOOL DAYS 7 A.M. - 9 A.M. signs on Concord
Terrace; and
Section B and C.
Motion carried on rollcall vote - five ayes.
*RESOLUTION NO. 2000 -57 ADOPTED, 1-494 CORRIDOR COMMISSION FUNDING FOR
494/35W INTERCHANGE Motion made by Member Hovland and seconded by Member
Johnson approving the following resolution:
RESOLUTION 2000 -57
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING I-494 CORRIDOR COMMISSION
EFFORTS TO SECURE FEDERAL FUNDS FOR THE
REBUILDING OF THE I- 494/35W INTERCHANGE
WHEREAS, the I -494 Corridor Commission is a joint Powers Organization (JPO)
representing the transportation system concerns of the seven cities of Bloomington, Eden
Prairie, Edina, Maple Grove, Minnetonka, Plymouth and Richfield; and
WHEREAS, the I -494 Corridor Commission represents the transportation interests of 21
percent of the region's employers and 19 percent of the region's residents; and,
WHEREAS, the mission of the I-494 Corridor Commission is to -promote the
improvement of I -494 infrastructure from the Minnesota River to I -94 in order to increase its
people- moving capacity and to improve mobility for businesses and residents throughout the
region; and,
WHEREAS, the I -494 Corridor Commission consistently supports a multi-modal
transportation system approach to exploring initiatives that might benefit the region as a
whole, and continues to actively participate as a member of multiple- jurisdiction
Page 14
Minutes/Edina City Council/May 16, 2000
transportation planning groups, such as the Minnesota Transportation Alliance, that seek
long -term funding solutions for Minnesota's transportation system; and,
WHEREAS, the I494 Corridor Commission is actively involved in planning for the,
needs of its member communities and the region as a whole by proactively developing Travel
Demand Management (TDM) plans and programs that increase 494 vehicle capacity; by
providing employers and developers with incentives that promote alternatives to driving
alone; by planning competitive transit services to employment centers around the corridor; by
adding bus shoulder lanes and high occupancy vehicle (HOV) ramp meter bypasses at
strategic corridor locations; by promoting transit- oriented site planning at new development
and redeveloped areas; by advocating for local land use changes supporting TDM; and by
overseeing 494 road reconstruction project staging to facilitate and coordinate future planned
road projects; and,
WHEREAS, the I -494 Corridor Commission is assisting MnDOT and the Metropolitan
Council in identifying a number of high - priority multi -modal projects along the 494 corridor
and how best to stage these projects to mitigate traffic congestion and delay during 494
reconstruction periods; and,
WHEREAS, the I -494 Corridor Commission provides an ongoing stakeholder forum for
the planning of I-494 reconstruction through regular meetings of the 494 Chamber of
Commerce Subcommittee, the 494 Engineers' Subcommittee and the 494 Transit Providers'
Subcommittee; and
WHEREAS, the I -494 Corridor Commission, through the work of its member cities of,
Bloomington and Richfield, has identified the interchange of 1-494 and I -35W as a critical
infrastructure improvement that needs immediate attention; and
WHEREAS, the approximate cost of the improvements is estimated at $125 million or
more and the State of Minnesota has approximately $66 million committed for the project in
the years 2011 and beyond; and
WHEREAS, the I494 Corridor Commission is continuing its search for innovative
funding partnerships that will increase or "speed up" funding for critical 494 roadway and
transit improvements; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the. City Council of the City of Edina
hereby declares its support of 1-494 Corridor Commission activities relating to the
procurement of federal funding to improve I -494 infrastructure and services; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the
Honorable, Congressman James Ramstad, Minnesota Third District; the Honorable
Congressman Martin Sabo, Minnesota Fifth District; the Honorable Congressman James
Oberstar, Minnesota Eighth District; the Honorable Congressman David Minge, Minnesota
Second District; the Honorable Senator Paul Wellstone; the Honorable Senator Rod Grams;
Governor Jesse Ventura; State Senator Roy Terwilliger, Senate District 42; State
Representative Erik Paulsen, Representative District 42B; State Representative Ron Erhardt,
Representative District 42A; the Chair of the Metropolitan Council Transportation Advisory
Board (TAB); the Chair of the Metropolitan Council Technical Advisory Committee (TAC); the
chair of the Metropolitan Council; the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of
Transportation; the Board of the Minnesota Transportation Alliance; and the Chair of the
Hennepin County Board of Commissioners.
Passed and duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Edina, this 16th day of May, 2000.
Motion carried on rollcall vote - five ayes.
Page 15
Minutes/Edina City Council/May 16, 2000
CLAIMS PAID Motion made by Member Johnson approving payment of the following claims
as shown in detail on the Check Register dated May 10, 2000, and consisting of 33 pages:
General Fund $181,318.48; Communications $21,756.54; Working Capital $13,705.75; Art Center
$4,400.26; Golf Dome Fund $3,469.11; Swimming Pool Fund $6,399.81; Golf Course Fund
$75,871.50; Ice Arena Fund $10,410.92; Edinborough/Centennial Lakes $16,552.03; Utility Fund
$184,945.20; Storm Sewer Utility Fund $1,568.76; Recycling Program $37,935.20; Liquor
Dispensary Fund $261,785.18 Construction Fund $88,363.05; Park Bond Fund $367.20; TOTAL
$908,848.99. Member Kelly seconded the motion.
Rollcall:
Ayes: Faust, Hovland, Johnson, Kelly, Maetzold
Motion carried.
There being no further business on the Council Agenda, Mayor Maetzold adjourned the Council
Meeting at 9:55 P.M.
City Clerk
Page 16
MINUTES
OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HALL
MAY 16, 2000
5:00 P.M.
ROLLCALL Answering rollcall were Members Faust, Hovland, and Mayor Maetzold. Member
Kelly entered the meeting at 5:15 p.m. Member Johnson entered the meeting at 5:55 p.m.
Mayor Maetzold stated the purpose of the special meeting was to hold a public hearing on the
proposed referendum for the potential joint park improvement with the School District. Mayor
Maetzold explained that about two years ago, the City had been approached by various
constituents requesting additional gymnasiums, fields, and swimming pools. The City Council
studied the requests and considered options available. One option suggested was to build on
school property. This concept was studied with the School District and seemed viable bringing the
City to the point of considering a referendum. Mayor Maetzold stated the format for the meeting
would be short presentations by Park Director Keprios, Peter Seeger, TSP Architects, and Edina
School Superintendent Ken Dragseth, followed by public comment. He said the meeting would
end at 6:45 p.m. The Council will take the comments under advisement and if it decides to move
forward the referendum will be placed on the ballot in the fall.
Park Director Keprios reviewed several identified community needs as follows:
ADDITIONAL GYMNASIUMS
♦ City - Sponsored Gymnasium User Groups
• Girls House League Basketball
• Girls Traveling Basketball
• Boys House League Basketball
• Boys Traveling Basketball
• EGAA Volleyball
• Jr. Olympic Volleyball
• Youth Soccer
• Edina Hockey Association (Dry Land Training)
• Adult Basketball
• Adult Volleyball
• Open Gym Time (General Public)
• Walkers, Joggers & Runners (Elevated Indoor Track)
♦ Additional Gymnasium Time - From a Study One Year Ago
• Current Weekly Use - 209 Hours
• Total Desired Use Per Week - 304 Hours
• Shortage Of 95 Hours Per Week
• Need For Minimum Of 4 Full-Size Gyms
♦ Why 3 Gyms At ECC?
• More gyms under one roof and at one site is more desirable for tournaments
and rentals
• Creates more flexibility of uses (soccer, elevated running track, baseball etc.).
• Three gyms under one roof is more efficient to operate and more economical to
construct
♦ Location Of Gyms - Why At Schools?
• Maximize use, available for School & City
• The Edina School District could provide management of the facilities
Page 1
Minutes /Special Edina City Council/May 16, 2000
t
• The costs to operate and maintain are incremental additions due to existing
staff, facilities and plant operation equipment already on site
• No additional land costs
Without Additional Gymnasium Space?
• Enlarge teams - increase team size
• Double up traveling team practices
• More play on weekends (Friday, Saturday & Sunday - overtime costs)
• More late evening play (games & practices until 10:00 p.m. weekdays)
• Cut back or eliminate adult programs (adult basketball & volleyball)
• Eliminate other desired sport opportunities, such as, soccer, hockey, baseball,
softball
• Eliminate opportunity to expand existing programs
• Eliminate opportunity to create new additional programs
ADDITIONAL ATHLETIC FIELDS FOR SOCCER, FOOTBALL, RUGBY, LACROSSE AND
SOFTBALL
♦ Additional Soccer/ Football Field Time
• Over 3,500.Edina youth enrolled in soccer and growing
• ESA currently limits registration (not enough fields)
• Growing interest in adult soccer, rugby, and lacrosse
• Slow pitch & fast pitch softball teams need more practice and game fields
♦ Proposed Additional Fields
• Kuhlman Field (artificial turf soccer field) y
• Lewis Park (soccer field)
• Pamela Park (soccer field)
• Edina High School (2 softball fields)
♦ Without Additional Soccer/ Football Fields?
• ESA further limit registrations (first come first served)
• Increase team size (less play time per child)
• Further reduce or eliminate adult soccer
• Limit growth of lacrosse and rugby
• More soccer play on weekends and late evenings
RENOVATION OF SHARED ATHLETIC FIELDS FOR SOCCER, FOOTBALL, LACROSSE AND
RUGBY
♦ Why Field Renovation?
• Fields are worn to an unsafe condition
• Fields are over -used (spring -fall) .
• Poor sub -soils at several fields (can be corrected with stabilization fabric & fill)
• Parks filled with debris that surfaces and become safety hazards
• Worn turf and shallow root systems
• Need for irrigation system
Renovated Soccer/ Football Fields
• 2 Fields at High School Campus
• Artificial turf Kuhlman Field at Community Center Campus
• Lewis Park - 2 soccer fields
• Highlands Park - soccer field
• Braemar soccer field
DOME - INFLATED DOME INSTALLED IN NOVEMBER/REMOVED IN MARCH ANUALLY
♦ Why A Dome?,
Page 2
Minutes /Special Edina City Council/May 16, 2000
• Take year round advantage of artificial turf field on Kuhlman Field
• Soccer, baseball, rugby, lacrosse, football and softball could all benefit
• Open public use benefit
• Allow Edina residents to rent/ participate in their own community
• Positive cash flow operational expenses
SWIMMING POOL RENOVATION
♦ South View Middle School Pool Needs
• Water filtration and air ventilation mechanical equipment in need of
replacement
• Ceiling in need of repair and improvement (acoustical treatment)
• Pool and deck tile need re -grout repair
• Need new 50 seat folding bleachers
• Need new lighting system
♦ Valley View Middle School Pool Needs
• Similar needs to South View Middle School
• Site allows for construction of new 25 meter x 25 yard, 8 lane, 12' deep
competition pool with separate diving well
• Need for more pool time for Edina Swim Club
RENOVATION OF PERFORMING ARTS THEATER
♦ ECC Auditorium
• Need for an upscale 700 seat performing arts theater
• Community performing arts groups
• Facilitate well-known artists
• Edina Senior Center group productions.
REPLACE/REPAIR OF OTHER SCHOOL DISTRICT'S WORN RECREATIONAL FACILITIES
♦ School's Worn Recreational Facilities
• Kuhlman Field amenities (bleachers, lights, concessions stand, track etc.)
• Gym floors at South View Middle School and small gym at ECC
• ECC lobby and concessions area
• Locker facilities at ECC
• Tennis court bang -board
$4.5 MILLION OF IMPROVEMENTS IN PARKS
♦ Why More Park Improvements?
• Lack of available funding to keep up
• No CIP funding since 1995
• May 7,1996, referendum dollars fell short of completing all projects
• Renovation of 13 athletic fields (re- grade, seed/ sod, irrigation)
• Fire suppression systems for Grange Hall, Cahill School and Braemar Arena
• Replace Courtney Fields concessions building
• Construction of Van Valkenburg Park (mini -park and 3 batting cages)
• Improved entrance to Arneson Acres Park
• Sanitary sewer & lift station for Greenhouse restrooms
• Pathway repairs or additions at 4 parks
• Parking lot repairs at 5 parks
• Fencing repairs/ replacements at 6 parks
• Tennis court replacement at Walnut Ridge Park
ADVANTAGES OF CITY /SCHOOL PARTNERSHIP
Page 3
Minutes /Special Edina City Council/May 16, 2000
♦ Utilization of existing school property leaves more private land on the tax role and
eliminates land costs for the new facilities
♦ Both jurisdictions serve the same customer
♦ Maximizing access to School District and community at large
♦ Operation and maintenance are incremental additions due to existing facilities, staff
and plant operation equipment already on site
TAX IMPACT $31 MILLION OVER 20 YEARS
MARKET VALUE ESTIMATED ANNUAL
TAX IMPACT
$120,000
$67
$180,000
$100
$255,000
$142,
$300,000
$167
$500,000
$278
$1,000,000
$556
Peter Seeger, Architect and Principle of TSP, explained he had been working with the City and
School District to define a project which, if funded and constructed would respond to community
needs for additional gymnasiums and other recreational cultural facilities. He added the Campus
Plan he developed was a concept plan only, illustrating how the components might be arranged
on the campus. Mr. Seeger reiterated that it was not the final design, but only a test to develop
estimated costs of such improvements. Mr. Seeger explained the components identified in the pre -
design study located at the Edina Community Center included the following:
• Renovation of Kuhlman Field with new bleachers, entrance gates, ticket booths, concessions
and possibly a seasonal dome
• Parking Improvement adding 130 additional parking spaces both northerly and southerly
• Upgrade and move soccer and ball fields
• Tennis courts bang boards
• Pathway from the lower parking area to the center of the campus
• Upgrade ball and soccer fields at Edina High School
• Valley View Middle School 25 meter pool addition
• New 3 -gym field house south of ECC
• Addition to Concord Elementary School (2 level) one gym with shell below
• Renovate South View Middle School gyms
• Renovate ECC gyms
• Renovate support facilities, locker room - for both Edina PE and Edina Park & Rec
• Renovate ECC lobby east side - upper and lower levels - manage accessibility
• Renovate ECC theater - addressing access issues
Mr. Seeger reviewed the estimated project costs as follows:
PROPOSED REFERENDUM PROJECTS
3 -Gym Fieldhouse $5,092,337 31%
3 -Gym Fieldhouse $3,900,737
Elevated Track $930,600
All Wood Floors $36,000
Air Conditioning $225,000
Concord Elementary Gym Addition $1,522,800 9%
South View Middle School Gym Improvements $244,400 1%
Community Center Building Improvements $2,359,725 14%
Page 4
Minutes /Special Edina City Council/May 16, 2000
Large Community Center Gym
$23,500
Small Community Center Gym
$192,700
Community Center Gym Lobby/ Concession
$164,500
Community Center Locker Rooms
$550,785
Community Center Theatre - 770 Seats
$1,428,240
Community Center Theater $974,725
New /Separate Entrance /Lobby, Toilets $453,515
Community Center Campus Improvements
$786,454
Tennis Court Bang Board (concrete wall)
$6,000
Lower/ East Campus Fields
$230,300
(sand, drain tile and irrigation)
South Parking Relocation and Expansion
$235,000
North Park Expansion
$108,100
New Pedestrian Pathway
$4,700
(lower to upper campus)
Site Restoration and Landscaping
$94,000
Normandale Playground
$108,354
Kuhlman Field Improvements
$5,093,720
Kuhlman Field - Base Improvements
$3,212,920
Demolition
$86,000
Earthwork
$98,000
Drainage
$45,000
Utilities (sewer & water)
$56,000
Fencing
$54,000
Retaining Wall (modular Block)
$39,000
Curb & Gutter
$11,000
Pavement
$210,000
Irrigation
$20,000
Field Buildings (concessions, storage etc.)
$1,144,920
Ticket Booths (6 windows)
$120,000
Relocate Existing Visitor Storage Building
$15,000
Home Bleacher (5,360 seats)
$777,200
Visitor Bleacher (2,050 seats)
$276,800
Coaching Staff & Press Box
$105,000
Electrical Lighting
$75,000
Site Restoration
$42,000
Landscaping
$38,000
Kuhlman Field - Additional Amenities - Construction Cost
$1,880,800
Dome
$969,000
Reconstruct/ Widen Track to 8 Lanes,
$145,700
Relocation Field Events
Improve Drainage (perimeter curb and drain- tile)$70,500
Resilient Turf Football/Soccer Field Surface
$611,000
Improve and Upgrade Field Lighting
$84,600
Edina High School Fields
$1,229,520
EHS Baseball field (1 @ 300' x 280')
$353,440
EHS Softball fields (1 @ 220'x220' and 1 @ 200'x200')$607,240
EHS Soccer fields (2 @ 360 x 160')
$268,840
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION
Page 5
5%
31%
8%
$16,328,956 100%
Minutes /Special Edina City Council/May 16, 2000
i
TOTAL PROJECT (1.33.x Construction Cost) - Includes All Soft Costs $21,717,512
New Valley View Pool
Renovation of South View Pool
City Parks Improvements
SUBTOTAL
Less Edina Public Schools Contribution
Field Bleachers
Concord Gym
ECC Coaches Remodel
Normandale Playground
TOTAL REFERENDUM
$(777,800)
$(401,689)
$(28,326)
$(144,111)
$5,785,500
$322,658
$4,500,000
$32,325,670
$(1,351,926)
$30,973,744
Mr. Seeger concluded saying that before any project would begin, a great deal more planning and
design would take place. He emphasized that the design was a concept used to develop
preliminary cost estimates.
Ken Dragseth, Edina School Superintendent, said the schools are already operating. between 6:00
and 10:00 p.m. and at capacity. He reported that when the City approached the schools looking for
more space, the schools indicated a willingness to work together, but a lack of available space for
additional programs. The Schools and City formed a committee to study the community needs
and options to meet them utilizing school and city resources. In addition, the district reviewed
how potential improvements could impact existing facilities within the system. Mr. Dragseth said
the ECC is a high priority to the school district, and potential impacts have been discussed
internally with the Board, and with the Normandale organizations. He pointed out that everything
is at this point very preliminary and the issues will be resolved. The French Immersion School
serves 500 plus students and due to its growth there has been constant remodeling during the life
of the school. When the Community Center was set up in 1982, the idea was for the community to
have a building that would be flexible in its use. Many districts sold this type of building, but
Edina Schools kept the building and site as a major resource to the community. He pointed out the
building's heating plant can support the proposed additions, the District already has
administrative and custodial staff on site to manage the facility. These are reasons this site seems
viable for the proposed improvement. Mr. Dragseth stated the District will continue to work with
the site council to resolve the issues expressed by the parents.
Mr. Dragseth explained the District entered into discussion for the proposed referendum project
working to maximize land use while meeting needs of the community. He said other locations for
the three gyms were reviewed. However, staff is already on site at the ECC, minimizing additional
operational staff needed. Mr. Dragseth reported that nationally the trends are for school districts
and communities to partner in serving their citizens needs. He added that the District enrollment
is currently approximately 7,000 and will remain relatively stable so the needs of the community's
youth is here and needs to be addressed.
Public Comment
Richard Novack, 5202 Grandview Lane, stated he was on the French Immersion School's Site
Council, but was speaking personally. Mr. Novack reported Normandale Parents were initially
Page 6
Minutes / Special Edina City Council/May 16, 2000
shocked that a project was proposed for the Community Center site. He indicated a desire to work
with the City and School District to trying to make the ECC usable for Normandale French
Immersion School and the proposed facilities, if the parent concerns can be met. The site council
came up with some solutions such as protecting the school in a contiguous environment. This
would require moving approximately seven classrooms. He suggested putting the school in its
own area of the building, away from other users. This would eliminate access to the school. On a
personal note Mr. Novack said he supported the project, but noted that the soccer community was
not particularly represented on the planning group. He would like to see if a soccer complex could
be added to the project. Mr. Novack also supported building a dome over Kuhlman Field, stating
Edina parents and businesses are paying a great deal of money to both Eden Prairie and Holy
Angels for space in their domes. He said that with over half of Edina's children 'playing soccer,
additional fields must be considered. Mr. Novack said that 2000 children play soccer in the fall, the
sport is growing very rapidly and lacrosse is also growing. Both sports can be played on the same
field.
Jim Kakalios, 6825 West Shore Drive, stated he had three children at Normandale School. He
reported that construction has been going on for eight years. His children have been in classrooms
near the auditorium and been impacted by the construction. Mr. Kakalios held up earplugs, that
he said are handed out by a teacher to block out noise from construction now. The Normandale
School is one of the largest elementary schools in the district. He is concerned about safety, traffic,
and health. Mr. Kakalios said he was upset that the planning has been going on for over a year
and only now the project has been made public, given that the Normandale site is where the
construction will be occurring. He stated that he had a petition with 168 signatures requesting the
School and City, before any referendum, engage a firm with elementary school planning
experience to conduct an independent comprehensive internal and external environmental impact
evaluation of the community center project. Areas to be addressed include parking, traffic, safety,
security and health. Mr. Kakalios added that while athletics are nice and gyms are good,
swimming pools and concessions are nice, children are in school for academics. As a professor at
the University of Minnesota he would like to see students better prepared when they show up for
college.
Karen Christiansen' 5721 Blake Road, explained she had a background in nursing and that her
husband is a pediatric specialist. Ms. Christiansen said they have four children in the Edina
School Systems. When they first learned of the potential 3 -gym addition to the ECC they were
concerned because of dangers of the plan. It made no sense to them to attach a multi- purpose
athletic facility to an elementary school. This would place the children at risk of abduction and /or
violence. It would bring adults, high school and middle school children in large numbers into
close proximity to the children as they are leaving school or staying for after school activities. The
increase in traffic also presents risk of accident and injury. Upon further investigation, Ms.
Christiansen learned of the stated cost savings of the community center's boiler system, but the
financial saving did not in her opinion, merit the risk of harm and injury possible. She said they
would like to support the referendum because they agree with the other pieces not associated with
the ECC. They however, cannot in good conscience support the proposal because in their opinion
it is fatally flawed. Ms. Christiansen contended the location of the proposed field house is
dangerous to the children at the Normandale Elementary School. She urged the Council look for
another location. Ms. Christiansen said that a petition signed by 160 parents from Normandale
and other concerned citizens has asked the City Council and the School Board to look at
alternative sites for the gymnasiums. She urged delay of the referendum pending location of
another site for the field house. She added that perhaps the Edina High School's northeast parking
lot be considered.
Page 7
Minutes /Special Edina City Council/May 16, 2000
Neil Weikart, 4835 Maple Road, reported he was a 20 -year Edina resident. Mr. Weikart
commended the Board of Education and the City Council for working together on the facilities. He
added that Edina is a wonderful community in which to live and raise families. Both his children
received great education in Edina Schools. Mr. Weikart added that education and schools are a
cornerstone of the community. By working together hopefully everyone's needs will be met. Mr.
Weikart said that in addition to being a parent of two children who have attended Edina Schools
he was also president of the Edina Basketball Association and been involved with the Association
for ten years as a coach, board member and president. Mr. Weikart stated that participation has
grown incredibly in youth sports as the number of children in the community has increased. Last
year 1,100 children participated in basketball programs from grades 2 -9. The house league
programs have both boys and girls participating. Every participant, either the players, the 35
board members, or over 200 volunteer coaches lives in Edina or attends an Edina School. They will
be a significant user of the new gym facilities during the week after 6:00 p.m. Mr. Weikart said the
Basketball Association historically holds one tournament a year and he believes they would intend
to continue. He said the facilities are needed for the kids programs. Currently, children are
practicing and playing games later than they would like. Mr. Weikart said that while he agreed
that education is most important, he also believes youth athletic programs are an important piece
of Edina. Children meet other children from all over Edina, they are exposed to team concepts,
and they are exposed to coaches in a positive way. With over 200 volunteer coaches and. board
members, not just the children benefit, this is part of what defines community. Mr. Weikart said
that older children teach younger children in skill sessions. By participating in such a session, Mr.
Weikart believed his son learned community service. This is an important piece in raising
children.
Bob Fugner, 5200 Kellogg Avenue, thirty year resident, said he opposed the retractable dome and
artificial turf. He said he checked with a neighbor who is a former football player. Mr. Fugner said
artificial turf is dangerous and impractical. Mr. Fugner asked the Council to practice fiscal
restraint. Mayor Maetzold asked Mr. Keprios to correct the misconception that the proposed
dome would be retractable. Mr. Keprios explained that an inflatable dome covering only the field
itself is what is proposed. The dome height would be about 70 feet. He added that modern
artificial turf has been vastly improved. It is called field turf of crushed rubber filled into
whatever level is the .most suitable for the particular field. It reduces injuries compared to real
grass according to Mr. Keprios' sources. Member Kelly added the proposed dome was not
planned as a retractable done, but an inflatable dome similar to a tennis bubble. Secondly, the
Nike camp out west has put this artificial turf in several locations that will be approved by the
NFL Players Association because according to evidence so far, the artificial turf is at the least as
good as natural grass, and depending on the weather can be superior. Mr. Keprios added that
Edina Varsity Football would still be played open -air, the proposed dome would be installed in
November after the season ends and removed in March to be stored until the fall. Member
Hovland commented the Council has attempted to be practical and were not in favor of adding an
inflatable dome. However, upon learning that 3,200 children play soccer with the potential for
more playing in the future, and that Holy Angels paid for their dome in one or two years, it was
thought that the proposed dome could help pay off the cost of the dome, then also help cover
operational expenses of the field house. The Council has looked at several community centers in
surrounding towns, all of which loose thousands of dollars annually. The Council is trying to
avoid any financial impact that would require the citizens to subsidize the operating loss of a
center.
Page 8
0
Minutes /Special Edina City Council/May 16, 2000
Richard Connell, 4713 School Road, asked whether expansion of the parking south of the
Community Center would bring about an access onto Ruth Drive. He added that he supported the .
previous women speaker from Normandale. Mr. Connell said that he has been in the teaching
business for forty years at the university level. Mr. Connell reported the quality of students has
declined. If an emphasis is to be placed, in his opinion it should be on education. The Northwest
Athletic Club did not take their bubble down this spring because of the cost of removing and re-
installing it annually.
Valerie Burke, 6317 Limerick Lane, said she was representing the Edina Swim Club and swimmers
at the varsity level in Edina. She said that they support any plan that improves the current state of
swimming in Edina. They were delighted to read the survey results and see the community
response was so high to the improvement of the pools. Ms. Burke said they believe a true need is
shown (35 -40 year old facilities). Edina citizens will respond with a yes vote and they would work
with the Council in supporting the improved facilities.
Jim Simons, 6637 Brittany Road, said he has lived in Edina over forty years. Mr. Simons said he
had three daughters and was there representing Girls Traveling Basketball as their president: All
three of his daughters were actively involved in youth athletic programs. He said it was clear from
Mr. Keprios's presentation that there is a lack of gym time available as well as soccer fields and
other facilities. Mr. Simons reported that his Association supports the proposal. He acknowledged
that they are smaller with only 13 teams. However, they would like to expand, but may not be able
to due to the lack of acceptable gym time for practices. Mr. Simons said the Association has
received numerous parental complaints about practice times being too late. If facilities are not
available programs will need to be cut. Children having an opportunity to be involved in athletics
learn a variety of life lessons not necessarily learned in school: sportsmanship, teamwork,
winning and loosing. Also from a girls' perspective, statistics show girls who participate in sports
through the high school level do better academically, have a lower instance of chemical or
substance abuse, lower dropout rate and fewer teenage pregnancies. Mr. Simons said that this
demonstrates children participating in sports garner many benefits beyond success on the field or
court.
John Menke, 5301 Pinewood Trail, said that he thought the proposal was wonderful. He agreed
the facilities are needed. Mr. Menke said he has coached basketball and soccer for close to twenty.
years. He said he is currently on the Edina Girls Athletic Association Board of Directors as a token
male. The girls need the gym space probably even more than the boys. Mr. Menke stated he was
in an unusual position because he contended that the Council would' be voting later whether to
take park space from a neighborhood while voting whether or nor Edina taxes should be raised for
park and sports facilities. Mr. Menke said in his opinion the two issues are linked.
Kathy Sommerville, 5217 Danens Drive, said she was a Normandale parent. She said the Council
has been hearing for many months the Normandale parents concerns, but looking at the line items
in the proposal for the referendum no item exists to deal with these stated concerns. How will
these costs be covered and has any research been done to ensure these concerns are met? Mayor
Maetzold explained that the referendum would . cover items-arising from the project, but are not
reflected individually. Ms. Sommerville continued asking if the components of the referendum
could be made into separate questions on the ballot. She added she agreed with many
components, but her concerns for the ECC would force her to vote no on the entire referendum.
Mayor Maetzold said the Council will take this under advisement when they consider this issue.
Page 9
Minutes /Svecial Edina City Council/May 16,200
Mr. Dragseth added the School District has a Safety Committee with representatives from all the
different constituent groups within the Edina Community Center. The District is in the process of
hiring two independent experts to look at security and traffic control. This will be done at the
District's cost. He added they have had a lot of input from the architects regarding how to
increase security and traffic flow. Mr. Dragseth stated the District will continue working with
them as the project moves forward. Mr. Dragseth said one issue that stands out very strongly is
the use of the auditorium. The auditorium would have a totally separate entrance and a secure
wall around the auditorium to remove it from the elementary school. If asbestos were to be found,
it would be abated using the funds available from the State of Minnesota. He added that there are
very strict rules that must be adhered to for this process.
Peter Anderson, 6129 Abbott Avenue, said he was currently president of the Edina Soccer
Association, the largest youth sports organization in the City, with over twenty-five hundred
participants. They are the in- house, or local, soccer association, as opposed to the traveling Edina
Soccer Club. At their monthly meeting last evening, the Board of the Edina Soccer Association
voted unanimously to withhold their support for the referendum as it is currently proposed. Their
reasons are as follows: The referendum, as currently proposed, does not clearly benefit or address
the need of the programs of the Edina Soccer Association. The input of the Edina , Soccer
Association has not been solicited as part of the planning process. Lastly, it is their opinion that
there would be a benefit to delaying the referendum to permit greater and more detailed
definition and input from the end - users. He said he would like to emphasize that the association's
decision to withhold their support should not be considered as opposition to the referendum, or as
opposition to the idea of improving Edina's recreational facilities. In fact, the Edina Soccer
Association was recently awarded for the second time the Mayor's Community. Endowment
Award for their own donations to the city to improve local parks, donations which benefited not
only their participants, but those of other youth sports organizations and the general public as
well. They simply believe that a more detailed analysis of the costs and benefits involved in these
projects, along with more information regarding the City's long -term plans for funding park and
recreational facility improvements,, should be required before this referendum gets put to a vote.
Bridgit Colleran, 4725 School Road, stated that she would be directly impacted. She thanked the
Normandale parents for raising the traffic and safety concerns. Ms. Colleran said her children
attend Concord and she was very disappointed and concerned regarding safety issues and traffic,
wedging the proposed field in between two elementary schools. Ms. Colleran said that she had
been assured the fields would only be used during after school hours, but she questioned whether
anyone has observed the traffic between 3:00 and 6:00 p.m. She also expressed concern about
access, particularly through her neighborhood. In looking at the plan, it appears that 59th Street
will open onto the frontage road. Mr. Keprios assured Ms. Colleran 59th Street was mistakenly
drawn on the plan and would not be opened. Ms. Colleran said the proposed improvement will
affect her children, their ability to play, the kind of traffic through the neighborhood, not only
around the schools, but also year round traffic for public facilities. Ms. Colleran said she did not
doubt the need for the facilities, but she questioned why they needed to be wedged between two
elementary schools. Ms. Colleran asked for postponement of the referendum until more people,
who are directly impacted such as the surrounding neighborhood, have information about the
proposed project.
Janet Virnig, 5236 West 56th Street, stated she wanted to defend the Normandale parents, since she
was told by a school board member that the Normandale parents are elitist whiners. Ms. Virnig
said she understands this label, because the parents have had to stand up and fight for the
Normandale School over the past years since its inception. She said she believed every
Page 10
Minutes /Special Edina City Council/May 16, 2000
Normandale parent would support the classrooms at Concord, the gymnasium at Concord, and
the Valley View and Southview Middle School pool improvements if they were offered as line
item improvements. They do not support any additions to the Edina Community Center because
of safety, traffic, and accessibility. Ms. Virnig asked that the- referendum be delayed until more
study is done.
Dick Diercks, 4801 School Road, said he did not believe the question is whether or not there is a
need for additional facilities, the question is the plan to meet the need. Having so much of the
plan at one site is too much. The total impact on the site needs to be evaluated. He stated he was
surprised and overwhelmed at the size and number of projects undertaken at a single location. Mr.
Diercks said he thought that more than just the Normandale Site Council should be involved in
evaluating the total impact of traffic, security, access and all the ramifications of the large project.
Finally, in relation to Kuhlman Field's potential dome. Mr. Diercks said he felt that Eden Prairie
and Plymouth facilities work well and meet the needs of many children. He added that in his
opinion the Kuhlman site is inadequate to be the equivalent of either Eden Prairie or Plymouth.
Mr. Diercks said perhaps the site just does not seem to be the site to make a domed facility work.
He indicated that he would support a domed facility if the proper location is found.
David Krasno, 5607 Dalrymple Road, said he has been an Edina resident for seven years. He has
three children attending Edina Schools. He stated he was very much in favor of athletic programs.
Mr. Krasno said he did not have a problem with the proposed improvements, outside of the
chosen site. When looking at the proposed concept, it looks like a jigsaw puzzle trying to fit in
something that just does not' fit there. There are terrific traffic concerns at the ECC. Currently,
there are many times when there is too much traffic in the area. Mr. Krasno said he frequently
flies over Edina and looking down he thinks the Edina High School property could better support
a domed facility. If it means that fewer high school students have cars at school, then he did not
have a problem with that. Mr. Krasno said he hates the thought of any children subjected to safety
or security issues during construction. He reiterated that the project improvements at the ECC are
too much and urged that they be located elsewhere where they would have a better long -term
effect.
Lenny Wallen- Firedman, 6805 Limerick Lane, stated he agreed with the prior two speakers and
was glad to hear that people in the immediate vicinity to the ECC, were raising issues about the
overall impact of the project. He noted that the School Board and City have put together a project
that undeniably impacts one of the District's elementary schools. He listened to Ken Dragseth say
he was putting together a Safety Committee to look at the issues. How can the City embark on a
project that will undeniably impact, and cause issues until the impact, the scope of the issues, and
the costs are known. The referendum should be delayed until this information can be gathered. He
added that studies may well uncover issues not even yet thought of, especially since the
Normandale parents have not been included in the studies. He urged the Council to order studies
that would delve into the issues and get solid cost estimates, noting that some people currently not
willing to support a referendum may change their mind if a well thought out project were
presented to them.
Gary Dorrian, 4708 West 60th Street, said he echoes. the three previous speakers. Conceptually he
agreed that the project would be meeting City needs. However, in his opinion, scattering the
facilities would be better than focusing. Mr. Dorrian said adding all the space will add operation
costs. He said he had spent 30 years in public facility management and gone through many
expansions and if space is added, staff will be added as well, perhaps not a manager. Mr.
Dragseth explained that the proposal does state additional operating expenses will be incurred,
Page 11
Minutes /Special Edina City Council/May 16, 2000
but will be minimized because of the infrastructure already in place at the ECC. Mr. Dorrian
continued stating he had concern with the roadway, because of the error on the conceptual plan.
If there are errors here, he worried they would be in the, final project. He expressed concern with
management, pointing out that the Braemar parking lot is still not complete and that project was
done two years ago. Mr. Dorrian asked if the roadway costs have been addressed and asked if the
demographics would still be increasing in ten years. Mr. Dragseth answered that the
demographics of the district will peak at about 7,500 students and will remain within 400 -500 of
that for the next ten years.
Bill Lykken, 7100 Lanham Lane, said he was a member of the Edina Fast Pitch Association. That
Association is in support of the referendum since they certainly need fields. He added that he
would be commenting as a real estate developer. Mr. Lykken said that he has a daughter very
active in sports, so he has the opportunity to spend virtually all his free time traveling to various
communities visiting facilities. It has become apparent to him, that surrounding communities are
in fact developing much better facilities than Edina. Wayzata, Plymouth, and Eden Prairie have
land so they can make great fields. However, Edina does not have land, so we are restricted. He
thinks that in order to preserve real estate values and to provide the same level of facilities other
communities are providing for their children, Edina must be careful not to be left way behind
other communities. Mr. Lykken said that he believed it would be possible, to study this issue to
death and not meet the needs of the children. Every year the project is put off has a negative
impact on the children it is meant to serve.
Member Kelly made a motion, seconded by Member Hovland to close the public hearing at 6:45
p.m.
Ayes: Faust, Hovland, Johnson, Kelly, Maetzold
Motion carried.
Consensus of the council was to hold a special meeting at 7:00 p.m. Tuesday, May 30, 2000, to
consider whether to hold a referendum.
There being no further business on the ,Council Agenda, Mayor Maetzold declared the meeting
adjourned at 6:50 P.M.
City Clerk
Page 12
r1l
MINUTES
OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HALL
MAY 30, 2000
7:00 P.M.
ROLLCALL Answering rollcall were Members Faust, Hovland, Johnson, Kelly and Mayor
Maetzold.
Mayor Maetzold stated the purpose of the special meeting was to allow the City Council to
discuss the potential referendum and the joint agreement with the School District concerning
the proposed park improvements. He noted that on May 16, 2000, a public hearing was held
allowing testimony and that numerous letters have been received from residents.
Mayor Maetzold proposed to the Council that they consider postponing the referendum
allowing further study of Edina's Park and Recreation needs and exploring other options
available to meet those needs. He offered this because the proposed referendum was a very
large and complex initiative and, Mayor Maetzold felt it important that the City have
consensus before proceeding. He stated that in reviewing the public testimony and letters
received on the issue it was obvious there was support for the improvements, but there are
several reservations. Mayor Maetzold noted these reservations center principally upon the
gymnasiums and the proposed physical location of the gymnasiums. Mayor Maetzold said he
hoped that after further study a consensus could be achieved upon the best solution.
Mayor Maetzold added that not all options have been explored regarding gymnasiums. He
said the Community Center Field House was focussed on due to its convenient locale and to
the lower cost of building additional gyms at that site. He said that on a very cursory basis
other possible solutions were identified, but were determined to be very expensive so they
were not investigated in detail. Mayor Maetzold suggested . that the needs and possible
solutions be re- investigated to determine if other options could be cost effective to meet the
need for more gymnasiums, or if perhaps it will be found that the high cost options would be
supported.
Mayor Maetzold noted that a new ,state law had removed the pressure the School District had
been under to renovate the Kuhlman Field bleachers for safety reasons. Recently, the State
legislature adopted a law granting more time to complete these renovations. Incorporating the
safety renovations with the park improvements would have saved costs, but now there would
be more time before the District must complete the upgrades to the bleachers.
Mayor Maetzold made a motion that the referendum be postponed and a more in depth
study of the City's Park and Recreation needs and possible options be undertaken. Member
Johnson seconded the motion.
Member Kelly said he agreed with much of the Mayor's statements. The proposed joint park
improvements are a very ambitious plan. He added they are something he was committed to
and thinks that once completed they will be a terrific asset for the community. Member Kelly
stated he supported the project and its location. However, he also agreed it made sense to
postpone the project and study other options to make absolutely sure that this was the best
solution to a genuine need of the community. Member Kelly said it was very important that a
Page 1
Minutes /Special Edina City Council/May 30, 2000
project was not forced upon citizens if they did not support it. He suggested that further study
be conducted to make certain the project would be built in the correct location. Member Kelly
added that the opposition needs to be addressed. Lines of communication must be opened so
that if a better location cannot be found the people opposing the project can be convinced that
the proposed location was the only viable option left and was the best solution for the
community. Member Kelly said he hoped the opposition could be convinced not to be selfish
in their concerns, but to look for solutions that solve community needs and the fact that they
may be inconvenienced will be accepted because of the greater community needs being met.
Member Kelly reported that when he campaigned for Council the need for additional gym
space was heard from everyone he spoke with young children. Parents told him children
should not be competing so late at night, because it was not good for them and it was not
right. Member Kelly said he supports the postponement, but noted he was not going to let the
project die, indicating his intent to keep working with the Council and the community to bring
the issue to fruition.
Mayor Maetzold suggested that if the Council agrees with the postponement that a blue
ribbon panel be formed representing all interests to find the solutions to the City's Park and
Recreation needs. He suggested that this panel be formed and begin work immediately.
Member Kelly agreed with the Mayor's suggestions. He said that one of the most troubling
things he heard.at the public hearing was the opposition of the Soccer Association. Here was
one of the largest representatives of the City's sports community and one most challenged
with facilities, opposing a net gain in soccer fields. Member Kelly said he thought the whole
Association needs to look seriously at their leadership and direction. If you have participants
who do not have fields and the Association leadership was opposing an initiative proposing
several fields to the program, he suggested there was something wrong.
Member Faust said she supports more gymnasiums. She said she believed that the community
needs more gymnasiums. Member Faust thanked all the people who spoke and wrote letters
to the Council expressing their positions on the proposed joint project. She said this does make
a difference and helps the Council in their deliberations. Member Faust said she also believes
one other issue should be looked at when further study was undertaken. The referendum as
proposed was three times larger than any previous referendum held in the City of Edina. The
last referendum was supported by 75% of the people, and included the seniors. Member Faust
noted the many seniors had indicated via letters their concern over the cost of the proposed
referendum. She challenged the Council and "Study panel" to review the cost issues to see if
costs could be reduced somehow.
Mayor Maetzold said that alternative funding sources could be investigated during the study.
Member Faust asked that priorities be re- evaluated to ascertain whether all the components
really need to be included in a referendum.
Member Hovland said that the entire matter had been undertaken with the most noble
intentions in an attempt to react to various needs expressed by different elements of the Edina
community. In an effort to determine how to meet those expressed needs, the Council toured
various facilities in the metro area. They came away with the conclusion that community
centers would involve a significant level of taxpayer subsidization to operate. Member
Hovland said the Council with these concerns about tax increases, and both construction and
Page 2
I
0
1
4
Minutes /Special Edina City_Council/May 30, 2000
operating costs, attempted to balance solutions against the expressed needs. Conceptually, a
joint enterprise was designed between the City and School District to maximize the efficiencies
of operation and keep costs in line as much as possible. He said the work of two staffs
expanded to a larger committee encompassing the City Manager, Members Hovland and
Kelly, (and later Member Faust), and also members of the School Board.. Member Hovland
said they needed to know, as they went along and defined the various elements of the scope of
the project, how the School Board felt about it. He commented to the School District
representatives, that the Council appreciated the Board stating what was important from an
elemental standpoint. Preliminarily the community center was looked at because it involved
the different efficiencies that the committee hoped to create for the tax payers. Member
Hovland said that in the true democratic process stake holders in the neighborhood have now
expressed their concerns. He reported that what he has heard from these groups was that the
concern was not so much the components of the joint project, but the location of the
components. Member Hovland concurred that setting up a task force to identify the location of
the various components would be very helpful to the process. The legislature has removed
some pressure with their one year delay on implementation of the bleacher renovation. Now
everyone should have an opportunity to participate in the process. Member Hovland
expressed concern about the location of the field- house. He said that f a facility should be
located somewhere other than at the Edina Community Center; built on City owned property
and run as an enterprise; then the stand -alone operating costs versus the incremental
operating costs of a joint City /School District project must be determined. He reported that
what he has been hearing from the citizens was that location was more important than cost. If
the City has to run the facility and this costs more money, then go ahead and build the facility
in the correct location, not to be intrusive into a neighborhood or a school. Member Hovland
said this issue needs to be reviewed. Secondly, the soccer facility, the dome and artificial turf
at Kuhlman Field must be studied. He reported the soccer association came in at the eleventh
hour. Since they are such a large group, postponing the referendum will give an opportunity
to define better the best place for this facility. Member Hovland said he believes a better
location than Kuhlman Field can be found. Investigate whether it would be feasible to look at
the Braemar Dome north of the ice rink, where a new facility would not bother a
neighborhood and would have better access. Member Hovland said he was also concerned
about the proposed cost relative to its impact on taxpayers. Noting the significant number of
high value homes occupied by empty nesters Member Hovland said he wanted to make sure
the financial burden was fairly spread. Perhaps using different financing mechanisms could
be investigated, i.e., user fees.
Member Johnson said he agreed with his colleagues regarding postponing the referendum. He
added that while on the School Board there was a great deal of opposition from the
community, who felt that the Board would be detracting from a other elementary schools by
establishing the French Immersion Program. Opponents to establishing the French Immersion
Program felt the Board would be serving only a small interest group, but could possibly
detract from other elementary schools by drawing away people who were particularly
interested in education. Member Johnson reported that this had been a difficult decision for
the Board to make, but was done and has been borne out to be the right one, because the
French Immersion School has been very popular. In fact, it is populated by a group of activists
who are concerned about the education of their children, and they have been very active.
Member Johnson said that in this case; pointing out the irony, those very activists who were
the beneficiaries of the School Boards decision to do what was in the best interest of the School
Page 3
Minutes /Special Edina City Council/May 30, 2000
District and the greater community by establishing another magnet for the Edina community,
which would attract people, here, by showing the strength of the public school system; are
now among the leaders for whom the NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) principle is alive and
well. Everyone that the Council has heard from felt the project was laudable, that there was a
need for the vast majority if not all the components of the project. But not in my back yard.
Member Johnson said he found it rather ironic that .things have switched and the opposition
was now from the people for whose benefit the French Immersion Project was started. He said
he agreed that the next step should be to figure out a way to accommodate the needs of the
vast majority of the citizens of the community who want these developments. If the Council
cannot find a better place that was more accommodating to those who have expressed their
specific objections then the Council will have to make the tough decisions whether the needs
of the majority of those who want these development override the .interests of those who feel
they would prefer to have the development elsewhere. He concluded that he supported the
mayor's motion.
Mayor Maetzold thanked the Council and stated that he believed this could be made into a
win win proposition when the process was completed. He thanked the Edina School Board
and District for working with the City. He reported this was a new type of partnership and the
community will benefit from it by ultimately having some fine facilities.
Mayor Maetzold called the question on the previously stated motion to postpone the
referendum.
Ayes: Faust, Hovland, Johnson, Kelly, Maetzold
Motion carried.
There being no further business on the Council Agenda, Mayor Maetzold declared the
meeting adjourned at 7:20 P.M.
City Clerk
Page 4
� . LOCATION
II. B. Consent Item
MAP
LOT DIVISION
NUMBER LD -00 -6
L O C A T 10 N 4700 and 4704 Merilane
EDINA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
I
,Y
DRAFT MINUTES P.C. MEETING OF MAY 31, 2000
LD -00 -6 Edward Noonan
4700 Merilane and 4704 Merilane
Mr. Larsen informed the Commission the proposed lot division involves
the properties at 4700 and 4704 Merilane. The driveway for 4704 currently
encroaches on the southeastern corner of the lot at 4700 Merilane. The lot
division would transfer a small triangular piece of property from 4700 to 4704 in
order to cure the encroachment. The transfer does not affect the zoning
compliance of either lot.
Mr. Larsen concluded staff recommends approval.
Commissioner Runyan moved lot division approval. Commissioner
Ingwalson seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried.
7
EDINA PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 31, 2000
STAFF REPORT
LD -00 -6 Edward Noonan
4700 Merilane and 4704 Merilane
The proposed lot division involves the properties at 4700 and 4704
Merilane. The driveway for 4704 currently encroaches on the southeastern
corner of the lot at 4700 Merilane. The lot division would transfer a small
triangular piece of property from 4700 to 4704 in order to cure the
encroachment. The transfer does not affect the zoning compliance of either lot.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval.
s
M �A Ie,t Yw51"° E D N _ _ — — _ -e ZS 4.
'01 `4E
=253.4
892
R
' 1 1
1
ass 11
11-. -760
do
aar s se ' Mb
a -DON � 9n1 girl "
221-40
221.36 ,24•
e '19°2 4
SURVEY FOR: NOONAN CONSTRUCTION. INC.
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 4700 MwIlons, Edina, Minnesota
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: (Fumished by client)
Lot 60 and GOA. ROLLING GREEN SECTION TWO. according to the recorded Plot thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
I hereby certify that this Is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries o the land above described and of the location
of oil visible encroachments. If any, from or on sold land. n
r
0
o r
.
I
11-. -760
do
aar s se ' Mb
a -DON � 9n1 girl "
221-40
221.36 ,24•
e '19°2 4
SURVEY FOR: NOONAN CONSTRUCTION. INC.
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 4700 MwIlons, Edina, Minnesota
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: (Fumished by client)
Lot 60 and GOA. ROLLING GREEN SECTION TWO. according to the recorded Plot thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
I hereby certify that this Is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries o the land above described and of the location
of oil visible encroachments. If any, from or on sold land. n
r
SURVEY FOR: DORSEY & WHITNEY 61343 -003 105 /5 1
(7e -10)
DESCRIPTION: - -
Lot 1, Block 1, 'GUNNAR JOHNSON'S REARRANGEMENT, Rolling Green . - - FISCHOELL dr MADSON, INC. asrwc . Ev,wa•rcmK sEmrr:Es ..mu e0uun+m. surE r GENERAL NOTES: �wertrara� »a0a
` / t) aw -7201 r xa.5 -2055 1. • - Oenoles iron monument laund. 16 �
90.00
M
R \
i0 (a117.40�
,7 Q_R90' 6588
C s 116. / .
n 30
o w eo 20
<�
Scale in Feet
/
N
t`•��
6 /
�
;8000 /
Exrsm+c HousE
°�+
/
This drawing has been checked and
reviewed this Ij 3 % day of
— —
T — — — -
— — — — — —
_
^
_ _ _
— — — — —
by ccP
UrILITY
1 hereby certify that this survey was
and that
prepared under my supervision
1 am a Licensed Land Surveyor under the
lows of the, Slate of Minnesota.
Theodore D. Kemno
357 36
Date: Oct. 18, 1996 License No. 17005
c '
��Zr1A,1�1
04 e
Cn
TO
a :if]►TA
VIA:
REQUEST FOR PURCHASE
Mayor & City Council
Francis Hoffman, Director of Public Works
Gordon Hughes, City Manager
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $15,000
DATE: June 6, 2000
AGENDA ITEM iii.A.
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Roadway Improvements - School Rd., Ruth Dr., W. 59th St.,
Improvement No. A -189, Contract No. 00 -8 (ENG)
Company
Amount of Quote or Bid
Total Base Bid
Total Alt. Bid
1. Valley Paving, Inc.
1. $64,840.00
$42,650.00
2. Midwest Asphalt Corporation
2. $71,942.00
$49,584.50
3. Northwest Asphalt, Inc.
3. $72,260.00
$49,892.50
4. Bituminous Roadways, Inc.
4. $78,900.00
$58,415.00
5. Hardrives, Inc.
5. $81,675.00
$54,235.00
6. DMJ Corporation
6. $82,235.00
$53,350.00
RECOMMENDED QUOTE OR BID:
Valley Paving, Inc.
$64,840.00 $42,650.00
GENERAL INFORMATION:
This project is for the resurfacing of School Road, Ruth Drive, and West 59th Street. At the Public
Hearing, City Council requested that staff separate the Ruth Drive and West 59th Street and would
reconsider the project scope at the Award of Bid. Assessments per assessable lot based on the Base
Bid will be $1,800. Considering these bids residents along Ruth Drive and West 59th Street could
possibly pay over $4,750 per assessable lot in the future for their roadway improvement. See attached
letter that was delivered to residents along Ruth Drive and West 59th Street. The Engineer's Base Bid
Estimate and Alternate Estimate were $89,500 and $60,550, respectively. Staff recommends, based on
the age of the streets, economic analysis of the assessments, and the excellent low bid that Council
award the Base Bid.
xc: Public Works - Engineering
Si natur D ent
The Recommended Bid is 6eNQ
within budget not within budget Joh Ili /l`j a rector
Hughet, City�yanager
City of Edina
June 1, 2000
Re: Resident Letter No. 1
Project Information
Ruth Drive and West 591h Street
Dear Ruth Drive and West 59th Street Area Residents:
As you recall the City Council ordered the taking of Bids for the School Road, Ruth Drive, and West 59th
Street roadway improvements. The City Council also requested that two bids be taken: one for all three
roadways and another to separate Ruth Drive and West 59th Street. City staff opened bids today and
the following is a summary of what these bids would do to your special assessment for this project:
Base Bid: $1,800 per assessable lot, Includes all of School Road, Ruth Drive, and West 59th Street.
Considering these bids, if we separate Ruth Drive and West 59th Street your assessment in the future
could possibly be $4,750 (year 2000 dollars). The $4,750 assumes the School District will not be
assessed since they do not currently have vehicle assess to their property from Ruth Drive or West 59th
Street.
The City Council will review these options at the City Council Meeting scheduled for 7:00 PM on June 6.
Staff's recommendation to Council will be to approve the Base Bid based on the above analysis, the age
and condition of the roadway, and the fact that residents of Ruth Drive and West 591h Street must use
School Road to access their properties.
Please call me at 826 -0443 or e-mail me at whoule(cD-ci.edina.mn.us by Tuesday morning to provide me
with your opinion. I will present your comments at the Tuesday night meeting.
Sincerely,
Wayne D. Houle, PE
Assistant City Engineer
City Hall (612) 927 -8861
4801 WEST 50TH STREET FAX (612) 826 -0390
EDINA, MINNESOTA 55424 -1394 TDD (612) 826 -0379
Agenda Item III.A.
June 6, 2000
Wayne Houle
From: BANGHEAD @aol.com
;ent: Monday, June 05, 2000 11:55 PM
ro: whoule @ci.edina.mn.us
Subject: Ruth Ave and West 59th St roadway improvements.
Dear Wayne D. Houle,
Thank you for your response in regard to our roadway project that has
been proposed. It seems like you have made every attempt in your letter
dated June 1, 2000, to bias your opinion to conclude a new road would be in
our best interests.
The bottom line is we don't need it. Our road is used by only 6 families and
nothing more, with the exception of 5 times a year for overflow football
parking.
Your letter contradicts itself several times. You seem more interested
in trying to scare us with the future costs, than to address the reality of a
road being needed or not. Nothing in your letter shows a reevaluation of our
road condition, coupled with the fact that little wear and tear is created by
the few residents that use it. I would like to point out your contradictions
that shows a bias to your position.
First of all, you state that that with us included the base bid is
$1,800.00 per assessable lot. From the Feasibility Study -A189 you believe
that this will be $2,300.00 per assessable lot taking into account indirect
costs. The April 28th project information letter further breaks down who
will be assessed. It seems up to this point your pretty sure that all will
go as planned and that those letter were accurate and your best estimate was
given. Things seem to change on your June 1 st letter. You make it seem as .
.lough the sky is falling. If we decide to break off from the project you
hit us with a new assessment that doesn't include the school, nor the city so
you can fictitiously give a high estimate of $4,750.00. You haven't
included what the cost are, or even if this is just the base cost.
Secondly, the part of who will be assessed is another area that is
misrepresented when figuring out the assessment. One letter states that side
streets of homes will be assessed 1/3, yet in your attempt to raise the
estimates of the future costs, you state that the school will fight any
assessment because they don't have any vehicle access. Will you now notify
the homes with no vehicle access to School Road that you are about to assess
and tell them that will not be? You again try to take the worst case
scenario to better your position with inaccuracies.
You also state in your letter that your recommendation to approve the
base bid is base on the above analysis, the age and condition of the roadway
and the fact that we must use School Road to access our property. I have
stated that your analysis is flawed and bias to favor your position. The age
and condition of the roadway is quite adequate for the limited usage and
general upkeep is all that is needed. Your statement in regard to our use of
School Road is baseless, yet surprising. Am I going to be assessed when
ae
Concord Ave is replaced because I use that everyday?
�� T ('C�
Does Valley View fall into that category? Normandale Blvd? It's a shame you
A� �•%
try every angle to convince the City Council that this new road is needed,
S��`
yet fail to take into consideration how little this road is used. It's our
Q�
private area, leave it alone.
Council, I but
1yf
V.p�,
You may share our opinions with the City as will, please
also include in your report the amount of traffic we have per day.
,JUN
aE�E�v
Thank you for your time,
David and Beth Iacono
8 Y
A g 13 L E -o-- 95 9 CH. 5T R-C ET
o� e
.a°
. o.
REQUEST FOR PURCHASE
TO: Mayor & City Council
FROM: Francis Hoffman, Director of Public Works
VIA: Gordon Hughes, City Manager
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $15,000
DATE:. 6 June, 2000 AGENDA ITEM III•s.
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Two Single Axle Dump Truck Chassis
Company
1. Boyer Trucks, Inc. (State Contract #423545)
2.
3.
4.
5.
RECOMMENDED QUOTE OR BID:
Boyer Trucks, Inc.
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Amount of Quote or Bid
1. $ 103,720.00
2.
3.
4.
5.
$ 103,720.00
This is the purchase of two new single axle dump truck chassis. These units replace two 1988 GMC
units, numbers 25 -348 and 25 -349 which will be twelve years old when replaced. These purchases are
for Year 2001 delivery and are purchased through the State Cooperative Purchasing Program. This
equipment is funded through the Equipment Replacement program.
Sig ture
The Recommended Bid is _
within budget not within b dget J
G rdon Hughes
Public Works - Streets
Department
V-MZ41311111VwMaM11112:it d
i n Manager -
o� e
'�,�bRla'aOeM�6p
REQUEST FOR PURCHASE
TO: Mayor & City Council
FROM: Francis Hoffman, Director of Public Works
VIA: Gordon Hughes, City Manager
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $15,000
DATE: 6 June, 2000
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Two Flygt Submersible Sewage Pumps
Company
1. Electric Pump Waldor Group (Sole Source)
2.
3.
4.
5.
RECOMMENDED QUOTE OR BID:
J
Electric Pump Waldor Group
GENERAL INFORMATION:
AGENDA ITEM III•c-
Amount of Quote or Bid
1. $ 15,930.27
2.
3.
4.
5.
$ 15,930.27
This is the purchase of two 23 HP Flygt submersible sewage pumps with impellers. They are
replacement pumps for the 62nd Street lift station. This equipment is funded through the utility fund for
sewer and water.
The Recommended Bid is
within budget
not
Public Works - Utilities
Department
to .i•
EOSIl��N DC 4378 E
t
!..4 �
-a
.Xvl�
M7 li 0,
mr- • L l
..
� •Y
_ _f'
k
�., -:• _
`v
`R
'
r 04 ,Rgi
w
Ce: etAl
ch
REPORT/RECOMMENDATION
To:
MAYOR AND COUNCIL
Agenda Item
W.A.
From:
GORDON L. HUGHES
Consent
❑
CITY MANAGER
Information Only
❑
Date:
JUNE 69 2000
Mgr. Recommends
❑
To HRA
®
To Council
Subject:
ACQUISITION OF
❑
Motion
4416 VALLEY VIEW ROAD
❑
Resolution
ElOrdinance
®
Discussion
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt attached Resolution.
INFORMATION/BACKGROUND:
For the past several months, representatives of the City have been discussing the
acquisition of the subject property with the property owner. This property is occupied by
Roster's Service and Rentals. Unfortunately, our representatives have been unable to
arrive at terms satisfactory to the City and to the property owner. Therefore, we
recommend that the City adopt the attached Resolution authorizing the acquisition of the
property by eminent domain if necessary.
The property has been used for many years for the rental of U -Haul trucks and trailers
and small engine repair. It was originally constructed as a gasoline station and operated as
such for many years. Gasoline sales were discontinued a couple of years ago and the
gasoline tanks were removed. Recently, the property-owner applied for a variance to
REPORT/RECOMMENDATION - ACQUISITION OF 4416 VALLEY VIEW ROAD
June 6, 2000
Page two
install a canopy over new gasoline pumps which were to be installed on the property.
After several hearings, the Board of Appeals and Adjustments denied variances necessary
to erect the canopy. The property owner has now begun to install new gasoline tanks
(without a canopy) for the purpose of re- establishing the sale of gasoline. There is no plan
to discontinue the rental of U -Haul vehicles or other activities conducted on the
property.
Many features of the property do not comply with the current standards of the Zoning
Ordinance. Among these are the use of the property for vehicle and trailer rental. In
addition, the property does not comply with current setback, lot area and performance
standards required by the Zoning Ordinance. The deficiencies of the property from a
zoning perspective are permitted to remain as a lawful non - conforming use. In other
words, the use of and construction on the property were apparently established prior to
current standards being in place.
In 1990, the City established a development program for a Development District and Tax
Increment Financing plans for several commercial areas including the Wooddale and
Valley View District. A copy of this development program, as well as a specific plan
adopted for Wooddale and Valley View Road, are attached. The development program
and the development plan contained a number of goals and objectives including
eliminating blighting influences and functionally obsolete land uses which impede orderly
development within the district. The plan specifically authorized the acquisition of the
subject property. This acquisition was contemplated for the purpose of constructing off -
street parking for the commercial area. Such a use continues to be the contemplated use
for the property if acquired by the City.
In staffs opinion, the condition of the property has continued to deteriorate since the
adoption of the development program in 1990. In our opinion, acquisition of the property
is warranted and necessary to carry-out the stated goals and objectives of the
development program.
RESOLUTION
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota (the
"City"), as follows:
WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.124 to 469.134, the
City Council on April 2, 1990 adopted the Development Program for Development District No. 2
(the "Development Program "), which created a development district in the City designated as
Development District No. 2 (the "District ");
WHEREAS, it is necessary, advisable, and in the public interest that the City,
acquire for redevelopment purposes, and pursuant to the Development Program, property within
the Development District; and
WHEREAS, in order to assist in the redevelopment of the property in the
Development District in accordance with the Development Program, it is necessary that the
properties described on Exhibit A attached hereto and hereby made a part be redeveloped; and
WHEREAS, the City has been advised that said property will not be made
available for redevelopment in a manner that would allow the City and meet the objectives and
purposes of the Development Program unless it is acquired by eminent domain; and
WHEREAS, in order to undertake the Development Program and provide for the
redevelopment of said property in a manner that would meet the objectives and purposes of the
Development Program, it will be necessary to procure the same by the right of eminent domain.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that in order to undertake the
Development Program and provide for the redevelopment of the property described on Exhibit A
hereto in a manner that would meet the objectives and purposes of the Development Program, the
City proceed to acquire the property described on Exhibit A hereto and all interests therein under
its power of eminent domain; and that the attorneys for the City be instructed and directed to file
the necessary petition or petitions therefor and to prosecute such action or actions to a successful
conclusion, or until it is abandoned, dismissed or terminated by the City or the Court; and that
the attorneys for the City, and the officers of the City do all things necessary to be done in the
commencement, prosecution and successful termination of such eminent domain proceedings.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that it is hereby found and declared that the
acquisition of the property described on Exhibit A hereto and all interests therein by the City
under its power of eminent domain is necessary to redevelop property in the Development
District in accordance with the Development Program.
EXHIBIT A
4416 Valley View Road
Lots 8 and 9, Block 21, Fairfax Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin
County, Minnesota.
1 ,
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 2
and
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLANS FOR
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICTS
90 -1 (44th and France),
90 -2 (Valley View and Wooddale)
and
90 -3 (70th and Cahill),
April 2, 1990
CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA
TABLE OF CONTENTS
This Table of Contents is for convenience of reference
only and is not part of the Development Program or the Tag
Increment Financing Plan.
Page
I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
A. Statement of Need and Statutory Authority . . . . 1
B. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
II. DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR DEVELOPMENT 4
DISTRICT NO. 2 . . . . . . . . • • • • • • • • • • .
A. Property To Be Included in
Development District . . . . . . • • •
B. Development Plan . . . .
C. Operation of Development District
D. Estimated Capital and Administrative -Costs . . . .
E. Property Acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . .
III. TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT
NO. 90 -1 (44TH AND FRANCE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A. Statement of Objectives and Development Program
B. Property To Be Included in'Tax Increment
District
. .
C. Estimated Capital andAdministration Costs .
D. Payment of Capital-:and Administrative Costs
E. Determination and Use of Tag Increment . . . . . .
F. Impact of Tag Increment Financing on
Other Taxing Jurisdictions . . . . . . . . .
4
4
4
5
6
6
6
6
7
9
IV. TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT
NO. 90 -2 (VALLEY VIEW AND WOODDALE) . . . . . . . . . 10
A. Statement of Objectives and Development Program 10
B. Property To Be Included in Tag Increment
District . • 10
C. Estimated CapitalandAdministration Costs . . . . 11
D. Payment of Capital and Administrative Costs . . . 11
E. Determination and Use of Tag Increment . . . . . . 12
F. Impact of Tax Increment Financing on
Other Taxing Jurisdictions . . . . . . . . . . 13
V. TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT
NO. 90 -3 (70TH AND CAHILL) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
A. Statement of Objectives and Development Program 14
B. Property To Be Included in Tax Increment
District . . . . . . . . 14
C. Estimated Capital and Administration Costs . . . . 14
D. Payment of Capital and Administrative Costs . . . 15
E. Determination and Use of Tax Increment . . . . . . 15
F. Impact of Tax Increment Financing on
Other Taxing Jurisdictions . . . . . . . . . . 17
VI. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROGRAM AND PLANS . . . . . . . 18
VII. AMENDMENTS TO PROGRAM AND PLANS . . . . . . . . . . . ' 18
EXHIBITS
A. Map of Development District No. 2
B. Development Plan
C. List of Parcels in Tax Increment Financing
District 90 -1
D. Staff Report Evidencing Tax Increment Financing
District No. 90 -1 Meets Redevelopment District
Criteria
E. Estimated Tax Increment for Tax Increment
Financing District 90 -1
F. List of Parcels in Tax Increment Financing
District 90 -2
G. Estimated Tax Increment for Tax Increment
Financing District No. 90 -2
H. List of Parcels in Tax Increment Financing
District 90 -3
I. Estimated Tax Increment for Tax Increment
Financing District 90 -3
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Statement of Need and Statutory Authority. The
commercial areas in City of Edina located in the vicinity of
West 44th Street and France Avenue, Valley View_Road and
Wooddale Avenue and West 70th Street and Cahill Road currently
have certain deficiencies relating to traffic circulation,.
parking, land use and physical development which detracts from
these areas. The City-Council has determined that the City may
be able to assist in the alleviation of such deficiencies and
that in order to provide such.assistance it is necessary to
include these three areas in a Development District to be
designated as Development District No. 2 and to take certain
action pursuant to a Development Program (the "Program ").
