Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-02-17 City Council Meeting (Section 2)0 + r ■ 7/ N 1'7 + i / Z O + + 0 ' O - - - - - - I */ � V 0 W N ? U I / W W _ h O = + ro - Go I = xUx L y W y W \`\ / Q U W W \ O J O N N ` d Q \` Z N \ N a R3 a \ U) \ \ 1 Z \ \♦ o / W ` `♦ W 0 \ > � y O (If w 3 N a //, W Q w /i o W d 0 CL Q w Cif + it / I�_.. -...- \ ♦♦ \� U77- rn i � w ♦ ESOy & O " W ♦� ` 4' 1.4. �o + � 0 0 C7 w / ! ♦♦ \\ ZO z ¢ a Z U z zoo ¢ z \j o ctl / / Yqqv A z CL �� a - - - - - - Fig $ m r0� o U c7 i ._ -__ o W ZW� ' kt D K U w it N 9 r� I Edon O Z Q U / / 0 t —� I W°. 1.1 O Z mq K ° U W U 30 r'<oma¢ Z arn0 Cio O / ✓' ! � WNO nisi¢ J z / xw 0Q�b 3 a \ T a A LL=u xz V, ' _ O U Z �j -- z z / �` x .i U O 0 2 F- , I D [_ N U x -- t�l / . zi- iF� x �z U 1 .�rj LL O Z a / I W U p n W Z W 0 0 W W / 0 O v] y/j i S Z 0 / $ ON ; �0 I I zU /, 00 0 w z rn w in 0 of # U I °' z O O� r w oUF I - -� O i o - t Z t _ i ° 11 � -- W- �a - ------ I I w I -� o QWyJ � - �, U) i r, J�.`.FD jQ I 'N W 0_- v Q IK+i / 0 4.0 z wa,K I IWII W O F I oW �� III I cc m o f o I e I v m U a- w �Z U) I I _.._.. »__ _ Z I• Z I / v m sd m U -- - - J —i i D �� 1 I z I W Y a N I I I z ( - i U) = I rn m m N I i �m zo ' U C - — - — - — - — - - — - — - — p OD I N IO J m Q i o �a -- Ho d U z ^- m m / vw m ''NK ,1 M j%� < W ' U �: Q LL v J f Y to Za LLI 01111 J L.LI Y Q- m U o_ �o v° �I J z�Z ij M �w g J r jII ° = Z w cwi z LLI I . roam 1 1I �soT i4 ffj ...� OL ° a ii J S, o•yFC~i� ° z I m<Ez C7 L d /J aar �� °ate w § ZK m¢w i, ! YET I zoo a ° JQ____ ________ __ ____ y M N � _oS °5 ° r °oowQc U ti..Jl �FQam¢ �Sti oo O6 wmwr°n r°l) r.m tiw Or .a •,d Y �i ¢wzm�3 Nis Fy 3 X W .x y LL2� u'o ua ua Q n i F F z �g 0 °H j '.4 N 7 O O t- L4 Y •� J_ K ° Z > z w z w (7 co Q U ¢ Z Oz wZO m o? a: ¢~ = O W J F LL ..�+ .5 °?O° �w Col ZC7 vUi at LL O J U c W Z wo 42 0 e > O O w a J O N a=2W0 W� =mom U a� W z m LL U W� Q K~¢ J O g ww m J W N f- �OazL5w Q=om rnrri¢ r� w2 -w w0W >—< y Wm0 �QO Z�F K. Df� O N}} C) ¢ of M 2 Q O Z to _¢ W ZO ~ O Z U U O ° 0 H 2 U U U) ¢� O Q WW¢Or W ~ O ^c y ~H W E~ UZK m J ry l x °f OO° Oazc� z J C c ? �WtYwZ H?Z� ¢ Q a :L p'S k> J j I Zin�Fm C��aw r W N j r� .! •� e J N wo=w W 0' tY m I-- F- a0 �w Z� �5 ul C °Y ° a G� oQ de", z Q co C1 4 2 �j U 4 m m `w fm 8� ul 50 a a G a 'N. '4. 'A 'k. 'q. 'q. 'k 'q. •a, •!,. 'k. 'q. 'q. 't. 'q. 'q. 'k V. 'q. 'M. '-- 'q. K. '4. 't. .^. G -vv^• OCO- OC'v'00.^.C'JO V OC v"ti Oa0 OyCC �C � W r� f V: � �C ^\ �• N � � h •C � � � � N � � � � c hl Yi Y r M cc �' �• � � `� t v G ;a y..� � - •_ -f .c C Y � W � G •C .+i Z r � ? t •.'�, � rt �. :r '+ s � C � ! •J C it C .. C il. C Cd N 3 . ' j [0 = fi g K Y r^ 7 rn $ 5 N �a 1111-� .. V, 0 0 / / / 1. r 0 a, / i i o i i °m Rz z vm .a vm a x ZO r v-i Fz N W� O z4 z arrwow Nm <r2 c, LLI • %S%..�" � U3W�W � x < EL ' Oa s Wp6 —OC�J D �oowLL� Of o. W � � W z � e,® x ZO r v-i Fz N W� O z4 z arrwow Nm <r2 c, N I U3W�W � Oa s Wp6 —OC�J D �oowLL� 7HOr 78 o. W � � W z � e,® Q ='ry �wz �3 �WVi 3 i LL F LL d IL Q I 2 Z r 2 O� rn o - � Ln vC.9 of 0 F a W 0 m �z a �o m C� �Q z N m N c z o Z V I Q � OD Z " _° v+ / N °z O I Zy vN v� EL m Ir CL �3 N I L O i o gm a �J W m Q W a a � = o i o oN o z vz w Q w W a c) _ '`n © Q g O Z _ Nm v Q Z � G m � W V Q _ M m Q t0 J N C3 vm a O M o = v LL NO o Z S / MY N2 O N Q� Y• + Nm �m MQ zzy Q vm Q � Z Q W O 00^ tu) 04 MQ w3d?d ^U � -rgrg z <Z m M s w O/ � gp��Wo �� NY vO �NOI�H N Z vU rod �01' � ' w F 'wo S<< _007J � N Ld / ¢ .. F LL M ^d' v(L / Mm U w 0 om Sao'vom r0066 H li mO wr wnn¢ �wiGG3 m to -V) xr� 3 /Q m S� vU m "0 LL a LLQ vQ H z / vU 0f O vV o �a V mQ a -m M i M N N _ Q U vm oL �Q - Z:,w �o v� _' z any - S N m vQ vz U I Om �N i N m a O N m m Q / + ° O^ 0 tnMt0 a � \ " -- m - m vQ M� \ ¢ Z 1 wL vr� Z- ..Q w o ® ^m �a or o a o N i O W ro Z 3m 80 O ..r F < To: MAYOR & COUNCIL From: Debra Mangen City Clerk Date: February 17, 2015 O e >4 cn v � J88B Agenda Item #: VIII. F. Action Discussion ❑ Information ❑ Subject: New Wine On -Sale and 3.2 Liquor Licenses, SNP enterprises, DBA: The Tin Fish 6364 John Harris Drive Action Requested: Motion approving New On -Sale Wine and 3.2 Beer Licenses to SNP Enterprises, DBA: The Tin Fish, 6364 John Harris Drive for the period of February 18, 2015 and ending March 31, 2015. Information / Background: SNP Enterprises, DBA: The Tin Fish, 6364 John Harris Drive has applied for new on -sale wine liquor and 3.2 beer licenses. This will be the new restaurant within the Braemar Golf Course Clubhouse. They have filed the necessary paperwork and paid the applicable fees for the license. Due to the timing of the submittal, the initial license is for a very short term with the renewal to be presented in March. The Administration Department has reviewed the submittals and finds that they comply with code requirements. The Health Department is satisfied with the applicant's plan for storage and service. The Planning Department has reviewed the application and finds that it complies with code requirements. The Police Department has completed their investigation. Attached is Sgt. Tim Olson's memo stating the findings of the Police Department's background investigation. The licenses are placed on the agenda for consideration by the Council. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 toBACKGROUND INVESTIGATION SUMMARY ON -SALE WINE AND 3.2 PERCENT MALT LIQUOR LICENSE Establishment: SNP Enterprises, DBA: The Tin Fish License: On Sale Wine and 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor January 2015, the Edina Police Department began a background investigation relating to a City of Edina application for an On -Sale Wine and 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor license. The application was submitted by SNP Enterprises, LLC., DBA: The Tin Fish. SNP Enterprises will operate from 6364 John Harris Drive, Edina. SNP Enterprises, LLC is authorized to do business in Minnesota and is registered with the State of Minnesota. SNP Enterprises, LLC. is currently active and in good standing with the Minnesota Secretary of State. SNP Enterprises, LLC and /or its representatives are aware of the City of Edina's requirement relating to employee alcohol awareness training. The training date is not currently scheduled. Owners/Partners /Members: SNP Enterprises, LLC: Priest, Sheffield St. Louis Park Priest, Athena St. Louis Park The owners /partners /members have been investigated. No criminal records which would negatively affect their license application were found. Checks were made with the following agencies: NCIC MINCIS Hennepin County Minnesota Secretary of State Minnesota Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement Division Personal, business and bank references were contacted and responded positively. From the information gathered during the course of the investigation, I found nothing to prevent, SNP Enterprises, LLC from obtaining an On Sale Wine and 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor license. I would support a positive recommendation from the Police Department in regard to the issuance of this license. Lt. Tim Olson #142 'w91�,1'�r oe • !1C�RPQTiPK�v • lt3H8 To: MAYOR & COUNCIL Agenda Item #: VIII. G. From: Debra Mangen Action City Clerk Discussion ❑ Date: February 17, 2015 Information ❑ Subject: New Wine On -Sale and 3.2 Liquor Licenses, Grey Ghost Grub LLC DBA; Hello Pizza, 3904 Sunnyside Road Action Requested: Motion approving New Wine On -Sale and 3.2 Liquor Licenses, Grey Ghost Grub LLC DBA; Hello Pizza, 3904 Sunnyside Road for the period of February 18, 2015 and ending March 31, 2015. Information / Background: Grey Ghost Grub LLC DBA; Hello Pizza, 3904 Sunnyside Road has applied for new on -sale wine liquor and 3.2 beer licenses. The reason for the new license is a change in ownership of the establishment. They have filed the necessary paperwork and paid the applicable fees for the license. Due to the timing of the submittal, the initial license is for a very short term with the renewal to be presented in March. The Administration Department has reviewed the submittals and finds that they comply with code requirements. The Health Department is satisfied with the applicant's plan for storage and service. The Planning Department has reviewed the application and finds that it complies with code requirements. The Police Department has completed their investigation. Attached is Sgt. Tim Olson's memo stating the findings of the Police Department's background investigation. The licenses are placed on the agenda for consideration by the Council. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION SUMMARY ON -SALE WINE AND 3.2 PERCENT MALT LIQUOR LICENSE Establishment: Hello Pizza License: On Sale Wine and 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor February 2015, the Edina Police Department completed a background investigation relating to a City of Edina application for an On -Sale Wine and 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor license and change of ownership. The application was submitted by Grey Ghost Grub, LLC. dba: Hello Pizza, 3904 Sunnyside Road, Edina. Grey Ghost Grub, LLC. dba: Hello Pizza is authorized to do business in Minnesota and is registered with the State of Minnesota. Grey Ghost Grub, LLC. dba: Hello Pizza is currently active and in good standing with the Minnesota Secretary of State. Grey Ghost Grub, LLC. dba: Hello Pizza and its representatives are aware of the City of Edina's requirement relating to employee alcohol awareness training, and have completed the necessary training. Owners /Partners/Members: Grey Ghost Grub, LLC. dba: Hello Pizza: Kim, Eun Kyung Edina MN Leifur, Conrad William Edina MN The owners /partners /members have been investigated and were found to have no criminal records. Checks were made with the following agencies. NCIC MINCIS Hennepin County Minnesota Secretary of State Minnesota Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement Division Minnesota Department of Revenue Personal, business, and bank references were contacted and responded positively. From the information gathered during the course of the investigation, I found nothing to prevent Grey Ghost Grub, LLC. dba: Hello Pizza from obtaining an On Sale Wine and 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor license /change of ownership. I would support a positive recommendation from the Police Department in regard to the issuance of this license. I'LL Tim Olson #142 o e o HIV �y • `�roRPORP��9 • 1888 To: MAYOR & COUNCIL Agenda Item #: VIII. H. From: Debra Mangen Action ❑X City Clerk Discussion ❑ Date: February 17, 2015 Information ❑ Subject: Resolution No. 2015 -22 Accepting Various Grants & Donations Action Requested: Adopt Resolution. Information / Background: In order to comply with State Statutes, all donations to the City must be adopted by a resolution approved by four favorable votes of the Council accepting the donation. I have prepared the attached resolution detailing the various donors, their gifts and the departments receiving donations for your consideration. Attachments: Resolution No. 2015 -22 City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. - Edina, MN 55424 RESOLUTION NO. 2015 -22 ACCEPTING DONATIONS ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF EDINA WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute 465.03 allows cities to accept grants and donations of real or personal property for the benefit of its citizens; WHEREAS, said donations must be accepted via a resolution of the Council adopted by a two thirds majority of its members. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Edina City Council accepts with sincere appreciation the following listed grants and donations on behalf of its citizens. Braemar Memorial Fund Andrew Montgomery $100.00 Ray Engh $25.00 Joe Langer $25.00 Centennial Lakes Crime Prevention Fund $12,096.78 Fall Into The Arts Proceeds Edina Art Center Crime Prevention Fund 12,096.78 Fall Into The Arts Proceeds Bill Meller $100.00 Public Art Donation Edina Police Department: Crime Prevention Fund $15,000.00 2014 K -9 Expenses Crime Prevention Fund $3,064.03 K -9 Retirement Fund - Diesel Crime Prevention Fund $1,260.15 K -9 Retirement Fund - Kodiak Crime Prevention Fund $500.00 Beyond The Badge Dated: February 17, 2015 Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk James B. Hovland, Mayor 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 February 17, 2015, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this day of City Clerk To: MAYOR & COUNCIL From: Debra Mangen City Clerk Date: February 17, 2015 Subject: Correspondence Action Requested: No action is necessary. • ,�C�RPORP -FWD • 1x88 Agenda Item #: IX. A. Action ❑x Discussion ❑ Information ❑ Attachment: Attached is correspondence received since the last Council meeting. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 Heather Branigin From: Mark Chamberlain <beetlebug00 @gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2015 4:09 PM To: Edina Mail Cc: Kevin Staunton; Robert Stewart, Mary Brindle (Comcast); swensonannl @gmail.com Subject: 7200 France at Tonight's Council Meeting Dear Mayor and Members of the Edina City Council, It is my understanding that at the Council meeting this evening that the developers who had proposed a residential development for 7200 France will be requesting an extension of consideration for their proposal. On behalf of the neighborhood and for the integrity of our City, and specifically you the Council members, I respectfully ask that you deny this request. At the last City Council meeting, the Mayor could not have been more clear when he asked the developer if they wanted to withdraw their proposal so they could continue working with the City on it, but if a vote to change the Comprehensive Plan was taken and the vote failed that the developer could not come back with a residential proposal for a year. The developer responded by asking if they could still bring their proposal for a medical building forward, and when they Mayor said they could, the developer asked the Council to vote so they could move ahead with their Plan B for a medical office building. A vote was taken and the vote failed. Regardless of the legal contortions that can be done to continue to move this plan forward, the right thing to do, the ethical thing to do, is to tell the developer tonight that you will see them in a year, and ask them to bring forward a proposal that is in alignment with the Comprehensive Plan. know that some of you do not want to see a medical building on this site, but at this point, that's beside the point. Being true to your word is the point, both for the Council who said the developer couldn't bring a residential proposal back for a year if the vote failed, and for the developer who acknowledged by their request for a vote that they understood they couldn't bring residential back for a year. Coming of age in the seventies on the heels of Watergate, I heard over and over again that the end does not justify the means. That is as true today as it was then. Getting an over -sized residential project on the property rather than a medical building does not justify breaking your word, or faith with your constituents, to get it. To be clear, the residents of our Cornelia neighborhood are not objecting to residential on this site, if it were to be within the limits of the Comprehensive Plan. Our primary objection is, and always has been, the density of the proposed project. Given the limited choice between an over -sized residential development and a Comp Plan compliant medical building we overwhelming prefer the medical building. But why not ask the developer to come back with a Comp Plan compliant residential proposal next year? I urge you tonight to do the right thing and tell the developer that their will be no waiver granted. The rules were laid out, the game was played, and the clock has expired. Sincerely, Mark Chamberlain Cornelia Neighborhood Communications Coordinator regarding 7200 France P.S. Do you think Seattle would like a chance to redo their decision to throw a pass when it was 2nd and 1 with 20 seconds to go and a chance to win the Super Bowl? Sometimes you make a bad call and you have to live with it. I feel the developer made a bad call when they turned down the Mayor's offer to withdraw their proposal, but now, like Seattle, they should have to live with it. Heather Branigin From: Virginia Kearney <vmkearney @msn,com> Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2015 4:51 PM To: Edina Mail Subject: Support for the Bee /Chicken Ordinance To The Mayor Hovland and members of the City Council of Edina, I urge you to support changing the city ordinance of Edina to allow honey bees and chickens. I speak as someone very familiar with chickens. I have a long family tradition of keeping chickens. We always had one or two as pets when I grew up in Northfield. And, I have had a few chickens in my yard in Edina for over 15 years. Chickens make great pets. They behave very much like cats or dogs. My chickens come when called, recognize the sound of my (and my neighbor's) voice, and have very distinct personalities. I also place great value on having chickens as a learning tool for my nursery school students. Every year my chickens visit our school and help teach the children about the life and habits of chickens. My students love to drop by my house and visit the chickens, bringing them treats and checking for an egg. As an avid gardener, I also rely on my chickens for pest control. I have virtually no slugs in my yard, and very few Japanese beetles and other damaging insects. I am able to use the bedding from my chicken coop and chicken droppings to make fabulous and fast compost for my large garden. Morningside, at least, has a long history of keeping chickens. It is my understanding that having chickens was one of the reasons that Morningside wanted to secede from Edina in 1920. Keeping a few chickens allows residents to participate in this rich history, I hope that you will consider changing the ordinance. Edina should keep up with changing attitudes about self - sufficiency and local foods, and recognize the value that chickens offer to our lives. Virginia Kearney 4226 Grimes Ave. S. Heather Branigin From: Patrick Frimat <Patrick.FRIMAT @rsivideotech.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2015 8:36 PM To: Cary Teague Cc: David Fisher; Scott H. Neal; James Hovland; Cindy Larson; Breanne Rothstein Subject: New Plans for 5508 Dever Dr Dear Mr Teague I have just been informed that new plans have been submitted for the lot at 5508 Dever Dr. While the plans are not indicating any need for a variance, they show the creation of a 10 feet drop off over 2 retaining walls built within a couple yards of my backyard (North side). The plans don't show any sign of the existing row of Arbor Vitae trees along the property line, most of which are on my side of the line. The plans don't show any protection (fence or barrier) along the property line once this drop off has been created. I sincerely hope that the City will take this into consideration and request the plans to be amended accordingly.. Please don't hesitate to contact me for more information. Regards Patrick Frimat 5509 Dever Dr 651955 7888 Heather Branigin From: Susan Furlow <susanfurlow @comcast.net> Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2015 6:47 PM To: Edina Mail; 'James Hovland'; Kevin Staunton; Scott H. Neal; Robert Stewart; Mary Brindle (Comcast); SwensonAnnl @gmail.com Subject: Follow -up on the MAC Noise Data Presentation: Dear Mayor Hovland, Mr. Neal, and Council Members Swenson, Stewart, Brindle and Staunton, I want to thank you all for supporting our airplane noise concerns at last night's Council meeting. It was great to hear your questions, your ideas, and to hear you tell the MAC it's not "case closed" for Edina now that the noise study is complete. The MAC noise study conclusions were presented in a fairly narrow manner. The real picture emerges when you talk about the frequency of departures along the Edina corridors (the "death by a thousand cuts" that the Mayor referred to). Also, we need to look at the relative number of Edina overflights as compared to total MSP departures for a given time period. The percentages of total departures heading over Edina is very high, and the rationale for pushing these flight our way is not 100% weather - related. This is the "fairness issue" that was brought up last night. I was cautiously happy to hear that the MAC is going to look at alternative runway use options, something we can push them to pursue. Though RNAV (for departures) is postponed for now, the MAC's diagrams show that we already have RNAV -like patterns of heavy flight concentration over Edina. Air traffic is clearly not as "fanned out" as it used to be, and we need to take care not to let our current noise burden be our new, accepted "normal." I wholeheartedly support the idea of a City -wide meeting this spring, with the goal of educating our community, and bringing together the Edina groups who are involved, active or just concerned. As a team, we can do more and work more effectively with the MAC, NOC, FAA and Delta. Thanks again for your support! Regards, Susan Furlow Susan Furlow and Larry McCann 6537 Cherokee Trail Edina, MN 55439 952 - 944 -5212 Heather Braniain From: Isaac Rothberg <isaac @cantconvertlovemn.org> Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 12:44 PM To: Isaac Rothberg Cc: Melisa Franzen; Ron Erhardt; Faith Rothberg; Steven Rothberg Subject: Invite to Rothberg house party for Can't Convert Love Greetings! You're invited to a house party hosted by myself and my parents, Faith & Steven Rothberg, for Can't Convert Love MN, an organization I'm proud to be working for. We're currently trying to pass a bill to ban conversion therapy for minors and vulnerable adults in Minnesota, and prohibit Medicaid reimbursement for such therapy. Sen. Melisa Franzen and Rep. Ron Erhardt will be cohosting. We're very excited to have them there as strong supporters of our bill! EVENT INFO: Can't Convert Love MN House Party Time: Sunday February 15, 4:00pm - 6:30pm Place: 5824 Ewing Ave S, Edina, MN 55410 Hosts: Isaac Rothberg, Faith & Steven Rothberg Cohosts: Sen. Melisa Franzen, Rep. Ron Erhardt RSVP: reply to this email, or reach Isaac at ,(952)- 686 -1095 Likely speakers: Sen. Melisa Franzen (SD49) Rep. Ron Erhardt (HD49A) Rep. Paul Rosenthal (11134913) might drop by (yet to be determined) Isaac Rothberg, host, Organizing & Outreach Director for CCLMN Gabe Aderhold, Founder & Campaign Manager for CCLMN Zander Danielson - Sellie, Political Director for CCLMN Faith & Steven Rothberg, hosts This is a closed event. You can absolutely invite your friends but please let me know who will be attending ahead of time. INFO ON THE ISSUE: Conversion therapy, also known as reparative therapy or "ex -gay" therapy, attempts to change someone's sexual orientation or gender identity. We're opposing it because, as all reputable medical and mental health associations have said for decades, conversion therapy is not only ineffective, but in fact often leads to severe emotional harm: Anxiety, depression, PTSD, and even suicide. And yet, it's still practiced by licensed health care professionals, such as Marcus Bachmann, husband of former Congresswoman Michele Bachmann. Therapists can perform it, bill it as general counseling, and receive Medicaid reimbursement. Our public tax dollars are going to this vile practice! This fight is about protecting our most vulnerable. This fight is about saving lives. MORE INFO ON EVENT, DONATIONS: Please join us for our event! There will be drinks and appetizers, and both legislators and members of CCLMN (including myself) will speak on the issue. Although by no means required to attend, we would greatly appreciate donations to our cause. We are short on funding at the moment for lobbying and outreach efforts. We'll be accepting cash and checks at the party. Anything helps! If you'd like to donate ahead of time or if you can't make it to the event but would like to donate anyway, you can do so here: https: / /ralIy.org[cclmn Thanks so much for your support. I'm really looking forward to the party and would love it if you can make it. Hope to see you there! Isaac January 31, 2015 James Hovland or current Mayor City of Edina 4801 W. 50th St. Edina, Minnesota 55424 -1330 Dear Mr. Hovland, The debate over what future automotive systems will look like is ongoing and I thought you might be interested in my 12 -17 -07 let- ter to IEEE Spectrum magazine on the matter. The National Highway Safety Traffic Administration ( NHSTA) statistics mentioned in my letter are a little broad in one regard, ie: the number of debil- itating injuries resulting from vehicles striking utility poles. For this estimate, we have to use the results of war, say the Korean War. In this war there were 33,667 Americans killed or missing in action & 103,284 Americans wounded due to hostilities. We reason that stout utility poles, how they are employed, are efficient killing and maiming devices the same as bullets, etc. Therefore, all we must do is ratio the injuries to the deaths in the Korean War and apply the ratio to the deaths from vehicles hitting utility poles to arrive at the following. Therefore we can say, based on statistics compiled by the NHSTA and modified by the above, that in 2005 & 2012 respectively, there were 1,852 and 1,471 fatalities, 5,682 and 4,513 debilitating injuries, 66,318 and 44,487 lesser injuries, and 153,000 and 127,000 property damage only accidents in the United States resulting from vehicles hitting utility poles. Why vehicles that leave the road hit utility poles was addressed first by a paper dated 2 -13 -68 by Paul C. Skeels, Engineer -in- Charge of Safety Test Engineering at the General Motors Proving Ground entitled "The Role Of The Highway In A Safe Transportation System," and later by the Minnesota State Road Standards. J Ken Sharp 9342 Oak Run Circle Indianapolis, Indiana 46260 December 17, 2007 Editor IEEE Spectrum Magazine 3 Park Ave., 1711 Flr. New York, New York 10016 -5997 Dear Sir, I read with interest new ideas (see an article entitled "California to Rule On Fate of EV's" in the November, 2007 issue of IEEE Spectrum magazine) concerning fast charging and high powered battery packs capable of running an electric car with 10 minute charging times and 160 kilometers (or about 100 miles) capability between charges. Electric heat and air conditioning for the electric car would, of course, reduce this capability; but otherwise these ideas sound. good. However, we should look at the unintended consequences. For instance, for one car this would require about a 500 KW charging station (see an editorial comment, entitled "Unintended Consequences" in the November, 2007 issue of IEEE Spectrum magazine) , Or, in other words, this would require enough capability to serve maybe 50 electrically heated 1,000 square ft homes. Can you imagine a small industrial type electric substation at each charging station (say for 10 cars) and-can you imagine yourself or others connecting and disconnecting multiple high current cables with each charge. For many reasons this sounds foolish and dangerous. Probably what the electric industry would like you to do is to charge your car all night (say about 8 hours) thereby reducing the demand for this charging task to about 1/48 of 500 KW or a little over 10 KW -. Although this would still pose many problems, the slow type charging systems are much more manageable. This sounds much better but we should still look at the unintended consequences of this action. Every year in the United States there are a great number of acci- dents involving vehicles and utility poles. For instance, statis- tics compiled by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administra- tion indicate that in 2005 there were. 1,852 fatalities, 72,000 injuries, and 153,000 property damage only accidents in the United States resulting from vehicles hitting utility poles. f Irz The foregoing describes unintended consequences of using utility poles along roadways to date. We would not begin to estimate how many more utility poles would have to be placed along roadways should we attempt, on a grand scale, to serve the electric car. But we imagine there would be more, and probably a lot more. In short, we suggest there would be lots more of everything associ- ated with electric generation, transmission and distribution. Ken Sharp 9342 Oak Run Circle Indianapolis, Indiana 46260 Heather Branigin From: Jan Callison <noreply @qemailserver.com> Sent: Friday, February 06, 2015 12:26 PM To: James Hovland Subject: Survey Reminder: Southwest LRT Community Works Steering Committee Survey One last reminder to please complete this survey before the end of day Monday 2/9/15. Thank you for your time. Follow this link to the Survey. Take the Survey Or copy and paste the URL below into your internet browser: https://hennepin.col.qualtrics.com/V/-RQualtricsSurveyEngine/?Q SS= 086aoVHvTp9Q2hf er1YrTGU2ZT50x V& =1 Follow the link to opt out of future emails: Click here to unsubscribe Heather Branigin From: Dutcher, Amanda <adutcher @gpisd.net> Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2015 1:43 PM To: Dutcher, Amanda Subject: You're invited to a Great Plains Institute Energy Innovation Forum Attachments: You're Invited to a Great Plains Institute Energy Innovation Forum.pdf The Great Plains Institute and Faegre Baker Daniels LLP are pleased to invite you to a GREAT PLAINS INSTITUTE ENERGY INNOVATION FORUM WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 25 3:30 - 7 pm PLEASE JOIN US FOR A CASUAL, THOUGHT - PROVOKING "SALON- LIKE" EVENING OF FOOD AND DRINK AND LEARN ABOUT: The New State of Solar: Dramatic changes in the solar industry and what it means for Minnesota Brian Ross, Senior Program Director, Great Plains Institute Jason Willett, Finance Director, Metropolitan Council Environmental Services e21- Toward a 21st Century Energy System: Minnesota's nation - leading efforts to change its 100+ year -old approach to regulating utilities to better align revenue with performance Rolf Nordstrom, President and CEO, Great Plains Institute Brief updates on the Institute's wide - ranging work: from Electric Vehicles and GreenStep Cities to helping states respond to the EPA's proposed Greenhouse Gas regulations Brendan Jordan, Vice President, Great Plains Institute 3:30 -5:30 PM - FORUM 5:30 -6 PM - SOCIAL 6 -7 PM - BUFFET DINNER RSVP — https : / /gpiforLIm.eveiitbrite.com — (612) 278 -7159 Please see attached PDF invitation for more details. We hope to see you there! Amanda Dutcher I Administrative Manager and Event Planner I Great Plains Institute 280121" Ave S, Suite 220 1 Minneapolis, MN 55407 612 - 278 -7159 (office) WEDNESDAY FEBRUARY 25, 2015 3:30 -5:30 PM - FORUM 5:30 -6 PM - SOCIAL 6 -7 PM - BUFFET DINNER LOCATION: Faegre Baker Daniels LLP 2200 WELLS FARGO CENTER 90 SOUTH SEVENTH STREET 21 ST FLOOR MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402 PLEASE JOIN US FOR A CASUAL, THOUGHT PROVOKING "SALON- LIKE" EVENING OF FOOD AND DRINK AND LEARN ABOUT The New State of Solar: Dramatic changes in the solar industry and what it means for Minnesota Brian Ross, Senior Program Director, Great Plains Institute Jason Willett, Finance Director, Metropolitan Council Environmental Services e21- Toward a 21st Century Energy System: Minnesota's nation - leading efforts to change its 100+ year -old approach to regulating utilities to better align revenue with performance Rolf Nordstrom, President and CEO, Great Plains Institute Brief updates on the Institute's wide - ranging Wont: from Electric Vehicles and GreenStep Cities to helping states respond to the EPA's proposed Greenhouse Gas regulations Brendan Jordan, Vice President, Great Plains Institute RSVP — f dtps :, /gpitorui-n.eventbrite.corr7 — (612) 278 -7159 Heather Branigin From: Todd Fronek <tfronek @dbclaw.com> Sent: Monday, February 09, 2015 7:50 AM To: Mary Brindle (Comcast); Kevin Staunton; Edina Mail; Robert Stewart; swensonannl @gmail.com Subject: Recommendation for Park Board Dear City Council Members, I am writing in support of appointment of John Swon to the Edina Park Board. John and I have known one another for over ten years and I am confident that he would be an asset to the Park Board. John continues to give back to the city, by recently operating the July 4th parade, creating and implementing the Edina Film Festival and formerly serving on the Art Center Board. As a former Park Board member and chair, I can appreciate the responsibility of serving the city. While further understanding John's background and commitment to service, I have no doubt that John is well prepared to serve in this capacity. If you have any questions for me regarding John's candidacy, please do not hesitate to contact me. Your consideration of this recommendation is greatly appreciated. Kind Regards, Todd Todd R. Fronek DICKE, BILLIG & CZAJA, PLLC INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ATTORNEYS d: 612.767.2522 tfronek@dbclaw.com Heather Branigin From: Kirsten Lance <kirsten @freedomtomarry.org> Sent: Monday, February 09, 2015 1:05 PM To: Edina Mail Cc: Deb Mangen Subject: Supreme Court Amicus Brief for Mayors Dear Mayor, As the Co- Chairs of Mayors for the Freedom to Marry, we are writing to urge your support for an important amicus brief concerning the freedom to marry. The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to consider the freedom to marry this term. We are hopeful that the Court will affirm the freedom to marry nationwide and bring our country to the national resolution we mayors have advocated. A friend -of- the -court brief to be submitted to the Supreme Court is being drafted by the Los Angeles City Attorney's Office and should be available to you by February 20. Joining this brief will be Mayors for the Freedom to Marry, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and individual mayors and cities. Our brief will explain to the Court the harm to families and communities resulting from marriage discrimination including: -Harm to our citizens' health and welfare; - Impact on the efficiency and effectiveness of our local governments as employers; and -Costs to businesses, including a loss of tourism revenue. Given the Supreme Court's short deadline, we wanted to let you know immediately about the brief to give you time to consider signing on. You can sign on as the mayor and /or as your town /city. If you are interested in being part of the friend of the court brief (subject to your final review of the draft once prepared), please fill out the form at www. freedomtomarry.org /MayorsBrief. We hope you will agree to participate in this important brief to amplify the voices of mayors across the country. There is no financial impact or staff commitment associated with signing on. Please let us know now if we can provisionally count you in; you will of course have a chance to review the final brief before officially joining it. The drop -dead deadline for signing onto this amicus brief is Monday, March 2, 2015. The brief must be filed at the Supreme Court on March 6. If you have any questions, please contact Jo Deutsch at Freedom to Marry at 202 - 223 -8223. Thank you for this consideration and for your continued support for the freedom to marry. Sincerely, Kevin Faulconer IlEric Garcetti Michael Nutter Mayor of San DiegoMayor of Los AngelesMayor of Philadelphi nnise Parker Kasim Reed Greg Stanton Mayor of HoustonMayor of Atlanta Mayor of Phoenix Kirsten Lance Federal Program Associate Freedom to Marry Freedom to Marry is a proud member of the Respect for Marriage Coalition. Learn how your group can join the historic partnership to end federal marriage discrimination at www.res-pectformarriage.org 2120 L Street NW, Suite 850 Washington, DC 20037 202 - 223 -0732 w 202 - 223 -0082 f 443 - 285 -2706 c kirsten&freedomtomgU.org Heather Branigin From: Jordan Nesvig <jnesvig @athomeapartments.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 8:19 PM To: James Hovland Subject: 40th and France Ave Site Hello Mayor Hovland, hope this note finds you off to a very happy and healthy new year. I'm aware you are currently in negotiations with the city of Minneapolis regarding a potential purchase of the site at 40th and France Ave, and we would like to help with that. I'd like to set a meeting with you to discuss ways in which the city of Edina and our company might work together in a mutually beneficial arrangement in order to make the purchase of that site a reality. Working together as partners we may very likely be able to strengthen your offer to purchase. We are a locally owned developer and manager of quality multifamily housing, with a portfolio nearing 5,000 units and a tremendous reputation as a company that is extremely easy to work with, as well as one who takes great care of their buildings and their residents. We are experienced in affordable- housing and see this site as one that could lend itself quite well to a new apartment community with an affordable - housing component, while also retaining plenty of valuable open space for the neighborhood to enjoy. Prior to your submission of a counter offer to Minneapolis, I would greatly appreciate the opportunity to stop by your office and visit with you about ways in which we may work together to make all parties happy. Is there a time this week or next that would work for us to come and visit with you at your office? Thank you for your time Mayor Hovland, and I very much look forward to hearing from you. Jordan JORDAN NESVIG Business Development Coordinator At Home Apartments, LLC 616 Lincoln Ave I St. Paul, MN 55102 Phone: 651.294.3297 Email: inesvig(a)AtHomeApartments.com Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 11156 (20150210) The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http: / /www.eset.com Heather Branigin From: rick.king @thomsonreuters.com Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 1:32 PM To: Rick.King @mspmac.org Subject: News from Rick King, your District B Metropolitan Airports Commissioner (MAC) METROPOLITAN AIRPOKIN COMMISSION IMInncapolis -Saint Paul International Airport t 04f.l - 28th Avenue South . _y9ircncapolis, \MN 5545C1•2i09 r Phouc 1612) 726 -8100 Z !C ID+ +. li February 11, 2015 Subject: News from Rick King, your District B Metropolitan Airports Commissioner (MAC) Welcome to the Winter 2015 update. 1. We are adding additional automated passport control kiosks in the Terminal 1 and Terminal 2 international arrivals area (FIS) to reduce the time it takes to re -enter the US. The Federal Inspection Station also has Global Entry kiosks in both Terminals 1 and 2. 2. A reminder, our committee and commission meetings are available live and by replay. For live streaming / video replay, go to www.metroairl2orts.org. 3. We had a very good presentation from the FAA's MSP Tower Manager, Elaine Buckner on Feb 2 about the Runway Use System (RUS). You will find the 4 pages in the Dropbox material under "FAA RUS Feb 2 2015.pdf'. It is a good look at the RUS and both its advantages and limitations. I think you will find the hourly traffic numbers interesting, too. 4. The Noise Office made two presentations - one to the Edina City Council and the other to the St. Louis Park City Council - covering the results of the placement of three mobile noise monitors in Edina and St. Louis Park. The results of the monitoring were consistent with date provided by the permanent noise monitoring devices. Please see the presentation in the Dropbox under "Feb 2015 - Results - edina-slp- monitoring - study- presentation.pdf'. 1 i 5. Nothing new to report locally on RNAV departures at this date. Meanwhile, as planned and approved, the FAA will implement the ' STARS (RNAV arrivals) in late March 2015. Several other airports have adopted RNAV approaches and departures. We expect to be able to share their results in the future. 6. New hangar development continues on the south side of Flying Cloud airport. This is part of the MAC's multi -year plan to more fully develop the reliever airports. 7. The MAC is working to update the Long Term Comprehensive Plan for all reliever airports in 2015. There are several areas where public comment and interaction will be key. Stay tuned for more detail. 