In order to finance the capital and administration
costs of the Program, it is proposed that the City adopt tax
increment financing plans (the' "Plans "), which provide for the
creation of Tax Increment Financing Districts 90 -1 (44th and
France), 90 -2 (Valley View and Wooddale) and 90 -3 (70th and
Cahill) (the "Districts ").
The Program and the Plans are adopted by the City
Council of the City pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections
469.001 to 469.047 and 469.174 to 469.179.
B. Definitions. Each of the words and terms defined
in this Section shall for all purposes of the Program and the
-Plan, have the meanings given to them in this Section B:
"Bonds" means the tax increment bonds and any other
obligations issued by the City, the principal of and interest
on which are payable in whole or in part out of the Tax
Increment, to finance or provide for the payment of the Capital
and Administrative Cost.
"Bond Resolution" means any and all resolutions,
ordinances, trust indentures or other documents under which any
Bonds are sold, issued or secured.
"Capital and Administrative Costs" means the total
amount expended and to be expended by the City on Development
Activities as provided in the Program and Plans.
"Captured Tax Capacity" means for such Tax Increment
District that portion of the Tax Capacity for such Tax
Increment District in excess of the Original Tax Capacity for
such Tax Increment District as adjusted from time to time, if
any.
"City" means the City of Edina, Hennepin County,
Minnesota.
"Development Activities" means all actions taken or to
be taken by the City or HRA in establishing, implementing and
carrying out the Program.
"Development District" means Development District
No. 2 of the City as established pursuant to this Program.
"HRA" means the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of
Edina, Minnesota.
"Original Tax Capacity" means the Net Tax Capacity of
all taxable property in the Tax Increment District as most
recently determined by the Commissioner of Revenue of the State
of Minnesota as of the date of certification thereof by the
County Auditor pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177
and as thereafter adjusted and certified by the County Auditor
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177.
"Outstanding" when used with respect to the Bonds,
means Bonds which have not been paid, redeemed or discharged in
accordance with their terms or the terms of a Bond Resolution.
"Parcel" means a lot, parcel or tract of plat of land
comprising a single unit for purposes of assessment for real
estate tax purposes, as of the date of adoption of this Plan.
".Plans" means the Tax Increment Financing Plans for
each of the Districts as approved and as supplemented and
amended from time to time by the City Council of the City.
"Program" means this Development Program as
supplemented and amended from time to time by the City Council
of the City.
"Tax Capacity" means the net tax capacity of all
taxable property in a District as determined from time to time
pursuant to state law.
"Tax Capacity Rate" means with respect to taxes
payable in any year the lesser of (i) the local taxing district
tax capacity rates for taxes payable in such year or (ii) the
"original tax capacity rate" for a Tax Increment District as
defined and calculated in accordance with Minnesota Statutes,
Section 469.177, Subdivision la.
"Tax Increment" means that portion of the ad valorem
taxes generated by the extension of the Tax Capacity Rate to
-2-
the Captured Tax Capacity of taxable property in a Tax
Increment District.
"Tax Increment
Financing District 90 -1
"Tax Increment
Financing District 90 -2
"Tax Increment
Financing District 90 -3
District 90 -1" means Tax
(44th and France) of,the
District 90 -2" means Tax
(Valley View and Wooddal.,
District 90 -3" means Tax
(70th and Cahill) of the
Increment
City.
Increment
e) of the City.
Increment
City.
"Tax Increment Districts" means collectively Tax
Increment Financing District 90 -1, 90 -2, and 90 -3..
-3-
II. DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 2
A. Property To Be Included in Development District.
The Parcels located in the City of Edina, Hennepin County,
Minnesota, set forth in Exhibit A hereto, shall constitute the
Development District.
B. Development Plan. The Development Plan for the
Development District appears as Exhibit B hereto. To the
extent that any proposed uses in the Development Plan conflict
with the City's Comprehensive Plan, such uses will not be
permitted unless and until the Comprehensive Plan is amended to
permit such use.
C. Operation of Development District. Unless
otherwise directed by the City, the maintenance and operation
of the public improvements constructed in the District will be
the responsibility of the HRA, as administrator of the
District. Each year the HRA will submit to the City Council
the maintenance and operation budget for the Development
District for the following year.
The HRA will administer the Development District
pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section
469.131; provided, however, that the HRA may exercise the
powers listed in said Section 469.131 only at the direction of
the City Council.
D. Estimated Capital and Administrative Costs. The
estimated Capital and Administrative Costs of the Program are
as follows:
capital
Costs
44th and
Valley View
70th and
France
and Wooddale
Cahill
Property Acquisition
$1,330,000
$153,800
$529,400
Demolition
200,000
40,000
150,000
Interest Assistance
175,000
100,000
150,000
Relocation
280,000
46,000
160,000
Public Improvements
(Parking, Utilities,
Landscaping, Street
Vacation)
530,000
190,000
175,000
Historic Building
Relocation
-
-
150,000
Total
$2,515,000
$529,000
$1,314,400
-4-
Financing and Administrative Costs and Contingen
Legal, Fiscal and Administrative $ 500,000
Capitalized Interest 750,000
Bond Discount 105,000
Contingency 654,000
Total $2,009,000
The elements and costs shown above are estimated to be
necessary based upon information now available. It is
anticipated that the Capital and Administrative, Costs may
decrease or increase.. The-City reserves the right to pay any
of the Capital and Administrative Costs from the proceeds of
Tax Increment Bonds or directly from Tax Increment.
E. Property Acquisition. In carrying out the Program
the City may acquire certain property in the Development
District. The Development Plan for the Development District
envisions that it may be necessary for the City to acquire any
right of way necessary for public improvements and to acquire
the following property in the Development District to assist in
the development of the property it the'Development District in
accordance with the Program:
44th and-France Area
Edina Cleaners
Rapid Oil
Storage Garage
4532 France Avenue South
4536 France Avenue South
3916 W. 44th Street
3918 W. 44th Street
3920 W. 44th Street
3924 W. 44th Street
3930 W. 44th Street
3936 W. 44th Street
Valley View and Wooddale
Roster's
6120 Kellogg
70th and Cahill
Union Oil
Coit Warehouse
-5-
III. TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
DISTRICT NO. 90 -1 (44TH AND FRANCE)
A. Statement of Objectives and Development Program.
See Section B of the Program.
B. Property To Be Included in Tax Increment District.
The Parcels located in the City of Edina, Hennepin
County, Minnesota set forth on Exhibit C shall constitute the
Tax Increment District No. 90 -1.
C. Estimated Capital and Administration Costs.
1. Capital Proceeds. The capital proceeds of the
project, comprising the proceeds of sale of any land acquired
by the City to private developers, are expected to be $0.00.
2. Capital and Administration Costs. The Capital and
Administration Costs of the Development District, comprising
the total costs expected to be incurred in carrying out the
Development Activities by the City is expected to be as shown
in Section D of the Program, plus interest to be paid on the
Tax Increment Bonds during their term (other than interest paid
from the proceeds of the Tax Increment Bonds).
Program.
3. Property to be Acquired. See Section E of the
D. Payment of Capital and Administrative Costs.
1. In General. .All Capital and Administrative Costs
will be paid from Tax Increment either directly or indirectly
by payment of debt service on Tax Increment Bonds issued to
finance such cost or reimbursement for items of Capital and
Administrative Costs paid directly by the City.
2. Issuance of Bonds. It is presently expected that
all or a portion of the Capital and Administrative Costs will
be financed by the issuance of the Tax Increment Bonds. The
Tax Increment Bonds will be issued by the City under authority
of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 475, and Sections 469.174 to
469.179. The principal amount of the Bonds is expected to be
$6,370,000.
The actual principal amount of the Bonds, however, may be less
than or exceed this amount, and the right to issue the Bonds in
an amount greater than $6,370,000 to finance such Capital and
Administrative Costs is reserved. Similarly, the amount
ffm
allocated to capitalized interest covers interest payable on
the Bonds (net of investment income on proceeds of the Bonds)
at an initial rate now estimated to be approximately 8% per
annum for a 18 -month period; and the City reserves the right to
increase or decrease the amount of capitalized interest to
correspond to the interest actually payable on the Bonds over
the 18 -month period.
3. Security For Bonds. The Bonds will be general
obligations of the City, and the City will pledge its full
faith, credit and unlimited taxing powers to the payment of
principal thereof and interest thereon. The principal of and
interest on the Bonds are payable primarily', however, from the
Tax Increments from one.or more of the Tax Increment Districts
and no ad valorem tax is expected to be levied for payment of
the Bonds and interest thereon in the Bond Resolution. All Tax
Increments will be pledged and appropriated to the payment of
the Bonds and the interest thereon when due. In addition; such
principal and interest will be paid from certain proceeds of
the Bonds (capitalized interest) and interest earnings thereon.
4. Bond Terms. The terms of the Tax Increment Bonds
are expected to be as set forth below; however, the right is
reserved to adjust any and all terms of the Tax Increment Bonds
to secure the best interest rate obtainable and to insure that
the entire principal of and interest on the Tax Increment Bonds
will be paid when due from the sources specified in paragraph 3.
The Tax Increment Bonds will be issued in one or more
series, in the aggregate principal amount of $6,370,000, will
mature serially over a period of approximately twenty (20)
years from the date of receipt by the City of the first Tax
Increment from the Tax Increment Districts, will be subject to
redemption prior to maturity, will bear a fixed rate or rates
of interest from date of issue to maturity, payable
semiannually commencing approximately six months after the
issuance thereof, and will'be sold at public or private sale.
E. Determination and Use of Tax Increment.
1.- Statutory Authority and Tax Increment District
90-1 Eligibility as an Redevelopment District. Minnesota
Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10 defines a
"redevelopment district ".as a tax increment financing district
consisting of a portion of a development district which is 70%
of the Parcels in which are occupied by buildings, streets,
utilities or other improvements and 20% of the buildings are
structurally substandard and the additional 30% of the
buildings require substantial renovation or clearance to remove
such existing conditions as: inadequate street layout,
-7-
incompatible uses or land use relationships, overcrowding of
buildings on the land, excessive dwelling unit density,
obsolete buildings not suitable for improvement or conversion,
or other identified hazards to the health, safety, and general
well -being of the community.
Based upon a report of City staff attached hereto as
Exhibit D, the City believes Tax Increment District 90 -1 is a
"redevelopment district" since the conditions set forth in the
preceding paragraph are satisfied with respect to Tax Increment
District 90 -1.
2. Original Tax Capacity. The Tax Capacity of all
taxable property in Tax Increment District 90 -1 as most
recently certified by the Commissioner of Revenue of the State
of Minnesota, being the certification made in 1989 with respect
to the Tax Capacity of such property as of January 2, 1989, is
$116,578.
3. Current Tax Capacity. The current Tax Capacity of
property in Tax Increment District 90 -1 is $116,578, the
Original Tax Capacity.
4. Captured Tax Capacity. It is expected that the
Captured Tax Capacity of all taxable property in Tax Increment
District 90 -1, upon completion of the improvements in Tax
Increment District 90 -1 described in the Program (taxes payable
2015) in Tax Increment District 90 -1, will be $177,920,
computed as follows:
Estimated Tag Capacity . . . . . . $294,498
at Completion
Less Original Tax-Capacity . . . . 116,578
at Completion
Estimated Captured Tag
Capacity at Completion . . . . . $177,920
5. Tag Increment Calculation. Assuming the
Anticipated Private Developments occur as described and
provided in the Program it is estimated that the Tax Increment
to be received each year for the duration of Tag Increment
District 90 -1 will be as set forth in Exhibit E hereto. The
estimated amount of Tag Increment set forth in Exhibit E is
based upon a Tax Capacity Rate of .90098.
6. Duration of Tax Increment District 90 -1. It is
estimated that Tax Increment District 90 -1 will remain in
existence until 25 years from the date of receipt by the City
-8-
of the first Tax Increment from Tax Increment District 90 -1, or
until the City's obligation to pay the Tax Increment Bonds and -
interest has been discharged in accordance with the Bond
Resolution.
7. Use of Captured Tax Capacity and Tax Increment.
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.17,7, Subdivision 2,
the City hereby determines that it will use 100% of the
Captured Tax Capacity of property located in Tax Increment
District 90- 1,.and 100% of the Tax Increments to be derived
therefrom, for the entire duration of Tax Increment District
90 -1.
8. Excess Tax Increment. The Tax Increment received
from Tax Increment District 90 -1 in any year not needed to pay
debt service on the Tax Increment Bonds coming due on or before
August 1 of the following year, shall be used first to reduce
any ad valorem property tax levied pursuant to and in accordance
with Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.61, Subdivision 3, and
then shall be used to prepay or discharge outstanding Tax
Increment Bonds or pay additional Capital and Administration
Costs, all in accordance with the Bond Resolution.
9. Pooling of Tax Increment. Tax Increment received
from Tax Increment District 90 -1 will be pooled by the City
with all other Tax Increment received from the Tax Increment
Districts and will be available for expenditure for any Capital
and Administrative Costs, whether or not such Capital and
Administrative Costs are incurred with respect to property
included in Tax Increment District 90 -1.
F. Impact of Tax Increment Financing on Other Taxing
Jurisdictions.
The local government units other than the City.which
are authorized by law to levy ad valorem property taxes and in
which Tax Increment District 90 -1 is located, are Independent
School District No. 273, Hennepin County, the HRA, and various
metropolitan area authorities, including the Metropolitan
Council, the.Metropolitan Transit Commission, the Metropolitan
Airports Commission and the Metropolitan.Mosquito Control
District (the local government units).
The taxing jurisdictions encompassing Tax Increment
District 90 -1 will continue to receive taxes as if the Original
Tax Capacity of Tax Increment District 90 -1 were unchanged,
except for the increase in Original Tax Capacity described in
Part F(2) of this Plan. This precludes the jurisdictions from
benefiting from a portion of the increase in Tax Capacity which
results from the improvements in Tax Increment District 90 -1
WE
described in the Program or other development of the taxable
property in Tax Increment District 90 -1. In order to assess
the impact of this on Hennepin County, Independent School
District No. 273 and the City the following table indicates
what percentage the anticipated Captured Tax Capacity of Tax
Increment District 90 -1 at the completion of the improvements
in Tax Increment District 90 -1 described in the Program (which
occurs for taxes payable in 2015 as shown on Exhibit E hereto),
is of the present total Tax Capacity for such taxing
jurisdiction.
If Tax Increment District 90 -1 were not created and the
improvements occur in Tax Increment District 90 -1 as described
in the Program, all of the Captured Tax Capacity of Tax
Increment District 90 -1 would be available to the taxing
jurisdictions, which would result in an increase in the tax
capacity of such taxing jurisdictions in each year during the
duration of Tax Increment District 90 -1 in an amount equal to
the Captured Tax Capacity.,
IV. TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
DISTRICT NO. 90 -2 (VALLEY VIEW AND WOODDALE)
A. Statement of Objectives and Development Program.
See Section B of the Development Program.
B. Property To Be Included in Tax Increment District.
The Parcels located in the City of Edina, Hennepin
County, Minnesota set forth on Exhibit F shall constitute Tax
Increment District 90 -2.
-10-
Estimated
Captured
Tax
Capacity
Percent of
Present
at Completion
Present
Taxing
Tax
of
Total Tax
Jurisdiction
Capacity
Improvements
Capacity
Hennepin
County
$1,034,463,652
$177,920
.02%
I.S.D.
No. 273
63,744,885
177,920
.28%
City of Edina
77,629,266
177,920
.23%
If Tax Increment District 90 -1 were not created and the
improvements occur in Tax Increment District 90 -1 as described
in the Program, all of the Captured Tax Capacity of Tax
Increment District 90 -1 would be available to the taxing
jurisdictions, which would result in an increase in the tax
capacity of such taxing jurisdictions in each year during the
duration of Tax Increment District 90 -1 in an amount equal to
the Captured Tax Capacity.,
IV. TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
DISTRICT NO. 90 -2 (VALLEY VIEW AND WOODDALE)
A. Statement of Objectives and Development Program.
See Section B of the Development Program.
B. Property To Be Included in Tax Increment District.
The Parcels located in the City of Edina, Hennepin
County, Minnesota set forth on Exhibit F shall constitute Tax
Increment District 90 -2.
-10-
C. Estimated Capital and Administration Costs.
1. Capital Proceeds. The capital proceeds of the
project, comprising the proceeds of sale of any land acquired
by the City to private developers, are expected to be $0.00.
2. Capital and Administration Costs. The Capital and
Administration Costs of the Development District, comprising
the total costs expected to'be incurred in carrying out the
Development Activities by the City is expected to be as shown
in Section D of the Program, plus interest to be paid on the
Tax Increment Bonds during their term (other than interest paid
from the proceeds of the Tax Increment Bonds).
3. Property to be Acquired. See Section E of the
Program.
D. Payment of Capital and Administrative Costs. See
Section D of the Plan for Tax Increment District 90 -1.
E. Determination and Use-of Tax Increment.
1. Statutory Authority and District Eligibility as an
Economic Development District. Minnesota Statutes, Section
469.174, Subdivision 12 defines an "economic development
district" as a tax increment financing district consisting of a
portion of a development district which the authority finds to
be in the public interest because it will discourage commerce,
industry or manufacturing from moving their operations to
another state, will result in increased employment in the.
municipality or will result in preservation and enhancement of
the tax base of the municipality.
The City believes-Tax Increment. District 90 -2 is an'
"economic development district" since the Development
Activities,to occur in Tax Increment District 90 -2 will result
in preservation and enhancement of the tax base of the City.
2. Original Tax Capacity. The Tax Capacity of all
taxable property in Tax Increment District 90 -2 as most
recently certified by the Commissioner of Revenue of the State
of Minnesota, being the certification made in 1989 with respect
to the Tax Capacity of such property as of January 2, 1989, is
$74,536, which amount is expected to be the Original Tax
Capacity of Tax Increment District 90 -2, subject to adjustment
of 4.24% -per year pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section
469.177, Subdivision 1, based on the average percentage
increase in the assessed valuation of property in Tax Increment
District 90 -2 during the last five years.
-11-
3. Current Tax Capacity. The current Tax Capacity of
property in Tax Increment District 90 -2 is $74,536, the
Original Tax Capacity.
4. Captured Tax Capacity. It is expected that the
Captured Tax Capacity of all taxable property in Tax Increment
District 90 -2, upon completion of the improvements in Tax
Increment District 90 -2 described in the Program (taxes payable
2000) in Tax Increment District 90 -2, will be $10,468, computed
as follows:
Estimated Tax Capacity . . . . . . $123,373
at Completion
Less Original Tax Capacity . . 112,904
at Completion
Estimated Captured Tax
Capacity at Completion . . . . . $ 10,468
5. Tax Increment Calculation. Assuming the
improvements in Tax Increment District 90 -2 occur as described
and provided in the Program hereto it is estimated that the Tax
Increment to be received each year for the duration of Tax
Increment District 90 -2 will be as set forth in Exhibit G
hereto. The estimated amount of Tax Increment set forth in
Exhibit G is based upon a Tax Capacity Rate of .90098.
6. Duration of the Tax Increment District 90 -2. It
is estimated that Tax Increment District 90 -2 will remain in
existence until the 8 years from the date of receipt of the
first Tax Increment from Tax Increment District 90 -2 or 10
years from the date of apprgval of this Plan, whichever is
earlier, or until the City's obligation to pay the.Tax
Increment Bonds and interest has been discharged in accordance
with the Bond Resolution.
7. Use of Captured Tax Capacity and Tax Increment.
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, Subdivision 2,
the City hereby determines that it will use 100% of the
Captured Tax Capacity of property located in Tax Increment
District 90 -2, and 100% of the Tax Increments to be derived
therefrom, for the entire duration of Tax Increment District
90 -2.
8. Excess Tax Increment. The Tax Increment received
from Tax Increment District 90 -2 in any year not needed to pay
debt service on the Tax Increment Bonds coming due on or before
August 1 of the following year, shall be used first to reduce
any ad valorem property tax levied pursuant to and in accordance
-12-
with Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.61, Subdivision 3, and
then shall be used to prepay or discharge outstanding Tax
Increment Bonds or pay additional Capital and Administration
Costs, all in accordance with the Bond Resolution.
9. Pooling of Tax Increment. Tag Increment received
from Tax Increment District 90 -2 will be pooled by the City
with all other Tax Increment received from the Tax Increment
Districts and will be available for expenditure for any Capital
and Administrative Costs, whether or not such Capital and
Administrative Costs are incurred with respect to property
included in Tax Increment District 90 -2.
F. Impact of Tax Increment Financing on Other Taxing
Jurisdictions.
The local government units other than the City which
are authorized by law to levy ad valorem property taxes and in
which Tax Increment District 90 -2 is located, are Independent
School District No. 273, Hennepin County, the HRA, and various
metropolitan area authorities, including the Metropolitan
Council, the Metropolitan Transit Commission, the Metropolitan
Airports Commission and the Metropolitan Mosquito Control
District (the local government units).
The taxing jurisdictions encompassing Tax Increment
District 90 -2 will continue to receive taxes as if the Original
Tax Capacity of Tax Increment District 90 -2 were unchanged,
except for the increase in Original Tax Capacity described in
Part F(2) of this Plan. This precludes the jurisdictions from
benefiting from a portion of -the increase in Tax Capacity which
results from the improvements in Tax Increment:District 90 -2
described in the Program or other development of the taxable
property in Tax Increment'Dsstrict 90 -2. In order to assess
the impact of this on Hennepin County, Independent School
District No. 273 and the City the following table indicates
what percentage the anticipated Captured Tag Capacity of Tax
Increment District 90 -2 at the completion of the improvements
in Tax Increment District 90 =2 described in the.Program (which
occurs for taxes payable in 2000 as shown on Exhibit G hereto),
is of the present total Tax Capacity for such taxing
jurisdiction.
-13-
Taxing
Jurisdiction
Hennepin
County
I.S.D.
No. 273
City of Edina
Present
Tax
Capacity
$1,034,463,652
63,744,885
77,629,266
Estimated
Captured
Tax
Capacity
at Completion
of
Improvements
$10,468
10,468
10,468
Percent of
Present
Total Tax
Capacity
less than .01%
.02%
.01%
If Tax Increment District 90 -2 were not created and the
improvements occur in Tax Increment District 90 -2 as described
in the Program, all of the Captured Tax Capacity of Tax
Increment District 90 -2 would be available to the taxing
jurisdictions, which would result in an increase in the tax
capacity of such taxing jurisdictions in each year during the
duration of Tax Increment District 90 -2 in an amount equal to
the Captured Tax Capacity.
V. TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
DISTRICT NO. 90 -3 (70TH AND CAHILL)
A. Statement of Objectives and Development Program.
See Section A of the Development Program.
B. Property To Be•Included in Tax Increment District
90 -3.
The Parcels located in the City of Edina, Hennepin
County, Minnesota set forth on Exhibit H shall constitute Tax
Increment District 90 -3.
C. Estimated Capital and Administration Costs.
1. Capital Proceeds. The capital proceeds of the
project, comprising the proceeds of sale of any land acquired
by the City to private developers, are expected to be $0.00.
2. Capital and Administration Costs. The Capital and
Administration Costs of the Development District, comprising
the total costs expected to be incurred in carrying out the
Development Activities by the City is expected to be as shown
in Section D of the Program, plus interest to be paid on the
Tax Increment Bonds during their term (other than interest paid
from the proceeds of the Tax Increment Bonds).
-14-
3. Property to be Acquired. See Section E of the
Program.
D. Payment of Capital and Administrative Costs. See
Section D of the plan for Tax Increment District 90 -1.
E. Determination and Use of Tax Increment.
1. Statutory Authority and District Eligibility as an
Economic Development District. Minnesota Statutes, Section
469.174, Subdivision 12 defines an "economic development
district" as a tax increment financing district consisting of a
portion of a development district which the authority finds to
be in the public interest because it will discourage commerce,
industry or manufacturing from moving their operations to
another state, will result in increased employment in the
municipality or will result in preservation and enhancement of
the tag base of the municipality.
. The City believes Tag Increment District 90 -3 is an
"economic development district" since the Development
Activities to occur in Tax Increment District 90 -3 will result
in the preservation and enhancement of the tax base of the City.
2. Original Tax Capacity. The Tax Capacity of all
taxable property in Tax Increment District 90 -3 as most
recently certified by the Commissioner of Revenue of the State
of Minnesota, being the certification made in 1989 with respect
to the Tax Capacity of such property as of January 2, 1989, is
$270,426, which amount is expected to be the Original Tax
Capacity of Tax Increment District 90 -3, subject to adjustment
of 5.10% per year pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section
469.177, Subdivision 1, based on the average percentage
increase in the assessed va- luation of property in Tax Increment
District 90 -3 during the last five years.
3. Current Tax Capacity. The current Tax Capacity of
property in Tax Increment District 90 -3 is $270,426, the
Original Tax Capacity.
4. Captured Tax Capacity. It is expected that the
Captured Tax Capacity of all taxable property in Tax Increment
District 90 -3, upon completion of the improvements in Tax
Increment District 90 -3 (taxes payable 2000) in Tax'Increment
District 90 -3, will be $306,941, computed as follows:
-15-
Estimated Tax Capacity . . . . . . $751,650
at Completion
Less Original Tax Capacity . . . . 444,709
at Completion
Estimated Captured Tax
Capacity at Completion . . . . . $306,941
5. Tax Increment Calculation. Assuming the
improvements in Tax Increment District 90 -3 occur as described
and provided in the Program hereto it is estimated that the Tax
Increment to be received each year for the duration of Tax
Increment District 90 -3 will be as set forth in Exhibit I
hereto. The estimated amount of Tax Increment set forth in
Exhibit I is based upon a Tax Capacity Rate of .90290.
6. Duration of the Tax Increment District 90 -3. It
is estimated that Tax Increment District 90 -3 will remain in
existence until the 8 years from the date of receipt of the
first Tax Increment from Tax Increment District 90 -3 or 10
years from the date of approval of this Plan, whichever is
earlier, or until the City's obligation to pay the Tax
Increment Bonds and interest has been discharged in accordance
with the Bond Resolution.
7. Use of Captured Tax Capacity and Tax Increment.
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, Subdivision 2,
the City hereby determines that it will use 100% of the
Captured Tax Capacity of property located in Tax Increment
District 90 -3, and 100% of the Tax Increments to be derived
therefrom, for the entire duration of Tax Increment District
90 -3.
8. Excess Tax Increment. The Tax Increment received
from Tax Increment District 90 -3 in any year not needed to pay
debt service on the Tax Increment Bonds coming due on or before
August 1 of the following year, shall be used first to reduce
any ad valorem property tax levied pursuant to and in accordance
with Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.61, Subdivision 3, and
then shall be used to prepay or discharge outstanding Tax
Increment Bonds or pay additional Capital and Administration
Costs, all in accordance with the Bond Resolution.
9. Pooling of Tag Increment. Tax Increment received
from Tag Increment District 90 -3 will be pooled by the City
with all other Tag Increment received from the Tag Increment
Districts and will be available for expenditure for any Capital
and Administrative Costs, whether or not such Capital and
Administrative Costs are incurred with respect to property
included in Tax Increment District 90 -3.
-16-
F. Impact of Tax Increment Financing on Other Taxing
Jurisdictions.
The local government units other than the City which
are authorized by law to levy ad valorem property taxes and in
which Tax Increment District 90 -3 is located, are Independent
School District No. 273, Hennepin County, the HRA, and various
metropolitan area.authorities, including the Metropolitan
Council, the Metropolitan Transit Commission, the Metropolitan
Airports Commission and the Metropolitan Mosquito Control
District (the local government units).
The taxing jurisdictions encompassing Tax Increment
District 90 -3 will continue to receive taxes as if the Original
Tax Capacity of Tax Increment District 90 -3 were unchanged,
except for the increase in Original Tax Capacity described in
Part F(2) of this Plan. This precludes the jurisdictions from
benefiting from a portion of the increase in Tax Capacity which
results from the improvements in Tax Increment District 90 -3
described in the Program or other development of the taxable
property in Tax Increment District 90 -3. In order to assess
the impact of this on Hennepin County, Independent School
District No. 273 and the City the following table indicates
what percentage the anticipated Captured Tax Capacity of Tax
Increment District 90 -3 at the completion of the improvements
in Tax Increment District 90 -3 described in the Program (which
occurs for taxes payable in 2000 as shown on Exhibit I.hereto),
is of the present total Tax Capacity for such taxing
jurisdiction.
If -Tax Increment District 90 -3 were not created and the
improvements occur in Tax Increment District 90 -3 as described
in the Program, all of the Captured Tax Capacity of Tax
Increment District 90 -3 would be available to the taxing
jurisdictions, which would result in an increase in the tax
-17-
Estimated
Captured
Tax
Capacity
Percent of
Present
at Completion
Present
Taxing
Tax
of
Total -Tax
Jurisdiction
Capacity
Improvements
Capacity
Hennepin
County
$1,034,463,652
$306,941
.03%
I.S.D.
No. 273
63,744,885
306,941
.48%
City of Edina
77,629,266
306,941
.40%
If -Tax Increment District 90 -3 were not created and the
improvements occur in Tax Increment District 90 -3 as described
in the Program, all of the Captured Tax Capacity of Tax
Increment District 90 -3 would be available to the taxing
jurisdictions, which would result in an increase in the tax
-17-
capacity of such taxing jurisdictions in each year during the
duration of Tax Increment District 90 -3 in an amount equal to
the Captured Tax Capacity.
VI. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROGRAM AMENDMENT AND PLANS
The Program and the Plans shall be implemented on
behalf of the City by the City Council and the HRA as
administrator of the Program. The City shall sell and issue
Tax Increment Bonds in the amounts needed to finance the
Capital and Administrative Costs, less any portion thereof to
be paid directly from Tax Increment and shall use so much of
the proceeds of the Tax Increment Bonds available and Tax.
Increment derived from the Districts to pay such Capital and
Administrative Costs as is necessary.
VII. AMENDMENTS TO PROGRAM AND PLANS
The City reserves the right to amend the Program and
the Plans, subject to the provisions of state law regulating
such action.
The City specifically reserves the right to enlarge
the geographic area included in any District, to increase the
Capital and Administrative Costs and the principal amount of
Tax Increment Bonds to be issued to finance such Capital and
Administrative Costs, by following the procedures specified in
Section 469.175, Subdivision 4, if and when it is determined to
be necessary for the payment of additional Capital and
Administrative Costs.
This Program and Tex Increment Financing Plans were
adopted by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota on
the 2nd day of April, 1990.
Mayor
City Manager
-18-
EXHIBIT B
WOODDALE AND VALLEY VIEW ROAD DEVELOPMENT PIAN
The Wooddale and Valley View Road Plan Area is primarily a neighborhood scale
Commercial Area. The area developed in the late 1950's and early 1960's. There
has been some redevelopment in the area, however, the area has maintained its
original flavor.
Deficiencies in the area are primarily related to serious traffic and parking
problems. In addition, there exists at least one significant inappropriate use
and some incompatibility between residential and commercial uses.
Physical development in the Plan Area is now outdated and is now gradually
deteriorating and is in need of upgrading to contemporary standards.
In spite of these deficiencies, the area has remained viable and currently
enjoys full occupancy. Improvements are needed, however, to correct hazardous
traffic conditions and to reverse the gradual decline of the Plan Area. This is
possible through the implementation of the proposed Development Plan.
1
INVENTORY
Location
The Plan Area is illustrated on Figure 1. In general, the area included the
tracts adjacent on the north side of Valley View Road from the Valley View
Center west of Wooddale Avenue, extending to Oaklawn Avenue. The existing
conditions within the Plan Area are illustrated on Figure 2.
Land Use .
The Plan Area is currently zoned appropriately for Commercial uses and Parking
facilities. The Edina Land Use Plan, originally adopted in 1981, designates the
area from the Valley View Center west to Kellogg.Avenue as Commercial, and the
area between Kellogg and Oaklawn as High Density Residential.
Natural Features
The Plan Area is completely developed with urban, neighborhood retail features.
The parcels are generally shallow, north to south. Slopes and ponding areas are
not present in the area except adjacent to Valley View Road west of Wooddale.
Utilities
All private utilities, except natural gas, are above ground.
Parking - Circulation - Traffic
2
�1 61st St. W
a � o,a dp,��
a a'
Q mo ❑i❑
� o o m
a
° O 'CM �p p
Valle
■ 3
C
i o
I_ _ _ — ■ - -62nd.
■
J Project Area and
�j Tax increment Financing
District Boundaries
0
CITY OF EDINA
PROJECT AREA PLANS
WOODDALE AND VALLEYVIEW AVE.
Hoisington Group Inc- r--M9%70, 2 o goo
Figure 1
PLAN AREA
f
Existing Occupancy
1. Best Reflections Hair Styling
2. Great Clips
3. Sport Shop, Baskin Robbins
4. Conoco Gas Station /U -Hall
5. Valley View Drugstore
6. S.W. Clinic
7. Mobil Gas Station
8. Valley View Center
a
CITY OF EDINA
PROJECT AREA PLANS
WOODDALE AND VALLEYVIEW AVE.
Hoisington Group Inc. 0 2 goo
Area Boundary
P = Parking Areas
Utilities
- - - -- Storm Sewer
Sanitary Sewer
Water
- — - Overhead Power Lines
® Average Daily Traffic 1987(ADT)
Figure 2
EXISTING
CONDITIONS
Valley View and Wooddale are both classified as collector streets. Vehicle
counts on Valley View are 7900 east of Wooddale and 4700 West of Wooddale.
Vehicle counts on Wooddale are 3300. Kellogg and Oaklawn are local streets.
Parking conditions vary throughout the Plan Area. To the west of Wooddale at
the Valley View Center a surplus of parking exists. East of Wooddale, however,
all uses have insufficient parking. Often cars are double parked or parked onto
the City right -of -way. Parking lots are privately owned and some sharing does
occur.
Circulation within the area is difficult, particularly at the intersections of
Kellogg and Valley View Road and Wooddale and Valley View Road. In many
instances there is not separation between sidewalk and street and /or parking and
street. Numerous large access /egress points also exist in the Plan Area.
Existing Plans
The City of Edina's Comprehensive Plan identifies the Plan Area as a
neighborhood retail facility. Although specific objectives for the area are not
contained in the Comprehensive Plan, it does infer that the area is older and in
a "state of transition and major land use changes should be expected for such an
area."
PROBLEM ASSESSMENT
3
J
Problems within the Plan Area are classified in three categories as follows:
1. Traffic Circulation
2. Land Use
3.. Physical Development
Figure 3 provides an analysis of the problem area.
Traffic Circulation Deficiencies
The most serious problem in the Plan Area is the pattern and interaction of
traffic. Several hazardous situations exist as described below:
1. Disorderly intersection at Kellogg and Valley View Road.
Several wide driveways and unimproved access points. There
is no separation between the parking area and the street..
Haphazard truck storage at the Conoco Station disrupts
visibility at the intersection.
2. No parking /street separation between Valley View Road and
the SW Clinic.
3. No separation between parking and sidewalk south and west
of the clinic.
4. Multiple curb cuts throughout the Plan Area.
4
General Problem List
• Broad Expanses of Pavement; No Greenspace
• Poor Signage; No Continuity of Architecture
• Too Many Driveways; Too Wide and Undefined
• Disorganized Parking Areas
• Lack of Commercial District Identity
• Limited Expansion Potential
1 I�
MEMEEM go N "�
=1 ■ J sm.
HEM A :
aw�_�
011►.'■ =0 -�
a ow
Entr!Teature
Slope; Potential for
Landscaping
Rehabilitation Needed
Paved Over Boulevards
Disorganized Park
Street Widening
Incompatibility /Conflicts
lEffiffm M
�>LPotentlal Entry Feature
LPa1
rking Cars Double Parked
Shortage
Disorganized Intersection;
ride Driveways
Lacks Separation Between Street and Parking
nsightly Structure /Outdoor Equipment Storage
Unsightly Overhead Power Lines Legend:
SF Single Family
Serious Pedestrian /Vehicular MF Multi-Family
Conflicts. Lacks Separation Between y
Street and Parking O Office
R Retail
CITY OF EDINA
PROJECT AREA PLANS
WOODDALE AND VALLEYVIEW AVE.
Hoisington Group Inc o• z goo
Figure 3
ANALYSIS
..�
o"M
MOM
S� r
..
i,MKRUM
Incompatibility /Conflicts
lEffiffm M
�>LPotentlal Entry Feature
LPa1
rking Cars Double Parked
Shortage
Disorganized Intersection;
ride Driveways
Lacks Separation Between Street and Parking
nsightly Structure /Outdoor Equipment Storage
Unsightly Overhead Power Lines Legend:
SF Single Family
Serious Pedestrian /Vehicular MF Multi-Family
Conflicts. Lacks Separation Between y
Street and Parking O Office
R Retail
CITY OF EDINA
PROJECT AREA PLANS
WOODDALE AND VALLEYVIEW AVE.
Hoisington Group Inc o• z goo
Figure 3
ANALYSIS
* Seven openings between Valley View
Road and 61st Street on Wooddale.
Five openings in addition to street
intersections along Valley View Road.
Other traffic related problems in the Plan Area are less hazardous, but equally
disruptive to the vitality of the area. In general, parking areas are
disorganized and directional signage does not exist. East of Wooddale parking
is also deficient. Through out the Plan Area there exists an overabundance of
pavement leading to inconsistent and confusing parking patterns in the lots, and
poor circulation patterns for both vehicles and pedestrians.
Land Use Deficiencies
In general, the Commercial uses in the Plan Area are spread 'out and extend into
the area designated as High Density Residential on the Land Use Plan.
Within the Commercial area, activities at the Conoco Station are inappropriate
and do not conform to the Zoning Ordinance requirements. The following
activities, among others, are non - conforming.
Use of the site for small engine repair.
Use of the site as a equipment /vehicle rental facility.
Outdoor storage of merchandise and equipment.
* Outdoor storage of commercial vehicles.
5
Land use conflicts also exist between the commercial area and the adjacent
residential properties to the north, particularly east of Kellogg.
Physical Development Deficiencies
Development in the area was prior to current zoning standards and is
non - conforming in terms of setbacks and greenspace. Much of the existing
asphalt could be better utilized as greenspace buffers. The identification of
the area is poor, as well as signage for individual uses. Architecture of the
buildings lacks continuity and also is outdated. overhead utility lines are
unsightly.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
(Figure 4 - Development Plan; Figure 5 - Public Improvements Plan)
I. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Eliminate blighting influences, functionally obsolete land uses which
impede orderly development within the district.
* Promote the growth and vitality of existing businesses.
Encourage and promote private redevelopment and revitalization of the
district.
C.
IIII
1 �I-
Project Area
Legend:
R Retail.
O Office
2F 2 Family Residential
CITY OF EDINA
PROJECT AREA PLANS
WOODDALE AND VALLEYVIEW AVE.
T
Hoisington Group Inc o z goo'
Figure 4
DEVELOPMENT
PLAN .
Entry
Street
Improvements
VLan
0
Undergrounding of
Electric Utilities
CITY OF EDINA ,
PROJECT AREA PLANS
WOODDALE AND VALLEYVIEW AVE.
Hoisington Group Inc
-
Street
VacatiA
Entry
Figure 5
PUBLIC
IMPROVEMENTS
PLAN
* Increase the supply of off - street parking sufficient to meet present and
future demand.
* Correct existing parking and circulation problems and eliminate
vehicular - pedestrian conflicts.
* Create opportunities for new neighborhood scale retail commercial
businesses in the district.
Improve the image of the commercial district and improve its transition to
adjacent residential.
* Improve the streetscape image of the area by undergrounding existing
overhead utilities and by providing landscaped boulevard areas.
* Improve access to the area and traffic flow through the area.
* Encourage and assist private redevelopment consistent with the Development
Plan through:
* Land Acquisition
* Relocation
* Demolition and Clearance
* Land Scale to Private Developers
* Interest Assistance
* Improvement of Public Rights -of -Way
7
,.I
II. DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES
Although much of the activity anticipated by the Development Plan will be
privately financed, certain public activities may be required to achieve the
goals and objectives of the Plan. These activities may include:
* Land Acquisition
* Relocation
* Clearance and Demolition
Site Assembly
* Sale of Property to Private Developers
* Interest Assistance
* Vacation of Public Easements
* Land Write Downs
* Public Improvements Including Landscaping and Street
Lighting
A. Public Improvements
The public improvements project includes activities intended to correct
non - conforming conditions in the boulevard area and to correct parking
and circulation problems in the district. The project will provide an
identity for the commercial area as well as improving the appearance of
the area by providing landscaped boulevards and parking areas. Replacing
above ground utilities with underground utilities is also included in
the public improvements project.
H
I
The public improvements project will occur throughout the district and
will include the following activities:
* Placing Overhead Utilities Underground
* Landscaping Public Space
* Street Lighting
* Vacation of Public Easements
* Roadways and Street Circulation Improvements
* Storm Sewer Improvements
* Pedestrian Circulation and Sidewalk Improvements
B. Clinic, Drug Store, Conoco
This project would remove the Conoco Station and replace it with off - street
parking for the Clinic /Drug Store building and for the Sports Shop /Baskin
Robbins building. It would also provide parking for an expansion of the
Clinic and Drug Store. Kellogg Avenue would no longer connect to Valley
View Road, which will help isolate the residential area from the commercial
district. The additional parking provided will allow the elimination of
the non - conforming and hazardous parking along the east and south side of
the Clinic and Drug Store. These areas as well as other areas along the
perimeter of the development would be landscaped and screened.
C. Valley View Center
The Development Plan an addition of approximately 6,000 square feet to the
southwest end of the existing center. The site is under utilized and
9
•
present parking.supply would accommodate the additional floor space. The
Development Plan anticipates remodeling and upgrading of the present center
concurrent with the expansion.
10
a'+ �'
v. i ����
..._.
r . .
x
'��� ..
� �..,
06/05/2000 ;ION 16:50 F_;11 507 433 1632 ASTRUP DRUG INC
ASTRUP DRUG, INC.
STERLING DRUG STORES /CLANCY'S.MAYN STREET
P.O. BOX 658
905 NORTH MAIN STREET
AUSTIN. MINNESOTA 55912
PHONE (507) 433 -7447 FAX (507) 433 -1632
June 5, 2000
Mr. Erik Anderson
Assistant City Manager
Edina, MN 55424
RE: Clancy's of Edina.
Dear Mr. Anderson:
SENT VIA FAX
1- 952 -826 -0390
16002/002
I've been approached by a group of Edina residents who are concerned about what is happening
to the " IJ Haul Station" that sits next to my store in Edina. They've asked ine to write you a
letter, expressing my feelings about the situation.
1 feel very strongly that the City of Edina should do whatever is necessary to remove the U Haul
Station from its current location. This corner has been an embarrassment to the residents, the
businesses and the City of Edina for years_ Its time to rectify the situation.
Astrup 1?rug has been involved in this area of Edina since 1996, when we bought Valley View
Drug. Originally, we had planned to merge Valley View Drug into our 50"' & France location.
However, when we unexpectedly lost our Lease at 50`h & France, we decided to relocate
Clancy's to the Valle), View Drug location and look for a way to expand.
As it turned out, the Valley View location has been very good for business. We like it much
better than 50'x' & France. Our stores tend to work best in these neighborhood shopping centers,
The one problem that we have is that our current space remains much too small and expansion
opportunities to date have been much too expensive_ If the economics were right, we would love
to put in one of our new stores in this part of Edina. We opened up a new Clancy's Main Street
in Hastings last Summer and have another one under construction in Austin right now, These
stores are the prototype for our future. They are truly unique and would be a welcome addition to
this neighborhood. I encourage you to drive down to Hastings and take a look.
In conclusion, I simply want to say that if the City of Edina decides to redevelop this area,
Clancy's wants to be a part of it. Getting rid of the U Haul Station is a good first step!
Sincerely;
CY Christopher B. Astrup R.Ph.
Chief Operating Officer Astrup Drug. Inc. CBA:la
JUN 06 100 07 :01AM GMI PROMOTION CONTROL DEPT
P.1 /1
From: Concerned resident Date: 06 /06 /00
Re: Edina U -Haul Pages; 1
CC:
❑ Urgent O For Review Cl Please Comment ❑ Please Reply 0 Please Recycle
I'm writing this letter to let you know how we feel about Edina U -Haul. We live on
61$ and Oaklawn Avenue and absolutely love living in this neighborhood. Our
only issue with living here is that we are forced to stare at the rundown and
depilated Edina U -Haul.
I want to make it clear that I support the efforts of the small businessperson. In
fact, my grandfather and father have run a small business for over 40 years. With
that said, my wife and I have a hard time understanding why the owner of Edina U-
Haul would basically operate a junkyard on a very visible piece of property near a
residential neighborhood.
We only ask that the owner of Edina U -Haul be forced to clean up his property. I go
to the Hopkins U -Haul to get my propane tanks filled. If you would like to see how a
well run and clean U -Haul is run, I would suggest making the short drive over there.
Thank you for taking the time to read our concerns about the neighborhood.
ii<.Ir+ .11i�...,r�:v:d:.. < ii iil<iL�r",' .a:o'a�s�:ii �; ;{.?fi•t:: :'rarli «ir. :,i:,. �3. .. PYP::•
is✓�a "M[sSy a. ..I,1 ('S: }:i „q, �. y'lal}�• .. +: n.IS::ic;}In ?.. .d:� .r6,.
�' 1.. �. fir; • ::;ii£ <a'::.,5.;;., ake s':;:S:�:Ss. >`:2.;.
(
'Ni it
:�11.l.. .Y it 4,/' I(' I{ L:;:'+ . >' >I,:�;..'t�Y�iS'i':::�i %i::: : <l �: t ^`.l��•J.:2 :. 5.:: 1:.i :./
:.�A::2. !: .�'. . +:1 .'l..A :: }nj:l :l ::J:••', �fit:15',,(1 ����i���i ��i: 4; ll; tf' �;: :2f::'.' ":'.:5,y. }11i1::,;,:�Y: �'i ��i:T>♦1 i:1,
ii'!•rif -r� � "li•4iyi At t <'.fia; +jz 13;1;? + It �5 5 2 5 � n i; n� �t,.F� v, >2 y :, .
1 llp; ;. :j�iiln,};,: s.:! r, �... �d.}LNd•i{•.• ; }:; s.�i,5 ,� . .�! 5. <. u5.; f } t� { �s..2 } t:�: „k: �n ���' ;.Y ��'4yi��� #li' ;�Z't:
f .1.
ail
ill r: ,I4t15!•�!' �12, 'i%�:.
From: Bryan Anderson I o: tric Anderson Uate: 6/41UU I ime: b:U5:44 FM Page 1 of 1
June 4, 2000
Eric Anderson
Assistant City Manager
City of Edina
Dear Eric:
I understand that the City is considering condemning the building
currently operating as a gas station and U -haul center, which is
located at the intersection of Valley View and Kellogg.
I strongly encourage this initiative. That business has been an
eyesore for our neighborhood ever since I have lived in the area,
which dates back to 1981. I don't wish ill will on the owner but
the facility is not maintained and is basically a "Junk yard" which I
assume is not zoned for such a purpose.
If you need ftirther input, I will be glad to respond.
Sincerely,
Bryan Anderson
5941 Ashcroft Av.
Edina_ MN 55424
612- 925 -9290
6041 Kellogg Avenue South
DOUGLAS MAYO & SUSAN LONG Edina, Minnesota 55424
U.S.A.
June 4, 2000
The Honorable Dennis F. Maetzold
City of Edina
4801 West 50"' Street
Edina, Minnesota 55424
Dear Mayor Maetzold:
Roster's has not been a good neighbor. The owner of this property, located at the
corner of Valley View Road and Kellogg Avenue South, has permitted it to deteriorate
and stored miscellaneous debris and junk cars on it. Roster's has become a blighting
influence on the neighborhood, and the blight is spreading to adjacent properties.
The enclosed photographs, which were taken on April 9 before Roster's began
installing gas tanks, shows the conditions at this location. Roster has stored
miscellaneous debris, junk cars with expired tabs, and construction materials, and
permitted dangerous conditions to exist. Furthermore, Roster frequently has parked U-
Haul trucks on a public street and right -of -way.
We urge the City of Edina to acquire this property, either through negotiations or
imminent domain, if necessary. The City of Edina and others have repeatedly
requested that Roster clean up this property. Instead, he has chosen to move more
debris onto the site and played games by shifting junk cars between this and a nearby
property. Based on past performance, there is no reason to expect Roster will become
a good neighbor. If the city were to acquire, clear and redevelop this property, along
with other revitalization efforts planned at the commercial district along Valley View
Road at Kellogg and Wooddale Avenues, the surrounding areas and the City of Edina
would benefit.
Thus, we urge the City of Edina to acquire Roster's and initiate its revitalization program
for the Valley View and Wooddale area.
in erely,
Doug Mayo
CC: Gordon Hughes, City Manager
Susan Long
!!
;;gip ,
���,,x
w
,,
- ....,�
i
i
t`
4A
R. . rier rxda9, -,
s «i
t
3
�t
a,
W
D
S
two, ..
'
oil
0 47
e 8N
P° 4 °x
�P
4r�..
JUN -6E -00 TUE 03:06 PM MN MEDIA 6129205902 P.01
}.; I M,07
re
Fclia
llfa��L loll/
k�.;�; : -• K;hl� -..� f ] °�_ iI/�% /rte c-� `L'L�'� G C• / i
/J
vp
ray
�� ;'�° < +9. � ,� � % G� ��'�• �' ::'� G%G[,':��u -76 S Z.C.
�
�. •:: i��i�i3�. � GC '�-r �iBJ �c� /LLGC- � � /C�. ���c�/!t�r�LC�c.�
/N 7
I�c
,/
/� t' G(�.�
Ert .x;1'4 ("•fii,� >`C
�' •: c, .. sIj'; ;,.. .. ... ....,. ,: �.:- -.s s.'{; R't'^. _ " `tb'if'��w'.'." °.'S'�r?.�`l_`:, '."� >W"�1'1L''K s�`•.
cI�,
JUN -06 -100 I UL 02 :25 PM WALDELAND JWLRS
�1del�nc�
J�VUEI�2Y TvrTIQ
carom ieVCurr manuuPCtuwnc
June 6, 2000
612 452 0777 P.01
0452-1877
FOA qsa - n-4 7-4
1340 DUCKWOOD DRNE 0 SUITE 11 • EAGAN. MINNESOTA 55123
Eri c Anderson
Assistant City Administrator
Edina, MN
I have done business with Rospers for over thirty years. Now they are
installing ADA compliant pumps. Myself being in a wheelchair find this a big
step in the future use of these pumps. In 1994 my business was voted one of
the top 1000 businesses in the state of Minnesota.
Now I understand that the city of Edina want's to close this very
progressive business. This is very concerning to me. I write this letter in
hopes of rescinding what your city council is trying to do.
Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, I would like a copy of the
minutes regarding this issue.
Sincerely,
Erik Waldeland
).
o e
• j�roRPOAATv� •
IBBB
REPORT/RECOMMENDATION
To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL
From: GORDON L. HUGHES
CITY MANAGER
Date: JUNE 61 2000
Subject: CABLE FRANCHISE
ORDINANCE - BOND
REQUIREMENT
RECOMMENDATION:
Reduce Bond from $300,000 to $100,000.
Agenda Item W.B.
Consent
Information Only
Mgr. Recommends
1:1.1
1:1 To HRA
® To Council
® Motion
1:1 Resolution
n ❑ Ordinance
❑ Discussion
REPORT:
In accordance with our Franchise Agreement, Time Warner Cable is required to
maintain a Performance Bond in the amount of $100,000. Prior to permitting
Time -Warner to proceed with a' system upgrade throughout the southwest
suburbs, each City required an increase in the bond amount to $300,000 to ensure
completion of the work. Now that the upgrade has been completed, Time Warner
is requesting that the $300,000 bond be reduced back to the $100,000 level
required by the Franchise Agreement. The attached memorandum from Brian
Grogan, the Southwest Cable Commission's Attorney, summarizes the action of
the Commission with respect to this request.
Based upon the fact that the upgrade has now been completed in Edina, staff
concurs with Time Warner's request and recommends reduction of the bond to
$100,000.
May -30 -00 02:46pm From -MOSS & BARNETT +4900 T -857 P.02/03 F -820
MOSS & BARNETT
A Professional Association
MEMORANDUM
TO City Represemaiives and Staff
FROM: Brian Grogan, Moss & Barnett
DATE- May 30, 2000
RE. Cable Franchise Ordinance — Bond Requirement
Per the attached letter dated May 11, 2000, Time Warner Cable has requested that the
5300,000 bond required under Section 10.3 of each city's Franchise Agreement Ordinance
( "Franchise ") be reduced to $100,000 as contemplated in the Franchise.
The above- referenced matter was discussed at the Southwest Suburban Cable Commission
("Commission ") meeting held on May 24, 2000 The provisions in the Franchise require that when
system construction is complete the bond will be reduced back down to a lower level. Each City
could hire an engineer to verify that the construction is complete or each City could simply accept
Time Warner's stipulation that they have completed construction as evidenced by the fact that
they are providing the advanced services promised.
Based on Time Warner's representauon that the construction has been completed, the
Commission voted to recommend reducing the bond from $300,000 to $100,000 as contemplated
by the franchise documents. We recommend that each City place this item on its agenda to
reduce the bond from $300,000 to $100,000.
Enclosure
339441/1
io
,M3y-30 -00 02:46Pm From-MOSS & BARNETT
e(50 &CO: i IIME V V RNE_'R
CABLE
May 11, 2000
Mr. Brian Grogan
SWSCC Administrator/Moss & Barnett, P.A.
4800 Norwest Center
90 South Seventh Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402 -4129
Dear Brian:
+4900 T-857 P.03/03 F-820
�`r rF®
As .you know, Time Warner Cable completed the upgrade in the Southwest Suburbs to a 750
MHz cable system by December 31, 1999 as was required by the cable franchise ordinance.
The Southwest Cable Franchise Agreement, Section 10.3, under the General Financial and
Insurance Provisions, required Time Warner Cable to maintain with each city a bond in the sum
of $300,000 through the completion of the upgrade work in the Southwest Suburbs. Upon
completion of the system upgrade, each city at its sole discretion may reduce the bond to the sum
of $100,000.
We believe we have reached the point where the requirement to maintain the $300,000 bond is no
longer needed. We would like the Southwest Suburban cities to consider our proposal to lower
the bond to the sum of $100,000 as the franchise ordinance would allow.
I hope to hear from you soon regarding this proposal. If you have any further questions or
concerns, please contact me at (612) 287 -3659.
If you have any questions or concerns, please call us at (612) 287 -3659.
Sincerely,
Arlen Mattern
Public Affairs Administrator
Cc: Chris Enger, City of Eden Prairie
Gordon Hughes, City of Irdina
Jim Genellie, City of Hopkins
David Childs, City of Minnetonka
Steve Devich, City of Richfield
78.
o e �N
Cn
�0
REPORT/RECOMMENDATION
To: MAYOR AND.COUNCIL
Agenda Item IV.C.
From: GORDON L. HUGHES
Consent
CITY MANAGER
Information Only ❑
Date: JUNE 69 2000
Mgr. Recommends
❑
To HRA
®
To Council
Subject: NOTICE OF INTENT TO
®
Motion
FRANCHISE CABLE'
El
Resolution
COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM
El
Ordinance
❑
Discussion
RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize publication of Notice of Intent to Franchise.
INFORMATION/REPORT:
The City has received requests from WideOpen West and Everest
Communications to grant new franchises for the purpose of operating and
maintaining a cable communication system in the City. The attached staff
report from Brian Grogan, Attorney for the Southwest Suburban Cable
Commission, provides a timeline and notices required to consider the grant
of the additional franchise. The first step of the process is for the City to
publish a Notice of Intent to Franchise. Staff would recommend that the
publication of this notice be authorized.
MOSS & BARNETT
A Professional Association
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Representatives and Staff
FROM: Brian Grogan, Moss & Barnett
.DATE: May 30, 2000
RE: Grant of Additional Franchise for a Cable Communications System
The City has received a written request from WideOpenWest ( "WOW ") and Everest
Communications ( "Everest ") for a franchise to construct, operate and maintain a cable communications
system in the City. Pursuant to both requests, we have prepared the attached documentation to process
the City's consideration of the grant of additional cable television franchises. To that end, attached
hereto please find the following:
1. Timeline for Processing Request for a Cable Television Franchise;
2. Notice of Intent to Franchise, required pursuant to Minn. Stat. Section 238.081, subd. 2;
3. A Request for Proposals, required pursuant to Minn. Stat. Section 238.081, subd. 4; and
4. Notice of Public Hearing.
The above referenced documents have been prepared to comply with the franchising procedure
required under state law. These documents have been carefully reviewed by the Southwest Suburban
Cable Commission ( "Commission "). The Commission has approved and endorsed the documents at its
Full Commission meeting on May 24, 2000.
The documents should be reviewed by City Council and, if acceptable, the City should publish
the Notice of Intent to Franchise in the City's official newspaper as required under state law and in
accordance with the enclosed timeline.
Interested parties may obtain copies of the Request for Proposals and related franchise
documentation as described in the Notice and the City should thereafter follow the procedure outlined in
the Notice and Request for Proposals which is derived substantially from the procedure outlined under
state law.
To the extent applications are submitted by entities which possess the requisite legal, technical
and financial qualifications, the City will likely be required to grant one or more additional franchises.
Federal and state law prohibit a municipality from preventing otherwise qualified entities from providing
cable television and/or telecommunications services unless they lack the requisite qualifications or
otherwise fail to comply with the franchising procedures.
It is important to emphasize that at this time the City is only considering the implementation of
the state statutory franchising process. There will be a public hearing before the City Council on this
matter later this summer and no entity will be permitted in the City's right -of -way until the City Council
considers award of a cable television franchise in the Fall of 2000.
Enclosures
338305/1
City of Edina, Minnesota
Timeline for Processing Request for a Cable Television Franchise
-- subject to change in City's sole discretion --
Date
Procedural Tasks To Be Completed
May 24, 2000
Meeting of Southwest Suburban Cable Commission and any other interested
parties to review process, law, concerns
June 6, 2000
City considers publication of Notice of Intent to Franchise
June — August
Commission begins negotiations regarding franchise terms with prospective
applicants.
June 14 and 21, 2000
City publishes Notice of Intent to Franchise once each week for two (2) successive
weeks in local newspaper (Notice also mailed directly to Time Warner, WOW,
Everest, Seren and other applicants)
July 14, 2000
Closing date for submission of Applications (must be at least 20 days from date of
first publication)
July 14 — August 2, 2000
Consideration of Franchise Application
July 18, 2000
City meets to call Public Hearing
July 26, 2000
City publishes Notice of Public Hearing - 10 to 14 days before conduct of hearing
August 2, 2000
Preparation of report by Moss & Barnett regarding qualifications of Applicants
August 9, 2000
Southwest Suburban Cable Commission meets to consider Applicant's
qualifications and Moss & Barnett report - issue recommendation to Member
Cities
September 5, 2000
City conducts Public Hearing regarding Franchise Applications — considers
resolution regarding qualifications.
Late September — Early
October
City Council considers award of Franchise to successful applicant(s) - must be at
least 7 days after Public Hearing — no time limit on when action must be taken.
October — November
Successful applicants accept franchise document and submit required closing
documentation - typically within 30 days of grant of franchise
334141/1
NOTICE BY THE CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA
OF ITS INTENT TO FRANCHISE A CABLE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM
Notice is hereby given that it is the intent of the City Council of the City of Edina,
Minnesota, to consider the grant of an additional franchise(s) for the purpose of constructing a
cable communications system to serve the City of Edina, Minnesota. This notice is given in
accordance with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes Section 238.081.
Applications shall be submitted in response to this Notice and to a Request for Proposals
and Proposed Franchise Documents available on request in the office of the City Manager, City
Hall, 4801 West 50' Street, Edina, Minnesota 55424, phone: 612 - 927 -8861.
A. The deadline for submitting applications is July 14, 2000.
B. Applications shall be in writing, notarized, in a format consistent with the Request
for Proposals, and sealed with ten (10) copies enclosed. Two (2) additional copies
of the application must be sent to the attention of Mr. Brian T. Grogan at Moss &
Barnett, 4800 Norwest Center, 90 South Seventh Street, Minneapolis, MN 55402,
who will be providing assistance to the City on this matter. Each application shall
include a nonrefundable application fee of Seven Thousand Five Hundred Dollars
($7,500) in the form of a certified check made payable to the City of Edina,
Minnesota. The applications shall be delivered to the attention of the City
Manager, 4801 West 50' Street, Edina, Minnesota 55424, phone: 612- 927 -8861.
Applicants are hereby on notice that any and all costs incurred by the City and the
Southwest Suburban Cable Commission, of which the City is a member, with
respect to the franchise procedure and franchise award which are not covered by
the $7,500 application fee shall be recovered from applicant.
C. Applicants are requested to be present at a public hearing before the City Council,
that is presently scheduled to be held at City Hall, beginning at 7:00 p.m. on
September 5, 2000. Each applicant will be given time to summarize its
application. The City Council may then continue the public hearing to permit
further review of the application before a final decision is made to select qualified
applicants.
D. The Request for Proposals and Proposed Franchise Documents set forth in detail
the expectations of the City of Edina, Minnesota and the requirements of the
content of the franchise proposal and are made in conformance to the
requirements of Minnesota Statutes Section 238.081, subd. 4.
E. The desired system design and services to be offered are identified in the
Proposed Franchise Documents attached to the Request for Proposals and include
a system serving the entire City of Edina, Minnesota with a reasonable line
extension policy; flexibility to increase channel capacity; public, educational and
governmental access channels supported by the operator; reasonable rates; a mix,
level and quality of programs and services comparable to other systems and
325880/1
customer services and maintenance plans to ensure the highest degree of service
to the subscriber. The Request for Proposals and Proposed Franchise Documents
provide further details of the desired system design and services to be offered.
F. The criteria for evaluating the applications and priorities for selection are as
follows:
The completeness of applications, conformance to Request for Proposal,
and Proposed Franchise Documents;
2. . The system design;
The programs and services offered initially and criteria for adding
programs. and services;
4. The initial service area and the line extension policy;
5. The time for construction;
6. Customer service policies and system testing;
7. The legal, technical, and financial qualifications of the applicant; and
8. The proposal for community services, including public, educational, and
governmental access.
H. Applications which meet the above criteria in the opinion of the City Council
shall be considered for a franchise.
I. The applicant(s) selected by the City Council will be required to accept the
Franchise Documents granted within thirty (30) days after adoption and will also
be required to reimburse the City of Edina for any and all expenses not covered by
the application fee, as provided for by Minnesota Statutes Section 238.081, subd.
8.
Applicants are advised that the City of Edina is member of a joint powers entity,
the Southwest Suburban Cable Commission ( "Commission ") which will provide
input and recommendations to the City regarding this process. The Commission
consists of the following cities: Edina, Eden Prairie, Hopkins, Minnetonka, and
Richfield each of which has previously granted identical franchises to KBL
Cablesystems of the Southwest, Inc., d/b /a Time Warner.
K. All questions concerning this request should be directed to Mr. Gordon Hughes,
City Manager, City Hall, 4801 West 50" Street, Edina, Minnesota 55424, phone:
612 - 927 -8861 or Mr. Brian T. Grogan, Moss & Barnett, P.A., 4800 Norwest
Center, 90 South Seventh Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 -4129, phone
(612) 347 -0340, the Commission's legal advisor regarding this process.
325880/1 2
Date:
Publish in:
2000
City Clerk
on , 2000 and
Publication required for each publication.
325880/1
2000. Affidavit of
EXHIBIT A
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS OFFICIAL APPLICATION FORM
325880/1 A-1
EXHIBIT B
PROPOSED FRANCHISE DOCUMENTS
325880/1 B-1
CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS OFFICIAL APPLICATION FORM
JUNE , 2000
Applicants interested in submitting a proposal for a cable communications franchise shall
submit the following information as required by Minnesota Statutes Section 238.081 (subd. 4) to
the City of Edina, Minnesota on or before July 14, 2000.
A. Plans for channel capacity, including both the total number of channels capable of
being energized in the system and the number of channels to be energized
immediately.
B. A statement of the television and radio broadcast signals for which permission to
carry will be requested from the Federal Communications Commission.
C. A description of the proposed system design and planned operation, including at
least the following items:
1. The general area for location of antenna and headend, if known;
2. The schedule for activating and two -way capacity;
3. The type of automated services to be provided;
4. The number of channels and services to be made available for access cable
broadcasting; and
The schedule of charges for facilities and staff assistance for access cable
broadcasting.
D. Terms and conditions under which particular service is to be provided to
governmental and educational entities.
E. A schedule of proposed rates in relation to the services to be provided and a
proposed policy regarding unusual or difficult connection of services.
F. A time schedule for construction of the entire system with the time sequence for
wiring various portions of the City of Edina, Minnesota.
G. A statement indicating the applicant's qualifications and experience in the cable
communications field, if any.
H. An identification of the municipalities in which the applicant either owns or
operates a cable communications system, directly or indirectly, or has outstanding
franchises for which no system has been built.
334170/1
I. Plans for financing the proposed system, which must indicate every significant
anticipated source of capital and significant limitations or conditions with respect to
the availability of the indicated sources of capital. This information shall include
the following:
1. List and describe all financial resources (committed or otherwise)
which the Applicant proposes to use in constructing and operating the
system. Committed financial resources may include, but are not limited
to: bank financing; existing capital reserves; capital calls (or equivalent
rights) under definitive governance documents of the applicant; operating
surplus to be generated from operating activities; or resources generated
through the issuance of debt or equity securities.
2. With respect to each of the sources described in 1 above, provide
supporting documentation (such as a commitment letter from a financial
institution; copies of definitive governance documents; terms sheet for
debt or equity securities...) establishing the total resources available and
the amount of resources appropriated for the cable franchise operations, if
different from total funds available.
3. To the extent any of the financing sources described in 1 above
have limitations or conditions imposed by such financing source on
availability, use or other restrictions which could reasonably be expected
to adversely affect the availability of such financial resources for use by
the applicant, describe in detail: (a) each such limitation or condition; (b)
the means the applicant intends to employ in order to satisfy each such
limitation or condition; (c) a projection as to when such conditions or
limitations will be satisfied (to the extent practical); (d) any contingent
sources of capital or financial resources which may be sought in the event
such conditions or limitations are not met; and (e) the reasonably
foreseeable effect of the loss of each such source of financing on the
applicant's ability to meet its obligations to the City.
4. Provide a detailed budget or other financial forecast which
identifies the total capital resources which the applicant projects will be
required to construct and operate the cable franchise system in the City for
the lesser of five (5) years or until the applicant otherwise projects that the
cash deficit from operations will be reduced to zero, including a summary
of the material assumptions employed in such forecast or budget.
5. Provide financial statements (balance sheet, statement of
operations and statement of cash flow) for each of the two immediately
preceding fiscal years, together with the most current set of financial
statements for the current fiscal year, all prepared in conformity with
generally accepted accounting principles (except as noted).
J. A statement of ownership detailing the corporate organization of the applicant, if
any, including the names and addresses of officers and directors and the number of
334170/1 2
shares held by each officer or director, and intercompany relationship, including the
parent, subsidiary or affiliated company.
K. A notation and explanation of omissions or other variations with respect to the
requirements of the proposal.
L. Plans for construction and use of right -of -way, as follows:
1. Describe the level of interference landowners will experience with the
installation of equipment by the applicant:
2. Describe what steps the applicant is planning to take to mitigate how long
the installation of the equipment will take.
3. Describe what steps the applicant is planning to take to inform residents of
the equipment installation and any safety concerns or safety measures
related thereto.
4. What percent of equipment does the applicant anticipate will be installed
above - ground and what percent underground?
5. To what extent does the applicant anticipate the need to detour traffic or
close certain roads, sidewalks, or other rights -of -way to accommodate
construction or installation of equipment.
6. What steps is the applicant planning to take to minimize, destruction of
public and/or private property during construction and installation?
7. Will the applicant agree to pay for any and all costs "to repair public and/or
-private property to as good a condition as its was prior to construction and
installation?
8. Where does the applicant intend to store its equipment during construction,
and what measures will it be taking to keep conditions safe from children,
traffic or any other persons who may go near it.
9. What will the applicant do with the equipment during the winter months
when construction may be delayed or temporarily discontinued?
10. Does the applicant believe it will be able to collocate its equipment with that
of existing cable companies, and what steps has and will the applicant take
to determine the feasibility of collocation?
11.. Is the applicant committed to collocate its equipment if technically feasible?
12. What steps does the applicant take to secure cable and equipment so there is
minimal aesthetic interference?
Substantive amendments may not be made to a proposal after a proposal has been submitted
to the City of Edina, Minnesota and before the award of a franchise. All proposals must be
notarized and must include detailed responses to the above information requests, as well as the
334170/1
information requested in the Notice by the City of Its Intent to Franchise a Cable Communications
System, attached hereto as Attachment A.
The City of Edina, Minnesota reserves its rights to request additional information of
applicant at any time during this process.
Applicants are advised that KBL Cablesystems of the Southwest, Inc., d/b /a Time Warner
Cable, currently provides cable television service throughout the City of Edina, Minnesota,
pursuant to Ordinance No. 1996 -5 which became effective on or about January 1, 1997, and which
will expire on or about January 1, 2012. Applicant's proposal should identify changes in Ordinance
No. 1996 -5 which applicant requests be adopted and the substantive basis for applicant's request.
Applicants are advised that Ordinance No. 1996 -5 will serve as the basis on which a franchise may
be granted to any qualified applicant.
Any questions regarding this Request for Proposals or the exhibits attached hereto may be
directed to Mr. Gordon Hughes, City Manager, City Hall, 4801 West 500' Street, Edina, Minnesota
55424 or Mr. Brian T. Grogan, Moss & Barnett, 4800 Norwest Center, 90 South Seventh Street,
Minneapolis, MN 55402.
334170/1 4
ATTACHMENT A
NOTICE BY THE CITY OF ITS INTENT TO FRANCHISE
A CABLE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM
334170/1 A -1
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of Edina, Minnesota will hold a hearing on
September 5, 2000 at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, to consider the
applications received for a cable franchise. The public hearing will be held at the Edina City
Hall, 4801 West 50`h Street, Edina, Minnesota. All interested parties are invited to attend and
voice their opinions. Written statements may be submitted at or before the public hearing.
City Clerk
[DATE]
334939/1
i
City of Edina
Sump Pump Inspection and
1/1 Reduction Program
Final Report
June 2000
Prepared by
Howard R. Green Company
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
City of Edina
Sump Pump Inspection and
I/I - Reduction Program
Final Report
June 2.000
hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct
supervision and that I am a duly registered Professional Engineer under the laws of the State
of Minnesota.
Do .. las'G. Tholo, P.E. Date
Reg. No. 19106
Howard R Green Company
1326 Ene' "'.Park Drive
St. Paul, MN '55108
Phone: 651= 644 -4389
Fax: 651 - 644 -9446
Sump Pump Inspection
Edina, Minnesota
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. HISTORY
I. INTRODUCTION
III. STUDY PURPOSE AND SCOPE
IV. DATA ANALYSIS
V. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
TABLE 1 - SUMMARY OF DATA
APPENDICES
'NOTE: The following appendix sections are provided to the City electronically only * **
A. Non - Compliant Locations
Properties which are currently not inspected
Properties which are Currently Failing
Properties with Water in the Basement
B. Compliant Locations
C. Number of Sump Baskets
D. Number of Sump Pumps
E. Locations with Water Present in Basket
F. Pump Discharge Locations
G. Pump and Basket Combinations
H. Properties with Cisterns
MAPS PROVIDED
1r Sump Pump Inspection — .failed fist- inspection
2._ Sump Pump Inspection s failedfinal. inspection
3. Properties with Water in Basket, Basement During Inspection
O V ROM0134Winal Report -June 2000.doc 1
,. ., •.. � :., ._ - -..ter ,i „_ 'v_.�I'G,. •. .. .' . ±s ..'.'�. �. _ ,. v ... . .. ., 'y�
Sump Pump Inspection
Edina, Minnesota
I. HISTORY
Cities throughout Minnesota have become more aware of inflow sources and their
significance through education efforts of the League of Minnesota Cities, Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency, and the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services. These
agencies have been encouraging communities to implement sump pump inspection
programs in order to reduce the amount of clear water inflow to the wastewater
conveyance and treatment infrastructure. Infiltration /Inflow (1 /1) is clear water that enters
the sanitary system. Infiltration includes such items as surface runoff and groundwater
that leaks into the sanitary system through cracks or defects in existing manholes and
pipelines. Inflow is clear water that is put directly into the sanitary system such as sump
pump connections referred to as cross connections.
The City of Edina has recognized the benefit of these programs in reducing inflow and is
committed to reducing inflow from sump pump cross connections. Through previous
studies, other cities have found that 5% to 7% of properties have their sump pump
systems cross connected to the sanitary sewer.
The previous Study completed for the City of Edina by TKDA, concluded that 59% of the
peak flow in the sanitary sewer system was inflow. Subsequently, the focus of future
evaluations was to be on inflow in the worst areas of the system, as identified in this
study.
II. INTRODUCTION
The City of Edina authorized Howard R. Green Company (HRG) to initiate a Sump
Pump Inspection and Infiltration /Inflow (1 /1) Reduction Program in February 1998. HRG
initiated the sump pump inspections of 13,076 residential properties and 816 non-
residential properties for possible connections of sump pumps to the sanitary sewer
system.
Edina chose to initiate a sump pump inspection program due to 1997 sanitary sewer
backups and high levels of clear water entering the sanitary system. P- umping of clear
water from sump pumps into the sanitary sewer system can be a significant source of
inflow and cause wastewater backups. The City has reviewed wastewater flows of
previous years as well as other possible sources of 1 /I. Although sump pump discharge
to the sanitary system is not the sole source of inflow, these discharges are one of the
major contributors.
This study on sump pump discharges and the effects of inflow were prompted by
specific events related to high levels of rainfall in the summer of 1997. During this time
period, sewer backups occurred in several locations throughout the City of Edina.
These backups specifically occurred in Areas 6, 10, and 18. These areas are illustrated
in the attached maps.
OAPROMM34011Final Report-June 2000.doc 2
Sump Pump Inspection
Edina, Minnesota
III. STUDY PURPOSE AND SCOPE
The purpose of the Sump Pump Inspection and 1/1 Reduction Program for the City of
Edina is, as follows:
1. Reduce the occurrences of sewer backups related to inflow sources.
2. Educate the public on the effects of cross connections to the sanitary sewer.
3. Significantly reduce rainfall- induced inflow from cross connections.
4. Eliminate as many sump" pump cross connections as.feasible.
5. Avoid wastewater conveyance and treatment costs of clear water inflow.
The following are potential benefits that were originally identified for the sump pump
inspection program:
Estimated number of properties= 13,500
Estimated number of sump pump installations:
Single pumps - 7% of households 945
Multiple pumps - 1.5% of households 203
Total estimated number of sump pumps 1,148
The estimated clear water discharge is as follows: - -- _ -
945 sump pumps x 1,400. GPD x 62 days /year = 82 million gal /year
203 multiple sump pumps x 2,800 GPD x 62 days /year = 35 million gal /year
Total estimated clear water discharge
from sump pumps 117 million gal /year
The scope and approach of the sump pump inspection project included:
1. A- ;communication /education component with new ordinances and public
meetings, local video access, mailings to property owners, and 'press releases.
2. Physical inspection of approximately 1=3,500 locations, throughout-the City of
Edina. These inspections were documented on inspection forms that,were
developed for th6,0ty (see Appendix fora. sample) ,and include such iterims as
sump baskets, sump'purrips, water in baskets and /or floor, and roof leader
locations.
OAPROM01340�J' inal Report -June 2000.doe 3
Sump Pump Inspection
Edina, Minnesota
The inspection forms were utilized to develop the various data that this report is based.
Subsequently, the completed inspection forms were utilized to prepare a computerized
database of this information, which was made compatible with the City's computer
network. Through this network, the database can generate maps as well as interface
with other information systems. The information and maps document the following:
1. Existing sump pumps
2. Existing sump baskets
3. Non - compliant locations
The maps will be useful resources for the City. For example, the maps can be cross -
referenced to other capital improvement projects being planned. The City can then
include 1/1 reduction programs into future improvement projects such as new storm
sewer improvements, facilitating sump pump connections to existing storm
sewers /draintiles, and roof leader rerouting. The maps will also help the City focus its re-
inspection programs more efficiently and effectively.
IV. DATA ANALYSIS
The Sump Pump Inspection Program has resulted in the collection of a great deal of
data. The use of this data will provide the City with a focused strategy for inflow
reduction. Table 1 provides a summary of the data that was collected in the program.
Maps and lists of the data are also included in the Appendix.
To date, over 99% of the 13,892 properties inspected have complied with the City's
Code that relates to sump pump discharges. This code prohibits cross connections
between the City sewer system and the sump pump discharge. The code also prohibits
all clear water discharges to the Municipal Sanitary Sewer.
There are at least 2,874 existing sump pumps in the City of Edina. This represents
20.7% of the locations inspected to date.
There were 411 locations with sump pump cross connections during the initial inspection
and only 23 locations with cross connections at the time of re- inspection. It was also
observed that 120 locations had standing water over the basement floors.
There are 492 locations that have not been inspected. Based on our experience, these
properties will likely have a high rate of clear water discharge from sump pumps.
The inspections also determined that 13,341 properties have roof leaders with 372 of
these locations that have roof leaders near the foundation of the building.
OAPROM01340ffinal Report-June 2000.doo 4
Sump Pump Inspection
Edina, Minnesota
The inspection findings indicate that Edina possesses the following conditions:
18.8 % of properties have single sump pumps
1.9 % of properties have multiple sump pumps
0.9 % of properties have water flowing over the floor
3.9 % of properties have baskets without sump pumps
96.0 % of properties have roof leaders
2.8 % of the roof leaders are near the building foundation
The following are some general comments on the data that was collected:
a) Many of the sump pumps had been diverting their flow away from the sewer system
prior to this inspection program. The results of the program indicate that many of the
cross connected sump pump discharges were redirected because of this program.
It can be assumed that these sump pumps were adversely affecting the sanitary
sewer flows prior to the program.
b) For the locations with standing water in the basements, we were unable to observe
what the source of the standing water was or if it was flowing through a floor drain
into the sanitary sewer system. If the standing water were due to seepage through
defects in the home foundation or other clear water source, this would constitute
excessive inflow to the sanitary system. The City will need to establish policies to
address this situation at these locations. It is likely that additional locations within the
City limits had water flowing over the basement floors during July 1997.
c) There is a distinct possibility that many of the properties that have not been
inspected to date are also contributing inflow to the system. When evaluating the
need to inspect the remaining properties, the City should consider the proximity to
other properties known to have sump pumps or high probable groundwater
conditions.
d) A review of the existing data indicates that 537 locations have sump baskets without
a pump. These locations have the potential for future sump discharges to the
sanitary system. See the Map in the Appendix. These baskets have stickers on
them to inform the public of the City Code requirements. It is important for the City
to monitor these empty sump baskets to ensure future compliance. The City of
Edina has already developed specific policies and procedures to address this
potential.
e) The 267 properties identified with multiple sump pumps and /or baskets can be major
sources of inflow. Typically, these locations will have significant flows. The City
should conduct detailed engineering reviews on these specific locations and a high
priority should be given to connecting these locations to the storm sewer system.
OAPROJ1801340�JARnal Report-June 2000.doc 5
Sump Pump Inspection
Edina, Minnesota
f) The City should consider a comprehensive reviewW the locations where sump
baskets contain water and locations of basements with water over the floor to
{
determine if problem areas exist within,the City. The City maybe able to determine
the source(s) of the water (i.e., high groundwater levels, watermain leaks, improper
drainage, lack of storm sewers /drain tile, etc.). The City has subsequently, put
regulations and policies in effect, that require pump installation,with all sump baskets
to ensure proper discharge of clear water in these areas.
g) The City has developed new ordinances and codes to manage inflow from new
developments within the City limits.
h) The, .City should consider notifying the, 372 locations that have their roof, leaders near
the foundation, of the water problems that roof.leaders can cause. These,_property
owners would likely appreciate advice on alternative roof leader discharge locations.
A list and map of these locations is-included in the Appendix.
V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS'
Of the 13,892 properties inspected 411 had sump pumps cross connected to the
sanitary sewer during the first inspection, with only 23 still cross connected at the time of
re- inspection.
One hundred twenty locations had water flowing over their floors.
Of the 492 properties not inspected we estimate 25% or 123 may have cross
connections. The following table summarizes these inflow contributions:
Properties discharging into sanitary sewer at first inspection 411
Properties with flow over floors 120
Estimate 25% of locations not inspected contribute 123
Total 654
This is-an estimated inflow of 654 x 1400gpd x 62 days = 56.7 - millio6 gallons, per year.
A;90% elimination of these sources would reduce inflow by 43.7 million' gallons per year.
The City should�focus attention on the properties not in compliance, not inspected to
date, and that have water. over the basement floor. HRG has made extensive efforts to
contact the property, owners that have not been inspected. These properties appear to
be either vacant, difficult to reach, or unwilling to have their system inspected.
We recommend that the City of Edina implement the following actions:
1. The City should establish a plan of action to work with the 23 properties that have
not complied to date. Consequently, the City has established new ordinances
(Section 445) to deal with properties not in compliance. A letter should also be sent
to the property owners outlining the City's. deadlines and potential consequences of
non - compliance. Three sample letters that the City can utilize as guidelines are
included in the Appendix.
OAPROM013,gTinal ReW-June 2000.doc 6
Sump Pump Inspection
Edina, Minnesota
2. Conduct a comprehensive review of the locations with high water levels either in
sumps or in basements, and develop a Capital Improvement Plan to address current
and future sump pump discharges and inflow. This should be coordinated with the
current City CIP for efficiency and cost - effectiveness.
3. ` Consider additional observations during an extreme wet period in the future to
determine if additional 1/1 sources can be identified and eliminated.
4. Incorporate discharges from roof leaders, drain tiles, and sumps into a boulevard
system in the future.
OAPROM01340J1Finel Report -June 2000.doc 7
TABLE I
Sump Pump Inspections and Ill Reduction Program
Edina, Minnesota
10
Number of Properties in the Provided Database:
.14,384
91.08%
Inspections Completed to Date: % of properties in Database
Residential,
13,076
90.91%
'Non- Residential
816
5.679/o
Subtotal:
13,892'
. 96.58%
Number of TKDA Properties Not Inspected:
.147
75.45%
Number of Other. Non - Inspected Properties:
345
100.00%
Total Number of Properties Not Ins ep cted:
492
Properly Ownership. % of properties Inspected
258
1.86%
Own
12,912
92.95%
Rent
417
3.00%
Not Available
563
4.05%
Subtotal:
13,892
100.00%
EXISTING _CONDITIONS
Basement: % of properties Inspected
12,653
91.08%
Sump Pump Baskets: % of properties Inspected
Multiple
267
1.92%
Single
3,144
22.63%
None
10,481
75.45%
Subtotal:
13,892
100.00%
Sump Pumps: % of properties Inspected
Multiple
258
1.86%
Single
21616
18.83%
None
11,018
79.31%.
Subtotal:
13,892.
100.00%
Reason Syste m Installed (if known): % of properties that
know reason
Home came with system
1,367
61.74%
Response to Inspection program
87 .
3.93%
Water in basement
735
33.20%
Previous system failed
25
1.13%
Subtotal:
2,214
160.00%
0
0: \Proj\801340J\ Correspondence \Reports\FlnalRpt.Edlna.Table t feb00 1 of 3
TABLE I
Sump Pump Inspections and 1/1 Reduction Program
(Continued)
STING `CONDMONS oontinu
Inspected Discharge Point: % of properties
with inspected
1,460
84.98%
435
25.32%
Observed at
Observed at
62
First Inspection
Final Inspection
Outside•(pass)
2346
16.89%
2703
19.46%
Storm Sewer'pass)
'25
0.18%
25
0.18 %
Other, (pa ss),
11,110
79.97%
11,141
80.20%
Floor Drain (fail)
41
0.30 %e
1
0.01%
cross - connections Sanitary Sewer (fail)
167
1.20 %.
7
0.05%
Laundry Tub (fail)
59
0.42%
3
0.02%
Other (fail)
144
1.04%
12
0.09%
Subtotal:
13,892
100.00%
13,892
100.00%
Beaver Systems /Drain tile: % of properties Inspected 72 0.52%
Water in Basement: % of properties with Basements 120 0.95%
Roof Leader Discharge: % of properties with Roof Leaders
Near
Away
Subtotal:
Summer
Fall,
Winter
Year -round
Number of properties reporting:
Properties not in compliance (failures): % of properties Inspected
2,065 60.54%
23 -0.17%
13,341 96.03%
372 2.79%
12,969 97.21%
13,341 100.00%
1,638
95.34%
1,460
84.98%
435
25.32%
66
3:84%
62
3.61%
1,718'
23 0.17%
0:% ProJW01340J\Conespondence \Reports\FlnalRptEdina .Table 1 feb00 2 of 3
TABLE I
Sump Pump Inspections and 1/1 Reduction Program
(Continued)
STUDY PROJECTIONS*
Sumo Baskets:
Multiple
276
Single .
3,255
Non_ a
10,852
Subtotal:
14,384
Sump Pumps:
Multiple
267'
Single
2,709
None
11,408
Subtotal:
14,384
* Projections based on actual inspections vs. total number of properties
0:\PMM01340J\Cortespondence \Reports \FInaIRptEdlna.Table 1 feb00
3 of 3
Am
I
M T fl
DIE
�1 � �
�I`�
o e vt
Cn
.
sea
REPORT /RECOMMENDATION
To: Mayor & City Council
Agenda Item #
IV. D.
From: Francis J. Hoffman (At
Consent
❑
City Engineer
Information Only
Date: June 6, 2000
Mgr. Recommends
❑ To HRA
® To Council
Subject: Consultant Presentation
Action
❑ Motion
Final Sump Pump / Inflow -
❑ Resolution
Infiltration Report
❑ Ordinance
f-1
Discussion
Recommendation:
Review data from presentation. No action required.
Info /Background:
In February 1998, the City of Edina initiated the sump pump inspections of almost
14,000 residential and non - residential properties for possible connections of clear water
to the sanitary sewer system.
The final report of the sump pump inspection program has been completed. Of the
13,892 properties inspected 411 had sump pumps cross - connected to the sanitary
sewer during the first inspection, with only 23 still cross connected at the time of re-
inspection. This represents a reduction of approximately 34 million gallons per year to
the sanitary sewer. Additionally there are approximately 490 properties remaining to be
inspected.
The sump pump inspection program has clearly been a success and continued efforts
by the City regarding other properties should reduce clear water into the sanitary sewer
system.
Attached is a copy of the Final Report. Consultant and staff will make a full report at
the meeting.
I
e., A l
tit
1 co
City of Edina
Sump Pump Inspection and
1/1 Reduction Program
Final Report
June 2000
Prepared by
Howard R. Green Company
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
i
City of Edina
Sump Pump Inspection and
1 %I. Reduction Program
Final Report
June 2000
hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct
supervision and that I am a duly registered Professional Engineer under the laws of the State
of Minnesota.
Dow6las G. Tholo, ' P.E: Date
Reg. No. 19106':
Howard R. Green Company
1326 Energy Park Drive
St. Paul, MN .55108
Phone: 651- 644 -4389
Fax: 651- 644 -9446
t
Sump pump Inspection
Edina, Minnesota
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. HISTORY
I. INTRODUCTION
III. STUDY PURPOSE AND SCOPE
IV.. DATA ANALYSIS
V. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
TABLE 1 - SUMMARY OF DATA
APPENDICES
'NOTE: The following appendix sections are provided to the City electronically only * **
A. Non - Compliant Locations
Properties which are currently not inspected
Properties which are Currently Failing
Properties with Water in the Basement
B. Compliant Locations
C. Number of Sump Baskets
D. Number of Sump Pumps
E. Locations with Water Present in Basket
F. Pump Discharge Locations
G. Pump and Basket Combinations
H. Properties with Cisterns
MAPS PROVIDED
1. Sump Pump Inspection — failed first inspection
- 2. Sump Pump Inspection s 7 failed final inspection
3. Properties with Water. in Basket, Basement During Inspection
0APROJ%80134g'Tina1 Report-June 2000.doc 1
Sump Pump Inspection
Edina, Minnesota
I. HISTORY
Cities throughout Minnesota have become more aware of inflow sources and their
significance through education efforts of the League of Minnesota Cities, Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency, and the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services. These
agencies have been encouraging communities to implement sump pump inspection
programs in order to reduce the amount of clear water inflow to the wastewater
conveyance and treatment infrastructure. Infiltration /Inflow (1 /1) is clear water that enters
the sanitary system. Infiltration includes such items as surface runoff and groundwater
that leaks into the sanitary system through cracks or defects in existing manholes and
pipelines. Inflow is clear water that is put directly into the sanitary system such as sump
pump connections referred to as cross connections.
The City of Edina has recognized the benefit of these programs in reducing inflow and is
committed to reducing inflow from sump pump cross connections. Through previous
studies, other cities have found that 5% to 7% of properties have their sump pump
systems cross connected to the sanitary sewer.
The previous Study completed for the City of Edina by TKDA, concluded that 59% of the
peak flow in the sanitary sewer system was inflow. Subsequently, the focus of future
evaluations was to be on inflow in the worst areas of the system, as identified in this
study.
II. INTRODUCTION
The City of Edina authorized Howard R. Green Company (HRG) to initiate a Sump
Pump Inspection and Infiltration /Inflow (1 /1) Reduction Program in February 1998. HRG
initiated the sump pump inspections of 13,076 residential properties and 816 non-
residential properties for possible connections of sump pumps to the sanitary sewer
system.
Edina chose to initiate a sump pump inspection program due to 1997 sanitary sewer
backups and high levels of clear water entering the sanitary system. Pumping of clear
water from sump pumps into the sanitary sewer system can be a significant source of
inflow and cause wastewater backups. The City has reviewed wastewater flows of
previous years as well as other possible sources of 1 /1. Although sump pump discharge
to the sanitary system is not the sole source of inflow, these discharges are one of the
major contributors.
This study on sump pump discharges and the effects of inflow were prompted by
specific events related to high levels of rainfall in the summer of 1997. During this time
period, sewer backups occurred in several locations throughout the City of Edina.
These backups specifically occurred in Areas 6,10, and 18. These areas are illustrated
in the attached maps.
0:XPR0JW01340AFinel Report-June 2000.doc 2
Sump. Pump Inspection
Edina, Minnesota
STUDY PURPOSE AND SCOPE
The purpose of the Sump Pump Inspection and 1/1 Reduction Program for the City of
Edina is as follows:
1. Reduce the occurrences of sewer backups related to inflow sources.
2. Educate .the,-public on the effects of.cross connections to the sanitary sewer.
3. Significantly reduce rainfall- induced inflow from cross connections.
4. Eliminate I as many sump pump cross connections as feasible.
5. Avoid wastewater conveyance and treatment costs of clear water inflow.
The following are potential ben, efits that were originally identified for the sump pump
inspection program:
Estimated number of properties = 13,500
Estimated number of sump pump installations:
Single pumps - 7% of households 945
Multiple pumps - 1.5% of households 203
Total estimated number of sump pumps 1,148
The estimated clear water discharge is as follows:
945 sump pumps x 1,400 GPD x 62 days /year = 82 million gal /year
203 multiple sump pumps x 2,800 GPD x 62'days /year = 35 million gal /year
Total estimated clear water discharge
from sump pumps 117 million gal /year
The scope and approach of the sump pump inspection project included:
1. A communication /education componentwith new ordinances and public
Meetings, local video:access, mailings to property owners, and press releases.
2. Physical inspection of approximately 13,500 locations throughout the City of
Edina. -these e- inspections were documented on inspection forms were
developed'for the City (see Appendix for a sample) and include such items as
sump baskets, sump pumps, water in baskets and /or floor, and roof leader
locations.
OAPROM01340J1Final Report-June 2000.doc 3
Sump Pump Inspection
Edina, Minnesota
The inspection forms were utilized to develop the various data that this report is based.
Subsequently, the completed inspection forms were utilized to prepare a computerized
database of this information, which was made compatible with the City's computer
network. Through this network, the database can generate maps as well as interface
with other information systems. The information and maps document the following:
1. Existing sump pumps
2. Existing sump baskets
3. Non - compliant locations
The maps will be useful resources for the City. For example, the maps can be cross -
referenced to other capital improvement projects being planned. The City can then
include 1/1 reduction programs into future improvement projects such as new storm
sewer improvements, facilitating sump pump connections to existing storm
sewers /draintiles, and roof leader rerouting. The maps will also help the City focus its re-
inspection programs more efficiently and effectively.
IV. DATA ANALYSIS
The Sump Pump Inspection Program has resulted in the collection of a great deal of
data. The use of this data will provide the City with a focused strategy for inflow
reduction. Table 1 provides a summary of the data that was collected in the program.
Maps and lists of the data are also included in the Appendix.
To date, over 99% of the 13,892 properties inspected have complied with the City's
Code that relates to sump pump discharges. This code prohibits cross connections
between the City sewer system and the sump pump discharge. The code also prohibits
all clear water discharges to the Municipal Sanitary Sewer.
There are at least 2,874 existing sump pumps in the City of Edina. This represents
20.7% of the locations inspected to date.
There were 411 locations with sump pump cross connections during the initial inspection
and only 23 locations with cross connections at the time of re- inspection. It was also
observed that 120 locations had standing water over the basement floors.
There are 492 locations that have not been inspected. Based on our experience, these
properties will likely have a high rate of clear water discharge from sump pumps.
The inspections also determined that 13,341 properties have roof leaders with 372 of
these locations that have roof leaders near the foundation of the building.
O:TROJW01UOJVina1 Report-June 2000.doo 4
Sump Pump Inspection
Edina, Minnesota
The inspection findings indicate that Edina possesses the following conditions:
18.8 % of properties have single sump pumps
1.9 % of properties have multiple sump pumps
0.9 % of properties have water flowing over the floor
3.9 % of properties have baskets without sump pumps
96.0 % of properties have roof leaders
2.8 % of the roof leaders are near the building foundation
The following are some general comments on the data that was collected:
a) Many of the sump pumps had been diverting their flow away from the sewer system
prior to this inspection program. The results of the program indicate that many of the
cross connected sump pump discharges were redirected because of this program.
It can be assumed that these sump pumps were adversely affecting the sanitary
sewer flows prior to the program.
b) For the locations with standing water in the basements, we were unable to observe
what the source of the standing water was or if it was flowing through a floor drain
into the sanitary sewer system. If the standing water were due to seepage through
defects in the home foundation or other clear water source, this would constitute
excessive inflow to the sanitary system. The City will need to establish policies to
address this situation at these locations. It is likely that additional locations within the
City limits had water flowing over the basement floors during July 1997.
c) There is a distinct possibility that many of the properties that have not been
inspected to date are also contributing inflow to the system. When evaluating the
need to inspect the remaining properties, the City should consider the proximity to
other properties known to have sump pumps or high probable groundwater
conditions.
d) A review of the existing data indicates that 537 locations have sump baskets without
a pump. These locations have the potential for future sump discharges to the —
sanitary system. See the Map in the Appendix. These baskets have stickers on
them to inform the public of the City Code requirements. It is important for the City
to monitor these empty sump baskets to ensure future compliance. The City of
Edina has already developed specific policies and procedures to address this
potential.
e) The 267 properties identified with multiple sump pumps and /or baskets can be major
sources of inflow. Typically, these locations will have significant flows. The City
should conduct detailed engineering reviews on these specific locations and a high
priority should be given to connecting these locations to the storm sewer system.
OAPROJ%801340j1Fhal Report-June 2000.doc 5
Sump Pump Inspection
Edina, Minnesota
f) The City should consider a comprehensive review of the locations where sump
baskets contain water and locations of basements with water over the floor to
determine if problem areas exist within the City. The City may be able to determine
the source(s) of the water (i.e., high groundwater levels, watermain leaks, improper
drainage, lack of storm sewers /drain tile, etc.). The City has subsequently put
regulations and policies in effect, that require pump installation with all sump baskets
to ensure proper discharge of clear water in these areas.
g) The City has developed new ordinances and codes to manage inflow from new
developments within the City limits.
h) The City should consider notifying the 372 locations that have their roof leaders near
the foundation, of the water problems that roof leaders can cause. These property
owners would likely appreciate advice on alternative roof leader discharge locations.
A list and map of these locations is included in the Appendix.
V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Of the 13,892 properties inspected 411 had sump pumps cross connected to the
sanitary sewer during the first inspection, with only 23 still cross connected at the time of
re- inspection.
One hundred twenty locations had water flowing over their floors.
Of the 492 properties not inspected we estimate 25% or 123 may have cross
connections. The following table summarizes these inflow contributions:
Properties discharging into sanitary sewer at first inspection 411
Properties with flow over floors 120
Estimate 25% of locations not inspected contribute 123
Total 654
This is an estimated inflow of 654 x 1400gpd x 62 days = 56.7 million gallons per year.
A 90% elimination of these sources would reduce inflow by 43.7 million gallons per year.
The City should focus attention on the properties not in compliance, not inspected to
date, and that have water over the basement floor. HRG has made extensive efforts to
contact the property owners that have not been inspected. These properties appear to
be either vacant, difficult to reach, or unwilling to have their system inspected.
We recommend that the City of Edina implement the following actions:
The City should establish a plan of action to work with the 23 properties that have
not complied to date. Consequently, the City has established new ordinances
(Section 445) to deal with properties not in compliance. A letter should also be sent
to the property owners outlining the City's deadlines and potential consequences of
non - compliance. Three sample letters that the City can utilize as guidelines are
included in the Appendix.
0APROM013,glFinal Report-June 2000.doc 6
t
1
Sump Pump Inspection
Edina,,Minnesota
2. Conduct a comprehensive review of the locations with high water levels either in
sumps or in basements, and develop a Capital Improvement Plan to address current
and future sump pump discharges and inflow. This should be coordinated with the
current City CIP for efficiency and cost- effectiveness.
3. Consider additional observations during an extreme wet period in the future to
.determine if additional 1/1 sources can be identified and eliminated.
4. Incorporate discharges from roof leaders, drain tiles, and sumps into a boulevard
system in the future.
OAPROM01340j1Final Report-June 2000.doc %
TABLE
Sump Pump Inspections and 1/1 Reduction Program
Edina, Minnesota
BASE DATA
Number of Properties in the Provided Database:
14,384
Inspections Completed to Date: % of properties in Database
Residential
13,076
90.91 %
Non-'Residential
816
5.61 %
Subtotal:
13,892'
`96:58.%
Number of TKDA Properties Not Inspected:
147
Number of Other Non -Inspected Properties:
345
Total Number of Properties Not Ins ep cted:
492
Property Ownership. % of properties Inspected
Own
12,912
92.95%
Rent
417
3.00%
Not Available
563
4.05%
Subtotal:
13,892
100.00%
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Basement: % of p perties Inspected
12,653
91.08%
Sump Pump Baskets: % of properties Inspected
Multiple
267
1.92%
Single
3,144
22.63%
None
10,481
75.45%
Subtotal:
13,892
100.00%
cted
Sump Pumps: % of properties Inspected
Multiple
258
1.86%
Single
2,616
18.83 %0
None
11,018
79.31
Subtotal:
..13,892.
100.00%
Reason System Installed (if kriown): % of properties that know
reason
Home came with" system
1,367
61.74%
Response to Inspection program
87
3.93%
Water in basement
736
33.20%
Previous system failed
25
1.13%
Subtotal:
2,214
100.00%
0: \ProAB01340. IkCorrespondenceXReporls %RnalRptEdina .Table 7 feb00 1 of 3
TABLE I
Sump Pump Inspections and Ill Reduction. Program
(Continued)
EXISTING CONDITIONS (continued)
Inspected Discharge Point: % of properties with
inspected
Observed at
Observed at
First Inspection
Final Inspection
Outside (pass)
2346
16.89%
2703
19.46%
Storm'Sewer (pass)
25
0.18%
25
Other(pass) `'
11,110
79:976/6
11,141
80.206/6
Floor Drain (fail)
41
0.30%
1
0.01
cross - connections
Sanitary Sewer (fail)
167
'1,210%
7
0.05 %e
Laundry Tub (fail)
59
0.42%
3
0.02%
Other (fail)
144
1.04%
12
0.09%
Subtotal:
13,892
100.00%
13,892
100.00%
Beaver Systems /Drain tile: % of properties Inspected
72
0.52%
Water in Basement: % of properties with Basements
120
0.95%
Water in Basket: % of properties with Baskets
2,065
60.54%
Cistern Locations: % of properties Inspected
23
0.17% —
Roof Leaders: % of properties Inspected
13,341
96.03%
Yes
Roof Leader Discharge: % of properties with Roof
Leaders
Near
372
2.79%
Away
12,969
97.21%
Subtotal:
13,341
100.00%
P�perties Reporting when Pump Runs (if known):
% of properties
re
op rtina
Spring
1,638
95.34%
Summer
11460
84.98%
Fall
435
25.32%
Winter
66
3.84%
Year -round
62
3:61 %
Number of properties reporting:
1,718
Properties not in compliance (failures): % of properties
Inspected
23
0.17%
0: \PmA S01340JtCorrespondencetReportskRnalRpt .Edina.Table 1 feb00
2 of 3
TABLE
Sump Pump Inspections and 1/1 Reduction Program
(Continued)
STUDY PROJECTIONS*
Multiple
276
Single
3,255
None
10,852
Subtotal:
14,384
Sump Pumps-
Multiple
267
Single
2,709
None
11,408
Subtotal:
14,384
* Projections based on actual inspections vs. total number of properties
0:% Pron801340J% Conespondence\ReportslFlnalRptEdina .Table 1 feb00 3 of 3
AM
�T
�I.
TV
Ah
min
To:
From:
Date:
Subject:
REPORT/RECOMMENDATION
Mayor & City Council
Agenda Item # V.A.
Debra Mangen
Consent
City Clerk
Information Only ❑
June 6, 2000
Mgr. Recommends F-1 To HRA
® To Council
Receive petition
Action ® Motion
Resolution
Ordinance
❑ Discussion
Recommendation:
Refer the petition received to Engineering for processing as to feasibility.
Info/Background:
The City received a petition circulated by Lawrence Stephenson, 4836 Maple Road
requesting curb and gutter on Maple Road between 4811 and 4836. The petition has
been signed by nine property owners. The City's normal procedure is to refer the
petition to the Engineering Department for processing as to feasibility.
1r1A,
o e City of Edina, Minnesota
CITY COUNCIL
rJ• �� . 4801 West 50th Street • Edina, Minnesota 55424
(612) 927-8861. • (612) 927- 7645 -FAX • (612) 927- 5461 -TDD
PETITION TO. THE CITY COUNCIL.
❑ SIDEWALK
❑ STORM SEWER
❑ ALLEY PAVING
❑ SANITARY SEWER
.CURB AND GUTTER ONLY ❑ .PERMANENT STREET
SURFACING WITH
CURB AND GUTTER
To the Mayor and City Council:
❑ WA
❑ STREET LIGHTING
❑ OTHER:
The persons who have signed this petition ask the City Council to consider the improvements listed above to
the locations listed below. G
aA I e R00A between 4 a c 3S and 9 b I 1
LOCATION OF IMPROVEMENT BY STREET NAME ADDRESS ADDRESS
between
LOCATION OF IMPROVEMENT BY STREET NAME
between
,OCATION OF IMPROVEMENT BY STREET NAME
between
LOCATION OF IMPROVEMENT BY STREET NAME
ADDRESS
I:\ 11 IT11�4��
ADDRESS
M.-
ADDRESS
and
ADDRESS
and
ADDRESS
IMPORTANT NOTE: THE PERSONS WHO HAVE SIGNED THIS PETITION UNDERSTAND THAT
THE CITY COUNCIL MAY ASSESS THE COSTS OF THESE IMPROVEMENTS AGAINST THE
PROPERTIES BENEFITING FROM THE IMPROVEMENTS IN AMOUNTS DETERMINED BY THE
COUNCIL AS AUTHORIZED BY CHAPTER 429, MINNESOTA STATUTES.
PROPERTY OWNER'S
a SIGNATURE
OWNER'S NAME
(PRINTED)
S'c,Df Ge-t ucfrE t,••
PROPERTY ADDRESS
OWNER'S
PHONE
Pas - 196 rr
;� & - zz��kgl
f.? - ltoc
9AG 349
PHONE
There is space for more signatures on the back or you may attach extra pages.
SEPTEMBER 1960
COUNCIL
CHECK nL�ISTER
31 -MAY -2000 (10. -)2) page 1
HECK NO
DATE
CHECK AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT
PO NUM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
210680
06/06/00
$165.59
A LAPOINTE SIGN INC.
NAMETAGS
12008
-------
GRILL
------------------
GENERAL SUPPLI
-- - - -'
6038
06/06/00
$17.04
A LAPOINTE SIGN INC.
NAME TAGS
1994
GOLF ADMINISTR
GENERAL SUPPLI
6043
< *>
$182.63*
210681
06/06/00
$73.60
A TO Z RENTAL CENTER
TRENCHER RENTAL
122067
MAINT OF COURS
TOOLS
6449
06/06/00
$82.65
A TO Z RENTAL CENTER
TRENCHER RENTAL
122174
RICHARDS MAINT
TOOLS
6452
< *>
$156.25*
210682
06/06/00
$204.00
ABDELLA, PAUL
TEACHING AC
052200
ART CENTER ADM
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$204.00*
210683
06/06/00
$542.06
ABLE HOSE & RUBBER INC.
HOSE, ELBOW
00 -03919
PUMP & LIFT ST
GENERAL SUPPLI
1366
06/06/00
$155.85
ABLE HOSE & RUBBER INC.
CAM & GROOVE
00 -03970
PUMP & LIFT ST
GENERAL SUPPLI
1458
< *>
$697.91*
210684
06/06/00
$11.12
ABM EQUIPMENT & SUPPLY
DOOR HOLDER
055548 -0
EQUIPMENT OPER
REPAIR PARTS
1373
< *>
$11.12*
210685
06/06/00
$367.40
ACTION MAILING SERVICES
MAIL PROCESS
85094
GENERAL(BILLIN
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$367.40*
210686
06/06/00
$754.87
ADDED TOUCH
PAINTING
051600
POOL OPERATION
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$754.87*
210687
06/06/00
$470.62
ADVANCED GRAPHICS SYSTEM
TONER CARTRIDGES
028500
CENT SVC GENER
GENERAL SUPPLI
4745
< *>
$470.62*
210688
06/06/00
$52.50
ADVANCED STATE SECURITY
REPAIR CAMERA SYSTEM
20150
YORK OCCUPANCY
CONTR REPAIRS
< *>
$52.50*
210689
06/06/00
$32.55
AL'S VACUUM
VACUUM BELTS, BAG
16006
POOL TRACK GRE
GENERAL SUPPLI
2263
< *>
$32.55*
210690
06/06/00
$540.00
ALBERG WATER SERVICES
WELL MOTOR REPAIR
11325
PUMP & LIFT ST
CONTR REPAIRS
1037
< *>
$540.00*
210691
06/06/00
$312.00
ALEXANDER, PETE
SOFTBALL UMPIRE
052600
EDINA ATHLETIC
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$312.00*
210692
06/06/00
$198.90
ALL SAINTS BRANDS
COST OF GOODS SOLD BE
00030708
VERNON SELLING
CST OF GDS BEE
06/06/00
$612.00
ALL SAINTS BRANDS
COST OF GOODS SOLD BE
00020670
VERNON SELLING
CST OF GDS BEE
06/06/00
$376.35
ALL SAINTS BRANDS
COST OF GOODS SOLD BE
00030700
YORK SELLING
CST OF GDS BEE
06/06/00
$365.85
ALL SAINTS BRANDS
COST OF GOODS SOLD BE
00030790
VERNON SELLING
CST OF GDS BEE
< *>
$1,553.10*
210693
06/06/00
$110.66
ALL -SAFE DIV. OF ALL FIR
RECHARGE EXTINGUISHER
032269
EQUIPMENT OPER
GENERAL SUPPLI
1476
06106100
$149.79
ALL -SAFE DIV. OF ALL FIR
EQUIPT. MAINTENANCE
032424
POLICE DEPT. G
EQUIP MAINT
< *>
$260.45*
210694
06/06/00
$357.00
ALSTAD, MARIAN
TEACHING AC
052200
ART CENTER ADM
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$357.00*
210695
06/06/00
$20.00
AMEM
MEMBERSHIP DUES
051100
CIVIL DEFENSE
DUES & SUBSCRI
< *>
$20.00*
"_OUNCIL
CHECK REGISTER
31 -MAY -2000 (16:32) page 2
HECK NO
DATE
CHECK AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT
PO NUM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
210696
06/06/00
$98.09
AMERICAN HOTEL REGISTER
SCREWS, HEX TOOL
7393195-
POOL TRACK GRE
GENERAL SUPPLI
2259
< *>
$98.09*
210697
06/06/00
$75.00
AMERICAN PAYMENT CENTERS
BOX_SERVICES
14064
GENERAL(BILLIN
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$75.00*
210698
06/06/00
$1,394.88
ANCHOR PAPER CO. INC..
COPIER PAPER
12355900
CENT SVC GENER
GENERAL SUPPLI
4752
< *>
$1,394.88*
210699
06/06/00
$386.60
ANCHOR PRINTING CO.
RECEIPT FORMS
200840 -0
GOLF ADMINISTR
OFFICE SUPPLIE
6031
< *>
$386.60*
210700
06/06/00
$1,648.80
ANCOM COMMUNICATIONS INC
BASE RADIO
23774
FIRE DEPT. GEN
GENERAL SUPPLI
3807
< *>
$1,648.80*
210701
06/06/00
$262.50
ANCOM TECHNICAL CENTER
RADIO REPAIRS
7577
FIRE DEPT. GEN
CONTR REPAIRS
< *>
$262.50*
210702
06/06/00
$86.27
AQUA ENGINEERING
SPRINKLERS
043921
SNOW & ICE REM
GENERAL SUPPLI
1368
< *>
$86.27*
210703
06/06/00
$495.60
AQUA LOGIC INC.
START UP POOL
1690
POOL OPERATION
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$495.60*
210704
06/06/00
$50.00
ASLET
MEMBERSHIP FEE
485
POLICE DEPT. G
DUES & SUBSCRI
3039
< *>
$50.00*
210705
06/06/00
$108.00
ASPEN ENVIRONMENTAL
PORTABLE TOILETS
9257
MAINT OF LOURS
SVC CONTR EQUI
6041
06/06/00
$49.59
ASPEN ENVIRONMENTAL
RESTROOM RENTAL
8565
BUILDING MAINT
PROF SERVICES
1235
06/06/00
$49.59
ASPEN ENVIRONMENTAL
RESTROOM RENTAL
8566
BUILDING MAINT
PROF SERVICES
1235
06/06/00
$108.00
ASPEN ENVIRONMENTAL
PORTABLE TOILETS
9483
MAINT OF COURS
SVC CONTR EQUI
6444
< *>
$315.18*
210706
06/06/00
$488.94
ASPEN EQUIPMENT CO.
AUGER, FREIGHT CHARGE
507531
EQUIPMENT OPER
REPAIR PARTS
1315
< *>
$488.94*
210707
06/06/00
$155.10
ASSOCIATED BAG COMPANY
PLASTIC BAGS
M476575
INSPECTIONS
GENERAL SUPPLI
< *>
$155.10*
210708
06/06/00
$59.38
ASTLEFORD EQUIPMENT CO.
BLADE
T101409
EQUIPMENT OPER
GENERAL SUPPLI
1369
< *>
$59.38*
210709
06/06/00
$11.67
AT &T WIRELESS
CELLULAR
051800
CLUB HOUSE
TELEPHONE
< *>
.$11.67*
210710
06/06/00
$255.13
ATLANTIS IRRIGATION
REPAIR SPRINKLER
26
DISTRIBUTION
CONTR REPAIRS
102.9
< *>
$255.13*
210711
06/06/00
$54.80
AUGIE'S INC.
SANDWICHES
31154
FRED RICHARDS
COST OF GD SOL
6324
06/06/00
$56.58
AUGIE'S INC.
SANDWICHES
31304
FRED RICHARDS
COST OF GD SOL
6324
06/06/00
$66.43
AUGIE'S INC.
SANDWICHES
31566
FRED RICHARDS
COST OF GD SOL
6324
06/06/00
$59.28
AUGIE'S INC.
SANDWICHES
31637
FRED RICHARDS
COST OF GD -SOL
6324
< *>
$237.09*
210712
06/06/00
$46.36
AUTOMOBILE SERVICE CO.
ALIGNMENT
22157
EQUIPMENT OPER
CONTR REPAIRS
1376
COUNCIL
CHECK r_7ISTER
31
-MAY -2000 (1,
_2) page 3
CHECK NO
DATE '
CHECK AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT
PO NUM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
210712
06/06/00
$46.36
AUTOMOBILE SERVICE CO.
ALIGNMENT
22162
EQUIPMENT OPER
CONTR REPAIRS
1379
06/06/00
$38.80
AUTOMOBILE SERVICE CO.
ALIGNMENT
22175
EQUIPMENT OPER
CONTR REPAIRS
1383
< *>
$131.52*
210713
06/06/00
$1,294.11
AVID SPORTSWEAR INC.
CLOTHING
39460
PRO SHOP
COST OF GDS -PR
6431
< *>
$1,294.11*
210714
06/06/00
$261.89
BAD DEBT - NCO FINANCIAL
APRIL COLL. FEE
043000
GENERAL FD PRO
AMBULANCE FEES
< *>
$261.89*
210715
06/06/00
$639.00
BADGER METER INC
SERVICE AGREEMENT
515005
METER READING
GENERAL SUPPLI
3671
06/06/00
$3,621.00
BADGER METER INC
SERVICE AGREEMENT
524192
METER READING
GENERAL SUPPLI
3671
< *>
$4,260.00*
210716
06/06/00
$389.68
BAILEY NURSERIES
TREES
632026
TREES & MAINTE
PLANT & TREES
5701
06/06/00
$228.98
BAILEY NURSERIES
TREES
632027
TREES & MAINTE
PLANT & TREES
5701
06/06/00
$189.04
BAILEY NURSERIES
TREES
632025
TREES & MAINTE
PLANT & TREES
5701
< *>
$807.70*
210717
06/06/00
$63.90
BANNERS TO GO
TRAFFIC SIGNS
11502
STREET NAME SI
SIGNS & POSTS
1075
06/06/00
$251.34
BANNERS TO GO
BANNERS
11569
GENERAL MAINT
GENERAL SUPPLI
1472
06/06/00
$205.44
BANNERS TO GO
ALUMINUM SIGNS
11570
STREET NAME SI
GENERAL SUPPLI
1348
< *>
$520.68*
210718
06/06/00
$5,824.65
BARR ENGINEERING CO.
PAMELA PARK PLANTING
2327354-
PAMELA PK /LK S
CIP
06/06/00
$3,925.89
BARR ENGINEERING CO.
PAMELA PARK PLANTING
2327354-
PAMELA PK /LK S
CIP
< *>
$9,750.54*
210719
06/06/00
$201.66
BATTERIES PLUS
BATTERIES
F51 -1623
FIRE DEPT. GEN
GENERAL SUPPLI
3841
06/06/00
$132.04
BATTERIES PLUS
BATTERIES
F51 -1633
ENGINEERING GE
GENERAL SUPPLI
4766
06/06/00
$18.09
BATTERIES PLUS
PHONE CASE
F529114
GENERAL MAINT
GENERAL SUPPLI
1494
06/06/00
$65.69
BATTERIES PLUS
BATTERIES
F5 -29597
GENERAL MAINT
GENERAL SUPPLI
1531
06/06/00
$122.45
BATTERIES PLUS
2 -WAY RADIO BATTERIES
F5 -29743
EQUIPMENT OPER
GENERAL SUPPLI
1531
< *>
$539.93*
210720
06/06/00
$533.56
BATTERY WHOLESALE INC.
BATTERIES
09311
EQUIPMENT OPER
REPAIR PARTS
1378
< *>
$533.56*
210721
06/06/00
$19.00
BAUER, MIKE
UPGRADE LICENSE TO CL
051200
TRAINING
CONF & SCHOOLS
< *>
$19.00*
210722
06/06/00
$518.40
BEAN, ROBERT
AMBULANCE OVERPAYMENT
051600
GENERAL FD PRO
AMBULANCE FEES
< *>
$518.40*
210723
06/06/00
$140.00
BEARCOM
RADIO SUPPLIES
1560360
MAINT OF COURS
GENERAL SUPPLI
6435
06/06/00
$434.92
BEARCOM
RADIO SERVICE
1563021
FIRE DEPT. GEN
CONTR REPAIRS
< *>
$574.92*
210724
06/06/00
$151.90
BECKER ARENA PRODUCTS
REPAIR ZAMBONI
00020577
ARENA ICE MAIN
CONTR REPAIRS
8023
06/06/00
$33.85
BECKER ARENA PRODUCTS
ICE SUPPLIES
00020642
ARENA ICE MAIN
GENERAL SUPPLI
8017
< *>
$185.75*
210725
06/06/00
$24.00
BEER SYSTEM MAINTENANCE
BEERLINE CLEANING
3885
GRILL
CONTR SERVICES
6325
< *>
$24.00*
2OUNCIL
CHECK REGISTER
31 -MAY -2000 (16:32) page 4
HECK NO
DATE
CHECK AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT
PO NUM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
210726
06/06/00
$410.95
BELDING SPORTS INC.
BELTS
320424
PRO SHOP
COST OF GDS -PR
6221
< *>
$410.95*
210727
06/06/00
$117.25
BELLBOY CORPORATION
COST OF GOODS SOLD
WI
18841600
50TH ST SELLIN
CST OF GD WINE
06/06/00
$102.00
BELLBOY CORPORATION
COST OF GOODS SOLD
BE
18893800
YORK SELLING
CST OF GDS BEE
06/06/00
$19.80
BELLBOY CORPORATION
COST OF GOODS SOLD
MI
31837000
YORK SELLING
CST OF GDS MIX
06/06/00
$59.79
BELLBOY CORPORATION
COST OF GOODS SOLD
MI
31837800
VERNON SELLING
CST OF GDS MIX
06/06/00
$91.25
BELLBOY CORPORATION
COST OF GOODS SOLD
LI
18942100
50TH ST SELLIN
CST OF GD LIQU
06/06/00
$51.00
BELLBOY CORPORATION
COST OF GOODS SOLD
BE
18942200
50TH ST SELLIN
CST OF GDS BEE
06/06/00
$365.25
BELLBOY CORPORATION
COST OF GOODS SOLD
LI
18942300
YORK SELLING
CST OF GD LIQU
06/06/00
$91.25
BELLBOY CORPORATION
COST OF GOODS SOLD
LI
18942400
VERNON SELLING
CST OF GD LIQU
06/06/00
$86.68
BELLBOY CORPORATION
COST OF GOODS SOLD
MI
31875600
VERNON SELLING
CST OF GDS MIX
06/06/00
$19.80
BELLBOY CORPORATION
COST OF GOODS SOLD
MI
31875700
YORK SELLING
CST OF GDS MIX
< *>
$1,004.07*
210728
06/06/00
$60.00
BERGQUIST, EBBA
REFUND OF PATRON CARD
052300
GOLF PROG
MEMBERSHIPS
06/06/00
$35.00
BERGQUIST, EBBA
REFUND OF STORAGE
LOC
052300
GOLF PROG
RENT CLUBS /CAR
< *>
$95.00*
210730
06/06/00
$83.47
BERTELSON OFFICE PRODUCT
GENERAL SUPPLIES
7622480
LIQUOR 50TH ST
GENERAL SUPPLI
7534
06/06/00
$31.68
BERTELSON OFFICE PRODUCT
OFFICE SUPPLIES
7624150
ART CENTER ADM
OFFICE SUPPLIE
9035
06/06/00
$18'.11
BERTELSON OFFICE PRODUCT
GENERAL SUPPLIES
7625620
LIQUOR 50TH ST
GENERAL SUPPLI
7534
06/06/00
$35.13
BERTELSON OFFICE PRODUCT
GENERAL SUPPLIES
7622481
LIQUOR 50TH ST
GENERAL SUPPLI
7534
06/06/00
$26.07
BERTELSON OFFICE PRODUCT
OFFICE SUPPLIES
7648051
CENT SVC GENER
GENERAL SUPPLI
06/06/00
$199.68
BERTELSON OFFICE PRODUCT
OFFICE SUPPLIES
7661200
POLICE DEPT. G
OFFICE SUPPLIE
3030
06/06/00
$43.09
BERTELSON OFFICE PRODUCT
OFFICE SUPPLIES
7662690
POLICE DEPT. G
OFFICE SUPPLIE
3030
06/06/00
$34.24
BERTELSON OFFICE PRODUCT
OFFICE SUPPLIES
7661201
POLICE DEPT. G
OFFICE SUPPLIE
3030
06/06/00
$13.20
BERTELSON OFFICE PRODUCT
OFFICE SUPPLIES
7666460
CENT SVC GENER
GENERAL SUPPLI
06/06/00
$13.65
BERTELSON OFFICE PRODUCT
OFFICE SUPPLIES
7666460
FINANCE
GENERAL SUPPLI
06/06/00
$7.86
BERTELSON OFFICE PRODUCT
OFFICE SUPPLIES
7666460
ADMINISTRATION
GENERAL SUPPLI
06/06/00
$59.96
BERTELSON OFFICE PRODUCT
OFFICE SUPPLIES
7666460
PWKS ADMIN GEN
GENERAL SUPPLI
06/06/00
$138.33
BERTELSON OFFICE PRODUCT
OFFICE SUPPLIES
7666560
POLICE DEPT. G
OFFICE SUPPLIE
3033
06/06/00
$28.33
BERTELSON OFFICE PRODUCT
OFFICE SUPPLIES
7668950
POLICE DEPT. G
OFFICE SUPPLIE
3033
06/06/00
$97.54
BERTELSON OFFICE PRODUCT
PAPER, CARTRIDGES
7673620
GOLF ADMINISTR
OFFICE SUPPLIE
6039
06/06/00
$17.83
BERTELSON OFFICE PRODUCT
PINS, PENS
7677290
PW BUILDING
GENERAL SUPPLI
1463
06/06/00
$97.15
BERTELSON OFFICE PRODUCT
SUPPLIES
7684040
GENERAL FD PRO
CS GENERAL
06/06/00
$24.08
BERTELSON OFFICE PRODUCT
RUBBER BANDS & STAMP
7686180
LIQUOR YORK GE
OFFICE SUPPLIE
7537
06/06/00
$42.75
BERTELSON OFFICE PRODUCT
OFFICE SUPPLIES
7686680
POLICE DEPT. G
OFFICE SUPPLIE
3040
06/06/00
$40.25
BERTELSON OFFICE PRODUCT
GENERAL SUPPLIES
7687060
CENT SVC GENER
GENERAL SUPPLI
06/06/00
$175.47
BERTELSON OFFICE PRODUCT
GENERAL SUPPLIES
7687060
ADMINISTRATION
GENERAL SUPPLI
06/06/00
$72.00
BERTELSON OFFICE PRODUCT
GENERAL SUPPLIES
7705030
PWKS ADMIN GEN
GENERAL SUPPLI
06/06/00
$146.99
BERTELSON OFFICE PRODUCT
GENERAL SUPPLIES
7705030
CENT SVC GENER
GENERAL SUPPLI
< *>
$1,446.86*
210731
06/06/00
$229.46
BEST ACCESS SYSTEMS OF M
KEYS & LOCKS
MN -11669
MAINT OF COURS
GENERAL SUPPLI
6577
06/06/00
$94.35
BEST ACCESS SYSTEMS OF M
LOCKS
MN -11722
CENTENNIAL LAK
GENERAL SUPPLI
2271
06/06/00
$22.72
BEST ACCESS SYSTEMS OF M
KEYS
MN -11723
BUILDING MAINT
GENERAL SUPPLI
06/06/00
$5.91
BEST ACCESS SYSTEMS OF M
KEY, CONTROL KEY
MN -11723
FIELD MAINTENA
GENERAL SUPPLI
1473
< *>
$352.44*
2.10732
06/06/00
$124.49
BEST BUY COMPANY INC.
CRAFT SUPPLIES
28105034
MEDIA LAB
CRAFT SUPPLIES
9027
06/06/00
$88.37
BEST BUY COMPANY INC.
GENERAL SUPPLIES
28105034
MEDIA LAB
GENERAL SUPPLI
9027
06/06/00
$138.44
BEST BUY COMPANY INC.
REPLACE SCANMAKER
28105034
MEDIA LAB
EQUIP REPLACEM
9027
06/06/00
$8.51
BEST BUY COMPANY INC.
VIDEO TAPES
051800
ENGINEERING GE
GENERAL SUPPLI
4760
< *>
$359.81*
w
.
COUNCIL
CHECK nLGISTER
31
-MAY -2000 (lu..s2)
page 5
CHECK NO
DATE
CHECK AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT
PO NUM
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
210733
06/06/00
- $59.60
BIFFS INC
Sanitation
W84422
FRED RICHARDS
RUBBISH REMOVA
9027
06/06/00
$232.91
BIFFS INC
RESTROOM RENTAL
W94399
BUILDING MAINT
PROF SERVICES
1236
06/06/00
$73.45
BIFFS INC
SANITATION
W94733
FRED RICHARDS
RUBBISH REMOVA
6326
< *>
$246.76*
210734
06/06/00
$115.02
BIG RIVER DELI & SANDWIC
CONT. ED. MEALS
7074
POLICE DEPT. G
CONF & SCHOOLS
< *>
$115.02*
210735
06/06/00
$2,027.35
BITUMINOUS ROADWAYS
ASPHALT
79804
DISTRIBUTION
BLACKTOP
5994
06/06/00
$110.38
BITUMINOUS ROADWAYS
ASPHALT
79854
GENERAL MAINT
BLACKTOP
5994
06/06/00
$2,546.66
BITUMINOUS ROADWAYS
ASPHALT
79854
STREET RENOVAT
BLACKTOP
5994
06/06/00
$955.30
BITUMINOUS ROADWAYS
ASPHALT
79856
PUMP & LIFT ST
BLACKTOP
5994
06/06/00
$212.99
BITUMINOUS ROADWAYS
ASPHALT
79856
GENERAL MAINT
BLACKTOP
5994
06/06/00
$53.25
BITUMINOUS ROADWAYS
ASPHALT
79856
GENERAL MAINT
GENERAL SUPPLI
5994
06/06/00
$700.14
BITUMINOUS ROADWAYS
ASPHALT
79856
DISTRIBUTION
BLACKTOP
5994
06/06/00
$600.25
BITUMINOUS ROADWAYS
ASHPHALT
79856
RICHARDS MAINT
BLACKTOP
5994
06/06/00
$2,845.11
BITUMINOUS ROADWAYS
ASPHALT
79856
STREET RENOVAT
BLACKTOP
5994
06/06/00
$2,513.69
BITUMINOUS ROADWAYS
ASPHALT
79884
STREET RENOVAT
BLACKTOP
5994
06/06/00
$384.25
BITUMINOUS ROADWAYS
ASPHALT
79892
STREET RENOVAT
BLACKTOP
5994
< *>
$12,949.37*
210736
06/06/00
$175.50
BLACK, STEVE
SOFTBALL UMPIRE
052600
EDINA ATHLETIC
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$175.50*
210737
06/06/00
$79.21
BLACKHAWK INDUSTRIES INC
UNIFORMS
72698
POLICE DEPT. G
UNIF ALLOW
< *>
$79.21*
210738
06/06/00
$100.00
BLOOD, DAVID
POLICE SERVICE
060600
RESERVE PROGRA
CONTR SERVICES
< *>
$100.00*
210739
06/06/00
$1,249.00
BMS INTEGRATED OFFICE TE
MAINTENANCE
128441
CENT SVC GENER
SVC CONTR EQUI
4762
< *>
$1,249.00*
210740
06/06/00
$95.00
BOSS PUMPING
SEPTIC TANK SERVICE
1823
BUILDING MAINT
CONTR REPAIRS
1195
< *>
$95.00*
210741
06/06/00
$213.45
BOYER TRUCK PARTS
WATER PUMP, GASKETS
145603
EQUIPMENT OPER
REPAIR PARTS
1319
< *>
$213.45*
210742
06/06/00
$174.70
BRAEMAR PRINTING
GIFT CERTIFICATES
53813
GOLF ADMINISTR
PRINTING
6032
< *>
$174.70*
210743
06/06/00
$175.50
BRAKKE, KEITH
SOFTBALL UMPIRE
052600
EDINA ATHLETIC
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$175.50*
210744
06/06/00
$140.00
BRANDT, TIM
SEASON TICKET REFUND
051800
POOL ADMIN
SEASON TICKETS
< *>
$140.00*
210745
06/06/00
$12.00
BRISSMAN - KENNEDY INC.
VACUUM REPAIR
626890
CITY HALL GENE
PAPER SUPPLIES
06/06/00
$52.12
BRISSMAN- KENNEDY INC.
VACUUM REPAIR
627598
CITY HALL GENE
PAPER SUPPLIES
< *>
$64.12*
210746
06/06/00
$544.00
BROCKWAY, MAUREEN
TEACHING AC
052200
ART CENTER ADM
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$544.00*
-"OUNCIL
CHECK REGISTER
31 -MAY -2000 (16:32) page 6
HECK NO
DATE
CHECK AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT
PO NUM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
210747
06/06/00
$41,106.69
BRW INC.
EAW FEES
515 -0016
GENERAL FD PRO
MISCELLANOUS
06/06/00
$3,630.85
BRW INC.