8. There is anew system on the website where you can sign up for noise information, the noise newsletter, commission and committee notifications and more. Go to www.metroairports.org for more. 9. Air Expo 2015 at Flying Cloud Airport is set for July 11 -12. I've continued to add information from the MAC to the Dropbox site for your perusal. To access the site, click: https:// www. dropbox. com /sh /wox25q.ie6i2ftvs /X27.icKzS3E. As always, if you have any questions about noise, go to the MAC website at www.metroairports.org, the MAC Noise web site at www.macnoise.com or feel free to reach out to me directly. The Governor has reappointed me to a second four -year term. I am pleased to be able to continue my work and continue chairing the Management & Operations committee of the Commission. I look forward to continuing to serve you and your communities going forward. If you'd prefer to be removed from the email list, or if you would like to add someone, just let me know. By phone: 952 - 960 -2902. By email: rick.king@mspmac.org. Thanks, E Heather Branigin From: Robert Have <rjhave @gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 1:12 PM To: Scott H. Neal; Edina Mail; Kevin Staunton; Robert Stewart; Mary Brindle (Comcast); swensonannl @gmail.com Subject: Airport Noise Article in Sun Current dated February 12, 2015 Dear Mr. Neal, Mayor Hovland, and City Council: I read with interest the subject article about airport noise not being loud enough for mitigation. I hope the findings will not detract from what I consider to be the more serious issue of the establishment of RNAV limited outbound flight "corridors" being implemented over Twin Cities neighborhoods including Edina. As a longtime Edina homeowner, I am not asking for costly noise mitigation for my home. Over many years, I have gladly paid for many home improvements including insulation, new windows, and heating/air conditioning systems. However, I am asking that when (not if), RNAV is implemented that the outbound flights be dispersed across Twin Cities neighborhoods, as they are dispersed today. I am hopeful that the FAA and MSP Airport will not establish limited flight corridors over specific neighborhoods. I believe that the establishment of limited flight corridors will ruin beautiful neighborhood and severely impact the value of homes. Thank you for all that you do to make Edina a beautiful place to live. Sincerely, Rob Have Best Regards, Robert J. (Rob) Have Edina, Minnesota Telephone: (952)928 -9710 E -Mail: r.ihave @gmail.com LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com /in /robhave/ February 13, 2015 Please note: The Correspondence (emails) following the attached letter titled "To members of the Edina City Council" dated February 12, 2015, are all in response to the letter and contain the subject line "Re: Request for Assistance to Increase School Access for All Edina Children ". Thank you! Heather Branigin City of Edina February 12, 2015 To Members of the Edina City Council, Introduction As you are likely aware, we have been working together for almost five years in order to create access for all Edina children to the schools operated by the Edina School District. Our previous attempts to persuade the District leadership to insert a priority for children who live in the City of Edina into their Nonresident Enrollment policy have been deflected for reasons which are based on a highly flawed interpretation of the state statutes which we detail below. The District's school board is currently reviewing this policy which creates an opportunity to reconsider this appropriate request. We are asking that you actively support the effort to obtain a priority designation in the District's Nonresident Enrollment policy for all children who live in the City of Edina. There is no question that over the years the leadership of the City of Edina and the Edina School District have created a comprehensive relationship between the two entities. As a consequence, city tax dollars and resources support the facilities and programs of the District in many ways, and thus it is perfectly appropriate to expect a Nonresident Enrollment policy that acknowledges this relationship. The next scheduled meeting of the Edina school board is Monday, February 23, so time is of the essence. A Time For Change During its meeting of January 26, 2015, the Edina school board was presented with proposed amendments to District Policy 510 which governs Nonresident Enrollment in the District. In her cursory remarks, board member Regina Neville stated that the proposed amendments were essentially to change the nomenclature of the district's "Student Enrollment Center" and to standardize the references to the District as an entity. She also stated that these changers were initiated during a Policy Committee meeting which was conducted in December 2014. What remained unstated, however, is that the proposed amendments contain no changes as to how residents of the City of Edina who seek to open enroll into Edina public schools are treated in the priority placement. It is extremely disappointing that the Edina school board is failing to take the appropriate action and that they failed to include all stakeholders from the community in the discussion when this policy came up for review. An Inconsistent Policy Based On A Flawed Premise For several years now the narrative from the District administration and board members has been that a priority preference based on residence within the City of Edina "was not permissible within the [statel statutes." This assertion is based on a letter that the District's counsel received from Elia Bruggeman, Assistant Commissioner at the Minnesota Department of Education ( "MDE "), on August 31, 2011. It is important to note that Mrs. Bruggeman writes that "while MDE is happy to explain the agency's interpretation of the Minnesota open enrollment program ... the agency cannot provide specific recommendations to Edina school district abort how to respond to theproposal or structure ifs open enroffinentpolicies (emphasis added)." • If the MDE cannot specify how a district structures its open emrollment policies, it follows that the Edina School District is able to structure its open enrollment policies. • It is also important to note that Mrs. Bruggeman is not an attorney and the document referenced does not constitute a legal opinion. For the reasons listed below, the interpretation provided by Mrs. Bruggeman is flawed and inconsistent with the current Nonresident Enrollment policy ely adopted by the Edina school board on May 19, 2008. In reaching her conclusion that a priority preference based on residence within a city is not permissible within the state statutes, Mrs. Bruggeman asserts that "school districts do not have the flexibility to insert individualized application review processes in addition to those already established by law" and that only those factors specifically listed on the open enrollment application can be considered. • This interpretation is completely contradictory to the District's Nonresident Enrollment Placement policy in which "students of district employees, who are residents of other districts, will be given priority." • There is no language in the state statutes that =licitly states that it is permissible for a district to give preference to children of district employees or that the parent's employer is one of the specific factors that can be considered. Moreover, there is no place on the standard open enrollment application form for a parent to provide their employment information. • Either the District's Nonresident Enrollment policy has contained elements which are "impermissible" according to state statutes since it was adopted in May 2008 or Mrs. Bruggeman's interpretation is flawed. • It is interesting to note that the minutes of the May 19, 2008, school board meeting indicate that the District "has been in contact with the Minnesota Department of Education and is acting appropriately." This supports the conclusion that districts do indeed have the latitude to structure their own open enrollment policies and that the statues are not as restrictive as Mrs. Bruggeman suggests. A Change Is Possible Further evidence of the inherent flaws in the interpretation cited by District leaders for not amending the Nonresident Enrollment policy can be found in Mrs. Bruggeman's assertion that "a priority preference system for responding to open enrollment applications is not permissible" according to state statutes. If this were an accurate interpretation, then how is it that the Edina school board adopted a policy in May 2008 that contained eight 8) priorily strata for the placement of nonresident students with the MDE's blessing`? More significantly, during the 2014 legislative session, the statute governing open enrollment was amended to include the language: "Siblings of currently enrolled students and applicants related to an approved integration and achievement plan must receive priority in the lottery." In Mrs. Bruggeman's analysis, consideration of the "characteristics of the applicant student" is impermissible. This amended language_specificallythe "sibling preference" clearly indicates that her analysis is, in fact, incorrect. Again, it is useful to note that the policy adopted by the Edina school board in May 2008 provided for a sibling preference (" impermissible", according to Mrs. Bruggeman) years before such language u was explicitly riporated into the state statute. • If priority can be given to children of District employees who are residents of other districts, then priority can also be given to children who are residents of the City of Edina. Contrary to the flawed interpretation that underpins the narrative of District leadership, incorporating a priority for ALL residents of the City of Edina into the district's Nonresident Enrollment policy is not inconsistent with the state statutes or the District's current policies. The Edina school board does indeed have the latitude to structure their policy in such a way to provide enhanced access to all residents of the City of Edina who live outside the school district boundaries. Classroom Capacity Is Not A Constraint Because successfully open enrolling a student into any school district is dependent upon space being available, we will turn our attention to capacity within the Edina School District before concluding. For the current school year, there are 1,332 open enrolled students which constitute approximately 16% of the total enrollment of 8,442 students in the Edina School District. According to District projections, this percentage is expected to stay relatively unchanged (or slightly higlier) during the next five school years. The number of students enrolled in the Edina School District via the (former) Choice Is Yours Program has averaged 170 over the past seven years. Data collected in the most recent census (2010) indicates that there are approximately 700 school -age children living in sectors of the City of Edina which are part of the Hopkins, Richfield, and Eden Prairie school districts. If every one of these children were open enrolled into the Edina School District via a city residency priority and the population of the "Achievement and Integration School Choice Program" remained stable, there would still be over 450 open enrollment slots available to fulfill employee requests and to provide access to students who live in other cities. The data clearly demonstrates there is sufficient capacity within the Edina School District to amend the policy to provide priority for children of the City of Edina. The "Precedent" Argument Lacks Any Basis Of Fact One final point on this subject: an analysis of statewide enrollment data indicates that if a similar city resident priority was enacted in all the other districts around the state which share similar characteristics to those found here within the City of Edina, then the projected net shift of school -age students would equate to 0.5% of the total school population in Minnesota (including charters . The arguments put forth that a city resident priority would set a "precedent" that would unleash a "domino effect" that would "decimate" school districts elsewhere around the state are completely without merit and lack any substantiation. Conclusion To reiterate, we are sharing all this information with you for two primary reasons, The first is to demonshate to you that the assertion of District leaders that they are powerless to make the requested change to their policy is based on a flawed interpretation that is inconsistent with the District's own actions and policies. The second is to request that each of you, as a city leader elected to serve all Edina residents, strongly encourage the leadership of the Edina School District to make the necessary changes to their Nonresident Enrollment policy. The next scheduled meeting of the Edina school board is Monday, February 23. Should the Edina school board fail to take the necessary steps to modify their Nonresident Enrollment policy, then City officials should reassess the relationship between the City and the District. In a multitude of ways, ranging from marketing and communications to co- hosting events such as "State of the Community" and real estate forums to providing direct and indirect financial support to issuing bonds in support of District infrastructure projects, the City of Edina has entered into what is essentially an "exclusive relationship" with the Edina School District. If the District leadership is unwilling to reciprocate, then such a relationship is inaccurate, inappropriate and is a disservice to those Edina families who live outside school district boundaries. It is never the wrong time to make the right decision, Sincerely, Pam Allen 6500 Willow Wood Road Todd Gustin 5017 Park Terrace Alan Koehler 5304 Evanswood Lane Tim Kuck 6316 Westwood Court Andy Mitchell 6624 Londonderry Drive Paul Mooty 5320 Kelsey Terrace Kurt Nisi 5201 Blake Road 4 Heather Branigin From: Gustin, Todd V <todd.gustin @optum360.com> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 12:09 PM To: Edina 273; Edina Mail; Kevin Staunton; Robert Stewart; Mary Brindle (Comcast); ann swenson Cc: gust04OO@comcast.net Subject: RE: Request for Assistance to Increase School Access for All Edina Children Dear Council Members, I respectfully ask that you dedicate the appropriate time to reviewing this request that is being made by over 500 families in Edina on behalf of the entire community. I ask that you actively support this measure. It is a very important initiative to your community and one that aligns to the policy that the district and community can and should embrace together. Respectfully, Todd and Anne Gustin 5017 Park Terrace Edina, MN 55436 From: Edina 273 [mailto:edina273 @gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 12:01 PM To: Edina Minnesota; kstaunton @EdinaMN.gov; rstewart@EdinaMN.gov; mbrindle @comcast.net; ann Swenson; Edina 273 Subject: Request for Assistance to Increase School Access for All Edina Children To Members of the Edina City Council, Introduction As you are likely aware, we have been working together for almost five years in order to create access for all Edina children to the schools operated by the Edina School District. Our previous attempts to persuade the District leadership to insert a priority for children who live in the City of Edina into their Nonresident Enrollment policy have been deflected for reasons which are based on a highly flawed interpretation of the state statutes which we detail below. The District's school board is currently reviewing this policy which creates an opportunity to reconsider this appropriate request. We are asking that you actively support the effort to obtain a priority designation in the District's Nonresident Enrollment policy for all children who live in the City of Edina. There is no question that over the years the leadership of the City of Edina and the Edina School District have created a comprehensive relationship between the two entities. As a consequence, city tax dollars and resources support the facilities and programs of the District in many ways, and thus it is perfectly appropriate to expect a Nonresident Enrollment policy that acknowledges this relationship. The next scheduled meeting of the Edina school board is Monday, February 23, so time is of the essence. Heather Branigin From: Don and Lisa Beaupre <dlbeaupre @comcast.net> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 12:11 PM To: 'Edina 273'; Edina Mail; Kevin Staunton; Robert Stewart; Mary Brindle (Comcast); 'ann swenson' Subject: RE: Request for Assistance to Increase School Access for All Edina Children Please support this effort, thank you. From: Edina 273 [mailto:edina273 @gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 12:01 PM To: Edina Minnesota; kstaunton @EdinaMN.gov; rstewart @EdinaMN.gov; mbrindle @comcast.net; ann swenson; Edina 273 Subject: Request for Assistance to Increase School Access for All Edina Children To Members of the Edina City Council, Introduction As you are likely aware, we have been working together for almost five years in order to create access for all Edina children to the schools operated by the Edina School District. Our previous attempts to persuade the District leadership to insert a priority for children who live in the City of Edina into their Nonresident Enrollment policy have been deflected for reasons which are based on a highly flawed interpretation of the state statutes which we detail below. The District's school board is currently reviewing this policy which creates an opportunity to reconsider this appropriate request. We are asking that you actively support the effort to obtain a priority designation in the District's Nonresident Enrollment policy for all children who live in the City of Edina. There is no question that over the years the leadership of the City of Edina and the Edina School District have created a comprehensive relationship between the two entities. As a consequence, city tax dollars and resources support the facilities and programs of the District in many ways, and thus it is perfectly appropriate to expect a Nonresident Enrollment policy that acknowledges this relationship. The next scheduled meeting of the Edina school board is Monday, February 23, so time is of the essence. A Time For Change During its meeting of January 26, 2015, the Edina school board was presented with proposed amendments to District Policy 510 which governs Nonresident Enrollment in the District. In her cursory remarks, board member Regina Neville stated that the proposed amendments were essentially to change the nomenclature of the district's "Student Enrollment Center" and to standardize the references to the District as an entity. She also stated that these changers were initiated during a Policy Committee meeting which was conducted in December Heather Branigin From: Eric Meittunen <eric.meittunen @gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 12:24 PM To: Kevin Staunton; Edina Mail; Mary Brindle (Comcast); Robert Stewart; ann Swenson Cc: Edina 273 Subject: Re: Request for Assistance to Increase School Access for All Edina Children Good Afternoon: Please support the effort as noted in this email. Thank you and regards, Eric Meittunen 5012 Kelsey Terrace Edina, MN 55436 To Members of the Edina City Council, Tntrndnction As you are likely aware, we have been working together for almost five years in order to create access for all Edina children to the schools operated by the Edina School District. Our previous attempts to persuade the District leadership to insert a priority for children who live in the City of Edina into their Nonresident Enrollment policy have been deflected for reasons which are based on a highly flawed interpretation of the state statutes which we detail below. The District's school board is currently reviewing this policy which creates an opportunity to reconsider this appropriate request. We are asking that you actively support the effort to obtain a priority designation in the District's Nonresident Enrollment policy for all children who live in the City of Edina. There is no question that over the years the leadership of the City of Edina and the Edina School District have created a comprehensive relationship between the two entities. As a consequence, city tax dollars and resources support the facilities and programs of the District in many ways, and thus it is perfectly appropriate to expect a Nonresident Enrollment policy that acknowledges this relationship. The next scheduled meeting of the Edina school board is Monday, February 23, so time is of the essence. A Time For Change During its meeting of January 26, 2015, the Edina school board was presented with proposed amendments to District Policy 510 which governs Nonresident Enrollment in the District. In her cursory remarks, board member Regina Neville stated that the proposed amendments were essentially to change the nomenclature of Heather Branigin From: Lori Dolan < dolanla@comcast. net> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 12:42 PM To: Edina 273 Cc: Edina Mail; Kevin Staunton; Robert Stewart; Mary Brindle (Comcast); ann Swenson Subject: Re: Request for Assistance to Increase School Access for All Edina Children Please support this effort. We are residents of the City of Edina living on a dead end street one house away from the Edina school district boundary. The dead end part of our street in in the Hopkins school district. Our children were able to attend Edina Public Schools through open enrollment and were part of a neighborhood school. Please support this effort to modify the Open Enrollment Policy to give priority designation to residents of the City of Edina. Thank you, Lori Dolan On Feb 12, 2015, at 12:00 PM, Edina 273 <edina273@gmail.com> wrote: To Members of the Edina City Council, Introduction As you are likely aware, we have been working together for almost five years in order to create access for all Edina children to the schools operated by the Edina School District. Our previous attempts to persuade the District leadership to insert a priority for children who live in the City of Edina into their Nonresident Enrollment policy have been deflected for reasons which are based on a highly flawed interpretation of the state statutes which we detail below. The District's school board is currently reviewing this policy which creates an opportunity to reconsider this appropriate request. We are asking that you actively support the effort to obtain a priority designation in the District's Nonresident Enrollment policy for all children who live in the City of Edina. There is no question that over the years the leadership of the City of Edina and the Edina School District have created a comprehensive relationship between the two entities. As a consequence, city tax dollars and resources support the facilities and programs of the District in many ways, and thus it is perfectly appropriate to expect a Nonresident Enrollment policy that acknowledges this relationship. The next scheduled meeting of the Edina school board is Monday, February 23, so time is of the essence. A Time For Change Heather Branigin From: Edina 273 <edina273 @gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 12:44 PM To: Edina Mail; Kevin Staunton; Robert Stewart; Mary Brindle (Comcast); ann Swenson Cc: Betty Ann Wien Subject: Re: Request for Assistance to Increase School Access for All Edina Children Hello - I am writing to encourage you to support the effort to give all Edina residents priority when enrolling their children in Edina schools. I have been an Edina resident for over 40 years. Thirty of them as a resident in the part of Edina which is technically in the Hopkins school district. I have one child, a son, who participated in Edina park board activities, played in the Edina parks and made friends with Edina kids yet could not go to school with these friends. We identified with Edina, its schools, its city events and policies, etc. We do not feel connected to Hopkins in any way. Truthfully, I do not understand the powers that be not wanting to include all of Edina when discussing priority enrollment in the Edina Schools. When asked, we reply we live in Edina and think it is a great place to live, however we cannot send our children to its schools. We think this policy should be changed. Thank you. Sincerely, Cornie and Betty Ann Wiens, 4929 Green Farms Circle, Edina, MN 55436 On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Edina 273 <edina273@gmail.com> wrote: To Members of the Edina City Council, Introduction As you are likely aware, we have been working together for almost five years in order to create access for all Edina children to the schools operated by the Edina School District. Our previous attempts to persuade the District leadership to insert a priority for children who live in the City of Edina into their Nonresident Enrollment policy have been deflected for reasons which are based on a highly flawed interpretation of the state statutes which we detail below. The District's school board is currently reviewing this policy which creates an opportunity to reconsider this appropriate request. We are asking that you actively support the effort to obtain a priority designation in the District's Nonresident Enrollment policy for all children who live in the City of Edina. There is no question that over the years the leadership of the City of Edina and the Edina School District have created a comprehensive relationship between the two entities. As a consequence, city tax dollars and resources support the facilities and programs of the District in many ways, and thus it is perfectly appropriate to expect a Nonresident Enrollment policy that acknowledges this relationship. The next scheduled meeting of the Edina school board is Monday, February 23, so time is of the essence. A Time For Change During its meeting of January 26, 2015, the Edina school board was presented with proposed amendments to District Policy 510 which governs Nonresident Enrollment in the District. In her cursory remarks, board member Regina Neville stated that the proposed amendments were essentially to change the nomenclature of the district's "Student Enrollment Center" and to standardize the references to the District as an entity. She also stated that these changers were initiated during a Policy Committee meeting which was conducted in December Heather Branigin From: KaiMay Terry <kmyuenterry@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 12:46 PM To: Edina 273 Cc: Edina Mail; Kevin Staunton; Robert Stewart; Mary Brindle (Comcast); ann swenson Subject: Re: Request for Assistance to Increase School Access for All Edina Children Dear ALL, The well documented and argued letter speaks for your effort and determination to "RIGHT a WRONG" in this democratic country of ours - No taxation without representation. It is citizenry action at its best. I want to thank Alan in particular as he who took the lead to herd us into a unified group for action. Please provide names and phone numbers of city council members so we can make calls or leave messages.... etc. Lastly not clear if we should attend the school board meeting or a city concil meeting? I still recall a few years ago I attended an Edina city council meeting to protest a steep increase for our property tax, comparing tax $ per square footage between our home and our neighbors to show the unfair discrepancy. Guess what we won. Equal treatment and application of a ruling is what we are asking for here. Any politiicans should understand this principle'.!! P.S. 5109 Ridge Road 55436 is still listed as primary property even on the market for over one year and we moved out a couple of years ago. According to Hennepin county assessor, does not matter which home is listed as parimary as there is NO tax advantage if home is over $400K. Kaimoy Y Terry "Contentment comes from knowing when enough is enough" an ancient Chinese proverb On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Edina 273 <edina273ggmail.com> wrote: To Members of the Edina City Council, Introduction As you are likely aware, we have been working together for almost five years in order to create access for all Edina children to the schools operated by the Edina School District. Our previous attempts to persuade the District leadership to insert a priority for children who live in the City of Edina into their Nonresident Enrollment policy have been deflected for reasons which are based on a highly flawed interpretation of the state statutes which we detail below. The District's school board is currently reviewing this policy which creates an opportunity to reconsider this appropriate request. We are asking that you actively support the effort to obtain a priority designation in the District's Nonresident Enrollment policy for all children who live in the City of Edina. Heather Braniain From: Timothy Dolan <td1562 @gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 12:46 PM To: Edina 273 Cc: Edina Mail; Kevin Staunton; Robert Stewart; Mary Brindle (Comcast); ann Swenson; Scott Fischmann; Roloff, Becky Subject: Re: Request for Assistance to Increase School Access for All Edina Children I concur with the memo below and add that the vast majority of families in the Northwest corner of Edina already had or have our children attending Edina Schools. Changing this policy to give priority would not change enrollment numbers at Edina schools. It would give young families peace of mind about having to enter an open enrollment process. Children should be allowed to go to school with their neighbors, friends and teammates from their park leagues on up. School district boundaries should be hard lines like city boundaries. These lines were drawn when our area belonged to a few farms. Ideally, they should be adjusted - but simple consideration of the city we live in would go a long way. Thank you. Tim and Lori Dolan 5309 Highwood Drive West Edina, MN 55436 On Feb 12, 2015, at 12:00 PM, Edina 273 <edina273 @ gmail.com> wrote: To Members of the Edina City Council, Introduction As you are likely aware, we have been working together for almost five years in order to create access for all Edina children to the schools operated by the Edina School District. Our previous attempts to persuade the District leadership to insert a priority for children who live in the City of Edina into their Nonresident Enrollment policy have been deflected for reasons which are based on a highly flawed interpretation of the state statutes which we detail below. The District's school board is currently reviewing this policy which creates an opportunity to reconsider this appropriate request. We are asking that you actively support the effort to obtain a priority designation in the District's Nonresident Enrollment policy for all children who live in the City of Edina. There is no question that over the years the leadership of the City of Edina and the Edina School District have created a comprehensive relationship between the two entities. As a consequence, Heather Branigin From: elyse.cohen @comcast.net Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 1:06 PM To: Edina 273; Edina Mail; Mary Brindle (Comcast); ann swenson; Robert Stewart; Kevin Staunton Subject: Request for Assistance to Increase School Access for All Edina Children I strongly encourage you to support this effort on behalf of all Edina families. Thank you for your assistance, Elyse Cohen 6416 Interlachen Blvd Edina, MN 55436 952- 938 -1188 elyse.cohen@comcast.net On Feb 12, 2015, at 12:00 PM, Edina 273 <edina273ga gmail.com> wrote: To Members of the Edina City Council, Introduction As you are likely aware, we have been working together for almost five years in order to create access for all Edina children to the schools operated by the Edina School District. Our previous attempts to persuade the District leadership to insert a priority for children who live in the City of Edina into their Nonresident Enrollment policy have been deflected for reasons which are based on a highly flawed interpretation of the state statutes which we detail below. The District's school board is currently reviewing this policy which creates an opportunity to reconsider this appropriate request. We are asking that you actively support the effort to obtain a priority designation in the District's Nonresident Enrollment policy for all children who live in the City of Edina. There is no question that over the years the leadership of the City of Edina and the Edina School District have created a comprehensive relationship between the two entities. As a consequence, city tax dollars and resources support the facilities and programs of the District in many ways, and thus it is perfectly appropriate to expect a Nonresident Enrollment policy that acknowledges this relationship. The next scheduled meeting of the Edina school board is Monday, February 23, so time is of the essence. A Time For Change Heather Braniain From: paul @jamesdesignco.com Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 1;09 PM To: Edina 273 Cc: Edina Mail; Kevin Staunton; Robert Stewart; Mary Brindle (Comcast); ann swenson; Edina 273 Subject: Re: Request for Assistance to Increase School Access for All Edina Children Please support this effort. Paul James 5308 Evanswood Lane Edina, MN 55436 ---------------------- - - - - -- Original Message ---------------------------- Subject: Request for Assistance to Increase School Access for All Edina Children From: "Edina 273" <edina273 @gmail.com> Date: Thu, February 12, 2015 12:00 pm To: "Edina Minnesota" <mail @edinamn.gov> kstaunton@EdinaMN.gov rstewart@EdinaMN.gov mbrindle@comeast.net "ann swenson" <swensonannl @gmail.com> "Edina 273" <edina273 @gmail.com> > To Members of the Edina City Council, > *Introduction* > As you are likely aware, we have been working together for almost five > years in order to create access for all Edina children to the schools > operated by the Edina School District. Our previous attempts to persuade > the District leadership to insert a priority for children who live in the > City of Edina into their Nonresident Enrollment policy have been deflected > for reasons which are based on a highly flawed interpretation of the state > statutes which we detail below. The District's school board is currently > reviewing this policy which creates an opportunity to reconsider this > appropriate request. We are asking that you actively support the effort to > obtain a priority designation in the District's Nonresident Enrollment > policy for *all* children who live in the City of Edina. > There is no question that over the years the leadership of the City of > Edina and the Edina School District have created a comprehensive Heather Branigin From: Charlie White <charlie @bluemoonpackaging.com> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 1;12 PM To: Edina Mail; Kevin Staunton; Robert Stewart; Mary Brindle (Comcast); swensonannl @gmail.com; swensonannl@gmail.com Subject: Request for Assistance to Increase School Access for All Edina Children Please support this idea — it is the right thing to do for you to fight for all Edina school aged children to be able to attend Edina schools. And it's an easier solution than trying to redraw outdated school district boundaries that cost Edina schools hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in lost revenue to Hopkins. And from a practical standpoint, Edina 273 would cease to be a pain in your side because this issue is not going to go away. Giving preference to Edina kids is a no- brainer. And from a legal standpoint, if I had school aged kids right now, I'd be upset that school employees' children were given preference over my kids. Charlie White 5300 Highwood Drive From: Edina 273 [mailto:edina273 @gmail.com) Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 12:01 PM To: Edina Minnesota; kstaunton @EdinaMN.gov; rstewart @EdinaMN.gov; mbdndle @comcast.net; ann Swenson; Edina 273 Subject: Request for Assistance to Increase School Access for All Edina Children To Members of the Edina City Council, Introduction As you are likely aware, we have been working together for almost five years in order to create access for all Edina children to the schools operated by the Edina School District. Our previous attempts to persuade the District leadership to insert a priority for children who live in the City of Edina into their Nonresident Enrollment policy have been deflected for reasons which are based on a highly flawed interpretation of the state statutes which we detail below. The District's school board is currently reviewing this policy which creates an opportunity to reconsider this appropriate request. We are asking that you actively support the effort to obtain a priority designation in the District's Nonresident Enrollment policy for all children who live in the City of Edina. There is no question that over the years the leadership of the City of Edina and the Edina School District have created a comprehensive relationship between the two entities. As a consequence, city tax dollars and resources support the facilities and programs of the District in many ways, and thus it is perfectly appropriate to expect a Heather Branigin From: Kirsten Frederick <kirstenfrederick @hotmail.com> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 1:16 PM To: Edina 273; Edina Mail; Kevin Staunton; Robert Stewart; Mary Brindle (Comcast); ann swenson Subject: RE: Request for Assistance to Increase School Access for All Edina Children Please support this effort. Kirsten and Brent Frederick 5108 Blake Road Edina Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 12:00:49 -0600 Subject: Request for Assistance to Increase School Access for All Edina Children From: edina273 @gmail.com To: mail @edinamn.gov; kstaunton @EdinaMN.gov; rstewart @EdinaMN.gov; mbrindle @comcast.net; swensonannl @gmail.com; edina273 @gmail.com To Members of the Edina City Council, Introduction As you are likely aware, we have been working together for almost five years in order to create access for all Edina children to the schools operated by the Edina School District. Our previous attempts to persuade the District leadership to insert a priority for children who live in the City of Edina into their Nonresident Enrollment policy have been deflected for reasons which are based on a highly flawed interpretation of the state statutes which we detail below. The District's school board is currently reviewing this policy which creates an opportunity to reconsider this appropriate request. We are asking that you actively support the effort to obtain a priority designation in the District's Nonresident Enrollment policy for all children who live in the City of Edina. There is no question that over the years the leadership of the City of Edina and the Edina School District have created a comprehensive relationship between the two entities. As a consequence, city tax dollars and resources support the facilities and programs of the District in many ways, and thus it is perfectly appropriate to expect a Nonresident Enrollment policy that acknowledges this relationship. The next scheduled meeting of the Edina school board is Monday, February 23, so time is of the essence. A Time For Change During its meeting of January 26, 2015, the Edina school board was presented with proposed amendments to District Policy 510 which governs Nonresident Enrollment in the District. In her cursory remarks, board member Regina Neville stated that the proposed amendments were essentially to change the nomenclature of the district's "Student Enrollment Center" and to standardize the references to the District as an entity. She also stated that these changers were initiated during a Policy Committee meeting which was conducted in December 2014. What remained unstated, however, is that the proposed amendments contain no changes as to how residents of the City of Edina who seek to open enroll into Edina public schools are treated in the priority placement. It is extremely disappointing that the Edina school board is failing to take the appropriate action and Heather Branigin From: F G Nilles <fgnilles @aol.com> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 1:16 PM To: Edina 273 Cc: Edina Mail; Kevin Staunton; Robert Stewart; Mary Brindle (Comcast); ann Swenson Subject: Re: Request for Assistance to Increase School Access for All Edina Children Please support school priority for children in our neighborhood. Jerry and Monica Nilles Sent from my iPad On Feb 12, 2015, at 12:00 PM, Edina 273 <edina273ggmail.com> wrote: To Members of the Edina City Council, Introduction As you are likely aware, we have been working together for almost five years in order to create access for all Edina children to the schools operated by the Edina School District. Our previous attempts to persuade the District leadership to insert a priority for children who live in the City of Edina into their Nonresident Enrollment policy have been deflected for reasons which are based on a highly flawed interpretation of the state statutes which we detail below. The District's school board is currently reviewing this policy which creates an opportunity to reconsider this appropriate request. We are asking that you actively support the effort to obtain a priority designation in the District's Nonresident Enrollment policy for all children who live in the City of Edina. There is no question that over the years the leadership of the City of Edina and the Edina School District have created a comprehensive relationship between the two entities. As a consequence, city tax dollars and resources support the facilities and programs of the District in many ways, and thus it is perfectly appropriate to expect a Nonresident Enrollment policy that acknowledges this relationship. The next scheduled meeting of the Edina school board is Monday, February 23, so time is of the essence. A Time For Change During its meeting of January 26, 2015, the Edina school board was presented with proposed amendments to District Policy 510 which governs Nonresident Enrollment in the District. In her cursory remarks, board member Regina Neville stated that the proposed amendments were essentially to change the nomenclature of the district's "Student Enrollment Center" and to standardize the references to the District as an entity. She also stated that these changers were initiated during a Policy Committee meeting which was conducted in December 2014. What Heather Branigin From: Jay Halvorson <jaykhalvorson @gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 1:19 PM To: Edina 273 Cc: Edina Mail; Kevin Staunton; Robert Stewart; Mary Brindle (Comcast); ann swenson Subject: Re: Request for Assistance to Increase School Access for All Edina Children Jay Halvorson jaykhalvorson(a-)-g mail. corn 952 - 769 -7154 On Feb 12, 2015, at 12:00 PM, Edina 273 <edina273ggmail.com> wrote: To Members of the Edina City Council, Introduction As you are likely aware, we have been working together for almost five years in order to create access for all Edina children to the schools operated by the Edina School District. Our previous attempts to persuade the District leadership to insert a priority for children who live in the City of Edina into their Nonresident Enrollment policy have been deflected for reasons which are based on a highly flawed interpretation of the state statutes which we detail below. The District's school board is currently reviewing this policy which creates an opportunity to reconsider this appropriate request. We are asking that you actively support the effort to obtain a priority designation in the District's Nonresident Enrollment policy for all children who live in the City of Edina. There is no question that over the years the leadership of the City of Edina and the Edina School District have created a comprehensive relationship between the two entities. As a consequence, city tax dollars and resources support the facilities and programs of the District in many ways, and thus it is perfectly appropriate to expect a Nonresident Enrollment policy that acknowledges this relationship. The next scheduled meeting of the Edina school board is Monday, February 23, so time is of the essence. A Time For Change During its meeting of January 26, 2015, the Edina school board was presented with proposed amendments to District Policy 510 which governs Nonresident Enrollment in the District. In her Heather Branigin From: Jim Rossman <Info @firstmn.com> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 1;20 PM To: 'Edina 273'; Edina Mail; Kevin Staunton; Robert Stewart; Mary Brindle (Comcast); 'ann swenson' Subject: Request for Assistance to Increase School Access for All Edina Children City Council members, Please support Edina 273. We feel it is in the best interest of Edina, and only fair to all of us who live in Edina, and wish to attend Edina schools and be part of our Edina community. Jim Rossman 6648 Parkwood Road Edina From: Edina 273 [mailto:edina273 @gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 12;01 PM To: Edina Minnesota; kstaunton @EdinaMN.gov; rstewart @EdinaMN.gov; mbrindle @comcast.net; ann Swenson; Edina 273 Subject: Request for Assistance to Increase School Access for All Edina Children To Members of the Edina City Council, Tntrnduetinn As you are likely aware, we have been working together for almost five years in order to create access for all Edina children to the schools operated by the Edina School District. Our previous attempts to persuade the District leadership to insert a priority for children who live in the City of Edina into their Nonresident Enrollment policy have been deflected for reasons which are based on a highly flawed interpretation of the state statutes which we detail below. The District's school board is currently reviewing this policy which creates an opportunity to reconsider this appropriate request. We are asking that you actively support the effort to obtain a priority designation in the District's Nonresident Enrollment policy for all children who live in the City of Edina. There is no question that over the years the leadership of the City of Edina and the Edina School District have created a comprehensive relationship between the two entities. As a consequence, city tax dollars and resources support the facilities and programs of the District in many ways, and thus it is perfectly appropriate to expect a Heather Branigin From: Susan Rossman <Srossman @comcast.net> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 1 :22 PM To: 'Edina 273'; Edina Mail; Kevin Staunton; Robert Stewart; Mary Brindle (Comcast); 'ann swenson' Subject: RE: Request for Assistance to Increase School Access for All Edina Children Edina City Council, Please support us in °273" who live in Edina, but are unfairly not considered part of the school district. Thank you! Susan Rossman Parkwood Road Edina From: Edina 273 [mailto:edina273 @gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 12:01 PM To: Edina Minnesota; kstaunton @EdinaMN.gov; rstewart @EdinaMN.gov; mbrindle @comcast.net; ann swenson; Edina 273 Subject: Request for Assistance to Increase School Access for All Edina Children To Members of the Edina City Council, Introduction As you are likely aware, we have been working together for almost five years in order to create access for all Edina children to the schools operated by the Edina School District. Our previous attempts to persuade the District leadership to insert a priority for children who live in the City of Edina into their Nonresident Enrollment policy have been deflected for reasons which are based on a highly flawed interpretation of the state statutes which we detail below. The District's school board is currently reviewing this policy which creates an opportunity to reconsider this appropriate request. We are asking that you actively support the effort to obtain a priority designation in the District's Nonresident Enrollment policy for all children who live in the City of Edina. There is no question that over the years the leadership of the City of Edina and the Edina School District have created a comprehensive relationship between the two entities. As a consequence, city tax dollars and resources support the facilities and programs of the District in many ways, and thus it is perfectly appropriate to expect a Nonresident Enrollment policy that acknowledges this relationship. The next scheduled meeting of the Edina school board is Monday, February 23, so time is of the essence. Heather Branigin From: Schweitzer, Robert T <robert.schweitzer @optum.com> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 1:25 PM To: Edina 273; Edina Mail; Kevin Staunton; Robert Stewart; Mary Brindle (Comcast); ann swenson Subject: RE: Request for Assistance to Increase School Access for All Edina Children I fully support this effort and hope the Edina City Council will as well. Best Regards, Robert Schweitzer 305 Grove Place From: Edina 273 [mailto :edina273 @gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 12:01 PM To: Edina Minnesota; kstaunton @EdinaMN.gov; rstewart @EdinaMN.gov; mbrindle @comcast.net; ann Swenson; Edina 273 Subject: Request for Assistance to Increase School Access for All Edina Children To Members of the Edina City Council, Introduction As you are likely aware, we have been working together for almost five years in order to create access for all Edina children to the schools operated by the Edina School District. Our previous attempts to persuade the District leadership to insert a priority for children who live in the City of Edina into their Nonresident Enrollment policy have been deflected for reasons which are based on a highly flawed interpretation of the state statutes which we detail below. The District's school board is currently reviewing this policy which creates an opportunity to reconsider this appropriate request. We are asking that you actively support the effort to obtain a priority designation in the District's Nonresident Enrollment policy for all children who live in the City of Edina. There is no question that over the years the leadership of the City of Edina and the Edina School District have created a comprehensive relationship between the two entities. As a consequence, city tax dollars and resources support the facilities and programs of the District in many ways, and thus it is perfectly appropriate to expect a Nonresident Enrollment policy that acknowledges this relationship. The next scheduled meeting of the Edina school board is Monday, February 23, so time is of the essence. A Time For Change Heather Branigin From: Joe Schwarz <bordeauxjoe @gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 1:41 PM To: Edina 273 Cc: Edina Mail; Kevin Staunton; Robert Stewart; Mary Brindle (Comcast); ann Swenson Subject: Re: Request for Assistance to Increase School Access for All Edina Children Hello Edina City Council, My name is Joseph Schwarz and I have read and support the contents in this email. Thanks Joe Schwarz On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Edina 273 <edina273ggmail.com> wrote: To Members of the Edina City Council, Introduction As you are likely aware, we have been working together for almost five years in order to create access for all Edina children to the schools operated by the Edina School District. Our previous attempts to persuade the District leadership to insert a priority for children who live in the City of Edina into their Nonresident Enrollment policy have been deflected for reasons which are based on a highly flawed interpretation of the state statutes which we detail below. The District's school board is currently reviewing this policy which creates an opportunity to reconsider this appropriate request. We are asking that you actively support the effort to obtain a priority designation in the District's Nonresident Enrollment policy for all children who live in the City of Edina. There is no question that over the years the leadership of the City of Edina and the Edina School District have created a comprehensive relationship between the two entities. As a consequence, city tax dollars and resources support the facilities and programs of the District in many ways, and thus it is perfectly appropriate to expect a Nonresident Enrollment policy that acknowledges this relationship. The next scheduled meeting of the Edina school board is Monday, February 23, so time is of the essence. A Time For Change During its meeting of January 26, 2015, the Edina school board was presented with proposed amendments to District Policy 510 which governs Nonresident Enrollment in the District. In her cursory remarks, board member Regina Neville stated that the proposed amendments were essentially to change the nomenclature of the district's "Student Enrollment Center" and to standardize the references to the District as an entity. She also Heather Branigin From: Cathy <sutne @earthlink.net> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 1:41 PM To: Edina 273 Cc: Edina Mail; Kevin Staunton; Robert Stewart; Mary Brindle (Comcast); ann Swenson Subject: Re: Request for Assistance to Increase School Access for All Edina Children Please support this effort! Catherine Reeves and Steven Utne Sent from my iPad On Feb 12, 2015, at 12:00 PM, Edina 273 <edina273@gmail.com> wrote: To Members of the Edina City Council, Introduction As you are likely aware, we have been working together for almost five years in order to create access for all Edina children to the schools operated by the Edina School District. Our previous attempts to persuade the District leadership to insert a priority for children who live in the City of Edina into their Nonresident Enrollment policy have been deflected for reasons which are based on a highly flawed interpretation of the state statutes which we detail below. The District's school board is currently reviewing this policy which creates an opportunity to reconsider this appropriate request. We are asking that you actively support the effort to obtain a priority designation in the District's Nonresident Enrollment policy for all children who live in the City of Edina. There is no question that over the years the leadership of the City of Edina and the Edina School District have created a comprehensive relationship between the two entities. As a consequence, city tax dollars and resources support the facilities and programs of the District in many ways, and thus it is perfectly appropriate to expect a Nonresident Enrollment policy that acknowledges this relationship. The next scheduled meeting of the Edina school board is Monday, February 23, so time is of the essence. A Time For Change During its meeting of January 26, 2015, the Edina school board was presented with proposed amendments to District Policy 510 which governs Nonresident Enrollment in the District. In her cursory remarks, board member Regina Neville stated that the proposed amendments were essentially to change the nomenclature of the district's "Student Enrollment Center" and to standardize the references to the District as an entity. She also stated that these changers were initiated during a Policy Committee meeting which was conducted in December 2014. What Heather Branigin From: gary jing <gary,jing @hotmail.com> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 1:53 PM To: Edina 273; Edina Mail; Kevin Staunton; Robert Stewart, Mary Brindle (Comcast); ann swenson Subject: RE: Request for Assistance to Increase School Access for All Edina Children Dear Council members, strongly recommend you to support the effort. A stronger sense of the community should make Edina a more favorable place to live. Thank you very much for your consideration. Gary ling 5215 Malibu Dr. Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 12:00:49 -0600 Subject: Request for Assistance to Increase School Access for All Edina Children From: edina273 @gmail.com To: mail @edinamn.gov; kstaunton @EdinaMN.gov; rstewart@EdinaMN.gov; mbrindle @comcast.net; swensonannl @gmail.com; edina273 @gmail.com To Members of the Edina City Council, Introduction As you are likely aware, we have been working together for almost five years in order to create access for all Edina children to the schools operated by the Edina School District. Our previous attempts to persuade the District leadership to insert a priority for children who live in the City of Edina into their Nonresident Enrollment policy have been deflected for reasons which are based on a highly flawed interpretation of the state statutes which we detail below. The District's school board is currently reviewing this policy which creates an opportunity to reconsider this appropriate request. We are asking that you actively support the effort to obtain a priority designation in the District's Nonresident Enrollment policy for all children who live in the City of Edina. There is no question that over the years the leadership of the City of Edina and the Edina School District have created a comprehensive relationship between the two entities. As a consequence, city tax dollars and resources support the facilities and programs of the District in many ways, and thus it is perfectly appropriate to expect a Nonresident Enrollment policy that acknowledges this relationship. The next scheduled meeting of the Edina school board is Monday, February 23, so time is of the essence. A Time For Change During its meeting of January 26, 2015, the Edina school board was presented with proposed amendments to District Policy 510 which governs Nonresident Enrollment in the District. In her cursory remarks, board member Regina Neville stated that the proposed amendments were essentially to change the nomenclature of the district's "Student Enrollment Center" and to standardize the references to the District as an entity. She also stated that these changers were initiated during a Policy Committee meeting which was conducted in December 2014. What remained unstated, however, is that the proposed amendments contain no changes as to how Heather Branigin From: Karen Krinsky Leon <kkrinskyleon @earthlink.net> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 1:57 PM To: Edina 273 Cc: Edina Mail; Kevin Staunton; Robert Stewart; Mary Brindle (Comcast); ann swenson Subject: Re: Request for Assistance to Increase School Access for All Edina Children Attachments: Edina_City_Council_021215.pdf; ATT00001,htm To the Members of the Edina City Council, I strongly urge the Edina City Council to encourage the Edina School Board to establish enrollment priority for "Nonresident" students. Over 20 years ago, we were willing to purchase our home in Edina — within the Hopkins School District boundaries— because we could open enroll our children into the Edina School District. We were told over a number of years by District personnel and real estate agents that Edina residents were given preference. Our children attended Edina schools from grades K -12. Edina strongly emphasizes its commitment to community, "for living and learning together;" if the School District refuses to give priority to Edina residents, that implies the City's watchword should be modified with "...only if you live within the official borders of the Edina School District." Our tax dollars support the City, the City supports the School District in many ways, so we're supporting the District, as well. And the District — and City Council -- should be supporting all the residents of Edina by giving them priority. Open- enrolled parents and children are just as dedicated to the District as "official" parents and children; they volunteer, they excel, they give money to fundraisers that directly benefit the Edina School District. I would think the City Council and School District would do whatever they could to encourage community families to enroll in Edina schools. I do not understand the reluctance of the School Board to recognize the benefits of having "all Edina resident students under the same tent" and establish priority. There does not appear to be legal basis for not instituting priority, and if concerned about precedent, there was precedent at the time of my children's enrollment. Please influence the Edina School District to establish enrollment priority for Nonresident students. Respectfully, Karen Leon On Feb 12, 2015, at 12:00 PM, Edina 273 <edina273Qfzmail.com> wrote: To Members of the Edina City Council, Introduction As you are likely aware, we have been working together for almost five years in order to create access for all Edina children to the schools operated by the Edina School District. Our previous attempts to persuade the Heather Branigin From: Lisa White <jimtolisa @aol.com> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 2:08 PM To: Edina 273 Cc: Edina Mail; Kevin Staunton; Robert Stewart; Mary Brindle (Comcast); ann Swenson Subject: Re: Request for Assistance to Increase School Access for All Edina Children I would like to comment on this effort and show my support. I have two daughters who have gone through the Edina public school system. I live, shop, and go to church in Edina. I have been very involved in the schools and have served as PTO president, been on various committees, and also served as a board member to the Edina Education Fund. I can personally tell you that many of the people I have had the privilege to work with also reside in the part of Edina that is not in school district 273. We are wanted and needed in filling these roles in our schools and community, but when it comes to being given priority when enrolling, we might as well live outside the Edina city boundary. I urge you to support this effort for the good of our families and the community. Thank you, Lisa White On Feb 12, 2015, at 12 :00 PM, Edina 273 <edina273ggmail.com> wrote: To Members of the Edina City Council, Introduction As you are likely aware, we have been working together for almost five years in order to create access for all Edina children to the schools operated by the Edina School District. Our previous attempts to persuade the District leadership to insert a priority for children who live in the City of Edina into their Nonresident Enrollment policy have been deflected for reasons which are based on a highly flawed interpretation of the state statutes which we detail below. The District's school board is currently reviewing this policy which creates an opportunity to reconsider this appropriate request. We are asking that you actively support the effort to obtain a priority designation in the District's Nonresident Enrollment policy for all children who live in the City of Edina. There is no question that over the years the leadership of the City of Edina and the Edina School District have created a comprehensive relationship between the two entities. As a consequence, city tax dollars and resources support the facilities and programs of the District in many ways, and thus it is perfectly appropriate to expect a Nonresident Enrollment policy that acknowledges this relationship. The next scheduled meeting of the Edina school board is Monday, February 23, so time is of the essence. Heather Branigin From: Jasmine Hoedeman <jhoedeman @comcast.net> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 2:23 PM To: 'Edina 273'; Edina Mail; Kevin Staunton; Robert Stewart; Mary Brindle (Comcast); 'ann swenson' Subject: RE: Request for Assistance to Increase School Access for All Edina Children Please support our effort to correct this error. Working together is what Edina does best-this is important to our community & to all of the students in our community. We ask for your consideration & help. Thank you, Thomas & Jasmine Hoedeman 5017 Kelsey Terrace From: Edina 273 [mailto:edina273 @gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 12:01 PM To: Edina Minnesota; kstaunton @EdinaMN.gov; rstewart@EdinaMN.gov; mbrindle @comcast.net; ann swenson; Edina 273 Subject: Request for Assistance to Increase School Access for All Edina Children To Members of the Edina City Council, Introduction As you are likely aware, we have been working together for almost five years in order to create access for all Edina children to the schools operated by the Edina School District. Our previous attempts to persuade the District leadership to insert a priority for children who live in the City of Edina into their Nonresident Enrollment policy have been deflected for reasons which are based on a highly flawed interpretation of the state statutes which we detail below. The District's school board is currently reviewing this policy which creates an opportunity to reconsider this appropriate request. We are asking that you actively support the effort to obtain a priority designation in the District's Nonresident Enrollment policy for all children who live in the City of Edina. There is no question that over the years the leadership of the City of Edina and the Edina School District have created a comprehensive relationship between the two entities. As a consequence, city tax dollars and resources support the facilities and programs of the District in many ways, and thus it is perfectly appropriate to expect a Nonresident Enrollment policy that acknowledges this relationship. The next scheduled meeting of the Edina school board is Monday, February 23, so time is of the essence. A Time For Change Heather Branigin From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Please support this proposal. Thank you, Doug Linder Sent from my iPad Doug Linder <douglinder @comcast.net> Thursday, February 12, 2015 2:41 PM Edina 273 Edina Mail; Kevin Staunton; Robert Stewart; Mary Brindle (Comcast); ann Swenson Re: Request for Assistance to Increase School Access for All Edina Children On Feb 12, 2015, at 12:00, Edina 273 <edina273ggmail.com> wrote: To Members of the Edina City Council, Introduction As you are likely aware, we have been working together for almost five years in order to create access for all Edina children to the schools operated by the Edina School District. Our previous attempts to persuade the District leadership to insert a priority for children who live in the City of Edina into their Nonresident Enrollment policy have been deflected for reasons which are based on a highly flawed interpretation of the state statutes which we detail below. The District's school board is currently reviewing this policy which creates an opportunity to reconsider this appropriate request. We are asking that you actively support the effort to obtain a priority designation in the District's Nonresident Enrollment policy for all children who live in the City of Edina. There is no question that over the years the leadership of the City of Edina and the Edina School District have created a comprehensive relationship between the two entities. As a consequence, city tax dollars and resources support the facilities and programs of the District in many ways, and thus it is perfectly appropriate to expect a Nonresident Enrollment policy that acknowledges this relationship. The next scheduled meeting of the Edina school board is Monday, February 23, so time is of the essence. A Time For Change During its meeting of January 26, 2015, the Edina school board was presented with proposed amendments to District Policy 510 which governs Nonresident Enrollment in the District. In her cursory remarks, board member Regina Neville stated that the proposed amendments were essentially to change the nomenclature of the district's "Student Enrollment Center" and to Heather Branigin From: phasselstrom @aol.com Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 2:44 PM To: edina273 @gmail.com; Edina Mail; Kevin Staunton; Robert Stewart; Mary Brindle (Comcast); swensonannl @gmail.com Subject: Re: Request for Assistance to Increase School Access for All Edina Children Please give serious consideration to this issue. All residents of Edina should have the right to send their children to Edina schools without relying on open enrollment. After all, Edina's excellent school district is one of the important reasons (and one most often touted by realtors and the media) we choose to live in Edina. Patricia Hasselstrom 6621 Londonderry Drive - - -- Original Message---- - From: Edina 273 <edina273 @gmail.com> To: Edina Minnesota <mail @edinamn.gov >; kstaunton <kstaunton @EdinaMN.gov >; rstewart <rstewart@EdinaMN.gov >; mbrindle <mbrind le@comcast. net>; ann swenson <swensonann1 @gmail.com >; Edina 273 <edina273 @gmail.com> Sent: Thu, Feb 12, 2015 12:00 pm Subject: Request for Assistance to Increase School Access for All Edina Children To Members of the Edina City Council, introdnction As you are likely aware, we have been working together for almost five years in order to create access for all Edina children to the schools operated by the Edina School District. Our previous attempts to persuade the District leadership to insert a priority for children who live in the City of Edina into their Nonresident Enrollment policy have been deflected for reasons which are based on a highly flawed interpretation of the state statutes which we detail below. The District's school board is currently reviewing this policy which creates an opportunity to reconsider this appropriate request. We are asking that you actively support the effort to obtain a priority designation in the District's Nonresident Enrollment policy for all children who live in the City of Edina. There is no question that over the years the leadership of the City of Edina and the Edina School District have created a comprehensive relationship between the two entities. As a consequence, city tax dollars and resources support the facilities and programs of the District in many ways, and thus it is perfectly appropriate to expect a Nonresident Enrollment policy that acknowledges this relationship. The next scheduled meeting of the Edina school board is Monday, February 23, so time is of the essence. A Time For Change During its meeting of January 26, 2015, the Edina school board was presented with proposed amendments to District Policy 510 which governs Nonresident Enrollment in the District. In her cursory remarks, board member Regina Neville stated that the proposed amendments were essentially to change the nomenclature of the district's "Student Enrollment Center" and to standardize the references to the District as an entity. She also stated that these changers were initiated during a Policy Committee meeting which was conducted in December 2014. What remained unstated, however, is that the proposed amendments contain no changes as to how residents of the City of Edina who seek to open enroll into Edina public schools are treated in the priority placement. It is extremely disappointing that the Edina school board is failing to take the appropriate action and that they failed to include all stakeholders from the community in the discussion when this policy came up for review. I Heather Branigin From: Amanda Waterman <amandag @cronincoinc.com> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 2:47 PM To: Edina 273; Edina Mail; Kevin Staunton; Robert Stewart; Mary Brindle (Comcast); ann swe nso n Subject: RE: Request for Assistance to Increase School Access for All Edina Children Please support our open enrollment efforts for children living in Edina, but not in the Edina School District. Sincerely, Nick & Amanda Waterman 6632 Londonderry Drive Edina MN 55436 Amanda Waterman (Glazer) Cronin & Company, Inc. Fixed Income Securities 800 Nicollet Mall, Suite 2520 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Direct: (612) 337 -5758 Toll Free: (800) 862 -3991 Fax: (612) 337 -5818 Email: amandae(@cronincoinc.com Web site: www.cronincoinc.com The enclosed information is not a solicitation by us to buy or sell securities. Information included is believed to be reliable, but Cronin & Co., Inc. does not warrant its completeness or accuracy. The prices herein are indicative and are subject to change at any time without notice. Please note that product suitability must be determined for each individual investor. To ensure timely receipt and processing of your order, orders should be placed via phone. We cannot guarantee that orders submitted via electronic means will be received and processed in a timely manner. This material is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. From: Edina 273 [mailto:edina273 @gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 12:01 PM To: Edina Minnesota; kstaunton @EdinaMN.gov; rstewart@EdinaMN.gov; mbrindle @comcast.net; ann Swenson; Edina 273 Subject: Request for Assistance to Increase School Access for All Edina Children To Members of the Edina City Council, Introduction Heather Braniain From: Michaletz, Russ (US - Retired) < rmichaletz @deloitteretired.com> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 2:50 PM To: Edina 273; Edina Mail; Kevin Staunton; Robert Stewart; Mary Brindle (Comcast); ann swenson Subject: RE: Request for Assistance to Increase School Access for All Edina Children Edina City Council Members I would like to add my encouragement to you to help your constituents in northwest Edina access the Edina Public Schools in a more direct and sure manner. I have been frustrated with the pace set by our leaders with resolving an historical inequity created by the Edina school district boundaries. I feel that, having personally sustained an increase of property taxes of 28% from 2013 to 2014, our leadership's inattention to one of the most important issues to our neighborhood is most unfair. This is particularly stinging as I believe abundant evidence, rationale, and solutions to support change have been presented in a very articulate and professional manner, without much acknowledgment by our leaders. All four of our children were lucky enough to attend the Edina schools. This was accomplished because of the exception to the rule (open enrollment) rather than by right of being a property owner. Jan and I became very involved in the schools and very supportive to the Edina student community through our service. Without that Edina school connection, our connection with the City of Edina would be non- existent. You can't achieve the full value of living in Edina without that school connection. Likewise, you will never become fully engaged and bring value to Edina as a community if your children are educated elsewhere. Russ Michaletz 5301 Evanswood Lane Russ Michaletz Russell V Michaletz Retired Partner 5301 Evanswood Lane Edina, MN 55436 612 - 799 -4592 (Cell) rmichaletz @deloitteretired.com From: Edina 273 [edina273 @gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 12:00 PM To: Edina Minnesota; kstaunton @EdinaMN.gov; rstewart@EdinaMN.gov; mbrindle @comcast.net; ann swenson; Edina 273 Subject: Request for Assistance to Increase School Access for All Edina Children To Members of the Edina City Council, Introduction As you are likely aware, we have been working together for almost five years in order to create access for all Edina children to the schools operated by the Edina School District. Our previous attempts to persuade the District leadership to insert a priority for children who live in the City of Edina into their Nonresident Enrollment policy have been deflected for reasons which are based on a highly flawed interpretation of the state Heather Branigin From: Beth Sjoblad <bsjoblad @comcast.net> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 3:11 PM To: Edina 273 Cc: Edina Mail; Kevin Staunton; Robert Stewart; Mary Brindle (Comcast); ann swenson Subject: Re: Request for Assistance to Increase School Access for All Edina Children Honorable members of the Edina City Council, I would like to add my voice to the comments below. They reflect what I feel is my right as an Edina resident — first in line for open enrollment. It is what leads me to vote for certain candidates and to be a vocal advocate for the wonderful city in which I reside. Yes, I reside in EDINA. Not Hopkins. Those school district lines were drawn arbitrarily many years ago and are due to be reexamined. No one has the courage to do so — in lieu of that option, please consider putting those of us that use Edina services, pay for Edina public works an option to attend Edina schools. Thank you. Beth Sjoblad On Feb 12, 2015, at 12:00 PM, Edina 273 <edina273 @gmail.com> wrote: > To Members of the Edina City Council, > Introduction > As you are likely aware, we have been working together for almost five years in order to create access for all Edina children to the schools operated by the Edina School District. Our previous attempts to persuade the District leadership to insert a priority for children who live in the City of Edina into their Nonresident Enrollment policy have been deflected for reasons which are based on a highly flawed interpretation of the state statutes which we detail below. The District's school board is currently reviewing this policy which creates an opportunity to reconsider this appropriate request. We are asking that you actively support the effort to obtain a priority designation in the District's Nonresident Enrollment policy for all children who live in the City of Edina. > There is no question that over the years the leadership of the City of Edina and the Edina School District have created a comprehensive relationship between the two entities. As a consequence, city tax dollars and resources support the facilities and programs of the District in many ways, and thus it is perfectly appropriate to expect a Nonresident Enrollment policy that acknowledges this relationship. The next scheduled meeting of the Edina school board is Monday, February 23, so time is of the essence. > A Time For Change > During its meeting of January 26, 2015, the Edina school board was presented with proposed amendments to District Policy 510 which governs Nonresident Enrollment in the District. In her cursory remarks, board member Regina Neville stated that the proposed amendments were essentially to change the nomenclature of the district's "Student Enrollment Center" and to standardize the references to the District as an entity. She also stated that these changers were initiated during a Policy Committee meeting which was conducted in December 2014. What remained unstated, however, is that the proposed amendments contain no changes as to how residents of the City of Edina who seek to open enroll into Edina public schools are treated in the priority placement. It is extremely disappointing that the Edina school board is failing to take the appropriate action and that they failed to include all stakeholders from the community in the discussion when this policy came up for review. Heather Branigin From: Mary Jo Sanderson <maryjosanderson @yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 3:27 PM To: Edina 273; Edina Mail; Kevin Staunton; Robert Stewart; Mary Brindle (Comcast); ann swenson Subject: Re: Request for Assistance to Increase School Access for All Edina Children To Members of the Edina City Council, Please support the proposed change and convince the Edina School Board to do what is right for the children of Edina. Sincerely, Mary Jo Sanderson 6519 Interlachen Blvd Edina, MN 55436 From: Edina 273 <edina273 @gmail.com> To: Edina Minnesota <mail @edinamn.gov >; kstaunton @EdinaMN.gov; rstewart @EdinaMN.gov; mbrindle @comcast.net; ann swenson <swensonann1 @gmail.com >; Edina 273 <edina273 @gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 12:00 PM Subject: Request for Assistance to Increase School Access for All Edina Children To Members of the Edina City Council, Introduction As you are likely aware, we have been working together for almost five years in order to create access for all Edina children to the schools operated by the Edina School District. Our previous attempts to persuade the District leadership to insert a priority for children who live in the City of Edina into their Nonresident Enrollment policy have been deflected for reasons which are based on a highly flawed interpretation of the state statutes which we detail below. The District's school board is currently reviewing this policy which creates an opportunity to reconsider this appropriate request. We are asking that you actively support the effort to obtain a priority designation in the District's Nonresident Enrollment policy for all children who live in the City of Edina. There is no question that over the years the leadership of the City of Edina and the Edina School District have created a comprehensive relationship between the two entities. As a consequence, city tax dollars and resources support the facilities and programs of the District in many ways, and thus it is perfectly appropriate to expect a Nonresident Enrollment policy that acknowledges this relationship. The next scheduled meeting of the Edina school board is Monday, February 23, so time is of the essence. A Time For Change During its meeting of January 26, 2015, the Edina school board was presented with proposed amendments to District Policy 510 which governs Nonresident Enrollment in the District. In her cursory remarks, board member Regina Neville stated that the proposed amendments were essentially to change the nomenclature of the district's "Student Enrollment Center" and to standardize the references to the District as an entity. She also stated that these changers were Heather Branigin From: Bryan Badzin <bbadzin @gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 3AS PM To: Edina Mail; Robert Stewart; Mary Brindle (Comcast); ann swenson; Kevin Staunton Cc: Edina 273; nina @badzin.com Subject: Re: Request for Assistance to Increase School Access for All Edina Children We support this request. Sincerely, Bryan and Nina Badzin 6656 Parkwood Road Edina On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Edina 273 <edina273ggmail.com> wrote: To Members of the Edina City Council, Introduction As you are likely aware, we have been working together for almost five years in order to create access for all Edina children to the schools operated by the Edina School District. Our previous attempts to persuade the District leadership to insert a priority for children who live in the City of Edina into their Nonresident Enrollment policy have been deflected for reasons which are based on a highly flawed interpretation of the state statutes which we detail below. The District's school board is currently reviewing this policy which creates an opportunity to reconsider this appropriate request. We are asking that you actively support the effort to obtain a priority designation in the District's Nonresident Enrollment policy for all children who live in the City of Edina. There is no question that over the years the leadership of the City of Edina and the Edina School District have created a comprehensive relationship between the two entities. As a consequence, city tax dollars and resources support the facilities and programs of the District in many ways, and thus it is perfectly appropriate to expect a Nonresident Enrollment policy that acknowledges this relationship. The next scheduled meeting of the Edina school board is Monday, February 23, so time is of the essence. A Time For Change During its meeting of January 26, 2015, the Edina school board was presented with proposed amendments to District Policy 510 which governs Nonresident Enrollment in the District. In her cursory remarks, board member Regina Neville stated that the proposed amendments were essentially to change the nomenclature of the district's "Student Enrollment Center" and to standardize the references to the District as an entity. She also stated that these changers were initiated during a Policy Committee meeting which was conducted in December 2014. What remained unstated, however, is that the proposed amendments contain no changes as to how Heather Branigin From: Joe Deignan <JDeignan @wayzpartners.com> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 3:47 PM To: Edina 273; Edina Mail; Kevin Staunton; Robert Stewart; Mary Brindle (Comcast); ann swenson Subject: RE: Request for Assistance to Increase School Access for All Edina Children Folks My household is one of the many affected by this annoying and inequitable, legacy issue (home address: 5205 Kelsey Terrace) ..............simply stated, there is no coherent justification for the position taken by Edina's school board........ an amendment to the Nonresident Enrollment policy that favors all Edina kids /residents seems long overdue ........ clearly, the school board has made such amendments and given priority to other stakeholders in the past.......... to reiterate and summarize from the many valid points below, I highlight the following: "If priority can be given to children of District employees who are residents of other districts, then priority can also be given to children who are residents of the City of Edina." Frankly, it is somewhat mystifying how this relatively straight forward amendment has not already been incorporated and put to bed by the Edina school board........ in your capacity as city council members, please consider and ultimately represent the interests of all Edina residents as you consider this issue ........ thx. Joe M. Deignan Wayzata Investment Partners LLC From: Edina 273 [mailto:edina273 @gmail.com] Sent., Thursday, February 12, 2015 12:01 PM To: Edina Minnesota; ktaaunton@EdinaMN.gov; rstewart@EdinaMN.gov; mbrindle @comcast.net; ann swenson; Edina 273 Subject: Request for Assistance to Increase School Access for All Edina Children To Members of the Edina City Council, Introduction As you are likely aware, we have been working together for almost five years in order to create access for all Edina children to the schools operated by the Edina School District. Our previous attempts to persuade the District leadership to insert a priority for children who live in the City of Edina into their Nonresident Enrollment policy have been deflected for reasons which are based on a highly flawed interpretation of the state statutes which we detail below. The District's school board is currently reviewing this policy which creates an opportunity to reconsider this appropriate request. We are asking that you actively support the effort to obtain a priority designation in the District's Nonresident Enrollment policy for all children who live in the City of Edina. Heather Branigin From: Miriam Olson <miriamart@aol.com> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 4:03 PM To: edina273 @gmail.com; Edina Mail; Kevin Staunton; Robert Stewart; Mary Brindle (Comcast); swensonannl @gmail.com Subject: Re: Request for Assistance to Increase School Access for All Edina Children Please support this important effort. Miriam Olson 5224 Evanswood Lane Edina, MN - - - -- Original Message--- - From: Edina 273 <edina2 73 @g mail. com> To: Edina Minnesota <mail @edinamn.gov >; kstaunton <kstaunton @EdinaMN.gov >; rstewart <rstewart@EdinaMN.gov >; mbrindle <mbrind le@comcast. net>; ann swenson <swensonannl @gmail.com >; Edina 273 <edina273 @gmail.com> Sent: Thu, Feb 12, 2015 12:00 pm Subject: Request for Assistance to Increase School Access for All Edina Children To Members of the Edina City Council, Introduction As you are likely aware, we have been working together for almost five years in order to create access for all Edina children to the schools operated by the Edina School District. Our previous attempts to persuade the District leadership to insert a priority for children who live in the City of Edina into their Nonresident Enrollment policy have been deflected for reasons which are based on a highly flawed interpretation of the state statutes which we detail below. The District's school board is currently reviewing this policy which creates an opportunity to reconsider this appropriate request. We are asking that you actively support the effort to obtain a priority designation in the District's Nonresident Enrollment policy for all children who live in the City of Edina. There is no question that over the years the leadership of the City of Edina and the Edina School District have created a comprehensive relationship between the two entities. As a consequence, city tax dollars and resources support the facilities and programs of the District in many ways, and thus it is perfectly appropriate to expect a Nonresident Enrollment policy that acknowledges this relationship. The next scheduled meeting of the Edina school board is Monday, February 23, so time is of the essence. A Time For Change During its meeting of January 26, 2015, the Edina school board was presented with proposed amendments to District Policy 510 which governs Nonresident Enrollment in the District. In her cursory remarks, board member Regina Neville stated that the proposed amendments were essentially to change the nomenclature of the district's "Student Enrollment Center" and to standardize the references to the District as an entity. She also stated that these changers were initiated during a Policy Committee meeting which was conducted in December 2014. What remained unstated, however, is that the proposed amendments contain no changes as to how residents of the City of Edina who seek to open enroll into Edina public schools are treated in the priority placement. It is extremely disappointing that the Edina school board is failing to take the appropriate action and that they failed to include all stakeholders from the community in the discussion when this policy came up for review. Heather Branigin From: James Larson <jlarson53 @comcast.net> Sent Thursday, February 12, 2015 5:01 PM To: Edina 273 Cc: Edina Mail; Kevin Staunton; Robert Stewart; Mary Brindle (Comcast); ann Swenson Subject: Re: Request for Assistance to Increase School Access for All Edina Children WE ARE WRITING TO YOU REQUESTING THAT YOU SUPPORT THE MEASURE TO AMEND THE DISTRICT POLICY 510 WHICH GOVERNS NONRESIDENT ENROLLMENT IN THE DISTRICT. PLEASE VOTE TO SUPPORT AN AMENDMENT THAT WOULD MODIFY THE CURRENT NONRESIDENT ENROLLMENT POLICY TO ALLOW ACCESS OF ALL EDINA CHILDREN ACESS TO THE SCHOOLS OPERATED TO THE SCHOOLS OPERATED BY THE EDINA SCHOOL DISTICT. WE ASK YOU TO SUPPORT A PRIORITY DESIGNATION IN THE DISTRICT'S NONRESIDENT ENROLLMENT POLICY FOR ALL CHILDREN THAT LIVE IN EDINA THANK YOU FOR CONSIDERING THIS MEASURE. SINCERELY, JIM AND LORRIE LARSON On Feb 12, 2015, at 12:00 PM, Edina 273 wrote: To Members of the Edina City Council, Introduction As you are likely aware, we have been working together for almost five years in order to create access for all Edina children to the schools operated by the Edina School District. Our previous attempts to persuade the District leadership to insert a priority for children who live in the City of Edina into their Nonresident Enrollment policy have been deflected for reasons which are based on a highly flawed interpretation of the state statutes which we detail below. The District's school board is currently reviewing this policy which creates an opportunity to reconsider this appropriate request. We are asking that you actively support the effort to obtain a priority designation in the District's Nonresident Enrollment policy for all children who live in the City of Edina. There is no question that over the years the leadership of the City of Edina and the Edina School District have created a comprehensive relationship between the two entities. As a consequence, city tax dollars and resources support the facilities and programs of the District in many ways, and thus it is perfectly appropriate to expect a Nonresident Enrollment policy that acknowledges this relationship. The next scheduled meeting of the Edina school board is Monday, February 23, so time is of the essence. Heather Branigin From: Colette Diegel <cad202O @mac.com> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 S:01 PM To: Edina 273 Cc: Edina Mail; Kevin Staunton; Robert Stewart; Mary Brindle (Comcast); ann Swenson Subject: Re: Request for Assistance to Increase School Access for All Edina Children Please support this very reasonable effort to allow children who live in the city of Edina to go to Edina Schools. Its just the right thing to do. Colette and Tim Diegel 6024 Pine Grove Road, Edina MN 55436 On Feb 12, 2015, at 12:00 PM, Edina 273 <edina273@gmail.com> wrote: To Members of the Edina City Council, Introduction As you are likely aware, we have been working together for almost five years in order to create access for all Edina children to the schools operated by the Edina School District. Our previous attempts to persuade the District leadership to insert a priority for children who live in the City of Edina into their Nonresident Enrollment policy have been deflected for reasons which are based on a highly flawed interpretation of the state statutes which we detail below. The District's school board is currently reviewing this policy which creates an opportunity to reconsider this appropriate request. We are asking that you actively support the effort to obtain a priority designation in the District's Nonresident Enrollment policy for all children who live in the City of Edina. There is no question that over the years the leadership of the City of Edina and the Edina School District have created a comprehensive relationship between the two entities. As a consequence, city tax dollars and resources support the facilities and programs of the District in many ways, and thus it is perfectly appropriate to expect a Nonresident Enrollment policy that acknowledges this relationship. The next scheduled meeting of the Edina school board is Monday, February 23, so time is of the essence. A Time For Chance During its meeting of January 26, 2015, the Edina school board was presented with proposed amendments to District Policy 510 which governs Nonresident Enrollment in the District. In her cursory remarks, board member Regina Neville stated that the proposed amendments were essentially to change the nomenclature of the district's "Student Enrollment Center" and to standardize the references to the District as an entity. She also stated that these changers were initiated during a Policy Committee meeting which was conducted in December 2014. What remained unstated, however, is that the proposed amendments contain no changes as to how residents of the City of Edina who seek to open enroll into Edina public schools are treated in the priority Heather Branigin From: garsugary @comcast.net Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 5:18 PM To: Edina 273 Cc: Edina Mail; Kevin Staunton; Robert Stewart; Mary Brindle (Comcast); ann Swenson Subject: Re: Request for Assistance to Increase School Access for All Edina Children Please support this effort. Sue -Ann and Gary Garvis From: "Edina 273" <edina273 @g mail. com> To: "Edina Minnesota" <mail @edinamn.gov >, kstaunton @EdinaMN.gov, rstewart@EdinaMN.gov, mbrindle @comcast.net, "ann swenson" <swensonann1 @gmail.com >, "Edina 273" <edina273 @gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 11:00:49 AM Subject: Request for Assistance to Increase School Access for All Edina Children To Members of the Edina City Council, Introductinn As you are likely aware, we have been working together for almost five years in order to create access for all Edina children to the schools operated by the Edina School District. Our previous attempts to persuade the District leadership to insert a priority for children who live in the City of Edina into their Nonresident Enrollment policy have been deflected for reasons which are based on a highly flawed interpretation of the state statutes which we detail below. The District's school board is currently reviewing this policy which creates an opportunity to reconsider this appropriate