EAW PREP
515 -0020
GENERAL FD PRO
MISCELLANOUS
< *>
$44,737.54*
210748
06/06/00
$250.00
BUREAU OF ALCOHOL TOBACC
SPECIAL TAX RENEWAL
ID 41 -60
LIQUOR 50TH ST
LIC -& PERMITS
06/06/00
$250.00
BUREAU OF ALCOHOL TOBACC
SPECIAL TAX RENEWAL
ID 41 -60
LIQUOR YORK GE
LIC & PERMITS
06/06/00
$250.00
BUREAU OF ALCOHOL TOBACC
SPECIAL TAX RENEWAL
ID 41 -60
VERNON LIQUOR
LIC & PERMITS
< *>
$750.00*
210749
06/06/00
$500.00
BUREAU OF CRIMINAL APPRE
BACKGROUND CHECKS
052500
PARK ADMIN.
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$500.00*
210750
06/06/00
$100.00
BUTLER, GEORGE
POLICE SERVICE
060600
RESERVE PROGRA
CONTR SERVICES
< *>
$100.00*
210751
06/06/00
$37.00
BUTTERFIELD, KRISTI
TENNIS LESSON REFUND
052300
GENERAL FD PRO
REGISTRATION F
< *>
$37.00*
210752
06/06/00
$45.00
CALHOUN ISLES COM BAND
CONCERT 6 -11 -00
052600
ED ADMINISTRAT
PRO SVC OTHER
< *>
$45.00*
210753
06/06/00
$206.18
CAMAS
CEMENT
1131606
DISTRIBUTION
GENERAL SUPPLI
1038
06/06/00
$627.34
CAMAS
CEMENT
1132234
DISTRIBUTION
GENERAL SUPPLI
1766
06/06/00
$738.05
CAMAS
CEMENT
1132235
DISTRIBUTION
GENERAL SUPPLI
1766
06/06/00
$423.34
CAMAS
CONCRETE FOR UTLEY
1132236
PATHS & HARD S
SAND,GRVL & RO
1766
06/06/00
$627.34
CAMAS
READY MIX
1132738
DISTRIBUTION
CONCRETE
5998
06/06/00
$627.34
CAMAS
READY MIX
1132739
DISTRIBUTION
CONCRETE
5998
06/06/00
$508.01
CAMAS
CONCRETE FOR UTLEY
1132740
PATHS & HARD S
SAND,GRVL & RO
1766
06/06/00
$1,476.09
CAMAS
READY MIX
1133235
DISTRIBUTION
CONCRETE
5998
< *>
$5,233.69*
210754
06/06/00
$504.00
CAMPE, HARRIET
TEACHING AC
052200
ART CENTER ADM
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$504.00*
210755
06/06/00
$1,013.88
CAPITOL COMMUNICATIONS
RADIOS
T32536
GOLF ADMINISTR
GENERAL SUPPLI
6004
< *>
$1,013.88*
210756
06/06/00
$617.50
CARR, PAT
AMBULANCE OVERPAYMENT
051600
GENERAL FD PRO
AMBULANCE FEES
< *>
$617.50*
210757
06/06/00
$120.00
CASH REGISTER SERVICE &
CASH REGISTER REPAIR
7520
POOL OPERATION
PROF SERVICES -
< *>
$120.00*
210758
06/06/00
$63.04
CATCO
FITTINGS, HOSE END, C
3 -30083
EQUIPMENT OPER
REPAIR PARTS
1313
06/06/00
$33.33
CATCO
HOSE END
8 -84739
EQUIPMENT OPER
REPAIR PARTS
1313
06/06/00
$31.36
CATCO
SEAL
3 -30956
EQUIPMENT OPER
REPAIR PARTS
1380
06/06/00
$65.50
CATCO
GAUGES
3 -31210
EQUIPMENT OPER
REPAIR PARTS
1497
< *>
$193.23*
210759
06/06/00
$394.50
CERTIFIED POWER INC. COM
3 -WAY NC
206.67594
LIFT STATION M
REPAIR PARTS
1027
< *>
$394.50*
210760
06/06/00
$414.80
CHANNING L. BETE CO. INC
WATER INFO
50184195
DISTRIBUTION
GENERAL SUPPLI
1012
< *>
$414.80*
210767
06/06/00
PROX. MAGNET
06/06/00
210768
06/06/00
31 -MAY -2000
2) page 7
COUNCIL
CHECK ..- GISTER
GENERAL SUPPLI
06/06/00
210773
06/06/00
210770
06/06/00
CHECK NO
DATE
CHECK AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM--- - -
- - -- OBJECT-- - -
- -PO NUM
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
210761
06/06/00
$200.00
CHAPLIN, MICHELLE
DEPOSIT RETURN FOR
RE 051000
EDINB /CL PROG
RENTAL INCOME
AC 0109076-
< *>
CHEMICALS 2262
$200.00*
GLOVES, WIPES, BANDAI
01229838
GENERAL MAINT
SAFETY EQUIPME
1470
CONNEY SAFETY PRODUCTS
210762
06/06/00
$151.30
CHET'S SHOES INC.
UNIFORM (L. DOIG)
8399
FIRE DEPT. GEN
UNIF ALLOW
3812
< *>
6049
$151.30*
BLUELINE /PLOTTER SUPP
0165336
ENGINEERING GE
BLUE PRINTING
4748
COPY EQUIPMENT INC.
210763
06/06/00
$149.37
CHIEF SUPPLY CORPORATION
FIRST AID SUPPLIES
10256503
POLICE DEPT. G
FIRST AID SUPP
3026
< *>
$149.37*
PLANS
0166776
INSPECTIONS
PRINTING
CORPORATE ADVERTISING &
210764
06/06/00
$184.00
CITY OF BLOOMINGTON
SHAPE UP FEES
051200
ADMINISTRATION
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$184.00*
210765
06/06/00
$370.22
CITY OF ST. PAUL
ASPHALT MIX
063486
GENERAL MAINT
BLACKTOP
< *>
$370.22*
210766
06/06/00
$832.00
CITY PAGES
ADVERTISING
172549
MEDIA LAB
ADVERT OTHER
9042
< *>
$832.00*
210767
06/06/00
PROX. MAGNET
06/06/00
210768
06/06/00
$82.50*
RETURN
210769
06/06/00
GENERAL SUPPLI
06/06/00
210773
06/06/00
210770
06/06/00
POOL CONCESSIO
06/06/00
$220.78*
06/06/00
78705222
06/06/00
CRAFT SUPPLIES
06/06/00
$85.21
COMMERCIAL POOL & SPA
210771
06/06/00
PROX. MAGNET
06/06/00
EQUIPMENT OPER
06/06/00
$82.50*
RETURN
210772
06/06/00
GENERAL SUPPLI
4671
210773
06/06/00
CANDY
06/06/00
POOL CONCESSIO
06/06/00
$220.78*
06/06/00
78705222
MEDIA LAB
210774 06/06/00
210775 06/06/00
$82.50
CLAREYS SAFETY EQUIP.
PROX. MAGNET
24542
EQUIPMENT OPER
REPAIR PARTS 1499
$82.50*
RETURN
90577531
50TH ST SELLIN
GENERAL SUPPLI
4671
$220.78
CLARK PRODUCTS INC.
CANDY
V339458
POOL CONCESSIO
COST OF GD SOL
$220.78*
CRAFT SUPPLIES
78705222
MEDIA LAB
CRAFT SUPPLIES
9032
$85.21
COMMERCIAL POOL & SPA
SU CHLORINE
0108482-
POOL TRACK GRE
CHEMICALS 2249
$159.06
COMMERCIAL POOL & SPA
SU CHLORINE, MURIATIC
AC 0109076-
POOL TRACK GRE
CHEMICALS 2262
$244.27*
GLOVES, WIPES, BANDAI
01229838
GENERAL MAINT
SAFETY EQUIPME
1470
- $71.77
- $71.78
- $71.78
$118.73
$173.63
$77.03*
$38.30
$128.87
$98.36
$265.53*
$199.68
$199.68*
$219.51
$15.66
$11.18
$13.42
$259.77*
$547.73
$547.73*
$236.00
$236.00*
COMPUSA INC.
RETURN
90577531
YORK SELLING
GENERAL SUPPLI
4671
COMPUSA INC.
RETURN
90577531
50TH ST SELLIN
GENERAL SUPPLI
4671
COMPUSA INC.
RETURN
90577531
VERNON SELLING
GENERAL SUPPLI
4671
COMPUSA INC.
CRAFT SUPPLIES
78705222
MEDIA LAB
CRAFT SUPPLIES
9032
COMPUSA INC.
GENERAL SUPPLIES
78705222
MEDIA LAB
GENERAL SUPPLI
CONNEY SAFETY PRODUCTS
GLOVES, TAPE
01220757
BUILDING MAINT
GENERAL SUPPLI
1346
CONNEY SAFETY PRODUCTS
GLOVES, WIPES, BANDAI
01229838
GENERAL MAINT
SAFETY EQUIPME
1470
CONNEY SAFETY PRODUCTS
RESPIRATORS, PODS, GL
01231351
GENERAL MAINT
SAFETY EQUIPME
1477
CONNIE'S CATERING & DELI
LUNCHES
052200
GRILL
COST OF GD SOL
6049
COPY EQUIPMENT INC.
BLUELINE /PLOTTER SUPP
0165336
ENGINEERING GE
BLUE PRINTING
4748
COPY EQUIPMENT INC.
PLAN #297
0165825
INSPECTIONS
PRINTING
COPY EQUIPMENT INC.
PLANS - SCHAEFER
0166023
INSPECTIONS
PRINTING
COPY EQUIPMENT INC.
PLANS
0166776
INSPECTIONS
PRINTING
CORPORATE ADVERTISING &
NAME TAGS
97324
POOL OPERATION
GENERAL SUPPLI
CORPORATE PORTRAIT PHOTO ABOUT TOWN PHOTOS 91100050 COMMUNICATIONS MAG /NEWSLET EX
'_OUNCIL
CHECK REGISTER
WHITE MARKING PAINT
3006
GENERAL MAINT
GENERAL SUPPLI 1544
31 -MAY -2000 (16:32) page 8
:HECK NO
DATE
CHECK AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT
PO NUM
------------------------------_------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
210776
06/06/00
$521.85
COUNTRY
CLUB TURF
SOD
1024
CENTENNIAL LAK
FERTILIZER
2006
06/06/00
$372.75
COUNTRY
CLUB TURF
SOD
1025
CENTENNIAL LAK
FERTILIZER
2068
< *>
$894.60*
210777
06106100
$314.18
COVERALL OF THE TWIN CIT
MONTHLY SERVICE
00000491
ART CENTER BLD
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$314.18*
210778
06/06/00
$410.55
CUMMINS
NORTH CENTRAL IN
CHANGE GENERATOR
BATT 100 -3305
POOL TRACK GRE
CONTR REPAIRS
2267
< *>
$410.55*
210779
06/06/00
$610.22
CURTIS
1000
ENVELOPES
32164901
CENT SVC GENER
GENERAL SUPPLI
4713
06/06/00
$183.76
CURTIS
1000
ENVELOPES
32446801
CENT SVC GENER
GENERAL SUPPLI
4756
< *>
$793.98*
210780 06/06/00
210781 06/06/00
210782 06/06/00
210783 06/06/00
06/06/00
210784 06/06/00
210785 06/06/00
210787
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
$60.25 CUSHMAN MOTOR CO. AXLE & NUT
$60.25*
$680.32 CUSTOM FIRE APPARATUS TRUCK REPAIRS
$680.32*
109061 CENTENNIAL LAK REPAIR PARTS 2045
7712 FIRE DEPT. GEN CONTR REPAIRS 3843
$39.49
D.J.'S MUNICIPAL SUPPLY
WHITE MARKING PAINT
3006
GENERAL MAINT
GENERAL SUPPLI 1544
$39.49*
$817.42
DANKO EMERGENCY EQUIPMEN
HOSE STRAPS
323468
FIRE DEPT. GEN
GENERAL SUPPLI 3817
$779.46
DANKO EMERGENCY EQUIPMEN
TURNOUT GEAR #58
324138
FIRE DEPT. GEN
PROTECT CLOTHI 3712
$1,596.88*
$252.00
DAULTON, SHIRLEE
TEACHING AC
052500
ART CENTER ADM
PROF SERVICES
$252.00*
$4,200.00
$4,200.00*
$1,023.25
$36.80
$69.40
$1,177.97
$940.25
$3,185.00
$349.10
$630.65
$800.00
$9.60
$1,477.10
$1,413.10
$900.25
$18.40
$1,247.60
$64.80
$87.80
$2,013.65
$41.75
$15,486.47*
DAVE PERKINS CONTRACTING EXCAVATE CREEK 21354 PONDS & LAKES CONTR REPAIRS 5306
DAY DISTRIBUTING
DAY DISTRIBUTING
DAY DISTRIBUTING
DAY DISTRIBUTING
DAY DISTRIBUTING
DAY DISTRIBUTING
DAY DISTRIBUTING
DAY DISTRIBUTING
DAY DISTRIBUTING
DAY DISTRIBUTING
DAY DISTRIBUTING
DAY DISTRIBUTING
DAY DISTRIBUTING
DAY DISTRIBUTING
DAY DISTRIBUTING
DAY DISTRIBUTING
DAY DISTRIBUTING
DAY DISTRIBUTING
DAY DISTRIBUTING
COST OF GOODS SOLD BE 95079
COST OF GOODS SOLD MI 95080
COST OF GOODS SOLD MI 95216
COST OF GOODS SOLD BE 95217
COST OF GOODS SOLD BE 95218
COST OF GOODS SOLD BE 121600
COST OF GOODS SOLD BE 95668
COST OF GOODS SOLD BE 95880
COST OF GOODS SOLD BE 78768
COST OF GOODS SOLD MI 96033
COST OF GOODS SOLD BE 96034
COST OF GOODS SOLD BE 96035
COST OF-GOODS SOLD BE 96606
COST OF GOODS SOLD MI 96607
COST OF GOODS SOLD BE 96840
COST OF GOODS SOLD MI 96841
COST OF GOODS SOLD MI 96842
COST OF GOODS SOLD BE 96843
COST OF GOODS.SOLD BE 501670
210788 06/06/00 $19.00 DEHN, BRUCE UPGRADE LICENSE TO CL 051200
50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS BEE
50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS MIX
VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS MIX
VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS BEE
YORK SELLING CST OF GDS BEE
YORK SELLING CST OF GDS BEE
YORK SELLING CST OF GDS BEE
50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS BEE
50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS BEE
YORK SELLING CST OF GDS MIX
YORK SELLING CST OF GDS BEE
VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS BEE
50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS BEE
50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS MIX
YORK SELLING CST OF GDS BEE
YORK SELLING CST OF GDS MIX
VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS MIX
VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS BEE
50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS BEE
TRAINING CONF & SCHOOLS
COUNCIL
CHECK .._1ISTER
31 -MAY -2000 (1
2) page 9
CHECK NO
DATE
CHECK AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT
PO NUM
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<*>
$19.00*
210789
06/06/00
$20.35
DENNYS 5TH AVE.
BAKEREY
BAKERY
33869
GRILL
COST OF
GD SOL
6329
06/06/00
$24.09
DENNYS 5TH AVE.
BAKEREY
BAKERY
33899
GRILL
COST OF
GD SOL
6329
06/06/00
$40.76
DENNYS 5TH AVE.
BAKEREY
BAKERY
33971
GRILL
COST OF
GD SOL
6329
06/06/00
$106.00
DENNYS 5TH AVE.-
BAKEREY
BAKERY
34009
GRILL
COST OF
GD SOL
6329
06/06/00
$46.28
DENNYS 5TH AVE.
BAKEREY
BAKERY
34038
GRILL
COST OF
GD SOL
6329
06/06/00
$30.91
DENNYS 5TH AVE.
BAKEREY
BAKERY
34267
GRILL
COST OF
GD SOL
6329
06/06/00
$88.13
DENNYS 5TH AVE.
BAKEREY
BAKERY
34268
GRILL
COST OF
GD SOL
6329
06/06/00
$72.76
DENNYS 5TH AVE.
BAKEREY
BAKERY
34377
GRILL
COST OF
GD SOL
6329
06/06/00
$23.14
DENNYS 5TH AVE.
BAKEREY
BAKERY
34551
GRILL
COST OF
GD SOL
6329
06/06/00
$59.69
DENNYS 5TH AVE.
BAKEREY
BAKERY
34571
GRILL
COST OF
GD SOL
6329
< *>
$512.11*
210790
06/06/00
$537.51
DEXTER SHOE COMPANY
SHOES
212650
PRO SHOP
COST OF
GDS -PR
6213
< *>
$537.51*
210791
06/06/00
$12.40
DIBBLE, DON
MILEAGE ALLOWANCE
052400
TRAINING
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$12.40*
210792
06/06/00
$46.14
DICKER, TOBIE
GLOVES, TRASH CAN
052200
ART CENTER ADM
GENERAL
SUPPLI
< *>
$46.14*
210793
06/06/00
$384.00
DIETRICHSON, BILL
TEACHING AC
052200
ART CENTER ADM
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$384.00*
210794
06/06/00
$8.77
DIRECT SAFETY COMPANY
DANGER SIGNS
15021850
GENERAL MAINT
SAFETY
EQUIPME
5659
< *>
$8.77*
210795
06/06/00
$48.00
DORGAN, DENISE
FAB 4 & 5 REFUND
052400
GENERAL FD PRO
REGISTRATION F
< *>
$48.00*
210796
06/06/00
$9,705.60
DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
LEGAL
777442
LEGAL SERVICES
PRO SVC
- LEGA
< *>
$9,705.60*
210797
06/06/00
$3,458.90
DPC INDUSTRIES
WATER CHEMICALS
7000 -135
WATER TREATMEN
WATER TRTMT SU
1040
06/06/00
$2,031.95
DPC INDUSTRIES
WATER CHEMICALS
7000 -135
WATER TREATMEN
WATER TRTMT SU
1040
< *>
$5,490.85*
210798
06/06/00
$19.00
DRISTE, BRIAN
UPGRADE LICENSE TO
CL
051200
TRAINING
CONF &
SCHOOLS
< *>
$19.00*
210799
06/06/00
$419.38
DUFFEY, ALICE
AMBULANCE OVERPAYMENT
051600
GENERAL FD PRO
AMBULANCE FEES
< *>
$419.38*
210800
06/06/00
$122.38
E -Z -GO TEXTRON
CART PARTS
0500017
GOLF CARS
REPAIR
PARTS
6441
06/06/00
$147.14
E -Z -GO TEXTRON
CART PARTS
0508767
GOLF CARS
REPAIR
PARTS
6451
< *>
$269.52*
210801
06/06/00
-$7.08
EAGLE WINE
COST OF GOODS SOLD
WI
536657
YORK SELLING
CST OF
GD WINE
06/06/00
$890.95
EAGLE WINE
COST OF GOODS SOLD
WI
213774
VERNON SELLING
CST OF
GD WINE
06/06/00
$367.15
EAGLE WINE
COST OF GOODS SOLD
WI
213780
50TH ST SELLIN
CST OF
GD WINE
06/06/00
$545.33
EAGLE WINE
COST OF GOODS SOLD
WI
213786
YORK SELLING
CST OF
GD WINE
06/06/00
$851.28
EAGLE WINE
COST OF GOODS SOLD
WI
216715
VERNON SELLING
CST OF
GD WINE
06/06/00
$212.80
EAGLE WINE
COST OF GOODS SOLD
WI
216723
50TH ST SELLIN
CST OF
GD WINE
;OUNCIL
CHECK REGISTER
31 -MAY -2000 (16:32) page 10
:HECK NO
DATE
CHECK AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT
PO NUM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
210801
06/06/00
$336.05
EAGLE WINE
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
216731
YORK
SELLING
CST OF GD.WINE
06/06/00
$1,720.88
EAGLE WINE
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
219607
VERNON SELLING
CST OF GD WINE
06/06/00
$607.40
EAGLE WINE
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
219612
50TH
ST SELLIN
CST OF GD WINE
06/06/00
$1,110.72
EAGLE WINE
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
219617
YORK
SELLING
CST OF GD WINE
< *>
$6,635.48*
210802
06/06/00
$74.92
EARL F. ANDERSEN INC.
CHANNEL
POSTS
24522
STREET NAME SI
GENERAL SUPPLI
1543
< *>
$74.92*
210804
06/06/00
$2,892.80
EAST SIDE BEVERAGE
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
BE
626098
VERNON SELLING
CST OF GDS BEE
06/06/00
$3,375.00
EAST SIDE BEVERAGE
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
BE
626100
50TH
ST SELLIN
CST OF GDS BEE
06/06/00
$5,409..80
EAST SIDE BEVERAGE
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
BE
626701
YORK
SELLING
CST OF GDS BEE
06/06/00
$44.00
EAST SIDE BEVERAGE
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
MI
626702
YORK
SELLING
CST OF GDS MIX
06/06/00
$345.30
EAST SIDE BEVERAGE
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
BE
627319
50TH
ST SELLIN
CST OF GDS BEE
06/06/00
$75.00
EAST SIDE BEVERAGE
BEER
629004
FRED
RICHARDS
CST OF GDS BEE
6330
06/06/00
$1,638.00
EAST SIDE BEVERAGE
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
BE
629126
50TH
ST SELLIN
CST OF GDS BEE
06/06/00
$4,495.60
EAST SIDE BEVERAGE
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
BE.629127
VERNON SELLING
CST OF GDS BEE
06/06/00
$7,028.95
EAST SIDE BEVERAGE
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
BE
629699
YORK
SELLING
CST OF GDS BEE
06/06/00
$45.25
EAST SIDE BEVERAGE
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
MI
629700
YORK
SELLING
CST OF GDS MIX
06/06/00
$46.00
EAST SIDE BEVERAGE
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
BE
630281
50TH
ST SELLIN
CST OF GDS BEE
06/06/00
$1,661.70
EAST SIDE BEVERAGE
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
BE
632213
50TH
ST SELLIN
CST OF GDS BEE
06/06/00
$6,434.05
EAST SIDE BEVERAGE
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
BE
632214
VERNON SELLING
CST OF GDS BEE
06/06/00
$12.15
EAST SIDE BEVERAGE
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
MI
632215
VERNON SELLING
CST OF GDS MIX
06/06/00
$10,251.70
EAST SIDE BEVERAGE
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
BE
632803
YORK
SELLING
CST OF GDS BEE
06/06/00
$102.65
EAST SIDE BEVERAGE
COST
OF -GOODS
SOLD
MI
632804
YORK
SELLING
CST OF GDS MIX
06/06/00
$64.50
EAST SIDE BEVERAGE
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
BE
634191
YORK
SELLING
CST OF GDS BEE
< *>
$43,922.45*
210805
06/06/00
$50.00
EDINA CHORALE
CONCERT
6 -15 -00
05260.0
ED ADMINISTRAT
PRO SVC OTHER
< *>
$50.00*
210806
06/06/00
$1,808.49
ELECTRIC MOTOR REPAIR
REPAIR MOTOR
268927
PUMP
& LIFT ST
CONTR REPAIRS
1023
< *>
$1,808.49*
210807
06/06/00
$771.50
ELSMORE AQUATIC
UNIFORMS
036364
POOL
OPERATION
LAUNDRY
7097
06/06/00
$97.50
ELSMORE AQUATIC
POOL
UNIFORMS
036408
POOL
OPERATION
LAUNDRY
7097
< *>
$869.00*
210808
06/06/00
$182.85
EMERGENCY APPARATUS MAIN
E -83
REPAIRS
3948
FIRE
DEPT. GEN
CONTR REPAIRS
06/06/00
$146.28
EMERGENCY APPARATUS MAIN
E -81
REPAIRS
3949
FIRE
DEPT. GEN
CONTR REPAIRS
06/06/00
$146.28
EMERGENCY APPARATUS MAIN
T -90
REPAIRS
4007
FIRE
DEPT. GEN
CONTR REPAIRS
< *>
$475.41*
210809
06/06/00
$650.00
EMPLOYEES CLUB
SUPPLIES
060600
CONTINGENCIES
GENERAL SUPPLI
< *>
$650.00*
210810
06/06/00
$119.00
EMS INSIDER
SUBSCRIPTION
051700
FIRE
DEPT. GEN
DUES & SUBSCRI
< *>
$119.00*
210811
06/06/00
$79.00
ERICKSON, SARA
CLASS REFUND
050900
ART CNTR PROG
REGISTRATION F
< *>
$79.00*
210812
06/06/00
$329.40
ESPING FORENSIC ENGINEER
REVIEW WELDING
102265
WATER TREATMEN
PROF SERVICES
1031
< *>
$329.40*
COUNCIL
CHECK t,. -.=ER
31 -MAY -2000 (16.
page 11
CHECK NO
DATE
CHECK AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT
PO NUM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
210813
06/06/00
$690.50
EVERGREEN LAND SERVICES
EASEMENT ACQUISITION
00 -405
TH100 & W 77TH
CIP
06/06/00
$760.00
EVERGREEN LAND SERVICES
EASEMENT ACQUISITION
00 -410
SANITARY SEWER
CIP
< *>
$1,450.50*
210814
06/06/00
$15,118.00
FAMILINK
COMMUNITY SUPPORT
051500
COMM. RESOURCE
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$15,118.00*
210815
06/06/00
$38.20
FARMER BROTHERS COFFEE
COFFEE
7848260
FRED RICHARDS
COST OF GD SOL
6331
< *>
$38.20*
210816
06/06/00
$169.65
FAST FRAME
CL PRINT FRAMING
1776700
ED ADMINISTRAT
GENERAL SUPPLI
2097
< *>
$169.65*
210817
06/06/00
$45.97
FIREHOUSE MAGAZINE
2 -YR SUBSCRIPTION REN
051800
FIRE DEPT. GEN
DUES & SUBSCRI
< *>
$45.97*
210818
06/06/00
$95.00
FIRST TECH COMPUTER
COMPUTER REPAIRS
F34792
MEDIA LAB
CONTR REPAIRS
9011
< *>
$95.00*
210819
06/06/00
$270.76
FISHER SCIENTIFIC
LAB SUPPLIES
4376991
LABORATORY
GENERAL SUPPLI
1264
< *>
$270.76*
210820
06/06/00
$60.00
FLETCHER, PAT
SWIMMING LESSON REFUN
050900
GENERAL FD PRO
REGISTRATION F
< *>
$60.00*
210821
06/06/00
$1,773.23
FLEXIBLE PIPE TOOL COMPA
JET HOSE
5808
SEWER CLEANING
REPAIR PARTS
1034
06/06/00
$150.37
FLEXIBLE PIPE TOOL COMPA
ROOT SAWS
5810
SEWER CLEANING
REPAIR PARTS
1033
< *>
$1,923.60*
210822
06/06/00
$153.60
FLOYD TOTAL SECURITY
KEYS & CYLINDERS
609997
CENTENNIAL LAK
GENERAL SUPPLI
2098
06/06/00
$144.55
FLOYD TOTAL SECURITY
REPAIR TO DOOR
609532
CENTENNIAL LAK
CONTR REPAIRS
2091
06/06/00
$31.95
FLOYD TOTAL SECURITY
CORES
609270
CENTENNIAL LAK
GENERAL SUPPLI
2091
< *>
$330.10*
210823
06/06/00
$670.03
FOOTJOY
SHOES
3713932
PRO SHOP
COST OF GDS -PR
6210
< *>
$670.03*
210824
06/06/00
$186.99
FOWLER ELECTRIC
REPAIR PARTS
55706100
MAINT OF COURS
REPAIR PARTS
6445
06/06/00
$93.50
FOWLER ELECTRIC
REPAIR PARTS
55706101
MAINT OF COURS
REPAIR PARTS
6445
< *>
$280.49*
210825
06/06/00
$756.00
FREY, MICHAEL
TEACHING AC
052200
ART CENTER ADM
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$756.00*
210827
06/06/00
- $14.72
G & K DIRECT PURCHASE
CREDIT MEMO
5004759
GENERAL MAINT
LAUNDRY
06/06/00
-$0.92
G & K DIRECT PURCHASE
CREDIT MEMO
5004760
BUILDING MAINT
LAUNDRY
06/06/00
- $47.22
G & K DIRECT PURCHASE
CREDIT MEMO
5004761
BUILDING MAINT
LAUNDRY
06/06/00
- $13.29
G & K DIRECT PURCHASE
CREDIT MEMO
5004762
BUILDING MAINT
LAUNDRY
06/06/00
-$4.43
G & K DIRECT PURCHASE
CREDIT MEMO
5004763
GENERAL MAINT
LAUNDRY
06/06/00
-$8.86
G & K DIRECT PURCHASE
CREDIT MEMO
5004764
GENERAL MAINT
LAUNDRY
06/06/00
- $28.82
G & K DIRECT PURCHASE
CREDIT MEMO
5004765
PUMP & LIFT ST
LAUNDRY
06/06/00
- $26.15
G & K DIRECT PURCHASE
CREDIT MEMO
5004766
GENERAL MAINT
LAUNDRY
06/06/00
$93.82
G & K DIRECT PURCHASE
UNIFORM PURCHASES
3049779
PUMP & LIFT ST
LAUNDRY
06/06/00
- $44.34
G & K DIRECT PURCHASE
CREDIT RETURN
5004827
BUILDING MAINT
LAUNDRY
06/06/00
$29.35
G & K DIRECT PURCHASE
UNIFORM PURCHASES
3050756
EQUIPMENT OPER
LAUNDRY
COUNCIL
CHECK REGISTER
31 -MAY -2000 (16:32) page 12
HECK NO
DATE
CHECK AMOUNT
VENDOR-
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT
PO NUM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
210827
06/06/00
$67.56
G & K DIRECT PURCHASE
UNIFORM PURCHASES
3050757
PW BUILDING
GENERAL SUPPLI
06/06/00
$22.35
G & K DIRECT PURCHASE
UNIFORM PURCHASES
3050758
PW BUILDING
GENERAL SUPPLI
06/06/00
$32.27
G & K DIRECT PURCHASE
UNIFORM PURCHASES
3050921
GENERAL MAINT
LAUNDRY
06/06/00
$36.61
G & K DIRECT PURCHASE
UNIFORM PURCHASE
3051376
BUILDING MAINT
LAUNDRY
06/06/00
$905:25
G & K DIRECT PURCHASE
UNIFORMS
3051650
PW BUILDING
GENERAL SUPPLI
5866
< *>
$998.46*
210828
06/06/00
$70.96
GALLS INC.
RADIO & GLOVE CASES
54001775
FIRE DEPT. GEN
GENERAL SUPPLI
3824
< *>
$70.96*
210829
06/06/00
$58.56
GANDER MOUNTAIN
WADERS FOR TREE CREW
006 -403 -
TREES & MAINTE
TOOLS
1228
06/06/00
$117.13
GANDER MOUNTAIN
WADERS FOR UTILITY DE
006 -403-
GENERAL STORM
GENERAL SUPPLI
< *>
$175.69*
210830
06/06/00
$529.83
GARTNER REFRIGERATION &
SHUT DOWN ICE RINK, 0
2275
POOL TRACK GRE
CONTR REPAIRS
2266
< *>
$529.83*
210831
06/06/00
$463.02
GE CAPITAL ITS
OFFICE 2000
90803052
ENGINEERING GE
EQUIP REPLACEM
4741
06/06/00
$403.52
GE CAPITAL ITS
MONITOR
90813668
FINANCE
EQUIP REPLACEM
4741
06/06/00
$403.52
GE CAPITAL ITS
MONITOR
90813669
FIRE DEPT. GEN
GENERAL SUPPLI
4727
06/06/00
$15.92
GE CAPITAL ITS
OFFICE 97 PRO CD
90819528
CENT SVC GENER
GENERAL SUPPLI
4741
06/06/00
$79.88
GE CAPITAL ITS,
DATA PROCESSING
90821097
POLICE DEPT. G
DATA PROCESSIN
3038
06/06/00
$271.20
GE CAPITAL ITS
DATA PROCESSING
A0518003
POLICE DEPT. G
DATA PROCESSIN
3037
< *>
$1,637.06*
210832
06/06/00
$300.00
GEISHEKER, PATRICIA
TEACHING AC
052200
ART CENTER ADM
PROF SERVICES
06/06/00
$300.00
GEISHEKER, PATRICIA
TEACHING AC
052500
ART CENTER ADM
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$600.00*
210833
06/06/00
$300.00
GOLF MINNESOTA
AD
W -00046
GOLF DOME
ADVERT OTHER
6047
< *>
$300.00*
210834
06/06/00
$810.50
GOLFCRAFT
GOLF CLUBS
13450
PRO SHOP
COST OF GDS -PR
6358
06/06/00
$1,185.00
GOLFCRAFT
GOLF CLUBS
13504
PRO SHOP
COST OF GDS -PR
6358
06/06/00
$313.50
GOLFCRAFT
GOLF CLUBS
13507
PRO SHOP
COST OF GDS -PR
6358
06/06/00
$580.00
GOLFCRAFT
GOLF CLUBS
13524
PRO SHOP
COST OF GDS -PR
6358
06/06/00
$290.00
GOLFCRAFT
GOLF CLUBS
13540
PRO SHOP
COST OF GDS -PR
6358
< *>
$3,179.00*
210835
06/06/00
$60.00
GOOD, KATHLEEN
SWIMMING LESSON REFUN
050900
GENERAL FD PRO
REGISTRATION F
< *>
$60.00*
210836
06/06/00
$76.42
GOPHER CASH REGISTER
REGISTER RIBBONS
21243
GOLF ADMINISTR
GENERAL SUPPLI
6055
< *>
$76.42*
210837
06/06/00
$360.00
GOPHER STATE ONE -CALL IN
APRIL 2000.SERVICE
40259
SUPERV. & OVRH
GOPHER STATE
< *>
$360.00*
210838
06/06/00
$120.00
GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFIC
ANNUAL DUES
0007117
FINANCE
DUES & SUBSCRI
< *>
$120.00*
210839
06/06/00
$18.98
GRAINGER
FLOAT VALVE
495 -7612
CENTENNIAL LAK
REPAIR PARTS
2078
06/06/00
$23.05
GRAINGER
CABLE TIES
495 -1221
FIELD MAINTENA
GENERAL SUPPLI
1206
06/06/00
$182.91
GRAINGER
WELDING SCREEN, TAPE
495 -1569
BUILDINGS
GENERAL SUPPLI
1271
06/06/00
$67.36
GRAINGER
DEGREASER
498 -2150
FIRE DEPT. GEN
GENERAL SUPPLI
3831
COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER
31 -MAY -2000 (16. -) page 13
CHECK NO DATE
CHECK AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT
PO NUM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
210839 06/06/00
$13.78
GRAINGER
NUT DRIVER, PAINTSTIC
495 -3035
ST LIGHTING OR
GENERAL SUPPLI
1367
06/06/00
$5.29
GRAINGER
PHILLIPS SCREWDRIVER
498 -2535
ST LIGHTING OR
GENERAL SUPPLI
1367
06/06/00
$55.85
GRAINGER
BOOTS
495 -4206
POOL TRACK GRE
GENERAL SUPPLI
2261
06/06/00
$10.05
GRAINGER
REPAIR PARTS
970 -3781
MAINT OF COURS
REPAIR PARTS
6447
06/06/00
$86.79
GRAINGER
CABLE TIES
495 -6720
FIELD MAINTENA
GENERAL SUPPLI
1206
06/06/00
$306.90
GRAINGER
MOTOR, V -BELT
495 -6720
BUILDINGS
REPAIR PARTS
1058
< *>
$770.96*
FUSES
104 -7633
CENTENNIAL LAK
GENERAL
SUPPLI
2085
210840 06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
210841 06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
$83.50
$170.00
$347.00
$600.50*
$523.00
$1,440.00
$278.00
$516.00
$113.00
$275.00
$763.00
$1,070.00
$4,978.00*
GRAND PERE WINES INC
GRAND PERE WINES INC
GRAND PERE WINES INC
GRAPE BEGINNINGS INC
GRAPE BEGINNINGS INC
GRAPE BEGINNINGS INC
GRAPE BEGINNINGS INC
GRAPE BEGINNINGS INC
GRAPE BEGINNINGS INC
GRAPE BEGINNINGS INC
GRAPE BEGINNINGS INC
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI 00006999 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI 00007038 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI 00007045 YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI 31003
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI 31135
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI 31160
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI 31268
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI 31270
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI 31271
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI 31375
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI 31405
50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE
YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE
50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE
50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE
VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE
YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE
VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE
YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE
210842 06/06/00
$339.25
GRAYBAR
ELECTRIC
CO.
LAMP LIGHTS
104 -7523
POOL TRACK GRE
GENERAL
SUPPLI
2248
06/06/00
$1,365.33
GRAYBAR
ELECTRIC
CO.
LAMP FIXTURES
104 -7574
PW BUILDING
REPAIR PARTS
1299
06/06/00
$12.54
GRAYBAR
ELECTRIC
CO.
WIRE
104 -7576
CENTENNIAL LAK
GENERAL
SUPPLI
2085
06/06/00
$226.04
GRAYBAR
ELECTRIC
CO.
REFLECTORS, TUBE
104 -7577
PW BUILDING
REPAIR PARTS
1299
06/06/00
$31.26
GRAYBAR
ELECTRIC
CO.
BULBS
104 -7624
CENTENNIAL LAK
GENERAL
SUPPLI
2085
06/06/00
$23.26
GRAYBAR
ELECTRIC
CO.
FUSES
104 -7633
CENTENNIAL LAK
GENERAL
SUPPLI
2085
06/06/00
$111.92
GRAYBAR
ELECTRIC
CO.
FUSES
104 -7647
POOL TRACK GRE
GENERAL
SUPPLI
2270
< *>
$2,109.60*
210843 06/06/00
210844 06/06/00
210845 06/06/00
210846 06/06/00
210847 06/06/00
210851 06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
$46.75
$46.75*
$225.00
$225.00*
$14,623.00
$14,623.00*
$5,000.00
$5,000.00*
$153.00
$153.00*
- $165.70
- $133.55
- $57.86
- $47.86
- $358.50
- $30.38
- $48.60
$1,341.13
GREENKEEPER INC.
GREER, PAT
GREUPNER, JOE
GREUPNER, JOE
GRIFFITHS, GEORDIE
GRIGGS COOPER & CO.
GRIGGS COOPER & CO.
GRIGGS COOPER & CO.
GRIGGS COOPER & CO.
GRIGGS COOPER & CO.
GRIGGS COOPER & CO.
GRIGGS COOPER & CO.
GRIGGS COOPER & CO.
IRRIGATION PARTS 102
STRT RESURFACI CIP 4749
JUNE ART PROGRAMS 052500 ED ADMINISTRAT PROF SERVICES
GROUP LESSONS 052300 GOLF ADMINISTR PRO SVC - GOLF
FINAL MONTHLY RETAINE 05/23
GOLF ADMINISTR PRO SVC - GOLF
TEACHING AC 052200 ART CENTER ADM PROF SERVICES
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI 536125
COST OF GOODS SOLD LI 536239
COST OF GOODS SOLD LI 536577
COST OF GOODS SOLD LI 536688
COST OF GOODS SOLD LI 536689
COST OF GOODS SOLD LI 536854
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI 536855
COST OF GOODS SOLD LI 213778
YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE
YORK SELLING CST OF GD LIQU
YORK SELLING CST OF GD LIQU
VERNON SELLING CST OF GD LIQU
VERNON SELLING CST OF GD LIQU
VERNON SELLING CST OF GD LIQU
50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE
VERNON SELLING CST OF GD LIQU
_"OUNCIL
CHECK REGISTER
31 -MAY -2000
(16:32) page 14
HECK NO
DATE
CHECK AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT
PO NUM
----------------------------------------=-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
210851
06/06/00
$313.65
GRIGGS
COOPER
& CO.
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
LI
213779
VERNON SELLING
CST
OF
GD
LIQU
06/06/00
$2,045.94
GRIGGS
COOPER
& CO.
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
LI
213.784
50TH ST.SELLIN
CST
OF
GD
LIQU
06/06/00
$73.20
GRIGGS
COOPER
& CO.
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
MI
213785
50TH ST SELLIN
CST
OF
GDS
MIX
06/06/00
$9,203.35
GRIGGS
COOPER
& CO.
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
LI
213789
YORK SELLING
CST
OF
GD
LIQU
06/06/00
$522.75
GRIGGS
COOPER
& CO.
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD.WI
213790
YORK SELLING
CST
OF
GD
WINE
06/06/00
$522.75
GRIGGS
COOPER
& CO.
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
LI
213791
YORK SELLING
CST
OF
GD
LIQU
06/06/00
$386.20
GRIGGS
COOPER
& CO.
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
LI
215298
VERNON SELLING
CST
OF
GD
LIQU
06/06/00
$386.20
GRIGGS
COOPER
& CO.
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
LI
215299
50TH ST SELLIN
CST
OF
GD
LIQU
06/06/00
$303.48
GRIGGS
COOPER
& CO.
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
LI
215300
YORK SELLING
'CST
OF
GD
LIQU
06/06/00
$386.20
GRIGGS
COOPER
& CO.
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
LI
215301
YORK SELLING
CST
OF
GD
LIQU
06/06/00
- $73.10
GRIGGS
COOPER
& CO.
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
537238
YORK SELLING
CST
OF
GD
WINE
06/06/00
$57.20
GRIGGS
COOPER
& CO.
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
MI
216716
VERNON SELLING
CST
OF
GDS
MIX
06/06/00
$1,575.99
GRIGGS
COOPER
& CO.
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
LI
216718
VERNON SELLING
CST
OF
GD
LIQU
06/06/00
$26.09
GRIGGS
COOPER
& CO.
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
MI
216719
VERNON SELLING
CST
OF
GDS
MIX
06/06/00
$1,651.96
GRIGGS
COOPER
& CO.
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
LI
216720
VERNON SELLING
CST
OF
GD
LIQU
06/06/00
$69.10
GRIGGS
COOPER
& CO.
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
216722
VERNON SELLING
CST
OF
GD
WINE
06/06/00
$28.60
GRIGGS
COOPER
& CO.
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
MI
216724
50TH ST SELLIN
CST
OF
GDS
MIX
06/06/00
$151.74
GRIGGS
COOPER
& CO.
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
LI
216726
50TH ST SELLIN
CST
OF
GD
LIQU
06/06/00
$732.22
GRIGGS
COOPER
& CO.
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
LI
216727
50TH ST SELLIN
CST
OF
GD
LIQU
06/06/00
$26.09
GRIGGS
COOPER.&
CO.
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
MI
216728
50TH ST SELLIN
CST
OF
GDS
MIX
06/06/00
$42.85
GRIGGS
COOPER
& CO.
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
MI
216730
50TH ST SELLIN
CST
OF
GDS
MIX
06/06/00
$53.05
GRIGGS
COOPER
& CO.
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
MI
216733
YORK SELLING
CST
OF
GDS
MIX
06/06/00
$1,635.55
GRIGGS
COOPER
& CO.
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
LI
216734
YORK SELLING
CST
OF
GD
LIQU
06/06/00
$97.82
GRIGGS-COOPER
& CO.
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
MI
218196
YORK SELLING
CST
OF
GDS
MIX
06/06/00
$7,936.98
GRIGGS
COOPER
& CO.
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
LI
218197
YORK SELLING
CST
OF
GD
LIQU'
06/06/00
$337.84
GRIGGS.COOPER
& CO.
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
219610
VERNON SELLING
CST
OF
GD
WINE
06/06/00
$2,399.60
GRIGGS
COOPER
& CO.
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
LI
219611
VERNON SELLING
CST
OF
GD
LIQU
06/06/00
$60.20
GRIGGS
COOPER
& CO.
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
MI
219615
50TH ST SELLIN
CST
OF
GDS
MIX
06/06/00
$307.43
GRIGGS
COOPER
& CO.
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
LI
219616
50TH ST SELLIN
CST
OF
GD
LIQU
06/06/00
$6,076.24
GRIGGS
COOPER
& CO.
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
LI
219620
YORK SELLING
CST
OF
GD
LIQU
06/06/00
$51.94
GRIGGS
COOPER
& CO.
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
MI
219621
YORK SELLING
CST
OF
GDS
MIX
< *>
$37,887.79*
210852
06/06/00
$48.00
GRUBER,
ELIZABETH
FAB 4 &
5 PROGRAM REF
052300
GENERAL FD PRO
REGISTRATION
F
< *>
$48.00*
210853
06/06/00
$193.00
GTS
MANAGER'S
CONFERENCE
5634
ADMINISTRATION
CONF &
SCHOOLS
< *>
$193.00*
210854
06/06/00
$180.00
GUEST SERVICES
MEAL
TICKET -D.
TODD F
051700
FIRE DEPT. GEN
CONF &
SCHOOLS
< *>
$180.00*
210855
06/06/00
$2,500.00
GUNN, PEGGY
EASEMENT
ACQUISITION
052300
SANITARY SEWER
CI
< *>
$2,500.00*
210856
06/06/00
$89.34
HAAGEN -DAZS
CO.
ICE CREAM
00824237
GRILL
COST OF GD
SOL
6332
< *>
$89.34*
210857
06/06/00
$287.75
HACH COMPANY
POWDER PILLOWS
2350264-
WATER TREATMEN
REPAIR
PARTS
1363
< *>
$287.75*
210858
06/06/00
$100.00
HALE, WILL
CHILDREN'S MUSIC 6 -15
052600
ED ADMINISTRAT
PRO
SVC OTHER
< *>
$100.00*
210859
06/06/00
$628.47
HALLMAN OIL COMPANY
BULK
OIL
34846
EQUIPMENT OPER
WELDING SUPPLI
1042
COUNCIL
CHECK GISTER
31 -MAY -2000 (lc-_Z) page 15
CHECK NO
DATE
CHECK AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT
PO NUM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<*>
$628.47*
210860
06/06/00
$166.15
HAMCO DATA PRODUCTS
REGISTER PAPER & INK
203409
VERNON LIQUOR
GENERAL SUPPLI
7516
< *>
$166.15*
210861
06/06/00
$176.15
HARMON AUTOGLASS
SLIDER WINDOW REPLACE
0014 -000
EQUIPMENT OPER
REPAIR PARTS
1317
< *>
$176.15*
210862
06/06/00
$33.60
HARMON GLASS & GLAZING
KEYS
24009461
CENTENNIAL LAK
GENERAL SUPPLI
2010
< *>
$33.60*
210863
06/06/00
$22,479.00
HARRIS HOMEYER CO.
PREMIUM
15232
CENT SVC GENER
INSURANCE
06/06/00
$14,760.00
HARRIS HOMEYER CO.
PREMIUM
15233
CENT SVC GENER
INSURANCE
< *>
$37,239.00*
210864
06/06/00
$10,714.62
HARTLAND FUEL PRODUCTS L
GAS - UNLEADED
346491
EQUIPMENT OPER
GASOLINE
1217
< *>
$10,714.62*
210866
06/06/00
$12.68
HAWKEYE FOODSERVICE
DIST
FOOD
1595646
GRILL
COST OF GD SOL
6333
06/06/00
$325.14
HAWKEYE FOODSERVICE
DIST
FOOD
1599275
GRILL
COST OF GD SOL
6333
06/06/00
$193.33
HAWKEYE FOODSERVICE
DIST
PAPER PRODUCTS
1599275
GRILL
GENERAL SUPPLI
06/06/00
$100.20
HAWKEYE FOODSERVICE
DIST
CUP LIDS
1603328
GRILL
GENERAL SUPPLI
6333
06/06/00
$122.45
HAWKEYE FOODSERVICE
DIST
FOOD
1603329
GRILL
COST OF GD SOL
6333
06/06/00
$538.31
HAWKEYE FOODSERVICE
DIST
FOOD
1606089
GRILL
COST OF GD SOL
6333
06/06/00
$80.25
HAWKEYE FOODSERVICE
DIST
PAPER GOODS
1606089
GRILL
GENERAL SUPPLI
06/06/00
$47.18
HAWKEYE FOODSERVICE
DIST
SOAP
1606089
GRILL
CLEANING SUPPL
06/06/00
$227.11
HAWKEYE FOODSERVICE
DIST
FOOD
1610070
GRILL
COST OF GD SOL
6333
06/06/00
$226.49
HAWKEYE FOODSERVICE
DIST
LIDS, SPOONS, TURNERS
1610070
GRILL
GENERAL SUPPLI
6333
06/06/00
$80.25
HAWKEYE FOODSERVICE
DIST
HOT DOGS
1610803
GRILL
COST OF GD SOL
6333
06/06/00
$511.07
HAWKEYE FOODSERVICE
DIST
FOOD
1613995
GRILL
COST OF GD SOL
6333
06/06/00
$68.06
HAWKEYE FOODSERVICE
DIST
PAPER PRODUCTS
1613995
GRILL
GENERAL SUPPLI
6333
< *>
$2,532.52*
210867
06/06/00
$1,011.43
HAWKINS WATER TREATMENT
CHEMICALS
257776
POOL OPERATION
CHEMICALS
< *>
$1,011.43*
210868
06/06/00
$137.50
HEGGIES PIZZA
PIZZA
52887
GRILL
COST OF GD SOL
6334
06/06/00
$96.25
HEGGIES PIZZA
PIZZA
49315
GRILL
COST OF GD SOL
6334
< *>
$233.75*
210869
06106100
$204.00
HEIM, HARRY
TEACHING AC
052200
ART CENTER ADM
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$204.00*
210870
06/06/00
$134.10
HEIMARK FOODS
MEAT
014367
GRILL
COST OF GD SOL
6335
06/06/00
$134.10
HEIMARK FOODS
BURGERS
014383
GRILL
COST OF GD SOL
6335
< *>
$268.20*
210871
06/06/00
$62.50
HERSHKOVITZ, MICHAL
CLASS REFUND
051600
ART CNTR PROG
REGISTRATION F
< *>
$62.50*
210872
06/06/00
$475.00
HERTZ EQUIPMENT RENTAL
TRAILER RENTAL
400801
PATHS & HARD S
CONTR REPAIRS
1491
< *>
$475.00*
210873
06/06/00
$126.00
HIAWATHA LUMBER CO.
LUMBER- SOT TEAM
100181
FIRE DEPT. GEN
GENERAL SUPPLI
3826
< *>
$126.00*
'OUNCIL
CHECK REGISTER
31
-MAY -2000 (16:32) page 16
HECK NO
DATE
CHECK AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT
PO NUM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
210874
06/06/00
$250.00
HIGHVIEW PLUMBING INC
REPAIR SERVICE
7087
DISTRIBUTION
CONTR REPAIRS
1028
< *>
$250.00*
210875
06/06/00
$2,000.00
HO, JEFFERY D.
MEDICAL DIRECTOR SERV
060600
FIRE DEPT. GEN
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$2,000.00*
210876
06/06/00
$120.00
HODGES, TRISH
TEACHING AC.
052200
ART CENTER ADM
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$120.00*
210877
06/06/00
$1,477.92
HOISINGTON KOEGLER GROUP
VISION 20/20
050900
ADMINISTRATION
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$1,477.92*
210878
06/06/00
$233.53
HOLDAHL INC.
SAW BLADE
395956
GENERAL MAINT
TOOLS
1099
< *>
$233.53*
210879
06/06%00
$75.00
HOLTZ, JULIE
PERFORMANCE 6 -8 -00 -
052600
ED ADMINISTRAT
PRO SVC OTHER
< *>
$75.00*
210880
06/06/00
$58.52
HOME ENVIRONMENT CENTER
WATER FILTRATION
3217
CITY HALL -GENE
CONTR REPAIRS
4761
< *>
$58:52*
210881
06/06/00
$100.45
HOME JUICE
COST OF GOODS SOLD MI
57093
VERNON SELLING
CST OF GDS MIX
< *>
$100.45*
210882
06/06/00
$277.87
HORWATH, TOM
MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT'051700
TREES & MAINTE
MILEAGE
< *>
$277.87*
210883
06/06/00
$1,055.00
HOSEJOCKEY ENTERPRISES
RESCUE RAIN GEAR
12
FIRE DEPT. GEN
GENERAL SUPPLI
3820
< *>
$1,055.00*
210884
06/06/00
$100.43
HOULE, WAYNE D.
MPWA SEMINAR
051500
ENGINEERING GE
MEETING EXPENS
06/06/00
$26.61
HOULE, WAYNE D.
PALM III CASE
051600
ENGINEERING GE
GENERAL SUPPLI
< *>
$127.04*
210885
06/06/00
$79.39
HOUSEHOLD BANK F.S.B. (K
PAINT, LUMBER
0217 -424
GENERAL MAINT
GENERAL SUPPLI
1334
06/06/00
$66.98
HOUSEHOLD BANK F.S.B. (K
GENERAL SUPPLIES
0217 -425
ARENA BLDG /GRO
GENERAL SUPPLI
8010
.06/06/00
$120.54
HOUSEHOLD BANK F.S.B. (K
LEVEL, SQUARE, CONCRE
0217 -425
BUILDING MAINT
GENERAL SUPPLI
1203
06/06/00
$27.78
HOUSEHOLD BANK F.S.B. (K
CONCRETE FOR POOL
0217 -425
POOL OPERATION
GENERAL SUPPLI
1205
06/06/00
$74.66
HOUSEHOLD BANK F.S.B. (K
PLYWOOD, DUSTER COUNT
0217 -425
ST LIGHTING OR
GENERAL SUPPLI
1360
< *>
$369.35*
210886
06/06/00
$120,315.50
HOWARD R GREEN COMPANY
SUMP PUMP INSPECTIONS
021880
SUMP PUMP INSP
CIP
< *>
$120,315.50*
210887
06/06/00
$38.50
HUDSON, DONNA
PARKING PERMIT REFUND
050900
STREET REVOLVI
OTHER PERM & L
< *>
$38.50*
210888
06/06/00
$9.03
HUEBSCH
TOWELS, LINENS
123912
POOL TRACK GRE
SVC CONTR EQUI
06/06/00
$60.16
HUEBSCH
TOWELS, LINENS
128479
POOL TRACK GRE
SVC CONTR EQUI
< *>
$69.19*
210889
06/06/00
$19.35
HUMPHREYS INC.
MERCHANDISE
6477383
PRO SHOP
COST OF GDS -PR
6436
< *>
$19.35*
210890
06/06/00
$483.52
HYDRANT SPECIALIST INC.
CUT & GROOVE HYDRANT
2197
DISTRIBUTION
CONTR REPAIRS
1275
COUNCIL
CHECK h_�ISTER
31 -MAY -2000 (16.
_) page 17
CHECK NO
DATE
CHECK AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT
PO NUM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<*>
$483.52*
210891
06/06/00
$76,089.96
HYDRO SUPPLY CO
WATER METERS
0016635 -
UTILITY PROG
INVENTORY WATE
1001
06/06/00
$207.68
HYDRO SUPPLY CO
FLANGES
0016658-
METER REPAIR
GENERAL SUPPLI
3671 .
< *>
$76,297.64*
210892
06/06/00
$54.50
ICMA
LOCAL GOVT ON -LINE BO
051600
COMMUNICATIONS
DUES & SUBSCRI
< *>
$54.50*
210893
06/06/00
$3,750.00
IDENTISYS INC.
COMPUTER, CAMERA, PRI
30172
EDINB /CL PROG
OFFICE FURN &
2034
06/06/00
$6,345.28
IDENTISYS INC.
PHOTO ID SUPPLIES
7729
POOL OPERATION
GENERAL SUPPLI
7094
< *>
$10,095.28*
210894
06/06/00
$199.78
INACOM INFORMATION SYSTE
REPAIR PRINTER
11017851
ED ADMINISTRAT
SVC CONTR EQUI
2268
< *>
$199.78*
210895
06/06/00
$5.20
INDELCO PLASTICS CORP.
PVC ELBOW, NIPPLE
210466
BUILDING MAINT
REPAIR PARTS
1220
< *>
$5.20*
210896
06/06/00
$200.00
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST
AD
1923
GOLF DOME
ADVERT OTHER
< *>
$200.00*
210897
06/06/00
$125.79
INDUSTRIAL DOOR CO INC
DOOR REPAIRS
0048130-
FIRE DEPT. GEN
CONTR REPAIRS
< *>
$125.79*
210898
06/06/00
$91.54
INTERNATIONAL COUNTRY
MERCHANDISE
021600
PRO SHOP
COST OF GDS -PR
6413
< *>
$91.54*
210899
06/06/00
$155.78
IRON MOUNTAIN
PLANS STORAGE BOXES
54003611
INSPECTIONS
GENERAL SUPPLI
< *>
$155.78*
210900
06/06/00
$105,136.53
J -CRAFT INC.
2 - DUMP TRUCK BODY
24913,24
EQUIPMENT REPL
EQUIP REPLACEM
1215
< *>
$105,136.53*
210901
06/06/00
$95.31
J.H. LARSON COMPANY
GENERATOR PLUG
4168012-
ST LIGHTING OR
GENERAL SUPPLI
5922
06/06/00
$67.46
J.H. LARSON COMPANY
TIME DELAYS, WIRE NUT
4172001-
PW BUILDING
GENERAL SUPPLI
1355
06/06/00
$84.67
J.H. LARSON COMPANY
FLASHER FUSES
4174414-
YORK OCCUPANCY
REPAIR PARTS
1498
< *>
$247.44*
210902
06/06/00
$100.00
JAMES, WILLIAM F
POLICE SERVICE
060600
RESERVE PROGRA
CONTR SERVICES
< *>
$100.00*
210903
06/06/00
$32.00
JENSON, THOMAS
MEETING REGISTRATION
051100
FIRE DEPT. GEN
MEETING EXPENS
06/06/00
$11.00
JENSON, THOMAS
CLASS B DRIVERS LICEN
051600
FIRE DEPT. GEN
LIC & PERMITS
< *>
$43.00*
210904
06/06/00
$12.66
JERRY'S FOODS
MEETING EXPENSE
051500
CITY COUNCIL
MEETING EXPENS
06/06/00
$110.22
JERRY'S FOODS
GENERAL SUPPLIES
051500
ART SUPPLY GIF
GENERAL SUPPLI
06/06/00
$37.40
JERRY'S FOODS
GENERAL SUPPLIES
051500
FIRE DEPT. GEN
GENERAL SUPPLI
06/06/00
$14.76
JERRY'S FOODS
GENERAL SUPPLIES
051500
ADAPTIVE RECRE
GENERAL SUPPLI
06/06/00
$12.80
JERRY'S FOODS
GENERAL SUPPLIES
051500
PARK ADMIN.
GENERAL SUPPLI
06/06/00
$68.40
JERRY'S FOODS
CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS
051500
TRAINING
CONF & SCHOOLS
06/06/00
$53.95
JERRY'S FOODS
COST OF GOODS SOLD
051500
GRILL
COST OF GD SOL
< *>
$310.19*
= OUNCIL
CHECK REGISTER
31 -MAY -2000
(16:32) page 18
2HECK NO
DATE
CHECK AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT PO NUM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
210905
06/06/00
$75.25
JIM LUPIENT'S HAROLD CHE
ABSORBER, BOLT, NUT
57910CVW
EQUIPMENT OPER
REPAIR
PARTS 1382
06/06/00
$230.15
JIM LUPIENT'S HAROLD CHE
ROD
KIT
57823CVW
EQUIPMENT OPER
REPAIR
PARTS 1382
< *>
$305.40*
210911
06/06/00
- $66.58
JOHNSON
BROTHERS
LIQUOR
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
120045
YORK SELLING
CST
OF
GD
WINE
06/06/00
- $100.00
JOHNSON
BROTHERS
LIQUOR
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
LI
120045
YORK SELLING
CST
OF
GD
LIQU
06/06/00
-$6.20
JOHNSON
BROTHERS
LIQUOR
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
120439
50TH ST SELLIN
CST
OF
GD
WINE
06/06/00
- $11.02
JOHNSON
BROTHERS
LIQUOR
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
120440
50TH ST SELLIN
CST
OF
GD
WINE
06/06/00
- $25.59
JOHNSON
BROTHERS
LIQUOR
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
120894
YORK SELLING
CST
OF
GD
WINE
06/06/00
-$2.86
JOHNSON
BROTHERS
LIQUOR
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
120955
50TH ST SELLIN
CST
OF
GD
WINE
06/06/00
-$7.57
JOHNSON
BROTHERS
LIQUOR
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
120956
50TH ST SELLIN
CST
OF
GD
WINE
06/06/00
-$0.72
JOHNSON
BROTHERS
LIQUOR
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
LI
120957
50TH ST SELLIN
CST
OF
GD
LIQU
06/06/00
- $38.44
JOHNSON
BROTHERS
LIQUOR
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
120958
YORK SELLING
CST
OF
GD
WINE
06/06/00
-$6.89
JOHNSON
BROTHERS
LIQUOR
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
120959
VERNON SELLING
CST
OF
GD
WINE
06/06/00
-$3.47
JOHNSON
BROTHERS
LIQUOR
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
120960
VERNON SELLING
CST
OF
GD
WINE
06/06/00
-$3.83
JOHNSON
BROTHERS
LIQUOR
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
120961
VERNON SELLING
CST
OF
GD
WINE
06/06/00
- $23.74
JOHNSON
BROTHERS
LIQUOR
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
121043
VERNON SELLING
CST
OF
GD
WINE
06/06/00
- $74.69
JOHNSON
BROTHERS
LIQUOR
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
LI
121044
VERNON SELLING
CST
OF
GD
LIQU
06/06/00
- $62.19
JOHNSON
BROTHERS
LIQUOR
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
LI
121045
VERNON SELLING
CST
OF
GD
LIQU
06/06/00
$4,803.31
JOHNSON
BROTHERS
LIQUOR
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
LI
1113452
VERNON SELLING
CST
OF
GD
LIQU
06/06/00
$2,360.04
JOHNSON
BROTHERS
LIQUOR
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
LI
1113453
50TH ST SELLIN
CST
OF
GD
LIQU
06/06/00
$1,159.48
JOHNSON
BROTHERS
LIQUOR
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
1113454
VERNON SELLING
CST
OF
GD
WINE
06/06/00
$119.01
JOHNSON
BROTHERS
LIQUOR
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
1113455
50TH ST SELLIN
CST
OF
GD
WINE
06/06/00
$4,427.93
JOHNSON
BROTHERS
LIQUOR
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
LI
1113456
YORK SELLING
CST
OF
GD
LIQU
06/06/00
$99.57
JOHNSON
BROTHERS
LIQUOR
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
MI
1113457
VERNON SELLING
CST
OF
GDS MIX
06/06/00
$66.38
JOHNSON
BROTHERS
LIQUOR
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
MI
1113458
50TH ST SELLIN
CST
OF
GDS MIX
06/06/00
$148.40
JOHNSON
BROTHERS
LIQUOR
COST.OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
1113459
YORK SELLING
CST
OF
GD
WINE
06/06/00
$61.36
JOHNSON
BROTHERS
LIQUOR
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
MI
1113460
YORK SELLING
CST
OF
GDS MIX
06/06/00
$1,011.31
JOHNSON
BROTHERS
LIQUOR
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
1113461
50TH ST SELLIN
CST
OF
GD
WINE
06/06/00
$106.21
JOHNSON
BROTHERS
LIQUOR
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
LI
1113462
YORK SELLING
CST
OF
GD
LIQU
06/06/00
$3,426.93
JOHNSON
BROTHERS
LIQUOR
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
1113463
YORK SELLING
CST
OF
GD
WINE
06/06/00
$1,882.85
JOHNSON
BROTHERS
LIQUOR
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
1113464
VERNON SELLING
CST
OF
GD
WINE
06/06/00
- $33.79
JOHNSON
BROTHERS
LIQUOR
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
121383
VERNON SELLING
CST
OF
GD
WINE
06/06/00
- $23.74
JOHNSON
BROTHERS
LIQUOR
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
121511
50TH ST SELLIN
CST
OF
GD
WINE
06/06/00
- $67.58
JOHNSON
BROTHERS
LIQUOR
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
121512
YORK SELLING
CST
OF
GD
WINE
06/06/00
- $91.59
JOHNSON
BROTHERS
LIQUOR
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
LI
121513
YORK SELLING
CST
OF
GD
LIQU
06/06/00
- $154.69
JOHNSON
BROTHERS
LIQUOR
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
LI
121514
YORK SELLING
CST
OF
GD
LIQU
06/06/00
- $27.65
JOHNSON
BROTHERS
LIQUOR
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
121515
YORK SELLING
CST
OF
GD
WINE
06/06/00
$7,521.63
JOHNSON
BROTHERS
LIQUOR
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
LI
1116097
VERNON SELLING
CST
OF
GD
LIQU
06/06/00
$2,037.17
JOHNSON
BROTHERS
LIQUOR
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
LI
1116098
50TH ST SELLIN
CST
OF
GD
LIQU
06/06/00
$243.67
JOHNSON
BROTHERS
LIQUOR
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
1116099
VERNON SELLING
CST
OF
GD
WINE
06/06/00
$71.22
JOHNSON
BROTHERS
LIQUOR
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
1116100
50TH ST SELLIN
CST
OF
GD
WINE
06/06/00
$4,366.22
JOHNSON
BROTHERS
LIQUOR
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
LI
1116101
YORK SELLING
CST
OF
GD
LIQU
06/06/00
$143.45
JOHNSON
BROTHERS
LIQUOR
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
MI
1116102
VERNON SELLING
CST
OF
GDS MIX
06/06/00
$57.38
JOHNSON
BROTHERS
LIQUOR
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
MI
1116103
50TH ST SELLIN
CST
OF
GDS MIX
06/06/00
$487.57
JOHNSON
BROTHERS
LIQUOR
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
1116104
YORK SELLING
CST
OF
GD
WINE
06/06/00
$330.59
JOHNSON
BROTHERS
LIQUOR
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
MI
1116105
YORK SELLING
CST
OF
GDS MIX
06/06/00
$1,256.37
JOHNSON
BROTHERS
LIQUOR
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
1116106
VERNON SELLING
CST
OF
GD
WINE
06/06/00
$650.83
JOHNSON
BROTHERS
LIQUOR
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
LI
1116107
YORK SELLING
CST
OF
GD
LIQU
06/06/00
$2,126.25
JOHNSON
BROTHERS
LIQUOR
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
1116108
YORK SELLING
CST
OF
GD
WINE
06/06/00
$157.50
JOHNSON
BROTHERS
LIQUOR
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
1116109
50TH ST SELLIN
CST
OF
GD
WINE
06/06/00
$149.40
JOHNSON
BROTHERS
LIQUOR
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
1116110
YORK SELLING
CST
OF
GD
WINE
06/06/00
$339.83
JOHNSON
BROTHERS
LIQUOR
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
1116111
50TH ST SELLIN
CST
OF
GD
WINE
06/06/00
$1,032.12
JOHNSON
BROTHERS
LIQUOR
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
1116112
YORK SELLING
CST
OF
GD
WINE
06/06/00
$895.33
JOHNSON
BROTHERS
LIQUOR
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
1116113
VERNON SELLING
CST
OF
GD
WINE
COUNCIL CHECK . SISTER
31 -MAY -2000 (16 ) page 19
CHECK NO
DATE
CHECK AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT
PO NUM
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
210911
06/06/00
$48.00
JOHNSON BROTHERS
LIQUOR
COST OF GOODS SOLD LI
1116204
VERNON SELLING
CST OF GD LIQU
06/06/00
$4,063.27
JOHNSON BROTHERS
LIQUOR
COST OF GOODS SOLD LI
1118634
VERNON SELLING
CST OF GD LIQU
06/06/00
$2,952.77
JOHNSON BROTHERS
LIQUOR
COST OF GOODS SOLD LI
1118635
50TH ST SELLIN
CST OF GD LIQU
06/06/00
$47.48
JOHNSON BROTHERS
LIQUOR
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI
1118637
50TH ST SELLIN
CST OF GD WINE
06/06/00
$4,876.33
JOHNSON BROTHERS
LIQUOR
COST OF GOODS SOLD LI
1118638
YORK SELLING
CST OF GD LIQU
06/06/00
$829.57
JOHNSON BROTHERS
LIQUOR
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI
1118639
YORK SELLING
CST OF GD WINE
06/06/00
$293.40
JOHNSON BROTHERS
LIQUOR
COST OF GOODS SOLD LI
1118640
50TH ST SELLIN
CST OF GD LIQU
06/06/00
$1,713.40
JOHNSON BROTHERS
LIQUOR
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI
1118641
50TH ST SELLIN
CST OF GD WINE
06/06/00
$5,573.53
JOHNSON BROTHERS
LIQUOR
COST OF GOODS SOLD LI
1118642
YORK SELLING
CST OF GD LIQU
06/06/00
$6,237.64
JOHNSON BROTHERS
LIQUOR
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI
1118643
YORK SELLING
CST OF GD WINE
06/06/00
$293.40
JOHNSON BROTHERS
LIQUOR
COST OF GOODS SOLD LI
1118644
VERNON SELLING
CST OF GD LIQU
< *>
$67,635.27*
210912
06/06/00
$168.40
JOHNSON, NAOMI
CRAFT SUPPLIES
052200
ART CENTER ADM
CRAFT SUPPLIES
06/06/00
$32.12
JOHNSON, NAOMI
GALLERY SUPPLIES
052200
ART SUPPLY GIF
GENERAL SUPPLI
06/06/00
$41.60
JOHNSON, NAOMI
PAINT LIGHT
052200
ART CENTER BLD
GENERAL SUPPLI
06/06/00
$23.10
JOHNSON, NAOMI
PRINT PAPER
052200
ART CENTER ADM
OFFICE SUPPLIE
06/06/00
$8.80
JOHNSON, NAOMI
ADV FILM
052200
ART CENTER ADM
ADVERT OTHER
< *>
$274.02*
210913
06/06/00
$100.00
JOHNSON, WALTER
POLICE SERVICE
060600
RESERVE PROGRA
CONTR SERVICES
< *>
$100.00*
210914
06/06/00
$355.00
JOHNSTONE SUPPLY
OF GOLD
MOTOR
165178
PW BUILDING
REPAIR PARTS
5854
06/06/00
$23.34
JOHNSTONE SUPPLY
OF GOLD
CLEANER, FOAM FILTER
166052
BUILDING MAINT
GENERAL SUPPLI
1333
06/06/00
$132.78
JOHNSTONE SUPPLY
OF GOLD
FLARE /SWAGE KIT, PAN
166052
PW BUILDING
GENERAL SUPPLI
1333
< *>
$511.12*
210915
06/06/00
$32.00
JUNGWIRTH, MARK
WASTEWATER TEST REIMB
051600
TRAINING
LIC & PERMITS
< *>
$32.00*
210916
06/06/00
$33.53
JUSTUS LUMBER
TOOLS
30708
BUILDING MAINT
TOOLS
4077
06/06/00
$93.76
JUSTUS LUMBER
LUMBER, SIGN, WASHERS
41692
SNOW & ICE REM
GENERAL SUPPLI
1485
06/06/00
$77.02
JUSTUS LUMBER
MAILBOXES
41697
GENERAL MAINT
GENERAL SUPPLI
1485
06/06/00
$59.81
JUSTUS LUMBER
TILE
47120
BUILDING MAINT
GENERAL SUPPLI
5923
06/06/00
$150.25
JUSTUS LUMBER
RENTAL BRAD GUN, BRAD
92073
SNOW & ICE REM
GENERAL SUPPLI
3347
06/06/00
$543.01
JUSTUS LUMBER
LUMBER & MISC.