request. We are asking that you actively support the effort to obtain a priority designation in the District's Nonresident Enrollment policy for all children who live in the City of Edina. There is no question that over the years the leadership of the City of Edina and the Edina School District have created a comprehensive relationship between the two entities. As a consequence, city tax dollars and resources support the facilities and programs of the District in many ways, and thus it is perfectly appropriate to expect a Nonresident Enrollment policy that acknowledges this relationship. The next scheduled meeting of the Edina school board is Monday, February 23, so time is of the essence. A Time For Change During its meeting of January 26, 2015, the Edina school board was presented with proposed amendments to District Policy 510 which governs Nonresident Enrollment in the District. In her cursory remarks, board Heather Branigin From: Tim Montgomery <sticktwirl @aol.com> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 5:39 PM To: Edina 273 Cc: Edina Mail; Kevin Staunton; Robert Stewart, Mary Brindle (Comcast); ann Swenson Subject: Re: Request for Assistance to Increase School Access for All Edina Children Dear Edina Council, Please support this effort to change the Edina School policy to give priority to all students who live in Edina as part of the nonresident enrollment policy. As a resident of Edina I feel an allegiance to the schools and people who are the fabric of our City. It is only natural that our children feel the same. Thank you for your consideration. Tim Montgomery Sent from my iPhone On Feb 12, 2015, at 12:00 PM, Edina 273 <edina273@gmail.com> wrote: To Members of the Edina City Council, Introduction As you are likely aware, we have been working together for almost five years in order to create access for all Edina children to the schools operated by the Edina School District. Our previous attempts to persuade the District leadership to insert a priority for children who live in the City of Edina into their Nonresident Enrollment policy have been deflected for reasons which are based on a highly flawed interpretation of the state statutes which we detail below. The District's school board is currently reviewing this policy which creates an opportunity to reconsider this appropriate request. We are asking that you actively support the effort to obtain a priority designation in the District's Nonresident Enrollment policy for all children who live in the City of Edina. There is no question that over the years the leadership of the City of Edina and the Edina School District have created a comprehensive relationship between the two entities. As a consequence, city tax dollars and resources support the facilities and programs of the District in many ways, and thus it is perfectly appropriate to expect a Nonresident Enrollment policy that acknowledges this relationship. The next scheduled meeting of the Edina school board is Monday, February 23, so time is of the essence. A Time For Change Heather Branigin From: Amy M. <amyminge7l @gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 5:46 PM To: Edina 273 Cc: Edina Mail; Kevin Staunton; Robert Stewart; Mary Brindle (Comcast); ann Swenson Subject: Re: Request for Assistance to Increase School Access for All Edina Children We would like to add our support to the request for Edina resident priority in the open - enrollment process. We are outside the district, but our friends within the district also are strong supporters of this issue, and have become impatient with the lack of progress pertaining to it. Thank you, Minge family (Amy, Olaf, Christopher & Annika) On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Edina 273 <edina273@gmail.com> wrote: To Members of the Edina City Council, Tn trad n cti nn As you are likely aware, we have been working together for almost five years in order to create access for all Edina children to the schools operated by the Edina School District. Our previous attempts to persuade the District leadership to insert a priority for children who live in the City of Edina into their Nonresident Enrollment policy have been deflected for reasons which are based on a highly flawed interpretation of the state statutes which we detail below. The District's school board is currently reviewing this policy which creates an opportunity to reconsider this appropriate request. We are asking that you actively support the effort to obtain a priority designation in the District's Nonresident Enrollment policy for all children who live in the City of Edina. There is no question that over the years the leadership of the City of Edina and the Edina School District have created a comprehensive relationship between the two entities. As a consequence, city tax dollars and resources support the facilities and programs of the District in many ways, and thus it is perfectly appropriate to expect a Nonresident Enrollment policy that acknowledges this relationship. The next scheduled meeting of the Edina school board is Monday, February 23, so time is of the essence. A Time For Change During its meeting of January 26, 2015, the Edina school board was presented with proposed amendments to District Policy 510 which governs Nonresident Enrollment in the District. In her cursory remarks, board member Regina Neville stated that the proposed amendments were essentially to change the nomenclature of the district's "Student Enrollment Center" and to standardize the references to the District as an entity. She also stated that these changers were initiated during a Policy Committee meeting which was conducted in December Heather Branigin From: Karen <karengallivan @comcast.net> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 6:34 PM To: Edina 273 Cc: Edina Mail; Kevin Staunton; Robert Stewart; Mary Brindle (Comcast); ann Swenson Subject: Request for Assistance to Increase School Access for All Edina Children To Members of the Edina City Council, Introduction As you are likely aware, we have been working together for almost five years in order to create access for all Edina children to the schools operated by the Edina School District. Our previous attempts to persuade the District leadership to insert a priority for children who live in the City of Edina into their Nonresident Enrollment policy have been deflected for reasons which are based on a highly flawed interpretation of the state statutes which we detail below. The District's school board is currently reviewing this policy which creates an opportunity to reconsider this appropriate request. We are asking that you actively support the effort to obtain a priority designation in the District's Nonresident Enrollment policy for all children who live in the City of Edina. There is no question that over the years the leadership of the City of Edina and the Edina School District have created a comprehensive relationship between the two entities. As a consequence, city tax dollars and resources support the facilities and programs of the District in many ways, and thus it is perfectly appropriate to expect a Nonresident Enrollment policy that acknowledges this relationship. The next scheduled meeting of the Edina school board is Monday, February 23, so time is of the essence. A Time For Change During its meeting of January 26, 2015, the Edina school board was presented with proposed amendments to District Policy 510 which governs Nonresident Enrollment in the District. In her cursory remarks, board member Regina Neville stated that the proposed amendments were essentially to change the nomenclature of the district's "Student Enrollment Center" and to standardize the references to the District as an entity. She also stated that these changers were initiated during a Policy Committee meeting which was conducted in December 2014. What remained unstated, however, is that the proposed amendments contain no changes as to how residents of the Citv of Edina who seek to oven enroll into Edina public schools are treated in the priority placement. It is extremely disappointing that the Edina school board is failing to take the appropriate action and that they failed to include all stakeholders from the community in the discussion when this policy came up for review. An Inconsistent Policy Based On A Flawed Premise For several years now the narrative from the District administration and board members has been that a priority preference based on residence within the City of Edina "was not permissible within the [state] statutes." This assertion is based on a letter that the District's counsel received from Elia Bruggeman, Assistant Commissioner at the Minnesota Department of Education ( "MDE "), on August 31, 2011. It is important to note that Mrs. Bruggeman writes that "while MDE is happy to explain the agency's interpretation of the Minnesota open enrollment program—the agency cannotprovide specific recommendations to Edina school district about how to respond to the proposal or structure its open enrollment policies (emphasis added)." • If the MDE cannot specify how a district structures its open enrollment policies, it follows that the Edina School District is able to structure its open enrollment policies. • It is also important to note that Mrs. Bruggeman is not an attorney and the document referenced does not constitute a legal opinion. For the reasons listed below, the interpretation provided by Mrs. Bruggeman is flawed and inconsistent with the current Nonresident Enrollment policy initially adopted by the Edina school board on May 19, 2008. In reaching her conclusion that a priority preference based on residence within a city is not permissible within the state statutes, Mrs. Bruggeman asserts that "school districts do not have the flexibility to insert individualized application review processes in addition to those already established by law" and that only those factors specifically listed on the open enrollment application can be considered. This interpretation is completely contradictory to the District's Nonresident Enrollment Placement policy in which "students of district employees, who are residents of other districts, will be given priority." • There is no language in the state statutes that explicitly states that it is permissible for a district to give preference to children of district employ or that the parent's employer is one of the specific factors that can be considered. Moreover, there is no place on the standard open enrollment application form for a parent to provide their employment information. • Either the District's Nonresident Enrollment policy has contained elements which are "impermissible" according to state statutes since it was adopted in May 2008 or Mrs. Bruggeman's interpretation is flawed. It is interesting to note that the minutes of the May 19, 2008, school board meeting indicate that the District "has been in contact with the Minnesota Department of Education and is acting appropriately." This supports the conclusion that districts do indeed have the latitude to structure their own open enrollment policies and that the statues are not as restrictive as Mrs. Bruggeman suggests. A Change Is Possible Further evidence of the inherent flaws in the interpretation cited by District leaders for not amending the Nonresident Enrollment policy can be found in Mrs. Bruggeman's assertion that "a priority preference system for responding to open enrollment applications is not permissible" according to state statutes. • If this were an accurate interpretation, then how is it that the Edina school board adopted a policy in May 2008 that contained eight (8) priority strata for the placement of nonresident students with the MDE's blessing? More significantly, during the 2014 legislative session, the statute governing open enrollment was amended to include the language: "Siblings of currently enrolled students and applicants related to an approved integration and achievement plan must receive priority in the lottery • In Mrs. Bruggeman's analysis, consideration of the "characteristics of the applicant student" is impermissible. This amended language, specifically the "sibling preference" clearly indicates that her analysis is, in fact, incorrect. Again, it is useful to note that the policy adopted by the Edina school board in Maw provided for a sibling preference ( "impermissible ", according to Mrs. Bruggeman) years before such language was explicitly incorporated into the state statute. • If priority can be given to children of District employees who are residents of other districts, then Priority can also be given to children who are residents of the City of Edina. Contrary to the flawed interpretation that underpins the narrative of District leadership, incorporating a priority for ALL residents of the City of Edina into the district's Nonresident Enrollment policy is not inconsistent with the state statutes or the District's current policies. The Edina school board does indeed have the latitude to structure their policy in such a way to provide enhanced access to all residents of the City of Edina who live outside the school district boundaries. Classroom Capacity Is Not A Constraint Because successfully open enrolling a student into any school district is dependent upon space being available, we will turn our attention to capacity within the Edina School District before concluding. i For the current school year, there are 1,332 open enrolled students which constitute approximately 16% of total enrollment of 8,442 students in the Edina School District. According to District projections, this percentage is expected to stay relatively unchanged (or slightly higher) during the next five school years. • The number of students enrolled in the Edina School District via the (former) Choice Is Yours Program has averaged 170 over the past seven years. • Data collected in the most recent census (2010) indicates that there are approximately 700 school -age children living in sectors of the City of Edina which are part of the Hopkins, Richfield, and Eden Prairie school districts. If every one of these children were open enrolled into the Edina School District via a city residency priority and the population of the "Achievement and Integration School Choice Program" remained stable, there would still be over 450 open enrollment slots available to fulfill employee requests and to provide access to students who live in other cities. • The data clearly demonstrates there is sufficient capacity within the Edina School District to amend the policy to provide priority for children of the City of Edina. The "Precedent" Argument Lacks Any Basis Of Fact One final point on this subject: an analysis of statewide enrollment data indicates that if a similar city resident priority was enacted in all the other districts around the state which share similar characteristics to those found here within the City of Edina, then the projected net shift of school -age students would equate to 0.5% of the total school population in Minnesota (including charters). The arguments put forth that a city resident priority would set a "precedent" that would unleash a "domino effect" that would "decimate" school districts elsewhere around the state are completely without merit and lack any substantiation. Conclusion To reiterate, we are sharing all this information with you for two primary reasons. The first is to demonstrate to you that the assertion of District leaders that they are powerless to make the requested change to their policy is based on a flawed interpretation that is inconsistent with the District's own actions and policies. The second is to request that each of you, as a city leader elected to serve all Edina residents, strongly encourage the leadership of the Edina School District to make the necessary changes to their Nonresident Enrollment policy. The next scheduled meeting of the Edina school board is Monday, February 23. Should the Edina school board fail to take the necessary steps to modify their Nonresident Enrollment policy, then City officials should reassess the relationship between the City and the District. In a multitude of ways, ranging from marketing and communications to co- hosting events such as "State of the Community" and real estate forums to providing direct and indirect financial support to issuing bonds in support of District infrastructure projects, the City of Edina has entered into what is essentially an "exclusive relationship" with the Edina School District. If the District leadership is unwilling to reciprocate, then such a relationship is inaccurate, inappropriate and is a disservice to those Edina families who live outside school district boundaries. It is never the wrong time to make the right decision. Sincerely, Karen and Jerry Gallivan Heather Branigin From: Clint Odell <ccodell @comcast.net> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 8:41 PM To: 'Edina 273'; Edina Mail; Kevin Staunton; Robert Stewart; Mary Brindle (Comcast); 'ann swenson' Subject: RE: Request for Assistance to Increase School Access for All Edina Children Please support this effort) l Clint & Carol Odell 5105 Green Farms Road From: Edina 273 [mailto:edina273 @gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 12:01 PM To: Edina Minnesota; kstaunton @EdinaMN.gov; rstewart@EdinaMN.gov; mbrindle @comcast.net; ann Swenson; Edina 273 Subject: Request for Assistance to Increase School Access for All Edina Children To Members of the Edina City Council, intrnduetion As you are likely aware, we have been working together for almost five years in order to create access for all Edina children to the schools operated by the Edina School District. Our previous attempts to persuade the District leadership to insert a priority for children who live in the City of Edina into their Nonresident Enrollment policy have been deflected for reasons which are based on a highly flawed interpretation of the state statutes which we detail below. The District's school board is currently reviewing this policy which creates an opportunity to reconsider this appropriate request. We are asking that you actively support the effort to obtain a priority designation in the District's Nonresident Enrollment policy for all children who live in the City of Edina. There is no question that over the years the leadership of the City of Edina and the Edina School District have created a comprehensive relationship between the two entities. As a consequence, city tax dollars and resources support the facilities and programs of the District in many ways, and thus it is perfectly appropriate to expect a Nonresident Enrollment policy that acknowledges this relationship. The next scheduled meeting of the Edina school board is Monday, February 23, so time is of the essence. A Time For Change During its meeting of January 26, 2015, the Edina school board was presented with proposed amendments to District Policy 510 which governs Nonresident Enrollment in the District. In her cursory remarks, board Heather Branigin From: Ann Merrill <annmerrillmn @icloud.com> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 8:52 PM To: Edina 273 Cc: Edina Mail; Kevin Staunton; Robert Stewart; Mary Brindle (Comcast); ann Swenson Subject: Re: Request for Assistance to Increase School Access for All Edina Children Edina City Council: Please support the effort detailed below regarding how the Edina School District prioritizes Open Enrollment non - resident students. Most of the Edina residents living in the Hopkins School District identify with Edina. In fact, Edina has a strong brand and presence through the entire city. When we sign up our kids for youth sports, we do so in Edina — not Hopkins. We go to Edina parks, not Hopkins. In the past, we've been asked to support referendums that jointly benefit the Edina Parks and the Edina School facilities. The city can't ask for our tax dollars, then the school district reject our kids. This is a blending of city and school district that SHOULD occur. And that's what we seek: priority to open enroll our kids in the Edina School District. It's just plain common sense to want our kids to go to the schools in Edina, when everything else we've done is in Edina. As the Edina City Council, you can put a stake in the ground and do the right thing. Thank you. -Ann Merrill 5033 Green Farms Road, Edina On Feb 12, 2015, at 12:00 PM, Edina 273 <edina273Qgmai1.com> wrote: To Members of the Edina City Council, Introduction As you are likely aware, we have been working together for almost five years in order to create access for all Edina children to the schools operated by the Edina School District. Our previous attempts to persuade the District leadership to insert a priority for children who live in the City of Edina into their Nonresident Enrollment policy have been deflected for reasons which are based on a highly flawed interpretation of the state statutes which we detail below. The District's school board is currently reviewing this policy which creates an opportunity to reconsider this appropriate request. We are asking that you actively support the effort to obtain a Heather Branigin From: Michelle Kranendonk <michellek122 @gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 9:19 PM To: Edina 273 Cc: Edina Mail; Kevin Staunton; Robert Stewart; Mary Brindle (Comcast); ann Swenson Subject: Re: Request for Assistance to Increase School Access for All Edina Children Please support this effort. Michelle Kranendonk 5170 Kelsey Terrace On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Edina 273 <edina273ggmail.com> wrote: To Members of the Edina City Council, In trndu ction As you are likely aware, we have been working together for almost five years in order to create access for all Edina children to the schools operated by the Edina School District. Our previous attempts to persuade the District leadership to insert a priority for children who live in the City of Edina into their Nonresident Enrollment policy have been deflected for reasons which are based on a highly flawed interpretation of the state statutes which we detail below. The District's school board is currently reviewing this policy which creates an opportunity to reconsider this appropriate request. We are asking that you actively support the effort to obtain a priority designation in the District's Nonresident Enrollment policy for all children who live in the City of Edina. There is no question that over the years the leadership of the City of Edina and the Edina School District have created a comprehensive relationship between the two entities. As a consequence, city tax dollars and resources support the facilities and programs of the District in many ways, and thus it is perfectly appropriate to expect a Nonresident Enrollment policy that acknowledges this relationship. The next scheduled meeting of the Edina school board is Monday, February 23, so time is of the essence. A Time For ChanIze During its meeting of January 26, 2015, the Edina school board was presented with proposed amendments to District Policy 510 which governs Nonresident Enrollment in the District. In her cursory remarks, board member Regina Neville stated that the proposed amendments were essentially to change the nomenclature of the district's "Student Enrollment Center" and to standardize the references to the District as an entity. She also stated that these changers were initiated during a Policy Committee meeting which was conducted in December 2014. What remained unstated, however, is that the proposed amendments contain no changes as to how residents of the Citv of Edina who seek to oven enroll into Edina public schools are treated in the priority placement. It is extremely disappointing that the Edina school board is failing to take the appropriate action and Heather Branigin From: Donna Arnesen <donna_arnesen @yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 9:27 PM To: Edina 273 Cc: Edina Mail; Kevin Staunton; Robert Stewart; Mary Brindle (Comcast); ann Swenson Subject: Re: Request for Assistance to Increase School Access for All Edina Children Edina City Council Please support this effort. Our children live in Edina and should be able to attend Edina schools. Thank You, Donna Baldo On Feb 12, 2015, at 12:00 PM, Edina 273 <edina273@gmail.com> wrote: To Members of the Edina City Council, Tntrnduction As you are likely aware, we have been working together for almost five years in order to create access for all Edina children to the schools operated by the Edina School District. Our previous attempts to persuade the District leadership to insert a priority for children who live in the City of Edina into their Nonresident Enrollment policy have been deflected for reasons which are based on a highly flawed interpretation of the state statutes which we detail below. The District's school board is currently reviewing this policy which creates an opportunity to reconsider this appropriate request. We are asking that you actively support the effort to obtain a priority designation in the District's Nonresident Enrollment policy for all children who live in the City of Edina. There is no question that over the years the leadership of the City of Edina and the Edina School District have created a comprehensive relationship between the two entities. As a consequence, city tax dollars and resources support the facilities and programs of the District in many ways, and thus it is perfectly appropriate to expect a Nonresident Enrollment policy that acknowledges this relationship. The next scheduled meeting of the Edina school board is Monday, February 23, so time is of the essence. A Time For Change During its meeting of January 26, 2015, the Edina school board was presented with proposed amendments to District Policy 510 which governs Nonresident Enrollment in the District. In her cursory remarks, board member Regina Neville stated that the proposed amendments were essentially to change the nomenclature of the district's "Student Enrollment Center" and to standardize the references to the District as an entity. She also Heather Branigin From: James Aagaard <aagaa001 @umn.edu> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 11:02 PM To: Edina 273 Cc: Edina Mail; Kevin Staunton; Robert Stewart; Mary Brindle (Comcast); ann swenson Subject: Re: Request for Assistance to Increase School Access for All Edina Children Dear City Council, I have lived in Edina for the last 35 years, the last 17 in the Hopkins school district. I feel the city and the Edina school board has marginalized the residents of this part of Edina and have chosen to this point in time to ignore our request to be a full part of Edina. I am asking you to support the effort to add Edina residency to the Open Enrollment criteria. Sincerely, James Aagaard On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Edina 273 <edina273ggmail.com> wrote: To Members of the Edina City Council, Introduction As you are likely aware, we have been working together for almost five years in order to create access for all Edina children to the schools operated by the Edina School District. Our previous attempts to persuade the District leadership to insert a priority for children who live in the City of Edina into their Nonresident Enrollment policy have been deflected for reasons which are based on a highly flawed interpretation of the state statutes which we detail below. The District's school board is currently reviewing this policy which creates an opportunity to reconsider this appropriate request. We are asking that you actively support the effort to obtain a priority designation in the District's Nonresident Enrollment policy for all children who live in the City of Edina. There is no question that over the years the leadership of the City of Edina and the Edina School District have created a comprehensive relationship between the two entities. As a consequence, city tax dollars and resources support the facilities and programs of the District in many ways, and thus it is perfectly appropriate to expect a Nonresident Enrollment policy that acknowledges this relationship. The next scheduled meeting of the Edina school board is Monday, February 23, so time is of the essence. A Time For Change Heather Branigin From: Rebecca Lieberman <rebeccatlieberman @gmail.com> Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 5:18 AM To: Edina 273 Cc: Edina Mail; Kevin Staunton; Robert Stewart; Mary Brindle (Comcast); ann Swenson Subject: Re: Request for Assistance to Increase School Access for All Edina Children Edina City Council, please support our efforts. We "choose" to live in Edina so that our children can attend Edina schools. Thank you, Rebecca Lieberman 6309 Westwood Court On Feb 12, 2015, at 12:00 PM, Edina 273 <edina273@gmail.com> wrote: To Members of the Edina City Council, Introduction As you are likely aware, we have been working together for almost five years in order to create access for all Edina children to the schools operated by the Edina School District. Our previous attempts to persuade the District leadership to insert a priority for children who live in the City of Edina into their Nonresident Enrollment policy have been deflected for reasons which are based on a highly flawed interpretation of the state statutes which we detail below. The District's school board is currently reviewing this policy which creates an opportunity to reconsider this appropriate request. We are asking that you actively support the effort to obtain a priority designation in the District's Nonresident Enrollment policy for all children who live in the City of Edina. There is no question that over the years the leadership of the City of Edina and the Edina School District have created a comprehensive relationship between the two entities. As a consequence, city tax dollars and resources support the facilities and programs of the District in many ways, and thus it is perfectly appropriate to expect a Nonresident Enrollment policy that acknowledges this relationship. The next scheduled meeting of the Edina school board is Monday, February 23, so time is of the essence. A Time For Change During its meeting of January 26, 2015, the Edina school board was presented with proposed amendments to District Policy 510 which governs Nonresident Enrollment in the District. In her Heather Branigin From: Susan J Lee <leesusa @gmail.com> Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 6:57 AM To: Edina 273 Cc: Edina Mail; Kevin Staunton; Robert Stewart; Mary Brindle (Comcast); ann Swenson Subject: Re: Request for Assistance to Increase School Access for All Edina Children In the 18 years I have lived in Edina, I have supported Edina schools by attending concerts, plays, events, financially supporting sports and other fundraisers, and taking numerous Community Education classes. Supporting Edina schools has been a natural part of being a responsible citizen of this city. The current open enrollment situation is in direct conflict to my expectations of living in a community where city and schools are united in their efforts to provide its children with a quality and comprehensive school and citizen experience and identity. Susan J. Lee On Feb 12, 2015, at 12:00 PM, Edina 273 <edina273 k mail.com> wrote: To Members of the Edina City Council, introduction As you are likely aware, we have been working together for almost five years in order to create access for all Edina children to the schools operated by the Edina School District. Our previous attempts to persuade the District leadership to insert a priority for children who live in the City of Edina into their Nonresident Enrollment policy have been deflected for reasons which are based on a highly flawed interpretation of the state statutes which we detail below. The District's school board is currently reviewing this policy which creates an opportunity to reconsider this appropriate request. We are asking that you actively support the effort to obtain a priority designation in the District's Nonresident Enrollment policy for all children who live in the City of Edina. There is no question that over the years the leadership of the City of Edina and the Edina School District have created a comprehensive relationship between the two entities. As a consequence, city tax dollars and resources support the facilities and programs of the District in many ways, and thus it is perfectly appropriate to expect a Nonresident Enrollment policy that acknowledges this relationship. The next scheduled meeting of the Edina school board is Monday, February 23, so time is of the essence. A Time For Change Heather Branigin From: Aagaard, Pam <PamAagaard @edinarealty.com> Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 7:12 AM To: Edina Mail Subject: Request for Assistance to Increase School Access for All Edina Children To the City Council, As an Edina Resident for over 35 years, my love for our community is strong! As a resident of Edina in the Hopkins school district for the last 17 years, I feel like a bit of an outsider in my own community. It's an odd feeling. Why wouldn't my own community support the efforts of other Edina residents? I'm asking for something that so basic. The request is simple. Please support the effort to add Edina Residency to the Open Enrollment Criteria. It's the right thing to do, PR wt, Aagalfrol Heather Branigin From: bstangl712 @aol.com Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 7:41 AM To: Edina Mail Subject: We support Edina Kids We support Edina kids in the Parkwood Knoll neighborhood! Jim & Bridget Stangl Sent from my Pad Heather Branigin From: Joan Bonello <joanbonello @me.com> Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 9:03 AM To: Edina 273 Cc: Edina Mail; Kevin Staunton; Robert Stewart; Mary Brindle (Comcast); ann Swenson Subject: Re: Request for Assistance to Increase School Access for All Edina Children As a resident of the City of Edina and a former employee of the Edina School District, I would like to state my support for the issues outlined in the letter below. I fully support priority placement of children of Edina residents in the Edina School District. Please consider the issues stated below very carefully. How would you feel if your child was denied enrollment to the schools within your community? The current situation is clearly unacceptable and needs to be addressed. Sincerely, Joan M. Bonello 6312 Westwood Court On Feb 12, 2015, at 12:00 PM, Edina 273 wrote: To Members of the Edina City Council, Introduction As you are likely aware, we have been working together for almost five years in order to create access for all Edina children to the schools operated by the Edina School District. Our previous attempts to persuade the District leadership to insert a priority for children who live in the City of Edina into their Nonresident Enrollment policy have been deflected for reasons which are based on a highly flawed interpretation of the state statutes which we detail below. The District's school board is currently reviewing this policy which creates an opportunity to reconsider this appropriate request. We are asking that you actively support the effort to obtain a priority designation in the District's Nonresident Enrollment policy for all children who live in the City of Edina. There is no question that over the years the leadership of the City of Edina and the Edina School District have created a comprehensive relationship between the two entities. As a consequence, city tax dollars and resources support the facilities and programs of the District in many ways, and thus it is perfectly appropriate to expect a Heather Branigin From: Louise Waddick <lawaddick @gmail.com> Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 9:08 AM To: Edina 273 Cc: Edina Mail; Kevin Staunton; Robert Stewart; Mary Brindle (Comcast); ann swenson Subject: Re: Request for Assistance to Increase School Access for All Edina Children Louann Waddick -I support this effort! On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Edina 273 <edina273(@,gmail.com> wrote: To Members of the Edina City Council, Intradnetion As you are likely aware, we have been working together for almost five years in order to create access for all Edina children to the schools operated by the Edina School District. Our previous attempts to persuade the District leadership to insert a priority for children who live in the City of Edina into their Nonresident Enrollment policy have been deflected for reasons which are based on a highly flawed interpretation of the state statutes which we detail below. The District's school board is currently reviewing this policy which creates an opportunity to reconsider this appropriate request. We are asking that you actively support the effort to obtain a priority designation in the District's Nonresident Enrollment policy for all children who live in the City of Edina. There is no question that over the years the leadership of the City of Edina and the Edina School District have created a comprehensive relationship between the two entities. As a consequence, city tax dollars and resources support the facilities and programs of the District in many ways, and thus it is perfectly appropriate to expect a Nonresident Enrollment policy that acknowledges this relationship. The next scheduled meeting of the Edina school board is Monday, February 23, so time is of the essence. A Time For Change During its meeting of January 26, 2015, the Edina school board was presented with proposed amendments to District Policy 510 which governs Nonresident Enrollment in the District. In her cursory remarks, board member Regina Neville stated that the proposed amendments were essentially to change the nomenclature of the district's "Student Enrollment Center" and to standardize the references to the District as an entity. She also stated that these changers were initiated during a Policy Committee meeting which was conducted in December 2014. What remained unstated, however, is that the proposed amendments contain no changes as to how residents of the City of Edina who seek to oven enroll into Edina public schools are treated in the priority placement. It is extremely disappointing that the Edina school board is failing to take the appropriate action and that they failed to include all stakeholders from the community in the discussion when this policy came up for review. To: MAYOR & COUNCIL From: Debra Mangen City Clerk Date: February 17, 2015 Subject: Correspondence Action Requested: No action is necessary. 4,91NA,r� w le Cn • `�C�RPOPI��P'O • 1888 Agenda Item #: IX. A. Action X❑ Discussion ❑ Information ❑ Attachment: Attached is correspondence received since the last packet was delivered to Council Members. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 Eel • Office of Governor Mark Dayton 116 Veterans Service Building • 20 West 12th Street • Saint Paul, MN 55155 January 27, 2015 The Honorable James B. Hovland Edina City Hall 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 Dear Mayor Hovland: Thank you for your letter recommending Richard King for appointment to the Metropolitan Airports Commission. I will make sure Governor Dayton receives your recommendation as he makes his decision. The current vacancy on the Metropolitan Airports Commission needs to be filled on or before June 30, 2015. The Governor will review all of the applications received and make his appointment in a timely manner. If you have any questions or wish to discuss your recommendation in greater detail, please do not hesitate to contact me at 651 -201 -3435, or via email at adam.prock@state.mn.us. Sincerely, Adam Prock Assistant Chief o 71aff Office of Governor Mark Dayton Voice: (651) 201 -3400 or (800) 657 -3717 Fax: (651) 797 -1850 MN Relay (800) 627 -3529 Website: httn: / /mn.gov /governor / An Equal Opportunity Employer Printed on recycled paper containing 15% post consumer material and state government printed Ekrmw DRIVING SUSTAWA IE ECONOMIES 132 Crosby Street 811 Floor Nero York NY 10012 +1212 373 2086 infb@cdp.net vprm cdp.net February 11, 2015 City of Edina 4801 W. 50th St. Edina, MN 55424 Dear Mayor James Hovland, cc: Bill Sierks I am writing because your city participated last year in the CDP annual information request. We are requesting that the City participates again in the CDP annual disclosure cycle to share the City's climate, energy and sustainability efforts. The reporting period opens in late February 2015 and closes late April 2015. Like last year, the City has the option to disclose this information publicly or privately. CDP is an international non - profit and over 200 city governments and 5,000 companies report their data to CDP. Cities disclose to CDP to better manage their climate, energy and sustainability activities, compare their progress to other cities and communicate resiliency efforts to investors and the business community. The CDP information request is endorsed by more than 760 institutional investors representing an excess of US$92 trillion in assets. In 2014, 48 cities in the U.S. and Canada disclosed through CDP. Participation is completely voluntary and there is no cost. We invite your city to report again alongside leading U.S. and Canadian cities. This year, CDP is recognized as an official reporting platform of the Compact of Mayors, which means that your city has the option to make a commitment to the compact simply by reporting through CDP. The Compact of Mayors, announced by UN Secretary- General's Special Envoy for Cities and Climate Change Michael Bloomberg in September 2014, will bring together more than 2,000 cities committing to undertake a transparent approach to reduce city -level emissions and vulnerability. You can access our data, as well as our reports by visiting our website www.cdp.net. To learn more, please contact Katie Walsh, Cities Manager at Katie.VValsh @cdp.net. We have also sent this letter to the individual who provided the city's submission to CDP last year. Their name is included in the cc above. Yours Sincerely, Paul Dickinson Executive Chairman, CDP February 11, 2015 Edina City Council City of Edina 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 Dear Edina City Council Members, Today, Nikki Beasley from Oasis for Youth, will meet with two students at Edina High School who are at risk of becoming homeless. Nikki will assess their immediate needs, making sure they are safe and have adequate and stable housing in the short -term. Then they will work together to create a goal plan to insure stability into the future. Oasis for Youth staff are able to meet regularly with Edina students at the high school, in part, because of our contract with the City of Edina, We will bring resources to students such as clothing, food, personal hygiene items and bus tokens — and we will be there to help students navigate challenging circumstances. Thank you for approving $2,500 in 2015 funding for our services to suburban youth experiencing homelessness. The old adage that it takes a village to raise a child is certai/�ly true, and we are honored that the City of Edina has chosen to be a part of the villaee! Andrea Ki President For tax purposes, no gifts or services were provided in exchange for this donation. Oasis for Youth is a 501(c)(3) non - profit organization: Tax ID number 45-3683785. 