16214
BUILDING MAINT
LUMBER
5449
06/06/00
$56.49
JUSTUS LUMBER
LUMBER
22426
BUILDING MAINT
LUMBER
5596
06/06/00
$232.54
JUSTUS LUMBER
MISC. HARDWARE
95148
BUILDING MAINT
GENERAL SUPPLI
5234
06/06/00
$277.97
JUSTUS LUMBER
OAK LUMBER
48292
ART CENTER BLD
GENERAL SUPPLI
5791
< *>
$1,524.38*
210917
06/06/00
$30.63
JUSTUS RENTAL CENTER
FUEL CELLS
97919
BUILDING MAINT
GENERAL SUPPLI
1209
< *>
$30.63*
210918
06/06/00
$29.40
KANE, KENNETH
CONTINUING ED
051700
POLICE DEPT. G
CONF & SCHOOLS
< *>
$29.40*
210919
06/06/00
$704.43
KANEMATSU USA INC
MERCHANDISE
303929•
PRO SHOP
COST OF GDS -PR
6437
< *>
$704.43*
210920
06/06/00
$277.85
KAR PRODUCTS
SUPPLIES
926662
MAINT OF LOURS
GENERAL SUPPLI
6598
< *>
$277.85*
210921
06/06/00
$14.00
KEELER, SUE
SKATING LESSONS REFUN
050900
. EDINB /CL PROG
LESSON PRGM IN
_'OUNCIL CHECK REGISTER
31 -MAY -2000 (16:32) page 20
-"HECK NO
DATE
CHECK AMOUNT
40279114
FINANCE
VENDOR
SVC
AUDIT
DESCRIPTION
SERVICES
INVOICE
PROGRAM
PROF SERVICES
OBJECT
PO NUM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
< *>
40279114
$14.00*
PRO
SVC
AUDIT
PROFESSIONAL
SERV -
A
40279114
POOL ADMIN
PRO
SVC
AUDIT
PROFESSIONAL
SERV -
A
40279114
210922
06/06/00
$210.00
KIFFMEYER, WALLY
PROFESSIONAL
SOFTBALL
UMPIRE
40279114
ARENA ADMINIST
052600
EDINA ATHLETIC
PROF
SERVICES
SERV -
< *>
40279114
$210.00*
PRO
SVC
AUDIT
PROFESSIONAL
SERV -
A
40279114
GENERAL(BILLIN
PRO
SVC
AUDIT
PROFESSIONAL
SERV -
A
40279114
210923
06/06/00
$38.18
KINKO'S
PROFESSIONAL
SERV -
CRAFT SUPPLIES
40279114
LIQUOR 50TH ST
06220003
MEDIA LAB
CRAFT
SUPPLIES
9034
A
06/06/00
$410.03
KINKO'S
SVC
AUDIT
PRINTING
OF HOURS CAR
06220003
ED ADMINISTRAT
PRINTING
2272
< *>
AUDIT
$448.21*
SERV -
A
40279114
IBR #2 PROG
PRO
SVC
AUDIT
210924
06/06/00
$66.96
KIRCHMAN,
STEVE A.
CELL
PHONE JAN.
-APR.
052200
INSPECTIONS
TELEPHONE
06/06/00
$20.18
KIRCHMAN,
STEVE.A.
BOOKEND,
STORAGE TABL
052200
INSPECTIONS
GENERAL SUPPLI
06/06/00
$5.00
KIRCHMAN,
STEVE A.
PARKING
FEE
052200
INSPECTIONS
CONF &
SCHOOLS
< *>
$92.14*
210926
06/06/00
- $56.00
KIWI
KAI
IMPORTS
INC
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
CM505
50TH ST SELLIN
CST
OF
GD
WINE
06/06/00
$873.15
KIWI
KAI
IMPORTS
INC
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
129553
VERNON SELLING
CST
OF
GD
WINE
06/06/00
$210.00
KIWI
KAI
IMPORTS
INC
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
BE
129554
VERNON SELLING
CST
OF
GDS
BEE
06/06/00
$573.95
KIWI
KAI
IMPORTS
INC
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
129555
50TH ST SELLIN
CST
OF
GD
WINE
06/06/00
$786.90
KIWI
KAI
IMPORTS
INC
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
129556
YORK SELLING
CST
OF
GD
WINE
06/06/00
$1,039.95
KIWI
KAI
IMPORTS
INC
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
129982
VERNON SELLING
CST
OF
GD
WINE
06/06/00
$571.00
KIWI
KAI
IMPORTS
INC
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
129983
50TH ST SELLIN
CST
OF
GD
WINE
06/06/00
$1,772.00
KIWI
KAI
IMPORTS
INC
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
129985
YORK SELLING
CST
OF
GD
WINE
06/06/00
$90.00
KIWI
KAI
IMPORTS
INC
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
BE
129986
YORK SELLING
CST
OF
GDS
BEE
06/06/00
$228.97
KIWI
KAI
IMPORTS
INC
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
130049
YORK SELLING
CST
OF
GD
WINE
06/06/00
$199.00
KIWI
KAI
IMPORTS
INC
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
130190
50TH ST SELLIN
CST
OF
GD
WINE
06/06/00
$1,290.00
KIWI
KAI
IMPORTS
INC
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
130416
YORK SELLING
CST
OF
GD
WINE
06/06/00
$719.95
KIWI
KAI
IMPORTS
INC
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
130419
VERNON SELLING
CST
OF
GD
WINE
06/06/00
$1,407.85
KIWI
KAI
IMPORTS
INC
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
130421
50TH ST SELLIN
CST
OF
GD
WINE
< *>
$9,706.72*
210927 06/06/00
210928 06/06/00
210930
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
$252.00 KOCHENASH, RICK
$252.00*
$411.53 KORCHIK, CHARLOTTE
$411.53*
$5,000.00
$1,000.00
$400.00
$450.00
$1,500.00
$1,100.00
$1,400.00
$6,000.00
$1,000.00
$1,900.00
$1,900.00
$1,900.00
$1,600.00
$25,150.00*
210931 06/06/00 $726.90
06/06/00 $102.95
06/06/00 $701.25
06/06/00 $36.00
KPMG LLP
KPMG LLP
KPMG LLP
KPMG LLP
KPMG LLP
KPMG LLP
KPMG LLP
KPMG LLP
KPMG LLP
KPMG LLP
KPMG LLP
KPMG LLP
KPMG LLP
KUETHER DISTRIBUTING CO
KUETHER DISTRIBUTING CO
KUETHER DISTRIBUTING CO
KUETHER DISTRIBUTING CO
TEACHING AC 052500 ART CENTER ADM PROF SERVICES
AMBULANCE OVERPAYMENT 051600 GENERAL FD PRO AMBULANCE FEES
PROFESSIONAL
SERV -
A
40279114
FINANCE
PRO
SVC
AUDIT
PROFESSIONAL
SERVICES
40279114
CDBG
PROF SERVICES
PROFESSIONAL
SERV -
A
40279114
ART CENTER ADM
PRO
SVC
AUDIT
PROFESSIONAL
SERV -
A
40279114
POOL ADMIN
PRO
SVC
AUDIT
PROFESSIONAL
SERV -
A
40279114
GOLF ADMINISTR
PRO
SVC
AUDIT
PROFESSIONAL
SERV -
A
40279114
ARENA ADMINIST
PRO
SVC
AUDIT
PROFESSIONAL
SERV -
A
40279114
ED ADMINISTRAT
PRO
SVC
AUDIT
PROFESSIONAL
SERV -
A
40279114
GENERAL(BILLIN
PRO
SVC
AUDIT
PROFESSIONAL
SERV -
A
40279114
GENERAL STORM
PRO
SVC
AUDIT
PROFESSIONAL
SERV -
A
40279114
LIQUOR 50TH ST
PRO
SVC
AUDIT
PROFESSIONAL
SERV -
A
40279114
LIQUOR YORK GE
PRO
SVC
AUDIT
PROFESSIONAL
SERV -
A
40279114
VERNON_LIQUOR
PRO
SVC
AUDIT
PROFESSIONAL
SERV -
A
40279114
IBR #2 PROG
PRO
SVC
AUDIT
COST OF GOODS SOLD BE 267948
COST OF GOODS SOLD MI 267949
COST OF GOODS SOLD BE 268099
COST OF GOODS SOLD MI 268529
50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS BEE
50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS MIX
YORK SELLING CST OF GDS BEE
50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS MIX
AUDIT 19
COUNCIL
CHECK —jISTER
31 -MAY -2000 (16
) page 21
CHECK NO
DATE
CHECK AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM--- - -
- - -- OBJECT-- - - -
-PO NUM
----------------------------------------------------
210931
06/06/00
$697.45
KUETHER DISTRIBUTING
--------------------------------------------
CO
COST OF GOODS SOLD BE
268530
50TH ST SELLIN
CST OF GDS BEE
06/06/00
$87.00
KUETHER DISTRIBUTING
CO
COST OF GOODS SOLD MI
268661
YORK SELLING
CST OF GDS MIX
06/06/00
$2,719.45
KUETHER DISTRIBUTING
CO
COST OF GOODS SOLD BE
268662
YORK SELLING
CST OF GDS BEE
06/06/00
$36.00
KUETHER DISTRIBUTING
CO
COST OF GOODS SOLD MI
269127
50TH ST SELLIN
CST OF GDS MIX
06/06/00
$1,768.75
KUETHER DISTRIBUTING
CO
COST OF GOODS SOLD BE
269143
50TH ST SELLIN
CST OF GDS BEE
< *>
$6,875.75*
210932
06/06/00
$111.50
KUSTOM SIGNALS INC
BATTERY PACK
46506
POLICE DEPT. G
EQUIP REPLACEM
< *>
$111.50*
210933
06/06/00
$46.98
KUYPER, SCOTT
CONTINUING ED
052300
POLICE DEPT. G
CONF & SCHOOLS
< *>
$46.98*
210934
06/06/00
$71.80
LANDS' END CORPORATE
SAL
UNIFORMS
01152781
CENT SVC GENER
ADVERT PERSONL
06/06/00
$31.40
LANDS' END CORPORATE
SAL
UNIFORMS
01152969
CENT SVC GENER
ADVERT PERSONL
06/06/00
$150.80
LANDS' END CORPORATE
SAL
UNIFORMS
01172001
CENT SVC GENER
ADVERT PERSONL
06/06/00
$71.80
LANDS' END CORPORATE
SAL
UNIFORMS
01173833
CENT SVC GENER
ADVERT PERSONL
06/06/00
$35.90
LANDS' END CORPORATE
SAL
UNIFORMS
01180419
CENT SVC GENER
ADVERT PERSONL
06/06/00
- $69.30
LANDS' END CORPORATE
SAL
RETURNS
01182606
CENT SVC GENER
ADVERT PERSONL
< *>
$292.40*
210935
06/06/00
$75.60
LANIER WORLDWIDE INC
SERVICE AGREEMENT
62432143
POLICE DEPT. G
SVC CONTR EQUI
< *>
$75.60*
210936
06/06/00
$199.73
LASER TECHNOLOGY INC.
EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
15089 RI
POLICE DEPT. G
EQUIP MAINT
3001
06/06/00
$56.25
LASER TECHNOLOGY INC.
EQUIPT. MAINTENANCE
15268
POLICE DEPT. G
EQUIP MAINT
3032
< *>
$255.98*
210937
06/06/00
$172.34
LATHROP PAINT SUPPLY
COM
PAINT STRAINER, PUMP
756514
STREET NAME SI
GENERAL SUPPLI
1356
< *>
$172.34*
210938
06/06/00
$144.59
LAWSON PRODUCTS INC.
OIL, SCREWS, COTTER C
1308964
EQUIPMENT OPER
GENERAL SUPPLI
1278
06/06/00
$64.97
LAWSON PRODUCTS INC.
STRIPE PAINT
1308965
PUMP & LIFT ST
GENERAL SUPPLI
1279
06/06/00
$246.02
LAWSON PRODUCTS INC.
WASHERS, SCREWS, PINS
1314406
EQUIPMENT OPER
ACCESSORIES
1351
06/06/00
$71.23
LAWSON PRODUCTS INC.
STRIPE PAINT
1316415
ST LIGHTING OR
GENERAL SUPPLI
1462
06/06/00
$296.68
LAWSON PRODUCTS INC.
WASHERS, FITTINGS, PI
1317496
EQUIPMENT OPER
ACCESSORIES
1460
06/06/00
$219.45-
LAWSON PRODUCTS INC.
SHEET METAL SCREWS, C
1317498
DISTRIBUTION
REPAIR PARTS
1461
< *>
$1,042.94*
210939
06/06/00
$16.61
LEEF SERVICES
TOWELS
201902
MAINT OF LOURS
LAUNDRY
06/06/00
$49.67
LEEF SERVICES
CLEAN MATS
235064
ART CENTER BLD
LAUNDRY
06/06/00
$19.14
LEEF SERVICES
TOWELS
237851
MAINT OF COURS
LAUNDRY
< *>
$85.42*
210940
06/06/00
$1,500.00
LEUNG, SIDNEY
EASEMENT ACQUISITION
052300
SANITARY SEWER
CIP
< *>
$1,500.00*
210941
06/06/00
$609.25
LIFEGUARD STORE, THE
LIFEGUARD TRAINING MA
912
POOL OPERATION
GENERAL SUPPLI
< *>
$609.25*
210942
06/06/00
$162.06
LIGHT CYCLE INC
FLUORESCENT LAMPS
L1549 -IN
ED BUILDING &
REPAIR PARTS
1471
06/06/00
$81.04
LIGHT CYCLE INC
REPAIR PARTS
L1549 -IN
CITY HALL GENE
REPAIR PARTS
1471
06/06/00
$81.04
LIGHT CYCLE INC
REPAIR PARTS
L1549 -IN
PW BUILDING
REPAIR PARTS
1471
06/06/00
$81.04
LIGHT CYCLE INC
REPAIR PARTS
L1549 -IN
PARKING RAMP
REPAIR PARTS
1471
< *>
$405.18*
_'OUNCIL CHECK REGISTER
31 -MAY -2000 (16:32) page 22
:HECK NO
DATE
CHECK AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT PO NUM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------=--------------------------------------------------------
210943
06/06/00
$34.80
LINHOFF PHOTO
DEPT. PHOTOS
IH000000
FIRE DEPT. GEN
PHOTO SUPPLIES 3814
< *>
$34.80*
210944
06/06/00
$90.00
LITTLE, DOUG
TEACHING AC
052200
ART CENTER ADM
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$90.00*
210945
06/06/00
$50.00
LOEFFLER, SUE
AMBULANCE OVERPAYMENT
051600
GENERAL FD PRO
AMBULANCE FEES
< *>
$50.00*
210946
06/06/00
$19.00
LUCHT, PETE
UPGRADE LICENSE TO A
052200
TRAINING
CONF & SCHOOLS
< *>
$19.00*
210947
06/06/00
$97.50
LUCKTENBERG, PAUL
SOFTBALL UMPIRE
052600
EDINA ATHLETIC
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$97.50*
210948
06/06/00
$12.00.
M. SHANKEN COMMUNICATION
COST OF GOODS SOLD MI
523489
50TH ST SELLIN
DUES & SUBSCRI
< *>
$12.00*
210949
06/06/00
$15.00
M.G.I.A.
CONTINUING ED (WAGNER
051500
POLICE DEPT. G
CONF & SCHOOLS
< *>
$15.00*
210952 06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
$2,791.25
$1,179.50
$958.35
$3,382.07
$83.00
$895.25
$130.00
$841.90
$27.00
$1,691.25
$27.00
$261.65
$11.50
$554.55
$16.00.
$92.00
$2,407.25
$2,738.57
$34.75
$170.00
$254.00
$479.05
$3,625.95
$49.20
$2,010.70
$792.80
$104.65
$27.00
$9.00
$868.80
$15.20
$27.00
$4,213.22
$144.25
MARK VII SALES
MARK VII SALES
MARK VII SALES
MARK VII SALES
MARK VII SALES
MARK VII SALES
MARK VII SALES
MARK VII SALES
MARK VII SALES
MARK VII SALES
MARK VII SALES
MARK VII SALES
MARK VII SALES
MARK VII SALES
MARK VII SALES
MARK VII SALES
MARK VII SALES
MARK VII SALES
MARK VII SALES
MARK VII SALES
MARK VII SALES
MARK VII SALES
MARK VII SALES
MARK VII SALES
MARK VII SALES
MARK VII SALES
MARK VII SALES
MARK VII SALES
MARK VII SALES
MARK VII SALES
MARK VII SALES
MARK VII SALES
MARK VII SALES
MARK VII SALES
COST OF GOODS
COST OF GOODS
COST OF GOODS
COST OF GOODS
COST OF GOODS
COST OF GOODS
BEER
COST OF GOODS
COST OF GOODS
COST OF GOODS
COST OF GOODS
COST OF GOODS
COST OF GOODS
COST OF GOODS
COST OF GOODS
COST OF GOODS
COST OF GOODS
COST OF GOODS
COST OF GOODS
COST OF GOODS
COST OF GOODS
COST OF GOODS
COST OF GOODS
COST OF GOODS
COST OF GOODS
COST OF GOODS
COST OF GOODS
COST OF GOODS
COST OF GOODS
COST OF GOODS
COST OF GOODS
COST OF GOODS
COST OF GOODS
COST OF GOODS
SOLD BE 145630
SOLD BE 145631
SOLD BE 145632
SOLD BE 145657
SOLD MI 145658
SOLD BE 146204
147550
SOLD BE 148265
SOLD MI 148266
SOLD BE 148267
SOLD MI 148268
SOLD BE 148274
SOLD MI 148275
SOLD BE 148623
SOLD MI 148625
SOLD BE 148626
SOLD BE 148627
SOLD BE 148659
SOLD MI 148660
SOLD BE 148661
SOLD BE 150379
SOLD BE 150868
SOLD BE 151009
SOLD MI 151010
SOLD BE 151012
SOLD BE 151253
SOLD BE 151254
SOLD MI 151255
SOLD MI 151256
SOLD BE 151347
SOLD MI 151348
SOLD MI 151349
SOLD BE 151369
SOLD MI 151370
YORK SELLING CST OF GDS BEE
VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS BEE
50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS BEE
YORK SELLING CST OF GDS BEE
YORK SELLING CST OF GDS MIX
50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS BEE
GRILL CST OF GDS BEE 6337
50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS BEE
50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS MIX
VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS BEE
VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS MIX
YORK SELLING CST OF GDS BEE
YORK SELLING CST OF GDS MIX
50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS BEE
50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS MIX
50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS BEE
VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS BEE
YORK SELLING CST OF GDS BEE
YORK SELLING CST OF GDS MIX
YORK SELLING CST OF GDS BEE
GRILL CST OF GDS BEE 6337
50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS BEE
YORK SELLING CST OF GDS BEE
YORK SELLING CST OF GDS MIX
VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS BEE
50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS BEE
50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS BEE
50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS MIX
50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS MIX
VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS BEE
VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS MIX
VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS MIX
VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS BEE
YORK SELLING CST OF GDS MIX
COUNCIL
CHECK ..__ -jISTER
31 -MAY -2000 (16.
.) page 23
CHECK NO
DATE
CHECK AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT
PO NUM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
210952
06/06/00
$91.40
MARK VII SALES
COST OF GOODS SOLD BE
154099
YORK SELLING
CST OF GDS BEE
< *>
$31,005.06*
210953
06/06/00
$209.48
MARSTON, ELLIOTT
MEHA SPRING CONFERENC
052300
PUBLIC HEALTH
CONF & SCHOOLS
< *>
$209.48*
210954
06/06/00
$70.00
MARTIN, KIM
KID'S ART 5 -9 -00, 6 -1
052600
ED ADMINISTRAT
PRO SVC OTHER
< *>
$70.00*
210955
06/06/00
$93.61
MATHISON CO.
COST OF GOODS SOLD
400209 -0
ART SUPPLY GIF
COST OF GD SOL
9180
06/06/00
$323.36
MATHISON CO.
COST OF GOODS SOLD
410002 -0
ART SUPPLY GIF
COST OF GD SOL
9039
< *>
$416.97*
210956
06/06/00
$546.76
MCCAREN DESIGNS INC.
PLANTS, FLOWERS
13010
POOL TRACK GRE
TREES FLWR SHR
2239
06/06/00
$195.31
MCCAREN DESIGNS INC.
FLOWERS
13036
POOL TRACK GRE
TREES FLWR SHR
2258
< *>
$742.07*
210957
06/06/00
$498.29
MCCARTHY, KATHRYN L.
AMBULANCE OVERPAYMENT
051600
GENERAL FD PRO
AMBULANCE FEES
< *>
$498.29*
210958
06/06/00
$101.36
MCM ELECTRONICS
REPAIR PARTS
490801
MEDIA LAB
REPAIR PARTS
9026
< *>
$101.36*
210959
06/06/00
$195.00
MCMAHON, DAN
MOTOR TRAINING
050900
TRAINING
CONF & SCHOOLS
< *>
$195.00*
210960
06/06/00
$19.07
MDS MATRX MEDICAL INC
AMBULANCE SUPPLIES
700840
FIRE DEPT. GEN
FIRST AID SUPP
3816
< *>
$19.07*
210961
06/06/00
$30.00
MEMA
MEMBERSHIP DUES
051100
CIVIL DEFENSE
DUES & SUBSCRI
< *>
$30.00*
210962
06/06/00
$43.62
MENARDS ACCT #35170288
RIGHT ANGLE PLUGS
32659
CENTENNIAL LAK
GENERAL SUPPLI
06106100
$89.72
MENARDS ACCT #35170288
BULBS, HAMMER, BRUSHE
35164
CENTENNIAL LAK
GENERAL SUPPLI
2073
06/06/00
$17.40
MENARDS ACCT #35170288
FLATPLUGS
36409
POOL TRACK GRE
GENERAL SUPPLI
2260
06/06/00
$10.98
MENARDS ACCT #35170288
METAL SCREWS
37186
POOL TRACK GRE
GENERAL SUPPLI
2265
< *>
$161.72*
210963
06/06/00
$81.28
MENARDS * ACCT #30240251
SUPPLIES
88069
MAINT OF COURS
GENERAL SUPPLI
6450
06/06/00
$63.83
MENARDS * ACCT #30240251
MISC. SUPPLIES
88323
CENTENNIAL LAK
GENERAL SUPPLI
2094
06/06/00
$74.29
MENARDS * ACCT #30240251
HOSE REEL CARTS
88510
POOL OPERATION
GENERAL SUPPLI
7965
06/06/00
$29.23
MENARDS * ACCT 430240251
MISC. PARTS
88720
CENTENNIAL LAK
GENERAL SUPPLI
2000
< *>
$248.63*
210964
06/06/00
$100.00
MERFELD, BURT
POLICE SERVICE
060600
RESERVE PROGRA
CONTR SERVICES
< *>
$100.00*
210965
06/06/00
$135.26
MERIT SUPPLY
SOAP, SNOW WHITE, SPR
53599
BUILDING MAINT
GENERAL SUPPLI
1339
06/06/00
$264.12
MERIT SUPPLY
DISPENSER, TISSUE
53617
BUILDING MAINT
GENERAL SUPPLI
1201
06/06/00
$157.06
MERIT SUPPLY
REPAIR AQUACLEAN, SCR
53622
LIFT STATION M
GENERAL SUPPLI
1349
06/06/00
$789.17
MERIT SUPPLY
TANK ASSEMBLY
53629
50TH ST OCCUPA
GENERAL SUPPLI
5876
06/06/00
$286.75
MERIT SUPPLY
CLEANING SUPPLIES
53678
ARENA BLDG /GRO
CLEANING SUPPL
8015
06/06/00
$76.15
MERIT SUPPLY
BUFFER PADS, MOPHEADS
53681
YORK OCCUPANCY
REPAIR PARTS
1459
06/06/00
$698.32
MERIT SUPPLY
LAMBSWOOL, SOAP, WYPA
53682
PW BUILDING
CLEANING SUPPL
1454
06/06/00
$831.82
MERIT SUPPLY
MOPHEADS, CLEANSERS,
53704
BUILDING MAINT
GENERAL SUPPLI
1213
:OUNCIL CHECK REGISTER
31 -MAY -2000 (16:32) page 24
:HECK NO
DATE
CHECK AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT
PO NUM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
210965
06/06/00
$301.40
MERIT SUPPLY
URINAL BLOC, DEODORIZ
53721
PW BUILDING
CLEANING SUPPL
1479
06/06/00
$883.95
MERIT SUPPLY
CLEANING SUPPLIES
537.38
ARENA BLDG /GRO
CLEANING SUPPL
8020
< *>
$4,424.00*
210966
06/06/00
$234.19
METRO ATHLETIC
SUPPLY
SOCCER NETS
43356
FIELD MAINTENA
GENERAL SUPPLI
1217
06/06/00
$190.85
METRO ATHLETIC
SUPPLY
PLUGS, ANCHORS
43373
FIELD MAINTENA
GENERAL SUPPLI
5883
06/06/00
$257.57
METRO ATHLETIC
SUPPLY
PITCHING RUBBERS, BAS
43443
FIELD MAINTENA
GENERAL SUPPLI
1224
< *>
$682.61*
210967
06/06/00
$225,056.00
METROPOLITAN
COUNCIL ENV
SEWER SERVICE
00007030
SEWER TREATMEN
SEWER SVC METR
< *>
$225,056.00*
210968
06/06/00
$380.00
MGCSA
DUES
051700
GOLF ADMINISTR
DUES & SUBSCRI
< *>
$380.00*
210969
06/06/00
$35.00
MICHELS,
JULIE
SKATING LESSON REFUND
052400
EDINB /CL PROG
LESSON PRGM IN
< *>
$35.00*
210970
06/06/00
$206.70
MID -CO A/V INC.
PROJECTOR CABLES
00005030
CENT SVC GENER
GENERAL SUPPLI
4739
< *>
$206.70*
210971
06/06/00
$125.24
MIDWEST
CHEMICAL SUPPLY
TRASHLINERS, FILTERS
18664
FIRE DEPT. GEN
GENERAL SUPPLI
3842
< *>
$125.24*
210973
06/06/00
- $19.00
MIDWEST
COCA -COLA BOTTLI
ORIGINAL INV. WAS A C
67019028
GRILL
COST OF GD SOL
6327
06/06/00
- $776.05
MIDWEST
COCA -COLA BOTTLI
CREDITS
4/30 STA
GRILL
COST OF GD SOL
6327
06/06/00
$281.20
MIDWEST
COCA -COLA BOTTLI
POP
66447121
CENTENNIAL LAK
COST OF GD SOL
06/06/00
- $36.00
MIDWEST
COCA -COLA BOTTLI
CREDIT
66447139
CENTENNIAL LAK
COST OF GD SOL
06/06/00
$123.20
MIDWEST
COCA -COLA BOTTLI
COST OF GOODS SOLD MI
62166033
50TH ST SELLIN
CST OF GDS MIX
06/06/00
$237.95
MIDWEST
COCA -COLA BOTTLI
COST OF GOODS SOLD MI
62166132
VERNON SELLING
CST OF GDS MIX
06/06/00
$114.00
MIDWEST
COCA -COLA BOTTLI
COST OF GOODS SOLD
67033029
GRILL
COST OF GD SOL
6327
06/06/00
$668.85
MIDWEST
COCA -COLA BOTTLI
COST OF GOODS SOLD
67033037
GRILL
COST OF GD SOL
6327
06/06/00
$521.00
MIDWEST
COCA -COLA BOTTLI
COKE
67036048
GRILL
COST OF GD SOL
6327
06/06/00
$104.90
MIDWEST
COCA -COLA BOTTLI
POP
66452147
CENTENNIAL LAK
COST OF GD SOL
06/06/00
$264.90
MIDWEST
COCA -COLA BOTTLI
COKE
66452196
FRED RICHARDS
COST OF GD SOL
6327
06/06/00
- $217.60
MIDWEST
COCA -COLA BOTTLI
CREDIT
4/30 STM
FRED RICHARDS
COST OF GD SOL
6327
06/06/00
$28.50
MIDWEST
COCA -COLA BOTTLI
COKE
67038168
GRILL
COST OF GD SOL
6327
06/06/00
$423.50
MIDWEST
COCA -COLA BOTTLI
COKE,
67038176
GRILL
COST OF GD SOL
6327
06/06/00
$30.00
MIDWEST
COCA -COLA BOTTLI
COKE
69092089
GENERAL MAINT
GENERAL SUPPLI
1492
06/06/00
$95.00
MIDWEST
COCA -COLA BOTTLI
COKE
67041196
GRILL
COST OF GD SOL
6327
06/06/00
$283.90
MIDWEST
COCA -COLA BOTTLI
COKE
19189777
POOL CONCESSIO
COST OF GD SOL
06/06/00
$785.33
MIDWEST
COCA -COLA BOTTLI
COST OF GOODS SOLD MI
62176149
VERNON SELLING
CST OF GDS MIX
06/06/00
$224.80
MIDWEST
COCA -COLA BOTTLI
COST OF GOODS SOLD MI
62176156
50TH ST SELLIN
CST OF GDS MIX
06/06/00
$368.25
MIDWEST
COCA -COLA BOTTLI
COKE
67044133
GRILL
COST OF GD SOL
6327
06/06/00
$496.48
MIDWEST
COCA -COLA BOTTLI
COST OF GOODS SOLD MI
65161107
YORK SELLING
CST OF GDS MIX
< *>
$4,003.11*
210974
06/06/00
$125.49
MIDWEST
VENDING INC
CANDY
2057
GRILL
COST OF GD SOL
6338
< *>
$125.49*
210975
06/06/00
$338.12
MILLENNIUM PRINTING & GR
PRINT REGISTRATION CA
6867
ART CENTER ADM
PRINTING
.9044
< *>
$338.12*
210976
06/06/00
$40.00
MILLER,
CAROL
ADAPTIVE PROGRAM REFU
052600
GENERAL FD PRO
REGISTRATION F
< *>
$40.00*
COUNCIL
CHECK i. .!STER
31 -MAY -2000 (16'.
, page 25
CHECK NO
DATE
CHECK AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT
PO NUM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
210977
06/06/00
$50.00
MILLER, TOM
DOME LESSON REIMBURSE
051700
GOLF DOME
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$50.00*
210978
06/06/00
$2,601.00
MINNEAPOLIS & SUBURBAN S
REPLACE SERVICE
31750
DISTRIBUTION
CONTR REPAIRS
1024
06/06/00
$1,560.00
MINNEAPOLIS & SUBURBAN S
REPLACE SERVICE
31754
DISTRIBUTION
CONTR REPAIRS
1025
06/06/00
$1,542.00
MINNEAPOLIS & SUBURBAN S
REPLACE SERVICE
31758
DISTRIBUTION
CONTR REPAIRS
1036
06/06/00
$4,312.50
MINNEAPOLIS & SUBURBAN S
REPLACE SERVICE
31759
DISTRIBUTION
CONTR REPAIRS
1035
< *>
$10,015.50*
210979
06/06/00
$50.00
MINNEAPOLIS GIFT MART
REFUND FOR 6/23 CANCE
051900
GOLF PROG
RENTAL OF PROP
< *>
$50.00*
210980
06/06/00
$277.26
MINNESOTA
AIR
CONTROL ENTHALPY SCRE
3372812
EQUIPMENT OPER
ACCESSORIES
1357
< *>
$277.26*
210981
06/06/00
$33.09
MINNESOTA
CLAY USA
CRAFT SUPPLIES
56341
ART CENTER ADM
CRAFT SUPPLIES
9033
< *>
$33.09*
210982
06/06/00
$15.00
MINNESOTA
DEPARTMENT OF
FOOD CERTIFICATION- V
052400
GOLF ADMINISTR
DUES & SUBSCRI
< *>
$15.00*
210983
06/06/00
$18,111.00
MINNESOTA
DEPARTMENT OF
CONNECTON CHARGE
050800
WATER TREATMEN
PRO SVC OTHER
< *>
$18,111.00*
210984
06/06/00
$195.00
MINNESOTA
DEPARTMENT OF
ASSESSOR LICENSE RENE
050400
ASSESSING
DUES & SUBSCRI
< *>
$195.00*
210985
06/06/00
$76.00
MINNESOTA
ELEVATOR INC
APRIL SERVICE
14641
POOL TRACK GRE
SVC CONTR EQUI
CONTRACT
< *>
$76.00*
210986
06/06/00
$233.33
MINNESOTA
MONTHLY PUBLIC
MAGAZINE ADVERTISING
MM5000
50TH ST SELLIN
ADVERT OTHER
06/06/00
$233.33
MINNESOTA
MONTHLY PUBLIC
MAGAZINE ADVERTISING
MM5000
YORK SELLING
ADVERT OTHER
06/06/00
$233.34
MINNESOTA
MONTHLY PUBLIC
MAGAZINE ADVERTISING
MM5000
VERNON SELLING
ADVERT OTHER
< *>
$700.00*
210987
06/06/00
$960.10
MINNESOTA
PIPE & EQUIPME
REPAIR PARTS
0086390
DISTRIBUTION
REPAIR PARTS
1261
06/06/00
$707.43
MINNESOTA
PIPE & EQUIPME
REPAIR PARTS
0086391
DISTRIBUTION
REPAIR PARTS
1260
06/06/00
$242.14
MINNESOTA
PIPE & EQUIPME
TOOLS
0086520
DISTRIBUTION
REPAIR PARTS
1260
06/06/00
$960.63
MINNESOTA
PIPE & EQUIPME
VALVE W /HANDWHEEL
0084491
WATER TREATMEN
REPAIR PARTS
1335
06/06/00
$302.65
MINNESOTA
PIPE & EQUIPME
VALVE & PLUG
0086713
LIFT STATION M
REPAIR PARTS
1260
06/06/00
$284.84
MINNESOTA
PIPE & EQUIPME
GATE VALVE /HAND WHEEL
0087013
DISTRIBUTION
GENERAL SUPPLI
1482
< *>
$3,457.79*
210988
06/06/00
$253.00
MINNESOTA
SAFETY COUNCIL
DUES
018657
ADMINISTRATION
DUES & SUBSCRI
< *>
$253.00*
210989
06/06/00
$495.00
MINNESOTA
STATE BAR ASSO
CONFERENCE
71680 -99
ADMINISTRATION
CONF & SCHOOLS
< *>
$495.00*
210990
06/06/00
$50.00
MINNESOTA
SYMPHONIC WIND
CONCERT 6 -4 -00
050800
ED ADMINISTRAT
PRO.SVC OTHER
< *>
$50.00*
210991
06/06/00
$30.46
MINNESOTA
WANNER
BRASS TIP
0044553-
STREET NAME SI
REPAIR PARTS
1328
06/06/00
$27.21
MINNESOTA
WANNER
VALVE CHAMBER KIT
0044799-
FIELD MAINTENA
REPAIR PARTS
1221
< *>
$57.67*
2OUNCIL
CHECK REGISTER
$23.00
< *>
SVC OTHER
$23.00*
211000
31 -MAY- 2000.(16:32) page 26
HECK NO
DATE
CHECK AMOUNT
VENDOR
TRAINING
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT
PO NUM
-'----------------------------------------.---------------------.----------------------------------------------------------------------
210992
06/06/00
$134.00
MINNESOTA WINEGROWERS
CO COST
OF GOODS SOLD WI
820
VERNON SELLING
CST OF GD WINE
PARTS
< *>
$103.23
$134.00*
06/06/00
$76.49
PARTS
06/06/00
$122.98
17316 -00
06/06/00
$128.81
210993
06/06/00
$120.00
MIRSHARIF,
SOHIELA
SWIMMING LESSON REFUN
050900
GENERAL FD PRO
REGISTRATION F
FIELD MAINTENA
< *>
PARTS
$120.00*
IRRIGATION PARTS
18853 -00
CENTENNIAL LAK
REPAIR
PARTS
2005
210994
06/06/00
$680.00
MIZUNO USA
INC
GOLF
CLUBS
0272609
PRO SHOP
COST OF GDS -PR
6360
06/06/00
$544.00
MIZUNO USA
INC
GOLF
CLUBS
0275195
PRO SHOP
COST OF GDS -PR
6360
06/06/00
$476.00
MIZUNO USA
INC
GOLF
CLUBS
0279909
PRO SHOP
COST OF GDS -PR
6360
06/06/00
$391.00
MIZUNO USA
INC
GOLF
CLUBS
0280791
PRO SHOP
COST OF GDS -PR
6360
< *>
$2,091.00*
210995
06/06/00
$100.00
MNAFAA
ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP
051100
FIRE DEPT. GEN
DUES & SUBSCRI
< *>
$100.00*
210996 06/06/00
06/06/00
210997 06/06/00
210998 06/06/00
$41.00
$53.25
$94.25*
$100.00
$100.00*
MOBILE CELLULAR UNLIMITE HANDSET COIL CORD INV00050 FIRE DEPT. GEN REPAIR PARTS 3834
MOBILE CELLULAR UNLIMITE CELLULAR PHONE CASES INV00050 EQUIPMENT OPER RADIO SERVICE 5889
MONSON, MIKE
$448.50 MOSE, WILLIAM
$448.50*
210999
06/06/00
$23.00
< *>
SVC OTHER
$23.00*
211000
06/06/00
$249.89
SERVICES
06/06/00
$20.00
TRAINING
06/06/00
$12.27
IRRIGATION EQU
06/06/00
$183.20
14031 -00
06/06/00
$95.10
PARTS
06/06/.00
$71.25
15271 -00
06/06/00
$131.64
PARTS
06/06/00
$103.23
16634 -00
06/06/00
$76.49
PARTS
06/06/00
$122.98
17316 -00
06/06/00
$128.81
< *>
FRONT CASTOR FORK
$1,194.86*
211001
06/06/00
$190.60
< *>
IRRIGATION PARTS
$190.60*
211002 06/06/00
211003 06/06/00
06/06/00
211004 06/06/00
211005 06/06/00
MPCA
MTI DISTRIBUTING INC
MTI DISTRIBUTING INC
MTI DISTRIBUTING INC
MTI DISTRIBUTING INC
MTI DISTRIBUTING INC
MTI DISTRIBUTING INC
MTI DISTRIBUTING INC
MTI DISTRIBUTING INC
MTI DISTRIBUTING INC
MTI DISTRIBUTING INC
MTI DISTRIBUTING INC
JUGGLER 6 -20 -00
052600
ED ADMINISTRAT
PRO
SVC OTHER
SOFTBALL UMPIRE
052600
EDINA ATHLETIC
PROF
SERVICES
WASTEWATER LICENSE -
052300
TRAINING
LIC
& PERMITS
NIPPLES, WRENCH, SORE 14077 -00 FIELD MAINTENA REPAIR PARTS 1202
NOZZLES
1421 -00
CENTENNIAL LAK
REPAIR
PARTS
2087
0 -RINGS
14818 -00
CENTENNIAL LAK
REPAIR
PARTS
2087
IRRIGATION REPAIRS
14300 -00
MAINT OF LOURS
IRRIGATION EQU
6455
TUBE
14031 -00
EQUIPMENT OPER
REPAIR
PARTS
1312
REPAIR PARTS
15271 -00
MAINT OF COURS
REPAIR
PARTS
6446
REPAIR PARTS
16634 -00
CENTENNIAL LAK
REPAIR
PARTS
IRRIGATION PARTS
17316 -00
MAINT OF COURS
IRRIGATION EQU
6458
FRONT CASTOR FORK
17743 -00
EQUIPMENT OPER
REPAIR
PARTS
1388
IRRIGATION PARTS
17739 -00
FIELD MAINTENA
REPAIR
PARTS
1218
IRRIGATION PARTS
18853 -00
CENTENNIAL LAK
REPAIR
PARTS
2005
NATIONAL CAMERA EXCHANGE CRAFT SUPPLIES
$89.00 NATIONAL UNDERWRITERS CO SUBSCRIPTION
$89.00*
$108.00 NATIONSBANC BUSINESS FIN DRUG TESTS
$18.00 NATIONSBANC BUSINESS FIN DRUG TEST
$126.00*
$384.40 NBGS INTERNATIONAL PAINT
$384.40*
$60.00 NELSON, BARBARA TEACHING AC
0503001R ART CENTER ADM CRAFT SUPPLIES 9029
033000 ADMINISTRATION DUES & SUBSCRI
664651 CENT SVC GENER ADVERT PERSONL
665086 CENT SVC GENER ADVERT PERSONL
11468 POOL OPERATION PAINT 7087
052200 ART CENTER ADM PROF SERVICES
COUNCIL
CHECK kL�iSTER
31 -MAY -2000 (16:--) page 27
CHECK NO
DATE
CHECK AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT
PO NUM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
211005
06/06/00
$219.00
NELSON, BARBARA
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
052200
MEDIA LAB
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$279.00*
211006
06/06/00
$139.82
NELSON, DAVID
REIMBURSEMENT FOR UNI
052200
POLICE DEPT. G
UNIF ALLOW
06/06/00
$55.82
NELSON, DAVID
CONTINUING ED
052300
POLICE DEPT. G
CONF & SCHOOLS
< *>
$195.64*
211007
06/06/00
$200.00
NEMITZ, DAVE
REFUND (SOFTBALL)
051100
EDINA ATHLETIC
REGISTRATION F
< *>
$200.00*
211008
06/06/00
$1,008.00
NEW FRANCE WINE CO.
COST OF GOODS SOLD
WI
10047
50TH ST SELLIN
CST OF GD WINE
06/06/00
$494.00
NEW FRANCE WINE CO.
COST OF GOODS SOLD
WI
10196
YORK SELLING
CST OF GD WINE
< *>
$1,502.00*
211009
06106100
$88.00
NICOL, JANET
TEACHING MEDIA CTR
052200
MEDIA LAB
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$88.00*
211010
06/06/00
$60.00
NIOA
MEMBERSHIP DUES
052200
POLICE DEPT. G
DUES & SUBSCRI
< *>
$60.00*
211011
06/06/00
$100.00
NISSEN, DICK
POLICE SERVICE
060600
RESERVE PROGRA
CONTR SERVICES
< *>
$100.00*
211012
06/06/00
$45.00
NORMAN, POLLY
TEACHING AC
052200
ART CENTER ADM
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$45.00*
211013
06/06/00
$80.50
NORTH STAR ICE
COST OF GOODS SOLD
MI
29013001
50TH ST SELLIN
CST OF GDS MIX
06/06/00
$170.26
NORTH STAR ICE
COST OF GOODS SOLD
MI
29013007
YORK SELLING
CST OF GDS MIX
06/06/00
$31.50
NORTH STAR ICE
COST OF GOODS SOLD
BE
41013612
50TH ST SELLIN
CST OF GDS BEE
06/06/00
$101.65
NORTH STAR ICE
COST OF GOODS SOLD
MI
01013818
YORK SELLING
CST OF GDS MIX
06/06/00
$199.50
NORTH STAR ICE
COST OF GOODS SOLD
MI
31014000
VERNON SELLING
CST OF GDS MIX
06/06/00
$119.20
NORTH STAR ICE
COST OF GOODS SOLD
MI
55014113
YORK SELLING
CST OF GDS MIX
06/06/00
$67.82
NORTH STAR ICE
COST OF GOODS SOLD
MI
41014319
50TH ST SELLIN
CST OF GDS MIX
06/06/00
$68.92
NORTH STAR ICE
COST OF GOODS SOLD
MI
44014519
YORK SELLING
CST OF GDS MIX
< *>
$839.35*
211014
06/06/00
$141.11
NORTH STAR TURF SUPPLY
REPAIR PARTS
224615
MAINT OF COURS
REPAIR PARTS
6433
< *>
$141.11*
211015
06/06/00
$211.81
NORTHERN AIRE
POOL SUPPLIES
27837
POOL OPERATION
GENERAL SUPPLI
< *>
$211.81*
211016
06/06/00
$195.18
NORTHERN TOOL & EQUIPMEN
PUMP & SUPPLIES
3174356
CENTENNIAL LAK
GENERAL SUPPLI
2086
< *>
$195.18*
211017
06/06/00
$260.60
NORTHWEST GRAPHIC SUPPLY
CANVAS, TAPE, PENS
17496400
ART SUPPLY GIF
COST OF GD SOL
9038
< *>
$260.60*
211018
06/06/00
$362.10
NORTHWESTERN TIRE CO
TIRES
NW -62935
EQUIPMENT OPER
TIRES & TUBES
1324
06/06/00
$99.71
NORTHWESTERN TIRE CO
TIRES
NW -62961
EQUIPMENT OPER
TIRES & TUBES
1324
06/06/00
$61.25
NORTHWESTERN TIRE CO
TIRE DISPOSAL FEES
NW -63007
EQUIPMENT OPER
TIRES & TUBES
1324
06/06/00
$102.24
NORTHWESTERN TIRE CO
TIRES
NW -63008
EQUIPMENT OPER
TIRES & TUBES
1324
06/06/00
$127.99
NORTHWESTERN TIRE CO
TIRES
NW -63118
EQUIPMENT OPER
TIRES & TUBES
1381
< *>
$753.29*
COUNCIL
CHECK REGISTER
31 -MAY -2000 (16:32) page 28
HECK NO
DATE
CHECK AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT
PO NUM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
211019
06/06/00
$100.00
NUSSBAUM, PHIL
URBAN RENEWAL CONCERT
052600
ED.ADMINISTRAT
PRO SVC OTHER
< *>
$100.00*
211020
06/06/00
$90.00
NYGAARD, JEFF
TEACHING AC
052200
ART CENTER ADM
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$90.00*
211021
06/06/00
$192.00
ODLAND, DOROTHY
TEACHING AC
052200
ART CENTER ADM
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$192.00*
211022
06/06/00
$84.00
OGIO INTERNATIONAL INC.
BAGS
355895
PRO SHOP
COST OF GDS -PR
6486
< *>
$84.00*
211023
06/06/00
$103.34
OLSEN CHAIN & CABLE CO I
REPAIR PARTS
19249
MAINT OF COURS
REPAIR PARTS
6448
06/06/00
$22.55
OLSEN CHAIN & CABLE CO I
CHAIN
19351
BUILDING MAINT
GENERAL SUPPLI
1216
< *>
$125.89*
211024
06/06/00
$89.97
OLYMPIC POOLS
SKIMMER & VALVE
15004
CENTENNIAL LAK
GENERAL SUPPLI
2090
< *>
$89.97*
-
211025
06/06/00
$85.50
OTIS SPUNKMEYER INC
COOKIES
72132002
GRILL•
COST OF GD SOL
6339
06/06/00
$83.00
OTIS SPUNKMEYER INC
COOKIES
86987002
GRILL
COST OF GD SOL
6339
< *>
$168.50*
211026
06/06/00
$362.15
OWENS SERVICES CORP.
WORK DONE ON ROOF TOP
40062
POOL TRACK GRE
CONTR REPAIRS
2247
< *>
$362.15*
211027
06/06/00
$380.66
PAGENET
PAGERS - APRIL
00013003
FIRE DEPT. GEN
EQUIP RENTAL
06/06/00
$436:78
PAGENET
EQUIPMENT RENTAL
00064845
POLICE DEPT. G
EQUIP RENTAL
06/06/00
$438.50
PAGENET
PAGERS - MAY
00070555
FIRE DEPT. GEN
EQUIP RENTAL
< *>
$1,255.94*
211028
06/06/00
$510.00
PALMER /SNYDER FURNITURE
CHILDRENS TABLES
026795
BUILDING MAINT
GENERAL SUPPLI
7098
< *>
$510.00*
211029
06/06/00
$250.00
PARK CENTER HIGH SCHOOL
REIMBURSE DAMAGE DEPO
051100
EDINB /CL PROG
RENTAL INCOME
< *>
$250.00*
211030
06/06/00
$387.50
PATTIWORKS INC
CALENDAR DESIGN
1147
ED ADMINISTRAT
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$387.50*
211031
06/06/00
$49.94
PEARSON, PAUL
AMBULANCE OVERPAYMENT
051600
GENERAL FD PRO
AMBULANCE FEES
< *>
$49.94*
.
211032
06/06/00
$280.00
PENHALL COMPANY
CORE DRILLING
3467
POOL OPERATION
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$280.00*
211033
06/06/00
$139.84
PEPSI -COLA COMPANY
COST OF GOODS SOLD MI
45341700
YORK SELLING
CST OF GDS MIX
06/06/00
$253.94
PEPSI -COLA COMPANY
COST OF GOODS SOLD MI
49241086
VERNON SELLING
CST OF GDS MIX
< *>
$393.78*
211034
06/06/00
$1,850.00
PERKINS LANDSCAPE CONTRA
CLEAN CREEK
051800
GENERAL STORM
CONTR REPAIRS
1030
< *>
$1,850.00*
211035
06/06/00
$499.72
PERSONNEL DECISIONS
LEAP TESTING
J141445
POLICE DEPT. G
PROF SERVICES
3041
< *>
$499.72*
COUNCIL CHECK ,._.jISTER
CHECK NO DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR
DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM
31 -MAY -2000 (16-) page 29
OBJECT PO NUM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
211037
06/06/00
$11.85
PETTY CASH
MTG.
EXPENSE
051900
CITY COUNCIL
MEETING
EXPENS
06/06/00
$9.00
PETTY CASH
MTG.
EXPENSE
051900
ADMINISTRATION
MEETING
EXPENS
06/06/00
$27.30
PETTY CASH
MILEAGE
- ADMIN.
051900
ADMINISTRATION
MILEAGE
06/06/00
$25.00
PETTY CASH
MTG.
EXPENSE -
FINANC
051900
FINANCE
MEETING
EXPENS
06/06/00
$22.83
PETTY CASH
MTG.
EXPENSE -
ASSESS
051900
ASSESSING
MEETING
EXPENS
06/06/00
$20.00
PETTY CASH
PESTICIDE LICENSES
051900
TRAINING
LIC
& PERMITS
06/06/00
$13.35
PETTY CASH
RECYCLING /MISC.
051900
PUBLIC HEALTH
GENERAL
SUPPLI
06/06/00
$28.95
PETTY CASH
COMMUNICATIONS /DINNER
051900
CENT SVC GENER
GENERAL
SUPPLI
06/06/00
$15.18
PETTY CASH
SUPPLIES
051900
PW BUILDING
GENERAL
SUPPLI
06/06/00
$74.69
PETTY CASH
MTG.
EXPENSE
051900
COMMUNICATIONS
MEETING
EXPENS
06/06/00
$19.65
PETTY CASH
MTG.
EXPENSE -
P &R
051900
PARK ADMIN.
MEETING EXPENS
06/06/00
$20.00
PETTY CASH
MILEAGE /FUEL -PW
051900
FIELD MAINTENA
MILEAGE
06/06/00
$10.00
PETTY CASH
50TH
& FRANCE
ASSOC M
051900
LIQUOR YORK GE
MEETING EXPENS
06/06/00
-$5.50
PETTY CASH
CASH
OVER AND
UNDER
051900
GENERAL FD PRO
CASH OVER AND
< *>
$292.30*
211041
06/06/00
-$9.65
PHILLIPS
WINE
&
SPIRITS
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
3214081
50TH ST SELLIN
CST
OF
GD WINE
06/06/00
- $11.33
PHILLIPS
WINE
&
SPIRITS
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
3214082
50TH ST SELLIN
CST
OF
GD WINE
06/06/00
-$5.50
PHILLIPS
WINE
&
SPIRITS
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
3214083
50TH ST SELLIN
CST
OF
GD WINE
06/06/00
- $39.19
PHILLIPS
WINE
&
SPIRITS
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
3214215
VERNON SELLING
CST
OF
GD WINE
06/06/00
- $69.42
PHILLIPS
WINE
&
SPIRITS
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
3214652
YORK SELLING
CST
OF
GD WINE
06/06/00
$664.76
PHILLIPS
WINE
&
SPIRITS
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
604712
50TH ST SELLIN
CST
OF
GD WINE
06/06/00
- $47.44
PHILLIPS
WINE
&
SPIRITS
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
3214766
VERNON SELLING
CST
OF
GD WINE
06/06/00
- $22.09
PHILLIPS
WINE
&
SPIRITS
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
3214767
VERNON SELLING
CST
OF
GD WINE
06/06/00
$1,789.92
PHILLIPS
WINE
&
SPIRITS
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
606469
VERNON SELLING
CST
OF
GD WINE
06/06/00
$363.00
PHILLIPS
WINE
&
SPIRITS
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
LI
606470
50TH ST SELLIN
CST
OF
GD LIQU
06/06/00
$1,270.98
PHILLIPS
WINE
&
SPIRITS
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
606471
50TH ST SELLIN
CST
OF
GD WINE
06/06/00
$1,137.74
PHILLIPS
WINE
&
SPIRITS
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
LI
606472
YORK SELLING
CST
OF
GD LIQU
06/06/00
$1,430.55
PHILLIPS
WINE
&
SPIRITS
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
606473
YORK SELLING
CST
OF
GD WINE
06/06/00
$1,238.63
PHILLIPS
WINE
&
SPIRITS
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
606474
VERNON SELLING
CST
OF
GD WINE
06/06/00
$141.57
PHILLIPS
WINE
&
SPIRITS
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
606475
VERNON SELLING
CST
OF
GD WINE
06/06/00
- $42.60
PHILLIPS
WINE
&
SPIRITS
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
3214923
50TH ST SELLIN
CST
OF
GD WINE
06/06/00
- $42.60
PHILLIPS
WINE
&
SPIRITS
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
3214924
VERNON SELLING
CST
OF
GD WINE
06/06/00
- $36.64
PHILLIPS
WINE
&
SPIRITS
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
3215119
YORK SELLING
CST
OF
GD WINE
06/06/00
$25.00
PHILLIPS
WINE
&
SPIRITS
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
608292
YORK SELLING
CST
OF
GD WINE
06/06/00
$786.28
PHILLIPS
WINE
&
SPIRITS
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
608714
VERNON SELLING
CST
OF
GD WINE
06/06/00
$0.69
PHILLIPS
WINE
&
SPIRITS
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
608715
YORK SELLING
CST
OF
GD WINE
06/06/00
$205.02
PHILLIPS
WINE
&
SPIRITS
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
LI
608716
50TH ST SELLIN
CST
OF
GD LIQU
06/06/00
$900.31
PHILLIPS
WINE
&
SPIRITS
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
608717
50TH ST SELLIN
CST
OF
GD WINE
06/06/00
$62.70
PHILLIPS
WINE
&
SPIRITS
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
BE
608718
50TH ST SELLIN
CST
OF
GDS BEE
06/06/00
$888.52
PHILLIPS
WINE
&
SPIRITS
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
LI
608719
YORK SELLING
CST
OF
GD LIQU
06/06/00
$2,747.59
PHILLIPS
WINE
&
SPIRITS
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
608720
YORK SELLING
CST
OF
GD WINE
06/06/00
$710.60
PHILLIPS
WINE
&
SPIRITS
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
LI
608721
VERNON SELLING
CST
OF
GD LIQU
06/06/00
$1,377.35
PHILLIPS
WINE
&
SPIRITS
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
608722
VERNON SELLING
CST
OF
GD WINE
06/06/00
$714.65
PHILLIPS
WINE
&
SPIRITS
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
LI
609754
YORK SELLING
CST
OF
GD LIQU
06/06/00
$34.89
PHILLIPS
WINE
&
SPIRITS
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
MI
610745
50TH ST SELLIN
CST
OF
GDS MIX
06/06/00
$50.19
PHILLIPS
WINE
&
SPIRITS
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
MI
610747
YORK SELLING
CST
OF
GDS MIX
06/06/00
$54.69
PHILLIPS
WINE
&
SPIRITS
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
LI
610749
50TH ST SELLIN
CST
OF
GD LIQU
06/06/00
$2,338.06
PHILLIPS
WINE
&
SPIRITS
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
610750
50TH ST SELLIN
CST
OF
GD WINE
06/06/00
$41.80
PHILLIPS
WINE
&
SPIRITS
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
BE
610751
50TH ST SELLIN
CST
OF
GDS BEE
06/06/00
$1,139.47
PHILLIPS
WINE
&
SPIRITS
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
LI
610752
YORK SELLING
CST
OF
GD LIQU
06/06/00
$2,148.13
PHILLIPS
WINE
&
SPIRITS
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
WI
610753
YORK SELLING
CST
OF
GD WINE
06/06/00
$287.76
PHILLIPS
WINE
&
SPIRITS
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
LI
610754
VERNON SELLING
CST
OF
GD LIQU
06/06/00
$141.57
PHILLIPS
WINE
&
SPIRITS
COST
OF
GOODS
SOLD
MI
610756
VERNON SELLING
CST
OF
GDS MIX
< *>
$22,365.96*
COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER
31 -MAY -2000 (16:32) page 30
CHECK NO DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM OBJECT PO NUM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
211042 06/06/00 $498.15 PING GOLF CLUBS 4478099 PRO SHOP COST OF GDS -PR 6307
< *> $498.15*
211043 06/06/00
211045 06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
211046 06/06/00
211047 06/06/00
$512.32 PINKERTON SYSTEMS INTEGR REPAIRED ALARMS 0015798- POOL TRACK GRE CONTR REPAIRS 2278
$512.32*
$251.64
$97.50
$865.85
-$1.15
$643.08
$615.12
$1,195.20
$587.16
$400.43
$391.44
$145.60
$28.80
$167.94
- $27.96
- $11.16
$1,034.51
$202.50
$559.20
$23.50
$7,169.20*
$153.55
$153.55*
$52.01
$52.01*
PINNACLE DISTRIBUTING
PINNACLE DISTRIBUTING
PINNACLE DISTRIBUTING
PINNACLE DISTRIBUTING
PINNACLE DISTRIBUTING
PINNACLE DISTRIBUTING
PINNACLE DISTRIBUTING
PINNACLE DISTRIBUTING
PINNACLE DISTRIBUTING
PINNACLE DISTRIBUTING
PINNACLE DISTRIBUTING
PINNACLE DISTRIBUTING
PINNACLE DISTRIBUTING
PINNACLE DISTRIBUTING
PINNACLE DISTRIBUTING
PINNACLE DISTRIBUTING
PINNACLE DISTRIBUTING
PINNACLE DISTRIBUTING
PINNACLE DISTRIBUTING
PIONEER RIM & WHEEL.CO
PIRTEK PLYMOUTH
COST OF GOODS SOLD MI 30233
COST OF GOODS SOLD MI 30260
COST OF GOODS SOLD MI 30267
COST OF GOODS SOLD MI 30421
COST OF GOODS SOLD MI 30438
COST OF GOODS SOLD MI 30470
COST OF GOODS SOLD MI 30517
COST OF GOODS SOLD MI 30691
COST OF GOODS SOLD MI 30730
COST OF GOODS SOLD MI 30755
COST OF GOODS SOLD MI 30756
COST OF GOODS SOLD MI 30762
COST OF GOODS SOLD MI 30776
COST OF GOODS SOLD MI 30854
COST OF GOODS SOLD MI 30855
COST OF GOODS SOLD MI 30928
COST OF GOODS SOLD MI 30929
CIGARETTES 31015
MATCHES 31015
JACK
LINE SERVICE
211048
06/06/00
$50.00
PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY CONCE
CONCERT 6 -21 -00
< *>
PRO SHOP
$50.00*
OF
GDS -PR 6202
985772
PRO SHOP
COST
211049
06/06/00
$237.32
POLO
RALPH
LAUREN
CORPOR
GOLF SHORTS
06/06/00
$2,556.46
POLO
RALPH
LAUREN
CORPOR
MERCHANDISE
06/06/00
$105.64
POLO
RALPH
LAUREN
CORPOR
MERCHANDISE
< *>
$2,899.42*
211050
06/06/00
$175.70
POLO
RALPH
LAUREN
WW GOL
SHORTS
06/06/00
$606.54
POLO
RALPH
LAUREN
WW GOL
APPAREL
06/06/00
$751.17
POLO
RALPH
LAUREN
WW GOL
APPAREL
06/06/00
$288.40
POLO
RALPH
LAUREN
WW GOL
APPAREL
< *>
$1,821.81*
211051
06/06/00
$181.62
POMMER CO
AWARDS ENGRAVING
< *>
$181.62*
211052
06/06/00
$111.93
POPP
TELCOM
PHONE REPAIR
< *>
$111.93*
211053
06/06/00
$121.00
POSTMASTER
BULK MAIL
< *>
$121.00*
50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS MIX
50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS MIX
YORK SELLING CST OF GDS MIX
YORK SELLING CST OF GDS MIX
VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS MIX
50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS MIX
YORK SELLING CST OF GDS MIX
VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS MIX
50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS MIX
YORK SELLING CST OF GDS MIX
YORK SELLING CST OF GDS MIX
50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS MIX
VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS MIX
VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS MIX
50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS MIX
YORK SELLING CST OF GDS MIX
YORK SELLING CST OF GDS MIX
50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS MIX
LIQUOR 50TH ST GENERAL SUPPLI
1- 244514 EQUIPMENT OPER ACCESSORIES 1294
PL8730 MAINT OF COURS CONTR REPAIRS 6442
052600
ED ADMINISTRAT
PRO
SVC
OTHER
985771
PRO SHOP
COST
OF
GDS -PR 6202
985772
PRO SHOP
COST
OF
GDS -PR 6202
987481
PRO SHOP
COST
OF
GDS -PR 6201
073 -0514 PRO.SHOP COST OF GDS -PR 6201
073 -0515 PRO SHOP COST OF GDS -PR 6201
073 -0515 PRO SHOP COST OF GDS -PR 6201
073 -0515 PRO SHOP COST OF GDS -PR 6201
47206 ARENA BLDG /GRO GENERAL SUPPLI 8003
38636 . CLUB HOUSE CONTR REPAIRS 6054
052500 CENT SVC GENER POSTAGE
COUNCIL CHECK n"GISTER
31 -MAY -2000 (lt ,�) page 31
CHECK NO DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM OBJECT PO NUM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
211054 06/06/00 $399.00 POTTERS SHOP, THE COST OF GOODS SOLD 5477 ART SUPPLY GIF COST OF GD SOL 9030
< *> $399.00*
211055 06/06/00 $996.00 PREMIER FLEET SERVICES LABOR, PARTS, PAINT, 14425 EQUIPMENT OPER CONTR REPAIRS
< *> $996.00*
211056 06/06/00 $1,500.00 PRIN, CAROLYN EASEMENT ACQUISITION 052300 SANITARY SEWER CIP
< *> $1,500.00*
211057 06/06/00 $160.00 PRINTERS SERVICE INC BLADE SHARPENING 16437 ARENA ICE MAIN EQUIP MAINT 8016
< *> $160.00*
211059 06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
Q6/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
211060 06/06/00
211061 06/06/00
$1,412.00
- $16.44
$666.01
$380.30
$467.36
$173.80
$527.58
$204.30
$411.10
$919.21
$391.45
$251.18
$720.60
$1,200.42
$328.00
$257.45
$543.60
$1,233.46
$239.30
$306.49
$325.40
$493.52
$143.00
$11,579.09*
PRIOR WINE COMPANY
PRIOR WINE COMPANY
PRIOR WINE COMPANY
PRIOR WINE COMPANY
PRIOR WINE COMPANY
PRIOR WINE COMPANY
PRIOR WINE COMPANY
PRIOR WINE COMPANY
PRIOR WINE COMPANY
PRIOR WINE COMPANY
PRIOR WINE COMPANY
PRIOR WINE COMPANY
PRIOR WINE COMPANY
PRIOR WINE COMPANY
PRIOR WINE COMPANY
PRIOR WINE COMPANY
PRIOR WINE COMPANY
PRIOR WINE COMPANY
PRIOR WINE COMPANY
PRIOR WINE COMPANY
PRIOR WINE COMPANY
PRIOR WINE COMPANY
PRIOR WINE COMPANY
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI 209185
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI 536594
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI 213776
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI 213777
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI 213782
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI 213783
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI 213787
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI 213788
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI 216717
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI 216721
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI 216725
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI 216729
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI 216732
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI 216735
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI 218195
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI 218198
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI 219608
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI 219609
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI 219613
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI 219614
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI 219618
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI 219619
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI 220288
YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE
YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE
VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE
VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE
50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE
50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE
YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE
YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE
VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE
VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE
50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE
50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE
YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE
YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE
VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE
YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE
VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE
VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE
50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE
50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE
YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE
YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE
YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE
$230.00 PROGRESSIVE BUSINESS PUB SUBSCRIPTION RENEWAL 051500 FINANCE
$230.00*
$225.00 QUALITY REFRIGERATION IN CONTRACT - REFRIGERAT 305326 GRILL
$225.00*
CONF & SCHOOLS
CONTR SERVICES 6340
211063 06/06/00
- $51.08
QUALITY
WINE
COST
OF GOODS SOLD
WI
836335 -0
50TH
ST SELLIN
CST
OF
GD WINE
06/06/00
$562.70
QUALITY
WINE
COST
OF GOODS SOLD
WI
837570 -0
YORK
SELLING
CST
OF
GD WINE
06/06/00
-$5.54
QUALITY
WINE
TRADE DISCOUNTS
837570 -0
YORK
SELLING
TRADE DISCOUNT
06/06/00
- $430.40
QUALITY
WINE
COST
OF GOODS SOLD
LI
837644 -0
YORK
SELLING
CST
OF
GD LIQU
06/06/00
$1,722.98
QUALITY
WINE
COST
OF GOODS SOLD
LI
837897 -0
50TH
ST SELLIN
CST
OF
GD LIQU
06/06/00
- $34.27
QUALITY
WINE
TRADE DISCOUNTS
837897 -0
50TH
ST SELLIN
TRADE DISCOUNT
06/06/00
- $51.75
QUALITY
WINE
COST
OF GOODS SOLD
WI
837911 -0
YORK
SELLING
CST
OF
GD WINE
06/06/00
$2,715.51
QUALITY
WINE
COST
OF GOODS SOLD
WI
838954 -0
YORK
SELLING
CST
OF
GD WINE
06/06/00
- $26.81
QUALITY
WINE
TRADE DISCOUNTS
838954 -0
YORK
SELLING
TRADE
DISCOUNT
06/06/00
$3,600.83
QUALITY
WINE
COST
OF GOODS SOLD
WI
838955 -0
VERNON SELLING
CST
OF
GD WINE
06/06/00
- $35.60
QUALITY
WINE
TRADE DISCOUNTS
838955 -0
VERNON SELLING
TRADE
DISCOUNT
06/06/00
$1,544.27
QUALITY
WINE
COST
OF GOODS SOLD
WI
838956 -0
50TH
ST SELLIN
CST
OF
GD WINE
:OUNCIL
CHECK REGISTER
31 -MAY -2000 (16:32) page 32
HECK NO
DATE
CHECK AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE.
PROGRAM
OBJECT
PO NUM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
211063
06/06/00
- $15.28
QUALITY WINE
TRADE DISCOUNTS
838956 -0
50TH ST SELLIN
TRADE DISCOUNT
06/06/00
$3,706.77
QUALITY WINE
COST OF GOODS SOLD
LI
839047 -0
VERNON SELLING
CST OF GD LIQU
06/06/00
- $73.57
QUALITY WINE
TRADE DISCOUNTS
839047 -0
VERNON SELLING
TRADE DISCOUNT
06/06/00
$1,744.66
QUALITY WINE
COST OF GOODS SOLD
LI
839051 -0
50TH ST SELLIN
CST OF GD LIQU
06/06/00
- $34.64
QUALITY WINE
TRADE DISCOUNTS
839051 -0
50TH ST SELLIN
TRADE DISCOUNT
06/06/00
$3,054.47
QUALITY WINE
COST OF GOODS SOLD
LI
839125 -0
YORK SELLING
CST OF GD LIQU
06/06/00
- $60.51
QUALITY WINE
TRADE DISCOUNTS
839125 -0
YORK SELLING
TRADE DISCOUNT
06/06/00
$419.10
QUALITY WINE
COST OF GOODS SOLD
WI
840150 -0
YORK SELLING
CST OF GD WINE
06/06/.00
-$4.14
QUALITY WINE
TRADE DISCOUNTS
840150 -0
YORK SELLING
TRADE DISCOUNT
< *>
$18,247.70*
211064
06/06/00
$94.65
R.C. STEELE
NEW KENNEL
30 -20127
ANIMAL CONTROL
EQUIP REPLACEM
3010
< *>
$94.65*
211065
06/06/00
$226.52
RC IDENTIFICATIONS INC.
ID CARDS
023784
CITY HALL GENE
GENERAL SUPPLI
< *>
$226.52*
211066
06/06/00
$265.35
RED WING SHOES
SAFETY BOOTS
1312
GENERAL MAINT
SAFETY EQUIPME
06/06/00
$312.80
RED WING SHOES
SAFETY BOOTS
1312
ED BUILDING &
SAFETY EQUIPME
< *>
$578.15*
211067
06/06/00
$702.00
REIMER, MARK
SOFTBALL UMPIRE
052600
EDINA ATHLETIC
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$702.00*
211068
06/06/00
$5,500.00
RES SPECIALTY PYROTECHNI
FIREWORKS FOR JULY
4T
1738
FIREWORKS
GENERAL SUPPLI
7085
< *>
$5,500.00*
211069
06/06/00
$103.00
RICHFIELD PLUMBING COMPA
PLUMBING SERVICE
20200
CITY HALL GENE
CONTR REPAIRS
4755
06/06/00
$88.00
RICHFIELD PLUMBING COMPA
DRAIN REPAIR
20306
FRED RICHARDS
CONTR REPAIRS
6044
06/06/00
$118.00
RICHFIELD PLUMBING COMPA
TOILET REPAIR
20331
FRED RICHARDS
CONTR REPAIRS
6051
< *>
$309.00*
211070
06/06/00
$640.00
RICKERT, DAVID
TEACHING AC
052200
ART CENTER ADM
PROF-SERVICES
< *>
$640.00*
211071
06/06/00
$17.34
RITZ CAMERA CENTERS
PHOTO FINISHING
03750275
FIRE DEPT. GEN
PHOTO SUPPLIES
3710
< *>
$17.34*
211072
06/06/00
$100.00
RIVER CITY JAZZ ORCHESTR
CONCERT 6 -8 -00
052600
ED ADMINISTRAT
PRO SVC OTHER
< *>
$100.00*
211073
06/06/00
$545.10
ROC INC.
CLEANING
2202
CLUB HOUSE
SVC CONTR EQUI
6034
06/06/00
$543.15
ROC INC.
CLEANING
2203
CLUB HOUSE
SVC CONTR EQUI
6034
< *>
$1,088.25*
211074
06/06/00
$160.00
ROOSEVELT HIGH SCHOOL
REIMBURSEMENT FOR
1 0
051100
EDINB /CL PROG
RENTAL INCOME
< *>
$160.00*
211075
06/06/00
$350.00
ROWEKAMP ASSOCIATES INC
ARCVIEW CONSULTING
200111
ENGINEERING GE
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$350.00*
211076
06/06/00
$40.00
RUPP, GAYLE
ADAPTIVE PROGRAM REFU
052600
GENERAL FD PRO
REGISTRATION F
< *>
$40.00*
211077
06/06/00
$136.50
RYDER, ROBERT
SOFTBALL UMPIRE
052600
EDINA ATHLETIC
PROF SERVICES
COUNCIL
CHECK N�GISTER
31 -MAY -2000 (16. -z) page 33
CHECK NO
DATE
CHECK AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT
PO NUM
----------------------------
<*>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$136.50*
211078
06/06/00
$996.84
S & S TREE AND HORTICULT
FIELD REPAIRS
27687
FIELD MAINTENA
PROF SERVICES
1237
< *>
$996.84*
211079
06/06/00
$30.46
S.H. BARTLETT CO INC
SOAP DISPENSER
2089
EQUIPMENT OPER
REPAIR PARTS
1467
< *>
$30.46*
211080
06/06/00
$204.03
SAFETY KLEEN
RECLAIM SOLVENT
00012576
SUPERV. & OVRH
HAZ. WASTE DIS
1555
< *>
$204.03*
211081
06/06/00
$68.78
SAINT AGNES BAKING COMPA
BAKERY
044056
GRILL
COST OF GD SOL
6349
06/06/00
$57.96
SAINT AGNES BAKING COMPA
BAKERY
044197
GRILL
COST OF GD SOL
6349
06/06/00
$30.65
SAINT AGNES BAKING COMPA
BAKERY
044275
GRILL
COST OF GD SOL
6349
06/06/00
$36.44
SAINT AGNES BAKING COMPA
BAKERY
004371
GRILL
COST OF GD SOL
6349
< *>
$193.83*
211082
06/06/00
$325.00
SCHMIDT, MARK
SOFTBALL REFUND
051200
EDINA ATHLETIC
REGISTRATION F
< *>
$325.00*
211083
06/06/00
$56.00
SCHMIDT, PATRICIA
CLASS REFUND
052400
ART CNTR PROG
REGISTRATION F
< *>
$56.00*
211084
06/06/00
$2,019.50
SCS INTERACTIVE
PLAYSTRUCTURE EQUIPME
1806
POOL OPERATION
GENERAL SUPPLI
7088
06/06/00
$327.86
SCS INTERACTIVE
PLAYSTRUCTURE EQUIPME
1817
POOL OPERATION
GENERAL-SUPPLI
7088
< *>
$2,347.36*
211085
06/06/00
$534.85
SEABOARD PENCIL COMPANY
GOLF PENCILS
1364
GOLF ADMINISTR
GENERAL SUPPLI
6499
< *>
$534.85*
211086
06/06/00
$159.69
SEARS
LEVEL, SOCKET SETS, W
1095796
BUILDING MAINT
TOOLS
1194
< *>
$159.69*
211087
06/06/00
$222.91
SEH
WELLHEAD PROTECTION P
0063238
GENERAL(BILLIN
PROF SERVICES
06106100
$261.44
SEH
SEWER MONITORING
0063411
SEWER TREATMEN
PROF SERVICES
1032
06/06/00
$519.70
SEH
CONSTR. IN PROGRESS
0063641
SUMP PUMP INSP
CIP
< *>
$1,004.05*
211088
06/06/00
$213.00
SERV -A -CLEAN
CARPET CLEANING
1052
FIRE DEPT. GEN
CONTR REPAIRS
< *>
$213.00*
211089
06/06/00
$137.43
SEW WHAT!
UNIFORM ALTERATIONS
77421
FIRE DEPT. GEN
CONTR REPAIRS
3830
< *>
$137.43*
211090
06/06/00
$100.00
SHEPARD, JOHN
POLICE SERVICE
060600
RESERVE PROGRA
CONTR SERVICES
< *>
$100.00*
211091
06/06/00
$159.75
SIGNAL FINANCE
WATER FILTRATION
30376 -17
CITY HALL GENE
CONTR REPAIRS
4767
< *>
$159.75*
211092
06/06/00
$42.03
SIGNAL SYSTEMS INC.
TIMECARDS
10930
ED ADMINISTRAT
GENERAL SUPPLI
2079
< *>
$42.03*
211093
06/06/00
$47.93
SIITARI, MICHAEL
CRIME FUND PHOTO
051500
POLICE DEPT. G
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$47.93*
:OUNCIL
CHECK REGISTER
31 -MAY -2000 (16:32) page 34
'HECK NO
DATE
CHECK AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT
PO NUM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
211094
06/06/00
$45.00
SILVERS, ROXANNE
MODEL
052500
ART CENTER ADM
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$45.00*
211095
06/06/00
$532.45
SIMPLEX TIME RECORDER CO
SYNCHRONIZED CLOCK
35550464
PW BUILDING
REPAIR PARTS
1256
< *>
$532.45*
211096
06/06/00
$171.20
SIMS SECURITY
SECURITY
00415106
POOL TRACK GRE
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$171.20*
211097
06106100
$282.51
SIR SPEEDY PRINT
BOWLING INFORMATION B
27634
ED ADMINISTRAT
PRINTING
2008
06/06/00
$1,065.00
SIR SPEEDY PRINT
CALENDAR PRINTING
27715
ED ADMINISTRAT
PRINTING
2099
< *>
$1,347.51*
211098
06/06/00
$100.00
SLEEPER, DAVID
VENTRILOQUIST 6 -19 -00
052600
ED ADMINISTRAT
PRO SVC OTHER
< *>
$100.00*
211099
06/06/00
$48.00
SOUTHSIDE DISTRIBUTORS
I
COST OF GOODS SOLD BE
317961
FRED RICHARDS
CST OF GDS BEE
6342
06/06/00
$1,098.45
SOUTHSIDE DISTRIBUTORS
I
COST OF GOODS SOLD BE
106627
50TH ST SELLIN
CST OF GDS BEE
06/06/00
$24.40
SOUTHSIDE DISTRIBUTORS
I
COST OF GOODS SOLD MI
106628
50TH ST SELLIN
CST OF GDS MIX
06/06/00
$3,129.60
SOUTHSIDE DISTRIBUTORS
I
COST OF GOODS SOLD BE
106631
YORK SELLING
CST OF GDS BEE
06/06/00
$61.00
SOUTHSIDE DISTRIBUTORS
I
COST OF GOODS SOLD MI
106632
YORK SELLING
CST OF GDS MIX
06/06/00
$2,979.25
SOUTHSIDE DISTRIBUTORS
I
COST OF GOODS SOLD BE
106841
50TH ST SELLIN
CST OF GDS BEE
06/06/00
$34.90
SOUTHSIDE DISTRIBUTORS
I
COST OF GOODS SOLD MI
106842
50TH ST SELLIN
CST OF GDS MIX
06/06/00
$5,811.34
SOUTHSIDE DISTRIBUTORS
I
COST OF GOODS SOLD BE
106845
YORK SELLING
CST OF GDS BEE
06/06/00
$1,338.15
SOUTHSIDE DISTRIBUTORS
I
COST OF GOODS SOLD BE
107045
50TH ST SELLIN
CST OF GDS BEE
06/06/00
$45.40
SOUTHSIDE DISTRIBUTORS
I
COST OF GOODS SOLD MI
107046
50TH ST SELLIN
CST OF GDS MIX
06/06/00
$125.70
SOUTHSIDE'DISTRIBUTORS
I
COST OF GOODS SOLD MI
107049
YORK SELLING
CST OF GDS MIX
06/06/00
$4,994.10
SOUTHSIDE DISTRIBUTORS
I
COST OF GOODS SOLD BE
107051
YORK SELLING
CST OF_GDS BEE.
< *>
$19,690.29*
211100
06106100
$98.34
SPALDING
HATS
52489518
PRO SHOP
COST OF GDS -PR
6217
06/06/00
$298.00
SPALDING
GOLF BALLS
52509145
PRO SHOP
COST OF GDS -PR
6217
< *>
$396.34*
211101
06/06/00
$998.86
SPEEDY PRINT
SCORECARDS
31448
GOLF ADMINISTR
PRINTING
6053
< *>
$998.86*
211102
06/06/00
$40.00
SPENCER, JOY
ADAPTIVE PROGRAM REFU
052600
GENERAL FD PRO
REGISTRATION F
< *>
$40.00*
211103
06/06/00
$425.00
SPOONER, ANNE
TEACHING AC
052200,
ART CENTER ADM
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$425.00*
211104
06/06/00
$157.55
SPORT - HALEY INC.
APPAREL
208791
PRO SHOP
COST OF GDS -PR
6200
06/06/00
$42.76
SPORT - HALEY INC.
MERCHANDISE
209749
PRO SHOP
COST OF GDS -PR
6200
< *>
$200.31*
211105
06/06/00
$133.04
SPS COMPANIES
SNUBBER, FLANGE, RING
3477959
WATER TREATMEN
REPAIR PARTS
1258
06/06/00
$75.23
SPS COMPANIES
SCREWS, COMPRESSION U
3483852
BUILDING MAINT
REPAIR PARTS
1189
06/06/00
$154.41
SPS COMPANIES
BRUSH, CLOTH- ANCHOR
3489601
BUILDING MAINT
REPAIR PARTS
1212
06/06/00
$13.67
SPS COMPANIES
ACETYLENE, NIPPLE
3489602
BUILDING MAINT
GENERAL SUPPLI
1215
06/06/00
$340.19
SPS COMPANIES
OPTIMA KIT, REGULATOR
3490403
STREET REVOLVI
GENERAL SUPPLI
1457
< *>
$716.54*
211106
06/06/00
$4,292.89
SRF CONSULTING GROUP INC
SIGNAL DESIGN SERVICE
3268 -13
PARKLAWN & 77T
CIP
COUNCIL
CHECK h_ -iSTER
31
-MAY -2000 (16.
, page 35
CHECK NO
DATE
CHECK AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT
PO NUM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
211106
06/06/00
$3,271.16
SRF CONSULTING GROUP INC
SIGNAL DESIGN SERVICE
3269 -9
COMPUTER & 77T
CIP
< *>
$7,564.05*
211107
06/06/00
$8.98
ST. JOSEPH EQUIPMENT CO
NUTS
SI88171
EQUIPMENT OPER
GENERAL SUPPLI
1316
< *>
$8.98*
211108
06/06/00
$79.50
ST. PAUL PLUMBING & HEAT
TOILET REPAIR
53988
FRED RICHARDS
CONTR REPAIRS
6052
< *>
$79.50*
211109
06/06/00
$307.20
STAFFING A LA CARTE
TEMP HELP
10055
GRILL
SALARIES TEMP
6040
< *>
$307.20*
211110
06/06/00
$428.28
STAN MORGAN & ASSOCIATES
LOZIER SHELVING
48518
LIQUOR YORK GE
GENERAL SUPPLI
7533
< *>
$428.28*
211111
06/06/00
$90.00
STAR OF THE NORTH CONCER
CONCERT 6 -14 -00
052600
ED ADMINISTRAT
PRO SVC OTHER
< *>
$90.00*
211112
06/06/00
$53.25
STEEL PRODUCTS & ALUMINU
TOTE BOX
13094
EQUIPMENT OPER
REPAIR PARTS
1484
< *>
$53.25*
211113
06/06/00
$60.00
STEIN, LAURA
SWIMMING LESSON REFUN
051800
GENERAL FD PRO
REGISTRATION F
< *>
$60.00*
211114
06/06/00
$243.75
STOUTEN, JAQUELINE
ARTWORK SOLD AT EAC
051900
ART CNTR PROG
SALE OF ART WO
06/06/00
$448.50
STOUTEN, JAQUELINE
ART WORK SOLD AT EAC
052500
ART CNTR PROG
SALE OF ART WO
< *>
$692.25*
211115
06/06/00
$3,610.50
STREICHERS
SAFARI & DAKOTA PREP
162552.1
FIRE DEPT. GEN
CONTR REPAIRS
3825
06/06/00
$533.15
STREICHERS
AMMUNITION
162976.1
POLICE DEPT. G
AMMUNITION
3027
06/06/00
$50.20
STREICHERS
EQUIPT. MAINTENANCE
163164.1
POLICE DEPT. G
EQUIP MAINT
3036
06/06/00
$57.90
STREICHERS
UNIFORM
149644.1
POLICE DEPT. G
UNIF ALLOW
3126
06/06/00
$175.90
STREICHERS
UNIFORMS
163600.1
POLICE DEPT. G
UNIF ALLOW
3008
06/06/00
$76.04
STREICHERS
UNIFORMS
163217.1
POLICE DEPT. G
UNIF ALLOW
3029
06/06/00
$94.95
STREICHERS
UNIFORMS
163600.2
POLICE DEPT. G
UNIF ALLOW
3008
06/06/00
$430.85
STREICHERS
EQUIPT. MAINTENANCE
166216.1
POLICE DEPT. G
EQUIP MAINT
3048
< *>
$5,029.49*
211116
06/06/00
$58.00
STROH, STEVE
REIMBURSEMENT- MEETIN
052200
POLICE DEPT. G
MEETING EXPENS
< *>
$58.00*
211117
06/06/00
$14.82
SUBURBAN CHEVROLET
HEATER
116012CV
EQUIPMENT OPER
REPAIR PARTS
1318
06/06/00
$25.61
SUBURBAN CHEVROLET
SLEEVE
116265 -1
EQUIPMENT OPER
REPAIR PARTS
1529
06/06/00
$125.40
SUBURBAN CHEVROLET
PIPE ASSEMBLY
116658CV
EQUIPMENT OPER
REPAIR PARTS
1371
06/06/00
$72.55
SUBURBAN CHEVROLET
ABSORBER
116620 -1
EQUIPMENT OPER
REPAIR PARTS
1370
06/06/00
$193.80
SUBURBAN CHEVROLET
LABOR /PARTS HOOD REPA
CVCB3718
EQUIPMENT OPER
REPAIR PARTS
1384
06/06/00
$109.27
SUBURBAN CHEVROLET
HUBCAPS
116387 -1
EQUIPMENT OPER
REPAIR PARTS
1325
< *>
$541.45*
211118
06/06/00
$46.47
SUN NEWSPAPERS
PUBLISH ORD #850 -A17
318650
ADMINISTRATION
ADVERTISING LE
06/06/00
$39.32
SUN NEWSPAPERS
PUBLISH PUBLIC HEARIN
321522
ADMINISTRATION
ADVERTISING LE
06/06/00
$138.75
SUN NEWSPAPERS
PUBLIC WORKS OPEN HOU
323915
COMMUNICATIONS
ADVERT OTHER
06/06/00
$110.00
SUN NEWSPAPERS
ADVERTISING
322340
50TH ST SELLIN
ADVERT OTHER
06/06/00
$110.00
SUN NEWSPAPERS
ADVERTISING
322340
YORK SELLING
ADVERT OTHER
06/06/00
$110.00
SUN NEWSPAPERS
ADVERTISING
322340
VERNON SELLING
ADVERT OTHER
= OUNCIL
CHECK REGISTER
31 -MAY -2000 (16:32) page 36
:HECK NO
DATE
CHECK AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT
PO NUM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<*>
$554.54*
211119
06/06/00
$820.00
SUNDIN, ROSALIE
TEACHING MEDIA CTR
052200
MEDIA LAB
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$820.00*
211120
06106100
$694.16
SWANSON'S GREAT NORTHERN
PLANTS
000415
CENTENNIAL LAK
TREES FLWR SHR
2085
06/06/00
$897.99
SWANSON'S GREAT NORTHERN
PLANTS
000467
CENTENNIAL LAK
TREES FLWR SHR
2009
< *>
$1,592.15*
211121
06/06/00
$100.00
SWANSON, HAROLD
POLICE SERVICE
060600
RESERVE PROGRA
CONTR SERVICES
< *>
$100.00*
211122
06/06/00
$18.81
TARGET
DISPLAY MATERIAL
80974
PRO SHOP
GENERAL SUPPLI
6024
06/06/00
$63.88
TARGET
SHAPE UP SUPPLIES
2- 0130 -0
CENT SVC GENER
ADVERT PERSONL
06/06/00
$159.69
TARGET
SHAPE UP SUPPLIES
2- 0130 -0
CENT SVC GENER
ADVERT PERSONL
06/06/00
$13.83
TARGET
FRAME
94491
PRO SHOP
GENERAL SUPPLI
6050
< *>
$256.21*
211123
06/06/00
$700.00
TCALMC
TRAINING FEE FOR 20 (
050400
TRAINING
CONF & SCHOOLS
< *>
$700.00*
211124
06/06/00
$542.00
TEEMASTER INC
TEE SERVICE
3507
GOLF ADMINISTR
SVC CONTR EQUI
6344
< *>
$542.00*
211125
06/06/00
$43.14
TERMINAL SUPPLY CO
FLASHERS
34026 -00
EQUIPMENT OPER
ACCESSORIES
1310
06/06/00
$63.85
TERMINAL SUPPLY CO
SHRINK TERMINALS
34711 -00
EQUIPMENT OPER
GENERAL SUPPLI
1314
< *>
$106.99*
211126
06/06/00
$374.40
THOMPSON PLUMBING
PERMIT #99005579 FEE
051500
GENERAL FD PRO
PLUMBING PERMI
< *>
$374.40*
211127
06/06/00
$402.00
THORPE DISTRIBUTING
COMP
COST OF GOODS SOLD
BE
164727
GRILL
CST OF GDS BEE
6345
.06/06/00
$1,584.95
THORPE DISTRIBUTING
COMP
COST OF GOODS SOLD
BE
192730
VERNON SELLING
CST OF GDS BEE
06/06/00
$12.10
THORPE DISTRIBUTING
COMP
COST OF GOODS SOLD
MI
192731
VERNON SELLING
CST OF GDS MIX
06/06/00
$225.00
THORPE DISTRIBUTING
COMP
COST OF GOODS SOLD
BE
193085
GRILL
CST OF GDS BEE
6345
06/06/00
$333.00
THORPE DISTRIBUTING
COMP
COST OF GOODS SOLD
BE
165192
GRILL
CST OF GDS BEE
6345
06/06/00
$2,039.05
THORPE DISTRIBUTING
COMP
COST OF GOODS SOLD
BE
193418
VERNON SELLING
CST OF GDS BEE
06/06/00
$187.15
THORPE DISTRIBUTING
COMP
COST OF GOODS SOLD
MI
193419
VERNON SELLING
CST OF GDS MIX
06/06/00
$87.50
THORPE DISTRIBUTING
COMP
BEER
193743
GRILL
CST OF GDS BEE
6345
06/06/00
$353.00
THORPE DISTRIBUTING
COMP
BEER
165864
GRILL
CST OF GDS BEE
6345
,06/06/00
$7,511.65
THORPE DISTRIBUTING
COMP
COST OF GOODS SOLD
BE
194087
VERNON SELLING
CST OF GDS BEE
06/06/00
$43.35
THORPE DISTRIBUTING
COMP
COST OF GOODS SOLD
MI
194088
VERNON SELLING
CST OF GDS MIX
< *>
$12,778.75*
211128
06/06/00
$128.98
TIGERDIRECT
NETWORK KIT
P2020716
POOL OPERATION
GENERAL SUPPLI
4753
< *>
$128.98*
211129
06/06/00
$151.34
TITLEIST
GOLF BALLS
2987641
PRO SHOP
COST OF GDS -PR
6210
06/06/00
$129.46
TITLEIST
SHOES
2999278
PRO SHOP
COST OF GDS -PR
6210
06/06/00
$2,650.68
TITLEIST
GOLF BALLS
0025273
PRO SHOP
COST OF GDS -PR
6210
< *>
$2,931.48*
211130
06/06/00
$7,000.00
TOIVONEN PAINTING
PAINTING AT MUNICIPAL
051500
POOL OPERATION
PAINT
4721
< *>
$7,000.00*
COUNCIL
CHECK ..- jISTER
31 -MAY -2000 (lb
_) page 37
CHECK NO
DATE
CHECK AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT
PO NUM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
211131
06/06/00
$89.16
TOLL GAS & WELDING SUPPL
WELDING GASES
319265
EQUIPMENT OPER
WELDING SUPPLI
1321
06/06/00
$60.95
TOLL GAS & WELDING SUPPL
WORK GLOVES
319412
PUMP & LIFT ST
GENERAL SUPPLI
1456
06/06/00
$123.85
TOLL GAS & WELDING SUPPL
WELDING GASES
320681
PUMP & LIFT ST
GENERAL SUPPLI
1377
< *>
$273.96*
211132
06/06/00
$105.46
TOP LINE CONSTR ROOFING
PLAN CK
2352
GENERAL FD PRO
BUILDING PERMI
< *>
$105.46*
211133
06/06/00
$87.75
TOTAL REGISTER
PLASTIC LABELS
9538
LIQUOR 50TH ST
GENERAL SUPPLI
< *>
$87.75*
211134
06/06/00
$822.58
TRACY /TRIPP FUELS
GASOLINE
71956
MAINT OF COURS
GASOLINE
6529
< *>
$822.58*
211135
06/06/00
$108.58
TRUGREEN - CHEMLAWN
WEED CONTROL
785487,7
FIRE DEPT. GEN
PROF SERVICES
1232
06/06/00
$53.25
TRUGREEN- CHEMLAWN
WEED CONTROL
787780
PW BUILDING
REPAIR PARTS
1233
06/06/00
$106.50
TRUGREEN- CHEMLAWN
WEED CONTROL
787781
CITY HALL GENE
WEED SPRAY
1231
06/06/00
$213.00
TRUGREEN- CHEMLAWN
WEED CONTROL
791082,7
GENERAL TURF C
WEED SPRAY
1234
06/06/00
$506.99
TRUGREEN - CHEMLAWN
WEED CONTROL
VARIOUS
GENERAL TURF C
WEED SPRAY
1234
< *>
$988.32*
211136
06/06/00
$44.20
TURNER, JASON S.
MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT
052400
CENT SVC GENER
MILEAGE
< *>
$44.20*
211137
06/06/00
$92.00
TWIN CITY OXYGEN CO
OXYGEN
543687
FIRE DEPT. GEN
FIRST AID SUPP
3700
< *>
$92.00*
211138
06/06/00
$434.79
TWIN CITY SEED CO.
GRASS SEED, CLOVER, F
2665
FIELD MAINTENA
FERTILIZER
1200
06/06/00
$664.03
TWIN CITY SEED CO.
SEED
2763
MAINT OF COURS
PLANT & TREES
6443
06/06/00
$453.16
TWIN CITY SEED CO.
FERTILIZER
2787
GENERAL TURF C
FERTILIZER
1222
06/06/00
$231.64
TWIN CITY SEED CO.
GRASS SEED
2839
GENERAL TURF C
SEED
1226
< *>
$1,783.62*
211139
06/06/00
$199.96
U.S. CAVALRY
ERT EQUIPMENT
3599359
POLICE DEPT. G
EQUIP REPLACEM
3012
06/06/00
$6.95
U.S. CAVALRY
NYLON BDU BELT
3599735
POLICE DEPT. G
UNIF ALLOW
3012
< *>
$206.91*
211140
06/06/00
$10.00
ULLRICH, CINDY
UNIFORM SHORTS REIMBU
051700
POOL TRACK GRE
LAUNDRY
< *>
$10.00*
211141
06/06/00
$1,339.98
UNIFORMS UNLIMITED
UNIFORM ALLOWANCE
043000
POLICE DEPT. G
UNIF ALLOW
06/06/00
$198.59
UNIFORMS UNLIMITED
GENERAL SUPPLIES
043000
POLICE DEPT. G
GENERAL SUPPLI
< *>
$1,538.57*
211142
06/06/00
$680.96
UNITED ELECTRIC COMPANY
ELECTRICAL D.H.
54219600
LIFT STATION M
GENERAL SUPPLI
1345
< *>
$680.96*
211143
06/06/00
$263.20
UNITED HORTICULTURAL SUP
FERTILIZER
0361984
CENTENNIAL LAK
FERTILIZER
2011
< *>
$263.20*
211144
06/06/00
$6,747.00
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA
GEESE CONTROL
NO. 01
MAINT OF COURS
PROF SERVICES
1239
< *>
$6,747.00*
211145
06/06/00
$208.00
US FILTER DISTRIBUTION G
GATE VALVE
6326434
DISTRIBUTION
REPAIR PARTS
1270
06/06/00
$127.80
US FILTER DISTRIBUTION G
CURB BOX
6360994
DISTRIBUTION
REPAIR PARTS
1464
:OUNCIL
CHECK REGISTER
31 -MAY -2000 (16:32) page 38
HECK NO
DATE
CHECK AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT
PO NUM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<*>
$335.80*
211146
06/06/00
$326.42
US FOODSERVICE INC
FOOD FOR OPEN HOUSE
699352
PW BUILDING
GENERAL SUPPLI
1478
< *>
$326.42*
211147
06/06/00
$397.53
US WEST INTERPRISE
TELEPHONE
051100
CENT SVC GENER
TELEPHONE
< *>
$397.53*
211148
06/06/00
$542.09
VAN PAPER CO.
PAPER PRODUCTS
315904
CITY HALL GENE
PAPER SUPPLIES
4747
06/06/00
$323.76
VAN PAPER CO.
BAGS
317902
YORK SELLING
PAPER SUPPLIES
7512
06/06/00
$507.24
VAN PAPER CO.
CLEANING SUPPLIES
318465
CENTENNIAL LAK
CLEANING SUPPL
2093
< *>
$1,373.09*
211149
06/06/00
$842.50
VANTAGE ELECTRIC
REPAIRS TO ELECTRICAL
16250
CENTENNIAL LAK
CONTR REPAIRS
2092
< *>
$842.50*
211150
06/06/00
$182.25
VIEWPOINT INTERNATIONAL
APPAREL
147512
PRO SHOP
COST OF GDS -PR
6434
< *>
$182.25*
211151
06/06/00
$129.23
VIKING INDUSTRIAL. CENTER
SAFETY SUPPLIES
65238
MAINT OF COURS
GENERAL SUPPLI
6454.
< *>
$129.23*
211152
06/06/00
$206.00
VINTAGE ONE WINES
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI
3766
YORK SELLING
CST OF GD WINE
06/06/00
$182.00
VINTAGE ONE WINES
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI
4222
VERNON SELLING
CST OF GD WINE
< *>
$388.00*
211153
06/06/00
$860.00
VISIONARY SYSTEMS LTD.
FIREHOUSE SUPPORT
12334
FIRE DEPT. GEN
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$860.00*
- 211154
06/06/00
$634.53
VOSS LIGHTING
FLOURESCENT BULBS
2065648-
PARKING RAMP
GENERAL SUPPLI
1343
< *>
$634.53*
211155
06/06/00
$32.00
VOTH, BART
WASTEWATER TEST REIMB
051600
TRAINING
LIC & PERMITS
< *>
$32.00*
211156
06/06/00
$413.00
WACONIA FARM SUPPLY
FISH FOOD
181145
PATHS & HARD S
GENERAL SUPPLI
1181
< *>
$413.00*
211157
06/06/00
$456.82
WAGNER, DOUGLAS
CONTINUING ED -MGIA C
051200
POLICE DEPT. G
CONF & SCHOOLS
< *>
$456.82*
211158
06/06/00
-$6.80
WALSER FORD
CREDIT RETURN
CM83067F
EQUIPMENT OPER
REPAIR PARTS
06/06/00
$9.25
WALSER FORD
HANDLE
.82937FOW
EQUIPMENT OPER
REPAIR PARTS
1296
06/06/00
$39.99
WALSER FORD
ARM'ASSEMBLY
83549FOW
EQUIPMENT OPER
REPAIR PARTS
1374
06/06/00
$22.86
WALSER FORD
HANDLE ASSEMBLY
83553FOW
EQUIPMENT OPER
REPAIR PARTS
1375
06/06/00
$156.66
WALSER -FORD
CYLINDER & PRESS CO
83624FOW
EQUIPMENT OPER
REPAIR PARTS
1496
< *>
$221.96*
211159
06/06/00
$100.00
WALSH, WILLIAM
POLICE SERVICE
060600
RESERVE PROGRA
CONTR SERVICES
< *>
$100.00*
-
211160
06/06/00
$874.04
WARNING LITES
NEON HATS
34723
GENERAL MAINT
SAFETY EQUIPME
1545
< *>
$874.04*
211161
06/06/00
$291.85
WEIGLE, SUE
MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT
052300
PARK ADMIN.
MILEAGE
COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER
31 -MAY -2000 (16..,1) page 39
CHECK NO
DATE
CHECK AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT
PO NUM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<*>
06/06/00
$291.85*
WINE
COMPANY,
THE
06/06/00
$324.75
WINE
211162
06/06/00
$648.00
WENZEL, KENNETH
TEACHING AC
052200
ART CENTER ADM
PROF SERVICES
$762.65
< *>
COMPANY,
$648.00*
06/06/00
$256.05
WINE
COMPANY,
THE
06/06/00
211163
06/06/00
$204.72
WEST WELD SUPPLY CO.
NOZZLES, BLADES, BITS
31500
EQUIPMENT OPER
ACCESSORIES
1451
06/06/00
06/06/00
$363.66
WEST WELD SUPPLY CO.
PIPE CAPS, COUPLINGS,
31653
PUMP & LIFT ST
GENERAL SUPPLI
1487
< *>
< *>
$568.38*
211164
06/06/00
$143.68
WESTSIDE EQUIPMENT
ELECTRONIC SERVICE
0005514-
PW BUILDING
GENERAL SUPPLI
1540
06/06/00
$65.00
WESTSIDE EQUIPMENT
ELECTRONIC SERVICE TE
0005551-
PW BUILDING
GENERAL SUPPLI
1554
< *>
$208.68*
211165
06/06/00
$250.00
WHALEY MARKETING COMMUNI
AD
B -00 -1
GOLF DOME
ADVERT OTHER
< *>
$250.00*
211166
06/06/00
$87.99
WILLIAMS STEEL & HARDWAR
SPRAY PAINTS
913708 -0
GENERAL MAINT
GENERAL SUPPLI
1453
< *>
$87.99*
211167
06/06/00
$1,429.20
WILSON SPORTING GOODS CO
GOLF BALLS
2304197
PRO SHOP
COST OF GDS -PR
6209
06/06/00
$119.70
WILSON SPORTING GOODS CO
GOLF BALLS
2304198
PRO SHOP
COST OF GDS -PR
6209
< *>
$1,548.90*
211168 06/06/00
- $11.67
WINE
COMPANY,
THE
06/06/00
- $35.66
WINE
COMPANY,
THE
06/06/00
$935.40.
WINE
COMPANY,
THE
06/06/00
$324.75
WINE
COMPANY,
THE
06/06/00
$521.70
WINE
COMPANY,
THE
06/06/00
$762.65
WINE
COMPANY,
THE
06/06/00
$256.05
WINE
COMPANY,
THE
06/06/00
$473.70
WINE
COMPANY,
THE
06/06/00
$971.60
WINE
COMPANY,
THE
06/06/00
$2,222.85
WINE
COMPANY,
THE
06/06/00
$1,072.55
WINE
COMPANY,
THE
< *>
$7,493.92*
211170 06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
- $33.79
- $28.37
- $67.85
- $58.69
- $58.69
$120.69
$107.69
$938.31
-$7.39
$538.44
$769.29
$421.00
$415.57
$290.38
$3,346.59*
WINE MERCHANTS
WINE MERCHANTS
WINE MERCHANTS
WINE MERCHANTS
WINE MERCHANTS
WINE MERCHANTS
WINE MERCHANTS
WINE MERCHANTS
WINE MERCHANTS
WINE MERCHANTS
WINE MERCHANTS
WINE MERCHANTS
WINE MERCHANTS
WINE MERCHANTS
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI 039087
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI 039088
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI 039353
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI 039542
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI 039574
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI 039575
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI 039956
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI 039957
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI 039959
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI 040324
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI 040351
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI 10366
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI 10367
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI 10368
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI 10370
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI 10421
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI 29112
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI 29113
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI 29114
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI 10446
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI 29349
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI 29350
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI 29351
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI 29617
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI 29618
VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE
50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE
5DTH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE
VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE
50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE
YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE
VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE
50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE
YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE
50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE
YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE
VERNON•SELLING CST OF GD WINE
50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE
YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE
VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE
YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE
50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE
YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE
VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE
VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE
50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE
YORK SELLING. CST OF GD WINE
VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE
50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE
YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE
211171 06/06/00 $92.60 WINSTAR BROADBAND SERVIC COP GRANT - CDPD 231775 COPS MORE GRAN EQUIP REPLACEM
< *> $92.60*
= OUNCIL
CHECK REGISTER
31 -MAY -2000 (16:32)_ page 40
HECK NO
DATE
CHECK AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT
PO NUM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------=---------------------------
211172
06/06/00
$38.43
WITTEK GOLF
SUPPLY
SIGN
W55091
CENTENNIAL LAK
GENERAL SUPPLI
2007
06/06/00
$96.37
WITTEK GOLF
SUPPLY
TEE MARKERS
W55872
CENTENNIAL LAK
GENERAL SUPPLI
2007
06/06/00
$385.80
WITTEK GOLF
SUPPLY
CUPS AND PENCILS
W56132
CENTENNIAL LAK
GENERAL SUPPLI
2007
06/06/00
$1,950.00
WITTEK GOLF
SUPPLY
BALL PICKER
W57760
RANGE
GENERAL SUPPLI
6438
06/06/00
$1,675.30
WITTEK GOLF
SUPPLY
REPAIR PARTS
W57760
RANGE
REPAIR PARTS
6438
< *>
$4,145.90*
211173
06/06/00
$84.00
WITTSTRUCK,
MARTHA
TEACHING AC
052200
ART,CENTER ADM
PROF SERVICES.
< *>
$84.00*
211174
06/06/00
$315.90
WORLD CLASS
WINES INC
COST OF GOODS SOLD
WI
93382
VERNON SELLING
CST OF GD WINE
06/06/00
$419.00
WORLD CLASS
WINES INC
COST OF GOODS SOLD
WI
93384
YORK SELLING
CST OF GD WINE
06/06/00
$154.90
WORLD CLASS
WINES INC
COST -OF GOODS SOLD
WI
93663
VERNON SELLING
CST OF GD WINE
06/06/00
$385.50
WORLD CLASS
WINES INC
COST OF GOODS SOLD
WI
93481
50TH ST SELLIN
CST OF GD WINE
06/06/00
$614.36
WORLD CLASS
WINES INC
COST OF GOODS SOLD
WI
93659
YORK SELLING
CST OF GD WINE
06/06/00
$1,092.70
WORLD CLASS
WINES INC
COST OF GOODS SOLD
WI
93705
50TH ST SELLIN
CST OF GD WINE
06/06/00
$1,132.90
WORLD CLASS
WINES INC
COST OF GOODS SOLD
WI
93877
YORK SELLING
CST OF GD WINE
< *>
$4,115.26*
211175
06/06/00
$97.35
WORLDPOINT ECC INC_.
CPR SUPPLIES
27468
GOLF ADMINISTR
SAFETY EQUIPME
6014
< *>
$97.35*
211176
06/06/00
$100.00
WROBLESKI, HENRY
POLICE SERVICE
060600
RESERVE PROGRA
CONTR SERVICES
< *>
$100.00*
211177
06/06/00
$745.00
XEROX CORPORATION
MONTHLY BASE COPIER
07515027
CENT SVC GENER
GENERAL SUPPLI
3413
< *>
$745.00*
211178
06/06/00
$65.03
ZEE MEDICAL
SERVICE
FIRST AID SUPPLIES
54065655
MAINT OF COURS
GENERAL SUPPLI
6467
06/06/00
$145.37
ZEE MEDICAL
SERVICE
SAFETY SUPPLIES
54065656
ARENA ADMINIST
SAFETY EQUIPME
8021
06/06/00
$84.89
ZEE MEDICAL
SERVICE
DRUG SUPPLIES
54163648
CITY HALL GENE
GENERAL SUPPLI
4771.
06/06/00
$91.60
ZEE MEDICAL
SERVICE
FIRST AID
54065673
CLUB HOUSE
SAFETY EQUIPME
< *>
$386.89*
211179
06/06/00
$357.00.
ZINN, BOBO
TEACHING AC
052200
ART,CENTER ADM
PROF SERVICES
06/06/00
$178.28
ZINN, BOBO
CRAFT SUPPLIES
052200
ART;CENTER ADM
CRAFT SUPPLIES
< *>
$535.28*
$1,319,101.48*
I
COUNCIL
CHECK ,-.,,MARY
31 -MAY -2000 (1, o) page 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FUND
#
10
GENERAL FUND
$314,921.00
FUND
#
11
COMMUNITY DEVELP. BLOCK GR
$1,000.00
FUND
#
12
COMMUNICATIONS
$503.94
FUND
#
15
WORKING CAPITAL
$3,253.79 -
FUND
#
23
ART CENTER
$14,053.49
FUND
#
25
GOLF DOME FUND
$800.00
FUND
#
26
SWIMMING POOL FUND
$22,302.46
FUND
#
27
GOLF COURSE FUND
$70,555.77
FUND
#
28
ICE ARENA FUND
$3,010.42
FUND
#
30
EDINBOROUGH /CENTENNIAL LAK
$20,167.98
FUND
#
40
UTILITY FUND
$367,767.31
FUND
#
41
STORM SEWER UTILITY FUND
$7,167.13
FUND
#
50
LIQUOR DISPENSARY FUND
$346,851.15
FUND
#
60
CONSTRUCTION FUND
$145,147.04
FUND
#
66
IMP BOND REDEMPTION #2
$1,600.00
$1,319,101.48*
COUNCIL
CHECK h_ -ISTER
01 -JUN -2000 (10 page 1
HECK NO
CHECK DT
CHECK AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT PO NUM.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
208467
05/09/00
$54.22
US WEST COMMUNICATIONS
TELEPHONE
4/25/00
DARE
TELEPHONE
05/09/00
$2,811.48
US WEST COMMUNICATIONS
TELEPHONE
4/25/00
CENT SVC GENER
TELEPHONE
05/09/00
$54.36
US WEST COMMUNICATIONS
TELEPHONE
4/25/00
PUMP & LIFT ST
TELEPHONE
05/09/00
$452.41
US WEST COMMUNICATIONS
TELEPHONE
4/28/00
ARENA BLDG /GRO
TELEPHONE
< *>
$3,372.47*
208468
05/09/00
$939.96
WELSH COMPANIES INC
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
5/2/00
YORK OCCUPANCY
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$939.96*
208469
05/12/00
$210,000.00
CITY OF EDINA
PAYROLL TRANSFER
51200
LIQUOR PROG
CASH
05/12/00
- $210,000.00
CITY OF EDINA
PAYROLL TRANSFER
51200
LIQUOR PROG
CASH
< *>
$0.00*
208470
05/26/00
$228,000.00
CITY OF EDINA
PAYROLL TRANSFER
52600
LIQUOR PROG
CASH
05/26/00
- $228,000.00
CITY OF EDINA
PAYROLL TRANSFER
52600
LIQUOR PROG
CASH
< *>
$0.00*
210194
05/01/00
$150.00
ARS SOLUTIONS LTD.
SOFTWARE WORKSHOP
9123
LIQUOR 50TH ST
CONF & SCHOOLS
05/01/00
$150.00
ARS SOLUTIONS LTD.
SOFTWARE WORKSHOP
9123
LIQUOR YORK GE
CONF & SCHOOLS
< *>
$300.00*
210195
05/01/00
$12.84
AT &T
TELEPHONE
041200
BUILDING MAINT
TELEPHONE
< *>
$12.84*
210196
05/01/00
$9.87
AT &T
LONG DISTANCE
041800
ADMINISTRATION
TELEPHONE
< *>
$9.87*
210197
05/01/00
$100.00
BROM, BECKY
PUPPET SHOW 5 -2 -00
042500
ED ADMINISTRAT
PRO SVC OTHER
< *>
$100.00*
21019.8
05/01/00
$175.00
DAKOTA COUNTY TECH COLL
CONTINUING ED - OSHA
041200
POLICE DEPT. G
CONF & SCHOOLS
< *>
$175.00*
210199
05/01/00
$100.00
DARRELL, BETTE
THE NEIGHBORHOOD GANG
042500
ED ADMINISTRAT
PRO SVC OTHER
< *>
$100.00*
210200
05/01/00
$700.00
FBI /LEEDS
CONTINUING ED
042600
POLICE DEPT. G
CONF & SCHOOLS
< *>
$700.00*
210201
05/01/00
$50.00
GOLDEN VALLEY ORCHESTRA
CONCERT 5 -7 -00
042500
ED ADMINISTRAT
PRO SVC OTHER
< *>
$50.00*
210202
05/01/00
$40.00
HANLY, WILLIAM
PEST APPLICATION STUD
042800
FIELD MAINTENA
GENERAL SUPPLI
< *>
$40.00*
210203
05/01/00
$40.00
JEUB, PATTI
ART DEMO 5 -11 -00
042500
ED ADMINISTRAT
PRO SVC OTHER_
< *>
$40.00*
210204
05/01/00
$80.00
JUST FRIENDS BIG BAND
CONCERT 5 -4 -00
042500
ED ADMINISTRAT
PRO SVC OTHER
< *>
$80.00*
210205
05/01/00
$209.05
MCAA
CRIMINAL ELEMENTS HAN
041300
POLICE DEPT. G
BOOKS & PAMPHL
< *>
$209.05*
210206
05/01/00
$150.00
MINNESOTA ASSOC OF WOME
CONTINUING ED
200114
POLICE DEPT. G
CONF & SCHOOLS
COUNCIL
CHECK REGISTER
01 -JUN -2000 (10:27) page 2
CHECK NO
CHECK DT
CHECK AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT PO NUM.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------_----------------------------------------------
<*>
$150.00*
210207
05/01/00
$291.05
MINNESOTA BOOKSTORE
CONTINUING ED (STATUT
041200
POLICE DEPT. G
BOOKS & PAMPHL
< *>
$291.05*
210208
'05/01/00
$90.00
MN P.O.S.T.
LICENSE FEE (JASON BE
042400
POLICE DEPT. G
LIC & PERMITS
< *>
$90.00*
210209
05/01/00
$75.00
NORTHERN WINDS CONCERT
CONCERT 5 -14 -00
042500
ED ADMINISTRAT
PRO SVC OTHER
< *>
$75.00*
210210
05/01/00
$2,439.91
PERA
RETRO PAYROLL FOR LOC
042700
GENERAL FD PRO
P.E.R.A. PAYAB
< *>
$2,439.91*
210211
05/01/00
$19.62
PERA
PERA CONTRIBUTION
043000
GENERAL FD PRO
P.E.R.A. PAYAB
< *>
$19.62*
210212
05/01/00
$62,685.67
PERA
PERA CONTRIBUTION
04/30
GENERAL FD PRO
P.E.R.A. PAYAB
< *>
$62,685.67*
210214
05/01/00
- $65.00
QUALITY
WINE
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI
825843 -0
YORK SELLING
CST OF GD WINE
05/01/00
- $38.52
QUALITY
WINE
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI
827216 -0
YORK SELLING
CST OF GD WINE
05/01/00
- $102.73
QUALITY
WINE
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI
827894 -0
50TH ST SELLIN
CST OF GD WINE
05/01/00
$2,732.02
QUALITY
WINE
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI
828876 -0
YORK SELLING
CST OF GD WINE
05/01/00
- $27.00
QUALITY
WINE
TRADE DISCOUNTS
828876 -0
YORK SELLING
TRADE DISCOUNT
05/01/00
$1,572.07
QUALITY
WINE
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI
828909 -0
50TH ST SELLIN
CST OF GD WINE
05/01/00
- $15.58
QUALITY
WINE
TRADE DISCOUNTS
828909 -0
50TH ST SELLIN
TRADE DISCOUNT
05/01/00
$4,372.30-
QUALITY
WINE
COST OF GOODS SOLD WI
828910 -0
VERNON SELLING
CST OF GD WINE
05/01/00
- $43.24
QUALITY
WINE
TRADE DISCOUNTS
828910 -0
VERNON SELLING
TRADE DISCOUNT
05/01/00
$4,708.20
QUALITY
WINE
COST OF GOODS SOLD LI
829141 -0
YORK SELLING
CST OF GD LIQU
05/01/00
- $93.65
QUALITY
WINE
TRADE DISCOUNTS
829141 -0
YORK SELLING
TRADE DISCOUNT
05/01/00
$1,346.77
QUALITY
WINE
COST OF GOODS SOLD LI
829175 -0
50TH ST SELLIN
CST OF GD LIQU
05/01/00
- $26.73
QUALITY
WINE
TRADE DISCOUNTS
829175 -0
50TH ST SELLIN
TRADE DISCOUNT
05/01/00
$3,935.07
QUALITY
WINE
COST OF GOODS SOLD LI
829176 -0
YORK SELLING
CST OF GD LIQU
05/01/00
- $78.09
QUALITY
WINE
TRADE DISCOUNTS
829176 -0
YORK SELLING
TRADE DISCOUNT
05/01/00
$2,291.35
QUALITY
WINE
COST OF GOODS SOLD LI
829179 -0
VERNON SELLING
CST OF GD LIQU
05/01/00
- $45.52
QUALITY
WINE
TRADE DISCOUNTS
829179 -0
VERNON SELLING
TRADE DISCOUNT
< *>
$20,421.72*
210215
05/01/00
$100.00
RYDELL,
BETTY
CONCERT 5 -11 -00
042500
ED ADMINISTRAT
PRO SVC OTHER
< *>
$100.00*
210216
05/01/00
$309.71
SAM'S CLUB DIRECT COMME
WASHER, PLATES, MISC
041900
PW BUILDING
GENERAL SUPPLI
< *>
$309.71*
210217
05/01/00
$35.00
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINIS
BACKGROUND INVESTIGAT
042600
POLICE DEPT. G
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$35.00*
210218
05/01/00
$35.00
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINIS
BACKGROUND INVESTIGAT
04/26
POLICE DEPT. G
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$35.00*
210219
05/01/00
$100.00
STROH, STEVE
RACE FOR THE CURE SUP
042600
CONTINGENCIES
GENERAL SUPPLI
< *>
$100.00*
210220
05/01/00
$226.04
U S BANCORP
SAFETY DAY PIZZA LUNC
042000
GENERAL MAINT
SAFETY EQUIPME
COUNCIL
CHECK i,_-ASTER
01 -JUN -2000 (1u i) page 3
CHECK NO
CHECK DT
CHECK AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT PO NUM.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
210220
05/01/00
$100.00
U S BANCORP
SAFETY DAY PIZZA LUNC
042000
BUILDING MAINT
SAFETY EQUIPME
05/01/00
$100.00
U S BANCORP
SAFETY DAY PIZZA LUNC
042000
PUMP & LIFT ST
SAFETY EQUIPME
05/01/00
$50.00
U S BANCORP
SAFETY DAY PIZZA LUNC
042000
EQUIPMENT OPER
SAFETY EQUIPME
< *>
$476.04*
210221
05/01/00
$4,000.00
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE
POSTAGE ACCT# 75983
042600
CENT SVC GENER
POSTAGE
< *>
$4,000.00*
210222
05/01/00
$82.48
US WEST COMMUNICATIONS
TELEPHONE
04 -16
YORK FIRE STAT
TELEPHONE
05/01/00
$54.22
US WEST COMMUNICATIONS
TELEPHONE
04/16
BUILDING MAINT
TELEPHONE
05/01/00
$68.85
US WEST COMMUNICATIONS
TELEPHONE
041600
CLUB HOUSE
TELEPHONE
05/01/00
$59.48
US WEST COMMUNICATIONS
TELEPHONE
04/19
SKATING & HOCK
TELEPHONE
05/01/00
$58.67
US WEST COMMUNICATIONS
TELEPHONE
041900
CENT SVC GENER
TELEPHONE
05/01/00
$57.86
US WEST COMMUNICATIONS
TELEPHONE
042200
PUMP & LIFT ST
TELEPHONE
< *>
$381.56*
210223
05/01/00
$1.80
US WEST COMMUNICATIONS
US WEST PIN
CNA20088
POLICE DEPT. G
TELEPHONE 3019
< *>
$1.80*
210224
05/01/00
$100.00
VICE, GARY
JUGGLER 5 -4 -00
042500
ED ADMINISTRAT
PRO SVC OTHER
< *>
$100.00*
210225
05/01/00
$150.00
WAHLSTROM, LIZA
ART CLASS REFUND
042700
ART CNTR PROG
DONATIONS
< *>
$150.00*
210226
05/08/00
$461.60
VERIZON WIRELESS BELLEV
TELEPHONE
04/10/00
PATROL
TELEPHONE
05/08/00
$278.88
VERIZON WIRELESS BELLEV
TELEPHONE
04/10/00
INVESTIGATION
TELEPHONE
05/08/00
$33.33
VERIZON WIRELESS BELLEV
GENERAL SUPPLIES
04/10/00
ANIMAL CONTROL
GENERAL SUPPLI
05/08/00
$406.29
VERIZON WIRELESS BELLEV
EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT
04/10/00
POLICE DEPT. G
EQUIP REPLACEM
05/08/00
$28.25
VERIZON WIRELESS BELLEV
TELEPHONE
04/20/00
ED ADMINISTRAT
TELEPHONE
< *>
$1,208.35*
210227
05/08/00
$294.00
AT &T WIRELESS SERVICES
EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT
04/24/00
COPS MORE GRAN
EQUIP REPLACEM
< *>
$294.00*
210228
05/08/00
$11.83
AT &T WIRELESS
TELEPHONE
04/18/00
CLUB HOUSE
TELEPHONE
< *>
$11.83*
210229
05/08/00
$225.00
MILE
ELECTION SEMINAR 5/11
05/08/00
ELECTION
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$225.00*
210230
05/08/00
$114.94
OFFICEMAX CREDIT PLAN
GENERAL SUPPLIES
STMT 04/
ED ADMINISTRAT
GENERAL SUPPLI
05/08/00
$36.20
OFFICEMAX CREDIT PLAN
COMMODITIES
STMT 04/
COMMUNICATIONS
COMMODITIES
05/08/00
$276.88
OFFICEMAX CREDIT PLAN
FIRST AID SUPPLIES
STMT 04/
ED ADMINISTRAT
OFFICE SUPPLIE
05/08/00
$30.88
OFFICEMAX CREDIT PLAN
GENERAL SUPPLIES
STMT 04/
POOL TRACK GRE
GENERAL SUPPLI
05/08/00
$28.75
OFFICEMAX CREDIT PLAN
OFFICE SUPPLIES
STMT 04/
FIRE DEPT. GEN
OFFICE SUPPLIE
< *>
$487.65*
210231
05/08/00
$422.56
PAGENET
EQUIPMENT RENTAL
00016680
POLICE DEPT. G
EQUIP RENTAL
< *>
$422.56*
210232
05/08/00
$280.00
POSTMASTER
NEWSLETTER
05/05/00
CENT SVC GENER
POSTAGE
< *>
$280.00*
210233
05/08/00
$300.00
RAMSEY COUNTY SHERIFF'S
WARRANT
05/05/00
GENERAL FD PRO
DUE TO OTHR GO
COUNCIL
CHECK REGISTER
01 -JUN -2000 (10:27) page 4
CHECK NO
CHECK DT
CHECK AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT
PO NUM.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<*>
$300.00*
210234
05/08/00
$313.83
SAM'S CLUB DIRECT COMME
CHAIRS -TAPES
05/03/00
EQUIPMENT OPER
GENERAL SUPPLI
, < *>
$313.83*
210235
05/08/00
$21.29
U S BANCORP
PHONE ADAPTER
05/04/00
FIRE DEPT. GEN
GENERAL SUPPLI
< *>
$21.29*
210236
05/08/00
$4,000.00 -
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE
POSTAGE ACCT #75985
05/08/00
CENT SVC GENER
POSTAGE
< *>
$4,000.00*
210238
05/08/00
$9.00
US WEST COMMUNICATIONS
TELEPHONE
CNA90230
POLICE DEPT. G
TELEPHONE
< *>
$9.00*
210646
05/15/00
$150.00
DAKOTA COUNTY SHERIFFS
OUT OF COUNTY WARRANT
051500
GENERAL FD PRO
DUE TO OTHR GO
< *>
$150.00*
210647
05/15/00
$600.00
GAP
UNIFORMS
051200
POOL CONCESSIO
LAUNDRY
7099
05/15/00
$794.20
GAP
UNIFORMS
051200
POOL OPERATION
LAUNDRY
< *>
$1,394.20*
210648
05/15/00
$2,551.38
GE CAPITAL ITS
EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT
90727796
MEDIA LAB
EQUIP REPLACEM
4606
05/15/00
$1,335.48
GE CAPITAL ITS
COMPUTER
90753453
HEALTH ALERT N
EQUIP REPLACEM
4677
05/15/00
$1,335.48
GE CAPITAL ITS
COMPUTER
90753453
COMMUNICATIONS
EQUIP REPLACEM
4677
05/15/00
$1,335.47
GE CAPITAL ITS
COMPUTER
90753453
FIRE DEPT. GEN
OFFICE SUPPLIE
4677 .
< *>
$6,557.81*
210649
05/15/00
$48.75
GRAUSAM, STEVE
MILEAGE (WORKSHOP -ST.
0512
LIQUOR YORK GE
MILEAGE
05/15/00
$30.82
GRAUSAM, STEVE
CELL PHONE REIMBURSEM
051200
YORK OCCUPANCY
TELEPHONE
< *>
$79.57*
210650
05/15/00
$500,000.00
HRA /CITY OF EDINA
FUND HRA
050800
GENERAL FD PRO
DUE FROM HRA
< *>
$500,000.00*
210651
05/15/00
$47.87
KINKO'S
FLYERS, SIGNS
06220003
PW BUILDING
GENERAL SUPPLI
1077
< *>
$47.87*
210654
05/15/00
$32,699.36
NSP
LIGHT & POWER
052200
ST LIGHTING RE
LIGHT & POWER
05/15/00
$26.66
NSP
LIGHT & POWER
052200
ST LIGHTING OR
LIGHT& POWER
05/15/00
$4,578.36
NSP
LIGHT &'POWER
052200
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
LIGHT & POWER
05/15/00
$3,044.18
NSP
LIGHT & POWER
052200
PARKING RAMP
LIGHT & POWER
05/15/00
$607.64
NSP
LIGHT & POWER
052200
FIRE DEPT. GEN
LIGHT & POWER
05/15/00
$126.38
NSP
LIGHT & POWER
052200
YORK FIRE STAT
LIGHT & POWER
05/15/00
$52.76
NSP
LIGHT & POWER
052200
CIVIL DEFENSE
LIGHT & POWER
05/15/00
$1,932.01
NSP
LIGHT & POWER
052200
CITY HALL GENE
LIGHT & POWER
05/15/00
$3,464.54
NSP
LIGHT & POWER
052200
PW BUILDING
LIGHT & POWER
05/15/00
$5;729.43
NSP
LIGHT & POWER
052200
BUILDING MAINT
LIGHT & POWER
05/15/00
$4,093.63
NSP
LIGHT & POWER
052200
CLUB HOUSE
LIGHT & POWER
05/15/00
$529.54
NSP
LIGHT & POWER
052200
MAINT OF COURS
LIGHT & POWER
05/15/00
$418.30
NSP
LIGHT & POWER
052200
FRED RICHARDS
LIGHT & POWER
05/15/00
$1,042.82
NSP
LIGHT-& POWER
052200
GOLF DOME
LIGHT & POWER
05/15/00
$477.94
NSP
LIGHT & POWER.