2200 West Old Shakopee Road Bloomington, MN 55431 (952) 512-2061 www.oasisforyouth.org February 12, 2015 To Members of the Edina City Council, Introduction As you are likely aware, we have been working together for almost five years in order to create access for all Edina children to the schools operated by the Edina School District. Our previous attempts to persuade the District leadership to insert a priority for children who live in the City of Edina into their Nonresident Enrollment policy have been deflected for reasons which are based on a highly flawed interpretation of the state statutes which we detail below. The District's school board is currently reviewing this policy which creates an opportunity to reconsider this appropriate request. We are asking that you actively support the effort to obtain a priority designation in the District's Nonresident Enrollment policy for all children who live in the City of Edina. There is no question that over the years the leadership of the City of Edina and the Edina School District have created a comprehensive relationship between the two entities. As a consequence, city tax dollars and resources support the facilities and programs of the District in many ways, and thus it is perfectly appropriate to expect a Nonresident Enrollment policy that acknowledges this relationship. The next scheduled meeting of the Edina school board is Monday, February 23, so time is of the essence. A Time For Change During its meeting of January 26, 2015, the Edina school board was presented with proposed amendments to District Policy 510 which governs Nonresident Enrollment in the District. In her cursory remarks, board member Regina Neville stated that the proposed amendments were essentially to change the nomenclature of the district's "Student Enrollment Center" and to standardize the references to the District as an entity. She also stated that these changers were initiated during a Policy Committee meeting which was conducted in December 2014. What remained unstated, however, is that the proposed amendments contain no changes as to how residents of the City of Edina who seek to open enroll into Edina public schools are treated in the priority placement. It is extremely disappointing that the Edina school board is failing to take the appropriate action and that they failed to include all stakeholders from the community in the discussion when this policy came up for review. An Inconsistent Policy Based On A Flawed Premise For several years now the narrative from the District administration and board members has been that a priority preference based on residence within the City of Edina "was not permissible within the [state) statutes." This assertion is based on a letter that the District's counsel received fi•om Elia Bruggeman, Assistant Commissioner at the Minnesota Department of Education ( "MDE" ), on August 31, 2011. It is important to note that Mrs. Bruggeman writes that "while MDE is happy to explain the agency's interpretation of the Minnesota open enrollment program —the agency cannot provide specific recommendations to Edina school district about how to respond to the proposal or structure its open enrollment policies (emphasis added)." If the MDE cannot specify how a district structures its open enrollment policies, it follows that the Edina School District is able to structure its open enrolhnent policies. • It is also important to note that Mrs, Bruggeman is not an attorney and the document referenced does not constitute a legal opinion. For the reasons listed below, the interpretation provided by Mrs. Bruggeman is flawed and inconsistent with the current Nonresident Enrollment policy initially adopted by the Edina school board on May 19, 2008. In reaching her conclusion that a priority preference based on residence within a city is not permissible within the state statutes, Mrs. Bruggeman asserts that "school districts do not have the flexibility to insert individualized application review processes in addition to those already established by law" and that only those factors specifically listed on the open enrollment application can be considered. • This interpretation is completely contradictory to the District's Nonresident Enrollment Placement policy in which "students of district employees, who are residents of other districts, will be given priority." • There is no language in the state statutes that explicitly states that it is permissible for a district to give preference to children of district employees or that the parent's employer is one of the specific factors that can be considered. Moreover, there is no place on the standard open enrollment application form for a parent to provide their employment information. • Either the District's Nonresident Enrollment policy has contained elements which are "impermissible" according to state statutes since it was adopted in May 2008 or Mrs. Bruggeman's interpretation is flawed. • It is interesting to note that the minutes of the May 19, 2008, school board meeting indicate that the District "has been in contact with the Minnesota Department of Education and is acting appropriately." This supports the conclusion that districts do indeed have the latitude to structure their own open enrollment policies and that the statues are not as restrictive as Mrs. Bruggeman suggests. A Change Is Possible Further evidence of the inherent flaws in the interpretation cited by District leaders for not amending the Nonresident Enrollment policy can be found in Mrs. Bruggeman's assertion that "a priority preference system for responding to open enrollment applications is not permissible" according to state statutes. If this were an accurate interpretation, then how is it that the Edina school board adopted a policy in May 2008 that contained eight (8) priority strata for the placement of nonresident students with the MDE's blessing? More significantly, during the 2014 legislative session, the statute governing open enrollment was amended to include the language: "Siblings of currently enrolled students and applicants related to an approved integration and achievement plan must receive priority in the lottery_" In Mrs. Bruggeman's analysis, consideration of the "characteristics of the applicant student" is impermissible. This amended language, specifically the "sibling preference" clearly indicates that her analysis is, in fact, incorrect. Again, it is useful to note that the policy adopted by the Edina school board in May 2008 provided for a sibling preference ( "impermissible ", according to Mrs. Bruggeman) years before such language was explicitly incorporated into the state statute. • If priority can be given to children of District employees who are residents of other districts, then priority can also be given to children who are residents of the City of Edina. Contrary to the flawed interpretation that underpins the narrative of District leadership, incorporating a priority for ALL residents of the City of Edina into the district's Nonresident Enrollment policy is not inconsistent with the state statutes or the District's current policies. The Edina school board does indeed have the latitude to structure their policy in such a way to provide enhanced access to all residents of the City of Edina who live outside the school district boundaries. Classroom Capacity Is Not A Constraint Because successfully open enrolling a student into any school district is dependent upon space being available, we will turn our attention to capacity within the Edina School District before concluding. For the current school year, there are 1,332 open enrolled students which constitute approximately 16% of the total enrollment of 8,442 students in the Edina School District. According to District projections, this percentage is expected to stay relatively unchanged (or slightly higher) during the next five school years. The number of students enrolled in the Edina School District via the (former) Choice Is Yours Program has averaged 170 over the past seven years. Data collected in the most recent census (2010) indicates that there are approximately 700 school -age children living in sectors of the City of Edina which are part of the Hopkins, Richfield, and Eden Prairie school districts, If every one of these children were open enrolled into the Edina School District via a city residency priority and the population of the "Achievement and Integration School Choice Program" remained stable, there would still be over 450 open enrollment slots available to fulfill employee requests and to provide access to students who live in other cities, The data clearly demonstrates there is sufficient capacity within the Edina School District to amend the policy to provide priority for children of the City of Edina. The "Precedent" Auument Lacks Any Basis Of Fact One final point on this subject: an analysis of statewide enrollment data indicates that if a similar city resident priority was enacted in all the other districts around the state which share similar characteristics to those found here within the City of Edina, then the projected net shift of school -age students would equate to 0.5% of the total school population in Minnesota (including charters). The arguments put forth that a city resident priority would set a "precedent" that would unleash a "domino effect" that would "decimate" school districts elsewhere around the state are completely without merit and lack any substantiation. Conclusion To reiterate, we are sharing all this information with you for two primary reasons. The first is to demonstrate to you that the assertion of District leaders that they are powerless to make the requested change to their policy is based on a flawed interpretation that is inconsistent with the District's own actions and policies. The second is to request that each of you, as a city leader 3 elected to serve all Edina residents, strongly encourage the leadership of the Edina School District to make the necessary changes to their Nonresident Enrollment policy. The next scheduled meeting of the Edina school board is Monday, February 23. Should the Edina school board fail to take the necessary steps to modify their Nonresident Enrollment policy, then City officials should reassess the relationship between the City and the District. in a multitude of ways, ranging fiom marketing and communications to co- hosting events such as "State of the Community" and real estate forums to providing direct and indirect financial support to issuing bonds in support of District infrastructure projects, the City of Edina has entered into what is essentially an "exclusive relationship" with the Edina School District. if the District leadership is unwilling to reciprocate, then such a relationship is inaccurate, inappropriate and is a disservice to those Edina families who live outside school district boundaries. It is never the wrong time to make the right decision. Sincerely, Pam Allen 6500 Willow Wood Road Todd Gustin 5017 Park Terrace Alan Koehler 5304 Evanswood Lane Tim Kuck 6316 Westwood Court Andy Mitchell 6624 Londonderry Drive Paul Mooty 5320 Kelsey Terrace Kurt Nisi 5201 Blake Road 4 Heather Branigin From: Craig Christensen <craig1949 @gmail.com> Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 9:44 AM To: Edina 273 Cc: Edina Mail; Kevin Staunton; Robert Stewart; Mary Brindle (Comcast); ann Swenson Subject: Re: Request for Assistance to Increase School Access for All Edina Children To members of Edina City Council: I urge you to give priority status to children who live in Edina, but are outside school district boundaries. Craig and Debbie Christensen 6404 Willow Wood Rd. On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 11:00 AM, Edina 273 <edina273@gmail.com> wrote: To Members of the Edina City Council, Introduction As you are likely aware, we have been working together for almost five years in order to create access for all Edina children to the schools operated by the Edina School District. Our previous attempts to persuade the District leadership to insert a priority for children who live in the City of Edina into their Nonresident Enrollment policy have been deflected for reasons which are based on a highly flawed interpretation of the state statutes which we detail below. The District's school board is currently reviewing this policy which creates an opportunity to reconsider this appropriate request. We are asking that you actively support the effort to obtain a priority designation in the District's Nonresident Enrollment policy for all children who live in the City of Edina. There is no question that over the years the leadership of the City of Edina and the Edina School District have created a comprehensive relationship between the two entities. As a consequence, city tax dollars and resources support the facilities and programs of the District in many ways, and thus it is perfectly appropriate to expect a Nonresident Enrollment policy that acknowledges this relationship. The next scheduled meeting of the Edina school board is Monday, February 23, so time is of the essence. A Time For Change During its meeting of January 26, 2015, the Edina school board was presented with proposed amendments to District Policy 510 which governs Nonresident Enrollment in the District. In her cursory remarks, board member Regina Neville stated that the proposed amendments were essentially to change the nomenclature of the district's "Student Enrollment Center" and to standardize the references to the District as an entity. She also Heather Branigin From: Eisele, Jon (US - Minneapolis) <jeisele @deloitte.com> Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 10:36 AM To: Edina Mail Regarding the request for assistance to increase school access for all Edina children, we support ALL Edina kids. Thank you, Michele and Jon Eisele Sent from my Wad This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message and any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this message, or the taking of any action based on it, by you is strictly prohibited. v.E.1 Heather Branigin From: kylemcarpenter @comcast.net Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 12;00 PM To: Edina Mail Subject: I Support Edina Kids As a longtime Edina resident and a product of the Edina schools, I'd like to endorse the idea that kids with an Edina address, though not technically within the Edina School district boundaries, should receive priority on Open Enrollment. Neighborhoods are important and kids should have access to schools in their community before others are given that opportunity. Fix this issue, please. Kyle Carpenter 4421 W. 52nd St. Edina, MN 55424 EHS Graduate '71 Heather Branigin From: JamesL.Tucker <JamesL.Tucker @target.com> Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 12:45 PM To: Edina 273; Edina Mail; Kevin Staunton; Robert Stewart; Mary Brindle (Comcast); ann swenson Subject: RE: Request for Assistance to Increase School Access for All Edina Children Dear Members of the Edina City Council: Thank you for considering our request. My wife grew up in Edina, and as a married couple we've lived in Edina for over a decade. Currently we have a year -old son. Please change the open enrollment process so that citizens of Edina have priority over citizens of other cities. Shouldn't my son, an Edina citizen, have priority over all children who reside in Eden Prairie, Minnetonka, Minneapolis, etc.? We'd like him to attend school with his neighbors and friends and become more fully integrated into our community. Respectfully, James Tucker 5116 Green Farms Road Edina, MN 55436 From: Edina 273 [mailto:edina273 @gmail.com] - Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 12:01 PM To: Edina Minnesota; kstaunton @EdinaMN.gov; rstewart@EdinaMN.gov; mbrindle @comcast.net; ann Swenson; Edina 273 Subject: Request for Assistance to Increase School Access for All Edina Children To Members of the Edina City Council, Introduction As you are likely aware, we have been working together for almost five years in order to create access for all Edina children to the schools operated by the Edina School District. Our previous attempts to persuade the District leadership to insert a priority for children who live in the City of Edina into their Nonresident Enrollment policy have been deflected for reasons which are based on a highly flawed interpretation of the state statutes which we detail below. The District's school board is currently reviewing this policy which creates an opportunity to reconsider this appropriate request. We are asking that you actively support the effort to obtain a priority designation in the District's Nonresident Enrollment policy for all children who live in the City of Edina. Heather Branigin From: Erin Lysen <erin.lysen @gmail.com> Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 9:30 PM To: Edina 273 Cc: Edina Mail; Kevin Staunton; Robert Stewart; Mary Brindle (Comcast); ann Swenson Subject: Re: Request for Assistance to Increase School Access for All Edina Children As Edina residents who live in the Hopkins School District, we strongly support this. As Edina residents, we work in Edina, shop in Edina, and play in Edina. It only makes sense that our children would also attend school in Edina. Thank you for your consideration. Steve & Erin Lysen 6543 Bissen Circle On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Edina 273 <edina273@gmail.com> wrote: To Members of the Edina City Council, Introduction As you are likely aware, we have been working together for almost five years in order to create access for all Edina children to the schools operated by the Edina School District. Our previous attempts to persuade the District leadership to insert a priority for children who live in the City of Edina into their Nonresident Enrollment policy have been deflected for reasons which are based on a highly flawed interpretation of the state statutes which we detail below. The District's school board is currently reviewing this policy which creates an opportunity to reconsider this appropriate request. We are asking that you actively support the effort to obtain a priority designation in the District's Nonresident Enrollment policy for all children who live in the City of Edina. There is no question that over the years the leadership of the City of Edina and the Edina School District have created a comprehensive relationship between the two entities. As a consequence, city tax dollars and resources support the facilities and programs of the District in many ways, and thus it is perfectly appropriate to expect a Nonresident Enrollment policy that acknowledges this relationship. The next scheduled meeting of the Edina school board is Monday, February 23, so time is of the essence. A Time For Change During its meeting of January 26, 2015, the Edina school board was presented with proposed amendments to District Policy 510 which governs Nonresident Enrollment in the District. In her cursory remarks, board member Regina Neville stated that the proposed amendments were essentially to change the nomenclature of the district's "Student Enrollment Center" and to standardize the references to the District as an entity. She also stated that these changers were initiated during a Policy Committee meeting which was conducted in December Heather Branigin From: Douglas Jordal <maryellenJ @aol.com> Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2015 3:14 PM To: edina273 @gmail.com; Edina Mail; Kevin Staunton; Robert Stewart; Mary Brindle (Comcast); swensonannl @gmail.com Subject: Re: Request for Assistance to Increase School Access for All Edina Children I strongly support the position taken by Alan Koehler in his February 12th letter to the Edina City Council. It doesn't make sense to open enroll children of Edina School District employees who happen to live outside the district, while at the same time denying an open enrollment priority to Edina children whose parents pay taxes to the city of Edina .Edina wants my money for all their civic projects, but there's no guarantee I can send my kids to their schools. It doesn't seem right. - - - -- Original Message--- - From: Edina 273 <edina273 @g mail. com> To: Edina Minnesota <mail @edinamn.gov >; kstaunton <kstaunton @EdinaMN.gov >; rstewart <rstewart@EdinaMN.gov >; mbrindle <mbrind le@comcast. net>; ann swenson <swensonann 1 @gmail.com>; Edina 273 <edina273 @gmail.com> Sent: Thu, Feb 12, 2015 12:00 pm Subject: Request for Assistance to Increase School Access for All Edina Children To Members of the Edina City Council, Introduction As you are likely aware, we have been working together for almost five years in order to create access for all Edina children to the schools operated by the Edina School District. Our previous attempts to persuade the District leadership to insert a priority for children who live in the City of Edina into their Nonresident Enrollment policy have been deflected for reasons which are based on a highly flawed interpretation of the state statutes which we detail below. The District's school board is currently reviewing this policy which creates an opportunity to reconsider this appropriate request. We are asking that you actively support the effort to obtain a priority designation in the District's Nonresident Enrollment policy for all children who live in the City of Edina. There is no question that over the years the leadership of the City of Edina and the Edina School District have created a comprehensive relationship between the two entities. As a consequence, city tax dollars and resources support the facilities and programs of the District in many ways, and thus it is perfectly appropriate to expect a Nonresident Enrollment policy that acknowledges this relationship. The next scheduled meeting of the Edina school board is Monday, February 23, so time is of the essence. A Time For Change During its meeting of January 26, 2015, the Edina school board was presented with proposed amendments to District Policy 510 which governs Nonresident Enrollment in the District. In her cursory remarks, board member Regina Neville stated that the proposed amendments were essentially to change the nomenclature of the district's "Student Enrollment Center" and to standardize the references to the District as an entity. She also stated that these changers were initiated during a Policy Committee meeting which was conducted in December 2014. What remained unstated, however, is that the proposed amendments contain no changes as to how residents of the City of Edina who seek to open enroll into Edina public schools are treated in the priority placement. It is extremely disappointing that the Edina school board is failing to take the appropriate action and that they failed to include all stakeholders from the community in the discussion when this policy came up for review. An Inconsistent Policy Based On A Flawed Premise Heather Branigin From: Anne Hoedeman <akhoedeman @gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2015 6:59 PM To: Edina Mail Subject: Request for Assistance to Increase School Access for All Edina Children To Members of the Edina City Council, Introduction As you are likely aware, we have been working together for almost five years in order to create access for all Edina children to the schools operated by the Edina School District. Our previous attempts to persuade the District leadership to insert a priority for children who live in the City of Edina into their Nonresident Enrollment policy have been deflected for reasons which are based on a highly flawed interpretation of the state statutes which we detail below. The District's school board is currently reviewing this policy which creates an opportunity to reconsider this appropriate request. We are asking that you actively support the effort to obtain a priority designation in the District's Nonresident Enrollment policy for allchildren who live in the City of Edina. There is no question that over the years the leadership of the City of Edina and the Edina. School District have created a comprehensive relationship between the two entities. As a consequence, city tax dollars and resources support the facilities and programs of the District in many ways, and thus it is perfectly appropriate to expect a Nonresident Enrollment policy that acknowledges this relationship. The next scheduled meeting of the Edina school board is M6nday, February 23, so time is of the essence. A Time For Change During its meeting of January 26, 2015, the Edina school board was presented with proposed amendments to District Policy 510 which governs Nonresident Enrollment in the District. In her cursory remarks, board member Regina Neville stated that the proposed amendments were essentially to change the nomenclature of the district's "Student Enrollment Center" and to standardize the references to the District as an entity. She also stated that these changers were initiated during a Policy Committee meeting which was conducted in December 2014. What remained unstated, however, is that the proposed amendments contain no changes as to how residents of the City of Edina who seek to open enroll into Edina public schools are treated in the priority placement. It is extremely disappointing that the Edina school board is failing to take the appropriate action and that they failed to include all stakeholders from the community in the discussion when this policy came up for review. An Inconsistent Policy Based On A Flawed Premise For several years now the narrative from the District administration and board members has been that a priority preference based on residence within the City of Edina "was not permissible within the [state] statutes." This assertion is based on a letter that the District's counsel received from Elia Bruggeman, Assistant Commissioner at the Minnesota Department of Education ( "MDE "), on August 31, 2011. It is important to note that Mrs. Bruggeman writes that "while MDE is happy to explain the agency's interpretation of the Minnesota open enrollment program ... the agency cannot provide specific recommendations to Edina school district about how to respond to the proposal or structure its open enrollment policies (emphasis added)." If the MDE cannot specify how a district structures its open enrollment policies, it follows that the Edina School District is able to structure its open enrollment policies. It is also important to note that Mrs. Bruggeman is not an attorney and the document referenced does not constitute a legal opinion. For the reasons listed below, the interpretation provided by Mrs. Bruggeman is flawed and inconsistent with the current Nonresident Enrollment policy initially adopted by the Edina school board on May 19, 2008. In reaching her conclusion that a priority preference based on residence within a city is not permissible within the state statutes, Mrs. Bruggeman asserts that "school districts do not have the flexibility to insert individualized application review processesin addition to those already established by law" and that only those factors specifically listed on the open enrollment application can be considered. This interpretation is completely contradictory to the District's Nonresident Enrollment Placement policy in which "students of district employees, who are residents of other districts, will be given priority. ". There is no language in the state statutes that explicitly states that it is permissible for a district to give preference to children of district employees or that the parent's employer is one of the specific factors that can be considered. Moreover, there is no place on the standard open enrollment application form for a parent to provide their employment information. Either the District's Nonresident Enrollment policy has contained elements which are "impermissible" according to state statutes since it was adopted in May 2008 or Mrs. Bruggeman's intemretation is flawed. It is interesting to note that the minutes of the May 19, 2008, school board meeting indicate that the District "has been in contact with the Minnesota Department of Education and is acting appropriately." This supports the conclusion that districts do indeed have the latitude to structure their own open enrollment policies and that the statues are not as restrictive as Mrs. Bruggeman suggests. A Change Is Possible Further evidence of the inherent flaws in the interpretation cited by District leaders for not amending the Nonresident Enrollment policy can be found in Mrs. Bruggeman's assertion that "a priority preference system for responding to open enrollment applications is not permissible" according to state statutes. If this were an accurate interpretation, then how is it that the Edina school board adopted a policy in 2008 that contained eight (8) priority strata for the placement of nonresident students with the MDE's blessing? More significantly, during the 2014 legislative session, the statute governing open enrollment was amended to include the language: "Siblings of currently enrolled students and applicants related to an approved integration and achievement plan must receive priority in the lottery In Mrs. Bruggeman's analysis, consideration of the "characteristics of the applicant student" is impermissible. This amended language, specifically the "sibling preference" clearly indicates that her anal is, in fact, incorrect. Again, it is useful to note that the policy adopted by the Edina school board in Maw provided for a sibling preference ( "impermissible ", according to Mrs. Bruggeman) years before such language was explicitly incorporated into the state statute. If priority can be given to children of District employees who are residents of other districts, then priority can also be given to children who are residents of the City of Edina. Contrary to the flawed interpretation that underpins the narrative of District leadership, incorporating a priority for ALL residents of the City of Edina into the district's Nonresident Enrollment policy is not inconsistent with the state statutes or the District's current policies. The Edina school board does indeed have the latitude to structure their policy in such a way to provide enhanced access to all residents of the City of Edina who live outside the school district boundaries. Classroom Capacity Is Not A Constraint Because successfully open enrolling a student into any school district is dependent upon space being available, we will turn our attention to capacity within the Edina School District before concluding. For the current school year, there are 1,332 open enrolled students which constitute approximately 16% of the total enrollment of 8,442 students in the Edina School District. According to District projections, this percentage is expected to stay relatively unchanged (or slightly higher) during the next five school years. The number of students enrolled in the Edina School District via the (former) Choice Is Yours Program has averaged 170 over the past seven years. Data collected in the most recent census (2010) indicates that there are approximately 700 school -age children living in sectors of the City of Edina which are part of the Hopkins Richfield and Eden Prairie school districts. If every one of these children were open enrolled into the Edina School District via a city residency priority and the population of the "Achievement and Integration School Choice Program" remained stable, there would still be over 450 open enrollment slots available to fulfill employee requests and to provide access to students who live in other cities. The data clearly demonstrates there is sufficient capacity within the Edina School District to amend the policy to provide priority for children of the City of Edina. The "Precedent" Argument Lacks Any Basis Of Fact One final point on this subject: an analysis of statewide enrollment data indicates that if a similar city resident priority was enacted in all the other districts around the state which share similar characteristics to those found here within the City of Edina, then the projected net shift of school -age students would equate to 0.5% of the total school population in Minnesota (including charters). The arguments put forth that a city resident priority would set a "precedent" that would unleash a "domino effect" that would "decimate" school districts elsewhere around the state are completely without merit and lack any substantiation. Conclusion To reiterate, we are sharing all this information with you for two primary reasons. The first is to demonstrate to you that the assertion of District leaders that they are powerless to make the requested change to their policy is based on a flawed interpretation that is inconsistent with the District's own actions and policies. The second is to request that each of you, as a city leader elected to serve all Edina residents, strongly encourage the leadership of the Edina School District to make the necessary changes to their Nonresident Enrollment policy. The next scheduled meeting of the Edina school board is Monday, February 23. Should the Edina school board fail to take the necessary steps to modify their Nonresident Enrollment policy, then City officials should reassess the relationship between the City and the District. In a multitude of ways, ranging from marketing and communications to co- hosting events such as "State of the Community" and real estate forums to providing direct and indirect financial support to issuing bonds in support of District infrastructure projects, the City of Edina has entered into what is essentially an "exclusive relationship" with the Edina School District. If the District leadership is unwilling to reciprocate, then such a relationship is inaccurate, inappropriate and is a disservice to those Edina families who live outside school district boundaries. It is never the wrong time to make the right decision. Sincerely, Pam Allen 6500 Willow Wood Road Todd Gustin 5017 Park Terrace Alan Koehler 5304 Evanswood Lane Tim Kuck 6316 Westwood Court Andy Mitchell 6624 Londonderry Drive Paul Mooty 5320 Kelsey Terrace Kurt Nisi 5201 Blake Road Anne Hoedeman 5620 Wooddale Ave Heather Branigin From: Mary Buska <foxmeadow @comcast.net> Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2015 12:02 PM To: Edina 273 Cc: Edina Mail; Kevin Staunton; Robert Stewart; Mary Brindle (Comcast); ann Swenson Subject: Re: Request for Assistance to Increase School Access for All Edina Children Dear City Council Members, Please encourage the Edina School Board to provide priority enrollment to the Edina residents that own homes in the Hopkins School District. We own a home in Edina that resides in the Hopkins School District. We are not currently motivated to make further improvements to our Edina property because of the uncertainty of the school district status for future buyers. We have observed stagnant property values on our street because potential buyers are reluctant to purchase without a clearly defined method to enroll their children into the Edina School System. This lack of motivation to invest in our homes and stagnant property values will ultimately impact future property tax revenue for the city. Again, please encourage Edina School Board members to provide priority open enrollment to tax paying homeowners in the City of Edina residing in the Hopkins School District. Thank you, Mary Buska Sent from my iPad On Feb 12, 2015, at 12:00 PM, Edina 273 <edina273gg_mail.com> wrote: To Members of the Edina City Council, Introduction As you are likely aware, we have been working together for almost five years in order to create access for all Edina children to the schools operated by the Edina School District. Our previous attempts to persuade the District leadership to insert a priority for children who live in the City of Edina into their Nonresident Enrollment policy have been deflected for reasons which are based on a highly flawed interpretation of the state statutes which we detail below. The District's school board is currently reviewing this policy which creates an opportunity to reconsider this appropriate request. We are asking that you actively support the effort to obtain a priority designation in the District's Nonresident Enrollment policy for all children who live in the City of Edina. Heather Branigin From: Tony Rubin <anthonysrubin @hotmail.com> Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2015 3:57 PM To: Edina Mail; Kevin Staunton; Robert Stewart; Mary Brindle (Comcast); swensonannl @gmail.com; edina273 @gmail.com Subject: FW: Request for Assistance to Increase School Access for All Edina Children Attachments: Edina_City_Council_021215.pdf To Members of the Council, We feel strongly in support to Increase School Access for All Edina Children. Alli and Tony Rubin 6517 Parnell Ave Edina, MN 55435 Tony Rubin 612 - 810 -1474 ---- - - - - -- Forwarded message --- - - - - -- From: Edina 273 <edina273 @gmail.com> Date: Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 12:00 PM Subject: Request for Assistance to Increase School Access for All Edina Children To: Edina Minnesota <mail @edinamn.gov >, kstaunton @edinamn.gov, rstewart @edinamn.gov, mbrindle @comcast.net, ann Swenson <swensonannl @gmail.com >, Edina 273 <edina273 @gmail.com> To Members of the Edina City Council, Introduction As you are likely aware, we have been working together for almost five years in order to create access for all Edina children to the schools operated by the Edina School District. Our previous attempts to persuade the District leadership to insert a priority for children who live in the City of Edina into their Nonresident Enrollment policy have been deflected for reasons which are based on a highly flawed interpretation of the state statutes which we detail below. The District's school board is currently reviewing this policy which creates an opportunity to reconsider this appropriate request. We are asking that you actively support the effort to obtain a priority designation in the District's Nonresident Enrollment policy for all children who live in the City of Edina. There is no question that over the years the leadership of the City of Edina and the Edina School District have created a comprehensive relationship between the two entities. As a consequence, city tax dollars and resources support the facilities and programs of the District in many ways, and thus it is perfectly appropriate to expect a Heather Branigin From: Nick Waterman <nickwaterman99 @yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, February 16, 2015 9:42 AM To: Edina 273; Edina Mail; Kevin Staunton; Robert Stewart; Mary Brindle (Comcast); ann Swenson Subject: Re: Request for Assistance to Increase School Access for All Edina Children To whom it may concern, Please support this effort... Thank you, Nick and Amanda Waterman 6632 Londonderry Dr Edina, MN 55436 To Members of the Edina City Council, Introduction As you are likely aware, we have been working together for almost five years in order to create access for all Edina children to the schools operated by the Edina School District. Our previous attempts to persuade the District leadership to insert a priority for children who live in the City of Edina into their Nonresident Enrollment policy have been deflected for reasons which are based on a highly flawed interpretation of the state statutes which we detail below. The District's school board is currently reviewing this policy which creates an opportunity to reconsider this appropriate request. We are asking that you actively support the effort to obtain a priority designation in the District's Nonresident Enrollment policy for all children who live in the City of Edina. There is no question that over the years the leadership of the City of Edina and the Edina School District have created a comprehensive relationship between the two entities. As a consequence, city tax dollars and resources support the facilities and programs of the District in many ways, and thus it is perfectly appropriate to expect a Nonresident Enrollment policy that acknowledges this relationship. The next scheduled meeting of the Edina school board is Monday, February 23, so time is of the essence. A Time For Change During its meeting of January 26, 2015, the Edina school board was presented with proposed amendments to District Policy 510 which governs Nonresident Enrollment in the District. In her cursory remarks, board member Regina Neville stated that the proposed amendments were essentially to change the nomenclature of the district's "Student Enrollment Center" and to standardize the references to the District as an entity. She also stated that these changers were initiated during a Policy Committee meeting which was conducted in December 2014. What remained unstated, however, is that the proposed amendments contain no changes as to how residents of the Citv of Edina who seek to open enroll into Edina public schools are treated in the 1 Heather Branigin From: Gary Perkins <gjperkins2 @comcast.net> Sent: Monday, February 16, 2015 1:30 PM To: Edina Mail Subject: Nonresident Enrollment Edina School District - City of Edina Children Good Afternoon, As a very long time resident of both the City of Edina and the Edina School District, I wish to communicate my support to include a priority for children who live in the City of Edina into the Nonresident Enrollment policy of the Edina School District. In understand a Edina school board is Monday, February 23 and want you to know this has policy change has broad support. Sincerely, Gary Perkins 4600 Hibiscus Ave Edina Gary Perkins A ` `, please consider the environment before printing this e-mail Heather Branigin From: David Hopkins <hopk0027 @umn.edu> Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 10:51 AM To: Edina 273; Edina Mail; Kevin Staunton; Robert Stewart; Mary Brindle (Comcast); ann swenson Subject: Re: Request for Assistance to Increase School Access for All Edina Children Please support this effort. David Hopkins 5001 Kelsey Terrace Edina, MN On 2/12/2015 12:00 PM, Edina 273 wrote: To Members of the Edina City Council, Introduction As you are likely aware, we have been working together for almost five years in order to create access for all Edina children to the schools operated by the Edina School District. Our previous attempts to persuade the District leadership to insert a priority for children who live in the City of Edina into their Nonresident Enrollment policy have been deflected for reasons which are based on a highly flawed interpretation of the state statutes which we detail below. The District's school board is currently reviewing this policy which creates an opportunity to reconsider this appropriate request. We are asking that you actively support the effort to obtain a priority designation in the District's Nonresident Enrollment policy for all children who live in the City of Edina. There is no question that over the years the leadership of the City of Edina and the Edina School District have created a comprehensive relationship between the two entities. As a consequence, city tax dollars and resources support the facilities and programs of the District in many ways, and thus it is perfectly appropriate to expect a Nonresident Enrollment policy that acknowledges this relationship. The next scheduled meeting of the Edina school board is Monday, February 23, so time is of the essence. A Time For Change During its meeting of January 26, 2015, the Edina school board was presented with proposed amendments to District Policy 510 which governs Nonresident Enrollment in the District. In her cursory remarks, board member Regina Neville stated that the proposed amendments were essentially to change the nomenclature of the district's "Student Enrollment Center" and to standardize the references to the District as an entity. She also stated that these changers were initiated during a Policy Committee meeting which was conducted in December 2014. What Heather Branigin From: Tim Ritzer <tsritzer @gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 11:27 AM To: Edina 273 Cc: Edina Mail; Kevin Staunton; Robert Stewart; Mary Brindle (Comcast); ann Swenson Subject: Re: Request for Assistance to Increase School Access for All Edina Children Edina City Council, My wife and I have lived in Edina for about 21 years. We purchased our first home here back in 1994, relocating from Nashville, TN. One of the main reasons we chose Edina was because of the community aspect. Families who truly care about their kids, neighbors and take great pride in their education system. The first 10 years we lived in East Edina, the last 11 we have been in Parkwood Knolls. When we relocated to West Edina we open enrolled our 2 children to Edina schools. Our daughter is in middle school at Valley view and our son is at Countryside. Several of their classmates and best friends live in our neighborhood. There is absolutely no LOGIC behind Edina residents not having priority for open enrollment for their children, however students of district employees do. Time for some logical change. Sincerely, TIM S. RITZER On Feb 12, 2015, at 12:00 PM, Edina 273 <edina273Qgmail.com> wrote. To Members of the Edina City Council, Introduction As you are likely aware, we have been working together for almost five years in order to create access for all Edina children to the schools operated by the Edina School District. Our previous attempts to persuade the District leadership to insert a priority for children who live in the City of Edina into their Nonresident Enrollment policy have been deflected for reasons which are based on a highly flawed interpretation of the state statutes which we detail below. The District's school board is currently reviewing this policy which creates an opportunity to reconsider this appropriate request. We are asking that you actively support the effort to obtain a priority designation in the District's Nonresident Enrollment policy for all children who live in the City of Edina. There is no question that over the years the leadership of the City of Edina and the Edina School District have created a comprehensive relationship between the two entities. As a consequence, city tax dollars and resources support the facilities and programs of the District in many ways, and thus it is perfectly appropriate to expect a Nonresident Enrollment policy that acknowledges Heather Branigin rom: kevin gilligan <jkgilligan5804 @yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 2:14 PM To: Edina Mail Subject: Edina school enrollment I would like to add my voice to the many others who believe strongly that all children who live in the City of Edina should have full access to the schools operated by the Edina School District. I strongly encourage the leadership of the Edina School District to make the necessary changes to it's Nonresident Enrollment policy to serve all Edina residents. Kevin Gilligan 5804 Crescent Terrace Edina, MN 55436 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA PARK BOARD HELD AT CITY HALL JANUARY 13, 2015 7 P.M. 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Gieseke called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. 11. ROLL CALL Answering roll call were Members Jones, Gieseke, Steel, Jacobson, McCormick, Segreto, Greene. Member Cella arrived at 8:26 p.m. Student Members present: Chowdhury, Colwell. Absent: Member Downing. III. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA Member Greene made a motion, seconded by Member Segreto, approving the meeting agenda. Ayes: Members Steel, Jacobson, Greene, Gieseke, Jones, Segreto, McCormick. Motion carried. IV. ADOPTION OF CONSENT AGENDA Member McCormick made a motion, seconded by Member Greene, approving the consent agenda as follows: W.A. Approval of Minutes — Regular Park Board Meeting of Tuesday, Dec. 9, 2014 Ayes: Members Steel, Jacobson, Greene, Gieseke, Jones, Segreto, McCormick. Motion carried. V. COMMUNITY COMMENT None VI. REPORTS /RECOMMENDATIONS VI.A. Braemar Golf Course Master Plan Update Joe Abood, Braemar Golf Course General Manager, introduced Richard Mandell from Richard Mandell Golf Architecture Consulting Services (RMGA). Mr. Mandell gave a presentation to the Park Board on four different alternatives for the Braemar Golf Course site. He first presented Option A to the Park Board. Member Jones asked where the oak savanna was located. Mr. Mandell showed on the map where they are located and indicated there is almost 15 acres that can be preserved oak savanna, which is more than is being preserved now. Member Jones asked how much they were cutting into the forest to which Mr. Mandell replied approximately five to six acres. Member Segreto wondered if they were to add up all of the cut -ins into the oak savanna if they would get 15 acres. Mr. Mandell showed where the protected habitat was located and noted that not all of the oak savanna was being protected. He noted where the unprotected oak savanna was located on the golf course. He stated there are areas that are not protected by the permit and could be replaced and not managed right now. Member Jones was not sure what the Corps of Engineers has to say about preserving the oak savanna because she thought they were more concerned about flooding, the watershed and maintenance issues. Mr. Mandell indicated Barr Engineering is also the landscape ecologist and oak savanna is a part of the landscape ecology of Braemar. They have experience with them and will help them come up with the best plan for the golf course and preserving the Oak Savanna. Mrs. Kattreh informed the Park Board that, in conjunction with the Engineering Department, they have hired Barr Engineering to be their environmental consultant for the entire golf course to review the storm water management as well as the overall ecology. She noted Ross Bintner, the city's Environmental Engineer, will later be giving a presentation specifically regarding the driving range and executive course and will show some good examples of how they hope to restore the environmental habitat in that area. Member Jones stated as they move ahead and compare different options, it would be helpful to state how much of the golf course is being expanded into the wooded areas. Mr. Mandell stated the total right now is approximately a half acre. They have not calculated the entire course numbers yet because they wanted to bring this forward to see what the Park Board liked and wanted. Mr. Mandell presented Option B to the Park Board and noted Option B is very similar to Option A with one exception. He stated in listening to the golfers, they wanted to possibly restore the original 18th hole from when Braemar was an 18 -hole golf course. Member Jones asked if they are making the Ist hole and 2nd hole more friendly to which Mr. Mandell replied they are. He noted the I st hole through the 17th hole in Option B are the same as in Option A; the only thing changing between the two options is the 18th hole. Member Jones asked if all of the holes will be a little more even along with restoring the 18th hole to which Mr. Mandell responded that was correct. Mr. Mandell presented Option C to the Park Board. Member Greene asked Mr. Mandell in his experience is there a better chance of being more profitable with three regulation 9 -hole courses versus two regulation 9 -hole courses with an executive course. Mr. Mandell replied he believes it is. Member Greene asked if people who run tournaments ever rent executive courses when there are two regulation 9 -hole courses available or is it better management to run three 9 -hole courses that are regulation. Mr. Abood indicated you are better off with three regulation 9 -hole courses. Chair Gieseke asked in your experience who is a typical player on the executive course. Mr. Mandell pointed out the executive golf course is intended for people that do not have the time to play a regulation golf course. He noted it was never intended to be a lesser golf course for beginners. Member Gieseke stated he could see some advantages of having three sets of 9 -hole courses that are regulation versus having one executive piece. He asked without the executive course, can they meet the demands of the golfers and serve everyone's needs to which Mr. Mandell replied he thought they could. Member Jones asked what the acreage of forest loss would be in Option C, to which Mr. Mandell show on the map the area of trees that would be removed. 2 Member Jones asked what would be the benefit of Option C. Mr. Mandell pointed out the benefit would be that they will have less golf hole acreage to maintain and renovate and therefore construction and maintenance fees will go down and that is the only benefit he sees. Mr. Mandell presented Option D to the Park Board. Chair Gieseke asked how much interest in general was there in restoring the old 18th hole. Mr. Abood responded he thought they saw more of that in the walk- through a few months ago than they did at last night's open house when the actual plans were shown. Chair Gieseke asked which of these options allows more creativity and attractiveness to the course that will create a buzz. Mr. Mandell responded they would have the most creativity with 18 holes versus 27 holes. Mr. Abood stated financially having 27 holes is the best option for the city; however, any of the options shown will improve the course and that is something they have to consider. Member Greene asked how much tournament business they get because with an additional 9 holes they can always have someone start on the front or back or middle where on an 18 -hole course they would be boxing them in. Mr. Abood stated the additional 9 holes give them a substantial amount of stability. Member Steel stated she was a little concerned with the feedback regarding restoring the 18th hole. Demographically, the people that are giving the feedback leaves a few generations left out because they were not around in 1994. She wondered how they were weighing the feedback in terms of demographics because this is a long -term investment so she wanted to ensure they are serving everyone for many years to come. Mr. Abood replied the whole reason they had the walk- through was to get feedback and basically it started their conversation all over again. There was a good mix of golfers at the walk- through and it did come up that restoring the 18th hole may not be the best direction to go so more discussion is definitely needed. Mr. Mandell indicated the walk- through in October consisted of different groups of women, seniors and juniors along with a variety of men golfers; so they did hear specifically from different demographics. Member McCormick thought it would be helpful for the Park Board to know that they are doing a tree study at the facility to which it was noted it will be completed in July. Member McCormick informed the Park Board they also collected a lot of feedback and comments at yesterday's open house. She noted the task force will evaluate that information at their next meeting. Mr. Mandell pointed out that the four options came from the feedback they received during the walk - through in October. Member Steel asked was the feedback all combined and not based on demographics to which Member McCormick replied they did not collect names or ages. Mr. Abood informed the Park Board that a lot of the feedback initially came from the National Golf Foundation survey that was sent out prior to Mr. Mandell arriving. He indicated they received approximately 800 responses which came from all different demographics. Mr. Mandell added that some of the feedback they received was from women and they will be able to identify that by what was stated. Member McCormick stated the feedback was very detailed and helpful and a lot of issues were identified with the golf course. She added it might be helpful to summarize and distribute the feedback to the Park Board. Mr. Abood responded he will consolidate the feedback and get it to the Park Board. Member Jones wondered if they could incorporate a similar type of glorified pitch and putt into the course because there are segments of the population in Minnesota that are real golfers and recreational golfers. Mr. Abood replied once they figure out the golf course they could incorporate that along with trails and other things of interest. Member Jones asked how this will be used in the winter and would like for them to consider ski trails throughout the course to which Mr. Abood replied that part of the design will be in a future phase. VI.B. Urban Forest Task Force Report Dianne Plunkett Latham, Energy and Environment Commission member, gave a presentation regarding tree policies and GreenStep City recommendations. Tom Horwath, City Forester, was also at the meeting and was the advisor to the Urban Forest Task Force. Ms. Latham first talked about the Emerald Ash Borer proposal and indicated they recommend that the Park Board adopt this proposal. Chair Gieseke noted he thinks the Park Board needs to discuss this as part of their work plan and discuss how they want to approach the information being presented tonight because this is the first chance they've had to look at it as a Park Board. Member Steel stated that she thinks it would be great to discuss this as part of their strategic plan because she knows they are looking at a lot of environmental issues and therefore would like to talk about this information then. Ms. Latham pointed out that right now they are just looking at the Emerald Ash Borer part and added that it has been vetted out by the Urban Forest Task Force as well as the EEC has also endorsed it. In her opinion this is not a controversial issue. Member Segreto stated that to rephrase it they are basically asking that private individuals will not be required to cut their diseased trees down to which Ms. Latham replied that is the first component. Ms. Latham noted the second component is to increase the Parks & Recreation tree replacement budget from, $11,000 to $21,000 to prepare for the Emerald Ash Borer loss. She added this is the forester's recommendation and has been endorsed by the task force. Ms. Latham stated the third component is they don't recommend chemical treatment of the trees as a general solution; however, an occasional tree could be treated that way. The fourth component is to have a boulevard and parkland border tree survey. She added the forester has already done this for the parks but has found there really is an issue bordering the parks and on the boulevards and therefore would like to do a survey of these as well. Member Segreto commented that seems like a big job. Member Steel indicated she is interested in discussing the policy further with regards to the strategic plan and making sure that all stakeholders are in the room when they have that discussion. However, when it comes to the budget item it seems to her like it's a staff issue. Chair Gieseke noted that he concurs. Member Greene made a motion, seconded by Member Segreto to approve the City Forester's recommendation as is. Member Steel indicated that she is a little confused what the recommendation is. Ms. Latham replied on the table right now is the Emerald Ash Borer and the four points it contains: include EAB on shade tree disease ordinance; increase forestry line items; expand inventory sites and chemical protections of any significant Emerald Ash Borer trees. Member Steel replied it's not in the form of a proposal or recommendation; it's more of what staff does on an everyday basis and therefore she doesn't understand why they would get involved. She stated she is happy to look at the recommendations brought forward by staff, but it's kind of confusing where this is coming from and what it is they are voting on. Chair Gieseke stated he doesn't think it's the right time to move forward until they have full accounting for what they are trying to do. He noted the Park Board is struggling because there is no unified recommendation in paperwork. 4 After discussion, Member Greene made a motion to amend his recommendation, seconded by Member Segreto, to recommend Item A (approve the EBA policy) and Item C (update existing city ordinances with respect to trees). Member Steel stated that they do not have the minutes of the EEC meeting so she does not feel comfortable voting on this without their minutes. Secondly, they don't have jurisdiction over part of Item C and therefore doesn't feel comfortable approving that item. She stated they don't have the information they need to approve this tonight. Ms. Latham replied she still has not presented the other part of the tree ordinance. Member Cella asked where the EAB policy to which Member Greene stated it's dated Jan. 13, 2015 and is a two -page document under staff comments. It's a very detailed paragraph and they are agreeing with staff. Member Cella indicated she is okay with staff doing their job but is saying if they are approving a policy to her a paragraph that has staff comments is not a policy and that is her confusion. Member Steel pointed out she would like to see what the EEC approved so that they are consistent. Member Jones stated going back to her original comment there is a lot to go through and this was on their work plan to discuss. She noted Member Segreto and herself were on a committee to sort through the recommendations and for some reason this was put on the agenda before they even had a chance to work with that group. Therefore, she would like to sort through this and put it back on the agenda after they have had a chance to figure it out. Member Greene retracted everything he said. Member Jones made a motion, seconded by Member Steel to table this for another meeting. Ayes: Members Steel, Jacobson, Greene, Gieseke, Jones, Segreto, McCormick, Cella Motion carried. Ms. Latham went over Section 36 of the Tree Ordinance changes. Ms. Latham went over the changes in Section 24 -22. Member Segreto made a motion, seconded by Member Jones to adopt the revisions of the City of Edina related to trees section 24 -22 including adding Gingko to the prohibited list. Ayes: Steel, Jacobson, Greene, Gieseke, Jones, Segreto, McCormick, Cella Motion carried. Ms. Latham went over the changes in Section 30 -180. She noted that they added "chipping" because that is the typical way to dispose of the Emerald Ash Borer. She noted they took out "burning" because it is not listed in Section 30 -199. She explained that by taking out "burning" that does not mean that you cannot burn trees as a solution to diseased nuisances; they just didn't want it in there to encourage burning because of people with breathing disorders. Therefore, they don't want to encourage it, but it is still allowed. She noted that in section 30 -199 they adding "chipping" as a controlled mechanism. She noted these are just housekeeping sorts of things that the Urban Forest Task Force has recommended. Chair Gieseke asked if the EEC has approved this to which Ms. Latham replied yes. Member Segreto made a motion, seconded by Member Jones to adopt the proposed revisions to the City Ordinance section 30 -180 and section 30 -199 as approved by the EEC and contained in their packet. M Chair Gieseke stated that he thinks taking "burning" out of there is misleading. Ms. Latham replied it's not in section 30 -199 so it makes it consistent with that so either put both of them in or take both of them out. She stated they can't really prohibit it because it is a way of disposing of diseased trees but they don't want to give the impression they are encouraging it. Chair Gieseke stated that he would like to see it in both because he thinks it's a little bit of a miscommunication. Member Steel stated that it seems like it's not a policy issue as much as an informational city communication type of issue such as here are the proper ways to dispose of your tree for the tree program for the city. She stated from a legal perspective she does get a little worried about why you need to have chipped in it but not burned. Member Segreto pointed out Ms. Latham was successful in getting the fireplace shut down at Centennial Lakes under the thought that it's not good for the environment and that's why it wouldn't be in this ordinance. They don't want to suggest it by way of keeping it in the city ordinance. Member Steel indicated that as their role of Park Board do they want to change this code and not totally understand the ramifications or do they want to approve something that says the forester will work with communications to encourage residents to use more healthy ways of disposing of trees. She noted that may be a much more effective approach to working with residents. Member Segreto responded in theory that sounds good but how much is the part -time forester going to get involved every time someone cuts a tree down. Member Cella stated there is a difference as she understands it. It is legal in Edina to burn a tree and it is not against city ordinance; however, they are leaving it out as one of the methods that could be used to dispose of a tree. Therefore, she has a little trouble understanding that distinction without passing it on to legal counsel. Ms. Latham pointed out that any ordinance that Park Board approves before it goes to City Council it does go before legal. Member Steel added that unfortunately it makes the Park Board look like we have the intent of removing burning as an option if we do misinterpret it. Ayes: Greene, Jones, Segreto, McCormick Nays: Steel, Jacobson, Gieseke, Cella Motion failed. Ms. Latham asked Ms. Kattreh whether Park Board has any jurisdiction over the "Living Streets" portion to which Ms. Kattreh replied that is a transportation issue. Ms. Latham went over the GreenSteps City Best Practices, Number 18, Action 5, regarding low maintenance native landscaping. She explained this action states that there are 50% native plantings for all new perennial plantings in city parks excluding Edinborough and Arneson Acres parks. Member Steel asked if the Edina Garden Council has weighed in on this to which Ms. Latham replied yes, they support this and added that the Edina Garden Council is proactively planting perennial gardens for pollinators and they do use 100% native plants. Ms. Latham pointed out this does not pertain to annual gardens such as those that are typically located at the entrance to many parks. Member Jones made a motion, seconded by Member Steel, to recommend that they include this in the work group that is going to be presenting'the other issue that was on the agenda. Ayes: Members Steel, Jacobson, Greene, Gieseke, Jones, Segreto, McCormick, Cella Motion carried. Ms. Latham went through the next action which states they implement a policy similar to the Minneapolis Park Department's list of plants NOT recommended for planting in the city parks. These plants are high maintenance because they are either invasive, have chronic pest problems, or are designated as noxious weeds by the State of Minnesota. Member Jones made a motion, seconded by Member Steel, to recommend that they include this in the work group that is going to be presenting the other issue that was on the agenda. Ayes: Members Steel, Jacobson, Greene, Gieseke, Jones, Segreto, McCormick, Cella Motion carried. Ms. Latham went over the GreenSteps City Best Practices, Number 18, Action 6, which recommends certifying selected city parks as Audubon Cooperative Sanctuaries similar to what Braemar Golf Course has done. Member Segreto stated this item seems like it should be in the strategic plan so they find out what the benefits are and which parks would be ideal. Member Segreto made a motion, seconded by Member Jones, recommending this item be in the strategic plan. Ayes: Members Steel, Jacobson, Greene, Gieseke, Jones, Segreto, McCormick, Cella Motion carried. Ms. Latham went over the GreenSteps City Best Practices, Number 18, Action 8, which recommends use of volunteers for noxious weed abatement by establishing an annual institutionalized program which provides maintenance via professionally spraying buckthorn and other noxious weeds, which generally fill in the void where buckthorn was removed. They would begin with allocating $15,000 /year for select woodlands, which have both high priority and /or high usage such as Lake Cornelia and /or Bredesen Park. Member Segreto commented that it seems to her like that is also a strategic planning issue that we have a buckthorn removal goal and figure out how much resources we are going to put forth towards it. Member Steel replied that they already have a program in place so they need to make sure they see what potential they have with the existing one. Member Segreto responded that it doesn't look like what they have in place is doing any good at all. Ms. Latham added that if you are not doing maintenance you are not doing any good at all and you are opening up a canopy where secondary noxious weeds come in, for example garlic mustard, etc. Member Segreto indicated that it seems to her that you have to fight your battles where you can win them and be focused. She stated they are not going to be able to eradicate buckthorn out of the parks and so they need to figure out if there is a park or place where we need to try to maintain a buckthorn removal policy that has stewardship to it. Ms. Latham indicated that the Garden Council would like to explore with the Park Board the possibility of doing restoration at Bredesen Park because right now it is pretty much a noxious weed preserve. She indicated they are exploring the possibility with the City Forester and if the Park Board and Edina Garden Council are amenable that they could start at the entrance and do restoration along the paths and the residents could then appreciate the wild flowers that would be planted. In addition, there would be less maintenance because they would no longer have to cut back the buckthorn from the bike paths and walking paths every year. She stated that with Park Board's permission she would like to recommend that the City Forester be allowed to talk further with the Edina Garden Council about the possibility of a restoration project at Bredesen Park. Member Jones moved to make a motion, seconded by Member Segreto, to begin the discussion and come back with a proposal. Ayes: Members Steel, Jacobson, Greene, Gieseke, Jones, Segreto, McCormick, Cella Motion carried. Member Steel stated that she doesn't think they need to vote on all of these, they can give staff direction. Chair Gieseke commented that they are voting on a lot of issues that probably could be dealt with without a formal vote. Ms. Latham pointed out to the Park Board that to have a successful restoration maintenance program the part -time City Forester must be converted into a full -time natural resource manager with an ecology background so that their 600 acres of natural area can have a more effective restoration and maintenance plan. She explained the problem with that is it collides with something else that is going on simultaneously with the Planning Commission. They are looking at a tree ordinance where the City Forester has to look at all of these building plans; however, the problem with that is it's too easy to get around this ordinance. She explained what a builder would do is take down the trees more than a year in advance or wait until after the construction is approved and take them down. She explained that would eat up a lot of staff time and you really aren't getting anything done. Ms. Latham pointed out that the Urban Forest Task Force felt more productive use of forester's time would-be to work with items dealing with our forests. She noted that they stand to lose many more trees due to buckthorn and noxious weeds than through redevelopment. Therefore, the Urban Forest Task Force and the EEC feel better use of the forester's time is to work on the forestry issues rather than looking at landscape plans for people's backyards. Chair Gieseke commented that he doesn't think that is the Park Board's jurisdiction because they have never recommended staffing levels. VI.C. Water Quality, Wetland and Natural Resources Plan — Braemar Golf Course Ross Bintner, Environmental Engineer, gave a presentation to the Park Board on this plan. Member McCormick asked if they have storm water issues on other parts of the course or is it mainly limited to the par three and driving range areas. Mr. Bintner indicated regarding the storm water issues there is an old aerial photo from the thirties that showed where the ditches were located and as the areas developed around Braemar access water ran onto the course from the developments and now the situation they see is seasonal and frequent flooding. He thought the flood concerns were the most important thing. Member Segreto asked what initiated this plan to be developed. Mr. Bintner stated in 2012, during the last CIP cycle, they started to plan better between departments and at that time the Engineering Department made the recommendation to include those CIP projects as an add -on to the golf course project. Member Segreto stated with the scope of the golf course project they would have to include them, otherwise they would subject themselves to a lot of criticism if they did not and felt better about the wetlands and environment issues that will be triggered by the golf course project. She noted she was really concerned about the oak savanna because they are confined to the delineation lines of the watershed area and she did not want that to get lost in the public process that people are not cognizant that they will be cutting down 15 acres or so of oak savanna if they opt for the first two plan options. Mr. Bintner stated the project boundaries needed to be defined and reviewed those boundaries with the Park Board. Member Segreto stated they are getting some prairie but they are losing two to three hundred year -old trees. VI.D. Centennial Lakes Promenade Phase Four Update Ross Bintner, Environmental Engineer, gave a presentation to the Park Board on this plan. E3 VLE. 2015 Park Board Work Plan Ms. Kattreh gave a quick update on the Work Plan. V11. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS VILA. Council Updates No discussion Vlll. CHAIR AND BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS No discussion IX. STAFF COMMENTS Ms. Kattreh gave staff updates. A member asked if they will have the opportunity to see what is planned for the Braemar Clubhouse. Ms. Kattreh stated she will bring a presentation to the Park Board at the February meeting. x ADJOURNMENT Member Gieseke made a motion, seconded by Member Segreto, to adjourn the meeting at 9:59 p.m. Ayes: Members Steel, Jacobson, Cella, Greene, Gieseke, Jones, Segreto, McCormick. Motion carried. F] MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE VETERANS MEMORIAL COMMITTEE HELD AT CITY HALL DECEMBER 19, 2014 7:30 AM 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Olson called the meeting to order at 7:30 a.m. 11. ROLL CALL Answering roll call were Members Benson, Christiaansen, Crain (arrived at 7:35 a.m.), Elliott (arrived at 7:37 a.m.), Olson, Reed, and Schwartz. Members Absent: Members Cardarelle, Crain, Currie, and Kojetin. Staff in attendance: Kristin Aarsvold, Edina Park and Recreation Department Supervisor, and Edina Mayor James Hovland. Others in attendance: Denny Schulstad and Dick Crockett. 111. UPDATE ON MEMORIAL SCULPTURE Member Benson provided a sample of an eagle with the patina that will be used on the eagle for the sculpture. He stated that he had the opportunity to meet someone from Fort Snelling that was able to assist with the list of names for the sculpture to ensure that the correct designations were used. He noted that the check had not yet been received. Chairman Olson confirmed that he received the invoice and did submit that for payment, noting that the payment should be in the mail at this time. Member Benson provided a photograph of the eagle sculpture. Member Crain arrived. Member Reed referenced a certain designation included on the list of names that he was unsure of. Member Schwartz confirmed that the correct designation should be used to ensure consistency and believed the method referenced by Member Reed should be used. Member Christiaansen provided an update on the quotes and stated that the Design Committee would like to have the final draft reviewed by a fact checker to ensure everything is listed and credited correctly. Member Elliott arrived. Chairman Olson confirmed that the sculpture is ready to go, with the exception of applying the patina. He also confirmed that the Design Committee would continue their work. IV. UPDATE ON CONSTRUCTION Member Elliott provided an update on the construction process, reporting that the granite pavers had been installed following the last meeting. He stated that granite pavers look very nice, noting that the flagpoles have also been installed. He reported that pretty much everything to be completed this fall has been completed. He advised that a date will be determined for the granite and eagle installations. He noted that the next step would be to coordinate with the engravers. He stated that during the design meetings the question arose as to why the Merchant Marine was not included and whether that would offend residents if that were not included. Member Schwartz stated that he is very pleased to hear that decision. Member Crain stated that in terms of design that allowed additional names to be placed on the memorial as well as additional space for names that may be added in the future. Member Elliott stated that the additional category created symmetry. He stated that outside of the aesthetics he believed that the Merchant Marines should be included on the memorial. Motion by Member Schwartz and seconded by Member Crain to include the Merchant Marines on the memorial. Ayes: Benson, Christiaansen, Crain, Elliott, Olson, Reed, and Schwartz. Motion carried. V. UPDATE ON DONOR RECOGNITION Chairman Olson stated that he spoke with Broadway Awards to investigate either a 30x30 or 24x24 plaque. The group further discussed the size of the plaque and other options including the possibility of a kiosk. Member Elliott stated that the Design Committee will meet to discuss possible options for the donor recognition and will present a recommendation at the next meeting. Mr. Schulstad stated that he views the issue as two separate things, the plaque recognizing the donors and another item that describes the intent of the memorial. Member Crain explained that the intent had always been to keep the memorial separate from donor recognition and an explanation. He stated that the best option may be to include the donor recognition and the explanation together in some sort, rather than having two random locations separate of the memorial. Member Reed stated that he does not want the plaque on a rock because of the snow and instead believed the plaque should be at a readable height. He stated that the Design Committee has not yet had sufficient time to discuss the matter in depth. Chairman Olson stated that he will work on the donor list while the Design Committee determines the layout and options for the donor recognition and explanation. Mr. Crockett stated that perhaps language or excerpts from Member Schwartz's book could be used. Member Elliott stated that perhaps the donor recognition is a more traditional bronze plaque while the other information is contained in an informational kiosk. VI. CELEBRATION A. MEMORIAL DAY 2015 Chairman Olson reviewed the items that will be handled by the Communications Department, Mrs. Aarsvold, and the Committee. He stated that invitations will be sent out soon in order to confirm some of the people for Memorial Day. Mr. Schulstad stated that he could confirm the Color Guard if the Committee desires, noting that an invitation should be made soon in order to confirm the group for that date. Chairman Olson stated that the Boy Scouts could be used as well. Member Reed stated that Memorial Day is probably the busiest day of the year for military groups, as they have standing events each year. Mr. Schulstad stated that he will ask the Color Guard. Mr. Crocket stated that the Edina Foundation is still receiving donations from the July mailing. He was unsure of the exact balance but advised that the balance does exceed that needed for the matching funds. He stated that the Foundation can provide a list of donors in order of donation so that the group can easily identify the mark agreed upon for recognition. He stated that eventually he would like to meet to compare the budget to the donations received. Chairman Olson stated that the Committee Members, both previous and current, should also be recognized. Member Schulstad stated that he would like to make it formal that family members of those recognized on the memorial be invited, noting that group could be sat together. He emphasized that this memorial is for all veterans and not just the names listed on the memorial. Chairman Olson stated that the event will be at 10:00 a.m. on Memorial Day for those Members that want to start confirming invitations. VII. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:25 a.m. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE VETERANS MEMORIAL COMMITTEE HELD AT CITY HALL OCTOBER 31, 2014 7:30 AM 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Olson called the meeting to order at 7:32 am Il. ROLLCALL Answering roll call were Members Benson, Cardarelle, Christiaansen, Crain, Elliott (arrived at 7:49 a.m.), Kojetin, Olson, Reed, and Schwartz. Staff in attendance: Kristin Aarsvold, Edina Park and Recreation Department Supervisor; and Tom Shirley, Edina Park Manager; and Mayor Hovland (arrived at 7:54 a. m.) Others in attendance: Denny Schulstad. Ill. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — June 20, 2014 and August 29, 2014 It was noted in reference to the August 29, 2014 minutes, the motion in regard to minute approval should be deleted. Motion by Member Kojetin and seconded by Member Crain to approve the minutes of August 29, 2014 as amended. Ayes: Benson, Cardarelle, Christiaansen, Crain, Kojetin, Olson, Reed, and Schwartz. Motion carried. Motion by Member Kojetin and seconded by Member Cardarelle to approve the minutes of June 20, 2014 as presented. Ayes: Benson, Cardarelle, Christiaansen, Crain, Kojetin, Olson, Reed, and Schwartz. Motion carried. IV. UPDATE ON MEMORIAL SCULPTURE Member Benson reported that they are working for Member Elliott to determine the angle of the flagpole and reported that the Schoops are also working with the granite contact to finalize details. Member Reed agreed that the angle is important in terms of moving forward. Member Crain noted that Member Elliott was waiting for the elevation to be finalized in order to provide that angle. He advised that there are also details to the granite that will contribute to the final angle. Member Reed stated that perhaps mid - November he and Member Benson will travel to Osceola to view the finished eagle, noting that the Schoops would store the eagle until it is time to install. He reported that there is a final payment of $16,250 that would be due to the Schoops for the eagle and proposed that the final payment be split into two payments of $8,125. He suggested that the first payment be paid upon inspection next month and the remaining payment be paid upon installation. He stated that the original plan had been to install the eagle in November. Member Crain stated that he would be agreeable to that, as the original plan had been to install in November. Motion by Member Reed and seconded by Member Cardarelle to approve a payment of $8,125 to Schoops, upon inspection of the eagle in November and submittal of a bill, with the remaining $8,125 to be paid upon successful inspection. Ayes: Benson, Cardarelle, Christiaansen, Motion carried. Crain, Kojetin, Olson, Reed, and Schwartz. Member Kojetin stated that he would also like to travel to Osceola with Members Reed and Benson. Member Christiaansen stated that the group had previously discussed the text for the main monument, which was quite long. He stated that he and Member Reed, as a part of the Design Committee, had been discussing the text options. Member Reed reviewed the new options proposed. Member Elliott arrived. Chairperson Olson suggested that the Design Committee meet and propose a finalized quote. Mayor Hovland arrived. Member Elliott stated that January would be a good deadline to have the font and engraving options finalized, noting that he has sourced bronze plates for the quote areas. Member Christiaansen stated that the Design Committee will make their finalized recommendations to the Committee at the November meeting. Member Reed suggested that the contributors, including the City of Edina and State of Minnesota, be engraved on one of the sentinels, which will be five feet in height, rather than a plaque on a rock. He also suggested that the donor names be split into groups, categorized by the amount of the donation and also suggested language to be used to distinguish the donors. He reported that as of the last print out the engraved names would be those who donated $1,000 and above, which is a total of 24, and noted that there have been a total of around 200 donors in total. He questioned if the Members of the Committee should have their names listed on the memorial. Chairperson Olson stated that he would work on the engraving location and make a recommendation on that and advised that the Design Committee will continue to work on the actual quotes and make a recommendation. Mrs. Aarsvold stated that some high school students may be willing to assist in providing additional history on the memorial, including the creation of an interactive QR code, which could link to more information. Member Crain confirmed the consensus of the Committee that the memorial is for the veteran's alone and the contributors will be recognized on a different location nearby. Motion by Member Schwartz and seconded by Member Benson to approve that the portion south of the trail will be solely for the veterans while the portion north of the trail will be used to identify donors. Ayes: Benson, Cardarelle, Christiaansen, Crain, Elliott, Kojetin, Olson, Reed, and Schwartz. Motion carried. V. UPDATE ON CONSTRUCTION Member Elliott stated that he is pleased with how construction is moving along. He stated that the granite pavers will be installed to the site following the meeting today if any Members would like to come by the site. He advised that installation of the pavers will begin the following Monday and believed that installation would be complete next week. He stated that everything that is to be completed this year should be done in the next week or two. He stated that the gravel is being brought in today for the trail. He advised that there are some improvements being made to the pump house and there may be additional trail improvements occurring. He explained that the paving of the trail will be delayed until it is known if the other trails will be improved, as all the paving could then be coordinated. Mayor Hovland thanked the Members of the Committee for their hard work. Vl. CELEBRATIONS A. GROUNDBREAKING The Committee discussed the successful groundbreaking, which took place. B. VETERAN'S DAY 2014 Chairperson Olson questioned if the Committee wanted to advertise on Veteran's Day that the ceremony will take place on Memorial Day. Mrs. Aarsvold confirmed that she could investigate an advertisement that could be published in the Sun Current. Member Cardarelle welcomed all Members of the Committee to join the luncheon sponsored by the Rotary Club on Monday, November 10th at 11:30 at the Edina Country Club. He asked that interested Members alert him so that he can RSVP. C. MEMORIAL DAY 2015 i. Speakers ii. Band iii. Honorees Chairperson Olson suggested that the event be held around 10:00 a.m. on Memorial Day and the program would run one hour. He discussed potential details, including a band and other speakers that could be featured at the event. Member Schwartz suggested that invitations be sent to the living relatives of the 32 veterans that will be listed on the memorial. He noted that perhaps one of the living relatives could even be given an opportunity to speak at the event for a moment. Chairperson Olson confirmed that invitations could be sent to donors, veterans, and distinguished people. Denny Schulstad reviewed the program lineup, which would include speeches from the Mayor, a representative from the Committee, someone to discuss the history, a traditional Memorial Day address, and a short speech from the family member. He confirmed that certain State officials could be invited but noted that most of those people will be attending Memorial Day ceremonies at other locations. Member Benson stated that perhaps a younger person that is just joining the military should be allowed to speak as well to provide a full scope of those who serve. Member Schwartz believed that someone should also be in attendance to represent the women who served, providing a few examples of local residents. Mrs. Aarsvold questioned if refreshments would be planned or whether the Honor Guard would be attending. Denny Schulstad stated that he can help to arrange an ROTC Color Guard or an Honor Guard as well. The Committee confirmed that they would like the Honor Guard. Member Crain noted that the Boy Scouts also have a Color Guard, which could be utilized to provide a range of ages. Denny Schulstad stated that perhaps a Program Committee should be developed in order to finalize those details. Mrs. Aarsvold, Denny Schulstad and Member Schwartz volunteered to serve on that Committee. He questioned if there is money being set aside for ongoing maintenance and suggested that the Committee think about that issue. Mrs. Aarsvold stated that the City has agreed to maintain the memorial but noted that it would be nice to have those figures for budgeting purposes. Vll. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:37 a.m. MINUTES Regular Meeting of the Edina Heritage Preservation Board Edina City Hall — Council Chambers Tuesday, January 13, 2015 7:00 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M. 11. ROLL CALL Answering roll call was Chair Weber and Members, Moore, Sussman, McLellan, Christiaansen, and Student Members Druckman and Otness. Absent were Members Mellom and O'Brien. Staff present was Senior Planner, Joyce Repya. III. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA Member Moore moved to approve the meeting agenda. Member McLellan seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried. IV. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES December 9, 2014 and December 17, 2014 Member Christiaansen moved approval of the minutes from the December 9`h and December 17`h meetings. Member Moore seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried. V. COMMUNITY COMMENT - None V1. REPORTS & RECOMMENDATIONS A. Certificates of Appropriateness 1. H -15 -1 4513 Bruce Avenue - 2 "d story addition to a street fa4ade and changes to the front entry Planner Repya explained that the subject property, located on the east side of the 4500 block of Bruce Avenue consists of a Colonial Revival style home constructed in 1924. The subject Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) request includes changes to the flat roof of the front entry canopy, and a second story bedroom addition over the single story sunroom on the south side of the home. The plan for changes to the front entry canopy include replacing the flat roof with a gable form and new larger columns and crown molding to provide more authentic colonial character to the home. A second story bedroom addition is proposed over the existing sunroom on the south side of the home measuring approximately 160 square feet in area. The addition has been designed to be set in from the south wall of the sunroom which does not meet the required 5 foot setback from the south property line. A hipped roof is proposed over the nonconforming portion of the sunroom thus reducing the height at the side yard. Edina Heritage Preservation Board Minutes January 13, 2015 The roof of the addition is shown to tie into the roofline of the original home, and the addition is shown to include cedar lap siding and asphalt shingles to match the home. The plans also include new windows and the removal of the existing shutters on the second story shed dormer above the front entry. Ms. Repya explained that Preservation Consultant Robert Vogel evaluated the project and provided written comments where he determined that the proposed second story addition and changes to the front entry do not involve destruction of any of the house's major architectural features and will have minimal impact on the historic character of the district as a whole. Based on the plans presented, the new bedroom addition over the existing sun porch on the south side of the house will be compatible in size, scale, proportion, massing, and historic character with the rest of the historic house. The new front porch and doorway are architecturally similar to those found in other colonials in the district and the historic character of the subject property will be maintained. Furthermore, the proposed work meets the Secretary of the Interior's standards for rehabilitation. Mr. Vogel pointed out that ordinarily, it would be preferable to repair rather than replace the historic windows. However, replacement can be necessary due to advanced deterioration. If that is the case, the replacement window system referenced in the COA application meets historic preservation standards. However, historic integrity would be better maintained by repairing and reusing the original wood windows. Mr. Vogel concluded his evaluation by recommending approval of the COA application subject to the plans presented. Planner Repya pointed out that after receiving Mr. Vogel's comments regarding window replacement, the applicant responded by explaining that the windows are generally in poor condition, beyond reconditioning (especially on the second floor) due largely because they have not been maintained over the years. The plans call for Marvin Integrity replacement windows with divided lights. The pattern does not match the existing window pattern, but are actually more in keeping with the traditional Colonial Revival style than the Prairie inspired small squares in the corners of the existing. The applicant added that the 2 over 2 divided light pattern proposed is also more cost effective. Ms. Repya concluded that staff is in agreement with Consultant Vogel's evaluation as well as the additional comments regarding the replacement windows provided by the applicant; noting that the plans depict changes that are compatible with the original structure and do not change the scale and character of the historic home. Approval of the COA was recommended subject to the plans presented. Findings supporting the recommendation included: • The plans provided with subject request clearly illustrate the scale and scope of the project. • The second story addition on the south side will be compatible in size, scale, proportion, 2 Edina Heritage Preservation Board Minutes January 13, 2015 massing, and historic character with the rest of the historic house. • The changes to the front entry and doorway are architecturally similar to those found in other colonials in the district and the historic character of the subject property will be maintained. • The information provided supporting the subject Certificate of Appropriateness meets the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and the Country Club District Plan of Treatment. Applicant Representative: Available to respond to questions - Christine Albertsson AIA, Albertson Hansen Architecture Ltd. Erin Rapallini - Owner Board Member Comments: Member McLellan asked for clarification on the following items: • Would the roof of sunroom below the addition be hipped as depicted in the drawn plans (The CAD plans look different.)? Albertsson - Yes, the roof will be hipped as shown on the drawn plans. • Will the window trim be replaced? Albertsson - Yes the window trim will be replaced. • Will the new windows be double hung? (Particularly the upstairs bedroom due to egress requirements.) Albertsson - In order to meet the egress requirements for the bedrooms, the windows may not be double hung, but from the exterior they will have the look of a double hung window. Public Comment: None A brief discussion ensued amongst the board, agreeing that the plans were well thought out and an enhancement to the home. Motion: Member Moore moved approval of the Certification of Appropriateness application subject to the plans presented. Member Sussman seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried. VII. OTHER BUSINESS A. Committee Report - Policy #13 evaluation, clarifying definitions and notification policies. Committee Chair McLellan reminded the board that a committee consisting of members Sussman, Mellom, McLellan and student member Otness was formed at the December IT' special meeting with the task of re- evaluating the most recent Policy #13 adopted that evening, as well as addressing in greater detail the meeting notification process and gaining a better understanding of the plan of treatment. Member McLellan explained that he was appointed to chair the committee which met on Tuesday, January 6`h. The issues the committee considered at that time were: ;I Edina Heritage Preservation Board Minutes January 13, 2015 Amending Policy #13 or proposing a Policy #14 while considering points specifically related to Policy #13 submitted by member Sussman at the December 17th special meeting; 2. Clarifying or further defining the concepts of repair and replacement as opposed to demolition; and 3. Considering additional procedures regarding notice and communication between the HPB and the City and its Building Official as raised in Action 2 of Policy #13. After evaluating how to best address the above issues, the committee agreed to the following recommendations: Member Sussman agreed to take on the task of crafting an amendment to the most recent version of Policy #13 (Adopted on 12/17) to ensure that the policy not only reflect the actions recommended by Member O'Brien, but also incorporate the actions Sussman proposed at the December 17`h meeting. Mr. Sussman agreed to have a copy of the amended policy available for the HPB's consideration. The committee also agreed to recommend rescinding action #4 of the adopted Policy which states, "Neither the HPB staff liaison /planner nor the preservation planning consultant for the city is authorized to deviate from this policy." 2. Consultant Robert Vogel shall provide a memorandum to the HPB where the purpose of the district's plan of treatment as well as terminology found in the plan was clarified; and A revision to the notification process shall be made to the COA "Requirements & Process" information for new homes in the Country Club District that mirrors the notification area required by the city's Reconstruction Management Plan. Addressing revisions to the notification process, Planner Repya provided the board with a copy of the COA "Requirements & Process" for new homes in the Country Club District that now provided for notification to properties within 300 feet of the perimeter of a proposed new home which is the same distance required by the city's Reconstruction Management Plan. Previously, the mailing radius had not been defined. Ms. Repya explained that if a COA is approved for a home to be removed, the same neighbors notified of the COA will be included in the mailing required for the demolition. Ms. Repya concluded that if the board was agreeable to the notification changes, she would post them on the city's web site. Board members agreed that it was good that the changes provided for a notification field that was consistent with the mailings required for the demolition of homes, and were pleased the information would be available on the city's web site. Relative to Consultant Vogel's advice regarding the language in Policy #13, Planner Repya explained that Consultant Vogel had reviewed the work of the committee and agreed that the 4 Edina Heritage Preservation Board Minutes January 13, 2015 direction they were taking toward clarifying the policy would do no harm. However, he did point out that the City Council makes policy, with advice of the HBP and professional staff. Staff implements city policy, subject to oversight of HPB. Policies should address goals, outcomes, and measurable results as set out in the city's comprehensive plan. The actual implementation of the policies should be about management practices, protocols and performance measures. Mr. Vogel concluded that Policy #13 addresses what is essentially a management issue, and while it is fine to be included with the "HPB Roles & Responsibilities ", it should not be inserted into the Comprehensive Plan. He then recommended that in the future, rather than continuing to add more policies to the "HPB Roles and Responsibilities ", the board considers creating a document of "Best Management Practices" that can define the boards management practices relative the designation and oversight of heritage landmark properties. The board agreed that identifying HPB best management practices would be a very good idea. Planner Repya stated that she and Mr. Vogel would work on providing the board with an "HPB - Best Management Practices" document at a future meeting. Member Sussman observed that student member Otness had done research into the demolition process for the committee and suggested that the city's demolition permit include spaces for the Heritage Preservation Board's approved COA information /review be included on the permit. Planner Repya pointed out that she took care of that request right of way; noting that the demolition permit now includes the same spaces for the HPB's COA review requirements that are provided on the city's building permit. Member Sussman then provided the board with copies of a revised Policy #13 he crafted pointing out the first portion which restates the COA requirements from the Country Club District's plan of treatment remains unchanged from the previously adopted policy. Regarding the "Actions ", Mr. Sussman pointed out that he attempted to provide clarification in the following areas: Action #2 & 3. Where the previous December 17`h policy referenced that no demolitions would be allowed "in whole or in part ", the proposed change provides that there may be situations where "the selective removal of uncovered building materials unsuitable to safely remain as confirmed by the building official." Furthermore, Mr. Sussman recommended that in the event conditions occur (such as rotted framing), the corrections should be allowed without requiring the COA be revisited by the HPB. Mr. Sussman concluded that as the committee recommended, the proposed policy revisions include deleting the action item which stated that "Neither the HPB staff liaison /planner nor the preservation planning consultant for the city is authorized to deviate from this policy." Noting that the HPB relies on the staff and consultant for guidance and to imply that they would not comply with the policy is inappropriate. 5 Edina Heritage Preservation Board Minutes January 13, 2015 Board Member Comments Member Moore stated that he really appreciated Member Sussman's work - adding that initially he was concerned with some of the language in the formerly adopted policy, but he found the proposed revisions are very thorough and provide the necessary clarification. Member Weber commented that he particularly liked language in action #2 which provided for recognition that the "selective removal of uncovered materials identified by the building official" may occur during a construction project. Student Member Otness questioned whether the board was currently considering adopting the revised policy - pointing out that he recalled board members commenting that this issue lacked a sense of urgency and should be well thought out. Member Christiaansen commented that she found the revisions to be much clearer with safer, less ambiguous language. Member McLellan stated that he liked work Mr. Sussman put in to clarifying Policy #13 and believed that the revisions proposed did not change the intent of the policy adopted at the special meeting on December 17`h General consensuses from the board was that the issues identified in Policy #13 had been well vetted and now reflect the issues identified in policies proposed by both Members O'Brien and Sussman. Motion: Member McLellan moved for adoption of Policy #13, replacing the Policy #13 adopted on December 17, 2014. Member Moore seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried. Member McLellan also observed that at the committee meeting, they discussed the future updating of the Country Club District's plan of treatment in 2018, and suggested that a running list be kept of suggested additions/ deletions and /or areas of concern to be considered when the update is undertaken. Planner Repya has agreed to keep the list for the board, and Mr. McLellan encouraged board members let Ms. Repya know if they had suggestions. The board agreed that was a good idea. VIII. CORRESPONDENCE & PETITIONS - None IX. CHAIR AND BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Chair Weber reported that he is working on a blog article for the city's web site clarifying the Country Club District's plan of treatment regulations regarding the criteria new construction in Edina Heritage Preservation Board Minutes January 13, 2015 the district. Prior to submitting the article for posting, Mr. Weber stated that he would like the HPB to proof it and provide input. Member Sussman commended student members Joe Druckman and Peter Otness for having perfect attendance in 2014. The board agreed that they appreciated Joe's and Peter's diligence and the wonderful dimension they add to the work of the HPB. X. STAFF COMMENTS Planner Repya reported the following: • The Country Club District neighborhood is planning an architectural tour for Saturday, May 9`h. The district also has a committee interested in adding signage to the district entrances recognizing that the historic district is on the National Register of Historic Places. The committee sent a letter to the Mayor explaining the project and asking if the Council would support them moving forward to discuss the plans with the HPB. The Mayor and Council members voted at their January 6th meeting to authorize the HPB to work with the neighborhood on this worthy project. Ms. Repya concluded that she suggested that the committee bring their signage proposal to the HPB at the February meeting. • The owners of the Bruce Abrahamson House, 7205 Shannon Drive received a letter recognizing that their home would be eligible for designation as an Edina Heritage Landmark; and they have responded that they would be interested in meeting to discuss the heritage landmark program. Ms. Repya and Robert Vogel will be meeting with the owners, Evan and Marilyn Anderson on January 21 S`, and will report back to the HPB in February regarding the outcome of the meeting. XI. NEXT MEETING DATE February 10, 2015 X11. ADJOURNMENT 8:05 P.M. Member Moore moved for adjournment at 8:05 pm. Member McLellan seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried. Respectfully submitted, Joyce R.epya MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS JANUARY 28, 2015 7:00 PM I. CALL TO ORDER 11. ROLL CALL Answering the roll call were: Hobbs, Scherer, Schroeder, Lee, Seeley, Halva, Olsen, Carr, Forrest and Platteter 111. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA Commissioner Olsen moved approval of the January 28, 2015 meeting agenda. Commissioner Scherer seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. IV. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA Commissioner Forrest moved approval of the January -14, 2015 meeting minutes. Commissioner Olsen seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. V. COMMUNITY COMMENT: Chair Platteter opened public comment. None. Commissioner Carr moved to close the public comment period. Commissioner Hobbs seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Variance. B & A Erickson. 6617 Brittany Road, Edina, MN Planner Presentation Planner Teague reported that Bryan and Anita Erickson (applicants) are requesting a variance to complete an addition to their existing split level home located at 6617 Brittney Road. The requested variance is a 4.11 foot deviation from the required 13.5 foot required side yard setback. The variance is necessary to build within the existing footprint because much of the existing home is nonconforming regarding side yard setback. Teague explained that the subject property is located in a neighborhood with single -level and split level homes. The homeowners are proposing to add a second story addition to their split level, increasing the footprint (in a conforming location) and are also proposing to add a patio in the front yard and a patio and deck in the rear yard of their property. A future detached shed is also indicated, although a separate permit and lot coverage calculation would be needed upon building permit to verify the zoning on that improvement. Teague said that the zoning ordinance requires a minimum 13.5 -foot setback from the southern property line for this addition. The existing home is nonconforming, as it would require a 10 -foot setback and it is currently 9.39 feet from the property line. The front yard setback required is the average front yard setback of the homes on either side and this property meets that requirement. The front patio /porch is proposed to be located no more than 80 square feet into the required front yard setback, also meeting city code. The height would not exceed 30 feet overall. Planner Teague stated that staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the variance based on the following findings: I) The proposal would meet the required standards for a variance, because: a. The proposed use of the property is reasonable; as it slightly alters existing setback conditions without reducing setbacks further or impacting the surrounding neighbors. b. The practical difficulty is the location of the existing home, which does not meet the required side yard setback. The imposed setback and existing house location do not provide opportunity for a second floor without a variance. c. The variance would be for a small triangular "point intrusion" into the required setback. This home and the home to the south were built at an angle to the side lot line. d. The adjacent most impacted home to the south has the garage located adjacent to the requested variance area. Approval of the variance is also subject to the following conditions: 1) Subject to staff approval, the site must be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the following plans, unless modified by the conditions below: ➢ Architectural plans date stamped November 4, 2014 ➢ Grading drainage and erosion control plan date stamped January 8, 2015 ➢ Building plans/ elevations date stamped November 4, 2014 ➢ Engineering memo dated January 22, 2015. Concluding, Teague pointed out that Commissioner Forrest had a question on overall building height; adding he believes the building height is correct and if it isn't correct it would be by inches. Concluding, Teague said if the Commission were to approve the variance as requested they could add an additional condition requesting further confirmation on building height Appearing for the Applicant Mr. and Mrs. Erickson; property owner and applicant. Applicant Presentation Mr. Erickson informed the Commission he spoke with the majority of his neighbors who indicated to him their support for the project, adding with regard to building height that he wasn't aware of any issues with the overall building height. Public Comment Chair Platteter opened public hearing period. Mr. Jim Grotz, 5513 Park Place addressed the Commission expressing his concern with the variance request if there was an error in building height calculations, adding he believes the new home next to him is being constructed too close to the property line due to an error. Chair Platteter asked if anyone else would like to speak to the issue; being none, Commissioner Scherer moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Lee seconded the motion. All voted aye; public hearing closed. Discussion Commissioner Carr stated in her opinion the renovations to the home look good and are a plus for the neighborhood. Carr said she supports the variance as requested. Commissioner Lee said she was concerned with the question raised concerning overall building height, adding without that information being exact she would feel uncomfortable voting on it. Chair Platteter asked Planner Teague if the variances were approved to ensure that all building heights are calculated correctly. Planner Teague said all calculations would be double checked, reiterating if there is an error it would be very small and could easily be addressed and corrected. Commissioner Forrest said in her opinion the request is reasonable, adding she likes the rain garden. She said approval should be per the plans presented to include double checking the calculation of building height and retaining the rain garden. Motion Commissioner Carr moved variance approval based on staff findings and subject to staff conditions including the conditions 1) that overall building height must comply with code and 2) the rain garden is constructed per plans presented. Commissioner Scherer seconded the motion. Ayes; Hobbs, Scherer, Schroeder, Olsen, Carr, Forrest, Platteter. Nay, Lee. Motion carried. B. Lot Division and Variance. Donnay Homes. 3621 & 3625 54th Street West, Edina, MN _. 3 __�.� Planner Presentation Planner Teague informed the Commission that Donnay Homes are proposing to tear down the existing double dwelling unit at 3621 and 3625 54`h Street West, and build a new one.To accommodate the request Teague reported that the following is requested: I . A two -foot side street setback variance from 20 feet to 18 feet, so the garage adjacent to Drew Avenue has its opening facing Drew, rather than 54`h Street; 2. A lot area variance from 15,000 square feet to 10,748 square feet and lot width variance from 90 to 80 feet to built the new structure. The lot size and width are existing conditions, but would still require a variance; and 3. A lot division to create a party -wall division of the new structure. The new structure would be built with a fire rated wall separating the two units. This would provide protection for each unit, should there be a fire on the other side. Teague further explained that within this area there are a mixture of duplexes and single - family homes, zoned both R -I, Single - Family Residential and R -2, Double - Dwelling Unit. Planner Teague concluded that staff recommends that the city council approve the variances and lot division as requested, subject to the following conditions: I. The new double dwelling shall be built per the submitted plans date stamped December 24, 2014, and January 9, 2015. 2. The 24 -inch Locust and 22 -inch Locust on the site shall be maintained and protected during construction. 3. The applicant shall plant and additional 4 -inch Maple on each new lot to replace the 12 -inch Maple that is to be removed. 4. Each unit shall have separate utility hook -ups. S. The units will be separated by a fire -wall; and be verified by the City's building official. Appearing for the Applicant Steve Beneke, Donnay Homes. Discussion Commissioner Olsen asked Planner Teague if the Engineers had an opinion. Planner Teague responded Engineering believes the project will improve the existing site conditions. Commissioner Lee commented that she observed shrubs to the east and asked if they would remain. Planner Teague responded in the affirmative. 4 Applicant Presentation Mr. Beneke said in his opinion the building design and splitting the garages helps the neighborhood both practically and aesthetically. In reference to the landscaping Beneke stated all measures would be taken to retain the existing vegetation (hedge), trim the hedge and implement all staff conditions on landscaping. Discussion Commissioner Forrest asked the applicant to be cautious with the drainage; pointing out there is some topography change in the area. Continuing, Forrest complimented the design and garage layout of the new structure. Chair Platteter agreed, adding he appreciates the creativity in building design and garage placement. Public Hearin Chair Platteter opened the public hearing. No one spoke to the issue. Commissioner Carr moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Scherer seconded the motion. All voted aye; public hearing closed. Motion Commissioner Olsen moved variance approval based on staff findings and subject to staff conditions. Commissioner Scherer seconded the motion. Commissioner Carr asked to amend the motion to include maintenance of the existing shrubs. It was observed that the shrubs /hedge was depicted on the landscape plans dated January 9, 2015, noting staff conditions include date stamped plans. All voted aye; motion carried. VII. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. Wooddale Valley View Small Area Plan Commissioner Lee addressed the Commission and explained the Wooddale/Valley View Small Area Plan process is entering its final stages. Lee said the hope is that this process could become a template for further small area plan processes. Continuing, Lee delivered a power point presentation and shared with the Commission the progress of the working group including timeline. Lee stated it is their hope that in the near future the plan is finalized and posted to the website for public comment. Lee explained after the public comment time period is over the team would meet to review comments and finalize the plan. Ik 5 ---- Concluding, Lee said their goal is to hold a public hearing with the Planning Commission on the 25`h of February with the Council holding their public hearing in early March (March 3rd) Chair Platteter thanked Commissioners Lee and Forrest for their work on the Wooddale Valley View Small Area Plan. Commissioners echoed Platteter's thanks. VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS A. Council Update and Attendance Chair Platteter acknowledged back of packet materials. IX. CHAIR AND COMMISSION COMMENTS Chair Platteter reported that applications are still open for appointments to the City's Boards and Commissions. Platteter encouraged residents to apply if interested. Chair Platteter informed the Commission residential feedback is welcomed on the Living Streets Plan. Platteter said two public meeting forums are planned as follows: I. 7 -8:30 p.m. Wednesday, February 4`h, Edina Public Work and Park Maintenance Facility, 7450 Metro Boulevard; 2. 10-11:30 a.m. Saturday. February 7. Edina Senior Center, 5280 Grandview Square. Platteter encouraged all interested residents to attend. Commissioner Carr suggested that the 2015 Planning Commission Work Plan be discussed with the new Commission Members. Planner Teague agreed, adding he would place the 2015 Work Plan on the agenda for discussion and review. X. STAFF COMMENTS Planner Teague reported that at the last City Council meeting a motion to approve the project for 7200 France failed. Teague explained that staff was asked to draft findings for denial to present at the next Council meeting. Teague stated action also needed to be taken because of time constraints. Commissioner Scherer asked if the Findings for Denial are approved can the applicant proceed with construction of the medical building they suggested if this project failed. Teague responded in the affirmative. Planner Teague further reported that the City Council will hold a public hearing on the Tree Ordinance on February 3, 2015. Chair Platteter noted the City is conducting a study on transportation and sewer issues in the greater Southdale area. Platteter wondered if Planning could "piggy back" with engineering and conduct a small area plan for the area. Platteter suggested that the Southdale area be added to the 2015 Work Plan if not already "called out" on the plan. Teague agreed. Continuing, 6 Teague said monies have been set aside for a small area plan for the Cahill and Amundson area and if agreeable to everyone those monies could be diverted to do a small area plan for the greater Southdale area; especially west of France Avenue. XI. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Hobbs moved to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission at 8:35 p.m. Commissioner Scherer seconded the motion. All voted aye; meeting adjourned. submitted tfully , - L MINUTES OF THE EDINA HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY HELD AT CITY HALL DECEMBER 3, 2014 12:40 A.M. CALL TO ORDER Chair Hovland called the HRA meeting to order at 12:41 a.m. ROLLCALL Answering rollcall were Commissioners Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson and Chair Hovland. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA Motion made by Commissioner Swenson, seconded by Commissioner Sprague approving the Meeting Agenda. Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 2, 2014 APPROVED Motion made by Commissioner Swenson, seconded by Commissioner Sprague approving the Minutes of the Meeting of the Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority for November 3, 2014. Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. AUTHORIZE EXTENSION OF PURCHASE AGREEMENT— 3944 WEST 49 -112 STREET On September 2, 2014, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority approved Resolution 2014 -04 and authorized the purchase of the vacant Hooten Cleaner property at 3944 West 49-1/2 Street. This authorization occurred after the property owners approached City staff in August to inquire whether the City still was interested in purchasing the property. Although the property owners and the City originally anticipated closing within 30 -days, several complications arose during the title review process. The property owner has worked diligently to settle the outstanding issues so that the transaction can be completed. The Purchase Agreement identified December 5, 2014 as the date, after which the Agreement would be null and void. This was a standard provision in Purchase Agreements to terminate the agreement in case one of the parties was not following through with the terms. In this case, both parties have worked diligently to smooth out some complicated issues. Resolution of these issues has taken longer than expected and an extension has been requested so that the transaction can be completed in mid -to -late December 2014. After a brief discussion Commissioner Swenson made a motion that was seconded by Commissioner Brindle to authorize extension of purchase agreement for 3944 West 49 '/z Street. Ayes: Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Nay: Bennett Motion carried. ADJOURNMENT Chair Hovland declared the meeting adjourned at 12: 42 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Scott Neal, Executive Director Page I To: Members of the Edina Housing & Redevelopment Authority From: Ross Bintner, PE, Environmental Engineer Date: February 17, 2015 O� G' 77, y° • ��,�,OA YORp`1�O • IAAA Agenda Item #: V. The Recommended Bid is ❑ Within Budget ❑X Not Within Budget Subject: Request for Purchase — Authorize Award of Bid for Promenade Phase 4, Associated Professional Services, and Termination of Agreement Date Bid Opened or Quote Received: February 5, 2015 Company: Meisinger Construction Peterson Companies Sunram Construction Recommended Quote or Bid: Meisinger Construction General Information: Bid or Expiration Date: NA Amount of Quote or Bid: $1,268,550.00 $1,443,339.23 $1,532,970.00 $1,268,550.00 In addition to the Award of Bid for Promenade Phase 4, you are authorizing: I. Engineering Services 2. Specialty Engineering Services 3. Termination of Cooperative Agreement with Nine Mile Creek Watershed District Promenade Phase 4 (Engineering Contract ENG 14 -8, CIP item 15 -172) was bid on February S. Costs came in 10% above the engineers estimate presented at the January 6 Council work session. Staff recommends award of the base bid to Meisinger Construction. The base bid includes natural rock for the sides of the pond and channel, with colored, stained and formed concrete for the channel and pond bottoms. Bid alternatives were included to give options for material type of the stream or pond bottom. Staff has reviewed the qualifications of Meisinger Construction and has determined that they are qualified to complete the project. They have project experience with the Met Council and City of Minneapolis, among others. Purchase agreement examples for Oxymoron by Stillman ($25,250) and Sand Hill Cranes by Dehne ($6,500) are attached and total $31,750. The only appropriate funding source is park dedication fees. Due to the bid coming in over budget, staff is not recommending purchase of public art with this project. Regional stormwater infiltration was removed from the project scope due to low level soil contamination issues and a confining clay layer in deep soil samples limiting infiltration. This portion of the project was City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 REQUEST FOR PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $20,000 /CHANGE ORDER Page 2 subject to a cooperative agreement with Nine Mile Creek Watershed District, attached is letter to terminate that agreement. Hennepin County Environmental Response Fund (ERF) grant funding has been approved for soil remediation and related specialty professional services. The County is finalizing the grant agreement. This item will come to Council at a future city council meeting. Two tables below describe total costs and funding sources. Funding sources are consistent with the CIP and January 5 Council work session numbers with the $119,513 overage split between park dedication and tax increment funding sources. CONSTUCTION PHASE COST Cost Recommended Funding Source: Water feature and public art nodes $465,261 7171 France park dedication fees HRA/Centennial Lakes TIF district Landscaping, public lighting, electric controls and irrigation. $389,342 Pedestrian walk, crossings, and associated grading and wall. $199,910 Stormwater, Soils remediation and disposal, wildlife habitat plantings. $202,469 Stormwater utility Hennepin County ERF Grant Cost Reimbursable by 71 France Agreement $11,568 71 France Developer SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION $1,268,550 TOTAL URS Inc. — Construction Professional Services $105,000 7171 France park dedication fees HRA/Centennial Lakes TIF district Barr Engineering - Specialty Professional Services (Soils and Habitat Planting) $36,800 Hennepin County ERF Grant Stormwater utility TOTAL $1,410,350 FUNDING BY SOURCE Funding Notes: Park Dedication $640,000 Eqv. To 128 Units @ $5000 each $60,000 over CIP -127 estimate Tax Increment Funds (TIF) / HRA $519,513 $59,513 over CIP -127 estimate Utility Fund — Storm $200,269 Classified as outside rate study Grants and Donations $39,000 Hennepin County ERF Grant Reimbursable to 71 France Developer $11,568 71 France Developer TOTAL $1,410,350 This request for purchase has a City Council companion agenda item. Attachment: • Engineering Services URS (Item #I) • Specialty Professional Services BARR (Item #2) • Termination of Agreement with Nine Mile Creek Watershed (Item #3) • Example Public Art Work Purchase Agreements (Items #4,5) • Select Plan Sheets (Item 6) WWACENTRAL SVCS\ENG DIV\PR0JECTS\C0NTRACTS\2014 \ENG 14 -8 Promenade Phase 4\ADMIN \150217 HRA RFP 14 -9 Promenade Phase 4.docx City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 i i J ke ;�l February 2, 2015 Chad Millner, PE Director of Engineering City of Edina 7450 Metro Boulevard Edina, MN 55439 RE: Promenade Phase 4 Professional Services Proposal for Construction Services Dear Chad, We are providing the following proposal for your consideration related to our recent discussions regarding the preparation of Final Construction documents and bidding services related to the construction of the Edina Promenade Phase 4 Improvements project in accordance to the Master Agreement for Professional Engineering Services. Our proposed scope of work includes two components: additional design and bidding phase services related to the extension of the project schedule from 2014 construction to 2015 construction; Construction phase services to be provided as requested by City staff for site observation, shop drawing review, RFIs and potential design modifications. Proposed Scope of Work A. Additional Design Phase Services The original project scope envisioned a construction period in the summer of 2014 and a combined park and infiltration project. As a result of schedule changes for the 71 France project, the project construction was delayed until 2015. Another significant change included the removal of the infiltration project due to soil investigations that indicated contaminated soils. The soil investigation also required special provisions and quantities to help manage the contaminated soils that are expected to be encountered with the project. Through the summer and fall of 2014, URS staff met with the Edina Arts Committee to refine project elements in conjunction with input from the arts community. These discussions resulted in several modifications to the proposed plazas, channels, pond and landscape areas. B. Construction Phase Services We understand that the City may perform a significant amount of the on -site construction phase observation and inspection services which would reduce the amount of on -site inspector time associated with our proposed services. Our proposal includes estimated labor associated with performing complete on -site construction phase services although we understand that our on -site services will be performed only as requested by the City. Services associated with the construction phase of the project include on -site inspection, responses for Contractor questions, review of shop drawings, review of mock -ups, quantity verification, stakeholder coordination, plan modifications and as -built preparation. Fifth Street Towers • 100 South fifth Street • Suite 1500 • Minneapolis, MN • 55402 • Phone: (612) 370 -0700 -Fox: (612) 370 -1378 10 z Proposed Fees Our proposed not -to- exceed budget is based upon the scope of services outlined above. We anticipate a separate proposal for professional services related to construction inspection and administration to be based upon the final construction documents. Actual fees will be billed on a time and expense basis. A. Additional Design Phase Services The following is the proposed project schedule: Project Manager (Greg Brown): 30 hours @ $175.00 /hr. _ $ 5,250.00 Landscape Architect (Kathy Ryan): 60 hours @ $120.00/hr.= $ 7,280.00 Senior CADD Technician 24 hours@ $135.00 /hr. _ $ 3,240.00 Administrative: 12 hours @$90.00 /hr. = 1,080.00 Subtotal professional labor $16,850.00 B. Construction Phase Services (as requested by City Staff) Project Manager (Greg Brown): 100 hours @ $175.00 /hr. = $17,500.00 Landscape Architect (Kathy Ryan): 160 hours @ $120.00 /hr. = $19,200.00 Senior CADD Technician 40 hours @ $135.00 /hr. = $ 5,400.00 On -Site Inspector: 480 hours@ $90.00 /hr. = $43,200.00 Administrative: 12 hours @$90.00 /hr. = 1,080.00 Subtotal professional labor $ 86,380.00 Expenses (mileage, printing, etc.) $1,770.00 Total proposed fees $105,000.00 Schedule The following is the proposed project schedule: Bid Date Feb 5, 2015 Construction Contract Award Feb 17, 2015 Begin Construction Apr 1, 2015 Complete Construction Sep 25, 2015 We are therefore requesting that the City of Edina authorize a scope of work for URS related to the above - referenced project for an amount not -to- exceed $105,000.00. We anticipate the scope of services to be complete by October 31, 2015. Fifth Street Towers • 100 5outh Fifth Street •Suite 1500 • Minneopolis, MN • 5540?. Phone: (512) 370 -07(70 • Fax. (612) 370 -1378 D We are pleased to continue our involvement with the Edina Promenade and look forward to continuing our working relationship with the City. If you should have any questions or require additional information, please contact me at 612- 373 -6479 or by e -mail at g,,.reg.s.brown@urs.com. Sincerely, URS Corporation J Gregor rown, PE Senior A ociate, Project Manager Michelle Julius Vice President This proposal is accepted by February, 2015. Title: on the day of fifth Street Towers 100 South rijth Street •Suite 1500 - M(aaeopoAs,, MIV •55402 •Phone: (612) 370 -0700 -fax: (612) 370 -1378 resourceful. naturally. BM engineering and environmental consultants February 6, 2015 Mr. Ross Bintner, P.E. Environmental Engineer City of Edina 4801 W. 5011 Street Edina, MN 55424 Re: Centennial Lakes Promenade Phase 4 Pond and Landscape Improvements Proposal for Remedial Action Plan Oversight and Vegetation Planting Oversight Dear Mr. Bintner: Barr Engineering (Barr) is pleased to provide the City with this proposal for environmental and ecological services related to the above - referenced project performed under Master Service Agreement dated December 9, 2103. Barr proposes to continue providing assistance to the City and URS in preparation for project bid evaluation and anticipate performing the following activities in conjunction with RAP implementation, as detailed in the attached cost estimate: Construction Oversight o Includes preparation of a project health and safety plan for Barr staff and safety coordination with the selected Contractor. o Includes attendance at weekly construction meetings to facilitate communication of schedule expectations o Includes two weeks of approximately half -time construction oversight and associated office staff support during field activities o Includes an assumed 7 soil samples for analysis of volatile organic compounds, semi - volatile organic compounds, diesel range organics, gasoline range organics, and the MPCA list of priority pollutant metals. Assumes a 5 -day turnaround from the lab. Reporting o Includes preparation of a Remedial Action Implementation Report, with information provided by URS (e.g., survey of volumes, weight tickets /manifests for disposal, etc.). o Includes one round of minor revisions by the City prior to submittal to MPCA Barr Engineering Co. 4700 West 77th Street, Suite 200, Minneapolis, MN 55435 952.832.2600 www.barr.com Mr. Ross Bintner February 6, 2015 Pace 2 • Planting Oversight • Includes coordination with planting subcontractor for schedule information • Includes two field days for oversight and instruction • Project Management • Includes two meetings with City Staff for coordination • Includes routine project management and administration (client communications, invoicing, project recordkeeping, etc.) If this proposal is satisfactory, please sign the enclosed copy of this letter in the space provided. Thank you for the continued opportunity to assist the City of Edina. Please let me know if we can provide additional information in support of this proposal. Sincerely, 4, Ia Dan Fetter, P.E., Vice President (952)- 832 -2741 dif@barr.com enc. Cost Estimate Accepted this day of 2015 By Its ® Prajed Name: RAP InglemeMalipn a.ulOm,nd R,Ovm"g CRenl Nerve: CO, d EUlna BARR me( -,"" v I neo Dan ,en KeNn • Reuem,A " a 1, 1d, FUr[ ft— Ml, Frw "• r•pFla Oab /AdmM Mhbk MN 018 KAl i1R Gr•pFlo Oab /Admin sllllry Rau vrplmt R°le 5195FW 51,5.E $IW.E S1E.E SIWm S1mID SmE SOO.E subl•bl 4 •m<+ S.b Pw1eS1 0 M,I OnpryPreCOns0ualbn CmfdinaJm, pnns/smegutlmalWMmr1 uRS, Clryef Pdlm. SUm Re ubars 3uMettl 1 1 5 33q.E 5 1fOm 2CeM 5 3.SE.00 rskFt lsvrinsl mPHASVryI,ry 6 1 i E S 3.3MID S IWID S S 3,500.E Uardlmebn 0 1 0 S LMSE S lEID S S L1,5.E w•eNy [msvuaOan M••MS Anmdama a R�w 0. o 0 S .E S .aE $ 5 pwm S,Me al s e2.,xs3o0m m s o s s ssu2..,E,EwOID oE o prl lV[ 5 x S 1 5 L,UlmlSSID 5 ,.®zmm m S mOvda emen,u.nmm ApeO N 2 3 S 5 335E t S S.Obm subtm,l x s s.-- S Is BEO.E Prgen Man•e•mem 1, mmNal Prgan M•nasementaM /dMNSn•tlm l 2 1 o 6 S Lamm 5 10000 S S LsEID oryMeeJn ,IPmale. v,ecamwalml a x z s L1mm S nm t S z.smm ,ul Phts=h, 6 2 2 S 5,010E S 3e0E S S $.3WID 1 1 S xEID 5 x5000 Femo..tlnn r,m oRR. wvpan suMOU1 is s LEOID s som s 1-0 0 0 $ LAO- t s0ID s s PmIm S,MOW 12 12 1x1 10 xx s L,ragO s W s ,.®LE $ 368W.E Pmlwrmelu0 S nalan on CaaNMaOm sanem m,(sn unanulmnrerm, N,fr darnaw spolluUma. maelfk.um Prp,ntlroPRASP r >. e,ny�,a AeetlyG mabn Me 1i�s •nend•n cl lv,/week for l0 wr mMnaUm. PAR bd00 meeeMSmly mea 2 wn6 plapprenm•uryM1•Intlme Cemnunlmawr,INaeIW eTSemepan 1301,./w•eYRdd; 10Frs / week mnblme pl0u supperq ulmd•mn umwmbe vmdm,db—dl—w /IIR5I—URS PO.idn 88nn%rearcm oreva..uon. ewxy.dumea, —ghl —. 