052200
POOL OPERATION
LIGHT & POWER
05/15/00
$14,440.08
NSP
LIGHT & POWER
052200
ARENA BLDG /GRO
LIGHT & POWER
05/15/00
$945.44
NSP
LIGHT & POWER
052200
ART CENTER BLD
LIGHT & POWER
05/15/00
$678.30
NSP
LIGHT & POWER
052200
CENTENNIAL LAK
LIGHT & POWER
01 -JUN -2000 (10:-x) page 5
:OUNCIL
CHECK REGISTER
:HECK NO
CHECK DT
CHECK AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT
PO NUM.
•----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
210654
05/15/00
.$2,516.20
NSP
LIGHT & POWER
052200
PUMP & LIFT ST
LIGHT & POWER
05/15/00
$17,099.16
NSP
LIGHT & POWER
052200
DISTRIBUTION
LIGHT & POWER
05/15/00
$44.61
NSP
LIGHT & POWER
052200
TANKS TOWERS &
LIGHT & POWER
05/15/00
$843.00
NSP
LIGHT & POWER
052200
50TH ST OCCUPA
LIGHT & POWER
05/15/00
$1,257.61
NSP
LIGHT & POWER
052200
YORK OCCUPANCY
LIGHT & POWER
05/15/00
$671.70
NSP
LIGHT & POWER
052200
VERNON OCCUPAN
LIGHT & POWER
05/15/00
$217.70
NSP
LIGHT & POWER
052200
GENERAL STORM
LIGHT & POWER
05/15/00
$172.04
NSP
LIGHT & POWER
052200
PONDS & LAKES
LIGHT & POWER
05/15/00
$157.41
NSP
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
052200
2000 AQUATIC W
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$97,866.80*
210655
05/15/00
$62,697.62
PERA
PERA CONTRIBUTIONS
051500
GENERAL FD PRO
P.E.R.A. PAYAB
< *>
$62,697.62*
210656
05/15/00
$19.62
PERA
PERA CONTRIBUTIONS
0515
GENERAL FD PRO
P.E.R.A. PAYAB
< *>
$19.62*
210657
05/15/00
$155.10
TKDA ENGINEERS ARCHITEC
LIFT STATION DESIGN
045060
LIFT STATION
CIP
< *>
$155.10*
210658
05/15/00
$165.95
U S BANCORP
PURCHASE FROM UNION L
051100
FIRE DEPT. GEN
UNIF ALLOW
05/15/00
$5.23
U S BANCORP
SHIPPING
051100
FIRE DEPT. GEN
UNIF ALLOW
< *>
$171.18*
210659
05/15/00
$994.98
US WEST COMMUNICATIONS
TELEPHONE
050400
GENERAL STORM
TELEPHONE
05/15/00
$150.08
US WEST COMMUNICATIONS
TELEPHONE
050400
SKATING & HOCK
TELEPHONE
05/15/00
$110.76
US WEST COMMUNICATIONS
TELEPHONE
050400
BUILDING MAINT
TELEPHONE
05/15/00
$82.48
US WEST COMMUNICATIONS
TELEPHONE
050400
YORK FIRE STAT
TELEPHONE
05/15/00
$255.72
US WEST COMMUNICATIONS
TELEPHONE
050400
PUMP & LIFT ST
TELEPHONE
05/15/00
$1,866.73
US WEST COMMUNICATIONS
TELEPHONE
050400
CENT SVC GENER
TELEPHONE
< *>
$3,460.75*
210660
05/22/00
$96.28
AMERIPRIDE LINEN & APPA
LAUNDRY
APR 30
50TH ST OCCUPA
LAUNDRY
05/22/00
$223.54
AMERIPRIDE LINEN & APPA
LAUNDRY
APR. 30
FIRE DEPT. GEN
LAUNDRY
05/22/00
$88.83
AMERIPRIDE LINEN & APPA
LAUNDRY
APRIL 30
VERNON SELLING
LAUNDRY
< *>
$408.65*
210661
05/22/00
$8.65
ARCH PAGING
PAGER FOR VINCE
050100
PARK MAINTENAN
TELEPHONE
1238
< *>
$8.65*
210662
05/22/00
$58.14
BACHMAN'S
COUPLINGS, HERBICIDE
041900
POOL TRACK GRE
GENERAL SUPPLI
2244
< *>
$58.14*
210663
05/22/00
$744.44
BRAEMAR PRINTING
ARTWORK, PAPER
53767
GOLF ADMINISTR
PRINTING
6487
< *>
$744.44*
210664
05/22/00
$225.00
CISM
CONTINUING ED
051800
POLICE DEPT. G
CONF & SCHOOLS
< *>
$225.00*
210665
05/22/00
$109.34
DAVE'S DAIRY DELIVERY
DAIRY
043000
GRILL
COST OF GD SOL
6328
< *>
$109.34*
210666
05/22/00
$6,090.00
DELTA DENTAL
PREMIUMS FOR 6/00 COV
051600
CENT SVC GENER
HOSPITALIZATIO
< *>
$6,090.00*
COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER
01 -JUN -2000 (10:27) page 6
CHECK NO
CHECK DT
CHECK AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT PO NUM.
-------------=----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
210667
05/22/00
$405.20
GLOBAL CROSSING TELECOM
TELEPHONE
051400
CENT SVC GENER
TELEPHONE
< *>
$405.20*
210669
05/22/00
$8.81
JERRY'S
HARDWARE
GENERAL SUPPLIES
043000
ENGINEERING GE
GENERAL SUPPLI
05/22/00
$245.80
JERRY'S
HARDWARE
GENERAL SUPPLIES
043000
GENERAL MAINT.
GENERAL SUPPLI
05/22/00
$3.90
JERRY'S
HARDWARE
GENERAL SUPPLIES
043000
ST LIGHTING OR
GENERAL SUPPLI
05/22/00
$23.48
JERRY'S
HARDWARE
GENERAL SUPPLIES
043000
STREET NAME SI
GENERAL SUPPLI
05/22/00
$30.81
JERRY'S
HARDWARE
GENERAL SUPPLIES
043000
STREET REVOLVI
GENERAL SUPPLI
05/22/00
$98.78
JERRY'S
HARDWARE
GENERAL SUPPLIES
043000
POLICE DEPT. G
GENERAL SUPPLI
05/22/00
$112.99
JERRY'S
HARDWARE
GENERAL SUPPLIES
043000
FIRE DEPT. GEN
GENERAL SUPPLI
05/22/00
$74.29
JERRY'S
HARDWARE
GENERAL SUPPLIES
043000.
PW BUILDING
GENERAL SUPPLI
05/22/00
$35.15
JERRY'S
HARDWARE
GENERAL SUPPLIES
043000
EQUIPMENT OPER
GENERAL SUPPLI
05/22/00
$355.32
JERRY'S
HARDWARE
GENERAL SUPPLIES
043000
BUILDING MAINT
GENERAL SUPPLI
05/22/00
$317.35
JERRY'S.HARDWARE
GENERAL SUPPLIES
043000
GOLF ADMINISTR
GENERAL SUPPLI .
05/22/00
$74.65
JERRY'S
HARDWARE
"GENERAL SUPPLIES
043000
RICHARDS MAINT
GENERAL SUPPLI
05/22/00
$101.78
JERRY'S
HARDWARE
GENERAL SUPPLIES
043000
POOL OPERATION
GENERAL SUPPLI
05/22/00
$51.93
JERRY'S
HARDWARE
GENERAL SUPPLIES
043000
ARENA ICE MAIN
GENERAL SUPPLI
05/22/00
$444.38
JERRY'S
HARDWARE
GENERAL SUPPLIES
043000
ED BUILDING &
GENERAL SUPPLI
05/22/00
$69.24
JERRY'S
HARDWARE
GENERAL SUPPLIES
043000
PUMP & LIFT ST
GENERAL SUPPLI
05/22/00
$3.83
JERRY'S
HARDWARE
GENERAL SUPPLIES
043000
YORK OCCUPANCY
GENERAL SUPPLI
05/22/00
$0.98
JERRY'S
HARDWARE
GENERAL SUPPLIES
043000
ART CENTER BLD
GENERAL SUPPLI
< *>
$2,053.47*
210670
05/22/00
$1,645.27
LANTZ LAUGHLIN UPHOLSTE
REUPHOLSTER KITCHEN C
042400
FIRE DEPT. GEN
CONTR REPAIRS 3819
< *>
$1,645.27*
210671
05/22/00
$75,327.11
MEDICA
HIGH OPTION
10015310
CENT SVC GENER
HOSPITALIZATIO
< *>
$75,327.11*
210672
05/22/00
$22,672.94
MEDICA
ELECT OPTION
10015312
CENT SVC GENER
HOSPITALIZATIO
< *>
$22,672.94*
210673
05/22/00
$6,440.86
MEDICA
LOW OPTION
10015312
CENT SVC GENER
HOSPITALIZATIO
< *>
$6,440.86*
210674
05/22/00
$8,957.52
MINNEAPOLIS FINANCE DEP
WATER PURCHASE
051000
DISTRIBUTION
WATER PURCHASE
< *>
$8,957.52*
210675
05/22/00
$8.17
PAGENET
PAGER
00047582
CITY HALL GENE
GENERAL SUPPLI
< *>
$8.17*
210678
05/22/00
$174.70
QUALITY
WINE
COST OF GOODS SOLD
WI
829575 -0
YORK SELLING
CST OF GD WINE
05/22/00
-$1.73
QUALITY
WINE
TRADE DISCOUNTS
829575 -0
YORK SELLING
TRADE DISCOUNT
05/22/00
- $12..80
QUALITY
WINE
COST OF GOODS SOLD
WI
833743 -0
VERNON SELLING
CST OF GD WINE
05/22/00
$465.88
QUALITY
WINE
COST OF GOODS SOLD
WI-833953-0
YORK SELLING
CST OF GD WINE
05/22/00
. -$4.58
QUALITY
WINE
TRADE DISCOUNTS
833953 -0
YORK SELLING
TRADE DISCOUNT
05/22/00
$1,356.30
QUALITY
WINE
COST OF GOODS SOLD
WI
833980 -0
50TH ST SELLIN
CST OF GD WINE
05/22/00
- $13.44
QUALITY
WINE
TRADE DISCOUNTS
833980 -0
50TH ST SELLIN
TRADE DISCOUNT
05/22/00
$3,129.66.
QUALITY
WINE
COST OF GOODS SOLD
WI
834004 -0
VERNON SELLING
CST OF GD WINE
05/22/00
- $30.96
QUALITY
WINE
TRADE DISCOUNTS
834004 -0
VERNON SELLING
TRADE DISCOUNT
05/22/00
$1,268.75
QUALITY
WINE
COST OF GOODS SOLD
LI
834092 -0
50TH ST SELLIN
CST OF GD LIQU
05/22/00
- $25.15
QUALITY
WINE
TRADE DISCOUNTS
834092 -0
50TH ST SELLIN
TRADE DISCOUNT
05/22/00
.$5,242.59
QUALITY
WINE
COST OF GOODS SOLD
LI
834093 -0
YORK SELLING
CST OF GD LIQU
05/22/00
- $104.05
QUALITY
WINE
TRADE DISCOUNTS
834093 -0
YORK SELLING
TRADE DISCOUNT
05/22/00
$4,062.10
QUALITY
WINE
COST OF GOODS SOLD
LI
834094 -0
VERNON SELLING
CST OF GD LIQU
_"OUNCIL
CHECK h_. STER
01 -JUN -2000 (16. ,) page 7
HECK NO
CHECK DT
CHECK AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT PO NUM.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
210678
05/22/00
- $80.65
QUALITY
WINE
TRADE DISCOUNTS
834094 -0
VERNON SELLING
TRADE DISCOUNT
05/22/00
- $20.00
QUALITY
WINE
COST OF GOODS SOLD
WI
834414 -0
50TH ST SELLIN
CST OF GD WINE
05/22/00
- $90.60
QUALITY
WINE
COST OF.GOODS SOLD
WI
835424 -0
VERNON.SELLING
CST OF GD WINE
05/22/00
$3,047.57
QUALITY
WINE
COST OF GOODS SOLD
WI
836308 -0
YORK SELLING
CST OF GD WINE
05/22/00
- $30.14
QUALITY
WINE
TRADE DISCOUNTS
836308 -0
YORK SELLING
TRADE DISCOUNT
05/22/00
$2,876.08
QUALITY.WINE
COST OF GOODS SOLD
WI
836309 -0
VERNON SELLING
CST OF GD WINE
05/22/00
- $28.50
QUALITY
WINE
TRADE DISCOUNTS
836309 -0
VERNON SELLING
TRADE DISCOUNT
05/22/00
$605.14
QUALITY
WINE
COST OF GOODS SOLD
WI
836312 -0
50TH ST SELLIN
CST OF GD WINE
05/22/00
-$5.98
QUALITY
WINE
TRADE DISCOUNTS
836312 -0
50TH ST SELLIN
TRADE DISCOUNT
05/22/00
$5,061.90
QUALITY
WINE
COST OF GOODS SOLD
LI
836711 -0
VERNON SELLING
CST OF GD LIQU
05/22/00
- $100.59
QUALITY
WINE
TRADE DISCOUNTS
836711 -0
VERNON SELLING
TRADE DISCOUNT
05/22/00
$2,478.15
QUALITY
WINE
COST OF GOODS SOLD
LI
836717 -0
50TH ST SELLIN
CST OF GD LIQU
05/22/00
- $49.19
QUALITY
WINE
TRADE DISCOUNTS
836717 -0
50TH ST SELLIN
TRADE DISCOUNT
05/22/00
$10,308.26
QUALITY
WINE
COST OF GOODS SOLD
LI
836718 -0
YORK SELLING
CST OF GD LIQU
05/22/00
- $204.89
QUALITY
WINE
TRADE DISCOUNTS
836718 -0
YORK SELLING
TRADE DISCOUNT
< *>
$39,273.83*
210679
05/22/00
$328.55
US WEST
COMMUNICATIONS
TELEPHONE
052200
CENT SVC GENER
TELEPHONE
05/22/00
$335.13
US WEST
COMMUNICATIONS
TELEPHONE
052200
FIRE DEPT. GEN
TELEPHONE
05/22/00
$57.86
US WEST
COMMUNICATIONS
TELEPHONE
052200
BUILDING MAINT
TELEPHONE
05/22/00
$173.93
US WEST
COMMUNICATIONS
TELEPHONE
052200
SKATING & HOCK
TELEPHONE
05/22/00
$126.91
US WEST
COMMUNICATIONS
TELEPHONE
052200
ED ADMINISTRAT
TELEPHONE
< *>
$1,022.38*
211180
05/30/00
$120.00
MACHOLDA,ED
PETTY CASH
05/11/20
SWIM PROG
PETTY CASH
05/30/00
$120.00
MACHOLDA,ED
CASH REGISTERS
05/11/20
SWIM PROG
CHANGE FUND
< *>
$240.00*
211181
05/30/00
$19.62
PERA
DEFERRED FUND
05/30/00
GENERAL FD PRO
P.E.R.A. PAYAB
< *>
$19.62*
211182
05/30/00
$63,670.99
PERA
CONTR PPE 05/23/00
05 -30 -00
GENERAL FD PRO
P.E.R.A. PAYAB
< *>
$63,670.99*
211183
05/30/00
$1,682.70
PRECISION TREE COMPANY,
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
5006
TREE REMOVAL
PROF SERVICES
< *>
$1,682.70*
211184
05/30/00
$351.94
SAM'S CLUB DIRECT COMME
GENERAL SUPPLIES
05/24/00
GENERAL MAINT
GENERAL SUPPLI
05/30/00
$60.17
SAM'S CLUB DIRECT COMME
GENERAL SUPPLIES
05/24/00
PW BUILDING
GENERAL SUPPLI
< *>
$412.11*
211185
05/30/00
$341.96
U S BANCORP
CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS
05/05/00
ADMINISTRATION
CONF & SCHOOLS
05/30/00
$137.33
U S BANCORP
MEETING EXPENSE
05/05/00
ADMINISTRATION
MEETING EXPENS
< *>
$479.29*
211186
05/30/00
$54.22
US WEST
COMMUNICATIONS
TELEPHONE
05 -16 -00
BUILDING MAINT
TELEPHONE
05/30/00
$60.22
US WEST
COMMUNICATIONS
TELEPHONE
05 -16 -20
CENT SVC GENER
TELEPHONE
05/30/00
$82.48
US WEST
COMMUNICATIONS
TELEPHONE
05/16/00
CENT SVC GENER
TELEPHONE
05/30/00
$70.50
US WEST
COMMUNICATIONS
TELEPHONE
05/16/20
BUILDING MAINT
TELEPHONE
05/30/00
$59.48
US WEST
COMMUNICATIONS
TELEPHONE
05/19/20
SKATING & HOCK
TELEPHONE
< *>
$326.90*
211187
05/30/00
$1,700.40
US WEST
DEX
ADVERTISING OTHER
00668846
ED ADMINISTRAT
ADVERT OTHER
05/30/00
$159.60
US WEST
DEX
ADVERTISING OTHER
00668846
ART CENTER ADM
ADVERT OTHER
05/30/00
$319.20
US WEST
DEX
TELEPHONE
00668846
FRED RICHARDS
TELEPHONE
COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER
01 -JUN -2000 (10:27) page 8
CHECK NO CHECK DT
CHECK AMOUNT
VENDOR
DESCRIPTION
INVOICE
PROGRAM
OBJECT PO NUM.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
211187 05/30/00
$215.46
US WEST DEX
TELEPHONE
00668846
ARENA BLDG /GRO
TELEPHONE
05/30/00
$1,041.60
US WEST DEX
TELEPHONE
00668846
CLUB HOUSE
TELEPHONE
05/30/00
$397.80
US WEST DEX
ADVERTISING OTHER
00668846
GOLF DOME
ADVERT OTHER
< *>
$3,834.06*
211189 05/30/00
05/30/00
05/30/00
05/30/00
05/30/00
05/30/00
05/30/00
05/30/00
05/30/00
05/30/00
05/30/00
05/30/00
05/30/00
05/30/00
05/30/00
$142.54 VERIZON WIRELESS BELLEV TELEPHONE
$5.67 VERIZON WIRELESS BELLEV TELEPHONE
$172.30 VERIZON WIRELESS BELLEV.TELEPHONE
$88.98 VERIZON WIRELESS BELLEV TELEPHONE
$14.32 VERIZON WIRELESS BELLEV TELEPHONE
$81.88 VERIZON WIRELESS BELLEV TELEPHONE
$111.50 VERIZON WIRELESS BELLEV TELEPHONE
$7.81 VERIZON WIRELESS BELLEV TELEPHONE
$192.95 VERIZON WIRELESS BELLEV TELEPHONE
$200.87 VERIZON WIRELESS BELLEV TELEPHONE .
$201.41 VERIZON WIRELESS BELLEV TELEPHONE
$7.59 VERIZON WIRELESS BELLEV TELEPHONE
$470.78 VERIZON WIRELESS BELLEV TELEPHONE
$220.51 VERIZON WIRELESS BELLEV TELEPHONE
$33.25 VERIZON WIRELESS BELLEV GENERAL SUPPLIES
$1,952.36*
05 -10 -00 INSPECTIONS TELEPHONE
05 -10 -00 PUBLIC HEALTH TELEPHONE'
05 -10 -00 FIRE DEPT. GEN TELEPHONE
05 -10 -00 ADMINISTRATION TELEPHONE
05 -10 -00 COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE
05 -10 -00 PARK ADMIN. TELEPHONE
05 -10 -00 PARK MAINTENAN TELEPHONE
05 -10 -00 TREES & MAINTE TELEPHONE
05 -10 =00 DISTRIBUTION. TELEPHONE
05 -10 -00 ENGINEERING GE TELEPHONE
05-10-00 SUPERV. & OVRH TELEPHONE
05 -10 -00 CLUB HOUSE TELEPHONE
05/10/00 PATROL TELEPHONE
05/10/00 INVESTIGATION TELEPHONE
05/10/00 ANIMAL CONTROL GENERAL SUPPLI
211190 05/30/00 $939.96 WELSH COMPANIES INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 05/30/00 YORK OCCUPANCY PROF SERVICES
< *> $939.96*
$1,017,174.26*
=NCIL CHECK Sv.•,MARY FOR HAND CHECKS
01 -JUN -2000 (16._x) page 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FUND
# 10
GENERAL FUND
$882,021.91
FUND
# 12
COMMUNICATIONS
$1,386.00
FUND
# 15
WORKING CAPITAL
$3,500.40
FUND
# 23
- ART CENTER
$3,807.40
FUND
# 25
GOLF DOME FUND
$1,440.62
FUND
# 26
SWIMMING POOL FUND
$2,213.92
FUND
# 27
GOLF COURSE FUND
$7,736.32
FUND
# 28
ICE ARENA FUND
$15,159.88
FUND
# 30
EDINBOROUGH /CENTENNIAL LAK
$4,104.08
FUND
# 40
UTILITY FUND
$29,347.62
FUND
# 41
STORM SEWER UTILITY FUND
$1,384.72
FUND
# 50
LIQUOR DISPENSARY FUND
$64,916.29
FUND
# 60
CONSTRUCTION FUND
$155.10
$1,017,174.26*
'Y'ne nw�,,'
•,vv�p.
\` J a 8 a'
REPORT/RECOMMENDATION
To:
MAYOR AND COUNCIL
Agenda Item
X.B.
From:
ERIC ANDERSON
Consent
❑
ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER
Information Only
❑
Date:
JUNE 6, 2000
Mgr. Recommends
❑
To BRA
®
To Council
Subject:
RESOLUTION CALLING FOR
®
Motion
BOND SALE FOR SERIES
®
Resolution
2000A AND 2000B
❑
Ordinance
SET SPECIAL MEETING DATE
❑
Discussion
FOR PROPOSAL AWARD
RECOMMENDATION:
• Approve resolution calling for the bond sale of $2,640,000 General Obligation Tax
Increment Bonds, Series 2000A and Taxable General Obligation Temporary Tax
Increment Bonds, Series 2000B.
• Set special meeting date for award of proposals on July 12, 2000 at 5 PM.
INFORMATION/BACKGROUND: oG
These two bond issues relate to the public improvements proposed for the Opus /Clark
development in the Grandview area. The first issue (2000A) pays for a portion of the
construction of the Senior Center and Library proposed for the development. The
balance of the construction costs are paid for from other revenue sources as per the
redevelopment agreement. The second issue (2000B) is a refinancing of the 1997
temporary issue that was used to pay for the purchase of the Kunz and Lewis property.
The current temporary issue has a principal payoff date of August of 2000. The Series
2000B issue extends the life of this debt service to 2003. Under the terms of the
redevelopment agreement, the City has agreed to payoff this bond issue when it receives
the final payment for the Kunz/Lewis property in 2001.
REPORT /RECOMMENDATION/RESOLUTION CALLING FOR BOND SALE
June 6, 2000
Page two
Attached is a report from the Ehlers and Associates that reviews the purpose of the bond
issue, structure, market conditions and issuing process for the bonds. Staff recommends
you approve the attached resolution calling for the bond sale and set a special meeting on
Wednesday July 12, 2000 at 5 PM to award the proposal.
a
VII
BOND SALE REPORT
$2.9640,000
G.O. Tax Increment Bonds, Series 2000A
$2.550,000
Taxable G.O. Temporary Tax Increment Bonds, Series
2000B
City of Edina, Minnesota
June 6, 2000
FREERS
b ASSOCIATES INC
LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE '
Bond Sale Report
OVERVIEW
This report describes the proposed plan for the City of Edina to issue $2,640,000 G.O. Tax
Increment Bonds, Series 2000A (the "2000A Bonds ") and the $2,550,000 Taxable G.O.
Temporary Tax Increment Bonds, Series 2000B (the "2000B Bonds "), collectively referred to as
"the Bonds ". This report has been prepared by Ehlers & Associates, in consultation with City
Staff and bond counsel. This report deals with:
• Purpose and components of bond issue.
• Structure.
• Other considerations in issuing bonds.
• Market conditions.
• Issuing process.
SERIES 2000A BONDS
Purpose
The $2,640,000 G.O. Tax Increment Bonds, Series 2000A are being issued pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 475 and 469. The 2000A Bonds are being issued to finance the
public costs of the Grandview Square Redevelopment Project. The costs include the construction
of a building housing a library and senior center, the construction of public improvements and
City administrative and legal expense.
Financing these projects requires a bond issue in the amount of $2,640,000. The proposed finance
plan consists of the following sources and uses of funds:
SOURCES
Par Amount of Bonds
Up -Front Revenue
Total Sources
$2,640,000
3,000,000
$5,640,000
Page 1
USES
Project Costs
Costs of Issuance
Discount
Capitalized Interest
Total Uses
$5,500,000
31,850
37,000
71,150
$5,640,000
a
Bond Sale Report
Structure and Repayment
The Series 2000A Bonds are general obligations of the City of Edina and as such are secured by a
pledge of the City's full faith, credit, and taxing powers. It is the intent of the City to pay the
entire amount of principal and interest from tax increment collected from the Grandview Tax
Increment Financing District (County #1202). The preliminary projection of debt service for the
Series 2000A Bonds appears in Attachment 1. The complete finance plan for the Project is
included in Attachment 2.
Funds needed to complete the projects will come from a combination of existing reserves of the
TIF District, a developer payment for land acquisition and a payment by the City to acquire the
existing library facility.
The Series 2000A Bonds will be sold July 12, 2000 and be dated August 1, 2000. The first
interest payment on the Series 2000A Bonds will be February 1, 2001, and semiannually
thereafter on August 1 and February 1. Principal on the Series 2000A Bonds will be due on
February 1 in the years 2002 through 2011. We recommend that Series 2000A Bonds maturing in
the years 2007 through 2011 be subject to prepayment at the discretion of the City on February 1,
2006 and any date thereafter.
The full summary of terms for the Series 2000A Bonds can be found in Attachment 3.
SERIES 20008 BONDS
Purpose
The $2,550,000 Taxable G.O. Temporary Tax Increment Bonds, Series 2000B are being issued
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 475 and 469. The Bonds are being issued to refund the
City' s G.O. Temporary Tax Increment Bonds, Series 1997B.
Financing these projects requires a bond issue in the amount of $2,550,000. The proposed finance
plan consists of the following sources and uses of funds:
SOURCES
Par Amount of Bonds
Up -Front Revenue
Total Sources
$2,550,000
0
$2,550,000
Page 2
USES
Principal 1997B
Costs of Issuance
Discount
Capitalized Interest
Total Uses
$2,500,000
24,500
25,500
0
$2,550,000
Bond Sale Report
Structure and Repayment
The Series 2000B Bonds are general obligations of the City of Edina and as such are secured by a
pledge of the City's full faith, credit, and taxing powers. It is the intent of the City to pay
principal and interest from tax increment revenues previously collected from the Grandview Tax
Increment Financing District (County #1202) and from payments received under a Contract for
Private Redevelopment between the Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority and Grandview
Square LLC.
The preliminary projection of debt service for the Series 2000B Bonds appears in Attachment 4.
The Series 2000B Bonds will be sold July 12, 2000 and be dated August 1, 2000. The first
interest payment on the Series 2000B Bonds will be February 1, 2001, and semiannually
thereafter on August 1 and February 1. Principal on the Series 2000B Bonds will be due on
February 1, 2003. We recommend that Series 2000B Bonds be subject to prepayment at the
discretion of the City on February 1, 2002 and any date thereafter.
The full summary of terms for the Series 2000A Bonds can be found in Attachment 5.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
Bank Qualified Bonds
We anticipate that the City (in combination with any subordinate taxing jurisdictions or debt
issued in the City's name by 501(c)3 corporations) will not issue more than a total of $10,000,000
in tax - exempt debt during this calendar year. This will allow the Series 2000A Bonds to be
designated as bank qualified. As taxable debt, this provision does not apply to the Series 2000B
Bonds. Bank qualified status broadens the market and achieves lower interest rates.
Arbitrage
Since the City does not anticipate issuing more than $.5,000,000 in tax- exempt bonds in this
calendar year, the Series 2000A Bonds qualifies for the small issuer, exemption from arbitrage
rebate. This exemption from rebate does not eliminate the need to comply with other arbitrage
regulations governing the investment of bond proceeds and debt service funds. These
requirements will be explained in the bond summary book received following closing. As taxable
debt, the Series 2000B Bonds are not subject to arbitrage regulations.
Global Book Entry
The Bonds will be global book entry. As "paper less" bonds, you will avoid the costs of bond
printing and annual registrar charges. The City will designate a Paying Agent for the issue. The
Paying Agent will invoice you for the interest semi - annually and on an annual basis for the
principal coming due. You will be charged only for paying agent/transfer agent services provided
by the bank.
Page 3
Bond Sale Report
Rating
Moody' s Investors Service and Standard & Poor's will be asked to rate these issues. The City
currently has a Moody' s rating of Aal and an S &P rating of AA on its outstanding general
obligation bonds.
Continuing Disclosure
Regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission on the continuing disclosure of
municipal securities apply to long -term securities with an aggregate principal amount of
$1,000,000 or more. Since aggregate amount of each issue is over $1,000,000 and the City has
more than $10,000,000 in total municipal obligations outstanding, you will be obligated to
comply with Full Continuing Disclosure requirements as required by paragraph (b)(5) of Rule
15c2 -12 promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934. You will be required to provide certain financial information and operating data
relating to the City annually and to provide notices of the occurrence of certain material events.
The specific nature of the Undertaking, as well as the information to be contained in the notices of
material events will be set forth in the Continuing Disclosure Certificate that you will enter into at
the time of closing for this issue.
Page 4
Bond Sale Report
MARKET CONDITIONS
The Bond Buyer's 20 -Year G.O. Index (BBI) currently stands at 6.01 %. Interest rates have
followed an upward trend over the past 12 months. Despite recent increases, current rates remain
moderate when viewed over the past decade (see chart below).
6.50%
6.00%
5.50%
5.00%
4.50%
1999
Bond Buyer's 2 0 -Year G. 0. 1 ndex
Page 5
2000
i
Bond Sale Report
ISSUING PROCESS
Following is a tentative schedule for the steps in the issuing process.
June 6, 2000 City Council adopts resolution calling for the sale
of the Bonds.
June 20 City Council approves Development Agreement
and takes other actions related to Grandview
Square.
Week of June 26 Submit draft Official Statement and rating
materials to Moody's Investors Service and
Standard & Poors for credit rating.
Distribute Official Statement.
Week of July 3 Receive credit rating.
July 12, 2000 Bond sale.
August 1, 2000 Bond closing (estimated).
N:\Minnsota\EDINA W nalyst\PreSale2000AB. wpd
Page 6
Bond Sale Report
City of Edina
$16,940.00
Average Life
6.417 Years
ATTACHMENT 1
G.O. Tax Increment % Series
Net Interim Cost (NIC)
5.71128%
True Interest Cost (TIC)
Date
Principal
Rate
Interest
P &I
2/1 /2001
0
0.000%
71,335.00
71,335.00
2/1/2002
210,060
5.000%
142,670.00
352,670.00
2/1/2003
220,000
.5.100%
132,170.00
352,170.00
2/1/2004
230,000
5.200%
120,950.00
350,950.00
2/1/2005
240,000
5.300%
108,990.00
348,990.00
2/1/2006
255,000
5.400%
96,270.00
351,270.00
2/1/2007
265,000
5.450%
82,500.00
347,500.00
2/1/2008
280,000
5.500%
68,057.50
348,057.50
2/1/2009
295,000
5.550%
52,657.50
347,657.50
2/1/2010
315,000
5.600%
36,285.00
351,285.00
2/1/2011
330,000
5.650%
18,645.00
348,645.00
TOTAL
Dated 8/01/2000
Delivery Date 8/01/2000
First Coupon Date 2/01/2001
Bond Year Dollars
$16,940.00
Average Life
6.417 Years
Average Coupon
5.49309%
Net Interim Cost (NIC)
5.71128%
True Interest Cost (TIC)
5.75518%
Page 7
Summary of Finance Plan
city costs
Library Construction
Senior Center Construction
Offsite Improvements
Staff /Legal /Consulting
Costs to Finance
Less: Cash
Cost of Issuance
Discount
Capitalized Interest
Total Bond Issue
Net Proceeds
Source and Use Summary
Bond Sale Report
Attachment 2
Overall Finance Plan
Size (SF) $ /SF Conting.
20,000 $130 0% 2,600,000
20,000 $95 0% 1,900,000
500,000
500,000
0,oUU,000
(3,000,000)
31,850
37,000
71,150
2,640,000
2,500,000
Sources
9,334,033
Uses
9,331,550
Land sale
3,700,000
1992 Bonds
878,350
Developer pay
175,000
1997 Bonds
2,953,200
aty - library
1,000,000
Legal
36,892
Fund balance
1,959,033
Admin
463,108
Bond proceeds
2,500,000
Library
2,600,000
Senior Center
1,900,000
Improvements
500,000
PraJarted Flan of Fuds - City Caste
Page 8
11
3
REVENUES
E)PENSES
BALANCE
oper
""sting
ary
Dale
Sae
Pmxeeds
Paymerll
Ub-
REVENUE
Bads
Bards
Senor
Impmalrams
Admin
Cube
E)FENSE
Period Q da<he
1,959,033
1/12000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 1,959,033
2/12000
0
0
0
0
0
219,250
56,250
0
0
0
0
275500
(275,500) 1,683,533
3/12000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 1,883,533
4/12000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 1,683,533
5112000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 1,683,533
6/12000
0
0
175,000
0
175,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
175,000 1,858,537
7/12000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 1,858,533
8/12000
0
2,500,000
0
0
2,500,000
14,650
56,250
0
0
500,000
0
570,900
1,929,100 3,787,833
9112000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 3,787,633
10/12000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 3,787,633
11/12000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 3,787,633
12/12000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 3,787,833
1/12001
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 3,787,833
2/12001
0
0
0
0
0
214,650
96,900
409,091
0
0
0
720,641
(720,641) 3,086,912
3/12001
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
409,091
0
0
0
409,091
(409,091) 2,657,901
4/12001
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
409,091
0
0
0
409,091
(409,091) 2,248,810
5/12001
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
409,091
0-
0
0
409,091
(409,091) 1,839,719
6/12001
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
409,091
166,667
0
0
575,758
(575,758) 1,263,962
7/12001
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
409,091
166,667
0
0
575,758
(575,758) 686,204
8/12001
0
0
0
0
0
9,900
96,800
409,091
166,667
0
0
682,558
(882,558) 5,647
9/12001
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
409,091
0
0
0
409,091
(409,091) (403,444)
10/12001
0
0
0 1,000,000
1,000,000
0
0
409,091
0
0
0
408,091
590,909 187,465
11/12001
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
409,091
0
0
0
409,091
(409,091) (221,626)
12/12001 3,700,000
0
0
0
3,700,000
0
0
409,091
0
0
0
409,091
3,290,909 3,081,283
1/12002
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 3,069,283
2/12002
0
0
0
0
0
209,900
2,646,900
0
0
0
0
2,856,800
(2,856,800) 212,483
8/12002
0
0
0
0
0
5,000
0
0
0
0
0
5,000
(5,000) 207,483
2/12003
0
0
0
0
0
205,000
0
0
0
0
0
205,000
(205,000) 2,483
Page 8
Bond Sale Report
ATTACHMENT 3
TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF ISSUE
$2,640,000 G.O. Tax Increment Bonds, Series 2000A
DATE: June 6, 2000
ISSUER: City of Edina, Minnesota
BOND NAME: $2,640,000 G.O. Tax Increment Bonds, Series 2000A
BOND ATTORNEY: Dorsey & Whitney - Jerry Gilligan
PURPOSE: Finance the public costs of the Grandview Square Redevelopment
Project.
Sale Date:
July 12, 2000
Est. Closing Date:
August 3, 2000
Proposal Opening:
11:00 a.m., office of Ehlers & Associates, Inc.
Proposal Award:
5:00 p.m., City offices.
Type of Sale (MN only):
Independent Financial Advisory Provision.
Bonds Dated:
August 1, 2000
Maturity:
February 1, 2002 - 2011
Term Bond Option:
All dates are inclusive. Bids for the bonds may contain a
maturity schedule providing for any combination of
serial bonds and term bonds, subject to mandatory
redemption, so long as the amounts of principal maturing
or subject to mandatory redemption in each year
conforms to the maturity schedule set forth above.
First Interest:
February 1, 2001. Interest will be computed on the basis
of a 360 -day year of twelve 30 -day months and will be
rounded pursuant to rules of the MSRB.
Call Feature:
Bonds maturing in the years 2007 through 2011 will be
subject to redemption prior to final maturity on February
Page 9
Bond Sale Report
1, 2006 and on any date thereafter. Notice of such call
shall be given by mailing a notice thereof by registered
or certified mail at least thirty (30) days prior to the date
fixed for redemption to the registered owner of each
bond to be redeemed at the address shown on the
registration books.
Minimum Proposal: $2,603,000
Good Faith: payable to the Issuer (Cashiers or Certified
• Good Faith Check or wire transfer of funds to Ehlers
Good Faith Escrow or financial surety bond.
Record Date: Close of business on the 15th day (whether or not a
business day) of the immediately preceding month.
CUSIP Numbers: The Issuer will assume no obligation for the assignment
or printing of CUSIP numbers on the Bonds or for the
correctness of any numbers printed thereon, but will
permit such numbers to be printed at the expense of the
purchaser, if the purchaser waives any delay in delivery
occasioned thereby.
Paying Agent:
To be named by the Issuer.
Book Entry:
This offering will be issued as fully registered Bonds
and, when issued, will be registered in the name of Cede
& Co., as nominee of The Depository Trust Company,
New York, New York.
Financial Advisor:
Ehlers & Associates, Inc. [Rusty Fifield]
Rating Requested:
Moody's Investors Service and Standard & Poors
Qualified Tax - Exempt
These Bonds WILL be designated as qualified tax -
Obligations:
exempt obligations.
Continuing Disclosure:
Full Undertaking.
Bond Sale Report
City of Edina
_$�,550,000 Taxable aO. Temporary Tax Increment Bonds, Series 2000B
ATTACHMENT 4
Date
Principal Rate
Interest
P&I
2/1 /2001
0 0.000%
99,053.33
99,053.33
2/1/2002
0 0.000%
193,800.00
193,800.00
2/1/2003
2,550,000 7.600%
193,800.00
2,743,800.00
_Ow
Dated 7/27/2000
Delivery Date 7/27/2000
First Coupon Date 2/01/2001
Bond Year Dollars
$6,403.33
Average Life
2.511 Years
Average Coupon
7.60000%
Net Interest Cost (NIC)
7.99823%
True Interest Cost (TIC)
8.04701%
Bond Sale Report
ATTACHMENT 5
TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF ISSUE
$2,550,000 Taxable G.O. Temporary Tax Increment Bonds, Series 2000B
DATE: June 6, 2000
ISSUER: City of Edina, Minnesota
BOND NAME: $2,550,000 Taxable G.O. Temporary Tax Increment Bonds, Series
2000B
BOND ATTORNEY:
PURPOSE:
Dorsey & Whitney - Jerry Gilligan
Refunding of the G.O. Temporary Tax Increment Bonds, Series
1997B.
Sale Date:
July 12, 2000
Est. Closing Date:
July 27, 2000
Proposal Opening:
11:00 a.m., office of Ehlers & Associates, Inc.
Proposal Award:
5:00 p.m., City offices.
Type of Sale (MN only):
Independent Financial Advisory Provision.
Bonds Dated:
July 27, 2000
Maturity:
February 1, 2003
First Interest:
February 1, 2001. Interest will be computed on the basis
of a 360 -day year of twelve 30 -day months and will be
rounded pursuant to rules of the MSRB.
Call Feature:
Bonds maturing in the year 2003 will be subject to
redemption prior to final maturity on February 1, 2002
and on any date thereafter. Notice of such call shall be
given by mailing a notice thereof by registered or
certified mail at least thirty (30) days prior to the date
fixed for redemption to the registered owner of each
bond to be redeemed at the address shown on the
registration books.
Minimum Proposal: $2,524,500
$51,000, payable to the Issuer (Cashiers or Certified
Bond Sale Report
Good Faith:
Good Faith Check or wire transfer of funds to Ehlers
Good Faith Escrow or financial surety bond.
Record Date:
Close of business on the 15th day (whether or not a
business day) of the immediately preceding month.
- .CUSIP Numbers:
The Issuer will assume no obligation for the assignment
or printing of CUSIP numbers on the,Bonds or for the
correctness of any numbers printed thereon, but will
permit such numbers to be printed at the expense of the
purchaser, if the purchaser waives any delay in delivery
occasioned thereby.
Paying Agent:
To be named by the Issuer.
Book Entry:
This offering will be issued as fully registered Bonds
and, when issued, will be registered in the name of Cede
& Co., as nominee of The Depository Trust Company,
New York, New York.
Financial Advisor:
Ehlers & Associates, Inc. [Rusty Fifield]
Rating Requested:
Moody's Investors Service and Standard & Poors.
Taxable Obligations:
These Bonds WILL NOT be designated as qualified tax -
exempt obligations.
Continuing Disclosure:
Full Undertaking
N:\Minnsota\EDINA\Analyst\PreSale2OOOAB.wpd
RESOLUTION NO 2000 -58
Resolution Providing for the Sale of City Of Edina
$2,640,000 G.O. Tax Increment Bonds, Series 2000A
$2,550,000 Taxable G.O. Temporary Tax Increment Bonds, Series 2000B
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, has heretofore determined
that it is necessary and expedient to issue the City's $2,640,000 G.O. Tax Increment Bonds,
Series 2000A (the "Series 2000A Bonds ") to finance the public costs associated with the
Grandview Square Redevelopment Project and to issue the City's $2,550,000 Taxable G.O. Tax
Increment Bonds, Series 2000B (the "Series 2000B Bonds ") to refinance the G.O. Tax Increment
Bonds, Series 1997B; and
WHEREAS, the City has designated Ehlers & Associates, Inc., in Roseville, Minnesota
( "Ehlers "), as its independent financial advisor and is therefore authorized to solicit proposals in
accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.60, Subdivision 2(9);
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of City of Edina,
Minnesota, as follows:
1. Authorization; Findings. The City Council hereby authorizes Ehlers to solicit proposals
for the sale of the Series 2000A Bonds and the Series 2000B Bonds.
2. Meetings Proposal Opening. The City Council shall meet at the time and place to be
specified in the Terms of Proposal for the purpose of considering sealed proposals for,
and awarding the sale of the Series 2000A Bonds and the Series 2000B Bonds. The City
Manager, or designee, shall open proposals at the time and place to be specified in such
Terms of Proposal for each issue.
3. Terms of Proposal. The terms and conditions for the Series 2000A Bonds and the Series
2000B Bonds and the sale thereof are fully set forth in the Bond Sale Report and are
hereby approved and made a part hereof.
4. Official Statement. In connection with said sale, the officers or employees of the City are
hereby authorized to cooperate with Ehlers and participate in the preparation of an official
statement for the Series 2000A Bonds and the Series 2000B Bonds and to execute and
deliver it on behalf of the City upon its completion.
Dated: June 6, 2000.
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Mayor
City Hall (612) 927 -8861
4801 WEST 50TH STREET FAX (612) 826 -0390
EDINA, MINNESOTA 55424 -1394 TDD (612) 826 -0379
RESOLUTION NO. 2000.58/ Providing for Sale of G.O. Tax Increment Bonds, Series
2000A and Taxable G.O. Temporary Tax Increment Bonds Series 2000B
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 June 6, 2000, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting.
WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this day of , 2000.
City Clerk
2
1*,
r,.
w91N�11�
o e
Cn
O
lose
REPORT/RECOMMENDATION
To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL
From: ERIC ANDERSON
ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER
Date: JUNE 6, 2000
Subject: CALENDAR FOR YEAR 2001
BUDGET WORK SESSIONS
REPORT:
Agenda Item
X.C.
Consent El
Information Only
Mgr. Recommends
El
To HRA
®
To Council
❑
Motion
❑
Resolution
❑
Ordinance
❑
Discussion
The following is a proposed calendar for the 2001 budget process:
July 5 5:00 Budget Assumptions /Overview
July 1�� -1,,013 &-G4 Budget Assumptions Continuation
August 15 5:00 Budget Hearing
August 22 5:00 Budget Hearing Continuation
September 5 7:00 Resolution Setting Maximum Tax Levy
October 3 7:00 Hearing on Increased Tax Rate
November/December Truth in Taxation Hearing (s)
December Adopt Year 2001 Budget
June 5, 2000
Denise Olson
5705 Grove Street
Edina MN 55436
Edina City Council
4801 W 50'' Street
Edina MN 55424
Scott Johnson
Mike Kelly
Nan Faust
Jim Hauland
Re: Edina's Sports Facilities
Dear Sirs and Madam:
As a parent and new resident of Edina I would like to voice my concern over
the lack of appropriate athletic fields in our city. My daughter plays
Baseball, Soccer, and Basketball in Edina and I am very disappointed that I
have moved into a city that allows our children to use fields that are in such
disrepair.
I hope that you do not wait until one of our children gets hurt before some
takes this seriously. I would like to know what, if anything, is being done to
address the issue.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Respectfully,
Denise Olson
Deb Man en
^rom:
Jennifer Wilkinson
Sent:
Monday, June 05, 2000 8:07 AM
To:
Gordon Hughes; Deb Mangen
Subject:
FW: Community Center Project
— Original Message —
From: James Kakalios [SMTP:kakalios @tc.umn.edu]
Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2000 1:58 PM
To: EdinaMail @ci.edina.mn.us
Subject: Community Center Project
Dear Mr. Mayor and City Council Members,
Thank you for postponing the referendum until careful
consideration is given to
the impact and ramifications.
Thank you also for suggesting that a "blue ribbon panel" be
assembled to thoroughly
address all aspects of this project and the concerns of many
residents of Edina.
Yours sincerely,
Therese Kakalios
6825 W. Shore Drive.
Edina, MN 55435
5721 Blake Rd.
Edina, MN 55436
June 2, 2000
Mayor Dennis Maetzold
Edina City Hail
4801 W. 50' St.
Edina, MN 55424
Dear Mr. Maetzold,
My husband and I want to express our appreciation of your decision regarding
the proposed joint City Council and School District referendum. Postponing the
referendum to allow for further evaluation and study is a wise and thoughtful
decision. The multiple aspects of the referendum and the large scope of the
many projects warrant closer analysis and attention to detail.
We are so glad you are appointing a Blue Ribbon panel to evaluate the needs of
the community and ways to most successfully meet the needs of the various
interest groups in Edina. It has been an encouragement to us to see the City
Council Members respond to the seniors' concerns as well as neighborhood
concerns which might have been adversely impacted by the referendum.
We would like you to consider appointing Ms. "Andy" Otness to the Blue Ribbon
panel. As you know, Andy, in her work with the League of Women's Voters, is an
advocate for all the citizens of Edina. She will work towards full disclosure of
information to the public and consensus building. She is a fair, impartial and
politically savvy individual. Her integrity and intelligence will be great assets to
the panel.
Thank you, Mayor Maetzold, for your diligent and careful study of the
referendum. We would appreciate your serious consideration of Ms. Otness to
the Blue Ribbon Panel. We know all of Edina would benefit from her participation
and the resulting referendum would be truly a win -win situation.
Respectfully,
Dr. Stephen P. Christiansen
Karen C. Christiansen
6841 Oaklawn Avenue
Edina, Minnesota 55435
June 1, 2000
Mayor Dennis Maetzold
Edina City Hall
4801 W. 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
Dear Mayor Maetzold,
As you must know, I am very pleased that the City Council has decided to re- evaluate the
proposed referendum. I appreciate the Council's willingness to gather and consider public input
in making what must have been a difficult decision.
I especially want to thank you for your fair and even -handed approach to the feedback that you
received from the community. I always had the sense that you genuinely wanted to know what
the community had to say about the referendum and that you had the very best interests of the
community, and particularly the children, at heart. I felt that you demonstrated strong and
responsive leadership, and I hope that you will be our Mayor for years to come.
I also wanted to mention how pleased I was with my interactions with Gordon Hughes, John
Keprios, Ed MacHolda and Deb Mangen. I felt that they all went out of their way to be helpful in
providing information and perspective.
I know that there is a lot of work ahead for the City Council as it reconsiders this issue. I like the
idea of a `Blue Ribbon" panel, and I would like to propose that Andy Otness of the League of
Women Voters be invited to participate. I think her knowledge of the City and her commitment
to citizen participation would be great assets to the work of the panel. I also hope that the
meetings of this panel might be open for public observation. I would be happy to help you with
this work, and I hope that you will call on me if there is some way in which you think that I might
be of assistance. I know that there are a number of other parents at Normandale who would also
be happy to contribute.
Thank you again for your kind, fair and committed leadership.
Sincerely,
Kathy Christensen
Be May 26, 2000
Edina City Council
City Hall
4801 W. 50'j' Street
Edina, MN 55424
Dear City Council:
I am writing in protest to the referendum to construct a dome at the Community Center.
My husband and I grew up in Edina and graduated from Edina East High School. We
have been very proud of Edina community and educational benefits of the schools.
When we decided to purchase a house and raise a family, naturally we chose Edina. We
purchased our home on St. Andrews for several reasons; the proximity to the elementary
and secondary schools, the quite neighborhood and being close to family and friends. We
have been vey happy with our neighborhood. Our children can play freely and ride bikes
on our street with virtually no commotion or worry of traffic. Our fear is that if a dome
and three gymnasium field house were built in this area, we would see a drastic increase
in traffic that it would drastically decrease our children's and ourselves ability to walk our
Godogs, ride our bikes and play without having to watch for cars racing down the street. It
is bad enough during Edina football season when they play at their home field. Our
streets are lined with cars for blocks. Noise from cars and high school kids carry on for
hours after a game. We can tolerate the noise at during this time because we know that
football season will soon be over. The thought that this could continue for months on end
is very disturbing. We understand that the dome would be used for the high school and
other schools within Edina. But what are the possibilities of the city earning more money
by renting this dome out to other communities? Very likely. We are strongly opposed to
this referendum and insist on a public hearing on the topic BEFORE the council votes on
what THEY would like. We would like OUR VOICE HEARD. We are the ones living
in the neighborhood, not the city council members.
Sincerely,
Leslie and Todd Anderson
�O SEAL
NA 3 � 2000
• RE CE
� �Eo
B y
Mike Peck
5608 Benton Ave.
Edina, MN 55436
May 27, 2000
Edina City Council
City Hall
4801 W. 5& St.
Edina, MN 55424
Greeting To the City Council:
This letter is written to object to the construction of the proposed addition to the Edina Community Center.
While the site proposed may have enough area for the buildings in the plan, the over all area does not have
the room for adequate parking nor does the surrounding area have the necessary read network to
69 accommodate the numbers of people and vehicles that would be using the facilities.
The addition traffic and congestion on our already busy streets in this part of Edina would cause undue
hardships on residence in this area.
A facility of this type might be justified if it were in an area, which could accommodate the necessary
municipal infrastructure with out undue congestion and hardship on Edina residents.
We strongly oppose the Proposed Edina Community Center Campus Plan.
Sincerely,
Mike eck
SEAL
MAY 3 �J
. RECEIVED
BY..
Deb Manaen
rom:
Iffent:
To:
Subject:
Jennifer Wilkinson
Wednesday, May 31, 2000 1:45 PM
Gordon Hughes; Deb Mangen
FW:
— Original Message —
From: Geoff Nash [SMTP:nashg @visi.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2000 1:23 PM
To: EdinaMail @ci.edina.mn.us
Subject:
Dear Mayor Maetzold and Members of the City Council,
It is with great appreciation that I thank you for delaying the proposed Community Center referendum. This will certainly
give this community time to consider how to best serve the needs of the entire community in developing the needed
athletic facilities.
Sincerely,
Camille Nash
6920 Hillcrest Lane
Edina MN 55435
•
�-1 gwoe- A(5.
`Ile
t
�o
G� �O
O
11 46e,4 9:e10-
,QDI�GftCt)7".5 lA) '7Z�
F- e- T!,f-) e, �o
l '
C/7 CdGG(.8l(
/ Y
�E 're"T-'e- el-ot-/-7- ����� 725
1
sC -
6 V3 — 3Q33 Cw d2
Mayor Dennis Maetzold May 19, 2000
Council Members: Nan Faust, James Hovland, Scott Johnson, and Michael Kelly
Dear Mayor and City Council:
I am writing with my final comments to you on the Kunz -Lewis development process. I have scant hope
that I will persuade you to do anything other than you have already done —but you still have the
opportunity to correct a grievous error.
I encourage you to search your conscience and vote against final rezoning of the properties involved. My
understanding is that only two votes can stop rezoning and force changes in the development plan.
Before I begin with specific references, I want you to know that in the neighborhood meetings prior to
The Council Meeting on May 16, 2000, I advocated that to date you had done the neighborhood no harm
either actually or in your own estimations. Therefore, there was no need to presume enmity or retain
counsel. I suggested that local elected officials, particularly historically in Edina, were sensitive to the
opinions of their constituents, especially in relationship to neighborhood Parks and land use. I believed
then, and said as much, that the Council would not permit Sherwood Park to be used in the development,
nor were they likely to approve 55 + foot structures so close to the Hedwall & Tomale residences at 5232
and 5400 Edenmoor (southernmost portion of the development) or at higher elevations on the site.
Although the developer's spokesperson Heidi Kurtze consistently claimed that unnamed members of the
City Council encouraged Opus /Clark to locate buildings in Sherwood Park, I did not believe her.
Obviously, I was incorrect. I am still stunned that you have so completely disregarded the shared concerns
of the Richmond Hills neighborhood.
Mayor Maetzold, I appreciate your attention to the neighborhood's concerns and your vote on 5/16/00. I
hope you will hold to your position.
Council Member Hovland, for your information, height and traffic have always been neighborhood
concerns about any redevelopment in the area. Those items have been clearly and consistently stated in
writing and in oral presentations throughout this process. To claim, as you publicly did, that I had never
raised the issue of building height bears no resemblance to the truth as contained in the public record. It is
true that I did not repeat content contained in previous letters —at the Council's request. I assumed, given
that request, Council Members read and retained important information. Indeed, my personal (as well as
that of many neighbors) opposition to the Opus /Clark development proposal, from the start of this process
last year, was due to the fact that they had the highest buildings closest to the existing single family homes
and also at the highest elevations on the site, their potential traffic impact, and their willingness— indeed
eagerness —to use Sherwood Park as an exploitable piece of land. We have never had a developer seek to
use Sherwood Park for buildings or for development landscape in the past. Never as in not once!
Remember that the other -full -scale developer (Frauenschuh) not only left Sherwood Park intact to its
present configuration, but also added land to the Park. Their proposed buildings nearest the existing single
family homes were only 2 stories in height.
I would also note that Nan Faust, on 11/1/99, specifically asked Ron Clark if he would do something about
the height of the buildings. Although Mr. Clark indicated he would "do what was possible ", he clearly
knew then as now that he would make no effort, due to economics, to alter the building height.
Council Member Faust, you and those on the Council who voted with you, have accommodated all
concerns save those of the neighborhood. As Heidi Kurtze intoned on 5/16/00, you made adjustments for
the library, the senior center, their (not our) city traffic flow concerns, the "future residents" of the
development, etc., etc., etc. You have completely neglected the neighborhood concerns about Sherwood
Park, building height & appearance, and traffic flow. As you stated, the area you have allowed to be
appropriated from Sherwood Park was not used for scheduled recreation activities. It was used by parents
playing with & teaching various sports to their children, and children of all ages actually playing those
sports. I would emphasize again, this is a neighborhood park used by children who do not have safe access
to other play areas. Yes, the field was not regulation size for any sport. But children could play all field
sports and many other games there which require a long open space. "Regulation" fields are not required
for play. Further, they are generally reserved for organized activities. If you value Edina children and
families, you would see the value of this resource. You have coldly and deliberately taken this resource
from the neighborhood. "Adding" some area to the lower end of the Park —area which on all the drawings
appears nothing more than landscape buffer for the development deeded to the City for maintenance at
taxpayer expense, is not adequate replacement for the area taken. John Keprios conceded as much. Further,
the fiction that grading will improve the Park is just that— a.fiction. The contour adjustments, placement of
the pump station, and existing grades at the existing homes & Sherwood Road prohibit any significant
change.
As for your measurements of remaining Park land during the meeting on 5/16/00, not only do I believe Mr.
Keprios' outline on the aerial map was overgenerous based on schematics previously distributed, may I ask
why the developer, or the City, did not distribute actual measurements in feet? I accept your, and Council
Member Kelly's, mocking of my "walking off' the measurements —but in the absence of real measures,
what was the option? Given that the road into the development (which will be far wider than Eden Circle)
from Sherwood cannot be shifted significantly to the North from the current location of Eden Circle, I
presume the 55 foot tall building will be located some 10 to 20 feet (as a setback) south of Eden Circle into
Sherwood Park. The building pad is 96 feet wide, although possibly wider at this point to accommodate the
garage entrance /exit onto Sherwood. Then there would be, at least, the claimed path/roadway to the Pump
Station, perhaps 10 feet wide, the landscape buffer — another 10 feet. In all this represents a total incursion
of @ 140 feet. Sherwood Park from Eden Circle to the property line at 5244 Edenmoor is @ 283 feet.
You have cut the Park —at that point — virtually.in half. I realize that here, as elsewhere in the "Park ", the
developer has probably assigned the pathway and the landscape buffer to the City, allowing you to call it
"parkland" and permitting the Edina taxpayer to pay for its maintenance. The reduction in usable open
space is the same, regardless of whether development landscape buffer is called "parkland" as a tissue thin
rationale for the destruction of usable Park area.
Your comments during the Fall decision making process comparing the appearance of the small businesses
in the area to. the old gravel pit across from the former France Avenue Drive -In Theatre rivaled only
Council Member Kelly's perorations on condemnation law in insensitivity. Unfortunately, your comments
did not approach his in accuracy. Your blatant disregard for the contribution of small businesses to the
Edina community in the name of some superior concept of appearance for appearances sake displays the
appalling type of elitism for which residents of Edina are too often stereotyped.
To add further insult to real injury, your call to my neighbor explaining your vote on 5/16/00 was extremely
disturbing. To claim that the reason you voted for Opus /Clark was that otherwise the WMEP school
proposal would resurface raises disturbing questions. Quite honestly, I cannot see how a school building
with Sherwood Park being preserved would be a worse project for this neighborhood than 55 -foot high
condominiums and loss of usable Park space. Unless, of course, either you are afraid of these particular
elementary school children, or. are trying to scare the neighbors about them. Of course, to the best of my
knowledge, WMEP is not funded now, and seemingly would not be funded for another 2 years. As well,
there are many private developers still interested in the site.
Council Member Johnson, I realize you were not elected and do not intend to stand for office, but you
accepted a position which has some inherent obligations to the general public. I detected no interest on your
part in attending to citizen concerns about this development. Your focus appeared to be on being a good
team player and following the lead of co- managers Kelly and Faust. Your obligations to the citizens of
Edina, including those of us who reside in the Richmond Hills neighborhood, demand that you stand up for
what you believe —not go along to get along with your fellow members of the City Council.
Council Member Kelly, you have advocated from the first for Opus /Clark. I appreciate that you, from the
start of this process, have not pretended to care about anything other than the complete development by .
Opus /Clark of this entire site without any regard to the existing neighborhood or small businesses. I do not
expect that to change now.
However, I would be remiss if I did not comment on five items:
1) You may believe the fiction that the developer's project landscaping "adds" to Sherwood Park
something other than a taxpayer expense for maintenance. I do not believe it, nor do my neighbors.
You have significantly changed the functioning of Sherwood Park to the severe detriment of children
and families in this neighborhood. It is a resource that once gone, cannot be replaced.
2) Viewed most charitably, your comments on 5/16/00 (as well as at several previous hearings) that you
have known the Rauenhorsts & Clarks your entire life, that they are friends as well as fine, upstanding
people may have been intended to impress the audience that they were in good hands.
However, it appeared to me, as well as to many in attendance, that your testimonials to these
individuals were nothing more than a public declaration of a very significant personal conflict of
interest regarding these developers. The neighborhood was not reassured either about the developers
or about your decision making process.
3) As on 11/1/99, your pointed explanation about the legal purposes of condemnation — "fair" payment
for physical property— although undoubtedly accurate, displayed an unforgivable disregard for the
effects of your blithe decision to deprive several long standing small business people their
livelihoods. I have been attending Edina City Council meetings for the last ten years. Never have I
seen a particular member —let alone an entire Council — display such a blatant disregard for the
property and welfare of small business owners. There was no over -riding public purpose which was
served by effectively condemning the Edina Pet Hospital, the Hair Salon, the Noonan Building, or
even the TAGS building. The veterinarian will suffer significant financial harm, as, most probably,
will the Hair Salon owner. Most, if not all, the remaining small businesses will suffer some negative
economic repercussions due to their unnecessary forced relocation precipitated by your decision on
11/1/99. Your actions in leading the drive to take these businesses without a second thought will live
in infamy in this community for many years.
4) Your lack of courage in addressing the school bus garage issue is amazing. You had the opportunity
to fix the problem on 11/1/99 by adopting the Jerry's proposal. Even if you could not choose that
option, rather than condemn school property, you chose to condemn private lands and dismember a
public park. It is bothersome that School Board property is treated with greater deference than private
property and parkland.
5) Finally, you claimed on 5/16/00, that the Richmond Hills neighborhood opposed many previous
developments for the Kunz -Lewis site. In point of fact, since 1990, only one proposed development
was universally opposed by the Richmond Hills neighborhood: the Rainbow Food store. In retrospect,
that would have proven a less intrusive site use than the.Opus /Clark project. Many other
developments were supported in whole or in part by the neighborhood. The only development
proposal which has ever approached the united neighborhood opposition to the use of Sherwood Park
and the building height in the current, City Council approved Opus /Clark development plan was the
Rainbow proposal. And, quite frankly, even Rainbow did not come close to the united concern
regarding Opus /Clark. This neighborhood has consistently supported the responsible development of
the Kunz -Lewis site. In the past, our concerns were attended to by both developers and the City
Council. It is regrettable that such is no longer true.
Finally, you have subjected this neighborhood to an extremely long development schedule while at the
same time, by your actions, told the developer that they can ignore neighborhood concerns with impunity.
I have absolutely no hope that the developer will take into account this neighborhood during construction
activities. They have learned, and learned well, that there is no such need.
I did not expect any of you to agree with or concede all neighborhood concerns. I did expect that the
neighborhood would be persuasive regarding Sherwood Park and building height near the residences on
Edenmoor. I hoped for a different traffic pattern, and adjustments on overall residential building height
and appearance.
I see no real point in pursuing remedies for your decisions through the Courts.
However, I do not intend to remain silent on what I perceive to be a gross dereliction of responsibility on
your part to this neighborhood and to your duties as elected representatives.
I apologize for sending this correspondence to your homes, but feel common courtesy requires that you
receive it before I submit it for publication or general distribution. At this point, I feel my only option is to
publicly express my concerns in the available media about the site development.
Sincerely,
John M. Menke
5301 Pinewood Trail
Edina, MN 55436
952- 922 -2608
Ar
7e 0)
f13 ltJE44 ft s ,�202� 2�C�r
MEMO
TO: Craig Larson DATE: 1/12/98
FROM: John enke
RE: Kunz /Lewis site development
I very much appreciate your efforts to keep me and the Richmond Hills
Neighborhood informed of developments on this site; and thank you
for copies of the responses to the RFP.
Unfortunately, due to the holiday season, my illness, and the number of
responders, the neighborhood has not had time to generate an appropriate
response.
I will attend the Council "Working" session on 1/13/98 in hopes that the
Council's intent will narrow the focus; and allow us to develop a
thoughtful response.
Generally, the neighborhood would prefer low impact alternatives with a
maximum of 3 stories in height; residential or residential "friendly"
feel to the buildings; if residential - -lower numbers, non - transient population-
if office - -- normal office hours, rather than continuous use.
Personally, the school alternatives intrigue me, but we do not understand
them well enough.
Thank you for your assistance, and for including us in this process.
October 17, 1999
Mayor Dennis Maetzold
Council Members;
Nan Faust
James Hovland
Scott Johnson
Michael Kelley
Dear Mayor and Council Members;
We write concerning the redevelopment proposals currently under consideration for the Kunz -Lewis site.
We reside at 5301 Pinewood Trail in the Richmond Hills neighborhood. Our home overlooks Sherwood
Park and the proposed redevelopment site. We have been Edina residents since 1978 and have occupied
our present home since 1990.
You currently have four proposals remaining for your consideration. We have ranked them in our order of
preference.
Most preferred:
1. Eden Village. Developers: Jerry's Enterprises, Laukaa -Jarvis & Namron Co.
Acceptable:
2. Edenmoor. Developer: Frauenshuh
3. The Residences at Grandview (no hotel). Developer: Stuart Companies
Unacceptable:
4. Grandview Square. Developers: Ron Clark Construction & Opus Northwest
Our preferred choice is Eden Village.
Positives:
• It preserves the small businesses, which currently serve as a good transition from the residential
neighborhood to the commercial area at Grandview.
• It preserves the neighborhood park.
• Jerry's has the longest history of dealing responsibly with the neighborhood regarding development
issues.
• It directs all new traffic from the Kunz -Lewis site directly onto Eden Avenue, directs bus garage
development traffic onto Vernon Avenue, and appears to have the potential for the least direct traffic
impact on the neighborhood.
• It is the only development proposal for the north side of Eden Avenue which offers the opportunity to
keep traffic on Vernon Avenue rather than Eden Avenue.
Negatives:
• For sale residential near existing residential area is three to four story heights plus the roof.
Acceptable choices
Edenmoor
Positives:
• Housing units closest to the neighborhood are the least tall.
• Developers have a history of considering neighborhood impact.
Negatives:
• Creates a large office and retail space south of Eden Avenue.
• Potential for increased traffic on Sherwood Road.
• Significant increase in traffic on Eden Avenue.
• Removes all small businesses currently providing a buffer to Grandview.
Residences at Grandview
Positives:
• All residential except for library and senior center.
• Least overall traffic impact.
Negatives:
• All rental housing
• Creates primary traffic pattern onto Sherwood Road.
• Bus garage entrance /exit onto Eden Circle is poorly placed.
• No history of soliciting or considering neighborhood input.
Unacceptable choice
Grandview Square
Negatives:
• Traffic for all 190 residential units will be via Sherwood Road creating a substantial traffic increase.
• Residential units are four stories with a one to two story roof.
• Residential units surround the eastern and most of the northern border of the park.
• The unit proposed for the beauty parlor site would rival the highest of the large apartment buildings on
the north side of Vernon Avenue.
• Has commercial uses south of Eden Avenue.
• Proposes a 4 -way intersection at Eden Avenue/Link Road/Eden Circle.
• Has one of the two greatest impacts on total area traffic and the greatest impact on Sherwood Road
traffic.
• Has no history of dealing with the neighborhood (did make a presentation when invited).
• Views Sherwood Park as an exploitable asset. Even in their new plan, they suggest using a portion of
the park. The original plan relocated the park out of the neighborhood.
Our concerns, as they have for nine years, focus on:
• Traffic /neighborhood access.
• Overall height of the development.
• General impact on the neighborhood.
• Developer's interest in'dealing with the neighborhood concerns.
We believe Eden Village offers the neighborhood and the City the best redevelopment proposal. Jerry's
Enterprises and their partners have a history of responsible development and have shown an interest in
respectful consideration of neighborhood concerns.
We encourage you to select Eden Village as the development proposal.
Thank you for your consideration,
John Menke Judith Brumfield
October 31, 1999
Mayor Dennis Maetzold
Council Members;
Nan Faust
James Hovland
Scott Johnson
Michael Kelley
Dear Mayor and Council Members;
I write to encourage you to pause and consider the following before you vote for selection of a developer
for the Kunz -Lewis site.
Your vote on November 1" is important to the City of Edina, the Richmond Hills neighborhood, and
several small businesses. I write now at the urging of my neighbors.
I implore you to consider the following before you vote:
* Most residents of the Richmond Hills neighborhood value the small businesses abutting their
neighborhood. The Vet, the Salon, and Noonan have been good neighbors.
* Most residents favor the Eden Village proposal by Jerry's, Laukaa- Jarvis, and Namron —it is quick to
completion, respectful of the park and the residential neighborhood, and, according to your analysis, had
no funding gap.
* Laukaa -Jarvis has managed a multi -use, multi -owner complex in Edina well for many years. This bodes
well for the long term in this development.
At your work session on October 26,1999, several members of the Council/HRA seemed to have some
preference for the Eden Village proposal. Please search your hearts and minds —if the choice is close for
you, listen to the small businesses and homeowners in the neighborhood and select the Eden Village
proposal.
Neighborhoods and small businesses are important to the quality of life here in Edina. The preferences of
the neighborhood and encouragement of small businesses should be a concern of the Council and HRA.
Sincerely,
John Menke
5301 Pinewood Trail
Edina, MN 55436
612- 922 -2608
March 29, 2000
Mayor Dennis Maetzold
Council Members;
Nan Faust
James Hovland
Scott Johnson
Michael Kelley
Dear Mayor and Council Members;
I write to request that you reject the current Opus /Clark proposed development plan, and instruct them to
submit a revised plan which.takes no land.from Sherwood Park.
Last Fall, during the process of selecting a developer for the Kunz -Lewis site. Opus Northwest and Ron
Clark Construction's original proposal for their development, "Grandview Square ", entirely eliminated the
existing neighborhood park, Sherwood Park.
Their second proposal, presented to the HRA, the City Council, and the Richmond Hills neighborhood in a
neighborhood meeting, left Sherwood Park as it currently is.
As you will recall, residents of Richmond Hills expressed their concern to this developer and to the City
Council that land in Sherwood Park not be used in this development. Both the developer and the City
Council gave assurances that existing parkland would not be used in this development.
On Monday March 27, 2000, I attended a presentation by Opus /Clark at Our Lady of Grace. Their most
recent proposal involves "reallocating" a very large piece of Sherwood Park to their "town square" and
siting four story condo /townhouses on the park.
They claim that this will increase parkland; further they claim the neighborhood will have access to the
"town square ". At best, these claims are a pleasant fiction.
Opus /Clark's current proposal eliminates useful park space. This space is currently used by the
neighborhood. In addition to the variety of sports, including but not limited to football, volleyball, soccer,
baseball, and softball, played or practiced by neighborhood children; that space provides a wide open play
area for kite flying, Frisbee, running, etc. Such space is not readily available elsewhere in the area.
The Richmond Hills neighborhood uses the existing Sherwood Park. It is the only city park readily and
safely available to children in the neighborhood. In addition to recreational activities, Sherwood Park has
served as a gathering place for neighbors and a wonderful location for birthday and graduation parties (my
son's university graduation party was held there).
Sherwood Park has also been a buffer between the existing single family homes in Richmond Hills and the
business activity of the Grandview area.
I described the developer's claims regarding their use of the Park as, at best, a. pleasant fiction. By changing
Sherwood Park's present space, there will no longer be sufficient open space for athletic or recreational
activities (other than jogging in place). Even though access is provided from the remnant of Sherwood Park
to the proposed town square, I doubt children & adolescents will be welcome there —even should they
desire to use that limited space. By several accounts, Mr. Clark believes that proximity to park areas such
as Sherwood Park are a detriment to his developments, or at least to their expeditious sale. He may well be
correct. I suspect that means he will seek to actively discourage uses of the Park and the town square which
provide this effect.
Neighborhoods and neighborhood parks are important to the quality of life here in Edina. The preferences
of the existing neighborhood should be a concern of the Council, the HRA, the Planning Commission, and
the Park Board.
Please reject the developer's proposal and clearly indicate that no current land in Sherwood Park is to be
used in this development.
Sincerely,
John Menke
5301 Pinewood Trail
Edina, MN 55436
612 - 922 -2608
April 12, 2000
Mayor Dennis Maetzold
Council Members Nan Faust, James Hovland, Scott Johnson, and Michael Kelley.
Dear Mayor and Council Members;
I write again to request that you reject the current Opus/Clark proposed development plan, and instruct
them to submit a revised plan which takes no land from Sherwood Park.
I look forward to speaking with you at the meeting on April 18, 2000 as you discuss the Overall
Development Plan Approval and Preliminary Rezoning for the "Kunz- Lewis" property. I am
supplementing my previous letter of March 29, 2000 with additional comments toward the same purpose —
no loss of land or change in boundaries to the current Sherwood Park.
At the Planning Commission Hearing on 3/29/00 and the Park Board Hearing on 4/11/00, Opus/Clark
advanced two primary reasons for their current and renewed incursion into Sherwood Park:
1) The Edina City Council desires and encourages it; and
2) The Hennepin County Library wants to be visible from Vernon.
I find the rationale that you desire, have encouraged, or will tolerate the incursion into Sherwood Park not
believable. I, and my neighbors, attended your meetings last Fall during which we believe you made it
clear that Sherwood Park was not to be used in this development. We value your support of existing
neighborhoods and parkland. I do not believe that you intend the Richmond Hills neighborhood to bear a
disproportionate share of the cost of this development. The loss of Sherwood Park in its current
configuration would negatively affect all 48 existing homeowners in Richmond Hills. The reconfiguration
and loss of area from Sherwood Park would affect all property owners' quality of life as well as both the
perceived and the real economic value of their property. The dominating character of proposed large
buildings would exacerbate these losses.
I encourage you to consider the following points:
1) Sherwood Park is an integral part of the existing neighborhood and has been so for over 50 years.
Homeowners purchased or built homes here, in part, due to Sherwood Park.
2) Sherwood Park has been an important buffer for the Richmond Hills neighborhood from the
relatively low (one to two stories, flat roofed) small businesses in the area. It will be an even more
important buffer from the proposed relatively tall (four stories, peaked roof, 50+ feet tall) and dense
proposed condo /townhouse units immediately adjacent to the park.
In the developer's proposal, the developer claims no net loss of parkland. That does not appear accurate:
1) The developer's new "additions" to the eastern and northeastern comers of the Park appear to be no
more than 21 feet wide. They are used in the developer's drawing as "landscape buffer" to the
development —not as open park space. Landscape buffer should not count as park space. In fact,
Sherwood Park appears to be reduced from 1.55 acres to @ .9 acres —a 42% reduction in area.
2) The developer proposes to take an area of open parkland approximately 225 feet by 135 feet from
an open area of the park that is only 283 feet by 135 feet.
3) The "townsquare" in the center of the development created to "replace" the open play area of
Sherwood Park will not be conducive to play. It is surrounded by streets, reduced by the need for
two -way traffic on the northwest side, and will be dominated by the development owners. This
" townsquare" is not intended —and will not be used by neighborhood children —as play area.
4) The relocated child play area is not conducive to child safety.
5) This is not the proposed land use you accepted last Fall.
6) The proposed development nearest the Richmond Hills single family homes continues to be too tall.
There has been no reduction in height of the proposed condo /townhomes. Instead, the developer has
placed them closer to existing single family homes while maintaining their 50+ foot height.
Please reject the current Opus/Clark redevelopment plan.
Do not permit the developer to use any of the existing land in Sherwood Park for the development -- either
for construction of buildings or for landscape buffer.
Delay approval of this redevelopment and rezoning until both the land use issues and design issues are
clear. Please know the design and dimensions of the proposed buildings prior to approval.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
John Menke
5301 Pinewood Trail
Edina, MN 55436
612- 922 -2608
May 12, 2000
Mayor Dennis Maetzold
Council Members Nan Faust, James Hovland, Scott Johnson, and Michael Kelley.
Dear Mayor and Council Members;
I write again to request that you reject the current Opus/Clark proposed development plan, and instruct
them to submit a revised plan which takes no land from Sherwood Park. As you are aware, the developers
requested a continuance from the originally scheduled meeting of April 18, 2000 in order to revise their
plan. I had the opportunity to view their plan on May 11, 2000. They continue to propose a plan which uses
land currently in Sherwood Park. They have not changed the height or basic configuration of the residential
units closest to the existing homes in the neighborhood, and they have not changed the traffic pattern.
I look forward to speaking with you at the meeting on May 16, 2000 as you discuss the Overall
Development Plan Approval and Preliminary Rezoning for the "Kunz- Lewis" property. I am
supplementing my previous letters of March 29 and April 12, 2000 with additional comments toward the
same purpose —no loss of land or change in boundaries to the current Sherwood Park.
* The "new, revised" plan continues to call for the use of (by the developers' figures) .33 acres of
Sherwood Park. This is over 21% of the Park's total area, and at least 35% of the flat open play area on the
West Side of the Park.
• The developers continue to claim that Sherwood Park was intended to be part of the overall
development from the beginning.
• Despite assurances given to Council members Hovland and Faust on 11/1/99 by Ron Clark that there
were no contingencies affecting the developers ability to proceed with the development and that
residential building height issues could be addressed, the developer now claims that building codes
require construction changes over four stories —so height adjustments cannot economically be made.
• Options do appear available to the developer:
1) Reduce "footprint" area of the office building and increase its height — permitting movement
of the westernmost residential unit to the eastern complex (moving it out of the park).
2) Increase height of office complex and reduce number of residential units.
3) Move the secondary entrance /exit from Sherwood Road to under the raised deck parking area
associated with the office complex — permits a shift in residential units further from
neighborhood.
4) Rethink and/or renegotiate the library's participation in the development. We are aware that
TIF cannot subsidize a new City Hall —but I suspect the combined remodeling costs in the
current plan (I also assume not TIF eligible) could be spent building a new City Hall on top of
the Senior Center.
I support the development of the Kunz Lewis site. I have no serious problems with the mixed -use
development. But, I ask you please do npt require the existing neighborhood to pay a disproportionate
price. for a development which benefits the entire City.
I note that on May 16, 2000 you will also be considering a tax referendum proposal for increasing
recreational facilities and City Park improvements. Ordinarily, I would be a strong advocate for this
proposal. However, I find myself in the extraordinary position in which I cannot reconcile supporting a
proposal to increase my taxes for Parks and recreational facilities when the City Park across the street from
my home maybe reduced in size to accommodate a private developer.
Please reject the current Opus/Clark redevelopment plan.
Do not permit the developer to use any of the existing land in Sherwood Park for the development— either
for construction of buildings or for landscape buffer.
Delay approval of this redevelopment and rezoning until both the land use issues and design issues are
clear. Please know the design and dimensions of the proposed buildings prior to approval.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
John Menke
5301 Pinewood Trail
Edina, MN 55436
612- 922 -2608
Petiden
To: Edina City Council
From: Richmond Hills Neighborhood Association
Subject: Grandview Square Development
We, the residents of the Richmond Hills neighborhood oppose ceding any portion of our existing
neighborhood park, `Sherwood Park ", to the "Grandview Square" development. It is of vital importance
to us that you remember, as we do, that the City Council stated that the park wo Id be left Intact , a
commitment also made by the Ron Clark representative at the late -fall neighborhood presentation
meeting!
On March 27, 2000, OPUS/Ron Clark presented its site plan to the Neighborhood Association. It was a
shock to observe that "Sherwood Park" was dramatically reduced in size by four -story condominiums!
This is completely unacceptable. We all believed in good faith that the developer would honor the
commitment made to preserving Sherwood Park, as indicated on the plan he created and presented to
the Association and the City Council in late fall -- a plan he used to gain our approval and support. (See
attached site plan and overview).
A considerable number of Association neighbors pointed out at Council meetings and in letters to the
Council the need for keeping the park intact. Those reasons included:
1.) The park is a 391al part of this neighborhood.
- people buy homes here because of the park.
- there is a growing number of children in the area, who need and use the park-
- we hold neighborhood functions there.
- our grandchildren enjoy it.
2.) The park acts as a "buffer" between our neighborhood and the higher - traffic, commercial
area.
- this need will be even greater with the increased congestion and traffic generated from
the new development.
- Sherwood Park was initially proposed by developers as offering a good "buffer"
between the existing neighborhood and a new development, indicating to us
acknowledged understanding of its importance.
3.) The proposed residential buildings taking over the park area are four stories high, totaling
approximately 52 feet! If allowed to be developed as proposed, they would be an overwhelming
presence to all nearby housing and tower over the entrance to our existing neighborhood.
4.) The park at. our entrance meets a BASIC NEED. This is a unique land - locked area and we
have no practical alternative for a park. We use and enjoy Sherwood Park. We have been told
throughout this matter that both the developer and the City Council would respect the needs of
the citizens who live in the area. It has always been Edina's practice to carefully consider these
needs. Please don't let indifference or financial- appeal outweigh them....
October 31, 1999
To: Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Re: Kunz/Lewis Redevelopment
Many of us in the Richmond Hills Neighborhood are concerned over the recent choice for development
of this area. Being the closest to the site, we have natural reasons for our, concern, inasmuch as we have
to "live" with whatever is constructed there on a daily basis.
Our concern with "Grandview Square" is that it is just too "Grand "! The number and scale of the
building proposed would rise above, and dwarf most of the residential community adjoining it. It also
means purchasing or condemning all business properties south of Eden.
"Eden Village" on the other hand has always been the least invasive and most compatible proposal for
both the adjoining neighborhood and the existing business firms; including the following positive
reasons:
• It avoids multiple, costly condemnations.
• Therefore it honors the right of these businesses to continue operating, as they had planned (with
the exception of the "TAGS" property).
• It directs all new tr is from the site to Eden Avenue, thus avoiding substantial traffic problems
onto Sherwood Ave.
• Financial: As far as we know, there are no short or long term concerns with this development, thus
the city of Edina would have one of the least concerns financially.
• The City of Edina has a long and satisfactory history of working with this development team.
• All industrial/commercial uses are kept north of Eden Avenue, maintaining the compatibility of the
residential complex proposed.
Thus, we hope you will give due weight and consideration to these important concerns, not only for the
adjoining residents, but for the City of Edina as well.
We also, hope you will give respectful concern to the Richmond Hills Neighborhood request that
building height nearest our area be kept to a maximum that does not unduly impact our homes.
Thank you for your consideration of this request.
Arthur L. Heiam
5205 Richwood.Drive
Edina, MN
TO CG t, or -r g
CO A p r 7- £ E E 2 .� 2 FCC E c ti >✓ .
December 6, 1999
John Menke
5301 Pinewood Tr.
Edina MN 55436
Re: Grandview Square
Dear Mr. Menke:
CONSTRUCTION
7500 West 78th Street
Edina, Minnesota
554' 9
(612) 947 -3ti`0
fax (612) 947-303-0
On behalf of Opus Corporation and Ron Clark Construction, we are writing to give you a
progress report on the Grandview Square development. As you know, the City Council
approved the Opus /Ron Clark plan at their November 1 St meeting. Since that time, we
have been working with City staff on the Letter of Intent.
The attached site plan is a requirement of the Letter of Intent, but it is not the final plan.
The plan has been revised to address the needs of the Hennepin County Library. We
have reversed the configuration of the office building and senior center/library from our
last site plan. The library will face Eden Avenue with the senior center, positioned
below, facing the interior of the site.
We are continuing to work on the residential and office components and this plan should
be considered "a work in progress" as it relates to the design work and the
positioning /size of the residential units and office space.
We intend to complete the Letter of Intent with the City of Edina by the end of this year
and then move forward with more formal site planning. In early 2000, we will be
meeting with the senior center and library staff in more detail and we will also be holding
a neighborhood meeting to receive your comments and input on the site plan. These
meetings will be done prior to submitting a final plan to the City of Edina for the zoning
and planning approvals. We know that traffic, density, and site design are of interest to
you and we plan to discuss these items with you in more detail.
Thank you for your interest in Grandview Square. We look forward to working with you.
Sincerely,
(I'll I -�e4
Heidi Kurtze
Project Development Manager
cc: Gordon Hughes, City Manager
Construction and Dcsig:"-
MN Builder License / 0001222fJ
httpJ/www.RocPCI3rk-c0c=
Linda Helland
5720 McGuire Road
Edina, Mn 55439
June 2, 2000
Dear Minneapolis Park Board:
I am writing to you in regard to the proposal for an off -leash dog site on the property near
42nd and France Avenue. It is a site I am very familiar with, as I have been walking a
succession of family dogs there for almost 20 years. I am a supporter of off -leash areas in
general theory. However, I am opposed to the formal designation of this site for that
purpose at this time. I think that the city should move more cautiously in this case and
table the proposal until adequate assessments are made of the three sites designated
earlier this year. I think, further, that the unique character of the 42nd and France site
warrants special consideration.
Some of the potential problems that concern nearby residents are parking, increased
usage by higher numbers of people and dogs, a broader mix of age groups which could
very well lead to demands for additional and multiple use facilities, regulatory problems,
the need for increased park personnel to regulate and maintain the area, and the resultant
expense. The proposed site also offers one of the few relatively wild areas easily
accessible in the city. As such, it offers a wide range of topography, flora, and wildlife3
all of which would suffer under the proposed plan. Additionally, the proposed size of the
fenced in off -leash area is a fraction of the total acreage of the site. If you build it, they
will come --in great numbers for a too small space.
I urge you to study the other sites first to understand the unforeseen problems that always
accompany a new effort. Please do not approve this plan as written at this time. Once this
area is "improved ", its value as a natural area will certainly decrease - irrevocably. Perhaps
the planned, planted, fenced sites with parking areas are best placed on park land that has
already been in use in more highly urbanized settings or in areas which are intended to
meet all the recreational needs of all the people.
Please do not pass this proposal .
LiiVaul
rtA Linda Helland
cc: Edina Park and Recreation Depatment
Edina City Council
Minneapolis City Council
11 May 2000
i KEr ,
Will wonders ever cease? After being mauled and man-
handled with every trick in the book (poked with a
dull IV needle, jostled onto an uncomfortable gurney,
rattled up the walk, dumped into your springless
wagon and then taken on a route to Fairview that
didn't miss a single pothole on the way) I survived!
I'll wager that you're both ex- Marines who never had
the opportunity to finish your tour] of duty.
Seriously, I want you to know how grateful I am to
both of you.Just a few seconds on, I said to myself,
"These fellows know what they're about." and felt
trust and relief immediately.
I had been very reluctant to call 911, but it seems
it was the right thing to do under the circumstances.
Happily, it was not my heart but just a strong attack
of angina.
Once again, my sincere thanks for your wonderful care
and help.
Gratefully yours.;
Paul Carson
P.S. Am having, at your suggestion, a reflective
sign made with our address, to be placed
540 -0 at the top of the hill.
Co OD � the C�v'e b�
Unhi��
rev
b8b
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 273
Regular Meeting, May 22, 2000, 7 :00 P.M.
2nd Floor Cafeteria, Edina Community Center
AGENDA
Determination of Quorum and Call to Order
Approval of Minutes of Meeting of May 8, 2000
HEARINGS OF INDIVIDUALS, DELEGATIONS, AND PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS_
wwT" error rn TMOMQ Dp4ADP MTM- RnhPn IMP zkrmTnw I* -Q171:
ACTION Page
393 Personnel Recommendations 686 -688
394 Expenditures Payable on May 22, 2000, appended 689
395 Approval Procedure for Expenditures Payable 690
on June 26, 2000
396 Pay Rates for Casual, Seasonal & Temporary Employees 691
397 Board of Education Meeting Dates, 2000 -2001 692
398 Federal Grants for Fiscal Year 2000 -2001 693 -694
409 Purchase of World Language Text Resources 695 -696
400 Purchase of Health Textbooks 697
401 Review and Comment 698
402 South View Middle School Boiler Retubing 699
403 Valley View Middle School Beam Detectors 700
CONSENT
404 Gift from Hubert Olson Elementary School PTA in 701
Bloomington
405 Gift from Spartan Parent Teacher Organization in 702
Richfield
406 Gift from Richfield Middle School Parent 703
Advisory Group
407 Gift from Sheridan Hills P.T.O. in Richfield 704
408 Gift from Concord Elementary School PTO in Edina 705
,9 Gift from the Normandale French Immersion Parent 706
Organization
HEARINGS OF INDIVIDUALS, DELEGATIONS, AND PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS
FROM THE PUBLIC ON ANY ISSUE ( *SEE ATTACHED DETAIL.)
DISCUSSION
410 Strategic Plan for 2000 -2001, appended
REPORTS
Curriculum Task Force
Literacy Task Force
Science Education Task Force
707
INFORMATION
411 Revised Procedure 3330 - Business, Employee Expense 708 -712
Reimbursement
412 Staff`Recognition
Adjournment
713
* Persons who wish to address the Board are requested to complete and submit an
appropriate form to the Board Secretary prior to.the designated hearing time.
when recognized, each individual shall identify himself /herself and the group
represented, if any. He /She shall then state the reason for addressing the Board
and shall be limited in time at the discretion of the Board chair. Individual
employees of the School District or representatives of employee organizations
shall have utilized administrative procedures before making a request to address
the Board.
To: Edina City Council:
Dennis Maetzold James Hovland,
From: Randall Pratt
6412 West Shore Drive
Edina MN 55435 -1526
Michael Kelly, Nan Faust, Scott Johnson
�
,., �f0 A
I recently received a pink reminder card from the Edina Health Department regarding
prohibitions on garbage, recycling containers and yard waste. I don't remember ever
hearing from them before so a "reminder" gave me pause to reflect.
I can understand residents, especially senior citizens and handicapped people,
having an option to place certain refuse near their residences. But, the requirement
that all garbage and recycling containers be placed next to the residence while
requiring yard waste be placed at the curb does not make sense to me.
The stated rationale on the reminder card is a visual aesthetic: to keep our
"neighborhood neat and orderly." But, wouldn't having one place to put our refuse
further the end of neatness and orderliness better than doubling the problem by
requiring two areas be used — one near the residence another by the curb?
For people who use their cars during the day, the requirement that refuse be put near
their garage restricts their ability to use their own driveways.
I do not understand how those who promulgate our ordinances would require certain
waste to be placed at the curb and then seemingly offended by other waste impose a
segregation of its placement. Recycling came into being as a way to show
environmental concern. Are those who recycle to be reprimanded for carrying their
concern too far? You may take your recycling concerns to just beyond your door but
no further — not even to the curb. Sounds a bit ridiculous.
Besides requiring sanitation personnel to take additional time to walk up and down our
driveways, consider the following derivative impacts:
• Noisy, stinking trucks spending more time in our neighborhoods.
• Personnel serving fewer households and requiring new hiring.
• Costs to the residents are driven higher to pay for the extra "service."
I see no harm done in doing these sanitation workers a little favor. I see many
neighborhoods (some near city hall) where most everyone brings their refuse to the
curb. Are these people all scofflaws or are they just good people trying to be a little
helpful? I urge you to revisit these ordinances with the intention of making them more
flexible for the residents.
I want to share I understand and endorse the time restrictions. There is offense when
stuff is piled up on the curb for days in advance. People who violate these prohibitions
should be put on notice that they are violating the spirit of a "neat and orderly" Edina.
With Heartfelt Thanks!
To The Offices Of
The Edina Police and Fire Departments
Police Chief Siitari
Assistant Fire Chief Darrell Todd
4801 West 50th St.
Edina, MN 55424.
Phone No. 952- 826 -1600
May 19, 2000
Dear Police Chief Siitari and Assistant Fire Chief Darrell Todd, .
Please accept our following letter recommending Commendations be presented to the following
individuals:
Roland Pederson, citizen
Jean Pederson, citizen
Jenifer Pederson, citizen
Bonnie Goodner, citizen
Dispatcher Short, 911 Dispatcher for the city of Edina, Case #99 -9151
Officer Draper, Police Officer for the City of Edina, Case #99 -9151
Officer Marks, Police Officer for the City of Edina, Case #99 -9151
Paramedic Wally Fasulo, Paramedic for the city of Edina, Run #99 -1564
Wally Fasulo's partner, Paramedic for the city of Edina, Run #99 -1564
Our intention and desire is to commemorate and to give thanks to the individuals who rendered their life
saving services to Laura Pederson of 5921 Walnut Dr. in Edina on May 23, 1999, Case #99 -9151 and
Paramedic Run #99 -1564.
We cannot believe that a year has passed since Laura under went cardiac arrest at her home. Laura Leigh
Pederson, the wife of Dave Pederson, is now.40 years old. She is the mother of two girls, Jeni age 1, and
Anne age 2. Laura is back to teaching first grade at Hopkins' Eisenhower Elementary School. Laura and
Dave deal with some minor life changes, and yet they lead a relatively normal and very active life. On
Sunday morning, May 23, 1999, the citizens, the Edina Dispatcher, the Police Officers and the Paramedics
named above, as well as the staff at Fairview Southdale Hospital, made this recovery possible.
On that Sunday morning, Laura was preparing to go to church, and her heart simply stopped functioning.
She had experienced no prior symptoms, and no family history could have given us any warning of what
was to come. A 911 call from Laura's visiting in -laws, Roland and Jean Pederson, began the rescue
process. Laura's daughter, Jenifer, confirmed the home address for grandma and grandpa. As the
dispatcher put out the call, Dispatcher Short also directed the Pedersons, and Laura's neighbor, Bonnie
Goodner, how to administer CPR. After a short period of CPR, Officer Draper and Officer Marks arrived
on the scene.
Within approximately 2 -3 minutes, the officers had applied pads from a portable defibilator, completed
the necessary procedure, and Laura's heart was beginning to show a positive response. Next, Wally
Fasulo's paramedic team on Run #99 -1564 arrived and they applied their life saving skills. They .
transferred Laura to Fairview Southdale Hospital. Since that morning, she has undergone a miraculous
recovery. This recovery we know would not have been possible without the efforts of Roland and Jean
Pederson, Jenifer Pederson, and Bonnie Goodner; and the life saving skills and commitment that were so
expertly applied and carried out by Dispatcher Short, Officer Draper, Officer Marks and Paramedics
Wally Fasulo and Wally's partner on the run, whose name we apologize was not able to be obtained to be
included in this letter.
A simple thank you for saving our loved one's life seems too trite, but frankly we do not know how better
to express our deep heart felt feelings. One moment none of us will ever forget is when Wally met with
our family in the ICU lounge shortly after Laura's admittance to the hospital. He described to us how all
the links in the life saving chain had worked together that morning. We have come to realize over the past
year just how critical the timely implementation of each link and the team's life saving skills made it
possible for Laura to be with us today.
We would also like to take this opportunity to thank all who serve. Our's is only one story. This is only.
one life blessed and saved, and this is only one story, from just one of the days of these individuals and
their committed service; a service which many of us took for granted, before May 23, 1999.
We call Laura our living miracle. Today she lives a near normal life, a miracle that would not have been
possible without prayers being answered; without the efforts of Roland and Jean Pederson, Jenifer
Pederson and Bonnie Goodrier; and without the life saving skills of Dispatcher Short, Officer Draper,
Officer Marks, Paramedic Fasulo and his partner, all being present at Laura's side.
A simple thank you to one and all!
Respectfully Submitted On Behalf Of,
Dave and Laura Pederson, Jenifer and Anne Pederson
an d their families,
Chris Thompson, L;a�brother Jame Thompson, Laura's brother
cc: The City Hall of Edina, Office of The Mayor
The City Hall of Edina, City Council Members
Fairview Southdale Hospital, CEO
Dear City Council,
I am writing this letter to let you know how important it is for you to help change the laws in
regards to skateboarding. Please take a few minutes to read my letter, as I hope to help you to
understand why I skate and why skateboarding should not be considered a crime.
You see, I am a skater, and I love to skate. Skateboarding is a way of life for me, which you might
not understand. Skateboarding has been around since the early 1920's. Our great -great grandfathers and
great - grandmothers put roller -skate wheels on apple- crates; eventually they evolved into the first
skateboards that were sold in hardware stores around the U.S. as early as 1950. Huge growth in the
1960s came about when the Gay wheel replaced the steel wheels.
Since then, United States cities have done a wonderful job in creating recreation areas in their
public parks for almost every sport known to man. Basketball courts, football and soccer fields,. baseball
diamonds, tennis and racquetball courts, the list could go on and on. But for one reason or another
skateboarding has been neglected.
Skateboarding is an activity that requires physical strength, stamina, and an aggressive attitude
toward success, all of which happen to be traits of what we label as a "sport". Skateboarding is a truly
creative sport that emphasizes the incorporation of city terrain into smooth, fast movements. It's a sport
that accepts anyone willing to try it. It doesn't discriminate against race, religion, or sexual orientation.
This is why I love to skate. I can skate whenever and wherever I want. I don't need a field. I can skate to
school and get some exercise. I can skate with my friends, boys or girls. I can skate alone. I can skate to
work - save time, money, and the environment. All 1 need is the legal right to skate on the street.
Or, I need a skatepark where I can skate, meet new people and help support an industry that
supports my individuality. Every year there are more than 350 million dollars spent on skateboarding -
related products. Everything from wheels and kneepads, to shoes and clothing items. I'm sure you've
seen a television commercial or advertisement in a magazine lately that features a skateboarder.
Yet, the current trend in city law- making is turning skateboarders into criminals by outlawing
skateboarding in downtown areas, where the total number of skateboarders is greatest, and not providing
an alternative to what was stripped away. We are one of the cross- sections of America's youth that needs
you the most. Please don't turn your backs on us, like so many have, by dismissing my letter. Ours is a
real problem that requires people in your position to be part of the solution.
Aggressive sports in Edina have grown exponentially in recent years, and show no sign of
slowing down. But, its clear that the skateboarders, roflerbladers and freestyle bikers need more room
than is presently available in town.
On many occasions while skateboarding, my friends have been facing many difficulties while riding our
skateboards. We have been escorted off parking lots by store owners, been almost hit by cars when
skateboarding on the.
The store owners have accused us of destroying their property and no longer allow us to
skateboard on their property. It didn't used to be a problem, but the numbers of people participating in
skateboarding has grown larger than these owners are comfortable with dealing with.
As these examples show, there is a real need for action. The town could do nothing and we
would pretty much only be allowed to skateboard in our driveways. The nearest place we have to skate
without being harassed is 7 miles away in Minneapolis. The town could provide us with rides to and from
this skatepark. Although the easiest way to eliminate the problem is to outlaw skating all together.
But the skaters of Edina have a better solution then any of these. We propose that the town build
a skatepark; a place where skateboarders, rollerbladers, bikers and anyone else can practice what they
love to do in a safe place, without bothering anyone else. This idea is not as far out as you might first
think! Towns all through this state have come to a similar answer.
The building of a skatepark will not only benefit the people who will use the park, but also the
town as a whole will benefit tremendously. Kids will have a great place to go and have fun. 1 Instead of
having to resort to drug use, these kids now have a place to go. Local businesses will not have to worry
as much about what they think is 'a problem of vandilization. If the town builds a really great skatepark,
people will travel to our town just to skate at the park. It'll give good publicity to the town!
I know that a skatepark would be perfect. I want to ask the town if you can have a committee put
together immediately that can work with the local youth in making this a reality., There is no reason why
this should wait, action should be taken right away. Here's some information from the IASC, The
International Association of Skateboard Companies Skateboard Companies, who help towns just like ours
with various questions that arise.
I understand that rules and regulations are necessary to help keep me and the people around me
safe and happy. I hope that you will try and understand that I want to be safe, happy, and able to ride my
skateboard. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Conor Mannix
"Get out of here!" "You are ruining the property!" Skateboarders hear this all the time. For years
skateboarders have been harassed by people for doing what they love. Many reasons have contributed to this. I think
that skateboarding should not be illegal.
In the past, skaters were known as druggies, bums, and criminals. Today we have the same reputation. Why
do businesses think a group of kids automatically means trouble? I have been with a group of my friends when a
police car pulled up and asked us to leave a parking lot because the owners don't like us hanging around. We had
just sat down to eat and drink products we bought from that store. Skaters equal losers. How can people think this? I
know everyone of my friends that skate get good grades, listen to their parents and everything else a parent would
want from a child. Even professionals promote school and discourage the use of drugs. As a result of these
stereotypes many rules have come about that prohibit skateboarding.
We have become criminals for doing what we love. Every day a new "no skateboarding" sign goes up
making sure no "hooligans" come around. Skateboarders should have confidence to skate without having to stop,
getting asked to leave, or arrested. Skaters need places to skate to progress and get better. Skateparks have been
built, but they can cost up to ten dollars a visit to skate for a day in a crowded warehouse. An individual can only
find public skateparks in a few select areas. Even with some public skateparks skaters need different terrain. I have
recently found out that skateboarding on the sidewalk was illegal. An anti - skateboarder might say that skateboards
cause damage to buildings, streets, and sidewalks. Honestly, cars, bikes, and nature cause just as much maybe even
more damage than skateboards. Rollerbladers can go anywhere they want but skateboarders have strict limitations.
Think of it this way. A kid loves to play basketball and dreams to go all the way to the pros. But the only basketball
hoop in town has "no basketball playing" signs that line the court. Will the kid just give up his dreams or play
anyway? In relation to basketball, skateboarding has sport-like characteristics.
Today there are over ten million skateboarders in the world. 9.3 million skate almost every day practicing,
striving to get better. Rollerblading has a reputation as a great sport and exercise. Skateboarding is a very physical
sport, even more so than rollerblading. Skateboarding needs some good recognition. Then we can start on a path
towards legalization. Skating has turned into a 750 million -dollar industry. When can they treat skateboarding as a
sport rather than classify it as vandalism.
In conclusion skateboarding has become not just a hobby to me, but a part of who 1 am. All real skaters
love skateboarding. To us skateboarding is an art, not a way of disrespecting others. How can people condemn us for
our way of life? It might not make everyone happy but it makes us happy. Lastly, just let us do what we love,
encourage us, or at least try to understand our passion.
Sincerely,
Charlie Becky
MINUTES
EDINA RECYCLING AND SOLID WASTE COMMISSION
APRIL 20, 2000
7:00 A.M.
MANAGER'S CONFERENCE ROOM
MEMBERS PRESENT: Kathy Frey, Judith Smith, Anne Cronin, K.C. Glaser, Bob Reid,
Inna Hays
MEMBERS ABSENT: Shelly Lipetzky
GUEST: David Weidenfeller and David Wiggins from BFI
STAFF PRESENT: Solvei M. Wilmot
ROLL CALL
Meeting was called to order at 7:05 a.m. by Kathy Frey, Chair.
MINUTES
Judy Smith MOVED TO APPROVE THE DECEMBER 16, 1999 MINUTES AS WRITTEN.
Inna Hays SECONDED. MOTION CARRIED.
Ms. Hays pointed out some corrections to the March minutes. Bob Reid MOVED TO
APPROVE THE MARCH 16, 2000 MINUTES AS CORRECTED. K.C. Glaser SECONDED.
MOTION CARRIED.
RESIDENTIAL RECYCLING PROGRAM
The commission members discussed the possibility of open hauling for recycling as opposed to
the current City contract. The commission members expressed safety concerns with more
commercial vehicles on the streets during collection day. They also stated they like the current
service.
Members also discussed recommending curbside recycling collection. Mr. Reid reported visiting
with a former Mayor who had strongly supported back door collection. The majority of his
neighbors placed their bins curbside the day Mr. Reid was at the former Mayor's home. As a
result, Reid's host said it was probably time to change to curbside collection instead of trying to
keep convincing citizens not to use curbside. Plus, the cost difference significantly favors the
citizens using curbside.
Bob Reid MOVED TO RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY OF EDINA REMAIN A
CONTRACT HOLDER WITH A RECYCLING COLLECTION COMPANY FOR CITY WIDE
RECYCLING COLLECTION. IN ADDITION, CHANGE THE COLLECTION POINT FROM
GARAGE SIDE TO CURBSIDE AS A WAY TO BE COST EFFECTIVE. IT IS
UNDERSTOOD THAT EXCEPTIONS FOR THE COLLECTION POINT WOULD BE
GRANTED FOR RESIDENTS WITH A PHYSICAL LIMITATION. Anne Cronin
SECONDED. MOTIN CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
NEW GRANT FROM HENNEPIN COUNTY
Ms. Wilmot reported that Hennepin County has a new grant. It is the Municipal Waste
Abatement Incentive Fund Grant. Applications are being accepted until May 15`h. Ms. Wilmot
reported that grant money can be requested to be used towards recycling education, curbside
recycling innovation and efficiency and/or improve multi - family recycling programs.
Commission members suggested requesting money to be used towards a scholarship for an
innovative youth that promotes recycling. Another idea was to have an intern that would work
on increasing recycling participation at multi -unit buildings. A third idea was to use grant
money toward a weekly ad in the local paper which would provide information regarding
recycling and waste reduction. Ms. Wilmot will submit a proposal for each of the ideas.
K.C. Glaser will find out who should be contacted at the schools for distributing scholarship
applications.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS
Bob Reid MOVED TO ELECT KATHY FREY A3 CHAIR AND JUDITH SMITH AS VICE
CHAIR. K.C. Glaser SECONDED. MOTION CARRIED.
OTHER BUSINESS
The Volunteer Awards Reception is April 25. Mr. Reid will read the citation regarding Ardythe
Buerosse.
ADJOURNED
Meeting.adjourned, 8:05 a.m.
'r
v
MINUTES
OF THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
EAST EDINA HOUSING FOUNDATION
ANNUAL MEETING
FEBRUARY 1, 2000 - 10:00 A.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: William Greer
Virginia Shaw
Ron Ringling
Thomas Erickson.
STAFF PRESENT: Joyce Repya, Associate Planner
John Wallin, Finance Director
Jerome Gilligan, Foundation Attorney
Mr. Greer called the meeting to order at 10:00 A.M.. Prior to addressing the
agenda, Mr. Greer welcomed Mr. Erickson as the newest member of the Foundation Board
of Directors.
Mr. Greer also expressed the sadness of the Board over the loss of Robert
Schoening. ' Mr. Schoening who had served on the Board since 1988, died on November
4, 1999. Mr. Schoenings expertise and good nature were of tremendous value to the
board, he will be truly missed.
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:
Mr. Ringling moved approval of the minutes of the February 10, 1999, Board of
Directors meeting. Mr. Erickson seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried.
II. ELECTION OF OFFICERS:
Mrs. Shaw moved that the current slate of officers be re- elected for a one year term.
Ms. Repya reminded the board that Mr. Schoening had served as secretary thus that
vacant office needed to be filled. Mrs. Shaw amended the motion to nominate Mr.
Erickson to the Office of Secretary and re -elect the remaining officers:
• President, William Greer
• Vice President, John Palmer
• Vice President, Ron Ringling
• Vice President, Virginia Shaw
Mr. Ringling seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried.
II. RATIFICATION OF PRIOR ACTIONS:
Based upon the recommendation of Mr. Gilligan, Mr. Erickson introduced the
following resolution and moved its adoption: . t
RESOLUTION OF THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
EAST EDINA HOUSING FOUNDATION
Adopted: February 1, 2000
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Directors of the East Edina Housing Foundation
(the "Foundation ") as follows:
WHEREAS, the Foundation has entered into a Land Sale Agreement and Contract
for Private Redevelopment with the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Edina,
Minnesota (the "HRA ") dated on or as of August 1, 1985, and a Land Sale Agreement and
Contract for Private Redevelopment by and between the Foundation and the Edina
Partnership dated on or as of August 1, 1985, both for the development of property in the
City of Edina described in the Agreements and known as Edinborough; and
WHEREAS, the Foundation has entered into an Amended and Restated Land Sale
Agreement and Contract for Private Redevelopment with the HRA dated on or as of
September 30, 1988, and a Land Sale and Contract for Private Development by and
between the Foundation 'and the amendments thereto, both for the development of
property in the City of Edina described in the Agreements and known as Centennial Lakes;
and
WHEREAS, the Foundation has approved two programs designated as the Edina
Community Homebuyer Program and Edina Home Partners Program (together, the
"Programs "), which are designed to provide certain assistance in connection with the
purchase by moderate income persons of owner occupied single family residences in the
City of Edina through the making of second mortgage loans; and
WHEREAS, the Foundation has entered into a Servicing Agreement dated as of
March 1, 1999, by and between the Foundation and Community Reinvestment Fund to
provide for the servicing of loans to be made by the Foundation pursuant to the Programs;
and
WHEREAS, the officers and directors of the Foundation, the Executive Director of
the HRA and other employees, officers and agents of the HRA and the City of Edina, have
been working with, and have been advising and consulting with, the Foundation relative to
the investment of funds of the Foundation, the Programs, potential new programs of the
Foundation, the Edinborough and Centennial Lakes projects, the low and moderate
income housing developed in Edinborough and Centennial Lakes and the second
mortgage loans obtained by the Foundation in connection with housing in the Edinborough
and Centennial Lakes projects and the Programs; and
WHEREAS, the activities of the officers, directors, employees, and agents of the
Foundation, and of the Executive director of the HRA and other employees, officers, and
agents of the HRA and the City of Edina, have been undertaken for, and have been
2
necessary to, the success of the Edinborough and Centennial Lakes project and the
Programs and to achieve the goals of the Foundation.
It is therefore recognized, acknowledged, and agreed by the Foundation that all of
the activities, agreements and undertakings taken and done by any of the officers,
directors, employees or agents of the Foundation in connection with or relative to the
Edinborough and Centennial Lakes projects, the Programs, potential new programs of the
Foundation of the second mortgages obtained by the Foundation, to and including the
date of this resolution, are hereby ratified and confirmed as being the act and deed of, and
binding on, the Foundation and within their authority as officers, directors, employees or
agents of the Foundation.
It is further recognized, acknowledged and agreed that the activities, including
consultation and advice, of the Executive Director and other employees, officers and
agents of the HRA of the city of Edina, have been given in good faith and for the best
interests of the Foundation and have been necessary to achieve the goals of the
Foundation in connection with the Edinborough and Centennial Lakes projects and the
Programs and the Foundation hereby expressed its thanks and appreciation for all such
activities, consultation and advise.
Adopted: February 1, 2000
Mr. Greer seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried.
IV. FINANCE REPORT:
Mr. Wallin was present to update the Board on the status of the Foundation's
investments. CD's continue to represent the favored agency with a majority of the maturity
dates occurring in 2000 and 2001. Currently, the final maturity date is December 2002.
Mr. Wallin pointed out that the variance in the maturity dates has been driven by the best
interest rates at the time of purchase. As the interest rates were rising, the one year range
appeared more prudent at low 6% when compared to two to three year terms averaging in
upper 6% range.
Mr. Wallin also explained that he has provided for the availability of cash for the
Foundation through a money market mutual fund which yields an interest rate of low 5%
and a maturity of two to three months.
The 1999 year end balance for the Foundation's investments is $4,340,000.00
representing a $469,000.00 increase over the December 1998 balance of $3,871,000.00.
Following a brief discussion of Mr. Wallin's report, Mr. Ringling expressed concern
over the large and growing balance of the Foundation's investments; pointing out that the
mission of the Foundation has never been to make money.
Mr. Greer agreed with Mr. Ringling pointing out that that the initial intent of the
Foundation to assist low and moderate income individuals purchase housing in Edina has
certainly worked. The Board must now continue its initial mission by not only advertising
3
the downpayment assistance programs, but also by creating new opportunities to assist
those of low and moderate incomes with housing related programs.
Mr. Ringling suggested that the Board schedule a special meeting specifically to
address ways to increase participation in existing programs as well as offering new
housing opportunities for low and moderate income individuals. The Board concurred with
Mr. Ringling. No formal action was taken.
V. ACCEPTANCE OF AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENT FOR 1998:
Ms. Repya presented the audited financial statement for 1998 as prepared by the
accounting firm, Grant Thornton. The question was raised why the audit included 1997.
Mr. Gilligan explained that the 1997 financial information is included as a point of
comparison. ' Mr. Ringling moved acceptance of the audited financial statements for the
year ending 1998. Mrs. Shaw seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried.
VI. SELECTION OF 1999 AUDITOR:
Ms. Repya advised the Board that Grant Thornton has prepared the Foundation's
tax returns and audited financial statements since 1990. Board members agreed that
Grant Thornton has served the Foundation well in the past and is familiar with the
programs. Mr. Ringling moved that the Foundation again retain Grant Thornton for the
purpose of preparing the 1999 audited financial statements and tax return. Mrs. Shaw
seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried.
VII. FUNDING REQUEST FROM SENIOR COMMUNITY SERVICES:
Ms. Repya referred to correspondence from Senior Community Services dated
January 26, 2000. Ms. Repya explained that Senior Community Services is again.
requesting a grant from the Foundation to support the H.O.M.E. program (Housing and
Outdoor Maintenance to the Elderly). In 1997 and 1999 the Foundation awarded
$8,000.00 and $8,600,00 respectively to H.O.M.E. These funds were pooled with the
City's CDBG contributions of $18,000.00 in 1997 and $17,400.00 in 1999 to provide
household chore services to eligible Edina Seniors.
This year's request of $12,900 reflects an increase of $4,300 over the 1999 grant of
$8,600.00. In 1999 H.O.M.E.'s budget for Edina households was $26,000.00; $17,400.00
came from CDBG funds and $8,600.00 from EEHF funds. H.O.M.E.'s 2000 budget
remains to be $26,000.00, however, due to a change in H.U.D. regulations, the most the
CDBG program can contribute to H.O.M.E. is $13,100.00. In an effort to continue
providing the same level of home services to Edina Seniors, Senior Community Services is
requesting $12,900.00 from the Foundation.
Ms. Repya also advised the Board that Gordon Hughes, Edina's City Manager now
serves on the Board of Directors for Senior Community Services, however, this position on
the Board does not serve as a conflict of interest with the proposed request.
4
Ms. Shaw commented that she was impressed with the services provided by
H.O.M.E. and felt that their program fills an important housing need for seniors in Edina.
Mr. Ringling agreed that the H.O.M.E. program was a worthwhile cause, and asked
if the Foundation had a limit to the amount of money that can be contributed toward public
services. Mr. Gilligan responded that there is not an limit on the amount of funds that can
be contributed, however, all the funds must serve housing related programs.
Mr. Erickson concurred on the worthiness of the H.O.M.E. programs pointing out
that the clientele serviced, low and moderate income seniors fits well with the goals of the
Foundation. Mr. Erickson did express concern that the information provided by Senior
Community Services to support their request did not indicate that the previous funds
provided by the Foundation assisted only Edina residents. Mr. Erickson added that if this
request was approved he would like to receive documentation that the funds are
supporting Edina's program:
Ms. Shaw moved acceptance of Senior Community Services request for $12,900 to
support the H.O.M.E. program during its 2000 -2001 fiscal year, but added that the
Foundation would like to receive documentation that the Foundation's, contributions are
directed to only their Edina budget. Mr. Ringling seconded the motion. All voted aye.
Motion carried.
VIII. COMMUNITY HOMEBUYER/HOMEPARTNERS PROGRAM UPDATE:
Ms. Repya advised the Board that over the past year the Foundation's
downpayment assistance programs have generated quite a bit of interest, however, to date
no mortgages have been written. One can only speculate as to the reasons for the lack of
participation, i.e. the current state of the economy, competitive programs in the
marketplace, and simply getting the word out, to name a few.
In the past few months, the eligible properties for the Community Homebuyer
program has been expanded to include townhouses and condominiums; the rationale
being that the majority of "affordable housing" in Edina lies in the townhouse and
condominium housing stock. Ms. Repya added that the eligible properties for the
Homepartners Program which offers funds "form home improvements beyond the purchase
price of the home has not changed; it continues to include only single family detached
dwellings and double bungalow units.
Discussion ensued among the Board as to why Norwest Mortgage is the only
company identified to originate our loans, wondering if more mortgage companies
participated in our programs, perhaps they would be more appealing to the public.
Ms. Repya explained that Norwest Mortgage is the only company that came forward
with a desire to market and originate the Foundation's loans. Norwest charges no fee to
the Foundation however, they require. that they also hold the first mortgage on the
dwelling.
Ms. Repya pointed out that an interested party would pre - qualify for the first
mortgage with Norwest which would also serve, as the qualification for our Foundation
E
loans. Mardel Richardson is the Community Specialist with Norwest who is familiar with
the Foundation's programs and serves as a secondary information source. .
Ms. Repya explained that the Foundation does ,not have an exclusive relationship
with Norwest, however it was felt that we wanted to become comfortable with,the
origination process and "get our feet wet" prior to opening the program to other mortgage
companies.
Mr. Erickson asked how the loan programs are being promoted. Ms. Repya
explained that a story ran in the Spring 1999 issue of "About Town" which explained the
Foundation's programs in detail. The City also receives several calls a week regarding
programs for home purchase assistance, which are forwarded to Ms. Richardson at
Norwest Mortgage: Ms. Repya added that she has spoken to several real estate agents'
sales meetings in which the Foundation's programs are outlined, and the response has
been very favorable, however, no business has been generated.
Mrs. Shaw asked if the program's income limits have been a drawback to
participation. Ms. Repya explained that the Foundation's income limits are as high as they
can be to meet the Foundation's criteria of serving low and moderate income individuals.
She also pointed out that the good economy is probably the key reason for the sluggish
response to the programs; there are a lot of programs to choose from in the marketplace,
thus better promotion is most likely the key.
Ms. Repya explained that she will be meeting with Ms. Richardson, from Norwest
Mortgage and Jennifer Wilkinson, Edina's new Communications Coordinator to develop
some promotional materials for the programs.
Following a brief discussion, Mr. Ringling suggested that the subject of promoting
products be included in the forthcoming special meeting. Board members concurred. No
formal action was taken.
IX. AMENDMENT OF ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION EXPANDING THE
NEIGHBORHOOD REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AREA:
Ms. Repya explained to the Board that currently the western boundary of the
Foundations neighborhood south of the Crosstown highway 62 is the Soo Line Railroad.
Unfortunately, Oak Glen, one of the City's two subsidized housing developments for
families lies just west of Cahill Road and would be ineligible to participate in the
Foundation's programs.
It has come to the City's attention that the' Section 8 (subsidized) contract for Oak
Glen expires in February, 2002. At that time the owner will decide whether to continue the
subsidized status or perhaps convert the project to market rate. Oak Glen currently plays
an important role in addressing Edina's affordable housing needs. To lose these
subsidized units would be a definite setback for Edina's Livable Community Act goals.
Looking ahead, when Oak Glen's Section 8 contract terminates in 2002, the
Foundation may be asked to participate financially in maintaining its "affordable status.
This can only happen if the western boundary of the neighborhood is adjusted from the
L•�
•
Soo Line Railroad south of the Crosstown Highway 62 to Tracy Avenue south of the
Crosstown Highway 62 and extending to the City's southerly border.
Board members discussed the merit of adjusting the westerly boundary to include
the Oak Glen housing development. Mrs. Shaw indicated that she thought it was a good
idea to adjust the boundary now, before a request for funding is presented. She then
offered the following resolution and moved its adoption:
BE IT RESOLVED that Article II of the Articles of Incorporation be amended by
striking the following words: "In the portion of the City situated north and east of the
following described line:
Beginning at the West Quarter corner of Section 30, Township 117, -Range 21;
thence easterly along the East -West center lines of Section 30 and 29, Township
117, Range 21, to the East quarter corner of said Section 29; thence south along
the East line of said Section 29 and the East line of Section 32, Township 117,
Range 21, to the Southeast corner of said Section 32; thence easterly along the
North line of Section 5, Township 116, Range 21, to the northeast corner of said
Section 5; thence south along the east line of said Section 5 and the Northeast
corner of said Section 5; thence south along the east line of said Section 5 and the
east line of Section 8, Township 116, Range 21, to the Southeast corner of Section
8"
And inserting in lieu thereof the following:
"That part of the City of Edina, Minnesota lying north of Crosstown Highway 62 and
that part lying south of the Crosstown Highway 62 and east of the following
described line: Commencing at the intersection of the south line of Crosstown
highway 62 with the centerline of Tracy Avenue; then southerly, westerly, easterly,
and southerly, along the centerline of Tracy Avenue, to the intersection of said
centerline with the centerline of West 701h Street; thence continuing south along the
southerly extension of the centerline of Tracy Avenue to the intersection of said
extension with the south line of the City limits of the City of Edina."
BE IT RESOLVED FURTHER that the President and the Secretary of this
corporation be, and they hereby are, authorized and directed to make, execute, and
acknowledge a Certificate of Amendment of this corporation embracing the foregoing
resolution and the manner of adoption thereof, and to cause such Certificate of Articles of
Amendment to be filed for record in the manner required by law.
Adopted: February 1, 2000
Mr. Ringling seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried.
X. OTHER BUSINESS:
Special Meeting - Mr. Ringling stated that he felt it was important to schedule a
special meeting of the Board of Directors specifically to discuss the large and growing
investment balance the Foundation is carrying. Board members agreed pointing out that
7
while the growing balance is proof that the initial endeavors of the Foundation have been
paid off, it is imperative that the money be reinvested in housing opportunities for low and
moderate income people in Edina which is the Foundations purpose.
Ms..Repya pointed out that Mr. Palmer has been out of town and will not return until
the first part of May. Mr. Erickson added that he will be out of town for several .months as
well. Mr. Greer stated that he felt it would be important for as many Board members as
possible attend the special meeting; he then suggested that the special meeting be
scheduled sometime around the 15 "' of May. Ms. Repya agreed to firm up the date and
time, of the meeting as it drew closer. Mr. Ringling suggested that between now and the
special meeting, members brainstorm about possible ways of better promoting existing
programs and creating'new and innovative housing opportunities for low and moderate
income Edinans. All Board members agreed. No formal action was taken.
XI. ADJOURNMENT:
Mrs. Shaw moved for adjournment at 11:15 A.M. Mr. Ringling seconded.the motion.
All voted aye. The motion carried.
Respectfully suiitted,
Repya
L-11
fd
I
r�
Edina Community Health Advisory Committee
Wednesday, November 10, 1999
7:30 p.m.
City Hall
MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Paul O'Connor, Jan Borman, Freda Terry, Bruce Burnett, and
Kathy Frey
MEMBERS ABSENT: Mary Edwards, Jim Reynolds, Rev. Charles Vogt, and Patrick
Wilson
EX OFFICIO MEMBERS
PRESENT: Molly Repya
I. ROLL CALL
Meeting was called to order by Chair J. Paul O'Connor at 7:50 p.m.
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: May 12,1999; June 9, 1999, August 11, 1999
Jan Borman MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES. Bruce Burnett SECONDED.
MOTION CARRIED.
III. REPORTS
A. Committee Bylaws - David Velde
Mr. Velde presented some proposed changes to the Community Health Services By -laws.
Changes included changing the name of the committee to Edina Community Health
Committee; changing the wording from Chairperson to Chair; changing the total number of
members from 9 to 12 members down to 7 members; changing the membership composition
to include at least two providers of health services and at least two consumers representing
the community; removing some unnecessary language; and deleting the need for a quorum.
Committee members discussed the changes.
Bruce Burnett MOVED TO ACCEPT THE BY -LAW CHANGES AS AMENDED AS BY
DISCUSSION. Kathy Frey SECONDED. MOTION CARRIED.
B. Domestic Violence Awareness Project - Kathy Frey
Ms. Frey inquired how the domestic violence posters with the tear off phone numbers had
been received. Committee members commented that at some locations the posters did not
stay up very long. Other locations had denied posting them. The locations that had the
posters did have a couple of the phone numbers removed.
Dr. Burnett commented that one concern he had about the posters was their visibility.
Committee members discussed other ways to inform the residents of places to seek help. A
I
t�
P
direct mailing was suggested, an ad in the paper, a letter to the Editor for the Edina Sun
Current. Ms. Iverson was asked if she would submit something to the Edina Sun in her guest
column. Ms. Iverson commented that she would do that. Ms. Iverson asked for a committee
member to review the article before it is submitted. Ms. Frey stated she would do that.
Committee members discussed inviting Larry Fugelstad from the school and Ann Harrington
from Cornerstone to look at incorporating a program from Cornerstone into the school. Ms.
Repya suggested speaking with someone from the school staff first; Principal, Vice
Principals or the Guidance Counselors. That way it could be determined if there was
someone willing to coordinate a PAVE program from Cornerstone. Ms. Frey wondered if the
"Life Issues" teacher, Ms. Kiffer, would be interested in PAVE or coordinating with
Cornerstone. Ms. Frey will contact Cornerstone first and then Ms. Repya may contact Ms.
Kiffer, if Cornerstone has the resources.
C. Meeting Dates - Paul O'Connor
Some of the committee members have expressed concern with Wednesday meetings
presenting a conflict with church activities. As a result, the committee is looking at other
days that would be available. Mr. Velde indicated that the first Monday of each month is
available for meeting space. He also stated that Father Vogt had suggested an earlier meeting
time, 4:30 - 6 p.m. Committee members stated that time would be a problem. Early
morning, 7 a.m., could work. Committee members discussed time and day. It was decided
to move the meetings to the 2nd Tuesday of the month at 7:00 a.m.
D. Tobacco Free Communities Grant -David Velde
This is $10,000 grant from the state. The money is used towards smoke free environment
issues: restaurants, apartment buildings and reducing tobacco use . This is the last year of
the grant money. It is anticipated that there will be some money from the Tobacco
Settlement for the community to use toward tobacco awareness. The State Health Department
has sent out a proposal to'set up a state wide awareness campaign throughout Minnesota.
Mr. Velde commented that some of Ms. Iverson's activities are funded through the Tobacco
Free Communities grant. Ms. Iverson stated that in addition to this grant she was working on
a grant she received through SHeRPA/Familink. She is working on what businesses and
worksites have for smoking policy, especially on how they handle under age workers that
smoke:
F. Asset Building
The schools have done the Asset Building survey. Members reported that the survey was not
written well for the elementary school children. The survey was more appropriate for the
High School students.
Ms. Frey and Ms. Borman reported about the Asset Building Breakfast meeting. Ms. Frey
commented that it was very good. Ms. Borman commented that at each table there was one
High School Student and one member of the steering committee. The point of the meeting
was to emphasize that raising a child takes a group of people, not just the parents. Mr.
O'Connor stated that one of the 40 Assets is a child having three other adults in their life.
Ms. Iverson stated that the results of the Edina schools' Asset Building survey will be out in
January. There will be a town meeting probably in February.
There was discussion regarding the survey and comparing the results of a same group of
children.
F. Next Meeting - Paul O'Connor
Next meeting will be February 8, 2000 at 7:00 a.m.
IV. New Business
-None
V. Adjournment
Meeting adjourned 9:00 p.m.
City of Edina, Minnesota -
Public Works Department
' Sump Pump
I/I Reduction
M
June 6, 2000
Sump Pump Inspection and
I/I Reduction Program
*History
- -- - - - -- - -- - - - - -- - --
Y
• Introduction
-? • Study Purpose and Scope
`_�` • Data Analysis
• Conclusions and Recommendations
T Previous Study Concluded
59% of Peak Flow was Inflow
`r
Sanitary Sewer Districts - 1997 Study
Summary
Basin 6
Basin 10
Basin 18
Total
Base Flow (GPM)
625
640
1,140
2,605
Infiltration
(GPM )-
1,070
1,220
J
1,060
3,350
. - - -
Inflow (GPM)
- --- --
3,395
3,140
2,100
8,635
Max. Flow (GPM)
5,090
2,1001
4,300
14,590
U
Focus was Private Property
,Inflow in the Worst Districts
District 6
21
• District 10
District 18
Eliminating Controlling Sewer
Discharges reduces Backups
i • Sanitary Sewer District No. 6
Controlling sewer line — 12" @ 1420 GPM
capacity in surcharge
• Surcharge eliminated at 12" @ 1200 GPM
Flow reduction required is 220 GPM to eliminate
surcharge
Study estimated 30 GPM per sump pump
HRG found 33 failed properties on first
inspection which provides a potential peak flow
reduction of 990 GPM when corrected
Eliminating Controlling Sewer
Discharges reduces Backups
Sanitary Sewer District 10
• Controlling Sewer Line — 18" @ 2700 GPM
in peak flow surcharge
Surcharge eliminated — 18' @ 2050 GPM
• Flow reduction required = 650 GPM
• HRG inspections found 70 properties in
contributing Districts 10, 11, 12 and 13 that
failed inspection
• Potential peak flow reduction = 2100 GPM
W
Conservative Approach to
Pumping Rate was Taken
sump
Pump
Model
HP
GPH
GPM
A
147850
1/3
3600
60
B
565563
1/4
2100
35
C
150029
1/3
2700
45
D
338264
1/3
2800
47
E
F
338233
1/3
3000
5400
50
932485
4/10
90
,01 First Inspections Validate
Concerns over Surcharges
Initial HRG Inspection Results
Est. Flow' Total
1nGPM-----
Failed Inspections 411 30 12,330
Water -Over Floor ---12-0- 3-0 -- 3-,-6- -00
P,ObeF,
Corrected Before 68 30 2,040
Inspection—
Total Clear Water 5991 17,970
When operating in COIL,nuo,S Flo, - —erage Rate
Monthly Flow Comparison
Illustrates 1997 Problem
1-0
;T Lower AADF and Lower $ are
Benefit From Inspections
i
t
Year
AADF in MGD*
1979
1993
7.28
7.47
1994
6.87
1995
7.01
1996
_
6.64
1997
7.00
1998 **
5.89
1999
5.99
Million
Gallons per
Day
'• Clty N.Stle
Sump Pump
In,pMnan
Began
MCES Data
�T Large Volume of Base Data
Validates Preliminary Results
v`
FZlll
Number of Properties in City to be
Inspected
14,364
Observed at
Inspections completed to date:
First Inspection
Of residential properties in city
I 13,076
90.91%
% Of non - residential properties in city
816
1 5.67%
Subtotal
13,892
i 96.58%
Properties not inspected:
492
Other(pass)
Properties Requiring Re- inspection:
79.97%
11,141
Properties Re- inspected - MRG
3211
41
Properties Re- inspected - City(continuing)
1881
0.01%
Properties Re- inspected - Total
5401
1.20%
Inspections Yield Desired
Results
I�
wnspecte Isc )ae olnt: ; o properties wit inspected
Observed at
Obseved at
First Inspection
Final Inspection
Outside (pass)
2346
16.89%
2703
19.46%
Storm Sewer (pass)
25
0.18%
25
0.18%
Other(pass)
11,110
79.97%
11,141
80.20%
Floor Drain (fail)
41
0.30%
1
0.01%
Sanitary Sever (fail)
167
1.20%
7
0.05%
Laundry Tub (fail)
59
0.42%
3
0,02%
Other (fail)
1441
1.04%
12
0.09%
Subtotal:
13,892100.00%
13.892
100.00%