1p, elmp -.l Prajea rand AbmnlavUan lntludescuam�mm,nb0en.lm . and pml•0 remrdYeepins. Feb _1 "[Intl Wes I ssmpin 16 Wsee m 3,OW R; t pr50001;.1 Oq. Am Yud fm5VO4 WC, OR—/ SIIR, [d ee,nuP; GRO, Prloriryvollunnt MemlOSday TAi Me°en r >wdl"aOm w,N Vb, taubmnvnorandvuNSFtef d•m plaa P.WPII%23MR \27%232713W E— C•n-1.1lln Vd Red\PrgRkkMRm \cpmuu[ipn Sumart Rudse, \ORnFT tan A, Imam f°r R Implemenu u"xO15+hm.d,m 0 a I =-I mi 'Mr i-T IL ____ 12800 Gerard Dr . Eden Prairie, MN 55346 • 952 - 835 -2078 • 952 - 835 -2079 (fax) • www.ninemilecreek.org January 20, 2015 Hon. James Hovland Mayor City of Edina 4801 West 501' St Edina MN 55424 Re: Termination of Centennial Lakes Volume - Control Project Mayor Hovland, In June, 2013, the City of Edina and the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District entered a cooperative agreement to study the feasibility of constructing a storm water management facility as part of the Centennial Lakes Promenade Phase 4 project to achieve mutual storm water - management goals. The feasibility study was completed in September, 2013. (A copy of the agreement is attached for reference.) Following the feasibility study, the City of Edina and the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District entered a second cooperative agreement in December, 2013, for the design, construction and operation of an underground irrigation and infiltration system, along with shallow gardens and rock channels, for integration into the Centennial Lakes Promenade recreational area. (A copy of the agreement is attached for reference.) Since then, staff from, both, the city and district have diligently pursued the project, but further analysis of site conditions has shown that the project location is not conducive to infiltration of storm water. As a result of the additional analysis, city and district staff have concluded that the best management of public resources requires the termination of the project in accordance with paragraph 6.9 of the second cooperative agreement. In accordance with the terms of both cooperative agreements, the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District directed its engineer, Barr Engineering, to conduct the feasibility study, and to design and prepare necessary construction documents (drawings, technical specifications) for the project. In accordance with the first cooperative agreement, the district has incurred costs of $38,114.36 and pursuant to paragraph 5, page 2 of the cooperative agreement now requests reimbursement of 50 percent of these costs, or $19,057.18. Also, in accordance with the second cooperative agreement, the district has incurred design costs of $62,333.52, and pursuant to paragraphs 3.1 and 5.8 of the cooperative agreement now requests reimbursement of 50 percent of these costs, or $31,166.76. The total reimbursement of 50 percent of the feasibility study and 50 percent of the design costs being requested is $50,223.94. Board of Managers Steve Kloiber - Edina Corrine Lynch - Eden Prairie Louise Segreto - Edina Jodi Peterson - Bloomington Maressia Twele - Minnetonka My signature here and your countersignature below signify agreement of our two entities to the termination of the cooperative agreement pursuant to its terms. On the City of Edina's payment to the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District in accordance with the calculation above and attachments the parties will have no further obligations to each other under the cooperative agreement and for the Centennial Lakes Promenade project. Please return a fully executed original to our administrator, Kevin Bigalke. On behalf of the Board of Managers, thank you for your continuing partnership. dinrely, Corrine Lynch, Presi nt Board of Managers, Nine Mile Creek Watershed District Agreed: CITY OF EDINA MAYOR By James Hovland Date: C/ City Manager, Ross Bintner, Kevin Bigalke CITY MANAGER By. Scott Neal Date: Kevin Bigalke From: Kurt Leuthold <KLeuthold @barr.com> Sent: Monday, January 19, 2015 2:01 PM To: Kevin Bigalke Cc: Kurt Leuthold; Janna Kieffer Subject: Centennial Lakes Fees Hi Kevin. Here is the summary of our-fe-e-alqrLthe Centennial Lakes Project: Phase 1 Fe Stu $38,114.36 - Desig $62,333.52 Let me know if you need anything else. Thanks, Kurt Kurt Leuthold, LEED AP, PE Vice President Senior Civil Engineer Minneapolis office: 952.832.2859 cell: 612.751.3100 kleuthold @barr.com www.barr.com resourceful. naturally. B A' COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT Between the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District and the City of Edina Edina Centennial Lakes Runoff Volume Reduction Plan This Agreement is made by and between the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District (NMCWD), a watershed district created pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 103D, and the City of Edina ( "Edina'), a statutory city of the State of Minnesota. Recitals and Statement of Purpose WHEREAS the NMCWD has an approved Water Resources Management Plan pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 1036 that includes goals of managing stormwater flows on site and improving water quality in Nine Mile Creek; WHEREAS Edina has an approved Comprehensive Water Resource Management Plan that includes goals of managing stormwater to provide flood protection and clean water services, a Wellhead Protection Plan that includes the goals of managing pollution risk to the aquifers that provide domestic water supply, and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan that includes goals of reducing pollutant discharge to local water bodies; WHEREAS both the NMCWD and Edina pursue these goals through various programs including regulation of redevelopment acid working with private property owners to incorporate innovative and effective stormwater management methods; WHEREAS the NMCWD and Edina wish to explore the potential for use of such methods within the Centennial Lakes watershed and in conjunction with certain expected redevelopment activity within that watershed; THEREFORE the NMCWD and Edina hereby enter into this legally binding agreement to undertake and jointly fund an engineering study for this purpose, according to the following terms. AGREEMENT 1. The NMCWD will enter into a professional services agreement with Barr Engineering Company to perform the scope of services attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein ( "Services "). 2. Edina will have input into the Services through the structured meetings and review opportunities stated in Exhibit A. In addition, Edina may communicate with the NMCWD at anytime regarding the Services. The NMCWD retains its discretion in directing the performance of the Services and administering the contract with Barr Engineering, subject to the approval of Edina, and'will incorporate Edina s input and both the NMCWD and Edina have to agree on the acceptance of Barr Engineering's report. Any written communication between either party and Barr Engineering will be copied to the other party. 3. The NMCWD and Edina will facilitate Barr Engineering's performance of the Services by all means within their reasonable administrative capacity. If Barr Engineering requires entry onto public or private property for the purpose of the Services, Edina will use its good offices to assist in securing any necessary permissions and the parties will coordinate to afford Barr Engineering the use of their legal authorities to enter, as necessary and as theyjudge legally sound. The final report will acknowledge financial support from both the NMCWD and Edina. 4. The NMCWD will provide for the professional services contract to identify Edina as an intended beneficiary of the Services; to extend duty of care, insurance and indemnification requirements to both the NMCWD and Edina; and to state that Edina and the NMCWD jointly share all rights to use of the final Barr Engineering report and any rights in the event of a breach of the contract by Barr Engineering. 5. Within 30 days of NMCWD invoicing, Edina will reimburse the NMCWD for one -half of amounts the NMCWD pays to Barr Engineering. for the Services, up to an aggregate total of $20,000. Edina will not withhold reimbursement to the NMCWD on the basis of dissatisfaction with the Services. If either party is dissatisfied with the Services, the parties will consult in good faith to resolve the dissatisfaction. 6. If the Services or the performance of this Agreement requires the sharing of data that is defined as not public under the Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes chapter 13 (DPA), the NMCWD anti Edina will cooperate to preserve the classification of the data and otherwise conform to the DPA. If Edina receives a request for data pursuant to the DPA that may encompass data Edina possesses or has created as a result of this Agreement, it 2 will inform the NMCWD and transmit a copy of the request. If the request is addressed to the NMCWD, Edina will not provide any information or documents, but will direct the inquiry to the NMCWD. If the request is addressed to Edina, Edina will be responsible to determine whether it is legally required to respond to the request and otherwise what its legal obligations are, but will notify and consult with the NMCWD before replying. 7. The official representatives of the parties with respect to this Agreement are as follows: NMCWD: Administrator Nine Mile Creek Watershed District Edina: Director of Engineering 8. The parties will use the product of the Services in good faith to explore stormwater volume. reduction opportunities, jointly and individually. However, nothing in this Agreement obligates either the NMCWD or Edina to any specific undertaking or any commitment of funds beyond the funding of the Services as set forth herein. 9. This Agreement is the complete and entire agreement between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof, and supersedes all prior negotiations, agreements, representations and understandings, if any, between the parties respecting such matters. This Agreement may be amended only by a writing signed by both parties. This Agreement terminates on the completion of the Services and Edina's fulfillment of its reimbursement obligations hereunder. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have executed this Agreement. NINE MILE CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota By 6 Its President Dated: i /--;? -/ A413 APPROVED AS TO FORM AND EXECUTION 3 Dated: APPROVED AS TO FORM AND EXECUTION By City Attorney COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF EDINA AND NINE MILE CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT Promenade Phase 4 - Stormwater Management Project, Edina This cooperative agreement is made by and between the City of Edina (Edina), a Minnesota municipal corporation, and the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District ( NMCWD), a watershed district created pursuant to Minnesota Statutes chapters 103B and 103D, to achieve mutual stormwater- management goals through design, construction and operation of underground irrigation and infiltration capacity, along with shallow gardens and rock channels, all integrated into Edina's Centennial Lakes Promenade recreational area. Recitals and Statement of Purpose WHEREAS Edina has constructed, owns and operates the Centennial Lakes Promenade, a greenway with bike and walking paths that connects Centennial Lakes Park to nearby retail and residential areas and that lies within the Nine Mile Creek watershed. On November 19, 2013, the Edina City Council ordered the completion of a design for the addition of water amenities (a pond and brook), using water pumped from Centennial Lakes, to the Promenade (Promenade Phase 4), and the Promenade Phase 4 is to be implemented oil land owned by Edina in conjunction with the redevelopment of adjacent retail areas. WHEREAS NMCWD has an approved water resources management plan pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 103B.231, that has as a primary goal the improvement of water quality in the Nine Mile Creek watershed. WHEREAS Edina and NMCWD have together identified a need to improve stormwater runoff management in the Promenade Phase 4 area to achieve shared goals and contribute to Edina's compliance with Clean Water Act requirements included in its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit. Edina and NMCWD have jointly supported the development of the Edina Centennial Lakes Runoff Volume Reduction Plan (October 2013), which outlines options for integrating improved stormwater runoff management systems into the Promenade Phase 4. WHEREAS Edina and NMCWD have examined the options analyzed in the Edina Centennial Lakes Runoff Volume Reduction Plan and have determined that the design, construction and operation of underground irrigation and infiltration systems, along with shallow gardens and rock channels (the Project), will provide cost - effective and productive runoff - volume management in the Promenade area. WHEREAS On November. 19, the Edina City Council by resolution requested that NMCWD participate in the development and construction of the Project, including but not limited to the contribution by NMCWD of 50 percent of the cost of the design, construction and major maintenance of the Project. November 20, 2013 Edina - NMCWD Centennial Lakes Promenade Runoff Volume Management Project 1 Cooperative Agreement WHEREAS NMCWD, by November 20, 2013, action of its Board of Managers, received the request for participation in the Project from Edina, recognized Edina's substantial contribution of the land -use rights necessary for the Project, and directed the NMCWD administrator to develop a cooperative agreement with Edina for the Project. WHEREAS NMCWD is amending its watershed management plan to include the Project as a capital improvement of the NMCWD. WHEREAS Edina and NMCWD are authorized by Minnesota Statutes section 471.59 to enter into the cooperative agreement. Now, therefore, IT IS AGREED by and between Edina and NMCWD that they enter into this agreement to document their understanding as to the scope of the Project, reaffirm their commitments as to the general responsibilities of and tasks to be undertaken by the parties, establish procedures for performing these tasks and carrying out these responsibilities, and facilitate communication and cooperation to successfully complete the Project. Organization and Relationship of the Parties 1.1 The Nine Mile Creek Watershed District administrator, the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District's professional consulting engineer (the NMCWD Engineer), a representative of Edina Public Works Department and a representative of the professional consulting engineer hired by Edina to design the Promenade Phase 4 (the Centennial Engineer) will constitute the Design Team for the Project, charged to conduct the day -to -day activities necessary to complete the Project and to serve as their respective parties' principal contacts for the Project. 1.2 Each party will use best efforts to coordinate and communicate informally, primarily through the Design Team, so that any issues may be timely addressed. Members of the Design Team will meet frequently to ensure the successful completion of the Project. 1.3 Within 90 days after this agreement takes effect, the Design Team will prepare a plan for public participation, communication and education. Activities under the plan will be carried out individually or together as the plan may specify. Design Team members may not commit to expenditures for public education plan implementation that otherwise require approval of their respective governing bodies unless and until such approval has been obtained. 2 Project. The Project is further defined and specified for purposes of this cooperative agreement and the parties' implementation thereof as consisting of the following: 2.1 Design and preparation of all necessary construction documents (drawings, technical specifications) for the Project, in accordance with the NMCWD Engineer's November 12, 2013, professional services proposal and the conceptual drawing of the Project (both attached to and incorporated into this agreement as Exhibit A). The design will also include services provided by the NMCWD Engineer to coordinate integration of the Project into the package, of bid and contract documents prf.pared by the Centennial Engineer for Promenade Phase 4. November 20, 2013 Edina -NMCWD Centennial Lakes Promenade Runoff Volume Management Project 2 Cooperative Agreement 2.2 Construction of the Project by a contractor selected by Edina in accordance with Minnesota procurement law, under contract with Edina and in conjunction with the construction of Promenade Phase 4. 2.3 Development by the NMCWD Engineer and implementation by Edina of a plan for the post- construction maintenance and operation of the Project (the Maintenance Plan). The Maintenance Plan also will identify specific performance- monitoring protocols and reporting to be completed, and delineate major and routine maintenance and repair of the Project. 3 Cost- and Credit - Sharing 3.1 NMCWD and Edina each will contribute 50 percent of the costs of the Project and of major repair and maintenance of the Project, as described in the Maintenance Plan. The Design Team will develop the protocols and procedures necessary to facilitate reimbursement for Project costs as provided by this agreement. Each party will pay the internal and incidental costs of its participation in the Project not otherwise specified as subject to cost - sharing as specified in herein. 3.2 NMCWD and Edina will share credit for stormwater- management'capacity of the Project in proportion with the party's contribution toward the costs of the Project. Available credit will be determined on' completion of the Project and annually in accordance with the monitoring results produced through implementation of the Maintenance Plan. Edina must first dedicate stormwater- management capacity credit from its allocation determined in accordance with this agreement to compliance with any requirements applicable under the NMCWD rules to the Promenade Phase 4. 4 Specific duties — NMCWD 4.1 NMCWD timely will amend the capital improvements program in its water resources management plan to include the Project in accordance with' Minnesota Statutes section 103B.231, and order the Project in accordance with Minnesota Statutes section 103B.251. 4.2 NMCWD will contract the NMCWD Engineer for the development of a design for the Project and the plans and specifications necessary to integrate the Project into the bidding /contract documents prepared by the Centennial Engineer for Promenade Phase 4. The contract for the design, plans and specifications will require the NMCWD Engineer to sign the Project plans and specifications, and require that the NMCWD Engineer's warranty of due professional care extend to both the NMCWD and Edina. The contract will require the NMCWD Engineer to provide 90 percent plans and specifications for the Project for approval by Edina and NMCWD on or before March 28, 2014. Notwithstanding the foregoing, NMCWD will make no warranty to Edina regarding the NMCWD Engineer's or another third party's performance in design, construction or construction management for the Project. NMCWD is responsible to make payments to the NMCWD Engineer in accordance with the terms of contract for the design, plans and specifications for the Project. November 20, 2013 Edina -NMCWD Centennial Lakes Promenade Runoff Volume Management Project 3 Cooperative Agreement 4.3 NMCWD will approve or reject the plans and specifications for the Project and for incorporation into the Promenade Phase 4 bidding /contract documents within 15 business days of receipt from the NMCWD Engineer. Failure to timely act will constitute approval. 4.4 NMCWD will cooperate with and assist Edina in obtaining permits for Promenade Phase 4, including but not limited to ensuring that the plans and specifications for the Project comport with NMCWD regulatory requirements. 4.5 NMCWD will approve or disapprove issuance of a notice of contract award by Edina for Promenade Phase 4 including the Project within 15 days of bid opening, unless the parties agree otherwise. Failure to timely act will constitute approval. If NMCWD disapproves of issuance of a notice of award by Edina for Promenade Phase 4 with the Project included, this agreement will terminate immediately and the parties will have no further obligations hereunder. In particular, Edina will be released from its obligation to contribute to the costs of development of the design, plans and specifications for the Project, as described in paragraphs 2.1 and 4.2 of this agreement and NMCWD will reimburse Edina for any reimbursement already received at the time of termination. 4.6 NMCWD timely will approve or disapprove any change orders for construction of the Project, within 30 days of notification of the need for the change order by the Centennial Engineer. Failure to timely act will constitute approval. 4.7 NMCWD will reimburse Edina in accordance with sections 2 and 3 of this agreement for expenditures made for the construction of the Project in accordance with paragraphs 5.3, 5.4, 5.6 and 5.7and for major maintenance and repair of the Project as defined in and in accordance with the Maintenance Plan. 4.8 NMCWD will contract with the NMCWD Engineer for the development of the Maintenance Plan. The contract for the Maintenance Plan will require the NMCWD Engineer to provide the Maintenance Plan for approval by Edina and NMCWD within 1 year of certification by a qualified engineer of the as -built construction drawings of the Project; such approval not to be unreasonably withheld. NMCWD is responsible to make payments to the NMCWD Engineer in accordance with the terms of contract for the Maintenance Plan for the Project. 5 Specific duties — Edina 5.1 Edina owns or will timely acquire all land -use rights necessary for the Project, and will own all Project elements at completion of construction. 5.2 Edina will approve or reject the plans and specifications for the Project for incorporation into the Promenade Phase 4 bidding /contract documents within 15 business days of receipt from the NMCWD Engineer. Failure to timely act will constitute approval. Approval will not be unreasonably withheld. 5.3 Edina will direct the Centennial Engineer to integrate the design, plans and specifications for the Project into the bidding /contract documents for Promenade Phase 4 in a manner that November 20, 2013 Edina - NMCWD Centennial Lakes Promenade Runoff Volume Management Project 4 Cooperative Agreement delineates costs of the Project separate from other costs of construction of Promenade Phase 4 for purposes of cost accounting. 5.4 Edina will obtain all permits and approvals necessary for the Project, except that NMCWD will ensure that the Project comports with NMCWD regulatory requirements. 5.5 Edina will solicit sealed bids for Promenade Phase 4, including the Project, in accordance with Minnesota municipal procurement law. 5.6 If the bids are acceptable to Edina and the NMCWD, Edina will contract for the construction of Promenade Phase 4 with the lowest qualified responsible and responsive bidder, as determined by Edina in consultation with NMCWD. Edina will award and enter a contract for the construction of Promenade Phase 4, and such contract will: a. Require the selected contractor to indemnify, defend and hold harmless NMCWD, its officers, board members, employees and agents from any and all actions, costs, damages and liabilities of any nature arising from the contractor's negligent or otherwise wrongful act or omission, or breach of a specific contractual duty, or a subcontractor's negligent or otherwise wrongful act or omission, or breach of a specific contractual duty owed by the contractor to Edina. The contract will require that any claim subject to indemnification by an employee of selected contractor or a subcontractor, the indemnification obligation is not limited by a limitation on the amount or type of damages, compensation or benefits payable by or for the contractor or a subcontractor under workers' compensation acts, disability acts or other employee benefit acts. b. Require that the contractor name NMCWD an additional insured with primary coverage for general liability on a noncontributory basis for both ongoing work and completed operations to the extent of NMCWD's statutory liability limit. c. Require that within 60 days of certified completion of construction of Promenade Phase 4, the selected contractor provide certified as -built construction documents to NMCWD. 5.7 Edina is responsible to make payments to the contractor in accordance with the terms of contract for construction of Promenade Phase 4. 5.8 Edina will reimburse NMCWD in accordance with sections 2 and 3 of this agreement for expenditures made in accordance with paragraphs 4.2 and 4.8. 5.9 Edina will approve or reject the Maintenance Plan within 45 days of receipt from the NMCWD Engineer, such approval not to be unreasonably withheld. Failure by Edina to timely act on its rights and obligations under this paragraph will constitute approval of the Maintenance Plan. If Edina disapproves the Maintenance Plan, this agreement is terminated and all maintenance requirements for the Project to assure that it will continue to effectively function as designed will become the sole responsibility of Edina. On approval of the Maintenance Plan, Edina will perform all routine maintenance and monitoring of the Project, along with reporting as required by the Maintenance Plan. November 20, 2013 Edina -NMCWD Centennial Lakes Promenade Runoff Volume Management Project 5 Cooperative Agreement 6 General 'Perms 6.1 INDEPENDENT RELATIONSHIP; LIABILITY. This agreement does not create a joint powers board or organization within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes section 471.59, and neither party agrees to be responsible for the acts or omissions of the other pursuant to subdivision 1(a) of the statute. Only contractual remedies are available for the failure of a party to fulfill the terms of this agreement. Edina and NMCWD enter this agreement solely for the purposes of enhancing stormwater management capacity in the Centennial Lakes subwatershed of the Nine Mile Creek watershed in Edina. Accordingly, with respect to any and all activity undertaken pursuant to this agreement, Edina and NMCWD will each hold harmless, defend and indemnify the other, its officers, employees and agents for all claims, damages, liabilities, losses and expenses asserted against the other party at any time by any third party, including any governmental body. Notwithstanding the foregoing or any other provision of this agreement, Edina's and NMCWD's obligations under this paragraph will survive the termination of the agreement. This agreement creates no right in and waives no immunity, defense or liability limitation with respect to any third party. As between the Parties, only contract remedies are available for a breach of this agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, NMCWD will not be deemed to have acquired by entry into or performance under this agreement, any form of interest or ownership in or to any portion of the land that is the site of the construction of the Project or adjacent property. NMCWD will not by entry into or performance under this agreement be deemed to have exercised any form of control over the use, operation or management of any portion of the property that is the site of the Project or adjacent property so as to render NMCWD a potentially responsible party for any contamination under state and/or federal law. 6.2 PUBLICITY AND ENDORSEMENT. Any publicity regarding the Project must identify Edina and NMCWD as the sponsoring entities. For purposes of this provision, publicity includes notices, informational pamphlets, press releases, research, reports, signs, and similar public notices prepared by or for Edina or NMCWD individually or jointly with others, or any subcontractors, with respect to the Project. NMCWD and Edina will collaborate on the development of educational and informational signage pertinent to the Project, and each party, at its cost, may develop, produce and, after approval of the other party, distribute educational, outreach and publicity materials related to the Project. 6.3 DATA MANAGEMENT. All designs, written materials, technical data, research or any other work -in- progress will be shared between the parties to this agreement on request, except as prohibited by law. As soon as is practicable, the party preparing plans, specifications, contractual documents, materials for public communication or education will provide them to the other party for recordkeeping and other necessary purposes. 6.4 Data Practices. All data created, collected, received, maintained or disseminated for any purpose in the course of this agreement is governed by the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minn. Stat. Ch. 13, any other applicable state'statute, or any state rules adopted to implement the act, as well as federal regulations on data. privacy November 20, 2013 Edina - NMCWD Centennial Lakes Promenade Runoff Volume Management Project 6 Cooperative Agreement 6.5 ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This agreement contains the complete and entire agreement between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof, and supersedes all prior negotiations, agreements, representations and understandings, if any, between the parties respecting such matters. The recitals stated at the outset are incorporated into and a part of the agreement. 6.6 COMPLETE AGREEMENT. This agreement, as it may be amended in writing, constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties. Any amendment to this agreement must be in writing and will not be effective until it has been executed and approved by the same parties who executed and approved the original agreement or their successors in office. 6.7 WAIVERS. The waiver by Edina or NMCWD of any breach or failure to' comply with any provision of this agreement by the other party will not be construed as nor will it constitute a continuing waiver of such provision or a waiver of any other breach of or failure to comply with any other provision of this agreement. 6.8 NOTICES. Any notice, demand or communication under this agreement by either party to the other will be deemed to be sufficiently given or delivered if it is dispatched by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid to: Edina NMCWD Ross Bintner Kevin Bigalke, Administrator 7450 Metro Blvd 7710 Computer Blvd. Edina, MN 55379 Edina, MN 55435 952- 903 -5713 952- 835 -2078 6.9 TERM; TERMINATION. This agreement is effective on execution by both parties and will terminate three years from the date of execution of the latest amendment hereto or on the written agreement of both parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused the agreement to be duly executed intending to be bounded thereby. (Signature page follows.) November 20, 2013 Edina -NMCWD Centennial Lakes Promenade Runoff Volume Management Project 7 Cooperative Agreement CITY OF EDIN. :MAYOR 1 Title: I / Date: l C)'/ QE Title: NINE MILE CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT J, J� Title: _ > Date: Approved as to„ fr - "4 executio GER District couns 1 Date: �, a y '� / I� Approved as to form & execution: City attorney November 20, 2013 Edina -NMCWD Centennial Lakes Promenade Runoff Volume Management Project 8 Cooperative Agreement RESOLUTION 2013 -113 REQUESTING PARTICIPATION OF THE NINE MILE CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT TO INTEGRATE STORMWATER- MANAGEMENT FEATURES INTO EDINA PROMENADE PROJECT WHEREAS the City of Edina has developed concept plans for the final phase of the Edina Promenade, consisting of a walking path and water feature; and WHEREAS the City and Nine Mile Creek Watershed District have jointly undertaken analysis of the feasibility of integrating a stormwater- management system into the construction of the Promenade final phase to reduce stormwater runoff volume from the Centennial Lakes subwatershed (the Project), and have received and reviewed the final report on the Project, presenting implementation options; and WHEREAS the City of Edina finds that the study presents potentially cost - effective options for implementing the Project that would complement the design of the Promenade and its purpose of providing citizens with a multifaceted recreational amenity; and WHEREAS the City finds that the study supports further collaboration with the District to develop a complete design for integration of runoff volume reduction features into the final phase Promenade construction for the City's and District's approval; and WHEREAS the City finds that effective realization of the opportunity to improve present stormwater management in the Centennial Lakes subwatershed and create capacity for long -term benefit to the health of water resources in the city and Nine Mile Creek watershed requires the expertise and involvement of the District, and will be best facilitated by the City and Districtjointly funding the development and construction of the Project; and WHEREAS the District has conveyed to the City that after reviewing the study, the District Board of Managers recommends developing a design for the Project that includes underground irrigation and infiltration capacity, along with shallow gardens and rock channels; and NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Edina requests that the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District contribute 50 percent of the cost of development of a design and construction of the Project; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that staff are directed to work with District staff to develop a cooperative agreement for the Project for the approval of the parties' governing bodies, setting forth fu ° her terms for completion of a design including underground irrigation and infiltration capacity, along with shallow gar ens and rock channels, as well as the integration of the plans and specifications for the Project into construction docu rAents for the final phase Promenade, construction of the Project, and sharing of runoff - management capacity creae� and long -term maintenance of the Project. ADOPTED this 19`h day of Nove er, 013. I Attest: I YL�� Debra A. Mangen, 6ity C erk James B. Hovland, Mayor ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT GAPW \CENTRAL SVCS \ENG DIV \PROJECTS \IMPR NOS \STS401 Promenade Phase 4 \ADIvMN \Res No. 2 1 113 7450 Metro Boalevaru • Edina, Minnesota 55459 wwwEdinaMN.gov. 952 - 826 -0371 o Fax 952 - 826 -0392 Resolution No. 2013 -113 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 November 19, 2013, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this )910day of , 20 rG "LA c ty Clerk G: \PW \CENTRAL SVCS \ENG DIV\PROJECTS \IMPR NOS \,TS401 Promenude Please 4 \ADM1;4 \Res. Nu. 2013 -113 CITY OF EDINA ART WORK PURCHASE AGREEMENT The City of Edina, whose address is 4801 West 50`h Street, Edina, MN 55424 ( "City "), and Bruce Stillman, a sculptor whose address is 7110 County Road Ext., Minnetrista, MN55364 ( "Artist "), hereby agree to a purchase of art, subject to the following terms and conditions: 1) Artist shall sell to City a sculpture entitled Oxymoron ( "the Sculpture ") with a purchase price of $25,000 for permanent exhibition at the new Phase IV Expansion of the Edina Promenade ( "the Park ") in Centennial Lakes Park in the City of Edina. 2) Artist shall deliver the Sculpture undamaged with City Staff present between June and October 2015 with a delivery price of $250 on the sculpture pad and location in the Park designated by City. 3) Artist, City Staff and General Contractor will coordinate creation of foundation and the means necessary to secure the Sculpture as a permanent work of art on the Edina Promenade. 4) Artist, City Staff, and General Contractor will coordinate date, time, and location of delivery and installation of Sculpture. 5) Upon delivery and installation of the Sculpture in a secure manner, and no later than November 15, 2015, City shall pay Artist the purchase and delivery price of $25,250 for the sculpture. 6) Artist shall provide to City Staff a maintenance plan for upkeep and repair of Sculpture upon delivery of Sculpture. 7) Artists grants to City and the Edina Community Foundation an irrevocable license to graphically portray the Sculpture in or on photographs, publications and other written materials and electronic media designed to promote the City of Edina, the Edina Community Foundation, or any group or event deemed appropriate by other licensees. Artist shall be credited as the artist in those depictions. 8) Upon completion of purchase, the City shall be responsible for maintenance of the Sculpture and for maintaining any desired insurance coverage for loss or damage to the Sculpture during the exhibition period, with the understanding that City will not be providing any extra security for the Park and does not have any applicable casualty insurance covering the Sculpture. THIS AGREEMENT is approved by the parties as of February , 2015 CITY OF EDINA Scott Neal, City Manager ARTIST Artist Name — Bruce Stillman 41NA,y� 4 �""�,tii• ; 4 e ! wwv.EeinMflre tecmm A wl,-11t Attachments: 1) Photo of Sculpture 2) Description of Sculpture "Oxymoron" by Bruce Stillman Stainless Steel and Granite Kinetic Sculpture Size: 12'Hx8'Wx4'D Weight: 9,000 lbs. 2012 Sculptor Bruce Stillman Born 1958 1976 to 1977 Northern Illinois University, continuing education by taking extension classes at the University of Minnesota and the Minneapolis College of Art and design. Developed the 310 studios art building for artists starting in 1982 to 2010, then moved all operations and art studio to the Big Stone minigolf and sculpture garden site situated on 17 acres in minnetrista. I Started sculpting in high school at the age of 15, after getting my drivers license as soon as I was 16 years old, I signed up and traveled to many art fairs in the summer of 1974, within a couple of years I started making kinetic sculptures, and sold them at art fairs. Over the years I have developed my style and craftsmanship, and moved into showing and selling my works in many galleries located all around the country, in such areas such as Vail and Aspen Colorado , Sedona Arizona, Palm desert California, Santa Fe New Mexico, Des Moines Iowa, Dallas Texas. For many years until present, I continue to develop my kinetic sculptures style. They are collected in numerous Corporation and private collections throughout the US and other countries. Over more recent years I've expanded my art work into stone carving and landscape constructions. presently continue to develop Big Stone mini golf and sculpture gardens in minnetrista, Minnesota, where I use my landscape designs to create a unique miniature golf course, surrounded by the Big Stone sculpture park and garden open to the public during the summer. CITY OF EDINA ARTWORK PURCHASE AGREEMENT The City of Edina, whose address is 4801 West 50`h Street, Edina, MN 55424 ( "City "), and Jim Dehne, a sculptor whose address is 10606 Centerville Road., Newton, W153063 ( "Artist "), hereby agree to a purchase of art, subject to the following terms and conditions: 1) Artist shall sell to City a sculpture entitled Dancing Sand Hill Cranes ( "the Sculpture ") with a purchase price of $6,500 for permanent exhibition at the new Phase IV Expansion of the Edina Promenade ( "the Park ") in Centennial Lakes Park in the City of Edina. 2) Artist shall deliver the Sculpture undamaged with City Staff present between June and October 2015 with no delivery fee to the sculpture pad and location in the Park designated by City. Artist and City Staff will coordinate move of Sculpture from the 50`h & France Business District to the Edina Promenade. 3) Artist, City Staff and General Contractor will coordinate creation of foundation and the means necessary to secure the Sculpture as a permanent work of art on the Edina Promenade. 4) Artist, City Staff, and General Contractor will coordinate date, time, and location of delivery and installation of Sculpture. 5) Upon delivery and installation of the Sculpture in a secure manner, and no later than November 15, 2015, City shall pay Artist the purchase and delivery price of $6,500 for the sculpture. 6) Artist shall provide to City Staff a maintenance plan for upkeep and repair of Sculpture upon delivery of Sculpture. 7) Artists grants to City and the Edina Community Foundation an irrevocable license to graphically portray the Sculpture in or on photographs, publications and other written materials and electronic media designed to promote the City of Edina, the Edina Community Foundation, or any group or event deemed appropriate by other licensees. Artist shall be credited as the artist in those depictions. 8) Upon completion of purchase, the City shall be responsible for maintenance of the Sculpture and for maintaining any desired insurance coverage for loss or damage to the Sculpture during the exhibition period, with the understanding that City will not be providing any extra security for the Park and does not have any applicable casualty insurance covering the Sculpture. THIS AGREEMENT is approved by the parties as of February , 2015 CITY OF EDINA Scott Neal, City Manager ARTIST Artist Name —Jim Dehne ¢1NA k o G ► ��� IEDwN M (' . w�+w.EOmaFrlCenlar.o�m f-i �`., Attachments: 1) Photo of Sculpture 2) Description of Sculpture Dancing Sand Hill Cranes Jim Dehne 3 pieces - Iron 4%'to6'H and 2'to3'W 40 lbs. each Edina Public Art Iron Art of Jim Dehne Newton, Wisconsin idehnebci @gmail.com 920 - 901 -1630 www.ptcreek.com Outdoor and indoor sculptures include horses, herons, cranes, flower stands, wildlife, arches, garden furniture, butterflies, and dragonflies. The last several years Jim has been showing mainly at horse shows including large horse shows in Wisconsin, Illinois, Minnesota, Arizona, Texas, and Colorado. Various sizes of iron rod are curved, twisted, and hand welded. Pieces are made from iron rods that are painted black with copper paint highlights. Jim Dehne draws his inspiration from the wildlife and flora of the Wisconsin countryside where he has lived as well as the nature he observed while living and traveling across the country. Jim was born and raised on a dairy farm named Point Creek Farm in Newton, Wisconsin. After high school, Jim went into the Army, served in Alaska for three years, and stayed an additional four years enjoying living and exploring in the Great Northwest. He encountered moose, mushed with sled dogs, and saw herds of caribou. Jim came back to the lower 48 and attended college in Iowa studying biology. After college, he returned to the beauty of the Wisconsin countryside and took over the family farm. Jim later moved into raising flowers in greenhouses and working with floral design and arrangement at a flower shop. He began sculpting with some small pieces including butterflies and dragonflies at garden shows in Manitowoc, Wisconsin. He continued with the natural and floral, capturing the living feeling of nature and wildlife with lightly curving and twisting iron. Pieces present the feeling of soft metal and movement. Bending iron to whatever need was at hand allows Jim to sculpt iron into the feathery wings of a heron or the dancing wings of a dragonfly. I THINK BANK i I I .I NORTH PLAZA SEE C202 SITE PLAN TRAIL I CROSSING #1 llffil�m a 10' CI (EM�E VEHICLE DESIGN FILE REV. BY DATE 31811419 NO. DRAWN BY: DESIGN BY: IMB KGR CHKED. BY: DWG. NAME: GSB PROM4- S101.dwg DATE 01 -21 -2015 A �1& 1gwg1�� ����_ ••-• OND SEE C201 a -;AI ! r 869.60 NORTH PATH SOUTH PATH CB EI 5' CONCRETE 5' CONCRETE 71 FRANCE N (UNDER CONSTRUCTION) i O tt L�n C� l�I 8414141 1,3101m, .1 r I- gra STREAM #2 rL�Y CROSSING #5 SOUTH PLAZA SEE C204 / I MAIN TRAIL 10 COLORED CONCRETE / PROPOSED LIGHT (TYP.I i I �f' i I / / REVISIONS DESCRIPTION FIFTH STREET TOWERS 100 SOUTH FIFTH STREET. SUITE 1500 MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 512.370.0700 TEL 612.370.1378 FAX W W W.URSCORP.COM I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATEoOF MINNESOTA S. BROWN DATE 01 -21 -201 UC. NO. 22814 0 VALVE MH b EXIST. WET WELL SEE C209 i em a/ 0 15 30 60 SCALE IN FEET PROMENADE IMPROVEMENTS CITY CONTRACT No. ENG 14-9 1 SHEET NO. PHASE 4 IMPROVEMENTS NOS. A -251 k STS -401 C102 SITE PLAN - 31 Lo CO I V) W CL —IL Zvi 0 C.) z M < Co It z U I ) 5 M Y- CD 0!� 1z 0 I M< CL y z 1,01 z U) < z LL1 LLI > Z "� ® _ z < a > it 0 !2 fif L) 0 V) 0 z zo a_ z �Z— 12 5 U) a- w < z W C) (n C) 0 Z < LLI a_ LLJ C) 0 of fjj (1) • 'r LLJ o C) D CWL F j < ff3 O �RpFp Uw z z zz. maw ,p M < w IA 0. z < ---------------------- - �05 S M, M S. 0 != M,<S�"." . o -M000l) z "i C1 t �5 z LLp LLa tM c j U J J �j cj.: xz . . . .; j . �j Lj j 02 0 0 d 6 0 0 0 C C 0 6- 46 0 0 0 O :75. z w z �0= W w M 9 > s 06 LL b z LWLJ ? z -Z 0 z t 10 <z J Fa U0 0, O LL wo 0 Oo zw oz 0 w F- F5 us W- co w z Z< w ! 2 R < 0 2� Olf ww ww 0 z 5, W2 w 0 W D Q <0 Ma w F- M it z Lu WW, o C") - PO z w ¢Q oz OZ < z 0 0 w <0 Of.6 F— Ow -1 —Z -, w W. Z< ii co z a w CC, >. Z� 0: 7 :5 z 4 51 c, Z; Q� a LLJ z . . . . . . . . 3 Z; Z F- -si C2 Z D) A c co ZyoWw w LJ W LLI 0 t- j M 0 WRWO z 4 Lu 0: � w � co R -2 (L 0 w Z LL A = us 0 PC 7 -W -f :�l 2 cn 2 :�o ce 0 w Gi j o 04 Qi o O Rd i l • i RQ pm RE .1 N � N � vm vJ K W U N � a I EgI POP R O = N j�l ■■■ JII' �Jl O Lo ao g C3 N O< Z F O U z y 0 F Ir IL Z5 ? V) Z w m LLI O w H N Z ui LL U LLJ fn a Q w Wa^^ U fJ 0 Q g Z W O/�/ w IL r\ o m �r z zoo z W O F z_r� d mm <�IZ d iDi !N i F- om g�� 5 a ] W N ® 4 O ¢ °oowQ� wn <rLLo , O5.po W N ool) 6 yQ�bb3 !x-N7 3 LL H J LLa _Q xz om P w 0 fff m z DY a N I N O us m B m 8 ffi� �(09) o �J I I i i i� i i m Tyc ®Q mN1 Q W / / sm vN H _ ^H m O vir / o :x vU ...0 �< 00 m 13F- �ax J a �Q Z 0 la x Mm '&V) Z!IM z M f� Q � m N D v a c o� �N vm Q �m N o ..m „a 0 0 o ? o o O I T- 18 U �g r y N Z 1--o 0 a. a a� V) Z w m w x O 5 U) Z N a Q a W a 6 U) Q 3 Z W m O w CL 13 13Z �� N a < 33 g C5 Z W J w 2 Nm <FZ i d < c glom a NOCi�X� ¢oow< wn�ruU w� mu W Ny��N RWZryN �Mz m3 NQ m 3 ,Ny 3 LL H JO w6 IL < H2 02 0 0 P o cn 0 m a m z N N rn m m a O ,too vm Q �m N o ..m „a 0 0 o ? o o O I T- 18 U �g r y N Z 1--o 0 a. a a� V) Z w m w x O 5 U) Z N a Q a W a 6 U) Q 3 Z W m O w CL 13 13Z �� N a < 33 g C5 Z W J w 2 Nm <FZ i d < c glom a NOCi�X� ¢oow< wn�ruU w� mu W Ny��N RWZryN �Mz m3 NQ m 3 ,Ny 3 LL H JO w6 IL < H2 02 0 0 P o cn 0 m a m z N N rn m m a O